We are looking at what is God? Not who is God? or what has God done? We are looking at what his essential nature must be in order to qualify for the title.

One thing I am going to do throughout this series is something that many of you might be very uncomfortable with. You should not be, but you might. However, if you have studied the history of Christian doctrine and are, like me, standing on the shoulders of giants, you will have no problem with what I am advocating necessitating for this study. I believe that we must look to nature and philosophy in order to understand the nature of God. This means that I believe that extra-biblical information is required, yea demanded, by God himself.

My reasoning is simple. There are certain things that the Bible assumes. In other words, there is an information base that God requires before we can handle the Scriptures and biblical doctrine with integrity. These things are areas that are presupposed. For example, the Bible does not teach anyone how to read. It simply assumes such an ability. The Bible does not define its words. It assumes a knowledge base that is equipped to handle the vocabulary. Epistemologically (the justification of knowing), the Bible does not argue for the the law of non contradiction (i.e. that A cannot equal non-A at the same time and in the same relationship) or that propositions have meaning. It simply assumes that you know that. Theologically, the Bible does not make a case for God’s existence, it simply assumes that there is a sufficient base from which to make such a conclusion. There are other things as well, but these examples should suffice for you to understand and follow. (I hope!)

When it comes to making a case, such as I am going to make, about the “what” or “stuff” of God, I am going to be drawing as much from natural theology as I am from biblical theology—and for this I make no apologies. Natural theology is the theology that comes through nature or general revelation. It is a theology that is rationally based and relies much on philosophical deduction.

Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

The Credo House of Theology is well on the way. Get the latest updates here.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

In this series of posts I am going to write about God. “Wow! That is revolutionary for a theology blog: thanks for being so specific, Michael!” Slow down, you are already wearing me out. We are going to talk about God, but I want to focus on something that I believe is the most neglected aspect of theology proper (the formal doctrine of God) in the church today. This is a serious charge, but I don’t think I am overstating it. We will see . . .

I don’t want to deal with who is God; neither do I want to deal with what God has done. Here, I am going to focus on the “what” of God. What is God? In other words, what, essentially, makes God, God. What characteristics must a being have to be called “God”? Personality? Goodness? Activity in our lives? Power? Grace? Or could God lack these things and still be God in the proper sense? What does God have to be to be God?

This might sound rather unspiritual and beyond our ability when dealing with the ineffable (that which is incapable of being expressed), yet I contend that it is essential and should be among the prolegomena (”first words”) in the study of theology proper. What I mean by this is that if you don’t get this right, all other questions about God will suffer to a great degree. This will in turn affect your view of everything, from Christ to morality, from inspiration to eschatology, and much more.

(Stay with me . . . I will explain as we move forward. One step at a time.)

By the time this study is finished, I believe that we will have discovered that many of our understandings and concepts about God do not really qualify for the title. In other words, some people’s views of God lack essential qualifying properties for God to bear the name “God.” This is prevalent among Christian cults and other world religions.

However, I must preface these strong propositions with a confession: I don’t believe a person must have a perfect concept of God to be in a true relationship with him. This is a matter of discipleship, essential as it may be.

In short, I will be arguing for what is called “Classical Theism,” something that has been under heavy attack the last couple of decades. As usual, I will try to help you understand why those who are straying from the classical theistic tradition are doing so and why I believe they have taken a wrong turn. I will also join them in the challenge of classical theism at one point, so be ready. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Believing in the sovereignty of God is not an option of yes, no, or maybe within the Christian context. If the Bible is our authoritative guide, one must believe that God is sovereign. It is not unlike the issue of predestination. That God predestines people to salvation is not up for debate, what is up for debate is what it means that God predestines.

Both Calvinists and Arminians agree that God is sovereign, but they will often disagree as to what this means.

Here are the four primary options:

1. Meticulous sovereignty: God is the instrumental cause behind every action and reaction there has ever been. In other words, you chose white socks instead of the black socks because God caused it to happen. You have an itch on your eyebrow right now because God is actively causing it. In other words, every molecule that bounces into another is a result of God active agency in being the first and instrumental cause to the action.

This position holds little or no tension with regards to the human will and the divine will.

God is actively controlling everything.

Adherents: Hyper-Calvinists and some Calvinists

2. Providential sovereignty: While God is bringing about his will in everything (Eph 1:11), his will is not the instrumental cause of all that happens. God’s will plays a providential role in “causing” all things. In other words, all that happens happens because God did in some sense will it, but secondary causes are usually the instrumental cause behind the action. In the case of your socks, you chose them because you decided to, but it was also part of God’s will. God allows evil as it is part of his imperfect will to bring about a perfect end, but he is not the instrumental cause of evil. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

1. Cosmological Argument: Also called the argument from universal causation or the argument from contingency, the cosmological argument is probably the most well know and well loved among theistic apologists. The basic argument is that all effects have an efficient cause. The universe and all that is in it, due to its contingent (dependent) nature, is an effect. Therefore, the universe has an cause. But that  cause cannot be an effect or one would have to explain its cause. Therefore, there must be an ultimate cause, an unmoved mover, an uncaused cause that began the process. This cause must transcend time and space in order to transcend the law of cause and effect. This transcendent entity must be personal in order to willfully cause the effect. This ultimate cause is God.

2. Teleological Argument: (Gr. telos, “end” or “purpose”) This is also know as the argument from design. This argument moves from complexity to a necessary explanatory cause for such complexity. The universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. From the complexities of the human eye to the order and arrangement of the cosmology, the voice of God is heard. Therefore, God’s existence is the best explanation for such design. God is the undesigned designer.

3. Moral Argument: This argument argues from the reality of moral laws to the existence of a necessary moral law giver. The idea here is that if there are moral laws (murder is wrong, selfishness is wrong, self-sacrifice is noble, torturing innocent babies for fun is evil), then there must be a transcendent explanation and justification for such laws. Otherwise, they are merely conventions that are not morally binding on anyone. Since there are moral laws, then there must be a moral law giver who transcends space and time. This moral law giver is God. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Was it God’s will for Barack Obama to become the president?

I tell all. Don’t miss this . . .

Send post as PDF to

 

 TUP - God's View of President Barack Obama - Part 2 [24:35m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Was it God’s will for Obama to win the election?

Enjoy . . .

Send post as PDF to

 

 God's View of President Barack Obama - Part 1 [23:53m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

This is the first post in an occasional series that will appear on this blog, dealing with frequently asked questions (FAQ) about the doctrine of the Trinity. This series will not be providing an overview of the biblical teaching concerning the Trinity. For such an overview, please see my outline study on the Trinity, which cites about a thousand pertinent biblical references. If you have a question on the Trinity not addressed in that outline study and that you would like to see answered here, please email us with your question, and we will consider it for inclusion here. You can find our email address by visiting our ministry’s home page and clicking on “Email” in the upper right corner.

The first question I will address is perhaps one of the most popular objections to the doctrine, even though it does not address the positive evidence for the Trinity in Scripture. Here it is: If belief in the Trinity is essential for salvation, why is the doctrine not clearly or plainly set out, in so many words, in the Bible? Why does the Bible never say “God is a Trinity” or “There are three persons in the one God,” or something equally explicit as an affirmation of the doctrine? And if no such statement is there in the Bible, how can belief in the doctrine be essential for salvation?

The short answer is that it is not quite accurate to say that belief in the doctrine of the Trinity is essential for salvation. Doctrinal accuracy on any theological subject is in any case at most a litmus test or barometer of the genuineness of a person’s salvation, not a prerequisite for receiving the gift of salvation. There is no theology exam on which a person needs a passing score before God will accept that person’s trust in him for salvation. We are saved by God’s grace through faith, that is, through our trust and reliance on God’s gift of salvation in Christ (Rom. 3:21-26; Eph. 2:8-10; Tit. 3:5-8). On the other hand, deviation from the basics of sound Christian doctrine can be evidence that a person is either immature in faith (see Acts 18:25-26) or has not genuinely come into a saving faith relationship with Christ (Rom. 16:17-18). Resistance to doctrinal correction would generally be a tip-off that the latter problem is the case. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Believing in the sovereignty of God is not an option of yes, no, or maybe within the Christian context. If the Bible is our authoritative guide, one must believe that God is sovereign. It is not unlike the issue of predestination. That God predestines people to salvation is not up for debate, what is up for debate is what it means that God predestines.

Both Calvinists and Arminians agree that God is sovereign, but they will often disagree as to what this means.

Here are the four primary options:

1. Meticulous sovereignty: God is the instrumental cause behind every action and reaction there has ever been. In other words, you chose white socks instead of the black socks because God caused it to happen. You have an itch on your eyebrow right now because God is actively causing it. In other words, every molecule that bounces into another is a result of God active agency in being the first and instrumental cause to the action.

This position holds little or no tension with regards to the human will and the divine will.

God is actively controlling everything.

Adherents: Hyper-Calvinists and some Calvinists

2. Providential sovereignty: While God is bringing about his will in everything (Eph 1:11), his will is not the instrumental cause of all that happens. God’s will plays a providential role in “causing” all things. In other words, all that happens happens because God did in some sense will it, but secondary causes are usually the instrumental cause behind the action. In the case of your socks, you chose them because you decided to, but it was also part of God’s will. God allows evil as it is part of his imperfect will to bring about a perfect end, but he is not the instrumental cause of evil.

This position holds much tension with regards to human will and divine will.

God is in control of everything.

Adherents: Calvinists and some Arminians

3. Providential oversight: Here God’s sovereignty is more of an oversight. He has a general plan, but is not married to the details. When necessary, God will intervene in the affairs of humanity to bring about his purpose, but this does not necessarily involve an intimate engagement with all that happens. God does not care what color socks you pick unless it somehow effects his meta plan.

This position holds much tension with regards to human will and divine will.

God could control everything, but only controls some things.

Adherents: Arminians and some Calvinists

4. Influential oversight: Here God’s sovereignty is self-limited. God could control things, but to preserve human freedom, he will not intervene in the affairs of men to the degree that the human will is decisively bent in one direction or another. He is hopeful that his influence will be persuasive to change a person’s heart or to guide them to his will, but is not sure if this will happen. Being all-wise, however, God will make strategic moves in people’s lives that will manipulate the situation to his advantage.

This position holds little or no tension with regards to the human will and the divine will.

God could control everything, but decides only to influence.

Adherents: Open Theist Arminians and some Arminians

Here are some charts that might help.

This first one is God’s relationship to evil. Please note: the definitions below are that of emphasis, not necessarily exclusivity—there will be overlap with some of the concepts.

I write this for many reason:

1. To give the spectrum of belief with regard to the issue of divine sovereignty.

2. To clear up some misconceptions about both Calvinists and Arminians. Most Arminians see Calvinists as only associated with number 1 (meticulous sovereignty). As well, most Calvinists see Arminians as associated necessarily with number 4 (influential sovereignty). To do this is to construct many possible straw-men representations.

Notice, according to my argument, an Arminian holding to number 2 can actually hold to a stronger view of divine sovereignty than a Calvinist holding to number 3 (although this is not typical). If that does not confuse your categories, I don’t know what will!

3. To create some new charts!

Where do you stand?

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

In Part I of this series, I summarized three theologically distinct interpretations of John 10:30: that Jesus and the Father are one in person (the usual Oneness Pentecostal view), that they are one in power (the usual Trinitarian view), and that they are one in purpose (a view held by many anti-Trinitarians). I then critiqued the one in person view. In this post, I will present arguments in favor of the Trinitarian view that Jesus is claiming to be one in divine power indeed, one God with the Father.

I have summarized the contextual evidence in Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ (Kregel, 2007), authored with Ed Komoszewski:

In context, Jesus has just claimed to do his works in the name of the Father (v. 25), to be the Shepherd of the sheep (v. 26), to give eternal life to them (v. 27), and to prevent anyone from snatching them out of his hand, just as the Father does (vv. 28-29; cf. Deut. 32:39). He then concludes that in asserting these divine prerogatives, he is claiming, I and the Father are one (John 10:30) (p. 239).

It might help if I elaborate a bit on the argument here. First of all, in the immediate context of John 10:30, Jesus appropriates to himself a divine title (Shepherd ), claims to perform a divine work (namely, giving eternal life), and asserts that he has divine ability to prevent any hostile force from turning any of his people against him. In this short passage, we see three of the five kinds of evidence for the deity of Christ that Ed and I present in our book: the attributes, names, and deeds of God that Jesus shares. (That Jesus receives honors due to God is implicit in Jesus’ description of the sheep as those who believe and follow him, though this may not be as clear as the other elements.) It is the convergence or synergy of these elements applying to Jesus Christ in the same close context that makes such a strong case for regarding this passage as speaking of him as God. For example, although the title shepherd can apply to all sorts of creatures without implying any divinity (literal shepherds, of course, but also Israelite kings and other leaders), its use in this context of attributing to Jesus divine power and divine works carries it outside these more mundane categories of connotation.

What clinches the argument is the fact that Jesus makes these claims using language that clearly takes the words of YHWH, the LORD God, in the Old Testament, and applies them to himself:

"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand" (Deut. 32:39 ESV).

"I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand" (John 10:28-29 ESV).

YHWH says, "make alive"; Jesus says, "I give eternal life." YHWH says, "and there is none that can deliver out of my hand" ; Jesus says, "and no one will snatch them out of my hand . . . and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand." The Hebrew word massil can be translated either "snatch" or "deliver" ; in Deuteronomy 32:39, where YHWH emphasizes that he kills as well as makes alive, the word actually has both meanings. No one can snatch out of God’s hand those whom he chooses to make alive, and no one can deliver out of God’s hand those whom he chooses to kill. In John 10:28-29, Jesus is focusing strictly on his divine power to give life, and so John quotes him using the Greek word harpazein, "to snatch." Thus, a close analysis of the two texts makes it clear that John 10:28-29 uses the wording of Deuteronomy 32:39 to express the claim that Jesus does what God does in preserving those whom he gives eternal life.

A standard strategy used by anti-Trinitarians to escape the force of passages like this one is to claim that it indicates merely that God is able to delegate responsibilities to his trusted, created agent. However, the allusion to Deuteronomy 32:39 precludes this explanation. The whole point of Deuteronomy 32:39 is that YHWH alone is able to kill and give life as he chooses; it is he alone from whose hand no one is able to snatch or deliver. "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me." This is an explicit affirmation of monotheism, a rejection of the notion that there is any divine being that can do what YHWH alone does. Indeed, this statement in Deuteronomy 32:39 is one of the most explicit and emphatic assertions of monotheism in the entire Pentateuch (see also Deut. 4:35, 39).

Now Jesus’ statement, "The Father and I are one," comes into a shocking new focus. In verses 28-29 Jesus has just taken one of the most explicitly monotheistic statements from Deuteronomy and applied it to himself, including himself with the Father in its affirmation. Now, in verse 30, Jesus asserts, "I and the Father are one." In light of what Jesus has just said, it is evident that he is here including himself with the Father in another Deuteronomic affirmation of monotheism, the famous Shema: "Hear, O Israel, YHWH is our God, YHWH is one"(Deut. 6:4). As I pointed out in Part I, John quotes Jesus’ statement using the neuter form hen instead of the masculine form heis (which is the form used in the Septuagint translation of Deuteronomy 6:4). In doing so, John wards off the possible misunderstanding that Jesus is claiming to be the same person as the Father. Yet the allusion to the Shema remains: Jesus has just claimed divine status in a deliberate allusion to one of the explicitly monotheistic statements of Deuteronomy, and in this context his assertion that he and the Father are one is clearly another claim that he is to be included in the identity of the God of Jewish monotheism.

Let me review. In John 10:25-30, Jesus claims at once a divine name or title (Shepherd), a divine prerogative or deed (to give eternal life as he chooses), and the divine attribute of the sovereign power to prevent anyone from snatching his people out of his hand. Jesus makes these claims using language taken from one of the most explicitly monotheistic texts of Deuteronomy. His claim to be one with the Father must be understood in this context as a claim to have the same divine name, perform the same divine deed, and possess the same divine power, as God himself. It is a claim that Jesus, the Son, is to be included in the identity of the one Lord God of Israel, while maintaining a personal distinction between himself and the Father.

In the remainder of this series, I will examine objections to this argument, specifically those objections that supposedly establish that Jesus is only claiming to be "one in purpose" with the Father.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

You may be surprised to know that my series of blogs this week was inspired by Roger Olson, a man I respect very deeply. Although I don’t agree with him on many theological issues concerning salvation and theology proper, his scholarship, winsome writing style, and clarity about the importance of understanding theology irenically and historically have deeply impacted my thought and general approach to theological issues. Olson is a professor of theology at Truitt Theological Seminary. I use his textbook Mosaic of Christian Belief in The Theology Program. We had him as a guest on Converse with Scholars just a few months ago to discuss his book on Arminian theology. The primary reason why I appreciate Olson is because he often represents balance and calmness in theological issues. If you are in my profession, these traits are hard to find.

This is why I was surprised to read his response to John Piper about Minnesota bridge collapse. I did not find the Olson that I have come to know and love. Their was hardly an irenic word on the page. It was as if he had never heard of Calvinism’s belief in the sovereignty of God. His comments were defensive and very emotionally charged. Granted, he is an Arminian who does not agree with the tendencies in Calvinism to see God as one who is in charge of all things, even the most atrocious events of evil. This is understandable. While I disagree with Olson on this issue, it is not this disagreement that encouraged me to write the “Do ____ _____ and I have the Same God?” series. It was Olson’s implication that the God of Calvinism (my God) and the God of Arminianism (his God) might be different. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I am sure that most of you are not quite as familiar with Clark Pinnock as you are with Joel Osteen. Seeing as how the conversation concerning the possible distinction between Osteen’s God and my God was quite popular and produced some good reflection, I thought that I would take it to the next level and ask the same question about Clark Pinnock. Do Clark Pinnock and I worship the same God?

Clark Pinnock is an advocate of what has popularly become known as “Open Theism” (sometimes “Neotheism” or “free-will theism”). Open theism is a theological system which surfaced within evangelicalism in the mid-nineties. Essentially, it reinterprets the nature of God. Where in Classical Theism God is eternal and unchanging, in Open Theism God is bound by time and can change. Being timebound limits His knowledge according to Open Theists. Yes, God remains omniscient (all-knowing), but only in the sense that He knows only that which can be known. The future cannot be known, therefore God does not know the future. Hense the future is “open” to God. It is not settled. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

What a presumptuous question, right? The presumption is in the fact that I would even pose such a question. The question itself presumes that I might answer in the negative. What is wrong with you Michael? Why take off your irenic t-shirt with the quote from Rodney King on the back? Why do you now shod the polemic boots of battle? What would possess you to ask such a question?

Calm down. It is just a question. But your are right. The presumption behind the question does evidence my uncertainty as to its answer. I was listening to Osteen last night. He was very pleasant and had a lot of nice things to say. For the most part, except for his interjections of the word ”God” here and there, his speech was a typical motivational speech. He did not use the Bible, but he attempted to give the impression that he was. He held it in his hand the entire time. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Fred Sanders and Klaus Issler have recently edited an important book on the relationship of Jesus to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Introductory Christology will be an outstanding follow-up volume for those of you who study the evidence for the deity of Christ that Rob Bowman and I have amassed in Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ. Once you’ve got a solid grasp on the fact of Jesus’ divine identity, you’ll want to spend some time wrestling with how that fact fits into a larger Trinitarian framework. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Dear Atheist,

Having discussed this with you for quite some time, it would seem that we have come to an impasse in our conclusions concerning the evidence that the universe provides. I, on one hand, have argued that the intricacies of the universe from cosmology and biology compel any honest observer to the conclusion that there is a self-existent, all-powerful, intelligent, and personal force behind its genesis. This creator must be self-existent, otherwise we enter into the irrational proposition of infinite regress. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I understand the importance that the modern church is placing upon the mystery of God and His truth. I realize that the church has fought so many battles on the island of modernism that it began to embrace the methodology, ethos, and assumptions that made modernism dangerous and antithetical in many ways to the Christian worldview. Apophatic theology (theology that emphasizes mystery) has gained a well deserved and needed place within our “emerging” system of theological development. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I recieved this very good question from a student today and thought I would share:

The Christian faith goes beyond reason but never contradictory to reason…or rationality.The Question: 

Michael, I am viewing the courses online . . .  and I hear you say this in defense of the need or validity of reason as a source for truth: The Christian faith goes beyond reason but never contradictory to reason (or rationality). Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Here is a great post from my friend Bob Practico at Sojourn Huntsville Church. I love #10 (in an irenic sort of way ) Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Well, since I said I would write a blog on this in a previous blog, I think it is time, seeing as how there might be some possible misunderstandings that have arisen.

There is a popular notion in the evangelical world today that I think has become part of our folklore and can very easily misrepresent the character of God by attributing to Him motivations for creation that I do not believe are true. Some would say that God’s purpose, intent, and motivation for creating humanity and all of creation was for His own self-glorification. I think that this is a difficult position to sustain biblically and theologically. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

This is a question that I have often struggled with. It can hardly be denied that Christians can have beliefs that are wrong such as false views about the interpretation of certain passages of Scripture, the age of the earth, and end times (hey, someone has to be wrong). It is also true that Christians can have misunderstandings about more important doctrines such as the nature of the Trinity (ignorant modalism), the grace of God (legalism), and the will of God for your life (health-wealth Gospel). Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!