Theology Thursday: Church of Christ, Scientist

An organization founded by Mary Baker Eddy...in 1876 Eddy formed the Christian Scientist Association and three years later chartered the Church of Christ, Scientist...The tenets and bylaws of the church were incorporated by Eddy into the church manual of 1895. The church's fundamental theological teachings are presented in Eddy's Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures.

Theologically, the Church of Christ, Scientist, does not concur with the basic tenets of historic orthodox Christianity...Christian Science's view of God is monistic. God is divine principle, not a supreme being. God is mind, and mind is all...The characteristics and attributes of God become God..God, Christ and Holy Spirit are not persons...Christian Science denies a physical incarnation of Christ...The need of an atonement is nullified since sin, evil, sickness and death are delusions, not reality...Salvation to the Christian Scientist is the gaining of understanding that man's life is wholly derived from God the Spirit and is not mortal and material.



P.G. Chappell, "Church of Christ, Scientist." in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 261-2.

Philosophy Friday: Power of Asking Questions

"Philosophy, if it cannot answer so many questions as we could wish, has at least the power of asking questions which increase the interest of the world, and show the strangeness and wonder lying just below the surface even in the commonest things of daily life."
-Bertrand Russel-



Bertrand Russel, The Problems of Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959), p. 16. 

Thursday Theology: Absolution

"From the Latin absolvo (set free), the term absolution is used in theology to denote the forgiveness of sins, being specifically used by Roman Catholics of the remission given through or by the church. It is a suitable word in that the truly free person is one against whom no accusation of sin can be made."


W.C.G. Proctor, "Absolution." in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 20.

Eschatology: The Destiny of the Unsaved

              Eschatology, the study of last things, can conjure up different emotions and thoughts causing one to reflect on their mortality. Chief among these reflections both emotionally and intellectually is the eternal abode of the unsaved. This is a crucial question to answer from an apologetic standpoint and Scripture has much to say on the matter.

             Three major views must be kept in mind when referring to the eternal fate of the unsaved. Annihilationism is drawn from the idea that some if not all persons will cease to exist post-mortem.[1] Perhaps the most common assertion is that while humankind was created essentially immortal those who do not fulfill this destiny in the after life will be utterly destroyed. Eternal punishment stands as the most championed position historically by the church, Christ spoke more of hell than any other person.[2] This points to the sentencing of the unregenerate to an eternity separated from the presence of God (Mk. 9:47-48). The third view, Universalism, espouses that all men will eventually be reconciled to God, thus the Atonement is not limited in its efficacy.[3] This doctrine is viewed from the position of maximum tolerance.

            After studying the definitions above the words used to describe these events must be examined. Hades, which is the rendered form of the Hebrew word Sheol in the LXX, has the meaning of grave or hell. This is the place of bodily decay[4], a state in which disembodied souls live until the resurrection at the last day (Jn. 11:24). Sheol and Hades are virtually synonymous.[5] However, Gehenna, originally referring to the Valley of Hinnom where Baal worshipers sacrificed children to Molech (2 Kings 16:3), encapsulates the more common form of eternal hell, as is currently understood. Sheol and Hades refer to an intermediate state while Gehenna refers to everlasting punishment for the wicked following the Great White Throne Judgment (Rev. 20:11-15).[6]

Though compelling arguments can be made from all sides the clearest definition from Scripture supports the eternality of reward and punishment for humankind (Dan. 12:2)[7]. Matthew 25:46 states, “these shall go away into everlasting punishment…righteous into life eternal.” Both words here can be rendered properly into Greek, aiōn or aiōnion. Strong translates these to mean without beginning and end. How can we deny the eternality of punishment while affirming the eternality of reward? If we hope to be consistent in our theology, we cannot. Paul commented on the state of the damned (2 Thess. 1:9) and in the Gospels Luke mentions the fate of the rich man from Jesus parables (Lk. 16:23). Though pointing ultimately to the result of the unsaved living, this parable can shed light on the state of the unregenerate dead.

            The opposition would point to the cessation of existence implied in Scripture (Rom. 6:23; Jas. 5:20)[8] or inconsistency with eternal punishment from a good God (1 Tim. 2:4).[9] The cross, as they espouse, is the place of universal salvation to which the scope of cannot be limited (2 Cor. 5:9).[10] Lastly, Paul appears to explain that eventually all things will be reconciled to Christ (Col. 1:18). 

            Though the opposition’s defense hinges on misinterpretations there is an emotional element that creeps in. How could a good God send some one to hell? However given libertarian-free will, God would be in contradiction to His nature if He forbid people to freely choose or deny Him. Thus those who choose Him will rest with Him eternally and those who don’t are granted their request, eternal separation from the Creator of the universe (Rev. 20:10). John and Jesus both describe reward and punishment eternally[11], yet to affirm one of the opponent’s views is to deny the veracity of their writings and subsequently Scriptures inerrancy. Lastly, the doctrine of hell stretches beyond three mere words[12], destruction (2 Thess. 1:9), damnation (Matt. 23:33), and fiery-furnace (Matt. 13:42).

            Given eternal punishment, its wise to heed the words of Christ when he commanded us to make disciples (Matt. 28:19). Proselytizing is meaningless if all are eventually saved or if all cease to exist after death. Evangelism then is the greatest endeavor of every believer who once was lost until they heard the saving grace of the gospel.

            The doctrine of eschatology deals largely with the final state of humankind. A proper understanding of eternal punishment on the unregenerate is the goal of the defender of orthodoxy. With the scope of eternal punishment in mind, all other views opposed should be rebuked for inaccuracy. If these views were to hold firm they would negate the gravity of both the cross and resurrection of Christ and the subsequent evangelizing of the post Acts 2 church. We must resist these views and hold to the clearest explanation scripture has to offer, namely the eternal destiny of all people (Dan. 12:2).

---

[1]             R. Nicole, “Annihilationism.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 64.

[2]             L.L. Morris, “Eternal Punishment.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 395.

[3]             J.R. Root, “Universalism.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1232.

[4]             W.A. Van Gemeren, “Sheol.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1099.

[5]             J.A. Motyer, “Hades.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 532.

[6]             V. Cruz, “Gehenna.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 480.

[7]             Morris, 395.

[8]             Nicole, 64.

[9]             Morris, 396.

[10]             Ibid, 396.

[11]             Nicole, 64.

[12]             R.P. Lightner, “Hell.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 548.

Short Essay on the Role of Women in the Church

Short Essay on the Role of Women in the Church

            The matriarchs and coheirs of the human race have long been subdued from reaching their full potential in society and within the church. However, there are questions that must be examined in order to determine the proper role of women in the church and what subsequent service they might shoulder.

            An elder, presbyteroi, had a prominent function in the New Testament Church. They are associated with the leader of the Jerusalem church, James (Acts 11:30), they were to conduct the oversight of the church as shepherds (Acts 20:28) and as the apostles and prophets ministry began to fade they were responsible to teach and preach at a local level.[1] A deacon, diakoneō, describes a servant and fits their description found in Scripture. These servants were required to be husband of one wife, manage his children well, have excellent standing in Christ, sincere, worthy of respect, not a drunkard, not pursuing material wealth dishonestly, and they must undergo scrutiny to verify their trustworthiness (1 Tim. 3:8-13).

            Women possessed the role of deacon in the church (Phoebe, Rom 16:1). Along with Phoebe other women such as Priscilla served with Paul (Acts 18:18). In the Old Testament Deborah held the role of prophetess in Israel (Judg. 4:4) during the time of the Judges. Galatians 3:28 points to the standing of men and women in Christ, which reflected the utmost of equality in spirit and glanced back on the original creation standard prior to the fall. Though passages such as 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 seem to support the silencing and limiting of women in church function this conclusion misses the mark in light of the cultural context. Though women are mentioned solely here it may have been to address the state of affairs in the church at Corinth and was not intended to be a sweeping reform.[2]

            Though women can certainly perform the duties of officers in the church, detractors are still plenty thus their arguments need addressing. Chiefly among the passages lobbied against women serving in churches is 1 Timothy 2:9-15. [3] Though women appear to be charged with the fall of man and are under restrictions here clarity should be given on the type of restrictions that are not representative. First, women are free to teach their children (Prov. 6:20). Second, women should still be schoolteachers and historically this is the case. Third, due to the overwhelming blessing from above on Sunday school programs it is hard to imagine a restriction on women here. Lastly, the same goes as above in reference to women in the mission field.[4] Ephesians 5:22-33 appears to demand women as the submissive partner to their husbands. However to stop there does not do justice to the passage. When viewed in more depth this passage actually levels more responsibility on man as the reflection of Christ’s love for his wife. As Paul points to in Galatians 3:28, “both male and female” were created equally in Christ and thus any restrictions on women should also reflect on their equal gender, men.

            Though some would argue that there are restrictions on women for service in the church no such arguments should be made against workplace limitations. The fall of man has been applied to naivety of women, however this view leads to the idea of the subjugation of the female gender. As with any interpretation that strays from the creation ideal it should be resisted as any other evil since the fall.[5] Women are the bearers of life and the conduit to which God brought about the birth of our Lord (Lk. 1:31-32), how could we restrict their profession?

            Women have held the title of prophetess, deaconess and spiritual leader in Scripture. Evident from examination, God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34); therefore we should shed the ways of the dark ages and embrace the spiritual gifts of God no matter their source in gender. God has endowed mankind, inclusive of both sexes, with certain faculties and as such we are equipped for a number of tasks in the church. Surely if a particular woman enjoys church government she should be elected or disqualified based on her qualifications, not her sex, likewise for man. As with King David, God told Samuel to look not on the outside but inside to his heart to see the character of the man (1 Sam. 16:7), this should be the practice of every church.

            Male and female were created equally in the image of God and should perform duties worthy of that resemblance. Though different in emotions and physical characteristics if a woman is a capable candidate for a spiritual office, the church would do well to accept her contributions. God promised to pour out His spirit on both men and women in the last days (Joel 2:29), who are we to silence that movement?

---

[1]             R.S Wallace, “Elder.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 369.

[2]             R. Nicole, “Woman, Biblical Concept of.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1284.

[3]             Ibid, 1284.

[4]             Ibid, 1285.

[5]             N. Hoggard-Creegan, “Women, Ordination of.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1288.

Short Essay on Anthropology: Marriage and Divorce

Marriage found its origins with the command from God that it was not right that man should be alone (Gen. 2:18). Despite its holy intent marriage has become a trendy arrangement. Moreover, the haphazard manner in which marriage vows are dismissed in present time should cause the student of God to turn and evaluate the biblical stance on the matter.

Biblical teaching on marriage centered on the union between one man and one woman (Gen. 2:24). This bond is best portrayed in the relationship of a covenant. In this way a marriage is seen as growing, healing and maturing through time, mirroring the relationship between God and his people. [1] As the two became one flesh, we should understand this was a godly ideal to remain intact forever (Gen 2:24). There were however guidelines for a biblical marriage. After the Levitical laws marriage to family was outlawed (Lev. 20:19), marriage to foreigners was dangerous, with Old and New Testaments attesting to this (1 Kings 11:1-2-10; 2 Cor. 6:14-15), and both parties were to be submitted to one another (Eph. 5:22-33).

In the Old Testament a groom did not posses his wife until the bride price was paid (Gen. 34:12). Prior to this the bride and groom were betrothed, a legally binding contract, for a year in which they were to remain celibate (Matt. 1:18). There was an understanding that the marriage was to be consummated on the first night, in which the stained linen cloth would attest to the bride’s virginity. [2] Despite Scriptures references to intercourse being intended for the married couple society has a different view of things. There is a “try it before you buy it” mentality and promiscuity reigns supreme in the dating scene, particularly in Hollywood touting the “living together” culture that is a mainstay of America. Without the long-term commitment of marriage, partners are free to come and go as they please with no apparent consequences.

Divorce indicates a severing of what was once a living union. [3] The Bible allows for divorce yet it was not a God ordained reason but for the hardness of men’s hearts (Matt. 19:8). In Jesus’ time the reasoning for divorce had become so rampant that Christ had to take a very strict stance on allowing for divorce based on adultery only (Matt. 5:32). This was in response to the Hillelite Pharisees who sought divorce for any reason including a poorly cooked meal.[4] Other reasons were certainly permissible such as desertion to which Paul points to but it should be understood as a last resort.[5] Though not as dramatic as the Hillelite’s, today’s culture seeks divorce almost as indiscriminately. Many have been married multiple times and have sought the arms of another to save them from the bonds of a bad marriage.

Though biblical, there are many reasons permissible for divorce including abuse, life-threatening situations and desertion however, there are objections to deal with. Matthew 5:32 has been used to point out adultery as the sole reason for dissolution. This misses the mark however. Christ was not stating an absolute regarding divorce rather he was pointing to the holy standard set forth in creation.[6]  Yes a marriage should mirror God’s covenant with man, however because of man’s fallen nature divorce is permissible.

A Christian is permitted to remarry once they have repented for breaking the covenant of marriage with their partner. Remarriage was presupposed in the Deuteronomy legislation (Deut. 24:1-4), although it was forbidden for a woman to remarry and then return to her former spouse. [7]  In Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 regarding remarriage, Jesus did not forbid remarriage considering it was understood in Jewish society that remarriage almost always followed divorce or death, see Ruth’s example of Levirate marriage (Ruth 2:20-4:10).

Divorce is damaging; “two became one flesh” and there is a tearing that takes place. It is the role of the church to support those affected with divorce. The church should accept the divorced parties not refuse them membership. [8] Second the church should support and guide the divorced in their future, which may mean emotional, spiritual and material care. [9] The results of single parent homes have been well documented with children of divorce parents more likely to divorce themselves. Permanence in marriage should be the goal of any covenant couple to strengthen the nation as in biblical times.

Though never the ideal set forth by God divorce is a part of fallen creation. Among the reasons for divorce adultery is chief, yet it should be recognized that God never approves of abusive relationships for we should love one another as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5:25). Certainly remarriage can occur but it must not be entered into lightly as it carries the sting of the past divorce. The church should aide in the recovery and healing of divorced persons.

---

[1]             D.J. Atkinson, “Divorce.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 347.

[2]             H.W. Perkin, “Marriage, Marriage Customs in Bible Times.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 742.

[3]             Atkinson, 346.

[4]             Ibid, 347.

[5]             Ibid, 348.

[6]             Ibid, 347.

[7]             D.J. Atkinson, “Remarriage.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1007.

[8]             Atkinson, 348.

[9]             Ibid, 348.

Wisdom on a Wednesday

This morning as I sat down to read from my devotional I was struck by the last sentence in it. I am currently reading through Oswald Chambers classic, My Utmost for His Highest, and his final comment of the day encouraged me to write.

“God never gives us discernment so that we may criticize, but that we may intercede.”[1]

            Too many times in my life have I sought God’s direction so that I might be able to vindicate my position on something. The results have been mixed at best but I usually end up reflecting on how I could have handled my response to revelation differently.

            To truly take this mornings reading seriously, I have to reevaluate the reasons I seek discernment from above. If I am seeking it to exact my own revenge or to affirm my position in an argument then I should sincerely seek some real godly counsel because my intentions need an adjustment. However, if I am seeking His counsel for the sole reason to intercede on behalf of the other party then my will should line up precisely with His will. Then I will have the clear insight and vision to proceed along the path of reconciling the situation in whatever form that might take.

            “Father…not my will, but yours be done.” (Lk. 22:42)

---

[1]        Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest (Grand Rapids: Discovery House Publishers, 1992), November 23.

Short Essay on the Problem of Evil

Sin no mater the degree or function has been a concern of man since the dawn of time. Whether in the form of moral evil or its associate natural evil the basis for the problem of evil is realized.

The problem of evil is both a question of logical consistency in propositions of a theological system and more chiefly it’s a string of problems that encompass God and evil.[1] Biblically the book of Job details the problem of evil and other places in Scripture give account of evil by suffering in the face of doing good (1 Pet. 3:13-14). Plato took up this problem in his work Euthyphro, which outlines questions that relate to the cause of this problem. Plato however missed the mark here; the answer to his dilemma should be stated, God wills the good because He is good.[2] God as a holy can have no part in evil thus cannot be the cause of evil (Jas. 1:13).

Among the definitions of evil two classes exist, moral and natural evil. Moral evil is evil that is the product of moral agents; the first murder by Cain (Gen. 4:8), Uriah’s assassination by David (2 Sam. 11:14-17). Natural evil is that problem which arises as a result of natural processes such as earthquakes, or tsunami’s. Each problem must be addressed using different arguments and approaches. For example one cannot hope to answer the suffering of a cancer patient by appealing to free will.[3]

Tackling the issue of why sin exists is important in addressing the problem of evil. Prior to the fall in Genesis 3, the world was made whole and unblemished (Gen. 1:31). Adam and Eve existed in an unabated relationship with the creator of the universe. Subsequent to the fall both moral and natural evils became prevalent. God as the all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving God cannot do anything contrary to his nature. According to Leibniz, out of the many possible worlds that were feasible for God to actualize he chose the one we experience to actualize which was the best possible world. In order for man not to be an automaton God had to endow his creation with free will. If he offers free will then he cannot limit the influence of evil in the world. This would be a direct inconsistency with free will. However, because of God’s providence he can use evil to ultimately bring about good in the world, namely the saving work of Christ at Calvary.[4] John Hick espoused that God’s intent was not to create perfect creatures rather he sought to create beings in need of development towards perfection. [5] However this view errs because the use of evil in the world seems to turn people away from God and not the opposite.

When developing a theodicy it is extremely important to ensure it is internally consistent. If God is all loving and omnipotent and evil exists the theodicist must show that there is no inconsistency with these claims. Is it inconsistent for God to allow evil? Certainly not, what would be inconsistent is for a God, who allows the free will decisions of moral agents, to restrict the decisions of free creatures to ensure no evil can arise. This as stated previously would be inconsistent with the idea of free will making the theodicy internally inconsistent. In my view, God actualized the best possible world. Since God is the only Metaphysically necessary being he alone can will the world into existence.[6] Though evil exists it does not raise an issue of inconsistency in this theodicy because it can be shown that people (agents who propagate evil by free will decisions) are certainly less perfect than a necessary being because their existence is contingent on that being. Thus evil is consistent with God creating man.

Personal experience can both lend to and hinder one’s relationship with God. When a person experiences evil in their life they make ask the question, “why me God?” This can cause a rift in the relationship the person assumed they had with God. However if the person would spend time in the Scriptures stories would inspire the downtrodden. Joseph described evil used for good by God (Gen. 50:20). David found refuge in God during trials (Ps. 18:6). A person seeking to dispute a belief about God can only do so if the theodicy accurately portrays God.[7] Because theodicies are constructs of human thought it is possible to deny a theodicy without actually denying an attribute or the existence of God.

Though the problem of evil will certainly not go away anytime soon the theodicist can be confident that if their view is consistent it can be used to explain one’s view of God. This may offer hope for others aspiring to defend God in a logically consistent way.

Word count: #799

Bibliography

Feinberg, J. S., “Evil, Problem of.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd ed., 413-15. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001

Feinberg, J. S., “Theodicy.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd ed., 1184-87. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001

Lewis, G. R., “God, Attributes of.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd ed., 492-99. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001

---

[1]             J.S. Feinberg, “Evil, Problem of.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 413.

[2]             G.R. Lewis, “God, Attributes of.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 496.

[3]             Feinberg, 414.

[4]             J.S. Feinberg, “Theodicy.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1186.

[5]             Feinberg, 1186.

[6]             Feinberg, 1185.

[7]             Ibid, 1187.

Short Essay on Angelology and Satanology

Angels and Demons, it is not just a book title or a Hollywood movie; these topics are a must for the Christian to understand and discuss. At the root of this discussion exists the problem of evil and more specifically whether or not God is the author of such evils. For if God created Satan, that fallen angel of evil, it’s possible he created evil, however Scripture attests to something quite different (Jas. 1:13; 1 Cor. 14:33).

            From this debate of evil the question of dualism is raised. Ethical dualism is the doctrine that avows the existence of two reciprocated beings, one the provenance of all-good and the other an equal provenance of all-evil.[1] Though God and Satan might seem to fit this synopsis the two beings are certainly not equal in attributes. God created all things including the angels (Gen. 1:1), which is a display of his awesome power. He is the everlasting, eternal being (1 Tim. 1:17) to which none can be the creator. Satan himself has been described as one disguised as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14). If Satan is an angel then no matter his efforts creation is subject to the creator. Though his power is second only to God (Ezek. 28:12-17) he is subject to God’s will for the use of his power (Job 1:12).[2]

            The downfall of Satan and his ultimate demise has been well documented in Scripture. This once high angel called the morning star (Isa. 14:12); the symbol of perfection that inhabited the Garden of Eden (Ezek. 28:12-13) will ultimately be judged and condemned to the fiery pit prepared for him and his fallen angels (Rev. 20:10).  Though he still roams the earth today seeking those whom to devour (1 Pet. 5:8), Satan has already been judged to perish which explains the fervor at which he pursues his mission to disrupt the work of God.

            Though Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 appear to be speaking directly about Satan himself some have offered their defeaters to the notion that this speaks explicitly of that serpent of old. The naysayers claim that these passages are specifically addressing the king of Tyre and Babylon not Satan. [3] Though it is true these verses appear to speak about these earthly kings the attributes such as son of the dawn (Isa. 14:12), the model of perfection (Ezek. 28:12), anointed guardian cherub (Ezek. 28:14), and so on, do not speak of a mortal man. These attributes must be applied to a heavenly host, and Satan fits that description as the fallen one quite agreeably.

            From Satan’s own desire to be like the most high (Isa. 14:13-14) his ultimate nature can be discovered. Satan is a liar (Jn. 8:44), sinner from inception (1 Jn. 3:8) and as such God cannot be accredited with his fall. If God was to intervene and stop Satan from his evil plans in the beginning this would have been a contradiction of God-given free will.[4] Viewing God’s restraint in this manner leads one to conclude God could not be the author of evil though he was the creator of Satan (Jas. 1:13).

            A reading of the first chapter of the book of Job speaks volumes to the power and position Satan has in reference to God. Satan is first seen as presenting himself before God (Job 1:6) a sign of submission to God. He is also viewed as being restricted to harm only Job’s circumstances and not Job himself (Job 1:12) a denial of Satan’s omnipotence. Next God asks Satan if he has considered Job as a righteous man (Job 1:8) alluding to the fact that Satan’s knowledge is not ultimate. God as the uncreated one (Col. 1:15-17) cannot have an end yet Satan’s obliteration has been predicted since the beginning (Gen 3:15; Rev 20:10). He is not eternal nor is Satan equal on any level with the one he seeks to overthrow.

            Though it has been utilized as a phrase for copping out, “the devil made me do it” couldn’t be farther from the truth. Satan certainly has the power to tempt as is evidenced by his discourse with Christ (Lk. 4:1-13), yet he cannot force one to do something much in the same way God cannot force someone to accept him. Both examples would clearly violate the function of free will. It is true that demonic activity will increase in the latter days and many will be seduced to follow them (1 Tim. 4:1)[5] however, it does not follow that seduction is the same as extortion. You have the power to resist the devil and he will turn from his pursuit (Jas. 4:7) but if you yield to temptation you alone are responsible for your fall, not some external cause.

---

[1]             H.B. Kuhn, “Dualism,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 357.            

[2]             M.F. Unger, “Satan,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1054.

[3]             M.F. Unger, “Satan,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1054.

[4]             Elmer Towns, Theology for Today (Mason: Thomson Custom Solutions Center, 2001), 367.

[5]             S.E. McClelland, “Demon, Demonization,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 332.

Short Essay on Pneumatology

The church has exercised spiritual gifts since its inception and there are allusions to these movements in the Old Testament, particularly in the gift of prophecy (Mic. 3:8; Ezek. 2:2).  However the application and subsequent validity of the various gifts have caused a chasm in the body of Christ that has given way to denominational discrepancy.

            Spiritual gifts can be categorized as gifts from God equipping the Christian to perform their duty to the body of Christ and those outside the body.[1] Some of these gifts include healing (1 Cor. 12:9), apostleship (1 Cor. 12:28), teaching (1 Cor. 12:28-29), and etc. Many of the gifts were to focus on administering aid, discernment or edification to the body of Christ while some gifts, namely the gift of interpretation of tongues, help to clarify and understand other gifts.

            There is a difference between the “fruits of the Spirit” and “spiritual gifts.” The fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self- control (Gal. 5:22-23) all of which show the level of maturity of a believer. Faithfulness for example takes a certain amount of perseverance and trust in the locus of your faith and this is not accomplished by a rudimentary devotion. Spiritual gifts in contrast do not all require a level of maturity in Christ. Speaking in tongues came upon new believers such as the gentiles with Cornelius (Acts 10:44-45) or the John’s disciples in Ephesus (Acts 19:6).

            The gift of Speaking in tongues has been the subject of much hysteria, confusion and overemphasis in recent times. Moreover the passages that contain information on this gift should be examined to better interpret its application and usefulness.[2] Glossolalia, has two main functions, it’s useful as an initiation meant to divinely affirm a new union in the church (1 Cor. 12:4-11) and it was also a special gift endowed on specifically chosen individuals (Rom. 12:6).[3] As Paul correctly observes the one who speaks in tongues merely enlightens himself, and it would be better if the person prophesied instead (1 Cor. 14:4-5). Tongues can be useful with proper interpretation (1 Cor. 14:13) however; other gifts are more profitable in edifying the church.

            Baptism of the Holy Spirit is among the most distinguished blessing granted from the Gospel by the indwelling of the Spirit.[4] This concept was first mentioned in the New Testament; John was speaking of the one to come who would baptize “with the Holy Spirit and with Fire” (Matt. 3:11). This baptism could only take place on those who are prepared to fully submit themselves to God. Paul insightfully states that without the Spirit no one can call Jesus Lord (1 Cor. 12:3) and this gives credence to the notion that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is for those fully surrendered to Christ. It should be noted this experience is not a second baptism or blessing, though it may appear this way in Scripture at times (Acts 19:6), however, this instance reflected those who did not follow the correct baptismal formula (Matt. 28:19).

            Some elect to posture the notion that speaking in tongues is a necessary sign of baptism in the Holy Spirit. After examining Scripture this view is shown to be fallacious. Though there are instances when new believers received this gift after being baptized (Acts 8:14-19; 10:44-46; 19:6), there are other instances where this does not follow (Acts 4:31; 8:17; 9:17-18). Moreover, historical passages are not to be used to institute dogma unless they are endorsed by teaching material.[5] While not denying the gift of speaking in tongues, it does not follow that this gift is an absolute affirmation of spirit baptism. In reviewing the different spiritual gifts Paul points that some are given certain gifts while some are given other gifts (1 Cor. 12:7-10). Therefore if some are not given the gift of tongues this does not disqualify their spirit baptism.

            Though there remain other gifts more desirable (1 Cor. 14:5) the gift of speaking in tongues still has validity today. Some have utilized 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 specifically the word “perfect” in verse 10 to substantiate their claim that gifts like tongues, along with others are no longer useful. However, this view goes too far. Perfect, teleios, describes complete labor or growth, and is used in other places to describe things in their wholeness (Matt. 5:48; Jas. 1:17). The description of “perfect” was not the condition of the church then nor is it a reflection of it now. The body of Christ is divided as is evidenced by our many denominations, yet when the time comes for Christ’s return and subsequent gathering us to Him, we will then be teleios (1 Cor. 13:12). Until then, gifts such as tongues should not be dismissed as antiquated.

Bibliography

Osborne, G.R. “Tongues, Speaking In.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd ed., 1206-09. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001.

Thomson, J.G.S.S., and W.A. Elwell. “Spiritual Gifts.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd ed., 1135-38. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001.

White, R.E.O. “Baptism of the Spirit.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd ed., 137-38. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001.

---

[1]             J.G.S.S. Thomson and W.A. Elwell, “Spiritual Gifts.” in Evangelical Dictionary of                        Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1135.

           

[2]             G.R. Osborne, “Tongues, Speaking In.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed.                        Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1209.

[3]             Ibid, 1206.

[4]             R.E.O. White, “Baptism of the Spirit.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 137.

[5]             Osborne, 1207.

Short Essay on Christology

Christology, the doctrine concerned with the nature and person of Christ, has been debated through the centuries and to commence this debate the issue of Christ’s humanity is raised. The Synoptic Gospels clearly point to Jesus’ human qualities such as growing (Lk. 2:52), hunger (Mk. 2:15), distress (Mk. 14:33), and ultimately death (Mk. 15:37). However, the Synoptic Gospels were not the only place where these claims can be found, in other places scripture witnesses explicitly to his true humanity (Gal. 4:4; Heb. 4:15).[1]

The second aspect of Christology should focus on the claims in Scripture for Christ’s deity. Jesus had a proper understanding of his nature and this can be seen in the claims he made as the “I AM” of the Old Testament.[2] Seven times in the Gospel of John he refers to himself as ego eimi; “I am the bread of life” (Jn. 6:35), “I am the good shepherd” (Jn. 10:11), and “I am the resurrection and the life” (Jn. 11:25). These self-claims speak to who Jesus believed himself to be. Furthermore, encapsulated in the application of logos is the claim to pre-existence which should be understood as a claim of deity (Jn. 1:1).  This verse points to Christ, who in the beginning was the agent of God’s creative decree and subsequent creative activity. [3]

With the previous two paragraphs in mind we can tie the two natures together as the Council of Chalcedon (451), officially defined the doctrine of the hypostatic union. [4] This bond of both God and man Scripture will attest most cogently to in the incarnation. Christ was born of the flesh (Jn. 1:14), had family lineage (Rom. 9:5) and yet this same man was attributed with God-like qualities for he knew what was in man (Jn. 2:24-25), a clear representation of omniscience. Paul gives credence to the deity of Christ when he ascribes omnipotence to him in the act of creation (1:16). When the whole of Scripture is tied together the union is revealed. Calvin believed when Christ became flesh he did not suspend nor alter his conventional commission of upholding the universe a declaration of Christ being both fully God and fully man.[5] 

For Christ to exist in such a union he would have to have a proper self-knowledge of his nature. He would have to claim deity and act upon it as judge (Rev. 20:11-12), savior (Jn. 3:16) and creator (Jn. 1:3). He would have to embrace his humiliation in full by experiencing emotion (Jn. 11:35), hunger (Mk. 2:15) and ultimately the finality of the flesh (Mt. 27:50). When taken together Jesus could fully relate to man in the flesh because he lived as one and he could properly relate to the Father and the rest of the Godhead because he was of the same essence as them.

In Christ’s incarnation he took on the form of humanity in order that he save humanity from its fallen condition. Because the essence of God is an immaterial being (Jn 4:24), he could not be the propitiation for human sin because an immaterial being cannot bleed. Blood was the requirement to atone for the sins of man (Lev.16:15). Thus, the only way was to offer a sacrifice that was without blemish to atone properly for humankind. Yet an animal cannot fully cover the sins of men, it would take a perfect man, still more, it would take a perfect God-man.[6] Christ Jesus was that perfect God-man atonement (1 Pet. 1:18-19).

When overemphasis on one of Christ’s nature is given over the other heresies can arise. These heresies can give rise to a misconception or a complete disregard for the humanity and subsequent incarnation of Christ as is seen with Apollinarian Christology.[7] After Tertullian unerringly identified the Father and Son were of “one substance”[8] debate arose as to how this might be. Arius denied Christ as having a human soul and the Council of Nicea (325) condemned him.[9] To defeat this heresy it should be pointed out that if Christ did not have a soul and possess the full human qualities then he could not be the acceptable placation for sin. Nestorianism arose after the Nicene Council alleging that Christ two natures existed side by side and thus denying the popular view of Christ. Much as the same above, if you separate the two natures, then man could not be the adequate source of atonement, it takes God to satisfy this penalty (Heb. 7:26).

The humanity of Christ enriches my life by giving it a source of example and study on how to conduct life with a focus on holiness. Walking victorious because of the sacrifice helps me understand that true relationship and friendship rests in my desire to lay it all down for those I love. (Jn. 15:13)

Bibliography

Blaising, C. “Hypostatic Union.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd ed., 583-84. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001.

Towns, Elmer. Theology for Today Mason, OH: Thomson Custom Solutions Center, 2001.

Wallace, R.S., and G.L. Green. “Christology, New Testament Christology.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd ed., 239-45. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001.

---

[1] R.S. Wallace and G.L. Green, “Christology, New Testament Christology.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 239.

[2] Elmer L. Towns, Theology for Today (Mason: Thomson Custom Solutions Center, 2001), 160-161.

[3] Wallace and Green, 241.

[4] C. Blaising, “Hypostatic Union.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 583.

[5] Wallace and Green, 243.

[6] Wallace and Green, 242.

[7] Ibid, 242.

[8] Ibid, 241.

[9] Ibid, 242.