For now, a Book under construction.  That means that any part of it, including even the first paragraphs, may change at any time.  The material is copyright, but feel free to circulate it among your friends. The title of the book, which may also change frequently, might be

Bite Size Theology

in 108 bites

INTRODUCTION

1. Theology

Pilate asked: "What is truth?" and did not wait for the answer. Theology is the study of the answer. For every question, there is a true answer. Do you have questions? If you are looking for answers, you will find them. Do not be disturbed by the suggestion that what is true for one person is not true for all. All science stands against this suggestion. The Bible also stands against it. No argument ever offered to support that suggestion has survived careful examination.

The various branches of science search for truth in specific fields: sciences like physics, chemistry, and astronomy, and also sciences like history, sociology, and psychology. Theology searches for truth about God, the source of heaven and earth and everything in them. That is why it used to be called the queen of the sciences, when God was recognized as the Creator of the rest.

2. Your Theology

You have a theology. People give opinions about God, and at some time you have given yours. That is doing theology. Some say they would like to avoid theology, because of the controversies it stirs. All they want is to be good people, or to love and be loved, or to "make a difference," or to love God. But there is really no way to escape theology. No one’s mind can be vacant on a subject so large and far reaching. The choice is not between theology and no theology; the choice is between unconscious theology - absorbed, unexamined - and consciously chosen theology.

Your theology is your continual re-examination of all you believe and say about who God is and what he is doing, in the light of whatever authority you choose to accept.

If God is real, he could hide. We can study physics, chemistry, and geology, or even human beings, at our pleasure; but human resources are incapable of studying a "Supreme Being." All knowledge of God depends on God’s willingness to be known. Theology is therefore dependent on God’s revelation of himself. God is the only reliable authority on God.

Many men and women throughout human history have claimed that God has revealed himself to them. Without denying that God may, in all times and places, have tried consistently to reveal himself to mankind, Christians base their study of God on the belief that God’s most complete and perfect revelation of himself was in and through the person of his Anointed Deliverer: Jesus, the Christ. That is why it is called "Christian" theology.

The New Testament includes all the primary source material available about the life of Jesus, and all the primary source material about the men he chose as his special messengers, or written by them. The Old Testament includes all the primary source material on the background leading up to his being the Christ. For this reason, theology which is derived from these two sources, and based on them, has a special standing; the Bible is the unique channel for God’s written self-revelation.

This does not mean that Biblical theology rests on a book as its ultimate foundation; much less does it mean that we worship a book. Christian theology is built on Christ. Christians do not put their trust in Christ because the Bible tells us to; that is upside down. Christians trust the Bible because through it we have discovered and experienced the reliability of Jesus himself, alive today, and through him the reliability of God, the Father, who has met us in the book.

For this reason, the fact that no one alive has seen the original documents of the Bible troubles us less. Christians respect and appreciate the work of scholars who try to determine as nearly as possible what the original documents said, but our trust is in the living God who inspired them and who teaches us. Some Christians put great emphasis on calling the Bible infallible, or inerrant. There is a serious logical weakness in both terms. Both presume some outside standard by which it can be pronounced without error or without flaw. It is just as presumptuous to call the Bible infallible as to call it fallible - just as presumptuous to call it inerrant as to call it errant. Creeds which call it "the infallible rule" are tautological. The rule is the rule. A standard is a standard. One cannot pronounce the standard meter stick too long, or too short, or just right. There is no standard by which to measure a standard. The highest tribute one can pay to the Bible is the simplest: it is, by faith, accepted as the standard, the rule, the authority for Christians.

In modern times it has become almost universally accepted for Christian denominations to say the Bible is the authority, or rule, "for faith and practice." Unspoken is the modern practice of leaving open the question of whether it is also authoritative "for science and history." Most organized Christian groups refrain from making that claim, saying "It is not intended to be a science textbook," by which they tacitly admit that in their view its science is inaccurate and its history doubtful. I find this deference to secular investigators gives them too much honor.

People sometimes talk of "basing their faith on" something, but the phrase is highly misleading. All thought is based on faith. Anything based on something else is conclusion. Mathematics needs axioms. As Kirkegaard famously put it: "The function of reason is to show us the limits of reason," and "Everyone must take a leap of faith." The intricacy and beauty of nature and the words of the Bible may build assurance, but they do it on a foundation of faith. That process is a natural part of a development which starts with faith and grows toward the point where faith and knowledge blend together into a comprehensive personal relationship with God, the Source. It is common to find faith strengthened and nourished by reading the Bible, and by the testimony of others, and by observing the creation; but the very first thing is pure choice, the pure decision to respond with trust to God, the Source, as he offers himself to us. The ground of our faith, as of our being, is God himself.

That is as it must be, for there is nothing that can serve as foundation for the Foundation. Nature can't do it. Reason can't do it. Experience can’t do it. The Bible can't do it. No combination of them can do it. All these rest on God, and derive from him. All they can do is point. Nothing is strong enough to bear the weight of God. That should be a load off your mind.

What you believe is important. God wants the whole world to know and believe the truth. But the Bible says clearly and often that he does not want anyone to miss out on eternal life. Therefore God has not made our eternal destiny depend on theological correctness, or on any other intellectual or moral or physical achievement. Eternal life is a gift of God, by grace, through faith.

"Systematic Theology" is the attempt to organize theology. It creates topical headings, such as "The Nature of God," "The Nature of Man," "The Origin of Evil," "Salvation," "The Bible," "The Holy Spirit," "The Church," "Eschatology," and so on. Within those topical areas, it tries to organize the truth in understandable language.

Those who work at Systematic Theology must recognize that the job will always be imprecise and incomplete. Now our knowledge is partial. There is no perfect Systematic Theology. There is at least one for every denomination, and several varieties competing within each denomination of any size. It is impossible for all of these to be perfect expressions of the truth. At the very least, all but one are flawed. Each must look with some humility at the others, realizing that there is more to learn. Each attempt to formulate a Systematic Theology, whether in six volumes or in a creed, must regard itself as tentative: subject to continual revision as further study reveals further truth.

In the definition of theology in paragraph 2, the word "continual" is of primary importance, for a church as much as for an individual. This need for continual revision of what we hold has been recognized by important Christian leaders through history. One of the most moving statements of this principle came from Rev. John Robinson at the time the pilgrim fathers set out for the United States from the refuge in Holland to which they had fled from persecution in England. He said:

"I charge you before God and His blessed angels, that you follow me no further than you have seen me follow the Lord Jesus Christ. If God reveals anything to you by any other instrument of His, be as ready to receive it as you were to receive any truth by my ministry, for I am verily persuaded the Lord hath more truth yet to break forth out of his holy word."

We say the same to you now. Our hope is not so much that you will agree with every one of the hundred or so points of this "Bite Size Theology," but that you will be moved to study them, to think about them, and to refine or transform them as you are guided by the same guide we have tried to follow: God revealing himself through his word and by his Spirit.

Theology is a study, but not like any other. In this study God offers to be your resident personal tutor. Jesus promised that he and the Father would come, in and by the Spirit, to live in the heart of everyone who responds to him in faith; and he added: "He will guide you into all truth."

Professors of theology have suggested that every approach to studying theology should have a single central theme as a regulating or organizing principle. We feel that must be the Christ himself, who said "I am the truth," if the theology is to be Christian. He is, "the Christ of God," as Peter put it when Jesus asked his disciples who they believed he was, and Jesus said it was the Father in Heaven who revealed that to him. The opening words of the epistle to the Hebrews urge them, and us, to recognize the superiority of Jesus over Moses and the prophets. They were messengers; Jesus is the Son, "the radiance of God’s glory, and the exact representation of the his being." Paul taught the same priority in writing to Corinth: "... demolishing speculations, and every presumptuous notion raised concerning the knowledge of God, taking captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."

In short, if a theory about God does not fit with the character and teaching of Jesus, the express image of the Father, it must be re-examined. Our teaching must be consistent with our Teacher.

Christian Theology has a purpose which is both wider and deeper than discovering and formulating and stating the truth about God. Christian theology exists to be an instrument of God’s desire that all humanity should be saved. Missing the truth can leave a person on a broad road that leads to destruction. The truth is the way to the life; and Jesus declares that he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

People who know very little about theology nevertheless usually know that Calvinism and Arminianism are two widely influential theologies which have been in conflict for centuries.

The problem with Arminianism, in the view of Calvinism, is that it makes human "salvation" too dependent on human beings, on human works to earn it, or at least on human faith to get it, and on human behavior to maintain it and not lose it before the end of life on earth.

The problem with Calvinism, in the view of Arminianism, is that it makes human "salvation" dependent totally on the choice of God before the foundation of the world, a choice which had nothing to do with human belief or behavior. It also maintains that the saving work of Jesus was limited, and cannot be effective for anyone except those God chose in advance, and further holds that those who are chosen can neither resist nor lose the gift of salvation God has chosen to give them.

Calvinists defend these views by saying that disputing them is a rejection of the sovereignty of God, whom they say is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. Arminians have generally been willing to accept that God chose in advance those who would be saved, but they maintain that he did not make that choice unconditionally, but rather by use of "foreknowledge," knowing in advance before the foundation of the world all the choices which all humans would ever make.

It has not been difficult for partisans of either side to find fault with the other side. Calvinists have said that if God made his choice on the basis of our choice, choosing only and precisely those whom he foreknew would choose him, that leaves no room for sovereignty and puts humans in control of history. Arminians have said that if God made the choice unconditionally, before anyone was born, that leaves no room for human freedom or responsibility, and no basis for punishing those who were not chosen.

This is a brief summary of arguments which have filled heavy volumes, and caused persecution and bloodshed. Partisans may claim that their views have not been fully presented, but the essentials are here. No one can deny the persecution and bloodshed. The best in each system is its rejection of the flaws in the other. Arminianism is right in maintaining that God is not arbitrary, his love is not limited, and our human freedom is not meaningless. Calvinism is right in maintaining that our salvation does not depend on us, either to accomplish it or maintain it. On these strong grounds, taken from both, we reject both. They cannot be harmonized, and there is no acceptable fence between them to sit on. Our task is continual fresh re-examination of our authority.

There is a theology - truth about God - which all Christians should be able to accept. We know that because we are told that all believers should be "of one mind," and because Jesus, in promising the Spirit, said "When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth."

A Jewish philosopher, Martin Buber, has made popular a shorthand way of describing two kinds of human knowledge: "I-It" knowledge and "I-Thou" knowledge. We know rocks in a different way from the way we know people, or the way we know God. Knowledge of people, and of God, includes some knowing about them, but that is all "I-It" knowledge, and it is very different from the "I-Thou" knowledge which comes from relationship. Believing in God, in the sense of believing that he exists, is "I-It" knowledge. Even believing that he is the Creator, and that he sent his Son to be the Savior of the world, is still only knowing things about God. This is not faith; it is intellectual assent; it is not trust. "Even the demons believe," James writes, "and tremble." Correct theology, by itself, is not a cure for death or a guarantee of eternal life.

There are obvious limitations to both kinds of knowledge. Science - a word derived from the Latin word for knowledge - has chosen the task of extending the limits of "I-it" knowledge.

In relation to things that humans can manipulate, science develops ever newer tools to manipulate and probe them, down to the limits of the sub-atomic, including samples from the moon, Mars, and other objects in the solar system.

In relation to things beyond human power to manipulate, it develops ever newer tools to observe them, including "space probes" for investigating our neighbors in the solar system and telescopes that "see" out to the farthest galaxies from which radiation can be detected. These efforts are called the "hard" sciences.

The "soft" sciences move beyond "I-it" knowledge. They cover efforts to gain knowledge in situations where their efforts may be effectively resisted. These include human behavior, as individuals and in groups. This involves "I-Thou" knowledge, as the objects of study can resist being studied, and can to some extent manipulate and distort the results of such studies.

Knowledge of the transcendental is, by definition, a category beyond science. If there are entities, angels or Klingons, which can hide so completely and effectively that we are unable even to detect that they exist, any knowledge we gather of them will be limited to whatever they choose to reveal.

This is a third kind of knowledge: knowledge revealed by a trusted higher source. Since science separated itself from theology, all varieties of science deliberately reject revelation, and admit as "scientific" only such knowledge as can be gained through control. It has ruled itself incapable of dealing with the transcendental.

Science trusts no higher source. This leaves science groping, using only a fraction of human receptive resources, having intentionally closed its eyes to knowledge that might come by revelation from the Creator, Source of all knowledge. "Scientists" who believe in God, angels, demons, Santa Claus, or visitors from advanced civilizations, segregate those beliefs from their "scientific" activities, and have to find ways to relate the two kinds of beliefs they hold.

Christians believe that the most basic way in which the Creator/Source has revealed himself is through the creation. The Bible teaches that there is enough evidence in the creation to lead mankind to believe in Intelligent Design: a Creator/Source. This is corroborated by the fact that human cultures everywhere have always included this concept, and a special word or title to talk about such a transcendental being. Paul writes:

The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. They knew God, yet they did not honor Him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their uncomprehending minds were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools. - Romans 1:20-22

"God" is not the name of the Creator/Source. Both the Hebrew word translated "God" in the Old Testament, and the Greek word translated "God" in the New Testament, are general words used in those cultures to describe broad categories.

The Hebrew word, pronounced "elohim," has a primary meaning linked to power, might, and authority. It is used not only of the Creator/Source but also of false gods, and of human rulers such as judges and officials. Israel, surrounded by followers of demons and idols, needed reminders. Notice the contrast In Deuteronomy 10:17 as we hear Moses saying to the people: "For the LORD, your God, is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons nor taketh reward." Or, "... great, mighty, awesome, who is not moved by appearances or gifts." Whenever God says to Israel "I am your God" - your power - or when a prophet says "the LORD, your God," the context is always a reminder that his power is better, both in both quantity and quality, than any alternative power.

The New Testament word, the Greek word, pronounced "theos,"has all the same ambiguities, being understood as a translation of the Old Testament Hebrew word. It too is used of idols, false gods, and secular authorities, as Jesus points out in quoting the Old Testament (John 10:34). It is also linked to a primary root meaning "to implore, supplicate," so that it includes a meaning "one who is to be implored."

Clearly neither "elohim" nor "theos" - nor "God" - is adequate as a name for the Creator/Source. Moses realized this when the voice out of a burning bush told him to go to Pharaoh. That was the occasion when the Creator/Source, the god/God of Israel, revealed his name:

And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. - Exodus 3:13,14; KJV

No consensus has emerged among scholars concerning how this should be rendered. A modern Jewish version simply transliterates the Hebrew: " ‘Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh.’ ... you say to the Israelites, ‘Ehyeh sent me to you.’" Martin Luther, and some modern scholars, render it "I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE,"... "say ‘I WILL BE’ sent me to you." A modern French ecumenical version renders it: "I AM WHAT I WILL BE." The Greek Septuagint renders it as "THE BEING." The highly respected French Jerusalem Bible renders it: "I AM THE ONE WHO IS." The significance is not hard to see. In the context of a society which worshiped dozens of gods, God refuses to take a name which could be listed among their names as one of many. The name testifies to uniqueness.

Moses, in a later conversation on Mount Sinai, asks "Please show me your glory!" The story is in Exodus 33:18 to 34:8. God begins his answer to Moses by saying: "I will make all my goodness pass before you, and will proclaim before you my name ‘The LORD’" The Hebrew here is a variant of the root meaning "existence." It is God’s personal name for himself, found 5,321 times in the Old Testament. It is just four Hebrew letters: YHWH. Scholars a hundred years ago thought this unique form should be transliterated as Jehovah, since the Hebrew language does not write its vowels. Recent scholars transliterate it as Yahweh. Most English language versions render it as LORD. "Lord" is the proper translation for a different Hebrew word: "adonai." When you see lord in capital letters, LORD, it tells you that the Hebrew is not "adonai," but the four letters designating the name which very few translators in any language translate.

The significance of the name is immense. In both the short form and the long form, God is declaring that he is everlasting, eternal. In the long form, God is at the same time declaring a corollary. Since he is what he is, he just as certainly is not what he is not. God is light; he is not darkness. God is love; he is not anything other than love. God is just; he is not unjust. God is true; he cannot lie. God is patient; he is not impatient. God is kind; he is not unkind. His name is "Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh." Understand it as well and as fully as you can.

God’s name for himself is the best introduction to his nature. "Attributes" is a theological term often used to describe specific qualities in God’s character. The point has already been made that God reveals himself as personal. To be a person, as we understand personhood, includes thinking, feeling, and choosing. Some who admit that the creation demands recognition of a Supreme Creator have nevertheless doubted, or even denied, that God is personal. They have proposed a "Watchmaker God," a Creator who designed the universe, and then wound it up and just let it run. But through God’s interaction with human beings, he has shown that he has feelings as well as intellect and will, making it very clear that what we do affects him just as much as what he does affects us. The qualities in his character, however, his "attributes," have been much debated.

This is a word combining two Latin words to mean "all present." The idea that God is present everywhere is a myth which fits with Hinduism and "New Age" thinking but not with God’s revelation of himself. The Bible says God’s home is in Heaven, but he used to come and walk with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. He came to talk with Abraham more than once. He came to a talk to Moses out of a burning bush. He came down on Mount Sinai to talk to the people of Israel. He talked with Moses on that mountain. Aaron and his sons, and 70 elders of Israel were invited to come up the mountain, and they saw God there. God went through the desert with Israel, in a pillar of fire by night and a pillar of cloud by day. David spoke of God’s having a throne where he often sits. Isaiah said he saw God on his throne. Jesus spoke of his Father’s throne, and promised that by his Spirit he and the Father would come live in the hearts of those who put their trust in him. It is human imagination which says God is in every living thing, and in the hearts of all men.

God tells us he can go anywhere; there is nowhere we can go to get away from him. He also tells us he can see everywhere; there is nothing hidden from his sight. But omnipresence is a myth.

Some have based their believe in omniscience (all-knowing) on a theory about the relationship of God and time. That theory holds that God has always known the future as well as the past and present, knowing in advance every choice that every created being has ever made or will make. Arminians and Calvinists both thought this was true. Champions of this view say God is like a plane or a space ship high above the Mississippi River, seeing New Orleans, Memphis, and St. Louis all at once, though to a river boat those towns may be past, present, and future.

This does not fit, however, with what Jesus taught. Late in his ministry, the Sadducees came one day to challenge him about the fact of resurrection. After he corrected them on the matter of taking and giving in marriage, he said this:

"And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living." (Matthew 22:31,32; RSV)

The argument Jesus makes here has absolutely no force if God’s relation to time is like that of a space satellite looking down on ships sailing the Mississippi River. If that were his relation to time, he would be God of Abraham, of Peter, and of unborn children all at once, constantly, whether or not there is any resurrection.

19. Omniscience B

Other believers in omniscience admit that the future is still future for God as well as for us; they base their belief on the assumption that it is an essential part of being supreme to have known all things in advance before the creation. Arminians argued that he knew all this by having the ability to look ahead through time; Calvinists argued that he knew all things in advance because he had decreed for his own reasons that they should happen that way.

No view of omniscience is consistent with what God reveals about himself. First, there is the witness of his feelings. He reacts to human events with disappointment, with pleasure, with anger, with mercy, and with astonishment. There are hundreds of examples. Second, there is the witness of his changing his plans. The sparing of Nineveh after Jonah had predicted disaster is only the most dramatic among hundreds of examples. Third, there is the denial of omniscience out of his own mouth, through the prophets. He many times said he had expected a good reaction from his people and they had reacted wickedly instead. God said more than once that their sin reached to depths of depravity which had not entered his mind. Several times also God sends a prophet to his people with a message, and tells the prophet he does not know how they will react. "Perhaps they will listen," he says. Fourth, there is the testimony of Jesus, who tells a parable which reveals what was in God’s mind when he decided to send his Son into the world: "They may respect my son."

Those who cling to omniscience say that it is a necessary attribute of God, because God has so often prophesied the future. This is not logical. In saying that God does not know everything in advance, the Bible is not saying that he knows nothing in advance.

God certainly knows in advance the final outcome of history to which he promises to bring events. He has good ends in mind, and declares that no one will be able to block them. The Bible also tells us that he knows the thoughts and intents of everyone’s heart at any moment. "Man looks on the outward appearance; God looks on the heart." At the same time, we are told that the very hairs of our heads are numbered. God also knows his own extensive contingency plans. Knowing all the facts, all our plans, and all his own plans, God can certainly make many accurate prophecies. We must also remember, however, that many prophecies were not fulfilled, and will not be fulfilled, because God has changed his plans and will continue to change plans in accordance with the principles he has laid out in the Bible. He has often declared that his plans are contingent on our actions. "Turn to me, and I will turn to you!" "Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish!"  In Jeremiah 18:7-10, the LORD declares a universal policy, for all times and all places, that both his blessing and his judgment are flexible, changeable, and will depend on human behavior.

A retired professor of theology from Memphis Theological Seminary, Dr. Joe Ben Irby, summed up omniscience in these words in a pamphlet he called Snippets: "By the omniscience of God is meant that he knows all he needs to know in order to direct his creation to its intended goal."

Here is Professor Joe Ben Irby’s summation of the subject, from the same pamphlet:

"By the omnipotence of God is not meant his power to do anything and everything conceivable to human persons. Thus he cannot do the contradictory or logically absurd, such as making square circles or triangles with four corners. He is able to do only those things consistent with his character and his purpose for his creation."

This is an extension of the significance of the name God chose for himself. God is what he is, and is not what he is not. When people say "Why doesn’t God ..." it almost always turns out they are asking for him to do something that is not consistent with his purpose for his creation. The most common kind of suggestion people make would require God to contravene his purpose in giving human beings freedom of choice. C. S. Lewis addressed this issue in his book The Problem of Pain. He cited the complaints people make that God did not crush Satan long ago, that God did not stop war long ago, that God did not stop crime long ago, and in general that God did not make a creation where things could not go so tragically and painfully wrong. Lewis answers that God did make such creatures; we call them vegetables. But then God decided to make us free, in his own image. Being well aware of the potential for evil resulting from our freedom, he was ready from the beginning with contingency plans to take care of those consequences. The fact that we cannot see such a plan does not mean that there is no plan. Specifically, the Bible tells us he cannot lie. This should be no surprise; he is Truth. God is frequently accused of cruelty, deception, and favoritism, and Bible verses are taken out of context and twisted to support these views. But Satan, the Father of Lies, is behind every such slander against God, and careful Bible study can expose them all. I have addressed some of them in a book called How Kind IS God?