Theology a science

This is the introduction to Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology. It has helped me to see why genuine Christians who sincerely believe and study the Bible may come to different conclusions on points of doctrine even though the Bible is God's word. We should be no more surprised at this than we are when scientists in other areas come up with different theories to explain the data that is observable by everyone. 

Theology a Science. 

IN every science there are two factors: facts and ideas; or, facts and the mind. Science is more than knowledge. Knowledge is the persuasion of what is true on adequate evidence. But the facts of astronomy, chemistry, or history do not constitute the science of those departments of knowledge. Nor does the mere orderly arrangement of facts amount to science. Historical facts arranged in chronological order, are mere annals. The philosophy of history supposes those facts to be understood in their causal relations. In every department the man of science is assumed to understand the laws by which the facts of experience are determined; so that he not only knows the past, but can predict the future. The astronomer can foretell the relative position of the heavenly bodies for centuries to come. The chemist can tell with certainty what will be the effect of certain chemical combinations. If, therefore, theology be a science, it must include something more than a mere knowledge of facts. It must embrace an exhibition of the internal relation of those facts, one to another, and each to all. It must be able to show that if one be admitted, others cannot be denied. 

The Bible is no more a system of theology, than nature is a system of chemistry or of mechanics. We find in nature the facts which the chemist or the mechanical philosopher has to examine, and from them to ascertain the laws by which they are determined. So the Bible contains the truths which the theologian has to collect, authenticate, arrange, and exhibit in their internal relation to each other. This constitutes the difference between biblical and systematic theology. The office of the former is to ascertain and state the facts of Scripture. The office of the latter is to take those facts, determine their relation to each other and to other cognate truths, as well as to vindicate them and show their harmony and consistency. This is not an easy task, or one of slight importance. 

Necessity for System in Theology  

It may naturally be asked, why not take the truths as God has seen fit to reveal them, and thus save ourselves the trouble of showing their relation and harmony?

The answer to this question is, in the first place, that it cannot be done. Such is the constitution of the human mind that it cannot help endeavoring to systematize and reconcile the facts which it admits to be true. In no department of knowledge have men been satisfied with the possession of a mass of undigested facts. And the students of the Bible can as little be expected to be thus satisfied. There is a necessity, therefore, for the construction of systems of theology. Of this the history of the Church affords abundant proof. In all ages and among all denominations, such systems have been produced. 

Second, A much higher kind of knowledge is thus obtained, than by the mere accumulation of isolated facts. It is one thing, for example, to know that oceans, continents, islands, mountains, and rivers exist on the face of the earth; and a much higher thing to know the causes which have determined the distribution of land and water on the surface of our globe; the configuration of the earth; the effects of that configuration on climate, on the races of plants and animals, on commerce, civilization, and the destiny of nations. It is by determining these causes that geography has been raised from a collection of facts to a highly important and elevated science. In like manner, without the knowledge of the laws of attraction and motion, astronomy would be a confused and unintelligible collection of facts. What is true of other sciences is true of theology. We cannot know what God has revealed in his Word unless we understand, at least in some good measure, the relation in which the separate truths therein contained stand to each other. It cost the Church centuries of study and controversy to solve the problem concerning the person of Christ; that is, to adjust and bring into harmonious arrangement all the facts which the Bible teaches on that subject. 

Third, We have no choice in this matter. If we would discharge our duty as teachers and defenders of the truth, we must endeavor to bring all the facts of revelation into systematic order and mutual relation. It is only thus that we can satisfactorily exhibit their truth, vindicate them from objections, or bring them to bear in their full force on the minds of men. 

Fourth, Such is evidently the will of God. He does not teach men astronomy or chemistry, but He gives them the facts out of which those sciences are constructed. Neither does He teach us systematic theology, but He gives us in the Bible the truths which, properly understood and arranged, constitute the science of theology. As the facts of nature are all related and determined by physical laws, so the facts of the Bible are all related and determined by the nature of God and of his creatures. And as He wills that men should study his works and discover their wonderful organic relation and harmonious combination, so it is his will that we should study his Word, and learn that, like the stars, its truths are not isolated points, but systems, cycles, and epicycles, in unending harmony and grandeur. Besides all this, although the Scriptures do not contain a system of theology as a whole, we have in the Epistles of the New Testament, portions of that system wrought out to our hands. These are our authority and guide.

Three types of work during wartime

During wartime, there are three types of work, broadly speaking. 

First, there is the ordinary work that everyone was doing before the war broke out. In part, it is the goodness of these jobs that makes the war worth fighting. Communities can only function when people do good, ordinary work. "Look at the chair you are lounging in...Could you have made it for yourself?...How [would you] get, say the wood? Go fell a tree? But only after first making the tools for that, and putting together some kind of vehicle to haul the wood, and construing a mill to do the lumber and the roads to drive on from place to place? In short, a lifetime or two to make one chair!...If we...worked not forty but one-hundred-forty hours per week we couldn't make ourselves from scratch even a fraction of all the goods and services that we call our own. [Our] paycheck turns out to buy us the use of far more than we could possibly make for ourselves in the time it takes us to earn the check...Work...yields far more in return upon our efforts than our particular job puts in. Imagine that everyone quits working, right now! What happens? Civilized life quickly melts away. Food vanishes from the shelves, gas dries up at the pumps, streets are no longer patrolled and fires burn themselves out. Communication and transportation services end, utilities go dead. Those who are survive at all are soon huddled around campfires, sleeping in caves, clothed in raw animal hides. The difference between [a wilderness] and culture is simply, work."¹ If such work were not present in a society, such a society would hardly be worth defending in a time of war. During wartime, this work must continue if society is to function. The amount of time that can be devoted to it may well be reduced, but it needs to continue. It should continue not simply so that food and ammunition can be supplied to the troops, but  in order for there still to be a society when the war is over.

Second, there is ordinary work that is applied specifically toward the war effort rather than toward the development of culture. For example, engineers that used to build commercial aircraft may now put their skills to use building bombers and fighter jets; clothes designers designing military uniforms; doctors treating injured soldiers; marketing strategists designing army recruitment adverts. 

Third, there is the specific work of engaging with and killing the enemy. This work is the full-time occupation of the infantry, air force pilots, artillery and other front-line service men and women. This is the work that only takes place because the nation is at war. 

Once the war is over, the third type of work will cease and those who were engaged in the second type of work will redirect the application of their skills, so that the only type of work that remains is the first. 

At Avenue Community Church, we have just started a new series on work and the Gospel. As I was listening to the sermon this morning it struck me that the church is always on a wartime footing until Christ returns, and so there are three types of work that any Christian can be involved in. 

First, most Christians will be engaged in ordinary work, directed to the "ordinary" purpose of fulfilling God's command to, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." (Genesis 1:28). For most Christians, following Christ does not mean doing "Christian work," but involves the high calling of doing ordinary work in a Christ-like way: recognising that work is a good gift from God, through which we worship him and benefit our neighbours. Most Christians are called to the great privilege of putting Genesis 1:28 into practice in the context of knowing as our Father the God who has called us to this task: becoming a responsible adult who can bless others, finding a spouse with whom to have children and, in cooperation with others, using the skills he has given to us to develop the world that God has made and build civilisations. 

Second, some Christians will do ordinary work that is applied specifically to the war effort. These are the office workers and administrators who run mission agencies, the engineers who maintain the planes used by the Missionary Aviation Fellowship, the architects who work exclusively in designing meeting places for churches, and many others. This is the type of work I do as I provide legal advice to churches and Christian charities through FIEC Practical Services. 

Third, there are the some whose full time work will be prayer and the ministry of the word. (Acts 6:4). This is the work that only exists because of the war and that will end when the war is over. This is the war declared by Satan against God that affects every human being. The end of the war is already known. Christ, who has defeated Satan through his death and resurrection will return to cast Satan into a lake of burning fire, together with all of his followers. Those who have swapped sides from following Satan to following Christ will then live with Christ in a renewed and purified world. The second and third type of work will no longer be needed and everyone will be joyfully engaged in worshiping God through the ordinary work of ruling the world and the universe with Christ and all his people. 

Some Christians will be engaged in some of all of these types of works, and many who do the first type effectively do two or three jobs as they engage in the second and third types in their spare time. 

1 Lester DeKoster, Work: The Meaning of Your Life (Christian Library Press, 1982), 5, 7, 9-10 as cited in Timothy Keller, Every Good Endeavour (Hodder and Soughton, 2012) 75-76^↩

The main problem with "limited atonement" is the word "atonement"

One of the main reasons why speaking about "limited atonement" often generates confusion rather than clarity is because people fail to realise that "atonement" has two meanings. What most people mean when they use "atonement" today is not what the word originally meant.

"Atonement" originally meat "reconciliation" or as the word itself suggests "at-one-ment" (referred to as "Meaning One" in this post). I believe it was introduced into English Bible translations by William Tyndale, who used it to translate the Greek word, "katallagē" in Romans 5:11.

However, in every day speech today, "atonement" refers to the work that someone does to make up for their wrongdoing (referred to in this post as "Meaning Two"). A husband who has let down his wife may have to atone for what he has done. If he is successful in his work of atonement, reconciliation should follow. 

If the two meanings are applied to Jesus' death on the cross, Meaning Two is all about the work that Jesus did on the cross. Meaning One is all about what was achieved as a result of that work. 

Therefore, whereas "reconciliation" and "atonement" were synonymous when "atonement" was first introduced into English translations of the Bible, today they are not synonymous, but rather reconciliation is the result of atonement. In modern English Meaning One is archaic and Meaning Two is current. 

My observation of listening to people who teach on limited atonement is that they refer to the archaic meaning when they first introduce the atonement, highlighting that the word literally means at-one-ment, but when they use the word  subsequently, they nearly always intend the current meaning, i.e. Meaning Two. 

The different meanings of the word "atonement" have a determining impact on whether the three different views in one of my previous posts can properly be described as "limited atonement." If Meaning One is intended, all three views can rightly be described as limited atonement because all three teach that the number of people who are finally reconciled to God through Jesus death is limited. 

However, if Meaning Two is intended, i.e. the work done by Jesus, the situation is more complex, because one may be referring to the power of this work or the number of people for whom this work is done. In regard to the power of Jesus' work, all three views are unlimited atonement because the work done was powerful enough to save everyone who believes. In regard to the number of people for whom this work is done, only View 3 can rightly be described as limited atonement, because aside from the glory of God, the work is carried out for and motivated by God's love for the elect only, whereas with Views 1 and 2 the work is, in some sense at least, carried out for everyone and motivated by God's love for everyone. With Views 1 and 2, the work is intended for everyone, is powerful enough to save everyone, everyone should be told that it was carried out for them, but it saves only those who believe. With View 3, the work is intended for the elect only, is powerful enough to save everyone, only the elect should be told that it was carried out for them and is saves only the elect. 

Given the confusion surrounding the word "atonement" it may be better if we avoided this word altogether when talking about the cross. Instead of asking whether atonement is limited or unlimited, it may be better to ask questions like:

• Whose sin is taken away by Jesus' death?
• From whom is God's wrath turned aside as a result of Jesus death?
• Were our sins taken away from us in the hour Christ died, or do our sins remain on us until the point when we are united to Christ by faith?
• Do the elect live under both God's love and his wrath until they are born again, at which point all wrath is removed so that only love remains, or do the elect only ever live under his love and never under his wrath?
• Is reference to the belief that God is outside of time the resolution to the third and forth questions above, or is this just a cop-out?
• Do the evangelists in the Bible ever use "Jesus has died for you" to prove to unbelievers that God loves them and that they should come to him, or do the evangelists only ever call people to repentance and and assure them that if they do repent Jesus' death will cover all their sins?
• Is it the case that (a) all the elect were fully reconciled to God in the hour Jesus died and no one else is reconciled to God in any sense; (b) no-one not yet born was in any way reconciled to God in the hour Jesus died as they are only reconciled when they are born again; (c) every single person who has ever lived and will ever lived was partially reconciled to God in the hour Jesus died, but full reconciliation comes only when a person is united to Christ?

Spirit, soul and body

I recently saw a facebook post asking, “So are we body, mind, and soul, or the same 3 plus spirit? Discuss:”

Here are my tentative thoughts.

1. The phrase “body, mind and soul” doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible, but the following phrases do appear:

a. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. - Deuteronomy 6:5

b. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. - Mark 12:30

c. Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. - 1 Thessalonians 5:23

All of the above quotes are from the ESV.

In the Deuteronomy quote, the key Hebrew words are as follows:

English	heart	soul	might
Hebrew	lebab	nephesh	mod
Strong's reference	H3824	H5315	H3966

The reference numbers are from Strong's concordance which gives a number to every Hebrew and Greek word in the Bible so that you can see if two words are the same even if you don't read the original languages. You can get this free with E-sword.

If you also add in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the table looks like this:

English	heart	soul	might
Hebrew	lebab	nephesh	mod
Strong's reference	H3824	H5315	H3966
Septuagint	kardia	psyche	dynamis
Strong's reference	G2588	G5590	G1411

2. When Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:5 in Mark 12:30 in response to the question, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” he adds the word “mind” (dianoia, G1271) to heart, soul and strength (strength translating ischus, G2479). It's worth considering why he does this. We should rule out the explanation that Jesus thought that the command given through the Spirit in Deuteronomy was inadequate and needed to be expanded, because that does not fit with Jesus' high view of Scripture. A better explanation is that the Hebrew word “lebab” could only fully be translated into first-century Greek by using the two Greek words “kardia” (heart) and “dianoia” (mind). I can see that there is an argument for saying that it is “nephesh” rather than “kardia” that can only fully be translated with two Greek words, given that “mind” comes immediately after “soul” rather than “heart,” but for the reasons set out in point 3 below, I tentatively think that mind goes with heart rather than soul.

Adding an extra row for equivalent Greek phrases, the table looks like this.

English	heart	soul	might
Hebrew	lebab	nephesh	mod
Strong's reference	H3824	H5315	H3966
Septuagint	kardia	psyche	dynamis
Strong's reference	G2588	G5590	G1411
Equivalent first-century Greek words	kardia and dianoia (heart and mind)		ischus (strength)

3. I think that (i) heart/mind, (ii) soul and (iii) strength/might in Deuteronomy and Mark correspond with (i) spirit, (ii) soul and (iii) body in 1 Thessalonians 5:23. The reason I think this is simply because there is a threefold list describing the whole person that has “psyche” in the middle of it, just as there is in Deuteronomy, and so one would expect that the word preceding “psyche” has something to do with heart/mind and that the word following it has something to do with might/strength, and this is in fact the case.

Spirit corresponding to heart and mind

Putting the soul aside for one moment, I think that Christians have to accept that a human being consists of a spirit and a body. What I mean by spirit and body here are illustrated by what happens to a Christian at death. When a Christian dies, his body rots in the ground, but his spirit goes to be with the Lord. The spirit that goes to be with the Lord is the heart of the man, i.e. the centre of who he really is and the spirit is not mindless, but can communicate with the Lord and worship him.

Body corresponding with strength

I think it is self-evident that the body corresponds with might and strength and that all of these terms are to do with our actions as opposed to our thoughts/attitudes. If Deuteronomy just called on people to love God with their heart and soul, one might come to the conclusion that our actions don't matter very much and so the Lord includes “might” in Deuteronomy which corresponds with “body” in 1 Thessalonians.

The table now starts to look like this.

English	heart	soul	might
Hebrew	lebab	nephesh	mod
Strong's reference	H3824	H5315	H3966
Septuagint	kardia	psyche	dynamis
Strong's reference	G2588	G5590	G1411
Equivalent first-century Greek words	kardia and dianoia (heart and mind)		ischus (strength)
Related words	pneuma (spirit)		soma (body)

4. Having put “soul” aside, we now need to return to it and consider what it means. When I was looking into this, the meaning of “soul” was what surprised me the most. I realised that the words translated “soul” in our English translations (“nephesh” in Hebrew and “psyche” in Greek) do not correspond to what most people mean when they use the word “soul” in everyday conversation.

In relation to human beings, “nephesh” first appears in Genesis 2:7 and is translated as “soul” in the King James Version:

“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

The phrase “living soul” translates the Hebrew phrase, “chay nephesh”.

However, although this is the first time that “nephesh” is used in relation to human beings, Genesis 2:7 is not its first occurrence; it is used in Genesis 1:20 and 21 to refer to fish and in 1:24 to refer to animals. In other words in Genesis 1 and 2, “soul” |(“nephesh”) simply means a creature and “chay nephesh” means a living creature. Therefore, it is not surprising that the ESV translates Genesis 2:7 as follows:

“then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”

It seems clear from this that the way that “soul” is used in the Bible (or at least in the verses considered above) is very different from the way that “soul” is used in everyday current English.

In the Bible, “soul” simply means a creature refers to human and animal life. To lose your soul is simply to die and to save your soul is simply to stay alive. Using the Bible's definition of “soul” (as it appears in English translations) it makes no sense to ask if an animal has a soul, because an animal is a soul.

However, when “soul” is used in everyday current English, I think what is meant is much closer to what the Bible means by “spirit”.

I have not looked at every verse in the Bible that mentions “nephesh” and “psyche”. Although “nephesh” refers to “every living creature” (Genesis 2:19), when it comes to people, I have a suspicion that it can also refer to one's mood or emotions (see Psalm 42:5) and that the meaning of the word developed a greater range of meaning over the period during which the Old Testament was written, so that it has a wider range of meaning in the Psalms than it has in Genesis. Likewise, it wouldn't surprise me if the use of the word “psyche” in the New Testament sometimes corresponds more closely to what it meant in the Septuagint and at other times corresponds more closely to the secular Greek conception of the soul. I need to look into this further and my conclusions above may well need to be modified.

5. So to answer the question posed on facebook, my tentative conclusion is that each living human being, together with every other living creature is a soul. Every human soul consists of a body and a spirit. In our spirits, we worship God with our hearts/minds and with our bodies with worship God with our strength/might through our actions.

6. There is at least one verse that doesn't fit very well with my conclusion that the mind is linked to the heart and that both are part of the spirit. In 1 Corinthians 14:14 Paul writes,

“If I pray in a tongue, my spirit (pneuma) prays but my mind (nous) is unfruitful,”

drawing a distinction between the mind and the spirit. Although the word for mind here, “nous” is different from the word for mind in Mark 12:30, “dianoia”, I don't think that this removes the challenge to my conclusion. However, the fact that Paul distinguishes here between mind and spirit does not necessarily mean that the mind is not part of the spirit. I think it means that one can pray with the spirit without praying with the mind, because the mind is not the totality of the spirit, but when one prays with the mind a part of one's spirit is involved, because the mind is located in the spirit.

7. Everything I've said above are just my thoughts based on looking at the Bible and Strong's concordance, which are freely available on E-sword. I should probably go and read some proper articles on this now!

Working really hard to get there

"Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the city; also on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. No longer will there by anything accursed but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him. They will see his face and his name will be on their foreheads. And night will be no more. They will need n light of lamp of sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign for ever and ever." Revelation 22:1 - 5 (ESV)

As I read these words, one of main thoughts that comes into my mind is that I really really want to be there, and the next thought is that I really need to work harder to overcome the besetting sins in my life to be sure that I can get there, but that is a dangerous thought, one which if left unchecked is the main threat to arriving there, for it is the seed of unbelief within me that still does not fully trust that Jesus has done everything to secure my arrival in that place. 

Jesus himself worked really really hard to secure my place there and there is nothing I can do to add to that. 

Yes, I want to overcome sin in my life, but I must never think that my work to overcome sin can in anyway secure my arrival in that place. The only work I need to do is to believe that Jesus has secured my place already, and that work of believing can't properly even be called a work because it is simply looking at the work Jesus did and saying, "Yes, he did that for me."

So when I read these verses and notice how much I want to be there, I remind myself, not that I need to work harder, but that Jesus has already worked hard for me. I thank him in my heart that he has done this for me and I look forward to the day when I will be able to thank him face to face. 

Who did Jesus die for and who can be saved? What do you think the Bible teaches? Part II

Following my first post on this, I thought that it would be helpful to set out in a table more detail on the similarities and differences between the three views. The ticks and crosses indicate whether or not the view taken allows you to affirm the statements in the first column without contradicting what is affirmed in each view.

Feedback I've had since the fist post indicates that there are some views that would sit somewhere in between View 1 and View 2.

A variation on View 1 holds that following Jesus' ascension, the Holy Spirit is working in the heart of every single person in the world to persuade them of the truth of the Gospel, such that everyone who believes believes because of the work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, but the Holy Spirit works equally in the heart of every person and it is still possible for everyone to resist the work of the Holy Spirit. Another view is almost identical to this except that the Holy Spirit only does this work in some people. For the purposes of the table I have included these variations with View 1.

	View 1 and the views falling between 1 and 2	View 2	View 3
Salvation comes only through Jesus Christ	✓	✓	✓
What Jesus suffered on the cross is what every sinner deserves to suffer	✓	✓	✓
Everyone who repents and believes will be saved	✓	✓	✓
The call to repent and believe should be preached to all people indiscriminately	✓	✓	✓
No one will be saved unless they repent and believe before death / before Jesus returns (not taking into account debates surrounding the children of believers)	✓	✓	✓
The intensity of what Jesus suffered on the cross does not increase or decrease depending upon the number of people who are saved by his death	✓	✓	✓/X
The cross is proof of the love that God has for every single person and of his desire that every person be saved	✓	✓	X
God loves some people more that others	X	✓	✓
You can truthfully say to everyone you meet, “Jesus died for you.”	✓	✓	X
Once the Gospel has been proclaimed to someone, the only thing preventing that person being saved is their refusal to believe	✓	✓	X
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are united in what they want the cross to achieve	✓/X	✓	✓
If you believe the Gospel today, having properly understood it, you can have confidence that you will still believe it tomorrow no matter how much the devil tries to convince you that you no longer believe	X	✓	✓
Your own goodness/wisdom/character makes no contribution at all to your salvation	X	✓	✓

Who did Jesus die for and who can be saved? What do you think the Bible teaches? Part I

To many people the three views described below will look very similar, but they can have quite a significant impact on what people think God is like and on how you share the Gospel with people.

I have held all three views, initially the first, then the second, followed by the third and then back to the second on which I'm now fairly settled, but I recognise that I could have got this wrong. 

I'd love to know what view other people hold on this. My hunch is that most pastors among my friends will hold the third view, but that most church members will hold the first or second view. 

First view

Through the life, death and resurrection of Christ, God has made salvation available to every single person in the world. Everyone who believes in Jesus will be saved. Those who do not believe will not be saved . Every single person who hears the gospel is capable of believing in Jesus. God gives people a new heart as a result of their faith in Christ. The new heart is not the cause of the person first putting their faith in Christ, but the result of the person's faith in Christ.

Second view

Through the life, death and resurrection of Christ, God has made salvation available to every single person in the world. Everyone who believes in Jesus will be saved. Those who do not believe will not be saved. Because of original sin, no one has the capacity to put their faith in Jesus, unless God first works in them to give them a new heart. Everyone, in whom God puts a new heart, will put their faith in Jesus and be saved. The refusal of others to accept the salvation that is freely made available to them through Jesus' death shows the depths of the effects of original sin.

Third view

Through the life, death and resurrection of Christ, God has made salvation available only to the people he has chosen. All those he has chosen will believe the gospel and be saved when God gives them a new heart. There are many people for whom Christ has not died, and so, although all people should be called to repentance and faith and all people should be assured that if they believe in Jesus they will be saved, the evangelist should not tell non-Christians that Jesus has died for them because this may not be true in the case of the particular person to whom the evangelist is speaking.