Part 4
PRINCIPLES FOR THE GOSPELS
1. The student needs to see the program of God and how it is related to the gospel accounts. If you do not understand the mechanics of this, there will be much trouble in the application of these texts.
2. As in the Old Testament times there were items mentioned that related specifically to a specific people. We must not take a text given to the Jewish people, in a Jewish time, and relate it directly to the Church.
THE BOOK OF ACTS
The student needs to place the book of Acts in a special category. It is a record of what went on in the transition between the Old Testament law of
the Gospels and the New Testament age of the Church. There is information in this record that is not for the Church Age.
The operation of the New Testament church for example. To have communal eating would be very difficult, if not impossible, in this age. Some have tried the "all for one and one for all" concept, but none I know of have survived the test of time. Indeed, the Church in Acts did not follow this concept for a long period of time.
THE EPISTLES
The epistles are very straight forward for our day and age, and should be used freely, however care must be taken again to the application, or nonapplication of passages.
It is more and more prevalent to "It was the custom of the day" passages out of our spiritual application. If we were to total all of these passages we would have a multitude. Even in those texts that were customs of the day, the underlying basis of those customs is true for us today and should move us to change. For example the Holy Kiss. The love and concern behind that kiss should certainly be something that we draw as application for our age.
THE REVELATION
The Revelation is one of the great books of the Bible, but it is also subjected to some of the worst interpretation and application of any book in the Bible. This book is for our encouragement and edification so we should use it as such, but we need to be careful how we use it.
PRINCIPLES FOR THE REVELATION
1. The student must realize in the book of Revelation that much of the information is of a prophetic nature and that it is limited in application.
2. The idea of right living in light of the coming of the Lord, and related ideas are certainly present and usable.
3. Application of the information to the seven churches also is in need of care. There is no real agreement as to the meaning of the churches, thus we don't want to build heavily on anything we might find there. General application of the false teaching and Christ's reaction to it is certainly
appropriate application for our age, as well as some of the promises that are in the first chapters.
As we move into ministries and positions, we need to be very careful with our interpretation as well as our application. Application misapplied can cause great problems and heartache.
PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNICATION
After all that we have studied in this section of theology it should be obvious that God not only wanted us to have this information, but that He wanted all of mankind to have this information.
Believers in this present time seem to be saving the Bible for their own use rather than proclaiming it to those around the world that so desperately need it. We need to share the Word with those around us and those around the world.
1. Proclaim It For What It Is:
Proclaim It because this is the Word of God, the message for all of mankind. We need to give the word forth as if it were what we believe it to be.
It is Authoritative. It has within Itself all the authority that is needed to use It. You should give it forth and use it as the authority dictates.
It is Errorless. We need to be sure that what we say It says, is true and use It as the Errorless Word of God.
It is Powerful. We need to give It forth as if It were dynamite. It is powerful and will do many things in the lives of people if we will only use It.
2. Proclaim It As If You Believed It:
Some pastors talk of the Word as if It were a snake that was sleeping on their pulpit. They act as though, if they get excited about It, It might wake up and bite them. It has it's own built in excitement and credibility. We need not shy away from being forceful with the Word.
3. Proclaim It With Confidence:
God has called you as a believer to proclaim the Word. He has called some of us to preach the Word. We should use the word with a strong
confidence that what we are saying is something that can be used by the people that we minister to.
We don't need to be apologetic about our preaching. God told us to proclaim the Word, so we must with all the confidence that we have.
4. Proclaim It As If You Were The Expert:
Many relate to me they feel very unsure of themselves when someone important is in the congregation. Almighty God Is In The Congregation Every Time We Open Our Mouths. We Ought Not Worry About Someone Special From The Human Race That Might Be Present.
I know just what they are talking about however. I was asked to preach at a church in the northwest. I knew that I would have a Bible College president and three or four of his professors in the congregation. I knew there would be a very wealthy orthopedic surgeon present. I knew that my Lord and Savior was going to be present. That is probably the only reason that I was able to walk up to that pulpit. I knew that I had done my preparation, and that the message I was sharing was from God's word. That was my confidence. I dare say that the time I spent in that pulpit that morning was the time when I began to gain the confidence to preach more as I ought. I still do not have all the confidence that I would like, however this was a beginning point.
There Is Nothing That Man Can Do To You Save Take Your Life. Why Do We Dread What Those Men Will Think And Say When We Are Ministering The Word Of Almighty God.
5. Proclaim The Word Without Being A Respecter Of Persons:
There are all sorts of people. There are rich and poor, there are men and women, there are tall and short, there are wide and thin, there are smart and not so smart, there are spiritual giants and spiritual pigmies.
All — I repeat, ALL are needy of being fed as the rest. Every single person sits down to take in physical food and every one ought to sit down to take in spiritual food. Do not hesitate to speak to the sin of the rich man. Do not hesitate to speak to the sin of the spiritual giant. This may not be popular, however, spiritual giants have their problems just as we pigmies
do. Do not hesitate to speak to the sin of the board member or anyone else that is present.
This may affect your job security if you look to the church for your security. May I recommend that you look to God for your job security.
Do not hesitate to speak to the sin of the politician. All Are Sheep And Are In Need Of Feeding And Leading. Never Forget This.
6. Proclaim It As If It Is The Last Time You Will Be Able To Do So:
We may be overrun by some other country tonight. The Lord could be here before coffee break is over. We could have a massive heart attack in the middle of the service. This is the message that God has laid upon our heart. We need to be putting it out with all the gusto that you can muster.
7. Proclaim It As If It Had Meaning:
We know that if we saw smoke and flame in the building that we would yell FIRE. Yet so often we see the sin in a life and see that the life is headed for trouble, and yet we sit by, watching and knowing that we have the answer to the problem.
We also have the answer to LOST man's problems, and we are so hesitant to give the answers. We wait until we are asked the question.
8. Proclaim It....:
We have a related topic which I would like to touch on briefly.
RECEPTION OF THE WORD
1. Receive It As If It Were From God:
This is not to say that we shouldn't be good Berean's and check all things against the Scripture. It is to say that we should receive messages and lessons as from God and not from man. If we view messages as from men we may tend not to listen to them quite as closely. If we view them as from God we won't tend to argue with the message as much.
2. Receive It As From A Man Of God:
I trust that you will listen carefully to me and not misunderstand what I am going to say. There is much emphasis on education today. Everyone is wanting to have several degrees behind their name.
Education is not wrong in and of itself. The desire and lust after education and the glory it may bring IS wrong.
I trust, in fact, that some of you might go on with your education and prepare for ministries that God may call you into.
For others of you that may be in a lay ministry I trust that you will relax in the knowledge that God has prepared you adequately for the work that he has you involved in. This is not to say that He might not send you to school many years down the road to prepare for something else. For now, you have all that you have need of.
HOWEVER, degrees behind the name do not guarantee a good message. Degrees behind the name do not guarantee a spiritual messenger.
HOWEVER, the lack of degrees behind the name do not guarantee a good message. The lack of degrees behind the name do not guarantee a spiritual messenger.
So, What is the sum of what I have said? Degrees, or lack of degrees, has very little to do with the spirituality of the messenger, or the message as long as the preparer has adequate knowledge to do the job correctly.
Indeed, it has little to do with the receptiveness of the hearer.
To illustrate all this let me relate a story to you. I had the pleasure of ministering in a little Northern California coast city for a weekend. I talked some with the pastor that weekend and felt that I was talking to a man of God that had been well educated in the realm of spiritual things. At dinner Sunday I asked him where he went to college. He turned a bit red in the face and mentioned that he had quit high school when he was finished with the eighth grade and had not been back to school.
Education for this man of God came from the Word that is powerful to change men's lives. I have had a number of friends that have finished seven
years of Bible college and Seminary. These men have much to say spiritually as well.
It Isn't The Education Necessarily, But The Willingness To Be Taught Of The Lord From The Word.
I trust that I have not downgraded nor uplifted education. There are some today that will look down their noses at the uneducated and there are those that look up their noses at the educated. Both are in sin. Both persons are looking down or up their noses due to their own pride in what they have, or have not. God leads different men in different directions.
I trust that you will never condemn another believer for having education. When you do you condemn the Lord that led that person to gain that schooling. I trust also that you never condemn anyone for not having an education. God is a God of variety. He can use anyone that He wants to use, no matter how educated or uneducated the person is.
We have studied God's Word from a very academic standpoint in this study so that we might have answers for those that doubt — that includes ourselves. These truths may come in handy for your own lives. You may find yourself one day with doubts. Just think through some of the things that we have covered in this section.
Consider the Word's claims for Itself and rest in the assurance that this is the very message that Almighty God has given us for ourselves, but more than that, for the lost of the world.
Ryrie presents a chart in His Theology book that I have adapted for our study. (Adapted by permission: Ryrie, Charles C.; "Basic Theology"; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986, p 117)
The Bible And Its Transmission To Man
God's Thoughts
Revelation
Human Author
Inspiration
Original Manuscripts
Canonicity
Collection Of
The Books
Textual Criticism
Modern Greek
Modern
Translation
And Hebrew
English
Bibles
Bibles
Illumination &
Application
Our Changed
Our Thoughts
Interpretation
Lives
Communication
God's Truth
To Others
Now, how do we apply all this in the area of communication.
1. This is God's message to man. This Bible is God's message to all mankind — not just believers — not just people in the United States of America, but to all of mankind.
2. This Book has all that is necessary for mankind to know God, and be saved from God's wrath.
3. God has given this information to us in an understandable manner.
4. By some normal principles of speech and language we should be able to understand fully that which God desired to communicate to us.
5. This is a work that can usher all of mankind into the Kingdom of the Lord if man will only accept the Lord Jesus that It presents.
I trust that this study will move you to a strong confidence in the Word, as well as a strong desire to communicate the Word.
THE SUPERNATURAL ORIGINS
OF THE WORD OF GOD
Chafer (Chafer, Lewis Sperry; "Systematic Theology"; Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947) deals at length with the fact that the Bible had supernatural origins. I have condensed his thoughts into what is presented in this appendix. He presents 15 topics.
1. The Book Of God: The book of God asserts this fact for itself many times over. The question some raise is whether it was written by a man or revealed by God and recorded by man. The structure and message of the book demand a divine author.
Man could not set out to write a book of this size. He would not have the ideas of it, nor would man be able to produce the detail and precision of it. It presents God as THE God. It presents God as having a plan. It presents God only as deserving glory. It presents God as the absolute authority.
The unregenerate man could not subdue his own pride to produce such a God, nor could he exalt his talents to a level capable of producing such a book.
2. The Bible And Monotheism: The Bible presents monotheism — one God, not many. Mankind has always had many gods, be they wood, clay, gold or silver. Idolatry is in every civilization to some extent. The Bible presents a one-God religion. How could man devise such a thought as one God in a world of many gods?
3. The Doctrine Of The Trinity: The doctrine of the Trinity is so complex yet so simple as to demand a divine origin for the Bible. The Trinity is three persons in one God. Stated it is simple yet the explanation has evaded man since the subject was undertaken for study. We cannot explain the how of the Trinity only the fact of it.
The work each member of the Trinity is involved in is also very complicated — the Fatherhood of God, or the perfections of Christ. Man cannot adequately explain these things so how could he devise them?
4. Creation: The creation is the beginning of the content of Scripture. This creation is presented as fact and is described in Scripture. Man's explanation of the beginning of the world is tied up in evolution. Even with the best product evolution could produce, that person could not have produced the Biblical account. Evolution is shot through with problems and gaps. Man could not devise a creation as perfectly presented in Scripture.
5. Sin: Sin is presented in Scripture. Forty authors, are in complete agreement on sin and its existence. Man could not devise such a thing as sin from his own mind. Sin is a divine statement and idea not a man made doctrine.
6. The Cure Of Evil According To The Bible: The Bible's cure for sin is so divine as to demand divine authorship.
Man would not devise a plan of salvation because without Scripture he doesn't know he needs it. Even if man knew he needed salvation he could not dream up a plan whereby all could be saved apart from works or vanity.
Man could not devise a plan of salvation where the one redeeming would gain all the glory. Man could not come up with such a beautiful plan aside from having it revealed to him by God.
7. The Extent Of Bible Revelation: The extent of the Bible demands a divine author. It reaches minutely into eternity past as well as eternity future. Human authors aside from revelation could not make up such detail nor such broad perimeters.
8. The Ethics Of The Bible: The ethics that the Bible produces have never even been hinted at in man's religions. Purity and holiness of life are the divine standard while in most of man's we find debasement and immorality.
The Bible presents man as an utter failure and unable to help himself. Man in his vanity even today has trouble comprehending such things, much less making them up.
Only a divine author could take a moral system such as Judaism and lay it aside for another system so different yet presenting the same morality as
Christianity. Man could not come up with such a moral standard based on the teachings of a book without revelation from God.
9. The Continuity Of The Bible: The continuity of Scripture declares a divine editor and revealer — 66 books, 40 authors and hundreds of years of history. The authors are separated by time, space and education. They come from all walks of life and most of them never met one another, yet they came together to form one central story of the Son of God, Jesus Christ.
He is shown as pre-incarnate. He is shown in prophecy as coming. He is shown as here in His first advent. He is shown as coming again in the future.
One man could produce a work with continuity but this combination of authors and times has to be divinely assembled. Man could not produce such a work.
10. Prophecy And Its Fulfillment: Prophecy along with its fulfillment is proof that the Bible is of divine origin. Man can think and project what might happen in the future based on knowledge, history and common sense, but man cannot accurately predict specific occurrences and have those occurrences come to pass. The Scripture is full of prophecies that have been fulfilled and which will yet be fulfilled.
11. Types With Their Antitypes: The types of the Old Testament and the antitypes of the New Testament are of such splendor that they must have divine origin. The fact that the type was set to words by a person other than the one setting down the antitype, and this being done hundreds of years apart, shows divine origin. This would require divine intervention.
12. The Bible As Literature: The Bible is considered great literature even by the unsaved. If a man had been setting these great words down, he most surely would have left some personal opinions and pronouns to let the reader know that it was he that had written the work.
The truths are not from the men but from their God so that they left no opinion of their own or personal pronouns to lay claim to any of the truths.
Many of the church fathers have been prolific writers, however, none of these have even touched the clarity and preciseness of Scripture, nor have they touched the literary quality of the Word.
13. The Bible And Science: Science is in constant revision. The world was flat — remember — and now it is round. The scientific world is always redoing and redefining to fit the exposed facts. The Bible on the other hand has always been acceptable in all ages without revision or redefining.
Where the Bible has seemingly contradicted science in the past, the scientists have found that they were in error in later days.
14. The Bible And Temporal Power: The Bible is not dependent upon political power, or clout to get its job done. The believer can do the work of the Lord with or without the help of the governmental powers.
Man naturally, when he wants something done, will try any means to achieve his end. They often use political power, or strings with politicians, to achieve their goal.
If man had written the Bible he would not have been able to come up with the idea that man could do the work of the Lord relying on the heart and mind of others rather than political power.
15. The Bible's Enduring Freshness: The constant new blessing a person gains from the Word even when he has read, and read, and read a portion there is always something more to be gleaned from its content. No other literature can make this claim to freshness and vitality.
HISTORY OF SCRIPTURE
First of all, I would like to list the readability index for some of the different translations. It might be handy if a person begins working with different age groups or possibly people with diminished mental capacity.
King James Version — 14.0 years of education
American Standard Version — 11.6 years of education
New American Standard Bible — 11.3 years of education
Revised Standard Version — 10.4 years of education
Jerusalem Bible — 10.1 years of education
Phillips Translation — 9.6 years of education
New King James Version — 9.1 years of education
New English Bible — 8.5 years of education
Living Bible — 8.3 years of education
New International Version — 7.8 years of education
Today's English Version — 7.3 years of education
International Children's Version — 3.9 years of education
(Adapted from "Which Bible Translation Is Best For Me?"; Kohlenberger, John, III; Moody Monthly, May 1987)
The following information is gleaned from three sources. Rather than footnote each quotation, I have adapted the information. The three sources are listed at the end of the information.
This is some information on some of the more prominent works of translation and paraphrase through the years since the Bible was originally written.
SEPTUAGINT (LXX)
Date: Work started 250 B.C. Author/translator: Seventy Alexandrian Jews
This was the first translation of the Old Testament into Greek. Most of the Jewish people of the time spoke Greek, and they wanted to read the Old Testament in their own language.
LATIN VULGATE
Date: Completed 405 A.D. Author/translator: Jerome
This translation was done from the original languages. I would like to quote from the introduction of a Revised Standard Version, Catholic edition, "In the Old Testament it has not been thought necessary to make any changes in the text. There is however the very important difference in the number of books. Catholic Bibles include seven extra books and parts of two others. These are known to Catholics as 'deuterocanonical' and are regarded as an integral part of the Canon of the Old Testament. They are here printed in the order in which they appear in the Latin Vulgate, with the exception of the extra parts of the Book of Esther."
We see that the Latin Vulgate contained the apocrypha.
WYCLIFFE BIBLE
Date: 382 A.D.
Author/translator: Wycliffe
This was the first complete English Bible. Wycliffe worked from the Latin Vulgate.
GUTENBERG BIBLE
Date: 1456 A.D.
This was the first Bible to be printed on a printing press, rather than being copied by hand. It was done from the Latin Vulgate also.
TYNDALE BIBLE
Date: New Testament 1525 A.D.
Old Testament 1535 A.D.
Author/translator: Tyndale
This Bible was the first to be translated from the original languages into English.
THE GREAT BIBLE
Date: 1539 A.D.
Author/translator: Cranmer and Coverdale
This was a revision of the Tyndale Bible.
COVERDALE BIBLE
Date: 1535 Author/translator: Coverdale
This was the first printed in English.
STEPHANUS TEXT
Date: 1550 A.D.
GENEVA BIBLE
Date: 1560 A.D.
Author/translator: Whittingham, et. al.
This Bible was the first to use verse divisions.
RHEIMS-DOUAY
Date: New Testament 1582 A.D.
Old Testament 1610 A.D.
This was the first authorized English version for Roman Catholics. The work was done by two committees from the Vulgate.
KING JAMES VERSION
Date: 1611 A.D.
Author/translator: fifty four protestant scholars
This is also called the Authorized Version at times. I would like to list a quotation for your interest from Dr. Miller's notes. ". . .formally a revision of the 1602 edition of the Bishop's Bible. This translation was done in 1611 and established itself as the English Bible. Present day translations, however, have several changes. The spelling has been modernized, and other alterations have been introduced. One obvious misprint has persisted in most editions since the first one of 1611 in Matthew 23:24 where 'strain at a gnat' should be 'strain out a gnat.' Many of the earlier translations were carelessly printed. Thus the 'Wicked Bible' of 1641 left out the word 'not' in the seventh commandment. As to the Greek text, the Authorized Version is in considerable agreement with the Textus receptus."
ROBERT AITKEN BIBLE
Date: 1782 A.D.
This was the King James Version, however it was the first King James printed in America.
WESTCOTT HORT GREEK TEXT
Date: 1881 A.D.
Author/translator: Westcott and Hort
This was a Greek text which most of the modern translations are based on. The other text being the Textus Receptus, upon which the King James Version is based.
REVISED VERSION
Date: 1885 A.D.
This was a revision of the King James Version.
AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION
Date: 1901 A.D.
Author/translator: A committee of American scholars
This was a revision of the Revised Version. It was partially based on the modern principles of textual criticism. The Old Testament is based on the Massoretic text. It is felt by most readers to be very stiff, however it is usually held as one of the more accurate translations.
NEW TRANSLATION IN MODERN SPEECH
(Weymouth Translation)
Date: 1903 A.D.
Author/translator: Weymouth
This was done from the Greek and gives particular attention to the verb tenses. The author attempted to give the proper idea of the tenses as he set the information into English.
NESTLE GREEK TEXT
Date: 1904
This was based on Tishendorf, Westcott and Hort and the United Bible Society texts.
A NEW TRANSLATION (MOFFATT)
Date: New Testament 1913
Old Testament 1924
Author: Moffatt
This is a paraphrase. He was of liberal doctrine and was not against making changes from time to time. John 1:1 for example mentions that the "logos was divine." Christ was not divine, He was deity.
AN AMERICAN TRANSLATION
Date: 1923
Author: E.J. Godspeed
This work reportedly shows the eunuch of Acts 8 sitting in his car.
NEW TESTAMENT IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE
Date: 1937
Author: C.B. Williams
This work also did some good work in bringing the tenses over into the English.
REVISED STANDARD VERSION
Date: New Testament 1946
Old Testament 1952
Authors: Done by 32 protestants and Catholics.
This was a liberal revision of the 1901 version. The Catholic Edition of the R.S.V. mentions, "The Revised Standard Version itself needs no lengthy introduction, being already well known and widely read. It is, as its preface states, 'an authorized revision of the American Standard Version, Published in 1901, which was a revision of the King James Version, published in 1611.'"
Many have rejected the RSV due to its translation of Isaiah 7:14, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." The translation of the Hebrew term, young woman rather than virgin is the problem. This term is a vague term and always refers to a young woman, but not always to a virgin. When the RSV translates Matthew 1:23, a quote from the Isaiah text, it uses the term virgin, because the Greek term clearly speaks to the virginity of the woman.
NEW TESTAMENT IN PLAIN ENGLISH
Date: 1952
Author: C.K. Williams
Williams uses large words and some modern terms such as "police" and "handcuffs."
NEW TESTAMENT IN MODERN ENGLISH
Date: 1957
Author: Phillips
This is a paraphrase and was revised in 1966. He was a liberal in theology and reportedly did not believe in verbal inspiration.
BERKELEY VERSION
Date: New Testament 1945
Old Testament 1959
Author: Edited by Gerrit Verkuyl of Berkeley, CA
This is an evangelical work and many feel that it is a good work.
EXPANDED TRANSLATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Date: 1960
Author: Wuest, an instructor in Greek at Moody Bible Institute.
This is a technically accurate work. The accuracy took presidence over style.
NEW ENGLISH BIBLE NEW TESTAMENT
Date: 1961
This is normally accepted as a good work by conservatives.
AMPLIFIED BIBLE
Date: Completed 1964
Author: Mrs. Siewert, et. al.
THE NEW TESTAMENT REVISED STANDARD VERSION
CATHOLIC EDITION
Date: 1965
This was done as an ecumenical Bible and is accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.
GOOD NEWS FOR MODERN MAN
Date: 1966
This was done by a man that reportedly denied the deity of Christ and rejected verbal inspiration.
JERUSALEM BIBLE
Date: 1966
This is a Roman Catholic work which includes the Apocrypha.
NEW SCOFIELD REFERENCE BIBLE
Date: 1967
Author: Scofield
This was a revision of Scofield's original notes of 1909. The revising was done by John Walvoord, Charles Feinberg, Allan MacRae, E. Schyler English, Frank Gaebelein, Alva McClain, Clarence Mason, William Culbertson, Wilbur Smith, and Wilber Ruggles.
WILLIAMS TRANSLATION
This work was based on the Westcott and Hort text.
NEW AMERICAN BIBLE
Date: 1970
Author: Done by fifty Catholic and five Protestant scholars.
NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE
Date: 1971
Author: Fifty four conservative Protestants. Lockman Foundation.
The work is technically good. The Greek tenses were translated so that the English reader could determine the tenses.
LIVING BIBLE
Date: Completed in 1971
Author: Kenneth N. Taylor
The work has some accuracy problems and tends toward personal interpretation rather than translation. It is a paraphrase. It was a work from the ASV.
NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION
Date: Completed 1978
Author: One hundred fifteen evangelical scholars.
It is a work from the critical Greek texts, which is fairly accurate. I personally have noticed however that in many cases it disagrees in content when compared to the King James and the New American Standard.
TODAY'S ENGLISH VERSION/GOOD NEWS BIBLE
Author: Robert G. Bratcher and six other scholars.
NEW KING JAMES VERSION
Date: 1982
Author: Done by one hundred nineteen scholars.
NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE
Date: 1985
This is a redo of the 1966 Jerusalem Bible.
THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION
This was done by the Jehovah Witnesses. I have been told that Greek scholars took this translation to secular, unsaved, Greek scholars for
evaluation. They reported that it was one of the poorest attempts at translation they had seen. It shows Christ as a god in John 1:1.
THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE LANGUAGE OF TODAY
Author: William F. Beck
Beck was a Lutheran, and his version is well received for its accuracy.
THE COTTON PATCH VERSION
Author: Clarence Jordan
Jordan has a Ph.D. in New Testament Greek from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
He sets the New Testament in the modern day south. The Jews and Gentiles are viewed as black and whites. Acts is entitled the Happening, while the book of Romans becomes Washington.
There are many other works that have appeared. I have only listed some of the more prominent ones.
The following charts are hopefully accurate. I have gleaned information from many sources over the years to set these charts to paper.
SOURCES
Miller, Dr. David; Theology Class notes, Western Baptist College; Salem, OR.
Kohlenberger, John III; "Which Bible Translation Is Best For Me?"; Article in Moody Monthly, May 1987
Till, George A.; Class handout, Western Baptist College; Salem, OR.
INTRODUCTION TO THEOLOGY PROPER
Tozer said of his God, "O Lord God Almighty, not the God of the philosophers and the wise but the God of the prophets and apostles; and better than all, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, may I express Thee unblamed?
"They that know Thee not may call upon Thee as other than Thou art, and so worship not Thee but a creature of their own fancy; therefore enlighten our minds that we may know Thee as Thou art, so that we may perfectly love Thee and worthily praise Thee." (Tozer, A.W.; "The Knowledge Of The Holy"; Lincoln, NE: Back to the Bible, 1961, p 7)
The term theology proper refers to the study of the true theology, the study of God Himself. This section will deal with God, His attributes, and His nature. Some state that it deals also with His existence, however if a person is dealing with nature and attributes, there is existence.
Please define the term God for me. A hard task? Yes, a very hard task. Let me share other people's attempts to define God.
I read in an Oregon newspaper of a pilot that told the newspaper that God had licensed him. He did not need the government telling him if he could fly or not. God told him he could, so that settled it. The story came to light after the man had crashed his plane. He told the reporter that his faith in God did not require him to have licenses, be it a pilot's, driver's, or pickup.
Is this really God that this man serves?
Still, others see God in other ways. The United Presbyterian General Assembly was introduced to a female God by The Revelation Wallace M. Alston, Jr. of Princeton, N.J. He told the assembly of the God he serves using female pronouns.
I read a story by Danny Dutton where he described God as a God that makes people, babies actually, so that there will be enough people here on
earth to take care of things. He figured that the babies could be trained by the people down here, rather than take His time to do it.
He went on to describe his idea of God. It was the description of an eightyear-old boy, but that description was quite practical and thought provoking. We grownups ought to take God for what He is and not try to make Him over in our own image. (Dutton, Danny, an essay "An Explanation Of God"; Sword of the Lord, Feb. 1986, quoting Evangelical Press News Service.)
The thoughts of a Jewish man that lived in A.D. 1200 depict well the reverence with which he discussed his God. It also depicts the God of the Word quite well from the Old Testament standpoint. He mentions His creation, unity, eternality, and many other attributes. "Thirteen Principles of Faith (Ani Ma'amin) Lieberman, Leo/Beringause, Arthur, editors; "Classics Of Jewish Literature"; Secaucus, NJ: Castle, p 226-227. (I would have included it but could not find an address so I could seek permission.)
Let us look at other definitions of God.
1. "By God we understand the one absolutely and infinitely perfect Spirit who is the creator of all" (Pardington, Revelation George P. Ph.D. quoting the Catholic Dictionary; "Outline Studies In Christian Doctrine"; Harrisburg, PA: Christian Publications, 1926, p 58)
2. "God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth" (Pardington quoting The Westminster Shorter Catechism, p 58)
3. "God is the infinite and perfect Spirit in whom all things have their source, support, and end." (Strong, Augustus H.. "Systematic Theology"; Valley Forge, PA: The Judson Press, 1907, p 52)
4. Bill Bright mentions that God is not a "cosmic policeman," nor a "dictator," nor a "big bully." He also mentions that "to know Him intimately is to love Him supremely." (Bright, Bill; article from Worldwide Challenge, "Getting to Know God")
5. Unger mentions, "He is purely spiritual, the Supreme Personal Intelligence, the Creator and Preserver of all things, the Perfect Moral Ruler of the universe; He is the only proper object of worship; He is the
tri-personal — the Father, Son, and Holy spirit constituting one Godhead." (Taken from: "Unger's Bible Dictionary"; Unger, Merrill F.; Copyright 1957, Moody Bible Institute of Chicago; Moody Press. Used by permission. p 410)
He is distinct from any other God that might be fabricated in man's mind. Scripture declares that God is a God among many gods. He is pictured as THE GOD among other gods. He is the TRUE GOD among the gods of men's minds.
In Isaiah 45:5,6 God declares that He is the only God.
"I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me; I girded thee, though thou hast not known me, that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else."
Yet, Exodus 15:11 and other texts declare Him to be The One God among other gods. "Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?" Psalm 136:2 states, "Oh, give thanks unto the God of gods; for his mercy endureth forever." (See also: Ezra 1:2-4; Jeremiah 10:11; Exodus 18:1-12; Exodus 20:3; Exodus 23:24; 2 Kings 17:26.)
The next item to examine is the question, "How do we know God exists?" There are four indications of God's existence that I would like to mention at this point.
Intuition: We know God exists due to man's intuition. All men of all ages have had a sense of God. There have been burial sites of hundreds of civilizations that have shown the people prepared their dead for the afterlife. Intuition is ". . .what the normal natural mind assumes to be true." (Reprinted by permission: Walvoord, John F. editor; "Lewis Sperry Chafer Systematic Theology"; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1988, Vol. I, p 111)
Romans 1:18-20 tells us that God will hold all mankind responsible based in part upon this intuitive knowledge of Him. Nature itself reveals God and the book of Romans is clear that, based on these two revelations, the lost are without excuse.
Tradition: We also know that God exists due to tradition. Tradition comes from those things that man knew from ages past that were handed down through the ages. There are also the Scriptures that contain this earlier tradition and they record for us those things we can know of God from times past.
Reason: By viewing the creation and using the mind, man can know that God exists. We will cover this in detail later.
Revelation: We have just studied the doctrine of the Bible which is God revealing Himself to us. He tells us much of Himself in His Word.
God is one. God is three. There is one God and within God are three personalities. There is one essence and there is one nature. There are three persons.
The term "God" normally in Scripture relates to, not a particular person of the Trinity, but to the essence and nature of God. It refers to "deity." There are times when "God" is used and elsewhere in the context the Word identifies "God" as one particular person of the Trinity.
SOME DEFINITIONS
Essence: Essence is that which gives attributes residence and is the proof of existence. Thiessen mentions of essence, ". . .that which underlies all outward manifestation; the reality itself, whether material or immaterial; the substratum of anything that in which the qualities of attributes inhere." (Thiessen, Henry C.; "Lectures In Systematic Theology"; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1949, p 119)
Being: Being is a state of existence and essence.
Person: Person is a term that defines the totality of essence and being.
Nature: Nature is the outworking of essence and attributes. It is the total of all that a being is.
Attributes: Attributes are the qualities of essence.
Personality: Personality is that which causes distinctness between different essences.
Take some time to consider these terms as they relate to God.
We want to study God so that we can know more about the Lord, but also that we might know the Lord. There is a vast difference between knowing about God and knowing God. I trust that not only will you learn facts about your God, but that you would also get to know Him in a more special way.
Tertullian said, ". . .the knowledge of God is the dowry of the soul." (Warfield, B.B.; "Calvin And Augustine"; New York: 1931, p 147) Knowledge of Him should be of great importance to each of us.
I trust that in years to come that you might well fit into the category of man that Theophilus mentions. "If you say, 'Show me thy God,' I reply, 'Show me your man and I will show you my God.'" (Warfield. B.B., p 147)
Strauss mentions, "The nature of God is not fully comprehensible by the human, finite mind; however, we must pursue that which is apprehensible and which God himself has been pleased to reveal." (Strauss, Lehman; "The First Person"; Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1967, p 43)
Tozer indicates that we can know a nation by knowing it's concept of God (p 7). We can also know a church by it's idea of God. Likewise we may know a man by his concept of God.
As you converse with a person or observe the actions of a church or nation you may gain knowledge of what that person, church, or nation thinks of God.
That is an awesome thought, that people can know what we feel and think about God by observing us. What do you tell by your lifestyle to the people around you? What does your church tell the neighbors about God by their lifestyle?
I met a man when working as a janitor. He knew that I was a preacher and talked to me from time to time. He swore, drank, and smoked each night after work with the other men. He would talk to me of knowing the Lord, and knowing that he was not living correctly. He also mentioned how
important it is to affect those around you spiritually. The problem with his affect on others was that it was not a Godly affect.
We must, as believers, portray the God that we serve. We cannot reflect our God if we are abusive, if we are nasty, if we are short tempered, if we are dishonest, if we are unpleasant, if we are ____________ . You fill in the blank with your improper personal traits.
Consider daily how you have portrayed your God as you lay down to sleep.
NATURALISTIC THEISTIC ARGUMENTS SHOWING GOD
Naturalistic would be something to do with nature. Theistic would have to do with God. Naturalistic theistic arguments then, would be arguments for God from nature.
The term theism is used in different ways: In the most general sense it is any belief in god as a concept or idea. In the specific sense as we use it, it relates to the belief in Almighty God the Creator.
Atheism is the thought there is no god. The atheist is up front, automatically a fool according to the Psalmist (Psalm 14:1). The atheist should assume there is no god and force the theist to prove there is a god. Instead the atheist attempts to prove there is no god. If something is not there then how do you prove that it is not there? Especially when that thing that is not there is invisible. That is at best, a foolish thing to attempt.
The theist is left with the job of proving that his god is there even though that god is not visible and scientifically observable.
Our discussion in this section will be concerned with some of these proofs that have been set forth to prove that God exists. To be more specific, they are proofs that our God the creator of the universe exists.
Natural Theism: This is the information available from nature and through man's reasoning about God.
Biblical Theism: This is all information available to man from nature and from the Word of God that is not only complete, but true.
I. NATURAL THEISM
Knowledge of God comes from three sources in the natural realm. These three sources are intuition, tradition and reason.
A. INTUITiON: Due to the sin in man this knowledge is distorted, however it is a knowledge that all of mankind has shared through the centuries. This is an inborn knowledge of God. Romans 1:19 mentions,
"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for
God hath shown it unto them."
All civilizations have had some sort of afterlife and belief in some sort of god or higher power. This knowledge is that which does not need to be taught. It is knowledge that does not come from his environmental training or upbringing. The thought of right and wrong is a good example. Every society has rights and wrongs. Some of them are much more primitive than others, yet we find some concept of right and wrong in any society that we care to study.
Man has this type of knowledge of God. He may not know much, and his knowledge may be warped, but that knowledge is built in.
Strauss quotes Zwemer, The Origin Of Religion: "On two great conceptions modern scientists are agreed: namely, on the unity of the race and on the essential religious nature of man....Man is very much alike everywhere from China to Peru....He always has been and is [,] incurably religious....Humanity itself finds its roots in God...." (Strauss, Lehman; "The First Person"; Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1967, p 32)
In all societies man has the concept of God and there is also along with that concept the concept that if the man does wrong there will be displeasure on the part of God, and punishment for the man. On the other hand — good actions bring lack of punishment, or reward.
B. Tradition: The information we have in our Bible may have been tradition before it was set down by Moses. The men that followed God during this period operated on what had been handed down to them from previous generations.
To a point much of what we can know of God today came from past generations that have committed their findings about God and His Word to the printed page for us to consider and ponder.
C. Reason: There are several arguments for the existence of God from reason. Walvoord says these arguments are inductive and proceed from
facts to a conclusion. If I grab the two wires in a light socket, I feel something. That is fact. From the fact of pain, I Should draw some conclusions that I should not touch two wires in a light socket.
1. Argumentum A Posteriori: This is the argument from effect to cause. If you see or observe an effect you know there was a cause. If you come up to a car that is upside down in the ditch you know there has been an unexpected occurrence. That is the effect — the cause may be a number of things, but you can be sure there was some cause.
We lived in an apartment in Salem, OR located on a curve at the edge of town. We had numerous accidents every year on the curve. One morning early we heard a crash and I went to see if I could help. Another car was just pulling off in a hurry. The driver of the wrecked car said he had taken the corner at 30 miles per hour and he didn't know what happened. I was told by one of our sons before going to the scene that the two cars had been drag racing. He knew the cause of the effect just as well as I did, even though the driver just couldn't figure out what happened.
This argument for the existence of God is quite effective with people that don't know if God exists. These arguments are very logical in their approach, and thus conducive to acceptance by both the intellectual mind and the mind of a less educated person.
This line of argumentation moves from the end product that we are, and in which we live (creation), backward to what was in the past — only One that had intelligence, desire and power enough to create what we see today could have created it all. There must have been a being that had intelligence, desire and power enough to create, to have done so.
A well-built car, if examined, will demand there be a designer that had the desire to design and build such a device, as well as the power to build.
a. Cosmological: Cosmological comes from the term, "kosmos" meaning orderly. Simply stated this tells us that we can observe the great and vast creation thus we must assume there was a great and vast power that was powerful enough to have created that creation.
There are four arguments concerning the creation that have been presented in the past.
1). Nature is eternal so there is no need for a cause.
2). Matter is eternal and therefore is self-developing. It can do as it wants — man has no direction or purpose — only the matter that is developing has purpose.
3). Matter is eternal however it's present arrangement is due to the influence of God. Plato, Aristotle, and others held this thought. Man then may have some purpose else wise why would God influence matter.
4). Matter was created for the express purposes of Almighty God. Only this final argument is consistent with the Revelation of God.
Pardington quotes Strong: "Everything begun, whether substance or phenomenon, owes its existence to some producing cause. The universe, at least so far as its present form is concerned, is a thing begun, and owes its existence to a cause equal to its production. This cause must be indefinitely great." (Pardington, Revelation George P. Ph.D.; "Outline Studies In Christian Doctrine"; Harrisburg, PA: Christian Publications, 1926, p 65)
This system of argumentation is based on three presuppositions:
1). If there is an effect there was a cause. If you enter a room and a thief is standing over me with his fist raised and I am laying on the floor, there must have been a cause for my reclining position.
2). The effect depends on the cause for its being. My reclining position is not because the price of eggs is higher today than yesterday in Chicago, but it may be because I said something about the way the thief was acting.
3). Nature cannot in and of itself produce itself. There had to have been a cause for the effect of nature.
Cause and effect. Everything begun owes it's existence to some producing cause. Let us consider a room for example; something caused it; it didn't just come into existence. This book — a cause somewhere caused it to come into existence.
Lockyer ends his study in this way:
"There is a power somewhere because there are effects everywhere.
"There is wisdom somewhere because wise deeds are accomplished everywhere.
"There is intelligence somewhere for there are order and arrangement everywhere.
"There is goodness somewhere for there are beneficent agents and resultant gladness everywhere." (Taken from the book, ALL THE DOCTRINES OF THE BIBLE by Herbert Lockyer. Copyright 1964 by Zondervan Publishing House. Used by permission. p 21)
b. Teleological: Simply stated is the fact that we can see design in the creation thus we must assume that creation was designed and created by a being that has design and order.
The term comes from the Greek word "telos" which means design or end.
If there is design then it is logical to assume there was a designer. Pardington quoting Strong states, "Order and useful collation [means bringing together] pervading a system respectively imply intelligence and purpose as the cause of that order and collocation [means arranging together]. Since order and collocation pervade the universe, there must exist an intelligence adequate to the production of this order, and a will adequate to direct this collocation to useful ends" (Pardington, pp 66, 67)
I once took apart a Norelco razor — there had to have been a designer — it was too well engineered to just have come into existence in some junk yard somewhere. The universe is full of examples of the great design to be found in the creation in which we live.
Cambron mentions the design whereby ice floats to the top of water thereby allowing fish life to live through cold weather. If ice sank to the bottom then all above would also freeze killing the fish.
Reason for the design is indicative of intelligent thought processes of a being that designed due to a reason and created. Intelligent thought processes also indicates the personality of the designer.
The human eye and it's intricacies. The seed that can be planted and spring forth to life as a plant and later as fruit.
It should be noted that the skeptics must admit that the world is ordered. They are left with the problem of explaining how the order came into being if there was no order. They must rely on disordered primordial gluck moving from itself to a finely ordered world of today. This idea is not only illogical but it lacks reason.
Some might state that the order and design came from the natural working of the laws of nature. If this is true where then did the orderly laws of nature come from if not from an orderly God.
c. Anthropological: Simply stated this point says that man has a spiritual side that did not happen by chance — we must assume there is a spiritual being that created him.
Pardington states, "The argument may be represented in three parts:
a. "Man's intellectual and moral nature requires for its author an intellectual and moral Being. The mind cannot evolve from matter, neither can spirit evolve from flesh. Consequently, a Being having both mind and spirit must have created man.
b. "Man's moral nature proves the existence of a holy Lawgiver and Judge. Otherwise, conscience cannot be satisfactorily explained.
c. "Man's emotional and volitional nature requires for its author a Being, who, as Dr. Strong says, "can furnish in Himself a satisfying object of human affection and an end which will call forth man's highest activities and ensure his highest progress." (Pardington, p 68)
Ryrie states, "Inasmuch as God has created man with unusual qualities not found in any other created being, it is possible for man, on the basis of what he is, to have some concept of what God is. Man is composed of both material and immaterial elements." (Taken from: "A Survey Of Bible Doctrine"; Ryrie, Charles C.; Copyright 1972, Moody Bible Institute of Chicago; Moody Press. Used by permission.)
In using this argument you must be careful to not use "God" in your proof of God's existence. I think that Ryrie needs to reconsider his argument. It
would be better to say that because man has qualities that animals do not have there is some reason for that difference. We can assume that due to our makeup that a creator would probably have some of those same characteristics, which He gave to us.
Ryrie goes on to say that a being creating man with "Life, intellect, sensibility, will, conscience, and inherent belief in God" must also have those attributes. (Taken from: "A Survey Of Bible Doctrine"; Ryrie, Charles C.; Copyright 1972, Moody Bible Institute of Chicago; Moody Press. Used by permission.)
Some submit man's moral nature as indicative of a moral God as well. Indeed, some call this whole thought the Moral argument.
In concluding the three arguments Walvoord states the following:
"(1) In the cosmological argument, the existence of the cosmos, originating in time, constitutes proof of a First Cause who is selfexistent and eternal and who possesses intelligence, power, and will.
"(2) In the teleological argument the evidence of design extends the proof of the intelligence of the First Cause into details of telescopic grandeur and microscopic perfection far beyond the feeble ability of man to discover or comprehend.
"(3) In the anthropological argument, though confirming the proofs advanced in the two preceding arguments, an added indication is secured which suggests the elements in the First Cause of intellect, sensibility, and will, which are the essentials of personality; the moral feature of conscience in man indicates that his Creator is the One who actuates holiness, justice, goodness, and truth." (Reprinted by permission: Walvoord, John F. editor; "Lewis Sperry Chafer Systematic Theology"; Wheaton: Victor Books, Vol. I & II, 1988, p 122)
d. Christological: Simply stated this argument shows that if we can observe so many things related to Christ that cannot be humanly produced, we must assume there was a supernatural being that produced the effects.
This point is closely related to Scriptural proofs of God's existence yet the unsaved philosophical mind must cope with it if he is to be honest.
If there is no God then how do you account for:
1). The Bible and its longevity.
2). Fulfillment of prophecy.
3). The miracles.
4). Supernatural character and divine mission of Christ.
5). Christianity's influence on the world.
6). The fact of conversion and the change in people's lives.
If there is no God then you must account in some way for all of the above.
e. Congruity: Congruity simply stated says, if you have a system of thought that fits the facts of the effect then you must assume the system of thought contains facts that are correct about the cause. This comes from the state of being "harmoniously related or united." (Bancroft, Emery H./Ed. Mayers, Ronald B.; "Christian Theology"; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976, p 66)
The following is an argument that follows this line of thinking. If a key fits the lock of the door and it unlocks the lock then it is the correct key to the door. If an infinite God fits all the facts that we perceive, then He is the answer that we seek.
2. Argumentum A Priori: This argument by definition works from the minute to the enlarged. It moves from a bone to a suggested full size recreation of the bone's original owner. Pardington states, "a priori argument, that is, from cause to effect." (Pardington p 69)
a. Ontological: Ontological comes from the Greek word "ontos" or being. Simply stated, man has a concept of an infinite perfect being thus we must assume that the infinite perfect being made us aware of Himself.
Walvoord describes this argument: "The argument is that man could not have this idea unless something exists that corresponds to it. According to
this argument, the existence of God is certified by the fact that the human mind believes that God exists." He also states that most do not use this argument due to the fact there are questions that can arise from it. (Reprinted by permission: Walvoord, John F. editor; "Lewis Sperry Chafer Systematic Theology"; Wheaton: Victor Books, Vol. I & II, 1988, p 123)
Pardington likens it to "the Scotchman's definition of metaphysics: "one man talking about something of which he knows nothing to another man who does not understand him."" (Pardington, p 69)
Pardington lists three forms of this argument:
1. Samuel Clarke of the 18th century. "Space and time are attributes of substance or being. But space and time are respectively infinite and eternal. There must therefore be an infinite and eternal substance or Being to whom these attributes belong.
"Gillespie mentions: "Space and time are modes of existence. But space and time are respectively infinite and eternal. There must therefore be an infinite and eternal Being who subsists in these modes." (Pardington P 70)
Space and time are infinite, therefore there must be an infinite and eternal substance or being to whom these attributes belong. Some thing or being had to be operating in infinity to create these things to enjoy.
We have an idea of an infinite and perfect being. This idea cannot be derived from imperfect, finite things. Thus there must be an infinite being who is the cause.
2. Descartes a Frenchman from the 16th century: "We have the idea of an infinite and perfect Being. this idea cannot be derived from the imperfect and finite things. There must, therefore, be an infinite and perfect Being who is the cause." (Pardington p 70)
We have an idea of an absolutely perfect being. But existence is an attribute of perfection. Thus, an absolutely perfect being must exist.
Strong argues that the finite mind cannot come to the infinite idea.
3. Anselm of the middle ages: "We have the idea of an absolutely perfect Being. But existence is an attribute of perfection. An absolutely perfect Being must, therefore, exist." (Pardington p 70)
Q. Is this truly a naturalistic argument? As Ryrie and Walvoord state it, I'm not so sure. If as the other writers define it — not using God but the idea of a being, then you might see it as naturalistic. To put God into it is to say that we are arguing from a knowledge of God.
In witnessing you can use these arguments to jog people's minds as to the possibility of God's existence. Missionaries in foreign countries oft times have to use these arguments to help the people to the place where they can believe that there is a God and then the missionary can witness to them of the Gospel.
In The Daily Bread a story by Mark Ralph Norton of the Belgian Gospel Mission, illustrates the truth that we need to remember even when using these arguments.
"What do you do Mark Norton, in a case where an unsaved man does not accept the Bible as having any authority?" He replied, "Well, if I were in a fight and had a sword with a keen double-edged blade, I wouldn't keep it in its sheath just because the other fellow said he didn't believe it would cut." (Used by permission of Radio Bible Class, Grand Rapids, Michigan.)
We need to use the Word at any and every opportunity even though the person may or may reject the Word's validity. ("For the word of God is living, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword." Hebrews 4:12)
I would encourage you to be familiar with these arguments in coming days. You will be running into more and more people that will not believe there is a God and these will give you an opening to talk to them of God anyway.
Someone has suggested that when Paul preached on Mars' Hill he approached the people via an unknown god they worshiped, but that he went immediately into the Gospel, not using any rational arguments, thus
we must assume that we should not use rational arguments with people in witnessing. NO. This is wrong logic.
Paul was talking to people that had belief in gods. They had many but they believed in gods. "...I perceive that in all things ye are very religious." (Acts 17:22b It should be noted that Paul began at Genesis 1 to explain his thought to the Athenians.) It should also be noted that though Paul did not use the arguments of reason that we are discussing, he did use reason with them. This is seen in his presentation in vss. 22ff. (Vs. 29 especially)
He did not have opportunity to share the Gospel with these people by the way. He did have some that followed and evidently accepted the Gospel later. Vs. 34.
There are people that do not believe in any god or gods. These are the people that we can confront with rational arguments. They may accept the possibility of a god and then begin to listen to the Word.
I spent an afternoon talking with a man that was irate with a Christian that had spent the noon hour telling him that he needed to be saved. When I entered the truck, He challenged me. "You aren't a religious nut are you?" As the afternoon went along, I talked with him of the possibilities of God existing. He was very open to the logic of the arguments. Ultimately I was able to share the Gospel with him. His final comment that day was, "Stan, thank you for telling me that. At home I have stacks of religious literature, and I have never heard what you told me today." He promised to seriously consider the Lord's claims — because he was open to logical arguments for the Father's existence.
VARIOUS VIEWS OF GOD
Walvoord, Chafer and Theissen all have good sections on these topics. Hodge has a detailed section on this as well. Since so much work has been done on the subject there will only be a brief introduction to the topic here.
There are many views of the creation, the being or power that did it, and the resultant oversight of the creation by that power or being. We need to look at some of these views.
1. Dynamism: There is in all things a force which can be tapped for either good or evil purposes. This force is not described — only used and worshiped. This is an impersonal force that is stronger than man. Does that sound like anything you've been seeing on tv in recent years? Sound like Star Wars? "May the Force be with you."
2. Animism: All of nature has spirits that are personal and responsive to the worshiper. The spirit will do good or evil according to the worshipers activities. Help or injury can come from these spirits at the will of the spirit. This would be tree worship or moon worship etc.
Animism views all immaterial things as being and existing due to the immaterial part of the object. The immaterial is inseparable from the matter and gives the matter form and life.
In short if we were animists and I was to give you a test and you failed the test, you might well come to the desk that you took the test in, and feel that its spirit had been unkind to you because you left your gum on it. You might clean the gum off and do some ritual to get back into its good graces.
3. Fetishism: The idea that objects have spirits and the object must be worshiped because the spirit is there. The spirit is a temporary resident of the object so may leave the object. The term means magic. Many Indian tribes in South America and elsewhere have great problems with fetishes. When the people accept Christ one of the first things to go should be, and usually is, their fetishes.
In our previous illustration, if we believed in fetishism, you might, when you came to the desk, find that the spirit had moved. You might have to go find it.
This reminds me of the Roman Catholic Church in South America in years past when they removed some of the saint's statues from the cathedrals because they were no longer saints. The people had been worshiping at those statues for several generations in some cases, and all of a sudden the saint wasn't a saint and was gone — they had no one to pray to.
4. Idolatry: This is not the worship of sleep. The term means image. The idol is the permanent residence of the spirit and as such, is worshiped. The object is something that is man made normally and is sacred.
The difference between idolatry and fetishism is that the spirit is permanent in the idol while the spirit is not permanent in the fetish. The difference between animism, idolatry and fetishism is that the animist views ALL objects as having a spirit, while the idolater and fetishist view only some objects as having a spirit.
Jeremiah 10 has a great listing of the attributes of idols: they are cut from the forest, they are crafted, they are decorated, they are fastened so they can't fall, they can't talk, they need to be carried, they aren't to be feared, they can do you no harm, they can do you no good, they are falsehood, they have no breath, they are vanity, they are works of error, and they will perish. So Why Worship Them?
You can then list all of these and compare them to God's own attributes and see the difference. He, the Living God is what all of the idols are not. Isaiah 44:14-20 is a text you need to remember for speaking to the foolishness of idolatry. Take time to read it.
5. Monolatry: The worshiper selects one idol from all the rest and worships it exclusively and feels that his god is more powerful than all others. Quite often this idol that is worshiped will be a tribal god in the Indian cultures. In monolatry the object is import rather than the god. Sound like "money" today, indeed, the title is close.
6. Polytheism: This is not, as someone has suggested, the worship of parrots. It is Greek for many gods, or the worship of many gods. These
gods are usually well defined in the persons mind. They may live in mountains or in other objects of nature. In the Greek thought they were well-defined gods of supernatural nature. Venus, Apollo, Jupiter etc. The Greek gods all lived on Matthew Olympus.
Quite often there will be one god that is over the other gods or at least more powerful than the other gods. This is also true of the Greek system of gods.
These gods are different from the idolater's god. The god of the polytheist has form and is not related to an object. Their god is independent and can act as he wills, rather than being contained within an object.
There is indication in the Old Testament that many of the peoples of the earth were polytheistic. They all felt that each god had different levels of power. When they ran into a god more powerful than their god, they would add that new god to their list of gods. They might do this when as a valley people, they fought the mountain people and lost. They would naturally assume that the mountain people's god was more powerful. The Old Testament pictures God as knowing that He was one god among many, however, He always declared Himself as the Living God, or as the God above all gods.