DOCSLIB.ORG

The Doctrine of Sin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Liberty University DigitalCommons@Liberty University The orF bidden Fruit File Theological Studies 5-2018 The oD ctrine of Sin Harold Willmington Liberty University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/forbidden_fruit Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Christianity Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Willmington, Harold, "The octrD ine of Sin" (2018). The Forbidden Fruit File. 1. http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/forbidden_fruit/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Theological Studies at DigitalCommons@Liberty University. It has been accepted for inclusion in The orF bidden Fruit File by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Liberty University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE DOCTRINE OF SIN INTRODUCTION Man calls it an accident; God calls it an abomination. Man calls it a blunder; God calls it a blight. Man calls it a defect; God calls it a disease. Man calls it a chance; God calls it a choice. Man calls it an error; God calls it an enmity. Man calls it a fascination; God calls it a fatality. Man calls it an infirmity; God calls it an iniquity. Man calls it a luxury; God calls it a leprosy. Man calls it a liberty; God calls it lawlessness. Man calls it a trifle; God calls it a tragedy. Man calls it a mistake; God calls it a madness. Man calls it a weakness; God calls it a willfulness. What is this mysterious thing, so downplayed and on occasion actually denied by man, but utterly denounced by God? By actual count it is referred to over 700 times in the Word of God. In a nutshell, one's concept of the holiness of God is directly connected to and governed by his understanding of the exceeding sinfulness of sin. The aim of this doctrinal study is to allow the student to clearly see both the purity of the one and the perversion of the other. The word sin is found hundreds of times in the Bible in both Old and New Testaments. Its first mention is in Genesis 4:7, where it is said to have been lurking at the door of the world's first murderer, Cain. The second reference is found in Genesis 18:20, where it causes the fiery and fearsome destruction of Sodom. The final mention is in Revelation 18:5, where it brings down the full wrath of an angry God upon the political and economic systems of this entire world. What is this deadly and damnable thing that is so hated by God and so harmful to man? The very word carries with it the hissing sound of a vicious viper. Some 20 centuries ago the angel Gabriel appeared to a troubled carpenter named Joseph to reassure him of the purity of Mary. “But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:20-21). Approximately 30 years after this angelic announcement, this babe, who had now grown into strong manhood, was publicly introduced by John the Baptist in the following manner: “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29b). From these verses we are told that the basic reason for the incarnation of God's Son was to deal with this terrible thing called sin. I. The Definition and Meaning of Sin 1 The biblical concept of sin comes from a study of words used in both Testaments for sin. The terms are numerous, compared to the words for grace in the Bible. Only three words are needed to express grace (chen and chesed in the Old Testament and charis in the New). By contrast, there are at least eight basic words for sin in the Old Testament and a dozen in the New. Together they furnish the basic concepts involved in the doctrine. Sin may properly be defined by using all these descriptive words for its various forms as recorded in the Old and New Testaments. Such a definition would be accurate though lengthy. Indeed, it might be a good idea to define it thus: sin is missing the mark, badness, rebellion, iniquity, going astray, wickedness, wandering, ungodliness, crime, lawlessness, transgression, ignorance, and a falling away. (Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, pp. 209, 212) The two most commonly used words for sin in the entire Bible are the words chata and hamartia. A. The Old Testament word chata In all of its forms this basic word for sin occurs about 522 times in the Old Testament. Its basic meaning is to miss the mark and is equivalent to the Greek word hamartano. But missing the mark also involves hitting some other mark; i.e., when one misses the right mark and thus sins, he also hits the wrong mark. The idea is not merely a passive one of missing, but also an active one of hitting. It is used of moral evil, idolatry, and ceremonial sins. Some important references include Exodus 20:20; Judges 20:16; Proverbs 8:36; and 19:2. (Ibid., p. 211) B. The New Testament word hamartia This is the most frequently used word for sin, occurring in its various forms about 227 times. When a writer wanted one inclusive word for sin, he used this one. The metaphor behind the word is missing the mark, but, as in the Old Testament, this is not only a negative idea but includes the positive idea of hitting some wrong mark. When it is used in the Gospels it almost always occurs in a context that speaks of forgiveness or salvation (Matt. 1:21; John 1:29). Other instructive references include Acts 2:38; Romans 5:12; 6:1; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 2 Corinthians 5:21; James 1:15; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 1:7; 2:2; Revelation 1:5. (Ibid., p. 211) Various theological definitions would include: “Sin is lack of conformity to the moral law of God, either in act, disposition, or state.” – A. H. Strong “Sin is a transgression of, or want of conformity to the divine law.” – Charles Hodge “Sin may be defined ultimately as anything in the creature which does not express, or which is contrary to, the holy character of the Creator.” – James Oliver Buswell, Jr. 2 “Sin is a restless unwillingness on the part of the creature to abide in the sphere and limitation in which the Creator, guided by infinite wisdom, had placed him.” – L. S. Chafer II. The Origin of Sin A. The origin of sin into the universe – According to five key biblical passages of Scripture, a powerful angelic creature named Lucifer once (perhaps before the creation of the earth) led a wicked revolt against Jehovah God himself in an insane attempt to dethrone the rightful King, the Lord Jesus Christ. While this treachery proved unsuccessful, it did, nevertheless, introduce into the universe a new evil element hitherto unknown. This perverted principle was sin. Lucifer degenerated into the devil and became, therefore, the source and strength of sin. 1. According to Isaiah – “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High” (Isa. 14:12-14). 2. According to Ezekiel – “Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared. You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones. Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings. By your many sins and dishonest trade you have desecrated your sanctuaries. So I made a fire come out from you, and it consumed you, and I reduced you to ashes on the ground in the sight of all who were watching’” (Ezek. 28:12-18, NIV). 3. According to Jesus – “And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven” (Luke 10:18). 4. According to 1 John – “He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning.
Recommended publications
  • Sin. Systematic Theology.Wayne Grudem

    Sin. Systematic Theology.Wayne Grudem

    Systematic Theology Wayne Grudem Chapter 24! SIN What is sin? Where did it come from? Do we inherit a sinful nature from Adam? Do we inherit guilt from Adam? EXPLANATION AND SCRIPTURAL BASIS A. The Definition of Sin The history of the human race as presented in Scripture is primarily a history of man in a state of sin and rebellion against God and of God’s plan of redemption to bring man back to himself. Therefore, it is appropriate now to consider the nature of the sin that separates man from God. We may define sin as follows: Sin is any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature. Sin is here defined in relation to God and his moral law. Sin includes not only individual acts such as stealing or lying or committing murder, but also attitudes that are contrary to the attitudes God requires of us. We see this already in the Ten Commandments, which not only prohibit sinful actions but also wrong attitudes: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor” (Ex. 20:17 NIV). Here God specifies that a desire to steal or to commit adultery is also sin in his sight. The Sermon on the Mount also prohibits sinful attitudes such as anger (Matt. 5:22) or lust (Matt. 5:28). Paul lists attitudes such as jealousy, anger, and selfishness (Gal. 5:20) as things that are works of the flesh opposed to the desires of the Spirit (Gal.
  • Eve's Answer to the Serpent: an Alternative Paradigm for Sin and Some Implications in Theology

    Eve's Answer to the Serpent: an Alternative Paradigm for Sin and Some Implications in Theology

    Calvin Theological Journal 33 (1998) : 399-420 Copyright © 1980 by Calvin Theological Seminary. Cited with permission. Scholia et Homiletica Eve's Answer to the Serpent: An Alternative Paradigm for Sin and Some Implications in Theology P. Wayne Townsend The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, `You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die. "' (Gen. 3:2-3) Can we take these italicized words seriously, or must we dismiss them as the hasty additions of Eve's overactive imagination? Did God say or mean this when he instructed Adam in Genesis 2:16-17? I suggest that, not only did Eve speak accu- rately and insightfully in responding to the serpent but that her words hold a key to reevaluating the doctrine of original sin and especially the puzzles of alien guilt and the imputation of sin. In this article, I seek to reignite discussion on these top- ics by suggesting an alternative paradigm for discussing the doctrine of original sin and by applying that paradigm in a preliminary manner to various themes in the- ology, biblical interpretation, and Christian living. I seek not so much to answer questions as to evoke new ones that will jar us into a more productive path of the- ological explanation. I suggest that Eve's words indicate that the Bible structures the ideas that we recognize as original sin around the concept of uncleanness.
  • Total Depravity

    Total Depravity

    TULIP: A FREE GRACE PERSPECTIVE PART 1: TOTAL DEPRAVITY ANTHONY B. BADGER Associate Professor of Bible and Theology Grace Evangelical School of Theology Lancaster, Pennsylvania I. INTRODUCTION The evolution of doctrine due to continued hybridization has pro- duced a myriad of theological persuasions. The only way to purify our- selves from the possible defects of such “theological genetics” is, first, to recognize that we have them and then, as much as possible, to set them aside and disassociate ourselves from the systems which have come to dominate our thinking. In other words, we should simply strive for truth and an objective understanding of biblical teaching. This series of articles is intended to do just that. We will carefully consider the truth claims of both Calvinists and Arminians and arrive at some conclusions that may not suit either.1 Our purpose here is not to defend a system, but to understand the truth. The conflicting “isms” in this study (Calvinism and Arminianism) are often considered “sacred cows” and, as a result, seem to be solidified and in need of defense. They have become impediments in the search for truth and “barriers to learn- ing.” Perhaps the emphatic dogmatism and defense of the paradoxical views of Calvinism and Arminianism have impeded the theological search for truth much more than we realize. Bauman reflects, I doubt that theology, as God sees it, entails unresolvable paradox. That is another way of saying that any theology that sees it [paradox] or includes it is mistaken. If God does not see theological endeavor as innately or irremediably paradoxical, 1 For this reason the author declines to be called a Calvinist, a moderate Calvinist, an Arminian, an Augustinian, a Thomist, a Pelagian, or a Semi- Pelagian.
  • Richard Baxter: of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to Believers

    Richard Baxter: of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to Believers

    Richard Baxter’s Of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers Quinta Press, Meadow View, Weston Rhyn, Oswestry, Shropshire, England, SY10 7RN The format of this book is copyright © 2018 Quinta Press The text was sourced from EEBO (Early English Books online). The images are black and white so sometimes the text is blurred by various degrees of foxing. Also sometimes the book was not microfilmed flat meaning text is hidden in the binding. Such instances where it is difficult to read the original are indicated by [[?????]]. All these instances need double checking against an original copy and it is hoped to consult these during 2019. OF THE IMPUTATION OF Christ’s Righteousness OF BELIEVERS: In what sence sound Protestants hold it; And, Of the false devised sence, by which Libertines subvert the Gospel. With an Answer to some common Objecti- ons, especially of Dr. Thomas Tully, whose Justif. Paulina occasioneth the publica- tion of this. By Richard Baxter; A compassionate Lamenter of the Churches wounds, caused by hasty judging and undigested concep- tions, and by the Theological Wars which are hereby raised and managed; by perswading the World that meer verbal or notional Differences are material, and such as our Faith, Love, Concord and Communion must be measured by, for want of an exact discussion of the ambiguity of words. London, Printed for Nevil Simons and Jonathan Robinson, at the Kings-Arms and Golden-Lion in St. Pauls Church-yard, 1675. The Preface. Reader, F thou blame me for writing again, on a Subject which I have written on so Ioft, and so lately (specially in my Life of Faith, and Disputations of Justification) I shall not blame thee for so doing; but I shall excuse my self by telling thee my reasons.
  • Torah Texts Describing the Revelation at Mt. Sinai-Horeb Emphasize The

    Torah Texts Describing the Revelation at Mt. Sinai-Horeb Emphasize The

    Paradox on the Holy Mountain By Steven Dunn, Ph.D. © 2018 Torah texts describing the revelation at Mt. Sinai-Horeb emphasize the presence of God in sounds (lwq) of thunder, accompanied by blasts of the Shofar, with fire and dark clouds (Exod 19:16-25; 20:18-21; Deut 4:11-12; 5:22-24). These dramatic, awe-inspiring theophanies re- veal divine power and holy danger associated with proximity to divine presence. In contrast, Elijah’s encounter with God on Mt. Horeb in 1 Kings 19:11-12, begins with a similar audible, vis- ual drama of strong, violent winds, an earthquake and fire—none of which manifest divine presence. Rather, it is hqd hmmd lwq, “a voice of thin silence” (v. 12) which manifests God, causing Elijah to hide his face in his cloak, lest he “see” divine presence (and presumably die).1 Revelation in external phenomena present a type of kataphatic experience, while revelation in silence presents a more apophatic, mystical experience.2 Traditional Jewish and Christian mystical traditions point to divine silence and darkness as the highest form of revelatory experience. This paper explores the contrasting theophanies experienced by Moses and the Israelites at Sinai and Elijah’s encounter in silence on Horeb, how they use symbolic imagery to convey transcendent spiritual realities, and speculate whether 1 Kings 19:11-12 represents a “higher” form of revela- tory encounter. Moses and Israel on Sinai: Three months after their escape from Egypt, Moses leads the Israelites into the wilderness of Sinai where they pitch camp at the base of Mt.
  • The Doctrine of Imputed Sin Is Not Explicitly Stated in the Bible. The

    The Doctrine of Imputed Sin Is Not Explicitly Stated in the Bible. The

    What is the Doctrine of Imputed Sin? The Doctrine of Imputed Sin is not explicitly stated in the Bible. The doctrine is born out of careful study of the biblical text, and, in this case, a careful study of the Greek language. It is often confused with Original Sin and is a subject of much controversy. The doctrine is based principally on Romans 5:12-19, which has been arranged so that each unit of Paul’s logic and thought can be more easily understood. Romans 5:12-19 12) Therefore, Therefore makes an inference to what has gone on before. After his introduction to Romans, Paul speaks about the depth and depravity of sin committed by both Gentile and Jew. Even with the Law, the Jews have failed to be holy and are under God’s judgment; all of humanity is helpless to sin (Rom 1:18-3:20). But God provided a means for righteousness for humanity: justification through faith in Jesus Christ. Paul uses Old Testament examples, Abraham and David, to illustrate how God declares people righteous on the principle of faith instead of works (Rom 3:21-4:25). Jewish allegory had always held to the concept of two Adams: one with good inclinations and the other with bad. The significance of using Abraham and David is apparent; God had made covenants with them. Now Adam can be introduced; the bridge has been set, with the focus on the two Old Testament covenant figures, to connect the second Adam (Christ) to the first Adam. How sin, introduced by the first Adam, can be resolved with the second Adam Jesus Christ.
  • Romans 3.21-26

    Romans 3.21-26

    WELCOME TO FELLOWSHIP OFFERINGS fellowshipconway.org • text “give” to 501-434-4449 PRAYER REQUESTS fellowshipconway.org • text “prayer” to 501-434-4449 PRAYER TEAM Resources "THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS "THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF CHRIST'S DEATH" OF GOD'S FREE, GRACIOUS JUSTIFICATION OF SINNERS" (Romans 3:21-26) (Romans 3:21-26) (Frank Theilman) (Frank Theilman) Paul also emphasizes the socially unifying nature of Gods righteousness. It comes to all who believe One of the most important descriptions of God's character in the Old Testament affirms that he is without distinction. Since all without distinction have sinned, God in his righteousness has made justification both merciful and just, but not in equal measure. His mercy is more typical of God's character than his freely available to all without distinction as well (3:22-24c, 27-30). This free, gracious justification of every justice. He describes himself to Moses as human being who believes has both anthropological and social implications. Merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping On the anthropological side, it means that no one can boast in his or her "works." Justification is given to steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no those who rely on God to provide release from punishment and reconciliation as a free gift, not to those who means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's work for it by means of obedience to the law. Paul has shown that justification by means of obedience to the children, to the third and the fourth generation.
  • FOUNDATIONS in ECCLESIOLOGY I Joseph A

    FOUNDATIONS in ECCLESIOLOGY I Joseph A

    I \ I ~ , .. ,I I I I I FOUNDATIONS I IN ECCLESIOLOGY I I I I I I I I Joseph A. Komonchak I I I '. I I I I I I FOUNDATIONS IN ECCLESIOLOGY I Joseph A. Komonchak I I I I I I I Supplementary Issue of the Lonergan Workshop Journal I Volume 11 Fred Lawrence, editor I • \ I 1../ I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I Copyright © 1995 Boston College I I Printed in the United States of America I on acid-free paper I I ,I I I I EDITORIAL NOTE I Joseph A. Komonchak belongs to a generation of Catholic theologians formed in what was essentially the pre-Vatican II system I of seminary education. This system combined the very forces of renewal that made the Council possible with the drawbacks of I closedness and downright aridity that made Pope John XXIII's fresh air necessary. If he was exposed to much in the seminary and church that needed reform, he also had the opportunity to have solid scholars I teaching him, such as Myles M. Bourke for scripture, in his New York diocesan seminary, and equally respectable men like Rene Latourelle and Juan Alfaro in Rome, not to mention the person who exerted the I most influence upon him, Bernard Lonergan. In one of the most trenchant passages he ever ,wrote Lonergan I said: The breakdown of classical culture and, at least in our day, I the manifest comprehensiveness and exclusiveness of modern culture confront Catholic philosophy and Catholic theology with the gravest problems, impose upon them mountainous tasks, I invite them to Herculean labors.
  • “Only a Trinity Can Save

    “Only a Trinity Can Save

    “Only a Trinity Can Save Us” Ephesians 3:14-21 14 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, 16 in order that he might grant you according to the riches of his glory to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inner man, 17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, being rooted and established in love, 18 in order that you might be strengthened to comprehend with all the saints what is the length and width and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, in order that you might be filled with all the fullness of God. 20 Now to him who is able to do exceedingly more than anything that we could ask or imagine, according to the power that is being worked within us, 21 to him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus for all generations, forever and ever. Amen. In the Name of God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen. 1. Introduction. When I was studying in England, I was enrolled in a Theology Seminar led by, let’s say, a “noteworthy conservative theology scholar.” There was nothing immediately alarming about the class or the instructor on paper, but then on day two, we began our study of the Trinity. The Professor explained that the word “God” was not so much a noun as an adjective to be applied to each Person of the Trinity.
  • Gerald O'collins, Saint Augustine on the Resurrection of Christ: Teaching

    Gerald O'collins, Saint Augustine on the Resurrection of Christ: Teaching

    Gerald O’Collins, Saint Augustine on the Resurrection of Christ: Teaching, Rhetoric, and Reception (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 121 pages. Reviewed by Gary R. Habermas, Liberty University Over decades studying the resurrection of Jesus, it always appears odd that there are comparatively few contemporary works treating the centuries of great church fathers who have addressed Christianity’s center. Many treasured gems have grown dusty and remain too-seldom remembered. We are the worse for that. Why this research lacuna? This little volume features well-known researcher Gerald O’Collins entering this void on a subject he knows well, addressing Augustine’s thoughts on Jesus’ resurrection and teaming with perhaps the world’s most respected academic publisher. Who besides Augustine is more erudite, speaks to the entire church, and does so in the classical rhetorical style, providing a magnificent choice? O’Collins begins his Preface by acknowledging the need for this study. Other major church leaders like Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, and Leo the Great wrote major Christological works before and after Augustine, yet, the latter surprisingly did not do so. Augustine’s longest treatment of Christology is The Trinity 4:1-5, though he still presents many reflections on Christology in his sermons, letters, and other works (v). Since “Preaching the message of Christ constituted the central core of Augustine’s ministry” (vi), the absence of an extended treatment is surprising. This absence encouraged his commentators to concentrate on other themes, like Scripture, the Trinity, original sin, free will, and grace. It remains the case that today, few commentators treat Augustine’s message: “we still lack studies precisely on Christ’s own resurrection from the dead.” O’Collins continues: “This study aims to fill this important gap.” (vi) 1 Towards this goal, O’Collins’ five chapters are devoted to key subjects strewn throughout Augustine’s writings.
  • A Holy and Powerful Savior

    A Holy and Powerful Savior

    THE TRANSFIGURATION OF OUR LORD February 23, 2020 A Holy and Powerful Savior Welcome! Thank you for joining us for worship this morning. We are happy that you are here! HELPFUL INFORMATION New to Our Savior? We are thrilled that you have joined us for worship today. Please take a moment to fill out a Connect Card—if you would prefer to fill it out online, scan the code with your phone, or go to OurSaviorBirmingham.com/Connect. You can put the Connect Card in the offering plate or give it to an usher as you leave. Bathrooms are located at the far end of the hallway as you exit the sanctuary. There is a changing station located in Room 3 (Nursery). Families with kids: We think it is important for families to worship together regularly. We know that occasionally, kids are going to have a rough morning. If your little one needs a moment, there is a speaker and window in our entryway that will allow you to see and hear the service. Children’s Activity Sheets give activities and lessons pertaining to the Scripture lessons for today’s service. Ask an usher at the door into the sanctuary. Holy Communion will be celebrated as part of this morning’s worship service. Here at Our Savior Lutheran Church, we practice “membership communion” and ask that only members come forward to receive the sacrament. An offering will be taken during our worship service today. If you are a guest, please do not feel obligated or compelled to participate. If you would like to give an offering that supports the ministry work at Our Savior, there are several ways to make a tax-deductible contribution: (1) place your offering into the offering plate, (2) you can scan this QR code to take you to our secure, online giving site where you can give via credit card or ACH transfer.
  • Re-Imagining Ecclesiology: a New Missional Paradigm for Community Transformation

    Re-Imagining Ecclesiology: a New Missional Paradigm for Community Transformation

    Digital Commons @ George Fox University Doctor of Ministry Theses and Dissertations 4-2021 Re-Imagining Ecclesiology: A New Missional Paradigm For Community Transformation Michael J. Berry Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/dmin Part of the Christianity Commons GEORGE FOX UNIVERSITY RE-IMAGINING ECCLESIOLOGY: A NEW MISSIONAL PARADIGM FOR COMMUNITY TRANSFORMATION A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF PORTLAND SEMINARY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF MINISTRY BY MICHAEL J. BERRY PORTLAND, OREGON APRIL 2021 Portland Seminary George Fox University Portland, Oregon CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL ________________________________ DMin Dissertation ________________________________ This is to certify that the DMin Dissertation of Michael J. Berry has been approved by the Dissertation Committee on April 29, 2021 for the degree of Doctor of Ministry in Leadership in the Emerging Culture Dissertation Committee: Primary Advisor: W. David Phillips, DMin Secondary Advisor: Karen Claassen, DMin Lead Mentor: Leonard I. Sweet, PhD Copyright © 2021 by Michael J. Berry All rights reserved ii DEDICATION To my wife, Andra and to our daughters, Ariel and Olivia. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Special thanks for everyone’s support and assistance to get me through this process: Dr. Len Sweet, Donna Wallace, Dr. David Phillips, Dr. Loren Kerns, Dr. Clifford Berger, Dr. Jason Sampler, Rochelle Deans, Dr. David Anderson, Dr. Tom Hancock, Patrick Mulvaney, Ray Crew, and especially Tracey Wagner. iv EPIGRAPH The baptism and spiritual