An Outline of Biblical Christology

The Lord has graciously allowed me the opportunity to teach a class on the Incarnation. What a grand topic!  The outline below was developed to help view the Incarnation in its wider theological context. You may find it useful for your own edification and Gospel meditation, and perhaps also for study and teaching. 

This type of systematic Biblical study highlights the fact that the doctrine of the Incarnation is dependent upon the doctrine of the Trinity; the doctrine of the Cross is dependent upon both the Trinity and the Incarnation; the doctrine of Christ's Final Victory is dependent upon the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Cross. And the doctrines of Salvation, Sanctification, and Glorification are inextricably tied to all of the foregoing. In other words, if Christ was not God and Man, and Suffering and Victorious, we would have no hope. Thank God He IS, and therefore we DO!

AN OUTLINE OF BIBLICAL CHRISTOLOGY

      I.        I. Pre-Incarnate Glory

And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (Jn 17:5)

a.     Divinity

… the Word was with God, and the Word was God (Jn. 1:1); He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of His nature (Heb. 1:3)

b.    Sonship

… He gave His only Son … (Jn. 3:16)

c.     Work as Creator

For by Him all things were created … all things were created through Him and for Him (Col.1:16)

d.    Revelation as Messiah

Immanuel (Isa. 7:14); A Prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:15-19); The seed of the woman who will crush the serpent’s head (Gen. 3:15)

See also Isa. 9:6; Mic. 5:2; Ps. 45:6-7

    II.        II. Earthly Life (Humiliation)

            He was manifested in the flesh … (I Tim. 3:16); But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of woman … (Gal. 4:4)

a.     Virgin Birth

Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son … (Isa. 7:14, Mt. 1:23); … for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit (Mt. 1:20); … the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God (Lk 1:35)

b.    Humanity

Since … the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise partook of the same things (Heb. 2:14); And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us … (Jn. 1:14); … the man Christ Jesus (I Tim. 2:5)

                                                    i.    Suffering

Despised and rejected … a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief (Isa. 53:3); … He learned obedience through what He suffered (Heb. 5:8)

                                                  ii.    Temptation

… One who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15)

c.     Holiness & Sinlessness

 We… have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. (Heb. 7:26)

                                                    i.    Innocence from Evil

… who knew no sin (II Cor. 5:21); He had done no violence … there was no deceit in His mouth (Isa. 53:9); … in Him there is no sin (I Jn. 3:5)

                                                  ii.    Practice of Good Works

… how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. (Acts 10:38)

                                                 iii.    Faith & Devotion to the Will of God

In the days of His flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to Him who was able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His reverence. (Heb.5:7); … continued entrusting Himself to Him who judges justly (I Pet. 2:23)

d.    Sacrificial Death

He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself (Heb. 9:26); Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God (Eph. 5:2)

                                                    i.    Shedding of Blood

… the church of God, which He obtained with His own blood (Acts 20:28)

                                                  ii.    Bearing of Sin, Guilt & Wrath

He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree (I Pet. 2:24); … the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all (Isa.53:6)

                                                 iii.    Vicarious, Substitutionary Atonement Accomplished by His death

… who gave Himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness (Titus 2:14); It is finished (Jn. 19:30)

   III.        III. Ultimate Glorification (Exaltation)

Therefore God has highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name that is above every name (Php. 2:9); … that in everything He might be preeminent (Col. 1:18)

a.     Resurrection from the Dead

God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it (Acts 2:24)

b.    Ascension into Heaven

He … was carried up into heaven (Lk. 24:51); … He was lifted up, and a cloud took Him out of their sight (Acts 1:9)

c.     Enthronement at the Right Hand of the Father

We have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven (Heb. 8:1)

When Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, He sat down at the right hand of God (Heb. 10:12)

d.    Intercession & Mediation for Believers

… He is the mediator of a new covenant (Heb. 9:15); … there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (I Tim. 2:5); He is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them (Heb. 7:25)

e.     Second Coming & Final Victory

But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like His glorious body, by the power that enables Him even to subject all things to Himself.  (Php. 3:20-21)

A Great FREE College Course on the Book of Romans

I have been enjoying this great series of lectures:

Dr. Jack Fish on Romans (click to view on iTunes)

Dr. Jack Fish

Dr. Fish does a great job of bringing the exegetical aspects of the text together with informative discussions of historical and systematic theology. A graduate of Brown University and Dallas Theological Seminary, his perspective is definitively Calvinistic and probably dispensational. Overall, the course is very edifying and educational. If you're looking for a good study of Romans, look no further.

The course includes 28 lectures, each one offering an in-depth exposition of a single passage.

Calvinism, Systematic Theology and Scripture

At some level, every Calvinist who is not hyper embraces a paradox (you can call it tension, antinomy, aporia, really deep mystery, or whatever you like, but I prefer "paradox"). This is properly true of every Christian, but it is especially true of Biblical Calvinists. Our theology generates paradox, whether it's the apparent duality of divine wills, multiple senses of God's love and hatred for fallen humanity, or the compatibility of deterministic divine sovereignty and real human choice/freedom/responsibility. Calvinism without the essential balance of Biblically-derived paradox is in danger of going the way of Herman Hoeksema and the PRC. Characteristically, hyper-Calvinists eschew paradoxes in every possible way. Arminians, for their part, also seem reluctant to embrace paradoxes. Some take great delight in calling Calvinistic paradoxes "contradictions," ignoring the fact that these are unavoidable if we take divine revelation and historic/orthodox Christianity at face value.
 
THEOparadox is essentially a call for Calvinists (and others) to do two things:
 
1. Go whole hog and embrace every Biblically justified paradox, refusing to exegetically "adjust" any verse or passage of Scripture that might create a seeming contradiction in Systematic Theology.

 2. Be rigorous in trying to understand, explain and evaluate possible resolutions to these paradoxes, but accept the fact that we can ultimately have no greater certainty than the very words of Scripture afford us.
 
It seems that many Calvinists don't want to follow through with their paradoxes, perhaps afraid they will end up in the murky slough of Neo-orthodoxy, or that embracing a Biblical "both/and" scenario somehow amounts to a denial of dearly held truth.
 
Whatever it is that drives some Calvinists to twist texts to their own liking, it is not a helpful thing. This bad habit leaves the door wide open for Arminians and others to criticize our theology on Biblical grounds. On the other hand, if we are copiously Scriptural in our affirmations and they criticize our position as "contradictory," they are really accusing Scripture of contradiction and leaving our paradoxes unscathed. Non-Calvinist Christians will find no holes in the fortress of Biblical Calvinism, except where our exegesis is unsound. That can be fixed. And of course they will find a gaping hole right in the center of our fortress: the open door of invitation to join us in believing ALL the Word of God (whether we like it or not, and whether we can explain it or not).
 
Someone will respond, "But that kind of thinking will destroy Systematic Theology!" This is only true if our Systematic Theology does not include a robust theory of knowledge that carefully balances the perspicuity of Scripture, the incomprehensibility of God, and the Creator/creature distinction. 
 
Accepting Biblical paradox does not harm Systematic Theology; it enhances it. A well-developed Systematic Theology is essential and useful, but Biblical and Exegetical Theology are supreme. You can't have an accurate Systematic Theology if you don't have an in-depth knowledge of the texts themselves. To the extent that any system rejects even one tiny drop of the Bible, it reduces its own validity as a Christian system and partially cripples itself. Let's rather have a system that is hard to explain - yet Biblical to the core - than a system that explains itself by reducing the Word of God to man-made concepts.
 

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 17 - Wayne Grudem

The eminent Evangelical scholar and theologian, Wayne Grudem, is the latest recipient of our famous t-shirt. These words of wisdom from his Systematic Theology text will tell you why.

We find in the New Testament that Jesus and the New Testament authors will often quote a verse of Scripture and then draw logical conclusions from it. They reason from Scripture. It is therefore not wrong to use human understanding, human logic, and human reason to draw conclusions from the  statements of  Scripture. Nevertheless, when we  reason  and draw what we  think  to be correct logical deductions from Scripture, we sometimes make mistakes. The deductions we draw from the statements of Scripture are not equal to the statements of Scripture themselves in certainty or authority, for our ability to reason and draw conclusions is not the ultimate standard of truth — only Scripture is. 

What then are the limits on our use of our reasoning abilities to draw deductions from the statements of Scripture? The fact that reasoning to conclusions that go beyond the mere statements of Scripture is appropriate and even necessary for studying Scripture, and the fact that Scripture itself is the ultimate standard of truth, combine to indicate to us that we are free to use our reasoning abilities to draw deductions from any passage of Scripture so long as these deductions do not contradict the clear teaching of some other passage of Scripture.7 

This principle puts a safeguard on our use of what we think to be logical deductions from Scripture. Our supposedly logical deductions may be erroneous, but Scripture itself cannot be erroneous. Thus, for example, we may read Scripture and find that God the Father is called God (1 Cor. 1:3), that God the Son is called God (John 20:28; Titus 2:13), and that God the Holy Spirit is called God (Acts 5:3 – 4). We might deduce from this that there are three Gods. But then we find the Bible explicitly teaching us that God is one (Deut. 6:4; James 2:19). Thus we conclude that what we thought to be a valid logical deduction about three Gods as wrong and that Scripture teaches both (a) that there are three separate persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit), each of whom is fully God, and (b) that there is one God. We cannot understand exactly how these two statements can both be true, so together they constitute a paradox (“a seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true”).8 We can tolerate a paradox (such as “God is three persons and one God”) because we have confidence that ultimately God knows fully the truth about himself and about the nature of reality, and that in his understanding the different elements of a paradox are fully reconciled, even though at this point God’s thoughts are higher than our thoughts (Isa. 55:8 – 9). But a true contradiction (such as, “God is three persons and God is not three persons”) would imply ultimate contradiction in God’s own understanding of himself or of reality, and this cannot be. 

When the psalmist says, “The sum of your word is truth; and every one of your righteous ordinances endures for ever” (Ps. 119:160), he implies that God’s words are not only true individually but also viewed  together  as a whole. Viewed  collectively,  their “sum” is also “truth.” Ultimately, there is no internal contradiction either in Scripture or in God’s own thoughts.

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, 34. Italics original. bold added for emphasis.

This is a good basic overview of the THEOparadox thesis. All of the salient points are there. Dr. Grudem deserves not only the t-shirt, but the THEOparadox hat, shoes, tie, bumper sticker, coffee mug, keychain, belt buckle and wall poster as well.

___________________________________________________________________

Dr. Grudem's Footnotes:

7 This guideline is also adopted from Professor John Frame at Westminster Seminary.

8 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, ed. William Morris (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1980), p. 950 (first definition). Essentially the same meaning is adopted by the Oxford English Dictionary (1913 ed., 7:450), the Concise Oxford Dictionary (1981 ed., p. 742), the Random House College Dictionary (1979 ed., p. 964), and the Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary (p. 780), though all note that paradox can also mean “contradiction” (though less commonly);  compare the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards (New York: Macmillan and The Free Press, 1967), 5:45, and the entire article “Logical Paradoxes” by John  van Heijenoort on pp. 45 – 51 of the same volume, which proposes solutions to many of the classical paradoxes in the history of philosophy. (If paradox meant “contradiction,” such solutions would be impossible.) 

When I use the word paradox in the primary sense defined by these dictionaries today I realize that I am differing somewhat with the article “Paradox” by K. S. Kantzer in the EDT, ed. Walter Elwell, pp. 826 – 27 (which takes paradox to mean essentially “contradiction”). However, I am using paradox in an ordinary English sense and one also familiar in philosophy. There seems to me to be available no better word than paradox to refer to an apparent but not real contradiction.

There  is,  however,  some  lack  of  uniformity in the use of the term paradox and a related term, antinomy, in  contemporary evangelical discussion. The word antinomy has sometimes been used to apply to what I here call paradox, that is, “seemingly contradictory statements that may nonetheless both be true” (see, for example, John Jefferson Davis, Theology Primer [Grand  Rapids :  Ba ker,  1981],  p.  18).  Such a sense for antinomy gained support in a widely read book, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, by J.I. Packer (London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1961). On pp. 18 – 22 Packer defines antinomy as “an appearance of contradiction” (but  admits on p. 18 that his definition differs with the Shorter Oxford Dictionary). My problem with using antinomy in this sense is that the word is so unfamiliar in ordinary English that it just increases the stock of technical terms Christians have to learn in order to understand theologians, and moreover such a sense is unsupported by any of the dictionaries cited above, all of which define antinomy to mean “contradiction” (e.g., Oxford English Dictionary, 1:371). The problem is not serious, but it would help communication if evangelicals could agree on uniform senses for these terms.

A paradox is certainly acceptable in systematic theology, and paradoxes are in fact inevitable  so long as we have finite understanding of any theological topic. However, it is important to recognize that Christian theology should never affirm a contradiction (a set of two statements, one of which denies the other). A contradiction would be, “God is three persons and God is not three persons” (where the term persons has the same sense in both halves of the sentence).

Sam Waldron on the Doctrine of God

In the video below, Dr. Waldron of the Midwest Center for Theological Studies offers a useful and thought provoking structure for analyzing theology and considering the doctrine of God. I'm not sure I agree with everything that is said here, but I was greatly edified by this video in the following ways:

• I was encouraged to think much more deeply than I ever have before about the Being and attributes of God - His character, His acts, His ways and His glory.
• I was delighted to consider how incomprehensibly magnificent our God is.
• I was moved to worship our amazing God in view of the grandeur and beauty in what He has revealed of Himself.
• I was challenged to be much more careful in what I affirm and deny about our holy God.
• I was humbled in realizing how much I still don't know about God, and how much I have yet to learn.

What do you think of Dr. Waldron's chart for categorizing the divine attributes? I found it enlightening and full of possibilities for explaining some difficult concepts.


What do you think of Dr. Waldron's suspicion that there is no single "fundamental attribute of God," i.e. one that sums up all of God's nature? I am currently planning a series of posts for later in the year that will take a different approach. I believe there is an attribute that sums up all of God's nature, and it's not "love" or "holiness." It's one you might not readily think of. Curious? Stay tuned! In the meantime, say whether you think it's possible.


Did you catch the comment about God's promeity? That was funny.


I highly recommend this teaching as a means of deepening your thinking about the Lord of heaven and earth. But be careful, because it will blow your mind! Enjoy.



Doctrine of God | Lecture 9 from MCTS on Vimeo.

Am I a Martin Luther Wannabe?

Theological quizzes are mostly inaccurate and a waste of time, I think. But "Which Theologian Are You?" yielded a reasonably good result when I took it.


By answering 30 poorly articulated questions, I was able to discover that I am a copycat of . . .


Martin Luther

The daddy of the Reformation. You are opposed to any Catholic ideas of works-salvation and see the scriptures as being primarily authoritative.

Martin Luther

80%

Anselm

80%

John Calvin

73%

Jonathan Edwards

67%

Friedrich Schleiermacher

53%

Karl Barth

53%

Augustine

33%

Charles Finney

33%

Jürgen Moltmann

27%

Paul Tillich

27%

I have to say, though, I don't appreciate the suggestion that I resemble Schleiermacher or Finney in any sense. I'm deeply offended by the mere suggestion of it. But the top 4 results are pretty accurate, and if Augustine was moved to 4th place the first 5 would be mostly correct.



Take the quiz and let us know which theologian you supposedly resemble.

Moderate Calvinism Explained

Jack Brooks is the Pastor of Grace Evangelical Free Church in Georgetown, Kentucky, which happens to be about an hour south of where I used to live, in the rolling hills of the Bluegrass State. Although I've never met him, I enjoy Jack's thoughtful blog articles, which occasionally hit on hot button issues. One of his recent posts offers a near perfect explanation of what it means to be a "moderate" Calvinist. Or, as Steve Costley puts it,  to be an advocate of  Controversial Calvinism.

Moderate Calvinism strives for the Biblical balance in all things. It does not seek a mid-point between Arminianism and Calvinism (I doubt there is such a thing), but a balance of all the key components in Reformed soteriology. In terminology, moderate Calvinists range from total rejection of limited atonement (sometimes called "4-point Calvinism") to full acceptance of limited atonement with the addition of other balancing factors. Well-known Calvinists who reject limited atonement would include Bruce Ware and Randy Alcorn (a historical representative would be Donald Grey Barnhouse).

In my study, most  Calvinists (including quite a few high Calvinists) take a position somewhere between the view that strictly limits every benefit of the atonement to the elect and an outright denial of limited atonement. There are lots of ways to articulate a middle position on the extent of the atonement, and this seems to be the course followed by most Reformed thinkers, whether they are classified as moderate or high, 4-point or 5-point,  4.25, 4.5, 4.75, or whatever. There can be a lot of needless hair splitting, mislabeling and debating about this, but I respect any position that is orthodox, sincerely held, and thoroughly grounded in Scripture. Folks who are just toeing the party line and repeating the philosophical conclusions logically demanded by their systematic theology aren't adding anything to the discussion, as far as I'm concerned.

I find that moderate Calvinists whose church polity requires allegiance to all 5 points (e.g., Presbyterians) tend to qualify "limited atonement" as being both limited and unlimited, but in different senses. The classic formulation is "sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect only." I observe that moderate Calvinists whose church polity does not require allegiance to all 5 points tend to call themselves 4-point Calvinists and reject limited atonement altogether (at least in their terminology). There are, of course, many exceptions, but the point is this: approaches to the atonement that are very nearly the same can be called 4-point or 5-point Calvinism interchangeably - depending on the context.

John Piper describes the moderate position well when he says this:

We do not deny that all men are the intended beneficiaries of the cross in some sense. 1 Timothy 4:10 says that Christ is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." What we deny is that all men are intended as the beneficiaries of the death of Christ in the same way. All of God's mercy toward unbelievers—from the rising sun (Matthew 5:45) to the worldwide preaching of the gospel (John 3:16)—is made possible because of the cross. (SOURCE)

Jack Brooks describes it in a slightly different way, but with his characteristic candor and wisdom, here:

CLICK HERE for the article


Excerpt:

I was recently asked why I described myself as a moderate Calvinist. The "moderate" part reflects the fact that I understand the Scripture to teach that, in some sense, Christ died for everyone without exception. Christ provided the possibility of redemption for everyone, and an actual redemption is applied only to the elect -- those who are given the gift of faith. The logic problems that my five-point Calvinist brethren immediately raise don't sway me, since the only concern I choose to have is over what specific verses actually say in the original languages -- not how many logic syllogisms my view might seem to contradict, or how one escapes "double jeopardy", and so on. Those philosophical objections don't matter to the question, "what does this verse mean?" because, in the end, they are philosophical objections, not exegetical questions. Only exegetical principles matter when one is asking the question, "What does this verse mean?" The question, "How can I reconcile this with these other ideas over here" is a secondary, or even a tertiary, concern. Not a primary concern. Limited atonement does not survive consistent, thorough-going exegetical analysis. It's our job to iron out any wrinkles that the exegesis might create in the over-all fabric of our systematic theology.