This essay is an excerpt from three books: Biblical Doctrine by John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, Everyone is a Theologian and What is Reformed Theology both by R. C. Sproul. It is not an original work.

I have written about a reason to study biblical theology, and then some, here. Key is remembering that studying, or being aware of doctrinal truths is not nearly as important as being in fellowship with the Truth. Therefore the main purpose of this compilation is not to stimulate the intellect but to move us into obedience, and also to be aware of the various ways God graciously relates with his creatures.

John MacArthur:
Doctrine represents teaching that is considered authoritative. When Christ taught, the crowds were amazed at his authority (Matt. 7:28–29; Mark 1:22, 27; Luke 4:32). A church’s “doctrinal” statement contains a body of teaching used as the standard of authoritative orthodoxy.

Biblically speaking, the word doctrine is a rather amorphous term that only takes shape in context. It refers to general teaching (systematized or not, true or false), such as the “teaching of Balaam” (Rev. 2:14) or “human teachings” (Col. 2:22), in contrast to biblical teaching such as Christ’s teaching (Matt. 7:28) or Paul’s teaching (2 Tim. 3:10).

Biblical doctrine, therefore, refers to the teaching of Scripture, whether it be proclamational, expositional, or categorical. That makes all Scripture “doctrinal,” whether it be read, taught, preached, or systematized into theological categories. Systematic biblical doctrine (systematic theology) refers to a categorical summation of biblical teaching that follows normally employed themes or categories.

A survey of Scripture shows that all doctrine or teaching can generally be classified into one of two categories depending on its source:

with regard to origin—from God the Creator (John 7:16; Acts 13:12) or from God’s creation (Col. 2:22; 1 Tim. 4:1)
with regard to truth content (2 Thess. 2:11–12)—true or false
with regard to human source (1 Thess. 2:13)—biblical or unbiblical
with regard to quality (1 Tim. 1:10; 6:3)—sound or unsound
with regard to acceptability (1 Tim. 1:3; Heb. 13:9)—familiar or strange
with regard to retention (Rev. 2:24)—to hold or not to hold
with regard to benefit (1 Tim. 4:6)—good or bad
with regard to value (2 Tim. 3:16)—profitable or unprofitable

Scripture teaches that there will always be opposition to sound doctrine, both by humans (Matt. 15:2–6; Mark 11:18; 1 Tim. 1:3, 10; 2 Tim. 4:3; Titus 1:9) and by Satan and demons (1 Tim. 4:1). The Bible outlines several antidotes/corrections to false doctrine:

1. Speaking the truth of sound doctrine in love (Eph. 4:15)
2. Teaching sound doctrine (1 Tim. 4:6; 2 Tim. 4:2)
3. Holding fast to sound doctrine (Titus 1:9; Rev. 2:24–25)
4. Refuting false doctrine (Titus 1:9)
5. Rejecting and turning away from teachers of false doctrine (Rom. 16:17; 2 John 9–10)

There is a direct, inseparable relationship between sound doctrine and saintly living, something Scripture teaches clearly and consistently (Rom. 15:4; 1 Tim. 4:16; 6:1, 3; 2 Tim. 3:10; Titus 2:1–4, 7–10). The reverse is also true—where there is false belief, there will be sinful behavior (Titus 1:16). In spite of Scripture’s clear emphasis on both purity of doctrine and purity of life, a number of mistaken notions have arisen concerning the relationship between what a person believes and how a person should live. These wrong ideas include the following:

1. Right doctrine automatically leads to godliness.
2. It doesn’t matter how a person lives so long as he or she has right doctrine.
3. Doctrine deadens, spiritually speaking.
4. There is no connection between what one believes and how one lives.
5. Christianity is life, not doctrine.
6. Doctrine is irrelevant.
7. Doctrine divides.
8. Doctrine drives people away.

In contrast to the negativity aimed at doctrine, the absence of sound doctrine and the presence of false doctrine will always lead to sinful behavior. Without sound doctrine, there is no scriptural basis to delineate right from wrong, no doctrinal authority to correct sin, and no biblical encouragement to motivate godly living.

RC Sproul:
The term evangelical came into prominence during the Reformation, when it was virtually a synonym for protestant. Historians have often suggested that the two chief causes of the Reformation were the issues of authority and justification. Frequently the issue of authority is called the Reformation’s formal cause, while the issue of justification is called its material cause. By this is meant that the core issue was justification, while the backdrop to the controversy was authority. The twin slogans of sola Scriptura and sola fide became the battle cries of the Reformation. We will examine these two matters more fully later. We note them now in passing to say that the term evangelical was the broad term applied to many groups that, despite their separation into different denominations, agreed on these two basic issues over against the Roman Catholic church.

In this process, however, there is always the danger of adding accretions to the apostolic tradition that are contrary to the original. That is why the Reformers insisted that their work of reformation was not complete. The church is called to be semper reformanda, “always reforming.” Every Christian community creates its own subculture of customs and traditions. Such traditions are often extremely difficult to overcome or abandon. Yet it remains our task in every generation to examine critically our own traditions to insure they are consistent with the apostolic tradition.

The word theology shares a suffix, -ology, with the names of many disciplines and sciences, such as biology, physiology, and anthropology. The suffix comes from the Greek word logos, which we find in the opening of John’s gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). The Greek word logos means “word” or “idea,” or, as one philosopher translated it, “logic” (it is also the term from which we get the English word logic). So when we study biology, we are looking at the word or logic of life. Anthropology is the word or logic about humans, anthrōpos being the Greek word for man. The primary part of the word theology comes from the Greek theos, which means “god,” so theology is the word or logic of God Himself.

Theology is a very broad term. It refers not only to God but to all that God has revealed to us in sacred Scripture. Included in the discipline of theology is the study of Christ, which we call “Christology.” It also includes the study of the Holy Spirit, which we call “pneumatology,” the study of sin, which is called “hamartiology,” and the study of future things, which we call “eschatology.” These are subdivisions of theology. Theologians also speak of “theology proper,” which has specific reference to the study of God Himself.

The doctrine of God’s incomprehensibility calls attention to the distance between the transcendent Creator and his mortal creatures. One of the chief axioms taught by John Calvin was expressed by the Reformer in the Latin phrase Finitum non capax infinitum, “The finite cannot grasp (or contain) the infinite.” Because God is infinite in his being and eternal, and we are finite and bound by both space and time, our knowledge of him is never comprehensive. We enjoy an apprehensive knowledge of God, but not a comprehensive knowledge.

John MacArthur:
Theology—from the Greek theos, “god,” and logia, “word”—is not a uniquely Christian word. The Greek verb theologeō refers to the act of speaking about a god, while the noun theologos refers to a person who engages in theologeō, that is, a theologian. The adjective theologikos describes something theological, while the noun theologia means “a word about god”—literally, theology.

These words were used in pagan religious contexts centuries before the New Testament. None of these four words are found in the New Testament or the Septuagint. The earliest known Christian use of one of these terms is a reference to the apostle John as a theologos early in the second century AD.

Christian theology is the study of the divine revelation in the Bible. It has God as its perpetual centerpiece, God’s Word as its source, and godliness as its aim.

The apostle John died in about AD 98. With his writing of Revelation, the canon of Scripture was completed and closed. It did not take long for succeeding generations to begin writing about scriptural truth.

What Are the Categories of Systematic Theology?

1. Bibliology: The doctrine of the inspiration, inerrancy, authority, and canonicity of the Bible (Gk. biblion, “book”)
2. Theology proper: The doctrine of the existence and being of God, including the triunity of God (Gk. theos, “God”)
3. Christology: The doctrine of the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ (Gk. christos, “Christ”)
4. Pneumatology: The doctrine of the person and work of the Holy Spirit (Gk. pneuma, “Spirit”)
5. Anthropology: The doctrine of humanity (Gk. anthrōpos, “man”)
6. Hamartiology: The doctrine of sin (Gk. hamartia, “sin”)
7. Soteriology: The doctrine of salvation (Gk. sōtēria, “salvation”)
8. Angelology: The doctrine of holy angels, Satan, and fallen angels (Gk. angelos, “angel”)
9. Ecclesiology: The doctrine of the church, universal and local (Gk. ekklēsia, “assembly” or “church”)
10. Eschatology: The doctrine concerning the entire scope of biblical predictive prophecy, especially end-time events, including the destination for both saved and unsaved people, heaven and hell (Gk. eschatos, “last things”)

Limitations of Systematic Theology
Systematic theology can be limited by the following factors:

1. The silence of the Bible on a particular topic (Deut. 29:29; John 20:30; 21:25)
2. A theologian’s partial knowledge/understanding of the entire Bible (Luke 24:25–27, 32; 2 Pet. 3:16)
3. The inadequacy of human language (1 Cor. 2:13–14; 2 Cor. 12:4)
4. The finiteness of the human mind (Job 11:7–12; 38:1–39:30; Rom. 11:33–35)
5. The lack of spiritual discernment/growth (1 Cor. 3:1–3; Heb. 5:11–13)

A revelation is a making plain or an unfolding of that which is hidden.

R. C. Sproul:
“We must understand the difference between general and special revelation. General revelation is given to everyone and supplies us with a general knowledge of God. It is different from the revelation of Scripture. The Bible is special revelation, and only those who have access to the Bible or its content receive it. Special revelation gives much more detailed information about the work and the plans of God.”

If we consider the historical selection process undertaken by the church, a process governed by great caution and careful investigation, we see that only three of the excluded documents were given serious consideration for inclusion in the New Testament: the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the First Letter of Clement of Rome.

According to the Protestants, each book found in the Bible is an infallible book, but the process undertaken by the church as to which books to include was not infallible. We believe that the church was providentially guided by the mercy of God in the process of determining the canon and thereby made the right decisions, so that every book that should be in the Bible is in the Bible. However, we do not believe that the church was inherently infallible, then or now. By contrast, the Roman Catholic formula says that we have the correct books because the church is infallible and anything the church decides is an infallible decision. In the Roman Catholic understanding, the formation of the canon rests on the authority of the church, whereas in the Protestant understanding, it rests upon the providence of God.

However, when the Roman Catholic Church convened at the Council of Trent in the middle of the sixteenth century to respond to the Reformation, the fourth session of that council addressed the relationship of the authority of the church and the authority of Scripture. In that session, the church professed confidence in the inspiration and authority of the Bible while also claiming that God reveals Himself through the tradition of the church.

We can find the truth of God in places besides the Bible. We can find it in sound books on theology, insofar as they are sound, but they are not the original source of that special revelation. However, the Roman Catholic Church holds to a “dual-source theory” in which there are two sources of special revelation, one of which is Scripture and the other of which is the tradition of the church. This theory has the effect of placing the church on an equal footing with the Bible itself in terms of authority.

John MacArthur:
The Bible possesses many important and unique characteristics that set it apart from and immeasurably beyond any literature written by mankind. Seven of its most significant features portray it as (1) active (1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12); (2) certain (Isa. 55:10–11; Luke 16:17); (3) powerful (Rom. 1:16–17; 1 Cor. 1:18); (4) living (John 6:63; Heb. 4:12; 1 Pet. 1:23); (5) cleansing (Eph. 5:26); (6) nourishing (1 Pet. 2:2); and (7) sanctifying (John 17:17–19). Table 2.1 outlines the various symbols that Scripture uses to represent a variety of spiritual truths concerning God’s Word.

By definition and as it relates to revelation, the finite creature and the infinite Creator differ fundamentally. God enjoys infinite and perfect knowledge, while mankind possesses a finite and imperfect knowledge. Indeed, mankind cannot fully know what creation reveals apart from Scripture. Revelation involves God (the Creator) conveying truth about himself to humanity. According to Scripture, this revelation comes in two forms: general revelation (Ps. 19:1–6) and special revelation (Ps. 19:7–14).

For believers, God’s providential care in working all things to their good can also be included in the category of his general revelation (Rom. 8:28)—though the doctrine of providence is derived from promises given in special revelation.

The ultimate manifestation of special revelation is the incarnation of the Son. The Creator God took on himself the limitations of human flesh and dwelt among his creatures (John 1:1–5, 14). While he was not generally recognized for who he truly was (John 1:10–11), he nevertheless revealed the fullness of God’s person to men (John 14:9–10). Jesus is described as the “image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15) and as the “exact representation of His nature” (Heb. 1:3 NASB). Jesus was a perfect revelation of God to men. He was the exact representation of who God is and what he is like.

An equally authoritative form of special revelation is the Bible. While the incarnate Word is an exact embodiment of the divine Creator, Scripture is likewise a special and divine revelation from God to men (Heb. 1:1). It is a fixed written testimony from the Creator to his creatures. It was composed over a period of more than fifteen hundred years by forty different human authors.

Both the ontological basis (God is) and the epistemological basis (God speaks only truth) of the Bible’s authority are established in Scripture (Gen. 1:1; Ps. 119:142, 151, 160). Thus, the very nature of God and the veracity of God’s Word are determined not inductively by human reason but deductively from the testimony of Scripture (cf. Ps. 119:89; Isa. 40:8).

The ontological distinction between God the Creator and man the creature necessitates man’s dependence on God for revelation. Man is epistemologically dependent on God. What man knows about God is only what God reveals to him.

The Bible is actually one book from one divine author, though it was written over a period of fifteen hundred years through the pens of over forty men. Beginning with the creation account of Genesis 1–2, written by Moses around 1405 BC, and extending to the account of eternity future in Revelation 21–22, written by the apostle John around AD 95, God progressively revealed himself and his purposes in the inspired Scriptures.

All this raises a significant question: How can one know which supposed sacred writings were to be included in the canon of Scripture and which ones were to be excluded? Over the centuries, three widely recognized principles were used to validate the writings that constituted divine, inspired revelation. First, the writing had to have been authored by a recognized prophet or apostle or by someone associated with one, as in the case of the books of Mark, Luke, Hebrews, James, and Jude. Second, the writing could not disagree with or contradict any previous Scripture. Third, the church had to display a general consensus that a writing was an inspired book. Thus, when various councils met in church history to consider the canon, they held no official vote for the canonicity of a book but rather recognized universally—after the fact—that it was written by God and belonged in the Bible.

With regard to the Old Testament, by the time of Christ the entire Old Testament had been written and acknowledged by the Jewish community. The last book, Malachi, had been completed about 430 BC. Not only did the Old Testament canon of Christ’s day conform to the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles today, but it did not contain the uninspired Apocrypha, that group of fourteen extrabiblical writings that were written after Malachi and attached to the Old Testament in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament called the Septuagint (ca. 200–150 BC). Though rejected, these spurious writings are included in some versions of the Bible. However, not one passage from the Apocrypha is cited by a New Testament writer, nor did Jesus affirm any of it when he recognized the Old Testament canon of his era (cf. Luke 24:27, 44).

By Christ’s time, the Old Testament canon had been divided into two lists of twenty-two or twenty-four books respectively, each of which contained the same material as the thirty-nine books of our modern Protestant versions. In the twenty-two-book canon, some books were considered as one—for example, the Book of the Twelve (incorporating the twelve so-called Minor Prophets), Jeremiah and Lamentations, Judges and Ruth, and 1 and 2 Samuel.

The same three key tests of canonicity that applied to the Old Testament were also applied to the New Testament. In the case of Mark and Luke-Acts, the nonapostolic authors were considered to be, in effect, the penmen for Peter and Paul, respectively. James and Jude were written by Christ’s own half brothers. While Hebrews is the only New Testament book whose authorship is unknown for certain, its content is so in line with both the Old and New Testaments that the early church concluded that it must have been written by an apostolic associate. Since circa AD 350–400, the twenty-seven books of the New Testament have been universally accepted as inspired by God.

Definition of Canonicity
Canonicity refers to the church’s recognition and acceptance of the books of Scripture as God’s inspired Word. The term itself comes from the Greek word kanōn, which originally meant a “reed” or a “rod.” Since a rod was frequently used as a measuring stick, the word began to convey the idea of a “standard” or “rule.” The word kanōn is used four times in the New Testament, always in a metaphorical sense. Paul employs it three times in 2 Corinthians 10 (vv. 13, 15–16) to refer to a geographical boundary. In Galatians 6:16, he uses it to refer to a moral standard or rule for believers to live by. All this illustrates that by the end of the apostolic age, the term was predominantly understood as a word that referred metaphorically to a rule, a measure, a boundary, or a standard.

It was not until the middle of the fourth century AD that the term was used to speak of the authoritative collection of books recognized as the product of divine inspiration. In fact, Athanasius (295–373) first applied the term canon to Scripture in the Decrees of the Council of Nicaea, published shortly after AD 350. In these writings, he referred to The Shepherd of Hermas as not being part of the canon. Shortly thereafter, the Council of Laodicea used the terms “canonical” and “noncanonical” to refer to individual books either as accepted as part of the Bible or rejected as not inspired by God. It is in this sense that the term has been understood in reference to the Scriptures.

There are two primary ways in which the canon has historically been defined. The traditional view of Roman Catholicism holds that the Bible is an authoritative collection of writings. That is, the Bible contains the books that the church has collected and authoritatively determined and affirmed as Scripture. According to this view, the church decides which books belong in the Bible.

The biblical view understands that the canon is a collection of divinely authoritative writings. It is not the church (or the people of God) that determines which books are inspired by God and are thereby Scripture. The writings themselves are vested with the authority of God on the basis of divine inspiration. They are the Word of God because they were written under the Spirit’s inspiration. The people of God (the church for the New Testament, Israel for the Old Testament) merely recognize the authority present within those writings. Canonicity is based on the fact of inspiration, not the process or agency that did the collecting.

The mid-second century saw the first significant church controversy over the identification of the canon itself. The second-century heretic Marcion (ca. AD 85–160) published his own formal list of what he considered to be authoritative New Testament writings. His canon included a shortened form of Luke’s Gospel, and ten of Paul’s epistles (excluding the Pastorals). Perhaps more than any other event, it was this act on the part of a heretic that compelled the orthodox church to begin to formally answer the question, which books belong in the New Testament canon?

The finalization of the formal process of recognizing the New Testament canon was to a large degree completed by Athanasius (AD 295–373). In his Festal Letter of AD 365, he defined the extent of the New Testament canon as the twenty-seven books of our New Testament today. He also strictly forbade the use of any others as canonical—including the Didache and The Shepherd of Hermas (both of which were debated). These decisions were later ratified by the Council of Hippo in AD 393. Since that time, there has been throughout orthodox Christianity a universal acceptance of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament as canonical.

The external criteria for accepting any book as canonical included the original essential qualifications of (1) apostolic or prophetic authorship evidencing inspiration, (2) consistent doctrinal agreement with existing Scripture, and (3) a universal acceptance by the people of God.

Human authorial credentials are a valid criterion for canonicity. God produced his Word through the agency of divinely authenticated human writers. In the Old Testament, these writers frequently authenticated their message by performing miraculous signs or making prophetic declarations that validated their divine calling. In the New Testament, God produced his Word through the agency or authority of an already authenticated apostle (1 Cor. 14:37–38; Gal. 1:9; 1 Thess. 2:13).

Second, God made it clear from the beginning that any future revelation was to be examined in light of existing Scripture before it was accepted as authentic (Deut. 13:1–5). God has consistently revealed himself throughout the canonical books so that all are in agreement with each other and the whole (Acts 17:11). Coupled with this, God directly limited both canons when he announced the close of each. To close the Old Testament canon, God announced that the next prophet would be the Elijah who was to come (Mal. 4:4–6). In the case of the New Testament, Jesus definitively declared the close of the canon to John (Rev. 22:18–19). So with the passing of the last apostle came the passing of any additional revelation until the Lord returns.

Third, the evidences of inspiration can be divided into two categories: (1) it must be true and truthful in what it says, and (2) there should be evidence in the very reading of the Word that it is able both to convey truth and to convict the human heart of sin (Heb. 4:12). Beyond this, God’s Word should be able to persuade his people corporately to recognize and affirm the authenticity of any given book. Since God’s Spirit inspired the writer to produce a divinely authoritative writing, that same Spirit has attested to it in the hearts of God’s people.

In the end, only God is able to bear adequate witness to himself and to what he has inspired (John 5:33–47; Heb. 6:13). God’s Word attests to itself. It is essential that God’s people learn to discern for themselves from the pages of Scripture how to recognize God’s inspired works. As it relates to both the Old and New Testament canons, there is stunning, definitive, and unanimous affirmation that the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible, and no others, are inspired by God.

God intended his Word to abide forever (preservation). Therefore, his written, propositional self-disclosure (revelation) was protected from error in its original writing (inspiration) and collected in the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments (canonicity).

…

R. C. Sproul:
Historically, the first undertaking for systematic theologians is the study of the incomprehensibility of God. At first glance, such an undertaking appears contradictory; how can one study something that is incomprehensible? However, this pursuit makes sense when we grasp that theologians use the term incomprehensible in a narrower and more precise way than it is used in everyday speech. Theologically speaking, incomprehensible does not mean that we cannot know anything about God but rather that our knowledge of Him will always be limited. We can have an apprehensive, meaningful knowledge of God, but we can never, not even in heaven, have an exhaustive knowledge of Him; we cannot totally comprehend all that He is.

Since the finite cannot grasp the infinite, how can we, as finite human beings, learn anything about God or have any significant or meaningful knowledge of who He is? Calvin said that God in His graciousness and mercy condescends to lisp for our benefit. In other words, He addresses us on our terms and in our own language, just as a parent might coo when talking to an infant. We call it “baby talk”; nevertheless, something meaningful and intelligible is communicated.

Because of these limits imposed by the gulf between the infinite God and finite human beings, the church has had to be careful in how it seeks to describe God.

One of the most common ways to describe God is called the via negationis. A via is a “road” or “way.” The word negationis simply means “negation,” which is a primary way we speak about God. In other words, we describe God by saying what He is not. For example, we have noted that God is infinite, which means “not finite.” Similarly, human beings change over time. They undergo mutations, so they are called “mutable.” God, however, does not change, so He is immutable, which means “not mutable.” Both terms, infinite and immutable, describe God by what He is not.

There are two other ways that systematic theologians speak of God. One is called the via eminentiae, “the way of eminence,” in which we take known human concepts or references to the ultimate degree, such as the terms omnipotence and omniscience. Here, the word for “power,” potentia, and the word for “knowledge,” scientia, are taken to the ultimate degree, omni, and applied to God. He is all-powerful and all-knowing, whereas we are only partially powerful and knowing.

The third way is the via affirmationis, or “way of affirmation,” whereby we make specific statements about the character of God, such as “God is one,” “God is holy,” and “God is sovereign.” We positively attribute certain characteristics to God and affirm that they are true of Him.

One’s concept of God does not come “from below,” from human reasoning about the universe, because human reason is finite in its components and operations, corrupted by indwelling sin, and therefore never able of itself to derive an accurate understanding about God, who is infinite and holy. Proof for God’s existence must come, first and foremost, from God’s testimony about himself. He has provided irrefutable proofs for his existence in the Bible.

John MacArthur:
Because God has revealed the fact of his existence in Scripture, he has given humans statements by which they can have at least some knowledge of him. The Bible makes God knowable to humans, to the extent that the content of the Bible reveals truth about him. Scripture teaches that man may know God truly, yet not exhaustively. In the classical terminology, God is truly knowable but not exhaustively comprehensible.

Though God can be known truly, Scripture also reveals that God is not comprehensively or exhaustively knowable to humans in any aspect of his being or actions. Humans are limited to time and space and in Adam are corrupted by indwelling sin (Rom. 7:15–23), which has made them rebellious toward God and has darkened their understanding of God’s revelation in the Bible and in nature (2 Cor. 4:3–4; Eph. 4:17–19). God is eternal and holy, transcending time and space, infinitely omniscient, and absolutely morally pure. God alone is great. Man was created as a different and inferior order of being. Even in his originally created state, humanity could not know God exhaustively, but after the fall of Adam, even the knowledge humans can have of God is corrupted by sin.

The Bible unmistakably testifies to the fact that God cannot be fully known by humans, even apart from the darkening factor of their internal sinful corruption. Man cannot see God and live (Ex. 33:20; Lev. 16:2). God “dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see” (1 Tim. 6:16; see John 1:18; 6:46). The spiritual form of God’s essence is not revealed (Deut. 4:12, 15). The depths of God are known only by God (1 Cor. 2:11).

Going a step further, God cannot be fully searched out. Psalm 145:3 says, “Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, and his greatness is unsearchable.” The word “unsearchable” is a translation of the Hebrew ’en kheqer, “without searching.” The Hebrew root, khaqar, from which the noun for “searching” comes, is used in the Old Testament of “searching exhaustively.” For example, the same phrase is found in Isaiah 40:28: “Have you not known? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable.” The same root word is used in its verbal form to speak of miners searching exhaustively in the earth for ore: “Man puts an end to darkness and searches out to the farthest limit the ore in gloom and deep darkness” (Job 28:3; cf. Job 11:7–8; 36:26).

Grudem summarizes helpfully:

It is not only true that we can never fully understand God; it is also true that we can never fully understand any single thing about God. His greatness (Ps. 145:3), his understanding (Ps. 147:5), his knowledge (Ps. 139:6), his riches, wisdom, judgments, and ways (Rom. 11:33) are all beyond our ability to understand fully. . . . Thus, we may know something about God’s love, power, wisdom, and so forth. But we can never know his love completely or exhaustively. We can never know his power exhaustively. We can never know his wisdom exhaustively, and so forth. In order to know any single thing about God exhaustively we would need to know it as he himself knows it. That is, we would have to know it in its relationship to everything else about God and in its relationship to everything else about creation throughout eternity! We can only exclaim with David, “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain it” (Ps. 139:6).

He has revealed himself nonverbally to all people through nature, conscience, and history. This is referred to as general or natural revelation, and the Bible strongly affirms it. But knowledge of natural revelation of God must never be considered independent of Scripture, because the Bible shows that, left to his own thinking, man will corrupt the revelation of God in nature. Even the Christian needs the guidance of Scripture to properly assess God’s revelation of himself in nature. John Calvin (1509–1564) graphically portrayed this last point, comparing the Scriptures to “spectacles” that give people a clear manifestation of the true God.

In the final analysis, then, only the gift of saving faith, imparted by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God (Rom. 10:17; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23–25), supplies the basis for the knowledge of God (Heb. 11:1, 6). As Berkhof observes concerning Christians, “Their conviction respecting the existence of God does not depend on them [the ‘natural proofs’], but on a believing acceptance of God’s self-revelation in Scripture.” Christians believe that God exists because God has shone the light of his self-authenticating glory into their hearts through the Word of God.

The most common name for God in the Old Testament is Yahweh, which appears more than 6,800 times and is derived from the tetragrammaton (the four Hebrew consonants transliterated into English as “YHWH”). God revealed this name as “his name” and “my name forever” at the burning bush (Ex. 3:13–15). It speaks of God’s eternal and unchanging nature. As can be seen in Exodus 3:15, the name Yahweh is what God intended by his response to Moses’s question about God’s name in 3:13. God responded by saying, “I am who I am” and “I am” (Ex. 3:14), and then by identifying “Lord” (Yahweh) as “my name forever” (Ex. 3:15). Although this name of God was known before the time of the burning bush (e.g., Gen. 4:26; 5:29; 9:26; 14:22), according to Exodus 6:3, God told Moses concerning Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, “By my name the Lord I did not make myself known to them.” There is no contradiction between these Genesis passages and Exodus 6:3, because the verb for “known” most likely here refers to relational knowledge. When the patriarchs addressed God as Yahweh, they did not relate to God with the understanding that Yahweh was “his name.” Another possible explanation of Exodus 6:3 is to understand “known” as referring to experiential knowledge, meaning that the patriarchs did not have “the full experience of that which lies in the name.”

In considering the names and titles of God, we have already noted many of God’s attributes, or perfections (e.g., eternity, omnipotence). The following discussion considers them more fully in order to describe the indescribable (Isa. 40:28; Rom. 11:33) in basic terms that humans can understand.

The Incommunicable Perfections
With these preliminary observations about the divine perfections and how to study them, we can now define them based on Scripture. In light of the fact that God’s perfections are identical to his essence, and especially based on the implications of this fact, we must not consider these perfections without consciously thinking about how they actively integrate with (i.e., complement and qualify) each other. One must also remember that these perfections are directed first toward God before anything or anyone outside him. The following definitions of divine perfections are accompanied by biblical truths on which these definitions are based.

Independence (Aseity)
God is independent of all things. He is perfectly self-sufficient, not depending on anything outside himself for anything, and is therefore the eternal, foundational being, the source of life and sustenance for all other beings.

Immutability
God’s immutability is his perfect unchangeability in his essence, character, purpose, and promises. A good way to understand God’s apparent changes in Scripture is to consider that God reveals himself in his relations to people. They perceive only one aspect of God at a time. God never changes, but creatures do change, and they perceive God’s perfections and actions according to their current state. Thus, God’s actions do not imply a change of essence or purpose.

For example, the language of God “repenting” or “changing” in any way is anthropopathic language—figurative expressions that communicate to man on his level of understanding about changes of dispositions or actions. Thus, God’s perceived “changes” are always in the context of his eternal omniscience and will, so they are never because God is surprised and has to adjust. They are done in harmony with his truth and faithfulness (see 1 Sam. 15:29). All his acts that might be perceived as changes are eternally foreknown and predetermined.

Infinity
God’s infinity describes his nature as perfectly transcending (existing and acting beyond) all limitations of time and space. God’s infinitude with regard to time is called his eternity or omnitemporality, and his infinitude with regard to space is called his immensity or omnipresence.

Eternity
God perfectly transcends all limitations of time, so that he is without beginning, without ending, and without succession of moments in the experience of his being and in his consciousness of all other reality. In other words, in his experience of himself and all reality outside himself, God is not limited by the moments of time.

Immensity and Omnipresence
God is perfectly present with himself, transcending all limitation of space, and yet present with every point of space with all that he is. Transcendance means that God is greater than and independent of the creation. Immensity refers to the fact that God transcends and fills all space. And omnipresence indicates that God is present with every point of space in his entire being.

Omniscience
God’s omniscience is his perfect knowing of himself, all actual things outside himself, and all things that do not become reality in one eternal and simple (not having any parts but having distinctions) act (exertion of energy). One should note that this definition does not say that God knows things that are “possible,” because in God’s eternal mind and plan there are only actual things, not possible things. He does know what would have occurred if circumstances had been different, but since in his mind and plan they never would occur, they are not “possibilities.” Only what is in God’s plan is “possible,” because only that could ever become reality in time. From the history of the Greek verb proginōskō (the word behind the New Testament concept of God’s foreknowledge) and the biblical evidence of God’s omniscience, theologians extend the concept of foreknowledge to cover his intimate and intentional knowledge of all things before they become actual in time and space. As proof of this more general foreknowledge, one could point to predictive prophecy (e.g., Isa. 41:22–26; 42:9; 43:9–12; 44:7; 46:10).

However, when used to depict God’s foreknowledge, the verb proginōskō and the noun prognōsis are used of God’s perfectly purposed relational knowledge of everyone who is in his redemptive plan before they exist in time and space. Understood in this way, especially from the New Testament, God’s foreknowledge is soteriological. God foreknew elect Israelites as his covenant people (Rom. 11:2); Jesus Christ as crucified and resurrected (Acts 2:23–24; 1 Pet. 1:18–20); and all Christians as predestined, chosen, called, believing, sanctified, justified, and glorified (Rom. 8:29; 1 Pet. 1:2). God’s foreknowledge is not passive, dependent on foresight of what humans would do. Rather, it is eternally purposed by God. Paul asserted that God “foreknew” (Gk. proginōskō) only those whom he also “predestined,” “called,” “justified,” and “glorified” (Rom. 8:29–30). It is important to note that in Romans 8:28, these people were “called according to his purpose.” In this context, God’s foreknowing is divinely purposed, foreknowing only those who would be effectually called in time to saving faith in Christ. When the New Testament speaks of God foreknowing, the object is always people rather than facts, and these people are always objects of his redemption.

Omnipotence
God’s omnipotence describes his ability to do anything consistent with his nature. What God Cannot Do. There are things that Scripture says God is unable to do because they would contradict his character or revealed will: repent (like a man) or lie (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Heb. 6:18); deny himself (2 Tim. 2:13); be tempted (so that he succumbs) (James 1:13); or change in his essence, purposes, or promises (James 1:17; Mal. 3:6).

Correct Distinctions in God’s Power. While recognizing distinctions in God’s power, one must distinguish between faulty and biblical ways of describing them.

Faulty distinction. In the history of thought, many have contended that God has absolute power in the sense that he is able to do anything, including sinning, suffering, dying, changing himself into a stone or animal, changing bread into the body of Christ, making contradictory things, changing the past, and making the true false or the false true. Others have said that God can do only what he wills (ordinate power).

Biblical distinction. Scripture reveals that God in his power is (technically) able to do more than what actually occurs but that his power operates within the context of his will and all his other perfections (Gen. 18:14; Jer. 32:27; Zech. 8:6; Matt. 3:9; 19:26; 26:53; Luke 1:37; 18:27; Eph. 3:20). So the correct distinction in God’s power is that he has a theoretically absolute power to do more than what he actually does but not anything inconsistent with his essence. The only real divine power is God’s “ordinate power,” that is, his ability to do everything that he has decreed he will do. Since God’s decree is the result of all his perfections, then he would only do what he has decreed he will do. Therefore, his ability is confined to what he eternally wills to do.

Perfection
The perfection of God speaks not only of his moral perfection—that is, that he is perfectly holy, just, and good—but also that God is the sum total of all conceivable perfections.

The Communicable Perfections

Spirituality and Invisibility
God’s spirituality and invisibility describe his perfect lack of material in the divine essence, so that his essence cannot be perceived by the physical senses. What about the Hope of Seeing God? The invisibility of God seems to contradict the hope that believers have of seeing God after the resurrection (Job 19:26; Ps. 17:15; Matt. 5:8; 1 John 3:2; Rev. 22:4). Past Christians have called this sight “the beatific vision.” How is it that humans, even after receiving their resurrection bodies, will “see” God’s “face”? The answer should take into account that, even in their resurrection bodies, people will still be human and therefore will still have finite form and capacities. Yet in heaven and in the eternal state, believers will not have any corruption caused by indwelling sin, so they will have a greater perception of God, because their spiritual vision will be greater. The statements about seeing God and his face in the future should be interpreted as relating to a comparatively greater spiritual vision of God’s revelation of himself, not as a physical vision of his essence. In the eternal state, the believer’s spiritual perception of God will reach beyond what physical senses can see. (On this, see John 14:7–9, where Jesus describes how one can see God in a mediated way without seeing every aspect of him; cf. 1 John 3:2.) In Scripture, God’s “face” (e.g., Matt. 18:10) is an anthropomorphism for God’s external mediation of his presence. God’s “face” is not his essence.

Wisdom
God’s wisdom is his perfect knowledge of how to act skillfully so that he will accomplish all his good pleasure—to glorify himself. This definition is based on the Hebrew word for “wisdom,” hokmah, which can mean “skill.”

Truth and Faithfulness
God’s truth and faithfulness are the perfect correspondence of God’s nature with what God should be, with the reliability of his words and deeds, and with the accuracy of his knowledge, thoughts, and words.

Goodness
God’s goodness is that he is the perfect sum, source, and standard (for himself and his creatures) of that which is wholesome (conducive to well-being), virtuous, beneficial, and beautiful.

Love
God’s perfect love is his determination to give of himself to himself and to others, and is his affection for himself and his people. This definition affirms that God has affections or emotions, but once again, it is necessary to note that God’s affections are not passions by which he is driven but active principles by which God expresses his holy dispositions. God is not unfeeling or incapable of compassion; however, it is a subbiblical understanding of God’s affections that conceives of God as being surprised by emotional fluctuations.

Grace
God’s grace describes God as perfectly bestowing favor on those who cannot merit it because they have forsaken it and are under the sentence of divine condemnation. Grace is simply “favor” (Heb. khen; Gk. charis), so in itself it does not include any basis in merit or lack of merit. God always favors himself before anything or anyone else.

Mercy
God’s mercy describes him as perfectly having deep compassion for creatures (people), such that he demonstrates benevolent goodness to those in a pitiable or miserable condition, even though they do not deserve it. This definition is partly based on the words used in the original text of the Bible for “mercy” (Heb. rakhamim; Gk. eleos, oiktirmos). As with grace, this perfection does not consider the merit or lack of merit of the people to whom God gives mercy.

Longsuffering
God’s longsuffering speaks of his being perfectly placid in himself and toward sinners in spite of their continual disobedience and disregard for his warnings. God does not “lose his temper” but rather acts calmly with proper affection according to his eternal sovereign plan. Tranquility implies not that God lacks affections but rather that God’s affections do not overwhelm him or cause him to act against his nature.

Holiness
God’s holiness is his inherent and absolute greatness, in which he is perfectly distinct above everything outside himself and is absolutely morally separate from sin. This definition is centered on the concept of separation, which is signified by the Hebrew and Greek words for “holy” (Heb. qadosh; Gk. hosios, hagios).

Jealousy
God’s jealousy is his zealous protectiveness of all that belongs to him (himself, his name, his glory, his people, his sole right to receive worship and ultimate obedience, his land, and his city).

Will
God’s will is his perfect determination and sovereign ordination of all things, pertaining both to himself (including his decrees and actions) and to his creation (including the events of history and the thoughts and actions of people), all unto the magnification of his utmost glory.

Question. Does the Bible’s teaching present a problem with apparent contradictions within the will of God?
1. God wills what man should do (Matt. 7:21; 12:50; John 4:34; 7:17; Rom. 12:2), but God also wills what man does (Ps. 115:3; Dan. 4:17, 25, 32, 35; Rom. 9:18–19; Eph. 1:5, 9, 11; Rev. 4:11). At times it seems that God’s will for man conflicts with his will in his own actions. For instance, he wills man to obey, but he hardens man in disobedience and unbelief (Ex. 4:21; 7:3–5; Rom. 9:17–19).
2. God wills that Abraham sacrifice his son, and then God prevents Abraham from slaying his son (Gen. 22:1–14).
3. God wills that Hezekiah die, but then extends his life fifteen years (2 Kings 20:1–11; Isa. 38:1, 5).
4. God wills that the righteous not be condemned, but Jesus was delivered up for crucifixion by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God—and God held Israel responsible for the murder of the Messiah (Acts 2:23; 3:18; 4:27–28).
5. God hates sin, not willing that it exist, according to his precepts, but nevertheless ordaining that it exist and controlling it by his meticulous providence (Ex. 4:21; Josh. 11:20; 1 Sam. 2:25; 2 Sam. 16:10; Habakkuk 1; Acts 2:23; 4:27–28; Rom. 1:24, 26, 28; 2 Thess. 2:11). He even ordained Adam and Eve to disobey in the garden and Satan to afflict Job (Job 42:11; cf. Eph. 1:11).
6. God wills the salvation of everyone in one sense (Ezek. 18:23, 32; 33:11) but in another sense wills that some have saving mercy and that some be hardened.

The solution to these apparent contradictions is found in the distinction between two aspects of God’s will: his decretive and preceptive will.

Decretive will. Some have called this God’s “secret will,” and yet while its full extent is hidden, aspects of it are revealed (e.g., predictive prophecy).

This is God’s good pleasure, his eternal, unchangeable counsel or decree in which he has foreordained all things. God’s decretive will characterizes all of God’s essence, so it is eternal, immutable, independent, and omnipotent (Pss. 33:11; 115:3; Isa. 36:10; Dan. 4:25, 35; Matt. 11:25–26; Rom. 9:18; Eph. 1:4; Rev. 4:11). This does not mean that he is the immediate or efficient cause of all things but that all things exist or occur by his eternal sovereign decree. God’s decretive will makes everything certain, but he does not coerce his creatures to do anything. He ordains the free choices of men. As the Westminster Confession (3.1) states, “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”

Thus, sin is in God’s overall plan. He does not condone his creatures’ disobedience, nor is he the immediate or efficient cause of sin (James 1:13). He does not delight in the existence of sin in itself, but he ordains it by his decree in order to accomplish the most wise and holy end of bringing ultimate glory to himself (Rom. 5:20–21; 9:17–24).

One should bear in mind two cautions about God’s decretive will. First, whenever God’s decretive will includes sin, that sin is certain to occur, but it will be initiated by the volition of the sinner. And second, God’s meticulous providence includes him upholding the various natural processes and even crafting (without compromising his holiness) the circumstances of an individual’s decision to sin.

Preceptive will. This consists of God’s precepts in the law and in the gospel for man’s conduct (Matt. 7:21; 12:50; John 7:17; Rom. 12:2; 1 Thess. 4:3–8; 5:18; Heb. 13:21; 1 John 2:17). It is often called God’s “revealed” or “signified” will. At times the decretive will and the preceptive will coincide, but often as part of his decretive will, God ordains that the creature disobey his preceptive will. God reveals his preceptive will by means of Scripture’s commands, prohibitions, warnings, chastenings, and judgments. God’s preceptive will is God’s will only in a prescriptive sense. His decretive will is the perfection that results in actual occurrences. The preceptive will reveals not what God will do but what he demands of people.

God has included sin in his plan, forbidding man to sin yet using sin as a means of bringing the greatest amount of glory to himself (Gen. 50:20; Acts 2:23). In both his decretive will and his preceptive will, God does not take pleasure in sin, nor does he absolutely determine to save all people (e.g., Ezek. 33:11 should be classed under God’s preceptive will). God’s decretive will is executed by means of his preceptive will.

God’s decretive will and preceptive will must be held in tension. To deny his preceptive will is to commit injustice against God’s holiness and to ignore the gravity of sin, but to deny God’s decretive will is to deny his omniscience, wisdom, omnipotence, and sovereignty.

Blessedness
God’s blessedness speaks of God as being perfectly delighted with himself. This definition reflects the Greek word makarios, which has the meaning of happiness due to a sense of great privilege. These words are represented by the Latin beatus, which is the word from which we derive the English words beatify, beatitude, and blessed. Since God is absolutely perfect, sovereign, and unhindered in all his purposes and works to glorify his name, he is supremely happy—the happiest being conceivable.

Glory
God’s glory refers to the consummate beauty of the totality of his perfections. It is his supreme significance and splendor. This definition reflects the Hebrew words for “glory,” kabod, hod, and hadar. The word kabod has the sense of “weight” and, in figurative extension, “significance.” The words hod and hadar have the sense of “splendor.” The Greek word for “glory,” doxa, also has the primary meaning of “splendor” or “brightness.”

The Trinity
The key defining statements are captured in this phrase: “We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the Substance.” The doctrine of the Trinity, simply put, is that God is absolutely and eternally one essence subsisting in three distinct and ordered persons without division and without replication of the essence.

The Trinity is a mystery in two senses. It is a mystery in the biblical sense in that it is a truth that was hidden until revealed. But it is also a mystery in that, in its essence, it is suprarational, ultimately beyond human comprehension. It is only partly intelligible to man, because God has revealed it in Scripture and in Jesus Christ. But it has no analogy in human experience, and its core elements (three coequal persons, each possessing the complete, simple divine essence, and each eternally relating to the other two without ontological subordination) transcend man’s reason.

Consequently, the doctrine must be accepted by faith, based on how the Godhead is revealed in Scripture. And it must be articulated in such a way that the essence of God is not divided and that the distinctions and the coequality of being between the three persons are not compromised. The doctrine of the Trinity needs both positive and negative theology.

Agents may properly be said to be free so long as their acts are uncoerced. People are free to act within the confines of their nature. Since all men are fallen in Adam, their nature is corrupted by sin, and they are therefore not free to choose righteousness. Nevertheless, they still freely make their moral choices according to their thinking and desires. Those choices arise from a fallen human nature, which is fundamentally opposed to obeying God. So people act freely in their sin and are not coerced by God to act against their nature. God’s decree extends to the uncoerced choices of agents free to act within the bounds of their nature (cf., e.g., Gen. 50:19–20; Acts 2:23; 4:27–28).

It must be admitted that sin is a part of God’s eternal plan, for he works all things according the counsel of his will (Eph. 1:11). This includes the greatest sin in human history: the murder of the Son of God (cf. Acts 2:22–23; 4:27–28). God did not merely permit history: the murder of the Son of God (cf. Acts 2:22–23; 4:27–28). God did not merely permit the crucifixion; he purposefully and wisely ordained it unto his honor and glory. Similarly, he did not merely allow Joseph’s brothers to sell him into slavery in Egypt but meant their sinful action for his most wise and holy ends (Gen. 45:5–8; 50:20).

Nevertheless, while God ordains the evil choices of free moral agents, he does not thereby incur blame or wickedness, because he does not directly or efficiently cause any evil. He brings about the evil actions of man through secondary causation according to their own wicked desires.

The second major aspect of God’s providence is his concurrence in all events. God’s concurrence is his operation with created things, causing them (whether acting directly or ordaining them through secondary causes), through their properties, to act.

Examples in Scripture abound. Joseph said that God, not his brothers, sent him to Egypt (Gen. 45:5–8). The Lord (Yahweh) said that he would be with Moses’s mouth to enable him to speak for God (Ex. 4:11–12). The Lord promised to deliver the enemies to Joshua and the people of Israel—the Israelites still had to attack, but the Lord gave them a great victory (Josh. 11:6). God turns a king’s heart to do as God wills (Prov. 21:1), and the Lord turned the heart of the king of Assyria to help the people in building the temple (Ezra 6:22). The Lord gave the people of Israel the ability to acquire wealth (Deut. 8:18). God works in believers “to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13). God has ordered evil acts, such as when he moved Shimei to curse David (2 Sam. 16:11). He used Assyria to chastise his people (Isa. 10:5). He “put” a lying spirit in the mouths of Ahab’s prophets (1 Kings 22:23).

God’s concurrence in all events does not implicate him in sin. Men sin according to God’s predetermination in his decree but by secondary causes, so God does not directly and effectively cause the acts of sin (Gen. 45:5–8; 50:19–20; Ex. 10:1, 20; 2 Sam. 16:10–11; Isa. 10:5–7; Acts 2:23; 4:27–28). Also, God often restrains sin (Job 1:12; 2:6) or turns an evil act so it has good effects (Gen. 50:20; Ps. 76:10; Acts 3:13).

God’s use of second causes (indirect causes) helps explain his concurrence in events. The dynamics of nature do not function by themselves, but God provides their energy in every act (contra deism). Second causes are real, not identical to God’s power, or else there is no concurrence of the First Cause (God) with second causes (created things). God does more than simply give the energy to second causes to do something; he directs the actions of second causes to his intended end. In this way, God, not man, is in control. Of course, God can also work by direct causation if he so chooses.

This concurrence is not a cooperative synergism, which would involve partial participation by both God and man. Rather, both are entirely engaged in causing this action. God’s will is ultimately behind the act, and he provides energy. But man as the second cause initiates the action in time, in response to God’s direct causation or in response to man’s own desires as stimulated by circumstances. The concurrence is initiated by God, and he has the priority in the action, or else man would be independently sovereign in his actions. God’s concurrence is logically prior to human action and predetermines everything outside God. The arrangement is never that man initiates an act and that God joins in after the initiation. God provides not energy in general but actual energy to do specific acts in his decree.

God’s concurrence is also simultaneous. Man never works independently of God in anything. God always accompanies man with his (God’s) effectual will, yet without coercing man to violate his nature in any act. There is a simultaneous working, and the act is the product of both causes (God and man), though in different ways. As Berkhof describes it, “This divine activity accompanies the action of man at every point, but without robbing man in any way of his freedom. The action remains the free act of man, an act for which he is held responsible.”

One of the most persistent arguments against the existence of God is based on the existence of physical and moral evil in the world. The question that many unbelievers voice is, if God is real, perfectly good, and omnipotent, how can evil exist? John Frame details the classic “problem of evil” as follows:

Premise 1: If God were all-powerful, he would be able to prevent evil.
Premise 2: If God were all-good, he would desire to prevent evil.
Conclusion: So, if God were both all-powerful and all-good, there would be no evil.
Premise 3: But there is evil.
Conclusion: Therefore, there is no all-powerful, all-good God.

The problem of evil has in view both physical evil (e.g., catastrophes, illness, pain, death) and moral evil (sin).

The Christian response to the problem of evil is called theodicy, which comes from the Greek words theos and dikē. These words combined mean “judicial hearing of God” (for dikē, see 2 Thess. 1:9; Jude 7), or the “justification of God.” Theodicy involves a vindication of God’s justice against the charge that the presence of evil in creation shows him to be unjust, impotent, both, or nonexistent. Theodicy declares that God is all-powerful and all-good even though this might not seem to be the case since evil exists in the creation.

The only proper theodicy comes from the Bible. When God is the One being charged before the court of human opinion, the Word of God provides a sufficient defense. God provides his own theodicy as he is revealed in his Word. John Frame has set forth principles of establishing God and his Word as the theodicy that is the legitimate response to the problem of evil.

Scripture never assumes that God must explain his actions but rather asserts that he has the right to be trusted. In the Genesis 3 account of the beginning of moral and physical evil, God does not explain the origin of evil in Satan or how Adam and Eve could sin in a perfect world. Adam implied that God was at fault, but God did not defend himself and instead condemned Adam. In the Genesis 22 account of the sacrifice of Isaac, God does not explain how his command to sacrifice Isaac harmonizes with his goodness. According to Exodus 33:19, God will not submit to man’s judgment but will show grace and mercy to whomever he wills without needing to explain his actions.

In Job 38–41, after Job’s friends have blamed him for being the cause of his suffering, and after Job has expressed his desire to appeal to God, God asks the questions, asserting that man is incapable of understanding God’s workings in distributing good and evil. God never explains why Job had to suffer. And the book of Job never explains why Job had to suffer as a response to Satan’s charges. Job wanted to question God but was questioned by God. In Ezekiel 18:25–30, God does not defend himself against Israel’s charge of injustice but rather condemns Israel for injustice.

In the parable of the laborers in the vineyard in Matthew 20:1–16, the master does not defend himself against the charge of unfairly distributing payment but reverses the charge on the accusers. Divine sovereignty is thus asserted. The master presents his word as reliable. Proper perspective shows the generosity of the master, not any unfairness.

Similarly, in Romans 3:4–6, Paul does not ask questions about God’s fairness but rather rebukes such questions by asserting God’s rights as the sovereign Lord. In Romans 9:15–20, Paul affirms God’s sovereign right to do as he pleases; to question God is disrespectful “back talk.” According to Paul, man is disobedient in complaining against God. God is not obligated to explain his actions so as to satisfy human intellect with respect to the problem of evil. God’s sovereignty must always be reaffirmed. God’s Word is absolutely reliable, and Scripture is clear: God is holy, not unjust.

Second, God gives perspective on the present. Scripture shows us that God has always used and is now presently using evil to fulfill his purposes for good. The solution of the problem of evil must be theocentric, not anthropocentric. It must not have as its aim to make man happier or freer but to glorify God. The greater-good defense is valid only if the greater good is seen as that which glorifies God more fully than a lesser good. Man’s happiness comes only through God-glorifying ways: obedience, self-denial, and suffering while anticipating final glory. When God’s greater good of divine glorification is accomplished, believers and all creation (excluding unbelievers) will have their own greater good (Rom. 8:28).

Third, God gives perspective on the future. Scripture promises that God will be finally vindicated and believers fully delivered from evil. In the future, suffering will end in glory for believers, and prosperity will end in judgment for the wicked (Psalm 73; Isaiah 40; Matthew 25; Luke 1:46–55). When God seems unjust in the present, one needs to wait for God’s glory and judgment (Hab. 2:2–3) and remember his past acts (Hab. 3:1–18). In the future consummation, no one will doubt God’s justice and mercy. Not that he will give a final, exhaustive theoretical theodicy, but when he is revealed to all in the second advent of Christ, all doubts will be transformed into ashamed silence or reverential praise. And when Christ reigns in perfect righteousness, there will be no more problem of evil. If one believes in the final divine vindication, one needs only to trust now that the problem of evil is solved in the mind and sovereign counsel of God. So Scripture responds to the problem of evil not with philosophical reasoning but with divine reassurance of final divine vindication. All Christians should follow this pattern in articulating a theodicy to the world in the present.

The following biblical principles explain how all this can be true:

1. God predetermines all events (Eph. 1:11).
2. The fall resulted in physical difficulties and catastrophes (Isa. 45:7; Rom. 8:20–22).
3. God predetermines sin but makes man accountable for his sin (Acts 2:23; 4:27–28; 14:16).
4. God hardens sinners in sin (Rom. 9:18).
5. God never tempts people to sin (James 1:13).
6. God is never blamed in Scripture for sin or portrayed as enjoying the sin he permits (Ps. 5:4).
7. God never coerces man to sin but ordains that man sin freely and thus be culpable (James 1:14–15).
8. God controls people’s sin, working mysteriously through secondary causes (2 Sam. 24:1, 10; 1 Chron. 21:1).
9. God is glorified in his justice when he causes calamities and judges sin (Isa. 45:5–7; Ezek. 28:22; John 9:2–5).
10. God has graciously provided salvation from sin for those who believe in Christ (Rom. 3:24–26).

By analogy God is to Christians as the sun is to the moon. As the sun is the exclusive source of light, so God is the sole source of glory; as the moon reflects light, so believers reflect God’s glory. Because God’s image in man was fractured by the fall, sinful humans refract God’s glory more than they reflect it back to him. But once believers begin to be transformed into the same image at the moment of salvation, they reflect more than they refract. Thus, God’s glory is more and more returned to him just as he transmitted it to his beloved ones. That’s how Christians can give to God something that he alone possesses and shares with no one (Isa. 42:8; 48:11).

…

John MacArthur:

Pre-incarnate Christ
What kind of existence did Christ have prior to his incarnation? In other words, what was the state of his preexistence in his deity alone before he took on humanity? The second person of the Trinity resided in heaven and came to earth from heaven at the moment of the miraculous conception of his human nature in the womb of the Virgin Mary (Matt. 1:18–25; Luke 1:26–38). He was sent by the first person of the Trinity (God the Father) as a result of God’s love for mankind: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him” (John 3:16–17). The Son came down from heaven (John 3:31) when the Father sent him (John 6:38; 17:3; 1 John 4:9). The arrival of the Son on earth at the incarnation demonstrates that his prior existence was in heaven.

The second person of the Godhead existed before the creation of the universe. Indeed, the Bible identifies him as the Creator: “All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3; see 1:10; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16–17; Heb. 1:2, 10). The Creator of all things must exist prior to his act of creation—before the existence of all created things. Thus, the Scriptures testify to the fact that he possessed divine glory “before the world existed” (John 17:5). In that preincarnate existence within the Godhead, the second person of the Trinity experienced the first person’s love (John 17:24). The persons of the Godhead exercised this divine, communicable attribute among themselves throughout eternity past.

The second person of the Godhead is eternal in his nature and existence. The clearest biblical statement appears in John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

An incarnational view of Christ’s sonship assumes that Scripture employs father-son terminology anthropomorphically—accommodating unfathomable heavenly truths to our finite minds by casting them in human terms. But human father-son relationships are merely earthly pictures of an infinitely greater heavenly reality. In the eternal sonship view, the one true, archetypal father-son relationship exists eternally within the Trinity. All others are simply earthly replicas, imperfect because they are bound up in mankind’s finiteness yet illustrating a vital eternal reality.

Incarnate Christ
In his incarnation, Christ voluntarily yielded the independent exercise of his divine attributes to the will of his heavenly Father. The biblical basis for this fact is found in Philippians 2:5–7:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

Drawing from the Greek word for “emptied himself,” kenoō, theologians have chosen to refer to this concept as the “kenosis” or “emptying.” The apostle Paul refers to a voluntary act involving the incarnation whereby the Son of God took on himself the form of a slave (Gk. doulos). The clause “though he was in the form of God” (Phil. 2:6) speaks about Christ’s preexistent state, as well as about his humiliation.

The declaration that Christ “was in the form [Gk. morphē] of God” (Phil. 2:6) must be understood as a reference to the reality of Christ’s deity, just as “taking the form [morphē] of a slave” (Phil. 2:7, author’s trans.) speaks about the reality of his slavery. “Form” (morphē) does not mean that Christ became a slave only in appearance, nor that he was God merely in external appearance. Paul does not use the usual Greek word for “being” here.

Instead, the apostle employs another term that stresses the essence of a person’s nature—his continuous state or condition. He also uses the Greek word for “form” that specifically denotes the essential, unchanging character of something—what it is in and of itself. The mind of Christ “is revealed in two sublime self-renunciatory acts, the one described as a kenōsis, the other as a tapeinōsis. In the former He ‘emptied himself,’ stooping from God to humanity; in the latter He ‘humbled himself,’ stooping from humanity to death.”

The announcement of the victorious “offspring” (or seed) of the woman in Genesis 3:15 implies that this individual will not be the offspring of a man (see Gal. 4:4). Thus, the very first messianic prophecy directs attention to the woman, unlike the genealogy of Genesis 5, which lists only fathers. By omitting any relationship to Adam, God suggests that the promised offspring will not partake of Adam’s sin. As the first Adam was fathered by God (see Luke 3:38, “Adam, the son of God”), so the second Adam, Jesus Christ, was fathered by God, not by a human male (Matt. 1:18–20). Matthew emphasizes this juxtaposition of the first Adam with the second Adam in the way he introduces his Gospel: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ . . .” (Matt. 1:1). This is the same phraseology found only elsewhere in Genesis 5:1

The Hypostatic Union. In AD 325, the Council of Nicaea affirmed Scripture’s revelation of Jesus being truly God. Then in AD 451, the Council of Chalcedon agreed that Jesus was at the same time human and divine, involving a “hypostatic union” of the two natures without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation. The Apostles’ Creed (fifth century AD) thus states, “I believe in . . . Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary.” In other words, the hypostatic union consists of the two natures of Christ in one theanthropic (God-man) person. This union maintains Christ’s deity undiminished and his humanity unexalted.

The hypostatic union is distinct from the virgin birth and from the incarnation. The incarnation refers to the whole concept of God manifesting himself in human flesh. The virgin birth constituted the means by which the incarnation was accomplished. As Charles Feinberg once explained, “The hypostatic union is that which was effected and brought into being by the incarnation.” The hypostatic union differs from theophanies in that there were multiple, temporary theophanies, while the existence of two natures in Christ since his incarnation is eternal. He is now and forever the God-man.

Over the years some have asked, was Christ able to sin in thought or deed? Two main answers to this question have been represented by two Latin phrases.  The Latin phrase describing Jesus’s impeccability is non posse peccare (“not able to sin”). That concept contrasts with posse non peccare (“able not to sin”), which implies that Jesus could have sinned but kept himself from doing so. To be clear, peccability and impeccability are not synonyms for sinfulness and sinlessness. The former does not presuppose a sin nature. Both views admit that Jesus did not sin (1 John 3:5).

The peccability position asserts that Christ could have sinned even though he did not. This is by far the minority view among theologians today. Arguments include the following:

1. The full humanity of Christ: If Christ in his incarnation assumed full humanity with all its attributes, he must have had the ability to sin, since by itself, unfallen human nature is capable of sinning, as the fall of Adam and Eve shows (Gen. 3:1–6).
2. Christ’s ability to be tempted: Christ was tempted in all points as others are (Heb. 4:15). He endured numerous temptations throughout his life (Matt. 4:1–11), and the ability to be tempted implies the ability to sin. This argument is the one peccability advocates appeal to most often.
3. The free will of Christ: That Christ had, as Adam did before the fall, a free will implies peccability.

Peccability advocates see much at stake in this debate, preeminently the reality of Christ’s humanity, his temptation, and a truly sympathetic priesthood. They assert that all the above are compromised if Christ had no ability to sin.

The Scripture, however, argues for the impeccability of Christ. The impeccability position asserts that Christ was unable to sin. This is by far the majority view within the evangelicalism of past and present.

The miracles that Jesus produced sometimes resulted in belief (John 2:11; 9:30–33; 11:45) or created a willingness in Jesus’s hearers to listen to his teachings (Mark 12:37; Luke 5:15). The vast majority, however, rejected Jesus despite his miracles. Miracles do not necessarily convince people to believe in the Lord or in his gospel message (Matt. 13:58; Luke 16:31; John 2:23–25; 12:37; 15:24). Those who rejected (and who now also reject) his miracles will be severely judged (Matt. 10:1–15; Luke 10:1–15).

Jesus Christ’s miracles demonstrate his deity, his supernatural origin, his power as Creator, and his authority as the sovereign Lord of all creation. His ministry confronted the antisupernatural worldview of his day and equally confronts the present world with the blindness of selling out to the uniformitarian naturalism of secular scientists. “It is impossible to remove the supernatural elements from Jesus’s life and work, as anti-supernaturalist critics have attempted to do. The historical Jesus of Nazareth and the divine Christ are inseparably linked, for they are one and the same person. Jesus was and is the God-man.”

The wedding at Cana became the occasion for the first and most memorable example of the miracle-working power that Jesus displayed during his ministry (John 2:1–11). Jesus commanded the servants to fill large stone waterpots (John 2:7), so they filled them to their brims. The large amount of water (120–180 gallons) would provide an abundance of wine for the rest of the wedding celebration. Jesus’s transformation of the water into wine was instantaneous—the servants immediately distributed it to the guests. The miracle consisted of creating out of nonliving water a wine that could only come from the fruit of living grapevines. The normal process of fermentation, or aging, took place instantaneously. Jesus demonstrated that he was the same Creator who instantly created mature living things out of nonliving earth during the six days of creation (Gen. 1:1–31). Denial of instantaneous creation in Genesis 1 must, to be consistent, likewise deny the miracle by which Jesus created the wine at Cana. Rejecting his miracle at Cana results in rejecting Jesus as the God-man and as the Redeemer.

There exists no greater event in redemption history than the resurrection of Christ, because it completes and validates his sacrificial death and advances the program of the kingdom with an eternally living King. The resurrection must be believed in order for someone to experience salvation (Rom. 10:9–10).

Christ is God’s ultimate manifestation of God’s special revelation.

…

John MacArthur:
Biblically speaking, there can be no doubt about the Holy Spirit’s existence in that he is mentioned over 320 times. But is the Holy Spirit a person, like God the Father and God the Son? Personhood is not measured by physical elements such as body parts, flesh, blood, and bones. Rather, it is determined by the possession of three basic characteristics: (1) cognition/intellect, (2) volition/will, and (3) emotion/affection. The Bible provides more than sufficient evidence that the Holy Spirit possesses all three essentials of personhood. Thus, the Spirit can be classified as the third person of the triune Godhead.

…Scripture also identifies those people who counterfeit their profession of faith in Christ—outwardly and temporarily giving the appearance of being truly regenerated by the Spirit, only to eventually fall away and abandon the faith (e.g., Heb. 2:1–3; 3:7–13; 6:4–6; 2 Pet. 2:20). This is apostasy, a term that means “to fall away.” Professing Christians who identify themselves with Christ and then subsequently renounce him prove themselves to have never truly been converted, demonstrating by their going out from the fellowship of the faith that they were never really in Christ (cf. 1 John 2:19). Peter wrote that for these spiritual impostors, their last state becomes worse than the first, and that it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than to have known and then turned away (2 Pet. 2:20–21). This is because it is impossible for someone who has truly abandoned the faith in the light of full revelation to be renewed again unto repentance (Heb. 6:4–6). Similar to the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, apostasy consists of a hard-hearted, resolute rejection of Christ and of regarding as false the truth of God, from which there is a point of no return, so to speak.

In order to be clear about what Spirit baptism is and is not, the following list provides a series of contrasting positive and negative statements:

1. Spirit baptism is a gracious gift from God; it is not something to be sought after, agonized over, or prayed for.
2. Spirit baptism is exclusively associated with regeneration/salvation; it is not normative for it to be associated with the temporary sign gift of tongues or with other miraculous gifts limited to the apostolic era.
3. Spirit baptism is a permanent, one-time event; it is not a reversible or recurring event.
4. Spirit baptism is evidence of one’s salvation; it is not by itself the measure of one’s spiritual maturity.
5. Spirit baptism is an initial blessing and an enduring result of salvation; it is not a second work of grace or second blessing.
6. Spirit baptism is inseparably linked to salvation; it is not detached from or subsequent to salvation.
7. Spirit baptism is sovereignly initiated by Christ; it is not obtained by any act of a believer.
8. Spirit baptism is assumed by the New Testament to be the Christ-provided experience of every believer; it is never commanded of believers to acquire or retain it.
9. Spirit baptism is experienced by every Christian from Pentecost to the present time; it was not an experience of either Old Testament or Gospel-era believers.
10. Spirit baptism includes every believer; it is not limited to the spiritually mature.
11. Spirit baptism freely grants entrance into the universal body of Christ; it is not based on subsequent individual spiritual achievement.
12. Spirit baptism is distinct from, though associated with, indwelling and filling; it is not to be equated with either one.

Holy Spirit baptism is a positional act, taking place in the life of every Christian concurrently with regeneration. The texts in Acts that refer to a postconversion baptism of the Spirit are associated with the transitional nature of the period described in Acts. First Corinthians 12:13 records the normative doctrine of Spirit baptism, stating that it results in a new position in the body of Christ for all Christians at the moment of faith in Christ. It can be inferred from the fleshly nature of the Corinthian Christians, to whom Paul wrote this passage, that it does not necessarily have any influence on subsequent holiness. The church, the spiritual body of Christ, is formed as believers are immersed by Christ in the Spirit and united with all other Christians beginning with Pentecost. Holy Spirit baptism is not an experience to seek but rather a salvation reality for which to thank God.

Three distinct word groups in the New Testament synonymously describe salvation in terms of that which is past, present, and future.

1. “Salvation,” “sanctification,” and “completion”/“perfection” can be used synonymously in Scripture as word groups with significant salvific importance.
2. Salvation is part of sanctification in its broadest sense, and sanctification is part of salvation in its fullest sense.
3. Therefore, salvation and sanctification are inseparable. You cannot have one without the other.
4. Each of these three word groups can describe the past, the present, or the future.
5. Each of these three word groups can describe inauguration, continuation, or culmination in the context of redemption.
6. Each of these three word groups can describe the part or the whole of salvation.
7. Unless one accepts this biblical tension, erroneous conclusions will most certainly be reached in developing soteriology.
8. A person is said by Scripture to already be what a person is actually becoming.
9. A person is commanded in the Bible to now be what one cannot completely be until eternity.
10. The key to maintaining clarity in the midst of possible interpretive confusion is to correctly identify the individual parts in each biblical text.

By design, the subsequent discussion will focus primarily on progressive sanctification, namely, that which occurs in a Christian’s life following salvation.

The following eight descriptions summarize the essentials of what sanctification is as taught in Scripture:

1. A salvific work inaugurated by God and in which all three members of the Godhead participate
2. A salvific work that is continued by God in this life unto completion in heaven
3. A salvific work that cannot be separated from justification or glorification18
4. A salvific work of God that is empowered by God’s Word and God’s Spirit
5. A salvific work of God that, once begun, cannot be lost, stopped, or undone
6. A salvific work of God that prompts a holy response of biblical obedience to the work of the Holy Spirit from those who are genuine saints
7. A salvific work of God that does not eradicate sin from the believer until glorification
8. A salvific work that provides confident hope in this life because of a certain eternal hope for the next life.

The Fruit of the Spirit
The Galatians were urged to “walk by the Spirit” (Gal. 5:16, 25), to be “led by the Spirit” (Gal. 5:18), to bear “the fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:22–23), and in so doing to “live by the Spirit” (Gal. 5:25). This saintly lifestyle, commended by Paul and inaugurated at salvation, which brings the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19), should then evidence being “filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18). Paul concluded Galatians with the same thought (Gal. 6:7–16).

Fruit (Gk. karpos) in Galatians 5:22 is singular, not plural, in that true believers can manifest all these elements simultaneously. Paul later described this sanctifying work as “the fruit of righteousness” (Phil. 1:11). So the nine representative qualities (Gal. 5:23, “such things”) refer to the whole work of the Spirit’s sanctifying labor in the life of one who has been justified, that is, declared righteous by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. This picture is similar in kind to the fifteen facets of the diamond called “love” in 1 Corinthians 13:4–7, the qualities of an elder (1 Tim. 3:1–7; Titus 1:6–9), and the qualities commended to and commanded of believers in Christ (Col. 3:12–17; 2 Pet. 1:5–11).

During the upper room meal the night before his crucifixion, Christ said, “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35; see 15:8). Not surprisingly, Paul begins his discussion of spiritual fruit with the characteristic of love.

Love. Christ’s substitutionary death provided the ultimate example of love (Gk. agapē). He said, “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). Paul called for this supreme love to be characteristic of a husband’s love for his wife: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph. 5:25). First Corinthians 13:8 promises that “love never fails” (NASB).

Thus, love is a communicable, divine attribute that is central to the Father’s character (1 John 4:8), put on display by Christ at the cross, and enabled in believers by the Holy Spirit. Love can be defined broadly as the conscious, sacrificial, and volitional commitment to the welfare of another person, in obedience to God’s Word (2 John 6), regardless of that person’s response or what one does or does not receive from him or her, or what love costs one to give. This love of Christians toward other Christians (Col. 1:8), as might be expected, is the most often commended “one-another” response in the New Testament.

Joy.  Joy (Gk. chara) is a happiness based on unchanging divine promises and eternal spiritual realities. It is the sense of well-being experienced by one who knows that all is well between oneself and the Lord (1 Pet. 1:8). Joy is not the result of favorable circumstances but occurs even when those circumstances are the most painful and severe (John 16:20–22; 1 Thess. 1:6). Joy is a gift from God, and as such, believers are not to manufacture it but to delight in the blessings they already possess (Phil. 4:4).

Produced by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 14:17), joy is appropriate both in the good times (3 John 4) and in the times of testing (James 1:2–4). Joy is a deep, abiding inner thankfulness to God for his goodness that is not diminished or interrupted when less-than-desirable circumstances intrude on one’s life.

Peace.  Peace (Gk. eirēnē) results in an ordered, settled, and undisturbed response to whatever life brings one’s way. Peace produced by the Holy Spirit is beyond human understanding (Phil. 4:6), an inner calm that results from confidence in one’s saving relationship with Christ. The verb form of the Greek term denotes binding together and is reflected in the expression “having it all together.” Like joy, peace is not determined by one’s circumstances (John 14:27; Rom. 8:28; Phil. 4:7, 9). Peace during the storms of life involves a heartfelt tranquility and trust that are anchored in the overwhelming consciousness that one’s life is in the hands of the sovereignly powerful God.

Patience. Patience (Gk. makrothymia) involves self-restraint that does not retaliate reactively. It endures injuries inflicted by others without the need for revenge and willingly accepts irritating or painful situations. Longsuffering captures the essential sense in one word.
Paul displayed his own patience in ministry to the Corinthians, attributing his longsuffering to the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 6:1–10, esp. 6:6). James extolled patience in times of suffering for the faith (James 5:7–11). Peter reminded his readers of God’s patience before their salvation (1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 3:15). Patience is an element of love (1 Cor. 13:4) and, in the end, is to be demonstrated toward everyone (Eph. 4:2; 1 Thess. 5:14).

Kindness. Kindness (Gk. chrēstotēs) is expressed as a tender, gentle concern for others that actively seeks out ways to serve them. The Father (Rom. 2:4; Titus 3:4) and the Son (Matt. 11:30) displayed kindness in the act of salvation. Believers are to be kind toward one another (Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:12) and are to commend themselves to others through kindness (2 Cor. 6:6).

Goodness. Goodness (Gk. agathōsynē) exhibits an actively determined capacity to deal with people in the best interest of God’s glory, even when confrontation and correction are required. Goodness is associated with the “fruit of the light” (Eph. 5:9). The Greek word for “goodness” appears nowhere in Greek literature except in the Bible, where in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, “goodness” is said to be an attribute of God (Neh. 9:25).

Faithfulness. Faithfulness (Gk. pistis) is an inner commitment that consistently expresses itself as an outward loyalty that remains true to one’s spiritual convictions. The eleventh chapter of Hebrews recounts the faith and faithfulness of notable Old Testament saints. God exemplifies faithfulness in his own divine character (Rom. 3:3). And the saints in Daniel’s seventieth week are urged to be faithful in the face of possible martyrdom (Rev. 13:10; 14:12).

Gentleness. Gentleness (Gk. prautēs), sometimes translated “meekness,” basically pictures controlled strength expressed by a humble heart. In its ancient secular sense, the Greek term meant a gentle breeze or a tamed beast, that is, strength used for good, not evil. Paul characterized Christ in this manner (2 Cor. 10:1; see Matt. 11:29). And Christ taught, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth” (Matt. 5:5). Gentleness describes three attitudes: (1) submission to the will of God (Col. 3:12); (2) teachability (James 1:21); and (3) consideration of others (Eph. 4:2).

Self-Control. Self-control (Gk. enkrateia), which literally means “in strength,” refers to an inward restraint of appetites and passions resulting in a spiritual mastery that submits consistently to the greater cause of God’s will, not man’s. This is a commended quality of godliness (2 Pet. 1:6), one with which Paul described the discipline of a winning athlete (1 Cor. 9:25). To the church in Crete pastored by Titus, Paul listed this consistently practiced quality as an identifiable trait of an elder (Titus 1:8).

At least six significant conclusions can be drawn from Paul’s discussion about the fruit of the Spirit:

1. This teaching is addressed to all true believers as basic to their Christian life (2 Tim. 3:16–17).
2. These qualities are commanded in the context of the charge to “walk by the Spirit” (Gal. 5:16, 25).
3. These Spirit-enabled qualities represent communicable attributes of God that are authenticating marks of Christian godliness (Gal. 5:22–23).
4. Because “fruit” is singular, not plural, Paul intended it to be understood as one fruit with multiple characteristics, all of which should be reflected at any given time.
5. These fruitful traits (Gal. 5:22–23) certify the authenticity of a genuine Christian in contrast to the spoils of the flesh (Gal. 5:13, 16–17, 19–21), which condemn unbelievers (Gal. 5:21).
6. While the law was completely against the deeds of the flesh, there is no law against the work of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:23). This fruit represents true spiritual freedom for one who has been freed from the law (Gal. 5:18) and now lives in the new covenant era.

Spiritual Gifts

The following observations constitute some of the most important descriptions and conclusions from God’s revelation concerning spiritual gifts:

1. Salvation is a charisma gift, that is, an undeserved gift by God’s grace (Rom. 6:23; Eph. 2:8; Titus 2:11).
2. The Holy Spirit is also a charisma gift, that is, an undeserved gift by God’s grace (Rom. 5:5; 1 Thess. 4:8; 1 John 3:24; 4:13; also see Acts 2:38; 10:45; Heb. 6:4).
3. Like Spirit baptism, spiritual gifts accompany salvation.
4. God’s will, not human will, determines individual giftedness (1 Cor. 12:11, 18, 24; Heb. 2:4).
5. Spiritual gifts are permanent and irrevocable (Rom. 11:29).
6. Spiritual gifts received with salvation should be distinguished from natural talents possessed from physical birth (1 Cor. 12:11). However, the Holy Spirit can certainly use both kinds of giftedness for his own divine purposes.
7. Spiritual giftedness alone does not necessarily make a Christian spiritual, as demonstrated by the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 14:20). Spiritual character is the highest priority (Col. 1:28).
8. All Christians are gifted without exception (1 Cor. 12:7, 11; Eph. 4:7; 1 Pet. 4:10) and can have more than one gift, resulting in a unique gift combination.
9. The Holy Spirit produces a variety of gifts (1 Cor. 12:4), which Christians employ in a variety of ministries (1 Cor. 12:5–6) with a variety of outcomes (1 Cor. 12:6).
10. Individual giftedness enhances the corporate good (1 Cor. 12:7) through Christians serving one another (1 Pet. 4:10).
11. Gifts are to be exercised in love (1 Cor. 13:8, 13), because without love, the practice of giftedness is useless (1 Cor. 13:1–3).
12. Gifts differ according to God’s grace given (Rom. 12:6; Eph. 4:7) and are to be ministered by Christians as good stewards of God’s grace (1 Pet. 4:10).
13. Scripture commands Christians to exercise their gifts (Rom. 12:6; Eph. 4:11–14) as a human responsibility and obligation.
14. The primary purpose of permanent gifts is for the edification of the church (1 Cor. 14:4–5, 12, 17, 26; see Eph. 4:12–13).
15. The fruitful exercise of one’s giftedness brings God glory (1 Pet. 4:11).

Temporary Gifts (Revelatory/Confirmatory)
Three New Testament statements speak directly about divinely initiated miracles involving temporary gifts done through people. First, consider Peter’s inspired commentary on the purpose of Jesus’s miracles in Acts 2:22: “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know . . .” Here Peter essentially echoed Christ, who asserted that his works certified his claims to deity and messiahship. Jesus’s miracles attested undeniably to the truth of his claim to be the God-man (John 11:47–48). They distinguished Christ, who had impeccable miraculous credentials, as the true Messiah in contrast to all the false christs throughout history.

Second, Paul made a direct statement about miracles in relationship to the apostles in 2 Corinthians 12:12. He noted emphatically that the marks (sēmeia) of an apostle were signs, wonders, and miracles. God used those supernatural phenomena to authenticate the apostolic messenger and thus validate his message (Acts 2:43; 5:12; Rom. 15:19; Heb. 2:1–4). Much the same method was used by God to authenticate the Old Testament prophets—God fulfilled the prophets’ message and performed miracles through them (see Deut. 13:1–5; 18:21–22). Miracles distinguished between true and false prophets and apostles.

Third, the author of Hebrews argued that God used miracles to authenticate the salvation message. Hebrews 2:3–4 states that God bore witness to true salvation through the apostles by miracles.

These passages from Acts, 2 Corinthians, and Hebrews teach that God’s primary purpose for the miracles he worked through men with temporary giftedness was to authenticate his messengers as bearing a true revelation from God. This was true of both temporary revelatory gifts and temporary confirmatory gifts.

Have miracles and temporary gifts through men really continued beyond the apostolic age? Scripture teaches that miracles served to authenticate the messenger of God and ultimately God’s message. However, when the book of Revelation was recorded by John, the canon of the New Testament and the total revelation of Scripture from God was completed. After AD 95, God had no reason to perform miracles through men because he was no longer revealing truth that needed to be authenticated; the canon closed with the completion of Revelation. Therefore, God’s work of miracles and temporary gifts through men ceased.

There is no single, explicitly clear biblical statement that specifies whether miracles through men and temporary gifts ceased with the apostles or continued, but if one consults the whole counsel of God, one will find the answer. Here are some New Testament indicators that the age of miracles through men and temporary gifts indeed ceased with the apostolic age.

Acts 2:22; Romans 15:18–19; 2 Corinthians 12:12; and Hebrews 2:4 indicate that God gave sign miracles in order to authenticate the messenger of God. With the completion of the canon, those signs no longer served their God-intended purpose.

Following the historical progress of the apostles who wrote about miraculous gifts, miracles diminished in scope as time moved onward. In Acts 19:11–12 (AD 52); 1 Corinthians (AD 55); and Romans (AD 56), the writers report extraordinary miracles that were taking place. Later epistles indicate that those phenomena were waning. Paul did not heal Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:27, AD 60). Paul prescribed wine for Timothy’s stomach ailment (1 Tim. 5:23, AD 62–64) instead of recommending that Timothy submit himself to someone who could heal. Trophimus was left sick by Paul at Miletus (2 Tim. 4:20, AD 66–67).

James, writing around AD 45–49, exhorted believers who were seriously ill to call for the elders to anoint them and pray over them rather than to call for someone who had the ability to heal. In the seven letters to the seven churches (Revelation 2–3, AD 95), no mention is made of miraculous sign gifts. These epistles were Christ’s last and final scriptural words to his church.

The Scriptures teach that miracles through human agents served a very specific purpose. That purpose focused on authenticating the prophets and apostles of God as certified messengers with a sure word from heaven (Acts 2:22; 2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:1–4). When the canon of Scripture closed with John’s Revelation, there no longer existed a divine reason for performing miracles through men. Therefore, such miracles ceased along with temporary gifts.

The following nine temporary, miraculous gifts/offices served revelatory or confirmatory purposes and ceased at the completion of the apostolic era because their purposes had been accomplished:

1. Apostle (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11): Men directly commissioned by the risen Christ and sent out to found and establish the church
2. Distinguishing between spirits (1 Cor. 12:10): The divine enablement to discern true from false statements made by people who deceptively claimed that their words were prophetic revelations from God
3. Healing (1 Cor. 12:9, 28, 30): The divine enablement to restore the sick to immediate health without a necessary faith response by the one(s) being healed
4. Miracles (1 Cor. 12:28): The divine enablement to perform works of power that contravene or exacerbate the normal processes of nature
5. Prophecy (1 Cor. 12:10; Eph. 4:11): The divine enablement of receiving and communicating direct verbal revelation from God to man.
Tongues (1 Cor. 12:10, 28; 13:1): The divine enablement to speak in a real, human language that had not been previously learned
7. Interpretation of tongues (1 Cor. 12:10, 30; see 14:26–28): The divine enablement to interpret the words of one speaking in tongues
8. Utterance of knowledge (1 Cor. 12:8; 13:2, 8): The divine enablement to communicate a direct word of insight from the Lord to guide the local church in understanding a prophecy (deemed a revelatory gift because it is linked with prophecy in 13:8)
9. Utterance of wisdom (1 Cor. 12:8): The divine enablement to give a direct word from the Lord to skillfully guide the local church in a specific decision (deemed a revelatory gift because it is connected with the word of knowledge, which is linked to prophecy in 13:8)

Permanent Gifts (Speaking/Serving)
The following eleven permanent, ministering gifts/offices involve speaking and serving purposes that have continued beyond the apostolic era to this present time:
1. Evangelist (Eph. 4:11): The divine enablement to effectively explain, exhort, and apply the gospel to the unsaved
2. Exhorting (Rom. 12:8): The divine enablement to effectively incite practical holiness in heart and action through encouragement, comfort, admonishment, and entreaty
3. Faith (1 Cor. 12:9; 13:2): The divine enablement to trust God in all details of his work even when the outcome seems uncertain. This gift produces stellar assurance that God will accomplish his purposes.
4. Giving (Rom. 12:8; 1 Cor. 13:3): The divine enablement to generously, joyfully, and sacrificially give earthly possessions to the Lord for the work of the ministry
5. Helping/serving (Rom. 12:7; 1 Cor. 12:28): The divine enablement to sacrificially and submissively help meet the needs of other Christians
6. Leading/administrating (Rom. 12:8; 1 Cor. 12:28): The divine enablement to zealously govern Christians toward the goal of accomplishing the will of God
7. Mercy (Rom. 12:8): The divine enablement to cheerfully detect, empathize with, and assist in meeting the physical, emotional, and spiritual needs of other people
8. Prophecy/preaching (Rom. 12:6): The nonrevelatory, divine enablement to forthtell, that is, to proclaim the Scriptures
9. Shepherd/teacher (Eph. 4:11): The divine enablement to shepherd Christians by leading, providing, feeding, protecting, and otherwise caring for them
10. Spiritual discernment (1 Cor. 12:10): The divine enablement to identify forms of doctrinal error and religious deception. This represents the permanent, ministry aspect of the gift. As “the father of lies” (John 8:44), Satan continually seeks to counterfeit the true work of God by disguising himself as an angel of light (cf. 2 Cor. 11:14), working primarily through false teachers, who dispense the “doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1 NASB). There are those in the church today who have been given a significant ability to identify falsehood by comparing it to biblical truth.
11. Teaching (Rom. 12:7; 1 Cor. 12:28): The divine enablement to clearly interpret, explain, and apply the Scriptures to Christians

…