Augustine On The Invisibility of the Trinity

One key challenge that Augustine counters in Book II of his On Trinity is the question regarding the invisibility of Jesus in His essential nature. The antagonists argued that Jesus as the Son of God was always visible to the Father; therefore, this visibility also implies mortality and changeability. Two texts that Augustine quotes are:

• Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. (1Ti 1:17 NKJ)


• He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen. (1Ti 6:15-16 NKJ)

Augustine maintains that the invisibility of God means that the Triune God (Father-Son-Spirit) is invisible.

The antagonists argued that the Son was visible not only in flesh through His incarnation but even before that in Himself, and so visibly appeared to the fathers. And, since He was visible in His pre-incarnational existence, He was also mortal, they said. And, so they argued that 1 Timothy 1:17 speaks only of the invisibility of the Father. Further, in that same sense, the Holy Spirit is thought to also be mortal, because He also was visible once as dove and at another time as fire. Both the Son and the Spirit were visible to mortal eyes in various forms and various times, all implying, according to the antagonists, that both the Son and the Spirit were visible, mortal, and changeable; therefore, 1 Timothy 1:17 cannot apply to them but only to the Father.

Augustine begins by asking who the contenders think was walking in the Garden of Eden from whose face Adam hid. Was it the Father or the Son? Why not the Father, especially when the form of the narrative signifies no change of the Divine Person from chapter 1 to chapter 3. If we understand that the world was made by the Father through the Word, why not also accept that Adam saw the Father in a visible form. In fact, the visibility of the Father is not impossible in the same way as the audibility of Father was not impossible (as in John 12:28 and Matthew 17:5 when His voice is heard apart of the Spirit and the Son). Obviously, the voice was not of the Spirit; for, nowhere is Jesus called as the Son of the Holy Spirit. 'But here, where it is written, "And the Lord God said to Adam,"' says Augustine 'no reason can be given why the Trinity itself should not be understood.'

Augustine goes on to examine the theophanies to Abraham, Lot, Moses, the Israelites in wilderness, and to Daniel. Why not accept the three-person appearance to Abraham as the visitation of the Trinity, especially when none of them is shown to be lesser or greater to the other? Next, the two angels that appeared to Lot could be understood to be the Son and the Spirit, since They say that They were sent, and nowhere does it say that the Father is sent; however, He is the sender. The goal of Augustine is to show that visibility cannot be limited to only the Son and the Spirit, but even the Father can be seen as being visible at times. However, in His divine nature, the Triune God cannot be seen corporeally, "but we must believe that by means of the creature made subject to Him, not only the Son, or the Holy Spirit, but also the Father, may have given intimations of Himself to mortal senses by a corporeal form or likeness."

____________
See Augustine On Trinity, Book II.

Prophets, Apostles, and Canonicity of the Bible

The Bible contains 66 books that are considered together to be the canon (i.e. standard rule). There were many other books which the church fathers did not include into the canon because they failed to fulfill the 5-fold criteria of canonicity. The 5-fold criteria was:

1. Authorship: It should be authored by an apostle or a prophet or a holy man of God.


2. Local Church Acceptance: It should have been accepted in the local churches of First Century Christians


3. Recognition by Church Fathers: It should have been recognized as scripture by the church fathers in their writings.


4. Sound Doctrine: It should convey sound doctrine and must be consistent with the revelation of God.


5. Personal Edification: It should be dynamic in nature towards transformation of lives and contribute as spiritual food and light for personal edification.

The Old Testament canon was already recognized during the time of Jesus and the Apostles and referred to as the Law and the Prophets. The New Testament canon was being recognized by the Apostles, for example when Peter treats Paul's writings as scriptures (2Pet.3:16) and when John affirms his book of prophecy as that to which nothing must be added and from which nothing must be removed. The NT canon was declared during the 3rd Council of Carthage in AD 397. The church father Athanasius listed them in his 39th Paschal letter (AD 367).

We understand the apostolic authorship of the New Testament and the prophetic authorship of the Old Testament very clearly from the writings themselves. The church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Christ Jesus being the corner stone (Eph.2:20).

One important keystone is the prophetic explanations provided in the Bible, which certainly cannot be based on any other authority than God Himself. For instance, in Judges 14 we find the account of Samson adamant to marry a philistine girl, though his parents are not in favor of this. The writer of Judges notes here: "his father and mother did not know that it was of the LORD -- that He was seeking an occasion to move against the Philistines. For at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel." (Judges 14:4). One would ask, "How did this writer know what was in the mind of God? Was he just interpreting God's mind on the basis of a retrospection of incidents that happened? If so, how can he make an authoritative statement like that? Can anyone know the mind of God?" Obviously, the answer is that only the Spirit of God knows the mind of God and the Scriptures were given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (1Cor.2:10,11; 2Pet.1:21; 2Tim.3:16).

See:
Outline of Theology
How Do I Know that the Bible is True?

Narrative Criticism

Narrative criticism is a form of literary criticism applied to biblical studies that developed in the past few decades since the 1970s. As a method of approach, it  focuses more on stories, events, people, discourses and settings. According to A Dictionary of the Bible,  "The main thesis is that readers (e.g. of the gospels) should read the narratives and respond to them as the authors hoped." The previous approaches to biblical criticism, viz. form, redaction, historical, and textual are considered to have become obsolete and effecting no conclusive results. According to Mark W. G. Stibbe,

Until the late 1970s, the traditional methods for the study of the gospels and Acts were form criticism, source criticism, historical criticism, tradition history, redaction criticism, and textual criticism.... ...traditional methods of interpretation were more concerned with what lay behind NT narratives than with their form and their literary, artistic features....

A change began to occur most noticeably in the 1980s, when two books were published on Mark as Story (Rhoads and Michie, 1982; Best, 1983); one on Matthew as Story (Kingsbury, 1986), one on The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts (Tannehill, 1986), and one on the Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel (Culpepper, 1983). Each of these works, and a number of lesser-known books and articles... took up the challenge of looking at the final form of the gospels and Acts in order to highlight those narrative dynamics which traditional methods had neglected.[1]

According to John David Punch, "the pendulum has swung, for literary criticism looks at the text as a whole with virtually no interest in sources, traditions, or redactional material."[2]

Christopher T. Paris observes, "Narrative criticism embraces the textual unity of canonical criticism while historical criticism holds fast to textual divisions that arose from multiple sources and editors. Narrative criticism admits the existence of sources and redactions but chooses to focus on the artistic weaving of these materials into a sustained narrative picture." [3]

The narrative critic tries to first establish the literary aspect and genre of the text (whether it is fiction or non-fiction, prose or poetry?. Then, he goes on to analyse the setting, plot, theme, characters, story elements, etc. His goal is to understand what the narrator (author) of the narrative really wanted to communicate and how he accomplishes it.

NOTES

---

1. Mark W. G. Stibbe, John as Storyteller: Narrative Criticism and the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge University Press, 1992), p5.
2. John David Punch, The Pericope Adulterae: Theories of Insertion & Omission, Doctoral Dissertation submitted to Radboud University Nijmegen, 19 April 2010.
3. Christopher T. Paris, Narrative Obtrusion in the Hebrew Bible, PhD Dissertation submitted to Graduate School of Vanderbilt University, May 2012. p4.

Is it not cruel for God to kill His Son in place of us?

The doctrine of atonement is a stumbling block for some who feel that it not only exemplifies cruelty but also does away with human responsibility. The issue abounds with various questions and attempts to solution.

Questions:
1. If God knew that man would sin and fall, why did He create man?
2. Why doesn't God, if He exists, intervene and stop evil; why just be Judge but not be Governor with proper police security system that minimises the possibility of transgression?
3. How can the death of one particular man atone for the sins of many particular men?
4. Isn't it not cruel to punish an innocent man for the sins of others so that they go free?

Answers that challenge the Christian doctrine:
1. God does not require sacrifice in order to forgive, He can forgive by sovereign authority.
2. Every man must bear his own guilt so that he has a sense of responsibility and possess a genuine reason to pursue good and turn from evil.

Biblical Responses:
1. God's knowledge of human Fall is historical and not potential at par with His knowledge of the creation of man.
2. God is both Governor and Judge but humans live in a status of wilful rebellion and enmity against His rulership but with a choice to surrender or be judged.
3. The death of Jesus can atone for every man's sins because Jesus is the Source of all creation and Head of all things.
4. God is One and the sacrifice of Christ the One God was voluntary self-giving of Love.

1. God's sovereignty doesn't imply the denial of injustice by arbitrary pardoning, in which case the element of injustice is allowed to subsist rather than removed from the moral world. The crucifixion put an end to all rebellion by allowing the Judge Himself to die to rise again as Author of the new Creation with the power to destroy all things that do not submit to Him. The crucifixion and resurrection portray the victory of God over all chaos wrought by evil and injustice in the moral universe.
2. This is not contradicted by the doctrine of confession, repentance, and new life.

Sanctification: Positional, Progressive, Perfect

• Positional Sanctification: Sanctified by Faith in Christ (Acts 26:18) by His Blood (Heb.10:29)
• Progressive Sanctification: Dedication to God, Partaking of His Holiness, Pursuit of Holiness, Sanctified Living, Offering Bodies as Living Sacrifice, Walking in the Spirit, Sanctifying Christ in Hearts, Daily Cleansing, Walking in the Light, Avoiding all Appearance of Evil, Having Purity of Conscience, Purity of Faith, Purity of Love, Striving Against Sin, Fleeing Lusts, Disciplining Body, Pursuit of God in Hope, Putting off old man, Putting on new man (Heb.12:10,14; 1Pet.1:15; Rom.12:1,2; Gal.5:22-25; 2Cor.7:1; 1Jn.1:7-9; Rom.12:9; Heb.12:3; 1Cor.9:27; 1Tim.1:5; 6:11; 1Jn.3:3; Eph.4:22-25). Note: Progressive doesn't mean one is less holy today and becomes holier later. One is either holy or unholy; clean or unclean. In the NT, there is no gradation of Holy and Most Holy. Progressive means daily walk of holiness with Christ in the Spirit. No man can say he is immune to temptation while on earth. Also, it demands constant watchfulness and prayer. One is called to be holy, and grow in maturity. One cannot grow in holiness. However, one is called to cleanse oneself, separate oneself from all impurity so that he can be a vessel of honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work (2Tim.2:21). One is called to maintain good works (Tit.3:8,14). Progressive sanctification is life lived in dedication to Christ in earnest expectation of His salvation.
• Perfect Sanctification: Deliverance from the Presence and Power of Sin at Christ's Coming (1Thess.3:13)

Analogy of Marriage:

• Positional Sanctification is like Engagement
• Progressive Sanctification is like Faithfulness and Devotion to the Groom, Having Only Him in Mind, Staying Pure, Expecting Him, Saying No to Others
• Perfect Sanctification is like the Marriage

Usury

Usury is the money charged for the use of money. What is understood as usury in the negative sense usually, is considered as interest in the positive or neutral sense.

Old Testament law discouraged practice of usury against fellow brethren. But, the Israelites were permitted to lend on interest to foreigners. Jesus mentions in His Parable of Talents that the servant with one talent should have deposited the money with bankers rather than hide it in the ground so that the Master could get back his amount along with interest. However, Aquinas considered the application of this suggestion in spiritual terms. For many centuries, usury was forbidden by the church (though Luther observes that many of the clergy did wickedly practice it). The Jews who practiced (or were marginalized to this trade) often became victims of persecution. A great example of the evil of usury is exemplified in Shakespeare's play, "Merchant of Venice", the usurer personified as the evil Shylock the Jew.

Aristotle considered usury as unnatural. In his Politics he wrote:

Now money-making, as we say, being twofold, it may be applied to two purposes, the service of the house or retail trade; of which the first is necessary and commendable, the other justly censurable; for it has not its origin in nature, but by it men gain from each other; for usury is most reasonably detested, as it is increasing our fortune by money itself, and not employing it for the purpose it was originally intended, namely exchange.

And this is the explanation of the name (TOKOS), which means the breeding of money. For as offspring resemble their parents, so usury is money bred of money. Whence of all forms of money-making it is most against nature. (A Treatise on Government, Gutenberg)

Thomas Aquinas, borrowing the argument from Aristotle, further argued:

To take usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice. In order to make this evident, we must observe that there are certain things the use of which consists in their consumption: thus we consume wine when we use it for drink and we consume wheat when we use it for food. Wherefore in such like things the use of the thing must not be reckoned apart from the thing itself, and whoever is granted the use of the thing, is granted the thing itself and for this reason, to lend things of this kin is to transfer the ownership. Accordingly if a man wanted to sell wine separately from the use of the wine, he would be selling the same thing twice, or he would be selling what does not exist, wherefore he would evidently commit a sin of injustice. On like manner he commits an injustice who lends wine or wheat, and asks for double payment, viz. one, the return of the thing in equal measure, the other, the price of the use, which is called usury.

On the other hand, there are things the use of which does not consist in their consumption: thus to use a house is to dwell in it, not to destroy it. Wherefore in such things both may be granted: for instance, one man may hand over to another the ownership of his house while reserving to himself the use of it for a time, or vice versa, he may grant the use of the house, while retaining the ownership. For this reason a man may lawfully make a charge for the use of his house, and, besides this, revendicate the house from the person to whom he has granted its use, as happens in renting and letting a house.

Now money, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 5; Polit. i, 3) was invented chiefly for the purpose of exchange: and consequently the proper and principal use of money is its consumption or alienation whereby it is sunk in exchange. Hence it is by its very nature unlawful to take payment for the use of money lent, which payment is known as usury: and just as a man is bound to restore other ill-gotten goods, so is he bound to restore the money which he has taken in usury. (Summa)

Martin Luther also considered usury to be an evil; however, he rejected Aristotelianism altogether. His argument against usury was that it contravened the principle of Love. Luther considered that the Christian dealing and the right use of temporal goods consist in "giving them away, lending them without charge, and quietly letting them go when they are taken by force." (On Trading and Usury). He counters arguments in favor of usury in the following ways:

The concept of ”interesse”
We will now look at the arguments by which this tender business is justified. There is a little Latin word called interesse. This noble, precious, tender, little word may be rendered in German this way: If I have a hundred gulden with which I can trade, and by my labor and trouble make in a year five or six gulden or more, I place it with someone else, on a productive property, so that not I, but he, can trade with it, and for this I take from him five gulden, which I might have earned; thus he sells me the income – five gulden for a hundred – and I am the buyer and he the seller. Here they say, now, that the purchase of the income is proper because, with these gulden, I might perhaps have made more in a year, and the interest is just and sufficient. All that is so pretty that no one can find fault with it at any point. But it is also true that it is not possible to have such interest on earth, for there is another, counter-interest, which goes like this: If I have a hundred gulden, and am to do business with it, I may run a hundred kinds of risk of making no profits at all, nay, of losing four times as much besides. Because of the money itself, or because of illness, I may not be able to do business, or there may be no wares or goods on hand. Hindrances of this kind are innumerable, and we see that failures, losses, and injuries are greater than profits. Thus the interest on loss is as great as the interest of profits, or greater.

Safe profit
....money in trade and money at interest are different things, and the one cannot be compared with the other. For money invested in income has a basis which constantly grows and produces profit out of the earth, while money in trade has no certainty; the interest it yields is accidental, and one cannot count on it at all. Here they will say, perhaps, that, because they place money on land, there is an “interest of loss,” as well as an “interest of profit,” for the income stands or falls according as the land stays or not. This is all true, and we shall hear more about it below. But the fact remains that money which one can place on land increases the “first interest” too much and decreases the “second interest” as compared with money that moves in trade; for, as was said above, there is more risk in trade than in land. Since, then, one cannot get ground with a definite sum of money, neither can one buy income with a definite sum.

Usury
There are some who not only deal in little sums, but also take too much return – seven, eight, nine, ten percent. The rulers ought to look into this. Here the poor common people are secretly imposed upon and severely oppressed. For this reason these robbers and usurers often die an unnatural and sudden death, or come to a terrible end (as tyrants and robbers deserve), for God is a judge for the poor and needy, as He often says in the Old Law. (On Trading and Usury)

However, modern Christian economist, Gary North observes that Jesus annulled the Jubilee laws of the Old Testament, thus rendering slavery laws as ineffective. Secondly, Jesus authorized interest in His Parable of Talents. He concludes:

The Mosaic law prohibited interest on a narrow class of loans: charitable loans to fellow Israelites and resident aliens. It did not prohibit interest on all other loans.

Charitable loans were to be annulled in the seventh year, at one time. Loans collateralized by rural land were to end in the seventh seventh year, or jubilee year. The land reverted to the heirs of the conquest generation.

The sabbatical year and the jubilee year system were annulled by Jesus and ended when Israel ceased to exist as a nation.

Jesus authorized interest-bearing loans. (Usury, Interest, and Loans)

Analysis

• It is evident that personal loaning on interest is regarded as an evil even in scriptures. Or else, God would not have forbidden it for the Jews against their fellow-Jews. Usury contradicts the principle of love as it is based on profit-making and not on charity.
• However, the banking system is a system of lending and keeping. It not only pays interest to those who save money in the bank, but it also charges interest for those who would borrow from the bank. The interest rates can be regularized and governed by proper legislation. In addition, it is through the banking system that currency notes are issued and kept in check. Therefore, it is different from the personal loaning system. Jesus didn't discourage this banking. In fact, His parable encouraged depositing money with bankers who would give interest for the same. There are certainly bad and vicious banking systems; however, that is another topic altogether.
• Charitable loans must be distinguished from luxury and commercial loans. Charitable loans must not be charged interest. In fact, it is Christian to lend without expecting anything. However, Christians are not expected to lend money in order for people to enjoy luxuries. You can lend money to a man in need. But, you are not obligated to lend money to someone who wants money in order to buy a Mercedes Benz. The same holds for commercial loans that are non-charity in nature.
• The Bible discourages borrowing of money, but doesn't discourage giving.
• The Bible encourages that we do not owe anything to anyone. In other words, people are expected to pay back what they borrow.
• Jesus encouraged the idea of depositing with bankers rather than hiding money or keeping it unused, for God established multiplication as the nature of creation. But, hording wealth for selfish purposes is anti-social. We must distinguish between hording and pursing (pursing is keeping some money at hand for immediate uses). The modern banks actually can act as both purse and safety lockers, while at the same time having the advantage of the money not remaining unused.
• The Aristotelian concept of money breeding money doesn't apply to modern banking systems. Government systems may help inflate economies by not regulating the influx of fake currency or growth of black money. However, this is dilution and not growth. On the other hand, a banking system in modern times actually can help save money by providing proper loans on low interests so that people can use money to avail greatly and pay back. It is like the Master in Matthew 25 who gives talents to his servants and actually expects them to multiply them. He actually deposits or saves the talents with them. Wise stewardship is encouraged. Of course, this is not the Parable of the Forgiving Master, and banking is not about Masters and servants; the Parable was only quoted to highlight that multiplication is expected through wisdom, integrity, and diligence. But in the Parable of the Forgiving Master, Mercy (the quality upheld in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice) comes into spotlight. The Master forgives the one who is indebted to him and expects him to do the same. This is the essence of the Gospel ethics. Contrary to the OT Law that would have made slaves of this debtor and his family, the NT principle encourages forgiving of debts when payment becomes impossible.
• The Bible discourages bad loans as well as merciless collaterizations. The poor man's cloak must be returned to him for the night. The poor man cannot borrow more than the value of his cloak. The poor man cannot engage in multiple borrowings.
• Greed and love of money is the root of all evil.
• An economy based on unjust and merciless practices of loans and borrowings is bound to collapse.
• The Christian principle is to give to the needy without expecting anything in return. However, it doesn't ask Christians to refuse the use of bank notes, banking, and systems of monetary use as long as the use doesn't blatantly rebel against the true revelation of God (e.g. Rev.13). Jesus knew that the Jews used the Roman coin that had the image of Caesar, and didn't tell them to forsake such use. Instead, He encouraged them to give to Caesar what is due to Caesar and to God what is due to God. 

The Goodness of God

The Bible celebrates the fact that God is Good (Psalm 135:3). To state that God is good is to also acknowledge at the same time that God is the summum bonum, the Highest Good. His goodness is absolute in Himself, for He is perfect. His goodness is also towards us, in relation.

• God is Good in His Being
• God is Good in His Character
• God is Good in His Acts

To the rich young ruler, Jesus declared that only God is good (Matt.19:17), i.e. in the sense of being the absolute good and perfect Teacher who alone can absolutely declare the truth that leads to eternal life. Sadly, the rich young ruler could not accept Jesus as the Good Master, refusing to follow Him. In his eyes, the world and its possessions were the more immediate good.

There are at least four crisis-situations in relation to our attitude towards God's goodness.

1. Doubt Regarding the Selflessness of God's Goodness

This was the situation that Eve faced in the garden of Eden when the devil deceived her to doubt that God's goodness is selfless. He tried to make her think that God had some selfishness in keeping the forbidden tree's fruit from humans; He knew if they ate of it they would become like gods. The devil attempted to severe "goodness" from God's goodness. As a result, when Eve was deceived and sought the good apart from God, the forbidden fruit and tree appeared to be "good" in relation to her desire.

It is important to trust in God's goodness as being selfless and impartial. He makes the sun to shine on both the just and the unjust. He is not good because of anything or anyone. He is good in Himself and is the ground of all that is good.

2. Fear Regarding the Surety of God's Goodness

In Psalm 27, we find David assert that even if he is surrounded by enemies on all sides, he will not fear because God is with him. When we become afraid if God's goodness would hold towards us and we are terrorized by uncertainty and anxiety about the future, we begin to lose hope. But, David asserts: I would have lost heart, unless I had believed That I would see the goodness of the LORD In the land of the living.  "Wait on the LORD; Be of good courage, And He shall strengthen your heart; Wait, I say, on the LORD!" (Psa 27:13-14 NKJ). 

The Scripture promises us: "And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose." (Rom 8:28 NKJ)

3. Vexation Regarding the Significance of God's Goodness

In Psalm 73, Asaph, a priest in the Temple of Solomon is vexed and frustrated because He knows that God is good (Psalm 73), but fails to see how God's Goodness has any significance for him. He looks at the wicked and sees them prosper and asks if he has cleansed his heart in vain (Psalm 73:13). This turns him bitter, though he doesn't show his inner struggle to people. But, then when he enters God's sanctuary, where he beholds God's goodness and beauty, he finds the solution to his problem. He has to learn that God's goodness is not something about things and possessions in this world; God Himself is Good, and the heart that this Summum Bonum needs nothing else. One doesn't find any true and lasting meaning in life unless one finds satisfaction in God alone. He writes:

Whom have I in heaven but You? And there is none upon earth that I desire besides You.
My flesh and my heart fail; But God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.
For indeed, those who are far from You shall perish; You have destroyed all those who desert You for harlotry.
But it is good for me to draw near to God; I have put my trust in the Lord GOD, That I may declare all Your works. (Psa 73:25-28 NKJ)

He has understood that good is not about things, heaven is no heaven without God; for God alone is good and it is good to be near God alone.

4. Confusion Regarding the Sensitiveness of God's Goodness

Job is a great paragon of patience in the Bible. However, there was a time he was confused too, because he knew that God is good and perfect, He is blessed; but, he was unable to see if God really cared for him. The devil wanted to prove that the just served God, or were just, for material or personal benefits alone. But, Job proved the devil false. That is the difference between true faith and utilitarian faith. Job stood through the test. Yet, Job felt darkness and confusion cover him. He cries out in anguish: "If I cry out concerning wrong, I am not heard. If I cry aloud, there is no justice. (Job 19:7 NKJ). But, God answer him from chapters 38-41 and shows how God cares for the universe; how much more for Job. In chapter 42, Job breaks down saying "I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, But now my eye sees You. Therefore I abhor myself, And repent in dust and ashes."  (Job 42:5-6 NKJ)

God cares for the sparrows of the air and the lilies of the field; how much more for us..

His goodness is selfless, sure, significant, and sensitive. He is all-giving, all-trustworthy, all-satisfying, and all-caring.

Why theology when there's so much of suffering out there?

Seminary Student: Why bother so much about theology and doctrine when there is a whole lot of suffering in the world? Instead, we must go out and serve the victims of suffering.
Professor: So, why are you here?
~Simple Living~

Omniscience

Omniscience is an article of faith among people across various faiths that hold faith in the Supreme God. Omniscience baffles reason. How can God know all things beyond time: things that were, things that are, and things that will be?

I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich); and [I know] the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but [are] a synagogue of Satan. Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw [some] of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life. (Rev 2:9-10)

The biggest challenge comes in the form of the objection:
1. Knowledge is cognizance of something that exists.
2. The future doesn’t exist yet.
3. Therefore, one cannot know the future.

There have been various reactions to this and attempts to try to explain omniscience of future events. Some subscribing to the eternalist theory of time (the view that events already exist at various points of time and that time is tenseless; i.e. there is actually no past or present or future) think that eternalism is helpful in explaining that divine foreknowledge doesn’t contradict reason, for future events already exist in the temporal-points of time. However, in experience, we know that we are not already there in the future while we are still here. Thus, time-fictions that imagine oneself traveling to the past or the future and being able to see oneself as another self only cash on the imagery of a realistic video playback. One can go to the past in the same way that one can go back to a time frame in a video and playback from there, they imagine; the exception in this reality playback: one can interfere. Similar is the imagination about the future. Of course, this involves the paradox of going back and killing oneself and yet being able to survive in the present. Some have even tried to suggest theories about several parallel universes and possibility worlds, which look interesting to the mind, but pose an interesting plurality. Of course, this could be one area where fiction allows for man to imagine a unity of being and yet a plurality of persons at the same time. For instance, in this imaginary time-trip, I find myself in 2010 at a University campus where I am presenting a paper. I (standing under a tree) see myself (near another building) on way to the Seminar hall inside. There is a duality here. I am standing under a tree and yet I am near another building on way to the Seminar hall. It doesn’t appear very problematic to those who think this could be possible in time travel; because, at least from one point in time (2016), I have gone missing. Nevertheless, it doesn’t seem impossible to the imagination to allow two different persons of the same one being in the same place with two different personalities at the same time. Also, in this view, the present is meaningless; for, 2010 is as really present to me (both me standing under the tree and myself on the way to the Seminar hall) in that framework as 2016 was real to me “earlier” (i.e. in my past). At the same time, due to the possibility of time-travel, I (2016) and myself (2010) are both at the same place and the same time, fictionally speaking. This temporal imaginative permission is incredulous. This violation of reason, perhaps, should forbid us trying to question how the eternal Godhead cannot be three persons in His eternal being.

However, that God sees the future and knows everything is an article of faith. The eternalist (e.g. block universe) theory, itself is an assumption that seeks rational evidences. I do not subscribe to the eternalist view because it gives a picture of a fixed-history. Events are fixed in the timeline of history. Of course, we can imagine an infinite number of possibilities by bringing time-travel into the equation (like the one we imagined above). However, this will turn our experience into a framework of determinism. What happens will happen as if it has already happened. But, then this would contradict the possibility of truth, since truth will become subject to determinism as well, in which case, truth loses the attribute of transcendence and freedom. If so, how can one know if this idea of determinism itself is true?

Consequently, the conviction that God knows the future and sees it is rationally inexplicable. With regard to the block universe argument, this immediately raises the question of how God can see the universe as a block (from the beginning to the end of time) and yet be able to atemporally be involved in it. That, of course, poses the rational-empirical conflict. Reason’s God is atemporal but His actions have to be located temporally. Also, to state that God has created the universe with all His actions included in it from the beginning to the end will turn the world deterministic. Also, it still would impose the temporal framework on God in order to understand the terms “God created”.

Nevertheless, we know that God sees the future and knows what will happen with us. He also knows what we will choose. He knows what is going to be and tells us what we should do when we see those things happening. We know all these by faith. In other words, the concept of God as the omniscient one is given to us by faith. The certainty of the conviction is neither a proposition of reason nor a memory of experience; it is a conviction of faith. How God knows and what His experience of knowledge is like is too lofty a knowledge for man to have. To fully understand the knowledge of God one’s knowledge must be greater than God; this is obviously impossible. Therefore, we come to Him by faith and see only as much as He reveals to us and we have faith in God's revelation.

1. Omniscience doesn’t mean that God experiences knowledge of sin in the same way that the sinner does. The sinner possesses experiential knowledge of sin. But, God doesn’t have experiential knowledge of sin, since God is sinless. Therefore, we are told, “He knew no sin” (2Cor.5:21).
2. Omniscience is not limited only to what God has determined to do, His plan; on the contrary, God knows everything that is, was, and is going to happen (e.g. Dan.11; John 13:38).
3. Omniscience is not something that God acquired when He created the world. God knew everything before the foundation of the world. Note that we have used temporal terms to talk of God here, but we know that God is beyond these categories of talk (Eph.1:4).
4. Omniscience doesn’t mean that God’s actions in the world are determined; nor does it mean that man’s actions are determined. It simply only means that God knows all things without determining human choices. This, however, doesn’t mean that God doesn’t lead and guide people or abandon them to their hardened heart if they reject His guidance. Omniscience, thus, does not contradict human freewill and responsibility.
5. Omniscience of God is the source of prophecy.
6. God knows all things visible and invisible, all thoughts and actions, and nothing is hidden from His eyes, for all creation is bare before Him (Heb.4:13).

Omnipresence

Omnipresence baffles reason. How can someone be at all places at the same time? To say that the doctrine of divine infinitude implies omnipresence is not enough, for God is not an infinite ocean that fills all space, analogically speaking; He is a person. Therefore, the doctrine is a pure tenet of faith. Human attempts to explain omnipresence may either pluralize God as immanent to all things (pantheism) or reduce all things to a mere manifestation of the One (monism). Polytheism has no place for omnipresence. Indubitably then, the doctrine that the personal God is omnipresent is a pure tenet of faith that baffles all explanation. But, we can delineate a few implications from the doctrine:

1. Omnipresence doesn’t mean occupation of all space. Material objects occupy space. But, God is Spirit. Divine infinity doesn’t mean that God’s infinite presence takes up all space for anything else; which is, obviously, not the case. God’s presence in the world, therefore, cannot be detected by physical instruments of any kind; for, God is Spirit.
2. Omnipresence doesn’t mean divine distribution over all space. If I say that a table is present in my room, it means that different parts of the table occupy different parts of the space in the room. However, God, as Spirit, is not composed of parts; so, omnipresence is not to be imagined in corporeal terms. Of course, Scripture does talk figuratively of God as enthroned in heaven with earth as His footstool; however, these only express the fact that God rules over the universe and that the earth is at His feet. It also expresses the supremacy of God over all sizes whatsoever. This doesn’t mean that God can be divided into parts. St. Augustine (354-430) observed it well:

Although in speaking of him we say that God is everywhere present, we must resist carnal ideas and withdraw our mind from our bodily senses, and not imagine that God is distributed through all things by a sort of extension of size, as earth or water or air or light are distributed. (Letter 187)

Nevertheless, he is not distributed through space by size so that half of him should be in half the world and half in the other half of it. He is wholly present in all of it in such wise as to be wholly in heaven alone and wholly in the earth alone and wholly in heaven and earth together; not confined in any place, but wholly in himself everywhere. (Letter 187)

3. Omnipresence doesn’t mean indwelling of every entity. Divine omnipresence doesn’t mean that God is present in all things as indwelling each entity, be it stone, atom, or an organism. Omnipresence is not indwelling presence. God is everywhere doesn’t mean God dwells everywhere. The Scripture makes it clear that God dwells in heaven and that God indwells those who receive Him by faith.
4. Omnipresence means that God is fully present every-where. Our presence is material and finite; but, divine presence is spiritual and infinite. For instance, take God’s presence in relation to an area. God’s presence is full over 1000 sq.km. in the same way that God’s presence is full over 1 sq.km. or 1 sq.m. or 1 sq.mm. His presence over 1000 sq.km. doesn’t mean that he is not fully present (or is only half-present) over 500 sq.km. Now, we know that, conceptually, this divisibility of space is infinite. One cannot conceive of a point where one cannot divide space anymore. Nevertheless, one can talk of divine omnipresence as full infinitely everywhere.
5. Omnipresence means that God can do different things at different places simultaneously at the same time. This again, evidently, is a statement of faith.
6. Omnipresence doesn’t mean that God cannot move in space. The Bible talks of God’s presence moving with His people.

And He said, "My Presence will go with you, and I will give you rest."
Then he said to Him, "If Your Presence does not go with us, do not bring us up from here. (Exo 33:14-15 NKJ)

7. God’s presence everywhere doesn’t make the universe divine. The view that all things are divine because God is in everything is pantheism, which is antithetical to the biblical view of God as the Creator of all things. God’s presence is not affected by what happens to things.
8. It is fallacious to apply the physical concept of space-time to God’s omnipresence. Thus, I do not think it is right to talk of God’s omnipresence as applicable to time in the sense in which some talk of God as already being there in the future before we get there. This would also falsely mean that things are already there, in fact we are already there, before we get there (Then, in what sense does one talk of getting there?). Theology fails when it tries to comply with rational categories or empirical concepts; some of which are themselves controversial. The source of faith is hearing and the source of hearing is the Word of God, nothing else.
9. God’s omnipresence is not the same as His presence in heaven. It is also not the same as His indwelling presence in a child of God. Thus, while we can talk of God as present in heaven and also present in hell (Psalm 139:8), hell is certainly the opposite of heaven, and to be in heaven is to be with God while to be in hell is to be separated from the presence of God (2Cor.5:8; 2Thess.1:9).
10. Christ is present everywhere. But, Christ is ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of God (Heb.1:3). Christ is with His disciples (Matt.28:20). Christ indwells the believer’s heart (Eph.3:17). Christ is coming back for His church. And, when He comes back, we shall be with Him forever (1Thess.4:16-17). This might appear foolish to people and they may make fun of it. However, given the fact that God is Spirit and He is infinite, accepting the truth of divine omnipresence and also His special indwelling presence as well as His return is reasonable to faith.

Is God Temporal or Timeless?

The rationalists would answer that God is timeless; the empiricists, that God is temporal. So, what is the truth?

I think we must first begin by admitting our limitations. If we are yet having difficulty understanding metaphysics, theology is even a more impossible arena, unless, of course, God intervenes to reveal Himself. However, we also know that He only reveals to us in the limits and the terms that are understandable to us. More importantly, the Bible emphasizes on knowing God personally through a loving and obedient faith. But, it doesn't mean that if a question regarding the nature of God arises, we are not required to give an answer. I wish to present some thoughts here.

For a pure rationalist, ultimately, time itself is illusory, as all experience is (as in monism and non-dualism). For a rationalist who accepts divine revelation and the validity of empirical knowledge, God is atemporal or timeless; He is beyond time; He is transcendent to time: however, at the same time, God is also temporal; He is immanent in time as the God who acts in time. Now, by the temporality of God we do not mean the temporality that the theory of relativity talks of; God is Spirit, not matter. By the temporality of God we only mean that our phenomenal talk of God’s acts in the universe are always temporal (Is there any other way to account for events? Yes, there is the tenseless theory of time which implies that God created the whole set of events which are just there—Wait! No, God and the events are all just there (for “God created” assumes the tensed-theory: evidently, the tenseless theory is theologically untenable). At the same time, we will not say that both these concepts of timelessness and temporality define the reality of God. We only say that as far as our rational and empirical understanding (and their limits) is concerned, and as far as the revelation of God is concerned, we cannot but think that God is timeless in His being and also temporal in relation to acts that He does. In that sense, to even say that God created time (conceptual, not the physical time which is relative to created things individually) assumes that He created time in time. But, is it not contradictory to think of divine timelessness and divine temporality at the same time? I think it is not impossible to find an analogy in our experience. For instance, we know that the statement “The sun rises in the east” is true and very practical: people can know where is east by looking where the sun is rising in the morning. Of course, a compass will help us to have more accurate understanding of North or South. But, nevertheless, the idea that the sun rises in the east is not also false, phenomenally speaking. However, in “reality”, the case is that the sun doesn’t rise; it is the earth that rotates on its axis; the sun is static (timeless?), though relatively. And, this knowledge is also useful. Yet, still, there are further theories to explain the earth-sun relationship and our solar system’s relation to the universe. But until this juncture, the statements “The sun rises in the east” and “The sun doesn’t move, but the earth moves” are both true in phenomenal terms. I think that talk of divine temporality is something akin to this (that is with reference to how far our rational-empirical sense is concerned).

Again, we know that God is Spirit, which also means that the laws of relativity don’t have any significance for Him and are external to His being. The empirical view cannot find the timeless view of God intelligible in any empirical terms. There is nothing in experience analogous to atemporality of being. Of course, there are the laws of logic that are considered to be atemporal; however, God is not “laws of logic” or a set of necessary-universal-immutable-atemporal a priori propositions. But, Scriptures tell us that He is Logos who existed in the beginning, the Personal-Creator Logos; thus, conjoining both the idea of personhood and the idea of necessity in Him. I think this could be a good way of talking about Him, though, I must confess, in our present experience, we are still limited in our understanding of God as Spirit. We think that we got some objectivity when we discovered that the earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun. But, we know that is only like a second-level objectivity. So, it is safe to conclude that as far as our rational understanding can accept, God is timeless, and as far as our empirical categories permit, God is temporal; yet, we know that God is beyond all this and the perfect vision is still to come; that cannot be without the resurrection.

Still, however, one must be careful to not fall prey to the lure of pragmatic theology.[See Article]. The Bible clearly speaks of God as the Eternal One. The Bible also tells us that God is unchanging and all-knowing (His knowledge of the future being perfect). However, our phenomenal talk of God’s acts in the universe are always temporal.

---

Pertinent Discussions
Steve Bishop, God, Time, and Eternity
William Lane Craig, God, Time, and Eternity

Last updated on March 8, 2016

Aristotelian Realism and the Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation

Transubstantiation is a Catholic doctrine that states that the whole substances of the bread and the wine, during the Eucharist, convert into the body and the blood of Jesus. The metaphysical explanation of the doctrine borrows from Aristotle's doctrine of substances and accidents. Substance, according to Aristotle, is the defining essence of a thing, what it is in essence. Accidents are properties like color, weight, length, etc that are not essential to the definition of the substance. For instance, skin color, height, weight, size, etc are not essential properties of the definition of "man"; they are only accidental properties. Aristotelian doctrine of substance and accidents was employed by Thomas Aquinas to explain the doctrine of transubstantiation.

According to Aquinas, in the conversion of the bread into the flesh of Jesus, the substance of bread is changed into the flesh of Jesus but the accidents (like the smell, taste, color, quantity) of the bread remain the same. This is considered a mystery; however, for certainty the substance of the bread does not remain the same, he thinks. Accordingly,

Some have held that the substance of the bread and wine remains in this sacrament after the consecration. But this opinion cannot stand: first of all, because by such an opinion the truth of this sacrament is destroyed, to which it belongs that Christ's true body exists in this sacrament; which indeed was not there before the consecration.....

Secondly, because this position is contrary to the form of this sacrament, in which it is said: "This is My body," which would not be true if the substance of the bread were to remain there; for the substance of bread never is the body of Christ. Rather should one say in that case: "Here is My body."

Thirdly, because it would be opposed to the veneration of this sacrament, if any substance were there, which could not be adored with adoration of latria.

Fourthly, because it is contrary to the rite of the Church, according to which it is not lawful to take the body of Christ after bodily food, while it is nevertheless lawful to take one consecrated host after another. Hence this opinion is to be avoided as heretical.

....
It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably done by Divine providence. (Summa III.75)

One view contrary to Aristotelian realism is nominalism (with its various sub-views). Nominalism basically rejects the doctrine of substance and accidents and the idea that properties exist independently as universal or abstract objects. It considers these properties as just names that humans give to things or ideas or appearances in order to be able to speak of the world. For instance, when Adam gave names to animals, he didn't give particular names but universal names: Thus, Elephant is a generic name for a class of animals that are elephants. Similarly, when he called his wife, Woman, it was a name by which all women in history were going to be known. Later, he gave her the specific name Eve. The idea of "man" or "woman" does not exist apart from men and women. To abstract the idea from the particulars and treat it as a separate entity in itself (though perfect as it could seem) is the error of Platonic realism. Aristotle rejected Platonic realism; however, his own idea of substance and accident in which accidents are realities that are instantiated in substances found entry in Catholic theology. Of course, religious language can often get riddled with confusion of treating metaphors and symbols as literal realities. The doctrine of transubstantiation is one such example among many.

In the Council of Trent in 1545, the division between Catholic Thomistic realism and Protestant nominalism became evidently clear. Affirmation of Thomistic realism made it possible for the Catholic church to explain how it was possible that the bread and wine appeared to have all the properties they had earlier and yet had converted to the body and blood of Jesus. Catholicism rejected nominalism. Some think that nominalism (in the legacy of William of Ockham) was the cause of increasing skepticism, individualism, and secularism in Western civilization.[See Olson, What's in a Name]. Of course, that has to be justly established.

It certainly is evident that treating concepts as abstract realities independent of concrete being only create more confusion. For instance, while we can talk of love, grace, anger, justice, and peace objectively and abstractly (as in "love is patient", "love is kind"), it is erroneous to suppose that the love of God is an object in itself independent of God (as in Platonism) or even that love is instantiated in God (Aristotelianism). In contrast, the Bible declares that God is love (1John 4:8).

Are Abstract Objects Real? or Did God Create Abstract Objects, If There Are Anything Like That?

Christian philosophers have debated this issue for some time. Some believe that abstract objects exist; others, that they don’t exist; still others, that the question is meaningless. Views such as Platonic realism hold that abstract ideas and objects (such as the laws of logic and mathematical objects) have objective existence independent of minds. Some Christian theologians believe that abstract objects cannot exist independently; for if they did, they would nullify the doctrine of divine aseity, which states that there is nothing that is co-eternal with God. But, what about the view that abstract objects were created and are part of the invisible creation of God? For example, can it be possible that numbers don’t exist (not number of things, but the numbers themselves)? If numbers don’t exist, how can numbers be the object of our knowledge and how can mathematical propositions be called true if they do not correspond to reality? If knowledge a subject-object relationship, how can one know a thing if the object doesn't exist objectively?

Let’s take the example of the laws of logic. We know that these laws are self-evident, self-explanatory, self-sustaining, universal, necessary, transcendent, and immutable. One will need to affirm them in order to even attempt to deny them. Suppose the laws of logic exist in reality, they would immediately possess ontic infinitude, in which case one faces the question: Are these laws co-eternal with God or does God Himself submit to the laws of logic?

One problem with realism is the gap between the abstract and the concrete. For instance, Platonic realism cannot satisfactorily explain how concrete things participate in the eternal forms and ideas. We can talk about one mango and two mangoes, but what does it mean that one and two exist independently of things? We may use symbols to represent these numbers and when we try to imagine numbers we imagine those symbols, but do these numbers exist by themselves independently of things? Similarly, we think of shapes, of triangles, squares, and circles. We can conceive of these and use symbols to state propositions; however, does it mean that these propositions are only true because there are real abstract shapes to which these correspond (especially since one claims that there is no perfect triangle, square, or circle in the physical world)? Why not say that they correspond to the design of this world or the way in which God created this world to function in the way that He designed it to function? And so, the ideas or principles don’t exist by themselves but only in relation to the design of things? In other words, they are our discernment of design, order, similarity, and harmony in the world of things.

But, what about the laws of logic? Aren’t they invisible realities that necessarily exist out there? “Out there” is not sufficient; one needs to specify where this “out there” is? Nobody knows where the Platonic world of ideas exists, anyway.

The laws of logic only tell us how terms relate to each other and how we may infer those relations. In other words, the laws of logic are the way our mind is designed to reason in order to draw inferences regarding the relation of terms to each other. In drawing inferences, the mind recognizes similarities, differences, and several other modes of relation. Without terms, the laws are empty and meaningless. For instance, if I want to state the law of identity as “A=A”, then at least the term A has to be pre-supposed in order to state the law of identity. If no such term exists, then the law of identity will itself be the term it is identical with. For any terms A and B (A and B as we understand in our spatio-temporal experience), the laws of logic will show the relation between both of them. These terms may be names (or pronouns) of concrete objects (Socrates) or abstract objects (Man). Thus, the laws of logic are similar to the laws of nature. The relation between an object and air is a matter of the laws of aerodynamics. Similarly, we have hydrodynamics and thermodynamics. The theory of relativity tries to tell us the relation between objects and space-time. Similarly, the laws of logic tell us how terms relate with each other.

In this sense, the laws of logic are intrinsic to reasoning minds, the way minds are designed to think in order to know facts about the world they live in. However, they are just formal causes and not efficient causes. Therefore, minds err in reasoning. Laws of logic cannot cause right thinking because they are not objects out there. The efficient cause is the thinker himself and his act of processing thought-data. Therefore, in dreams, thoughts can sometimes go berserk and things that look consistent within dreams are shockingly realized to be inconsistent in the waking state (Of course, there are dreams which have deep consistencies too). There are no laws of logic outside of thinking minds. Invalid reasoning can lead to false conclusions in the same way that wrong flying can lead to wrong results.

What does this imply? First of all, it implies that the laws of logic are relative to the way we are designed to perceive and know this world. Let’s say that they help us to see the world as it is with the help of the limited faculties of perception we have; the faculties designed by God for purposes we are created to fulfill.

Secondly, it implies that the laws of logic are universal with reference to only our world. At least, we can say that they only relate to the concept of terms which have conceptual significance only in our world of experience. In that sense, they help us to gain a true understanding of reality as far as our conceptual faculties allow. However, if one tried to apply logic to anything more, the results would lead to paradoxes. For example, we may divide space into feet, and feet into inches; however, if we separate reason from experience and try to apply divisibility to the idea of space itself, the result would be infinite divisions (and conflicts with experience). We know of some philosophers who dumped the validity empirical data because they thought experience stood in conflict with reason. Just because reason can conceive of perfect shapes and infinity of numbers (not that it can conceive infinity, for infinity is disallowance of limit in our mental imagination) and infinitude of objectless space does not mean that these concepts exist as objects out there, somewhere.

Thirdly, it means that God designed the world in His wisdom; it does not mean that He created the design itself as an abstract reality that was independent of Him. We need to be careful to not idolize our speech about God. If it were not for the revelation of God, there was no possibility to know of God in the way that Christian theology talks of Him. We know that design and order are eternal concepts, but they don’t exist as objects out there. We know that God is love, but that doesn’t mean love exists as an eternal immaterial object, independent of God. One can only talk of the creation of something if it exists as an object of reality.

Fourthly, it means that the abstract ideas that we have are nothing but the names that our mind gives to generalizations (laws, state of affairs, events, properties, etc) in order for knowledge to be possible; for knowledge is nothing but an understanding of the relation of one term to another (the relation between the subject and the object). Propositions are statements about a particular's relation to a universal (e.g. Socrates is a Man) or a particular's relation to another particular through a universal (Alexander was the son of Philip) or a universal's relation to another universal (Love is Patient), and the various modes and complexities of relations (variety, modes, complexities, relations are all abstracts).

What are the implications of this for theology? There should be many. For instance, this would make questions like "Did God create Sin?" "Who created Evil?" meaningless. God did not create abstract objects like Sin or Evil. Sin is a relational term, so is Evil, both of which refer to reality but not in the sense of possessing objective reality independent of phenomena. Also, this will help us to more clearly understand statements such as "He condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom.8:3). This sin was not some cosmic object out there, but human sin against God condemned in the flesh of Christ, when he bore the punishment of our iniquities. Sin is not just an abstract idea, it is a concrete act positively deserving condemnation. The moral law is the way moral (volitional) beings are meant to relate to each other. Volitional violation of this relation is sin, sin against all affected by this relational violation, primarily God. The moral order is not just a set of commandments, but the way persons relate to each other ("the way they ought to" being the knowledge of the moral law present in the hearts of volitional beings, given as the a priori basis for moral choices). It is the same order in which the Three Persons in the Divine Godhead relate to each other (in love). When God created the world, it was a natural world; but, when He created man, the world became a moral world with man possessing moral freedom to be towards or against God in his moral relation. When Adam disobeyed, sin entered the world (not as an abstract object but as a concrete act), since Adam sinned. When Christ obeyed, sin was destroyed in His flesh (not as an abstract object but as a concrete act); also sin was judged (for He took the concrete punishment for all our concrete sins) in His flesh.

---

Related Web Content:
Abstract Objects (Stanford Encyclopedia or Philosophy)
Three Views on Creation, Causality, and Abstracta: A discussion between William Lane Craig, J.T. Bridges, and Peter Van Inwagen
The Theory of Abstract Objects: Supports scientific realism and the existence of abstract objects.

Kant's Critique of the Ontological Argument

Excerpted from Epistemics of Divine Reality (2009, 2011), pp.105-107

Kant resolutely argues that the traditional arguments for the existence of God, viz. the ontological, the cosmological, and the physico-theological (teleological) arguments are based on false premises. They proceed from the false assumption that quantity, quality, relation, and modality are inherent in the universe and not merely subjective to the knower alone. The arguments against the arguments for the existence of God are as follows:

a. The Ontological Argument: The ontological argument of St. Anselm (1033-1109) proceeded from the assumption that God was ‘that than which a greater cannot be conceived.’ However, if this God did not exist then everything conceived of would be greater than the conception of God for reality is greater than an idea. Therefore, God as ‘that than which a greater cannot be conceived’ must of necessity exist. Rene Descartes had his own form of the ontological argument in which he argued that since God is by definition the supremely perfect being, He cannot lack existence, for that would mean that He was not a supremely perfect being; and since existence is a necessary attribute of perfection, God exists necessarily.^[1]

Kant argues that though the inference from contingent existence to necessary existence is correct and unavoidable, the conditions of the understanding refuse to aid us in forming any conception of such a being.^[2] Thus, the ontological argument is correct as far as words are concerned; but when it comes to actually forming a concept of the absolute and necessary being the argument fails. Further, the argument rests on judgments alone and cannot thereby alone establish the reality of anything. In Kant’s own words: ‘the unconditioned necessity of judgments is not the same as an absolute necessity of things.’^[3] Alluding to Descartes’ analogy of the triangle^[4] Kant writes that though to posit a triangle and yet reject its three angles would be self-contradictory, there is no contradiction in rejecting the triangle with its three angles together. To put it the other way, if suppose in the analytical statement, ‘all bachelors are unmarried men’ the subject ‘bachelors’ implied the predicate ‘unmarried men,’ it still does not conclusively prove that there really are unmarried men or bachelors in the world. The statement is just a verbal one and is not corroborated by empirical evidence. In the same manner, though the subject ‘the supremely perfect being’ implies the predicate ‘has existence as an attribute,’ yet it does not conclusively prove that there really is a supremely perfect being in accordance to the words.^[5] One can reject both the subject and predicate and still commit no contradiction. In addition, all existential propositions (that declare the existence or non-existence of the subject) are synthetic and not analytic and, therefore, the rejection of the predicated would never be a contradiction:^[6] ‘all bachelors are unmarried men’ is not the same as ‘all bachelors exist.’ On the other hand if existence was to be considered as an attribute of anything, it is clear that this could not be true since an attribute adds to something and thus modifies it, but to say that something is does not really add anything to it. ‘The small word “is” adds no new predicate, but only serves to posit the predicate in its relation to the subject.’ ^[7] Therefore, existence cannot be an attribute. Even grammatically, it is understood that the words ‘is’ and ‘exists’ are not adjectives but verbs.
However, even more difficult is the attribution of existence to an idea having a priori and not a posteriori status. Kant says:

Whatever, therefore, and however much, our concept of an object may contain, we must go outside it, if we are to ascribe existence to the object. In the case of objects of the senses, this takes place through their connection with some one of our perceptions, in accordance with empirical laws. But in dealing with objects of pure thought, we have no means whatsoever of knowing their existence, since it would have to be known in a completely a priori manner. Our consciousness of all existence (whether immediately through perception, or mediately through inferences which connect something with perception) belongs exclusively to the unity of experience; any [alleged] existence outside this field, while not indeed such as we can declare to be absolutely impossible, is of the nature of an assumption which we can never be in a position to justify.^[8]

Thus, since the idea of God as a perfect being cannot be empirically justified, it is impossible to certify whether such a perfect being exists or not in reality. Here it may seem that Kant is leaning towards empiricism, but it must be noted that he is only saying that necessity and strict universality can only be applied to that which is a priori and, thus, to the forms of intuition and the categories of thought alone. To extend these to anything beyond these is to go beyond justification. One can be sure that the statement ‘every cause has an effect’ is true since causality itself is a category of the mind and cannot be thought off. However, the same cannot be said of the existence God or any other being in the world. The distinction between the a priori constituents of the mind and the a posteriori world of senses once understood, the ontological argument cannot stand any longer. Thus, the ontological argument is dismissed.

---

^[1] “Ontological Arguments,” Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments)
^[2] The Critique of Pure Reason (trans. J. M. D. Meiklejohn; internet edition)
^[3] The Critique of Pure Reason (trans. N. K. Smith), p. 501
^[4] That as the three angles are integral to the conception of a triangle, existence is integral to the conception of perfection.
^[5] “supremely perfect being” are just words and have no accompanying conception.
^[6] The Critique of Pure Reason (trans. N. K. Smith), p. 504
^[7] Ibid, p. 505
^[8] Ibid, p. 506

Does Reason Mirror Divine Attributes?

In his recent and quite informative book Logic (2013), Vern Sheridan Poythress observed that God's attributes were also attributes of reason. For instance, universality, immutability, truth, transcendence, and infinity are characteristics of reason, so are they of God. In Epistemic of Divine Reality (Doctoral dissertation, 2007), it was argued that rational approaches ultimately can only land one, at the most, on such an understanding of God. Stretched a bit further, this will lead to monism or non-dualism as the rational categories are in conflict with the empirical ones of plurality, change, immanence, and so on. The latter, as we know, are the characteristics of empirical theologies such as polytheism, pantheism, and panentheism.

Poythress admits the uniqueness of Christian theology that sees God as both transcendent and immanent and thinks that this is true of reason as well. He looks at our participation in logic as an imitation of God's nature. For instance, speaking of transcendence, he observes:

We can always consider the option of stepping back from what we were doing a moment earlier. We can reflect on what we were doing, and then reflect on our act of reflection, and then reflect on that. We can go on until we become confused!

This standing back already exists when we mention a word rather than merely using it. We are, as it were, standing back to look at the word rather than unself-consciously using the word to look at something else. This standing back is a kind of human form of transcendence. We can transcend our immediate situation by reflecting on it. And we can transcend our reflections by reflecting on them. We can take a kind of God’s-eye view, viewing ourselves from above, as another human being might see us or as God might see us.

This transcendence is then one way in which we think God’s thoughts after him. God is transcendent in an absolute sense. He is infinite. We are creatures. But we do have a kind of imitative, creaturely ability to transcend our immediate environment or our immediate thoughts or our immediate speeches. And we use this transcendence when we investigate logic. Every time we think, we imitate God’s thinking. Every time we think about logic, we also imitate God’s transcendence over the immediate.¹

There is substance in this argument. The rational necessity of conceptual infinity (which we can't conceive of and yet cannot not conceive of) is an amazing ability in man. Solomon wrote that God "has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end."(Eccl.3:11) Augustine talked of our hearts being restless until they find rest in God. God gave humans the capacity for awe, wonder, and amazement, the ability to glorify and worship God; and this is spiritual. However, if it were not for divine revelation given to us in the verbal testimony of Scriptures, this quest would either have nothing but the rational ideas or the empirical concepts. Revelation gives us a glimpse of God as the Eternal One and yet the One who Works in Time, as the One who is beyond the universe and yet in the universe. Yet, one must be careful to not conclude that the characteristics of reason are the very and only characteristics of God, though in concrete.

In all classical formulations of theology, the rational characteristics have been admitted as attributes of God; the only difference: reason is noetic tool, but God is that He is (The I AM THAT I AM). However, how can one be sure if we are not just imposing the limits of our mind onto theological understanding? Certainly, understanding can't be had beyond the characteristic capacities of reason.

Where reason fails to make sense of things, especially when experience cannot supply it with content, then it stands in need of revelation knowledge. Theology is more an attempt to rationally understand revelation. But, faith makes living by revelation possible. The just shall live by faith; we walk by faith. Faith is able to understand and perceive what reason cannot accept; for instance, by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God and that the universe was created out of nothing (Heb.11:3). Both the ideas of concrete creation by verbal speaking and something being created out of nothing are not ideas that can be rationally understood or explained. But, by faith we understand, says the writer of Hebrews.

The Bible doesn't begin with a systematic presentation of theology. However, it does tell us who God is and what His nature is. For believers, reason can help to practically understand who God is and  is like or is not like. Experience provides concrete categories, but reason also insists that God is not like this world; so does Scripture warn us to not create idols of our vain imaginations.

The recognition of this fact is crucial to any theological reasoning.

The importance of systematic theology lies in its putting together of divinely revealed facts in an orderly manner. The New Testament presents examples of this when, for instance, Paul gives a systematic biblical argument for justification by faith in Romans and the writer of Hebrews brings to light facts of the Law to speak of the superiority of Jesus. 

The value of reason lies in ensuring consistency and unity of faith, correction of errors, and clarity of understanding.

---

¹Logic, p.78

The Security of the Elect – Is It Possible for the Elect to Fall?

The answer is “No”. But, this is not the doctrine of eternal security as taught by Calvinism. According to Calvinism, God predestines certain individuals to damnation and certain others to salvation. Those whom God has predestined to be saved will endure to the end. Thus, it is not “those who endure to the end will be saved” but “those who are saved will endure to the end.” In other words, the elect will endure; it is not those who will endure that are the elect. We reject the Calvinist explanation of the security of the elect for several biblical reasons stated elsewhere; but, primary, is that it paints a very wrong image of God. In this post, we will try to explain why we believe that the “elect” of God will not fall. Election is not unconditional, but conditional.

1. The elect of God are those whom God eternally knows as the ones who are His, i.e. those who have endured to the end in faith (2Tim.2:19).
2. These who are foreknown by God as His are the elect of God according to His foreknowledge (1Pet.1:2), because He predestines these, who He foreknows, to be conformed to the glorious image of His Son (Rom.8:29,30,33).
3. Similar is the case also of the elect angels (1Tim.5:21); they are called “elect” because they stood faithful to Christ as His angels (Matt.16:27) during Satan’s rebellion (2Pet.2:4; Jude 1:6).
4. Those who do not endure to the end, though they may have had faith earlier, are not counted as among the elect (1Jn.2:19). Again, it is not that they failed to endure because they were not the elect; on the contrary, they cannot be called “the elect” because they failed to endure, and because they cast away their faith.
5. In our earthly experience, every believer is accepted as “the elect” or as member of the “election” (1Thess.1:4-5), but only those who are diligent to make their election sure by enduring to the end are the true elect of God according to His foreknowledge (2Pet.1:10; Col.3:12).
6. Election is according to grace (Rom.11:5); however, that grace is not unconditional. Only those who did not bow their knees to Baal were protected by God from annihilation (Rom.11:4). Similarly, those who lack faith are cut off (Rom.11:20; Jude 1:5; Rev.3:5); however, those who continue in faith to the end, stand, because it is by faith that one becomes a recipient of grace. Faith is the subjective aspect of what grace is the objective side. In the same manner that “according to grace” doesn’t mean “according to works”, similarly, “according to faith” doesn’t mean “according to works” (i.e. of human merit). However, faith without works is also dead. We must differentiate between works of faith and works of the law.
7. False Christs and false prophets will try to deceive the elect, if possible, but the elect will not fall (Matt.24:24). The days of tribulation will be shortened for the elects sake and the elect will be gathered at Christ’s coming to God (Matt.24:22,31). But, there will certainly be a huge falling away from faith (2Thess.2:3; 1Tim.4:1). Those who fall away are not the elect of God.

Contemporary Theologies - Outline

UNDERSTANDING THIS AGE

Modern Period (19th & Early 20th Centuries)
Post-Modern Period (Late 20th Century)
Post-Postmodern Period (21st Century)

MODERN PERIOD (19TH & EARLY 20TH CENTURIES)

1. Rationalism
2. Scientific Temper
3. Utopianism
4. Secularism
5. Skepticism
6. Liberalism

POST-MODERN PERIOD (LATE 20TH CENTURY)

1. Mood Against Truth (No Absolutes)
2. Rejection of Reason
3. Emphasis on Style over Substance
4. Privatization of Morals (Morals are personal)
5. Pluralism
6. Image or Virtual Culture
7. Rejection of Metanarratives

POST-POSTMODERN AGE (21ST C)

1. Intense Globalization and Trans-nationalism
2. Intense Fundamentalism
3. Return to Modernism
4. Between Modernism and Post-modernism
5. Neo-romanticism (Attempting to turn finite into infinite)
6. Pseudo-modernism (Internet Culture of Clicks, Likes, and Downloads)

LIBERALISM
Friedrich Schliermacher, Harold De Wolf

1. Rationalism and Scientific Temper
2. Genesis 1-11 as Mythological. Not Literal. No Original Sin.
3. Hyper Contextualization of Theology
4. Emphasis on Natural Theology (Natural Religion)
5. Anti-orthodoxy, Anti-traditionalism
6. Scientific Method
7. Emphasis on Experience or Empirical Research
8. Undermining of Sin
9. Division of Jesus of History from Christ of Faith
10. Rejection of Fundamentals such as Trinity, Original Sin, Virgin Birth, Inerrancy of Bible, Atonement, Second Coming

NEO-ORTHODOXY
Karl Barth, Emil Brunner

1. Emphasis on Biblical Encounter Revelation (Barth called natural theology as demonic; Brunner accepted it)
2. Emphasis on the Transcendence of God. God is the “wholly other”
3. Emphasis on Regeneration by Grace from Original Sin
4. Personal Revelation, Not Propositional Revelation. Encountering Christ as the Word.
5. Christo-centric Theology

PROCESS THEOLOGY
A.N.Whitehead, Teilhard De Chardin, Charles Hartshorne

1. God is mutable, temporal, and passible (i.e. affected by the world)
2. Everything, including God, is in process
3. Everything in nature has value, every living being is equally important. Eco-centric Theology
4. The world is in some sense part of God (Panentheism)
5. God is in some sense a physical or material being.
6. Emphasis on freewill
7. God feels how we feel without feeling as we feel (e.g. God feels our fear of death but He doesn’t fear death)

EXISTENTIAL THEOLOGY
Soren Kierkegaard, Paul Tillich, Rudolf Bultmann

1. Existence precedes essence
2. Emphasis on Being
3. God as the Ground of Being (God Above God)
4. Christ is the manifestation of the New Being
5. Authentic Existence
6. Anthropo-centric Theology
7. Demythologization

SECULAR THEOLOGY
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Harvey Cox

1. Secularization as a Biblical Process in History
2. Emancipation of Church from State
3. Religionless Christianity
4. Church as Witness
5. Church as Transforming Factor

DEATH OF GOD SCHOOL
Gabriel Vahanian, Paul Van Buren, William Hamilton, John A.T. Robinson, Thomas J. J. Altizer, John D. Caputo

1. Contemporary culture is godless
2. God is Dead Vs There is No God
3. Do-It-Yourself Religion (Don’t wait for God)
4. Anti-Traditional
5. Engagement with (not isolation from) the World
6. Churchless Christianity

LIBERATION THEOLOGY
Martin Luther Jr. King, Desmond Tutu, Arvind Nirmal, V. Devasahayam, Mary Daly, Rosemary Radford Ruether.

1. Social Christianity
2. Justice & Equality
3. Black Liberation Theology
4. Feminist Liberation Theology
5. Dalit Liberation Theology
6. Palestinian Liberation Theology

DOMINION THEOLOGY
R. J. Rushdoony, Gary North, Peter Wagner

1. Christian Reconstructionism: Calvinism, Cessationism, Post-millenialism, Biblical Law
2. Kingdom Now Theology: Apostolic and Prophetic Movement, Restoration, Spiritual Warfare
3. 7 Spheres: Mild Dominionism. Christians must ascend peaks of the mountains of cultural influence: Arts, Business, Church (Religion), Development and Media, Education, Family, Government, (Health).

The 7 Laws of Noah For All Mankind According To The Babylonian Talmud

Judaism doesn't say that conversion to Judaism is necessary for non-Jews; however, it does hold it obligatory for every human to obey what are considered to be the 7 Laws of Noah. Anyone who abides by these 7 laws is considered to be a "righteous gentile" and is assured of a portion in the world to come.¹ In other words, though the Law of Moses given to the Covenant people of Israel is not obligatory for the non-Jewish world, the Laws of Noah are obligatory for all mankind.

Tract Sanhedrin of the Babylonian Talmud lists the seven laws in the following words:

The rabbis taught: Seven commandments were given to the children of Noah, and they are: Concerning judges, blasphemy, idolatry, adultery, bloodshed, robbery, and that they must not eat of the member of a body while the animal is still alive.²

The view known as Noahidism builds its ideology on these. Six of the commandments were considered to have been Adamic: "(1) not to worship idols; (2) not to blaspheme the name of God; (3) to establish courts of justice; (4) not to kill; (5) not to commit adultery; and (6) not to rob". The seventh was added after the Flood: (7) not to eat flesh that had been cut from a living animal (Gen. 9:4)³

According to this view, it is obligatory for mankind everywhere to establish legal systems and courts (Law #3) in order to warn and judge people upon the basis of the 6 laws. Obviously, each of the basic laws needed to be interpreted into laws applicable for various crimes.

After the Holocaust, the title "Righteous Among the Nations", based upon the concept of "Righteous Gentiles", became an honorific given by the State of Israel to all those non-Jews who risked their lives during the Holocaust to save the Jews from extermination by the Nazis.⁴

---

¹ "Laws, Noachian," Jewish Encyclopedia. jewishencyclopedia.com
² Babylonian Talmud, Book 8: Tract Sanhedrin, tr. by Michael L. Rodkinson, [1918], at sacred-texts.com
³ "Laws, Noachian," Jewish Encyclopedia.
⁴For details on the Righteous Among the Nations, visit Yadvashem.org by The Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority.

Sinful Nature and the Crucifixion of the Christian With Christ

The Book of Genesis records the historically vital account of the Fall of man. Now, there are those who are skeptical of this account. It seems to them very unlikely that a race can be condemned to eternal damnation just because its progenitors took a secret bite of the forbidden fruit. Firstly, the fruit-nature correlation itself seems to them incongruous. Then, there is the issue of justness of such damnation. However, there is something about this account that is unignorable; and, that is that it stands out as the most legitimate explanation of the root of human devolution.

Genesis 3 records the first lie of Scripture, the demonic lie that man would not surely die if he ate the forbidden fruit but would rather become like God knowing good and evil. The first part of it was blatantly false; the effect of the fruit was instantly fatal on both Adam and Eve, for the moment they sinned they died spiritually. The opening of their eyes meant their spiritual death in the same manner that the opening of the rich man's eyes in hades meant his physical death. However, from the perspective of the devil, it wasn't so much really death, for to him the opening of eyes really was the life he wished to have, the life of eternal separation from God. The opening of eyes also marked the genesis of shame for human kind. It also marked the genesis of maya or a web of delusion, which is the life that is governed by the temporal separated from the eternal. The matrix of this carnality is so intense that God Himself had to provide for Adam and Eve garments of skins and all visions of the divine, thenceforth, also include the idea of "covering".

However, the devil was also blatantly false when he asserted that man would become like God knowing good and evil; for, firstly, man could never become like God; and secondly, God doesn't know good and evil; He knows only good in its moral perfection. He is good. It is the depraved state of man (of knowing good and evil, not as God knows but as the devil knows) that produces all forms of false images of God and religion in the world.

It must be understood that the Bible doesn't say that God condemns humanity because of its sinful nature. But, it says that man in his sinful state is already dead in his sins.

Genesis 3 is the point of the beginning of sin, carnality, and the works of the flesh that stands eternally opposed to the life of the Spirit. Therefore, God had to affirm that His Spirit would no longer strive with man who is just flesh (Gen.6:3). Flesh and blood could never inherit the kingdom of God because every child that is born in this world is born into a body of death (Rom.7:24). The earnest expectation is for the redemption of this body (Rom.8:19), that could have never been possible apart from the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus Christ by the eternal Spirit (Rom.8:11,23). Therefore, in the redeemed there is no answer for deliverance from sinful tendency apart from the work of the Spirit (Rom.8:13). And, there is no eternal deliverance from sin apart from the resurrection of the body (1Jn.3:2; Rom.8:29).

The condemning factor is the rejection of Christ by which one becomes identified with the crucifier rather than the crucified. Those who are crucified with Him are those who accept Him (Gal.5:24). Therefore, also, those who accepted Him and then reject Him through apostasy become guilty of double crucifixion of Christ and become bereft of repentance (Heb.6:4-6; Heb.12:16,17).

Regeneration: Baptismal, Decisional, or Constitutional?

Infant Baptism is still practiced in many churches with the hope that it saves the infant from original sin.

THE THEOLOGY OF NEW BIRTH OR REGENERATION

The term “born again” has been a central term among Evangelicals and the Pentecostal/Charismatics. However, it has also generated a number of controversies among Christians who desire to understand the nature of their salvation in Christ. In this paper, we will try to highlight and evaluate some of the various teachings on the new birth and attempt at an examination of the same in the light of scriptures.

Baptismal Regeneration

The doctrine of baptismal regeneration teaches that a person is “born-again” or is spiritual born anew through baptism. The affirmers of this doctrine usually find scriptural proof for this doctrine in passages such as John 3:5 and Titus 3:5 where the terms “water” and “washing”, with reference to regeneration, are interpreted as meaning baptism. This doctrine is upheld mainly within Catholicism. According to The Catholicism Answer Book,

It is through Baptism that we become adopted children of God, hence the notion of being “born-again.”... Catholics believe one does not need to be aware of being “born-again” in order for it to still happen (as in the case of infant Baptism)....

…Western (Latin Rite) Catholics are baptized as infants and usually receive confirmation as an adolescent. Eastern (Byzantine) Catholics get both sacraments as an infant on the same day. In Baptism, Catholics are born-again in water and the Holy Spirit. In Confirmation, the gifts of the Holy Spirit are imparted to the previously baptized.

Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics receive all three sacraments of initiation (Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Eucharist) at once. So a baby is baptized, is confirmed (called chrismated), and receives Holy Communion upon her baptismal day....[1]

Through baptism, it is maintained, “Spiritually, the soul is cleansed of original sin (inherited from our first parents, Adam and Eve), then infused with sanctifying grace”, by which is meant “indwelling of the Holy Trinity.” Through baptism we become “adopted children of God, heirs to the heavenly kingdom, and members of Christ's mystical body, the Church.”[2] In contradiction to this, Evangelicals generally teach that baptism has no validity without the presence of repentance and faith based upon scriptures like:

He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16 NKJ)

In the above passage, faith precedes baptism and faith is essential to salvation: “he who does not believe will be condemned” despite of whether he was baptized or not. Again,

Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Act 2:38 NKJ)

Obviously, there can be no remission of sins unless there was first repentance. Baptism would be a meaningless rite unless it was attested by fruits of repentance (Luke 3:7,8).

During the Reformation, Calvin was the first to oppose baptismal regeneration though Martin Luther made room for it. For Luther, salvation was certainly by faith; however, since faith itself was a gift of God, infants can receive faith even when “there is no normal consciousness of it.[3] The Lutheran liturgy of baptism today reads: “We are born children of fallen humanity; in the waters of baptism we are reborn children of God and inheritors of eternal life.”[4] However, Calvin is considered to be the first who separated regeneration from baptism[5]. In his commentary on John 3:5, Calvin rules out the interpretation of “water” as meaning “water baptism”. Though he acknowledges that “by neglecting baptism, we are excluded from salvation,” he doesn’t consider regeneration as an effect of baptism. “Water” like “fire” to Calvin was synonymous with “Spirit”. John Gill, as well, in his commentary, rejects the idea of baptism from the passage and interprets “water” as “the grace of God”. He explicitly mentions that baptism has no regenerating influence in it. On June 5, 1864 the famous Charles Haddon Spurgeon stirred up a storm of controversy by preaching a message against infant baptism from Mark 16:15-16.[6]

The Protestants who hold on to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration usually make faith and repentance the condition of baptism in adults. It became a matter of great controversy in the Church of England when Evangelicals began opposing it against the affirmation of the same by the High Churchmen.[7] Vicars such as Rev. W.H. Hicks tried to argue that baptismal regeneration was not only commonly taught by both the Church of Rome and the Lutheran Churches but was also theologically consistent with the teachings of the Church Fathers and the Scriptures. He stated the Church of England’s position in these words:

In common with the Church of Rome and the Lutheran Churches, we hold that Regeneration, or the new birth is the spiritual grace of Baptism, conveyed over to the soul in the due administration of that Sacrament. We hold in common with those Churches, that in adults duly qualified by repentance and faith, the guilt of sin, both original and actual, is cancelled in Baptism: that in Infants, who have committed no actual or wilful sin, and can possess no such qualifications, the guilt of original sin is done away; and that Infants, no less than adults, are made in Baptism children of GOD, members of CHRIST, heirs of salvation, inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven, and partakers of the privileges, and blessings, and promises of the gospel covenant....

The Church of Rome contends that not only the guilt, but the very essence and being of original sin is removed in Baptism: the Church of England declares that, “this corruption of nature remains even in the regenerate.”[8]

However, obviously, Hicks could bring no scriptural proof to support the view that original sin is done away in infants through baptism, regardless of whether they consciously accept the word of the Gospel or not. When the Bible talks of being born again, it expressly assumes the presence of faith that alone can receive the Word of God.

…having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever…. Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you. (1Pe 1:23-25 NKJ)

Among the Methodists, all allusions to original sin and baptismal regeneration were removed from the infant rite by 1916. “The adult rite still spoke of sin, but only of actual sinning rather than any natural depravity; and the citation from John 3 was reworked so that one is not born of water and Spirit but simply born “anew”.[9] Evangelicals generally understand the word “water” in John 3:5 as a metaphor for the word of God (cf. Eph.5:26).[10] But, there are others who see “water” and “Spirit” as referring to the work of the Spirit. For instance, Robert V. McCabe of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, quoting Old Testament prophecies of the new covenant such as Ezekiel 36:25-27, sees the phrase “born of water and the Spirit” as signifying the Spirit’s work of cleansing from sin and imparting new spiritual life”[11]

With all certainty, the New Testament does not teach baptismal regeneration. Paul said that Christ didn’t send him to baptize but to preach the Gospel (1Cor.1:17). Regeneration is by the word of the Gospel (1Pet.1:23-25). However, water baptism does serve as an external testimony of one’s identity with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Rom.6:1-12; Gal.3:27); as such it is mandatory (Luke 7:30). In conclusion, it is not by baptism but by faith that a person is saved; baptism without faith is meaningless.

Constitutional Regeneration

The Fall of Man brought in a constitutional depravity

The doctrine of constitutional regeneration says that when a person is born again, his spiritual constitution is changed. The Calvinist version of constitutional regeneration argues that since a person is totally depraved and spiritually dead due to original sin and so is incapable of faith in God, God sovereignly regenerates an individual that He elects to be saved and makes him capable of repentance and faith. The only difference between the Calvinist and the Catholic model is that in the Calvinist model, regeneration involves a conviction of sin, repentance, and turning towards God in faith; but, these are the result of regeneration not the cause of it. Thus, in his commentary on John 3:5, Calvin argues that Nicodemus “was not capable of receiving the Gospel, until he began to be a new man.”

In his Christian Theology, Millard J. Erickson tries to find a golden mean in the doctrine of effectual calling.

Calvinists...have insisted that if all persons are truly sinners, totally depraved and incapable of responding to God's grace, no one can be converted unless first regenerated. Repentance and faith are not human capabilities.

Nonetheless, the biblical evidence favors the position that conversion is logically prior to regeneration...

The conclusion here, then, is that God regenerates those who repent and believe. But this conclusion seems inconsistent with the doctrine of total inability. Are we torn between Scripture and logic on this point? There is a way out. That is to distinguish between God's special and effectual calling on the one hand, and regeneration on the other. Although no one is capable of responding to the general call of the gospel, in the case of the elect God works intensively through a special calling so that they do respond in repentance and faith. As a result of this conversion, God regenerates them.[12]

What Erickson means by “logic” here is the conclusion first on the basis of several scriptural passages (and especially as Augustine formulated) that man is totally depraved; for if he was not, the atonement of Jesus would not have been necessary; Pelagianism would win. But, if total depravity was true, then man was incapable of faith unless he was regenerated. However, if man was incapable of faith unless he was regenerated, then how could salvation be of faith, for it would only mean that no one could believe unless he was first regenerated and transformed? But, Erickson introduces the concept of general and special calling as a solution. Those whom God has chosen to be saved are given the ability to believe through a special calling. However, the web gets even more tangled here. This “special calling” or grace/enablement doesn’t appear very much different from the original grace that, according to Boettner, God withheld from Adam in order to let him fall into sin:

God…withheld that undeserved constraining grace with which Adam would infallibly not have fallen, which grace He was under no obligation to bestow. In respect to himself, Adam might have stood had he so chosen; but in respect to God it was certain that he would fall. He acted as freely as if there had been no decree, and yet as infallibly as if there had been no liberty…. God was pleased to permit our first parents to be tempted and to fall, and then to overrule their sin for His own glory.[13]

But, if this element of special grace was real, then total depravity would make no sense, since Adam’s inability to prevent his fall would be as natural as his inability to accept the gospel in his “unregenerate” state. Secondly, the idea of regeneration looks superfluous if there is no resistibility involved in the faith granted through effectual calling. The whole sequence of calling-conversion-regeneration only seems like parts of a single spectrum of regeneration.

Charles Finney observed that a doctrine of constitutional depravity would logically necessitate a doctrine of constitutional regeneration. He repudiates this teaching as an abominable falsehood.

Those who hold to physical or constitutional moral depravity must hold, of course, to constitutional regeneration; and, of course, consistency compels them to maintain that there is but one agent employed in regeneration, and that is the Holy Spirit, and that no instrument whatever is employed, because the work is, according to them, an act of creative power; that the very nature is changed, and of course no instrument can be employed, any more than in the creation of the world. These theologians have affirmed, over and over again, that regeneration is a miracle; that there is no tendency whatever in the gospel, however presented, and whether presented by God or man, to regenerate the heart. Dr. Griffin, in his Park Street Lectures, maintains that the gospel, in its natural and necessary tendency, creates and perpetuates only opposition to, and hatred of God, until the heart is changed by the Holy Spirit.… The favourite illustrations of their views have been Ezekiel's prophesying over the dry bones, and Christ's restoring sight to the blind man by putting clay on his eyes…. What must be the effect of inculcating the dogma, that the gospel has nothing to do with regenerating the sinner? Instead of telling him that regeneration is nothing else than his embracing the gospel, to tell him that he must wait, and first have his constitution recreated before he can possibly do anything but oppose God? This is to tell him the greatest and most abominable and ruinous of falsehoods. It is to mock his intelligence.[14]

However, one must be careful to lay on the subject the total onus of faith. It is impossible for a person to believe without the work of the Spirit in him (1Cor.12:3). Yet, at the same time, there is no freedom of the Spirit without repentance (2Cor.3:18-20). Grace precedes faith; unless God shows grace, faith is an empty reaching out. However, God gives His grace only to the broken hearted.

The Calvinist affirmation of constitutional regeneration logically leads to the doctrine of eternal security, since it is impossible for someone who has been regenerated to become unregenerate; it is impossible for eternal life to die. Thus, to be once saved means to be saved for ever. At regeneration, something new takes place inside, something real, a substantial, constitutional change, which is not the act of man (say, of going to the altar and saying a prayer), but is the act of God. One scripture that Calvinists often quote is Acts 16:14 where it talks about God opening the heart of Lydia so that she attended to the things Paul was speaking. The extrapolation is that every human heart is so closed until God sends His Spirit to open the hearts of those He wishes to save, a kind of effectual calling.

It is certainly the case that the Fall brought in a constitutional change in humans; for through the Fall humans became not only mortal (the death principle active in them), but they also went through a psychological and spiritual alteration (their eyes were opened) to an extent that even God is compelled to move in accordance to this change (He casts them out of Eden and gives them clothing of skin). However, while this Fallenness implies an evident weakness because of the dominance of the carnal in man, there is no scriptural proof to say that man has become morally incapable of spiritual desire for liberty because of this, or that man is incapable of response to the striving of the Spirit.

Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says: “Today, if you will hear His voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion… (Heb 3:7,8)

Obviously, the very command, “Do not harden your hearts” implies both the possibilities of either hardening or humbly receiving. “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name” (John 1:12).

Now, if in regeneration constitutional depravity was removed through the infusion of a new spiritual nature, then it should mean the reversal of both death and the sense of shame; however, that is not the case yet. The saints still continue to die in Christ and there are prescriptions in the New Testament for Christians regarding dress-code in the Church. In fact, there is not going to be constitutional regeneration till the Last Day:

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God... (1Cor 15:50)

So Jesus said to them, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matt 19:28)

Not only [that,] but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. (Rom 8:23)

But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (Luke 20:36)

For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself. (Phil 3:20,21)

This regeneration through the resurrection is the anticipated “adoption” by which we become “sons of the resurrection.” At present, all we experience is the “firstfruits of the Spirit”; but, it is possible for one to fall from the Spirit from Grace.

For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? (Heb.10:26-29)

For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put [Him] to an open shame. (Heb 6:4-6)

“Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer…. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death.” (Rev 2:10,11)

At present, the Christian experiences the same kind of struggle against sin that any other man in the world who doesn’t wish to sin experiences. But, while the unbeliever does it under the power of the Law, the Christian’s struggle is in the liberty of the Spirit. Thus, the unbeliever continues to experience condemnation, but, the Christian is called to overcome sin through his faith in Christ, by reckoning himself dead to sin and alive to God (the logical implications of faith in the Cross).

Knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. For [the death] that He died, He died to sin once for all; but [the life] that He lives, He lives to God. Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. And do not present your members [as] instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members [as] instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. (Rom.6:9-14)

[There is] therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God [did] by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Rom.8:1-4)

However, it is possible for someone, who fails to be careful, to be overcome by the desires of the flesh and turn away from the Gospel of faith; such a person may resort to either the bondage of legalism or the bondage of sensual licentiousness.

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? Have you suffered so many things in vain -- if indeed [it was] in vain? Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, [does He do it] by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? (Gal.3:1-5)

For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. (2Pet.2:20)

But, there are differences of opinion in the Calvinist camp with regard to the nature of the struggle; while there are some who contend that the regenerate person has two natures (the old sinful nature and the new divine nature, coexisting), others, especially deny that a really born-again Christian can have two natures. As William Combs notes:

In recent times the popular radio preacher and author, John MacArthur, has attacked the idea of two natures in the believer. He says at one point: “If you are a Christian, it’s a serious misunderstanding to think of yourself as having both an old and new nature. We do not have a dual personality!” Similar attacks have come from a number of others. J. I. Packer says: “A widespread but misleading line of teaching tells us that Christians have two natures: an old one and a new one.” John Gerstner labels the two-nature viewpoint “Antinomianism.”[15]

To John MacArthur, for the Christian to have one new nature means that the sin-nature no longer subsists. Therefore, the nature of struggle with sin in a believer is unique; the non-Christian has actually no struggle, since all his acts proceed from the sin-nature and even his “good” acts are actually sinful--totally depraved.

Whatever, the disagreement on “nature” in the Calvinist camp, and the ramifications built thereon, it all goes back to an understanding of regeneration as constitutional to the extent that something new is literally created. They agree on the “new nature”; they disagree about whether the old was removed or co-exists with the new in the regeneration. Thus, for constitutional monergists, since regeneration is a literal constitutional new-birth, it is impossible for a really born-again Christian to continue in sin or to fall out of faith. However, Renewal Theologian Rodman Williams finds the idea of interpreting “born-again” constitutionally in this manner defective. For Williams, “born-again” cannot be seen as an independent life-by-itself; “born-again” is only meaningful in the context of continuing faith. Thus,

...in regard to being “born anew” by the Holy Spirit to eternal life, it is important to recognize that this life is related to the operation of faith. Whoever “believes” has “eternal life” (John 3:16), and “believing” signifies continuation. This is apparent from the words of Jesus in John 8:51--”If anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” “Keeping” is not a matter of a moment, but an ongoing process. So unless there is “keeping,” one will see death. This is the same as a failure to abide in Christ and His words, which, Jesus later says, results in being “cast forth” (John 15:6). There is no longer life, but death.[16]

Still, Williams borrows a bit from the constitutional concept, when he writes: “It is sometimes said that since we have been “born again” to eternal life it would be impossible to be “unborn.” While this is quite true, what is “born again” may die. It is possible that the “twice dead” of Jude 12 refers to such persons (Jude 5 speaks of how God “saved a people out of the land of Egypt” and “afterward destroyed those who did not believe”).”[17] The possibility of the constitutionally “born again” dying is contradictory to “eternal life”. It casts doubt on the power of “eternal life”, if that life can die. But, the problem disappears if one looks at “born again” in the present experience as not constitutional regeneration but the experience of redemption through Christ. The slave that is bought out of the slave market receives a new life; however, it is still possible for the slave to go back to his old slavemaster and be enslaven again. But, the one who remains with the true Master to the end receives inheritance. The only difference between the worldly redemption of a slave and the redemption by Christ is that the redemption by Christ is through His blood according to the power of His endless life; therefore, His redemption is eternal (Heb.9:12-14). But, though the price of this redemption is infinite and the redemption eternal, it is possible for a slave to turn away from it and miss the salvation of God.

But God be thanked that [though] you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness…. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness. (Rom.6:17-19)

While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by whom a person is overcome, by him also he is brought into bondage. For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. (2Pet.2:19-20)

Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? (Heb.10:29) [All emphatics in bold mine]

Decisional Regeneration

'Decision' is a keyword in the
ministry of  Billy Graham

While it is possible that in both the views of baptismal regeneration and decisional regeneration a form of constitutional regeneration may be involved, the point of difference is that the constitutional regeneration described above takes the analogy of birth literally and logically places regeneration prior to faith (since, it is argued that a dead person cannot believe unless he is regenerated first). However, in decisional regeneration, faith is placed before regeneration. One believes unto regeneration; is not regenerated unto faith. The controversy about decisional regeneration revolves around whether it is faith that is the cause of regeneration or God who is the source of regeneration.

According to A.B. Caneday, the doctrine of decisional regeneration originated from the attempt to avoid the error of baptismal regeneration during the Second Great Awakening that replaced baptism with decision:

Ironically, since the Second Great Awakening, this same zeal has permitted “new measures” of various kinds, such as the “mourner's bench,” the “invitation system,” or a recited “sinner's prayer” to displace baptism as the rite of conversion, thus shirking and even marginalizing Christ's command to the church. Zeal to avoid “baptismal regeneration,” which many perceived to be the necessary consequence of Alexander Campbell's teaching, actually spawned another error, “decisional regeneration.” This was an error rooted in revivalism that is now a traditional element in American evangelicalism. If the former error is to relegate regenerating efficacy to the rite of baptism itself, the latter error assigns the same efficacy to the human decision to act upon whichever measures preachers may use.[18]

Citing examples of how decisional theology is applied in evangelistic meetings, Erwin Lutzer criticizes assurance of salvation based on decision to come forward and repeat a prayer or sign a card:

And what shall we say of “decisional regeneration” practiced so widely in evangelical churches today? A potential convert is told he must know that he is a sinner, pray a prescribed prayer to “accept Christ into his heart,” and answer a few questions. Then he is told that he is now a Christian. No wonder there are many people who say they are trusting Christ as their Savior but only think they are.

This kind of teaching is often accompanied by invitations to come forward at evangelistic meetings. The impression is given, even if not stated, that coming to Christ means walking down an aisle or signing a card. Although most who use this kind of appeal know that coming to Christ and coming forward in a meeting are not the same thing, they do give the impression that the first step for sinners is to walk to the front, perhaps to the platform or the altar.

An invitation might be properly used if those who come forward do so to have their questions answered, receive prayer, or be given counsel. But by confusing coming to Christ with coming to an altar, many people have been misguided. Some think they are saved because they came forward and did all that they were told. Others think they cannot be saved because they are too shy to walk in front of a crowd.[19]

For Lutzer, faith is an evidence of regeneration and not the cause of it: “To be saved, a person must transfer his trust to Christ alone and accept Him as his sin-bearer. Only such faith is evidence that God has regenerated him.” He quotes the example of Spurgeon who not only refused to give altar calls but even “discouraged people from coming to be counseled in an inquiry room” as he “feared that they might be lured into a fictitious confidence that their conversion actually too place. He urged them “Go to your God at once, even where you now are. Cast yourself on Christ, ere you stir an inch!”“[20] However, though it is true that the “altar call” is open to several abuses today, with manipulative techniques and procedures being adopted to lure people to the front, the abuse of it doesn’t mean that one should throw the baby with the bathwater. Several scriptural instances make it obvious that the evangelistic moment cannot cut itself off without allowing or providing guidance for the express moment decision. Nowhere in the Scripture does an evangelist tell an inquirer, “Go to your God at once, even where you now are. Cast yourself on Christ, ere you stir an inch!” On the other hand, we find instances like these:

Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward Him, and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit!” Nathanael said to Him, “How do You know me?” Jesus answered and said to him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” Nathanael answered and said to Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” (John 1:47-49)

Now when they heard [this,] they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men [and] brethren, what shall we do?” Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit…. Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added [to them.] (Acts 2:37,38,41)

Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, [here is] water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. (Acts 8:36-38)

He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?” So they said, “Into John's baptism.” Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” When they heard [this,] they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. (Acts 19:2-6)

Charles Hambrick-Stowe explains that “the anxious seat” which was introduced by Charles Finney, along with the altar call, was an invitation to the sinner to renounce sin and give himself to Christ “then and there”. It certainly was not an invitation to repeat a simple prayer and get a guaranteed place in heaven. True repentance involves fruits worthy of repentance (Matt.3:8) and true faith is one that is seen in works (James 2:18). Finney’s meetings were charged with a strong sense of conviction of sin, righteousness, and judgment.

…Charles Finney introduced the anxious seat during the Rochester revival as a “new measure”… From the start of his ministry, he had offered special inquiry meetings to encourage penitents to give themselves to Christ. At these gatherings he typically moved among those kneeling to counsel and pray with them personally. In every place he worked, he visited penitents in their homes and welcomed them at his lodgings for individual prayer. On occasion, perhaps inspired by the Methodist practice of an altar call, he had invited those “anxious for their souls” to stand or to come forward for special prayer. Business and professional people, who tended to be “too proud” to make their spiritual anxiety known, were naturally shy about all this. But Finney did not believe that this tendency should be accommodated by a retreat into more private counseling. These were public people, he reasoned, and they needed to be pushed into “some public manifestation or demonstration that would declare to all around them that they abandoned a sinful life then and there, and committed themselves to Jesus Christ.” In Rochester, Finney called those ready to renounce sin and embrace Christ “then and there” to occupy some reserved seats at the front of the church “while we made them subjects of prayer.” He was pleased that a large number came forward, and especially the “prominent lad[ies] . . . lawyers, physicians, merchants, and indeed all the most intelligent class of society.” The anxious seat became a standard feature of Finney's religious meetings and, with its cousin the camp meeting altar call, of American evangelical revivalism in general.[21]

Confessing himself as closer to decisional regeneration, Donald Bloesch writes:

Revealing an affinity to evangelical Pietism, I confess that I am closer to decisional regeneration, since the Bible does not teach regeneration apart from personal faith. Yet when we speak of decision we must have in mind not just our decision for Christ but his decision for us, and we must emphasize the priority of the latter, especially when speaking of regeneration. What secures our salvation is not our baptism with water but his baptism with blood. Yet the fruits of the salvation won for us by Christ take effect in us as we respond in faith and repentance and seal our response in a public act of baptism. This public act represents our obedience to Christ, but it also testifies to Christ's election of us. Moreover, it is used by the Spirit to confirm Christ's gracious election in our lives and thereby to seal us in his body.[22]

The decision to embrace Christ involves repentance from sin; for, one cannot turn to Christ without turning away from sin. This turning towards is the moment when one experiences the liberty of Christ in the Spirit, hearing whose voice he responded through the faith that comes from the hearing of the word of God. And, without the Spirit no one can know Christ as Lord. But, faith in the heart goes along with confession with the mouth. And, the Spirit witnesses with our spirit that we are sons of God. It is not a sonship apart from Christ, but the sonship grounded in Christ, witnessed by the indwelling Spirit who is the seal of redemption to all those who believe; the Spirit that raised Christ from the dead is the guarantee that He will raise us up on the Last Day. The child of God who lives a lifestyle of repentance, walks in the light, in fellowship of the Spirit, is through this divine communion transformed from glory to glory.

Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord [is,] there [is] liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord. (2Cor 3:16-18)

Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says: “Today, if you will hear His voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, In the day of trial in the wilderness, (Heb 3:7,8)

Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. (1Cor 12:3)

That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Rom 10:9,10)

So then faith [comes] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Rom 10:17)

In Him you also [trusted,] after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory. (Eph 1:13-14)

But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you. (Rom 8:11)

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, (Rom 8:14-16)

In the words of Billy Graham,

Jesus Christ says that we must be born again. How do we become born again? By repenting of sin. That means we are willing to change our way of living. We say to God, “I’m a sinner, and I’m sorry.” It’s simple and childlike. Then by faith we receive Jesus Christ as our Lord and Master and Savior. We are willing to follow Him in a new life of obedience, in which the Holy Spirit helps us as we read the Bible and pray and witness. (How to be Born Again)

Conclusion

With all certainty, the above material doesn’t cover a lot more that needs to be said about regeneration. The goal has chiefly only been to investigate the three major approaches to an understanding of this experience in light of the Scriptures. Let’s sum up our results and implications in the following words:

1. Regeneration is the newness of life in Christ that one receives by faith through identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Rom.6, 7; 1Pet.1:3 ). It involves the becoming of a new creation and putting on of the new man (Col.3:10). When a person is born again, his heart is transformed from hostility and indifference to God to love and peace (repose) with God (Rom.5:1-5). Regeneration involves a primary transformation of mind, our affections, and our dispositions from godlessness to godliness through Christ (Col.1:21,22; 2Pet.1:3,4).

2. One is not born again through water baptism but is born again by the word of God (1Pet.1:23). However, water baptism is an essential external act of obedience to the commandment of Christ; it is evidence of a public acknowledgement of Jesus as Christ.

3. Regeneration has two aspects: (a) redemptive regeneration, in which one is freed from the condemnation of the law when he repents and embraces Christ by faith in the word of the Gospel (Rom.7:1-4; Jn.3:5; Jn.16:8; Heb.3:7; 1Cor.12:3; 1Pet.1:23-25; Eph.2:15-22; Jn. 15; 2Cor.3:16-18; Rom.8:1-14; 1Thess.1:9,10) (b) constitutional regeneration, at the Second Coming of Christ (Jn.3:5,6; 1Cor.15:42-56; Phil.3:21; Rom.8:23;1Jn.3:2-3).

4. Man cannot regenerate himself in the same way that man cannot save himself; regeneration is the act of the Spirit by which He not only draws a person to Christ through the word, but sanctifies and indwells the heart of the one who obeys the word of the Gospel; however, it is not the Spirit that makes a person believe; faith is integral to the word of the Gospel and a person is free to receive or reject the faith of God (Rom.10:8,17; Heb.3:7,8; 4:2; 10:29; Jn.14:23). Yet, without the Spirit no one can say that Jesus is Lord (1Cor.12:3).

5. Redemptive regeneration involves turning towards Christ through obedience of faith to receive the newness of life.

6. Constitutional regeneration at the Second Coming of Christ will physically and constitutionally transform us so that we will be free from sin and the effects of sin on our spirit, soul, and body forever. With reference to this consummation of salvation, the statement “once saved, forever saved” holds true.

7. However, anyone who has experienced the firstfruits of the Holy Spirit can lapse back and fall from faith and be lost. Therefore, there are several warnings given to Christians in the New Testament (Heb.6; Heb.10:26-29; Heb.12).

8. There are various symbols that explain regeneration in the New Testament; some of which are new birth (Jn.3:5), quickening (Eph.2:1), grafting (Rom.11:17-24), and redemption (Gal.3:13-14, 26-29).

9. Regeneration involves personal decision to receive and embrace Jesus as the only True God and Eternal Life (Jn.1:12; 1Jn.5:20).

10. The washing of regeneration involves cleansing from and forgiveness of ours sins, crucifying of the old man with all its lusts and union with Christ (Rom.6,7; Tit.3:5; 1Cor.6:17,20; Col.1:14).

11. Regeneration is not an experience independent of Christ; it is the experience of Christ; therefore, its validity and effectiveness only exists in being rooted and grounded in the faith of Christ (Col.1:23). It involves being grafted in the Vine and partaking of the divine nature; however, if one hardens oneself and becomes barren, he is cut off (Rom.11:22). Therefore, the expressions “becoming unborn” and “the born-again life can die” don’t apply to regeneration.

12. The evidence of regeneration is chiefly peace of Christ, faith in Christ, love for Christ and fellow humans, desire for the pure word of God, hatred of sin, and the inner testimony of the Spirit that we are sons of God (Jn.14:27; 1Jn.3:23; 1Pet.2:2; 2Pet.2:8; Rom.8:14-).

NOTES:
[1] John Trigilio Jr. and Kenneth D. Brighenti, The Catholicism Answer Book (Illinois: Sourcebooks, Inc, 2007), pp.98,99
[2] Ibid, p.98
[3] Erwin W. Lutzer, The Doctrines that Divide (MI: Kregel Publications, 1989,1998), p.131
[4] Ibid, p.128
[5] Richard Laurence, The Doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration Contrasted with the Tenets of Calvin (Oxford University Press, 1815), p.7
[6] Erwin W.Lutzer, The Doctrines that Divide, p.132
[7] Kenneth Hylson-Smith, Evangelicals in the Church of England 1734-1984 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), p.124.
[8] Rev. W. H. Hicks, A Concise View of Baptismal Regeneration (London: Joseph Masters, 1856), pp.4,5
[9] Karen B. Westerfield Tucker, American Methodist Worship (Oxford University Press, 2001), pp.108,109
[10] Vernon McGee, John 1-10 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991).
[11] Robert V. McCabe, “The Meaning of “Born of Water and the Spirit In John 3:5”, DBS Journal 4 (Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, Fall 1999), pp.85–107
[12] Ibid.
[13] Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (1932)
[14] Charles G. Finney, Lecture XLII. Regeneration. VIII of Systematic Theology (1851).
[15] William B. Combs, “Does the Believer Have One Nature Or Two?”, DBS Journal 2 (Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, Fall 1997), pp.81–103
[16] J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology: Systematic Theology from a Charismastic Perspective (Zondervan, 1996), p.128
[17] Ibid. p.130
[18] A.B. Caneday, “Baptism in the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement”, in Thomas R. Schreiner, Shawn Wright (Eds), Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ (USA: B&H Publishing Group, 2006)
[19] Erwin W. Lutzer, How You Can Be Sure You Will Spend Eternity With God (Moody Publishers, 1996)
[20] Ibid.
[21] Charles E. Hambrick-Stowe, Charles G. Finney and the Spirit of American Evangelicanism (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1996), p.108
[22] Donald G. Bloesch, The Church: Sacraments, Worship, Ministry, Mission (IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), pp.157-158

---

Last updated on June 12, 2015