Systematic Theology: Protestant Orthodoxy

What happened to the generations after the Reformers (1500s)? The first post-Reformational wave that found the theological shoreline of the Church might be called: Classic Protestant Orthodoxy (A.D. 1550-1700, particularly the English Puritans of the 1600s).

In the 1600s, God gifted His Church with a number of great creeds and confessions in which the doctrines of the Reformers were categorized more systematically. The writers of the creeds and confessions were the spiritual children and grandchildren of the Reformers.  While these men were decidedly reformed theologically, there was a slight measure of discontinuity with the Reformers.  This discontinuity might be summarized like this: “The Reformers confessed their beliefs; the Protestant Scholastics believed their confessions.”   This era reintroduced a measure of the Aristotelianism of Aquinas.

On a personal note: The English Puritans of the 1600s are among my favorite Christians in one of my favorite periods of Church History. To read more about the Puritans, I highly recommend either of the following two books: “A Quest For Godliness” by J.I. Packer (Crossway Books, 336 pages), and “Who Are The Puritans?” by Erroll Hulse (Evangelical Press, 197 pages). Warning: the Puritans are nothing like the caricaturizations that vilified the true Puritans that most today swallow without investigating the truth!

Further, 17th century confessions are of supreme value for at least two reasons. First, they were written by teams of the brightest and most articulate minds in Church history. Second, they give the modern Church a sound and solid rock on which to anchor our beliefs and practices. This is supremely important in our day when so many ignorantly and pridefully desire to cast off anything old, in favor of anything that is new—no matter how unbiblical, untested, and downright foolish it might be.

Next time: Reaction to Protestant Orthodoxy (Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries).

Systematic Theology: Calvinism (2)

This blog post is a continuation from the previous post, including two footnotes from Key Points of Calvinism (with two explanatory footnotes), and a personal note from me about Calvinism.

Characteristics of Calvinistic Theology.  To do theology is to listen attentively to Scripture.  Calvinism rejects the scholastic approach (based on reason), emphasizing the authority of God’s Word.  Calvinism reminds us that God is to be adored, not merely investigated.  Theology is an act of worship, not mere intellectualism.  Calvinism rejects the Church Fathers as a final source of appeal for theological understanding, allowing for the fact that they were mistaken in some points, but that Scripture is never wrong.  Calvinism emphasizes the practical application of theology.

On a personal note: Because Calvin and Calvinism are so routinely (and wrongly) vilified, I do not like to talk about Calvinism, preferring the terms “Reformed,” and “the doctrines of grace.” The Reformed doctrines of grace, as distinct from Lutheranism, is claimed by many groups including Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists.

Footnotes (from previous post):
[1] Luther taught that the Law was not valid for this third purpose, since Luther taught that Christians having been freed from the Law entirely.  Reformed (Calvinistic) theology understands only the ceremonial and civil aspects of the Law as being non-binding on Christians, while the moral aspect is timeless.
[2] A very simple explanation of Covenant Theology begins before time with the Covenant of Redemption between the members of the Trinity, in which they set forth the plan to save a people by grace to put grace on display.  The Covenant of Works was between God and Adam in the Garden.  Adam broke the Covenant of Works when he sinned.  God then began unfolding the Covenant of Grace by not killing Adam on the spot, and by promising a Deliverer, who would defeat Satan and redeem God’s people.  In a series of covenants throughout the Old Testament, more of the Covenant of Grace is unfolded, each looking forward to the Deliverer who was to come.  The Covenant of Grace was fully revealed in Jesus Christ, who is the Deliverer who defeated Satan and saved His people from their sins.  The Covenant of Grace will be fully consummated when Christ comes again and establishes the New Heavens and the New Earth.

Systematic Theology: Calvinism (1)

Having considered Lutheranism last time, this time we’ll give attention to the second dominant strain of Reformation Theology: Calvinism. To begin with, John Calvin and Calvinism has become a lightening rod in evangelical Christianity. People tend either to love him, or hate him. Those who hate him almost always make unfair and inaccurate caricaturizations of Calvin and his theology. Those who know the truth about Calvin and Calvinism may not agree with him, but they do not hate him. He was a uniquely godly and gifted man.

John Calvin (1509-1564) was born 26 years after Luther and died 18 years after Luther. His magnum opus, the Institutes of the Christian Religion (ICR) began as a booklet and ended years later as a great multi-volume theological work.  Calvin had a great legal, as well as theological mind.  Calvin added to Lutheranism a more complete “system of theology.”  Some key points of Calvinism are:

  • While Luther emphasized the “Law-Gospel” aspect of theology, Calvin emphasized the absolute sovereignty of God over all things and the covenantal relationship between God and man.

  • Calvin developed and championed the concept of the three-fold office of Christ: (1) Christ the Prophet, (2) Christ the Priest, and (3) Christ the King.  (ICR, II, 15)

  • Calvin gave the Church a more complete doctrine of the Holy Spirit and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.  (ICR, I, 9)

  • Calvin dealt more precisely with election and reprobation.  While Luther taught on election, he said little about those who are not elected to salvation.  Calvin dealt unabashedly with this sticky subject. (ICR, III, 21-24)

  • Calvin argued for three purposes for the Law:  (1) The Law convicts sinners so that they might come to faith in Christ; (2) The Law restrains evil in individuals and in society; (3) The Law remains as a standard for holiness for those who are justified and are being sanctified. [1]  (ICR, II, 7, 12)

  • Calvin developed the doctrine of vocation, which says that no matter what a person’s profession, it is a calling from God and therefore must be done as unto the Lord.  This helped to further remove the wall that separates clergy from laity erected by Roman Catholics and many Protestants. (ICR, III, 10)

  • Calvinism has an extensive teaching on ecclesiology, on church polity, and on church leadership. (ICR, IV, 1, 7-10; IV, 3)

  • Calvinism gave us what has come to be called “Covenant Theology.”[2]

The footnotes will be included with the next blog post…

Systematic Theology: Reformational (Lutheranism)

Having considered the development of Roman Catholic theology during the first fifteen centuries of Christianity, let us now turn our attention to one of the greatest shifts in theology, Reformational Theology, that emerged in the 16th century.

There are two main branches of Reformational Theology: Lutheranism and Calvinism. There were others, but these two were the dominant strains. And it may be surprising to some that though Lutherans and other reformed folk had much in common, there are also a few considerable differences.

While there are many important aspects of Reformational Theology, five of the most important tenets are defined by the five solas of the Reformation as follows:  Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Cristus, and Soli Deo Gloria.  These are defined as: scripture is the sole authority, salvation is by grace alone, received through faith alone, in Christ alone, and all things are for the glory of God alone.

It is also essential to note the word, “only” is associated with each. This is what fundamentally sets Reformational Theology apart from Roman Catholic Theology. Roman Catholic Theology affirms the essential importance of each, but adds the Roman Church, the Pope, and the sacraments to each. It does not matter what one adds, when one adds anything to the five solas, one has departed from biblical Christianity.

Let’s consider first the Lutheran branch of Reformational Theology:

Martin Luther (1483-1546) was a German Augustinian Monk.  God revealed Himself to Luther, who did not want to break from the Roman Church, but when his newly understood theology was proven to be at odds with the Roman Church, Luther had no choice.  Luther placed a great emphasis on the difference between law and gospel.  He said that a chief mark of a theologian is the ability to distinguish the difference between law and gospel.  Luther championed the biblical concept of justification by grace alone through faith alone.  Another key Lutheran emphasis is the fact that a man may be a “justified sinner,” emphasizing man’s judicial standing as righteous before God, while not yet actually righteous in practice.

The Roman church insisted that man’s practice is everything.  Luther and all true Protestants insist that God’s grace and decree of justification is everything.

Luther was also strong on the subject of predestination, arguing more for this doctrine even than Calvin.  Luther believed in the authority of Scripture; however, he was not convinced that the book of James belonged in the canon because of what appeared to be an irreconcilable difference between James and Paul on the role of works in justification.  Luther did not want to break completely from the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation, inventing the doctrine that has come to be called consubstantiation.[1]

Another doctrine peculiar to Lutheranism that must follow consubstantiation is that of the “communication of attributes of Christ.”  This teaches that after the resurrection of Christ, His human nature took on the divine ability to be omnipresent.  Unless this is true, Christ cannot be physically present in the communion elements in every place the Supper is observed. 

Lutheran theology changed in the 30 years immediately following Luther’s death.  Phillip Melanchthon (1497-1560), Luther’s chief assistant who was a humanistic theologian, along with others, drifted away from Luther’s theology in a number of areas.  There are several important factors to bear in mind when discussing Lutheran Theology:

  • Lutheranism had a rather poorly developed ecclesiology that tends to look rather Roman Catholic.  This was in part because Protestantism was in such turmoil as it discovered its identity apart from the Roman Church.  Along with this, the Lutheran church followed much of the Roman pattern for worship.  The Reformed Church sees the Lutheran Church as being only partially Reformed.  While this may be a failing in Lutheran Theology, it is understandable as the Lutherans were in a learning process.

  • The Lutherans placed great emphasis on the importance and authority of Scripture.  Luther’s commentaries on Scripture are classics.

  • Luther’s emphasis on justification by grace through faith is a priceless legacy given to the Church.

  • Luther’s theology was very experiential and practical.  He was a pastor and he cared how theology was understood practically.  This led to Luther’s emphasis on the fact that Christians are justified, yet still sinners until they are glorified.

Note:
[1] Transubstantiation: the communion elements change into the literal body and blood of Christ.  Consubstantiation: the literal body and blood of Christ are with the communion elements, although they do not change in substance

Next Time: Calvinism

Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic

In this blog post we will explore how theology has been done in the past and how it has changed throughout the centuries, beginning with Roman Catholic theology (First Century A.D.—

Roman Catholic Theology is based on the writings of the Church Fathers, the Councils of the first four centuries (with which Protestants largely agree), Scholastic Theology. (A.D. 1050-1517, the Council of Trent (1545-1563), and Vatican Councils I and II (1870 and 1962-1965 respectively).

The theology produced by the writings of the Church Fathers is both helpful, and somewhat dangerous.  These men were the disciples of the Apostles so they had first-hand access to the men who knew Christ.  As valuable as the writings of these men are, they were not infallible.  As a result, discernment based on the Bible is supremely necessary to know which of these writings are to be followed and which are to be respectfully set aside.  Sadly there are some modern Christians who become enamored with the Church Fathers and end up embracing ideas that are antithetical to Scripture.

The theology of the Church councils of the first four centuries produced orthodox understandings of the Trinity, the deity, person, natures, and wills of Jesus.  All Christians owe a debt of gratitude for the theology forged in the early Church councils.  Many modern heresies are recycled old heresies that were refuted by the Church councils.

Scholastic Theology, beginning with Anselm [1033-1109] tended to be influenced by ancient Greek or other secular philosophies, elevating reason over revelation. Three key examples follow:

  • Peter Abelard (1079-1142) watered down theology with human philosophy.  He believed only what he could understand.  He did not believe in the vicarious death of Christ, insisting that it was only a demonstration of God’s love.  Abelard was excommunicated as a heretic.

  • Peter Lombard (1095-1159) was a student of Abelard.  He wrote the most popular textbook of theology during the middle ages containing the seven sacraments of the Roman system.  Lombard’s doctrine regarding the seven sacraments evolved into the sacramentalism (which teaches salvation is achieved though the seven sacraments of the Roman Catholic church).

  • Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) wrote Summa Theologiae, the most important theology text from the era, and that which formulated Roman Catholic theology that has lasted ever since.  He wed Greek philosophy and Christianity into a “reasonable theology.”  His faith went beyond reason alone, however.  He taught that truths that could not be comprehended (such as the Trinity) must be believed, not on the basis of God’s Word, not because of Scripture, but because they were taught by the Roman church.  Therefore the Roman church controlled salvation.  Though thoroughly Roman Catholic, Aquinas was a brilliant man whose writings are worthy of being read by carefully discerning Protestants.

The Council of Trent (1545-1563) was convened to counter the Protestant Reformation.  The most notable and damning section of the Council of Trent is anathema (damnation) of the biblical doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone.

Vatican Councils I and II (1870 and 1962-1965 respectively).  Vatican Council I was an attempt to bolster the supremacy of the Roman Catholic Church.  It made outlandish statements about the Pope’s authority over all creation, and that faith in the pope is necessary for salvation.  This council also declared that the Roman church cannot err and that nothing she declares can ever be reversed.  Roman Catholics who know about Vatican Council I are often embarrassed to talk about it.
Vatican Council II was an attempt to make the Roman Catholic Church more accepting.  The theology is not fundamentally changed from Aquinas (and sacramentalism), but is decidedly more liberal.  Without reversing the damnation of Protestants (in Council of Trent), VCII refers to Protestants not as damned, but merely as “separated brethren.”

Next time: Reformed systematics

Systematic Theology: The Purpose and Goal

VIII.  The Purpose and Goal of Systematic Theology.

A.   Is Systematic Theology a science? 

The Christian view of science is that scientific study is an exercise of dominion, since man as the image bearer of God, is called by God to have dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26-28).  The goal of science is not to use creation to further man’s ideas of what is, or what he thinks should be; but rather, to discover God’s truth.  This concept is captured in the words of the Christian German astronomer, Johannes Kepler (1571-1630). He defined scientific exploration as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”

According to this biblical mindset, when done correctly, science is a religious exerciseSystematic Theology is therefore a science that seeks not only to discover God’s creation, but creation’s God. 

B.   Two kinds of knowledge.

  1. Archetypal [1] knowledge is God’s perfect, unlimited knowledge that only God possesses. It is “original,” since He alone is the One from whom all knowledge originates. He knows all because He created all and has never had to discover, or learn, anything.  This kind of knowledge (unique to God), is always true.

  2. Ectypal [2] knowledge is man’s imperfect, limited knowledge whether possessed by revelation or discovery. It may be true, but it may also be false because even at its best, it is merely an imperfect “copy” of God’s archetypal knowledge.  Our best systematic theology is ectypal knowledge, since the theologian is not God.

C.  How do reason and logic relate to Systematic Theology?

Reason is not necessarily an enemy of theology, as long as we do not subject God or His Word to our reason.  We must rather subject our reason to God and to His revelation of Himself in Scripture.  While there may be things about God that do not fit within our reason (e.g., the Trinity), there is no truth concerning God that is contrary to reason.  This demands humility on our part.  This is why care must be given to avoid the temptation to become prideful regarding our theology as though we discovered it.  If it is true, it was revealed by God, leaving no room for self-congratulations.  Systematic Theology must never live to promote a system itself. Rather, Systematic Theology lives to discover and glorify God, which is always a catalyst for humility.

Notes:
[1] Arch is a Greek prefix, meaning eminent, greatest, or principle.
[2] Ec is a Latin prefix, meaning copied, or reproduced as a molding or cast, in contradistinction from the original model.

Systematic Theology: The Action and Development

VI.  The Action of Systematic Theology.

You may have noticed that I have referred to “doing” systematic theology.  That is because systematic theology is in fact something that one does if it is to be beneficial and biblically accurate.  What are we seeking to do when we do systematic theology?  The endeavor is to organize truth into an integrated system of thought.  The goal is not to invent a system.  The goal is to discover and articulate the system that God has placed within Holy Scripture.  All of Scripture is integrated with all other Scripture, allowing for no contradiction.  Therefore, no portion of Scripture must be allowed to be the basis for doctrine if it is interpreted apart from the rest of the Bible.

In case that paragraph didn’t seem important, please re-read it because it is supremely important!

VII.  The Development of Systematic Theology.

While truth does not change, our understanding of truth may change, either in the direction of becoming more accurate, or in the direction of being less accurate.  We prayerfully seek to be increasingly, rather than decreasingly, accurate!

The early Church did not have as great an understanding of certain theological issues as the Church has come to have throughout the last two thousand years.  Many theological truths were hammered out because of the threat of heresy.  As heresy presented itself, the Church was forced to wrestle with issues they did not previously even think of.  The doctrine of the Trinity, the deity, person, natures and wills of Christ are cases in point. 

Culture has been allowed to influence theology—sometimes for the better, oftentimes for the worse.  This is especially dangerous, since Christianity is a culture to itself, established by God.  Whenever the cultures of fallen man are allowed to direct our understanding of God, there is a far greater danger than potential benefit.

Systematic Theology: The Subject & Source

V.  The Subject and Source of Theology. 

What do we study when studying Systematics?  As mentioned previously, we do not begin with what we believe, and then search the Bible to unearth support for support our opinions. This is far too subjective. Rather, the subject matter is, as B.B. Warfield (1851-1921) stated, “God in His nature and in His relations with His creatures.”  The only place we can find information on this is from God’s revelation of Himself.

Theology is the study of God and His dealings with us.  Where do we find the facts?  The facts of God and His dealings with man can only be known correctly based on God’s revelation of Himself.  God has revealed Himself to us in various ways: (1) God’s Creation, (2) God’s Providence in personal experience, (3) God’s Law, (4) God’s Son Jesus Christ, and most importantly, (5) God’s Word, the Bible.  Why is the Bible the most important? Because the Bible is the only objective truth.  The Bible is the most objective source of revelation available to man.  While it can be interpreted in numerous subjective ways, the Bible itself (as long as it is translated accurately) is objective truth. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 speaks of the inspiration, and, therefore, the authority of Scripture.  Isaiah 40:8 testifies of its unchanging character.

The Roman Catholic Church trusts equally in the Bible and the traditions of the Church.  The problem with this position is that the traditions of the Church frequently contradict themselves and the Bible.  Modern evangelicals make a similar mistake regarding the Bible and culture instead of the Bible and church tradition.

Reformation Protestants look to Scripture alone (Sola Scriptura).  While we learn from the history and traditions of the Church, we cannot look to them as authoritative, since they are fraught with error and contradiction.

Systematic Theology: Its Limitations

IV.  The Limitations of Systematic Theology. As important and valuable as systematic theology is, a glaring limitation is that it is done by human beings! We cannot know everything completely as God knows everything because God is infinite and man is finite.

  • There are some mysteries that must remain mysteries, at least until we are glorified.

  • There are some mysteries that we cannot discover because our methods of inquiry are limited and we have insufficient facts.

  • There are some truths that we miss because of the inadequacy of words to accurately convey some truths.

  • There are some truths that we do not comprehend completely because we do not know everything the Bible says.

Even if we could know everything in the Bible, while the Bible tells us everything we need to know, it does not tell us everything we might want to know. It certainly does not tell us everything there is to know; for there are countless things that God has not revealed in the Scriptures.

Some truth that God has revealed is hidden because of the hardness of our hearts. Even with the empowering of the Holy Spirit, there is corruption that remains in our hearts that hinders our complete understanding.

Remembering these limitations assists in keeping us humble.  Not all is revealed; and not all that is revealed is completely understood.

Next time: the subject of systematic theology.

Systematic Theology: Its Value

In this post we will consider the value of Systematic Theology done correctly.

III.  The Value of Systematic Theology. There are numerous reasons and applications of Systematic Theology that make it invaluable. Here are a few:

A.   Systematic Theology, when done correctly, results in an integrated “system” of all the Bible says on a topic, without contradiction. We say when done correctly because when done incorrectly dishonesty can result in over-emphasis on one’s favorite subjects, or even propagating false doctrines.

B.   Systematic Theology helps us make relationships between various issues, biblical or otherwise. This enables us to make sense of what we know about all theological topics by not resting unless we have understood all theological matters in light of all other theological matters.

C.  Systematic Theology helps us avoid eccentricity in our beliefs, insisting that the system be a balanced handling of all topics. We say helps us avoid eccentricity because even honest theologians may err, since not all theologians agree on everything.

D.  Systematic Theology enables us to communicate truth more logically and effectively. Working things out, especially in writing, assists us in making sure we are making sense and are correcting every inconsistency.

E.   Systematic Theology enables us to stand against error. The error, that faulty systematics are most prone to, is not taking everything the Bible says about each theological proposition into consideration before settling on what one believes is true. When this happens, the theology is incomplete. The second most common error in faulty systematics is allowing contradictions to remain unresolved, since there is no contradiction in God.

Next time: The Limitations of Systematic Theology.

Systematic Theology: Other Theological Disciplines

II.  The Classical Order of Theological Study.

The following is the classical order of various disciplines of theology.

A.  Apologetics defends Christianity against critics of Christianity (Christ, the Gospel, and the Bible, etc.).

B.  Biblical Theology traces the historical and chronological development of special revelation in the Scriptures.  This discipline studies the progressive revelation from Genesis to Revelation.  Though God cannot change, what we know of Him has grown as God has revealed more and more to His people.  When God has revealed additional truth to His people, it is not new to Him.  Nor is any additional revelation contradictory to what has already been revealed.  Rather, it works to give fuller revelation about Jesus, who is the central figure in all of the Bible.

D.  Systematic Theology arranges Biblical Theology topically into a comprehensive and integrated system of belief.

C.  Historical Theology studies the development of theology throughout the Church age.  Historical Theology studies heresies as an important part of theology, since the Church developed her creeds and confessions largely in response to attacks on orthodoxy.

E.  Practical, or Pastoral Theology seeks to apply all truth to how the Church and Christians are to live.  This directs preaching, teaching, and counseling in the Church, ecclesiology, worship, evangelism, etc.  In the end, all good theology has practical implications and applications.

Next: The Value of Systematic Theology

Systematic Theology: An Introduction

An Introduction to Systematic Theology

I.  The Definition and Comparisons to Other Philosophies and Theologies.

Systematic Theology is reflection on biblical truth, with each aspect relating to every other aspect and to the whole, thus constructing a truly integrated system.

Systematic Theology differs from mere philosophy, in that philosophy does not depend upon the revelation of God in His Word.  Philosophers choose an axiom and build upon it.  The axiom of Systematic Theology is God’s revelation of Himself in Scripture.  The presupposition that the Word of God is truth is essential.

Systematic Theology differs from Dogmatic Theology, in that Dogmatic Theology begins with the confessional stance of a church.  While the confession may be every bit true, as long as the confession is true to the Word of God, Dogmatic Theology tends to place too great an emphasis on the confession, even above the Word of God.

Systematic Theology differs from Biblical Theology, in that Biblical Theology follows the chronological revelation of theology.  Each point in Biblical Theology is brought up as it comes up in the cannon of Scripture.  It traces the development of theology from Genesis to Revelation.  Biblical Theology asks the question, “What does the Bible reveal about God?”  Systematic Theology asks the question: “What is true about God?”  Systematic Theology seeks to organize biblical truth in a topical or thematic manner which arrives at the most complete truth in a system in which all relates to a unified and integrated God-centered worldview.

Some people are afraid of systematic theology, thinking it is opposed to the Bible.  It is not, as some allege, “Decide what you believe and find verses to support your beliefs.”  Rather, when systematic theology is done correctly, it takes into consideration all that the Bible says about every topic.  It then interprets every topic in light of the whole of scripture.

Everyone has a systematic theology, or worldview.  Also, systematic theology allows godly people to arrive at conclusions regarding topics about which the Bible does not speak explicitly, based on biblical principles.  For example, if we take the approach of the biblical literalist, women cannot receive communion since none were present at the Last Supper.  However, looking at the whole of God’s revelation, theologians have concluded that God invites women to the table.  That conclusion was arrived at through a systematic approach to theology.

Essential Truths About Jesus: (#8 His Resurrection)

Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?"
John 11:25-26

Matthew 28:6 He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
Matthew 28:6

Not only did Jesus live and die for His people, He rose from the dead for His people. Here are some essential truths regarding Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.

The Resurrection was foretold—by Jesus Himself, no less! The following message was communicated by Jesus to the disciples several times.

Matthew 20:17-19 Now Jesus, going up to Jerusalem, took the twelve disciples aside on the road and said to them, 18 "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death, 19 and deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock and to scourge and to crucify. And the third day He will rise again."

The Resurrection happened just as Jesus said it would.

Matthew 28:5-6 But the angel answered and said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

The Resurrection accomplished the following (and more!):

  • Jesus validated that He is who He claimed to be, and displayed His absolute authority over death by rising from the dead

  • Jesus suffered the effects of sin for His people—defeating death, Hell and the devil.

The Resurrection is so essential that if Jesus did not rise, Christianity is false!

1 Corinthians 15:13-17 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up--if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!

Essential Truths About Jesus (#7 Atonement)

Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.
1 Corinthians 15:3

Having considered some erroneous views of the atonement, let’s reflect on the biblical and orthodox view of the atonement.

The atonement is all about Christ’s death on our behalf.  His death was vicarious, or substitutionary—meaning, He died for His people in our place. 

The first Adam’s sin brought death to all of his descendants. 

As the second Adam, Jesus, through His perfect active obedience, fulfilled the covenant that the first Adam broke (Romans 5:19).  By His active obedience, Jesus fulfilled the covenant on our behalf. 

Through His passive obedience, subjecting Himself to death on the cross as the sacrifice His people’s sins, He atoned for our covenant-breaking (2 Corinthians 5:20-21).  By His passive obedience, Jesus paid for our guilt.

Here are four words associated with the atonement.

  1. Redemption. Christ purchased us from our slavery to sin by satisfying God’s justice (Mathew 20:28, 1 Timothy 2:6).

  2. Sacrifice. Christ laid down His life to pay for our sins (Hebrews 9:26).

  3. Propitiation. Christ’s sacrifice satisfies the requirement of death for sin and removes the guilt of sinners (1 John 2:2, Romans 3:25).

  4. Reconciliation. Christ reconciles, or brings together, two parties (God and His sinful people) that were previously at odds (Romans 5:10-11, 2 Corinthians 5:18-20).

Why is the atonement necessary and what did it accomplish?

  • God’s wrath is promised to all men as recompense for sin (Romans 1:18, 6:23).

  • God took the initiative in providing salvation for His people (2 Corinthians 5:19).

  • God provided atonement because of His love for His people (John 3:16, Ephesians 2:4-5).

  • The atonement is a ransom paid to satisfy God’s justice (Matthew 20:28).
    (It is not a ransom paid to Satan.)

  • Christ delivered His people from the power of Satan (Hebrews 2:14, Colossians 2:15).

  • Christ suffered vicariously (in place of His people) (2 Corinthians 5:21, Isaiah 53).

  • Christ’s work satisfied God’s justice completely (Romans 3:26).

  • Christ’s active obedience by keeping the Law perfectly and living sinlessly is an often overlooked, but essential component of the atonement (Philippians 2:8, Romans 5:19, 8:3-4).

  • Christ’s passive obedience by submitting Himself to death on the cross paid the penalty for all the sins of all His people (1 Corinthians 15:3).

Next time: Christ’s resurrection 

Essential Truths About Jesus (#6 Three Offices)

“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your house.” Acts 16:30-31

Because we must believe in the biblical Jesus, not a Jesus of our own imagination, let’s now consider the Work of Christ: What He did and still does as High Priest.  (See also LBCF 8)

A.   The Offices of Christ.  One way of defining the work of Christ is to refer to the three offices of Christ described by Eusebius (A.D. 263-339) and more fully articulated by John Calvin (1509-1564).

1.   Christ the Prophet. A prophet speaks to God’s people on God’s behalf (Exodus 4:15-16).  Prophets both foretell and tell-forth (proclaim) God’s Word to and for God’s people.  Jesus is identified as a prophet (Acts 3:22-ff, John 4:19).  Jesus is the final and ultimate Prophet of God (Hebrews 1:1).

2.   Christ the Priest. A priest speaks to God on behalf of God’s people (Deuteronomy 18:5, Hebrews 5:4).  Melchizedek the priest was a type of Christ (Genesis 14:18-20, Hebrews 7).  The Messiah was to be a priest (Psalm 10:4, 24:7-10).  As a priest, Jesus offered a sacrifice, but it was unique in that He was both the sacrifice and the One who offered the sacrifice (Hebrews 9:25-28, 10:5-14).  While Christ’s priestly sacrificial work was completed on the cross, His intercessory work continues (Hebrews 7:25).

3.   Christ the King. A king is a conqueror and ruler, and exercises sovereign dominion.  The Messiah was to be a king (Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 9:6-7).  As our King, Jesus has conquered all His enemies (Colossians 2:15, 1 Corinthians 15:55-57) and rules over all (1 Corinthians 15:24-28), though not in the manner in which earthly/human kings rule (Matthew 20:25-28).

B.   Christ and the Atonement.

1.   Inadequate Historical Theories.  Each of the following errors expresses a partial truth, but when a partial truth is believed to be the whole truth, it becomes an untruth.

a.   Ransom to Satan Theory. Championed by Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165) and Origen (A.D. 185-254), this incorrect theory says that Christ paid a ransom to Satan to buy the elect back from Satan for God.  The truth is that Christ ransomed His people from sin and the ransom satisfied God’s justice; but it was not paid to Satan.

b.   Commercial Theory. Championed by Anselm (A.D. 1033-1109). This theory says that Christ paid the penalty for our sins, but it fails to recognize that Christ’s sinless life is imputed to the elect as well.  This is known as the Active and Passive Obedience of Christ.  His Active Obedience was fulfilled by actively living a sinless life.  His Passive Obedience was fulfilled by passively submitting Himself to death on the cross.

c.   Example, or Martyr Theory. Championed by Peter Abelard (A.D. 1079-1142).  This theory teaches that Jesus’ example of obedience and selfless death for others inspires God’s people to turn from their sins.  It denies total depravity in man that disables him from being righteous no matter who set what example for him.  This theory denies man’s need for redemption.

d.   Moral Influence Theory. Championed by liberal theologians Bushnell (1802-1876), Schleiermacher (1768-1834), and Ritschl (1822-1889).  These theorize that Jesus’ death was nothing more than an expression of love.  This demonstration of love shames man into turning from sin.  It asserts no need of redemption.  Jesus’s death certainly was an expression of love, but it is also much more.

e.   Governmental Theory. Championed by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645).  This theory says God punished Jesus merely as an example to demonstrate God’s wrath regarding sin.  This denies Christ’s substitutionary death.

The biblical view on the atonement, next time.

Essential Truths About Jesus (#5 His Estates)

“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your house.” Acts 16:30-31

We have been considering essential truths about Jesus.  Why?  Because one must believe in the biblical Jesus, not a Jesus of one’s own imagination.  We have previously considered the deity, humanity, and the person of Christ.  Let’s now turn our attention to the “estates” of Christ.  His estates include: A. His former glory before He was incarnated; B. His humiliation, when He was living and dying as a man on the earth; and C. His exaltation upon being resurrected and His ascension back to Heaven.  (Also see LBCF Chapter 8.)

A.   The Estate of Former Glory.

Before Christ was born on this earth, He existed from all eternity past as the eternally begotten Son of the Father.  The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit existed eternally in perfect unity and fellowship, needing nothing or no one outside of Themselves.  Before His incarnation, Jesus was not human. When Jesus was conceived, God the Son entered into the estate of humiliation, taking a human nature (without sin), a human will, and a human body.

B.   The Estate of Condescension (two phases).

1.   Christ’s Condescension is formerly called the kenosis, which is most fully articulated in scripture in Philippians 2:5-8.  The kenosis has not always been understood correctly or uniformly.  While it is clear that Jesus laid aside some of His prerogatives as God (e.g., omnipresence, omnipotence, and majesty), some have incorrectly insisted that Christ laid aside His deity.  Still others have incorrectly taught that the divine attributes remained but became no longer divine.

The Biblical understanding of kenosis is that at the Incarnation, Jesus remained fully divine, but that He voluntarily laid aside the use of some of His divine attributes.  He never became less than God in any way, at any time.

2.   Christ’s Descent into Hell.

What is meant by Christ’s descent into Hell?  It does not mean, as some erroneously insist, that Jesus was in Hell for three days between His death and resurrection under the authority of Satan.  Jesus has never been, nor will He ever be, subject to Satan.  Rather, this descent into Hell is a reference to: a) Jesus’s lifeless physical body being in the grave for three days, and b) His receiving the full force of the Father’s wrath for the sins of His people.  It is also an error to believe that the Father and the Son were separated for three days.  They cannot be separated since they are both essentially God.  While it is clear that Jesus’s body was dead for three days, His soul was with the Father in Heaven (Paradise, Luke 23:43)

C.  The Estate of Exaltation.

The estate of exaltation includes (1) Christ’s resurrection and glorification (Acts 2:24, 32), (2) His ascension (Acts 1:6-11), and (3) His being seated at the right hand of God (1 Corinthians 15:24-28) where He intercedes for His people (Hebrews 7:25), and from where He is the Judge of all the earth (Acts 10:42).  In His eternal estate, Jesus remains, and ever will be both human and divine.

 Next time we will consider the Work of Christ: What He did and still does as High Priest.

Essential Truths About Jesus (#4 His Person)

“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your house.” Acts 16:30-31

While we rejoice in the Lord that all who believe in the Lord Jesus will be saved, it is disturbing that many who profess faith in Jesus do not believe in the Jesus of the Bible.  That is why we are continuing with a short series in hopes of answering the question, “Who is the Jesus of the Bible?” The bulk of the content in this series comes from papers I wrote when studying Systematic Theology in seminary in 2001.

This time we will continue addressing the third of three basic errors regarding the person of Christ.

3.   Errors Affecting the Integrity of the Person of Christ. There are several errors that affect the integrity of the Person of Christ.  The early Church vacillated back and forth on this point, missing the fact that Jesus has two distinct natures integrated into one Person.  These two natures are not to be combined into one nature, or separated into two persons or personalities.

a. Nestorianism was named for its chief proponent, Nestorius (A.D. 386-451), the Patriarch of Constantinople. This error was an effort to counter the error of Apollinarianism (divine spirit in a human body, but not human), but it went too far.  This heresy teaches that the two natures of Christ are two persons.  This error was condemned at the Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431.

b. Eutychianism was named for its chief proponent Eutychus (A.D. 378–452), a presbyter of Constantinople. This error ventured back toward Apollinarianism, teaching that Jesus’s divine nature overshadowed or swallowed up His human nature.  This error was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451 

c.  Monothelitism comes from two Greek words: mono, meaning one; and theletes, meaning one that wills. This error is regarding the will of Christ.  Monothelites could not accept the concept of Christ’s two natures each having a distinct will in one Person.  Therefore, they asserted that Jesus’s human will was not merely subject to the will of the Father, but was not a separate will at all.  This error was condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople in 681, affirming the orthodox position that Jesus has two natures and two wills in one Person.

The biblical understanding of the Person of Christ was stated by the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451), which concluded that Jesus is one Person, fully divine and fully human at the same time.  His two natures are distinct.  They must not be co-mingled into one nature, or separated into two persons, or personalities.  He has two distinct wills which are never in conflict, both committed to doing the will of God the Father.  Jesus, the Word incarnate, assumed perfect humanity in order to save fallen humanity. He could not have saved us unless he was fully God and fully man.

The all-important Council of Chalcedon reaffirmed the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople, condemning the false doctrines of Nestorius and Eutychus. The council affirmed the single personality of Christ and the authenticity and perfection of both His natures, human and divine.

Essential Truths About Jesus (#3 Errors Regarding His Person)

“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your house.” Acts 16:30-31

We rejoice in the Lord that all who believe in the Lord Jesus will be saved.  I am troubled however at how many profess faith in Jesus, but alas, the Jesus they believe in is not the Jesus of the Bible.  That is why we are continuing with a short series in hopes of answering the question, “Who is the Jesus of the Bible?” The bulk of the content in this series comes from papers I wrote when studying Systematic Theology in seminary in 2001.

This time we will begin addressing Christological Errors and Biblical Truth.  There are three basic kinds of errors regarding the person of Christ.

1.   Errors Affecting the Deity of Christ. A classic example of errors affecting Christ’s deity is the error of Arianism. Arians believed that Jesus is not eternal.  This error is based on a misunderstanding of passages like Romans 8:29 and Colossians 1:15 that call Christ the “firstborn.” These passages were misunderstood to be about Jesus’s essential being rather than His economic work as a man in the plan of redemption.  This error was condemned at the council of Nicea in A.D 325, but lives on in groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Arianism was named for its chief proponent, Arius (256-336 AD), Presbyter of Alexandria.  Arianism is not to be confused with the racism of  Aryanism.

2.   Errors Affecting the Humanity of Christ. An example of error that denies Christ’s humanity is the error of Apollinarianism.  This error teaches that Jesus is fully divine, but that Jesus had no human spirit, mind, or will.  According to this error, Jesus is a divine being inhabiting a human body.  This heretical attempt to emphasize Christ’s divinity while denying His humanity was condemned by the First Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D.  Apollinarianism was named for its chief proponent, Apollinaris (310-390 AD), Bishop of Laodicea.

Next Time we will consider number three: Errors Affecting the Integrity of the Person of Christ..

Essential Truths About Jesus (#2 His Natures)

“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your house.” Acts 16:30-31

We rejoice in the Lord that all who believe in the Lord Jesus will be saved.  I am troubled however at how many profess faith in Jesus, but alas, the Jesus they believe in is not the Jesus of the Bible. So we are answering the question, “Who is the Jesus of the Bible?” with this short series entitled, Essential Truths About Jesus. The bulk of the content in this series comes from papers I wrote when studying Systematic Theology in seminary in 2001.

Last time we considered the Deity and Humanity of Jesus. This time: how do Jesus’ two natures (divine and human) relate?

Jesus is one Person who has two distinct natures.  An important theological term for the two natures of Christ in one Person is the Theanthropic Person of Christ.  This word comes from the Greek words Theos, meaning God, and anthro, meaning man.  Joining these words describes the joining of deity and humanity in Christ.

1.   Jesus’ deity and humanity are not to be mixed or confused.  Jesus is one Person with two natures, not a composite being made up of two persons or personalities.  He is not God possessing a man’s body, nor is He a man in whom God dwells or who has a profound sense of God within Himself.  He is God and man in one Person.  This union of two natures in the one Person of Jesus Christ is called the Hypostatic Union, the term that describes how God the Son took on a human nature, yet remained fully God at the same time.  Jesus Christ is one Person, fully God and fully man. This is unique to Christ.

2.   There are important distinctions regarding the two natures of Christ.  An important distinction regarding the two natures of Christ is that the deity of Christ did not make the humanity other than human, and the humanity of Christ did not make the deity of Christ other than divine.  The two natures come together in one Person, but they do not change either of the two natures.  There are actions taken by Jesus in which His humanity is in the forefront, and there are actions taken by Jesus in which His deity is in the forefront, but these actions are taken by one Person, who must not be divided.  His two natures are distinct, but never separated.

A footnote: It is interesting that the unbelieving world often has difficulty with the deity of Christ, while believers often forget about or downplay the humanity of Christ. An essential truth is that Jesus is the one and only God-man.

Essential Truths About Jesus (#1 He is Worthy & Able)

“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your house.” Acts 16:30-31

I recently read an article on the Christian post entitled “Ten Heretical Views Regarding Jesus,” by Joseph Mattera. I encourage those who wish to read the article, find it on The Christian Post website. I will write the next several blogs about the biblical Jesus. The bulk of the content in this series comes from papers I wrote when studying Systematic Theology in seminary in 2001.

First, why is this important? Too many claim to believe in Jesus, but the “Jesus” they believe in is not the God of the Bible, nor of time-honored Christian orthodoxy. Belief in another “Jesus” will not save anyone.

  1. Most of the ten heresies are not new. Most are reheated leftovers from centuries-old false doctrines that were debunked in the first four centuries of Christian history. This is a reminder of how important it is to know Christian history, since those who do not know history are frequently doomed to repeat it—including the errors.

  2. Most of these heresies are wrong about the deity, person, nature, and will of Jesus the God-Man. These are not unimportant technicalities. One need not know all the details of the truth, but when one embraces error, all bets are off!

Second, what is the truth? The truths about Jesus were hammered out when the Church encountered error. These errors forced the Church to search the scriptures to define Christian orthodoxy. This was done in several Church councils that tackled specific errors.

A.   The Deity of Christ: He is Worthy

John 1:1-5 says that Jesus is “the Word” and that the Word “is God” and is the Creator of all things.  John 5 records several claims by Jesus that He is equal with God.  John 11:25-46 declares Jesus’s authority over life and death.  In John 14:7-9, Jesus claims that to see and know Him is to see and know God.  John 20:28 recounts Thomas’s declaration that Jesus is God.  Acts 20:28 refers to the “church of God which He purchased with His own blood.”  God the Father did not shed His blood on the cross.  That was done by God the Son, the “God-Man” Jesus Christ.  Therefore since the blood that was shed was God’s, Jesus is God.  Those who insist that Jesus never claimed to be God either do not know, or do not understand the scriptures. Jesus had to be sinless to be worthy to die for His people. But since God cannot die Jesus also had to be a human being…

B.   The Humanity of Christ: He is Able

Matthew 1 and Luke 3 record the human genealogies of Jesus (Matthew, through Joseph, and Luke, through Mary).  Luke 1-2 records the details of Jesus’s literal human birth.  Galatians 4:4 says that the Messiah was born of a woman and born under the Law, as are humans.  Hebrews 2:14 records Jesus as having flesh and blood.  The Gospels record numerous human experiences felt by Jesus, including hunger and fatigue. Since God cannot die, Jesus had to be a human being to be able to die for His people.

Therefore, Jesus, the one and only God-man, is uniquely worthy and able to be His people’s Savior.

Next Time: The Two Natures of Christ