The question is in the title – and it appears there is considerable confusion on this point. I direct your attention to this excellent article. R. C. Sproul and Sinclair Ferguson appear to have contempt for a system they may not actually understand. I would never show this kind of disdain for Covenant Theology, even though I disagree with it.
This paper presents a Biblical doctrine of the Triune Godhead. First, the importance of the doctrine itself is examined along with practical ramifications for the Christian life. Next, the historical development of the Godhead is presented and various heretical movements are analyzed. Contemporary issues in the doctrine are also examined. A personal theology of the Triune Godhead follows which presents primarily conclusions, not arguments, to avoid repetition. Arguments supporting the personal theology are provided in a biblical theology of the doctrine itself from Scripture. This biblical theology is thematic, and traces three themes through Scripture; (1) God is one, (2) God is three and (3) these Three are one. Due to space limitations, this is not an exhaustive biblical theology.
This paper argues for the following definition of the Triune Godhead and will demonstrate this doctrine is fully orthodox, supported by the church fathers and most importantly by Scripture;
Within the one Being that is God, there exists three eternally co-equal and co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
God revealed Himself in Triune form – thus we must assume it is vital to our faith.[1] There are several reasons why the doctrine of the Trinity is absolutely central to all other Christian doctrines.
The God the Father always works through God the Son, and the Son does His work in human hearts only through the God the Holy Spirit.[2] Their roles are absolutely complementary in every respect; revelation cannot happen without the triune Godhead. “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit,” (2 Pet 1:21). Men are saved only by Christ and recorded divine revelation from God through the working of the Holy Spirit.
Redemption
God the Father planned redemption in eternity past (Eph 1:3-5), God the Son is the means of that salvation (Eph 1:9-10) and the God the Holy Spirit effectually calls sinners to repentance. The Christian Savior must be Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The triune Godhead is the distinguishing characteristic of Christianity.[3] No false religion can compare to it; it is novel and absolutely unique. It is what makes a Christian a Christian. “To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?” (Isa 40:18, KJV).
Christian worship is inherently Trinitarian, whether one even realizes or acknowledges it. Paul opens his epistle to the Ephesians by acknowledging the triune Godhead; “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,” (Eph 1:3). Even in prayer, man “comes to God the Father, pleading the name of Christ, and is taught how to pray aright by the Holy Spirit.”[4]
God chose sinners before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4) to be saved by the work of Christ (Eph 1:7-10) and be sanctified by the Spirit (2 Cor 3:18). It is the Holy Spirit which works in the hearts of men, both to effectually call and to sanctify those whom God, by His grace, saves.
The preceding have served to demonstrate the unfathomable unity of purpose among the persons of the Godhead. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are never in conflict and each works with the other towards one unified, common purpose.
There are five basic phases in the historical development of the Triune God, each often overlapping with one another; the economic concept, dynamic monarchism, modalism, Arianism and orthodoxy.[5] The very early church in general did not concern itself with deep theological reflection; therefore these various heretical doctrines generally emerged in conflict with orthodoxy in the mid to late 2nd century and early 3rd century. The church was chiefly concerned with basic survival amidst intense periods of persecution. “The process of organizing itself and propagating the faith and even the struggle for survival in a hostile world precluded much serious doctrinal reflection.”[6]
This economic development dealt with the roles of the specific persons of the Godhead rather than the ontological development and its implications. Early church fathers who developed the economic concept include Hippolytus, Tertullian and Justin Martyr. Their conclusion was that God consists of one identical substance which is extended into three distinct manifestations.[7]
Justin Martyr, writing in the mid 2nd century likened this to one fire kindled from another; “which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled.”[8]
Tertullian, writing sometime between 197-217 A.D., characterized this as a unity of substance and remarked, “Even when the ray is shot from the sun, it is still part of the parent mass; the sun will still be in the ray, because it is a ray of the sun—there is no division of substance, but merely an extension.”[9] Tertullian went on, “the material matrix remains entire and unimpaired, though you derive from it any number of shoots possessed of its qualities.”[10]
Tertullian actually formulated the concept of later orthodoxy, “one essence in three persons” in his attack on modalism. In his polemic on Praxeas, written no earlier than 208 A.D., he wrote again of a unity of substance which was distributed into a Trinity;
placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.[11]
This economic concept of the Trinity is orthodox but incomplete. Erickson lamented about a “certain vagueness” in the economic concept of the Trinity. “Any effort to come up with a more exact understanding of just what it means will prove disappointing.” [12]
This concept was an attempt by the early church to actually define the relationship between Christ and God. The main proponent of monarchism was Theodotus, who brought the doctrine to Rome about 190 A.D. He sought to preserve the supremacy of God the Father at the expense of God the Son.[13] Jesus was not really God; God was simply working through Him.
Theodotus “did not deny Christ’s birth from a virgin . . . but he did deny his divinity, teaching that he was a mere man upon whom the Holy Spirit descended at the time of his baptism, in consequence of which he became the Christ, received power to fulfill his special mission and by his righteousness was raised above all other men. The descent of the Holy Spirit, however, although raising him to a very exalted position, did not make him divine.”[14] The concept was that Christ was elevated to an exalted position, a sort of “moral oneness” with God.[15]
A key proof-text for this concept was 1 Cor 5:19,[16] where Paul wrote “in Christ God was reconcilingthe world to himself.” Christ was not divine; God was simply using Christ as the means to achieve His ends. This view was condemned by the Christian community. Dionysius, the Bishop of Rome from approximately 259-263 A.D., held monarchist views. Eusebius recorded that Dionysius held, “contrary to the teaching of the Church, low and degraded views of Christ, namely, that in his nature he was a common man.” The catholic church (in the original sense of the term) moved energetically to combat this heresy, summoning Dionysius to a council to explain himself. Eusebius contemptuously referred to him as “a despoiler of the flock of Christ.”[17] Monarchism was never a widespread movement and was a relatively isolated phenomenon.[18]
Erickson wrote that modalism was “a genuinely unique, original and creative conception . . . a brilliant breakthrough.”[19] It advocated the view that God was really just one person with three different names, roles or activities. Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are identical, successive revelations of the same person.[20] Like a skilled thespian, God simply plays different roles at different times.
Tertullian, writing his treatise against Praxeas sometime after 208 A.D., observed dryly,
“Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil at Rome: he drove away prophecy, and he brought in heresy.”[21]
Tertullian boldly claimed that Satan himself was working through Praxeas in his modalistic interpretation of the Trinity.
“Out of this doctrine of the unity he may fabricate a heresy. He says that the Father Himself came down into the Virgin, was Himself born of her, Himself suffered, indeed was Himself Jesus Christ.”[22]
He went on to state,
So it is either the Father or the Son, and the day is not the same as the night; nor is the Father the same as the Son, in such a way that Both of them should be One, and One or the Other should be Both.[23]
Employing a legal tactic of positing and answering modalistic objections, Tertullian continued,
Well, but “with God nothing is impossible.” True enough; who can be ignorant of it? Who also can be unaware that “the things which are impossible with men are possible with God?” The foolish things also of the world hath God chosen to confound the things which are wise.” We have read it all. Therefore, they argue, it was not difficult for God to make Himself both a Father and a Son, contrary to the condition of things among men. For a barren woman to have a child against nature was no difficulty with God; nor was it for a virgin to conceive. Of course nothing is “too hard for the Lord.”
But if we choose to apply this principle so extravagantly and harshly in our capricious imaginations, we may then make out God to have done anything we please, on the ground that it was not impossible for Him to do it. We must not, however, because He is able to do all things suppose that He has actually done what He has not done.[24]
The modalistic conception of the Trinity was indeed novel. It solved any number of problems; both the unity of the Godhead and the full deity of all three persons are perfectly preserved by it. Ultimately, however, Scripture condemned this heresy to the flames. Too many texts spoke far too explicitly of the Trinity as distinct persons for the church to accept; such as Christ’s baptism, Christ speaking of the coming of the Spirit and His prayers that were specifically addressed to the Father.[25]
The Arians, like the modern day Jehovah’s Witnesses, went a different route. Christ, they asserted, was not equal with God or even God at all – He was a creature brought into being by God. They felt that elevating Christ to the level of God the Father was, in effect, abandoning monotheism. They went further than the monarchists by emphatically declaring Christ was no more than a mere creature. However, from the beginning the church had worshipped Christ as God! The stage was set for a divisive battle. Athanasius considered Arianism to be a “harbinger of the Antichrist” and the daughter of Satan.[26] Summarizing their teaching, he wrote,
God was not always a Father; but once God was alone, and not yet a Father, but afterwards He became a Father. The Son was not always; for, whereas all things were made out of nothing, and all existing creatures and works were made, so the Word of God Himself was made out of nothing, and once He was not, and He was not before His origination, but He as others had an origin of creation.[27]
The church was quite rightly concerned with condoning the worship of a mere man. Athanasius wrote against the Arian heresy with great enthusiasm, judging it to be a theology which had been “vomited forth” and was at odds with Scripture and “alien to the divine oracle.”[28] Arians took Proverbs 8:22-23 as one of their primary proof-texts;
“The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.”
The Arians examined texts such as this and others[29] and concluded it may be appropriate to call Christ a god, but he was certainly not the same as God the Father.[30] Arias himself explained,
God himself is inexpressible to all beings. He alone has none equal to him or like him, none of like glory. We call him unbegotten on account of the one who by nature is begotten; we sing his praises as without beginning because of the one who has a beginning. We worship him as eternal because of him who was born in the order of time. The one without beginning established the Son as the beginning of all creatures.[31]
Therefore, according to Arians, Christ Himself could not even fathom God’s essence. He was a mere creature; an exalted creature, to be sure – but a creature nonetheless. Church historian Justo Gonzalez summarized by observing, “if asked to draw a line between God and creation, Arians would draw that line so as to include the Word in creation.”[32]
The Arian heresy prompted the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., the first ever ecumenical council of the early church. Prior to Nicea, church disputes had been settled over time with long debate culminating with an eventual consensus. After the conversion of Constantine, for the first time the authority of the state was invoked to settle a theological issue. Advocates of particular viewpoints could, for the very first time, forsake lengthy explanations of their positions in favor of simply convincing imperial authority. “Eventually, theological debate was eclipsed by political intrigue.”[33]
Arianism began as a local conflict in Alexandria, Egypt. The Bishop of Alexandria, Alexander, was in vehement disagreement with Arias, who was one of the most famous presbyters of the city. Alexander eventually condemned Arias and removed him from all official positions in Alexandrian church. Arias, refusing to meekly fade from the scene, appealed to the common people of Alexandria and other Bishops from throughout the East for support. Arias was quite successful; people marched in the streets chanting Arian dogma and various Bishops wrote letters in support. The Eastern church was in turmoil.
Constantine, who had recently established Christianity as the state religion, resolved that he must act. He decided to call a council of Bishops from the entire empire to settle this matter, among others. Arias, not being a Bishop himself, was forbidden to attend. He counted on Eusebius of Nocomedia to present his views. Eusebius (not to be confused with the historian) resolved to simply explain the matter, certain that all opposition would fade away in light of the remorseless logic of Arianism. Eusebius’ oration did not go well.
The assertion that the Word or Son was no more than a creature, no matter how high a creature, provoked angry reactions from many of the bishops: ‘You lie!’ ‘Blasphemy!’ ‘Heresy!’ Eusebius was shouted down, and we are told his speech was snatched from his hand, torn to shreds, and trampled underfoot.[34]
The result of this controversy, the Nicene Creed, is emphatically anti-Arian and takes great pains to emphasize the deity of Christ;[35]
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead.
In the Nicene Creed the early church provided a clear and unambiguous affirmation of the full deity of all three persons of the Godhead, while at the same time maintaining their distinct roles in the economic Trinity.
The doctrine received further refinement at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. where the common phrase “three in one” was coined;[36] the very essence of the orthodox concept of the triunity of God. He is not triple, but three in one.
There is nothing novel in modern developments of the Trinity; “there is nothing new under the sun,” (Ecc 1:9). Contemporary debate on the Triunity of God reflects either ontological unity or economic diversity; characterized by the schools of Barth and Moltmann.[37] The difficulty stems from the inherent mystery of the Godhead itself and the delicate balance with maintaining both unity and diversity within one divine essence.
Barth has been dogged with a reputation for modalism by emphasizing the subjectivity of God in self-revelation to such an extent that he undermines the distinctiveness of the persons of the Godhead. He referred to modes of being rather than persons, even going so far as to refer to the Trinity as a “threefold way of being.”[38] Barth explained, “the threefold yet single lordship of God as Father, Son and Spirit, is the root of the doctrine of the Trinity.”[39] This “threefold” concept of God has led some to charge Barth with creating a whole new form of modalism outright.[40]
It is difficult to disagree with this assessment; Barth denies both a plurality of Gods and a plurality of individuals within the Godhead:
“The name of the Father, Son and Spirit means that God is the one God in threefold repetition . . . The truth that we are emphasizing is that of the numerical unity of essence of the ‘persons.’”[41]
Van Til concluded that, to Barth, “the orthodox doctrine of three persons in the ontological trinity would . . . lead to tri-theism.”[42]
Barth casts a large shadow over mainline Protestantism and his views have a wide influence. Barth’s error is in trying to harmonize the Godhead in favor of unity; in so doing he de-emphasizes the distinct persons within the Godhead. The old phrase coined by Tertullian so long ago, “one essence in three persons,” is Scripturally sound though apparently contradictory. It is a doctrine ultimately mysterious to fallen men in a world influenced by Satan (Eph 2:2). Barth is incorrect to harmonize beyond the evidence of God’s special revelation; “the secret things belong to the LORD our God,” (Deut 29:29a). Gregory of Nazianzus, writing in the middle of the 4th century, declared God was “one in diversity, diverse in Unity, wherein is a marvel.”[43]
On the other side of the pendulum, largely in reaction to the perceived modalism of Barth and Rahner, there is a tendency to emphasize the three persons over one essence. This school is largely characterized by the work of Jurgen Moltmann, who advocated a sort of tri-theism which had no place for unity of the Godhead. There is no unity; there is only a community of God, Son and Spirit;
The unity of the divine tri-unity lies in the union of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, not in their numerical unity. It lies in their fellowship, not in the identity of a single subject . . . The fellowship of the disciples with one another has to resemble a union of the Son with the Father. But not only does it have to resemble that Trinitarian union; in addition it has to be a union within this union.[44]
To Moltmann, then, this “unity of persons” which comprises his Trinity replaces the traditional concept of essential unity. He boldly characterized his own challenge to orthodoxy as “trinitarian pantheism” or social trinitarianism. Moltmann saw his conception of a divine community of persons in the Trinity as a model for democratic socialism. [45] He was apparently greatly inspired by a portion from Jesus’ high priestly prayer; “that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us,” (Jn 17:21). Moltmann read social implications into the text that are not there. His zest for an ideal social society led him to surrender the entire first half of the Trinitarian formula.
Neither Barth’s nor Moltmann’s positions are Scripturally tenable. It is striking how often history repeats itself. Once again, the good Gregory of Nazianzus has something important to add to the discussion – from 380 A.D;
But when I say God, I mean Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For Godhead is neither diffused beyond these, so as to bring in a mob of gods; nor yet is it bounded by a smaller compass than these, so as to condemn us for a poverty-stricken conception of Deity; either Judaizing to save the Monarchia, or falling into heathenism by the multitude of our gods. For the evil on either side is the same, though found in contrary directions.[46]
Within the one Being that is God, there exists three eternally co-equal and co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
There is one Divine Being in one indivisible essence (Deut 6:4; Jas 2:19).[47] The term “essence” is not a Biblical term, but a secular phrase which attempts to capture the concept. It is not a sacred term, but as John Frame noted, it is doubtful a better term will be found.[48] The term serves only to label the concepts we learn from Scripture. The overarching point is that God is one. He is a single, indivisible Being. We do not worship many Gods, but one single God.
The term triune is more accurate than trinity to capture this truth. Trinitarian means “three-fold” or having three parts. Triunity, however, means “three-in-one.” God is triune and not triple.
In this one Divine Being there are distinct three persons, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. These three persons within the Godhead are independent; “the three persons are so real and distinct from each other that each possesses a hypostatical or Trinitarian consciousness different from that of the others.”[49] Each person is co-eternal, being involved in the very creation of the heavens and the earth (Heb 1:2; Col 1:16; Gen 1:1-2). There is no blurring of consciousness; each person is only conscious of being the person they are in the essence of the Godhead.[50] Jesus, for example, is an independent person in the Godhead seeking only to do the will of the Father (John 6:38).
The phrase “person,” much like “essence” above, inevitably falls short. Everything which exists has being (e.g. a rock), but not everything which exists is personal. A person, like Abraham Lincoln, is a personal being. However, being limited, poor Abe Lincoln cannot distribute his being among two, three or four persons. He is limited to himself. God is unlimited and infinite, and therefore in a way man cannot understand, His being is shared co-equally by three distinct persons – Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons. The divine essence is not divided among the three persons, but complete in each one of the persons. The whole essence of God is in each Trinitarian person; they are co-equal.[51] The three persons of the triune Godhead are one and the same God. There is also no subordination between the Godhead with respect to essence; each person is equal in being, power and glory. Scripture provides no standard numerical order when it mentions the Godhead.
God is first, the Son is second and the Spirit is third. The Father is the source, the Son the channel and the Spirit the active agent in the Godhead.[52] The Father sent the Son (1 John 4:10) and the Spirit (John 14:26). The Father is greater than the Son (John 14:28) and the Son also sent the Spirit (John 14:26). Berkhof remarked there is no difference in personal dignity between the three persons of the Godhead, and thus “the only subordination of which we can speak is subordination in respect to order and relationship.”[53]
Israel worshipped one God only. God Himself made this quite clear in the commandments He gave to Moses; “You shall have no other Gods before me,” (Ex 20:3). God went on to forbid idolatry of all kinds (Ex 20:4), affirming His right for exclusive worship – He is a jealous God.
He demonstrated His unique reality to His people in what He had done, in events such as the global flood (Gen 5:5-8) and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:23-25). The exodus was a very prominent theme in Deuteronomy, as Moses repeatedly reminded Israel of God’s grace and power in rescuing them from their plight (Deut 6:20-25, 10:21-22, 11:2-7). Israel’s obligation to obey God is predicated on their grateful acknowledgement of His grace and power (Lev 19:36). No other “god” could claim such power. Israel was repeatedly reminded of God’s grace throughout Deuteronomy; the fact that they worshipped one God who never changed is the very basis of their hope. This is why the Lord reminded His people, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one,” (Deut 6:4).
Solomon recognized this timeless truth. At the dedication of the temple, after praising God for His unmerited grace and mercy to His people, Solomon prayed Israel would walk with the Lord so “that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God; there is no other,” (2 Kgs 8:60).
The Apostle James exhorted Christians to remember that mere belief in the one true God is not enough; “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!” (Jas 2:19). Paul dismissed other “gods” and declared “yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist,” (1 Cor 8:6a). Even more explicit is the declaration from Gen 1:1; “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Bruce Ware remarked, “whatever else Genesis 1 is about, the main thing it teaches is that there is one God.”[54]
Early Christians did not consider themselves followers of a new religion. They had been Jews and still were; they simply believed their Messiah had come. How, then, did these Jews move from “oneness” to triunity? The fact they did so is quite clear; many scholars regard Phil 2:5-11 as an early Christian hymn which Paul incorporated into his epistle.[55] Here, Paul taught Christ was “in very nature God” (Phil 2:6, NIV).
The writer to the Hebrews was emphatic in his claims about Christ’s deity. Jesus was the means God the Father used to create all things (Heb 1:2). This sheds new light on the creation account (Gen 1:1); Christ was the active agent carrying out the Father’s plan.
It sheds still more light on who, precisely, spoke to Hagar in the wilderness on the way to Shur (Gen 16:7) and Abraham at the oaks of Mamre (Gen 18:1), for no man can see God the Father and live (Ex 33:20). It was nothing less than pre-incarnate Christ who spoke to Abraham and Hagar.[56]
He is the heir of all things, the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of His nature (Heb 1:2-3). “The Son is such a revelation of the Father that when we see Jesus, we see what God’s real being is.”[57] He upholds the universe by His own power and makes purification for sins, sits at the right hand of the Father and is superior to the angels (Heb 1:3-5). Christ is clearly of equal essence with God the Father, and the early Christians affirmed this fact. Prescient Jews would not have been expecting a earthly Savior; Isaiah spoke of the coming Messiah as “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace,” (Isa 9:6b). Isaiah’s words are particularly important in light of the God’s own commandments against idolatry (Ex 20:3-4).
Christ’s ministry characterized was characterized by His deity. He taught He was the coming Messiah of whom Isaiah spoke (Lk 4:21). He taught the Kingdom of God was both at hand and fulfilled in Himself (Mk 1:14-15). Christ spoke of God’s angels as being His angels (Mt. 13:41). He claimed to forgive sins (Mk 2:8-10), which the scribes rightly objected was a power ascribed only to God (Mk 2:7). Christ taught He would sit on His glorious throne and judge the world in the last days (Mt 25:31).
His own claim to deity is the reason Christ was arrested. The high priest charges Jesus to state the matter plainly under oath before God (Mt 26:63b).[58] Jesus went on to claim his accusers would see Him ruling and reigning as the Messiah. He intentionally invoked Ps 110:1 and Dan 7:13, the two greatest Kingdom prophesies of the OT. McClain wrote, “The high priest, better schooled than some theologians, understood His regal claim, rent his clothing judicially, and called upon his fellow judges to pronounce Him ‘guilty of death’ ” (Mt 26:66).[59] His own disciples even recognized Him as God (Jn 20:28) and Christ did not correct their assumptions. Christ is clearly God and the early Christians saw Him as such.
The Holy Spirit is often referred to interchangeably with God. Peter declared that Ananias and Sapphira had lied to the Holy Spirit by keeping back proceeds from land they sold and lying about it (Acts 5:3). Peter went on and declared that by doing so they had lied directly to God (Acts 5:4). The Holy Spirit is God, a co-equal member of the Trinity.
The Holy Spirit performs the same functions as God. He convicts the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment (Jn 16:8). He is the very agent of regeneration (Jn 3:5-8) which brings elect sinners into the Kingdom of God. Nobody indwelt with the Holy Spirit can curse Jesus and nobody can claim “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:3). He bestows natural talents and abilities upon God’s people (1 Cor 12:4-11); “all these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills,” (1 Cor 12:11). Christians themselves are a temple of God because the Spirit of God dwells in them (1 Cor 3:16-17).
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is equated with blasphemy of God; “whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin,” (Mk 3:28-29). Blasphemy in the OT was specifically against God – to speak contemptuously of the deity. This unpardonable sin (Mk 3:22, 28-29) was nothing less than “the deliberate and perverse repudiation of God’s saving work,” which explains Christ’s strong reaction to this grave sin.[60]
He is likewise an agent of creation, in conjunction with God the Son and therefore cannot be a creature (Gen 1:2); “the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” The Spirit is eternal (Heb 9:14) and is the helper for believers after Jesus’ ascension (Jn 14:16-17; 16:6-7). It is the Spirit who sanctifies believers (1 Pet 1:2).
All three members of the Godhead, while they are each distinct persons, are also one divine essence who work together towards a common goal. As a basic generalization, Frame observed that the Father plans, the Son executes and the Spirit applies.[61] They are united in their mission because they are one divine essence. There is a mutual glorification among the Godhead which testifies of the deity of each person.
The Father glorifies the Son (Jn 8:54; 12:23; 17:1), and the Son likewise glorifies the Father (Jn 7:18; 17:4). The Spirit also glorifies the Son (Jn 16:14) who glorifies the Father.[62] This is not merely a partnership, whereby each member of the Godhead can sign official paperwork in the name of the firm; there is one essence existing in three distinct modes. Nobody comes to God the Son unless God the Father first draws Him (Jn 6:44). Christ repeats this point later in the Gospel of John (10:29) and concludes by emphatically stating the oneness of His connection with God the Father; “I and the Father are one,” (Jn 10:30).
Jesus claimed that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father (Jn 14:9-11). This explains how Genesis can accurately relate “God” created the heavens and the earth, while Paul later clarified that Christ was the very agent of that creation (Heb 1:2; Col 1:16). The baptismal formulas throughout Scripture speak of all three members of the Godhead (Mt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14; 1 Pet 1:2). The “name” of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Mt 28:19) is singular, although three persons are included. There is also no hint of inferiority or subordination in either formula, precisely because they are each fully deity and united in one purpose. God is also referred to in plural form in several instances (Gen 1:26; 11:7; Isa 6:8). Referring to the Genesis account, (“Let us make man in our image”), Matthews writes, “the plural indicates an intra-divine conversation, a plurality in the Godhead, between God and His Spirit.’[63]
Perhaps the clearest exposition of the unity or oneness of the Godhead is in Eph 4:4-6;
4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
Eph 4:4. Paul is exhorting the church at Ephesus to remain united in Christ (Eph 4:3). In doing so, he calls their attention to the divine unity of the Godhead. Just as they must be one body of united believers (Eph 2:16), there is one Holy Spirit who indwells them all (Eph 2:22), who called them to the one hope.
Eph 4:5. There is one Lord, Jesus Christ, who is the Head of the church (Eph 1:22-23). There is one faith which the church proclaims – Christ Jesus. There is also one baptism whereby believers signify their spiritual unity with Him (Gal 3:27).
Eph 4:6. There is one God and one Father of all believers who comprise the one church. He is sovereign over all, lives through them all and in them all.
The Athanasian Creed captures the concept, “We worship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons, nor separating the substance.”[64]
A proper understanding of the Trinity is essential for the Christian faith; for worship, revelation, redemption, sanctification. The Triune Godhead is at the very heart of Christian identity – it defines what it means to be a Christian. The orthodox doctrine of “one being in three persons” developed over time as the church fathers struggled to maintain Scriptural teachings in the midst of various heresies. Modern theological issues revolving around the Triune Godhead, for the most part, recycle old heresies and revisit old fields of battle from wars which have already been fought.
The doctrine advanced by this paper, that within the one Being that is God, there exists three eternally co-equal and co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, has been established. It is supported by church history and has been demonstrated by a thematic biblical theology of Scripture. A right view of the Triune God will revolutionize the Christian life and allow His children to give Him all the more glory for His grace towards fallen sinners.
Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians. The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, series 2, vol. 4. Christian Classics Etheral Library, PDF edition, n.d. 4:433-447.
Brannan, Rick, ed. Historic Creeds and Confessions. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Etheral Library, n.d.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology, combined ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996
Carson, D.A. “Matthew,” vol. 8. The Expositors Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.
Erickson, Millard J. Making Sense of the Trinity: Three Crucial Questions. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2000.
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 2, vol. 1. Christian Classics Etheral Library, PDF edition, n.d. 1:vii-404.
Frame, John M. The Doctrine of God. Phillipsburg: P&R, 2002.
Gonzalez, Justo. The Story of Christianity, combined ed. Peabody: Prince Press, 2007.
Gregory of Nazianzus, Orations. The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, series 2, vol. 7. Christian Classics Etheral Library, PDF edition, n.d. 7:185-434.
Horton, Michael. The Christian Faith. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, PDF edition, n.d. 191-270.
Keith, Graham. “Our Knowledge of God: Insights from the Fourth-Century Trinitarian Controversies.” Reformation and Revival 12:1 (Winter 2003): 81-103.
Kent, Homer A. Jr. “Philippians,” vol. 11. The Expositors Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.
Klooster, Fred H. “Barth and the Future of Evangelical Theology.” Westminster Theological Journal 47:2 (Fall 1985): 301-317.
Matthews, Kenneth A. “Genesis 11:27-50:26,” vol. 1b. The New American Commentary. Nashville: B&H, 2005.
McClain, Alva J. The Greatness of the Kingdom. Winona Lake: BMH, 1959.
McCune, Rolland. A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, vol. 1. Detroit: DBTS, 2009.
Morris, Leon. “Hebrews,” vol. 12. The Expositors Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.
Ross, Allen P. “Genesis,” vol. 1. The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Wheaton: Victor, 1985.
Rooker, M.F. “Blasphemy.” Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch, ed. T. Desmond Alexander & David W. Baker. Downer’s Grove: IVP, 2003.
Strong, Augustus H. Systematic Theology. Old Tappan: Revell, 1979.
Tertullian, Apology. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, PDF edition, n.d. 17-60.
Tertullian, Against Praxeas. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, PDF edition, n.d. 597-632.
Theissen, Henry. Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949.
Toussaint, Stanley. Behold the King. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1980.
Van Til, Cornelius. “Has Karl Barth Become Orthodox?” Westminster Theological Journal 16:2 (May 1954): 135-181.
Ware, Bruce A. Father, Son and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles and Relevance. Wheaton: Crossway, 2005.
[1] Bruce A. Ware, Father, Son and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles and Relevance (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005), 13.
[2] Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1979), 350.
[3] Ware, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, 15-16.
[4] Strong, Systematic, 349.
[5] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 358-360. Erickson omits a discussion of Arianism.
[6] Ibid, 353.
[7] Ibid, 358.
[8] Justin Myrtyr, Dialogue with Trypho 61, ANF 1:607
[9] Tertullian, Apology 21, ANF 3:34. Emphasis mine.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Tertullian, Against Praxeas 2, ANF 3:59. Emphasis mine.
[12] Erickson, Theology, 358.
[13] Millard J. Erickson, Making Sense of the Trinity: Three Crucial Questions (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2000), 48.
[14] Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 5.28, NPNF2 1:597
[15] Erickson, Making Sense, 48.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 7.28.2, NPNF2 1:807.
[18] Erickson, Theology, 359.
[19] Ibid, 360.
[20] Ibid, 360.
[21] Tertullian, Against Praxeas 2, ANF 3:598.
[22] Ibid. Emphasis mine.
[23] Tertullian, Against Praxeas 10, ANF 3:604
[24] Ibid.
[25] Baptism (Mt 3:13-17; Mk 1:9-11; Lk 3:21-22; Jn 1:29-34), Christ speaks explicitly to the Father (Jn 17) and of the Spirit (Jn 16:5-11).
[26] Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians 1.1.1., NPNF2, 4:306.
[27] Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians 1.2.5, NPNF2, 4:309.
[28] Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians 1.3.10., NPNF2, 4:312.
[29] Jn 14:28; Mk 10:18 and Lk 18:19; Mk 13:32; Lk 2:52
[30] Erickson, Making Sense, 51.
[31] Graham Keith, “Our Knowledge of God: Insights from the Fourth-Century Trinitarian Controversies,” Reformation and Revival 12:1 (Winter 2003), 86.
[32] Justo Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, combined ed. (Peabody, MS: Prince Press, 2007), 161.
[33] Ibid, 159.
[34] Ibid, 164.
[35] Rick Brannan, ed., Historic Creeds and Confessions (Grand Rapids, MI: CCEL, n.d.).
[36] Erickson, Theology, 361.
[37] Michael Horton, The Christian Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 294.
[38] Ibid, 295.
[39] Quoted from Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. 1, pt.1, 334 in Horton, Christian Faith, 295.
[40] Fred H. Klooster, “Barth and the Future of Evangelical Theology,” Westminster Theological Journal 47:2 (Fall 1985), 308.
[41] Horton, Christian Faith, 295.
[42] Cornelius Van Til, “Has Karl Barth Become Orthodox?,” Westminster Theological Journal 16:2 (May 1954), 162.
[43] Gregory of Nazianzus, Orations 28:1, NPNF2, 7:288.
[44] Horton, Christian Faith, 299.
[45] Ibid, 296.
[46] Gregory of Nazianzus, Orations 38:8, NPNF2, 7:347.
[47] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, combined ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 89.
[48] John Frame, The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2002), 697.
[49] Rolland McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, vol.1 (Detroit, MIL: DBTS, 2009), 287.
[50] Ibid.
[51] McCune, Systematic, 275.
[52] McCune, Systematic, 289.
[53] Berkhof, Systematic, 88.
[54] Ware, Father, 25.
[55] Homer A. Kent, Jr. “Philippians,” vol. 11, The Expositors Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981), 122.
[56] Allen P. Ross, “Genesis,” vol. 1, The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1985), 56. See also Kenneth A. Matthews, “Genesis 11:27-50:26,” vol. 1b, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2005), 189.
[57] Leon Morris, “Hebrews,” vol. 12, The Expositors Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981), 14.
[58] The adjuration implies being “under oath by the living God.” See D.A. Carson, “Matthew,” vol. 8, The Expositors Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 554. See also Stanley Toussaint, Behold the King (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1980), 307.
[59] Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom (Winona Lake, IN: BMH, 1959), 380.
[60] M. F. Rooker, “Blasphemy,” Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch, ed. T. Desmond Alexander & David W. Baker (Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP, 2003), 80-83.
[61] Frame, Doctrine, 694.
[62] Frame, Doctrine, 695.
[63] Matthews, Genesis 1-11:26, 163.
[64] Henry Theissen, Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949), 135.
I must draw everybody’s attention to the new work by Candida Moss, entitled The Myth of Christian Persecution. I will reserve judgment on her work because I have not read it; however, I encourage everybody to read a short article where she summarizes her views on the matter here.
There is a tendency with liberal Christians and non-believers to deny the authenticity, let alone historicity, of Scripture from the outset. No serious scholar, of any theological persuasion, would deny that the NT is the most widely attested document from the ancient world. We can be more certain about the text of the NT than any other document from antiquity. However, such critics a priori dismiss them as historical source documents out of hand because their worldview will not accept anything else.
“Sure, they’re old documents,” they say. “We can’t actually take them seriously, though. They’re religious, after all . . .”
The irony is that such critics are blind to their own hostile starting point of enmity against God (Rom 1:18), while at the same time they castigate Christians for making inspired, inerrant Scripture their own starting point!
There is a wide divide between liberals and non-believers on one hand, and conservative, Bible believing Christians on the other. There is a tendency to want to toss the Bible aside and dive into the early church fathers to rebut some of Moss’ claims from her article. Surely the church fathers have a good amount of information to offer us, but we must never give up the validity and historical accuracy of the Scriptures themselves. If we do, we’ve already lost the battle before it even began.
This graphic, from Answers in Genesis, captures the opposing worldviews at play in any apologetic encounter. The picture depicts evolution vs creationism, but you get the idea . . .
The ultimate irony here, however, is that Moss contests the most basic fact of Christianity – Christ died for our sins and suffered persecution because He dared to proclaim the His divinity and preach the Gospel of the Kingdom (Mk 1:14-15). Christ promised the disciples that persecution would inevitably follow and prayed for their safety (Jn 17:14-15). The Gospel is inherently offensive to sinful men. How can it be otherwise? Moss’ contention that early persecution was a convenient myth is (1) an explicit contradiction of the testimony of Scripture and (2) an implicit admission of an exalted view of man, in that she would deny the Gospel is inherently offensive to sinful men who have no fear of God (Rom 3:9-18).
I preached this sermon was preached Sunday morning, 26MAY13, at my church.
An account of the execution of John the Baptist by Herod. This is a sad and fascinating study in contrasts between two very different men. John, who does not hesitate to preach the truth despite the potential cost. Herod, who does not want to execute John, but is not willing to lose face in front of his subordinates. As we take a look at this account, we see in Herod some of our own sins.
Sermon notes – Mark 6:14-29
I will be posting an essay on the Trinity in the next few days. In the meantime, I want to pass along a simply wonderful debate on the subject that may help some of you. It is the best thing I’ve ever seen on this subject, and if you grab your Bible and follow along, you’ll learn quite a lot.
Too many Christians don’t have any real idea what the Trinity really is, and probably couldn’t explain it if put on the spot. If this describes you, then I pray this discussion will help you.
Below is a very fascinating debate between the late atheist Christopher Hitchens and Pastor Doug Wilson.
Hitchens was an unusually eloquent speaker for atheism, and his British accent lent him an air of authority we Americans simply can’t imitate! Hitchens was a brilliant man, well-read and intelligent. His knowledge of Scripture was meager and his arguments against Christianity were far less formidable than his rhetoric. If you can spare the time, this debate is well worth watching.
This is an apologetics class I taught at my church. I hope it encourages and convicts us all to be better and more faithful witnesses for Christ.
Christ’s sends the apostles out on their first solo missionary journey. Told to bring literally nothing more than the clothes on their backs, He taught them a lesson in faith as He continued training them to carry on without Him. This is a sobering and very relevant look at Christian discipleship. This lesson was preached in teen Sunday School at my church.
Jay Bakker, son of Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye Messner, has a new ministry of his own in Minneapolis. Bakker recently celebrated gay marriage by partaking of the Lord’s Supper with rainbow-colored communion bread. Bakker is typical of the post-modern, edgy, un-Biblical and heretical fringe of evangelicalism. In his company would be men like Rob Bell. 
I have really tried to understand why people take such un-Biblical positions on issues which are so clear-cut. I know the reasons, I just don’t understand them!
1. Typically they have a low view of Scripture
2. Therefore the Bible does not contain final authority for Christian faith and life
3. Their exposition of Scripture is frequently non-existent or pitiful
4. They play to emotions rather than Biblical truth
5. Their worldview tends to be amazingly man-centered
6. Their theology, such as it is, is frequently heretical and un-Biblical
7. This last charge is meaningless to them, because to them, God has not spoken authoritatively and decisively on anything
The reason Bakker is evidently enjoying success in his new “bar/church” venture is because he is not confronting his “congregation” with their sin. The Gospel is clear on this matter – repent and believe (Mk 1:14-15). God is holy, and He commands His people to act holy as well (Lev 19:2; 1 Pet 1:16). There are certain standards expected of Christians. True salvation entails repentance from sin.
It is so sad to see such heresy enjoying such apparent success. I doubt a Bible preaching man could garner a fraction of the attention Bakker is getting, or even a fraction of the congregation.
I will be starting an intermittent series very soon, where I review and comment on a book which speaks to this mindset, specifically a low view of Scripture. The book is older (1991), but Bakker is nothing more than a product of this un-Biblical way of thinking. It breaks my heart that this heresy is considered Christianity.
This paper is not an apologetic for dispensationalism as a system. It is simply a brief overview of the system from friendly sources–a faithful survey of what dispensationalists believe. For book-length overviews, see especially (a) Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism (reprint: Chicago, Moody: 2007) for traditional dispensationalism, and (b) Michael Vlach, Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths, revised ed. (Los Angeles: Theological Studies Press, 2017) for progressive dispensationalism.
Now, to business!
Worship is “the expression of an authentic response to God in appropriate forms.” God has always demanded an authentic response; reverence, love, etc, encapsulated best by Christ Himself (Deut 6:5; Mt 22:37). There must also be an appropriate form of response. Man has an obligation to respond in a specific and appropriate manner, and the form of the worship God desires has changed throughout the dispensations (Means, 1865, 531).
A dispensation is a particular way God administers His rule over the world as He progressively works out His purpose for world history (Showers, 1990, 30). God’s purpose for world history is to bring about His Kingdom. It is presumptuous and un-Biblical to presume God is not ruling and reigning over the course of events now, and it is equally un-Biblical to deny God’s eternal plan is marching towards some decreed end in the future. Therefore, it is appropriate to distinguish between the eternal, universal extent of His rule and the method of His rule (McClain, 1959, 21). The extent of God’s rule is all-encompassing, but the method of His rule has changed periodically throughout Scripture with each successive dispensation.
God has changed the administration, or manner, of His rule several times throughout Scripture (Heb 1:1-2). Distinguishing characteristics of a dispensation are (Ryrie, 2007, 40);
Man’s responsibility in any dispensation is to worship God in the way He commands by (1) an authentic, heartfelt response which takes (2) the appropriate form. The genuine response of the believer has always been an unchanging requirement; Rolland McCune (2009, 125) observed; “faith in God’s revelation was required not only for redemption from sin but also for fulfilling one’s dispensational obligations (Gen 15:6).” The form of that response, however, has changed throughout human history as God periodically alters the method of His rule. This paper will explore the different forms of worship throughout these different dispensations.
God’s purposes for His creation are to bring about His Kingdom entirely for His own glory. Christians can confidently point out where everything began (Genesis), and most can also point to how it will all end (Revelation 20-21). How God is working out His plan in between these two events is the issue! The dispensational system provides a coherent, Scriptural blueprint to understand how and why God is advancing His Kingdom for His own glory.
What was created perfect was ruined by willful sin; God is advancing His plan for setting His creation right once again, culminating in a new heavens and a new earth in the eternal state (Rev 21). The personal, visible worship Adam and Eve used to enjoy in the garden was no longer possible with sinful men; after the fall man could not look upon God and still live (Gen 3:8; Ex 33:20). Christ taught us that our earnest prayer should be for God’s kingdom to come (Mt 6:9-15). We should look forward to this blessed event and pray for His will to be done. Through the framework of dispensations, God’s progressive plan to achieve this very end is clearly evident.
This is a difficult concept for unbelievers and, unfortunately, even many Christians to believe. It is not about man – it is about God! The innate selfishness of mankind has allowed far too many Christians to believe they are the center of God’s plan and purposes. This is incorrect; God desires to be worshipped in spirit and in truth (Jn 4:24).
A poor, but useful analogy is that of a father ruling his household. The father has the right to expect his children to obey his rules if they wish to remain in the house. He is owed this respect, after all, it is his house! Any parent would agree that children should honor and respect their parents (Ex 20:12) out of a pure heart because they want to, not because they have to. In the same manner, God has the inherent right to demand proper worship and respect by virtue of who He is (Lev 19:2; 1 Pet 1:16). Therefore, it is a terrible mistake to make ourselves the center of God’s purposes.
Our salvation was done for a purpose; “so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus,” (Eph 2:7). Elsewhere, in Ezekiel, God makes it quite clear that His promised restoration of Israel in the MillennialKingdom will be done for His glory, not their own.
Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. 23 And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Lord God, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes (Eze 36:22-23).
In this glorious state before the fall of man, the world God had created was “very good” (Gen 1:31). Man was created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27; 2:5b); the only one of His creatures to have this distinction. This makes man special and unique before God. He was created by the very breath, or creative force, of God (Gen 2:7). This image was not physical, but relational. Just as God has authority and power over everything, man was given special authority over God’s creation (Gen 1:28; 2:15). Adam was appointed a steward of God’s creation, meant to have dominion over it all. Eve was created to be a help and companion to Adam in fulfilling this task (Gen 2:18). Man was meant to work the ground, not laze around idly all the day long (Gen 2:5b).
Adam’s “principal mission” (Matthews, 1996, 209) was to work and keep the garden (Gen 2:15). Numerous subordinate responsibilities included commands to reproduce and fill the earth, subdue it and have dominion over all other creatures (Gen 1:28). The original Hebrew of Gen 2:15 may be better translated as “to worship and obey” rather than the phrase “to work and keep” so familiar to English readers (Sailhamer, 45). Man’s obligation is to appropriately respond to this specific form of worship God desired.
Failure to worship God appropriately constitutes willful rebellion. God clearly defined eating from the fruit of the forbidden tree as rebellion (Gen 2:16-17) to the “worship” he demanded (Gen 2:15). This is strikingly similar to the familiar pattern of blessings and cursings from Deut 28-30. Moses presented Israel with two stark choices, both of which would fit seamlessly in this Genesis narrative; “see, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil,” (Deut 30:15). Proper worship of God entailed authentic, heartfelt response in the appropriate way (Gen 2:15). Willful deviation from this command was rebellion, which would be punished (Gen 2:16-17). “The prohibition against eating the fruit of the ‘tree of knowledge’ gave Adam the opportunity to worship God through loyal devotion,” (Matthews, 211).
However, Adam and Eve did willfully violate God’s commandment for worship. In so doing, they introduced sin into the world and were expelled from the garden (Gen 3:22-24). “The state of unconscious innocence gave place to a state of conscious rebellion,” (Andrews, 1901, 11).
Their rebellion ushered in the next dispensation in God’s eternal program. God’s grace can be clearly seen in His promise of redemption through their offspring (Gen 3:15) and in a covering for their sin. God’s judgment for their rebellious failure to maintain proper worship is redemptive in purpose, not vindictive (Hamilton, 2005, 46).
Once sin entered into the world and man had knowledge of good and evil (Gen 3:22), conscience, which is written on man’s heart (Rom 2:14), was the ruling factor or restraint upon man’s sinful lusts. “Obedience to the dictates of conscience was man’s chief stewardship responsibility” in this new dispensation (Ryrie, 60). Scripture records that immediately after consuming the fruit, Adam and Eve were ashamed and hid from fellowship with God (Gen 3:8). There was “a consciousness of guilt or shame before God,” (Keil, 2011, 60). God provided revelation about this new dispensation immediately after the fall (Gen 3:14-24).
Though Scripture does not explicitly record this new revelation, offerings are an implied part of worship in this dispensation (Gen 4:3-4). Life inside the garden, in the previous dispensation, was “blissful communion with God without mediation,” (Matthews, 259). Sin fundamentally changed this relationship, and the first record of life outside the garden depicts Cain and Abel presenting offerings to God.
Cain brought merely an offering of fruit from the ground (Gen 4:3) which found no favor with God (Gen 4:4b), and Cain became very angry as a result (Gen 4:5). Abel, in contrast, brought a costly blood sacrifice “of the firstborn of his flock.”
Cain’s failure is representative of mankind’s corporate rebellion and rejection of proper worship (Gen 6:5-6). He responded with both an insincere heart and in the wrong manner. “Abel’s thanks came from the depths of his heart, whilst Cain merely offered his to keep on good terms with God,” (Keil, 69). Cain’s attitude was false, and his subsequent anger betrayed a counterfeit love for God (Gen 4:5b). His rebellion resulted in a willful transgression of God’s requirement for a bloody sacrifice. Scriptural evidence supporting the specific requirement of a bloody sacrifice are circumstantial (Gen 3:21; Heb 9:22), but Crawford’s reasoned statement here is virtually unanswerable; “with the single exception of Cain’s rejected offering, there is no other sacrifice or record before the time of Moses that did not consist of the shedding of animal blood,” (Crawford, 1853, 276).
Therefore Cain responded insincerely to God and in a completely inappropriate manner. He desired to worship in the wrong way and God simply will not accept the wrong form of worship (Gen 4:5). Cain left in exile and founded a large city which flourished (Gen 4:17-24). Scripture records absolutely no worship from Cain again. In contrast, the descendents of Seth “began to call upon the name of the Lord,” (Gen 4:26). Their proper worship undoubtedly consisted of doing good and not evil, in accordance with their conscience, and responding to the Lord with offerings and sacrifices at appointed times.[1]
The corporate failure of mankind to maintain a right heart for God or worship Him appropriately is evident in that “the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence,” (Gen 6:11). Mankind’s thoughts were “only evil continually,” (Gen 6:5). Noah, however, was “blameless in his generation” and “walked with God,” (Gen 6:9). Evidently Noah, alone among mankind, still loved God and worshipped Him correctly as his forefathers had (Gen 4:26). His Godly character is very apparent – Noah’s immediate response upon exiting the ark after the catastrophic flood was to make a blood offering to God (Gen 8:20-21), illustrating the authentic response of a true believer in this dispensation. It is extremely significant that God’s response came only after He smelled “the pleasing aroma” (Gen 8:21) of the offering. “Man is still fallen; but through an offering on an alter he may yet find God’s blessing,” (Sailhamer, 93) which immediately followed (Gen 8:21b-22).
He would never curse the ground because of men or strike down any living creature with a flood again; the earth’s seasons would remain (Gen 8:21-22; 9:9-11).
Man’s responsible worship is to multiply and fill the earth (Gen 9:1,7). Subordinate to this overarching responsibility, God revealed that all creatures would now fear man (Gen 9:2) and would be able to be eaten for food (Gen 9:3).
The first vestiges of human government are introduced to people as they multiplied and filled the earth, specifically as a “form of control upon the lawless impulses of men,” (McClain, 46). This government took the form of capitol punishment (Gen 9:6).
“If God on account of the innate sinfulness of man would no more bring an exterminating judgment upon the earthly creation, it was necessary that by commands and authorities He should erect a barrier against the supremacy of evil,” (Keil, 97).
The great rebellion of man in this dispensation was that, rather than spreading out and multiplying on the face of the earth (Gen 8:17; 9:7), mankind gathered together in defiance of God’s command to build a city to prevent their dispersion (Gen 11:4).
God’s judgment is to confound their language, frustrating mankind’s attempt to form what may be termed a “one world government” (Gen 11:6-7). Mankind leaves and disperses throughout the earth, as God initially commanded (Gen 11:8, 9b).
Man’s sin is that of selfishness; choosing autonomy over God. “The sin of the people does not lie in the desire to build a city . . . It is the motivation behind this undertaking that is most prominent.” They desired to build themselves a city which reached to the heavens, to make a name for themselves so they would not be scattered abroad (Gen 11:4). “This is the pagan concept of immortality,” (Hamilton, 75).
It was deliberate rebellion against God’s express command. Man’s responsibility for true worship in this dispensation is to abide by their innate knowledge of right vs. wrong, to multiply over the earth and govern corporately over one another. Man’s basic problem is that he always seeks to worship in his own way; “the characteristic mark of man’s failure up to this point in the book has been his attempt to grasp the ‘good’ on his own rather than trust God to provide it for him,” (Sailhamer, 105). Man’s corporate failure to worship God appropriately, borne out of a hostile heart, brought about a change in God’s administration.
Rather than working corporately with all of mankind, God now choose to mediate His will through one man and eventually one people. “God turned away from man in the collective sense and called out one particular man through whom the divine regal will is to be accomplished on earth,” (McClain, 49).
God commands an idolatrous man, Abraham (Josh 24:2), to leave the land of his family and journey to a new land God will show him. He makes several distinct promises to Abraham, (1) to make a great nation from him, (2) to bless him, (3) to make his name great, (4) to make him a blessing, (5) to bless those who bless Abraham and curse (or judge) those who judge him, and (6) bless all people on earth through Abraham (Gen 12:1-3). “Abram is the vehicle of the divine gift for the nations. This suggests that a specific plan is envisioned for the blessing upon the nations,” (Matthews, 2005, 117).
God guaranteed Abraham He would be faithful to make a nation from him (Gen 15:5). God went even further, making a covenant with Abraham, promising He would provide a land for the nation (Gen 15:18). God, by passing between the severed pieces of Abraham’s sacrifice, condescended in an extraordinary fashion to place Himself as the weaker party of the covenant (Bartholomew & Goheen, 2004, 56). The covenant with Abraham foreshadowed the covenant with the theocratic kingdom of Israel (Ex 19:1-6), with David (2 Sam 7:16) and the first advent of Christ Himself (Mk 1:15).
The Patriarch’s worship responsibility is four-fold (McCune, 125-126). First, to believe in God’s promises given in the covenant (Gen 15:6). Second, to receive the sign of the covenant – circumcision (Gen 17:10). Failure to do so will result in exile (Gen 17:14). Third, separation from the other heathen nations. Isaac and Jacob both married Israelite women (Gen 24:3-4; 28:1-2), and Abraham explicitly forbid marriage with foreigners. Fourth, they must remain in the land of promise (Gen 26:2-3).
The Patriarchs executed responsible and faithful worship throughout this dispensation. Regardless of individual moral failings common to all men (Gen 12:10-20; 20:2; 25:32; 26:7; 27:35; 38), they remained faithful followers of God. Abraham’s immediate response after hearing God’s revelation is to worship Him (Gen 12:7). Abraham is still blessed with material wealth upon his return from Egypt (Gen 13:2) and maintained worship afterward (Gen 13:4). The Lord blessed Isaac during his life (Gen 26:12-14). Jacob also maintained proper worship (Gen 33:20).
Scripture provides ample context to demonstrate the sojourn to Egypt was part of God’s sovereign plan from the beginning (Gen 15:13-16), to be executed at His own specific time. Isaac was told to not go to Egypt (Gen 26:2-5), and later Joseph was allowed to (Gen 46:2-4). This event was orchestrated and decreed by God (Gen 45:5-8; 50:20), who promised to bless Israel in Egypt and did so (Gen 46:3; Ex 1:7). This is hardly the result of judgment; rather, it confirms that the Patriarchs, sinful and fallible men though they were, executed faithful and responsible worship. Dispensational attempts to defend the Patriarch’s “failure” by appealing to the tension between God’s sovereignty and man’s free will ignore plain Scriptural context and are unconvincing.[3]
After He led His people up out of Egypt, God forged these tribes of Abraham into a theocratic kingdom at Sinai (Ex 19:1-6). Sinai refined Israel’s understanding of the original promise to Abraham. As Stephen Dempster observed “[t]he promise of this covenant is that an obedient Israel may bring God’s creation blessing to the world,” (Dempster, 2003, 101). God has several goals in mind (Ex 19:5-6); (1) Israel would be a peculiar treasure for God out of all the nations; (2) Israel would be a kingdom of priests for God, and (3) Israel would be a holy nation.
God’s promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob continues in a new form. Israel will be a showcase nation, a testimony for God to all the nations of the world, called to live by laws which reflect the character of the one true God (Bartholomew & Goheen, 66).
Victor Hamilton observed, “[t]he purpose of the covenant is to create a new relationship. The purpose of the law is to regulate or perpetuate an existing relationship by orderly means,” (Hamilton, 189). Continuing on, Hamilton quoted from Brevard Childs and noted, “The law defines the holiness expected of the covenant people,” (189). The law itself was not based on fear; faithfulness was predicated on an all encompassing love for God (Deut 6:1-13). Too often, Christians focus on the fact of Israel’s elect status among the nations and the behavior expected of her (Ex 20 – Lev 27) while ignoring why God demanded such behavior in the first place.
Israel’s theocratic role was to be a holy, set apart people and thereby lead the Gentile nations to God by her own holy example. She would mediate God’s holiness to the other nations. In the same manner that Christians are commanded to be the “light of the world” (Mt 5:16) individually, to draw people to Christ by their testimony, God desired a specific people, Israel, to do this nationally.
Israel’s assignment from God involved intermediation. They were not to be a people unto themselves, enjoying their special relationship with God and paying no attention to the rest of the world. Rather, they were to represent him to the rest of the world and attempt to bring the rest of the world to him. In other words, the challenge to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” represented the responsibility inherent in the original promise to Abraham (Stuart, 2006, 423).
Ezekiel 18 is one of the most striking passages on the failure of Israel to maintain proper worship with God. Faith alone has always been the grounds for salvation, in any dispensation (Gen 15:6; Rom 4:5; Eph 2:8-9). Appropriate worship is mankind’s responsibility, the fruit of a regenerated heart. “These stipulations provided a concrete, practical outworking of faith in the God who redeemed Israel from Egypt and gave the people His law.” Israel failed in this respect (Alexander, 1986, 824).[4]
Righteousness before God consisted in keeping the law to best of one’s ability (Eze 18:5-9). A man who “walks in my statutes, and keeps my rules by acting faithfully—he is righteous; he shall surely live, declares the Lord GOD,” (Eze 18:9). Israel’s worship failure as a theocratic nation was corporate, but its collective failure resulted from innumerable individual rebellions. A man is responsible to God for his own sins (Eze 18:10-13). “The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself,” (Eze 18:20c).
Complete forgiveness is promised for a heartfelt return to God and proper worship (Eze 18:21-23). God, in every dispensation, desires men to be saved. “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?” (Eze 18:23). Blessings would result from obedience to God’s specific revelation; cursing would follow from disobedience (Deut 28-30).
There was a pervasive heart issue throughout Israel’s entire theocratic history – Israel repeatedly fell into rebellion and blasphemed the name of God by their idolatrous worship. As Ezekiel documented, this happened at the very establishment of the Mosaic Covenant (Eze 20:5,8,13), prior to the wilderness judgment (Eze 20:15-16) and during the wilderness years (Eze 20:19) the Israelites were specifically commanded to “walk in my statutes, and be careful to obey my rules.” Failure to worship God appropriately is “treacherous,” (Eze 20:27).
Israel failed to drive the nations out of the land and was judged (Joshua 2:1-3). After Joshua’s death, she “abandoned the Lord” and served other gods. The true God was unknown to Israel within a generation of Joshua’s death (Joshua 2:10-15). God appointed judges to rule over the Israel, and this period culminated with devastating civil war and general debauchery (Judges 21:25). The historical kingdom reached its pinnacle in Solomon, when the temple was dedicated and God re-iterated the covenant promise He had already made to David (1 Kgs 9:1-9). Nations round about Israel began to know God through Israel’s holy example; “the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon concerning the name of the LORD,” (1 Kgs 10:1). After Solomon’s death, the nation fractured into civil war (1 Kgs 12:16-24).
After Solomon’s death, God’s promised judgment (Deut 30:17-20; 1 Kgs 9:1-9) began to be fulfilled. No king was ever again chosen directly by God, but took the throne by inheritance or by force.
The depth of Israel’s worship failure is very striking when one considers the change in the office of the prophet. Originally, at the establishment of the historical kingdom, prophets advised the king and their revelation from God was for immediate application, not future events glimpsed through a glass darkly.
“The prophet spake for his own time; his words were fitted to meet the exigencies of the day; they were pre-eminently practical. The word spoken, whether to the king or people, was to enable them to fulfill present duty, not to discern in detail the remote future,” (Andrews, 80).
However, Israel’s rebellion of false worship would result in a cessation of God’s presence among His people and a need for reliance on the written word instead.
“The period of writing prophets parallels the period of the decline and end of the historical kingdom,” (McClain, 115). Prophets now began to write for the future generations, not to merely guide the current generation. “The transition, therefore, from spoken to written prophesy marks an epoch in the history of the elect people,” (83).
The sickness of Israel was pervasive, encompassing the moral, social, economic and spiritual spheres (McClain, 116). The call was always the same; return to the Law and be blessed;
“Thus says the LORD: “Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls,” (Jer 6:16).
The departure of the Lord’s glory from the temple in Jerusalem shortly after the captivity signified “the end not only of Israel’s political supremacy but also of her religious supremacy,” (McClain, 123).[5]
“Israel might have fulfilled its calling to be ‘a kingdom of priests and a holy nation,’ and that it did not was its sin; and the captivity brought the merited judgment,” (Andrews, 406). Israel’s failure can be reduced to one simple point – she did not love God with all her heart, soul and might (Deut 6:5), therefore she did not worship Him appropriately.
“And many nations will pass by this city, and every man will say to his neighbor, “Why has the Lord dealt thus with this great city?” And they will answer, “Because they have forsaken the covenant of the Lord their God and worshiped other gods and served them,” (Jer 22:8-9).
Here was revealed the mystery of the church age and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which “is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek,” (Rom 1:16).
A new arrangement for God’s dealing with men, this current dispensation was new revelation given to the apostles that the world did not have before (Eph 3:2-3), “which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit,” (Eph 3:5). Gentiles were now revealed to be “fellow-heirs” in the family of God (Eph 3:6).
Rolland McCune aptly remarks, “the new revelation from God is so vast that it cannot be easily reduced to a nice catalogue,” (132). Christ died for the sins of the world, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (Jn 3:16). What every previous dispensation looked forward to by blood sacrifices was now made clear; Christ was the perfect lamb without blemish – the final sacrifice. “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world,” (Jn 1:29). His sacrifice atoned for sins, and as our High Priest Christ intercedes for His children (Heb 5:7-10).
Gentiles have been grafted into God’s covenant promise to Abraham (Rom 11:17). “God raises up a seed unto Abraham out of the Gentiles by engrafting them through faith in the Christ, and accounting them as the children of Abraham by virtue of their Abrahamic justifying faith,” (Peters, 1884, 396). God is taking out of the world certain people for His name (Acts 15:14). “When the body of Christ is complete, the Lord will come; Gentile times will finish and Israel shall be put in again,” (McClain, 1973, 202).
God’s eternal plan involves two distinct groups – Israel and the Church. God revealed that the Church was an integral part of His plan. The kingdom that was promised to Israel (2 Sam 7:16) is still future. The Jews were waiting for the promised King who would rule over Israel, whose reign would never end. They didn’t recognize Christ was that King. Jesus revealed this present dispensation once it became very clear the Jews were rejecting Him (Mt 21:43). The church, as a corporate body of born again believers, is considered a “nation” of sorts in Scripture (Gal 3:7-9; Rom 10:19), with the same purpose but different method.
McCune outlined several responsibilities for man in this dispensation (132). Man must receive God’s marvelous gift of salvation, offered to all, by faith (Rom 10:10; Acts 16:31). Believers must worship God in the local church, be baptized, attend worship faithfully and partake of the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:41-42; Heb 10:24-25). The outworking of a truly regenerated heart will be a desire to live a Godly life (Titus 2:11-14). Renald Shower’s words here cannot be improved upon, “grace practices discipline over believers for the purpose of prompting them to reject a godless lifestyle and to adopt a Godly one,” (44).
He must also spread the Gospel to the world indiscriminately (Mt 28:18-20); which includes discipleship for new believers. This is an active evangelism, rather than the passive ingathering characteristic of the Mosaic Dispensation. Men must pattern the holy ideal of the Kingdom of God in their own lives while passionately reaching out to others with the Good News of Jesus Christ. What Israel failed to do corporately, Christians in this dispensation are called to do individually. God is not mediating His grace through Israel any longer, but dealing with the whole world once again.
A quick glance around contemporary society proves man has not worshipped God appropriately. John Walvoord, commenting elsewhere in Daniel on the errs of post-millennialism, wrote “for the past century or more the church has been an ebbing tide in the affairs of the world, and there has been no progress whatsoever in the church’s gaining control of the world politically. If the image [in Dan 2] represents Gentile political power, it is very much still standing,” (Walvoord, 2012, 89). Paul wrote to Timothy, warning him that “evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived,” (2 Tim 3:13). This is surely the case in society today.
The witness of Scripture testifies that both the Gentile world and Israel will be deceived by the Antichrist following the rapture of the Church (Dan 7:25; 9:27; 2 Thess 2:6-12). The moral, social and spiritual decay in modern society is merely a foretaste of the debauchery to come, culminating in the Antichrist – the ultimate antithesis of Jesus Christ, a man wholly give over to Satan and self-worship (Dan 7:25), every bit as sinful as Christ is holy. “He is Satan’s masterpiece, a human being who is Satan’s substitute for Jesus Christ,” (Walvoord, 353). The fact that mankind will someday willingly worship such a creature is proof of a widespread failure to accept proper worship of God in this present age.
Christ will return to this world with His saints[6] at his side (Rev 19:14) and defeat the Antichrist conclusively (Dan 7:11b, 22, 26; 9:27; 11:45b). Satan will be bound for 1000 years and cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20:2-3). The Millennial Reign of Christ, the kingdom promised to Israel (Gen 12:1-3; Ex 19:1-6; 2 Sam 7:16) and already offered and rejected by her once (Mt 21:43) will be established at long last (Dan 2:35b, 44a; 7:13-14, 27; Rev 20:6).
Those believing Gentiles and Israelites from the Dispensations of Innocence through the Law will be resurrected to join Christ in the Kingdom. The church has already been raptured prior to the tribulation. Everybody who did not believe in God will be resurrected and judged at the end of the Millennial Reign (Dan 12:1-4; Rev 20:4-6).[7]
Israel and the Church will both worship Christ in spirit and in truth and receive their promised and decreed ends (Amos 9:11-15; 2 Cor 11:2; Rev 19:7-9).
Those who entered the Kingdom from the Tribulation and their children are responsible to obey Christ’s rule (Rev 19:15). All other believers will have resurrected bodies and be glorified; their sanctification is already complete.
Mankind will fail here, too. As the earth is re-populated during Christ’s rule for a period of 1000 years, man will still have the option to conform outwardly and yet still remain in willful rebellion against God. McClain observes,
Some people have been genuinely concerned about the problem of sin in an otherwise perfect Kingdom of God in human life. And, of course, Scripture makes it perfectly clear that sin will be present during the MillennialKingdom. The fact that Satan must be bound so that he cannot deceive the nations during the age of the Kingdom (Rev 20:3) shows that in the people of that age there will remain the inclination to respond to satanic temptation. And the prediction that a great multitude will thus respond as soon as Satan is loosed (Rev 20:7-8) only confirms the existence of a sinful human nature (499).
Because Christ Himself is ruling, disobedience to His law will be a very rare exception. “We are not told of any transgression till near the end, when Satan is unloosed . . . This implies that till this unloosing there was at least general obedience to God’s will under the rule of the Messiah,” (Andrews, 355).
Satan’s brief, final rebellion is dealt with astonishingly quickly. The rebellious men who reject the visible, present Lord for Satan are snuffed out as like a candle (Rev 20:9b); “as the light given them has been great, so is their punishment,” (Andrews, 356).
It is not the point of this monograph to examine the implications of the dispensations at length, but one overarching principle stands out quite clearly. Man is utterly unable to save Himself, is completely dependent on God’s grace, and God deserves all the glory He demands and then more. Man’s sin is clearly evident in every dispensation. There is a collective, corporate failure to worship God appropriately or respond to His revelation out of a pure heart. Jeremiah’s words to Judah, though addressed to Israelites, are entirely appropriately to all of mankind in any dispensation;
“Heaping oppression upon oppression, and deceit upon deceit, they refuse to know me, declares the Lord,” (Jer 9:6).
Paul echoes this most fundamental truth in his letter to the Romans (Rom 1:18-32).
Christ’s statement on worship transcends every dispensation; “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind,” (Mt 22:37). Such an all-encompassing love for God will produce an authentic desire to worship Him in spirit and in truth (Jn 4:24). Man’s revelation from God has changed throughout human history as God progressively unfolded His plan for His creation. The mark of true worship has been the proper response to Him in accordance with the revelation given. In this, man has continually failed in a corporate sense.
Adam in Eden fell through temptation; the world before the flood was corrupt and evil. The nations descended from Noah ignored God’s command to scatter and multiply. Israel went after foreign gods, ignored her covenant responsibilities and crucified her Messiah. The Church is now dealing with apostasy which will grow ever worse, “and at last all the light and happiness of the Kingdom do not keep many of its subjects from rebellion when the Devil is unloosed,” (Andrews, 356).
In an individual way, however, man has positively responded to God’s revelation out of a pure heart and worshipped God appropriately throughout human history. He is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance,” (2 Pet 3:9). Salvation, in any dispensation, has always consisted of an authentic response to God, and corresponding worship in appropriate form.
Praise Him that so many have loved Him, do love Him today, and will love Him in ages to come. Scripture gives divine assurance that, no matter the wiles of Satan and the appetites of sinful men, God will triumph. Christ will rule and reign, defeat Satan once and for all and deliver up the Kingdom to His Father, then all who love God will “dwell in the house of the Lord forever,” (Ps 23:6b).
Alexander, Ralph H. “Ezekiel,” vol. 6, The Expositors Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.
Andrews, Samuel J. God’s Revelations of Himself to Men. New York: Putnam, 1901.
Bartholomew, Craig and Michael Goheen. The Drama of Scripture. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004.
Cooper, Lamar E. “Ezekiel,” vol. 17, The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville: B&H, 1994.
Crawford, Thomas J. The Doctrine of Holy Scripture Respecting the Atonement. Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1853.
Dempster, Stephen. Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible. Downers Grove: IVP, 2003.
Hamilton, Victor P. A Handbook on the Pentateuch, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.
Keil, C.F. “Pentateuch,” vol. 1, Commentary on the Old Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2011.
Matthews, Kenneth A. “Genesis: 1-11:26,” vol. 1a, The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville: B&H, 1996.
Matthews, Kenneth A. “Genesis: 11:27-50:26,” vol. 1b, The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville: B&H, 2005.
McClain, Alva J. The Greatness of the Kingdom. Winona Lake: BMH, 1959.
McClain, Alva J. Romans: The Gospel of God’s Grace. Chicago: Moody, 1973.
McCune, Rolland. A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, vol. 1. Detroit: DBTS, 2009.
Means, J. O. “What Is The True Conception Of Christian Worship?” Bibliotheca Sacra 022:88 (Oct 1865): 531.
Peters, George N.H. The Theocratic Kingdom, vol. 1. New York: Funk & Wagnall’s, 1884.
Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism. Chicago: Moody, 2007.
Sailhamer, John H. “Genesis,” vol. 2, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.
Showers, Renald E. There Really is a Difference. Bellmawr: Friends of Israel, 1990.
Stuart, Douglas K. “Exodus,” vol. 2, The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville: B&H, 2006.
Thomas, Robert L. Revelation 8-22. Chicago: Moody, 1995.
Walvoord, John F. Daniel, ed. Charles Dyer and Phillip Rawley. Chicago: Moody, 2012.
Walvoord, John F. Revelation, ed. Philip Rawley and Mark Hitchcock. Chicago: Moody, 2011.
[1] Some dispensationalists do not agree with the traditional dispensational understanding of Gen 6:3, in that the “Spirit” is an inward restraint upon men’s activities; see McClain, Kingdom, 44-45 and Showers, Difference, 36 for this view. Arguments for the “Spirit” being the imparting of long life (“breath of life”) from Matthews, “Genesis,” 332-334 and Keil, “Pentateuch,” 84-85 are sound.
[2] Some dispensationalists disagree with the traditional dispensational understanding that the Patriarchs “failed” and were judged in any sense at the close of this dispensation.
[3] See McClain, Kingdom, 51 and McCune, Systematic, 127 (footnote #58) for these arguments.
[4] See also Lamar E. Cooper, “Ezekiel,” vol. 17, The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 187. Both Alexander and Cooper emphasize that Ezekiel is speaking of judgment for sins, not necessarily eternal salvation in this passage. Due to the abysmal spiritual conditions of the day, many Israelites in Judah who thus sinned undoubtedly never exercised saving faith in God, but some certainly did. Regardless, the point germane to this paper is that Israel corporately failed to exercise proper worship in this dispensation.
[5] Eze 8:4; 8:12; 9:3-8; 11:23;21:26-27.
[6] Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 8-22 (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1995), 388. Walvoord [John F. Walvoord, Revelation, ed. Philip Rawley and Mark Hitchcock (Chicago, IL: Moody, 2011), 290-291] believes angels are present also.
[7] Thomas, Revelation, 420. The first resurrection is the righteous to eternal life, all the righteous (Rev 20:4-5). All of the righteous believers will be resurrected before the millennial reign begins, in various stages. Thus “first” does not denote a one-time event, but more of a category. It is the category encompassing the resurrection of all the just in Christ. The second resurrection is for the wicked and ungodly (Rev 20:5) – those who denied Christ and suppressed the truth in unrighteousness until the bitter end.
The Eccentric Fundamentalist 