1 Session VIII Introduction to Christian Theology The Human as God’s Creature: Creation & Image

Introductory Comments: - The relationship between anthropology and Theology

In the history of Christianity theology has sometimes tended to lose its way and become more focused on humanity, leaving God as a sideline rather than a s the primary subject of theology. It attempted to do this in the in the first 3 centuries with Pelagianism, which tended to be focused on the freedom of humanity, rather than the sovereignty of God. It happened again in the Middle Ages with Aquinas who gave a special place to the role of reason in theology. With the advent of the renaissance and enlightenment, theology becomes truly “anthropocentric”. Theology is, properly speaking, about the right ordering of the being of God, and then humanity. That is, humanity must be understood from the perspective of God’s self-revelation and not vice versa. This must be kept at the forefront of our understanding of theological anthropology.

- The relationship between anthropology and Christology

Given the above statement then, theology must think of humanity in terms of the imago Dei. Therefore, it will explain the human creature in reference to Christ who is the one truly human and truly divine individual. Our creation in the image of God, as per Romans 5, is our creation in the image of Christ. Thus theological anthropology takes its point of departure from Christ, not from Adam, though Adam is essential to the understanding of such a theological anthropology.

- The relationship between anthropology and Scientific/Social views

Theology must also look to the Scriptures first and foremost in its anthropology, and not to social, psychological, and or scientific views of the essence of the human creature as a starting point. To be sure these aspects do give us an understanding of certain phenomena of the human. But they can never give us a clear understanding of the human as a product of divine creation. This is the prior fact of the human that delimits and determines what can be said of the human from these other perspectives.

I. The Biblical Doctrine of Humanity as God’s Creature a) Images of Humanity

– Theological anthropology is nevertheless one point of contact between science and theology. On the theological side humanity is a mystery to itself, but known to God. The social scientific view sees humanity as a problem to be solved without God. Thus the debate between them regards the questions of origins, purpose and destiny. Secular culture is perpetually asking questions to which Christian theology claims to have the answers. Because anthropology is a cross-disciplinary topic, many images of the essence of humanity abound. Some of the most prominent include the following.

i) Humanity has often been viewed in mechanistic terms. We are but intricate machines not unlike other biological machines of other species. Thus all knowledge of the human serves this mechanistic view. The goal of science is to improve the machine. In this approach persons are regarded as things, or objects of scientific inquiry.

2

ii) The basis of this mechanistic view is evolutionary biology. It sees us merely as a complex animal like all other organisms. We came to be through a process of random chance. The only difference between animals and us is the degree of adaptation. We have evolved to a higher state because of our greater degree of adaptation to our environment. This is seen in behaviorist psychology – the experiments of Pavlov, etc. Behavior modification can be achieved through the application of the right stimuli. Thus humanity can be perfected through behavior modification. (B. F. Skinner)

iii) Nihilistic philosophers and some existentialist view humans as pawns or automatons of capricious Gods, or merely unfortunate existences in a world destined to destroy us all. (F. Nietzsche, E. Hemmingway, Bertrand Russell). We are merely pawns at the mercy of capricious “forces” that control us. These forces of nature are either, intelligent, a-personal, or even mere chance. We are like Carnus Sisyphus, a Greek mythological character who was consigned by the God’s to the endless uselessness of pushing a rock up a hill only to have it roll back to start all over again. There are other views of humanity, but these are the most prominent today. b) The Christian theological view of God’s creature.

- The Christian faith has always viewed humanity as a product of God’s creation. We are made in the image of God through a conscious and purposeful act of God. This image of God is intrinsic to our nature. We are unique in our ability to rationalize and have relationship to God. We have an eternal dimension that transcends time in one direction.

- Yet, for all that, we fit into God’s creation in a biological/physical way. But our value and happiness is not in comfort, food and shelter, but in God’s higher purpose for His creature, namely to glorify Him. As such all of us have unique and intrinsic value before God (Matt. 10:23- 31). This allows for a view of life that is deeply joyful and satisfying. What are the key theological features of the Christian view of humanity.

i) The Biblical concept of humanity as God’s creature; vis-à-vis origins. Two accounts are contained in Genesis; Gen. 1:26-28, which tells of God’s decision to create us in the larger context of His creative action. Nothing is said about our composition in terms of body soul and spirit, but the imago dei is highlighted. Only our purpose, which is to be fruitful and have dominion, and our distinction as male and female receive a clear definition. Verse 26 states God’s intention to create us in his image (tselem) and likeness (demuth). The word for image is repeated twice in verse 27. This concept of likeness is repeated and expanded on in Gen 5:1. Gen 9:6 indicates, in it proscription against the taking of human life, that the primary reason for the proscription is creation in the image of God. Threr are no other references in the OT to this concept of the image of God. It only occurs twice in the Apocrypha, in Wisdom of Solomon 2:23 and Ecclesiasticus 17:3. Thus we need the references of the NT to more fully develop this doctrine.

- Gen. 2:7 is a quite different account. The way in which God created us is clearly outlined, and the essential aspect of our being, creation in the image of God, is defined as a spiritual and relational quality of being. “And man became a living being” forms the central affirmation of this account.

ii) This raises the second theological consideration, namely, the direct divine creation of the human? The Christian view conflicts with scientific view, which raises some serious questions for Christian theology, including;

3

 Did God create Adam directly or indirectly through evolution? (theistic evolution)  Did He do so by divine fiat in a short period of time? (fiat, creatio ex nihilo)  Did He make all the various (kinds) of life and they evolved from there in their own ways without admixture? (progressive creationism)

iii) Direct creation of the human and science. There is no connection between the highest primate and homosapiens, there is only a theory that such a connection is possible. Progressive creation would therefore seem to fit the data best. We actually have very little said about Adam’s physical characteristics. The prior question is not what did Adam look like, but what defines him as a human being. Things like language, rites, symbolism, tools, burial of the dead and rationality – all of these should be considered together as indicating the uniqueness of humanity in creation. Scientifically we can only study the phenomena of the human, not humanity in and of itself. Only Theology can give us a true account of the origins of true humanity. c) What then is the Theological meaning of Humanity.

1) Because of our status as creatures we are dependent upon a Creator. This should cause us to ask why we came to be in this way. Our value is not intrinsic to ourselves, but vested in God’s care for us and his sovereign plan for creation. (Gen. 1:26-28; Gen 2:7-8)

2) Humanity is interdependent upon creation itself. We are part of the sequence of creation and thus should live in harmony with it. Our kinship means our stewardship, which means we must care for creation. (Gen 1:28)

3) Humanity has a unique place in creation, visa vie dominion. As created in God’s image we have been endowed with Spirit and reason, both of which form the basis of our ability to be stewards, and have dominion over creation. But the fall impairs this so that on our own we fail in the task of stewardship. (Gen 1:28; Gen 3: 14-19)

4) Humanity is interdependent on fellow humans. We are related to one initial pair of humans, who have the unenviable task of feeding us, clothing us, teaching us to live in the fear and worship of God, and establishing us as stewards in our own right. Trust me, this sounds easier than it is!!!! We also share in sin and disobedience, through the sin of Adam. Thus we have a common inability to relate to the Creator. But we also share in God’s plan for us and have the offer of salvation in Christ as our common ground. Thus we are related and interdependent on a Christological basis. We depend on Him as the one who secures our being as creation in the image of God. (Romans 5:12-20)

5) Humanity is given a limitation as dependent creatures. We are finite. We are fallible and given to error. We are immortal only because of God’s creation. We must face death; the ultimate limit, Heb. 9:27. Finitude puts practical limits on all our accomplishments.

6) Our limitation is not a negative but a positive description of human. Secular philosophers and poets have bemoaned our finitude but our finitude underscores our relation to and dependence upon God. Sin enters in when we fight against our limitedness. The attempt to reduce our limitations is illusory. Even in our limitation, humanity is a wonderful creation. Ps. 139, Ps. 100:3-5

4 II. The Image of God in the Human as God’s Creature - The answer to the question “where did we come from?” is secondary to the question, “Who am I?” Real humanity is to be found not in society but in God’s image (Christ). As noted above, in a very real sense the first truly human person was not Adam but Christ. Because we are created in God’s image and Christ is “The image of the invisible God” this is what defines us. He made us in His own image and likeness (εικων). Christ is that likeness.

a) A Summary of the Biblical Material -

- As we saw above, Gen. 1:26-27 is the best known passage. However Romans 5:11f , is equally important. The 1st and 2nd Adam discussion is key to a Christian anthropology. This is further substantiated by the references in I Cor. 11:7; Jas. 3:9’ Acts 17:28; Rom. 8:29; II Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:23-24; Col. 3:10. Likeness to God in Christ is therefore essential meaning of the image of God, as we have already said. But there are other views worth considering. b) Views of the image of God – Toward and integrative understanding.

i) The substantive view – This view suggests that we reflect God in our being in a substantive way, either physical, spiritual, intellectual or otherwise – it has the meaning of “statute”. Some think we mirror God substantively as rational beings. This was the predominant view of the middle ages, and is developed in humanistic terms in the Enlightenment. This rational image is located in us as a quality of our being, expressed through mind, or nous.

ii) The relational view – To be human is to be relational. Emil Brunner, Karl Barth, E. Jüngel; Karl Rahner, J. Moltmann, S. Grenz. A very influential view today. The features of this view include the following.

1) The human, created in God’s image, is Christologically grounded, as we suggested. 2) This means that God’s self -revelation includes His revelation of our nature in Christ. 3) This image is therefore dynamic, not static. 4) This relationship is paralleled in our fellow human relationships. 5) This image is therefore a universal possession including sinful humanity. 6) Thus It is not a matter of what is required to have the image but of who gave it to us.

iii) The functional view. This view is less prominent and involved what we are commanded and equipped to do in creation. i.e. the image is a function of our act and not our being. As we have dominion and stewardship, we mirror the image of God. As we “create” we mirror God’s image. The cultural mandate is thus our acting according to the IOG in us, and the substance of that image.

c) Evaluations and Conclusions - The Relational View – a very helpful theme and finds its fullest expression in the double commandment of love of God and neighbor.(Matt. 22:36-40). That this is universal is not problematic. But it is also true that other factors must be supplied to understand relationality.

- The formal basis of our formal constitution is, according to Barth, creation and covenant. The material basis is God’s self revelation in Jesus Christ.

5 - The functional view is the less substantive in that it puts too much trust in human creative abilities. Erickson opts for the substantive view visa vie a holistic body, soul, spirit with intellect view.

- I would opt more for a relational view grounded in God’s self revelation in Christ – “Let us make man in our image”

Final Conclusions Regarding Theological Anthropology and the Image of God 1. The image of God is universal in the human race. 2. The image has been marred but not lost as a result of the fall. 3. The IOG is equally held by all, despite human imperfections. 4. While other variables are at play – the goal of image is relational. 5. The image is therefore structural and relational. 6. The IOG is integral to the realization of God’s purpose.

- What then is our purpose as human beings? To be like Christ, which is to be,

1. Relational – In fellowship with the triune being, and one another. 2. Obedient – to the command of Christ in and for these Relationships. 3. Loving – This is the key element in this Relationality, and the substance of the command. d) Some Theological Implications of the Image of God doctrine.

1. We belong to God – Give yourself to God because you bear His image. 2. We should pattern ourselves after Christ – i.e. be relational, that is the essence of God’s being. 3. Our full humanity can only be had in relationship to Christ – Christum humanum 4. The exercise of dominion is obedience and it is relational, to one another and God. 5. Humanity has value and sacredness in relation to each other. All human life is sacred. 6. The image of God, as relational, transcends gender, race and creed. Gal 3:28

- Freedom then, is a freedom limited by relationship with God and others. Thus murder, human degradation, racism, abortion etc. are prohibited

III. The Constitution of the Human Individual as embodied existence

Classical theology added to this understanding of the image of God a further elaboration on the constitution of the human being in embodied existence. The following views are representative. a) Trichotomist View – quite popular in early days of Evangelicalism, and in the early Church. We are: - physical – (Greek: sarx) We are biological beings with, nervous, musculo/skeletal, and endocrine systems, sustained and nurtured in a physical universe, but eventually dying. - psychological – We have reason, emotion, social relation, mind and will. - spiritual – We have a religious element (spirit) capable of responding to God at the highest level. b) Dichotomist View – widely held in Catholic west from 381-AD

- Body (Greek: soma/sarx) – Physical existence that passes away as per above.

- Soul (Greek: pseuche) – This is the immaterial and eternal aspect that marks us as immortal in nature, after our creation in the image of God. It includes our mind will and emotions. Many 6 arguments for dichotism are against the trichotomists view. Scriptures include: I Thess. 5:23; Lk. 10:27; I Thess.; Ecc. 3:21; Lk. 1:46-47; Matt. 6:25, 10:28; I Cor. 5:3. For conservatives the Body dies, the soul lives on immortally. c) Monist View - Trichotomist and dichotomist agree on the complex and compound nature of Humanity

- Monists view the human as a single embodied entity. The body exists and will pass away, there is no post death existence. It is an outright rejection of immortality. J.A.T. Robinsons, “The Body” is a classic example. This view is very unbiblical and not a popular one. d) An Alternative View- Hebrew Holism

- From the Old Testament perspective the human must be understood holistically. As unitary beings we must understand the interconnectedness of physical and spiritual existence. Our physicality will undergo change but it will not cease to exist. We will receive a new and perfect body. We are at present a conditional unity – our normal state is an immortal materialized unitary being.

- Our resurrection is a holeness and newness all at once. “We might think of each human being as a unitary compound of a material and immaterial element. The spiritual and the physical elements are not always distinguishable, for the human is a unitary subject” (Erickson, Christian Doctrine p. 556-7f). Death brings dissolution; but the resurrection brings resolution.

Implications of the Holistic view

1. Each human is treated first as a unity 2. Humans are complex in their make up 3. Each aspect of our being should be attended to 4. Religious development or maturity takes a holistic approach 5. The resurrection is bodily and whole

7

Introduction to Christian Theology: Session IX The Human as God’s Creature: Sin (the Fall)

Introductory Comments: - Sin and the problem of the origin of evil is a perennial theological problem. It is a doctrine that is largely ignored today, but is in much need of reaffirmation. Because of the unpopularity of the doctrine of sin in contemporary culture, we have tended to soft sell it or use euphemistic language for it. As a result, the doctrine of Sin almost disappeared in modern times. It’s making a comeback, but slowly!

I. Sin must be understood as a Breach of the Divine/Human Relationship Realized As: a) Sin means there is enmity between God and Humanity – Divine disfavor.

- Sin produced for Adam and Eve an immediate breach of their relationship to God, themselves and their earthly existence. Their close fellowship with God was broken (Gen. 3:8). Their willful violation of God’s command involved the application of his holy law. As a result, they now find themselves at enmity with God. God’s divine disfavor becomes immediately apparent in their eviction from paradise. God, as history shows, demonstrates his divine disfavor towards sin with immediate judgment. The Scriptures make it clear that God hates wickedness. Hos. 9:15. Prov. 6:16-17.

- His hatred of sin stems from His holiness: He loves the sinner, but hates the sin. God knows our hearts and apportions his disfavor where it is appropriate. We become, in essence, God’s enemy, Ex. 23:22; Is. 63:10. Humanity is responsible for this breach in relationship, not God.

- In the New Testament sin is seen as essentially the rejection of God in favor of self. When we set our hearts and minds on the world we become God’s enemy, Rom. 8:7; Col. 1:21; Jas. 4:4; Rom. 5:8-10. Sin angers God, Jn. 3:36; Rom. 1:18, 2:5; so that God’s wrath is against sin. Thus Sin is the great complication between God and man – it is the potential spoiler. Anger is not a feeling in God so much as it is a side of his justice. His anger is calculated and grounded in his holiness and righteousness, which is expressed in His revealed law. b) Sin also means a breach that is realized as guilt.

- The word today has become so psychologized that a clear Biblical concept emerges only with some difficulty. There is a subjective aspect of guilt that is not necessarily associated with win. Some people who have done no wrong remain feeling guilty. Theology means by guilt – the objective state of having violated God’s intentions for human kind and thus being liable to punishment – a legal term. Guilt is the state of being in the wrong in regard to the Law – not just bad.

- As the product of a gracious Creator, who has endowed us with relationship and dominion, we transgress him when we disobey his law. Our sin is the sin of ingratitude toward a gracious and loving God. Disobedience to his law is an affront to his person as a gracious and sovereign God. 8 This disobedience requires punishment. We are guilty when we have been found disobedient and thus liable to punishment under God’s law.

c) What then is the punishment for this breach of relationship: It is severe.

- Once guilt has been established, sentencing can proceed. But is punishment remedial, deterrent or retributive. Many today are uncomfortable with retributive justice. They see it as vindictive and hostile and certainly contrary to a loving God. Yet, the Bible seems to show punishment to be retributive.

- The death penalty in the Old Testament cannot be viewed otherwise. The Hebrew word nāqam means, literally vengeance, or revenge. God is often invoked to take “revenge” on Israel’s behalf. The Old Testament seems replete with references (Is. 1:21, 61:2, 63:4; Jer. 46:10). The flood can hardly be seen as corrective or deterrent.

- The idea of vengeance is clear in the New Testament as well. Rom. 12:19; Heb. 10:30. There are cases, however, where punishment is restorative (Achan) or disciplinary (Ps. 107:10-16; Heb. 12:6; Is. 10:20-21). The ultimate punishment is death and there are several dimensions – Gen. 2:17; Rom. 6:23 make it clear that death is the penalty for sin.

i) Physical death – Our mortality has been traditionally understood as a direct result of sin. Heb. 9:27; Rom. 5:12. Adam brings it in. Calvinist, and all sensible Christians, see humanity as created immortal. The Pelagian view claimed that humans were mortal before the fall. Death and decay is a principle part of creation for Pelagius. Pelagians claim that if the Calvinists are right then so is the sextant. But Pelagians have a poor concept of eternal reward and punishment. Though Christ died a physical death, this does not deny immortality. In taking upon himself the penalty for our sin, it had to be complete. Gen. 3:19 makes the link between sin and death clear. I Cor. 15 seems to assume a close connection between physical and spiritual death. Our physical death as Christians is the last vestige for the Conqueror of death. I Cor. 15:55-56 makes it clear that though we die physically, spiritually we continue. “The Bible has a synthetic view of death and regards it as separation from God.” Our immortality is always a dependent immortality. Adam, had he obeyed God, could have lived eternally. Previous to sin, he could have died, now he will have died. The Fall affected the whole of creation in terms of sickness, disease, the struggle for survival. The whole of creation is in bondage and groans for release Rom. 8:18-23. The potential for death was tied not to creation, but to the possibility of human disobedience. The sin of Adam is its realization.

ii) Spiritual death – Connected to yet to be distinguished from physical death. Spiritual death is separation of the human person from God’s person. We are “cut off from the land of the living” – sin is a spiritual barrier to God. Subjectively, spiritual death entails our loss of spiritual sensibility. Our ability to do the righteous things is severely impaired. Only in Christ can this spiritual sensitivity be partially recaptured, Rom. 6:4. We are partakers of the new spiritual reality only through Christ.

iii) Eternal death – Connected with physical and spiritual death. Eternal death is final and complete separation from God and our true humanity. Eternal death is qualitatively different from physical death in terms of intensity and duration. Eternal death entails eternal separation from God for all eternity. Matt. 25:24-40. Rom. 3:23 – The wages of sin is death, physical, spiritual and eternal. Those who fail to come to God through faith in Christ will be subject to eternal death. Sin has deadly serious consequences, make no mistake. 9

II. Sin is also a Human Condition Realized As: a) The bondage of the will Session IX

- In his Commentary on Romans 1:18 – Luther writes, “If Paul were not understood as implying mans impotence, his argument would lose its point. For his whole concern here is to make grace necessary for all men. But, if they were able to initiate anything of themselves, there would be no need of grace. As it is, however, they are not able and therefore they do need grace.”

- Sin means the involvement of our will to sin against the ability to do what is right – Contra Pelagius. Adam’s sin led to a torrent of sin well documented in history and scripture. Humanity is enslaved to sin. It is not a matter of freedom to sin or not to sin. Paul refers to our sinful condition as one of absolute slavery. Rom 6:17. δουλος –“bond slave” b) The human condition of sin is a denial of our true humanity. - It is a flight from reality and from God into an equally unreal world of individual and collective denial. Sin's seduction lies in its promise of autonomy and freedom. Instead it enslaves, distorts, diminishes and finally destroys true humanity. "For the wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23). c) This denial of sin is expressed as:

i) Self deception – either we call it something else, admit to it but refuse responsibility – or worse, shift the responsibility. We deceive ourselves into thinking the wrong we do is not wrong. We fail to see our own sinful condition.

ii) Our conscience becomes seared – insensitive to the voice of conscience or God’s Spirit. Our repeated rejection of God’s conviction of sin makes us insensitive. Some travel so far down this road they have no compunction or moral sense.

iii) Narcissism – sin wraps us up in ourselves. We become unaware of those around us who are affected. We think life exists for us and revolves around us.

iv) Restlessness – we are never satisfied. We may experience periods of satiety but they are brief.

III. The Effects of Sin are Realized in Relation to Others As: a) Strife and Competition. There is no such thing as the perfect realization of human rights. If evaluation has anything to teach us its “survival of the fittest” as an expression of the reality of human sin. The attitude becomes, “for every winner there is an unequal and opposite loser”. This is why the Ten Commandments proscribe against coveting. (Jas. 4:1-2) b) Sin disassociates us from the other. This is a major consequence of sin. The loss of relation to God entails loss of relation to the other. We need always to have the other in view. Phil. 2:3-5. Sin makes us unable to empathize with others. 10 c) Sin causes us to rebel and reject authority. As a result, crime and civil strife recur throughout history. To secure our own position we feel the need to destabilize that of others. We think freedom is curtailed in authority and thus reject it. d) The inability to love – the loss of true relation. - It is the source of hatred, discord, hurt and pain, where there should be love, unity, wholeness and pleasure.

11

Session IXA Introduction to Christian Theology: The Magnitude of Sin

I. The Extent of Sin a) Old Testament Teaching – Sin is a universal condition.

- Pre-Noahatic times necessitated a severe judgment, Gen. 6:5. Even after the flood, sin still worked through humanity in a pervasive way, Gen. 8:21; I Ki. 8:46; Rom. 3:23. Even the so- called “saints” of the Old Testament are all caught up in the net of universal sin (from Noah to Jeremiah) Ps. 51 – David as an example par excellence. b) The New Testament reaffirms the Old Testament teaching of universal sin.

- Romans 1-3 is one extended argument on universal guilt. Paul makes it clear that sin is a universal condition. Salvation for all implies all have sinned (Acts 17:30). The universality of sin is a matter of fact situation in the New Testament. The reality of death as a universal penalty also underscores this.

II. The Intensiveness of Sin – How sinful are we? a) Old Testament Teaching – In the Old Testament sin is an act rather than a state or disposition. Yet intentionality is central to the Old Testament understanding of sin. Deut. 4:42. Jeremiah and Ezekiel see sin as an affliction of humanity at its core. Jer. 17:9; Ezek. 11:19. Ps. 51 is clear on this and should be required reading for every Christian. b) New Testament Teaching

– The New Testament makes it clear that sin is an innate human condition. Matt. 5:21-48 is Jesus exposition of the sinful heart. Jesus often rebuffed the Pharisees for their lack of awareness of this. Paul’s personal struggle with sin enables him to construct his doctrine of original sin. Rom. 7 is the classic example of this struggle. c) Our conclusion is that sin a total depravity. - “Our hearts are only evil continuously” Gen. 6:5. Total depravity does not mean a loss of moral sensitivity. Rom. 2. Nor does it mean that we are as sinful as we can be. It means:

i) Sin is a matter affecting the whole person – every aspect of our being. Body – Rom. 6:6, 12; 6:24; 8:10; Mind – Rom. 1:21; II Cor. 3:14-15; Will – Gal. 5:24. ii) Total depravity means all our actions are tainted by sin including good. iii) Total depravity means a complete loss of ability to extricate ourselves from sin. We are “dead in our trespasses and sin” Eph. 2:1-2,5. Salvation is an act of the entire grace of God. Eph. 2:8-9. Outside of Christ we can do nothing to gain favor with God.

12

III. Theories of Original Sin – All are depraved in our sinfulness. a) Pelagianism – How is sin transmitted to humanity? Was it Adamic solidarity?

- In St. Paul there is a clear causal connection between Adam and our sin. In what sense do we share in this Adamic sin. Pelagius, a British monk, teaching in Rome, was a positive moralist at heart. He disagreed with the unduly negative assessment of human sin. He saw it as detrimental to good moral living. He saw the dual emphasis on sovereignty and depravity as a negative inducement to the moral life.

- To counteract this he laid heavy emphasis on free will. Our freedom is complete and absolute in relation to God’s. As such we can choose whether or not to be affected by the fall. Adam was a bad example that we have had to live with but there is no absolute connection between Adamic sin and humanity.

- Thus, grace is not a necessity for salvation, merely an aid. We can, by our own efforts, with or without grace, avoid sin. There is not natural inclination to sin except through habitual lifestyle. Thus, salvation by works is quite possible. Humans are endowed with the possibility not to sin.. Thus salvation amounts to the “re-moralization” of humanity before God. b) Arminianism builds upon the Pelagian view of humanity.

- James Arminus – a Dutch Reformed pastor and theologian. He did affirm a corrupt nature received from Adam. Thus, we are born without righteousness and need God’s grace. But, this inability is physical and intellectual, not volitional. Our guilt is a liability to punishment but not a culpability. That is we are guilty of Adamic sin by association, but not by commission. Our culpability was removed through the Atonement. Now we have the ability, after grace, not to sin. c) Calvinism

- Calvin and his followers developed the doctrine of original sin in greater degree than any other reformation group. Adam’s sin, according to Calvin, has affected the whole of creation. Through sin, says Calvin, “Adam also entangled and immersed his offspring in the same miseries. This is the inherited corruption, which the fathers called “original sin”. In.I.II, 1. p. 246.

- Because we participate in the sin of Adam we receive a corrupt nature and tendency towards sin. As such, all are guilty of Adam’s sin and are implicated in it. Therefore we are all subject to death, physical, spiritual, eternal. Physical death is clear evidence that all of us are sinners.

- “Thus, whereas in the Pelagian view God imputes neither a corrupted nature nor guilt to mankind, and in the Arminian view God imputes a corrupt nature but not culpability,” Calvin built his understanding on Romans 5:12-19 under the conception of Federal headship. While our body is of human parentage our souls join to us at birth/in the womb at conception. In this way Adam’s sinful human nature has been passed on. Because all of us were bound to God in relationship through Adam we are implicated, in culpable terms, in his action.

- The only other option is Traducianism. This is the idea that we receive our soul from our parents. This is called natural headship and it posits that we are present in germ in them. This view does not alter our culpability however. (This was Augustine’s view)

13 d) Original sin: A biblical model. Romans 5:12-19.

- Death is the consequence of sin – in Adam all died. Paul writes that in Adam “Many died through one mans sin.” Sin comes in through us all in the same way as it comes in through Adam. All die because all are guilty, because all have sinned corporately and individually. There is not conflict between vs’s 12,15 and 17 because of the context. Adam was our representative in a Federal sense through the covenant. Erickson takes the traducian view and claims we are present in Adam in germ. The problem of infant guilt in natural headship is an insurmountable mystery. The view of natural headship contradicts scripture (Matt. 18:3; 19:4). The question is one of moral accountability – which Adam bequeaths us through covenantal relationship.

- Humanity is implicated in sin through Adam’s breach of relationship. We are involved in a representative way and thus possess a corrupt nature. We are furthermore guilty (culpable) in this sin. There is no condemnation however, until the age of accountability.

14

Session X Introduction to Christian Theology God the Holy Spirit: The Person of the Holy Spirit

Introduction - Why did it take so long to formulate a serious doctrine of the Holy Spirit? Because it took 300+ years to sort out the theology of the Father and Son. Why is the Holy Spirit such a hot topic today? It is due in no small part to the rise of Charismatic and Pentecostal claims to a new “theology” and experience of the Holy Spirit.

- What do we make of recent attempts at the doctrine of the Holy Spirit – Pinnock and Moltmann, and Amos Yong? All of them tend to focus on works of the Holy Spirit rather than person, in terms of experience. The goal here will br to outline an order of priority between the person and work of the Holy Spirit so that aspects of this new experience might be both criticized and, in places, affiemed.

I. Why Study the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit? a) The Holy Spirit has a clear role as the third person of the Godhead in Scripture

- As a member the Godhead he is active in us, revealing God to us, through the Scriptures and as the agent of truth in regard to the Scriptures. As the third person of the Trinity, the Spirit is also the agent who gives birth to the Church and is the presence of God among us today, continuing the process of redemption.

b) He is the active agent in the church in this phase of redemption.

- As such, his work is more contemporary than that of the Son. From the Day of Pentecost on He has been the form of God’s presence in the church. To be in touch with God is to be in touch with the Holy Spirit. Where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church.

c) The Holy Spirit both enables and guide our experience of God

- He is the one who makes God real to us because He is the real God with us. He is the one who makes God tangible to us by demonstrating the transformative power of the Gospel in the lives of his people, the Church. He does this through the work of sanctification, fruitfulness and giftedness, for personal and corporate edification.

d) There are some difficulties that arise in relation to the Holy Spirit.

- Unless we proceed with caution we will misunderstand the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures give us less explicit language about the Spirit than about the Son or the Father. This is due almost surely to his task to point us to the Son (Jn. 16:14). Probably John Ch’s 14-16 is the closest to a theological treatment of the Holy Spirit in Scripture and so we should properly begin here when we undertake a theology of the Holy Spirit. The Bible is also short on concrete imagery with regard to the Holy Spirit. The Father and Son can be conceptualized by means of personal characteristics and traits, but this is less true of the “Holy Spirit” (e.g. Holy Ghost).

15 - Another theological problematic is the Spirit’s mission in relation to the Son and the Father. In some sectors of Christian theology, both past and present, there has been a tendency to subordinate the Spirit to the Son and the Father. The Pentecostal and Charismatic movements have muddied the waters considerably in this regard by not clearly elaborating their doctrine of the Holy Spirit in Trinitarian terms. This is something they need to do if they want to be clearly heard and understood on this issue.

II. The Place to Begin in any Doctrine of the Holy Spirit is with His Eternal Deity a) The Deity of the Holy Spirit is clearly attested to in Scripture.

Primary New Testament Texts

1.The Ananias and Sapphira passage is a common point of reference in this regard. Acts 5 – it can be paraphrased as, “You have lied not to man but to God the Holy Spirit”.

2. Paul refers to our body as the vαος (naos = temple) of the Holy Spirit where “God dwells”, I Cor. 3:16, 6:19

3. The Holy Spirit is seen as omniscient in I Cor. 2:10-11

4. The Johannine text often refers to the Holy Spirit in the third person with emphasis -Jn. 14-16; 3:5- 8

5.The Holy Spirit, like the Father and Son, is eternal and uncreated – Heb. 1:12-12

6. The Holy Spirit does the same works as God – Creation –Ps. 104:30; Regeneration –Rom.8:11; Inspiration of Scripture –II Tim. 3:16; II Pet. 1:2

7. The Holy Spirit is spoken of as equal with the Father and the Son – Matt. 23:19 (cf. also II Cor. 13:14; I Cor. 12:4-6; I Pet. 1:2)

- Old Testament

In the Old Testament the ruach is seen in creation – Gen. 1-3 and as the one who caused men to prophecy, but it is in the NT that this is worked out more fully. More will be said about this later. b) Based on the above texts we affirm The personality of the Holy Spirit – i.e. Not impersonal force.

i) He is often referred to as a person in the personal pronoun “He” – Jn. 16:13. When “He” the Holy Spirit comes, “He” will … ii) His work is the work of a person – Counselor (parakletos) Jn. 14-16 iii) Paul speaks of his work as an agent in the church. He builds fruit into our lives and gifts us for ministry, as above. See Gal 5:22f and Icor Ch’s 12-14. iv) The Spirit is the agent of transformation and sanctification – I Pet. 1:2 v) The Spirit possesses many personal characteristics. He can be grieved - Eph. 4:30; he can teach – Jn. 14:26; convict, comfort – Rom. 8:26. He is the agent who leads us into God’s presence.

16 III. What are the Implications of This for the Church i. The Holy Spirit as a person is someone to whom we can relate. This was the reason He was sent. ii. The Holy Spirit as a member of the Trinity can be worshiped with the Father and Son, as the Nicean creed makes clear iii. The Holy Spirit as a member of the Trinity and a person, is one with the Father and Son, co-equal and co-eternal, having the same substance iv. The Holy Spirit is the presence of God among us today

Furthermore, the following implications can be drawn from the above:

Karl Barth writes;

“The one God reveals himself according to the Scripture as the Redeemer, i.e. as the Lord who sets us free. As such, he is the Holy Spirit, by receiving whom we become the children of God, because, as the Spirit of the love of God the Father and God the Son, He is so previously himself.”

In stating his doctrine of the Spirit, Barth begins in his Church Dogmatics I/1 with a clear affirmation of the place of the person of the Holy Spirit in the Godhead. For Barth, the primary role of the Spirit as the 3rd person of the Trinity, is that of the one who manifests the Father and the Son in redemption. The Revelation of the Father in the Son is the objective side of revelation, whereas the Holy Spirit is the subjective aspect of revelation, (that is, the one who makes the objective revelation real and knowable for us). The Holy Spirit of God is God’s freedom to be present to the creature, and so to create this (redemptive) relation, and thereby to be the life of the creature. The Holy Spirit, as God’s Spirit, is God himself, so far as he can not only come to man, but be in man, and so open man up for himself, make him ready and capable, and so receive His revelation in him. Man needs this revelation because he is lost without it. Thus, the Holy Spirit is God’s self-revelation within humanity. This subjective aspect of revelation is the ground of the distinction between the Spirit and the Son. “This non-identity between Christ and the Holy Spirit appears in the context of the New Testament witness…” as the Spirit through whom they confess and believe in the Son.

- As such the Spirit: 1. Guarantees our personal participation in revelation 2. Gives to us instruction and guidance which we cannot give ourselves 3. Thus, he is not identical with our self, rather;

“He remains the purely other, the Superior. We can only not what his yea is to the Word of God, this yea of his we can only repeat after him. As our teacher and leader he is in us, not as a power over which we might become lords, He remains himself the Lord.”

Furthermore, Barth comments:

“All along this entire line the Spirit is obviously less the reality in which God makes us sure of Him, as on the contrary the reality in which He makes Himself sure to us, in which by His immediate presence He makes good and executes His claim to Lordship over us.”

17 Finally then, the Holy Spirit is the “the only possibility, in virtue of which men can so speak of Christ, that their language becomes testimony, therefore that the revelation of God in Christ becomes actual and anew by their speaking.”

Then Barth draws this absolutely crucial conclusion.

“Does not the entire New Testament doctrine of the Holy Spirit point right beyond all that the Spirit can mean for the believer in his relation to God, to what should happen in the believer and through the believer in the power of the Spirit of God, i.e. in the service of God?”

The Holy Spirit is, therefore, the empowering we need to speak of Christ.

18 Session XI Introduction to Christian Theology God the Holy Spirit: The Work of the Holy Spirit

Introduction - As stated above, there is a tendency in Christian theology, especially in today’s climate, to work out the doctrine of work of the Holy Spirit in absence of, or without due regard for the “person” of the Holy Spirit. The problem that arises when this is done is that “works” are often ascribed to the Holy Spirit, on the basis of experience, which would seem at times to do violence to the Person of the Holy Spirit.

- The Lukan and Pauline material is of considerable importance in terms of the work of the Holy Spirit but the primary theology of the work of the Spirit should rest on the Johnannine passages above, so that His person is always kept in view.

- Furthermore, within the doctrine of the work of the Holy Spirit, the contemporary emphasis on the gifts of the Spirit must be balanced by an equal emphasis on the fruits of the Holy Spirit. Giftedness without fruitfulness cannot produce the edification (oikodometo, I cor. 12) that the gifts intend to foster.

I. The Holy Spirit as Agent in the OT is the Background for the Doctrine of His Work

a) Holy Spirit as agent of creation

- Usually just uses the term Spirit (ruach) when talking of God’s action in or upon the world. Another expression, the “Spirit of God”, is often used; c.f. also Acts 2:16-21 for the NT equivalent. Holy Spirit in the OT is also seen as an agent in creation – Gen. 1:2. In creation, God continues to create by his Spirit – Job 26:13.

b) Prophecy

- Old Testament prophets were often commandeered by the Holy Spirit. See Jer 18:1f and the story of Jeremiah’s calling in Jer. 1, or that of Isaiah, or Amos, etc!

c) Skill or Hockma

- According to Ex. 31:3-5, the Spirit gave wisdom in the building of the temple. The same is true of the building of Solomon’s temple in II Kings.

d) Holy Spirit is the agent of personal change

- David, above all other OT figures, was well aware of this. See his confession in Ps. 51:11 where he so beautifully writes, “Create in me a clean heart and take not thy Holy Spirit from me.” David depicts the Spirit as producing moral qualities in his inner being. Neh. 9:20 also refers to the teaching role of the Holy Spirit in the same sense.

e) The Holy Spirit is a key player in the eschaton

- see Joel 2:28-26 & Is. 61:1f where the Spirit’s coming is a sign of the Messiah’s second coming.

19

II. In the NT The Holy Spirit is a Partner in the Life and Ministry of Jesus

a) The Spirit as present at conception – Lk. 1:35

- Though we are not told the mystery of this miraculous event, it indicates a clear role for the Spirit in the order of Salvation. Christian theology has always seen the Holy Spirit as some how instrumental in the process of the incarnation of Christ through Mary.

b) The Spirit as partner in baptism – Mk. 1:8; Matt. 3:1; Lk. 3:22

- The announcement of Jesus ministry begins in partnership with Spirit. Immediately after His baptism Jesus is full of the Holy Spirit and is led into the dessert. It is dangerous to make too much of this, as does the Spirit Christology of G. W. H. Lampe and other. But it must be considered as somehow a co-agency between Christ and the Spirit in the process of redemption.

c) Thus the Spirit is also partner in the temptation – Lk. 4; Matt. 4

- being full of the Holy Spirit, Christ now encounters evil in all its power, and is able to overcome it, from the point of view of His humanity, in that power of the Holy Spirit.

d) The Spirit is also a partner in the miracles and healings of Jesus – Matt. 12:25-28, 31-32.

- Jesus whole life was empowered and aided by the Holy Spirit but Jesus life gave no apparent hint of charismata in the Pauline sense of the word. Again the stress must be on the co-agency of the Son and the Spirit in redemption.

III. The Work of the Spirit as Comforter and Empowerment

a) The Holy Spirit is our comforter at salvation – Jn. 16:8-11

- He initiates us into the knowledge of Christ first by convicting us of our sinfulness.

b) He stands at the beginning of our Christian life

- He is the agent, not only of conviction, but of conversion, and is with us in the process from the very beginning.

c) He is the means of our regeneration and transformation

- The Spirit leads us into new birth – Jn. 3:5-6. Only the Spirit can transform us not we ourselves. He is the one who seals our baptism. He is the comforter in sanctification. Through Him we receive the fruits of the Spirit – Gal. 5:25.

d) Finally, through the Holy Spirit we receive gifts for the edification of the Church

- He gives us Gifts of leadership – Eph. 4:11f - He gives us Gifts of service – Rom. 12:3-8 - He gives us Gifts of power – I Cor. Ch’s 12-14

20 So what about the Spirit and the Charismatic Gifts: 3 important theological principles. 1. All actions ascribed to the Spirit must accord with his person. 2. All actions ascribed to the Spirit must accord with the whole of Scripture. 3. All actions ascribed to the Spirit must accord with the order of salvation: justification, sanctification and empowerment for service.

* Balance and discernment is the key

In Sum: What is the Work of the Spirit? 1. The Spirit empowers for service – Acts 1:8 2. The Spirit indwells us to sanctify us – Jn. 14:16-17 3. The Spirit teaches us – Jn. 14:26 4. The Spirit intercedes for us – Rom. 8:26-27. 5. The Holy Spirit sanctifies us – Rom. 8:1-17 6. The Spirit then gifts us. There are four lists of the gifts in Scripture.

Romans 12:6-8 I Corinthians 12:4-11 Ephesians 4:11 I Peter 4:11 Prophecy Wisdom Apostles Speaking Service Knowledge Prophets Service Teaching Faith Evangelists Exhortation Healing Pastors Liberality Miracles Teachers Giving aid Prophecy Acts of mercy Discernment Tongues/Interpretation

What about the “glossilalia”? - The Pentecostal argument from Luke/John to Acts is problematic because it builds its theology purely on the repeated experience of Luke\Acts. The hermeneutic often exerts an unhealthy influence on the critical evidence. This should mean that we also have clear declarative statements in Scripture to substantiate the existence of Baptism of the Holy Spirit by speaking in tongues. This we do not have. The task, therefore, is to come into an understanding of the fullness of the Spirit. That is, we need to see how it is that we allow the Spirit more control over our lives – Eph. 5:18. Love, not tongues is the central evidence of the residence of the Spirit in fullness. See also I Cor. 133:1f

Implications of the Holy Spirit for our Lives

1. Recognize and use the gifts bestowed by the Spirit in the context of building up the community. 2. Recognize that empowerment is for service not status 3. Recognize the Lordship and sovereignty of the Spirit in gifting us 4. The gifts vary from one believer to another 5. The Spirit will lead us into all truth in this regard 6. As a member of the Trinity the Spirit may be honored and worshiped

21

Forum # 9

What, if anything, can evangelicals learn from the

Pentecostal/Charismatic understanding of the Holy Spirit? Be specific.

22 Session XII Introduction to Christian Theology: Salvation as Justification

Introductory Comments - Most theologians agree that salvation is the application of the work of Christ, however understood, to the life of the individual. But people differ on the doctrine of salvation from this point on. They differ on:

- Time and Salvation – is salvation present, past-continuous or future. We have been saved, are being saved, shall be saved – which is it? How is sanctification, therefore, related to justification? Is salvation punctiliar, serial punctiliar, a discontinuous process, an overlapping process or a single continuous process through discernable stages?

- The Need for Salvation – i.e. does it have primarily a vertical dimension in terms of separation from God as primary human problem? Is it the need for horizontal reconciliation? Especially important in so called “Relational Theology.” Is the need one of an internal matter for self assertion and acceptance or self-realization?

- The Medium of Salvation – How is salvation to be obtained? Is it physical and sacramental as in Catholicism, i.e. the infusion of saving grace comes through the participation in the sacraments. Is a physical act performed by a priest sufficient? Is salvation conferred through moral action or physical deliverance from oppression as in Liberation theology? Is salvation a spiritual matter mediated through the Holy Spirit to us by faith?

- Direction of Salvation – How does salvation occur? Is it individual or corporate? Is it achieved through social action of the collective? Or through repentance and individual action?

- Extent of Salvation – Who? How many? Is it limited atonement through election, or the universal election of all? Does salvation transcend time in terms of the past?

All of these questions run through the heart of the doctrine of salvation, as we shall see.

I. Some Current Conceptions of Salvation a) Salvation in Liberationist Theologies

- Latin American, Feminist, Black and Third World theologies are quite prominent today and are known as Liberation theologies. The unifying theme of liberation theology is salvation through praxis and Liberation from oppression. The method of salvation is situation specific but can include violence. For Latin American’s for instance, the political (Capitalist) situation has created oppression and is evil and must be resisted by those oppressed by this system. Since the Scriptures identify with the oppressed (esp. Luke and Exodus) resistance to tyranny is justified. Salvation is primarily temporal – There is not much thought of eternity. b) Existentialist views

- Some existentialist like Nietzsche say there is no salvation at all .But who exactly were the Existentialists and what did they really believe about salvation? The most prominent existentialist were the philosophers Soren Kierkegaard, Frederic Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, Albert Camu, 23 Jean Paul Sartre, and Karl Jaspers. The existentialist theologian Rudolf Bultmann built his theology on the existentialism of Heidegger. The aim of Heidegger’s thought was to bring us to “authentic existence” dasein (“being there”). Thus salvation is achieving our true humanness through the active life. Action makes us who we are. That is, we are as we act in the present in light of the past and in anticipation of the future. Thus there are two tendencies in human action – authenticity or in-authenticity. For Bultmann, Christ shows us the authentic humanity. We are not called to secure our existence, or deny it, but to be the self. Salvation consists in a fundamental alteration of our existence toward authenticity.

c) Other secular and Postmodern approaches to salvation

- People in contemporary culture have cut themselves off from eternity and exist only in the here and now. If they are not theoretical theist they are practical atheists. We have put confidence in the economy, technology, knowledge and science. Religion, if it is personal, is fine, but its scope is limited to the private sphere. Salvation in the west consists today in the gathering and manipulation of information for security. God is dead, the self is lost, history is at an end and the book is closed. Salvation, if such a thing exists, is only a temporal condition. The death of God theology is the pinnacle of modern thought. Mark C. Taylor suggests that self-affirmation in the face of the other is a salvation of sorts.

e) The Roman Catholic Concept of salvation

- There are divergent opinions within the RC. Official salvation is still to be had in the church through sacraments. Karl Rahner, a well known Catholic theologian, thinks salvation can be had in other religions, in a restricted sense. Yves Congar thinks it can be had only by degrees of membership in the church, through participation in the sacraments. The Vatican II document and later evangelicals allow for a broader understanding of church as “invisible” and therefore a broader interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla sullus, (outside the church there is no salvation). The Catholic Church seems more open to the Lutheran justification by faith lately through the joint declaration and Küng’s work on K. Barth.

f) Salvation in the Evangelical view

- The human predicament requires a divine act of grace. God is the prime mover in salvation and faith in Christ is the means. The Evangelical view includes aspects of the other views but takes a more Biblical approach. The important questions have to do with the process, means and extent of salvation, all of which are determined by our starting point in God’s foreordination, predestination and election.

II. Antecedent Issues: Salvation and Predestination a) The Calvinist position

- The concept of predestination is clearly taught in Scripture even though the concept is not always clear. Some consider it an obscure and strange doctrine. Despite its controversial nature, we are required to deal with it. The fact that it is difficult does not excuse us from looking into it.

- Predestination is the action of God who, in His foreordination (his eternal decrees), elects some to eternal life and passes over others who will suffer eternal death. The “elect” are Saints, the “reprobates” are the damned. Calvin and Arminus have been central to the debate. What Calvin 24 taught and what is often called Calvinism can be two different things at times. Calvin says, “We call predestination God’s eternal decree by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition, rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others.” Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or to death.” Inst. Vol. 2, p. 926. The principles of ‘Calvinism’ are as follows:

- Dutch Calvinism reduced this theology to the TULIP. Total depravity – Unconditional election – Limited atonement – Irresistable grace- Perseverance: This TULIP statement is the traditional 17th century Calvinist position. Total depravity means that we are so lost in sin we are unable to save ourselves. In his sovereignty, God elects some to his favor (predestines): Eph. 1:4-5. Our election is in Christ before the foundation of the world. This election is unconditional, i.e. without merit on our part. Rom. 9:15-16. This election is irresistible – All who are chosen will come. Jn. 6:37. This election of us in Christ is congruent with his election of Israel. In Romans 9, Paul argues that they are all the free choices of God. Ex. 33:19. Thus, election is the free choice of God’s sovereign will before creation.

- Such election is efficacious in that all will come and be saved. Such an election is from all eternity in God’s election of Jesus Christ. Such an election is unconditional and unmerited favor of God’s grace. Finally, such an election is immutable because God does not change his mind.

Free Will and Election

- Calvinists insist that this does not contradict the biblical understanding of the freedom of humanity. That is, they understand human freedom as a freedom in limitation. Sin has limited our ability to choose properly. Like a bird with broken wings, we are free to fly, but cannot. How can we come to God when we love the darkness of sin, Jn. 1:6f. Only be God’s prevenient grace are we able to come to God.

- Some quasi Calvinists are of the persuasion that God, in his foreknowledge, knows those who will decide for him, elects them and passes over those he knows will choose otherwise. These are predestined by omission. b) Arminianism – Again there is great elasticity here from Dutch to English Methodism.

- The Arminian views include liberals, Evangelicals, and Catholics in their ranks. The logical starting points of Arminianism are the passages like – II Pet. 3:9; I Tim. 2:3-4; Ez. 33:11; Acts 17:30-31. There is a general sense in Scripture that God “desires” the salvation of all. The invitation to “come” so often repeated in the Bible is sincere.

- Arminians also affirm the complete human ability to meet the conditions for salvation – namely the act of faith. This view is possible if we modify or deny the doctrine of total depravity. Or, as John Wesley preached, we have a strong doctrine of prevenient grace – i.e. grace given to all indiscriminately. Prevenient grace is a universal phenomenon available to all. Consequently there is no real need for special irresistible grace. Arminians also affirm the foreknowledge of God in his electing grace – He chooses some and passes by others. The elect are those whom he foresees will accept the offer of salvation by their own free choice – Rom. 8:29; I Pet. 1:1-2. But this foreordination is only a knowledge of what they will do, not a determination of what they will do.. Arminians also consider predestination open ended and not unconditional – one can fall out of the will of God. Arminians accuse Calvinists of fatalism and a negative inducement to ethics. They also accuse Calvinists of begin a negative inducement to Evangelicalism. They claim that Calvinism contradicts human freedom. 25

c) Towards a Consensus

- Here we must keep in mind the eternal decrees of God. The question is, did God favor some over others in election? The Biblical material, indeed the whole of salvation history, seems to be based on just such a decision – Abraham, Israel, David, etc. Sometimes God elects others to various tasks and situations. Cyrus-Pharaoh. Scriptures also make it clear that humanity is hopelessly lost. Rom. 1-3. They are furthermore incapacitated in terms of autosoteric ability. They are spiritually blind. Rom. 1:18-23; II Cor. 4:3-4. Here Arminians posit prevenient grace, but it cannot be justified in Scripture. On the other hand, text supporting divine election to faith abounds. Jn. 6:44. Jn. 15:16; Jn. 6:37; Acts 13:48. Also God’s foreordination is not a product of his foreknowledge. Foreordination has to do with election not foreknowledge. God’s foreknowledge confirms his foreordination of the elect. The invitation is cast in general terms; but the response is cast in specific terms of election. “God sincerely offers salvation to all, but all of us are so settled in our sins that we will not respond unless assisted to do so.” If prevenient grace does exist, why is it not more effective. Those who are called will respond because God’s grace is so appealing.

e) Implications of Predestination

1. God’s sovereign will is the ground upon which we must and can stand – He will fulfill his plan. 2. The rejection of salvation is not a reflection on the evangelist. 3. Evangelism is still the means whereby God gathers the elect. 4. Grace is absolutely necessary for salvation. Sola gratia.

III. Subjective Aspects of the Salvific Paradigm a) Effectual calling - How do we square the subjective aspects of salvation with God’s sovereign election.

- We answer that God’s action must intervene in an effectual calling. It is apparent from Scripture that there is a general calling to salvation, an invitation to all persons. Matt. 22:14; 11:28. Special calling means that God works in a unique way to bring us to him enabling us to respond in repentance and faith – it is effectual. His calling of the disciples is a good example of this. So also Paul. When we hear the gospel, the Spirit calls us through conviction and illumination. This is necessary due to our depravity. I Cor. 2:6-16. Thus, the proclamation of the Word is necessary for effectual calling. This is a narrower understanding of prevenient grace. b) Conversion – a radical change in character and direction.

- Conviction - precedes confession - precedes repentance - precedes faith and then conversion. Ezek. 18:30-32; Eph. 5:14; Acts 3:19 – Conversion is a ringing theme in Scripture. Repentance – μετανοια means complete reversal of mindset and is essential for true conversion, e.g. Nicodemus, Paul, Stephan, Philippian jailer. Conversion can be instantaneous or a process. But there is only one primary conversion, not a series of conversions. c) Repentance – Sin is repudiated before, during and after conversion.

- The Old Testament calls it grieving over sin. The New Testament term is μετανοια – Acts 2:38. It is a prerequisite to salvation and sanctification. Repentance is Godly sorrow for ones sin and a resolve not to return to a life of sin, Acts 2:38; Matt. 3:2; 4:17; Acts 17:30. Faith – is the positive aspect of laying hold of Christ and his work, repentance is the negative aspect. 26

- In the Old Testament faith is confidence in the covenant which God makes with Israel. In the New Testament the words for faith, Pisteuō and Pistis, means intellectual assent, I Jn. 4:1; Matt. 8:13 But it also means personal trust in terms of complete dependence of being on Christ. Mk. 1:15; Acts 10:43; Jn. 1:12; 2:33; 3:18. Belief in the name is belief in his saving power. Both intellectual assent and trust are needed, but the latter is most important. Faith and reason are not antithetical, but there is a definite order. c) Regeneration – the work of God’s cleansing Holy Spirit

- Regeneration is God’s transformation in justification and through sanctification. Our human nature needs reformation, new birth. In the Scriptures it is represented as “Giving us a new heart”, Ps. 51; Ezek. 11:19-20. It is a rebirth in the New Testament– Jn. 3; Titus 3:5. We are “born anew from above.” We are also “born of the Spirit” at salvation. We are born of God “born through the word of God”. Regeneration means first, mortification (putting to death the old self) and second, verification (living the sanctified life). It is our transformation by the Spirit into the image of God. Here we are on the border of sanctification. Rom. 6:1-11. It is both instantaneous at justification and a process of sanctification. This makes the new birth an absolute work of God. d) Theological implications of the subjective aspect of salvation 1. Human nature cannot be altered in any positive way by human efforts. 2. No one can control who will and will not experience new birth. 3. Saving faith requires correct belief regarding the nature of God, but it also requires personal commitment. 4. Saving faith requires confession of sin and repentance. 5. Conversion is entirely individual. 6. The new birth is not dependent on feeling – but feeling will be there.