Theological Concepts – Page 2

October 8, 2007

Inspiration

The doctrine of inspiration has to do with the Bible. The question is about how much of the Scriptures can be attributed to God. The best view seems to be given to us by Jesus Himself. What did He think of the Scriptures? How much can they be trusted? Let’s consider His view:

Whole – Jesus quoted and used the OT consistently throughout His earthly ministry. He validated all of the OT simply by His use of it. In Mt 5:17-18 he said that even the smallest letters and strokes of it would be fulfilled. He also calls it the “law and the prophets” which was a typical way to refer to the whole of the OT. In Lk 24:44 he refers to the law, prophets, and Psalms, making sure that they knew he meant every part of it. In Jn 10:35, Jesus reminded some Jews of Ps 82:6 saying that “Scripture cannot be broken.”

Parts – Jesus’ arguments were supported and strengthened by different parts of the OT. Check Mt 4:4-10; Mt 21:42; 12:18-21

Words – In Mt 22:32 Jesus quotes from Ex 3:6 and His whole argument hinges on the present tense of the word “am.” If the words of the Scriptures were not inspired, His argument would be worthless. In Mt 22:44 a similar things happens – Jesus’ argument is upheld by the phrase “my Lord” from Ps 110:1. It’s clear that Jesus believed that the words of the Scriptures are inspired.

Letters – Mt 5:18 – Jesus declared, “not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.” “Smallest letter” = an apostrophe and Stroke refers to something like the leg on the letter Q. Jesus believed that every letter was inspired.

New Testament – In John 14:26, Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would lead the apostles as they wrote out the NT Scriptures, guaranteeing their accuracy. Also check John 16:12-15. Jesus affirmed not only the OT, but the NT too.

In addition to Jesus, Paul and Peter affirmed the inspiration of the Scriptures.

How does this impact my life? Oh it’s huge! I can trust the Bible! I can rely on it for guidance, encouragement, and simply interacting with God. If every little stroke is inspired then I can pick it apart and study every detail to the smallest degree and discover more and more of God’s message to humanity. It also gives me a standard by which to measure everything. If it were not inspired. . . .gosh, the world would be even more messed up than it already is.

(Info from “The Moody Handbook of Theology” by Paul Enns, pg 162-166)

October 8, 2007

Church Symbols

There are quite a few images that Scripture uses to speak of the church. Each of them conveys a different message as to what the church should be like. Here are some of the main ones:

Body
Eph 1:22; Col 1:18, 1 Cor 12:13; Eph 4:12; 1 Cor 10:16-17
The church is describes as a body in order to communicate a few things.
(1) Jesus is the head of the body and should be in control of it all.
(2) The idea of working together without distinctions. (In their culture with Jew and Gentile distinctions, it was important to realize that the church should be different.)
(3) The body image also communicates that it should grow and be nourished by Christ as He brings leaders into the fellowship.
(4) The unity/oneness of the body with each part needing the other.

Bride
Eph 5:2, 23, 25, Jn 14:1-3; 1 Thes 4:16-17; Rev 19:7-9
The bride image points to the great love that Jesus has for the church. It also shows the value of the church and speaks of the promised blessings which she shall receive. As the espouse bride, the church should be waiting in expectation for Jesus’ return when He comes to take her as His wife as they celebrate the wedding feast together.

Building
Eph 2:20; 4:12-13; 1 Pet 2:5
This image stresses the unity of the church (Jews and Gentiles alike) which is built upon the “foundation of the apostles and prophets.” The apostles are called the foundation and Jesus is the cornerstone. In Christ the whole building is being “fitted together” which shows Jesus as the constructor of the church. The church also grows as new believers are added to the building.

Priesthood
1 Pet 2:5, 9; Rev 1:6
All believers are considered priests who represent God to humanity and offer spiritual sacrifices to Him. The church believers are actually called both kings and priests (royal priesthood). The have direct access to God through Jesus Christ.

Flock
Jn 10:16, 26-27; Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:3
This one depicts the church as a flock of sheep under Jesus’ care. They belong to Him and they know His voice. It speaks of intimacy and of His protection. The church is secure under Jesus.

Branches
John 15
This image describes the close relationship that the church has with Jesus. They are tied to Him directly and receive nourishment/life from Him. They will be fruitful if they stay connected to Him. It also helps to explain some of the “pruning” times in our lives when God is cutting things away so that we can be more fruitful.

How does this make a difference in my life? Each of these images speaks to me in a different way, and in different times of my life, I need to remember each one. As I have said before, I also hope to be a part of a church plant one day, and these images will be foundational for figuring out how the church should be structured and how it should relate to Jesus.

(Info from “The Moody Handbook of Theology” by Paul Enns, pg 349-351)

October 8, 2007

Origin of Man/Creation

Here are the basic views for how humans came into being:

Atheistic Evolution – You guys know this one. It comes from Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species which says that given enough time, a combination of atoms, motion, time, and chance will produce a huge variety of lifeforms like we have today. Weaker species are eliminated through a struggle for survival and evolution occurs. This would mean that there is no God for man to be accountable to or any moral absolutes. Survival is the ultimate goal regardless of the consequences to anyone else.

Theistic Evolution – God used an evolutionary process to bring about all that we see in creation. This theory is an attempt to reconcile evolution with the Bible, but it is strongly rejected by both evolutionists and biblicists. This argument breaks down with the analogy between Adam and Jesus in Romans 5:12-21 because it simply doesn’t work if Adam was not a real person. Genesis 1:1-2:4 must also be read allegorically and the statement in Genesis 2:7 doesn’t fit if humanity came from a non-human ancestor.

Progressive Creationism – This theory is also called the “Day-Age Theory.” The idea is that each of the 7 days of creation recorded in Genesis actually refers to a geological age. Most progressive creationists believe that God directly created man and animals, but that some evolutionary processes are still possible within a certain species. Exodus 20:10-11 uses an analogy between God working 6 days and resting and man working 6 days and resting on the seventh. This demands a literal interpretation. Also, if this theory were true, then people must have died before the fall of man. Genesis is clear that death did not enter the world until Adam’s sin.

Gap Theory – This theory places a long period of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. This allows for an old earth. They also believe that there was another creation which fell with Lucifer’s fall causing the earth to become chaotic. “Formless and void” in verse 2 describes this chaotic earth. Unfortunately, the grammar in Genesis really doesn’t allow for this gap to exist at all.

Literal 24-hour days – As the Bible describes, God created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Geological formations which seem to indicate an “old” earth can be explained by Noah’s flood. Scripture seems to indicate that this is the best approach to the origin of man. The more we study, there also seems to be more and more information/science which validates this viewpoint.

How does this impact my life? This particular issue is at the center of the main attack on Christianity today. I have taught and will continue to teach a Biblical standpoint on this issue to the students in our church. As much as we try to accommodate both the Biblical record and evolution, it simply is not possible without compromising the Scriptures. I will continue hold to the Scriptures over any theory regardless of its popularity. Considering the lack of evidence for the evolutionary theory, I’m actually surprised at its popularity. I guess it doesn’t matter how ridiculous something is – people will believe anything that allows them the ability to ignore God.

(Info from “The Moody Handbook of Theology” by Paul Enns, pg 301-304)

October 8, 2007

Demonology

There are a few different theories about where demons came from. Here they are:

(1) Dead people – Some early Christians thought this was the case and it has remained a popular theory even to this day. The problem with this theory is that Lk 16:23 says that evil people are in hell after they die.

(2) Race of People before Adam – This theory is based on the “gap theory” of Genesis. The idea is that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and that there was a race of people who rebelled against God which caused them to fall into this demonic state. The problem with this view is that there is no evidence in Scripture that these people ever existed. Also Romans 5:12 says that sin entered the world with Adam. If these guys existed and fell sin had to existed before Adam.

(3) Offspring of Angels and women. Genesis 6:2 says that the “sons of God” had intercourse with the “daughters of men” and created a race of demons called the Nephilim. Scripturally though, there is no indication that the Nephilim were not people or that the “sons of God” were not also people. The verses say they took them as their wives which actually indicates that they were human.

(4) Fallen but unconfined angels. This is the most likely view. When Lucifer rebelled against God, he fell from his place of honor and a bunch of angels went with him. Mt 25:41 actually refers to demons as “angels” so this seems like a probable view. Scripture says there are 2 groups of fallen angels: (1) 2 Pet 2:4 talks about a group who are confined in hell permanently. (2) Lk 8:31; Rev 9:2-11 refers to a group who are imprisoned in a pit. They were “too depraved to and harmful to be allowed to roam upon the earth” but they will be released during the Tribulation to afflict people who don’t have the seal of God on their foreheads.

What are demons like?
1. They are spirit beings. (Mt 8:16; Lk 10:17, 20) They do not have bodies of flesh.
2. They are not omnipresent. They can only be in one place at a time. (Mt 8:28-34)
3. They are intelligent, but not omniscient. (Mk 1:24; Mt. 8:29; 1 Tim 4:1)
4. They are powerful, but not omnipotent. (Mk 5:3-4; 9:22; Mt 9:32; 15:22; Jn 10:21)

What do they do?
1. Inflict disease. (Lk 13:11, 16; Job 1:12; 2:6)
2. Influence the mind. (Gen 3:1-5; 2 Cor 4:4; 11:3)
3. Deceive people. (1 Thes 3:5; Eph 2:2; Mt 13:19)
4. Deceive nations. (Rev 16:14)
5. Possess people. (Mt 4:24; 8:16, 28, 33; 12:22; 15:22; Mk 1:32; 5:3-4, 15, 16, 18; Lk 8:36; Jn 10:21)

Christ has defeated demons! (Col 2:15)
They will be thrown into the lake of fire! (Mt 25:41; Rev 12:9; 19:19-21)

How does this change my life? I’m able to recognize the work of demons more readily and can in turn pray against them. This information also will help me in answering the questions of the youth I work with. Spiritual issues like this are very interesting to students and in answering their questions, I have opportunities to share the good news of the demon’s defeat. Also with good answers to their questions, I can gain the students respect and trust for future conversations.

(Info from “The Moody Handbook of Theology” by Paul Enns, pg 295-298)

October 8, 2007

Angelology

It is clear from the Scriptures that angels exist. They are actually mentioned in 37 of the books of the Bible. Jesus Himself speaks of them (Mt 25:31-32, 41) and interacts with them (Mt 4:11). Here are some of the basic teachings about angels from the Scriptures:

1. They are spirit beings. They are called “spirits” (Heb 1:14) and do not have bodies. They also do not die (Lk 20:36) or get married (Mk 12:25). However, they do appear in human form sometimes (Gen 18:3).

2. They are created beings. Ps 148:2-5; Job 38: 6-7; Col 1:16

3. They were all created at the same time. Heb 12:22 says there are “myriads” of them but since they cannot reproduce (Mt 22:30). . . .Col 1:16 also suggests a singular act of creation.

4. They are a higher order than man. Heb 2:7 says that angels are higher than men – even higher than Jesus while He was in the flesh. They don’t die (Lk 20:36) and have more wisdom than man (2:Sam 14:20). Their wisdom is limited though – certainly less than God’s (Mt 24:36). They have more power than men (Mt 28:2; Acts 5:19; 2 Pet 2:11) but it is still a limited power (Dan 10:13).

Some of the most prominent angels are:
Michael (Dan 10:13; 12:1; Jude 9)
Gabriel (Dan 9:21; Lk 1:26)
Lucifer (Is 14:12)

Some of the things that angels do include:
Serving God (Rev 5:11-12)
Ministry to Jesus (Lk 1:26-38; 22:43; Mt 2:13; 2:20; 4:11; 28:5-7; 1 Kgs 19:5-7; Acts 1:10; Mt 25:31)
Ministry to Believers
Protection (Ps 34:7; Acts 5:19; Rev 7:1-14)
Provision (1 Kgs 19:5-7)
Encouragement (Acts 27:23-25)
Direction (Acts 8:26; 10:3, 22)
Assist in answering Prayer (Acts 12:1-11; Dan 9:20-27)
Carry us home (Lk 16:22)
Serve God in Judgment (Rev 8:2-12; 9:1, 13; Mt 13:39-42)

How does this change my life? I believe it has and will continue to change my life every time an angel ministers to me as a believer. I am not aware of specific times when this has happened, but I do believe that it has. There are certainly countless times when I have been in need of protection, provision, encouragement, direction, and answered prayer and have received those things. I feel confident in saying that angels have probably had a hand in those situations. I also believe that their work in ministering to Jesus and in serving God have an affect on me – maybe not a direct impact, but that doesn’t mean anything. Also, by having this understanding of angels, I’ll be able to pray specifically for God to send angels when I find myself or my friends in need of these kinds of ministries.

(Info from “The Moody Handbook of Theology” by Paul Enns, pg 287-292)

October 8, 2007

Impeccability

Some of you may be saying, “What?” That’s OK – let me explain.

This term refers to the times that Jesus was “tempted” by Satan. (Matthew 4) The question arises to whether or not it was possible for Jesus to sin. If you believe it was, then you would say Jesus was “Peccable.” Of course if you don’t believe it was possible for Jesus to sin then you are on the “Impeccable” side of the argument. Here’s the evidence for both. I’ll let you decide what you think:

In general, Arminians are mostly on the “peccable” side, while Calvinists are on the “impeccable” side of the argument. (Should I dare say that Arminians are peccable?jk)

Peccable – Hebrews 4:15 – “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are–yet was without sin.” Proponents of this view say that in order for temptation to be real, it must be possible. If it was impossible for Jesus to sin, then it wasn’t real temptation and He wouldn’t be able to sympathize with His people.

Impeccable – The purpose of the temptation of Jesus was to prove that He couldn’t sin and could therefore be trusted in the ministry He was about to begin. You should also notice that it was the Holy Spirit (not Satan) who initiated the temptation. If Christ could have sinned, then the Holy Spirit invited Christ to sin, but according to James 1:13, that’s not something that a Holy God can do.

Remember, Jesus had two natures – He was the God-man. If Christ was peccable, then His human nature could overpower His God-nature. That just seems crazy to believe. Can the finite nature within Jesus be stronger than the infinite?

Weakness is implied by temptation and Jesus is omnipotent – all-powerful. There was no weakness of any kind in Him.

Jesus was born without a sin nature. There was nothing inside of Him to respond to the temptation and therefore couldn’t sin.

Jesus knows everything – past, present, and future. Sin depends on ignorance, in order for the sinner to be deceived. Jesus could be deceived and therefore, couldn’t sin.

In moral decisions, Jesus could only have one will – the will of His Father. Is it possible for God to sin? Of course not.

Jesus was able to conquer death – He had authority over it. Sin is less powerful than death. How could you be tempted by something you had authority over?

I guess it’s pretty clear that I’m on the “impeccable” side of this argument. There just seems to be alot more evidence and it makes sense.

How does this impact my life? In some ways I must admit that I feel convicted. Jesus had two natures in Him and of course the God-nature always won out. I have been given the Holy Spirit to influence me and my flesh still wins out sometimes. I understand cognitively that it’s because of my sin nature. . . .I just feel convicted because I don’t like that Holy Spirit’s work get crushed within me, by my sinful self. There’s also something comforting knowing that Jesus could never sin – that means He can be trusted forever. It means I know more of Him to know this about His character. It means I’ve been drawn closer to Him.

Just another thought – In answering this question about how these concepts will impact my life, I feel very inadequate. Many of these concepts are pretty new to me and therefore I don’t know how they’re gonna impact things for me. They certainly will shape my theological standpoints and my understanding of God’s character. As life rolls along – these concepts which are just seeds right now, will take root and change my life in ways that I could never explain right now. By the way, to you Professor Shockley, “thank you for these assignments – I do believe they will make a difference in my life.”

(Info from “The Moody Handbook of Theology” by Paul Enns, pg 236-238)

October 8, 2007

Substitution

In hanging on the cross, Jesus was our substitute. He was without sin. We are not. It is sin that deserves the punishment of death (Romans 6:23). Jesus took on our sin and died in our place – substituting His own body in place of ours. This concept is important because Jesus is the only man (of course He is God too) whose perfect, sinless life was sufficient to pay for the sins of the world. The good news is that He did it and that God’s righteous judgment is still intact because His just demands have been met.

This concept is clear throughout Scripture:
Isaiah 53 – But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

1 Peter 2:24 – He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

Matthew 20:28 – . . .the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

I Timothy 2:6a – who gave himself as a ransom for all men. . .

Galatians 3:13a – Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. . .

2 Corinthians 5:21 – God made him who had no sin to be sin[1] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

1 Peter 3:18a – For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous. . .

How does this concept impact my life? In every way. I live because Christ died in my place. He took on my sin – it is no longer my burden. It has been paid for by Jesus’ own blood. He has conquered death and brought me into the family of God. In this life and beyond I will enjoy the favor of a Father who is God. It’s a classic statement, but appropriate here – Because He died for me, I choose to live for Him! I’ll never be able to substitute myself for Him, but He has called me to try – to work on becoming like Him and to then represent Him to the world. It’s an incredible privilege that I’m honored to be a part of.

(Info from “The Moody Handbook of Theology” by Paul Enns, pg 323)

October 7, 2007

Hypostatic Union

This is the term used to describe Jesus’ humanity and His divinity. The idea that he is both God and man at the same time is strange. When Jesus came to earth from heaven as a human, he also took on a new nature (human nature) which he had not experienced before. These two natures are united together perfectly in Jesus, but they still maintain their separate identities. Jesus (the God-man) is fully human, but he is fully God at the same time. How this works is one of the mysteries of God that has stumped mankind for many generations. He is one man, but has two natures. Whoa! This concept is important to us too – here’s why – Jesus had to be God so He could live perfectly without sin and could become the “perfect sacrifice: for our sins. He also had to be human so that God could die. By becoming a man, Jesus also became the ultimate priest. By being God, He was able to properly act as a Mediator between God and man.

How does this impact my life? In every way. It’s only because the Word was made flesh that I have been saved. Jesus’ death and resurrection (pictures of His humanity and divinity) secure my new life. It is in serving this man, that I find myself serving God. Cool stuff.

(Info from “The Moody Handbook of Theology” by Paul Enns, pg 227-229)

October 7, 2007

Open Theology

Open Theology (also called “Freewill Theism”) states that God does not
know the future. He changes His mind in response to our prayers. This idea
comes out of the “Freewill/Arminian” position which says that because
of our freewill, God cannot know the future. If He did, then we don’t really
have freewill. John Sanders describes the three main points:

(1)
God is Sovereign, but decided to create us in such a way that we could experience a
reciprocal relationship with Him.

(2)
God made some of His decisions non-negotiable, but others are contingent upon man’s requests and actions. He truly responds to what man does. He knows the future as partly definite and partly indefinite.

(3)
God chooses to exercise general rather than meticulous providence. He doesn’t control everything that happens in a man’s life, but has flexible strategies for accomplishing His purposes.

They hold a high view of human freedom and even say that God will not violate our freedom.

They appeal to God’s testing of Abraham saying that God didn’t know if Abraham could be trusted with the covenant that He had intended for him. The verse actually says, “for now I know that you fear God.” (Gen 22:12)

Here’s what I think:

There are plenty of other verses which uphold God’s infinite knowledge. 1 Samuel 16:7 – God knows the heart. Psalm 139:1-2 – God knows all my ways, even the words I will speak. (That sounds like the future to me.) Anyway, considering these verses, we’ve got to either reinterpret them (and other which I have not mentioned) or reinterpret the Genesis passage. It seems more probable that the one should be reinterpreted than all the others. If you consider the book of James which interprets this Genesis passage, it becomes clear that the emphasis is on the fact the Abraham’s faith believed that God could raise Isaac from the dead. If the NT authors didn’t comment on God’s limited knowledge, why should our emphasis be any different? It seems pretty clear that James (Brother of Jesus) never imagined that God learned something that day, but more likely that Abraham did. Abraham knew his faith in new ways that day.

Here are some other thoughts regarding Open Theology:

How do you explain all the Scripture that describes God’s infinite understanding?

What about Jesus’ statement in John 8:58 “Before Abraham was, I Am.”?

What about prophecy?

Does God get surprised?

Does God get smarter as time goes on?

If God doesn’t know the future, then that must also mean that He is confined to the limits of time as man is. Doesn’t sound like much of a God to me – Like me, He’s imprisoned to time (which He supposedly created) like me. Like me, He doesn’t know the future. Like me, He gets surprised by other people’s actions.

I’m just not sure we have a god at all anymore. He seems a lot like me.

How does this make a difference for me?

Not at all – cause I can’t subscribe to this view. I will say that knowing the basics of these ideas will prepare me for discussions within the youth ministry that I work with. I feel like I should take some time in the future and study up a bit more on all of this so I can be more prepared. It seems like it might be an appealing theory for our culture that devalues God and uplifts man’s position. It’s probably a growing ideology that I should be ready to give an answer to.

(Info from “Does God Know Your Next Move?” by Chris Hall and John Sanders)

October 7, 2007

Lordship Salvation

Lordship Salvation is the idea that in order to be saved, one must receive Jesus as both Savior and Lord. Belief in Christ is not enough, but good works are required. The guys who ascribe to this view would describe saving faith as repentance (turning from sin) plus faith (turning to God). They also say that to receive Christ, means to receive His whole person, which includes His roles as both Savior and Lord. John Stott says, “The call of God in the gospel is not just to receive Jesus Christ, but to belong to Him, not just to believe in Him, but to obey Him.”

Now, the guys who oppose this view are called “Free Grace” guys. They point to the Scriptures that speak of salvation as a “gift.” There is nothing one must do to earn it. No “good works” are required. They point to Acts 2:38 which says that we must only “repent” before we can be baptized and brought into the fellowship.

My own opinion actually finds its’ strength in 1 Corinthians 3 where Paul speaks of the “carnal” man. It’s clear that this man is saved, but also that he is not living with Christ as “Lord” of his life. Now, if he is saved but Christ isn’t Lord of his life then, “saving faith” must not require “Lordship.” There is no such thing as a “Carnal Christian” if Lordship Salvation is true.

When we went over this in class, our professor also described a 3^rd view which he called “soft Lordship.” This view says that once a man is saved (by repentance alone), the Holy Spirit would begin to work on him and there would be “good works” or fruit to being to appear. It may be as small as a feeling of conviction which he never had before, but it’s still fruit. The idea is that Christ would begin to become “Lord” from that day forward.

Here’s the summary:

Lordship Salvation: Faith + works/fruit = salvation

Free Grace: Faith = Salvation and works/fruit may or may not follow.

Soft Lordship: Faith = Salvation and works/fruit will follow.

I think I’d have to put myself in the “soft Lordship” category. I believe that a “Carnal Christian” is just one who’s “works” have not had time to start showing up on the outside. In regards to the “Free Grace” view, I have a hard time believing that the Holy Spirit’s presence doesn’t make any difference.

How does this make a difference in my life?

There’s a part of me that is really comforted by knowing that the Holy Spirit’s work in us, might not be very evident to the onlooker. In my years of youth ministry, I
have seen many kids “walk the aisle” to receive Christ and then go for years with no evidence that it made any difference. Sometimes I watch them make decisions which clearly would not honor God. Jesus is definitely not “Lord” for them. It’s comforting to know that faith alone is sufficient. I will continue to teach and encourage His Lordship, but will also seek out the small, subtle things that the Holy Spirit might be doing within them. I think that this understanding of grace, makes me more gracious.

(Info from “Must Christ be Lord to Be Savior” by Everett Harrison and John Stott – also from “How Faith Works” by S. Lewis Johnson Jr., and “A Critique of Lordship Salvation Debate” by Charles E. Powell)