At the end of our service last Sunday, I took some live questions from the congregation. An interesting pattern revealed itself. Here are all the questions that came in:

• How do you mix all knowing, all powerful, and free will? Do we mess up his plan? Or does he choose not to know what we are doing so as not to compromise our free will?
• Can you expand the reality of God’s power & righteousness as it applies to being in or “outside” of God’s will?
• If the Bible doesn’t discuss a particular issue, is the answer always “It’s God’s Will”?
• If God knows the future, why did He create us if He knew we would fall?

Each question came from a different person, but nearly every question addressed the issue of how God’s will relates to human free will.

The relationship between God’s will and human free will is nearly as complicated as understanding how God is by nature one and three at the same time. However, it’s far less essential to our understanding of God than is the notion of the Trinity, so there has never been consensus among Christians regarding how the two relate. There are many different ways Christian scholars have understood the relationship.

• Some scholars downplay the idea of human free will. Many passages in the Bible support this. Galatians 5:17, Romans 6 & 7, John 8:34. The logic is that Adam and Eve are the only people who have ever had “freedom” and that only in the Garden of Eden before they ate the Forbidden Fruit. Ever since that moment, human beings have been captured in sin, enslaved to their selfish passions and desires (Titus 3:3). Then, when God breaks into a person’s heart, reveals the truth of Salvation to them, and woos them to respond to him, he grants them the gift of his Spirit to both empower their conversion and to gradually sanctify them through the rest of their lives. Then, their new life is in slavery of sorts to the Spirit who lives in them.
• Some scholars downplay the idea that God always gets what he wants. They say that God has a vague idea of what he wants, but that he has chosen to be ignorant about certain things. The claim is that God is “open.” He could know the future. He could determine the future. However, he chooses not to. He chooses to leave some things open to chance and human freedom. Under this way of thinking, they conclude that God is often surprised by what humans do, and that he enjoys the surprises. There is scant biblical support for this notion, but it plays well with those passages of the Bible where God appears to “change his mind” such as when Abraham pleads for Sodom, when the angel prevents Abraham from killing his son Isaac, or when Moses pleads for the nation of Israel.
• Some scholars attempt to pick the middle road and have chosen to divide God’s will into two, understanding the two different types of will separately from each other. The one kind of will, they call his decretive will, meaning the will of God by which he decrees what must happen. It was God’s decretive will that the universe would be created, that the Son would give his life, that wickedness will be destroyed in the Lake of Fire, etc. The second kind of will is called his permissive will, and specifically refers to the realm in which God has stated his preferences but has created room for the agency of others. He “permits” some things to happen for his own reasons.

The first option upholds the teaching of the Bible, but is personally unsettling to people who feel a sense of freedom. It is also unsettling to think that God is 100% responsible for both the salvation of the redeemed and the damnation of the lost.

The second option upholds the feelings of the human heart, but fails to adequately address the firm teaching of the Bible.

The third option feels better on the surface, but if God willfully permits certain things to take place, knowing they are going to take place, isn’t that the same as willing that they take place?

A final option is that described by R. C. Sproul in his book “Essential Truths of the Christian Faith” and posted online here. Summarizing:

• God’s will may be understood in three categories. His decretive will refers to God’s eternal intentions. His intentions cannot be thwarted and his plans cannot fail. What he wants to come to pass will come to pass. However, this aspect of God’s will is hidden from all but himself. Both his methods and his ends are a mystery to us. Secondly, God has a preceptive will describing the precepts he communicates to his people. Thirdly, God has a will of disposition which refers to his personal desires for his people and his creation. By combining the precepts of God and his revealed will of disposition, we can gain a glimpse into his overall decretive will and our place within it, but we will never fully know that secret will of God.

practically speaking…

With all of that out of the way, let me simplify matters by saying that God has revealed to us his “big picture” will. He has told us that he wants people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. He has told us that he wants all people to follow his Son, love each other, and steward the resources of this planet. He has told us that we are to serve the world and bring the message of Jesus to more and more people.

However, God has not revealed to us his “present details” of how he intends to accomplish his “big picture.” We are concerned about the details, but he does not give them to us. In fact, it’s in the darkness of not knowing those details where we are forced to exercise our freedom in positive ways. By understanding the Father’s precepts and disposition, we can make free choices to walk in his “Will” even if we don’t see the big picture.

Likewise, we can reject his precepts and his disposition, but that doesn’t mean we have somehow broken his ultimate plan or that God has to come up with a contingency solution in the case that we don’t cooperate. In fact, Jesus’ crucifixion was not a contingency plan after Adam and Eve failed. It was always the plan. Revelation 13:8 tells us that Jesus was “slain from the creation of the world” meaning that even before creation, he was “the Lamb that was slain.” His death was determined before the world was created.

Finally, take any human being living in sin. God’s precepts clearly define how that person should live now. God’s disposition clearly shows that God wants that person to repent and return to Him immediately. However, God’s decree might, for reasons unknown to us, include the salvation of that man 30 years from now. God’s decree might include the salvation of that man as he breathes his last. Or, again for reasons unknown to us, God’s decree might include the eternal destruction of that man in Hell.

If R. C. Sproul is right, and if what I’ve just said is right, then it is perfectly in conformity with what Paul taught in Romans 9:21-23:

Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—Romans 9:21-23

Other translations soften the language:

When a potter makes jars out of clay, doesn’t he have a right to use the same lump of clay to make one jar for decoration and another to throw garbage into? God has every right to exercise his judgment and his power, but he also has the right to be very patient with those who are the objects of his judgment and are fit only for destruction. He also has the right to pour out the riches of his glory upon those he prepared to be the objects of his mercy—Romans 9:21-23 NLT

Nevertheless, it seems that Paul is teaching the God has the right to create “objects of his wrath” “prepared for destruction.”

back to the questions…

So if we return to the questions above:

How do you mix all knowing, all powerful, and free will? Do we mess up his plan? Or does he choose not to know what we are doing so as not to compromise our free will?

Scholars disagree on how to mix all-knowing, all-powerful, and free will. My personal conviction is that human beings often do things that are outside of God’s desires for us, but that since he anticipated what we would do, his plan already accounts for those behaviors. Therefore, we never mess up his plan even if we are responsible for violating his commands.

As a result, we are often outside of God’s preceptive will or outside his will of disposition, but we are never fully outside his decretive will.

If the Bible doesn’t discuss a particular issue, is the answer always “It’s God’s Will”?

This question might go in two directions, and I wasn’t sure on Sunday the intent of the questioner, so I’ll answer both pieces.

On the one hand, the question is asking, if the Bible is silent on an issue, does that mean it’s okay to do that behavior? Some have used this argument to support homosexual marriage. Since the Bible never talks about the kind of homosexuality we have in our society today (meaning loving, monogamous, homosexuality), then we should allow it. I’m not going to address that particular issue in this paragraph, but I will say that if the Bible is silent on an issue, there are probably other principles in the Bible that touch on the issue. Don’t claim something is okay too quickly.

On the other hand, this question could be asking, if the Bible doesn’t tell us why some things happen, can we just say “Well, God wanted it that way, I guess?” For example, since the Bible doesn’t tell us why natural disasters happen, can we just say that God wanted the earthquake in Haiti to happen? The simple answer is to just say, “Yes!” That is, if something happens, we can conclude that God specifically decided to allow it to happen. Therefore, it’s in his decretive will even if it is something that he would have a negative disposition toward. We know that God takes no delight in the suffering of people, but he may at times “will” that suffering happen as for example when he willed that the Son would suffer a literally excruciating death.

All these answers are not fair!

This text came into my phone while I was answering the final question on Sunday, and it’s worth addressing now.

Yes, as a matter of fact, God isn’t fair. “Fairness” is a human concept that is derived from our flawed understanding of “love” and “equality.” We think that fairness is a virtue, but what we really mean is that we think everyone should have the same opportunities. However, we don’t really believe that every human being should have exactly the same skills, same land, same personality type, same health, same climate, same income, etc. Fairness as a concept only works within a small society. You can express fairness within a Kindergarten classroom populated by kids who have roughly equivalent abilities. However, you can’t express fairness on the level of a professional sports club or in public office. We fool ourselves into saying that running for office should be a “fair” process, but to make sure it’s fair, we’d have to give every single student in our society the same opportunities leading up to their 35th year when they are equally eligible to run for President.

Could God create a society that is completely fair? Theoretically, yes. But he didn’t.

What he did was create a society where love can be expressed. The strong look after the weak. It’s not fair that some are strong and some are weak, but it leaves room for the expression of love.

What he did was create human beings who have equal worth though very different circumstances so that he could get great glory in some lives and even greater glory in the lives of others. Was it fair that Jesus healed a strange centurion’s servant at a distance but let his friend Lazarus linger and die without even visiting him? No. That wasn’t fair at all. However, in the story of Lazarus, Jesus gets great glory by raising him from the dead after four days in a tomb and many people put their faith in him.

last thoughts on human tragedy

Finally, I said something on Sunday that I’m sure rubbed some people the wrong way, but it’s something I’m convinced of. God has commanded humans to treasure human life. We are created in the image of God and we should treat our neighbors with that same kind of dignity. However, human life persists beyond physical death, and even though physical death was not part of God’s original design for humans it is nonetheless part of his decreed will. He is the one who banished Adam and Eve from the Garden making it impossible for them to return to eat from the Tree of Life. He is the one who decreed that they and their descendants would die.

And he is the one who sent his Son to die.

In other words, God isn’t afraid of death. In fact, the preservation of human physical life is not God’s highest priority even if it needs to be an incredibly high priority for us. Therefore, from God’s perspective, the loss of one hundred thousand earthly lives is not a greater tragedy than the loss of ten. The great tragedy is for even one to enter eternity without repenting of sin and receiving the forgiveness of God.

For humans, however, the death of 100,000 lives is terribly tragic because that represents 100,000 people we will never be able to share the gospel with. Their eternal condition is in God’s hands, but then again, it always was.

I would love to hear your comments on this.

On Sunday, we addressed the third statement from the Lafayette Community Church Statement of Faith, but before we can look at it, we need to consider the relationship between human language and the reality of God.

The Limits of Our Language

What thoughts come to mind when you think of God? What images come to you? Is he some old man sitting on a throne? Do you imagine him in the ways of Greek mythology, like Zeus holding a lightning bolt and standing on a mountain? Do you imagine him as a highly exalted human being?

The problem is that none of those images are valid. None of those images work. None of those images are allowed. They are all idols. In the burning bush, God used no mental images to describe himself. The fire was a portal for his voice, but his self description was simply “I AM.” In the march from Egypt to Israel, God confirmed his presence before the people as a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. In the days of wandering, God confirmed his presence by the golden box called the Ark filled with the ten commandments. And near the top of the list at number two was the command against having any idols, any objects of worship that were visible and tangible.

Our mental images are just as idolatrous because they put representations of God in our mind that are not actually God as he is. The most important thing to know about God is that he cannot be contained, he cannot be imagined, he cannot be imaged by humans. Our concepts are too small, our brains are too childish, our language is too limited, our knowledge is too elementary.

Even as we talk about God, we must keep in mind that God is bigger than the words we use. When we say God is love, we mean that he has revealed himself to us with the word “love,” but that his love is more loving than our love.

By way of disclaimer, then, I just want to say that God is the standard for the attributes we describe. It is not the other way around. We can’t use our words, define our words, put our own concepts into our words, and then apply those labels to God. We can’t say, “Well, to me, love means… and therefore, since God is love, he should act like…” You can’t come to know God by learning more about the attribute. You can’t study fathers to learn about your Heavenly Father. You can’t study lovers to learn of God’s love. You can’t study morals to learn about God’s goodness

Instead, we need to let God and his reality fill out the definition for the words we use. If God is love, we must let God’s character and actions define for us what love really is.

Now, we can turn to the statement.

The Father

LCC’s Statement of Faith reads thus:

God the Father is an infinite personal spirit, perfect in holiness, wisdom, power, and love. He concerns Himself mercifully in the affairs of each person, He hears and answers prayer, and He saves from sin and death all who come to Him through Jesus Christ (Deuteronomy 32:4-6, Psalm 139, Matthew 6:6-8, John 3:16-17, John 4:24, Romans 6:23, 1 Corinthians 8:6).

Implications

What I find to be most fascinating about all of this is that the statement starts with a God who is an infinite personal spirit, perfect in holiness, and it ends with a God who pays attention to the prayers of individual people.

In talking about this with our congregation, I walked through the statement point by point, showing supporting verses and providing brief explanation where helpful. Then, at the end I addressed some live questions from the congregation. Those questions were fascinating because they all seemed to revolve around the one big issue of God’s will versus human freedom.

Answering those questions adequately requires us to fully grasp the meaning of the first sentence of our statement above. Here are a couple bullet points to flesh out the statement:

• As the only infinite personal spirit, God is boundless with regard to time and space, without physical properties, but able to mentally relate to other intelligent beings.
• Perfect holiness means that God is completely distinct—other than—everything in Creation. He is above and beyond his creatures. His essence, attributes, and behaviors cannot be fully comprehended by any created being.
• Perfect wisdom means that God always fully understands all possible courses of action. He perfectly understands the past. He can perfectly predict the future. Therefore, he can perfectly select the best course of action in any circumstance.
• Perfect power means that God is always able to accomplish what he intends to do. It doesn’t mean that he is able to create logically impossible realities like a circle with four right angles. It does mean that he always gets what he wants. His power extends so great that he is even able to create a world where the independent actions of free beings bring about the end result he desires.
• Perfect love means that God is first of all in a perfect love relationship with the other members of the Trinity. His very nature allows for and demands a loving mutuality of deference, equality, respect, and affirmation. Love is intrinsic to the nature of God. Therefore, because the Trinity is at work cooperatively to bring about God’s desired plans, the Father deeply loves his plans and the execution of those plans by the Son. Finally, the Father loves the individuals of the world because they are his prime agents working out his plan on planet Earth.

In the posts to follow, we will be addressing questions regarding the will of God, but to conclude this post, I want to affirm the most personally compelling reality of the nature of God.

God, the one who is unbounded by time and space, who knows the best thing to do at all times, who is fully capable to bring about his will regardless of circumstances, made you to be who you are at this moment in history. God, who always knows what’s best and always gets his way, made you.

Take pride that God has chosen you to be part of his plan. Take warning that God expects you to play by his rules. Take comfort that God has done everything possible to empower you to do just that.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. — John 3:16-17

On Sunday, I was asked about the apocrypha, but I later found out that the answer I gave was partially wrong.

What I said was that back in the days before Jesus, there were a number of books that were circulated among Jewish people. However, back then, no one considered them to be on the same level as Scripture. In fact, after the prophet Malachi wrote his prophecy it was widely understood that there were no more prophets, and that was 400 years before Jesus. Nevertheless, history still happened during those 400 years and Jewish teachers still speculated on spiritual realities. That’s where the extra books came from. Nevertheless, as I said, the Jews of the time did not consider them to be authoritative or on the same level as the other Scriptures.

When the Hebrews Scriptures were translated into Greek, the translators decided to also translate some of the other documents into Greek as well. Eventually, the collected Greek translations came to be called the Septuagint after the supposed 70 scholars employed to do the work of translation.

By the time of Jesus, the majority of the Septuagint had been translated, and both Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint version as the version they quoted from. Nevertheless, no New Testament writer quotes from or refers to any of the books in the “apocrypha.” (see this article) Further, when the Rabbis finally and fully agreed on which books were the authoritative Hebrew Scriptures, they included only the books we now have in our Old Testament. Therefore, the reason these other books are not in Protestant Bibles today is that the Jews of Jesus day, though they used the Septuagint translation for their knowledge of Scripture, seemed to know a distinction between the books that later became the “Hebrew Scriptures” and those that later became the “Apocrypha.”

That’s basically what I said on Sunday, but I also made a claim that I have since learned was incorrect. I said that the Catholics followed the tradition of the Septuagint and included three sections in their Bibles with the Apocrypha in between the Old and New Testaments. However, that was wrong. Having been raised Catholic, my wife Jen has a Catholic Bible and showed me after the service that in their Bible, the “apocryphal” books are interspersed throughout the Old Testament. Furthermore, she told me that Catholics are actually quite offended by the term “apocrypha.”

So I was wrong about the Catholic Bibles. After a little more research tonight, I found that it was Martin Luther who first put the Apocrypha into a separate section between the Old and New Testaments. Therefore, I’ll just say that the best way of understanding the difference between Catholic Bibles and Protestant Bibles is that Protestants follow the tradition of the Hebrew Scriptures for the Old Testament while the Catholics follow the tradition of the Septuagint.

I personally follow the tradition of the Hebrew Scriptures endorsed by Jesus and the Apostles.

For additional information, these Wikipedia articles are quite interesting:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Jewish_Bible_canon
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books

How do we know that all of the original manuscripts have already been found?

I didn’t get to answer this one on Sunday, but the answer is simple. None of the original manuscripts have been found. Sadly, the oldest shred of any manuscript we have is a fragment from the gospel of John that dates to about 100-120 AD. It’s theoretically possible that John himself wrote that fragment since he died around 90 AD, but it’s highly unlikely. What we have are so many thousands of copies, versions, translations, and commentaries that we can reconstruct the originals with a high degree of certainty.

However, this question actually hides a different issue. It really touches on the question of whether we have all the books that should be in the Bible. Were other books written that were “lost”? In truth, there are a number of lost books. The apostle Paul claims to have written about four letters to the church in Corinth, but we only have two. There is a letter to the church in Laodicea, but we don’t have any letters addressed to them from Paul. Matthew and Luke appear to share a common literary source that scholars call Q, but we don’t have any copies of that document.

So if we know there are other documents, how can we be sure the Bible we have today is “complete”? If we found one of these lost letters to the Corinthians, would we add it into the Bible?

The short answer to all those questions is that none of the books lost to history were important enough for people to save them. No one back then considered them Scripture or else they would have been treated like the other documents considered to be Scripture. Therefore, if the Apostles didn’t think Q was worth keeping once they had Matthew and Luke, neither should we. If the Apostles didn’t think 3 Corinthians was worth keeping, neither should we.

We should have great confidence that what we have in our Bibles today is exactly what the first century church under Apostolic authority deemed to be everything Scriptural.

Is one translation of the Bible more accurate? Why the need for so many English translations?

I addressed this one on Sunday, and the basic answer is that because inerrancy depends on understanding the original intent of the original manuscripts, we employ as much scholarship and study as it takes to get back to both. Some scholarship helps us reconstruct the original manuscripts with greater accuracy. Some scholarship helps us translate the original intent with greater accuracy. Every year, archaeology helps us understand the ancient world better and uncovers new manuscript evidence. Every year, the English language grows and develops. Further, since the English speaking world currently dominates scholarship and finance, English is the first language to see the fruits of the new scholarship. It doesn’t hurt that English speaking people are quite willing to spend vast sums of money on new Bibles, and there are many agendas motivating people to produce new versions of the Bible.

The bottom line answer to this question is that more recent versions of the Bible are based on better manuscripts and therefore have the potential to be more accurate. However, one must be aware of the agenda of the translating group. Read the preface of each version and find out why that group made that translation.

On Sunday, I recommended the newest version of the NIV, the ESV, the second edition of the NASB, and the NLT as great Bibles committed to conveying the original intent of the original manuscripts.

Can we generalize New Testament verses on the authority of Scripture (eg. 2 Tim 3:15-17) to the NT since in the original context they were referring only to the Old Testament?

I didn’t get to answer this one on Sunday, but it’s a good question and deserves a little time. Basically, the question raises the issue that the New Testament authors use the word Scripture to refer to their Scripture which would have been the Jewish Scriptures or the Old Testament. Therefore, one could argue, the New Testament passages on Scriptural authority apply only to the Old Testament. As a result, how do we get our idea that the New Testament is also authoritative?

This is a very rational line of thought, but it misses on one small point. When the New Testament writers used the word “Scripture” they were not talking only about the Old Testament. In fact, there’s a fascinating passage in 2 Peter 3:15-16:

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. — 2 Peter 3:15-16

What’s fascinating in this passage is that Peter considered Paul’s writings to be Scripture. The word “other” near the end of v. 16 demonstrates that. Another fascinating thing about this passage is that Paul was still alive when it was written. So follow the logic: Peter knows about Paul’s writings. Peter calls them Scripture. Paul most likely is aware of Peter’s writings. He surely would have been told what Peter thought about his letters. Paul doesn’t deny it, ever. The most likely conclusion is that Paul and Peter both knew that what was being written in their day was to be considered Scripture.

Therefore, the answer is “Yes.” New Testament passages on Scripture refer also to the other New Testament writings.

Even though our world is filled with arguments about tolerance, the Bible is completely intolerant about a few key doctrines. We would say the Bible is dogmatic about them, and though we never berate or belittle those who disagree with us, we can certainly hold that over certain issues, there are clearly defined lines between right and wrong.

This series is all about exploring those lines.

If you want to know more about my personal beliefs on these matters, you might want to check out the Tough Questions section of my blog or My Beliefs.

Throughout this series, I will be using my personal blog to post the gist of my Sunday messages and to also address the questions that were raised on Sunday that I didn’t have time to answer.

To view all the posts in this category including sermon summaries and the questions, click the DOGMA tag here or at the top of this post.

Introduction

When I was younger, my friends and I got interested in the study of apologetics specifically as it relates to defending the Christian faith from the claims of competing religious systems. In particular, we were fascinated by the study of Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

I remember learning rather early that Mormon belief systems contained this aphorism:

“As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be.” — Lorenzo Snow

(For some recent research on Mormon beliefs regarding this couplet, read this article.)

The gist of the Mormon claim is that the God who created the earth and claims authority over all humanity was once a man himself on a far distant planet and that if earthbound humans are pious enough they may likewise attain Godhood just as He did.

Having been raised in a Baptist home, my initial shock at that statement was soon quelled by the realization that not all Mormons actually believed it. In fact, I regularly met Mormons who disagreed at least in part with that claim. My initial shock at the apparent heresy was supplanted by the new shock that “average” Mormons didn’t know this was a central belief of their own faith.

I was young then, but eventually, I grew up, matured, and realized that the Mormons are not unique in what can be called “practical ignorance.” As a matter of fact, I have met Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Baptists, Presbyterians, and others who don’t actually know the core teachings of their faith.

I regularly ask people what Jesus said the Greatest Commandment was, and I regularly get blank stares until the other person eventually says, “Love other people?” (That’s almost right, but not quite.) I regularly meet Christians who see the Bible as a good guidebook for life but don’t really believe everything in it.

The bottom line is that Christians who don’t know core Christian doctrine are just as foolish as Mormons who don’t know Lorenzo Snow’s couplet or Jehovah’s Witnesses who don’t know about the many, many failed prophecies of their leaders.

As I said in church on Sunday:

You can’t call yourself a Christian unless you are committed to at least learning the core doctrines of Christianity.

So where do we start? Well, since Christian doctrine comes ultimately from church tradition or biblical teaching, let’s pick the Bible and start with that.

The Bible

LCC’s Statement of Faith reads:

The Bible is the Word of God, fully inspired and without error in the original manuscripts, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and it has supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct. (Romans 15:4, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:19-21).

Getting in the Pool

Now, for the logically astute among you, you might recognize that this statement is a logically circular claim. Our church believes that the Bible is the Word of God, and we are basing that claim on the teaching of the Bible. Why do we believe the Bible is the Word of God? Because the Bible tells us so. Why do we trust what it tells us? Because it’s the Word of God! It’s like a swimming pool where some kids have walked in circles long enough to create a whirlpool-like current. The longer you walk in the circle, the stronger the current becomes.

I admit, believing in the authority of the Bible is based largely on a circular argument, and I don’t expect anyone to believe in the Bible because of what the Bible says for itself. However, there are some very good reasons for “getting into the pool” of this circular argument. Here are a few reasons from outside the Bible to believe the Bible:

1. The text of the Bible has been reliably transmitted through the ages. Unlike a game of telephone played by Junior highers whispering obscure phrases to each other, the parts of the Bible that were transmitted orally were done in the context of a community of people all hearing the same things over and over again, believing those things were important enough to get perfectly right. Then, whenever the written text was copied, those same people who held the same values came up with creative ways to determine the complete accuracy of the copies. Finally, modern archaeology has consistently revealed that there is no ancient document whose textual history is as consistent as that of the Old and New Testaments. Simply put, the text of the Bible is today nearly identical to what it was when it was originally put to paper, papyrus, or parchment.

2. The teaching of the Bible has been consistently verified. To date, there has not been one testable claim in the Bible that has been verified to be historically false while many historical claims in the Bible have been verified by modern archaeology. What’s amazing about this is that some of the historical claims were actually written down before the events they described actually happened. In other words, the Bible makes historically verifiable prophetic claims that ended up happening just as they had been prophesied. Finally, one more thing on this point, Jesus and his Apostles taught and confirmed that they believed the entire Bible, including what they taught and what they wrote to be a unified whole. In other words, if we can trust the Bible on its testable claims, we should find it at least practically reliable regarding its untestable claims.

3. The third reason to “enter the pool” is really an entire argument.

   • The Bible is a historically reliable account of the life and teaching of Jesus.
   • Jesus rose from the dead, validating his teaching (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).
   • Jesus taught that the Old Testament was God’s flawless, eternal Word (Matthew 5:18).
   • Jesus authorized his Apostles to teach in his name (Matthew 28:18-20).
   • The New Testament authors claim Apostolic authority (2 Peter 3:15-16).

   Basically, Jesus believed the Old Testament was God’s Word. The New Testament is written with the authority of Jesus, and Jesus rose from the dead.

I believe these three reasons, though somewhat circumstantial, are enough to enter the pool and start to walk around the circle.

Explaining the Doctrine

The Bible is the Word of God

This phrase teaches that the words on the page are actually God’s voice speaking to us. It is just as if your loved one wrote you a letter or sent you an email. The words on your screen are actually the voice of your loved one. The words of this post are actually my voice to you. The words in your Bible are actually God’s voice to you. The key truth here is expressed in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. — 2 Timothy 3:16-17

The point is that Scripture is the breath of God. If you want to hear God speak, put your eyes to the words.

… fully inspired … of the Holy Spirit

The statement mentions inspiration twice. Specifically, it’s important to know that when we talk about inspiration, we are not speaking of the kind of inspiration an artist feels when seeing a sunset or a tree or a bowl of fruit. We are talking about the root meaning of the word: To breathe into. Inspiration means that God through his Spirit, breathed the very words into the mind of the author so that what came through the pen is exactly what God wanted.

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. — 2 Peter 1:20-21

… without error in the original manuscripts

There are really two issues here. One is the issue of inerrancy and the second is the issue of what limits should be placed on the doctrine of inerrancy. Simply put, if God is all-knowing, good, and faultless like the Bible claims, then He can’t lie, make a mistake or deceive. Therefore, if the words of the Bible are the words of God, they must be without error.

As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless… — 2 Samuel 22:31a

However, since human language is flawed, there’s no way to fully express some of the realities of the spiritual world. For example, the Bible frequently uses idioms and metaphors and anthropomorphic terms to describe spiritual realities:

[God said to Moses,] “…Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen….” — Exodus 33:23

Moses quoted God as saying “my hand… my back… my face” even though the Bible regularly affirms that God is a Spirit with no body. This would seem to be an error unless we remember that Moses met God in a burning bush and never would have thought that God had a real physical body. Therefore, when Moses wrote “my hand” he didn’t really intend to communicate that God has hands. What’s important is to know the original intent of the original author in the original manuscripts, and so we put limitations on the doctrine of inerrancy.

The Bible is without error even though a modern English translation might have some textual errors, spelling errors, grammar errors, or something else because the claim for the Bible’s inerrancy extends only to what the original author intended to say when the original author originally wrote it down.

… supreme authority

This is the last piece I will discuss here, and it is the most controversial. Going back to the passage in 2 Timothy, we really should have quoted from v. 15 also. Here is the passage with v. 15:

… from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. — 2 Timothy 3:15-17

Paul tells Timothy two things: (1) Scripture is the source of salvation wisdom and (2) Scripture is the source of everything necessary to equip someone for good works. In other words, whether its about salvation or about daily living, the Bible is all that anyone needs.

Not every tradition accepts this, however. The Catholics believe that the Bible is simply one of two sources of God’s revelation to humanity. For them, the tradition of the church, including the ex cathedra declarations of the Pope are also God’s Word and are therefore to be treated with the same measure of authority. Mormons believe there are extra documents that must be also added to the Bible to give people what they really need for salvation and for having a right relationship with God. Some conservative Protestant groups will say that behavioral traditions are just as important as the Bible (what songs are allowed, what foods can be eaten, etc), while some liberal Protestant groups will say that the Bible is merely a portal to the Word of God which must be subjectively experienced by individuals in their unique cultural context.

In none of those traditions is the Bible considered to have supreme authority as it stands. It must either be augmented (by other documents, church tradition) or re-interpreted in order to have that authority.

Nevertheless, the Bible claims for itself total sufficiency, plus, there’s one last thing to consider.

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. — Hebrews 1:1-3

The claim of this verse is that Jesus is God’s final revelation to humanity. Therefore, since the OT points toward him, we keep it. Additionally, since the NT is written by those who carried his direct authority, we keep it. However, when the last Apostle died (by most accounts, John), the book was closed.

Therefore, we must recognize that the Bible is fully sufficient to communicate to humanity everything he wants to communicate, and it was completed when the last Apostle wrote his last word. As the Word of God, the Bible, and only the Bible, above every other document, above every other authority, has supreme authority over our lives and we will be held accountable to its teaching.

What is the Rapture?

Before I talk about anything else, I should probably define what I mean by the rapture and why I want to talk about it now.

The Rapture refers to the event described in the Bible of Christ returning to earth and his followers being “caught up” to meet him in the air.

The major biblical controversy is twofold:

1. Do the biblical statements on the rapture event indicate a literal and physical departure from the surface of the earth?
2. When does the rapture event happen in relation to the rest of prophesied end-time events?

In the past hundred years or so, the most vocal portion of end-times theorists have proposed what is known as the doctrine of Pre-Tribulational Rapture. This position holds that the biblical depictions of the rapture condense two disparate events: the “catching up” of believers is one event, and the establishment of Christ’s kingdom is a second. The Pre-Trib perspective holds that in between these two events will be a time of “Tribulation” which will involve great spiritual persecution.

There are many other positions as well, but rather than examine all the possibilities, we will simply consider a few relevant biblical texts that cover the rapture event and see what the Bible says for itself. However, I’ll say one more word of introduction. Because the “rapture” has been identified differently from different scholars, I will limit the selection of verses here to those which directly address the moment when Jesus “catches up” his believers from the earth.

The Clear Teaching

John 14:3

• Jesus promises to come back to get us and take us to be with him.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-17

• [When Jesus returns] God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.
• Jesus comes down from heaven with a loud command, the voice of the archangel, and the trumpet call of God.
• The dead in Christ are raised to life.
• They and the living believers will be caught up into the air to meet Jesus in the air.
• Believers will be with the Lord from that moment on, forever.

1 Corinthians 15:20-28

• Resurrection comes through Jesus to all men.
• Jesus is the “firstfruits” of the resurrection; when he comes back, his followers will then be resurrected as well.
• Then, the end will come, but not until Jesus has destroyed all competing authority, including the final destruction of death.

1 Corinthians 15:50-55

• Some believers will be alive when Jesus returns.
• Our physical bodies cannot enter heaven without being transformed.
• Believers will be transformed and given imperishable bodies.
• This transformation all happens “at the last trumpet.”

Matthew 24

• Jesus is answering questions about “the sign of his coming” and of the “end of the age.”
• He predicts false Christs, wars, famines, and earthquakes. They are the beginning of birth pains.
• He predicts his followers will be “handed over” to be persecuted.
• Those who stand firm to the end will be saved.
• He predicts great distress, “unequaled from the beginning of the world until now–and never to be equaled again.”
• He predicts those days will be shortened for the sake of the elect.
• He predicts that the elect will also be protected from deception.
• He predicts that his coming will be loud and obvious everywhere.
• He predicts the darkening of the sun and moon.
• He predicts his visible return in glory, a trumpet call, and the gathering of his elect.
• He predicts that the gathering will be preceded by signs, but that the timing is unknown even to him.
• His coming will be a surprise, and some will “be taken” while others will be left.
• Additionally, Jesus uses temporal language to indicate a sequence of events: general distress, persecution, great distress, and cosmic events, ending with his arrival, the trumpet call and the gathering of his elect.

Revelation 19:11-20:6

• Jesus comes from heaven with army in tow.
• The beast and kings of the earth assemble and prepare for battle, but their loss is immediate.
• The beast, his prophet, and Satan himself are imprisoned in the Abyss.
• The “first resurrection” takes place raising up faithful followers of Christ to reign with him for 1000 years.
• The rest of the dead will be resurrected (for judgment) after the 1000 years are ended.

Less Clear Passages

Revelation 4:1

Some have postulated that this verse is a metaphorical indication of a “secret” rapture of the church preceding the Tribulation. John hears a voice “like a trumpet” and then hears “Come up here.” He is caught up into a vision of the heavenly throne room, and from that moment until the chapter 22, the church is “conspicuously” absent from the events on the earth. The conclusion is that when John is caught up to heaven, it is symbolic of the church being caught up in the rapture. Support for this view comes mainly from the end of Matthew 24 when Jesus talked about the surprising nature of his return. However, there is no way to reconcile that with the fact that in Matthew 24, the surprising return comes after a great deal of distress and in Revelation 4:1, the distress has not happened yet. Further complicating this position is John’s own statement that when the “Come up” call is heard, he immediately is “in the spirit.” John has an ecstatic visionary experience that in no way indicates he was physically transported anywhere.

Revelation 11:12

The two witnesses hear a loud voice and are caught up physically into heaven. They could be a symbolic representation of the rapture of the church. However, no one takes the two witnesses to be symbolic of the church in general, so it seems unlikely to treat their ascension as symbolic of the rapture.

Revelation 12:5

When the woman gives birth to a male child, we are told that the child is “snatched up to God” for his protection. Perhaps this is a symbolic rapture of the church away from the distress of the Tribulation. Supporting this is the fact that three and a half years of distress are predicted after this child is snatched away. The association of the church with the male child in this case is quite attractive, except for two problems. First, it would be quite unlikely for God to use the metaphor of a “male child” to refer to the church. Though “son” is used in the Old Testament to refer to the nation of Israel, the New Testament reserves the concept of a single male offspring for Jesus himself. In fact, just a few chapters after this, the church will be referred to as a bride. Secondly, Revelation 12:17 indicates that the there are “those who obey God’s commands and hold to the testimony of Jesus” still living on the earth as a target for Satanic persecution. Therefore, the snatching away of the male child cannot refer to the rapture of the church.

Conclusion

Pulling together a few things:

• The account in Matthew 24 seems to line up pretty clearly with the account in Revelation 6-7 of seals 1-4 and 6 that earthly, cosmic, and spiritual distress come while believers are on earth and before the victorious return of Christ.
• The account of 1 Thessalonians 4 seems to line up clearly with both Matthew 24 and Revelation 19-20 that the return of Christ will be boisterous, undeniable, victorious, and final. (Note also that 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 is possibly a reference to the same ancient practice that manifested itself at Jesus’ Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem. When the victorious king comes to the city, the faithful rush out of the city to meet him on the way, and then remain with him to escort him back into the city. That understanding of 1 Thessalonians would put it in perfect harmony with both Matthew 24 and Revelation 19-20.)
• Revelation 20:5 claims that the first resurrection occurs after Jesus defeats the kings of the earth and immediately before he establishes his millennial reign. However, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17, the core rapture passage, is clearly a resurrection event. Therefore, the only way for Revelation 20:5 to be the “first resurrection” is if the two passages are speaking of the same event.
• The text of 1 Corinthians 15 seems to coincide well with Revelation 19-20 that Jesus will return, claim his followers, and then take some time (1000 years?) to finally eradicate all evil before handing the kingdom finally over to his Father.

Therefore, drawing from the different passages that most directly describe the gathering of believers from the earth, one picture has become abundantly clear to me.

• First, there will be distress on the earth greater than any before or after including political unrest, natural disasters, demonic activity, and the outpouring of God’s wrath.
• Secondly, Christ begins to return, and the powers of the earth, motivated by Satan himself, will assemble in opposition to him, but his victory will be swift, accomplished by his angelic army in advance of his arrival.
• When he arrives, his victory will be announced with trumpets, those dead in Christ will rise, those alive in Christ will be caught up to meet him in the air and escort him back to Earth as the rightful King where he will reign for 1000 years before one final battle.

Of course, there is room in this understanding for a secret rapture of the living saints to happen at any point in time God wishes. God raptured Enoch, Elijah, and Jesus himself, and he can do it again if he so chooses. Matthew 24:40 could be speaking of this kind of event. However, such an event would cause certain living Christians to precede those who have fallen asleep in Christ apparently contradicting Paul’s statement in 1 Thessalonians 4:15. As such, a secret rapture without a resurrection seems unlikely. Additionally, any resurrection happening before the imprisonment of Satan in Revelation 20:1-3 would also seem to contradict its identification as “the first resurrection.”

Based on all this, I am confident in saying that the Bible clearly teaches a rapture of the church which coincides with the victorious return of Christ and the establishment of his millennial kingdom, though a secret rapture of living saints at any point in time is still within God’s prerogative should he choose.

The image used on this post was obtained from a blog post at lavrai.com. I am in no way endorsing that blog or its contents, although it seems to take the same perspective as that taken here.

• you believe that God has “elected” or “chosen” those who would be saved from before the foundation of the world.
• you believe that those whom God has chosen have been predestined to respond to the gospel when God woos them.
• you believe that salvation comes entirely without regard to human works or merit.
• you believe that “elect” and “true followers of Jesus” are two ways of describing only one group.

If you are Pre-Trib:

• you believe that the rapture event will remove from earth all who are followers of Jesus.
• you believe that after the rapture event, the Tribulation will involve the salvation of some and their subsequent persecution.

The Contradiction

These two positions are in contradiction to each other because the Calvinist must believe that those saved before the rapture and those saved after the rapture are part of the same group God elected before the foundation of the world. The only difference between the two would be the timing of God’s effort at wooing them or the timing of their willing response to his call.

The former case would indicate that God had specifically not wooed some of his elect in time for them to join in the rapture of the rest of the saints (as if God were showing favoritism to one group of his followers)

The latter case indicates that participation in the rapture event, unlike salvation, depends upon the timing of a person’s response to the gospel which seems close to a works-based system.

To be both Calvinistic and Pre-Trib a person must believe that the rapture is an event for only some of the elect either by their own merit or by God’s favoritism among them. Both options are distasteful for the majority of Calvinists.

However, I’d like to hear what other people have to say on this. Your comments are welcome and encouraged!

Update (Aug 1, 2009)

I apologize for sending this post out before without the support of any specific biblical text. The contradiction as I see it from the Bible comes from the juxtaposition of these three biblical concepts:

1. John 6:44, Romans 8:29-30, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, and 2 Timothy 1:9 teach that salvation only occurs in response to God’s activity of election, that this election happens by his choice, before the beginning of time, and “predestines” people for salvation. Therefore, by these verses, the Calvinist would conclude that God presently knows every human who will be saved because he has claimed them as his own, and they are rightfully called “the elect.”

2. Matthew 24:31 and Mark 13:27 both indicate that when Christ returns, he will “gather his elect” from the whole earth. This seems to indicate that the gathering will include all who are “his elect.”

3. Revelation 20:4 clearly teaches there were people who had the opportunity to worship the beast and receive his mark but refused both and remained faithful to Christ. Matthew 24:24 refers to those who resist false prophets and remain faithful to Christ and calls them “the elect.”

Therefore, here is the exact logical argument:

• Whenever Christ’s “gathering” takes place, it appears to include all who are elect.
• If election is determined before the foundation of the world, the gathering event must leave behind only the non-elect.
• If election is necessary for salvation, the gathering event Jesus mentions would indicate that the door for salvation was now closed.
• However, there are clearly believers alive (and martyred!) during the Tribulation period.
• Therefore, the Matthew 24 event cannot happen before the Tribulation period—unless we are missing something.
• Therefore, we are left with only three possible options:
  1. God’s election is not eternally determined. Those who are already “elect” at the time of the rapture will be taken, but others will become “elect” afterwards.
  2. Matthew 24 is not speaking of the rapture of the church, and it is God’s prerogative to take in a secret rapture some of his elect leaving others behind.
  3. The rapture of God’s elect happens after the Tribulation.

His Nature

I believe in the preexistence of God the Son, coeternal with, coequal with, and of the same nature as the Father so that he is fully God (Jn 1:1, 8:58, 10:30; Co 2:9).

I believe that the Son in willful, humble obedience to the Father’s will for redemption took upon himself a fully human nature in addition to his own divine nature so that he is fully human as well (Jn 1:14; Php 2:5-11).

I believe that now even as the Trinity is one nature with three persons, God the Son continues to exist as one person with two natures. Neither the humanity nor the divinity overshadows the other such that Jesus is fully God and fully human (Heb 4:15-5:10).

His Work

I believe that God the Son is the agent of the original Creation (Co 1:16).

I believe that in the Incarnation Jesus for a time laid aside all rights to using his divine nature and powers. I believe that the evidence of divinity seen in his life came through his total reliance upon the will of the Father and the presence of the Holy Spirit (Mt 12:28; Jn 5:30, 8:28f.; Ac 2:22; Php 2:6-7). Nevertheless, I believe that Jesus was fully aware of his divine nature, his pre-existence with the Father, his messianic role, and his future glorification (Mk 14:61f.; Jn 4:25f., 8:58).

I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, by the Holy Spirit, and therefore unscarred by original sin (Mt 1:25; Lk 1:34f.; Heb 4:15; 1Jn 3:5). I believe that Jesus lived a perfectly sinless, perfectly faithful life: obedient to the Father and reliant on the Holy Spirit. He had the capacity to sin but the free will not to sin; he hypothetically could have sinned, but he never did and never would. Thus, he succeeded where Adam failed and is the agent of a new creation, the author, perfecter, and model of the Christian life (1Co 15:45-49; 2Co 5:17; Heb 4:15, 12:1,2; 1Pe 2:22).

I believe that Jesus was put to death by Roman crucifixion and was buried in a borrowed tomb. I believe that Jesus’ death pays the penalty for sin, provides atonement before God, and redeems believers from slavery to sin into the family of God. This atonement is sufficient for the sins of the whole world but applied only to those who believe (Jn 1:12; Ro 3:25; 10:9f.; 1Jn 2:2).

I believe that God raised Jesus back to life on the third day through the power of the Holy Spirit, vindicating his claims, initiating the new life believers may experience now, and promising the reality of future resurrection for all. In this way Christ is also the agent of a new creation (Ro 6:4; 1Co 6:14; 2Co 5:17; 1Pe 3:18).

I believe that Jesus ascended into heaven and remains in the presence of the Father where he ensures the salvation of the believer by making intercession as Mediator and Priest (Ro 8:34; 1Ti 2:5; Heb 7:25).

I believe that Jesus will return someday to judge the living and the resurrected dead, to take unto himself those who have believed, and to finally establish the Kingdom of God in all its fullness with the Father as King (Dan 2:44; Jn 14:3; 1Co 15:22ff.; 2Ti 4:1, Rev 21:6ff.).

I believe that God exists as a Triune being whose very nature is that of one essence sustaining three persons in perfect relationship—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. His essence admits of no separation among the three but remains always One. Nevertheless, the three persons remain eternally distinct both in person and in role (Dt 6:4; 1Ch 21:15; Isa 63:9f.; Mk 1:10f.; Mt 28:19)

I believe that within the Trinity, there is an eternal hierarchy of function. The Son is sent by the Father and is submissive to the Father’s will for redemption (Jn 8:28f.). The Spirit is sent from both the Son and the Father to continue the work (Jn16:7f.). The Spirit points people to the Son (Jn 15:26), and the Son is the way to the Father (Jn 14:6). I believe this in no way mitigates the full equality of the members of the Trinity (Jn 10:30; cf. 1Co 15:28).

THEOLOGY PROPER

God’s Essence

I believe that God is the only eternally self-existent, active, personal spirit (Ps 90:2; Isa 46:9; Jn 5:26; Rev 4:8).

I believe that God possesses His attributes as essential and not accidental to His being such that He is ultimately characterized by His own unity (Dt 6:4). Never will one attribute conflict with another, for they each reside fully and perfectly in God’s nature.

I believe that God is totally other than His creation. Holy and Transcendent, He exists independent of anything He created, yet He is omnipresent (Ps 139; Isa 57:15).

I believe God’s essence is His alone and incommunicable to any other (Isa 46:9).

God’s Character

I believe that intellectually, God is omniscient and wise. He fully knows past, present, future, and possible states of affairs so that He knows even what free human creatures will do (Ps 139; Jn 21:17). Further, He is perfectly wise regarding His knowledge so that His choices are always the best (Dan 2:20; Jer 29:11). I believe that ethically, God is perfectly righteous. There is to be found in Him no moral wrong. His perfect goodness is intrinsic to His character (1Jn 1:5, 3:5).

I believe that God is an emotional being. He hates evil, may be saddened or grieved, feels compassion, anger, and jealousy, and deeply loves (Ge 6:6; Dt 6:15; Ps 103:13; Isa 61:8; Jn 3:16).

I believe that God is a relational being. God is loving, cares for all, desires relationship with all people, and dwells with some (Ex 34:6; Isa 57:15; 2Pe 3:9). Further, though God acts toward people like a Father and also like a Mother, God is not to be understood in categories of gender (Job 9:32; Ps 103:13; Isa 66:13).

I believe that God is utterly free and omnipotent to accomplish whatever He desires (Isa 46:10; Lk 1:37). However, God is limited to do only what comports with His character (2Ti 2:13). Also, in His complete freedom God chooses to be influenced by prayer (Ex 33:17).

I believe that God, in sovereign freedom, has chosen to create the universe, to redeem sinful people, to leave room for human agency, to permit evil in the present world, and to eventually judge all people (Ge 1:1; Jos 24:15; 2Co 5:18; Mt 19:8; Ac 17:31). Further, I believe that God the Father is to be understood as the source and initiator of both Creation and Redemption and that the other members of the Trinity are in eternal, willful, functional subordination to him (Jn 6:38-40, 15:26, 16:13).

I believe that God’s character may be communicated to humans in lesser degrees—freedom without omnipotence, intelligence without omniscience (Ge 1:26; 1Sa 16:7).

http://jeff.mikels.cc/wiki/doctrinal_statements

REVELATION

General Revelation

I believe that God has made Himself known to all people at all times and in all places. He has revealed Himself through the grandeur and the intricacies of the natural world (Ps 19:1-4), the moral awareness of the human conscience (Ro 2:15), and the faculties of human reason (Ps 14:1; Ro 1:21-22).

I believe that this general revelation communicates all that is necessary for people to be accountable before God. Since general revelation testifies to God’s existence, God’s moral requirements, and God’s supremacy, people are without excuse (Heb 11:6; Ro 1:20, 2:13-15). However, no one will come to proper relationship with God through general revelation alone. Humans universally repress what is made known through general revelation, reject God, and refuse to submit to Him (Ps 14:1-3; Ro 1:18-23).

Special Revelation

I believe that God has revealed Himself with more particularity to specific people at specific times for the purposes of reconciling them to Himself. In His great mercy, God has made Himself known through dreams, visions, saving acts, theophanies, and prophetic teaching (Ge 12:7, 15:1; Ex 6:6-7; Lev 22:32-33; Dt 5:5; 1Ki 3:5; Dan 2:28; Heb 1:1).

I believe that special revelation consists of both propositional truth about God and personal encounter with God. The simplest form of special revelation is God’s direct speech to prophets and to others through them (Ex 3:6ff; Jer 2:1; Ez 3:16ff.).

I believe that God, through the Holy Spirit, divinely inspired human agents to record special revelation in the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. This inspiration is such that the written words of Scripture are fully the words of God and fully the words of the human who penned them. Thus, they reflect the personalities and proclivities of the individual authors but are the completely inerrant communication of God to people. That is, the Scriptures as the authors originally intended them are entirely free from error in all matters to which they pertain. They are the final authority of faith and life (Ro 3:2, 16:25ff.; 2Ti 3:16f.; 2Pe 1:20f.).

I believe that Jesus himself is the ultimate revelation of God. In him is prophetic teaching, saving act, and theophany (Jn 14:9; Heb 1:2).

I believe that God continues to reveal Himself specially through the prophetic teaching of the Scriptures, the ministry of the Holy Spirit, and the other means already mentioned. However, all present day revelation stands under the Scriptures even as the Scriptures stand under the revelation found in Jesus (Jn 1:1ff.; Heb 1:1-3).