SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY (3): God
Whereas the doctrine of Scripture is the epistemological foundation of the Christian faith, the doctrine of God is the metaphysical foundation. The two doctrines are of supreme importance because all other biblical doctrines depend on them. Therefore, Christians must offer special attention to these aspects of theology. Having discussed the doctrine of Scripture in the previous chapter, we will proceed to consider the existence, attributes, and works of God.
The Bible says that he who comes to God must believe that he exists (Hebrews 11:6). A person who denies God's existence cannot develop a relationship with him or consciously serve him.[1] There are two kinds of arguments for the existence of God. The first may be called the traditional or classical arguments. Although various theologians and philosophers have favored them throughout history, they are not necessarily valid or sufficient. The second kind of arguments are derived from Scripture itself, and so they may be called biblical arguments.
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT argues from the idea of God to his necessary existence. By definition, God is the being than which nothing greater can be conceived, and since the being than which nothing greater can be conceived cannot be conceived as lacking the property of being, for otherwise it would not be the being than which nothing greater can be conceived, God must exist by necessity.
Succeeding Lanfranc, Anselm (1033-1109) became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1093. His Cur Deus Homo and other works have exercised profound influence on the development of Christian theology. However, he is perhaps most famous for his ontological argument as articulated in his Proslogion. The following reproduces the argument in part:
Now we believe that You are something than which nothing greater can be thought. Or can it be that a thing of such a nature does not exist, since "the Fool has said in his heart, there is no God"? But surely, when this same Fool hears what I am speaking about, namely, "something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought," he understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his mind, even if he does not understand that it actually exists….
Even the Fool, then, is forced to agree that something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought exists in the mind, since he understands this when he hears it, and whatever is understood is in the mind. And surely that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought cannot exist in the mind alone. For if it exists solely in the mind, it can be thought to exist in reality also, which is greater. If then thatthan-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists in the mind alone, this same that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is that-than-which-a-greater-can-be-thought. But this is obviously impossible. Therefore there is absolutely no doubt that something-than-whicha-greater-cannot-be-thought exists both in the mind and in reality.
And certainly this being so truly exists that it cannot be even thought not to exist. For something can be thought to exist that cannot be thought not to exist, and this is greater than that which can be thought not to exist. Hence, if that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought can be thought not to exist, then that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is not the same as that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought, which is absurd. Something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists so truly then, that it cannot be even thought not to exist.
And You, Lord our God, are this being. You exist so truly, Lord my God, that You cannot even be thought not to exist.…In fact, everything else there is, except You alone, can be thought of as not existing. You alone, then, of all things most truly exist and therefore of all things possess existence to the highest degree; for anything else does not exist as truly, and so possesses existence to a lesser degree. Why then did "the Fool say in his heart, there is no God" when it is so evident to any rational mind that You of all things exist to the highest degree? Why indeed, unless because he was stupid and a fool?
…No one, indeed, understanding what God is can think that God does not exist, even though he may say these words in his heart either without any signification or with some peculiar signification. For God is that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought. Whoever really understands this understands clearly that this same being so exists that not even in thought can it not exist. Thus whoever understands that God exists in such a way cannot think of Him as not existing.[2]
An initial objection is that just because a being is conceivable, or just because it exists in the mind, does not mean that it must also exist in reality. A person may conceive of a perfect car, but that does not mean it exists other than in his mind. A flying horse is conceivable, but this tells us nothing as to whether it exists in reality.
But this betrays a misunderstanding. The ontological argument does not state that whatever is conceivable also exists in reality, but that God cannot be conceived except as one that exists; otherwise, what is conceived would not be God. If a person conceives in his mind a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, but that does not exist, then he is in fact not thinking of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. Since the argument refers to a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, and not just any object conceivable by the mind, the objection is irrelevant.
There is ambiguity concerning what it means for something to exist "in reality." What exists in the mind does not necessarily exist in the physical world, but this is irrelevant because God is incorporeal. When the ontological argument suggests that once the idea of God is present in the mind, he must also be understood to exist, it does not mean that he must be understood to exist as a physical object.
Thus the idea of existence itself poses a problem. In a sense, anything can be said to exist – even unicorns, dreams, and mathematical equations exist, although they do not exist as physical objects. However, unicorns did not create the universe, dreams did not ordain some men to salvation and others to damnation, and mathematical equations did not take up human flesh to die as a ransom for many.
Perhaps we should not be asking, "Does God exist?" A more intelligible question is, "What is God?" Even Zeus "exists," but only in mythology. The Christian God is not a physical object, but neither is he like dreams, equations, or Zeus. Rather, he is the creator and ruler of the universe, who decrees our history and decides our destiny, and who deserves and demands our worship. We should certainly say that God "exists" or that God "is" (Hebrews 11:6) insofar as this represents an affirmation of all that the Bible says about him, and not that he is a physical object or mythological character.
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT argues from contingent effects to the first cause, or the creator God. The argument may begin from self-consciousness or the existence of the physical universe.[3] Everything that has a beginning – everything that has come into being – is an effect, and thus must have a cause. If the universe has a beginning, then it must have a cause. The universe indeed has a beginning, and therefore it must have a cause. An infinite regression of causes is impossible; therefore, there must be a first cause that is not an effect and that has no beginning, but that is necessary and eternal. This cause or being we acknowledge to be God. This is the gist of the argument. We will now discuss the premises.
The argument begins with the existence of the universe or with self-consciousness. It is self-refuting to doubt one's own existence, since a person must first exist before he can deny his own existence. One who does not exist cannot affirm the proposition, "I do not exist." Also, a person who denies his own existence withdraws from the debate, and therefore poses no threat to the cosmological argument.
Uncaused contingent beings and events are impossible, since something cannot come out of nothing. Since nothing is not something, it cannot produce anything. Only a being that has no beginning can be uncaused. Neither is it possible for there to be self-caused beings and events. A cause must precede an effect, at least logically, if not chronologically. Thus the cause exists before its effect. If a being or event already exists, then it does not cause its own existence, since it already exists. This being or event must then either be uncaused, or produced by a prior cause.
Although an infinite progression of causes is possible, an infinite regression of causes is not. An infinite progression can occur since causes can continue to lead to new effects without contradiction, and it is logically possible that this process will never end. However, if we were to assume an infinite regression of causes, then it would be impossible for us to have reached the present, since it is impossible to travel across an actual infinite. Just as it is impossible to reach the end of an infinite progression, our present is an "end" as seen from the past. Any particular moment is an "end" or stopping point as seen from the past, so that if the past is infinite, we could never have reached the present; otherwise, the past would not be infinite, but finite.
To illustrate, if a person were to begin counting at noon on Monday and decide that he would stop at noon on Friday, he would reach the stopping point when the time arrives. But if there is infinite time between his starting point and his stopping point, then he would never reach the stopping point. Likewise, if a man runs toward a finish line – a designated "end" analogous to our present – he would never reach it if there is an infinite distance between the starting point and the stopping point; otherwise, the distance between the two points would not be infinite, but finite.
Therefore, an infinite regression of past causes is impossible, since if the past is infinite, we would never have reached the present; otherwise, the past would not be infinite, but finite. On the other hand, if the universe has a starting point in the finite past, then it would be possible to arrive at the present. But if the universe has a starting point, then it must have a cause. Some people challenge: "Why must this cause be God?" But God is just the name or title of this first cause. The argument shows that there must be a creator who made this universe.
Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) is best known for his "Five Ways" of demonstrating the existence of God.[4] Here we will reproduce the second and third from his Summa Theologica:
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence – which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.[5]
Some people assert that an uncaused or eternal universe is possible based on quantum theory, but their arguments at best only push the question one step backward so that the existence of the universe still requires an explanation, or a cause. They fail to show that the universe is uncaused or eternal, or that something can come out of nothing. Besides, there are strong disagreements among scientists as to the implications of quantum theory, and arguments of this sort often misapply scientific speculations. In addition, since science itself has no rational contact with reality at all, it does not matter whether or not quantum theory is properly applied, because all of it is false in the first place.
If the immediate cause of the universe itself requires a cause, then we still have not arrived at the first cause. There must be a cause to explain every cause that is also an effect, but infinite regress is impossible, so there must be an uncaused first cause that is eternal, that has always existed. Since no effect can be uncaused, this first cause has no beginning, and is thus not an effect. Therefore, the argument is invulnerable to the challenge, "If everything has a cause, then God must also have a cause." The objection betrays a lack of attentiveness, since the argument states only that every effect, or everything that comes into being, must have a cause. It shows that God is not an effect, but is the uncaused first cause.
THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT may also be called the argument from design. It is historically associated with the work of William Paley,[6] who argued as follows:
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given – that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there.
Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? Why is it not as admissible in the second case as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, viz., that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, if a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it….
…the inference, we think, is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker; that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use….
Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater and more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation. I mean that the contrivances of nature surpass the contrivances of art, in the complexity, subtlety, and curiosity of the mechanism; and still more, if possible do they go beyond them in number and variety; yet in a multitude of cases, are not less evidently mechanical, not less evidently contrivances, not less evidently accommodated to their end, or suited to their office, than are the most perfect productions of human ingenuity…[7]
The claim is that both ordinary observations and scientific studies indicate that the physical universe exhibits an intricate structure and complex order; it presents itself as a product of deliberate design. Many aspects of the universe seem to be fine-tuned to permit the existence of life. A large number of exact conditions must be simultaneously present. If these factors were to be slightly different than what they are, life would be impossible.
Since what is designed requires a designer, the design of the universe implies the existence of a designer. This being exhibits the characteristics of a rational mind, capable of thought and planning, and possesses such power to execute his intentions that he created the universe with no preexisting matter available. This description is consistent with what the Bible teaches about God. The magnitude and complexity of his creation demonstrate his power and wisdom:
But God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding. (Jeremiah 10:12)
With my great power and outstretched arm I made the earth and its people and the animals that are on it, and I give it to anyone I please. (Jeremiah 27:5)
How many are your works, O LORD! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures. (Psalm 104:24)
THE MORAL ARGUMENT argues from objective moral laws to a giver of moral laws. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) writes in his Critique of Practical Reason:[8]
Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and the more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.[9]
To make sense of objective moral laws there must be justice. Since we observe that justice is often not served in this life, there must be an afterlife where exact justice is rendered. Moreover, for there to be justice there must be a Judge who will deliver justice. But for this Judge to judge rightly, he must be omniscient, knowing every thought and deed. And to execute justice, the Judge must be omnipotent.
Kant argued for the idea of God as a heuristic principle in ethics, and did not mean for the argument to serve as a proof in the classical sense:
By a postulate of pure practical reason, I understand a theoretical proposition which is not as such demonstrable, but which is an inseparable corollary of an a priori unconditionally valid practical law.[10]
Nevertheless, if a person denies that there is an afterlife in which everyone must face this all-knowing and all-powerful Judge, he can no longer account for object morality. Yet men everywhere speak and behave as though there is objective morality. Even those who deny objective morality react as if such a thing exists, especially when their own standard is offended, or when their own welfare is threatened. A person cannot affirm objective morality, either by word or action, and reject its necessary precondition. Hastings Rashdall writes:
The belief in God…is the logical presupposition of an "objective" or absolute Morality. A moral ideal can exist nowhere and nohow but in a mind; an absolute ideal can exist only in a Mind from which all Reality is derived. Our moral ideal can only claim objective reality in so far as it can rationally be regarded as the revelation of a moral ideal eternally existing in the mind of God.[11]
Concluding our discussion of the classical arguments, we will now examine the biblical arguments, so called because of their dependence on the Bible's own content and apologetic strategy.
THE TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT, sometimes called an abductive argument, argues from a known or acknowledged Y to a necessary precondition X. Or, as Robert Stern explains:
As standardly presented, transcendental arguments are usually said to be distinctive in involving a certain sort of claim, namely that "For Y to be possible, X must be the case," where Y is some indisputable fact about us and our mental life (e.g. that we have experiences, use language, make certain judgments, have certain concepts, perform certain actions, etc.), but where it is left open at this stage exactly what is substituted for X.[12]
One aspect of the biblical system of apologetics involves arguing that given any Y, the necessary precondition X is the biblical worldview.
For example, science assumes the uniformity of nature (Y), but it cannot prove this principle – it is irrationally assumed. The biblical worldview (X) is the necessary precondition to render this assumption intelligible.[13] Now, the biblical worldview in fact denies the uniformity of nature, but it affirms the doctrine of ordinary providence. That is, it is God who controls the world, and he does it in a regular manner, although he is free to deviate from his usual practice whenever he wishes. In any case, since the biblical worldview is the necessary precondition for the assumption of any regularity in the world, it is a necessary presupposition that makes science intelligible. This does not mean that science is rational or that its theories and conclusions are true, but it means that no one can even make sense of science unless biblical principles are presupposed. The implication is that science can never disprove the Scripture or even argue against it.
Biblical revelation generates a particular type of transcendental argument that is irrefutable, since in the process of argumentation it shows that the biblical worldview (X) is applicable to any Y at all. Whatever is asserted as true or intelligible in the context of debate, the biblical worldview is its necessary precondition. This is true even concerning arguments against Christianity – without the biblical worldview as the presupposition, no objection against Christianity is even intelligible.[14] This is because any argument, whatever it is supposed to prove, is necessarily preceded by principles on epistemology, metaphysics, logic, linguistics, and so on – things that make the argument possible or intelligible in the first place. And we can argue that only the Bible supplies these necessary principles. But once the Bible is acknowledged as true, then of course no objection against it can be true.
The transcendental move in biblical apologetics is, strictly speaking, more of a strategy or method than an argument. Although it is popularly credited to Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen, their attempt is a complete failure. Even as they claim to defend the Christian faith, they attempt to protect many non-Christian principles, and their method is to place them on a Christian foundation so that they can "account for" them. Thus they make God and Scripture accomplices to falsehood, and merge Christ and Satan in an unholy matrimony. They, along with their followers, have even turned the argument against the Christian faith by insisting that some non-Christian presuppositions, including the reliability of sensation, provide the necessary precondition for our knowledge of the Scripture.[15] This syncretistic system amounts to an attack on the Christian faith by forcing together Christian and non-Christian principles, often in favor of the latter.
Moreover, it is arguable that they have produced only hints and suggestions of the application of the transcendental method, and certainly nothing close to a sufficient demonstration. On the other hand, Gordon H. Clark has performed this task with admirable success and thoroughness: "The problems of history, politics, and ethics, so it has been argued, require for their solution certain theistic presuppositions….Apparently the best general procedure for one who wishes to recommend Christian theism is to show that other forms of theism are inconsistent mixtures. If some of their propositions should be carried to their logical conclusions, naturalism and eventually skepticism would result; whereas if justice is to be done to possible interpretations of other of their assertions, Christianity would have to be assumed."[16]
THE PRESUPPOSITIONAL ARGUMENT is a positive direct method to advance the truth and necessity of the Christian faith. It is in essence a form of dogmatism.
The word "dogmatic" carries unfavorable connotations in colloquial speech. One dictionary defines "dogmatism" as "positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant; a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises," and a "dogma" is "a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds."[17] Although these definitions reflect popular non-academic usage, we mean something very different.
"Dogmatic" can simply mean "doctrinal"[18] or "based on a priori principles, not on induction."[19] Both of these definitions are applicable in our context. The synonyms of this word include, "dictatorial, authoritative, magisterial," and in another sense, "deductive, a priori, deducible, derivable, and reasoned."[20] The Christian Bible is a revelation from God, and since God speaks by an absolute and "dictatorial"[21] authority, his revelation is the precondition of all of thought and life, and knowledge comes from valid deductions from it.
In God and Reason, Ed. L. Miller explains the meaning of dogmatism as a philosophical position:
One of the distinctive features of the Judeo-Christian tradition is its belief in a divine self-disclosure: God has intervened in human history and spoken; he has unveiled himself in a "special revelation." And the knowledge of God drawn from this revelation is an example of revealed theology. Such theology is sometimes called "dogmatic" (in the best sense of the word) or "confessional" theology because it seeks to elucidate the divinely bestowed articles of faith (dogmas) that it takes as its fundamental and nonnegotiable data. Not unlike the mathematician, the dogmatic theologian begins with certain givens, though in this case revealed givens; the system is bounded by revelation, self-contained, and offered as a package deal.[22]
The Christian system takes biblical revelation as its self-authenticating first principle. By self-authenticating, we are not referring to whether the Bible verifies itself in our experience. It may very well be consistent with our experience, but if we regard the Bible as true because it is consistent with our experience, or because it is consistent with our interpretation of our experience, then it would not be self-authenticating. Rather, our experience, or the standard or principle by which we interpret our experience, would be the true first principle. We are not even referring to the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit that the Bible is a revelation from God, although this indeed happens to those who have been chosen for salvation. Rather, by self-authenticating, we mean that the Bible verifies and supports itself by the excellence and sufficiency of its own content, and that it has no need to depend on premises external to itself.
From this first principle of biblical revelation, the rest of the system follows by necessity through valid deductions. Since the first principle verifies itself to be true, all propositions validly deduced from it are also true. Since biblical revelation condemns all other systems of thought, and whatever it says is true, the Christian faith is therefore the only true system of thought, and the standard by which every proposition is judged.
The method is similar to rationalism, but there are importance differences. Although the use of deduction in non-Christian rationalism makes it superior to non-Christian philosophies that favor induction, sensation, and experimentation, it fails like the others because its first principles are arbitrary and unjustified. On the other hand, the Bible possesses the content to justify itself as the infallible first principle of the Christian faith.
In any case, dogmatism is perhaps a better name than bare rationalism, since it more readily conveys the idea that the biblical worldview consists of, in the words of Miller, self-contained revealed givens offered as a package deal. Alternatively, we may add the needed qualification and call the method biblical rationalism, biblical foundationalism, or biblical presuppositionalism, as long as it is clear that biblical presuppositionalism is not the pseudo-presuppositionalism of Van Til and Bahnsen. Their method may also be called syncretic presuppositionalism, since contrary to their claim, it presses the synthesis between Christian and non-Christian thought, and offers non-Christian principles the priority.
Every person has a worldview. A worldview consists of a network of interrelated propositions the sum of which forms "a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world."[23] A given worldview may be called a "religion" or a "philosophy" because of its specific content, but it is nevertheless a worldview. By worldview, we refer to any religion, philosophy, or system of thought.
Every worldview has a starting point or first principle from which the rest of the system is derived. Some people claim that a worldview can be a web of mutually dependent propositions without a first principle. However, even if a million liars vouch for one another, all of them are still liars. At least one reliable man would have to vouch for them. But if all of them are liars, a reliable man would not vouch for them, and their credibility falls apart. Likewise, a web of propositions would still need a first principle that supports them all. A true first principle would not produce a web of false propositions, and a web of false propositions would not be supported by a true first principle. Therefore, the first principle remains the crucial issue.
In a web of propositions, some propositions are more central to the web, the destruction of which would also annihilate the propositions that are more remote. But even the most central claims require justification, and a worldview in which the propositions depend on one another in a way that lacks a first principle is in the final analysis exposed as having no justification at all. The claim that a worldview can be a web of mutually dependent propositions without the need of a first principle is really an attempt at hiding the fact that all of the propositions in such a web lack justification.
Therefore, it remains that every worldview requires a first principle or ultimate authority. Being first or ultimate, such a principle cannot be justified by any prior or greater authority; otherwise, it would not be the first or ultimate. This means that the first principle must possess the content to justify itself. For example, the proposition, "All knowledge comes from sense experience," fails to be a first principle on which a worldview can be constructed. This is because if all knowledge comes from sense experience, then this proposed first principle must also be known only by sense experience, but the reliability of sense experience has not been established. Thus the principle generates a vicious circle and self-destructs. It does not matter what can be validly deduced from such a principle – if the system cannot even begin, what follows from the principle is without justification.
It is also impossible to begin a worldview with a self-contradictory first principle. This is because contradictions are unintelligible and meaningless. The law of contradiction states that "A is not non-A," or that something cannot be true and not true at the same time and in the same sense. One must assume this law even in the attempt to reject it; otherwise, he cannot even distinguish between accepting and rejecting this law. But once he assumes it, he can no longer reject it, since he has already assumed it. If we say that truth can be contradictory, then we can also say that truth cannot be contradictory, since we have abandoned the distinction between can and cannot. If we do not affirm the law of contradiction, then dogs are cats, elephants are rats, "See Jane run" can mean "I am married," and "I reject the law of contradiction" can mean "I affirm the law of contradiction," or even "I am a moron." If it is not true that "A is not non-A," anything can mean anything and nothing at the same time, and nothing is intelligible.
Since no legitimate first principle can be self-contradictory, skepticism is impossible, because it is self-contradictory. When used in the philosophical sense, a "skeptic" refers to one who maintains that "no knowledge is possible…or that there is not sufficient or adequate evidence to tell if any knowledge is possible."[24] Both of these expressions of skepticism are self-contradictory – one claims to know that one can know nothing, and the other claims to know that there is inadequate evidence to know anything. If a person claims that one cannot know whether one can know anything, then he is still claiming to know that one cannot know whether one can know anything, and so he contradicts himself.
Self-contradictory first principles are untenable. Skepticism is self-contradictory, and thus untenable. This means that an adequate first principle must guarantee the possibility of knowledge.
In addition to making knowledge possible, a first principle must also yield an adequate amount of knowledge. To illustrate, "My name is Vincent," may be a true statement, but it does not tell me anything about the origin of the universe, or whether stealing is immoral. It does not even give me the concept of "origin" or "morality." Moreover, although it may be a true statement, how do I know that it is true in the first place? The proposition, "My name is Vincent," does not prove that my name is really Vincent; it does not justify itself. A first principle is inadequate if it fails to provide information concerning epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics, and if it fails to justify itself.
For at least the above reasons, a first principle cannot be based on induction, in which the premises do not inevitably lead to the conclusion, such as reasoning from particulars to universals. For example, no amount of empirical investigation can justify the proposition, "Every human being has a brain." To establish a general proposition like this by empirical means, a person must examine every human being who has ever lived, who is now living, and since this is a proposition about human beings, he must also examine every human being who will live in the future. Also, while he is examining the human beings in one part of the world, he must somehow ensure that the nature of man has not changed in those parts of the world whose human beings he has already studied.
In addition, how does he prove that he knows a given human being has a brain just because he thinks he is looking at it? He must provide justification for the claim that he knows that something is there just because he thinks he is looking at it. But it would be viciously circular to say that he knows that something is there just because he thinks he is looking at it, because what he thinks he is looking at is really there, and he knows that it is really there because he thinks he is looking at it. Adding to the now already impossible situation, to prove this general proposition about human beings by sensation and induction, he must also examine his own brain.
On the basis of induction, it would be impossible to define a human being in the first place, since the concept of a human being is also a universal. In fact, on the basis of induction, one can never establish any proposition, let alone a universal proposition like, "All men are mortal."
Some people try to rescue induction by saying that, although it cannot conclusively establish any proposition, at least it can establish a proposition as probable. But this is both misleading and false. Probability refers to "the ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes that produce a given event to the total number of possible outcomes."[25] Even if we grant that empirical and inductive methods can discover the numerator of the fraction (although I deny that they can do even this), to determine the denominator requires knowledge of a universal, and omniscience is often necessary to establish this.
Since probability consists of a numerator and a denominator, since the denominator is a universal, and since empirical and inductive methods cannot know universals, then to say that induction can arrive at "probable" knowledge is nonsense. Even apart from other insoluble problems inherent in empiricism itself, an epistemology that is based on an empirical principle cannot succeed, since empiricism necessarily depends on induction, and induction is always a formal fallacy.
On the other hand, deduction produces conclusions that are guaranteed to be true if the premises are true and if the process of reasoning is valid. Although rationalism is less popular, it is a tremendous improvement over empiricism because it reasons using deduction instead of using empirical and inductive methods. But still, non-Christian rationalism cannot succeed in establishing a true and coherent worldview, and we will briefly examine some of its problems.
Rationalism selects a first principle (or as in geometry, begins with one or more axioms) and deduces the rest of the system from it. If the first principle is true and the process of deductive reasoning is valid, then the subsidiary propositions or theorems would all be true by necessity.
A main problem with non-revelational rationalism has to do with how it selects a first principle.[26] If the first principle is self-contradictory, then of course it must be rejected. But even if the principle is not self-contradictory, it must also be self-justifying to avoid the charge of being arbitrary. Although I would say that only the biblical first principle is selfjustifying, even if a non-biblical first principle is self-consistent and self-justifying, it must be broad enough to make knowledge possible. It must contain enough content so that one may deduce an adequate worldview from it. Thus to posit the proposition, "My name is Vincent," as the first principle in a rationalistic worldview would result in the failures mentioned earlier.
Still another problem with non-revelational rationalism is that there are various schools of rationalistic systems, and their starting points are all different and incompatible. Which one is correct? A rationalistic worldview with an arbitrary first principle cannot succeed. Although the deductive rationalistic approach is far superior to the inductive empirical approach, it also results in failure. Since any time a person uses either approach, he inevitably introduces the problems of that approach into his worldview, a mixture of rationalism and empiricism would only combine the fatal flaws of both methods.
Then, the propositions within a worldview must not contradict one another. For example, the first principle of a worldview must not produce a proposition in ethics that contradicts another proposition in metaphysics, or politics, or economics.
By this point, having examined the conditions for an adequate first principle, the problems of empiricism and induction, and the problems of non-biblical rationalism, we have already effectively destroyed all existing and possible non-Christian systems. They simply cannot satisfy all the requirements that we have listed. This includes Islam, Mormonism, and other non-Christian religions that claim to be founded on revelation, since upon examination, one will see that their alleged revelations cannot meet the conditions.
Our strategy for biblical apologetics begins with the recognition that Christianity is the only deductive system with a self-consistent and self-justifying first principle that has been infallibly revealed by an all-powerful and all-knowing God, and that is broad enough to yield a sufficient number of propositions to construct a comprehensive and coherent worldview. Christianity is the only true worldview, and it alone makes knowledge possible. All other systems of thought collapse into skepticism, but since skepticism is selfcontradictory, one cannot remain in such a position, and Christianity is the only way out of the epistemological abyss.
The classical arguments for the existence of God do not provide positive support for the entire biblical worldview. Even if they are successful, they argue for the truth of only several biblical propositions, such as God as the creator, God as the designer, and God as the legislator. On the other hand, Christian rationalism simultaneously advances all biblical propositions and all their logical implications. If the entire Bible is true, then of course God exists – he is as the Bible describes him, and all other ideas of deity are excluded.
A more serious defect of the classical arguments is their dependence on sensation, induction, and science. Since these methods of discovery are irrational, an argument must fail if it relies on any of them at any point, even if it arrives at a conclusion that resembles the truth, such as the existence of a supreme being. That is, scientific reasoning may show that it is more rational to affirm rather than to deny the existence of God. However, since scientific reasoning itself is fallacious, we must reject scientific reasoning even though we affirm the existence of God. In other words, we must not affirm the existence of God on the basis of scientific reasoning.
The classical arguments might remain useful as a type of ad hominem arguments. This is not the fallacy of irrelevant personal attack, but the method of turning the opponent's premises against his own position. So the Christian, for the sake of argument, temporarily assumes the non-Christian's false premises, such as the reliability of sensation, the validity of induction, and the rationality of science. Then, from these premises, the Christian reasons to either absurd conclusions, thus demonstrating the foolishness of the nonChristian's premises, or he reasons to conclusions favorable to the Christian faith, such as the existence of God, the historical reliability of the Bible, the resurrection of Christ, and the superiority of biblical ethics.
In this negative sense, the classical arguments demonstrate the rational superiority of the Christian faith even when false premises such as the reliability of sensation and science are assumed.[27] Since these arguments rest on an irrational foundation, they are not positive proofs of anything. It is impossible to reach a right knowledge of God by piling up classical arguments. Rather, if they are used at all, their function is destructive – they defeat the nonChristian on his own territory, showing that he is wrong even by his own standard. An infallible argument for the Christian faith requires the infallible revelation of God as its foundation.
Proverbs 26:4-5 offers two principles that summarize the biblical approach to apologetics:
"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself."
"Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes."
"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1). The Bible is aware that there are those who deny God, and it says that they are stupid people. The non-Christian is a fool. He trusts in false principles and assumptions, such as the reliability of sensation, the validity of induction, the rationality of science and experimentation, the arbitrary axioms of non-biblical rationalism, and the texts of non-biblical religions. The non-Christian trusts in these things because he is stupid. They lead him to arrive at false conclusions and to defend these conclusions. He thinks that his inferior intelligence and methodology can discover the truth about reality. He thinks that he does not need God to teach him.
Verse 4 says that the Christian should not think like the non-Christian, in order to avoid becoming a stupid person. Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, and their followers commit this very error. They claim that their philosophy presupposes God as the precondition of intelligibility to all things, and that it presses the antithesis between Christian and non-Christian thought. This is a lie, because then they insist with great vehemence that non-Christian principles such as the reliability of sensation, induction, and science are consistent with biblical principles.
Rather than rejecting these false principles, they embrace them. According to them, the difference is that the non-Christian cannot "account for" these principles, but the Christian can do so on the basis of biblical presuppositions. But since these non-Christian principles are inherently irrational and false, this means that they force biblical presuppositions to "account for," in a sense that approves of and thus validates, false principles and propositions. When they are challenged on this, some of them would even state that these non-Christian principles constitute the precondition for knowing the biblical principles. For example, the reliability of sensation has become for them the precondition for the knowledge of revelation.
Therefore, contrary to their claim, the first principle and the ultimate authority of their worldview is not divine revelation, but human sensation. Thus their philosophy is that non=Christian presuppositions provide the precondition of intelligibility to Christian principles. This is the opposite of what they claim for their method. Since this amounts to an attack against the Christian faith, either they were never interested in defending it in the first place, or in answering the fool according to his folly, they have committed themselves to the fool's premises, and they have become like him. They have become stupid people.
As long as the classical arguments are regarded as positive proofs, as if they can in fact demonstrate the truth, rather than as only destructive or ad hominem arguments, then their use also commits this error. Both classical apologetics and pseudo-presuppositional apologetics fail in that they assume non-Christian principles, not only for the sake of argument in order to refute them, but as true principles in order to prove the Christian faith or to promote a synthesis between biblical and non-biblical thought.
But we can avoid this. We do not have to answer the non-Christian in accordance with his principles. We can refuse to accept the premises of a fool, and we can refuse to reason like a stupid person. Instead, from the infallible foundation of God's revelation, we can deduce an infallible and comprehensive system of knowledge. This is the positive aspect of biblical philosophy and apologetics.
Nevertheless, without becoming like the fool, we can assume his premises to see where they lead.[28] This is different from classical apologetics and pseudo-presuppositionalism. Practitioners of classical apologetics embrace the non-biblical premises as true and argue on that basis. Practitioners of pseudo-presuppositionalism pretend to adopt revelation as their first principle, but in reality they embrace non-biblical presuppositions just as tenaciously as non-Christians do, claiming that revelation "accounts for" them – that is, they make sense of, validates, and justifies them. They even make some of these false principles, including the reliability of sensation, the precondition for the knowledge of revelation. They claim to "press the antithesis," but in reality they press a synthesis between biblical and non-biblical principles, between truth and falsehood, Christ and Satan. In contrast, we take up the non-Christian's premises only in a temporary manner, and it is done only for the sake of argument, with the express intention to refute all of them.
We contend that science is irrational, so that it fails as a means to discover the truth about reality, but then we can also show that scientific reasoning favors the Christian faith more than any other worldview, and that it inflicts damage upon non-Christian beliefs and values. We can formulate historical arguments against the non-Christian, while knowing that his method of historical investigation prevents any knowledge of history in the first place. This is the negative aspect of biblical apologetics, and it can accommodate empirical and scientific arguments. Again, these arguments cannot demonstrate the positive truth about anything, but they can show that the non-Christians assume premises that work against themselves.
This dual strategy works against all non-Christian worldviews, including non-biblical religions. It makes little difference whether the non-Christian worldview is atheism, agnosticism, communism, nihilism, Buddhism, Mormonism, Islam, or any other system of thought. The method is the same. Since the Bible is true, and since it condemns all other religions, then all non-biblical religions are declared false by the same infallible authority that declares the Bible to be true. Anyone who challenges this must disprove the Bible, at which point the Christian may employ the transcendental and presuppositional arguments to defend his faith and to destroy the non-Christian's position.
We can demonstrate that the non-Christian religion is self-contradictory. Or, we can show that it cannot accommodate some of the ethical values that he treasures, but that they can exist in a coherent manner only in the biblical worldview. For example, Buddhism asserts certain ethical principles, but it lacks any rational and authoritative foundation to support them. They exist in an arbitrary manner in that worldview. Then, if a non-Christian religion affirms a secular method of historical investigation, we can use it to come up with findings that expose the historical errors of this religion. If a religion accepts the scientific method, then we can use the scientific method to refute it. Again, science commits the triple fallacy of empiricism, induction, and experimentation, that is, the fallacy of affirming the consequent. So science can prove nothing. But we can assume it for the sake of argument to refute a system of thought that accepts science as reliable.
The Christian uses both positive and negative argumentation to defend his faith, and to confound the non-Christian. Paul writes:
The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:4-5)
Every Christian has a duty to defend his faith and to destroy the non-Christian's beliefs. As Peter writes, "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15). And Jude says, "I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints." The biblical strategy, with the presuppositional argument as the central thrust, equips the Christian to "demolish arguments" and "take captive every thought" even when confronting the most crafty and hostile enemies.
How should we regard the non-Christian? Psalm 14:1 says, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" Of course, the Bible would not call a person foolish for rejecting Zeus, Allah, Buddha, and other false gods and religions, since the Bible itself rejects them. The word "God" here is used in a specific sense, as referring only to the God that the Bible teaches. A person is stupid if he rejects this God. Anyone is stupid if he rejects the Christian God, or God as the Bible describes him. Whether or not they are religious, all nonChristians by definition reject the Christian God. Therefore, the biblical teaching is that all non-Christians are stupid.
Romans 1:22-25 confirms this: "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles….They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator…." Thus the Bible calls all non-Christians stupid, whether they are atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Catholics, or Muslims. Psalm 53:2 suggests that anyone who does not seek God lacks understanding: "God looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God." Again, the Bible recognizes only one God as true, and so to seek after some kind of God, or some general deity or religion, does not count. Unless a person seeks the Christian God – unless a person believes in the Christian faith – he has no understanding. Verse 4 says that the "workers of iniquity" have "no knowledge" (KJV). Non-Christians are stupid and ignorant.
On the other hand, Scripture teaches, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding" (Psalm 111:10). Proverbs 9:10 says, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." Thus Christians have wisdom and understanding. They are intelligent people. But since the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, and the Bible acknowledges only the Christian God, this means that non-Christians have not even started to have wisdom. They do not have even a little of it. They are completely unintelligent and uneducated.
The Bible says that it is because of their "wickedness" that non-Christians "suppress the truth" (Romans 1:18) about the existence and the attributes of God, even though he has put into their minds an inescapable revelation about himself, and even though the created world and the revealed word testify about him. Paul writes, "They know about God, but they don't honor him or even thank him. Their thoughts are useless, and their stupid minds are in the dark. They claim to be wise, but they are fools" (Romans 1:21-22, CEV). Read it again: "Their stupid minds are in the dark." This is what the Bible says, and what God thinks, about non-Christians, about those who do not believe in him, and who do not honor him, thank him, and worship him. All Christians are obligated to have this opinion of nonChristians. Either we think that all non-Christians are stupid and in the dark, or we call God a liar.
The biblical assessment of non-Christians is that they are both stupid and sinful. They are intellectually and ethically inferior. They demonstrate their lack of intellectual aptitude in failing to agree with the Christian faith. And in denying the Christian faith despite the innate knowledge that God has placed in their minds and despite the irrefutable arguments of biblical apologetics, they show that they are not only intellectual ostriches but that they actively suppress the truth about God. This is wickedness at its worst. Paul writes, "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness" (Romans 1:18).
We were at one time also "alienated from God and were enemies in [our] minds" (Colossians 1:21), but God has reconciled us to himself through Jesus Christ (v. 22). In contrast, non-Christians are "separate from Christ…without hope and without God in the world" (Ephesians 2:12). Paul writes, "The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel" (2 Corinthians 4:4), and the preaching of the gospel is to "open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith" (Acts 26:18).
The Bible describes non-Christians as contemptible, entirely useless and pathetic. We were also in such a condition. If left to ourselves, we would have remained in ignorance and wickedness. It was only by God's grace in choosing us to hear and to believe the gospel that we were enlightened to the truth, and brought to faith in Jesus Christ. Now we are no longer spiritual rubbish, but useful citizens of God's kingdom. Therefore, when we say that non-Christians are fools, we do not mean that we have always been wise, or that we were any better in ourselves, but it is only by God's sovereign election that we have been saved from a state of stupidity and futility. We did not become Christians because we had the wisdom to know truth by our own ability, but we were given this wisdom because God chose us to become Christians, to be rescued from sin and hellfire through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Knowing this, there is no room for arrogance, but we are grateful to God for our salvation, and we labor so that others may be saved as well.
In any case, it remains that the Bible characterizes all non-Christians as stupid and sinful. Thus Christians must regard non-Christians as intellectually and ethically inferior. Of course non-Christians may think that this is an unkind and offensive assessment, but Christians must not think like them. Since the Bible teaches that non-Christians are stupid and sinful, and to be a Christian is to believe the Bible, then to be a Christian is to believe that all non-Christians are stupid and sinful. Therefore, unless we are ready to renounce God and the Scripture, we must say with Anselm, "Why then did 'the Fool say in his heart, there is no God'…unless because he was stupid and a fool?"
The divine attributes are God's characteristics, the sum of which constitutes the definition of who he is. The KNOWABILITY of God is the first issue. Since God is infinitely greater than human beings, the question arises as to whether we can understand him. We answer that because God made man according to the divine image, then no matter the difference between God and man, there is a point of contact between them so that communication is possible. The fact that God has chosen to speak to us through the Bible means that human language is sufficient, and so it is possible to obtain reliable and detailed information about God from his verbal revelation.
It is self-refuting to argue that man cannot know God due to the difference between the two, because the statement itself assumes considerable knowledge about God. A person who says that God is unknowable is asserting a piece of information about the very essence of God. But if God is indeed unknowable, then no one can know that he is unknowable. The fact that we have the idea of God in our minds and that we can debate the question demonstrate that God must be knowable.
It is likewise self-refuting to say that human language is insufficient to communicate information about the things of God, because the statement itself communicates a piece of information about the things of God. This piece of information is that the things of God are such that human language cannot adequately describe them or refer to them. But since this piece of information itself describes and refers to the very essence of the things of God, it refutes itself.
Language is always adequate. To illustrate, we can use "X" to designate any idea or combination of ideas, and it will always be adequate, since words are only arbitrary symbols that can refer to anything. The question is whether human beings have the ability to think about God, not whether words are adequate to talk about him. And God has made human beings in his own image, they can indeed think about God, talk about God, and understand God.
The Bible teaches that God has revealed himself through the words of Scripture. Nothing more is needed to settle the issue. It establishes that God is knowable and that human language is sufficient. God is able to tell us about himself, and we are able to understand what he tells us.
Having determined that God is knowable, the next question concerns how much we can know about him. Since God has revealed all that is in the Bible, and since at least in principle it is possible to understand all of the Bible and all its logical implications, this represents the minimum of what we can know about God in this life. If we add to this the fact that we will endlessly learn more and more about God after this life, the extent of the knowledge of God possible to us is, to put it mildly, considerable. In fact, since it is unlikely that anyone will learn all of the Bible and all of its implications in his lifetime, if for no other reason than that the human life span is rather short, we are rightly suspicious of those theologians who seem so obsessed with imposing limitations on the knowledge of God on the rest of us.
The Bible indeed teaches the INCOMPREHENSIBILITY of God, but not in the sense asserted by most theologians. Psalm 145:3 says that "no one can fathom" his greatness, and the apostle Paul writes in Romans 11:33, "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!" It is noteworthy that the statement by Paul is made after he has clearly and definitely answered every question he has raised about God, man, and the plan of salvation to that point in the letter to the Romans. God is incomprehensible only in the sense that there is always more to know, and not that we cannot know. Still more ridiculous is the usual view that we cannot even know or understand that which he has plainly revealed in the Bible.
God is infinite and we are finite; therefore, we can never know everything about God. But just because we cannot know everything about God does not mean that we cannot know anything about him, and to know him in an accurate and definite manner. In our context, to "comprehend" means to have an exhaustive understanding, so that there remains nothing more to know. In this sense, it is impossible for finite beings to comprehend an infinite being. No matter how much about God we come to know, there will always be more about him to know.
Since God is infinite, it is possible to make an infinite number of true propositions about him. On the other hand, we are finite, and we can process only a limited number of propositions at any time. Therefore, it would be impossible for us to know an infinite number of propositions, since there will always be more to know. This limitation will remain even after the resurrection of believers. Although our intellectual capabilities will be vastly enhanced, we will remain finite, and therefore God will remain inexhaustible to us.
That said, it remains that we can know much about God. We can know and understand all that the Bible asserts and implies about him. Jeremiah 9:24 says that a person can know and understand God's very character, that he is one "who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth." The doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God does not nullify the possibility of true and abundant knowledge about him by finite human beings. Rather, the more we think about his incomprehensibility, the more we are reminded of the abundance of information that he has already revealed to us in the Bible, and how even that source of information will not be exhausted in this life.
Thus although we acknowledge God's incomprehensibility as a corollary to his greatness and immensity, it is not something that imposes any real limitation upon us. There is certainly an ontological difference between a library with too many books to read in a person's lifetime and a library with an infinite number of books, but there is no practical difference. To say that the library is mysterious or that we cannot understand any of the books in the library because it has an infinite number of books, therefore, is just wrong and stupid.
What about the argument that each book in the library is too profound to understand? This represents the view that not only is revelation so extensive that there is no way to make contact with all of it, but we cannot even understand what we do have contact with. The simple answer is that theologians have no right to speak for us. If they insist that they are too stupid to understand any part of the Bible, then that is their problem, but unless there is a biblical basis – a biblical basis that they can understand? – they cannot impose this limitation on the rest of humanity.
Since the Bible itself does not teach the view that all of its doctrines or propositions are too profound for finite minds to understand, it is merely a human invention to flaunt one's false humility or to excuse himself from affirming what is plainly written. And since this represents the traditional doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God, we must denounce it as a false and damnable doctrine. It dishonors God and deceives his people. Instead, we say that God speaks to us in the Bible, and he speaks in a way that we can understand. If we had the time, the diligence, and the grace, in principle we could learn all of it. This is the only view that honors God and the Scripture, that liberates the people of God to enjoy and worship him, and it makes clear that the whole world is obligated to believe and obey the book – all of it.
We must overturn any theologian that appeals to God's incomprehensibility in order to negate God's knowability. Although we cannot possess exhaustive knowledge about him, we can indeed possess true knowledge – a whole lot of true knowledge – about him. Whatever God reveals to us in the words of the Bible is true, and we have true knowledge about God to the extent that we know and understand these words.
I may know a person's name or age without knowing anything else about him, but this does not mean that my limited knowledge about him is false. It is true that the more that I know about a person, the better I will understand what I already know about him; however, what I already know about him is nevertheless true. By obtaining additional information about a person, I acquire a richer context from which to understand the backgrounds and implications of what I already know, such as his name or age, but my knowledge about his name or age was true even before I obtained the additional information. Likewise, although we do not have exhaustive knowledge about God, what we know about him from the Bible is nevertheless reliable and accurate, and complete as far as it goes.
Christians who do not grasp certain biblical doctrines sometimes give up by calling them "mysteries," but the knowability of God warns us against doing this. This tendency to label biblical doctrines as mysteries exposes a defect in their mentality. It often stems from a misunderstanding of the nature of revelation, or even a slothful or rebellious attitude toward the Scripture. Perhaps the person indeed understands the doctrine, but he refuses to accept it. Since he cannot deny the biblical basis of the doctrine, he calls it a mystery so that he does not have to affirm it.
For example, many people regard the doctrine of divine election as a mystery. However, since the Bible teaches the doctrine and tells us what to think about it, we should not call it a mystery, but instead a plain doctrine that all Christians must affirm. A doctrine like divine election that has been revealed and explained is not a mystery.[29] Since God has revealed a large amount of information on the topic, it is a clear teaching that demands universal acceptance. A person who closes his eyes to the Bible and insists on calling the doctrine a mystery is in blatant defiance against divine revelation. It is not that he does not understand it, but that he does not want to accept it, but he is too dishonest to admit it and too afraid to tell God to his face.
Refusing to understand or accept anything that the Bible teaches is to insult the God who has given us the priceless gift of revelation. The obsession with the incomprehensibility of God is not a sign of reverence for him, but of unbelief and disobedience. This tendency should not be equated with piety, and should not be encouraged among believers, but it ought to be spurned, rebuked, and destroyed.[30]
We proceed to examine other divine attributes, beginning with those that elaborate on the form of God's existence, or his metaphysical attributes. The NECESSITY of God is one such attribute. It refers to the fact that he exists by logical necessity.
When the Bible talks about "God," it does not refer to some generic deity, but its idea of God is specific and clearly defined. And when a Christian says, "God exists," he should not have in mind a general idea of some supreme being, but he should have in mind the God that the Bible talks about, and he should believe that this God is as the Bible says he is. Otherwise, what he says would not correspond to the Bible on whose basis he makes the statement. Thus Christians should not attempt to defend a general theism, but a definite biblical idea of God.
In fact, there is no such thing as general theism, since any theistic outlook is always tied to a worldview, so that there is Christian theism, Islamic theism, and other varieties. They all disagree on what the "theistic" God is like. Therefore, a person cannot argue for theism alone to make all theistic religions possible, and then proceed to argue for other claims within a particular theistic worldview. Since each worldview has a unique view of God, one must argue for his own view of God (which already means that he must argue for his worldview as a whole), and not a general God that several worldviews can accept, because there is no such thing. Therefore, to establish the existence of the Christian God does not serve Islam or Mormon interests at all. In fact, establishing the existence of the Christian God automatically refutes Islam and Mormonism, since their views of God are incompatible.
God exists in every possible world. A "possible world" is reality as it could be, in which any contingent being or event can be otherwise. For example, it is possible for a given person to be taller than he is, and it is possible for a certain car to be red instead of green. Any reality that does not contain a contradiction is a possible world; that is, possible relative to the imagination (as in what is conceivable in the mind), and not relative to God's decree (as in what God has in fact determined). Since God's decree has determined all things, so that nothing can be different than what has been determined, from this perspective only one reality is possible. In any case, a statement like 2 + 2 = 4 is true in every possible world, and 1 + 1 = 10 is false in every possible world. To say that God's existence is a logical necessity means that the proposition, "God does not exist" entails a contradiction in this and every other possible reality. This conclusion is the necessary implication of the Bible's description of God's attributes and God's relation to his creation.
Some people maintain that God does not exist by logical necessity, but only by factual necessity in our reality. Since our claim is that he exists by logical necessity in every possible world, we agree that he also exists by factual necessity in this reality. However, given what we know to be true about God, it is inadequate to say that he exists only by factual necessity in this reality, and that he may not exist by logical necessity in other possible worlds. The presuppositional argument and the transcendental argument render any reality inconceivable unless the Christian worldview is presupposed.
God is an uncaused being, and since he is the creator, sustainer, and controller of all things, he existed before all things. He sustains his own being, and he is not dependent on anything. This is the ASEITY of God, sometimes called his SELF-EXISTENCE or INDEPENDENCE. He exists "from himself,"[31] and does not depend on anything outside of himself for his existence. God is self-contained, and exists not by some foreign power, but by his very own nature.
The Bible says that "the Father has life in himself" (John 5:26), but our existence is dependent on the will and power of God: "For in him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). Revelation 4:11 says, "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being." Paul says in Acts 17:25 that God "is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything," but that he is the one who "gives all men life and breath and everything else."
The divine name that God revealed to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM" (Exodus 3:14), points to his self-existence. It also suggests that God exists in an eternal state. He created time itself, and he is independent of it. This attribute of God's existence is called his ETERNITY or TIMELESSNESS. Genesis 21:33 says that he is "the Eternal God." The Book of Psalms reveals that he is "from everlasting to everlasting" (41:13), and that he is "from all eternity" (93:2). Peter writes, "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (2 Peter 3:8).
God's eternal nature implies that all knowledge is an eternal intuition to him. There is a succession of ideas in the mind of man. He reasons from premises to conclusions, a process that occurs in time and as a succession of ideas in the mind. But since God is timeless, no proposition is chronologically considered before another proposition, so that all propositions are before his mind as one eternal intuition or thought. Therefore, God thinks without mental associations or a succession of ideas. He thinks by pure intuition, since all knowledge is simultaneously present before him, including facts that pertain to our future.
This does not mean that logic is inapplicable to God or that logic is different to him. Logic is the same to God as it is to us, but because he is eternal and omniscient, his thinking is not characterized by a succession of ideas. Since all his thoughts are simultaneously present, all premises and conclusions are simultaneously present before his mind. This does not affect the logical relations between these premises and conclusions. He knows these relations, and they are the same to him as they are to us.
When he translates his thoughts into words, as he does in the Bible, the thoughts that are simultaneously present in his mind are arranged into a succession of ideas, in their logical order, and written down. His presentation follows the principles of logic, which proceed from his rational nature. As the Bible says, in the beginning was the Word – that is, logos, which means logic, reason, wisdom, and so on – and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Thus this view of logic is not based on speculation, but since the Bible is the word of God, the whole book shows us how God expresses himself in words. Moreover, the Son of God took on human flesh, entered the realm of time, and lived among us. The biblical account of him shows that he articulated his thoughts in intelligible speech, arranged in accordance with the principles of logic. Therefore, although God's thinking does not consist in a succession of ideas, we know that it can accurately translate into propositions and arranged as a succession of ideas, so that even though his thoughts are higher than our thoughts, he can speak to us so that we may think his thoughts.
Some people insist that our mental makeup is so different that logic itself is different with God. They assert that there is "human logic" and there is "God's logic," and the arguments of human logic may not apply to God. But this betrays a misunderstanding of logic. Logic does not consist of arbitrary or invented rules, but of the necessary principles of thought. Its purpose is not only to make communication convenient; rather, if there is any thinking at all, the laws of logic apply by necessity.
Man did not invent logic, but logic came from God, and we have some grasp of logic and perceive its necessity because God thinks in accordance with the principles of logic, and he has made us in his own image. God thinks in accordance with the principles of logic not because he is subservient to a set of rules that are higher than himself; rather, the principles of logic are descriptions of the way God thinks. They are descriptions of his rational nature.
Thus to say that logic is higher than God would be analogous to saying that omnipotence is higher than God. Or, to say that if God thinks in accordance with logic, then he would be subservient to logic, is analogous to saying that if God were to be omnipotent, then he would be subservient to omnipotence. No, he is omnipotence. Omnipotence is his nature; it is not something other than, external to, or contingent to him. The word is a description of his power. Likewise, God is logic, truth, wisdom, rationality, and so on. These things are not higher or lower than God – they are God. They are descriptions that emphasize the intellectual aspect of the divine nature.
Therefore, there is in fact no such thing as human logic, but God's logic is the only kind of logic, and when we think in accordance with the laws of logic, we imitate the operation of his mind. Besides, to argue that "human logic" does not apply to God is to use human logic to say something about God, which is self-refuting. If human logic is inapplicable to him, then one can never say so and expect to make sense at the same time. Logic is of God, and it is either God's logic, or no logic at all.
The IMMUTABILITY of God follows from his eternity. Since there is no "before" or "after" with God, he remains the same in his being and character. This attribute is also associated with his perfection. If God is perfect in every way, then any change in him must be for the worse. But since he is immutable, he cannot change for the worse. And since he is already perfect in every way, he has no need to change or develop.
Psalm 102:25-27 says that, although the physical universe undergoes decay and will perish, God remains the same:
In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.
God says in Malachi 3:6, "I the LORD do not change." And he says in Isaiah 46:11, "What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do," and Psalm 33:11 says, "the plans of the LORD stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations." Numbers 23:19 says, "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?" And James writes that God does not "change like shifting shadows" (James 1:17). God remains the same not only in his being and character, but all his thoughts and decrees stay the same.
The immutability of God implies the IMPASSIBILITY of God. This means that God is without "passions" – emotions or feelings. Less thoughtful believers protest against the doctrine, since they misapply biblical passages that seem to describe a God who experiences emotions such as grief, joy, and wrath (Psalm 78:40; Isaiah 62:5; Revelation 19:15).
Passages that appear to ascribe emotions to God are anthropopathisms. Opponents of divine impassibility argue that this is to avoid the obvious teaching of Scripture. It dismisses as anthropopathism what we do not wish to associate with God. However, these same people would agree that those biblical references that ascribe to God bodily parts such as hands and eyes are anthropomorphisms. Those who think that God really has a physical body should not even be considered Christians. Therefore, one must not reject anthropopathism as an explanation without good reason.
Since the Bible teaches that God is spirit and that he has no form (John 4:24 and Deuteronomy 4:12, 15), any passage that speaks about God as if he has a body is obviously figurative. When they are understood this way, both kinds of passages make good sense, whereas to interpret them in the opposite direction would not. That is, if it is thought that God has a physical body, then those passages that say he is spirit and that he has no form would generate confusion, if not outright contradiction. And this problem would arise because they are not supposed to be interpreted this way.
The Bible is consistent in this. When it talks about God's being, it teaches that he is spirit and that he has no form. When it talks about his ability and his work, it sometimes uses anthropomorphisms, so that it refers to his hands, arms, eyes, ears, and so on. The former refers to what he is, and the latter refers to what he does. The difference is very definite and easy to perceive. In fact, given those passages that tell us about the being of God, it would be heretical to interpret the other passages as teaching that God has a body. Likewise, given what the Bible tells us about the being of God, it would be heretical to say that he has emotions that resemble human feelings and fluctuations.
The view that God experiences emotions like men appear to entail a number of contradictions:
A man may become angry against his will in the sense that he does not choose to become angry, and he does not choose to experience whatever causes the anger, but that the "trigger" incites this emotion in him against his preference. This applies to human experiences of joy, fear, grief, and so on. Although one may develop a remarkable level of self-control by the power of the Scripture and the Holy Spirit, it remains that a person's volition and emotion do not maintain an exact relationship. His emotional state is not always exactly the way he wishes or decides it to be. However, this cannot be true with God even if he were to experience emotions, because such lack of self-control contradicts his omniscience, sovereignty, and immutability.
Since God is omniscient, he cannot be surprised, and this at least eliminates certain ways of experiencing emotions. Suppose I become angry because a man insults me at this very moment. It is unlikely that I would still be angry two thousand years in the future. And if I had known two thousand years in the past that he would insult me today, it is unlikely that I would become angry by the time he does it. In fact, if I have had two thousand years to consider his insult, by the time he actually does it, I might not react at all.
Perhaps the reply is that all facts are simultaneously present to God, so that the insult that angers him is always happening "now." But this would imply that God must be angry about this one insult throughout eternity, and not just when it happens. If so, then God's emotions would not offer us the kind of interactivity that proponents of divine emotions are after. In any case, suppose something happens that alleviates this anger. Of course, the only way is forgiveness through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. But since God knows Christ's sacrifice just as well as the man's insult, we are at a loss as to whether he is ever angry or not. The mental experiment results in absurdity, because the truth is that God is not like man, because he is not a man.
Then, if an action of mine can cause anger in God in a similar way that I can cause anger in a man, then this means that I can cause anger in God by my power. To the degree that he lacks self-control, he is helpless against my efforts to cause anger in him. Likewise, if an action of mine can produce joy in God in a similar way that I can produce joy in a man, then this means that I have the ability to produce joy in God at will. In this manner, I would exercise a significant measure of control over God. But this contradicts his sovereignty and immutability.
The matter becomes much more complex when we take into account that he knows all the thoughts and actions of his creatures in all of history simultaneously. But it is enough to consider all the billions of people who anger him at any point in time, and the thousands or at least hundreds of people who please him at the same time. How is it possible for him to be angry with two billion people in a sense like man's anger and pleased with two hundred people, also in the human sense, at the same time? If the answer is that God's mind is immense, so that he is not subject to human limitations, then our point is also established. There is no warrant to say that God is extremely similar to man in some ways, as if bound by many of man's limitations, but that he is completely superior to man in other ways, as if he has none of man's limitations.
Therefore, some form of divine impassibility is necessary. If God is angered by our sins, it is only because he wills to be angered by them, and not because his mental state is subject to our will or beyond his control. Even if God has emotions, they are under his control, and they will never compromise his divine attributes. And since they cannot compromise the divine attributes, this also means that even if he has emotions, he does not have them in a way that is similar to man. But then we wonder why we would still call them emotions. Thus at least in this sense and to this extent, we must affirm that God is without passions.
Christians who have been influenced by modern psychology and philosophy are eager to defend emotions, both in man and in God. Although they might acknowledge that those biblical passages that refer to God as if he has a physical body are instances of anthropomorphism, they refuse to admit that those passages that refer to God as if he has emotions are instances of anthropopathism. However, they have been unable to offer an excuse for this hypocrisy.
The dictionary defines "emotion" as "disturbance, excitement; the affective aspect of consciousness; a state of feeling; a psychic and physical reaction (as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong feeling and physiologically involving changes that prepare the body for immediate vigorous action."[32] The word originally refers to a disturbance of the mind. Although this meaning is now obsolete in colloquial speech, even in common usage, it remains a "psychic and physical reaction." In my view, a definition of emotion should include the idea of a disturbance of the mind that may interfere with the normal process of rational thought. The disturbance itself does not carry a negative connotation, but it is a description of what happens, although a disturbance of the mind would, of course, often produce negative consequences.
Contrary to popular teaching, the Bible never says that the mind consists of the will, intellect, and emotion. This division originates from secular psychology, not biblical psychology. Under this scheme, the will, intellect, and emotion are distinct parts of the mind, so that the mind is only real as the aggregate of the three. Since they are related but independent, there is no necessary relationship between the development of each part. Thus Christians who assume this framework would often say that a person must not only develop his intellect, but that he must also develop his emotion. But if this framework is false, then the recommendation tells us to do something that cannot be done, since it assumes a division in the mind that does not exist. The result is a perverted spiritual development.
The Bible teaches that the inward part of man is the mind. The will and emotion are not things in themselves, but merely functions of the mind. To illustrate, digestion is not an organ apart from or within the stomach, but the stomach is the physical organ, and digestion is the function of this organ. Likewise, the mind is the inward and incorporeal part of man. Sometimes it becomes disturbed, and a disturbance of the mind affects how it thinks, often in a negative way. Therefore, the emotion is not good in itself. Although the Bible does not call all emotions sinful, many emotions can indeed be sinful, and sinful emotions often lead to other sins:
Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it." (Genesis 4:6-7)
Christians do not need more emotions; they need more self-control. The Bible contains not nearly as many emotional words or phrases as people want to believe. Some people may even misinterpret the contentment in Philippians 4:12 as an emotional satisfaction, that is, before they realize that it is a Stoic word denoting indifference. And is "happy" even an emotion in the Bible? Love is not an emotion in the Bible, but a volition. The spiritual man is marked by self-control, and has achieved mastery over his emotions. The mind of God is so integrated that he does only what he wills. As we increase in faith and holiness, our emotion should increasingly come under our conscious control, so that we become excited because we decide to become excited, become angry because we decide to become angry, and we can stop when we decide to stop.
Jesus experienced emotions, but what can we infer from this? He also experienced hunger and fatigue (Matthew 21:18; Luke 4:2; John 4:6), but this only proves that the Son of God took upon himself a human nature. Just as Jesus in his divine nature did not experience hunger or fatigue, he in his divine nature did not experience emotions. Only his human nature experienced hunger, fatigue, and emotions. Those instances when he experienced emotions were indeed disturbances of the mind (Mark 14:34), and since Hebrews 4:15 says that he never sinned, we conclude that not every disturbance of the mind is sinful. However, it is invalid to infer from this that emotions are good, or that it should not be restrained or suppressed. Therefore, the fact that Jesus experienced emotions only proves that he possessed a human nature and that not every disturbance of the mind is sinful.
On the other hand, the Gospels show that Jesus was always in full control of himself. He was so disturbed before his arrest that he bled through his skin, but he never lost control. He was able to pray to God, to resolve to fulfill his will, and to rebuke his disciples for falling asleep. He was under intense pressure, but he retained full control of his mental and physical functions. Sometimes things happen that disturb us, but to be disturbed in the mind is not part of sanctification. A person is not holy or spiritual just because his mind fluctuates like the waves of the ocean. Rather, Christ's self-control in the face of the most disturbing circumstances – his faith to walk on the stormy waters – is what his followers ought to emulate.
We have introduced the UNITY of God by implication. God is not divided into parts, but he exists as an eternal whole with all of his attributes as one and inseparable. This is sometimes called his SIMPLICITY, since God is not complex or divided.
Although one portion of Scripture may emphasize a divine attribute, and another portion may emphasize a different attribute, this does not mean that God's attributes are truly separable. It does not mean that one attribute can override another, that one is more important than another, or that one more closely expresses God's essence than another. The Bible teaches that God is his attributes: 1 John 1:5 says, "God is light," and 1 John 4:16 says, "God is love." Therefore, God is not a being who is love with light as an attribute, or vice versa; rather, he is love and light, justice and mercy, power and wisdom, and so on.
Further, we should not think of God as emphasizing a certain attribute during one period in history, and then a different attribute during another period. Many people think that God emphasizes his wrath in the Old Testament and emphasizes his mercy in the New Testament. This is an outrageous misconception. It is the Old Testament that says, "His love endures forever" (Psalm 136), and it is the New Testament that says, "It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:31). The unity of God means that he is both merciful and wrathful at all times, and that all his attributes exist in perfect harmony. He has always been merciful to his elect and wrathful to the reprobates, whether in the Old or New Testament.
The SPIRITUALITY of God is another metaphysical attribute. Jesus says, "God is spirit" (John 4:24). He is incorporeal; he has no physical body. In Deuteronomy 4:15-16, Moses says to the people of Israel, "You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman." God has "no form"; therefore, Moses forbids anyone from constructing an image that purports to resemble God's appearance, not even one that is in the form of a man.
If it is forbidden to construct a physical image of God because he has no form, then it is also forbidden to suppose that God has a form in our theology. Rather, we must think of him only as incorporeal spirit. More than a few people, who claim to be Christians, have succumbed to the teaching that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit have bodies. But it is heresy; it is a pagan doctrine rather than a Christian one. Rather, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit do not have bodies. And although God the Son has taken up a human body his divine attributes are not mingled or confused with the human attributes. So, to illustrate, God the Son is omnipresent in his divine nature, but his human nature is not omnipresent.
Since the Bible teaches that God is spirit and that he has no form, any passage that speaks about God as if he has a body is obviously figurative. When they are understood this way, both kinds of passages make good sense, whereas to interpret them in the opposite direction would not. That is, if it is thought that God has a physical body, then those passages that say he is spirit and that he has no form would generate confusion, if not outright contradiction. And this problem would arise because they are not supposed to be interpreted this way.
For example, 2 Chronicles 16:9 says, "For the eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him." To infer from this that God has physical eyes would contradict the passages that speak about the nature of his being, that he is spirit and that he has no form. Moreover, to say that God sees with physical eyes would compromise his omniscience, since then he would not see the things and places where his eyes are not looking. And if we assume an unreliable scientific explanation for the moment, our eyes do not work by themselves, but they are organs that work with our brain and optical nerves as they interpret reflected light. For his physical eyes to be useful, God must then also have a brain, optical nerves, a spinal cord – just like a man. This is indeed what some heresies maintain, but it contradicts the doctrines of divine transcendence and invisibility (1 Timothy 1:17; Job 9:11). For God to gain knowledge by the interpretation of reflected light would also make it possible for him to be misled by optional illusions, mirages, and so on, as men often are misled. Thus the false interpretation of 2 Chronicles 16:9 results in absurdities and contradictions. The verse is figurative, and the point is that God is aware of all that happens on the earth.
Another example comes from Isaiah 66:1, where God says, "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool." Some people insist that we take passages like this "literally." But then God's legs would have to be just that long – the length of his legs would be the distance between heaven and earth. How then could he have said, "I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling" (2 Samuel 7:6), since the tent would have been too small for him? Some versions of this heresy – that God has a body – assert that he is of a similar height as a man. But this would contradict the verse in Isaiah, since no man is taller than several feet. It would be impossible to interpret both Isaiah 66:1 and 2 Samuel 7:6 as referring to a physical body. Rather, it is more natural and accurate to understand biblical passages ascribing bodily parts to God as anthropomorphic.
Then, consider Luke 11:20: "But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you." Jesus says that he casts out demons by "the finger of God," and so it seems to some that God has a hand with fingers. However, in the parallel passage of Matthew 12:28, Jesus says that he casts out demons "by the Spirit of God." Here one verse explains the other, and one verse restricts the way that the other verse can be interpreted. It is obvious that the finger of God is figurative of the Spirit of God, and not that God possesses bodily parts like human fingers.
The Bible is consistent in this. When it talks about God's being, it teaches that he is spirit and that he has no form. When it talks about his ability and his work, it sometimes uses anthropomorphisms, so that it refers to his hands, arms, eyes, ears, and so on. The former refers to what he is, and the latter refers to what he does. The difference is very definite and easy to perceive. And given those passages that tell us about the being of God, it would be heretical to interpret the other passages as teaching that God has a body.
God possesses each divine attribute in an unlimited way and to an unlimited extent. This is the INFINITY of God. Psalm 119:96 says, "To all perfection I see a limit; but your commands are boundless," and Psalm 147:5 says, "Great is our Lord, and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite" (NASB). God's attributes are infinite and boundless.
For example, the doctrine of divine omnipotence indicates that God possesses unlimited power. What is infinite is not greater than the finite only in degree, but also in kind. A person who has a billion times the wealth of another still operates within human limitations and the monetary system, but one who has infinite resources operates on an altogether different level. A person who lives a thousand times longer than another person is still mortal, but one who is immortal is not greater only in degree, but also in kind.
Therefore, the fact that God is infinite means that he is not just a greater version of ourselves. He is not a super-man, because he is not a man at all. His power and wisdom are infinitely greater than ours, not just much greater. An understanding of this fact ought to ignite the fear of God in us, and put an end to the flippant attitude that even Christians have toward God.
Even those who claim to love God often challenge his words and his ways. However, a true Christian does not defy God. Those who truly know God and love him would also fear him. Unlike those whom God rescued from Egypt but who murmured against him, we should heed the words of Ecclesiastes 5:2, "Do not be quick with your mouth, do not be hasty in your heart to utter anything before God. God is in heaven and you are on earth, so let your words be few."
The metaphysical attributes of God demonstrate his TRANSCENDENCE. Although divine transcendence means that God is "outside" of space and time, in fact it is not an idea that denotes his "location," since God is incorporeal. Rather, the emphasis is that God is independent of space and time, and not limited by them.
Nevertheless, the IMMANENCE of God reminds us that he is not distant from us in a way that makes personal attention and communication from him impossible. The Bible portrays a God who is involved in human history and individual lives. He is very different from and superior to us, but he is still able to interact with us. God is both transcendent and immanent, and these two attributes do not contradict or diminish each other.
Related to this is the OMNIPRESENCE of God. Although God is transcendent, his immanence is such that he is present everywhere. Psalm 139:7-10 says:
Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast.
This does not mean that God occupies every point in space, since he has no spatial dimensions. Yet God is indeed present everywhere in the sense that he knows all that occurs at every point in space, and can exercise his full power there. He is omnipresent because nothing can escape his awareness and control.
God is a TRINITY. There is only one God, and this God is Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. All the divine attributes apply to each member of the Godhead. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit fulfilled their unique roles at the baptism of Christ:
As soon as Jesus [God the Son] was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God [God the Spirit] descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven [God the Father] said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:16-17)
What is sometimes called the Trinitarian Benediction says, "May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all" (2 Corinthians 13:14).
Matthew 28:19 has a particular relevance to this doctrine: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." This verse does not say:
"…into the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
"…into the name of the Father, and into the name of the Son, and into the name of the Holy Spirit."
"…into the name of Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit."
The first two would imply that there are three separate beings. And since the third retains the word "name" in the singular, it does not make a clear distinction between the three persons. But Jesus does not state the command in any of these three ways. Rather, the verse says, "…into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each receives a definite article, thus indicating a clear distinction between the three, but the word "name" remains in the singular, thus indicating the essential unity and equality of the three.
Another text is 1 Peter 1:1-2. It assumes the Trinity and indicates the role each member plays in redemption:
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God's elect, strangers in the world…who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.
The historic doctrinal formulation of the Trinity says that God is "one in essence and three in person." The proposition entails no contradiction. For there to be a contradiction, we must affirm that "A is non-A." In our case, this translates into, "God is one and not one," "God is three and not three," "God is one in essence and three in essence," or "God is one in person and three in person." There is contradiction only if we affirm that God is one and not one or that God is one and three at the same time and in the same sense. However, the doctrine says that God is one in one sense and three in a different sense.
The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct "persons" because they represent three systems of consciousness. To illustrate, all three knew that Christ would die on the cross to save the chosen ones, but God the Father or God the Spirit did not think, "I will die on the cross to save the chosen ones." Instead, they thought, "He will" – that is, the Son – "die on the cross to save the chosen ones." On the other hand, God the Son affirmed the same thought in the first person: "I will die on the cross to save the chosen ones." Thus although all three members possess omniscience, they have different relationships to the known propositions.
The "essence" in the doctrinal formulation refers to the divine attributes, or the very definition of God. All three persons fulfill the definition of deity, but this does not become tritheism because the very definition of deity involves all three members, so that each member is not an independent deity. The only idea of God in the Bible is the Trinity – it never asserts a non-triune God. Thus when the Bible says that there is one God, it means that there is one Trinity.
The objections that the doctrine is self-contradictory and that it amounts to tritheism, therefore, entail a contrast between a biblical idea of God, where the one God is triune, and a non-biblical idea of God, where one God might mean a non-triune deity. In other words, to suggest that the doctrine teaches that God is one and three, and so contradicts itself, or that it teaches three deities, means that the biblical idea of God has already been ignored. And when an objection against a doctrine ignores what the doctrine teaches, it is an irrelevant objection. The Christian idea of God is bound to the Trinity. It affirms and assumes that God is a Trinity, and that there is only one Trinity – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.[33]
Other attacks on the Trinity sometimes deny the deity of one or more persons of the Godhead. Since the deity of the Father is not in dispute, and a later chapter will discuss the deity of Christ, here we will consider only the person and deity of the Holy Spirit.
In Acts 5:3-4, Peter says that Ananias has lied to the Holy Spirit, but one can lie only to a person. And he adds that in lying to this person, Ananias has lied to God. Thus the Holy Spirit is a person and he is God:
Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."
Matthew 12:31 says, "And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven," but only God can be blasphemed. Hebrews 9:14 calls the Holy Spirit the "eternal Spirit," but only God is eternal. These verses indicate that the Holy Spirit is God.
Additional passages on the deity of the Holy Spirit include:
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (Genesis 1:2)
Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? (Psalm 139:7)
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. (1 Corinthians 2:10-12)
Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? (1 Corinthians 3:16)
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? (1 Corinthians 6:19)
The passages cited at the beginning of this section on the Trinity imply the equality of the three persons, and thus the deity of both the Son and the Spirit (Matthew 3:16-17, Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14, 1 Peter 1:1-2).
There is a distinction of roles in the Trinity. The Bible portrays the Son as subordinate to the Father and the Holy Spirit as subordinate to the Father and the Son (John 14:28; 15:26). However, since the essential equality of the three members has been established, this subordination is only functional and occurs only by mutual consent. Although the Son performs the will of the Father, and the Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, the three persons are equal in essence.
This provides a basis to understand submission among human beings. Although all people are equal as human beings, God commands us to obey our leaders (Ephesians 5:23; Hebrews 13:17; Romans 13:5). This is not because the leaders are inherently or essentially superior as human beings, but because God has established authority structures within legitimate institutions such as the family, the church, and the state. So there are situations in which God requires one person to submit to another, but the two are equal in essence, or equal as human beings. Since it is God who ordains authority structures, a person's willing submission under his leaders is indicative of his love and obedience toward God.
Concluding our overview of God's metaphysical attributes, we now examine some of his other attributes, such as those that have to do with his intellect, character, and power.
The divine attributes are closely related to one another, and so it is unavoidable that we have already mentioned the OMNISCIENCE of God several times. The fact that God is omniscient means that he knows all propositions. Some people add that he also knows the relationships between all propositions. This is redundant because the relationships between propositions can be stated as propositions as well. It is also unnecessary to say that God knows which propositions are true or false, and which refer to actual or potential situations, since these can also be stated as propositions. Therefore, it is sufficient to say that divine omniscience means that God knows all propositions, and this is to affirm that God possesses all knowledge.
For us to "think through" something implies a process, or a succession of ideas in our mind where one thought leads to another. And the fact that our minds are finite means that we can hold only a limited number of propositions in our immediate consciousness at any moment. But since God is timeless, all knowledge exists before his mind as an eternal intuition. And since he possesses unlimited intellectual power, he is able to hold all propositions in his immediate consciousness at all times. Thus the mind of God perceives all things with exhaustive clarity and depth, including things that pertain to our future.
The Bible says, "Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account" (Hebrews 4:13). God is "perfect in knowledge" (Job 37:16), and he "[makes] known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come" (Isaiah 46:10).
His complete knowledge of everything includes our thoughts and intentions: "For a man's ways are in full view of the LORD, and he examines all his paths" (Proverbs 5:21); "the LORD searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts" (1 Chronicles 28:9); "I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds" (Revelation 2:23).
The omniscience of God makes it possible for the Christian's mind to become an altar of worship, constantly offering prayer and thanksgiving to God: "May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer" (Psalm 19:14); "The LORD detests the thoughts of the wicked, but those of the pure are pleasing to him" (Proverbs 15:26).
Additional passages on God's omniscience include:
O LORD, you have searched me and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways. Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD. (Psalm 139:1-4)
Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom. (Isaiah 40:28)
Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! (Romans 11:33)
An attribute related to divine omniscience is the WISDOM of God. To say that God is wise places emphasis on his exhaustive understanding of all things, his ability to make the best decisions, and the fact that he will always accomplish his purposes through the best means.
Paul says that he is "the only wise God" (Romans 16:27). Jeremiah teaches that God "founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding" (Jeremiah 10:12). Romans 11:33 indicates that his wisdom, as with his knowledge, is unlimited: "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!"
The OMNIPOTENCE of God refers to his unlimited power to create what he wills and to control his creation.
Non-Christians demands to know if God can create something that amounts to a contradiction. However, this is an unintelligent challenge because it suffers from a categorical fallacy, so that it is unintelligible and meaningless. To illustrate, it makes sense to ask "How big is your cat?" because size is a category that applies to physical objects like animals. It also makes sense to ask "How fast is your car?" and "How smart is your son?" However, it makes no sense to ask, "Is the color green fast or slow?" or "Is that rock smart or stupid?" Speed does not apply to color and intelligence does not apply to a rock. Green cannot be fast or slow; a rock cannot be smart or stupid.
This is the problem with the challenge as to whether God can create or perform a contradiction. It is supposed to pose a dilemma to the Christian for affirming the doctrine of divine omnipotence. Perhaps the most popular example is: "Can God create a rock so large or heavy that he cannot lift it?" The challenge commits a categorical fallacy, and betrays the non-Christian's lack of intelligence. God is incorporeal, so that physical forces do not act upon or against him at all. There is nothing to make the rock large or heavy to God, since size and weight bare no application to him. Whether the object is large or heavy to man is irrelevant. When God creates a rock, he will always be able to do anything he wants with it.
Something like "a square circle" is a contradiction. So the non-Christian asks, "Can God create a square circle?" But the category of ability does not apply to the creation of a contradiction, because a contradiction is not something to be created – a contradiction is nothing. Therefore, it is meaningless to ask whether God can create a square circle, because it is nothing to be done at all. God does not act contrary to his own will or nature, and he does not perform contradictions, since contradictions are nothing to be performed.[34]
God reveals himself as "God Almighty" to Abraham in Genesis 17:1. The creation account of Genesis 1-3 is no doubt a testimony to his unique abilities – not only is he capable of creating inanimate objects, but he has also created living things, with man as the crown of his creation. Psalm 115:3 says, "Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him." Job says to God, "I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted" (Job 42:2). And God says in Jeremiah 32:27, "I am the LORD, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?"
Other biblical passages on God's omnipotence include:
O LORD, God of our fathers, are you not the God who is in heaven? You rule over all the kingdoms of the nations. Power and might are in your hand, and no one can withstand you. (2 Chronicles 20:6)
If he snatches away, who can stop him? Who can say to him, "What are you doing?" (Job 9:12)
For the LORD Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him? His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back? (Isaiah 14:27)
I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior. I have revealed and saved and proclaimed – I, and not some foreign god among you. You are my witnesses…that I am God. Yes, and from ancient days I am he. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it? (Isaiah 43:11-13)
Ah, Sovereign LORD, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you. (Jeremiah 32:17)
All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: "What have you done?" (Daniel 4:35)
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God." (Mark 10:27)
For nothing is impossible with God. (Luke 1:37)
The LOVE of God is a favorite topic, but it is also one of the most abused and distorted Christian teaching. Although it is often said that "God is love" (1 John 4:8), very few people understand what this means. An adequate exposition of the doctrine will entail corrections to common misunderstandings.
It is popular to assume that the love of God is universal. The Bible says, "God does not show favoritism" (Romans 2:11); however, this means that God does not dispense his favor according to some irrelevant condition found in his creatures. The context of Romans 2:11 is not that "God loves everyone unconditionally," as many people say, but that he condemns all sinners whether they are Jews or Gentiles: "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law" (Romans 2:12). Likewise, Colossians 3:25 says, "Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism."
Then, Acts 10:34-35 states, "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right." This refers to a national or ethnic universality, that God has chosen some people to be saved from "every tribe and language and people and nation" (Revelation 5:9). It does not say that God accepts everyone no matter what, but that he accepts only those who approach him on his terms, and the Bible makes it clear that only those whom God has chosen for salvation are divinely enabled come to him in the prescribed manner, that is, through faith in Jesus Christ.
God chooses those whom he will save without consideration of any prior or foreseen condition in them, and then he supplies all the necessary things by which he makes them right with himself, such as faith in Christ. Therefore, it is accurate to say that God unconditionally loves the chosen ones; however, he does not unconditionally love everyone. It is true that God does not show favoritism, but this means that he condemns all reprobates and that he saves his chosen ones regardless of their ethnic and social background, or any other condition in them. It does not mean that he favors every person.
God shows a natural benevolence to his creatures. Jesus says, "He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous" (Matthew 5:45). He sends rain and supplies other non-spiritual benefits in his providential government over creation. This is a natural benevolence since the benefits included are given to both Christians and non-Christians, and no one can survive without this benevolence. Natural provisions such as air, light, food, and certain kinds of knowledge all come under this aspect of God's providence. The "love" of God is universal only when the meaning is restricted to natural providence (see Matthew 5:43-48). It includes no spiritual benefit, and none of that concern that a father would have for his children.[35]
But if God cares only for his chosen ones, why does he provide natural benefits to the reprobates? And if non-Christians are so repulsive to him, why does he put up with them for so long before he sends them to hell to torture them forever? Paul explains in Romans 9, "What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath – prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory…?" (v. 22-23). In other words, God keeps non-Christians alive and functional so that they can provide an environment for Christians to interact with, to learn and practice the word of God, and to witness God's wrath against these people that refuse to believe in Jesus Christ.
Suppose a man wishes to preserve some beer bottles to use as targets when he plays with his rifle, and to show off his marksmanship to his children. He would collect these bottles, clean them, and preserve them in a safe place. He offers to these bottles a natural benevolence, but he has no personal concern for them as he does his children. And when the time comes he will line them up and shoot them to a thousand pieces without any remorse, while his children praise him and rejoice with him.
Does this mean that non-Christians are preserved and cared for by divine providence, just so they can be used and discarded? This is precisely what Paul says in his letter to the Romans. And he adds that God has "the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use" (v. 21). In those days, "common" vessels include receptacles for trash and feces. This is God's estimation of non-Christians. It also offers a basis to illustrate God's great mercy toward those of us who believe in Jesus Christ – it is as if we have been changed from toilets where people dump their excrements into spectacular vases through which God displays the beauty of his wisdom, power, and glory.
God has determined to save the elect and to condemn the reprobates. The elect are those whom God has chosen to save from sin and hell by producing in them faith in the Lord Jesus. The reprobates are those whom God has chosen to damn. Like the elect, they are also created in sin, but unlike the elect, God hardens their hearts against the gospel so that they will never be saved through faith in Christ. In this context, God loves the elect and hates the reprobates. As Romans 9:13 says, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
We are to participate in God's hatred against the reprobates. As Psalm 139:21-22 says, "Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD, and abhor those who rise up against you? I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies."
There are numerous biblical verses on holy hatred against sinners:
Jehu the seer, the son of Hanani, went out to meet him and said to the king, "Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the LORD? Because of this, the wrath of the LORD is upon you… (2 Chronicles 19:2)
The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; you hate all who do wrong. (Psalm 5:5)
Away from me, all you who do evil, for the LORD has heard my weeping. (Psalm 6:8)
I do not sit with deceitful men, nor do I consort with hypocrites; I abhor the assembly of evildoers and refuse to sit with the wicked. (Psalm 26:4-5)
I hate those who cling to worthless idols; I trust in the LORD. (Psalm 31:6)
You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy. (Psalm 45:7)
Let those who love the LORD hate evil, for he guards the lives of his faithful ones and delivers them from the hand of the wicked. (Psalm 97:10)
I will set before my eyes no vile thing. The deeds of faithless men I hate; they will not cling to me. Men of perverse heart shall be far from me; I will have nothing to do with evil. (Psalm 101:3-4)
I hate double-minded men, but I love your law. (Psalm 119:113)
Away from me, you evildoers, that I may keep the commands of my God! (Psalm 119:115)
If only you would slay the wicked, O God! Away from me, you bloodthirsty men! (Psalm 139:19)
My mouth speaks what is true, for my lips detest wickedness. (Proverbs 8:7)
To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech. (Proverbs 8:13)
The righteous hate what is false, but the wicked bring shame and disgrace. (Proverbs 13:5)
The LORD detests all the proud of heart. Be sure of this: They will not go unpunished. (Proverbs 16:5)
The righteous detest the dishonest; the wicked detest the upright. (Proverbs 29:27)
There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven…a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace. (Ecclesiastes 3:1, 8)
For I, the LORD, love justice; I hate robbery and iniquity. (Isaiah 61:8)
My inheritance has become to me like a lion in the forest. She roars at me; therefore I hate her. (Jeremiah 12:8)
Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts. (Amos 5:15)
I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies. (Amos 5:21)
Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. (Romans 12:9)
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14)
…snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear – hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh. (Jude 23)
It is popular to teach that "God hates the sin but loves the sinner," and that Christians should hold such an attitude. But the above verses explicitly contradict the notion that we are to love the sinners but hate their sins; rather, they indicate that we are to hate both the evil people and their evil deeds.
Some people are so prejudiced against the biblical teaching that God hates the reprobates that they insist in opposing it even when they show that they clearly know better.
For example, H. L. Drumwright, Jr. writes, "It must…be recognized that the Hebrew thought-form makes no sharp distinction between the individual and his deeds. A man in Hebrew thought is the sum total of the actions of his life…"[36] This is correct, and it follows that there is no sharp distinction between hating a man and his deeds. But Drumwright concludes the opposite! He continues, "…so that to say God hated a man is not to say that God was maliciously disposed toward a particular personality, but to note divine opposition to evil that was registered in that life."[37]
This is pure lunacy. If A = B, then to hate A is to hate B; there is no difference. But according to Drumwright, if A = B, and God says he hates A, somehow it means that he hates only B and not A. He is saying that because a person (A) is the sum total of his actions (B), when God says that he hates a person (A), he does not in fact hate the person (A), but only the sum total of his actions (B). This inference is ridiculous. He acknowledges that a person is the sum total of his actions (A = B); therefore, it is impossible that whatever applies to A is somehow transferred to B so that it no longer applies to A. But if A = B, then whatever applies to either A or B applies to both A and B. If God hates either A or B, he hates both A and B, since A is B. This is so obvious that it takes a professional scholar to confuse the issue. Moreover, if Drumwright is correct, then we wonder what it means when the Bible says that God loves a person. Does he love anyone at all, or just his actions?
What controls Drumwright's thinking is a prior determination that God does not hate any person. He insists on this position regardless of what the Bible teaches, and the result is his gross incompetence in theological scholarship. Based on the first portion of his statement, that in Hebrew thinking a person is the sum of his actions, the only possible conclusion is the one proposed here, that God hates both the reprobate and his evil deeds, precisely because a person is the sum of his beliefs, thoughts, and actions.
However, God sovereignly decided to extend mercy to his chosen ones, and to impute to them the very righteousness of Christ, who was "slain from the creation of the world" (Revelation 13:8). From the standpoint of time and history, the chosen ones also begin as sinners, and deserve to be hated by God. But God placed his love upon them in eternity, redeemed them through the work of Christ, determined to transform them by his Spirit (Ezekiel 11:19), and foreordained the good works that they are to perform (Ephesians 2:10). The chosen ones are "predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son" (Romans 8:29). "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden" (Romans 9:18).
God sent Christ to redeem the chosen ones because he loved them, but since the elect would also be sinners, and God hates sinners, how could he love those that he should hate? This is an insoluble problem under INFRALAPSARIANISM, in which the decree for the fall of all men occurs before the decree to redeem the chosen ones, so that the decrees follow a historical order. But the problem does not appear under SUPRALAPSARIANISM, in which the election of some men to be saved in Christ occurs before the decree for the fall of all men, so that the various decrees follow a teleological order. That is, God loved the chosen ones and decreed their salvation before he decreed that all men would become sinners. But in order for some men to be saved and some to be damned, all men must become sinners, and therefore he also decreed that all men would become sinners. Under this scheme, God's love for the chosen ones is easily explained, even though in time and history they would first appear as sinners before they are made righteous through faith in Jesus Christ.[38]
In any case, the Bible says that God regards the wickedness of the reprobates as continuous:
The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. (Genesis 6:5)
…every inclination of [man's] heart is evil from childhood… (Genesis 8:21)
In his pride the wicked does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God. (Psalm 10:4)
All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away. (Isaiah 64:6)
Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. (Matthew 7:17-18)
But if a person is the aggregate of his thoughts and actions, and the thoughts and actions of the reprobates are continuously evil, so that the totality of his life – the totality of his person – is evil, then it is nonsense to say that we should love the sinner and hate the sin, since one cannot be considered apart from the other. In other words, if we were to hate the sins of a reprobate person, there would be nothing left of the person for us to love. As John Gerstner says, "As far as 'hatred of sins' is concerned, sins do not exist apart from the sinner. God does hate sinning, killing, stealing, lying, lusting, etc., but this alludes to the perpetrator of these crimes."[39]
Peter Kreeft once told a homosexual college professor, "I love the sinner but hate the sin."[40] After some discussion, the professor responded:
Well, suppose the shoe was on the other foot. Suppose you were in the minority. Suppose what you wanted to do was to have churches and sacraments and Bibles and prayers, and those in power said to you: "We hate that. We hate what you do. We will do all in our power to stop you from doing what you do. But we love you. We love what you are. We love Christians; we just hate Christianity. We love worshipers; we just hate worship. And we're going to put every possible pressure on you to feel ashamed about worshiping and make you repent of your sin of worshiping. But we love you. We affirm your being. We just reject your doing." Tell me, how would that make you feel? Would you accept that distinction?[41]
Kreeft had to admit that hatred directed against Christianity is tantamount to hatred directed against the Christian: "You're right. I would not be comfortable with that distinction. I would not be able to accept it. In fact, I would say pretty much what you just said: that you're trying to kill my identity."[42]
Misconceptions about what it means to love our enemies have resulted in a loss of holy indignation and bold opposition against those who hate God. Christ's command tells us only to do good to those who hate us. It is like the natural benevolence that God shows toward all men (Matthew 5:43-45). But the Bible never tells us to think of the nonChristians as something that they are not; rather, its position is that all non-Christians are fools and rebels, stupid and sinful. For a person to think of them as something better amounts to a rejection of divine revelation, and casts doubt on his own faith and allegiance toward Christ.
Therefore, although we are to exhibit a natural benevolence toward non-Christians, we must also be jealous for God's honor and imitate his holy hatred toward them. Most Christians "love" their enemies in a way that amounts to rebellion against God. They should be admonished and disciplined. We "love" non-Christians in the way commanded by Christ when we offer to do them good and refuse to do them harm (Romans 12:20-21, 13:10). But we should have "nothing but hatred" (Psalm 139:22) toward non-Christians in the sense that we oppose all of who they are, what they believe, and what they do. We strive to diminish their influence and undermine their agenda by the gospel of Jesus Christ. Contrary to popular belief, we are even to rejoice over God's punishments upon the non-Christians:
Mount Zion rejoices, the villages of Judah are glad because of your judgments. (Psalm 48:11)
The righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked. (Psalm 58:10)
When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy. (Proverbs 11:10)
Rejoice over her, O heaven! Rejoice, saints and apostles and prophets! God has judged her for the way she treated you. (Revelation 18:20)
Biblical hatred is defined as "an intense aversion or active hostility that is expressed in settled opposition to a person or thing."[43] In this context, love and hate are not emotions, but volitions. They are policies of thought and action. Since God is impassable, and his mind cannot be disturbed, it means that divine love is not a disturbance of the mind, but an intellectual disposition of favor and mercy. And hate is a disposition of disfavor and judgment. Likewise, when the Bible commands Christians to hate both the sinners and their sins, it is addressing our intellectual dispositions – our volitions, not emotions.
Most Christians do not understand in what sense we are to love non-Christians and in what sense we are to hate them. But now it is clear that we love the non-Christians in the restricted sense of natural benevolence, but we hate them in the broad sense, that we are hostile to everything about them. The "love" that God and Christians show toward nonChristians is limited to natural and temporal kindness, but on the spiritual and ideological level, God and Christians are completely opposed to the non-Christians. Of course, Christians can pray that the non-Christians be converted. But it remains that as long as they are non-Christians, it is impossible to show brotherly love toward them, since they are not brothers. Rather, the only "love" that God and Christians can show them is the kind that we show to animals – we feed them, house them, and clean up after them.
Complete hostility to another person's thoughts and actions, including his beliefs, desires, ambitions, preferences, values, lifestyles, habits, and so on, which is the same as hating the person himself, is hatred at the deepest level. This hatred is much deeper than the kind that would strip him of his natural welfare. By this definition, God and Christians hate non-Christians at the deepest level possible, and likewise, non-Christians hate God and Christians at the deepest level possible.
To illustrate, to regard the Christian faith as false is to hate me at the deepest level possible, since the content of the Christian faith permeates all of my thinking and behavior. If there is any aspect of my life that is not yet controlled by biblical precepts, it is only because I am still imperfect in sanctification, and not that I oppose Scripture on the matter. Therefore, for a person who regards Christianity as false, there is nothing in me for him to love. He cannot love me and hate my beliefs – I am my beliefs; I am a Christian.
Likewise, I may treat the non-Christian with kindness in speech and action (and in this sense I walk in "love" toward him), but if I regard his entire worldview as stupid and his whole lifestyle as sinful, and if it is my mission from God to arrange all aspects of my life in opposition to the non-Christian's worldview and lifestyle, then I indeed hate him at the deepest level possible.
The reason we do good to the non-Christians even though we have "nothing but hatred" (Psalm 139:22) for them is that God has reserved for himself the right to avenge his own honor and to avenge his chosen ones: "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord" (Romans 12:19). This is why Christians must not spread their faith and undermine the non-Christians through unjust or violent methods. It is up to God to punish them.
Of course, Christians should endorse legal punishments against non-Christians, including the execution of dangerous criminals (Romans 13:4).44 God ordained the government for this purpose. On the other hand, the church must use spiritual weapons to advance its cause, so that we demolish the wicked mainly through the publication of the word of God in preaching, teaching, and writing:
For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)
God's "love" applies to all people in the restricted sense of a natural benevolence. That is, divine providence sustains the lives of all creatures so that God's plans may be carried out, including the display of his wrath. When applied to the chosen ones, God's love refers to his favorable disposition without restriction to the natural realm: "He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all – how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?" (Romans 8:32). The context of the verse restricts "us all" to the elect, and not all men. Thus God lavishes his sacrificial love upon those whom he has chosen for salvation. Whereas there is a natural benevolence extended to all men, there is a special benevolence that is directed only to those whom God has chosen, an effectual love that results in their salvation.
This is the GRACE of God. The popular distinction between common grace and special or saving grace is unbiblical, because natural benevolence is not grace. This natural benevolence is called "love" because Jesus refers to it this way in Matthew 5:43-48, but the context restricts the meaning to the natural realm. This is confirmed by other biblical passages, as demonstrated earlier. It is called benevolence because it enables the natural survival of creatures. Thus this "love" does not include a favorable disposition, since it is merely a policy for the provision of natural sustenance. This is different from, and even opposed to, the idea of common grace. But now that the topic turns to salvation, in which God justifies the believer and rescues him from hell, the benefits extended belong to an altogether superior dimension. This is not a natural benevolence akin to what a man shows to plants and animals, but the deep affection and commitment that a man shows to his family. This is divine grace.
Jesus teaches, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), and "no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him" (v. 65). And Paul explains:
Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. (Romans 9:13-18)
We will continue to discuss the doctrine of divine election throughout this book, but from these verses alone it is obvious that not every person will be saved or can be saved. God indeed accepts anyone who comes to him, but a person comes to him only because God causes him to do so, and he does not cause everyone to come. One can be saved only if God chooses him and enables him to believe the gospel, but he does not choose or enable every person.
Therefore, God does not love every person. Concerning those whom God loves, Paul writes, "For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 8:38-39). This does not apply to the reprobates, or those whom God has created for damnation, since soon they will be separated from God's love, and even from his natural preservation.
Other passages on God's love for his chosen ones include:
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)
But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions – it is by grace you have been saved. (Ephesians 2:4-5)
This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. (1 John 4:10)
Romans 5:8 teaches that Christ died for the elect while they were still sinners. This implies that it is acceptable but imprecise to say that God loves the elect but hates all sinners, since he indeed loves the elect sinners who are not yet converted. Therefore, when precision is preferred, it is better to say that God loves the elect but hates all reprobates. Some of the elect are already converted, and others of this group who are still sinners will be eventually converted. On the other hand, the reprobates will never be converted and will forever remain the objects of divine hatred and wrath (Romans 9:13, 18).
One of the most precious but neglected benefits of God's love toward Christians is spiritual illumination:
Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him. (John 14:21)
I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. (John 15:15)
Theological knowledge, or intellectual knowledge about God, is one of the most despised spiritual gifts. It is often regarded as unholy and unspiritual. However, Jesus says that to be God's friend means to have knowledge about him, about his being, his principles, and his plans and works. Those who claim to be Christians but who scorn doctrinal studies do not truly love God, even though they would like to think that they love him. But to love God by our own definition and on our own terms is not to regard him as God, and thus not to love him at all.
Jeremiah 9:23-24 tells us that our priority is to obtain knowledge and understanding about God:
This is what the LORD says: "Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight," declares the LORD. (Jeremiah 9:23-24)[45]
Knowledge about God is the most valuable treasure, and all else is "dung" in comparison (Philippians 3:8, KJV). When God provides reliable information about himself to his chosen ones, he gives them one of the greatest gifts that he can bestow.
The Bible says that God's children should imitate the Father's love. The first and greatest commandment is to love God, and the second is to love other people:
Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:37-40)
To understand these two great commandments, we must know what it means to love God, and what it means to love other people.
A common misconception about God's love is that it is only a greater version of human fondness and courtesy.46 This is what many people mean when they claim that they love God – they are fond of him. Now, to the extent that a person has a distorted view of God, this means that he is fond of his misconception of God, so that he is not even fond of God at all. False Christians, or those who claim to be Christians but are not, would turn against God and hate him once they find out what he is truly like. God is the triune deity who judges every thought and intention, demands exclusive worship and obedience, condemns all those he created for damnation, redeems only those he has chosen for salvation, proclaims the Christian faith alone as truth, and does all that he pleases. Such a God is repugnant to non-Christians.
Faithful biblical preaching helps to decrease the number of false converts in the church, since reprobates would find the true Christian faith intolerable once they realize what it teaches. The truth attracts the elect, but repels the reprobates (1 Corinthians 1:18):
On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you?"…He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. (John 6:60-61, 65-66)
Of course, if the church has been preaching the word of God in the first place, there would not be so many false believers in our congregations now.
Again, a common misconception about the love of God is that it is an emotional fondness, and at best an element of selfless giving is added to it. When this concept of love is applied to what it means to love God, the result is a shallow and sub-biblical spirituality.
The Bible teaches a different definition of what it means to love God:
So if you faithfully obey the commands I am giving you today – to love the LORD your God and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul… (Deuteronomy 11:13)
Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him. (John 14:21)
Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me." (John 14:23-24)
You are my friends if you do what I command. (John 15:14)
The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did. (1 John 2:4-6)
This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome… (1 John 5:3)
And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love. (2 John 1:6)
Love for God is not defined by fondness or admiration, but obedience. And only a true Christian can love God as defined by these verses – he obeys the commands of God, and submits to him in thought and action. Of course a Christian is also fond of God, but it is a feigned fondness if he does not also obey the divine commands in the Bible.
Since to love God means to obey biblical teaching, and to obey biblical teaching, one must first know about it, it follows that theological knowledge is the prerequisite of walking in love. This destroys the anti-intellectual notion that a person can love God without studying theology, or that loving God is superior to knowing about him. To love God is to obey his teaching, but to obey his teaching, one must first grasp it with the intellect, and this is to study theology. Theology makes love possible.
A closer look at the "first and greatest commandment" will further emphasis this. Here are some relevant biblical passages:
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates. (Deuteronomy 6:4-9)
One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:35-40)
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." "Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices." (Mark 12:28-33)
Matthew 22:35-40 and Mark 12:28-33 are parallel passages in which Jesus states that the greatest commandment is to love God:
"…with all your strength"
"…with all your mind"[47]
Jesus' answer comes from Deuteronomy 6:4-9.48 However, in Deuteronomy, Moses only says to love God:
"…with all your strength"
Thus in his answer Jesus adds his interpretation of the greatest commandment, namely, that we must love God with all our mind, and this interpretation is authoritative and binding. Nevertheless, the Deuteronomy passage itself provides sufficient information for this conclusion, that the commandment is telling us to love God with our minds. Verse 5 is the one that says, "Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." Then, the verses that come after it explain what the commandment implies:
These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates. (Deuteronomy 6:6-9)
We are to write them down, talk about them, and think about them. What all this amounts to is theological reflection, or as Jesus interprets the commandment, to love God with all our heart, soul, and strength, is also to love God with all our mind. The teacher of the law also perceives this and offers the paraphrase that the greatest commandment is to love God "with all your understanding" (Mark 12:33).
Therefore, rather than to divorce love for God and the intellectual life, or to regard them as antagonistic to each other, the Bible explicitly states that love for God rests upon our intellect. The greatest commandment is to love God with our mind. Paul writes to the Colossians: "Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds" (Colossians 1:21), and Jesus explains that sin originates from the mind: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander" (Matthew 15:19).[49] Non-Christians hate God with their minds, but regeneration reverses this, and enables the chosen ones to fulfill the greatest commandment. God says that the new covenant is one in which, "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts" (Jeremiah 31:33; also Hebrews 10:16).
As for love toward other people, in addition to what has been said, Paul writes that "love is the fulfillment of the law" (Romans 13:10). Many people often think that love is the replacement of the law, and it renders the Old Testament moral commands irrelevant. But the Bible teaches that to walk in love is to fulfill the law, or to do what it says rather than to ignore it.[50]
The ceremonial laws – that is, the rituals – have been fulfilled in Christ. The things that they foreshadowed have not been done away with, but have become reality in the person of Christ. Since the priesthood of Christ is continuous, the fulfillment of these laws are still in effect. Therefore, there is now no need for such things as the animal sacrifices and purification rites.
On the other hand, God's moral laws remain relevant and binding. To walk in love toward other human beings is to obey the moral laws concerning how we should treat people. For example, we must not steal from others or lie about them; we are to uphold justice and show mercy to the poor. Paul writes:
The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Romans 13:9-10)
Love is a summary of the moral laws, not a replacement. Therefore, since we are commanded to walk in love, the moral laws are still in full effect.
To review, God exhibits a natural benevolence toward all his creatures, and it is called "love" in this restricted sense. The purpose is to preserve them for his use, including the display of his wrath when he punishes them for their sins. But to the chosen ones, God's love also means self-sacrifice (in redeeming them through Christ) and self-disclosure (in providing them theological knowledge). Among other things, to love God means to devote our intellect to the worship and service of God, to acquire knowledge about him and his commands, and to obey all biblical precepts. As for love toward men, it means to obey God's moral laws in our relationships with people, and to treat them the way God tells us to treat them.
The love of God is consistent with his JUSTICE or RIGHTEOUSNESS. Since God is the ultimate authority, and all propositions find meaning only in relation to him, all moral concepts are defined by his nature. To say that God is loving and just is to say that he always acts according to his nature, with specific emphasis on the type of actions that the words love and justice describe.
Justice is defined by the nature of God, and to say that God is just means that he always acts in accordance with his nature when it comes to matters of right and wrong or good and evil. He is righteous because he always does what he thinks is right. Likewise, we are righteous when we do what God thinks is right for us to do, and we sin when we do what he thinks is wrong for us to do. Jeremiah says that God is one who enforces and delights in justice (Jeremiah 9:24), and Isaiah calls him "a God of justice" (Isaiah 30:18). He will one day "judge the world with justice" (Acts 17:31).
Those who wish to learn the ways of God in making just and wise judgments must go to the Scripture. Psalm 19:9 says, "The ordinances of the LORD are sure and altogether righteous," and Psalm 119:160 says, "All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal." Paul writes, "So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good" (Romans 7:12). Jesus teaches us to "Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment" (John 7:24). We can make a right judgment only if we know how God thinks, and this is possible only by studying the Bible.
The fact that justice is the nature of God means that he punishes evildoers. Since "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), it means that he must punish all men unless there is a way to satisfy his justice without destroying those he wishes to save. To accomplish this, God sent Jesus Christ to die for the chosen ones, thereby saving from damnation those he has foreordained to have faith in him. On the other hand, "He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus" (2 Thessalonians 1:8).
God presented Christ "as a sacrifice of atonement" (Romans 3:25) so that God "might be just and the justifier" (v. 26, NASB) of those who have faith in Christ. This tells us how God can be the justifier of sinners if his own nature of justice demands that he punishes sinners. God sent Jesus to die for the chosen ones, to suffer the punishment that they deserved. Thus God maintains his own standard of justice in condemning the non- Christians, but he is also upholds justice as he pardons the chosen ones, the Christians, because Jesus Christ has paid for their sins.[51]
Other passages on the justice and righteousness of God include:
He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he. (Deuteronomy 32:4)
Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the great deep. (Psalm 36:6)
He will judge your people in righteousness, your afflicted ones with justice. (Psalm 72:2)
Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; love and faithfulness go before you. (Psalm 89:14)
He will judge the world in righteousness and the peoples with equity. (Psalm 98:9)
May my tongue sing of your word, for all your commands are righteous. (Psalm 119:172)
For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead. (Acts 17:31)
Since Christians are the children of God, it is unnatural for them to be suspicious of or opposed to the WRATH of God, but many of those who claim to be believers speak and behave as if it is not a biblical doctrine, or as if the wrath of God is something to be ashamed of. The Bible teaches us to know both "the kindness and severity of God" (Romans 11:22, NASB). The wrath of God is just as much a divine attribute as his love; therefore, to have a proper understanding of God, we must know and embrace the doctrine of the wrath of God.
One purpose of the reprobates – that is, "the objects of his wrath" or those who are "prepared for destruction" – is that God may reveal this aspect of his nature to "the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory" (Romans 9:22-23). Since Christians have been "saved from God's wrath" (Romans 5:9) through Jesus Christ, this is one divine attribute that they will never experience, and therefore it must be demonstrated to them in other people. Recall that one benefit God gives to the chosen ones is information about himself, and this demonstrates his commitment to make himself known to his people. That is, he would create billions of non-Christians and throw them into a lake of fire to torture them with endless pain and agony in order to show his own children this wonderful aspect of his holy nature.
The wrath of God is his divine anger against all that is contrary to holiness and righteousness; it is his intense hatred toward sin and wickedness. Unlike much of human anger, divine wrath is not emotional or petty, but it stems from God's holy nature, and it is good and justified.[52] This divine anger and hatred is directed against all who reject Jesus Christ:
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him. (Psalm 2:12)
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him. (John 3:36)
But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. (Romans 2:8)
Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them. (Ephesians 5:6-7)
Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. (Colossians 3:5-6)
The fact that the wrath of God will be poured out against those who reject Jesus Christ does not mean that the people who have never heard the gospel are exempt, since all the non- Christians who have not directly rejected the person and work of Jesus Christ have nevertheless rebelled against the knowledge of God that is innate within them: "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them" (Romans 1:18-19). Therefore, God's intense anger will punish all non-Christians and make them suffer.
But the wrath of God will not come upon the elect: "For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thessalonians 5:9). God appointed the reprobates to "suffer wrath," but he has appointed us to "receive salvation" through Christ. Therefore, we can credit our salvation only to God's sovereign appointment, and not to a person's choice to follow Christ. This is because a person's choice is not free, but God is the one who causes his choice (Romans 9:18), so that no one may boast before him.
God's election of only some people for salvation is discussed throughout the book, because the doctrine is stated and assumed throughout Scripture, so that it is necessary to mention it again and again in order to make sense of other doctrines. And since we have already brought up the subjects of election and wrath, we should also consider the divine attribute of the WILL of God.[53]
Theologians distinguish between the "secret" and the "revealed" will of God on the basis of Deuteronomy 29:29: "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law." The secret things refer to God's decrees, as in what he would do. The revealed things refer to God's precepts, as in what we should do. Since the two do not overlap, there is never a conflict between them. There is no paradox or contradiction.
There are those who assert that there are "two wills" in God, and this is said in a sense that maintains an internal tension or "mystery" for the doctrine. But it is confusing and blasphemous.54 Rather, the Bible uses the word "will" in two different senses. And when a word is used in two different senses, it means that two different words can be used instead. If we, for the purpose of a precise theological discussion, attach only one meaning to a word, then even if we continue to use the word "will," it would be limited to only one thing
– either decree or precept, not both. In fact, we can use the words "decree" and "precept," and avoid the word "will" altogether.
It is not true that there are two wills in God. We do not say that there are two decrees and two precepts in God, because decree and precept refer to different things. And it is just as ridiculous to say that there are two wills in God. There is a will and a precept, or a decree and a will, or there is a decree and precept, but not a will and a will. Once it is pointed out that there are two distinct ideas that can be expressed with two different words, all confusion disappears, and the blasphemy that presents God as insane disappears along with it. The Bible does not teach that there are two wills in God, but it merely uses the same word to refer to two different things. There would be no problem if theologians were not so stupid or so eager to discover a paradox.
In any case, "the things revealed" include all that is recorded in Scripture – God's precepts, commands, doctrines, and predictions. Because the Scripture has been revealed to us, it "belongs" to us. And it is the immediate object to which we owe our allegiance and obedience – "that we may follow all the words of this law." On the other hand, the "secret things" belong to God. People are disappointed when they attempt to discover God's secret will, and many of them fall into serious spiritual error as a result. The very nature of his secret will is that it is concealed, and those who try to penetrate it will always fail. They chase after visions, dreams, and prophecies – sometimes even by forbidden means, such as astrology and various kinds of divination.
Christians must affirm the sufficiency of Scripture, that "the things revealed" contain enough information for men to make all kinds of decisions. The Bible is able to equip a person "for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:17). This necessarily means that it contains enough information so that a person who knows and obeys it perfectly will never think or do anything that displeases God. Of course, it is true that no one knows and obeys the Bible perfectly, but this is irrelevant to the point being made. Rather, the point is that Scripture contains all the information needed for perfection, since it asserts that it can equip a person for "every" good work. It contains all the information a person needs to live a life that is fully acceptable to God. It may not show us everything that we wish to know in order to satisfy our curiosity, but it includes all that God wishes us to know. It is sufficient so that we will not require additional or personal directions about our lives and circumstances to make decisions that are pleasing to God. Again, whether we will learn and follow the Bible is another matter, but the information is available.
As for God's secret will, it refers to things that we do not know until they happen, and includes things that are not predicted in Scripture.55 The will of God – that is, his decree – determines every event, so that not even a sparrow can die unless he decides that it should happen: "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father" (Matthew 10:29).56 His will is inseparably connected to his power. As he declares in Isaiah 46:10, "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please." That is, "I make known the end from the beginning" corresponds to "I will do all that I please." His predictions are more than mere forecasts, but they are also declarations of what he will do. For God to predict the time and manner of a sparrow's death is to reveal his active decree concerning the time and manner of its death, or the time and manner of how God will cause it to die. For God to predict what will happen is to reveal what he will do. Anything that occurs must be willed and caused by God, else all the power of the universe cannot make it happen.
Although the Bible directly teaches the doctrine of election, this doctrine concerning the will of God in itself implies that God must be the one who chooses those who would receive salvation and that he must be the one who causes their salvation. It is not dependent on the will or work of man, but on God's mercy (Romans 9:16).57 And he is not obligated to have mercy on anyone, but "God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden" (Romans 9:18).
God's will determines all the choices and circumstances of his creatures, so that nothing is up to man's "free will." In fact, because God is completely sovereign, man has no free will:
All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. (Psalm 139:16)
The LORD works out everything for his own ends – even the wicked for a day of disaster. (Proverbs 16:4)
In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps. (Proverbs 16:9)
A man's steps are directed by the LORD. How then can anyone understand his own way? (Proverbs 20:24)
The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases. (Proverbs 21:1)
All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: "What have you done?" (Daniel 4:35)
Now listen, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money." Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, "If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that." (James 4:13-15)
All things are decided and caused by God – nothing is free from his control, and he has not chosen to forego his control on anything. The doctrine is repulsive to those who abhor the rule and honor of God, and so they oppose it. But the doctrine is a source of comfort and celebration to those who love him. Why would we want it any other way, than for God to rule over all things? And what better life can we wish for, than to be ruled by God?
The doctrine contradicts the religious tradition that God does not decree evil or that he does not cause evil. Of course God does not make decrees against his other decrees. Since God is not insane, he has only one will, one desire. However, there is no problem for him to issue a decree that causes his creatures to violate his precepts. Whereas decrees are declarations of intentions about things that he would cause to happen, precepts are declarations of definitions, not intentions, and do not overlap with the decrees. It must be true that God decrees and causes events that are contrary to his precepts; otherwise, there could be no evil, but there is indeed evil. Therefore, God must be the metaphysical author of sin and evil.
This does not mean that God himself is evil. To metaphysically cause evil and to morally commit evil are two different things. One is a matter of ability to cause something, while the other is a matter of conformity to a principle. The Bible teaches that God is the one who defines right and wrong, and that sin is a transgression of God's law. Therefore, for God to commit evil by causing evil – for this to be bad or wrong – he must declare a moral law that forbids himself to decree or to cause evil, that is, to decree or to cause his creatures to transgress his law. There is no biblical basis to suppose that God has declared such a law against himself. Indeed, the Bible teaches that all that God says and does are right and good. If he says it, it must be true. If he does it, it must be good. Therefore, since God is sovereign and there is evil, God must be the cause of evil, and since he is the cause of evil, it must be right and good for him to be the cause of evil.
There is no divine law that says God would be wrong if he were to be the cause of evil. Why, then, do men assume that it would be evil for God to be the author of sin? What law would God transgress? He would transgress the law of men, or what men have imposed upon him to define what a righteous God must or must not do. This is the sinister truth behind the religious tradition that says God is not the author of sin, for if he were to be such, it would mean that he has transgressed a law that men has declared against him. The necessary conclusion is that the doctrine that God is not the author of sin, or that it is blasphemy and heresy to say that he is, is itself the real blasphemy and heresy. Unless God is the author of sin and evil, he is not completely sovereign, and he is not God. Therefore, to deny that God is the author of sin and evil is to deny God.
The Bible teaches that God's decrees and actions are always right and good. Since he is completely sovereign, and there is evil in this universe, this means that he is the one who decrees and causes evil in this universe. But since his decrees and actions are always right and good, then this means that it is right and good that he is the one who decrees and causes evil in this universe. The very fact that he decrees and causes evil means that it is right and good for him to do so.58 There is no authority or standard higher than God by which to condemn him. If he thinks that it is good for him to cause evil, then it is good for him to cause evil.
This does not mean that evil is good, which would be a contradiction. Sin is defined as a transgression of God's moral law, and when we say that God is the author of sin, we are saying that God is the metaphysical cause of a creature's transgression of God's moral law. God transgresses no moral law, since there is no moral law against what he does, but he causes the creature to transgress. Morality relates to moral law. But there is no moral law against sovereign metaphysical power. It is right and good for God to metaphysically cause evil, just because he does it, and because he has not declared himself wrong for doing it. It is wrong for man to morally commit evil, because God has declared man wrong for doing it, although it is God who metaphysically causes man to do it. Therefore, God remains righteous, and the sinner remains evil. The distinctions are clear. There is no paradox or contradiction, and also no biblical or logical basis for objection against the doctrine.
Does this make God a tyrant? If the word simply means, "an absolute ruler,"[59] then of course God is a tyrant. And since he is the sole moral authority, the very fact that he is a tyrant means that he ought to be one, that it is good and just for him to be one. The negative connotations of the word apply only to human beings, since no man is worthy of absolute authority or capable to wield it. But God is "an absolute ruler" – that is what it means to be God.
The Bible calls frequent attention to the HOLINESS of God. The two aspects of this divine attribute place emphasis on his moral perfection and metaphysical transcendence. Both aspects imply separation from that which is morally or metaphysically inferior. To be holy is to be pure and righteous, and also aloof and separated.
These two aspects of divine holiness mean that there is no one like God. He is altogether different and superior. In connection to his holiness, the Bible declares that God is unique, and that no one approaches his greatness: "There is no one holy like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God" (1 Samuel 2:2); "'To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?' says the Holy One" (Isaiah 40:25).
Isaiah 57:15 is an inspiring verse that tells us how the holiness of God implies his "high and lofty" state of existence (transcendence), and still he is close to those who are "lowly in spirit" (immanence): "For this is what the high and lofty One says – he who lives forever, whose name is holy: 'I live in a high and holy place, but also with him who is contrite and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite.'"
Many people wish to stress the possibility of fellowship with God, and therefore they favor his immanence in a way that denies his transcendence. Detecting this distortion, others who desire to maintain a high view of God overcompensate by denying his immanence. However, divine transcendence does not exclude divine immanence, and divine immanence does not diminish divine transcendence. These two qualities are consistent with each other and with other divine attributes. Our passage says that God is indeed "high and lofty," and no one is like him, but by his own will, he is also close to his chosen ones, those who will humble themselves before him.
An understanding of divine holiness should move us to fear God. He is inherently worthy of extreme reverence, and it is a serious sin to deny him of proper worship:
Exalt the LORD our God and worship at his footstool; he is holy…Exalt the LORD our God and worship at his holy mountain, for the LORD our God is holy. (Psalm 99:5, 9)
Who will not fear you, O Lord, and bring glory to your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship before you, for your righteous acts have been revealed. (Revelation 15:4)
God demands his people to imitate his holiness under both the Old and New Testaments: "You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own" (Leviticus 20:26); "But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: 'Be holy, because I am holy'" (1 Peter 1:15-16). Of course, we cannot be transcendent if it means to assume a "high and lofty" state of existence in a metaphysical sense. Nevertheless, in eternity, God has chosen us for himself and has set us apart in his mind. And in time and history, once he causes us to have faith in Christ, we are made morally transcendent, separated from the filth of this world.
Moral separation from the world implies that our lifestyles should be very different from the non-Christians. It is inconceivable that Christians who live in accordance with God's precepts and who are able to perceive that moral implications pervade all that we do would have much common with non-Christians in their beliefs, preferences, communities, reading materials, and so on. Christians hate "even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh" (Jude 23).
Jesus prayed that God would not remove Christians from the world, but that he would protect them from evil while they are in the world: "My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one" (John 17:15). This verse is sometimes used to criticize those who think that retreat from the world is a necessary implication of holy living. They avoid contact with the world to avoid contamination. Given the foolish beliefs and the filthy lifestyles of the non-Christians, this is understandable. However, it is not what God commands, and this approach would lead to negligence of some of our Christian responsibilities such as charity and evangelism. Indeed, non-Christians are stupid, sinful, and thoroughly repulsive, but this is why they need Christ to save them. We were like them before Christ saved us. Rather, John 17:15 encourages Christians to invade the lives of non-Christians, and to engage these spiritual enemies by preaching and teaching the word of God, and to be salt and light to them through our holy speech and conduct (Matthew 5:13-16).
On the other hand, many people misuse John 17:15 in another way by turning it into a license for unhealthy relationships with non-Christians and an excuse to pursue human interests and ambitions. "My prayer is not that you take them out of the world" only means that Jesus does not ask God to physically remove Christians from the world, that God would not immediately take them to heaven once they come to faith in Christ. This is obvious from the context. Jesus discusses his upcoming physical departure in verses 11 and 13: "I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you….I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world." Jesus was never "in the world" in the sense of being in sin or too involved with non-Christians, but he means that he was still physically present with the disciples. So in verse 15, Jesus asks that the Father would not immediately remove Christians from the earth, but that he would protect them from the evil one.
Therefore, those who regard John 17:15 as an encouragement for Christians to become involved in the world in the sense of befriending non-Christians, or attending parties, or devoting their time to the arts, to politics, and so on, have distorted its meaning. Instead, the Bible commands us to refrain from illegitimate and unprofitable relationships with non-Christians:
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God.
"I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."
"Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you."
"I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty." (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)
Holiness entails separation from the world, mainly not in the physical sense, but in the spiritual sense. There is no need to establish Christian communities and monasteries, and to live as hermits, but it is imperative that we distinguish ourselves in our words, actions, habits, priorities, friends, reading materials, and forms of recreation. It is not true that we may associate with anyone we want – Paul warns, "Do not be misled: 'Bad company corrupts good character'" (1 Corinthians 15:33).
Of course we should preach to sinners, and for this purpose we come into frequent contact with them, but whether we should associate with them as friends, let alone close friends, is a different issue. It is often argued that Jesus associated with sinners. This is true, and we should do the same if we are doing it in the same way and for the same purpose that he did it. However, Jesus associated with sinners not for social enjoyment, but he confronted them and demanded full spiritual conversion from them.
For example, Jesus said to Zacchaeus, "I must stay at your house today" (Luke 19:5). The people disapproved, and said, "He has gone to be the guest of a sinner" (v. 7). Does this not support the view that Jesus associated with sinners? But Zacchaeus said, "Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount" (v. 8). And it seems that he was converted, since Jesus said, "Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham" (v. 9). Then he added, "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost" (v. 10). Therefore, this incident does not endorse association with sinners for any purpose, but only for spiritual ends. Jesus did not associate with sinners for social enjoyment, but "to seek and to save what was lost."
Another example comes from Luke 7: "When a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee's house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume, and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them" (v. 37-38). An observer disapproved: "When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, 'If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is – that she is a sinner'" (v. 39). But this encounter had a spiritual end – the woman's action expressed her love for God and repentance for her sins. Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven….Your faith has saved you; go in peace" (v. 48, 50).
The wedding at Cana is often cited to support the assertion that Jesus participated in social activities even when there was no spiritual agenda (John 2). This is a gross misuse of the passage, because his purpose was not social but acutely spiritual. It is here that he worked his first miracle, manifested his glory, and instilled faith in his disciples: "This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed at Cana in Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him" (v. 11). It was not a manifestation of his human and fun-loving side, but a manifestation of his divine and messianic glory by a display of supernatural power. The passage provides no justification for a lust for recreation or useless association with non-Christians. But there is no objection against a Christian who participates in social events or who associates with non-Christians if he consistently draws their attention to the glory of Christ.
There are additional examples, and the biblical pattern is that although Jesus associated with non-Christians, his purpose was not social or recreational, but spiritual. He demanded spiritual change from sinners, and he remained only with those who were willing to hear his teaching and to repent of their sins. He instructed his disciples to avoid endless association with sinners who refuse to accept the Christian faith: "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces" (Matthew 7:6), and "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town" (Matthew 10:14). Sometimes persistence is not a sign of love, but only an excuse to remain in a relationship that Jesus has commanded the Christian to throw away.
Other relevant passages include:
But the Jews incited the God-fearing women of high standing and the leading men of the city. They stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region. So they shook the dust from their feet in protest against them and went to Iconium. (Acts 13:50-51)
On the next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and talked abusively against what Paul was saying. Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: "We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles. For this is what the Lord has commanded us: 'I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.'" (Acts 13:44-47)
But when the Jews opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am clear of my responsibility. From now on I will go to the Gentiles." (Acts 18:6)
Many Christians have succumbed to the popular notion that when people of different worldviews and religions come together, there ought to be a free exchange of ideas, so that we may show respect for one another and learn from one another. However, this is unbiblical; instead, we are commanded to resist the non-Christians and to destroy their beliefs. Jesus and the apostles never had an exchange of ideas with non-Christians, because they believed in the final and exclusive truth of the Christian faith, and that it was to completely dominate. All their dealings with non-Christians were one-sided – they preached to the non-Christians, refuted their beliefs and traditions, and taught them the only truth.
We may have friendly conversations with non-Christians, but an exchange of ideas implies that we respect their beliefs, that some their beliefs might be true, that we might learn from them, and that we might even consider adopting their beliefs. However, for a Christian to suggest any of these things is treason against the kingdom of God. One who respects non- Christian beliefs and who thinks that some of them might be true is probably not a Christian in the first place. Just as Jesus has nothing to learn from the devil, Christians have nothing to learn from non-Christians (2 Corinthians 6:15).60 He commanded us to teach the nations (Matthew 28:18-20), not to learn from them. Rather, we learn from God himself, who teaches us through the Scripture.
Even Christians often regard this high view of the Christian religion as arrogant. Of course, whether these people are genuine Christians is debatable, but in any case, the accusation is unintelligent, because it is a biblical teaching and not a private invention that the Christian faith alone is true. And biblical teaching is what defines the Christian religion. Thus because the Christian religion defines itself as exclusive, a view of the Christian religion that is not exclusive is in fact not the Christian religion. It is a mark of faith and obedience, not arrogance, to teach God's word as exclusive truth. It is tantamount to the position that only God is right, and that anyone who contradicts God is wrong. There is nothing more humble than this. On the other hand, it is more than arrogant to suggest that the Christian faith needs modification or improvement through an exchange of ideas with non-Christian worldviews – it is blasphemy. The offender should face church discipline for it, and if he is a minister, he should be removed from office.
Some may argue that although the Christian worldview requires no modification or improvement, a dialogue with non-Christians will nevertheless increase mutual understanding. This is fine as long as the Christian's motive for understanding the non-Christian viewpoint is to refute it. The purpose is to gain information in order to destroy their religions and philosophies, and not to develop respect or sympathy for them. We must never allow the non-Christians to think that we are prepared to accept their beliefs or to make the slightest adjustment to the Christian worldview.
Christians are to "demolish" all non-Christian ideas and "take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5). Thus Scripture forbids us to respect or learn from non-Christian worldviews and religions. It condemns all non-biblical worldview and religions, and to suggest even for a second that we have one iota of respect for non- biblical beliefs is spiritual treason. We must continuously declare our disdain for any thought that "sets itself up against the knowledge of God" (2 Corinthians 10:5). Unless we are truly willing to consider non-biblical ideas, in which case we are non-Christians, it is dishonest to allow others to think that we are open and respectful to their beliefs.
In any case, those who associate with non-Christians on the basis that Jesus did it distort the biblical account. Jesus indeed associated with sinners, but at least according to the biblical record, he did it only for spiritual purposes, and he always produced concrete actions to achieve these purposes when he interacted with sinners. If those Christians who wish to associate with sinners consistently follow this model, then there is no objection. If they do not, then they are only deceiving themselves and others, abusing the example of Jesus to justify their own lusts for non-Christian company.
Of course, "the whole world lieth in wickedness" (1 John 5:19), so that to function in human society will entail interaction with non-Christians. Paul admits that it is unavoidable (1 Corinthians 5:10).61 Necessary relations aside, the issue is whether we should associate them on a personal level. Few Christians who befriend non-Christians on the basis that "Jesus did it" are effective in ministry to sinners, assuming that they have ministry in mind in the first place. Many of them are simply dishonest – they have no intention of demanding conversion from the non-Christians. To repeat Paul's admonition, "Do not be misled: 'Bad company corrupts good character'" (1 Corinthians 15:33). That is, we should not be so deceived as to think that it makes little difference with whom we associate. It is foolish to assume that no tragedy will befall those who enjoy the company of non-Christians.
Other relevant passages include:
I do not sit with deceitful men, nor do I consort with hypocrites; I abhor the assembly of evildoers and refuse to sit with the wicked. (Psalm 26:4-5)
Men of perverse heart shall be far from me; I will have nothing to do with evil. Whoever slanders his neighbor in secret, him will I put to silence; whoever has haughty eyes and a proud heart, him will I not endure. (Psalm 101:4-5)
Away from me, you evildoers, that I may keep the commands of my God! (Psalm 119:115)
Let not my heart be drawn to what is evil, to take part in wicked deeds with men who are evildoers; let me not eat of their delicacies….Yet my prayer is ever against the deeds of evildoers; their rulers will be thrown down from the cliffs, and the wicked will learn that my words were well spoken. (Psalm 141:4-6)
Do not set foot on the path of the wicked or walk in the way of evil men. Avoid it, do not travel on it; turn from it and go on your way. (Proverbs 4:14-15)
He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm. (Proverbs 13:20)
Do not make friends with a hot-tempered man, do not associate with one easily angered, or you may learn his ways and get yourself ensnared. (Proverbs 22:24-25)
Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? (1 Corinthians 5:6)
But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. (Ephesians 5:3-4)
Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith. Grace be with you. (1 Timothy 6:20-21)
Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. (2 Timothy 2:16)
Most people become involved with the world because they like the world, and not because they are determined to change it toward a more godly direction. But the Bible says, "Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God" (James 4:4). Therefore, although it is unbiblical to retreat from the world and its social, economic, and political structures, we must evaluate our motive for associating with sinners, and make sure that we always remember our spiritual mission.
The Bible also instructs us concerning relationships among Christians. Although we are no longer dealing with non-Christians, so that there are not as many restrictions, and that even intimate and permanent bonds are possible, it remains that the main purpose and content in these relationships among Christians ought to be spiritual, dominated by prayer, worship, and theological discussions.
Some relevant biblical passages include:
These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates. (Deuteronomy 6:6-9)
I am a friend to all who fear you, to all who follow your precepts. (Psalm 119:63)
May those who fear you turn to me, those who understand your statutes. (Psalm 119:79)
Let a righteous man strike me – it is a kindness; let him rebuke me
– it is oil on my head. My head will not refuse it. Yet my prayer is ever against the deeds of evildoers. (Psalm 141:5)
He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm. (Proverbs 13:20)
Then those who feared the LORD talked with each other, and the LORD listened and heard. A scroll of remembrance was written in his presence concerning those who feared the LORD and honored his name. "They will be mine," says the LORD Almighty, "in the day when I make up my treasured possession. I will spare them, just as in compassion a man spares his son who serves him. And you will again see the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, between those who serve God and those who do not. (Malachi 3:16- 18)
They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. (Acts 2:42)
When he arrived and saw the evidence of the grace of God, he was glad and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord with all their hearts. (Acts 11:23)
What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. (1 Corinthians 14:26)
Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. (Ephesians 4:29)
Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 5:19-20)
Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers. (Galatians 6:9-10)
Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing. (1 Thessalonians 5:11)
But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. (Hebrews 3:13)
And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. (Hebrews 10:24)
We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:3)
Whereas Christians have nothing to learn from non-Christians, it is profitable to interact with faithful believers in order to develop in biblical knowledge and in holiness. True Christians enjoy this kind of fellowship in which God remains the center of our thoughts and conversations, even during social and recreational activities. Therefore, although Christians may freely befriend other believers, it remains that their priorities consist of spiritual and theological concerns.
This concludes our overview of the divine attributes, and we now proceed to the final section of this chapter, which is a discussion on the works of God.
Although the Bible presents us with a transcendent God, it also teaches us that he is directly involved with the universe and humanity, beginning with its doctrine on the CREATION of the universe. Genesis 1 and 2 contain the historical account about God's creation of the earth, the stars, the seasons, plant life, and all kinds of animals. The crown of his creation is man, whom he made in his own image.
God created the universe ex nihilo, or "out of nothing." There were no preexisting materials out of which God created the universe, but he created all things by his omnipotence:
You alone are the LORD. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you. (Nehemiah 9:6)
By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth. (Psalm 33:6)
This is what the LORD says – your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself. (Isaiah 44:24)
Ah, Sovereign LORD, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you. (Jeremiah 32:17)
For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,[62] whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. (Colossians 1:16)
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. (Hebrews 11:3)
You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being. (Revelation 4:11)
Only God existed before he created anything – except for himself, all things were made by him. John writes in his Gospel, "All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being" (John 1:3, NRSV). Anything at all that exists outside of God owes its existence to him.
God does not leave the universe to exist on its own, and indeed it cannot exist on its own, but he continuously sustains its existence and directly causes all its events. It is unbiblical to say that God created the universe with certain laws that govern its operation. Rather, the biblical teaching is that God holds the universe together, and controls even the most minute event within it. In other words, the whole universe is ruled by a divine mind instead of natural laws and powers. This entails the rejection of all theories that ascribe control of human lives and world events to impersonal forces, so that astrology, karma, and so forth are denied. Also excluded are all scientific and natural laws.
This is the doctrine of the PROVIDENCE of God. Theologians distinguish between GENERAL PROVIDENCE and SPECIAL PROVIDENCE. General providence, also called ordinary providence, refers to God's regular causation of events, including the thoughts and actions of men. This is often falsely attributed to natural laws and forces. Special providence, also called extraordinary providence, refers to God's irregular causation of events, as he deviates from the usual pattern that he exhibits under ordinary providence. God's general providence and special providence together embrace every event that occurs.
Paul writes that God the Father, through God the Son, created not only all things "visible and invisible," but that the Son "is before all things, and in him all things hold together" (Colossians 1:17). Jesus Christ is before all creation, and he holds together the universe. God created the universe by his word, and even now he is "sustaining all things by his powerful word" (Hebrews 1:3). Acts 17:28 says, "For in him we live and move and have our being." God created all things, and only God is uncreated. And only God is self-existing and self-sustaining, so that all things continue to exist only because he sustains them. Since all things are dependent on God's continuous sustenance, no creature possesses autonomy. God controls and sustains all things. There is no freedom from him in any sense and in any degree.
God causes every event in creation. Even seemingly insignificant events cannot occur apart from his will (Matthew 10:29). Many biblical passages declare his exhaustive control over creation:
So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God. He made me father to Pharaoh, lord of his entire household and ruler of all Egypt….You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. (Genesis 45:8, 50:20)
He makes nations great, and destroys them; he enlarges nations, and disperses them. He deprives the leaders of the earth of their reason; he sends them wandering through a trackless waste. They grope in darkness with no light; he makes them stagger like drunkards. (Job 12:23-25)
Man's days are determined; you have decreed the number of his months and have set limits he cannot exceed. (Job 14:5)
He fills his hands with lightning and commands it to strike its mark. (Job 36:32)
Do you know how God controls the clouds and makes his lightning flash? (Job 37:15)
I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted. (Job 42:2)
For dominion belongs to the LORD and he rules over the nations. (Psalm 22:28)
God reigns over the nations; God is seated on his holy throne. (Psalm 47:8)
No one from the east or the west or from the desert can exalt a man. But it is God who judges: He brings one down, he exalts another. (Psalm 75:6-7)
He makes grass grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate
– bringing forth food from the earth. (Psalm 104:14)
My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. (Psalm 139:15-16)
He covers the sky with clouds; he supplies the earth with rain and makes grass grow on the hills. He provides food for the cattle and for the young ravens when they call. (Psalm 147:8-9)
For the LORD Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him? His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back? (Isaiah 14:27)
When he thunders, the waters in the heavens roar; he makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth. He sends lightning with the rain and brings out the wind from his storehouses. (Jeremiah 10:13)
I know, O LORD, that a man's life is not his own; it is not for man to direct his steps. (Jeremiah 10:23)
With my great power and outstretched arm I made the earth and its people and the animals that are on it, and I give it to anyone I please. Now I will hand all your countries over to my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; I will make even the wild animals subject to him. All nations will serve him and his son and his grandson until the time for his land comes; then many nations and great kings will subjugate him. (Jeremiah 27:5-7)
He changes times and seasons; he sets up kings and deposes them. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the discerning. (Daniel 2:21)
The decision is announced by messengers, the holy ones declare the verdict, so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of men. (Daniel 4:17)
All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: "What have you done?" (Daniel 4:35)
Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? (Matthew 6:26)
Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen. (Acts 4:27-28)
Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy. (Acts 14:17)
And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. (Acts 17:25-26)
For it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. (Philippians 2:13)
The fact that God exercises such extreme control over all of creation is disturbing to many people, including some who claim to be Christians. Therefore, they attempt to distort the Scripture to support a false theology that allows them to maintain a sense of freedom and dignity, which they treasure above the truth and honor of God. But it is wicked to seek freedom from God. Those who love God are happy that he possesses absolute control over all things. They say with Isaiah 33:22, "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; it is he who will save us," and they would not have it any other way. They are bold to say among the nations, "The Lord reigns!" (Psalm 96:10).
Although God directly controls and causes all things, sometimes his involvement is especially evident, as when he deviates from his usual pattern. These instances are often called divine interventions. Although this is understandable, it could also mislead since it seems to suggest that God has little to do with the regular pattern of events, whereas even the regular pattern is caused by God just as much as the special events that deviate from it. These special events are sometimes called signs, wonders, and miracles. The Bible presents to us a God who does unusual and spectacular things:
Who among the gods is like you, O LORD? Who is like you – majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders? (Exodus 15:11)
He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed, miracles that cannot be counted. (Job 9:10)
For you are great and do marvelous deeds; you alone are God. (Psalm 86:10)
Give thanks to the Lord of lords: His love endures forever. to him who alone does great wonders, His love endures forever. (Psalm 136:3-4)
Jesus performed so many supernatural deeds during his time on the earth that the miraculous was recognized as a prominent feature of his ministry:
He replied…"I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal." (Luke 13:32)
When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased, because for a long time he had been wanting to see him. From what he had heard about him, he hoped to see him perform some miracle. (Luke 23:8)
Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. (Acts 2:22)
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. (John 21:25)
The disciples of Jesus also performed miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit:
Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it. (Mark 16:20)
Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. (Acts 2:43)
The apostles performed many miraculous signs and wonders among the people. (Acts 5:12)
So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders. (Acts 14:13)
God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them. (Acts 19:11-12)
I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done – by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. (Romans 15:18-19)
The things that mark an apostle – signs, wonders and miracles – were done among you with great perseverance. (2 Corinthians 12:12)
This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. (Hebrews 2:3-4)
The Bible authorizes all Christians to witness to Jesus Christ through the preaching of the gospel accompanied by miraculous signs:
And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well. (Mark 16:17-18)
Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines. (1 Corinthians 12:7-11).
Christianity's opponents reject the supernaturalism of Scripture, and often deny the very possibility of miracles. Now, every argument proceeds from a worldview and not from a vacuum. Based on what theories of epistemology and metaphysics do our opponents formulate their arguments against biblical miracles? And can they defend these theories? They cannot come from the biblical worldview itself, because the biblical worldview endorses miracles. Since the Christian faith is a true worldview, since it is the only true worldview, since it is true in its entirety, and since it can refute all non-Christian worldviews,[63] this means that every argument that presupposes another worldview is without justification, and every claim that contradicts any biblical proposition must be false. And since the entire Bible is true, its teachings about creation and providence are also true.
_____
[1] Since God controls every detail of his creation, even those who deny his existence think and act only as God wills, and in this sense they "serve" his purposes. However, they are unaware of God's control over them, and they think that they are autonomous. Their thoughts and actions, all decreed by God, lead to damnation.
[2] Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works; Oxford University Press, 1998; p. 87-89.
[3] To begin with self-consciousness is to begin with the proposition, "I exist."
[4] Modern proponents of cosmological arguments include Norman Geisler and William Lane Craig.
[5] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica; P. 1, Q. 2, A. 3. Translation by Fathers of the English Dominican Province.
[6] Modern proponents of design arguments include Michael Behe and William Dembski.
[7] William Paley, Natural Theology (1802), as cited in The Existence of God, edited by John Hick; New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1964; p. 99-103.
[8] In more recent times, Kant's effort was emulated by C. S. Lewis, albeit with a different formulation and agenda.
[9] Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason; New York: Macmillan, 1956; p. 166.
[10] Ibid., 127.
[11] Hastings Rashdall, The Theory of Good and Evil; Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1907; II, p. 212.
[12] Robert Stern, Transcendental Arguments and Scepticism; New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2000; p. 6.
[13] See Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions.
[14] For an example, see Vincent Cheung, "The Problem of Evil." See also Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions and Presuppositional Confrontations.
[15] I have refuted this in Ultimate Questions, Presuppositional Confrontations, and Captive to Reason.
[16] Gordon H. Clark, The Christian View of Men and Things (Trinity Foundation, 1998), p. 155.
[17] Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition; Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2001.
[18] Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition; IDG Books Worldwide, Inc., 2000.
[19] The Oxford American Dictionary of Current English; New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
[20] Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Thesaurus. The term "dogmatic theology" is the general equivalent of "systematic theology" in theological usage.
[21] As in, "imposing one's will or opinions on others"; Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.
[22] Ed. L. Miller, God and Reason, Second Edition; New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972, 1995; p. 9.
[23] Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition; Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2001; "weltanschauung." The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition: "A worldview constitutes an overall perspective on life that sums up what we know about the world"; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001; "Wilhelm Dilthey," p. 236.
[24] The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, "Skeptics," p. 850.
[25] Merriam-Webster, "probability."
[26] Some people defines rationalism as an approach that rejects all supernatural revelation from the start, and this is indeed true of some rationalistic systems. But as an approach to knowledge, rationalism does not include an inherent rejection of revelation; rather, whether it accepts or rejects revelation depends on the first principle selected for a particular system.
[27] Since science is constantly changing, modern versions of the classical arguments are probably more useful against contemporary opponents, whereas the presuppositional argument requires no revision. It is often said that science has been and will continue to be progressive. This is a tacit admission that science has never been right and that it will never be right. The Bible has been correct in all that it affirms since it was first written. It needs no change or progress.
[28] As Paul says, "I am speaking as a fool" (2 Corinthians 11:21).
[29] A "mystery" in the Bible does not refer to something that man cannot understand. Rather, it is something that has not been fully told to man before, but that is now more fully told and explained (see Romans 16:25-26, 1 Corinthians 15:51-54, Ephesians 3:4-6, Colossians 1:25-27, 2:2-3). Thus the word has to do with the chronology of God's revelation instead of man's intellectual limitation. In fact, when the Bible calls something a "mystery," it is a sure sign that we have been informed about it and that we can understand it.
[30] See Vincent Cheung, "The Incomprehensibility of God."
[31] Anselm: "But what are You save that supreme being, existing through Yourself alone, who made everything else from nothing?"; Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works; p. 89.
[32] Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition.
[33] See Vincent Cheung, The View from Above and Reflections on First Timothy.
[34] When responding to the challenge of whether God can create or perform contradictions (often intended as a challenge to the coherence of biblical theism), many Christians are too quick to insist that divine omnipotence does not mean that God can do everything. For example, God "cannot" lie or die. Then, they apply this to contradictions, saying that God cannot create or perform them.
However, this accepts the confusion inherent in the challenge, and on that basis supplies a compromising response that is often theologically irrelevant to the Christian God, and that makes an unnecessary concession about God's ability. The answer is often irrelevant because, when it comes to creating a rock too heavy for God to lift, the category of weight does not apply to an incorporeal God in the first place, so to accept "heavy" as applicable to "God" means that one is no longer answering for the Christian God. Then, the answer makes an unnecessary concession because a contradiction is nothing to be created or performed, such that the issue of ability is inapplicable, and so to say that God "cannot" create or perform a contradiction is to unnecessarily say that God "cannot" do something, when it is really nothing.
Even the common illustrations that are meant to clarify divine omnipotence demand our reconsideration. First, does the Scripture really say that God "cannot lie" (Titus 1:2, KJV), or is it in fact God "does not lie" (NIV) or God "never lies" (ESV)? Go check the Greek. Second, even if we have access only to the KJV, so that the verse reads "cannot lie," why must we assume that "cannot" is here used in the same sense as it is in the question under discussion? Depending on the intention and the context, "cannot" sometimes means "does not." Hebrews 6:18 says that it is "impossible for God to lie," but then we still need to know why or in what sense it is impossible. Is it because God is inherently unable to speak falsehood as if it is truth? Or is it because whatever God says becomes the truth (Romans 4:17)? Power and the Word are one in God. Why can he not lie? Is it because of inability, or something else? Does the category of ability apply at all in this case?
Likewise, when we say that God "cannot die," are we saying that he lacks the ability to die, or should we rather say that death does not apply to the Eternal in the first place? Nothing eternal "can" die, but the "can" here has nothing to do with ability – the category does not apply at all. The eternal does not die, and when we say that God "cannot" die, we are referring to the utter impossibility of it, the inconceivability of it, the inapplicability of it, and not his ability or inability.
We should be deathly afraid to say that God cannot do something, that is, in the sense of inability. If we were to attribute inability to God — assuming that there is ever a legitimate and relevant application of inability to God — we must be certain that we use the term in the right sense, that we are not making an unnecessary concession by agreeing with anti-biblical assumptions, that the biblical verses being used to support our explanation indeed teach what we assert, and that it is not merely an equivocation on our part. We must avoid all silliness and carelessness, such as in the popular response, "God cannot perform contradictions because he is rational, and he cannot or will not act against his rational nature" – as if an irrational God would be "able" to perform contradictions!
[35] Jesus' command to love our enemies refers to natural benevolence or some practical action, even including prayer, but it does not suggest the kind of fatherly or brotherly love that is shared in the family of God: "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you" (Luke 6:27-31). Just as the Father offers natural benefits to those who hate him, such as food and rain, to love our enemies is to "do good" to them, to offer them natural benefits. The "good" that Jesus has in mind is mainly social and material. Paul also teaches that this is what it means to love our enemies: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:20-21).
[36] The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 3; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975, 1976; p. 46.
[37] Ibid.
[38] When speaking of the order of eternal decrees, we are of course considering only a logical order and not a temporal one, since all thoughts are simultaneous in the mind of God.
[39] John H. Gerstner, Repent or Perish; Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2000; p. 211.
[40] Peter Kreeft, How to Win the Culture War; Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2002; p. 90.
[41] Ibid., p. 93.
[42] Ibid., p. 94. Kreeft himself is a Catholic, not a Christian.
[43] Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 3; p. 46.
[44] Although God pardons the chosen ones of their sins, punishments dispensed by earthly governments apply also to Christians who have committed crimes.
[45] The knowledge of God is not a mystical knowing as aberrant Christianity affirms, but an intellectual one. The verse uses the words, "understands and knows"; it is a "knowing that" or "knowing about" the things of God.
[46] Oxford American Dictionary of Current English: "deep affection or fondness…delight in; admire; greatly cherish."
[47] The passage from Matthew leaves out "strength," but this helps reinforce the fact that the terms are synonymous in the first place.
[48] "Love your neighbor as yourself" comes from Leviticus 19:18.
[49] Man is a dichotomy, and consists of soul (mind, intellect, heart, or spirit) and body. He is not a trichotomy of spirit (heart), soul (mind, intellect), and body. The heart or the spirit is the soul (mind or intellect) of man. In the passages under discussion, heart, soul, and strength are synonymous terms, used for emphasis, and refer to a person's inner being, which Jesus interprets as the mind of man. Some commentators impose fanciful distinctions between these terms in this verse, but this is illegitimate and unnecessary. Even if Jesus has not added the word "mind," the commandment would mean the same thing as what is claimed here, since the heart and soul are synonymous with the mind. See Vincent Cheung, Godliness with Contentment, chapter 2.
[50] Jesus says in Matthew 23:23 that the "more important matters of the law" include "justice, mercy, and faith." So the New Testament did not introduce these concepts, as if they were not known before; rather, it reinforces them.
[51] Although we will discuss definite atonement later in this book, this explanation about the work of Christ already implies that the atonement was particular and not universal. Christ died only for the chosen ones, and not every human person. If Christ had died for the sins of everyone, God would have no basis to condemn anyone. However, the Bible says that God will condemn many non-Christians; therefore, Christ did not die for the reprobates, or those whom God created for damnation.
[52] Again, the impassability of God implies that his anger is a policy of thought and action rather than an emotion, or a disturbance of the mind.
[53] The will refers to the decision-making function of the mind. It is not a part of the person that is separate from the intellect.
[54] See Vincent Cheung, Blasphemy and Mystery.
[55] See Vincent Cheung, Godliness with Contentment, "Biblical Guidance and Decision-Making."
[56] The point of the verse is that God controls everything; therefore, the sparrow is not the smallest thing that he controls. Even a snowflake cannot land where it does apart from his active decree.
[57] REB: "Thus it does not depend on human will or effort, but on God's mercy."
[58] It is because of God's absolute sovereignty that the existence of evil poses no challenge to the biblical worldview. See Vincent Cheung, The Author of Sin.
[59] Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition.
[60] See Vincent Cheung, The Light of Our Minds.
[61] Paul says that we must interact with non-Christians because this is unavoidable – sinners are everywhere – but he does not say that it is a desirable thing in itself. As for those who claim to be Christians but who practice immorality such as idolatry and fornication, the verse teaches that we are to shun them entirely.
[62] God's creation includes "invisible" things, such as angels and the spiritual realm.
[63] See Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions and Presuppositional Confrontations.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Vincent Cheung. Systematic Theology (2010), p. 32-109.
