week 11

The Historicity and Deity of Jesus Christ

“Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him, so that I am not concerned with the historical question, which is a very difficult one.”
- Bertrand Russell

Is this actually the Case? Is it really doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all? What can we know about His life? Are we confined to the Gospel records when searching for knowledge about His life? Are the Gospel records even historically reliable?

What can we know about Jesus outside the Bible?

First of all, how much information is there about Jesus that can be gleaned from outside the pages of Scripture? What are the sources? What do they tell us about Jesus?
1) Tacitus (AD 55-120)
a. Though we don’t have all of Tacitus’ works today (many have been lost or destroyed), we do have portions that speak about Jesus.
b. Tacitus reported about the great fire in Rome during the reign of Nero that Nero blamed the fires on the Christians.
c. The reference reads as follows:
i. “Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”
d. This passage is longer and contains more information about early Christianity, but this is the portion that is relevant to knowledge about Christ.
e. From this passage, we learn that:
i. Christ was a real man
ii. He lived during the reign of Pontius Pilate
iii. He “suffered the extreme penalty” under Pontius Pilate
iv. His teachings started a “mischievous superstition” (Christianity), which was stopped for a time, but then broke out again and expanded, possibly lending credence to the resurrection.
2) Suetonius
a. A Roman historian, who was the chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian from about 117 AD until about 138 AD.
b. Writing about the reigns of the various Roman Rulers, he made at least two mentions to Christ and Christianity. Though we don’t really learn much about Christ from this reference, we do learn that Christ was a historical figure who was responsible for the start of a new religious movement that spread through Rome.
3) Josephus
a. “At this time, there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good and He was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”
b. We learn that Jesus was a wise and virtuous man, recognized for virtuous conduct
c. We learn that Jesus had many disciples, both Jew and Gentile
d. He was condemned to die under Pilate
e. He was Crucified
f. There were reports from His immediate followers that He rose from the dead
g. There were reports that He appeared after his Crucifixion
h. Jesus was believed to be the Messiah and it was thought that the Old Testament Scriptures spoke of Him
4) Thallus
a. Though we don’t have any copies of the works of Thallus, his works survive in the writings of those who quoted him.
b. Julius Africanus, speaking about the darkness that covered the earth around the time of the Crucifixion, quoted Thallus and said,
i. “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.”
c. The reason that Africanus doesn’t believe that the darkness could not have been an eclipse is because this took place during the Passover season, which is during the full moon. It is not possible for there to be an eclipse during a full moon.
5) Pliny the Younger
a. “They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor to deny a trust when it was they should be called upon to deliver it up…”
b. They believed that Jesus was God
c. They were bound to a high ethical standard.
6) Emperor Trajan
a. Though this reference doesn’t mention Christ explicitly, it does state that Christians were in the habit of denying Roman Gods and would not worship them.
7) Emperor Hadrian
a. This reference also deals with punishment of Christians, who were often accused of violating the laws.
8) Toledoth Jesu
a. This document is anti-Christian and contains a reference to the ancient belief that the body of Jesus was stolen from the grave and that the resurrection was therefore not a reality.
b. This teaches us several things:
i. The Biblical account that the Jews believed that the body of Christ was stolen is true.
ii. There were serious reports about the resurrection of Christ
iii. The fact that the Toledoth Jesu was not complied until the 5th century gives it no weight against the first century accounts we have in other historical works, including the New Testament.
9) Lucian
a.
10) Mara Bar-Serapion

Can we trust what we know about Jesus from the Bible?
Last week, we covered that the Bible has been copied accurately, but are the things recorded in the Bible accurate accounts of history? How do we know that the writers of the New Testament didn’t fabricate or lie?

My first comment is that the Bible records in more detail the exact same things that secular history records. If the writers of the Bible were lying, the historians of their day would have corrected them.
This is not the case.
As we have show already, the core of the New Testament Message has been confirmed by historical sources outside of the Bible.
We will also show next week that the Biblical records are written by eyewitnesses and that they were written early, with the records and/or sources going back to the very events themselves, not relying on accounts that originated long after the events of the New Testament.

But does the Bible really say that Jesus is God?

Matthew 16:13-15
“Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, ‘Who do people say that the Son of Man is?’ And they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.’ He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’”

Deity of the Son:
v John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
• In the first place, the construction of the Greek in this verse demonstrates that the phrase, “the Word was with God” speaks about Christ’s personality, while the phrase, “the Word was God” speaks about the Character of Jesus (as divine), it emphasizes Christ’s participation in the Divine Nature.
• In the second place, the phrase, “and the Word was God” is so constructed in the Greek language to demonstrate that Jesus is not the only one who has the Divine Nature, but the other members of the Trinity can be implied in the word, “God”.

v John 1:18, “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”
• The word for “only begotten” does not mean that Jesus was “begotten”, as might be implied by the English translation. However, the Greek word is μονογενης, (monogenes) meaning “unique, one of a kind”. See for example Hebrews 11:17 where the word is used of Isaac, who was clearly not Abraham’s only son (remember Ishmael?). Rather, Isaac was Abraham’s son in a unique sense, as the promised son through whom God’s covenant would be fulfilled.

v John 10:30, “I and the Father are One.”
• The word for “one” in the Greek is εν (hen). It is in the neuter gender, which means that Jesus is saying that He and the Father are one in essence, not in number. If Jesus meant to say that He and the Father were one in number, He would have used a different gender for the Greek word and said εις (heis).
• Also of note, the word for “are” is εσμεν (esmen), which is in the first person plural, meaning, “we are”. Thus, the verse should be rendered, “I and the Father, we are One [as to Our essence].”

v John 20:28, “Thomas answered and said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God.’”

v Romans 9:5, “Whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.”
• Douglas Moo, while commenting on this passage, says: “Connecting ‘God’ to ‘Christ’ is … exegetically preferable, theologically unobjectionable, and contextually appropriate. Paul here calls the Messiah, Jesus, ‘God,’ attributing to him full divine status.”

v 1st Timothy 2:5, “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
• In order to mediate between God and man, Jesus must be able to identify with both God and man. To identify fully with man, He must be fully man. But to identify fully with God, He must also be fully God.
• See Philippians 2:5-8.

v Philippians 2:5-8, “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”
• Pertaining to the Deity of Christ, this verse is demonstrating that Jesus was indeed God as to His Being. He added humanity; He did not subtract Deity.
• For example, it could be worded this way, “Since He was equal with God, He didn’t need to try and grasp equality.” It was already His, there was no need to “reach” for it.
• The KJV and NKJV use the word “robbery”. To claim Deity is not “robbery”; He can’t “rob” what He rightfully possesses.
• This verse demonstrates that though Jesus was unquestionably God, He was also unequivocally man. Jesus was very God of very God, yet also man in the fullest sense.
• He “emptied Himself” and took the form of a “bond-servant”, being made in the “likeness of men.”
• He was one Person with two Natures. This doctrine is known as the “Hypostatic Union” (from a Greek word meaning “substance, nature or essence”).
• In the words of the Chalcedon Creed, “We then, following the Holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin…”

v Titus 2:13, “Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.”
• The Granville Sharp’s rule is to be applied here. This rule of Greek Grammar put roughly is that when you have two terms joined by the word, “and”, which are preceded by only one article (“the”, which is present in the Greek, though not translated into the English), the Noun following governs both of the preceding terms. In this case, if “Savior” refers to Jesus, then “God” must be a further description of Jesus.
• Gordon Fee, commenting on this passage, says, “…Did Paul mean to say our great God and Savior (NIV, GNB, = a twofold designation of one divine Person) or “The great God and our Savior” (GNB margin, KJV, referring to the two divine Persons)? Here the NIV (GNB, RSV) has the better of it, since (a) the single definite article before great God is best understood as controlling both nouns together, (b) the term God and Savior is stereotyped terminology both in the LXX and Hellenistic religions, and (c) nowhere else is God the Father understood to be joining the Son in the Second Coming.”

v Hebrews 1:8, “But of the Son, He says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.’”
• If God, speaking about the Son (Jesus), calls Him “God”, then how are you going to argue with that?
• If you can’t trust God’s opinion, then how can you even trust your own opinion? “Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar” (Romans 3:4)

v 2nd Peter 1:1, “Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Chris, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”
• The Granville Sharp rule applies to this passage as well.
• “God and Savior” therefore are titles applied to Jesus Christ; Peter is not saying Our God, and [another person, designated as] our Savior [who is] Jesus Christ.”

The conclusion that must be drawn is that it is unacceptable to call yourself a Christian and deny the Deity of Christ. In fact, the Bible goes so far as to say that if you Deny Christ (which would include a denial of His deity), then He will deny you. In effect, you cannot deny the Deity of Christ and still claim to be His follower; if you deny this, you are not a Christian and are not (nor could you be) saved.

• Matthew 10:33, “But who ever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.”

• 2nd Timothy 2:12, “If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us.”

It is unacceptable to call yourself a Christian and deny the Deity of Christ. But it is also inexcusable to be a Christian and be unable to defend the Deity of Christ from the Bible. If you believe this, then you should know why you believe this. Where does the Bible say that Jesus is God? I’ve just given ten verses that clearly ascribe Deity to Jesus, and there are numerous other verses that could have been used. Mark them in your heart.

Introductory letter

Welcome. That you are reading this is evidence that you at least have a desire to make Jesus Christ Lord of your heart, soul, and mind. It is estimated that 51% of Christians that attend college will forsake their faith during these formative years of mental and spiritual development. We believe that this is avoidable and attributable to a lack of a firm foundation in the things of the Lord. With this in mind, the following course has been developed with the intention of “equipping the saints for the work of service” and helping young students “sanctify Christ as Lord in [their] hearts [so that they will] always [be] ready to make a defense to everyone who asks [them] to give an account for the hope that is in [them], yet with gentleness and reverence.”

The Foundation is a 14-week course designed to solidify your faith in Jesus Christ and the Christian religion. The course will progress as follows:

Week One: Absolute Nature and Knowability of Truth
Week Two: Seven Main Views of God (part 1)
Week Three: Seven Main Views of God (part 2)
Week Four: Cosmological and Moral Arguments for a Theistic God
Week Five: Nature and Character of God
Week Six: Bibliology: Introduction and Inspiration
Week Seven: Bibliology: Canonization
Week Eight: Bibliology: Transmission (the Text of the OT)
Week Nine: Bibliology: Transmission (the Text of the NT)
Week Ten: Bibliology: Translation
Week Eleven: Jesus: Historicity and Deity of
Week Twelve: Jesus: Resurrection of
Week Thirteen: The Man Born Blind (John Chapter Nine)
Week Fourteen: Tactics for Dialogue with non-believers

Do NOT expect to be “hand fed” this information. You will be expected to participate and think for your self. The “hard” questions will not be avoided; in fact, I expect you to ask the questions that have been a source of doubt or confusion for you and we will address them head-on. Some of this material may be challenging to wrap your mind around. However, to be challenged in a setting where everyone present has made a commitment to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is much “safer” than facing the same challenges at the hands of unbelievers and secular professors in college.

This course is NOT an attempt to change doctrinal positions that may be held by your home church. This is also NOT an attempt to “proselytize” people to Calvary Fellowship. Rather, the intent is to help the Christian youth in this town (you) gain an adequate understanding of the foundations of the Faith that we all share, despite the varying expressions that we may have in our individual congregations. There will be a minimal fee to help cover the cost of the materials that will be provided [book(s), binder], but if for some reason you are not in a position to provide this financial responsibility, arrangements will be made to ensure that you are not held back due to monetary restraints. The Kingdom of God does not consist in dollars and cents. Please bring a ready mind, your nagging questions and doubts, a notebook and pen, and your Bible.

Week One: Truth

The main purpose of this session is to demonstrate that truth is absolute and knowable and that it relates to reality. Reality is here defined as that which is actually real, that which exists independent of our belief, observation, perception, or awareness; it doesn’t matter what we think, feel, believe or know; it exists independent of us.

The two main propositions that we will function on for the entirety of this course are: 1) Christianity is True and 2) Truth is absolute and knowable. If this is not the case, then the rest of our time together will be irrelevant, as nothing would be true and therefore it would make no difference whether we’re right or wrong, since categories such as right or wrong wouldn’t exist… So with this in mind, let’s look the correct view of truth then move on to discuss the various inadequate theories of truth:

1) Correspondence
a. “Truth is that which corresponds to reality.”
b. Truth is based on reality and corresponds or agrees with it.
c. Truth is discovered, not invented
d. Truth is trans-cultural; it doesn’t matter which culture you belong to, if something is true, then you must acknowledge it’s truth whether you like it or not.
e. Truth, like reality, does not change. Our opinions about truth may change, but that has no affect on truth itself.
f. Truth is not affected by belief. It does not matter what you believe, truth or reality will not alter to suit your belief.

2) Performance view of Truth (Pragmatism)
a. “Logical thinking based on observable facts” or “If it works, it must be true.”
b. Pragmatism is concerned with results and bases “truth” on effects. How does it perform; does it work?
c. For example, if you break your mom’s favorite lamp then blame it on your dog, this would “work” in that you have someone to blame, your mom has a “culprit” and you are able to “get away” with it.
d. With this view of truth, some one inevitably ends up getting the short end of the stick. The dog is blamed for what he did not do and conveniently cannot defend himself.
e. No one is ever asked in a court of law to swear to tell the “Effective, the whole effective and nothing but the effective, so help me future experience.” We simply don’t really believe this nonsense, even if we pretend that we do. It doesn’t “work”.
f. With this view of truth, no one could ever develop any “theoretical” truths. Nothing would be “true” until it was first tried and proven. We could never know if we have not experienced something for ourselves. All history is also held in abeyance, since we were not there to experience the events to know first hand that they are/were true.
g. In addition, to state this view, those who hold to it must borrow another view of truth called “the correspondence view of truth.”
h. For example, no one says, “The pragmatic view of truth is pragmatic.” They refer to their view as “true” and by true, they mean that it is in accord with (or corresponds to) the real world.

3) Cohesion (the “Spider Web theory)
a. “Truth is that which coheres” or that which is internally consistent with all the “facts”.
b. First, you would need to know all the information (and know that it is all actually “true”) before you could see if the information “coheres” with itself. This is self-defeating; you can’t know all the information prior to knowing all the information.
c. Secondly, Coherence doesn’t demonstrate the truthfulness of a system. For example:
i. All Nurple is Schnock.
ii. All Schnock is Mange
iii. Therefore, all Nurple is Mange.
d. The above is meaningless, yet internally consistent. “Logically necessary” and “real” are not the same thing. There is no such thing as Nurple or Schnock. But if there were, then it would be logically necessary that all Nurple were Mange, based on the above statements.
e. No one says, “The Cohesive view of truth coheres.” Rather one would state that the view is “true”.
f. If someone is presenting a “Coherence” theory of truth, they are intending us to believe that their view of truth not only is internally consistent, but that it also matches with the reality that we all live in. Unfortunately for them, this is the correspondence theory of truth, not the cohesion view.
g. Coherence is at best a negative test for the falsity of a system, not a positive test for the truth of a system. If a system is true, it will be internally consistent; it will “Cohere.” If it is false, it *might* contain inconsistencies, but not necessarily.
h. If a system contains inconsistencies, then it cannot be true; if it is consistent, it is a candidate for truth.
i. I referred to this view as the “Spider Web” view of truth. If we think of truth as an inter-connected web of statements, these statements must all be in some way to be “true”, but they must also relate to something beyond themselves.
j. A spider web is never suspended in mid-air, it’s always attached to something else that’s “solid”.
k. The “Solid” thing that the “threads of truth” must hang on is “Reality.”
l. If there’s nothing “solid” for the system to hold on to, then it’s like a spider web with all the right threads, but no point of attachment to the real world.

4) Intention
a. “Truth is that which was intended by its author” or “If you intended it to be true and believed it to be, then it’s true; it’s false if you intended or believed it to be false.”
b. Unfortunately, this view is widely held but most people who don’t realize that they believe this. People maintain that you can believe anything you want; as long as you are sincere, you’re right.
c. The easiest way to empty this claim of all power is to turn it on itself. Just rephrase it this way, “The intentionalist view of truth is intended”. That makes no sense.
d. People who hold this view are forced to express it this way: “The intentionalist view of truth is true.” And by “TRUE” they really mean that this view actually describes the way the reality we all live in really behaves. But again, this describes the correspondence view of truth, not the inteitionalist view of truth.
e. If this view of truth is actually correct, then all statements that have ever been uttered by sincere people are “true”. My three-year-old son says some insanely absurd things. For example, he said to me that “water is made out of exercise” because it’s good for your body. Based on the intentional view of truth, he’s right since he honestly believed what he was telling me. I also evidently have real live monsters in my house.
f. If you state this view of truth, but you do not believe it to be true; you do not intend this view to represent reality, does that make this view therefore false?
g. Your intentions have no real bearing on the truth of a statement, but rather they convey your personal convictions regarding the statement.
h. This view of truth is just a sneaky way to say, “It’s impossible for anyone to ever be wrong if they are sincere.” But what if I sincerely believe that your views of reality are wrong? We can’t both be right…

5) Comperhensiveness
a. “Truth is that which explains the most data.”
b. Unfortunately, this view also fails it’s own standard. Such a short statement explains very little data. Based on this theory, the more long-winded view of truth would be more correct.
c. Also, when one claims this view of truth, what they really believe is that their view of truth not only explains the most data (which it incidentally doesn’t), but that it actually is true (or corresponds to reality). No one says, “The comprehensive view of truth is exhaustive.”
d. This view at best is a test for truth, in that if a position is true, it will account for all of the relevant data, but you can have an equally comprehensive explanation of error. For example, there have been fairly detailed accounts for numerous false views (the earth being flat, the solar system revolving around the earth, lightning being the force of an angry god, etc.).
e. During their times, the above false views were the most comprehensive views available and they handled all the data known at the time. They were, nonetheless, false.

6) Satisfaction
a. “Truth is that which feels good” or “How can it be wrong if it feels right?”
b. This statement doesn’t pass it’s own test. Truth is not that which makes one feel good. In fact, many truths are actually very uncomfortable.
c. For example, my mom died when I was 10 years old. This does not make me feel good. Despite my feelings however, this is still a factual truth about the world.
d. It’s true that truth often hurts.
e. The nature of truth (correspondence to reality) is not the same as the result of truth (how these propositions make one feel).
f. Your emotional attachment to some idea has no bearing on whether or not it’s true.
g. Incidentally, this is one of the main flaws of the Emergent Church.
h. The relationship between “truth” and “feeling” is different; Truth may generate feelings, but feelings do not dictate truth.

7) Existential Relevance (Can I “Live” it?)
a. “Truth is not found in propositional statements” or “Truth is relevant to life or our existence.”
b. First, the statement, “Truth is not found in propositional statements” is itself a propositional truth statement that claims (implicitly) to be actually true (in that it corresponds to reality).
c. Second, the statement, “Truth is relevant to life or our existence” fails in that this truth itself is not actually relevant to our life or existence.
d. There are many truths that are not relevant to our existence. For example, what is the current temperature on the surface of Mars? This fact, if known, would be true, but how is this relevant to life or existence?
e. Certain truths of advanced mathematics are true, no matter how irrelevant they are to my life.
f. It’s also true that there are many facts that I know nothing about.
g. This view confuses the application of truth with the nature of truth.
h. Truth in its nature has nothing to do with relevance.
i. Truth in its application is often relevant (though not always).
j. Many things that are relevant to one’s life are not “true”. For example, one may base one’s life upon a farce or a scam. Simply because this position is extremely relevant to one’s life will not automatically make the position “true”. It will still be false.

8) Relativism
a. “All truth is relative to the one uttering it” or “Truth is relative to time, place, person, or any combination of the three.”
b. This is perhaps the most popular and insidious view of truth.
c. First, truth is not determined by election. You can’t simply decide with a popularity contest that something is true.
d. In order to promote this view, people often cite examples of “truths” that have “changed”.
i. The flat earth
ii. The geocentric universe
iii. The nature of the elemental world (fire, water, earth and air)
iv. Slavery
e. It doesn’t matter how many people believed in a flat earth, the globe did not flatten itself out to accommodate popular belief.
f. The sun did not shift to the center of the universe once we discovered it was actually there…
g. The nature of the physical universe did not alter when we learned about the periodic table.
h. Just because certain racists believed that it was acceptable to enslave other people, this was not acceptable. It didn’t matter how many people accepted this view.
i. It was not “truth” that changed, but rather our understanding and views of what we perceived to be truth.
j. Truth is not relative to persons. For example, if I were to say, “My feet are cold” it would be absolutely true for all people, in all places that on Tuesday, November 24, 2009, at 11:39 am, my (Bryan Hoshide) feet were indeed cold. This will be a truth forever.
k. As Norman Geisler writes,
“Furthermore, for the relativist it can only be true that it is relatively true for him, and so on infinitely. Either the claim that truth is relative is an absolute claim, which would falsify the relativist position, or it is an assertion that can never be made, because every time you make it you have to add another ‘relatively.’ It is just the beginning of an infinite regress that will never pay off in a real statement.”
l. People also often cite what they believe are absolutely relative truths. For example,
i. Preference on favorite flavors of ice cream (or some other mundane personal preference)
ii. The location of a door in relation to the persons in a room
iii. The temperature of a room
m. These examples are actually not relative (note that I referred to them as “absolutely relative”).
n. It will be true for all people that your personal favorite flavor of ice cream is “________” (fill in the blank). This is an absolutely true statement. It is not that he truth is relative; rather the statement refers to a personal opinion that by its very nature must vary from person to person. But each person’s opinion is objectively true for that person, and subsequently it will be objectively true for the rest of the world that such and such a person holds to such an opinion.
o. The location of a door in a room carries with it the implied context of my position in the room. Though this is not stated, it is nonetheless an integral part of the claim. It’s smuggled in with the personal noun. For example, “The door is on my left” includes within its context my location in the room, implied in the noun “my”. Therefore, this statement is not relative, but rather the context changes from person to person, not the truth claim.
p. When you’re stating the temperature of a room in terms like “hot”, “cold” or “warm”, you’re not actually speaking about the temperature of the room. Rather, you’re commenting on your comfort based on the actually objective temperature. For example, if the room were 45, you may perceive this as “cold”, but your perception of the temperature doesn’t change the fact that the room is 45. 45 is neither hot nor cold, rather we feel hot or cold depending on the temperature.
q. Comparisons like “Tall” or “Short”, “Fast” or “Slow” are by their nature relative, but this does not make truth relative. It is true that if a thing is fast, it must be faster than something. There has to be a “slow” against which “fast” is measured.
r. Therefore, “fast” and “slow” are not examples of relative truth, but rather they demonstrate that a thing is absolutely faster or slower than another thing (an example of absolute truth).
s. Truth is never relative, though it sometimes seems that way if we do not take into consideration the complete context of the statements that are being made.


Biblical data regarding the Correspondence theory of truth:

“I am the Way, and the Truth and the Life” John 14:6
Jesus is the perfect correspondence of reality. “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” Colossians 1:16-17

Mark 2:1-12. Jesus proves that what He says corresponds with reality. Since there is no reference point that can be observed for “your sins are forgiven”, Jesus provides a point of reference for “take up your pallet and go home” and then demonstrates that His statements are in correspondence with reality.

Genesis 42:16 Joseph “tests” the statements of his brothers to ensure that their words are factual.

Philippians 4:8, “Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.”

The entire thrust of Christianity is based on “truth”. Christianity is the accurate representation of “Reality”.

For a “World View” like Christianity to be true, it must pass three tests:
1) Can I defend it? (Is it logically consistent?)
2) Can I live it? (Is it practical or relevant?)
3) Can I prescribe it? (Is it universal and/or applicable?)
If the system fails at any of the above three points, it cannot be true.

Week Two: Views of God, part one

The Seven Main Views of God

Broadly defined as a “Worldview”, how you view God is usually what defines how you view all else. As A. W. Tozer said, “What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.” There are many different ways to think about God, but they all fall roughly within the following seven categories:

1) Atheism (there is no God)
2) Agnosticism (God can’t be known)
3) Finite Godism (God is limited)
4) Pantheism (Everything is God)
5) Panentheism (God is in everything)
6) Deism (God exists but doesn’t interact)
7) Theism (God is real and He interacts with us).


(The basic diversity of belief within a worldview: Not every Pantheist or Deist or Panenthist will believe everything stated here; we are painting with broad strokes)

1) Atheism: No God exists beyond or in the universe.
a. “A” (non) and “Theism” (God)
b. Also known as “Non-theism” and “Anti-theism.”
c. Atheism affirms that there is no God. They are not making the assertion that there is no God beyond the world; they are saying that there is no God in the world, beyond the world, or otherwise. There is no God now, nor has there ever been a God, nor can there ever be a God.
d. Atheism excludes all possible views of God, including Polytheism, Pantheism, Panentheism, Deism and Theism.
e. Atheism does not exclude Agnosticism, as it is possible for there to be no god and also no knowledge of this non-god.
f. Atheism is not simply a position of negation, stating, “There is no god.” Many atheistic positions are positive, affirming both the non-existence of god and a replacement system, such as humanism, materialism, or naturalism.
g. Many atheists also promote an ethical system, though upon further examination, it can be demonstrated that these systems quickly will degenerate to a form of ethical relativism and are thus self-defeating.
h. Varieties of Atheism:
i. Traditional – There is no god now, there never was a god at any previous time in history, and there never will be a god in the future (God is not “out there”, “up there”, “in here”, or “any where.” It’s like the cosmic version of Green Eggs and Ham, but instead of Green Eggs and Ham, you’re talking about God and you don’t actually discover that you “like it” in the end; there’s nothing to like.)
ii. Mythological – The “myth” of “god” was once alive in the world in various different forms, but these “myths” are no longer necessary and have thus died out.
1. As Nietzsche wrote, “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?”
iii. “Christian” Atheism (or Dialectical Atheism) – God was once alive and well, but he died on the cross after the incarnation and remains dead to this day; there was no “resurrection” for god.
i. Atheistic proofs for god’s non-existence fall into several broad categories, several of which we will consider here:
i. Cosmological (arguments from cause)
1. Atheistic Philosopher Bertrand Russell, in a lecture titled, “Why I am Not a Christian” offers the following argument against God: “I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read Jon Stuart Mill’s Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: ‘My father taught me that the question, “Who made me?” cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question, “Who made God?”’ That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.”

Rebuttal: Bertrand Russell (and evidently Jon Stuart Mill) misunderstands the kind of being that God is. They commit in essence a Categorical Fallacy. They place all things (including God) in the category of “Created Things”. If a thing is “Uncreated”, then it needs no “Creator”. If it was not “made”, there is no necessity for a “maker”. Bertrand Russell asks, “If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.” He then states, “If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God…” First, “Everything” does not need a cause; only “caused” things need a “cause”. Second, if anything can be “without a cause”, we must prove it to be so; we can’t arbitrarily assign which things are and are not caused. They must meet the criteria for being “uncaused”. The universe does not meet this criterion (we will explore this in week 4). It’s not honest to presume that there is only one category (Created things) when you start off to prove that everything falls into one category. If you exclude the possibility of another category at the outset, you will obviously end with the conclusion that there is only one category.

2. Jean-Paul Sartre, in his book, “Being and Nothingness”, presents another cosmological argument against the existence of god. The gist of the argument is as follows:
a. Everything must have a cause either within itself or outside itself (must be either self caused or caused by another)
b. Therefore, God must either be self caused or caused by another
c. However, in order to be self caused, God would have to exist prior to His own existence (which is impossible)
d. If God were caused by another, then there would be another that is more infinite than God (which is also impossible)
e. Therefore, there can be no God

Rebuttal: Jean-Paul Sartre makes essentially the same error that Bertrand Russell made. Sartre’s reasoning is sound, but his first premise is flawed. The only things that require a cause are things that are caused. This whole argument assumes that God is a “caused” being, and thus needs a cause either within Himself or external to Himself. However, you can’t assume the conclusion to be true in order to support your proof. If God is indeed uncaused, then He does not need a cause outside himself nor does He have to be “dependent” upon Himself for His own cause. This argument mistakenly places God within the category of “created things that need a cause.” If God is real, then He would be “Uncreated” and “Uncaused” and would therefore not need any explanation for “cause”. That would be like asking what kind of flowers a bee would have to pollinate to fertilize babies kittens.

ii. Ontological (arguments from “being” or “existence”)
1. God by nature must be defined as a Necessary Existent [Being]
2. But necessity cannot apply to existence; necessity is a characteristic of propositions, not of reality
3. Therefore, there cannot be a Necessary Existent

Rebuttal: The second premise is flawed. It states that it is necessarily true that things cannot be necessarily true in reality. But this is a claim about reality that is taken to be necessarily true about reality. It is therefore self defeating.
Out another way, if the second premise is false, then it is possible that a Necessary Being (God) exists. If you maintain that the second premise is true, then it is “necessarily” false, because it fails its own standards for reality. Either way, this argument doesn’t disprove God’s existence.

iii. Moral
1. If God were all good (omni-benevolent), He would destroy all evil
2. If God were all powerful (omnipotent), He could destroy Evil
3. But there is evil in the world, therefore, one of the following must be true:
a. There is no God
b. He is not all powerful
c. He is not All good

Rebuttal: This can be approached either of two manners:
First: If you admit “evil”, you presuppose the existence of God. If there were no ultimate standard for good, then there could be no departure from this ultimate standard. Anything we call “evil” could simply be reduced to a matter of personal preference. As C. S. Lewis said, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” Without God, there isn’t even a standard against which we can measure “evil” to be actually “evil”. It’s simply distasteful, or inconvenient, or some other form of problematic; but we have no grounds upon which to classify anything as actually universally evil if there is no universal standard (such as God).

Second: This argument does not consider the Cross. God has done something about evil in the world. However, God still allows for the personal freedom of free moral agents (people). God could not destroy evil ultimately without either destroying humanity (which He is not willing to do *yet*) or removing free will (which would not be a “victory” over evil, but rather a removal of evil). God has conquered evil on the Cross, but the complete effects of this act are not yet realized in history; the Bible is clear that evil will ultimately be conquered both ontologically and existentially.

iv. Antithetical nature of Omnipotence – If God were actually “all powerful”, then he could do anything, including creating a stone so big that he couldn’t lift it. (Or microwave a burrito so hot that even he couldn’t touch it). But if god “could” use his power to create something that he couldn’t control with his “power”, then there cannot be an all-powerful god.

Rebuttal: This argument is flawed because it confuses the meaning of “All Powerful”. The problem is not with God, it’s with the question. “All powerful” doesn’t mean “can do anything”; it means “can do anything that power is capable of doing.” There are some things that power simply cannot do. God can’t make a rock so heavy that He can’t lift it; this is not because He doesn’t have enough power, but because no amount of power (even infinite) can violate the laws of logic. God can’t make an infinitely heavy finite rock. It’s a contradiction, similar to asking God to make a square circle. Once you put corners on the shape, by definition, it ceases to be a circle. It can’t be a circle and a square at the same time, it’s just not possible and the amount of power you have simply isn’t a factor. The contradiction is in what the question is asking, not in God’s abilities or “power”.

v. God’s “Subordination” – If there were a God, he would be “subject” to things like Logic or Ethics; or else he would be above them and assign them arbitrarily. If God were subject to Love or Logic or Ethics, then there would be something “above” God and God would no longer be supreme. If God arbitrarily assigned these things, then God is not essentially good, as “good” is simply what ever God decides; God cannot be “rational” as rational is whatever God thinks, even if it’s contradictory.

Rebuttal: This position misunderstands the relationship between God and His attributes. Things like Love and Reason and Ethics flow necessarily from God’s Nature; He isn’t subordinate to them and he doesn’t assign them arbitrarily. Logic, for example is part of God’s nature. He thinks Logically. God is not bound by logic, the laws of logic flow necessarily from Him. He does not “assign” them arbitrarily, they are an expression of His thoughts. Furthermore, with the example of logic, God is technically, not “bound” by logic, it is simply our statements about God that must adhere to the laws of logic in order to qualify as “sensible” or “logical”. God is not bound by reason, He is not above reason, He is the representation of and justification for reason.

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. . ." – Mere Christianity

2) Agnosticism
a. Agnosticism, while similar to Atheism, is not the same. The Atheist says that there is no god; the Agnostic says that he does not know if there is a God. (“A” = non; “Gnosis” = Knowledge)
b. Agnosticism is not to be confused with Skepticism, which says that we should always doubt our conclusions about reality; we should never propose certainty about anything.
i. Skepticism, as a fairly popular view, deserves a passing mention and rebuttal. If we are to be skeptical of “everything”, would this also include our conclusion to be “skeptical”? Should we then also call this belief into question?
ii. One simply cannot suspend judgment on everything, as this is simply not possible; one would have to suspend judgment on whether or not to suspend judgment on even the judgment to suspend judgment. This will not work.
c. There are two forms of Agnosticism
i. Hard Agnosticism states that knowledge about God cannot be known
ii. Soft Agnosticism states that knowledge about God is personally not known (either “I don’t know” or “We collectively don’t fully know”).
d. Soft Agnosticism is no real threat against the Theistic worldview, it’s actually rather part of it. In a sense, we’re called to have a certain agnosticism about God, in recognition that we’re finite and God is infinite. It is not possible for our finite minds to fully comprehend the infinite God; we only know of Him by analogy.
e. It turns out that Soft Agnosticism is a fairly easy worldview to dismantle. If you don’t know anything about God, then you simply need to find a resource to educate you. The only remaining problem becomes whether or not this resource is reliable…
f. Hard Agnosticism, on the other hand, is a bit more complex, but not really any more difficult.
i. Complete (or “hard”) agnosticism is reducible to the claim that “one knows enough about reality in order to affirm that nothing can be known about reality.”
ii. This claim is self defeating and need not be taken seriously.

g. How to take an Atheist and hold their hand through agnosticism into theism:
i. The Atheist affirms that there is no god anywhere nor has there been any god in all of history, nor can there be any god in the future.
ii. But in order for this claim to be known with “certainty”, one would have to have some kind of absolute knowledge about history, the future (?) or culture.
1. For example, literally millions have claimed to have had some kind of an experience with some form of god (pantheistic, polytheistic, or theistic) through all of history. If ONE of these people is right, then god at least did exist and potentially still exists.
2. The atheist is claiming that all of these millions of people was mistaken; based on… what? They can’t claim that these experiences are impossible because god doesn’t exist in any form, because that would be begging the question (assuming that the conclusion is true in order to prove that the conclusion is true).
iii. Therefore, at least on a practical level, the atheist is really an agnostic who must allow the theoretical possibility that god either has existed in history and potentially still exists somewhere either spatially or metaphysically in the vast universe beyond the scope of their meager observation.
iv. Now that your new “atheist” friend is freshly converted agnostic, you must determine whether they are a “hard” agnostic or a “soft” agnostic (and it’s safe to assume that they don’t know either at this point; they were an atheist a few minutes ago, remember?).
v. Once they decide which kind of agnostic they are going to be, you either inform them (since they have no knowledge) or you enlighten them (since they are holding to another impossible position, that knowledge about reality cannot be known, but they know enough about reality to know that what they know is not knowable…).
vi. Even the famous “Atheist” Bertrand Russell would not debate Fredrick Copelston as an Atheist; rather he debated as an Agnostic.


3) Finite Godism (Polytheism): God is limited.
a. Varieties of Finite Godism:
i. Finite Monotheism: There is only one finite god, who resembles the Theistic God, though he (it) is limited in power, knowledge, scope, nature, etc.
ii. Henotheism: There are many finite gods, with one supreme god ruling over the rest. Think of Zeus in Greek Mythology.
iii. Polytheism: There are many finite gods (2 or more, with no actual “upper limit”)
b. Reasons for presenting a view of God that is limited (as Finite Monotheism):
i. Cause: The cause need not be more sufficient than the effect. For example, we have a finite universe; we need only a finite cause to explain a finite effect.

Rebuttal: While the argument is “sound”, it is nonetheless flawed. A Finite God cannot account for His own existence; who made this God? You cannot have an unending succession of “causes”; you must be able to at some point put your “foot” down on something solid, and this solid thing would be an infinite, uncaused, unchanging “God.” If Finite Godism were true, it would depend on Theism as an underlying foundation to support it.

ii. Evil: That evil exists in the world is not denied by Finite Godists. Their answer to the presence of evil is either that God is unable to defeat it (is not strong enough) or is not willing to defeat it (is not loving enough). Either way, they find the lack in God, not in the world.

Rebuttal: This argument was addressed already while dealing with Atheism. However, an additional point must be made here, because the argument from the Finite Godist smuggles in another assumption, “If God were all powerful, He would destroy evil (without eliminating free will).” This plays on the improper understanding of “Omnipotent”, also addressed previously.

c. Polytheism:
i. Polytheism (and Henotheism) fails for a different reason than Finite Monotheism.
1. Polytheism cannot explain the universe that it claims to support. If the “gods” are not eternal (not infinite), then they need a cause beyond themselves. But you cannot have an unending succession of causes, it simply can’t be. You must eventually end with a solid foundation to stand on.
ii. Many polytheistic religions are born out of ancient man’s amazement and misunderstanding of nature. These “forces” are deified and a pantheon of “gods” (and/or goddesses) is born.
1. Examples of God defeating the forces of nature in the Bible are many
a. The Exodus
b. The sun dial of Hezekiah
c. The Long Day of Joshua
d. The Miracles of Jesus
d. Mormonism is a Polytheistic religion.
i. “God himself once was as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! …Here then is eternal life – to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods ourselves…the same as all gods have done before you.”
e. Finite Godism fails to account for an ultimate reality.

Week Three: Views of God part two

4) Pantheism: God IS the universe (the “All”).
a. “Pan” (all) is “Theos” (god).
b. Pantheism states that God is the world
c. 3 Kinds of Pantheism
i. Absolute Pantheism (Monism)
1. There is no distinction. All reality is “one”.
a. In order for things to differ, they must either differ in their “being” on in “non-being”
b. To differ by “non-being” is to differ by “no-thing” or to not differ at all.
c. To differ in “being” is not possible, because two things cannot differ in the very way that they are the same (in that they both have “being” or existence).
2. A response to Monism
a. Though the argument above is “valid”, it is not “true”. The problem is in the categories. This has been answered several different ways, but I feel the most adequate answer was provided by St. Thomas Aquinas
i. Aquinas argued that “being” could be of two kinds, “Infinite Being” and “Finite Being”.
ii. The Infinite Being is “simple” (not composed of parts)
iii. The Finite Being is “complex” (made of both “potentiality” and “actuality”)
iv. Based on this distinction, Aquinas argued that things might differ in the “potential” that has or has not been actualized.
ii. Emanational Pantheism
1. Everything flows from God
a. In this system, it is held that God is not even self conscious, as self-reflection would imply a basic duality of “knower” and “known”.
b. All awareness and all other “minds” emanate out from “God”.
c. “Matter” (the “stuff” that the world is made of) is the furthest from the “center” (or “Ultimate Reality).
d. Since it is held that unity is absolutely good, then “Matter” (as the furthest from unity) is as far as possible from “good”.
e. There is also a “return” of the things that “emanate” out from the center (God)
f. All is in the One, but this is not reversed; the “One” is not in the All.
2. A response to Emanational Pantheism
a. This system is also untenable, as if everything emanates out from God and is thus “part” of God; there is ultimately no such thing as “I” (identity).
b. If we are all “emanations” of the Ultimate Unity, then the “Ultimate Unity” is itself fractured and not “united”.
c. In order to make a real distinction between the “I” and the “Ultimate Unity”, there must be a real difference. If there is no real difference, then they are identical, which is contrary both to our experience and to logic.
d. Change (which we acknowledge to be actual and real) is not possible if there is simply the “One” which is absolute Unity.
iii. Permeational Pantheism
1. “God” penetrates all things (think the “Force” of Star Wars)
a. God is the “energy” that binds all things together.
b. We are all one with the “Force” and the “Force” flows through each one of us.
c. This is the basic claim of most Buddhism.
2. A response to Permeational Pantheism
a. For the “Ultimate” to flow through all things, there must be a distinction between the “Ultimate” which flows and the things through which it flows.
b. There is a certain element of Theistic truth in this view, in that God is omnipresent and infinite (He is literally everywhere).
c. However, we are not to think of God as “flowing through everything, because this would make God less than the “everything” through which He flows; everything has it’s existence “in” God. (See Acts 17:28 and comments below)
d. Biblical “examples” of Pantheism
i. Acts 17:28, “For in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘Foe we also are His children’”
1. Response
a. Acts 17:28 does NOT demonstrate that there is a single Unity, of which we are all part.
b. Paul previously in his sermon stated that God “created” all men, thus implying that there is a distinct separation between God and His creation.
c. A strong case can (and should) be built for Analogy through what is said in this passage, but not for Monism or Pantheism.
d. We are like God (v. 29), not actually part of God.
e. Paul is claiming that God is the sustaining and originating cause of all things, not that God is identical with all things. (See also Colossians 1:17)
ii. The Trinity as a model of “Emanational Pantheism”. Doesn’t the Trinity prove that there can be a “simple Unity” that is also an emanation of multiple Beings?
1. Response
a. No.
b. The Trinity depends on both the actual unity and simplicity of God (that God is not made of “parts”) and the reality of the difference between the different Persons within the Trinity.
c. The different Beings of the Trinity do not Emanate from each other, rather they are all co-eternal, co-equal, and distinctly individual, while all being of the same Essence (or “substance”).
d. The Son does not “flow from” the Father, nor does the Spirit “flow from” the Son in a Pantheistic sense.
5) Pan-en-theism: God is IN the universe (like a soul in a body).
a. Also known as “Bipolar Theism”
i. God is to the Universe as the mind is to the body.
1. There are two “poles” to God, the “potential” pole and the “actual” pole. God is in the continual process of “actualizing” his “potential” pole.
2. The “Actual” pole is God’s “real” self, His “being”. This is His “moment by moment” existence.
3. The “Potential” pole is God’s physical side, His “body” (the universe)
4. The Universe is eternal, God creates ex materia, not ex nihilo. (Out of pre-existing “stuff”, not out of “nothing”).
5. Miracles are not possible, as there is not a universe “outside” of God for Him to interact with; the physical universe is God’s “body”. Individuals in the world are not identical with God; they are not “part” of Him.
ii. Response to Panentheism:
1. How can God “actualize” His own potential? That would be like saying that a cup could fill itself, or that a plant has everything within itself to grow, needing absolutely no outside influence.
2. Anything with “potential” is not infinite and thus cannot be uncaused; cannot depend upon itself for its existence. Therefore, it is valid to ask of the Pantheistic God, “who made God?”
3. If God is eternal, He cannot change, for change is a measured by time and time is inconsistent with eternality (actually infinite). Therefore the Panentheistic God cannot be both eternal and eternally changing.


*A word on Analogy and Analogous Language*

1) Pantheism and Panentheism have a valid criticism about the way we talk about God. The Pantheist says that language is insufficient to convey meaning about God, for how can finite language convey meaning about an infinite God?
a. Univocal
i. Literally, “Of the same voice”, or having identical meaning; the opposite of “Equavocal”
b. Equivocal
i. The same term, with two different meanings
c. Analogous
i. Correspondence between two things that are otherwise not identical; points of “contact” or similarity.
2) Language about God cannot be Univocal; the things we say about God cannot be identical to God, as Pantheism and Panenthism claim. How can finite language accurately describe the infinite God?
3) However, language about God cannot be Equivocal, because if it were, then we would never actually know anything about God; if all our statements about God were “completely other”, then we would essentially know nothing about God.
4) Our statements about God must then be “analogous”. We can speak meaningfully about God by way of analogy.
a. When we speak of God being “love”, we can know what “love” is, but we cannot know what “infinite love” is. Therefore, we know analogously what we mean when we say “God is Love”.

6) Deism: God is beyond the universe, but not in it.
a. Deism is essentially “Theism without miracles”
i. God is eternal and infinite (in distinction to Finite Godism) and He created the world and is separate from it (in distinction from Pantheism)
ii. God is One (in distinction to Polythiesm) but is One in Essence and Person (in distinction to the Trinitarian view held by Christianity; Jesus is not God for the Deist, as this would be an intervention by God, which is not permissible).
iii. Miracles are not possible either because:
1. God is unable to perform them due to the Natural Laws that He established. Just as God cannot violate His moral law and sin, so He cannot violate His Natural Law and perform miracles.
2. God is unwilling to perform miracles. The Deistic opinion is that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Miracles have occurred and therefore should be rejected.
3. A basic result of the rejection of Miracles the negative criticism of the Bible.
a. The Bible is essentially a record of the Miraculous dealing of God with humanity. The Deist, who cannot (or will not) accept miracles must account for their presence in the text of the Bible.
b. This is done by way of accounting for “Miracles” as embellishments and myths.
i. C. S. Lewis said,

"I am perfectly convinced that whatever the gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear they are not that sort of thing.... Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has based any doctrine on it. And the act of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is purely a modern art."

ii. C. S. Lewis also said,

“A man who has spent his youth and manhood in the minute study of New Testament texts and of other people's studies of them, whose literary experience of those texts lacks any standard of comparison such as can only grow from a wide and deep and genial experience of literature in general, is, I should think, very likely to miss the obvious thing about them. If he tells me that something in a Gospel is legend or romance, I want to know how many legends and romances he has read, how well his palate is trained in detecting them by the flavour; not how many years he has spend on that Gospel…I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this…”

b. Essentially, God “wound up” the world and is letting it run according to natural laws.
i. Unfortunately, Natural laws are “Descriptive” not “Prescriptive”.
c. The attack on the Bible (The bible contains miracles, which are “not possible” and are therefore mythological or inaccurate information).
d. The rejection of the resurrection
e. Creation is admitted, but then ignored…?

7) Theism: God is both Transcendent and Imminent (beyond and in the world)
a. This is the view held by Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.
b. God is infinite, personal, perfect, all-powerful, all knowing, all loving, etc.
c. The ramifications of this view will be discussed in the following weeks, both through demonstration of the validity of Theism and the attributes of the proposed Theistic God of Christianity.

Week Four: Apologetic Arguments for God

Apologetic “Proofs” for the existence of God

First of all, you cannot “Prove” God. Likewise, there is nothing that can decisively “disprove” God. The best that can be done on either side of the issue is to demonstrate the probability that a God does or does not exist. Thus the debate over whether God exists or not.

However, there are four basic arguments

4 types of arguments:

Ontological
Axiological
Teleological
Cosmological

Ontological Argument

1) Ontology is literally the study of “what is real, what has being”.
2) Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was the first one to call this argument the “Ontological” argument, in that he felt that it makes an unjustified jump from ideas to reality (or being).
3) It was developed by St. Anselm (1033-1109)
4) Originally developed by St. Anselm, the Ontological Argument plainly stated is as follows:
a. It is logically necessary to affirm that a Necessary Being has all the attributes that a Necessary Being must necessarily have.
b. “Existence” would be a necessary attribute that a Necessary Being would have.
c. Therefore, if there could be a Necessary Being, then there must be a Necessary Being, for it could not be denied Existence.
5) This argument could just as easily be used to prove “perfect” unicorns as it could be to prove God.
6) It has it’s place, but that place is limited.

Axiological Argument

1) The “Moral Argument” was perfected by C. S. Lewis in his book, “Mere Christianity”. The basic form is as follows:
a. There must be a universal Moral Law, or else:
i. Moral disagreements would make no sense, as we all assume they do
ii. All moral criticisms would be meaningless (e.g., “The Nazis were wrong”)
iii. It is unnecessary to keep promises or treaties, as we all assume that it is
iv. We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law, as we all do
b. But a universal moral law requires a universal Moral Law Giver, since the Source of it:
i. Gives moral commands (as lawgivers do)
ii. Is interested in our behavior (as moral persons are)
c. Further, this universal Moral Law Giver must be absolutely good:
i. Otherwise all moral effort would be futile in the long run, since we could be sacrificing our lives for what is not ultimately right
ii. The source of all good must be absolutely good, since the standard of all good must be completely good
d. Therefore, there must be an absolutely good Moral Law Giver (God)
2) People have argued that evil disproves this argument, but it in fact bolsters it
a. How can there be “evil” in any meaningful and real sense if there is no absolutely “good” moral law against which “evil” can be measured?
b. For there to be an absolutely “good” moral law, there must be an absolutely good God to mandate the “good”
c. Thus, you end up with the moral argument either way.
3) This argument is based on the principal of causality though, and is ultimately reducible to the Cosmological Argument.

Teleological Argument

1) The Teleological Argument is an argument from Design. (teleos = design)
2) The basic form is as follows:
a. All design implies a designer
b. Great design implies a great designer
c. There is great design in the world (like that of a great machine)
d. Therefore, there must be a great designer
3) Some critique of this argument is in order, in that it trades on the Cosmological Argument; it presents design as an effect that needs a cause.
4) Also, it fails to demonstrate that there must be a cause that is beyond the universe, as there are “causes” that are in fact inferior to their “effects” in some sense (an engineer building a machine that can lift many times more than the engineer can).
5) The Teleological argument also does not demonstrate that a God must exist now, only that a God may have existed then.
6) Though there is certainly some merit in the Teleological argument, it is not conclusive or absolute.

Cosmological Argument

There are two forms of the Cosmological Argument, the Horizontal and the Vertical. They are both similar, though the Horizontal argues for a cause for the beginning of the Universe (back then), while the Vertical argues for a current cause for the existence of anything within the universe right now.

The Horizontal Form:
1) Anything that begins to exist must have a cause
2) The Universe began to exist
3) Therefore, the Universe must have a cause
a. This “Cause” is either caused by another, self caused, or uncaused.
i. In order to be caused by another, this cause must be demonstrated to have a beginning. If the “cause” needed a cause, there would result an infinite regress of causes (until you ultimately end with an Uncaused Cause)
ii. It is not possible for the first cause to be self caused, as it would have to exist prior to it’s own existence in order to cause it’s own existence, which is not possible.
iii. Therefore, this first cause must be uncaused and eternal.

The Vertical Form:
1) Some things undeniably exist (e.g., I cannot deny my own existence)
2) My nonexistence is possible
3) Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another
4) There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence
5) Therefore, a first uncaused cause of my current existence exists
6) This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-perfect
7) This infinitely perfect Being is appropriately called “God”
8) Therefore, God exists
9) This God who exists is identical to the God described in the Christian Scriptures
10) Therefore, the God described in the Bible exists

The Vertical argument agues for a current cause of my current existence, as my current existence is not necessary; rather it is contingent and could be otherwise (it is possible that I not exist).

Appendix:

St. Thomas Aquinas:
The Existence of God can be proved in five ways.
Argument Analysis of the Five Ways


The First Way: Argument from Motion

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
2. Nothing exists prior to itself.
3. Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.
4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.
5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
6. The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
7. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

1. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
2. Assume that every being is a contingent being.
3. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
4. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
5. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
6. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
7. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
8. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
9. Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
10. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

1. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
2. Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
3. The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
4. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

1. We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
2. Most natural things lack knowledge.
3. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
4. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Week five: Attributes of God

The Attributes of God

The importance of a right understanding of God cannot be understated. If your idea about God is incorrect, then you are in fact worshiping the WRONG God. This is not Christianity, but Idolatry. The study of the Nature of God is called “Theology Proper” and is perhaps the most fundamental endeavor that any Christian can ever undertake. Every other doctrine that you may study flows necessarily from Theology Proper. Your view of ethics is dependant on your view of God; your view on civil duty flows from your view of God; your view on the Bible (as the Word of God) is dependant on your view of the God who speaks the Word. Though there are numerous “attributes” of God, we will only look at several here, including Pure Actuality, the “Omni’s”, Simplicity, and last (but by no means least) God’s Unity and Trinity.

A quick word on some metaphors that we encounter in the Word of God that often confuse the Nature of God and lead to heresy:

1) Anthropomorphisms – human forms
a. God is often described with physical form, such as in Psalm 91:4, where God is described as having wings and feathers.
b. God is not to be understood to have a physical form, as the Bible also declares that God is Spirit in nature (John 4:24).
c. To understand which of the statements is metaphorical and which is to be taken literally, look at which could explain the other. Would it make sense to conceive of God as a very large physical being who is metaphorically described as pure Spirit? Or would it make more sense to have a God of pure spirit who is described metaphorically as having wings, arms, eyes, etc.?
2) Anthropopathisms – human feelings
a. God is often described as having human emotions or feelings, such as in Psalm 78:21, where God is said to have wrath and anger.
b. God is “impassable” or not affected by passion. Another way to state this would be to say that God experiences all of His “emotions” eternally and simultaneously; God’s feelings are beyond time and not affected by what we do. We, however, experience God’s “emotions” in time so our perception of them changes based on our situation (in relationship to God). Therefore, it is we who change, not God.
c. The limitations of language and our finitude means that in order for us to communicate things about God, we need to use phenomenological language (that which describes the phenomenon as we experience it).
3) Anthropoieses – human actions
a. God is often described as performing human actions, such as in Isaiah 43:25, where God is said to have forgotten our sins.
b. God can’t actually “forget”, for if He forgot something, He wouldn’t have all knowledge anymore.
c. Rather, God doesn’t “remember” in the context of judgment. He is still aware of your sin, He simply doesn’t count it against you (the penalty has already been satisfied in the Messiah).

Pure Actuality

Pure Actuality – God IS existence, with no possibility to not exist.
1) If it is accepted that the Theistic God exists, this is how He must exist; as Pure Actuality. If He had the potential to not exist, than He would be less than God.
2) Act vs. Potential
a. “Act” is being in itself, the very act of existence. Pure Act (or pure “being”) cannot not be.
i. Pure Actuality has no potential to change, since there is no potential in Pure Act. God does not have the potential to learn, forget, grown an inch, love you more, love you less, sin, etc.
b. “Potentiality” has the possibility to be otherwise.
i. A potential being could potentially be a different being (by changing it’s nature or attributes) or could be a nonbeing by ceasing to exist.
ii. God, as Pure Actuality cannot not exist and could not exist as a different being. God has no potential to be other than He is, nor does He have potential to cease to exist; He has no potential at all.
3) God IS existence, we HAVE existence. That is, in regards to our very nature, we are not “pure existence”; we are “given” existence by another. Only God is existence in His very nature; He is the reason for His own existence. (See Acts 17:28).
4) The Bible declares that God refers to Himself as “I AM that I AM” has been understood through the ages as a declaration of God’s Pure Actuality.

The “Omni’s”

I have no intention of defending these attributes, but will rather simply state and define these here.
1) Omnipresent – God, being infinite and immaterial, is everywhere present at all times. He is not limited by space.
2) Omnipotent – God, being infinite in power, literally has “all power”. This must be qualified to indicate that this does NOT mean that God can do anything. He can simply do anything that power can do; this does not allow for God to perform that which would be self-contradictory. All power is not enough power to “over power” logical consistency.
3) Omniscience – God has all knowledge. He cannot learn, He cannot forget. He cannot even think. He currently possesses all thoughts that could be known of any being at any time. He does not come to conclusions; He is always in a state or knowing.
4) Omni-benevolent – God is all loving. In fact, the Bible even declares that God is love. (1st John 4:16)

Simplicity

Simplicity – That God is One, both numerically and in His very Essence (He is without “parts” and therefore cannot come “apart”)
1) The Bible is literally full of declarations of God’s unique simplicity as the only God. Some examples should suffice:
a. Deuteronomy 6:4, “Hear O Israel: YHWH, our Elohim, YHWH is ONE.”
b. Isaiah 43:10-11
c. Isaiah 46:5, “To whom would you liken Me and make Me equal and compare Me, that we would be alike?”
d. 1st Timothy 2:5, “for there is one God”
e. Galatians 4:8, “those which by nature are no gods.” The Bible acknowledges that there are many other “gods” that are recognized by man; however there is only One God by nature, who is indeed really God.
2) There are no “parts” to God; He is actually “simple”.
3) God’s simplicity is indivisible, since God is also Pure Act; He has no potential to be divided.
4) If God were composed of parts, there would be a way to differentiate between where one part begins and another ends, which would mean that God were not actually infinite. If God were not actually infinite, then He would necessitate a creator beyond Himself. This is not possible. Therefore, God must be simple and can have no “parts”.

If God is “simple”, how can He have many attributes?
God’s attributes are not part of His essence but rather things that we predicate (or assert, state) regarding His essence. His essence is eternally and indivisibly one, but we can say many things (all of which are true) about this one essence. His infinite essence cannot be adequately described by a single finite word. Therefore, many attributes may be indicated of the one essence, without dividing or confusing the essence or denying the simplicity of God’s essence.

Unity and Trinity

The doctrine of the Trinity is perhaps the most misunderstood or ignored doctrine of the Christian faith. I would like to start off by first identifying several of the errors surrounding the nature of God’s Unity and Tri-Unity. I would like to look at the errors because they give us a window into the correct view; by knowing what God is not, we may get a more clear picture of what God is.

1) Tritheism – The belief that there are three distinct Gods, who are all separate beings within the Trinity. This is Polytheism.
2) Modalism – This view is also known as Sabellianism. Modalism is the belief that there is but One God, who exists as one person; God only appears as the Father, the Son, or the Spirit based on the need at the moment. This denies the distinct persons of the Trinity.
3) Arianism – Arius was an early Church leader, who unfortunately lead the church into considerable error. Arius taught that the Son was the first and greatest creation of God. Arius denied that Jesus was fully divine.
4) Nestorianism – The belief that there are not only two natures in Christ, but also two persons in Christ. Thus, the Trinitarian view of Christ is denied.
5) Monophysitism – Also known as Eutychianism. The belief that the natures of Christ are mingled; that the humanity and deity of Christ are not only both present, but also both intertwined. This Heresy mixes an infinite with a finite, which is impossible.
6) Adoptionism – This view states that Christ was simply a man with divine powers who was adopted b the Father at the baptism.
7) Binitarianism – This view denies the deity or personhood of one member of the Divine Trinity. Usually the Son or the Holy Spirit (who is usually recognized as an impersonal “force”).
8) Subordinationism – The view that the Son is subordinate to the Father in Nature. The Orthodox view is the Son is subordinate to the Father in function, but they share the same nature.

Basically, there are three main tenets in the Trinity: God’s oneness, God’s three-ness, and God’s equality.

If you overemphasize God’s oneness, you end up with Modalism.
If you overemphasize God’s three-ness, you end up with Tritheism.
If you reject God’s equality, you end up with Subordinationism.

The basic statement of the Trinity, which has been a standard of orthodoxy for hundreds of years in the Church is the Athanasian Creed,

“And the [universal] faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons: nor dividing the Substance [essence] (sic). For there is one Person of the Father: another of the Son: and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.”

There are two twin truths that cannot be denied;
1) God is essentially One
2) There are Three separate Persons who are identified as God

The Trinitarian teaching is not that there are three Gods (Tri-Theism); nor is it that there is only one God who manifests in three forms (Modalism). Rather, there is but One God, who eternally exists as three distinct Persons within one Essence. There is One “What” but three “Who’s”.

While there is only one God, there are three persons who are all legitimately called “God” in the Bible. Several examples will be given to demonstrate that through the entirety of scripture, there are three who are eternally and essentially God.

This is not a mathematical error. It is true that 1+1+1=3, but we’re not adding the Persons of the Trinity. Mathematically, 1x1x1=1. The Trinity is not mathematically impossible.

Also, it’s not logically impossible, as we’re not holding that there are Three Gods who are One God, or that there are Three Persons who are one Person. Rather, we’re asserting that there are Three Persons who share one and the same Nature as God. This is not a logical contradiction. For example, my human nature makes me what I am, but my individual personality makes me who I am. Just as all humans share human nature collectively, all the members of the Trinity share the Divine nature identically. There are three persons who are God, yet only one essence that is Divine.

But is all of this even Biblical? Or was it developed by some church council in order to force the church to believe something that is not even in the Bible? Let’s look at the Biblical evidence.

No single verse teaches the Trinity; in fact, the word “trinity” doesn’t even appear in the Bible. However, all of the necessary components (God’s oneness, God’s three-ness, God’s equality) are present and it is the implied doctrine drawn necessarily from several verses in the Bible.

Old Testament Implications of the Trinity
That there is only one God has been shown already, but it is clear that there is more than one person who is called God.

Psalm 45:6-7, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of joy above Your fellows.”

Psalm 110:1, “The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.’”

Proverbs 30:4, “Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son’s name? Surely you know!”

Isaiah 48:16-17, “‘Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, from the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit.’ Thus says the LORD, your redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, ‘I am the LORD your God, who teaches you to profit, who leads you in the way you should go.’”

Zechariah 12:10, “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and the will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.”

New Testament Verses about the Trinity
If the deity of the Father can be taken for granted, then it remains to demonstrate that the person of the Son and the Person of the Holy Spirit are divine. If this can be done, then the doctrine of the Trinity can be deduced.

Deity of the Son:
John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

John 1:18, “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”

John 20:28, “Thomas answered and said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God.’”

Romans 9:5, “Whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.”

Titus 2:13, “Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.”

2nd Peter 1:1, “Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Chris, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”


Deity of the Spirit:
Acts 5:3-4, “But Peter sand, ‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God.”

2nd Corinthians 3:17-18, “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image, from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.”

Compare Acts 28:26-27 with Isaiah 6:8-10, Paul is quoting a passage where it is the LORD speaking, but he attributes the quote to the Holy Spirit, in essence equating the Holy Spirit with the LORD.

It can be taken for granted that the Father is divine. The above verses demonstrate that the Son is divine and that the Spirit is divine. Therefore, if God is simple and numerically one, there are three persons who are divine and share the divine essence.



So what? If God is a Triune being, how does that affect us as believers?

The Trinity and Relationship:
God is not a being that simply demands us to obey a certain arbitrary ethical structure; rather He is a being that has relationship as a very part of His existence. The Father is in constant communion with the Son, who is constantly in communion with the Spirit (John 10:30). The motivation for Christian love and fellowship is deeply rooted in the eternal example of love and fellowship that God has within Himself (The Father Loves the Son, who is the beloved, and there is a Spirit of Love between them).

The Trinity and the Resurrection:
The Father raised the Son
• Acts 2:22-24, “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know – this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless and put Him to death. But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in it’s power.”
• Acts 4:10, “Let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead…”
The Son raised Himself
• John 2:19, 21, “Jesus answered them, Destroy this temple, and in three days, I will raise it up… But He was speaking of the temple of His body.”
The Spirit raised the Son
• Romans 1:4, “Who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Trinity and Forgiveness of Sins:

The Father forgives: Isaiah 43:25, “I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake, And I will not remember your sins.”

The Son forgives: 1st John 1:7, “But if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.”

The Spirit cleanses: 2nd Thessalonians 2:13, “But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.”


The Trinity and Salvation:
The Father Designed Salvation
1) Isaiah 43:11, “I, even I am the LORD, and there is no savior besides Me.”
2) 1st Peter 1:1-2, “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Glaatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithnia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May Grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.”
a. This verse actually mentions the work of all three members of the Trinity. The Father chooses and foreknows, the Son provides the Blood that saves, and the Spirit applies the salvation with the result of sanctification.

The Son Secured and Accomplished our Salvation
1) Acts 20:28, “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.”
2) Colossians 1:19-20, “For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or in heaven.”
3) 1st Peter 1:17-19, “If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like sliver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.”
4) Hebrews 9:13-14, “For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”
a. This passage explains that Jesus secured salvation through His blood, which He offered by way of the Spirit, to the Father. All three members of the Trinity were involved in the process of salvation.

The Spirit Offers and Applies Salvation
1) Romans 8:9, “However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.”
2) Romans 8:16, “The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God.”

You are not saved into a subservient slavery to a capricious and arbitrary Deity. You are rescued from a certain destruction that you brought upon yourself by violating the moral fabric of the Universe. Indeed, “But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear.” (Isaiah 59:2) And again, “Your iniquities have turned these away, and your sins have withheld good from you.” (Jeremiah 5:25) Instead, you are invited into a loving relationship with an infinitely caring God who is intimately concerned with your life. As it says, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Chris, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction so that we will be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God.” (2nd Corinthians 1:3-4)