1

Questions on the Doctrine of God:

an interaction with Millard Erickson’s Christian Theology and Daniel Mitchel’s lectures

By Brian H. Wagner (last edited 4-17-14)

Questions Covered – (Hyperlinked to Answers Given)

1. What is the distinction between propositional and relational knowledge of God?

2. How does one come to “know” God?

3. Does the Bible attempt to prove God’s existence?

4. Are the arguments for God’s existence compatible with Scripture?

5. What are two objections the modern mind has against the OT representation of God?

6. What is the character of the self-revelation of God as shown in His names?

7. What are five significant names of God demonstrating the self-revelation of God?

8. How does God reveal Himself through history and through natural phenomena?

9. In what four ways does God in the NT parallel the self-manifestation of God in the OT?

10. Why is it important to believe in the historicity of Jesus?

11. What modern groups reject the deity of Christ?

12. How is the title “Son of God” used to prove the deity of Christ?

13. What is the doctrine of the impeccability of Christ?

14. Why is it important to orthodoxy to affirm personality of the Holy Spirit?

15. What are the “attributes of God”?

16. How is God unchanging when Scripture speaks of Him as repenting?

17. How can the apparent tension between God’s justice and His love be resolved?

18. Does prayer ever “change things”?

19. What model of God’s Plan allows for genuine human freedom?

20. How does the doctrine of creation relate to evolutionary theory?

21. What are seven vital aspects of the doctrine of creation in theology?

22. What is God’s governing activity in His providential dealings with creation?

23. What are five approaches taken by theologians to resolve this problem of evil?

2

1. What is the distinction between propositional and relational knowledge of God?

It is important for every student of Theology Proper to be first aware of the difference

between knowing facts about God and actually knowing the experience of a personal

relationship with God. Such an awareness of this difference will not only serve to enrich the

student’s study of God as a subject but will surely demonstrate the initiatives God has taken

and is taking for that student to come to a spiritual intimacy with Him.

Having the awareness of these two types of knowledge must be prior to study, or the study

itself will be unfruitful, especially in coming to know well any propositional truth of God.

Knowing facts about someone is certainly enhanced by seeing that person in action. Joe may

be said to be honest, but when Joe brings back the extra change which the cashier

mistakeningly had given him, that cashier now knows about Joe’s honesty in a fuller way, a

personal way. His honesty has saved her from future embarrassment during the closeout of her

register.

If in the student’s pursuit of knowing truths about God, he does not seek to see a personal

demonstration of those truths by God in his life, it can be said that he will never know those

truths perfectly. And it can be argued that all facts about God are meant to be known that way,

both propositionally and personally.

Erickson in his Christian Theology states – “The primary result of special revelation is the

knowledge of God.”1 He goes on to discuss whether this revelation is to be “regarded as the

communication of propositional truths” or if it is to be “regarded as the presentation of a

person.”2 The choice, Erickson says, will affect how one views his faith in God, that is, faith

either as assent to facts or as trust in a person. He goes on to propose, “If revelation includes

propositional truths, then it is of such a nature that is can be preserved. It can be written down

or inscripturated.”3 However, he concludes that “while a message may be available for others,

they might not as yet be prepared to receive it.”4

1 Erickson, Millard J., Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983) p. 216

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid., p. 221

4 Ibid.

3

This presents the unique relationship between finding propositional knowledge of God in

Scripture and the ability to know it more fully, that is, to know God personally through it. If the

student approaches the Bible as merely a record of past revelation, even though an inerrant

one, he will miss coming to know the voice of God that is still speaking through the Bible.

Hebrews 3:7 is a demonstration of how the author of Hebrews, a first century believer, knew

that the Spirit of God was still speaking through the O.T. Scriptures. And yet, the quote itself

from Psalm 95:7-11 – “Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts…” indicates that

the author of Hebrews also knew that God could be speaking personally through his epistle to

some of his readers. Can it not be extrapolated that God is still speaking to all who read from

the Holy Scriptures today, if indeed it is His special revelation? Thus the Bible’s propositional

truth about God would also be a personal encounter with God revealing, i.e. “speaking,” this

truth about Himself. He that has ears to hear would not just be gaining cognitive knowledge,

but also experiential knowledge of God.

Therefore faith has to be more than mere assent to facts, though that kind of faith is

essential and prior to personal trust, which results from and in the experiential knowledge of

God. This is the difference between first “believing that” and then “believing in” as it relates to

God’s person and work. Hebrews 11:6 states – “He who comes to God must believe that He is

and that He is a rewarded of those who diligently seek Him.” Unless one is cognitively

convinced that God exists and that God will reward him for searching, he will not “come” into

the presence of God (i.e. through prayer) and begin a personal knowledge of Him.

The student of Theology Proper must not just approach this subject thinking there is only

propositional truth to be discovered and learned. If he does, he will not even learn those facts,

except as answers for an exam, or logical syllogisms for interesting discussions. Those

propositional truths about God are designed and revealed with the purpose of encounter with

God and a more full knowledge of what those truths mean. God is speaking about Himself in

the Scriptures, so that in, and beyond, the “Sacred Page” the Lord can be sought and known.

Top of the Document

4

2. How does one come to “know” God?

Today, to begin an everlasting relationship of knowing the God who is unseen one must

start with faith. And it then must continue by faith until that faith is replaced by the sight of an

irrefutable, universal manifestation of God’s presence. Until then, the knowing of God by faith,

requires evidence that God exists and that He has been communicating that evidence upon

which that faith can rest. Also, it is only logical to think that such knowledge of God by faith

depends upon God’s initiative to provide it. The greater question is, does He indeed take that

initiative with everyone He has created?

The English word “know” has a grand breadth of meaning. This makes the interpretation of

its many occurrences in life’s communication and especially Holy Scripture a daunting task. It

can mean anything from casual recognition to the Hebraistic euphemism for sexual intimacy

(Genesis 4:1). It can mean factual comprehension as well as comprehension of the possible. It

can mean intuitive reasoning or deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning. And these entire

meanings take on added significances if knowing is of a thing, or a person, or an experience of a

thing or person.

When one asks, “How can God be known?” the breadth of meaning of “knowing” must be

considered. Also, a working definition of “God,” or a hypothesis of His existence must be

assumed. For this essay, the assumption that God means Creator (or Source or Primary Cause)

will be the starting point, since such a basic definition is almost universally accepted. Therefore

to answer the question, “How can God be known?” in the most rudimentary way is to answer –

“The created comes to know his creator with the abilities and opportunities for such knowledge

as provided by the creator.”

A brief comment should be made concerning those that postulate that because the Creator

is infinite there is an impossibility of the finite creature knowing Him without His initiative.5

This is an assumption that the finite has no connection with the infinite. However, just as a line

segment has some correspondence to a line, the finite creature can have some correspondence

to his infinite Creator. Also, others have suggested that God must take a new creative step for

5 Mitchell, Daniel R., Doctrine of God (Lynchburg, VA: Liberty DLP) Tape 1, Lesson 2

5

knowledge of Him to be possible, since man, they say, lost all accurate knowledge and all ability

for accurate knowledge of God when Adam sinned.6

For the created being with an ability to know provided by the Creator there is an

observation, a knowledge if you will, of self and of the surrounding creation. And it is

reasonable to extrapolate from such observation that the Source, the First Cause, of all that is

observed is knowable factually to some extent by these observations. If one looks at a bunch of

paintings by the same artist, all of which are landscapes of ocean waves crashing on rocky

shores, one reasonably knows that the artist chose to paint such, was able to paint such, and

somehow became the cause of those paintings being presented for observation.

These facts about the artist allows one to say “I know this artist,” but only in the sense of

recognition through his work, i.e. “ I know something about this artist.” Reasonable deductions

from this evidence may produce a sense of knowing this artist more fully, e.g. his paintings

show his preference for and familiarity with the seashore, and perhaps he has an appreciation

for the power displayed in the waves and rocks. But, it will take reading something written

truthfully by the artist about these paintings, or meeting the painter personally, if more

knowledge about these paintings and the painter is to be gained. Through personal encounter,

even the knowledge previously gained from reasonable deductions of just the paintings

themselves can then be confirmed or rejected.

This then is how anyone can come to know God initially. As His creation, anyone has ample

knowledge from observation that the Creator is powerful, super-intelligent, and has chosen

that part of His creation, i.e. mankind, should be able to observe itself and the rest of creation

and then make rational deductions from those observations (cf. Romans 1:20). Included among

those deductions is an intuition that death is not the end of personal experience, and what

happens in life somehow affects what happens after death (cf. Ecclesiastes 3:11).

Mankind longs to know more about his Creator. Primarily he wants to test his deductions

about death and the significance of his present life. If he begins to believe that the Creator is a

6 Erickson, p. 193, 195. Erickson is somewhat equivocal on this point. First he says Romans 1 shows “They had

known God….” with what Erickson calls a “possession of genuine and accurate knowledge.” (p.193) Then he

shortly afterwards says that in this passage, “Paul asserts, however, that humans do not clearly perceive God in the

general revelation.” (p. 195)

6

personal being and has been communicating since creation, he will seek to discover what has

been communicated and he will want to receive some personal communication from his

Creator. For the Christian, he believes he has had his deductions about life, death, and creation

confirmed and illuminated through believing that he has heard personally from God in the Holy

Scriptures and in his spirit. By faith he has come to personally know God, his Creator.

Top of the Document

3. Does the Bible attempt to prove God’s existence?

The Bible does not attempt to prove God’s existence, in the sense that it does not try

primarily to speak to the mindset of someone who denies God’s existence. It proclaims such a

one as a fool (Psalm 14:1). It does however attempt to prove, or rather provide evidence, that

the God of Israel is the only true God (“there is no other”, Deuteronomy 4:39), and that Jesus

Christ is that same God, come in the flesh (John 1:14, Colossians 2:9).

The Bible begins with God’s existence already presumed as accepted by the reader. Of

course, the first books of the Bible were written by the prophet Moses for the newly formed

people of God, the nation of Israel. The book of Genesis puts into writing the divine

interactions of Israel’s ancestors since creation, but Israel’s believability of God’s existence

would have primarily been through their own personal experience. Moses records their

personal interactions with God’s presence in the book, Exodus. They had borne witness to the

supernatural power of God in the plagues upon Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, and the

guiding atmospheric “pillars” of cloud and fire. But it was at Mount Sinai that they heard His

voice and self declaration – “I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the Land of

Egypt.” (Exodus 20:1)

The Scriptures of the Old Testament prophets became primarily a record of these

revelations of Israel’s God and His will for them, to inspire their faith and their obedience into

the future. These books were not written as an attempt to prove God’s existence, though for

those generations who never had a supernatural encounter with God like that of Sinai, the Bible

becomes a confirming witness that God exists and His will is still relevant. It can be called a

confirming witness because God has also used the creation itself to bring the knowledge of His

existence to man, and in man. (cf. Psalm 19:1-4, Romans 1:19, 20) The reasoning, that it is the

7

Bible itself which states that creation reveals the God of the Bible, is of course somewhat

circular. But that creation does indeed reveal that the Creator is reasonable without any appeal

to the Bible (see above, pp. 5 & 6). The truth that creation reveals the God of the Bible as the

Creator is for each individual to test for themselves in comparison with other worldviews.

The New Testament books of the Bible build upon the record of the Old Testament

declaration that the God of Israel is the one and only true deity. They present in greater clarity

evidence that this God is manifested to the creation in three persons, i.e. as Father, Son, and

Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Even though a majority of New Testament books are addressed to

those who are already professing faith in the salvation and lordship of Jesus Christ, the greater

portion of the New Testament (i.e. the Gospels and Acts) was composed to present Jesus as the

Son of God and Savior to the unbelieving mind (cf. John 20:31). Even of those books addressed

to professing believers, there is also an emphasis made to prove Christ’s deity, in case their

professed faith was faulty (cf. Hebrews 1, 2).

But for the unbeliever it is still reasonable to consider the Gospels of the New Testament, if

only as a reliable historical record of the words spoken by Christ. The Gospels provide evidence

enough in Christ’s words that he believed in the sole existence of one true God (Matthew 4:10)

and that he claimed to be of that same divine essence (John 5:18). The unbeliever is then

challenged reasonably to respond to Christ’s self-proclaimed divinity. C. S. Lewis in Mere

Christianity, as well as in other writings by him, presented a now well known trilemma for the

unbeliever to face when he wants to say, “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher,

but I don’t accept His claim to be God.”7 Lewis goes on to explain,

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not

be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with the man who

says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your

choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something

worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or

you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any

7 Lewis, C.S., Mere Christianity () p. 55-56

8

patronising [sic] nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that

open to us. He did not intend to.8

The Bible then basically presents a God that exists and records how He has demonstrated

His existence to the Israel of the Old Testament and in the Christ of the New Testament. This

record is not presented necessarily to prove God’s existence, though it is provided as evidence

for those who have not had the encounters with God which Israel had with Moses or which the

disciples had with Jesus. Yet, mainly the Bible becomes a confirming and illuminating witness

to the knowledge of God which each person already has through creation and conscience. The

Bible shouts loudly that the God who man sees in creation, and Whose will he feels in his

conscience, is the Lord Jesus Christ who died for his sins. Top of the Document

4. Are the arguments for God’s existence compatible with Scripture?

Arguments for the existence of God have been presented by theologians down through the

centuries. The cosmological, teleological, anthropological, ontological arguments, etc., have

provided source material for a multitude of books and a whole host of debates by Christian

apologists since the time of Christ. These arguments can be shown to be compatible with the

Holy Scriptures, and they become useful, in a secondary sense, in aiding the unbeliever in his

personal search for the knowledge of God.

The cosmological argument, simply stated, is the argument that something eternal must

have caused all that exists unless all that exists comes from nothing. A corollary to the first part

is that the eternal cause can either be a personal being or an impersonal process. The Christian

sees a personal God as the eternal Cause, and all that exists comes from Him.9 The Holy

Scriptures confirms this argument as true. “All things were made by Him, and without Him was

not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3, cp. 1Cor. 8:6, Heb. 11:3).

The teleological argument presents the existence of God as a reasonable derivation from

observing what appears to be order and design in all that exists. The order and interaction of

8 Ibid.

9 Though most Christian theologians, desiring to avoid a pantheistic or panentheistic view of God, discuss creation

as ex-nihilio, i.e. “out of nothing,” creation legitimately can be said to have existed eternally in the mind of God, at

least as an option for Him to bring into being. Of course, the “materials” therefore of that creation are nothing

physical, but preexist only as potentials within the infinite power and mind of God.

9

the processes that support life as it exists on earth especially point to an eternal intelligent

designer. It takes more faith to say such design happened by chance, in what appears to be a

relatively short time and in such inscrutable ways for some of the processes observed. Buswell,

in his Systematic Theology, chooses the example of water, when it freezes and acts opposite to

almost all liquids and becomes less dense. Therefore, he says, “Thus ice floats on the surface

instead of sinking to the bottom. Thus the aquatic life in our lakes is protected rather than

destroyed in the winter time.”10 The Bible gives other examples. The repeated phrase – “after

its kind” in the first chapter of Genesis agrees with a genetic orderliness within and between

species observed upon earth.

But most of the design argument follows into the anthropological argument. For it is man

who is doing the observation and deriving such conclusions. The fact that he has such ability,

obviously unique among the rest that exists, begs the question, why? Why is man able to

observe such order? Was he given that ability for a purpose? But the anthropological

argument develops from there to include not only man’s ability to reason, but also his ability to

determine right from wrong (the moral argument) and his desire for an everlasting blessed life

(the religious argument). It follows then rationally, that man was given these abilities by a

reasonable, righteous, gracious Creator, presumably to know Him. The Bible supports this

argument. Man has reason. The Psalmist says, “He who planted the ear, shall He not hear? He

who formed the eye, shall He not see?” (Ps. 94:9) Man knows right from wrong. The Apostle

says that man does “by nature the things in the law… who show the work of the law written in

their hearts.” (Romans 2:14, 15) And man expects life beyond the grave. The Preacher says,

“He [God] has put eternity in their hearts.” (Eccl. 3:11)

One other major argument for the existence of God is the ontological one. It also is tied to

the anthropological in that it relates to man’s reason. However, it is not based on the fact that

man has reason but on what man has reasoned about reality or being. One form of this

argument is deductive, i.e. since man reasons there is a Most Perfect Being that Most Perfect

Being must exist, for if it did not, the concept supposedly would not exist either, since a Most

10

Buswell, James Oliver, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), Vol. 1,

p. 88.

10

Perfect Being that did not exist would be less than perfect. In other words, if it exists in the

reality of reason it must exist. The deductive form may sound compelling, but it is really

circular. There is an inductive form of this argument, i.e. that man everywhere has an idea that

there is a God. Where does this idea come from, except through some revelation of that idea

by God Himself to the first man or to every man intuitively? Paul points to that idea when he

said, “Because what may be known of God is manifest in them for God has shown it to them.”

(Romans 1:19)

The Holy Scriptures are compatible with these arguments for the existence of God. The

Bible does not set out to discuss or prove these arguments, but it does lend a confirming,

supporting voice to these arguments. The arguments themselves can be used for the

unbeliever that truly is seeking to understand the reasonableness of the commitment of faith in

God being presented to him. If, however, he is not seeking and is otherwise sarcastic or

adversarial in his response to truth, personal testimony and compassionate, confident

affirmation of the truth is better than argument. Top of the Document

5. What are two objections the modern mind has against the OT representation of God?

Daniel Mitchell in his lectures on this subject conjectures that modern man rejects the Old

Testament representation of God because God is presented as “personal” and transcendent.”11

By this he means that man does not want a relationship with God, especially a God to whom he

must be responsible as to a Sovereign Lord. Primarily then, it is not the personhood of God

which modern man rejects, but the possibility of a harsh judgment which he wants to avoid. It

is God as Judge, therefore, which is the most significant offense which the Scriptures present to

modern thinking.

No one would deny that universally man demonstrates a habit of developing a moral code

for himself by which, most times, he judges others. He thus agrees with the Apostle Paul, that

mankind “who do not have the [written Mosiac] law… are [still] a law to themselves... their

conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else

excusing them.” (Romans 2:14, 15) How does he account for this moral impulse within himself?

11

Mitchell, Tape 4, Lesson 9

11

If he projects, or most likely has been taught, that it was placed there by his creator, he then

begins to deal with questions as to how this creator will hold him accountable for any violations

of that moral law.

Most modern minds in the Western hemisphere still have, or at least have had, the

childhood starting point of the Old Testament God and His law for a reference to his moral

anxieties. In the past, rejecting accountability to the God of the Bible would have been almost

culturally impossible. The intelligentsia of the West up until the last century preserved the

universal acceptance of that view. Alternative views of God from “heathen” lands were viewed

as irrational. Unfortunately, even though the West held to the reality of the God of the O.T.

and to accountability to Him as Judge, many religious authorities promoted what could be

called a practical deism. The populace, they taught, needed only to be publicly related to the

“Church” and not personally related to God Himself, to be secured from future divine

judgment.

Modern man now has a new intelligentsia that either rejects any notion of God by using a

materialistic atheism, or that accepts any notion of God by using a pluralistic agnosticism.

Either way, he now feels more comfortable in avoiding the authoritative presentation of the

God of the Bible, especially as seen in the Old Testament Scriptures. He becomes more willing

to gamble in faith that there is no God to answer to, or that the one which exists will accept any

sincere adherents to any religion (so long as he does not try to change from the religion he has

chosen, or try to change others from theirs).

This is where modern man finds fault with the Old Testament God. In his thinking, the

Bible’s God is presented as too singular, “The LORD Himself is God in heaven above and on the

earth beneath; there is no other,” too exclusive, “You shall have no other gods before me,” and

too demanding, “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and

with all your strength.” (Deut. 4:39, 5:7, 6:5) Added to this is his ignorance of how this God’s

grace and justice extend to the multitudes of men, women and children who have never heard

the written accounts of this God in the Bible.

But the connection is still there within him, that he is a moral being somehow responsible to

a moral creator and that his post death future is dependent on his response to the will of that

12

creator in this life. The revelation of the Old Testament may be a help in identifying the

character and will of that creator, but the revelation of the New Testament brings even more

abundant help, i.e. grace. The Old Testament represents God primarily as Judge, with a hint of

the good news about salvation by faith. The New Testament represents God primarily as

Savior, though with continued warning of future judgment.

The modern mind may first recoil at the personal and transcendent God of the Old

Testament who seems at first glance to be only concerned with one race, one nation. And

modern man usually thinks that in those Old Testament stories God seems somewhat distant,

unapproachable, and harsh. But in the New Testament it is discovered that this same God has

tabernacled in our midst (John 1:14), has demonstrated His mercy for temporal suffering (Acts

10:38), and has given His life as the payment for the sins of the whole world (1Tim. 2:6). Man

can put his trust in this O.T. God revealed by the N.T. Christ and thus not be condemned, or he

can reject Him and His saving work and remain condemned already (John 3:18).

Top of the Document

6. What is the character of the self-revelation of God as shown in His names?

God has revealed Himself and His character in the writings of Scripture by the use of titles

and names through which He has chosen to be known. These names and titles bear the

characteristics of being personal, anthropic (i.e., using language related to human character and

experience), and univocal (i.e., possessing the same characteristics with human character and

experience, but with some profound differences).

These titles and names can be described as personal, because God, Himself, is making the

choice of these monikers by which He desires to be personally known to His creation and His

people. He states, “I am Almighty God,” Gen. 17:1, 35:11; “I am the LORD,” Gen. 28:13, Ex.

6:2,6,7,8,29, 7:5 (162x total); “I am God,” Gen. 46:3, Ps. 46:10, 50:7, Is. 45:22; “I AM WHO I

AM,” Ex. 3:14; “I am… The Holy One of Israel, the Savior,” Is. 43:3; “I am the First and I am the

Last,” Is. 44:6, 48:12; “I am the Lord GOD,” Ezek. 13:9, 23:49, 29:16; and “I am the Father,” Mal.

1:6.

Even though some of His names and titles are written down in Scripture as given to Him by

others, they are still also appropriately identified as self-revelations, even though they do not

13

use first person quotations, i.e. using “I am.” This is because they flow from the lips of divinely

inspired prophets of God, or at least are recorded by them under divine inspiration. These

identifications made by others usually are found as compound forms of characteristics linked

with either God [Heb. Elohim] or LORD [Heb. Yahweh]. Individuals in the O.T. had personally

met with God or had some circumstance of divine intervention in their personal lives and they

responded with an inspired announcement of a divine character quality revealed to them in this

personal encounter.

To Hagar, Elohim became the “You-Are-The-God-Who-Sees” Gen. 16:13. To Abraham,

Elohim became the “Everlasting God” Gen. 21:33. To Amos, Elohim is titled as “the God of

Hosts” Amos 3:13. Abraham called the place where Yahweh intervened in the sacrifice of Isaac

– “The-LORD-will-Provide” Gen. 22:14. Moses called the altar he built where Yahweh gave

victory over the Amalekites – “The-LORD-Is-My-Banner” Ex. 17:15. And Gideon named the altar

where he encountered Yahweh – “The-LORD-Is-Peace” Jud. 6:24. Even though some of these

compound titles were given to places or altars there is still an obvious self-revelation by God of

His personal character transpiring in those accounts.

The question may arise as to how anthropic these names of God are. Louis Berkhof would

rather say – “They are anthropomorphic and mark a condescending approach of God to man.”12

He continues, “It should be borne in mind that they are not of man’s invention, and do not

testify to his insight into the very Being of God. They are given by God Himself with the

assurance that they contain in a measure a revelation of the Divine Being.”13 But Erickson likes

the word – “anthropic”, which he may have chosen to take away some of the equivocation

which may be implied in the term “anthropomorphic.” He says that God’s self-revelation

“should not be thought of as anthropomorphism as such, but as simply a revelation coming in

human language and human categories of thought and action.”14 Both Berkhof and Erickson

seem to be concluding the same thing, that God’s names truly represent the characteristics

they express though they cannot fully comprehend the infinite aspect of each.

12

Berkhof, Louis, Systematic Theology (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1981), p. 47

13

Ibid.

14

Erickson, p. 204.

14

This idea is that the names of God are in some sense univocal of God’s true character.

When Joshua reveals God as “a holy God… a jealous God,” he is saying God’s holiness and

jealousy are exactly like man’s experience of them though God’s also possesses a transcendent

quality. There is no equivocation in using these terms, but the holiness and jealousy are truly in

some ways the same as those which man experiences, and in some ways distinctly not. When

Yahweh says, “I am the LORD who heals you” Ex. 15:26, or “I am the LORD who sanctifies you”

Lev. 20:8, He is revealing abilities which He alone possesses within His nature that man can

know partially by a personal experience of their results in his life. However, the full nature and

extent of those divine abilities will always remain inscrutable to man.

Names and Titles are important. They encapsulate important traits of a person, presented

for recognition and acceptance. They offer revelations of character like signposts directing

others to personally remember or personally discover their veracity. They become handles on

the door that opens to a relationship. God has given us the names and titles by which He wants

us to know Him for these important reasons.

Top of the Document

7. What are five significant names of God demonstrating the self-revelation of God?

Elohim - This is the most generic name for God and is translated as such, i.e.

“God,” over 2300 times in the O.T. Scriptures. It is in a plural form and is translated “gods” a

couple hundred times where the context demands it. But the translation of Elohim as God in

the singular is appropriate. Brown, Driver, Briggs’ Lexicon calls it a “plural intensive” with a

“singular meaning.” Therefore it is uniformly accompanied with singular verbs or adjectives.

But this plural root of Elohim opens the theological “door” of discussion for viewing God as

some sort of plurality in unity. The Hebrew language also can have a dual construct for nouns.

So this plural construct of Elohim would indicate that the plurality in God’s nature can not be

dualistic. Genesis 1:26 complements this plurality when it says, “Then God [Elohim] said, ‘Let us

makes man in our image, according to our likeness….’”

El Shaddai – The singular of Elohim is El, and as such appears less than 250 times. The root

meaning of El is strength and power. In combination with Shaddai this becomes even more

significant. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says of Shaddai – “Its use in

15

patriarchal days marks an advance over looser Semitic conceptions to the stricter monotheistic

idea of almightiness…. Its monotheistic character is in harmony with its use in the Abrahamic

times, and is further corroborated by its parallel in Septuagint and New Testament,

pantokratwr, ‘all-powerful.’” El Shaddai is translated “God Almighty” five times with its reverse

construction “Almighty God” appearing a couple times. However, El is used in parallel with

Shaddai in almost two dozen poetic passages, the predominant number of which is in the book

of Job.

Yahweh – This is the most personal name that God takes for Himself. It appears over 6400

times in the O.T. This is the name by which God desires to be known.15 It is usually translated

“LORD.” This is not because Yahweh means LORD in its primal root understanding. The four

Hebrew letter word, i.e. tetragrammaton, from which Yahweh is derived, is substituted with

Adonai when read by Jews, who universally came to fear pronouncing it lest they should break

the third commandment. Adonai is the generic Hebrew word for Lord (see below). The N.T.

authors followed this example when quoting from the O.T. and used kurios, the Greek word for

Lord. The root meaning of Yahweh is from the same Hebrew root for “to be” (cf. Ex. 3:13-16).

God is thus revealing that His nature is a trustworthy reality – “I Am Who I Am.” Exodus 6:2-8

also demonstrates that it is by this name, God desires to reveal His covenant relationship with

His people.16

Yahweh Sabaoth – This is translated “LORD of Hosts” and appears over 230 times. Like El

Shaddai, this title emphasizes the power and strength which God has, though the emphasis

here is on that power being mediated through the angelic armies or heavenly hosts which

Yahweh rules over. Added to these nuances of power are also the evident characteristics of

majesty and sovereignty as seen in this title. Psalm 139:21 says – Bless the LORD, all you His

hosts, you ministers of His, who do His pleasure. And though Daniel 4:35 does use Yahweh

Sabaoth, it reflects that same idea of divine sovereignty when it says – “All the inhabitants of

15

Moses and Ezekiel demonstrate that God wants to be known by this name as they together quote God over 70

times as saying he speaks and acts so that men might “know that I am the LORD [i.e. Yahweh].”

16

ISBE, when dealing with Exodus 3:13-16 says, “The optional reading in the American Revised Version, margin is

much to be preferred: ‘I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE,’ indicating His covenant pledge to be with and for Israel in

all the ages to follow.”

16

the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven. And

among the inhabitants of the earth, no one can restrain His hand or say to Him, ‘What have You

done?’”

Adonai – As mentioned above, this term became the substitute name for Yahweh

religiously when the O.T. was read. But it appears frequently on its own in the O.T. as an

address to God, and is translated “Lord” as opposed to “LORD,” which is from Yahweh as

discussed above. However, when Adonai is used in a compound title with Yahweh, Yahweh is

translated GOD. This compound expression Adonai Yahweh, Lord GOD, is found almost 300

times in the O.T. This term definitely emphasizes the sovereign character of God over His

creation, especially over man. It is this compound use of this title, its use as a replacement for

Yahweh, and its N.T. counterpart – kurios, that demonstrate especially in the N.T. the joint

sovereignty within the Godhead. The Father is Lord, Luke 10:21. Jesus is Lord, Phil. 2:11. And

the Holy Spirit is Lord, 2Cor. 3:17.

These five names for God – Elohim, El Shaddai, Yahweh, Yahweh Sabaoth, and Adonai, are

the most frequently used designations for God in the O.T. Power, majesty, and God’s personal

sovereign rule in creation, especially in covenant with His people are the main nuances in these

self revelations by God. Top of the Document

8. How does God reveal Himself through history and through natural phenomena?

God has chosen to reveal Himself in a variety of ways. He has done so openly, on a national

stage of which history can take record. He has done so utilizing natural phenomena, sometimes

in extraordinary ways also noted by history. But it is only in the special revelation of Scripture

that these other revelations by God through historical or natural events can be legitimately

verified.

Man makes record of the personal encounters which he believes he has had with God.

Since creation, some of these encounters were transmitted orally to each successive generation

until Moses was led to write some of them down. These theophanies to Abraham, Isaac, and

Moses especially become the foundation for the history of God’s self-revelation (Gen. 12:7,

17:1, 18:1, 26:2, Ex. 3:2). Personal encounters to individuals like these may be held suspect, but

17

they become more believable when the same God reveals Himself personally to thousands of

people at once.

Such a meeting of Israel with God is recorded in Exodus 19 and 20. In Exodus 19:9 it is

written – “And the LORD said to Moses, “Behold, I come to you in the thick cloud, that the

people may hear when I speak with you, and believe you forever.” And Moses remembers it

this way – “The LORD talked with you [Israel] face to face on the mountain from the midst of

the fire. I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the

LORD; for you were afraid because of the fire, and you did not go up the mountain” (Deut. 5:4-

5). What Israel heard that day was the pronouncement of what is popularly known as the Ten

Commandments (Ex. 20:2-17). Though this was the only time that the nation as a whole heard

the voice of God, appearances of the pillar of fire, from which it emanated, were recorded as

being seen by the multitude continually from the time that they had left Egypt (e.g., Ex. 13:21,

14:19, Num. 14:14, Neh. 9:12).

The history of Israel itself thus becomes a record of God’s self-revelation. This begins with

its supernatural inception resulting from the plagues upon Egypt and the escape via the

miraculously parted waters of the Red Sea. It continues through the divine provision and

protection of Israel during the wilderness wanderings. Added to this history are the sporadic

but unmistakably God given proofs of His personal involvement with His people from the time

they entered Canaan to the present. Especially in His indirect communication through

prophets, God has revealed how His involvement with His people Israel is a display of His

character of love, justice, mercy, hatred of evil, longsuffering, and wrath against sin. He shows

Himself frequently as a father to a son, a king to a servant, a husband to a wife.

Yet beyond the historical Biblical record, God has chosen to reveal His character through

natural phenomena. It is not necessary to consider that all the extraordinary, miraculous, or

even ordinary events which have happened in nature were just in behalf of Israel. It was an

extraordinary natural event for Jonah to be swallowed and preserved alive inside a great fish.

Though Jonah was a prophet of Israel and his experience became a lesson for them, this

extraordinary event in nature was primarily for the sake of the people of Nineveh. God was

thus going to great lengths to demonstrate His mercy for that great Gentile city.

18

It may be almost impossible to verify any miraculous natural event without an appeal to

the veracity of those recorded in Scripture, taken now by faith. But there are still unexplained,

by modern science, certain phenomena in the natural world that may indeed point to a divine

presence and His supernatural power. The unknown nuclear forces, for instance, which keep

every atom from either exploding or imploding without the appropriate quantity of mass for

such energy to hold them together points clearly, for some, to the supernatural power of God

(Col. 1:17).

But it is not just the extraordinary or supernatural events of nature which God has used to

reveal who He is and what He is like. Just ordinary events designed in the laws of nature, which

become the common experience of most, also point to God, the creator of those events

governed by those laws. As Jesus has said, “…for He makes His sun rise on the evil and the

good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:45). Paul said, “Nevertheless He

did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and

fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14:17). God was using these

common natural events to display His impartiality, goodness, and consistent faithfulness in and

through His providence in the natural realm.

All of this self-revelation by God through history and nature were not just for purposes of

recognition but for the purpose of relationship. And the same relationship which the historical

record of Scripture reveals that God was establishing with the forefathers of Israel as individuals

and with Israel as a nation, He was also desiring to have with each human being.

Top of the Document

9. In what four ways does God in the NT parallel the self-manifestation of God in the OT?

The Gnostic Marcion of the second century A. D. attempted to utilize Platonic philosophy

and create the notion that the O.T. God which created the world was a different God than the

Father of Jesus in the N.T. This view has seen a recent revival, renewing the need for Biblical

scholars and pastors to demonstrate the Scripture’s unified teaching that the God of the O.T.

and the God of the N.T. are one and the same.

Marcion avoided the Gospels, except for his personally mutilated copy of Luke, and he

avoided also the epistles, except for ten of those written by Paul. Marcion rejected the

19

portions of the gospel of Luke, e.g. the birth narrative (Luke, chapters 1-4:31), which would

explicitly link Jesus Christ with the Jehovah God of the O.T. as His Father. Yet even utilizing the

rest of Luke, which Marcion accepted, still provides enough evidence to show that Jesus spoke

of God as Father and as the same God as revealed in the O.T.

Jesus identifies God as Father in Luke 6:36; 10:21,22; 11:2, 13; 12:30; 22:29, 42; 23:34, 46;

and 24:29. But in various other sections Jesus is identified plainly as being from the same God

as the O.T. For instance, in each of Christ’s encounters with evil spirits and demons they

recognize him, utilizing titles linked with the God of the O.T. In Luke 4:34, they call Jesus the

“Holy One of God” (cp. Ps. 16:10). In Luke 8:28 they call Jesus “thou Son of God most high” (cp.

Gen. 14:18-22). When Christ meets with Moses and Elijah on the mount of transfiguration

(9:28f), Luke records the voice of God from heaven saying, “This is my beloved Son: hear him.”

These O.T. heavenly visitors were previously important representatives of the Jehovah of the

O.T. Now they are a confirmation that it is that Jehovah’s voice which confirms to Peter, James

and John that the Jesus standing transfigured before them is Jehovah’s Son.

And though Marcion retains verbatim most of the miracles performed by Jesus, it is

impossible to understand Luke’s references to those who benefited as “glorifying God” as

referring to some other God than that of the O.T. whom these Jews whom Jesus healed would

only recognize as the source of Jesus power. Luke does not challenge their assessment with

any editorial comment (cp. Luke 5:25-26, 7:16, 13:13, 17:15-18, 18:23, 23:47).

Having satisfied the argument within the limitations set by Marcion’s proven corrupted view

of Scripture, there is no harm in comparing other first century apostolic witness since Marcion’s

imprimatur is no longer needed. The God whom Jesus and His apostles reveal in the N.T. is

certainly the same as the God of the O.T. as seen by the numerous quotations of the O.T. they

made referring to the LORD, i.e. Jehovah, as their God. When Jesus confronted Satan in the

wilderness, He basically quoted those portions of the O.T. which demonstrated His allegiance to

the Jehovah of the O.T. and His Word (cf., Luke 4:4, 8, 12). And when Paul reminds the

Corinthian believers that they are “in Christ Jesus, who is of God…” he supports it with a quote

from Jeremiah 9:24 – “He who glories, let him glory in the Lord” (1Cor. 1:31).

20

Also, Peter and Stephen linked Jesus with “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” (Acts 3:13,

7:32). Peter and Paul link Jesus with “the God of our Fathers” (Acts 5:30, 22:14). And Barnabas,

the author of Hebrews, makes an irrefutable link between the God of the O.T. and Jesus Christ

throughout the whole epistle which begins – “God, who at various times and in various ways

spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son,

whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;” (Heb. 1:1-

2).

But it is not only in the New Testament that God is revealed as a Father to His people. In

Deuteronomy 32:6 it is read – “…Is He not your Father, who bought you? Has He not made you

and established you?” In Psalm 103:13 one reads – “As a father pities his children, So the LORD

pities those who fear Him.” In Proverbs 3:12 it is written – “For whom the LORD loves He

corrects, Just as a father the son in whom he delights.” Isaiah 63:16 says – “Doubtless You are

our Father, Though Abraham was ignorant of us, And Israel does not acknowledge us. You, O

LORD, are our Father; Our Redeemer from Everlasting is Your name.” And finally in Malachi,

the God of the O.T. asks – “A son honors his father, And a servant his master. If then I am the

Father, Where is My honor?” (Malachi 1:6)

Though the dispensation of God’s activity has changed from primarily working His plan

through the nation of Israel in the O.T. to revealing His will through the church of the N.T., it is

obvious that He is still one and the same God. He is the God of Israel and God of the Church.

His will has always been and continues to be that “the just should live by faith” (Hab. 2:4, Rom.

1:17), and “whoever calls on the name of the LORD, shall be saved” (Joel. 2:24, Rom. 10:17).

Top of the Document

10. Why is it important to believe in the historicity of Jesus?

The historicity of Jesus is of vital importance to the person who wants to call himself

Christian. It provides the rational underpinning for his trust in the faithfulness of the Holy

Scriptures’ revelation of God and of God’s plan of redemption. If the N.T. historical record of

Jesus is a fraudulent embellishment of the true historical Jesus, that virtually obfuscates any

certainty of the teachings and accomplishments of the historical Jesus. A Christian must then

foolishly accept that his belief in a legend is of more value than trust in the real person.

21

A Christian is one who follows the teachings of Jesus. The teachings of Jesus exist in a

historical record written by his chosen followers. These apostles were contemporary, i.e.

eyewitnesses, to the activities of Jesus. They were auditors of His words. Some present

themselves as such in their writings (cf., John 21:24, 1John 1:1, and 2Pet. 1:16f). The other N. T.

documents are verified as such by contemporary witnesses from that age, both within (Heb.

2:4) and without (Acts 4:13)17 the Christian community. Those within the community testified

with their own blood (Rev. 12:11) that they trusted the historical veracity of these New

Testament testimonies about Jesus.

Instead of taking it as divinely inspired, just taking the New Testament as a competent

historical witness to the words of Jesus demands a reasonable response of either faith or

rejection of Him. Jesus’ words about Himself, about salvation, or about the future, all demand

an personal assessment as mentioned above (see p. 8f). He claimed to be equal with God (John

5:18), the only hope for salvation from sin (John 8:24), and the architect of Heaven (John 14:2,

3). If these words hold little trustworthiness, how can His practical instructions for a meek,

sacrificing lifestyle be trusted to be of any value?18

It is also important that the words of Jesus have been accurately preserved so that a proper

dogmatism in the infallibility, inerrancy, and preservation of Scripture can be maintained. Jesus

taught “that the Scripture cannot be broken,” and gave to it the title, the “Word of God” (John

10:35). He is recorded as saying God’s “Word is truth” (John 17:17). And he promised that not

even the smallest letter will not “pass from the law (i.e., the OT Scriptures) till all is fulfilled”

(Matt. 5:18).

Of course, Jesus was speaking about the O.T. Scriptures which were recognized as a corpus

of three categories – the Law, Prophets and Psalms (cf., Luke 24:44, the Psalms being the first

book of the last category of inspired writings that the Jews accepted). Yet, Jesus also promised

that His words would be remembered, added to by the Holy Spirit, and finalized into writings by

His apostles (John 14:26, 15:26-27, 16:12-13). Though the promise to the apostles actually

17

It is not the scope of this essay to itemize any non-Christian quotes that show that the N.T. documents were

generally held as authored by personal witnesses to Jesus. The greatest argument probably lies in the fact that no

contemporary secular argument was raised against their authenticity.

22

writing is not mentioned by Jesus in the Scripture, He does promise that His words will be used

for judgment in the last day (John 12:48). And Revelation 20:12 pictures the last judgment

using books as standards by which to judge men’s works. These books must be the N.T.

Scriptures, the repository of Jesus’ words, which He did promise would “by no means pass

away” (Matt. 24:35).

The historicity of Jesus is also vital to one’s faith in the possibility of redemption from

personal guilt. The N.T. historical record has the Son of God becoming a man through

incarnation (John 1:14), living a perfectly sinless life, sacrificing Himself in behalf of man’s sin,

and rising victorious over death (2Pet. 3:18). Unless this provision actually was made by Christ

in real life, i.e. history, how can one expect to face His Maker in the next life as a guilty soul? It

took a perfect man to provide a man with a perfect substitution of a righteous life for a sinful

one. But it took an infinite and perfect Son of God/man to provide all mankind with an infinite

substitution of righteousness for the entire sum of mankind’s iniquity.

Faith in a mythical sacrifice and resurrection will only reap a mythical forgiveness and only a

dream of everlasting life. But faith in an historically real divine provision of salvation will

reasonably reap a real forgiveness and a life that will become a bona fide part of the everlasting

history of the future. Christianity is a historical religion, with a Scriptural record comprised of,

and dependent upon, an historical reality. It is an offer of redemption, which has forgiven the

sinful “history” of millions and has prepared for them a future “history” in the everlasting Joy of

their Lord. Top of the Document

11. What modern groups reject the deity of Christ?

The deity of Christ has been a major theological issue which has created much discussion,

division, and even death since the days of Christ. It even became the major reason for the

Jerusalem Sanhedrin’s condemning of Jesus to the death of the cross (Matt. 26:65). It became

the issue for the persecution of the Arians by the Roman Catholic Church after the Arians lost

their bid to control the State Church in the 4th Century. And it becomes the major sticking point

18

Intuition and a long-term historical witness to this lifestyle may provide some rationale for trusting Christ’s social

instructions as beneficial. This trust in turn provides justification for trusting Christ’s self-identification and future

promise.

23

for many who want to be known only nominally as Christian because they follow the teachings

of the Sermon on the Mount, like Unitarians.

One may ask if believing in the deity of Christ is essential for saving faith. Many who would

now claim to be born again would admit that they may have not understood the Scripture’s

teaching about the Godhead, or in what way Jesus is God when they first called on the “name

of the Lord” to be saved. It seems Scripture is clear that the gospel is “Christ died for our sins

according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, according

to the Scriptures” (1Cor. 15:3, 4). Trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ, that He is God’s provision

for salvation from sin, seems possible without understanding in what way the man, Christ Jesus,

is Divine.

However, the apostles and early evangelists did not seem to shy away from presenting to

unbelievers that Jesus is the Son of God, which certainly intimates some kind of connection to

the divine essence of God the Father (cf. Acts 8:37, 9:20). But the Arians believed that the Son

of God was created by the Father, and therefore was not eternal like the Father. Samuel J.

Mikolaski says of them, “Affirming a univocal sense of ‘begetting’ with reference to our Lord’s

being the ‘only begotten Son,’ Arius said (to quote Socrates Scholasticus): ‘If the Father begat

the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that

there was (a time) when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his

subsistence from nothing.’”19

The modern day Jehovah Witnesses is a modern resurrection of this theology. They state

their position this way – “Thus, Jesus has an existence in heaven before coming to the earth.

But was it as one of the persons in an almighty, eternal triune Godhead? No, for the Bible

plainly states that in his pre-human existence, Jesus was a created spirit being, just as angels

were spirit beings created by God. Neither the angels nor Jesus had existed before their

creation.”20

19

Mikolaski, Samuel J. “Arianism,” The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. J. D. Douglas

(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), p. 67.

20

“Should You Believe in the Trinity?” (New York: Watch Tower, 1989), p. 14.

24

There are a number of lines of argument to help demonstrate the deity of Jesus Christ to a

Jehovah Witness. It is especially important to have reasonable explanations for their favorite

texts which they refer to in trying to prove Christ as a created being and inferior to God the

Father (e.g. Col. 1:15, Rev. 3:14, Mat. 3:17, John 8:42, 14:28, 20:17, 1Cor. 11:3, 15:28).21

However, the strongest Scriptural proof of Christ’s deity to utilize in discussion with them is to

direct them to N.T. references that demonstrate that Jesus Christ is the Jehovah of the O.T.

Since they emphasize the name of Jehovah as the unique identification of God the Father,

the number of N.T. passages which quote O.T. references concerning Jehovah, that are now

fulfilled by Jesus, shows them an insurmountable dilemma for their position. A few significant

ones are Eph. 4:8 (with Psalm 68:18), Heb. 1:6 (with Psalm 97:7), Heb. 1:10-12 (Ps. 102:25-27),

Rom. 14:11 (Is. 45:23) and Rom. 10:13 (Joel 2:32). This last passage brings home the

importance of calling on Jesus’ name to be saved, which is identical with calling on the name of

the LORD (i.e. Jehovah).22

An Arian’s, or a Jehovah Witness’s, confusion about the exact divine nature of Jesus Christ is

somewhat forgivable if their unsound view of Christ’s deity was not also attached to their false

gospel of works salvation. The Unitarians also have a false gospel included with their view that

Jesus was just a man. Their salvation is not through an acceptance by faith of Christ’s atoning

sacrifice for sin, but a self-righteous progression through following Christ’s example till total

love for God is reached. Erickson points out that the Unitarians, like their forefathers the

Socinians of the 16th Century, “must come to grips with the fact that numerous portions of

Scripture seem to regard Jesus’ death quite differently. They speak of ransom, sacrifice,

priesthood, sin bearing, and the like.”23 But he adds, “The usual reply of the Socinians and

others of their conviction is that atonement is only a metaphorical concept.”24 Their selective

21

“Jehovah Witnesses in the Twentieth Century” (New York: Watch Tower, 1989), p. 13.

22

A comparison can be made with Saul’s conversion in Acts 9:10-22 to demonstrate that the Lord who met him on

the road to Damascus, and who also sent Ananias to him later, was Jesus, whose name was called upon by the one’s

Saul had persecuted (vs. 14) and whose name Saul was going now to bear to the Gentiles (vs. 15). Just as Peter had

said earlier, that there is “no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

23

Erickson, p. 802

24

Ibid.

25

non-literal view of Scripture must be defeated with arguments such as those presented above

(pp. 20-22) before they will consider proper arguments on incarnation and Gospel.

Top of the Document

12. How is title “Son of God” used to prove the deity of Christ?

The verses that utilize “Son of God” as a designation for the Lord Jesus Christ are a part of

the over all Biblical proof for His deity, but they are not the only supports to the clear and

convincing evidence in Scripture. As mentioned in the question above, “Son of God” is a title

used in Scripture for men and angels. This title is used fifty-six times in the Bible, ten times in

the plural, i.e. sons of God. In the plural it refers to men (Gen. 6:2, 4; Rom. 8:14, 19) and angels

(Job 1:6, 2:1). But it is this title’s use for the Lord Jesus Christ which bears investigation. Is He

being denoted as a man with a special relationship with God or as an angel with God as His

Father creator? Or is this title providing a third definition, uniquely a denomination of Jesus.

The title “Son of God” is used forty-six times referring to the Lord Jesus Christ, all found in

the N.T. and twenty-six of which use the definite article, i.e. “the Son,” in the original text. But

the term “God” itself is not used exclusively for the Sovereign God of the universe. It is used of

Satan in 2Cor. 4:4, where he is called the “god of this age.” It is used for false manmade deities

whether as idols or as religious concepts (cf. Acts 7:40, Acts 14:11, 1Cor. 8:5). And it is even

used for human judges as seen in Psalm 82:6, which is quoted by Christ in John 14:34 (See also

Ex. 21:6 and 22:8).

It is a passage in the Gospel of John that stirs much interest concerning the title “Son of

God”, for in its context is the very question of Christ’s deity. The Jews have just responded

accusingly – “For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy, and because you, being

a man, make yourself God” (10:33). Instead of Jesus affirming their accusation, He sidesteps

their animosity with a technical example of the use of the term god used for men. He said, “Is it

not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of

God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified

and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’” (10:34-

36)?

26

Jesus was not a denying His deity, but neither did Jesus openly affirm it here as He did later

during His Passion (e.g., Matt. 26:64, Luke 22:70). Perhaps, like as at other times, Jesus was

keeping His identity hidden, presumably because of the detrimental influence which revealing it

would have, since His time had “not yet come” (cf. Matt. 12:16f; John 7:6, 30; 8:20). The

Apostle John, however, had no doubt that Jesus was using the title “Son of God”, not as an

identification as some religious human or angelic being, but as of the same essence as God the

Father. In John 5:18, John writes, “Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because

He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal

with God.” This was John’s editorial comment and clear opinion of Christ’s self-proclaimed

deity.

Another set of verses, however, also need to be mentioned. They are the number of times

that the Apostle Paul uses the phrase “God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2Cor. 1:3, Eph.

1:3, Col. 1:3) also used by the Apostle Peter (1Pet. 1:3). Jesus, Himself, calls His Father, His God,

by the garden tomb when met by Mary Magdalene (John 20:17). It is obvious by these texts

also that Jesus is not denying His own divine nature, which was one with the Father, but that in

the economy of creation, through the incarnation, the second person of the Godhead had taken

on a subordinate role in submission to the first person of the Godhead as His Father and as His

God (i.e. sovereign).

The deity of Christ is still the main nuance within the title – “Son of God.” For just as a child

has the same genetic makeup as his parents, Jesus possessed the same essence which He

received when He was begotten from His Father. Hebrews 1:1-3 says – “God… has in these last

days spoken to us by His Son… who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of

His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power… sat down at the right hand of

the Majesty on high.”

How this process of the Son being begotten relates to God’s unchanging nature will have to

be discussed later. But every other divine attribute, including eternity, is a part of the divine

nature shared by both God the Father and God the Son. The Son is equal in nature with the

Father. It is the itemizing of these divine attributes, demonstrated by the Son throughout

Scripture, which becomes another part of the proof of His deity. One should not be confused,

27

however, when saying that Jesus is God, that they mean that His human body and His human

nature, which He received at least partially through the seed of the woman (His earthly mother,

Mary) were also to be categorized as divine in essence. But His body and His human nature do

become joined inseparably to His divine nature (Heb. 10:5). Top of the Document

13. What is the doctrine of the impeccability of Christ?

Orthodox means “right glory.” To say that there could be two orthodox approaches to the

doctrine of Christ’s impeccability seems to imply that God has chosen to receive glory by

allowing man to think two different ways about this doctrine. This view of what can be labeled

“orthodox” seems to find some support in Romans 14 where one’s faith can differ from

another’s on “doubtful things” (vs. 1) and yet both ways can be used to give God glory (vs. 6).

When it comes to the impeccability of Christ some hold to the theological approach that Jesus

could not sin, whereas others hold to the approach that Jesus in His human nature was able to

sin, but successfully avoided it.

The Scripture does not speak directly to either approach to this issue, though it does speak

directly to the conclusion of this matter, i.e. that Christ did not sin (Heb. 4:15, 7:26; 2Cor. 5:21;

1John 3:5). It is this conclusion which is the object of saving faith. A thorough understanding of

impeccability does not seem necessary; else God would have revealed it more clearly in His

Word. There are some passages which point toward both approaches and they must be viewed

as consistently supporting each other. The tension lies however in answering the question,

“How do the human and divine natures in Christ interact with temptation to sin?”

James 1:13 clearly states that “God cannot be tempted by evil.” But Hebrews 4:15 clearly

states that Christ “was tempted in all points.” One must assume that since Christ is God either

the temptations He encountered were not temptations “by evil” or that they were temptations

“by evil” not presented to His divine nature, but only to His human nature. The thrust of this

essay is not to discuss how these two natures were not mixed in Christ and yet not separated.

This however does present a conundrum for those wanting only one “orthodox” view of Christ’s

person.

Hebrews 4:15 could be interpreted as limiting the kind of temptation which Jesus

experienced “in all points”, to temptations, or better “tests,” presented to every kind of human

28

weakness outside the moral realm, e.g. hunger, sickness, poverty, danger, loneliness, grief etc.

Even the evil attacks of others were thus only tests which He physically and emotionally

experienced, but not opportunities for sin. Thus it would be viewed that Jesus, being God,

never was tempted by moral evil, but tested through events of natural evil. James adds that

“each one is tempted [by evil] when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed” (1:14).

Presumably, for those that hold that Jesus could not sin, it is because they believe that His “own

desires” were unable to be drawn away and enticed, since He had not inherited such desires as

a part of the fallen nature from Adam.

But two factors come into play that seem to point to a human nature in Christ which truly

was free and able to experience temptation by evil and to possess the ability to choose it. The

one factor is that Christ did express a personal will (Matt. 26:39). And even though He chose to

subordinate His will to the will of the Father, His human will was still an independent reality, an

ability he could use freely. The second factor is that in the Kenosis, even though Christ had a

divine nature, he laid aside the independent use of it, so that he could fully become a perfect

substitute for man.

Jesus is identified as a Man often in the early church’s presentation of the gospel (Acts 2:22,

13:38, 17:31, Rom. 5:15, 1Cor. 15:21, 1Tim 2:5). Though He was preserved from having a sinful

human nature by the Virgin Birth, He was fully man like that first man, Adam, with a human

nature formed in innocence. However, like Adam, for Christ to be fully man, he would have had

to have a human nature capable of choosing contrary to the Divine will. And since the Son of

God had laid aside the independent use of His divine attributes, it can be assumed that His

divine ability not to be tempted by evil was also laid aside. Thus, Christ fulfills in His human

nature what Adam presumably would have been able to fulfill by the grace of God.

J. Oliver Buswell held a third view though much like the first presented above. He said –

Much discussion has taken place, futile verbal discussion it seems to me, on the

question whether it was possible that Jesus could have sinned. What do we mean

by ‘possible’? Jesus being omnipotent had the power to perform any particular act.

But Jesus is a Person with a character, and being Himself, it would be morally

impossible (not physically impossible) that He should sin.

29

Dr. McAfee used to illustrate the point by asking, “Could I beat my wife?” He would

playfully flex his arm and say, “I think I could!” Then he would say, “But of course

you know I couldn’t so such a thing.”25

Buswell seems to be making the point that God’s omnipotence is limited by His moral holiness.

But is it not also possible that God’s moral holiness, or at least the independent use of it, was

laid aside in the Kenosis of the Lord Jesus Christ?

Top of the Document

14. Why is it important to orthodoxy to affirm personality of the Holy Spirit?

In developing the doctrine of the Holy Spirit of God in the Scripture, it becomes easy to see

that the Holy Spirit is a unique person in the Godhead. Though one in divine essence with the

Father and Son, as seen in the Christian baptismal formula, “in the name [singular] of the

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” He stands unique to the Father and Son in various activities

relating to all creation and to the redemption of mankind. He also interacts individually and

personally with the other members of the Godhead. And for this dispensation, He becomes the

manifestation of the Divine Presence in individuals and in the church.

Theologically, the Holy Spirit is taught by Christ as proceeding from the Father (John 15:26)

and yet is also identified as “the Spirit of Christ” (Rom. 8:9, 1Pet. 1:11), which would indicate

that He proceeds from the Son also (cp. Gal. 4:6). This procession would be an eternal “event”

(i.e. starting in the everlasting past and continuing into the everlasting future as it relates to

creation) since Scripture calls the Holy Spirit, “the eternal Spirit” (Heb. 9:14). But it becomes

important to our understanding of the Godhead that the Spirit does not proceed from the

Father and Son as a thing, e.g. a power, but as a unique person. As mentioned above, when

God said, “Let us make man in our image,” He was not speaking as a duality of persons, but at

as a plurality of persons (see page 14).

Thus the Holy Spirit is one of the “us” in “Let us make…” and He is in some way connected

to the image which man bears. He relates then as a unique individual person of the Godhead in

the creation of man. The image itself of the Godhead given to mankind can be somehow seen

30

as related to the plural nature of God. That is, the Father is the primary source for the other

persons of the Godhead, from whom the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds. This is like

Adam, the father of all mankind. The Son is a member of the Godhead, who is “in the bosom of

the Father” (John 1:18) and thus is like unto Eve, that part of mankind which was “taken out of

Man” (Gen. 2:23), i.e. from his side. From the Father and Son proceeds the Spirit, the

multiplied expression of the Godhead’s omnipresence (Ps. 139). And though each presence is

unique in time and space, it is always the one and same Spirit of God. Just so, from Adam and

Eve has proceeded all mankind, which are unique expressions of one identical nature inherited

from them. Unless the Spirit of God is a unique person within the Godhead, this expression of

God’s image in mankind would not be coherent.26

The Holy Spirit demonstrates His unique person in His work of redemption and

sanctification of man. Many of these activities are normally attributed naturally as evidence of

personality, e.g. teaching (John 14:26), convincing (John 16:7), and calling for service (Acts

13:2). Even activities for which the Spirit is on the receiving end also provide reasonable

support to declaring the divine personality of the Spirit, e.g. being lied to (Acts 5:3), being

grieved (Eph. 4:30), and being blasphemed (Mat. 12:31). But these activities by the Spirit, or

done to the Spirit, could arguably, though with difficulty, be taken as anthropomorphisms,

leaving the Spirit not identified as a unique person but as some kind of extension of God’s

power or presence, or as the same person of the Father.

There are, however, passages which would be unintelligible if the Spirit is not seen as having

a unique personhood within the Godhead. In the spiritual gifts passage of 1Cor. 12, the

Godhead is introduced as Spirit (vs. 4), Lord (vs. 5), and God (vs. 6). But when continuing to

discuss the Spirit’s role in manifesting the various gifts to individuals, Paul says, “the same Spirit

works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills” (vs. 11). Therefore the

Spirit has a personal will, which is an integral part of personality.

25

Buswell, Vol. 2, p. 61.

26

It is reasonable to conjecture that the roles of Father, Son and Spirit relate only to creation and are not necessary to

the Divine nature, otherwise the subordination of their respective roles within the Godhead at present would be itself

necessary though those roles are separate and unequal, and creation itself as we know it for which those roles were

designed would be necessary to the Divine nature. More will be discussed below on the attributes of God’s

eternality and immutability.

31

In Romans 8:26-27 is written – “Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do

not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us

with groanings which cannot be uttered. Now He who searches the hearts knows what the

mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.”

This passage also, obviously, can not be interpreted as using anthropomorphic language. The

Spirit is revealed as a compassionate, understanding person who prays to God in behalf of the

believer. The Spirit is said to have His own “mind” that God the Father “searches” and it is not

identical to the mind of the Father.

Though a unique person in the Godhead, the Spirit becomes for each individual believer the

manifestation of the Father and the Son within the believer’s heart (John 14:23, 1Cor. 6:19).

Just as Jesus said, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (John 14:9-11), so if the

believer has the indwelling Holy Spirit, he has the indwelling of the Father and the Son (2Cor.

6:16, Rom. 8:9), for “these three are one” (1John 5:7).

Top of the Document

15. What are the “attributes of God”?

Erickson states – “Attributes are qualities of the entire Godhead. They should not be

confused with properties, which technically speaking, are the distinctive characteristics of the

various persons of the Godhead. Properties are functions (general), activities (more specific),

or acts (most specific) of the individual members of the Godhead. The attributes are

permanent and intrinsic qualities, which cannot be gained or lost.”27

Erickson goes on to use a classification of God’s attributes into two categories, i.e. those

that are non-moral which he calls “attributes of greatness” and those that are moral –

“attributes of goodness.”28 All the attributes of God which are revealed through Scripture are

revealed to foster worship. The Scripture however appears silent on listing or categorizing the

attributes of God into groups. One wonders if the attempt to do so diminishes the influence of

their revelation to bring man into a humble relationship with his Maker.

27

Erickson, p. 291f.

28

Ibid., p. 293

32

Man has also endeavored to use his philosophical contemplations to add to or to

extrapolate from Scripture other attributes which he says must be a part of the divine nature.

Concepts like God’s simplicity, being outside time, or impassibility have been developed more

from philosophical presuppositions than from Scriptural exegesis. As seen in God’s self-

revelation through His names discussed above (pp. 14-16), some of God’s attributes are more

important for man to consider and understand than those that logic may try to formulate.

Those names revealed hints to the infinite nature of God’s attributes, especially in their

English translation, e.g. “Almighty” (Gen. 17:1) or “Everlasting” (Gen. 21:33).29 But most of

these self-revelations emphasized a relational aspect of God with His people without revealing

the limitless nature of those attributes. For example, “I AM WHO I AM,” (Ex. 3:14) seems to

point to God’s unchanging faithfulness towards His people. “I am God” (Gen. 46:3) or “I am the

Lord GOD” (Ezek. 13:9) points to God’s sovereignty over His people. “I am… The Holy One of

Israel, the Savior” (Is. 43:3) sets God’s attribute of righteous perfection before His people as a

condition He as Savior will help them meet.

But other Scriptures directly declare other attributes of God. The Bible says: “God is a

consuming fire, a jealous God.” (Deut. 4:24)

“God is a merciful God.” (Deut. 4:31)

“God is God of gods and Lord of lords.” (Deut. 10:17)

“God is gracious.” (2Chron. 30:9)

“God is wise in heart and mighty in strength.” (Job 9:4)

“God is holy.” (Ps. 99:9)

“God is true.” (John 3:33)

“God is spirit.” (John 4:24)

“God is faithful.” (1Cor. 1:9)

“God is one.” (Gal. 3:20)

“God is light.” (1John 1:5)

“God is love.” (1John 4:8)

29

Hagar’s name for Elohim as “The-God-Who-Sees” (Gen 16:3) may be a recognition of God’s infinite knowledge,

at least of what is happening, which assumes omnipresence also. And Hagar is also responding in gratitude for the

justice and mercy God is displaying towards her and her son.

33

The most familiar terms for the attributes of God are also the most controversial, even

among evangelical Christians. Those terms are omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience,

eternality, and immutability. God’s incarnation causes much of the discussion, since these

attributes listed above still need to be in the possession of the Son of God, even if they are

somehow not being used independently by Him during His incarnation. The Scriptures do not

go into great detail about these attributes, so theologians have tried to extrapolate their

understanding of them, sometimes to the obscuring of other Scriptural texts (see the discussion

on immutability in the next essay).

Omnipotence is the only one from this list that is actually a literal translation from an

original word in Scripture ( a o ra r, Rev. 19:6), but of course this attribute is limited by the

influence of the rest of God’s nature. For example, God has no power to lie (Titus 1:2).

Omnipresence (Jer. 23:23-24) relates to the universe, i.e. the time-space continuum. But the

Scriptures do not speak directly to how God exists outside this continuum or even if such an

“outside” exists. Two passages, though, do speak to this issue indirectly – 1Kings 8:27, “But will

God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You.

How much less this temple which I have built!” – also 1Tim. 6:16, “…who alone has

immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be

honor and everlasting power.” But these passages do not try to explain God’s transcendence,

but they only offer a hint concerning it for the sake of worship.

Omniscience (Ps. 147:5) and Eternality (Ps. 90:2) are attributes that also have provoked a

need for refinement in definition, not by philosophy, or even logic, but by the boundaries of

Scripture’s development of these concepts. See discussion below.

16. How is God unchanging when Scripture speaks of Him as repenting?

Questions like this must ultimately bow to the reality revealed in Romans 11:33 – “…How

unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out.” But it is important to have a

reasonable, though partial, understanding of how God can say, “I change not,” (Mal. 3:6) but

than is recorded in Scripture as promising to “relent,” i.e. have a change of heart, concerning

His “thought” or plan of disaster against a disobedient nation when it repents (Jer. 18:8). Not

only is this important to reasonably resolve this apparent contradiction in Scripture for the

34

unbelieving skeptic, but it is also important for the believer’s development of a well-balanced

intimate, reverent and obedient relationship with God. The verses usually put forward for the

immutability and impassibility of God need scrutiny as much as those listed to support that God

changes in mind and emotion.

On the immutability side – In Ps. 102:26,27, the psalmist says to God about the heavens and

earth, “…they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, But You are

the same, And Your years will have no end.” This passage here indicates that God can in no way

be diminished by age. Psalm 33:11 says, “The counsel of the LORD stands forever, the plans of

His heart to all generations.” This passage has more to do with the issue of the immutability of

God’s plan, which will be discussed below. The passage Mal. 3:6, mentioned in the last

paragraph, is in a context where God promises not to change in regard to His graciousness in

spite of Israel’s wickedness.

The strongest N.T. passage indicating God’s immutability is James 1:17. “Every good gift and

every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is

no variation or shadow of turning.” Nicholas Wolterstorff asks concerning this passage –

“Is the writer James here affirming God’s ontological immutability? I think that the most we

can say is that though it’s possible he’s doing that, it’s not likely. It’s likely that what he’s

saying is that God is unchangeable in that God is never the source of evil, only and always of

good – which falls far short of affirming ontological immutability.”30

Wolterstorff bases this conclusion on the context of this verse, where James is discussing

temptation to evil.

The results of these passages indicate that God does not change in certain aspects of His

nature, e.g. His graciousness or goodness. But there does not seem to be a clear passage in

Scripture that affirms that God could not be free to change in certain ways or experience as

long as His nature is not diminished.

The passages usually cited that give evidence to God demonstrating changes in His mind and

emotions include – God “relenting” (Ex. 32:14, 2Sam. 24:16, 1Chr. 21:15, etc.)31 There are also a

30

Wolterstorff, Nicholas, God & Time: Four Views (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2001), p. 192f.

31

The Hebrew word na cham, “relent,” appears over 20 times as an activity possible in the Divine nature.

35

number of passages that describe God making or planning new choices (e.g., Josh. 9:27, Ps.

47:4, Ps. 75:2, Is. 66:4, 1Cor. 12:11). But the text Jer. 18:8 listed above is one of the clearest

passages demonstrating God’s freedom to interact with mankind according to a conditional

script. In verse 11, God says, “Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against

you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.” This

clearly reveals that not all of God’s plans were settled before the foundation of the world, but

that He can freely change His mind, within the bounds of His moral nature, of course.

The most obvious argument against an ontological immutability in God is the incarnation

experience by God. Unless one wants to postulate that the incarnation was always a part of the

divine nature, then it must be granted that God underwent a definite change the moment He

joined with human flesh in the person of Christ. And even though one may concede that all

changes in the mental and emotional experiences of Christ could be attributed to His human

nature, the experience of the Son of God going from non-incarnate to incarnate disqualifies

God from being called totally ontologically immutable.

Some argue that each of the passages listed above which describes God changing in certain

ways should be taken as anthropomorphic figures of speech. Some would go as far as saying

that God does not experience emotion as we do. Erickson says, “In other words, he knows

what we are feeling, but does not necessarily experience that same emotion himself

personally.”32 Though God’s and man’s emotions may not be totally univocal there has to be

some univocal connection. His Love, Joy, Peace, Sorrow, Anger, etc. are true expressions and

experiences in the Godhead, and He is not diminished in His capacity for any of these though

their display may wax and wane within creation. To view relevant Scriptures otherwise is to

force an unrevealed philosophical supposition about immutability into the interpretation.

Top of the Document

17. How can the apparent tension between God’s justice and His love be resolved?

God, Himself, has said, “He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, both of

them alike are an abomination to the LORD.” (Prov. 17:15) He also promised, “…For I will not

32

Erickson, p. 295n.

36

justify the wicked.” (Ex. 23:7) But the Apostle Paul holds out the promise that “…to him who

does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for

righteousness.” (Rom. 4:5) On first reading, this sounds like God can break His own rules. Is it

His love that allows Him to do this?

As was noted above, the Scripture clearly declares – “God is Love.” (1John 4:8) It also says

that “love covers all sins” (Prov. 10:12). But God declares Himself as being “Holy” (Lev. 11:45).

He cannot be tempted to do evil (cp. Jam. 1:13). So He could not unconditionally justify the

ungodly without acting against His own nature. Therefore, the Apostle Paul’s words in Romans

4:5 must assume some condition being met so that the ungodly can be justified and God’s

holiness can remain intact.

The condition assumed by Paul in this passage is the gift of God’s love in the sacrifice of His

Son to substitute for the ungodly and the penalty they deserve. Romans 5:8 says – “God

demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

1Peter 3:18 says – “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might

bring us to God.” That condition being met, the gift of love can now be offered to the faith of

the ungodly so that his ungodliness can be replaced with Christ’s righteousness.

There is however another issue relating to God’s love and justice. Many, by experience or

observation, wonder how God can be viewed as sovereignly ruling creation with justice when

so much evil is permitted to survive and even thrive. Even His love is often questioned when

the wicked are allowed to succeed and the innocent to suffer. But the common quote –

“Justice delayed is justice denied,” which hearkens back to the Magna Carta,33 does not relate

as a standard of God’s Justice. It may present a protest in support of the Biblical pragmatism

for speedy human justice (Eccl. 8:11). But it runs counter to the Biblical teaching of God

purposefully delaying justice to provide greater opportunity to display His Mercy (Rom. 9:22,

23; 2Pet. 3:7-9).

God shows love now by being longsuffering and merciful to the unrighteous so that they

might repent. God shows love now to the righteous who may suffer at the hands of evil. That

33

http://www.bl.uk/collections/treasures/magnatranslation.html, The quote in rule #40 stated – “To no one will we

sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.”

37

love comes not in the form of immediate justice, but as His sustaining strength or His reassuring

presence. The righteous will also receive later the full recompense of His love for all that they

may have unjustly suffered (1Pet. 2:21-23). The unrepentant unrighteous man, however, will

eventually face “judgment without mercy” (James 2:13). Justice will not be denied, though

currently delayed because of God’s love.

Erickson sums up the relationship between God’s love and justice this way –

We will define the attributes in the light of one another. Thus, justice is a loving justice and

love is just love…. What we are saying is that love is not fully understood unless seen as

including justice. If love does not include justice, it is mere sentimentality. The approach

that would define love as merely granting what someone desires is not biblical…. Justice

means that love must always be shown, whether or not a situation of immediately need

presents itself in pressing and vivid fashion. 34

Top of the Document

18. Does prayer ever “change things”?

Erickson answers the above question this way –

When God wills the end… he also wills the means. Thus, prayer does not change what he

has purposed to do. It is the means by which he accomplishes his end. It is vital, then, that

a prayer be uttered, for without it the desired result will not come to pass.”35

Erickson mentions the reference James 5:16 in the same context. He says, “We are

commanded to pray and taught that prayer has value (James 5:16).”36 However, Erickson does

not take the opportunity to exegete the passage which indicates that prayer does change things

when it says – “The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.”

According to Erickson the interpretation that prayer can change the course of history by

changing the heart and mind of God, concerning a previous plan He had made, is impossible.

This is because Erickson has presupposed that God’s plan was in every detail preordained

34

Erickson, p. 324.

35

Ibid., p. 431

36

Ibid., p. 430

38

before creation and thus guarantees the outcome of everything that happens. More on that

will be discussed below. But, as mentioned before, such a presupposition obscures what seems

to be a multitude of clear passages that denote a future of optional outcomes in some matters.

It makes these passages fall out of the hands of the church member for whom they were

written, and into the hands of the scholars who claim better understanding of literary devices,

such as anthropomorphism.

The believer is told to “Pray without ceasing” (1Thes. 5:19) and “You do not have because

you do not ask – You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss” (James 4:3, 4). The

believer naturally believes that his attention to commands on prayer, and to admonishments to

avoid prayerlessness or inappropriate prayer, does make a big difference as to how his future

and the future of the display of God’s glory will turn out. The Calvinistic scholar, however,

believes God is only playing out an intricately detailed, immutable pre-creation plan. This

scholar may concede that these Scriptures on first reading may only “sound like” the future is

partially open, and even that God chose to have them sound like this as a means to a

predetermined end. But these concessions, when heard by the layman, make him start to fight

off thoughts that his God sounds like He is equivocating and manipulative in His Scripture.

James 5:16 says plainly that “effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.” The

word “avails” comes from the Greek word, ischuo , which indicates prayer is exerting a power to

do something. The word “effective” comes from the word, energeo , which also indicates a

unique “energy” that can make something happen. And though ultimately it is God’s power

which will brings about any change needed, in this context God is viewed as the responder to

the initiative of man. The context also gives the example of God exerting special control of

nature, i.e. rain, because Elijah took the initiative to pray. And both this example and the

promise discussed above join in this context to support the command given to suffering

believers to seek out such a “righteous man” to pray for them. A lot of freedom of human

choice is assumed here with varying results.

The example of the Lord Jesus Christ is also significant when it comes to prayer. When

Christ prayed, one could suppose that it was predominantly just for fellowship with the Father.

But the Scripture gives two examples given by Christ concerning prayer that demonstrate that

39

He had no such “theology” of a predetermined future in every detail. In His Garden prayer, the

Lord made the request – “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless,

not as I will, but as You will” (Mat. 26:39). The word “if” is a translation of a first class condition

in Greek, which presumes the reality of the protasis. Thus it was “possible,” from Christ’s

perspective, that His prayer could be answered according to His will. The second example is

when Christ was met by the soldiers who arrested Him. He said, “Do you think that I cannot

now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels” (Mat.

26:53)? Again, the Lord confirms the effectiveness of prayer offered at a human’s initiative and

that the future has some options left open.

Erickson has recently discussed this subject concerning prayer in his book that critiques the

current debate between Open Theology and Reformed Theology entitled – What Does God

Know And When Does He Know It. He said,

When we turn to prayer, the advantage certainly seems to be with open theism. Prayer, as

most Christians practice it, and as the Bible describes it, seems to affect what happens. The

open theist picture of prayer does seem to fit better the seemingly plain sense of the

scriptural passages on prayer. It may well be that traditional theists’ prayer practice is in

contradiction to the theory.37 Top of the Document

19. What models of God’s Plan really allow for genuine human freedom?

Erickson’s model of God’s plan can be described as moderately Calvinistic. He goes as far as

saying concerning his position that “there are, in fact, some Calvinists who would deny that it

deserves to be called Calvinistic at all.”38 This is because, presumably, Erickson does not hold to

a pre-salvation regenerating of the elect person’s will. He says, “God works in such a suasive

way with the will of the individual that the person freely makes the choice that God intends.”39

37

Erickson, What Does God Know And When Does He Know It (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), p. 254.

38

Erickson, Christian Theology, p. 385.

39

Ibid.

40

But Erickson’s view of God’s election of individuals before the foundation of the world causes

the results of his position to be essentially the same as the so-called “fundamental Calvinist.”40

This model of God’s plan is based on a view of God’s omniscience that is dependent on a

presupposition of God’s eternity. Like most traditional reformed theologians, Erickson holds

that God’s eternal nature is defined as timelessness. He says it this way in relation to God’s

plan – “Being eternal, God’s plan does not have any chronological sequence…. There is no

before and after within eternity…. There is a temporal sequence in the enacting of the events

that have been decreed; but there is no temporal sequence to God’s willing. It is a coherent

simultaneous decision.”41 However, Erickson does not offer any Scriptures to support his

view.42 The entire Scriptures represent God as having a plan that has been partially determined

before creation, and containing elements left unplanned so that freedom of interaction

between man and God in human history becomes possible. God could have planned creation

history down to the minutest detail, even the free decisions and actions of individuals. By His

omnipotence He could have carried out that plan. But then one would think He would have

revealed it as having done it exactly that way. Revelation instead supports a partially planned

human history in which God Himself is free to interact with mankind who is made in His image

and possesses a limited freedom of will.

Leibnitz has chosen the foreordination-of-all-things view. Erickson wants to distance

himself from this same view, but his is basically the same. He says, “Where our view differs

from Leibnitz’s is that we see the decisions of God as completely free in this matter, not in any

sense determined.”43 But then he says, “God has from eternity decided that the potential

individual who comes into actual existence is the one who will respond to this set of

40

Ibid., p. 852. He says that his “is the view that God logically decides first to provide salvation, then elects some to

receive it.” It is hard to find a simple statement by Erickson that this election happened before the foundation of the

world. His discussion about eternity makes a reader assume that this is what He means.

41

Ibid., p. 378.

42

Erickson does offer some Scriptures when discussing his view of God’s timelessness. See page 300. There he

quotes Ps. 90:1-2, “from everlasting to everlasting,” Jude 25, “before all ages, now and forevermore,” and references

that refer to God’s titles as “the first and the last” and the “Alpha and Omega.” But all these do not imply

timelessness but rather a linear experience of reality by God.

43

Ibid., p. 385.

41

circumstances precisely as God intends.”44 Erickson’s “freedom” for God and man cannot

deviate from the plan that Erickson says is “all inclusive”45 from eternity. Therefore is not true

freedom at all. The premiere verse used in support of an all inclusive plan is Eph. 1:11.

Ephesians 1:11 says – “In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined

according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will.” Too

much is made of the participle, e erge , which normally is taken intransitively, i.e. “is working”

not “causing,” and in this context is in the present tense, which connects its object, “all things,”

to God’s present activity and not to the extent of detail in the content of His previously made

plan. And in this verse, the plan (translated – “counsel”) is subordinate to God’s desire

(translated – “will”) which is subordinate to His intent (translated – “purpose”).

Erickson’s view of a comprehensively detailed and determined plan does not allow for

genuine human freedom, or more importantly, for genuine Divine freedom within history. And

it renders the revelation of God’s will in the commands and other clear statements of Scripture

as so much window dressing. All of this is for the purpose of defending a philosophical view of

God’s omniscience and eternality. Erickson tries to answer this question – “Is there not a

contradiction at certain points between what God commands and says he desires and what he

actually wills?”46 He says, “We must distinguish between two different senses of God’s will….

There are times, many of them, when God wills to permit, and thus to have occur, what he

really does not wish.”47 He uses the example of sin, which will be discussed more in detail

below concerning the problem of evil.

But Erickson does not explain how God can have an eternal “wish” that is left unfulfilled nor

how God’s will to “permit” does not allow for true freedom of possibility. He says God’s will to

“permit” is “thus to have occur,” but does permission really force necessity? Arminians do no

better when they try to make foreknowledge an entity somehow independent of God’s nature

that God then observes and interacts with. Top of the Document

44

Ibid.

45

Ibid., p. 379.

46

Ibid., p. 387

47

Ibid.

42

20. How does the doctrine of creation relate to evolutionary theory?

Erickson states the theory of evolution this way –

The theory of evolution maintains that from the beginning of life, all forms have developed

by a gradual process. Through a series of mutations or spontaneous variations, new types of

living beings have come into existence. Those possessing variations that enabled them to

compete better in an environment of danger and shortage have survived. Through this

process of the survival of the fittest, higher, more complex beings have appeared. Thus,

over a long period of time the lowest, simplest living organism developed into humanity

merely through the functioning of immanent natural laws. There was no direct intervention

by God. Evolution alone was responsible.48

After discussing the various theories of Bible scholars who account for the apparent great age

of the earth as theorized by science and evolution, Erickson has chosen what he calls the age-

day theory. He states the view as “God created in a series of acts over long periods of time.

The geological and fossil records correspond to the days of his creative acts.”49 He uses as

proof his conjecture that the Hebrew word for “day” in Genesis 1 does not have to represent a

twenty-four hour period.

He also believes that the Hebrew word for “kind” in Genesis 1 does not have to mean

species, but can be a broader classification. He says,

According to this view, God created in a series of acts over a long period of time. He

created the first member of each ‘kind.’ That grouping may have been as broad as the

order or as narrow as the genus…. Here we must note that the fossil record indicates gaps

at several points, or an absence of what scientists call transitional forms. The assumption of

the scientists is that these forms have been lost. But another very reasonable possibility is

that they never existed, that these are the gaps between the Biblical “kinds.” Thus, there

has been microevolution (or “intrakind” development), but not macroevolution (or

“interkind” development).50

48

Ibid. p. 408.

49

Ibid. p. 407

50

Ibid., p. 409-410.

43

There are a few problems with the age-day theory. First it chooses a more minor gloss of the

word “day” for the context of Genesis 1. To do so it has to ignore the repeated phrase “evening

and morning” that is closely associated with a progressive numbering of the days as “first…

second… third… etc.” These expressions throughout the rest of the OT consistently point to a

literal 24 hour day. Also, God has deliberately associated the 6-day-work-and-1-day-rest week

of Israel with His creation week (Ex. 20:11). This would seem to indicate that Israel understood

that the creation was in six literal twenty-four hour days in succession. Finally, it does not

answer the question why God would have hid from Israel that He took eons and eons for the

creation of everything else before creating man, a concept they surely would have been able to

understand.

Some would like to postulate that the age-day theory is also inconsistent with the

Scripture’s view of death entering the animal kingdom, as seen in the fossil record. They

propose that death even among animals would not have taken place before Adam’s sin (cf.

Rom. 5:12). However, death should be viewed as having two definitions. Death for an animal

should be is seen as the ending of physical life, whereas death of a human is the separating of

spiritual life from the physical body. Therefore, human physical death, which could include

spiritual death as well, did not enter the world until Adam sinned, but animal death was already

present. Even though the time between the creation of animal life on the fifth day until Adam

sinned after the sixth day may have been relatively short, it is highly probable that microscopic

living creatures were dying, e.g. being consumed by sea creatures or even stepped on by Adam.

The ideal-time theory mentioned, complimented, and then dismissed by Erickson is the best

theory to explain the apparent age of the universe, and also the earth. Erickson says this theory

says “that God created the world in a six-day period a relatively short time ago, but that he

made it as if it were billions of years old.”51 He gives the example that “Adam, of course, did

not begin his life as a newborn baby. At any point in his life must have had an apparent (or

ideal) age many years older than his actual age (i.e., the number of years since his creation).”52

51

Ibid. p. 406.

52

Ibid.

44

Though Erickson compliments this theory, he then dismisses it by saying, “The ideal-time theory

is ingenious and in many ways irrefutable both scientifically and exegetically, but presents the

theological problem that makes God an apparent deceiver.”53

Deception can only take place in this case if one does not believe in the creative power of

God, ex nihilo, but that is self-deception, not deception by God. Erickson, himself, had just

previously admitted that he accepted the reality of Adam’s apparent age and actual age. The

same would have been true for Eve and every other created thing that God spoke into

existence. Even the wine that the Lord Jesus Christ created out of water also had an

appearance of age, even if it was only one growing season. And yet its actual age was only a

few moments between its creation and the tasting of it by the master of the feast (John 2:7-9).

Believing in a literal six day creation and a relatively young earth is an area of sound

doctrine because it is based on the natural reading of God’s Word in agreement with the

understanding of the first hearers of it. And sound doctrine is a necessary qualification for local

church pastors (cf. Titus 1:9) Top of the Document

21. What are seven vital aspects of the doctrine of creation in theology?

Erickson lists seven theological aspects of the doctrine of creation. He endeavors to show

how these seven answer the questions – “What really is being affirmed by this teaching? And,

perhaps just as important for our purposes is the question, “what is being rejected or

contradicted?”54

1. God is the ultimate reality. Erickson says that the Biblical teaching on creation does not

allow for a dualistic view of reality. God has always existed, but matter has not always existed.

God created matter by speaking it into existence. He gave to matter the attributes He wanted

it to have. He was not limited to just using some pre-existing material which was eternal like

Himself.

2. Divine Creation is unique. Erickson seems to be repeating what he has just stated in his

first affirmation. In comparing God’s creative acts with man’s, Erickson is again stating that God

53

Ibid., p. 407

54

Ibid., p. 400

45

was not limited to using preexisting material, but also man was not limited to using preexisting

ideas. Erickson does concede that God is limited by “his nature and the choices he has

made.”55 He does not develop what all these limitations may be though he does show how

God’s goodness brings about three of the affirmations listed below (#3, #4, and #5).

Though Erickson also does not develop other possible ways God’s creation is unique, it can

be noted that what God has created in not necessary, i.e. He could have created another

unique creation or none at all. Also, the unique creation God has chosen to bring into existence

does not have to be declared the best possible. Daniel Mitchell says concerning God’s plan for

creation that “what He brings to past has to be defined as best.”56 However Mitchell does not

give any Scripture support for this assumption.

3. Nothing created was made intrinsically evil. Though what was made by God may not be

called best, it has been called "good" (Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). Erickson discusses that

since God can only create that which is good, matter cannot be of itself evil as proposed by

most dualistic philosophies or religions, i.e. Gnosticism. However, he also says, "This raises a

problem: Christianity, like every system of thought which is in any sense alert to the universe,

must come to grips with the presence of evil in the world.57 That will be handled below in the

last essay.

4. Man is responsible for his own evil. Erickson follows on from God's good creation to

decide that man can not therefore blame the material world for his sin. He then extrapolates

that neither can he blame society as a whole, for he says, "Human society was also part of what

God made, and it was very good.58 Presumably, by "society" he means the first marriage

partners before sin entered their relationship. But, at least not in this context, Erickson does

not address how creating a person capable of evil, or perhaps destined to evil, could be seen as

"good."

55

Ibid., p. 401

56

Mitchell, Tape 10, Lesson 25.

57

Erickson, p. 401

58

Ibid., p. 402

46

5. The Incarnation was possible. Erickson also extrapolates that since all matter was created

good, the joining of the holy Son of God to human flesh by incarnation was not a mixing of

holiness with something inherently evil. He recounts how some in history have denied the

incarnation because of their dualistic notions. He does not however deal with the intricacies of

the how the human soul or spirit of Christ was made. Was it created ex nihilo? Was it

"forwarded" through the seed of the woman? If the later, how was it preserved or cleansed

from its taint of Adam's sin? There is no doubt that the physical body of Jesus however was not

sinful, though it presumably had some genetic defects that had resulted from the curse of

Adam's original sin.

6. There is an affinity between man and the rest of creation. Erickson is attempting to

promote human responsibility towards peace in society and care for the environment based on

this affinity of nature. This does not seem to be supported anywhere in Scripture. Pursuing

peace and managing God's garden are responsibilities based squarely upon the revealed will of

the Creator. To make too much of this "affinity" will skew the value which a Christian places on

the physical realm and will cause a disconnect to the setting of his "affection on things above"

(Col. 3:2).

7. God is not one with creation. Erickson discusses that even though dualism is rejected by

the Biblical view of creation, so is the monism that equates the material world as part of God's

nature. God created the world out of nothing. One could argue that He created it out of the

infinite possibilities that are a part of His omniscience. But the matter and space that came into

existence by the power of His spoken word were not made of anything in prior existence. He is

in one sense "one with creation" as will be discussed in the next essay concerning providence,

and because of His omnipresence. But the essence of matter itself is not part of the divine

nature or visa versa. Top of the Document

22. What is God’s governing activity in His providential dealings with creation?

Erickson outlines "The Major Features of God's Governing Activity" through providence this

way -

1. "God's governing activity is universal."

2. "God's providence does not merely extend to his own people."

47

3. "God is good in his government."

4. "God is personally concerned about those who are his."

5. "Our activity and God's activity are not mutually exclusive."

6. "God is sovereign in his government."

7. "We need to be careful as to what we identify as God's providence."59

Louis Berkhof outlines God's Government through providence -

1. "Nature of the Divine Government" - i.e. "that continued activity of God whereby He

rules all things teleologically so as to secure the accomplishment of the divine purpose."

a. "It is the government of God as King of the universe."

b. "It is a government adapted to the nature of the creatures which He governs."

2. "The Extent of this Government" - i.e. "universal... embracing all His works... it also

descends to particulars... [even to] that which is seemingly accidental.”60

Berkhof lists with Scripture proof texts, not included here, those things over which the

"Bible clearly teaches God's providential control."

1. "over the universe at large"

2. "over the physical world"

3. "over the brute creation"

4. "over the affairs of nations"

5. "over man's birth and lot in life"

6. "over outward successes and failures in men's lives"

7. "over things seemingly accidental or insignificant"

8. "in the protection of the righteous"

9. "in supplying the wants of God's people"

10. "in giving answers to prayer"

11. "in the exposure and punishment of the wicked"61

59

Ibid., pp. 426-430

60

Berkhof, pp. 175-176

61

Ibid., p. 168

48

John Calvin discusses God's governing through providence fully in the first book of his

Institutes, the 17th chapter. The first section summarizes his view of this doctrine.

1. "It embraces the future and the past."

2. "It works by means, without means, and against means."

3. "Mankind, and particularly the Church, the object of special care."

4. "The mode of administration usually secret, but always just.”62

The word "providence" is found once in the KJV, NKJV and NASV, in Acts 24:2, translating

pronoia: "forethought," but not attributed to God in this context, but to Felix the governor. It is

used once in the NIV for God's providence, i.e. Job 10:12, from the Hebrew word for "oversight,

visitation." The NRSV uses the word six times, but only in passages in Apocryphal books.

The most important references to God's providence are -

1. Acts 17:28, "for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets

have said, 'For we are also His offspring.'"

2. Romans 8:28 "And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to

those who are the called according to His purpose."

3. Ephesians 1:11, "In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according

to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will."

4. Col. 1:17, "And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist [are held together]."

5. Heb. 1:3, "who [the Son of God] being the brightness of His glory and the express image of

His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power. . . "

Top of the Document

23. What are five approaches taken by theologians to resolve this problem of evil?

There are five distinct approaches taken by theologians to try and resolve the problem of

why there is the existence of evil in a universe that was created good by a good God. They are-

1. It is a paradox that can not be explained. Though it is true that is it an apparent paradox,

it can not be a true paradox, i.e. contradiction, because the Scripture speaks concerning both

62

Calvin, John, Institutes of Christian Religion, Trans. Henry Beveridge, Esq. (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation

Society, 1845) STEP format, Quickverse 7.0

49

the existence of evil and the existence of a Holy God in whom there is no darkness at all (1John

1 :5), but by whom all things were made (John 1 :3). If it is a contradiction, the Scripture

becomes an unfaithful and uncertain witness about all else.

2. Evil does not exist. There are two types of evil, i.e. natural and moral. Those who

propose that evil does not exist, e.g. Benedict Spinoza, Christian Science, Eastern Religions etc.,

teach that what is designated as evil, or pain, is an illusion connected with the material world

which is also an illusion. It must be denied if it is to be transcended. Unfortunately, none who

hold this philosophy have been successful to escape the ultimate evidence of evil, i.e. death.

3. God must be redefined as to His goodness. Or in other words, it is not evil for God to

create a being that performs evil. Evil is defined as breaking God's law, but that law was

designed only as an obligation for men and angels. It is not a standard under which God must

comply. Erickson gives the example of Gordon Clark as an espouser of this view. However,

many kings of the O.T. were condemned because they "made Israel sin" (1 Kings 14:16; 15:26,

30, 34; 16:2, 13; 21:22; 22:52). For God to be a God who says "Do as I say, not as I do," causes

His goodness to become equivocal and indefinable for man.

4. God must be redefined as to His power. Involuntarily, as in a dualistic reality, or

voluntarily, as in an open reality allowing for freewill, God has limited power. Bruce

Reichenbach defines it this way - "God limits himself in the creation of individuals who are free.

God cannot, without destroying our freedom, control us or compel us to choose or act in ways

that accord with his will or plan. If God has created us free to choose to love and serve him,

then God cannot cause us to do so.”63 Reichenbach is not actually correct to say that God

"limits himself." God, in Reichenbach's view, just limits the use of His omnipotence, so that

freedom in man can exist. God is not the "ultimate cause" therefore of evil, as Gordon Clark

states.

5. God must be redefined as to His omniscience. This view has been promoted by Process

Theologians, like Alfred North Whitehead, and Open Theists, like Gregory Boyd. Boyd has

recently put the issue in different terms. He said,

63

Feinberg, John, et.al.. Predestination and Freewill: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom,

David Basinger and Randall Basinger, eds. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 1986), p. 108.

50

The openness view of the future is often accused of undermining God's omniscience.

Indeed, sometimes it is referred to as the 'limited omniscience' position. The disagreement

between openness and classical views is not over the scope or perfection of God's

knowledge; it is rather over the content of reality that... God exhaustively knows. More

specifically it is over whether or not reality includes, or merely excludes, possibilities.64

Boyd has proposed a reality of God's eternity as being linear which makes omniscience

"limited" to knowing only a future of possibilities. These possibilities are themselves limited by

how intricately defined God's plan is. God's omnipotence guarantees the plan will be carried

out, but an open plan allows for other created free agents, like men and angels, to create evil

but not beyond the limits of the plan.

Erickson tries to resolve the problem of evil by making "Evil as a Necessary Accompaniment

of the Creation of Humanity."65 He says, "God's having made humans as he purposed means

that they have certain capacities (e.g. the capacities to desire and to act) which they could not

fully exercise if there were no such thing as evil.”66 Erickson, however, does not deal directly

with the ethics of God creating a being capable of evil. And he does not deal with the ethics of

God deciding a plan, as some conjecture, that made the advent of evil certain. He attempts to

mollify the results of evil coming into existence by further discussion of the long term benefits

of allowing evil and of God's personal suffering through the results of evil. (Though for

Erickson's eternal unchanging God, grief is only “anthropomorphism”.)67

God's desire to display His character through His creation presents a satisfactory reason for

creating a free moral agent who was able to sin. The ethics for such is tolerable, though not

fully satisfying. But to have God purposefully plan that evil had to come into existence by

making certain that Lucifer, Eve, and Adam would sin crosses an ethical boundary that is

unacceptable. It is totally inconsistent with any reasonable definition of holiness as one of

64

Boyd, Gregory A., et al., Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, eds. James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy (Downers

Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2001), p. 42.

65

Erickson, p. 448

66

Ibid.

67

Ibid., p. 456

51

God's attributes. It is reasonable that it was not necessary, and thus not certain, that these

created free moral agents had to sin in the presence of a good God and His good creation. A

normal reading the Scriptures by the general public would lead to such a conclusion. And

though the Scriptures describes what actually happened, the layman would presume from the

tenor of Scripture that there was a real possibility that things could have started out, and

turned out, differently had Lucifer, Eve, or Adam freely chosen to stay obedient.

It is this conclusion that provides a very important observation concerning this debate

about the origin of evil, as well as the competing views of God's omniscience, eternality, and

omnipotence that are associated with it. Throughout the Middle Ages and continuing into the

21st Century, the Roman Catholic religion has kept their laity from understanding the Bible by

utilizing things like allegorical interpretation, elevation of selected tradition, its Latin

imprimatur, and the priesthood prerogative. The current traditional and classical interpretation,

which some might call Calvinistic interpretation, of God's attributes, plan, and of theodicy, has

kept the laity of the evangelical community subject to a theological "Latin" understanding that

is only in the possession of their scholars. This takes the Bible out of the hands to whom it was

written, and impugns the goodness of God by making Him appear obtuse and even duplicitous.

Top of the Document