CONTENTS

Who Should Read Theology? 9

SECTION I
PROLEGOMENA
1. Concepts and Definitions 13
2. Some Presuppositions 16
3. The Question of Authority 20

SECTION II
THE LIVING AND TRUE GOD
4. The Knowledge of God 27
5. The Revelation of God 31
6. The Perfections of God 39
7. The Names of God 51
8. The Triunity of God 58

SECTION III
THE BIBLE: GOD-BREATHED
9. Special Revelation 71
10. The Biblical Doctrine of Inspiration 76
11. Defections from the Biblical Doctrine of Inspiration 83
12. The Inerrancy of the Bible 87
13. Inerrancy and the Teachings of Christ 97
14. Problem Passages 107
15. The Canon 119
16. The Interpretation of the Bible 125

SECTION IV
ANGELS: MINISTERING SPIRITS
17. The Existence of Angels 137
18. The Creation of Angels 141
19. The Nature of Angels 143
20. The Organization of the Angels 146
21. The Ministry of Angels 150

SECTION V
OUR ADVERSARY THE DEVIL
22. The Reality of Satan 157
23. The Creation and Sin of Satan 161
24. The Activities of Satan 166
25. Satan’s World 172

SECTION VI
DEMONS: UNCLEAN SPIRITS
26. The Reality of Demons 179
27. What Are Demons Like? 184
28. What Do Demons Do? 187

SECTION VII
MAN: THE IMAGE OF GOD
29. Evolution and Origins 195
30. The Bible and Origins 206
31. The Creation of Man 216
32. The Facets of Man 223
33. The Fall of Man 230

SECTION VIII
SIN
34. The Biblical Concept of Sin 239
35. Christ’s Teaching Concerning Sin 245
36. The Inheritance of Sin 252
37. The Imputation of Sin 256
38. Personal Sins 261
39. The Christian and Sin 264

SECTION IX
JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD
40. The Preincarnate Christ 273
41. The Incarnation of Christ 277
42. The Person of Christ Incarnate 284
43. Christ: Prophet, Priest, and King 292
44. The Self-Emptying of Christ 299
45. The Sinlessness of Christ 303
46. The Resurrection and Ascension of Christ 308
47. The Post-Ascension Ministries of Christ 313

SECTION X
SO GREAT A SALVATION
48. Some Introductory Considerations 319
49. The Biblical Terminology 321
50. The Passion of Christ 323
51. The Meaning of the Death of Christ 329
52. Some Results of Salvation 343
53. Theories of the Atonement 355
54. The Doctrine of Election 358
55. The Extent of the Atonement 367
56. The Application of Salvation 374
57. The Security of the Believer 379
58. What Is the Gospel? 387

SECTION XI
THE HOLY SPIRIT
59. Who Is the Holy Spirit? 395
60. The Holy Spirit in Old Testament Times 399
61. The Holy Spirit in the Life of Our Lord 404
62. The Spirit Indwelling 409
63. The Spirit Sealing 414
64. The Spirit Baptizing 417
65. The Spirit Gifting 423
66. The Spirit Filling 433
67. Other Ministries of the Spirit 439
68. History of the Doctrine of the Spirit 444

SECTION XII
“I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH”
69. What Is the Church? 455
70. The Distinctiveness of the Church 460
71. Principles and/or Pattern? 467
72. Types of Church Government 469
73. Qualified Leadership for the Church 477
74. Ordinances for the Church 487
75. The Worship of the Church 496
76. Other Ministries of the Church 502
 SECTION XIII
THINGS TO COME
77. Introduction to Eschatology 509
78. A Survey of Postmillennialism 511
79. A Survey of Amillennialism 516
80. A Survey of Premillennialism 522
81. God’s Covenant with Abraham 526
82. God’s Covenant with David 532
83. An Outline of Future Events 536
84. The Tribulation Period 540
85. The Rapture of the Church 557
86. The Pretribulational Rapture View 562
87. Populating the Millennial Kingdom 569
88. The Midtribulational Rapture View 579
89. The Posttribulational Rapture View 582
90. The Millennium 592
91. Future Judgments 597
92. Resurrection and Eternal Destiny 603

SECTION XIV
CENTRAL PASSAGES
93. Some Central Passages for the Study of Theology 613

SECTION XV
DEFINITIONS
94. Some Definitions for the Study of Theology 623

Index of Scripture 633

Index of Subjects 641
 Chapter 1
CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS

P rolegomena, the title of this section, simply means prefatory or pre-

liminary remarks. It furnishes the author with the opportunity to let
his readers know something of the general plan he has in mind, both
its extent and limitations, as well as some of the presuppositions of his
thinking and the procedures he plans to use. Prolegomena serve to ori-
ent the readers to what the author has in mind for the book.

I. THE CONCEPT OF THEOLOGY

That a book is a work on theology says something at once about
extent, focus, and limitations. The word “theology,” from theos mean-
ing God and logos meaning rational expression, means the rational in-
terpretation of religious faith. Christian theology thus means the
rational interpretation of the Christian faith.
At least three elements are included in that general concept of
theology.
(1) Theology is intelligible. It can be comprehended by the human
mind in an orderly, rational manner.
(2) Theology requires explanation. This, in turn, involves exegesis
and systematization.
(3) The Christian faith finds its source in the Bible, so Christian
theology will be a Bible-based study. Theology, then, is the discovery,
systematizing, and presentation of the truths about God.

II. THE VARIETIES OF THEOLOGY

Theologies can be cataloged in various ways.
(1) By era: i.e., patristic theology, medieval theology, reformation
theology, modern theology.
(2) By viewpoint: i.e., Arminian theology, Calvinistic theology,
Catholic theology, Barthian theology, liberation theology, etc.
(3) By focus: i.e., historical theology, biblical theology, systematic
theology, apologetic theology, exegetical theology, etc. Some of these
distinctions are very important to anyone who studies theology.

13
 Basic THEOLOGY

A. Historical Theology
Historical theology focuses on what those who studied the Bible
thought about its teachings either individually or collectively as in the
pronouncements of church councils. It shows how the church has for-
mulated both truth and error and serves to guide the theologian in his
own understanding and statement of doctrine. A student can be more
efficient in coming to his own understanding of truth by knowing the
contributions and mistakes of church history. When it seems appro-
priate I shall include some history of doctrine in this book.

B. Biblical Theology
Though the term biblical theology has been used in various ways,
it serves to label a specific focus on the study of theology. In a non-
technical sense it can refer to a pietistic theology (in contrast to a
philosophical one), or to a Bible-based theology (in contrast to one
that interacts with contemporary thinkers), or to exegetical theology
(in contrast to speculative theology). Some contemporary biblical the-
ologies from a liberal perspective fall under this latter category, ex-
egetical, though the exegesis does not faithfully represent the biblical
teaching. Often too their works consist of a running commentary
through the Bible held together by some large category like kingdom
or covenant or God (if Old Testament biblical theology), or categories
like the teachings of Jesus, Paul, and primitive Christianity (if New
Testament biblical theology).
Technically, biblical theology has a much sharper focus than that.
It deals systematically with the historically conditioned progress of
the self-revelation of God in the Bible. Four characteristics emerge
from this definition.
(1) The results of the study of biblical theology must be presented in
a systematic form. In this it is like other areas of biblical and theological
studies. The system or scheme in which biblical theology is presented
will not necessarily employ the same categories systematic theology
uses. It does not have to use them, nor does it have to avoid them.
(2) Biblical theology pays attention to the soil of history in which
God’s revelation came. It investigates the lives of the writers of the
Bible, the circumstances that compelled them to write, and the his-
toric situation of the recipients of their writings.
(3) Biblical theology studies revelation in the progressive sequence
in which it was given. It recognizes that revelation was not completed

14
 Concepts and Definitions

in a single act on God’s part but unfolded in a series of successive

stages using a variety of people. The Bible is a record of the progress
of revelation, and biblical theology focuses on that. By contrast, sys-
tematic theology views revelation as a completed whole.
(4) Biblical theology finds its source material in the Bible. Actually
orthodox systematic theologies do too. This is not to say that biblical
or systematic theologies could not or do not draw material from other
sources, but the theology or doctrine itself does not come from any-
where but the Bible.

C. Systematic Theology
Systematic theology correlates the data of biblical revelation as a
whole in order to exhibit systematically the total picture of God’s self-
revelation.
Systematic theology may include historical backgrounds, apolo-
getics and defense, and exegetical work, but it focuses on the total
structure of biblical doctrine.
To summarize: Theology is the discovery, systematizing, and presen-
tation of the truths about God. Historical theology accomplishes this by
focusing on what others throughout history have said about these
truths. Biblical theology does this by surveying the progressive revela-
tion of God’s truth. Systematic theology presents the total structure.

15
 Chapter 2
SOME PRESUPPOSITIONS

I. THE BASIC ONE

Consciously or unconsciously everyone operates on the basis of
some presuppositions. The atheist who says there is no God has to be-
lieve that basic presupposition. And believing it, he then views the
world, mankind, and the future in entirely different ways than the the-
ist. The agnostic not only affirms we cannot know God, but he must
believe that as basic to his entire outlook on the world and life. If we
can know about the true God then his whole system is smashed. The
theist believes there is a God. He mounts confirmatory evidence to
support that belief, but basically he believes.
The trinitarian believes God is Triunity. That is a belief gleaned
from the Bible. Therefore, he also believes the Bible to be true.
This stands as the watershed presupposition. If the Bible is not
true, then trinitarianism is untrue and Jesus Christ is not who He
claimed to be. We learn nothing about the Trinity or Christ from na-
ture or from the human mind. And we cannot be certain that what we
learn from the Bible about the Triune God is accurate unless we be-
lieve that our source itself is accurate. Thus the belief in the truthful-
ness of the Bible is the basic presupposition. This will be fully
discussed under inspiration and inerrancy.

II. THE INTERPRETIVE ONES

If our source material is so crucial, then we must be concerned
how we approach and use it. Accurate theology rests on sound exege-
sis. Exegetical studies must be made before theological systematiza-
tion, just as bricks have to be made before a building can be built.

A. The Necessity of Normal, Plain Interpretation

Though a more thorough discussion of hermeneutics will appear
in section III, we need to state here the importance of normal inter-
pretation as the basis for proper exegesis. In giving us the revelation of

16
 S o m e P re s u p p o s i t i o n s

Himself, God desired to communicate, not obscure, the truth. So we

approach the interpretation of the Bible presupposing the use of nor-
mal canons of interpretation. Remember that when symbols, para-
bles, types, etc. are used they depend on an underlying literal sense for
their very existence, and their interpretation must always be con-
trolled by the concept that God communicates in a normal, plain, or
literal manner. Ignoring this will result in the same kind of confused
exegesis that characterized the patristic and medieval interpreters.

B. The Priority of the New Testament

All Scripture is inspired and profitable, but the New Testament has
greater priority as the source of doctrine. Old Testament revelation
was preparatory and partial, but New Testament revelation is climac-
tic and complete. The doctrine of the Trinity, for instance, while al-
lowed for in the Old Testament, was not revealed until the New
Testament. Or, think how much difference exists between what is
taught in the Old and New Testaments concerning atonement, justifi-
cation, and resurrection. To say this is not to minimize what is taught
in the Old Testament or to imply that it is any less inspired, but it is to
say that in the progressive unfolding of God’s revelation the Old Testa-
ment occupies a prior place chronologically and thus a preparatory
and incomplete place theologically. Old Testament theology has its
place, but it is incomplete without the contribution of New Testament
truth.

C. The Legitimacy of Proof Texts

Liberals and Barthians have often criticized conservatives for us-
ing proof texts to substantiate their conclusions. Why do they com-
plain? Simply because citing proof texts will lead to conservative, not
liberal, conclusions. They charge it with being an illegitimate, un-
scholarly methodology, but it is no more illegitimate than footnotes
are in a scholarly work!
To be sure, proof texts must be used properly, just as footnotes
must be. They must actually be used to mean what they say; they must
not be used out of context; they must not be used in part when the
whole might change the meaning; and Old Testament proof texts par-
ticularly must not be forced to include truth that was only revealed
later in the New Testament.

17
 Basic THEOLOGY

III. THE SYSTEMATIZING ONES

A. The Necessity of a System
The difference between exegesis and theology is the system used.
Exegesis analyzes; theology correlates those analyses. Exegesis relates
the meanings of texts; theology interrelates those meanings. The ex-
egete strives to present the meaning of truth; the theologian, the sys-
tem of truth. Theology’s goal, whether biblical or systematic theology,
is the systematization of the teachings under consideration.

B. The Limitations of a Theological System

In a word, the limitations of a theological system must coincide
with the limitations of biblical revelation. In an effort to present a com-
plete system, theologians are often tempted to fill in the gaps in the
biblical evidence with logic or implications that may not be warranted.
Logic and implications do have their appropriate place. God’s reve-
lation is orderly and rational, so logic has a proper place in the scien-
tific investigation of that revelation. When words are put together in
sentences, those sentences take on implications that the theologian
must try to understand.
However, when logic is used to create truth, as it were, then the
theologian will be guilty of pushing his system beyond the limitations
of biblical truth. Sometimes this is motivated by the desire to answer
questions that the Scripture does not answer. In such cases (and there
are a number of crucial ones in the Bible) the best answer is silence,
not clever logic, or almost invisible implications, or wishful sentimen-
tality. Examples of particularly tempting areas include sovereignty
and responsibility, the extent of the Atonement, and the salvation of
infants who die.

IV. THE PERSONAL ONES

One should also be able to presuppose certain matters about the
student of theology.

A. He Must Believe
Of course unbelievers can write and study theology, but a believer
has a dimension and perspective on the truth of God that no unbeliev-
er can have. The deep things of God are taught by the Spirit, whom an
unbeliever does not have (1 Cor. 2:10–16).

18
 S o m e P re s u p p o s i t i o n s

Believers need to have faith also, for some areas of God’s revelation
will not be fully understood by our finite minds.

B. He Must Think
Ultimately the believer must try to think theologically. This in-
volves thinking exegetically (to understand the precise meaning),
thinking systematically (in order to correlate facts thoroughly), think-
ing critically (to evaluate the priority of the related evidence), and
thinking synthetically (to combine and present the teaching as a
whole).
Theology and exegesis should always interact. Exegesis does not
provide all the answers; when there can legitimately be more than one
exegetical option, theology will decide which to prefer. Some pas-
sages, for example, could seem to teach eternal security or not; one’s
theological system will make the decision. On the other hand, no theo-
logical system should be so hardened that it is not open to change or
refinement from the insights of exegesis.

C. He Must Depend
Intellect alone does not make a theologian. If we believe in the re-
ality of the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit, then certainly this
must be a factor in studying theology (John 16:12–15). The content of
the Spirit’s curriculum encompasses all the truth, focusing especially
on the revelation of Christ Himself which is, of course, found in the
Scriptures. To experience this will require a conscious attitude of de-
pendence on the Spirit, which will be reflected in humility of mind
and a diligent study of what the Spirit has taught others throughout
history. Inductive Bible study is a beneficial way to study, but to do it
only is to ignore the results of the work of others, and to do it always
can be an inefficient repetition of what others have already done.

D. He Must Worship
Studying theology is no mere academic exercise, though it is that.
It is an experience that changes, convicts, broadens, challenges, and
ultimately leads to a deep reverence for God. Worship means to recog-
nize the worth of the object worshiped. How can any mortal put his
mind to the study of God and fail to increase his recognition of His
worth?

19
 Chapter 3
THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY

Authority constitutes the foundational principle in the study of the-

ology. Presumably all who operate within the broadest concept of
“Christian” theology would acknowledge the authority of God as the
supreme norm for truth. However, how the authority of God is con-
ceived and expressed varies considerably within the “Christian” spectrum.

I. AUTHORITY IN LIBERALISM
Subjectivism stands as the hallmark of liberalism, though the fo-
cus of that subjectivism may vary with different people. So one person
could say, “The Word of God includes ‘any act of God by which com-
munication occurs between God and man.’”1 That communication
comes through human reason, feelings, or conscience.

A. Reason
Reason has always occupied a dominant place in liberal thought.
Of course it is within the sphere of reason that concepts are formed
that are the basis of communication from one person to another. Rea-
son is a necessary channel for giving and receiving truth, and the
evangelical recognizes that. But liberalism has certainly made human
reason the judge of truth and often the creator of truth. Reason be-
comes autonomous, governed by no higher or outside authority, but
also severely limited by its finitude and fallibility.

B. Feelings
As a reaction against rationalism, Schleiermacher (1768–1834) de-
veloped his theology of feeling. He emphasized the analysis of religious
experience and based religion on feeling or awareness. In effect, theol-
ogy became anthropology and psychology. Because of this, Karl Barth
considered Schleiermacher to be the epitome of religious liberalism.

C. Conscience
This form of liberalism emphasizes conscience as the basis of au-

20
 The Question of Authority

thority. Our knowledge is unreliable and limited, so the basic moral

instincts of the human soul become the basis for authority. Immanuel
Kant (1724–1804) was the leader in this form of thought. Once again,
theology had become anthropology.
In all forms of liberalism, human nature in one aspect or another
is the source of religious truth. The Bible, then, is viewed as the prod-
uct of human reasoning containing man’s thoughts about God, him-
self, and this world. It records the historical development of man’s
religious experiences and beliefs, and is not, as conservatives believe,
the record of a message from a transcendent God who broke into the
course of history.

II. AUTHORITY IN NEO-ORTHODOXY

Neo-orthodoxy has sometimes been classed with liberalism and
sometimes with conservatism. The reason for this confusion is that,
on the one hand, it broke with liberalism by insisting that God, not
man, must initiate revelation (and thus seemed to be conservative);
while, on the other hand, it continued to teach liberal views concern-
ing the Bible (and thus seemed to be liberal).
The basis of authority in neo-orthodoxy, at least as expressed by
Karl Barth (1886–1968), is the Word. However, the Word is mainly
Christ. The Bible witnesses to the Word, and does so fallibly, and
Christian proclamation is a word about the Word.
The sovereign God took the initiative in revealing Himself, center-
ing primarily in the revelation in Christ. The years of Christ’s life ex-
hibited the epitome of revelation, and His death was the climax of
revelation. The Bible witnesses to the revelation of God, even though
it is interpreted by all the canons of liberalism. The Bible, then, has no
absolute authority, but only instrumental authority, since it serves as
the fallible instrument by which we encounter Christ the Word. And it
is that encounter of faith at the point of “crisis” in which God commu-
nicates Himself. That is absolute truth.
Though neo-orthodoxy seeks objectivity in God’s sovereign initia-
tive, it practices subjectivism in the experiences of faith’s encounters.
Even though the Bible is involved in those experiences, it is not al-
lowed to be the ultimate judge of those experiences. Neo-orthodoxy
lacks an external, objective standard of authority.

III. AUTHORITY IN CONSERVATISM

In conservatism the basis of authority is external to man and objective.

21
 Basic THEOLOGY

A. Conservative Catholicism
In Roman Catholicism authority ultimately rests in the church it-
self. To be sure, the Bible is believed, but it must be interpreted by the
church. Furthermore, the traditions of the church are, along with the
Bible, a source of divine revelation. Ecumenical councils and popes
have from time to time made pronouncements that are considered in-
fallible and therefore binding on church members.
The Eastern Church is similar as far as finding its authority in tra-
dition, the church itself, and the Bible. Even though evangelicals re-
ject tradition as authoritative, it should be recognized that Catholicism’s
authority is not found in man, as liberalism teaches.

B. Conservative Protestantism
“Conservative” eliminates liberalism’s humanistic and subjective
bases of authority, and “protestantism” removes the church as a base
of authority. So one would agree that “orthodoxy is that branch of
Christendom which limits the ground of religious authority to the
Bible.”2 The Scriptures contain the objective revelation of God and are
therefore the basis of authority for the conservative Protestant.
To be sure, understanding God’s revelation in the Bible involves us-
ing the rational processes of a redeemed mind, a commitment of faith
in matters not revealed or not understood, a dependence on the teach-
ing ministry of the Holy Spirit, a conscience clear before God, and
some insight into the lessons of history.
Sometimes in practice, though not in theory, conservatives can
and do deny that the Bible is their sole basis of authority.
(1) In practice, some traditions or denominations give their creeds
coordinate authority with the Bible. Creeds can provide helpful state-
ments of truth, but creeds can never be the authoritative judge of
truth. Creedal statements must always be considered fallible, in need
of possible revision, and subservient to biblical authority.
(2) In practice, some groups give tradition and accepted practice
coordinate authority with the Bible. A church has a divine mandate to
set authoritative guidelines for its members (Heb. 13:7, 17), but these
too are fallible, in need of periodic revision, and always subservient to
biblical authority.
(3) In practice, some conservatives make religious experience au-
thoritative. Healthy experience is the fruit of allegiance to biblical au-
thority, but all experiences must be guided, governed, and guarded by

22
 The Question of Authority

the Bible. To make experience normative and authoritative is to com-

mit the same error as liberalism by replacing an objective criterion
with subjective existentialism.
Observe the point of this chart: when objective authority is supple-
mented, compromised, or abandoned, theism will be weakened or
even relinquished.

ORTHODOXY NEO-ORTHODOXY LIBERALISM BELIEVES IN:

x objective
x x transcendent
x x x theism

NOTES
1. L. Harold DeWolf, The Case for Theology in Liberal Perspective (Philadel-
phia: Westminster, 1959), 17.
2. Edward John Carnell, The Case for Orthodox Theology (Philadelphia: West-
minster, 1969), 13.

23