‹ Chapter 24 of 32 ›

03.03. GOD

138 min read · Chapter 24 of 32

‹ Previous Chapter Table of Contents Next Chapter ›

Systematic Theology

3. GOD THE EXISTENCE OF GOD THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD THE WORKS OF GOD

Just as biblical infallibility is the epistemological foundation of the Christian faith, the doctrine of God is the metaphysical foundation on which other biblical doctrines depend. Therefore, the Christian must strive to attain a correct understanding of God. This chapter deals with the existence, attributes, and works of God. THE EXISTENCE OF GOD The Bible says that he who comes to God must believe that he exists (Hebrews 11:6). It is impossible for one who denies God’s existence to develop a relationship with him or to consciously serve him.1 I will introduce two categories of arguments for the existence of God. We may call the first type the traditional or classical theistic arguments, which various theologians and philosophers have favored in demonstrating the existence of God. The second type consists of arguments derived from Scripture itself, and so we may call them biblical arguments. THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT argues from the idea of God to his necessary existence. God is by definition the being than which nothing greater can be conceived, and since the being than which nothing greater can be conceived cannot lack the very property of being, God must exist by necessity.

Succeeding Lanfranc, Anselm (1033-1109) became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1093. His Cur Deus Homo and other works have exercised profound influence on the development of Christian theology. However, he is perhaps most famous for his ontological argument as articulated in his Proslogion.2 The following reproduces the argument in part:

Now we believe that You are something than which nothing greater can be thought. Or can it be that a thing of such a nature does not exist, since "the Fool has said in his heart, there is no God"? But surely, when this same Fool hears what I am speaking about, namely, "something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be- thought," he understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his mind, even if he does not understand that it actually exists....

Even the Fool, then, is forced to agree that something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought exists in the mind, since he understands this when he hears it, and whatever is understood is in the mind. And surely that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought cannot exist in the mind alone. For if it exists solely in the mind, it can be thought to exist in reality also, which is greater. If then that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists in the mind alone, this same that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is that-than-which-a-greater-can-be-thought. But this is obviously impossible. Therefore there is absolutely no doubt that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists both in the mind and in reality. And certainly this being so truly exists that it cannot be even thought not to exist. For something can be thought to exist that cannot be thought not to exist, and this is greater than that which can be thought not to exist. Hence, if that-than-which-a-greater- cannot-be-thought can be thought not to exist, then that-than- which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is not the same as that-than- which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought, which is absurd. Something- than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists so truly then, that it cannot be even thought not to exist. And You, Lord our God, are this being. You exist so truly, Lord my God, that You cannot even be thought not to exist....In fact, everything else there is, except You alone, can be thought of as not existing. You alone, then, of all things most truly exist and therefore of all things possess existence to the highest degree; for anything else does not exist as truly, and so possesses existence to a lesser degree. Why then did "the Fool say in his heart, there is no God" when it is so evident to any rational mind that You of all things exist to the highest degree? Why indeed, unless because he was stupid and a fool?

...No one, indeed, understanding what God is can think that God does not exist, even though he may say these words in his heart either without any signification or with some peculiar signification. For God is that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought. Whoever really understands this understands clearly that this same being so exists that not even in thought can it not exist. Thus whoever understands that God exists in such a way cannot think of Him as not existing.3

Many people’s first reaction is to object that just because a being is conceivable or exists in the mind does not mean that it must also exist in reality. One may conceive of a perfect car, but that does not mean it exists other than in his mind. A flying horse is conceivable, but this tells us nothing as to whether it exists in reality.

Such an objection betrays a misunderstanding of the ontological argument, which does not state that whatever is conceivable also exists in reality, but that God cannot be conceived except as one that exists; otherwise, what is conceived would not be God. If a person conceives in his mind a being than which nothing greater can be conceived that does not exist, then he is in fact not thinking of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. Since the argument refers to a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, and not just any object conceivable by the mind, the objection is irrelevant.

Ambiguity exists concerning what it means for something to exist "in reality." We may agree that what exists in the mind does not necessarily exist in the physical world, but this is again irrelevant to the argument because God is incorporeal; he is not a physical being. When we affirm that once the idea of God is present in the mind, he must also be understood to exist, we do not say that he must be understood to exist as physical matter. And thus the concept of existence itself poses a problem. In some sense, anything can be said to exist even unicorns, dreams, and mathematical equations, although they do not exist as physical objects. However, unicorns did not create the universe, dreams did not predestinate some men to salvation and others to perdition, and mathematical equations did not take up human flesh to die as a ransom for many.

Some theologians and philosophers suggest that perhaps we should not be asking, "Does God exist?" Instead, a more intelligible question is, "What is God?" Even Zeus "exists," but only in mythology. The Christian God is not a physical object, but neither is he like dreams, equations, or Zeus. Rather, he is the creator and ruler of the universe, who decrees our history and decides our destiny, and who deserves and demands our worship. It is not a problem to say that God "exists" insofar as this represents an affirmation of all that the Bible says about him, and not that he is a physical object or mythological character. THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT argues from contingent effects to the existence of the first cause, or the creator God. The argument may begin from self-consciousness or the existence of the physical universe.4 Everything that has a beginning everything that comes into being is an effect, and thus must have a cause. The universe must then have a cause if it has a beginning. The universe indeed has a beginning, and therefore it must have a cause. An infinite regression of causes is impossible; therefore, there must be a first cause that has no beginning, but that is necessary and eternal. This being we acknowledge to be God. We will now discuss the premises.

We begin by affirming self-consciousness or the existence of the universe. It is self-refuting to doubt one’s own existence, since one must first exist before he can deny his own existence. One who does not exist cannot affirm the proposition, "I do not exist." Also, a person who denies his own existence withdraws from the debate, and therefore poses no threat to the cosmological argument. Once we have established the proposition, "I exist" or "The universe exists," the argument can begin.

Uncaused contingent beings and events are impossible, since something cannot come out of nothing. Since nothing is not something, it cannot produce anything. Only a being that has no beginning can be uncaused. Neither is it possible for there to be self-caused beings and events. A cause must precede an effect - at least logically, if not chronologically. Thus the cause exists before its effect. If a being or event already exists, then it does not cause its own existence, since it already exists. This being or event must then either be uncaused, or produced by a prior cause.

Although an infinite progression of causes is possible, an infinite regression of causes is not. An infinite progression can occur since causes can continue to lead to new effects, and it is logically possible that this process will never end. However, if we were to assume an infinite regression of causes, then it is impossible for us to have reached the present, since it is impossible to travel across an actual infinite.

Just as it is impossible to reach the end of an infinite progression, our present is an "end" as seen from the past. Any particular moment is an "end" or stopping point as seen from the past, so that if the past is infinite, we could never have reached the present; otherwise, the past would not be infinite, but finite. For example, if one were to begin counting at noon on Monday and decide that he would stop at noon on Friday, he would reach the stopping point when the time arrives. But if there is infinite time between his starting point and his stopping point, then he would never reach the stopping point. Likewise, if a man runs toward a finish line a designated "end" analogous to our present - he would never reach it if there is an infinite distance between the starting point and the stopping point; otherwise, the distance between the two points would not be infinite, but finite.

Therefore, an infinite regression of past causes for the universe is impossible, since if the past is infinite, we would never have reached the present; otherwise, the past would not be infinite, but finite. On the other hand, if the universe has a starting point in the finite past, then it would be possible to arrive at the present. But if the universe has a starting point, then it must have a cause. Some people challenge: "Why must this cause be God?" This is a foolish objection, since God is just the name or title of this first cause. The argument shows that there must be a creator who made this universe.

Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) is best known for his "Five Ways" of demonstrating the existence of God.5 Here we will reproduce only the second and third from his Summa Theologica: The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God. The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.6

Some have recently attempted to assert an uncaused or eternal universe based on quantum theory, but their arguments at most only push the question one step backward so that the existence of the universe still requires an explanation, or a cause. None of them show that the universe is uncaused or eternal, or that something can come out of nothing. Besides, there are strong disagreements among scientists as to the implications of quantum theory, and arguments of this sort often misapply scientific speculations.

If the immediate cause of the universe itself requires a cause, then we still have not arrived at the first cause. There must be a cause to explain every cause that is also an effect, but infinite regress is impossible, so there must be an uncaused first cause that is eternal, that had always existed, and that had created time itself. Since no effect can be uncaused, this first cause has no beginning, and is thus not an effect. This argument is invulnerable to the challenge, "If everything has a cause, then God must also have a cause." This typical objection betrays a lack of attentiveness, since the argument states only that every effect, or everything that comes into being, must have a cause. But the argument shows that God is not an effect, but is the uncaused first cause. THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT may also be called the argument from design. It is historically associated with the work of William Paley,7 who argued as follows: In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given - that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there.

Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? Why is it not as admissible in the second case as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, viz., that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, if a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it....

...the inference, we think, is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker; that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use....

Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater and more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation. I mean that the contrivances of nature surpass the contrivances of art, in the complexity, subtlety, and curiosity of the mechanism; and still more, if possible do they go beyond them in number and variety; yet in a multitude of cases, are not less evidently mechanical, not less evidently contrivances, not less evidently accommodated to their end, or suited to their office, than are the most perfect productions of human ingenuity...8

Ordinary observations and scientific studies indicate that the physical universe exhibits an intricate structure and complex order; it presents itself as a product of deliberate design. THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE represents the observation that many aspects of the universe seem to be fine-tuned to permit the existence of life. If these factors were to be even slightly different than what they are, life would be impossible. A large number of precise conditions must be present simultaneously to permit the existence of organic life.

Since what is designed requires a designer, the observed design of the universe necessitates the existence of a designer. This being exhibits the characteristics of a rational mind, capable of thought and planning, and possesses such power to execute his intentions that he created the universe with no preexisting matter available. This description is consistent with what the Bible teaches about God. The magnitude and complexity of his creation demonstrate his power and wisdom: But God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding. (Jeremiah 10:12) With my great power and outstretched arm I made the earth and its people and the animals that are on it, and I give it to anyone I please. (Jeremiah 27:5) How many are your works, O LORD! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures. (Psalms 104:24) THE MORAL ARGUMENT argues from objective moral laws to a giver of moral laws. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) writes in his Critique of Practical Reason:9

Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and the more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.10 To make sense of objective moral laws there must be justice. Since we observe that justice is often not served in this life, there must be an afterlife where precise justice is rendered. Moreover, for there to be justice there must be a Judge who will deliver such justice. But for this Judge to judge rightly, he must be omniscient, knowing every thought and deed, and their various relationships. And to execute justice, there must be unlimited power at the Judge’s disposal.

Now, Kant had argued for the concept of God as a heuristic principle in ethics, and did not mean for the argument to serve as a proof in the classical sense: By a postulate of pure practical reason, I understand a theoretical proposition which is not as such demonstrable, but which is an inseparable corollary of an a priori unconditionally valid practical law.11

Nevertheless, if one denies that there is an afterlife in which everyone must face this all-knowing and all-powerful Judge, he can no longer account for object morality. Yet we find men everywhere speak and act as though objective morality exists. Even those who verbally deny objective morality react to the actions of others as if such a thing exists. One cannot consistently affirm objective morality, either by word or action, and reject its necessary precondition. Hastings Rashdall writes: The belief in God…is the logical presupposition of an "objective" or absolute Morality. A moral ideal can exist nowhere and nohow but in a mind; an absolute ideal can exist only in a Mind from which all Reality is derived. Our moral ideal can only claim objective reality in so far as it can rationally be regarded as the revelation of a moral ideal eternally existing in the mind of God.12

Concluding our discussion of the classical arguments, we will now proceed to examine the biblical arguments, called such because of their dependence on both the apologetic strategy and actual content of the Bible. THE TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT, sometimes called an abductive argument, argues from a known or acknowledged Y to a necessary precondition X. Or, as Robert Stern explains: As standardly presented, transcendental arguments are usually said to be distinctive in involving a certain sort of claim, namely that "For Y to be possible, X must be the case," where Y is some indisputable fact about us and our mental life (e.g. that we have experiences, use language, make certain judgments, have certain concepts, perform certain actions, etc.), but where it is left open at this stage exactly what is substituted for X.13

One aspect of the biblical system of apologetics involves arguing that given any Y, the necessary precondition (X) is the entire biblical worldview. For example, among other things, science assumes the uniformity of nature (Y), but such an assumption demands the biblical worldview (X);14 therefore, the biblical worldview is a necessary presupposition that makes science possible. The implication is that science can never disprove the Scripture, or even argue against it.

Biblical teaching generates a particular type of transcendental argument15 that is irrefutable, since in the process of argumentation it shows that the biblical worldview (X) is applicable to any Y at all. Whatever is substituted for Y in the context of debate, the biblical worldview (X) is its necessary precondition. This is true even concerning arguments against Christianity - without the biblical worldview as the presupposition, no objection against Christianity is even intelligible.16 But once the entire Bible is already acknowledged as true, no objection against it can be true. This is a positive indirect argument for the biblical worldview. A biblical strategy of apologetics should employ both direct and indirect arguments.17 What follows, then, is a positive direct argument for the Christian faith, which I call THE DOGMATICAL ARGUMENT.18 The word "dogmatic" has some very unfavorable connotations in colloquial speech. One dictionary defines "dogmatism" as "positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant; a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises," and a "dogma" is "a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds."19 Although this reflects common usage, it is not what we mean.

"Dogmatic" can simply mean "doctrinal"20 or "based on a priori principles, not on induction."21 Both of these definitions are applicable in our context. The synonyms of this word include, "dictatorial, authoritative, magisterial," and in another sense, "deductive, a priori, deducible, derivable, and reasoned."22 The whole of the Christian Scripture is a revelation from God. And since God speaks by an absolute and "dictatorial"23 authority, his verbal revelation forms the precondition of all of life and thought, and any knowledge only comes from valid deductions from it. In his God and Reason, Ed. L. Miller explains very well the philosophical position of dogmatism:

One of the distinctive features of the Judeo-Christian tradition is its belief in a divine self-disclosure: God has intervened in human history and spoken; he has unveiled himself in a "special revelation." And the knowledge of God drawn from this revelation is an example of revealed theology. Such theology is sometimes called "dogmatic" (in the best sense of the word) or "confessional" theology because it seeks to elucidate the divinely bestowed articles of faith (dogmas) that it takes as its fundamental and nonnegotiable data. Not unlike the mathematician, the dogmatic theologian begins with certain givens, though in this case revealed givens; the system is bounded by revelation, self-contained, and offered as a package deal.24 The Christian system takes biblical infallibility, or the proposition, "The Bible is the word of God," as its self-authenticating first principle. By self-authenticating, I do not mean that the Bible verifies itself in our experience (although it does), since if it is by our experience that the Bible proves to be true, it would not be self-authenticating. Neither am I referring to the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit that the Bible is true, although this happens to those chosen by God for salvation. Rather, I mean that the content of the Bible verifies itself; it needs not appeal to any premises external to itself. From this first principle of biblical infallibility, the rest of the system follows by necessity through valid deductions. Since the first principle verifies itself to be true, any propositions validly deduced from it is also true. Since biblical revelation condemns all other systems of thought, and whatever it says is true, the Christian faith is therefore the only true system of thought, by which every proposition is evaluated and made intelligible. The method is similar to rationalism. Although its tenacious use of deduction is commendable, non-Christian rationalism fails because its first principles are arbitrary and unjustified. On the other hand, the Bible contains the content to justify itself as the infallible first principle of the Christian faith. But dogmatism is perhaps the better name,25 since it conveys the idea that the biblical worldview consists of, in the words of Miller, self-contained revealed givens offered as a package deal.

Everyone has a worldview - a network of interrelated propositions the sum of which forms "a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world."26 There is a starting point or first principle to every worldview from which the rest of the system is derived. It is not possible for a worldview to be a web of propositions that depend on one another without a first principle, since even such a conception of a worldview requires an epistemological justification. Also, it would remain that some beliefs are more central to the web, the failure of which destroys the propositions farther from the center of the web. Even the most central claims require justification, and a worldview in which the propositions depend on one another in a way that lacks a first principle or ultimate authority is exposed as having no justification at all.

Therefore, every worldview requires a first principle or ultimate authority. Being first or ultimate, such a principle cannot be justified by any prior or greater authority; otherwise, it would not be the first or ultimate. The first principle must then possess the content to justify itself. For example, the proposition, "All knowledge comes from sense experience," fails to be a first principle on which a worldview can be constructed, since if all knowledge comes from sense experience, this proposed principle must also be known only by sense experience, but prior to proving the principle, the reliability of sense experience has not yet been established. Thus, the principle results in a vicious circle, and self-destructs. It matters not what may be validly deduced from such a principle - if the system cannot even begin, what follows from the principle cannot be accepted. A worldview that begins with a contradiction is impossible, and must be rejected. This is because contradictions are unintelligible and meaningless. The law of contradiction27 states that "A is not non-A," or that something cannot be true and not true at the same time and in the same sense. A denial of this law must itself employ it to be meaningful. If truth can be contradictory, then truth cannot be contradictory, dogs are cats, elephants are rats, and "See Jane run" means "I am married." If it is not true that "A is not non-A," nothing is intelligible.

Since no legitimate first principle can contradict itself, epistemological skepticism, being contradictory, must be ruled out. A philosophical skeptic maintains that "no knowledge is possible...or that there is not sufficient or adequate evidence to tell if any knowledge is possible."28 He either claims to know that nothing can be known, or to know that there is inadequate evidence to know anything. Both options claim and deny absolute knowledge at the same time, and are therefore self-contradictory.

Self-contradictory first principles are untenable, and skepticism is self-contradictory. This means that an adequate first principle must guarantee the possibility of knowledge. In addition, this first principle must yield an adequate amount of knowledge, and not merely make knowledge possible. Even if "My name is Vincent" is a true statement, it does not yield any information about the origin of the universe, or whether stealing is immoral. It does not even define morality. But how do I know that the proposition is true in the first place? It does not have a self-contained and self-justifying epistemology in its content. A principle is therefore inadequate that fails to provide information concerning necessary categories of thought such as epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics. A first principle cannot be based on induction, which reasons from particulars to universals.29 No amount of empirical investigation can tell me, for example, that "Every human being has a brain." To establish a general proposition such as this, I must examine every human being. And while examining human beings in one part of the world, I must somehow ensure that the nature of man has not changed in those parts of the world whose human beings I have already studied. If I intend to apply the claim to all human beings in the past and the future, I must also examine all the human beings in the past and the future. Since this is impossible, inductive reasoning and empirical methods cannot justify the proposition. On the basis of empirical methods, it would be impossible to define a human being in the first place, since that concept is also a universal. Similar problems are inherent in establishing a proposition such as "All men are mortal." Some seek to rescue induction by saying that, although it cannot conclusively establish any proposition, at least it can establish a claim as probable. However, if probability is "the ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes that produce a given event to the total number of possible outcomes,"30 even if we grant that empirical methods can discover the numerator of the fraction - although I deny even this to empiricism - to determine the denominator requires knowledge of a universal, and omniscience is required to establish it in many cases. Since empirical methods cannot know universals, to say that it can come to probable knowledge is nonsense.

Induction is always a formal fallacy, and a system based on an empirical principle cannot succeed. Deduction, on the other hand, produces conclusions that are guaranteed to be true if the premises are true, and if the process of reasoning is valid. Rationalism employs deduction, and as such is superior to empirical methods. Rationalistic systems appear to be less popular, but we will point out some of its difficulties before proceeding.

Rationalism selects a first principle and from it deduces the rest of the system, much like how one begins with one or more axioms in geometry. If the first principle is true, and the process of deductive reasoning is valid, the subsidiary propositions, or theorems, would all be true by necessity. The problem with non-revelational rationalism is how one may select a first principle.31 Now, if the axiom selected is self-contradictory, then it is of course rejected. But assuming that a non-contradictory principle is selected, it must still justify itself.

Only the Christian first principle is self-justifying, but even if we assume that a number of self-consistent and self-justifying principles exist, they must be broad enough to render knowledge possible. So to posit "My name is Vincent" as the first principle in a deductive worldview would result in the failure mentioned earlier. Finally, there are various schools of rationalistic systems, and their starting points are different and incompatible. Which one is correct? A rationalistic worldview with an arbitrary first principle cannot succeed. Although the result is no better, the method itself is still superior to the inductive procedure. By this point, all non-Christian systems have already failed, including the alleged revelation of Islam.32 They cannot satisfy all the requirements thus far listed. However, for the sake of completeness, we must also mention that the propositions within a worldview may not contradict one another. A first principle must not produce a proposition in politics that contradicts another proposition in ethics. I trust that there is no need to recite again the problems with contradictions. The present apologetic strategy begins with the recognition that Christianity is the only deductive system with a self-consistent and self-justifying first principle revealed by an almighty omniscient being. The principle is broad enough to yield an adequate number of propositions sufficient to construct a complete worldview that entails no self- contradiction. Therefore, the biblical worldview is the precondition of intelligibility, knowledge, and truth. All other systems of thought cannot make knowledge possible and thus collapse into philosophical skepticism. But since skepticism is self-contradictory, one cannot remain in such a position, and Christianity is the only way out of the epistemological abyss.33

What the classical arguments for the existence of God do not accomplish is to provide positive proof of the entire biblical worldview. Each only argues for the truth of several biblical propositions, such as God as the creator, God as the designer, or God as the giver of moral laws. However, the dogmatical argument simultaneously proves all biblical propositions and all of their logical implications. If the entire Bible is true, then of course the biblical God exists, and any other concept of God is automatically excluded. A more serious objective defect of the classical theistic arguments is their dependence on science and empiricism.34 If science and empiricism are fatally flawed as means to discover the nature of reality, any argument that relies on them fails before it even begins, although in the case of the theistic arguments, we seem to attain the proper conclusion. That is, science may affirm the existence of God, but I reject the reliability of science even though I affirm the existence of God.

Nevertheless, the theistic arguments remain useful as a type of ad hominem arguments,35 where one employs premises assumed by the unbeliever, and from them reasons to either absurd conclusions, thus demonstrating the falsity of the unbeliever’s premises, or to conclusions favorable to the believer, such as the existence of God.36 The theistic arguments are capable of showing the rational superiority and exclusivity of the Christian faith even when one assumes the false premise that scientific and empirical methods are reliable, or can discover truth.37 Although they do not rest upon an infallible foundation, they are useful as the part of apologetics that defeats the unbeliever on his own territory. However, an infallible argument for Christianity, or for that matter any infallible argument, requires the infallible revelation of God as its starting point.38 Proverbs 26:4-5 teaches two principles of argumentation that help summarize the biblical strategy of apologetics:

1. "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself."

2. "Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes." The fool trusts in science and empiricism.39 He thinks that his finite mind and flawed methodology can discover the truth about reality, that he needs no divine revelation, and that he can gain knowledge through autonomous investigation and reasoning. Proverbs 26:4 warns the believer not to reason like the fool, so as to avoid becoming like him. From the infallible foundation of God’s verbal revelation, we can deduce an infallible and comprehensive system of truth and knowledge. This is the positive aspect of the biblical strategy of apologetics, and it consists of both direct and indirect arguments, both deductive and abductive reasoning.40

However, without becoming like the fool in our thinking, we may temporarily assume the premises he holds, merely for the sake of argument, to see where they lead.41 We may contend that it is foolish to trust in science as a means to discover the truth about reality, but then we may also show that scientific discoveries favor the Christian faith more than any other worldview, and at the same time inflict damage upon secular values and beliefs. We may formulate historical arguments against our opponent, while knowing that his method of historical investigation precludes any knowledge of history in the first place.42 This is the negative aspect of the biblical strategy of apologetics, and it often includes arguments using scientific and empirical premises. This dual strategy of argumentation works against all non-Christian systems of thought, including non-biblical religions.43 Since the Bible is true, and since it condemns all other religions, then all non-biblical religions are declared false by the same infallible authority of God that declares the Bible to be true. Anyone who challenges this must disprove the Bible, at which point the believer may employ the dogmatical argument and the transcendental argument to defend his faith and to continue tearing down his opponent’s position.

We may demonstrate our opponent’s religion to be self-contradictory, and that some of the ethical values he treasures can only be accounted for by the biblical worldview. For example, the ethics of Buddhism lacks any authoritative foundation; it is arbitrary. And if the opposing religion affirms the secular method of historical investigation, we may then use its findings to expose the historical errors of their doctrines, such as in the Koran and the Book of Mormon. In this manner, the Christian apologist skillfully uses both positive and negative argumentation to defend his faith, while he confounds and refutes his opponent. As the apostle Paul writes: The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:4-5)

Peter admonishes his readers: "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15). And Jude says, "I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints." It is the duty of every Christian to defend his faith and to destroy his opponent’s beliefs. The biblical strategy elucidated above, with the dogmatical argument as its central thrust, equips the believer to "demolish arguments" and "take captive every thought" even when confronting the most crafty and hostile enemies of the biblical faith.

How are we to regard the non-Christian? Psalms 14:1 states, "The fool says in his heart, ’There is no God.’" Now, the Bible would not call one a fool who rejects Zeus, Allah, or the Buddha as false gods, since it is protective of only the God that it reveals. Therefore, the fool in Psalms 14:1-7 is not just one who rejects any deity, but one who rejects the God revealed in Scripture - that is, the biblical or Christian God. And since there is only one Christian God, Psalms 14:1-7 is not calling only the atheist a fool, but anyone who rejects Christianity, even though he may belong to another religion.

Romans 1:22-25 confirms this: "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles....They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator..." So the Bible calls any non-Christian a fool, whether he is an atheist, agnostic, Buddhist or Muslim. Psalms 53:2 implies that anyone who does not seek after God44 lacks understanding: "God looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God." Verse 4 says that the "workers of iniquity" have "no knowledge" (KJV). On the other hand, the Scripture affirms that, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding" (Psalms 111:10). Proverbs 9:10 says, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." Since the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, and the Bible acknowledges only the biblical or Christian God, the implication is that non-Christians have not even started to gain wisdom. It is not that they have only a little wisdom, but that they have not even started to have any wisdom at all. In addition, the Bible says it is because of their "wickedness" that men "suppress the truth" (Romans 1:18) concerning the existence and nature of God, even though he has given them an inescapable revelation about himself through the innate knowledge of their minds and the words of Scripture. Paul comments that these individuals "neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:21-22).

Thus, the biblical assessment of all non-Christians is that they are both foolish and wicked. Every non-Christian is intellectually and morally defective; it is unscriptural to consider any non-Christian as intelligent or moral. They demonstrate their lack of intellectual aptitude in failing to assent to the Christian faith, and to assent to it in its entirety. And in denying Christianity despite the innate knowledge God has placed in their minds and the irrefutable arguments of biblical apologetics, they show themselves to be not only intellectual ostriches but active suppressers of the truth about God. This is wickedness at its worst. Paul writes, "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness" (Romans 1:18).

We who are now Christians were at one time also "alienated from God and were enemies in [our] minds" (Colossians 1:21), but God has reconciled us to himself through Christ (Colossians 1:22). But non-Christians are "separate from Christ...without hope and without God in the world" (Ephesians 2:12). Paul writes that, "The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel" (2 Corinthians 4:4), and the preaching of the gospel is to "open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith" (Acts 26:18).

Although the Bible describes the unbelievers as living in a pitiful state of existence, we who have believed were also in such a condition. If left to ourselves, we would have remained in ignorance and darkness. It is by the election of God and through hearing the gospel that we were enlightened to the truth, and brought to faith in Christ. Therefore, by saying that unbelievers are fools, we do not mean that those who are now Christians have always been wise and enlightened, but it is only by the sovereign choice of God that we have been saved from a state of stupidity and futility. We are not Christians because we were wise, but we were made wise because God chose us to be Christians. Knowing this, Christians should not be arrogant, but should be grateful to God for their salvation.

Nevertheless, it remains that the Bible characterizes all unbelievers as foolish and wicked. Christians are thus obligated to view non-Christians as intellectually and morally inferior. Some may think that this is an overly unkind assessment. This may be true from the viewpoint of the unbelievers, but Christians must not think like them. Since the Bible teaches that unbelievers are foolish and wicked, and to be a Christian is to believe the whole Bible, then to be a Christian is also to believe that all unbelievers are foolish and wicked. Therefore, we should without reservation say with Anselm, "Why then did ’the Fool say in his heart, there is no God’...unless because he was stupid and a fool?" THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD The divine attributes are the characteristics of God the sum of which defines who he is. The first issue to settle is the KNOWABILITY of God. If God is greater than human beings both in degree and in kind, then the question arises as to whether we may acquire reliable information about him. We answer that since God made man according to the divine image, then no matter the difference between God and man, there remains a point of contact between them so that meaningful intellectual communication is possible. That God has chosen to convey information to us through the Bible means that language is adequate, and so we must affirm that it is possible to know detailed and reliable information about God through his verbal revelation. To argue that man cannot know God due to the difference between the two is self-refuting, since the statement itself necessitates considerable knowledge about God. The person who says that God is unknowable is asserting a piece of information about the very nature of God. But if God is indeed unknowable, no one can know that he is unknowable. That we have the concept of God in our minds and that we can debate the question demonstrate that God must be knowable.

It is likewise self-refuting to say that human language is inadequate to convey information about divine things, since the statement itself carries a piece of information about divine things, namely, that they are of such nature as to render verbal descriptions about them impossible. Since the statement itself is a verbal description about the very nature of divine things, it refutes itself.45 The Bible teaches that God has revealed himself through the words of Scripture. This alone affirms both the knowability of God and the adequacy of human language. God is capable of telling us about himself, and we are able to understand what he communicates. Therefore, God is knowable, and he has chosen to tell us about divine things through verbal communication, rather than through religious experiences or intuition. Objections against the knowability of God and the adequacy of language thus goes against the biblical worldview, and must confront the arguments for the Christian faith presented in the previous section of this book.

After determining the knowability of God, the next logical question is how much we can know about him. The Bible teaches the INCOMPREHENSIBILITY of God. Psalms 145:3 says that "no one can fathom" his greatness, and the apostle Paul writes in Romans 11:33, "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!" God is infinite and we are finite; therefore, we can never know everything about God. But just because we cannot know everything about God does not mean that we cannot know anything about him. In our context, to "comprehend" means to have a complete understanding of God. This is impossible for finite beings, including sinless angels. No matter how much about God we come to know, there will always be more to know about him.

Since God is infinite in his being, there are an infinite number of propositions that may be said about him.46 Our cognitive abilities are limited and we live in time. If there are an infinite number of propositions about God, then it would be impossible for any finite being to know all of them. This limitation will remain even after the resurrection of believers. Although our minds and bodies will undergo considerable improvements, we will remain finite, and therefore God will remain incomprehensible to us.

However, it remains that we can know much about God. We can know and understand everything that the Bible says about him. Jeremiah 9:24 says that one can understand and know God’s very character, that he is one "who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth." The doctrine of God’s incomprehensibility does not nullify the possibility of true and abundant knowledge about him by finite human beings through scriptural exegesis.

We must not allow God’s incomprehensibility to negate his knowability. Although we cannot possess exhaustive knowledge about him, we can indeed have true knowledge about him. Whatever God reveals to us through the words of Scripture is true, and we have true knowledge about God to the extent that we know and understand these words. I may know another person’s name or age without knowing anything else about him, but this does not mean that my limited knowledge about him is false.

Although it is true that the more that I know about a person, the better I will understand what I already know about him, what I know about him before is nevertheless true. By gaining additional information about a person, I acquire a richer context from which to understand the implications of his name or age, but my knowledge about his name or age was true even before gaining the additional information. Likewise, although we do not have a comprehensive knowledge about God, what we know about him from the Bible is nevertheless reliable and accurate.

Although we cannot know God fully or exhaustively, we can know him truly by knowing the words of Scripture. The doctrines of God’s knowability and incomprehensibility preclude the claim that we know everything there is to know about God, but they also remind us that we can have true and accurate knowledge about him.

Christians who do not immediately grasp certain biblical doctrines sometimes give up by calling them "mysteries," but the knowability of God warns us against doing this. This tendency of some to illegitimately label biblical doctrines as mysteries exposes a defect in their mentality - it may imply a misunderstanding of the nature of revelation, or even a slothful or rebellious attitude toward the Scripture. Often the person indeed understands the doctrine, but he refuses to accept it. Since he cannot deny its biblical origin, he calls it a mystery to avoid affirming it. For example, many have labeled as mysteries the doctrines of the Trinity and divine election. However, since the Bible teaches these doctrines and tells us what to think about them, we should not call them mysteries, but rather authoritative doctrines that all believers must affirm. Revealed doctrines are not mysteries. Since God has revealed considerable amount of information about these topics, they are clear biblical doctrines that demand universal acceptance. To close one’s eyes and call them mysteries is nothing short of blatant defiance against divine revelation. Refusing to understand or accept anything that the Bible teaches is to insult the God who has given us the priceless gift of his verbal revelation.

We may now proceed to examine other divine attributes, beginning with those that elaborate on the form of his existence, or his metaphysical attributes. One such attribute is the NECESSITY of God, meaning that he exists by logical necessity. Recall from an earlier discussion that, by saying "God exists," the Christian does not refer to some generic God, but only to the biblical or Christian God; that is, God is as the Bible says he is. It is not general theism that believers should defend, but the entirety of the Christian faith.47 In terms of modal logic, we are affirming that God exists in every possible world. A "possible world" is reality as it can be, in which any contingent being or event can be otherwise. For example, it is possible for a given person to be taller than he is, and it is possible for a certain car to be red instead of green. Any reality that does not contain a contradiction is a possible world. A statement such as 2 + 2 = 4 is true in every possible world, and 1 + 1 = 10 is false in every possible world. To say that God’s existence is a logical necessity means that the proposition, "God does not exist" entails a contradiction in this and every other possible reality. The Scripture’s description of God necessitates such a conclusion.

Some maintain that God does not exist by logical necessity, but only by factual necessity in our present reality. Since our claim is that he exists by logical necessity in every possible world, we should agree that he also exists by factual necessity in this reality. But given what we know to be true about God, it is inadequate to say that he only exists by factual necessity in this reality, and may not be in other possible worlds. Our knowledge of the divine attributes necessitates the conclusion that God exists by logical necessity, and not only factual necessity. The dogmatical argument and the transcendental argument from the previous section also render any possible reality inconceivable unless the entire biblical worldview is first presupposed.

God is an uncaused being, and since he is the one who created and now sustains all that exists, he had also existed before all else. No one besides himself sustains his being. This refers to the ASEITY of God, sometimes called his SELF-EXISTENCE or INDEPENDENCE. He exists "from himself,"48 and does not depend on anything external to himself for his existence. He is a "self-contained" God, and exists by his very own nature. The Bible says that "the Father has life in himself" (John 5:26), but our existence is dependent on the will and power of God: "For in him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). Revelation 4:11 says, "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being." The apostle Paul says in Acts 17:25 that God "is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything," but that he is the one who "gives all men life and breath and everything else." The divine name that God revealed to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM" (Exodus 3:14), points to his self-existence. It also suggests that God exists in an eternal state. He created time itself, and he is therefore independent of it. This attribute of God’s existence is called his ETERNITY or TIMELESSNESS. Genesis 21:33 says that he is "the Eternal God." The Book of Psalms reveals that he is "from everlasting to everlasting" (Psalms 41:13), and that he is "from all eternity" (Psalms 93:2). The apostle Peter writes, "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (2 Peter 3:8).

One implication of God’s eternity is that all knowledge is as an eternal intuition to him. Although there is a succession of ideas in the mind of man, this is not true with God. Man reasons from the premises to the conclusion, a process that requires time and a succession of ideas in the mind. However, since God is timeless, all propositions are before his mind as one eternal intuition or thought. Therefore, God thinks without mental associations or a succession of ideas. He thinks by pure intuition, since all knowledge is immediately present before him, even facts that pertain to our future. This does not mean that logic is different to God or that propositions are inadequate to express his thoughts. Logic is the same to God as it is to us, but a succession of ideas does not exist in his mind because of his timelessness and unlimited intellect. If he were to put his thoughts into words for us, there would be a succession of ideas in his message, with one thought leading to another.

He would follow all the valid rules of logic, which proceed from his rational nature. We affirm this not through empty speculation, but since the Scripture is the word of God, we know how he expresses himself in words. In addition, the Son of God took on human attributes and entered time. The biblical account of him shows that Christ articulated his mind through intelligible speech, following all the valid rules of logic.

Some maintain that our mental makeup is so different from God’s that logic itself is different with him. They suggest that "God’s logic" is different from "human logic," and therefore our reasoning according to human logic does not apply to him. This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of logic itself. Logic is not only what makes human communication convenient or intelligible, but they are necessary rules for right thinking, having their origin in God’s nature. Since God himself is rational, all thinking about him and reality must adhere to logical rules. A concept such as a square circle is just as nonsensical and inconceivable to God as it is to us.

Besides, to argue that "human logic" does not apply to God is to use human logic to say something about God, which is self-refuting. If human logic is inapplicable to him, one can never say so and expect to make sense at the same time. Far from saying that logic does not apply to God, Jesus was a master debater, as seen from his encounters with the hostile religious leaders. One theologian-philosopher translates John 1:1 as follows: "In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God." This may horrify anti-intellectual Christians, but the word logos can just as easily be translated "logic" or "reason" as it can be translated "word." That God does not reason from premises to conclusions does not mean that his is not a rational mind, but it means that he is simultaneously aware of all premises and conclusions, and therefore does not need to think through logical arguments as we do. But we must insist that logic is the same to God as it is to us, and although his knowledge exists as an eternal intuition, he can express his thoughts in propositional form, as he has done in the Scripture. The IMMUTABILITY of God follows from his eternity. Since there is no "before" or "after" with God, he is unchangeable in his being and character. This attribute is also associated with his perfection. If God’s being has every possible perfection, then any change in him must be for the worse. But since he is immutable, he cannot change for the worse. And since he already possesses every perfection, he has no need to change or experience development.

Psalms 102:25-27 says that, although the physical universe undergoes decay and will perish, God remains the same: In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.

God says in Malachi 3:6, "I the LORD do not change." The apostle James writes that God does not "change like shifting shadows" (James 1:17). God says in Isaiah 46:11, "What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do," and Psalms 33:11 says, "the plans of the LORD stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations." Finally, Numbers 23:19 says, "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?" The immutability of God implies his IMPASSIBILITY. This means that God is without "passions" - emotions or feelings. Less thoughtful believers are quick to protest against saying that God has no emotions, since the Bible seems to reveal a God who experiences emotive states such as grief, joy, and wrath (Psalms 78:40; Isaiah 62:5; Revelation 19:15).

Proponents of divine impassibility explain that passages appearing to ascribe emotions to God are anthropopathisms. The opposition then protests that this is to avoid the obvious teaching of Scripture by relegating to anthropomorphism or anthropopathism anything that they do not wish to associate with God. But those opponents of impassibility who are otherwise orthodox in their beliefs readily accept those biblical references as anthropomorphic that ascribe to God bodily parts such as hands and eyes. Therefore, one must not dismiss anthropomorphism or anthropopathism as an explanation without good reason. To say that God experiences emotions in a similar way as human beings appear to incur a number of contradictions: A man may become angry against his will in the sense that he does not choose to become angry, nor does he choose to experience whatever caused the anger, but given his present state of mind and character development, the "trigger" incites this emotion in him against his preference. The same applies to human experiences of joy, fear, and grief. Although one may develop a remarkable level of self-control by the sanctifying power of the Scripture and the Holy Spirit, it remains that one’s will and emotion do not maintain a one-to-one relationship. A person’s emotional state is not always exactly the way he wishes or decides it to be.

However, the above cannot be true about God even if he were to experience emotions, since such lack of self-control contradicts his sovereignty, immutability, and omniscience. For example, that God is all-knowing and thus cannot be "surprised" eliminates certain ways of experiencing emotions. Thus, omniscience alone renders impossible some emotions, or at least the ways or reasons for experiencing them. If my actions can grieve or anger God in a similar way that I can grieve or anger a human being, then it means that I can cause God to grieve or become angry whenever I wish. On the other hand, if my actions can generate joy in him in a similar way that I can generate joy in a human being, then it means that I am able to cause joy in God by my will. In this manner, I would be exercising a measure of control over God himself, which contradicts his sovereignty and immutability.

We must therefore affirm some form of divine impassibility. If God is grieved by our sins, it is only because he wills to be grieved by them, and not because his mental state is beyond his control or subject to our influence. At least in this sense and to this extent, we must affirm that God is without passions. Even if God has emotions, they are under his complete control, and they will never compromise any of his known attributes.

Christians in some cultures are quicker to defend the role of emotions, whether in God or in man, because they have been influenced by modern psychology, and not just because they refuse to accept the explanation that the biblical descriptions of God as having emotions are anthropopathisms. A discussion on the nature of emotions will help us better understand how they relate to God and man. The dictionary defines "emotion" as "disturbance, excitement; the affective aspect of consciousness; a state of feeling; a psychic and physical reaction (as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong feeling and physiologically involving changes that prepare the body for immediate vigorous action."49 The word originally means a disturbance of the mind. Although this meaning is now obsolete in colloquial speech, I know of at least one theologian-philosopher who still defines emotion as a mental disturbance. Even in common usage, it remains a "psychic and physical reaction." Whether it is a disturbance or a reaction, it no longer sounds as good or necessary as people make it appear.50

Contrary to popular teaching, the Bible never says that the mind consists of the will, intellect, and emotion. This borrows from secular psychology, not biblical psychology. Under such a scheme, the will, intellect, and emotion are distinct parts of the mind, so that the mind is only real as the aggregate of the three. Since they are independent, there is no necessary relationship between the growth and development of each part. Thus, Christians who assume this false framework sometimes say that one must not only develop his intellect, but that he must also develop his emotion.

However, the Bible states that the inward part of man is the mind or intellect. The will and emotion are not things in themselves, but merely functions of the mind. For example, digestion is not an organ apart from or within the stomach, but the stomach is what exists as a physical organ, while digestion is the function that it performs. Likewise, the mind is what exists as the inward and incorporeal part of man. Sometimes it gets disturbed, and a disturbance of the mind affects how it thinks, often in a negative way. Therefore, the emotion is not in itself good. Although the Bible does not call all emotions sinful, many emotions can indeed be sinful, and sinful emotions often lead to other sins:

Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it." (Genesis 4:6-7)

Christians do not need to be more emotional; they need more self-control. The Bible contains not nearly as many emotional words or phrases as people want to believe. Some may even misinterpret the contentment in Php 4:12 as an emotional satisfaction, that is, before they realize that it is a Stoic word denoting indifference.51 And is "happy" even an emotion in the Bible? Love is not an emotion in the Bible, but a volition.

One mark of the spiritual man is self-control, including mastery over his emotions. The mind of God is so integrated that he only does what he wills, and he is never "disturbed" against his will, if at all. As we grow in sanctification, our emotion ought to increasingly come under our conscious control, so that we get excited because we decide to get excited, become angry because we decide to become angry, and we can stop the moment we decide to stop.

I grant that Jesus experienced emotions, but the question is what one may infer from this fact.52 Those instances when Jesus experienced emotions were indeed disturbances of the mind (Mark 14:34), but since Hebrews 4:15 says that he never sinned, we are to conclude that not every disturbance of the mind is sinful. However, one cannot argue from this that emotions are good, or that it should not be restrained or suppressed. Jesus also experienced hunger and fatigue (Matthew 21:18; Luke 4:2; John 4:6), but this fact only proves that the Son of God indeed took on human attributes.53 Therefore, that Jesus experienced emotions only proves that he possessed real human attributes and that not every disturbance of the mind is sinful. What we see in the Gospels is that Jesus was always in full control of himself.54 The Bible favors self-control over mental instability, which is often what having an emotion means. However, when having an emotion merely means expressing a certain type of thought, as in strong approval or disapproval, then to the degree that the person remains in control of his mind, and to the degree that this is not an involuntary or immoral disturbance of the mind, then perhaps it is acceptable. But this already excludes many instances of emotional expression.

Therefore, by affirming divine impassibility, we are not robbing God of any valuable qualities. Rather, we are saying that he has perfect mental stability and self-control; he cannot be disturbed against his will. But there is really no reason against affirming full divine impassibility, that the mind of God is never disturbed at all.

We have introduced the UNITY of God by implication. Unlike human beings, God is not divided into parts, but he exists as one eternal whole with all of his attributes as one and inseparable. This is sometimes called his SIMPLICITY, since God is not complex, or divided into parts.

Although a given part of the Bible may emphasize a specific divine attribute, it does not mean that the divine attributes are completely separable, that one attribute may at times override another, that one is more important than another, or that one more closely expresses God’s essence than another. Scripture shows us that God is his attributes: 1 John 1:5 says, "God is light," and 1 John 4:16 says, "God is love." Therefore, God is not a being who is love with light as an attribute, or vice versa; rather, he is love and light, as well as his other attributes.

We should not think of God as emphasizing a certain attribute during one period in history, and then emphasizing a different attribute during another. Even some Christians think that God is wrathful in the Old Testament but merciful in the New Testament. However, it is the Old Testament that says, "His love endures forever" (Psalms 136:1-26), and it is the New Testament that says, "It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:31). The unity of God means that he is both loving and just at all times. He has always been merciful to his elect and wrathful to the reprobates, whether in the Old or New Testament.

Another metaphysical attribute of God is his SPIRITUALITY. God is incorporeal; he is without a body. Jesus says, "God is spirit" (John 4:24). Given some of the known attributes of God, we understand that a number of biblical passages referring to him as having bodily parts are anthropomorphic. For example, 2 Chronicles 16:9 says, "For the eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him." The NASB says that the eyes of the Lord "move to and fro throughout the earth." But to say that God has physical eyes to see would compromise his omniscience, since then he would not be seeing the areas where his eyes are not looking. Also, our eyes do not work by themselves, but they are organs that work with our brain and optical nerves. For his physical eyes to be useful, God must then also have a brain, optical nerves, a spinal cord - just like a man. This is what some heresies maintain, but it contradicts the doctrines of divine transcendence and invisibility (1 Timothy 1:17; Job 9:11). The cited portion of 2 Chronicles 16:9 should be understood as figurative - among other things, it is saying that God is aware of all that happens on the earth.

Another example comes from Isaiah 66:1, where God says, "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool." Some insist that we take such passages "literally." But then God’s legs would have to be just that long - the length of his legs would be the distance between heaven and earth. How then could he have said, "I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling" (2 Samuel 7:6), since the tent would have been too small for him? Some versions of this heresy - that God has a body - assert that he is of a similar height as human beings. But this would contradict the verse in Isaiah, since no human being is taller than several feet. It is more natural and accurate to understand biblical passages ascribing bodily parts to God as anthropomorphic.

Luke 11:20 also illustrates that the biblical references to God’s body parts are anthropomorphic: "But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you." Jesus indicates that he casts out demons by "the finger of God," and so it seems to some that God has a hand with fingers like us. However, in the parallel passage of Matthew 12:28, Jesus says that he casts out demons "by the Spirit of God." It should be obvious that the finger of God is figurative of the Spirit of God, and not that God possesses bodily parts like the human fingers. In Deuteronomy 4:15-16, Moses says to the people of Israel, "You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman." Unlike human beings, God has "no form"; therefore, Moses forbids anyone from constructing an image that claims to resemble the appearance of God, not even one that is in the form of a human being. If it is forbidden to construct a physical image of God because he has no form, then it is also unjustifiable to assume that God has a form in our thinking and in our theology.

More than a few professing Christians have succumbed to the teaching that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit have bodies. They do not realize that the doctrine is a heresy, and that it is a Mormon or pagan doctrine rather than a Christian one. To summarize, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit do not have bodies, but God the Son has taken on human attributes, including a physical body. Yet the divine attributes are not mingled or confused with the human attributes even in him. For example, God the Son is omnipresent in his divine nature, but his human nature is not omnipresent.

God possesses each divine attribute in an unlimited way and to an unlimited extent. This is the INFINITY of God. Psalms 119:96 says, "To all perfection I see a limit; but your commands are boundless," and Psalms 147:5 says, "Great is our Lord, and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite" (NASB). The attributes of God are infinite and boundless. For example, the doctrine of divine omnipotence indicates that God has unlimited power or ability. Now, what is infinite is not simply greater than the finite in degree, but also in kind. A person who has a billion times the wealth of another still operates within human limitations and the monetary system, but one who has unlimited and infinite resources operates on a different level altogether. One who lives a thousand times longer than another person is still mortal, but one who is immortal is not only greater in degree, but in kind. That God is infinite means that he is not just a greater version of ourselves; he is more than a "superman." His power and wisdom are infinitely greater than ours, not just much greater. An understanding of this fact should ignite the fear of God in us, and put an end to the flippant attitude that even Christians have toward God nowadays.

Even those who call themselves lovers of God often challenge his verbal revelation and his way of doing things. However, defiance against God is not a characteristic of the genuine believer; those who truly love God and know what he is like would also fear him. Unlike those whom God had rescued from Egypt but who unceasingly murmured against him, we should heed the words of Ecclesiastes 5:2, "Do not be quick with your mouth, do not be hasty in your heart to utter anything before God. God is in heaven and you are on earth, so let your words be few." The metaphysical attributes of God demonstrate his TRANSCENDENCE. Although divine transcendence means that God is "outside" of space and time, it is not in fact an idea that denotes his "location," since God is incorporeal. Rather, the emphasis is that God is independent of space and time, and not limited by them.

Nevertheless, the IMMANENCE of God reminds us that he is not distant from us in a way that makes personal attention and communication from him impossible. The Bible portrays a God who is involved in human history and individual lives. God is very different from and superior to us in many ways, but he is still able to interact with human beings. In short, God’s is both transcendent and immanent, and these two attributes do not contradict or diminish each other.

Related to this is the OMNIPRESENCE of God. Although God is transcendent, his immanence is such that he is present everywhere. Psalms 139:7-10 says: Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. This does not mean that God occupies every point in space, since he has no spatial dimensions at all. Yet we can affirm that God is indeed present everywhere in the sense that he knows all that occurs at any point in space, and can exercise his full power there. God is omnipresent because nothing can escape his knowledge and power.

God is a TRINITY, and all the divine attributes apply to each member of the Godhead. Although there is only one God, he subsists in three persons, each fully participating in the one divine essence. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit fulfilled their unique roles at the baptism of Christ: As soon as Jesus [God the Son] was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God [God the Spirit] descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven [God the Father] said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:16-17)

What is often called the Trinitarian Benediction says, "May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all" (2 Corinthians 13:14).

Matthew 28:19 has a particular relevance to a discussion on the Trinity: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Note that this verse does not say the following:

1. "...into the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

2. "...into the name of the Father, and into the name of the Son, and into the name of the Holy Spirit."

3. "...into the name of Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit." The first and second versions would imply that we are dealing with three separate beings. And since the third retains the word "name" in the singular, it does not make a clear distinction between the three persons. However, Jesus does not put his statement in any of these three ways.

What the verse says is "...into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each receives a definite article, thus indicating a clear distinction between the three, but the word "name" remains in the singular, thus indicating the essential unity and equality of the three.

1 Peter 1:1-2 is another text that assumes the Trinity of God and indicates the unique role each member plays in the work of redemption:

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, strangers in the world...who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance. The historic doctrinal formulation of the Trinity says, "God is one in essence and three in person." This proposition entails no contradiction. For there to be a contradiction, we must affirm that "A is non-A." In our case, this translates into, "God is one in essence and three in essence," or "God is one in person and three in person." To affirm that God is one and three (not one) at the same time and in the same sense is self-contradictory.

However, our formulation of the doctrine says that God is one in one sense and three in a different sense: "God is one in essence and three in person." Moreover, although each of the three persons fully participates in the one Godhead, the doctrine does not turn into tritheism since there is still only one God and not three. The "essence" in the above formulation refers to the divine attributes, or the very definition of God, so that all three persons of the Godhead completely fulfill the definition of deity. But this does not imply tritheism because the very definition of deity involves each member of the Trinity, so that each member is not an independent deity. The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct "persons" because they represent three centers of consciousness within the Godhead. Therefore, although all three fully participate in the divine essence so as to make them one God, these three centers of consciousness render them three persons within this one Godhead. For example, all three members of the Trinity know that Christ would die on the cross to save the elect, but neither the Father nor the Spirit thought, "I will die on the cross to save the elect," but rather, "He [the Son] will die on the cross to save the elect." On the other hand, God the Son affirmed the same thought in the first person, as "I will die on the cross to save the elect." Thus, although all three members of the Trinity possess omniscience, their relationships to the propositions known are different.

Other than the charge of self-contradiction, attacks on the Trinity often involve compromising the deity of one or more persons of the Godhead. Since the deity of God (the Father) is not in dispute, and since a later chapter will discuss the deity of Christ, here we will briefly demonstrate the personhood and deity of the Holy Spirit.

Peter says in Acts 5:3-4 that Ananias has lied to the Holy Spirit, but one can only lie to a person. And Peter adds that in lying to this person, Ananias has lied to God:

Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."

Matthew 12:31 says, "And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven," but only God can be blasphemed. Hebrews 9:14 calls the Holy Spirit the "eternal Spirit," but only God is eternal. Therefore, these two verses indicate that the Holy Spirit is God.

Other passages that affirm or imply the deity of the Holy Spirit include the following:

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (Genesis 1:2) Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? (Psalms 139:7) The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. (1 Corinthians 2:10-12)

Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you? (1 Corinthians 3:16) Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? (1 Corinthians 6:19) The passages cited at the beginning of this section on the Trinity (Matthew 3:16-17, Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14, 1 Peter 1:1-2) also imply the equality of the three divine persons, and thus the deity of the Son and the Spirit.

There is a distinction of roles within the Trinity. The Bible portrays the Son as subordinate to the Father and the Holy Spirit as subordinate to the Father and the Son (John 14:28; John 15:26). However, since we have already established the essential equality of the three members of the Godhead, we recognize that such subordination is only functional. Although the Son performs the will of the Father, and the Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, the three persons are equal in essence. Such submission within the Godhead occurs only by mutual consent. This provides a basis for us to understand submission among human beings. Although all people are equal as human beings, God commands us to obey the designated leaders (Ephesians 5:23; Hebrews 13:17; Romans 13:5). This is not because the leaders are inherently superior as human beings, but God is pleased to establish certain authority structures within legitimate institutions such as the church, the family, and the state. So, there are times when God requires one person to submit to another, but in essence the two are equal. Since it is God who ordains legitimate authority structures, one’s willing submission under the appointed leaders demonstrates his love and obedience toward God.

Moving forward from our overview of God’s metaphysical attributes, we will now examine some of his other attributes, such as those related to his intellect, character, and power. The divine attributes are closely related to one another, and thus it was unavoidable that we have already mentioned the OMNISCIENCE of God several times. That God is omniscient means that he knows all propositions. Some theologians and philosophers add that he also knows the relationships between all propositions. Although this is true, it is redundant because even the relationships between propositions can be stated as propositions, which of course God knows. It is also unnecessary to say that God knows the truth or falsity and the actuality or potentiality of all propositions, since these can also be stated as propositions. Therefore, it is sufficient to say that divine omniscience means that God knows all propositions, and this is to affirm that God possesses all knowledge.

Since God is timeless, all knowledge exists before his mind as an eternal intuition. For us to "think through" something implies a process, or a succession of thoughts in our mind where one thought leads to another. That our minds are finite means that we can hold only a limited number of propositions in our immediate consciousness at any moment. Only an omniscient being can hold in his immediate consciousness all propositions and be fully aware of them. Such is the mind of God, and he can indeed perceive all things with exhaustive depth and clarity at all times, even things pertaining to our future. The Bible says, "Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account" (Hebrews 4:13). God is "perfect in knowledge" (Job 37:16), and he "[makes] known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come" (Isaiah 46:10).

God’s exhaustive knowledge of everything includes even our thoughts and intentions: "For a man’s ways are in full view of the LORD, and he examines all his paths" (Proverbs 5:21); "the LORD searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts" (1 Chronicles 28:9); "I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds" (Revelation 2:23). The omniscience of God makes it possible for the Christian’s mind to become an altar of worship, constantly offering prayer and thanksgiving to God: "May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer" (Psalms 19:14); "The LORD detests the thoughts of the wicked, but those of the pure are pleasing to him" (Proverbs 15:26).

Other biblical passages teaching the omniscience of God include the following:

O LORD, you have searched me and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways. Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD. (Psalms 139:1-4) Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom. (Isaiah 40:28)

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! (Romans 11:33) An attribute related to divine omniscience is the WISDOM of God. To say that God is wise places emphasis on his exhaustive understanding of all things, his ability to make the best decisions, and that he will always accomplish his purposes through the best means.

Paul says that ours is "the only wise God" (Romans 16:27). The prophet Jeremiah says that God "founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding" (Jeremiah 10:12). Romans 11:33 indicates that his wisdom, as with his knowledge, is unlimited: "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!" The OMNIPOTENCE of God refers to his unlimited power and ability to create what he wills and to control his creation.

It is often asked whether this means that God can create something that amounts to a contradiction; however, the question suffers from what we may call the CATEGORICAL FALLACY. This means that a term or concept has been misapplied to an issue in question such that one does not even belong in the same category with the other, and thus the statement or question becomes unintelligible and meaningless. For example, the question "How big is your cat?" makes sense, since size is a category that can be meaningfully applied to animals. The same is true for "How fast is your car?" and "How smart is your son?" However, it makes no sense to ask, "Is the color green fast or slow?" or "Is that rock smart or stupid?" Speed does not apply to color and intelligence does not apply to a rock. Green cannot be fast or slow; a rock cannot be smart or stupid.

There is a similar problem with the question asking whether divine omnipotence implies the ability to perform a contradiction, such as, "Can God create a rock so big or heavy that he cannot lift?" However, God is incorporeal, and thus physical forces do not act upon him at all. When God "lifts" an object, there is no physical force to restrain him. What force is going to make the rock "heavy" to God? Whether the object is big or heavy to us is completely irrelevant. If God creates a rock, he will always be able to do anything he wants with it.

Now, a square circle is a self-contradictory concept. The category of ability does not apply to creating a contradiction, since a contradiction is not something to be created a contradiction is nothing. Therefore, it is meaningless to ask whether God can create a square circle, since it is nothing to be done at all. The omnipotence of God is defined as his ability to create what he wills and to exercise complete control over his creation. God does not act contrary to his own will or nature, and he does not perform contradictions, since contradictions are nothing to be performed.55

God reveals himself as "God Almighty" to Abraham in Genesis 17:1. The creation account of Genesis 1:1-31; Genesis 2:1-25; Genesis 3:1-24 is no doubt a testimony to his unique abilities not only is he capable of creating inanimate objects, but he has also created living things, with man as the crown of his creation. Psalms 115:3 says, "Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him," and Job says to God, "I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted" (Job 42:2). God says in Jeremiah 32:27, "I am the LORD, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?"

Other biblical passages teaching the unlimited power of God include the following:

O LORD, God of our fathers, are you not the God who is in heaven? You rule over all the kingdoms of the nations. Power and might are in your hand, and no one can withstand you. (2 Chronicles 20:6) If he snatches away, who can stop him? Who can say to him, "What are you doing?" (Job 9:12) For the LORD Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him? His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back? (Isaiah 14:27)

I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior. I have revealed and saved and proclaimed - I, and not some foreign god among you. You are my witnesses...that I am God. Yes, and from ancient days I am he. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it? (Isaiah 43:11-13)

Ah, Sovereign LORD, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you. (Jeremiah 32:17)

All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: "What have you done?" (Daniel 4:35)

Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God." (Mark 10:27) For nothing is impossible with God. (Luke 1:37) The LOVE of God is a favorite topic among people. It is often stressed that "God is love" (1 John 4:8); however, few people understand the meaning and implication of this.

It is popular to claim that the love of God is universal. Although it is true that God expresses a general benevolence to all of his creatures, it is untrue that he loves everyone in the same way and to the same degree. The Bible says that "God does not show favoritism" (Romans 2:11), but this only means that God does not dispense his favor according to some irrelevant condition found in his creatures. The context of Romans 2:11 is not that "God loves everyone unconditionally," as many people say, but that he condemns all sinners whether they are Jews or Gentiles: "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law" (Romans 2:12). Likewise, Colossians 3:25 says, "Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism."

Now, Acts 10:34-35 states, "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right." The type of universality referred to here is one of national or ethnic universality, that God has chosen some to be saved from "every tribe and language and people and nation" (Revelation 5:9). It does not say that God accepts everyone "unconditionally," but that he accepts only those who approach him on his terms, and the Bible makes it clear that only those whom God has chosen for salvation will come to him in such a fashion.

Since God chooses his elect without consideration of any prior or foreseen conditions found in them, and then supplies all the necessary conditions by which he makes them right with himself, it is accurate to say that God unconditionally loves the elect. But he does not unconditionally love everyone.

It is true, therefore, that God does not show favoritism, but this only means that he condemns all reprobates and saves his elect regardless of their ethnic and social background, or any other irrelevant condition in them, and that any relevant condition in them has been decreed by him in the first place. It does not mean that he favors every person.

Nevertheless, God shows a general benevolence to his creatures. Jesus says, "[God] causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous" (Matthew 5:45). God sends rain and supplies other non-spiritual benefits through his providential government over creation. This is his general benevolence since the benefits included are available to both believers and unbelievers. No one can live one additional moment without it. Other natural provisions such as air, light, food, and certain kinds of knowledge also come under this category of God’s providence. We may acknowledge that the "love" of God is universal in this restricted sense. On the other hand, the love of God has special meaning for those whom he has chosen for salvation. God has chosen to save the elect and condemn the reprobates, and in such a context, he loves only the elect. As Romans 9:13 says, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." John H. Gerstner writes:

"Repent or Perish" forces people to ponder seriously the popular slogan, "God hates the sin and loves the sinner." Is a necessary repentance consistent with "God loves the sinner"? If God loves the sinner while he is alive, it is strange that God sends him to hell as soon as he dies. God loves the sinner to death? Loves him to everlasting torment?

There is something wrong here. Either God loves the sinner and will not send him into the furnace of His eternal wrath; or He sends him into His eternal wrath and does not love him....

What leads almost everyone to believe that God loves the sinner is that God does the sinner so much good. He bestows so many favors including letting him continue to live. How can God let the sinner live and give him so many blessings, unless He loves him? There is a kind of love between God and sinners. We call it the "love of benevolence." That means the love of good will....God can do well to the sinner without loving him with the other kind of love....56 The command of Jesus for us to love our enemies is said in the same context as the universal benevolence of God: But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Luke 6:27-31) To love one’s enemies is to "do good" to them, just as the Father does good to those who hate him. Paul confirms that this is what is meant when we are instructed to love our enemies: "’If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:20-21). To be faithful to the command of Jesus that we must love our enemies, we should do good to those who hate us. That said, we are to also participate in the divine hatred of God against the reprobates. As Psalms 139:21-22 says, "Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD, and abhor those who rise up against you? I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies."

Other verses referring to a holy hatred against the reprobates and their deeds include the following:

Jehu the seer, the son of Hanani, went out to meet him and said to the king, "Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the LORD? Because of this, the wrath of the LORD is upon you... (2 Chronicles 19:2) The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; you hate all who do wrong. (Psalms 5:5) Away from me, all you who do evil, for the LORD has heard my weeping. (Psalms 6:8)

I do not sit with deceitful men, nor do I consort with hypocrites; I abhor the assembly of evildoers and refuse to sit with the wicked. (Psalms 26:4-5) I hate those who cling to worthless idols; I trust in the LORD. (Psalms 31:6)

You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy. (Psalms 45:7)

Let those who love the LORD hate evil, for he guards the lives of his faithful ones and delivers them from the hand of the wicked. (Psalms 97:10)

I will set before my eyes no vile thing. The deeds of faithless men I hate; they will not cling to me. Men of perverse heart shall be far from me; I will have nothing to do with evil. (Psalms 101:3-4) I hate double-minded men, but I love your law. (Psalms 119:113) Away from me, you evildoers, that I may keep the commands of my God! (Psalms 119:115) If only you would slay the wicked, O God! Away from me, you bloodthirsty men! (Psalms 139:19) My mouth speaks what is true, for my lips detest wickedness. (Proverbs 8:7) To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech. (Proverbs 8:13) The righteous hate what is false, but the wicked bring shame and disgrace. (Proverbs 13:5) The LORD detests all the proud of heart. Be sure of this: They will not go unpunished. (Proverbs 16:5) The righteous detest the dishonest; the wicked detest the upright. (Proverbs 29:27)

There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven...a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace. (Ecclesiastes 3:1; Ecclesiastes 3:8) For I, the LORD, love justice; I hate robbery and iniquity. (Isaiah 61:8) My inheritance has become to me like a lion in the forest. She roars at me; therefore I hate her. (Jeremiah 12:8) Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts. (Amos 5:15) I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies. (Amos 5:21) Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. (Romans 12:9) Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14)

...snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh. (Jude 1:23) As Gerstner points out, it is popular to teach that "God hates the sin but loves the sinner," and that believers ought to hold the same attitude. However, the above verses contradict the notion that we are to love the reprobates but hate their sins; they indicate that we are to hate both the evil people and their evil deeds.

Some are so prejudiced against saying that God hates certain individuals that their assertions concerning the subject contradict their otherwise sound biblical knowledge. For example, H. L. Drumwright, Jr. is correct when he writes, "It must...be recognized that the Hebrew thought-form makes no sharp distinction between the individual and his deeds. A man in Hebrew thought is the sum total of the actions of his life..."57 It ought to follow from this that there is no sharp distinction between hating a man and his deeds.

Drumwright thinks otherwise! He continues, "...so that to say God hated a man is not to say that God was maliciously disposed toward a particular personality, but to note divine opposition to evil that was registered in that life."58 This is pure lunacy. If A = B, then to hate one is to hate the other; there is no difference. But according to Drumwright, if A = B, and God says he hates A, it means that he only hates B and not A.

He is saying that because a person (A) is the sum total of his actions (B), when God says that he hates a person (A), he does not in fact hate the person (A), but only the sum total of his actions (B). This inference is ridiculous. He acknowledges that a person is the sum total of his actions (A = B); therefore, it cannot be that whatever applies to A is somehow transferred to B so that it no longer applies to A. But if A = B, then whatever applies to either A or B applies to both A and B. If God hates either A or B, he hates both A and B, since A is B. This should be easy to understand.

What has controlled Drumwright’s thinking is a prior determination that God does not hate any person regardless of what the Bible teaches, and incompetent scholarship is the result. Based on the first portion of the quotation from Drumwright, one can infer only the conclusion proposed here,59 that God hates both the reprobate and his evil deeds, since the person is the sum of his beliefs, thoughts, and actions.

However, God sovereignly chose to extend mercy to his elect, imputing to them the very righteousness of Christ, who was "slain from the creation of the world" (Revelation 13:8). The elect are also sinners, and deserve to be hated by God. But God set his love upon them in eternity, redeemed them through the work of Christ, determined to transform them by his Spirit (Ezekiel 11:19), and ordained in advance the good works that they are to perform (Ephesians 2:10). The elect are "predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son" (Romans 8:29). "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden" (Romans 9:18).60 Now, the Bible says that God regards the wickedness of the reprobates as continuous: The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. (Genesis 6:5) ...every inclination of [man’s] heart is evil from childhood... (Genesis 8:21) In his pride the wicked does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God. (Psalms 10:4)

All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away. (Isaiah 64:6)

Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. (Matthew 7:17-18) But if a person is the aggregate of his thoughts and actions, and the thoughts and actions of the reprobates are continuously evil, then it is nonsense to say that one can love the sinner and hate the sin, since one cannot be considered apart from the other. Gerstner agrees: "As far as ’hatred of sins’ is concerned, sins do not exist apart from the sinner. God does hate sinning, killing, stealing, lying, lusting, etc., but this alludes to the perpetrator of these crimes."61

Peter Kreeft once told a homosexual college professor, "I love the sinner but hate the sin."62 After some discussion, the professor responded:

Well, suppose the shoe was on the other foot. Suppose you were in the minority. Suppose what you wanted to do was to have churches and sacraments and Bibles and prayers, and those in power said to you: "We hate that. We hate what you do. We will do all in our power to stop you from doing what you do. But we love you. We love what you are. We love Christians; we just hate Christianity. We love worshipers; we just hate worship. And we’re going to put every possible pressure on you to feel ashamed about worshiping and make you repent of your sin of worshiping. But we love you. We affirm your being. We just reject your doing." Tell me, how would that make you feel? Would you accept that distinction?63

Kreeft had to admit that hatred directed against Christianity is tantamount to hatred directed against his own person: "You’re right. I would not be comfortable with that distinction. I would not be able to accept it. In fact, I would say pretty much what you just said: that you’re trying to kill my identity."64

Misconceptions about what it means to love our enemies have resulted in a loss of holy indignation and bold opposition against those who hate God. The desire to obey Christ’s command to love our enemies is commendable, but as mentioned, he is telling us only to do good to those who hate us. This is analogous to the general benevolence that God shows toward all human beings (Matthew 5:43-45). However, the Bible never says to think of the reprobates as something that they are not; rather, the scriptural position is that all reprobates are depraved fools and evil rebels. To think of them as something better amounts to a rejection of Scripture.

Therefore, although we are to exhibit a general benevolence toward the reprobates, we must also imitate God’s holy hatred against them, and be jealous for his honor. The way some people "love" their enemies amounts to taking sides with them against God, but the reprobates are still reprobates even if we are commanded to love them. We love them when we offer to do them good and refuse to do them harm (Romans 12:20-21; Romans 13:10). On the other hand, we have "nothing but hatred" (Psalms 139:22) for the reprobates in that we oppose the totality of who they are, what they believe, and what they do. We strive to diminish their influence and resist their agendas by the power of the gospel. Contrary to popular belief, we are even to rejoice over the judgments that God inflicts upon the reprobates:

Mount Zion rejoices, the villages of Judah are glad because of your judgments. (Psalms 48:11) The righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked. (Psalms 58:10) When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy. (Proverbs 11:10)

Rejoice over her, O heaven! Rejoice, saints and apostles and prophets! God has judged her for the way she treated you. (Revelation 18:20)

Biblical hatred may be defined as "an intense aversion or active hostility that is expressed in settled opposition to a person or thing."65 Love and hate in our context are not emotions, but volitions. They are policies of thought and action toward their corresponding objects. Since God is impassable, and his mind cannot be disturbed, it means that divine love is not a disturbance of the mind, but an intellectual disposition of favor toward its objects; hate is its opposite. Likewise, when the Bible commands believers to hate certain people or things, it is dictating our intellectual dispositions of favor and opposition, not our emotions.

What most Christians fail to understand is in what sense we are to love the reprobates and in what sense we are to hate them. Now it should be clear that we love the reprobates in the restricted sense of showing them general benevolence, but we hate them in the rather unrestricted sense that we are against everything about them. Therefore, both the love God and Christians have toward the reprobates are on a more restricted level, offering to them temporal kindness, while on a deeper level the two groups are in direct opposition.

Complete hostility to the thoughts and actions (beliefs, desires, preferences, values, lifestyles, habits, etc.)66 of another person, which is the same as hating the person himself, is hatred at the deepest level, much deeper than stripping him of his temporal and superficial welfare. By this definition, God and Christians hate the reprobates at the deepest level possible, and likewise, the reprobates hate God and Christians at the deepest level possible. For example, to regard the Christian faith as false is to hate me at the deepest level possible, since the content of the Christian faith permeates all of my thinking and behavior. Any aspect of my life that is not yet controlled by biblical precepts is only because I am still imperfect in sanctification, and not that I oppose Scripture in that area. Therefore, for one who regards Christianity as false, there is nothing in me for him to love. He cannot love me and hate my beliefs I am my beliefs; I am a Christian.

Likewise, I may treat the reprobate with kindness in speech and action (and in this sense I walk in love toward him), but if I regard his entire worldview and lifestyle as sinful, and if it is my duty from God to order both the private and public aspects of my life in opposition to such a worldview and lifestyle, then I indeed hate him at the deepest level possible. The reason that we are to do good to the reprobates even though we must have "nothing but hatred" (Psalms 139:22) for them is that God has reserved for himself the right to avenge his own honor and to preserve justice for his elect: "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ’It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord" (Romans 12:19). This is why Christians are not to spread their faith and diminish the influence of unbelievers through violence or any unjust means. It is up to God to exact revenge upon the reprobates. Christians can doubtless endorse legal punishments against unbelievers, such as the execution of dangerous criminals (Romans 13:4).67 God ordained the government for this purpose. On the other hand, the church must use spiritual weapons to advance its cause, so that we demolish the wicked mainly through biblical arguments in preaching and teaching: For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)

If the love of God applies to all people in the above restricted sense, it refers to his favorable disposition toward the elect without the same qualifications and restraints: "He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?" (Romans 8:32).68 Whereas we have been speaking of a general benevolence available to all, now we are focusing on a special benevolence that is directed only to those whom God has chosen, and it is an effectual love that results in their salvation. This is God’s SPECIAL GRACE or SAVING GRACE.

Jesus says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), and "no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him" (John 6:65). Paul explains:

Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. (Romans 9:13-18)

We must delay a fuller treatment on divine election to later portions of this book; nevertheless, from these verses we see that not everyone in the world will or can be saved. One can only be saved if God enables him, but he does not enable everyone.

Therefore, God does not love everyone in the saving sense, although we may say that he loves everyone in the restricted sense of a general benevolence. Concerning those who are the object of God’s saving love, Paul writes, "For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 8:38-39). This does not apply at all to the reprobates those whom God has not chosen for salvation - since they will indeed be separated in the afterlife from God’s love, in every sense of the term.

Other passages referring to God’s love for his elect include the following: But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8) But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions - it is by grace you have been saved. (Ephesians 2:4-5) This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. (1 John 4:10)

Romans 5:8 says that Christ died for the elect while they were still sinners. This verse implies that it is acceptable but imprecise to say that God loves the elect but hates all sinners, since he indeed loves the elect sinners who are not yet converted. Therefore, when precision is preferred, it is better to say that God loves the elect but hates the reprobates. Some of the elect are already converted, and others of this group who are still sinners will be converted. But the reprobates will never undergo conversion and will forever remain the object of divine hatred and wrath (Romans 9:13; Romans 9:18).

One important but neglected benefit that the love of God makes available to Christians is spiritual illumination:

Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him. (John 14:21)

I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. (John 15:15)

Theological knowledge that is, intellectual knowledge about spiritual things is one of the least prized gifts from God. But to be a friend of God means to have such knowledge. The scorn with which many professing believers regard doctrinal studies shows that they do not truly love God, although they would like to think that they love him.

Jeremiah 9:23-24 tells us that our priority is to obtain understanding and knowledge about God: This is what the LORD says: "Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight," declares the LORD. (Jeremiah 9:23-24)69 The knowledge of God is the most valuable treasure, and everything else is "dung" (Php 3:8, KJV) in comparison. In offering his elect reliable information about himself, God is giving them one of the greatest gifts that he can give to them. The Bible says that God’s children are to imitate the Father’s divine attribute of love. The first and greatest commandment is to love God, and the second is to love other human beings:

Jesus replied: "’Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ’Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:37-40) To understand these two great commandments, we must know what it means to love God, and what it means to love other human beings.

One common misconception about the love of God is that it is only a greater version of human fondness and courtesy.70 This is what many people mean when they claim that they love God - they are fond of him. But to the extent that one has a distorted conception of God, this means that he is fond of his misconception of God, so that he is not even fond of God at all. Nominal Christians would turn against God and grow to hate him once they find out what he is truly like. God is the triune deity who judges every thought and intention, demands exclusive worship and obedience, condemns all the reprobates, redeems only the elect, establishes Christianity alone as truth, and does all that he pleases. Such a God is repugnant to the unregenerate.

Faithful biblical preaching helps to decrease the number of false converts in the church, since reprobates would find the true Christian faith intolerable once they realize what it teaches. The truth attracts the elect, but repels the reprobates (1 Corinthians 1:18): On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you?"...He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. (John 6:60-61; John 6:65-66) Of course, if the church has been preaching the true word of God in the first place, there would not be so many false believers in our congregations now.

Again, a common misconception about the love of God is that it is an emotional fondness, and at best added to that an element of selfless giving. When such a concept of love is applied to what it means to love God, a shallow and sub-biblical spirituality results. The Bible gives us a different definition of what it means to love God: So if you faithfully obey the commands I am giving you today to love the LORD your God and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul... (Deuteronomy 11:13)

Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him. (John 14:21)

Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me." (John 14:23-24) You are my friends if you do what I command. (John 15:14) The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did. (1 John 2:4-6) This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome... (1 John 5:3) And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love. (2 John 1:6)

Only a true Christian can love God as defined by these verses - he obeys God’s commands, and submits to him in thought and action. Of course a Christian is also fond of God, but such fondness is feigned if he does not also obey the divine commands in the Bible. Thus, love for God is not defined by fondness or admiration, but obedience.

Since to love God means to obey biblical teaching, and to obey biblical teaching, one must first know about it, it follows that theological knowledge is the prerequisite of walking in love. This destroys the anti-intellectual notion that one can love God without studying theology, or that loving God is superior to knowing about him. To love God is to obey his teaching, but to obey his teaching, one must first grasp it with the intellect, and this is to study theology. Theology makes love possible. To further emphasize this, we may look more closely at the "first and greatest commandment." The relevant biblical passages are as follows:

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates. (Deuteronomy 6:4-9)

One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "’Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ’Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:35-40)

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: ’Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ’Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these." "Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices." (Mark 12:28-33)

Matthew 22:35-40 and Mark 12:28-33 are parallel passages in which Jesus states that the greatest commandment is to love God:

1. "...with all your heart"

2. "...with all your soul"

3. "...with all your strength"

4. "...with all your mind"71 The answer that Jesus gives comes from Deuteronomy 6:4-25; Deuteronomy 7:1-26; Deuteronomy 8:1-20; Deuteronomy 9:1-29 However, in Deuteronomy, Moses only says to love God:

1. "...with all your heart"

2. "...with all your soul"

3. "...with all your strength" In his answer, Jesus adds his interpretation of the greatest commandment, namely, that we must love God "with all [our] mind." His interpretation is authoritative and binding, and even the Deuteronomy passage itself provides sufficient information for this conclusion, that the commandment is telling us to love God with our minds. Deuteronomy 9:5 is the one that says, "Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." The verses that follow explain what this commandment implies:

We are to write them down, talk about them, and think about them. What all this amounts to is theological reflection, or as Jesus implies, to love God with all our heart, soul, and strength, is to love God with all our mind. The teacher of the law in the passage from Mark also perceives this and gives the paraphrase that the greatest commandment is to love God "with all your understanding" (Mark 12:33).

Therefore, rather than divorcing love for God and the intellectual life, or regarding them as antagonistic to each other, the Bible explicitly states that love for God rests upon our very intellect. The greatest commandment is to love God with our mind. Paul writes to the Colossians: "Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds" (Colossians 1:21), and Jesus explains that sin originates from the mind: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander" (Matthew 15:19).73 The reprobates hate God with their minds, but regeneration reverses this, and enables the elect to fulfill the greatest commandment. God says that the new covenant is one in which, "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts" (Jeremiah 31:33; also Hebrews 10:16). As for love toward other human beings, in addition to what has already been said above, Paul writes that "love is the fulfillment of the law" (Romans 13:10). Some people have the idea that love is the replacement of the law, rendering the Old Testament moral commands irrelevant. But the Bible teaches that to walk in love is to fulfill the law, or to do what it says rather than to ignore it.74 The ceremonial laws have been permanently fulfilled in Christ. What they foreshadowed have not been done away with, but only fulfilled in the person of Christ. As the priesthood of Christ is continuous, the fulfillment of these laws are still in effect. Therefore, there is now no need for the animal sacrifices and purification rites.

However, the moral laws of God remain relevant and binding on all people. To walk in love toward other human beings is to obey the moral laws of God concerning how we ought to treat people. For example, among other things, we must not steal from others or lie about them; we are to uphold justice and show mercy to the poor. Paul writes: The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Romans 13:9-10)

Love is a summary of the moral laws, not a replacement. Therefore, since we are commanded to walk in love, the moral laws of God are still in full effect. To recapitulate, the love of God implies general benevolence toward all his creatures, but to the elect, self-sacrifice (in redeeming them through Christ) and self-disclosure (in giving them theological knowledge). Among other things, to love God means to devote our intellect to the worship and service of God, to acquire knowledge about him and his commands, and to obey all biblical precepts. As for loving other human beings, it means to obey the laws of God in our relationships with people. The love of God is never in competition with his JUSTICE or RIGHTEOUSNESS. Since God is the ultimate authority, and all propositions find meaning only in relation to him, all moral concepts are defined by his own nature. To say that God is loving and just is to say that he always acts according to his own nature, with specific emphasis placed on the type of actions that the words such as love and justice describe.

Justice is defined by the nature of God, and to say that God is just means that he always acts in accordance with his own nature when it comes to matters of right and wrong or good and evil. He is righteous because he always does what he thinks is right. Likewise, we are righteous when we do what God thinks is right for us to do, and we sin when we do what he thinks is wrong for us to do. Jeremiah says that God is one who enforces and delights in justice (Jeremiah 9:24), and Isaiah calls him "a God of justice" (Isaiah 30:18). He will one day "judge the world with justice" (Acts 17:31).

Those who wish to learn the ways of God in making just and wise judgments must go to the Scripture. Psalms 19:9 says, "The ordinances of the LORD are sure and altogether righteous," and Psalms 119:160 says, "All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal." Paul writes, "So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good" (Romans 7:12). Jesus teaches us to "Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment" (John 7:24). Making a right judgment is possible only if we know something about how God thinks, which in turn is only possible through studying the Bible.

God’s justice demands that he punishes evildoers. Since "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), it means that he must punish everyone unless there is a way through which his justice may be satisfied without destroying those he wishes to save. To accomplish this, God sent Jesus Christ to die for the elect, and thereby saving from damnation those who would believe in him. On the other hand, "He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus" (2 Thessalonians 1:8).

God "presented [Christ] as a sacrifice of atonement" (Romans 3:25) so that God "might be just and the justifier" (Romans 3:26, NASB) of those who have faith in Christ. This addresses the question of how God can justify sinners if justice demands that they be punished. God sent Jesus to die for the elect, to accept the punishment that they deserved. Thus, God maintains his own standard of justice in condemning the reprobates, but he is also just in pardoning the elect, since Christ has paid for their sins.75 Other biblical passages affirming the justice and righteousness of God include the following:

He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he. (Deuteronomy 32:4) Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the great deep. (Psalms 36:6) He will judge your people in righteousness, your afflicted ones with justice. (Psalms 72:2) Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; love and faithfulness go before you. (Psalms 89:14) He will judge the world in righteousness and the peoples with equity. (Psalms 98:9) May my tongue sing of your word, for all your commands are righteous. (Psalms 119:172) For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead. (Acts 17:31)

Since Christians are the children of God, it is unnatural for them to be suspicious or opposed to the WRATH of God, but some professing believers speak and behave as if it is not a biblical doctrine. The Bible teaches us to know both "the kindness and severity of God" (Romans 11:22, NASB). The wrath of God is just as much a divine attribute as his love; therefore, to have a proper concept of God, we must come to know his wrath.

One purpose of the reprobates "the objects of his wrath" or those who are "prepared for destruction" is that God may reveal this aspect of his nature to "the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory" (Romans 9:22-23). Since Christians have been "saved from God’s wrath" (Romans 5:9) through Christ, this is one divine attribute that the elect will never experience, and therefore it must be demonstrated to them in other people. Recall that one benefit God gives to the elect is information or knowledge about himself, and this shows us to what lengths he will go to make himself known to his people. The wrath of God is his divine anger against all that is contrary to holiness and righteousness;76 it is his intense hatred toward sin and wickedness. Unlike much of human anger, divine anger is not emotional or petty, but it stems from God’s holy nature, and it is altogether good and justified. The wrath of God is directed against all who reject Jesus Christ:

Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him. (Psalms 2:12)

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him. (John 3:36) But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. (Romans 2:8)

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them. (Ephesians 5:6-7)

Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. (Colossians 3:5-6) That the wrath of God will be poured out against those who reject Christ does not mean that the reprobates who have never heard the gospel are exempt, since every non- Christian who has not directly rejected the person and work of Jesus Christ has nevertheless rebelled against the knowledge of God that is innate within them: "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them" (Romans 1:18-19). Therefore, all reprobates will suffer under God’s intense anger. But the wrath of God will not come upon the elect: "For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thessalonians 5:9). God appointed the reprobates to "suffer wrath," but he has appointed us to "receive salvation" through Christ. Therefore, we can credit our salvation only to God’s sovereign appointment, and not to a non-existent "free will" by which we choose to follow Christ, so that no one may boast before him. The bulk of the discussion concerning divine election is reserved for the chapter on salvation, but since we have already brought up the subjects of election and wrath, we should also consider the divine attribute of the WILL of God.77

Theologians distinguish between the "secret" and the "revealed" will of God based on Deuteronomy 29:29, which says, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law." "The things revealed" would include all that is recorded in Scripture God’s precepts, commands, doctrines, and predictions. Having been revealed to us, the content of Scripture "belongs" to us. It is the immediate object to which we owe our allegiance and obedience - "that we may follow all the words of this law." On the other hand, the "secret things" belong to God. People experience disappointment when they attempt to discover God’s secret will while making decisions. Worse yet, many fall into serious spiritual error and bondage as a result. The very nature of his secret will is that its content is concealed, and therefore those who try to penetrate it always fail. These people chase after visions, dreams, and prophecies - sometimes even through forbidden practices, such as astrology and various kinds of divination. Christians should affirm the sufficiency of Scripture instead.

Since the Bible is able to equip a person "for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:17), it must already contain sufficient information so that he who is familiar with its content will never make any personal or moral decision that offends or displeases God. The Bible contains all the information one needs to live a life that is fully acceptable to God. It may not show us everything that we wish to know, but it contains all that God wishes us to know. The Scripture is sufficient so that having learned its content, we will not require additional and tailor-made directions about our lives and circumstances to make decisions that are pleasing to God. As for God’s secret will, it includes things that we do not know about until they have happened. Such things include future contingencies that have not been predicted in the Scripture, whether major historical events or personal circumstances.78 The will of God determines every major and minor event, to the point that not even a sparrow can die without his willing it: "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father" (Matthew 10:29).79 Thus, God’s will is inseparably connected to his power. He says in Isaiah 46:10, "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please." His predictions, declaring the end from the beginning, are more than mere forecasts, but they are at the same time declarations of what he will do, since not even a sparrow can die apart from his will. For God to predict the time and manner of a sparrow’s death is to reveal his active decree concerning the time and manner of its death. For God to predict what will happen is to reveal what he will do. Everything that occurs must be willed by God, else all the power of the universe cannot cause its occurrence.

We must by extension also affirm that the recipients of salvation have been chosen by God’s will. Therefore, salvation is not dependent on the will or work of man, but on the sovereign mercy of God (Romans 9:16).80 He is not obligated to be merciful to anyone, but "God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden" (Romans 9:18).

Even the choices and the circumstances of man are determined by his sovereign will:

All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. (Psalms 139:16) The LORD works out everything for his own ends even the wicked for a day of disaster. (Proverbs 16:4) In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps. (Proverbs 16:9) A man’s steps are directed by the LORD. How then can anyone understand his own way? (Proverbs 20:24) The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases. (Proverbs 21:1)

Now listen, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money." Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, "If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that." (James 4:13-15)

Everything is subject to God’s will there is nothing that is beyond his control, and he has not chosen to forego making a decision on any matter. To those who abhor the rule and glory of God, this is a repulsive doctrine, and so they protest against it. But to those who love him, the absolute sovereignty of God is a source of joy and comfort. What better way can we have it, than to have God to rule over all?

Divine election to salvation will receive additional treatment; meanwhile, it is settled that God’s reign over his creation is total, and that nothing happens apart from his will. This contradicts the assumption that God does not decree evil. Of course God decrees events that are contrary to his moral precepts; otherwise, there could be no evil. However, this does not make God himself evil. To sin or commit evil, one must violate a moral law of God, but God cannot sin, since his own actions define what is right or wrong, and Scripture says that his actions are always good and just. Therefore, the very fact that he decrees certain evil events only means that it is right for him to do so.81 There is no authority or standard higher than God by which to condemn him. Does this make God a tyrant? If the word simply means, "an absolute ruler,"82 then of course God is a tyrant. And since he is the sole moral authority, the very fact that he is a tyrant means that he ought to be one, that it is good and just for him to be one. The negative connotations of the word apply only to human beings, since no human being should possess absolute authority. But God is "an absolute ruler" that is what it means to be God. The Bible calls frequent attention to the HOLINESS of God. There are two aspects to this divine attribute, emphasizing the moral purity and the transcendence of God. Both aspects imply separation from that which is sinful or that which assumes a lower form of existence. To be holy is to be righteous, moral, and pure, but also aloof, separated, and different.

Combined, these two aspects of divine holiness mean that there is no one like God in his moral purity and superior state of existence. In connection to his holiness, the Bible emphasizes that God is unique, and that no one approaches his greatness: "There is no one holy like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God" (1 Samuel 2:2); "’To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?’ says the Holy One" (Isaiah 40:25).

Isaiah 57:15 is an inspiring verse telling us how the holiness of God implies his "high and lofty" state of existence (transcendence), and yet he is close to those who are "lowly in spirit" (immanence): "For this is what the high and lofty One says - he who lives forever, whose name is holy: ’I live in a high and holy place, but also with him who is contrite and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite.’"

Some people wish to stress the possibility of having genuine fellowship with God, and therefore favor his immanence in a way that denies his transcendence. Detecting this distortion, others who desire to maintain a high view of God overcompensate by denying his immanence. However, divine transcendence does not preclude divine immanence, and divine immanence does not diminish divine transcendence. These two qualities of God are true and consistent with other divine attributes. Our passage says that God is indeed "high and lofty," and no one is like him, but by his own will, he is also close to those whom he has chosen, and who will humble themselves before him. A right understanding of divine holiness should cause us to worship and fear God:

Exalt the LORD our God and worship at his footstool; he is holy...Exalt the LORD our God and worship at his holy mountain, for the LORD our God is holy. (Psalms 99:5; Psalms 99:9) Who will not fear you, O Lord, and bring glory to your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship before you, for your righteous acts have been revealed. (Revelation 15:4) The holy God is inherently worthy of worship and extreme reverence; it is a serious sin to deny him of proper worship.

God demands that his people be holy like himself. Of course, we cannot be transcendent in the sense of assuming a metaphysically "high and lofty" state of existence. However, God has chosen us for himself in eternity, and once he calls us to faith in Christ and sets us apart in history, we can be morally separated from the world, and remain pure from its filth. God demands holy living from his people under both the Old and New Testaments: "You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own" (Leviticus 20:26); "But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: ’Be holy, because I am holy’" (1 Peter 1:15-16).

Besides moral separation from the world, there is another sense in which we exist in a different manner from unbelievers. As a result of God’s work in us, our thinking, source of help, social community, and even reading literature should be very different from those who wallow in the sinful manners of living in the world. We are to hate "even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh" (Jude 1:23).

Jesus prayed that God would not remove believers from the world, but that he would protect them from evil while they are in the world: "My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one" (John 17:15). This verse is sometimes used as a basis to criticize the Christians who mistook retreat from the world as a necessary implication of holy living. They avoid contact with the world to prevent being contaminated by it. But this is not what God commands, and this approach neglects some of our Christian responsibilities such as evangelism and charity. The correct use of John 17:15 encourages Christians to enter the sphere of existence of the unbelievers to engage the spiritual enemies by preaching and teaching, and to be salt and light to them through our holy speech and conduct (Matthew 5:13-16). On the other hand, many contemporary Christians misuse this verse another way by turning it into a license for excusing a lack of personal discipline and maintaining unhealthy relationships with the world. "My prayer is not that you take them out of the world" only means that Jesus does not ask God to physically remove Christians from the world, that God would not immediately take them to heaven once they come to faith in Christ. One can see this by observing the context. Jesus discusses his upcoming physical departure in John 17:11 and John 17:13 : "I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you....I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world." Jesus was certainly not "in the world" in the sense of being in sin or too involved with unbelievers, but he means that he was still physically present with the disciples. So in John 17:15, Jesus only asks that the Father would not immediately remove Christians from the earth, but that he would protect them from the evil one.

Therefore, those who present John 17:15 (or similar biblical verses) as an encouragement for Christians to become involved in the world in the sense of befriending unbelievers or attending parties have distorted its meaning. The verse has a different purpose altogether.

Instead, the Bible says that we are to refrain from illegitimate relationships with unbelievers: Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

"I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."

"Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you."

"I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty." (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

Holy living entails that we separate ourselves from the world, mainly not in the physical sense, but in the spiritual sense. That is, we do not need to reside in exclusively Christian communities or monasteries, but it is imperative that we distinguish ourselves in our speech, conduct, habits, priorities, preferences, the choice of friends, reading materials, and forms of entertainment. It is not true that we can befriend whomever we wish Paul warns, "Do not be misled: ’Bad company corrupts good character’" (1 Corinthians 15:33).

We know that we should preach to sinners, and for this purpose we come into frequent contact with them, but the question is whether we should befriend them. In connection to this, it is often argued that Jesus associated with sinners. This is true, and we should do the same if we are doing it in the same sense that he did it. However, Jesus associated with sinners not for social enjoyment, but he demanded nothing less than full spiritual conversion from them. For example, Jesus said to Zacchaeus, "I must stay at your house today" (Luke 19:5). The people disapproved, and said, "He has gone to be the guest of a sinner" (Luke 19:7). Does this not support the position that Jesus associated with sinners? But Zacchaeus said, "Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount" (Luke 19:8). And it appears that he had undergone spiritual regeneration, since Jesus said, "Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham" (Luke 19:9). Then he added, "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost" (Luke 19:10). Therefore, this incident does not grant permission to associate with sinners for just any purpose, but only for spiritual ends. Jesus did not associate with sinners for social enjoyment, but "to seek and to save what was lost."

Another example comes from Luke 7:1-50 : "When a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume, and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them" (Luke 7:37-38). An observer disapproved: "When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, ’If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is that she is a sinner’" (Luke 7:39). But even this encounter had a spiritual end the woman’s action expressed her love for God and repentance for her sins. Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven....Your faith has saved you; go in peace" (Luke 7:48, Luke 7:50). The wedding of Cana in John 2:1-25, where Jesus turned water into wine, is often used to support the assertion that he participated in secular social and recreational activities even when they was no explicit spiritual agenda. But again, we find that his purpose was not social but spiritual, since here he worked his first miracle that manifested his glory: "This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed at Cana in Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him" (John 2:11). I have no objection against a Christian who participates in social and recreational events with unbelievers if he can consistently draw their attention to the glory of Christ.83

If we list several more examples, the pattern will emerge showing that although Jesus associated with sinners, his purpose was not social or recreational, but spiritual. He demanded spiritual change from the sinners, and those with whom he remained were willing to listen to his teaching and to repent of their sins. He also taught his disciples not to endlessly pursue those sinners who refuse to accept the gospel. He said, "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces" (Matthew 7:6), and "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town" (Matthew 10:14).

Other related passages include the following: But the Jews incited the God-fearing women of high standing and the leading men of the city. They stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region. So they shook the dust from their feet in protest against them and went to Iconium. (Acts 13:50-51) On the next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and talked abusively against what Paul was saying. Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: "We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles. For this is what the Lord has commanded us: ’I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’" (Acts 13:44-47) But when the Jews opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am clear of my responsibility. From now on I will go to the Gentiles." (Acts 18:6)

Many Christians have succumbed to a popular idea in our culture, that when people of different worldviews and religions come together, there ought to be a free and mutual exchange of ideas. But the Scripture commands us to resist the influence of non- Christians. Jesus and the apostles never had any free exchange of ideas with unbelievers, but for them the gospel message was to dominate all situations. There is no scriptural support for the exchange of ideas among believers and unbelievers, only that of domination by believers.

We may have friendly conversations with unbelievers, but an exchange of ideas implies learning from them, and even the possibility of adopting their beliefs. However, just as Christ has nothing to learn from the devil, Christians have nothing to learn from non-Christians (2 Corinthians 6:15),84 and certainly we may not adopt their beliefs. Jesus commanded us to teach the nations (Matthew 28:18-20), not to learn from them. This exclusive and high view of the Christian religion is often accused of being arrogant. But this is a foolish charge, since we are not teaching private opinions, but "everything that [Christ has] commanded" (Matthew 28:20). To teach God’s word as exclusive truth is a mark of obedience and faith, not arrogance. On the other hand, to suggest that biblical ideas need modification or improvement through an exchange of ideas with non-biblical worldviews is more than arrogant it is to commit the sin of blasphemy.

Some may argue that although the biblical worldview requires no modification or improvement, an exchange or dialogue with unbelievers will nevertheless aid in increasing mutual understanding. I agree to this as long as the Christian’s motive for understanding the non-biblical viewpoint is to refute it. We must never allow the unbelievers to think that we are prepared to accept their beliefs or to make the slightest adjustment to the biblical worldview that we affirm.

Christians are to "demolish" all non-Christian ideas and "take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5). Scripture thus forbids showing respect to or learning from non-Christian worldviews and religions. Scripture condemns all non-biblical worldview and religions, and to imply even for a moment that we have one iota of respect for non-biblical ideas and beliefs betrays a lack of faithfulness to Christ and amounts to spiritual treason. We must continuously indicate our utter disdain for any idea that "sets itself up against the knowledge of God" (2 Corinthians 10:5). Unless one is truly willing to consider non-biblical ideas, in which case the authenticity of his faith comes into question, it is dishonest to allow others to think that we are open and respectful to their beliefs.85

Returning to our topic, those who use the argument that Jesus associated with sinners as a reason for befriending unbelievers can freely participate in social and recreational activities only if they have some sort of spiritual agenda in mind, and only if they carry it out when associating with non-Christians. Of course, working in a secular environment necessitates some sort of interaction with sinners, but we are speaking of befriending them on a personal level. Very few Christians who befriend unbelievers on the basis that "Jesus did it" are effective in ministry to sinners, assuming that they have ministry in mind in the first place. Most of them are lying to God and to themselves they have no intention of demanding conversion from those with whom they befriend. To repeat Paul’s admonition: "Do not be misled: ’Bad company corrupts good character’" (1 Corinthians 15:33). That is, do not be deceived into thinking that it makes little difference with whom one associates; do not assume that one who enjoys the company of unbelievers will reap no tragic consequences.

Other relevant verses include the following:

I do not sit with deceitful men, nor do I consort with hypocrites; I abhor the assembly of evildoers and refuse to sit with the wicked. (Psalms 26:4-5)

Men of perverse heart shall be far from me; I will have nothing to do with evil. Whoever slanders his neighbor in secret, him will I put to silence; whoever has haughty eyes and a proud heart, him will I not endure. (Psalms 101:4-5) Away from me, you evildoers, that I may keep the commands of my God! (Psalms 119:115)

Let not my heart be drawn to what is evil, to take part in wicked deeds with men who are evildoers; let me not eat of their delicacies....Yet my prayer is ever against the deeds of evildoers; their rulers will be thrown down from the cliffs, and the wicked will learn that my words were well spoken. (Psalms 141:4-6) Do not set foot on the path of the wicked or walk in the way of evil men. Avoid it, do not travel on it; turn from it and go on your way. (Proverbs 4:14-15) He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm. (Proverbs 13:20) Do not make friends with a hot-tempered man, do not associate with one easily angered, or you may learn his ways and get yourself ensnared. (Proverbs 22:24-25) Don’t you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? (1 Corinthians 5:6) But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. (Ephesians 5:3-4)

Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith. Grace be with you. (1 Timothy 6:20-21) Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. (2 Timothy 2:16)

Most professing believers become involved with the world because they like the world, and not because they are determined to change it toward a more godly direction. But the Bible says, "Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God" (James 4:4). Therefore, although it is unscriptural to retreat from the world and its social, economic, and political structures, we must evaluate our motive for associating with sinners, and make sure that we always remember our spiritual mission. The Bible also gives instruction concerning relationships among believers. Although many of the restrictions applicable to dealing with unbelievers are lifted, it remains that the primary agenda and content of conversation in relationships among believers should be spiritual, and dominated by theological discussions.

Relevant biblical passages include the following:

These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates. (Deuteronomy 6:6-9) I am a friend to all who fear you, to all who follow your precepts. (Psalms 119:63) May those who fear you turn to me, those who understand your statutes. (Psalms 119:79)

Let a righteous man strike me it is a kindness; let him rebuke me it is oil on my head. My head will not refuse it. Yet my prayer is ever against the deeds of evildoers. (Psalms 141:5) He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm. (Proverbs 13:20)

Then those who feared the LORD talked with each other, and the LORD listened and heard. A scroll of remembrance was written in his presence concerning those who feared the LORD and honored his name. "They will be mine," says the LORD Almighty, "in the day when I make up my treasured possession. I will spare them, just as in compassion a man spares his son who serves him. And you will again see the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, between those who serve God and those who do not. (Malachi 3:16-18)

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. (Acts 2:42) When he arrived and saw the evidence of the grace of God, he was glad and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord with all their hearts. (Acts 11:23)

What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. (1 Corinthians 14:26) Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. (Ephesians 4:29)

Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 5:19-20)

Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers. (Galatians 6:9-10) Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing. (1 Thessalonians 5:11) But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness. (Hebrews 3:13) And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. (Hebrews 10:24)

We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:3)

Although Christians have nothing to learn from unbelievers, conversing with other faithful Christians to gain a better understanding of Scripture is profitable. True Christians will enjoy such fellowship in which God remains at the center of our thought and conversations, even when we are engaging in social and recreational activities. Therefore, although Christians may freely befriend other genuine believers and participate in social and recreational activities with them, it remains that their priorities consist of spiritual and theological concerns at all times. This concludes our overview of the divine attributes. There are some that we have not mentioned, and we can say much more about those that we have discussed, but the subject is too rich for us to attempt an exhaustive introduction. Nevertheless, this section on the divine attributes provides a foundation that will prevent any serious distortion in one’s view of God. We may now proceed to the final section of this chapter, which is a discussion on the works of God. THE WORKS OF GOD

Although the Bible presents us with a transcendent God, it also reminds us that he is deeply involved in the affairs of the universe and humanity, beginning with its teaching on his CREATION of the universe. Genesis 1:1-31; Genesis 2:1-25 contain the historical account in which God brings forth the earth, the stars, the seasons, plant life, and all kinds of animals. The crown of his creation is man, whom he made in his own image. We will be studying the creation and nature of man in the next chapter.

God created the universe ex nihilo, or "out of nothing." No preexisting materials were available when God created the universe, but he created all matter by his word and his power:

You alone are the LORD. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you. (Nehemiah 9:6) By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth. (Psalms 33:6) This is what the LORD says - your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself. (Isaiah 44:24)

Ah, Sovereign LORD, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you. (Jeremiah 32:17) For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,86 whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. (Colossians 1:16) By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. (Hebrews 11:3)

You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being. (Revelation 4:11)

Only God existed before he created anything except for himself, all things were made by him. John writes in his Gospel, "All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being" (John 1:3, NRSV). Anything at all that exists outside of God owes its existence to him.

God does not leave the universe to exist on its own, since it indeed cannot exist on its own, but he continuously sustains its existence and actively governs its operation. It is an unbiblical view that says God created the universe with certain laws that govern its operation. The biblical position is that God is holding the universe together, and controlling the most minute event within it. In other words, the entirety of this universe is being governed by a personal mind instead of impersonal powers or laws.87 This is the doctrine of the PROVIDENCE of God. Theologians distinguish between the GENERAL PROVIDENCE and the SPECIAL PROVIDENCE of God. The former refers to his precise control and supervision88 of events that he causes through ordinary means. The latter refers to his precise control and intervention of events that he causes through extraordinary means. Together, the general providence and the special providence of God embrace every event that occurs.

Paul writes that God the Father, through the agency of God the Son, had created not only all things "visible and invisible," but that "[the Son] is before all things, and in him all things hold together" (Colossians 1:17). Christ is before all of creation, and even now he is holding together the entire universe. God had created the universe by his word, and even now he is "sustaining all things by his powerful word" (Hebrews 1:3). Paul observes in Acts 17:28, "For in him we live and move and have our being."

We learn from this that all contingent beings must not only be given existence by God through his creative power, but they can continue to exist only by his sustaining power, since only God is self-existent. Nothing can exist apart from God, and claims to autonomy at any level by created things are excluded.

Besides preserving the existence of his creation, God also governs and causes every aspect of it. Not even a seemingly insignificant animal can die apart from his will (Matthew 10:29). This implies that all else are subject to his governance, but there are many other biblical passages that describe the extent and scope of his supervision over creation: So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God. He made me father to Pharaoh, lord of his entire household and ruler of all Egypt....You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. (Genesis 45:8; Genesis 50:20)

He makes nations great, and destroys them; he enlarges nations, and disperses them. He deprives the leaders of the earth of their reason; he sends them wandering through a trackless waste. They grope in darkness with no light; he makes them stagger like drunkards. (Job 12:23-25)

Man’s days are determined; you have decreed the number of his months and have set limits he cannot exceed. (Job 14:5) He fills his hands with lightning and commands it to strike its mark. (Job 36:32) Do you know how God controls the clouds and makes his lightning flash? (Job 37:15) I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted. (Job 42:2) For dominion belongs to the LORD and he rules over the nations. (Psalms 22:28) God reigns over the nations; God is seated on his holy throne. (Psalms 47:8) No one from the east or the west or from the desert can exalt a man. But it is God who judges: He brings one down, he exalts another. (Psalms 75:6-7)

He makes grass grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate bringing forth food from the earth. (Psalms 104:14) My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. (Psalms 139:15-16)

He covers the sky with clouds; he supplies the earth with rain and makes grass grow on the hills. He provides food for the cattle and for the young ravens when they call. (Psalms 147:8-9) For the LORD Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him? His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back? (Isaiah 14:27) When he thunders, the waters in the heavens roar; he makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth. He sends lightning with the rain and brings out the wind from his storehouses. (Jeremiah 10:13) I know, O LORD, that a man’s life is not his own; it is not for man to direct his steps. (Jeremiah 10:23) With my great power and outstretched arm I made the earth and its people and the animals that are on it, and I give it to anyone I please. Now I will hand all your countries over to my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; I will make even the wild animals subject to him. All nations will serve him and his son and his grandson until the time for his land comes; then many nations and great kings will subjugate him. (Jeremiah 27:5-7)

He changes times and seasons; he sets up kings and deposes them. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the discerning. (Daniel 2:21) The decision is announced by messengers, the holy ones declare the verdict, so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of men. (Daniel 4:17)

Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? (Matthew 6:26)

Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen. (Acts 4:27-28)

Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy. (Acts 14:17) And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. (Acts 17:25-26) For it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. (Php 2:13) That God exercises such precise and extreme control over all of creation is disturbing to many people, including some who claim to be Christians. Therefore, they often try to distort the relevant biblical passages to justify a false theology that allows them to maintain the sense of freedom and dignity that they treasure above the truth and honor of God. But seeking to be free from God is a wicked thing. Those who love God are glad that he possesses absolute control over all things. They can say with Isaiah 33:22, "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; it is he who will save us," and they would not have it any other way. They are bold to say among the nations, "The Lord reigns!" (Psalms 96:10).

Although everything is under God’s direct providential control, there are times when his involvement is especially evident, so much so that we may describe each of these occasions as an intervention of God. Such occurrences are distinct from his ordinary direction of the natural course of events, but they are instances when God chooses to use extraordinary means to achieve his purposes. They are sometimes so spectacular so as to be called "miracles." God’s works of special providence also include his works of redemption, but since a later chapter will address the subject of salvation, here we will only focus on his miraculous acts. The Bible testifies to a God who performs miracles and works wonders: Who among the gods is like you, O LORD? Who is like you majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders? (Exodus 15:11) He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed, miracles that cannot be counted. (Job 9:10) For you are great and do marvelous deeds; you alone are God. (Psalms 86:10)

Give thanks to the Lord of lords: His love endures forever. to him who alone does great wonders, His love endures forever. (Psalms 136:3-4)

Jesus worked so many miracles during his time on the earth that the miraculous was recognized as a prominent feature of his ministry:

He replied..."I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal." (Luke 13:32) When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased, because for a long time he had been wanting to see him. From what he had heard about him, he hoped to see him perform some miracle. (Luke 23:8)

Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. (Acts 2:22)

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. (John 21:25) The disciples of Jesus also worked miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit:

Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it. (Mark 16:20) Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. (Acts 2:43) The apostles performed many miraculous signs and wonders among the people. (Acts 5:12) So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders. (Acts 14:13)

God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them. (Acts 19:11-12)

I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. (Romans 15:18-19) The things that mark an apostle signs, wonders and miracles were done among you with great perseverance. (2 Corinthians 12:12) This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. (Hebrews 2:3-4)

Modern Christians are also authorized to bear witness to Christ through the preaching of the gospel accompanied by miraculous signs: And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well. (Mark 16:17-18)

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines. (1 Corinthians 12:7-11).

Opponents of Christianity reject biblical supernaturalism, denying the very possibility of miracles. Now, every argument proceeds from a given worldview and not from a vacuum. And if Christianity is a true worldview, if it is the only true worldview, and if it is true in its entirety,89 then every argument that presupposes another worldview is without justification, and every claim that contradicts any biblical proposition must be false. From what theories of epistemology and metaphysics do the arguments against miracles originate? They certainly do not come from the biblical worldview itself, and thus they fail before they begin. If the entire Bible is true, then what it says about creation and providence are also true.

Endnotes:

1. Since God controls every detail of his creation, even those who deny his existence think and act only as God wills, and in this sense they "serve" the purposes of God. However, these individuals are unaware of God’s control over them, and thus perceive themselves to be autonomous. Their thoughts and actions, all decreed by God, lead to perdition and not salvation.

2. Alvin Plantinga is a recent proponent of a version of the ontological argument.

3. Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works (Oxford World’s Classics); Oxford University Press, 1998; p. 87-89. Paragraph divisions and punctuations modified for readability.

4. To begin with self-consciousness is to begin with the proposition, "I exist."

5. Modern proponents of cosmological arguments include Norman Geisler and William Lane Craig.

6. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica; P. 1, Q. 2, A. 3. Translation by Fathers of the English Dominican Province.

7. Modern proponents of design arguments include Michael Behe and William Dembski.

8. William Paley, Natural Theology (1802), as cited in The Existence of God, edited by John Hick; New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1964; p. 99-103. Paragraph divisions and punctuations modified for readability.

9. In more recent times, Kant’s effort was emulated by C. S. Lewis, albeit with a different formulation and agenda.

10. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason; New York: Macmillan, 1956; p. 166.

11. Ibid. 127.

12. Hastings Rashdall, The Theory of Good and Evil; Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1907; II, p. 212.

13. Robert Stern, Transcendental Arguments and Scepticism; New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2000; p. 6.

14. I have argued for this premise elsewhere. Here I am interested only in explaining the nature and use of the biblical strategy of apologetics.

15. See Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions.

16. See Vincent Cheung, "The Problem of Evil," The Light of Our Minds.

17. For examples and explanations of both types, see Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions and The Light of Our Minds.

18. Alternatively, we may call it "The Presuppositional Argument" or "The Revelational Argument."

19. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition; Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2001.

20. Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition; IDG Books Worldwide, Inc., 2000.

21. The Oxford American Dictionary of Current English; New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

22. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Thesaurus. The term "dogmatic theology" is the general equivalent of "systematic theology" in theological usage.

23. As in, "imposing one’s will or opinions on others"; Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary.

24. Ed. L. Miller, God and Reason, Second Edition; New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972, 1995; p. 9.

25. Alternatively, we may call the method "biblical rationalism," "biblical foundationalism," or "presuppositionalism."

26. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition; Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2001; "weltanschauung." The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition: "A worldview constitutes an overall perspective on life that sums up what we know about the world..."; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001; "Wilhelm Dilthey," p. 236.

27. Or, the law of noncontradiction.

28. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, "Skeptics," p. 850.

29. Induction is always a formal fallacy since it yields conclusions that say more than what the premises permit.

30. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition; "probability."

31. As Miller says, the mathematician (and also the rationalist) begins with certain givens, but the dogmatic theologian begins with revealed givens that is, information provided by an omniscient God. 39 40>

32. A system may claim to be a divine revelation, but can it survive scrutiny? Besides the self-contradictory claims of Islam, the Koran at some points acknowledge the Christian Bible, but then makes claims contradictory to it, and thus the entire religion self-destructs.

33. Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions.

34. But this may not be a defect from the unbeliever’s viewpoint, and this is why the classical arguments are able to turn his presuppositions, faulty as they are, against his own position. That is, even if we assume our opponent’s false premises, he is still mistaken, and Christianity is still vindicated.

35. This is not the fallacy of irrelevant personal attack, but a case of turning the opponent’s premises against his own position.

36. Also, the historical reliability of the Bible, the resurrection of Christ, or the superiority of biblical ethics.

37. Since science is constantly changing, perhaps the modern versions of the classical arguments are more useful against contemporary opponents, whereas the dogmatical argument requires no revision. It is often said that science is progressive and that it will continue to progress. This is a tacit admission that science has never been right and that it will never be right. The Bible has been correct in all that it affirms since it was first written; no change or "progress" is needed in its content.

38. By revelation, I refer only to the words of Scripture, and not to charismatic intuitions, visions, dreams, and prophecies these have their own epistemological difficulties and are not infallible.

39. I only use science and empiricism to represent the unbeliever’s source of information since they are favored by the modern man. Other methods of discovering truth, such as non-Christian rationalism or non- biblical religious texts, are just as vulnerable to our arguments.

40. The transcendental argument is an indirect argument for the necessity of what the dogmatical argument directly demonstrates.

41. As Paul says, "I am speaking as a fool" (2 Corinthians 11:21).

42. The only infallible source of historical knowledge is biblical revelation, and our knowledge of history is limited to what it reveals. Secular knowledge in any area can never rise above the status of unjustified conjecture.

43. It poses no difficulty to the biblical strategy of apologetics whether the opponent’s position is atheism, agnosticism, communism, nihilism, Buddhism, Mormonism, Islam, or some other system of thought. The method of argumentation is the same, with only slight modifications to direct the arguments against the thinking of the immediate opponent.

44. That is, again, the Christian God the only God that biblical revelation acknowledges.

45. Language is always adequate to represent any thought. For example, one may use "X" to designate any concept or sum of concepts, and it will always be adequate, since words are only arbitrary symbols that can refer to anything. The question is whether human beings have the ability to think about God, not whether words are adequate to talk about him. And man can indeed think about God, having been made in the divine image.

46. There are an infinite number of true propositions about God, but this is not the same as saying that all propositions about him are true.

47. I would even argue that there is no such thing as general theism, since any theistic outlook is always tied to a worldview, so that there is Christian theism, Islamic theism, and other varieties. None of them agrees on what the "theistic" God is like. Therefore, one cannot argue for theism alone to make all theistic religions possible, and then proceed to argue for other claims within a particular theistic worldview. Since each worldview has a unique view of God, one must argue for his own view of God (which already means that he must argue for his worldview as a whole), and not a general God that several worldviews can accept, because there is no such thing. Therefore, to establish the existence of the Christian God does not serve Islam or Mormon interests at all. In fact, establishing the existence of the Christian God automatically refutes Islam and Mormonism, since their views of God are mutually exclusive.

48. Anselm: "But what are You save that supreme being, existing through Yourself alone, who made everything else from nothing?"; Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works; p. 89.

49. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition. 50 51>

50. In my view, a definition of emotion should include, "a disturbance of the mind that may interfere with the normal process of rational thought."

51. "I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want."

52. We should be careful in using the example of Jesus to justify our own actions, or to produce arguments on how Christians should behave. We must make sure that there are indeed good parallels.

53. However, just as Jesus as the second person of the Trinity could never experience hunger or fatigue, he as pertaining to his divine attributes, which were never put aside even as he ministered on earth, would still be without passions. Only his human nature experienced hunger, fatigue, and passions.

54. He was so disturbed before his arrest that he bled through his skin, but he never lost control. He was able to pray, resolve to fulfill the will of God, and rebuke his disciples for sleeping. Although some understand the passage as saying that he was only sweating in a manner similar to bleeding, the point remains that he was under intense pressure, but still retained full control of himself.

55. When responding to the question (often intended as a challenge to the coherence of biblical theism) of whether God can create or perform contradictions, many Christians are too quick to insist that divine omnipotence does not mean that God can do everything. For example, God "cannot" lie or die. Then, they would apply this to contradictions, saying that God cannot create or perform them.

However, this accepts the confusion inherent in the question, and on that basis supplies a compromising response that is often theologically irrelevant to the Christian God, and that makes an unnecessary concession about God’s ability. The answer is often irrelevant because, when it comes to creating a rock too heavy for God to lift, the category of weight does not apply to an incorporeal God in the first place, so to accept "heavy" as applicable to "God" means that one is no longer answering for the Christian God. Then, the answer makes an unnecessary concession because a contradiction is nothing to be created or performed, such that the issue of ability is inapplicable, and so to say that God "cannot" create or perform a contradiction is to unnecessarily say that God "cannot" do something, when it is really nothing.

Even the common illustrations that are meant to clarify divine omnipotence demand our reconsideration. First, does the Scripture really say that God "cannot lie" (Titus 1:2, KJV), or is it in fact God "does not lie" (NIV) or God "never lies" (ESV)? Go check the Greek. Second, even if we have access only to the KJV, so that the verse reads "cannot lie," why must we assume that "cannot" is here used in the same sense as it is in the question under discussion? Depending on the intention and the context, "cannot" sometimes means "does not." Hebrews 6:18 says that it is "impossible for God to lie," but then we still need to know why or in what sense it is impossible. Is it because God is inherently unable to speak falsehood as if it is truth? Or is it because whatever God says becomes the truth (Romans 4:17)? Power and the Word are one in God. Why can he not lie? Is it because of inability, or something else? Does the category of ability apply at all in this case?

Likewise, when we say that God "cannot die," are we saying that he lacks the ability to die, or should we rather say that death does not apply to the Eternal in the first place? Nothing eternal "can" die, but the "can" here has nothing to do with ability -- the category does not apply at all. The eternal does not die, and when we say that God "cannot" die, we are referring to the utter impossibility of it, the inconceivability of it, the inapplicability of it, and not his ability or inability.

We should be deathly afraid to say that God cannot do something, that is, in the sense of inability. If we were to attribute inability to God -- assuming that there is ever a legitimate and relevant application of inability to God -- we must be certain that we use the term in the right sense, that we are not making an unnecessary concession by adopting anti-biblical assumptions, that the biblical verses being used to support our explanation indeed teach what we assert, and that it is not merely an equivocation on our part. We must avoid all silliness and carelessness, such as in the response, "God cannot perform contradictions because he is rational, and he cannot or will not act against his rational nature" -- as if an irrational God would be "able" to perform contradictions!

56. John H. Gerstner, Repent or Perish; Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2000 (original: 1990); p. 208. 63 64>

57. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 3; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975, 1976; p. 46.

58. Ibid.

59. What he says about Hebrew thinking contradicts his own conclusion, but supports the one proposed in this book.

60. God sent Christ to redeem the elect because he loved them, but how could he love those he ought to hate? This is an insoluble problem under INFRALAPSARIANISM, in which the decree for the fall of all men occurs before the decree to redeem the elect, so that the various decrees follow a historical order. However, the problem does not appear under SUPRALAPSARIANISM, in which the election of some to be saved in Christ occurs before the decree for the fall of all men, so that the various decrees follow a teleological order. When speaking of the order of eternal decrees, we are of course only considering a logical order and not a temporal one, since all thoughts are simultaneous in the mind of God.

61. Gerstner, Repent or Perish; p. 211.

62. Peter Kreeft, How to Win the Culture War; Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2002; p. 90. 67 68>

63. Ibid., p. 93.

64. Ibid., p. 94.

65. Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 3; p. 46.

66. "Good works" performed by the reprobates are sinful, since they do not do them to glorify God, but for some other purpose. Now, we have said that any proposition only finds its proper meaning in relation to God, but since the reprobates do not have a right relationship with God, nor do they consider even true propositions in their proper relations to God, all the thoughts of the reprobates are sinful.

67. Whereas God pardons the elect of their sins, punishments dispensed by earthly governments apply also to Christians who have committed crimes.

68. The context of the verse demands that we understand "us all" to be all the elect, and not all human beings. Thus, God lavishes his sacrificial and giving love upon those whom he has chosen for salvation.

69. The knowledge of God is not a mystical knowing as aberrant Christianity affirms, but an intellectual one. The verse uses the words, "understands and knows"; it is a "knowing that" or "knowing about" the things of God.

70. Oxford American Dictionary of Current English: "deep affection or fondness...delight in; admire; greatly cherish."

71. The passage from Matthew leaves out "strength," but this helps reinforce the fact that the terms are synonymous in the first place.

72. "Love your neighbor as yourself" comes from Leviticus 19:18.

73. Man is a dichotomy, and consists of soul (mind, intellect, heart, or spirit) and body. He is not a trichotomy of spirit (heart), soul (mind, intellect), and body. The heart or the spirit is the soul (mind or intellect) of man. Heart, soul, and strength in the passages under discussion are synonymous terms, used for emphasis, referring to a person’s inner being, which Jesus interprets as the mind of man. Some commentators try to impose fanciful distinctions between these terms in this verse, but this is illegitimate and unnecessary. Thus, even if Jesus had not added the word "mind," the commandment would mean the same thing as what is claimed here, since the heart and soul are synonymous with the mind. See Vincent Cheung, Godliness with Contentment, chapter 2.

74. Jesus says in Matthew 23:23 that the "more important matters of the law" include "justice, mercy, and faith." These are not new concepts introduced in the New Testament.

75. Although we will discuss definite atonement in a later section of this book, this explanation by Paul about the work of Christ is sufficient to imply that the atonement was particular and not universal. Christ died only for his elect, and not every human being. If Christ had died for the sins of everyone, there would be no sin for which God will condemn the reprobates. However, the Bible says that God will condemn many reprobates; therefore, Christ did not die for the reprobates.

76. Again, the impassability of God implies that his anger is a policy of thought and action rather than an emotion, or a disturbance of the mind.

77. The will describes the decision-making function of the mind; it is not a distinct part of the person that is separated from the intellect.

78. See Vincent Cheung, Godliness with Contentment, "Biblical Guidance and Decision-Making."

79. The point of the verse is that God controls everything; therefore, the sparrow is not the smallest thing that he controls. Even a snowflake cannot land where it does apart from his active decree.

80. REB: "Thus it does not depend on human will or effort, but on God’s mercy."

81. It is because of God’s absolute sovereignty that the existence of evil poses no challenge to the biblical worldview. See Vincent Cheung, The Light of Our Minds, "The Problem of Evil."

82. Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition.

83. I am not objecting to necessary and official dealings with unbelievers, but I am against using Scripture, especially as it pertains to the life of Jesus, to justify social and recreational relationships with unbelievers, since no such support is available. In other words, there is no scriptural justification for any unnecessary association with sinners unless there is a spiritual agenda.

84. See Vincent Cheung, The Light of Our Minds, "The Light of Our Minds."

85. Peter tells us to answer unbelievers with "gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15), but this refers to the polite behavior that believers should usually exhibit, and not respect on an ideological level. Nevertheless, there are also occasions when it is appropriate to openly ridicule the unbeliever and to expose his folly for all to see. The prophets and apostles constantly mocked and condemned all non-Christian thought. In any case, Peter never says that we are to value what non-Christians believe.

86. God’s creation includes "invisible" things, such as angels and the spiritual realm.

87. This biblical view of the universe means a rejection of all theories that ascribe control of human lives and world events to impersonal forces, so that all teachings concerning astrology, karma, and so forth are denied. Mechanistic science is also excluded.

88. The sense intended here is one of causation, and not merely observation.

89. See Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions, and an earlier section of this chapter.

Writings of Vincent Cheung

A collection of theological writings, sermons, and essays by Vincent Cheung, compiled for study and devotional reading.

View table of contents →

‹ Previous Chapter Next Chapter ›