Systematic Theology 2 Final Part 1 Flashcards
(172 cards)
1
Q
What question does Systematic Theology ask?
A
What does the whole Bible teach us today about any given topic?
2
Q
Systematic Theology is looking at the
A
‘big picture’ (=metanarrative - what’s the grand story, the story that try to make sense of everyone little stories) to our own lives and to our hearers.
3
Q
systematic theology is….
biblical theology is…
A
prescriptive
descriptive
4
Q
What is the 1st order language?
What is the 2nd order language?
A
1st - Scripture (infallible, perfect)
2nd - theology as application
5
Q
studying scripture verse by verse, chapter by chapter, book by book
A
Biblical Theology
6
Q
Both the structure and content of the text are important (listen to the bibles own claims of itself; be grounded in the scripture, don’t reread the Bible with making your own beliefs match it (extratextual)
A
**Intratextual reading of Scripture
7
Q
(=the analogy of faith). scripture be read in light of other scripture
A
Analogia fidei
8
Q
4 elements of Christian Theology
A
- Biblically Grounded (=Normativity of the Text).
- Historically Informed (=Role of Tradition and Church History)
- Contemporary Engagement (=Contextualization)
- Lived Out (=Praxis; Real World)
9
Q
we must… use reason dependent on
A
Scripture
10
Q
What is the proper use of “reason/rationality?”
A
(reason vs. rationalism is two different things) {Christians are to use their reason, but not how rationalists (rationalism) would do it 0 seeing human reason as the ultimate authority (if we cannot use human reason or science to explain something then it doesn’t exist. We are not the final authority. Only God is the final authority. No human being is ever that. But we are to use our reason to defend the faith, teach sound doctrine, to make disciples}
11
Q
Reason has a ministerial function.
Rule: “We are free to use our reasoning abilities to draw conclusions from Scripture so long as these
A
conclusions do not contradict the clear teaching of some other passage of Scripture.”
12
Q
use our reason, but do not ever
A
contradict scripture
13
Q
= not fully able to know this, we are given 1000 pieces of the 1000000 piece puzzle (Our God is big. We cannot understand all the connections and how all the pieces work together.)
be driven back to scripture, that is our foundation -
A
mystery (ex. trinity, human free will/ God’s sovereignty)
14
Q
The belief that God’s self-disclosure forms a progression from the OT era to the NT era. Hence what is known about God on the basis of Jesus Christ is more complete than what was given through the Law and the Prophets. Progressive revelation implies that the OT ought to be understood in the light of the fuller teaching found in the NT.
A
progressive revelation.
15
Q
Scripture as God’s self-revelation involves …. Scripture comes to us as God’s story. Redemption is an activity of God that ………..
A
historical progression
unfolds over time and it does not happen all at once, nor does it come about uniformly.
16
Q
The task of theology (=biblical theology) is to trace the historical unfolding of redemptive history that is organically related. Revelation is progressive because
A
redemptive history is progressive.
17
Q
Scripture: God’s interpretative word of his …..
God’s redemptive acts are revelatory. God reveals himself in his ………. In the OT, the greatest revelatory act of God was his deliverance of Israel from their slavery in Egypt
A
redemptive acts.
mighty acts in history.
18
Q
God’s revelatory word interprets God’s redemptive acts. God’s redemptive acts never appear
A
separated from God’s verbal communications of truth (Word Act Revelation)
19
Q
God’s revelatory word is itself a
A
redemptive act. Scripture not only chronicles the activities of God’s redemption in history; it not only is a word which interprets God’s redeeming acts – it itself is a redemptive act of God. Thus, the production and giving of Scripture is one of the great acts in God’s redemptive purpose.
20
Q
The Application of Scripture: The Three Horizons of Biblical Interpretation.
A
The Textual Horizon
The Epochal Horizon
The Canonical Horizon
21
Q
3 horizons - begin with the text - according to the background, the form of writing, who wrote it and to who
A
The Textual Horizon (=Where we start with any text).
22
Q
3 horizons - As already stated, redemption does not come all at once. It progresses in stages, through different epochs. The epochs do not embody different plans of God, rather they remind us of the fact that God’s revelation of redemption develops over time. There is a unity within this development because God holds the epochs together. But this fundamental unity should not lead us to minimize the differences among epochs. No doubt, the OT and NT is vast and complex, and the epochal divisions can be debated. But it is crucial to know where you are in the unfolding story, if you are to understand and apply the Bible aright.
A
The Epochal Horizon (=Where is the text in the unfolding story?).
23
Q
To read the Bible canonically is to read the Bible as a unified communicative act of a single divine author. Theology is the attempt to read Scripture as the Word of God. To read the Bible canonically may be to read it according to its truest, fullest, divine intention.
A
The Canonical Horizon: (=Where is the text in light of the whole canon?).
24
Q
(linked to each other) involves an organic or essential relation between events, persons, and institutions in one epoch and their counterparts in later epochs. _____ is not the same as allegory. The _____ relation is the central means by which particular epochal and textual horizons are linked to later horizons in redemptive revelation. It links the present to the future, and it retroactively links the present with the past. ex. hosea type of Christ
A
Typology
25
The Concept of Divine Action (=Miracles).
The God of Scripture is a ___________. He speaks and brings all things into being; he sustains and governs the universe; he acts in the world in extraordinary ways; and he reveals himself to be the ‘covenant Lord.’ Theologians have spoken of five areas under which God’s actions are described which may be summarized under two general headings reflected by two Latin phrases
God of action
26
(=works that terminate within God’s own being- God has always had these characteristics)
opera ad intra
27
(=works that terminate outside God’s own being- God’s actions - creation, he judges, he brings redemption). What is common to all five areas is God’s speech (=revelation).
opera ad extra
28
What, then, is a Divine Act (=Miracle)? Biblically speaking, miracles are God’s ............
In the history of Christian thought people have defined miracles in ways that are unhelpful, yet popular.
mighty ‘signs’; ‘wonders’; and ‘works.’
In this sense, they are unusual and extraordinary events caused by God’s power that are demonstrations of God’s covenant Lordship
29
In light of some of these definitions, it is best not to define a miracle as the......... Why?
Explain.... the different providences
breaking of ‘natural laws.’
Because we must not view ‘nature’ in a deistic way. Instead we must view all events as related to the plan, sustaining, and governing rule of God. That is why theologians have distinguished between ‘ordinary providence’ (=providential ordinaria) and ‘extraordinary providence’ (=providential extraordinaria) to stress that the workings of ‘nature,’ whether they be ‘ordinary’ or ‘extraordinary’ are all under God’s providential control.
30
It is best to view ‘miracles’ as a demonstration of
God’s covenant Lordship.
31
In this sense, miracles do not simply attest revelation, they........ They reveal God’s character and perfections (=attributes). They are also ‘wonders’ in that they demonstrate that God is uniquely (=covenantaly) present (Ex 15; Lk 5:1-10).
Divine Action =
are revelation
| example of God’s Lordship
32
How possible are miracles?
depends upon your theology, depends upon the God that you believe in, miracles are not impossible for him - miracles are part of understanding who God is
33
How probable are miracles?
they are possible but should we expect them to happen - depends upon His purpose behind it - Up to God. Highly depends on God intent and goal
34
How are we to Identify an Event as a Miracle?
Ultimately one needs God’s Word-revelation to do so, at least in the sense of knowing (=justified true beliefs) a certain event is an act of God in a unique/extraordinary way. A miracle without an interpretative context is inherently ambiguous. E.g. resurrection of Christ. One’s worldview and presuppositions play an important role in identifying a ‘miracle.’ And it must be said: not all claims to miracle are legitimate. 1John 4:1-3 test the spirits -
35
Process Theism
(= panentheism).
36
{God is dependent upon the world. The world is dependent upon God.} This view is associated with Alfred N. Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne. It was built on the idea of change, rather than permanence. Rather than substances as the basic building blocks of reality, events are key. All reality is pictured as events, each of which has 2 poles – mental and physical pole (=dipolar view).
Panentheism (=Process theism).
37
How does process theology view God?
God is an event. God is in everything. In other words, God and the world are inseparable, but not identical. There is a relationship of **mutual dependence** rather than subordination. The world is a moment within the divine life. God does not direct the world, but rather ‘lures’ and ‘shapes’ it. This view is based on a view of reality in which process, change, and evolution are just as fundamental as substance, permanence, and stability. God, in a continuous and creative relationship of involvement with the world, is himself understood to be undergoing a process of self-development and growth. God is basically finite and evolving.
38
Process Theism and Divine Action: Can God act in the world?
Process theology rejects a biblical view of divine action – viz., as the primary cause of events in the world. In fact they argue that it is ‘mythological’ (cf. Rudolf Bultmann) to talk of God ‘intervening’ in history. However, process theology affirms that God is active in the world in a *****‘persuasive’ way****** in the sense that he attempts to ‘lure’ every actual entity with new possibilities to actualize, but he never does so in a *****‘coercive’****** manner. God is not to be viewed as the one who is Lord of every detail of the world process. In fact, since each actual entity always has libertarian freedom, even though God may present new possibilities to the entity that are attractive and persuasive, he can never guarantee compliance.
39
Hence, God is only able to ........................... to the universe by providing the ‘initial aim’ for each entity; he in no way can guarantee that his ends will be achieved. In fact, even if God wanted to, it is quite metaphysically impossible for him to effectively guarantee anything, given the nature of reality for it denies efficient causation. So, God acts in and is the partial cause of all events, but he is the sole cause of none. God’s action in the world involves risk – persuasive rather than coercive.
(panentheism)
‘influence’ and give teleological direction
40
What is the divine decree?
the term ‘decree’ conjures visions of a king issuing statements of his wishes, laws, and rules for his subjects. However, this is not what is meant when we speak of the ‘divine decree.’ Rather, divine decree refers to the eternal plan of the covenant Lord (=sovereign-personal God) whereby, before the creation of the world, he determined to bring about everything that happens. The decree of God speaks of God’s decisions before the world was created and it concerns whatever will happen in our universe. Westminister Shorter Catechism: The divine decree is “His eternal purpose according to the counsel of His will, whereby, for His own glory, He hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.”
Divine Decree = God’s eternal plan
41
God’s plan with respect to his overall plan/decree.
foreordination:
42
God’s plan related to the eternal condition of moral agents.
predestination:
43
God’s positive choice of individuals to salvation.
election
44
God’s choice of some to suffer eternal lostness. judgement upon sin
reprobration
45
Augustine 300-400 N Africa
God’s plan encompasses everything. From eternity past, God has chosen according to his purposes, many known only to him, all things that come to pass. And whatever he has chosen is not only made in eternity past, but it is also immutable. Even though God has chosen all things including sin and evil, God does not do any evil nor is he morally responsible for it.
God knows all. God plans all. His plan incompanies every detail.
even sinful actions? these actions & God’s goodness?
both agree he knows everything.. but it’s HOW.. he just does vs. he looks through history and sees what we will choose
Calvinism
46
Calvinism
(=Augustinianism).
47
God’s plan encompasses all things, but to make room for libertarian freedom,
Arminianism
48
Arminians argue that God’s eternal plan is based on his
foreseeing what we will do if created.
49
Here foreknowledge refers to God’s intellectual awareness of our freely performed actions in advance of their occurring. God, of course, can choose and do certain things unilaterally and those divine actions are part of his plan. But most things that occur in our world do not involve God’s exclusive action but rather involve the............... God cannot predetermine what free creatures will do, but he can ________ their deeds and then choose to create the world containing those creatures and actions, rather than not creating at all or creating some other world. How? On the basis of simple foreknowledge, timeless knowledge, or middle knowledge.
acts of creatures.
| foresee
50
Given libertarian freedom (free only if they can choose otherwise; a or b equally, free agent chooses), this view argues that God cannot know the future free actions of creatures.
Open Theism.
51
Given this view, open theism has no place for an eternal decree setting forth a blueprint for all of history. However, they do argue that God exercises control over our world in a ......... e.g. general structures of our world, general purposes he wants accomplished. Those purposes stem from his desire to establish a loving relation with his creatures who will freely respond in love. However they deny that each and every event has a ........
general way –
| specific divine intention.
52
There is no divine plan. God does not know the future and cannot know the future. makes God seem weak. Given a process metaphysic, there is no such thing as a divine decree or divine control. God cannot have a predetermined plan for history. Instead, he must wait and see what happens before deciding what he will do. In addition, even if the process God wanted to plan a future, his limited knowledge would not let him. In virtue of his primordial pole, he knows the possibilities for becoming, and can present any of them to his creatures for prehension, but he does not know what his creatures will do. So, in the end, a divine decree is impossible because of: ....
Process Theism.
(1) God’s limited knowledge and because our future free actions cannot be foreseen; (2) Their view of divine power and action.
53
Lapsarian debate; Supralpsarian View
1. Election
2. Creation
3. Fall
4. Atonement
5. Holy Spirit
6. Regeneration
7. Sanctification
wants to preserve God's glory
54
Lapsarian debate; Infralapsarian View
1. Creation
2. Fall
3. Election
4. Atonement
5. Holy Spirit
6. Regeneration
7. Sanctification
wants to show that we are responsible for our actions
55
Lapsarian debate; Amyrauldian View
1. Creation
2. Fall
3. Atonement
4. Election
5. Holy Spirit
6. Regeneration
7. Sanctification
56
Lapsarian debate; Arminian View
1. Creation
2. Fall
3. Atonement
4. Election
5. Foreseeing that others wold reject grace, he decided to leave them in their condemnation
like Infra, but based on what God thinks people will do
57
Creatio ex nihilo =
God created out of nothing
58
the uniqueness of God’s creative work as opposed to the ‘refashioning’ which is characteristic of human creativity.
bara
59
bara also speaks..
what comes under the providential control of God
60
The Old Liberal View. Gen 1-2 believes
legendary and mythical.
61
Neo-orthodoxy believes
(Karl Barth, Emil Brunner). saga poetry, but not true
62
Historic-Evangelical View. Gen 1-2 is both ‘truthful’ and ‘factual.’ reasons Genesis 1-11 is historical and factual...
1. Biblical genealogies take Adam and Eve as historical, and real figures (1 Chron 1:1; Luke 3:38). Furthermore, as Brevard Childs has argued, the same history-like structure extends from Gen 1-50, set in a genealogical framework of human history. The structure of Genesis is based on the repeated genealogical formula “these are the generations of...” (2:4; 5:1; 10:1; 11:10; 25:12; 36:1).
2. Jesus assumes the historical existence of Adam and Eve (Mt 19:4-6; Mk 10:6-8) when he refers to Gen 1:27 and 2:24 in connection with questions about divorce.
3. Paul assumes the historical existence of Adam/Eve (cf. 1 Tim 2:13-14 [Gen 3:13]; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:22-23, 45-47). The NT teaching regarding Christ as the 2nd Adam is predicated upon the fact that Adam is a historical person.
4. Unless Adam/Eve were historical figures who were created good, and then sinned, the whole Christian position is destroyed.
63
:The theory that there is a time ____ of aeons between Gen. 1:2 and Gen. 1:3. During this ____ the earth became formless and void.
The Gap Theory
64
gap theory w gen1:1-2
Those who hold this view translate 1:2a – “and the earth became…” arguing v 1 describes the original creation of the earth, while v 2 refers to a judgment that reduced it to a chaotic condition; v 3ff then describe the re-creation of the earth. However, the disjunctive clause at the beginning of v 2 cannot be translated as if it were relating the next event in a sequence. If v 2 were sequential to v 1, the author would have used the waw consecutive followed by a prefixed verbal form and the subject.
65
The idea here is that God began the process of evolution, implanting within creation the laws that its development has followed. In this sense, God is the ‘ultimate’ cause; evolution is the ‘means.’
theistic evolution/ theistic/deistic
66
This view is not really an ‘evolutionary view.’ It rejects theistic evolution, as traditionally conceived. However, it is seen as an alternative to ‘fiat’ creation because it argues that God intervened at certain points in the process of creation and acted directly, but then at other times allowed things that God had previously created to evolve within certain limits. Accordingly, this view sees the origin of human beings as the result of a series of creative acts. God did not simply make use of previously existing materials, but created afresh. Between these special acts of creation, development took place through evolutionary means. ****But the point here is that evolution takes place only within a species, not across species****. The progressive creationist would argue, however, that human beings are a special creation of God, both in his physical and spiritual nature.
Progressive Creationism.
67
Progressive Creationism. literary framework hypothesis
| ?
Progressive creationists would argue that the ‘days’ of Genesis are not literal 24 hour days, preferring instead to take them as long, unspecified periods of time.
68
major evolutionary change, in particular the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time.
Macro evolution:
69
evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period.
Micro evolution:
70
The other line of scientific proof that discredits evolution is
irreducible complexity.
71
Darwin’s simple-to-complex scheme has not stood up under scientific scrutiny. Biochemist Michael Behe declared that _____________ ________ extends not only to the cell but to the parts that make up the cell
This means that the .............
. In order for the cell to function, it had to have all its complexity from the start. Anything less would have been nonfunctional, organic rubbish. .
irreducible complexity
| cell could not have been built by a process of simple steps
72
Irreducible complexity down to the smallest parts demands an
intelligent Creator who by His wisdom created an amazingly complex cell to confound the wisdom of the world.
73
This view is often linked with ‘progressive creation’ and it understands Genesis 1-2 as relating distinct divine creative acts at various times in the history of the universe. After each creative act, God used natural processes working over long periods of time to develop various life-forms.
Day Age Theory
74
Day Age Theory Reasoning
‘Day’ (=yom) does not necessarily refer to 24-hour days. It refers to indefinite periods of time (Job 20:28; Ps 20:1; Prov 21:31; 24:10; 25:13; Eccl 7:14; Isa 13:6, 9; Joel 1:15; 2:1; Amos 5:18; Zeph 1:14). In addition, Genesis 2:4 uses ‘yom’ to refer to all six days of creation.
We must be careful arguing all six days are 24 hour days since it isn’t until day 4 that the sun, moon, and stars are actually created, so how could the first three days be considered solar days? It seems that only days four through six could be 24-hour days as we know them.
Since Moses was not there and this story is told from God’s perspective, and for God one day is the same as a 1,000 years (see Ps 90:4; 2 Pet 3:8), then we must be careful limiting the days to 24 hour days.
It seems that some of the days had to be longer than 24 hour days. E.g. Day 6 – how could all of that happen on this day (see Gen 2)?
And the 7th day? It is a reference to eschatological rest (Heb 4:1-11).
The findings of geology show the earth is billions of years old.
75
the whole sequence of seven days of creation is not a chronological account of the sequence of historical events when God created the universe, rather it is a literary device used to tell a story that conveys a theological truth
Literary Framework Theory
76
God’s original placement of Adam as ruler over all the earthly creation (Gen. 1:26–28). This was given to unfallen Adam in the covenant of works , and Adam broke that covenant by his fall.*
the covenant relationship was restored in Christ for all His elect and that the fulfilment of the covenant is their great commission—viz., to subdue all things and all nations to Christ.
Cultural Creation Mandate
77
Gods creation tells us about..
God
self
world
the fall is foundational in the Bible story line
78
espoused by animism -spirits control most things and do what they want and our job is to appease the fickle spirits
open universe
79
merely mechanistic laws by which everything is explained by cause/effect at a purely material level
closed universe
80
Self: Creation tells us about ourselves
| As created in the *image of God*, human beings enjoy a
unique role in creation as well as affirming our responsibility.
81
image of God... We are significant and important. We are not grown-up animals. We truly are different than the animal world.
As creatures of God, we are responsible to him because he is our Lord.
Our creation in the image of God ensures that we are ......
Being made in God’s image ensures that.....
Creation is both our home and environment.
endlessly restless if we suppress or deny the truth of creation.
true knowledge of him is possible.
82
because of the doctrine of creation...
the world has value
83
trying to link God & evolution.. God is the ‘ultimate’ cause; evolution is the ‘means.’
Theistic/deistic
84
This view is not really an ‘evolutionary view.’ It rejects theistic evolution, as traditionally conceived. However, it is seen as an alternative to ‘fiat’ creation because it argues that God intervened at certain points in the process of creation and acted directly, but then at other times allowed things that God had previously created to evolve within certain limits. Accordingly, this view sees the origin of human beings as the result of a series of creative acts. God did not simply make use of previously existing materials, but created afresh. Between these special acts of creation, development took place through evolutionary means. But the point here is that evolution takes place only within a species, not across species. The progressive creationist would argue, however, that human beings are a special creation of God, both in his physical and spiritual nature. Progressive creationists would argue that the ‘days’ of Genesis are not literal 24 hour days, preferring instead to take them as long, unspecified periods of time.
Progressive Creationism
85
the view that the material universe is eternal (=at least self-generating) and independent of any act of supreme will or intelligence. The origin of the universe can be explained in entirely natural terms in virtue of purely impersonal laws operating over natural phenomena. See for e.g. Charles Darwin; Richard Dawkins, et al. // natural chance
naturalism
86
all is god // world is an outflow of the being of god // the view that there is no ultimate distinction between the Creator and the creation. The world is often explained in terms of ‘emanation.’ The world is the result of emanations or spilling over of God’s being. The world and God are the same kind of substance. See for e.g. Plotinus.
Pantheism
87
good vs. evil of equals // the view that there are two distinct, co-eternal substances, or self-existent principles from which all else are derived. This view denies creatio ex nihilo. Instead it affirms that God, the good spirit, or the evil spirit is more of an ‘organizer’ or ‘artisan’ fashioning something out of pre-existing matter.
Dualism
88
2 forms of dualism
1. God and matter (=matter is viewed as imperfect and inferior). God and matter are co-eternal. What is creation? It is God’s forming matter into a specific structure. E.g. Plato, some forms of Gnosticism.
2. Good and evil as two eternally existing spirits. These two principles are constantly at war with one another and what you see is the result of this conflict. E.g. Zoroastrian, Manichaeanism.
89
He held that God’s attributes not only required him to create but also that he has done so from all eternity. He reasoned that divine attributes such as omnipotence and love must be expressed in specific acts that demonstrate them. Thus, he concluded, God has always been creating, though not necessarily just one world. In fact, God has created a succession of worlds, ours the most recent, and after he is finished with ours, others will follow
Origen
90
God and the world are eternal (=both are actual entities; God’s consequent pole is the world – ‘God’s body’). Because this is so, God somehow has been creating from all eternity and has himself been developing from all eternity. these peoples accept the evolutionary theory.
process theism
91
for process theists.. God creates, in their view, by presenting the world novel possibilities to actualize and then by
luring them toward those he thinks are best, even though he cannot guarantee the results.
92
For process theists,
the universe is in a sense divine, but it is formed out of itself with help from God’s primordial pole.
93
one of the first great heresies the church had to face. Unfortunately it is still around today. There are four main features of ______ views about creation.
1. they believed that the God of the OT and NT are different Gods. The OT God was inferior and he created the world. His work of creation had to be corrected by the God made known in the immaterial Jesus Christ.
2. they held that creation was mediated by lower beings arranged in a hierarchy of being. Since creation was the work of a lesser god, it could not be the work of the highest god.
3. there is an absolute dualism between creation/salvation. The OT God is concerned with matter; the NT God is concerned with spiritual matters. In this view creation/salvation are antithetical.
4. Creation was not created good, but evil since it contains matter.
Gnosticism
94
what does God's providence involve?
God’s omniscience and omnipotence. God must be able to know what is coming (=omniscience) and he must be able to bring it about (=omnipotence).
95
what does God's providence mean?
ro-videntia = literally means seeing what comes before. Thus, providence is God’s prior knowledge of and provision for the world.
96
providence view w the early church
Stoic view (=world is ruled by impersonal fate) as well as the Epicurean view (=world is governed by random chance).
97
inked God’s control of all things with the doctrine of foreordination and predestination. However, by defending the reality of 2nd causes, he protected the holiness of God and affirmed human responsibility.
The Augustinian position was reaffirmed by Thomas Aquinas and the Reformers, particularly Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Heinrich Zwingli.
98
A Dutch theologian whose theological system has become known as “Arminianism.” Arminianism attempts to preserve human freedom at the expense of God’s providential involvement in or control of history in every detail (God’s purposes in the world are much more general in scope). Instead, God responds to human choices and actions as they come about and does so in such a way that his purposes are ultimately accomplished in the world.
Jacobus (=James) Arminius
99
Enlightenment and beyond: With the influence of deism, Kant, and the rise of science devoid of its theological foundations, the doctrine of providence faded. Either it was .....
rejected outright or it was redefined by identifying God with the world and its processes (=panentheism [process theology]).
100
The Three Aspects of Divine Providence.
Preservation
Concurrence
Government
101
The Three Aspects of Divine Providence. - Preservation
Preservation is God’s continuous activity, his active supervision by which he maintains in existence all things that he has created.
102
The Three Aspects of Divine Providence. - Concurrence
Concurrence refers to the relation between divine and human activity by which God cooperates with created things (=secondary causes) in every action, directing their distinctive properties to cause them to act as they do. In other words, the powers of nature do not work by themselves, but God is immediately at work in every act of the creature.
103
The Three Aspects of Divine Providence. - Government
God has a purpose in all that he does in the world and he providentially governs or directs all things in order that they accomplish his purposes.
104
The Three Aspects of Divine Providence. - Government - different aspects of this..
```
Moral will (‘revealed will’): the teaching of Scripture.
Secret will (‘providential government’): the details of God’s plan that are not revealed to us – details regarding future events, etc.
```
105
At the heart of general sovereignty models is the view that
God does not have specific purposes for everything that occurs, for how could he actualize such purposes without often overriding free will?
106
General Sovereignty Models.
1. Traditional Arminianism- libertarian freedom; God has basic plans and goals he wants to accomplish, but he leaves the rest of what occurs up to his creatures.
2. Open theism - God, in the open view, has general goals he hopes to accomplish, but they are often thwarted so he has to resort to other options and plans. God may override the human will, but this is rare.
107
God does have a plan for all things because he has foreordained (=planned beforehand) all things. As a result, God is able to guarantee what he plans, actually comes to pass.
God, then, is sovereignly ruling over his world in all thing, even if he does not exercise causal power to bring about certain things and even though he is not the proximate cause and/or doer of much that happens (=distinction between remote/proximate; primary/secondary).
Specific Sovereignty Models.
108
Specific Sovereignty Models. ex.
This view argues that God is absolutely sovereign over everything; he has foreordained whatever happens, and whatever he has planned will happen. They also affirm that God has given us libertarian freedom. Even though these two points do not seem to cohere with each other, the paradox view believes that we must affirm both truths because Scripture teaches it, but they admit it is a paradox.
1 .Paradox Specific Sovereignty.
109
Specific Sovereignty Models. ex.
This view argues that the relationship between divine sovereignty and human freedom and responsibility is not contradictory as long as one holds to a compatibilistic view of human freedom. Thus, even though human actions are causally determined (=compatibilism), they are still free as long as the agents act according to their wishes, i.e. without constraint. According to this view, God did not have to create anything, but having decided to create, he chose our world from among a number of possible worlds. His decision to create this world was unconditional, i.e. it was based on nothing other than his sovereign purposes and the council of his will. Because God’s plan (=decree) is efficacious, whatever God plans comes to pass, and Scripture teaches that the decree covers all things.
Compatibilistic Specific Sovereignty. .........Hence God is absolutely sovereign and has not limited that sovereignty to make room for human freedom. But humans still have free will in the compatibilistic sense of it. Furthermore, to say that God decrees all things and works them out according to the counsel of his will means that he decrees every action and event, and the means to those actions and events. These actions and events are part of a whole interconnected world, so God can will means to ends and can see how his plans for one person affect his plans for others. Divine omniscience lets God see all the interconnections of everything in any possible world, and divine power allows him to bring about whatever possible world he chooses. Scripture says that God not only wills all things but works them out according to his foreordained plan (Eph 1:11). This doesn’t mean that God does every action that ever occurs.
110
explain difference between Immediate and mediate agency.
1. immediate - God acts immediately. God created
| 2. mediate - God uses mediums to accomplish his plans. like us, like natural phenomena
111
explain difference between Remote and proximate agency.
1. Remote- God is the primary actor
| 2. Proximate- God is involved, but humans involved. author of scripture
112
God’s sovereignty over evil. Where this occurs, the authors never ............
Sin and rebellion exist but no matter how difficult the questions that are thereby called into being, ..................
ascribe evil to God, but they do make it clear that even evil cannot escape God’s sway.
the sweep of God’s sovereignty is not curtailed or qualified.
113
Despite everything Scripture says about God’s sovereignty, the Bible insists that God is perfectly good. God is never presented as an accomplice of evil, or as secretly malicious, or as standing behind evil in exactly the same way that he stands behind good (=permission). The goodness of God is a non-negotiable
God is not the cause of evil, but he does permit it
114
Evil. In the case of evil, God stands behind good and evil.
asymmetrically
115
The God of Scripture: Heart of the Tension and Puzzle of Providence.
1. God does not stand behind .......................
2. He allows/permits, but does
3. If God stood behind good and evil the same way there would be a .....
plenty of mystery, no contradiction
1. he stands behind good.
2. not command it.
3. contradiction
116
defines God’s knowledge as “knowledge of everything true that is logically possible to know.” What is logically possible to know? Everything except future free actions of people. Why? Because of their commitment to libertarianism. Presentism argues that anything that is indeterminate cannot have a truth-value. Thus, statements about as yet undecided free actions are as yet neither true nor false.
There is no foreknowledge. Thus, future contingencies may only be guessed.
Limited Knowledge (Presentism)
117
Since God is outside of time, he sees all of time at once, and he sees it as present. As such, God knows all things without knowing the future since nothing is future to him. In other words, God does not believe anything in advance of the occurrence of anything, because to hold a belief, or to do anything prior to or in advance of anything else is to be a temporal being subject to time. This means that whatever we do in the future (to us) is still left indeterminate. No doubt, God knows our future as present to himself. But from our perspective our future is left open to us.
Timeless Knowledge or Atemporal Eternalism
118
This view of foreknowledge embraces all actual free choices, including those that are yet to be made, but not (as in middle knowledge) those choices that might have been made but in fact never are. In other words, simple foreknowledge is knowledge at any given time t1 of what will in fact happen in the actual world at any given time t2.
Simple foreknowledge.
119
he knowledge of ‘counterfactuals.’ God possesses not only the knowledge of what will in fact happen in the actual world (i.e. simple foreknowledge), but also what could in fact happen in all worlds and what would in fact happen in every possible situation, including what every possible free creature would do in every situation in which that creature could find itself.
Molinism (Middle Knowledge)
120
3 logical moments of God's knowledge.. being?
(1) Natural knowledge: the knowledge that God has logically prior to any act of creation, concerning what all the possibilities of creation are; (2) Free knowledge (3rd moment): God’s knowledge of the actual world that he has created;
(3) Middle knowledge: In between God’s natural knowledge and his free knowledge, is the 2nd moment of God’s knowledge – middle knowledge. In this moment God knows what every possible creature would do (as well as could do) in any possible set of situations.
121
The logical problem of evil amounts to the charge that there is a logical incoherence within the Christian doctrine of God – ....
regardless of how much evil there is in the universe, compared to how much goodness can be found
122
an action is free if there is nothing that decisively inclines the will in one direction or the other.
Incompatibilism (=Libertarianism): indeterministic view of human freedom
123
: there are sufficient conditions or causes (=reasons) that determine an action, but as long as those conditions/causes do not coerce the agent, the agent is free. // there is no contradiction -> there is a mystery. we do not understand it completely.. just like we do not understand that how God created out of nothing
Compatibilism
124
the place of mystery?
Mystery is not only acceptable within Christian theology, it is also necessary. In fact, it follows from our doctrine of God. Logic derives its validity from the character of God. He himself determines ultimately what is possible and he alone has exhaustive knowledge. Our knowledge is true, yet finite. It is limited by our created status and by God’s limitation of revelation. Entailment: Because we do not know all the truth we do not know all the interconnections between the truths. Mystery is simply the result of our ignorance about the interconnections. In many doctrinal areas, we do not know fully how various elements of the revelation of God come together, but we do know that because it comes from God, it must come together.
125
Should we accept anything that we cannot explain as mystery?
No. We aren’t endorsing arbitrariness (cf. 2 Cor 1:9; Heb 6:18). Mysteries must be only divinely revealed mysteries. When two truths are taught in Scripture, we use our reason to bring them together, but if they cannot be brought together, we leave them alone.
126
This is the belief that the “days” of creation are not even distinct eras, but overlapping stages of a long evolutionary process. According to this view, the six days described in Genesis 1 do not set forth a chronology of any kind, but rather a metaphorical “framework” by which the creative process is described for our finite human minds.
the days are symbolic expressions that have nothing to do with time
literary framework hypothesis
127
logical order of God's decrees debate
lapsarian debate
128
Theoretical attempts to reconcile the existence of evil in the world with belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, and good God
theodicy
129
logigcal theodicy,..
God doesn't exist
130
religious theodicy
Job
131
evidential POE
lots of them..
132
the study of man as it relates to God - Who is man?
Theological Anthropology
133
"our hearts are restless until they find their rest in thee"
augustine
134
without knowledge of god there is no knowledge of self
augustine
135
human beings are...
Human beings are unique/significant because we are made in God’s image.
Human beings are deeply flawed to the core (moral problem).
136
We must also think of human beings in a four-fold way:
original condition, fallen condition, redeemed condition, and glorified condition.
137
image vs likeness
image = representation
likeness = resemblance
mean the same things
138
Image of God Views
| Substantive/Structural View (Ontological).
This view argues that the imago Dei is a particular quality found in us (moral, our ability to make choices) And it is due to this ‘quality’ that we continue to have the ‘image’ of God in us, even after the Fall.
139
Image of God Views
| Functional View – ‘Imaging’ God (Ontic).
we can do certain things) This is the view that human beings image God by what we do, particularly in relation to having ‘dominion’ over the earth.
created to be God's image
140
Image of God Views
| Relational View.
This view stresses that the ‘image’ is found in our ability to have a relation with God and others. This has been a common view among more neo-orthodox theologians.
141
In my view Anthony Hoekema seeks to preserve the best of the above approaches by distinguishing between ‘structure’ and ‘function.’ So if we take the meaning of ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ as well as ‘structure’ and ‘function’ seriously, then, in what ways do we ‘resemble’ God? In what ways do we ‘represent’ God?
1. resemblance - human nature, moral qualities, moral agency, speech, freedom
2. representation -The idea of ‘representation’ picks up more of the ‘functional’ aspect of the image of God that assumes and builds up the ‘structure.’
Adam represents God in the world. He does God’s work, but under God (Gen 1:28)
142
Roman Catholic Theology: image vs. likeness
But there are problems with this view.
Scripture: Image of God was distorted at the fall, but it was not completely lost (Gen 9:6; James 3:9). edemption progressively recovers the image of God. remade in Christ's image
Rationality remained intact (=image), but the likeness was lost (=holiness).
143
The ancient Greeks held that man is composed of two distinct substances – matter/body or mind/soul (spark of divinity). However, they also argued that matter (body) was inferior (morally evil) to the mind or soul. Plato, for example, did not argue that matter was necessarily evil but he did say that it gets in the way of the higher part of man, i.e. the soul. At death the body simply disintegrates, but the rational soul (or nous) returns to the “heavens” if its course of action has been just and honorable, and continues to exist forever. The soul is considered a superior substance, inherently indestructible, while the body is inferior to the soul and mortal. That is why in Greek thought there is no room for the resurrection of the body. Greeks also believed that the body was the “prison house” for the soul.
Greek Dualism
144
René Descartes (1596-1650). Descartes was famous for cogito ergo sum. Descartes believed that this “I” whose existence he had proved, is a substance whose essence is to think, and that this substance is really distinct from any physical body. Thus, he argued for a distinction between mind and body. Mind or soul is made up of consciousness and cognition (immaterial). The body is made up of extension and boundary (material). Human beings, then, must be some kind of union of mind/soul and body. But how does the mind/soul and body relate with one another? Descartes never explained this fully. He located the union between mind and body in the pineal gland, because it appeared unique in the brain and Descartes wrongly believed that it could not be found in other animals. Thus, the pineal gland is where body and soul – two different kinds of substances interact (interactionism). In the end, Cartesian dualism made everything subject to mechanistic laws except two things – God and the human soul. Most rejected Descartes’ view as “the ghost in the machine.” Most philosophers argue that Descartes opened the door to philosophical materialism or substantival monism in which man was explained solely in terms of physics and chemistry.
Cartesian Dualism.
145
body, soul, and spirit.
Trichotomy
146
It has thought that the body was perishable but the soul or spirit was immortal as in Greek thought.
claims that Scripture uses the terms soul and spirit interchangeably
Dichotomy
147
Complementarianism vs. Egalitarianism
C- biblical - men and women complement one another being equal but different roles - equal with distinction
E - completely equal - equal with no distinction - contemporary worldly view
148
When a person dies, what happens?
The Intermediate State.
149
The Intermediate State Unbiblical Views.
1. Jehovah’s Witnesses and 7th Day Adventists believe that man ceases to exist between death and resurrection. There is no biblical support for this.
2. The idea that immediately after death people receive “intermediate” bodies has no Scriptural basis either. The contrast in the NT is always between the present body and the resurrection body (cf. Phil 3:21; 1 Cor 15:42-44).
3. Soul sleep, i.e. man’s soul exists in an unconscious state between death and the resurrection, must also be rejected.
150
The Intermediate State Biblical Views.
1. The central focus about the future of human beings is on the bodily resurrection (see 1 Corinthians 15).
2. But the NT does indicate that the state of believers between death and resurrection is one of provisional happiness, one that is “better” than the present earthly state (Phil 1:22-23; Lk 23:43; 2 Cor 5:6-8). This certainly means that the condition of believers during the intermediate state is not one of nonexistence or unconscious existence.
3. Furthermore, Phil 1:22-23 and 2 Cor 5:6-8 make it clear that Paul is thinking of an existence which is between the present body and the resurrection body. The NT can also describe this by the terms psyche, pneuma (Mt 10:28; Rev 6:9; Heb 12:22-23; 1 Pt 3:18-20).
151
The Intermediate State Conclusions
1. The NT says that we, who are believers, will continue to exist in a provisional state of happiness between death and the resurrection.
2. Human beings now exist in a state of psychosomatic unity but this unity can and will be temporarily disrupted at the time of death. 2 Corinthians 5:8 clearly teaches that human beings can exist apart from their present bodies (cf. 1 Thess 3:13; 4:14).
3. At the resurrection we will be fully restored and once again made complete. The intermediate state is provisional, temporary, and incomplete. The Christian’s hope is found in the new heavens and the new earth (1 Cor 15:1ff; 2 Pet 3:1ff; Rev 21-22).
152
Life is given to man as a _____________ ______ in which ‘our own distinctions between physical, intellectual and spiritual life do not exist’ (
psychosomatic unity
153
he soul existed prior to its actual embodiment. God then brings the soul to earth to be joined with the baby’s body as he or she grows in the womb. This view has not been held by Protestant or RC theologians. The early church theologian who held to it was Origen.
Pre-existence Theory.
154
Each individual immaterial part of man is to be regarded as a direct creation or immediate creation of God, owing its origin to a direct creative act. The time of the soul’s creation is either at conception, birth, or sometime between. The soul is supposed to be created pure and then united with a depraved body.
Creationism
155
This is the view that the immaterial as well as the material part of man is propagated by human reproduction. The soul is “mediately” created by God. This has been the consensus position of the church since the 3rd C
Traducianism
156
is the sinful state and condition in which every human being is born by virtue of their relationship to Adam. It must be distinguished from what is known as ‘actual sin’ which are the sins of thought, word, and deed that we all commit living this side of the fall.
‘Original sin’
157
Total (Pervasive) depravity. This does not mean that:
(1) People are as thoroughly depraved as we could possibly become; (2) Humans don’t have a conscience (Rom 2:14-15); (3) Humans aren’t able to perform certain actions that are good and helpful in the sight of others. However it does mean that:
158
Corruption of original sin extends to every aspect of human nature.
On our own we can do no spiritual good or be good in terms of a relationship with God.
There is not present in human beings, by nature, love to God as the motivating principle of his life.
total depravity
159
refers to the inability of the sinner to turn himself to God or for anything that is pleasing or good in God’s sight. By his own power, the sinner cannot bring his life into total conformity with God’s law, change his fundamental preference for self and sin to supreme love for God, or do any act – even searching for God – apart from imperfect motives
Spiritual inability
160
Non-believer cannot and does not want to do, say, or think that which totally meets with God’s approval, and therefore fulfills God’s law.
The non-believer is unable apart from the special working of the Holy Spirit to change ourselves and respond to the gospel.
spiritual inability meaning
161
pelagius says that adam's sin is ........
sin of Adam -> doesn’t affect us - his sin is not transmitted to us - >
born in a neutral condition
why do we always act bad?
by example.. what we have seen by adam and others we do.. contradicts scripture
we come into this world sinful
eph 2:3 - children of wrath - by nature - condition we have
not sent to us (pelagiarism)
162
He is viewed as the theologian who first systematically formulated the doctrine of original sin. Here are the basics of his view.
adam as the first man had a generic human nature.. became divided up into us as individuals.. we sinned with him.. we were generically in him.. when he sinner we all sinned… because we were in him… hebrew 7:10 - high priestly work of the Lord Jesus Christ - Genesis 14 - Melchizedeck…. when Abrahama & Levi paid a tenth … we are in Adam.. just as Levi is in Abraham we are in Adam…. does not explain why dependents are responsible for his first sin… what about his second & third.. why the first sin?
his action.. my action
augustine.. realism
163
It was not until ______ ___ and others that the development of ‘federal theology’ came into its own. This was the view that the sin of Adam was reckoned (imputed) to be that of all men and that Adam serves as a ‘representative’ head of the race was really developed. (biological & covenant) ——
Theodore Beza
164
1st: Adam serves as a ‘natural head’ of the human race.
physical
2nd: Adam serves as a ‘federal/representative head’ of the human race.
representation - his guilt now my guilt
imputation of sin
165
Arminius taught that Adam’s sin entails ‘corruption’ but not an imputation of guilt. Because we are corrupt, we begin life without the benefit of original righteousness. Thus, all human beings are unable, without divine enabling grace (=prevenient grace), to fulfill God’s commands. This inability is physical and intellectual, but not volitional.
only guilty when act on our own
Arminian Theology (=Semi-Pelagian).
166
divine enabling grace
(=prevenient grace)
167
In his representative relationship Adam stood as a representative for the human race –______ ____ Adam stood in probation before God on behalf of the human race. And when he sinned, he plunged his descendants into sin, wrath, and judgment – his guilt, became our guilt – God imputes to us the guilt of Adam’s first sin, which is direct and immediate.
federal head. federalism
168
three perspectives of sin
actus
habitus
status
169
Sin involves personal, concrete acts of wrongdoing, acts that violate God’s laws, and the whole created order, including the moral order.
Actus:
170
Sin is also a state to which man is subject. Man experiences an inclination toward evil, toward rebellion against God and his created order because is born in Adam’s line.
Habitus
171
Sin is a violation of a legal standard for which man is held accountable. I refer here to guilt, and the guilt in mind is not a legal fiction nor a psychological illusion, but something real and tangible. Sin is a violation of God’s standards. Sin brings the wrath of God upon us.
Status
172
= ‘a denial of the Creator and his created order.’
toward a definition of sin. Sin
