Introduction
Systematic theology, though having once fallen on hard times in both the evangelical church and in the academy (for different reasons in each group), is now making a comeback. It should, for it is both possible and necessary. Systematic theology, then, for our purposes, is the study of all facts about God and his work, from any and every source, but revealed primarily in the Bible, and brought together in a coherent and inter-related manner in order to instruct, encourage and guide the saints in godliness. There are several reasons for studying, organizing, and presenting the major teachings of Scripture.


Here are two:

For the development of one's own understanding of God, truth, and the Christian faith. Peter admonishes us to grow in the knowledge (not just cognitive, but at least including that) of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Peter 3:18). In this way you will promote truth, avoid errors, and give yourself great opportunity to live an ethical and holy life. In short, the goal is that we live a life honoring to the Lord, worshiping him in truth (John 4:24), serving his church properly and in truth (Eph 4:15), and finding ourselves salt and light to our fellowman (Matt 5:16; Rom 13:8).
For explaining, defending, and applying Biblical truth in a non-Christian context. Again Peter tells us to always be ready to give an answer for the reason for the hope which is in you (1 Peter 3:15). How much better if the answer is thought through and really reflects a balanced summary of biblical teaching!



An Overview of the Major Areas of Christian Belief.

Bibliology: The Bible.
The term Bibliology (from Greek biblos meaning book) refers to the study of the nature of the Bible as revelation. It often includes such topics as revelation, inspiration, inerrancy, canonicity, illumination, and interpretation.



Revelation
We use the term revelation to translate the Greek term ajpokavluyi" apokalupsis, which means to unveil or uncover. Biblically speaking, revelation is the act and process whereby God makes Himself known to men and angels. This he has done through miracles, visions, dreams, theophanies, providential control of history, conscience, Jesus Christ, and Scripture. Theologians have spoken of general revelation through nature (i.e., the created order), conscience, and providentially orchestrated history and special or particular revelation primarily in Christ and Scripture (Ps 19:1-6; Rom 1:18-20; 2:14-16; Acts 17:24-34; John 1:14-18). Thus general revelation is equally available to all men at all times and while it alone cannot save, it is nonetheless both essential and preparatory to special revelation.



Inspiration
Inspiration is the theological word, derived from the Latin term spiro, used to refer to the process whereby God superintended the human authors of scripture so that what they wrote was simultaneously their own words as well the Word of God himself; God breathed out his words through the words (using the minds and personalities) of his spokespeople.
Thus, through Spirit-inspired writings God has preserved an historical/theological record of his words and deeds and has given it to his covenant people as a means of grace that they might trust him fully and obey him implicitly. As a result of our sinfulness and finiteness we stand in need of such divine guidance and wisdom; scripture was inspired to that end.
Inspiration, however, is not limited to mechanical dictation (indeed, very little of it can be said to be mechanical in any way), as we might have, say, in the receiving of the Ten Commandments (or the letters to the churches in Revelation 2-3), but rather occurred in a variety of situations involving the writers as whole people (their minds, emotions, wills, etc.) in their own particular life situations (linguistic, religious, political, economic, etc.).
The end product, however, was always God's Word to man through man (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20-21) and carries his full weight and authority. Technically speaking, inspiration applies to the autographa (not copies or translations).
Some theologians have referred to the verbal (extending to the actual words, not just concepts), plenary (the entire Bible, not only those parts that seem to speak directly to issues of faith and practice) inspiration of Scripture.

In our opinion, this is the view that....
(1)best corresponds to the view of OT writers, the prophets, Christ himself and his apostles, and

(2) best represents the historic position/understanding of the church on this issue. Since the Enlightenment in France and Germany (17th/18th centuries), however, it has been fashionable to deny the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture in light of apparent historical inaccuracies and philosophical objections, particularly with the existence and nature of God as well as the limitations of language. But, while we can learn much from these views, we may safely set aside their antisupernaturalistic prejudices as both unfounded and contrary to the teaching of Jesus who himself strongly upheld the complete trustworthiness of Scripture without reserve.
(e.g., Matt 5:17-20).



Inerrancy
Inerrancy, although not always properly defined, is a logical corollary to inspiration and in no way diminishes the human authorship of scripture. If what the authors of Scripture penned was indeed under the supernatural influence and guidance of the Holy Spirit (as is properly affirmed), then since God is true, what they wrote and affirmed is in all ways true as well. Thus inerrancy applies to the autographa and Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic copies insofar as they faithfully reproduce the autographa. The doctrine rightly teaches that the scriptures are without error in all that they affirm (i.e., properly interpreted), whether they refer to geographical, historical, or theological issues. Thus the scriptures are the final authority in matters of faith and practice and take precedence over tradition, culture, and creed. This doctrine also allows for different literary styles, poor grammar, approximations in numbers, etc. (Psalm 119).



Canonicity
The sixty-six books of scripture constitute the Prostestant canon in that they provide God's rule for faith and life. The process of canonicity involves the church's recognition of the divine origin and authority of the sixty-six books of scripture. She, as the redeemed community, constituted of those who have genuine faith in Jesus Christ, is qualified for this task.
It is important to note, however, that she did not determine which books were canonical, but only recognized those books which were canonical; scripture is self-authenticating. In the case of the Old Testament, generally speaking, she received it as the authoritative Bible of her Lord and his apostles, i.e., the prophetic message of God which was now fulfilled in and through Christ.
In the case of the New Testament, the church, by applying varying tests such as apostolicity (was it written by an apostle or authenticated by an apostle?), universality (was it widely read and accepted?), and character (sufficiently spiritual, directed at godliness, doctrinal content in agreement with other apostles) recognized which books were from the Lord and which were not, though the process was by no means finalized by the end of the first century. In AD 367, in the 39th Easter Letter of Athanasius, we find a list of the 27 books of the NT we have today.
This list was accepted by the churches east of the Mediterranean while churches in the west came to accept the same list some 30 years later, in AD 397, at the Council of Carthage.
There are undoubtedly many reasons which prompted early Christians to preserve the writings of the apostles, but perhaps the passing away of the apostles as well as the development of heresies (e.g., Marcion) and doctrinal disputes, were two of the most significant, negatively viewed.
Also, the Diocletian persecution (AD 303-11), in which Christians were tortured, their property taken, and their sacred books destroyed by fire, undoubtedly helped to move the church along in its recognition of which books were sacred (i.e., inspired) and which were not. That is, there arose the need to know which books to copy and preserve in light of the possibility that the state continue to try and destroy the faith.
The extent of the canon has been in some question among Protestants and Catholics since the addition of the Apocrypha at the Council of Trent (AD 1545-63). Anyone who has read these books will find them spiritually encouraging, much the same as reading great Christian literature, but they should not be regarded as on par with the 66 books, a fact which is recognized even by the Catholic church in its reference to them as deuterocanonical.



Illumination
Illumination refers to the work of the Spirit in the believer/believing community enabling him/her/them to understand, welcome, and apply inscripturated truth (cf. 1 Cor 2:9-14). For our part, we are to follow sound methods of interpretation in keeping with the nature of Scripture and generally accepted principles for understanding written communication. Further, we are, by faith in Christ, to put into practice that which the Scripture teaches us, lest we become blinded by our accumulated ignorance (James 1:21-22) and progressively blurred in our comprehension of spiritual realities.
In this way illumination increases and our grip on the truth strengthens (or perhaps its grip on us!). See also the next section, entitled, Interpretation.



Interpretation
If Illumination is the work of the Spirit to help believers understand and apply Scripture, interpretation, broadly conceived, is the thought-through method we should follow in this endeavor. Interpretation involves, then, three elements:

(1) coming to scripture humbly with a knowledge of my presuppositions, traditions, and cultural influences so as not to blunt or skew the force of scripture (but rather to allow it to leave its mark on me);

(2) understanding what an author meant when he said such and such, and

(3)understanding what he means, that is, how it applies to our lives today. Thus, in the first step we are interested in gaining an awareness of how our culture, tradition, and past acquaintance with Scripture has affected us. In the second step we are interested in the grammatical-historical meaning of a passage of Scripture. In order to achieve this we study the words of a text in their historical context, the literary structure of a passage, its mood, and the kind (genre) of literature it is.
Combined with this is the comparing of scripture with scripture (e.g., interpreting the obscure by the clear) and ultimately the teaching of the Bible as a whole. In this way, and through the illuminating work of the Spirit, the church comes to grips with the meaning and abiding relevance of Scripture.
But this is only half the job. Moses did not write Deuteronomy and Paul did not pen Philippians simply to be understood (i.e., between one's ears). Rather, they wrote to save, guide, instruct, and orient other believers to God's will. In short, their writings call for a response and this involves first letting the Bible speak to me; convicting, educating, encouraging, and showing me where to go.
I must bring my presuppositions and patterns of life to the passage and allow it to judge and straighten. Then I must allow the Scriptureas the very voice of God himselfto speak to my community and the larger world-context in which I live. The Lordship of Christ extends to the entire universe! And we must remember that his word is a primary way in which he expresses his grace oriented, kingly rule over us.



Trinitarianism or Theology Proper
Trinitarianism refers to the study of the triune God. It often includes such topics as rational arguments for the existence of God, the attributes of God, the Names of God, the trinity, and the decree or plan of God.



Rational Arguments for the Existence of God
It needs to be said up front that the Bible nowhere argues for the existence of God in the way envisioned in these proofs. The overwhelming orientation of the Biblical writers is to assume that God exists and move on from there. Also, the strength of these arguments has been variously debated; some people find them helpful and generally convincing, especially when taken together, while others are not the least bit convinced. It is doubtful whether there is any necessary logical fault involved in denying any one of their premises or assertions since in many cases opponents are simply beginning with a different set of axioms.
Further, there are many variations (i.e., more than one cosmological argument) of the arguments listed here. One should consult a textbook on the philosophy of religion for further discussion. Also, one should note that these arguments have been criticized by more than atheists. Many Christians have wondered out loud about their efficacy, value, soundness, and importance.
The following is simply an introduction.



The Argument from Creation
The argument from creation, or otherwise known as the cosmological argument states, in its most basic form, that everything we know in creation or in the universe has a cause (i.e., is contingent). But there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. Therefore, the universe itself has an uncaused cause and this Cause is God. In one form or another this argument has been advanced by Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Leibniz and in recent years by Richard Swinburne. One potential defeater of this argument is the denial that one must look outside creation for a cause; creation might simply have always existed.
But some take issue with this rebuttal arguing that such a response is in reality a copout since it does not explain why the universe of created, apparently contingent beings continues to exist. Also, it seems to be question-begging to ex cathedra postulate an infinite series of causes when such an argument is logically trivial and according to many philosophers and physicists, absurd. An infinite series of causes is an intellectual copout, they argue, and violates the principle of sufficient reason.



The Argument from Design
The argument from design, or otherwise known as the teleological argument observes the harmony, order, and design of things within creation. It then argues that such design and order implies purpose and, therefore, there must be an intelligent Designer and that Designer must be God. This argument too has been advanced since Greek philosophy and was propounded by Aquinas as his Fifth Way, William Paley, and also by Swinburne in recent times. One potential defeater of this argument is the apparent randomness of certain things and events in creation and the apparent lack of design.
The problem of the quantity of evil would fit in here as well. Proponents of the design argument often suggest that there do appear to be random events, and so on, but this still does not detract from the overwhelming sense of design we experience. If design were not so, it is doubtful that human beings could or would have survived even this long.



The Argument from Being
Anslem's argument from being, or otherwise referred to as the ontological argument, claims that God is that than which nothing greater can be thought. Since existence is a necessary property of the most perfect being, he must actually exist, since if he did not, he would not be the most perfect being one could think of. One potential defeater of this argument is the claim that it entails the notion of God in its premises. It, therefore, assumes what it is trying to prove. It begs the question, as some would say.



The Argument from Morality
The argument from morality argues from the fact of morality, not the existence of what appear to be varied moralities. It states that the fact of conscience and morality indicate that there must be a moral Law-Giver. One potential defeater of this argument is the claim that morality is an evolutionary phenomenon and one does not need to postulate God in order to account for its existence.
Others attempt as well to argue that there are many different moralities, a fact they claim does not lead one to the conviction that there is just one God, as theism argues. Proponents of the argument from morality point out that the evolutionist cannot have it both ways. The mechanism for evolution is generally taken to be some form of survival of the fittest. If, then, morality were a evolutionary phenomenon, one would not expect human beings to care for the aged, to help the sick, to create, fund, and advance hospitals and medical research. But we do, and we find ourselves with a sense of guilt when we do otherwise.

Also, it is by no means certain that there are many different moralities among human beings on the planet. In fact, the overwhelming data from sociologists is that in terms of basic morality about murder, stealing, lying, etc. humans are for the most part very similar. This does not mean that lying is sometimes honored; it means that it cannot be practiced consistently and universally in any one culture without that culture ceasing to function.



The Attributes of God
The attributes of God refer to those qualities or properties that set him apart as God and by which we recognize him as such. Theologians have tended to distinguish his attributes in terms of those that he alone possesses and those which he shares in a derivative and finite sense with his creation. Thus they refer to Absolute and Relative, Immanent and Transitive, and the most popular division among Reformed theologians, Incommunicable and Communicable attributes. Generally listed in the Incommunicable list are: Self -existence, immutability, infinity, and unity. Attributes listed under the heading of communicable include: spirituality, intellectual, and moral attributes, as well as attributes of sovereignty and power.



The Names of God
God has revealed himself in many ways throughout history, now recorded for us in Scripturea living, inspired record of his disclosures about who he is, his purposes, plan, character and will. On many occasions he has given us a name by which he has unveiled his nature and by which we are subsequently to understand him.

Some of these names include:

Yahweh (the self-existent one);

Yahweh Shalom (Yahweh is peace);

Yahweh Maccaddeshem (Yahweh your sanctifier);

Yahweh Raah (Yahweh is my shepherd);

Yahweh Shammah (Yahweh who is present);

Yahweh Rapha (Yahweh who heals);

Yahweh Elohim (Yahweh, the mighty one);

Adonai (Lord or Master);

Elohim (The mighty or majestic one);

El Olam (The mighty one, eternal);

El Elyon (The most high mighty one);

El Roi (The mighty one who sees);

El Shaddai (Almighty God);

Yeshua (Jesus; God saves);

Christos (Christ; Messiah, Anointed one);

Kurios (Lord);

Soter (Savior), Abba (Father),

and Theos (God).



The Trinity of God
The doctrine of the trinity is the affirmation based on the evidence of scripture that there is one God who exists eternally in three distinguishable persons, i.e., the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. A specific way of speaking about this phenomenon is to say that God is: one in essence/substance (homoousios), three in subsistence. The prominent contribution of the OT to trinitarianism, while providing what some consider to be evidence of the divinity of the Son and the Spirit, is to repeatedly affirm the unity of God, both numerically and qualitatively.
This unity is developed in the NT, however, in light of the coming and teaching of Christ, and shown to be more complex than had hitherto been known or understood. In the NT all three (i.e., the Father, Son and Spirit) are said to be divine, to do the works of God, and to be worshipped as God.
The Father is clearly divine in the NT. The Son is deity (John 1:1; Titus 2:13), yet constantly distinguishes himself from the Father and the Spirit.
And the Spirit is said to be God (Matt 28:19-20; Acts 5:3-5) and to be distinguished from the Father and the Son. Thus there is no room in the Biblical portrait for three gods (tritheism) or one God who manifests himself in three different modes (modalism). The Biblical portrait of God is that he is Trinitarian.



The Plan of God
The best statement of the plan of God or as is sometimes referred to as the decree of God, is that found in the Westminster Shorter Catechism: The decrees of God are his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. This doctrine can be seen in several places including most notably, Romans 9 and Ephesians 1:11: in whom we also were called, having been foreordained according to the plan of him who works out all things in conformity with the counsel of his will.
This is to be distinguished from God's will as understood from his commands and prohibitions which are clearly laid out in the Decalogue, expanded and applied by the prophets and brought to a Christocentric focus in the NT. The fall of man, then, was in the decree of God, but the command not to eat the fruit, was clearly specified by God and He is thus not the author of sin in any way.
Nothing more clearly teaches us that human beings have been endowed with a measure of genuine, responsible choice than sin.

Thus there is a mysterious relationship between what has happened in history (i.e., the outworking of the decree) and the moral imperatives we find in Scripture. This mystery can be seen most clearly in the quintessential event of the cross and its portrayal in sacred scripture (cf. Acts 2:22-24; 1 Peter 1:20).
The end result, of course, is a revelation of the glory of God (John 12:23-27)!
Jesus taught that his death was not an accident of history, but rather according to the foreordained or decreed plan of God. In Luke 22:22 he says: the son of man goes as it has been determined (ho„rismenon). Peter says, regarding the crucifixion and peoples' involvement in it, that Jesus was handed over to them by God's set purpose and foreknowledge (horismene boule kaiprognosei tou theou).

Yet in neither of these cases are the people and their actions minimized or the moral and spiritual consequences trivialized. Jesus says woe to the person who betrays him and Peter referred to the men as wicked (Acts 2:22-24). In sum, the early church implicated Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Jews, and Gentiles in this awful deed, claiming that they had done what God's hand and will determined beforehand should happen (he„ cheir sou kai he„ boule„ sou proorisen genesthai).
Again, see Acts 2:22-24. These texts tend to confirm the Augustian/Calvinistic doctrine that the decree of God is not identical with his foreknowledge; he knows the future because he has decreed whatsoever comes to pass.
The discussion of the order of the decrees has theological importance, but cannot be entertained at length here. Those who argue that God decreed first to create, then to permit the fall, then to save some and condemn others, to provide a redeemer, etc. are referred to as infralapsarians and would constitute most Calvinists.
Those who argue that God first decreed to save the elect and condemn the non-elect, and then to create the elect and non-elect, then to permit the fall and finally to provide a redeemer, are referred to as supralapsarians.



Christology:
Jesus Christ
The term christology (from Greek christos meaning anointed one or Christ) refers to the study of Christ. It often includes such topics as the preexistence and eternality of Christ, OT prophecies about Christ, Christ's humanity, deity, and incarnation, as well as the issue of his temptations and sinlessness, his death, resurrection, ascension and exaltation, return, three-fold office, and states.



The Preexistence of Christ There are several texts in the NT that speak in one way or another to the preexistence of Christ. John says the word became flesh which implies that he had existed previous to his incarnation (John 1:1, 14). Jesus himself suggests his preexistence in a number of texts. He said he had glory with the father before the world was (John 17:5) and that he had come from the father (John 5:43; 6:38).
These imply preexistence. Paul also, in referring to Christ as the last Adam, implies his preexistence since Jews often held that both Adam and Moses were preexistent. So also when he says that Christ was rich, but then became poor, that he was in the form of God, but humbled himself, that he was before all things (Col 1:17). Both these references refer to the humiliation of the incarnation and therefore suggest that Christ existed previous to his coming to earth (see 1 Cor 15:45; and Phil 2:6).



Prophecies About Christ

Taken in the light of the entire canon, the historical fact of the resurrection, and with a view to Jewish hermeneutics, there are many prophecies about Christ in the Old Testament.

Some of the familiar ones include:

His birth (Gen 3;15; Gal 4:4);

His lineage (Gen 49:10; Luke 3:33);

His place of birth (Micah 5:2; Luke 2:4-7);

His Galilean ministry of compassion and judgment (Isa 9:1-2; Matt 4:14-16);

that He was the prophet to come (Deut 18:15, 18-19; Acts 3:20, 22);

that He would function as a priest (Psalm 110:4; Heb 5:5-6);

His betrayal (Psalm 41:9; Luke 22:47-48);

His being sold for thirty pieces of silver (Zech 11:11-12; Matt 26:15; 27:1-10);

His violent death (Zech 12:10; John 20:27);

His resurrection (Psalm 16:10; Luke 24:7; Acts 2:25-28);

His exaltation to God's right hand (Psalm 110:1; Acts 2:33-34),

His eternal reign in fulfillment of Davidic promise
(2 Sam 7:12-16; Psalm 110:1; Isa 55:3; Acts 2:33-34; 13:22-23, 32-34).



The Humanity of Christ
There are several lines of evidence in the Scripture which converge to prove that from a Biblical point of view Jesus was truly and thoroughly human.
Jesus had human names (i.e., Jesus, Son of David), was experienced by others as....

a human being (John 9:16),

had a body (1 John 1:1),

spoke normal human language(s), referred to Himself as a man (John 8:40);

others referred to Him as a man (Acts 3:22);

experienced life as a human being (Luke 2:52),

including such limitations as hunger (Matt 4:2),

thirst (John 19:28),

tiredness (John 4:6),

intense sorrow and distress (John 11:35; Luke 13:34-35),

and ignorance (Mark 13:32);

He had a human soul (Luke 23:46),

and died (Hebrews 2:14-15).



The Deity of Christ
There are also several lines of evidence in Scripture which converge to prove that the Biblical writers regarded Jesus as human, but as more than human as well.

They considered Him divine.
John says He was divine or God (John 1:1).
Paul says he is the very form of God (morphetheou; Phil 2:6)
as well as our great God and savior (Titus 2:13).
He is referred to as Lord (Matt 2:43-45),
Yahweh (cf. Rom 10:9, 13 and Joel 2:32)
as well as the King of Kings (a designation a Jew such as John would only give God himselfRev 19:16).
He does the works of God, including creating (John 1:3; Col. 1:15-20),
sustaining (Heb 1:3-4),
saving (Matt 1:23),
raising the dead (John 5:25);
judging (John 5:27), sending the Spirit (a work assigned to the father as well; see John 14:26; 15:26),
and building his church (Matt 16:18).
He accepts, as God himself does, worship from all men (Matt 14:33)
and angels (Heb 1:6)
and some day all men will bow to him (something only God accepts; Phil 2:10, Isa 45:23).

So we see that the doctrine of the simultaneous deity and humanity of Christ is not the invention of some fourth or fifth century church council (e.g., Nicaea [AD325] or Chaledeon [451]), but is clearly taught in Scripture. The precise formulation (i.e., a working model) of how this could be so may have had to await a response to the Arian heresy and other Christological developments (and a borrowing of Greek metaphysical language), but the essential features of the doctrine are found in apostolic and early church confessions.



The Incarnation & Kenosis
Jesus Christ was born of the virgin Mary (Matt 1:23; Gal 4:4) in fulfillment of Isaiah's prediction (Isa 7:14).
From a more theological point of view, John says that the eternal and divine Word became flesh and that God thus tabernacled among us (John 1:1, 14; Exodus 40:34-35).
The doctrine of the incarnation means that the second person of the Trinity took on human flesh. Jesus Christ is both undiminished deity united with perfect humanity forever and without confusion of attributes. One person, two natures (divine/human).
God became a man in order to redeem his creation and rule over it. Thus he came to fulfill the Davidic covenant as the promised King (Luke 1:31-33).
In his role as Lord and King he reveals God to men (John 1:18); saves sinners (Gal 1:4),
destroys the works of the devil (1 John 3:8),
judges men (Acts 17:31) and brings all things in creation back in submission to God (1 Cor 15:20-28;
Ephesians 1:10-11).

There have been many errors regarding the dual nature of Christ. We will briefly mention some here. The Ebionites denied Christ's divine nature (he only received the Spirit at Baptism) as also the Arians (cf. present day Jehovah's witnesses who claim likewise that Jesus is the first and highest created being). The Gnostics (i.e., docetism), affirming that Jesus only appeared human, denied that he had a truly human nature.
Nestorius denied the union of the divine and human natures in one person (the divine completely controlled the human) and Eutychianism denied any real distinction in Christ's natures at all (the human nature was engulfed in the divine resulting in a new third nature). Finally, Appolinarius denied a facet of Jesus' humanity, namely, that he had a human spirit (the divine Logos took the place of Jesus' human spirit). These are all errors in light of the Biblical data and were rightly rejected at various church councils.

Finally, there have been many attempts to explain the meaning of the term kenosis in Philippians 2:7, especially since the mid to late 1800's and the rise of psychology. It has been argued that the term kenosis refers to Christ willingly laying aside certain essential attributes such as omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence in order to redeem man. This theology in its various forms has come to be known as Kenotic Theology. But is this what Paul is saying in Philippians 2:6, that Jesus gave up the use of or the possession of certain divine attributes?
This is not likely. In fact, the apostle explains what he means when he says that Christ emptied himself by taking on the nature of a servant. Thus it is not the setting aside of any divine attributes that is being sung about here in Phil 2, but rather the humiliation of the Son of God taking on human form and that of a servant. This, of course, is the point Paul is trying to make with those in the Philippian church. They too are to live the humble lives of servants, following Christ's example.



The Impeccability of Christ
In light of the true divinity and real humanity of Christ, the question arises as to whether his temptations were genuine and if it were really possible for him to have sinned. Was Christ able not to sin or not able to sin? Some say his genuine humanity includes the idea that he could have sinned. Others claim that his deity makes it impossible for him to have sinned. All evangelical scholars recognize the reality of his temptations and the fact that he did not sin, but beyond this there is not much agreement. The oft-quoted analogy of two boys attacking an aircraft carrier in their rubber dingy (using sticks and stones), where the sticks and stones represent temptation and the aircraft carrier Jesus, may go a long way in stressing Jesus' deity and impeccability, but it simply fails to catch the reality and intensity of the attacks which Satan thrust upon him (cf. Matthew 4:1-11).

The bottom line in connection with this debate, however, is that Jesus was both God and man, suffered temptation victoriously (Heb 4:15), and can therefore draw near to help us in time of weakness (Heb 2:18); his temptations have given us confidence in his sympathetic heart. Beyond that we cannot know much at all. We can say that no man has ever understood the strength, viciousness, and deceit of temptation better than him and this precisely because he never gave in.



Death of Christ
All four gospels record the death of Christ (under Pontius Pilate) which is interpreted in advance by Christ himself as a death for the forgiveness of sins, the establishment of the new covenant, and the defeat of Satan (Luke 22:15-20;John 12:31; 16:11).
The heart of Christ's teaching on this matter became the authoritative teaching of the apostles (in keeping with OT assertions to the same). We will talk more about the proper interpretation of the death of Christ when we discuss the doctrine of salvation. It is enough for now to realize that the evidence for his death by crucifixion is overwhelming.



The Resurrection of Christ
All four gospels record the empty tomb and the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (Matt 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20).
He appeared to Mary Magdalene (John 20:11-18),
to another Mary (Matt 28:1-2),
to Cephas (1 Cor 15:5),
to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35),
to James (1 Cor 15:7),
to ten disciples (Luke 24:36-43),
to Thomas and the other ten disciples (John 20:26-29),
to seven disciples at the Sea of Tiberias (John 21:1-14),
to more than 500 people (1 Cor 15:6),
to the eleven at his ascension (Matt 28:16-20; Acts 1:1-11),
and finally to Paul (1 Cor 15:8).
He appeared to the disciples over a course of about 40 days (Acts 1:3).

In recent times scholars have come to debunk most of the naturalistic theories (e.g., the swoon, hallucination) advanced to account for the resurrection and attending data. Virtually every scholar agrees that something happened, and most would agree that the resurrection is the watershed issue in a biblically defined Christianity.
The question that is posed most acutely, according to Gary Habermas, is whether the kerygma (the preached message of Christ's resurrection) itself is sufficient to account for the data or whether a literal resurrection plus the kerygma is necessary to account for the data. Habermas outlines the critical answers according to four scenarios, pointing out that this is a debate not just between evangelicals and higher critics, but also between the higher critics themselves.

First, there are those like Rudolph Bultmann who argue that the cause of the disciples' experience is not ascertainable; it is buried in the NT text.

Second, scholars like Karl Barth and Søren Kierkegaard argued that the resurrection was literal, but that it is not subject to study since it lies outside the realm of our experience of history. It must be accepted by faith alone.

The third group of scholars, including Jürgen Moltmann, argue for the literal empty tomb and a historical explanation for the disciples' change from grief to joy, but again the resurrection is an event that will only be finally vindicated/verified in the future.

Fourth, there are scholars who argue that the available historical evidence suggests that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. Wolfhart Pannenberg would be an example of this thinking, though he argues against a corporeal body in favor of a spiritual body which was recognized as Jesus and which spoke to the disciples before departing to heaven.

There is, however, no valid a prior reason for rejecting the resurrection as portrayed in scripture. It is usually one's theology of history that precludes whether resurrections happen or not. In any case, the empty tomb, the eyewitness testimony, the transformed lives of antagonists such as James and Paul, the existence of the church, the inability of the Jewish leaders to disprove the resurrection and the claims of the apostles, the early date and solid character of the claim to resurrection (1 Cor 15:3-4), as well as the solid character of surrounding evidence such as Jesus' existence, ministry, death by crucifixion, and burial.

The explanation which possesses the greatest explanatory power, is the most plausible (not ad hoc), and stands the greatest chance of not being finally overturned, is that Jesus of Nazareth was actually raised from the dead and appeared to many people. His body was a physical body fit for spiritual existence and was not subject any longer to death and limitations.

The theological interpretation of Christ's bodily resurrection includes the doctrine that it is central to the Christian life and hope (1 Cor 15),
that it demonstrates that he is the Son of God (Rom 1:4)
and that he will someday return to judge the entire world (Acts 17:31).
In the area of soteriology, the resurrection is the foundation of our regeneration and spiritual/ethical life...
(Rom 6:4-5; 1 Pet 1:2),
our justification (Rom 4:25; Eph 2:6),
our present ministry and work for the Lord (1 Cor 15:58),
our hope of glorification and our eternal communion with the Father, Son and Spirit (1 Cor 15:12-28).



The Ascension & Exaltation of Christ
In Luke 24:50-53 and Acts 1:11, Luke records for us the historical fact and nature of Jesus' ascension. The language seems to imply that Jesus ascended bodily to some place in the space-time continuum, but we are unable to see or know where.

Theologically, however, Luke has made it very clear as to what the ascension means. It was not just Jesus going somewhere. Indeed, his ascension led to his exaltation to the throne and his right to rule over creation, nations and the church.
He was exalted to the right hand of God (a place of power and authority) in keeping with Davidic hope........ (Psalm 110:1; Acts 2:34-35)
and currently reigns over the universe (Eph 1:20-22a)
and is head over all things pertaining to the church (Eph 1:22b-23; 1 Peter 3:22).
As divine founder, leader, captain, and goal of the church he has sent the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33) to endow her with life, love and power and will someday return to bring her to be where he is, and to subject all things in heaven and earth to his Lordship.
He has received, and continues to receive, glory, praise, and honor in light of who he is and what he has done (Rev 5:12).
Every knee should bow before God's Christ, the exalted Lord of the universe. Someday, all will (Phil 2:9)!



The Return of Christ
The Bible predicts that someday Jesus Christ will return, suddenly, bodily, and with great glory for all to see... (Matt 24:30; Rev 19:11ff).
At that time he will judge Satan and his angels, the living and the dead, and will establish his kingdom in its fullest sense. We will discuss the nature and timing of the rapture as well as the nature of the kingdom under Eschatology.



The States of Christ
It has been common among Reformed and other systematic theologians to speak of the two states of Christ:
(1) humiliation,
and
(2) exaltation.
Therefore, although we have covered some of the details already, we nonetheless survey them again in these terms. This will help to equip the student for further reading where these ideas will undoubtedly be discussed. Christ's humiliation refers to his...

(1) incarnation;
(2) suffering;
(3) death,
and
(4) burial.

His exaltation also contains four aspects:
(1) resurrection;
(2) ascension;
(3) session (his being seated at God's right hand, and
(4) return in glory.

The incarnation of the second person of the Trinity, while not involving the giving up of any divine attributes, entailed Christ's willing submission to the limitations and weaknesses of humanity, being actually found as a servant among men. His suffering in terms of spiritual hardship, physical deprivation, and emotional pain are all part of his sufferings in humiliation.

Jesus' humiliation was furthered heightened by the enormous suffering of an unjust, cruel, and ignoble death, bearing the sin of a cursed humanity on a cross. Though he probably did not descend into Hell, he nonetheless was dead for three days. From the time of the stable in Bethlehem until his death, he underwent humiliation in obedience to his Father for the salvation of the elect and the redemption of the cosmos.

Jesus' resurrection into a permanent physical body perfectly equipped for spiritual life is the turning point in his humiliation. It is here that he is vindicated and his defeat of all his enemies is secured. He received glory at his ascension and the right to rule as is demonstrated by his sitting at the right hand of God in fulfillment of Psalm 110:1 (Acts 2:34-36).
Though the world awaits the final stage in the completion of Christ's vindication, and the salvation and judgment of the world, Christ will someday return bodily (Acts 1:11) and destroy all his enemies, including death. He will complete the final stage of his exaltation over all things.



The Three Offices of Christ
While there were early church fathers who spoke about different offices of Christ, it was John Calvin in his Institutes who systematized the idea of the threefold office of Christ:
(1) Prophet;
(2) Priest,
and...
(3) King.

In Deuteronomy 18:18 Moses predicted that God would send another prophet like him to the people of Israel.
Both John and Peter understood Jesus to be that one...
(John 6:14; 7:40; Acts 3:22-24; see also Matt 13:57, John 4:44).

The title of prophet, however, is not found in the epistles. Nonetheless, it is clear that Christ functioned as the consummate prophetone who both gave revelation from God (forthtelling and foretelling) and was himself the quintessential revelation from God (John 1:18).
In this way he is unlike other prophetsa fact which may account for the conspicuous absence of this title from the epistles.

Jesus Christ also functioned in the office of priest. While the prophet was God's representative to the people, the priest was the peoples' representative before God. But in contrast to priests in the Levitical order, Jesus did not offer any animal sacrifice for our sin, he offered himself, an unblemished lamb of eternal worth. As a priest he has entered the holy of holies, not the copy on earth in the temple, but the heavenly place and is able to lead us, therefore, into the presence of Goda distinctly priestly function. He does not just enter the holy of holies once a year, but indeed he lives there forever now. Finally, both Romans 8:34 and Hebrews 7:25 teach us that his priestly role continues even now as he ever lives to make intercession for us in our weakness!

Finally, Jesus Christ fulfilled the office of King. But in contrast to the greatest of Israelite kings, i.e., David, Christ rules over the entire world, indeed the universe, including the church (Eph 1:20-23). He is the consummate king who rules wisely, attentively and with final authority and justice (Ps 2:8-9). In short, he rules as the God-man over the entire cosmos and when he returns he will deal definitively with all hindrances and obstacles to his deserved reign. At that time he will be called the King of Kings (Rev 19:16).



Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit
The term pneumatology comes from two Greek words, namely, pneuma meaning wind, breath, or spirit (used of the Holy Spirit) and logos meaning word, matter, or thing. As it is used in Christian systematic theology, pneumatology refers to the study of the biblical doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Generally this includes such topics as the personality of the Spirit, the deity of the Spirit, and the work of the Spirit throughout Scripture.



The Personhood of the Holy Spirit
The personality (and therefore personhood) of the Holy Spirit has been denied by certain groups throughout the history of the church. Some point out that the noun for spirit in the NT is pneuma which is neuter and, therefore, the spirit is correctly referred to as it rather than he.

In keeping with this idea, some refer to it [him] as God's active force, almost in a Gnostic sense of an emanation from the one, true God. Before we look at the Biblical evidence, it is important to point out that there is no necessary connection in Koine Greek between grammatical gender and personal gender so it is simply false to say that since the Greek noun pneuma is neuter the spirit must be an it.

It is important, then, to see what the Scriptures say about his personhood, i.e., is he really a person, albeit divine? This is especially so in a culture moving more toward New Age thinking and pantheism. The Holy Spirit is not the god within us which we possess via our own natures, nor is he some amorphous feeling or active force. All these views denigrate him and rightly deserve rejection.

There are several lines of evidence in the NT which argue for the personality of the Holy Spirit.

First, Jesus said he would send another in his place (John 14:16).
The word for another is allos in Greek and refers to another just like Jesus. It is reasonable to conclude from this that the Spirit is a person since Jesus is clearly a person. Further, Jesus referred to him as a parakletos (enabler, encourager, comforter, etc.) which requires that he be a person since the functions of a parakletos are personal; Jesus functioned as a parakletos to the disciples.

Second, the fact that the Spirit makes choices (1 Cor 12:11),
teaches (John 14:26),
guides (John 16:13),
reveals Jesus (John 16:14),
convicts (John 16:8),
seals believers (2 Cor 1:21-22),
can be grieved (Eph 4:30),
blasphemed (Matt 12:31),
possesses a rational mind (Rom 8:26-27; 1 Cor 2:11-13),
can be lied to (Acts 5:3-4),
quenched (1 Thess 5:19),
resisted (Acts 7:51),
and on numerous occasions is distinguished from, yet directly linked with the Father and the Son as co-worker and co-recipient of worship, argues definitively for his personhood (Matt 28:19-20; 2 Cor 13:14).



The Deity of the Holy Spirit
As we noted above, the Holy Spirit is distinguished from, yet closely related to, the Father and the Sonand that on an equal basis.
He receives the worship due the Father and the Son (2 Cor 13:14)
and does divine works, including inspiring Scripture (2 Peter 1:20-21; Matt 19:4-5),
regenerating hearts (Titus 3:5),
and creating, sustaining, and giving life to all things (Gen 1:2; Job 26:13; 34:14-15; Psalm 104:29-30).
He is said to be eternal (Heb 9:14; only God is eternal),
omniscient (1 Cor 2:10-11),
and is actually referred to as God (Acts 5:3-4; 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19-20).
There is very little room for doubt; clearly the Holy Spirit is divine. Scriptural Metaphors for the Holy Spirit

Scripture uses several important metaphorical expressions to refer to the Spirit, his sovereign character and his inscrutable, yet manifested workings. For example, Jesus referred to him as a winda metaphor which seems to underline the inscrutable nature of his moving in the hearts of people to give them life and bring them to faith (John 3:8).
In connection with his personal and glorious ministry to people, Jesus referred to him as water in John 7:37-39.
This symbol portrays the Spirit as the One who can fulfill the deepest longings of the heart to know God, i.e., to enjoy eternal life (John 4:14; 17:3).
As such, the metaphor speaks of promised messianic blessing and the presence of the kingdom in a new and powerful way (Isa 12:3; 32:15; 44:3; Ezek 39:29; Zech 14:16-18; Joel 2:28-32; Sukk 5:55a).

In Matthew 3:16 (cf. Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32) the text refers to the Spirit descending out of heaven as a dove. The symbol of the dove probably represents the beginning of an age of blessing and the end of judgment or perhaps it symbolizes the beginning of a new creation through the work of the promised, Spirit-empowered Davidic messiah.

Another metaphor for the Spirit is clothing (Acts 1:8). This idea involves being dressed by another person so that one is characterized by this new clothing. In the case of the Spirit, it refers to his gift of power to us so that we might live consistent with the gospel as we boldly preach it throughout the entire world.

The Spirit is also referred to as a guarantee or pledge of the Christian's glorification (Eph 1:14; 2 Cor 1:21-22). In this case, the present gift of the Spirit is the guarantee that the totality of what has been promised to us will someday be fulfilled (Rom 8:30).
BAGD (the standard Greek lexicon used in NT studies) refers to the Spirit in these passages as the first installment, deposit, down payment, [or] pledge, that pays a part of the purchase price in advance, and so secures a legal claim to the article in question, or makes a contract valid.

Closely related to the idea of the Spirit as pledge is the Spirit as seal or the One with whom Christians are sealed by God.
In 2 Cor 1:22 and Ephesians 1:14, 4:30, Christians are said to be sealed by the Spirit of God. A seal in the ancient world referred to a mark (with a seal) as a means of identification so that the mark which denotes ownership also carries with it the protection of the owner (see Rev 7:3) This forms a basis for understanding the symbolic expression which speaks of those who enter the Christian fellowship as being sealed with or by the Holy Spirit.

Thus the sealing of the Spirit speaks to the divine ownership of the Christian which translates into security and protection.
This does not mean that the Christian will never sin or be chastened by God (1 John 1:9; Hebrews 12:1-11),
but it does mean that God will never abandon them, neither in this life or the one to come (cf. Rom 8:38-39).
We will discuss this more under Soteriology or Salvation below.

The Pentecost Spirit is also likened to tongues of fire in Acts 2:3.
Fire represents the holy presence of God, as for example, in Exodus 3:2-5 and the burning bush.
One might also recall the pillar of fire (Exod 13:21-22),
the fire on Mount Sinai (Exod 24:17)
and the fire associated with the wilderness tabernacle (Exod 40:36-38).
In all these cases, the holiness of God is paramount. Now, recall that the Christian's election is unto holiness and Christlikeness (Rom 8:29; Eph 1:4) and so the Spirit has taken up residence in our hearts to make this transformation a reality (2 Cor 3:18).



The Work of the Holy Spirit in Revelation
The apostle Peter makes it clear that the Holy Spirit was responsible for the production of the OT scriptures...
(i.e., graphes) by carrying men along as they freely wrote God's message.
Paul likewise asserts the Holy Spirit's involvement in the production of sacred Scripture...
(2 Tim 3:16theopneustos).
When we go to the OT we see this phenomenon in several places, not the least of which is the clear example of Ezekiel 2:2:
As he spoke to me, the Spirit entered me and raised me to my feet and I heard him speaking to me...
(see also 8:4; 11:1, 24).
Other examples of the Spirit speaking to people include Balaam (Num 24:2) and Saul (1 Samuel 10:6, 10).
Also, Jesus said that David spoke by the Holy Spirit (Matt 22:43; cf. Acts 2:30).

There is not a great deal of discussion in either testament regarding the relationship between the Spirit and men during the production of Scripture. Peter uses the analogy of the wind filling the sails of a ship. So we may infer from this that the Spirit took the initiative and directed the work, but in no way suppressed the personalities, including the emotional and intellectual input, of the human authors. In fact, it appears that he used all of this (and more), for the spiritual/emotional/ethical experience of David writing lyric poetry (in the Psalms, for example) was not the same as Paul's experience in writing 1 Thessalonians or Ezra's experience in writing the book after his name or John writing Revelation.

The fact that we have an intimate involvement of the Spirit of God with the writers of Scripture speaks not to mechanical dictation or even conceptual inspiration (cf. Gal 3:16), but instead to a divine-human concurrence...
(1 Cor 2:12-13).



The Work of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament
The work of the Spirit in the OT is much broader than just the production of Scripture, as important as that is. The Spirit was involved in creating the cosmos (Gen 1:2; Job 26:13). He is currently intricately involved in sustaining creation (Psa 104:29-30) and will someday, in a period of enormous divine blessing, completely renew it. The nature of the Spirit's present ministry testifies to this future work (Isa 32:15; Rom 8:18-27).


The Holy Spirit came upon certain people to impart wisdom and practical skills, strength and ability. He did this during the building of the tabernacle, the ark of the covenant, and all the tabernacle's furnishings (Exod 31:1-11).
He was also the strength and guidance behind the building of the temple (Zech 4:6).
The Spirit was involved in the administration of the nation of Israel by giving gifts of administration and wisdom (Gen 41:38; Num 11:25; Deut 34:9).
He also raised up national leaders during the dismal period of the Judges.
He gave strength, courage, capability in war, and leadership abilities to several people (Judges 3:10; 6:34; 14:19). Later on he anointed Saul, David, and Solomon for leadership by giving them strength and ability to prophesy, but in the case of Saul, the Spirit subsequently withdrew because of his disobedience (1 Sam 10:10; 16:13).

The Holy Spirit was also involved in the regeneration (Ezek 36:26-28), instruction, and sanctification of Israel in the OT (Nehemiah 9:20; Psa 51:11; 143:10; Isa 63:10).
It is also said that he will produce righteousness and justice among the people of God in the messianic age...
(Isa 11:2-5; 32:15-20).



The Work of the Holy Spirit in the Life of Christ
The Holy Spirit was involved in the birth of Christ, with the result that Christ, while fully human, was completely sinless (Matt 1:18; Luke 1:35).
The Holy Spirit was also involved in Christ's anointing for messianic service (i.e., at his baptism [Luke 3:21-22]),
filled him during his temptations (Luke 4:1; John 3:34),
and revealed the timing and nature of the beginning of that ministry (Luke 4:14, 18).
The Holy Spirit was also responsible for Christ's ability to perform miracles and cast out demons (Matt 12:28).
He was also involved in both the death of Christ as well as his resurrection (Heb 9:14; Rom 1:4; 8:11).
Further, perhaps the best interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18-20 is that the pre-incarnate Christ preached via the Spirit through the mouth of Noah to the wicked back in the days before the flood.



The Work of the Holy Spirit in the Church
We will discuss the various aspects of the work of the Spirit in relation to the church under the headings of soteriology and ecclesiology. Suffice it to say here that the Spirit is involved in the works of calling, regeneration, uniting the believer with Christ, indwelling, filling, teaching, guiding, gifting, empowering, and sanctifying the believer. His primary ministry is to mediate the presence of Christ and the knowledge of God to the believer (John 16:13-14).



Anthropology & Hamartiology: Man and Sin
The term anthropology comes from two Greek words, namely, anthropos meaning man and logos meaning word, matter, or thing. We use the word anthropology to refer to the study of man and a Biblical anthropology is the study of man as understood primarily from Scripture.
Thus it often involves discussion of the particular creation of man, man in the image of God, the constitutional nature of man, and man after the fall.
Other areas of concern include human dignity, freedom, depravity, culture, and society. Hamartiology, on the other hand, comes from two Greek terms as well, namely, hamartia meaning sin and logos. Thus it concerns the biblical doctrine of sin including its origin, nature, transmission, effects, and judgment.



The Creation of Man
There are several points that can be made from the Genesis narrative regarding the creation of man (Gen 1-2).
These ideas are expanded upon and developed in the rest of Scripture.

First, the origin of man is not in naturalistic evolution, but in the mind of God.
Man was not an afterthought of some kind, or the result of blind evolutionary forces, but was created according to the purpose, plan, and good pleasure of God.
In Genesis 1:26 God says let us make man.

Second, man has a certain place as the pinnacle of creation. We are made in the image of God. Nothing else, including the angels, is said to be made in the image of God.
Thus we are, in this sense, unique in the created order, with the result that we are both privileged and responsible (cf. Gen 3). Both men and women together reflect the image of God.More about this in a minute.

Third, we bear a special relationship to God. In our original creation, coming from the hand of God, we were holy, upright, and perfect and there was no hostility between God and us.

Fourth, we have a certain role in creation. We were created to rule over God's created earth, that is, to have dominion over it.

Fifth, man was created in what appears as an instantaneous act of God, bringing together material aspects and the breath of life. We will talk about this in a minute as well, but suffice it to say here that we were not taken from some previously existing animal.
According to Genesis 2:7, our creation gives rise to the dual nature of our experience as we relate in both a heavenward (spiritual) and earthward (material) direction.



Man in the Image of God
The image of Godthe referent for which we hold to be the same as the likeness of Godis a difficult expression to understand precisely. There have been many attempts to reduce it to various aspects of man's being or relate it in some way to the functions he carries out in the world.
Thus some have said that it refers to certain particular qualities in man such as his rational nature, morality, or religious capacity. Others, such as the Mormons, have claimed that the image of God is physical. Still others have suggested that the image is more relational in nature, and refers to man's experience of being in relationship with God, other people, and creation. Some have collapsed the meaning of image into man's God given function to have dominion over the earth.
Thus, on this last reckoning, image refers to man's ability to rule (cf. Gen 1:26; Psa 8:5-6).

Each of these views has a contribution to make, though it is doubtful whether the relational or functional view really answers the question as to what the image actually is (not does).
Functional views describe certain realities which flow from being created in God's image, but do not in themselves describe that image. The substantive view, long held throughout the history of the church, is the best view overall, but it is perhaps too narrow to restrict it to knowledge, righteousness, holiness, morality or our ability for rational thought, etc.
It is rather all of these and anything else that makes us like God, maintaining, of course, the necessary and Biblical Creator-creature distinctions (contra Mormonism).



The Constitutional Nature of Man
The question has come up in theology as to the constitutional nature of man. Most naturalists would argue that man is monistic, that is, that he is purely physical and that he has no soul or immaterial substance to his being.
There are many conservative theologians who would also argue along similar lines, though they nonetheless regard man as a special creation of God with a special destiny (at least for the saved).
But, there are several good, scriptural reasons for rejecting the monist account of human constitution. First, since God is a person and he does not have a body, but is spirit, we can safely argue that possessing a body is not the sine qua non of being a person. That is, personhood can exist apart from embodiment.

Further, God could be considered a paradigm case of personhood and if this is so, then only those beings that bear a similarity (i.e., possess the attributes, not just functions) to the paradigm case can be considered persons.

Second, the OT term nephesh, while it can refer to a body or parts of a body, nonetheless often identifies a person after death. It therefore refers to the soul/person which has departed a body, is still conscious, and as the immaterial aspect of a person may return to the body if God so wills (Gen 35:18; 1 Kings 17:21-22).

Third, the OT portrays man as created of both material and immaterial substances...
(Gen 2:7; Ezek 37:6, 8-10, 14).

Fourth, Jesus continued to exist after his death and before his resurrection which seems to imply that there was some immaterial aspect to his (human) being.

Fifth, human beings are regarded as living spirits in the disembodied state (Heb 12:23; Rev 6:9-11 [souls]).

Sixth, the future resurrection of all people indicates that there is an intermediate state as departed souls await this resurrection. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are still alive (Matt 22:37).
Moses and Elijah are alive as well (Matt 17:1-13).
The story of Lazarus and the rich man seems to imply conscious life after physical death (Luke 16:19-31). Finally, Jesus made a clear distinction between the soul and body in Matthew 10:28:
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
All these observations are most easily understood on the basis of a substances dualism in man (i.e., he is both material and immaterial).
We, therefore move on to talk about the two primary understandings of the immaterial aspect of man.

Many Christian theologians have argued for a trichotomous view of man, that he is body, soul, and spirit, where each term refers to separate substances.
This view has often been advanced on the basis of passages such as 1 Thess 5:23, Hebrews 4:12 and...
1 Cor 14:14.
The major problem with this view, and the reason it is not well received any longer, is the almost universal recognition that the Bible uses soul and spirit interchangeably (Luke 1:46-47; John 12:27; 13:21).
Further, Mark 12:30 lists four aspects of man: heart, soul, mind, strength. Are we to regard each of these as constituting a different substance?
That is not Jesus' point, nor is it Paul's in 1 Thess 5:23. The point in 1 Thess 5:23 and Hebrews 4:12 is not to inform Christians as to the precise substances which make up their immaterial nature, but rather that sanctification is to encompass the whole person. Thus it is tenuous at best to infer from these two texts specific details about our immaterial nature.

Taking all the Biblical evidence into consideration, it appears that the best view is some form of dichotomy. In any view of man, however, two things need to be held in tension:

(1) that he is a composite being with both complex material as well as complex immaterial aspects;

(2) that he is portrayed in Scripture as a unified being, so that what he does with his body involves his spirit and the motions his spirit engages in involve his body. In fact, both appear to be involved in everything we do. This view of man relates him well to his Creator in heaven and his commission here on earth.
It also reads the Biblical data in a manner a little more consistent with the use of terms in Scripture (where two or more terms can refer to the same immaterial substance).

Finally, given our current culture, it is necessary to point out that when we argue for an immaterial aspect to man's being, using terms like soul and spirit, we are not saying as many in the New Age movement(s) have claimed, that we all possess god in us. What we are saying is that there is more to us than just matter; we are also spiritually oriented beings, created in God's image (but not that we are gods in any sense).



The Fall of Man and the Image of God
Genesis 3 describes for us one of the most diabolical and saddest points in our very early history. Adam had been commanded by God not eat from the fruit of the tree which was in the middle of the garden. The command was concise, yet clear, and the consequence of disobedience was lucidly and emphatically delineated: you shall most certainly die (Gen 2:16-17).
But with the entrance of the Serpent, who we now realize was Satan himself (2 Cor 11:3), came the entrance of deceit and trickery. He was more crafty than all the wild animals the Lord God had made, and he said to the woman… (Gen 3:1).
Well, you know the rest of the story: We ate the forbidden fruit, died spiritually (something the Devil forgot [neglected] to mention), were judged by God immediately (Gen 3:6-19), death through murder came almost instantaneously (Gen 4), and eventually we died physically (cf. and then he died, Gen 5).
From our first parents we receive both the guilt of sin as well as a corrupt nature (Rom 5:12-21).

The image of God, as a result of the fall, is effaced but not erased. The Noahic covenant, instituting a measure of authority among men for dealing with murder (Gen 9:6-7), the command to procreate, and prohibitions against such things as favoritism (James 3:9), are all based on the existence of the image of God in man, even after the fall; all these commands are related to the image of God in a post fall context.

The image of God, while severely distorted in the fall, is nonetheless being renewed progressively for those who are in Christ (in terms of knowledge in Col. 3:10).
Finally, when the saints reside in heaven, the image of God will be completely restored in them. In short, God has chosen us to be holy in his sight and to be conformed totally to the image of His Son
(Eph 1:3-4; Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49), who is said to be the image of God (2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15).



The Doctrine of Sin
A brief review of the fall of man leads us naturally into a discussion of the essential nature of sin, as well as its origin, transmission, effects, and punishment.

Many theologians rightly define sin as any want of conformityin nature, disposition, or actto the moral law of God.
Again, this is an accurate definition as far as it goes (cf. 1 John 3:4), and perhaps better than referring to sin as experiencing personal finiteness, existential angst, desire to control others, selfishness, or sexual immorality.
The one shortcoming, however, is that it does not really capture the heinous, aggressive, and vile nature of sin as such. Biblically portrayed, sin is more than a want of conformity. Sin is out and out rebellion, an insidious plot to personally subdue God and his just rule over our lives.
It is a foolish attempt at a coup d'etatan attempt to extinguish not only His commands to duty, and his wise prohibitions, but also to nullify his presence and to extinguish knowledge of himand all this with each and every blow.

Thus sin is spiritual/ethical in nature and has at its core the idea of autonomy and rebellion. It is ethical in nature, not ontological in that it is not an essential privation of some kind. Even after the fall, man still has all the faculties with which he was created, but his moral nature is twisted by sin. There are many key terms in the Old Testament which nuance the idea of sin in some way.
These include chata (to miss the mark, Exod 20:20;
(2) ra (evil or ruin, Gen 38:7;
and (3) taah (going astray, Num 15:22).
In the New Testament there are several terms as well. Some of the more frequently used and important ones include:
1) hamartano (to miss the mark, Rom 5:12;);
kakos (disease or moral filth,);
(3) poneros (moral evil, Heb 3:12);
(4) anomos (lawlessness, 1 John 3:4).

The origin of sin in the cosmos is to be found in the disobedience of Satan and certain angels. Though there is debate about Isa 14:12-15 and Ezek 28:12-19, there are some theologians who argue that one or both of these passages hint at the fall of Satan. In any case, when Satan arrives on the scene in Genesis 3 (cf. 2 Cor 11:3), he is already fallen and sinful. But as far as the entrance of sin into the human race is concerned, this occurred at the fall of man, also described in Genesis 3. Sin entered the human race through our first parents' disobedience, as Paul makes clear in Romans 5:12.
There ought to be no doubt among Christians regarding the scriptural teaching that all men are sinful, though it is obviously true that not all men have expressed or will express their sinfulness to the same degree. But how did our first parents pass on sin to us? If it is true that sin entered the human race through the sin of Adam, how was it communicated to his offspring and thus to the race as a whole, given that we all descended from the one man (cf. Acts 17:26)?

Some have argued that there is no direct connection between the sin of Adam and Eve and the sin of the each member of the human race; rather, each person, perhaps following the example of Adam, has willfully chosen, on their own, to sin and violate God's will.
But this interpretation, while perhaps agreeing, at least formally, with the idea that all have sinned (Rom 5:12), does not do justice to Paul's teaching in the whole of Romans 5:12-21.
For it is said there, at least five times, that sin entered the human race through one man (transgression) and that the entire race was affectednot by sinning themselves, but rather through the sin of Adam.

Thus, there is a direct connection between the sin of Adam and the falleness of the entire race. Some say this direct connection is realistic while others argue along legal lines.
The first group argues that the race as a whole was present seminally in Adam and thus sinned when he sinned. This seems to do justice to the all sinned of Romans 5:12 and has some support from the Abraham/Levi/Melchizedek parallel in Hebrews 7:10, but the meaning of all sinned ought to be determined more in keeping with the primary thrust of Romans 5:12-21 where the sin of Adam seems to be the direct cause of our sin; no mediate mechanism appears to be in view in Romans 5:12-21.

Perhaps the best view is to understand Adam as the federal head of the race and as such his sin was imputed (i.e., charged to our account) to us with the result that we too are legally guilty. This seems to make the most sense out of the direct connections expressed in Romans 5:12-21. Again, over five times the phrase (or something similar) for just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, appears in the paragraph.

Now the idea that there exists a legal, not just biological, relationship between a man and his posterity is not unheard of in scripture. Some refer to it as corporate solidarity. Perhaps the best know example illustrating this concept is the sin of Achan (Joshua 7).
His sin of stealing "the city's riches" is counted as the sin of the nation of Israel (Jos 7:1, 11) and indeed his entire family was punished.
In a similar way (but it is strictly speaking not identical), we often see today how the sin of one person directly affects others. When a person hijacks an airplane with 130 people on board and then crashes it, all on board suffer because of the decision of one person.
The decisions of one person often have a "representative" character.

Now, some have objected to this doctrine on the grounds that we are blamed for something we did not do. This can be responded to in several ways, but in the end it must be realized that all men, including you and me, are sinners and will be judged for our willful and personal rebellion.
Was it fair that Christ died for us so that we might escape God's wrath? Is it fair that God imputes the righteousness of Christ to us when we simply believe in His Son? If the issue were really one of fairness, viewed humanly, who of us could stand in His presence?

But not only are we in a state of guilt before God, we also received at birth a sinful nature and so we are polluted by sin as wellhence our willful and personal rebellion. And it isn't that some parts of us are fallen, but rather that our whole person, every part of us, is fallen and enslaved to sin.
This also is a result of Adam's sin. We prove the fact that we have a sinful nature each and every day (cf. Gal 5:19-21). Denial of sin, neurosis, estrangement from loved ones, enemies in the work force, inability to love and receive love from others, lying, stealing, cheating, as well as a host of other sins beset us daily.
We were born, i.e., we are by nature children of wrath (cf. Eph 2:1-3 ).



The Christian and Sin
The question often comes up as to the effects of sin on the life of the Christian. Sometimes the question is posed most acutely as Does a Christian lose their salvation when (not if) he sins? We cannot go into this in great detail here, but will cover it more thoroughly under soteriology.
Suffice it to say here, however, that a Christian's sin is just as sinful as that of a non-Christian. Sin is sin, no matter who commits it; it is both an offense to and violation of God's holiness. But the Christian stands in a posture of being justified once and for all (Rom 5:1).
His standing or position before the Lord is immutable but his personal fellowship with the Lord and His people will be disrupted by sin, sometimes severely. At some point the Lord will probably chasten him, and in certain cases, ultimately shorten his life because of sin (1 Cor 11:30; Heb 12:1-13).
When the Christian does sin, however, he is to immediately confess it to the Lord, and repent from it, knowing that God is faithful to forgive and cleanse (1 John 1:9).
And, in many circumstances he will need to confess his sin to another offended person and make restitution. Failure to confess known sin leads to spiritual and moral hardening and delusion regarding one's true condition (Heb 3:12-13).



The Punishment for Sin
The first and primary reason God punishes sin is in order to prove himself righteous and just. This, of course, he did most fully in the cross (Rom 3:21-26; 9:19-23).
A second reason God punishes sin is to bring back an erring son or deter others from sinning.

Spiritual death, physical death, and eternal death are all punishments for sin, as are certain sufferings in this life. But beyond question, eternal death is the gravest punishment for sin imaginable.
In this case, God makes it impossible for the sinner who dies apart from the saving mercies of Christ to ever be reconciled with Him. Torment will be their eternal lot; they will be eternally separated from God, shut out of the Lord's presence forever, as Paul says (2 Thess 1:8-9; cf. also Matt 25:41, 46).

Sin always has consequences for both the present life as well as the next. The Christian cannot escape certain consequences of sin in this life or judgment for sin in the next, but this judgment does not revoke his salvation.
He will still be with the Lord forever, but it does affect the nature of his reward...
(1 Cor 3:10-15; 2 Cor 5:10; Romans 14:10-12).



Angelology: Angels
The term angelology comes from two Greek terms, namely, aggelos (pronounced angelos) meaning messenger or angel and logos meaning word, matter, or thing. In Christian systematic theology it is used to refer to the study of the biblical doctrine of angels.
It includes such topics as the origin, existence, and nature of angels, classifications of angels, the service and works of angels as well the existence, activity, and judgment of Satan and demons (as fallen or wicked angels). Some theologians, however, treat Satan and demons under a separate heading, namely, demonology.



The Nature of Angels
An angel is a spirit being created by God and commissioned by Him for some special purpose in accordance with the outworking of His plan (e.g., Col 1:16; Heb 1:14).
They have enormous, though limited (as a creature) power and knowledge. They are referred to as messengers in both the Old and New Testaments and as such they carry out the work of God.
Though some scholars have denied their personhood, it is clear from Scripture that they do indeed have personality; they think (1 Peter 1:12), feel (Luke 2:13), and choose (Jude 6), and holy angels render intelligent and excellent praise to God.
They are of a higher order than man, as Psalm 8:4-5 explains, but they are inferior to Christ (2 Sam 14:20; Luke 20:36; Heb 1). Apparently they are unable to procreate (Matt 22:30).

In the Old Testament angels are also referred to as the heavenly host, sons of God, and holy ones (1 Samuel 17:45; Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 89:5, 7).
The first expression, heavenly host relates to their innumerable number and power to defend God's people (cf. Heb 12:22). The second expression, sons of God highlights their close relationship to God, their godlike qualities, and the capacity in which they function before him.
The third expression, holy ones, underscores their pure moral character.



Classifications of Angels
There is not a great deal revealed in Scripture about the classification of angels. One could wish for more information, for what is given does suggest ranks or classifications among them, but it is difficult to say much beyond this.
We should comment at the outset, however, that the claim that some angels were confined to the abyss when they sinned and others were not, on the basis of texts like 2 Peter 2:4, is unlikely.
All fallen angels are being held in pits of darkness until their appointed day of judgment, but they are able from there to carry out evil strategies against God, his people, and his creation.

Michael is referred to as an archangel in Jude 9a designation not received by any other angel in scripture (though of course there may be many other archangels). This seems to indicate that he has authority over many angels and does so under the authority of God.
He is also referred to as the great prince, where the term prince also seems to connote levels of authority among the angels (Dan 9:21; 12:1).
There are also angels which rule over certain countries such as we see in Daniel's reference to the prince of the kingdom of Persia (10:13).

While there is some debate over guardian angels, it seems that Jesus in Matthew 18:10 may be implying this. There are also the Seraphim mentioned in Isaiah 6:2-4.
Unfortunately, this is the only place where they are mentioned in Scripture, so not much can be said about them. The term seraphim means burning ones and may allude to their brightness, yet it is interesting that they hid their feet and faces from the brightness of the Holy One of Israel.

Thus it appears that they are deeply concerned about the holiness of God and worshipping him in humility. In Isaiah's case they came to him, and on behalf of God, communicated to him the knowledge that his sins were forgiven. Having been cleansed by the burning holiness of God, the prophet was now prepared to speak to a disobedient Israel on God's behalf.

Cherubim are also mentioned numerous times in the OT and once in the NT (Heb 9:5). They seem to be connected with protecting God's holiness and access to him in relationship.
Thus they are stationed at the Garden of Eden making it impossible for man to return to the garden and eat from the tree of life (Gen 3:22-24).
Similarly, they are connected with the mercy seat and the law in Exodus 25:18-22; it was there at the mercy seat that God met with sinful man, i.e., the Israelites.
They are the living beings Ezekiel saw in his vision (Ezekiel 1:4-28; 10:15) and they seemed to have four wings and faces like lions, bulls, eagles and human beings.
They had human hands, feet like calves hooves, etc.
See Ezekiel 1:4-14 for further details.
They too, like those Isaiah saw, shone brightly, like burnished bronze. They are also associated with fire, lightening, and holy worship of the true and merciful God (cf. Revelation 4:4-8).



Service of Angels
It is impossible to describe all the services which angels provide at God's command, but here are some of the following connected with salvation, judgment, and God's providential control of human history.
In terms of salvation, angels played a role in the coming, death, and resurrection of Christ. They delivered the message to Mary that she was to have the Christ-child (Luke 1:26-38) and they proclaimed him as Savior before the shepherds (Luke 2:13).
They ministered to Christ during the period of his wilderness temptations just as they strengthened him in his Gethsemane trials (Luke 22:43).
They were also ready at his command to fight for him (Matt 26:53).
Further, they rolled away the stone from his tomb and they also proclaimed his resurrection (Matt 28:2, 6).

The writer of Hebrews summarizes the role of angels in the lives of believers in Hebrews 1:14: Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to help those who will inherit salvation? As such, they are vitally interested and involved in our own spiritual growth and the mission we have of taking the gospel to the ends of the earth.
They will, when God desires, encourage us and even rescue us from physical dangers so that we can continue God's work of preaching the gospel (Acts 12:7; 27:23-24).
They are deeply interested in the salvation of the lost and rejoice when one sinner repents and turns to God (Luke 15:10).
Indeed, Philip was commissioned by an angel to go and meet the Ethiopian eunuch on the desert road so that this man could be saved (Acts 8:26).
Angels are also involved in caring for believers when they die (Luke 16:22).

Angels are also used by the Lord in the judgment of unbelievers. This can be seen in Genesis 19:12-13 when the angels tell Lot to get out of Sodom; at the Lord's command and because of the evil of that city, they were preparing to destroy it.
Sometimes they inflict punishment (Acts 12:23) and in Revelation 8-9, 16 they are intimately connected with the trumpet and bowl judgments.
At the end of the age they will be the ones who gather the unrighteous for judgment (Matt 13:41-42).

In the sense that angels were involved in the coming of Christ, the salvation, growth, preservation of christians, and the judgment of unbelievers they are involved in the providential outworking of God's plan (encompassing all things) in the world.
This can be seen in the control of nations as well (Daniel 10:13, 20-21).



Satan as a Fallen Angel
The term Satan means adversary in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament writers simply brought the name over into Greek without any change. Satan is a fallen, wicked angel, perhaps a cherub, though this is by no means certain (cf. Ezek 28:14).
There has been much speculation about Satan (and his demons) which calls into question his existence and personhood.
First, it must be said that the devil or demons are attested to by every NT writer and appear in several OT books as well.
Second, Jesus Christ himself dealt directly with Satan and his demons on numerous occasions (e.g., Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 5:1-20).
Third, certain particularly egregious evils throughout historysuch as the Holocaustlend support to the reality of the biblical portrait of Satan, demons, and their destructive capabilities and activities.

Satan is also clearly portrayed in Scripture as a person. But some argue that the biblical idea of Satan and demons must be demythologized. That is, Satan and demons belong to the worldview of Christians (and others) in the first century, but now with the advent of the scientific worldview, we know better.
What physical ailments the ancients attributed to Satan we now know are diseases caused by microscopic bacteria and viruses. The problem with this view is that Christians (and others) in the first century did not attribute all physical infirmities to the devil, only some.

Thus they were not quite as naive as this view implies. Further, it is simply arrogant, not to mention naive, to assert that because they lived then and we live now, their metaphysical views are necessarily infantile, childish, and implausible and ours are necessarily informed.
Perhaps we do not know as we ought to know. Besides, science is incapable of rendering judgment on this issue for in the nature of the case, the reality of the things talked about do not lay within its scope, methods, or knowledge paradigms of inquiry.

There are others who say that the devil is really a way of speaking about evil forces, in culture. This is, however, far afield from what the Bible teaches regarding Satan and his emissaries. Concerning Satan, the Bible teaches that he is a person (i.e., has personality, but he is not human).
He is very cunning (Gen 3:1; 2 Cor 11:3), gets angry when he is foiled (Rev 12:17), and exerts his will in capturing people who are unwilling to listen to the truth (2 Tim 2:26).
These are all functions a person carries out and he, of course, will be held accountable to God for all that he has done, is doing, and will do (John 12:31; Rev 20:10).
Thus he is morally responsible. So he is not just a force in culture, evil or otherwise; he is a person who though not to be equated with culture, nonetheless plays an evil role in cultural and world events (1 John 5:19).
Demons also have personality and are not the souls of dead people who sinned apart from the saving grace of Christ.

In scripture Satan (adversary) goes by many names and titles which are elucidate his activity of opposing God's purposes, plans, and people. His names include:
(1) the devil (slanderer Matt 4:1; 13:39; Rev 12:9);
(2) Beelzebul (Lord of heaven; Matt 12:24; while it was used by the Pharisees to refer to Satan, the origin and associations of the name are uncertain.
It might have been used originally to refer to the Canaanite fertility deity who was the chief adversary of the Israelite religion. In this case Baal means lord and zebul refers to heaven),
and
(3) Belial (one who opposes God; 2 Cor 6:15).
Satan is also known by my many titles which reveal his efforts of opposing the work of God and causing harm to the saints. He is known as the god of this agean age characterized by sin and opposition to God.
He opposes the gospel by blinding people's minds to its truth (2 Corinthians 4:4).
He is similarly referred to as the prince of this world (John 12:31).
And so there is a sense in which the entire world system lies in his lap (1 John 5:19).
He is the prince of the power of the air (Eph 2:2; Col 1:13) and as such rules over the demons who do his bidding and over unbelieving people, the sons of disobedience.
His name, the evil one, suggests his own nature and the nature of his work among people promoting evil and opposing righteousness and truth.
He is known also as...
(1) a vicious thief who comes to steal, kill, and destroy (John 10:10);
(2) the tempter (1 Thess 3:5);
(3) a murderer (John 8:44);
(4) the father of lies (John 8:44),
and...
(5) the Great Dragon who deceives the entire world (Rev 12:9).
What great news it is that Jesus' ministry struck at the heart of his power and he is now a defeated foe, awaiting sentencing.
His final end will be in the lake of fire where he will be tormented day and night forever (Rev 20:10).



Demons as Fallen Angels
Satan is a fallen angel and is referred to as the prince of demons (Mark 3:22).
Therefore, demons are fallen angels as well and under his command. At times they are referred to as unclean spirits and evil spirits, both ascriptions referring to their moral and spiritual wickedness (Matt 10:1; 12:43; Mark 1:23, 26).
They are also referred to as principalities and powers in Romans 8:38-39, 1 Corinthians 15:24, and Colossians 2:8-15.
They are able to inhabit people and speak through them (Mark 1:34) as well as to inhabit animals (mark 5:12).
They seek to cause disease, though not every disease is caused by them (Matt 12:22-24).
They desire to deceive Christians (2 Cor 11:14) to the point of getting worship from them (1 Cor 10:20) and therefore must be firmly resisted (Eph 6:12-18; James 4:7; 1 Peter 5:8).
We are not to be ignorant of Satan's schemes (2 Cor 2:11).

The bottom line is that demons, like their father the prince of demons, want to thwart the work of God by causing the people of God to sin or do anything that would render them less effective for Him.
They also love to lead the entire world away from the truth in Christ and to destroy them if God permitted
(cf. John 10:10).
Their ultimate plan is to overthrow the kingdom of light with the kingdom of darkness and to dethrone God.



The Judgment of Angels
By what we have said so far it may seem that we are advocating a kind of dual of equals between the forces of good and the forces of evil. This is not so.
The Devil and his angels are completely under the control of God in every respect. Their ultimate end in the lake of fire proves this (Rev 20:10).
In short, their judgment was secured through the cross and resurrection of Christ for through that great event he has driven out the prince of this world (John 12:31).
The war may not be over, but the 'cross-victory' at Normandy has rendered ultimate victory certain. Dealing with Demons and Spiritual Warfare

Virtually all Christians would say that we have at least some measure of authority over Satan. After all, we can resist him and are not required to submit to his authority (James 4:7).
Also, there are times that we must engage in hand to hand combat against Satan and his forces (Eph 6:12-18).
Other Christians go further and claim that we can, as our Master did, cast out demons when we are confronted with them. This too seems quite scriptural and indeed necessary at times.

We are seated with Christ in the heavenlies and share in his reign at the present time.
This seems to be Paul's point in Romans 16:20 when he says that the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feetan allusion to Psalm 110:1 and messiah's reign.
The eschaton has broken into the present and we now possess authority in Christ to overcome the works of the devil.

NOTE:
A word about demon possession.
The term possession in reference to demons or Satan does not appear in the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures and is an unfortunate mistranslation. There are two ways in which the Bible speaks about the influence of demons on people.
People are said to be demonized or to have a demon. This is not the same thing as possession in the modern day use of that term where it often means that the demon has complete control over the person, using him/her at will.
This is rarely the case, even in the gospels. Most often the language of having a demon and demonized seems to speak of demonic influence to greater or lesser degrees.

There is considerable debate in the evangelical community around the world as to whether demons can inhabit Christians who possess the Holy Spirit. We cannot answer in detail that question here, as important as it is, but no one on either side of the debate can afford to ignore the profound influence Satan and his demons can have on Christians, sometimes to the point that indwelling looks possible.

In any case, we must stand firm in our position in Christ. When he attacks, we must resist him using the word of God and prayer. Above all we must pursue a holy life so that we do not give him a foothold.
Also, we must be careful of blaming all sin and disease on him and forgetting our own participation in evil. The demon under every rock syndrome is potentially just as faith wrecking as denying Satan's existence.



Soteriology: Salvation
The term soteriology comes from two Greek terms, namely, soter meaning savior or deliverer and logos meaning word, matter, or thing. In Christian systematic theology it is used to refer to the study of the biblical doctrine of salvation.
It often includes such topics as the nature and extent of the atonement as well as the entire process of salvation, conceived as an eternal, divine plan designed to rescue lost and erring sinners and bring them back into eternal fellowship with God.
Many regard it as the primary theme in Scripture with the glory of God as its goal.



The Nature of the Atonement
Throughout the history of the church a number of different views regarding the nature of the atonement (i.e., the theological significance of Christ's death) have been advanced.
The Recapitulation view was advanced by Irenaeus (ca. 120-ca. 200).
In this view Christ sums up all humanity in himself in that he went through all the stages of human life, without succumbing to temptation in any way, died, and then rose from the dead.
The benefits of his life, death, and resurrection are then available to all who participate in Him through faith.

The Example or Moral Influence (or subjective) view has been advanced by theologians such as Pelagius (ca. 400), Faustus and Laelius Socinus (sixteenth century), and Abelard (1079-1142).
Though there are certainly different moral example views, their essential agreement consists in arguing that the cross demonstrates how much God loves us and this, then, awakens a response of love in our hearts; we then live as Jesus himself lived.

While there is biblical support for this idea (e.g., Phil 2: 6-11; 1 Pet 2:21), it is incomplete as it stands and fails to recognize the more crucial aspects of scriptural teaching on the issue.

Another theory of the atonement advanced in the early churchand really maintained as the standard view in the early church until Anselmis the Ransom to Satan view.
Origen (185-254) was one of the chief proponents of this understanding which asserts that Christ's death was a ransom paid to Satan to secure the release of his hostages, i.e., sinful men and women.
While ransom language is used in Scripture to refer to the atonement (e.g., Mark 10:45), it is probably incorrect to include in this the idea that a price was paid to Satan, for nowhere in Scripture is such an idea suggested.

In his work Christus Victor, the Swedish theologian Gustav Aulen (1879-1977) argued for a Divine Triumph or Dramatic view of the atonement, similar to the ransom theories of Origen and the early church. In the dramatic view God overcame all the powers of hell and death through the cross and in doing so made visible his reconciling love to men.
This too has some biblical support, but it is unlikely that it adequately summarizes all of scriptural revelation on this issue.

The Satisfaction or Commercial view of Anselm (1033-1109) argues that man has dishonored God by his sin and that through the death of the perfect, sinless God-man, Jesus Christ, that honor and moreincluding Satan's defeathas been restored to God.
This theory also finds support in scripture, but more than God's honor was restored through the death of his son.

The Governmental view of the atonement, advanced by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), places a high value on the justice of God and the demand of his holy law.
In this view, the death of Christ upholds God's moral government in that it demonstrates His utter commitment to His holy law. He could have forgiven men, however, without the death of Christ, but this would have left men without the true knowledge of His commitment to His Law.
The death of Christ, then, is not as a substitute for us, but rather God's statement about what he thinks about his moral government of the universe.
This view has much to commend it, but as a global theory it simply cannot account for the tight connection between three important facts in Scripture:
(1) the reconciliation of the believing sinner;
(2) the forgiveness of sin;
and
(3) the death of Christ.
Peter says that Christ died for sins, once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring [us] to God...
(1 Peter 3:18; cf. Rom 5:8).

The Penal Substitution view of the atonementthe view most often associated with the Reformers, in particular, Calvinargues that Christ died in the sinner's place and appeased the wrath of God toward sin.
Thus there are a cluster of ideas in this view including redemption (ransom), sacrifice, substitution, propitiation, and reconciliation,

Though there are tensions in this view, and though the other views each contribute important insights to the idea of Christ's atonement in the NT, this one perhaps rests on the best scriptural support, and brings together the holiness and love of God, the nature and sacrifice of Christ, and the sinfulness of man in a way that all are properly maintained.
It is important, however, that the valid insights from the other views not be lost or eclipsed by this model.



The Extent of the Atonement
The question is often asked, For whom did Christ die?
Evangelicals generally give one of two answers to this question. Both answers appear to enjoy support from Scripture, tradition, and logic.
They are: that he died for all men (the general redemption view) and that he died only for the elect (the limited or particular redemption view).
No evangelical believes that Christ died to save the entire world in the sense that every last man will go to heaven on the basis of his death.
This is universalism and rightly rejected by scripturally informed Christians.
Therefore, every evangelical does limit the application of the atonement to some degree; this is important to note!

Both sides in this dispute agree that the gospel can and should be genuinely offered to all men, that it is sufficient for the salvation of every man, but that not all men will be saved.
In the end, however, it seems that the most consistent summary of the Biblical evidence is that Christ died for the elect only.
In this way, he paid the penalty for the sins of the elect only and all other people will pay for their own sins in eternal destruction.
In this scheme there is unity in the workings of the Godhead in that the Father elects certain ones in eternity past, Christ dies for them in history (he does not die for all men, only for those the Father has chosen), and the Spirit applies that death to the elect and keeps them until the day of Christ.

This is precisely the portrait we get in Ephesians 1:3-14 (see also John 17:9).
In the case of particular or limited atonement, then, the term world in Scripture (e.g., John 3:16) does not mean all without exception, but all without distinction and the term bought in 2 Peter 2:1 does not ultimately mean actually bought in a salvific way, but only that God is the rightful owner of these men though they deny this by their teaching (cf. Deut 32:6).



The Process of Salvation
Unconditional Election
The term election refers to God's choice, before creation, of those individuals from the mass of humanity whom he would bless by delivering them from eternal condemnation and granting them eternal life. It is a choice that cannot be frustrated in any way as it is grounded in trinitarian resolve.

The term unconditional coupled with election means that God's choice had nothing do to with any foreseen merit of any kind in the objects of his choice. He chose them unconditionally; he freely chose unworthy sinners because of his love not because they in some way merited salvation.

Those who teach a conditional election often argue that God foresees a person's faith and on that basis chooses them.
In this scheme God's foreknowledge is neutral with respect to the events of the future. But here again terms such as yada' in Hebrew and proginosko in Greek do not indicate neutrality, but a positive relationship to the thing known (cf. 1 Peter 1:20).
Further, conditional election is seriously flawed, since men are dead in sin and unable to believe or save themselves (Rom 3:9-11; Eph 2:1).
Also, scripture nowhere teaches that because a man believes, God decides to choose him. Rather, it is the other way around: men believe because God has chosen them. From beginning to end, Scripture is clear that God saves men and they, left to themselves, would never turn to him; indeed, they are unable (John 6:65; Acts 13:48; Rom 9:15-16, 20-22).
Neither is there any teaching whatsoever in Scripture regarding prevenient grace that renders all men able to believe.
Those who believe in Christ, believe because of God's work in their hearts.



Effectual Calling
Generally speaking, there are two callings in Scripture. There is a general call in which the good news is proclaimed to every creature under heaven.
This includes the preaching of the pure gospel coupled with a summons to repent and believe. Jesus called everyone who was weary and heavy laden to come to him for rest (Matthew 11:28-30; Isaiah 45:22).
Many did not come, but some did.

There is also what has been termed a special or effectual call wherein the Holy Spirit uses the preaching of the gospel to convict a sinner and bring him/her to faith.
Those who are freely chosen (i.e., unconditional election) by God receive this special call. An unbeliever cannot thwart God's effectual call in their hearts, but this does not mean that people come into the kingdom kicking and screaming against their will.
Rather, their choice is genuine, but it is generated, carried along, and brought to fruition by the Spirit.
We see this special call on the elect in Romans 1:7; 8:30; 11:29; 1 Cor 1:9; 2 Tim 1:9.



Regeneration
Regeneration is often referred to as the new birth (i.e., born again) and is outlined for us in three principle texts, namely, John 1:12-13; 3:3, and Titus 3:5 (see also James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:3).
It is a once-for-all (pace Calvin) act of God's Spirit (indeed, every member of the trinity is said to be involved in one way or another), not of human will or because of good deeds, whereby a person is renewed spiritually and made alive in Christ; they become a child of God and are born into his family and enjoy his special fatherhood.

It is a gracious work of the Spirit in keeping with the promises of the New Covenant and is inscrutable from a human standpoint, though its effects are obvious: love for God that cries out Abba Father, prayer in dependence on God, hatred for sin, and love for other Christians as well as those without Christ.
Regeneration logically precedes saving faith, for those who are dead in sin cannot believe. No one can enter the kingdom of God, Jesus said, unless he is born again (cf. John 3:5).



Conversion
If election, efficacious calling, and regeneration (cf. also justification and glorification) describe objective aspects of salvation, that is, God's work in salvation, then conversion describes the human or subjective response to God's gracious working.

Conversion involves hearing the pure gospel and mixing it with saving faith and genuine repentance. Thus conversion has two closely related aspects to it: faith and repentance.
Faith itself involves understanding the message of salvation through Christ, agreeing with it, and personally trusting him to save you.

An essential element of that trust is repentance from known sin.
This involves a turning from sin to Christ for forgiveness. Thus saving faith is penitent and genuine repentance is believing; it is not just worldly sorrow (Acts 20:21; Heb 6:1; 2 Cor 7:10).
Faith is not just mental assent and neither is biblical repentance. We are not dealing simply with historical facts in the gospel, though it indeed rests on these, but we are dealing with a person, a consuming fire as one biblical writer put it (Heb 12:29).

When one or the other element, either faith or repentance, is not mentioned in the biblical text, we are not to infer from this that the author thinks the other element unessential to the gospel.
Rather, the author may be emphasizing one element over another, but not to the exclusion of the other. In many passages just believing is mentioned (e.g., John 3:16; 5:24; Rom 3:22) and in many others only repentance is mentioned (e.g., Luke 24:46-47; Acts 3:19; 17:30; Rom 2:4).

A genuine response to the gospel involves both elements. Someone has once said that repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin. Together they picture for us a genuine response to God's gracious offer of forgiveness in Christ.



Union with Christ
The expression in Christ (and its derivatives) is used in the NT to express our union with Christ as believers. It encompasses the whole spectrum of our salvation from its conception in the mind of God to its consummation in the new heavens and the new earth.
Our election was in Christ (Eph 1:4) and so are all the ensuing benefits, namely, our calling, redemption regeneration, conversion, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification (Rom 8:29-30, 38-39; 1 Cor 1:30; John 15:1-11; 1 John 2:5-6).

Our entire present experience and future destiny is in Christ. Our experience of death to sin and resurrection to new life is in light of our union with Christ in his death and resurrection.
Thus, not only are we in Christ but he (as well as the Father and the Spirit) is also in us (John 14:23) and through His indwelling Spirit we are sanctified in Christ and increasingly conformed/transformed to his image (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18).

And, all believers are one body in Christ Jesus which itself is a spiritual reality that should give rise to zealous efforts to develop unity (not disunity or uniformity) among true believers (Rom 12:5; 1 Cor 10:17; Eph 4:4).



Justification
The doctrine of justification is crucial to a proper view of the gospel and is not simply a doctrine developed in the heat of the battle in Galatians. Several things should be noted briefly about this doctrine.

First, justification refers to a legal declaration by God that our sinspast, present, and futureare forgiven through Christ and Christ's righteousness is imputed to us.

Second, it is a once-for-all decision to declare (not make) us righteous in his sight so that there remains no longer any legal recourse or accusation against us.
This is the meaning Paul intends when he asks in Romans 8:33-34:
Who shall bring any charge against God's elect?
God is the One who justifies.

Third, since justification involves forgiveness of sin and dealing with actual condemnation, it ultimately settles the question of our guilt; we are no longer in a state of guilt.

Fourth, we possess, in God's sight, the righteousness of Christ, and since God views it this way, this is indeed reality. It is not fiction as some have argued, but real, though the doctrine of justification does not deal directly with practice, but standing before God's holy law.
Our standing has been forever changed and we are no longer guilty; the law no longer has recourse against us.

Fifth, justification comes through faith and not by works as Paul makes clear in Romans 3:26-28; 4:4-5.
We do not earn this standing, but rather it is credited to our account through faith in Christ.

Sixth, it is dangerous to the purity of the gospel of God's grace to introduce ideas of moral improvement into the doctrine of justification.
While justification is related inextricably to sanctification, they are not the same reality and should not be confused.
Justification does not mean that God infuses righteousness into us in order to prepare us to receive his grace (which is really not NT grace at all). Again, justification deals with our legal standing and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us; it does not refer directly to our day to day growth in the Lord.

Seventh, there is an eschatology to justification.
As N. T Wright says, The verdict issued in the present on the basis of faith (Rom 3:21-26) correctly anticipates the verdict to be issued in the final judgment on the basis of the total life.



Adoption
Adoption refers to God's decision to make us members of his family and to offer us all the benefits and (ethical) standards involved in living under his roof.
If justification deals with my legal standing before God as a sinner, then adoption deals with my familial relationship to the judge; I am now one of his own children through adoption (Gal 3:26) and he has become my Father.
In many different textsmany more than one finds in the Old Testamentthe New Testament claims that God is our special Father through the gospel and that we are his children.
It is in the context of this new relationship that we receive many, great blessings.

First, God is our Father, the one who cares for us and all our needs. He is the one Jesus enjoined us to pray to, for our heavenly Father knows what we need even before we ask (Matt 6:25-34).

Second, He forgives us when we confess our sin, for he is both a Father who is holy but who also understands our weaknesses and draws alongside to help in time of need (Matt 6:12-14).

Third, He disciplines us and chastens us for our sin so that we might share in his holiness (Heb 12:10).
He loves us so much that he will not let us wander forever, but will draw us back to his side. Indeed, by His Spirit he leads us into greater experiences of his holiness and this is essentially what it means to be a son or daughter of God (Rom 8:14).
Finally, it is through our sonship that we become heirs of Christ, and of God, and of all that eternal life has in store for us, including suffering in the present life (Gal 4:7; Rom 8:17).

We note also that sonship or adoption leads to a new kind of life in God's family. We are to imitate our Father who loved us with such a great love.
We are to love others according to the example he set for us (Eph 5:1; 1 Pet 1:15-16).
Through regeneration we are transformed morally and spiritually so that we can live like sons of God and not like slaves who do not know their masters.



Sanctification
The doctrine of sanctification can be spoken of in three tenses. With respect to the past, we have been set apart, both to belong to God, positionally speaking, and to serve him, practically speaking.
We were sanctified at the moment of conversion and were declared legally holy and belonging to the Lord
(1 Cor 6:11).
With respect to the future, we will be totally sanctified someday in our glorified bodies. At that time our practice will completely match our position or standing before God.
At the present time we are being sanctified, that is, increasingly being transformed into the image of the Lord
(2 Cor 3:18).
Thus the nature of sanctification is transformation; we are being progressively conformed into the image of the Son who died for us. This is God's decreed purpose (Rom 8:29).

Sanctification in the present time, then, is the process of transformation into the image of Christ and the efficient cause of this glorious change is the Spirit living in us (2 Cor 3:18).
He mediates the presence of Christ to us and unfolds the moral will of God to us (John 16:13-14; 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19-20).
The Spirit uses the people of God (Col 3:16), the word of God (2 Tim 3:16-17), circumstances God ordains to mold and shape us (Rom 8:28), and the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper (Matt 28:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-26).
We are on his potter's wheel, not a treadmill; relationship, transformation, and holiness are the goals, not exhaustion.

Therefore, the purpose for which the Spirit is aiming in our lives is Christlikeness and the degree to which we are conformed to him is the degree to which we are sanctified.
The fruit that should characterize our lives, then, ought to be love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control (Gal 5:23-24).
The root of this transformation lies in our co-crucifixion and co-resurrection with Christ (Rom 6:3-4), and the process is never completed in this life (Phil 3:12-13).
Nonetheless, we shoot for perfection (1 Peter 1:15-16), knowing that such will not be the case until the Savior comes from heaven to transform our lowly bodies (Phil 3:20).
Until then, the process is colored by struggle against the world (1 John 2:15-16), the flesh (Rom 8:6-7; Gal 5:17), and the devil (Eph 6:12).

Our role in the process of sanctification relates directly only to the present time. It involves mortifying the deeds of the body, that is, putting to death those things that belong to our earthly (carnal) natures (Col 3:5) and conversely, putting on Christ (Rom 13:14).
If, by the Spirit, we put to death the misdeeds of the body, we will certainly enjoy all the power, comforts, and joys of the spiritual life (cf. Rom 8:13).
We must remember in our struggle against sin (and, for righteousness), however, that we live in relationship with God on the solid foundation of justification.
Though we strive to please him, it is not so that he will become our Father and take us in, rather it is because he has already declared his Fatherhood over us and because he is the One who works in us to this end. Again, our responsibility can be summed up in the word: cooperation.
God is the one who works in us both the willing and the doing (Phil 2:12-13).



Perseverance
The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is really the idea of sanctification taken through the whole of a person's life.
If God is the author of their salvation, he is also the finisher of it. As Paul says, he will bring to completion the good work he has begun in Christ (Phil 1:6).
Since faith itself is a gift of God (Eph 2:8-9)
God enables believers by the power of the Spirit to persevere in their trust and to continually move toward Christlikeness, even if for a long while they err in sin.
God does not revoke his call, nor annul the justification he has put in place (Rom 11:32).
Those whom he has called…he also glorified (Rom 8:30).
He will never let his own perish (John 10:28-30).

Passages such as Hebrews 6:4-6 have often been used to deny the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. But these passages do not teach that people can lose their salvation (cf. Heb 6:9).
Rather, the writer is drawing inferences based on the evidence (i.e., behavior of his audience) he sees. Like a good pastor he is warning people of the real consequences for those who live with knowing or unknowing contempt for Christ's sacrifice.
He does not know whether each and every one is saved, only that if they are going to withdraw from Christianity/persecution into the politically safe-haven of Judaism, then one may certainly question whether such a person knows Christ.
Thus the writer warns them of the eternal consequences of life apart from Christ.
The important point that these so-called warning passages demonstrate is that one of the means God uses to protect his saints and enable them to persevere is powerful preaching and his word of rebuke.

Finally, this doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, or as it is commonly called, the eternal security of believers (not exactly the same thing), does not lead to sluggish behavior or a lack of zeal in the Christian life.

First of all, it includes severe warnings in this regard; we saw this above.

Second, perseverance means that the Spirit is persevering with us in order to bring about the fruit of the Spirit in us.
He has been doing this from the beginning since we were at one time dead in sin when he breathed regenerating life into us. Why would he stop after we're saved? We are no more sinful now, than we were then.

Third, our election is unto holiness and glorification and the Trinitarian plan cannot be thwarted
(Eph 1:4; Rom 8:30).

Fourth, to argue that believers can lose their salvation is to misunderstand many Biblical passages and to position the work of sanctification ultimately in the human will.
This is unscriptural and contrary chiefly to the principle of grace.
Finally, those who want to argue from Hebrews 6:4-6 that believers can lose their salvation if they don't live properly, must also accept the truth that, once lost, it cannot be regainedas the passage clearly says.
On the contrary, however, the Bible emphatically teaches the eternal security of the believer
(Rom 8:38-39).

We must also note that not every one who claims to be a believer is a believer, and therefore to be saved. Thus the warnings by several scriptural writers.
Many will say to Him on that day, Lord, Lord, and he will say to them, Depart from me, for I never knew you (Matt 7:21-23).
Therefore, just because a person claims to believe in Jesus does not mean that they do.
The doctrine of eternal security refers only to those who are truly born-again and who therefore persevere to the end.



Glorification
Glorification is the moment at which the life of God is strikingly manifested is us when we receive our resurrected bodies and are perfectly fitted for existence in the eternal state.
There will be some similarity between our mortal bodies and our glorified bodies, as the example of Jesus after his resurrection demonstrates (e.g., John 21:4ff), but there will be great differences between that which was sown in dishonor and that which will be raised in honor (1 Cor 15:35-49).
It will be a body similar to its predecessor, as a seed is to the plant into which it grows. But it will not be marked by dishonor, decay, weakness, and the absence of spiritual life.

On the contrary, it will be a material body, specially fitted for spiritual existence and clothed with dignity, power, and glory.
It will be patterned after Christ's own resurrection body (1 Cor 15:49).
In these glorified bodies there will be perfect concord between desire and fulfillment in terms of our obedience and service to our great King.
Our experience of God will be one of complete fulfillment as well. At that time we will be truly human and able to worship and praise God in a way he rightfully deserves
(see the section under Personal Eschatology below).



Ecclesiology: The Church

The Nature of the Church
There is a great need today to understand the essential nature of the church from what Scripture teaches and not firstly from the role some claim she ought to play in society.
We cannot continue to define the church existentially, that is, by the way she interacts with the world and the resultant changes she undergoes.
We must begin with the word of God in order to get a sense of the kind of entity she is, and from there we can decide on the kind of tasks she ought to be engaged in.

The term ekklesia is used predominantly throughout the New Testament to refer to the church. We may look at its use in Classical Greek to understand it, but even more important is its usage in the Septuagint.
The term in Classical Greek most often refers to an assembly regularly convened for political purposes, such as voting on issues affecting the city in which the people live.

In the Septuagint (the Greek OT) the term ekkle„sia is often used to translate the Hebrew term lhq which can refer to meetings for civil affairs (1 Kings 2:3),for war (Num 22:4), of nations (Gen 35:11), and a variety of other gatherings, including, and most importantly, Israel's gatherings for religious purposes (Deut 9:10; 2 Chron 20:5; Joel 2:16).

The term ekklesia in the NT can refer to the church of God meeting in a home (Rom 16:5), in a particular city (1 Cor 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1), in a region (Acts 9:31) or a larger area such as Asia itself (1 Cor 16:19).
When these data are taken together we realize that the church is a universal body composed of all true believers in Christ, united in Him by the Spirit, and that there are particular geographical expressions of it here and there and throughout history.
Thus, though there are many local churches, there is really only one church (Eph 4:4; Heb 12:23).

This leads naturally to the idea that the church is both visible and invisible. It is invisible in that God knows who is truly a Christian and who is not.
It is visible in that there are local expressions of it to which Christians commit themselves. Further, it is not necessary to belong to a local church to be a Christian, though, of course, one will want to out of obedience to Christ.
And, just because a person goes to church, does not mean they are in fact part of the spiritual body of Christ.


Let us turn now to a discussion of the various metaphors used in reference to the church. This will give us yet more insight into the essential nature of the church.
Though the list is long, we will concentrate on only a few. Metaphorical Expressions in Reference to the Church

The NT writers refer to the church using several rich metaphors.

First, in 1 Corinthians 12:12-27 she is corporately referred to as the body of Christ,
and in Ephesians 1:22-23 she is the body and Christ is the head.

Second, she is also referred to as God's family; we are all sons and daughters of the Lord (2 Cor 6:18).

Third, her intimate and dependent relationship to her Lord is likened to a vine and its branches (John 15:1-11).

Fourth, in her relationship to the world she is referred to as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).

Fifth, she is corporately referred to as a building (1 Cor 3:9),
a living temple that actually grows (Eph 2:20-21)
and a holy temple in which God dwells (1 Cor 3:16).

Sixth, in her service before God and in her relationship to him as His People she is referred to as a holy nation, a royal priesthood (1 Pet 2:9) and each member is likened to a living stone, built around the chosen and precious cornerstone of Christ himself.

Seventh, she is referred to by the Lord as the salt and light of the world (Matt 5:13-15; Acts 13:47; Col 4:5-6).



The Church and the Kingdom of God
Another question that must be dealt with in determining the precise nature of the church is her relationship to the kingdom of God.
The kingdom of God may be thought of as the reign of God and the church as the realm in which that reign is visibly manifested. But the church is not the kingdom, as some theologians have contested, though the relationship between the two should not be separated. Ladd makes five helpful observations regarding the relationship of the church to the kingdom:
(1) the church is not the kingdom;
(2) the kingdom creates the church;
(3) the church witnesses to the kingdom of God;
(4) the church is the instrument of the kingdom,
and
(5) the church is the custodian of the kingdom.



The Church and Israel
There are many covenant-amillennial theologians who argue that the church has replaced national Israel in God's plan of blessing and has herself inherited the promises to Israel, thus becoming the new Israel.
They state that the Davidic covenant is now being fulfilled in the church and will be ultimately fulfilled in the eternal state, and that there is, therefore, no future for national Israel and no special future for ethnic Jews either.
On the other hand, there are many Dispensational-premillennial theologians who argue that the church and Israel are distinct and must not be merged.
They claim that the Davidic covenant is not now being fulfilled in the church (since it was made with national Israel), but that it, along with all the other promises God made to Israel, will be fulfilled in the millennium.
In this system the two entities of Israel and the church must be kept separate, one fulfilling God's earthly promises and the other his heavenly promises.

There are, however, mediating positions between these poles.
Many covenant-premillennial theologians argue that there will be a future restoration of many ethnic Jews as Paul seems to argue in Romans 11, but not the kind of national restitution that the classic or revised dispensationalist holds.
On the other hand, there are progressive dispensationalists who argue that the Davidic covenant is being fulfilled in the church, but that present fulfillment does not set aside the fulfillment envisioned in the OT with the nation of Israel.

These dispensationalists would argue that there is a soteriological equality among all the people of God (Israel in the OT and the church in the NT), but that there are structural differences, and that these differences will be to some degree maintained in both the future millennial reign of Christ as well as the eternal state.

One can see from this brief overview that the question of the relationship of Israel to the church is a complex one to say the least.
It is not likely that the two are to be regarded as completely distinct entities, however, since so much of the language of the OT and its promises are said to be fulfilled in the Messiah and his connection to the church (e.g., Acts 13:33; Gal 3:29).