Theology Exam

What are the various views of Creation Days in the PCA? Which do you hold and why?

Articulate all four views. Even if holding one view, show that you can play nice with other views. All four views hold: Genesis 1-2 as truth Historic Adam and Eve (they were immediately, not by evolution, created) Historic fall A. The Calendar-Day Interpretation B. The Day-Age Interpretation C. The Framework Interpretation D. The Analogical Days Interpretation A. The Calendar-Day Approach Defined: This view accepts the first chapter of Genesis as historical and chronological in character, and views the creation-week as consisting of six twenty-four hour days, followed by a twenty-four hour Sabbath. Just as Adam and Eve were created as mature adults, so the rest of creation came from its Maker. The Garden included full-grown trees and animals, which Adam named. Strengths: 1. Language. The Calendar-Day view of creation is supported by a plain reading of Genesis 1-3. This interpretation is the most obvious, first-impression reading of Genesis 1-3. It is the meaning that the unsophisticated would have understood; this is important because it means that the average believer can read the Word and understand it, which is significant to the perspicuity of Scripture (WCF 1.7; Psalm 119:130). 2. Historicity. This interpretation raises no questions regarding the historicity of Genesis 1-3. The author wants us to believe something that actually happened in space-time history. The historicity of the creation account introduces humankind to the Creator and begins human history. Historicity naturally flows from a plain reading of Scripture and the perspicuity of Scripture. 3. The Fourth Commandment. This provides the basis for the theological logic of, and is confirmed by, the Fourth Commandment (keep the Sabbath) as recorded in Exodus 20:11, in which the seven-day cycle of work and rest is affirmed. Exodus 20:11: "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth..." God establishes a cycle of work and rest for His people to follow. 4. View of Humankind. The Calendar-Day fits well with the concept that Adam was the peak of God's creation, the covenantal head and steward over all creation. It affirms that death is penal, entering the created order upon the fall (Romans 5:12). Thus, before man's sin and the resulting curse of God, there was no death among Adam's animal kingdom (Genesis 1:28, Genesis 2:21). 5. Church Acceptance. The Calendar-Day view of creation is the historic view of the early church, the Reformation, and the Presbyterian Church. Difficulties: 1. Creation of the sun and moon on the fourth day creates a difficulty for the first three days (those days could not have been solar days since there was no sun). Though, this argument fails to recognize the anti-mythological polemic of Moses. Since the sun and moon were worshiped by pagan nations, Moses reports that God did not even create them until the fourth day, therefore they were not necessary for the establishment of day and night (asserting their creatureliness). God Himself determines the nature of a day (not celestial bodies). 2. Genesis 1:1 is not a title or a summary of the narrative that follows. Rather, it is a background statement that describes how the universe came to be. God created out of nothing. After the act of creation in Genesis 1:1, the main point of the narrative (in Gen. 1:3-2:3) seems to be the making and preparation of the earth for its inhabitants, with a highly patterned structure of forming and filling. 3. The earth, darkness, and water are created before "The First Day." In Genesis 1:1, God creates the "heavens and the earth." (In Joel 3:15-16 we see that "heavens" encompasses the sun, the moon, and the stars.) Then, in Genesis 1:2 we are told that this earth that was created is without form and void, that darkness covers the waters, and that the Spirit is hovering over it. If Genesis 1:1 is not the act of creation, then where do the earth, the darkness, and the waters come from that are referred to in Genesis 1:2 before God's first fiat? Further, if the sun is created on day four (Gen. 1:16), why do we have light already appearing in Genesis 1:3? It helps to remember that in Hebrew there are distinct words for create and make. When the Hebrew construction "let there be" is used in the phrase "Let your steadfast love . . . be upon us" (Ps. 33:22; cf. Ps. 90:17; Ps. 119:76), this obviously isn't a request for God's love to begin to exist, but rather to function in a certain way. Similarly, if the sun, moon, stars, and lights were created in Genesis 1:1, then they were made or appointed for a particular function in Genesis 1:13, 14, 16—namely, to mark the set time for worship on man's calendar. 4. The Seventh Day is not 24-hours long. Psalm 95 and Hebrews 4 teach that God's Sabbath rest "remains" and that we can enter into it or be prevented from entering it. 5. The "Day" of Genesis 2:4 cannot Be 24-hours long. After using "the seventh day" in an analogical way (i.e., similar to but not identical with a 24-hour day), we read in the very next verse, Genesis 2:4: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day [yom] that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." This (singular) "day"—in which the creation events (plural "generations") occur—cannot refer to a single 24-hour period. This day does not seem to correspond to any one of the creation-week days, but is either a reference to the act of creation itself (Gen. 1:1) or an umbrella reference to the lengthier process of forming and filling the inhabitable earth (Gen. 1:2ff). Defenders of the 24-hour view acknowledge that yom can mean more than a single calendar day but often insist that "[numbered] yom" (e.g., "first day") always, without exception, refers to a 24-hour day in the Hebrew Bible. This is not true, however. Not only does the rest of the canon tell us that the "seventh day" is not 24 hours, but Hosea 6:2 ("third day") seems to be used in an analogical way that does not refer to a precise 24-hour time period. 6. Genesis 2:5-7 assumes more than an ordinary calendar day. The reason why there were no shrubs or small plants in the Garden was because "it had not yet rained". But, if the sixth day is a 24-hour period, this explanation of no plants because it hadn't rained yet makes little sense. The very wording of the text presupposes seasons and rain cycles and a lengthier passage of time during this "day [yom]" that God formed man. This doesn't mean that it refers to thousands of years, or hundreds of years. It just means that it's very doubtful it means a 24-hour period. 7. Regarding the word "day" (yom). Genesis uses analogical and anthropomorphic language to describe God and His works. Our days are like God's workdays, but not identical to them (just as human fatherhood and sonship are finite copies of Trinitarian fatherhood and sonship). B. The Day-Age Interpretation Defined: The "six days" are understood in the same sense as "in the day of" Isaiah 11:10-11 —that is, as periods of indefinite length and not necessarily of 24 hours duration. There are other similar uses of the Hebrew word for "day" (yom) in Scripture to support this view of periods longer than 24 hours including that in the very context of Genesis 2:4. Another argument for this approach is that the seventh day in Genesis 1 is not concluded with the boundary phrase, "and there was evening, and there was morning" as with the other days, and therefore it continues, as indicated by Hebrews 4:1-11's quotation of Psalm 95:11. The six days are taken as sequential, but as overlapping and merging into one another, much as an expression like "the day of the Protestant Reformation" might have only a proximate meaning and might overlap with "the day of the Renaissance." Strengths: 1. This view is not concerned with the absolute period of time God used in each of His six days of creation. It recognizes this period in earth's "history" as special when time, as it has been given to us, and space was created. In as much as this creative event appeared to have occurred on the fourth "day," this view prefers not to stipulate periods of man's perception of time for the first three days, since the Sovereign Creator of them is Himself outside of them. It also acknowledges that the Creator may have used the process of growth for example, as we now perceive growth, a "time-consuming" activity, to bring forth vegetation. In addition, the "days" (ages) within the Day-Age model, can be overlapping to allow insects and birds to be created in time to facilitate plant reproduction, when plants had grown to reproductive age. 2. This view does not need to consider the so-called "appearance of age" problem. 3. This view creates no need to impose solar days on days 1-3 of creation before the sun was in existence. 4. This view accommodates for the time that might be envisioned for the accomplishment of the extensive list of events that occur on the sixth day. On this day the wild animals, the livestock and all the creatures that move along the ground were created. Then Adam was created and put in the Garden of Eden to take care of it with the single provision that he was not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Then the Lord brought all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air before Adam for the man to name them, but from amongst them no suitable helper was found. So the Lord caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep, took a rib from him and created Eve to be his wife and helper. (Some also put everything leading up to, and including, the fall in this day.) Difficulties: 1. Requires the concept of age overlap (without which vegetation requiring insects/birds would have lived without insects/birds). Overlapping "days" (ages) are hard to propose from a reading of the text which more speaks of consecutive times (days). 2. Green plants were created on day 3. Although light had been created on day 1, we know nothing about the nature of this light and its ability to substitute for sunlight (not available until day 4) as the energy source for the plant life. Thus, it could be argued that the green plants could not exist for a very long period without the sun. C. The Framework Interpretation Defined: Exegesis indicates that the scheme of the creation week itself is a poetic figure and that the several pictures of creation history are set within the six work-day frames not chronologically but topically. In distinguishing simple description and poetic figure from what is definitively conceptual the only ultimate guide, here as always, is comparison with the rest of Scripture. In other words, the distinctive feature of the Framework interpretation is its understanding of the week (not the days as such) as a metaphor. Moses used the metaphor of a week to narrate God's acts of creation. Thus God's supernatural creative words or fiats are real and historical, but the exact timing is left unspecified. Why the week then? Moses intended to show Israel God's call to Adam to imitate Him in work, with the promise of entering His Sabbath rest. God's week is a model, analogous to Israel's week. The events are grouped in two triads of days. Days 1-3 (creation's kingdoms) are paralleled by Days 4-6 (creation's kings). Adam is king of the earth and God is King of Creation. Strengths: 1. The order of Gen 1 is difficult to square with Gen 2:5-6: "and no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground." These verses presuppose that God's preservation of the plants during the six days was by normal, secondary causes (water), not by miracle. What Scripture presupposes is part of its inspired meaning. Without rain or a human cultivator, God would not create plants. Verse 5's explanation for this assumes that the mode of preservation during the creation period was ordinary preservation (the same as the Israelite knows, what is currently operating). But normal preservation cannot be easily harmonized with a week of 144 hours. If Gen 1 is strictly sequential, Gen 2:5 must have occurred on Day 3, because dry land did not exist before Day 3, and rich vegetation existed by the end of Day 3. But when Gen 2:5 occurred, it was too dry for plants. Land inundated with water only yesterday (Day 2) does not dry out in a few hours, especially without the sun, which was not created until Day 4. God could have preserved plants without rain, man, or the sun. But that is not the way Gen 2:5 explains the delay of the creation of plants. Rather, it was because of the lack of water, or secondary means of preservation. Therefore the six days in Gen 1 must be topical, not sequential. The framework view does not state how long the week was, but affirms that it must have been longer than one hundred forty-four hours. 2. Since God's mode of operation was ordinary providence, and since light (Day one) without luminaries (Day four) is not ordinary providence, the six days of creation in Gen 1 must be topical, not sequential. Both Gen 1 and 2 are arranged topically. Moses wrote in the second millennium B.C. for the edification of the Israelites on the outskirts of the land of Canaan. The basic message of Gen 1 is that Yahweh, the God of the Exodus, not Baal, is the Creator of heaven and earth. He brought them into being by his Sovereign Word. They depend on him completely. Yahweh is God over rain and sun, moon and stars; hence they are not to be worshiped. Difficulties: 1. Affirming historicity while denying sequence is difficult. The most prominent aspect of narrative as we write it may be the appearance of chronology. The marker of history in our thinking tends to be "when and how did it happen?" On the surface it seems contradictory to suggest that history is being narrated in a semi-figurative form, when time markers are said to be figurative. 2. The relation of Exodus 20:11 to Genesis 1:1-2:3 raises another problem. Verse 11, "for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh," employs an "accusative of duration." In other words, critics argue, Ex 20:11 gives an inspired interpretation of the length of the work of creation. This is decisive for many. Those who hold the Framework position answer by noting that the revealed pattern of six and one is a sufficient basis for man's imitation of God in ordering his time. That is, the rest God requires in the fourth commandment (including physical rest) is an analogy of God's seventh-day rest. God's divine refreshment on the seventh day (cf. Ex 31:17) is the theological basis of Israel's physical refreshment. 3. The Framework interpretation raises the question of what literary genre we may understand Gen 1 to be. It seems to present a mixed form, which is difficult to interpret. How does one discern metaphor from straightforward prose? Proponents answer that this is no more difficult in Gen 1 than anywhere else Scripture uses metaphor. Isaiah 48:13 says, for example, "My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens..." D. The Analogical Days Interpretation Defined: The "days" are God's work-days, which are analogous, and not necessarily identical, to our work days, structured for the purpose of setting a pattern for our own rhythm of rest and work. The six "days" represent periods of God's historical supernatural activity in preparing and populating the earth as a place for humans to live, love, work, and worship. These days are "broadly consecutive": that is, they are taken as successive periods of unspecified length, but one allows for the possibility that parts of the days may overlap, or that there might be logical rather than chronological criteria for grouping some events in a particular "day." Genesis 1:1-2 are background, representing an unknown length of time prior to the beginning of the first "day": verse 1 is the creatio ex nihilo event, while verse 2 describes the conditions of the earth as the first day commenced. Length of time, either for the creation week, or before it or since it, is irrelevant to the communicative purpose of the account. Somewhat similar to the Day-Age Interpretation, but the main difference is that the Analogical-Day Interpretation does not aruge for a lexical sense for the word "day". The analogy is not to the word day, but to the whole week, including evenings and mornings. There is a pause between evenings and mornings. God pauses between His works from one day to the next, then He works the next day. Man's workweek is analogous to the pattern in God's creation workweek. Strengths: 1. The verb tenses in Gen 1:1-2 mark those verses as background to the narrative: further analysis indicates that verse 1 designates an event as an unspecified time prior to the conditions of verse 2, while verse 2 describes the conditions as the first day begins in verse 3 (which uses the narrative tense for the first time). 2. The absence of the refrain in the seventh day is most easily explained as indicating that the seventh day did not end (and John 5:17; Hebrews 4:3-11 seem to take that for granted), hence this is not an "ordinary" day. If day 7 is definitely not 24 hours, then why do we need to force the other six days to be 24 hours? 3. The refrain of the six days ("and there was evening, and there was morning, the nth day"), when seen from within the culture of Moses, marks the end-points of the night-time (cf. Numbers 9:15-16), which is the daily rest for the worker (Psalm 104:22-23; cf. Genesis 30:16; Exodus 18:13) and looks forward to the weekly Sabbath rest. 4. When the Pentateuch reflects on this account to enjoin Sabbath observance, it draws on the analogy (and not identity) between our work and rest and God's (Exodus 20:8-11; 31:17). 5. The use of the Hebrew narrative tense and the march of the numbered days in Genesis 1, along with the accusative of duration in Exodus 20:11 ("over the course of six days") all favor the conclusion that the creative events were accomplished over some stretch of time (i.e. not instantaneously), and that the days are (at least broadly) sequential. 6. The indivisibility of Genesis 2:4, as well as its content, points to the traditional conclusion that Genesis 2:5-25 are an amplification only of the sixth "day" of the creation week. 7. As an exegetical position it is compatible with old-earth creationism as well as with young-earth creationism, but requires neither. 8. The toolkit of discourse and literary methods, when applied to the rest of Genesis 2—3, yield such results as: rejection of source-critical theories of the passage's origin; affirmation that we do not have here two "creation accounts;" resolution of alleged contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2 (e.g. at 2:5-6, 19); vindication of the Pauline reading of Genesis 3, including Adam's role as the first human and covenant head of humanity, and different role relationships for men and women within the context of their equal bearing of God's image. Application of these tools does not in any way question the "historicity" of the events narrated in these chapters, but, in fact, supports it. These methods attempt to systematize what good grammarians and exegetes through the ages have "felt." 9. This view is explicitly built on the desire to be ruled by Scriptural reflections on the account, especially those regarding work and the Sabbath (Exodus 20:8-11; John 5:17; Hebrews 4:3-11). In particular, it is strongly Sabbatarian in its orientation, and explains how our Sabbath can be grounded in God's by the principle of analogy. 10. The biggest strength may be Exodus 20:8-11. The Sabbath commandment shows the analogy between God's pattern of work and rest and man's pattern. 11. The Analogical-Day Interpretation applies to the seventh day of rest just as well as it does to the other six days. God's present rest is specifically resting from creation. 12. God's rest is eternal. Man's rest is 24 hours long because it is analogous, not identical. We know the seventh day is analogous, so the analogy applies to the other six days as well. 13. Ancient Israelite culture lived by a "social clock;" time was defined by activities (working, talking, eating together, etc.) that defined time (rather than clocks defining time). Days are defined by activities, which fits with the days of God's work and rest... they each have a new activity. Difficulties: 1. The discourse and literary methods to which it appeals are new, and not unanimously or consistently employed by Bible scholars. 2. The scheme requires explanation to show that it is not too subtle for the ordinary Hebrew to have understood it, or for the ordinary believer today to understand it. 3. Other explanations for the absence of the refrain on the seventh day have been offered by responsible commentators, and need to be considered. 4. No other Scriptural examples are offered where time indicators are used analogically. I hold to the Analogical Interpretation because I believe the argument from Scripture that God (and His work and being) is regularly analogous, and not identical, to man (and His work and being). Exodus 20:8-11 is a great example of Scripture interpreting Scripture. These verses show God's workdays to be analogous to human workdays. We know with certainty that Day 7 is analogous and not 24-hours long, why would we interpret the other 6 days in a way that contradicts the way that Scripture interprets Day 7? Since it is not specified, we have no reason to guess the exact length of the other 6 days. It is vital to the system, the theology, and doctrinal integrity of the Bible to subscribe to the following: 1. God alone is the sole creator of the universe. 2. He created it ex nihilo (out of nothing) and in its entirety (as opposed to any view that would argue for macro evolution of man). 3. He created it by His word (decree) and His power. Jesus taught Genesis 1-3 as real history. In refuting the Pharisees' allowance of frivolous divorce, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for not following Genesis 1:27: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them," in the following words, "at the beginning, the Creator made them male and female" (Mt 19:4). He then goes on to argue the impropriety of frivolous dissolution of the marriage covenant from God's revelation — what the Creator "said," (Mt 19:5) — in Genesis 2:24, "A man shall leave his father and his mother, and the two will become one flesh." (Compare Paul's similar use of Gen 2:24 in Eph 5:31, and 1 Cor 6:16). The apostles likewise handle Genesis 1-3 as real history. Paul teaches that Adam was a historical person. It was his act of disobedience that brought the curse into the world. "... sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin..." (Rom 5:12-20). Paul refers to Adam's eating from the forbidden tree (Gen 2:17) as a "trespass" (Rom 5:15). A few additional notes: John Calvin (in his Commentary on Genesis 1:14) says that God created light (day 1) before He creates the sun and moon (day 4). On Day 4 He institutes a new order in nature, that the sun should be the dispenser of light during the day and the moon and stars by night. He assigns them this office to teach us that all creatures are subject to His will and execute what He enjoins upon them. The Lord, by the very order of the creation, bears witness that He holds in His hand the light, which He is able to impart to us without the sun and the moon. On the issue of pre-lapsarian death. Is that only related to man or to all of the cosmos? It is clear that death at least in the plant kingdom was to be a natural process since God gave every green plant as food to all that had the breath of life in it including man, the beasts of the earth, the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground (Gen 1:29-30). Others, including John Murray in his commentary, understand Paul here to be speaking of the death of man only. Such proponents see in the very contrast made by Paul in Romans 5:12-21, of death through Adam being subjugated by life through Christ, that the righteousness and eternal life brought by Christ to man alone indicates through its very antithesis that death through Adam is to man alone. SCIENCE: The Bible is infallible; scientific claims are fallible (Bible interpretation is also fallible). God and His Word come first. God's providential governance of all things is the basis for doing science. Science (at its core, whether the scientist is aware of it or not) seeks to understand the mind of God and His providential governance of nature. "The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our Lord stands forever" (Isaiah 40:8). Notes from Science and Faith by Jack Collins: Genesis 1:1-2 is not part of the first day, so we don't have to take the creation week as the first "week" of the universe. The purpose of the creation story is to describe how God prepared the earth as the ideal place for humans to live, love, and serve. No reason to believe Moses is saying that God began His creative work on the first day at the very beginning of the universe (or even the very beginning of the earth). Refrain: (the order) Evening followed by morning - Odd order - How can evening followed by morning make up a day? What's the significance? In between evening and morning is the nighttime. Numbers 9:15-16 says that between evening and morning (nighttime) the appearance of fire would be over the people in the wilderness, and nighttime is when the worker rests... this daily rest looks forward to Sabbath rest. Absence of refrain on seventh day: Seventh day had no end. We are living in the seventh day now. John 5 when Jesus heals on the Sabbath - He is saying, "My Father is still working on His Sabbath; I will work on my Sabbath." Hebrews 4 - God's rest is the same rest that believers enter, thus His rest is still available because it still continues. If the seventh day is not an ordinary one, why do the other six days have to be ordinary ones? God's workweek and our workweeks: Creation rest is unique. Our working and resting cannot be identical to God's... they are like God's in some ways, but certainly not the same. Exodus 31:17 says that God was refreshed (got His breath back) when He rested on the seventh day... we obviously don't believe God was worn out. Instead, we know this is an analogy. (This is another example of Scripture interpreting Scripture as ANALOGY.) This is analogy... there are points of similarity between the two, as well as points of difference. (Like saying, "The eyes of the Lord.") The point of similarity is God was "working on" the earth to make it just right for man to live on. In His Sabbath He is no longer doing this, but now keeps it all in being. Genesis 2:5-7 are key in bringing the two stories (1:1-2:3 and 2:5-25) together: Verses 5-6 are the setting for verse 7 "land" is "some particular land," so Verses 5-8: In some particular land, in some particular year, at the time of year before the rainy season began, but when the mist (or rain cloud) was rising, that's when God formed the first human, planted the Garden of Eden, and transplanted man there. This shows us that the events of 2:5-25 happened on the sixth day of chapter 1. It shows us that this is an expansion of the chapter 1 account for the sixth day. 2:7, 21-22 presents some amount of time between the two creations (forms man verse 7, 21-22 forms woman). It means we shouldn't confuse anything in 2:5-6 with the third day of chapter 1. If we follow Moses's lead (especially the part about the cycles of seasons going on for some time), we have to say that the creation week could not have been an ordinary week, it must have been longer. Day 6 is so long (God makes land animals, forms Adam, plants the Garden, moves man there, gives him instructions, puts him through search for a helper, forms woman) and in verse 23 Adam finally yells, "At last!" which, obviously, implies a long wait. Framework doesn't work because the narrative does account for a sequence. Analogous: The purpose of the analogy is to set a pattern for the human rhythm of work and rest. Days 1-5 have to add up to a fair number of years in order to establish the seasonal cycle seen in 2:5-7. The Analogical Days Interpretation accounts for the details in Genesis AND for how the rest of the Bible refers to this account. It also gives you tight agreement between the first story (1:1-2:3) and the second (2:4-25) by showing that the second amplifies just day six. Day 4 and light: Verse 14 "lights" - This doesn't mean these lights didn't previously exist, only that they now come into view. "Let there be" is the same Hebrew form as "May the Lord be with you" (2 Sam. 20:13), this doesn't suggest that the Lord wasn't with you before. "Let there be light" is God summing the "dawn" of the first "day," and the fourth day involves God appointing heavenly lights to mark the set time for worship on man's calendar. "Made" is not the same as "created." Calendar-Day Interpretation: This doesn't allow us to harmonize 1:1-2:3 with 2:4-25, because it cannot account for the way Genesis 2:5 says the plants hadn't grown since it hadn't yet rained. Part of one ordinary week is way too short a time for this explanation to be meaningful. Further, the overall picture of the days is analogical... human work and rest being analogous to God's work and rest. Day-Age Interpretation: (Be careful: Analogical is not doing with the word "day" what Day-Age is... I'm not arguing for a broad use of "yom" when I argue for analogical.) The problem is the third sense of the word "day" ("the day of the Lord", "the day of wrath") is never used anywhere else in Genesis, so we don't have any of the normal signals for this use of "day." Framework Interpretation: The view that the days are primarily a literary structuring device to describe the creation week. It argues Day 4 creates sun, moon, and stars while Day 1 created light, so Moses wasn't really describing chronological order. Kline argues Days 1 and 4 are really the same events viewed from different angles. BUT, the way the narrative unfolds (first, second, third... seventh) implies that they followed one another (allowing for analogy). The fourth day is not describing the creation of the heavenly lights. Collins's Version of Analogical Days Interpretation: Genesis 1:1 is the initial creation, with an unknown amount of time between that and the start of the first day. The Day-Age view takes "day" to mean "period of unspecified length," while the Analogical Days view takes the word in its ordinary meaning but applies that meaning analogically. (Just like we do with other analogical terms... with "eyes of the Lord' we use the ordinary meaning for the word "eye" and apply it analogically to God.) His biggest strengths to Analogical: The seventh day is not an ordinary day. The other six days don't have to be ordinary days (because they're presented as God's workdays). It is the best way to get full agreement between chapters 1 and 2. This view is the best way for accounting for all of the features of the text.

What is your understanding of the Federal Vision Theology and the discussions related to it?

(from Bradley)... There's not one official statement of FV. David refers to Federal Visions. Reconstructionists became Theonomists who later became Federal Vision (that's their track record). FV guys were influenced by New Perspectives (but it is different from NP). New Perspectives was an academic, theological movement who said we've been reading Paul through Luther all these year, and Luther was reading Paul as if Paul was arguing with the Roman Catholic church. Therefore, Luther read Paul incorrectly. Particularly, with regard to works righteousness. NP guys say, "Jews of Paul's time did not believe in works righteousness, they believed in grace." NP guys had no representatives who were experts on 2nd temple Judaism. FV Emphasis on sacraments. Thought PCA churches were looking like Southern Baptists. In their attempts to recover the importance of the sacraments they ended up going in a Roman Catholic direction... they erred into sacramentalism. It was impossible to distinguish between Roman baptismal regeneration. Which is why so many FV guys end up becoming Roman. This was all peaking 2004-06 range. NP in denying New Testament was works-based, therefore they overemphasized covenant. You are elect if you belong to the right body. Israel. How do you belong to Isabel? Covenant. The FV guys picked up on this Covenantalism. So, they redefined election as something you can lose, because the community is elect but not the individual. If you're in the community, you're elect; if you leave the community, you're not elect. If that's true, then your baptism is the most important thing. You are in the community. This is why you can't distinguish their view of baptism from baptismal regeneration. The word elect is redefined to refer to the community. God never called you (the individual); He called the church. Justification is not finalized until the final judgment. They are, of course, in favor of paedocommunion. (from Filson)... NP - denial of original sin, which leads to a redefinition of the nature of the atonement, redefinition of covenant, redefinition of election, redefinition of justification, redefinition of penal substitution. Federal Vision is an ecclesiology in search of a soteriology. (It is an ecclesiology that eclipses and swallows up soteriology.) It is a romanticized view of sacramental efficacy, because of that they saw one's justification overly tied to one's baptism... Will you remain faithful to that baptism? Without using the language, they're basically saying they believe in baptismal regeneration. FV people often leave and become Roman Catholic. FV would say baptism procures union with Christ, we would say baptism is a proclamation of our union with Christ. If you say it procures it, you move into ex opere operato.

Briefly explain the nature of the following Christological heresies: o Docetism o Arianism o Nestorianism o Adoptionism o Appollonarianism o Eutychianism o Kenoticism

*Docetism - This was an attack on Jesus' humanity. Jesus only (δοκεω) "seemed" or "appeared" to take on human flesh. Christ couldn't really be human because all matter is evil. "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist." 2 John 7 *Arianism - This was an attack on Jesus' divinity. Jesus was a heavenly being, but still a created being. The first and greatest created being. Not fully God, a sort of demigod being. This messes with the doctrine of the Trinity, the eternal generation of the son, etc. Arius was an elder in the church of Alexandria. Claimed that the Son was different in essence from Father and that the Word had a beginning. Homoousios means "same substance", whereas the word homoiousios means "similar substance". The Council of Nicea condemned Arianism. Jehovah's Witness is modern day Arianism. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." John 1:1-3 *Nestorianism - Affirmed the dual nature of Christ (divine and human), but saw no unity whatsoever in those natures. Christ's two natures were totally divided. This heresy said that Christ existed as two persons. The church condemned this heresy in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. "Being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him." Hebrews 5:9 *Adoptionism - Attacks the incarnation. Jesus was adopted by God at His baptism (Matthew 3) and at that point became God's Son. This would place in question Jesus's dual nature (as not being fully God). The Spirit of Christ left Him at the crucifixion. Again this messes with the doctrine of the Trinity, the eternal generation of the son, etc. "Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted." Hebrews 2:17-18 *Appollinarianism - Taught that Jesus didn't have a human soul, and that His soul was actually replaced by the Logos. This heresy would then deny the full humanity of Christ. "Then he said to them, 'My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me.'" Matthew 26:38 *Eutychianism - Christ only had one nature, a mixture of both human and divine (a commingling of natures). Taught that Christ's human nature was absorbed, or swallowed up, by the divine nature, so that what was left over was not two natures but one. This not only gets rid of Christ's human nature, but by mixing the two we're no longer left with a truly divine nature either; we're left with something neither fully human nor fully divine. "Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted." Hebrews 2:17-18 *Kenoticism - Means "to empty." Taught that when Christ became human that he emptied himself of all divinity, and therefore became entirely and solely human. This view denies the full deity of Christ. It misunderstands Philippians 2, which Augustine said is about Christ "taking the form of a servant, not losing the form of God." "For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily." Colossians 2:9

How many natures does Christ have?

2. Fully divine, Fully Human. "Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:6-7) "For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Colossians 2:9)

How do you interpret the fourth commandment and how does it apply today?

4th Commandment Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Application Today - God, in His work of creation, to rest at the conclusion of His work. He decided to do this by His own will and for His own pleasure. Jesus in Mark 2, while being confronted by the Pharisees for the actions of His disciples, says, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." For us today, and my understanding of what Jesus is teaching here, is that the Sabbath is given to man by God, for his good. It is God's rhythm for our lives to rest, worship, and remember Him, and is worth our setting aside all of the things we engage in as far as worldly employments to receive. Jesus teaches that what David did in consecrating the bread of the priests for his men was an act of necessity and mercy, and not inconsistent with Sabbath rest. There may come times where we have to do things that fall in these categories (necessity and mercy), but my fundamental conviction is that Jesus is getting at the heart of the Sabbath and so must we, that we would rest and devote a day to this rhythm and see it as a gift from the Lord.

Distinguish between Biblical Theism, Deism and Pantheism.

Biblical Theism Belief in the Trinitarian covenantal god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 1. One God 2. Creator God 3. Personal, present, and active in His creation (Salvation and Redemption) Deism 1. One God 2. Creator God 3. Impersonal. Uninvolved in his creation. Set it in motion and watches from a distance. No special revelation or need for divine assistance in any form. Denies prophecy, miracles, and anything where God's intervenes in his creation in any form. Pantheism 1. God is all, and is in all, and all are in God. 2. God is not a creator God. 3. God is not a personal God. God is in everything. God is an impersonal, single reality. (Hindu, New Age beliefs) This is a relevant discussion today in that it is addressing the fundamental nature of God, His involvement with His creation (even potentially questioning his creation), His role and plan (and consequently ours) for the redemption of creation and mankind's salvation (also questioning even the need for such redemption and salvation-Pantheism). Ones theism, has quite a trickle down effect, effecting one's theology concerning creation, salvation, and general eschatological convictions.

Define and distinguish between classical, evidential, and presuppositional apologetics. Who are some representatives of each school of thought? Which do you favor?

CLASSICAL - reason and logic "The case for the existence of God can be proven demonstrably, rationally, formally, and compellingly," says R.C. Sproul. Classical apologists (like Sproul, C.S. Lewis, and Francis Schaeffer) use logic and reason to prove the existence of God and expose the faulty logic and reason that would seek to deny the existence of the Chrisitan God. An example would be to present the Law of Causality and show how creation by an eternal, self-existent, personal creator must exist or else cause and effect would regress into eternity with no first, uncaused cause. It is logically irrational to reject an eternal, self-existent, personal creator. Classical apologetics seeks to demonstrate that only the Christian worldview gives a reasonable, logical explanation for all that is, while all other worldview are illogical. Starts by theistic proofs. Logically, we must establish the existence of God. Uses classical Aristotlean arguments. After this we must show that the Christian God is that God. Only much later do we worry about biblical inspiration, etc. Ontological, cosmological, teleological and other rational arguments for God. EVIDENTIAL - factual verification The evidential apologist seeks to present concrete empirical evidence for the existence of God from nature and history that would give you a probability quotient of conclusion to satisfy the question on the existence of God. Evidential apologetics begins with facts and seeks to argue towards the existence of God from there. There is also a large focus on defending the resurrection of Jesus in evidential apologetics. Well known evidential apologists would be Lee Strobel (hence the "A Case for..." titles), Josh McDowell, and John Warrick Montgomery. An example would be to study some extremely complex facet of creation (such as the human eye) and due to its complexity draw the conclusion that there must be a designer, a higher being (God) who is behind all this. Evidential apologetics makes a large number of arguments from history, archeology, geography, and other relevant disciplines. PRESUPPOSITIONAL - epistemology (our theory of knowledge, how we can know what we know) The only way you can come to a sound conclusion of the existence of God is you must begin with the belief in the existence of God. Scott Oliphint likes to refer to presuppositional apologetics as "covenantal apologetics" in stressing that the presuppositional school is particularly Reformed, and that more so than the other two schools. Presuppositional apologists, rather than arguing from evidence or the traditional philosophical proofs, imply transcendental arguments to make their case; they are more concerned with what makes evidence evidential and what makes reason reasonable. There can be no reason or logic apart from God. We must start with God to defend the existence of God. Presup does not reject classical or evidential arguments, instead it provides the grounding that gives the other approaches meaning and shows how competing worldview have insufficient grounding. Van Til said, "revelation in Scripture must be made our starting point." The only rational system of thought is biblical theism. We should present the biblical God not merely as the conclusion to an argument, but as the one who makes argument possible. A presupposition is a thought or truth that comes before another, and therefore is superior to another, and therefore serves as a criteria for the later thought. That is to say that the validity of the second thought is contingent on the prior truth of the presupposition by which it is being measured. The work of presuppositional apologetics is to expose false presupposed ideas in a worldview, in order to show the breakdown in the rationale of that idea or thought. It is the use of, and arguments of, reason in particular that presuppositional apologists employ. Is this circular reasoning? All reasoning is circular reasoning (all reasoning appeals to and assumes an authority). Circular reasoning is not the same as circular argument. It is impossible to establish that one has knowledge in a certain area without at the same time presupposing some knowledge in that area. The epistemic and metaphysical situation in which human beings exist is one in which the source of, and rationale for, all that we are and think is, ultimately, in the Triune God of Scripture. Circularity in this sense is inevitable. We will never be outside the context of the image of God as we think and live—-not in this life, nor in the next. Every fact and experience has its rationale in God's creating and sustaining activity. This approach is a covenantal one. All men are either in Adam, as their covenant head, or in Christ. There is no third place to be. As such, we reason, think, live, and act according to the principles entailed in our covenant status. As Van Til says, circular argument of a kind is unavoidable when we argue for an ultimate standard of truth. One who believes that human reason is the ultimate standard can argue that view only by appealing to reason. One who believes that the Bible is the ultimate standard can argue only by appealing to the Bible. Since all positions partake equally of circularity at this level, it cannot be a point of criticism against any of them. Narrowly circular arguments, like "the Bible is God's Word, because it is God's Word" can hardly be persuasive. But more broadly circular arguments can be. An example of a more broadly circular argument might be "The Bible is God's Word, because it makes the following claims..., makes the following predictions that have been fulfilled..., presents these credible accounts of miracles..., is supported by these archaeological discoveries..., etc." Now this argument is as circular as the last if, in the final analysis, the criteria for evaluating its claims, its predictions, its accounts of miracles, and the data of archaeology are criteria based on a biblical worldview and epistemology. But it is a broader argument in the sense that it presents more data to the non-Christian and challenges him to consider it seriously. God created our minds to think within the Christian circle: hearing God's Word obediently and interpreting our experience by means of that Word. That is the only legitimate way to think, and we cannot abandon it to please the unbeliever. A good psychologist will not abandon reality as he perceives it to communicate with a delusional patient; so must it be with apologists. Van Til and those who closely follow him hold that apologetic argument must be transcendental. A transcendental argument tries to show the conditions that make anything what it is, particularly the conditions or presuppositions necessary for rational thought. This understanding of apologetics underscores Van Til's conviction that the Christian God is not merely another fact to be discovered alongside the ones we already know, but is the fact from whom all other facts derive their meaning and intelligibility. The leading representatives begins with Cornelius Van Til and includes others such as Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, and Scott Oliphint. An example would be 2 Peter 3:1-13 where Peter defends the second coming of Christ by refuting the objection that "everything will go on as it always has." He does not refute the charge by use of empirical data or rational argumentation, but rather he refutes the charge by citing the Word of God. A presuppositional apologist desires to persuade the non-believer that the biblical presuppositions are true. If his argument presupposes the truths of Scripture, then his conclusions will be the same as his presuppositions. He will argue from Christian presuppositions to Christian conclusions. MY OPPINION I think the evidential methodology is the weakest of the three, in that there is no real way to agree upon an established measurement for probability (if you're saying: What are the chances the human eye would be this complex without a God?). I have benefited greatly from classical apologetics teaching from the likes of Sproul and his ability to expose flawed logic and reason in denying the existence of God. That said, I most strongly favor presuppositional apologetics as it starts with God, the imago Dei, and God's covenantal dealing with people. In my conversations I am most quick to attempt to expose flawed presuppositions (flawed worldviews). And, in all this, knowing that even the best apologetic argument is subservient to the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of mankind, being the One who really moves and effects hearts and minds. As Romans 1:18-22 points out, deep down everyone knows that God is there, but as children of Adam people are busy working hard to suppress that truth. Further Notes: Can your presuppositions explain your worldview? Materialist Atheists - their worldview denies universal truths because everything is material: If I drop this pencil, what will happen? The atheist says, "Because of the Law of Gravity..." But, as soon as the atheist says the word "Law" he loses his own argument. The Christian worldview is a necessary precondition for intelligibility. The Laws of Logic - If everything is just matter and motion, then there is no transcendent being to define what IS. Atheistic worldviews cannot account for induction and deduction. Four Necessary Prerequisites for a Christian Metaphysic (John Frame): 1. God is Absolute Personality 2. Creator/Creature distinction (if deny this, there is ultimately no KNOWING... we know by analogy, our knowledge is God's knowledge) 3. The Trinity (necessary for personhood, relationship...) 4. The Sovereignty of God (accounts for the normativity of nature) designers

When did Jesus Christ's humiliation begin, and what is meant by the "humiliation and exaltation of Christ"? Pull in a couple Scriptures here.

Christ's humiliation began at the incarnation. "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14). Christ humiliation is, generally speaking, His birth, an that a lowly and humble one, His incarnation and being made into human likeness, His being subjected to the miseries of this life, His being made to live under the law, His suffering, His death on a cross, His being buried, and decent into hades where he was under deaths hold for a period of time. "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." (Philippians 2:6-8) Christ's exaltation is generally understood as His resurrection (Matthew 28), ascension (Acts 1), session (Mark 12:36), and final return. "Sit at My right hand till I make Your enemies Your footstool" (Mark 12:36) "session" means "seated" - Sit and rule - our church's session sits to meet about leading lead the church.

What is temptation and how does it work?

Cultural debate over same sex attraction is relevant here. Is temptation a sin? My flesh arises internally and that temptation is sin... the impulse, indwelling sin. External temptation is not sin. Something outside makes an appeal that something inside draws on. Jesus had nothing internal that latched onto the external temptation. Indwelling Sin vs. External Sin Matthew 5 - anyone who already lusts, hates, etc. Our sinful desires arise out of our sinful flesh. Usually there is an external element. Our sinful flesh is not yet destroyed... it is existentially sinful, every desire from it is sinful, if we don't recognize this we make sin external. We can be tempted externally and genuinely not sin. Someone could tempt me to launder money from some company and I genuinely feel 0% desire to do that. That temptation has zero desire within me to latch on to. Homosexuality - "Men who identify as SSA but not acting on it are not sinning" is a common, current theological error. That's Roman Catholic theology; Reformed theology is clear that this desire itself is sin.We should never deny that ungodly desires are sin. An SSA believer should grieve that this desire itself is sin. Be broken by those desires. Hate those desires. Hate having a desire that is opposed to God's desires. James 1:14-15 "But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death."

What are some basic differences between Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology?

Geerhardus Vos said that Biblical Theology draws a line whereas Systematic Theology draws a circle; Biblical Theology is historical whereas Systematic Theology is logical. "In Biblical Theology the principle is one of historical, in Systematic it is one of logical construction. Biblical Theology draws a line of development. Systematic Theology draws a circle" (Vos). Biblical Theology is chronological; it is the narrative of Scripture as doctrines appear throughout the history of revelation. Systematic Theology seeks to answer the question: What does the entire Bible say about this one doctrine or topic? The goal of Systematic Theology is to put doctrine in a logical order. Biblical Theology seeks to answer the question: How does this particular doctrine progressively unfold throughout the chronological revelation given in Scripture? The goal of Biblical Theology is to trace the historical unveiling of doctrine from Genesis to Revelation.

How would you counsel a person who said, "There is no use trying to do anything since everything is predetermined"?

God determines the ends and the means. Fatalism says our choices/actions/etc. don't matter... we deny this. God's word says there are consequences to our decisions. This same question could be asked of prayer... If God is sovereign, why pray? Does prayer change God's mind? No. Who, in their right mind would want that? Does prayer change things? Yes. If God is not sovereign (not all powerful), then why pray? If He's not sovereign, then He's not powerful enough to answer prayer. God ordains the ends and the means. Prayer is one of God's primary means in accomplishing His ends.

Distinguish the function of each member of the Trinity's function in a person's salvation.

God the Father- 1. Elects, Adopts, Regenerates (gives new heart through spirit) 2. Provides all necessary means to accomplish His Ends. 3. Judges. Jesus Christ- 1. Mediator of redemption (and creation) 2. Incarnation 3. substitutionary atonement 4. active and passive obedience- on mankind's behalf. 5. Justifies the elect. Holy Spirit- 1. Proceeds from both the Father and Son. Applies regeneration. 2. Lives in us. 3. Guides us into all truth. 4. Sanctifies us. 5. Seals us. 6. Comforts us.

Define and distinguish between general and specific revelation. What is the purpose of each?

God's revelation (both general and special) is His gracious self-disclosure of Himself. Two types of General Revelation Mediate General Revelation Immediate General Revelation Mediate General Revelation: To all mankind. It is NOT salvific (Romans 1:18-32). The mediating agency is creation (Psalm 104). Calvin says, "God has revealed Himself enough that we can see Him." Immediate General Revelation: God revealing Himself without a mediating agent. It is placed in you as a human being (part of the Imago Dei). Calvin distinguished between knowledge of God the Creator and knowledge of God the Redeemer. He distinguishes between the following three forms of knowledge of God as Creator: Cognitio Dei Insita (implanted knowledge of God) Sensus Divinitatis (a sense, or awareness, of God) Semen Religionis (seat of religion, a sense of religion within us, this explains why human history has always seen the construction of countless religions, false religions because of the fall, but the need for religion is still in every person because of the Imago Dei) By the Noahic Covenant God fixes the laws of nature which ensures that His power and Godhead will continue to be revealed in His creation (Genesis 8:22); and, because God has planted in the soul of man a sense of His existence and being, He ensures that He will continue to reveal Himself to the heart and soul of all mankind (though, man will repeatedly try to suppress that truth). Because of the God-ordained limits of General Revelation one of the attributes of Scripture is its necessity. People cannot be saved by General Revelation, but rather need Scripture to reveal God the Redeemer. Hebrews 1:1-2 shows the necessity of Special Revelation. "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world." Both General Revelation and Special Revelation are infallible, because God is the One doing the revealing. God's revelation is infallible, our interpretation (both general and special) is fallible. SPECIAL REVELATION two types: Inscripturated - Word of God (the Bible) Incarnated - Word of God (Jesus) Both of these are living. In special revelation God seeks man out and tells man who and what He is. He does not leave it to man to figure out who and what He is; He tells man. The Bible is God speaking and telling us who He is. There were also forms of special revelation in the Old Testament: when God spoke to Abraham and Moses; the miracles are God revealing Himself. Ultimately Christ is God speaking and telling us who He is (Christ is the Word made flesh, anyone who has seen Him has seen the Father). In the Abrahamic Covenant God tells a people that He will be their God and they will be His people. When God binds Himself in covenant to be Israel's God, He shows that people will be saved not by law but by promise (Romans 4:11). The person of Christ is the special revlation of God. He establishes a New Covenant in His blood (Matthew 26:28) and, after finishing His work, the apostolic witness is given, so the promise made to Abraham can now be given to all nations.

What is covenantal theology? Trace the covenants through Scripture. What are the covenants of works, of redemption, and of grace? How does Christ relate to the covenants of redemption, works, and grace?

Heavily drawn from Sacred Bond... Covenant is God's chosen framework for the Bible. "Covenant is a formal agreement that creates a relationship with legal aspects." 8 Covenants: Redemption, Works, Grace, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, New Demonstrate a Tri-covnenantal Perspective (redemption, works, and grace) of Covenant Theology, as opposed to just listing the covenants unfolded throughout the Bible. Covenant of Redemption (Pactum Salutis) Essentially God's blueprint for salvation. A plan/agreement/commitment made within the Persons of the Trinity before the existence of time (pretemporal). The Father gives the Son to be the Redeemer of the elect and requires of Him the conditions for their redemption; the Son accomplishes these conditions; and the Spirit applies the work of the Son to the elect. Psalm 40:7-8 "Then I said, 'Behold, I have come; in the scroll of the book it is written of me: I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart.'" Shows a relationship of obedience and reward between Father and Son. Ephesians 1:3-14 "... he chose us in him before the foundation of the world..." Shows God drawing up a blueprint for salvation in eternity past. In the Covenant of Redemption the Father chooses the Son to be the executor of redemption. This Covenant lies behind the Covenant of Works and Grace. Covenant of Works (Foedus Operum) God's commitment to give Adam (and all his posterity) eternal life for obedience or eternal death for disobedience. A covenant with Adam and all his posterity. Adam represented and acted on behalf of everyone. Everyone is in this Covenant. Genesis 2-3 Specific obligation: Do not eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil The Tree of Life symbolizes the reward... it was a sign and guarantee to Adam that if he obeyed he would live forever. Therefore, God bans them from the tree after they have fallen so that they will not live forever in that state. Isaiah 24:5 "The earth lies defiled under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant." God passes judgement because people have broken the everlasting covenant. Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 - In both of these passages Paul shows the similarities between the roles played by Adam and Jesus. (Romans 5:19 "By the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.") Romans 5-6 shows that Jesus had a role to play in the Covenant of Works. The covenant of works reveals the standard of God's justice. It reveals that heaven must be earned. Eternal life must be earned by perfect righteousness according to the law. The Covenant of Grace (Foedus Gratiae) The Lord promises to send a Second Adam who would fulfill the work the First Adam failed to do, and thus bring His people to the Tree of Life. God (in His justice) had to judge Adam and his posterity for their sin, but, in His grace, He promises salvation. The Covenant of Grace is the one covenant through which all believers are saved; it is the historical outworking of God's eternal plan of salvation in the Covenant of Redemption. "The Covenant of Grace is the covenant between God and believers with their children, in which He promises salvation through faith in Christ, who merited their salvation by His obedience in the Covenant of Redemption." Genesis 3:15 - protoevangelium - A promise of a people that God would make into a holy covenant community, and that there would also be a Champion-Offspring who would defeat the Serpent. Satan did strike Jesus' heal... Jesus did have to undergo the horrors of the cross and taste death. The Covenant of Grace unites the entire Bible as it runs from Genesis through Revelation all the way into eternity. The Covenant of Grace (until the consummation) contains both Jacobs and Esaus... children of believers who both believe in God's covenant promise and children of believers who reject God's covenant promise. Is the Covenant of Grace unilateral or bilateral? it is bilateral (unlike the Covenant of Redemption). Noahic Covenant The "Common Grace Covenant" - common grace to all people, no matter their spiritual status. This covenant is not about salvation, but rather it is about sustaining the world. The Noahic Covenant is God's common grace with the earth, despite mankind's depravity, to sustain its order until the consummation. Genesis 8:20-9:17 Two-prong Promise: One, God will not destroy the earth because of man. Two, God promises to preserve the normal cycle of seasons. 8:21 - God makes this promise "in His heart"... this promise was not heard by Noah, but was only heard in heaven. 9:8-17 The promise is between God and every living creature. Noah represents all future humanity. Though the covenant is non-redemptive, it is still a promise to preserve the natural order of the world so that life can continue to exist. The RAINBOW - (horizontal bow symbolized peace after war) God is no longer hostile to the world... He will not destroy it in this way again. The rainbow reminds us that the floods will never come again. There is peace. The Covenant is unilateral... God sees the sign and is reminded of His own promise. When we see the sign, we can know that God sees it as well and is reminded of His promise to uphold the creation and to continue the seasons. This Covenant provides the arena for Christ to come. It secures the stage for the Seed to defeat the Serpent. This Covenant will last until Christ's second coming. The Covenant of Works is not abrogated at Noah. The Covenant of Works is a reflection of God's holy character, therefore it is permanent. If God abrogates the Covenant of Works, He forfeits His justice. The emphasis of the Noahic Covenant is on Chronological and the Seed being preserved. Bavink (in The Wonderful Works of God) calls this covenant the Covenant of Nature. It rests upon the consideration that the heart of man is evil. It has as its content the restoration of blessing, given at creation, of fruitfulness and dominion over animals, and carries with it the commandment against taking life. God obliges to maintain the creation despite its fall and rebellion. By the terms of this covenant God owes it to Himself to sustain the world and its life. Bans and restrictions were laid upon nature and man. Man's lifespan was shortened, man's strength was diminished, his nature was mellowed. Bavink states that large sea creatures were ended (dinosaurs?), even the earth's ability to have a violent, world-destroying flood were all ended. God fulfills a covenant that makes history possible. Abrahamic Covenant The covenant of grace established with Abraham and his offspring, wherein God promised the entire future of His covenantal kingdom, in both its Old and New Covenant stages. This promise is for you and your children. Genesis 12-17 Genesis 12 - The Promise Unconditional promises, "I will... I will... I will..." Genesis 15 - The ratification ceremony. "You want a guarantee, Abraham?" Blood oath covenant ceremony. God walks alone through the severed animals. Smoking fire pot and flaming torch (similar to forms the Lord used in the exodus; pillar of cloud and pillar of fire). God invokes death upon Himself if He should fail to fulfill His promise. The Abrahamic Covenant is the Covenant of Grace more fully revealed. Fulfilled in two stages: First in the Old Covenant with the nation of Israel (offspring) and Canaan (land) during the Mosaic Covenant, and second in the church of Christ (offspring) and the new heavens and new earth (land) during the New Covenant. Israel and Canaan were only pictures and foreshadows of a far greater fulfillment revealed in the New Testament. Genesis 17 - Circumcision Christ fulfilled (therefore, it is no longer needed) circumcision when He was "cut off from the land of the living" (Isaiah 53:8). GALATIANS 3 Galatians 3:29 calls Jew and Gentile believers the offspring of Abraham. Moreover, Christ is THE offspring of Abraham (Galatians 3:16). Christ becomes like those bloody animals in the covenant ritual ceremony by becoming a curse (Galatians 3:13). God's blood-oath in Genesis 15 was His commitment to the death of Christ for our sins. "I will give you" - Genesis 15 - focus on grace as opposed to law (in Mosaic/Old Covenant). Faith justifies sinners (Galatians 3:6-9) whereas obedience to the law did not (Galatians 3:11-12). Galatians 3:19 - The law was ADDED to the Abrahamic Covenant because of sin. The law was like a tutor for children (Galatians 3:23-26)... serving the temporary purpose of training wheels. John Murray: The covenant with Abraham comprised four things: 1) The seed promised and fulfilled in Christ; 2) The condition - faith in the promise; 3) The confirmation - promise and oath; 4) The parts which answer to the three offices of Christ. Mosaic Covenant The Mosaic Covenant is God's law covenant with Israel, wherein He graciously leads them to Christ by showing them the perfect righteousness that only Christ could fulfill to redeem sinners. Narrowly, it is a Covenant of Law; broadly, it is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. God gave the Mosaic Covenant to show Israel and all humanity that nobody can be justified by works of the law (Romans 3:19-20). The Mosaic Covenant, and it's demands of perfect obedience, drives the repentant sinner to Christ. It is a republication of the Covenant of Works. It differs from the Abrahamic Covenant in that the Abrahamic is a covenant of promise and the Mosaic is a covenant of law (Galatians 3:17-19). It was always intended to be temporary. Exodus 19:3-6 creates the Mosaic Covenant. God's promise is conditioned upon Israel's performance. Exodus 24 ratifies the covenant. Moses builds an altar (representing the Lord) and twelve pillars (representing the twelves tribes). The blood collected in the basins is symbolic of the life-and-death consequences of the oath. Moses throws half of the blood on the altar (symbolically on the Lord) and the other half on the twelves stones (symbolically on the people). After Moses reads the whole book of the covenant he then sprinkles the blood on the people. It then ends with a covenant meal (Moses, Aaron, and the 70 elders eat and drink with God on the mountain). If God doesn't keep His word (which won't happen), the covenant is broken. If Israel doesn't keep their oath, the covenant is broken. The prophets speak into this; Isaiah 5:1-7 looks for fruit and finds none. Similar to the law given to Adam in the Covenant of Works. Key difference: Whereas Adam could obey for eternal life, Israel was only to earn an earthly picture of heaven, the Promised Land (a picture of heaven). Israel was not saved by law. The curse is not death but being forsaken by God. Thus, they eventually end up back in exile. Counterbalancing the blessing, the curse is a picture of hell (being forsaken). Which is the covenantal context for Jesus' cry of "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" From the start God told them that they would fail (Deuteronomy 4, Deut. 30:1)... "WHEN you fail..." God makes a covenant with them and tells them from the start that they will fail. You cannot earn God's eternal favor, therefore you must put your faith in God. Their inevitable failure drove them to look for a Mediator. The Lord built in renewals (Day of Atonement, as well as Passover, Feast of Weeks, etc.). God's justice requires that heaven be earned by perfect obedience to His law. Christ came and did this as our covenantal representative. Born under the Mosaic Law, Christ fulfilled what He promised in the Covenant of Redemption. God gives us Israel's history to show us our sinful identity and our need for a Saving Mediator. Davidic Covenant 2 Samuel 7 gives God's promise to David. Jeremiah 33:20-21 calls this promise a covenant. It is an unconditional and everlasting promise. There is a conditional aspect... David's son must do something to earn the eternal throne. The son must build the house (2 Samuel 7:13). David's son must be the temple builder. 1 Kings 8-9 show how the unconditional and conditional elements of this covenant work together. I Kings 8 says, "Only if you obey." Because of God's unconditional promise, the Davidic Covenant must continue. But, the temple can only be built by one who obeys perfectly. The Davidic son has to keep the law of Moses in order to inherit the eternal throne. Acts 2 Peter declares that Jesus is who is referred to in Psalm 16. In Psalm 110 David knew that his son would be greater than him. Of His kingdom there will be no end (Luke 1:32-33). The house He built was made with living people (1 Peter 2:5). Jesus built the temple for God to live in... His people, with Christ as the cornerstone. New Covenant John Murray: The New Covenant is the expansion and fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham. It is an everlasting covenant. The New Covenant is God bringing forth the new creation in His people through the finished work of Christ, in fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. The prophets reminded the people of the Mosaic Covenant, and their violation of it... they warned the people of doom and destruction. They also brought a message of hope. Although the people had broken the Mosaic Covenant, God would not forget His unconditional promise He made to Abraham. Jeremiah 31:31-34 God promises a new covenant with His people which will never be broken. 722 BC the Lord sent the Assyrians to carry away the Northern Kingdom. 586 BC the Lord sent the Babylonians to exile the southern kingdom, where they remained for 70 years. They returned to the land and awaited the promised Messiah. 500 years later, while eating Passover, Jesus said, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." The new covenant had arrived. The new covenant is new in relation to the Mosaic, NOT the Abrahamic. The New is mediated by Christ; the Old was mediated by Moses. The New Covenant promises renewal by the Holy Spirit. The New includes the nations. The New is permanent. The New Covenant is the Last Covenant. Ezekiel 16:60 The Lord will make an everlasting covenant. Ezekiel 36:26-27 "The Lord will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh... I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my ways." 2 Corinthians 3:6 - The Old Covenant "the letter" kills, whereas the New Covenant "the Spirit" gives life. The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant... the offspring of Abraham (all believers of God's promise in Christ). Hebrews 7:22 "Jesus is the guarantor of a better covenant." In what way is the New Covenant NEW? There is only ONE Covenant of Grace. The old administration is more confined. IT'S THE NEW ADMINISTRATION OF THE OLD COVENANT OF GRACE. The Old and New are two administrations of the one Covenant of Grace. Like those old pens with 4 different colors. How does Christ relate to the covenants of redemption, works, and grace? In the Covenant of Redemption Christ commits to accomplish salvation for the elect. In the Covenant of Works Christ fulfills the Law by His perfect obedience. In the Covenant of Grace Christ represents the elect as the Second Adam who fulfills the work the First Adam failed to do, and thus brings His people to the Tree of Life. Common Mistakes: The idea of grace in the garden In the Covenant of Works, was there a meritorious element? YES! Adam would have merited life with perfect obedience. Had Adam merited life it would have been grace. Grace in the garden is not grace in the since of salvific (we are pre-lapsarian in the garden)... grace was not salvific because there was no fall to be saved from, but grace in the garden is God condescending. Not redeeming grace, but condescending grace. The merit Adam would have earned would not have been equal to God's inherit, perfect righteousness, but it would've had Adam receive a passing grade. The Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace are NOT THE SAME. What is the condition in the Covenant of Grace? FAITH IN A MEDIATOR. How did that mediator have the right to fulfill the Covenant of Works? Jesus is the mediator, so he is not fulfilling covenant of grace, he is fulfilling covenant of works, which is His response to fulfilling covenant redemption. His fulfilling the covenant of works makes Him the Mediator of the Covenant of Grace.

State the Apostle's Creed from memory.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,the Creator of heaven and earth,and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,born of the Virgin Mary,suffered under Pontius Pilate,was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heavenand sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church,the communion of saints,the forgiveness of sins,the resurrection of the body,and life everlasting. Amen.

Have you ever read Sinclair Ferguson's book ​The Whole Christ​ or listened to his lectures on the Marrow Controversy? (If not, do one of those.) What is the most important thing you learned from these?

I've done both. The most important thing I learned from these, doctrinally, is that legalism and antinomianism are not opposites of one another but are both opposites of grace. Practically and pastorally, Ferguson made a point that convicted me that if we preach/teach in such a way that communicates the amount of conviction someone must have to come to Christ, then we are making conviction a condition to the free grace of Christ in the gospel. From the book: The Marrow Controversy early 18th century Scotland over a reprint of Edward Fisher's "Marrow of Modern Divinity". Thomas Boston, the leading "Marrow Man," showed that the root of both legalism and antinomianism is the same; they are "nonidentical twins from the same womb." Both mindsets refuse to believe in the love and graciousness of God. It all started in Auchterarder, Scotland and the Auchterarder Creed: I believe that it is not sound and orthodox to teach that we forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ, and instating us in covenant with God. The Marrow Men were suspected of antinomianism, while the opponents of the Marrow Men were suspected of a subtle form of legalism. At the root of the matter lay the nature of the grace of God. Two points Boston stressed: 1. That in Jesus heist there is a fullness of grace for all who will come to him. 2. It preserved the New Testament's emphasis not on ly on the fulness of the grace of Christ but also on the freeness of that grace in Christ. What the Marrow Men opposed was the subtle movement from seeing forsaking sin as the FRUIT of grace that is rooted in election, to making the forsaking of sin the NECESSARY PRECURSOR for experiencing that grace. Repentance, which is the fruit of grace, thus becomes a qualification for grace. This puts the cart before the horse. The benefits of the gospel (justification, reconciliation, redemption, adoption) were being separated from Christ, who is himself the gospel. The benefits of the gospel are IN CHRIST. They do not exist apart from him. They are our only IN HIM. New Testament believers did not think of themselves as "Christians"... the term was most likely a pejorative term use of (rather than by) the early church. The overwhelmingly dominant way the New Testament describes believers is "in Christ." Paul uses "in Christ" over 100 times. The gospel offer is Christ himself. Augustine's term "lotus Christus," the whole Christ. The gospel offer is Christ himself, in whom the blessings are offered. When we are "in him," we posses Christ himself; all spiritual blessings are our immediately and simultaneously "in him." There is no such thing as "having Christ as Savior, but not as Lord." One of the dangers Boston recognized was that conditionals feeds back into how we view God himself. It introduces a layer of distortion into His character. This comes to expression when the gospel is preached in these terms: God loves you because Christ died for you. How do those words distort the gospel? They imply that the death of Christ is the reason for the love of God for me. By contrast, the Scriptures affirm that the love of God for us is the reason for the death of Christ. It is because He loves us that Christ died for us. The main concern of the Marrow Men is the same as that arose between Jesus and the Pharisees. The Pharisees' god was a conditional god. What the Serpent accomplished in Eve's mind, affections, and will was a divorce between God's revealed will and his gracious, generous character Trust in Him was transformed into suspicion of Him by looking at "naked law" rather than hearing "law from the gracious lips of the Heavenly Father." In Eve's Case antinomianism (her opposition to and rejection of God's law) was itself an expression of her legalism! Legalism is simply separating the law of God from he person of God. Eve's rejection of God's law (antinomianism) was in fact the fruit of her distorted view of God (legalism)... nonidentical twins that immerse from the same womb. Legalism and antinomianism share a common root in how they affect our affections, the way we feel about God. The bottom-line of both of these -isms is identical. That is why the gospel remedy for them is one and the same. Legalism is not only a distortion of the gospel but also a distortion of the law. One of the diseases the Marrow exposed was the subtle thought that my growth in holiness strengthens my justification. Confirm it? Yes. But strengthen it? Never! Repentance does not precede faith in a sinner coming to Christ. We cannot divide faith and repentance chronologically. The cure for legalism? Grace in Christ. The simplest way to think of antinomianism is that it denies the role of the law in the Christian life. While the law is not a covenant of works for the believer, it nevertheless functions as a rule of life. The greatest misstep in thinking about antinomianism is thinking of it as the opposite of legalism. They are not both antithetical to each other, but rather they are both antithetical to grace. That is why Scripture never prescribes either as the antidote to the other, but rather prescribes grace in Christ as the antidote to both. From the lectures: The marrow controversy addresses: The grace of God in the offer of the gospel The relationship of saving faith and assurance of salvation The answer of grace to legalism The answer of grace to antinomianism This unbiblical doctrine involved a conditional offer of the gospel. Ferguson emphasizes that we make the unmerited gracious offer of the gospel become conditional if we preach that even conviction (how truly convicted someone is) is conditional upon receiving the gospel. Even that is a conditional offer of the gospel. (That's something I need to hear.) Very often we make the mistake of thinking of antinomianism as the opposite of legalism. They are both opposites of the grace of God in the gospel. "Antinomianism is a reaction to legalism, and yet antinomianism can never be the cure for legalism... only grace can be the cure for legalism." "One can never escape legalism by becoming antinomian. The only escape from legalism is grace."

What is the imago dei? How is sanctification related to the image of God in humanity?

Imago Dei - Image of God Man is not made according to their kinds; he is made according to God's "kind." Man is made as the image and likeness of God. Man, like God, is a personal being. Sanctification is God renewing us into His image. Sanctification is a free act of God's grace, whereby the whole man is renewed in the image of God, enabled through the Spirit's working in us, to die more and more to sin, and to live to righteousness. Sanctification is related to the imago Dei in that it is the means by which, God renews elect mankind into the whole, holy image of God.

What are some of God's incommunicable attributes and what are some of His communicable attributes?

Incommunicable Attributes 1. Independent / Self-existent (Psalm 90:2) 2. Eternal (Revelation 1:8, Exodus 3:14) 3. Immutable (James 4 no shadow of change) 4. Omniscient 5. Omnipotent 6. Omnipresent (Psalm 139:7-9) 7. Triune Nature Communicable Attributes (We can mirror these, but we cannot perfectly mirror these.) 1. Good 2. Gracious 3. Loving 3. Longsuffering 5. Holy (Revelation 4:8, Isaiah 6:3) 6. Righteous 7. Merciful 8. Faithful 9. Wisdom 10. Truth The Simplicity of God God is not a list of ingredients (attributes) that make up God. he is not made up of these things; He IS these things. Him saying "I am" is him saying all this. Aseity means that God is independently self-existent.

What is regeneration and how would you use Scripture to explain it to a non-Christian?

John 3:3-8 "3 Jesus answered him, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.' 4 Nicodemus said to him, 'How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?' 5 Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.'" Regeneration is a work of God's grace moving someone from death to life. Only the Holy Spirit gives birth to man's spirit. The Spirit sovereignly blows on those whom He chooses to save, changes their hearts to work righteousness in them, applies the blood of Christ upon them, and gives them the new ability to perceive those spiritual things they could not see before. The Spirit breathes life to man's spirit. Thus, regeneration precedes faith. John 3 is a great passage to explain regeneration to a non-Christian. In the same way that people are born as newborn babies, so also people are born into new life spiritually. Just as people don't do anything to make themselves be born as children, so also people do not cause their spiritual birth to take place. People are born to new spiritual life when God, through the Holy Spirit, creates this new life within them. Ephesians 2:4-5 "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved." The Spirit makes spiritually dead people come to life. Regeneration is new birth by the Spirit, which is a necessary free act of God's grace for the elect to respond to Him in faith for their salvation. It occurs all at once, and is not progressive (John 3:5-7). It proceeds conversion in the order of salvation. The WCF presents the doctrine of regeneration first, as the effectual calling of the elect (8.8; 10.1) and the regeneration of elect infants who die in infancy (10.3); Second, as the Spirit's work of sanctification in those who are effectually called and regenerated (13.1), increasing their faith (14.1, 3), moving them to repentance unto life (15.1, 2), and enabling them to do good works (16.3) and to persevere to the end in the state of grace and be saved.

Why is Justification an "act" and Sanctification a "work?"

Justification is a one-time event; sanctification is a life-long process. Justification as an Act The WSC speaks of justification as a once and for all act of God's free grace because Scripture teaches it to be something that occurs at a single definitive moment, and is entirely received by faith in Christ. (Romans 5:19 "For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.") Sanctification as a Work The WSC speaks of sanctification as a work because Scripture teaches the doctrine of sanctification as progressive. The language of "more and more" in the WSC reflects many passages in the NT concerning the "growing into" or progressive effects of our justification. ( 2 Thessalonians 2:13 "But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.")

When is divorce permitted? Defend from Scripture. (Specifically address the issues of abandonment, physical abuse, and use of pornography.)

Look at the intent behind the rules in Scripture. Two ways in which Scripture allows for divorce: adultery (Matthew) and abandonment (1 Corinthians 7). The Corinthian church was anti-divorce. 1 Corinthians 7 says if you're a believer and your spouse won't stay with you, you can divorce. Pornography The underlying principles Christ argued from: The principles are mercy and patience. (Moses gave you permission.) Christ does NOT approach it as a rabbi. Rabbis want clear rules that are applied the exact same way every single time. He holds up an ethical ideal and applies grace where we failed. Someone gets divorced then remarried, and then later becomes a believer and realizes their first divorce was not biblical. You're right that divorce was sin, but we don't use rules to make her remarry the first guy... confess the sin and move forward. Stay married to your now husband as Paul advises in I Cor 7. Physical Abuse Matt Bradley, "I never say you should get a divorce... I say, 'this sounds very dangerous, if you would like to move, we'll find a place for you to live.'" Matt never tells anyone to get a divorce. He can acknowledge that someone has biblical grounds for a divorce while also counseling them about pursuing reconciliation, forgiveness, etc. Matthew 19:8 "Moses permitted you divorce because your hearts were hard." Although permitted, always a result of sin, and not God's design and will for mankind. Matthew 5:31-32 "31 "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." 1 Corinthians 7

Does the Incarnation of Jesus threaten the doctrine of God's immutability? Defend your answer.

No. First of all, it is important to make clear that immutability is all about divinity. The divinity of Christ does not change in taking on humanity. He is still fully God. Christ is not a third thing. Chalcedon worked hard to protect that there is no change in divinity... the two natures are inseparable but not mixed. The doctrine of immutability is a doctrine about GOD, Himself. The incarnation adds to His nature... the divine nature is not changed. John Murray wrote, "The Son of God became in time what He eternally was not. He did not cease to be what He eternally was, but He began to be what He was not." Herman Bavinck wrote, "Neither creation, nor revelation, nor incarnation (affects, etc.) brought about any change in God. No new plan ever arose in God. In God there was always one single immutable will" In the incarnation nothing was added to, or subtracted from, the divine nature. The immutability of God's eternal will and decree safeguards against any notion of change in the immutable God in light of the creation, the action of His creatures, and the incarnation. Jesus is immutable with respect to His divine nature and mutable with respect to His human nature. The Creed of Chalcedon states that the two natures of Christ were united "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation." The human did not become divine (unchangeable, everywhere-present, all-knowing), nor did the divine become human (changeable, limited, mortal). So too, the two natures were not confused or mixed together, so that Christ is half God and half man, but remains fully God and fully man at the same time and in the same Person ("without division, without separation").

If a person lacks assurance of salvation in Christ does this necessarily mean he is not saved? Explain.

No. John 5:13 "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life." John is writing so that the believers may know that they are saved. He is saying, "I realize some of you struggle to believe this, so I am writing to help you believe." 2 Peter 1:10 "Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall." By stating that believers should be eager to make their election sure implies that it is possible to grow in that certainty, which also means it's possible to lack some certainty. It's important to remind someone lacking assurance that their salvation rests 100% on the work of Christ, appropriated by faith. Unsound doctrine (like universalism: Everybody is saved. I'm a body; therefore, I am saved.) can lead to false assurance. Just as bad theology (people are saved by works. I do good works. I'm saved. Or, I sinned recently, now I doubt if I'm saved.) is an enemy of sound assurance. Biblical theology (I am saved by faith in the finished work of Christ.) leads a believer to ask himself or herself if he or she has faith in Christ. The Holy Spirit tells believers that they are children of God. It is important to counsel those struggling with assurance to seek the testimony of the Spirit in God's Word.

What does the Nicene Creed mean when it describes the church as being "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic."

ONE Unified - Followers if Jesus Christ are united in their belief in one God, one Lord, Jesus Christ. John 17:20-23 "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me." HOLY Set apart unto God - The holiness church derives from Christ's holiness. Leviticus 19:2 "Speak to all the congregation of the people of Israel and say to them, 'You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.'" CATHOLIC Universal - The church is not limited to a time, place, race, or culture. Revelation 5:9-10 "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth." APOSTOLIC The teachings of the apostles - An apostle was one who spoke with the full authority of the one he was representing, we affirm the authority of the teaching of the apostles Ephesians 2:19-20 "You are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone"

What is your understanding of the recent debates in the PCA about subscription to the Westminster Standards? Where do you stand?

Officers in the Presbyterian Church in America take a vow to "sincerely receive and adopt" these confessional documents "as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures." In general, subscription refers to "receiving and adopting" a statement of faith. In the case of the PCA, the controversy regarding subscription revolves around the meaning of the second ordination vow: "Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession fo Faith and the Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures; and do you further promise that if at any time you find yourself out fo accord with any of the fundamentals of this system of doctrine, you will on you own initiative, make known to your Presbytery the change which has taken place in your views since the assumption of this ordination vow?" (BCO 21-5) Two possible views: Systems Subscription Obligatory subscription to the "{essential and necessary" articles of the standards. Presbytery must decide if an exception taken by a candidate affects any of the "essential and necessary" articles of the system. Many involved in the polemics term this the "loose" view of subscription. Strict Subscription The Confession itself (as well as the first ordination vow) rules out this view because it elevates the standards into a position on par with Scripture, the only rule of faith and obedience. I'm a systems subscriptionist. I believe the Westminster standards contain "the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures."

What are the attributes of the church?

One Holy Catholic Apostolic

What is original sin? What does this mean for the Christian life?

Original sin is not the first sin, but rather the result of the first sin. "As a root it produces in man all sorts of sin. It is, therefore, so vile and abominable in the sight of God that it is sufficient to condemn the human race. It is not abolished nor eradicated even by baptism, for sin continually streams forth like water welling up from this woeful source." - The Belgic Confession This formulation does a few things. It insists original sin corrupts the entire nature of man, not just one part of it. And it does not diminish the radical nature of human nature's corruption. The Belgic Confession uses as scriptural evidence not just Paul's well-known passage about doing the sin he does not want to do, but also Romans 5:12, which declares through Adam all were made sinners. Adam's sin resulted in more than just a potential from which true sin could spring, rather it produced real sinners. "'Original sin' is the term the church has employed to refer to our collective human guilt and corruption. No doctrine is more crucial to our anthropology and soteriology, and yet no doctrine has been more relentlessly criticized ever since it was articulated." (Michael Horton) The doctrine of original sin teaches that people sin because we are sinners. It's not that we are sinners because we sin, but rather, we sin because we are sinners; that is, since the fall of man, we have inherited a corrupted condition of sinfulness. We now have a sin nature. The Bible teaches that all mankind is guilty of Adam's first sin (Romans 5:14-21); that as a result of the curse, man's human nature is corrupt (original sin); that from this corruption comes forth man's actual sins in thought, word, and deed; and that as a result of God's curse upon Adam and his progeny, all mankind is dead, not just sick, in trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1). Original sin is contrary to society's belief that people are innately good and are born normally neutral. Jonathan Edwards argued against this philosophically by saying that if everyone was born in a state of moral neutrality, you would expect statistically that approximately 50 percent of those people would grow up and never sin. Many argue that God cannot hold us accountable for the sin of Adam because this would violate His justice. However, if God cannot charge us with Adam's sin without infringing on His justice, then neither can God charge our sins to Jesus Christ, therefore, all are still in their sin and condemned. If it is unjust for God to impute to us all the guilt of Adam's sin, then why is it acceptable for God to charge Christ with ours, or to impute to believers the righteousness of Jesus Christ? "Under Adam's headship, the whole race is guilty and corrupt; under Christ's headship many are justified and made alive" (Michael Horton) What does this mean for the Christian life? Original sin is not only a biblical doctrine that has to do with origins and human sinfulness, it also has to do with salvation from sin. In Adam, those whom he represented died. In Christ, those whom he represents live. Christ's blood covers the guilt of our sinful nature just as much as it covers actual sins. Just as in Adam man fell so fully, so man was so united with Christ as to be absolutely saved. And believers today can follow in this comfort. They no longer need to be paralyzed by an inward focus on the depth of their sin, but they can move on from the depth of their sin to look outward to Christ. And this truly frees a believer to live and act.

Respond to the following statement: "In the Old Testament period man was saved by observing the law while in the New Testament period we are saved by grace."

People in the OT were saved by grace through faith, same as in the NT. They trusted the promises of God, which were ultimately fulfilled in Christ. All of the Levitical sacrifices were shadows pointing to Christ. The Mosaic Law is fulfilled in the life of Christ by His perfect obedience. In the Old Testament they had faith but the object of their faith (Christ) was concealed, while in the NT we understand and see Christ revealed (Hebrews 11). The New Testament declares that the gospel was preached to Abraham beforehand (Galatians 3:8). And Jesus said of this "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad." (John 8:56) OT believers were saved by Christ and Christ alone (Heb 9:15). The gospel they knew was a shadow but they were still saved by the blood of Christ. There is no other way of salvation except by "the lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8). We see this faith active in the OT Covenants. In Gen 3:15 God's covenant with Adam was not based on Adam and his ability, but on God's will, decree, and power. Gen 3:15 "I will put" places God as the active party in fulfilling His covenant and saving His people. We see the same in the Abrahamic Covenant when God promises to give Abraham an heir to fulfill the earlier promise given in Gen 12:2-4. Scripture tells us that "Abraham believed the Lord, and He credited it to him as righteousness" (Gen 15:6). Righteousness has always come by faith and belief in God, in the OT and in the NT (Romans 2:21-24 "righteousness from God through faith in Jesus"). Believers in the Old Testament were saved by grace through faith, but we do see a lot more clearly how that works out in God's great redemptive plan that focuses finally on Christ.

Compare and contrast the will of man before the fall, after the fall, and in glory.

Pre-Fall: Able to sin (posse peccare), able to not sin (posse non peccare) Post-Fall: Able to sin (posse peccare), unable to not sin (non posse non peccare) In Glory: Unable to sin (non posse peccare)

What is God according to WCF and Scripture?

Q. 4. What is God? A. God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth. God is A Spirit (John 4:24 - Woman at the Well - "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.") Infinite (Job 11:7 "Can you find out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limit of the Almighty?") Eternal (Psalm 90:2 "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.") Unchangeable (James 1:17 "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.") In His Being ("I AM.") Wisdom (Psalm 147:5 "His understanding is beyond measure.") Power (Revelation 4:11 "Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.") Holiness (Revelation 15:4 "For you alone are holy.") Justice, Goodness, and Truth (Exodus 34:6-7 "The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, "The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands,[a] forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.")

Is sanctification an option? (If you are familiar with the "Carnal Christian Theory", the "Higher Life Movement", or "The Lordship Controversy", please state your views on one of these related issues.)

Sanctification is not an option for a believer. Philippians 1:6 "And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." Romans 8:30 "And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified." Ephesians 2:10 "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." Carnal Christian Theory says that it's possible to confess Christ without living a life of obedience. This is not biblical Christianity. While we are justified by faith and not by works, the faith that justifies is never alone. Higher Life Movement bifurcates Christians into those who are Spirit-filled and those who are not. Being Spirit-filled is done not through effort but through surrender. This is not biblical Christianity. By creating two tiers of Christians HLT is unbiblical and harmful. The Lordship Controversy says that it's possible to trust in Christ as Savior but not as Lord. This is not biblical Christianity. There is no accepting Christ as only Savior but not Lord, the call to follow Christ is 100% submission to His lordship.

How would you discuss with an unbeliever what Scripture says about heaven?

Some of the points that I would make sure to cover would be: 1. It is real 2. It is an eternal state, eventually replaced by a new earth. 3. Glorified body (perfected in righteousness) 1 Corinthians 15. 4. Perfect union with God (Revelation 21-22) 5. Renewed creation 6. No more suffering and death (Revelation 7:16-17) 7. Paradise (Luke 23)

How would you discuss with an unbeliever what Scripture says about hell.

Some of the points that I would make sure to cover would be: 1. It is real. 2. It is an eternal state (Matthew 25:46). 3. It involves torment and punishment (Matthew 13:42). 4. It involves eternal separation from God. 5. It is not an Old Testament invention; Jesus spoke about hell more than anyone else in Scripture. 6. It magnifies God's love for us by showing us the extent to which He went in order to save us. 7. It points to the eternality of human beings.

What is your view on the "New Perspectives on Paul" discussion over the past couple decades?

The "Old Perspective" (Reformed/Luther) • Judaism in the first century A.D. was a religion of legalistic works-righteousness. • Paul reacted against this by proclaiming a gospel of grace. The "New Perspective" • Judaism in the first century A.D. was not a religion of legalistic works-righteousness. Paul wrote to challenge dietary restriction and other cultural markers that were now obsolete because of Gentile introduction into faith. • Therefore the traditional view of Paul's debate with Judaism (and with Judaizers) must be revised. • This has ramifications for how we understand Paul's teaching on justification. Major figures in this development are James G. Dunn, E.P. Sanders, and NT. Wright. Some New Perspective conclusions: 1. The Reformers understood Pauline writings in a particular area incorrectly. Luther overreacted against the Catholic Church concerning works-based righteousness 2. There was not such a dichotomy in 2nd Temple Judaism as we have been led to believe between law and grace. A working understanding of salvation based on God's grace was present among religious elite in Paul's day. 3. There is no original sin; so, there is no need of penal substitutionary atonement. Justification is not about making one right with God, but rather about making Jew and Gentile believers one. The "New Perspective" is an an attempt to lift Paul's letters out of the Lutheran/Reformed frawmework and interpret them based on what is said to be an understanding of first-century Judaism. Problems that this creates- 1. Emphasis on covenantal relationship over individual election. 2. You are challenging/ changing the doctrine of justification and, in particular, threatening the necessity/sufficiency of the substitutionary atonement of Christ. This waters down the doctrine of justification, it's being a "once and for all act" as well as faith particularly in Christ for salvation rather than faith in God's covenant faithfulness. 3. It also creates questions about the law, Christ's fulfillment of it on our behalf, why then would the need to keep it (as unto salvation) still be required? This makes perseverance our work rather than an act of grace. Paul advocates justification through faith in Christ. Sola Gratia and Sola Fide are at stake here. "Final Judgment according to works... Paul affirms God's final judgment will be in accordance with... works. (N.T. Wright). New Perspective scholars plan a higher value on good works than Old Perspective (Reformed), taking the view that they casually contribute to salvation.

What is meant by the term "eternal generation of the Son"?

The Father and the Son are of the same substance (homoousios) rather than of similar substance (homoiousios). Christ was not the first creature; He was God in the flesh. There is one divine nature shared by the three members of the Trinity. Each person is the totality of that divine nature. The Father is the totality of the divine nature; the Son is the totality of the divine nature; and, the Spirit is the totality of the divine nature. The three Persons are the same and equal; they have no difference in their existence. They are distinguished in how they relate to one another (their hypostatic relationship). They are described by their relationship to one another. To be a Son means that One is begotten of a Father. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father. So Eternal Generation and Eternal Procession teach that the Son is One who is begotten of the Father and the Spirit is One who proceeds from the Father and the Son. As Nicea laid out, the Son has been the Son for all eternity. When we, as creatures, beget a child, that child is born. But, God the Son has existed forever. Another aspect of being a son of someone is bearing his father's image. The Nicea-Constantinople Creed states that the only Son of God is "begotten from the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made; of the same essence as the Father." John 5:26 states "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself." The Father has life in Himself. The Father grants the Son to have life in Himself. John does NOT say the Son has life from the Father. The Son has always existed (John 1:1). The order of the relationship is the Father is unbegotten and the Son is eternally begotten. Eternal generation of the Son safeguards the Fatherhood of the Father and the Sonship of the Son as well as the full deity and eternality of the Son. The Father/Son relationship has existed forever. There is eternal oneness, and eternal differentiation, between the Father and the Son. From all eternity past God the Father has begotten God the Son. The Father eternally communicates the divine essence to the Son, and yet the Son is eternally distinct from the Father. The Son has always existed (John 1:1) The Son is one with the Father (John 17:21) The Son comes from the Father (John 1:14) to do the will of the Father (John 6:38).

Define and differentiate between "supralapsarianism" and "infralapsarianism." Why is it good to know this, and why must we use caution in how we discuss them?

The Order of God's Decrees The Lapsarian Views are not the temporal but the logical order of God's eternal decrees. The specific question is whether the decree of election logically precedes or follows the decree of the fall. Both views see Creation, Fall, and Salvation in the same order, the question is where do you place election and reprobation. Supra = "above" God's decree of election is seen as prior (or "above") all of His other decrees. 1. God's decree of election and reprobation. 2. God's decree of creation. 3. God's decree to permit the fall. 4. God's decree to save the elect. Infra = "below" or "after" God's decree to elect is logically after His decrees related to creation and fall. 1. God's decree of creation. 2. God's decree to permit the fall. 3. God's decree of election and reprobation. 4. God's decree to save the elect. The supra position underscores the high sovereignty of God. Before the twins had done anything good or bad, the Lord loved Jacob and hated Esau (Romans 9:11). By contrast, the infra position highlights the mercy of God. The reference in Romans 9:11 is simply a statement about merit—neither son was more deserving of salvation than the other—and has nothing to do with the order of the decrees. Besides, Romans 9:14 describes election as God having mercy on whom he will have mercy. God's decree to save must follow his decree to permit the fall, or how else would mercy be mercy? It is good to know this because it shapes our understanding of the doctrine of election and God's mercy. I would argue that Ephesians 1:14 "he choose us in him before the creation of the world" is temporal, and not logical, therefore does not close the case for the supra position. God can only have mercy once there has been sin. It logically follows that He decreed to permit the fall AND THEN, in His mercy, elected some to salvation. We should use caution in this discussion because Scripture does not clearly state the precise logical order in the eternal mind of God in this; therefore, we should certainly not allow this to be something to harbor heated, fellowship-breaking debate. Though the supra view can make God seem to be cruel (condemning people to hell before creation and fall), we also must acknowledge that just because we see something that we perceive as good or bad, right or wrong, then that must be how God sees it. Surely things are much more complex in the enteral counsel of the Godhead. We should also use caution because we don't want to say that (in permitting the Fall) God in any way authored sin. Frame says, "The secret things belong to the Lord." Isaiah 55 "my thoughts are not your thoughts"... Frame may dismiss it as unimportant a bit too much, but we should still tread carefully as creatures discussing the pretemporal/atemporal decrees that are known to God. Romans 9 "Who are you, o man, to talk back to God?" (Filson, along with the majority of Reformed theologians, leans infra.)

What is the doctrine of ordination?

The PCA Book of Church Order defines Ordination as "the authoritative admission of one duly called to an office in the Church of God, accompanied with prayer and the laying on of hands, to which it is proper to add the giving of the right hand of fellowship." After a candidate has met the requirements for ordination and received a call, he is examined in several areas and then ordained. To ordain means to "choose" in particular someone to fulfill a specific ecclesiastical office. In the OT, we see this in the roles of Prophets, Priests, and Kings... in the NT we see this in the Apostles and eventually in the offices of Elder and Deacon. 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1, Acts 6 (choosing of 7), Acts 2.

What is the Trinity? What is the meaning of the ontological and the economic, with regard to the Trinity? How would you respond to a person who says it is wrong to confess the Trinity because the word itself is never used in Scripture?

The Trinity- the Godhead consists of three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, of the same substance, equal in power and glory. Ontological (BEING) has to do with the nature/being of the Trinity. The Trinity being the same in substance, equal in power and glory. No member of the Trinity is more God than another; each member is the same in essence (Godness). Economic (FUNCTIONING/WORKING) has to do with the different roles/functions that each member of the Trinity plays in creation and in particular redemption. We would understand that while maintaining perfect unity, being of the same substance, and equal value, each member of the Trinity does preform different roles in the redemptive plan. In salvation the Father elects a people and sends the Son, through the Son's active and passive work He achieves salvation, and the Spirit applies that salvation to the elect. One passage that contains all three of those? Ephesians 1:11-14 "11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory." Though the word Trinity is not found in the Bible, Scripture does state that there is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4). The Bible also teaches that God is Father (John 6:27), the Son is God (John 1), and the Holy Spirit is God (Hebrews 9:14 talks about the "eternal Spirit" divine eternality). When Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist, the Father declares, "this is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased," even as the Spirit of God descended upon Jesus as a dove (Matthew 3:16-17). In Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands His disciples to "go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The mission of the church is to go into the world and make disciples by baptizing them in the name (singular) of three persons of the Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). Just because a word is not in the Bible does not mean we reject its teaching. The word "Bible" is not in the Bible, and we still believe in the authority of the Bible. The water/vapor/ice analogy is, in fact, modalism. 2 Corinthians 13:14 "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" Jude 20-21 "But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life."

What are the marks of the church?

The Word (taught and preached) The Sacraments (Baptism and Communion) Church Discipline

The doctrine of annihilation, it's theological implications, and whether it is compatible with Scripture.

The doctrine of annihilation teaches that after the final judgment, the souls and bodies of the reprobate, will be completely destroyed eternally, and will not be subject to hell, or eternal punishment. Jesus's describes hell as eternal torment in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16). Revelation 14 describes the punishment of unbelievers saying "the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night." 2 Thessalonians 1:8 speaks of "eternal destruction." The Bible teaches that the reprobate will be subject to eternal punishment. To not believe this is to question the inerrancy and perspicuity of Scripture and begins one down a road of picking and choosing which parts of Scripture that one will subscribe to. Implications of this doctrine are enticing, and appear to make God less cruel; but in looking at it beyond the surface, it becomes clear that it lessens the goodness of God. It can make God's holiness not quite as holy, to make His wrath not quite as vengeful, and diminishes the weight of His mercy and grace for the elect severely. It also leaves us as the final judge on what God's goodness must look like.

What is the difference between the "gifts of the Spirit" and the "fruit of the Spirit"?

The fruit of the Spirit is developed in believers' character as they mature in their relationship with the Lord. Spiritual gifts are given to believers for the equipping of the saints for the works of service, the building up of the body of Christ. They are not character qualities as much as abilities given for the planting and sustaining of the church. Fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5) "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law." (Galatians 5:22-23) The fruit of the spirit are the governing characteristics and attributes of the elect, as a result of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That is to say that the Holy Spirit is "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control," and as a result of His indwelling, these are now characteristics of a believer as He lives His life in and through the believer. Gifts of the Spirit "Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administering, and various kinds of tongues." (1 Corinthians 12:27-28) These are specific talents or abilities that God gives individuals for the building up of His bride (the church). 1 Corinthians 12 speaks of many of these talents that are used for God's glory and for the edification of His people. Because every believer is filled with the Holy Spirit, every believer has spiritual gifts. This doctrine preserves the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." (1 Peter 2:9)

Why is theology important? Answer with Scripture as part of your response.

Theology is the study of the nature, character, and revelations of God. The study of theology is important because we seek to do more than know, but also to grow in our relationship with and understanding of God, and His relationship with His creation, and in particular mankind. More specifically than that, to understand His will, His plan for redemption, its means, and how He relates to mankind concerning sin, fall, redemption, and restoration. 2 Tim 3:14-17 "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." This is a great example of why theology is important, in that it presumes that study and understanding of the Scriptures is useful and essential to our growth and daily life. Romans 12:2 teaches that the we are to renew our minds by the word that we might test and understand the will of God in our lives. Jesus encourages the disciples that the Holy Spirit will "guide them into all truth." This presumes that at that time they didn't fully understand all that He desired for them and that part of the function of the Spirit would be to "remind them of everything he had taught them" (John14:26) and guide them into the truth of those teachings. Paul's prayer for the Philippians in 1:9 - "abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight." Same in Colossians 1:9-11 Also 2 Peter 1:3-8- "that you may not be ineffective or unproductive in your knowledge of Christ Jesus." Jesus and Paul were both teachers of doctrine not just random disconnected ideas. Paul's letters and Jesus' discourses in Matthew (5-7, 10,13, 18, 22-24) are theological/doctrinal teachings.

What gifts are mentioned in Scripture that are not given today? Explain and defend.

There were gifts given in the OT and portions of the NT, which we believe ceased with the Apostles, that were given as gifts, unique to a time and place in redemptive history (2 Corinthians 14), that would serve to form the foundation of belief for the church. apostleship, prophecy, tongues, healing, and miracles The gift of apostleship has ended. When James the brother of John is killed he is not replaced (Acts 12:2). The early churches didn't have the complete canon of Scripture for some time, and hence an authoritative and infallible prophetic ministry was needed to lay the foundation for the church in those early days. Most of the prophecies of Elijah and Elisha were never written down or inscripturated. Or we can think of the 100 prophets spared by Obadiah (1 Kings 18:4). Apparently none of their prophecies were inscripurated. Nevertheless, the prophecies were all completely true and unmixed with error, for otherwise they wouldn't have been prophets (Deut. 18:15-22). The same principle applies to the prophecies of NT prophets. Their words aren't recorded for us, but if they were truly prophets then their words were infallible. Acts 2:17-18 also suggest that interpreted (or understood) tongues are equivalent to prophecy. It seems, then, that prophecy and tongues are closely related. If prophecy has passed away, then tongues have likely ended as well. Tongues in the NT were speaking a foreign language unknown to the speaker. I believe God still heals today; therefore, I pray for the healing of friends, family members, and others from cancer, sickness, etc. I do not believe that people are given the gift of healing in the way that the apostles were to authenticate their gospel message. Ephesians 2:20 seems to suggest that the gifts were given specially at the time when the apostles were laying the foundation of the gospel for the church. While I do think 1 Corinthians 13:8 "As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away" points to apostolic gifts fading away, I don't think the commonly given prooftext of 1Corinthians 13:10 "when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away" is about the completion of the canon. The language of the perfect coming seems to always point to the second advent in Scripture, not the completion of the canon. We confess the finality of Scripture. We confess that the apostolic age is over. Paul was the last apostle (1 Corinthians 15:8). While an early book like 1 Corinthians has a lot to say about miraculous gifts, later books have far less to say. In fact, by the time Paul is writing to Timothy he is not expecting that Timothy will experience a miracle and not instructing him to pursue one, but rather prescribing a very ordinary cure for an ailment—"have a little wine for the sake of your stomach." Paul himself suffered with physical pain but was unable to receive a miraculous cure. As we read through the New Testament we see these gifts slow and cease over the course of decades. Scripture interprets Scripture. The tongues of Acts 2 were real human languages; the tongues of 1 Corinthians 12-14 would have been real human languages. The "tongues" of modern America appear to be vowels and consonants and for the purpose of personal experience. I believe that Prophecy, Miracles, Signs and wonders, as we see and understand them in their biblical / redemptive historical setting have ceased and I believe that God in His divine wisdom has decided that sufficient revelation unto salvation has been made in the person and work of Christ, and the Apostolic witness.

How are these the five best reasons we have for brokenness and humility?

These five points lead to brokenness and humility because it shows that we have 0% credit for saving ourselves. We are saved 100% because of the work of Christ; there is no room for any pride. Even in perseverance it is not by our own work or effort, but solely by God's grace; so, we can't even take credit in our continuing in Christ. Salvation from start to finish is fully a work of God's grace. There is no place whatsoever for pride, but only humbleness, brokenness, and thankfulness. These five points individually and collectively affirm that salvation is the work of God entirely and is a free act of His grace. As Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." He has provided the means and accomplished salvation on our behalf. Brokenness and humility are the only appropriate postures to take in light of the 5 points. Grace, grace, grace!

How many wills does Christ have?

Two. He has two wills. Does His divine nature have a will? Yes. Does His human nature have a will? Yes. Two wills. Monothelitism was the heresy that said He had one will. What about "not my will, but yours be done"? We hear Christ saying He does not want to suffer this way, and yet He does willingly go to the cross. He does ultimately subject His will. If it was disobedience, that would make Him a sinner. This verse protects Christ from masochism (He knew it would be horrific). If He was giddy to go to the cross, He'd not be human. Monothelitism was declared a heresy because a will is an essential part of a nature. If Jesus had a divine will but no human will, it would be very difficult to see Him as truly human. We know He has a divine will because He was the Word of God from all eternity; the second person in the Trinity has a will. If He only had a divine will but no human will, He would not have a fully human nature because He didn't have a fully human will.

According to Scripture, how were people in the Old Testament saved?

Union with Christ by grace through faith. Salvation is always, and has always been, by the grace of God, appropriated by faith in His promises. Grace was given in the Old Testament in anticipation of Christ's work (Romans 3:25). "This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins." Faith is not faith in faith, but rather faith in God's promises, his covenantal commitments pointing forward (during the the time under the Old Covenant) to the day when salvation would be fully accomplished in Jesus Christ. Once Jesus accomplishes salvation, He is the Second Adam and there is a unity of the new humanity that is saved in Christ. Union with Christ is the one and only means of blessing. Those who are saved are justified by faith. Abraham was justified in the same way that we are, by faith (Romans 4:21-24). Jew and Gentile alike are "... all sons of God... all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:26-28). One cannot be saved apart from union with Christ, and union with Christ means being part of the one, unified people of God. The people of God are those whom Christ represents and ministers to as their Head. There is one Head (Christ) and one people (the elect).

What is WCF chapter 1 about and why does this start the WCF?

WCF 1 is about The Holy Scriptures. Written in 1640, in Medieval Theology, Thomas Cranmer and Peter Vermigli wrote Common Prayer. They began not with Scripture but with REASON. (This is Platonic.) It was paradigmatic of Reformed theology to start with Scripture. By beginning with Scripture the WCF shows that Scripture is the ultimate authority. Unlike Rome, who said it was the church who interpreted Scripture, the WCF (by starting with Scripture) shows that Scripture interprets Scripture. WCF 1.9 "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself." Though the opening sentence in the WCF is about general revelation, the paragraph goes on to say that general revelation is "not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation." Later in the paragraph referring to Holy Scripture as "most necessary." Chapter 1 of WCF speaks to the necessity of Scripture, the cannon of Scripture, the authority of Scripture, the sufficiency of Scripture, and the clarity of Scripture. Scripture is the very breath of God; therefore, it is the ultimate rule of life and faith (2 Timothy 3:15), and the only possible starting point for the WCF.

What do you believe the Bible teaches about death, the intermediate state, and the resurrection of the body?

WCF 32.1 The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption: but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them: the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies. And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. Beside these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledges none. Death: 1. The termination of physical life and the separation of soul and body. 2. Death is the punishment for sin. (Gen 2, Romans 2) 3. Death is the consummation of elect believers dying to sin and it's reign. (Romans 6:22, 2 Corinthians 5:17 -new creation) Intermediate State: 1. Time between death and the resurrection of the dead. 2. The elect are united in spirit with Christ in heaven and currently await Christ's second coming. 3. the non-elect are condemned to hell. (Matthew 25:46) Resurrection of the Body: 1. Those who are alive will not die but be changed. - (1 Corinthians 15:35-58) 2. Those who are dead will be joined in spirit with their "same self" bodies. 3. The elect will have glorious bodies (spirit and body perfected in righteousness) and conformed to Christ's glorious body. Join Christ in judgment of non-elect. 4. The non-Elect will be judged in their sin and condemned.

What was lost in the fall of man?

WLC 27 Q. What misery did the fall bring upon mankind? A. The fall brought upon mankind the loss of communion with God, his displeasure and curse; so as we are by nature children of wrath, bond slaves to Satan, and justly liable to all punishments in this world and that which is to come.

Use the WCF and Scripture to define the following: Justification

WSC 33: Justification is an act of God's free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone. "pardoneth all our sins" - Ephesians 1:7 "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace." "righteous in his sight" - 2 Corinthians 5:21 "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." "imputed to us" - Romans 5:19 "For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous." "received by faith alone" - Galatians 2:16 "Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified."

Adoption

WSC 34: Adoption is an act of God's free grace, whereby we are received into the number, and have a right to all the privileges of the sons of God. "act of God's free grace" - 1 John 3:1 "See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him." "all the privileges of the sons of God" - John 1:12 "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God."

Sanctification

WSC 35: Sanctification is the work of God's free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness. "work of God's free grace" - 2 Thessalonians 2:13 "But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth." "after the image of God" - Ephesians 4:24 "and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness." "live unto righteousness" - Romans 8:1 "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

Glorification (note that there is not a direct question in the WSC that speaks to glorification, but there are questions that speak to it)

WSC 38: At the resurrection, believers being raised up in glory, shall be openly acknowledged and acquitted in the day of judgment, and made perfectly blessed in the full enjoying of God to all eternity. "raised up in glory" - 1 Corinthians 15:43 "It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power." "shall be openly acknowledged" - Matthew 10:32 "So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven." "in the full enjoying of God" - 1 John 3:2 "Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is." "to all eternity" - 1 Thessalonians 4:17 "Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord."

Saving Faith

WSC 86: Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel. "a saving grace" - Hebrews 10:39 "But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls." "we receive" - John 1:12 "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God." "rest upon him alone for salvation" - Philippians 3:9 "And be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith." "as he is offered to us in the gospel" - Isaiah 33:22 "For the Lord is our judge; the Lord is our lawgiver; the Lord is our king; he will save us."

How would you describe the overall role of Scripture in pastoral ministry?

When we say, "The Bible is our only rule for faith and practice," we mean that we hold the Bible, God's Holy Word, to be our ultimate guide for what we believe ("faith") and what we do ("practice"). We mean that the Bible trumps man's authority, church tradition, and our own opinions. We mean we will allow nothing that opposes God's Word to dictate our actions or control our thinking. We mean that we agree with the Reformers cry of sola scriptura.

Are denominations Biblical? Explain using Scripture.

Yes. Having denominations is consistent to what Scripture calls us to in that denominations help safeguard biblical practice and fidelity. Denominations help provide accountability and doctrinal fidelity. Proverbs 27:17 "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." Matthew 18:15-17 Denominations help churches hold leaders, and laypeople, accountable.

Does Jesus have a physical body at this moment? Why does this question matter with regard to our salvation?

Yes. Our hope and understanding of the Scriptures is that we will be raised to newness of life and that will not be just spiritual but physical, creation and all ( 1 Corinthians 15, Philippians 3:21). Christ redeemed the whole of the elect (not just spiritually). Our humanity needed to be redeemed, not just our spirits; therefore, only the God-Man could save our entire selves.

Are we sanctified by grace alone through faith alone? Explain with Scripture.

Yes. Because, God working first is His grace. Faith takes hold of that grace. Ephesians 2 speaks of works prepared in advance. Is sanctification monergistc or synergistic? (Bradley said, "You don't have to answer this question!") Those words don't serve us well in discussing sanctification. J.I. Packer says, "God works; therefore, I work." Monergism implies that I don't have a roll; synergism says God's roll is equal with my roll. Those are both wrong. Am I active? Of course I am, "work out your sanctification with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12). Are our rolls equal? No! In no way are they equal. "God works; therefore, I work." This quote avoids suggesting that I can just lay around on the couch and do nothing, but it also avoids the idea that God works and then sits around waiting on me to work. No. Because God works, I work. God grants faith and God grants forgiveness. Yes, it's mine, but God worked it in and through me. Grace produces faith that produces obedience. Sanctification is a work of God BUT it is important to show that there is still EFFORT from the believer in the process (SHOW THIS FROM SCRIPTURE) Philippians 2:12-13 "12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." 2 Peter 1:10 "confirm your calling and election..." 1 Corinthians 15 "But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me." "Fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and the perfecter of our faith." - Hebrews 12:2 - We fix our eyes on Him who started and continues this work in us. Like Israel after David defeats Goliath, we don't take a seat in the grass and do nothing, we take off and pursue the enemy who is to be defeated.

What are some pastoral theological implications of: o The Incarnation of Christ o The resurrection of Christ o The ascension of Christ o Active and passive obedience

o The Incarnation of Christ Without the incarnation, we do not have someone who has fulfilled the law perfectly, we do not have someone who was fully man, we do not have someone was is acquainted with our sorrows, and we do not have someone is was tempted as we are. Our whole selves (not just our spiritual selves) were in need of redemption; only the God-Man can save us fully. o The resurrection of Christ According to Calvin everything hinges on the resurrection. "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain" (1 Corinthians 15:14). Without the resurrection we are not raised up with Him, we are not new creations, we are not united to Him, death and sin have not been defeated, we have hope for more than this life (1 Corinthians 15:19) ,and we are not united to Christ. The resurrection is the Father's stamp of approval that the cross worked. The Father was fully satisfied with Christ's propitiatory sacrifice. o The ascension of Christ Without the ascension of Christ there is not outpouring of the Holy Spirit, there is no mediatorial work of Christ on our behalf, no reigning in authority, and no advocacy in intercession. In His ascension He is no longer limited to a single location on earth but can minister to His people everywhere from His heavenly throne. Because of His ascension, He is readily available to all of His people. As the ascended king He is able to rule over everything. o The active and passive obedience of Christ Active Obedience of Christ Christ lived a perfect sinless life, keeping all of the covenant stipulations, fulfilling the law of God, and therefore is the perfect Lamb, the one capable of making substitutionary atonement for the sins of the elect. Implications: He was obedient and perfect when were incapable of being so due to our total depravity and therefore we needed Him as a substitution because we could in no way fulfill the requirements of God's holy law. Passive Obedience of Christ Christ submitted Himself to humiliation, suffered the miseries of this life, and died a death on the cross for the sins of the elect. "He who knew no sin became sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21). Implications: He suffered the death, bore the wrath of God, and drank the cup that was ours to drink because of our sin. He did this freely (John 10:14), because of love (Romans 5:8), to make us His bride (Isaiah 61) .He did for us what we could never do for ourselves, and made the way for the elect's redemption. Salvation depends on Christ's active obedience (obeying the laws and commands of God) and passive obedience (enduring the punishment of crucifixion suffering all of the just wrath our sin deserved). Passive obedience on its own only takes men back to the state of pre-Fall Adam. The two are seen as distinct but inseparable.

What is the doctrine of common grace? Is it the same as prevenient grace?

• Common Grace is the non-salvific grace of God that refers to God's general kindness of God to mankind (Matthew 5:45- sun rises, rain falls on righteous and unrighteous). God's common grace is indiscriminate; it is given to all, therefore all who reject Him are without excuse. That human beings made in His image ignore and reject Him even after being shown common grace shows us just how desperate our condition is apart from His special grace. The Noahic Covenant assures that God will preserve His creation until Christ returns (Genesis 8:22). God is not obligated to preserve creation; He does this entirely of grace. • Prevenient Grace (as taught by Arminius and Wesley) is a grace given to all people that frees people enough from their bondage to sin that they have the ability to choose Christ but that does not finally persuade them to make that choice or guarantee that they will be saved. It is semi-Pelagianism. If prevenient grace is indiscriminate and merely restores man's ability to choose, then it is hard to see how salvation is truly all of grace. In a sense, God takes the first step in redemption by bestowing prevenient grace, but the final reason why anyone is saved must be located in their will, in their willingness to move toward God, with the help of grace, that they work up in themselves. Jesus intentionally spoke in parables, instead of plain language, so that many people would NOT understand, repent, and be forgiven (Mark 4:11-12). This is clearly the opposite of Arminian prevenient grace. Both Common Grace and Prevent Grace are about God giving grace to everybody, but Prevenient Grace takes on an unbiblical form where salvation is not truly all of grace, since man's decision is a part of his being saved.

Can a sinful person do anything good? Explain.

• No • Good is defined in the Westminster Confession as "Deeds bringing glory to God." As sinners, apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we can do nothing of ultimate good. Only that which is done by the grace of God is in fact good. "Anything that is not done by faith is sin" (Romans 14:23). If faith is a gift of grace, then grace precedes it, and therefore grace is the necessary factor in something being "good." WCF 6.4 Chapter 6: Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof 4: From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions. WCF 16.7 Chapter 16: Of Good Works 7: Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to themselves and others: yet, because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God, they are therefore sinful and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God: and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God.

Define and defend from Scripture the five solas of the Reformation. Differentiate between "tota Scriptura" and "sola Scriptura."

• Sola Scriptura Sola Scriptura affirms the sufficiency and perspecuity of Scripture for all that is needed for believers to be saved and persevere to the end. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." • Sola Gratia Sola Gratia affirms that Christians are saved by the grace of God alone. Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Really, all of Ephesians 2 confirms the "sola" aspect of Sola Gratia. Rome affirms the Gratia but rejects the sola. Ephesians 2 "you were all DEAD" affirms the sola.) • Sola Fide Sola Fide affirms that Christians are declared righteous by God (justified) on the basis of faith alone and not by works. Galatians 2:16 "Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified." • Sola Christus Sola Christus affirms that salvation is by Christ alone; Christ is the only savior. Acts 4:12 "And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." • Sola Deo Gloria "To God alone be the Glory." This is the natural outcome of the preceding four solas. Romans 11:36 "For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen." • Differentiate between Tota Scriptura and Sola Scriptura Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the only source of divine, special revelation that we have, and so the conscience is bound by sacred Scripture alone. Tota Scriptura has to do with embracing the whole counsel of God as it is revealed in the entirety of Scripture. Tota Scriptura affirms the entirety of the biblical canon and protects against those who would seek to find a "canon within the canon" (to have restricted portions of Scripture deemed as God's revelation, as opposed to the whole of Scripture). Sola Scriptura affirms that Scripture alone is needed to reveal God's saving grace. Whereas Tota Scriptura protects us from deleting from the Scriptures, Sola Scripture keeps us from adding to the Scriptures.

How would respond to someone who rejects God based on the presence of suffering and evil in this world?

I would begin by affirming that the presence of evil and suffering is horrible, and at times seemingly hard to reconcile with the idea of a good and loving God. I would hope to lead them to a biblical understanding that evil and suffering are in the world because of the fall of mankind, which man is responsible for, as a result of our disobedience, not God. This places the reality of responsibility for the atrocities of life in the right place, namely mankind's disobedience and fallen state. Usually the argument for most people is surrounding these two seemingly opposing ideas, both used as dismissals for God's existence: God is either not good, because how could He sit back and watch all this if he was. He must not be real. Or... God is not powerful enough to stop what's happening, he wants to intervene but can't because of His limitations. How could we believe in such a weak deity? Oftentimes just representing the fundamental presupposition that most people hold that mankind is not totally depraved and "if God would just give us a little help here we could pull the ship out of the nose dive." When you are committed fundamentally to this way of thinking, the problem is always outside of you. Here are some ways I would begin to deconstruct some of those presuppositions, God isn't good or powerful. What is good if there is no God? Isn't the fact that you claim there is a right and wrong, a good and bad, a concession to the reality that God does exist? Where does your sense of justice come from if there is no ultimate authority or rule in the universe? Who are you to determine what is evil? (Rom 2:15) If there was good reason for this evil happening would I be able to understand it? This is presupposing that you have the ability in a fallen state to determine ultimate right and wrong, and have the ability to see and make judgments concerning not just the matters at hand (temporal), but the ways in which the things occurring today speak to the larger picture (future). This denies the finite nature of the human mind and presupposes we can understand all that God is doing based on our interpretation of what's in front of us. Paul himself destroys this reasoning in Philippians 1 concerning his jailing. "It turns out..." Just because you disagree with timing, reasons, and methods, doesn't really provide legitimate grounds for lack of belief. There are many other areas in my life that cause me tension, but I would never use that tension as a way to deny the factual reality. (Ex- I don't like paying taxes to the government, they seem unfair and I don't trust what they do with the money, therefore I am going to deny the existence of the government.) Tim Keller (paraphrased) God doesn't often give the why, but He does give the resources to deal with suffering and evil by offering us hope and comfort. He's good - In that He came after us, in our sin, and despite us, saved us, all by grace. He's powerful - in that, due to His unchanging nature and perfect righteousness, He chose to self-sacrifice in order to make atonement for our sins, satisfying His wrath, and making a substitution for us, so that we might have eternal life in Him.

What do you believe the Bible teaches about homosexuality? How would you lead your congregation in thinking and responding to homosexuality?

I've read the AD Interim Comittee's Report to GA. The Report helpfully distinguishes between the pastoral task and the apologetic task. Pastorally, helping elders shepherd those struggling with same-sex attraction; and, apologetically, defending the biblical definition of sexuality. Jesus is both the Holy One and the merciful one. He cleanses the temple yet eats with sinners. He gives Martha teaching on truth (John 11:25-26) yet He gives Mary only tears (John 11:35) even though they had both said the same thing to him about their grief (John 11:21, 32). Jesus is full of grace AND truth, and we must be the same when we present the gospel to unbelievers. We affirm that marriage is to be between one man and one woman (Gen. 2:18-25; Matt. 19:4-6; WCF 24.1). Sexual intimacy is a gift from God to be cherished and is reserved for the marriage relationship between one man and one woman (Prov. 5:18-19). There is no sin so small it does not deserve damnation, and no sin so big it cannot be forgiven (WCF 15.4). To juxtapose identities rooted in sinful desires alongside the term "Christian" (such as "gay Christian") is inconsistent with biblical language and undermines the spiritual reality that we are new creations in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17). Churches should be gentle, patient, and intentional with believers who call themselves "gay Christians," encouraging them, as part of the process of sanctification, to leave behind identification language rooted in sinful desires, to live chaste lives, to refrain from entering into temptation, and to mortify their sinful desires. WCF: Concupiscence (i.e., our "corruption of nature... and all the motions thereof") is "truly and properly sin." Good Reformed teaching on sin places us all on equal footing in our need of Christ's imputed righteousness. We would never say to a new believer who has a history of destructive anger, "Now that you are a Christian, you will never again feel a rush of anger rise up within you at the wrong time, for a selfish reason, out of proportion to the situation, or in any other way that contradicts God's law." Neither should we communicate to a believer with a history of homosexual attraction the expectation that this will simply disappear. This acknowledgement of the remnants of corruption in believers does not negate the call to fight against that corruption; our endeavor to oppose and put to death what is earthly in us (Col.3:5) demands a commitment to fight all of our sin. However, to teach that our sinful corruption must be entirely removed from any part of us in order to be considered truly repentant is a spiritually treacherous perversion of the doctrine of repentance. Just as the Confession is clear that corruption remains in every part, it is also clear that the sanctifying work of the Spirit is felt in the "whole man." Someone with homosexual attraction ought not close himself or herself off to the pursuit of, and hope of, real change in those attractions, even if that change is incomplete and mixed. The error of some Christian approaches to same-sex sexual desire has been to tie faithfulness to the elimination of homosexual temptation (or even the development of heterosexual desire) as though if Christians really did enough therapy, had enough faith, or repented sufficiently, God would deliver them in some final and complete way, changing their orientation. This perspective reflects a sort of over-realized eschatology—a view that what we will be finally and fully in the new creation will be realized in that way in the present life. The error of other Christian approaches to same-sex sexual desire is to treat it as a sort of fixed reality that has no malleability or capacity for change whatsoever. Therefore, it is critically important that pastors and leaders in our churches communicate clearly about the already-not-yet tension of our experience of sanctification in this life. Within the church there is no place for a sort of second-class citizenship of believers who have particular struggles, trials, or temptations. In view of the twin dangers of misunderstanding and syncretism, we believe it is generally unwise to use the language of "gay Christian." In practical and plain terms, the issue of terminology is more likely a matter for shepherding in wisdom, and not in and of itself grounds for discipline. Our sexuality apologetic cannot talk only about sex. Only in a compelling, biblical framework of identity, of being in Christ, and of discipleship, of losing oneself in the love and service of God in order to find one's true self (Matthew 10:39) will all of the Christian teaching about the meaning of sex make sense. Christian theology answers that sex is part of the image of God—it must image God and in particular his redeeming love. Sex is not about enhancing one's power but about mutually giving up power to one another in love, as Christ did for us. The Christian answer to the question, "Why must sex be within heterosexual marriage?" gets us into the very heart of the gospel. We should not, then, present the sex ethic without rooting it in the Bible's doctrines of God, of creation, and of redemption. Certainly, Paul argues in this way. After reminding us that we are united with Christ by the Spirit ("He who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him" 1 Corinthians 6:17), he immediately says in verse 18: "Flee from sexual immorality (porneia)." Why is sex outside of marriage wrong? We note that Paul does not merely say, "It is wrong because the Word of God says so," although he certainly could have done that. Rather, he writes "or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit...?" (1 Cor. 6:18, 19)72 He is saying that sexual immorality is wrong because of our union with Christ, which must serve as the pattern for sexual union. So, what is sex for? It is a signpost pointing to God's design of saving love, and it is a means for experiencing something of that same pattern of love at the horizontal level between two human beings that we know at the vertical level in Christ. As union with Christ is a relationship of exclusive, covenantal, self-giving love, so sexual intimacy is only to be experienced within the covenant of marriage. As union with Christ is a relationship between deeply different beings (God and humanity), so sexual intimacy is only to be experienced in a union across the deep difference of gender. The male-female bond can only serve as an analogy to the Christ-Church union if the parties are significantly different. Sex is (A) for self-giving, which is only complete if there is a life-long covenant, (B) for the bridging of difference across the barrier between male and female, and (C) for the creation and nurture of life. These theological purposes explain the ethic—why sexual intimacy is only to be experienced within marriage between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is an anthropological Issue of identity and a hamartiological issue (sin as it applies to orientation and sin as it applies to action). What it looks like to love someone outside the church openly engaged, inside the church wrestling, and inside the church engaged. Can't just bring brute facts... must do it lovingly. People divide truth and love... either love them with no truth, or hold truth unlovingly. How do we hold to truth lovingly? All Saint's website... brief outline of this year's GA--

What is the "ordo salutis?" Support your answer from Scripture.

The Ordo Salutis is the order in which God applies salvation to the elect. Romans 8:29-30 gives a Cliff Notes of the Ordo Salutis "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified." Effectual calling Regeneration Conversion Adoption Sanctification Perseverance Glorification Why NOT start with predestination? Predestination took place before the foundation of the world. Exampes of Historia Salutis from Scripture? Everything Gen 3:15 forward is historia salutis. Luke 23-24 (cruxifixnio and resurrection) I Cor 15 Relationship - ordo is application of historia - they are Redemption Accomplished (history) and Applied (order) Effectual calling John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." Romans 8:29-30 "those whom he CALLED he also justified..." Regeneration John 3:3-8 "3 Jesus answered him, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.' 4 Nicodemus said to him, 'How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?' 5 Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.'" Conversion (Faith and Repentance) John 1:12-13 "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." Justification Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." Romans 8:29-30 "... those whom he JUSTIFIED he also glorified." Adoption Galatians 4:4-5 "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons." Ephesians 1:5 "he predestined us[b] for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will" Sanctification Romans 6:22 "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life." Perseverance John 6:37 "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." Glorification John 6:38-39 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day." Romans 8:29-30 "those whose he justified he also GLORIFIED." These are all the benefits of UNION with Christ. Union with Christ is the huge umbrella over the entire Ordo Salutis. Why is election not first in the Ordo Salutis? What is the distinction between the Historia Salutis and the Ordo Salutis? How is election different? The Historia Salutis is salvation as it has been ACCOMPLISHED by God in history; the Ordo Salutis is salvation as it has been APPLIED in the life of a believer. Election precedes the Historia Salutis and the Ordo Salutis; it is not on either list, because it is the pre-temporal act of God that stands outside of history. While the Historia Salutis is a chronological order, the Ordo Salutis is not a chronological order but rather a logical order. The Ordo Salutis is cause-and-effect (because God did this, the following thing HAD TO happen), as opposed to chronological.

How does Calvin discuss the three uses of the moral law?

1. Mirror (reflecting to us both the perfect righteousness of God and our own sinfulness and shortcomings, showing us our need for holiness) 2. Civil (restrain sin and evil in society - Though the law cannot change the heart, it can to some extent inhibit lawlessness by its threats of judgement, especially when backed by a civil code that administers punishment for proven offenses.) 3. Guide (The law is meant to guide the regenerate into the good works that God has planned for them. The law tells God's children what will please their heavenly Father.)

What are the three categories of Old Testament Law, generally speaking? Which of these is still in effect for Christians? Why?

1. Moral (The Law) 2. Civil (Judicial) 3. Ceremonial (Sacrificial) Which of these is still in effect for Christians? Why?

Define the person and the work of Christ, and Scripturally explain His three offices.

WSC 21 Q: Who is the Redeemer of God's elect? A: The only Redeemer of God's elect, is the Lord Jesus Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, became man, and so was, and continueth to be, God and man in two distinct natures, and one person, for ever. Christ's person (who He is) and work (what He did) are the main building blocks of Christology. PERSON The second member of the Trinity. The Eternal Logos. The Chalcedonian Creed (451 AD) defines the person of Christ as perfect in Godhead and perfect in mankind; truly God and truly man... like unto us, without sin... in one Person... not two persons. One person, two natures. In His person, Jesus is the Divine Son of God. Isaiah 48:12 "I am he; I am the first, and I am the last." Revelation 22:13 "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." Jesus is fully God and fully man. Isaiah 45:22-23 "every knee shall bow" to God. Philippians 2:9-11 "every knee shall bow" to Jesus. How Christ's two natures relate to each other (the "communication of properties") is explained in the WCF: "Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures, by each nature doing what is proper to itself; yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture attributed to the person dominated by the other nature" 8.7). Christ, the God-Man, acts according to both natures. Christ is God; Christ is man; Christ is the God-Man (which is what qualifies Him to be the mediator). Christ has two wills (a divine will and a human will); He would not be truly human if He had only a divine will. Though He faced many temptations (Hebrews 4:15), He never sinned. THE WORK OF CHRIST Christ moved from humiliation to exaltation in performing the work the Father had given the second member of the Trinity to do in the Covenant of Redemption. Prophet WSC 24 Q: How doth Christ execute the office of a prophet? A: Christ executeth the office of a prophet, in revealing to us,1 by his word and Spirit, the will of God for our salvation.2 He is filled with wisdom and knowledge. The Old Testament prophets brought the Word of God to the People; Jesus is the Word made flesh. "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14). Christ not only speaks the truth, He is the truth (John 14:6). Priest WSC 25 Q: How doth Christ execute the office of a priest? A: Christ executeth the office of a priest, in his once offering up of himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice, and reconcile us to God; and in making continual intercession for us. He showers grace and mercy upon the church. The Old Testament priests mediated and interceded on behalf of the people. Christ performs His office as priest in His sacrificial death and in His intercession. In His intercession He continuously presents the efficacy of His sacrifice to the Father in our defense (Hebrews 7:25). The Old Testament priesthood addressed the breaking of the Law, but Christ's priesthood (because of His life of perfect obedience) also addresses the righteousness that God requires. King WSC 26 Q: How doth Christ execute the office of a king? A: Christ executeth the office of a king, in subduing us to himself, in ruling and defending us, and in restraining and conquering all his and our enemies. He is given power and dominion. The Old Testament kings ruled people, defended their people, and conquered enemies. Christ rules His people according to His law; He defends His people; and, He conquers His people's enemies while seated at the right hand of the Father (Psalm 110:1). All three offices are mocked during His passion. Prophet: "Prophecy! Who struck you?" (Matthew 26:67-68). Priest: "He saved others; can He not save Himself?" (Matthew 27:42). King: "He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him" (Matthew 27:42).

Have you read the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms?

Yes.

What are some of the key differences between covenantal and dispensational theology?

Ligon Duncan: Covenant is a special way that God confirms a promise and the relationship we have with God because of that promise; it's also used to define covenant signs. God (not us, like in pagan religions) provides the sacrifice we need. In dispensational theology the Old Testament promises to Israel are TO ISRAEL. Notes from Vern Poythtress's Understanding Dispensationalists: Classic dispensationalism holds that... The main distinctive of dispensationalism is the parallel but separate destinies of Israel and the church. God has two distinct plans of salvation: one for Israel and one for the church. Belief in dispensations (redemptive epochs or epochs in God's dominion) and specifically how they interpret those epochs. Everyone believes that there are dispensations, it's how they interpret them that matters. John Darby: The true church is heavenly. Darby's understanding of Ephesians 2 brought him to a rigid distinction between the church and Israel. The church is heavenly; Israel is earthly. C.I. Scofield and the Scofield Reference Bible (1909 -the most significant single work to spread dispensationalism): A "literal" approach to interpreting the Bible. Passages can have one interpretation when pertaining to physical-material (Israelitish) and spiritual (churchly). Sharp division between Israel (earthly) and the church (heavenly). Prophecy is to be read in terms of literal fulfillment in a future earthly Israel, not in the church. God's dealing with people differently throughout the different dispensations, most notably, the Millennium. The church and Israel being dealt with very differently during the Millennium. Belief in a pretribulational rapture. Covenant Theology organizes redemptive history in terms of covenants, the Covenant of Works made through Adam (as Federal Head) and the Covenant of Grace made through Christ (as Federal Head). The Covenant of Grace was administered differently throughout the different dispensations, but it is substantially the same in all of the dispensations. The unity of the single Covenant of Grace throughout redemptive history. Unlike dispensationalism, which sees two distinct people of God (Israel and the church), covenant theology stresses that there is only one people belonging to God, because there is only one Christ. Romans 5:12-21 excludes the idea of two parallel people of God, because the corporate unity of the people of God derives from their common, single representative Head. There is a distinction between Israel and the church, but the distinction is historical, not metaphysical; it is the distinction of before and after the accomplishment of redemption (the resurrection of Christ)... not a distinction between heavenly and earthly. Romans 11 - there is only one olive tree, one people of God, one root. Covenant theology seeks to use a grammatical-historical method of interpreting Scripture, seeking to understand what the passage meant in the historical and literary setting in which it was originally recorded. Scripture must be used to interpret Scripture. By stressing a literal, or "plain," reading of the Bible dispensationalists force a modern reading of the text, as opposed to a grammatical-historical reading of the text. People then treat Scripture first as "what it means to me," as opposed to what it meant to the original audience. Therefore, the essence of the difference between dispensationalism and covenant theology is a hermeneutical difference. The plain reading vs. the grammatical-historical reading. 2 Corinthians 1:20 - All of the promises God has made are "Yes" in Christ. The church is the heir of all Old Testament promises. We should allow the book of Hebrews to guide us in how we interpret the Old Testament, especially chapter 12, especially 12:22-24 "But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel." The coming of Gentile Christians to Mount Zion is a fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham. Grammatical-historical interpretation deals with what a passage says against the background of its original time and culture. It allows for typology to aid in interpreting the text, recognizing that the significance of a type is not fully discernible until the time of fulfillment, shedding additional light on past texts. Finally, Revelation 21-22 shows that the final destination of the church and Israel is the same. Hebrews 12 shows that Christians already have a foretaste of the fulfillment of Revelation 21-22.

What is penal substitutionary atonement? How does this differ from other views of atonement, like the moral example theory, Christus Victor, or governmental view?

Penal Substitutionary Atonement- Penal Meaning that there is a penalty for sin. We understand that the penalty is death (Romans 6:23) Substitutionary Meaning that as sinners (Romans 3:23) we needed a sinless substitution to be saved from God's wrath. Christ was punished in our place (a substitute). Atonement Meaning an appropriate sacrifice for sin (perfect spotless lamb, blood Leviticus 16) for the elect is Christ, satisfying God's wrath and perfect holiness, being perfectly obedient to the covenant stipulations and law (actively and passively). Hebrews 10:10 Moral Example Theory Jesus' atonement wasn't substitutionary, or for our penalty, but rather He just came to set a great moral example for us to follow. He was a great teacher and set a great example that we should follow. This doesn't account for the need for Regeneration, or Total Depravity. Christus Victor This theory of atonement has Jesus defeating sin and death as its focus. Jesus "satisfying and defeating Satan" is the focus rather making an atoning sacrifice to satisfy the holiness of the Father and His wrath towards sin. It holds to the thinking that Jesus did what He did to set us free from sin's reign, but it is not focused on our need for His substitutionary work. Governmental The Governmental Theory of the atonement (also known as the moral government theory) maintains that Christ was not punished on behalf of the human race. Instead, God publicly demonstrated His displeasure with sin by punishing His own sinless and obedient Son as a propitiation. Because Christ's suffering and death served as a substitute for the punishment humans might have received, God is able to extend forgiveness while maintaining divine order, having demonstrated the seriousness of sin and thus appeasing His wrath. This is about a general satisfaction of God's wrath. We believe specific, not general... for the elect. The Governmental Theory says that God has the problem rather than us... He wants us to be forgivable, so He does this thing to make us where He can love us. The irony is it switches who has the problem. Doctrine Dudes notes: More on the Govermental Theory: Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) - Arminian It's more for our sense of justice than God's. Christ's death is basically a way of saying, "Sin is wrong and now something has been done about it." The atonement is a symbol of sin and injustice. The problem with this view is that nothing has been DONE for the sinner or for God. While it is correct that the cross does show the heinousness of sin and shows God's justice, it is wrong in that in the Governmental Theory nothing has objectively been done for me and it all hinges on my subjective response. Jesus' death upholds the fact that something needs to be done about sin. Penal substitution is inescapable because the Trinity is inescapable. The Arminian limits the atonement in quality; the Calvinist limits the atonement in quantity. 1925 Auburn Affirmation saying that Christ is not the exclusive way to salvation. No penal substitution. A primary thing taking place was the nature of the atonement. Ransom Theory Satan owed us and thought he was getting a good deal. The Faith Movement: Adam gave Satan dominion of the earth and Jesus pays Satan off to get the keys to earth back. "lutron" (greek) "purchase price" - this word NEVER indicates that Satan is getting paid off. We were ransomed, but Satan has no claim on anyone. Who must be satisfied? God. Isaiah 53:10 - It PLEASED God to ordain Jesus' death. Origin: Origen (c.185-254) Origen was heavy on allegory in his hermeneutics. Moral Influence Theory: Jesus' supreme act of sacrificial love that will turn the sinner from sin to God. God's justice does not need to be satisfied because His love overwhelms it. Peter Abelard (1079-1142) Love over Justice Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) He shows that Abelard is wrong, showing that Moral influence makes salvation rest on the sinner to act as loving as Christ. Paul Best and John Biddle said, "Jesus is not divine... He is a created being, a human... there is no Trinity... no original sin... so, maybe we can follow a Moral example." Truth: Yes, Christ's death was the best example of giving and sacrifice ever. But, Moral Influence is saying: Now, I need to drudge up my own holiness, and God's holiness is not dealt with. Hebrews 9:22 whiteout the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. * Important to know the political context around the Synod of Dort. The purpose of the Synod was to settle the controversy over Arminianism, particularly the doctrine of election. Though, it was not only about election... The theological controversy overlapped with a political power struggle in the Netherlands in the first decades of the seventeenth century. Two factions, one led by Prince Maurice of Nassau, the military commander who fought for independence from Spain, and the other led by the senior Dutch politician Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, vied for control of the Dutch government. Maurice of Nassau increasingly allied himself with the traditionalist Calvinist theologians (the Counter-Remonstrants), whereas Oldenbarnevelt found his support among the more liberal wing (the Remonstrants). Arminius died in October 1609, and the controversy entered a new phase. The Arminians published a remonstrance against the Reformed churches in which they outlined five objections to Reformed doctrine. Some preliminary responses were drafted as early as 1611, but it was the Remonstrants who first gave us five points to which the Reformed churches would respond at the great Synod of Dordt. In 1610 the Remonstrants proposed these five points: One: Election conditioned upon foreseen faith and obedience; Two: Universal atonement; Three: Regeneration enables sinners to do good toward salvation; Four: Resistible grace; Five: Believers may fall away. The years from the death of Arminius to the meeting of the Synod of Dort were characterized by growing theological controversy and divisions in the church. The stress on Dutch society became so great that civil war became a real possibility. Only the change of the civil government and the call of the national synod of the Dutch Reformed Church to meet in the port city of Dordrecht prevented that war. The Dutch Calvinists decided that the synod should be more than simply a national synod. They invited representatives from most of the Reformed churches of Europe to attend and to be full voting members of the synod. The result was the greatest and most ecumenical gathering of Reformed churches ever held. (The Westminster Assembly was not properly a church gathering but a gathering of theologians to advise the English Parliament.)

Define the following Church government structures: prelacy, congregational, and Presbyterian. What biblical rational would you give for a Presbyterian form of church government?

Prelacy Monarchical form of church government. It believes that the administration and leadership of the church is restricted to a select few (Bishops, Popes), who are in the succession of the apostles, and hold all of the power for the life and direction of the church. These offices are self-perpetuating and the lay people in the congregation have no say in any of the matters concerning the church and it's practices. There is a shared liturgy and common order that is used denominationally and is handed down/legislated through these handful of ecclesiastical offices. (Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Episcopalian) Congregational The form of church government where the administration of the church is in the hands of all of the members of that particular church. Each church is independent entirely from the other, having little to no accountability in a denominational sense, though not restricted from fellowship/union with any other church. It has a high value on the individual autonomy of the local church, a hyper democratic application of decision making, and ecclesiastical offices within this form of church government are simply functionary and hold no power or authority greater than any other member. (Brethren, Baptists) Presbyterian First and foremost believe that Christ is the head of the church, not man. God ordains men to specific offices (Elder and Deacon), and does so to set up a plurality of leadership that function as a representative form of government. These Elders and Deacons are chosen by fellow members of the congregation, and ordained to these positions. They are entrusted with the oversight and administration of the church, including the teaching and preaching of the word, the administration of the sacraments, church discipline, and mercy. As well as functioning in a representative form on a local level (session), each Presbyterian church is a part of a larger regional body of Elders who administer and rule in that area (presbyteries), which are a part of and comprise a national body of elders (general assembly). These various levels function in similar manner, with the guarding of proper worship, doctrine of the word, and church discipline (court) as a regular part of their gathering emphasis. They also share a common book of church order, which serves as a rule and guide for the form of government. This form of government seeks to strike a balance between autonomy and accountability, individual freedom and corporate restraint. Biblical rationale for the Presbyterian form of church government: Christ is the head of the church (Ephesians 1:22) The office bearers were chosen by the people (Acts 1:21-26) The office of bishop and elder are identical (Titus 1:5-7) In each church there was a plurality of elders (Philippians 1:1, Acts 14:23, 20:17, 1 Timothy 5:17) Ordination was an act of the presbytery, that plurality of elders (1 Timothy 4:14, Acts 6:6, 13:1-3) The privilege of appeal was to the assembly of elders, and they exercised the right of government in their corporate character (Acts 15) 1 Timothy 3 (qualifications for elders and deacons) Titus 1 (qualifications for elders) Acts 6 (choosing of the 7) Hebrew 13:17 "Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you." 1 Peter 5:1-5 "So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. 5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for 'God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.'"

What is the regulative principle of worship? How does it differ with the principle of worship governing the Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran churches? Defend the regulative principle from Scripture.

The Regulative Principle of Worship is the view that we worship God in the manner which He has commanded in His word. Scripture regulates how we worship God. The Westminster Confession says, "But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited to his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture" (WCF 21.1). The Normative Principle of Worship (Anglican and Lutheran) is the view that if Scripture does not forbid something, then it is allowed in worship (for instance, images). The Inventive Principle of Worship (Catholic) is the view that the church is free to invent practices in worship that it deems appropriate. The Belgic Confession of Faith says, "For since the whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in them [the Scriptures] at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an Apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the Apostle Paul saith" (Art. 7). "The whole manner of worship which God requires" is found in the Scriptures. This means we come to worship on God's terms, not ours; that we do in worship what God wants, not what we want." Heidleberg states, "That we in no wise make any image of God, nor worship him in any other way than he has commanded us in his Word." • The regulative principle of worship: "We are free to do anything in worship which Scripture commands/instructs us to do." • This would involve: Reading the Word; Preaching and Teaching the Word; The Sacraments; Singing songs and Spiritual Psalms; Prayer; Offerings and Gifts; Confession of Faith; Taking of Oaths. • This differs with the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran principle of worship which states: We are free to do anything in worship that Scripture does not condemn/forbid us from doing. Defend the regulative principle from Scripture. (Danny Hyde book) Psalm 2:11 (NASB) "Worship the Lord with reverence, and rejoice with trembling." Here we see an example of God telling us how to worship Him. Quite simply this illustrates that God believes He should be the one telling us how to worship Him. The Second Commandment "You shall have no other gods before me." Exodus 20:3, is another example of God telling us how to (and, how not to) worship Him. Leviticus states that worship is "according to the rule" (Levitcus 9:16; 10:1). In Genesis 4 God accepts Abel's offering but rejects Cain's offering; this clearly shows that God accepts some worship, while rejecting other attempts at worship. Cain offered what HE THOUGHT would count as worship and God said, "I don't count that as worship, so it's not worship." Aaron offered a sacrifice which the Lord consumed with fire (Leviticus 9). His sons, Nadab and Abhiu, offered up "unauthorized fire before the Lord" (Leviticus 10:1) and the Lord consumed them with fire. The building of the tabernacle, the acts of worship, and the sacrifices were all "according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain" (Hebrews 8:5). Colossians 2 talks about people worshipping God in vain because they are worshipping Him in the way that they want to worship Him. Jesus said that in order to worship God you have to worship Him "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24).

On eternal destinies, briefly explain: Dispensational Premillennialism Historic Premillennialism Post Millennialism Amillennialism Your view of the second coming, the millennium, and judgment day.

The word millennium refers to the "thousand years" mentioned in Revelation 20. "Pre" and "Post" refer to the timing of Christ's return (pre- believes Christ will return before the millennium, post- believes Christ will return after the millennium). Dispensational Premillennialism: Dispensational premillennialism offers the most complex chronology of the end times. According to dispensationalism, the current church age will end with the rapture of the church, which, along with the appearance of the Antichrist, marks the beginning of the seven-year great tribulation on earth. (This view is "pre-trib," the church is rapture BEFORE the tribulation.) The tribulation will end with the battle of Armageddon, in the midst of which Christ will return to destroy His enemies. The nations will then be gathered for judgment. Those who supported Israel will enter into Christ's millennial kingdom, and the rest will be cast into Hades to await the last judgment. Christ will sit on the throne of David and rule the world from Jerusalem. Israel will be given the place of honor among the nations again. The temple will have been rebuilt and the temple sacrifices will be reinstituted as memorial sacrifices. At the end of the millennium, Satan will be released and lead unbelievers in rebellion against Christ and the New Jerusalem. The rebellion will be crushed by fire from heaven, and Satan will be cast into the lake of fire. The wicked will be brought before the Great White Throne, judged, and cast into the lake of fire, and at this point the eternal state will commence. • The millennium: Christ's return inaugurates the millennium. There is a resurrection of believers at the 2nd coming, and then another resurrection of the dead at the end of the millennium. The temple and sacrifices will be restored. • The binding of Satan means he will be unable to deceive the nations during the future millennium. • The second coming will occur in two stages: the rapture of the church before the tribulation, and the second to earth after the tribulation and before the second millennium. • There is a distinction between Israel and the church... a distinct program for each. • Three resurrections: at rapture, before the millennium, and after the millennium. (Lewis Sperry Chafer and John F. Walvoord hold this view.) Historic premillennialism: Historic premillennialism teaches that at the end of the present age, there will be the great tribulation followed by the second coming of Christ (Christ's second coming is "post-trib.") At Christ's coming, the Antichrist will be judged, the righteous will be resurrected, Satan will be bound, and Christ will establish His reign on earth, which will last for a thousand years and be a time of unprecedented blessing for the church. At the end of the millennium, Satan will be released and he will instigate a rebellion, which will be quickly crushed. The unrighteous will at this point be raised for judgment, after which the eternal state will begin. • The millennium: Christ's reign on the earth for a thousand years after his return and before the eternal state. Christ's return inaugurates the millennium. • The binding of Satan means he will be unable to deceive the nations during the future millennium. • The timing of Christ's return: before the millennium. • The second coming: a single event. • Two resurrections: one before and one after the millennium. There is a resurrection of believers at the 2nd coming, then a resurrection of unbelievers at the end of the millennium. (George Ladd and Millard Erikson hold this view.) Postmillennialism: Postmillennialism teaches that the "thousand years" of Revelation 20 occur prior to the second coming of Christ (Christ returns "post" the thousand years). Until recently, most postmillennialists taught that the millennium would be the last thousand years of the present age. Today, many postmillennialists teach that the millennial age is the entire period of time between Christ's first and second advents. As we will see, this means that contemporary versions of postmillennialism are very close in many ways to contemporary amillennialism. The main difference between the two is not so much the timing of the millennium as the nature of the millennium. In general, postmillennialism teaches that in the present age, the Holy Spirit will draw unprecedented multitudes to Christ through the faithful preaching of the gospel. Among the multitudes who will be converted are the ethnic Israelites who have thus far rejected the Messiah. At the end of the present age, Christ will return, there will be a general resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment will take place. • The millennium: The present age will gradually merge into the millennial age as an increasingly larger proportion of the world's inhabitants are converted through the preaching of the gospel • The binding of Satan means he cannot prevent the spread of the gospel during the present age. • Tribulation is experienced in this present age. • The second coming: a single event. No distinction between rapture and second coming. • The timing of Christ's return: after the millennium. • One resurrection. (Charles Hodge and B.B. Warfield hold this view.) o Amillennialism ("a" meaning "no," which is a bit of misnomer... amillennialists do not believe in a literal thousand-year earthly reign which will follow the return of Christ. The number 1,000 is symbolic for a long period of time, or of "completeness.") We see then that the binding of Satan described in Revelation 20:1-3 means that throughout the gospel age in which we now live the influence of Satan, though certainly not annihilated, is so curtailed that he cannot prevent the spread of the gospel to the nations of the world. (Anthony Hoekema) Revelation 20:1-6 says nothing about an earthly reign of Christ over a primarily Jewish kingdom. Rather, it describes the reigning with Christ in heaven of the souls of believers who have died. They reign during the time between their death and Christ's Second Coming. • The millennium: The millennium is Christ reigning in heaven right now. The millennium is a church age from a heavenly viewpoint. The present reign of the souls of the deceased believers with Christ in heaven. • The binding of Satan means that he cannot prevent the spread of the gospel during the present age. • The timing of Christ's return: after the millennium. • The second coming: a single event of both blessing and judgment. • Tribulation is experienced in this present age. • The resurrection: one general resurrection. (Louis Berkhof and G. C. Berkhower hold to this view.) o My view of the second coming, the millennium, and judgment day. The Second Coming: The Bible teaches that when Jesus returns at the end of the age, three distinct yet related events occur simultaneously. The first event is the resurrection of the dead (Daniel 12:1-4; Isaiah 25:6-9)-including both those who will live forever blessed in the presence of Christ (1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11; 1 Corinthians 15:12-58), and those who will enter into eternal judgment (2 Thessalonians 1:6, 8-9; Revelation 20:11-14). The second event is closely related to the resurrection of the dead, and this is the final judgment of believers and unbelievers alike (Matthew 13:36-43; 25:31-46). The third event is the creation of a new heaven and earth (Romans 8:21; 2 Peter 3:10). The Millennium: I would be Amillennial. I think that I fall in this direction mainly because of the "already and not yet," inaugurated eschatological nature of the Amillennial view. It seems to me to be consistent with other doctrinal matters such as justification as an act and sanctification as a work, although those don't serve as a proof for the Amillennial perspective. I believe Christ will return. His return will be in person, and in power and glory, as king and ruler, defeating Satan and evil entirely and with finality, and all creation will worship Him (Revelation 5). In His return the old order of things will pass away and all things will be made new (Revelation 21). What binds the Old and New Testaments together is the unity of the covenant of grace. Amillennialists do not believe that redemptive history is to be divided into a series of distinct and disparate dispensations but see a single covenant of grace running through all of redemptive history. This covenant of grace is still in effect today and will culminate in the eternal dwelling together of God and His redeemed people on the new earth. Judgment Day: The final judgment of believers and unbelievers alike (Matthew 13:36-43; 25:31-46). Those who are not Christ's, who are not washed in the blood of the lamb, nor clothed with his righteousness, will face the full fury of God's wrath on the day of judgment. When Jesus returns on the last day, he raises the dead, judges the world, and makes all things new-three distinct but related events all of which occur at the same time. Further Notes: I think premillennialism suffers way too many biblical weaknesses because it requires us to deny, in contrast to Scripture's teaching, that death is defeated and swallowed up in victory at the parousia, the natural creation is set free from its bondage to corruption at the parousia, the New Heavens and the New Earth are introduced immediately following the parousia, all opportunity to receive Christ as Savior terminates at the parousia, and both the final resurrection and eternal judgment of unbelievers will occur at the time of the parousia. Revelation 20: Verse 7 - Does this teach that the millennium occurs AFTER Christ's return? "When the 1,000 years are over." The millenium is the age of the triumph of the gospel inaugurated - that means begun - by Christ in His death, resurrection, and ascension. We are living in the Millennium right now. The binding of Satan? Same word is used in Mark 3. Jesus bound up Satan so that He could cast out demons. In His ministry He was tying Satan in knots. When He sends out the disciples (Luke 10) He tells them He saw Satan fall like lightning... in their ministry they were binding Satan in knots. In the ministry of the gospel Satan is bound. In John 12 Jesus says in My ministry, death, and resurrection Satan will be cast out. In Revelation 20 Satan is bound so that he can no longer deceive the nations; he can't deceive the nations and therefore wipe out the church, but rather the nations will be responsive to the gospel. Verse 4 - came to life and reigned with Christ? These are believers who have died and are now reigning with Christ.

Define and defend from Scripture the five points of Calvinism.

Total Depravity Mankind, as a result of the fall and sin, is in a state of total depravity (spiritual deadness, darkened minds, corrupt hearts, and slaves to sin, with an inability to save himself). In such a state mankind is utterly powerless to overcome sin and its effects. To clarify, total depravity is NOT absolute depravity. Every person is not as bad as possible - as evil as can be, somewhat like the devil. Total depravity defined rightly is that every person is only and always sinning. Romans 3:10-11 "... "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God." Ephesians 2: By nature man is spiritually dead. Unconditional Election By the eternal decree of God the Father, those chosen unto salvation are chosen unconditionally, in that they were chosen by grace and by no foreseen faith or virtue. John 6:37-39 "All that the Father has given me will come to me..." John 15:16 "You did not choose me, but I chose you." Acts 13:48 "As many as were ordained to eternal life believed." Ephesians 1:4-5 "just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world" Romans 9 Limited Atonement Christ died not for everyone but only for the elect. The Calvinist limits the atonement in quantity, whereas the Arminian limits the atonement in efficacy; the Arminian view makes the atonement a possibility, whereas the Calvinist view makes the atonement a certainty. Limited atonement means that Jesus actually, and definitely, saved people on the cross. Matthew 1:21 "... for he will save his people from their sins." Jesus definitely would save people from their sins; it was a certainty, not a possibility. John 10:11 "The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." In Ephesians 5:25-27 Christ gives his life not for the world, but for the church. Irresistible Grace When God chooses some to be saved and when He sends His Spirit to change their disposition towards Him, no one can resist Him. John 6:37, "All the Father gives me will come to me." Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." Perseverance of the Saints Once saved, always saved. By God's grace and power Christians will persevere in trusting in Christ as their Savior, believing in Him forever. The perseverance of the saints is ultimately dependent on the perseverance of God. It is because God perseveres in His love toward the church that the church will persevere in its love toward Him. John 6:39 "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day." John 10:28-29 "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." Philippians 1:6 "And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." Isaiah 54:10 "'For the mountains may depart and the hills be removed, but my steadfast love shall not depart from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be removed,' says the Lord, who has compassion on you." With the acronym TULIP we see the entire Trinity at work: The Father unconditionally elects, the Son offers a limited atonement, and the Spirit brings an efficacious calling of irresistible grace. The Father perseveres in patience with the elect, while the Son intercedes on behalf of the elect, and the Spirit sanctifies the elect to ensure the perseverance of the saints. Romans 8:28-30 "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified." All five points logically depend upon each other; if T is true, then U must follow; if U is true, then L, I, and P must follow.

Given the diversity of the types of literature found in the Bible, in what ways does Scripture give us doctrine? Name at least 3.

Wisdom Literature Proverbs 22:19-21 "... to make you know what is right and true." Pastoral and General Epistles Hebrews 1:1-2 "... God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his son." Gospels Luke 1:3-4 "... that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." Instruction: 1 Cor 11 Prophetic Revelation: Rev. 1-22 Narrative: Luke Eye Witness: John Systematic Theology: Romans

What is the Bible (specifically defining inspiration, necessity, perspicuity, inerrancy, and sufficiency)?

• Our doctrine of God informs our doctrine of Scripture. Because God is true and trustworthy, His word is true and trustworthy. The Bible is the inspired word of God, given to mankind, that we may know Him, His will, and His plan for saving a people to Himself. In John 17:17 Jesus says that God's "word is truth." • Inspiration - INSPIRED Men wrote as the Holy Spirit inspired what they wrote. Scripture is God's special revelation, a product of God's direct intellectual superintending of the men who wrote it. 2 Peter 1:21 says Scripture does not come from the "will of man" but from the Spirit. • Necessity - NECESSARY Because general revelation can only do so much, the special revelation of the Word is necessary. 1 Corinthians 2:11 says that only God can tell us about God. We need the revelation of God in order to know God, and the ignorant revelation of God is found only in Scripture. it is necessary revelation for salvation (2 Tim 3:15). • Perspicuity - CLARITY. The basic message fo Scripture is clear. The Bible makes clear the saving message of Jesus Christ. (Psalm 119:130 "The unfolding of your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple.") All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. WCF 1.7 • Inerrancy - ESSENCE. What it is in it's make up. Having to do with what Scripture is in its essense. It is essentially error free. Psalm 12:6 says "the words of the Lord are pure"; while humans have speeches that is mixed with dishonesty and inaccuracy, God's words are perfect. • Infallibility - FUNCTION. Since it is inerrant, whatever it sets out to do it must do. What it does. It does not fail. The Bible will not fail to accomplish all that it has promised to accomplish. In John 10:35 Jesus says "Scripture cannot be broken." Jesus's view of Scripture was that every word of it had to be fulfilled because every word was God's word. In Matthew 5:18 Jesus says, "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." • Sufficiency - Enough. General revelation is only so sufficient. Scripture contains everything we need for knowledge of salvation and godly living. (Psalm 19, Duet 4:6, Ecclesiastes 12:11) Extra: Autographa God oversees the faithful copying of Scripture. Ezra reads authoritatively "This is the word of God" while holding a copy of a copy of a copy (Bahnsen from "Inerrancy").Jesus quoted Isaiah "This is the word of God." The apostles quoting Greek translations of copies. the Bible's own attitude is that copies are to be esteemed as the very word of God.