• Summary
  • 1. Arguments for God’s existence
• S1: FOUNDATIONS OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
  • 1. Christian Doctrine
  • 2. Apologetics
• S2: DOCTRINE OF REVELATION
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Revelation and salvation
  • 3. Natural theology \& Special revelation
  • 4. Inspiration of Scripture
  • 5. Properties of Inspiration
  • 6. Confluence of Scripture
  • 7. Inerrancy
  • 8. Difficulties
  • 9. Responding to Difficulties
  • 10. Canonicity
• S3: DOCTRINE OF GOD: ATTRIBUTES OF GOD
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Divine Aseity
  • 3. Platonism
  • 4. Anti-Realism Views
  • 5. God’s Eternity
  • 6. God’s Relationship to Time
  • 7. Practical Application of God’s Eternity
  • 8. God’s Omnipresence
  • 9. God’s Immutability
  • 10. God’s Immutability and Incorporeality
  • 11. Anthropomorphic Language and Theophanies
  • 12. Practical Application of God’s Incorporeality - God’s Omniscience
  • 13. Systematic Study of God’s Omniscience
  • 14. Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom
  • 15. God’s Middle Knowledge
  • 16. Application of Divine Omniscience / God’s Omnipotence
  • 17. Practical Application of Divine Omnipotence
  • 18. God’s Holiness
  • 19. Application of God’s Holiness
  • 20. God’s Love
  • 21. Application of God’s Love
• S4: EXCURSUS ON NATURAL THEOLOGY
  • 1. Belief In God As Properly Basic
  • 2. The Inner Witness of the Holy Spirit
  • 3. The Role of Arguments and Evidence
  • 4. Defeaters of Properly Basic Beliefs
  • 5. The Argument from Contingency
  • 6. The Argument from Contingency Part 2
  • 7. The Argument from Contingency Part 3
  • 8. The Kalam Cosmological Argument
  • 9. 1st Philosophical Argument for the Beginning of the Universe
  • 10. 2nd Philosophical Argument for the Beginning of the Universe
  • 11. Scientific Confirmation of the Beginning of the Universe
  • 12. Scientific Confirmation of the Beginning of the Universe Part 2
  • 13. 2nd Scientific Confirmation of the Beginning of the Universe
  • 14. The Teleological Argument
  • 15. The Teleological Argument Part 2
  • 16. The Teleological Argument Part 3
  • 17. The Teleological Argument Part 4
  • 18. The Moral Argument
  • 19. Questions About the Moral Argument
  • 20. The Moral Argument Part 3
  • 21. The Moral Argument Part 4
  • 22. The Moral Argument Part 5
  • 23. The Ontological Argument
  • 24. The Ontological Argument Part 2
  • 25. Q\&A on the Ontological Argument
  • 26. The Ontological Argument
  • 27. Arguments Against God’s Existence
  • 28. The Presumption of Atheism
  • 29. The Hiddenness of God
  • 30. The Problem of Evil and Suffering (1)
  • 31. The Problem of Evil and Suffering (2)
  • 32. The Problem of Evil and Suffering (3)
  • 33. The Problem of Evil and Suffering (4)
  • 34. The Emotional Version of the Problem of Evil
• S5: DOCTRINE OF GOD: TRINITY
  • 1. There Is One God
  • 2. Three Distinct Persons in the Godhead
  • 3. The Deity of Christ
  • 4. The Holy Spirit
  • 5. The Historical Survey
  • 6. Historical Survey (2) - Modalism
  • 7. Historical Survey (3) - Arianism
  • 8. Historical Survey (4) - Coherence of the Doctrine
  • 9. Three Divine Persons, One God
  • 10. The Relationship Between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
  • 11. A Plausibility Argument for the Trinity
• S6: DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
  • 1. Third Person of the Trinity
  • 2. Ministries of the Holy Spirit
  • 3. The Holy Spirit In the Old Covenant
  • 4. The Holy Spirit In the New Covenant
  • 5. The Baptism In the Holy Spirit
  • 6. The Filling of the Holy Spirit
• S7: DOCTRINE OF CHRIST
  • 1. The Incarnation
  • 2. The Incarnation (2)
  • 3. The Incarnation (3)
  • 4. The Incarnation (4)
  • 5. The Incarnation (5)
  • 6. The Incarnation (6)
  • 7. The Incarnation (7)
  • 8. The Work of Christ (1) - Christ’s Death and Atonement
  • 9. The Work of Christ (2) - Propitiatory Sacrifices
  • 10. The Work of Christ (3) - Christ as Sacrifice
  • 11. The Work of Christ (4) - Divine Justice
  • 12. The Work of Christ (5) - Divine Justice (2)
  • 13. The Work of Christ (6) - Redemption
  • 14. The Work of Christ (7) - The Ransom Theory
  • 15. The Work of Christ (8) - Satisfaction Theory
  • 16. The Work of Christ (9) - Moral Influence Theory
  • 17. The Work of Christ (10) - Penal Substitution Theory
  • 18. The Work of Christ (11) - Atonement, Doctrinal Reflection
  • 19. The Work of Christ (12) - Atonement, Doctrinal Reflection Continued
  • 20. The Work of Christ (13) - Atonement, Doctrinal Reflection Continued
  • 21. The Work of Christ (14) - Atonement, Doctrinal Reflection Continued
  • 22. The Work of Christ (15) - Atonement, Satisfaction of Divine Justice
  • 23. The Work of Christ (16) - Atonement, Satisfaction of Divine Justice
  • 24. The Work of Christ (17) - Atonement, Redemption
  • 25. The Work of Christ (18) - The Resurrection
  • 26. The Work of Christ (19) - The Resurrection Continued
  • 27. The Work of Christ (20) - The Resurrection Continued
  • 28. The Work of Christ (21) - The Resurrection Continued
  • 29. The Work of Christ (22) - The Resurrection Continued
  • 30. The Work of Christ (23) - The Resurrection Continued
  • 31. The Work of Christ (24) - The Post-Mortem Appearances
  • 32. The Work of Christ (25) - The Post-Mortem Appearances
  • 33. The Work of Christ (26) - Resurrection Theories
  • 34. The Work of Christ (27) - Resurrection Theories
  • 35. The Work of Christ (28) - Resurrection Theories
  • 36. The Work of Christ (29) - Facts of the Resurrection
  • 37. The Work of Christ (30) - Facts of the Resurrection
  • 38. The Work of Christ (31) - Facts of the Resurrection
  • 39. The Work of Christ (32) - Facts of the Resurrection
  • 40. The Work of Christ (33) - Facts of the Resurrection
  • 41. The Work of Christ (34) - Facts of the Resurrection
  • 42. The Work of Christ (35) - Resurrection Hypotheses
  • 43. The Work of Christ (36) - Resurrection Hypotheses
  • 44. The Work of Christ (37) - Resurrection Hypotheses
  • 45. The Work of Christ (38) - The Resurrection Hypothesis
  • 46. The Work of Christ (39) - The Resurrection Conclusion
  • 47. The Work of Christ (40) - Christian Particularism
  • 48. The Work of Christ (41) - Christian Particularism
  • 49. The Work of Christ (42) - Christian Particularism
  • 50. The Work of Christ (43) - Christian Particularism
  • 51. The Work of Christ (44) - Christian Particularism, Conclusion
• S8: DOCTRINE OF CREATION
  • 1. Creatio Ex Nihilo
  • 2. Does Genesis 1 Teach Creatio Ex Nihilo?
  • 3. Creatio ex Nihilo in the New Testament
  • 4. The Notion of “Bringing Something Into Being”
  • 5. Arguments for creatio ex nihilo
  • 6. Objections to creatio ex nihilo
  • 7. More Objections to creatio ex nihilo
  • 8. Continuing Conservation
  • 9. Divine Concurrence
  • 10. Different Views of Divine Providence
  • 11. A Critical Assessment of Three Views of Divine Providence
  • 12. Arminian And Molinist Accounts of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom
  • 13. The Collapse of the Belief in Miracles
  • 14. Arguments Against Miracles
  • 15. The Definition of “Miracle”
  • 16. Rebutting Spinoza’s Objections to Miracles
  • 17. Hume’s Abject Failure
  • 18. Determining the Intrinsic Probability of the Resurrection
  • 19. Angels and Demons
  • 20. The Work of Angels
  • 21. The Names of Satan
  • 22. The Origin of Satan
  • 23. The Nature of Demons
  • 24. The Work of Demons
• S9: EXCURSUS ON CREATION OF LIFE AND BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
  • 1. Hermeneutical Principles and Concordism
  • 2. The Literal Interpretation
  • 3. A Critique of the Literal Interpretation
  • 4. The Gap and Day-Gap Interpretations
  • 5. The Day-Age Interpretation
  • 6. The Days of Divine Proclamation Interpretation
  • 7. The Literary Framework and the Functional Creation Interpretations
  • 8. A Critique of John Walton’s Functional Creation Interpretation
  • 9. A Critique of John Walton’s Functional Creation Interpretation, Part 2
  • 10. The Monotheistic Hebrew Myth Interpretation
  • 11. An Assessment of the Monotheistic Hebrew Myth Interpretation
  • 12. Examining the Supposed Parallels Between Genesis and Egyptian Myths
  • 13. Did Genesis Borrow From Babylonian Myths?
  • 14. Etiological Motifs in Genesis 2
  • 15. Genealogies in Genesis 1-11
  • 16. Genealogies in Genesis 1-11 (continued)
  • 17. The Genre of Mytho-History
  • 18. Is the Biblical Primeval History To Be Understood as Literally True?
  • 19. The Plasticity and Flexibility of ANE Myths
  • 20. Why Think Genesis 1-11 is Mytho-History?
  • 21. Why Read Genesis 1-3 Figuratively?
  • 22. The Central Truths Expressed in Genesis 1-11
  • 23. Adam in the New Testament
  • 24. New Testament Authors’ Use of the Literary Adam
  • 25. Paul’s Use of Adam in 1 Corinthians 15
  • 26. Paul’s Use of Adam in Romans 5
  • 27. Scientific Evidence Pertinent to the Origin and Evolution of Biological Complexity
  • 28. Is Genesis 1 in Conflict With the Theory of Evolution?
  • 29. Methodological Naturalism
  • 30. Three Aspects of the Evolutionary Paradigm
  • 31. Examining the Thesis of Common Ancestry
  • 32. Evidence for the Neo-Darwinian Mechanisms
  • 33. Inadequacies of the Neo-Darwinian Mechanisms
  • 34. Progressive Creationism – Integrating the Scientific Evidence with the Genesis Narrative
• S10. Doctrine of Man
  • 1. Different Approaches to Anthropology
  • 2. Biblical Data Concerning Man as the Image of God
  • 3. Systematizing the Biblical Data
  • 4. Evaluating Construals of the Image of God
  • 5. Man as a Personal Being
  • 6. The Nature of Man – Biblical Data
  • 7. Paul’s Use of the Anthropological Terms Sarx and Psuche
  • 8. Systematizing the Biblical Data Concerning the Nature of Man
  • 9. Refuting Materialism / Monism
  • 10. Refuting Reductive and Non-Reductive Physicalism
  • 11. A Challenge to Dualism-Interactionism – The Libet Experiments
  • 12. The Origin of the Soul
  • 13. The Question of the Historicity of Adam and Eve
  • 14. When Did Adam Live?
  • 15. Were Neanderthals Humans?
  • 16. Locating the Historical Adam
  • 17. Genetic Challenges to Adam and Eve
  • 18. Putting It All Together
  • 19. Man as Sinner
  • 20. The Fall of Man and the Nature of Sin
  • 21. Evaluating the Nature of Sin
  • 22. Original Sin
  • 23. Original Sin: Semi-Pelagianism, Reformation, Enlightenment, Modern Era
  • 24. Evaluating the Doctrine of Original Sin
  • 25. A Continued Evaluation of Original Sin
  • 26. Freedom of the Will
  • 27. The Catholic View of Freedom of the Will
  • 28. Freedom of the Will and Romans 10
• S11. Doctrine of Salvation
  • 1. The Doctrine of Election
  • 2. Election and Calvinism Continued
  • 3. Regeneration and Arminianism
  • 4. Arminianism Continued
  • 5. Evaluation of Calvinism and Arminianism
  • 6. The Mystical Union of the Believer with Christ
  • 7. The Mystical Union with Christ - Continued
  • 8. Metaphors for Mystical Union
  • 9. Application of Mystical Union to Our Lives
  • 10. Regeneration / New Birth
  • 11. How Regeneration Occurs
  • 12. Different Views of Justification
  • 13. Assessment of Competing Views of Justification
  • 14. The New Perspective on Paul
  • 15. New Perspective on Paul Continued
  • 16. Imputed Righteousness
  • 17. The Grounds, Means, and Results of Justification
  • 18. Perseverance of the Saints - Calvinism
  • 19. Perseverance of the Saints - Arminianism
  • 20. Warnings Against Apostasy
  • 21. Assessment of the Competing Views on Perseverance
• S12. Doctrine of the Church
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Baptism
  • 3. Baptism as a Sacrament
  • 4. Baptism as an Ordinance
  • 5. Baptism as an Ordinance - Continued
  • 6. Infant Baptism
  • 7. Believer’s Baptism
  • 8. The Lord’s Supper
  • 9. Transubstantiation
  • 10. The Lord’s Supper - Roman Catholic Interpretation cont’d
  • 11. Consubstantiation and Other Views
  • 12. Assessment of Competing Views on the Lord’s Supper
• S13. Doctrine of the Last Things
  • 1. The Second Coming of Christ
  • 2. The Rapture Interpretation
  • 3. The Rapture Interpretation Continued
  • 4. The Rapture Interpretation Concluded
  • 5. The Preterist Interpretation
  • 6. The Preterist Interpretation Continued
  • 7. The Nature of the Second Coming
  • 8. The Purpose of the Second Coming
  • 9. The Time of the Second Coming
  • 10. Delay of the Parousia
  • 11. Delay of the Parousia Continued
  • 12. Parables of the Delay of the Parousia
  • 13. Final Thoughts on the Time of the Second Coming
  • 14. Practical Application of the Second Coming of Christ
  • 15. The Millenium
  • 16. Postmillennialism \& Premillennialism
  • 17. State of the Soul after Death
  • 18. State of the Soul after Death: Jesus’ Argument with the Sadducees
  • 19. Immortality in the New Testament
  • 20. The Souls of the Unrighteous Dead
• S14. Final Thoughts
  • 1. The Purpose of Defenders
  • 2. The Diligence of a Disciple

Summary

1. Arguments for God’s existence

1. Leibnizian argument from contingency
   1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence. This explanation might either be a necessity of its own nature (in which case it is a metaphysically necessary being) or in some external cause.
   2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
   3. The universe is an existing thing.
   4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is God who is a being that exists by a necessity of his own nature.
2. Kalam cosmological argument
   1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
   2. The universe began to exist.
   3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.
3. Teleological argument
   1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
   2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
   3. Therefore, it is due to design.
4. Moral argument
   1. If God does not exist then objective moral values and duties do not exist. (If there is no God then there is no absolute standard of right and wrong, good and evil. Everything becomes relative.)
   2. Objective moral values and duties do exist. Certain things are really right or really wrong. Certain things are really good or really evil.
   3. Therefore God exists.
5. Ontological argument
   1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists (=maximal greatness is possibly exemplified).
   2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
   3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world then it exists in every possible world.
   4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world then it exists in the actual world.
   5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world then a maximally great being exists.
   6. Therefore a maximally great being exists.

S1: FOUNDATIONS OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

1. Christian Doctrine

1. purpose of Defenders:
   • train (1Pt 3,15)
   • evangelize
   • care
2. Christian doctrine: what the church believes and teaches
3. Why?
   • Every Christian is a theologian
   • Right living presupposes right thinking about God
   • The study of doctrine is an expression of loving God with all of our minds (Matthew 22:37-38)
   • Christ cannot be separated from truths about Christ (2 John 9-10)

2. Apologetics

1. Apologetics: branch of Christian theology which seeks to provide a rational justification for Christian truth claims
   • Why?
     1. Shaping culture: the Gospel is never heard in isolation from a culture
     2. Strengthening believers
     3. Evangelizing unbelievers
   • “The idea that we live in a postmodern culture is a myth propagated in our churches by misguided youth pastors. In fact, the idea of a postmodern culture is an impossibility. It would be utterly unlivable. Nobody is a postmodernist when it comes to reading the labels on a bottle of aspirin and a box of rat poison.”

S2: DOCTRINE OF REVELATION

1. Introduction

1. Part of loci communes (main topics of Christian theology)
2. Authority ultimately belongs to God
3. Revelation is the way to discover God’s will and mind
4. Two meanings:
   • Narrow: unveiling something hidden
   • Broad: communication from God
5. Two kinds: general vs specific
6. General revelation
   • generally available to everyone
   • general knowledge about God
   • E.g: Nature and conscience
   • Romans 1:18-20: Atheism/polytheism: suppression of evident truth
   • Functions:
     1. Show God’s glory (Ps 19:1)
     2. Render people morally culpable to God (Rom 1:19)

2. Revelation and salvation

1. Is general revelation sufficient for a *saving* knowledge of God?
   • No but by responding positively, he can escape condemnation
   • One can be saved through Christ without knowing him
     1. Similar to OT believers (e.g. Abraham, Job - not even Jew!) who didn’t know of the Messiah
     2. Switching from OT to NT didn’t happen instantly, but transformation progresses geographically
     3. Today: 15-25% have not heard the gospel
   • However, very few respond positively
2. Functions:
   • Show God’s glory (Ps 19:1)
   • Render people morally culpable to God (Rom 1:19)
   • Can provide access to salvation
     1. Help people believe that God exists
     2. Prepare them for the gospel
   • Stabilizing human society

3. Natural theology & Special revelation

1. Natural theology (NT): justification for God’s existence apart from Bible
2. General revelation (GR): inference to God’s existence, not just perception
3. NT and GR is not the same
   • GR is like traits of the artist in the artifact
   • NT is man-made, arguments need constant revision
4. Specific revelation
   • more clear & more full
   • types:
     1. living Word of God (Jesus)
     2. written Word of God (Holy Scripture)
     3. +1: particular revelation (does not apply to all)

4. Inspiration of Scripture

1. locus classicus: 2 Timothy 3:16
2. Inspiration: not primarily a property of the authors but the text itself
3. Inspiration of Scripture:
   • plenary (breadth): all of Scripture is inspired by God
   • verbal (depth): the very words of Scripture are inspired
     1. authors of Scripture sometimes base an argument upon a single word or even a single letter (e.g. John 10:34-36, Galatians 3:16)
     2. propositional revelation: different meaning in theology (“sentential”) vs philosophy (information content)
     3. only the Greek and Hebrew text is actually the inspired Word of God (close to the Muslim idea of the Qur’an)
     4. reconstructing the original transcript is important
     5. “If it is the original Greek and Hebrew that is God-breathed then absolutely it is going to be important that we reconstruct the original text to the best of our ability, and that we read Bibles that are based upon translations of the very best and oldest manuscripts. That is why, for all its literary beauty, the King James Bible really shouldn’t be used by Christians in serious Bible study today. It is based upon the Byzantine family of texts which is the worst and most corrupted family of New Testament texts.”
   • confluent (“flow together”): both the product of human authorship and divine authorship

5. Properties of Inspiration

1. error-free =/= inspired!
2. Theories of inspiration:
   • dictation:
     1. authors ~ stenographers
     2. Islamic view
     3. problems:
        1. not confluent
        2. e.g. levicula (i.e. trivial parts of Bible, e.g. greetings in Rom 16)
        3. human emotions (imprecatory psalms, eg. Ps 139 end)
     4. can be true for some parts though (e.g. prophecies)
   • accommodation:
     1. God accommodates himself to the limitations and the vocabulary of the human author.
     2. Calvin: God “lisps” in Scripture as an adult talk to a baby.
     3. levicula & human emotions are still a problem
   • supervision:
     1. God supervises the writing os Scripture
     2. problem: verbal inspiration

6. Confluence of Scripture

1. Reformed view:
   • inspiration is simply mysterious and should just be left at that
2. Basinger and Basinger:
   • if you hold to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy then you cannot use the free will defense to answer the problem of evil (i.e. evil in the world is possibly the result of the free actions of creatures – either human or demonic)

   • if human activities, such as penning a book, can be totally controlled by God without violating human freedom, then a confluent view of verbal and plenary inspiration is false

3. Norman Geisler: solution: middle knowledge:
   • God knew what these authors would freely write in certain sets of circumstances.
   • So by placing the authors in those circumstances and leaving them free he knew that they would freely write exactly what God wanted them to write
4. Inspiration: not mere influence on authors but property of end product

7. Inerrancy

1. authority of Scripture: what God says is true
2. inerrancy: how shall we define it?
   • NOT: everything the Bible says is true (e.g. Job’s friends)
   • BUT: the Bible is truthful in everything that it affirms/teaches
3. Infallible: reliable; it won’t mislead you
4. Inerrant: free from falsehood
5. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed, eg.:
   • history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry
   • generalization/approximating numbers or figures
   • non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable
6. Scriptures may exhibit things which modern readers might call errors but wouldn’t be errors at that time
7. Scripture is inerrant not simply in what it says but in what it means to teach
   • even if e.g. Paul believed Christ would come back in his lifetime, he would not *teach* that
8. Inerrancy is not the most central Christian belief!
   • Beliefs ~ spider web
   • You can still believe in God / deity of Christ without it
   • e.g. Bart Ehrmann realized an “error” in Mark, ended up denying God

8. Difficulties

1. Simple inconsistencies within Scripture:
   • e.g. death of Judas Iscariot)
2. Factual mistakes
   • e.g. Luke 2:2 date seems to be incorrect
3. Ethical errors
   • e.g. slaughter of the Canaanites in OT
   • institution of slavery
   • slaves & women treated differently
   • NT: prohibition of homosexual activity
     1. Jesus’ teachings on divorce and remarriage (Mk 10:11)
   • BUT: doesn’t mean that atheism is true!
4. “I think you can see that these ethical errors, as well as factual mistakes and inconsistencies, would all be reasons, not for denying the existence of God or the person and work of Christ, but they would be reasons for calling into question biblical inerrancy.“
5. Doctrine of inerrancy: Not inductively but deductively, based upon the attitude of Jesus to the Hebrew Scriptures
   • 1. Whatever God teaches is true.
   • 2. Historical, prophetic, and other evidences show that Jesus is God.
   • 1+2 -> 3. Therefore, whatever Jesus teaches is true.
   • 4. Jesus taught that the Scriptures are the inerrant Word of God. (KEY POINT - e.g. John 10:34-36)
   • 3+4 -> 5. Therefore, the Scriptures are the inerrant word of God.
6. Approach to difficulties:
   • try to resolve
   • understand literary genre and ancient writing techniques (telescoping, displacement, paraphrasing)
   • harmonization
   • remember inerrancy refers to Bible’s teachings and not all of its elements
   • sometimes admitting that we don’t know but hold the truth in tension

9. Responding to Difficulties

1. factual mistakes
   • Quirinius: may not have been governor of Syria but he could have been in charge of Syria’s foreign affairs
   • our knowledge of the ancient world is limited
   • Sargon II: no trace until recently
   • “So when we run into these factual discrepancies, like the role of Quirinius, I think it is not at all unreasonable to hope that with future discovery and exploration these tensions could be resolved.”
2. ethical errors
   • Slaughter of the Canaanites: not genocide; primary command: to drive them out of the land.
     1. adults: were evil and ripe for judgments
     2. children: if you believe in the salvation of infants, their execution was actually their salvation
   • treatment of slaves and women in OT: these Old Testament laws were provisional, (similar to laws concerning divorce that were given because of the hardness of Israel’s heart)
     1. “Therefore these Old Testament laws allowing slavery or treating women in certain ways would not be perfect representations of God’s will – the way God would really like it. These were concessions on God’s part because of their hardness of heart.”
     2. Also: servants often inherited (e.g. Abraham)
   • Jesus’ teachings about divorce and prohibiting remarriage: it may be that we simply need to revise our moral intuitions about these things in light of God’s commands to us
3. if you are convinced the Bible has error in what it teaches: you can give up the premise that “Jesus taught that the Scriptures are the inerrant Word of God.” You don’t have to give up other Christian teachings.
4. people in doubts can lose focus (like a person who holds his thumb up in front of his face and it looks bigger than the Empire State Building in the distance)
5. fear of slippery slope: that’s why I don’t want to give it up
6. some OT laws were provisional -> can it be that NT (e.g. homosexuality) was provisional too? <-> It was Jesus’ own teaching, grounded in his authority
7. any archaeological finding refuting Biblical claims? no refute but difficulties e.g. absence of archaeological evidence for a 400-year sojourn of Israel in Egypt, or walls of Jericho is still debated
8. Nelson Glueck: “no archaeological finding in history has ever controverted the accuracy of the biblical narrative decisively.”

10. Canonicity

1. canon: rule or standard
2. Old Testament:
   • Masoretic Text
     1. 24 books of the Hebrew Bible
     2. Jewish canon of Scripture
     3. Used by Jesus & apostles
   • Septuagint
     1. Greek translation of the Old Testament
     2. Used in Egypt by Hellenized Jews
     3. apocryphal/deuterocanonical books recognized by Catholic and Orthodox churches
     4. Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Maccabees etc
     5. OT apocrypha != NT apocrypha
   • Earliest list: Melito of Sardis (AD 175)
     1. All of the OT books recognized by Jews & Protestants
     2. except Esther
3. New Testament
   • Jesus promise: remember everything he spoke (John 14:26)
   • Apostles were convinced they were preaching the Word of God (1 Thess 2:9-13)
   • by 1st century in Judaism prophecy was believed to have ceased (taht’s why no more books in the Jewish canon) -> disciples claim was extraordinary
   • sub-apostolic church fathers (e.g. Ignatius): clear distinction between own writings and apostles’
   • Gospels & Acts: never questioned from the beginning
   • doubts on Revelation & Hebrews but not on Gospels, Acts, Paul’s letters, 1 John, and 1 Peter.
   • earliest list: AD 175 Ludovico Antonio Muratori
   • NT books: question not to include more but less
   • Qualification: origin in apostolic circle
   • apocryphal gospels: everybody knew they were forgeries
     1. pagan philosophy and religion
     2. Jesus is only a mouthpiece
   • “Even if you rejected those books as canonical – say you didn’t admit Hebrews or Revelation – nothing essential to Christian doctrine would be lost because there is no Christian doctrine that is taught uniquely by those books and depends solely upon those books.”

S3: DOCTRINE OF GOD: ATTRIBUTES OF GOD

1. Introduction

1. “theology proper” – the study of God
2. “The knowledge of God ought to be our number one priority in life.”
3. knowing about God vs knowing God -> BUT: knowledge about God can be very helpful indeed in getting to know God
4. God:
   1. infinite (God VS. man/animals/plants/rocks)
   2. personal (God & man VS. animals/plants/rocks)
5. “a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.” (Westminster Shorter Catechism)
6. “You can’t really know anything about God” -> Anything that exists has attributes. If God had no attributes/properties would be non-existent!
7. God’s attributes: two guides:
   1. Scripture,
   2. perfect being theology: God is the most perfect being (St. Anselm)
8. Bible is not always clear: e.g. “eternal”
   1. infinite throughout all time? OR
   2. transcendent above time all together?

2. Divine Aseity

1. “self-existence”
   1. uncreated Creator of all things (Is 40:17, Rev 4:11)
   2. All things came into being through him (Jn 1:1-3)
   3. God also preserves them in being (Neh 9:6)
   4. God is the source, means and end of existence (Rom 11:36)
   5. God didn’t come into being (Ps 90:2)
   6. Jesus has similar attributes (1Cor 8:5-6, Heb 1:1-3, Col 1:15-17)
2. exists independently of anything else
3. OR: exists by necessity of his own nature (stronger)
4. asiety implies:
   1. eternity (impossible for God not to exist)
   2. necessity (God exists in every possible world)
5. necessary being (not just contingent) -> consistent with St. Anselm’s concept (greatest possible being)
6. everything apart from God depends on him for its creation & present existence & future being (~dream)
7. no God -> no universe BUT: no universe -> God still exists
8. self-existence solves two problems:
   1. “God is just one more being among others” -> No, but everything else depends on him for its being
   2. “Where did God come from?/Who made God” -> meaningless (~ “Why are all bachelors unmarried?”) God cannot not exist

3. Platonism

1. God exists in all possible worlds
   1. Hale: “something is absolutely necessary if it would be the case no matter what else were the case”
   2. “If ___ then God exists.” -> ___ can be filled with anything
2. challenge from Platonism
   1. there are uncreated, eternal and necessary beings other than God
   2. e.g. numbers
   3. numbers != numerals (e.g. 2)
   4. consequence: God is not the sole ultimate reality -> John 1:3 is not true (through him all things came into being and that God is the source of all being)
3. do mathematical objects really exist?
   1. realism: yes
      1. as concrete objects:
         1. physical: mathematical entities just marks on paper -> not popular
         2. mental: mathematical objects just thoughts in people’s minds -> Psychologism
            1. objections: infinite objects vs finite people
            2. humans not necessary
      2. as abstract objects (Platonist view)
   2. arealism/conventionalism: question is meaningless (not widespread)
   3. antirealism: no
4. Absolute Creationism
   1. modified Platonism
   2. numbers exist as abstract objects but were created by God
   3. bootstrapping objection: in order to create the property of being powerful God would already have to have the property of being powerful -> viscous circle
   4. same with numbers: there would need to be one God in order for God to create the number 1.
5. Divine Conceptualism
   1. mathematical object are thoughts in the mind of God
   2. most popular Christian view

4. Anti-Realism Views

1. anti-realist solutions to the challenge of Platonism
   1. Free Logic: we can use terms to refer to things even though those things do not exist (e.g. hole in a shoe)
   2. Figuralism: much of our ordinary language is figurative (e.g. raining cats and dogs)
   3. Neutralism: we can refer to things that are neutral with respect to whether those things exist (e.g. the weather is nice today) - even expressions like “there is” are ontologically neutral (<-> Free Logic), e.g. “there is a difference” -> WLC’s favourite
   4. Fictionalism: “there is” or “there are” are false. They are only fictional (ie. true within a given story - e.g. math) -> e.g. Sherlock Holmes living at 221B Baker Street.
   5. Pretense Theory: fiction is an extension of children’s games of make-believe. Math is similar to a fiction, where we imagine certain things are true.
   6. Neo-Meinongianism: wildest form. There are objects that do not exist (e.g. unicorns, holes) - mathematical objects too.
   7. Modal Structuralism: numbers are just positions in structures. Reinterpreting (paraphrasing) mathematics without committing to the reality of the objects.
2. God = object of ultimate concern (Paul Tillich)
3. self-existence = independence. Man’s rebellion: challenge God’s independence by aiming for the same (“I am”). God’s self-existence is opposed to our selfishness.

5. God’s Eternity

1. God exists without beginning and end (Psalm 90:1-4)
2. God’s eternity contrasts with the transitoriness of man (Psalm 102:11-12,25-27)
3. God existed before time began (Jude 25)
4. Two ways to interpret eternity:
   1. omnitemporal: exist throughout infinite time
   2. atemporal: exist outside of time
5. biblical data leaves question open

6. God’s Relationship to Time

1. Scripture: God is beginningless and endless
2. atemporal or omnitemporal? not clear
3. arguments for atemporality:
   1. incompleteness of temporal life
   2. mitigated by God’s omniscience
4. arguments for omnitemporality:
   1. God’s changing relations with the world
      1. extrinsic change, not intrinsic (God’s person does not change)
      2. God is causally related to the universe
      3. esp: doctrine of the incarnation
   2. God’s knowledge of tensed facts
      1. Does God know what time it is now? He wouldn’t unless he was in time.
   3. both argument assumes tensed theory of time (A-Theory)
      1. B-Theory: time is tenseless
      2. A-Theory is common-sense view, no reason to deny our experience
      3. theological problems with B-Theory
         1. it makes universe co-eternal with God
         2. evil never really conquered
5. God might have been timeless until he created time but this is not an essential but a contingent property

7. Practical Application of God’s Eternity

1. paradox of time:
   1. on one hand, God is never pressed for time (2 Peter 3:8)
   2. but for us, at least, time is short (Romans 13:11-12a)
2. we must live in light of eternity
   1. incentive to right living (James 4:13-16)
   2. comfort in suffering (1 Peter 5:10)
   3. reminds us of wonders of eternal life in Christ (John 3:16)
      1. for Christians eternity is a wonderful prospect
      2. for those outside of Christ, time is a devouring beast

8. God’s Omnipresence

1. God’s presence is everywhere (Psalm 139:7-12, Jeremiah 23:23-24)
2. God does not dwell in a localized building (1 Kings 8:27, Acts 17:24)
3. ancient polytheistic gods were not omnipresent
4. Shekinah Glory: special manifestation of God - but it did not exhaust his presence
5. two opposite errors:
   1. we should not think of God as localized in an earthly spo - including the church
   2. we should not think that God is localized in heaven
6. God’s relationship to space: not determined by the Bible
   1. is God everywhere in space or does God transcend space altogether?
   2. traditional view: God transcends space
   3. God is spirit = incorporeal (does not have a body)
   4. otherwise: many mistaken consequences
      1. universe is finite -> God is finite
      2. God is not entirely present at every point in space
   5. analogy: soul’s presence in body
      1. immensity of God: God is wholly present at every point in space in the way in which the soul is present at every place in the body (e.g. Anselm)
7. if God creates time he immediately becomes temporal <-> but not the same with space
   1. reason: creation is a temporal act, but it isn’t a spatial act (not e.g. bumping)
8. God is present in hell but the people in it are separated from a relational presence of God

9. God’s Immutability

1. Practical Application of God’s Omnipresence
   1. we can contact God at every location
   2. we should practice the presence of God
      1. “God, be with them” -> He already is…
2. God’s immutability = unchangeability
   1. God is unchangeable in his existenc (Psalm 102:25-27)
   2. God is unchangeable in his character (Malachi 3:6)
   3. God is unchangeable in his faithfulness (Psalm 119:89-90)
   4. God is unchangeable in his wisdom and plan (Psalm 33:11)
3. systematic summary:
   1. Greek philosophy:
      1. immutability in a very radical sense (absolute changelessness)
      2. God of Aristotle: The Unmoved Mover
      3. most common argument: any change would violate God’s perfectness (counterargument: God’s knowing what time it is)

10. God’s Immutability and Incorporeality

1. summary of God’s immutable attributes (J. I. Packer)
   1. God’s life does not change
   2. God’s character does not change
   3. God’s truth does not change
   4. God’s ways do not change
   5. God’s purposes do not change
   6. God’s Son does not change
2. God as a personal being
   1. many people have trouble thinking that God can be both infinite and personal
   2. God’s attributes in terms of his personhood: incorporeality - scriptural data:
      1. God is spirit (1Jn 4,24)
      2. God is omnipresent
      3. God is indiscernible to the five senses (1Tim 6,16)
      4. OT forbids making images of God (Ex 20,4-5a)
      5. Yet the Bible will often describe God in bodily term (e.g. Ps 18:6-10)
      6. Moreover: theophanies (visions of God) in OT (Ex 33:20-23)

11. Anthropomorphic Language and Theophanies

1. anthropomorphism: God described in corporeal terms (hands, eyes etc)
2. theophanies: corporeal visions of God (e.g. sitting on a throne)
3. they are not literal but metaphorical
   1. These descriptions serve a clear literary purpose.
      1. e.g. face-to-face, 1 Peter 3:12
   2. Taking them literal would be inconsistent with each other
      1. God is described differently
4. theophanies: mental projections of the mind
   1. purpos: to manifest God’s glory
   2. but: Genesis 18: corporeal manifestation of God
   3. some say Christ in preincarnate state -> don’t think so
5. new heavens and a new Earth will be corporeal existence

12. Practical Application of God’s Incorporeality - God’s Omniscience

1. application of God’s incorporeality:
   1. that which is ultimate is not material
      1. implication: persons have intrinsic value, but things have only extrinsic value
      2. one person is worth more than the entire material universe put together
      3. we need to love people and use things, not vice versa
   2. we ought to have a spiritual focus in life and not a material focus
      1. Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth (Matthew 6:19-21)
      2. Seek first the Kingdom of God (Matthew 6:33)
   3. our most important needs are not physical but rather are spiritual
      1. Training in godliness > bodily training (1 Timothy 4:7b-8)
2. God’s personal attributes: omniscience (being all-knowing)
   1. God knows everything that happens
      1. Job 28:24, Psalm 139:1-6, Job 31:4, Job 34:21-22, Proverbs 15:3, Matthew 10:29-30
   2. God knows the secret thoughts of every individual
      1. 1 Chronicles 28:9, Psalm 44:21, Jeremiah 17:9-10)
   3. God knows the future
      1. Psalm 139:14b-16, Isaiah 41:21-24, Isaiah 46:9b-10
      2. distinguishing marks of true God of Israel vs false gods of his neighbors
   4. God cannot learn anything
      1. Romans 11:33-36, Job 21:22, Psalm 147:5
   5. God knows what would happen under different circumstances
      1. 1 Samuel 23:1-13* (see details in next section)
3. middle knowledge:
   1. God not only knows everything that could happen, he not only knows all the possibilities (everything that would happen under other circumstances)
   2. developed by Jesuit counter-Reformer Louis Molina
   3. God knows the truth of all subjunctive conditional statements (if I were rich…)
   4. hard to provide prooftext -> controversial (e.g. foretelling in Keilah)
   5. middle knowledge requires that God has this knowledgebefore creation -> difficult to prove

13. Systematic Study of God’s Omniscience

1. *1 Samuel 23:1-13:
   1. counterfactual: subjunctive conditional with false antecedent
      1. e.g. “If I were you, I would do …” - but I am not you!
   2. not all of these subjunctive conditionals have false antecedents
      1. John 21:6: if the disciples were to cast the net on the right side, they would have a great catch
      2. they obeyed -> antecedent is true
   3. key point: God knows subjunctive conditionals
2. systematic summary God’s omniscience
   1. propositional knowledge
      1. God knows only and all truths
      2. He knows all truths
      3. He doesn’t believe any falsehoods
   2. self-knowledge
      1. “Bill Craig is hungry” vs “I am hungry”
      2. God has appropriate self-knowledge
   3. innate knowledge
      1. God simply knows all truth innately
      2. nobod taught him anything

14. Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom

1. two problems with divine omniscience
   1. if God knows in advance everything that happen,, then isn’t everything fated to occur?
   2. Martin Luther: no human free will because of divine foreknowledge
   3. But: it makes God the author of sin -> it’s a theological mistake
2. divine foreknowledge compatible with human freedom
   1. foreknowing something != foreordaining something
   2. two types of priority:
      1. Chronological priority: something is earlier in time
      2. Logical priority: something is explanatorily prior to something else
   3. foreknowledge is chronologically prior to the event, but logically the event is prior to the foreknowledge
      1. It is because you will choose pizza for lunch that God foreknows it. It is not that you eat pizza for lunch because God foreknows it.
      2. barometer: tracks what the weather but doesn’t determine it ~ God’s foreknowledge tracks our choices but doesn’t determine it
   4. fatalism: unintelligible constraint upon human freedom
      1. it not only remove human freedom, but removes divine freedom as well
3. open theism: removes divine foreknowledge
   1. but: many biblical counter examples
   2. the God of open theism sits idly and allows evils to go on and he doesn’t intervene to stop them

15. God’s Middle Knowledge

1. God’s middle knowledge / hypothetical knowledge: knowledge of subjunctive conditional (“if you had been in Pilate’s place, would you have condemned Jesus?”)
2. theological controversy:
   1. proponents: Luis Molina (Catholic Counter-Reformer, 16-17th century)
      1. key to the mystery of divine sovereignty and human freedom
      2. even allowing evil can accomplish God’s purposes
      3. caveat: distinction between possible and feasible/realizable/actualizable worlds
   2. opponents: God can’t be held responsible for your ultimate destiny because he doesn’t know
      1. problem: cannot have providence, sovereignty and human freedom without middle knowledge
3. biblical support: e.g. Acts 4:27-28

16. Application of Divine Omniscience / God’s Omnipotence

1. Application of Divine Omniscience
   1. basis for total trust in God’s guidance
      1. everything that happens in your life happens either by God’s direct will or at least his permission with respect to greater goods that might be achieve
      2. Proverbs 3:5-6
      3. God’s will for your life is perfect
   2. source of comfort in God’s knowledge of your heart
      1. He knows what your motivations really are even if others misunderstand you
      2. 1 Samuel 16:7
      3. Psalms 103:13-14
   3. source of security in God’s love
      1. He knows us entirely and thoroughly and still he loves
      2. 1 John 3:19-20
      3. 1 Corinthians 13:12
2. God’s volitional attributes: omnipotence / being all-powerful
   1. God is called “God Almighty”
      1. Genesis 17:1 - El Shaddai / God Almighty
      2. God’s power in creation
         1. Genesis 1:1
         2. Psalm 33:9
         3. Romans 4:17
   2. God can do anything
      1. Genesis 18:14
      2. Jeremiah 32:17
      3. Job 42:1-2
      4. Matthew 19:26
      5. Mark 14:36
3. paradoxes: there are certain things that God cannot do - e.g. can God do…
   1. Things contrary to his own nature?
      1. e.g. create another god and then worship it?
   2. Something that is logically impossible?
      1. e.g. round square
   3. Things that are logically possible but they are unactualizable?
      1. e.g. world where everyone freely chooses the right thing?
4. these are not real “things” rather purely logical limits on God’s power
5. useable definition of omnipotence: “God can bring about any state of affairs which is logically possible for anyone to bring about in that situation.”

17. Practical Application of Divine Omnipotence

1. The power of God is at work within us
   1. same power that created the universe & raised Jesus from the dead
   2. you are a walking stick of dynamite!
   3. 2 Corinthians 4:6-10
   4. Ephesians 1:19-21
   5. Ephesians 3:20-21
   6. we may be weak, Christ in us gives us tremendous power!
      1. see contrast between John 15:5 and Philippians 4:13
      2. God’s power works through our weakness, not just simply in spite of it
2. Nothing can defeat God’s purposes!
   1. Ephesians 1:11
   2. As we trust in God, we can have confidence that God’s purposes for our lives will be accomplished
   3. CAUTION: this might include failure and defeat and suffering!
   4. This is the central failing of the health and wealth gospel
3. God is adequate to all your needs
   1. no prayer too hard, no need too great, no temptation too strong, no misery too deep but that God is not adequate to meet your needs
   2. Ephesians 3:20-21

18. God’s Holiness

1. personal attributes of God: intellectual / volitional / moral
2. God is the very standard of goodness.
   1. Romans 9:14-21
   2. no higher court of appeal beyond God
3. God is absolutely holy
   1. Exodus 3:3-5
   2. Leviticus 19:2
   3. Revelation 4:8
4. God’s holiness serves to expose man’s sinfulness
   1. Isaiah 6:1-5
5. God’s holiness separates man from God
   1. Habakkuk 1:13a
   2. Isaiah 59:1-2
6. Euthyphro Dilemma: A) Does God will something because it is good or B) is something good because Gods wills it?
   1. A) makes good and evil arbitrary
   2. B) makes good independent of God
   3. false dilemma -> correct alternative: God wills something because he is good.
   4. Immanuel Kant: acting from duty (men) or acting according to duty (God)
7. Genocide Canaanites:
   1. it was not genocide but driving the people out of the land and killing those who refused to leave
   2. God has theauthority to take away lives when he wants
   3. adults deserved it, for children it was a deliverance from evil
   4. muslim terrorists: right moral theology but wrong god

19. Application of God’s Holiness

1. Application of God’s holiness in our lives:
   1. We should strive for personal holiness in our lives.
      1. God hates sin (Revelation 14:18-20)
      2. One sin kept Moses out of the Promised Land
      3. One sin destroyed Ananias and Sapphira
      4. God is not like us (Psalm 50:21)
      5. Goes doesn’t hate you; he hates your sin
      6. we need to strive for lives without blemish (1 Peter 1:14-16)
      7. Holiness is the secret to happiness. (Matthew 6:33)
   2. In Christ God’s holiness becomes our justification
      1. the holiness that once condemned me now becomes the source of my salvation (Romans 3:21-26)

20. God’s Love

1. scriptural data:
   1. God’s nature is loving. God is essentially loving (1 John 4:7-21)
   2. God’s love is unconditional. (Deuteronomy 7:7-8, Ephesians 2:4-5, Titus 3:3-5)
   3. God’s love is immutable. It is changeless. (Jeremiah 31:3)
   4. God’s love is universal. (John 3:16)
2. God’s love is agape love
3. Paradox: God loves the sinner & hates his sin (Romans 5:8)
4. Lost people: not innocent little lost lambs but hateful rebels
5. Love of God draws & justice and holiness impels us into Christ’s arms

21. Application of God’s Love

1. We should bathe in the sunshine of God’s love for us (Ephesians 3:14-19)
   1. There is no fear in this love (1 John 4:18)
   2. Only we can separate ourselves from His love (Romans 8:35-39, Jude 21)
   3. We need to check ourselves if we are holding to our first love (Revelation 2:4-5)
2. God’s love is the basis for our self-love
3. God’s love is the basis for our love of others (1 John 4:19-21, Matthew 5:43-48
   1. love is measured by service and service is measured by sacrifice
4. “The proper study of a Christian is the Godhead. The highest science, the loftiest speculation, the mightiest philosophy which can ever engage the attention of a child of God is the name, the nature, the person, the work, the doings, and the existence of the great God whom he calls his Father”. (Charles Spurgeon)

S4: EXCURSUS ON NATURAL THEOLOGY

1. Belief In God As Properly Basic

1. Natural theology (NT): branch of Christian theology seeking to explore the justification of Christianity’s truth claims apart from the resources of authoritative divine revelation.
   1. General revelation: God’s self-disclosure in the created world. NT is the result of human reflection upon that.
   2. NT is not static, it constantly evolves. NT arguments are not divine.
   3. Renewed interest in NT in past 50 yrs
2. Cumulative case: not single argument, together they are very strong ~ law court. However, many are good arguments even in themselves.
3. Deductive arguments: conditions for being a good argument
   1. logically valid (obey the rules of logic)
   2. sound (premises are true)
   3. premises are warranted (they have supporting evidence)
      1. how strong the evidence should be?
         1. atheists expect to be compelling <-> this bar is too high
         2. rather: evidence should make premise more plausible than their negations
4. first argument: belief in God is properly basic
   1. belief in God can be rational and warranted apart from Scripture in accord with natural reason, but it doesn’t need to have argument
   2. chief proponent: Alvin Plantinga
   3. arguments are sufficient to justify and warrant belief in God they are not necessary
   4. Reformed Epistemology: warranted rational belief in God wholly apart from arguments (after John Calvin)
   5. Structure of argument:
      1. Beliefs which are appropriately grounded may be rationally accepted as basic beliefs not grounded on argument.
      2. Belief that the biblical God exists is appropriately grounded.
   6. appropriately grounded through the witness of the Holy Spirit
5. properly basic beliefs: aren’t based on some other beliefs; rather they are part of the foundation of a person’s system of beliefs. e.g.
   1. belief in the reality of the past
   2. belief in the existence of the external world
   3. belief in the presence of other minds
6. Hinduism/Buddhism: life is an illusion
   1. don’t try to argue but simply state that belief in reality is properly basic -> they need to find a defeater
   2. point out the impracticality of their belief (do you have a watch?)
7. atheism: cannot be properly basic
   1. theism can because of the inner conviction of the Holy Spirit

2. The Inner Witness of the Holy Spirit

1. The way we know that God exists and that Christianity is true is by the self-authenticating witness of God’s Holy Spirit
   1. The experience of the Holy Spirit is veridical and unmistakable for him who has it.
      1. This doesn’t mean it is irresistible or indubitable!
   2. A person who enjoys the witness of the Holy Spirit does not need supplementary arguments or evidence in order to know (and know with confidence) that he is in fact experiencing the Spirit of God.
   3. Such an experience does not function in this case as a premise in an argument from religious experience to God, but rather it is just the immediate experience of God himself.
      1. The self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit is not an argument for Christianity from religious experience but a way to grasp in an immediate way God’s presence
   4. In certain contexts the experience of the Holy Spirit will imply the apprehension of certain truths of the Christian religion
      1. E.g. “God exists,” (believer) or “I am condemned by God” (unbeliever)
   5. Such an experience provides one not only with a subjective assurance of Christianity’s truth, but with objective knowledge of that truth.
      1. Not a touchy-feely assurance that Christianity is true but objective knowledge.
   6. Arguments and evidence incompatible with that truth are overwhelmed by the experience of the Holy Spirit for him who attends fully to it.
      1. It doesn’t answer the arguments and evidence, but it just overwhelms them and makes the truth of the Christian faith more evident than its falsity.
2. This is what the New Testament teaches (even though this is not a valid argument for non-believers)
   1. when a person becomes a Christian, he automatically becomes an adopted son of God and is indwelt with the Holy Spirit (Galatians 3:26 and 4:6, Romans 8:15-16)
   2. the believer has knowledge (plerophoria ie. “complete confidence/complete assurance”) as a result of the Spirit’s work (Colossians 2:2 and in 1 Thessalonians 1:5) - aka “assurance of salvation.”
   3. Holy Spirit living within us that gives believers conviction of the fundamental truth of Christianity (1 John 2:20, 27, John 14:16-17, 20, 1 John 3:24, 4:13)
      1. Testing the spirits (1 John 4:1-3) does not refer to the inner witness of the Holy Spirit but to people claiming to be speaking by him (1 John 2:18-19)
3. Evidence and arguments might be used to support the believer’s faith or to confirm the believer’s faith, but this is not the basis of his faith but the self-authenticating witness of God’s Holy Spirit living within him.

3. The Role of Arguments and Evidence

1. Holy Spirit convicts unbeliever of:
   1. his own sin
   2. God’s righteousness
   3. his condemnation before God (Jn 16:7-11)
2. without the Holy Spirit no one would become a Christian (Romans 3:10-11)
3. “no one fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments or evidence; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light”
4. if you had to argue your way to God then getting into heaven would be like getting into Harvard (Dinesh D’Souza)
5. Plantinga: belief in God is not only rational but warranted on the basis of the Spirit’s witness
   1. E.g. believing a lie of a foreigner is rational but still false (not warranted)
   2. according to the model, the central truths of the Gospel are self-authenticating
6. role of argument and evidence in knowing Christianity’s truth:
   1. subsidiary role
   2. magisterial vs ministerial uses (Martin Luther)
   3. philosophy is rightly the handmaid of theology
   4. reason: God-given tool to help us better understand and defend our faith
   5. double warrant for Christian beliefs
      1. provide support during times of spiritual dryness
      2. inspire to share faith more boldly

4. Defeaters of Properly Basic Beliefs

1. belief in God: properly basic with respect to rationality and also warrant through the witness of the Holy Spirit
2. proper basicality beliefs can also does not mean indefeasible!
3. Plantinga: sometimes original belief can become an intrinsic defeater of the defeater (e.g. person who is condemned but is sure of his innocence) - this can happen with belief in God too!
   1. e.g. movie Contact
4. How should we response to Muslims or Mormons who claim to have similar inner witness (burning of the bosom)?
   1. just because someone make such false claims, Christians can still rely on their own genuine witness of the Holy Spirit
   2. How do you know your experience isn’t false either?-> the Holy Spirit’s witness is self-authenticating for those who really have it
   3. you can simply share defeaters of that person’s belief
5. Why should we trust our experience when we think that everybody else’s experience is untrustworthy?
   1. we don’t need to say that every non-Christian experience is false (e.g. God as moral absolute)
   2. assumption: witness of the Holy Spirit = human cognitive faculties <-> they are not the same!
6. But can’t neuroscientists artificially stimulate the brain to have religious experience?
   1. these are often similar to pantheistism (losing your personal identity) - neuroscientists have not yet been able to produce anything like the witness of HS
   2. but even if they could influence you, it doesn’t mean you should stop relying on your experiences when you are not under this influence
      1. e.g. just because they can make you hallucinate something, it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t trust your eyes afterwards
7. Why should Christians reject the magisterial (not the ministerial) use of reason?
   1. it would label most Christians irrational (majority not an expert in apologia) - should someone reject Christianity just because he cannot answer why he is a Christian?
   2. person who had been given poor arguments for Christianity would have a just excuse for not believing in God.
8. God can increase the witnesss/intensity of HS depending on your situation (e.g. what defeaters you have to face)
   1. “Even if the witness of the Holy Spirit in your life may not seem powerful enough to defeat every defeater, it may well be the case for those who are confronted with very powerful defeaters that they would experience a more intense witness of the Holy Spirit that will be sufficient for their perseverance in the faith.”
9. step three of the argument: 3. Therefore, belief that the biblical God exists may be rationally accepted as a basic belief not grounded on argument.

5. The Argument from Contingency

1. Leibnizian cosmological argument
   1. Leibniz, Martin Heidegger
   2. German 20th century metaphysician
   3. “Why are there beings rather than nothing?”
2. Argument:
   1. Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
   2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
   3. The universe is an existing thing.
   4. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.
3. Premise 3 is undeniable -> skeptic will have to deny premise 1 or 2
4. two types of being:
   1. necessary: cannot fail to exist (God/math)
      1. If there is a God then he would exist necessarily (otherwise if he was caused by something else, it would be greater than him)
   2. contingent: everything else
5. even if the universe is eternal, it is still possible for it not to have existed -> argument still applies
6. Richard Taylor: ball on forest floor -> why does it exist? how did it get there?
   1. question still applies if you increase the size of the ball (e.g. planet)

6. The Argument from Contingency Part 2

1. Atheists response to premise (1): universe itself is exempt from the principle
   1. “the taxicab fallacy” (Arthur Schopenhauer): principle of sufficient reason is not something that can be dismissed like a hack when you arrive at your desired destination
   2. objection is unscientific (<-> goal of cosmology is exactly this)
2. justification for exempting the universe: no universe = nothingness, and nothingness can’t be the explanation of anything
   1. this presupposes the truth of atheism!
   2. no atheist would argue that the universe exists by a necessity of its own nature
   3. multiverse itself would have to have an explanation of its existence
3. premise (1) in simpler way: “every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence.”
4. premise (2): if the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God
   1. logically equivalent to atheist’ premise: “If atheism is true, then the universe has no explanation of its existence.”
   2. universe: all of space-time reality, all matter and energy -> explanation must exist bebeyond space and time, beyond matter and energy, and is therefore a non-physical, immaterial, spaceless, timeless being
   3. not flying spaghetti monster but a being that must exhibit the traditional attributes of God!

7. The Argument from Contingency Part 3

1. Recap:
   1. Premise 1:
      1. “Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence either in the necessity of its own nature or in some external cause.”
      2. More simply: “every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence.”
   2. Premise 2:
      1. “If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.”
      2. In other words: “if the universe has an explanation of its existence then that explanation is a transcendent personal being.”
2. Possible atheist respond: deny premise 1 -> the universe exists by a necessity of its own nature
   1. universe ~ God-substitute
   2. no contemporary atheist (but: 17th century Spinoza)
   3. difficulty: nothing in the universe - not even quarks/electrons! - seem to exist necessarily
   4. different quarks would produce a different universe (~ shoe made of steel is a different shoe than leather shoe)
   5. laws of nature would be different too
3. Why does explanation have to be personal?
   1. Argument 1:
      1. explanation has to be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, metaphysically necessary
      2. only abstract objects (e.g. numbers) or unembodied minds are like that
      3. numbers have no causal powers -> it must be a mind
   2. Argument 2:
      1. How can you get something contingent from a necessary being?
      2. If cause is impersonal, effect must be necessary too
      3. Only mind can produce contingent beings through freedom and free will
4. Typical atheist response: principle applies to everything in the universe except the universe itself (taxicab fallacy)
5. Logical conclusion: God is the explanation of the existence of the universe

8. The Kalam Cosmological Argument

1. Greek: universe eternal <-> Hebrew: created
2. Al-Ghazali (12nd century, Persia):
   1. 1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
   2. 2) The universe began to exist.
   3. 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.
3. Counterargument to 1): subatomic particles:
   1. softer version: 1*) If the universe began to exist then the universe has a cause of its beginning
   2. quantum decay events: not from nothing but conversion -> deliberate abuse of science
4. Support of premise 1)
   1. Something cannot come out of nothing.
      1. nothing: universal negation - “not anything”
         1. word trick: use as a reference to something (e.g. Cyclops and Odysseus)
         2. sometimes scientist use similar language to confuse lay people
   2. If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything and everything doesn’t come into being from nothing.
      1. Why is it only universes that can come into being from nothing? What makes nothingness so discriminatory?
      2. atheist’s response: “All right, if everything has a cause then what is God’s cause?”
         1. not everything but everything that begins to exist has a cause
   3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise (1)
      1. fallacy of composition: every part of an elephant is light in weight therefore the whole elephant is light in weight
      2. not reason by composition but inductive reasoning
         1. e.g. random sampling: infer general truth based upon a random sample of typical cases
5. creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo): no material cause

9. 1st Philosophical Argument for the Beginning of the Universe

1. second premise: universe began to exist
2. philosophical arguments & scientific confirmation
3. Al-Ghazali (12th century Muslim theologian)
   1. if the universe never began to exist then there has been an infinite number of past events prior to today
   2. But an infinite number of things cannot exist.
   3. Therefore it follows that there cannot have been an infinite past
4. potential vs actual infinite
   1. Potential: progressing toward infinity as an ideal limit which is never reached
      1. lazy-eight (∞)
      2. Used in calculus
   2. actual: complete & static with an infinite number of things
      1. Aleph (ℵ)
      2. Used in set theory
      3. Addition, multiplication OK, subtraction/division forbidden
   3. Potential infinite can exist, actually cannot
   4. Otherwise: absurdities (eg. Hilbert’s Hotel)
5. God’s infinity is not quantitative but qualitative - not the same thing
6. If platonism is true, an infinite number of abstract things (eg. numbers) would exist - but this is not proven
7. In math we can use the concept of infinity well but cannot provide evidence that it actually exists (it’s an axiom)
8. Only reaction from critic: admit that Hilbert’s Hotel is not absurd

10. 2nd Philosophical Argument for the Beginning of the Universe

1. no series which is formed by adding one member after another can be actually infinite
   1. independent of the first argument
   2. series of past events are such series -> cannot be infinite
   3. objection: you can count from any negative number to 0 -> you can count from infinity as well
      1. fallacy of composition: every part of an elephant is light in weight therefore the whole elephant is light in weight
2. even God could count down from infinity past because that is metaphysically impossible
3. objection: supertasks (e.g. machine moving 2^n marbles at time n)
   1. this is also metaphysically impossible
   2. causal gap between state Ω+1 and Ω
      1. Ω: cardinal numbers (ordinal number of infinity: 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc)
      2. not the same as א_o (cardinal number of infinity: 1, 2, 3)
4. Al-Ghazali’s counter example: Saturn vs Jupyter, one orbiting twice as fast
   1. if they orbit from past eternity, the number of orbits magically becomes equal (infinity)
   2. also: is the number of orbits completed odd or even? both.
5. Man claiming down from past infinity, finishing today
   1. why not yesterday? or 2 days ago?
   2. at any point in the infinite past you pick, the man will already be finished with his countdown -> at any point in the infinite past you pick, the man will already be finished with his countdown
6. Grim Reaper Paradox (Pruss & Kroon)
   1. Grim reaper #1 strike you dead at 1am, #2 at 12.30am, #3 at 12.15am etc.
   2. You cannot survive past midnight, but you cannot be killed by any grim reaper at any time because you would already be dead first

11. Scientific Confirmation of the Beginning of the Universe

1. summary of second argument for premise 2:
   1. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
   2. The temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition.
   3. Therefore the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite.
2. in simple terms:
   1. first argument: impossibility of an actually infinite number of things because of absurdities (e.g. what is infinity minus infinity?)
   2. second argument: infinite series of dominoes. How can the present domino ever fall if an infinite number of earlier dominoes had to fall first one after another? You’d never get to the present domino.
3. scientific confirmations of the beginning of the universe
   1. pretty strong evidence
   2. objection: “noone knows” -> not with certainty, but finite universe is more probable in light of scientific evidence
   3. Einstein applied his gravitational theory (aka General Theory of Relativity) to the universe as a whole -> His equations described a universe which was either blowing up like a balloon or else collapsing in upon itself
   4. Friedman-LeMaître theory: model of expanding universe
   5. “red shift” observed by Hubble in 1929 confirms expanding universe
   6. Big Bang: name misleading, galaxies are not moving into empty space - space ITSELF if expanding
   7. ~ cone expanding, nothing beyond t=0 -> model predicts absolute beginning -> confirms premise 2
4. other models: oscillating universe -> many problems (entropy levels, singularity is inevitable, constancy of CBR temperature - microwave background radiation)
5. t<0? it’s not physics but metaphysics

12. Scientific Confirmation of the Beginning of the Universe Part 2

1. 1st confirmation: expansion of universe
2. 20th century: failed attempts to avoid beginning of universe
3. singularity theorems: beginning is inevitable
4. all evidence is for beginning
5. Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem: if no quantum effects -> space-time shrinks down to a boundary in the past (quantum regime is radically unstable)
6. no viable model for eternal universe

13. 2nd Scientific Confirmation of the Beginning of the Universe

1. 2nd evidence: Second Law of Thermodynamics: universe is heading toward “heat death” (unless energy is flowing into the system)
   1. no reason not to apply this to universe itself
2. if it has existed forever, why are we not there now?
3. Boltzmann hypothesis: little patches of disequilibrium, our world is one
   1. But it’s much larger than we would expect
   2. it’s more probable to believe the universe is just illusion
4. Thermodynamics: very well understood, almost closed
5. Many worlds hypothesis: if our universe is just a random of many, it’s much more probable that it is just a brain having illusion than that these things actually exist
6. Properties of cause of universe: must be:
   1. caused (cannot be an infinite regress)
   2. transcend time and space
   3. changeless (no infinite regress)
   4. immaterial/non-physical
   5. powerful
   6. personal
      1. reason (Al-Ghazali):
         1. if cause is there, effect must be there too (eg. temperature below 0 -> ice)
         2. why isn’t the universe permanently there? -> cause must be a mind with free will
      2. reason (Swinburne):
         1. scientific vs personal explanation (why is the water boiling? because H20 vs because I want to make tea)
         2. you cannot have scientific explanation for the beginning of the universe (laws of nature do not hold)

14. The Teleological Argument

1. argument for design
2. one of the oldest arguments (Plato, Aristotle)
3. fine-tuning of universe: delicate balance of life-permitting initial conditions
   1. constants of nature (e.g. force of gravity, the electromagnetic force, the subatomic “weak” force)
   2. certain arbitrary quantities (amount of thermodynamic disorder (or entropy) in the early universe)
4. fine tuning doesn’t imply design
5. objection: frequentist
   1. frequentist analysis of probability: something will happen e.g. 1x out of ten
   2. there is only one universe (trial) -> probability and fine tuning doesn’t makes sense
   3. this approach is mistaken (e.g. proton decay: noone observed, but phsics predict -> large investment)
   4. better approach to probability: possible values of constants/quantities

15. The Teleological Argument Part 2

1. we are not concerned with universes with different laws of nature but same laws & different numbers (e.g. one fly in large paper, a random bullet is unlikely to hit it even if there are flies all around the paper)
2. argument:
   1. 1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
   2. 2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
   3. 3. Therefore, it is due to design.
3. physical necessity:
   1. life-prohibiting universe is a physical impossibility
   2. almont no one holds this view
4. Theory of Everything (TOE)
   1. goal: unified theory to unite the four fundamental forces of nature (gravitation, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force) into a single force
   2. most promising candidate: M-Theory or super-string theory
   3. only works in an 11-dimensional universe
   4. no unique prediction for values of constants/quantities
   5. permits a wide range of 10^500 universes with different options
   6. it doesn’t predict our universe: cannot be used as an argument for physical necessity

16. The Teleological Argument Part 3

1. chance: second alternative
2. objection: probability is meaningless if only one observation
   1. John Barrow’s example: paper with red dot (life-permitting) and black (life-prohibiting) potential universes
3. objection: lottery (somebody has to win it)
   1. misunderstanding: not trying to explain why this universe exists but why a *life-permitting* universe exists
   2. better analogy: billions of white balls (life-prohibiting), couple of orange (life-permitting), P(ball is orange)
   3. William Dembski: each lottery won by a maffia - still suspicious
4. Anthropic Principle: if universe wasn’t life permitting, we couldn’t observe it -> no explanation is needed
   1. fallacy: principle doesn’t eliminate the need of an explanation unless it comes together with Many Worlds Hypothesis
   2. example: 100 ppl shoot at you, all miss, and you’re still alive
   3. debate about fine tuning has turned into debate about Many Worlds Hypothesis (MWH)
   4. if it could only happen by chance, why do many scientists turn to MWH to avoid design?
5. Problems with MWH:
   1. multiverse itself cannot require fine-tuning (otherwise we just kicked the problem upstairs)
   2. governing physics very vague, absence of fine-tuning not evident (e.g. why 11 dimensions in M-theory?)
   3. skepticism if it even exists… no evidence for it being real
   4. how do we know if not only 100 universes?
   5. in contrast: design hypothesis has independent reasons (Leibniz’s/kalam cosmological argument)
   6. biggest objection: similar to one against Boltzmann-hypothesis
      1. small word with the illusion of wider universe much probable
      2. Penrose: odds of random solar system (10^10^60) much more probable than fine tuned universe (10^10^123).
      3. “the invasion of Blotzmann-brains”: MVH + atheism would imply that you are the only thing that exists, everything else is illusion
      4. best hope for MVH: theism

17. The Teleological Argument Part 4

1. neither chance nor physical necessity provides a plausible explanation for fine-tuning
2. however, sometimes it can be justified to believe in an improbable explanation in case there were no better explanation available
   1. eg. baseball game, ball hits pigeon, highly improbable but still it was by chance
   2. but: if this happened with rifle, we wouldn’t accept the same explanation -> there is a better explanation
3. is design a better explanation for fine tuning than chance or physical necessity?
4. objection against design hypothesis: Designer remains unexplained - Richard Dawkins “central argument” of The God Delusion:
   1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
   2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.
      1. The reason the universe looks designed is because there is a Designer.
   3. The temptation is a false one because the Designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the Designer.
      1. Flaw 1: in order to recognize an explanation as the best, you don’t need to have an explanation of the explanation (e.g. archeologist inferring existence of ppl from pottery)
         1. This would lead to infinite regression
      2. Flaw 2: Dawkins thinks that in the case of a divine Designer of the universe, the Designer is just as complex as the thing to be explained, so no explanatory advance is made.
         1. simplicity is not the only factor when assessing competing explanations (e.g. explanatory scope, or explanatory power)
         2. his assumption: divine Designer is just as complex as the universe - this is false
         3. God is pure mind without a body - remarkably simple entity, yet minds can have complex ideas
         4. Dawkins conflates the simplicity of the hypothesis with the simplicity of the entity that the hypothesis posits (-> e.g. Trinity would be violation of Occam’s Razor)
   4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.
      1. There he is talking about biological complexity – the appearance of design in animals and plants.
   5. We don’t have an equivalent explanation for physics.
      1. Here he is talking about fine-tuning. He is no longer talking about those examples of the appearance of design in the animal and plant kingdoms. Here he is talking about physics and the fine-tuning of those fundamental constants and quantities for the universe.
      2. Dawkins admits that he has no explanation for the fine-tuning,
   6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology. (Don’t abandon hope!)
      1. naturalism-of-the-gaps
   7. Conclusion: Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.
      1. but: this doesn’t follow from the previous six statements even if all of them are true!
      2. conclusion: we should not infer God’s existence on the basis of the appearance of design in the universe - this is compatible with God’s existence (other arguments)

18. The Moral Argument

1. Can we be good without God? (NOT: can we be good without believing in God!)
2. moral argument for God’s existence:
   1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
   2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
   3. Therefore, God exists.
3. Notes:
   1. people generally believe both premises
      1. relativistic age: you can’t tell somebody else that they are wrong and you are right -> premise 1
      2. but also: it is objectively wrong to impose your values on someone else -> premise 2
   2. values (good/bad) vs duties (moral obligations right/wrong)
      1. e.g. Sophie’s Choice which child to give to Nazis. Both are bad but not wrong (she has to make a choice)
   3. objective (independent of people’s opinions) vs subjective (dependent)
      1. e.g. Holocaust was objectively wrong: even if Nazis won, and killed everyone who doesn’t agree
   4. NOT: absolute (independent of circumstances)
      1. e.g. killing a terrorist might be justified
   5. exist: not used in Platonic sense (abstract objects) but light sense (e.g. there are 5 Fridays in October)
      1. workaround: “if God does not exist, moral values and duties are not objective.”
4. Premise 1:
   1. most popular form of atheism is naturalism:
      1. only things that exist are the things that are postulated by our best scientific theories
      2. science is morally neutral
      3. Humans: just accidental byproducts of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust called the planet Earth lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time
      4. Richard Dawkins: “there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. . . . We are machines for propagating DNA. . . . It is every living object’s sole reason for being.”
      5. moral values: byproduct of biological evolution and social conditioning
      6. Charles Darwin The Descent of Man: “If . . . men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters, and no one would think of interfering.”
      7. human beings are not special to other species (this is species-ism)
   2. moral duties: if human beings are just animals, and animals have no moral obligations
      1. e.g. when a lion kills a zebra, it kills the zebra, but it does not murder the zebra
      2. when great white shark forcibly copulates with a female, it doesn’t rape her - no moral dimension
      3. Certain actions like incest and rape may not be advantageous biologically and socially and so in the course of human development they have become taboo. But that does absolutely nothing to show that rape or incest is really wrong. Such behavior goes on all the time in the animal kingdom. The rapist who goes against the herd morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably, the moral equivalent, as it were, of Lady Gaga
   3. “Are you saying that atheists are bad people?” this is a complete misunderstanding of the argument. Question is NOT:
      1. Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?
      2. Can we recognize objective moral values and duties without believing in God?
      3. Can we formulate a system of ethics without referring to God?
      4. BUT: If God does not exist, do objective moral values and duties exist?
   4. Moral ground: pain aversion
      1. common answer, but then I want to know why should we avoid inflicting pain on other persons in our species?
      2. Animals inflict pain upon one another all the time. So why are we different? Why is it wrong for Homo sapiens – this relatively advanced primate – to inflict pain?

19. Questions About the Moral Argument

1. Sam Harris: affirms the objectivity of moral values and duties but grounds them in human beings that whatever is conducive to human flourishing is good, and whatever detracts from human flourishing is bad
2. The Euthyphro Dilemma: is something good just because God wills it, or does God will something because it is good?
   1. false dilemma (not: A or not A)
   2. third alternative: God wills something because he is good
   3. “If God were to command child abuse…” ~ “If there were a square circle”
3. C.S. Lewis: paintings of New York City, the only way to judge which one is actually better if New York City exists
4. WLC: high-fidelity recording approximates live orchestra
5. Hatred not only wrong, but necessarily wrong

20. The Moral Argument Part 3

1. Objections to premise 1
   1. Euthypro dilemma:
      1. original context: polytheism (Greek gods)
   2. Atheistic Moral Platonism (Good exists on its own)
      1. unintelligible: how can Justice exists without ppl?
      2. no basis for moral duties: why Love, why not Hate?
      3. improbable by blind evolutionary process
   3. Stubborn Humanism: human flourishing -> good (Sam Harris)
      1. why stop at human flourishing? why is it better than flourishing of ants/chimpanzees?
      2. implausible
      3. supervene: moral properties attach to situations (e.g. wetness on H2 + O) -> no reason
2. Why is God the ultimate standard?
   1. humanism is premature stopping point
   2. theism is adequate stopping point
   3. God: greatest conceivable being
   4. Good = God -> plausible moral theory
3. Manichaeism: ancient heresy, world=light+dark, you have to choose
4. voluntarism: no moral values and duties are necessarily true -> wrong
5. how we know moral values -> different question

21. The Moral Argument Part 4

1. very few ppl deny premise 2
2. professors are more objectivist than the students - but students can be quickly convinced:
   1. suttee - Hindu practice, widow burned alive
   2. cripple baby girls by binding feet to look like lotus - ancient Chinese custom
   3. sexual assault of Catholic priests
   4. Crusades/Inquisition
3. philosophy professors are most objectivist
4. properly basic:
   1. we are justified to believe objective moral values/duties exist because that’s what our moral experience tells us. Just like we are justified to believe physical objects exists
   2. our experience is not infallible (e.g. optical illusions) but in the absence of a defeater we can rely on them
5. objection from evolutionary psychology: moral beliefs have been ingrained into us by biological evolution and social conditioning - responses:
   1. even if this is true, this doesn’t undermine the truth of our moral values
      1. truth of a belief is independent of how you came to hold that belief (otherwise: genetic fallacy)
      2. eg. “the reason you believe that is because you were born in the United States. But if you were born in another country you would have held another belief.”
   2. currently no coherent evolutionary account of morality exists
   3. you have to presuppose atheism in order for this argument to get off the ground, and that is question-begging
   4. objection is self-defeating:
      1. Alvin Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism:
      2. if our moral beliefs have been produced by evolution then we can’t have any confidence in the truth of those beliefs
      3. reason: evolution aims at survival, not at truth
6. experience is always subjective but it doesn’t mean the object of the experience is subjective too!

22. The Moral Argument Part 5

1. objection from evolutionary psychology: our moral beliefs are the product of evolution, and evolution (or natural selection) is aimed at survival value, not at truth, we can have no confidence in the truth of our moral beliefs and therefore could not be justified in believing premise (2).
   1. there is no plausible coherent socio-biological account of our moral beliefs
   2. objection assumes that atheism is true -> begs the question
   3. objection is ultimately self-defeating: all of our beliefs on naturalism are the product of evolution and therefore are selected for by their survival value, not for their truth. That would include the belief in naturalism itself
2. subjectivity of our moral experience
   1. experience is always subjective
   2. but it doesn’t follow that the object of the experience is subjective too
   3. flat vs round earth: not about subjective vs. objective experience but correct vs incorrect belief regarding an objective truth
3. moral argument to say that our moral faculties are infallible any more than our sense faculties are infallible (e.g. optical illusions)
   1. e.g. tribes practicing cannibalism
   2. Nevertheless, according to anthropologists the commonality of the moral codes among the peoples of the world is really quite striking (e.g. cannibals never eat member of their own tribe but only enemies)
   3. punishment can be different too (Western: not retributive but to reform/protect others)
4. intentionality: “of-ness” or “about-ness” of something
   1. e.g. thoughts have intentionality. I can think “of” my wife, or I can think “about” my summer vacation.
   2. subjective experience is intentional too – it is an experience of something else. So there is an object of that experience.
5. altruism: how do you explain by evolution? (Jeffrey Schloss)
6. moral argument: probably most effective
7. Kevin Scharp
   1. “weakness”: premises are not false/illogicalit, they are just weak
   2. good deductive argument:
      1. needs to be logically valid
      2. premises need to be more plausible than not
   3. 51% is not enough
   4. responses:
      1. this is just a minimum requirement, some premises are 100% true
      2. probability of premises != probability of conclusion
      3. cumulative evidence can increase the probability

23. The Ontological Argument

1. Anselm: Benedictine monk, later Archbishop of Canterbury
   1. “God”: aliquid quo nihil maius cogitari potest (greatest conceivable being)
   2. God must exist because if God did not exist he would not be the greatest conceivable being
2. ontos = being
3. various forms of ontological arguments
   1. all try to deduce the existence of God from the very concept of God together with some necessary truths
4. Alvin Plantinga’s version:
   1. ontological argument assumes that the concept of God is possible (=there is a possible world in which God exists)
   2. this is not the Many Worlds Hypothesis!
   3. opposite: logical fatalism: everything that is true is necessarily true and there are no possibilities (e.g. it is impossible that Peter not deny Christ three times)
   4. Counterfactuals: “If I were rich then I would do…”
   5. Zangmeister: illustration for possible worlds: doors
   6. we can imagine != what we can conceive
5. Plantinga’s argument: if it is possible that God exists then God does exist

24. The Ontological Argument Part 2

1. possible world: list of statements, if all true -> actual world
2. ontological argument: if God’s existence is possible, then it is necessary
   1. if God exists in one possible world – then he exists in all of them
   2. assumption: God is a coherent concept (it is possible for God to exist)
      1. “The prime minister is a prime number.” -> impossible, necessarily false -> concept of God is not like that
      2. “George McGovern is the President of the United States” -> possibly true in other worlds
   3. challenge: how do you get from God existing in some non-actual world to God existing in the actual world?
3. Alvin Plantinga’s version: God = being which is maximally excellent in every possible world
   1. Maximal excellence: property of being all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good
   2. Maximal greatness: property of having maximal excellence in every possible world
   3. Argument:
      1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists (=maximal greatness is possibly exemplified).
      2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
      3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world then it exists in every possible world.
      4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world then it exists in the actual world.
      5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world then a maximally great being exists.
      6. Therefore a maximally great being exists.
   4. argument sound, non-question begging <-> initially didn’t regard successful because key premise, “Possibly maximal greatness is exemplified” can be rationally denied
      1. later realized he set the bar too high: “I employed a traditional but wholly improper standard: I took it that these arguments are successful only if they start from propositions that compel assent from every honest and intelligent person and proceed majestically to their conclusion by way of forms of argument that can be rejected only on pain of insincerity or irrationality. Naturally enough, I joined the contemporary chorus in holding that none of the traditional arguments was successful. (I failed to note that no philosophical arguments of any consequence meet that standard; hence the fact that theistic arguments do not is of less significance than I thought.)” (Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000) p. 69.)
4. key point: premise 1
   1. epistemic vs metaphysical possibility
      1. Epistemic possibility: what is possible with respect to your knowledge
      2. Metaphysical possibility: has to do with what is actualizable or what is real independently of what you think about it
      3. E.g. Goldbach’s Conjecture: every even number greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two prime numbers
         1. epistemically it can be true or false (we don’t know)
         2. metaphisically either it is necessarily true or necessarily false (can’t be both)
      4. similarly, key premise can be epistemically uncertain but metaphysically it is still possible
         1. concept of God != married bachelor
5. objections: parodies
   1. Guanilo (Anselm’s fellow monk) On Behalf of the Fool
   2. e.g. most-perfect island, necessarily existent lion/pizza
   3. response: concept of God is different
      1. properties of maximal excellence (e.g. all-powerful) have intrinsic maximum values <-> islands don’t have such properties (there can always be more trees/dancing girls)
      2. excellent-making properties are not objective (perfect pizza depends on your taste)
      3. necessarily existent lion/pizza/any physical thing: would not exist if the universe = single infinitely dense space-time singularity
6. greatest challenge: existence of quasi-maximally great being (QM)
   1. one of excellent-making properties little deficient
   2. e.g. God of open theism: knows past and present but not future
   3. maximal and quasi-maximal greatness is logically incompatible
   4. if maximally great being exists, there must be a potential universe where only him exists -> no quasi-maximally great being exist
   5. assuming quasi-maximal being is possible = assuming maximal being is not -> this would beg the question
   6. how do we know a priori if maximal or quasi-maximal exists? intuition of maximal trumps quasi-maximal -> concept of QM derived from maximal being
   7. Plantinga: premise 1 can be affirmed not only by a priori intuitions but a posteriori reasons

25. Q&A on the Ontological Argument

1. objection: properties of maximal excellence are subjective
   1. not true (morally perfect being obviously greater than defective)
   2. even if it were, it doesn’ matter -> anyone is free to propose qualities
2. objection: is it possible God does not exist?
   1. epistemic vs metaphysical possibility not the same
3. any physical object is bad counterexample as it depends on space-time
4. concept of maximal greatness is not complete, only some necessary conditions (but not all)
5. Eastern mind: tends to view existence as impersonal
6. objection: there could be worlds in which God doesn’t exist
   1. e.g. world of rabbits in unremitting misery, or world where everybody goes to hell
   2. this is inconsistent with God
   3. two conclusions:
      1. if God is not maximally great -> this is a proof of that
      2. if God is maximally great -> this world is not possible
   4. objection: this is circular reasoning (you are excluding possible worlds that are inconsistent with the concept of God)
      1. powerful objection
      2. scenario that is incompatible with maximal greatness
      3. pushes it back to question: is maximal greatness possible or not?
   5. imaginable vs conceivable (metaphysically possible) worlds
      1. e.g. you can imagine Golbach Conjecture is false (but if it’s true, this is impossible)
      2. similarly, you can imagine a world like this (but if God exists, this is impossible)
7. Anselm’s argument: sg that exists in the mind only << sg that exists in the mind & real world -> God’s existence is real in the world
   1. Leibniz’ insight: premise 1 is crucial
8. Kant’s objection: existence is not a property
   1. Plantinga’s version immune to it
   2. it doesn’t assume that existence is a property
   3. is assumes necessity is a property

26. The Ontological Argument

1. a priori (prior to experience)
   1. greatest maximal being seems to be a coherent idea -> good reason to think it is true
2. a posteriori defense
   1. e.g. Leibnizian argument from contingency
      1. doesn’t assume necessity a priori
   2. moral argument for God’s existence.
      1. “The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says 2+2=5.” (Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended (London: Addison-Wesley, 1982), p. 275.)
   3. conceptualist argument for God’s existence
      1. Abstract objects like numbers and other mathematical objects are either independently existing realities (Platonism) or else they are concepts in some mind
         1. This is a realist view
         2. The opposite can be defended too
      2. Abstract objects are not independently existing realities.
         1. rejecting Platonism
         2. e.g. based on causal isolation: If these objects exist, they don’t exist in space and time -> no causal power -> irrelevant
      3. If abstract objects are concepts in some mind then an omniscient, metaphysically necessary being exists
         1. If mathematical entities are concepts in a mind, they can’t be concepts in some human mind because there are too many of them to be thought about by any finite mind
3. moral argument: “It is wrong to torture a child for fun” -> still true even in worlds with no children
4. redundancy: isn’t it question begging?
   1. you have to believe the conclusion is true to accept the premise.:
      1. Either God exists or the moon is made of green cheese.
      2. The moon is not made of green cheese.
      3. Therefore God exists.
   2. isn’t believing a maximally great being not the same?
      1. linear view of natural theology ~ chain, only as strong as weakest
      2. instead: ~ coat of chain mail, all links reinforce each other
      3. ontological argument: important role in cumulative case for God’s existence
5. Dawkins: “God probably doesn’t exist so relax and enjoy your life.”
   1. Reaction: “If God probably doesn’t exist then God exists.”
   2. if there is any possibility for God to exist, the ontological argument goes through
6. proponents of ontological argument:
   1. Kurt Gödel (mathematician)
7. difference between knowing vs showing Christianity to be true

27. Arguments Against God’s Existence

1. force your audience to engage with the argument
2. don’t allow yourself to get distracted, stay focused on the argument
3. if emotional rejection -> counseling & personal engagement
4. memorize the arguments!
5. “Which premise do you reject and why?”
6. five reasons to think God exists:
   1. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists rather than nothing
   2. God is the best explanation of the beginning of the universe
   3. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life
   4. God is the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values and duties in the world
   5. The very possibility of God’s existence implies that God exists
7. not proof but evidence -> intellectual modesty
8. Verificationism:
   1. philosophy dominant in 1930s-1940s
   2. “any statement in order to be meaningful must be capable of being empirically verified”
   3. not a truth test -> criterion of meaning itself!
   4. not gibberish but no factual assertion (not true or false, eg. questions/commands)
   5. collapse in 20th century
      1. criterion too restrictive: even scientific truths are often not verifiable
         1. e.g. Special Theory of Relativity: light assumed to have constant one-way velocity, only two-way can be measured
      2. self-refuting: statement itself is not verifiable
   6. universally rejected
9. theoretical physics: many entities postulated (e.g. subatomic particles) because of explanatory value, even though we don’t have access to them empirically
   1. God is like such an entity -> God’s existence explains plausibly empirical data

28. The Presumption of Atheism

1. epistemological objections to belief in God: God cannot be known to exist
   1. e.g. verificationism
2. presumption of atheism: atheism is the default position, no evidence required
   1. Atheism (traditional view): God does not exist
   2. Atheism (modern view): impossible to prove a universal negative
      1. good excuse not to give any evidence for God’s non-existence
      2. but: you can prove a universal negative (e.g. show self-contradiction, e.g. “there are no married bachelor”)
      3. it shows atheism cannot be proven!
   3. reaction: atheism = absence of belief in God
      1. it’s not a truth claim but a description of psychological state
      2. this would make babies/cats atheist too!
      3. doesn’t answer the original question (is there God?)
3. suggestion: write down words & definitions -> delete the labels
4. atheism is default: you should assume that something does not exist unless and until you have evidence that it does exist
   1. “absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence” (criminology)
   2. two examples:
      1. there is a flea in the room (no evidence but it can be true)
      2. there is an elephant in the room (no evidence -> it cannot be true)
   3. absence of evidence = evidence of absence for elephant but not for the flea
   4. two necessary conditions:
      1. you have fully canvassed the area where the evidence should be found (in-depth analysis for God’s existence)
      2. if the entity did exist then we should expect to have more evidence of its existence than that which we have (e.g. elephant smell)
         1. should we expect more evidence than we currently have? not obvious at all!
   5. Bertrand Russell’s orbiting teapot: good evidence it doesn’t exist
      1. no astronauts carried teapots
      2. can’t pour tea in space
   6. we have good evidence that Bigfoot/Loch Ness Monster/Abominable Snowman doesn’t exist -> what is the evidence that God doesn’t?
5. theology ~ astronomy/cosmology
   1. the less we know about sg the more we have to rely on indirect observation
   2. e.g. Earth’s core: noone has seen it
   3. e.g. black hole: no direct evidence, but great explanatory value

29. The Hiddenness of God

1. hiddenness of God: if God existed, he would have given more evidence
   1. real motivation: no good arguments
   2. why not more obvious? e.g. “made by God” in every atom
   3. God intent is loving relationship not just believing his existence
   4. if current evidence is not enough, more won’t either (Lk 16:30-31)
   5. e.g. Israel: left God despite obvious miracles
   6. more obvious evidence might even offend people
   7. Paul: vision of Christ, but freedom to disobey
2. belief in God: hardwired in human brain, study with Japanese children
3. don’t lie to your children about Santa Claus - when they find out, they might question other things too…
4. apologetics: sharing persuasive arguments, leaving the results to God

30. The Problem of Evil and Suffering (1)

1. aka “the problem of pain/innocent suffering.”
2. not only moral but natural evil too (disasters, diseases etc)
   1. “if God doesn’t exist, evil doesn’t exist”
   2. yes, but suffering still can
3. intellectual vs emotional problem of evil:
   1. emotionally difficult but it is no reason to think God doesn’t exist
   2. intellectual problem: can God and suffering co-exist
   3. emotional problem: dislike of a God who allows suffering
   4. intellectual problem -> philosopher, emotional -> counselor
   5. for majority: it is emotional, not intellectual
      1. rejection, but not refutation of God
4. logical vs evidential/probabilistic version of the intellectual problem of evil
   1. logical: logical inconsistency between God and evil
      1. impossible for them to co-exist
   2. probabilistic: co-existence not impossible but highly improbable
   3. “Explain why God allows suffering!”
      1. burden of proof: not on believer but on unbeliever!
      2. context: arguments against God
      3. atheist need to give us an argument that concludes “therefore God doesn’t exist’
   4. clarify category with unbeliever
5. Elie Wiesel: Night (holocaust survivor who became atheist)
6. logical version:
   1. atheist claims + hidden assumptions:
      1. An all-loving, all-powerful God exists.
      2. Suffering in the world exists.
      3. Necessarily, an all-powerful God can create any world that he wants
      4. Necessarily, an all-loving God prefers a world without suffering.
   2. 3. is not necessarily true if free will is possible
      1. making sb to do sg freely ~ squared circle
      2. atheist response: “yes, a God who is all powerful can do logical impossibilities” -> problem of evil is solved!
      3. even if they refute free will (Calvinism), as long as free will is possible, 3 is not necessarily true

31. The Problem of Evil and Suffering (2)

1. logical version of the problem of evil
   1. 1. An all-powerful, all-loving God exists.
   2. 2. Evil and suffering exist
2. hidden premises to make contradiction explicit
   1. 3. If God is all-powerful (as Christians claim) then he can create any world that he wants, including a world with no evil and no suffering.
      1. not necessarily true if free will is possible
   2. 4. If God is all-good then he would prefer a world without suffering over a world with suffering.
      1. not necessarily true
      2. God could have other overriding reasons
      3. we also permit/inflict pain for greater good
      4. “What do people mean when they say ‘I am not afraid of God because I know that he is good.’ Have they never even been to the dentist?” (C.S. Lewis)
      5. atheist: God is all-powerful, not limited like dentist. He could bring good without suffering
         1. not necessarily true if free will exists
         2. world with suffering can be overall better than world without it
         3. e.g. world with no physical universe, only God is also possible, and without suffering
3. Alvin Plantinga: it is logically possible that the natural evil in the world is the result of Satan and his minions
4. freedom doesn’t entail evil!
5. burden of proof on atheist: he has to show that:
   1. freedom of will is impossible
   2. it is impossible that world witht suffering is better than world without suffering
6. plausibility of coexistence of God and suffering: extra premise:
   1. 5. God could not have created a world with as much good as the actual world but with less suffering, and moreover God has good reasons for permitting the suffering in the world.
   2. is it true? we don’t know.
   3. but if it’s possibly true -> no inconsistency between God and evil
7. atheist: failed to prove God and evil inconsistent
8. we proved they are consistent if 5) is true
9. today: hardly atheist would defend this argument
   1. burden of proof is too big
   2. standard argument until the 1970s
10. gratuitous evil:
    1. i.e. pointless and unnecessary evil
    2. Christians are not commited to it!
11. evil does not exist necessarily

32. The Problem of Evil and Suffering (3)

1. probabilistic (evidential) problem of evil
   1. more powerful argument
   2. more model conclusion -> burden of proof lighter
2. Response 1. We are not in a good position to say that it is improbable that God has good reasons for permitting the suffering in the world.
   1. key: atheist’s claim that God probably doesn’t have good reasons for permitting the evil and suffering in the world
   2. we agree much suffering looks unjustified (no point/necessity)
   3. atheist argument: inference from appearance to reality
      1. Because the suffering appears to be unjustified or pointless, it really is.
   4. we are finite persons <-> God is all-knowing
   5. illustrations:
      1. butterfly effect (chaos theory): certain large-scale systems like the weather or insect populations are extraordinarily sensitive to the smallest disturbances
      2. Sliding Doors: young woman - two paths of life
      3. Allied victory on D-Day: infinite complexity to reach that single event
   6. this is not appeal to mystery but to point to human limitations
   7. utilitarianism
      1. ethical theory that says that we should do that action which is likely to bring about the greatest good for the greatest number of people
      2. decisive objection: we have no idea of the ultimate outcome of our actions
3. natural evil: many are results of physical processes that are necessary to support life (e.g. plate tectonics -> earthquakes)
   1. many cases due to human choice (e.g. build home on fault line)
4. evil by design: wasp laying an egg inside a spider
   1. support evolution (not by design)
5. animal suffering:
   1. insects, lower forms of life: not sentient beings
   2. viruses ~ little machines, not evil per se
   3. e.g. amoeba recoils when poked by a needle as if it was in pain but it is not a sentient being
   4. sentient animals:
      1. no third-level (first-person) awarenes of pain
      2. e.g. “blind sight” ppl are blind but they really can see
         1. no third-level awareness of second level ability
      3. similar: could be in pain but not be aware of it
6. William Dembski: hypothesis: Garden of Eden is oasis in a wider world of animal predation and suffering
   1. God knew Adam and Eve would fall, so he already created them in a world that bears signs of fallenness
7. Job: God doesn’t give an explanation for his suffering
8. Lk 13: Jesus asked about natural & moral evil
   1. Jesus refutes the view that ppl suffer because they deserved to
9. Response 2. Relative to the full scope of the evidence, God’s existence is probable.
   1. probability: never absolute, always relative to background information
   2. e.g. Joe is college student, 90% drinks -> Joe is probably a drinker
      1. But: extra info: Joe attends Wheaton College, only 10% drinks
      2. Joe is probably not a drinker
   3. God’s existence is improbable -> improbable to what??
      1. relative to suffering? -> this is not an interesting question
      2. relative to full scope of evidence? -> God’s existence is probable
   4. e.g. moral argument for God’s existence
      1. If God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist.
      2. Evil exists.
      3. Therefore, objective moral values exist, namely some things are evil.
      4. Therefore, God exists.
   5. apart from God suffering isn’t really bad -> evil actually proves God’s existence

33. The Problem of Evil and Suffering (4)

1. two responses to problem of evil (probabilistic version)
   1. cannot say with confident that God has no good reason for permitting evil/suffering
   2. probability: relative to background information
      1. even if God’s existence is improbable relative to evil, God’s existence may be still probable
      2. e.g. my existence is very unlikely relative to reproductive biology (millions of sperms, one specific is very improbable)
      3. full scope of evidence -> God’s existence is probable
      4. evil itself is an argument for God’s existence
2. Christian doctrines increase probability of co-existence of God and evil:
   1. The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but the knowledge of God.
   2. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and his purpose.
   3. God’s purpose is not restricted to this life, but it spills over beyond the grave to eternal life.
   4. The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good.
3. atheist response: these doctrines might be false
   1. trying to shift the burden of proof
   2. atheist is making the claim here
   3. atheist needs to show that the Christian God is improbable relative to the suffering in the world e.g.:
      1. show that these four doctrines are probably false
      2. show that God’s existence is still improbable even if they are true

34. The Emotional Version of the Problem of Evil

1. for most people the problem of suffering and evil is not really an intellectual problem. It is really an emotional problem.
2. why bother with intellectual version?
   1. people think that their problem is intellectual
   2. it can help us in our suffering
3. how to respond?
   1. maybe nothing, just listen to them
   2. God suffers along with us
   3. meditation on the wounds of Christ can be helpful
   4. don’t try to figure out the reason
      1. “the York signal box mistake.” (J. I. Packer)
      2. we are not in the signal box, don’t see the whole picture

S5: DOCTRINE OF GOD: TRINITY

1. There Is One God

1. recap: doctrine of God
   1. attributes of God
   2. excursus on natural theology
   3. doctrine of the Trinity
2. God is tri-personal
   1. three persons in one God
   2. three centers of self-consciousness each of which can say “I”.
   3. “one what, but three whos.” (Nabeel Quereshi)
   4. omniscience:
      1. same propositional knowledge (e.g. “the president is XY”)
      2. different 1st person non-propositional knowledge (“I am the Father”) 5.
3. thermometer of biblical Christianity (e.g. Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses)
4. inadequate analogies
   1. man who is a son, a husband, and a father - it’s same person but different roles
   2. water can be liquid, steam, or ice - it’s not simultaneous
5. concept is important, not the word “Trinity”
   1. it doesn’t matter that it’s not found in the bible
6. “it all depends upon what the meaning of the word “is” is” (Bill Clinton)
7. children’s series What is God Like?

2. Three Distinct Persons in the Godhead

1. there is one God
   1. 1 Kings 8:60; Isaiah 45:5a, 18; Isaiah 44; Mark 12:29; Romans 3:29-30a; 1 Corinthians 8:4; 1 Timothy 2:5; James 2:19
2. three distinct persons
   1. Father is distinct
      1. Matthew 11:27; Matthew 26:39; John 14:16-17
   2. Father is God
      1. Psalm 89:26; Isaiah 63:16; Matthew 6:9
      2. word “God” in the Greek (ho theos) refers to God the Father (e.g. Galatians 4:4-6)
   3. Son is distinct
      1. Mark 1:9-11; John 17:1-5; John 7:39; John 16:7
   4. Son is God
      1. book: Michael Green, The Truth of God Incarnate
      2. no “Jesus is ho theos” (this would mean Son = Father)
      3. used “kyrios” (Lord) for the Son
         1. this is name of God (Yahweh) translated into Greek
         2. Romans 10:9, 13; 1 Corinthians 12:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6
      4. creative ways to affirm Son’s deity in other ways
      5. Colossians 1:15-19
3. criticism of Mormon concept of God: see Isaiah 43-48
   1. e.g “I know no other”
4. that there are three distinct persons in the Godhead

3. The Deity of Christ

1. Jesus is ho theos (God) - doesn’t appear explicitly in NT
   1. it refers to the Father
2. Jesus is kyrios (Lord) - appears many times in NT
   1. Greek version of Yahweh
3. Christ is given the role of God
   1. Creator
      1. Colossians 1:15, John 1:1-3, Hebrews 1:1-3a
      2. book: Jesus as God by Murray Harris
         1. some cases Jesus Christ is referred to as ho theos
         2. Hebrews 1:8-12, Titus 2:13, Philippians 2:5-7,
         3. John 1:1, John 1:18, John 20:28, 1 John 5:20
      3. Logos: agent of creation
         1. influence of philosophy on NT
         2. idea comes from Middle Platonists: philosophical school (e.g. Philo)
         3. Logos ~ mind of God
         4. but: Logos is part of God, not creation
   2. receiving worship
      1. Son of Man (Daniel 7)
4. Titus 2:13: you can’t switch the comma (<-> JW)
5. no need to prove Trinity but need to able to defend it

4. The Holy Spirit

1. Holy Spirit is a distinct person
   1. Luke 11:13, John 14:26, John 15:26, Romans 8:26-27
   2. Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14, 1 Peter 1:1-2
2. NT terminology:
   1. HS closely identified with Jesus Christ
   2. often referred to as Spirit of Christ (not Spirit of God)
   3. even sometimes he is simply called Christ (Romans 8:9-11)
3. Holy Spirit is God
   1. Matthew 12:28, Acts 5:3-4, Romans 8:9
4. Greek has gendered articles
   1. e.g. Spirit is neuter (to pneuma)
   2. John violates grammar by using masculine pronoun
5. Objection from JW: personification (e.g. Prov 8)
   1. but: these passages are not
6. Doctrine of Trinity has not been revealed in OT
   1. reference to God is not always precise
   2. e.g. Isaiah 6, vision of God (John says it was Christ)

5. The Historical Survey

1. early Greek apologists (2nd century AD)
2. Justin Martyr, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras etc
3. Logos Christology
   1. connect Logos of John with Logos of Philo of Alexandria
   2. Philo:
      1. Hellenistic Jew
      2. heavy influence of Greek philosophy
      3. representing Middle Platonism
      4. Plato: world of ideals: uncreated reality, exist independent of God
      5. Jewish monotheism: ideals are mind of God (cannot exist independently)
   3. God is one, but not undifferentiated unity rather rather certain aspects of his mind become expressed as distinct individuals
4. Council of Nicaea: synthesis between John’s Gospel and Middle Platonism
5. Inadequate doctrine but groping

6. Historical Survey (2) - Modalism

1. Modalism
   1. aka Monarchianism, Sabellianism
   2. 3rd century
   3. Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are not distinct persons
   4. Son ~ human side of Father
   5. treatise against: Against Praxeas by Tertullian
      1. analogy: sunbeam of sun, river from spring
   6. church rejected
   7. opposite view: Arianism
      1. affirmed the personal distinction of the Father and the Son but denied the deity of the Son
      2. Modalists at least did affirm the deity of Christ

7. Historical Survey (3) - Arianism

1. Son is not of the same substance as the Father but had been created before the beginning of the world
2. Arius: presbyter of the church of Alexandria, Egypt
3. 319 AD
4. denied existence of Logos before creation
5. critique: Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria
6. views rejected in 325 by council of Antioch
7. Council of Nicaea (325)
   1. homoousios - Father and Son are of same substance
   2. heteroousios - different (Arius)
   3. homoiousios - similar substance (Semi-Arians)
      1. Jesus is not fully divine, only partially
   4. Son is begotten, not made
   5. begetting is eternal, has no beginning
   6. Father is agennetos (unbegotten), Son is gennetos (begotten)
   7. Christ is not a different hypostasis (substance) from the Father
      1. problem: for Greek hypostasis <> substance
      2. hypostasis just means a concrete individual, a bearer of properties
      3. confusion cleared up in Council of Alexandria in 362
      4. there is one substance (homousios) but three different divine hypostases (individuals)

8. Historical Survey (4) - Coherence of the Doctrine

1. Nicene Creed:
   1. “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things, visible and invisible;
   2. And in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down and became incarnate, becoming man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead.
   3. And in the Holy Spirit.
   4. But for those who say ‘there was when he was not’ and ‘before being born he was not’ and that ‘he came into existence out of nothing’ or who assert ‘the Son of God is from a different hypostasis or substance, or is created, or is subject to alteration or change’ – these the Catholic Church anathematizes.”
   5. homoousias: Father and the Son are the same substance
   6. hypostasis: three individuals – in one substance
2. Three Persons of the Trinity
   1. divine nature: they are persons
   2. human nature: “rational animal” (Aristotle)
3. functional Trinity: roles they play in salvation
4. ontological Trinity: the way God is
5. “in 325 the Church voted to make Jesus divine” (JW, Dan Brown)
   1. great misrepresentation of doctrine of Trinity
   2. Right from the very beginning Christ was regarded as divine (Logos doctrine)
   3. modalists affirmed that he was divine
   4. struggle to articulate the relationship between three persons
6. is the Trinity logically coherent?
   1. problem: transitivity of identity: A = B & B = C -> A = C
   2. solution: Trinity is God, but not identical to the Father
   3. “Father is God”
      1. not statement of identity but predication
      2. e.g. “Elizabeth is queen” - not identical but holds the office/role of a queen
      3. Father is God = Father is divine

9. Three Divine Persons, One God

1. possible model: Cerberus
   1. three-headed dog from Greco-Roman mythology
   2. three consciousnesses but one dog
   3. assumptions
      1. self-conscious, personal agents -> tri-personal being
      2. immortal souls -> still one even after after killed (no body)
   4. God ~ unembodied soul
      1. for humans: 1 soul -> 1 person (one set of rational faculties)
      2. fog God: 1 soul -> 3 persons (three self-consciousness)
   5. model doesn’t comment on derivation of persons
2. monogenes: “unique” or “one and only.”
   1. not “only begotten”
   2. e.g. Jn 1,14
   3. not about pre-creation

10. The Relationship Between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

1. Ontological vs Economic Trinity
   1. Logos doctrine introduced subordinationism (“The Father is greater then I”)
   2. Nicaean orthodoxy couldn’t deal with it properly
   3. ontological Trinity: Trinity itself, without creation
   4. economical Trinity: relationship between Trinity and the world (salvation)
   5. Marcellus of Ancyra: economic Trinity prior to creation
   6. divine foreknowledge -> economic Trinity exists eternally
   7. subordination only affects economic Trinity, not ontological
   8. error of Logos Christology: conflating the economic and ontological Trinity -> introducing subordinationism into God’s nature, not just functionally

11. A Plausibility Argument for the Trinity

1. Trinity: revealed, not natural theology (no way to prove by reason alone)
2. plausibility argument:
   1. By definition God is the greatest conceivable being.
   2. As the greatest conceivable being God must be morally perfect.
   3. Love is a moral perfection, and therefore a most perfect being (a greatest conceivable being) must be a loving being.
   4. So as a morally perfect person God must be essentially loving – a perfectly loving being.
   5. It belongs to the very nature of love to give oneself away to another.
   6. Since God is perfectly loving by his very nature (this belongs to the essence of God) that means that God must be giving himself in love to another. But who?
   7. It cannot be any created person because creation is a result of God’s free will, not a result of his nature.
   8. It therefore follows that the other to whom God’s love is necessarily directed must be internal to God himself.
3. Argument presupposes A-theory of time
   1. B-theory/tenseless theory of time: difference between the past, present, and future is an illusion
4. application of the doctrine of the Trinity
   1. helps us to order our prayer lives correctly
      1. prayer directed to the Father in the name of the Son and with the power of the Holy Spirit.
   2. provides healthy model for family & marriage
      1. partners are co-equal but take different functions/roles and submit to themself (functional submission)

S6: DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

1. Third Person of the Trinity

1. pneumatology
2. Holy Spirit
   1. “the forgotten person of the Trinity”
   2. third person of the Trinity
   3. co-equal with God the Father and with God the Son
   4. Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4)
   5. not an impersonal force but rational person (Acts 13:2)
      1. teaching ministry (John 14:25-26)
      2. intercessory prayer ministry (Romans 8:26-27)
   6. distinct from the Father and the Son
3. attributes of Holy Spirit
   1. eternity (Hebrews 9:14)
   2. omnipresence (Psalm 139:7-8)
   3. omniscience (1 Corinthians 2:10-11)
   4. holiness (Romans 1:4)
   5. love (Romans 5:5)

2. Ministries of the Holy Spirit

1. Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ
   1. responsible for the virginal conception of Jesus (Luke 1:35)
   2. descends upon the Son at his baptism (Luke 3:21-22)
   3. miracles and the exorcisms done through HS (Acts 10:38, Matthew 12:28
   4. preaching empowered by HS (Luke 4:14-21)
   5. continues Jesus’ ministry after ascension (John 16:7, 13-15)
2. ministries of the Holy Spirit
   1. creation of the universe. Genesis 1:2-3
   2. divine revelation. 1 Corinthians 2:9-10, 12-13
   3. inspiration of the Scriptures. 2 Peter 1:20-21
   4. conception of Christ. Luke 1:30-31, 34-35
   5. responsible for the regeneration of believers, John 3:5-7
   6. Indwelling and baptizing of the believer. Romans 8:9
   7. gives us assurance of salvation. Romans 8:14-16
   8. gives enablement for spiritual living. Galatians 5:16-18, 25
   9. source of spiritual gifts for building up the body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 12:4-11
   10. produces spiritual fruit in our lives. Galatians 5:22-24

3. The Holy Spirit In the Old Covenant

1. temporary indwelling
2. to perform special purpose
   1. constructing tabernacle: Exodus 31:1-3, Exodus 35:30-35
   2. judging: Numbers 11:16-17, 25
   3. empowering judges: Judges 3:9-10

4. The Holy Spirit In the New Covenant

1. Acts 1:8, progressive unfolding of promise
2. OT: locus of the Holy Spirit: Holy of Holies (2 Chronicles 7:1-3)
3. NT: temple is believer (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)
   1. through baptism of the Holy Spirit

5. The Baptism In the Holy Spirit

1. charismatic view - WRONG
   1. indwelling by the Spirit != being baptized
   2. baptism: second experience often accompanied by speaking in tongues
   3. leads to deeper walk in the Spirit
2. correct view:
   1. baptism is initiatory work of Spirit, not second blessing
   2. 1 Corinthians 12:13
   3. examples of Acts: all initial experiences
   4. believers become members of Christ through baptism of Spirit
3. baptized & indwelt by HS != being filled by HS (1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3)
4. evidence of spiritual man
   1. not charismatic gifts!
   2. but: fruit of the Holy Spirit

6. The Filling of the Holy Spirit

1. why so many Christians not filled with HS?
   1. lack of total commitment
      1. obstacles: Mark 4:3-9
         1. cares of the world
         2. delight in riches
         3. desire for other things
      2. prescription for good soil: Romans 12:1-2
   2. self-reliance
      1. John 15:4-5
      2. Christian life is about being, not doing
2. how to be filled?
   1. repent: practice immediate confession of sin
   2. believe: resurrender your life to God
   3. being filled is not permanent (living sacrifices)
   4. involves daily commitment
3. HS ~ umbrella (stay underneath through life’s storms)

S7: DOCTRINE OF CHRIST

1. The Incarnation

1. Christology:
   1. person of Christ -> doctrine of the incarnation
   2. work of Christ -> doctrine of the atonement
2. Scriptural data on Christ
   1. both God and man
   2. physically born (Luke 2:7)
   3. experienced temptation to sin (Mt 4:1)
   4. experienced the full range of physical and mental limitations (Luke 2:52)
   5. experienced both physical and mental limitations (Mark 13:32)
   6. was tortured and executed (Luke 23:33,46)
   7. experienced moral growth through suffering (Hebrews 5:7-10)
3. trinitarian controversies (4th century AD)
4. Christological controversies (4-7th century AD)
   1. Alexandrian versus Antiochian Christology
   2. Monophysite Christology
      1. Christ has one nature – combination of deity and humanity
   3. Dyophysite Christology
      1. Christ has two complete natures
   4. human nature: man is a rational animal (Aristotle)
   5. incarnation of Logos != abandoning divine nature (<-> Zeus)

2. The Incarnation (2)

1. Apollinarianism (Monophysitism)
   1. Alexandrian Christology
   2. Apollinarius: bishop in Laodicea
   3. tripartite anthropology:
      1. body (soma)
      2. animal soul (psuche)
      3. mind (nous)
   4. Logos took place of mind
   5. condemned in 377:
      1. body without a mind is not truly human
      2. if Christ lacked human mind he did not redeem the human mind

3. The Incarnation (3)

1. Antiochean Christology (Dyophysitism)
   1. Theodore of Mopsuestia
   2. Nestorius: objects Mary being theotokos (mother of God)
   3. problem: two persons in Christ
   4. condemned in 431
      1. no true union of God and man in Christ
2. Solution: Council of Chalcedon (451)
   1. middle course between Antioch and Alexandria
   2. “We. . . confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial [homoousios] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial [homoousios] with us according to the manhood, like us in all things except sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God [theotokos], according to the manhood, one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-Begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, the difference of the natures being by no means taken away because of the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person [prosopon] and one Subsistence [hypostasis], not divided or separated into two Persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ…”

4. The Incarnation (4)

1. Council of Chalcedon
   1. without confusion
   2. without change
   3. without division
   4. without separation
2. first two against Alexandrians, last two agains Antiochean
3. no explanation for the incarnation
4. but: channel markers for legitimate Christological speculation
5. Protestant Reformation
   1. replay of Antioch vs Alexandria debate
   2. Lutheran tendency toward Alexandrians
   3. Reformed tendency toward Antioch
6. Kenotic Christology (19th century)
   1. kenosis = emptying
   2. Christ, in the incarnation, ceased to possess certain attributes of deity in order that he could become truly human
   3. non-Chalcedonian Christology (Logos changed in nature)
   4. deeper question: content of the divine nature
      1. which properties are essential to deity?
      2. Kenotism: God’s attributes are not essential, only contingent

5. The Incarnation (5)

6. The Incarnation (6)

7. The Incarnation (7)

1. Possible Model of the Incarnation
   1. one person who exemplifies two distinct and complete natures – one human and one divine (~Council of Chalcedon)
   2. the Logos (the second person of the Trinity) was the rational soul of Jesus of Nazareth (~Apollinarius)
   3. certain divine aspects of Jesus’ personality were largely subliminal during his state of humiliation
2. subliminal self: human consciousness with divine sub-consciousness

8. The Work of Christ (1) - Christ’s Death and Atonement

1. three offices of Christ: prophet, priest, and king
2. doctrine of the atonement: priestly office
3. “atonement” = “at onement” -> harmony/union
   1. NT: katallagé (“reconciliation” - of God and man)
   2. narrower sense: Hebrew root kpr (“to purify/cleanse” - cf. Yom Kippur) -> this is what Bible uses most
4. 1 Corinthians 15:3-5: earliest summary of Gospel
   1. Christ died for our sins
5. fact vs theory of atonement
6. criteria for theories
   1. accordance with bible
   2. philosophical coherence
7. biblical data
   1. many metaphors/motifs -> multifaceted jewel
   2. predominate motif: sacrifice
      1. heavily influenced by OT sacrifices
      2. not just by followers but by Jesus himself
8. OT background of sacrifice
   1. foreign to modern Western readers
   2. symbolism has major role
   3. rituals often described without meaning
   4. double purposes:
      1. expiation of sin
         1. “expiate” = cleanse/purify
      2. propitiation of God
         1. “propitiate” = appease/satisfy

9. The Work of Christ (2) - Propitiatory Sacrifices

1. Old Testament Sacrifices, Propitiation, and Expiation
   1. propitiatory sacrifices
      1. Passover lamb (Exodus 12:13)
      2. priestly sacrifices (<-> Aaron’s sons unlawful sacrifices Leviticus 10:1-2, 16:1)
      3. sacrificial system: allow holy and sinful to co-exist
   2. expiatory sacrifices
      1. remove ceremonial impurity and/or moral guilt
      2. kipper (Leviticus 5:10): “ransom/purge/expiate”
      3. ultimate source of impurity is human sin
      4. hand-laying ritual: identification of the offerer with the animal
         1. animal was NOT punished for the worshiper’s sin
         2. animal suffered the death that would have been the punishment for the worshiper if it had been inflicted on him instead. 3.
      5. Yom Kippur sacrifices (Day of Atonement)
         1. on behalf of the whole nation
         2. Leviticus 16
         3. pair of goats:
            1. one sacrificially killed -> atones for the sins and iniquities of the people
            2. other driven into desert bear the iniquities of the people -> symbolizes the effectiveness of the sacrifice in removing their sins from them
         4. parallel to cleansing leprosy (two birds)

10. The Work of Christ (3) - Christ as Sacrifice

1. NT: Christ’s death both expiatory and propitiatory
   1. Expiation
      1. Hebrews 10:10
      2. Jesus ~ passover lamb (John 1:29)
      3. “a sin offering” (peri hamartias) Romans 8:3
      4. role of Christ’s death as a sacrificial offering that takes away sin and justifies those on whose behalf it is offered
   2. Propitiation
      1. hilasterion Romans 3:24-25
      2. propitiation – a gift offered to the gods in order to appease them and placate them (extra-biblical Greek literature)
      3. or mercy seat - surface which is on the top of the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies where the blood was sprinkled (Greek OT)
      4. concept not dependent on exact meaning
   3. Romans 5:9: “Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood [expiation], much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. [propitiation]”
2. The Suffering Servant of the Lord
   1. Isaiah 53
   2. servant suffers for the sins of others
   3. offering human substitute instead of animal not unknown to Judaism
      1. Moses’ offer in Exodus 32:30-34 - Yahweh declines
      2. Abraham’s offer of Isaac Genesis 22:1-19
      3. Yahweh refused to inflict on Moses and Isaac but not on his servant
      4. suffering is punishment
   4. word kipper doesn’t appear but concept is clear

11. The Work of Christ (4) - Divine Justice

1. Divine Righteousness and the New Perspective on Paul
   1. principal NT motifs for atonement
      1. sacrifice
      2. Servant of the Lord
         1. substitutionary, punitive suffering
         2. ransom saying Mark 10:45
      3. divine justice or righteousness
         1. Paul’s letters
         2. forensic/judicial terminology
         3. Romans 3:21-26
            1. righteousness of God
            2. does it refer to God’s attribute or to sg he reckons to believers? -> both
   2. new perspective on Paul
      1. God’s righteousness ~ covenant faithfulness
      2. radical impact on doctrine of atonement
      3. doesn’t make sense?
      4. covenant faithfulness is not enough for salvation
      5. opposite: unrighteousness <-> unfaithfulness
      6. righteousness entails faithfulness but is more than that
      7. Gentiles not part of covenant -> cannot be unrighteous

12. The Work of Christ (5) - Divine Justice (2)

1. The Motif of Representation
   1. God’s righteousness is given to all who believe in Jesus (Paul)
   2. “reckoning” ~ merchant settling accounts
   3. righteousness of God is a property not just absence of guilt (Philippians 3:4-6)
   4. representation: Christ as our representative
      1. Day of Atonement: high priest acted on behalf of the people
      2. two ways:
         1. corporate solidarity of all of mankind
            1. antetype of Adam (Romans 5:18-19)
         2. union of believers with Christ
            1. become beneficiaries of his atoning death (Romans 6:3-11)
   5. Paul: Christ - representative of & died for all mankind <-> no universalist

13. The Work of Christ (6) - Redemption

1. The Motif of Redemption
   1. redemption:
      1. buying back prisoners of war/slaves out of slavery
      2. “a ransom for many” Mark 10:45
      3. “Some exegetes appear to . . . think of Christian doctrine as having come into being largely through church councils later in the history of the church. The truth is that Christian doctrine begins with biblical texts and with the earliest interpretations of those texts, which we find in the New Testament itself.” (William Farmer NT scholar)
2. atonement theories
   1. trinitarian/christological controversies -> little time to work of Christ
   2. no church council on atonement
   3. Christ’s death ~ sacrificial offering

14. The Work of Christ (7) - The Ransom Theory

1. The Ransom Theory
   1. church fathers: Christ’s death ~ sacrificial offering to God
      1. but: multifaceted theory
      2. also included suffering, sacrificial offering, penal substitution etc
   2. for 900 yrs ransom theory very popular
      1. Christ’s life ~ ransom to deliver man from the bondage to Satan
      2. ransom to whom? to Satan
      3. God tricked Satan into making this exchange
      4. Christ’s flesh ~ bait to lure Satan and inside is hidden this hook of the deity of Christ that will ensnare Satan and in fact undo him
      5. Christ’s incarnation and death were not necessary for man’s redemption
      6. focus on consequences of sin, not sin itself
      7. shift emphasis away from Christ’s death to his incarnation
      8. weaknesses in Eastern Orthodoxy: centrality of the cross lost

15. The Work of Christ (8) - Satisfaction Theory

1. The Satisfaction Theory
   1. developed by St. Anselm (ontological argument)
   2. main complaint about the ransom theory: inadequate to explain why God sent his Son
   3. claim: salvation is more than just defeating Satan and liberating people from sin
   4. salvation is about making satisfaction to God for man’s sins
   5. misrepresentation:
      1. Anelm’s main concern is the restoration of God’s honor
      2. God could have forgiven the insult without demanding payment
      3. Anselm’s theory fails to show that Christ’s atoning death was really necessary
   6. but: fundamental concern is God’s justice
      1. God cannot just overlook the insult because it would be unjust, contrary to God’s nature
   7. sin = failure to render to God what is due to him (=everything)
   8. Divine Command Theory of ethics: moral values are grounded in the character of God himself
      1. cf Euthyphro Dilemma
   9. two ways to satisfy divine justice
      1. through compensation (Anselm)
      2. through punishment (Protestant Reformers)
   10. satisfaction = voluntary payment of the debt
       1. No one but God could pay this debt, but no one but man is obligated to pay it.
   11. Christ did not die in our place. He was not punished for our sins nor did he bear the penalty for our sins (not punishment but compensation)
   12. we become the beneficiaries of Christ’s reward through faith in the gospel

16. The Work of Christ (9) - Moral Influence Theory

1. The Moral Influence Theory
   1. Peter Abelard (famous love affair with Eloise)
   2. atonement: no punishment, no debt
   3. only serves as an example
   4. Christ’s death ignites love in us
   5. God doesn’t need to reconcile with us, we need to reconcile with him
   6. weak theory in itself but it real value as part of broader theory (penal substitution)
2. Penal Substitutionary Theory of Protestant Reformers
   1. satisfaction of God’s justice not in terms of compensation (as Anselm did) but in terms of punishment
   2. our sins imputed to Christ (legally)
   3. Christ’s righteousness imputed to us through faith in him

17. The Work of Christ (10) - Penal Substitution Theory

1. The Penal Substitution Theory

   1. Francis Turretin: Institutes of Elenctic Theology
      1. Elenctic theology is theology that is developed in conversation with one’s opponents
   2. retributive justice (punitive justice) is essential to God’s nature
      1. God could not have simply chosen to forgive sins without satisfying his essential justice
   3. 4 arguments:
      1. Scripture teaches that God detests sin and is a just judge
      2. Conscience and the universal consent of mankind testify to the necessity of the punishment of evil
      3. If sins could be put away simply by God’s will, then it is not true (as the Scriptures say) that it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin
      4. Apart from the necessity of the satisfaction of divine justice no lawful reason could be given for God’s subjecting his Son to such an accursed and cruel death

   4. 3 approaches to sin:

      1. debt which we owe to God
      2. mutual enmity between us and God
      3. crime which we have committed and which carries with it the punishment of eternal death
      4. satisfaction for sin must therefore involve:
         1. payment of the debt
         2. propitiation of the enmity to achieve reconciliation
         3. punishment for the crime
      5. approaches to God with respect to sin:
         1. debt -> God is the creditor to whom our debt is owed
         2. enmity -> God is the offended party
         3. crime -> God is the supreme judge
      6. capital error (even today!): neglecting third role
         1. analogy of owing money to a creditor is ubiquitous
         2. viewing sin as criminal offense is overlooked

      Sin	God	Christ
      debt	creditor	surety
      enmity	offended party	mediator
      crime	supreme judge	priest/victim

2. 5 necessary conditions for substituting of an innocent for a guilty person:
   1. common nature (must be human too)
   2. free consent (must be volunteer)
   3. power over his own life (must not be under obligation)
   4. power to bear all of the punishment (must be God-man)
   5. sinless (otherwise he has to offer satisfaction for himself too)
3. Christ fulfilled all of these -> his substitutional sacrifice was not unjust
4. Christ’s punishment:
   1. not infinite in time
   2. but Christ’s infinite dignity -> equivalent to eternal damnation (swallows up all infinities of punishment due to us)
   3. Christ: human nature but divine person
5. Our sins were imputed to Christ, and his righteousness was imputed to us -> only in a legal sense!
   1. infusion of Christ’s righteousness -> sanctification

18. The Work of Christ (11) - Atonement, Doctrinal Reflection

1. Definition of Punishment
   1. elements of theory of atonement:
      1. penal substitution
         1. God inflicted upon Christ the suffering which we deserved as the punishment for our sins, as a result of which we no longer deserve punishment
         2. Not: “God punished Christ for our sins” -> open question
         3. doctrine faced many challenges
         4. theory of punishment:
            1. definition of punishment
            2. definition of justification of punishment
         5. warning: human criminal justice systems can be similar to divine justice but not completely!
   2. definition of punishment:
      1. harsh treatment of someone
      2. what is harsh enough? -> no consensus among legal theorists
      3. expressivist theory of punishment
         1. 4 necessary conditions of retributive justice (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
            1. harsh treatment
            2. intentionality
            3. response to wrongful act or omission
            4. condemnation/censure of wrongful act
         2. critique: God could not condemn or censure Christ because Christ was sinless
            1. NOT that it would be immoral or unjust for God to punish Christ
            2. BUT it would not count as punishment because it wouldn’t express condemnation or censure

19. The Work of Christ (12) - Atonement, Doctrinal Reflection Continued

1. Objection to the Coherence of Penal Substitution
   1. three premises:
      1. If Christ was sinless, God could not have condemned Christ.
         1. BUT: Reformers’ doctrine of the imputation of sins (Francois Turretin): even though Christ is personally without moral fault, he is legally guilty before God and therefore condemned by God for our sins
         2. common examples for imputation: vicarious liability
            1. respondeat superior (Latin “let the master be answerable”)
            2. master is responsible for the acts of his servant in the course of his service
            3. eg. employers responsible for the acts of their employees
            4. both in civil law & criminal law
      2. But if God could not have condemned Christ, God could not have punished Christ.
         1. BUT: this is based upon expressivist theory of punishment = harsh treatment, in order to be punishment, needs to express condemnation or censure for the wrong that was done.
         2. some crimes are punished but not express condemnation or censure e.g. “strict liability”
            1. possession of narcotics or firearms
            2. selling of mislabeled foods/drugs
         3. non-expressivist theory of punishment: e.g. punishment is harsh treatment of someone by a recognized authority for an infraction of a law or command
      3. If God could not have punished Christ, penal substitution is false.
         1. BUT: some think God did not punish Christ according to these thinkers. Rather, he inflicted upon Christ the suffering which would have been our punishment if it had been inflicted on us instead

20. The Work of Christ (13) - Atonement, Doctrinal Reflection Continued

1. Objection to the Justification of Penal Substitution
   1. fundamental objection to penal substitution
   2. God was unjust to punish Christ in our place
   3. recap: theories of justice:
      1. retributive: punishment is justified because the guilty deserve punishment
      2. consequentialist: punishment is justified because of extrinsic goods (e.g. deterrence of crime)
   4. premises:
      1. God is perfectly just.
         1. BUT: who determines what is just or unjust?
         2. Divine Command Theory of ethics: moral duties are determined by God’s commands
         3. God doesn’t have to confirm to external law
         4. He can make exceptions to the rule if he wants to (e.g. Abraham & Isaac)
         5. God has refused to allow human beings to punish the innocent, to do substitutionary punishment but who forbids for the divine Son to do so?
      2. If God is perfectly just, he cannot punish an innocent person.
         1. BUT: you can provide consequentialist justification (<-> God of the Bible is retributive)
      3. Therefore, God cannot punish an innocent person.
      4. Christ was an innocent person.
      5. Therefore God cannot punish Christ.
      6. If God cannot punish Christ then penal substitution is false.
         1. BUT: some penal substitution theorist believe God did not punish Christ, but he inflicted Christ with the suffering that would have been our punishment if we had borne it instead

21. The Work of Christ (14) - Atonement, Doctrinal Reflection Continued

1. More Responses to the Objection to the Justification of Penal Substitution
   1. premises:
      1. God is perfectly just.
         1. BUT: God who is the source of justice.
         2. Objection: retributive justice is part of God’s nature and he cannot act contrary to it
            1. two forms of retributive justice:
               1. Positive retributivism: guilty should be punished because they deserve it
               2. Negative retributivism: innocent should not be punished because they do not deserve it.
            2. God is unqualifiedly positive retributivist (Exodus 34:7) but he is only a qualified negative retributivist
               1. he prohibits punishing innocent humans but reserves the right to punish an innocent divine person, Christ
      2. If God is perfectly just, he cannot punish an innocent person.
         1. demands of retributive justice:
            1. prima facie: face value (general)
            2. ultima facie: when you weigh other moral considerations (specific)
         2. premise 2 is true in general but there can be specific exceptions (-> overriding moral considerations, e.g. salvation of mankind)
      3. Therefore, God cannot punish an innocent person.
      4. Christ was (is) an innocent person.
         1. BUT: imputations of sins -> Christ was legally guilty before God.
         2. Objection: imputing our sins to Christ is itself unjust.
            1. BUT: vicarious liability only unjust if it’s non-voluntary
      5. Therefore God cannot punish Christ.
      6. If God cannot punish Christ then penal substitution is false.

22. The Work of Christ (15) - Atonement, Satisfaction of Divine Justice

1. Satisfaction of Divine Justice
   1. second element of biblically atonement theory: propitiation
   2. propitiation: appeasement of God’s just wrath against sin
   3. source of God’s wrath: retributive justice
   4. satisfaction of divine justice: not through compensation (St Anselm), but through penal substitution
   5. objection: penal substitution is not effective
      1. BUT: if God is the supreme Legislator, Judge, and Ruler of the moral realm, and he determines that the demands of his justice are met by Christ’s substitutionary punishment, who is to gainsay him?
         1. objection: in this case God could have simply pardoned everyone’s sins without the satisfaction of his justice
            1. early church fathers held that view: Christ’s sacrifice not necessary but powerful display of love
            2. not universalism!
            3. Acceptation theory (John Duns Scotus): God might have accepted any sacrifice he pleased as satisfactory for the demands of divine justice (<-> Hebrews 10:4)
               1. not true if retributive justice is essential to the nature of God
   6. how does penal substitution take away guilt?
      1. in criminal law: guilt = wrongful act (actus reus) + blameworthy mental state (mens rea)
      2. take verb tense seriously
         1. “a person who has committed a wrongful act and had a blameworthy mental state was guilty but in virtue of being punished for that crime he now no longer is guilty”
         2. (otherwise guilt could be never removed)
      3. Guilt: temporarily property
         1. can be taken away by
            1. serving your sentence
            2. pardon cancelling punishment
   7. vicarious liability: example for penal substitution in criminal & civil law does (friend can pay your fine)

23. The Work of Christ (16) - Atonement, Satisfaction of Divine Justice

1. Representation
   1. David Lewis: penal substitution sometimes makes sense even if none can say how
   2. Francois Turretin: Christ is not only our substitute but also our representative before God
      1. substitution ~ pinch hitter in baseball
      2. representative ~ agent
   3. we are represented by Christ by 1) incarnation 2) baptism
   4. Socinus (16th): if Christ has paid the debt for us then there is nothing left to forgive
      1. BUT: God is not just a private person in a personal dispute but also judge and ruler of the universe
      2. not just forgiveness but legal pardon

24. The Work of Christ (17) - Atonement, Redemption

1. Redemption and Moral Influence
   1. doctrine of the atonement - summary:
      1. function of a sacrifice: expiation of sin & propitiation of God
      2. Christ: not only our substitute but representative before God
   2. redemption theories:
      1. Christus Victor theory (ransom theory)
      2. satisfaction theory (Christ’s death is a compensation)
      3. moral influence theory
      4. penal substitution theory (Protestant Reformers)
      5. governmental theory (Hugo Grotius)

25. The Work of Christ (18) - The Resurrection

1. Biblical Data for Jesus’ Resurrection
   1. 1 Corinthians 15: some of the earliest tradition embodied anywhere in the New Testament
   2. Semitic features (Cephas, on the third day)
   3. New Testament documents rely upon traditions which go right back to the time of the events

26. The Work of Christ (19) - The Resurrection Continued

1. Discussion of the Tradition Found in 1 Corinthians 15
   1. structure of four lines which are parallel to each other
   2. 1 Corinthians 15:12-34: three-step argument:
      1. If the dead are not raised then Christ has not been raised.
      2. But Christ has been raised.
      3. Therefore the dead are raised.

27. The Work of Christ (20) - The Resurrection Continued

1. Paul’s Teaching on the Nature of the Resurrection Body
   1. 1 Corinthians 15:35-57: three analogies
      1. seed and the plant
      2. different kinds of flesh
      3. glory of celestial bodies and terrestrial things
   2. four contrasts between our present earthly body and our future resurrection body:
      1. earthly body is mortal whereas the resurrection body will be immortal
      2. earthly body is weak whereas the resurrection body will be powerful
      3. earthly body is dishonorable whereas the resurrection body will be glorious
      4. earthly body is material but the resurrection body is somehow going to be immaterial:
         1. contrast is not between material, visible, tangible man and immaterial, unextended, invisible man
         2. but: the natural man is the man who is dominated by the fallen human nature and oriented toward it
         3. not platonic sense (no body, only soul)
         4. it would be better to translate pneumatikos as supernatural (same as 1 Corinthians 10:1-4)

28. The Work of Christ (21) - The Resurrection Continued

1. The First Adam and the Second Adam
   1. 1 Corinthians 15:45-49
   2. contrast between the first Adam and the second Adam is not their substance; it is their origin
   3. flesh and blood: not anatomy
   4. Luke 24:39: flesh and bones -> emphasize the materiality of the resurrection body (e.g Ezekiel 37:1-10)
   5. resurrection body: not new but a transformation of the earthly body

29. The Work of Christ (22) - The Resurrection Continued

1. The Burial of Jesus
   1. Mark 15:40-47
   2. Joseph of Arimathea: only here
   3. not just official but personal interest
   4. kokim tombs: pigeonholes
   5. acrosolia tombs: niche carved into the wall
   6. bench tombs: body laid on shelf or bench
   7. King Herod’s family tomb
   8. John: shines the spotlight on Mary Magdalene
   9. guard at the tomb: probably Roman guard

30. The Work of Christ (23) - The Resurrection Continued

1. Discovery of the Empty Tomb
   1. Mark 16:1-8
   2. women carry out typical ministrations (not complete an unfinished job)
   3. verification of the women’s report – by two disciples at least

31. The Work of Christ (24) - The Post-Mortem Appearances

1. Postmortem Appearances of Jesus
   1. Mark 16:7 appearance in Galilee
   2. appearance to women John 20:11-18
   3. non-recognition motif: risen Lord not being immediately recognized by the person to whom he appeared
   4. John 20:19-23 physical demonstrations; no ghost
   5. Thomas and the Twelve in John 20:26-29
   6. John 21:1-14: appearance by the Sea of Tiberias

32. The Work of Christ (25) - The Post-Mortem Appearances

1. More on the Gospels’ Postmortem Appearance Narratives
   1. Sea of Tiberius: not going back to old time but passing time waiting for Jesus
   2. Jesus with Peter: not rehabilitation but recommission
   3. sequence of appearances

33. The Work of Christ (26) - Resurrection Theories

1. Conspiracy and Apparent Death Theories
   1. Enlightenment (17-18th century) throw off monarchy & church
   2. skepticism against Christianity
   3. not atheist but deist
   4. Hermann Samuel Reimarus: conspiracy theory
   5. Life of Jesus movement: apparent death theory

34. The Work of Christ (27) - Resurrection Theories

1. Mythology, Subjective and Objective Vision, Interpretation Theories
   1. David Friedrich Strauss: The Life of Jesus Critically Examined: mythological explanation
   2. more contemporary theory: subjective vision theory or hallucination theory: Gerd Lüdemann
   3. subjective vs objective vision
   4. interpretation theory

35. The Work of Christ (28) - Resurrection Theories

1. Historical Investigation of the Resurrection
   1. two ways to come to a knowledge of the truth of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead: existential & historical way
   2. presuppositions
      1. existence of God
      2. our background knowledge includes a good deal of information about the historical Jesus
   3. two steps in any historical argument for Jesus’ resurrection
      1. establish the facts which will serve as historical evidence that requires explanation
      2. argue that the hypothesis of Jesus’ resurrection is the best or most probable explanation of those facts
   4. Bart Ehrman’s objection: historians have no access to what happens in the supernatural realm
      1. historian does not need to have direct access to the explanatory entities postulated by one’s hypothesis
      2. historian doesn’t have direct access, in fact, to any of the objects of his study
      3. even if professional historian must act under the constraint of methodological naturalism, why should we be under any such constraint?
   5. N. T. Wright: The Resurrection of the Son of God

36. The Work of Christ (29) - Facts of the Resurrection

1. Historicity of the Empty Tomb
   1. facts:
      1. empty tomb of Jesus
         1. Jesus’ burial: if accurate, location was known to Jew and Christian too -> his tomb must have been empty when the disciples began to preach that God had raised Jesus from the dead
            1. the disciples would not have believed in Jesus’ resurrection if his corpse still lay in the tomb
            2. even if they had preached the resurrection of Jesus despite his occupied tomb scarcely anybody else in Jerusalem would have believed them
            3. even if they had somehow so believed, the Jewish authorities would have exposed the whole affair as a hoax simply by pointing to the occupied tomb of Jesus
         2. Jesus’ burial in the tomb is one of the best-established facts about Jesus of Nazareth
            1. Jesus’ burial in the tomb is multiply attested in extremely early and independent sources
               1. 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 Paul quotes from an old Christian tradition
               2. Matthew and Luke had additional sources besides Mark alone
               3. another independent source for the burial in John’s Gospel
               4. at least four and perhaps even more independent sources for Jesus’ burial, some of which are extraordinarily early – among the earliest materials behind the New Testament
            2. as a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention
      2. his postmortem appearances
      3. origin of the Christian faith itself

37. The Work of Christ (30) - Facts of the Resurrection

1. Historicity of the Empty Tomb (Part 2)
   1. historicity of the empty tomb
      1. burial account of Jesus is historically reliable
      2. early independent attestation of the fact of Jesus’ empty tomb
         1. pre-Markan passion story
         2. 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 Paul is quoting from an extremely early four-line tradition
      3. “the first day of the week” reflects very ancient tradition
         1. awkward in Greek but natural Aramaic
      4. the Markan story is simple and lacks any signs of legendary development or embellishment
         1. compared with Gospel of Peter

38. The Work of Christ (31) - Facts of the Resurrection

1. Historicity of the Empty Tomb (Part 3)
   1. evidence in support of the discovery of the empty tomb
      1. the tomb was probably discovered empty by women
         1. not regarded as reliable witnesses
      2. the earliest Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb
         1. Matthew 28,11-15 earliest Christian attempt to refute the Jewish polemic against the disciples’ proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection
   2. six lines of evidence

39. The Work of Christ (32) - Facts of the Resurrection

1. The Historicity of the Post-Mortem Appearances
   1. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8
   2. three basic lines of evidence
      1. Paul’s list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances guarantees that such appearances occurred
         1. appearance to Peter
         2. appearance to The Twelve
         3. appearance to the five hundred brethren
         4. appearance to James
         5. appearance to Saul of Tarsus

40. The Work of Christ (33) - Facts of the Resurrection

1. The Postmortem Appearances
   1. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8
      1. Gospel accounts provide multiple and independent attestation of the postmortem appearances of Jesus
      2. the resurrection appearances were physical, bodily appearances
         1. Paul conceives of the resurrection body as physical
         2. Paul and all of the New Testament makes a conceptual distinction between a resurrection appearance of Jesus and a vision of Jesus

41. The Work of Christ (34) - Facts of the Resurrection

1. Postmortem Appearances and the Origin of the Christian Faith
   1. Jesus’ postmortem appearances
      1. what evidence there exists in the Gospels that these appearances are physical and bodily
         1. every resurrection appearance related in the Gospels is a physical, bodily appearance
         2. if all the appearances were originally non-physical visions then one is at a loss to explain the rise of the Gospel accounts
   2. origin of the Christian faith
      1. earliest disciples of Jesus at least believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead

42. The Work of Christ (35) - Resurrection Hypotheses

1. Assessing Competing Hypotheses To Explain The Three Facts
   1. case for the historical resurrection of Jesus will involve two stages
      1. assembling the facts to be explained
      2. assessing which is the best explanation of those facts
   2. C. B. McCullagh: Justifying Historical Descriptions: criteria
      1. explanatory scope: does the hypothesis explain a wider range of data than rival hypotheses?
      2. explanatory power: does the hypothesis render the evidence more probable than explanatory alternatives?
      3. plausibility: is the proposed explanation more plausible than rival hypotheses?
      4. ad-hocness: the degree to which the hypothesis has to postulate certain things for which there is no independent evidence
      5. accord with accepted beliefs: to what degree is the hypothesis in accord with widely accepted beliefs?
      6. does the hypothesis surpass its rival hypotheses in meeting the above conditions?

43. The Work of Christ (36) - Resurrection Hypotheses

1. Mythological Hypothesis and the Origin of the Disciple’s Faith
   1. currently defended by some scholars
   2. David Strauss: Life of Jesus
   3. Jesus’ resurrection was the belief of the earliest disciples themselves
   4. alternatives
      1. influence of Christian theology
      2. influence of pagan religions
      3. influence of Jewish religious beliefs

44. The Work of Christ (37) - Resurrection Hypotheses

1. origin of the Christian faith remains inexplicable on this myth and legend hypothesis
2. Hallucination Hypothesis

45. The Work of Christ (38) - The Resurrection Hypothesis

1. The Resurrection Hypothesis

   1. wide explanatory scope
   2. great explanatory power
   3. more plausible than rival hypotheses
   4. ad hoc: only one new supposition: God exists
   5. ad hocness difficult to explain

   	explanatory scope	explanatory power	plausibility	ad-hocness	accordance with accepted beliefs	surpass rival hypotheses
   conspiracy hypothesis	*	** (disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection)	* (anachronism: first-century Jewish men would not fake the resurrection of Jesus)	*	*	*
   apparent death	*	*** (empty tomb)	*	*	*	*
   wrong tomb	*** (postmortem appearances)	** (postmortem appearances)	*	*	*	*
   displaced body	*** (postmortem appearances)	** (postmortem appearances)	*	*	*	*
   myth or legend	** (empty tomb)		* (origin of Christianity)
   hallucination	** (empty tomb)	** (postmortem appearances)				***
   resurrection

46. The Work of Christ (39) - The Resurrection Conclusion

1. Practical Application
   1. not minimal facts approach (only facts with near consensus)
   2. vindicates Christ’s person and work.
   3. makes possible a relationship with the living Lord today
   4. brings us hope in the face of death
   5. promises physical and psychological healing
   6. guarantee of his personal return in glory

47. The Work of Christ (40) - Christian Particularism

1. Is Christ The Only Way To Salvation?
   1. NT: there is no salvation apart from Christ
   2. religious pluralism
      1. Unsophisticated religious pluralism: all religions are equally true
      2. sophisticated religious pluralist: all of the world’s great religions are equally false
   3. logical fallacies
      1. religious particularism is arrogant/immoral -> fallacy of argument ad hominem (trying to invalidate a view by attacking the moral character of the person who holds it)
      2. Christian particularism cannot be true because religious beliefs are culturally relative: if you had been born in Pakistan you probably would be a Muslim -> genetic fallacy (trying to invalidate a point of view by showing how a person came to believe it)

48. The Work of Christ (41) - Christian Particularism

1. Answering Religious Pluralism
   1. real issue: fate of unbelievers
   2. God doesn’t send anybody to hell (not his desire)
   3. nobody commits an infinite number of sins in the earthly life -> what about in the afterlife?
   4. hell not primary punishment for finite sins committed in this life but just penalty for a sin of infinite consequence which is the rejection of God himself
   5. People who have never heard of Christ? -> God judges them based on what they know (general revelation: nature + conscience)
   6. probably not many such people

49. The Work of Christ (42) - Christian Particularism

1. The Real Problem Raised By Religious Pluralism
   1. if God is all-knowing then he knew even before he created the world who would receive the Gospel and be saved and who would not
   2. problems:
      1. why didn’t God bring the Gospel to people who he knew would accept it if they heard it but who reject the light of general revelation that they do have?
      2. why did God even create the world when he knew that so many people would not believe the Gospel and so be lost?
      3. why didn’t God create a world in which everyone freely believes the Gospel and is saved?
   3. logically incompatible:
      1. A. God is all-powerful and all-loving
      2. B. Some people never hear the Gospel and are lost
   4. hidden assumptions:
      1. 1. If God is all-powerful then he can create a world in which everybody hears the Gospel and is saved.
         1. BUT: it’s logically impossible for God to make someone freely do something
      2. 2. If God is all-loving then he prefers a world in which everybody hears the Gospel and is freely saved.
         1. BUT: universal salvation might have other overriding deficiencies which make them less preferable (e.g. number of believers)

50. The Work of Christ (43) - Christian Particularism

1. Pushing the Defense For Christian Particularism Further
   1. it is possible for God to be all-loving and all-powerful and yet for some people never to hear the Gospel and to be lost
   2. +C. God has created a world which has an optimal balance between saved and lost, and those who never hear the Gospel and are lost would not have believed it even if they had heard it.
      1. C is possibly (not necessarily!) true
   3. Why didn’t God create a world in which everybody freely believes the Gospel and is saved?
      1. Answer: It may not be feasible for God to create such a world. If such a world were feasible then all else being equal God would have created such a world. But given his will to create free creatures, God had to accept that some would freely reject him and his every effort to save them and be lost.
   4. Why did God even create the world when he knew that so many people would not believe the Gospel and be lost?
      1. Answer: God wanted to share his love and fellowship with created persons. He knew that that meant that many would freely reject him and be lost, but he also knew that many others would freely receive his love and grace and be saved.
   5. Why didn’t God bring the Gospel to people who he knew would accept it if they heard it even though they reject the light of general revelation that they do have?
      1. Answer: There are no such people!

51. The Work of Christ (44) - Christian Particularism, Conclusion

1. Wrapping Up The Discussion on Christian Particularism
   1. religious pluralists were not able to show any logical inconsistency in the doctrine that Christ alone is the way of salvation
   2. On the contrary, I think we’ve been able to show that such a position is not only logically coherent but even plausible and biblical as well

S8: DOCTRINE OF CREATION

1. Creatio Ex Nihilo

1. “creation out of nothing” (not out of anything)
2. Genesis 1:1: independent clause or sentence; not subordinate circumstantial clause which modifies verse 2 (Westermann)
3. not just title or chapter heading

2. Does Genesis 1 Teach Creatio Ex Nihilo?

1. Genesis interweaves two separate creation stories: 1) creation by God’s word 2) creation by God’s actions
2. verse 1: creation of the entire universe, following verses: focus on Earth
3. Genesis 1:1 implies creatio ex nihilo (e.g. Isaiah 44:24, Psalm 33:9, Job 26:7)

3. Creatio ex Nihilo in the New Testament

1. Romans 11:36
2. Romans 4:17
3. Revelation 4:11
4. 1 Corinthians 8:6
5. “Before” the creation (causally, not chronologically) only God existed.

4. The Notion of “Bringing Something Into Being”

1. God creates e at t if and only if God brings it about that e comes into being at t.
2. e comes into being at t iff
   1. e exists at t
   2. t is the first time at which e exists
   3. t is a tensed fact (A theory of time)
3. B (tenseless) theory of time doesn’t adequately capture the idea of creation
   1. creation is co-eternal with God. God never exists alone

5. Arguments for creatio ex nihilo

1. A-theory versus the B-theory of time
2. B-theory is like a loaf of bread (B for bread), sliced into particular slices, and all of the slices are equally real and exist
3. doctrine of creation out of nothing is committed to the tensed theory of time because according to the doctrine of creation there is a state of affairs in the actual world which consists of God existing alone without anything else
4. arguments for creatio ex nihilo:
5. philosophical arguments in support of the beginning of the universe
   1. impossibility of the existence of an actually infinite number of things
   2. collection having an actually infinite number of members cannot be formed by successive addition
   3. scientific confirmation of the arguments for the finitude of the past and the beginning of the universe
      1. expanding universe
      2. evidence of thermodynamics

6. Objections to creatio ex nihilo

1. We’ve never seen something which doesn’t exist caused to begin existing. Things which don’t exist can’t be caused to ‘do’ anything, since they aren’t *there* to be influenced by a cause
   1. BUT: In creation, an object does not move from a state of non-existence to a state of existence. Rather, it simply begins to exist at the moment that it is created
2. For a casual event to occur, you would need potentiality and an agent to actualize it
   1. BUT: in creatio ex nihilo the potentiality of the universe lay in the power of God to create it
3. everything that begins to exist has a material cause
   1. BUT: inductive evidence is very impressive but not of comparable force to the arguments that I present in favor of the causal premise of the cosmological argument (something cannot come from nothing)
   2. good inductive evidence for the principle, but it can be overridden
4. Objections to ex nihilo nihil fit -> things can come into being from nothing without any cause
   1. BUT: reifying nothing into an actual thing
   2. “nothing” is a term of universal negation, “not anything”
5. Quantum physics shows that things can come from nothing. Quantum physics proves that things can come from nothing.
   1. BUT: quantum vacuum or quantum mechanical fields is not nothing!

7. More Objections to creatio ex nihilo

1. Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) theorem: any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion over its history cannot be infinite in the past but must reach a past space-time boundary
2. Vilenkin: positive and the negative energy in the universe sum to zero therefore no cause of the universe’s coming into being

8. Continuing Conservation

1. God not only creates but continues to conserve creation (Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:3)
2. originally Creatio and conservation: two subdivisions of creatio ex nihilo
3. but: it’s different: conservation presupposes a subject which God acts upon to cause it to persist from one moment to another. Creation does not presuppose any such object
4. occasionalism: God is the only cause in reality
5. God conserves E iff God acts upon E to bring about E’s existing from time T until some later time T’ which is later than T through every subinterval of T to T’.

9. Divine Concurrence

1. creation inherently involves the idea of a tensed theory of time
2. conservation in B-theory of time: sustenance instead of conservation 1. God sustains some entity E if and only if E exists tenselessly at some time T, or E exists timelessly and 2. God brings it about that E exists.
3. doctrine of concurrence, God is the cause of everything that happens in the world (not the only cause!)
4. e.g. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego -> God withdrew his concurrence -> fire didn’t burn them
5. Thomas Aquinas: God acts on the secondary causes (determinism)
6. Luis Molina: God acts with the secondary causes (free will)

10. Different Views of Divine Providence

1. Divine Providence: God’s governance or supervision of the world
2. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility (Donald Carson)
3. biblical passages affirming God’s sovereignty
   1. God is the Creator, the Ruler, and the Possessor of all things
   2. God is the ultimate personal cause of all that happens
   3. God elects his people
   4. God is the unacknowledged source of good fortune or success
4. biblical passages affirming human freedom
   1. people face a multitude of divine exhortations and commands
   2. people are said to obey, believe, and choose God
   3. people also sin and rebel against God
   4. people’s sins are then judged by God
   5. people are tested by God
   6. people receive divine rewards
   7. the elect are responsible to respond to God’s gracious initiative
   8. prayers are not mere showpieces scripted by God in a kind of dictatorial way
   9. God literally pleads with sinners to repent and be saved
   10. God’s ordinary vs extraordinary providence (e.g. miracles)
5. three competing views
   1. Calvinism: divine determinism (God determines everything that happens in a causal way), compatibilist view of human freedom (not libertarian freedom)
   2. Arminianism: libertarian freedom (people are not causally determined by God), divine sovereignty -> foreknowledge of the future
   3. Molinism: God’s middle knowledge (God’s knowledge of what would happen under different circumstances) -> not determinism (e.g. FBI trying to catch child pornographer)

11. A Critical Assessment of Three Views of Divine Providence

1. 5 criticism against Calvinism:
   1. universal divine causal determinism cannot really give us a coherent model of the scriptural teaching on divine sovereignty and human freedom
   2. universal causal determinism cannot be rationally affirmed (one has been determined not to believe it)
   3. universal divine causal determinism makes God the author of sin and it undercuts human responsibility
   4. universal divine causal determinism nullifies human agency
   5. universal divine causal determinism makes reality into a farce

12. Arminian And Molinist Accounts of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom

1. Arminianism:
   1. assertion of divine sovereignty: Acts 4:27-28
   2. God’s simple foreknowledge without middle knowledge can make no good sense
2. Molinism:
   1. if foreknowledge (prognosis) encompasses middle knowledge -> we can make perfect sense of God’s providential planning of a world of free agents
   2. objections of middle knowledge
      1. too successful (virtually indistinguishable from the Calvinistic view)
         1. BUT: so what?
         2. questionable assumptions:
            1. events distributed randomly
            2. circumstances are unlimited
            3. imperceptible events included in P’s past light cone can be altered without significant effects upon P’s situation at T
            4. assumes that God’s concern is with P’s choice alone

13. The Collapse of the Belief in Miracles

1. providentia ordinaria vs providentia extraordinaria
2. special providence vs miracle
   1. special providence: extraordinary event that comes about because of God’s governance of the world but it doesn’t involve any supernatural intervention on God’s part
   2. miraculous event by contrast would involve the intervention of God in the sequence of secondary effects in the world
3. biblical data
   1. Old Testament miracles focus around the Exodus and the ministries of Elijah and Elisha
   2. New Testament you have a sequence of extraordinary miracles associated with Jesus of Nazareth
4. systematic summary
   1. 19th century collapse of the belief in miracles
   2. traditionally: two steps in establishing that a miracle has occurred
      1. show that the event did occur
      2. show the miraculous character of that event
5. German rationalists: accepted the historicity of the events but tried to explain away
6. David Strauss (1835): events didn’t happen, were product of mythology
   1. presupposition: miracles are impossible
   2. problem of miracles simply disappeared
   3. after mid 20th century: eclipse of mythology in NT studies (not good way to interpret the events)

14. Arguments Against Miracles

1. Enlightenment: Age of Reason
2. principal arguments used by the Deists against miracles
   1. Newtonian world-machine
      1. best evidence for the existence of God
      2. but: miracles = violations of the laws of nature -> impossible
3. Benedict de Spinoza
   1. miracles violate the unchangeable order of nature
   2. miracles insufficient to prove God’s existence
4. David Hume
   1. it is impossible to prove that a miracle has occurred
      1. in order to prove that a miracle has taken place one would have to show that it would be an even greater miracle for the testimony in support of the event to be false
   2. evidence for miracles is negligible
      1. no miracle in history is attested by a sufficient number of educated and honest men, who are of such social standing that they would have a great deal to lose by lying
      2. people crave the miraculous and will believe the most absurd stories as the abundance of false tales of miracles proves
      3. miracles occur only among barbarous peoples
      4. miracles occur in all religions and thereby cancel each other out

15. The Definition of “Miracle”

1. Newtonian world-machine
   1. but: quantum physics is not deterministic
      1. but: miracles still highly improbable
      2. this would turn miracles into freaks of nature, not acts of God
      3. instead: challenge the idea that miracles violations of the laws of nature
   2. but: miracles are not violations of nature’s laws
      1. nature’s laws are statements of what will happen under certain ideal conditions
      2. ceteris paribus = all else being equal
      3. if some natural agent or factor is interfering, then all things are not equal – the idealized conditions don’t obtain, and therefore the predicted event will not occur
      4. when a miracle occurs, it doesn’t violate the laws of nature because the laws of nature describe what will happen if there is no supernatural agent interfering with the conditions
2. miracle = an event which lies outside the causal powers of nature at the particular time and place of its occurrence
   1. miracles are relative to the time and place
   2. what could make a naturally impossible event possible? - God!
   3. if God’s existence is even possible, miracles are possible
   4. In order to show that miracles are impossible a person would therefore have to show that atheism is true
3. do we have any good evidence to think that such miraculous events have actually occurred?

16. Rebutting Spinoza’s Objections to Miracles

1. immutability of nature
   1. “God” and “Nature” synonymous terms
   2. violation of the laws of nature would be a violation of God’s nature because they are identical
   3. but: God’s knowledge is not identical to God’s will
   4. God’s knowledge contingent <-> doctrine of divine simplicity
2. insufficiency of miracles
   1. miracles are insufficient to prove the existence of God
      1. but: irrelevant, for theologians used miracles not as proofs of the existence of God, but rather as proof of God’s action in the world
   2. proof for God must be absolutely certain
      1. but: questionable assumptions
         1. he assumes that a proof of God’s existence must be demonstratively certain
         2. he presupposes that God’s existence is inferred from natural laws
   3. miracles could not be used to prove the existence of God because perhaps a lesser being like an angel or a demon was responsible for the miraculous act
      1. but: it wasn’t used to prove God’s existence
   4. miracle may really be the effect of an unknown law of nature
      1. but: isn’t really an objection against the occurrence of miracles, but rather it’s an objection against the identification of miracles.
      2. four criteria of miracles (God, Nature, and the Concept of Miracle):
         1. 1) The evidence for the occurrence of E is at least as good as it is for other acceptable but unusual events similarly distant in time and space from the point of the inquiry;
         2. (2) An account of the natures and/or powers of the causally relevant natural agents, such that they could account for E, would be clumsy and ad hoc; [ad hoc means contrived or just made up for that purpose.]
         3. (3) There is no evidence except the inexplicability of E for one or more natural agents which could produce E;
         4. (4) There is some justification for a supernatural explanation of E, independent of the inexplicability of E.
3. how to show in any particular case that the miracle was divine rather than demonic?
   1. it is the doctrinal context in which the miracle occurs that makes it evident if the miracle is truly from God

17. Hume’s Abject Failure

1. David Hume’s “in principle” argument against miracles
   1. “no testimony . . . is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless this testimony is of such a kind that . . . its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact which it endeavors to establish.”
   2. miracles are by definition utterly improbable
   3. no amount of evidence could ever serve to overcome that intrinsic improbability
      1. but: this would lead to denying the occurrence of events which, though highly improbable, we reasonably know to have actually occurred (e.g. lottery)
      2. consider not just the intrinsic improbability but the probability that if the reported event had not occurred, then the witness’s testimony would be just as it is
2. Bayes’ Theorem:
   1. R miraculous event (e.g. resurrection)
   2. E specific evidence (e.g. empty tomb)
   3. B general background information apart from E

   4. P(R

      EB)/P(-R

      EB) = P(R

      B)/P(-R

      B) * P(E

      RB)/P(E

      -RB)

      1. P(R

         B)/P(-R

         B): intrinsic probability of the event before looking at the specific evidence

      2. P(E

         R&B)/P(E

         -R&B): explanatory power of the hypothesis. How well does the event or hypothesis explain the evidence?

      3. low intrinsic probability can be counterbalanced by higher explanatory power
      4. Hume never discusses the second ratio
3. “extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence.”
   1. in order for us to believe in a miraculous event you’ve got to have a tremendous amount of evidence -> why? Because a miracle is so improbable
   2. but: this is false
   3. In order to establish the occurrence of a highly improbable event, you don’t need to have lots of evidence

18. Determining the Intrinsic Probability of the Resurrection

1. Hume considered only intrinsic probability and neglected the explanatory power
2. evidence for a miracle is by definition utterly improbable
3. miracles are infrequent
   1. this would disqualify many of the theoretical hypotheses in the advanced physical sciences (e.g. proton decay: never observed but research focus)
   2. frequency model of probability will not work in this context
4. “Jesus rose from the dead” -> ambiguous
5. instead: “God raised Jesus from the dead” ®
6. God’s existence (G)

7. Theorem on Total Probability: Pr(R

   B)=Pr(R

   GB) * Pr(G

   B) + Pr(R

   -GB) * Pr(-G

   B)

   1. Pr(G

      B) ~ 0.5

      1. let B include all of the facts that support the premises in the arguments of natural theology

   2. Pr(R

      GB) ~ 0.5

   3. Pr(R	B) -> 0.25

   4. impossible to assign numerical values
   5. but: there is no reason to think that the probability of R on God and the background information is terribly low

   6. we can’t take P(R

      B) low because of the infrequency of resurrection -> it may be precisely because the resurrection is unique that it is highly probable that God would choose it as a spectacular way of vindicating his Son’s claims for which he was crucified.

19. Angels and Demons

1. messengers of God
2. incorporeal beings
3. purpose of angels:
   1. primary reason to serve God
   2. mediators between God and the physical world
      1. but: this leads to infinite regress of mediators
   3. express the fullness of creation in imitating God and in reflecting his manifold greatness (Great Chain of Being)
   4. glorify God
4. nature of angels
   1. created beings (not eternal)
   2. innumerable
   3. are of different orders and ranks (Daniel 10:12-14a, Jude 9)
   4. extremely powerful
   5. spirits without material bodies (2 Kings 6:8-18)
   6. not bound by physical limitations (Acts 12:5-10)
   7. very wise (Samuel 14:20b)
   8. capable of assuming human form (Judges 13:8-20)

20. The Work of Angels

1. work of angels
   1. guide the destiny of nations (Daniel 10:13-20)
   2. minister to the people of God (1 Kings 19:5-8)
   3. execute God’s justice (2 Kings 19:35)
   4. gather & accompany Christians at the second coming of Christ (Matthew 24:29-31)
2. two special angels - only two who are named in the Bible
   1. Michael: prince of Israel
      1. warrior (the one who does battle)
   2. Gabriel: messenger (communicating wisdom and understanding to God’s people).

21. The Names of Satan

1. “adversary”
2. diabolos (“the devil” or “slanderer”)
3. Beelzebub, or a variant, Beelzebul
   1. Baal-Zebub: Lord Prince
4. prince of the power of the air (Ephesians 2:1b-2)
5. ruler/god of this world (John 14:30-31)
6. accuser of the brethren

22. The Origin of Satan

1. Bible: no dualism
2. How could God create something which seems to be so intrinsically evil and opposed to God?
   1. Isaiah 14:12-17
      1. but: this is not about Satan! (not exegesis but eisegesis: reading into the text)
   2. there are angels who have sinned (2 Peter 2:4, Jude 6)
   3. angelic fall (1 John 3:8)
   4. there are elect angels (1 Timothy 5:21)
3. Wow could angels who are in the presence of God fall away?
   1. Origen: Satan will be saved -> heresy
   2. St. Anselm: human beings were elected to replace the number of the fallen angels

23. The Nature of Demons

1. intelligent beings
2. spiritual beings
3. malevolent
4. they form supernatural dominions and levels of authority
5. can possess people and exhibit supernatural strength
6. must submit to the authority of Jesus’ name
   1. this doesn’t mean there’s something magical about the name of Jesus
7. know their own end

24. The Work of Demons

1. blind unbelievers to the truth of the Gospel
2. seek to nullify the preaching of the Kingdom
3. seek to destroy the servants of God
4. can possess people
5. Christian response to demons
   1. submit to God and resist the devil
   2. watch and pray
   3. clothe ourselves with the full armor of God

S9: EXCURSUS ON CREATION OF LIFE AND BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

1. Hermeneutical Principles and Concordism

1. Genesis 1
2. principles of interpretation
   1. interpreting according to the literary genre
   2. try to determine how the original author and audience would have understood the text (vs concordism which involves reading modern science into the text of Scriptur)
3. history of interpretation of the creation account: http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/studies/creation/report.pdf

2. The Literal Interpretation

1. aka 24-hour day interpretation
2. Genesis 1 communicates scientific information about the origin of the world and humanity
3. “literal” = not to be taken figuratively
4. Genesis 1 seems to be a kind of historical but figurative genre of writing

3. A Critique of the Literal Interpretation

1. yom: not necessary 24-hour day
   1. e.g. Genesis 2:4 refers to entire week!
2. best proof texts: Exodus 20:8-11
   1. but: just because pattern is same, periods/durations doesn’t have to be!
   2. e.g. Exodus 31:12-17: seventh day as the day of God’s sabbath rest <-> in Genesis 1, seventh day is not a 24-hour time, God is still in “sabbath rest”
3. yom + ordinal number always mean 24 hours
   1. but: no such grammatical rule in Hebrew
   2. even if we don’t have passages, it might still mean sg else
   3. counterexamples: Hosea 6:2
   4. this is missing the point: even if yom always refers to a 24-hour day, the question is if it is used metaphorically (e.g. “arm” can mean limb and weapon too. even if it is used only as a limb in Scriptures, it can still be used metaphorically, e.g. “arm of the Lord”)
4. there are indications in the text itself that six consecutive 24-hour days are not intended by the author (not scientific!)
   1. e.g. “and it was evening and it was morning” is not mentioned with respect to the seventh day -> still ongoing
   2. evening is mentioned before the morning
5. God doesn’t make the sun until the fourth day -> how could the previous days have been 24-hour days marked by an evening and a morning if there wasn’t any sun to create solar days?
   1. Earth rotates on its axis -> concordism!
   2. third day: not “Let there be trees and plants” but “Let the Earth bring forth” these things -> takes more time
6. Creation of Adam and Eve -> seems to be longer than 24 hours
   1. naming all animals
   2. “at last” -> some period of waiting
7. Historically, many of the church fathers did not take Genesis 1 literally (e.g. St. Augustine, Origen and Justin Martyr)

4. The Gap and Day-Gap Interpretations

1. gap interpretation
   1. Scofield Reference Bible
   2. gap of time between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2
   3. When does day 1 begin? -> Gen 1:3 God’s creation of the light
   4. But: life before Gen 1:3 is not supported by the text -> concordism
2. day-gap interpretation
   1. six 24-hour non-consecutive days
   2. long gaps of time in between God’s creative acts
   3. no support from the text
   4. attempt to reconcile with geological time -> concordism

5. The Day-Age Interpretation

1. creation days represent long periods of time of unspecified duration
2. there are indications in the text that these are not necessarily 24-hour periods of time
3. But the idea that the text intends us to take the days as six consecutive ages, especially of equal duration -> read into the text, not out of
4. doesn’t fit with modern science (overlapping ages)

6. The Days of Divine Proclamation Interpretation

1. divine fiat interpretation
   1. God made a series of divine proclamations over six consecutive 24-hour days
   2. these proclamations were then subsequently fulfilled (perhaps over very long ages) later
   3. but: proclamations presuppose the existence of the things previously proclaimed to be
   4. also: word of approval implies that the divine fiat has been fulfilled
2. days of divine revelation
   1. seven days are not days prior to the origin of things but rather later days during which God revealed to Moses or the author of Genesis (whoever he might have been) what God did
   2. separate God’s proclamation from God’s action
   3. no support from text

7. The Literary Framework and the Functional Creation Interpretations

1. literary framework interpretation
   1. In the Beginning (Henri Blocher)
   2. Genesis 1 is not interested in chronology
   3. days serve as a sort of literary framework on which he hangs his account of creation
   4. parallelism between days 1 to 3 and days 4 to 6
      1. first three days God: domain (or the space)
      2. second three days: occupants of that space
      3. but: this is not exact
   5. but: there is some chronology (days are numbered)
2. functional creation
   1. The Lost World of Genesis One (John Walton)
   2. creation: not coming into existence but specifying functions
      1. e.g. warehouse turned into a restaurant
   3. material vs functional ontology
   4. but: needs to show that Gen 1 is concerned only with functional creation

8. A Critique of John Walton’s Functional Creation Interpretation

1. He needs to show that Genesis 1 involves only functional creation and not also the creation of material objects at the same time
2. If he is right, everything looked exactly the same except that the people who existed then had not yet been declared by God to function
3. His arguments:
   1. Hebrew word bara – the Hebrew word for “create” – concerns functional creation
   2. creation account proper begins at Genesis 1:2

9. A Critique of John Walton’s Functional Creation Interpretation, Part 2

1. according to John Walton (its principal proponent), days 1 to 3 establish various functions, and then days 4 to 6 establish functionaries
2. His arguments:
   1. the ancients thought of the sky (or the heavens) as a hard dome
   2. Genesis account represents God’s coming to reside in the world as his cosmic temple -> no evidence
3. Can creation in Genesis 1 be both material and functional? this is what most believe but Walton thinks NO

10. The Monotheistic Hebrew Myth Interpretation

1. In the Beginning. . . We Misunderstood by Johnny Miller and John Soden:
2. Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 is not to be taken literally
3. key to correctly interpreting Genesis 1 is to compare it with Egyptian creation myths
4. difference between them lies not in their literary genre but rather in their theology
5. In contrast to the polytheistic Egyptian myths, Genesis is a monotheistic Hebrew myth

11. An Assessment of the Monotheistic Hebrew Myth Interpretation

1. myth: various meanings (erroneous statement to an archetypal theme)
2. folklore: three types of narrative:
   1. folktales: prose narratives regarded as fiction (“Little Red Riding Hood”)
   2. legends: set in a time, less remote than the myths
   3. myths: sacred narratives which explain how the world and man came to be in their present form
3. Genesis 1-11 meet the criteria of myth
4. “parallelomania”: trying to show that one narrative is dependent upon another by examining details taken out of context -> danger of cherry-picking
5. need to show:
   1. the texts really are parallel
   2. the texts are causally linked
   3. causal connection is asymmetrical

12. Examining the Supposed Parallels Between Genesis and Egyptian Myths

1. Gospels: not myths, but ancient biographies
2. Gilgamesh vs Genesis
3. Miller and Soden: cherry-picking
   1. two states, when examined in context, are not truly parallel
   2. primordial darkness and water are very popular motifs
4. similar themes and has similar etiological but that’s all

13. Did Genesis Borrow From Babylonian Myths?

1. Enuma Elish aka Babylonian Genesis
2. Genesis 1 not influenced by this myth <-> Peter Enns in his book The Evolution of Adam
3. reproduced errors by Alexander Heidel

14. Etiological Motifs in Genesis 2

1. Gen 1: origin of the world (cosmogonic myths), Gen 2: origin of mankind (anthropic myths)
2. Genesis 2 is the original creation of humanity, not some later creation of a special pair.
3. no etiology for evil
4. pattern of Sabbath

15. Genealogies in Genesis 1-11

1. genealogy: written or oral expression of the descent of a person from an ancestor or ancestors
2. linear vs segmented genealogy
3. genealogies as the backbone of Genesis 1-11

16. Genealogies in Genesis 1-11 (continued)

1. ancient genealogies meant to be taken literally
2. common features: telescoping (collapsing generations) and fluidity
3. despite the historical interest, we shouldn’t press them too hard for their literal interpretation

17. The Genre of Mytho-History

1. Genesis 1-11: Hebrew myths with an interest in history -> mytho-history
2. prone to misunderstanding but still this is the correct classification

18. Is the Biblical Primeval History To Be Understood as Literally True?

1. no direct access to the adherents of ancient myths -> comparative anthropological studies / Ancient Near Eastern literature
2. primitive societies can distinguish between factual and fictional narratives
3. we shouldn’t confuse truth with efficacy!
4. myths, while accepted as true and authoritative, are not necessarily to be taken to be literally true
5. plasticity and the flexibility of myths
   1. Plasticity: degree of variability of a myth at one time
   2. Flexibility: degree of variability over time
6. Ancient Near Eastern myths are often highly metaphorical rather than literal
7. their plasticity and flexibility also indicate that they are not best interpreted literally

19. The Plasticity and Flexibility of ANE Myths

1. Egypt: greatest plasticity and flexibility of its myths
2. “cosmic geography”: sky ~ solid dome over the Earth
3. “rakia”: the whole sky. All that can be seen above the Earth from the surface.

20. Why Think Genesis 1-11 is Mytho-History?

1. Ancient Near Eastern literature that myths are not always best interpreted literalistically
2. non-literal interpretation of Gen 1-11 is very plausible
   1. creation of the world in six consecutive 24-hour days can be recognized as metaphorical
   2. humanoid deity in chapters 2 and 3 in vs transcendent Creator in chapter 1
3. many features of these stories are “fantastic” = false if taken literally e.g:
   1. when God created man it had never rained upon the Earth
   2. Tree of Life and Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
   3. cherubims: not thought to be real beings

21. Why Read Genesis 1-3 Figuratively?

1. Genesis 2 and 3 not theophany (in contrast to Gen 18)
   1. Genesis 2 and 3 God is described anthropomorphically even when he is not appearing to Adam
2. prima facie inconsistencies
   1. According to Genesis 2:5 there was no rain and hence no vegetation on Earth prior to the creation of man. But according to Genesis 1 God created vegetation on day 3 before he created man on day 6
   2. In Genesis 1 God creates the animals prior to his creation of man, but in Genesis 2:18-19 God creates man before creating the animals.
   3. Why was the author so blasé about these apparent inconsistencies? Well, plausibly because he didn’t intend his story to be read literalistically.

22. The Central Truths Expressed in Genesis 1-11

1. central truths expressed in the primeval history
   1. God is one, a personal transcendent creator of all physical reality, perfectly good and worthy of worship.
   2. God has designed the physical world and is the ultimate source of its structure and lifeforms.
   3. Mankind is the pinnacle of the physical creation, a personal (if finite) agent like God and therefore uniquely capable of all Earth’s creatures of knowing God.
   4. Mankind is gendered; man and woman being of equal value with marriage given to mankind for procreation and mutuality, the wife being a helper to her husband.
   5. Work is good, a sacred assignment by God to mankind to steward the Earth and its resources.
   6. Human exploration and discovery of the workings of nature are a natural outgrowth of man’s capacities rather than divine bestowals without human initiative and effort.
   7. Mankind is to set apart one day per week as sacred and for refreshment from work.
   8. Man and woman alike have freely chosen to disobey God, suffering alienation from God and spiritual death as their just desert, condemned to a life of hardship and suffering during this mortal existence.
   9. Human sin is agglomerative and self-destructive resulting in God’s just judgment.
   10. Despite human rebellion against God, God’s original purpose to bless all mankind remains intact as he graciously finds a way to work his will despite human defiance.

23. Adam in the New Testament

1. Adam is scarcely mentioned in OT after Gen 1-11
2. NT:
   1. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22
   2. 1 Corinthians 15:45-49
   3. 2 Corinthians 11:3
   4. Romans 5:12-21
   5. 1 Timothy 2:12-14
3. literary vs historical Adam (character in the story v sreal flesh-and-blood person that actually lived)
4. truth vs truth-in-a-story
5. Paul using a text illustratively versus assertorically
   1. illustrative use of a text does not commit the user to the truth of the text itself but merely to truth-in-a-text
   2. e.g. something’s being a Trojan horse doesn’t commit you to the historical reality
6. further distinction between what a person citing a text believes and what that person asserts
   1. assertoric use of a statement is teaching the truth of the text not simply truth-in-the-text
7. e.g. Jude and 2 Peter appeal to non-canonical literary texts
   1. Michael in his dispute with the devil over Moses’ body
   2. Jude cites the author of 1 Enoch, a pseudepigraphal book
   3. 2 Timothy 3:8 Jannes and Jambres opposing Moses
   4. Paul’s allusion in 1 Corinthians 10:4 to the Rock which accompanied the ancient Israelites through their wilderness wanderings
8. just because some NT author refers to a literary figure, it doesn’t mean the figure is asserted to be a historical person - it doesn’t mean the figure is unhistorical either; it just short-circuits overly easy proofs of historicity.

24. New Testament Authors’ Use of the Literary Adam

1. avoid overly easy proofs of Old Testament historicity using New Testament citations of Old Testament passages
2. e.g. we cannot simply prove Jonah’s historicity by citing the words of Jesus
3. Obviously, that doesn’t mean Jonah isn’t historical
4. Matthew 19:4-6: Jesus is exegeting the story of Adam and Eve to discern its implications for marriage and divorce. He is not asserting its historicity
5. 2 Corinthians 11:3: Paul is here summarizing what the story says, how Eve was created as Adam’s helper, and basing his teaching on his exegesis of that story -> it can be interpreted illustratively.
6. By contrast
   1. genealogy of Jesus found in Luke 3 which terminates in Adam, the Son of God, is clearly intended to be assertoric
   2. Acts 17:26 - Paul seems to be assertoric in nature. It is describing the historical advance of peoples throughout the world from their common historical origin in Adam
   3. Paul’s contrast between Adam and Christ in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5 -> historical Adam

25. Paul’s Use of Adam in 1 Corinthians 15

1. Paul’s use of Adam in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, 45-46 and then in Romans 5:12-21
2. question: is Paul’s use of Adam is a merely literary figure?
3. Adam: physical/mortal body <-> Christ: spiritual/immortal body
4. Adam was created with a mortal natural body
5. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 associates human mortality with the creation of Adam, not with his Fall. Adam is created with a sōma psychikon; he does not get one by sinning.

26. Paul’s Use of Adam in Romans 5

1. Romans 5:12-21
2. Paul does not explain how Adam’s sin is transmitted
   1. Adam’s sin is legally imputed to me so that I am reckoned to be guilty and liable to punishment because of what Adam did
   2. when Adam sinned he bestowed upon all of his descendants a corrupt nature so that they have a propensity to sin
   3. traditional doctrine of Original Sin includes both
3. ficional action cannot have external effects -> Adam must be historical

27. Scientific Evidence Pertinent to the Origin and Evolution of Biological Complexity

1. there are multiple possible interpretations of Genesis for Christians
2. two most plausible interpretive options are the literal Young Earth Creationist interpretation and the mytho-historical interpretation
3. scientific evidence pertinent to the origin and evolution of biological complexity
4. goal not to present some sort of design argument for the existence of God
   1. rather: integrate theology with science
5. unless we adopt the Young Earth Creationist’s literal interpretation, there is no incompatibility between Genesis 1 and scientific theories about the origin and evolution of life.
6. If we do adopt the Young Earth Creationist interpretation then it seems we have no choice but to radically revise the doctrine of inspiration
7. Young Earth Creationism is in massive conflict with modern science, history, and linguistics

28. Is Genesis 1 in Conflict With the Theory of Evolution?

1. random: doesn’t mean by chance or purposelessly (out of scope for science)
   1. BUT: randomly = irrespective of their usefulness to the organism (Francisco Ayala)
2. materialist: only evolution, Christian is not restricted, can follow the evidence where it leads

29. Methodological Naturalism

1. many argue that science is committed to methodological (not metaphysical!) naturalism
   1. Metaphysical naturalism: reality consists simply of space-time and its contents (the physical world).
   2. methodological naturalism: science seeks only natural explanations
2. methodological naturalism is not a scientific but a philosophical viewpoint
3. goal not to give best explanation of biological complexity but to integrate our theology with the empirical evidence
4. question of the origin of life:
   1. life originated in the so-called primordial soup
      1. BUT: natural destructive processes in the primordial oceans would have prevented these chemical reactions that supposedly led to life that allowed Miller to synthesize his amino acids

30. Three Aspects of the Evolutionary Paradigm

1. origin of life
   1. The Mystery of Life’s Origin by Bradley, Olsen, and Thaxton
   2. problems with Miller’s experiment on origin of life
      1. the very processes of natural destruction and dilution in the primordial waters would have prevented the chemical reactions that supposedly led to life
      2. thermodynamics poses an insuperable problem for these chemical origin of life scenarios because there just isn’t any way to harness the raw energy of lightning strikes or energy from the sun in order to drive chemical evolution forward
      3. there was no way to preserve any of the products of chemical evolution in order for the supposed second step in the process to take place
      4. window of opportunity for life to originate is getting increasingly narrow
   3. Steve Meyer in his book The Signature in the Cell has calculated the odds of getting even a single functioning protein molecule by chance to be approximately one chance out of 10^164
   4. origin of life on Earth is “almost a miracle.” (Francis Crick)
   5. Objection: if the universe is infinite in size then no matter how improbable the origin of life it will originate somewhere by chance
      1. BUT: this can be used to explain away virtually any improbable event no matter how improbable that event is
2. evolution of biological complexity
   1. evolution: multiple meanings, three aspects
      1. the process of change and diversification of living things over time (even Young Earth Creationists accept it)
      2. “evolutionary history”: reconstruction of the universal tree of life showing the various lineages that branched off from one another
      3. explanatory mechanisms behind evolutionary change
         1. evolutionary theories of life and the thesis of common ancestry were many and were well-known prior to Darwin
         2. Darwin’s contribution lay in providing a mechanism to explain evolutionary change, namely, natural selection operating on variations in living things
         3. BUT: Darwin had no explanation for the variations among living organisms upon which natural selection operates
            1. while Darwin’s theory explained the survival of the fittest, it could not explain the arrival of the fittest
         4. Gregor Mendel and the development of modern genetics, scientists were able to supplement Darwin’s theory of natural selection with a mechanism for supplying an explanation of the variations on which natural selection works -> Neo-Darwinism -> “Modern Synthesis”
         5. basic principles of the Modern Synthesis:
            1. Evolution was a gradual, long-term process, essentially consisting of the accumulation within lineages of small genetic mutations and recombinations. Over enough time, the accumulation of minor changes would result in large effects.
            2. This generation-to-generation change was controlled by natural selection, environmental factors promoting adaptation within the lineage by the differential reproductive success or failure of different variants. As environments changed, populations would change to keep in step and maintain or improve their adaptedness.
            3. This same process of the gradual accretion of genetic (hence physical) change could be extrapolated to explain higher-level phenomena, such as the origin of new species and of biotic diversity
               1. extrapolation to explain not only minor but larger changes (e.g. new species)
      4. aspect 2 and 3 are still not well understood

31. Examining the Thesis of Common Ancestry

1. Are all living things descended from a single primordial ancestor?
2. strongest evidence of common ancestry: genetic similarity
   1. creationist response: God simply used the same design plan (e.g. Ford and General Motors)
   2. BUT:
      1. genetic similarity between organisms is far in excess of what is required in order for DNA to do its job
         1. 64 combinations of nucleotide bases code only ~20 amino acids
         2. not only similar amino acid sequences but also they share the deep similarity of the genetic code combinations
      2. organization of the genes of related organisms (not just common genes but similar order)
      3. pseudo-genes in related organisms (defunct genetic sequence that has been inactivated through mutation)
3. opposition: fossil evidence
   1. no transitional forms between the animals that are living today
   2. intermediate forms are NOT transitional forms
      1. e.g. Archaeopteryx is an intermediate form in that it exhibits the features of both birds and reptiles, but it’s not a transitional form between reptiles and birds
      2. e.g. for transitional form: Tiktaalik
   3. if the thesis of common ancestry is true there should be literally millions and millions of transitional forms in the fossil record
   4. This problem can no longer be dismissed by saying that we just haven’t dug deep enough.

32. Evidence for the Neo-Darwinian Mechanisms

1. evolution within a single kind like that is just nothing compared to the whole range of life
2. extrapolation neo-Darwinianism from peppered moths and fruit flies to every living thing is breathtaking
3. in science such extrapolations sometimes fail (e.g. Einstein couldn’t extrapolate special theory of relativity to general theory of relativity)
4. evidence of neo-Darwinian mechanisms (Francisco Ayala)
   1. breeders
      1. BUT: this shows the limits of these mechanisms!
   2. peppered moth experiments
      1. BUT: this affects only proportion of light/dark colored moths!
   3. finch beaks
      1. BUT: nothing really evolved, only proportion changed during dry season (and then changed back to normal after rain)
   4. fruit flies in the Hawaiian Islands
      1. sealed off from outside <-> 500 fruit fly species (¼ of total!)
      2. points to common ancestry and evolution
      3. BUT: cannot be extrapolated
   5. drug resistance through random mutation
      1. BUT: it shows the limits!
      2. e.g. malaria always becomes drug-resistant yet it could never overcome sickle hemoglobin (deadly mutation in the respiratory system)

33. Inadequacies of the Neo-Darwinian Mechanisms

1. Behe case studies
   1. HIV
      1. mutates 10,000 times faster than malaria
      2. yet no significant changes
   2. E. coli
      1. 40,000 generations
      2. most mutations are degenerative
   3. where is the evidence for the extraordinary extrapolation that neo-Darwinism involves?
2. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle
   1. ten steps in the course of human evolution
   2. each so improbable that before it could occur the sun would have ceased to be a main-sequence star and incinerated the Earth
   3. conclusion: evolutionary process must have been guided
3. competing alternatives to address problem sof Modern Synthesis
   1. Evolutionary developmental biology
   2. Self-organization
   3. Neutral evolution
   4. Neo-Lamarckianism
   5. Natural genetic engineering

34. Progressive Creationism – Integrating the Scientific Evidence with the Genesis Narrative

1. integrate the scientific evidence with Genesis narrative: progressive creationism
   1. God intervenes periodically to bring about miraculously new forms of life and then allows natural evolutionary change to take place with respect to those life forms
   2. can affirm or deny common ancestry
2. objections: theism and evolutionary biology are incompatible
   1. versions of the problem of natural (not moral) evil
   2. design flaws in nature
      1. certain features of organisms are not optimally designed
      2. e.g. blind spot in eye (octopus doesn’t have)
      3. BUT: this might not be a flaw at all?
         1. or: flaws might be result of the adaptation of previous structures by natural selection
   3. nature’s cruelty
      1. even creationists accept evolution within broad kinds (e.g. disease-producing change)
      2. animal suffering
      3. Nature Red in Tooth and Claw: three levels of pain hierarchy within the animal world
         1. Level 1: information states in the organism that cause aversive behavior to stimuli
            1. e.g. poking an amoeba with a needle
            2. Spiders and insects
         2. Level 2: first-order awareness of pain by an organism
            1. cannot put the “I think that” in front of their states of awareness
            2. self-awareness seems to be connected with the prefrontal cortex of the brain which is either missing or underdeveloped in all animals except for the humanoid primates
         3. Level 3: a second-order awareness that one is oneself experiencing level 2
      4. argument is guilty of the fallacy of anthropopathism, which is ascribing human feelings to non-human entities
3. why did God create a world featuring an evolutionary prelude to the appearance of man?
   1. Maybe a world with evolution is a richer and more wonderful world of creatures.
   2. How do you know that God’s purposes for the human race are not better achieved by having a genuine ecological history on the Earth rather than creating an illusory history or a world with no apparent history at all.
4. objections to progressive creationism are ultimately unsuccessful

S10. Doctrine of Man

1. Different Approaches to Anthropology

1. “What is man that thou art mindful of him?” (Ps 8)
2. empirical anthropology: “What is man?”
3. Philosophical anthropology: “Who is man?”
   1. materialism or physicalism or naturalism (“man the machine”)
   2. idealism (man = mind/spirit <-> materialism)
   3. existentialism (man is condemned to freely define his own existence since he does not have an essence that is established by God in advance)
   4. Marxism or Marxism-Leninism (human existence is perfectible by class struggle between oppressor and oppressed)
4. theological anthropology: man’s relationship to God
   1. man as created in the image of God
   2. man as sinner
   3. man justified in Christ -> doctrine of salvation/soteriology
5. aim to find integrative/synoptic approach

2. Biblical Data Concerning Man as the Image of God

1. imago dei
2. Genesis 1:26-27 - locus classicus
   1. tselem -> “image”
   2. demut -> “likeness”
3. Genesis 5:3 - Adam’offspring created in his (Adam’s) image and likeness
4. 1 Corinthians 11:7
5. James 3:9
6. Philippians 2:6-7 - God himself was made to be in the image or likeness of man

3. Systematizing the Biblical Data

1. no indication that image or likeness is lost through the fall
2. Christ is the image of God
3. image of Christ: goal of sanctification (Romans 8:29)
4. Roman Catholic view
   1. differentiates between the image and the likeness of God
   2. before fall -> likeness (righteousness) + image (rational soul)
   3. after fall -> only image
5. Protestant Reformation
   1. image of God = likeness of God
   2. fallen man is no longer the image of God
6. both sees God’s image as rooted in ontology -> substantial view (Man is structurally different than other animals)
7. other interpretations:
   1. image of God is simply the original righteousnes before fall
   2. image of God is relational (I-thou relationship)
   3. functional interpretation (man = God’s royal representatives)

4. Evaluating Construals of the Image of God

1. no difference between the image and likeness of God (~reformers)
2. image is not lost in the Fall (Gen 9,6) (<-> reformers)
3. Christ is the image of God -> different
4. Christians being conformed to the image of Christ -> different
5. Man is in the image of God even as a sinner
6. image of God can be taken
   1. ontologically
   2. relationally
   3. functionally
7. depending on how to interpret ba (in) and ka (according to)
8. The Liberating Image of God (Richard Middleton)
   1. supports functional interpretation
   2. God: king presiding over the heaven and Earth
   3. man: God’s representative
   4. BUT: functional interpretation does not preclude, and even presupposes, a substantial interpretation
   5. Mesopotamian and Egyptian texts cited support a fourth view: incarnational interpretation
9. man is like God in that he is personal

5. Man as a Personal Being

1. image of God: ontology is the basis for the function
2. God is the personal
3. man is in the image of God ontologically -> man is personal
4. attributes of personhood:
   1. self-consciousness
   2. rationality
   3. freedom of the will
5. man as sinner
   1. man is still in the image of God (still rational)
   2. image of Christ -> related to sanctification, not image of God

6. The Nature of Man – Biblical Data

1. OT:
   1. nephesh: “soul”
      1. sometimes refers to dead corpses
   2. ruach: “spirit”
   3. besar: “flesh”
2. NT:
   1. soma: “body”
   2. psuche: “soul”
3. modern materialism and existentialism -> body/soul distinction rejected
   1. self = body (soma)
   2. BUT: soma denotes the physical body, roughly synonymous with ‘flesh’ in the neutral sense

7. Paul’s Use of the Anthropological Terms Sarx and Psuche

1. sarx means “flesh”
   1. often represents fallen human nature but sometimes used in neutral sense
2. psuche is “soul”
3. body-soul dualism is important in Christian theology

8. Systematizing the Biblical Data Concerning the Nature of Man

1. trichotomous human nature: body, soul, spirit
   1. heritage of Platonism
2. dichotomous view: dualism of body and soul (or spirit)
3. unitary view (anthropological monism): human beings are just physical bodies
4. 20th century: no immortality of the soul but rather resurrection of body
5. most biblical: dualism-interactionism
   1. two components: body and soul (or spirit)
   2. these interact with each other
6. Sheol: Hebrew equivalent of the Greek idea of a disembodied soul
7. standard view in Judaism:
   1. when a person dies his body (and in particular the bones) rest in the ground until the day of judgment
   2. his soul goes to be with God where it is safely kept until the Judgment Day
   3. then the soul and the body will be reunited, and the person will be judged
8. Paul’s view is basically the same:
   1. when a Christian dies the soul goes to be with Christ until the second coming
   2. when Christ returns, the remains of the body (if any) will be transformed into a resurrection body as incorruptible, immortal, powerful, and spirit-filled
   3. the soul will be simultaneously united with that resurrection body
   4. those who are still alive will be similarly transformed into their resurrection bodies

9. Refuting Materialism / Monism

1. New Testament passages on body/soul dualism:
   1. Luke 16:19ff
   2. 1 Peter 3:18-20
   3. Jude 6
   4. Hebrews 12:22-23
2. theological consequences of denial of soul
   1. If you do not believe that unembodied souls are possible, it’s very difficult to see how you can believe in the existence of God because that’s exactly what God is.
   2. Free will seems to be impossible without the reality of the soul
   3. The resurrection of the body threatens to reduce to God’s creating a replica of you rather than actually raising you from the dead
   4. incarnation becomes very difficult if not impossible

10. Refuting Reductive and Non-Reductive Physicalism

1. physicalist view of the mind has been waning in recent years among professional philosophers (The Waning of Materialism)
2. accounts of the mind
   1. physicalism (or materialism): human beings are simply material organisms
      1. Reductive physicalism:
         1. mental states are identical to physical brain states
         2. BUT: this cannot account for our mental lives (e.g. fear, joy)
      2. non-reductive physicalism:
         1. soul or our mental states are not reducible to the brain or to physical brain states nevertheless the soul is not a real thing
         2. Mental states are mental properties that supervene on the brain states and are ontologically dependent upon them
         3. e.g. wetness of water: property of wetness supervenes on the hydrogen and the oxygen
         4. BUT:
            1. this is incompatible with self-identity over time
               1. Buddhist view of the self (flame is different every moment)
            2. intentional states of consciousness don’t seem to make sense (e.g. think of something)
            3. free will seems impossible to reconcile
               1. if we want to provide an account of reasoning we need a soul
            4. no mental causation (only brain causes)
   2. dualism

11. A Challenge to Dualism-Interactionism – The Libet Experiments

1. Libet’s experiments
2. brain scientist named Benjamin Libet
3. experiments: people instructed to press a button with their finger when he monitored their brain activity
4. results: prior to person’s awareness of decision to press the button, a brain signal had already occurred which later resulted in his finger’s moving to press the button
5. sequence of events:
   1. brain signal about 550 milliseconds prior to the finger’s moving
   2. awareness of the decision in consciousness about 200 milliseconds prior to the finger’s moving
   3. finger moves and presses the button.
6. no consensus concerning the interpretation or the significance of Libet’s experiments
7. BUT:
   1. even after the awareness of the decision to press the button had occurred, people still retained the ability to veto the decision and not to press the button
      1. brain signal to press the button might be merely a readiness potential which the patient may either then go along with or may veto
   2. bottom line: person still has control over his decision
   3. Libet himself considered his experimental results to be fully compatible with the existence of free will
8. this is in line with dualist-interactionist expectation!
   1. the soul uses the brain to think as an instrument for thought, just as a pianist uses a piano as an instrument to produce music
   2. of course the soul’s decisions are not simultaneous with the soul’s awareness of those decisions – how could they be?
   3. Given the brain’s reliance upon finite velocity neural signals in order to think, the soul could not have a simultaneous awareness of its decisions
   4. we always experience the present a bit in the past
   5. the soul’s decision is not unconscious – it is conscious – but it just takes a little while for that decision to become conscious, due to the finite velocity of neural signals
9. Mexner: all it needs to do in order to make responsible, informed, free decisions is consciousness of the relevant facts prior to its making a decision. And it has that. But the soul doesn’t need to be aware or conscious of the decision itself simultaneously with its making that decision in order for the decision to be responsible, informed, and free.
10. trichotomy versus dichotomy
    1. no strong &consistent distinction in Scripture or philosophy between soul and spirit
    2. f you press the language in Scripture about “spirit” then what about“the heart” and “the mind” and “the inner man? you are going to proliferate entities unnecessarily
    3. difference between soul and spirit is functional:
       1. soul in relation to God -> “spirit”
       2. soul in everyday functions -> “soul”

12. The Origin of the Soul

1. four views:
   1. pre-existence of the soul
      1. Origen
      2. Platonic doctrine
      3. souls exist with God prior to His creation of the physical body and even of the physical world
      4. not biblical
   2. Creationist view
      1. God creates each individual soul ex nihilo
      2. Clement of Alexandria
      3. both biblical and plausible
      4. “When does God create the soul in the body?” -> probably at the moment of conception
      5. abortion: Given our uncertainty, we should err on the side of caution
   3. Traducian view
      1. Tertullian
      2. child’s soul is produced by the souls of the parents
      3. BUT: egg and the sperm after all are not human beings – they don’t have souls
   4. Emergentism (not classical)
      1. William Hasker
      2. associated with non-reductive physicalism
      3. mental substance as something that emerges from a physical system when that physical system reaches a certain level of complexity
      4. BUT: not real dualism

13. The Question of the Historicity of Adam and Eve

1. does Bible teach historical Adam?
   1. symbolic significance (names)
   2. but: Adam was historic
      1. no break in the narrative between Adam and indisputably historical figures
      2. Adam is included in the genealogies that tell of the descent of historical persons
      3. Paul treats Adam as a historical figure (e.g. Acts 17:26)
      4. Paul draws parallels between Adam and Jesus as historical individuals, not merely as literary figures

14. When Did Adam Live?

1. equivalent question: when did human beings first appear on Earth?
2. terminology
   1. hominid: class of animals including orangutans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans
   2. hominin: class including only members of the human lineage since its divergence from the last common ancestor with chimpanzees
      1. not only modern man, Homo sapiens
      2. but also archaic species of the genus Homo (e.g. Australopithecines, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo rudolfensis)
      3. not all Homo are human beings
3. conditions sufficient for humanity:
   1. anatomical similarity (not exact match)
      1. brain volume 1100-1500 cm^3
   2. features e.g.
      1. abstract thinking
      2. planning depth
      3. behavioral, economic, and technological innovations;
      4. symbolic behavior
4. earliest possible point: 300,000 yrs
5. latest point: 50,000 yrs ago

15. Were Neanderthals Humans?

1. absolute brain size: valid measure for hominins (not e.g. for elephants)
   1. encephalization quotient: ratio between brain size and body mass
2. Neanderthals:
   1. brain capacity equal to that of modern man
   2. arguments for humanity
      1. constructions at Bruniquel Cave in France
      2. Neanderthal art
      3. Schöningen spears

16. Locating the Historical Adam

1. Homo heidelbergensis “cosmopolitan hominid species”
2. Adam may be plausibly identified as a member of Homo heidelbergensis, living perhaps sometime earlier than 750,000 years ago

17. Genetic Challenges to Adam and Eve

1. evolution does not proceed along an isolated individual line but whole populations evolve over time
2. biology recap:
   1. Human beings have in each nucleus of each cell 23 pairs of chromosomes containing the DNA that determines our genes
   2. A segment of DNA is called a locus (Latin for “place”)
   3. The sequence of DNA letters at any locus is called an allele.
   4. Since our chromosomes come in pairs, we therefore have one allele at a locus on one chromosome and another allele at a similar locus on the other chromosome
   5. alleles determine features like eye color, height, skin color etc
3. problems with the existence of an original human couple
   1. Multiplicity of alleles (=genetic divergence)
      1. BUT: this is irrelevant, mere number or variety of alleles today tells nothing about population sizes in the past
   2. Effective population size estimates
      1. BUT: Venema considers minimum instead of average
         1. ancestors != humans
         2. even if hominins remain above a couple of thousands, at one point number of humans go down to zero!
   3. Trans-species variation
      1. BUT: founding human pair can together carry at most four alleles at any locus into the descendant population
         1. no strong evidence for 4+ alleles
         2. also: convergent evolution: similar alleles evolve independently in different species
   4. Divergence of alleles
      1. multiplicity of alleles (=genetic diversity) is irrelevant; what matters is the spread of the alleles (=genetic divergence)
      2. BUT: founding couple could have been heterozygous, each carrying two different alleles at any locus of their chromosome pairs -> what matters is not time back to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) but the time to the most recent four alleles (TMR4A) -> Swamidass determines a date of 495,000 (plus or minus 100,000) years ago for the TMR4A
      3. recent bottleneck is ruled out by the genetic divergence exhibited by today’s human population, a bottleneck of two before 500,000 years ago is possible
4. the existence of a historical Adam and Eve need not imply their sole genetic progenitorship, especially over tens of thousands of years
5. conclusion, Adam and Eve may be plausibly identified as members of the species Homo heidelbergensis and as the founding pair at the root of all human species

18. Putting It All Together

1. Genesis 1-11: mytho-history
2. human beings ought not to be identified with Homo sapiens alone but ought also to include Neanderthals too
3. Adam and Eve may be plausibly identified as belonging to the last common ancestor of Homo sapiens and Neanderthals, usually denominated Homo heidelbergensis

19. Man as Sinner

1. Scriptures relevant to the doctrine of the Fall
   1. Genesis 3:1-7
   2. Romans 5:12-21
   3. 1 Corinthians 15:21-2
2. Traditional view
   1. man originally created in state of integrity
      1. major perfections (perfections of the soul)
         1. knowledge of God
         2. sanctity of the will
         3. purity and harmony of man’s desires
      2. minor perfections (perfections of the body)
         1. immortality
         2. freedom from harm
         3. being the lord of the earth
      3. ability to not sin (posse non peccare)
   2. sinlessness lost through Adam’s fall
      1. unable to avoid sin (non posse non peccare)
3. origin of evil
   1. not addressed in Genesis narrative
   2. due to creaturely freedom (Satan: fallen angel)
4. logical order of God’s decrees:
   1. Supralapsarianism:
      1. God’s primary decree: election of the saved and the reprobation of the damned
      2. In order to have something to save the elect from and to condemn the non-elect for, God decreed man’s fall into sin
      3. cross: not remedy for the Fall but reverse
      4. you need a sinful state in order to have a cross
   2. Infralapsarianism:
      1. first God decrees the Fall
      2. in light of the Fall, He decrees the elect and the reprobate
      3. God first decides to create a world with sinful creatures, and then He decides what to do about it
5. modern view:
   1. Fall is myth (=figurative)
   2. not historical event but symbol of man’s general condition

20. The Fall of Man and the Nature of Sin

1. interpretation of the Fall of Adam and Eve
   1. Adam and Eve do have a symbolic significance
   2. still there is good biblical grounds to think of them as historical persons
   3. literal Fall -> Kenneth Kemp’s view
2. sin
   1. scriptures:
      1. Genesis 2:15-17
      2. Romans 5:12-13, 18-19
      3. Romans 7:7-12
      4. 1 John 3:4
   2. traditional view:
      1. transgression of God’s moral law
      2. concupiscence (coveting)
      3. unbelief (Romans 14:23)
      4. self-curvature (Luther)
   3. modern (domesticated) views:
      1. weakness of our God consciousness (Friedrich Schleiermacher)
      2. failure to recognize your unity with Go (Paul Tillich)

21. Evaluating the Nature of Sin

1. Romans 5:12-14
2. even if people lied and stole and murdered and so on prior to the giving of the Mosaic law, how could such acts count as sin, since they had not been forbidden? -> “where there is no law there is no transgression” (Romans 4:15)
3. objection still relevant
4. some acts are morally bad (=objectively wrong) but not morally wrong (=God has forbidden them)
   1. such ppl are evil (=does evil) but blameless (=no moral duty)
   2. such ppl cannot be justly punished for their sins, since they have done nothing wrong, but nevertheless still find themselves alienated from God by their evil character
   3. how God can judge persons living between the time of Adam and Moses?
5. Paul’s thinking about this problem is not clear
   1. Paul seems willing to countenance the existence of people who lived between the times of Adam and Moses who were evildoers but not wrongdoers
   2. for them death was a consequence of sin but not a penalty
6. sin not just a weakness in man
   1. man is objectively morally alienated from God and guilty before God
   2. not just guilt feelings but objective moral guilt
7. God doesn’t say, “Believe or be damned!” -> we are already objectively guilty and alienated from God
8. most fundamental sin: unbelief
   1. unbelief separates us from God’s saving grace

22. Original Sin

1. not in Psalm 51:5 (-> poetry)
2. base texts
   1. Romans 5:12-21
      1. comparing the spiritual consequences of Adam’s sin and Christ’s death
   2. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22
      1. comparison the difference between Adam’s creation and Christ’s resurrection -> not relevant after all to the doctrine of original sin
3. church fathers:
   1. Augustine (AD 354 to 430)
      1. all human beings sinned in Adam
      2. we share the guilt of Adam’s sin & corrupted human nature inherited from Adam
      3. sin is universal (endemic to human nature)
      4. totality of sin (affects every part of the human personality)
      5. We are not able to avoid sin
      6. man unable to earn God’s grace
      7. less helpful aspects:
         1. original sin ~ genetic disease, passed on physically from parents to child -> science should be able to get rid of it
         2. connected the doctrine of original sin to the doctrine of infant baptism
   2. Pelagius (AD 354 to 418)
      1. man is perfectly free to do good or evil
      2. not prisoners inevitably condemned to sin
      3. world is suffused with sin -> we all fall into it eventually
      4. corruption of sin comes however through imitation, not through inheritance
      5. man needs God’s grace in order to resist sin but he has already given in to him

23. Original Sin: Semi-Pelagianism, Reformation, Enlightenment, Modern Era

1. Semi-Pelagianism
   1. closer to the Augustine’s view
   2. man’s will is weakened by the Fall
   3. additional grace (not just through creation) is needed
   4. this grace is given only in response to your free will
   5. very widespread in the church by Middle Ages
2. Reformation
   1. reclamation of Augustine’s doctrine of original sin
   2. stronger emphasis on guilt inherited from Adam
   3. infant baptism: means to deal with origin sin imputed to us from Adam
   4. Adam:federal head of the human race, he represented us before God
3. post-Enlightenment views
   1. rationalists: it is impossible to be held guilty for another person’s sin
   2. original sin: incoherent, moral impossibility
   3. Friedrich Schleiermacher’s reinterpretation: original sin = weakening God consciousness

24. Evaluating the Doctrine of Original Sin

1. Augustine’s view of original sin is going to depend upon our exegesis of Romans 5:12-21:
   1. Augustine’s doctrine was in fact based upon a mistranslation of Romans 5:12
   2. Augustine’s Latin text read, “in whom all men sinned.”
   3. original Greek: “death spread to all men because all men sinned.”
   4. corrupted nature: inherited from Adam -> not mentioned!
   5. imputation of sin: purely a legal or forensic notion
2. other alternative:
   1. inherent self-seeking animal nature in combination with the web of corruption in which we are born and raised explains the universality of sin
   2. Adam was the floodgate through which sin and death entered the world, and death then spread to all men because each one sinned in his own turn

25. A Continued Evaluation of Original Sin

1. Romans 5:
   1. Paul does not teach either the imputation of Adam’s sin to all men or nor corrupted human nature inherited from Adam
   2. Augustine’s doctrine of original sin is not mandatory
2. defence of Augustine’s view in light of Enlightenment critique (no person can be justly punished for another man’s sin)
   1. Adam: federal head of the human race
   2. representative system in democracy
   3. proxy in stockholders’ meeting votes in our place
   4. response: “who asked Adam to be my representative?”
      1. Adam is our divinely appointed representative
      2. if I had been in Adam’s place, I would have done the same thing and sinned -> Adam has faithfully represented us before God; he has done exactly what we would have done in that situation.
   5. need to supplement the imputation of Adam’s sin with a corrupted human nature inherited from Adam as well
      1. total depravity
         1. does not mean that people are as bad as they could possibly be
         2. but: every aspect of the human personality is tainted by sin
         3. e.g. drop of ink in a glass of water
3. children: good biblical grounds for thinking that:
   1. either children are not imputed original sin or
   2. God’s grace is extended to children, particularly to those who die in infancy
4. baptism:
   1. practice of infant baptism is mistake when conjoined with regeneration
   2. baptism doesn’t remove original sin
   3. sin is not a sexually transmitted disease
5. sin does permeate social institutions
   1. entertainment industry is thoroughly corrupted by graphic violence, sexuality, and profanity
   2. “deep state” to carry out, in effect, a presidential coup, by the spurious accusations which lay at the root of the Muller investigation

26. Freedom of the Will

1. scriptures:
   1. Ephesians 2:8-9
   2. Romans 9:6-25
   3. Romans 10:6-13
   4. Galatians 3:6-9
2. Protestant Reformers
   1. “bondage of the will”: fallen man is incapable of freely choosing for God and appropriating his grace
   2. Martin Luther: human beings are free in things below (=earthly affairs) but bound in things above (=spiritual matters)
   3. Calvin: total depravity
      1. every aspect of the human person is fallen and infected with sin
      2. no ability to respond to God’s offer of salvation
      3. Preaching the Gospel to you is like preaching to a dead man
      4. God must unconditionally elect those whom he wills to save
      5. God’s grace is irresistible by human beings
      6. sola gratia: salvation by grace alone

27. The Catholic View of Freedom of the Will

1. Council of Trent (1545-1563)
   1. God’s prevenient grace. This first step is from God’s side.
   2. Preparation of the heart for the receiving of God’s grace. This step comes from the human side.
   3. Justification. Here, in response to the human preparation of the heart, God infuses his grace into the individual believer
   4. Human beings are enabled to perform good works which God’s grace works in you. We are back again to the human response
   5. The merit of the good works that you perform then win your salvation. final step in the process is eternal life
2. blend of both divine and human factors in salvation
3. Protestants and Catholics agree on the first step – the necessity of God’s prevenient grace in the process of salvation
4. divergence: do humans have the freedom to resist God’s grace?
5. Romans 9 -> different view
   1. not narrowing down scope of election (humans -> few ppl)
   2. but broadening the scope (Jews -> Gentiles too)
   3. being descended from Abraham physically is no guarantee -> faith is needed

28. Freedom of the Will and Romans 10

1. Galatians 3:6-9
   1. true sons of Abraham: not physically descendants but those who have faith in Christ Jesus
2. Romans 10:8-13
   1. can’t make sense of this if Rom 9 is interpreted with predestination
3. Ephesians 2:8-9
   1. gift refers to salvation not faith
   2. pistis (faith) is feminine, but touto (this) is neuter
4. respond to God’s grace through faith does not mean doing some meritorious work (<-> reformers)
5. 2nd step of salvation: the free response of the creaturely will to the grace of God
   1. God’s grace can be resisted
6. 4th & 5th step: not biblical
   1. instead: perseverance
7. steps of salvation - updated:
   1. 1. God’s prevenient grace.
   2. 2. Human free response to God’s prevenient grace.
   3. 3. Justification by God.
   4. 4. God enables us to perform good works.
   5. 5. Perseverance in God’s grace until death.

S11. Doctrine of Salvation

1. The Doctrine of Election

1. Calvinist view:
   1. Ephesians 1:3-6
      1. source of our election is God the Father
      2. sphere in which election takes place is Christ
      3. When did this election take place? before creation
      4. purpose of this election: being blameless
      5. motive for election: God’s love
      6. basis of God’s election: his will
   2. Romans 8:28-30
      1. if the object of God’s foreknowledge is in fact people’s faith, then that faith is itself a sovereign gift of God
   3. John 3:3-8
      1. The Spirit blows upon whom he wills in order to bring about regeneration and new life
   4. John 6:44-45
      1. Apart from this work of God the Father, people will never come to Christ
      2. But if he does draw them, then they will assuredly come to saving faith in Christ.
   5. Ephesians 2:8
      1. God is the one who works out salvation in you
   6. 1 Peter 1:2
      1. all three of the persons of the Trinity are involved

2. Election and Calvinism Continued

1. Romans 8:28
   1. “foreknew” = loved them in advance (e.g. Genesis 18:19, Psalm 1:6, Jeremiah 1:5)
2. Romans 8:28-30:
   1. God’s eternal counsel
   2. unbroken chain in God’s process of salvation
   3. God foreknowledge of whom he would save
   4. God’s predestination (he ordained them to salvation)
   5. calling -> effectual, not just invitation
3. general vs special effectual call
   1. general call to repentance (John 7:37, Matthew 28:18-19)
   2. special call: irresistible (<- effectual, Romans 1:6-7, 1 Corinthians 1:9, 2 Timothy 1:9)
      1. moving cause: God’s will
      2. instrumental cause: Word of God

3. Regeneration and Arminianism

1. Regeneration:
   1. God makes people spiritually alive
   2. explanatorily prior to the exercise of saving faith (=faith is the result of God’s regenerating work)
   3. chronologically regeneration and faith can be simultaneous
   4. e.g. chandelier hanging by a chain from the ceiling
      1. chain is explanatorily prior to the chandelier’s hanging there in the air
   5. implication: salvation is not given in response to faith
   6. Saving faith: knowledge, assent, and trust
   7. Conversion may come later
2. Arminian perspective
   1. Ephesians 1:3-14
      1. Election is Christocentric
      2. Election is primarily corporate in nature, not individual (Elect in the Son by Robert Shank)
   2. doctrine of election
      1. Calvin: The election to salvation is of particular men unconditionally, who comprise the corporate body incidentally.
      2. Arminian: The election to salvation is corporate and comprehends individual men only in identification and association with the elect body.
   3. God’s election is this corporate group

4. Arminianism Continued

1. Romans 8:28-30: God’s calling to salvation is not an insincere call
   1. election = corporate calling
   2. predestination = conformity to the image of Christ (e.g. tour, anyone can join, program is fixed, participants are not)
2. 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:4: God genuinely wants all persons to be saved and does not want any to perish
3. faith:
   1. not something that is bestowed upon us by God independent of our own free decision to believe in Christ
   2. God has sovereignly chosen to save all who have faith in Christ Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile
   3. key factor in determining whether one is a part of that elect body of persons that God has chosen

5. Evaluation of Calvinism and Arminianism

1. Arminian corporate election does not explain well Romans 9 and 10
2. corporate election is the whole story
3. affirmation of the sovereignty of God that does seem to extend to individuals (e.g. Acts 13:48, Acts 2:23, Galatians 1:15)
4. at the same time, we have the affirmation of human freedom that one is able to resist what God has planned and ordained (Acts 26:19)
5. best way to understand these passages is through divine middle knowledge
   1. God provides sufficient grace for salvation to every person that he creates
   2. Congruism: there is congruent grace for any given individual
   3. Or: God does not in fact want all persons to be saved but prefers a world in which not all are saved, even though he could have chosen to create such a world

6. The Mystical Union of the Believer with Christ

1. not total absorption into deity but personal relationship and identification with Jesus Christ
2. union with Christ ~ marriage
3. relationship primarily objective not subjective (based on experiences/emotions)
4. John 15:1-8 vine and its branches
5. high priestly prayer of Jesus for the disciples (John 17:20-23)
6. Luke 10:16
7. examples of union
   1. light of the world
   2. vine & branches
8. Paul’s letters
   1. In Christ we are chosen. Ephesians 1:4
   2. In Christ we are called. 1 Corinthians 7:22
   3. We are foreordained or predestined in Christ. Ephesians 1:11-12
   4. We are created for good works in Christ. Ephesians 2:10
   5. In Christ we are sealed. Ephesians 1:13-14
   6. In Christ we are justified. Galatians 2:17
   7. as we are in Christ, we are sanctified. 1 Corinthians 1:2
   8. We are crucified with Christ. Romans 6:1-11

7. The Mystical Union with Christ - Continued

1. Paul’s letters
   1. We have adoption as sons and heirs of God. Galatians 3:16, 26, 29
   2. We are one body in Christ. Galatians 3:28
   3. In Christ we have redemption. Romans 3:24
   4. in Christ we have eternal life. Romans 6:23
   5. We have forgiveness in Christ. Ephesians 1:7
   6. As we are in Christ we are a new creation. 2 Corinthians 5:17
   7. In Christ we have liberty. Galatians 2:4
   8. In summary, we have every spiritual blessing in Christ. Ephesians 1:3
   9. as we are in Christ, we always have triumph. In 2 Corinthians 2:14

8. Metaphors for Mystical Union

1. husband and a wife (Ephesians 5:21-35, 1 Corinthians 6:15-20)
2. body and parts (1 Corinthians 12:12-27, Ephesians 3:4-6)

9. Application of Mystical Union to Our Lives

1. mystical union with Christ is the basis of the imputation of our sins to Christ and his righteousness to us (François Turretin)
   1. viciously circular: only persons who are regenerate and justified share a mystical union with Christ!
   2. analogy: bankruptcy: court order is explanatorily prior to the company’s being in bankruptcy even if they are simultaneous
   3. regeneration and justification are explanatorily prior to our mystical union with Christ
2. practical application:
   1. Galatians 2:20
   2. source of strength as we go through the adversities and trials of life
   3. call to holy living
   4. summons to closer fellowship with Christ
   5. source of security for us as believers

10. Regeneration / New Birth

1. John 1:12-13,John 3:1ff
2. regeneration = to be born again, an act of the Holy Spirit whereby a person becomes spiritual alive and a child of God
   1. you become a new creation. 2 Corinthians 5:17
   2. immediate relationship with Christ and with God. 1 Peter 1:3-5
   3. relationship is eternal
   4. freedom from sin. 1 John 1:7-9
      1. “God forgives not only your past sins, and your present sins, but also your future sins”
         1. can you be guilty of a sin that you haven’t committed?
         2. Christ’s atoning death is sufficient to cover every sin past, present, and future, but that doesn’t mean that when I come to Christ I am forgiven for sins I haven’t committed
      2. free now not to practice sin. 1 John 3:6-9 -> lifestyle of sin not sinless life
      3. justification is forensic/legal, regeneration is experiential -> actual change takes place in you
   5. new birth is available to anyone. John 3:3

11. How Regeneration Occurs

1. John 3
   1. new birth is not a matter of religious heritage (v1)
   2. not something that is biologically inheritable (v4)
   3. not a physical process
   4. not something that is granted by human being (v7-8)
   5. not just a matter of right doctrine or head knowledge (v10-11)
2. John 1:12-13, Titus 3:3-7
   1. it is open to all people
   2. steps:
      1. repentance
      2. placing one’s faith in Christ
3. “receiving Christ” ~ receiving the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9-10)

12. Different Views of Justification

1. Protestant view:
   1. justification is a forensic term
   2. God declares us righteous even if moral character is not yet transformed into new legal standing
   3. Romans 4:2-8, Romans 4:23-25, Galatians 3:6
2. Roman Catholic view:
   1. justification is the actual imparting of moral righteousness to the believer
   2. righteousness is intrinsic to the believer (<-> reformers: extrinsic)
   3. believer is actually made righteous, not simply declared to be righteous
   4. justification is thus both an event and a process
   5. good works increase of your justification

13. Assessment of Competing Views of Justification

1. Protestant Reformers correctly understood Paul to be talking about a legal act whereby we are reckoned to be righteous
2. opposite of justification is condemnation, not moral turpitude
3. God’s verdict is not overturned but He offers us a legal pardon which absolves us of guilt
4. divine forgiveness differs from forgiveness in personal human relationships (personal forgiveness does not absolve the wrongdoer of guilt)
5. objection: “legal view of justification amounts to nothing more than a legal fiction”
   1. legal fictions are important in justice system
   2. e.g. ships have the legal status of persons
   3. change of legal status e.g. marriage
6. New Perspective on Paul:
   1. you get into the covenant by God’s grace but stay in it by doing good works
   2. Paul’s view ~ Palestinian Judaism

14. The New Perspective on Paul

1. Reformers misunderstood Paul
2. he’s not really saying anything new
3. salvation by grace but staying in the covenant by good works
4. critique: Robert Gundry
   1. good works are not the means of staying in; rather they are the evidence of genuine faith
   2. good works are necessary, but they are necessary as evidence of the genuineness of your faith
   3. they are not necessary as the instruments by means of which you stay in the covenant
   4. 2 Corinthians 13:5: good works are condition vs evidence of salvation
   5. in a logical sense good works are a necessary condition of salvation
      1. not because they contribute to salvation
      2. but rather in the purely logical sense: genuine saving faith doesn’t exist without being accompanied by these good works
   6. good works are necessary for salvation but not contributory to salvation

15. New Perspective on Paul Continued

1. “the righteousness of God” = God’s faithfulness to the covenant
2. BUT: faithfulness is not enough for salvation
3. what the opposite of righteousness? not unfaithfulness but ungodliness (Romans 1:18) or lawlessness (2 Corinthians 6:14)
4. linguistically untenable -> backed away

16. Imputed Righteousness

1. Reformation view: justification involves dual imputation
   1. My sin and guilt are imputed to Christ
   2. Christ’s righteousness is imputed to me -> some evangelicals dispute that
      1. no biblical basis, only theological construct of the Reformers
      2. BUT: this makes faith a meritorious work
2. conclusion: good biblical gounds for both

17. The Grounds, Means, and Results of Justification

1. grounds of justification
   1. first, in God’s free will and mercy (Titus 3:5-7)
   2. second, the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Romans 5:8-9, Galatians 3:11-14a)
2. means of justification: faith (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:21-26)
3. results of justification
   1. pardon (Romans 5:18)
   2. adoption (Galatians 4:4-5)
   3. inheritance (Galatians 4:6-7)
   4. citizenship (Philippians 3:20)

18. Perseverance of the Saints - Calvinism

1. Calvinist perspective: elect cannot fall away (John 6:39-40, John 10:27-30, John 17:11, 1 John 3:9, Ephesians 1:13-14)
2. scripture warning of apostasy (Hebrews 6:1-8, Hebrews 10:26-31)
3. Calvinist’s response:
   1. these ppl are not really Christians
   2. Holy Spirit uses means to preserve Christians in the faith, including such warnings

19. Perseverance of the Saints - Arminianism

1. Arminian’s view: it is possible for a person who is a born-again Christian to lose his salvation and go to perdition
   1. elect of God are corporately secure only (Romans 8:33-39)
   2. individual’s perseverance in the faith is contingent (Romans 11:17-32, Colossians 1:23)

20. Warnings Against Apostasy

1. Arminian takes these warnings at face value
   1. warnings are written to Christian believers (Hebrews 3:1,6,12-14, Hebrews 10:32-36, Hebrews 6:1-8, Hebrews 10:26-31, 2 Peter 2:20-22, John 15:1-6)

21. Assessment of the Competing Views on Perseverance

1. apparent conflict between various texts in the New Testament
2. biblical authors disagreed about this subject?
   1. conflicting texts are found within the same author!
3. confusing two quite distinct questions
   1. Will any elect person fall away?
      1. de facto question
   2. Can an elect person fall away?
      1. modal question
4. beneath the surface: old debate between divine foreknowledge and human freedom
5. If it is impossible for the elect to fall away, why give them warnings?
6. Conclusion: Scripture teaches that an elect person can fall away
   1. examples in Scripture: Judas Iscariot, Demas, Hymenaeus and Alexander
7. practical application:
   1. exhortation to self-examination (Hebrews 3:12)
   2. meeting together for mutual encouragement is important (Hebrews 10:23-25)
   3. we should always assume that backslidden Christian hasn’t crossed the line of no return and try to bring him back (James 5:19-20)

S12. Doctrine of the Church

1. Introduction

1. purpose of Defenders class
   1. train Christians to understand, articulate, and defend basic Christian truths
   2. reach out with the Gospel to those who do not yet know Christ, always being ready to give a defense to anybody who should ask for the reason for the hope that is within us
   3. be an incendiary fellowship of mutual encouragement and lov
2. sacraments/ordinances
   1. sacrament: means of grace which belongs to the church
   2. ordinance: sign/evidence of grace
3. what is church?
   1. means of grace through which we receive salvation?
   2. or simply the fellowship believers in Christ?
4. what constitutes an ordinance or a sacrament? Word of God conjoined with some sort of visible element
5. What do they actually do?
   1. Catholic view: means of infusing grace
   2. Lutheran view: means of grace by virtue of the Word of God which is bound up with the sacrament
   3. Reformed view: confirmation of God’s grace by means of a visible sign
   4. Baptist view: confessional act on the part of the believer
6. number of the sacraments?
   1. Catholic view: seven sacraments
      1. baptism
      2. confirmation
      3. Eucharist
      4. penance
      5. marriage
      6. ordination
      7. extreme unction
   2. Protestant view: baptism and the Lord’s Supper

2. Baptism

1. biblical data: several passages
   1. Mark 1:4-5, Matthew 3:13-17, John 3:22-24, Acts 2:37-38, 41, Acts 8:36-38, Acts 9:19a
   2. Galatians 3:27, Romans 6:3-4, Colossians 2:12, 1 Peter 3:21

3. Baptism as a Sacrament

1. Is baptism a sacrament or is it an ordinance?
   1. sacramental view: we receive God’s saving grace via baptism
   2. ordinance view: baptism serves merely as a symbolic function
2. baptism as a sacrament
   1. Roman Catholics or Lutherans
   2. baptism is very closely linked with justification (Romans 6:1f, Colossians 2:11-14f)
   3. baptism is also very closely linked with Spirit baptism (Acts 2:38, Titus 3:5-7)

4. Baptism as an Ordinance

1. baptism as an ordinance:
   1. Christian conversion and initiation in the New Testament is a process
      1. what makes a person a Christian on this view is not water baptism
      2. 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, Galatians 3:1-5,14, 1 Corinthians 1:13-17
      3. baptism clearly did not lie at the heart of the Gospel for Paul
      4. there is no reason to think that 1 Corinthians 6:11 is a baptismal verse
      5. summary: conversion and initiation in the New Testament involved repentance and faith, reception of the Holy Spirit, and then water baptism

5. Baptism as an Ordinance - Continued

1. sacramentalist view: water baptism and being baptized in the Holy Spirit happen at the same time
   1. BUT: in the NT Spirit baptism never coincides with water baptism!
   2. There is no suggestion that by being water baptized you are baptized in the Holy Spirit and regenerated.

6. Infant Baptism

1. pedobaptism
2. practiced by both sacramentalists and non-sacramentalists
3. Catholic view: infant baptism as the moment at which one receives justifying grace and becomes regenerat
4. Reformed view: may not be the moment of salvation, rather sign or a seal of being part of the covenant.
5. arguments:
   1. Jewish notion of the solidarity of the family & household baptism (Acts 16:30-33)
   2. Jesus’ own attitude toward children (Mark 10:13-16)
   3. parallelism between circumcision in the old covenant and baptism in the new covenant (Colossians 2:11-12)
   4. relationship between baptism and faith
      1. Reformed view: regeneration precedes faith
         1. baptism takes place apart from their knowledge and will
         2. Luther/Calvin: infant does exercise faith

7. Believer’s Baptism

1. arguments:
   1. Confession and faith are essential to salvation and baptism (Acts 2:38)
   2. argument based on household salvation:
      1. even in the OT the law of individual retribution still stands
      2. each person is individually responsible before God (Ezekiel 18:2-4)
      3. families not always unified, Christ’s message brings division (1 Corinthians 7:12-16)
      4. Christian message is one that did divide families
      5. there is no baptism of infants recorded anywhere in the New Testament, defense based upon argument from silence
   3. Jesus and the children and his blessing them
      1. it is not clear that these are infants
      2. laying hands to bless/ pray for them is not the same as baptism
   4. argument based upon circumcision
      1. one enters the covenant by faith
      2. in Palestine both circumcision and baptism was practiced -> they were not seen as parallel
      3. in Colossians 2:11 circumcision corresponds to Christ’s death not baptism
2. combination of sacramentalism with infant baptism:
   1. argued against a sacramentalist view of baptism
   2. case for pedobaptism is very weak
   3. combining the two is disastrous -> church filled with non-Christians

8. The Lord’s Supper

1. baptism: unique
2. Lord’s Supper: repeated
3. Lord’s Supper was first initiated by Jesus himself (Mark 14:22-25)
4. Paul’s tradition (1 Corinthians 11:23-25) very similar to Mark’s

9. Transubstantiation

1. doctrine of transubstantiation
2. Roman Catholic Church
3. wine and the bread consecrated by the priest are actually turned into the body and blood of Christ
4. substance vs its accidents (classical Aristotelian metaphysics)
   1. elements retain the accidental properties of bread and wine
5. “the fount and apex of the whole Christian life.” (Second Vatican Council)
   1. you consume the accidents -> that is why they’re not used up

10. The Lord’s Supper - Roman Catholic Interpretation cont’d

1. Eucharist is a sacrifice offered to God
2. Trent declared that the sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory

11. Consubstantiation and Other Views

1. consubstantiation
   1. Lutheran doctrine
   2. bread and the wine are not transformed into the body and blood of Christ
   3. body and blood of Christ are present along with the bread and the wine
2. communicatio idiomatum: communication of the attributes
   1. human nature of Christ took on some of the attributes or properties of his divine nature
   2. e.g. red hot poker that has been lying in the fire
   3. middle way between transubstantiation and a mere spiritual presence of Christ
3. Reformed view
   1. sacrament confirms spiritually what has already happened physically at the cross
   2. spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper
4. ordinance view: Zwingli
   1. Baptist churches

12. Assessment of Competing Views on the Lord’s Supper

1. doctrine of transubstantiation
   1. no scriptural support
   2. Jesus’ words are typical Semitic use of imagery (e.g. 1 Corinthians 10:3-4, Galatians 4:25)
   3. John 6: context isn’t Last Supper
   4. John frequently uses symbols to express deeper spiritual truths
2. consubstantiation
   1. same objections
   2. also, it confuses the two natures of Christ
   3. You must not divide the person and you must not confuse the natures together
3. Reformed view
   1. if spiritual presence of Christ means real body and blood of Jesus -> resurrection body of Christ that it is corporal and physical -> contradiction
   2. if spiritual presence means divine nature -> that is true of many activities
4. ordinance view
   1. Christ is present in his divine nature

S13. Doctrine of the Last Things

1. The Second Coming of Christ

1. eschatology: end of the world and the final state of man after death
2. OT: Isaiah 9:6-7, Isaiah 11:1-10, Daniel 7:13-14
3. NT: Mark 13 (Olivet Discourse)

2. The Rapture Interpretation

1. NT: 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:8, 1 John 3:2-3
2. vocabulary:
   1. parousia: Christ’s “coming”
   2. apokalupsis: “revelation”
   3. epiphaneia: “appearance”
3. rapture view
   1. invisible return of Christ to take away believers before final visible return
   2. John Darby in 1827 -> Darbyism
   3. endorsement by Scofield Reference Bible + Dallas Theological Seminary
   4. popular in pop culture (Left Behind)
   5. no suggestion in Olivet Discourse
   6. source: 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17
      1. no reason to believe this is distinct from Second Coming of Christ

3. The Rapture Interpretation Continued

1. 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17a: not a secret snatching of the elect but time of the final resurrection of the dead
2. John 5:25-29, 1 Corinthians 15:51-55
3. no more death afterwards
4. 1 Corinthians 15:22-26
5. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8
6. invisible return have no biblical basis

4. The Rapture Interpretation Concluded

1. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2
2. difficult to reconstruct the teaching of Paul’s opponents
3. “the day of the Lord” -> Christological interpretation
4. 2 Timothy 2:15-19
   1. people claiming that the Second Coming of Christ had already occurred
   2. Paul might be confronting similar proto-Gnostic teaching

5. The Preterist Interpretation

1. preterite tense -> something is past
2. coming of Christ has already occurred in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem
3. main driver: solve problem of the delay of the parousia (Mark 13:30) -> this already happened as Jesus said ( “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place.”)

6. The Preterist Interpretation Continued

1. problem with preterist view: forced division of Christ’s return spoken of by Paul and the coming of the Son of Man spoken of by Jesus
   1. according to Jesus and according to Paul as well, the coming of the Son of Man predicted by Jesus is a visible coming to Earth
   2. the Son of Man doesn’t have to wait around until AD 70 in order to be enthroned
   3. the real Achilles Heel of the Preterist view is the resurrection of the dead

7. The Nature of the Second Coming

1. it will be a personal coming
2. it will be glorious
3. it will be a decisive event
4. it will be a sudden and unexpected event

8. The Purpose of the Second Coming

1. to complete the work of redemption
2. to resurrect the dead
3. to judge all people
4. to gather the church

9. The Time of the Second Coming

1. Olivet Discourse: a long way off
2. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-10: same impression
3. other passages: Mark 13:30

10. Delay of the Parousia

1. preterist: predictions were all fulfilled in AD 70
2. revised prophecy view: Jesus’ prophecy was simply provisional, subject to change
   1. e.g. Jonah’s prophecy to Nineveh didn’t happen bc they repented
   2. 2 Kings 20: King Hezekiah & Isaiah
   3. problem: nothing seemed to change that would alter the prophecy
3. contextual ambiguity: context critically affects interpretation
   1. knockdown argument: Matthew 10:5-23
   2. Matthew is using Mark’s Gospel but takes words from Olivet Discourse & inserts into Jesus’ charge to twelve disciples
   3. false impression: Son of Man will return before they finish their mission

11. Delay of the Parousia Continued

1. suggestion: we can’t know for sure that the sayings like Mark 13:30 meant that the Son of Man would return before everyone listening to Jesus would pass away
2. broader context of Mark 13: “all these things” refers to the destruction of Jerusalem
3. original context what you have here are prophecies about things that will take place before that generation dies off, but not a prophecy predicting the return of the Son of Man before that generation passes away

12. Parables of the Delay of the Parousia

1. parables by Jesus precisely about the delay of the parousia
   1. Matthew 24:45-51
   2. Luke 12:35-48
   3. Matthew 25:1-13
   4. Matthew 25:14-30
   5. Matthew 25:31-46
2. Jesus prepared the disciples over and over again for a long time – a delay of his return

13. Final Thoughts on the Time of the Second Coming

1. Second Coming will be unexpected and could be delayed -> we always need to be ready
   1. don’t use unfulfilled signs as an excuse for not living as disciples of Christ
2. God’s timetable is different than ours (2 Peter 3:8-10)
3. Christians have always believed that theirs was the last generation
   1. be ready but do not get too excited about Christ returning within our lifetimes
4. Second Coming is other-worldly -> difficult to believe
   1. but: even physically, an apocalyptic scenario is possible
   2. eschatology is part of cosmology too!

14. Practical Application of the Second Coming of Christ

1. call to moral living; a call to holiness (Romans 13:11-14)
2. be engaged in fulfilling the Great Commission
3. Second Coming is basis of our hope (Titus 2:13)

15. The Millenium

1. Revelation 20:1-10
2. amillennialism
   1. Revelation 20:1-10 is symbolic
3. premillennialism
   1. return of Christ prior to a literal thousand-year reign of Jesus on the Earth
   2. chilianism (thousand Gr)
      1. overlap with rapture view (but independent)
4. postmillennialism
   1. Christ will return after the millennium
   2. Revelation 20:1-10 is symbolic
   3. but: millennium: idyllic period of human history
5. arguments for amillennial view (+ premillennialist counterarguments):
   1. millennium is taught in only one passage in Scripture
      1. Revelation is full of symbolism
      2. BUT: teaching that God’s Kingdom will be established on Earth is all throughout the Old Testament
         1. Satan is going to be temporarily bound, not like today
   2. Scripture teaches only one (and not two) resurrections of the dead
      1. BUT: John 5
         1. BUT: this is one resurrection of two sets of people
   3. sinners living alongside glorified, resurrected, righteous saints unthinkable idea
      1. BUT: Christ lived for 40 days after resurrection
         1. BUT: it’s different from having a whole society
   4. If in the millennium Christ is present and reigning as described, then how can people persist in sin?
      1. BUT: people resisted Christ during his earthly life
         1. BUT: Christ Christ came to earth in his state of humiliation, not his state of exaltation
   5. millennium serves no purpose
      1. BUT: millennium shows God’s plan for social structures

16. Postmillennialism & Premillennialism

1. postmillennialism
   1. pro:
      1. church will fulfill Great Commission (Matthew 13:31-32)
         1. BUT: overly optimistic/naive based on 20th century
         2. BUT: Christian movement is in fact the largest, most successful movement in the history of mankind
   2. contra:
      1. parallels (e.g. mustard seed) doesn’t say how large the Kingdom will grow
      2. some scriptures predict falling away from faith (2 Timothy 3:1-5)
      3. require preterist view to explain tribulation before Christ’ return
2. premillennialism
   1. pro:
      1. millennium in line with OT prophecies
         1. earthly kingdom which will still involve mortality, sin, the presence of enemies
         2. BUT: can be problematic to take them literally (e.g. temple sacrifices)
      2. believers are supposed to reign with Christ here on Earth
         1. BUT: why can’t this be in new heavens and the new Earth?

17. State of the Soul after Death

1. progressive revelation
   1. God has not given to humankind all of his truth that he wants us to know at once, but has revealed it gradually over time in increasing detail and fullness.
   2. e.g. doctrine of the Trinity, plan of salvation, doctrine of immortality
2. immortality
   1. OT: pessimistic (Isaiah 38:9-10,18, Job 7:9-10, Isaiah 14:9-11)
      1. Sheol: not just grave/death but nether realm of departed spirits/wraiths
      2. but: also glimmers of hope (Psalm 73:23-28, Isaiah 26:19, Daniel 12:2)
   2. intertestamental period: belief in the resurrection widespread
      1. held by Pharisees but denied by Sadducees

18. State of the Soul after Death: Jesus’ Argument with the Sadducees

1. Paul exploits division between Pharisees and Sadducees (Acts 23:6-10)
2. Jesus sided with the Pharisees (Matthew 22:23-33)
   1. quality of life will be different in the resurrection
3. Christian view was essentially the same as the Jewish
   1. one difference: Jesus’ resurrection has already occurred

19. Immortality in the New Testament

1. Philippians 1:23, 2 Corinthians 5:1-10
2. disembodied soul ~ nakedness
3. Catch-22 situation: In order to get to the best state you’ve got to keep on living in the worst state!
4. when a Christian dies his soul, stripped of the body, continues to exist in a disembodied state, but in a state of closer, conscious, blissful communion with Christ
5. The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19ff)
   1. intermediate state: either Abraham’s bosom or Hades
6. heaven visions:
   1. Given that the resurrection hasn’t occurred yet, it is impossible that they could actually have their resurrection bodies
   2. may be just illusions of a dying brain

20. The Souls of the Unrighteous Dead

1. Hades: place of conscious torment and separation from Christ until the resurrection at the end of the world
2. at the resurrection their souls will be reunited with a body and be judged by Christ
3. judgment: not when you die!
4. both the saved and the unsaved will stand before Christ for judgment
5. unrighteous: go from Hades into Gehenna/Hell

S14. Final Thoughts

1. The Purpose of Defenders

1. purpose of Defenders
   1. To train Christians to understand, articulate, and defend basic Christian truths.
   2. to reach out with the Gospel to those who have not yet come to Christ
   3. to be an incendiary fellowship of mutual encouragement and love
2. character of disciple: 2 Peter 1:3-11
   1. virtue: moral excellence
   2. knowledge: Christian doctrine, about the knowledge of God’s truth
   3. self-control: self-mastery (bodily passions, appetites, lusts, temper, tongue) ~ athlete
   4. steadfastness: perseverance/endurance
   5. godliness: have a spiritual orientation (vs consumerism and materialism)
   6. brotherly affection: kindness toward others
   7. love: agape love that characterizes God himself

2. The Diligence of a Disciple

1. “make every effort” = diligence
2. promise: fruitful/effective life
3. develop these qualities through the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:16, 22-23)
4. but: knowledge is not produced by the Spirit!
5. being filled with the Holy Spirit isn’t going to give you a knowledge of Christian doctrine