BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

A Detailed Outline View of an Eschatology that is based upon the Moral

Character of God Section IV: Time and Eternity and the Ways of God

with Men

Dale Moreau

02/04/2012

Page 1 of 98

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 1

A DETAILED OUTLINE VIEW OF AN ESCHATOLOGY THAT IS BASED UPON THE MORAL CHARACTER OF GOD ...................................................................................................................................... 2

SECTION IV: TIME AND ETERNITY AND THE WAYS OF GOD WITH MEN ..................................................................... 2

I TIME AND ETERNITY. ............................................................................................................................. 2

1. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. ...................................................................................................................... 2 2. ETYMOLOGY OF TIME AND ETERNITY. ............................................................................................................... 2 3. BIBLICAL MATERIALS. ...................................................................................................................................... 3 4. HISTORICAL BY-PASSES. .................................................................................................................................... 9 5. THEOLOGICAL RECONSTRUCTION. ................................................................................................................... 10

II THREE OF THE FOUR WAYS OF GOD WITH MEN – CREATION, PROVIDENCE, AND ELECTION-REDEMPTION. ............................................................................................................................ 15

1. ESCHATOLOGY IS THE FOURTH WAY OF GOD WITH MEN. ................................................................................ 15 2. CREATION IS THE FIRST WAY OF GOD WITH MEN. ............................................................................................ 15 3. PROVIDENCE IS THE SECOND WAY OF GOD WITH MEN. .................................................................................... 63 4. ELECTION-REDEMPTION IS THE THIRD WAY OF GOD WITH MEN. ...................................................................... 74

Page 2 of 98

A Detailed Outline View of an Eschatology that is based upon the Moral Character of God

Section IV: Time and Eternity and the Ways of God with Men

I Time and eternity.

1. Preliminary considerations.

A. The Bible never sees eternity with being an existence that is all to itself and in having no relationship with time.

B. However, the Bible sees time to be more important than eternity by the activities

of men that dominate time over eternity. C. The Bible understands time in light:

1). Of God who lives in the eternal and,

2). Of God who is eternal and,

3). Of how God who has come from out of the eternal and onto the temporal has

dealt with men that are in time.

D. To understand eternity one must understand the Biblical view of time.

2. Etymology of time and eternity.

A. Reference - Oscar Cullmann, Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History.

B. Time - kronos, or aiones – Greek words for time of the natural world which are

defined by functionality – there are no Hebrew words for time per se.

1). Time is chronological with a past, present, forthcoming, and future.

2). Time is measured by events and constellations which live in sequence and expire.

3). Time is finite or temporal and has a before and an after or a beginning and

an ending.

4). Time has no life of its own and is neither good nor evil, but men of evil and good who live in time can determine how time is to be defined.

5). Time is contingent upon events, persons, forces, and things that are

contained in time to give meaning to it.

Page 3 of 98

6). Time is observable and to be experienced.

7). Time is a gift from God for men but is not the highest gift.

8). Time was born from out of the eternal and will be turned back into the eternal.

C. Eternity - Greek is kairos, – Hebrew is olam – words for eternity or the eternal

world are defined by their functionalities.

1). Eternity is not bound by chronological time-space continuums but can freely move between the eternal and temporal.

2). Eternity is not measured by events but by God who lives in it.

3). Eternity is infinite because God who lives in the eternal realm is infinite.

4). Eternity is contingent upon God and defined by Him.

5). Eternity is observable and experienced by men in as much as God allows it.

6). Eternity is good and not evil because God who lives in it is good and not evil.

7). The eternal world and eternal life are both gifts that are from God for men

and are the highest gifts because God lives in the eternal and God’s life is endless by its own nature.

8). Eternity is not a creation of God and has no beginning or ending because

God is never considered to be created and has no beginning and ending.

3. Biblical Materials. A. Old Testament.

1). The Old Testament has no general word for time in the abstract sense at all.

A). Neither does it have special terms for past, present, and future.

B). The most common word for time means the moment or point at which

something happened, or will happen, for example - "Behold, about this time tomorrow, I will send a very heavy hail" (Ex. 9:18, NASB).

2). We cannot understand the Hebrew notion of time if we carry over our

Western scientific or philosophical interpretations and questions.

Page 4 of 98

A). The Hebrews simply did not ask the same questions or make the sort of speculations with which the heirs to the Greeks had advanced.

B). The Hebrews did not speculate about duration--as in how long is the

present?

i. First Kings 11:4 refers to the time when Solomon was old, but the writer did not wonder about when it was that Solomon started to become old, or at what point he became old, as though he was not old the day previous and then suddenly he was old.

ii. The Hebrew was not interested in all this theorizing.

a. I do not mean that this lack was a deficiency, only that it

was a difference.

b. We certainly should not think that the Hebrew idea of time is necessarily inferior to the Greek simply because the Greek was more concrete.

iii. Another way of seeing this difference is to notice that the

Hebrews developed no idea of eternity as “timelessness.”

a. This is an ancient Greek notion.

b. The Hebrews had no idea that there could be life and experience without time.

i). For them, life was time, or better to live was time.

ii). There was no time where there were no life events

and no life events where there was no time.

iii). In the Old Testament, life was humanity's form of existence (Job 1:21; Ps. 90:3-12) and this was time.

3). One could characterize the difference between how the Hebrews understood

time and how we understand it by saying that time for us is chronological and time for the Hebrews was qualitative.

A). In the Old Testament, events and persons were differentiated and

arranged, not by their position in chronological sequence to each other, but according to the impact of their occurrence.

Page 5 of 98

B). The Hebrew was impressed by the weightiness or significance of things and people, not by how many ticks on a clock went by while doing something.

C). Scholars who study the Old Testament have a tendency to be widely

separated from reference to the Biblical view of time.by their research that leans toward Western thought about time.

D). The worshiper experiences past acts of salvation, such as the exodus,

as contemporary and happening right then, even if the exodus occurred in the past.

4). Our perception of the passage of time can change with the blink of an eye.

A). Examples.

i. Time stands still; time flies. Time drags on.

ii. Where did the time go? I just need a little more time!

iii. We had a great time! If only I had the time

B). There is a growing sense in modern America that we are losing time.

i. How can we take back control over time? Possibly paying

attention to the Hebraic concept of time might be a way for us to regain control.

ii. For example, we sometimes notice the difference between

spending too much time making a living (paid employment, household chores, personal maintenance) and not taking time for living.

5). But for the Hebrews, the way we live (making a living) is time itself. We

may only choose how we live or how we "time." So, we must be careful how we live.

A). One of our major problems in modem America is that we are too busy

spending time on unimportant things and events and we have become too busy for the truly important, but not necessarily urgent, matters in life.

i. For example, while conversing with a loved one, we will

quickly answer the telephone and spend several minutes on the call even though the call may be totally unimportant.

Page 6 of 98

ii. The perceived urgency of a ringing phone overrides the more important activity that does not have a need for urgency attached.

B). When we engage in this kind of behavior, we are showing what we

think really matters.

i. We could improve life if we change our paradigm of time.

ii. But how can we?

6). Time for the Hebrews was about effort and achievement in which People did things.

A). They wrote, played, traveled, slept, dreamed, performed ceremonies,

went to war, and prayed. God did things too.

B). Time consisted of the story of these events, and it has no existence beyond these.

C). To make the most of time probably meant something like living your

life so that others mark their lives and tell their stories in reference to your actions.

D). In the Hebrew mind, the real question was not, "What is the best use

of my time right now?" but rather, "What is the best use of my life right now?"

B. New Testament.

1). There is a distinctiveness between the temporal and the eternal (2 Cor. 4:18,

Pss. 90:2,10).

A). Eternity is endless but time is measured by a beginning and an end (Gen. 1:1, Mt. 13:39, Jn. 12:48).

B). Between the beginning and end, there is time (1 Cor. 15:23, 24).

C). Carl F. H. Henry characterized time as the divinely created sphere of

God’s preserving and redemptive work, and the arena of man’s decision on his way to an eternal destiny (Carl Henry, “Time,” Baker’s Dictionary of Theology” p. 524).

2). How, then, might one define time from out of the biblical perspective?

A). Time may be represented as a historical era,

Page 7 of 98

i. Commencing with the creation (Gen. 1:1), and,

ii. Concluding (so far as its present constitution is concerned) with

the second coming of Christ, at which point the present world order will be terminated (cf. 2 Pet. 3:8-13).

iii. Perhaps another way to explain it is to suggest that timeis a

historical parenthesis within eternity.

B). Time provides the historical framework in which things happen, but time has no innate ability itself.

i. Time is quantitative, not qualitative.

ii. Time cannot do anything

iii. Time itself possesses no intrinsic power but does provide the

opportunity for other forces or events to work effectively. iv. Old and New Testament understanding of the kind of events

which have made time to be meaningful.

a. The Old Testament affirms the following four events define time.

b. Creation of the heavens and the earth and everything that

each one contains (Gen. 1-3.

c. Providence over the creation and Israel by God

d. Election-redemption of the remnant of Israel and their extension of this to the world.

e. Eschatology will culminate in the Messiah who will

vanquish all evil away from Israel and the world.

C). The New Testament affirms the following four events as does the Old Testament but it adds a twist and addition to the Old Testament meaning of time.

i. The recognition of the physical creation of everything but also

the new creation which starts in Christ and is extended to the Church.

Page 8 of 98

ii. Providence of not only the old creation but also of the new creation that starts in Christ and extends to the Church

iii. Election- redemption of not only Israel but also Christ who is

the elect-one and extends to the Church.

iv. The Christ event of the incarnation is the fulfillment of time for Israel and the beginning of time for the Church.

v. And the second coming of Christ includes the following events:

a. Israel (Rom. 9-11).

b. All creation of everything that has been made by God.

c. The Church which is a participant in cosmic redemption.

3). There were three phases of time that were recognized to be significantly

important.

A). The Old Testament preparation for the Christ event.

i. The New Testament affirms all time which was before the incarnation was a preparatory age for the coming Christ event (Galatians 3).

ii. The Old Testament regime, with its hundreds of prophecies (cf.

Lk. 24:27,44), and its great collection of “types,” i.e., pictorial aids (cf. 1 Cor. 10:6; Heb. 9:1-10) wonderfully prepared the ancient world for the arrival of the Savior.

B). Following the preparatory work of the Old Testament for the Christ

event, the divine plan of redemption takes place.

a. This was a time when the divine plan of salvation was set into motion (Mark 1:14-15, Gal 4:4, Eph. 1:9-10, Heb. 9:26).

b. The divine “plan of salvation” was to become effective

when the “fulness of the times” was realized, at which point “all things” were to be “summed up” in the work of Christ.

C). Ultimately, the consummation of the divine purpose for history will

occur (1 Cor. 15:24).

Page 9 of 98

i. Our Lord decisively set the element of time in abeyance, and took His stand upon the fact and quality of life -- life endless by its own nature.

ii. Of that eternal life He is Himself the guarantee -- "Because I

live, ye shall live also" (John 14:19).

iii. Therefore said Augustine, "Join thyself to the eternal God, and thou wilt be eternal."

4. Historical by-passes.

A. From the influence of Isaac Newton, time is that in which events, persons, and

forces are housed or contained.

B. From the influence of Immanuel Kant and Gottfried Leibniz, time is:

1). Not the container of events or persons, and,

2). Time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.

C. Greek views are:

1). Greeks believed time was cyclical and not linear.

2). Greeks believed time and eternity were metaphysical entities of evil and

good.

3). Greeks believed in either a Gnostic view of the world and the eternal or in a Dualistic view of the world and the eternal.

D. Time and eternity are coterminous but:

1). Eternity is more lasting in both directions than is time.

2). Eternity is time with the slats that uphold it kicked out from underneath it.

E. Time and eternity have no relation with each other because they are utterly

disparate (Barth, “Romans,” 2nd Edition).

F. Time and eternity are distinct and different from each other but there are continuities and analogies with which relates them.

1). From what comes out of the eternal world and onto the world of time will

give clues with what makes up to be the eternal kingdom.

Page 10 of 98

2). The eternal is by what the eternal has done in history and has been observed

by men.

5. Theological reconstruction. A. Eternity is never a major consideration in the Bible but time and its relation with

the eternal is highly important.

1). The Bible understands time in light of:

A). God who lives in eternity.

B). God who is eternal, and,

C). How God who is from out of the eternal has dealt with men that are in time.

2). To understand eternity one must understand the Biblical view of time.

3). Time and the eternal are neutral and have no life of their own but house

persons, events, things, and forces that give life and meaning to them.

A). Greek view.

i. Greeks believed time was metaphysically evil and eternity was metaphysically good but the Bible sees time to have no metaphysical quality of good or evil, and eternity is only good by the priority of God who is eternally good and lives in the eternal.

ii. Greeks saw time to be cyclical while the Bible sees time to be

linear.

B). Hebraic view.

i. Time and eternity are linear and not cyclical.

ii. Time and eternity house and contain persons, events, things, and forces which define them.

iii. Time and eternity are gifts that come from God.

iv. Time and eternity are theological and functional but not

scientific and philosophical.

Page 11 of 98

v. Time and eternity have meaning because of the events that are contained in them.

4). The fullness of time is when those events, forces, persons, and things that are

housed by or are contained in time have reached their maximum capacity and time must bring them to a close.

A). Eschatology must take into account this very vital view of time.

B). God comes into time and fills it with events, forces, persons, etc. until

these various entities fill up time to that point through which men can look at it and determine if it is good or bad and if it works in favor toward or against their redemption.

i. God purposes time to be the means toward our redemption and

time must have those things by which define it for purposes of redemption.

ii. Time, in the Bible, is always defined by those things which give

it meaning.

iii. Time is the house of all things that are divine and demonic.

iv. Through time God brings about those things that define it for purposes of the redemption of men.

v. Time is not evil or good but it houses those things of men which

are evil and good.

vi. By filling up time with those things which are good, time is defined to be good

vii. By filling up time with those things which are evil, time is

defined to be evil.

viii. When time has enough things in it which define it for man toward redemption, then time comes to a close and has come to its fullness.

a. Even evil things that take up time are used by God

toward man’s redemption.

b. Evil is not equal to God or His goodness but can be used by God toward redemption.

Page 12 of 98

c. Time can house those things which are evil and fill up time to the point that one can call that kind of time to be evil.

C). The promise-fulfillment view of revelation is the crux of this view –

for every promise that is made by God comes a larger fulfillment than that with which was given before.

B. Biblical views and expressions of time and eternity are functional and theological

and never scientific and philosophical.

C. So, in keeping with Biblical norms, eternity must be defined from the viewpoint of time and its relation with the eternal God and His eternal domain.

1). Time was created by God.

2). Time is a gift that comes from God but His highest gifts are in the eternal

realm and the abundant life of God that He bestows onto man.

3). Because God is prior to all created things, time and eternity must be defined by and understood in light of the priority of God.

4). Because God is eternally good, not evil and prior to time, time is born from

out the eternal goodness of God.

A). It does not mean time and its contents are perfect by being born from out of the goodness of God.

B). Adam and Eve were originally made to be innocent but they were

never made to be perfect.

i. Perfection means by whatever thing claims to be perfect, it must possess the kind of nature that renders it to be incapable of falling below the standard that defines its flawlessness (perfection).

a. Simply put, that which is perfect is incapable - by its own

nature to be anything that is less than with what perfection requires.

b. Perfection affirms Adam and Eve would have never

fallen into sin like God who is perfect and is incapable of falling into sin (see Augustine’s three views of man under heading of “Man” in Section III of this paper).

Page 13 of 98

i). However, Adam and Eve did sin and fell below the standard of what people claim to be perfect.

ii). Adam and Eve were not perfect but they were

innocent which means:

aa. They had the kind of nature that was within them to not sin and die.

ba. But they did not have the kind of nature

that was within them to be incapable of sinning and dying.

ca. To be incapable of sinning and dying

belongs to eschatological man that has yet to come.

ii. Perfection belongs to God alone who knows how to rightly

handle and use it.

a. God is perfect by the quality of His inner life which is morally perfect and flawless.

b. God is under the control, direction, and guidance of His

moral character that is the standard for what is perfect, right, true, good, and just.

iii. Perfection robs man of freedom and his will.

iv. Innocence preserves man’s freedom and his will.

D. What is the relation of time with eternity?

1). The best way with which to know the nature of eternity is to observe those

things, events, persons, creatures, or forces which have claimed to have come from out of the eternal and onto the temporal.

2). Within the revelatory norms of Scripture, God is by what God has done

within history and by extension those things of the eternal are defined by what God has done within history.

A). Observe by what these things have done within history and we should

be able glimpse into what is in and makes up to be the eternal.

B). Time and eternity are distinctively different from one another but there are those things which have come from out of the eternal and

Page 14 of 98

onto the historical and have given glimpses to us with what is in store with the eternal though it is limited in knowledge and scope.

i. Miracles are glimpses with what the eternal holds.

ii. God’s mighty works that have occurred within history are also

glimpses with what makes up to be the eternal realm.

iii. Scripture affirms the ways of God with men are in creation, providence, election-redemption, and eschatology and these are down payments into what is in store with the eternal and for those who love God.

iv. Scripture affirms the moral character of God has animated God

to do the things by which He has done for us in creation.

a. The moral character of God is the key to understand God and the eternal.

b. Look at those mighty works and acts of God and get

insight into the moral character of God and you will find keys to what is in store within the eternal for those who love Him.

3). Time and eternity are different from each other but there are analogies and

continuities that affirm the relation with each other and are found in what has come from out of the eternal and onto the historical and have been affirmed by men.

E. Eternity is God’s time.

1). Eternity is not time in the sense of there being seconds, minutes, hours, days,

nights, months, years, decades, eons, etc., which are measurements of time.

2). Instead, eternity is divine events and their quality that come from out of and fill up God’s time..

3). From within eternity lies boundless divine and eternal beauty which is found

in historical time because historical time was born out of eternity and includes:

A). The measurements of historical time such as seconds, minutes, hours,

days, nights, months, years, decades, eons, etc and,

B). Events which are in historical time and are made up from out of the qualities of the divine and demonic.

Page 15 of 98

4). Historical time is not measured by the quantity of seconds, minutes, hours,

days, nights, months, years, decades, eons, etc., but it is measured by the quality of divine or demonic events which give meaning and purpose to historical time.

II Three of the four ways of God with men – creation, providence, and election-redemption.

1. Eschatology is the fourth way of God with men.

A. Because this paper is my development of an eschatology that is based on the moral

character of God, I am not including this subject matter under the three of the four ways of God with men.

B. Just be aware the fourth way of God with men is eschatology.

C. Eschatology will be thoroughly examined in Section VIII: Eschatological Realism:

A Biblical Eschatology within the Christian Worldview.

2. Creation is the first way of God with men.

A. Questions, answers, theological, philosophical, historical, scientific, and opposing considerations of creation.

1). Questions and answers of existence.

A). Question of existence – What has God willed?

B). Answer – All or everything that is – if there is anything that is outside

of God, it poses a threat to Him.

2). Historical views of Creation.

A). Absolute meaning – to bring something into existence from out of nothing.

i. Augustine’s creatio ex nihilo – Latin for creation from out of

nothing.

ii. Hebrew word – bara.

B). Relative meaning.

i. To bring together those things which have potential into a new existence – (Mormon view).

Page 16 of 98

ii. Creatio ex materia – Latin for creation from out of some pre-existent, eternal matter.

C). Pantheistic meaning - creatio ex deo (Latin for creation from out of

the being of God.

D). Derivative meaning – e.g., art (imitative).

3). Opposing views to the Christian doctrine of creation.

A). All forms of monism (creation is made of one substance).

i. Materialism (Physical matter is all that is).

ii. Behaviorism (all is chemical).

iii. Spiritualism (all is spiritual – ex. Christian Science – this is a denial of the physical creation).

B). Absolute dualism.

i. There is a principle of evil and goodness and both are eternal

(e.g., Zoroastrianism).

ii. There is a spiritual and physical dualism (e.g., Mormonism).

iii. To be true to its norms, the Christian faith must work with a limited form of dualism – there is a power of evil and a power of goodness with which we must live but goodness is always stronger than evil.

C). The view which affirms the world is not responsible to anyone except

to one’s own being or self.

i. Atheistic existentialism – the philosophy which says there is no God and human existence is totally responsible for all that it does.

ii. Another form of atheistic existentialism is the view which says

it is not necessary to affirm meaning in one’s existence nor is it necessary to affirm being over non-being (c.f., Sarte, “L’Neant” – “Being and Non-being”).

4). Biblical insights.

A). Genesis 1-3.

Page 17 of 98

i. Two interpretations by those who read Genesis 1-3.

a. Choice One is the best model to use and is in line with

the revelatory norms of Scripture.– this passage:

i). Is objective, descriptive, and appropriate for all levels of discourse,

ii). Pre-scientific, phenomenological, and

intentionally theological.

b. Genesis 1-3 is a passage of actions by God.

i). Verbal actions.

ii). Actions of bringing order and appropriateness to creation.

iii). Actions of power and initiative of all that with

which God is and has done for creation.

iv). Actions of what God has created are good.

ii. Choice two – Genesis 1-3 is good journalism which asks the questions of:

a. Who, when,, where, why, and how,

b. It primarily speaks of what and how a thing came to be

and why?

B). The composite of Biblical cosmology is pre-scientific, phenomenological, and intentionally theological – the Hebrew understanding of the universe is in a creation that is geocentric and functional.

i. Old Testament concept of the world which is functional,

theological and phenomenological and not scientific.

ii. Biblical cosmology encompasses concepts of the cosmos (from Greek) or universe (from Latin) as an organized, structured entity, including its origin, order, meaning and destiny.

iii. The opening words of the Genesis creation narrative (Genesis

1:1-26) sum up the authors' view of how the cosmos came to be

Page 18 of 98

created: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth; Yahweh, the God Israel, was solely responsible for creation and had no rivals.

iv. Waters reside above the firmament.

a. Storehouses of snows.

b. Storehouse for hail.

c. Chambers of wind.

d. Firmament of the heavens.

e. Sluice.

Page 19 of 98

f. Pillars of the skies.

g. Pillars of the earth.

h. Fountain of the deep.

i. Navel of the earth.

j. Waters underneath the earth.

k. Rivers of the nether world.

l. The entire world sits on the everlasting arms of God.

v. Other related Biblical materials.

a. Genesis 1 – Spirit blows things into shape and form.

Page 20 of 98

b. Ephesians 1, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1 and John 1 are affirmations of God’s Son, Jesus Christ, as being an agent in bringing creation into being.

B. Though God the Father is affirmed to be Creator of the universe in the Scripture,

the Bible equally affirms God the Son and God the Holy Spirit were actively involved in bringing creation into being – all of the Triune God was involved.

1). Though the world is fallen, the world is still in God’s hands.

A). This is affirmed by the covenant community of Israel to tend to the

world.

B). This is also affirmed by Jesus’ assertion of the Father’s care for His creation.

C). This is also affirmed by the Apostle Paul and John’s confirmations of

God’s control over and concern for His creation in spite of the presence of evil that is in it.

2). Since the world belongs to God and mankind is the crown of creation and

charged by God with the care for creation, Christianity must be concerned with ecology.

A). The problem with most ecologists and environmentalists of this day

and time is they dehumanize man and humanize the created order at the expense of man:

i. This is heresy and a denial of the beauty and meaning of man’s

purpose for his creation and the image of God that abides in men.

ii. Ecology and environmentalism need an understanding that God

is big enough to take care of whatever environmental problems that may arise.

B). And when you put the created order of things (animals, air, plants, fowl, insects, etc.) above man, his needs, and comfort and make man to be a slave to the created order,

i. You have idolized the environment above God and at the

expense of man’s humanity.

ii. Remember the created order was made for man and not vice versa.

Page 21 of 98

C). Creation is not just about the beginning of things but it is also about permitting things to be.

C. Historical by-passes to the Christian view of creation.

1). Views of pre-modern man about creation.

A). The view which sees wonder and magic in every known natural

phenomenon that is in the world and consigns these wonders to being the direct hand of God or the gods.

i. This view centers on divine and direct causation.

ii. Many primitive religions hold to this view.

iii. On a deep theological level of the Christian faith, God setup

causation when He created the universe but His hand is not directly involved in everything that happens in creation – this is the view of secondary causation.

B). The deus ex machine (Latin – god out of a machine) view.

i. Without an awareness of the physical laws of secondary

causation, people sometimes mistakenly perceive the actions which are in nature to be the direct result God’s hand in natural law to move a natural event to another level.

ii. The deus ex machine view comes from out of the Latin view

which affirms a god is presented in a play to resolve the muddles of the plot.

iii. When it comes to the natural laws of the world, deus ex

machine is any artificial or improbable device resolving the difficulties of a plot or event in nature.

2). There is the view which says Biblical materials include the time and method

of creation.

A). Time and the various methods to measure it are modern human inventions and have no place in Biblical thought.

B). The method of creation is never an issue in the Scriptures (ex.,

humanists’ use of the method of chance and evolution as the manner of creation’s being – this fails to deal with the other side of the coin and that is the devolution of things).

Page 22 of 98

D. The relation of the Christian view of creation with the natural sciences.

1). Three views exist.

A). One view says the Christian view of creation and natural sciences corroborate each other (ex., Christian Research Foundation).

B). Another view says the Christian view of creation and the natural

sciences are diametrically opposed to each other (Alexander Whyte, “The Battle of Science and Religion”).

C). The best position of the relation of the Christian view of creation with

the natural sciences is each one is talking about different areas of existence and meaning.

2). Where each one overlaps with the other, each has the right to assert its own

providence and authority.

A). The Biblical materials never claim to teach incorrect science because the Bible does not at all have or teach any branch of science.

B). The Biblical view of creation is phenomenological, theological and

functional and does not involve any science.

E. Three wounds of the modern world that came upon the Christian view of creation.

1). Cosmological wound.

A). The geocentric view of the universe.

i. Up to the time of Copernicus, the Roman Catholic Church’s view of creation held to Ptolemy’s “geocentric” understanding of the earth in which:

a. The earth was the entire center of the universe and everything that is in the heavens revolved around earth including the sun.

i). All that which is within the earth is the crown of

God’s creation.

ii). Because the universe, according to this geocentric view, revolves around the sun, the earth must have a special place in God’s heart.

Page 23 of 98

b. Man’s place is in serving the earth as interpreted by the Roman Catholic Church, and this meant one is commended by God to serve the Roman Catholic Church that superintended the earth.

B). The heliocentric view of the universe.

i. Copernicus shattered the geocentric view when discovered the

earth revolved around the sun.

a. The view of the earth came to be known as the “heliocentric view” of creation.

b. The Roman Catholic Church’s power was reduced by Copernicus’ discovery because it no longer had claim to the right of being the superintendent of the earth.

ii. The cosmological wound either moved God further away from

man or closer to him depending on which side with which one took.

2). Anthropological wound.

A). After the cosmological wound was accepted by those who remained

in the church, the church leaders moved to a view in which man is considered into being the universe’s center.

B). This anthropological view of man was shattered when Charles Darwin

introduced his theory of evolution in his 1859 publication of “Origin of the Species.”

C). Darwin’s theory of evolution shattered the Church’s anthropocentric

view of man and created the question for modern man, “Do men have any need for God since they are evolved and not created as was believed by the Church?”

i. The humanist, naturalist, and atheist’s answer to this question

was, “No!

ii. There is no need for God anymore because evolution has proven man to not be created by God but evolved naturally through random chance.

iii. Therefore, man was left to his own devices when he lived in the

world”

Page 24 of 98

iv. When the Church unfortunately bought into evolution without considering the devolution of things, the view of God moved away from man in being the center of the universe to the inward part of man or his soul with being the seat of God.

3). Psychological wound.

A). After the Church settled into the belief of the inner man of being the

center of the universe, Sigmund Freud published his 1939 book “Moses and Monotheism” (German title - “Der Mann Moses und Die Monotheistische Religion”) which shattered the idea of “God dwelling within the hearts of man.”

i. Sigmund Freud’s publication sought out to explain away God

by affirming God is nothing more than in being a figment of man’s imagination.

ii. One’s belief in God is in his need to have a father figure to fill

in the void of his life.

iii. Therefore, the Church’s teaching in which God is never created but eternal was shattered by a psychological need of man to have a father-figure of God to replace one’s own biological father.

B). Basically Freud helped modern man to explain the origin of one’s

need and belief in God though wrongly perceived by psychology.

F. Theological reconstruction of the doctrine of creation.

1). Biblical faith affirms God began, permitted, and continues to let be everything that is.

2). The Christian community has rightly used Augustine’s phrase “creation ex

nihilo” to express the Biblical affirmation “of God being the One who created all that is from out of nothingness.”

3). The Biblical view of “creation ex nihilo” implies God was involved in the

start of all things.

A). However, this view also emphasizes the redemptive responsibility of us sentimental creatures of caring for all creation.

i. The Biblical materials’ view of the creation story is in the

following perspectives:

Page 25 of 98

a. Of being phenomenological - the way things look by using the senses.

b. Of being pre-scientific.

i). There is no science in the Bible.

ii). Scientific truth is discovered by empirical methods

but the methods of discovery by revelation are different.

c. Of being theological - the acts of God’s redemption in

creation are revelatory or revealed by God.

ii. Attempts to merge the discovery truths of sciences with the revelatory truths of the Bible without recognizing the different categories, methods, and purposes of each province are doomed to frustration.

B). When theological disciplines that are involved with revelatory truths

cross with scientific disciplines that are involved with discovery truths, barriers which come from out of both science and theology create fights that are impossible to win.

G. The creation and existence of angels.

1). Preliminary considerations of the doctrine of angels.

A). One’s philosophical outlook would determine the acceptance of this

doctrine.

i. Naturalists do not believe in angels.

ii. Supernaturalism does not find a problem in the realization of created, intelligent beings of the spiritual world.

B). This is a doctrine which must be primarily and exclusively revelatory

(truths that are revealed only by God).

C). The Bible is concerned primarily with God and man’s redemption and other spiritual creatures are discussed as they have bearing on the subject of God’s relations with man.

D). The Biblical materials will not warrant a complete “metaphysical”

(what is there and what is it like?) “angelology” (study of angels).

Page 26 of 98

2). Biblical and modern occurrences and interpretations of angels.

A). Old Testament occurrences and modern interpretations of angels in the Old Testament.

i. Old Testament nomenclatures.

a. Abbir = mighty or valiant.

b. Elohim – God, Godlike beings (Pss. 8:6, 97:7, 138:1).

c. Sons of God – Job.

d. Gabriel – Dan. 8:16, 9:21.

e. Cherub – Gen. 3:24, Ezekiel 1and 10 -figured

prominently in tabernacle and ark.

f. Michael – Dan. 10:13, 10:21, 12:1.

g. “Archangel” is a word which is never used in the Old Testament.

h. Malakoh – messenger or angel.

i. Mediator – Job 33:23.

j. Ministers – Ps. 103:21.

k. Seraph – Is. 6.

ii. Interpretations of angels in the Old Testament.

a. The duties of angels are to worship and serve God.

b. What man does on earth affects the angels of heaven and

hell.

i). The purposes of man are partly to show the beauty of God’s moral character to angelic beings through Jesus Christ in men.

ii). Man is being fitted by the moral character of God

into being Godlike in His moral character to teach angelic beings lessons of what and who God is.

Page 27 of 98

c. The time of the creation of angels is not told.

i). Logic dictates God was before all things.

ii). Logic dictates angels, especially Lucifer, were created beings and not creators.

iii). Logic dictates since God is prior to all created

things and beings, Satan and angels are creations of God and not His equals in being creators.

d. The manner of angels’ appearances is anthropomorphic

(The attribution of human characteristics or behavior to a god, animal, or object).

e. Angels originally showed who God was and what He

will ever be, but the norms by which we know God since Pentecost have changed and are now different.

f. What could a Guardian Angel do with which the Holy

Spirit cannot do?

g. The Angel of Jehovah especially at the burning bush (Ex 3:2-6) has two good and two bad interpretations by the Church throughout its history:

i). The two better theories.

aa. Best theory - Identification theory – it was

God Himself in the form of a theophany (appearance of God in some form for human understanding).

ba. Best theory - Representative theory – it

was merely an angel who represented God.

ii). The two worst theories.

aa. Logos theory – it is the pre-existent Christ.

ba. Interpolation theory – Lagrange in 1903 said later theologians put the words angels of in passages wherein the activity of God sounded too anthropological.

iii. Modern views of angels in the Old Testament.

Page 28 of 98

a. Social liberalism was greatly influenced by Herbert

Spencer (1857- “Social Darwinism”) and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

b. The evolutionary optimism of Hegel and Spencer became

a premise for the development of liberalism and modern progressivism.

c. The evolutionary model crept into certain theological

disciplines that came from out of social liberalism.

i). From out of the evolutionary optimism of Hegel and Spencer, God or at least the human understanding of God in social evolution is growing throughout each aeon of history.

ii). Harry Emerson Fosdick (1878-1969) - a liberal

Baptist clergyman who later became a liberal Presbyterian clergyman of Riverside Church of New York City -

aa. Wrote “A Guide to Understanding the

Bible” (1956) in which he promotes:

ba. A liberal progressive view of how the Biblical writers went away from being crude, primitive and pagan misfits of the Old Testament into sophisticated and cultured writers of the New Testament.

iii). Involved in this progression that went away from

the crude to the sophisticated was the evolution of the Biblical writers understanding of angels.

iv). In the Old Testament, angels were part of the

culture in abundance because the Old Testament writers were crude and primitive and relied on pagan practices of magic and myth in which angels were part of the norm of their society.

v). However, as men became more enlightened, men

abandoned the old myths and magic of the Old Testament and angels were no longer required in the religious society of the New Testament writers

Page 29 of 98

because man has progressed in knowledge and enlightenment.

vi). The contradiction of Fosdick’s view:

aa. If Fosdick was correct in this premise,

there should be less and lesser about angels in the New Testament.

ba. However, much to Mr. Fosdick’s dismay,

the opposite is true because more and more about angels and Satan are written in the New Testament than were inscribed in the Old Testament.

ca. With the increasing intensity of God on the

human stages of history in the New Testament, there comes the increasing force and intensity of angels who are both against and for God and humanity.

da. Where God’s intensity increases, angels of

good and evil increase with equal or sometimes with more intensity.

B). New Testament occurrences and modern interpretations of angels in

the New Testament.

i. New Testament occurrences.

a. Nineteen times in connection with the birth of Jesus Christ.

b. Forty-seven times in the Synoptic Gospels but only three

times in the book of John.

c. Sixteen times by Paul the Apostle in his writings.

d. Seventeen times in the General Epistles and the book of Hebrews.

e. Sixty-eight times in the book of Revelation of John.

f. The constant usage of angels by Jesus that is recorded in

the Gospels is enough to establish that He believed in their existence.

Page 30 of 98

ii. Additional examples of angels’ appearances in the New

Testament (See a Biblical concordance for a full list of New Testament Scriptural verses of angels).

a. Gabriel's Appearance to Zachariah (Lk. 1:5-22)

b. Gabriel appears to Mary and Joseph to announce the

coming birth of Jesus ((Lk. 1:26-28, Mt. 1:20, 21).

c. Angels at Bethlehem ((Lk 2:8-14).

d. The Flight to Egypt (Mt. 2:13, 19, 20) e. Angels Appear at Jesus' Temptation (Mt. 4:11, Mk. 1:13).

f. Jesus references to angels and how they behold the

innocence of a child - this does not speak of a guardian angel. (Mat 18:10).

g. In Gethsemane (Lk 22:43).

h. Crucifixion and the tomb of Jesus (Mt. 28:2-4, Lk. 24:4-

7).

i. The Ascension (Acts 1:9-11).

j. The Second Coming of Jesus will be announced by an angel of God (Mt. 24:30-31, Mt. 25:31, I Thess. 4:16-17).

k. Angels appeared to the Disciples after Christ's ascension

into heaven (Acts 5:19-20).

l. Angels warned Peter of Herod's trap to arrest him (Acts 12:2-11).

m. Peter Escapes from prison due to an angel (Acts. 12:2-

11).

n. Apostles Peter and John escape from prison due to an angel (Acts 5:19-20).

o. Cornelius, a Roman centurion, was told by an angel to

meet Peter in Jopa (Acts 10:3-5).

p. Philips' journey to Gaza was due to an angel (Acts 8:26-27).

Page 31 of 98

q. Paul's encounter with angels (Acts 27:23-24).

r. It is chiefly from Apostle Paul's writings that the angelic

choirs have been named.

i). First Choir: Seraphim (Is 6:2-6); Cherubim (Ezek 1:10); Thrones (Col 1:16).

ii). Second Choir: Dominions (Eph 1:12); Virtues

(Authorities) (1 Cor 15:26); Powers (Eph 1:21).

iii). Third Choir: Principalities (Rom 8:38; Eph 1:21); Archangels (1Thess 4:16; Jude 9); Angels (many).

s. The Book or Revelation has several references to angels

(Rev. 1:1, Rev. 1:20-3:22, Rev 5:2, Rev. 7:1-2, Rev. 8:2-3, Rev. 10:1-4, Rev. 10:10-11, Rev. 14:9-11, Rev. 14:15, Rev. 14:18, Rev. 15:11, Rev. 16:5, Rev. 16:61, Rev. 18:1-3, Rev. 20:1).

iii. Interpretations of angels in the New Testament.

a. Nothing is said of the angels’ origins.

b. The term “archangel” is only mentioned twice in the

New Testament (I Thess. 4:16, Jude 9) and is never mentioned in the Old Testament.

c. The ranks of angels can never be proven (12 legions of

angels, etc.).

d. The theory of individual guardian angels cannot be proven (Peter’s angels – Acts 12:15).

e. All references of angels that are in the Old and New

Testament are practical in intent by being messengers of God and doing His bidding for the redemptive purposes of man.

f. Special problems with fallen angels.

i). Biblical occurrences of fallen angels.

ii). Jude 6.

Page 32 of 98

iii). II Peter 2:4.

iv). Kindredship with apocalyptic references.

v). Their fates are sealed and must not be confused with the fates of Satan and His minions.

iv. Modern interpretations of angels in the New Testament (See

pages 44-46 of this paper for “modern interpretations of angels of the Old Testament” – these modern interpretations of angels in the Old Testament overlap with those modern interpretations of angels in the New Testament).

3). Theological reconstruction of angels.

A). The Biblical materials consistently affirm the world is filled with

creatures of God that are not physical but are spiritual and are called angels whose primary functions are theocentric and redemptive.

B). The belief in angels keeps man from being implacably ego-centric.

C). Angels speak of the fullness of God’s creation and the intensity of His

concern for what happens on the earth.

D). Man’s purpose in creation is to teach lessons about God in the sons of Abraham to angels.

E). Before the Bible became canonized as the norm of being the true

Word of God on which the Holy Spirit bears witness to its sacred truths, manifestations of and interventions by angels in great numbers were necessary.

F). A transcendent God used angels to be intermediaries within and speak

to a historical context about His redemptive activities.

H. The creation and existence of Satan.

1). Etymology and definitions.

A). Etymology.

i. “Satan” is the Old Testament word which means “adversary.”

ii. “Diabolos” is the New Testament word which means “accuser” or “to throw against.”

Page 33 of 98

B). Definition.

i. A personal, supernatural, and spiritual force of evil that exists in the realms of time and eternity and is described by revelation and verified in Christian experience.

ii. The “preliminary considerations” that apply to angels also apply

here – (see page 42 “Preliminary considerations of the doctrine of angels.”).

2). Biblical occurrences [“serpent,” “shedim,” “gods of the nations,” “azazel”

(Lev. 16)].

A). Old Testament.

i. “Serpent,” “shedim,” and “gods of the nations” of Lev. 16 were used only 3 times to refer to the “Devil” or “Satan.”

a. Prologue of Job.

b. Zech. 3:1.

c. I Chronicles 21:1

i). This passage of Scripture was written during the

period in which Israel was captive of the Persian Empire and in exile.

ii). The idea of the “Devil” was not born while Israel

was in exile of the Persian Empire, but the Persian worldview of “dualism” opened the door to Israel’s understanding of the “Devil” of being personal, evil and a separate entity from God.

ii. Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 usage of the term “Lucifer.”

a. The term “Lucifer” refers to the “King of Babylon and

not to the personal Evil One that is called the “Devil” or “Satan.”

b. Historical problems of the term “Lucifer.”

i). This term was never used in the Old Testament to

reference the personal being of the “Devil” or “Satan.”

Page 34 of 98

ii). “Lucifer” was a term that was originally used by Origen to reference the “Devil” in 235 A.D of being a person of evil.

iii). John Milton wrote “Paradise Lost” in 1667 and

later wrote a sequel that is called “Paradise Regained” and used Origen’s reference of “Lucifer” to denote the personal being of “Satan” or the “Devil.”

iv). From Milton and to a lesser extent from Origen,

the term “Lucifer” became known as the personal Evil One that is called “Satan” or the “Devil” but this usage of the term has never been affirmed by the Bible.

v). The Bible deals with the practical use of terms

Satan or the Devil and never with metaphysical procedures and interpretations (Ez. 28).

vi). Why one would take historical literature to be

apocalyptical and apocalyptical literature to be historical?

B). New Testament.

i. The Synoptic Gospels are full of references to “Satan” and His

“minions” (demons).

ii. Luke 10:18 refers to the kingdom of the Devil that is crumbling from under the onslaught of Christianity in history and is not to a reference to “Satan” or the “Devil” falling from Heaven.

iii. The Apostles Paul and John refer to “Satan” under various

names.

a. “Evil One” – (Model Prayer).

b. Angel of Light.

c. Prince of this world.

d. Power of the air.

iv. The book of Revelation affirms the “Dragon” to be a reference to the personal being of “Satan” or the “Devil.”

Page 35 of 98

3). Theological interpretation.

A). Satan and man.

i. Two dangers.

a. One danger is not to believe in Satan.

b. The other danger is to believe too much in the wrong

portrayal of the Devil.

ii. Satan is an outside reference for “temptation” and “sin.”

a. Satan is a “person” and sin is a “principle.”

b. The totality of the incarnation of Christ is a divine prerogative alone and cannot be attributed to created beings such as Satan or man.

c. The Devil is “a personal being” (Bosch).

i). You cannot have a Hebrew God and a Greek view

of the Devil.

ii). Consistency about the Devil and God is required and is of the essence.

iii. The will of man “cannot” be coerced by the Devil.

a. Man may choose to cooperate with the Evil One and

eventually will be so filled up with the Evil One that he may rightly be referred as being “demon possessed.”

b. Granted the Evil One cannot initially coerce the will of

persons but there is the type of cooperation with the Evil One which leads one into selling out in such a way that it would require divine grace alone to assist in his recovery.

c. To be filled up with the Evil One affects all three

dimensions of one’s existence:

i). Biochemical or bodily functions.

ii). Socio-psychic or mental deterioration.

Page 36 of 98

iii). Ultimate or one’s spiritual self is filled with evil).

d. The New Testament instances of “demon possession” profoundly refer to all manifestations of what is considered “harmful,” “destructive,” “damaging,” or “disparaging” to be evil in nature because these tribulations are against the will of the Creator for His creation to be subjected to them.

iv. Modern animistic models of demon and spirit possession leave

aside personal responsibility and one’s gradual growth into evil by cooperating with the Evil One.

v. The descriptive and ontological relation that is between Satan

and demons is not spelled out in the Scriptures.

vi. The Biblical materials affirm the organizing of the kingdom of the Evil One is a deliberate and contemptuous mockery of the organizing of the Kingdom of God.

vii. Whatever power or acts that are exercised by Satan and his

minions or demons are pale imitations and mockeries of those acts and powers that are of God.

viii. Evil is or can be rooted in a personal being, a group of people,

an entity, a force, a temptation, and a principle which are manifested in acts of destruction, distortion, harm, division of unity, mockery, and disparages.

ix. Functionally, man has greater power over Satan than Satan has

over man.

B). Satan and God.

i. Satan is logically affirmed to be a creature or creation of God.

a. Biblical revelation affirms God originally created all things to be good and not evil.

b. From this logic, it is reasonable to affirm Satan who was

created by God was originally good and not evil.

c. Therefore, it is logically sound to say, “There was a time in which Satan went from being good to evil or that He fell from God’s grace and became filled with evil.”

Page 37 of 98

d. The time, circumstances, or reasons for why God allowed or permitted Satan to fall are not given.

ii. The Biblical revelation never attributes God’s power and nature

to Satan – Satan cannot have what alone belongs to God.

iii. What Satan does is by permission from God.

C). Satan and the cross of Jesus.

i. I John 3:8 – “For this purpose the Son of God was manifested so that He might destroy the works of the devil.”

a. Analogy 1 of this verse came from the Church Fathers.

i). Satan is God’s opposite number or God’s “zenith”

has its corresponding “nadir” or evil.

ii). Ultimate evil always presents itself in the face of what is ultimate goodness – this is biblically sound and tenable and has great bearing of how you understand the eschaton.

iii). Evil is not so much the church of Satan but rather

is Satan in the church.

b. Analogy 2 also came from the Church Fathers.

i). The Evil One is “simian dei” (Latin) or “the ape of God.”

ii). God is strong enough to allow an eternal evil

being who is the court jester.

ii. Two New Testament Scriptures speak empathically of Satan’s defeat.

a. John 19:30 – It is finished.

b. I John 4:4 – “Ye are of God, little children, and have

overcome them because greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world.”

c. Satan was conquered at the cross and will ultimately be

imprisoned at the second coming of Christ.

Page 38 of 98

I. Creation and the modern environmental movement.

1). Etymology of environmentalism.

A). The word “environmentalism” comes from the French word "environnement" meaning “surroundings,” that is, “everything,” and so meaning literally “everythingism”.

B). Environmentalism denominates a social movement that seeks to

influence the political, social, scientific, legal, and religious processes by lobbying, activism, and education in order to protect natural resources and ecosystems.

2). Environmentalism is a religion before it is a scientific and political statement.

A). Religion is the root of any culture and environmentalism has become a full-fledged religion in its own right.

B). Environmentalism is the most comprehensive substitute in the world

today for Christianity in so far as world view, theology, ethics, politics, economics, and science are concerned.

i. You need to understand it in order to counter it effectively:

a. From presuppositions to policies,

b. From classroom to movie theaters,

c. From evening network news to internet and local

newspapers.

ii. Because environmentalism is inherently totalitarian - demanding to define and control every aspect of life - it aims to take control of our entire political, social, religious, and legal structure, and indeed has already advanced far in those directions over the last three decades.

C). You, as an individual, have a tremendously important role to play in

the church’s battle against this impostor:

i. With its alternative world view,

ii. With its substitute doctrines of God, creation, man, sin, and salvation, and,

Page 39 of 98

iii. With its lethal mix of bogus science and Marxist economics that threaten to fulfill the radical environmentalists’ and deep ecologists’ dream of ending industrial society and forcing humanity back into a primitive lifestyle—in which, as Thomas Hobbes put it, life was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

3). The environmentalist world view.

A). Environmentalism is a complete alternative world view from that

which is revealed in the Bible and has blessed Western Civilization for nearly the last 2,000 years, enabling it to make incomparable advances in philosophy, politics, science, technology, economics, the arts, and every walk of life.

B). I’m going to compare the modern environmentalists’ positions on

God, creation, humanity, sin, and salvation with those of Biblical Christianity, and then explain how that world view underlies climate alarm.

C). Let me quickly explain one term for you, though, to prevent confusion.

i. I am going to write of “secular environmentalism” in contrast to

“religious environmentalism.”

a. What I don’t mean by “secular environmentalism” is that it is non-religious because it is religious to its core.

b. What I do mean is that it claims to be non-religious and generally either denies or discounts the existence of God, gods, or a spiritual realm as being irrelevant.

ii. That is, secular environmentalism is the religion of naturalistic

secularism that is applied to environmentalism.

iii. Religious environmentalism is any other religion applied to environmentalism.

4). Environmentalism’s views of God, the world, and humanity.

A). The dominant doctrines of God in environmentalism are:

i. Atheism (belief that there is no God),

ii. Pantheism (belief that God is everything),

Page 40 of 98

iii. Panentheism (belief that God indwells everything as the soul does the body), and,

iv. Animism or Spiritism (belief that every material thing, not just

human bodies, is indwelt by a soul or spirit).

B). Ironically, the atheism of secular environmentalism and the pantheism and panentheism of much religious environmentalism amount to essentially the same thing.

i. If there is no personal Creator that is distinct from the universe,

who created the universe out of nothing, then the universe effectively takes God’s place, since it turns out to be the Supreme Being.

ii. Animism and spiritism turn out to be little different from

panentheism, for while it asserts that god indwells everything, they assert that gods—souls or spirits—indwell everything.

C). Consequently, for both secular and religious environmentalism, every

part of the universe—what we Christians call “creation”—is part of god, and it becomes impossible to distinguish sacred and holy from secular and profane—the latter word coming from the Latin “profanum”, meaning before (i.e., outside) the temple.

i. Consequently, environmentalism, both secular and religious,

tends to define all the Earth and all its inhabitants as sacred and holy.

ii. This perverted view of “stuff” tends to infer that everything has

intrinsic worth and is not dependent on human valuation.

a. And particularly that, as Deep Ecology founder Arne Naess put it, all life is fundamentally one, and so “biological egalitarianism” is the preferred ethic.

i). From this kind of thinking flow thoughts of animal

rights, plant rights, and ecosystem rights,.

ii). Or as Anre Naess says, “All ideas newly enshrined in the constitutions of Switzerland (where one now must harvest a wheat field only in a manner that honors the dignity of the wheat) and Bolivia.”

b. God has no place in this view other than to be a prop that

holds up environmentalism.

Page 41 of 98

iii. While Biblical Christianity certainly affirms that mankind is

answerable to God for its handling of the Earth and its inhabitants, it is difficult indeed to figure how non-rational beings such as plants and stuff can have any rights at all.

a. Rights entail duties but non-rational things such as stuff

and material matter cannot have duties since they have no awareness of them.

b. And even more difficult to figure is how the

environmentalists might bring cases to enforce the rights of created matter and stuff since of course created matter and stuff cannot know if it has rights that have been violated and cannot communicate what remedies it desires.

D). It also follows from all of this that humanity has no special, privileged

position relative to other living things, or even, for some radical environmentalists, relative to non-living things.

i. We therefore owe humane treatment to animals.

ii. But, we human beings are not fundamentally different from

animals.

a. “Humane treatment” means nothing fundamentally different from “animal treatment.”

b. That is, humane treatment of animals equates with beastly treatment of humans—a consequence that is reflected in environmentalists’ general disdain for human population growth and a conviction that the world is overpopulated and would be much better off with perhaps 5 or 10 percent of our present population, or perhaps even none of us.

c. Hence British Prince Phillip’s statement that, out of

concern for the environment, he would like to be reincarnated—and he believes in reincarnation—as a killer virus to reduce human population to a more reasonable level.

E). Environmentalists as a whole (though not all individual

environmentalists) are so hostile to humanity primarily because they

Page 42 of 98

think people are a threat to the natural world which they see as best untouched by human hands.

i. “Nature knows best,” they insist—forgetting entirely that

according to their world view we are part of, and indeed nothing more than part of, nature.

ii. Sin, for environmentalists, is interfering with nature, say, for

example, by subduing and ruling it—which according to Genesis 1:28 God commanded us to do—which suggests that “sin is lawfulness,” the exact opposite of the Bible’s definition (1 John 3:4).

5). Environmentalists’ ethics and politics.

A). Question 1: What will save us from our sins against nature? - Answer:

The reordering of our lives by environmentalists—you guessed it—who by some stroke of luck (for there is no personal God to credit) have somehow been exempted from the flawed character that afflicts the rest of us.

B). Question 2: What is the environmentalist gospel? - Answer :

Environmentalists are both knowledgeable and virtuous enough to be entrusted with authority:

i. To determine whether we’ll drive the large, safe cars we prefer

or the small, dangerous cars they prefer, or rather whether we’ll drive cars at all or use only public transportation;

ii. To decide the temperature at which to set our thermostats and

the kinds of light bulbs we’ll use and how much insulation we’ll have in our homes;

iii. To dictate whether we’ll use disposable or cloth diapers, and

plastic or cloth grocery bags, and inexpensive nuclear or fossil fuel or expensive wind or solar energy;

iv. To rule whether we’ll eat non-organic or organic foods, meat or

vegetables, a wide variety of delightful and healthful foods grown around the world and transported to us or a narrow variety grown locally;

v. And whether and how many children we’ll have.

C). All of these decisions, of course, will be based on the common-sense

principle of sustainability.

Page 43 of 98

i. We must live according to this fundamental ethical maxim: Our

way of life must be one that every generation of our descendants can have, too.

a. That this principle doesn’t seem to be reflected in human

history is of no concern.

i). What does it matter that the 18th century ancestors of today’s the Scots burned so much peat for fuel that its supply cannot possibly have lasted for consumption at the same rate by their descendants three centuries later?

ii). Or what does it matter that 19th-century Britons,

Americans, Scandinavians, and Japanese consumed whale oil in such prodigious quantities that its supply cannot possibly have lasted at that rate for their descendants even just a single generation later?

iii). Or what does it matter that practically all societies

up to two centuries ago consumed so much wood for fuel that its supply can’t possibly have lasted for consumption at the same rate by their descendants today?

b. We must ration energy sources like coal, oil, and natural

gas to ensure that our descendants three centuries from now, and three centuries from then, and so ad infinitum, will still be able to consume them at the same rate, and at the same prices, we do.

i). This we must do despite the fact that our

descendants of a hundred years from now will be several times wealthier than we are and thus better able than we are to afford the alternative energy technologies the environmentalists demand we switch to now.

ii). Thus effecting a redistribution of wealth from the

richest people of the present to the poorest people of the future (unless, of course, our immediate shift to those more expensive fuels stops economic development and leaves them worse off than we are, which would surely please serious Greens but

Page 44 of 98

doesn’t seem to be the point they’re using to sell sustainability to the unwitting public).

c. We must certainly not assume that technological change

will continue in the future as it has done in the past, making our present energy sources obsolete, as they did peat and whale oil and wood.

i). No, we must assume that our descendants a thousand years from now will be using the same technologies we do, that human ingenuity has reached its end with our generation.

ii). Except, of course, the environmentalists feel that

we will generate technological innovations overnight to make the instant switch to renewables easily affordable, which is why of course no sane person fears that legally mandated shifts from inexpensive fossil fuels to renewable biofuels, wind, and solar energy will be physically unworkable and economically devastating.

6). Environmentalists’ thought: the flight from reason to mysticism.

A). Global warming alarmism wrongly views the Earth and its

ecosystems as the fragile product of chance, not the robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting product of God’s wise design and powerful sustaining.

i. It both rests on and promotes a view of human beings as alien

threats to Earth’s flourishing rather than the bearers of God’s image, crowned with glory and honor, and given a mandate to act as stewards over the Earth—filling, subduing, and ruling it for God’s glory and mankind’s benefit.

ii. It wrongly assumes that the environment can flourish only if

humanity forfeits economic advance and prosperity.

iii. And in its rush to impose draconian reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, it ignores the destructive impact of that policy on the world’s poor.

B). If you’re beginning to get the sense that there’s something fishy

about environmentalists’ thought processes, you are right.

Page 45 of 98

C). Environmentalism, as Dr. Vishal Mangalwadi points out in his lecture for “Resisting the Green Dragon”, a DVD series produced by the Cornwall Alliance, is in mad flight from reason to mysticism.

i. Rejecting the divine Logos revealed to us in Scripture and the

incarnate Son of God, the Logos that lightens everyone who comes into the world, environmentalism seeks knowledge from mystical, intuitive interaction with nature.

a. Thus, “One itinerant environmentalist conducts

‘workshops’ in which participants are urged to remember their alleged evolutionary history by rolling on the ground and imagining what their lives were like as dead leaves, slugs, and lichens.”

b. And Arne Naess, one of the chief framers of the Deep

Ecology worldview and the coiner of the phrase deep ecology, specified that his work consists not “of philosophical or logical argumentation” but is “primarily intuitions.”

i). The focus on intuition in the Deep Ecology

movement explains, in part, why feminism allies itself with environmentalism, particularly with Deep Ecology and animal rights.

aa. Feminism rejects science outright—or

redefines it—because science operates in a manner not sufficiently sensitive to “feminine thought patterns” because it is a fundamentally “masculine” discipline.

ba. “Science’s insistence on being tough,

rigorous, rational, impersonal, and unemotional is intertwined with men’s gender identities,” says feminist theologian and animal rights theorist Carol Adams, author of “The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory.”

ii). Deep ecology's core principle is the belief that,

like humanity, the living environment as a whole has the same right to live and flourish.

aa. Deep ecology describes itself with being

"deep" because it persists in asking deeper

Page 46 of 98

questions concerning "why" and "how" and thus is concerned with the fundamental philosophical questions about the impacts of human life as one part of the ecosphere, rather than with a narrow view of ecology as a branch of biological science, and aims to avoid merely anthropocentric environmentalism, which is concerned with conservation of the environment only for exploitation by and for humans purposes, which excludes the fundamental philosophy of deep ecology.

ba. Deep ecology seeks a more holistic view

of the world we live in and seeks to apply to life the understanding that separate parts of the ecosystem (including humans) function as a whole.

iii). "For Arne Næss, ecological science, concerned

with facts and logic alone, cannot answer ethical questions about how we should live.

aa. For this we need ecological wisdom that is

built on the concept that nature experiences pain and joy and we must maintain that joy at the expense of man’s joy and happiness.

ba. Deep ecology seeks to develop this by

focusing on deep experience, deep questioning and deep commitment.

ca. These constitute an interconnected system.

da. Each gives rise to and supports the other,

whilst the entire system is, what Næss would call, an ecosophy: an evolving but consistent philosophy of being, thinking and acting in the world, that embodies ecological wisdom and harmony."

ii. The irrationality of environmentalist thought has been

formalized.

a. Taking their cue from postmodernism with its relativism and deconstructionism which sees communication not as

Page 47 of 98

conveying truth but as exerting power, many leading environmentalists, especially some at the center of global warming alarmism, have embraced something called “post-normal science,” a practice first defined and promoted in the 1960s primarily by philosophers of science Jerome Ravetz and Silvio Funtowicz.

b. It’s no coincidence, by the way, that, according to the

Wikipedia article on him, “Ravetz grew up in a left-wing family and although never a member of the American Communist Party he was what was then called a fellow traveler.”

D). Eva Kunseler, a proponent of post-normal science, defined “normal

science” this way:

i. Post-normal science is a corrupted form of science in which the quest to explain how our world works is less significant than the quest to use scientific authority to achieve political goals.

a. One helpful way to understand it is to compare it with

Cargo Cults.

i). During World War II remote tropical Pacific islands like Vanuatu became involved in war efforts when they became part of supply lines.

aa. To the natives the arrival of noisy birds

was almost miraculous; they brought delicious foods, and other sorts of wondrous cargo.

ba. After the war the birds, and their cargo, left.

ca. Into the vacuum returned old terrors of

hunger and sickness, and an angry Earth.

da. Superstitious natives copied what they saw.

ea. They made model planes and runways.

fa. They have the form right—the outward form of religion—but lacked power.

Page 48 of 98

ga. As they have seen, so they did. But no airplanes landed. Anthropologists call this religion a Cargo Cult.

ii). In 1974 physicist Richard Feynman explained how

something similar can happen in science.

aa. He observed that many scientists go through the motions of scientific rituals yet are not actually doing science.

ba. Experiment first, conclusions afterward is

the basis of scientific inquiry.

b. Cargo Cult science—including post-normal science—predetermines the conclusions and reverses the order.

i). The global warming federal-scientific partnership

forms the basis for several modern Cargo Cults.

ii). For instance, tens of billions of American dollars have been thrown at studying global warming, with prominent scientists by doing the following:

aa. By failing (or forbidding) to ask critical

questions that might challenge cherished beliefs, or threaten the gravy train;

ba. By fraud and theft of annual federal

funding of around four billion dollars to study global warming.

ca. By the use of environmentalist Cargo Cult

Science to make the most incredible and knowingly false predictions of future doom.

iii). It is magical in its ability to explain how almost

every environmental calamity—whether hot or cold, wet or dry, calm or tempestuous—is caused by humanity’s insensitivity toward our mother planet.

ii. Normal Science is a logic inductive process leading to theory

formulation, while all the way put through critical tests that have been deductively derived from the theory; philosopher of

Page 49 of 98

science Karl Popper’s critical rationalist concept of science is an objective progression toward the truth. . . .

a. The term normal science refers to the routine work of

scientists within a paradigm; slowly accumulating knowledge in accord with established theoretical assumptions.

b. The paradigm is enlarged and frontiers of knowledge and

techniques pushed forward.

c. The exercise of scholarly activities is defined by the dominance of the Mertonian [named for philosopher of science Robert K. Merton] CUDOS [C-U-D-OS] norms of science.

i). (C)ommunalism—the common ownership of

scientific discoveries, according to which scientists give up intellectual property rights in exchange for recognition and esteem;

ii). (U)niversalism—according to which claims to

truth are evaluated in terms of universal or value-free criteria;

iii). (D)isinterestedness—according to which scientists

are rewarded for acting in ways that appear to be selfless;

iv). (O)rganized (S)kepticism—all ideas must be

tested and are subject to structured community scrutiny.Post-normal science.

iii. Kunseler then goes on to describe post-normal science:

a. The concept of post-normal science goes beyond the

traditional assumptions that science is both certain and value-free.

i). The exercise of scholarly activities is defined by

the dominance of goal orientation [emphasis added] where scientific goals are controlled by political or societal actors.

ii). Scientists’ integrity lies not in disinterestedness

but in their behavior as stakeholders.

Page 50 of 98

iii). Normal science made the world believe that

scientists should and could provide certain, objective factual information. . . .

b. The guiding principle of normal science—the goal of

achievement of factual knowledge—must be modified to fit the post-normal principle.

i). For this purpose, post-normal scientists should be

capable of establishing extended peer communities and allow for ‘extended facts’ from non-scientific experts.

ii). In post-normal science, the maintenance and

enhancement of quality, rather than the establishment of factual knowledge, is the key task of scientists.

iii). Involved social actors must agree on the definition

of perceptions, narratives, interpretation of models, data and indicators.

iv). Scientists have to contribute to society by learning

as quickly as possible about different perceptions instead of seeking deep ultimate knowledge.

E). People right at the top of the pecking order of alarmist climate-change

“scientists” know exactly what they’re doing—post-normal science, not real science.

i. Consider self-professed socialist Mike Hulme, founding director

of the Tyndall Centre and Professor of Climate Change (note that title—not of climate, but of climate change) at the University of East Anglia, home of the Climatic Research Unit, of Climategate infamy.

a. Climategate was the release of thousands of emails,

computer codes, and other documents among leading climate alarmist scientists that revealed that they were:

i). Fabricating, exaggerating, cherry picking, and

suppressing data,

ii). Intimidating dissenting scientists,

Page 51 of 98

iii). Blackballing journal editors willing to publish the dissenters,

iv). Corrupting the peer review process,

v). Refusing to share data and code with fellow

scientists on request even when required to by the journals in which they published, and,

vi). Violating American and British Freedom of

Information Acts.

b. Climategate has contributed considerably to the decline in public belief in dangerous manmade global warming.

c. The author of “Why We Disagree About Climate Change:

Understanding Controversy, Inaction, and Opportunity”, Hulme prepared climate-change scenarios and reports for:

i). the British government,

ii). the European Commission,

iii). the United Nations Environment Program,

iv). the United Nations Population Division,

v). the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”

(IPCC),

vi). And was a lead author for the chapter on “Climate scenario development” for the 2001 Assessment Report and a contributing author on several other chapters), and the World Wildlife Fund. Says Hulme of “postnormal” science:

aa. Climate change seems to fall in this

category. . . . The IPCC is a classic example of a post-normal scientific activity.

ba. Within a capitalist world order [which

Hulme wants to replace with socialism], climate change is actually a convenient phenomenon to come along.

Page 52 of 98

ca. The danger of a “normal” reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow. . . . exchanges often reduce to ones about scientific truth rather than about values, perspectives and political preferences.

ii. Four myths of environmentalism and promoted by Mike Hulme.

a. Mike Hulme’s four myths that are common to his

environmentalism. Lamenting Eden, Presaging Apocalypse, Reconstructing Babel, and Celebrating Jubilee.

i). “Lamenting Eden” is the tendency of

environmentalists to hark back to a golden age, an age before humanity transgressed its bounds and began to harm the perfect paradise that was the Earth.

ii). Presaging Apocalypse is their tendency to look

forward—sometimes with fear, sometimes with ghoulish delight—to the time when the offended Gaia will take its revenge on humanity through ecological collapse.

iii). Reconstructing Babel (promoting technology as

the solution to all problems) - Reconstructing Babel is what environmentalists accuse humanity of doing through the development of technology and urbanization, and,

iv). Celebrating Jubilee is their pursuit of “ecojustice”

(codespeak for wealth redistribution to achieve the equality of wealth that all people are due).

b. It is immediately clear that these “four myths” are all

religious elements, reflecting, but twisting, the Biblical heritage, right down to the mistaken appeal to the Jubilee (which in Leviticus 25 did not require redistribution of wealth but the return of what was effectively productive collateral for a loan when it was paid off).

Page 53 of 98

i). It’s important to note that Hulme, a “scientist,” promotes these religious ideas in the name of environmental science.

ii). Keep in mind that Hulme mentored Phil Jones and

many other leading “climate scientists.”

c. I want to go to the root of Hulme’s migration from science to pseudo-religion.

i). It is to be found in his commitment to something

called post-normal science.

ii). The quick answer given there referred to Stephen Schneider’s well-known willingness to exaggerate in order to motivate action, but post-normal science goes far beyond that.

iii). It is a philosophically sophisticated

epistemological construct and must not be underestimated.

iv). Until we understand its influence in the AGW

alarmist community, climate realists and climate alarmists will continue talking past each other.

d. It cannot have been lost on many climate realist scientists

that the “debate” over the “science” of climate change has been characterized by some strange tactics, such as demonization of dissent, distrust of attempts at replication, rejection of openness and data sharing, and appeal to consensus.

i). As Climategate and other transgressions of

fundamental scientific procedure by global warming alarmists continue to unfold, it becomes increasingly clear that a great deal of what’s been called “climate science” isn’t science at all.

ii). It is ideological propaganda, often religious (but

certainly not Biblical), masquerading as science.

iii. “Self-evidently” dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking. . . . Scientists—and politicians—must trade truth for influence.

Page 54 of 98

a. What matters about climate change is not whether we can predict the future with some desired level of certainty and accuracy. . . .

b. The function of climate change I suggest, is not as a

lower-case environmental phenomenon to be solved. . . .

i). It really is not about stopping climate chaos.

ii). Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change—the matrix of ecological functions, power relationships, cultural discourses and materials flows that climate change reveals—to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come.

c. Climate change has become an idea that now travels well

beyond its origins in the natural sciences.

i). Climate change takes on new meanings and serves new purposes.

ii). Climate change has become “the mother of all

issues,” the key narrative within which all environmental politics—from global to local—is now framed.

iii). Rather than asking “how do we solve climate

change?” we need to turn the question around and ask: “how does the idea of climate change alter the way we arrive at and achieve our personal aspirations?”

iv. In other words, “post-normal science,” shorn of the

commitments of “normal science” to transparency, disinterestedness, falsifiability, and skepticism, is the guise under which climate change and any other issue can become the vehicle for promoting predetermined social and political goals.

a. The warfare between post-normal science and real

science is important not just in the debate over “climate change,” but in all kinds of issues in which science interfaces with policy.

Page 55 of 98

b. Like the pseudo-Christian cults that borrow vocabulary from Christianity but redefine all the terms, post-normal science is simply the application of rhetoric borrowed from the sciences to policy debates, cloaking one particular policy preference with the authority of “science,” and successful at doing so only to the extent that policy makers and the public are ignorant of the fact that post-normal science isn’t science at all.

c. In the final analysis it is no different from what physicist

Richard Feynman in 1974 called “cargo cult science,” that is, “work that has the semblance of being scientific, but is missing ‘a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty.’”

d. This technical foray into the unmaking of science by

post-normal science concludes this rather quick sketch of the environmentalist world view and its view of God, creation, humanity, sin, and salvation.

F). An examination of the science of global warming, led by Dr. Roy W.

Spencer, principal research scientist in climatology at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and lead scientist on NASA’s Aqua Satellite remote sensing project, finds:

i. That global warming alarmism wrongly claims that recent

temperature changes have been greater and more rapid than those of the past and therefore must be manmade, not natural.

ii. It exaggerates the influence of manmade greenhouse gases on global temperature and ignores or underestimates the influence of natural cycles, particularly the influence of ocean current cycles on cloud formation, and confuses cloud feedback with cloud forcing, reversing cause and effect.

iii. Earth's climate is less sensitive to the addition of CO2 than the

"scientific consensus" claims it to be, which means that climate model predictions of future warming are exaggerated.

iv. Specifically, instead of a likely 3 degrees Celsia increase in

global average temperature from doubled effective atmospheric CO2 concentration, a result that would require strongly positive net feedbacks, Christians believe the best empirical research on feedbacks shows them to be strongly net negative, eliminating

Page 56 of 98

about 58 percent of greenhouse warming, resulting in only about 0.5 degrees Celsia warming from doubled CO2.

v. AGW alarmism mistakenly takes the output of computer

climate models as evidence when it is only predictions based on hypotheses that must be tested by observation.

a. It falsely claims overwhelming scientific consensus in

favor of the hypothesis of dangerous manmade warming and then falsely claims that such consensus proves the hypothesis and justifies policies to fight it.

b. It seeks to intimidate or demonize scientific skeptics

rather than welcoming their work as of the very essence of scientific inquiry: putting hypotheses to the test.

vi. In contrast to AGW alarmism, Christians believe that, given that

CO2 in the atmosphere is necessary for life on Earth to exist, and every doubling of its concentration yields an average 35 percent increase in plant growth efficiency, more CO2 will be beneficial.

vii. This is rarely discussed because many environmental activists

share the quasi-religious belief that everything mankind does hurts the environment.

G). Our examination of the economics of global warming alarmism, led

by Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor of economics and research chair in environmental studies and climate at the University of Victoria, finds that it exaggerates the harms from global warming and ignores or underestimates the benefits not only from warming but also from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

i. It grossly underestimates the costs and overestimates the

benefits of policies meant to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

ii. It exaggerates the technical feasibility (primarily by ignoring the basic physics of power density and energy density) and underestimates the costs of alternative fuels to replace fossil fuels in providing the abundant, affordable energy necessary for wealth creation and poverty reduction.

iii. It ignores the urgent need to provide cleaner energy to the

roughly 2 billion poor in the world whose use of wood and dung as primary cooking and heating fuels causes millions of

Page 57 of 98

premature deaths and hundreds of millions of debilitating respiratory diseases every year.

iv. It fails to recognize that the slowed economic development

resulting from its policies will cost many times more human lives than would the warming it’s meant to avert—even assuming that the predicted warming comes about.

H). Let me expand just a little bit on the problem of renewable energy.

i. Granted the basic physics of energy sources, the likelihood that

renewables will ever replace fossil fuels and nuclear is slim to vanishing.

ii. As energy expert Robert Bryce points out in his newly

published book “Power Hungry: The Myths of Green Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future”, every energy source must be judged in terms of four imperatives:

a. Power density,

b. Energy density,

c. Scale, and,

d. Cost.

iii. I am only going to comment on “power density”—the “energy

flow that can be harnessed from a given unit of volume, area or mass.”

a. The power density of an oil well producing only about 10

barrels per day or of a marginal natural gas well is about 27 or 28 Watts per meter squared, respectively, and of a nuclear power plant like the South Texas Project, even accounting for the full 19 square miles of its site, not the much smaller power plant itself, is about 56 W/m2.

b. But the power density of corn ethanol is about 0.05

W/m2, of wind at best about 1.2, and of solar at best about 6.7—and wind and solar are also intermittent.

c. “Simple math,” writes Bryce, “shows that a marginal gas

or oil well has a power density at least 22 times that of a wind turbine while a nuclear power plant has a power

Page 58 of 98

density that is more than 8 times that of a solar photovoltaic facility.”

d. This fundamental bit of physics implies that renewables

will necessarily also fail to meet the standards of fossil fuels and nuclear in the other three imperatives: energy density, scale, and cost.

7). Now consider the Biblical, Christian understanding in contrast.

A). The Biblical view of God, creation, humanity, sin, salvation, and

ethics.

i. The providence and promises of God inform a Christian understanding of creation stewardship, helping to avert irrational or exaggerated fears of catastrophes—fears that are rooted, ultimately, in the loss of faith in God and an exaggerated sense of human power to effect comprehensive transformations of the fundamental physical systems of the planet.

a. Those who do trust God are able to assess and respond to

risks rationally.

b. God's wisdom, power, and faithfulness justify confidence that Earth's ecosystems are robust and will by God's providence accomplish the purposes He set for them.

c. Policies intended to reduce global warming by reducing

the use of fossil fuels, currently the most abundant and affordable alternatives to dirty fuels like wood and dung, which are now used by 2 billion people and cause millions of deaths and hundreds of millions of illnesses from respiratory diseases contracted by breathing their smoke, would hurt the world's poor.

i). Insisting on the use of more expensive alternative

fuels because of global warming fears means depriving the poor of the abundant, affordable energy they need to rise from abject poverty and its attendant miseries.

ii). Such policies fail both moral and prudential tests.

ii. For Biblical Christianity, God is the infinite, eternal, and

unchangeable personal Spirit:

Page 59 of 98

a. Who created all other things out of nothing (Hebrews 11:3) and man in His image (Genesis 1:26–28), all for His own glory (Psalm 19:1–6; Revelation 4:11; Ephesians 1:11–12);

b. Who by making man in His image, equipping him with

logos, the “light that lightens everyone who comes into the world” (John 1:9), set him apart from all the rest of nature by making him—not mountains or oceans or plants or animals or microbes—capable of reason;

c. Who stipulated that man should, and would, multiply, fill

the Earth, subdue it, and rule over it as His representative and steward (Genesis 1:28);

d. Whose Logos not only is the Light that lightens everyone

who comes into the world (John 1:1, but also instilled order into creation that reflects the orderliness of His mind and so can be understood and controlled for their benefit by those who bear His image (Proverbs 8:22–36);

e. Who on completing His creation declared it all “very

good” (Genesis 1:31);

f. Who judged all mankind in the person of its covenant head, Adam, for Adam’s disobedience (Romans 5:12–19), cursed the ground over which He had given Adam authority (Genesis 3:17–19), and yet also provided an atonement for sin for all who trust in His promised Anointed One (Genesis 3:21; John 1:29);

g. Who promised to sustain His the Earth and all its cycles

on which life depends by His own power (Genesis 8:22) until the Day when He will judge all mankind by His law, a law written not only on stones at Sinai but also in the heart of every man, and by His gospel (Acts 17:30–31; Romans 2:16; Revelation 20:11–15);

h. Who revealed that gospel first in His warning to Satan in

the Garden of Eden that the Seed of the woman would crush his head (Genesis 3:15), and then again and again through His covenant promises to Adam and Eve, to Noah, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to Moses and the people of Israel at the exodus and again on their entry to the Promised Land with Joshua, to David and Solomon, and ultimately “in these last days . . . in His Son, whom

Page 60 of 98

He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world” (Hebrews 1:1–2).

B). Neither Earth nor the whole universe is God, or (as feminist eco-

theologian Sally McFague thinks), the body of God.

i. Nature not only doesn’t know best but nature doesn’t know anything.

ii. Earth is not best untouched by human hands but subdued and

ruled by them—particularly when those human hands are guided by rational thought based on Biblical world view, theology, and ethics.

iii. Land and seas, lakes and rivers, mountains and prairies, forests

and wetlands, coral reefs and deep ocean trenches, mammals and reptiles and amphibians and fish and birds, all these things are wonderful, but they are not all equal, and none of them is equal to men and women, boys and girls, who alone are the image and glory of God.

iv. Charged by environmentalists with anthropocentrism—as if

there were something obviously wrong with that!—Christians respond by embracing, but clarifying, the charge:

a. Yes, we are anthropocentric, but an even deeper center is

God Himself, who made all things for Himself.

b. We recognize concentric circles of priority:

i). God at the very center,

ii). human beings next,

iii). sentient life next,

iv). non-sentient life next, and,

v). nonliving things next.

v. Reminded that the “Earth is Jahweh’s, and all it contains” (Psalm 24:1), we say “Amen” and add what God said through another psalmist: “The heavens are the heavens of Jahweh, but the Earth He has given to the sons of men” (Ps. 115:16).

Page 61 of 98

C). We find our ethics spelled out in God’s moral law, written by His own finger on the tablets at Sinai (Deuteronomy 4:13) and on the moral heart of every man (Romans 2:14–15).

i. We define sin not by the shifting standards of cultural and

scientific relativism but by the law of God, for “sin is lawlessness”(1 John 3:4).

ii. And we find salvation not in recycling or buying carbon offsets

(the indulgences of our day) but in trusting Christ, and Him alone, and thus having our sins imputed to Him and His righteousness imputed to us (Romans 3:19–28; 4:1–8).

D). As God’s representatives charged to subdue and rule the Earth and

everything in it (Genesis 1:28), we recognize that we are accountable to our Creator and Lord, and that our subduing and 9 ruling should reflect His creative work recorded in Genesis 1:1–25, displaying wisdom and righteousness and holiness.

E). Dominion is no license for abuse, but neither is stewardship a barrier

to lawful use—lawful being defined not by environmentalists’ whims but by God’s moral revelation in the Ten Commandments and His moral nature and their amplification throughout Scripture.

F). Indeed, taking note of the difference between the Garden of Eden, a

specific and restricted locale in which God put Adam and told Him to cultivate and guard it (Genesis 2:1–15) and the rest of the Earth, outside the Garden, which He told Adam and Eve to fill, subdue, and rule (Genesis 1:28), and, taking seriously also God’s curse on the ground and His expulsion of our first parents from the Garden, we recognize that, after the Fall and the Curse our original mandate to cultivate and guard the Garden and to subdue and rule the Earth continues.

i. With this clarification: that we are, by subduing and ruling, to

be bringing more and more of the Earth into greater and greater similarity to the Garden, knowing all along that perfection will come only with the New Heaven and New Earth brought in by the return of Christ to receive His perfected Bride, the Church,

ii. When “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and there

will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain,” for “He who sits on the throne [says], ‘Behold, I am making all things new’” (Revelation 21:1–5).

Page 62 of 98

G). We do not embrace the over-realized eschatology of utopianism that thinks we can achieve perfection now (for example, by being able to drill for oil or mine for coal with zero risk of accidents).

i. Neither do we embrace the view that because God will

eventually judge this world and make the New Heaven and New Earth, we are free to abuse the present Earth now.

ii. We are answerable to Him for how we use it.

iii. We recognize that we shall never live in a risk-free world.

iv. But we embrace the freedom, and the responsibility, to use the

Earth and all that is in it for God’s glory and mankind’s benefit,

v. And we believe that so far as we fulfill the Great Commission to make disciples of all nations and teach them to obey all that God has commanded we will thereby enhance mankind’s ability to fulfill the Dominion Commission to subdue and rule the Earth linking Genesis 1:28 with Matthew 28:19.

H). In light of these and other Biblical teachings we aspire to a world in

which:

i. Human beings care wisely and humbly for all creatures, first and foremost for their fellow human beings, recognizing their proper place in the created order.

ii. Objective moral principles—not personal prejudices—guide

moral action.

iii. Right reason (including sound theology and the careful use of scientific methods) guides the stewardship of human and ecological relationships.

iv. Liberty as a condition of moral action is preferred over

government-initiated management of the environment as a means to common goals.

v. The relationships between stewardship and private property are

fully appreciated, allowing people’s natural incentive to care for their own property to reduce the need for collective ownership and control of resources and enterprises, and in which collective action, when deemed necessary, takes place at the most local level possible.

Page 63 of 98

vi. Widespread economic freedom—which is integral to private, market economies—makes sound ecological stewardship available to ever greater numbers.

vii. Advancements in agriculture, industry, and commerce not only

minimize pollution and transform most waste products into efficiently used resources but also improve the material conditions of life for people everywhere.

I). None of these aspirations can be fulfilled, however, apart from the

gospel of Jesus Christ, whose righteous life and sacrificial death reconcile to God all who trust in Him, and who renews the minds of believers to understand God’s Word and God’s world, enabling them to become good stewards of God’s abundant gifts.

J). To that end, we commit ourselves to the two great mandates of

Scripture: the Dominion Mandate of Genesis 1:28 to multiply and fill the Earth and to subdue and rule over it, and the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19 to make disciples of all nations, teaching them to obey all that God has commanded.

3. Providence is the second way of God with men.

A. Introduction.

1). Definition – God is guiding the world of which He has made unto the ends

with which He desires and by the means into which He has chosen.

2). Biblical phrases.

A). “To foresee.”

B). “To have foresight.”

C). “To have oversight.”

D). “To oversee.”

E). “To determine.”

F). “To predetermine.”

3). Biblical Expressions.

A). Agricultural analogies - The “garden” and “lilies of the field”

Page 64 of 98

B). Animal analogies – Job 38-41, “birds of the air.”

C). Analogies of people – Matt. 10 – “hairs of your head.”

D). Analogies of nations – “He watches over Israel,” Col. 1, Eph. 1.

B. Historical Perspectives.

1). Mechanistic model – the maker or fixer model - there are two views.

A). Universal mechanism.

i. Tertullian was a proponent of this view which was the adequate view of the world prior to the 17th century.

ii. The universal mechanistic model is dependent on the view of

the world as a machine.

iii. Universal mechanism held that the universe is best understood as a completely mechanical system.

iv. That is, a system which is composed entirely of matter that is in

motion which is under a complete and regular system of laws of nature.

v. Just as parts of a clock are in motion and predictably break

down due to friction which wears down the clock’s moving parts, all matter in the universe which is in motion will eventually break down due to the laws of nature which grind against it.

vi. When friction wears down the moving parts of a clock, it

requires a person of intelligence to replace and repair the worn out the clock’s moving parts in order for the clock to continue to work.

vii. However, when matter that is in the universe is in motion and

the laws of nature grind against it, matter wears down but does not require a person of intelligence (denies God) to fix it for the laws of nature will turn worn out matter into the whole of the universe which is self-healing by universal natural and mechanistic laws.

B). The behavioral genetic mechanistic model.

Page 65 of 98

i. B.F. Skinner (1904-1990) was the first to use the mechanistic model in the social sciences.

a. Theories of behavior that are built on a mechanistic

worldview reflect a belief that behavior and behavior change are predictable.

b. Lawful phenomena that can, theoretically at least, be

fully understood through the use of systematic, objective empirical research methods (empirical meaning that the methods rely on observation or experimentation).

ii. Mechanists believe that behavior is caused by either factors

external to the individual (efficient causes) or those defining the individual's biological makeup (material causes).

a. Efficient causes include such things as:

i). Parenting style,

ii). Educational opportunities, and,

iii). Peer group composition.

b. Material causes include:

i). Inherited genetic characteristics and,

ii). More general biological qualities such as

temperament or information processing capability.

C). The mechanistic model of the world either resorts to strange phenomenon as being magic or magic equals a miracle.

D). This model dehumanizes man in favor of the natural and mechanical

laws of the universe:

i. E.g., modern ecologists and environmentalists place creation and its stuff above humanity and its stuff, and,

ii. The ecological and environmentalist view is heresy because it

robs man of his humanity by dehumanizing him.

E). With the mechanistic worldview, there is no proper answer to the question, “How can there be evil?”

Page 66 of 98

i. The universal mechanism view answers, “Evil is when natural law goes against human comfort” (This is not evil but is an inconvenience) – Christian Science.

ii. The behavioral genetic mechanistic view answers, “Evil is some

sort of genetic or socio-psychic defect” (

iii. Evil is a physical defect of one’s biochemical or socio-psychic makeup that is within the body and can be rooted out by manipulating one’s genetic, psychic, behavioral, or DNA code.

a. Ex. 1. – “I am gay because I was born that way.”

b. Ex. 2 - Nazism’s desire to breed a super race of superior

beings (Arian race).

c. Ex. 3 - Progressive liberals who want to move the human race toward perfection through bio-genetic and socio-psychic engineering.

i). Liberalism’s premises are:

aa. Order = Disorder,

ba. Logic is a complication,

ca. The truth is always false.

ii). From these premises comes some of the most

twisted concepts of knowledge that has ever come across human understanding.

F). A world which is strictly mechanical is impersonal and has no place

for intelligent design by a personal Creator such as God.

2). Another historical view - providence is indirectly meted out through the process of secondary causes.

i. This view is predictable but not pliable in real life.

ii. This view leads to Deism – God made the world, walked off,

and left it to its own devices.

iii. Where do miracles fit within a secondary cause universe?

Page 67 of 98

iv. This view becomes faith in secondary causes which eliminate the necessity and possibility of active intervention from God.

v. This view came from the Enlightenment era which said:

a. What you need is someone or something to jump start the

process of providence over the world and someone or something that finishes after the world is used up.

b. Between the start and finish of the world, everything that

is in between will run smoothly.

3). Paradoxes of providence.

A). Middle doctrines need to be addressed – the doctrines of Creation, providence, election-redemption, eschatology.

i. How does the sovereignty of God and the freedom of man fit

within the framework of providence? (See Elie Wiesel’s works).

ii. How does one deal with the goodness of God and the reality of evil?

B). Medieval and reformed doctrines.

i. God is a “Gubenator.”

a. Latin word is “vitalium” = governor.

b. God is not separate from nature but intrinsically part of it.

c. God is the steersman of creation.

ii. God is a Conservator.

a. “Conserver.”

b. God protects, serves or saves.

iii. The expression that “God is before all things, is with all things and will be here after all things cease to exists” was articulated in these phrases:

a. God is a Praecurasus (He runs before His creation).

b. God is Concurasus (He runs beside His creation).

Page 68 of 98

c. God was a Sucursus (He follows creation).

C. Theological reconstruction.

1). It is important to reinforce our previous discussions of what kind of language the Bible is and in what modality it expresses its truth for it expresses pre-scientific, phenomenological, theological language in a Hebrew mode, and it is intentional toward redemption.

2). One must not capitulate to the law of physical demonstrable, repeatable

cause, and effect as the absolute and sole way in which all things can or must happen.

3). The Christian community has chosen to affirm that God can do what He

wants to do.

A). The doctrine of providence has often been expressed as the doctrine of mystery and paradox.

B). The doctrine of providence must be grounded in biblical affirmation

rather than in Christian experience.

C). The doctrine of providence is best seen in retrospect and its resolution is best expressed in prospect (See “Hererto/Henceforth”).

D. The doctrine of providence logically leads to a discussion of miracles and the

problem of evil.

1). Miracles.

A). Definitions.

i. The interference of nature by supernatural power (C.S. Lewis).

ii. A creative act in which the Divine comes into the human sphere in a new way (W.T. Conner).

iii. An eschatological sign for what God intends for His creation

and takes place within the current period of time – (Dale Moreau’s definition).

B). Biblical ideas.

i. Miracles are tokens of the new order that was inaugurated by

the coming of Christ (Greek – “dunamus,” “semeia.” – Hunter).

Page 69 of 98

ii. An eschatological sign for what God intends for His creation. – Dale Moreau’s viewpoint.

C). Classification (the question for miracles is, “Why did it happen to

me?”

i. Old Testament.

a. Those miracles that are associated with the Exodus.

b. Those miracles that are associated with Elisha and Elijah.

c. Miscellaneous miracles – Jonah and Daniel.

ii. New Testament.

a. Exorcism.

b. Healing (Did God intend for everyone to live in perfect health?).

i). Faith healers answer, “Yes!’

ii). The overwhelming evidence that is from the

Biblical norms and the experiences of the Christian community says, “No!”

c. Raising the dead.

d. Nature miracles (Why did Jesus calm the sea? Was it for

Heavenly credentials? No! Or, Signs? Yes.).

D). Occurrences.

i. Old Testament – the Red Sea was to Israel with what the empty tomb was to the Church.

ii. New Testament.

a. Miracles are eschatological signs of what God intends for

all His obedient creation – the best view.

b. The best interpretation of miracles is found in the book of the Revelation – Rev. 20-21.

i). Where the devil is shut up (exorcism) – Rev. 20:3.

Page 70 of 98

ii). Where there is no more pain or tears (healing) –

Rev. 21:4.

iii). Where the dead are raised (raising from the dead or resurrection) – Rev. 20:5.

iv). Where there is a new heaven and new earth

(redeemed creation) – Rev. 21:1.

c. Could these tokens of things to come in the present situation reoccur in history? The Christian community affirms they have occurred.

d. Over 31% of the book of Mark deals directly with

miracles – (209 out of 661 verses).

e. The Q (Quella) source of the Dead Sea Scrolls does not mention any miracles because it is didactic (teaching) in purpose.

f. There is no Gospel stratum wherein the miraculous is not

found.

E). Theological interpretation.

i. As to their possibility?

a. This depends on one’s worldview.

i). Christianity is supernatural and those who believe in Christianity by extension must believe in what are supernatural miracles of Christianity.

ii). For those who do not believe in the supernatural

do not believe in miracles.

b. This depends on one’s view of Christ.

i). Those who regard Christ as the divine in human flesh have no problem with the belief in miracles.

ii). Those who regard Christ as a mere man find it

difficult to believe in miracles.

ii. As to their purposes?

Page 71 of 98

a. There primary purposes are redemptive.

b. The historical purpose is to show glimpses of what God

has in store for those who love Him when He comes again in His Son.

iii. As to their continuance?

a. First century manifestations.

b. Because the power and purposes of God still abide in the

world and the Church, miracles do exist and are a live option.

2). The problem of evil.

A). Three factors which pose the problem of evil.

i. God is great.

ii. God is good.

iii. Evil is real.

B). To solve the problem of evil some have attempted to show that it is

possible to affirm the omnipotence of God, the love of God, and the reality of evil without contradiction.

i. Given the reality of evil, some say we must sacrifice either the

power (omnipotence) or the love (goodness) of God in order to deal with the problem of evil but this presents a dilemma.

ii. If we give up the omnipotence of God, it appears that God

cannot prevent or overcome evil.

iii. If we forego the goodness of God, it seems that God will not prevent or overcome evil.

iv. Most theodicies attempt to show that this dilemma is only

apparent and that it is possible to affirm both that God is all-powerful and perfectly loving, despite the presence of real evil that is in the world.

C). Very unsatisfactory attempts to resolve the problem of evil.

Page 72 of 98

i. Denial of God of being all powerful.

a. ex. – Zoroastrianism.

b. God is not able to help with the problem of evil - Edgar Brightman, “The Finite God.”

ii. Denial of God of being necessarily good.

a. God is neutral.

b. Leibnitz – this is the best of all possible worlds.

i). God as a kind of "optimizer" of the collection of

all original possibilities’

ii). Since God is good and omnipotent, and since He chose this world out of all possibilities, this world must be good and is the best of all possible worlds.

iii. Evil is not real

a. Ex. - Christian Science.

b. Ex. - Asian Philosophy.

D). Satisfactory but not the best attempts to solve the problem of evil.

i. Augustine defined evil as the absence of good but this veers

toward saying evil is not real.

ii. Evil is punishment but this concept fails in way too many situations.

iii. Evil is didactic but this is insipid or lacking flavor in some

instances.

iv. Evil is mysterious (musterion) but this is a mere cop-out.

v. Eschatological – it will work out in the end.

vi. Evil is vicarious.

a. When done on behalf of someone and causes him to change from his sins to God, evil is worthy and effective.

Page 73 of 98

b. When it accomplishes some good for a person.

E). Definitions of good and evil.

i. Logical considerations and necessities.

a. Evil is defined in the light of what is good in God.

b. Because God was before all that is and is good, good was here prior to evil.

c. Good has priority in God and over evil.

ii. Good is he who or that which creates, brings life, unity,

wholeness, health, and produces Christlikeness.

iii. Evil is he who or that which destroys, divides, brings death and decay, and produces life that is turned toward the demonic.

F). Suggestions about the problem of evil.

i. Define good and evil in large enough terms and apply these

terms and their meaning to appropriate situations.

a. Definitions of good and evil do help but only when understood in light of the priority of God who was here before anything was created.

b. Do not cast imitation pearls before genuine swine.

ii. Personal desires and inconveniences are not to be taken as

extraordinary instances of evil.

iii. In resolving the problem of good and evil, it helps to distinguish between God’s purpose and permission.

iv. In resolving the problem of good and evil, it helps to distinguish

between evil as a natural phenomenon and sin as an immoral act.

v. There is no intellectually satisfying answer to the problem of evil.

vi. Because we are not able to intellectually resolve the problem of

evil, this is a slap to one’s intellectual and moral pride.

Page 74 of 98

vii. The philosophers referred to evil as “a surd,” an irresolvable problem, or “absurd”.

viii. Intellectual answers to resolve the problem of evil do not

resolve emotional problems.

ix. One of the most important phrases to remember when it comes to evil and the tragedies with which it causes is, “I do not know why it has fallen on you or the reason for its existence.”

x. Avoid interpreting other people’s sorrows because you will

have enough trouble with interpreting your own burdens.

xi. Practice a theology of your presence when people hurt or are in pain.

xii. Before it is needed, practice converting the question away from,

“Why has this happened?” to “What is my relationship to thee now, O God?”

4. Election-redemption is the third way of God with men.

A. Questions and Answers.

1). What means has God chosen to bring back all creation to Himself?

A). Answer: Election-redemption in God’s ability to cause man to

fall in love with not only Him but also with His purposes for all creation.

B). The Biblical witness is clear that one cannot love God if one refuses to be transformed by the converting beauty of the moral character of Christ into being a partner with God in the refashioning and transformation of all things in Heaven and upon earth that have been rift by sin (Cf. Cosmic Redemption).

C). The Lordship of Christ is primary in all things of creation and

unto salvation and divine transformation.

2). Where is the historical demonstration of election-redemption?

A). Israel of the Old Testament, and

B). The Church of the New Testament.

Page 75 of 98

B. Definition of election redemption – God’s ability to cause people to fall in love with Him and His purposes for creation.

C. Biblical materials.

Corporate election-redemp- tion of the nation of Israel.

Corporate election-redemp-tion of the Gentiles.

Corporate election-redemption of the Body of Christ (the Church).

Election-redemption of individual persons to fulfill God's purposes.

Election-redemp-tion of Jesus Christ as the Elect One.

Election-redemption does not determine individual salvation.

Man's free will to do good or evil.

Isaiah 45:3. Isaiah 65:8. Isaiah 65:21. Jeremiah 3:6. Acts 13:43. Romans 11:17.

Romans 11:9.

Romans 16:25.

Romans 8:31.

Romans 11:3.

Colossians 3:9.

I Thess. 1:2.

Titus 1:1.

Eph. 3:8.

Col. 1:24.

I Tim. 3:16.

Gal. 1:9.

I Peter 2:9.

2 Tim. 2:8.

Rom. 8:28.

Rom. 16:25.

2 Thess. 2:13.

Eph. 1:3.

Eph. 3:8.

I Cor. 2:7.

I Peter 1:1, 3.

Rev. 20:4.

Matt. 24:21, 31.

Mark 13:20.

Luke 18:7. Rom. 11:26.

Ex. 7:14. Ex. 8:15. Ex. 8:27. Rom. 9:17. I Sam. 9:15. I Sam. 10:24. I Sam. 13:9. Acts 9:1

John 1:29. Isa. 42:1. I Peter 2:4. I Tim. 4:10. I John 2:1. Rom. 5:8.

Num. 14:1. Num. 16:30. I Sam. 8:7. I Sam. 10:19. Proverbs 1:22. Matt. 23:37. Acts 7:51. 2 Peter 1:10. Heb. 11:5. Rom. 16.25.

Deut. 30:11. Deut. 30:15. John 14:15. John 15:7. Rom. 2:10. I Cor. 9:24. I Tim. 6:12. 2 Tim. 2:21. I John 5:1.

Page 76 of 98

Matt. 10:5.

Matt. 15:22.

Eph. 1: 2.

John 12:46.

Acts 10:34, 43.

Rom 10:11.

I Tim. 2:3.

Rom. 8:32.

Rom. 10:8.

Eph. 3:4.

Individual

faith is required for salvation.

God desires for the redemp-tion of all mankind.

Rom. 1:18.

Rom. 3:21. Rom. 6:17. Rom. 12:3. John 1:9. Acts 10:1. Acts 11:1, 17. Acts 13:42.

I Tim. 2:3. I Tim. 4: 10. 2 Peter 3:9. John 3:16. I John 2:2. I John 4:14. John 3:17.

Page 77 of 98

Mark 16:16. John 20:31. Acts 16:31. Rom. 10:9. I John 3:23. I John 5:13. Isaiah 45:22. Mark 1:15. Acts 17:30. Rev. 22:17. Matt. 11:28. John 7:37. John 3:36. Matt. 9:2, 22, 29. Matt. 15:28. Mark 2:5. Mark 5:34. Mark 10:52. Luke 7:50. Luke 8:48. Luke 17:19. Luke 18:42.

John 4:41. Isaiah 53:6. Ezekiel 33:11. Heb. 2:9. Heb. 10:10. 2 John 1:9.

Page 78 of 98

John 6:39b. Rom. 1:8. 2 Cor. 1:23. I Peter 1:6. Rev. 14:12. I John 5:5. Acts 15:11. Acts 16:31. Rom. 1:16. Rom. 3:21. Rom. 9:33. Rom. 10:9. Gal. 2:16. Gal. 3:22. Eph. 1:13. I Thess. 4:14. 2 Thess. 1:10. Matt. 8: 8. Matt. 32:37. Luke 8:12. John 5:40. I Thess.

Page 79 of 98

2:16. Isaiah 59:1. John 3:36. John 8:24. John 14:6. I Tim. 2:5.

D. Historical materials.

1). The election-redemption argument between Augustine (354-430 A.D.) and Pelagius (c.354 - after 418 A.D.).

A). The nature of man.

i. Augustine said it was “sinful.”

ii. Pelagius said it was “neutral.”

B). The nature of grace.

i. Pelagius said it was “resistible.”

ii. Augustine said it was “irresistible.”

C). The nature of the freedom of man in choosing good or evil.

i. Augustine said man has the freedom “to choose only evil” but

not good.

ii. Pelagius said man has the freedom to “choose good or evil.”

Page 80 of 98

2). The T U L I P Argument of election-redemption between “John Calvin”

(July 10, 1509 – May 27, 1564) and “Jacobus Arminius” (October 10, 1560 – October 19, 1609).

A). The basis of the T U L I P argument was built on the “Lapsarianism”

argument of the “fall of man.”

i. Etymology – “Lapsarianism” comes from the Latin word “lapsus” which means “fall.”

ii. The “lapsus doctrine.

a. “Lapsarianism.”

i). Very strong view of the Roman Catholic Church

at the time of Calvin and Arminius and adopted by Calvin.

ii). “Lapsarianism” is the set of Calvinist doctrines in

describing the theoretical order of God's decree (in

Page 81 of 98

his mind, before Creation), in particular concerning the order of his decree for the fall of man and reprobation.

b. “Supralapsarianism.”

i). Also called “antelapsarianism.”

ii). God first decided to save those in whom He was

going to save by the cross.

iii). This view also claims God's decrees of election and reprobation logically preceded the decree of the fall.

iv). This view stresses the freedom of man over

destiny in God’s eyes.

c. “Sublapsarianism.”

i). God would allow all to fall and save only those who are elected.

ii). This asserts that God's decrees of election and

reprobation logically succeeded the decree of the fall so that God would allow all to fall and then save only the elect.

iii). Limited atonement is a rational necessity in

Calvinism.

iv). Summary.

aa. Elect some, reprobate rest.

ba. Create

ca. Permit Fall

da. Provide salvation for elect

ea. Call elect to salvation

d. “Infralapsarianism.”

i). This is also called “postlapsarianism.”

Page 82 of 98

ii). The fall and election are inseparably bound and

cannot be separated for purposes of discussion.

iii). Summary.

aa. Create.

ba. Permit Fall.

ca. Elect some, pass over the rest.

da. Provide salvation for elect.

ea. Call elect to salvation

B). The T U L I P argument of John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius.

Page 83 of 98

C). T = -Total depravity.

a. What is the meaning of total depravity and what are the

Scriptures that were used in the argument?

i). The meaning - although a vestige of natural light remains within fallen humanity, human nature is so corrupt that the light cannot be used.

ii). Scriptures that were used in the argument of the

total depravity of men that was between Calvin and Arminius..

aa. “The unregenerate (unsaved) man is dead

in his sins” (Romans 5:12).

ba. “Without the power of the Holy Spirit, the natural man is blind and deaf to the message of the gospel” (Mark 4:11f).

ca. “The man without a knowledge of God

will never come to this knowledge without God's making him alive through Christ” (Ephesians 2:1-5). - by Jonathan Barlow.

da. “All mankind sinned in Adam and that all

men are without excuse” (Roman 2:1).

ea. “Before they received the Gospel they were separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Ephesians 2:12).

fa. This is why Total Depravity has also been

called "Total Inability.”

b. What Calvin and Arminius had to say about the meaning of the total depravity of men:

i). Calvin agreed with the view of the total depravity of man.

Page 84 of 98

ii). Arminius agreed with the view of the total depravity of man.

ii. U = -Unconditional election.

a. What is the meaning of unconditional election and what

are the Scriptures that were used in the argument?

i). The meaning - the election of the saved is based not on God's foreknowledge of human response but only on the inscrutable will of God.

ii). Scriptures that were used in the argument of

unconditional election that was between Calvin and Arminius.

aa. “Blessed be the God and Father of our

Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will” (Eph. 1:3-5).

ba. “For whom He foreknew, He also

predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Romans 8:29).

b. What Calvin and Arminius had to say about the meaning

of unconditional election:

i). Calvin believed in unconditional election.

ii). Arminius believed in an election which was conditioned by one’s reception of it.

iii. L = -Limited atonement.

a. What is the meaning of limited atonement and what are

the Scriptures that were used in the argument?

Page 85 of 98

i). The meaning - Christ did not die for all humanity, but only for the elect, meaning those who are saved.

ii). Scriptures that were used in the argument of

limited atonement that was between Calvin and Arminius.

aa. “Who will have all men to be saved, and to

come unto the knowledge of truth” (I Timothy 2:4).

ba. “For God so loved the world that He gave

His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

b. What Calvin and Arminius had to say about limited

atonement:

i). Calvin believed in limited atonement.

aa. This view questions the relation of time with eternity.

ba. This view calls into question of God’s

knowledge and our own knowledge.

ca. God does not think in the same way bt which we think.

ii). Arminius believed in universal atonement.

iv. I = -Irresistible grace.

a. What is the meaning of irresistible grace and what are the

Scriptures that were used in the argument?

i). The meaning - God's grace cannot be refused, for it is greater than human sin.

ii). Scriptures that were used in the argument of

irresistible grace that was between Calvin and Arminius.

Page 86 of 98

aa. The Godhead, all members of the Holy Trinity the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit work together in perfect harmony to initiate, effect, and complete the salvation of sinners. God the Father did from eternity past choose those that he would give to God the Son (cf. Eph. 1:45; John 17:2).

ba. In the fullness of the time God the Son

came into the world and earned their redemption (cf. Gal. 4:45).

ca. There remains the work of God the Holy

Spirit to give life to dead sinners and apply the benefits of Christ’s perfect obedience, his propitiatory death and his resurrection (cf. John 3:68; 6:63-65).

b. What Calvin and Arminius had to say about irresistible

grace:

i). Calvin said grace was irresistible.

ii). Arminius said grace was resistible.

v. P = -Perseverance of the saints.

a. What is the meaning of perseverance of the saints and what are the Scriptures that were used in the argument?

i). The meaning - the elect cannot fall from grace, or choose not to be saved.

ii). Scriptures that were used in the argument of

perseverance of the saints that was between Calvin and Arminius.

aa. Whom he did foreknow, he also did

predestinate (Romans 3:17).

ba. And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from Me (Jeremiah 32:40).

Page 87 of 98

ca. My Sheep never perish, and none shall

pluck them out of my hand (Jn.10.27 ff).

da. The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are his.' Christ himself implies that it is not possible to deceive his elect (2 Tim. 2:19).

ea. Believers are kept by the power of God

through faith unto salvation (1 Peter I. 5).

fa. The Sow that was washed returns to her wallowing in the mire.' She is a sow still in her nature, though with the outer surface washed, but never changed into a lamb; for if she had been, she would never have chosen the mire (2 Peter 2.22).

b. What Calvin and Arminius had to say about perseverance

of the saints:

i). Calvin believed in the perseverance of the saints.

ii). Arminius did not believe in the perseverance of the saints.

iii). It is said by some scholars that Arminius and

Calvin literally had physical altercations over this phase of the debate but it cannot be proven beyond doubt.

3). The mainstream Southern Baptist Denomination changed the T U L I P

argument into T A P.

A). Southern Baptists that came from the Radical Reformers the Anabaptist (from Latin word anabaptista, meaning one who baptizes over again) in the sixteenth century changed the structure of the argument of Calvin and Arminius from T U L I P to T A P.

B). Southern Baptists are the largest Baptist denomination in the world.

C). It is also the second largest Christian denomination after the Catholic

Church and is the largest Protestant denomination in the world.

Page 88 of 98

D). The word Southern in Southern Baptist stems from its founding in the Southern United States in which the Southern Baptist Convention became a separate denomination in 1845 in Augusta, Georgia, following a split with Northern Baptists over the issue of slavery.

E). T = Total depravity - this Denomination agrees with and holds onto Calvin and Arminius total depravity of man view.

F). A = Atonement (Universal) – this Denomination agrees with and

holds onto Arminius’s view of a universal atonement and rejects Calvin’s view of a limited atonement..

G). P = Perseverance of the saints.

i. This Denomination agrees with and holds onto Calvin’s

position in which the saints are persevered or kept from falling away from belief in Christ.

ii. Once you have been saved by grace then you cannot fall back

into unbelief.

4). Karl Barth’s Christocentric view of election-redemption. (See Barth “Church Dogmatics,” II/2).

Page 89 of 98

A). Everything of God including man’s election-redemption or damnation focused on or centered in Jesus Christ and nothing was outside of Christ.

i. Both the sovereignty of God and the freedom of man are

sacrificed for the Christ event of the incarnation that overwhelms all else.

ii. God chose each person to either be saved or damned based on

purposes of the Divine will, and it was impossible to know why God chose some and not others.

iii. Barth's doctrine of election involves a firm rejection of the notion of an eternal, hidden decree.

iv. In keeping with his Christo-centric methodology, Barth argues

that to ascribe the salvation or damnation of humanity to an abstract absolute decree is to make some part of God more final and definitive than God's saving act in Jesus Christ.

a. God's absolute decree, if one may speak of such a thing,

is God's gracious decision to be for humanity in the person of Jesus Christ.

Page 90 of 98

b. Drawing from the earlier Reformed tradition, Barth retains the notion of double predestination but makes Jesus himself the object of both divine election and reprobation simultaneously.

c. Jesus embodies both God's election of humanity and God's rejection of human sin.

B). Some regard this revision of the doctrine of election as an improvement on the Augustinian-Calvinist doctrine of the predestination of individuals.

C). Critics, namely Brunner have charged that Barth's view amounts to a

soft universalism.

5). Followers of Calvin created the doctrine that has come to be known as “Calvinism.”

A). This doctrine centers on the tension between the sovereignty of God and the freedom of man.

i. Calvin held onto the belief in which the sovereignty of God is

larger than and has a priority over the freedom of man.

Page 91 of 98

ii. Therefore man’s freedom ios overwhelmed by God’s sovereignty.

B). The will of God is the supreme and first cause of all things, because

nothing happens but by his command or permission.

C). And in his extensive tract on “The Eternal Predestination of God”, dedicated on January 1, 1552, Calvin says to the same effect that the hand of God no less rules the internal affections than it precedes the external acts, and that God does not perform by the hand of men those things which he has decreed without first working in their hearts the very will which precedes their acts.

6). Humanism’s view of election-redemption.

A). God is nothing in comparison to man because God does not exist or if He does exist, then He is ineffectual and powerless over human achievement.

B). Thus, the sovereignty of man is larger than and has priority over any

freedom with which God may possess.

C). Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life.

Page 92 of 98

i. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism.

ii. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms,

ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows in order to for man to effectively function in the modern world.

7). Christian synergism view of election-redemption – The Best View.

A). The argument of Christian synergism.

i. God has one vote.

ii. The Devil has one vote.

iii. And man has the final vote or the final decision of choosing to whom he will serve and obey.

B). This view is in the belief that God gives divine grace to man prior to

or preceding man’s decision for or against God.

Page 93 of 98

i. This is called prevenient grace and exists prior to and without reference to anything with which humans may have done.

ii. As humans are corrupted by the effects of sin, prevenient grace

allows persons to engage their God-given free will to choose the salvation that is offered by God in Jesus Christ or to reject that salvific offer.

iii. After man accepts God’s gift of grace by prevenient grace, then

God gives actual grace to save man.

C). Therefore, man’s freedom is protected and God’s salvation of man rests solely in Christ’s hands and is not of man.

E. A practical illustration and reconstruction of election-redemption.

1). The Biblical norms affirm the world is made up of two separate and distinct

classes or camps of people.

A). The first camps of people are those with whom God knows are sensitive to Him.

B). The second camps of people are those with whom God knows are

insensitive to Him.

2). So the question is, “How does God reach the whole world while knowing there are the sensitive and the insensitive with whom He must deal?”

A). God first goes to the sensitive and causes them to fall in love with

Him so that He can make them to be fitting and capable by and with God’s moral character to historically demonstrate God’s love and beauty in the world of the insensitive.

B). The historical demonstration of God’s moral character that is

expressed in and by the sensitive of the Church within the community of the insensitive is how God is able to break down barriers of the insensitive and cause them to see and ponder about the grace and of love of God for them.

C). “By their fruits ye shall know you” (Matt. 7:16).

3). Therefore, God does not leave out the gift of His grace and love for the

insensitive.

4). The Church has been invited by God to be partners with Him in the reclamation and redemption of all things that have been torn asunder by sin

Page 94 of 98

and to be a servant with Him in bringing to fulfillment and a close of the purposes of God for all creation of the insensitive and sensitive.

5). In order for God to get from point A to point B within the historical realm,

God has to start with a particular something or someone who is sensitive to Him in order for Him to reach the larger goal of His plan for the insensitive.

A). In the Old Testament God starts with the particular sensitive person of

Abraham in whom He molds him from out of the furnace to turn him into a blessing for the rest of the world who is insensitive to God.

B). In the New Testament God starts with the individual sensitive

disciples of Jesus in whom each one is molded into Godlikeness so that he is made to be capable and fitting of going out into the “world of the insensitive to bear witness of Him.

C). And through God’s election-redemption of the select few of the

sensitive, millions of” the insensitive have come to know God and His love.

i. This view of election-redemption is ethical in its content and

redemptive in its goal.

ii. This view of election-redemption is what God has willed from out of His grace and love for all those of the sensitive and the insensitive world.

6). This view preserves God’s sovereignty and His foreknowledge without

having to violate man’s freedom and will.

F. Theological reconstruction.

1). Election-redemption is both corporate and individual.

A). It is corporate because God elects all men through the elect-one. His Son Jesus Christ.

i. Corporate election "refers to God choosing a people in Christ in

whom He destines to be holy and blameless in His sight."

ii. Put another way, "Election is the corporate choice of the Church 'in Christ.'"

iii. The central idea in the election of the church may be seen from

Ephesians 1:4 - "For he [God] chose us [the Church] in him

Page 95 of 98

[Christ], before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight."

a. Here Paul states that God chose Christians in Christ before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

b. The "chosen ones" designate the corporate group to

whom Paul writes with himself (and presumably all Christians) included: God chose us.

c. The focus is not on the selection of individuals, but the

group of those chosen - He chose us (i.e. Christians as a body, v. 3) for Himself from out of the world."

d. Paul specifies the timing of this choice—it was pre-

temporal, before the world was created. God made the choice "in Him" (that is, "in Christ").

e. In other words, Christ is the principal elected one and

God has chosen a corporate body to be included in him.

B). It is individual because God must start with something that is small in nature in order to get anywhere on a larger scale.

i. Individual election refers to God's unconditionally choosing in

eternity past specific individuals to receive saving grace.

ii. God starts with the election-redemption of Abraham and then the nation of Israel who were to be God’s servants to and a blessing for the rest of the nations.

iii. God also starts with the election-redemption of the individual

Disciples of Christ and then the Church to bear witness of God’s love to the rest of the world.

C). God starts small on the world’s stage of history and enlarges His

redemption to the rest of the world through the least likely of His creatures.

2). The definition of election-redemption is God’s ability alone to cause broken

men to fall in love with Him and His redemptive purposes for His creation so that they are made to be fitting and able to carry out God’s plan of the ages for all that He has made.

Page 96 of 98

3). God has apparently chosen to do His redemptive work through specific historical means.

A). Throughout His choices that have been executed within history by

Him, God has experienced suffering, privilege, service, and sacrifice.

i. Through the Suffering Servanthood of God, the Church and Israel are called upon to take the yoke which God has taken and bear its glory, its suffering, and its responsibilities.

ii. When Israel or the Church forgets the Suffering Servant role by which they are to bear, they give a negative witness of God to the world and turn their election-redemption into a favoritism that renounces responsibility.

B). Jesus Christ is the elect-one and our election is in Him.

i. Election is both corporate representation of all people who are

from every period of time and individual responsibility that falls onto the individuals of the Church.

ii. Because Christ is the elect-one, He carries two responsibilities

with regard to the elect.

a. Christ is the corporate” representative of the whole human race which came from out of the seed of Adam.

b. Christ is also the individual representative of every

individual person that has been spawned from out of the Church at Pentecost to being elected in Him.

4). The paradox of election-redemption is best illustrated in two biblical

thoughts of the outer and inner door.

A). On the outer door there is written in large letters, “Come unto me all ye who are heavy-laden and I will give you rest.”

B). When the weary traveler does read the sign and enters through the

doorway he is met by another message of even larger letters, “You have not chosen me but I have chosen you.”

5). The execution of election-redemption by God is in His paradoxical dealings

with Jesus Christ.

A). Questions and answers.

Page 97 of 98

i. Question 1 – Who did God choose?

ii. Answer – Jesus Christ His Son who bears both the “yes” (acceptance) and “no” (rejection) of people’s choices of Him.

iii. Question - How have we who have been redeemed been elected?

iv. Answer 2 – As we are in Christ.

B). We who have been redeemed were given a “prevenient grace” that

allowed us to reverse our ways before “actual grace” was bestowed onto us by God.

i. “Prevenient grace” or “preceding grace” is divine grace which

precedes human decision and precedes God’s final gift of grace which saves us.

ii. As humans are corrupted by the effects of sin, prevenient grace

allows persons to engage their God-given free will to choose the salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ and through His Spirit or to reject that salvific offer.

iii. Prevenient grace enables but does not ensure, personal

acceptance of the gift of salvation.

C). Christ alone is God’s elect-one who bears all men’s rejection and acceptance of Him.

i. The Jews and the synagogue are the inevitable and historical

parables and symbols of rejection.

ii. The good news is Jesus Christ is the corporate representative of all men of every period of time in their acceptance and rejection of Him.

iii. However, the grace of God makes Christ’s corporate acceptance

of men to be greater than man’s rejection of Him.

iv. Because man’s corporate responsibility of acceptance of God is greater than the corporate responsibility of man’s rejection of God, our actual acceptance of His grace is easily made toward Him.

D). Christ is God’s primary elect-one and our salvation is in Him.

Page 98 of 98

i. The weight of original sin that is in us is counterbalanced by the “prevenient” or “preceding grace” of God’s Spirit who bears witness to the Word and enables us to consciously choose Christ and to be saved by His “actual” and “true grace.”

ii. Scriptures used to support the doctrine include (NT quotes from

Wesley's translation, unless noted):

a. Jeremiah 1:5 (ESV): "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you..."

b. Jeremiah 31:3 (KJV): "...I have loved thee with an

everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee."

c. Ezekiel 34:11, 16 (ESV): "For thus says the Lord GOD:

Behold, I, I myself will search for my sheep and will seek them out...I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed, and I will bind up the injured, and I will strengthen the weak..."

d. Luke 19:10: "For the Son of Man is come to seek and to

save that which was lost."

e. John 6:44: "No man can come unto me, unless the Father who hath sent me, draw him..."

f. John 12:32: "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will

draw all peoples to Myself.”

g. Romans 2:4: "...the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance..."

h. Philippians 2:12-13: "...work out your own salvation with

fear and trembling. For it is God that worketh in you according to his good pleasure, both to will and to do."

i. 1 John 4:19: "We love him, because he first loved us."

j. Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation

has appeared to all men."