The LORD thy God is among you, a mighty God and terrible. - Deuteronomy 7:21

For great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised: he also is to be feared above all gods. - First Chronicles 16:25

God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him. - Psalm 89:7

Let them praise thy great and terrible name; for it is holy. - Psalm 99:3

He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name. - Psalm 111:9

For the day of the LORD is great and very terrible; and who can abide it? - Joel 2:11

They are terrible and dreadful - Habakkuk 1:7

While you are thinking about this, I will tell you something unique about one of the seven. In Psalm 111:9 you find the only verse in the King James Version, the "Authorized" translation of the Bible, in which is found the word "reverend" - which means "to be revered." It is in reference to the "LORD", the ETERNAL, the LIVING ONE, that his name is reverend - "to be revered." In the light of this verse, the church might want to find a different "salutation" for members of the clergy.

Look at the seven verses again, and see if you can think of an English word, or phrase, which would be appropriate in all seven contexts. We should be able to do that, because the Hebrew word does not change its meaning from Chronicles to Habakkuk; it means exactly what it means. What is that? What is the right way to express this concept, found seven times in God’s Word?

What does it mean to say that this special name which he gives himself is "reverend"?

Obviously reverend is the wrong word to use in all seven contexts; the violent enemies are not to be revered. Well, then, Is terrible the right word, or dreadful, or to be feared to describe the name of God? Not if you have seen how Jesus speaks of the name of the Father in John 17, four times in that great prayer: "I have manifested your name ...", "keep them in your name ...", "I have kept them in your name ...", "I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them."

If we turn from the King James Version to look at other translations, the word most of them have chosen to fit in all seven of these verses is "awesome." A few stick with terror and dread, or fear, but "to be held in awe" would be the precise rendering of this grammatical form

This is very important, and very cheering news, because it throws important light on the whole concept of "the fear of the ETERNAL," since that word fear is from the same Hebrew root. The "awe" of the ETERNAL would be a far more accurate translation.

The connection is made in Psalm 111:10. Put the end of verse 9 and the start of verse 10 together, and you get: "Unique and awesome is his name; and the awe of THE ETERNAL is the beginning of wisdom!" Mr. Forever? THE ETERNAL? That really IS an awesome name!

The "first and great" commandment is "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." Matthew tells us this was what Jesus said when a lawyer asked which was the "great" commandment in the law. Almost certainly he was asked this question more than once during his three years of ministry. Mark and Luke record occasions when he added "and with all thy strength."

Loving God with one’s strength has not been difficult to understand; it is, without contradiction, interpreted as service. Loving God with one’s heart and soul has also been interpreted without contradiction, as the quality - known only to God - of one’s inner personal and emotional relationship with God in response to his love.

All these ways of loving God are frequently urged on us by writers and preachers, and frequently professed by individuals in word and song. Little is said about loving God with one’s mind. In fact, the exercise of the mind in thinking about God is often dismissed as something that contrasts with love, or even stands in conflict with love. My father and I are surely not the only Bible teachers who have had people resist the call to Bible study by saying "I don’t care about theology; I just want to love God."

From my direct personal experience with hundreds of pastors and about a hundred theology students, plus fifteen seminary professors and five TV evangelists, I can assure you that many of them find in their Bible study and Bible teaching the experience of what it means to love God with your mind. I am not denying that many of them may have treated their work as little more than a profession. A few were cynical. A few were hostile, using their position to mock and undermine faith in the Bible. But I know that many - all of the handful who became close personal friends - feel in their study and teaching of the Bible, and above all in their meditation on its message and meaning, a very warm sense of closeness to the LORD different in quality from the love of heart and soul: something which can only be described as loving God with the mind.

This fellowship of the human mind with the mind of God, the mind which was in Christ Jesus, is open to anyone who will come with open mind to the only place where a hungry mind can be truly filled: the Word of God. This is the "first and great" reason for 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.

Various branches of science search for truth in specific fields: the "hard" sciences like physics, chemistry, and astronomy, and also the "soft" 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.

People give opinions about God, and at some time you have given yours. That is part of "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. Your mind can’t be vacant on a subject that reaches into every corner of life and thought. The choice is not between theology and no theology. We have either an unconscious theology - absorbed, unexamined - or a theology we have built by listening, reading, and thinking.

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.

Not all theology is Christian. Muslims and Hindus have their own theologies. There are many private theologies, as many men and women throughout human history have claimed that God has revealed himself to them. Without denying that God may have been consistently trying, in all times and places, to reveal himself to mankind, we as Christians base our study of God on the belief that God’s most complete and perfect revelation of himself was in and through Jesus, the Christ (the Anointed Deliverer). That is why the object of our study is called "Christian" theology.

Any "god" worth two cents could hide if he wanted to. We can study subjects like physics and chemistry at our pleasure; but we are not capable of studying a "Supreme Being" any more than we are capable of studying the life forms on other planets - if there are any. They can keep themselves out of our reach if they like, and so could God. We can know him only if he is willing to be known: to appear, or at least to communicate. God is the only reliable authority on God.

We know that many have claimed that God spoke to them, even appeared to them. Christian theology holds that all these claims must be measured by the words and actions of Jesus the Christ. This is how the Bible comes to have a unique importance; it is unique as the window through which we can see him.

The New Testament includes all the primary source material there is about the life and teaching of Jesus, and all the primary source material about the men he chose as his apostles (special messengers) or written by them. The Old Testament contains all the primary source material on the background leading up to his being the Christ. It also contains a large body of primary source material about God’s dealings with humanity throughout history.

This is why theology which is derived from these two sources has a special standing.

Throughout the history of Christianity there have been groups who wished to eliminate parts of the Bible - the parts that did not fit with theories the group held. Almost any theory, however foolish, can be supported by Scripture if you can accept only what pleases you and reject the rest. Christian beliefs are the result of careful study of the whole Bible, accepting it as the unique channel for God’s written self-revelation, and so accepting it as the "rule for faith and practice."

This does not mean that Biblical theology rests on a book as its ultimate foundation. Christians do not worship a book; Christian theology is built on Christ. We do not put our trust in Christ because the Bible tells us to, or because the Bible tells us that he is reliable. That is upside down. Christians came to trust the Bible, through a process that took several centuries, because through it they found and experienced the reliability of the one we know as the Living One, Jesus the Christ, the Incarnate Word, Wonderful Counselor, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

This is why 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 primary trust is in the Living Word: the God who inspired them, who came to earth to teach, heal, and deliver, and who comes to live in his children.

Some insist on calling the Bible infallible, or inerrant. They intend it as honor, but there is a serious logical error in this effort. Both terms presume an absolutely reliable standard by which the Bible can be tested, examined, and then pronounced with or without error - with or without flaw. When this is understood, one can see that it is just as presumptuous to call the Bible infallible as to call it fallible - as presumptuous to call it inerrant as to call it errant. Calling it "the infallible rule" could be regarded as tautological. The rule is the rule. A standard is a standard.

In the past, this could be explained by pointing out that it was meaningless to say the standard meter stick was too long, or too short, or just right. There is no standard by which to measure a standard. In the case of the meter stick in Paris, of course, its days as a standard have passed. Scientists who want to be very precise now measure lengths by a standard found in the wavelength of a certain color of light. A metal meter stick could not be machined to the precision they felt necessary to modern science. But the principle holds: 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 that this deference to secular investigators gives them far too much honor.

You may have heard, and read, people talking about "basing their faith on" something, but the phrase is misleading. Faith is basic to all thought. Theorems are proved in Math, but nothing is proved until axioms are first articulated, and an axiom is a proposition accepted by faith, without proof. As the philosopher Kirkegaard famously put it, in refuting the rationalism of Kant: "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 confidence and certitude, but they do it on a foundation of faith. The growth of assurance is part of a natural development which starts with faith. As that growth continues, it moves toward the point where faith and knowledge blend into a comprehensive personal relationship with God, the Source.

It is common to find faith nourished by reading the Bible. Faith can also be strengthened by hearing the testimony of others. For many, but not for all, observing the creation helps faith to grow. In all cases, however, the ultimate foundation is pure choice, the pure decision to respond with trust to God, the Author and Source, as he offers himself to us. God is the "ground of being," and God is the ground of faith.

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. He has therefore 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, received through the personal exercise of faith, which is itself a gift of God to all mankind.

"Systematic Theology" is the effort to organize theology. It picks arbitrary topical headings, such as "The Nature of God," "The Nature of Man," "The Origin of Evil," "Sin," "Salvation," "The Bible," "The Church," "Eschatology," and so on. Within whatever topical areas it has chosen, 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 short creed, or in a book of small bites, must regard itself as tentative: subject to continual revision as further study reveals further truth.

This is a good phrase, but it has often been an empty phrase, covering rigid tradition. In defining theology, the word "continual" is of primary importance, for an individual or a church. Reforming every few hundred years is not enough. This need for continual revision of what we hold has been acknowledged throughout history. One of the clearest statements of the principle came from John Robinson, a pastor addressing a group of his followers who were setting out for the United States from the refuge in Holland to which they had fled from persecution in England:

"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 Sized 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 try continually to follow: the one God, revealing himself through his word and by his Spirit.

Theology is a study, an exercise, a discipline; but it is not like any other. There are no grades, and each of us can have personal contact with God himself. He offers to come be our 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."

This word has become entrenched in academic theological study, but we should dispense with it. It derives from Hermes, in Greek mythology the "messenger of the gods," helping them understand the meaning of the gods. We have God himself, in us by his Spirit.

Hermeneutics is defined in several ways. One academic source says "another word for interpretation." The Catholic Encyclopedia says: "a complex set of rules for finding and expressing the true sense of the inspired writers." All agree that proper "interpretation" means studying the language, the times, the situation, the problem being addressed, and so on. In practice, this can help with exegesis, but it is as often used for eisegesis. Eisegesis is reading preconceived ideas INTO the text; exegesis means getting the true meaning OUT OF the text.

In our study, we not only have God in us as our teacher, we also have Jesus in the Gospels saying "I am the truth." Peter tells us "no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will; but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." The opening words of Hebrews urge 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, our supreme rule for understanding the Bible is this: if a theory about God or a reading of a text does not fit with the rest of the Scriptures, and 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. In case of apparent conflicts, the rare must be understood in the light of the frequent; the unclear must be understood in the light of the clear.

Christian Theology has a purpose which is both wider and deeper than discovering and formulating and stating the truth about God, or even understanding it. 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 far more than a set of propositions; it is the way to the life; and Jesus declares that he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

16. In alphabetical order: Arminianism and Calvinism

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 us, on human works to earn it, or 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 our faith 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 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 usually been willing to accept that those who are saved have been "chosen" by God, but they maintain that he did not make that choice arbitrarily, but rather in the light of his "foreknowledge," knowing in advance before the foundation of the world all the choices which all humans would ever make.

Partisans of each view have easily seen the flaws of the other. Calvinists rightly insist that our salvation does not depend on us to accomplish it or to maintain it. They point out that if God made his choice on the basis of our choice, and that if we can lose our salvation by "backsliding" or some other bad behavior, it destroys the meaning of "saved by grace."

Arminians rightly insist that God is not arbitrary, his love is not limited, and our human freedom is not meaningless. They point out 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.

Partisans of both sides have sometimes fought bitterly, and have filled heavy volumes with their arguments. You may read their views in full elsewhere. The best in each system is its rejection of the worst in the other. It is sad that the clearest vision on each side is in identifying the errors of the other, and that neither has effectively addressed its own flaws.

Based on these accurate and powerful objections, the Cumberland Presbyterian Church - which earned the honorable nickname of "The Whosoever Will Presbyterian Church" - wisely rejected both. They cannot be harmonized, and there is no acceptable fence between them to sit on. They formulated what has sometimes been called an "intermediate theology," but they were not really comfortable with that term. They agreed with each to the extent of rejecting the other. Speaking more tactfully, they said that they rejected the extremes of both. That was the beginning of a two hundred year journey to find the truth. I do not pretend to speak for them, but greatly inspired by their Confession of Faith of 1883, I challenge the "evangelical" traditions of today to recognize their flaws, and go back to their roots in the Scriptures and try again.

19. Beyond the Conflict

God’s revelation in the Scriptures came before the "Reformation," and he did not retire after it did its work! So to find the truth, our task is continual, ongoing re-examination of our authority.

We are told to be "of one mind," and "of one spirit," "striving side by side for the faith of the gospel." Being so urged, we must get beyond the dispute. We must regard divisions and error - schism and heresy - not as unavoidable, but as failures to be overcome. Knowledge of God is not only important, but possible, even though on earth our knowledge is "in part," as Paul said.  

Peter wrote: "Grace and peace can be multiplied to you through the knowledge of God."  Note: the knowledge of God can multiply grace and peace.  Paul wrote "Some have not the knowledge of God; I speak this to your shame," and he prayed "that ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work and in the knowledge of God."  Note: being without the knowledge of God is shameful, and "walking worthy" involves being fruitful in it, and in good works.  Through Hosea, the prophet, God said: "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." Note: God prefers it to burnt offerings.  Earlier, Solomon had written that anyone who would search for understanding "as for hid treasures," would "find the knowledge of God."  Note: knowledge of God is well worth trying to find. Jesus, speaking of his coming to us by his Spirit, said "He will guide you into all truth."  Note: Knowledge of God is possible.  He will guide us into all truth. If we listen. If we study.

Martin Buber made popular a way of describing two kinds of 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 "I-It" knowledge - 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 about God. It is awareness, not faith. It is intellectual assent, 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 to work at extending the limits of "I-it" knowledge, and within those self-imposed limitations has had impressive visible successes.

In relation to things we can physically manipulate, science keeps developing new tools to observe and manipulate them, down to the limits of the sub-atomic, and including samples from the moon. In relation to things beyond our power to manipulate, science 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 try to move beyond "I-it" knowledge. They cover efforts to gain knowledge in situations where their efforts may be effectively resisted. In psychology and sociology, the objects of study can resist being studied, and sometimes manipulate the results.

There is a third kind of knowledge, not covered by Buber’s two categories: knowledge revealed by a trusted higher source. Science has cut itself off from this kind of knowledge. All varieties of science have deliberately rejected revelation; they admit as "scientific" only knowledge that can be gained through control.

To the extent, therefore, that there may be anything transcendental, science has ruled itself unwilling to deal with it. Science, with eyes wide open, closed its eyes to revelation. In so doing, blocking itself off from that special light, it condemned itself to a kind of groping, using only a fraction of our human receptive resources.

Theologians speak of two kinds of revelation. Special Revelation is God’s revelation through Jesus, through the apostles and prophets, and through his acts in history as recorded in the Bible. General Revelation is how God has revealed himself 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. In fact, all human cultures have included this concept, with a special name or title used to talk about such a transcendental being. Paul writes:

"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, force, 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." Another translation reads: "... great, mighty, awesome, who is not moved by appearances or gifts."

The New Testament word, the Greek word, pronounced "theos," has all the same ambiguities. It is 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). The explanation of how pagans used the word is linked to its primary root meaning "to implore, supplicate." To pagans, a "god," a "theos," meant "one who is to be implored."

Clearly neither "elohim" nor "theos" - nor "God" - is adequate as a name for the Creator/Source, the one "who made heaven and earth." 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:

No consensus has emerged among scholars concerning how this should be rendered. One modern Jewish version simply transliterates the Hebrew: "‘Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh.’ ... you say to the Israelites, ‘Ehyeh sent me to you.’"

Most English translations render this as "I AM THAT I AM," or "I AM WHO I AM." Martin Luther, a pioneer in getting the Word of God into the common language of ordinary people, translated this into the German for "I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE,"... "say ‘I WILL BE’ sent me to you." This choice illustrates a peculiarity of Hebrew verbs: the same form can mean either present or future action. Context determines which it should be. Luther’s choice of future here is interesting.

A modern French ecumenical version renders it into the French for "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." 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 he chooses testifies to his uniqueness.

In a later conversation on Mount Sinai, Moses asks "Please show me your glory!" You can read the story 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 just four Hebrew letters - YHWH - another form of the word translated "I AM," a variant of the root that means "existence." It is God’s personal name for himself, found 5,321 times in the Old Testament. Scholars a hundred years ago thought this special form should be pronounced "Jehovah," guessing at the correct vowels, since the written Hebrew language does not write the vowels. More recent scholars, guessing different vowels, believe it should be pronounced "Yahweh."

Most English language versions give it neither a pronunciation nor a translation, but write LORD wherever it occurs. This is very unsatisfactory, and can cause confusion, since "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 YHWH - the four letters which very few translators in any language translate.

Scholars call it the "tetragrammaton," taken from the Greek for "four letters." That doesn’t help much. Three of the best of the classic French translations renders it "L'Eternel," and a fine 1991 Italian translation renders it "L'Eterno." These roll off the tongue more easily than "The Eternal," and that may explain why so few English versions translated it this way. The glottal stop is awkward and ugly. Should someone dare try "Th'Eternal"?

The significance of the name is immense. The Creator/Source is declaring, in both the short form and the long form, that he is eternal, everlasting - that he is, in the fullest possible sense of the word. In the long form - "I AM WHAT I AM" - 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 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. God is love; he is not ever or in any way less or other than love. 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 who he is and what he is like. An "attribute" means a quality in his nature. For example, we have already seen that God reveals himself as personal, and we understand personal to include thinking, feeling, and choosing.

Some who admit that there must be a Creator still doubt, or even deny, that God is personal. They have suggested a "Watchmaker God," a Creator who designed the universe, and then wound it up and just let it run.

God reveals himself to be much more than that. The entire Old Testament tells us, and shows us, that he has feelings as well as intellect and will. We move him. We sometimes anger him. We often surprise him and puzzle him. We sometimes please him. C. S. Lewis, in writing about this, called it a great privilege: that each of us can be "an ingredient in the divine happiness."

Even among those who recognize that God is personal, there is much debate about the qualities in his character - his "attributes." Three alleged attributes start with "omni-".

This is a word combining two Latin words to mean "all present." Here is a brief summary and reminder of what we wrote about it in last month’s letter.

The Bible does not speak of God as present everywhere. Through the prophet Isaiah, the LORD says: "Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool." The Bible says God 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 talk with 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. Jesus promised that he and the Father would come live in the hearts of those who put their trust in him.

God tells us nothing is hidden from his sight, there is nowhere we can go to get away from him, and he can get wherever he wants to be, with no airport delays. But the idea that God is present everywhere, in everything, is a myth which fits with Hinduism and "New Age" thinking - not with God’s revelation of himself.

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:

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 future Christians all at once, constantly, whether or not there is any resurrection.

Other believers in omniscience admit that the future is still future for God as well as for us; they base their belief in omniscience on the assumption that it is an essential part of being supreme to have known all things in advance before the creation. Calvinists and Arminians, who disagreed on many things, agreed that advance knowledge of all the details of history was an attribute of God.

They differed, however, on the rational basis of foreknowledge. Arminians believed that God had advance knowledge of all things by having the ability to look ahead through time, observing our free decisions and their consequences. Calvinists argued that he knew all things in advance because he had decreed for his own reasons how all things should happen.

What God reveals about himself contradicts both theories.

First, there is the witness of his feelings. Through Moses and the prophets he describes himself as reacting to human events with a great variety of emotions, including disappointment, pleasure, anger, mercy, grief, and astonishment. There are hundreds of examples, and these feelings come and go, lasting for varying periods of time.

Second, we are told through Moses and the prophets of many occasions on which he changed his plans. God several times actually declares that it is his settled policy to change his plans depending on our behavior. He often explained to his people what the consequences would be for them depending on which of two ways they chose.

Third, there is the specific and absolutely decisive denial of omniscience out of God’s own mouth, through the prophets. He many times said he had expected a good reaction from his people and they had reacted wickedly instead. He said more than once that their sin reached to depths of depravity which had not entered his mind. Sometimes God tells his prophets that he knows the people will not listen, but several times he 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, recorded in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which reveals what was in God’s mind when he decided to send his Son into the world: "Finally he sent his son, saying ‘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 certainly not saying he knows nothing in advance.

Accurate prophecies do not depend on total foreknowledge. Human beings with limited data often make accurate predictions, and God’s information is far superior.

First, his eyes behold everything. Not a sparrow falls without his knowledge. The very hairs of our head are numbered.

Second, the Bible tells us that God knows the thoughts and intents of everyone’s heart at any moment. "Man looks on the outward appearance; God looks on the heart."

Third, 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. But some were not fulfilled, because God changed his plans; and some will not be fulfilled because God has said he will continue to change his plans in accordance with principles he has laid out. Jonah’s prediction about Nineveh is one dramatic example. In Jeremiah 18:7-10, God declares this to be a universal policy, for all times and all places. Both his blessing and his judgment are contingent on our responses to his promises and warnings.

This often is expressed in pairs of prophecies: "If you ..., then I ... But if you ... then I ..." One of the fullest and most explicit examples is laid out in Deuteronomy, chapters 28 - 30. On that occasion God told Moses he knew that they would not do the right thing, but he told other prophets at other times he did not know how they would react.

The most succinct rejection of omniscience I know comes from Dr. Joe Ben Irby, former professor of Theology at Memphis Theological Seminary of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. In a pamphlet called Snippets, he wrote: "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 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 .... He is able to do only those things consistent with his character and his purpose for his creation."

This is sometimes shocking to those who have heard the phrase "God almighty" quoted from the Bible. When Abraham's wife Sarah, at the age of 89, laughed at God's promise that she would have a son the following year, God said: "Is any thing too hard for the LORD?" Jesus said "with God all things are possible," and Paul refers to God as "the Lord almighty." That same Greek root is applied to God ten times in the New Testament, and the same idea is found many times in the Old Testament.

But the Bible also lists things God cannot do. God cannot lie. He cannot be tempted with evil. He cannot deny himself. This is why Professor Irby, and many others who have studied the Bible carefully, reject the word "omnipotence" and insist that God can do nothing contrary to his own nature.

This is an extension of the significance of the name God chose for himself. God is what he is, and God is not what he is not. When people say "Why doesn’t God ..." it almost always turns out that they are asking him to act contrary to his love, his wisdom, or his free decision made long ago to give 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 long ago crush Satan, and eliminate or prevent all evil. Some say God should have made a universe in which no creature could go wrong or do harm. Lewis replies that God did make creatures like that; we call them vegetables. But then God added something: he made creatures with freedom to choose, and finally he made us, in his own image.

Being well aware of the potential for evil resulting from freedom, God was ready from the beginning with contingency plans to take care of any and all possible consequences. Since we frequently must confess that we do not see how God can do this, he consistently asks for our trust while we wait for the time when all will be clear, and everyone will see the truth revealed.

In short, we are asked to walk by faith, and not by sight. We are asked to believe his promise that he will wipe every tear from every eye, and more. The Bible says he "is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think." Another translation says he "can do infinitely more than we can ask or imagine." All our enemies are his enemies: ignorance, poverty, hunger, disease, sin, death, and the devil. God will destroy them all, and deliver us. He is able.

35. Holiness

Holiness is an important attribute of God, but the meaning of the word is greatly misunderstood. It occurs 611 times in the Bible; 475 times in the Old Testament. The Hebrew root - QDSH - appears as a verb, as a noun, and as an adjective, all with related meanings. For the noun, we find "apartness, sacredness, holiness, separateness." For the adjective we find "separate, apart, and therefore sacred, holy." For the verb we find "to be set apart, consecrated." From the English translations, one can’t tell whether the Hebrew word rendered by "holy" is the noun, the verb, or the adjective.

Its first use in the Bible refers to "holy ground," where God speaks to Moses from a burning bush. It is also used about the holy land, the holy tabernacle, the holy sabbath, holy vessels, holy garments, the holy nation, the holy crown on the mitre of the high priest, the holy candlestick, the holy table, the holy altar, the holy laver, a holy linen coat, holy bread, holy things, holy gifts, holy ointment, a holy anointing oil, the holy remnant of the meat offering, the holy place, the holy trespass offering, the holy city, holy chambers in the temple, and more. In none of its uses does it make sense to think that its primary meaning is righteous, or upright in behavior.

The real meaning of "holy" is "different, special, set apart, not like any other, incomparable." When used about things, its meaning is "not to be used for common purposes," or "not like any other." When used about people, it has similar meaning: they should be extraordinary, not fitting in but standing out.

When used about God, it cannot mean "ethical perfection." That would be tautological. There was no pre-existing standard of "ethical perfection" to which he somehow happened to conform, or managed to achieve. Socrates asked Euthyphro: "Is an action good because it pleases the gods, or does it please the gods because it is good?" There was no answer in paganism. For those who know God, however, "ethical perfection," if it can be defined at all, is defined as matching the behavior of the Eternal God; to say that God’s behavior is ethically perfect is talking in circles.

When the word holy is used about God, it refers, in the words of Professor Joe Ben Irby "to the absolute distinction between him and all other beings, he having his existence in himself alone while other beings have their existence ultimately from him. Thus God is separate and distinct from all other being." This includes saying that there is no other being anything like him in any way - in goodness, love, power, or wisdom. He is unique, incomparable, one whom no list of attributes, however complimentary and superlative, can ever adequately describe. This is what he showed us in the Incarnation.

36. The Unity of the ETERNAL

Unity is another attribute of God.  The Christian faith is monotheistic.

The unity and uniqueness of the Creator/Author, the ETERNAL, is a strongly emphasized element is his self-revelation. When Jesus was asked, in relation to the Old Testament, "Which is the first (foremost, most important) commandment of all?" he quoted Deuteronomy 6:4-6. He said, possibly quoting it in Hebrew, "Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one" (Mark 12:29). This foundational fact was quoted from the heart of Moses’ instruction to Israel, just before they were to enter the promised land. It is repeated in the prophets, most explicitly and directly in Isaiah, six times between 43:11 and 45:21.

This one and only God "became flesh and dwelt among us." The birth of Jesus was the incarnation - the "in-fleshing" - of the one and only God. When he was here in the flesh, he said "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father," and "I and the Father are One." These statements were not poor communication needing to be "explained" by theologians coming to the rescue of an inarticulate Christ. They were not deceptive, or misleading. As Paul put it, Paul "In him dwells all the fullness of the godhead bodily." Col. 2:9.

The unity of Father, Son, and Spirit is further emphasized in the promise Jesus gave his disciples that they would not be left alone after his departure. He says: " I will not leave you comfortless; I will come to you." Speaking of the Spirit, Jesus says "He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." Paul writes to believers: "Christ in you, the hope of glory," and "The Lord is the Spirit." Paul also writes: "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." This follows his saying that believers are to be "strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith ... that ye may be filled with all the fullness of God." If someone asks: "But is it God in you? Or does Jesus live in your heart? Or is it the Spirit in you?" The Bible says: "Yes, yes, and yes." We don’t get one third of God. The one and only LORD comes to live in the hearts of believers.