The Baptist Faith and Message: II. God (Part 4)

“The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being.”

If you asked most Christians, maybe even most people who have heard of Christianity, what the single most difficult teaching to understand is, you’d probably get an overwhelming consensus that it is the doctrine of the Trinity. The statement of the doctrine is simple, and this article gives it in a clear and concise form. What is hard to understand is what it means to worship one God who is three distinct Persons but only one essence. Was human beings, we have no mental category for such an idea.

The doctrine of the Trinity has been such a vexing issue for some throughout the history of the church that it has led to many teachings that deny its reality. Some think the three Persons are just different modes of God revealing Himself, not fully distinct persons. Others teach that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are actually subordinate gods, not one in essence with the Father. Still others simply deny the doctrine altogether, and believe that Jesus was a man adopted by God as the Son and that the Holy Spirit is just the power of God in action. Each of these ideas come from attempts to grasp the doctrine of God and of the Trinity in a way that makes sense to humanity.

The divine Trinity stands in contrast to the teachings about God or the gods in other religions. Judaism and Islam teach the absolute unity of God; they do not see any way that God can be “divided” into three Persons and still be one God. Religions like Hinduism have no problem with the concept of more than one god, but each of these gods is a fully separate and distinct essence as well as person. Many Eastern religions have a very impersonal conception of the ultimate One, which may emanate in a number of distinct forms in our current world, but which will ultimately reclaim its absolute oneness. None of these religions can accept the Christian formulation of the Trinity.

Many point out that the term “Trinity” is not found in the Bible, and they are right. However, the concept is found in a number of passages (such as Matthew 3: 16-17; 28:19-20; 2 Corinthians 13:14; 1 Peter 1:2). There is a sense in which the doctrine could be said to have developed from the understanding of the apostles and the Biblical writers, who understood the Jewish concept of God yet accepted both Jesus and the Holy Spirit as God. The lack of a specific term does not make a doctrine unbiblical; other terms not found in the Bible, such as inerrancy, sacrament/ordinance, omnipotence, and omniscience, are also used by theologians to describe Biblical teachings.

As a seminary student, I searched, studied, and thought hard and often of how to understand the Trinity and explain it to people. As an older minister now, I am not only comfortable with the idea of mysteriousness of the Trinity, but I actually have come to believe that it is necessary that God be beyond our human understanding in order for Him to be God. If we could grasp the essence of God, that would make Him like us, only with more power. We would believe God to be the ultimate expression of everything we as humans hope to be, but not as someone far beyond our conception. In a real sense, only a God who is beyond our human understanding is worthy of acceptance as God.

The fact that God is beyond our ability to fully grasp does not mean that God is totally inexplicable or impossible to understand at any level. The Bible gives us His own revelation of Himself, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity is, of course, something we can state and believe, drawing from the teaching of Scripture, even if we can’t figure out just exactly how all of that works. (I’ll even go further for myself-I don’t believe that we’ll ever fully grasp the essence of God, even in Heaven, and that’s a good thing.) We are called on to believe in God as He is revealed in His Word, and to have faith that goes beyond what we as limited, finite humans can grasp with our limited, finite minds.

The doctrine of the Trinity is truly a mystery taught to us in Scripture, but that very teaching reveals a God who is beyond us and worthy of our worship. At the same time, as we will see, the Bible teaches us that this immense, infinite God is also involved in our world and in our lives, and wants us to be a part of His eternal family. Far from being a hindrance to our faith, the doctrine of the Trinity should encourage us that our God is indeed One worthy of our faith, our praise, and our obedience.

The Baptist Faith and Message: II. God (Part 3)

While the Baptist Faith and Message does not cover all of the attributes of God, I think it is good to take a look at a list of many of His attributes. Theologians don’t agree on the exact list of divine attributes, but these are some that occur on most lists, although they may be called by another name. The attributes of God are also broken into categories differently by theologians. Some divide them between “communicable” (attributes that can be shared by some degree with humans) and “incommunicable” (attributes that apply to God alone); others distinguish between God’s “natural” (referring to those that describe His essential nature) and “moral” (those that describe His interpersonal nature) attributes. For this post, I’m just going to list some attributes, without breaking them into categories. This isn’t an exhaustive list, just a mention of some significant attributes. The verses discussed also do not provide an extensive list of passages supporting each attribute, but a representative sample.

Some of the attributes of God besides holiness, omnipotence, and omniscience (covered in the previous post) are:

Self-existence: God’s existence does not depend on anyone or anything other than Himself. The name I AM suggests this fundamental eternal existence.

Immensity: God is beyond the confines of the universe. In 2 Chronicles 6:18 Solomon recognizes that nothing can contain God.

Eternity: God always was, is, and will be. He is not bound by time, since He is the Creator of time. Romans 1:20 speaks to the way creation reveals His eternal nature.

Immutability: God does not change in His essential nature. While He may choose to carry out His plans in a variety of ways, who He is truly is remains the same. This immutability ensures that God is faithful to Himself and His purposes (Malachi 3:6).

Righteousness: God always upholds the right over the wrong. Even in planning our salvation, the righteousness of God was maintained through the sacrifice of Jesus (Romans 10:1-13).

Love: God has eternally existed in a relationship of love (which we will look at later in this series), and everything He does is done in love (1 John 4:7-10).

Truth: God Himself is the standard of what is true. In Isaiah 45:18-19 He declares that He speaks the truth and declares what is right.

Each of these attributes could use an entire post for itself. (You can find entire books devoted to some of these!) This brief look just gives us a glimpse of who and what God is. We will see some of these attributes again as we continue our look in future posts at what the Baptist Faith and Message says about God.

Why theology is cool

I stole the title for this blog post from a Theology Network podcast which I highly recommend to anyone who loves the study of theology. (You'll find it here.) I admit, I never would have thought about Judges 6 as a paradigm for theology, might Mike Reeves makes perfect sense when he speaks about the role of theology as tearing down false gods and building up the worship of the one true God.

What really got me thinking about this, however, is the response to the last couple of posts on this blog. I had been posting Biblical observations that probably tended to be a little more pastoral and devotional this year, until this month. These last posts, however, have been accessed about three times as much as my previous posts averaged. I'm not going to tell you I get a huge number of hits on this blog, but I was surprised by just how much more popular the theological posts were.

Looking back to much older material, I also see more interest when I posted historical and theological material than when I recapped sermons, for example. (Except the Zacchaeus sermon- that's still the #1 post of all time on this blog. I have no idea why.) So I'm making a guess about the readers of this blog- you'd rather read more about theology and history than get your devotional thought for the day here. I don't know if that means I do a better job writing about academic subjects than I do writing devotional material, or if it's just a reflection of the interests of my readers.

I'm going to make an effort to deal with those kinds of topics more often here. I find theological and historical study fascinating myself, so this is no burden on me. I also realize I called this  blog "My little corner of academia," so it fits the original purpose I think I had when I started to write. (I could be wrong about that, since I don't remember what if anything I was thinking back then.)

I apologize for a post that's more about my thought process than any subject of interest to you, but I think I owe it to my readers to let them know the direction I'll be taking.In the meantime, go listen to that podcast. It will be time well spent.

The simplicity of God (a complex subject)

I like to listen to theological podcasts while I work out at the gym. (You need something to make 40 minutes on a stationary bike seem like fun.) One topic that came up in a couple of the podcasts I used this week was the simplicity of God. It isn't something we often talk about, unless you happen to be in a theology class. Preachers (including me) don't allude to it much. Yet it may be one aspect of God that helps us poke through some of the tough questions raised about God and His work.

While we use the term "simple" almost as a put-down, in theology it is something that God possesses that is distinctive from His creation. In a nutshell, simplicity means that God is a single unified being, not a being made up of many parts. So all the attributes of God-His omnipotence, omniscience, love, holiness, etc.- are not parts of God, but are all entirely essential to Him. Now to us, this seems a whole lot more like "complex" than "simple." We don't really have a mental capacity for grasping this as finite creatures. But it underscores an important truth that no one attribute of God is more "essential" than another.

One of the reasons the simplicity of God may be neglected is that it is very tough to pin it down without risking making God seems like an impersonal mass of attributes. We do sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of God as what He is rather than who He is. Personality and personal attributes are also a part of His simplicity, however. You can't make God out to be some kind of cosmic impersonal power, or treat Him as if He was a single attribute such as love, without doing violence to the reality revealed to us in Scripture.

If this all sounds like a lot to digest, it is. I'm not trying to pretend that I have a full grasp on this topic, or that I ever will. (At this point in my life I'm quite comfortable with the knowledge that as a finite creature there are just some things I'll never fully comprehend, even in heaven.) What is important about it is how it helps us sort through some theological questions by rejecting arguments that are built on an understanding of God as somehow having some "essential" attribute that takes priority over others.

For example, one of the arguments for universalism, the doctrine that all people will be saved, is built on the love of God as His essential nature. Love triumphs over holiness, righteousness, or anything else, so all people must be saved or somehow God is thwarted. But if the love of God is no more essential than any other attribute, we need to consider how the balanced nature of God would deal with salvation. (It's also possible to go the other way, to make holiness trump love in a way that pushes the love of God aside or stunts it, which leads to other problems.)

We need to make sure that we do our best to understand God as thoroughly as possible, and to analyze what is said about God with the knowledge (however imperfect) that He is everything He says He is equally. Will this solve all or theological problems? No. But it will help us become clearer and more exact in our study and understanding of God and His Word, and keep us from making God less than He really is.

The book of Daniel and a supernatural God

Now that I no longer preach every week, when I do get the chance to preach, I often take my text from the Old Testament. I've always been a bit more OT oriented than my classmates and colleagues. (Maybe it's my Jewish blood-my great-great grandfather was a Jewish convert to Christianity who became a Baptist minister.) This morning I started a short, spread-out series of messages from the book of Daniel.

As part of my study, I read the usual discussion on the historicity of the events in Daniel and the date of its writing. There are a few technical issues that are raised by some scholars, but much of the rejection of the historicity of the book revolves around two major issues: the presence of the miraculous and the uncanny accuracy of the prophetic visions. So the miracle stories are written off as legends (or sometimes fiction), while the prophecies are posited to have been written after the events they predict.

Many scholars have dealt with these issues in far more depth than I can go into here. There is another way to deal with these objections, however. These two issues reveal the philosophical inclinations of the student by the way they begin their investigation into them. While the two positions I note here aren't necessarily the entire spectrum of belief, they do break scholarship into two broad camps.

The skeptical camp, which denies the historicity of Daniel and gives it a late date, finds belief in miracles and prophetic prophecy to be problematic. Both of these lie outside the realm of our normal experience, and because they are not subject to "scientific" study they are rejected out of hand. Given a commitment to a purely natural worldview, the ideas that the stories are legends and the prophecies were composed after the facts are really the only solutions to the problems.

I think this view has a serious theological flaw. I don't deny that some who hold to this position are genuine believers in God.  (I have an evangelical commentary on Daniel on my shelf that takes a view similar to this.) But if I were to have the chance to speak with them, I might ask them what kind of a God they believe in. If God isn't capable of performing miracles or providing visions that accurately address the future, is He really an omnipotent, omniscient God? If He can't save Daniel from a den of lions, how could He raise Jesus from the dead?

I would put myself into the supernatural camp. I believe in a God who can perform miracles, and who clearly sees and can reveal the future. If you accept the premise that God is like this, there's nothing in the book of Daniel that should give you any pause. The events recorded in the book are quite possible, so there is no insurmountable objection to its historicity. (As I noted above, there are a few other issues, but they can be discussed and answered fairly well.) The accuracy of Daniel's visions is also perfectly in line with what God can do.

When you read Daniel, I believe you can have confidence that what you are reading is an accurate account of events that really happened, and that Daniel's visions, while perplexing to him, can be seen as actual predictions of what God planned to do in the future. That doesn't mean that we find them easy to understand or interpret, even after the fact, but that we can be sure that they came the way the book recounts them.

God never shuts down!

In the US today we're experiencing another in a series of occasional "government shutdowns." That hardly leaves us bereft of government, but it makes for fascinating political theater as the parties do everything they can to not solve the problem while blaming the other side for the shutdown. (For the record, I think everybody's at fault on this one.) While the markets get nervous and some government employees are on furlough, history tells us that the long-term effects of this shutdown will be minimal. Still, a government that can't keep itself running is a concern to everyone living under that government.

I'm glad today that, while I am a citizen of the US, I am first and foremost a subject of the kingdom of God. I have a total confidence that He will always be in control, and that His kingdom will never shut down. I may experience many ups and downs in my life, but I know that my ultimate destiny is in the hands of an almighty God who promises me He will always be with me.

This confidence comes from theological beliefs. Many Christians think of theology as a difficult and esoteric field, limited to those who have the time, education, and inclination to spend hours in deep study to learn truths that rise above what the average person can understand. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Theology is, first and foremost, the study of God and His relationship to us. Every Christian is a theologian, even if they haven't been to seminary.

Theology can be a source a great comfort. The belief I state above, that God is always present and in control, relies on an understanding of the nature and power of God. God is everywhere, at all times, He loves us, and He has the ultimate power over everything He has created. That is the truth that brings us comfort today, and many Christians would agree with it.

Yet it is ultimately a theological statement. I could phrase it like this: God is omnipresent, timeless, omnipotent, and has a communicable attribute of love. I think many Christians would be, at best, puzzled by that statement. It's couched in scholarly language, which C.S. Lewis noted has the advantage of brevity at the expense of simple clarity. To me, that statement is meaningful and comforting, because I spend a lot of time studying theology and learning its "shorthand." The goal for a teacher or preacher is to make those concepts understandable to those who haven't learned the "shorthand" yet.

In the end, the comfort we find in our dependence on God is based on our theological understanding of God, however we express it.  And it contrasts starkly with any confidence we can have in man-made constructs like human government. (As an aside, if you think theological language is hard to understand, try reading the laws passed by Congress!) My nation's government is shut down today, but my King will never shut down!

What's left of God's revelation?

I was listening to one of the excellent "Table Talk" podcasts from Theology Network this evening. (Yes, this is one of the things I do for fun, and it helps pass time while I'm cleaning the basement.) The subject was "Christianity and World Religions" with Dr. Dan Strange. In the course of the study, Dr. Strange talked about his view that world religions devolved from the high monotheism of Judaism and its antecedents. I am also a partisan of that viewpoint, so I found his discussion quite intriguing. (Perhaps someday I'll devote a post to some of the arguments for that position. Until then, I recommend going to the Theology Network and listening to "Table Talk 18." There's a link to TN on my list.)

Dr. Strange has coined a term for the elements of truth that remain in a devolved religion: "remnantal revelation." This term states that remnants of God's truth through His revelation remain in those religions. Thus, there are elements of truth in any religion, or any philosophy for that matter, but as time passes the portion of truth will become less and less as other teachings are added to it. This doesn't only affect non-Christian religions; Christians can also watch their beliefs devolve as they move away from God's revelation.

While this may have its main application in theology, I think we also see a devolution in the popular theology or philosophy of Western society. Most people still claim some faith in God, but the God they worship is generally far removed from the God revealed in the Bible, or even the God revealed in nature and conscience (what theologians call "natural revelation"). There is some understanding of God as a loving being who helps us, but an almost total loss of a majestic God to whom our devotion is due. People talk about good and evil, but most in our society (including many in our churches) define good and evil by their own standards. Our culture rejects any notion of an absolute truth that applies to all people.

The positive side of this view is that all people have some knowledge of the truth, no matter how small. This enables us to speak to anyone with at least a little bit of common ground. God does not leave Himself without a witness; everyone has the opportunity to know God in some way. Truth isn't always comfortable. (In fact, I'd argue that if your belief system is comfortable, there's probably something wrong with it!) Even more, in our culture truth isn't popular. If you claim to have truth you'll be called intolerant, narrow-minded, bigoted, and arrogant. The problem isn't with personal belief, but with stating that there is a truth that applies to everyone.

Our goal as Christians should be first of all to ensure that our beliefs haven't become "remnantal." We don't just go to church or recite creeds because it's a habit, but because we believe we are in touch with the God of all truth. Then we should stand for the truth, and help others find the truth of God and His revelation in their own lives, building from what they already have.

Ever since the earliest days of the church, those who oppose Christianity have understood that if they could prevent Christians from reading, studying, and meditating of the Bible they could wipe out the Christian faith. Even today, anti-Christian governments and organizations try to keep the Bible away from their people. The truth is powerful, however, and standing for God's truth and for God's revelation enables us to shine His light into our society.

The "Common Christian"

In reading Pelikan's  The Christian Tradition, I appreciate the way he notes that our understanding of the development of Christian belief is often colored by the materials we have available to study. In one sense, what we know about Christian doctrine in its earliest days is really what a small number of apologists and writers believed. It is rather like assuming that modern theological discussion in churches consists of those issues that the systematic theologians choose to discuss. As an active pastor, I know this is not the case.

Pelikan is careful to note this tendency. We don't have much choice but to find our data on Christian doctrine in those documents extant today. We certainly can't read lost works! At the same time, what was believed and taught in the church at large was not likely as detailed as the academics of that day make it sound. Pelikan looks for clues to the doctrine of what might be called "common Christians" in the liturgical writings and practices that we know from the era.

Belief was likely much simpler and more direct for most Christians. Few would undertake to read, much less try to understand, the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, or Irenaeus. They would simply hold to the early creedal statements and the teaching of their pastors and bishops, and practice the liturgical traditions they knew.

This is really no different for the modern church. Despite widespread education in the West, few Christians take time to study academic theology and wrestle with the complex issues about which theologians argue. Most Christians (even leaving aside the casual and cultural Christians who have little understanding of their faith at all) are confessional; they accept what their church teaches without concerning themselves about all the details of those positions. They engage in the liturgical practices of their church without worrying about just what all of that symbolizes.

This might seem like a harsh criticism, but I don;t mean it in that way. While I would like to see more of the members of my church engaged in deep study of the Scriptures and researching why we believe as we do, I understand that this is not a major priority for most people. It also demonstrates a trust in the clergy and leaders of the church. Most church members of any denomination will believe that their pastor is someone who understands the faith, and can teach them what is true and necessary to live for Jesus.

Of course, this places a burden on those who are teachers. We have the trust of many, and must not abuse that trust. One of the reasons for the rise of heresy in the early church was an insistence by heretical teachers that they alone could be trusted, that they alone had the truth. They took the trust of their followers and abused it to enhance their own teachings. We must be careful that what we teach is the Word of God and not our own ideas.

I see no reason to anticipate a rise in theological interest in the church at large today. (In some segments, it may even be that the reverse is true!) The "common Christian" will continue to believe and to practice Christianity as taught by those who lead them. The concerns of academia will not necessarily be theirs, but their Christian belief will be far more representative of the faith of our era than the mass of our theological writings. This should humble us, even as it encourages us to teach faithfully.