NCMI

TRAINING MANUAL

A SURVEY OF CHRISTIAN
DOCTRINE
by N.N. DAY-LEWIS

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

Page

Author's Preface 3

Introduction to Doctrine 5

1 The Doctrine of Revelation 9

2 The Doctrine of God 25

3 The Doctrine of Creation 40

4 The Doctrine of Angels (and Demons) 58

5 The Doctrine of Man (and Sin) 69

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

7 The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit 98

8 The Doctrine of the Salvation 114

9 The Doctrine of the Church 133

10 The Doctrine of Last Things 145

Bibliography 171

2
AUTHOR’S PREFACE

In 1991 I presented a course entitled "A Survey of Christian Doctrine" (Doctrine Survey,
for short) at the Glenridge Bible College, a part-time training ministry of Glenridge
Church International (Durban, South Africa). Like all the other modules at the College,
the course consisted of ten lectures of one and a half hours each. In 1993 we repeated the
Doctrine Survey and this time I was able to prepare a full set of lecture notes for the
students. Since then many people have requested the notes, and those who today run
with the course at Glenridge continue to use them to varying degrees. It has often been
suggested that I put the notes into manual form; and now has come the request to provide
material for the Doctrines module of the International Theological Correspondence
Course (I.T.C.C.) recently started by the New Covenant Ministries International apostolic
team. Hence - at last! - this manual, which is the finished product of my lecture notes.

My purpose with the course was to provide a quality and useful overview of what
Christians believe (i.e. what Scripture teaches). My aim was to be comprehensive
(touching on all areas of doctrine) and substantial (avoiding the superficial and ultimately
insufficient approaches of some surveys) but, at the same time, concise and clear
(avoiding the complexities that are often found in this discipline but which have little or
no interest or relevance outside academia). Thus, while the course served for many as an
introduction to the subject, it aimed to go further and to give as much depth as most
Christians are ever likely to require. Even for those who desire or need to study further,
the course seeks to give them the framework of understanding and the tools of procedure
which will make their further study easier and more fruitful.

I have attempted to set out what is generally believed by historical, orthodox, evangelical
Christianity (i.e. that tradition which holds Scripture to be the inspired Word of God to
man and thus our final authority on all matters of life and doctrine). Nevertheless, the
theology reflected in these pages must be taken as the author's only and not necessarily as
that of any person or persons who use this manual as part of a course they are presenting
or under whose umbrella such a course may run. Such a qualification is necessary for
two reasons. (1) Obviously, my desire throughout has been to be as biblical as possible
in setting forth what Christians believe. Just as obviously, however, none of us
apprehend truth perfectly; this area of our lives is a pilgrimage as much as any other - and
I am on it as much as any student. (2) There are times when orthodoxy allows - even
calls for - personal opinion and at such times I have given mine. Students need to discern
when this is the case and, of course, to feel free to disagree.

There are two sub-disciplines which are normally included in systematic theology: the
history of doctrine and contemporary theology. The first traces the origins and
development of a doctrine in church history, with particular attention to the formulations
of that doctrine in creeds, debates, synodal resolutions, confessions of faith, etc and by
leading theologians. The second surveys the approaches and positions of
recent/contemporary theologians and schools of theology. I have for the most part
excluded both of these sub-disciplines and have proceeded directly to a summary

3
statement of what (I believe) Scripture teaches on the matter.

My thanks go to the Glenridge Eldership for inviting me to run the course in the first
place; to the several hundred students who enrolled in '91 and '93 and were so
encouraging of my efforts; and to the Team, whose request has now spurred me on to this
project. My particular thanks go to Dawn Castleman for her help in the production of the
original notes, and to Wojtek Kukulski for his assistance in producing this manual.

I hope that this manual will greatly assist many Christians in many places to understand
and celebrate the great truths of Scripture; and that this in turn will greatly equip and fire
the Church in her task of discipling the nations and advancing the Kingdom.

Nigel Day-Lewis
London : July 1996

4
INTRODUCTION TO DOCTRINE

1. A DEFINITION OF DOCTRINE (What?)

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

from other areas of Christian study: ethics (how Christians live); apologetics (why
Christians believe); cults and religions (what Christians don't believe); etc.

In formal academic circles this study is often known as systematic theology or dogmatics.
It will thus be helpful to define some of these terms.

a) Theology

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

have us believe - a four-letter word! Theology is simply the reflection that follows faith:
it is the attempt (sometimes conscious but often instinctive) to understand and
systematize our spiritual knowledge and experience. In this most pure sense of the word
every Christian is a theologian for we have all theologised. That is, we have all reflected
on our spiritual experience in the light of Scripture and sought to better understand the
God whom we have encountered. What we call a "theologian" is simply someone who
does this in a more formal, systematic and perhaps academic way.

In this more formal context, the root and strict meaning of "theology" is the science (-
ology) of God (theo-). However, in common usage the word has both wider reference
and a variety of meanings, for example: general studies on the Christian faith and related
matters ("he is studying theology"); a person's or movement's position on a particular
doctrine (his theology of baptism); a school of Christian thought (Reformed Theology,
Liberation Theology, etc).

Systematic Theology is the particular subject within theological studies which seeks to
examine each area of Christian belief (eg. about God, Jesus, Man) separately and
systematically.

b) Doctrine

"Doctrine" comes from didache (Gr.) and dogma (Lat.): the body/collection of the
apostle's instruction/teaching. Thus doctrine simply means: the Biblical instruction:
teaching on various matters; the essential truths/beliefs of the Christian faith.

As before, doctrinal studies or dogmatics is simply the attempt to study each of these
matters or truths/beliefs separately and systematically.

5
2. THE IMPORTANCE OF DOCTRINE (Why?)

The New Testament abounds in texts stressing the importance of "watching" our
doctrine, of receiving true teaching and exposing the false. There is possibly no area of
knowledge more vital to the Christian other than knowledge of Scripture itself.

The pastoral epistles are particularly emphatic on this point. A careful reading will show
that doctrine is the most important qualification for leadership next to character and
lifestyle. This is hardly surprising, for the same books declare that next to shaping their
people's character and lifestyle, the leader's most important responsibility is shaping their
doctrine - teaching true doctrine and refuting false teaching. (1 Timothy 1:3, 1:10-11, 3:9,
3:15, 4:16, 6:20; 2 Timothy 1:13-14; Titus 1:9, 1:13-14, 2:1.) For those in or those
aspiring to leadership, therefore, doctrinal studies are particularly needful.

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

(1) They enable us to understand and appreciate, develop and preserve, and above
all unify and systematize, the many great truths in God's profusion of riches in the
Bible. Studying the Bible (as in a Bible Survey or biblical theology) has been
likened to walking through a magnificent natural garden: we come across the
same species of fruits and flowers in many different places, all growing alongside
other plants and creating an unordered but beautiful explosion of life. In contrast,
studying doctrine (as in a doctrine survey or systematic theology) is akin to
walking in an orchard or greenhouse, where the different species have been
extracted from the various places in the garden where they were growing and
have been transplanted together with others of their kin to enable us to study each
species separately and systematically.

(2) They strengthen our faith by providing grounds and reasons for our beliefs and
experiences, and so stabilize us against doubt and deception (Ephesians 4:11-14).

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

(4) They will enable us to live in a manner pleasing to God, for the biblical
assumption is always that right belief/doctrine will lead to right living: ethics
(and, conversely, that wrong behaviour always stems from false doctrine). This is
why nearly all of Paul's letters first establish correct doctrine before proceeding to
address behaviour.

(5) They enable the church to know, preserve and preach the truth and so bring
salvation to men. If the church, as the only recipient and guardian of the truth (1
Tim 3:15), departs from true doctrine and preaches a false gospel, how can men
be saved?

6
 (6) They are of invaluable practical use in every area of ministry: preaching,
teaching, pastoring, counselling, evangelism, apologetics, polemics, etc.

There are, of course, limitations to doctrine and doctrinal studies: knowledge of right
doctrine does not automatically lead to the salvation of the unbeliever or the maturity of
the believer, and doctrinal studies are thus not a substitute for the activities mentioned
above (teaching, pastoring, evangelism, etc). However, neither the salvation of
unbelievers nor the maturity of believers can be attained without right doctrine, and so
these are dependent (however indirectly) on doctrinal studies.

The often implied dichotomy between knowing God and knowing about God is a false
one. One can know about God without knowing him but the reverse is not true: one
cannot know God without knowing about him, and the more one knows about him the
better one will know him, the more able one will be to trust him and the more willing to
obey him. The Bible never contrasts faith and knowledge/understanding. On the
contrary, all Paul's prayers for the church include a prayer for increased knowledge (eg.
Ephesians 1:17-19, Colossians 1:9-11) because he knows this will increase their faith.
(In a diving competition it is our dive [faith in God] that counts. However, if we have no
board to dive off [knowledge of God], we will not be able to dive very well. The higher
the board of knowledge we dive off, the higher we will be able to extend our faith.)
Pursued with the right heart, then, the acquisition of right doctrine will and must lead not
only to increased knowledge about God but increased faith in and intimacy with God. We
must beware an undevotional theology, certainly, but equally we must beware an
untheological devotion.

We embrace the study of doctrine, therefore, as necessary for knowing God, maturing in
faith, growing in obedience, preserving the truth and persuading the lost.

3. THE DIVISION OF DOCTRINE (How?)

How do we go about investigating the complete spectrum of doctrine found in the Bible?
How do we divide "God's profusion of riches?" How many species are there to separate?

To some measure, any division we make for the purposes of study is arbitrary; the
student will notice a slightly different division and outline in every book of doctrine he
looks at. I have divided the field into ten main doctrines; others will have less, some
more. Thus some will treat man and sin in separate chapters where I have put them in the
same; similarly with Jesus and the Atonement. Conversely, some will include revelation,
creation and angels in the same section as God (amongst the works of God) where I have
given each of these chapters on their own.

Whatever the division of the field, there will be a similarity between all sources in the
order in which the doctrines are discussed. This is because there is an inherent logical
and chronological progression in God's works and dealings with man (a certain order of
events in God's plans of creation and redemption). This order will become clear to the

7
student as we progress through the survey.

The classification (division) and order I will adopt on this course is set out below. I have
added in the traditional names given to each of the doctrines because you may have
worked with these names before or you may come across this terminology in your further
reading and study - but I will not generally use them in these notes:

Revelation (Bibliology)
God (Theology)
Creation (Cosmology)
Angels (and Demons) (Angelogy:Demonology)
Man (and Sin) (Anthropology)
Jesus Christ (and the Atonement) (Christology)
Holy Spirit (Pneumatology)
Salvation (Soteriology)
Church (Ecclesiology)
Last Things (Eschatology)

8
Chapter 1

THE DOCTRINE OF REVELATION

Chapter Outline: 1. The Meaning of Revelation

2. The Reasonableness of Revelation
3. The Need for Revelation
4. The Means of Revelation
5. The Characteristics of Revelation
6. The Content of Revelation
7. The Goal of Revelation
8. The Limits of Revelation
9. Revelation and Salvation (Which Words can save?)
10. Revelation and Authority (Which Word has the highest
authority?)
11. Revelation and Illumination (Has revelation ended?)
12. SUMMARY OF ESSENTIAL POINTS

1. THE MEANING OF REVELATION

The word "revelation" comes from the Greek word apokalypsis (apocalypse), which
means: the uncovering/unveiling/revealing of something previously
covered/veiled/hidden (verb); the knowledge resulting from this event (noun).

This definition immediately shows us that revelation (vb & nn) is to be distinguished
from natural processes of learning (vb) and the knowledge gained by those processes
(nn).

REVELATION LEARNING/DISCOVERY
Knowledge unattainable by man Arrived at by normal rational processes
Immediate communication of truth Gradual increase in knowledge
Brought by external agency/manifestation Arrived at by man himself

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

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

divine initiative and agency, which man couldn't otherwise have known (eg Ephesians
3:2-5).

9
The Doctrine of Revelation, then, refers to the Bible's teaching on why and how God
revealed himself to man, and to the content of that revelation. It thus surveys "revelation"
both as a verb (God's revealing activity) and as a noun (the saving knowledge/truth left in
man's possession as a result of that revealing activity).

2. THE REASONABLENESS OF REVELATION

The case for the Gospel begins with this doctrine - as does the attack against it. It is often
alleged that the whole basis for the Christian faith (i.e. revelation) is faulty because it is
irrational (i.e. it does not accord with reason): the human cannot know the divine; divine
intelligence cannot (or would not) communicate itself to the human understanding.

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

rational. It is totally reasonable to expect that an omnipotent God who had created man
as a covenant partner both could and would communicate with him, and that a creature
created in its Creator's image would be able, at least in part, to understand and respond to
this communication.

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

evidence, that Jesus, the Bible, natural creation, etc are examples of such divine
communication with man. In fact, it is far more reasonable to believe this about them
than not to. (Such proofs belong in the realm of Apologetics and so are not reproduced
here.)

3. THE NEED FOR REVELATION

Before the Fall, man enjoyed perfect, uninterrupted and undistorted communication with
God. Man grew naturally in his knowledge of God; supernatural revelation as we
understand the term today was unnecessary. But, with the entry of sin, man's knowledge
of and communication with God became imperfect, partial and distorted; incapable in his
fallen state of a true and saving knowledge of God, revelation became necessary.

Even after the Fall, something of the image of God remains in man, causing man to be
dimly aware of God's existence and nature; but this dim awareness falls far short of, and
cannot lead to, a true and saving knowledge of God. Moreover, in his fallen state, which
is one of proud and rebellious independence from God, man is also running away from
and rejecting the true God. Man's religions, his attempt to find and satisfy God, are thus
an abiding paradox: they reflect both man's search for God and his rebellion against God.
But they can never lead man to a true, saving knowledge of God.

Man cannot and would not know God by his natural instincts, efforts and knowledge.
We are utterly dependent on God's gracious self-revelation for knowing him. Without
this stimulus, we would not even look for God - or, at least, we would not look in the
right place. God is not found, discovered or invented by man; man, blinded and confused,
is found by God.

10
All religion - man's efforts to find and define God - is thus futile, resulting in a god made
in man's image. Revelation is utterly opposed to religion - and represents a judgement on
all religion, an emphatic statement from God that he is only to be found in the revelation
he has made of himself and only to be truly known by submission to that revelation. God
is to be found in the Bible (the revelation he has given of himself) and we must accept
what he says about himself there if we are to know him at all.

Even the Bible, itself a product of God's revealing activity, asserts God's inscrutability
(unknowability) were it not for revelation - and sometimes even inspite of it! God is
unsearchable, his ways beyond understanding and his plans beyond finding out. (Job
11:7-8, 23:3&8-9; Isaiah 40:13-14&18&25, 55:8-9; John 1:18a; Romans 11:33; 1
Corinthians 1:21a, 2:6-16; 1 Timothy 6:16.)

It can now be seen, firstly, why we began by defining "revelation" as the communication
of truth that cannot be known or attained by man. The truth communicated by God is
God himself - and man cannot know God lest God reveal himself.

Secondly, it is now clear why we begin our survey with this doctrine. It may seem that
we that we should start with God as the pre-existent fount of all. But we could and would
not know anything about his person and works were it not for his self-revelation - and so
we must begin by studying where and how God has revealed himself to ensure that we
look in the right place and find the true God!

P.S. Not only does revelation lead to true God (vs. the false gods of our invention) but
true man. Revelation means that theology and theologizing does not start with man but
with God. In all other realms of knowledge, man is the subject (he who initiates and
conducts the study) and the field in question is the object (that which is studied). In
theology, however, man is only truly known and defined by God (his own understanding
of himself is always distorted by his sinful nature). If man wants to know not only who
God really is but who he really is he must submit to what God says about him - that is, he
must submit to revelation. In theology, then, God is the subject and man the object - and
man can only study God once he has learnt and accepted God's study of him. Put
differently: in all other disciplines, man is above the object of knowledge; here man is
below that which he desires to know.

4. THE MEANS OF REVELATION

God has revealed himself to man by various means. That is, he has spoken several
different "words". They divide naturally into two groups.

a) General Revelation

Also called Natural or Immediate Revelation. It gives an Innate

Knowledge of God.

11
 (i) Creation : Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 1:18-20 (cf. vv21,23,25,28).
(ii) Conscience : Romans 2:14-15 (cf. 1:32).
(iii) Providence : God's benign government of the nations (secular history)
and of the natural universe. Psalms 104 & 107; Acts 14:15-17, 17:22-28.

b) Special Revelation

Also called Supernatural or Mediate Revelation. It gives an Acquired

Knowledge of God.

(i) Israel : God's special dealings with Israel (sacred history) and the
special means used to communicate with them (theophanies, angels,
audible voice, prophecy, dreams, visions, signs [burning bush, writing on
the wall]). Deut 4:6-8&32-39, 28:1&10&25&37&46; Psalms 78, 105 &
106, 103:7.
(ii) Jesus Christ : John 1:1&14&18, 14:7&9; Colossians 1:15&19, 2:9;
Hebrews 1:1-3.
(iii) The Bible : Psalms 1:2-3, 19:7-11, 119:72&89&105&130; 2 Timothy
3:15-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21.

5. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF REVELATION

A personal revelation
A covenant revelation
A saving revelation
A Trinitarian revelation
A Christocentric revelation
A word-and-deed revelation
A historical revelation
A final revelation

(I will leave you to ponder on these points. Reflection will show, amongst other things,
how different God's revelation is to the supposed revelation of other gods.)

6. THE CONTENT OF REVELATION

A myriad of things, but in essence –

(1) God Himself. God does not simply reveal to us timeless truths, abstract
principles or saving systems. His revelation is not even limited to divine
characteristics or to his will and his ways (although it includes these). God
reveals (gives us) himself.
(2) The Way of Salvation. Revelation records everything man needs to know to
be saved (which includes how to have and live the fullness of life which God
intended for him).

12
 7. THE GOAL OF REVELATION

SALVATION The Glory of God (Eph 3:10)

FAITH
REVELATION (Man’s
(God’s initiative) response)

The Fulfilment of Covenant!

COMMUNION (Revelation 21:3)

8. THE LIMITS OF REVELATION

Revelation (noun) includes everything we need to know about God, ourselves and
salvation but it does not tell us everything about everything. There are limits to
revelation (Deuteronomy 29:29). This means that we have to submit as much to what is
not revealed (i.e. to the fact that it is not revealed) as to what is revealed. Non-acceptance
of this, and the attempt to delve into "the hidden things", however spiritual this pursuit
may seem, is a further instance of man's proud rebellion against God. We must refrain
from going beyond revelation (e.g. in the areas of angels and demons and of the end
times). This is the common tendency of fringe groups in the church and of cults, and
leads to heresy and destruction.

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

There are various non-Christian views of the relationship between revelation of the divine
and the salvation of man, including pantheism (creation is divine, and man can be saved
through meditating on it), humanism (man is divine, and can be saved through following
his conscience) and syncretism (Jesus and the Bible are special revelations but only in a
limited sense: other religious leaders and writings also constitute special revelations, and
man can be saved by following any of these).

Putting aside such obviously unacceptable positions, we need to ask, within the
parameters of Christian doctrine, what is the relationship between general and special
revelation; more particularly, which levels of revelation can lead to salvation?

Basically, there are two positions:

a) The Catholic Position

This states that there are two different and independent kinds of knowledge about
God. Both are saving, although one obviously gives a more complete and thus
satisfying knowledge.

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

13
 knowledge of God it gives, to attain a certain effective (i.e. salvific) - but not
complete - amount of knowledge of God (natural theology, natural religion). This
stands alongside the knowledge given by special (supernatural) revelation as an
independent pillar, or `below' it as a foundation on which the latter builds.

b) The Reformed Position

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

It argues thus: both creation and conscience have been distorted by the Fall and
we can no longer know God truthfully through these means. General revelation,
at best, gives only a vague, ineffective (i.e. non-salvific) knowledge of God; at
worst, its inexactness allows for a multitude of distortions (as demonstrated by the
gods of man's religions). Man needs to know God in his special revelation to be
saved - i.e. in Jesus (John 14:6, Acts 4:12, 1 Timothy 2:5) and the Bible (2
Timothy 3:15). His knowledge of God through general revelation, even if it does
serve as a prelude or stepping-stone to a saving knowledge of God through special
revelation, needs to be repented of and renewed when special revelation comes
(Acts 14:15-17, 17:22-31).

Only once we know God through special revelation, can we know and appreciate him in
general revelation (can we reliably, and with a renewed mind, see him there). The
progression is thus not from general to special, but from special to general. (To illustrate:
the saying "One is nearer to God in a garden [general] than anywhere else on earth" is
pantheistic rather than Christian. One is nearer to God in Christ [special]; and once this
has happened, the divine infusion in creation can be better and more reliably
appreciated.) At most, general revelation and the awareness of a God it creates, serve as
independent or neutral proofs of the existence of God and of the reasonableness of
expecting a special revelation from him.

If, lastly, we try and define more closely the role of general revelation in the salvation or
condemnation of men, we find two sub-positions within the Reformed position. Both
agree that general revelation is sufficient to alert a man to his need for God and to
condemn him if he rejects it (negatively, it can condemn but, positively, it cannot save).

Beyond this they differ.

(i) asserts that, while many reject the light of general revelation and are
condemned, some heed it (God-fearers); for these God will illuminate the
message of special revelation when it comes, leading them to salvation (Acts
10:1-6, 16:14). The following analogy has been suggested: if I could help you
with a small part of a very big debt you owed, and you turned your nose up at it, I
wouldn't be inclined to help you out with the remainder if and when a large sum
of money came to my disposal. The weakness of this sub-position is its implied
injustice: there must have been many "God-fearers" in unreached people groups
who would and should have been saved (according to this scheme) but weren't

14
 because the gospel didn't reach them.

(ii) asserts that all men have a knowledge of God through general revelation but
reject it. This is the thrust of the pericope in Romans (1:18-3:20) which contains
the texts about man's knowledge of God through creation (1:18-20) and
conscience (2:14-15); it is not a knowledge which saves but which, because
universally rejected, universally condemns. "Jews and Gentiles alike are all under
sin" (3:9); "men are without any excuse" (1:20). General revelation, then, far
from giving a saving knowledge of God (the Catholic position), or even from
preparing men for salvation through special revelation when it comes (the
Reformed sub-position [i] above), leads to God's just condemnation of the entire
human race. This gives the Great Commission the highest possible importance
and urgency, viz. the transmission by the church of the message of God's special
revelation, by which alone men everywhere can be saved.

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

Revelation is, by definition, authoritative. Every Word of God to man necessarily carries
authority: man must take note and listen. But there are many Words; which carries the
highest authority?

The knowledge of God afforded by general revelation is clearly inferior to that provided
by special revelation; moreover, creation and conscience have been distorted by the Fall
and are unreliable pointers. Obviously, special revelation has greater authority than
general revelation.

God's revelation of himself by various means to and through Israel clearly possessed
more substance than the revelation to the surrounding nations (general revelation). But
even this revelation was in turn dwarfed by that through Jesus Christ; the former was
merely a preparation for the latter; the latter fulfilled and superseded the former. Jesus
Christ was, is, and always will be, the supreme Revelation of God, the last and greatest
Word of God to man.

But, for us today, we only know of these revelations through Israel and Jesus because of
the record of them contained and preserved in the Bible. A written record is more
reliable and enduring than an oral one. Moreover, the Bible is not just a humanly written
record but a divinely inspired one, and thus inerrant and infallible and possessing great
authority (see the Appendix which follows this chapter). The Bible is the norm against
which all other revelation and interpretations of revelation (past, present and future) must
be measured; it is our final (highest) authority in all matters of life (how we live) and
doctrine (what we believe).

Man (or the devil!) is constantly trying to displace the Bible from this preeminent
position, with the inevitable result each time of error and destruction, and the loss of the
truth and power of the gospel. Even within the church, at least 3 things have been given
equal or even greater authority:

15
 (i) Reason. In certain periods (e.g. during and after the Enlightenment, or Age of
Reason), reason has been hailed as man's highest faculty, even as that part which
represents God's image in man. Reason is then made the measure of all else,
including revelation, and that within the Bible which supposedly is irrational,
which cannot be explained or proved by reason, is discarded as
myth/symbol/superstition. But, of course, man's finite, creaturely mind cannot
hope to rationally define the infinite Creator (to think that it can is yet another
instance of man's proud rebellion); moreover, his reason, like all his faculties, is
not only finite but fallen (distorted through sin). Rationalism of this sort is
fundamentally humanistic: it makes man the subject and God the object (instead
of the other way around); it constructs a God made in man's image.

(ii) Church Tradition. The Catholic Church holds tradition (the teachings of the
church) to be equal in authority to Scripture. This has two outworkings: (1)
Scripture is said to be only properly interpreted by the church hierarchy (in this
way, Tradition actually comes to possess greater authority than Scripture, for now
Tradition is the norm of Scripture and not the other way round as it should be); (2)
Tradition becomes a distinct source of revelation-truth alongside and independent
of Scripture (hence the many papal bulls and pronouncements of the church
hierarchy which were promulgated as divinely inspired and true and yet which
had absolutely no root in Scripture). The result of such an authority structure, of
the abandonment of the Bible as the highest authority, can be clearly seen in the
sorry history of the church; this history shows that men, even redeemed men,
cannot be guaranteed to preserve the truth - another reason for the preeminent
place of the unchanging written Word of God. Against Rome, the Reformers
trumpeted sola Scriptura ("Scripture alone"): while the church plays an important
role in interpreting and applying revelation, Scripture is the norm against which
all church pronouncements and practices must be measured; moreover, neither
church hierarchies nor anyone else can act as a source of revelation, adding to the
Bible things we supposedly need to believe or do for salvation. Any "revelation-
truths" not found in scripture, and any interpretations contradictory to Scripture,
must be discarded.

(iii) "The Spirit". Periodically in church history, during and following revivals
when manifestations and gifts of the Spirit have been at a height, and personal
experience of the Spirit has been emphasized, people have unconsciously
promulgated unbiblical beliefs and practices with the supposed sanction of the
Spirit ("The Spirit told me..."; "The Spirit showed me..."). This sounds very
spiritual, and fringe groups and cults have led thousands into error with this kind
of logic; but obviously the Holy Spirit will never reveal anything contradictory to
what He has already revealed in Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21), and
we need to be careful to measure all such "revelations", promptings,
manifestations, gifts, visions, etc against Scripture.

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

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

16
Bible (especially, for example, as regards contemporary questions not directly addressed
in Scripture) - but their conclusions must always be measured against Scripture. The
Bible is the divinely inspired, infallible and inerrant record of all God's revelation to men,
and is our final authority in all matters of life and doctrine. It contains everything we
need to know for salvation, and nothing can or must ever be subtracted from or added to
it (Deuteronomy 4:2, Revelation 22:18-19).

11. REVELATION AND ILLUMINATION (Has revelation ended?)

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

everything necessary for salvation and nothing can or need be added to it. But
charismatic evangelical theology maintains that God still reveals himself to people and
we still receive revelation - through gifts of the Spirit, dreams and visions, sudden insight
into truths and scriptures, inner promptings, guidance, etc. Charismatics are often heard
to say, "I had a revelation today". Who is right?

The “conflict” can be resolved by returning to the Reformed concepts of revelation and
(versus) illumination. Much of what we call "revelation" is not really revelation in the
strict sense that Jesus and the Bible are revelations. They are not the addition of raw
material to the deposit found in these two. They are illuminations on the existing
revelation: Spirit-given understandings, interpretations and applications of the truth
already revealed. These "revelations" may cause one to grow in one's personal
knowledge of God, but the total possible knowledge of God is already contained
(revealed) in the Scripture; they may give guidance in a matter unique and new to
yourself, but the truths determining that guidance are already revealed in Scripture.
Indeed, Jesus told us that a large part of the Spirit's work would be to illumine what he
had revealed (John 16:13-15). This is not to make a big issue about words and to suggest
that we must all stop saying "I had a revelation today" - as long as we know what we
mean (viz. illumination) and are clear that we are not pretending to revelation on a par
with Jesus and the Bible.

Both the conservatives and the charismatics, therefore, are right. In one sense, revelation
has ended and in another it hasn't. God continues to reveal himself to believers and
unbelievers every day - and yet everything to be known about him has already been
revealed in Jesus and the Scriptures! God's revelation of himself since New Testament
times is thus experiential, not substantive - it adds subjective experience of God not
objective substance about God. Jesus is the supreme and final revelation of God. He
shows forth the fullness of God. What more can God reveal? Similarly, the Bible is the
complete and sufficient record of that revelation. It asserts this - and warns against
addition. Through both natural learning and supernatural illumination we grow in our
apprehension of truth, and in our ability to live it out in our day, but our "revelations" add
no new truth about God and his salvation. "If it's new it's not true, and if it's true it's not
new."

17
In closing, we can accept "revelations" in our day, provided that:

(i) They never contradict Scripture (our norm and final authority);
(ii) They never claim equality with Scripture in inspiration, inerrancy/infallibility
and authority;
(iii) They are not regarded as an independent source of truth alongside Scripture
(as if the latter was incomplete);
(iv) They add no beliefs or practices obligatory for salvation to what is stated in
Scripture;
(v) They are directed only to certain individuals/groups (vs. true revelation, which
is for the universal church).

12. SUMMARY OF ESSENTIAL POINTS

TRUTH
REVELATION (vb): Man knows God only because
he has revealed himself to us
REVELATION: (nn): God (and thus salvation)
found only in this revelation
SPECIAL REVELATION: Saving
knowledge of God only through special
revelation
THE BIBLE:
1. Highest authority for life and doctrine
2. Complete record of God‟s revelation
ERROR
RELIGION/PHILOSOPHY: Man can find/define
God
HUMANISM/PANTHEISM/RELIGIONS: God
(and thus salvation) found in man/creation/religions
GENERAL REVELATION: Incomplete
but saving knowledge of God through
general revelation
REASON/CHURCH TRADITION/‟THE SPIRIT”:
1. Equal/surpass Scripture in authority
2. Complete record of God‟s revelation

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 1

Chapter 1 placed the Bible within its larger context of the self-revelation of God:
it is merely one of the means of revelation. For us, however, the Bible has a special
place. Consequently, by way of this appendix, I want to focus on two aspects of the
Bible that have a doctrinal content and significance: the inspiration of the Bible and the
characteristics of the Bible. [I have borrowed these notes from my Bible Survey Lecture
1: Introduction to the Bible. There are other introductory matters discussed there - the
formation of the Old and New Testament books and canons, texts and translations (i.e.
how the Bible has come down to us), the scopus, themes and structure of the Bible, etc -
but these belong more to biblical than doctrinal studies.]

13. THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE

a) The Claim to Inspiration

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

18
meant inspiration in the vague sense of elevated wisdom or unusual beauty. Nor
does it refer to an inspiration grounded in the subjective experience of the writer
("I felt inspired from without") or the reader ("It inspired me"). The Bible's
inspiration is grounded in the objective fact that God has inspired it, whether we
experience/believe it to be inspired or not.

The Bible, over and over again, makes this claim of itself - and nowhere more
powerfully than in 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed"
(Gr.theopneustos). The difference between the Bible and other inspired Christian
writings is like that between the image of God in Jesus (complete and perfect) and
the image of God in other men (partial and corrupted).

The Bible's claim to inspiration is emphatic:

- the Old Testament claimed this for itself: phrases such as "the Word of the Lord
came to me" and "the Lord says" are used over 3800 times (Hosea 1:1 et al);

- Jesus endorsed this Old Testament claim (Matthew 5:17-18, 19:5 [cf. Genesis
2:24]*, Mark 7:8-10&13*, John 10:35); he constantly quotes from and appeals to
the Old Testament as having divine authority;

- the New Testament accepted this Old Testament claim (Acts 4:25, 28:25,
Romans 3:2, 9:17 [cf. Exodus 9:16]#, Galatians 3:8 [cf. Genesis 12:3]#, Hebrews
1:1&7-9&10-12 [cf. Psalm 104:4, 45:6-7, 102:25-27]*;

- Jesus indicated the New Testament would be similarly inspired (John 14:26,
15:26, 16:13-15);

- the New Testament claimed this for itself (1 Corinthians 2:10a&13, 14:37-38,
Galatians 1:11-12, Ephesians 3:2-5), 2 Peter 3:15-16);

- what Scripture says is equated with what God says (*) and vice-versa (#); this
further demonstrates the Bible's claim to be "God-breathed".

b) The Mode of Inspiration

But how did God breathe? It must not be thought that, because God inspired the
Bible, the Biblical writers were uninvolved and the Bible is in no way a human
book. The writers were neither overwhelmed (put in a trance) nor dictated to
(reduced to impersonal, mechanical typewriters). The Bible is a miraculous
blending of the human and the divine - and, just as with the mysterious fusion of
the human and the divine in Jesus, it should not be surprising if it is difficult to
analyse the process by which this blending took place.

On the human side: the normal human faculties and thought-processes involved in
speaking/writing were operative and not superseded. The writers researched,

19
collected and selected their material (Luke 1:1-4); they wrote with a consciously
chosen particular purpose in mind (John 20:31); they attempted to understand,
interpret and apply the revelation they received to their and succeeding
generations (although often only partially understanding what they saw and
sometimes not at all); they sought for the right words to express this revelation;
and they displayed their different individual temperaments, concerns and styles
(in the same way that differently shaped sticks move differently through the water
even though it is the same current carrying all of them). Indeed, these were often
part of the message. God seems to have purposely chosen men greatly differing in
these respects so that his Word would reflect the many-sidedness of life and
mankind.

On the divine side: simultaneously, the Holy Spirit, the Revealer and Motivator in
the process, saw to it that adequate words were found by the writer; words were
approved by the Holy Spirit as they were expressed by the writer. The Holy Spirit
so "brooded" over the writer that the words used were the best possible for
conveying the truth he (the Spirit) intended; he so guided the writer that the latter
could not introduce any human defect (false history, inaccurate description,
misguided doctrine) - i.e. an inspiration that prevented the negative rather than
dictated the positive (inspiration without dictation)(cf. Matthew 22:43, 1
Corinthians 14:32, 1 Peter 1:10-11, 2 Peter 1:20-21).

In short, God's Spirit directed the prophets' spirits (the divine motivation) but "the
spirits of the prophets are subject to the control of the prophets" (1 Corinthians
14:32 - the human co-operation). The experience of scriptural writing was akin to
the experience of prophesying - except that here the writer's submission to the
Spirit was complete.

The result is a book both human and divine, yet without error - just like Jesus!
And, just as Jesus was never only human or only divine, but always both, so the
Bible is the perfect blend of both throughout. It is God bringing the revelation of
himself as close to the defective apprehension of fallen man as he can. It is the
Holy Spirit inspiring man to the most perfect expression of infinite truth in finite
human language.

c) The Extent of Inspiration

But to what extent of detail is the Bible inspired? Is each word inspired or merely
the concepts/truths they express?

Often the claim to inspiration is made not only for an individual word (Matthew
22:32, 22:41-46 cf. Psalm 110:1) but for a single letter (John 10:34 cf. Psalm
82:7, Galatians 3:16 cf. Genesis 12:7, Matthew 5:18 - the "jot" was the smallest
letter in the Hebrew alphabet) and even for part of a letter (Matthew 5:18 - the
"tittle" was a 1:16th inch stroke distinguishing certain Hebrew letters).

20
In other phrases, however, different words are used to describe the same thing -
e.g. the slightly differing versions in each of the four gospels as to what was
written on the board hung on the cross above Jesus' head (cf. Matthew 27:37,
Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, John 19:19). No one would claim that this amounts to a
contradiction, however; each version accurately expresses the essence of what the
board contained.

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

which simply states that the biblical text in each part is inspired to the extent that
it conveys fully and without error the revelation truth it contains.

The 66 canonical books - every part of these 66, but none others than these 66 -
are thus wholly inspired and without error in the original autographs; and, except
for copyist errors and vernacular mistranslations, are similarly inspired and
inerrant for us too. This inspiration extends as much to historical, geographical,
biological and other "secular" material as to the doctrinal and "spiritual" sections.

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

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

many "errors" have been solved in the past by archaeological discoveries,
historical research and improved exegesis, and there is thus more ground for
trusting that the remaining difficulties will be likewise solved in the future than
for questioning the accuracy of the biblical text.

(ii) All parts of the Bible are equally important in their revelation of God or their
application to the believer today. For example, word for word, John 3 is
obviously more valuable and applicable for us than Leviticus 3! The doctrine of
inspiration means only that each part is fully inspired for the truth it is intended to
reveal. Equal inspiration does not mean equal application.

(iii) Every word in Scripture is God's. For example, the self-righteous false
counsel of Job's friends and the fatalism of the apostate Solomon are accurately
recorded in Job and Ecclesiastes respectively, but these passages in no way reflect
God's perspectives (in the same way that the meaninglessness of life expressed by
the ungodly Macbeth at the end of that play is the Scottish king's perspective and
not Shakespeare's). These and other such words are included under inspiration for
our warning and not for our doctrine and application!

d) False Models of Inspiration

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

(ii) Illuminated inspiration: biblical writers were inspired geniuses like other great
writers but with the addition of being inspired by the Holy Spirit - i.e. merely

21
inspired to a greater degree than other writers. (But the inference here is that any
gifted Christian writer can write Scripture.)

(iii) Neorthodox position: the Bible is a witness to (record of) the Word of God
(God's revelations) in history (particularly in Christ) but it is the product of
fallible writers and hence not inerrant.

(iv) Concept inspiration; the basic truths and not their expression (the actual
words) are inspired.

(v) Partial inspiration: only the portions of Scripture containing the otherwise
unknowable (creation accounts, prophecy,, etc) are inspired. The rest was simply
researched and written by men using available material.

(vi) Purpose inspiration: the Bible is inspired in (and perfectly accomplishes) the
purpose God has for it - to bring a saving knowledge of God to man. But, while it
has doctrinal ("religious") integrity, it contains factual ("secular") errors. (But if
errant in one, how can it be trusted in the other? Furthermore, history and
doctrine cannot be separated; try this with the resurrection!)

(vii) Experience inspiration: as the words stand on the page, they are merely the
words of men. But the Holy Spirit can illuminate them to become divine
revelation to us (the Bible contains/becomes the Word of God).

(viii) Verbal dictation: God dictated every word, reducing the writers to
impersonal, mechanical typewriters.

e) The Proofs for Inspiration

Thus far we have simply accepted the Bible's claim to inspiration. This may
present no problem for the Christian, who has the conviction of the indwelling
Holy Spirit as to its truth. But the non-Christian may want some objective
evidence before he/she is prepared to consider or embrace the gospel we are
presenting - a gospel which we are constantly founding on Scripture. Knowing
why we trust the Bible is also valuable for Christians - for both their own faith
and their witness.

But is there any such objective evidence with which we can prove the inspiration
of Scripture. Yes, overwhelmingly so! (Such proofs belong to the realm of
Apologetics rather than Doctrine, however.)

f) The Consequences of Inspiration

There are two particularly important consequences of Scripture being inspired:

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

22
 that it is infallible (cannot be proved false) and inerrant (without error). It is thus
also wholly reliable and trustworthy as a revelation of the true God and of the true
way of salvation.

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

listen and obey. The Bible represents Absolute Truth, Value and Right. It is our
final authority for all matters of life and doctrine, against which everything else
must be measured.

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

pronouncements or writings (cults), nor personal spiritual experience or gift-
utterances (charismatics), is our final authority. History demonstrates that even
Christian men and structures, when not held in check by Scripture, tend to gross
error. Far from the church conferring on Scripture whatever authority it has and
determining how it should be interpreted, it is Scripture that is normative and by
which everything that the church is and does must be measured.

14. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF SCRIPTURE

The Reformers, having asserted, against Rome, that Scripture and not church tradition
was the final authority for life and doctrine, went on to assert five further "characteristics"
of the Bible.

a) Inherent Trustworthiness

Rome held that the Bible was trustworthy (only) because the church said it was
so. The consequences of this position are that Scripture derives its authority from
the church (not vice-versa) and that, accordingly, the church can introduce
ecclesiastical tradition as another authority alongside (and even over) Scripture.
Against this the Reformers asserted that the Bible is inherently trustworthy, i.e.
trustworthy in itself, because it contains within itself the evidences for this; it is,
moreover, a trustworthiness attested to by the witness of the Spirit, who convinces
us that it is God's Word when we read/hear it.

b) Necessity (Indispensability)

Rome asserted that the church, as the able custodian of the truth, was all that was
necessary to bring men to salvation. At the other extreme, "spiritism" asserted
that spiritual experience was all that was needed for us to know and dispense
saving truth. Against both, the Reformers contended that Scripture alone reveals
and preserves the truth without corruption, and therefore that without the Bible
men cannot be saved.

23
c) Sufficiency (Completeness)

Rome asserted that the Bible did not contain everything we need to know for
salvation and discipleship. Consequently, the church was free - indeed, duty
bound - to impose additional teaching concerning faith and morals as binding on
her people and necessary for salvation, even if these things did not have warrant
from Scripture. Against this, the Reformers asserted that Scripture gives a
complete revelation of everything required by God for salvation and discipleship;
the church cannot impose any belief or practice as an obligation of faith without
direct scriptural authority.

d) Clarity (Perspicuity)

Rome held that the meaning of Scripture was obscure and inaccessible to the
layman. The layman needed the church, i.e. its trained clergy, to interpret it to
him. Indeed, he was not to be allowed access to the Bible because he might
distort its meaning to his and others' damnation. The Reformers did not deny the
existence of difficult passages but denied that these predominated. It would be
self-defeating, they rightly argued, for God to give man an incomprehensible
saving revelation! They asserted that the main thrust of Scripture is plain and
clear to every genuine reader and therefore that the Bible be read by all. (Hence
one of the Reformers' chief principles of biblical interpretation: take the plain
sense meaning as the true and intended one; cf. the various non-literal approaches
of medieval [Catholic] exegesis.)

e) Relevance

Rome also justified its keeping of the Bible from the laity with the argument that
the Bible dealt with issues theological, the realm of the church's theologians, and
not with everyday matters that concerned the people. The Reformers argued that
the Bible was gloriously relevant to the common man - meeting the spiritual,
mental, emotional, physical and social needs of every man in every place and
time!

24
Chapter 2

THE DOCTRINE OF GOD

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

2. The Knowability of God (Can God be known?)
3. The Attributes of God (What is God like?)
4. The Names of God (What is God called?)
5. The Trinity
6. The Father
7. SUMMARY OF ESSENTIAL POINTS

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

The existence of God is mentally accepted by any theist and experientially proven by
every believer. But since the existence of God is not universally regarded as a given
(some deny it, others feel that it cannot automatically be assumed but must be
demonstrated), it seems necessary to begin a study of God with the question of his
existence and of whether there is any proof for this.

However, it may immediately be objected (and often has been) that to attempt to prove
God's existence is unnecessary, even blasphemous, for God proves himself (has always
done so, is doing so and will always do so) by his word-and-deed intervention into human
history. Of course, this is so: God did not first need Israel to prove and so believe in his
existence before he did anything; he just burst devastatingly into their lives with word-
and-deed, thereby both proving his existence (that he was) and revealing his nature (who
he was) at the same time. Similarly, many have God's existence “proved” to them today
by his sovereign intervention into their lives.

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

existence of God (that it is more reasonable to believe in it than not to), especially for the
unbeliever who is resisting any intervention of God into his life, or shaking the faith of
believers or the searching of would-be believers, by his denial of God's existence. Even
the Bible, which on the whole simply assumes God's existence, occasionally argues for
his existence (e.g. from creation: Psalm 19:1-6; Isaiah 40:26; Acts 14:17).

There are two lines of argument, one using reason and the other revelation. (Actually,
both lines involve both tools : the first line is the application of reason to general
revelation and the second the application of reason to special revelation.)

25
a) Rational Proofs

These are the so-called five traditional or rational proofs for the existence of
God. (Actually there are many more: some apologists list thirty!)

(i) Ontological. Onto is Greek for "to be"; ontology is the science of
being/existence. According to this very abstract line of reasoning, for man to have
an idea of something, that thing must exist. Man commonly has the idea of a
supreme, perfect Being: such a Being must, therefore, exist. Further, this science
holds that actual existence is more perfect than mere conception; hence, God must
have actual rather than conceptual existence, or there would be a greater Being
who did exist.

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

nothing caused the universe (but the uncaused emergence of something has never
been observed) or something did. It is more reasonable to identify this
“something” with God than with an impersonal force, chance, an eternal cosmic
process, etc.

(iii) Teleological. The universe displays a great deal of design (Greek: teleos) and
purpose - i.e. it betrays an intelligent cause. Again, it is more reasonable to
believe in God as this intelligent Designer than “blind” chance, natural selection,
etc.

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

etc for man's unique properties - intelligence, emotions, spiritual sensibility of the
divine, longing for meaning and purpose - properties not shared by the rest of the
natural universe and thus seemingly imposed from without rather than emerged
from within.

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

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

Of course, these five arguments have limitations: (i) they seldom lead to
conversion; (ii) they prove only the existence of a Supreme Being and not the
identity (nature) of the true God.

Nevertheless, they have some value: (i) they can establish a presumption in favour
of the existence of God, which will prepare the hearer for receiving special
revelation (the gospel); (ii) they produce sufficient evidence to make the hearer
responsible for his knowledge should he reject God and to free God from any
further obligation should he so choose.

26
 b) Revelation Proofs

If the divine presence (Word) in one or more of the claimed avenues of revelation
can be proved (and it can), this automatically proves divine existence. It can be
shown, for example, that it is more reasonable to believe than not to believe that :
(i) the Bible is divinely inspired; (ii) Jesus is divine. (As before, these proofs lie
within the realm of Apologetics rather than Doctrine and so are not discussed
here).

Ultimately, of course, belief in the existence of God and knowledge of the true
God comes only through faith - a personal encounter with, and experience of,
God. This apologetic frustration (we cannot empirically prove God and so force a
decision), far from being an oversight on God's part, is intended by him and is an
act of grace: he does not want us to be sure of his existence (so becoming an
object of detached, academic analysis and debate) without us struggling and
reaching to find and meet him (being saved); he does not want to be "God" (out
there) but "our God" (found and known). Only once we've met him (experiential
knowledge), and made the submission to what he says of himself (and us) that this
always involves, are we able to safely study him (intellectual knowledge).

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

Once past the atheist's hurdle (denying God's existence) we come to the agnostic's hurdle
(denying God's knowability). It is asserted that, even if there was a God, we could not be
sure of his existence, either because the divine intelligence could not make itself
intelligible to the human, or because the human intelligence could not apprehend the
divine, or both. We thus have to demonstrate that God can be known before we can
proceed to discussing what we know of him.

There is a measure of truth in the agnostic's assertion: as finite (and fallen) creatures we
will never be able fully to know and understand the infinite (and perfect) Creator. But
both logic and experience suggest that we can know God, at least in part: it is logical to
believe that a God (who can do all things) who creates a creature to fellowship with him
will be able to make himself known to him, and that a creature thus created in his
Creator's image will be able to respond to this communication; our experience (and that
of millions) is that this logical possibility has been realised. And so man can know God.

It may then be contended (and often has been) that we can know the nature (attributes) of
God but not his being (essence). Again, this what is true to a measure but not in the
main. We can know who God is (what he is like) but not what he is: we would have to
be divine ourselves (or of an even higher order) to be able to define him. (We cannot
even define man!) But, on the whole, such a distinction (namely, that between
nature:attributes and being:essence) is an artificial one. To know a person's character,
temperament, personality traits, characteristic behaviour, etc is surely to know him; it is
to know his heart - which is his essence. Similarly, to know God's character, behaviour,

27
etc as revealed in the Scriptures is to know his essence. There is no hidden or actual or
essential God behind he who is revealed through his words, deeds and relationships in
history as recorded in Scripture. God's self-revelation is a description not a definition -
because, in this case, description is definition.

It remains only to repeat what was emphasized in the last lecture: all of the above about
our ability to know God is true of man in the created and redeemed states. In the fallen
state, we have at best a knowledge of God that is vague, ineffective and subject to gross
distortion. In this state we could and would not know God were it not for his sovereign
and gracious self-revelation.

God exists and we can know him. At last we can proceed to the biblical revelation of our
God. Who God is, what he is like, can be learnt from both his attributes and his names.

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

a) List of the Attributes

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

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

Such a list is always incomplete and somewhat arbitrary: we cannot know God
fully, and what we do know of him can be categorized/defined in numerous ways.

In the past, the attributes have often been divided into two groups, roughly
synonymous with the distinction that was made between God's essence/being and
his nature/character: the incommunicable/unrelated attributes (those we cannot
share in - e.g. God's eternity) and the communicable/related attributes (those we
can - e.g. God's love). However: (1) any distinction between God's essence and
character is, as we have seen, highly questionable; (2) the decision as to which
category certain of the attributes should be placed in is very arbitrary. We
therefore list them all together.

God is...

(i) Self-existent (Life). Not caused by anything else; not owing his existence to
anyone else. God has life in himself (cf. all creatures, who have life only in
him)(John 5:26, 10:17-18).

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

need, or defect in any attribute.

(iii) Invisible (Spirit). John 4:24; Deuteronomy 4:15; 1 Timothy 1:17, 6:16; 1
John 4:12; - but Jesus! (John 1:18, 1 John 1:1-3).

28
(iv) Infinite (Limitless). Unlimited by any finitude in time, space or attributes. It
is difficult for us to grasp this: we can only define it negatively (everything in our
experience is finite).

(v) Immortal (Eternal). Fills all time. Not only pre-, supra- and post-temporal but
the creator and container of time: there is no sense of time apart from his creating
it; God lives both above time and in timelessness. This does not mean that time is
unreal to God: he sees past and future as clearly as the present, and all three as an
uninterrupted succession of events, but is not himself bound by that succession
(Deuteronomy 33:27; 1 Chronicles 29:10; Nehemiah 9:5; Psalm 90:2; 1 Timothy
1:17, 6:16).

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

(1 Timothy 6:15). Makes all decisions (does as he wills) - and these, by virtue of
his absolute authority, are always right (cf. the decisions of a human ruler, which
are authoritative/right only in a certain realm and only if they do not contradict the
authority/decision/will of God). Although the decisions of fallen men and angels
have real significance in determining/affecting history, above and beyond these
the Sovereign God works out his plans and achieves his purposes (Isaiah 46:10;
Ephesians 1:11).

(vii) Omnipotent (Almighty). The Bible says this of God 56 times - and of no one
else. Absolute power in distinction from absolute authority ([v] above). Means
that God has the power to carry out that which he sovereignly decides. God's
power is power-in-himself, the creative source of power (cf. human power,
merely the harnessing/employment of pre-existing power). In the present age,
God voluntarily limits/postpones the exercise of his power (his omnipotence, like
his sovereignty, is hidden - an article of faith); his patience/grace, or his abiding
by the principles he has sovereignly instituted, does not deny his omnipotence.

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

understands all things. This God has by nature (by the mere fact of existing) and
not by learning (cf. human knowledge, which is acquired and added to our
existence/nature). Knows what has happened, what is happening, what will
happen and what might have happened: it is because of this that God can work out
all things for our good and to his glory; can judge fairly; can save to the uttermost.
(Psalm 139:1-6&13-18; Jn 16:30)

(ix) Omnipresent. Fills all space; sees all things; not bound by space/place.
Present everywhere at once (but not present in everything: this is pantheism). Yet
present in different places and times to varying degrees (Exodus 33:15) and with
varying purposes (i.e. different facets of his character are manifested). Yet it is
always all of God present, never just a part of him. His presence is sometimes a
physical manifestation but normally a spiritual one (i.e. he is seen by faith). God
is not just to be found everywhere; he is the everywhere itself: there is not and
cannot be anything beyond or apart from God. We cannot escape/hide/flee from

29
God (Psalm 139:7-12; Amos 9:1-4).

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

and thus detached from them.

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

30:11-14; Psalm 145:18), and something of his nature pervades and is reflected in
it (Romans 1:18-20; Psalm 19:1-4).

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

be kept in balance to avoid the opposite errors of agnosticism/deism and
pantheism/animism (cf. Isaiah 57:15; Acts 17:24-28).

(xii) Holy (Light). God's absolute moral purity and perfection. He is the totally
Other/Opposite, separate from and innocent of everything impure. His presence
immediately expels and judges sin, and those who would know/look-on/live-with
him must become holy themselves. To be defined positively (a life-giving
righteousness) and not merely negatively (the absence of sin) - just as health is
more than the absence of sickness. (1 John 1:5-7; 1 Timothy 6:16; Exodus 33:20;
Habakkuk 1:13; Leviticus 19:2; Matthew 5:48)

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

with men; that in God which gives rise to and upholds the moral order in the
universe. All God's decisions and dealings are upright, just, true, equitable,
impartial. All persons will receive full justice (fair trial); this knowledge brings
meaning to the injustices of the present age. (Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 96:13,
98:9, 145:17; Acts 17:31; Revelation 19:11)

(xiv) Love (Compassionate). The defining attribute of God's person and the chief
revelation of himself contained in his works (1 John 4:7-12&16-21). But love
must be defined by God and not God by our concept of love. Biblically, love is
that which seeks the greatest possible good for another and which sacrifices itself
to make this possible (John 3:16; 1 John 3:16; 1 Corinthians 13:4-7). It includes
both the cuddling and the correcting aspects. Even anger and jealousy are
expressions of God's love - but these are reactions. Spontaneously, God is only
loving. God becomes angry, etc but God is love. To say "God is love" is more
than saying "God is loving": God does not choose to be loving (rather than e.g.
malicious) at a particular moment or towards a particular person; he is always and
towards everyone automatically and by nature loving. He cannot be anything else
- for God is love. (Psalm 30:5, 145:8; Lamentations 3:31-32)

(xv) Gracious (Merciful). That God is love means that he desires and works for
the good of man. His grace and mercy mean that he extends his love even
towards those who do not deserve it and perseveres in it even when it is spurned.
(Exodus 34:6-7)

30
(xvi) Good. The expression/outworking of God's love in his dealings with man;
that in God's person and works which gives man the greatest possible blessing.
(Psalm 34:8, 145:9; Jeremiah 29:11; Romans 12:2; 1 Timothy 6:17; James 1:17)

(xvii) Truth. God is the source and measure of all truth; everything he represents
and decrees is absolute Truth. He cannot, and therefore has not, revealed
anything false to us (Psalm 18:30, 19:7-11; John 14:6; Romans 3:4). Because of
this he is trustworthy.

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

changeable: capricious. God is unchanging and unchangeable (without variation
or diminishing) in all of his attributes (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17; Hebrews 13:8).
Because of this he is faithful - i.e. constant in his love, in keeping his covenant, in
fulfilling his promises (Numbers 23:19; Psalm 145:13; Nehemiah 1:5; Dan 9:4; 2
Tim 2:13).

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

any of them, or by circumstances, into doing or not doing anything (Isaiah 40:13-
14). His acts and decrees stem solely from his own sovereign will. The only
restrictions on God's freedom are the restrictions of perfection, and since
perfection is no restriction in reality, God is not restricted in any way; he has
perfect freedom. (Isaiah 29:16, 45:9, 64:8; Jeremiah 18:6-10; Romans 9:14-21)

(xx) Glorious. God's person - who he is, all of his attributes taken together - is
glorious. All of his works further glorify him; indeed, this is the motivation and
purpose for all that he does. Together they give beauty, splendour, majesty,
honour and renown (1 Chronicles 16:29; Psalm 27:4, 29:2, 50:2, 96:3-9). God
does everything he does (even when it may seem to be for our sake) for his glory,
for only when he is glorified, when he receives the glory which is his due alone
(and this comes only when we acknowledge him for who he really is and so do
not give glory to another), only then does truth triumph and can man be saved and
fulfilled. His anger and jealousy at glory being given to another, and his pursuit
of his glory, is thus (like everything else) an act of love. To glorify God is why
we were created and why we were redeemed - and what we shall be doing for all
eternity. (Psalm 24:7-10; Isaiah 43:9&21&25, 45:5-6, 48:9-11; Ezekiel 36:20-
23&32)

b) Relationship between the Attributes

(i) These aspects of God's character are separated only for the purpose of
reflection and understanding: it is only by treating each characteristic of the divine
nature separately that we can begin to comprehend the full-orbed greatness of
God. In actuality, God is an indivisible whole (without parts), the attributes
fused, integrated and expressed in one personality. Each must therefore be kept in
the closest possible association with all the others.

31
 (ii) God's nature is the sum total of his attributes (if these could be exhaustively
enumerated). But each attribute doesn't represent a part of God's being: his whole
being is loving, righteous, etc. (The attributes are not to be likened to separate
slices of a cake but to different ingredients inseparably mixed throughout the
whole.)

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

person of God, whereby one part of his nature (e.g. love) antagonizes (and has to
be reconciled with) another (e.g. justice). God's justice is consistent with his love
- it is a judicial disapprobation not a resentment or passion. Indeed, it is an
expression of his love (upholding right and wrong and so leading men to
conviction, repentance and salvation).

(iv) Consequently also, everything God is or does at anytime is the simultaneous

expression of all his attributes. He can do nothing apart from the exercise of all
his attributes acting harmoniously together. Nothing that God does can be done
apart from being in complete harmony with his whole nature (God is always
consistent with himself): an act not in such harmony is impossible in God for
perfection cannot contain contradiction (and to be free from contradiction is not a
restriction). This remembrance will remove many misunderstandings and
ridiculous questions about God: he is not a cruel dictator (power without
goodness) or a capricious ruler (sovereignty without constancy) or an
accommodating universalist (love without holiness) or a manipulable benefactor
(love without freedom).

(v) Human attributes are accidental: for example, no matter how characteristic
love was of a man's personality, he would still be Mr A- when he wasn't loving.
In contrast, the divine attributes speak of God's essential being: God would not be
God if he were not loving, righteous, etc - and these fully all the time. His
attributes are not features which qualify/describe something else which forms the
irreducible essence of his being. God is not loving but love; he can only act
lovingly because he is essentially loving.

A postscript: the formal (intellectual) description of God in this section is

valuable and necessary as both a stimulus and parameter to our experiential
(spiritual) knowledge of God. But, of course, deepening of the latter is more
likely to proceed from prayer and worship than from analysis - just as the Psalms
and other devotional passages reflect the greatest experiential knowledge of God
to be found in Scripture.

4. THE NAMES OF GOD (What is God called?)

Names in Israel were never a matter of chance, sentiment or mere identification: they

32
contained a record or a hopeful prediction of an individual's character and deeds.
Similarly, the names God gives himself reveal his nature and deeds, his relationship to
the objects of revelation (those who use the names) and the content (message) of that
revelation. Some God instituted himself; others men ascribed to him consequent on a
particular experience of him - but these were inspired by the Spirit and included by him
in infallible Scripture.

a) Old Testament

(i) Primary Names

1. EL (si): ELOHIM (pl) (translated: god/God)(used >2000x & 250x)

The common, generic noun for "god" in the Hebrew language. Its root means
"strong one", the name thus denoting strength/might, a powerful governor of the
universe and man. Because it refers to gods in the widest sense, it is often, when
used of the true God, connected to one of his attributes (e.g. mercy, in
Deuteronomy 4:31) to distinguish him from other (false) gods. Being the most
general name of God, it has the least specific significance (meaning). The use of
the plural (e.g. in Genesis 1:1&26) indicates not a plurality of gods but a plural of
majesty, the fullness of reign (similar to the English idiom of the royal "we"). It
allows for a distinction in the Godhead and the later revelation of the Trinity.

2. YAHWEH: JAH (abb)(translated: LORD)(used 7000x & 49x)

God's most personal, unique name, having therefore the greatest significance
(meaning). It is first revealed in Exodus 3:14 (to Moses at the burning bush) but
is used retrospectively in Scripture. Its revelation at this point in Israel's history
gave it special significance and in turn revealed much about Israel's God. It is
further especially associated with God's holiness (Leviticus 11:44-45), his hatred
of sin (Genesis 6:3-7) and his gracious provision of redemption (Isaiah 53:1&5-
6&10). The Jews regarded this name as so holy, they had such a superstitious
dread of it, that they would neither write it out in full or take it up on their lips:
they wrote YHWH and said ADONAI (see below). The vowels of the latter were
later placed in the former to make it more pronounceable: YaHoWaH; this was
anglicised to JEHOVAH.

3. ADON (si): ADONAI (pl)(translated: Lord)(used 30x & 280x)

This word was also used of human master-slave relationships (Exodus 21:1-6)
and so denoted Lord, Sovereign Lord, Master or Owner. Applied to God, it
conveys God's absolute authority (Joshua 5:14; Isaiah 6:8-11) but also his
protection.

33
(ii) Compound Names

There is virtually an endless list of these, each embroidering on the primary

names of EL, YAHWEH or both. They are not distinct names in the strict sense
but designations: ”titles” bestowed on God by someone who had just experienced
him in the particular way expressed in the title.

1. On EL: EL ELYON, the most high God (Genesis 14:22, Isaiah 14:14); EL
OLAM, the everlasting God (Genesis 21:33, Isaiah 40:28); EL SHADDAI, the
almighty God (Genesis 17:1 - the root of "Shaddai" means mountain, and so this
name denotes “the God as mighty as a mountain”); et al.

2. On YAHWEH: YAHWEH JIREH, the LORD provides (Genesis 22:14);

YAHWEH NISSI, the LORD is my banner (Exodus 17:15); YAHWEH
SHALOM, the Lord is my peace (Judges 6:24); YAHWEH SABBAOTH, the
Lord of hosts (1 Samuel 1:3); YAHWEH MACCADDESHCEM, the LORD my
sanctifier (Exodus 31:13); YAHWEH ROI, the LORD my shepherd (Psalm 23:1);
YAHWEH TSIDKENU, the LORD our righteousness (Jeremiah 23:6);
YAHWEH SHAMMAH: the LORD is there (Ezekiel 48:35); et al.

3. On both: YAHWEH ELOHIM ISRAEL, the LORD God of Israel (Judges 5:3);
et al.

(iii) Other Names

On rare occasions names not connected to one of the three primary names are
used, but these (like [ii] above) are normally statements of God's character rather
than names. For example: QADOSH ISRAEL, the Holy One of Israel.

b) New Testament

(i) THEOS. Greek equivalent for EL/ELOHIM, and thus meaning simply
God/gods.

(ii) KURIOS. YAHWEH ("I am who I am") is explicated a few times by

variations of a descriptive kind ("the Alpha and the Omega", "the first and the
last", "the beginning and the end", "who was, who is and who is to come"). But
for the most part the New Testament writers followed Judaism in substituting (for
YAHWEH) KURIOS, the Greek equivalent of ADONAI (its root means power).
This name thus designates God and Christ as the Mighty One, the Lord, the
Possessor, the Ruler, the One who has legal power and authority over his subjects.

(iii) PATER. Greek for "Father". The New Testament introduced this name as
descriptive of a distinct person within the Godhead, although "Father" had been
used in the Old Testament to designate the special theocratic relationship God had
with Israel (Deuteronomy 32:6). In the New Testament it is used in the general

34
 sense of Originator/Creator, or to express the special relationship between the
First Person of the Trinity and Jesus, or to express the relationship between God
and all believers as his spiritual children.

5. THE TRINITY

a) Need for, and development of, the doctrine

Neither the word "Trinity", nor the doctrine of that name, are explicitly mentioned
in Scripture. The belief is the result of organizing/harmonizing certain facts/truths
revealed in Scripture which confront us and demand our attention. These are, on
the one hand, that there is only one true God and that this God is one, and, on the
other, that both Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are called God. The church thus
reached this doctrine by a process of induction applied after collecting and
collating what Jesus and Scripture had said concerning the Godhead and the three
Agents of salvation. While the doctrine was only formally stated for the first time
at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 431, this does not mean that the church suddenly
invented it in that year: the church had always believed it (necessitated as it was
by Scripture) but, being a difficult concept, it was susceptible to distortion, and
the large number of heresies concerning the Trinity which were emerging made a
definitive formulation necessary.

b) Evidence for Oneness

Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 4:35, 5:7, 6:4, 32:39; Isaiah 46:9, 54:14; 1
Corinthians 8:4-6; Ephesians 4:3-6; James 2:19.

c) Evidence for Threeness

(i) Old Testament

While the Old Testament does not explicitly reveal the Trinity, it implies it and
allows for the later revelation of it in the New: the plural name for God (e.g.
Genesis 1:1); the plural pronoun for God (e.g. Genesis 1:26); the Angel of God is
recognized as God and yet is distinct from him, indicating two equal persons; the
Messiah is called "Mighty God" (Isaiah 9:6) and "eternal" (Micah 5:2), again
indicating two equal yet distinct persons; Isaiah 48:16b intimates all three
persons.

(ii) New Testament

The Father is God: John 6:27; 1 Peter 1:2.

Jesus Christ is God: he has the attributes of God, e.g. omniscience (Matthew 9:4),
omnipotence (Matthew 28:18) and omnipresence (Matthew 28:20); he has the

35
authority of God, e.g. to forgive sins (Mark 2:1-12); he received worship (John
20:28); he is explicitly ascribed divinity (John 1:1).

The Holy Spirit is God: he is equated with God (Acts 5:3-4); he shares God's
attributes, e.g. omniscience (1 Corinthians 2:10) and omnipresence (Psalm 139:7);
he shares God's work, e.g. he regenerates man (John 3:5-8).

d) Evidence for Trinity

Matthew 28:19 (three persons but one name); John 14-16; 2 Corinthians 13:14 &
Matthew 3:16-17 (three persons associated in equality). [The earliest and most
reliable manuscripts do not contain 1 John 5:7.]

e) Definition

There is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three
eternal and co-equal Persons *, the same in substance (attributes/personality -
what makes them God) but distinct in subsistence (existence/being).

* The word "Persons" is not ideal - it implies separate individuals in the Godhead
- but there is no better word (illustrating the struggle of finite language to describe
the infinite). In all probability, true personal existence belongs only to God, and
the three ways in which the divine essence exists cannot be adequately described
by man.

The following essential elements must be held in tension in any definition of the
Trinity:

(i) God is one, single, unique, a unity; there must be no implication of three Gods,
of three separate individuals.

(ii) The distinctness and yet the full deity and equality of the three Persons (each
is eternal, self-existing, etc and not created). The Three fully possess all the
qualities of the One, equally and without separation (the divine essence is not
divided into three: it is fully present in each of the persons). The three Persons
are self-conscious and self-directing but, because they share the same
substance/nature, they are always in perfect agreement and cannot act in
opposition to one another (three centres of expression in one identical nature).

(iii) The subordination of the Son and the Spirit to the Father - in relationship (an
order of relation), not deity. The Son (God of [out of] God) is "begotten" by the
Father (the Fount of all Deity); the Spirit proceeds from the Father and (although
not all Christians agree on this) the Son. [See the Doctrines of Jesus Christ and the
Holy Spirit respectively.]

36
 f) Analogies

Because of the difficulty of the concept, many analogies have been sought to
illuminate it, e.g.: the sun, its light and its power; the tripartite nature of man
(body, soul, spirit); the three parts of the soul (mind, heart, will), which can
“fellowship”/”debate” with each other; the three elements of consciousness; the
three states of matter (e.g. of water); shamrock leaves.

These and other analogies can be useful but care must be taken with them. They
often only illustrate one aspect of the truth and so unguarded extension of them
("making them walk on all fours") can lead to imbalance. Similarly, subconscious
attempts to build doctrine on them (by the drawing of doctrinal inferences from
further seeming parallels in the analogy) can lead to heresy. For example, the
analogy of water (the same substance in three forms), if taken too far, can lead to
the heresy of modalism (that the three Persons are merely different
“manifestations” of the one God: see below). Thus it must be remembered that
they are only illustrations not definitions, and that no one analogy can ever fully
capture the truth of the Trinity. Ultimately, this supra-rational truth about the
infinite God is beyond the reasoning powers of finite man.

g) Errors

It is the inability to accept this last point, and the difficulty of the concept itself,
that has led to this doctrine being surrounded by more error and misunderstanding than
any other. The multitude of Trinitarian heresies fall into three types.

(i) Threeness without oneness: Tritheism - three distinct Gods/individuals,

perhaps even with different natures/personalities.

(ii) Oneness without threeness/Modalism/Sabellianism - merely three modes of

existence, three different manifestations of the same unitary God, temporarily
assumed for the purposes of redemption.

(iii) Oneness with threeness, but without equality: Monarchianism/Unitarianism -

Son and Spirit possess inferior deity (not co-equal and co-eternal with the
Father)(the Spirit may even be denied personhood); or Arianism - Son and Spirit
are “relegated” still further to created (willed-into-existence) beings. It can be
seen that these heresies amount to a sophisticated variation on the second type (ii).

It is often easier to recognize a wrong conception of the Trinity than to define the
correct one. We may not be able to express adequately in words the exact
midpoint of the spectrum pictured below left but we can recognize views tending
to either extreme and “pull” them back towards the centre.

37
 ONENESS THREENESS THREENESS
without and without
THREENESS ONENESS ONENESS

MODALISM/SA
BELLIANISM
HOLY
TRINITY TRITHEISM
MONARCHIANISM/
UNITARIANISM and
ARIANISM/J.W.’s

6. THE FATHER

The First Person of the Trinity, known and delineated in Scripture particularly with
respect to:

a) His Relationships

(i) By creation, the Father of all men (Acts 17:29). A Creator-creature

relationship, not a spiritual relationship.

(ii) By covenant, the Father of Israel (Exodus 4:22). Both a spiritual relationship
(with believing Israelites) and a governmental relationship (with all Israelites).

(iii) By incarnation, the Father of Jesus (Matthew 3:17).

(iv) By redemption, the Father of all who believe in Christ (John 20:17; Romans
8:14-17; Gal 3:26 - 4:7; 1 John 3:1).

b) His Works

Almost everything God does involves in some way or other all the Members of
the Trinity (necessarily, because God is one). So when we speak of the particular
works of the Father we are not excluding the other Persons but simply delineating
those things which seem to be the prerogative of the Father in a special way.

(i) The author of the salvific plan or decree of God (Psalm 2:7-9).

(ii) The author of salvation and election (Ephesians 1:3-6).

38
 (iii) The sender of the Son to this world and the orchestrator of his mission (John
5:37).
(iv) The disciplinarian of his children (Hebrews 12:9).
7. SUMMARY OF ESSENTIAL POINTS
TRUTH
THEISM: God exists
REVELATION: God has revealed himself and
therefore we can know him
MONOTHEISM: There is only one God
BIBLICISM: God is only as he has revealed
himself in Israel/Jesus/the Bible
PERSONAL: God is a defined personal being
“DUALISM”: God is distinct from the rest of
existence (He created it)
TRANSCENDENCE: God is separate from,
and superior to, creation
IMMANENCE: God continues to
govern/sustain creation (Providence)
TRINITY: God is Three-in-One; Father, Son
(Jesus), and Holy Spirit
ERROR
ATHEISM: Denial of God‟s existence
AGNOSTICISM: Man cannot know whether God
exists or (even if he can) what God is like
POLYTHEISM: There are many gods
SYNCRETISM: The many gods worshipped by man
are, in fact, the same god
IMPERSONAL: God is an impersonal cosmic force
MONISM: Everything that exists is God (Hinduism,
New Age, etc.)
PANTHEISM/ANIMISM: The divine
infuses/animates creation
DEISM: God is removed from, and uninvolved with
his creation
TRITHEISM: Three Gods (three personalities)
MONARCHIASM/ARIANISM: Only the father is
God/fully God; Son and Spirit are lesser
deities/created beings.
39
Chapter 3

THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION

Chapter Outline: 1. The Origin of Creation (Who?)

2. The Mode of Creation (How?)
3. The Purpose of Creation (Why?)
4. The Characteristics of Creation (What?)
5. Providence
6. Man and Nature
7. SUMMARY OF ESSENTIAL POINTS

By "creation" we mean both God's act of creation (verb) and the result of that creating
activity, the universe (noun).

By the doctrine of Creation, therefore, we mean the biblical revelation about who created
and how, why and what he created.

1. THE ORIGIN OF CREATION (Who?)

a) God created

That an intelligent Supreme Being is responsible for the creation of the material
universe is arguable (as was the existence of God) from both reason and
revelation.

(i) Reason. It is far more reasonable to believe in such a Cause for the universe
than in chance, spontaneous evolution, etc (cf. Chapter 1.2).

(ii) Revelation. It can be demonstrated that it is more reasonable to believe than

not to that the Bible is the inspired and thus inerrant Word of God, and the
overwhelming thrust of the biblical message about creation is that "In the
beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).

Reason inclines us towards a Supreme Being as the Originator of creation;

Revelation tells us who this Supreme Being is - YAHWEH, the God of Israel.

b) The Trinity created

The Doctrine of the Trinity (Chapter 2.5) has shown that all the members of the
Trinity are necessarily involved in any act of God (because God is one). The
plural name of God (ELOHIM) used in Genesis 1:1, and the plural pronoun used
in 1:26 ("let us make"), show that this is true of his act of creation. Other texts
also speak generally of God (i.e. of the whole Godhead) as Creator (e.g. Mark

40
 13:19 [cf. v32]; Romans 1:25; 11:36).

We also saw, however, that particular aspects of God's different works are seen to
be the special prerogative of different Persons within the Trinity. This is also true
of God's act of creation.

The Father creates: 1 Corinthians 8:6; Acts 17:24-28; Hebrews 2:10; Revelation
4:11.

The Son creates: John 1:1-3 (& v10); 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16;
Hebrews 1:2.

The Spirit creates: Genesis 1:2; Psalm 104:30. The Spirit's role in creation is also
implied in the revelation that he is the Giver of life (ruarch, the Hebrew for
"Spirit", also means a man's spirit or breath): Genesis 2:7, 6:3; Job 27:3, 34:14-15;
Psalm 104:29.

Summarising, we could say that the Father is the Author of creation and the Son
the Agent of creation ("Creator" is used of the whole Godhead or of the Father,
but never of the Son); or that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are, respectively, the
preparatory, efficient and completing Causes of creation.

2. THE MODE OF CREATION (How?)

The question of how the universe originated has always intrigued men. Christians, by no
means exempt from this fascination, have often tried to construct an account of how God
created the universe from biblical passages about creation (especially Genesis 1 & 2),
with the following common assumptions and conclusions:

(i) Genesis 1 & 2 et al tell us how God created the universe (and this account
refutes evolution, etc);

(ii) The Bible identifies a single way in which God created, viz. by his Word (cf.
the various ways of other myths/religions);

(iii) This mode of creation (the spoken Word) is unique to the Bible.

But these assumptions/conclusions are untrue; at best, they are oversimplifications. In

fact:

(against ii) Genesis 1 & 2 contain several concepts (ways) of creation (only one of
which is the spoken Word);

(against iii) All of these (albeit sometimes in a different form), including the
Word, can be traced in the creation narratives of other cultures/religions.

41
The real significance of the Biblical creation narratives (vs other accounts) lies not in
their supposedly unique revelation of the spoken Word as God's (single) mode of creation
but in the way in which various ideas of creation existing among Israel's neighbours were
adapted, modified or rejected as being useful or otherwise for illustrating the real truth
about who created the heavens and the earth, viz. Yahweh. And so:

(against i) The thrust of Genesis 1 & 2 et al is not how the universe was created
but who created it.

Indeed, it is doubtful whether in any substantial way the Bible can be said to tell us how
God created. What evidence can we advance for this conclusion?

a) Two different accounts of creation

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 represent two rather differing versions of creation (e.g. in
the order of things created). If they were intended as literal, scientific accounts of
how God created, or if we read them as such, we land up with a contradictory
(and thus imperfect and untrustworthy) Bible. Clearly, both narratives are at least
in part symbolic: archetypal, and the point of each narrative is to reveal and
illustrate certain truths about the God who created the universe and about the
purpose (why) and nature (what) of his creation. The Holy Spirit, the divine
Author of Scripture, knew that both accounts were necessary to communicate all
the truths about the creation (vb & nn) that God desired to reveal. Obviously, the
Spirit felt the “how” differences between the two accounts were not
important/problematic. The “hows” were merely incidental to the narrative,
useful for illustrating the essential truth being conveyed, viz. who.

b) Five different concepts of creation

In the creation myths of man at least five ideas of how creation took place can be
found. All five can be traced in one or other form within the two biblical
accounts of creation.

(i) Origin. This is the idea that the world, and especially certain things within it,
were not made/created by a creator-god but originated/issued from something else
(e.g. man from a tree or the leg of another being, or out of the ground). This idea
is clearly in the background of Genesis 1:24 ("Let the earth bring forth living
creatures") and Psalm 139:15 ("My frame was not hidden from you when I was
made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depth of the earth").
But in other accounts even gods could originate or be brought forth from
something else in this way, whereas in the biblical usage of this concept there is
never a hint of God's origin or coming forth from something else. In the Bible
God stands on “the other side” of creation and origin. He allows procreation to
take place, or commands something to produce (as in Genesis 1:24), but he
himself is uncreated, eternal, without origin.

42
This idea of creation appears seldom and then only incidentally in the Bible, but
already it can be seen that the uniqueness of the biblical message of creation is not
that its mode cannot be found in any other account, nor that none of the modes
found in other accounts appear in its own. Its uniqueness lies in how it modifies
the modes found elsewhere because they do not conform to the truth about Israel's
God. And so we return to the same conclusion: the real message of the biblical
creation narratives is not how but who.

(ii) Birth. Very common in the creation accounts of other people is the idea of
birth: heaven and earth, plants and animals, even man, were given birth to by
gods, who were in turn given birth to by older gods, and so on. But, significantly,
this idea is rejected in the Bible: there is no hint that either the natural world or
man was born from God, as this would cause them to be divine and so lead to
pantheism or humanism. Moreover, this omission/rejection is deliberate: the
writer knew about such ideas of creation - he says of the creation process, "This is
the genealogy [These are the generations] of the heaven and the earth " (Genesis
2:4) - but knew also their inappropriateness for describing the truth of God's
creation (vb & nn).

(iii) Conflict. The concept of creation arising out of chaos or conflict (e.g.
between gods, or between good and evil) occurs in the creation accounts of many
peoples - and in the Bible. Genesis 1:2 speaks of the earth being "formless and
empty" (Heb. tohu and bohue: devastation, chaos, wilderness, wastes [cf. Isaiah
34:11; Jeremiah 4:23]) and of "darkness" (always a negative, threatening concept
in the Old Testament) over "the deep" (Heb. tehom: abyss, raging ocean). Other
texts speak of conflict between God and various forces of chaos, whether created
elements (e.g. the sea) or creatures (e.g. sea-monsters), and of the need for God to
set bounds for them (Job 26:10-13, 38:8-11; Psalm 74:13-17; 89:9-10; 104:5-9; et
al). Again, however, there are differences between the biblical and non-biblical
uses of the concept: in Scripture, the conflict occurs after creation, not before; and
it is between God and things he has created, not between God and other gods (as
nothing is co-eternal with God, nothing but God himself exists before or outside
of his creation).

(iv) Act. God is represented in many creation narratives as creating through an

act, by doing something, most commonly through separating/dividing or forming
(e.g. out of clay/earth). The first, separation, is clearly present in Genesis 1: God
separates light from darkness (v4), water from water (v6) and water from land
(v9); moreover, the root of bara (the Hebrew verb used for "make"/"create"
throughout the chapter) means "separate" or "divide". The second, formation, is
used in Genesis 2:7 ("the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground")
and v19 ("Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the
field and all the birds of the air"); indeed, the Hebrew word for man (adam) is
directly related to earth (adamah). This depiction of the creation of man through
formation from the earth, and even the fact that he is created after a divine
decision and in the image of God, is not unique to the Bible. The uniqueness of

43
the biblical account lies in the content and quality of the life man receives because
he is created by the true God.

(v) Word. Even this concept of creation, the dominant one in Scripture (although,
as we have seen, by no means the only one), is not unique to the Bible. Many
other creation accounts speak of a god calling things into existence by his spoken
word. Moreover, this concept no more precisely tells us how God created than
any of the others: (1) four times God speaks "And it was so", but four times God
speaks and then makes (Genesis 1:6 cf. v7, v14 cf. v16) - and , as we have seen, a
variety of concepts of making are used, giving us no definitive clue as to how God
actually made; (2) that God creates through his word may be the dominant “how”
of creation in the Bible, but the New Testament reveals that this too is really a
“who”: Jesus is the Word through whom all things were made (John1:1-3).

Conclusion: If these five concepts were meant to be literal, scientific descriptions

of how God created we would have a contradictory narrative (and Bible). Just as
with the different “hows” of the two accounts of creation, the five different
concepts of creation they contain are obviously merely incidental. They serve as
complementary illustrations of the essence of the narratives, viz. that man and his
world came about through the creative acts of Israel's God, and how this God (and
his creation) differs from the gods (and their creations). Not how, but who.

c) Mockery of the gods

Throughout Israel's history, her neighbours believed that various elements were
gods: heaven; sky; sun; moon; planets; earth; land; seas; mountain; rivers;
animals; etc. Into this religious pantheon, Genesis 1 comes as a mockery of the
gods: they are not gods at all but merely created things - things, moreover, created
by Israel's God. He has absolute power over them; indeed, they have no existence
apart from him.

The sun and moon, those supposedly great deities on whom man is dependent for
light, warmth and the regulation of night and day, are not even named. To God
they're just the "greater light" and the "lesser light". How insulting! Indeed, God
created light and the regulation between night and day, and then only afterwards
created the sun and the moon to perform these duties for him. (Clearly, this is a
statement of spiritual truth; as a literal, scientific statement it is nonsensical.) So
we are dependent for these things not on the false gods of the sun and moon but
on the true God, Israel's God.

When seen in this light it becomes clear yet again that the true message of the
biblical creation narratives is not how but who; it is the revelation of the greatness
and superiority of Israel's God. He is mentioned thirty-four times in the opening
thirty-four verses of the Bible. Yahweh, and only he, created everything .

44
d) Beyond comprehension

Even if the above arguments did not exist, we should not even expect that God
would attempt to communicate to us how he created - for surely the actual
mechanics of this stupendous, supernatural act are beyond our comprehension.
And if beyond our comprehension at the end of the twentieth-century A.D., how
much more so for all the previous B.C. and A.D. generations who heard/read
God's Word and for whom it had to be accessible and understandable. The
creation narratives had to be in concepts and language comprehensible to each
successive period in history - another reason for expecting that they are at least in
part symbolic, treating of the broad spiritual truths concerning God's act of
creation and the origin of the world.

In this second section of the lecture (The Mode of Creation) we set out to examine
how God created. The evidence has suggested, however, that the creation
narratives do not really tell us how God created and that any investigation of them
leads us back repeatedly to the question of who created, the essence of the
narratives (back to section one: the Origin of Creation).

Genesis 1 & 2 are not scientific documents on the mechanics/processes of

creation. Anyone who tries to make them such invariably lands up in difficulties.
They do not provide an alternative scientific theory to evolution, for example, and
in so doing provide us with a tool to disprove that theory. Of course, their
essential message about who created does challenge the atheistic base of
evolutionary thinking - as it does all other theories which posit the universe as
either eternal (eg Platonism) or divine (eg Pantheism).

The real (vs imagined) claims of Genesis 1 & 2 are simply but stupendously: (1)
the world had a beginning, coeval with time; (2) YAHWEH, the God of Israel, is
the one and only Creator of everything; (3) there was a succession of free creative
acts by God; (4) man was the result of a special creative act and given a special
position.

Taking (3) as an example: the Bible does not tell us how, or in what order, God
created each element/creature. It asserts only that each new appearance of life
was the result of divine intervention. The Hebrew verb (bara) used to describe
God's act of creation in each instance, indicates a definite, powerful and
supernatural operation of the divine will. But it does not tell us if that act of
creation was instantaneous/immediate or gradual/progressive. Similarly, it is not
the time factor involved in each of the six "days" that is important (cf. 2 Pet 3:8)
but the assertion of God's intervention in each case.

However, despite the above qualification concerning the biblical revelation on

how God created, there are two important truths about God's act of creation
contained in the Bible.
 Creation out of nothing

45
This is the ancient doctrine (Lat. ex nihilio)(cf. Hebrews 11:3) that, in the
beginning, God created "out of nothing" (he did not recreate/reshape what already
existed); that, antecedent to God's creative act, there was no other material or
spiritual existence (nothing exists outside of God's creation except God himself;
nothing existed before or co-eternally with God). Genesis 1 deliberately and
meticulously includes everything that exists in its account of what God created,
and nowhere is anything mentioned as a "raw material" used by God (cf. the
creation accounts of other religions).
This is an important doctrine because, if not true:

(i) If there had been in existence any uncreated (co-eternal) matter or spirit, we
could not be sure that God was (and is) able to control it. (Dualistic philosophies
and religions explains evil thus.)

(ii) If there is one such type of uncontrollable matter or spirit we cannot be sure
that there are not other types, also uncontrollable.

(iii) If God had used existing material when creating, we could not be sure that he
succeeded in doing with it (with his now limited power and authority) what he
wanted.

(iv) For the same reason, we could not be sure of his final triumph; he might be
frustrated by this material, which exists by as good a right as God himself.

It is this aspect of the biblical doctrine of creation which really sets it apart from
that of other religions. The creations (nn) of the gods in other religions are not the
same as God's creation (nn) in the Bible, and the gods are not creators in the way
God is Creator: the gods are themselves created; they work with existing material;
they therefore never have absolute power and authority over all other existence;
they are often forced by their material or creations into creating/recreating.

The force of the earlier sections is that God created everything; the force of this
doctrine is that everything is created by God and is thus dependent on him for life
and existence. Thus, too, all other beings or things which may be regarded as
"gods" are not gods at all, but, at best, created things, utterly dependent on God
for existence.

 Creation in freedom

In contrast to the creation accounts of many other religions, God was not
compelled to create by any co-eternal god/force (e.g. to prove a superiority or win
a victory over evil) as there is nothing co-eternal with God; nothing exists outside
of God's creation except God himself ([m] above).

Nor was God compelled to create by an ontological need within himself. Some

46
 maintain that as the impersonal foundation or ground of Being, God needed other
(personal) beings to exist for him to be complete and so fully God. Without them
he is incomplete/unfulfilled, like a foundation without a structure. Thus he was
not free not to create. But God is both the ground/foundation of Being (he gives
existence to everything else; nothing can exist without him) and a perfect personal
Being. He is thus ontologically complete in himself.

Nor was God compelled to create by an "emotional" need within himself: either
because, if he was not in relationship with, and receiving love from, someone, he
would "pine and decline" from loneliness (the mystics); or because, as LOVE, he
needed an object to love in order to express his essential nature and be
fulfilled/complete. Again, if God for this reason was not free not to create, he
cannot be said to have created in freedom. But, because God is Trinitarian, he in
himself possesses an eternal community of relationship and love. God is
sufficient in himself (self-sufficient); he can perfectly express his nature in
himself; he has no essential need that can only be satisfied outside of himself.

The conclusion of all this is: God created in absolute freedom. He was perfectly
free to create and equally perfectly free not to create.

[God did not need us at creation - whether to be ontologically complete or

emotionally fulfilled or to express his nature: he possesses all these in himself.
Equally, he does not need us now (although he may use us if he so chooses and
we are available): it was in the freedom of his love that he made us and it is in the
freedom of his love that he uses us.]

3. THE PURPOSE OF CREATION (Why?)

Why then (the question begs to be asked) did God create? Why, especially, when we
consider what it cost God; when we consider how perfectly blessed his fellowship within
himself was and how little he needed the pain and frustration that he must have known
the creation of man and his world would cause him?

There seems to be only one simple yet mindboggling answer: God wished to do so! Out
of sheer goodness, not wishing to enjoy his eternal fellowship of love and joy of life
alone, he decided in his free love to create a creature in his image who could share this
eternal fellowship of love and joy of life. God's creation (vb & nn), then, like all his
works, is a colossal act of grace, of goodness towards those who can make no claim on it.

As to why God created when he did not need to, this is as full an answer as we can get
and yet it is ample and profound. Now we need to ask more systematically: what is the
purpose or goal of creation? What did God intend by it; what does he aim to achieve
through it?

47
a) Creation itself

We do not need any supposedly more spiritual reason to justify creation. Creation
itself is a reason or purpose for creation. To be a creature of the Creator; to exist,
live, play and be together in his creation is joy and fulfilment enough. We are so
consumed with doing, and measure our purpose and our fulfilment so exclusively
in terms of what we achieve (progress, success, winning), that we have forgotten
how to simply be; how being - being alive and in relationship (with the Creator
and our fellow creatures) - is in itself a purpose of our existence, and one which
brings great fulfilment.

To exist as man is, particularly, a worthy goal in itself, a good enough reason for
God to have created us. The life of man is an exalted, privileged existence, for
man is made in the image of God. To be human is not to be frail and weak (an
excuse for our shortcomings) but is wonderful and glorious! When God created
man he did not produce miserable, ailing creatures but the crown and masterpiece
of all his creations. To exist as man in God's world, enjoying God and creation, is
thus a goal in itself. "Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever."

God's purpose in creating, then, was the existence and continuation of creation.
The creation is not a mere "burp in eternity" to be got out of the way as quickly as
possible so we can get on to heaven. God's intention was that Adam and his
descendants would enjoy a rich life and eternal fellowship with him on the earth;
and the future rich life and eternal fellowship we will have with God will be on
the new earth. The created world is thus the arena for God's fellowship with man,
the arena for history and eternity.

b) Man's salvation

When we remember that "salvation" means wholeness or well-being, we realize

that the salvation (wholeness, blessedness) of man is not only a post-Fall but a
pre-Fall purpose of creation. Man was created to share in God's life and love; the
whole of the rest of the natural universe was created as man's habitat and garden,
for his use and good pleasure.

When we asked the question earlier as to why God created when he didn't need to,
we answered it by saying that he wished to share his life with another and so
created a creature in his image - man - with whom he could do this. But you may
have noticed a certain deficiency in our answer: it does not explain why God
created everything else in addition to man. After all, man is such a small and
seemingly insignificant part of the universe. Here we have the incredible
remainder of the answer: the entire universe was created for man as his
"playground". Man is neither marginal to, nor insignificant in, the universe. On
the contrary, he is the reason for and the centre of the created world. And so,
even before the Fall, man's salvation was the purpose of creation.

48
But, of course, the created world is also the arena for man's post-Fall redemption;
and, because of God's foreknowledge of the Fall, this can be said to be one of
God's purposes for/with creation from the beginning. The restoration of man's
well-being, the holistic prosperity of Israel and the nations, is God's pursuit and
concern throughout the Old and New Testaments.

c) God's glory

Man was created to share God's life and the universe was created for man to live
in and enjoy. But God's creation - both man and nature - give him glory. God's
greatness is reflected in the magnificence of what he has made (Romans 1:18-20)
and so nature declares the glory of God (Psalm 19:1-4). But man especially
glorifies God: through the sheer brilliance of his unique creation; through the
conscious praise and worship he gives to God; through his redemption which
testifies in the spiritual realms of the grace and goodness of God (Ephesians 3:10).
So through his creation God glorifies himself.

There is no tension between man's salvation and God's glory as purposes of

creation, as if in pursuing man's blessing God becomes man's slave (man becomes
the centre of existence, not God), or as if God pursues his glory at the expense of
man (man becomes incidental to creation, an expendable tool in God's hands).
Rather, the two are integrally linked. Man's salvation, his fullest possible
blessing, comes when he is what he was created to be, i.e. the image of God -
when he becomes like God, when his life reflects (images) God's and he
represents God on earth - and such a life obviously gives God glory. So it is not
man's blessing apart from or outside of God, but precisely the blessing that man
enjoys when he glorifies God, that is pursued by God as the purpose of creation.
("The chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.") Conversely,
for God to pursue his glory apart from, or at the expense of, man would slur his
Name rather than glorify it. It is precisely in his goodness towards man,
especially in his gracious redemption of man, that God is glorified. And so the
glory of God and the salvation of man go hand-in-hand as the purpose of creation.
The glory of God is the saving of man and the salvation of man is the glorifying
of God.

d) The Covenant

This conclusion implies a particular relationship between God and man and leads
us to the fourth and most comprehensive statement of the purpose of creation: the
fulfilment of the covenant between God and man.

Although the word "covenant" does not appear in the creation narratives, it is
clear that all the elements of covenant were present (two parties, a contract,
mutual responsibilities and privileges, blessings and curses) and that this was the
nature of the relationship between God and Adam (cf. Hosea 6:7). It was the
beginning of the long attempt by God to walk in covenant with his people. The

49
 "covenant formula", "I will be your God and you will be my people", is the most
repeated phrase in Scripture. Despite recurring setbacks, God pursues this goal
throughout history. And, while the Fall and God's subsequent plan of redemption
required various outworkings/administrations of covenant (i.e. different
covenants), there is in fact just one enduring covenant of grace through which
God invites man to walk with him - the covenant introduced to/with Adam at
creation.

The earth, then, is the arena for covenant: God in his goodness creates man to
share in his Life and Love; he creates the earth as man's habitat and playground,
and as the place where he, God, can live and fellowship with man in covenant!
The one and only covenant of grace between God and man referred to throughout
the Bible is thus the goal of creation - a goal which most definitely and
wonderfully will be finally and fully realized on the new earth (Revelation 21:3).

4. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF CREATION (What?)

a) Finite

Something of who God is (of his power and goodness) is reflected in what he has
made (Romans 1:18-20). This is not to be unexpected: something of the artist is
reflected in any human artwork. But just as the artwork in question does not now
share in the artist's humanity, so too God's creation (nn) does not share his
divinity. Just as the artist remains distinct from his work, God remains distinct
from the universe. The universe (creature) is finite and temporal; God (Creator) is
infinite and eternal.

In this connection we recall the highly significant rejection by the biblical creation
narratives of the birth concept of creation, viz. that the world (or parts of it) were
given birth to by the gods and so share their divinity. Other religions could use
this concept as they made no clear distinction between God and created things, or
between God and man. But the Bible cannot and does not use it because there is a
radical difference (divide) between God and everything he has created, including
man. Nothing is divine but God himself. We (and the world) are made by, not
born from, God.

To summarize: God is reflected in his creation (it is, in a limited sense, a

revelation or image of him) but does not infuse creation (so that the universe
becomes in some way divine. This is Pantheism: literally, God in everything; or,
"All is God".) God remains distinct from his creation (Dualism: two things exist -
God vs creation) and is not to be identified with creation (Monism: "All is One" -
so creation is God). [This difference has already been made clear from the
perspective of the Doctrine of God, when we defined true vs false ideas about
God; here we are making the same point from the perspective of the Doctrine of
Creation, in our description of the nature of what God has created.] The finite

50
nature of creation, of course, was true even before the Fall.

b) Fallen

We must guard against a naive interpretation of nature. There is much to be

enjoyed and appreciated in it. Nature provides us both with the resources and raw
materials we need for living, and with relaxation and renewal - as long as we
remember that renewal comes through communion not with the creation (creation
has no power in itself to renew us) but with the Creator to be seen in it.
[Remember, the progression is from special to general revelation, not vice-versa;
once we have met God in special revelation we can more fully and reliably hear
and interpret his Word to us in general revelation.] There is much goodness in
creation which tells us about the goodness of the Creator.

But there is also much in creation which does not reflect God. If the image of
God in creation was a dim one before the Fall, it is now both dim and distorted.
Creation is not only finite but fallen: it is not what it was before; it is not fully
what God created it to be. This is because, after the Fall, God cursed not only the
serpent, Adam and Eve, but "the ground" too (Genesis 3:17-18). It is legitimate,
therefore, to assume that the destructive elements of the natural world (disease,
decay, death, predators, poison, pestilence, droughts, floods, famine, etc) are
post-Fall phenomena. How can these be a reflection of God? It is "the thief "
who comes to rob, kill and destroy. Nature now is not only a blessing; it is also a
threat. (Even outside of natural disasters we should guard against a naive
interpretation of nature: none of us can survive “in the wild” without the things
we bring with us from the factory, the city and the world of man. Imagine even a
picnic without the car to get there, crockery and cutlery, processed foods, the tin
opener...)

c) Future

The biblical revelation that the world had a definite beginning, brought about by a
deliberate, intentional creative act of God, implies that it has a purpose and is
moving towards a goal, i.e. that it is directed towards a particular and definite
future (end). The world is not timeless but historical; creation is not cyclical (an
aimless and eternal repetition of cycles) but linear (a purposeful moving along a
timebound line from A to Z). That an intelligent, purposeful God has created the
world means that he intends to do something with it, to take it somewhere. We
have already seen what, on the whole, his purpose is. Here we emphasize simply
the historical nature of creation (nn). Creation (vb) means not only that things as
they are now were not always so (there was a time, an event in the past, when
things changed/became [cf. Genesis 2:4-5]), but equally that things as they are
now will not always be so (there will be a time, an event in the future, when
things will again change/become). The origin of the universe as a creation thus
gives purpose and meaning to its past and its present (God is working his
purposes out), and a direction and endpoint to its future (God realizing his

51
 purposes).

5. PROVIDENCE

Up until this point we have been considering the beginning of all things - God's act of
creation at the beginning of time and the material world which resulted from this act.
Now we need to look at the continued existence of all things, at God's relationship with
his creation since that beginning. This doctrine, normally called Providence, is
sometimes treated on its own, but the appropriateness of dealing with it as part of the
Doctrine of Creation will be apparent. The belief that God continues to watch over, be
involved with, and care for, his creation refutes Deism, the belief that God created the
universe but then left it to its own devices (like a wound-up clock running down) and is
now remote from and uninvolved with it. Providence is seen in three areas: his
preservation of the natural world; his government of the human world; and his
supernatural intervention into both by way of miracles.

a) Preservation

It must no more be thought that the natural world can continue without God's
intervention and involvement than it should be thought that it could originate
without him. The world began only because of God; it continues only because of
God - because his awesome power and goodness continues to sustain all things
and hold the universe together (sometimes called "continuing creation"). Even
secular science upholds the principle (in the Second Law of Entropy) that any
system left to itself tends to disorder and decay. Such would be the fate of the
universe if left to itself. (Perhaps it is God's withdrawal of his providence which
causes the "collapse" of the universe at the end of time; cf. Isaiah 34:4, Matthew
24:29.) All life/matter exists only because of God's creative act; therefore, all
life/matter does not continue to exist by virtue of any inherent self-existence but is
dependent for continued existence and right operation on God.

Just as Jesus seems to have been the Person of the Godhead particularly
responsible for the creation of the world, so too is he particularly responsible for
its preservation (Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:17).

b) Government

God controls/governs the affairs of men and human history, upholding his moral
law and providing for and directing individuals and nations (Acts 14:15-17,
17:26, 4:28).

But this government, this control, is not total/absolute. People have often made it
thus - with disastrous, even blasphemous, consequences. If we say that God's
providence means absolute control of human affairs then we have to say that
everything that happens is God's will, ordained/predestined by him before the

52
creation of the world. Human history is in this way reduced to the acting out of a
rigid blueprint laid down by God before time, and its human actors are reduced to
automatons fulfilling God's irresistible will. But to say this - viz. that everything
that happens is God's will - is not only absurd; it is to make God out to be a
monster, a demon, the author of evil. (One has only to imagine any vicious crime,
and God's detailed planning of the gory details, to get the point!) Quite
obviously, not everything that happens is God's will; much of what happens is
man's will (man's fallen will) or Satan's will. This is because, in creating man and
giving him dominion over the earth (a dominion which man subsequently shared
with Satan), God gave to man the power to really affect history, to make decisions
which would affect his circumstances and his future. So history is not simply the
acting out of a blueprint laid down by God before the world began but something
that in a real (although ultimately limited) way man creates as he goes along. God
is not alone the author of history: God, man and Satan together write its pages.
To say, therefore, that everything that happens is God's will is untrue, dishonest,
absurd - and blasphemous: it ascribes to God sinful and evil events and actions
actually authored by man/Satan. The thief comes to rob, kill and destroy - and we
must locate the origin of natural and man-made disasters in the right place.

Therefore, to resort, as we often do when comforting someone who is suffering or

who has been bereaved, to saying "It is God's will", may seem in the short-term to
be comforting (it implies that God is in control, and so seems to give “order” to an
otherwise meaningless event) but is in fact anything but comforting. On
reflection it can only lead to theological confusion ("How can a God of love will
something so cruel?") and a crisis of faith ("How can I trust God any longer that
his will for me is good?"). The real Christian message of hope amidst pain and
suffering , in the seeming chaos and meaninglessness of a sinful world, is not that
everything that happens is God's will but that one day, at the end of time, and on
the new earth, those who have died in Christ will be raised from the dead to enjoy
a blessed, perfect existence where no pain or death intrudes; that one day, those
who have suffered injustice will receive fair trial and full justice from the Judge of
all, and will enjoy a life on the new earth where there is no more injustice, where
evil men no longer prosper at the expense of good men, and wrong no more
triumphs over right (indeed, a world from which evil and evil men are forever
banished). This is the real comfort and hope of the Christian faith, an
eschatological doctrine of providence, one that looks to the future, that locates our
perfect comfort in the end and on the new earth; only there will everything that
happens be God's will. (This is not to deny, of course, that God cannot and does
not give real support and comfort to his people now, but it is always provisional,
looking to the future for its fulfilment.) In this world, sin and Satan continue to
intrude - and sin is irrational, inexplicable, meaningless, disorderly, chaotic and
cruel. We cannot, and should not, try to rationalize or "explain" sin, try to fit
everything that happens in this age into some kind of order or pattern (such as
God's will) and thereby try to give it meaning. The happenings of our world will
always be "chaotic" - because God is not yet "all in all" (1 Corinthians 15:28).

53
So we have to revise our interpretations of 1 Thessalonians 5:18, Romans 8:28, et
al. We have brought to these texts our presupposition that “everything that
happens to us ins God's will” and consequently have made them say this. But 1
Thessalonians 5:18 does not say that "all [our] circumstances" are "God's will" for
us; it says it is God's will that we "give thanks in all circumstances", good and
bad, godly and ungodly, for this is the attitude of heart and spirit that God desires
from us, because it is the attitude of faith that can open the door for God to work
in those circumstances, no matter how dark they may seem. Similarly, Romans
8:28 does not say that "all things" that happen to "those who love God" are
"good" but that "God works for the good of those who love him" in "all things" ,
i.e. in all circumstances, whether good or bad. God alone doesn't make history,
but even in the bad history we/men sometimes make God can work in, with and
through us: he is not excluded or nullified by our mistakes. (God does not cause
all circumstances, but he certainly can and does use all circumstances and work in
them for his purposes and our good.) Even Matthew 10:29 does not teach
absolute providence. The Greek original does not have "will"; we have inserted it
because the Greek has no definite object following "Father" and an exact
translation would be awkward ("Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart
from your Father"). In the light of the rest of Scripture (not to mention common
sense), we could better translate this text to mean "apart from your Father's
compassion" or concerned knowledge of this event. God does see our suffering
and his compassion is aroused by it (cf. Exodus 3:7) - so much so that he has
already sent his Son to begin the process of conquering and removing Satan, sin,
evil and suffering (and will one day send him again to complete the victory).

This aspect of God's providence, his government of human affairs and history, is
thus not absolute. Nevertheless, it is sure and real, and there is the certainty that in
broad outline (if not in all the details in between) God is moving the world and
history towards his purposed end (his purposes will be realized, his goal will be
reached). In particular, he carefully and caringly directs the Christian and the
Church, protecting, enabling, leading, watching over the spread of the Gospel and
the growth of his Kingdom. Ultimately, God does control history; our destiny is
not in the hands of luck/fate/chance/fortune/gods: spirits/ancestors/demons/etc but
in the hands of "God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of
Lords"! (1 Tim 6:15)

c) Miracles

In the wide field of doctrine, miracles are normally included under Providence as
they represent God's special intrusion into the natural world (Preservation) or the
human world (Government) or both, with the aim of bringing faith and salvation
to man. Miracles are instances of God working outside of ordinary providence;
they are to be distinguished from the "ordinary" manifestations of divine power
(e.g. in preservation and government) which, on the whole, operate according to
set patterns and intelligible laws. They normally, but not always, work against
natural laws (some miracles are natural occurrences which become miraculous by

54
 their significant timing or the revelation which accompanies them). But it is not
to be thought that God has to "break" eternal natural laws to perform miracles.
These natural laws are not eternal but created by God (he is their Master and not
vice-versa), and he is free to work without/above/against them. Both the created
laws normally in operation and God's occasional overriding of them are
providential (they care for and redeem man) and God is as free to employ one as
the other.

True miracles are never ends in themselves, an exercise of power for their own
sake (cf. trite or demonically-inspired "wonder-works"). They always serve a
significant purpose (cf. the "signs" in John's Gospel), normally to illustrate/prove
the message being spoken or to prove the authority of the messenger. The miracle
is always secondary to the truth - and the focus should thus be on the latter.

Miracles predominate in critical stages of salvation-history, when the survival of

truth or of God's people is in jeopardy, or when some great new revelation or
administration is being introduced by God (e.g. Moses, Elijah-Elisha, Jesus, the
early church). In both cases, the miracles are designed to vindicate the revelation
and salvation of God. They are assertions of God's omnipotence and sovereignty
(truths presently "hidden"); they are signs of God's Kingdom, instances of the
present age being invaded by the future age, when God's Rule will be "all in all".

6. MAN AND NATURE

a) Steward, not Lord

Man was given dominion over the earth, a mandate to multiply and fill it and to
rule over it, bringing God's order and blessing to the earth (Genesis 1:26-28,
2:15). But he does so as steward of, not Lord over, creation (Jesus alone is Lord
of Creation). He is thus accountable to God for how he looks after creation, how
he uses/abuses its flora, fauna and mineral resources, how he fulfils or fails to
fulfil his mandate towards it. Ecology, conservation, pollution, littering, etc are
thus very much "spiritual"/biblical matters, in which Christians should get
involved and not allow "Greens", New Agers, et al to have a self-righteous
monopoly.

In many other religious/cultural worldviews, man is considered part of the same

system/chain/organism as the rest of nature, and this leads to him treating nature
and natural resources with great sensitivity and respect (the recognition that his
welfare is dependent on nature's welfare). The western world, on the other hand,
has greedily devoured and polluted resources and placed man's very survival at
risk in consequence. Some have accused the Christian worldview which
undergirds western civilization of being responsible for this. But, while the
biblical revelation does make a distinction between man and the rest of nature,
placing man over creation as ruler of it, it cannot be blamed for western man's

55
“rape” of the earth. It is because man has distorted this position (made himself
into unaccountable lord rather accountable steward), it is because he has failed to
fulfil his biblical mandate (not because he has fulfilled it), that he has been guilty
of destroying his environment.

Far from being arrogant or irresponsible, the biblical worldview of man's

relationship with nature is by far the most sensible one. It is the only one which
holds in tension the truths of man being part of (and thus dependent on) nature
and separate from (ruler over) nature. The latter without the former leads to
arrogant abuse; the former without the latter leads to all kinds of cranky
"greenisms".

b) Harmony, not Enmity

Before the Fall, man's relationship with nature (including other creatures) was one
of total harmony; within nature there was also total harmony: no one creature
feared another and no creature preyed on another. All the animals came to Adam
and he named them (Genesis 2:19-20).

But, with the entry of sin, man suffered a fourfold alienation. Just his harmonious
relationship with God, himself and his fellow-man was broken, so also the state of
harmony between man and nature (including other creatures) was replaced by one
of enmity (Genesis 3:15). Man no longer lived easily off the land but had to
"sweat" and "toil" to survive (vv 17-19). Later, the fear of man was put into all
other creatures and, for the first time, man killed animals for food (Genesis 9:2-3;
cf. 1:29-30). Animals, conversely, began to prey on man (9:5) and each other,
and man stood in fear of them. These aspects of creation are clearly post-Fall
phenomena.

But, just as things were not always so, they will not always be so. Just as man
and the human world will one day be freed of all traces of sin and evil, and men
given glorious bodies for eternity, so the curse will one day be lifted (Revelation
22:3) and creation itself gloriously purified and renewed. In that day, man and
nature (and all nature within itself) will again dwell together in absolute harmony
(Isaiah 11:6-9, 35:9, 65:25; Ezekiel 34:25-30). We thus look forward not only to
our redemption but to the redemption of the creation (Romans 8:19-22 cf. v23); to
the new heavens and the new earth (Isaiah 65:17, Revelation 21:1).

56
 7. SUMMARY OF ESSENTIAL POINTS
TRUTH
The material universe had a beginning (not
eternal) brought about by God‟s will and
act (not independent); moreover, it did not
begin in time but with time.
Creation was an entirely new beginning by
God, who created out of nothing.
God created in freedom and was not
compelled into creating; evil is not co-
eternal or co-equal with God but
“contained in” God‟s creation (i.e. it is
temporal and inferior”)
While God is immanent (reflected in his
creation), He is also transcendent (distinct
from it); divine Creator vs. finite creation.
Evolution‟s atheistic base is repudiated by
Scripture but the processes it postulates are
to be repudiated by science not scripture.
ERROR
ATHEISM: The material universe is
eternal and independent of any
divine/external act/will.
PLATONISM: God moulded/arranged pre-
existent matter, which was eternal (or from
a “past entity”)
DUALISM: The world originated in, and is
the arena for, the cosmic struggle for
mastery between co-eternal and co-equal
Good and Evil (e.g. Parsaism,
Zoroastrianism)
PANTHEISM: God is one with, present in,
and indivisible from, creation; the universe
is the external manifestation of the internal
animating deity (cf. body to soul)
EVOLUTIONISM: “Scientific” theories
postulating the natural (vs supernatural)
processes by which life originated and
developed.
57
Chapter 4

THE DOCTRINE OF ANGELS

In Lecture 3 (Doctrine of Creation) we looked at God's act of creation and the material
universe which resulted from this act. In Lecture 5 (Doctrine of Man) we will focus on
that creature which represents the crown of this material universe. But Scripture speaks
of two realms of creation, the visible (material, natural) and the invisible (spiritual,
supernatural)(Colossians 1:16; cf. Romans 8:38-39, 1 Corinthians 4:9, Ephesians 1:21,
3:10, 6:12). In short, this realm of creation is the world of angels - which of course
includes demons (fallen angels) and, more specifically, Satan (the prince of demons).

While Scripture is not clear on this matter, it would seem that the creation of the invisible
world preceded that of the visible world.

1. ANGELS

a) Existence (Do angels exist?)

The existence of angels can be neither proved nor disproved (empirically

speaking), but Christians accept both the testimony of Scripture and the testimony
of other Christians (who have had angelic visitations) in this regard. They appear,
or are spoken of, in 34 of the Bible's 66 books, from the oldest (whether Genesis
or Job) to the newest (there are 70 references to angels in Revelation). Clearly,
the belief in angels was not limited to a particular "superstitious" period in Israel's
history. Furthermore, Jesus assumed their existence; and he spoke of them on
occasions when he couldn't possibly have been "playing to the grandstand"
(pandering to the myths of the day to win popularity)(Matthew 18:10, 26:53).

b) Person (What are angels like?)

(i) Angels are created beings, the creatures that "inhabit" the invisible world.
Thus they are not divine (Revelation 19:10, 22:8-9). They were created by God to
serve him and his purposes (see below).

(ii) Angels are personal beings. They possess intelligence (1 Peter 1:12), emotion
(Luke 2:13, 15:10) and will (Jude 6).

(iii) Angels are spirit beings, both similar to and yet different from the way in
which "God is Spirit". They are spatially limited by having some sort of angelic
body yet not as limited as man is. They have voices and a language (1
Corinthians 13:1); and feet, faces and wings (Isaiah 6:2, Acts 6:15). They are
apparently sexless (their designation without exception as masculine [e.g. Genesis
18:1-2] is probably a literary convention: the alternative - "it" - would deny their

58
personhood). Certainly, they do not reproduce (baby angels are never born) and
they do not marry (Mark 12:25). Lastly, although angels are "spirits" (Hebrews
1:14), this does not mean that they are unable to assume a visible form. Indeed,
they have often appeared as, and have been mistaken for, men (Jude 13:16,
Hebrews 13:2).

(iv) Angels do not die (Luke 20:36). This of course does not mean that they are
eternal as God is eternal (possessing eternity in themselves). Theirs is a received
eternity, given to them by God. On the other hand, it is not the same kind of
received eternity that man in his original and glorified states receives from God.
For man, when he sins, forfeits his eternal destiny and dies completely; but
angels, when they sin, continue to live. They are eternally alive, whether under
blessing or under judgement. They do not have to be "raised from the dead " to
be judged and sent to hell.

(v) Angels are perfect (unfallen angels, that is). Because they are sinless, they
live in the presence of God. Thus they are habitually associated with heaven
(Psalm 78:25, Matthew 18:10, Galatians 1:8). It is because of this perfect state
and heavenly habitat that angels apparently possess a radiance (they reflect God's
glory)(Acts 6:15, 2 Corinthians 11:14).

(vi) For both of these reasons - viz. they are "eternal" and perfect - angels
represent a higher order of creation to man (Psalm 8:3-8, 1 Timothy 5:1). But, of
course, they are below Jesus (Hebrews 1, Ephesians 1:20-21, 1 Peter 3:22) -
except during the Incarnation, when Jesus became man (Heb 2:5-9).

(vii) Angels are innumerable (Hebrews 12:22, Revelation 5:11). While the Bible
does not say so explicitly, and while God is both free and able to
continuously/recurringly create angels throughout time, it seems that all the
angels who exist were created together at the beginning of time (and that all those
who will fall did so some time afterwards).

(viii) Angels are organized and ranked (Matthew 26:53, Eph 1:20-21, 3:10, 6:12,
1 Peter 3:22). Michael is the only angel designated an archangel (Jude 9) but there
may be others as he is called "one of the chief princes" in Daniel 10:13. This is as
far as revelation goes concerning angelic organization and ranking. Any attempt
to go beyond this (and there have been many), to establish detailed hierarchies
with names for each rank and of specific angels in each rank, is both unbiblical
and unnecessary.

c) Work (What do angels do?)

Angels are ministers/servants/messengers (the Hebrew for "angel" means

messenger). They minister to-

(i) God. They serve God and his purposes on the earth (Psalm 103:20-21, 104:5

59
[cf. Hebrews 1:7]). They are members of the heavenly council who stand in the
presence of God (Job 1:16). In particular, the seraphim (seemingly a certain class
of angels) surround God's throne, worshipping him continuously (Isaiah 6:1-3; cf.
Revelation 4:6-9, 5:11-12). The cherubim (another class) guard God's holiness
(Genesis 3:24), and are sensitive to right worship (1 Corinthians 11:10) and living
(1 Timothy 5:21). It must be remembered that God was not forced to create/use
angels: he chose to do so. (He created them in his free love as he did man.)

(ii) Christ. There was an extra measure of angelic activity during Jesus' life.
Angels predicted his birth (Luke 1:26-33); they announced his birth (Luke 2:9-
14); they protected him as a baby (Matthew 2:13); they strengthened him after his
temptation in the wilderness (Matthew 4:11); they were available to defend him at
his arrest (Matthew 26:53); they strengthened him in Gethsemane (Luke 22:43);
they rolled the stone away from his tomb and announced his resurrection
(Matthew 28:2&6). In short, they were agents/mediators of revelation, protection
(defence), provision (sustenance) and direction (guidance).

(iii) Israel. Angels were also prominent in Israel. They were involved in the
central events of her history: the deliverance from Egypt and the journey through
the wilderness to the Promised Land (Exodus 14:19, 23:20, Judges 2:1); the
receiving of the Law at Mt. Sinai (Deuteronomy 33:2, Psalm 68:17, Acts
7:38&53, Galatians 3:19, Hebrews 2:2). The archangel Michael is called the
protector of Israel (Daniel 12:1). Most of the notable individuals in Israel had
angelic experiences, including: Abraham (Genesis 22:11); Hagar (Genesis 16:7);
Balaam (Numbers 22:23); Gideon (Judges 6:11); Samson (Judges 13:3); David (2
Samuel 24:16); Elijah (1 Kings 19:5); Elisha (2 Kings 6:15-17); Hezekiah (2
Kings 19:35). The same four functions as towards Christ can be observed
(revelation, protection, provision, direction); to these we can add a fifth:
judgement.

(iv) Church. Angels continue to minister to believers today in these same areas
(Hebrews 1:14, Psalm 34:7, 91:11-12 [cf. Matthew 4:6, Luke 4:10]). In the New
Testament they are seen to be involved in: answering prayer and delivering
believers (Acts 12:7); encouraging and directing believers in times of danger
(Acts 27:23-24); caring for believers at death (Luke 16:22, Jude 9); mediating
revelation (Revelation 1:1). That each individual believer has a personal
"guardian angel" is possible (from Matthew 18:10, Acts 12:15, Hebrews 1:14) but
not conclusive; similarly, the question of whether each church has a "guardian
angel" (Revelation 1:20).

(v) World. Angels bring death/judgement on unbelievers (Acts 12:23, 2

Thessalonians 1:7), execute God's judgements on mankind (Revelation 8,9,16),
separate the righteous from the wicked at the end of the age and throw the wicked
into hell (Matthew 13:39-42&49-50).

60
 d) Conclusions (Men & Angels)

(i) Men and angels are totally distinct beings belonging to different realms of
creation. Thus, contrary to popular impression or the belief of certain cults, men
neither were nor will become angels.

(ii) Men currently represent a lower order of creation (Psalm 8:5) but will one day
represent a higher order (e.g. Paul speaks of us judging [evil] angels [1
Corinthians 6:3]). Man is the crown of all God's creative acts; man alone is made
in the image of God.

(iii) Our proper attitude towards angels is respect (and thanksgiving to God for
creating them to minister to us) not worship. Sectarian beliefs have always landed
up either worshipping angels (e.g. the Colossian heresy [Colossians 2:18]) or
unduly exalting them (e.g. first-century Judaism, and thus perhaps the early
Jewish believers addressed in Hebrews 1:4 & 2:5).

(iv) Angels inhabit a different realm of creation, one in which we do not live and
which ordinarily we do not see. Of course, this realm does occasionally break
into ours (angelic visitations) but only when God sovereignly decides and
graciously grants it. There is no hint in Scripture that we can manipulate such
visitations, or even that we should seek them, or that in any way angels should be
a focus of our attention, or that we can talk to angels (outside of sovereignly
granted visitations), or that we should pray to them, or that we can command them
(although we can ask God to command angels to come to our aid [cf. Psalm
91:11]). Angels are mediators of revelation, not of prayer (angels may carry the
prayers of the saints to God but they do not plead them on our behalf [Revelation
8:4]), nor of worship (the Colossian heresy, for example, thought that God was so
superior to and thus removed from man that man could only worship him through
the angels that 'emanated' from him).

(v) We are told a fair bit about angels (certainly everything we need to know) but
certainly not everything (relative to other topics, very little space is given to them
in Scripture). We need to accept the limits of revelation here (Deuteronomy
29:29) and not strive for further insight into "hidden things" - e.g. by establishing
the elaborate hierarchies mentioned earlier. A common feature of many cults is
an overemphasis on, or claimed "new revelation" about, angels (e.g. an angelic
hierarchy figured prominently in the Colossian heresy [Colossians 1:16]).

2. SATAN

a) Existence

Like that of angels, Satan's existence, empirically speaking, can be neither proved
nor disproved. The Bible and Jesus, however, testify unequivocally to his

61
existence, as do the individual and collective testimonies of mankind. Satan has
real existence, but we must avoid the equal yet opposite errors of dismissal and
obsession (Satan is as happy with Hume as with Faust, with a liberal theologian as
with a witch).

b) Person

Satan is an angel, belonging to that order and realm of creation. As such, he is -

A created being (Ezekiel 28:13&15). He is not divine, and does not possess
omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, etc. And God can (and does) place
additional limitations on him (Job 1:12). As an angel he represents a higher order
of creation to man, and thus is more powerful than man - but we should no more
exaggerate than downplay his power. It is not: God vs Satan; but simply: GOD!
(and good angels vs half as many evil angels).

A personal being. Satan possesses intelligence (2 Corinthians 11:3), emotions

(Revelation 12:17) and will (2 Timothy 2:26). God regards him as morally
responsible (Matthew 25:41).

A spirit being. Yet, like good angels, he both has an angelic body and is able to
assume other (deceptive) forms (Genesis 3:1).

He was perhaps a senior or powerful angel (e.g. an archangel) but this is not
definite.

In particular, he belonged to that class of angels known as cherubim (Ezekiel

28:14& 16). He was anointed and ordained to guard God's throne and minister to
him as a priestly angel (v13). As such he possessed great beauty/splendour and
wisdom (vv12&17) and occupied a prominent and privileged position (vv14&16).

c) Fall

But, of course, Satan is also a fallen (evil) angel. How did this happen?

Satan's sin, the cause of his downfall, was proud ambition: not content to be a
creature he wanted to be divine; not content with his already exalted place he
wanted to be equal to, and even higher than, God (Isaiah 14:12-14, Ezekiel 28:12-
17, 1 Timothy 3:6). Satan sinned of his own volition (in freedom) and with full
knowledge, and is thus fully responsible for his act.

This proud ambition (to be God) leads automatically to a rebellious independence

from and against God. It is the root (first) sin, that which led to the fall of all
fallen angels and of all men (notice how man fell to the same temptation as Satan:
Genesis 3:5).

62
This is all that the Bible says about the origin of evil, but it is enough to refute the
two explanations of evil found in the religions/philosophies of the world, Monism
(good and evil are contained in : caused by the same one God) and Dualism (good
and evil are the forces/emanations of two co-equal and co-eternal Gods struggling
for mastery). Against these, the Biblical revelation is that evil is "contained in"
God's creation (although not contained in God himself, or created by God). Thus
evil is not co-eternal or co-equal with God: it is temporal and inferior; and it is
this truth which gives us the certainty that it can and will be conquered and
eradicated.

From this origin in the invisible realm of creation (heaven), evil was brought to
the visible realm (earth) by Satan - but through the cooperation of man (man
shared the dominion over the earth he had received from God with Satan).
Ultimately, then, Satan is the author of all evil, responsible for all sin and its
effects on the earth (both natural and human disasters: Job 1 & 2), but this does
not absolve man of his responsibility.

d) Nature

Through his sin, Satan irrevocably lost his exalted position. Especially galling as
this loss and humiliation is to one so proud and ambitious, his nature has become
angry, hateful, resentful, bitter, vengeful, violent, corrupt, devious, deceitful,
treacherous. Scripture describes him as "the thief [who] comes only to steal and
kill and destroy" (John 10:10); as the one who "has been sinning from the
beginning" (1 John 3:8) and who "was a murderer from the beginning "; the one
in whom "there is no truth" and who is "a liar and the father of lies" (John 8:44).
In short, Satan is absolutely and irredeemably evil.

Satan's names, like God's, reveal much about his character. "Satan" means
accuser in Hebrew. "Devil" means slanderer. He is called the "tempter" (1
Thessalonians 3:5), the "evil one" (John 17:15, 1 John 5:19), the "prince of
demons" (Matthew 12:24), the "great dragon" and the "ancient serpent"
(Revelation 12:9). "Lucifer" is the Latin translation of the Hebrew phrase
translated "morning star" (Isaiah 14:12). "Beelzebub" is the English translation
("Beelzeboul" the Greek) of the Hebrew "Baal-Zebub", meaning "Lord of Flies",
which was a mocking parody of Yahweh's rival, "Baal-Zebul" ("Exalted Baal"),
and which came to be used of Satan (Matthew 12:26 cf. v27).

e) Goal

(i) To gain revenge on God by attacking/corrupting/destroying all God's works of

creation (the universe, especially man) and redemption (Israel, Christ, the
Church/Christians) so that God's purposes are not achieved and God receives no
glory through them. Thus he attempts to destroy the Christian's faith, or at least to
render it ineffective - not because the Christian is important to him but because
he/she represents a means of taking revenge on God.

63
(ii) To promote an alternative world system in opposition to God and his
Kingdom, of which he, Satan, is the head. To do this he counterfeits God's
programme and Kingdom, attempting to build the same thing but illegally and
with shortcuts (Luke 4:5-7).

(iii) Through both of the above, to gain glory and worship for himself (to be
hailed as God). He is still obsessed with and driven by the same proud ambition
that led to his fall (Luke 4:7).

f) Strategies

Though impassioned and enraged, Satan employs various cunning schemes to

achieve his objectives (Genesis 3:1, 2 Corinthians 2:11, Ephesians 6:11). On the
whole there are two approaches.

(i) He gets unbelievers and believers to destroy themselves (the former by missing
their possible salvation, the latter by hamstringing their realized salvation),
through: disguise and deception (Genesis 3:4, Matthew 13:38-39, John 8:43, 2
Corinthians 4:4, 11:14, Ephesians 2:2); doubt (Genesis 3:1, Mark 4:15);
temptation (Genesis 3:6, Acts 5:3, 1 Corinthians 7:5); or open defiance/rebellion
(Genesis 3:5). Once successful in these, he further undermines faith through
accusation/slander (Revelation 12:11) and condemnation.

(ii) He directly attacks believers and unbelievers, destroying them himself,

through: hindering (1 Thessalonians 2:18); persecuting (Revelation 2:10); and
devouring (Job 1 & 2, Luke 13:6, 1 Peter 5:8). Once successful here he further
undermines faith through doubt, discouragement and unbelief.

g) Status

The accounts of Satan's sin and downfall show him being thrown from heaven to
earth (Isaiah 14:12, Ezekiel 28:17). He was barred from his original privileged
position in heaven but he still had access to heaven (Job 1:6 & 2:1).

By subsequently succeeding in getting man to give to him the dominion over the
earth he (man) had received from God (Genesis 1:28), Satan became "the prince
of this world" (Luke 4:5-8, John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Ephesians
2:2, 6:12, 1 John 5:19). But, from the very moment of his successful engineering
of the Fall of man, his eventual defeat (at the hands of a man) is prophesied
(Genesis 3:15).

The prophecy, of course, referred to Jesus' first coming, as the "offspring" of a

"woman" (cf. Galatians 4:4), and it was through the Incarnation (especially the
Crucifixion) that Jesus won the decisive victory over Satan and evil. The days of
his ministry saw a decisive change in the status and power of Satan and his
demons: they were "cast out", "bound", "disarmed" and defeated (Matthew 12:28-

64
 29, Luke 10:17-19, John 12:31, Colossians 2:15, Revelation 12:13, 20:1-3&7-9).
[The last two texts are sometimes said to refer to different, later judgements on
Satan - at the beginnings of the Tribulation and Millennium respectively. But
such an interpretation is forced on the text by a presupposed approach to the book
of Revelation (futurist) and an assumed eschatological position (dispensational
premillenialism). Outside of these schemes there is no need to interpret them in
this way; and, indeed, to interpret them as referring to the Incarnation and the
process begun with Christ's first coming is hermeneutically better.]

Consequently, throughout the church age, the period between Christ's comings,
the church is involved in "mopping-up" operations, putting into effect the victory
over evil won by Christ on Calvary, robbing the now bound strong man of his
possessions; and through this, Christ is in the process of putting all things under
his feet (Matthew 16:18, Mark 16:7, Luke 9:1, Romans 16:20, 1 Corinthians
15:24-28, Ephesians 1:20-22, Hebrews 2:5-9, 1 John 3:8, Revelation 11:15).

At the end of the age, when Christ comes a second time, he will fully and finally
execute the judgement he delivered (and he, with the church, began the process of
executing) at his first coming. Satan's final destiny is definite, absolute defeat and
eternal punishment (Revelation 20:10). With his defeat and overthrow, all sin and
evil (which originated with him) is conquered and eradicated (Revelation
21:4&8&27, 22:3).

3. DEMONS

a) Existence

Again, the existence of demons can be neither proved nor disproved, but Jesus
and the Bible speak of their existence, as do the testimonies of many individuals
who either were/are demonized or were/are involved in delivering the demonized.

b) Person

Biblically (cf. Islam, and various other beliefs), demons belong to the same order
of creation as angels. They are simply, like Satan, fallen/evil angels (Matthew
25:41, 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 6, Revelation 12:7&9).

Thus they are created beings and are not divine, omnipresent, etc. Their great
number is what makes Satan seem omnipresent, but demons are not actually
everywhere at once. They are personal beings. Their intelligence, for example, is
shown in their knowledge of Jesus' true identity (Mark 1:24), their knowledge of
salvation (James 2:19), their knowledge of their destiny (Matthew 8:29, Luke
8:31), and in their having their own system of (perverted) doctrine (1 Timothy
4:1-3). They are spirit beings. Indeed, they are often referred to as evil or
unclean spirits (Matthew 17:18 cf. Mark 9:25).

65
 These angels fell with Satan. They may have been coerced/deceived, but they are
fully responsible for their decision. Possibly one third of all angels fell
(Revelation 12:4).

As they were before their fall, demons are organized and ranked (Ephesians 6:12).

Some possess a certain freedom to oppose God; others are confined (2 Peter 2:4,
Jude 6). Even amongst the former group there are some whose freedom is
restricted to certain periods of history and certain functions (Revelation 9:14,
16:14).

ANGELS LOOSE
(unfallen) ACTIVE DEMONS
ALL DEMONS
ANGELS
DEMONS
(fallen) TEMPORARILY
CONFINED RESTRICTED
DEMONS DEMONS

c) Work

Demons aid Satan in his goals of opposing God and God's people (by attacking:
corrupting/destroying God's works of creation and redemption) and deceiving the
world into an opposing world system with Satan as its head. In pursuing these
goals they employ any or all of the Satanic strategies listed above. But it must not
be thought that the same order, obedience, submission and harmony that
characterize God's angelic army are to be found in the demonic counterpart: there
the irredeemably corrupt nature of fallen angels finds expression in chaos,
disobedience, ambition and division, and any "cooperation" achieved is done so
purely through intimidation and manipulation.

In particular, demons are seen to inflict diseases (Matthew 9:32-33, 10:8, 17:15,
Mark 6:13, Luke 13:11&16), possess men (Luke 8:27&30, 11:24-26) and animals
(Mark 5:13, Luke 8:32), and promote false religion/doctrine (Deuteronomy 32:17,
1 Timothy 4:1).

But they operate always under God's absolute authority and power. Indeed, God
can control and use them for his own purposes (1 Samuel 16:14, 2 Corinthians
12:7).

66
Scripture hints of: (i) demons operating not only on individuals but on nations, of
demon powers over nations (demons rulers working behind and through human
rulers) controlling/deceiving them (Isaiah 14:4-20, 24:21, Ezekiel 28:1-19, Daniel
10:13&20, Revelation 16:13-14); and (ii) of angelic warfare in heaven which
effects events on earth (Revelation 12:7).

d) Status

Demons lost their heavenly position and privileges at their own fall; they received
dominion on the earth at the Fall of man; but they suffered the same change in
status as Satan (loss of power and authority) at Christ's first coming.

Nevertheless, loose demons continue to work anywhere in the world where they
are given a foothold. But the church, because it operates in the Name of Jesus,
who has bound Satan (Matthew 12:28-29) and disarmed his troops (Colossians
2:15), has the same authority as Jesus had (Matthew 28:18) to cast out demons
and bind their operation wherever in the advance of God's Kingdom they
encounter them (Mark 16:17-18, Luke 9:1-2, 10:17-19, 1 John 4:4).

Some demons, as we have seen, have already been confined since the Fall and
others quite possibly have been confined since the Incarnation (Mw 8:29, Lk
8:31); yet others are presently confined but will be temporarily released for
specific work. But the final destiny of all demons, to be executed at Jesus' return,
is total defeat, absolute judgement and eternal punishment with Satan in hell (Mw
25:41).

e) Conclusions

(i) As with angels, we need to accept the limits of revelation regarding demons.
We know what we need to know about them but this is still relatively little.
Scripture gives no hierarchy of demons, with the names of the different ranks and
of individual demons occupying each rank; it gives no definitive grouping of
demons into different classes or "sin-types"; and, again, any attempt to construct
either of these is both unbiblical and unnecessary. Our authority over demons is
not dependent on us knowing these things. As before, we must avoid the cultic
tendency to overemphasis or "new revelation".

(ii) It is the task of doctrinal studies to deal with the doctrinal content of Christian
belief rather than the practical outworking of these truths in the life and ministry
of the Christian and the church. Nevertheless, on this occasion I would like to
include the following guidelines for the Christian's/church's spiritual warfare as
important consequences of the doctrine of angels and demons formally set out in
the preceding pages.

1. We should never get so consumed with spiritual warfare that we focus

67
more on Satan and his work than we need to and/or ascribe all sorts of
things to his handiwork when they are nothing of the sort. Both of these
only result in giving him attention and glory - the very thing he so
maniacally desires and pursues.

2. We should never get so distracted by spiritual warfare "in the

heavenlies" that we neglect our mandate down on the earth - to witness,
heal the sick, feed the poor, etc - the simple but concrete acts commanded
in Scripture that extend the kingdom of God on the ground. (Let me use a
military analogy: you have not really conquered an enemy and taken his
territory until you stand victorious on the land. Aerial warfare is helpful,
indeed necessary, both to protect your own forces on the ground and to
soften-up his in preparation for a land invasion, but you have not won the
war when you've merely won control of the skies; only when you've done
it on the ground, when you've changed ownership there, is the job truly
done.)

3. Indeed, we need to be careful not to define "spiritual warfare" too

narrowly - i.e. as something done only in prayer. Every concrete act for
God is part of our spiritual warfare because it reverses sin and its effects
(what Satan comes to promote) and thereby opposes Satan and pushes
back his dominion: witnessing undoes his ignorance/deception; conversion
undoes his unbelief/death; healing the sick undoes his disease; feeding the
poor and other social action undoes his poverty; standing for justice
undoes his oppression; etc.

4. Of course, the prayer component of spiritual warfare is legitimate and

important. It is simply another form of intercession: moving God to move
demons cf. moving God to move men.

5. However, if we ever have cause to address demons, we must not do so

slanderously and arrogantly (2 Peter 2:10-11, Jude 8-10).

6. Nevertheless, whatever the form of spiritual warfare we are involved in

(prayer, deliverance or any other), we are never to fear Satan or his
demons, for in Jesus we have total authority (Luke 10:19) and certain
victory!

68
Chapter 5

THE DOCTRINE OF MAN

Chapter Outline: A : MAN IN THE CREATED STATE

A Creature...
1. Created by God
2. Of Several Parts
3. In the Image of God
4. For Covenant Relationship
5. Destined for Immortality

B : MAN IN THE FALLEN STATE

(including: The Doctrine of Sin)
6. The Entry of Sin
7. Why did God allow Sin?
8. The Nature of Sin
9. The Effects of Sin
10. The Extent of Sin
INTRODUCTION

a) Biblical vs Humanist Anthropology

"What is man?" is one of the most basic and repeated questions asked by man (cf.
Psalm 8:4). But the truth about man doesn't come from man himself but from
God. (There is a world of difference between biblical and humanist
anthropology!) Surely a creature can only be truly defined by a Being higher than
itself; surely a fallen creature, whose deepest instinct is to pride (and vanity and
self-deception) cannot be relied upon to give a true definition of himself. Here we
must recall what was said in Chapter 1.3:

Not only does revelation lead to true God (vs. the false gods of our invention) but
also to true man. Revelation means that theology and theologizing do not start
with man but with God. In all other realms of knowledge, man is the subject (he
who initiates and conducts the study) and the field in question is the object (that
which is studied). In theology, however, man is only truly known and defined by
God (his own understanding of himself is always distorted by his sinful nature).
If man wants to know not only who God really is but who he really is, he must
submit to what God says about him - that is, he must submit to revelation. In
theology, then, God is the subject and man the object - and man can only study
God once he has learnt and accepted God's study of him. Put differently: in all
other disciplines, man is above the object of knowledge; here man is below that
which he desires to know.

69
 We go to revelation (Scripture), therefore, for the truth about man.

b) The Four States of Man

The biblical revelation about man shows man in four states: the created state
(Creation - Fall); the fallen state (Fall - Christ's Return); the redeemed state
(Incarnation - Christ's Return); the glorified state (Christ's Return - Eternity). The
condition of man in the last two states will be dealt with in Chapter 8 (Doctrine of
Salvation) and Chapter 10 (Doctrine of Last Things) respectively; here we deal
only with man in the created and fallen states.

A : MAN IN THE CREATED STATE

1. CREATED BY GOD

a) A finite creature

Man was created by God (Genesis 1:27, 2:7). He is thus a finite creature. He has
never been, is not, and will never be, divine ("little gods"). The fact that man was
created in the image of God, and that, in the redeemed state, he can "participate in
the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4), does not assert divinity. (What it does mean we
shall see shortly.) Here we recall the rejection of the birth concept in the biblical
creation narratives (Chapter 3.2): man/nature were not born from God (making
them divine) but created by God (there is a radical difference/divide between God
and all of his creation, including man). Similarly, while the genealogies of the
ancestors of the human race in other religions go back to God (or the gods), those
in the Bible do not; they begin with the first man (e.g. Genesis 5:1-3. The single
exception, Luke 3:38, must be interpreted in this light.) In this doctrine (man's
finiteness as a creature) lies a major difference between Christianity and many
(perhaps most) religions and cults.

b) An accountable creature

That man was created by God leads automatically to the truth that there is
Someone outside of man to whom he owes his existence (and hence his loyalty
and service) and to whom, therefore, he is answerable/accountable for his life.
Man is not his own master, answerable only to himself. (This truth also sets
Christianity radically apart from humanism, et al.) It means that man is neither
the master of his own fate nor is he at the mercy of "fate" (but his welfare and
future lie in the hands of God).

c) A communal creature

The human race is one (the communality of all mankind), derived from a single
origin (Acts 17:26). Man was made for relationship not only with God but with

70
 each other; without these he is not fully man. We are our "brother's keeper"
(Genesis 4:9). We share responsibility for the actions of the human race; we
share in the effects, good or bad, of these actions.

2. OF SEVERAL PARTS?

a) Two, three, four or more parts?

For centuries a furious debate has raged within theology about whether man is
two, three, four or even more parts! Certainly, we seem to experience different
(even antagonistic) parts within ourselves (Romans 7:14-25). And Scripture
seems to identify different parts: flesh (basar [Hebrew]:sarx [Greek]); soul
(nephesh/psyche); heart (leb/kardia); spirit (ruarch/pneuma); etc. But does
Scripture give a definitive division of man into parts?

Some assert the bipartite (two-part) nature of man - material (body/flesh) and
immaterial (all the rest) - and point to certain texts to prove their position (e.g.
Genesis 2:7, Ecclesiastes 3:20-21, Matthew 10:28, 26:41). But which are the two
parts? Three of these texts speak of body (or flesh) and spirit, but the other
speaks of body and soul. Are spirit and soul then the same. But then what about
Hebrews 4:12, that says that spirit and soul can be divided (i.e. distinguished)?

Others assert the tripartite (three-part) nature of man, quoting i.a. 1 Thessalonians
5:23, Hebrews 4:12, Luke 1:46-47. But if man is three parts, which three is he?
These texts delineate body, soul and spirit. Deuteronomy 6:5 also implies three
parts but delineates them as heart, soul and strength. And Jesus, quoting this text,
changes it to heart, soul and mind (Matthew 22:37)! Already we can see that
terms are used interchangeably and without precisely defined or mutually
exclusive reference (some of them have the same, or at least overlapping,
meanings). Indeed, the parallelism (the convention of saying the same thing in
two different ways) of Luke 1:46-47, for example, indicates that "soul" and
"spirit" are being used interchangeably here, with the same or at least similar
meaning(s).

Yet others argue for a quadpartite (four-part) nature. Luke 2:52 implies four parts
to man's existence (in categories rather different to the above). In Mark 12:30
Jesus "expands" Deuteronomy 6:5 from three into four parts, and delineates them
as heart, soul, mind and strength. His questioner immediately gives this back to
him as heart, understanding and strength (three parts) without correction from
Jesus, Mark or the Holy Spirit! What is quite clear is that Moses, Jesus, Paul and
others, on numerous occasions, sought to communicate that the whole of man is
involved in something (e.g. in loving God, or being protected by him) and that, to
make the point, they listed various (altogether nine!) "parts" of man to emphasize
this wholeness of involvement; but it is obvious that on no one occasion did any
of them mean to offer a definitive and precise division of man into parts (it is his

71
unity or wholeness being emphasized, not his division or parts). No one
"division" can be taken as authoritive; if we do, it becomes contradicted by all the
other "divisions".

We can add yet other information to demonstrate how difficult, if not impossible,
it is to divide man up into distinct parts. The heart, for example, is said variously
to be the seat of man's intellect (Matthew 15:19-20), emotion (Psalm 37:4,
Romans 9:2), volition (Exodus 7:23, Hebrews 4:7) and spirit (Romans 10:9-10,
Ephesians 3:17), and is thus clearly not a distinct "part" within man. Soul and
spirit are used interchangeably (Matthew 10:28 cf. Luke 23:46) and given similar
properties: both can magnify God (Matthew 22:37 cf. Luke 1:46-47); both can be
corrupted (1 Peter 2:11 cf. 2 Corinthians 7:1). And the distinction between soul
and spirit, where it is made, refers not to different parts within man but the
difference between saved (spiritual) and unsaved (soulish) man (1 Corinthians
2:14-15; cf. Jude 19).

The answer, then, to our question, "Does Scripture give a definitive division of
man into parts?" is no. However, this does not mean that we cannot carry one or
more of these schemes around with us as helpful to understanding our nature and
behaviour or our relationship with God and our walk with him in this world. But
such schemes are experiential/devotional rather than strictly doctrinal/biblical,
and they are never absolute (there is more than one legitimate way of defining
man).

b) A Unity

If there is one way in which the Bible views man more than any other it is to
regard him as a unity, an integrated whole rather than a fragmented composite.
The body, soul, etc are not distinct components of man but different aspects of the
whole man's life and activity in the world (man as worshipper of God, member of
society, etc). As we have already seen, the whole man, as a unity, is to love God,
etc.

Moreover, the whole man is created by God (Genesis 2:7) and is creaturely/finite.
There is no part of man (e.g. the soul) that is inherently eternal, that possesses life
in itself, and so existed before birth (e.g. Mormonism) or continues to exist after
death ("the immortality of the soul" is a Greek idea, not a biblical one). The
whole man begins at his conception - not just the body, into which God "inserts"
the soul at some point. (The exact timing of this insertion has been the subject of
lengthy debate amongst theologians!) Man the unity creates man the unity.
Human procreation is brought about through human decision/will (cf. Jesus'
conception: John 1:13) - an illustration of the real privilege of man to create and
the real power of man to affect history: human conception, like other events in
man's world, is not just the acting out of God's blueprint. We create people, not
God (or how would we account for children of rape, etc?) Conversely, the whole
man dies at death - and would remain dead were it not for God's sovereign and

72
 gracious decision to grant life after death, first in the intermediate state (an
immaterial existence with Christ after death) and then in the final state (the
resurrection of the body on the new earth at the end of time). Unbelievers,
similarly, die in completion and then are raised to an eternal existence by God's
decision. (N.B. It should be clear that I am not advocating annihilation [see
Chapter 10]. There is life after death for both the righteous and unrighteous. I am
only asserting that any such life is purely the result of God's intervention, because
man in himself, or any part of him, is not inherently immortal.)

A further consequence of man being a unity is that the whole of man, as created
by God, including his body, is good. The Bible rejects the dualistic idea prevalent
in so many philosophies/religions (e.g. Platonism, Hinduism) that the body
(matter) is evil (inferior) and the soul (spirit) is good (superior); that the body is at
best a temporary abode for the soul, at worst an impediment to it; and that
salvation thus entails denying/subduing the body, or freeing the soul from the
body so that it can ascend to (unite with) God. This lie has even held sway in
much Christian thinking over the centuries - but, as we have noted, its root lies
not in the Bible but in Greek philosophy. Man is essentially body as much as he is
soul/spirit. The body was created by God for man's blessing; God incarnated
himself in a human body (John 1:14), and his broken body and the resurrection of
his body bought our salvation (Matthew 26:26); the body is the temple of the
Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19). How can the body be evil? True, it is fallen, but
this does not mean that it needs to be destroyed, only that it needs to be purified,
renewed and glorified. Thus the Hebraic conception of the afterlife is very
physical; the biblical hope is the resurrection of the body. In the meantime, we
offer our bodies not to sin but to God (Romans 6:13, 12:1); we look after our
bodies (Ephesians 5:29); we glorify God in our bodies (1 Corinthians 6:20); we
long for the redemption of our bodies (Romans 8:23). God created man as a
unity, a whole, and the whole of man for eternity, including his body; and while
sin has meant that our bodies are fallen and need to be renewed (which "part" of
us does not?), God has not deviated from his original plan.

3. IN THE IMAGE OF GOD

Genesis 1 makes it clear that man was the result of a special, unique
creative act by God: he was the subject of deliberation within the Godhead prior to his
creation (Genesis 1:26); and he was made in the image/likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-30,
5:1, 1 Corinthians 11:7, James 3:9).

Clearly, this does not mean that man has God's physical form (for God has no form:
Deuteronomy 4:15-19); nor that man is an incarnation of God, a "little god" (see above);
nor that man possesses inherent goodness/perfection apart from God. Man was righteous
in the unfallen state but this was not inherent: he required tuition in righteousness (God
had to teach him his will) and his remaining righteous depended on his relationship with
God (his upholding of God's will). He failed to do this and so lost his righteousness.

73
As to what is the content of the image of God in man, theologians have wrestled for
centuries. Some have suggested it is substantial: some "part" of man not shared by
animals (e.g. his spirit, or soul, or intelligence, or will, etc) constitutes the image of God
in man. Others say it refers to man as a personal being: like God, but unlike the animals,
he possesses self-consciousness, the power of abstract thought, etc. Some say it is
relational: man's ability to be in relationship with God and his fellow men. Others
contend that it refers to man's moral awareness and nature (man possesses a moral, not
physical, likeness of God); or to his privileged ability to create "out of nothing"
(artworks, implements, buildings, etc)(cf. the mere reproductive ability of animals); or to
his rulership ability and function, his having dominion over all living things and over
history.

It is quite permissible to accept all of these views as expressing facets of what it means to
have been made in the image of God. But the best understanding of the image, at once
the most simple and the most comprehensive, comes when we remember that an image of
something is a reflection or likeness of that thing. To be created in the image of God
means, therefore, that we can (and should) reflect God, that we should be like him. We
are to reflect and thus represent God on the earth, bringing his nature and ways into our
dominion over it. Thus every single thing of which it is said in the Bible, "Be _____ for
God is _____", or "Put off _____ and put on _____", constitutes the image of God in man
(once lost, but now being restored). All of the multitude of admonitions in the Bible
about how we should think, speak and act, taken together, make up our imaging (or
reflecting) of God (Leviticus 19:2, Micah 6:8, Matthew 5:48, Ephesians 4:22- 5:10,
Colossians 3:1-16). The Bible makes these exhortations, and God can have these
expectation of us, precisely because we are created in his image and so are able to be/live
like this.

The consequences of man being created in God's image (vs animals) are that man is
unique, is set apart from nature while being part of it, and belongs to a higher order of
creation than anything else in the material universe. His life thus has a higher value and
dignity than the existence of other creatures (Genesis 9:1-6).

4. FOR COVENANT RELATIONSHIP

Man was not created simply to exist, or only to enjoy creation and rule over it, but to
walk in and enjoy relationship with God: God created him, out of sheer goodness, to
share in his eternal and blessed fellowship of love and joy of life. The nature of this
relationship is, always has been and always will be, that of covenant. That God walked
in covenant with man from the first (i.e. with the first man) is clearly implied in Genesis
2 and 3. This same covenant of grace God pursues throughout the Bible and throughout
history until it is finally and fully fulfilled on the new earth (Revelation 21:3). In fact, as
we have seen (Chapter 3.3), the fulfilment of the covenant can be seen as the purpose and
goal of the whole creation: eternally, the earth (and the new earth) are the arena for
covenant, the place where God can live with man and be their God and they his people.

74
The covenant can thus also be said to be the purpose and goal of man: the responsible yet
privileged, blessed and eternal fellowship between God and man, his creative
masterpiece, the glory and crown of his creation, for whom everything else was made.

5. DESTINED FOR IMMORTALITY

The nature of man's creation - as a creature in God's image, created to share in God's
eternal love and life, and to walk in covenant with him - make it impossible to believe
that man was not destined for immortality. This is not to say that man is eternal (he is
clearly finite, not having existed from all time but having been created in time: see 1
above). Nor does it mean that, once having been created, some part of man (e.g. his soul)
possessed eternity (the whole man is creaturely and thus finite, and the whole man
consequently dies at death: see 2 above). It means simply that man (unlike other
creatures) was created with a capacity/potential, and thus a yearning, to live eternally
(Ecclesiastes 3:11) - but this eternity would always be a derived/received one, a gift of
God's grace (Romans 6:23). Man is not immortal; but he was created/destined to share in
God's immortality.

We cannot say what would have happened if Adam had never sinned (this surely is the
most academic of questions!) but the Bible makes it clear that he would not have died if
he had not sinned (Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:21). His perfect life would either have
continued indefinitely or, after a probationary period, would have been translated to an
unchangeable state (from "able not to sin" to "not able to sin"). In either case, his life,
already eternal in quality (cf. John 17:3), would have become eternal in quantity.
Genesis 2 and 3 make it clear that death is not natural to man (in the created state); it is
the negation of everything he was created for (i.e. eternal fellowship with God).

Man's potential for immortality is illustrated by the tree of life (be it symbol or actual).
Man had access to it in the created state as eating of its fruit would rightfully and
properly give him life, would perpetually sustain his existence in that state (Genesis
2:9&16). But God graciously forbids man access to the tree in the fallen state as eating
of its fruit now would mean man would have to live forever in that state and so eternally
be condemned to die (Genesis 3:22-24). Even in the redeemed state man cannot eat of
this fruit, as he still lives under the power of sin and has still to die. But in the glorified
state man is again allowed access to the tree, for in this state to live eternally is pure
blessedness and the realization of his destiny (Revelation 22:2, cf. 2 Timothy 1:10).

75
B : MAN IN THE FALLEN STATE
(including: The Doctrine of Sin)

6. THE ENTRY OF SIN

Sin and evil originated, as we have seen (Chapter 4.2), in the invisible/angelic realm of
creation with Satan. We further noted that this biblical revelation concerning the origin
of evil: (i) refuted monism, dualism and other theories of evil found in the philosophies
and religions of man; (ii) emphasized that God was in no way the author of, or
responsible for, evil, either in himself or in his creation; (iii) made it clear that evil was
neither co-equal nor co-eternal with God but temporary and inferior.

Here we are concerned with the entry of sin and evil into the visible realm of creation. In
this realm man had been given dominion by God (Genesis 1:28). This meant that his
decision held sway over the whole of the material creation. As long as he upheld the will
of God he maintained his righteousness and prevented evil from gaining any foothold or
maintaining any presence in the material universe (because everything that God created
was good: v 31).

But Satan, taking the form of a serpent (Genesis 33:1 cf. Revelation 12:9), and using
treacherous deceit and cunning, successfully tempted man (should we say woman!) to eat
the forbidden fruit. The Bible clearly implies that the persons involved in this event were
historical (Matthew 19:3-6, Luke 3:38, Acts 17:26, Romans 5:12-21, 1 Corinthians
15:21-22, Jude 14). The test God had put before Adam and Eve was both minor (a
seemingly trivial restriction) and major (man's principal means of showing obedience or
disobedience to God).

Satan's tempting progressed from sowing doubt ("Did God really say?": v1) to using
deception ("You will not surely die": v4) to encouraging outright defiance ("You will be
like God": v5); and appealed to the lust of the flesh ("When the woman saw that the fruit
of the tree was good for food..."), the lust of the eyes ("... and pleasing to the eye...") and
the pride of life ("...and also desirable for gaining wisdom")(v 6; cf. Luke 4:3-11, 1 John
2:16). Satan's perverted logic argued that God is not good if he withholds anything from
you: restrictions are not good + God's plan is restrictive = God's plan is not good. (But,
of course, God's "restrictions" on man, in this case as in all others, are for man's
good/blessing.) Adam and Eve began the habit (evidenced by all mankind ever after) to
put rationalization (justification of one's actions) over revelation (submission to God's
will).

The eating of the fruit was in itself a trivial offence, but it was the attitude of heart, mind
and will that it conveyed that really mattered: it was an act of disobedience and defiance
against God. Adam and Eve not only entertained the thought of evil but chose it and
allowed it to be expressed through them; they chose their own way rather than God's; in
effect, they acted as if they were gods themselves.

76
Through this first sin (of attitude and action) man: (i) lost his state of righteousness
(right-standing before God) and thus also the perfection of his relationship with God.
Whereas before his nature (his deepest spiritual instinct) was to draw close to God to love
and obey him, now it was to run from God in condemnation-rebellion (Genesis 3:8-10)
and thus to sin yet more. (ii) Man lost his sole dominion over the earth. By heeding and
giving allegiance to Satan rather than God, he effectively handed his dominion to Satan
(he would now normally do what Satan wanted him to do) and gave evil a "rightful"
abode and stronghold in the material creation. Thereby Satan became "the prince of this
world", "the god of this age", etc (John 12:31, 2 Cor 4:4) and man became Satan's and
sin's slave. Because of these two huge losses, and the change in his status these losses
brought about, this event is known as The Fall of Man.

7. WHY DID GOD ALLOW SIN?

Man sinned and fell, and God's plan was temporarily frustrated. But why did God allow
sin? The answer normally given concerns man's supposed free will: to make man in his
image, God has to give man freedom (a free will), and this freedom must necessarily (if
unfortunately) include the free choice to obey or disobey God (i.e. man's freedom
contains the possibility of sin); further, for man to truly love God he has to love
voluntarily (of his choosing) - and this freedom includes the possibility that he might
choose the opposite (a possibility that was realized).

But we have to revise our understanding of human freedom. God did not create man with
the freedom (a choice) to sin. In the second creation narrative (Genesis 2) precisely this
one idea is excluded: that man could or would turn against God. The narrative describes
in detail and with warmth everything that God had done for man: given him life, a
garden, food, meaningful work, a helpmate - in short, God had done everything possible
for man. Only one possibility emerges from this account: that man has nothing to gain
and everything to lose by disobeying God; that in loving gratitude he would continue for
always to obey and serve his covenant partner.

Against this background, Genesis 3 comes as a shock. What man does there is
unexpected, unthinkable, and inexplicable. And we cannot (and should not try to)
explain it as a result of man's freedom of choice. God had in fact removed man's freedom
of choice ("You are free to eat...You must not eat": Gen 2:16-17). God had created man
with innate or material freedom (freedom from sin to obey God) rather than formal
freedom of choice (freedom between obedience and disobedience) - just as we are now,
through Calvary, again freed by God from the power of sin to live a new life (vs freedom
to choose between cereals at breakfast). [God had shown Adam not a Y-junction sign but
One Way and No Entry signs. Or, to use another illustration: would a loving father send
his young child to play in a garden with a deep hole in one part of it, and do nothing to
remove the possibility of his child falling in the hole on the basis that the child must be
free to choose whether to play in the garden or fall into the pit?]. If God had left man
with the option of sinning, this would have made man's sin less culpable ("Why didn't
you make me better?"), God's judgement less just and his subsequent redemption less
merciful (as if he was obliged to do something to get man out of the mess for which he

77
was partly responsible). But it is precisely because God did not leave open this
possibility that man's sin was both so inexplicable and so blameworthy, that God's
subsequent judgement was so just and deserved, and that his still later redemption was so
merciful and undeserved. Every attempt to explain sin, to show that it was inevitable,
even necessary, lessens man's responsibility for his shocking act (putting the blame at
least in part on God and/or Satan). But Adam's sin, Israel's sin, the Christian's sin (in
each case against the background of what God has done to prevent it) is shocking and
culpable. Sin cannot be explained; it has no meaning or purpose; it is inexplicable,
meaningless, senseless, shocking, chaotic.

The answer to the question, "Why does God allow sin?", is thus simply: he does not. He
did not allow Adam's sin (he judged it severely); he does not allow ours (the recurring
judgement on certain sinful persons and acts throughout Scripture, and the judgement on
"outstanding" sin prophesied for the end of time, are equally severe). Above all, the
terrible price God paid on Calvary to judge and conquer sin shows unequivocally his
attitude to it.

The question may then be rephrased: Why did God not anticipate sin? Again the answer
is simple: he did. In his omniscience, which includes perfect foreknowledge, God knew
that man would sin/fall and that a costly plan of redemption would be needed to save
him. God was thus not "taken by surprise"; redemption was not a plan which he
suddenly - and perhaps unwillingly - found was his only way out.

The question may then be rephrased one more time: if God knew that this would happen
to his creation, and was not happy with it (would not allow it), why did he carry out his
plan of creating; or, once he had created and it had fallen, why did he not judge and end it
all there and then? Of course, God could quite justly have destroyed all creation after the
Fall. But this would have meant the end of God's plan to create a covenant partner who
could eternally share in his fellowship of love and joy of life (evil would have been
defeated - but so also God's plan). By rather putting into operation a plan of redemption,
which would ultimately destroy evil yet allow God to fulfil his creative purpose (with a
"great multitude" of men who would respond to this redemption), God would both defeat
evil and realize his plan. So just as God created the world out of sheer goodness, he
continues with it out of sheer goodness; just as God created man in his free love, he
redeems man in his free love. Should we, then, to whom this goodness and love is
extended in grace and mercy, complain that by creating despite foreknowledge of the
Fall, or by continuing with creation even after the Fall, God is allowing sin!

Of course, by continuing with, and finally realizing, his creative purposes even after the
Fall, God does demonstrate his power over evil, contrast his goodness and righteousness
with it, and by both gain glory for himself. But it is not as if God needs evil to prove his
power/goodness and gain glory - and that for this reason he authors and/or allows it. Such
an idea is warped - and blasphemous. God triumphs in spite of evil; he triumphs even
"on the back of it", as it were (far from robbing God of glory, Satan, by all his actions,
will only add to God's glory); but God is never "party to" evil, tolerating or allowing it.
He hates it - and is destroying it.

78
8. THE NATURE OF SIN

Sin is pride: thinking of ourselves more than we are; aspiring to be more than we are;
aspiring to be God/like God. This proud ambition was the root of Satan and man's fall
(Isaiah 14:13-14 cf. Gen 3:5).

Sin is rebellion: the throwing-off of God's commands/ways/sovereignty and asserting our

own (Isaiah 53:6). It is self-will; the wilful disobedience of divine will and law; the
refusal of man's will to yield obedience to the divine requirements.

Sin is lawlessness: deviation from, active opposition to, or neglect of, God's law (Ezekiel
48:11, 1 John 3:4).

Sin is failure to attain God's prescribed standard; anything that does not glorify God
(Romans 3:23, 1 Corinthians 10:31).

Sin is thus both good omitted (negatively, not hitting the mark) and wrong committed
(positively, when we miss the mark we hit something else below it).

Sin stains/corrupts/defiles (1 Timothy 4:2, Titus 1:15), separates (Genesis 3:8-10,

Ephesians 4:18) and enslaves/ensnares (John 8:34, Galatians 6:1, Titus 3:3). In each
case, sin leads to sin; and the more one sins the less one is aware of it and the less
desirous and able one is to stop it.

9. THE EFFECT OF SIN

As a result of sin, man suffered a fourfold alienation. Enmity replaced harmony between
man and: (i) God (Genesis 3:8-10, Romans 5:10); (ii) himself (Romans 7:7-24, Galatians
5:13-24); (iii) his fellow-man (Genesis 3 and 4 together tell of man's fall: the vertical
break of the former is followed immediately and inevitably by the horizontal break of the
latter; see also Tit 3:3); and (iv) creation (Gen 3:15, 9:2-5).

Sickness, suffering, decay, death and all other destructive elements in the natural and
human worlds entered the visible realm of creation as a result of Adam's sin (Genesis
3:16-19, Romans 5:12-21, 8:19-22, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22).

By failing to fulfil his responsibilities of covenant (e.g. loyalty to God), Adam lost the
privileges of covenant (e.g. free access to God, tenancy of the garden) and incurred the
curses for breaking covenant (Hosea 6:7).

Ultimately, the result/effect/wage of sin is death (Genesis 2:17, Romans 6:23): spiritual
death immediately (Eph 2:1&5, John 3:5-6); physical death eventually (Genesis 3:19,
Romans 5:12, 1 Cor 15:21-22); the second death ultimately (Revelation 20:6 cf. vv14-
15). Death can be seen both "positively" (the judgement God delivers and the sentence
he executes on man because of his sin) and negatively (simply the inevitable consequence

79
of man cutting himself off from God, who alone gives him life).

But in the middle of God's very first pronouncement of judgement on man because of sin
comes the first promise of merciful redemption...

10. THE EXTENT OF SIN

a) Total Depravity

This phrase was coined by Calvin but the doctrine it describes is biblical and thus
much older. It does not mean that every person is as bad as he/she could possibly
be, nor that everyone will indulge in every form of sin, nor that every trace of
morality has been lost in the Fall and that, consequently, man cannot appreciate or
do that which is good.

While the image of God in man has been distorted, it has not been entirely lost
(the mirror has been cracked but not shattered). The biblical exhortations to be
like God in character and behaviour are only possible because enough of God's
image survives to be reconstructable under the Spirit's power (1 Corinthians 11:7,
James 3:9, et al). Even among the unsaved the image of God can still be observed
in the exercise of conscience (Romans 2:15), will (Acts 27:43) and spirit (man's
religions).

The doctrine means, rather, that:

(i) All men are sinful/have sinned (Rom 3:9-20, Genesis 6:12).

(ii) Every "part" of man has been affected/corrupted by sin: his intellect (Romans
1:28, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Ephesians 4:17-18, Titus 1:15); his conscience (1Timothy
4:2); his will (Romans 1:21); his heart (Romans 1:21, Ephesians 4:18); in short,
his whole being (Romans 1:18 - 3:20). The totality of man's depravity applies to
the field of operation of sin within man, not to the degree of evil in each
individual. There is nothing (no part) within the natural man that gives him merit
in God's sight.

(iii) Apart from divine intervention, man's condition is irreversible. Man is

powerless to do anything about his fallen/sinful and judged state (Romans 5:6).

b) Original Sin: The Sinful Nature

Not only do all men commit sins (they think/feel/speak/act sinfully) but they are
born with a sinful/fallen/Adamic nature inherited from Adam (called original sin
by theologians). In fact, it is this sinful nature, this capacity for and tendency to
sin, that leads to sinful acts (original sin is the root of actual sin): Genesis 6:5,
8:21, Job 14:1&4, 15:14, 25:4, Psalm 51:5, Matthew 15:18, Ephesians 2:3.

80
Revelation here explains man's universal experience. Man is thus under
judgement for both original and actual sin.

The importance of Jesus' virgin birth becomes apparent in the light of this
doctrine. If Jesus had been born normally (descended from Adam's flesh) he
theoretically would have been free of actual sin but not of original sin
(theoretically, because original sin must express itself in actual sin). As such he
would have been under judgement himself and not able to save man (he could not
have offered himself as a sinless offering in our place). But, because of the virgin
birth, Jesus' did not inherit the Adamic nature, was thus free from the law of sin
operating in his body (cf. Romans 8:2) and was able in turn to live a perfect life.

This doctrine refutes humanism and other philosophies/religions which deny that
man is inherently sinful (that he has a sinful nature) and asserts that he is
essentially good. It also refutes Pelagianism (a fourth-century A.D. heresy named
after its founder, Pelagius): Adam's sin affected no one; there is no such thing as
original sin; we are born into the same possibilities that Adam was. That is, we
are completely free to choose good or evil and are thus able to live free from sin
(as some have indeed done). It also refutes the semi-Pelagianism of Roman
Catholicism: the consequence of original sin (viz. loss of original righteousness)
is removed by water baptism - although not the existence of the "evil principle"
within man (the desire to sin remains but this is not sinful in itself). In short,
Pelagianism says we do not have a sinful nature at all (like Adam, we are free and
able not to sin); semi-Pelagianism says that the penalty for being born with a
sinful nature is removed at baptism but we still have the sinful nature itself (the
inclination to sin).

c) The Transmission/Imputation of Sin

The concept of original sin, of a sinful nature inherited from Adam which causes
us to sin, creates a problem. While most of us will not deny the reality of a "bent"
towards sin within ourselves, and thus that we are born with a sinful nature, we do
wrestle to understand: (i) quite how we can be affected by Adam's act; and (ii) the
fairness of being condemned to a life of sin, and hence to God's judgement, by
someone else's action (i.e. God's justice in judging us for something we could not
help).

The answer to the first question (how we can be affected by Adam's act) lies in
Adam's headship/representativeness over the whole human race. This is, firstly, a
biological headship: all men descend from Adam (Acts 17:26) and so are
affected/infected with his nature by fact of sheer physical lineage. Adam would
either have passed on a live spirit (unfallen nature) or a dead spirit (fallen nature);
because of the Fall, it was the latter. Secondly, it is a covenant headship: all one's
unborn descendants are included in the terms of covenant, and so all mankind
(contained in Adam's loins: cf. Hebrews 7:9-10) were cursed when Adam broke
covenant. If being imputed with Adam's sin/death in this way seems unfair, we

81
must remember that the righteousness/life of the Second Adam is imputed to all
those of whom he is head/representative by the same rule of covenant (Romans
5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, 2 Corinthians 5:21).

The answer to the second question (how it can be fair to be condemned to sin and
hence to judgement by a nature brought about by someone else's action) is that the
Bible makes it quite clear that: (i) we are each judged for our own sin, not Adam's
(Ezekiel 18:4&20 - although we die because of both Adam's and our sin); (ii) that
we would each make the same choice as Adam under the same circumstances;
(iii) that we are all therefore fully responsible for our sin and justly under God's
judgement.

82
Chapter 6

THE DOCTRINE OF JESUS CHRIST

Chapter Outline: A: HIS PERSON

1. The Deity of Christ
2. The Humanity of Christ
3. The Hypostatic Union
4. The Kenosis of Christ
5. The Impeccability of Christ
6. Heresies

B: HIS WORK
7. Pre-Incarnation
8. Incarnation (including: The Doctrine of the Atonement)
9. Post-Incarnation
10. The Offices of Christ
11. Heresies

Jesus Christ is the centre of all things, of the entire created orders, both visible and
invisible (Colossians 1:16-17). He is the centre of both secular and sacred history. He is
the centre of God's two great works: creation and redemption. He is the centre of the
doctrine and life of God's people. He is the centre of Christianity - that which really
makes it unique.

The Doctrine of Jesus Christ, the biblical teaching about who he is (his Person) and what
he did (his Work), is thus the central doctrine in Christian theology. Even within this
centrality, two supremely decisive sub-doctrines can be identified (the first concerning
his Person, the second concerning his Work): the hypostatic union (resulting from the
belief that Jesus is both human and divine), and the atonement brought about through his
death on the cross, are the quintessential assertions of the Christian faith and those that
set it apart from all other religions and cults.

A : THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST

1. THE DEITY OF CHRIST

a) His pre-existence

Micah 5:2 (the word translated "from of old" is used in Habakkuk 1:12 of God's
eternal nature); Isaiah 9:6; John 8:58, 17:5; Colossians 1:16 (he could only have

83
 accomplished works like creation if he had existed before time); 1 Peter 1:20;
Revelation 13:8. While Christ's pre-existence doesn't in itself prove his deity (cf.
Arianism), it is necessary for his deity.

b) His claims

Matthew 26:63-64 (in Jewish usage, "Son of" did not imply inferiority but
equality and identity of nature), 28:19; John 5:18, 10:30&36, 14:6; the seven "I
am‟s (cf. Exodus 3:14-15): John 6:35, 8:12, 8:58, 10:7, 10:11, 11:25, 14:6, 15:1.

c) Others' claims

Matthew 14:33; John 1:1&34&49, 6:69, 11:27, 20:28&31; Romans 9:5; 2

Corinthians 13:14; Philippians 2:6&10; Colossians 1:19, 2:2-3&9; Titus 2:13;
Hebrews 1:3&6.

d) His Names

"God" (El/Theos)(Hebrews 1:8); "Lord" (Adonai/Kurios)(Matthew 22:43-45 cf.

Psalm 110:1; Luke 1:76 cf. Malachi 3:1); "LORD" (Yahweh)(Romans 10:13 cf.
Joel 2:32; Revelation 1:8 & 22:13 cf. Exodus 3:14-15); "King of Kings and Lord
of Lords" (Revelation 19:16 cf. 1 Timothy 6:15).

e) His attributes

Jesus possesses attributes which only God has: omnipotence (Matthew 28:18;
Revelation 1:8); omniscience (Mark 2:8, John 1:48); omnipresence (Matthew
18:20, 28:20, Ephesians 1:23); et al.

f) His acts

Jesus performs deeds which only God can do: he creates all things (John 1:3,
Colossians 1:16); he sustains all things (Hebrews 1:3, Colossians 1:17); he
forgives sins (Mark 2:1-12); he receives worship (John 20:28); he sends the Holy
Spirit (John 15:26); he raises the dead (John 5:25); he judges all things (John
5:27, Acts 17:31).

2. THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST

a) Human body

Jesus experienced a normal human birth (Matthew 1:18, Galatians 4:4) and
development (Luke 2:52). He referred to himself as a man (John 8:40) and was
recognized by others as such.

84
 b) Human soul/spirit

Jesus humanity did not only extend to ("provide") the body (with his deity
"providing" the soul/spirit): Jesus' humanity was complete, including (extending
to) both material (body: see [a] above) and immaterial aspects (soul: Matthew
26:38; spirit: Luke 23:46).

c) Human experience

Jesus shared in normal human experiences: hunger (Matthew 4:2); thirst (John
19:28); tiredness (John 4:6); compassion (Matthew 9:36); compassion with
weeping (John 11:33-36); temptation (Luke 4:1-13, Hebrews 4:15). Note: Jesus'
experiences and temptations involved both his body and his soul/spirit.

d) Human names

"Son of Man" (i.e. the representative man, denoting equality and identity of nature
with man: Luke 19:10); "Son of David" (Mark 10:47); "Jesus" (Matthew 1:21);
"the man Jesus Christ" (1 Tim 2:5).

3. THE HYPOSTATIC UNION

The centre and uniqueness of Christianity is the person Jesus Christ; and the centre and
uniqueness of Christ is that he is a divine-human being, the God-Man. In the same
way that the doctrine of the Trinity results from holding in tension the testimony of
revelation that God is both three and one, the doctrine of the hypostatic union results
from having to marry the evidence of Scripture that Jesus is both divine and human. (As
to why Jesus needed to be both divine and human we shall see shortly when discussing
the atonement.)

The hypostatic union is the supernatural and suprarational union of two hypostases
(natures); the union of undiminished deity and perfect humanity in one person, so that
that person is fully God and fully man. These two natures are united in one person
without forming (i) a third nature or (ii) two separate persons. Furthermore, (iii) it is not
that one part of the person is human and the other divine (the whole person is human and
the whole person divine); nor (iv) that merely some qualities of divinity are combined
with some parts of humanity (the person is fully God and fully man). These four errors
result from the inability or unwillingness of some to accept the supernatural and thus
suprarational nature of the union (it can be defended but not defined); as such it always
remains in part a mystery.

Jesus' humanity was full but not fallen: through the virgin birth he was free from original
sin (he had a human, but not a fallen, nature: Matthew 1:23, Luke 1:35); he was also free
of actual sin (he led a sinless life: Hebrews 4:15, 1 Peter 2:22).

85
4. THE KENOSIS OF CHRIST

This doctrine derives its name from the Greek word (kenoo) used in Philippians 2:7
(translated "made himself nothing" or "emptied himself") and deals with how the pre-
incarnate Second Person of the Trinity "changed" with the Incarnation. The question is
whether Christ "emptied himself" of all, some or none of his deity when he became man;
whether Jesus, while in the flesh, was just a man or still divine as well?

The participle huparchon (v6) transliterates to "He continued to subsist in the form of
God" and implies that this state (Christ's deity) continued even during the Incarnation.

Indeed, verse 7 describes the kenoo as an addition (of humanity) rather than as a
subtraction (of deity): Jesus "made himself nothing " [by] "taking [on] the very nature of
a servant, being made in human likeness". Obviously, this taking on of humanity, with
its consequent limitations, was a humbling of himself (v8).

If Christ had surrendered some/all of his divine attributes at the Incarnation: (i)his
character/nature would have changed (but this contradicts the doctrine of the constancy of
God); (ii) it contradicts the evidence ([1] above) that he possessed these during his earthly
life; (iii) Jesus would not have been able to save man ([8b] below). The Second Person
of the Trinity must have been somewhere during the Incarnation (or the Trinity became a
Duality, which is impossible): either He is not to be identified with Jesus (in which case
Jesus is not who he said he was) or He is (in which case Jesus is fully him, fully God, for
a person cannot divide himself). How can a divine Person surrender his divinity: this is
both nonsensical (there would be nothing left) and an impossibility for God.

The kenosis of Christ thus involved: the veiling of Christ's pre-incarnate glory (John
17:5); the condescension of taking on himself the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3);
the voluntary non-use (not subtraction or "emptying") of some of his divine attributes
during his earthly life (Matthew 24:36, 26:53).

5. THE IMPECCABILITY OF CHRIST

That Christ was both tempted yet sinless is agreed on (Hebrews 4:15). But was he "able
not to sin" or "not able to sin"?

We may choose the former position (and often do) because: (i) in asserting that Jesus was
a man like us and so able to identify with us, we subconsciously (but wrongly) assume
that he had a fallen nature like ours; (ii) we assume that temptation cannot be real (really
felt) if there is not the possibility of sin (of succumbing to it).

But the latter position is the correct one. Jesus had a human (but not fallen) nature and a
divine nature: it is impossible for God (the divine nature) to sin, to change (it is
everlastingly and constantly perfect, holy, just, etc.). Having no sin nature, Jesus could
not have been tested from that avenue as we are: he was not tempted with a view to

86
succumbing to sin (to see if he could sin) but with a view to proving he was sinless (to
show that he could not). Nevertheless, the temptations were real (they did not run like
water off Jesus' back), for the reality of a test does not lie either in the moral nature of the
one being tested or in his ability to yield to it. (In fact, temptation was worse for Jesus
because he could never give in to it; we end temptation by giving in to it.) Thus, because
he suffered when he was tempted, Jesus is able to help us in our temptation (Hebrews
2:18); moreover, he was tempted in every area that we are tempted in (Hebrews 4:15,
Luke 4:1-13 cf. 1 John 22:16).

6. HERESIES

Listed below are some of the heretical beliefs that have arisen in the course of church
history regarding the person of Christ. (Heresies regarding the work of Christ will be
mentioned in Section 11 of this chapter.)

a) Deity denied

(i) Barthians: Jesus was a normal human person with a normal sinful nature. God
worked through this man to reveal himself, especially at the cross.

(ii) Unitarians/Ebionites: Jesus was a normal person who was elected as the Son
of God (adopted as divine) at his baptism. The former hold that at this point the
human Jesus was united with the eternal (but not divine) Christ (who was also
manifest in Adam and others). Other cults (e.g. Cerinthians) agree with the
Ebionites on this but add that the divine Christ left the human Jesus on the cross,
so that only the man Jesus died.

(iii) Arians/Jehovah Witnesses: Jesus is an exalted yet finite being (not divine),
created by God the Father at the beginning of time as the mediator of creation and
redemption.

b) Humanity denied

Docetists: Jesus was not an actual flesh-and-blood person; he was a phantom-like

appearance of God. He only seemed to have a body (dokeo is Greek for "to
seem").

c) Partial deity and humanity

Apollinarians: Jesus Christ's body was human; his spirit was that of the eternal
Logos.

d) Two separate persons

Nestorians: Overemphasizing the distinctness of the two natures of Christ, they

87
 landed up with two separate persons (as if a divine and a human person both lived
in the same body).

e) Third nature

Eutychians: Countering Nestorians, they so emphasized the single nature of Christ

that they landed up with a third nature (unique to Christ, neither human nor
divine).

B : THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST

7. PRE-INCARNATION

As the eternal, divine Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, Jesus Christ has been
part of all divine action and utterance for all time.

For example, we have seen that He is the one through whom the Godhead creates all
things (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16) and sustains all things (Hebrews 1:3, Colossians 1:17).

More specifically, Jesus was involved already with the history and redemption of God's
Old Covenant people (albeit in a way vastly more limited and veiled than his role in the
New Covenant). This is evidenced by his seeming appearance on a few occasions to key
individuals in Israel, bringing revelation (of God and his purposes) and redemption:
Abraham (Genesis 18); Jacob (Genesis 32); Joshua (Joshua 5); Shadrach, Meshach and
Abednego (Daniel 3); et al.

8. INCARNATION

a) Life

The Incarnation (from the Latin for "in flesh") refers to the event whereby "God
[who] is Spirit" (specifically, the Second Person of the Godhead) took on human
existence. (This included, but was not limited to, the taking on of a human body.)
In short, it refers to Jesus' life here on earth, from his birth to his ascension.

Jesus' work during his life and ministry before the cross was twofold.

(i) Revelation. Jesus was, is and always will be the final and supreme Revelation
of God to man (John 1:18, Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:3). Every element of Jesus'
life and ministry - his character (who he was), his lifestyle (how he lived), his
teaching (what he said), and his miracles (what he did) - was a revelation from
God to man, firstly of God himself (who he was, what he was like) and secondly
of God's salvation (what man needed to do to be saved and to walk in fellowship
with God). As such, Jesus' life and ministry were also an example to us of how

88
we should live (1 Peter 2:21-22, 1 John 2:6, 3:6, 3:16).

(ii) Redemption. Similarly, the effect of every element of Jesus' pre-crucifixion

life and ministry (his character, lifestyle, teaching and miracles) was to save man.
Wherever Jesus went he set free, bound up, healed, delivered, encouraged,
rebuked, etc; in short, he brought salvation to people (this was in itself a
revelation of God). He was ushering in the kingdom or reign of God, a new era in
salvation-history, a new and better administration of the covenant of grace. In his
ministry the future (God's Kingdom/Reign) was invading the present; his ministry
was a signpost to the kingdom - an assurance of its coming and giving directions
on how to get there.

In addition, the effect of Jesus' perfect character, his sinless life, his matchless
teachings (the most sublime truths ever heard by man), and his miracles (the most
extraordinary demonstrations of power ever seen), was to vindicate Jesus' claims
about himself. They proved his identity and hence his authority.

Of course, neither of these works were limited to Jesus' ministry before his
crucifixion. His death, resurrection and ascension completed both his work of
revealing who God was and his work of saving man (as well as further proving
his identity/authority). In fact, his pre-crucifixion ministry can be seen as merely
a preparation for the real work of salvation wrought through his death and
resurrection: the three years of ministry pointed lost man to these events and they
proved the worthiness of Jesus to be mankind's Saviour; conversely, Jesus was
only able to "save" people, to usher in the Kingdom of God, during these years
because of the climactic events that were to take place at their end. Nevertheless,
an important and necessary part of Jesus' incarnational work of revelation and
redemption was performed during his three years of ministry.

b) Death

It was Jesus' death, more than any other single event, that really bought salvation
for man. The saving work of Christ through his death on the cross is a huge
subject of inexhaustible depth and wonder. I have tried to make it accessible in a
way that is simple yet comprehensive by delineating three main aspects of Christ's
work on the cross.

89
(i) A legal transaction
This is the aspect of Christ's work on the cross known as..

THE ATONEMENT

X : Jesus' death as an atoning sacrifice for sin

The judgement/wage/penalty for sin is death (Genesis 2:17, 3:19, Romans 5:12,
6:23, Ephesians 2:1). Since the Fall, man has been under the sentence of death -
and, indeed, each man dies (he loses the right or the ability to live because of his
sin). In this way, the Bible represents our lives as the debt we owe to God
because of our sin; to satisfy divine legal justice we have to pay this debt by
giving-up our lives (by dying). Each of us is sinful and so has to pay with our
lives; we are thus powerless to help either ourselves or anyone else (Romans 5:6).

But Jesus, by living a sinless life, has no sin (debt) of his own which he has to pay
for by dying. He is thus free to give his life for another, to pay another man's debt
by taking on his sin and dying in his place. Jesus had to be human and live a
sinless human life in order to qualify for this: just as a man had sinned and
brought death to mankind, a man had to undo the damage by living a sinless life
and bringing life to mankind (Romans 5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22). But if
Jesus was only a man, he would only have been able to pay for the sin-debt of one
other man, to give his life as a substitute for one other person's life. (This is just:
man for man.) But because Jesus was also divine, and a divine life is worth an
infinite number of human lives (just as a human life is worth an infinite number of
animal lives), Jesus is able to give his life (die as a substitute) in payment for the
sin-debt of all men (John 1:29, 3:16, 2 Corinthians 5:19, 1 John 2:2). Thus, at the
moment of his death, he cried out Tetelestai!, a Greek word common to the
commercial world of the time meaning "The debt is paid in full" (John 19:30).
(We can now appreciate the need for Jesus to be both human and divine to effect
our salvation.)

Y : Jesus' death a fulfilment of Old Testament sacrifice

Jesus' death was thus a fulfilment of Old Testament sacrifices, which were also
offered as an atonement for sin. Each Israelite (like us) should have died in
payment for his own sin. But God graciously allowed the death of an animal (a
substitute) in place of the man so that the man could carry on living. Because the
life of a creature is in its blood (Leviticus 17:11), its blood had to be shed to prove
that its life had been taken and sin had been paid for (Hebrews 9:22). That is why
we are saved through Jesus' blood: his shed blood was a sign to God that his
divine-human life had been given in substitute payment for the sin-debt of the
world (Romans 3:25, Ephesians 5:2). But, of course, the life/blood of animals

90
could not really pay for sin and remove the death penalty from man (for an
animal's life is an inadequate substitute for human life). The sacrificial system
was simply given by God to Israel to effect a stay of execution until such time as
the Sacrifice which really could pay for sin and remove the death penalty had
been offered, and on the basis of which God could forgive the Old Testament
sinner. The cross thus works retrospectively as well as chronologically; its two
arms extend into the past and future; Old and New Covenant saints are saved
through Jesus' blood. God forgave the Israelite who offered his sacrifice with true
repentance and faith of his sin - but only on the basis of the forgiveness that
would one day be made available through Jesus' sacrifice. Only then was justice
satisfied; only then could God forgive man (i.e. not hold his sin against him but
let him live). In this way Jesus' sacrifice was a far better one than the Old
Covenant sacrifices and superseded them entirely (Hebrews 9:11 - 10:18). Jesus
fulfilled/superseded all the regular Temple sacrifices (burnt, sin, guilt/trespass and
peace/fellowship offerings [Leviticus 1-5]) and also the special festival offerings,
for example: the lamb of the Passover (God's judgement passes over us when we
are under the blood of the Lamb [Exodus 12; cf. John 1:29&36, 1 Peter 1:19]);
and the scapegoat of the Day of Atonement (the sins of the whole world were laid
on the Scapegoat who was driven out to die outside the camp [Leviticus 16; cf.
Isaiah 53:6]).

Z : Terms used to describe the Atonement

The Atonement is so rich and multifaceted that theologians have had to use many
different words in their attempt to describe its full significance, inter alia:

Atonement. The overarching word used to describe the effect of the whole, viz.
to "make-up" for sin, to repair the damage, to restore the relationship between
man and God ("at-one-ment")(Leviticus 17:11, Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2).

Substitution. The nature of Christ's death as a substitutionary death (he died in

our place) has already been made clear in the above. The idea of substitution
comes from one of two Greek phrases: anti, meaning "in place of" (Matthew
20:28, Luke 11:11); or huper, meaning "in place of" and "for the benefit of" (2
Corinthians 5:21, 1 Peter 3:18, Philemon 13). The substitutionary atonement (i.e.
the belief that in his death Jesus took God's wrath, intended for us, on himself so
that we can have peace with God) is the heart of the Christian doctrine of
salvation, and Jesus' death must never be watered down into something less than
this (e.g. that it was merely an example to us of sacrificial love).

Redemption. This concept is built on three similar New Testament words. The
first word means "to buy", "to purchase", "to pay the price for" something.
Because of sin, man could be said to "belong" to death (we all have to die). To
buy us back for his possession, God had to pay the price for sin that his justice
demanded, i.e. death (Matthew 13:44, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, 2 Peter 2:1,
Revelation 5:9). The second word (merely on intensification of the first through

91
the addition of a prepositional prefix) means "to purchase out of". Jesus' death
not only pays the penalty for sin we incurred through sinning but removes us from
our bondage to the law which put these penalties on us in the first place (Galatians
4:5). The third word means "to loose", "to ransom". The sinner is not only
bought and bought out of but released/set free (1 Timothy 2:6, Titus 2:14,
Hebrews 9:12).

Propitiation. Jesus' death propitiated or appeased God; it absorbed the wrath of

God aroused by man's sin. By taking our sin on himself Jesus turned aside God's
wrath from us and took the full wrath of God on himself (Matthew 27:4; cf.
Genesis 32:13-20).

Satisfaction. The cross satisfies the justice of God, which demands that sin be
paid for by death (the taking of life, the shedding of blood).

Imputation. Jesus' death not only removes the negative (sin and its
penalty/debt/wage: death) but adds the positive. There is an exchange involved:
Jesus takes on our sin and gives us his righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 Peter
1:24). Those of his family are imputed with his righteousness (that is, it is a gift
of God's goodness and not earned) just as those of Adam's family were imputed
with Adam's guilt (they received his sinful nature).

Justification. Because Jesus has removed our sin from us and given us his
righteousness, God can justify us: i.e. he can declare us innocent of all charges
brought against us (past, present and future sins) and righteous/holy/pure in his
sight. (The term is borrowed from legal practice in New Testament times: when a
judge, having heard all the evidence, found the accused not guilty, he closed the
case by saying "I justify you", i.e. "I declare you innocent of all charges against
you and of right-standing in the sight of the law.") It is for this reason that the
justified can once again know God, walk with him, come into his presence, etc -
because they are sinless in his sight. Man's original righteousness, his right-
standing with God, has at last been restored (Romans 3:21-26).

Reconciliation. Man, once alienated/separated from God and at enmity with him,
is thereby reconciled with God, brought near to and given peace with him
(Romans 5:1&10-11, 2 Corinthians 55:19, Ephesians 2:11-13).

(ii) A military operation

The first result of the Fall was the penalty man incurred for sin. The other result
of Adam's sin was effectively to hand over to Satan the dominion over the earth
that he, Adam, had received from God. (With a now sinful nature, and in
rebellious flight from God, man was henceforth far more likely to listen to

92
Satan/sin than to God.) Satan thus became "the prince of this world" and man
became the powerless slave of sin/Satan (Chapter 5.6). Just as the cross as a legal
transaction reversed the first effect of the Fall, the cross as a military operation
reversed the second effect.

The Incarnation represented an invasion by God of enemy territory, a conquest of

the enemy and a rescue of his captive. Jesus lived the perfect life in total
submission to the will of God that God had initially intended for man (he gave
Satan no access to, or authority in, his life). He thereby gained the right
(authority) to take back from Satan dominion over the earth. Legally (in terms of
what God had instituted in Genesis 1), only a man could achieve this. (Again we
see the necessity for Jesus being a man.) Through his ministry, but especially
through his crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus, the Second Man/Adam (Romans
5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22), the Son of Man (i.e. the representative man),
took dominion back for man on behalf of man from Satan (Genesis 3:15, John
12:31). He bound up the enemy (Matthew 12:28-29); he disarmed his forces
(Colossians 2:15); he began the process of destroying his works (1 John 3:8), a
process now continued by his people (Matthew 16:18-19). In particular, Jesus
invaded, conquered, and rescued man from, Death ([c] below). He rescued and
liberated Satan's captive (man) not only from the penalty of sin (i) but from the
power of sin (ii), and now shares with redeemed man the restored dominion:
God's people have a measure of dominion even now (Matthew 28:18, Mark
16:15-18, Luke 10:17-19) and will one day rule with him over the new heaven
and the new earth.

(iii) A covenant cutting

The third great work of the cross, of course, was that it introduced the New, final
and perfect Covenant. It was a covenant-cutting ceremony, a contract entered into
between two parties, God and Man (the Second Representative Head of the
human race was, like the first, acting on behalf of all men who would belong to
his family). But, just as God had had to put Abraham to sleep in the cutting
ceremony of the Old Covenant and act out both parts himself (because
Abraham/Israel would have repeatedly nullified the covenant by their inability to
keep it)(Genesis 15), so here too God (Father and Son) performs both sides: Jesus
is not only Son of Man but Son of God! So, because it is Jesus who has to keep
the covenant and not us, and because he does this perfectly, the covenant (which
is the nature of, and the permission for, our relationship with God) can never be
broken! This is why the New is a better covenant (Hebrews 8; cf. Jeremiah
31:31-34, Ezekiel 36:25-28); it is perfect and eternal. It is on the basis of this
covenant that the eternal covenant of grace, God's purpose with man since
creation, will finally be fulfilled (Revelation 21:3).

This covenant ceremony, like its predecessors, came complete with terms
(privileges and responsibilities, both for Jesus and us, and blessings and curses for
keeping/breaking covenant), a sign (for Jesus, the nail marks in his hands [Isaiah

93
49:16, John 20:20]; for us, baptism [Colossians 2:11-12]), a seal (the Holy Spirit
[Ephesians 1:13]) and a meal (as of old, of bread and wine [Luke 22:19-20, 1
Corinthians 11:23-25]).

Clearly, with the coming of a new covenant, the old was superseded (rendered
obsolete/redundant)(Hebrews 8). Its code of laws thus ceased to be binding also
(Acts 13:39, Romans 3:21-31, 10:4, Galatians 3:23-25, Colossians 2:14).
However, this does not exclude the possibility that some of the laws from the old
code may have found their way into the new code, i.e. the law of Christ (Galatians
6:2) or the law of the Spirit (Romans 8:2&4).

c) Resurrection

(i)The Historicity and Nature of the Resurrection

That the resurrection actually happened is a truth crucial to Christianity and our
faith. If Jesus was not raised from the dead: he was not who he said he was; death
has not been defeated; we are not saved; and we are the most miserable of
creatures to be living under this delusion (1 Corinthians 15:14-19&30-32). But
Christ has been raised: the resurrection is one of the best proved events in history.
(As before, these proofs belong to Apologetics rather than Doctrine.)

Important too is the physical nature of the resurrection (for death would still not
be truly defeated otherwise). Jesus' post-resurrection appearances were not those
of a spirit but in a body clearly identified with that of his life and crucifixion
(John 20:20&27). Of course, it was a different kind of physical existence, one
which did not obey normal laws (vv19&26) and which perhaps offers a hint of
our future resurrection bodies (see Chapter 10).

(ii) The Significance of the Resurrection

The resurrection proves the validity of Christ's claims about himself (Matthew
16:21, 20:19, 28:6, Acts 2:30-31).

The resurrection demonstrates the Father's acceptance of the Son's sacrifice and
salvation (Acts 2:32, Ephesians 1:20, Psalm 16:9-10).

The resurrection thus assures us of the forgiveness of our sin (1 Cor 15:17).

The resurrection evidences Christ's defeat of death. The judgement for sin is
death. Consequently, ever since the Fall, man has been under the sentence of
death: spiritual death throughout his life; physical death at its end; the "second
death" (eternal punishment) at the end of time. Because of this, death came to be
personified in the Bible as a power (Death) who held man in his vice-like grip.
Satan, as the architect of all evil, in turn held death in his power. But in invading
enemy territory and casting out the Enemy (taking dominion over the territory

94
 back from him), Jesus disarmed all Satan's forces, including Death (Hebrews
2:14). His resurrection is a sign of the future invading the present; of his defeat
of, and consequent power over, death (Acts 2:24, Romans 6:9, Revelation 1:18).

The resurrection is thus a guarantee of our own future resurrection (1 Corinthians

15:20-23), and not only ours but the resurrection (John 5:28-29) and judgement
(Acts 17:31) of all men. In this age we still have to die, but death is no longer a
power who will keep us forever in his grip but the doorway which allows us to
pass from this good but imperfect existence into one perfect and eternal. By
raising all men at the end of time Jesus will overcome the last enemy, Death (1
Corinthians 15:24-26), and execute the judgement he delivered at his first coming
(Revelation 20:14). Death will be defeated (1 Corinthians 15:51-55); it will be no
more (Revelation 21:4, 22:3).

Finally, therefore, the resurrection frees us from the fear of death (Hebrews 2:15).

d) Ascension

(i) The Historicity and Nature of the Ascension

Like the resurrection, the ascension was both a historical (actual) and physical
event.

(ii) The Significance of the Ascension

The ascension further proves the validity of Jesus' claims about himself (John
6:62, 17:1).

The ascension further demonstrates the Father's acceptance of the Son's sacrifice
and salvation (Act 2:33, Ephesians 1:20).

The ascension marked the end of the Son's kenosis and the beginning of his
exaltation at the right hand of the Father (1 Corinthians 15:24-26, Ephesians 1:21-
22, Philippians 2:9-11).

The ascension further assures us of our salvation (Hebrews 6:19-20).

The ascension allows Jesus' present ministry ([9a] below) and is especially related
to the giving of gifts to the church (Ephesians 4:8).

9. POST-INCARNATION

a) Church Age

As High Priest over the new Israel, Jesus prays for his people, protecting them

95
 from sin in their lives (John 17:15), pleading for them when they do so sin (1 John
2:1) and securing their salvation (Hebrews 7:25). Because he has himself
suffered and been tempted, he is a sympathetic High Priest (Hebrews 2:5-18, 4:14
- 5:10).

As Head of the Church (Colossians 1:18, Revelation 2:1) he builds it (Matthew

16:18), gives gifts to it (Ephesians 4:8&11), nurtures and matures it (Ephesians
4:16, 5:29, Colossians 2:19), and unifies and directs it (Ephesians 2:20-21).

Jesus answers the prayers of his people (John 14:13-14), brings fruitfulness in
their lives (John 15:1-17) and prepares a place for their everlasting habitation
(John 14:3).

b) End Times

Jesus pours out his wrath on the earth during the Tribulation (Revelation 6).

He returns in power and glory (Revelation 19) to: (i) defeat and destroy all human
and angelic evil (Revelation 19:11-21; cf. Hebrews 2:8, 1 Corinthians 15:23-28);
(ii) raise and judge all men (John 5:28-29, Acts 17:31, 1 Corinthians 15:23,
Revelation 20:11-15); (iii) glorify and marry his bride (Revelation 19:7-9); (iv)
renew (recreate) that which he created at the beginning: heaven and earth.

c) New Heaven and New Earth

Absolute, everlasting and blessed reign on and over the new heaven and new
earth. (See Chapter 9 for [a]; Chapter 10 for [b] and [c].)

10. THE OFFICES OF CHRIST

In God's Old Covenant relationship with Israel there were three mediating offices: priest
(Exodus 28 & 29), prophet (Deuteronomy 18:14-22) and king (Deuteronomy 17:14-20).
In the Old Testament we see notable men filling one and sometimes two of these
positions but never all three.

The incarnational and post-incarnational work of Christ discussed above shows that Jesus
held/holds all three offices in the New Covenant. And, whereas others executed their
offices imperfectly and partially, Jesus does so perfectly and fully (he fulfils them).

a) Prophet

Jesus represents God before man: he reveals God to man in his character,
lifestyle, teaching and actions. He communicates God's Word (his instructions:
requirements) to man; indeed he is God's Word (John 1:1). He interprets the past

96
 and the present, and he predicts the future. Jesus fulfilled the prophetic office (he
was the perfect Prophet) during the Incarnation (Deuteronomy 18:14, Matthew
13:57); but to a measure he continues to fill the office during the Church Age (by
his Spirit and various means of revelation/guidance).

b) Priest

Already during the Incarnation Jesus acted as a priest, representing man before
God: he interceded for men; he offered up a sacrifice for their sin (himself). But
it is chiefly during the Church Age that Jesus fulfils this office: as the perfect
Priest, bringing the blood of his own perfect sacrifice to the Father in heaven, he
lives forever to make perfect and perpetual intercession for his people, so saving
them completely (Hebrews 2:5-18, 4:14 - 5:10, 7:11-28).

c) King

In the present age Jesus already reigns (i.e. is King) in the lives of his people, the
church (the Kingdom has come); but in the age to come Jesus will be the perfect
King, reigning absolutely (the Kingdom is still to come)(Isaiah 9:6-7, Luke 1:31-
33). (See Chapter 10.)

11. HERESIES

The work of Christ centres on the cross. It is not surprising, therefore, that heresies
concerning the work of Christ centre on the Atonement. Satan spares no effort in
perverting or watering-down this essential doctrine of the Christian faith, especially the
belief which lies at its heart, viz. that Jesus' death was a substitutionary sacrifice for the
payment of sin, a payment which God's holiness and wrath demanded.

(i) Jesus' death was intended as a moral influence: in expressing the love of God
so radically, it hoped to soften our hearts and lead us to repentance. It was not a
payment for sin; indeed, there was no legal necessity for such a payment.

(ii) Jesus' death was merely an ethical example to us of the way of

love/obedience. It hopes to inspire us to lead a similar life. (Again, it neither
atoned for sin or moved God to pardon sin.)

(iii) Jesus' death demonstrated how God/the Law regarded sin but it did not pay
for sin: Jesus died, an innocent victim, to satisfy the government of God, since
"public justice" must be upheld and the government of God vindicated.

(iv) Jesus' death was a ransom paid to Satan. (This is surely the most perverted
heresy in Christendom! Satan has no legal claim on God.)

97
Chapter 7

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

Chapter Outline: A : THE PERSON OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

1. The Holy Spirit is a Person
2. The Holy Spirit is Divine
3. The Names of the Holy Spirit
4. The Symbols of the Holy Spirit
5. The Holy Spirit and the Trinity

B : THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

6. Creation
7. Revelation
8. Israel
9. Christ
10. The Believer
11. The Church
12. The Future

C : COMMON QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT

13. Baptism in the Spirit: Evangelicals vs
Charismatic?
14. Who do we pray to: Father, Son or Holy Spirit?
15. What is "the Blasphemy against the Holy
Spirit"?

The Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Triune Godhead. He appears throughout
Scripture, from the Bible's very second verse (Gen 1:2) to it's fifth-last (Revelation
22:17). He is mentioned in 22 of the 39 Old Testament books, and in 24 of the 27 New
Testament books (the exceptions are Philemon, 2 and 3 John). Altogether there are 88
references to the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament and 261 in the New.

These statistics clearly show that revelation about, and the operation of, the Holy Spirit
increased in the New Testament period. The Holy Spirit has a particularly important role
in this age generally, and in the conversion, life and ministry of the believer specifically.

In the light of this, the restoration of the Holy Spirit to his rightful prominence in the life
and doctrine of the Church in the twentieth century after centuries of neglect, a
restoration brought about particularly through the Pentecostal and Charismatic
movements, is greatly to be welcomed. (The restoration has not been without its excesses,
however; the correction of errors in church history has always led in part to the opposite
error.)

98
A : THE PERSON OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

1. THE HOLY SPIRIT IS A PERSON

The Holy Spirit has often been misunderstood/misrepresented as an impersonal

power/force or commodity, the exercise of God's "influence" in the world to do his work
and realize his purposes, the virtue or energy flowing from God to man (e.g.
Modalism/Sabellianism, Socinianism, Liberal Theology). Nothing could be further from
the truth and more grievous to the Holy Spirit himself. Understanding that the Holy
Spirit is a person is fundamental to understanding his work in the world and his
relationship with God and with man.

The biblical evidence for the Holy Spirit being a person is overwhelming.

a) He possesses the characteristics of a person

Intelligence/thought (Acts 15:28, Romans 8:27, 1 Corinthians 2:10-11);

speech/language (Acts 1:16, 8:29, 10:9, 13:2, 1 Corinthians 2:13, 1 Timothy 4:1);
will (1 Corinthians 12:11); emotion/feelings (Romans 15:30, Galatians 4:6,
Ephesians 4:30, 1 Thessalonians 5:19, James 4:5).

b) He performs the actions of a person

Leads/guides (Acts 8:39, 13:2&4, 16:7, Romans 8:14); works/gives (Acts 8:39, 1
Corinthians 12:11); fellowships (2 Corinthians 13:14); convicts (John 16:8);
teaches (John 14:26); comforts/counsels (John 14:16, 16:8); prays (Romans 8:26).

c) He is susceptible to personal treatment

He can be: lied to (Acts 5:3); tested (5:9); resisted (7:51); insulted (Hebrews
10:29); and blasphemed/sinned against (Matthew 12:31).

d) He is referred to by personal pronouns

Not it/its/itself, but he/him/himself (12x in John 16; Romans 8:16&26); not which
but who (Ephesians 1:14).

e) He is associated with other personal beings

With the Father and Son (Matthew 12:32, 28:19, John 14:16, 2 Corinthians 3:17,
13:14) and with man (Acts 10:19, 15:28).

Clearly, then, the Holy Spirit is a person. When we think of the Holy Spirit as a
person rather than as an impersonal force or commodity: (i) we realize that we are
either indwelt by the Holy Spirit or not (one can't have half or a quarter of a
person); (ii) we will not ask "How much of the Holy Spirit do I have?" but "How

99
 much does the Holy Spirit have of me?"

2. THE HOLY SPIRIT IS DIVINE

The other common misconception about the person of the Holy Spirit is that he is
God's force/influence but somehow less than (inferior to) God himself. (This error is
often linked to the first: when the Spirit is not seen as a person it is difficult to see him as
being fully God.) Again, this error is serious: it denies the Doctrine of the Trinity and
insults the Holy Spirit.

The biblical evidence for the Holy Spirit being divine is similarly overwhelming. (While
the Holy Spirit can be a person without being divine, the reverse is not true. So if it is
proved that he is divine, he must also be a person, for God is a personal being.)

a) He is explicitly and implicitly called God

Acts 5:3 cf. v4; Matthew 28:19; 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; 2 Corinthians 3:17, 13:14;
Isaiah 6:8-10 cf. Acts 28:25-27; Exodus 17:7 cf. Hebrews 3:7-9; Jeremiah 31:33
cf. Hebrews 10:15-16.

b) He possesses the attributes of God

Omnipotence (Romans 15:19, Luke 1:35); omniscience (John 14:26, 1

Corinthians 2:10-11); omnipresence (Psalm 139:7); immortality (Hebrews 9:14).

c) He performs or shares in the works of God

Creation (Genesis 1:2, 2:7, Job 33:4, Psalm 104:30); Jesus' birth (Luke 1:35) and
baptism (Luke 3:21-22); Atonement (Hebrews 9:14); Conviction (John 16:8);
Regeneration (John 3:5-6, 2 Corinthians 3:6); Sanctification (1 Peter 1:2);
Exorcism (Matthew 12:28); Election (Acts 13:2); Resurrection (Romans 8:11).

The Holy Spirit is thus not only a person but divine (he has deity and personality).
He possesses all the attributes of God (Chapter 2.3) for the fullness of the
Godhead resides in each of the Persons (Chapter 2.5). Thus he is, for example,
sovereign: he cannot be manipulated or dictated to by our every whim and fancy.
And he is holy: he cannot dwell with unholiness and will not enter an unclean
vessel (1 Corinthians 6:18-19, 2 Corinthians 6:14 - 7:1). The Holy Spirit comes
on his terms - and our motives must be pure and our lives in order.

100
3. THE NAMES OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

Like all biblical names (including those of God and Jesus), the names of the Holy Spirit
tell us something about his person and work.

a) Spirit of Holiness (Holy Spirit, Holy One)(Luke 11:13, Romans 1:4, John 2:20)
b) Spirit of God (Spirit of the Father, Spirit of the Lord)(Romans 8:14)
c) Spirit of Christ (Spirit of Jesus, Spirit of the Son)(Acts 16:7, Rom 8:9, Gal 4:6,
Phlp 1:19)
d) Spirit of Grace (Hebrews 10:29)
e) Spirit of Glory (1 Peter 4:14)
f) Spirit of Truth (John 16:13)
g) Spirit of Life (Romans 8:2)
h) Spirit of Judgement (Isaiah 4:4, Matthew 3:11)
i) Spirit of Sonship (Romans 8:15)
j) Spirit of Promise (Luke 24:49, Galatians 3:14)
k) Spirit of Wisdom and Revelation (Ephesians 1:17)
l) Spirit of Prophecy (Revelation 19:10 cf. 2 Peter 1:21)

4. THE SYMBOLS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

Various elements are used in Scripture as symbols/metaphors/analogies of the Holy

Spirit, and so these further describe for us his person and work.

a) Wind: powerful and sovereign (John 3:8, Acts 2:2)

b) Fire: refining and destroying (Matthew 3:11, Acts 2:3)
c) Water: cleaning and sustaining (Isaiah 44:3, John 7:37-39)
d) Oil: anointing and healing (1 Samuel 16:13, Hebrews 1:9, James 5:14-15)
e) Dove: peace and gentleness (Matthew 3:16)

Wine (Matthew 9:17) and clothing (Luke 24:49) have also been suggested. Both the
Hebrew word (ruarch) and the Greek word (pneuma) for Spirit mean "breath". They are
also used of God's breath and man's breath (Genesis 2:7, Job 33:4, 2 Timothy 3:16),
testifying to the role of the Spirit as the Giver of Life.

5. THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY

Procession is the term which has been used by theologians to try and describe the
relationship between the Holy Spirit and the other Persons of the Trinity. It is derived
from John 15:26: "the Spirit of truth who goes out [proceeds] from the Father."

The doctrine was first formally stated by the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381) in
response to current heresies denying the full deity of the Spirit: "We believe in the Holy
Spirit, the Lord, the Life-Giver, who proceeds from the Father, who is to be glorified with

101
the Father and the Son..." The Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) endorsed this statement
and firmly established the doctrine of the deity of the Spirit.

However, the Synod of Toledo (A.D.589), attempting to further probe the question of the
Spirit's relation to the other Persons of the Trinity,
felt that Contantinople's statement that the Spirit proceeded from the Father might seem
to be a denial of the oneness of the Son with the Father. They thus added the famous
(infamous!) filioque clause: "the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son". Western
churches accepted this formulation and incorporated it into their creeds. Eastern
churches, however, rejected it on the grounds that it implied the Spirit was not fully
divine. The difference of opinion led ultimately to the Great Schism of A.D. 1071, the
permanent separation of the Western and Eastern churches.

But is the difference really that great and was such a split necessary? The testimony of
relevant texts (e.g. John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7), taken together, is that both points of
view are correct. In the strict sense of ontological origin, the Spirit comes/proceeds from
and is given by the Father (the Eastern churches are right). But in the experiential sense
of how we receive him, the Spirit comes/proceeds from both: Jesus asks the Father for the
Spirit on our behalf and sends him to us (the Western churches are right)(cf. Luke 1:16,
24:49, Acts 1:4-5). In either case, procession does not imply inequality or createdness but
a perpetual subordination of relationship.

B : THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

6. CREATION

Both because all the Persons of the Godhead are necessarily involved in any and every
work of God (for God is one), and because of scriptural explicit statement, we know that
the Holy Spirit was involved in creating the universe.

The Spirit's particular role seemed to have been to give the creation: life (Job 33:4); order
(Genesis 1:2); and adornment for God's glory (Job 26:13, Psalm 33:6).

Not only was the Spirit involved in the origin of all things but he is involved in the
continuation of all things and in all three aspects of Providence (cf. Chapter 3.5):
preservation:renewal of the natural world (Psalm 104:29-30, Isaiah 32:15); government
of the human world (e.g. in the restraining of sin: Genesis 6:3); and miracles (Acts
10:38).

7. REVELATION

The Holy Spirit is the agent or mediator of revelation, the one through whom God reveals
himself to man, be it in the spoken Word (2 Samuel 23:2, Micah 3:8, 2 Peter 1:21), the
written Word (Matthew 22:43, Acts 1:16, 4:25, John 14:26, 2 Timothy 3:16) or the

102
Living Word (Luke 3:22, Acts 10:38).

8. ISRAEL

We have already noted that both revelation about, and the operation of, the Holy Spirit
was limited in the Old Testament period compared to the New. Indeed, any doctrine of
the person and work of the Spirit in the Old Testament is developed retrospectively from
the greater revelation of and about him in the New. (For example, what was to become
his dominant title, viz. the Holy Spirit, appears only three times in the Old Testament:
Psalm 51:11; Isaiah 63:10&11.)

The dominant function of the Holy Spirit in Israel seems to have been to come upon, fill
or indwell certain people (most often those who held the office of prophet [cf. 1 Peter
1:11], priest or king) to anoint: empower/equip them for the task God had given them.
Examples include: Bezalel, for decorating the Tabernacle (Exodus 31:1-5, 35:30-33);
Samson, for his feats of strength (Judges 14:6, 15:14); Saul, for being King over Israel (1
Samuel 19:6&10, 11:6); and David, for being King (1 Samuel 16:13). Pharaoh and
Nebuchadnezzar would not have known of the Holy Spirit but may have recognised his
presence in Joseph and Daniel respectively (Genesis 41:38, Daniel 4:8).

There are notable differences, however, between this indwelling: empowering and that of
the New Covenant: it was only for selected persons; it was not necessarily permanent
(disobedience, or the completion of the tasks, could bring it to an end: Judges 16:20, 1
Samuel 16:14, Psalm 51:11 ); it was sovereignly granted by God and not to be sought by
man. By contrast, in the New Testament: the Holy Spirit indwells all believers (Romans
8:9); this indwelling is permanent (Ephesians 1:13-14); his empowering is to be sought
by God's people (Luke 11:13). The Spirit's operation is no longer restricted to specific
works of God through selected individuals but is the fulfilment of a promise to be
claimed by all believers. (The difference may be compared to a father lending his watch
to his son to enable him to complete certain delegated tasks and later giving his son a
watch of his own when he reaches responsible age.) The situation of Old Covenant
believers in this regard highlights the immense privileges we enjoy under the New
Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34, Ezekiel 36:25-27).

Nevertheless, while the work of the Spirit in individual lives in the Old Testament period
seems to have been largely limited to the above, it must not be thought that his work in
and presence with Israel was erratic and that there was not a more general, ongoing
ministry to God's Old Covenant people (Nehemiah 9:20; cf. John 14:17).

9. CHRIST

The Holy Spirit was integrally involved in Jesus' conception (Luke 1:35, Matthew 1:20),
baptism (on which occasion the Spirit anointed him, i.e. filled and empowered him for his
work)(Luke 3:21-22, John 1:32, Acts 10:38), temptation (Luke 4:1), teaching and miracle
ministry (Luke 4:18-19, Matthew 12:28, John 3:34, Acts 10:38; cf. Isaiah 42:1, 61:1),

103
crucifixion (Hebrews 9:14) and resurrection (Romans 1:4, 1 Peter 3:18). The fact that
Christ depended on the power of the Spirit illuminates the degree of condescension
involved in his kenosis. It points also to our dependency on the power of the Holy Spirit:
if Jesus needed him, how much more we!

10. THE BELIEVER

Undoubtedly, a major part of the Spirit's work today is connected with the believer's
salvation (a) and life (b). The Holy Spirit bears primary responsibility for the elected
individual, from the beginning of his/her conviction to his/her final presentation in
heaven.

a) Salvation

(i) Convicts

Even our sense of sinfulness and our searching for God is a gracious gift or act of
God: we would not look for God without his first convicting and drawing us. This
is the work of the Spirit (John 16:8-11, 6:44).

(ii) Regenerates

The Holy Spirit is the one who supernaturally makes alive (regenerates) our dead
spirits and who thereby imparts to us eternal life and causes us to be "born again"
(John 3:5-8, Ephesians 2:1-5, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 1:3, 2:23). This act is
instantaneous. It imparts a new nature (2 Corinthians 5:17), a new capacity to
serve righteousness and grow into the image of God (although the old nature and
its fruits are not yet eradicated).

(iii) Indwells

Obviously, from the moment the Spirit regenerates us (entering us and touching
our spirits to impart and sustain Life), he indwells us. All believers are thus
indwelt by (have) the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17, Romans 8:9, 1 Corinthians
6:19, Galatians 4:6).

(iv) Seals

The indwelling Spirit acts as a seal of our salvation. A seal is a mark of

ownership/possession and therefore also of security. The presence of the Holy
Spirit in us guarantees our full and final salvation: our justification will be
followed in time by sanctification and glorification. The indwelling Spirit is like
a deposit or first instalment, assuring us of full blessedness in the future
(Ephesians 1:13-14, 4:30, 2 Corinthians 1:22).

104
b) Life

(i) Baptizes/Fills

Are baptism in, and fullness of, the Spirit different things or the same thing? Both.
On the one hand, those who have a baptism in the Spirit experience in Scripture
are often said to be filled with the Spirit (Acts 2:4, 4:31), and certainly the aim in
being baptized in the Spirit is to be filled with the Spirit. But Scripture also talks
about other kinds of fullness/being filled, e.g. the ongoing, imperceptible filling of
Ephesians 5:18. The effect of all kinds of filling/fullness is to
enable/equip/empower the Christian both to live a godly life and to perform God's
works (Acts 1:8). Christians should thus seek to be filled in every way.

(ii) Gives gifts

As part of empowering the believer to fulfil his ministry, the Holy Spirit gives
gifts to him, supernatural operations of revelation and power which further enable
him to do God's work (1 Corinthians 12:7&11).

(iii) Assures

The witness of the indwelling Spirit assures us of our salvation and thus our
sonship (Romans 8:15-16, Galatians 4:6-7).

(iv) Sanctifies

The Holy Spirit is the one who, with our cooperation, gradually but suredly
sanctifies us and transforms our lives and character into the image of God/Christ
(Philippians 2:13, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Peter 1:2). The nurturing of the fruits
of the Spirit is part of this ministry as the fruit are nothing else but the
character/likeness of Christ (Galatians 5:22).

(v) Fellowships

Jesus identified the coming Spirit as the Comforter/Counsellor/Advocate (Gr.

Paraclete), the one who would constantly walk alongside us, comforting/helping:
defending us (John 14:16-17&26, 15:26, 16:7). We thus can and should have
constant fellowship with the Spirit (2 Corinthians 13:14, Philippians 2:1).

(vi) Leads/Guides

The Holy Spirit leads and guides us in Christian living and service and in making
decisions (Acts 8:29, 10:19-20, 13:2-4, 15:28, 16:6-7, 20:22-23). We must live in
the Spirit, be controlled and led by him, and walk in step with him, if we are to
maximize his work in and through us (Romans 8:4-14, Galatians 5:16-25).

105
 (vii) Teaches

The Holy Spirit reveals and illuminates the truths of God to us (John 14:26,
16:12-15, 1 John 2:20&27).

(viii) Inspires

The Holy Spirit inspires (i.e. both motivates and enables) our worship (John 4:23-
24, 16:14, Ephesians 5:18-20, Philippians 3:3) and our prayer (Romans 8:26-27,
Ephesians 6:18).

11. THE CHURCH

Just as the Spirit works in and through the believer to realize God's potential and purpose
for that person, so too he works in the church so that it is maximally useful to the Head of
the Church for his purposes on the earth. The Spirit indwells the church (1 Corinthians
3:16-17, Ephesians 2:21-22), bringing unity to it (1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 4:3-4).
He gives gifts to its members so that the church may be edified (while gifts are exercised
by individuals they are given: exercised for the benefit of the whole body: 1 Corinthians
12:7). He ordains and enables church leaders (Acts 20:28) and stirs the church to mission
(Acts 13:2&4).

12. THE FUTURE

The Holy Spirit will obviously continue with his work in the believer and the church right
to the end, but Joel 2:28-32 seems to indicate a special outpouring of the Spirit on the
church near the close of the age (cf. Matthew 24:29-30), perhaps to counter the rise of
evil in the last days. (Acts 2:17-21 was only an early, partial fulfilment of Joel's
prophecy; in keeping with the nature of biblical prophecy, we look for a final, full
fulfilment. See also: Zechariah 12:10; Revelation 11:3-4 cf. Zechariah 4:3-6.)

His precise ministry on the new earth is not clear, but it will certainly include the
unchecked anointing and glorification of the King and the everlasting preservation of,
and benign brooding over, the whole new creation (Isaiah 11:1-9).

C : COMMON QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT

13. BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT: Evangelicals vs Pentecostals/Charismatics

a) The Evangelical position

Evangelicals assert that this baptism refers to regeneration-indwelling, the

106
Holy Spirit coming to take up residence in every Christian at rebirth. This
baptism is clearly promised/intended for all Christians (Matthew 3:11, Acts 2:38)
and, indeed (according to this understanding), every Christian receives it. There
is thus no subsequent normative experience of the Spirit, no need to seek anything
beyond this.

There is, of course (admit evangelicals), a difference between baptism and

fullness. While we are baptized once when we become Christians, we need
continually to be filled with the Holy Spirit if we are to live the life and fulfil the
ministry God desires for us. Hence the Greek tense of Ephesians 5:18: "keep on
being filled with the Spirit". Thus all Christians are baptized in the Spirit but not
all Christians are filled with the Spirit; baptism is automatic, fullness is to be
sought.

But, maintain evangelicals, this filling is not what Pentecostals/charismatics

understand by the experience of being filled. It is an imperceptible and gradual
daily filling as we spend time in prayer, offer our lives to God, walk in step with
the Spirit, etc. The tangible and dramatic experience of filling on the day of
Pentecost was a unique, once-off event as it was the first time the spirit was given
and men received it "externally". Now that the Spirit has come (is available), men
receive it "internally" at rebirth.

b) The extreme Pentecostal position

At the other end of the spectrum is the extreme Pentecostal position, which is
vulnerable to the piercing biblical critique of evangelicals. It asserts, inter alia:

(i) You must be baptized in the Spirit (Pentecost-style, of course) to be a

Christian. This is extreme exclusivism and arrogance: no one else is considered
saved except those who share the same theology/experience.

(ii) A slightly watered-down assertion is: you must be baptized in the Spirit to be
a spiritual or Spirit-filled Christian. But this implies, firstly, that there are two
classes of Christians (ordinary/inferior and Spirit-filled/superior), an elitism not
found in Scripture and abhorrent to God. Secondly, it implies that other (non-
charismatic) Christians do not have the Holy Spirit. (This assumption is
evidenced by charismatic Christians saying to new converts: "Now you need to
receive the Holy Spirit".) But Scripture is quite clear that all Christians are
indwelt by the Holy Spirit, an indwelling automatically consequent on the Spirit's
regeneration of that person ([10a] above).

(iii) Admitting the above, charismatics may back down still further from the
extreme and say: you must have a Pentecost-type experience to be baptized/filled
with the Holy Spirit. The implication here is that other Christians are indwelt by
the Spirit but not filled with the Spirit. But, firstly, Scripture never makes a
Pentecost-type experience normative/obligatory for Christians. Secondly,

107
Scripture speaks of other kinds of filling than the Pentecost experience. (The
fullness we are exhorted to in Ephesians 5:18, for example, clearly differs in
reception from that of Acts 2.) Thirdly, we are still left with a form of ungodly
elitism and exclusivism. And, fourthly, we all know of (or have read of) great
men and women of God who have not had a charismatic baptism experience but
who have undeniably been filled with the Spirit, often exceeding in Christlike
character, effective service and even works of power, those who have had a
Pentecost-type experience. Clearly, God does not make the experience into the
qualification that we sometimes do!

(iv) You must speak in tongues to be Spirit-filled (even, to be a Christian). This

implies that tongue-speaking is the (only/chief) sign/result of being baptized/filled
with the Spirit. But this position is also elitist; it flagrantly ignores the clear
statement of Scripture that not every Christian will speak in tongues (have the
same gift) or have all the gifts; it implies that every account in the New Testament
of someone being baptized in the Holy Spirit mentions tongues as a result - which
is not true; it implies that Scripture identifies tongues as the sign/result of being
filled with the Spirit - which it does not (if Scripture does identify any sign as
characteristic of being baptized with the Spirit in a Pentecost-type way it is the
power to witness boldly: Acts 1:8, 2:14, 4:31, 7:55-56); and it forgets that many
great men and women of God who were filled with the Spirit (according to
charismatic or evangelical understanding) never spoke in tongues. [N.B. I am not
denying that every believer can be gifted with the private use of tongues. I am
only asserting, against the extreme Pentecostal position, that one does not have to
speak in tongues, publicly or even privately, in order to be a Christian or even to
be Spirit-filled.]

(v) Evangelicals have charged, often with good reason, that Pentecostals have
reduced baptism in the Holy Spirit to a selfish, indulgent, emotional experience (a
matter of "goose bumps"). Biblically, the baptism is never an end in itself but
merely a means; it is not given primarily for the believer's sake (blessing) but for
others' sake (so he/she can fulfil God's ministry through him/her to the world). It
is an equipping/empowering for service; God's calling and equipping throughout
the Bible are never for indulgence but service.

c) An acceptable Charismatic position

The evangelical position reduces the baptism in the Holy Spirit to the automatic
and unfelt indwelling of the Spirit at the moment of conversion. On the other
hand, we have had to take several steps back from the extreme Pentecostal
position which makes too many unbiblical, absolutist and simplistic claims about
baptism as the subsequent experience of receiving and being filled with the Spirit.
Is there then no grounds for believing in and teaching an experience of being
filled with the Spirit distinct from (although possibly coincident with) conversion
and thus often subsequent to it?

108
We believe there is, and that the charismatic understanding of the baptism in the
Holy Spirit as a distinct (from conversion/indwelling) and tangible experience is
biblical as long as it is properly defined/limited and the above extremes are
avoided.

Acts 4:31 is a corrective to evangelicals who maintain that the tangible and
momentary (vs imperceptible and ongoing) filling of Acts 2:2-4 was a unique,
once-off event because it was the first time the Spirit was given. The believers
(many of whom must have been in the Upper Room on the day of Pentecost) here
experienced the same kind of filling again. Moreover, the 120 had already
received (been indwelt by) the Spirit at Pentecost; Acts 4 thus represented a
different purpose of reception: infilling - the Spirit coming upon them in power to
equip them for the task at hand. In retrospect, Acts 2 was clearly an empowering
of this sort too, as well as being the occasion on which they first received (were
indwelt by) the Spirit. Acts 8 (v12 cf. v16) confirms the emerging picture that
there are (or can be) experiences, subsequent to conversion (at which time one is
indwelt by the Spirit), in which the Holy Spirit comes powerfully upon one,
anointing/equipping/empowering one for God's service (in a similar way to that in
which he came upon selected Old Testament persons). Other texts also show such
a visitation, either at (Acts 10:44-46) or subsequent to (Acts 9:17) conversion, but
in each case certainly different to both the imperceptible indwelling of the Spirit
that happens to every Christian at conversion and the imperceptible, ongoing
filling that occurs throughout the Christian life.

Defined thus, as a distinct and tangible experience of being filled with and
overwhelmed by the Holy Spirit, and thereby anointed to be and do what God
desires, there is room for the charismatic understanding of Spirit baptism.
("Distinct": distinct from regeneration-indwelling but either coincidental with, or
subsequent to, it; "tangible": felt, experienced.) While we do not build doctrine
on experience, our unmistakable experience of such a baptism (and that of
millions of others) causes us to look for it in Scripture; having found room for it
in Scripture, our experience can then add weight to the doctrine.

Must/do all men experience such a baptism? We will have to say no. But we
believe the offer is there for all believers; and with this offer, as with all others,
our response should not be "Must I experience it?" but "If God's got something
for me I want it". We could certainly go so far as to say "All men can experience
it", and perhaps even so far as "All men should experience it". (The evangelicals
are right: the baptism in the Holy Spirit is promised to : intended for all believers.)
But we cannot say "All men must experience it" (certainly, we cannot say that
they are not Christians, or first-class Christians, if they don't) and it is obvious
that not all men do experience it. God in his grace (often because the church was
not teaching this truth at the time) has obviously many times given his people the
equivalent empowering through imperceptible, ongoing filling that they would
have had through tangible, momentary filling(s) if they had been taught about and
so had prayed for and received the latter. This does not render the latter kind of

109
 filling redundant, however, or reduce it to an optional extra; it is God's desire,
plan and offer for empowering the believer at any and every stage (including the
young convert) for service.

Acts 4:31 is also a corrective to Pentecostals. The latter have insisted that a
baptism experience only occurs once. But here many of the 120 of Acts 2 are
baptized all over again. The Spirit is sovereign, and how can we prescribe to or
limit him? (Why should we want to!) He clearly not only repeatedly fills us in an
ongoing, imperceptible way but can and does also repeatedly fill us in
momentary, tangible experiences. Unlike its literal use in connection with water
baptism (a once-off, initial/initiating experience), "baptizo" (immersion) is used
figuratively with respect to the Spirit, who can immerse and empower us as many
times as he wills, as he deems it necessary.

To be continuously filled with the Spirit we need to be repeatedly refilled, and we

must be open to the Spirit doing this in any manner he desires at any point. We
need refilling because: sin grieves the Spirit and quenches his operation in our
lives (his lost control has to be regained); when God wants to refine new/deeper
areas in one's life these have to be filled with the Spirit (brought under his
control); as we live and minister we expend or impart power and our strength
needs to be renewed; new situations may demand new wisdom/boldness/power
and hence require greater filling (Acts 4).

14. WHO DO WE PRAY TO: FATHER, SON OR HOLY SPIRIT?

The strictly correct doctrinal answer to this question is: we pray to the Father (the Fount
of all being and blessing, the Author of the decrees of God, the Giver of every good
gift)(Psalm 2:7, Acts 17:24-28, 1 Timothy 6:17, James 1:17); through the Son (the
Mediator of salvation and blessing, our High Priest in heaven, the One who makes our
prayers possible and efficacious)(John 14:13, 15:7&16, 16:23-24&26, Hebrews 4:14 -
5:10, 6:19-20, 7:11 - 10:22); by the Holy Spirit (the One who motivates and enables both
the what and the how of our prayer)(Romans 8:26-27, Ephesians 6:18).

But this does not mean that we do not/cannot talk to and fellowship with the Son and the
Spirit. Jesus is the one who reveals God to us, who saves us, who prays for us, who is the
head of the church, whom we love and adore (John 14:13 cf. v14). And the Spirit is our
Counsellor, our constant companion, who walks with us from convicted sinner to
presented saint (John 14:16-18, 2 Corinthians 13:14)(see [10b]).

In particular, because he is the "contact person" of the Trinity in this age, it is not only
permissible but necessary to pray to/fellowship with the Spirit so that we can understand
and honour his sovereign will and moving in and through us (individually and
corporately). This focus on the Spirit is, as said, acceptable as long as:

a) There is no hint of a different personality (as if we have to get to know the

110
 personality of the Spirit because it differs from the Father's and/or the Son's) and
hence of three totally distinct and different beings/persons, of three Gods
(tritheism). This implication is unbiblical because God is one, and the three
Persons of the Godhead thus possess exactly the same substance/nature/character:
personality: attributes. Jesus is exactly like the Father (John 1:18, 8:19, 14:7-11,
Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:3); to know Jesus is to know the Father. Similarly, the
Spirit is exactly like Jesus: when Jesus promised that "another Counsellor" (John
14:16) would come in his place and be to the disciples what he had been (v18), he
significantly did not use heteros (another of a similar kind) but allos (another of
exactly the same kind). Thus to know Jesus is to know the Spirit (and vice-versa).
Scripture calls us to "Know your God", but never "Know the Father/Son/Holy
Spirit", as if these were three different knowledges. Similarly, it speaks our (one)
relationship with the (one) God, never of three relationships needing separate
communication/cultivation.

b) There is no hint of worshipping or glorifying the Spirit at the expense of, or

without reference to, the Father and the Son. The Son came to show men the
Father and not to promote himself; to glorify the Father and not himself (John
8:50, 12:27-28, 14:13, 15:8, 17:1&4); to speak not of his own but only what the
Father told him (John 8:28, 14:31). In just the same way the Spirit comes to point
men to Jesus and not to promote himself, to glorify the Father and the Son and not
himself, to speak not of his own but of things Jesus said (John 14:26, 15:26, 16:8-
10&13-15). To make focus on the Spirit an end in itself rather than merely a
means to the end of focusing on the Father and the Son is, therefore, to do what
the Spirit himself does not do and thus to do that which grieves him. (Note, for
example, his "absence" in Revelation 5:13.)(An example of this error was to be
found in many motivations for the experience of the baptism in the Holy Spirit in
the early days of the charismatic movement which never mentioned Jesus once.)
We pray to and fellowship with the Spirit as the One who enables us to better
know, love, obey and serve the Father and the Son, but he himself is the self-
effacing, retiring, "invisible" member of the Trinity, who never draws attention to
himself.

Summarizing thus far: strictly speaking, we pray to the Father, through the Son, by the
Spirit; but this does not mean that we do not or cannot pray to, and fellowship with, the
Son and/or the Spirit. Indeed, focus on the Spirit in this age is not only permissible but
necessary, as long as we avoid the dangers of tritheism and Spirit-worship.

Ultimately, however, it does not really matter who we pray to. Because God is one
Being, prayer directed to any particular member of the Trinity is automatically indirectly
addressed to all three Persons. (To pray to one is to pray to all.) Further, because God is
one, and all three Persons are thus necessarily involved in any and every act of God, we
don't have to locate the "right" Person in any particular matter in order for our prayer to
be heard (in the way that we have to locate the right government department for our
complaint to be redressed). Prayer to any Person is responded to as all three Persons are
involved in every divine work and are acting in perfect unity with regard to that work.

111
The very fact that we have problems with who we should pray to, and the consequent
need for this section, is evidence of how our understanding of the Trinity has drifted
towards tritheism. The remembrance that God is one and the implications of this truth for
this question are a welcome relief and corrective. Thankfully, God is not nearly so fussed
over the issue of who we should pray to as we are!

15. WHAT IS "THE BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE SPIRIT"?

Jesus speaks of this sin as being unforgivable, "an eternal sin" (Matthew 12:31-32, Mark
3:28-29); John, almost certainly speaking of the same thing, calls it "a sin that leads to
death" (1 John 5:16-17). Many Christians are worried that they have committed, or may
commit, this sin. What is this sin?

We can blaspheme against the Son (mock and reject his person and work) without really
knowing his identity and authority or understanding his salvation (having only an
intellectual knowledge of him, not a spiritual knowledge). Later, when God draws us to
himself, grants us spiritual insight into the Son's identity and convicts us of his salvation,
we may repent and be forgiven of all our sin - including that earlier blasphemy against
the Son.

But the Spirit is the One who draws, illuminates and convicts in this process; he is the
One who gives us a "taste" of (spiritual insight into) God and his salvation; he is God
himself meeting and confronting us with the gospel, presenting to us the choice between
life and death. If we reject this overture from God, this work of the Spirit in our lives, we
mock and reject the Spirit's person and work (i.e. we blaspheme against him) and God
has no other way of reaching and hence of saving us. We are thus condemning ourselves
to judgement: we can no longer be forgiven because no forgiveness remains for one who
"ignores such a great salvation" (Hebrews 2:1-3, 10:26-31, 12:25).

The "unforgivable sin" is thus as much a sin of omission as a sin of commission; it is as

much a condition as an act. Further, it is not a sin committed by the Christian, who has
accepted the overture and then does something awful to thereby "lose" his salvation, but
the sin committed by the non-Christian who is shown everything God can possibly show
him and who is on the brink of salvation but who turns away and rejects it. These are
they whom Hebrews 6:4-6 and 2 Peter 2:20-22 seem to refer to when they talk of those
who have "tasted" salvation but have turned from it. This sin is unforgivable because it is
"impossible" for these to return to repentance.

Jesus' statement about the blasphemy against the Spirit can be read in two ways, but
either way the context seems to confirm the above explanation of the sin. (1) The
Pharisees were blaspheming the Son, rejecting his demonstration of power and hence the
proof of his identity. Even for this serious sin they could be forgiven, but Jesus warns
them that for similarly rejecting the Spirit's work in their midst they could not be forgiven
(for the reasons outlined above). (2) Jesus was driving out demons by the Spirit of God.

112
It was the fullest proof of Jesus' identity, authority and salvation the Pharisees
would/could ever have (one given by the Spirit). By rejecting this overture from God
they were rejecting salvation and so bringing damnation on themselves ("committing" a
sin for which they could not be forgiven).

The same damning choice can be illustrated from another angle. We are all included in
the Adamic Covenant (descended from Adam, represented by Adam) and reap the curses
for breaking it. Jesus is the Second Adam, the Second Representative Head of the human
race. He represented every man on the cross and his death is "the atoning sacrifice...for
the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2; cf. Chapter 6.8b). All men are thus also
included in this covenant. If we accept Jesus' sacrifice we keep the covenant and reap its
blessings. If we reject Jesus' sacrifice we break the covenant and reap its curse: eternal
death. This is the unforgivable sin because, as we have seen, if we reject Jesus' sacrifice,
"no sacrifice for sins is left" (Hebrews 10:26).

Christians thus have absolutely no need to worry about committing the unforgivable sin:
by accepting Jesus they have already avoided it and made it impossible in their case; they
have not blasphemed the Spirit but responded to his person and work in their lives.
Anyway, the very fact that they are concerned that they have committed it is proof that
they haven‟t: the unforgivable sin would always have to be the act/condition where one
was so far from God, so hardened against him, that one couldn't be convicted of one's sin
and led to repentance - because God will always forgive the repentant sinner. The very
fact that the Christian is concerned that he has sinned against God shows that he is not in
this unreachable and thus unforgivable state but that he is (capable of) being convicted
and that he desires to repent and be forgiven.).

113
Chapter 8

THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION

Chapter Outline: 1. The Extent of Salvation

2. The Order of Salvation
a) Election
b) Calling
c) Justification
d) Sanctification
e) Perseverance
f) Glorification
3. The Terms of Salvation
4. The Nature of Salvation
5. Man in the Redeemed State

In the previous two lectures we have looked at salvation from God's point of view: the
salvation provided by God for man through the person and work of Jesus Christ,
particularly his atoning sacrifice on the cross; and God's implementation of this salvation
in man through the person and work of the Holy Spirit, the One who takes the individual
from convicted sinner to presented saint. In this lecture we look at salvation from man's
point of view: how man appropriates and experiences God's salvation.

1. THE EXTENT OF SALVATION

What is the extent of God's salvation: does it extend to all or only some men? In other
words, are all men saved or only some?

Scripture declares that God wants all men to be saved (Ezekiel 18:23&32, 33:11, Romans
11:32, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9). It is not surprising, therefore, that Scripture also
declares that Christ died for the whole world, that his sacrifice was for the sins of all men
(John 1:1&29, 3:16-17, 2 Corinthians 5:14&19, 1 Timothy 2:6, 2 Peter 2:1, 1 John 2:2).
Quite obviously, then, God's salvation potentially extends to all men; it is possible for all
men to be saved.

But Scripture also declares that this potential salvation needs to be personally
appropriated to be realised and that many do not appropriate it (John 1:10-12, 3:14-21, et
al). From this fact, as well as the numerous references to eternal punishment (Matthew
25:46, John 5:28-29), it is obvious that not all men are saved (Matthew 7:13-14). In an
actual (vs potential) sense, therefore, Christ died for (and is the Saviour of) only some
men, i.e. believers (Matthew 20:28, John 10:15, Ephesians 5:25).

114
 The answer to our original question (does God's salvation extend to all or only some
men) is thus both: potentially, God is the Saviour of all men; actually, God is the Saviour
of those who believe (cf. 1 Timothy 4:10). Put another way, we could say that the
atonement is unlimited but that salvation is limited.

This conclusion refutes, on the one hand, extreme Calvinist doctrines of election which
state that Christ only died for those whom God wants/chooses to save (limited
atonement); and, on the other hand, the "all men are saved" of universalism (unlimited
salvation). It also refutes syncretism ("all roads lead to God"), because Scripture asserts
that salvation is to be found only in Jesus and his sacrifice (John 14:6, Acts 4:12, 1
Timothy 2:5).

Limited Unlimited Atonement Unlimited

Atonement Limited Salvation Salvation

CALVINISM SCRIPTURE UNIVERSALISM

(God only wants (God wants all men to be (All men are saved)
some men to be saved but only some are) SYNCRETISM
saved) (All roads lead to God)

2. THE ORDER OF SALVATION

Salvation is not an instantaneous experience or once-off event (of the past) but a process
embracing past (Ephesians 1:13, 2:8), present (Philippians 2:12) and future (Ephesians
1:14, 1 Peter 1:5). It is a series of events, which together represent a certain "order of
salvation" (ordo salutis)(Rom 8:29-30)

At each stage of salvation the difficult question of the relationship between divine
sovereignty and human freedom surfaces. Some (after Calvin) emphasize the role of
God's sovereign will at each point in the process of salvation; others (after Arminius)
emphasize the role of man's free will and choice at each point. It thus makes sense to
look at the tension between divine sovereignty and human freedom at each point in the
order of salvation (i.e. in each section below) rather than to examine the Calvin-Arminius
debate separately.

a) Election (Predestination)

"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of

his Son..."

115
Scripture clearly states that believers are elected/predestined/chosen by God
before their conversion - indeed, before the creation of the world (Romans
8:29&33, Ephesians 1:4-5&11, Revelation 17:8 cf. 20:15). What does this mean?
In particular, does it mean that we have no say in the matter, that God one-sidedly
chooses before time who will be saved and who will not?

First of all, we must distinguish between election to salvation and election to

service. Many times when Scripture speaks of someone being called or chosen it
refers to the latter kind of election: person A (by implication: rather than person
B) being appointed to a particular task, to fulfil a certain function. Cyrus (Isaiah
45:1-4) and even Christ (Isaiah 42:1) are amongst those who are said to be elected
in this way. With this kind of election we should have no problem: God is
sovereign and thus totally within his rights to appoint the man or woman of his
choosing; moreover, his choosing is never arbitrary but based on his perfect
knowledge (including foreknowledge) of the candidates' character and obedience.
Thus, even before their birth (Genesis 25:23, Romans 9:11-12), God chose Jacob
over Esau for the task of inheriting and passing on the covenant promises because
he foreknew the younger's greater godliness (Genesis 25:34 cf. Hebrews 12:16-
17). This rejection of Esau for a particular task did not mean that he was totally
rejected by God. Indeed, God so blessed him that later on he did not want to
receive Jacob's gifts at first because he had so much of his own (Genesis 33:9).
God's preference for Jacob was thus a relative one - although the use of hyperbole
in Romans 9:13 makes it seem absolute (cf. Matthew 10:37, Luke 14:26). Failure
to be elected for a task does not mean, therefore, that we are not or cannot be
elected for salvation. John 15:16 and Galatians 1:15 also refer to this kind of
election: the apostles were chosen by Jesus to perform a particular task (the
choice did not originate with them).

This distinction between election to salvation and election to service helps to

explain many of the difficult texts referring to election. Nevertheless, texts
speaking of election to salvation remain (e.g. those cited at the beginning of this
section). How are we elected/predestined to salvation?

The extreme view of predestination states that before all time, God sovereignly
and one-sidedly predestined some to be saved and the rest to be damned, and that
this will is absolute and irresistible (it makes no difference what we do or don't
do). This view has to be rejected as unbiblical for several reasons. First, it makes
God to be an unjust and unfeeling monster. Any understanding of election must
be consistent with the whole character of God. God is sovereign, but he is also
just and loving, and "God can do nothing apart from the exercise of all his
attributes acting harmoniously together" (Chapter 2.3b). Indeed, God predestined
us "in love" (Ephesians 1:4-5), and the doctrine of election should glorify and not
blaspheme him (vv6&12). Second, it contradicts the clear statement of Scripture
that God wants all men to be saved and that he therefore sent his Son to die for the

116
sins of the whole world ([1] above). Third, it obliterates human responsibility. If
we cannot help but act out what God has already decreed, then we are not really
culpable and God is unjust to punish us. But God holds man responsible for his
actions and God is just. Thus man must have a part (choice) in determining how
he lives. And since how we live determines our destiny (God in his moral
perfection and constancy always rewards good and punishes evil), we have a part
(choice) in determining our destiny. Man's destiny cannot therefore be summarily
determined by God without reference to human responsibility. Whatever election
may mean, it cannot violate the spiritual and moral laws according to which God
relates to man. Fourth, it contradicts the findings of the doctrine of providence
(Chapter 3.5b), namely, that not everything that happens is God's will, that God,
man and Satan together write the pages of history. If this is true of secular
history, why not also of salvation history? If God's government of mankind as a
whole is not absolute in this age, why should his government of the individual
(including the individual's salvation or lack thereof) be absolute? Redeemed and
unredeemed man is able to do things contrary to God's will; man must, therefore,
possess the power of decision about salvation as well.

In opposition to this extreme view of election we suggest the following as a more

biblical and sensible position: God elects/predestines to salvation all those who
respond to the preaching of the gospel, who accept his invitation. This is the
import of Jesus' parable of the wedding banquet: God calls/invites all men
because he wants all to be saved ("many are called"); but only those who accept
the invitation are chosen, are allowed to the banquet ("few are chosen")(cf. again
Matthew 7:13-14). It is as if the inscription on the outside of the door reads
"Follow Me"; when we pass through we see that on the inside it reads "You are
chosen". Seen in this light, election texts are no longer problematic: those who
believe are the "elect" (Matthew 24:22&24&31, Titus 1:1) or "chosen" (2 John
13); God elects precisely those whom he foreknows will respond to his invitation
(note the distinction between foreknowledge and predestination in Romans 8:29
and the fact that foreknowledge comes first); and it is because of his
foreknowledge that he is able to do this before the foundation of the world
(Ephesians 1:4-5&11-12, Revelation 17:8). Thus we both become the elect and
yet have always been the elect! The Gentiles of Pisidian Antioch were "appointed
for eternal life" because, in his foreknowledge of their "honouring the word of the
Lord", God predestined them to salvation; when Paul preached the gospel to them
they duly believed and were saved (Acts 13:48). But it is not election that leads
to belief but belief that leads to election (albeit in a backwards kind of way!)
Conversely, it is not condemnation that leads to unbelief but unbelief that leads to
condemnation: "those who do not believe" are not "destined" to "disobey the
message" but are destined to "stumble" for not obeying the message (1 Peter 2:7-
8). Unbelief is destined to result in destruction as much as belief is destined to
result in salvation.

117
 ELECTION

ELECTION ELECTION
to a task to salvation?

BIBLICAL POSITION EXTREME POSITION

All who believe are God predestines some to belief/salvation
elected and some to unbelief/damnation

GOD ELECTS A PEOPLE PREDESTINED FOR A PURPOSE

(Israel, the Church to perform his God has a destiny for those who
purposes on the earth: All who believe – to be conformed to the image
believe become part of the select of his Son, etc.

Two further considerations will help to make the concept of election even more
understandable. First, election in Scripture has much more to do with the election
of a group/people than with the election of individuals (Hebraic communalism vs
Greek individualism). In the Old Testament it is Israel who is the elect, God's
people/nation chosen by him to perform his work in the world (Deuteronomy
4:37, 1 Chronicles 16:13). An individual was not elected; he became part of the
elect by joining Israel. Similarly, in the New Testament, it is the church who is
elect, God's nation/people elected by him before all time to perform his work on
the earth in this age (Colossians 3:12, 1 Peter 2:9-10. Even Ephesians 1:5-6&11-
12 can - and perhaps should - be read as referring to corporate election). Election
is thus not a matter of the supposed predestination of individuals to heaven or hell
but one of God's chosen instrument in various ages; in this age we become part of
the elect by joining the church, i.e. by believing.

Second, Scripture doesn't, in a strict sense, speak (as we have been doing) of
being elected to be saved but of being elected "to eternal life" (Acts 13:48), "to be
conformed to the likeness of his Son" (Romans 8:29), "to be holy and blameless
in his sight" (Ephesians 1:4), "to be adopted as his sons" (v5), "in order that
we...might be for the praise of his glory " (v12) and "may declare the praises of
him" (1 Peter 2:9), etc. Again it becomes clear that election has little if anything
to do with the salvation or damnation of individuals and everything to do with
what God purposes with, and promises to, those who are saved (who believe):
namely, that they will become like him, do his work, glorify him, be numbered
among his children, receive eternal life, etc. In this regard it has been well said

118
that election should lead to sanctification and service, not speculation; that the
Bible is little concerned with telling us how God elects us and much more
concerned with why God elects us (Ephesians 2:10, Colossians 3:12). [We have
come full circle, for it will be seen from these last two points that the second kind
of election ("election to salvation" or, more properly, the election of a people to
show forth, serve and glorify God) is not that far removed after all from the first
kind (the election of individuals to perform certain tasks).]

b) Calling

"And those he predestined, he also called..."

The total depravity of man in the fallen state (Chapter 5.10a) means that all men
are sinful, corrupted in every area of their being and powerless to do anything
about their condition (Romans 5:6). The original sin of man (Chapter 5.10b)
means that every inclination of his heart is away from God and towards evil
(Genesis 6:5). Man is thus totally dependent on God's grace not only for salvation
but even for being inclined towards God and his salvation in the first place.

If God did not make the first move we would never make any. But he does: the
Father draws us to Jesus and his salvation (John 6:44) through the convicting
work of the Spirit (John 16:8). Theologians call this prevenient
(anticipating/predisposing) grace: the grace which precedes and prepares any
Godward inclination in man. Before there is any human will to do good, the Holy
Spirit creates in a man the desire to be reconciled to God and to do his will (cf.
Philippians 2:13). In short, God calls us.

It is the experience of many that they respond to the preaching of the gospel
having rejected it on many previous occasions. Is this change to be ascribed
purely to human decision (Arminius) or is it the result of God's special (and
perhaps irresistible) calling at that time (Calvin)? We can accept that there is a
difference between God's common call on all occasions when the gospel is
preached and God's effectual call (a special, efficacious influence) on the occasion
of faith (although whether this occasion constitutes an appointed time is
debatable). However, we cannot accept the hyper-Calvinist assertion that only
those whom God has elected to salvation experience such a calling, for God wants
all men to be saved and thus surely calls all as effectively as possible. Neither can
we accept their assertion that this call is irresistible: this would remove human
responsibility; and Hebrews 6 talks of those who have experienced this call (have
"tasted" salvation) but have rejected it.

God's prevenient grace in our lives, his calling/drawing/convicting us, means that
salvation from beginning to end is the work of God: in all things he takes the
initiative in approaching man. Yet human co-operation is demanded at each
phase of the preparation.

119
c) Justification

"Those he called, he also justified..."

At the moment of heeding God's call and accepting his invitation, of receiving
Christ and his salvation by believing in him and his atoning sacrifice (John 1:12),
God performs two miraculous and momentous things simultaneously and
instantaneously within/towards us.

First, by his Spirit, God regenerates us. That is, he renews or makes alive that
which was dead in us - our spirits - so that we are again able to fellowship with
God and incline towards him. Because this "resurrection of spirit" is like
something new being born in us, and marks the beginning of a whole new
existence, the Bible describes this change as being "born of the Spirit", "born
again" or "reborn" (John 3:3-8, Ephesians 2:1&5, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 1:23). To be
regenerated is to be given a new nature: with a spirit now able to know God, and
moreover with the Holy Spirit now indwelling us, we have a new
inclination/capacity/ability to serve God rather than Satan/sin. This does not
mean, however, that the old nature has yet been eradicated.

Second, God justifies us. In biblical times, a judge who found the accused
innocent of all charges against him and thus free (right-standing) in the sight of
the law, closed the case by saying "I justify you". Because we have accepted
Jesus' sacrifice on our behalf, God is able to apply the fruits of the atonement to
us: negatively, he forgives our sin (he removes it from us, placing it on Jesus);
positively, he declares us righteous (he takes Jesus' righteousness and places it on
us)(2 Cor 5:21). And so God is able to justify us, declare us innocent of all
charges brought against us and righteous in his sight, without compromising his
holiness or justice (Rom 3:21-26, 1 Cor 6:11). Of course, our new-found
righteousness does not refer to our state on earth (we possess still the
Adamic/sinful nature and still sin) but to our status in heaven. Because we are
now "in Christ" (i.e. under the atonement, in the covenant) and consequently
justified, God no longer sees us but Christ, no longer our fallenness but Christ's
perfection. It is because we are in this way seen as perfect that we can come into
God's presence without being struck down for our sin (Heb 10:19-22 cf. Ex
33:20), that we can be seated in the heavenly realms (Eph 1:3, 2:6), that the
church can be said to be holy and radiant and blameless, without stain or wrinkle
or any other blemish (Eph 5:26-27). Our right-standing with God and hence our
right-of-access to him, lost in Adam, has at last been restored.

Justification includes forgiveness but is much more than that. Forgiveness is an

act of God followed by a succession of such acts; justification is an act of God
followed by a constant and unceasing changed attitude towards the sinner.
Forgiveness is repeated throughout life; justification is once-for-all and never
repeated. Forgiveness is negative only, removing condemnation; justification is
both this and positive, the bestowal of a proper standing before God. Forgiveness

120
 does not of itself alter our formal status; justification gives us a new status (it is a
reinstatement).

CONVERSION

REGENERATION JUSTIFICATION

NEW NATURE NEW STATUS

(Spirit made alive) Original righteousness restored)
(Indwelt by Spirit) (Heavenly position and access)

RELATIONSHIP WITH
GOD RESTORED

X X X

RELATIONSHIP WITH
GOD DESTROYED

POWER OF SIN PENALTY OF SIN

FALL

The consequences of regeneration are a new birth and a new nature; the
consequences of justification are similarly enormous. Some of them have already
been mentioned: forgiveness of sin/guilt and removal of
judgement/condemnation; restoration of original righteousness and right-standing;
heavenly position and access. There are many others. We are no longer enemies
of God but are reconciled to and at peace with him (Romans 5:1&10-11, 2
Corinthians 5:19). We are no longer far away from God and strangers to his
house but have been brought near to him and made members of his family
(Ephesians 2:11-22, 1 Peter 2:4-10). We are his children (John 1:12, 1 John 3:1).
Indeed, we are his sons, adopted into a new family with the full rights and
privileges of a son; we are heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:14-
17). We have eternal life, citizenship in heaven and a place in the Father's house.
We are complete in Christ, possessing his authority and every spiritual blessing.

The effect of the Fall was to place us under both a penalty for sin and the power

121
of sin. Justification (new status) removes the penalty for sin; regeneration (new
nature) removes the power of sin - potentially, for this has to be worked out in the
process of sanctification, the next phase of salvation ([d] below). [While we
normally contrast "justification" (past event, status in heaven) with
"sanctification" (present process, state on earth), the Bible sometimes uses
"sanctification" (being made holy) of both and makes the contrast to be between
"positional sanctification" (justification)(1 Corinthians 6:11) and "progressive
sanctification".] At the moment of regeneration-justification, therefore, one
aspect of our membership of the old creation is terminated; henceforth we belong
also to the new creation (2 Cor 5:17). While we still live in this age, we are
already members of the future age, examples of the presence of the future in the
present, of God's (future) Kingdom and New Creation invading the present.

As with each stage of salvation, justification is God's act: he takes the initiative
and does everything. But, as always, it requires our co-operation: here, faith (see
[3] below).

d) Sanctification

"Sanctification" comes from the same root as "saint" and "holy", and means to be
set apart or made holy. It is the gradual process after conversion by which we
"become what we are", i.e. by which our state of imperfection on earth
approaches the status of perfection in heaven which our justification has given us
(1 Corinthians 6:11 cf. 1 Peter 1:15).

In justification, "we have been made holy" (positional sanctification:

holiness)(Hebrews 10:10); in sanctification, those who have already been "made
perfect forever...are being made holy" (progressive/practical sanctification:
holiness)(Hebrews 10:14). Justification concerns the position of the Christian;
sanctification his condition. Justification has to do with our relationship to God;
sanctification with our fellowship with God. Justification is "Christ for us", the
foundation of peace and assurance; sanctification is "Christ in us", the foundation
of practical righteousness. Justification has no degrees (it is perfect and
complete); sanctification has degrees. Justification is eternal; sanctification is
temporal.

For two reasons, sanctification is omitted from the order of salvation of Romans
8:30. (1) The completion of our salvation (glorification) is not dependent on our
sanctification but only on our justification. People who convert to Christ shortly
before their death (or Christ's return) have little or no time to be sanctified but,
because of God's justice, this does not disqualify them from salvation (e.g. the
thief on the cross). All those who received Christ will be saved: "those he
justified, he also glorified". However, this gracious allowance does not remove
the responsibility of and requirement on all Christians to pursue holiness and
sanctification wherever possible. Indeed, the genuineness of conversion
(regeneration-justification) is proved by subsequent sanctification (1 John 3:9-10),

122
just as repentance is proved by its fruit (Matthew 3:8) and faith by works (James
2:14-26).

(2) Sanctification, more than the other phases of salvation, is a process for which
we are co-responsible. Every stage demands human cooperation: we have to
accept or respond to God's initiative of calling and justifying, for example. But in
these cases (as also in electing and glorifying), the work itself is performed
wholly by God, who therefore does it perfectly. But in sanctification we co-
operate with God much more substantially in doing the work itself. The work
may, therefore, not be done properly; and if sanctification were a part of the order
of salvation we would then nullify our justification and disqualify ourselves from
glorification. In his mercy, therefore, because sanctification is not his sole
responsibility (a matter of his unilateral decree) and hence can be frustrated, God
does not include it in the sure, inevitable progress of a person's salvation.
However, just as before, this gracious omission does not in anyway detract from
God's command to us to pursue sanctification. While access to heaven may be a
matter of justification (and thus guaranteed irrespective of sanctification),
crowns/rewards in heaven are a matter of sanctification (are not guaranteed) - and
those who neglect it will feel decidedly bareheaded in eternity!

Having defined sanctification, contrasted it with justification, and examined its

place in the order of salvation, we must now ask: what does the process of
sanctification actually involve?

Regeneration, as we have seen, by rebirthing our spirits and making us alive to

God, gives us a new nature, a new inclination to serve God and a new capacity to
say no to sin. In addition, the now indwelling Spirit both motivates and enables
this new nature to work out (live out) its salvation (Philippians 2:12-13).

But the old (sinful/Adamic) nature remains. We were born with it and, until we
die, still possess it. Also, we still live in the fallen world, one in which Satan is
still active. Sin thus remains a reality for the Christian (1 John 1:8-10) - and in
this life/world always will.

The Christian thus has within himself two opposed natures (inclinations,
capacities) which war against each other (Romans 6 & 7, Galatians 5), and the
believer, through the exercise of his will, decides which nature is allowed to reign
(express itself) at any particular point. (This war is not between body and
soul/spirit: both natures can express themselves through our whole being.)

Sanctification is the lifelong process by which, little by little, with the Spirit's
motivation and assistance, we more and more say "no" to sin and "yes" to God,
we subdue the sinful nature and give reign to the new nature.

This process in the individual is analogous to the process of the judgement of

Satan, and the converse process of the coming of Christ's kingdom, in the world.

123
 Satan and his works were judged and disarmed on the cross (1 John 3:8,
Colossians 2:15); but the execution of that judgement is partially and
progressively administered by Christ through his church throughout this age, and
fully administered by Christ at his second coming. Conversely, Jesus became
king (inaugurated his kingdom) in "secrecy" at his first coming (John 12:31); his
kingship is extended partially and progressively through the church throughout
the period between his comings, and it will be established throughout the earth at
his return (Revelation 11:15).

PRINCEDOM KINGDOM
OF DARKNESS OF LIGHT

Cross
(Disarmed) Incarnation

Church’s - Partial & Progressive - Church’s

Mission Mission

- Full & Final - Return

Conquest
(Destroyed
)
- Whole World -
PARALLELS

OLD NATURE NEW NATURE

Conversion
Regeneration
(Disarmed)
- Partial & Progressive - Christian’s
Christian’s
Sanctification
Sanctification
- Full & Final - Resurrection
Glorification
(Destroyed)

- Whole Life -

In the same way, our sinful nature was judged when we identified with Jesus in
his death and burial (the judgement on all sin on the cross) and we were given a
new nature when we identified with Christ in his resurrection (his rising out of the
grave to a new life). [Spiritually, we died and rose at the moment of conversion;
subsequently, we acted it out physically in baptism: Rom 6:3-4.] But (as with the
judgement on Satan and his works) the execution of this judgement on the old
nature is a process: we administer it progressively but partially in this age in co-
operation with God (we remove the old nature from its reign in various areas:
sanctification); God administers it fully at the end of the age (he removes the old
nature from us entirely: glorification). The same is true of the converse: the new
nature is established at rebirth; it progressively (but partially) extends its reign

124
during our life in God on this earth; it will reign fully in us on the new earth.

Satan was not destroyed on the cross but he was rendered powerless (Matthew
12:28-29, Colossians 2:15). Similarly, the old nature was not destroyed in our
identification with Christ on the cross but it was rendered powerless. That is why
we are able progressively to execute judgement on it in our lives; why
regeneration potentially frees us from the power of sin (we have to realise this
potential by our choices and co-operation with God) just as justification removes
the penalty of sin. We no longer have to live under the power of sin, enslaved to it
(John 8:31-36).

Does this mean that we are able to attain sinlessness and should lead sinless lives?
The New Testament maintains a tension on this matter. On the one hand, it
implies that we can and should be victorious over sin (Romans 6:1 - 8:14, 2 Peter
1:3-4). On the other hand, it implies that we will always continue to wrestle with
sin in this life (1 John 1:8 - 2:1). The former means that we can never excuse or
become comfortable with sin but have always to strive for sinlessness as a goal.
The latter means we are not to feel disqualified or condemned by the ongoing
presence of sin in our lives.

The latter truth also refutes any Pelagian-type heresies which teach that we can
and should attain sinlessness in this life (and that some have indeed done so).
Neither the Christian nor, therefore, the church is free of original or actual sin in
this age. Ephesians 5:26-27 thus does not and cannot refer to the church's
sanctification (her present - or even future - condition on earth) but to her
justification (her present status in heaven) and her glorification (her future state
and status on the new heaven and new earth).

Where sin does occur in the Christian it results in a loss of fellowship with God
and not of relationship to God, and sometimes in discipline (1 Corinthians 5:4-5,
Hebrews 12:6) and even death (Acts 5:1-11, 1 Corinthians 11:30). The remedy is
vertical and (where necessary) horizontal reconciliation through confession (1
John 1:9 & 2:1) and restitution.

As sanctification gains ground in us, the image of God in man, distorted (but not
destroyed) in the Fall, is increasingly restored. For example, our conscience is
purified (Romans 13:5, 1 Corinthians 8:7&10&12) and our mind renewed
(Matthew 22:37, Romans 12:2, 1 Corinthians 14:15, Ephesians 5:17); the
corruption of every area of our being resulting from the Fall (Rom 1 & 2) begins
to be reversed. We have seen (Chapter 5.3) that the creation of man in the image
of God means that he is designed to be like God, an image or reflection, and thus
a representation, of him on the earth. Thus, as we are sanctified, we become more
and more like God, revealing him to the world around us.

125
 e) Perseverance

The elected individual has been called, justified and now is being sanctified. The
next question that arises in the process of salvation is whether those that have
come this far will always continue in the way of salvation until its consummation
in glorification or whether some will cease to be part of the process and so not be
saved. Theologically, this issue is known as the perseverance of the saints or the
security of the believer. Commonly, it is known as the question of "Once saved,
always saved?" or "Can you lose your salvation?" (through perpetual sin,
hardening of the heart, or deliberate rejection of Christ).

The greater emphasis placed by anyone on divine sovereignty or human freedom

in the process of salvation will be more apparent here than at any other stage.
Those who have emphasised God's part in salvation will say that, just as God has
brought the individual to salvation, God will keep the individual in salvation.
Those who have emphasized man's part in salvation will say that, just as man has
had to decide to respond to God at every step to be saved, so he has to keep on
saying "yes" to God in order to remain saved. As difficult as it may be, we have
to avoid extremes and in this "phase" as in the others keep divine sovereignty and
human responsibility in tension.

The greatest minds have not resolved this issue in two thousand years so we shall
not try to, let alone pretend to, do so here. We simply summarize some of the
common arguments on both sides, arguments from Scripture, theology and
experience.

Can you lose your salvation?...

NO
Proof-texts: John 6:39-40; Romans 8:28-30 &
35-39; 2 Corinthians 1:21-22; Ephesians 1:13-
14, 4:30; Philippians 1:6, 2:13, 2 Timothy 1:12,
2:13; 1 Peter 1:23; 1 John 3:9, 5:18; Jude 24
Salvation the work of God not man:
God saves completely and perfectly.
Justification irreversible – and always leads to
glorification (Romans 8:30)
Adoption as children irreversible: fathering of a
child can never be reversed
As a mark of ownership, God has placed His
Spirit in us, a seal or deposit guaranteeing the
fullness of salvation
Old Covenant between God & Israel could be
broken by Israel‟s sin and Israel rejected. We
sin but Jesus cuts/keeps New Covenant on our
behalf – perfectly!
YES
Counter Proof-texts: Matthew 13:5-7 & 20-22,
24:10-13; John 15:2&6&10; 1 Corinthians 9:27
– 10:12; Philippians 2:12; Colossians 1:23; 1
Timothy 1:18-20, 6:10; Hebrews 2:1-3, 3:6 –
4:11, 6:4-8, 10:26-31&35-36, 12:25; 2 Peter
2:20-22; Jude 5-6
Salvation requires humans co-operation at
every point: man may cease to co-operate
(reject what was previously chosen)
Romans 8:30 only speaking of those who
persevere.
In extreme cases, children can be disowned
In extreme cases, the mark can be removed
(various Old Testament parallels)
We can opt out of the covenant just as we
opted into it

126
Man one-sidedly predestined to be saved by
God, whose grace irresistible; man had no
freedom to choose God then similarly none to
reject Him now
Creation: man free from sin to serve God
Fall: slave to sin; not free to choose God
Prevenient grace enables us to choose God
Now free again from sin to serve God
Man has freedom after conversion but this
freedom means he always chooses God
Can be explained by –
1.Not really saved in the first place:
justification proved by perseverance, or
2. Temporary backsliding, or
3.Carnal Christians (themselves saved by
works judged)
Man was free to obey or disobey God both
before conversion and at conversion (God‟s
salvation required our response). Why should
man now lose this freedom to accept or reject
God/salvation?
Adam had this freedom yet rebelled against
God
Our experience: people do fall away from faith,
But:
1. tautologous argument
2. some backslide permanently (until they die)
3. Real justification always results in
sanctification (1 John 3:9-10)

f) Glorification

"Those he justified, he also glorified."

Chapter 10 will deal in detail with man in the glorified state. Here it suffices to
note that glorification is the last and most glorious "phase" of the order of
salvation, that event which completes our salvation and at which we receive our
full inheritance. It involves: the removal from us of the sin nature (original sin)
and all sin (actual sin); the perfection and glorification of every part of our being
into Christlikeness (1 John 3:2), including the resurrection/transformation of our
bodies like unto Christ's glorious body (Philippians 3:21); and the translation of
our existence into a perfect, unchangeable and eternal state. All this on the new
heaven and new earth, where we will live and reign with Christ forever.

The relationship between the past, present and future components of our salvation
can be depicted (albeit somewhat simplistically) as below.

127
 100%
G
J
HOLINESS S

0%
Birth Conversion Death

LIFETIME ETERNITY

JUSTIFICATION SANCTIFICATION GLORIFICATION

(Positional Sanctification) (Progressive/Practical Sanc.) (Perfect Sanctification)

Past salvation Present salvation Future salvation
(“You have been saved”) (“You have being saved”) (“You will been saved”)
Position/Status in heaven Condition/State on earth Position/Status = State/Condition on New H&E
Removes penalty of sin Removes power of sin Removes presence of sin

3. THE TERMS OF SALVATION

The terms of salvation refer to what man has to do to be saved. Every covenant involved
terms: things each party had to fulfil to enter into and remain in covenant. What does man
need to do to enter into covenant with God; or, more accurately, to be included in the
New Covenant which Jesus cut with the Father on our behalf?

a) Saved by grace through faith, not by works

It is the overwhelming testimony of Scripture that man cannot be saved either by

any merit within himself or by any good works (sacrificial acts, liturgical
observances, penances, indulgences, ascetic pursuits, fulfilment of the Law, etc)
which he performs. If he could, salvation would be earned - but this it can never
be: it is the free, gracious gift of God. Man would have to be perfect to be
acceptable to God - but this he is not; he would have to fulfil the Law in every
detail - but this he cannot. Man is thus totally dependent on God for salvation.
God makes salvation available to man in his grace; man appropriates this
salvation through faith. We are thus saved "by grace...through faith" and "not of
ourselves ...not by works" (Isaiah 64:6, Romans 3:20-30, 6:23, 7:18, Galatians
2:16, 3, 5:2-4, Ephesians 2:4-5&8-9; Titus 3:4-7).

This doctrine sets Christianity apart from every religion and cult on the face of the
earth, and even from various creeds within the church, which either declare that
man is already saved by some inherent merit (e.g. he is divine) or that he is saved

128
by good works (or a combination of faith and works).

b) Saved through faith alone

Other actions or attitudes are sometimes linked with faith in Scripture as

seemingly obligatory for salvation: "Repent and believe" (Mark 1:5); "Repent and
be baptized" (Acts 2:38); "Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved" (Mark
16:16); "If you confess with your mouth...and believe in your heart...you will be
saved" (Romans 10:9). Repentance, confession and baptism are thus sometimes
added to faith as terms of salvation, even by those who eschew the more obvious
heresy above.

These few phrases, however, need to be interpreted in the light of the rest of
Scripture. The overwhelming testimony of the New Testament is that faith and
faith alone is the prerequisite of salvation: belief in/on Jesus and the salvation he
provided on the cross. This is asserted over 200 times (e.g. John 1:12, 3:16&18,
5:24, 6:35&47, 11:25-16; Acts 16:31; Romans 5:1, 10:4; Ephesians 1:13; and the
texts cited in [a] above).

On examination, it will be seen that two of the three "additional" terms of

salvation (repentance and confession) are included in (are part of) the act of faith.
Faith in Christ, the expression of a desire to be saved by him, to put one's trust in
him, necessarily includes the recognition of one's need for salvation, of one's sin
and the desire to be free of it: this is repentance. And, as the context of Romans
10:9 (viz. vv 1-15) makes clear, confessing Jesus with you mouth is the inevitable
reverse side of the coin to believing on him in your heart: the Word is preached to
us and, at the moment of believing it (him!) to be the source of our salvation, we
call on him and are saved (vv 13-14).

The last of the three "additional" terms, baptism, is not obligatory for salvation
(cf. the thief on the cross). Such a cult belief can arise only from reading these
one or two phrases simplistically and in isolation from the rest of Scripture. If
baptism was necessary for salvation we would be saved at least in part by works,
by something we do (and this clearly contradicts Scripture). Baptism is
sometimes closely linked to belief because it is the immediate and expected
consequence of faith: having believed, God expects us at the first available
opportunity to be baptized as an outward sign of what has happened to us through
the act of believing and as a public confession of our faith. This remembrance
will ensure that baptism, although it is not obligatory for salvation, is never
downgraded in our thinking to a mere optional extra.

c) Faith only the means and not the grounds of salvation

If faith were the grounds of salvation (specifically, of justification), i.e. if God

129
 justified us because of our faith, this would make faith itself a meritorious work
and lead to justification by works (the work of faith). But salvation is a free gift:
God gives it all. The atonement is the grounds of salvation/justification: God can
justify the sinner because of the death of Jesus as a substitute sacrifice in payment
of the sin-debt of all mankind. (The cross satisfied the rightful claims of God
against the sinner so that he can now save man without compromising his justice.)
Faith is merely the means of justification. It is the channel through which God
can apply the fruits of the atonement to the sinner (removal of sin, imputation of
righteousness, etc). Ephesians 2:8 is thus strictly correct: we are not saved by
faith (i.e. by ourselves) but "by grace" (i.e. by God) "through faith". This
distinction reminds us yet again that salvation is God's work and God's gift: from
first to last, God does everything (which is why our salvation is so perfect and
secure). In a real sense, we do nothing: faith is simply receiving what God has
done, is doing and will do for, in, with and through us. And even faith, the
capacity to respond to, and trust in, God is a gift of God!

4. THE NATURE OF SALVATION

So far we have regarded salvation solely as a vertical and spiritual matter - the restoration
of the relationship between man and God. But this is only half of the story: salvation is
also horizontal and social. Space will not allow us to give this huge and important theme
the examination it deserves; nevertheless, for the sake of biblical holism (completeness),
we must at least touch on it.

In Chapter 5.9 we saw that Genesis 3 and 4 together describe the Fall of man. Genesis 3
describes the entry of sin into the human world with proud ambition and rebellious
independence: man's harmonious relationship with God was replaced by one of enmity
and alienation. But this change led quickly and inevitably to enmity and alienation
between man and his fellow-man (Genesis 4). Vertical/spiritual sin leads to
horizontal/social sin: war, exploitation, poverty, injustice, oppression, persecution,
jealousy, malice, murder, theft, hatred, etc are all results of the Fall. Moreover, social sin
is not only personal (the evil actions of a man towards his fellow-man) but structural
(social, economic and political structures/systems which are contrary to God's patterns).

If it is true that God's plan of redemption reverses the Fall and all its effects, and it is,
then we would expect that salvation begins with the restoration of the vertical/spiritual
(our relationship with God) but then proceeds to the restoration of the horizontal/social
(firstly to our own contact with our fellow-men and secondly to society at large). And
this is indeed what we find. In both the Old and New Covenants the terms of covenant
included social-economic-political measures for the ordering of society and the governing
of relationships between man and man, and the responsibility of God's people not only to
treat righteously those with whom they came into contact (the redemption of personal
social sin) but to work for righteousness in society as a whole (the redemption of
structural social sin).

130
 FALL

Vertical/Spiritual Horizontal/Social
SIN SIN

x x

Vertical/Spiritual Horizontal/Social
SALVATION SALVATION

FAITH

Of course, in this age, we no more believe that we can attain horizontal/social sinlessness
(create a social utopia) than we can vertical/spiritual sinlessness (live a perfect life before
God). For the full realization of both of these we await Jesus' return, his termination of
this age, his judgement of all evil, and his recreation into perfection of both ourselves and
the whole earth. Only then will the vertical and horizontal effects of the Fall be fully
eradicated. But this does not release us from the mandate to pursue social righteousness
in this age any more than we are released from the obligation to pursue personal
righteousness.

It is evangelical theology's frequent neglect of this dimension of both sin and salvation
that has led to the allegation that it is pietistic, otherworldly and irrelevant, and to the
emergence of various social theologies (e.g. liberation theology) as a corrective to this
neglect. As so often happens, reactions have become overreactions, and many of these
theologies are often guilty of the opposite extreme: emphasis on the horizontal to the
exclusion of the vertical in their understandings of both sin and salvation. Nevertheless,
they are a corrective to the imbalance of some theologies, reminding us of the horizontal-
social dimensions of sin and thus of salvation (and of the personal and structural nature of
both), and exhorting us to maintain a biblical holism and balance in our life and doctrine.

5. MAN IN THE REDEEMED STATE

In Chapter 5 we noted that, biblically, man exists in four states: created; fallen; redeemed;
and glorified. The first two of these we examined in that chapter; the last (as indicated
then and several times since) will be examined in Chapter 10. In this chapter ([2c & d]
especially), in investigating how God's salvation affects and is experienced by man, we
have been examining man in the redeemed state. Here we need only to make some
summary observations about man in this state and to note what the redemption of man
does not mean.

Justification means that man has a new status: a position in heaven where he is perceived
as righteous because he is "in Christ". (His faith has allowed God to apply the fruits of
the atonement to him.) The restoration of original righteousness, of right-standing with
God, means that his relationship with God is restored: he can once again know God,

131
come into his presence and fellowship with him. Because of the continued existence of
the sinful nature, the fallen world and Satan, this relationship is not yet perfect;
nevertheless, man's justification and the new status this gives him ensures his future
glorification and with it the perfection of this relationship/fellowship.

Regeneration means that man has a new nature: a new ability and capacity to serve God
rather than sin because his spirit has been made alive and is now indwelt by the Holy
Spirit. Now, through his choices and his co-operation with the indwelling Spirit's
motivation and enabling, he can gradually become free of sin and its power and become
more like God (sanctification).

Justification and regeneration (and the sanctification they make possible) thus effect
profound changes to man in the fallen state (cut off from God and judged by him,
dead/dying and under the sentence of eternal death, corrupted by sin in every area,
enslaved by sin's power, and powerless to change his state) - and they contain in
themselves the promise of yet more profound changes at the moment of glorification.
Nevertheless, the changes do not mean:

(1) Man is now (or can become) sinless (Pelagianism). The reasons for this have
already been spelled out.

(2) Man is now divine. Interpreted in the light of the rest of Scripture, 2 Peter
1:3-4 cannot mean this. It says that we participate in the divine nature, not that
we become divine. Participation in a soccer match does not make me a soccer
match; partaking of a biscuit does not make me a biscuit. The participation is not
ontological (our humanity or human essence becomes divinity or divine essence)
but relational: through our relationship with God we receive everything we need
to be free of the power of sin and to lead a godly life - viz. position in and access
to heaven, Jesus praying continuously for us, a new nature and capacity to serve
God and not sin, a spirit made alive to God, and the indwelling and anointing
Spirit. We are indwelt by the Spirit of God and are being remade in the image of
God - but we are still only men, the finite creatures created by God in the
beginning.

132
Chapter 9

THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH

Chapter Outline: 1. What is the Church?

2. The Head of the Church
3. The Mandate of the Church
4. Church Structure and Government
5. The Ordinances of the Church
6. Church, Mission and Kingdom

In broad outline we could say that the first half of doctrine (Chapters 1 - 5) surveys God's
creation, his original plan to create a covenant partner with whom he could eternally
share his fellowship of love and joy of life. The second half (Lectures 6 - 10) surveys
God's redemption, the plan he put into operation to counter the effects of the Fall and
enable him to realize his initial intentions with creation.

In this latter half, Chapters 6 and 7 respectively examined the salvation provided by God
through Jesus Christ and the implementation of that salvation through the Holy Spirit.
Chapter 8 examined how that salvation is appropriated and experienced by man, and the
changes it causes within him. This chapter looks at the community of all those saved in
this way, at their life together to minister to God and each other and to serve his purposes
on the earth.

In so doing, this community prepares for the End, God's final intervention at the end of
time to complete the plan of redemption and so realize the plan of creation - eternal
fellowship with man on the (new) earth. The Doctrine of the Church thus not only
follows logically on the Doctrine of Salvation but leads with equal logic to the Doctrine
of Last Things.

1. WHAT IS THE CHURCH?

a) Definitions & Distinctions

(i) Ecclesia

This is the Greek word translated "church"; it means "called-out ones".

The church is thus not a building or an organization but a group of people. The
question, therefore, should not be "What is the church?" but "Who is the church?"

133
Specifically, the ecclesia are the people bought by and thus belonging to Jesus;
those called out from (i.e. separate from, or different to) the masses.

The name indicates the supernatural origin - viz. sovereign election - of God's
New Covenant people (as with his Old). This origin in turn indicates both the
church's special privilege and favour and her special purpose and responsibility
(God's election is never for indulgence but always for a task).

All who believe (i.e. are called out) are thus automatically part of the church (they
are saved into the "called-out ones", the church). To be saved means to become
part of the saved community; and one can express (live out) one's salvation only
in this community. An Old Testament convert did not become an isolated
"Jevohah-follower" but an Israelite (i.e. part of the saved community, Israel).
Similarly, a New Testament convert does not become an isolated Jesus-follower
but a member of the church. (The Biblical worldview reflects Hebrew
communalism rather than Greek individualism.) The New Testament never
speaks of "saint" (singular) but only of "saints" (plural). Thus to be a Christian in
isolation is not only extremely difficult (if not impossible) but profoundly
unbiblical. To love God is to love his people; to be committed to Christ is to be
committed to his church.

(ii) One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

This is the summarised doctrine of the church in ancient creeds.

"One": there is only one true church, the church of Jesus Christ
"Holy": the church is sanctified (made holy, set apart) by God
"Catholic": all churches everywhere are part of the one universal church
"Apostolic": the church is built on the foundation of the apostles

(iii) Universal Church vs Local Church

The universal church is: the total company of the redeemed; all true believers of
all ages in all places (including Old Testament saints); those whose names are
written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

The local church is: a subset of the above; the concrete (visual) expression of the
universal church in a particular time and place; the gathering of a certain number
of believers in space and time according to biblical structure, under biblical
government and fulfilling all the biblical mandates of the church.

The memberships of the two are not synonymous: all in the former should be in
the latter (it is meaningless to be part of the universal church without giving
concrete reality to that in membership of the local church) but not all in the latter
are part of former (many local church members are not true believers). Those
who belong to local churches can be readily seen from membership lists but the

134
exact membership of the universal church is known only to God.

Each local church must be patterned after the universal church. A local church
can depart so far from the pattern that it no longer belongs to the universal church
(Revelation 2 & 3).

(iv) Local Church vs Para-Church

Local church: Gathering of believers with qualifications listed above.

Para-church: Christian organizations (e.g. mission societies) which specialize in

certain tasks of the church (e.g. evangelism or social action).

Para-church organizations may, therefore, because of the often greater knowledge,

expertise and resources their specialization has given them, perform a legitimate
and valuable role in aiding local churches to fulfil their mandate in the area
concerned. However, many of these organizations began because the church
would not fulfill its mandate at that time; biblically, the local church is God's
chosen instrument and structure for achieving his purposes on the earth. This
truth is being restored to the church today and we should pursue the biblical
model as far as possible. For example, "mission" is the responsibility of the local
church and not of mission societies, and the church cannot conveniently leave it to
the latter. Churches, not societies, send people - as church planters not
missionaries.

This distinction also demonstrates that a number of Christians merely

fellowshipping or working together does not constitute a local church (otherwise a
prayer meeting or a mission society would be a local church). The association of
Christians requires a certain (biblical) structure and government, and the pursuit
of the church's full mandate, to qualify as a local church.

(v)Essence vs Form

Essence: the unchangeable aspects of the church's doctrine, life, ministry and
mission in all ages and places; that which makes it the church; that which is
absolute.

Form: the external "clothing" which constantly changes to accommodate the

diversity of cultures and milieus, and to make the unchanging essence accessible
and relevant to each time and place (e.g. music, dress, building patterns, order and
style of meetings, exegetical and theological approaches, customs); that which is
relative.

The church has invariably got into difficulties whenever the two have been
confused: when form has been treated as essence (e.g. the inseparable exportation
of Western culture with the gospel in mission history, and the planting of

135
"European" churches in the Third World as a result); or essence has been treated
as form (non-negotiable doctrinal and ethical positions and biblical mandates have
been compromised as relative and not binding to the new culture/era, with the
effectual loss of the church's identity, power or reason for existence.

b) Biblical Pictures

The Bible contains numerous analogies/pictures of the church which further

illuminate for us what (or who!) the church is. The pictures are numerous
because the nature and calling of the church is so multi-faceted that no one
symbol captures its richness; each analogy stresses a different dimension of the
church's life and ministry. Focusing on one or a few of the pictures to the
exclusion of the others will result in distorted church doctrine and practice: all the
pictures taken together represent the biblical revelation.

(i) The people/nation of God (Ephesians 2:12&19, 1 Peter 2:9-10)

The people of the covenant formula ("I will be your God and you will be my
people"); the final and eternal fulfilment of God's quest for a covenant people (cf.
Revelation 21:3).

Previously, this title was reserved jealously and exclusively for Israel alone. Now
it is applied to the church. The church is the true/new Israel (Galatians 6:16), the
eschatological fulfilment of the ancient people of God. The election of the church
preceded that of Israel; the latter was preparatory to and is now superseded by the
former (just as the Old Covenant was preparatory to and has now been superseded
by the New).

This title again highlights the supernatural origin and sovereign election of the
church, which in turn denote both her privilege (her special identity, her favoured
position) and her responsibility (God's salvific purpose with and through her to
the nations).

(ii) The family/household of God (Ephesians 2:19 cf. John 1:12, 1 John 3:2,
Romans 8:14-17, Galatians 3:26 - 4:7)

We are God's children (sons/daughters) and heirs. We are thus members of God's
family/household and brothers/sisters to all other believers.

(iii) The building/temple of God (1 Corinthians 3:9-17, Ephesians 2:20-22, 1

Peter 2:4-8)

In the Old Covenant, the temple was the place where God dwelt (where his glory
was manifest) and to which all the nations had to come to find God and salvation.
The church is now God's temple (another indication that the Old Covenant and all
its forms have been superseded), the place where God (the Holy Spirit) dwells and

136
his glory is manifest (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:18), and to which all nations have to
come to find God and salvation! Indeed, the word used to describe the church in
these texts is not hieron (the whole temple complex) but naos (the Most Holy
Place).

In this temple, each of us has a strategic part: we are "living stones" being placed
in exactly the right place according to God's perfect wisdom. The word used here
of stones is not petros (rough stones) but lithos (carefully worked stones). The
temple thus grows qualitatively and quantitatively.

Jesus is the foundation of this temple (everything is built on him); a foundation is

laid only once and no other foundation can be laid (it is impossible to change the
foundation of a building or to move a building onto another foundation).
Alternatively, Jesus is the cornerstone (a cornerstone gives direction to the whole
and can also only be laid once) and the apostles and prophets are the foundation
(or lay the foundation).

(iv) The priesthood of God (1 Peter 2:5&9, Revelation 1:6)

This picture arises directly out of the previous one. A temple has priests that
minister to God and represent the people (those that cannot come into the temple)
before him. So too this new temple has priests. But since all Christians are part
of the new temple (indeed, of the Most Holy Place), all are priests. In the New
Covenant it is not some of God's people representing the rest of God's people (as
in the Old) but all of God's people representing those who cannot come into the
temple (who are not part of the church) - the world. Our ministry of "spiritual
sacrifices" before God includes intercession and worship (Hebrews 13:15).

We are, moreover, a "royal priesthood" and a "kingdom [of] priests" because we

are set apart by and minister to the king.

(v) The army of God (Matthew 12:29, 16:18, 2 Corinthians 10:3-5, Ephesians
6:10-18)

God is a warrior (Exodus 15:3); Jesus makes war (Revelation 19:11). The church
is God's army (cf. Joel 2:1-11), pushing back the princedom of darkness and
extending the kingdom of light. She does this in every area of her life and
ministry: in evangelism, healing, deliverance and intercession it is more overt
(Mark 16:15-18, Luke 10:17-19); but in her teaching (renewing minds, refuting
error), her fellowship (restoring bruised lives) and her social action (reversing the
effects of poverty, exploitation, injustice, etc) she is also involved in spiritual
warfare. Her war against evil is an earthly counterpart to the angelic warfare
between good and evil in heaven (Daniel 10:13&20, Revelation 12:7).

That the church is an army involved in a battle illuminates further aspect of her
nature and calling: knowledge of the enemy; discipline; fitness; training;

137
weapons; armour; tactics; obedience to orders, etc.

(vi) The flock of God (Acts 20:28-29, 1 Peter 5:2-4, Psalm 95:7)

We are God's sheep, those he possesses and thus looks after - protects, provides
for, nurtures, searches for the lost, gathers the strays, etc. Jesus is the Chief
Shepherd of this flock (Psalm 23, Isaiah 40:11, John 10:1-18) and the elders are
the under-shepherds.

(vii) The field of God (1 Corinthians 3:6-9)

We are the different crops in God's field, planted/nurtured by different ministries

but given life/growth by God, so that we may bear fruit to his glory.

(viii) The body of Christ (Romans 12:4-6, 1 Corinthians 12:12-27, Ephesians 4:1-
14)

This most common of New Testament metaphors for the church contains four
important truths.

It emphasizes the unity of the church: there is only one body (a head with many
bodies would be a monster).

It emphasizes the fact that the church has a head (Jesus) and the unity of this
headship (a body with two heads would equally be a monster).

It emphasizes that the church has many different "parts" (people/gifts/ministries)

and that all are important for the successful growth and functioning of the whole.

It emphasizes the fact that the church now continues (as Christ's spiritual body)
the work of the Incarnation (Christ's ministry while in his physical body).

The body is distinct from Christ (the body is not Christ) yet inseparable from him
(without him there is no body).

(ix) The bride of Christ (Song of Songs, Ephesians 5:22-23, Revelation 19:6-9)

This picture again communicates election and favour, together with all the
promise, assurance, intimacy and nurturing of the perfect Bridegroom. And as
wonderful as this relationship is in the present age it represents only the courtship;
the delight of the wedding, consummation and life together still await us!

(x) A sacrament

A sacrament is something visible that makes known to man the presence or

existence of something invisible. Jesus was thus a sacrament of God. And the

138
 church is now a sacrament of Christ: it represents him; it makes him present; it is
a sign to the world of Jesus and his salvation; it is an outward sign of inward
grace, of the existence of an eschatological, hope-filled, saved community in
whom grace is coming to fulfilment. Through its ministry and mission, but even
by its very existence and nature, the church makes known to human and angelic
beings the mysteries and purposes of God (Ephesians 1:9-10, 3:2-11, 1 Peter 1:10-
12).

(xi) A servant

Just as Jesus came to be God's suffering servant, to serve others and lay down his
life for all men, so the church is God's suffering servant, called to serve and
sacrifice itself for men, to similarly be humbled before she is exalted. She exists
for God and others before herself.

(xii) A pilgrim

The church is a pilgrim, both because she never considers herself as having
attained maturity or having completed her task, and so always presses on to take
hold of the things to which she is called (Philippians 3:12-16 cf. Psalm 84:5-7),
and also because, knowing that her true home lies elsewhere, she never allows
herself to settle and become comfortable on/in/with this earth and this age
(Philippians 3:20, Hebrews 11:10&13-16&39, 13:14, 1 Peter 1:1&17, 2:11).

2. THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH

Jesus, and Jesus alone, is the Head of the church. He founded it; it belongs to him; it is
answerable to him alone and not to any man (popes, etc) or men (synods, etc). A multi-
headed body is a monster.

Headship in the New Testament has two aspects: government/pre-eminence (Colossians

1:18, Ephesians 1:22-23) and sourcing/sustaining (cf. the head of a river)(Ephesians 4:16,
Colossians 2:19). Both are true of Jesus' headship of the church: respectively, he
plans/decides/directs and he gives life/growth/maturity. He is "the inspiring, ruling,
guiding, combining, sustaining power, the mainspring of its activity, the centre of its
unity, and the seat of its life".

With regard to the governmental aspect of headship: Jesus must not be head in name
only, the kind of lip-serviced but powerless constitutional monarch or honorary life-
president that he is in many churches. He can and should be the real hands-on governing
head of the church - through his Word, Spirit, appointed leaders and gifts. (The elders
are the nerve system that should convey the commands of the head to the body.) Where
Jesus is not allowed (or has ceased to be) the head in this way, then the
congregation/denomination has ceased to be the body (or has become a headless body
doomed to extinction). In other words, where man has replaced Jesus as head, the church

139
no longer exists. All church structures, programmes, ministries, etc are, therefore, to be
evaluated first and foremost by the criterion of whether they allow Jesus to reign freely
and absolutely as head.

Similarly, where Jesus is not accepted for who he is (the biblical doctrine of the person
and work of Christ), this is not the church - no matter how much space to govern they
may give to their heretical Jesus.

Converse to all of the above: if Jesus is the only head, then there is only one body - all
true denominations/congregations are, in fact, one church.

We have already seen that each local church is responsible to Jesus for being patterned
after his universal church. A local church can depart so far from this pattern that it is
disowned by the head and no longer belongs to the universal church (Revelation 2 & 3).

3. THE MANDATE OF THE CHURCH

The church, as we have seen, is God's called/elect/chosen people. But election is always
for a task/purpose never for indulgence. Greatly simplified, the function/responsibility of
the church is: towards God, worship and prayer; towards each other, fellowship (includes
pastoring) and instruction (includes teaching and training); towards the world,
evangelism and service; towards the enemy, warfare and conquest.

4. CHURCH STRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY

a) Structure

In the course of church history, various "horizontal" and/or "vertical" structures of

variable complexity have emerged between churches. (To survey and evaluate
them is interesting but time-consuming - and we can to a large extent short-cut
this process.)

The New Testament model of church structure is that of the autonomous local
church, governed by its own leaders and not by any person(s), church(es) or other
structure(s) (boards, synods, etc) external to it. However, the local church is
independent but not isolationist (which tends to unaccountability, arrogance,
exclusivism and heresy). Isolation and its dangers are not to be avoided by
instituting unbiblical structures but by:

(1) The people of the church (especially the leaders) should be in

relationship with the people and leaders of neighbour churches. This is
nothing more than normal Christian living. And Christian relating should
be humble, teachable, submissive, co-operative and supportive and so
work against isolationism. Here we have nothing to do with structures

140
 between churches, only with the to-be-expected relationships between
Christians.

(2) The leaders of the local church are in relationship with an apostle and
his team, men of greater wisdom, experience, anointing and authority, who
minister translocally and to whom local churches look for input and advice
in matters concerning their church. But: (a) we are still not dealing with
formal structures, vertical or horizontal, between a church and
someone/something external to it but only with the voluntary personal
relationship between an apostle/apostolic team and the leaders (and, by
extension, the people) of a local church; (b) the input is initiated by the
church leaders and not the apostolic team (invited, not imposed, authority)
and is evaluated and implemented by them (the local leaders remain the
highest authority in the local congregation).

This biblical structure ensures the autonomy of the local church and the authority
of its leaders on the one hand, and, on the other, guards against isolationism and
its dangers. It results not in a denomination and not even in a fellowship of
churches but in autonomous local churches, some of whom share a special
relationship (common vision, values and ventures) because their leaders relate to
the same apostolic team (although this special relationship does not - indeed, must
not - preclude relationship and co-operation with local churches who relate to
other apostolic teams).

(b)Government

It is super-spiritual nonsense to assert that, because Jesus is the head, the church
does not need human leaders or offices of government, and that we can and
should all just be friends together under Jesus. The church needs human leaders
to organize, lead, guide, discipline, control, etc - and where these are appointed by
the head they carry his authority.

The model of church structure determines the model of church government

(leadership). If all inter-church structures are unbiblical, it follows that all
external offices of church government are equally unbiblical. Even some of the
internal offices of church government that have emerged in church history have to
be rejected as unbiblical.

Again, a survey and evaluation of all the models that have emerged would be
interesting but too time-consuming - and as before we can largely short-cut the
process. In the main, three models of church government have emerged: the
Episcopal/hierarchical (external persons/structures rule through their appointed
priest/minister [sometimes there may be no external rule but internally the
leader(s) still rules hierarchically]); the congregational/democratic (the people
rule); and the Presbyterian (Jesus rules, and a plural eldership team leads the
people into Jesus' agenda).

141
Only two offices of church leadership/government appear in the New Testament.
(We cannot create or accept any others inside or outside of the church.) The first
is the elder. Episkopos (translated "bishop" or "overseer") and presbuteros
(translated "presbyter" or "elder") are used interchangeably (1 Peter 5:1 cf. v2,
Acts 20:17 cf. v28). Poimen (translated "shepherd" or "pastor" can also be used
for this office as shepherding the flock is central to its job-description (1 Peter
5:1-4, Acts 20:28-29). The elders are the highest authority in the local church -
yet they govern always with the knowledge that they are not the head but only
under-shepherds to the Chief Shepherd, accountable to him for the sheep.
Elements of both the episcopal and congregational models are true: the elders do
rule the people and they do serve the people (although they are not dictated to by
the people but by Jesus); they are over and under the people yet also amongst and
ahead of them. They are always a team: the wisdom of many exceeds the wisdom
of one; leading a church is too weighty a task for a single person and any single
leader is thus too vulnerable; team leadership prevents dictatorship and/or
personality-cults and so minimizes the danger of the church drifting into error; it
serves as a constant reminder that no man is the head of the church but only Jesus
(a single leader is in much greater danger of becoming regarded as the head).
Team leadership does not preclude a team leader, however (such a leader is both
biblically precedented and practically necessary), as long as this position is not so
accentuated that it creates another (unbiblical) office and so establishes an
unbiblical hierarchy (pastor/minister and elders), whether in actuality or even in
the minds of the people.

The second and only other office is that of the deacon. It is narrow-minded in the
extreme to reduce the responsibility of deacons to "waiting on tables" only (Acts
6). In a broad sense, the seven were chosen to assist the elders in the running of
the church and are subsequently found doing all sorts of things - both "spiritual"
and practical - other than waiting on tables. Deacons assist the elders in the
totality of leading and administrating the church. They follow in the wake of the
elders, assisting the elders to lead the people behind them into Jesus' agenda.

No other offices of leadership/government should be accepted because: they do

not appear in Scripture; all such offices in church history have brought more death
than life (we would expect this of structures contrary to God's pattern). External
offices/structures (popes, synods, mother churches, etc) undermine the autonomy
of the local church and the authority of local elders. Internal offices/structures
(wardens, councils, priests, ministers, etc) also undermine the authority of elders
or prevent team leadership or result in the abominable clergy-laity division, where
some are placed over others (they become the "aristocracy" of the church). These
then reserve the exercise of certain ministries to themselves and reduce the
remainder of the people to uninvolved (or, at best, partially involved) spectators.

142
c) Ministry

The above has brought us to the matter of the ministry of the church for, just as
one's model of church structure determines one's model of church government, so
one's right or wrong model of church government leads to a right or wrong model
of church ministry. Wrong models of ministry invariably result from confusion
between office (which has to do with government) and gift (which has to do with
ministry). God only appoints some to office and these thus have an exclusive right
to govern, to exercise authority. (There may be a further limitation here - one of
gender.) But this does not entail any exclusive rights to some or all of the
ministries of the church. Ministry arises from gift (not office) and there is no
limitation on any gift to any person/persons (officer or non- officer, male or
female, old or new Christian). In fact, the New Testament forcefully asserts the
contrary: every Christian has gifts and therefore ministries; every part of the body
has a vital role to play; every believer is a priest and minister. That is why the
non-offices of priest and minister are particularly damaging: they deny this truth;
they imply that only a small select group do the work of the ministry; they lead to
passivity, stagnation and ultimately death in the life of the remaining Christians
and consequently of the church. These titles confuse office and ministry; to the
extent that they are titles they refer to every Christian.

Even those that have rejected these incorrect denominational models of ministry
need to be careful. For example, by calling the leader of a church "pastor"
(which, as we saw, if it is in distinction to the elders, is also an incorrect model of
government), or by calling the elders "pastors", we can also confuse office and
gift (forgetting that pastor is first and foremost a gift in Scripture) and fall into the
trap of expecting the elders to do all the pastoring; but some not in the office of
elder may have this gift and are responsible to God for exercising it. Another
example: we look to the apostolic team to exercise the fivefold gifts/ministries of
Ephesians 4 and so bring the church to maturity (vv 11-16). But again, these are
gifts not offices (v8), and they are not restricted to members of apostolic teams;
some in the local church (both those in office and those not)(v7) may also have
these gifts and can edify the body by using them. Besides, those that exercise
these gifts don't do the ministry but train the people to do the ministry (v12).

So then, not everyone holds office and exercises authority but everyone has a gift
and exercises ministry. Church government is by a few; church ministry is by all:
all believers are priests and ministers. The two biblical offices do not refer to
gift/ministry or to any particular gift/ministry (although the office does require its
bearers to "shepherd", to be "able to teach" and to pray for the sick); rather, those
in office release and direct the gifts/ministries of all believers. The separation of
the church into clergy and laity (with the former laying claim to the exclusive
exercise of authority and ministry) has been one of the worst deceptions in church
history, and continues to prevent the church and the Christian from being fully
available to the head of the church for achieving his purposes through them.

143
5. THE ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH

An ordinance is a prescribed rite or practice. The ordinances of the church are thus the
two outward rites or practices prescribed by Christ to be performed by his church, viz.
baptism and communion. Each is a re-enactment and thereby a reminder of key salvific
events; they are thus physical/external signs or symbols of spiritual/internal realities.

Baptism is an acted-out picture of what happened at rebirth: our dying to our old life
(going under the water) and our rising to a new life (coming up out of the water) as we
identified with the death and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6:3-4). It is the sign (mark)
of the New Covenant that we are now part of just as circumcision was of the Old
(Colossians 2:11-12). It is also the public confession of the private commitment we have
made (baptism in the New Testament was never a private or church affair as the only
suitable places for baptism were extremely public). For all these reasons, baptism before
conversion (e.g. that of infants) is meaningless. The example and command of Jesus, and
the teaching and practice of the early church, make clear the importance to God of
obedience to this ordinance by every believer as soon after conversion as possible.
Baptism neither regenerates of itself, nor is necessary for salvation (vs various creeds and
cults which assert one or both of these), but its close link with repentance and faith as part
of the process of salvation (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38) shows that God sees it as the
inevitable and immediate firstfruit of conversion and that we can never relegate it to an
optional extra.

Communion is a symbolic re-enactment and reminder of the central saving event of

history (the atoning work of Christ on the cross), one instituted by Christ himself before
the event. It is thus also a reminder of our salvation through our identification with
Christ on the cross. It leads to worship and thanksgiving as we remember what Christ
has done for us; it proclaims the basic truths of the gospel to all present; it quickens our
anticipation of Christ's return because we observe it only till he comes, and so aids our
anticipation and preparedness (1 Corinthians 11:26); it reminds us of our oneness with all
those who participate with us (1 Corinthians 10:17) and so aids unity and fellowship. We
do not have to wait till high and holy days, or church meetings, or the presence of clergy,
to observe it. Jesus' words and the early church's practice (Acts 2:46) exhort us to do it
often: breaking bread and giving thanks occurred at virtually every meal; Jesus' intention
was that henceforth every time they performed this common rite they would invest it with
the new meaning he had just given it. This background also makes it clear that it was a
rite to be performed simply and naturally, in our homes or wherever, and not something
requiring elaborate ceremony, precise liturgy and complex theology.

In Anglican, Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, baptism and communion are
numbered among the seven sacraments (the others are confirmation, ordination, marriage,
anointing of the sick and final unction). In their theology, sacraments are rites which
automatically and efficiently convey grace to the participants; they are means of grace.
Because God is present in the rite, even in the substances used, this impartation of grace
is unfailing and guaranteed; moreover, it causes actual change to the spiritual state of the
participant (e.g. baptism regenerates, communion renews, ordination anoints, final

144
unction removes sin and allows the dying person to avoid hell or to spend less time in
purgatory or perhaps to go direct to heaven) as long as the sacrament is performed in the
correct manner (i.e. by properly qualified clergy, according to the liturgy, accompanied
by the right actions, etc).

The theology and practice of the sacraments has to be rejected because: there is no
evidence in Scripture that the other five are church ordinances authorized by Christ
alongside baptism and communion (two of them don't exist in Scripture at all); there is no
evidence that these two (or the other five) are means of grace in the way claimed for
them; the whole business has overtones of the magic of primitive religion, where the gods
can be manipulated/coerced into doing something simply by the performance of certain
rituals (accompanied by set words and actions), regardless of the spiritual worthiness or
integrity of either the one taking part or the priest mediating for him. God's grace comes
to us all the time in a myriad of ways; there is no need to limit it to certain times and
practices. Moreover, the ordinances are "merely" outward symbols of inner realities;
grace comes in the inner, spiritual experiences rather than in the subsequent outer re-
enactments. This is not to say that God cannot be present in a very real way to anoint or
bless at baptism or communion. After all, performance of these rites is an act of
obedience, which always pleases him. But God is not bound by them; he can be present
just as really and impart grace just as effectively during a quiet time, a prayer meeting, a
worship session, sitting under ministry, a walk through his creation, listening to
wonderful music, appreciating great art...in short, through a myriad number of private
and corporate experiences.

6. CHURCH, MISSION AND KINGDOM

What is the place and role of the church in God's overall cosmic plan?

On the one hand, the church is an end. It represents the end of God's quest for a covenant
people: the church is the people of God in the final, perfect and eternal covenant. The
church marks the end of the process of salvation: it is the place to which all those who are
saved come. It is the great family of God; the great company of the redeemed from all
nations; the great nation that God has preserved through all these centuries and which
will survive for eternity.

But to only see the church as an end results in a static, uninvolved, institutionalized
church. In fact, the church is more of a means than an end; it is not the true end; although
partly an end in itself, it is chiefly a means to the true end.

God has no other redeeming agency on the earth. The church is the medium through
which God expresses himself and achieves his purposes on the earth in this age.
Therefore, while the church is made up of the "called-out ones", it is called into the world
and exists for the world to challenge and transform it, to bring it under the reign of Christ
- in short, to establish the kingdom of God.

145
In a word, then, the life and purpose of the church in this world is Mission. Not
everything in the life and ministry of the church will have a missionary intention but
everything should have a missionary dimension. The church continues, and is a partner
with God, in the missio dei, the ageless mission of God whereby, through Israel, then
Christ, and now the church, God goes out from himself towards the world to reconcile
and renew it and bring it under his benign reign.

Therefore, it is not that mission is bracketed by church (church - mission - church): the
church exists; it engages in mission; but only to return to (establish another) church.
Rather, it is church that is bracketed by mission (mission - church - mission): the church
did not come first but mission (the church in any place is the result of God and his
servants' mission); the "new" church now exists and pursues its life and ministry; but only
to itself become missionary into the world and partner God in his quest to reach all men.

Thus, the existence of the church in this world is, in a word, Mission. And the goal of its
mission is the Kingdom. Jesus' overarching aim was not to found the church but to
establish the kingdom. The church is related to the kingdom but is not synonymous with
it. In relation to the kingdom it is not an event but an act, not an end but a means. The
church prepares for the kingdom in what it is, says and does. In what it is it is a sign of
the kingdom: a picture and testimony to the world of what God desires for man, of
redeemed and reconciled humanity living under God's reign; it is a signpost to and a
glimpse of the future, of God's ultimate and absolute reign. In what it says it is a witness
to the kingdom. And in what it does it is an agent of the kingdom, working for and
establishing it. To the extent that the church expands through the world and demonstrates
the true redeemed and reconciled community, the kingdom can be said to have already
been established. Whatever of the kingdom is to be established now, God accomplishes
through the church.

That is why, although the church is in one sense an end (the eschatological fulfilment of
God's quest since creation to redeem a people for himself), it is in a greater sense only a
means - the means to the true end of the Kingdom of God.

146
Chapter 10

THE DOCTRINE OF LAST THINGS

Chapter Outline:

Preface : The Study of Eschatology

Introduction : An Overview of Biblical Eschatology

A. FRAMEWORK OF THE END : THE KINGDOM OF GOD

1. The Kingdom and Israel
2. The Kingdom and the Incarnation
3. The Kingdom and the Church
4. The Kingdom and Jesus' Return

B. SCENARIOS OF THE END : MILLENIAL VIEWS

5. Dispensational Pre-Millenialism
6. Historic Pre-Millenialism
7. Postmillenialism
8. Amillenialism

C. CALENDAR OF THE END : END EVENTS AND THEIR ORDER

9. Death (and Immortality?)
10. The Intermediate State
11. The Signs of the Times
12. The Return of Jesus Christ
13. The Resurrection of the Dead
14. The Judgement of Mankind
15. Hell : Eternal Punishment
16. The New Heaven and the New Earth

PREFACE : THE STUDY OF ESCHATOLOGY

If there is one doctrine which has not been neglected by some sectors of the
contemporary church it is the Doctrine of Last Things - or, as it is more popularly known,
Eschatology (the only traditional name of a doctrine still commonly in use). However,
not all of this emphasis has been healthy and far from all of what has been taught has
been good. Teaching (like anything else) is to be judged by its fruit; and much of the
fruit of "pop-eschatology" has been bad: obsession/fanaticism, dogmatism/division,
imbalance, sensationalism/superficiality, idle speculation, fearfulness/paranoia - to
mention but a few! I thus want to take the unusual step of prefacing this chapter with
some comments about the study of this doctrine.

147
(1) Future events are a part of the biblical revelation and thus (universal
fascination with the future apart) are a legitimate object of study. However,
eschatology is just one of the doctrines (and by no means the most important one).
Overemphasis on, and obsession with, "end-times" is unbiblical and unhealthy
(and not surprisingly, therefore, the hallmark of cults and fringe groups).

(2) Revelation about the end is at times obscure and open to varying
interpretation. In no area of doctrine has there been such dogmatism and
consequently division (whether at popular or theological levels) and yet in no area
of doctrine is dogmatism less out of place. In pursuing and holding eschatological
views we need always to remain open, humble and flexible.

(3) There are some things in the field of eschatology which are essential and non-
negotiable (eg the return of Christ, the resurrection and judgement of mankind,
heaven and hell). But there are many other things (eg the nature of the millennium
and the rapture, the place of Israel, the timing of the "signs") which are more
peripheral and debatable (it is possible to hold various interpretations of these
without compromising on the central issues). Nevertheless, pop-eschatology has
the unerring tendency to major on the minors and minor on the majors. We must
give the correct weight to each issue and be especially flexible on the minors
while uncompromising on the majors.

(4) We must avoid the superficiality of much pop-eschatology by: (i) grounding
our doctrine less on current "fad-beliefs", high-profile speakers or clever
interpretations of obscure symbols, and more on a really thorough and scholarly
getting-to-grips with Scripture; (ii) not presenting one position as if it were the
only one but presenting and evaluating all the positions in an unprejudiced and
unthreatened manner; (iii) eschewing the popular tendency to assume that
eschatology is wholly concerned with the future when in fact the Bible asserts that
we are already living in the last days and that much of God's purposed end for the
world is already realised/happening.

(5) We must avoid reducing the doctrine to a realm of idle, "academic"

speculation. Biblical prophecy (no matter how large the predictive element) is
never given for speculation but always for sanctification: "Because I [God] am
going to do this, you must do that" (cf. 2 Peter 3:11-12&14). We must thus have
a devotional and practical response to this doctrine (as to any other): build our
faith, purify our lives, increase our evangelism, etc.

(6) Above all, we must avoid any teaching which in content or tone or both leads
to fearfulness and paranoia about end-times. While the doctrine of last things
contains sobering realities, its core message is one of certain victory, sure hope,
glorious promise and astoundingly wonderful news. Sound eschatology,
therefore, can only lead us to increased joy, celebration and worship of our God!

148
INTRODUCTION: AN OVERVIEW OF BIBLICAL ESCHATOLOGY

a) The Idea of an End

That there will be an end to the world and time seems so obvious and self-evident
to us that we cannot conceive of an alternative. But Israel's neighbours in the
ancient world had an entirely different view of time - one that was cyclical. To
them time was an unending repetition of cycles (of day and night, of the seasons,
of birth, maturation, procreation and death) with no beginning and no end - and
thus with no particular goal or purpose (except that contained within the cycle - eg
to have children, to raise a good crop). Even the gods were seen as subject to
these cycles: they could bring minor changes within a cycle (eg cause extreme
weather patterns or bring infertility to man or beast) but could not break out of
them to cause a new pattern. This worldview has no end and hence no
eschatology.

But through his decisive interventions into the history of Israel, God gave them a
completely different understanding of time. He broke them out of an endless and
purposeless repetition of cycles and set them on a definitive course with a clear
beginning (his sovereign election and calling of Israel) and a clear end (his goal
for them); consequently, the period inbetween now had a clear direction and
purpose (viz. to prepare for the goal, the end). Thus Israel came to have a linear
(vs cyclical) understanding of time and, with it, a growing eschatology (beliefs
about what that end was).

The "obvious" and "self-evident" concept of an end to time and the world which
is now shared by much of humanity is thus due to the Judaeo-Christian worldview
and its spreading influence.

b) The End in the Old Testament

God's interventions into her history gave Israel a linear view of time and history
and directed her towards a defined, purposed end. But what was Israel's
eschatology - i.e. what end did she expect?

Initially, during the first half of Old Testament history (the period of her
ascendancy), and particularly during the glorious reigns of David and Solomon,
all God's promises seemed to be in the process of being fulfilled (Israel's
eschatology was increasingly "realized"). God's end was going to take place in
this age, in this world and in a gradual (evolutionary) fashion. Had not God
promised David an everlasting dynasty?

However, as Israel's fortunes declined and gave way to centuries of internal

apostasy and external oppression, the fulfilment of God's promises seemed ever
more remote and so became increasingly pushed into the future. Accordingly,
Israel's eschatology became increasingly other-worldly: God's end would now

149
take place not in this age but in an age to come; not gradually through the normal
progress of human history but cataclysmically through divine intervention
(revolution not evolution). Not surprisingly, expectations became increasingly
apocalyptic (fantastic and bizarre) in expression.

Israel's eschatological expectation came to be centred in "the day of the Lord", a

dreadful day at the end of the age when God would intervene from heaven to
judge sin, destroy evil, purify his people, overthrow their enemies and inaugurate
a new age in which he and they would rule over the nations and the earth.
Specifically, he would do this through: the sending of a Messiah, his anointed
servant ([and] a heavenly figure, the Son of Man); the pouring out of his Spirit;
the cutting of a new covenant; the extension of salvation to all peoples.

c) The End in the New Testament

The most important - and perhaps surprising - eschatological statement in the

New Testament is that this end has already come! And indeed, a glance at the
above paragraph will show how everything Israel expected of the end has to some
measure already been fulfilled by the events surrounding the Incarnation.
According to the New Testament, therefore, we have been living in the last days
ever since (1 Corinthians 10:11, Hebrews 1:2, 9:26, 1 Peter 1:20, 1 John 2:18).
Eschatology is thus about the past and present as well as the future; it is about the
last things God has brought about, is bringing about and will bring about.

Moreover, God's end is above all neither a period of time nor certain events
during that period but a person: Jesus is "the End", "the Omega", "the Last"
(Greek: eschatos) (Revelation 1:17, 22:13). Eschatology is not so much about the
last things as the last man; it is really The Doctrine of Jesus Christ Part II. So the
End is a person - but this End has already come!

Nevertheless, it is equally clear that the full measure of Old Testament

expectation of God's end (let alone that of the New) was not met at Jesus' first
coming. The New Testament asserts that we are living in the last days but also
that we still await the last day: the day of Jesus' second coming when God's end
will be fully realised. God's end is partly past-present (inaugurated eschatology)
and partly future (future eschatology). The Bible speaks of two ages: this age and
the age to come. What has happened (what no one foresaw and what has taken
the world by surprise) is that, in Jesus (God's End), the age to come has entered
(invaded!) this age "before the time" so that we see "the presence of the future"
and taste of the powers of the age to come (Hebrews 6:5). As is typical of biblical
prophecy, Israel's expectations of the end thus had a double fulfilment, a first
partial one and a final full one. The End has come but he is to come again!

In Section A of this chapter we will explore these paradoxes more fully as we

seek to establish God's overarching eschatological action and purpose, the
framework within which we can safely study end events and their order. But we

150
 have already established the following skeleton of biblical eschatology [see
diagram overleaf], to which any proposed "muscles and sinews" (the
eschatological viewpoints of Section B) must conform.

1st Coming 2nd Coming

of the End of the End

Last
Last days Day

THIS AGE THE AGE TO COME

(Old Age / Present Age) (New Age / Future Age)

INAUGURATED FUTURE
ESCHATOLOGY ESCHATOLOGY

A. FRAMEWORK OF THE END: THE KINGDOM OF GOD

One of the two or three greatest themes running through Scripture is that of the kingdom.
The kingdom of God is not a place (noun) but the rule and reign of God (verb).
Wherever God reigns, i.e. he is king, there is the kingdom of God.

In creation, God's reign was absolute and universal, exercised over the whole earth
through his deputized and delegated ruler - man. While God always remains the ultimate
ruler of all creation, this rule was challenged and blurred through first the fall of Satan
and his demons and then the fall of man. Man surrendered his dominion over the earth to
Satan and Satan became "the prince of this world", "the God of this age".

Consequently, the whole of salvation-history, whatever else it may be, is the story of
God's dealings with mankind to restore his universal rule; it is the story of violent
confrontation between the kingdoms of God and Satan, and of the progressive
displacement and destruction of the latter by the former. In particular, the re-establishing
of the kingdom of God can be traced in the histories of Israel, the first coming of Jesus,
the church and the second coming of Jesus.

151
1. THE KINGDOM AND ISRAEL

a) The Lord is king: Pictures of the kingdom during Israel's ascendancy

Through his calling of Israel and his rule over them, God began to restore his
kingdom on the earth and demonstrate his kingship over nations and their gods.

In the first half of Old Testament history, the period of her ascendancy, God's
interventions and her relative obedience meant that Israel had a picture, a taste, an
experience of the kingdom of God in her midst. In the plagues of Egypt and the
exodus, we see a violent confrontation between kingdoms; God's victory
demonstrated his reign over the nations and both their human and demonic rulers
(Pharaoh and Egypt's gods). Moreover, as the conqueror/deliverer of a nation,
God shows that he is the rightful new ruler over Israel; according to ancient
practice, he inherits the nation. Through the entry into covenant and the giving of
the Law at Mt Sinai, God establishes his rule over every area of the nation's life.
But the Tabernacle designated Israel a kingdom nation (cf. slave nations of the
ancient world): their own king ruled and lived amongst them. The conquest of
Canaan similarly demonstrated God's reign over all nations and their gods; but
these gods were not brought into the Temple (contrary to ancient practice) for
they were not God's at all - God's reign was absolute. With the institution of the
monarchy in Israel, the divine King began to rule through his chosen and anointed
human king.

The fullest expression of God's reign came during the reigns of David and
Solomon (because these kings' obedience most allowed God to rule through
them). So great was the peace, prosperity and international pre-eminence of these
reigns that Israel saw the coming of the full reign of God as the natural evolution
of what they were already experiencing. God had promised David an ongoing
dynasty: God's kingdom would be increasingly realised through David's
descendants; its fulfilment would be in this age and this world and similar to what
they already knew.

b) The Lord will become king: Promises of the kingdom during Israel's
decline

In the second half of Old Testament history, however, as Israel's disobedience led
to her decline, her taste of the kingdom of God receded and was lost. The picture
became merely a promise; expectation of the kingdom was pushed into the future,
into another age and another world, and became more radicalized: it would be
completely different (rather than similar to) current experience and would come
about in a dramatic revolutionary (rather than gradual evolutionary) fashion.

For Isaiah, the coming of the kingdom involved the coming of seven things: God
himself, God's Messiah, God's Spirit, a new (and better) covenant, a new (and
better) salvation (which would save perfectly, universally and eternally), a new

152
 people of God (with a new city, temple and priesthood), and a whole new order of
creation.

Daniel envisioned all temporal earthly kingdoms being violently destroyed and
replaced by an eternal heavenly kingdom, which would be introduced and
inherited by the "Son of Man", God's regent who would appear from heaven. Just
as the beasts of his visions represented earthly humanity, which would be
destroyed (the beasts rise up out of the sea, an apocalyptic symbol for restless
fallen humanity), so the Son of Man contains "in his loins" the new heavenly
humanity, which will rule with him.

By the end of the Old Testament era, then, Israel's eschatological expectation was
centred in the coming of God's King to overthrow the kingdoms of this world and
establish the kingdom of God, the rule of God over the whole earth through his
people.

2. THE KINGDOM AND THE INCARNATION

a) The Lord is King: The Kingdom came with Jesus

The most startling news of the New Testament is that Israel's expected end has
come: God's king has come and has established God's kingdom! Every aspect of
the Incarnation points to this: Jesus accepted the titles of God's coming king
("Messiah" and "Son of Man"); his life and character epitomised the life lived
under God's rule (i.e. in the kingdom of God); the theme of all his teaching
(especially the parables), and the summary of his message, was the kingdom of
God; and his acts of supernatural power both proved the existence, and
demonstrated the nature, of the kingdom. Like a herald, who by proclaiming a
new law brings it into existence in that place, Jesus simultaneously proclaimed
and inaugurated the kingdom wherever he went; and then promptly demonstrated
both its existence and nature by performing works of supernatural power, which
showed God's rule had invaded the world in a new way. Like every breakthrough
of the kingdom, Jesus' ministry was characterized by violent confrontation
between kingdoms - except that this time the enemy wasn't the rulers or gods of
nations but Satan himself, the god of this age, the ruler of this world: the final
cosmic battle had begun. Yet, as before, it was a no contest: God's power and
authority was absolute and irresistible in every area of Jesus' ministry.

In short, the fruit of Jesus' ministry was identical to that of the pictures and
promises of the kingdom in the Old Testament: freedom and liberty; justice and
righteousness; comfort and consolation; joy and celebration; peace and security.
In particular: Jesus' crucifixion fulfilled the Old Testament expectation of a "day
of the Lord", when God would judge sin and purify his people; his resurrection
the eschatological expectation of the defeat of death and the resurrection of the
dead; his ascension that of the Son of Man being exalted to rule at the right hand

153
 of God. Moreover, the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost was an end-of-the-world
event.

Just as Isaiah had prophesied, God had come to his people, the Messiah had
appeared, the Spirit had been poured out, a new and better covenant had been
made, a new and perfect salvation was available to all nations, and God had
redeemed a new people for himself. All of this could only mean one thing: the
end of the world had come because God had sent his king - Jesus! - to establish
his kingdom.

b) The Lord will become king: The kingdom is still to come with Jesus

And yet some of the expectations of the end had not been fulfilled, and others had
only been fulfilled in part. No wonder John the Baptist was confused! (Luke
7:18-19) And even Jesus, while he sometimes spoke of the kingdom as having
come (Matthew 11:12-13, 12:28, Luke 16:16, 17:20-21) or of being imminent
(Matthew 10:23, Mark 1:15, 9:1, Luke 21:32), at other times he indicated that it
would be delayed (Matthew 24:6&14, 25:1-13&14-30, Luke 19:11-27) and was
yet to come (Mark 10:30).

As difficult as it may be, we must hold all of this in tension and not violate
Scripture by conveniently ignoring or downplaying any of these groups of
statements. And we must remember the double reference typical of so much
biblical prophecy: the prophet would speak of two different persons or events as if
they were one, without regard to chronology or proportion, because they represent
different instances of the same pattern. The Prophet was doing this with regard to
the coming of the kingdom.

The full New Testament revelation is thus that the kingdom of God has both
already come and not yet come. In Jesus, the kingdom of God (i.e. the future,
God's end, that which is of the age and world to come) has broken through into
the present age and world in an unexpected and mysterious way. Incredibly, this
means that those who have met Jesus have seen the end (of the world); those who
are part of the kingdom have tasted of the life and the powers of the age to come!
Yet the kingdom has not come in its fullness: there remains a future, final
intervention of God which will end this age and usher in the next. In short, the
kingdom of God has been inaugurated but not consummated.

KING KING
KINGDOM PROMISED KINGDOM INAUGURATED KINGDOM CONSUMMATED
(not yet) (already not yet (already)
Last
LAST DAYS Day

OT ERA NT ERA

THIS AGE THE AGE TO COME

154
3. THE KINGDOM AND THE CHURCH

a) Living in the Already - Not Yet tension of the kingdom

We have been tracing the re-establishing of the reign (kingdom) of God in

salvation-history, particularly in and through Israel and Jesus. Where does this
leave the church in this present period following the Incarnation?

The result of the unexpected invasion of the future (the age to come) into the
present, before the termination of this age, is an unforeseen period where two ages
and two worlds coexist (the "last days" of the New Testament: see Introduction).
The church needs to understand and live comfortably in the tension between the
"already" and the "not yet" of the kingdom. This period is analogous to that
between D-Day and V-Day: the enemy is already defeated though not yet
destroyed (the decisive blow has been struck and his eventual overthrow is
inevitable); we still live behind enemy lines where the enemy is in "possession"
but our final victory is certain.

Almost every error of doctrine and practice stems from a failure to hold onto both
parts of this tension. For example, some millennial views (i.e. end-time
scenarios) lose sight of the "already" (breeding pessimism, fear and withdrawal
through their one-sided emphasis on the supposedly irresistible evil of this world)
while others lose sight of the "not yet" (ignoring the evil realities of this age and
idealistically thinking they can build the kingdom in its fullness here and now).
Some theologies of healing ignore the "already" (God does not heal today) while
others ignore the "not yet" (God always heals: we should never be sick). Some
teaching on sanctification loses the "already" (we will always sin in this life) and
other teaching loses the "not yet" (we can and should be perfect).

b) The continual coming of the kingdom in this age

The church thus lives in a tension ("between the times") but not in a vacuum: this
is the period of the growth of the kingdom and the church is instrumental in
advancing it. What began in Jesus, viz. the breakthrough of the kingdom, is now
continued in and through the church as one continuous event. The book of Acts
records the acts of the apostles and the early church continuing the work of Jesus;
indeed, their acts are often represented as the works of Jesus himself, or as those
of the Spirit, who links the ministries of Jesus and of the church into one. The
church does the same things as Jesus and these lead to the same kingdom-fruits.

Contrary to the disciples' expectation, Jesus indicated a delay in the coming of the
kingdom and taught what was to be done in the interim: the church era was to be
the period in which the church extended the kingdom throughout the world by
preaching the gospel in the power of the Spirit. Because Jesus is the already
coronated and reigning king, the church can extend the kingdom. It does this in
the same manner as Jesus did: it announces (and so inaugurates) the kingdom in

155
 any place and then demonstrates its presence and nature through works of power.

Church history (especially the history of revival and mission) is thus a history of
the coming of the kingdom through the church, a continuation of Acts. The travel
record of the church becomes the record of the coming of the kingdom; wherever
the church goes, there the kingdom comes.

c) The relationship between the kingdom and the church

Kingdom and church are neither wholly identical nor wholly distinct.

The church is not identical to the kingdom: the church are the people serving the
king; the kingdom is the personal reign of God. The church is only part of God's
kingdom: God also reigns over nations, nature, angels, etc.

Nevertheless, the church is related to the kingdom: in what it is it is a sign of the

kingdom, showing that God's reign has come and what it looks like; in what it
says it proclaims and explains the kingdom; in what it does it is an agent of the
kingdom, working to extend it through all of its life and ministry.

On one level, the church is an end: the fulfilment of God's search through the ages
for a covenant people (the people of God in the final and perfect covenant). But
on another level it is a means: it works to extend, and is itself part of, the greater
reality of God's universal and blessed reign over all creation. The Kingdom of
God is the conclusion and climax of salvation history, the fulfilment of creation
and redemption.

4. THE KINGDOM AND JESUS' RETURN

The fourth and last key chapter in the story of God re-establishing his rule and
reign over all creation is the return of Christ, the second coming of the king to
consummate the kingdom he inaugurated at his first coming. At the beginning of
time and history, the kingdom of God became the kingdom of this world; at the
end of time and history, when Christ returns, it will be shouted, "The kingdom of
the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will
reign forever and ever!" (Revelation 11:15) The reign that Jesus brought at the
Incarnation, and which the church now extends, is partial. But God's reign over
the new heaven and new earth will be absolute, universal, eternal, perfect, blessed
and glorious.

It should now be absolutely clear that God's end - and thus eschatology - is all
about the coming of God's king to establish God's kingdom. The kingdom is the
theme; the king is the hero; all other persons and events that appear in the play are
mere sets, props and bit-players. Eschatology is not, as is so often implied by the
sensation-seeking of pop eschatology, a matter of "heads and horns" but of king

156
 and kingdom. (In fact, it is quite possible to have an eschatology that is both
sound and substantial without having a detailed knowledge of obscure apocalyptic
symbols and their interpretation.) Eschatology should, therefore, never focus on
comparatively less important matters such as tribulations, raptures and antichrists
but on the comings of God's king to bring about God's purposed end - the
kingdom.

This understanding of king and kingdom as the essence of eschatology has

reinforced two important keys which we established in the Introduction. First,
that eschatology, the doctrine of last things, is really about the last man: Jesus, the
Last (Eschatos), is the king who establishes the kingdom. Second, that
eschatology is about the past and present as well as the future: the king has
already come and the kingdom has already been (and is being) established.

The kingdom of God is thus the overarching and all-embracing framework within
which we can now stretch a canvas and paint a doctrine of last things. It is only
when we understand this to be the essence of God's eschatological purpose and
actions that we can safely, and with right emphasis, examine the details. We can
now move, therefore, to an examination of the various scenarios of the end which
Christians have arrived at and of the separate end-time events which make up
these scenarios.

B. SCENARIOS OF THE END : MILLENIAL VIEWS

Four main scenarios of the end have emerged in church history. We call them millennial
views as each is built around a particular understanding of the millennium (i.e. the
thousand-year period mentioned in Revelation 20:1-6). For reasons of space, I will in
each case merely outline the view's scenario of the end without giving any historical
background to, or critical evaluation of, the position. Such an evaluation is essential and
the student should be sure to conduct his own.

[N.B. My detailed evaluation of each position can be found in my Eschatology manual.]

5. DISPENSATIONAL PREMILLENIALISM

This eschatological position is part of a wider theology called dispensationalism. To

understand the position it is necessary to know three of the presuppositions which
undergird the entire theology. (1) God deals with humanity in seven distinct
dispensations, seven periods during which God relates to man on a different basis and
judges him according to a different criterion. (2) There is an absolute and abiding
distinction between Israel and the church: God has two totally distinct peoples (Israel vs
the church) and consequently two distinct programmes/purposes (earthly vs heavenly)

157
worked out in distinct periods (millennium vs church age). (3) All Scripture, including
all prophecy, must be interpreted literally.

This scenario is complex and more easily understood if divided as follows:

Old Testament. Many Old Testament prophecies point to a future earthly kingdom
involving Israel. Israel would: be restored to Canaan; enjoy prosperity and blessing; be
raised above the nations; and live under the benevolent rule of the Messiah. Also,
Abraham had been promised that his physical seed would possess the Promised Land
forever, and David had been promised that his physical seed would sit on the throne of
Israel forever. These prophecies and promises have not yet been literally fulfilled - and
so there is still to come a period, the millennium, which will see their literal fulfilment.

First Coming. At Christ's first coming, he offered the promised kingdom to the Jews (his
rule over and through Israel). The offer was rejected and so the establishment of the
kingdom was postponed to the millennium.

Church Age. In the meantime, Jesus established the church. The church, unlike the
Jewish Davidic kingdom, was not predicted in the Old Testament. The church thus
constitutes a "parenthesis" in the plan of God, interrupting God's predicted plan for Israel.
The church age does not fulfil or advance the programme of events predicted in the Old
Testament.

First Return. Christ's return occurs in two phases. In the first, which is imminent (or
"any moment", i.e. nothing has to happen first): Jesus descends part of the way from
heaven; dead believers (excluding Old Testament saints) are resurrected and living
believers are transformed); both are raptured (caught up to meet the descending Lord in
the air); the church returns to heaven with Jesus to celebrate the wedding feast of the
Lamb for seven years.

Tribulation. Those seven years on the earth are the 70th week of Daniel 9:24-27 and the
period of the "signs of the times". The signs include: tribulation; the appearance of the
antichrist; judgement on mankind; the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom (i.e. the
good news of the soon to be established Davidic kingdom) to all nations; the turning of a
remnant of Israel (the 144 000 of Revelation 7:3-8) to Jesus as the Messiah; through their
witness, the salvation of an innumerable number of Gentiles; the gathering of the kings of
the earth at Armageddon to attack and destroy Israel.

Second Return. At the end of the seven years, Christ returns (for the second time) in
glory, accompanied by the church. This time he descends all the way to earth and
destroys his (and Israel's ) enemies. By this time, all Israel has been restored to Palestine.
At Christ's return the vast majority of Jews turn to him and are saved. The devil is bound
for a 1000 years. Old Testament and tribulation saints are raised and join the church age
saints (the raptured church) in heaven. There follows the judgement on all those who
survive the tribulation, both Gentiles and Jews. Gentiles are judged according to how
they treated Christ's brethren (both Jews and believers) during the tribulation: those who

158
pass the test are allowed to enter the millennium; those who fail are cast into hell. Jews
that turned to Christ when he returned (the vast majority) also enter the millennium; rebel
Israelites are put to death.

Millennium. Christ rules over the earth from his throne in Jerusalem for 1000 years. The
kingdom is primarily Jewish - although Gentiles also share in its blessings, Jews are
exalted above Gentiles - a fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies regarding national
Israel. It is a golden age of peace, prosperity and productivity; the earth is full of the
knowledge of the Lord; the nations go to worship God at the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem,
where sacrifices have been restored (although they are now merely memorial and no
longer propitiatory). Initially, Christ rules over believers (Jew and Gentile) only, those
who were still living at the time of his second return and who passed the judgement tests
for Jews or Gentiles. There are thus no unregenerate people on earth at the beginning of
the millennium. But those who enter it are normal human beings; they will marry,
reproduce and die. Many of those born will become true believers; others won't, but they
will be kept in check by Christ's iron rule (or put to death if necessary). Meanwhile, for
the duration of the entire 1000 years, the resurrected saints will be living in the heavenly
new Jerusalem, a city that will hover in the air over the earth and give the latter light.
They play some part in Christ's millennial reign and judgements, and are able to move
between the heavenly and earthly Jerusalems for this purpose; but their chief existence is
in the heavenly city.

End Events. Towards the end of the millennium, Satan is loosed and he gathers the rebels
against Christ's rule for a final attack against Christ and his people. But the revolt is
crushed, Christ's enemies are destroyed and Satan is cast into hell. All believers who
died during the millennium are raised (all believers from previous periods have already
been raised). All unbelieving dead are raised; they are judged before the great white
throne and cast into hell.

Final State. God creates a new heaven and a new earth. The heavenly Jerusalem (the
dwelling place of resurrected saints during the millennium) descends to earth. God and
his people dwell together in everlasting bliss. Though all the people of God now dwell
together, the distinction between Jew and Gentile remains throughout eternity. (The
Israelite's national hope was realised in the millennium; his individual hope is realised
together with redeemed Gentiles on the new earth.)

159
 Church lives in new,
heavenly Jerusalem
hovering over earth
Dead believers raised
Living believers Jesus‟
transformed and Resurrection of
2nd Return O.T. & Tribulation
Jesus‟ Church raptured
saints to join NEW HEAVEN
1st Coming church age saints
In heaven: Wedding MILLENIUM &
Jesus‟ Millennial
1st Return Feast of the Lamb (1000yrs) NEW EARTH
Judgements of Jesus saints
th (Jews &
(7 years: Daniel‟s 70 week) surviving Jews crushes raised
Gentiles)
and Gentiles rebellion
On earth: Tribulation
(Signs of the Times) MILLEN.
Remnant of Israel saved Jesus rules on earth Millennial
HELL
Convert Gentile multitude from earthly Jerusalem unbelievers
raised, judged Heavenly Jerusalem
Satan & sent to hell descends to earth
“All Israel saved” bound
Satan loosed
Final rebellion
Satan thrown
into hell

HELL
O.T. promise Jews
of Jewish reject Kingdom postponed Kingdom
kingdom kingdom („Time in parenthesis‟) prepared for
Jewish kingdom realised

LAW CHURCH KINGDOM

DISPENSATION DISPENSATION DISPENSATION

6. HISTORIC PREMILLENIALISM

End of Church Age. Shortly before Christ's return, the "signs of the times" occur:
tribulation, apostasy, the antichrist and the evangelization of the nations. The church
goes through the tribulation.

Second Coming. This is a single event. Dead believers are raised, living believers are
transformed, and both are raptured to meet the Lord in the air; they then return with him
to earth. The antichrist and his forces are slain and thrown into hell; Satan is bound for a
1000 years. Just before or just after Christ's return (either way, after the gathering of the
Gentiles is complete), the vast majority of Jews are saved; their conversion is a source of
untold blessing for the world.

Millennium. Christ sets up his 1000-year millennial reign: he reigns visibly over the
whole world; and his saints - both Jew and Gentile (there is only one people of God),
both those who were living and those who were raised at his return - reign with him. Sin
and death still exist, but evil is greatly restrained: unbelieving nations are kept in check
by Jesus' rod-of-iron rule; righteousness, justice, peace and prosperity prevail as never
before; even nature will be unusually productive and reflect the blessedness of the age.

End of Millennium. Satan is loosed; he deceives the nations and gathers them for an
attack against the "camp of the saints". But he is consumed by fire from heaven and
thrown into hell. There follows the resurrection of unbelievers and the judgement of all
men - believers and unbelievers - before the great white throne. Those whose names are
not found in the Lamb's book of life are thrown into the fire and those whose are enter

160
 eternal life.

Final State. Unbelievers spend eternity in hell. Believers spend eternity on a new earth
purged of all evil.

Jesus‟ Jesus‟ Resurrection Judgement

1st Coming 2nd Coming of unbelievers of all men
Resurrection/Transformation
Rapture & Return of Believers
CHURCH AGE MILLENIUM Rebellion
crushed
Signs of NEW HEAVEN
the Times Christ rules on earth &
with saints over nations
NEW EARTH
Satan
bound
Satan loosed Satan thrown
Antichrist et into hell
al to Hell HELL

7. POSTMILLENIALISM

During the church era, the kingdom of God is extended in the world through the
preaching of the gospel and the saving work of the Holy Spirit. Eventually, the world
will be "Christianized": the present age will merge gradually into the millennium as an
increasingly larger proportion of the world's inhabitants are converted to Christianity.
The millennium is a long period of righteousness and peace, a golden age, but neither a
visible earthly rule by Christ nor a literal 1000 years. Both in the natural and human (eg
social, political, economic) realms it will be a time of harmony and prosperity. Not that
every individual will be a Christian but Christian doctrine and ethics will be the norm for
nations and individuals (the rule rather than the exception). Sin will not be eliminated but
reduced to a minimum; evil will not be abolished in all its forms but reduced to negligible
proportions. Towards the end of the millennium there will be a limited manifestation of
evil (Satan will be loosed and will attack the church) but this will be of short duration and
without harm to the church. At the end of the age, Christ returns (after, or "post", the
millennium) to a truly Christianized world. This is followed by a general (i.e. single and
universal) resurrection and a general judgement, and the introduction of the final state,
viz. heaven and hell.

Postmillennialists interpret Revelation 20:1-3 as the binding of Satan in both the present
church age and the future golden age (some postmillennialists would limit this to the
latter), and verses 4-6 as the present reign of the souls of deceased believers in heaven
with Christ (some postmillennialists would ascribe this to the present reign of regenerate
believers on earth). For postmillennialists, the great tribulation (Matthew 24) and
apostasy (2 Thessalonians 2) is already past: it was fulfilled in the siege and destruction
of Jerusalem in AD 70. Finally, postmillennialists expect a mass-conversion of Jews
before the millennium but not a separate destiny or political kingdom for them.

161
 Jesus‟ Jesus‟
1st Coming 2nd Coming General
Souls of deceased believers reign with Christ in heaven resurrection
General
CHURCH AGE MILLENIUM judgement

Tribulation Minor HEAVEN

& Apostasy Gospel preached; Golden Age; attack

A.D. 70 world Christianized evil restrained Satan loosed

SATAN BOUND
HELL

8. AMILLENIALISM

According to amillennialists, Revelation 20:1-6 refers neither to the final state nor to a
future earthly age, whether before or after Christ's return, but to this present age, to the
period between Jesus' comings (not a literal 1000 years). During this period Satan is
bound on earth (vv 1-3) and the souls of deceased believers reign in heaven (vv 4-6). The
resulting scenario of the end is as follows:

The Last Days. Throughout the period between Jesus' comings (the New Covenant era,
or church "age"), the kingdom of God is already present (God reigns in and through the
church) and growing (the church preaches the gospel and extends the kingdom
throughout the world); nevertheless, the kingdom has not yet come in its fullness.
Throughout this period also, despite the conclusive victory over Satan won by Christ at
his first coming, the princedom of Satan continues to exist and grow alongside the
kingdom of God. Finally, because this entire period is the last days (cf. Introduction), the
signs of the times occur throughout this period.

This period (from the Incarnation to shortly before the end of the age) is also the
millennium, the complete period of indeterminate length described in Revelation 20:1-6.
Throughout this period Satan is bound (i.e. unable to deceive the nations as he was before
the gospel was revealed) and deceased believers reign with Christ in heaven (the
intermediate state). It can be seen how both of these aspects of the millennium, not
possible previously, were made possible by the Incarnation: Christ's defeat of Satan on
the cross means that Satan was bound and his forces disarmed, and that the church can
now rob the strong man of his possessions; Christ's atonement and justification of the
believer, and his victory over death, mean that the deceased believer is no longer under
the power of death but can enjoy a life with Jesus in heaven.

The Last Day. Towards the end of the age (at the end of the millennium), there will occur
a series of climactic events associated with Christ's return. Satan will be loosed and will
be responsible for unleashing great evil. The signs will intensify; the signs will include
the great tribulation and apostasy and the appearance of the antichrist, but also the
completion by the church of the task of preaching the gospel to all nations and the

162
 consequent salvation of the full number of both Jews and Gentiles. Christ returns (a
single event). At his return there is a general resurrection (i.e. of all the dead); in
particular, raised dead believers will join transformed living believers in meeting the
Lord in the air and then returning with him to the earth (the rapture). There follows the
general judgement (i.e. of all men) and the introduction of the final states - hell for the
unrighteous and, for the righteous, the new heaven and new earth.

Jesus‟ Jesus‟
1st Coming Deceased believers reign in heaven 2nd Coming
Resurrection

CHURCH AGE Judgement

(MILLENIUM)
NEW HEAVEN
Signs
intensify &
Satan loosed NEW EARTH

SATAN BOUND
HELL

C. CALENDAR OF THE END : END EVENTS AND THEIR ORDER

In this final section we survey the most important events associated with the end, in the
order most generally agreed upon. Each deserves substantial examination but again
space will limit us to merely introductory comments.

9. DEATH (and Immortality?)

Eschatology is concerned with the end of the individual as well as the end of the world.
In this and the next paragraphs we ask about the lot of the individual who dies before
Christ's return.

The Bible makes it absolutely clear that death in the human world is the result of sin
(Genesis 2:17, 3:19&22, Romans 5:12, 8:10, 1 Corinthians 15:21; cf. Chapter 5.9). It
was not part of God's original plan of creation; it is the negation of everything for which
God created man (viz. life and immortality)(cf. Chapter 5.5).

But the Bible is equally clear that Jesus conquered death. On the cross he removed the
penalty of death from us (cf. Chapter 6.8b[i]). In his resurrection he overcame the power
of death (cf. Chapter 6.8c[ii]).

Why then must believers still die? Because, while we are now part of the age to come

163
(new nature), we are still part of this age (old nature - which has been rendered powerless
but not yet eradicated). Nothing imperfect in ourselves or the cosmos can enter a perfect
eternity (an eternal existence in our present ambiguous state would not be a blessing!).
Death is the doorway which allows us to die to the presence of sin (the sin nature is
eradicated) and to enter eternity transformed and glorified. Death is thus no longer a
punishment or satisfaction for sin (Christ has already died that aspect of our death for us);
it is no longer an enemy but a friend.

Finally, does some part of man live on after death as is popularly imagined? I have
already rejected "the immortality of the soul" as a Greek philosophical idea rather than a
Biblical Hebrew one (cf. Chapter 5.2b). While man was "destined for immortality"
(created for eternal fellowship with God), he is not immortal in himself or in any part of
him; his life (whether eternal or temporal) is a received rather than inherent one. Man
forfeited this life at the Fall. Moreover, man is a unity not a composite of parts, the
whole man created by God; and so when he dies he dies in totality. If there is existence
after death (and there is: see [10], [15] and [16] below), it is again received rather than
inherent.

10. THE INTERMEDIATE STATE

The Bible is quite clear about man's resurrection to an eternal existence in heaven and
hell at the end of time (the final state), but it also hints of an existence before then, i.e.
between death and Christ's return (the intermediate state). While not much is said, there
is enough to discount the ideas of annihilation or "soul-sleep": immediately upon dying,
the believer enters into an existence with Jesus in heaven; there is never a time when he is
separate from Christ (John 11:23-25, Luke 16:19-31, 23:42-43 [cf. 2 Corinthians 12:2-4],
Philippians 1:23-25, 2 Corinthians 5:6-8, 1 Thessalonians 4:16, Romans 8:38-39, 14:8,
Revelation 6:9-11, 20:4-6). This existence would appear to be one of the soul-spirit: both
psyche (Matthew 10:28, Revelation 6:9, 20:4) and pneuma (Luke 23:46, Acts 7:59,
Hebrews 12:23) are used to describe that aspect of man which continues to exist after
death.

The intermediate state is the first part of our blessed, glorious and eternal life with Jesus;
but the Bible makes it clear that this is a state of provisional blessing only, and that its
main message about the future hope of the individual is the resurrection from the dead at
Christ's return. Because man is a unity, as essentially body as he is soul/spirit, the
blessedness of the intermediate state can only be provisional, anticipatory, incomplete.
Nevertheless, this is god news!

The Bible is even less clear about an intermediate state for the ungodly but it seems to
suggest a state of provisional punishment (cf. the provisional blessing of the righteous)
rather than soul-sleep (Luke 16:19-31, 2 Peter 2:9, Matthew 11:23-24).

164
11. THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES

Jesus listed various things that would occur before his return and exhorted his disciples to
watch for them (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21 - but see also 12:35-48 and 18:20-37).
Much (perhaps too much!) has been made of these "signs". For example, they are often
regarded as (i) spectacular and unmistakable events which (ii) occur exclusively in the
days immediately preceding Christ's return, and which thus allow us both (iii) to draw up
an exact timetable of events in those days and (iv) to predict the timing of the second
coming. None of these assumptions are true.

The signs do not occur only in the days immediately preceding Jesus' return. They refer
to what God did at Jesus‟ first coming (Matthew 16:3 cf. Luke 12:56) and, by extension,
to everything God is doing in bringing his kingdom throughout the church era. They
refer to first century events (particularly the Roman siege and destruction of Jerusalem,
including the Temple, in AD 70) as well as end-time events (and to similar occurrences
in-between): Jesus is employing the foreshortening or double reference typical of biblical
prophecy (the superimposition of different instances of the same pattern without regard to
chronology or proportion). Further, it would have been meaningless for Jesus to instruct
his contemporaries on matters which were irrelevant to them. Lastly, the church in every
generation is exhorted to remain watchful for Christ's return: this would have been
meaningless if the signs were to occur only amongst the last generation of believers. The
signs, then, characterize the entire period between Jesus‟ comings (something not so
surprising when we remember that the New Testament describes this entire period as the
"last days"). They point to the past (the decisive event has occurred: the kingdom has
come); they point to the present (God is presently at work in the world, growing his
kingdom); and they point to the future (Christ's victorious return is now certain).

The signs are not always spectacular, abnormal, catastrophic. This would preclude the
elements of watchfulness and having to make a decision based on faith (cf. Luke 17:20-
21). Some of the signs are "hidden" in the non-spectacular processes of history.

Because of the above two points (the signs occur throughout the church era and are often
perceived only by faith), the signs give us neither a timetable of the end-times nor a date
for Christ's return. Indeed, such predictions are neither the aim of biblical prophecy
(which is always sanctification, not speculation) nor its design (prophecy does not give us
a chronological knowledge of the future as history does of the past). Moreover, many of
the signs are mentioned more than once and in different positions relative to other signs.
And we never know how prophecies are going to be fulfilled until the prophesied event
occurs (and sometimes not even then: Matthew 11:3!). While it does seem that there will
be an intensification of the signs in the days preceding Jesus' return (coincident with the
loosing of Satan and the last great offensive of evil), even this does not allow us to date
the return, for we can never be sure that the signs are not in fact capable of even greater
intensification.

Having made these cautionary general observations about the signs, I will leave the
student to study the individual signs. At least ten can be delineated in the texts given at

165
the start of this section: revolutions, wars and rumours of wars; earthquakes, famines and
pestilences; false Christs, false prophets and deceiving signs; spirits of antichrist,
antichrists and the Antichrist; apostasy; persecution, witness and martyrdom; great
tribulation; the preaching of the gospel to all nations; the abomination that causes
desolation; and celestial disturbances. (Other signs can be found, inter alia, in 1Timothy
4, 2 Timothy 3 and 2 Thessalonians 2.)

12. THE RETURN OF JESUS CHRIST

The event of future eschatology (as the Incarnation was of inaugurated eschatology): the
return of God's End and King to consummate the kingdom; the climax of history and the
world. To a measure, it does not matter if our understanding of events before and after
Jesus‟ return is not clear: this is the centre of the Bible and the Christian's expectation of
the future.

The Bible promises Christ's return. In the Old Testament, this promise is implicit,
contained in the many prophecies of a glorious and ruling Messiah that were not fulfilled
at his first coming. In the New Testament it is explicit, every book pointing to his return
and exhorting the believer to be prepared for it. This promise has not been invalidated by
any "delay" in Christ's return (i.e. the non-fulfilment of Jesus or Paul's supposed
prediction of a quick return): Paul and others may have expected a quick return but the
New Testament nowhere teaches this. In fact, Jesus denied knowing the day and hour of
his return (eg Matthew 24:36) and stressed both the uncertainty of its timing (eg Matthew
24:42&44) and its delay rather than imminence (eg Luke 19:11. Three statements which
may seem to speak of an early return, when properly interpreted, do not: Mark 9:1, 13:30,
Matthew 10:23.) The excited expectation of Jesus' return is thus as valid for the church
today and as necessary - for godliness, preparedness, urgency, diligence, passion, hope,
etc.

But the timing of Jesus' return remains as to us as it was to the early church (despite the
very confident assertions of many of our contemporaries). We have already noted that
Jesus said no man knows the hour (it is amazing what some will do to explain away this
text) and stressed the uncertainty of its timing. This is precisely why believers are
repeatedly exhorted to be watchful (Matthew 24:36&42& 44, 25:13): for both believers
and unbelievers it will be unexpected; believers, however, should be prepared. We have
also seen that the signs do not allow us to date Christ's return (we can never know if they
have climaxed) or be sure that the return is imminent (by any interpretation, many of the
signs have not been fulfilled). In short, we do not know how close Jesus' return is -
which is exactly as he intended! All these attempts to date the return are, at best, futile
and, at worst, ungodly. Such pop eschatology is the habit of cults - and that is where it
should remain!

More important than the timing of Jesus' return is the nature and the purpose of his return
- and about these the Bible is quite clear. The return will be personal (Christ himself will
return in his own person), literal (not figurative), physical (not spiritual) and visible (not

166
invisible) (Acts 1:11, 3:19-21, Philippians 3:20, Colossians 3:4, Titus 2:13 cf. v11,
Revelation 1:7). And it will be glorious (unlike the Incarnation, his divinity will not be
veiled: Matthew 24:30, 1 Thessalonians 4:16); awesomely wonderful for the believer,
awesomely terrible for the unbeliever (Genesis 49:8-12, Isaiah 24, 34, 63:1-6, Joel 1:15,
2:1-11&30-31, 3:1-3&9-16, 2 Thessalonians 1:9-10, 2:8, Revelation 14:18-20, 19:11-21).
Jesus returns to do everything that is necessary for the termination of this age and world
and the introduction of the next - in a word, to finally judge and destroy the kingdom of
darkness and to consummate the kingdom of God (see the remaining sections below).

13. THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD

The believer's main hope (both now and during the intermediate state), and the Bible's
main teaching about the future of the individual, is the resurrection of the body.

Greek philosophy is dualistic: soul/spirit is good/superior/immortal; body: matter is

evil/inferior/temporal. The individual's hope for the afterlife is, therefore, the freeing of
the soul from the restraints and corruptions of the body (and from the entire world of
matter: souls existing in an ethereal world). The biblical worldview is in complete
opposition to this: man is a unity, the whole man created by God and the whole man,
therefore, good. The individual's hope for the afterlife is thus the redemption of every
part of his being, and this includes the resurrection of the body. (Man is essentially body
as much as he is soul or spirit, and so an eternal existence without a body would be less
than perfect.) Similarly, the hope does not involve escaping from the world of matter but
a life in a glorified body on a renewed (new) earth. (See again Chapter 5.2b, especially
the last paragraph; and Chapter 6.8c[ii] for how this hope is based on Christ's
resurrection.)

Some millennial views teach different resurrections for different groups over a wide
period of time. I believe that the simplest and best interpretation of Scripture teaches a
general resurrection: the resurrection of all men, believers and unbelievers (Daniel 12:2,
John 5:28-29, Acts 24:15), at one time, viz. the return of Christ (John 6:39-40&44&54, 1
Corinthians 15:23, Philippians 3:20-21, 1 Thessalonians 4:16), preparatory to judgement.
(See also Job 19:23-27, Psalm 16:10, Isaiah 26:19.)

The Bible gives only a hint of what the resurrected body will be like (perhaps because it
is beyond our present comprehension) and even this is mostly in terms of what it is not
(i.e. how it differs from our present bodies)(1 Corinthians 15:36-57). Perhaps the clearest
glimpse is in what Jesus' resurrected body was like (Philippians 3:20-21, 1 John 3:2):
there is both continuity (identity, recognizability) and discontinuity (supernatural
properties) between our present and resurrected bodies. What is clear is that our
resurrected bodies will be free of original and actual sin and the effects of sin; they will
equip us for an eternal and glorified life on the new earth.

167
14. THE JUDGEMENT OF MANKIND

The Bible speaks of a judgement of all mankind at the end of time even though men are
already judged in this life by their response to Christ (John 3:18&36, 5:24) and God
already knows the destiny of each individual (John 10:27-28, Ephesians 1:4). The
purpose of this judgement is thus not investigation (God is omniscient) but vindication
(of God's mercy/justice), publication (of each person's destiny) and execution (of that
destiny).

Again (vs some millennial views), I believe Scripture teaches a general judgement rather
than multiple judgements. This occurs at the end of the age (Matthew 13:40-43, 2 Peter
3:7), after Christ's return (Matthew 25:31-32, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10) and the
resurrection of the dead (Revelation 20:12).

Scripture identifies both the Father (Matthew 18:35) and the Son (Matthew 25:32) as the
judge. Angels (Matthew 13:41-43) and the saints (Matthew 19:28) will also be involved
in judging. The distinctive theme of the New Testament, however, is that Jesus is the
judge. This is fitting as we are saved/damned by our acceptance: rejection of him.
Moreover, Christ's work of judgement represents his highest exaltation and final triumph:
in this act he judges his judges, subjugates his enemies and demonstrates his absolute
lordship over all.

Both angels (1 Corinthians 6:2-3) and all mankind (Matthew 25:32), including believers
(Romans 14:10&12), will be judged. All things done in our lifetime (2 Corinthians 5:10)
- deeds (Matthew 16:27), words (Matthew 12:36) and thoughts (Romans 2:16) - will be
judged. But this holds no terror for the Christian: on the day of judgement his sins will
be revealed as forgiven sins. And being judged according to our works does not
contradict salvation by faith: faith reveals and proves itself in works; the judgement of
our works is not with a view to salvation/damnation but to determining rewards
("crowns") for the work done. God is just and judges each man according to the light
received: there will be degrees of both reward and punishment (Matthew 11:20-22, Luke
12:47-48, 16:31, Romans 1:18-21, 2:12-16).

The coming day of judgement means that the history of the world is not an endless series
of meaningless cycles but a movement towards a definite goal, an endpoint which works
retrospectively to influence and direct that history. The day of judgement will
conclusively reveal that salvation and everlasting blessedness depends on one's
relationship to Jesus Christ. The inescapableness of the day of judgement underscores
the accountability of man for his life and the seriousness of the need to get it in order.
The day of judgement will bring the final triumph of God and his salvation, the conquest
of all evil, the revelation of the victory of the Lamb and the recognition of Jesus as the
Lord of all!

168
15. HELL

The doctrine of hell is obviously a difficult doctrine, intellectually and emotionally, and
requires an apologetic handling as well as a purely doctrinal one. But, if we are to be
faithful to Scripture, we have to embrace it, and not pander to the disapprobation of the
spirit of the age by settling for unbiblical universalism (God is loving and saves all men:
see chapter 8.1) or even annihilationism (a God of love cannot bear to punish men so he
simply annihilates them: see below).

Jesus, the man of love, said more about hell than anyone else (Matthew 3:12, 5:22&29-
30, 8:12, 10:28, 13:30&41-42&49-50, 18:8-9, 22:13, 23:15&33, 25:30&41&46, Mark
9:43-48, John 3:36, 5:28-29; cf. Daniel 12:2). These texts indicate that the pains of hell
are internal (isolation and separation, bitter and hopeless remorse) but also external (those
who inhabit hell have some form of physical existence). Most importantly, they are
eternal: the word apollymi never denotes annihilation when applied to other things in the
New Testament (the sheep, coin and son are lost but not annihilated [Luke 15], the
wineskins are ruined but not annihilated [Matthew 9:17]) so we cannot make it mean this
here (and must not be misled by translations such as "destroy" or "perish"); the word
aionios means eternal when applied to the final state of the righteous and there is nothing
to indicate a change of meaning when applied to the final state of the unrighteous.

The New Testament writers were similarly unflinching in teaching hell - and its eternal
duration: "destruction" in 2 Thessalonians 1:8 cannot mean annihilation for "eternal
annihilation" would be meaningless; Revelation 14:11 uses the same term for the
description of hell (eis aionas aionon, lit. to ages of ages, trans. for ever and ever) as 4:9
does for God's eternal existence.

The imagery is probably not to be taken literally ("fire" and "darkness" would seem to be
contradictory if read thus). But, whatever else hell may or may not mean, it is both real
and eternal. It may be a place; it is certainly a state or condition of existence. It may be
simply the total absence of God and anything good, or the eternal awareness of exclusion;
it may be something more. It is just; and something which the inhabitants rather than
God have chosen. And it is utterly hopeless.

We should never become trivial about hell. It is a terrifying prospect. It must add
soberness to our preaching, urgency to our evangelism and passion to prayer.

16. THE NEW HEAVEN AND THE NEW EARTH

The final state of the righteous is often thought of (a la Greek philosophy) in exclusively
spiritual (ethereal) terms. But, in keeping with the "earthiness" of the biblical worldview
we have been tracing throughout this course, we look forward to a new heaven and a new
earth (Isaiah 65:17, 66:22, 2 Peter 3:13, Revelation 21:1). God's purpose in creating the
cosmos was to provide a home for man and an arena where he and man could walk
together in covenant (cf. Chapter 3.3d&6b). God's purpose has not changed. If it had,

169
this would mean a victory for evil. God's redemptive programme and power extend not
only to the individual or even all the elect but to the entire cosmos. Further, the
individual's hope is the resurrection of the body; this would be meaningless if heaven was
merely the habitat of wafting souls. Our future hope is of an eternal and blissful
existence with Jesus, in resurrected bodies (every part of our being transformed and
glorified), on the perfected new earth.

The promise to Israel of Canaan as an inheritance was merely the Old Testament type of
the New Testament (and eternal) promise to all God's people (the church of all nations,
Jew and Gentile) of the whole earth (Psalm 37:11 cf. Matthew 5:5, Genesis 17:8 cf.
Romans 4:13. The New typically expands the reference of Old Testament prophecies.)
The race of the first Adam was to have dominion over the whole earth; God will still
fulfil his plan: the perfected race of the second Adam will have dominion over the
perfected new earth.

Moreover, the church is the final and perfect fulfilment of God's quest through the ages,
and by means of various covenants, to create/redeem a people for himself; and the final
and perfect (New) covenant will be perfectly fulfilled on the new earth because God will
dwell there with man (Revelation 21:1-3). Heaven is where God dwells and so heaven
and earth will no longer be separated by sin. We will live simultaneously on the new
earth and in heaven!

Quite what this eternal existence will be like is beyond our comprehension: the Bible can
only hint at it. I shall leave the student to study the relevant passages - and to fantasize
(the only time our fantasies can't outstrip reality!)

Throughout this chapter we have been tracing God's end - the end-times and the last
things, the end of the individual and of the world, of time and history. We now have
reached the end of the end. But, of course, it's only the end of the beginning!

170
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

ALL DOCTRINES

This is not a list of all the books on the subject I know but only of the sources I have used
to a greater or lesser measure and can recommend to the student. Always be discerning
when using sources, however; even in these publications not all the chapters are equally
good. The first two are smaller (and cheaper!) paperbacks; the last two are large
reference works.

1. Charles Ryrie: A Survey of Bible Doctrine (Moody Press)

2. T. C. Hammond: In Understanding be Men (Inter Varsity Press)
3. Loius Berkhof: Systematic Theology (Eerdmans)
4. Donald Guthrie: New Testament Theology (Inter Varsity Press)
5. Colin Brown (Ed.): The New International Dictionary of New Testament
Theology [3 vol] (Paternoster Press)

There are many other sources which I have used, some unconsciously, which are
impossible to list: the many church preachers and college lecturers who fashion one's
thinking in a way that can be neither measured nor traced; my thanks go to them. In
particular, I want to express my admiration of, and indebtedness to, Adrio Konig, at one
time Professor of Systematic Theology at the University of South Africa, whose
continually fresh and sparkling theology greatly inspired me; anyone who has likewise
studied under him will recognize his stamp in many of the preceding pages.

ESCHATOLOGY

In 1993, the second time I presented the Doctrine Survey (see Author's Preface), I
expanded the tenth and last lecture (Eschatology) into an entire ten-lecture course of its
own. I did this because eschatology is a complex subject and there is much "damage" to
undo. The chapter on eschatology in this manual is a condensation of the notes prepared
for that course (a condensation not entirely successful: the student may have noticed that
it is still longer than any of the other chapters!). The complete notes for the Eschatology
course are now also available in another manual. Because of the additional research that
went into the preparation of this chapter, I list below the sources that I used. In a field
where there is so much rubbish available, I unreservedly recommend these sources as the
best I have ever come across.

1. Anthony A. Hoekema: The Bible and the Future (Paternoster Press)

2. George Eldon Ladd: The Presence of the Future (Eerdmans)
3. Robert G. Clouse (Ed): The Meaning of the Millennium (Inter Varsity
Press)
4. Derek J. Morphew: Breakthrough: Discovering the Kingdom (Struik)
5. Adrio Konig: Jesus the Last (UNISA)

171
The first surveys the traditional field of eschatology (Sections B and C of Chapter 10)
from an amillennial point of view; the second does the same from a historic premillenial
point of view. The third is a presentation of the four millennial positions by four leading
scholars (including the authors of 1 and 2), with a reply to each from the other three. The
fourth, as the title indicates, focuses on the kingdom; Section A draws substantially on it.
The fifth restores to contemporary eschatological studies the biblical emphasis on Jesus
as the real centre of last things, an emphasis I have sought to underline throughout.

172