1

Motto:
“Mission with Compassion”
Vision:
“Preparing passionate ministers of God through holistic theological education to demonstrate the love and
compassion of Jesus Christ as revealed through His life and to save every single soul on this earth.”
Mission Statement:
To produce servants of God who are biblically and theologically sound; Spiritually empowered to spread
the gospel of Jesus with a focus on word, prayer, supernatural gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit;
Passionate to work amidst the poor and the forsaken; Able to communicate effectively through each
media and use of technology, to reach every human and the whole of creation.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 2

Contents
SYLLABUS...................................................................................................................................................9
Unit 1 ...........................................................................................................................................................11
Chapter 1 ....................................................................................................................................................11
1. Introduction to Christian Theology ..................................................................................................11
2. Theology ...............................................................................................................................................11
2.1 Etymology .....................................................................................................................................11
2.2 Meaning of Theology ....................................................................................................................11
2.3 Definition of Theology...................................................................................................................12
3. FORMATIVE FACTORS OF THEOLOGY...................................................................................12
3.1 Experience ......................................................................................................................................12
3.2 Revelation ......................................................................................................................................12
3.3 Scripture .........................................................................................................................................13
3.4 Tradition .........................................................................................................................................13
3.5 Reason ............................................................................................................................................13
3.6 Socio- Political and Religio-Cultural context ................................................................................13
Chapter 2 ....................................................................................................................................................14
4. Theology in relation to other disciplines ...........................................................................................14
4.1 Theology’s relation to Philosophy ..................................................................................................14
4.2 Theology’s relation to History ........................................................................................................15
4.3 Theology and Science .....................................................................................................................15
4.4 Theology and worship .....................................................................................................................15
5. Definition of Theology in the light of prominent scholars ..............................................................16
Tertullian ...................................................................................................................................................16
Origen of Alexandria ................................................................................................................................16
Augustine ..................................................................................................................................................16
Anselm of Canterbury...............................................................................................................................16
Thomas Aquinas .......................................................................................................................................16
Martin Luther ............................................................................................................................................16
Schleiermacher..........................................................................................................................................16
Karl Barth .................................................................................................................................................17
Pannenberg................................................................................................................................................17
G. C. Berkouwer .......................................................................................................................................17
Charles Hodge ...........................................................................................................................................17
Chapter 3 ....................................................................................................................................................18
6. Task, Purpose and Source of Theology .............................................................................................18
6.1 The Task of Theology .........................................................................................................................18
6.2 The Purpose of Theology....................................................................................................................18
6.3 WHO IS A THEOLOGIAN? ..............................................................................................................18
6.4 Major Divisions of Theology..............................................................................................................19
6.5 BRANCHES OF THEOLOGY ..........................................................................................................19
Biblical Theology .................................................................................................................................19
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 3

Christian Theology ...............................................................................................................................19

Dialectical Theology .............................................................................................................................19
Doctrinal Theology ...............................................................................................................................20
Dogmatic Theology ..............................................................................................................................20
Mystical Theology ................................................................................................................................20
Pastoral Theology .................................................................................................................................20
Process Theology ..................................................................................................................................21
Revealed Theology ...............................................................................................................................21
Chapter 4 ....................................................................................................................................................22
6.6 SOURCES OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY ..................................................................................22
6.6.1 Scripture ...........................................................................................................................................22
6.6.2 Revelation ........................................................................................................................................22
General Revelation ...................................................................................................................................23
Special Revelation ....................................................................................................................................23
6.6. 3 Tradition..........................................................................................................................................24
6.6.4 Reason ..............................................................................................................................................26
6.6.5 Christian experience/Christian Consciousness ...............................................................................26

Unit II ..........................................................................................................................................................27
Chapter 1 ....................................................................................................................................................27
1.1 The Foundations of Theology..............................................................................................................27
THE NECESSITY OF THEOLOGY .......................................................................................................27
1.2 The God Who Speaks ..........................................................................................................................28
1.3 The Necessity of God’s Self-Disclosure ..............................................................................................28
Revelation .............................................................................................................................................28
Special Revelation ................................................................................................................................30
Necessity of Special Revelation ............................................................................................................30
Chapter 2 ....................................................................................................................................................31
2.1 Scripture - What is Biblical Authority? .............................................................................................31
2. 2 The Inspiration of Scripture ..............................................................................................................32
2.2.1. Etymology.......................................................................................................................................32
2.2.2. Definition of Inspiration .................................................................................................................32
2.3 Views of Inspiration .............................................................................................................................33
2.3.1 False Views of Inspiration ...............................................................................................................33
2.3.1.1 Natural inspiration ....................................................................................................................33
2.3.1.2. Spiritual illumination. ..............................................................................................................33
2.3.1.3. Partial or dynamic inspiration ..................................................................................................33
2.3.1.4. Conceptual inspiration .............................................................................................................33
2.3.1.5. Divine dictation........................................................................................................................33
2.3.2 Biblical View of Inspiration..............................................................................................................34
Christ’s view of the Bible .........................................................................................................................34
Paul’s view of the Bible. ...........................................................................................................................35
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 4

2.4 The Canon of Scripture .......................................................................................................................35

2.4.1.Etymology........................................................................................................................................36
2.4.2. Definition of Canonicity .................................................................................................................36
2.4.3. The Beginning of Canonicity ..........................................................................................................36
2.3.4. Canonicity of the Old Testament ....................................................................................................36
2.3.5. Canonicity of the New Testament ..................................................................................................37
2.3.6. Criteria for the canonicity of the New Testament...........................................................................38
2.5 The Inerrancy of Scripture .................................................................................................................38
2.5.1. Definition of Inerrancy ...................................................................................................................38
2.5.2. Explanation of Inerrancy ................................................................................................................39
Chapter III ..................................................................................................................................................41
Types and branches of Theology in brief .................................................................................................41
3.1 Biblical Theology ..................................................................................................................................41
3.1.1 Elements of Biblical Theology based on the definition ...................................................................41
3.1.1.1 Systematization .........................................................................................................................41
3.1.1.2 History ......................................................................................................................................41
3.1.1.3 Progress of Revelation ..............................................................................................................41
3.1.1.4 Biblical Nature ..........................................................................................................................41
3.2 Dogmatic Theology ..............................................................................................................................41
3.3 Systematic Theology ............................................................................................................................42
3.4 Exegetical Theology .............................................................................................................................42
3.5 Contextual Theology ............................................................................................................................42
3.6 Evangelical Theology ...........................................................................................................................43
Chapter 4 ....................................................................................................................................................44
4.1 Anthropology ........................................................................................................................................44
4.2 Theories concerning origin of man .....................................................................................................44
4.2.1. Atheistic evolution. .........................................................................................................................44
4.2.2. Theistic evolution. ..........................................................................................................................44
4.2.3. Progressive creationism. .................................................................................................................44
4.2.4. Gap theory.......................................................................................................................................44
4.3 Cosmology .............................................................................................................................................45
4.4 Soteriology ............................................................................................................................................45
4.5 Pneumatology .......................................................................................................................................45
4.6 Ecclesiology ...........................................................................................................................................45
4.7 Eschatology ...........................................................................................................................................45

Unit – III .....................................................................................................................................................46

Chapter 1 ....................................................................................................................................................46
1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................46
2. Definition of God................................................................................................................................46
3. The Possibility and the limit of our Knowledge of God .................................................................46
4. The Revelation of the Existence of God ...........................................................................................47
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 5

4.1 The Ontological Argument ............................................................................................................47

4.2 The Cosmological Argument .........................................................................................................47
4.3 The Teleological Argument ...........................................................................................................48
4.4 Moral Argument or Anthropological argument .............................................................................48
5. Biblical Evidence for the Existence of God ................................................................................48
Proof from the Scripture .................................................................................................................48
Proof from the conscience ..............................................................................................................48
6. Attributes of God ................................................................................................................................49
6.1 God as transcendent and immanent. ...................................................................................................49
6.2 Majestic (Primary) Attributes of God .................................................................................................49
6.3 Moral (Secondary) Attributes of God .................................................................................................49
7. Names of God ......................................................................................................................................50
Chapter 2 ....................................................................................................................................................53
1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................................53
2. The Doctrine of Man...........................................................................................................................53
3. Origin of Man ......................................................................................................................................53
3.1 Atheistic Evolution .............................................................................................................................53
3.2 Theistic Evolution ...............................................................................................................................54
3.3 Gap theory...........................................................................................................................................54
3.4 FIAT Creation .....................................................................................................................................55
3.5 Theistic Creation .................................................................................................................................56
4 ‘Self’ of Man, Human Freedom, the Importance of Body ..............................................................56
5 Biblical View of Man-God’s purpose for Man .................................................................................57
Chapter 3 ....................................................................................................................................................58
1. The Doctrine of Sin .............................................................................................................................58
2. Terms used for Sin ..............................................................................................................................58
3. Definition of Original Sin ...................................................................................................................58
4. The Origin of Sin in the Human Race...............................................................................................59
5. The Reality of Sin................................................................................................................................59
5.1 Creation Declares it ..........................................................................................................................59
5.2. Human History declares it ................................................................................................................60
5.3. Human Logic Declares it ..................................................................................................................60
5.4 Human Conscience Declares it. ........................................................................................................60
5.5 Human Experience Declares it .........................................................................................................60
5.6. Human Religions Declares it ............................................................................................................60
5.7. Believers Declares it .........................................................................................................................60
5.8. Scriptures Declares it ........................................................................................................................60
6 Fall of Man ..........................................................................................................................................61
The test ......................................................................................................................................................61
The temptation ..........................................................................................................................................61
7. The results of the sin ..............................................................................................................................61
7.1 Judgment on the serpent (Gen. 314). .................................................................................................61
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 6

7.2 Judgment on Satan (Gen. 315). ..........................................................................................................61

7.3 Judgment on the woman (Gen. 316). ..................................................................................................61
7.4 Judgment on the man (Gen. 317–19). .................................................................................................62
7.5 Judgment on the human race (Rom. 512). ..........................................................................................62
7.6 Judgment on creation (Gen. 317–18). .................................................................................................62
7.7 The effects of the sin ...........................................................................................................................62
8. The Christian Understanding of Sin ....................................................................................................62
Christian theories in regard to sin ............................................................................................................63
8.1 Pelagian view. .....................................................................................................................................63
8.2 Arminian view. ...................................................................................................................................63
8.3 Federal view. .......................................................................................................................................63
8.4 Augustinian view. ...............................................................................................................................63

Unit 4 ...........................................................................................................................................................65
Chapter 1 ....................................................................................................................................................65
1. Atonement Theories ...............................................................................................................................65
1.1 The Moral Influence Theory ...............................................................................................................65
1.2 The Ransom Theory............................................................................................................................65
1.3 Christus Victor Theory .......................................................................................................................66
1.4 The Satisfaction Theory (Anselm) ......................................................................................................66
1.5 The Penal Substitutionary Theory ......................................................................................................66
1.6 The Governmental Theory ..................................................................................................................67
1.7 The Scapegoat Theory ........................................................................................................................67
1.8 Reflections ..........................................................................................................................................68
Chapter 2 ....................................................................................................................................................69
2. Jesus Christ as the Mediator .................................................................................................................69
2.1 Mediator of the New Covenant ...........................................................................................................69
2.2 Mediator for Salvation ........................................................................................................................69
2.3 Mediator for the Reign of God ...........................................................................................................69
3. The Nature of Jesus................................................................................................................................71
3.1. Jesus’ Divinity ..................................................................................................................................71
3.2. Jesus’ Humanity.................................................................................................................................71
Reflections ...................................................................................................................................................72
Chapter 3 ....................................................................................................................................................73
4 Kenotic or Kryptic Christology .............................................................................................................73
4.1 Kenotic Christology ............................................................................................................................73
4.2 Kryptic Christology ............................................................................................................................74
Chapter 4 ....................................................................................................................................................76
5. Jesus as Liberator ..................................................................................................................................76
5.1 From the Gospel Narratives.............................................................................................................76
5.2 From Theological Perspective..........................................................................................................76
5.2.1 Christopraxis of liberation ...........................................................................................................77
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 7

5.2.2 Liberative Aspect of Jesus’ Mission ............................................................................................77

5.2.3 Liberative Aspect of Jesus’ Person ..............................................................................................78
5.2.4 Liberative Aspect of Jesus’ Resurrection ....................................................................................78
6. Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................................79
Unit V ..........................................................................................................................................................79
Chapter I .....................................................................................................................................................80
1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................................80
2. Pneumatology ......................................................................................................................................80
2.1 Etymology and usage ..........................................................................................................................80
3. The biblical, historical, and contemporary issues and debates concerning doctrines related to
the Spirit......................................................................................................................................................81
3.1 Biblical teachings ..............................................................................................................................81
3.2 The Person of the Holy Spirit ..........................................................................................................81
3.3 The Work of the Holy Spirit ............................................................................................................81
3.3.1 In the life of Jesus .......................................................................................................................82
3.3.2 The Holy Spirit in the Life of the Church ....................................................................................82
3.3.3 The Holy Spirit as the Life-Giver and the Sanctifier ...................................................................82
4. History of the Doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit .........................................................................83
Chapter II ...................................................................................................................................................85
5. Understanding of the Holy Spirit in Christian Theology ................................................................85
6. Symbolism of the Holy Spirit .............................................................................................................85
6.1 Dove ....................................................................................................................................................85
6.2 Water...................................................................................................................................................86
6.3 Anointing ............................................................................................................................................86
6.4 Fire ......................................................................................................................................................86
6.5 Cloud and light....................................................................................................................................86
6.6 Wind....................................................................................................................................................87
6.7 Seal......................................................................................................................................................87
6.8 Oil .......................................................................................................................................................87
7. The motivating concerns, goals and criteria of the presentation of the Holy Spirit in the texts of
the contemporary theological discussion .................................................................................................87
7. Divine Works of the Spirit.....................................................................................................................87
7.1 Creation (Gen. 12). .........................................................................................................................87
7.2 Generating Christ (Matt. 120). ........................................................................................................88
7.3 Inspiration of Scripture (2 Peter 121). ............................................................................................88
7.4 Regeneration (Titus 35). .................................................................................................................88
7.5 Intercession (Rom. 826). .................................................................................................................88
7.6 Helping saints (John 1416). ............................................................................................................88
Chapter III ..................................................................................................................................................89
Spiritual formation practices to one’s personal life, professional behavior and the broader context
of the Church. .............................................................................................................................................89
8. Who Is the Spirit? ...............................................................................................................................89
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 8

9. What Does the Spirit Do?...................................................................................................................90

10. The Spirit in the Lives of Believers ...................................................................................................90
11. Baptism in the Spirit ..........................................................................................................................91
12. Filling of the Spirit ...........................................................................................................................91
13. Fruit of the Spirit .............................................................................................................................92
The Fruit of the Spirit ................................................................................................................................92
13.1. Believers Relation to the Spirit Love, Joy, Peace ........................................................................92
13.2. Believer’s Relation to Others Patience, Kindness and Goodness ................................................93
13.3. BELIEVERS RELATION TO SELF-Faithfulness, Gentleness and Self-Control ......................94
CHAPTER IV .............................................................................................................................................96
14. Gifts of the Spirit ..............................................................................................................................96
14.1 PURPOSES OF THE GIFTS ........................................................................................................96
14.2 WHO IS GIVEN A SPIRITUAL GIFT? ......................................................................................96
14.3 CATEGORIES OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS .....................................................................................97
14.3.1. Gift of Wisdom .........................................................................................................................98
14.3.2. Gift of Word of Knowledge ......................................................................................................99
14.3.3. Gift of Discerning Spirits ..........................................................................................................99
14.3.4. Gift of Faith ..............................................................................................................................99
14.3.5. Gift of Healing ........................................................................................................................100
14.3.6. Gift of Performing Miracles ...................................................................................................100
14.3.7. Gift of Prophecy......................................................................................................................100
14.3.8. Gift of Tongues .......................................................................................................................101
14.3.9. Gift of Interpretation of Tongues ............................................................................................101
15. Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................102

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 9

SYLLABUS
FOUNDATIONS TO THEOLOGY

Course Code: 20TH2001 Credit 3:0:0

Course Objectives:
 To introduce the basic understanding on Theology
 To become acquainted with some important and often persistent theological questions.
 To encourage the students to develop their comprehension of the implications of theology for
Christian living, ministry, and relevant issues.
 To discover resources and insights that will prepare you for a life of service.
 To understand and articulate God-Human-Creation Interrelationship.

Course Outcome:
Students will
 Understand the basics of Theology.
 Understand the nature and significance of Theology.
 Understand the Doctrine of God and the teachings related.
 Gain a greater awareness and appreciation for the rational basis of theological inquiry
 Comprehend the important relationship in this world God-Human-Creation and articulate in his/her
own context.

Course Description:
Unit – I:
Introduction to Christian theology: It’s Etymology, formative Factors in Christian theology, Theology in
relation to other Disciplines. Definition of Theology in the light of prominent scholars. A background study
on the basic teachings of the Bible; Sources of Theology.

Unit – II:
The Foundation of Theology: The God Who Speaks - The Necessity of God’s Self-Disclosure - General
Revelation - Special Revelation - Scripture - What is Biblical Authority? - The Inspiration of Scripture -
The Canon of Scripture - The Inerrancy of Scripture. Types and branches of Theology in brief – Biblical
Theology – Dogmatic Theology – Systematic Theology – Exegetical Theology – Contextual Theology –
Evangelical Theology - Anthropology – Cosmology – Soteriology – Pneumatology – Ecclesiology –
Eschatology

Unit – III:
Theology proper: Doctrine of God, Four Classic Arguments for the Existence of God, Famous theologians
concept on God, Attributes of God, Names of God.

The Doctrine of Man: Human Existence, ‘Self’ of Man, Human Freedom, The Importance of Body, Sex of

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 10

Man, Biblical View of Man; The Doctrine of Sin: The Reality of Sin, The Universality of Sin, sin and death,
Sin and Slavery, The Problem of Evil, The Original Sin, The Christian Understanding of Sin, The Effects
of Sin.

Unit – IV:
Christology: Definition of Christology. An understanding of historical and current issues in Christological
methodology. The biblical teaching regarding the deity and sinless humanity of the Savior in the unity of
His Person. Doctrine of Atonement: OT Sacrifice, The Prophets a d Priests, The meeting point between
Prophets and Priests, Atonement in OT a d NT, Day of Atonement, Jesus as the Propitiator, Wrath of God,
The Love of God

Unit – V:
Pneumatology: Definition of Pneumatology - The biblical, historical, and contemporary issues and debates
concerning doctrines related to the Spirit - understanding of the doctrines of Christ and the Holy Spirit -
The motivating concerns, goals and criteria of the presentation of the Holy Spirit in the texts of the
contemporary theological discussion - The significance of a contemporary theology of the Holy Spirit for
the spiritual formation of the Christian life in a spiritual journal - Spiritual formation practices to one’s
personal life, professional behavior and the broader context of the Church.

Reference Books:
Baptist. Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939.
Barth, Karl. Evangelical Theology: An Introduction. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1963.
Barth, Karl. The Christian Life. Church Dogmatics IV/4: Lecture Fragments. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1981.
Buswell, James Oliver, Jr. A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1962-63.
Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. Dallas: Dallas Seminary, 1947-48.
Enns, Paul. 1989. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Press
Geerhardus, 1948. Biblical theology: Old and New Testament. Vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology-An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Michigan: Zondervan
Publishing, 1994.
Inbody, Tyron. The Faith of the Christian Church: An Introduction to Theology. Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans, 2005.
Macquerrie, John. Principles of Christian Theology. New York: Charles Scribner’s sons, 1966.
McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 5th ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 2011.
McGrath, Alister E. The Christian Theology Reader. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006.
Pyne, J. Barton. 1962. The Theology of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Reformed. Carson, D. A. Jesus the Son of God: A Christological Title Often Overlooked, Sometimes
Misunderstood, and Currently Disputed. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.
Robin H.S. Boyd. An Introduction of Indian Christian Theology. Delhi: ISPCK, 2000
Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology – Vol 1. University of Chicago Press, 1975.
Thiessen, Henry, C. 1977. Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 11

Unit 1
Chapter 1
1. Introduction to Christian Theology:
Every thoughtful individual is a theologian to some extent for life and destiny are affected by what an
individual believes about God and His will. According to Proverbs 23:7, "As a man thinketh in his heart so
is he.” "Nothing so affects the spirit and character of a person as his knowledge of God, or the lack of it."
(David Clark) Because this is true, theology becomes the most vital and fundamental of all studies. “To this
consideration, individuals may well bring the liveliest interest, keenest apprehension, and loftiest powers
of the mind. People may engage in the most diligent of spiritual labors while calling upon the soul and all
that is within the soul to attend seriously and reverently to the great and solemn subjects that concern God.”
(David Clark) The spiritual heart prays with the Psalmist (119:18), "Lord, open thou mine eyes that I may
behold wondrous things out of thy law”. Such a prayer is needed because, "Nothing twists and deforms the
soul more than a low or unworthy conception of God." (A.W. Tozer)

2. Theology:
2.1 Etymology:
Theology is derived from the Greek word ‘Theologia’ – Combination of two Greek words ‘Theos’ and
‘logos’.
Theos – God
Logos – Word, Discourse, Doctrine.

The term theology is derived from the Latin theologia (“study [or understanding] of God [or the gods]”),
which itself is derived from the Greek theos (“God”) and logos (“reason”).

Theologia means an account of (or) discourse about Gods or God.

In the narrow sense, Theology is defined as the doctrine of God
In the broader sense, it concerns all Christian doctrines.
Theology is the science which speaks of God.
Theology is a reflection on experience in the context of faith.
Theology may be defined as the ‘science of God’ and His relation to the Universe.
Theology is the systematic articulation of faith in God and his relationship with human being and creation.

2.2 Meaning of Theology:

A simple and literal definition of ‘theology’ would be ‘the science of divine things.’

From the academic and professional point of view, theology is the discipline that is pursued by someone
who is seriously interested in entering full-time Christian ministry, having sensed the call of God. In modern
times, it is the stream of knowledge that differentiates the secular pursuit of knowledge from the sacred one
because of its starting point: all secular studies began with reason and experience while theology begins
with faith.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 12

Theology is the Word of God. So, while one may say that theology is the study of God, the
factual definition would be that theology is the science that rationally pursues the understanding of the
self-revelation of God in the Scriptures.

2.3 Definition of Theology

The word theology is derived from two Greek words: theos, God; and logos, discourse or course. Theology
Proper is the study of the knowledge of God and His relation to mankind. The student of God’s Word, the
Bible, has the privilege of constructing and presenting a comprehensive and consistent system of thought
concerning the God of the universe who has revealed Himself in various ways to His creation. The quest to
know the Lord (Jer. 29:13) must be made according to truth with faith in the promise of Jesus who said,
“Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free” (John 8:32).
Theology is a systematic articulation of faith in God and his relationship with human being and creation.

3. FORMATIVE FACTORS OF THEOLOGY:

3.1 Experience:
Experience of the life of faith comes from participation in a community of faith. This form of experience
varies from individual to individual and from one community to another.
Experience associates with moral struggle for some and with an intellectual quest for others and so on.
Individual experience cannot be emphasized or exaggerated into universal spiritual experience. J. E.
Davies says religious experience as something distinct form ordinary experience for the latter possesses a
dimension of holiness.
The experience of existing as a human being that constitutes a primary source for theology not just explicitly
religious experience.

3.2 Revelation:
Revelation is derived from ‘revelatio’ meaning disclosure or unveiling that is to make known something
hidden or secret. The Greek word is ‘apokalupsis’ meaning ‘uncovering’, ‘to uncover or to unveil.’
In theology revelation refers to God unveiling himself to human being and communicating truth which
would not be discovered by natural reasons alone.
Revelation is the basis and content of Christian faith. God discloses in two ways: General Revelation and
Special Revelation.

General Revelation:
God’s self-disclosure in nature, history and conscience. It is communicated through the media of natural
phenomena occurring in nature or the course of history. Nature- reveals the attributes such as power, glory,
divinity and goodness, History - power and providence of God. General revelation expresses that there is
the creator, the designer, the architect and the sustainer.

Special Revelation:
Those acts of God whereby he makes himself and his truth known at special times and to specific people.
Though it is to specific people at specific times, it is not intended for that time and people only. It is given

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 13

in various forms such as Miracles, Prophecy, Person and Work of Jesus Christ, Scripture and Personal
Experiences.

3.3 Scripture:
The Scripture is one of the formative factors of theology. It is important because it carries the message for
God for human beings. The Scripture remains the basic criterion for any Christian doctrine.
The main focus of theology is to express the reality of God in relation of human beings and other creation.
And it is the Bible which testifies the reality of God. The Bible is the ‘Word of God’, it is not that the Bible
contains ‘God’s Word’.

3.4 Tradition:
Tradition comes from the Latin Word meaning transmission. According to the Faith and Order study report,
‘Tradition refers to the total conditioning process that operates in human history and society’.
It refers to the patterns of the church life, such as confessions, liturgies, and policies etc. that have developed
in each confessional church group.
The basic meaning refers to transmission in the church in the form of doctrines, liturgies, rituals,
confessions, faith etc, It helps to maintain the unity of the church by supplying common teaching in the
form of creed. The church attempts to settle doctrinal controversies and disputes. The church makes its
own decision on special matter and such decision thus formulating as tradition.

3.5 Reason:
Reason means to sort out, to evaluate, to judge etc. The man who rejects the idea of God turns to reason
for the solution of his problems. By reason, it is meant, it is not simply man’s logical powers or his ability
to reason but his cognitive powers, ability to perceive, compare, judge and organize. Human reason plays
a major role in theology since it deals with analyzing, reflecting and interpreting God’s revelation in the
Scripture and in the History of Christianity.

3.6 Socio- Political and Religio-Cultural context:

To develop or to formulate any theology, socio-political-religio-cultural context play a very important role.
Socio-Political Context:
Indian society is comprised of different caste, sub-caste, tribe, class etc., In such a pluralistic society, it is
different to have one common theology. But different theology such as Dalit Theology, Tribal theology
and so on has emerged. In the pre-Independence India, Western dominion brought together Christian
mission and Western Imperialism. Indians were against Western dominion and Hindus considered
Christianity as foreign religion. When the British withdrew from India, Indians controlled the rule and
Christianity is looked down.
Religio_Cultural Context:
India is rich in cultural and religious tradition. India is the cradle or religious and cultural diversities and
seat of Hinduism, Islam, and Buddhism etc., which have influence over the cultural life of the people.
Hence in India, to formulate theology, comprehensive understanding about socio-political-religio-cultural
context is needed.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 14

Chapter 2:
4. Theology in relation to other disciplines:
One of the central tasks of theology is to explore and map theology with other disciplines. Theology being
part of whole intellectual enterprise of humanity, it relates well with other disciplines. The borders between
theology and other disciplines helps one to gain reciprocal illumination.

Systematic Theology formulates an orderly and coherent account of the doctrines of faith. Theology is an
interdisciplinary endeavor. Theology is the critical study of the nature of the divine; more generally,
Religion refers to any cultural system of worship that relates humanity to the supernatural or transcendental.
Biblical Studies is the academic application of diverse disciplines to the study of the Hebrew and Christian
scriptures. Church History studies the history of Christianity and the way the Christian church has
developed since its inception. Liturgy is the customary public worship performed by a religious group
according to its beliefs, customs, and traditions.

4.1 Theology’s relation to Philosophy:1

Philosophy is largely occupied with the same subject-matter as theology. Among all the disciplines,
philosophy is likely to be the nearest to theology since both Theology and Philosophy discusses the nature
of the universe at large, the nature of God and His relation to the world, the nature of the human soul and
its relation to God.

Theology explicates on God, man and the world and during the most of the history, philosophy has also
dealt with the same themes, though not on the basis of faith rather it claims reason and ordinary experience
as its guide.

The common ground for Theology and Philosophy is reason. For instance, St. Justin Martyr claims that
“Whatever things were rightly said among all men are the property of Christians” wherein Clement of
Alexandria holds that philosophy “assists towards true religion as a kind of preparatory training for those
who arrive at faith by way of demonstration.”

What has theology gained in relation to philosophy? The gain is not in taking over the substance of a
metaphysical doctrine to mix with the content of revelation but the gains are formal in character and have
to do with the problems of structure, method and expression. This exchange coerces theology to seek
clarity and coherence in the structure, provides methods to be used in the investigation of the theological
problems and provides vocabulary both precise and contemporary and fitted for the expression of what the
theologian say.

What has philosophers gained? Theology keeps the philosopher aware of dimensions of experience that
tend to get overlooked at the technological age.

1
John Macquarrie, Principles of Christian Theology, USA: SCM Canterbury Press Ltd, 1966, p – 18-21.
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 15

Though on reason, they relate with each other, there is a dispute and there has always been a lively
opposition which is injurious sometimes to theology, sometimes to philosophy. This can be avoided if both
maintain their autonomy and maintain better relation. A positive relationship between theology and
philosophy is certainly good for each discipline.

4.2 Theology’s relation to History:

The relation between theology and history is important as it takes its origin from a revelation given in an
historical person rather than in a dateless myth or a timeless corpus of laws or of philosophical truths.
Theologians of today do not look for comprehensive metaphysics of history but think of the areas where
theology and history interact as quite definitely limited and circumscribed.

Theology expounds the particular faith and relate itself to the whole spectrum of the world’s faiths. The
impact of history over theology is it questions the claim of any revelation to have an exclusive or normative
status. Historical research and criticism has resulted in a changed attitude to the Bible.

Actual historical evidence becomes the bearer of the revelation in the Christian faith and it raises questions
as how long events can be relevant in present day, how the ‘salvation history’ be understood as effecting
salvation.

4.3 Theology and Science:

Theology relates well with the sciences of man and studies such as Anthropology, Psychology and
Sociology which scientifically instigate the phenomena of human life. Each of these sciences offer from
the account of religion.

The great battles of the past between Science and Theology is known to all. The theory of universe by
Copernicus and Galileo was bitterly contested by theologians as they believed that geocentric universe was
part of their revelation. The other greatest battle was the Darwin’s theory of evolution from lower forms of
life which was blow to the Christian faith from the theologian’s perspectives. But these disputes ended with
the retreat of the theologians as the scientific findings, backed by irrefragable evidence were accepted and
the theologians accepted themselves as well as they could to the new situation. It seems to be a victory for
one and defeat of the other but both streams come to a clearer understanding of where the boundary between
the two disciplines lies. The theologians say that the biblical statement reflect the current scientific thinking
of biblical times and on the other hand, science cannot pronounce on matters of faith, which are not based
on the empirical world. Though it seems to be conflicting with theses disciplines, but their contacts are
indirect rather than direct, as both can give rise to different attitudes to our world and our life in it.

4.4 Theology and worship:2

Worship is one of the important element in Christian tradition. The role of worship in Theology and
theology in music is evident as the devotional context shapes the theological reflections of the theologian.

2
Alister E McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction. London: Kings College, 2011, p.142
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 16

The Latin tag lex orandi, lexcredendi, which could be translated roughly as “the way you pray determines
what you believe,” expresses the fact that theology and worship interact with each other. This means, “the
way you pray determines what you believe.” In simple words, the belief of the person affects the pattern of
worship and the worship affects the belief.

5. Definition of Theology in the light of prominent scholars3

Tertullian
Tertullian was a North African theologian and was regarded as Father of Latin Theology.
For Tertullian, theology is characterized by its desire to be faithful to the Scriptures. Theology is equal to
the faithful interpretation of the Scriptures.
Origen of Alexandria
Origen saw the task of theology as answering the questions left open by the apostles. Theology is the
discipline of answering to the fullest extent the questions left unanswered, but alluded to in the Canon,
which was known in his day as the ‘rule of faith”.
Theology is the discipline of offering 3 speculative answers, which extend what we already know in the
Canon, to what we should know based on the questions it leaves open.
Augustine
For Augustine, theology was not only a faithful interpretation of the Scriptures, or a speculative task within
culture, but also a faithful representation of the Apostolic Tradition. It included apologetics, instruction,
preaching, and systematic investigation of the church’s doctrine.
Anselm of Canterbury
Anselm saw theology as the church’s response to situation requiring theological clarity. . He also made
famous Augustine’s statement that theology is “faith seeking understanding” – “fides quarens intellectum”.
Anselm also thought that the task of theology must include reason as a secondary source for its propositions.
Still his insistence is that theology is faith, seeking understanding.
Thomas Aquinas
For Aquinas, theology was the orderly synthesis and systematic exposition of the church’s cardinal
doctrines In the light of revelation and creation, through reason. His own theology followed the
question/answer method and saw as its task the inclusion of all other branches of learning including
philosophy. Theology is, according to Aquinas, the “queen of the Sciences” and therefore the ultimate
source for meaning.
Martin Luther
Theology was “faith seeking understanding”, but the emphasis is just as clearly on the text of Scripture as
the point of departure for this faith.

Schleiermacher
Theology is the explication of the feeling of absolute dependence on God. The goal of theology and the
religious life is, like Jesus, to attain this feeling in a continuous stream of consciousness.

3
https://nbseminary.ca/wp-content/uploads/image/THS_540_Module_1_Session_I-VII-2005_1_-1.pdf, 2-8

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 17

Karl Barth
For Barth theology is the exposition of the self-revealing God of the Bible for the sake of the church. This
is the primary substance of theology. As such, theology is also proclamation. When the church is preaching
it is doing theology and vice versa. But it is also always a “beginning again at the beginning.” Theology is
always an orientation towards, a drawing attention to this person.

Pannenberg
Theology is the rational and historical exposition of the coming into being of God in the realm of human
history as the eschatalogical arrival of the truth. As such theology is the church’s teaching regarding the
truth revealed in Scripture and may, therefore, be considered as truth claims.

G. C. Berkouwer
Theology is the exposition of the authoritative Scriptures, which serves as a boundary. Theology is also the
exposition of the salvific content of the Scriptures, which summons us to personal faith. Thus, theology is
both the correlation of personal faith and divine revelation with the Scriptures as the boundary.

Charles Hodge
Theology is “the science of the facts of divine revelation so far as those facts concern the nature of God and
our relation to Him, as His creatures, as sinners, and as the subjects of redemption. All these facts, as just
remarked, are in the Bible.”

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 18

Chapter 3:
6. Task, Purpose and Source of Theology:
6.1 The Task of Theology
The task of theology is to response to the need of the Church. Theology must address the current issues face
by the Church. However, it is not the task theology to give answer to all the problems. Theology should
reflect on the issues and give meaningful interpretation of every issue from the perspective of faith in God.

6.2 The Purpose of Theology

Theology must be translatable to worship. That is, theology should serve the need of the Church in terms
of enhancing community life, enriching spiritual, etc. and not the other way around. Theology also must
address to the need of the society. It must looked beyond ecclesiological premises and attend to the social
problems face by the society. In other words, theology must be praxis oriented.

6.3 WHO IS A THEOLOGIAN?

The Centre of Theology - Committed to Christ
The Context of Theology - Committed to the Church
The Source of Theology - Committed to the Word
The Sphere of Theology - Committed to the people
The Responsibility of Theology - Committed to reproduce
The Task of Theology - Committed to the worship and ministry of the Church.

1. Centre:
The centre of theology must be Christ who is not merely a teacher but Master and the Lord.
A Christian theologian should never compromise on the person of Christ.
2. Context:
Theologian should be committed to the church and become part of the church.
3. Source:
Theology is derived from the authoritative word of Jesus and His holy apostles. In the
formulation of theology, the text must speak to the theology.
4. Sphere:
In Christendom a collective, horizontal relationship that makes theologian responsible to and for
each other. One’s theology is for the people.
5. Responsibility:
Theologians are committed to produce other theologians who are sound in their theological context
and pure in their actions. Christ centered, Bible based and context oriented theologians are needed today.
6. Task:
Evangelism is the central task of the church. It is the heart and core of the work of the ministry.
Task of theology is to respond to the need of the church. It should address the current issues faced by the
church and give meaningful interpretation of every issue from the perspective of faith in God.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 19

6.4 Major Divisions of Theology:

MAJOR DIVISIONS OF THEOLOGY

Exegetical Theology Historical Theology Systematic Theology Practical Theology

* Biblical Languages *Introductory Studies * Apologetics * Homiletics

- Greek, Heb, Aramaic - Creation, History of Israel, * Ethics * Evangelism
* Biblical Archaeology Life of Christ, Apostolic * Dogmatics * Missions
* Introduction to the Bible History * Bible Doctrines *Pastoral Theology
- Origin, Revelation, * Church History *Christian Education
Inspiration, Canon,
Versions. * History of Christian * Sacred Music
Doctrine
* Biblical Criticisms * Biblical Theology *Church Organization
* Hermeneutics * Old Testament - Pentateuch,
* Exegesis of OT & NT Wisdom & Poetical Literature,
Prophets
* New Testament - Synoptic,
Johannine, Pauline, Petrine, Hebrew,
James, Apocalyptic.

6.5 BRANCHES OF THEOLOGY

Biblical Theology:
The attempt is to understand the Bible as a whole in all contexts, historical, anthropological,
philosophical, theological, sacred, profane, revealed etc., in all its connections with writings that have been
accepted and those not authenticated as Biblical and to find a unity among its diversity of thought patterns
and more.

Christian Theology:
Christian Theology is an attempt to understand and interpret the story of what God has done.

Dialectical Theology:
The dialectical method in Theology uses thesis/antithesis, yes/no, statement/response. It presents
the polar opposites, the paradoxical and contradictory character of human thought about God;
His goodness yet his wrath
Infiniteness yet his Finiteness in Jesus
Timelessness yet his timely existence and effect upon time.
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 20

Grace yet freely exercised mercy and love

Predestination of all things yet allowance for human freedom and deviation from his path.
Omnipresence yet ineffectiveness at eliminating or avoiding human misery and suffering.

It stresses dialogue, debate, pushing of a point of view to any conclusion it can be pushed to without
defensiveness or subjectivity.
It supports the position that divine truth cannot be set down systematically and consistently in dogma or
doctrine or creed.
It is nevertheless based on an apologia of Christian faith that itself must be seen as divine truth surpassing
and transcending all human rationality.

Doctrinal Theology:
It is derived from Latin, doctrina, docere meaning ‘to teach’.
Doctrinal theology is the theology that teaches the Tenets (Principles of faith, divine truths, and
doctrines) held by Christian faith.

Dogmatic Theology:
Theology that affirms and teaches the doctrines laid down by church authority as part of its
confession for Christian faith.
Liberal Theology:
Liberals from Liber, ‘free’.
Liberal theology regards itself to be free from doctrinal restraint in its exegesis of the Bible and doctrines,
and thus broadminded, independent in its opinions and of established traditions, tolerant of opposing views
but attempting to keep up with modern, scientific, historical, theological and philosophical changes in
thoughts, perspective and research.

Mystical Theology:
Theology based on the belief that God can be known through the rational study of natural phenomena
without the assistance of revelation of Grace.
Theology that holds that humans can obtain knowledge of good and His will by means of the natural
capacity of human reason without the assistance of divine revelation.

Pastoral Theology:
It is derived from ‘pastoralis’ from pascere, ‘to pasture’, ‘to feed’
It is a branch of theology that trains clergy for work in their church.
It deals with a variety of subjects such as: doctrine, devotion, the religious life, conducting of holy
services, church administration, giving of the sacraments, homiletics (The art of preaching and teaching),
service to the sick, poor, counseling, ministry to those of the community.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 21

Process Theology:
Derived from Latin processus, from procedere, ‘to proceed’, from pro ‘forward’ and cedere, ‘to
move’.
Theology that stresses God as a process, an activity in the universe (or of the universe) as opposed
to being a substance or entity that have eternally endured; God is a serried of progressive processes that
makes for integration, increase in value, complexity and perfection.

Revealed Theology:
It is derived from Latin, revelare, meaning ‘to unveil’, ‘to reveal’. Theology that asserts that
knowledge of God’s being and his will is and can be obtained only by the means of divine revelation and
attempts to understand why and how this revelation comes about.
Some knowledge that human reason cannot be acquired of its own but that must be disclosed through
revelation; the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Atonement.
Theology based on the belief that the nature of God cannot be ascertained by reason (or by reason
alone) but must be obtained from a revelation (or founded upon revealed knowledge)
God illuminated the soul. There is a divinely illuminated faculty (or intellect) in all humans filled
with content that can be stimulated under proper conditions and made to actualize.
All humans have the ability to see by and be guided by the divine light. This ability is a natural,
human ability originally placed in all humans. All have access to the Divine Light. Truth cannot be
discovered without the aid of this divine light of illumination.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 22

Chapter 4:
6.6 SOURCES OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY4
Theology like other disciplines upon several sources. These sources provide the potential for the
constructive theology.
The sources of Systematic Theology are:
6.6.1. Scripture
6.6.2 Revelation
6.6.3 Tradition
6.6.4 Reason
6.6.5 Christian experience

6.6.1 Scripture:
Scripture is one of the major source of theology as it is recognized as authoritative for Christian Theology.

Most Christians agree with the authority of Scripture, because this is a foundational Christian theology. The
Scripture is the primary source of theology as it contains the revelation of God and man’s relationship to
God. Scripture was generally recognized from the earliest times, if not as the fons or principium unicum, at
least as the fonsprimarius of theology, and therefore also of Dogmatics. 5 A fresh search for God’s words
and acts are inevitable in every generation for a living and relevant theology.

The terms “Bible” and “Scripture,” along with the derived adjectives “biblical” and “scriptural,” are
virtually interchangeable. Both designate a body of texts which are recognized as having authority for
Christian thinking. It must be stressed that the Bible is not merely the object of formal academic study
within Christianity; it is also read and expounded within the context of public worship, and is the subject of
meditation and devotion on the part of individual Christians.

One of the theologian Benjamin Warfield says Holy Scriptures are the source of theology in not only a
degree but also in a sense in which nothing else is. He would certainly call Holy Scripture the fons primarius
of theology. Other Reformed theologians, such as Turretin, Kuyper, Bavinck, Thornwell, and Girardeau,
do not hesitate to speak of it as the principium unicum ('unicum' in the sense of 'only,' and not merely in
that of 'unique'), or as the sole source and norm of theology.

6.6.2 Revelation:
Divine revelation is constituted by disclosure of the nature and purposes of God. What is hidden is made
known; what is veiled is uncovered. Revelation is a basic concept of the Bible, Christian faith and
instruction. Revelation (from Latin revelatio) as a religious concept emphasizes the thought that a person
can only learn to know God to the extent that God reveals Himself.

4
Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1989, p -182
5
Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1932, p – 87-100

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 23

Revelation means an action of God in which God reveals His essence, His plans and His will to people. On
the other hand it also means knowledge of God which is relayed to a person through God’s actions.

The revelation has traditionally been divided into the general and special revelations. The concept “general
revelation” (revelatio generalis) indicates that this form of revelation is known by all people.

Special revelation (revelatio specialis) means God’s supernatural revelation which occurs through Christ
and God’s Word. Special revelation can be divided into direct and indirect revelation. Direct revelation
(inspiratio) means the revelation that the writers of the Bible had. The foundation of the indirect revelation
is the written Word of God, the Bible.

General Revelation
In the general revelation, people see God’s work. Creation/Nature is proof that there exists a Creator of
everything. Throughout time God has spoken to people in nature, fates of nations, and phases of life and in
their consciences.

Creation in its entirety is a great miracle of God. It testifies of the Creator’s glory and magnitude. The
miracle of creation is not only that something has been created, but that humans have been given the ability
to observe it. For those who believe in God, creation is indisputable proof of God’s existence. Even though
people do not see God, they see God’s works.

Special Revelation6
God has revealed Himself especially in the Bible and in His Son Jesus Christ. The culmination of this
revelation is Christ who has become flesh. According to Luther, “God will and can be known in no other
way than in and through Christ”.

Alongside of the general revelation in nature and history, we have a special revelation, which is now
embodied in Scripture. The Bible is the book of the revelatio specialis, and is in the last analysis the only
principium cognoscendi externum of theology. It is therefore to this source that we also turn for our
knowledge of special revelation. Several words are used in Scripture to express the idea of revelation, such
as certain forms of the Hebrew words galah, ra'ah, and yada', and the Greek words epiphanein (epiphaneia),
emphanizein, gnorizein, deloun, deiknunai, lalein, and especially phaneroun and apokaluptein. These words
do not denote a passive becoming manifest, but designate a free, conscious, and deliberate act of God, by
which He makes Himself and His will known unto man.

Two Greek words such as apokaluptein and phaneroun are used for Revelation. Etymologically,
apokaluptein refers to the removal of a covering by which an object was hidden, and phaneroun, to the
manifestation or publication of the matter that was hidden or unknown. Apokalupsis removes the
instrumental cause of concealment, and phanerosis makes the matter itself manifest. This also accounts for
the fact that phanerosis is always used of objective, and apokalupsis of both subjective and objective,

6
Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Michigan: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 184-186
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 24

revelation; and that phanerosis is repeatedly used to denote either general or special revelation, while
apokalupsis is, with a single exception, always used of special revelation.

The core of the revelation that occurred in Jesus is the so-called theology of the cross. In the world God is
hidden in His opposites. God’s love does not seek the good and pious but rather the sinful. Christ’s death
on the cross becomes a victory in the resurrection. God is hidden, but He has revealed to people all that is
necessary so that they can find Him and become His children.

According to Paul, it is possible to understand the special revelation only through the Holy Spirit (1 Cor.
2). The special revelation breaks down obstacles and enables a person to hear God and His will. One cannot
deny the effect of general revelation on the birth of faith, but the general revelation can truly be understood
and accepted only via the special revelation.

In Luther’s theology, the special revelation occurs by means of understanding the law and the gospel. In
emphasizing God’s holiness and mercifulness, Luther created the concepts of the hidden God (Deus
absconditus) and the revealed God (Deus revelatus) [Bondage of the Will]. The tool of the hidden God is
the law, which “frightens” sinners. The tool of the revealed God is the gospel, which “makes alive and
comforts”.

6.6. 3 Tradition:7
Tradition is the consensual belief of the Church that began to be developed in the second and third centuries.
The word “tradition” comes from the Latin term ‘traditio’ which means “handing over,” “handing down,”
or “handing on.” The term refers to the action of passing teachings on to others.

Tradition refers to a body of authoritative beliefs, teachings, or practices that, in the faith of believers,
conveys the gospel message of Jesus Christ

In I Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul writes to his readers that he is handing over the core teachings of the Christian
faith he received from other and in II Timothy 1:14 “guarding the good deposit which was entrusted to
you”

This testimony is especially rich in elaborating the different aspects of tradition that Christians eventually
distinguished. For Paul. Tradition is a doctrine that possesses a particular objective content about the
saving death and resurrection of Jesus, a content expressed in what seems to be a primitive Christian creed.
Tradition is acts of believing, confessing, enacting, and receiving the faith from person to person and from
generation to generation.

Paul justifies this early oral tradition to a sacred literary tradition of Jewish Scriptures which was embraced
as God’s Word for the first Christians.

7
Ian A McFarland, David A.S. Ferguson, The Cambridge Dictionary of Christian Theology,
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 25

Yet Paul justifies this early oral tradition by appeal to a sacred literary tradition of Jewish Scriptures that
were embraced as God’s word by the Jews whom we call the first Christians. Everyone who wishes to
perceive the truth should consider the apostolic tradition, which has been made known in every church in
the entire world.

The oral tradition was a common practice than the literary tradition. Along with Paul, Writing has been
proved to be consequential that speaking and so few Christians committed to writing which was handed on
concerning the gospel of Jesus. Reflected judgements on truthfulness made the writes ascribe divine
authorship and be considered as divine revelation. This claim closed the canon in NT yet the unity and
certainty sought by means of canonical closure proved elusive.

During the fourth and fifth centuries, there was a debate on whether or not the savior was fully divine and
human. To settle this dispute, Bishops met in Church Council to debate and cast votes to find the majority.
The creedal teachings of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon gained authority as the orthodox
faith and functioned as an authoritative supplement to the Bible, as a lens for its truthful reading within the
bounds of the Church.

In the fourth and fifth centuries, these disagreements centered on the nature and person of Christ, with
Christians debating whether or not the savior was fully divine and fully human. These disputes were
adjudicated by bishops who met in Church Councils to debate the issues and cast votes that defined a
majority position. As time passed, the creedal teachings of these early councils – Nicaea, Constantinople,
Ephesus, and Chalcedon – gained authority as the orthodox faith, a circumstance that stirred the belief that
the Holy Spirit was at work at these councils, divinely inspiring their results. The conciliar Creeds
functioned as an authoritative supplement to the Bible, as a lens for its truthful reading within the bounds
of the Church. Although Christians regarded such things as liturgical practices, the veneration of the
MARTYRS, and ecclesial structures as their tradition, the conciliar creeds achieved a special status in the
deposit of faith for a host of reasons – their literary conciseness, their continuing role in securing
ORTHODOXY in a relatively new religion struggling for identity, and, especially in the case of the
NICENE CREED, for their liturgical value as communal statements of faith. This conception of tradition
as a literary supplement to the biblical canon appeared in late medieval Christianity in the authority that
theologians accorded to earlier Christian writers whose work they judged to be thoroughly orthodox.

To summarize, Tradition is the guarantor of faithfulness to the original apostolic teaching, a safeguard
against the innovations and misrepresentations of biblical texts on the part of the Gnostics.

Tradition is the living Word, perpetuated in the hearts of believers. To this sense, as the general sense, the
interpretation of Holy Writ is entrusted. The declaration, which it pronounces on any controverted subject,
is the judgment of the Church; and, therefore, the Church is judge in matters of faith. Tradition, in the
objective sense, is the general faith of the Church through all ages, manifested by outward historical
testimonies; in this sense, tradition is usually termed the norm, the standard of Scriptural interpretation –
the rule of faith.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 26

“Tradition” implies not merely something that is handed down, but an active process of reflection by which
theological or spiritual insights are valued, assessed, and transmitted from one generation to another.

6.6.4 Reason:
Reason means to sort out, to evaluate, to judge etc. The man who rejects the idea of God turns to reason
for the solution of his problems. By reason, it is meant, it is not simply man’s logical powers or his ability
to reason but his cognitive powers, ability to perceive, compare, judge and organize. Human reason plays
a major role in theology since it deals with analyzing, reflecting and interpreting God’s revelation in the
Scripture and in the History of Christianity.

6.6.5 Christian experience/Christian Consciousness

Experience of the life of faith comes from participation in a community of faith. This form of experience
varies from individual to individual and from one community to another.
Experience associates with moral struggle for some and with an intellectual quest for others and so on.
Individual experience cannot be emphasized or exaggerated into universal spiritual experience. J. E.
Davies says religious experience as something distinct form ordinary experience for the latter possesses a
dimension of holiness. The experience of existing as a human being that constitutes a primary source for
theology not just explicitly religious experience.
Schleiermacher says, “The Christian consciousness of the individual, but especially of the religious
community, is the goldmine from which the dogmas of the Church must be drawn.”8
The religious consciousness will always be an important factor in the construction of a system of dogmatic
theology. Only the Christian theologian has a proper insight into the truth as it is revealed in the Word of
God, and is therefore qualified to give a systematic representation of it. While his faith cannot be regarded
as a fountain from which the living waters spring, it is nevertheless the channel that carries them to him
from the perennial well-spring of Scripture. And his personal appropriation of the truths of revelation will
naturally be reflected in his construction of the truth.

8
Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Michigan: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 96.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 27

Unit II
Chapter 1
1.1 The Foundations of Theology:
Foundation of Theology explores theology as a critical dialogue between Christian traditions and human
experiences. The learners are required to examine from different perspectives such as Scripture, Tradition,
Reason, Experience and background.

The foundation of theology can be understood from the definition “theology is the intellectual reflection on
the act, content and implications of Christian faith. It describes faith within a specific historical and cultural
context. Being contextual in nature, it is an ongoing task and became the fundamental faith-commitment to
Jesus as Lord and to the Triune God revealed in Christ. Theology serves the church in each generation and
in each cultural setting by assisting the people of God in reflecting on and applying the one faith of the
church to the world in which contemporary disciples live and engage in ministry in Christ's name.

THE NECESSITY OF THEOLOGY

Theology is necessary for all of life and thought since it talks about God who is both ultimate and
omnipotent. The necessity of theology is a question of the necessity of communication from God. Since
this is God's universe, the ultimate source of information and interpretation regarding all of life and thought
is divine revelation. And since it is necessary to hear from God, theology is necessary. Theology is central
to all of life and thought because it deals with the verbal revelation that comes from the Supreme Being –
the essential reality that gives existence and meaning to everything.

How does one know God? Is it knowing God or knowing about God, if not through knowing about him?
Some may answer that we know God through religious experience, but even that is defined and interpreted
by theology, or knowledge about God. What is a religious experience? How does one know he has received
one? What does a particular feeling or sensation mean?

The answer for these can come by studying God's verbal revelation. Even if it is possible to know God
through religious experience, it is the knowledge about God gained, i.e., intellectual information reducible
to propositions. A person may know God through prayer and worship but it is undefined until one studies
theology.

Once a person attempts to answer the above questions about how one comes to know God, he is doing
theology. The matter then becomes whether his theology is correct. Therefore, theology is unavoidable.
Whereas an erroneous theology leads to spiritual and practical disaster, an accurate one leads to genuine
worship and godly living. One slogan that reflects the anti-intellectual attitude of many Christians says,
"Give me Jesus, not exegesis." However, it is the Scripture that gives us information about Jesus, and it is
through biblical exegesis that we ascertain the meaning of Scripture. Without exegesis, therefore, one
cannot know Jesus.

Theology seeks to understand and systematize his verbal revelation, and it is authoritative to the extent that
it reflects the teaching of Scripture. Ignorance regarding divine revelation affects all of life and thought,
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 28

from one's view toward history and philosophy, to one's interpretation of music and literature, to one's
understanding of mathematics and physics. Since this is God's universe, only his interpretation about
anything is correct, and he has revealed his thoughts to us through the words of the Bible. It follows that an
ignorance of theology means that one's interpretation of every subject will lack the defining factor that puts
it into the proper perspective.

Since the Bible is the only objective and public divine revelation, the only way to appeal to God's authority
is by an appeal to the Bible. One of the greatest reasons for studying theology is the intrinsic value of
knowledge about God. Every other category of knowledge is a means to an end, but the knowledge of God
is a worthy end in itself. And since God has revealed himself through the Scripture, to know the Scripture
is to know him, and this means to study theology.

Some believers distinguish between knowing God and knowing about God. If "knowing about" God refers
to the formal study of theology, then to them one may know much about God without knowing him, and
one may know God without knowing much about him. A person's theological knowledge is disproportionate
to how well he knows God. But if it is possible to know God without knowing very much about him.

Theology defines and gives meaning to all that one may think or do. It ranks above all other necessities
(Luke 10:42); no other task or discipline approaches it in significance. Therefore, the study of theology is
the most important human activity.

1.2 The God Who Speaks

The God Who Speaks can be well understood by the quote. 'Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of
Christ', if a person ignores the Scripture then the voice of the Lord is ignored. The God speaks to the
creation through Scripture and through revelation, that is, General and Special Revelation. In the broader
use, God speaks or reveals himself - “God’s disclosure of Himself through creation, history, the conscience
of man and Scripture. It is given in both event and word.” Revelation thus is both “general”—God revealing
Himself in history and nature, and “special”—God revealing Himself in the Scriptures and in His Son.

1.3 The Necessity of God’s Self-Disclosure:

Revelation:
Revelation is derived from Greek word ‘apokalupsis’ meaning ‘disclosure’ or ‘unveiling’. It signifies God
unveiling himself to mankind. If God had not revealed Himself there won’t be propositional statements
about God. The epitome of God’s revelation is indicated in Romans 16:25, Luke 2:32 where God has
revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ.

This revelation can be understood from the definition “that act of God whereby he discloses himself or
communicates truth to the mind, whereby he makes manifest to his creatures that which could not be known
in any other way. The revelation may occur in a single, instantaneous act, or it may extend over a long
period of time; and this communication of himself and his truth may be perceived by the human mind in
varying degrees of fullness.”

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 29

God speaks through the revelation where he discloses truth about himself that man would not otherwise
know. According to Barth, man could no longer attain to a knowledge of God through reason because of
the fall; God had to reveal Himself to the individual personally for the individual to attain a knowledge of
God. Thus, for Barth, revelation consisted in the Word of God coming to man in an experiential encounter.
The revelation could only be considered actual when an individual existential encounter with Christ had
taken place.God’s revelation in nature is perhaps the most prominent demonstration of general revelation.
Psalm 19:1–6 affirms His revelation to the human race in the heavens as well as on earth. The psalmist
indicates that this revelation is continuous—it occurs “day to day” and “night to night” (v. 2). This
revelation never ceases. Furthermore, it is a wordless revelation: “there is no speech, nor are there words”
(v. 3). Finally, its scope is worldwide: “Their line [sound] has gone out through all the earth” (v. 4).

The universe display the orderliness, the sun provides the right temperature environment on earth at a
distance of 93 million miles. The distance of the sun to the earth provide either hot or cold without harming
the human. If the moon were closer than two hundred forty thousand miles the gravitational pull of the tides
would engulf the earth’s surface with water from the oceans. Wherever man looks in the universe, there is
harmony and order. The human body – The best evidence of general revelation is the magnificence of the
human body – the systems of the body such as cardiovascular, the bone structure, the respiratory, the
muscles, the nervous system, the brain reveals an infinite God. Romans 1:18–21 further develops the
concept of general revelation. The “invisible attributes,” “eternal power,” and “divine nature” of God have
been “clearly seen” (v. 20). The human race is rendered guilty and without excuse through God’s revelation
of Himself in nature. This revelation gives mankind an awareness of God but is of itself inadequate to
provide salvation (cf. also Job 12:7–9; Psalm 8:1–3; Isa. 40:12–14, 26; Acts 14:15–17).

Revelation
Type Manifestation Reference Significance
Revelation about God’s existence
Psalm 19:1-6
Revelation about God’s glory
In Nature
Reveals God is omnipotent
Romans 1:18-21
Reveals God will judge
General Revelation Matthew 5:45 Reveals God is kind to all people
In Providence Acts 14:15-17 Revelation about God’s providence
Daniel 2:21 Reveals God raises up and removes rulers
Reveals God has placed His law within the
In conscience Romans 2:14-15
hearts of all people
John 1:18 Reveals what the Father is like
In Christ John 5:36-37 Reveals the Father’s compassion
John 6:63; 14:10 Reveals the Father as a life giver
Special Revelation II Timothy 3:16,17 Reveals what the Father is like
Reveals that God has chosen to disclose
In Scripture
II Peter 1:21 through human authors directed by the Holy
Spirit.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 30

Further, God has revealed Himself through conscience. Romans 2:14–15 indicates God has placed
intuitional knowledge concerning Himself within the heart of man. “Man intuitively knows not only that
God values goodness and abhors evil but also that he is ultimately accountable to such a righteous Power.”

While the Jews will be judged according to the written law, Gentiles, who do not have the written Law, will
be judged according to an unwritten law, the law of conscience written on their hearts. Moreover, Paul says
the conscience acts as a legal prosecutor (v. 15). “Conscience may be regarded as an inner monitor, or the
voice of God in the soul, that passes judgment on man’s response to the moral law within.”

Special Revelation
Special revelation is restricted to Jesus Christ and the Scriptures. Of course, all that is known of Christ is
through the Scriptures; therefore, it can be said that special revelation is restricted to the Scriptures. Special
revelation as reflected in the Scriptures is given in propositional statements, in other words, it comes from
outside of man, not from within man. Many examples reflect the propositional nature of special revelation:
“Then God spoke all these words, saying” (Ex. 20:1); “These are the words of the covenant” (Deut. 29:1);
“Moses finished writing the words of this law in a book until they were complete” (Deut. 31:24);
In short, special revelation is the revelation of God in specific to specific people at specific times.

Few examples:
“Then the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah after the king had burned the scroll and the words which
Baruch had written at the dictation of Jeremiah, saying, ‘Take again another scroll and write on it all the
former words that were on the first scroll which Jehoiakim the king of Judah burned’” (Jer. 36:27–28; cf.
v. 2); “The gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man,
nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:11–12).

Necessity of Special Revelation:

Special revelation became necessary due to the sinful nature of the humanity and the fall. To restore the
fallen humanity, to maintain constant fellowship, to reveal God’s way of salvation and reconciliation,
special revelation has been necessitated. The essence of special revelation centers on the person of Jesus
Christ. Jesus declared that both His words (John 6:63) and His works (John 5:36) demonstrated that He
revealed the Father—and both His words and His works are accurately recorded in Scripture. Hebrews 1:3
indicates Christ is the “radiance of (God’s) glory and the exact representation of His nature.”

Because the Bible is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16) and written by men carried along by the Holy Spirit (2
Peter 1:21), the Bible is entirely reliable and accurate in its portrayal of Jesus Christ. There is, in fact, a
correlation between the two aspects of special revelation: the Scripture may be termed the living, written
Word (Heb. 4:12), while Jesus Christ may be designated the living, incarnate Word (John 1:1, 14). In the
case of Christ there was human parentage but the Holy Spirit overshadowed the event (Luke 1:35), ensuring
a sinless Christ; in the case of the Scriptures there was human authorship but the Holy Spirit superintended
the writers (2 Peter 1:21), ensuring an inerrant Word. The Bible accurately presents the special revelation
of God in Christ.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 31

Chapter 2:
2.1 Scripture - What is Biblical Authority?
Scripture has played an important and authoritative role in the history of Christian churches. Scripture is
the revealed, inspired written Word of God. The authority of the Bible originates in the authority of God,
Scripture’s divine author. Biblical infallibility constituted a central doctrine of churches.

Bible is derived from the Greek word biblion meaning ‘book’ or ‘roll’. This name comes from Byblos,
which denotes papyrus plant which was used for writing. Eventually, the plural form biblia was used by
Latin-speaking Christians to denote all the books of the Old and New Testaments. The word translated
“Scripture” comes from the Greek word graphe, which simply means “writing.”

The terms “Bible” and “Scripture,” along with the derived adjectives “biblical” and “scriptural,” are
virtually interchangeable. Both designate a body of texts which are recognized as having authority for
Christian thinking. It must be stressed that the Bible is not merely the object of formal academic study
within Christianity; it is also read and expounded within the context of public worship, and is the subject of
meditation and devotion on the part of individual Christians.

The doctrine of the authority and inerrancy of Scripture is that, as a corollary of the inspiration of Scripture,
the God-breathed Scriptures are wholly true in all things that they assert in the original autographs and
therefore function with the authority of God’s own words.

This means that all things that the Scriptures assert are wholly true, both in the Old Testament, the Scriptures
of Jesus and the apostles, and in the New Testament, the writings of the apostles.

In the Old Testament this writing was recognized as carrying great authority (e.g. 2 Kings 14:6; 2 Chron.
23:18; Ezra 3:2; Neh. 10:34). The “writings” of the Old Testament were eventually collected into three
groups called the Law, Prophets, and Writings (or Psalms), and constituted the thirty-nine books of the Old
Testament. These writings—the Scriptures—were formally combined into the Old Testament canon.

In the New Testament the Greek verb grapho is used about ninety times in reference to the Bible, while the
noun form graphe is used fifty-one times in the New Testament, almost exclusively of the Holy Scriptures.
In the New Testament the designations vary: “the Scriptures,” designating collectively all the parts of
Scripture (e.g., Matt. 21:42; 22:29; 26:54; Luke 24:27, 32, 45: John
5:39; Rom. 15:4; 2 Peter 3:16) or individual parts of the Scriptures (Mark 12:10; 15:28; John 13:18; 19:24,
36; Acts 1:16; 8:35; Rom. 11:2; 2 Tim. 3:16); “the Scripture says,” fairly synonymous with quoting God
(e.g., Rom. 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; Gal. 4:30; 1 Tim. 5:18). They are also termed “Holy Scriptures” (Rom. 1:2)
and “the Sacred Writings” (Gk. hiera grammata, 2 Tim. 3:15). The classic passage 2 Timothy 3:16 stresses
that these writings are not ordinary writings but are in fact “God-breathed,” and as such they are
authoritative and without error in all that they teach.2

The Biblical Authority can be understood from the words of B.B. Warfield, “The trustworthiness of the
Scriptures lies at the foundation of trust in the Christian system of doctrine, and is therefore fundamental to
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 32

the Christian hope and life.” This highlights the authority and the inerrancy of the scripture and abandoning
it will shake the foundation of the Christian system.

Some may argue that there is a difference between the written and the spoken Word of God, which in turn
exposes one problem when defining the authority of Scripture. Many, even those among Christendom, see
the Bible as nothing more than an ancient literary work finished nearly two-thousand years ago, begging
the question, what authority does this ancient work bear on modern life? Martin S. Jaffee states, “Ontologies
of the written and spoken word are thus bound up with systems of power relationships,” which indicates
that the nature of the “Word,” it’s being, is the same whether spoken or written. Agreeing with the
correspondence of the word of God regardless of form, Herman A. Preus comments, “The Word, whether
written, spoken, or signed, is the same Word,” prefaced by, “…God speaks to us in three different ways.
But it is the same word he speaks in all the three.

Thus, for believers there need not be a distinction, which is useful to the debate and illustrated in the
commonly quoted verses for biblical authority. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching,
rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16 NIV). This is one of the most frequently
cited verses justifying the authority of Scripture.

2. 2 The Inspiration of Scripture

Inspiration is necessary to preserve the revelation of God. If God has revealed Himself but the record of
that revelation is not accurately recorded, then the revelation of God is subject to question. Hence,
inspiration guarantees the accuracy of the revelation.

2.2.1. Etymology:
The Word Inspiration is derived from the Latin Vulgate Bible which the verb inspiro appears in 2 Timothy
3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21. The word inspiration is used to translate theopneustos, a hapax legomenon (meaning
it appears only once in the Greek New Testament) found in 2 Timothy 3:16. Theopneustos means “God-
breathed” and emphasizes the exhalation of God; hence, inspiration would be more accurate since it
emphasizes that Scripture is the product of the breath of God.The Scriptures are not something breathed
into by God; rather, the Scriptures have been breathed out by God.

2.2.2. Definition of Inspiration:

Inspiration may be defined as the Holy Spirit’s superintending over the writers so that while writing
according to their own styles and personalities, the result was God’s Word written—authoritative,
trustworthy, and free from error in the original autographs.

Benjamin B. Warfield:
“Inspiration is, therefore, usually defined as a supernatural influence exerted on the sacred writers by the
Spirit of God, by virtue of which their writings are given Divine trustworthiness.”

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 33

Edward J. Young:
“Inspiration is a superintendence of God the Holy Spirit over the writers of the Scriptures, as a result of
which these Scriptures possess Divine authority and trustworthiness and, possessing such Divine authority
and trustworthiness, are free from error.”
Charles C. Ryrie:
“Inspiration is … God’s superintendence of the human authors so that, using their own individual
personalities, they composed and recorded without error His revelation to man in the words of the original
autographs.”

2.3 Views of Inspiration:

2.3.1 False Views of Inspiration
2.3.1.1 Natural inspiration:
This view projects the writers of scriptures as a simple men of unusual ability who wrote the books of the
Bible as other writers. There is not supernatural about biblical inspiration.

In other words, the writers were men of unusual religious insight, writing on religious subjects in the same
way men like Shakespeare or Schiller wrote literature.

2.3.1.2. Spiritual illumination.

The illumination view suggests that some Christians may have spiritual insight that although similar to
other Christians is greater in degree. In this view any devout Christian, illuminated by the Holy Spirit, can
be the author of inspired Scripture. Adherents to this view suggest it is not the writings that are inspired;
rather, it is the writers who are inspired.

2.3.1.3. Partial or dynamic inspiration:

The partial inspiration theory teaches that the parts of the Bible related to matters of faith and practice are
inspired whereas matters related to history, science, chronology, or other non-faith matters may be in error.
In this view God preserves the message of salvation amid other material that may be in error. The partial
theory rejects both verbal inspiration (that inspiration extends to the words of Scripture) and plenary
inspiration (that inspiration extends to the entirety of Scripture).

2.3.1.4. Conceptual inspiration:

This view suggests that only the concepts or ideas of the writers are inspired but not the words. In this view
God gave an idea or concept to the writer who then penned the idea in his own words. According to this
view there can be errors in Scripture because the choice of words is left to the writer and is not superintended
by God. In response, however, it is noted that Jesus (Matt. 5:18) and Paul (1 Thess. 2:13) both affirmed
verbal inspiration.

2.3.1.5. Divine dictation:

The dictation view states that God dictated the words of Scripture and the men wrote them down in a passive
manner, being mere amanuenses (secretaries) who wrote only the words they were told to write. This claim
would render the Bible similar to the Koran which supposedly was dictated in Arabic from heaven.
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 34

Although some parts of the Bible were given by dictation (cf. Ex. 20:1, “Then God spoke all these words”),
the books of the Bible reveal a distinct contrast in style and vocabulary, suggesting the authors were not
mere automatons.

To these views the evangelical Christian responds with contrasting points. The Bible is the objective and
authoritative Word of God whether or not a person responds to it (John 8:47; 12:48). Furthermore, there are
no objective criteria for evaluating what would constitute a “legitimate” encounter with God. Additionally,
who would be capable of distinguishing myth from truth?

2.3.2 Biblical View of Inspiration:

Christ’s view of the Bible:
The view held by Christ in regard to the Scriptures is more significant in determining the nature of biblical
inspiration.

R. Laird Harris, in defending the inspiration of the Scriptures, he argues from the standpoint of Christ’s
view of Scripture instead of using II Timothy 3:16 or II Peter 1:21.
Inspiration of the Whole
Inspiration of the Parts
Inspiration of the Words
Inspiration of the Letters
Inspiration of the New Testament
Christ gave credence to the inspiration of the entire OT. Christ quoted from the Old Testament profusely
and frequently. In defending the doctrine of the resurrection to the Sadducees, Jesus quoted from Exodus
3:6 (significant because the Sadducees held only to the Pentateuch) In a number of His statements Christ
reveals that He believed the letters of Scripture were inspired. In Matthew 5:18 Jesus declared, “Not the
smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law until all is accomplished.” The term “smallest letter”
refers to the Hebrew letter yodh, which looks like an apostrophe (’) In the Upper Room Discourse Christ
made a significant statement that seems to point to the ultimate, accurate recording of the New Testament
writings.
In Matthew 5:17-18, He affirms that not the smallest letter or stroke would pass from the lawChrist was
affirming the inspiration of the individual texts or books of the Old Testament. If the words of the Old
Testament were not inspired, His argument was useless; but if the very words of the Old Testament were
actually inspired, then His argument carried enormous weight.

Jesus emphasized that all the details of the Old Testament writings would be fulfilled to the very letter. In
John 14:26 Jesus indicated that the Holy Spirit would provide accurate recall for the apostles as they penned
the words of Scripture, thus guaranteeing their accuracy. He referred to the law or the prophets, a common
phrase designating the entire Old Testament. In Matthew 12:18–21 Jesus quoted from Isaiah 42:1–4,
showing that His peaceable, gentle disposition and His inclusion of the Gentiles had all been foretold in the
prophetic writings. The Holy Spirit gave John and the other writers accurate recall of the events.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 35

In Luke 24:44 Jesus reminded the disciples that all the things written about Him in the law of Moses, the
prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled.
Jesus Christ held a very high view of Scripture, affirming its inspiration in the entire Old Testament—the
various books of the Old Testament, the precise words, the actual letters—and He pointed to the inspiration
of the New Testament
When Jesus debated with the unbelieving Jews concerning His right to be called the Son of God He referred
them to Psalm 82:6 and reminded them “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). “It means that
Scripture cannot be emptied of its force by being shown to be erroneous.”

Paul’s view of the Bible.

(1) Inspiration of the Old and New Testaments. In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul prefaced his remarks with “the
Scripture says.” Then he quoted from Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7, thereby ascribing the status of
Scripture to both the Old and New Testaments. Paul was saying that the New Testament is as much the
inspired Word of God as the Old Testament.
(2) Inspiration of the words. In Paul’s classic statement found in 2 Timothy 3:16, the apostle reminds the
reader that all Scripture is “inspired by God.” As indicated earlier, “inspired by God” is the Greek word
theopneustos, meaning “God-breathed.” Paul’s emphasis is on the origin of the Scriptures: that which is
God- breathed is “produced by the creative breath of the Almighty.

Peter’s view of the Bible. Peter’s teaching concerning the Scriptures coincides with Paul’s teaching. In 2
Peter 1:21 Peter emphasizes that no Scripture is produced as a result of human will; rather, it is the product
of the superintending power of the Holy Spirit. Peter identifies the Scriptures as “the prophetic word” (v.
19), “prophecy of Scripture” (v. 20), and “prophecy” (v. 21); he declares that the Scripture is “something
altogether reliable.” In verse 21 Peter explains why the Scripture is reliable. Like Paul, Peter affirms that
Scripture has its origin with God. Although men penned the words of Scripture, they did so as they were
carried along [Gk. pheromenoi] by the Holy Spirit.

To conclude, Jesus testifying to the inspiration of the entire scriptures is the strongest defense for the
inspiration of the Scriptures. He testified to the inspiration of the entire Scriptures, the various books of the
Old Testament and the actual words of Scripture as they had been originally recorded. The fact that He
based His arguments on the precise wording of Scripture testifies to His exalted view of Scripture. In
addition, Paul acknowledged that all Scripture was God-breathed; man was a passive instrument, being
guided by God in the writing of Scripture. Peter’s statement was similar in emphasizing that, in their
passivity, men were carried along by the Holy Spirit in the writing of Scripture. The testimony of each of
these witnesses draws attention to the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture

2.4 The Canon of Scripture

Scripture being inspired by God, leaves a question, which books are inspired as many other writings were
also found. Historically, it became important to know which books are inspired and which books are
authoritative. For which the canonicity, plays a predominant role in recognizing the authentic, inspired and
authoritative books of the Bible.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 36

2.4.1.Etymology:
The English word canon comes from the Greek kanen, κανών, meaning "rule" or "measuring stick". The
Hebrew word ‘qaneh’ signified ‘measuring rod.’

2.4.2. Definition of Canonicity

A biblical canon or canon of scripture is a set of texts (or "books") which a particular Jewish or Christian
religious community regards as authoritative scripture.

The terms canon and canonical thus came to signify standards by which books were measured to determine
whether or not they were inspired.

Merriam Webster dictionary defines Canon as “an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture”.

2.4.3. The Beginning of Canonicity:

Deciding which books were inspired seems like a human process. Christians gathered together at church
councils in the first several centuries A.D. for the purpose of officially recognizing which books are
inspired. But these early church councils have not determined which books re inspired but recognized the
inspired books by applying basic standards.

A. Is it authoritative (“Thus saith the Lord”)?

B. Is it prophetic (“a man of God” 2 Peter 1:20)?
- A book in the Bible must have the authority of a spiritual leader of Israel (O.T. – prophet, king, judge,
scribe) or and apostle of the church (N.T. – It must be based on the testimony of an original apostle.).
C. Is it authentic (consistent with other revelation of truth)?
D. Is it dynamic – demonstrating God’s life-changing power (Hebrew 4:12)?
E. Is it received (accepted and used by believers – 1 Thessalonians 2:13)?

The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha were rejected as a result of not meeting this test. The book should bear
evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit.

Jews and conservative Christians alike have recognized the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament as
inspired. Evangelical Protestants have recognized the twenty-seven books of the New Testament as
inspired. Roman Catholics have a total of eighty books because they recognize the Apocrypha as
semicanonical.

2.3.4. Canonicity of the Old Testament

The Masoretic (Hebrew) text of the Old Testament divided the thirty-nine books into three categories: Law
(Pentateuch); Prophets (Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, major and minor prophets); and the
Writings (sometimes called “The Psalms,” including the poetry and wisdom books—Psalms, Proverbs, and
Job; the Rolls—Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther; the Historical Books—
Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and 1 and 2 Chronicles). This threefold division was also attested to by Josephus
(A.D. 37–95), Bishop Melito of Sardis (ca. A.D. 170), Tertullian (A.D. 160–250), and others.44 The
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 37

Council of Jamnia in A.D. 90 is generally considered the occasion whereby the Old Testament canon was
publicly recognized (while debating the canonicity of several books).

There is evidence of the manner in which the Old Testament books were recognized as canonical. Laird
Harris traces the continuity of recognition: Moses was recognized as writing under the authority of God
(Ex. 17:14; 34:27; cf. Josh. 8:31; 23:6). The criterion for acknowledging the Pentateuch was whether it was
from God’s servant, Moses. Following Moses, God raised up the institution of prophecy to continue
revealing Himself to His people (cf. Deut. 18:15–19; Jer. 26:8–15). The prophets to whom God spoke also
recorded their revelation (cf. Josh. 24:26; 1 Sam. 10:25; Isa. 8:1; Ezek. 43:11). Harris concludes, “The law
was accorded the respect of the author, and he was known as God’s messenger. Similarly, succeeding
prophets were received upon due authentication, and their written works were received with the same
respect, being received therefore as the Word of God. As far as the witness contained in the books
themselves is concerned, this reception was immediate.”

Specific tests to consider canonicity may be recognized.

1. Did the book indicate Divine authorship?
2. Did it reflect God speaking through a mediator? (e.g., Ex. 20:1; Josh. 1:1; Isa. 2:1).
3. Was the human author a spokesman of God?
4. Was he a prophet or did he have the prophetic gift? (e.g., Deut. 31:24–26; 1 Sam. 10:25; Neh. 8:3).
5. Was the book historically accurate?
6. Did it reflect a record of actual facts?
7. How was the book received by the Jews?

In summary, the books of the Old Testament were divinely inspired and authoritative the moment they were
written. There was human recognition of the writings; normally this was immediate as the people
recognized the writers as spokesmen from God. Finally, there was a collection of the books into a canon.

2.3.5. Canonicity of the New Testament

There were several factors that caused the recognition of a New Testament canon. (1) Spurious writings as
well as attacks on genuine writings were a factor. Marcion, for example, rejected the Old Testament and
New Testament writings apart from the Pauline letters (he altered Luke’s gospel to suit his doctrine). (2)
The content of the New Testament writings testified to their authenticity and they naturally were collected,
being recognized as canonical. (3) Apostolic writings were used in public worship; hence, it was necessary
to determine which of those writings were canonical. (4) Ultimately, the edict by Emperor Diocletian in
A.D. 303, demanding that all sacred books be burned, resulted in the New Testament collection.
The process of the recognition and collection took place in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very
early, the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul, for example, recognized Luke’s writing on a
par with the Old Testament (1 Tim. 5:18 quotes Deut. 25:4 and Luke 10:7 and refers to both texts as “the
Scripture says”). Peter also recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15–16). Letters were being
read in the churches and even circulated among the church (cf. Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27).

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 38

In the post-apostolic era, Clement of Rome (c. A.D. 95) mentioned at least eight New Testament books in
a letter; Ignatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 115) also acknowledged about seven books; Polycarp, a disciple of
John, (c. A.D. 108), acknowledged fifteen letters. That is not to say these men did not recognize more letters
as canonical, but these are ones they mentioned in their correspondence. Later Irenaeus wrote (c. A.D. 185),
acknowledging twenty-one books. Hippolytus (A.D. 170–235) recognized twenty-two books. The
problematic books at this time were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John.

Even more important was the witness of the Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170), which was a compilation of
books recognized as canonical at that early date by the church. The Muratorian Canon included all the New
Testament books except Hebrews, James, and one epistle of John.

In the fourth century there was also prominent recognition of a New Testament canon. When Athanasius
wrote in A.D. 367 he cited the twenty-seven books of the New Testament as being the only true books. In
A.D. 363 the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament and the twenty-seven books of the
New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) recognized the twenty-
seven books, and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) affirmed that only those canonical books were to be
read in the churches.

2.3.6. Criteria for the canonicity of the New Testament:

(1)Apostolicity. Was the author an apostle or did he have a connection with an apostle? For example, Mark
wrote under Peter’s authority, and Luke wrote under Paul’s authority.
(2)Acceptance. Was the book accepted by the church at large? The recognition given a particular book by
the church was important. By this canon false books were rejected (but it also delayed recognition of some
legitimate books).
(3)Content. Did the book reflect consistency of doctrine with what had been accepted as orthodox teaching?
The spurious “gospel of Peter” was rejected as a result of this principle.
(4) Inspiration. Did the book reflect the quality of inspiration?

2.5 The Inerrancy of Scripture

In the past it was sufficient to state that the Bible was inspired; however, it has now become necessary to
define the evangelical position more precisely. The result, as Charles Ryrie has shown, has necessitated the
inclusion of additional verbiage. To state the orthodox view it is now necessary to include the terms “verbal,
plenary, infallible, inerrant, unlimited inspiration!” All this has been necessitated because of those who have
retained words like inspiration, infallible, and even inerrant while denying that the Bible is free from error.

2.5.1. Definition of Inerrancy

J. Young provides a suitable definition of inerrancy: “By this word we mean that the Scriptures possess the
quality of freedom from error. They are exempt from the liability to mistake, incapable of error. In all their
teachings they are in perfect accord with the truth.”

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 39

Ryrie provides a syllogism for logically concluding the biblical teaching of inerrancy: “God is true (Rom.
3:4); the Scriptures were breathed out by God (2 Tim. 3:16); therefore, the Scriptures are true (since they
came from the breath of God who is true).”

In defining inerrancy it is also important to state what it does not mean. It does not demand rigidity of style
and verbatim quotations from the Old Testament. “The inerrancy of the Bible means simply that the Bible
tells the truth. Truth can and does include approximations, free quotations, language of appearances, and
different accounts of the same event as long as those do not contradict.”
At the Chicago meeting in October 1978, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy issued the
following statement on inerrancy: “Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault
in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history,
and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.”

“Inerrancy means that when all the facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly
interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything they teach, whether that teaching has to do with
doctrine, history, science, geography, geology, or other disciplines or knowledge.”

2.5.2. Explanation of Inerrancy

Inerrancy allows for variety in style. The gospel of John was written in the simple style one might expect
of an unlearned fisherman; Luke was written with a more sophisticated vocabulary of an educated person;
Paul’s epistles reflect the logic of a philospher. All of these variations are entirely compatible with
inerrancy.

Inerrancy allows for variety in details in explaining the same event. This phenomenon is particularly
observed in the Synoptic Gospels. It is important to remember that Jesus spoke in Aramaic and the writers
of Scripture wrote their accounts in Greek, meaning they had to translate the original words into Greek.
One writer would use slightly different words to describe the same incident, yet both would give the same
meaning, albeit with different words. There is an additional reason for variety in details. One writer might
have viewed the event from one standpoint while the other gospel writer viewed it from another standpoint.
This would make the details appear different, yet both would be accurate.

Inerrancy does not demand verbatim reporting of events. “In times of antiquity it was not the practice to
give a verbatim repetition every time something was written out.” A verbatim quote could not be demanded
for several reasons. First, as already mentioned, the writer had to translate from Aramaic to Greek in
recording Jesus’ words. Second, in making reference to Old Testament texts it would have been impossible
to unroll the lengthy scrolls each time to produce a verbatim quote; furthermore, the scrolls were not readily
available, hence, the freedom in Old Testament quotes.

Inerrancy allows for departure from standard forms of grammar. Obviously it is wrong to force English
rules of grammar upon the Scriptures. For example, in John 10:9 Jesus declares, “I am the door,” whereas
in verse 11 He states, “I am the good shepherd.” In English this is considered mixing metaphors, but this is
not a problem to Greek grammar or Hebrew language. In John 14:26 Jesus refers to the Spirit (pneuma =
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 40

neuter) and then refers to the Spirit as “He” (ekeinos = masculine). This may raise an English grammarian’s
eyebrows, but it is not a problem of Greek grammar.
Inerrancy demands that the account does not teach error or contradiction. In the statements of Scripture,
whatever is written is in accord with things as they are. Details may vary but it may still reflect things as
they are. For example, in Matthew 8:5–13 it is noted that the centurion came to Jesus and said, “I am not
qualified.” In the parallel passage in Luke 7:1–10 it is noted that the elders came and said concerning the
centurion, “He is worthy.” It appears the elders first came and spoke to Jesus, and later the centurion himself
came. Both accounts are in accord with things as they are.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 41

Chapter III
Types and branches of Theology in brief
3.1 Biblical Theology
The attempt is to understand the Bible as a whole in all contexts, historical, anthropological,
philosophical, theological, sacred, profane, revealed etc., in all its connections with writings that have been
accepted and those not authenticated as Biblical and to find a unity among its diversity of thought patterns
and more.
Biblical theology may be defined as “that branch of theological science which deals systematically with the
historically conditioned progress of the self-revelation of God as deposited in the Bible.”

3.1.1 Elements of Biblical Theology based on the definition:

3.1.1.1 Systematization
Biblical theology investigates the periods of history in which God has revealed Himself or the doctrinal
emphases of the different biblical writers as set forth in a systematic fashion. Biblical theology, while
presented in a systematized form, is distinct from systematic theology that assimilates truth from the entire
Bible and from outside the Scriptures in systematizing biblical doctrine. Biblical theology is narrower. It
concentrates on the emphasis of a given period of history as in the Old Testament or on the explicit teaching
of a particular writer as in the New Testament.

3.1.1.2 History
Biblical theology pays attention to the important historical circumstances in which the biblical doctrines
were given.

3.1.1.3 Progress of Revelation

Biblical theology traces that progress of revelation, noting the revelation concerning Himself that God has
given in a particular era or through a particular writer.

3.1.1.4 Biblical Nature

Biblical theology draws its information about God from the Bible (and from historical information that
expands or clarifies the historical events of the Bible). Biblical theology thus is exegetical in nature,
examining the doctrines in the various periods of history or examining the words and statements of a
particular writer. This enables the student to determine the self-disclosure of God at a given period of
history.
Biblical theology has a direct relationship to exegesis (“to explain; to interpret”)

3.2 Dogmatic Theology

Theology that affirms and teaches the doctrines laid down by church authority as part of its confession for
Christian faith.

The word 'dogma' is derived from the Greek verb dokein.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 42

Dogmatic theology is normally understood to denote the study of a creedal system as developed by a
denomination or a theological movement

3.3 Systematic Theology

The phrase ‘systematic theology’ came into common use in eighteenth-century Europe to refer to analytical
(as opposed to biblical or historical) reflection on Christian DOCTRINE. J. Buddeus (1667–1729), one of
the first to use it, defined the task of systematic theology as twofold: first, to give a comprehensive and
logically ordered presentation of Christian belief, and, second, to explain, test, and prove it.

Systematic Theology focus on the attempt to arrange and interpret the ideas current in the religion. This is
also associated with constructive theology.

Systematic theology can be understood as the task of showing how the various things Christian
Communities say about God either do or do not ‘stand together’ (the literal meaning of the Greek verb from
which the word ‘systematic’ derives) in a coherent and credible way. This process of describing, analyzing,
and assessing the relationships among various Christian beliefs is arguably the central task of systematic
theology.

3.4 Exegetical Theology

Exegetical Theology that branch of theology which treats of the exposition and interpretation of the Old
and New Testaments. In other terms, it is defined as “A branch of theology dealing with the explanation or
interpretation of Scripture”.

Exegetical is derived from the greek word, Exegesis (ἐξήγησις) is statement, explanation, from ἐξηγέομαι,
I lead, describe, explain. The word exegetical, then, includes all that belongs to explassat/on, and Exegetical
Theology includes all that belongs to the explanation and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.

This branch of theology “brings out” the truths of scripture by discovering what the message would have
meant to its original audience. To accomplish this aim, the historical and cultural context of the writing
must be examined, as well as the literary context and type of writing and the original language needs to be
examined, as well as interpreting each passage of scripture with other passages of scripture. Once the
original message, purpose, and intent of any given passage of the Bible is determined, then exegesis is
properly prepared to apply that timeless truth of scripture to a modern day audience.

3.5 Contextual Theology

All theology is contextual. Examples of contextual theology are African American, Latino/a, Asian, Liberal
Protestant, Neo-orthodox, Congolese, feminist or womanist, Thomist, White U.S. American or European
Theology.
The nature of “contextual theology” is really to ask about the nature of theology itself. Doing theology
contextually is to do theology in dialogue with two realities: the experience of the past recorded in Scripture
and the church’s tradition(s) and the experience of the present or the context in which Christian theologians
live.
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 43

Contexts consist of at least four aspects:

Present human experience
Social location
One’s cultural identity
Change within a context

3.6 Evangelical Theology

Evangelical theology is the teaching and doctrine that relates to spiritual matters in evangelical Christianity.
The main points are the place of the Bible, the Trinity, worship, Salvation, sanctification, charity,
evangelism and the end of time.

In simple terms, Evangelical theology, a study of God’s revelation from an evangelical perspective.

Evangelical theology has several basic tenets:

1. Evangelical theology is committed to a high view of Scripture. This is in line with the Reformation
principle of sola scriptura, i.e., the Bible is the sole authority for faith and practice in the Christian’s life
(2 Timothy 3:16).

2. Evangelical theology is largely based on an individual approach to the Christian faith. Evangelicals
place strong emphasis on individual conversion and accountability in the faith. According to evangelical
theology, each person is responsible for making his or her own decision to submit to the Lord Jesus
Christ in salvation.

3. Evangelical theology is an emphasis on missionary work. True to their name, evangelicals promote the
gospel and have been responsible for many, many missionaries going around the world to share the
good news of Jesus. Evangelicals also seek to influence culture and law, taking seriously Jesus’
command to be salt and light in the world (Matthew 5:13–16).

In short, evangelical theology focuses on the gospel, God’s good news for the world in Jesus Christ.
Evangelicals believe the Bible is the sufficient, inspired, authoritative Word of God and that the
foundational message of the Word is God’s gracious provision of salvation through His only begotten Son.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 44

Chapter 4:
4.1 Anthropology
THE STUDY OF MAN is called anthropology, from the Greek words anthropos, meaning “man,” and
logos, meaning “word” or “discourse;” hence, anthropology is a discourse about man. The term
anthropology can be the study of the doctrine of man from a biblical standpoint or it can refer to the study
of man in his cultural environment.

4.2 Theories concerning origin of man:

4.2.1. Atheistic evolution.
Atheistic evolution is the theory by Charles Darwin and it explains the origin of matter and life apart from
God. He states that the origin of man, animals, plant life can be explained apart from any supernatural
process.

“All that is needed, according to naturalistic evolution, is atoms in motion. A combination of atoms, motion,
time, and chance has fashioned what we currently have.” If there is no God who has created the world then
man is not accountable to God concerning any moral structure; in fact, if atheistic evolution is true then
there are no moral absolutes to which man must adhere.

4.2.2. Theistic evolution.

“Theistic evolution is the teaching that plants, animals, and man gradually evolved from lower forms, but
that God supervised the process.”

Theistic evolutionists generally accept the findings of science and attempt to harmonize the evolutionary
hypothesis with the Bible.

4.2.3. Progressive creationism.

This theory (also called the day-age theory) is based in part on Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 in rejecting a
literal six-day creation. The days of creation are not to be understood as days of twenty-four hours but as
ages. Traditionally, the day-age theory held that the days were equivalent to geological ages.

4.2.4. Gap theory.

The gap theory places a lengthy period of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, basically as an accommodation
to science. In that way gap theorists can hold to the antiquity of the earth yet understand the words of
Genesis 1 and 2 literally, adhering to twenty-four-hour days of creation. The gap theory teaches that there
was an original creation (some place the gap prior to v. 1; others place it between 1:1 and 1:2) and as a
result of Lucifer’s rebellion and fall, the earth became chaos. The phrase “formless and void” (Gen. 1:2)
describes the chaotic earth that God judged. Millions of years took place between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, in
agreement with scientific evaluation concerning the age of the earth.

The gap theory is not built on exegesis but is rather an attempt to reconcile the Bible with the views of
science.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 45

4.3 Cosmology
Cosmology (from Greek κόσμος, kosmos "world" and -λογία, -logia "study of") is a branch of astronomy
concerned with the studies of the origin and evolution of the universe, from the Big Bang to today and on
into the future. It is the scientific study of the origin, evolution, and eventual fate of the universe.

4.4 Soteriology
Soteriology is the branch of theology dealing with the study of salvation. The term comes from the
Greek soterion, “salvation,” and is also related to soter, “savior.”

Soteriology is the study of the doctrine of salvation. Soteriology discusses how Christ’s death secures the
salvation of those who believe. It helps us to understand the doctrines of redemption, justification,
sanctification, propitiation, and the substitutionary atonement.

4.5 Pneumatology
The word Pneumatology comes from two Greek words which mean "wind, air, spirit" and "word" -
combining to mean "the study of the Holy Spirit." Pneumatology is the study of God the Holy Spirit, the
third Person of the Trinity.

4.6 Ecclesiology
The English word church is related to the Scottish word kirk and the German designation kirche, and all of
these terms are derived from the Greek word kuriakon, the neuter adjective of kurios (“Lord”), meaning
“belonging to the Lord.”1 The English word church also translates the Greek word ekklesia, which is
derived from ek, meaning “out of,” and kaleo, which means “to call;” hence, the church is “a called-out
group.”

Ecclesiology is the study of the church. The word Ecclesiology comes from two Greek words meaning
"assembly" and "word" - combining to mean "the study of the church." The church is the assembly of
believers who belong to God. Ecclesiology is crucial to understand God’s purpose for believers in the world
today.

4.7 Eschatology
Eschatology is a part of theology concerned with the final events of history, or the ultimate destiny of
humanity. This concept is commonly referred to as the "end of the world" or "end times".

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 46

Unit – III

Chapter 1
1. Introduction:
Theology proper is the discipline of systematic theology that deals with the being, attributes and existence
of God. In other words, Theology Proper is the study of the Doctrine of God. The term Theology is often
used for the study of other biblical subjects like Bible, Angels, Human, Salvation, Sin and so on. Hence
theology proper is used just for the study of God himself.

Jeremiah 9:23,24 says, “Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man boast of his
might, let not a rich man boast of his riches; 24 but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands
and knows Me, that I am the Lord who exercises lovingkindness, justice, and righteousness on earth; for I
delight in these things”. Theology proper will help as person to understand who God and will grow in the
knowledge of God.

2. Definition of God:
God is a general term used for Deity or object of worship. In the OT, the word God is often translated from
the Hebrew word El or plural form Elohim. In the OT God is presented as the Creator or relationship with
chosen people Israel. According to OT God is addressed as the Maker, Lord of Heaven and earth, the
Almighty, Eternal, the exalted one and the Creator God etc., In NT, the word God is translated from the
Greek word theos. God in NT is referred as God of mercy, the Father of Jesus Christ etc., Both OT and NT
portrays God as Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent who reigns from eternity to eternity.

3. The Possibility and the limit of our Knowledge of God:

In regard to the Knowledge of God, the Bible witnesses two truths. It teaches that God is incomprehensible
and God is Knowable. In an absolute sense, both are true. Being a finite man, to know everything about
God who is infinite being signifies God is incomprehensible. Though incomprehensible, God is knowable
as God can be known and man can grow in the knowledge of God in a limited sense that is needed for a
man to trust God and to have a growing relationship with God.

God’s incomprehensibility:
Job 11:7 & Isaiah 40:18
Job 11:7 - Can you discover the depths of God? Can you discover the limits of the Almighty?
Isaiah 40:18 - To whom then will you liken God? Or what likeness will you compare with Him?

God is knowable:
God is knowable through Scripture as God has revealed himself.
John 14:7 - If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him,
and have seen Him.

John 17:3 - And this is eternal life that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom
Thou hast sent.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 47

1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding, in order that we
might know Him who is true, and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God
and eternal life.

4. The Revelation of the Existence of God:

Can a person prove the existence of God? If we believe in the existence of God, we should give the evidence.
There are FOUR Classical arguments for the existence of God. These arguments are drawn from natural
revelation. This is considered as the bonafide evidence for God-consciousness as it is mentioned in Roman
1:19-20.

4.1 The Ontological Argument:

St. Anselm (1033-1109) has developed the Ontological Argument. It starts neither from the sensible things
not from the possession of truth rather from a concept or definition of God. According to Anselm, God is
that nothing greater can be conceived. He concludes that God must exist, and existence cannot be taken
away from him therefore cannot even be thought as not existing. This argument is developed from the
assumption that if one have a thought in our mind, then we assume that such to thought is based on a reality.
For example, existence of blue rose. So also to think that God exist it implies that such thought must in fact
be based on reality. The argument hypothesizes God as that being which is the greatest of all conceivable
beings. Such a being cannot, not exist (for the nonexistent being of our conceptions would be greater if it
had the attribute of existence) Thus, God exists.

4.2 The Cosmological Argument:

The Greek word cosmos means “an orderly arrangement.” Every effect must have its adequate cause. The
universe is an adequate cause, and the only sufficient cause is God. Where did the universe come from if
not from God the Creator? Reason and probability are on the side of creation, not chance or mere force
(Rom. 1:20; Acts 17:28-29). Stated in the form of syllogism the argument is as follows:

Major Premise: Every effect has an adequate cause.

Minor Premise: The world is an effect.
Therefore: The world has an adequate cause outside itself which produced it, namely God.

Thomas Aquinas has developed this argument. For Aristotle, the supreme reality was not a static essence
no matter how remote but an act of thinking. But what Thomas did was to translate this thought from
knowing and thinking to existence. This is based on the assumption that the universe or the whole cosmos
is orderly designed. We see the beauty of creation, the cycle of seasons, the planets running their own
course and so on. These order in creation makes one to argue that there must be a perfect architect who
designs all things in order. The regularity, orderliness of creation must not be an accident but must be
designed by supreme intelligence or creative mind.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 48

4.3 The Teleological Argument:

Teleological is from the Greek work Telos meaning end, goal or purpose. This is commonly known as the
argument from design.

This is based on the assumption that all creations are designed with some goal or purpose. The design of
human’s thumb or bird’s wing implies that these organs are created with some purpose to carry. All created
things are designed with some important goal to achieve. This points out that there must be an original
intelligence who created all things with purpose.

The argument focuses upon purpose, i.e. garden or watch assumes the existence of a Gardner or
Watchmaker. The universe exhibits mechanisms that have a telos (or end) suggesting a designer. The
universe cannot have come together haphazardly in such cases. Thus the designer is God.

4.4 Moral Argument or Anthropological argument

Moral Argument or Anthropological argument is believed to be developed by Immanuel Kant. The
anthropological argument sees some aspect of human nature as a revelation of God. According to Kant, all
human possess a moral impulse, i.e., ‘a categorical imperative’. This moral actions questions ‘Why be
good?’ Based on this Kant bases his argument that different races and culture have inherent moral standard
and codes of conduct. Human of different cultures are found to be some kind of moral conduct given to
them from outside. These moral standards developed from within these moral ideas points out to an absolute
good or a source of moral conduct who ordained the complete. Man’s intellectual and moral nature demands
God as his creator. Man’s conscience, which is a law to man, necessitates a Law-Giver. Man’s free will
implies a Great Will. Without God as the basis for right and wrong, no government would be possible
except on the principle, “might makes right.”

5. Biblical Evidence for the Existence of God:

Atheist, skeptics and hecklers challenge the humanity to prove that there is a God as natural man find it
difficult to believe in something that he cannot see, touch or feel (I Corinthians 2:14). This has been
solved by the verse “In the beginning God created the Heaven and Earth” Genesis 1:1. The Bible is not a
textbook that attempts to prove the existence of God. The Bible opens with a positive fact that God does
not exist. The scripture clearly mentions that it is the fool who denies the existence of God (Psalm 14:1)
Proof from the Scripture:
Psalm 19:1 ‘The heavens declare the glory of God: the firmament showeth his handy work.’ The beauty
and glory of the heavens speak loudly saying, ‘God exists’.

Proof from the conscience:

Man is born with a universal belief in a supreme being; no tribe has yet been discovered that lacks this.
They know that some being creates and controls. Romans 2:15 ‘They show that the requirements of the
law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes
accusing them and at other times even defending them’. The existence of God is written in the human
conscience.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 49

6. Attributes of God:
The doctrine of God in the history of dogma is probably the most important of all theological themes, along
with Christology.

6.1 God as transcendent and immanent.

- God is said to be immanent within creation and transcendent from creation. Both truths are taught in
Scripture. Jer. 23:23-24; Acts 17:27b-28 speak of his Immanence. Isaiah tends to emphasize God’s
transcendence, Is. 58:8-9; 6:1-5.

Immanence means God’s presence and action in creation, in the human race and in space and time. As such
His influence is all-pervasive in nature. Transcendence means that God is not merely a quality of nature or
humanity but stands above and beyond them as a supreme being. Kierkegaard’s “infinite qualitative
distinction” between God and us is expressive of this “wholly otherness”. His holiness and purity transcend
our own nature absolutely.

Attributes are those qualities of God, which constitute what He is in His self-revelation. They are part of
His very nature, not just projections of our own human qualities. They should not be confused with God’s
acts, though they flow from and are congruent with His actions.

These attributes apply to God in His triune existence and thus are shared equally in the Godhead. These
attributes are permanent qualities of God’s eternal being. They are inseparable from his being and essence.
They express His whole being. God’s attributes express God’s single revealed nature.

Attributes of God is classified as Majestic (Isaiah 6:1-6) and Moral (I John 4:4) Attributes. In other words,
Primary and Secondary attributes of God.

6.2 Majestic (Primary) Attributes of God:

These attributes concentrate on the Transcendence of God.
1. God is spirit (John 4:24; 1:18; I Tim.1:17; 6:15-16)
2. God is a living God (‘I am that I am’ – Exo 3:14, I Thess 1:9; John 5:26; John 1;1)
3. God is infinite and eternal . He is beyond the scope of limited human experience in terms of space,
time, knowledge and power. Psalm 90:2
4. Omniscient – All knowledgeable - Rom. 11:33; Ps. 104:24.
5. Omnipresent – Present everywhere - Jer. 23:23-24; Ps. 139:7-12; Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 1:8; I kings
8:27
6. Omnipotent – All powerful – Jer 32:15,17, 27; Gen 17:1; Matthew 19:26
7. God is unchangeable – Mal 3:6

6.3 Moral (Secondary) Attributes of God:

1. God is holy – Ex15:11; I Sam 2:2
2. God is righteous – Ps 116:5; Exra 9:15
3. God is merciful – Psalm 103:8; Deu 4:31
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 50

4. God is love – I John 4:8-16; John 3:16

5. God is faithful – II tim 2;13; Deu 32:4
6. God is glorious – Ex 15:11; Ps 145:5
7. God is gracious – Ex 34:6; Ps 116:5
8. God is compassionate – I Kings 8:23
9. God is good – Ps 25:8; Ps 92:15
10. God is light – Isa 60:19; I John 1;5
11. God is perfect – Matt 5:48
12. God is upright – Ps 102:26; James 1:17

7. Names of God:
The scripture record several names of God. The names of God are given by God Himself as an assurance
of the revelation of the divine being.

The Name of God in General

There are a number of instances where no name of God is employed, but where simply the term “name” in
reference to God is used as the point of focus:

(1) Abraham called on the name of the Lord (Gen. 12:8; 13:4).
(2) The Lord proclaimed His own name before Moses (Ex. 33:19; 34:5).
(3) Israel was warned against profaning the name of the Lord (Lev. 13:21; 22:2, 32).
(4) The name of the Lord was not to be taken in vain (Ex. 20:7; Deut. 5:11).
(5) The priests of Israel were to minister in the name of the Lord (Deut. 18:5; 21:5).
(6) The name of God is called “wonderful” in Judges 13:18.
(7) To call on the name of the Lord was to worship Him as God (Gen. 21:33; 26:25).

Consequently, from this we can conclude that such phrases as “the name of the LORD” or “the name of
God” refer to God’s whole character. It was a summary statement embodying the entire person of God.

When we turn to the New Testament we find the same. The name Jesus is used in a similar way to the
name of God in the Old Testament:
(1) Salvation is through His name (John 1:12).
(2) Believers are to gather in His name (Matt. 18:20).
(3) Prayer is to be made in His name (John 14:13-14).
(4) The servant of the Lord who bears the name of Christ will be hated (Matt. 10:22).
(5) The book of Acts makes frequent mention of worship, service, and suffering in the name of Jesus Christ
(Acts 4:18; 5:28, 41; 10:43; 19:17).
(6) It is at the name of Jesus that every knee will one day bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is
Lord (Phil. 2:10-11).

8. Overview of the Names of God in Scripture

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 51

(1) Elohim: The plural form of EL, meaning “strong one.” Is used of false gods, but when used of the true
God, it is a plural of majesty and intimates the trinity. Is especially used of God’s sovereignty, creative
work, mighty work for Israel and in relation to His sovereignty (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 32:27; Gen. 1:1; Isa. 45:18;
Deut. 5:23; 8:15; Ps. 68:7).
Compounds of El:
 El Shaddai: “God Almighty.” Derivation is uncertain: From possible derivations, some think it
stresses God’s loving supply and comfort; others His power as the Almighty one standing on a
mountain and who corrects and chastens (Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; Ex. 6:31; Ps. 91:1, 2).
 El Elyon: “The Most High God.” Stresses God’s strength, sovereignty, and supremacy (Gen. 14:19;
Ps. 9:2; Dan. 7:18, 22, 25).
 El Olam: “The Everlasting God.” Emphasizes God’s unchangeableness and is connected with His
inexhaustibleness (Gen. 16:13).
(2) Yahweh (YHWH): Comes from a verb which means “to exist, be.” This plus its usage shows that this
name stresses God as the independent and self-existent God of revelation and redemption (Gen. 4:3; Ex.
6:3 (cf. 3:14); 3:12).
Compounds of Yahweh: Strictly speaking, these compounds are designations or titles which reveal
additional facts of God’s character.
 Yahweh Jireh (Yireh): “The Lord will provide.” Stresses God’s provision for His people (Gen.
22:14).
 Yahweh Nissi: “The Lord is my Banner.” Stresses that God is our rallying point and our means of
victory, the one who fights for His people (Ex. 17:15).
 Yahweh Shalom: “The Lord is Peace.” Points to the Lord as the means of our peace and rest (Jud.
6:24).
 Yahweh Sabbaoth: “The Lord of Hosts.” A military figure portraying the Lord as the commander
of the armies of heaven (1 Sam. 1:3; 17:45).
 Yahweh Maccaddeshcem: “The Lord your Sanctifier.” Portrays the Lord as our means of
sanctification or as the one who sets believers apart for His purposes (Ex. 31:13).
 Yahweh Roi: “The Lord my Shepherd.” Portrays the Lord as the Shepherd who cares for His people
as a shepherd the sheep of his pasture (Ps. 23:1).
 Yahweh Tsidkenu: “The Lord our Righteousness.” Portrays the Lord as the means of our
righteousness (Jer. 23:6).
 Yahweh Shammah: “The Lord is there.” Portrays the Lord’s personal presence in the millennial
kingdom (Ezek. 48:35).
 Yahweh Elohim Israel: “The Lord, the God of Israel.” Identifies Yahweh as the God of Israel in
contrast to the false gods of the nations (Jud. 5:3.; Isa. 17:6).
(3) Adonai: Like Elohim, this too is a plural of majesty. The singular form means “master, owner.” Stresses
man’s relationship to God as his master, authority, and provider (Gen. 18:2; 40:1; 1 Sam. 1:15; Ex. 21:1-6;
Josh. 5:14).
(4) Theos: Greek word translated “God.” Primary name for God used in the New Testament. Its use teaches:
(1) He is the only true God (Matt. 23:9; Rom. 3:30); (2) He is unique (1 Tim. 1:17; John 17:3; Rev. 15:4;
16:27); (3) He is transcendent (Acts 17:24; Heb. 3:4; Rev. 10:6); (4) He is the Savior (John 3:16; 1 Tim.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 52

1:1; 2:3; 4:10). This name is used of Christ as God in John 1:1, 18; 20:28; 1 John 5:20; Tit. 2:13; Rom. 9:5;
Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1.
(5) Kurios: Greek word translated “Lord.” Stresses authority and supremacy. While it can mean sir (John
4:11), owner (Luke 19:33), master (Col. 3:22), or even refer to idols (1 Cor. 8:5) or husbands (1 Pet. 3:6),
it is used mostly as the equivalent of Yahweh of the Old Testament. It too is used of Jesus Christ meaning
(1) Rabbi or Sir (Matt. 8:6); (2) God or Deity (John 20:28; Acts 2:36; Rom. 10:9; Phil. 2:11).
(6) Despotes: Greek word translated “Master.” Carries the idea of ownership while kurios stressed supreme
authority (Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; Rev. 6:10; 2 Pet. 2:1; Jude 4).
(7) Father: A distinctive New Testament revelation is that through faith in Christ, God becomes our
personal Father. Father is used of God in the Old Testament only 15 times while it is used of God 245 times
in the New Testament. As a name of God, it stresses God’s loving care, provision, discipline, and the way
we are to address God in prayer (Matt. 7:11; Jam. 1:17; Heb. 12:5-11; John 15:16; 16:23; Eph. 2:18; 3:15;
1 Thess. 3:11).

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 53

Chapter 2:
The Doctrine of Man: Human Existence, ‘Self’ of Man, Human Freedom, the Importance of Body, Sex of
Man, Biblical View of Man;
1. Introduction:
There are several views concerning man. When it pertains to the origin of man, theistic and atheistic views
differ as their foundation is different. People have asked different questions like ‘who are we?’ ‘where do
we come from?’ ‘why are we here?’. The scripture responses that man is created in the image of God and
created to rule over creation. The doctrine of man explains the facts clearly.

2. The Doctrine of Man:

The study of man is called Anthropology. This is the combination of two Greek words ‘Anthropos’ and
logos’ meaning ‘man’ and ‘word or discourse’. Hence, Anthropology is a discourse about man.

Anthropology is defined as the study of the doctrine of man from a biblical standpoint or it can refer to the
study of man in his cultural environment.
Theological Anthropology deals with man in relation to God;

3. Origin of Man:
There are several views about the origin of man. There are few theories that explains the origin of man.
Christians hold on to Theistic evolution and non-christians hold to atheistic or humanistic evolution.

3.1 Atheistic Evolution:

Proponent: Charles Darwin

This theory attempts to explain the origin of mater and life apart from God. The origin of man, animals, and
plant life is all explained apart from any supernatural process. According to naturalist evolution, all that is
needed is atoms in motion. A combination of atoms, motion, time and chance has fashioned what we
currently have.

The tenets of Atheistic evolution:

(1) Variation results in some offspring being superior to their parents.
(2) A struggle for existence eliminates the weaker, less fit varieties.
(3) A process of natural selection is constantly at work by which the fittest survive.
(4) Through heredity, new and better qualities produced by variation are passed on and gradually
accumulated.
(5) New species come into existence by this method, after the passage of sufficient time.

The implications of Atheistic evolution:

If there is no God who has created the world then man is not accountable to God concerning any moral
structure; in fact, if atheistic evolution is true then there are no moral absolutes to which man must adhere.
In his On the Origin of Species (1859) Darwin had argued that the ground of speciation was the fact of
natural variation within a species. Within any given set of environmental conditions, certain of these natural
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 54

variations will give greater reproductive success to organisms that possess them (e.g., plants with slightly
thicker leaves that minimize loss of moisture will do better in a dry climate; molluscs with slightly harder
shells will be better able to survive attacks by predators).

Darwin admits that ‘ until recently the great majority of naturalists believed that species were immutable.
i.e., unchangeable, invariable and has been separately created.

Refutation to the Theory:

 The questions as to the mutability of species must be decided by proof and not by speculations.
 Neither geology, nor embryology furnish any proof of the change of the one species into another.
 Species are immutable and there is no proof of the evolutionary origin of species.
 Evolutionary theory remains a theory only, not a proven fact because the missing links in the
transitional stages have not been found
 This theory is built on suppositions. It is based on the survival of the fittest, not on the arrival of the
first.
 It fails to adequately account for the origin of matter and life because it rejects God the originator
of matte and the source of all life.

3.2 Theistic Evolution:

“Theistic evolution is the teaching that plants, animals, and man gradually evolved from lower forms, but
that God supervised the process.” Theistic evolutionists generally accept the findings of science and attempt
to harmonize the evolutionary hypothesis with the Bible. This theory holds that higher forms of life evolved
from lower forms, but that the lower forms were created by God.

This theory God is acknowledged as the creator of part of creation.

Refutation to the Theory:

There are several serious problems facing the theistic evolutionist. If the human race has evolved then
Adam was not a historical person and the analogy between Christ and Adam in Romans 5:12–21 breaks
down. Furthermore, the theistic evolutionist must take a poetic or allegorical approach in interpreting
Genesis 1:1–2:4, for which there is no warrant. Further, the suggestion that humanity is derived from a
nonhuman ancestor cannot be reconciled with the explicit statement of man’s creation in Genesis 2:7.

The theory is partly false in that the Bible teaches the creation of the species, not their evolution. All fish,
birds, animals and man were created in their order to reproduce ‘after their kind’ not to evolve to some
higher form. Ex: A reptile can produce only a reptile, a horse can produce only a horse not a monkey or a
man.

3.3 Gap theory:

The gap theory places a lengthy period of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, basically as an accommodation
to science. In that way gap theorists can hold to the antiquity of the earth yet understand the words of
Genesis 1 and 2 literally, adhering to twenty-four-hour days of creation. The gap theory teaches that there
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 55

was an original creation (some place the gap prior to v. 1; others place it between 1:1 and 1:2) and as a
result of Lucifer’s rebellion and fall, the earth became chaos. The phrase “formless and void” (Gen. 1:2)
describes the chaotic earth that God judged. Millions of years took place between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, in
agreement with scientific evaluation concerning the age of the earth.

Refutation to the Theory:

The problems of the gap theory have been well documented. The grammar of Genesis 1:1–2 does not allow
for a gap. Verse 1 is an independent clause. Verse 2 is composed of three circumstantial clauses, explaining
the condition of the earth when God began to create, and it is connected to verse 3. There is no break
between verses 1 and 2. The gap theory also depends on “formless and
void” meaning evil or the result of a judgment; however, its usages in Job 26:7 and Isaiah 45:18 do not
suggest this. Gap theorists also draw a distinction between the Hebrew verb barn (Gen. 1:1), suggesting it
means creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), whereas asa (Gen. 1:7, 16, 25, etc.) means a refashioning. A
careful study of these two verbs reveals they are used interchangeably; asa does
not mean to refashion. The gap theory is not built on exegesis but is rather an attempt to reconcile the Bible
with the views of science

3.4 FIAT Creation:

Literal twenty-four-hour days. is also called fiat creation—God created directly and instantaneously. Literal
creationists hold to a recent earth, approximately 10,000 years old. Geological formations can be explained
through the Noahic flood. All forms of evolution are rejected by fiat creationists.
The basis for the twenty-four-hour creation days is the biblical account of Genesis 1 and 2.
(1) God created man directly (Gen. 1:27; 2:7; 5:1; Deut. 4:32). Genesis 1:27 is the general statement, while
2:7 provides additional detail concerning how God created man. The statement in 2:7 also explains God’s
manner of creating—He created man out of the dust of the ground. Christ affirmed the same truth (Matt.
19:4).
(2) God created the male and female genders (Gen. 1:27). According to this account man and woman were
both created directly by God; they did not evolve from lower forms of life. God gave them their gender by
creating them male and female. These statements would disallow any form of evolution.
(3) God created in six twenty-four-hour days. There are several indicators in the creation account to validate
this thesis: (a) The Hebrew word day (yom) with a numeral always designates a twenty-four-hour day.12
(b) The phrase “evening and morning” (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31) emphasizes a twenty-four-hour day. To
suggest any form of a day-age concept involves denying the normal meaning of these words. (c) Exodus
20:9–11 emphasizes a twenty-four-hour creation by analogy to the command for man to labor in six days
and rest on the seventh day even as God did.
(4) God created man as a unique being. If man evolved, he is only a higher form of animal, without moral
sensibility or accountability. Scripture, however, presents man as a moral creature, accountable to God.
Man also is a soul and thus eternal (Gen. 2:7); moreover, he is made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), hardly
a statement applicable to one who is the product of any form of evolution.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 56

3.5 Theistic Creation:

Theistic creation holds to the Scriptural fact that God is the life-source, the originator and maintainer of all
forms of life, and the one who created all to reproduce ‘after their kind.’ The final creative act of God was
man, the highest creation of God on this earth (Gen. 1:26-31)

The original man was the direct result of a creative act of God. Man is a divinely created being, the crowning
glory and masterpiece of God’s creation.

Scriptural references:
The scripture records that God ‘created’ man - Gen 1:27, Deu 4:32, Ps 104:30, Isa 45:12, I Cor 11:9. The
Bible represents ‘in the image and likeness of God’ man is created. (Gen 1:26,27)
It is not the physical likeness – God is spirit and does not have parts like a man. The ‘form of Jehovah’ was
seen by Moses but his face was not seen or shown. (Ex0: 33:20)
It was a mental likeness – God is spirit and human soul is a spirit and the essential attributes of spirit are
reason, conscience and will. In making man, in his image, God endowed him with those attributes which
distinguish from other inhabitants of the world.
It was a moral likeness

4 ‘Self’ of Man, Human Freedom, the Importance of Body:

Psalmist questions in Psalm 8:4 .. what is man…. (Job 7:17-18; Pslam 144:3; Heb 2:6)

Man is a Created Being: (Gen 1;26-28, 2:7; Job 33:4; Rev. 4:11; Ps. 139:14-16) God said, ‘Let us make
man in our image…’. Created and made are the two words that are worthy of consideration. The word
‘create’ means ‘to make something out of nothing’ and ‘make’ means fashion or form. Thus God created
man as to his spirit and soul (Zech 12:1) but God made man as to his body (Gen 2:7).
Man is a Dependent Being: Man owing to his existence to Creator makes him a dependent creature. He
is not self-existent and thus cannot be independent. It is in God that ‘we live, and move and have our being’
Acts 17: 23-31.
Man is an intelligent Being: Man is a being having reason, intelligence, imagination and the ability to
express his thoughts in language. This is far superior to the animal creation who are simply creatures of
habit and instinct (Gen, 2:15, 19-20; Isa 1:18;
Man is a Moral Being: God created man with a free will, the ability to choose. It is this which makes man
a moral and therefore responsible creature. God created man with power of choice, not as a robot or
machine. God desired a creature that would respond to Him willingly and freely. This necessitated man
having a free-will. God placed within man a conscience which gives him a moral sense, distinguishing right
from wrong. Though man’s will is subject to his corrupt nature and evil heart, he can still respond to the
influence of the Holy Spirit.

Body: The sense or world-conscious part of man; capable of knowing and receiving things from the world
around him. God made and formed man’s body out of the dust of the earth, as a potter forms a clay vessel
(Gen 1:26-27; 2-7; Job 10:9; I Tim 2:13).
The Scripture gives the following designations and information concerning the human body:
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 57

1. The human body is a house (II Cor 5:1)

2. The human body is a tabernacle (II Cor 5:1-4; John 1:14; II Peter 1:13)
3. The human body is a temple (John 2:21; II Corinthians 5:19; I Cor 3:16; 6:19-20; I Kings 8:27-28).
The body of Jesus was likened to a temple. So is the believer’s body.
4. The human is a sheath. (Daniel 7:15). The human body us likened here to a sheath in which the
spirit is placed like a sword.
5. The human body is earthy ( I Cor. 15:47; Ps 103:15; Gen 2:7; 3:19)
6. The human body is governed by senses: the body, being the instrument of the soul and being the
world-conscious part of man is governed by the five senses, through which man acquires knowledge
of the external world, communicates with mankind and cares for his physical and mental wellbeing.

5 Biblical View of Man-God’s purpose for Man:

The Bible reveals God’s purpose for man in four-fold:
1. Relationship: The important and the foremost reason God created man was for the purpose of
relationship. From the time that God sought Adam ‘in the garden in the cool of the day’ God has
been seeking fellowship with man (Gen 3:8) But the sin has caused Adam to hide from God
hindering the relationship with God (Isa 59:1,2). Through the new covenant, God’s purpose of
relationship with man in fully accomplished.
2. Character: God created man in His image to replicate his nature and character. He wanted the
humanity to bear the image and likeness (Gen 1:26). The sinful, self-centered element in man’s
nature must be replaced by the holy, loving and self-giving nature of God.
3. Function: God created man was to have someone share in His function of ruling the universe but
man lost his dominion and came under bondage to Satan, Sin, Sickness and death. But through
Christ, who has conquered all, man’s dominion can be regained.
4. Reproduction: God told Adam and Eve to ‘be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth’. Gen
1:28

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 58

Chapter 3:
1. The Doctrine of Sin:
The term ‘sin’ refers to a disordered or disrupted relationship to God. In Christian theology sin is first and
foremost a theological concept, that is, a form of opposition or alienation from God, and only secondarily
a moral category that designates wrongful actions or deeds. Classically the DOCTRINE of sin (or
hamartiology) belongs to the doctrine of CREATION.

The Doctrine of sin is called Hamartiology, which comes from two Greek Words, hamartia meaning sin
and logos meaning word or discourse. Thus Hamartiology is the Biblical teaching concerning sin, its origin,
definition, expression and the final end.

2. Terms used for Sin:

There are 4 words used for Sin in Old Testament.
1. Chattath – ‘an offence, sometimes habitual sinfulness, and its penalty or expiation’, it also means,
‘to miss, to sin, to lack’ (Lev 4:2-3, 25-35; Ps 32:1,5; 51:2,5; Isa 53:10,12)
2. Pawsah or pehshah – ‘to break away from authority; trespass, apostasizw, quarrel, revolt’. It is
translated by the words, ‘offend, rebel, revolt, transgression’ (Ex; 34:7; Num 14:18; Ps 19:13; 32:1;
isa 53:8; Dan 9:24)
3. Avon or avown – Iniquity, perversity, evil, make crooked, fault - Psa 52:3; Lev 16:21-22; Ps 103:3,
10; Isa 53:5)
4. Asham – trespass. To be quilty, a fault (Lev 6:2,5-6; 7:1-7)
Greek Words for Sin:
1. Parabasis - “overstepping, transgression.” Rom. 4:15, Rom. 2:23; 5:14; Gal. 3:19
2. Hamartia means “miss the mark,” “every departure from the way of righteousness. it means that all
people have missed the mark of God’s standard and continue to fall short of that standard (Rom.
3:23). This involves both sins of commission as well as omission. Failure to do what is right is also
sin (Rom. 14:23)
3. Anomia, which means “lawlessness” (1 John 3:4) and can be described as a “frame of mind.” It
denotes lawless deeds (Titus 2:14) and is a sign of the last days, meaning “without law or restraint”
(Matt. 24:12).
4. Paranomia – iniquity and refers to the breaking of the law (II Peter 2:16)
To summarize, based on the words used for sin, sin means missing of a mark, the disobedience to God's
voice, violation of God's law, the crossing of a boundary line, the falling away from uprightness, the
ignorance of what should have been known, and the diminishing of should have been full.

3. Definition of Original Sin:

Original sin may be defined as “the sinful state and condition in which men are born.” It is so designated
because: (1) “it is derived from the original root of the human race (Adam), (2) it is present in the life of
every individual from the time of his birth, and (3) it is the inward root of all the actual sins that defile the
life of man.” Simply stated, it refers to “the corruption of our whole nature.”

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 59

4. The Origin of Sin in the Human Race.

With respect to the origin of sin in the history of mankind, the Bible teaches that it began with the
Transgression of Adam in paradise, and therefore with a perfectly voluntary act on the part of man. The
tempter came from the spirit world with the suggestion that man, by placing himself in opposition to God,
might become like God. Adam yielded to the temptation and committed the first sin by eating of the
forbidden fruit. But the matter did not stop there, for by that first sin Adam became the bond-servant of sin.
That sin carried permanent pollution with it, and a pollution which, because of the solidarity of the human
race, would affect not only Adam but all his descendants as well. As a result of the fall the father of the
race could only pass on a depraved human nature to his offspring. From that unholy source sin flows on as
an impure stream to all the generations of men, polluting everyone and everything with which it comes in
contact. It is exactly this state of things that made the question of Job so pertinent, "Who can bring a clean
thing out of an unclean? not one." Job 14:4. But even this is not all. Adam sinned not only as the father of
the human race, but also as the representative head of all his descendants; and therefore the guilt of his sin
is placed to their account, so that they are all liable to the punishment of death. It is primarily in that sense
that Adam's sin is the sin of all. That is what Paul teaches us in Rom. 5:12: "Through one man sin entered
into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned." The last words
can only mean that they all sinned in Adam, and sinned in such a way as to make them all liable to the
punishment of death.

It is not sin considered merely as pollution, but sin as guilt that carries punishment with it. God adjudges
all men to be guilty sinners in Adam, just as He adjudges all believers to be righteous in Jesus Christ. That
is what Paul means, when he says: "So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to
condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of
life. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience
of the one shall the many be made righteous," Rom.5:18,19.

There are certain questions concerning sin's origin finite man cannot answer. The word of God to Israel in
Dt.29 was "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but the things which are revealed belong unto
us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." Man must satisfy himself with the
measure of truth concerning the doctrine of sin that is revealed in the Scriptures, not seeking to go beyond
it, knowing that God will answer the question in His own time. The Apostle James, in the dealing with the
birth of sin, gives us some vital insight into the origin of all evil. The principle he sets forth is applicable
both to angels and men. (James 1:13-15)

5. The Reality of Sin:

The source of all chaos, disharmony and strife in the world can be traced back to the existence of sin. We
will now consider several evidences of the fact.
5.1 Creation Declares it:
All of nature declares that something is wrong. Contrast between life and death, harmony and discord, and
ugliness, light and darkness, declare the fact of Planet earth and the forces of nature seem to be turn
mankind. Sometimes blessing and sometimes cursing, nature seems to be double-minded in its treatment
of man which was meant to bless man seems to be under some curse. And this is exactly so, for when sin
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 60

entered race (Gen. 3:17; 8:22).

5.2. Human History declares it:

The briefest view of human history with its chaos and confusion, war and bloodshed, the spirit of hate and
murder, covetousness, moral corruption and dominance indicates that something is wrong in the nations of
earth. Where do the wars and fighting among the nations of the world come from. The answer is found in
the existence of sin (James 4:1)

5.3.Human Logic Declares it

To deny the fact of sin in the human race would be an insult to all logic. Man knows that something is
wrong inside of himself. He knows that he is out of harmony with himself that discord reigns within his
being. Educated mentality would seek to deny the fact of sin but deep within every person's being he knows
that when he would do good, evil is present with him

5.4 Human Conscience Declares it.

This is closely linked with human logic, but conscience is a further witness to the fact of sin. The moment
a person does something wrong, his conscience smites him and his thoughts begin to accuse or else excuse
him (Rom.2:14-15). The law of conscience gives abundant evidence of sin's rea

5.5 Human Experience Declares it

When one reads the list of horrible sins in Scripture such as Romans 1:21-32 and Mark 7:20-21 in the light
of the news of today, there is abundant evidence of sin's expression in human experience. Immorality,
crime, violence, perversion and all forms of lawlessness abound. Sin desires to express itself and the
corruption of society in modern civilization is evidence of the fact of sin. Scripture indicates that this will
increase the last days (Matt. 24:12: II Tim. 3:1-5).

5.6. Human Religions Declares it

In every nation there is belief in a god or gods. Nearly every nation has developed some form of religion
involving priesthood and sacrifices of appeasement. They seek to appease the gods because of the inner
sense of sin and as a realization of their need of redemption. Religion itself is another witness of sin's reality.
However, it is only true Christianity which has God's answer to the sin problem as dealt with in the person
of Christ.

5.7. Believers Declares it

The believer who knows Christ as His Lord and Saviour becomes more accurately aware of the fact of sin.
No believer is sinlessly perfect yet, but is vitally aware that sin is a reality and must be cleansed and
overcome by the Word and Spirit of God (Rom. 3:20 with 7:7-25).

5.8. Scriptures Declares it

The highest court of appeal is the Word of God. The Bible declares the universality of sin that all men are
sinners in God's sight, needing salvation ( Psalm 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Rom. 5:12) . Romans 3:23 - "All have
sinned and come short of glory of God."
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 61

6 Fall of Man
Genesis 3 does not describe the origin of sin, but it does describe the entrance of sin into the realm of
humanity. Genesis 3 describes a historical event; Adam and Eve were historical people who sinned against
God in time and space. The historicity of this event is essential if an analogy is to be seen in Romans 5:12–
21. If Adam was not a real creature who brought sin into the human race at one point in history, then there
is no point to Jesus redeeming humanity at another point in history. Christ’s own testimony, however,
confirms Genesis 3 as a historical event (Matt. 19:3–5).

The test:
During their life in the garden, God tested Adam and Eve regarding their obedience. They were free to eat
of the fruit from any tree in the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen. 2:16–17).
The test was simple: it was to determine whether or not they would believe God and obey Him.
Disobedience, however, was highly consequential—it meant death, both physical and spiritual death. God’s
purpose in the test was to give Adam and Eve a knowledge of sin through obedience by not eating the fruit
of the Tree of Knowledge. They came to a knowledge of good and evil, but they attained the knowledge in
the wrong manner.

The temptation:
The avenue through which the temptation came to man and woman was the serpent (Gen. 3:1). However,
the temptation must be seen as coming through Satan; the Devil inspired Cain to kill his brother (John 8:44).
The Devil is called the serpent of old (Rev. 12:9; 20:2), and the allusion in Romans 16:20 indicates that the
judgment of Genesis 3:15 refers to Satan, not simply the serpent. The serpent was crafty (Gen. 3:1); hence,
Satan would be crafty in conducting his test. His strategy can be summarized in three phases.
(1) Satan raised doubt concerning God’s Word (Gen. 3:1).
(2) Satan lied by saying they would not die (Gen. 3:4).
(3) Satan told a partial truth (Gen. 3:5).

7. The results of the sin:

7.1 Judgment on the serpent (Gen. 3:14).
The serpent had earlier been a noble creature; as a result of the judgment it was altered in form and shape.
Because the serpent exalted itself it would now be forced to crawl on its belly and eat the dust of the earth
as it crawled along.
7.2 Judgment on Satan (Gen. 3:15).
Genesis 3:15 must be understood as addressed not to the serpent, but to Satan. There would be enmity
between Satan’s seed (unbelievers and possibly demons) and the woman’s seed (believers, but specifically
Christ). “He shall bruise you on the head”indicates Christ delivered a death blow to Satan at the cross (Col.
2:14–15; Heb. 2:14). Christ would have a major victory. “You shall bruise Him on the heel” suggests Satan
would have a minor victory in the fact that Christ died; nonetheless, that death became Satan’s own defeat.
7.3 Judgment on the woman (Gen. 3:16).
The woman would experience pain in childbirth. The pain (Heb. yizabon) in childbirth is similarly used of
Adam’s toil (Gen. 3:17). Both would suffer in their respective roles. The desire of the woman would be
toward her husband. This is a difficult phrase and may mean (a) sexual desire (Song 7:10), (b) desire for
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 62

security under her husband’s authority, or (c) desire to rule over her husband (cf. Gen. 4:7).27 A final aspect
of the judgment upon the woman was that the husband would rule over her.
7.4 Judgment on the man (Gen. 3:17–19).
The first judgment was against the ground. No longer would the earth spontaneously produce its fruit but
only through hard toil by the man. The second judgment on the man was death. Adam had been made from
the elements of the ground. The death process would return the man to the dust from which his body had
been taken.
7.5 Judgment on the human race (Rom. 5:12).
The result of Adam’s sin was passed on to the entire human race. All humanity now became subject to
death.
7.6 Judgment on creation (Gen. 3:17–18).
All animal and plant life would be affected by the sin of Adam. Animal life and nature would resist the
man. Animals would become wild and ferocious; plant life would produce weeds to hinder productivity.
All creation would groan with the effect of the fall and anxiously long for the day of restoration (Rom.
8:19–21)

7.7 The effects of the sin

THE immediate effects of Adam's sin, as indicated in the narrative in Genesis, were
1. Shame, or fear of God's presence, and
2. Making excuse for his sin and casting the blame upon the woman and his maker. Gen. 3:7-13.
All the evil effects of Adam's sin are comprised under the one word "death." This was the threatened penalty.
But what is meant by it?
I. Natural death is included. By this is meant the separation of the soul and the body, and the consequent
decay of the body. (Psalm 90, Romans 5:12-14; 1 Cor. 15:21, 22, 55, 56.
II. Spiritual death was also an effect of Adam a sin. Our inquiry into natural death as a penalty leads us
to look for some other and higher evil as resulting from sin. It must be something which occurred at the
very time of eating, which affected that part of man that was naturally immortal, and which was also
connected with that part with which conscious personality is inseparably associated.
It is presented as (1) Alienation from God. (2) Loss of God's favour. (3) Loss of acceptance with him. Lev.
18:5; Deut. 8:3; 30:15-19; Ps. 119:17, 77, 116; Matt. 4:4; John 5:24.
III. Eternal death is also the consequence of Adam's sin.

8. The Christian Understanding of Sin

The word imputation comes from the Latin word imputare, meaning “to reckon,” “to charge to one’s
account,”40 and relates to the problem of how sin is charged to every person. The basic Scripture is Romans
5:12, which teaches that sin entered the world through Adam. The interpretation of that verse determines
one’s view of imputation. Historically, there have been four major views of how sin is imputed to the human
race.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 63

Christian theories in regard to sin:

8.1 Pelagian view.
Pelagius was a British monk born about A.D. 370 who taught his strange doctrines at Rome in A.D. 409.
Modern Unitarians continue his basic scheme of doctrine. Pelagius taught that God created every soul
directly (he despised the traducian theory), and that every soul therefore was innocent and unstained. No
created soul had any direct relation to the sin of Adam; the only significance of Adam’s sin upon humanity
was the bad example. Pelagius, therefore, did not view Romans 5:12 as affecting all humanity; it did not.
No sin of Adam was imputed to the human race; only those acts of sin that people themselves committed
were imputed to them. Moreover, man did not die because he sinned but because of the law of nature. Adam
would have died even if he had not sinned. Pelagius and his doctrines were condemned at the Council of
Carthage in A.D. 418. Pelagius’s teaching ran contrary to the Scriptures on a number of points.

8.2 Arminian view.

Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609) was a Dutch theologian. In thought similar to Pelagianism, Arminius taught
that man was not considered guilty because of Adam’s sin. When people would voluntarily and purposefully
choose to sin even though they had power to live righteously—then, and only then, would God impute sin
to them and count them guilty. Although man does not possess original righteousness because of Adam’s
sin, “God bestows upon each individual from the first dawn of consciousness a special influence of the Holy
Spirit, which is sufficient to counteract the effect of the inherited depravity and to make obedience possible,
provided the human will cooperates, which it still has power to do.” Thus Arminius recognized an effect
from Adam’s sin but not in the sense of total depravity; through divine enablement man could still make
righteous choices. Romans 5:12 is not understood as all humanity suffering the effect of Adam’s sin and
death, but rather because of the individual agreement with Adam’s act is sin imputed to the individual.

8.3 Federal view.

The federal view was originally propounded by Cocceius (1603–1669) and became a standard of belief in
Reformed theology. It was taught by men like Charles Hodge, J. Oliver Buswell Jr., and Louis Berkhof.
This view is called the federal view because Adam is seen as the federal head or representative of the entire
human race. God entered into a covenant of works with Adam whereby He promised to bless Adam and
thereby the entire human race with eternal life if Adam obeyed. Disobedience would bring suffering to the
entire human race. As a result of Adam’s sin, since he was the representative of the human race, his sin
plunged the entire human race into suffering and death. Through the one sin of Adam, sin and death are
imputed to all humanity because all humanity was represented in Adam. Charles Hodge defines the view:
“In virtue of the union, federal and natural, between Adam and his posterity, his sin, although not their act,
is so imputed to them that it is the judicial ground of the penalty threatened against him coming also upon
them.

8.4 Augustinian view.

This view is named after Augustine (A.D. 354–430) and has been more recently held by Calvin, Luther,
Shedd, and Strong. This view teaches that the statement “all sinned” in Romans 5:12 suggests that all
humanity was a participant in Adam’s sin. Just as Levi (although not yet born) paid tithes to Melchizedek
through Abraham in that Levi was “seminally present” in Abraham (Heb. 7:9–10), in a similar way, all
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 64

humanity was “seminally present” in Adam when Adam sinned, and therefore all humanity participated in
the sin. Therefore, the sin of Adam and the resultant death are charged to all humanity because all humanity
is guilty. God holds all humanity guilty because all humanity is guilty.

The Christian and Sin

The conflict. The Christian’s conflict with sin, according to 1 John 2:16, arises from three areas. 1) The
world. The world (Gk. kosmos) denotes “that which is hostile to God, i.e., lost in sin, wholly at odds with
anything divine, ruined and depraved.” Believers are warned not to love the world nor the things in the
world (1 John 2:15). This statement indicates there is both a material element as well as a philosophy to be
shunned. John further indicates that the world lures the Christian to sin through the lust of the flesh, the lust
of the eyes, and the boastful pride of life (1 John 2:16). This world lies under the control of Satan (1 John
5:19) and manifests itself in foolishness (1 Cor. 3:19), immorality (1 Cor. 5:10), and hostility toward God
(James 4:4). The Christian is to reckon that he has been crucified with regard to the world (Gal. 6:14).
(2) The flesh. The flesh (Gk. sarx) “is the willing instrument of sin, and is subject to sin to such a degree
that wherever flesh is, all forms of sin are likewise present, and no good thing can live in the sarx. The term
flesh may be used in a material sense; however, it is frequently given a nonmaterial meaning to refer to “the
old nature of the flesh … that capacity which all men have to serve and please self … the capacity to leave
God out of one’s life.” The flesh as a capacity for sin is described in Paul’s Christian experience in Romans
7:17–20. It involves lust and controls the mind (Eph. 2:3); it governs the life of the non-Christian (Rom.
8:5–6). The solution to the dilemma of Romans 7:25 is the power of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:2ff) and a
renewed mind (Rom. 12:1) that reckons the flesh crucified (Rom. 6:6).
(3) The Devil. The Devil is a real, personal being who opposes the Christian and seeks to make him
ineffective in his Christian life. He is a formidable enemy of the Christian since he is intent on devouring
Christians (1 Peter 5:8); hence, the Christian is called on to resist the Devil (James 4:7). This can be
accomplished through putting on the armor for a spiritual battle (Eph. 6:10–17).
The provision. God has made ample provision for the Christian to keep him from the path of sin.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 65

Unit 4

Chapter 1:
1. Atonement Theories
The atonement theories pave way for us to understand the way Christ was understood in the past especially
from a soteriological perspective. Even though there are several theories, I would like to present seven of
the major theories for the Atonement based on the conceptual development in terms Christology. These
theories attempt to explain the nature of Jesus’ death on the cross. Why did Jesus die? What does this death
mean for the world today? These theories are historically the most dominant and it will be interesting to
find out its relevance today.

1.1 The Moral Influence Theory

One of the earliest theories for the atonement is the Moral Influence theory, which simply taught that Jesus
Christ came and died in order to bring about a positive change to humanity. This moral change comes
through the teachings of Jesus alongside His example and actions. The most notable name here is that of
Augustine from the 4th century, whose influence has almost single-handedly had the greatest impact upon
Western Christianity. He affirmed the Moral Influence theory as the main theory of the Atonement
(alongside the Ransom theory as well).9
Within this theory the death of Christ is understood as a catalyst to reform society, inspiring men and women
to follow His example and live good moral lives of love. In this theory the Holy Spirit comes to help
Christians produce this moral change. Logically, in this theory the Eschatological development too becomes
about morality, where it is taught that after death the human race will be judged by their conduct in life.
This in turn creates a strong emphasis on free will as the human response to follow Jesus’ example. 10
Although Augustine himself differs here in that he did not teach free will, but instead that human beings
are incapable of change themselves, and require God to radically alter their lives sovereignty through the
Holy Spirit.
This theory focuses on not just the death of Jesus Christ, but on His entire life. This sees the saving work
of Jesus not only in the event of the crucifixion, but also in all the words He has spoken, and the example
He has set. In this theory the cross is merely a ramification of the moral life of Jesus. He is crucified as a
martyr due to the radical nature of His moral example. In this way the Moral Influence theory emphasizes
Jesus Christ as our teacher, our example, our founder and leader, and ultimately, as a result, our first martyr.

1.2 The Ransom Theory

The Ransom view could be summarized like this:
“Essentially, this theory claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall’
hence, justice required that God pay the Devil a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not
be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ’s death as a ransom, this theory concluded,
justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan’s grip.”11

9
http://www.sdmorrison.org/7-theories-of-the-atonement-summarized/ viewed on the 11th February 2019 at 04.pm.
10
http://www.sdmorrison.org/7-theories-of-the-atonement-summarized/ viewed on the 11th February 2019 at 04.pm.
11
Robin Collins, Understanding Atonement: A new and Orthodox Theory, 1995
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 66

Redemption in this theory means to buy back, and purchase the human race from the clutches of the Devil.
The main controversy here with this theory is the act of paying off the Devil. Some have written that this is
not a fair statement to say that all Ransom Theorists believe that the Devil is paid, but rather in this act of
Ransom Christ frees humanity from the bondage of sin and death. In this way Ransom relates the Christus
Victor theory. But it’s worth differentiating here because in one way these views are similar, but in another
way they are drastically different.

1.3 Christus Victor Theory

Gustaf Aulen argued that this theory of the Atonement is the most consistently held theory for church
history, especially in the early church up until the 12th century before Anslem’s satisfaction theory came
along. He writes that “the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind
in bondage: sin, death, and the devil.”12 He calls this theory the “classic” theory of the Atonement. While
some will say that Christus Victor is compatible with other theories of the Atonement, others argue that it
is not. Though I have found that most theologians believe that Christus Victor is true, even if it is not for
them the primary theory of Christ’s death.

1.4 The Satisfaction Theory (Anselm)

In the 12th century Anselm of of Canterbury proposed a satisfaction theory for the Atonement. In this theory
Jesus Christ’s death is understood as a death to satisfy the justice of God. Satisfaction here means restitution,
the mending of what was broken, and the paying back of a debt. In this theory, Anselm emphasizes the
justice of God, and claims that sin is an injustice that must be balanced. Anselm’s satisfaction theory says
essentially that Jesus Christ died in order to pay back the injustice of human sin, and to satisfy the justice
of God.13

This theory was developed in reaction to the historical dominance of the Ransom theory, that God paid the
devil with Christ’s death. Anselm saw that this theory was logically flawed, because what does God owe
satan? Therefore, in contrast with the Ransom theory, Anselm taught that it is humanity who owes a debt
to God, not God to satan. Our debt, in this theory, is that of injustice. Our injustices have stolen from the
justice of God and therefore must be paid back. Satisfaction theory then postulates that Jesus Christ pays
pack God in His death on the cross to God. This is the first Atonement theory to bring up the notion that
God is acted upon by the Atonement (i.e. that Jesus satisfies God).

1.5 The Penal Substitutionary Theory

Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a development of the Reformation. The Reformers, Specifically Calvin
and Luther, took Anselm’s Satisfaction theory and modified it slightly. They added a more legal (or
forensic) framework into this notion of the cross as satisfaction. The result is that within Penal Substitution,
Jesus Christ dies to satisfy God’s wrath against human sin. Jesus is punished (penal) in the place of sinners
(substitution) in order to satisfy the justice of God and the legal demand of God to punish sin. In the light
of Jesus’ death God can now forgive the sinner because Jesus Christ has been punished in the place of

12
Gustaf Aulén, Christus Victor p. 20
13
http://www.sdmorrison.org/7-theories-of-the-atonement-summarized/ viewed on the 13th February 2019 at 11.00am.
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 67

sinner, in this way meeting the retributive requirements of God’s justice. This legal balancing of the ledgers
is at the heart of this theory, which claims that Jesus died for legal satisfaction.14

This theory of the Atonement contrasts with Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory in that God is not satisfied with
a debt of justice being paid by Jesus, but that God is satisfied with punishing Jesus in the place of mankind.
The notion that the cross acts upon God, conditioning Him to forgiveness, originates from Anslems theory,
but here in Penal Substitution the means are different. This theory of the Atonement is perhaps the most
dominant today, especially among the Reformed, and the evangelical.

1.6 The Governmental Theory

The Governmental Theory of the Atonement is a slight variation upon the Penal Substitutionary theory,
which is notably held in Methodism. The main difference here is the extent to which Christ suffered. In the
Governmental Theory, Jesus Christ suffers the punishment of our sin and propitiates God’s wrath. In this
way it is similar to Penal Substitution. However, in the Governmental Theory, Jesus Christ does not take
the exact punishment we deserve, He takes a punishment. Jesus dies on the cross therefore to demonstrate
the displeasure of God towards sin. He died to display God’s wrath against sin and the high price which
must be paid, but not to specifically satisfy that particular wrath. The Governmental Theory also teaches that
Jesus died only for the church, and if you by faith are part of the church, you can take part in God’s
salvation.15 The church then acts as the sort of hiding place from God’s punishment. This view contrasts
both the Penal and Satisfaction models, but retains the fundamental belief that God cannot forgive if Jesus
does not die a propitiating death.

1.7 The Scapegoat Theory

The Scapegoat Theory is a modern Atonement theory rooted in the philosophical concept of the Scapegoat.
Here the key figures Rene Girard and James Allison. Within this theory of the Atonement Jesus Christ dies
as the Scapegoat of humanity. This theory moves away from the idea that Jesus died in order to act upon
God (as in PSA, Satisfaction, or Governmental), or as payment to the devil (as in Ransom). Scapegoating
therefore is considered to be a form of non-violent atonement, in that Jesus is not a sacrifice but a victim.
There are many Philosophical concepts that come up within this model, but in a general sense we can say
that Jesus Christ as the Scapegoat means the following. 1) Jesus is killed by a violent crowd. 2) The violent
crowd kills Him believing that He is guilty. 3) Jesus is proven innocent, as the true Son of God. 4) The
crowd is therefore deemed guilty.

James Allison summarizes the Scapegoating Theory like this, “Christianity is a priestly religion which
understands that it is God’s overcoming of our violence by substituting himself for the victim of our typical
sacrifices that opens up our being able to enjoy the fullness of creation as if death were not.”16

14
https://www.gotquestions.org/atonement-theories.html viewed on the 13th February 2019 at 11.00am.
15
https://www.gotquestions.org/atonement-theories.html viewed on the 13th February 2019 at 11.00am.
16
http://www.sdmorrison.org/7-theories-of-the-atonement-summarized/ viewed on the 13th February 2019 at 11.00am.
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 68

1.8 Reflections
Each theory presented here is dense and complex, but I hope you can learn from the overall focus of each.
I personally believe that we need to move beyond some of these theories and progress into a more robust
theory of the atonement. Even though death of Christ is so important in systematic theology to define
Christology from a soteriological angle, and this was challenged by many contextual theologies that
emerged in the course of history. It is also true that contextual theologies too, once conceptualized death of
Jesus as a powerful event as a sign of protest against injustice in the society. However, in the recent times,
the death of Jesus is challenged by critically evaluating the situation. How could a weak person who just
died on the cross can save others? The very question asked by those who mocked at Jesus on the cross was
picked up some of the contextual theologies. Some of the contextual theologies such as liberation, feminists,
and dalits are trying de-fine Christology not based on his death rather based on his life and works. In such
a quest, the historical Jesus play a dominant role rather than the tragic end of Jesus. The way he challenged
his hierarchical society during his life is more important that his death. Even I had this confusion, whether
the death of Jesus saves us or the life of Jesus saves us? Do we get more inspiration from the death or from
his life? The moral influence theory even though emerged in a very early period, I feel that it still holds
good as many recent theological thinking about death of Jesus reflect this theory.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 69

Chapter 2
2. Jesus Christ as the Mediator:
A mediator is one that comes in between parties who are at variance, in order to reconcile them. Where
there is no variance there can be no mediation. "A mediator is not the mediator of one; but God is one."
Gal. 3:20. If there are no parties there can be no mediator. A mediator differs from an advocate, because
the latter, strictly speaking, looks to the interest of one alone, while the former has a regard to both. It is
right and fit, perhaps it is necessary, that a mediator should be the equal of both parties. Jesus Christ has
this fitness for his work. He can lay his hand both upon God and sinners. He knows God's will and God's
rights. He knows human's sins and human's wants. He will not betray either party. It is no robbery for him
to claim equality with God. Phil. 2:6.17 Though there are several theological themes arose from the basis
that Jesus is the mediator, some are very traditional and Biblicist in its approach. I have discussed two of
such conventional approachs which claims that Jesus is the Mediator.

2.1 Mediator of the New Covenant:

Jesus Christ is the sole Mediator of the new covenant. So says Paul: "There is one God, and one Mediator
between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."
1 Tim. 2:5, 6. If it is wicked to believe in two or more Gods, it is no less wicked to believe in two or more
Mediators. Moses is once called a mediator. Gal. 3:19. The history of the event there referred to shows that
the meaning is simply this, that he was a messenger to make known God's will to Israel, and to make known
the desires of the people to God. The passage refers to the giving of the law, when the display of the divine
majesty was so terrible that Israel said to Moses, "Speak you with us, and we will hear; but let not God
speak with us, lest we die." Exod. 20:19. In mediation between God and sinners, so as to secure salvation,
there is no Mediator but Christ. Acts 4:12; 1 Cor. 3:11.

2.2 Mediator for Salvation:

The great end of Christ's mediation is the salvation of his people. So said the angel that announced his
birth: "You shall call his name JESUS; for he shall save his people from their sins." Matt. 1:21. "Christ is
the head of church; and he is the Savior of the body." Eph. 5:23. As a Mediator he is no respecter of persons.
Birth, blood, riches, honors, color, nationality, are nothing with him. He utterly disregards all distinctions
made by are or by man's device. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is
neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal. 3:28. "In Jesus Christ neither circumcision
avails anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which works by love." Gal. 5:6.

2.3 Mediator for the Reign of God

The third approach which I would like to elaborate is that Jesus as the mediator for the reign of God. In the
Synoptics, Jesus’ relationship with the Reign of God, which we here define formally as the ultimate will of
God for this world, is central. That Reign and its proximity are presented by Jesus as the actual ultimate. It
also precipitates his historical destiny, that of the cross. His very resurrection is God’s response to one who,
for serving the Reign, has been put to death by the anti-Reign. In other words, in order to come to know the

17
https://www.monergism.com/christ-mediator viewed on the 13th of February 2019 at 11.00am
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 70

specifically Christian element of the Reign of God, one must turn to Jesus. But just so, conversely, in order
to know Jesus one must turn to the Reign of God.18
Thus, Jesus appears in an essential and constitutive relationship with the Reign of God, with the ultimate
will of God – with that which we call systematically the mediation of God. And systematically we call this
Jesus, in his relationship with the mediation, the mediator of the will of God; that is, the person who
proclaims the Reign, who posits signs of its reality and points to its totality. For systematic Christology, the
question is how to move from the reality of Jesus as mediator to his reality as definitive mediator of the
Reign of God. All christologies must face this question, since all of them must take the step – the leap,
really – from Jesus’ historical reality to a profession of his ultimacy.
In an analysis of the qualitative bound from Jesus as mediator to Jesus as the definitive mediator of the
Reign, it must be taken into account whether and where there is some kind of discontinuity that would make
that transition reasonable – although to accept it as radical discontinuity will in the last analysis always be
a matter of faith. Along these lines we might recall Jesus’ daring proclamation of the imminence of this
Reign and the indefectible victory of God, his daring in declaring the symmetry broken forever in which
God could possibly come as a savior or possibly as a condemning judge – to all of which would correspond
the discontinuity in his hearers: “At last salvation has come for the poor.” This daring on Jesus’ part in
announcing the coming of God in the Reign, and in proclaiming the gratuitous, salvific, and liberative reality
of God that draws near with the proximity of God, would offer some kind of discontinuity regarding the
historical viewpoint, in terms of which theology could now reflect upon the special relationship of Jesus
with the transcendent.19
At the same time, Jesus appears in continuity with other, earlier mediators – Moses, the prophets, the
Servant, and so on. In other words, Jesus appears as a human being immersed in this same current of a
historical course traversed with honesty before the truth, mercy before the suffering of another, justice
before the oppression of the masses, a loving dedication to his mission, total fidelity to God, indestructible
hope, the sacrifice of his life. The assertion of Jesus’ absolute discontinuity is a matter of faith, as we have
said. We cannot, therefore, propose a reality of Jesus that would mechanically force the qualitative leap to
his status as the mediator. What we can propose is a reality of Jesus in terms of which we can also gain a
meaningful formulation – in our opinion, a more meaningful formulation than we gain from a point of
departure in other realities – of this leap to the mediator. What we have called Jesus’ daring can function as
an index, a pointer, an indicator, of the transcendent ultimacy of his person. And a grasp of what is human
in Jesus – which is in no way novel in its formal characterization – can point to his human ultimacy, not as
differentiation, but as fullness of the human.
Christians actually made this qualitative leap after the resurrection. From our perspective we add that the
resurrection can also be presented as confirmation of the truth of Jesus as the mediator of the Reign, and
not only as an arbitrary act posited by God for the purpose of revealing the reality of that God – which could
have just as well occurred in the revival of any other corpse. If this had been the only “reason” for the
resurrection the resurrection would be something extrinsic to Jesus’ life and would say nothing of his being
as mediator. But if the one to whom “life has been restored” is one who proclaimed the commencement of

18
http://www.womenpriests.org/theology/systematic-Christology-jesus-christ-the-absolute-mediator-of-the-reign-of-god/
viewed on the 15th of February at 10.00pm
19
http://www.womenpriests.org/theology/systematic-Christology-jesus-christ-the-absolute-mediator-of-the-reign-of-god/
viewed on the 15th of February at 10.00pm
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 71

life for the poor and therefore was deprived of life himself, if the one who has been raised is one who ended
as a victim of the anti-Reign, then the resurrection can very well be understood systematically as the
confirmation of the mediator, the confirmation of his (objectively) theological daring, and the confirmation
of the fullness of the human occurring in his person. Then the qualitative leap of faith can be made, and the
christological concept formulated of Jesus of Nazareth as the mediator of the Reign of God.
In terms of the Reign of God, then, the reality of Jesus can be formulated, and in terms of the ultimacy of
the Reign the ultimacy of Jesus can be formulated. What must be analyzed – due to the fact that it has been
consecrated in the dogmatic formulations – is whether this formulation, in terms of the Reign of God, is
compatible with the more usual focus on the divine ultimacy of Jesus in relation to the person of God the
Mother/Father, as well as with a focus on his human ultimacy.

3. The Nature of Jesus

3.1.Jesus’ Divinity
With respect to establishing the divinity of Jesus, it is clear that the gospels place Jesus in a relationship
with the person of God in which he calls God his Father. However, the content of this concept of God as
Father is not incompatible with that of the God of the Reign – although each of these expressions of ultimacy
has its own specificity. They are not interchangeable as concepts, nor can either be adequately deduced
from the other by way of pure conceptual reflection. But at least it must be admitted that they are related,
and that to a large extent they converge. To this same extent, Jesus’ relationship with the divine ultimate –
on which his own divine ultimacy will be based-can be developed in terms of the God of the Reign and in
terms of God as his Father. And then, also in terms of the ultimacy of the Reign of God, the divine element
in Jesus can be approached. In both perspectives Jesus appears in a relationship with a God who has a
specific content – a positive one for human beings, with the qualities of mercy, justice, partiality toward the
poor, the weak, and the little ones, and a God who generates, and elicits, honesty, trust, hope, freedom, joy,
and the like.20
This fundamental convergence can be observed in the texts in which Jesus appears in his personal
relationship with God the Father, as well as in the many parables of the Reign that show this kind of God,
a God who makes possible and who demands such a relationship. Jesus’ personal relationship with the
divinity, then, can be analyzed in terms of his relationship with his Father, surely; but it can also be analyzed
in terms of his relationship with the God of the Reign. In this sense the mediator of the Reign of God can
also be understood as the Son of God without doing violence to either term.

3.2. Jesus’ Humanity

When it comes to establishing the humanity of Jesus, Jesus’ relationship with the Reign of God offers
greater advantages than any other biblical or dogmatic focus (such as a general profession of his human
nature, an analysis of his attitudes, or the like). The fundamental reason for this is that, in confrontation
with the Reign of God, the totality of the person of Jesus in action comes into view. Guided by Kant’s three
questions – to which we shall add a fourth-in the answer to which is expressed the totality of the human,
we readily observe that Jesus’ relationship with the Reign of God evinces (a) the knowledge Jesus has and
communicates concerning the Reign of God and the anti-Reign, (b) the hope that he stirs in others and that

20
http://www.womenpriests.org/theology/systematic-Christology-jesus-christ-the-absolute-mediator-of-the-reign-of-god/
viewed on the 15th of February at 10pm.
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 72

supports him as well (hope in the coming of the Reign), (c) the praxis he performs in the service of that
Reign, and his historical celebration of the fact that the Reign has “already” come.21
Finally, his relationship with the Reign sets in deeper relief the specific characteristics of the authentically
human: honesty with reality, mercy as a primary reaction, justice demanded in the face of the oppression of
the masses, fidelity in trial and persecution, and the “greatest love” of the laying down of one’s life.
In synthesis, Jesus’ human element, when seen in relationship with the Reign of God and in its service,
appears with certain particular characteristics. Furthermore – something that is not usually emphasized in
systematic christologies – this human element appears as partiality, in Jesus’ placement and incarnation, in
the addressees of his mission, and in his very fate. It appears as a human element in solidarity-as a specific
realization of the human in regard to other persons, as their brother, as a human being who is for others and
who wills to be with others.

Reflections:
The Christ event in the history is suitably placed after four hundred years of dark span of no revelation from
or about God. If we agree with this idea of dark span where there is no revelation of God, then Karl Barth’s
view of complete revelation of God in and through Jesus Christ alone will hold good. For the reason that
after 400 years of silence, God fully revealed Godself through Jesus Christ, presupposing that we came to
know about God through Jesus alone. I have very strong objection against the no revelation of God as well
as the term dark period. According to me God reveals and mediates through various sources such as nature,
human experiences such as birth, death, victory or failures. Human life oscillates between happy and sad
moments through his/her life span. In such a case every moment God mediates through our own experience
as well as through someone’s experience. If I have to believe that God mediated through Jesus Christ, then
I might have to accept the mediation of God through my neighbor irrespective of his/her caste or religion
or color. Thus, I have an opinion that God continues to mediate to the human and other creation through
God’s creation and Jesus could be strongest medium of mediation. In the Old Testament the three main
offices held by the leaders were Priests, Kings and Prophets. All those who played these three roles were
the mediators from God at different situations in the History of Israel. However, the question whether these
historical persons are mere mediation for God to communicate to God’s people or mediators from God is
still valid. For the reason, Jesus’ exclusive claim that he is from God, sent to be the mediator for human
kind, may or may not be applicable for others who played the roles mentioned in Old Testament.

21
http://www.womenpriests.org/theology/systematic-Christology-jesus-christ-the-absolute-mediator-of-the-reign-of-god/
viewed on the 15th of February at 10pm.
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 73

Chapter 3
4 Kenotic or Kryptic Christology:
4.1 Kenotic Christology
The term 'kenosis' is derived from 'ekenosen', which Paul uses in his letter to the Philippians to describe
Christ's action or attitude towards his equality with God. In the first stanza of this text we read of 'Christ
Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be
exploited, but emptied (ekenosen) himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in human likeness. And
being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even death on
a cross' (Phil. 2.6-8). On the basis of the use of the term 'ekenosen' in this text, 'kenosis' has come to be used
as shorthand for a series of problems and issues arising from the claim that Christ is both truly divine and
truly human. How can these two natures co-exist in the one, united Person of Christ without undermining
the integrity of either nature? 'Kenotic Christologies' are those Christologies which address this problem by
arguing that Christ 'emptied' himself of something in order to become a human being.22 The dispute among
kenotic theologians concerns this 'something' that Christ has allegedly emptied himself of and whether it
compromises his divinity. Is it his divine nature or only certain non-essential attributes belonging to his
divine nature? Or does Christ continue to possess his divine attributes but merely refrains from exercising
them?

Like many of the classic kenotic theologians of the 19th century Kierkegaard argues that Christ undergoes
a limitation on becoming a human being. Where he differs from his contemporaries is in emphasizing the
radical nature of this limitation. Christ is 'bound by his servant form' and even if he had wished to exercise
the powers belonging to his divine nature, he could not have done so. Another distinctive feature of
Kierkegaard's thought is his claim that the ascended Christ's relationship to human beings continues to be
that of the humiliated Christ. Kierkegaard criticizes Christians who emphasize the exalted Christ and who
forget that Christ came to humankind as the lowly, humiliated servant, because this distracts them from
their task of taking up their cross and following Christ in suffering discipleship. Kierkegaard, then,
conceives of the kenosis not as finished with Christ's ascension into heaven but sees it as an ongoing event.23
‘Kenoticism’ of this type had its critics from the start. Viewed from the right, it was said to compromise
vital aspects of orthodoxy: it undermined the unity and immutability of God; then again, it eroded, implicitly
or explicitly, the reality that divinity was manifest in flesh. Viewed from the left, however, it did not go far
enough: it continued to hold to an untenable mythology of a divinely pre-existent Christ; it betrayed a
lingering docetism24 at odds with the Grundaxiom that Christology must begin ‘below’. Partly in deference
to such criticisms, partly as a consequence of other impulses, later-twentieth-century kenotic projects sought
to formulate their proposals in broader ways—to envision kenosis as an expression of a more general divine
disposition in regard to creation; to picture divine self-fulfilment as lying precisely in self-sacrifice rather
than immutability as classically conceived; to emphasize the ethical import of a ‘Christic’ pattern of life
expressed symbolically (but not necessarily definitively) in Jesus.25

22
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FF014791%2F1 viewed on the 18th of February 2019 at 05.00am.
23
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FF014791%2F1 viewed on the 18th of February 2019 at 05.00am.
24
The doctrine, important in Gnosticism, that Christ's body was not human but either a phantasm or of real but celestial
substance, and that therefore his sufferings were only apparent.
25
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15665399.2007.10819944 viewed on the 20th of February 2019 at 10.00pm.
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 74

There is also some ambiguity as to whether kenotic Christology in a specific sense is proposed as an
alternative to more traditional models of ontological incarnation, or as one especially fruitful way of
faithfully interpreting a classical inheritance. Some of the New Testament theologians maintain that a
kenotic account can be thoroughly compatible with the parameters established by Scripture and confessional
tradition. Davis in particular labours to demonstrate that kenosis thus construed is ‘orthodox’.26 Thus, this
theory seems to be helpful in relating two natures of Christ and some of the basic questions such as, to what
extent did the humanity of Jesus force him to empty himself of the divine, and at the same time how and to
what extent did his divine powers remain? What happened to the person of God himself when divine powers
were allowed in the man Jesus Christ? Many 19th century theologians argued that divine son abandoned his
deity, such as omnipotence, omniscience, and cosmic sovereignty, in order to become man. Some of them
believed that within the sphere of the incarnation, the deity so restrained its activity as to allow the existence
in the Lord of a limited and genuinely human consciousness.

The kenotic Christologies certainly initiated two lines of thought that have continued to shape Christian
thought to this day. These have been the redefining of the absolutness of God and rethinking the humanity
of Jesus’ mental and emotional life. Kenosis indicated the absolute Lordship of God over every realm of
existence – even humanity in its finitude, suffering and death. Macquarie’s statement could be a
summarizing evaluation of the work done by the kenoticists. He points out that their mistake was that they
tried to determine (more or less) how much of the divine being can be brought within the limits of a human
existence. But he confirms that they were right in affirming Christ’s full deity and that, in him, God has
uniquely descended into his creation, upholding this against minimizing tendencies of the more extreme
humanistic Christologies of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.27

4.2 Kryptic Christology

Another perspective of defining Christology is “Kryptic” Christology (from krypsis, “hiding” in Greek),
in that “the supernatural properties of God incarnate were concealed (‘veiled’) during the Incarnation”.
Loke exposits Kryptic Christology according to, what he calls, the Divine Precon-scious Model (DPM).
The DPM states that at the Incarnation, the divine attributes of the Logos (such as the Logos' omniscience,
omnipotence, and omnipresence) were pushed into the Logos' divine preconscious, while a human nature
was assumed that included a human preconscious. Loke calls the former “part A” of Christ's preconscious
and the latter “part B” of his preconscious. The two minds of Christ (his divine and human mind) share one
conscious-ness. But Christ has a full divine nature (“in virtue of the aspect of his consciousness having
access to the divine pre-conscious [part A], thus continuing to possess all the essential divine properties
which he had from eternity” and a full human nature (“in virtue of the aspect of his consciousness which
had human properties, the human pre-conscious [part B], and human body” It is clear that according to this
theory, once the Incarnation occurs, Christ is composed of three parts: (1) the concrete divine nature and
the concrete human nature, which itself is composed of (2) Christ's human body and (3) Christ's human
soul.28

26
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15665399.2007.10819944 viewed on the 20th of February 2019 at 10.00pm.
27
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15665399.2007.10819944 viewed on the 20th of February 2019 at 10.00pm.
28
James M. Arcadi, “Recent developments in analytic Christology” in Fuller theological correspondence – 15th of November
2017. P1-12.
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 75

This approach of preconscious motif of three‐part concrete nature Christology avoids Nestorian
tendencies of Two Consciousness concrete models, avoids Apollinarian tendencies of abstract nature
models, and avoids the troubles of Ketoticism that might seem to evacuate Christ of his full divinity. Thus,
this model holds that the divine attributes of the Incarnate Christ are hidden in the divine preconscious, fully
accessible (so he still possesses them) but hidden from view where Christ does not (or rarely) access them.
Furthermore, in this approach, Christ does not derive his attributes from his natures, but rather by adding
on certain properties, he satisfies the conditions for being a member of the kind divinity and the kind
humanity.29

29
https://courses.helsinki.fi/sites/default/files/coursematerial/4544595/arcadi%20Christology.pdf viewed on the 20th February
2019 at 10.00pm
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 76

Chapter 4:
5. Jesus as Liberator:
5.1 From the Gospel Narratives
From the Gospel narratives we could understand that Jesus acted with the authority and conviction of one
sent by the Father to liberate a creation wounded by injustice. He displayed the power to placate tempests,
cure the sick, resurrect the dead and fill all people with hope. Something truly revolutionary was going to
happen: the emergence of the Kingdom that is of God and also, through His commitment, of humans. The
conflict Jesus created on these two fronts led Him to the cross. He did not die in His bed surrounded by His
disciples, but was executed on the cross, as a result of His message and practice. Everything indicated that
His utopia had been frustrated. But something unheard of happened: the grass did not grow on His grave.
Some women announced to the apostles that He had been resurrected. The resurrection must not be
identified with the reanimation of a corpse, as in Lazarus, but as the appearance of a new being, no longer
subject either to time-space, or to the natural entropy of life. This is why He could go through walls. He
would appear and disappear. His utopia of the Kingdom as a transfiguration of all things, not being realized
globally, became concrete in His person through the resurrection. It is the Kingdom of God concretized in
Him. 30

The resurrection is the main event for, without that event, Jesus would be just one of the many prophets
sacrificed by the systems of oppression. The resurrection means the great liberation and also an insurrection
against this type of world. The resurrection gives meaning to all those crucified throughout history for
justice and love. The resurrection assures us that the executioner does not triumph over the victim. It means
the realization of the hidden potentialities in each of us: the appearance of the new man.

How do we understand that person? The disciples called Him by every title; Son of Man, Prophet, Messiah,
and others. In the end they concluded: a human such as Jesus can only be God. And they began to call Him,
Son of God. To announce Jesus Christ as liberator in the context of the oppression that existed and still
persists in Brazil and in Latin America was and is dangerous. Not only for the dominant society but also
for the type of Church that discriminates against women and the laity. This is why His dream will always
be retaken by those who refuse to accept the world as it exists now. Perhaps this is the secret meaning of a
book written 40 years ago.31

5.2 From Theological Perspective

The ultimate finality of theology, as of all Christian activity, is – according to the theology of liberation –
the maximal building of the Reign of God. But in our current situation of oppression, this building must
be liberation. Therefore liberation theology understands itself as a theory of a praxis, as
an intellectusamoris, which must be historicized as intellectus justitiae. This being the case, Christology
in the concrete must develop and supply a knowledge concerning Christ that by its nature will further the

30
https://leonardoboff.wordpress.com/2012/10/13/forty-years-of-liberation-theology-and-of-jesus-christ-liberator/ viewed on
the 20th of February at 11.00pm.
31
https://leonardoboff.wordpress.com/2012/10/13/forty-years-of-liberation-theology-and-of-jesus-christ-liberator/ viewed on
the 20th of February at 11.00pm.
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 77

building of the Reign of God. Because that Reign is effected in opposition to the oppression of the anti-
Reign, this knowledge of Christ must be a knowledge of liberation, intellectusliberationis.

5.2.1 Christopraxis of liberation

Christology must propose a knowledge concerning Christ such that, of his very nature, this Christ will move
a person – the person who knows him, in order that this person may know him – to a salvific activity. This
means introducing into the very reality of Christ the dynamism of the dispatch to that salvific activity. No
unequivocal thesis can be deduced from these fragmentary reflections, but at least we have an indication of
what interests us here. Both in life and after his resurrection, Christ appears not simply as a someone-in-
himself who can simply be known, or even a someone-for us of whom salvation can be hoped, but also as
a someone-who-sends, whose mission must be prosecuted. Thus, the praxis inspired by Christ is essential
to Christ himself (and to Christology). Here we have the context in which we must speak of the
Christopraxis of liberation.32

In this understanding of Christ as one who sends we confront a theoretical novelty. It is not a novelty that
Christ is presented salvifically – and let us remember that a salvific concern is what moved the development
of Christology in the scriptures, in patristics, and in the conciliar dogmas. This is accepted by liberation
Christology, which formally prosecutes this line and radically transcends the dissociation that began to
appear in the Middle Ages between Christology and soteriology. The novel element is in
(1) the determination of salvation as liberation, and
(2) the manner in which a concern for liberation has an influence on theoretical Christology, that is, not
only for having to think the reality of Christ in such a fashion that he can be savior (the interest of the
New Testament and of patristic speculation), but in thinking him in such a fashion that he may already
produce historical salvation.33

5.2.2 Liberative Aspect of Jesus’ Mission

The most specific mission of the historical Jesus is the proclamation and inauguration of the Reign of God
in behalf of the poor and outcast. In terms of the reality of the poor, the content of liberation will have
certain basic minimal content: a just life worthy of a human being. We might call it an economic and
sociological opportunity, since what is at stake is an oikos, house and home, the basic element of life; and
a socius, or social relationships of authentic kinship. 34

Someone might object that this conception of liberation neglects a key element of the later New Testament:
liberation from sin. Here it must be granted that one of the essentials of the historical Jesus’ liberative
mission in behalf of the Reign of God is his salvific attitude toward sinners. But this assertion must be
understood precisely and correctly. Those we might call sinful out of weakness, or more precisely, those
regarded as sinful by their oppressors, Jesus cordially and affectionately welcomes, with an attitude that

32
Jon Sobrino, S.J. and Ignacio Ellacuria, S.J, eds, Systematic Theology – Perspectives from Liberation Theology, (London:
SCM Press, 1996)p. 130
33
Jon Sobrino, S.J. and Ignacio Ellacuria, S.J, eds, Systematic Theology – Perspectives from Liberation Theology, (London:
SCM Press, 1996)p. 135
34
http://www.womenpriests.org/theology/systematic-Christology-jesus-christ-the-absolute-mediator-of-the-reign-of-god/
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 78

includes, but goes further than, simple forgiveness of sins. To the sinners in the sense of oppressors, Jesus
announces the Good News, it is true, but in the form of a demand for radical conversion, as in the case of
Zacchaeus.

5.2.3 Liberative Aspect of Jesus’ Person

Another assertion implied in the denomination of Jesus as Liberator is that the very person is liberative. It
is liberative because Jesus was as he was. The liberative element in the person of the mediator is the spirit
with which he executes the proclamation and inauguration of the Reign of God. His personal fidelity to God
and his mercy to human beings – to summarize systematically, as Hebrews does – his way of being before
God and human beings as related in the gospels, the spirit of the Beatitudes as expressed in himself, a life
lived in gratuity, his empowerment by truth-all of this is something good, as well as human, and humanizing
for others.35

We call this spirit of Jesus liberative, not only good, because Jesus came to be thus in the presence of the
temptation to be otherwise, as appears in the scene of the temptations. The mediator is shown to be liberated
himself, then. This is also liberative for others; yes, one can live this way, delivered from self, delivered
from selfishness and dehumanization (a problem that also occurs in historical liberation processes), one can
walk humbly with God in history, at once in absolute confidence in a God who is Parent and in total
availability to a Parent who is still God. In Latin America Christology has focused from the very beginning
on the Jesus who is Liberator of the poor and marginalized, but it is coming to emphasize more and more
as well the Jesus who is himself liberated, and who thereby delivers us from ourselves if we keep our eyes
fixed on him. 36

5.2.4 Liberative Aspect of Jesus’ Resurrection

In the Christian scriptures it is evident that the Reign of God is not the only symbol of utopia – a new earth
and a new heaven. Jesus’ resurrection, as well, is a symbol of this utopia. It is likewise evident that the
specific element in the latter symbol is liberation from death. Liberation Christology accepts all of this.
Nevertheless, the theology of liberation also regards it as essential to determine what elements of historical
liberation are generated here and now by Jesus’ resurrection.

In the first place, Jesus’ resurrection generates a specific hope – indirectly, perhaps, for all, but directly for
this world’s victims, the addressees of the Reign of God. Indeed, Jesus’ resurrection is presented in Peter’s
first discourses as God’s reaction to the injustice that human beings have committed against the just,
innocent Jesus. In this sense the resurrection is hope especially for this world’s victims, and it is a liberative
hope, because it occurs in the presence of the despairing fear that, in history, the executioners may triumph
over their victims. It occurs in the presence of the temptation to resignation or cynicism. 37

35
http://www.womenpriests.org/theology/systematic-Christology-jesus-christ-the-absolute-mediator-of-the-reign-of-god/
36
Jon Sobrino, S.J. and Ignacio Ellacuria, S.J, eds, Systematic Theology – Perspectives from Liberation Theology, (London:
SCM Press, 1996)p. 135
37
http://www.womenpriests.org/theology/systematic-Christology-jesus-christ-the-absolute-mediator-of-the-reign-of-god/
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 79

A further liberative aspect of Jesus’ resurrection is that it indicates the present sovereignty of Christ over
history by generating human beings who are not history’s slaves but its sovereigns. But sovereignty over
history does not consist in living immune and detached from history; still less does it mean attempting-
intentionally and idealistically – to “imitate” the immaterial conditions of the state of resurrection (as
ancient theologies of the religious life recommended). It consists in triumphing over the slaveries to which
human beings are subjected by reason of the fact that they live in history. It also predicts about the freedom
of following of Jesus to become more incarnate in historical reality, to dedicate oneself more to the
liberation of others, to practice the love that can become the greatest love. Here is a freedom, then; realized
not in fleeing the historical and material, but in incarnating oneself in it more, for love. It is being able to
be with others, being able to celebrate life “right now,” being able to call God Parent, and to call that God,
in relationship with all others, our Parent. 38

In synthesis, Jesus’ resurrection is liberative because it enables and inspires people to live in history itself
as risen ones, as persons raised; because it enables and inspires people to live the following of Jesus, too,
as a reflection of the fulfilling, triumphal note of the resurrection with indestructible hope, freedom, and
joy. Let us remark in passing that, when this occurs, then the One who has been raised is shown to be
Sovereign of history. In this sense, it could be said – and it comes as a shock – that he has left it in our hands
to make him the true Sovereign of history.

6. Conclusion:
This unit on Christology has presented a kind of kaleidoscopic view on understanding Christology. Who is
Christ to us? What are implications to us from the Christ event in the history? What is the ratio of divinity
of Jesus against the humanity of Jesus? Do we have to understand Jesus from a mere ontological level and
praxis level? Can the blood of Jesus shed on the cross of Calvary save me for the sins that I commit today
or tomorrow? Do I have to adore Jesus as God or follow him as a leader? What could be the real ultimatum
behind the incarnation of Jesus? And many more questions are being analyzed out of this content. Christ
event definitely the event in the history of Christianity, as most of those who try to understand the way God-
human-creation are related through the Christ event in the history. When divine was primarily understood
from a transcendent view, Christ event paved way for immanent view. All our attempts to comprehend the
complexity in the Christ event do not usually results in clarity rather leads to more complexity. However,
each attempts while unveiling a single truth might lead us to another truth which is yet to be unveiled. The
linear development in describing Christology from the early church had been unveiling many truths and it
gives us the feelings that are many truths to be discovered from the same biblical narratives and also from
the narratives on biblical narratives by many scholars in the history. Thus, I would say the task redefining
Christology is finished and yet to be completed.

Unit V

38
http://www.womenpriests.org/theology/systematic-Christology-jesus-christ-the-absolute-mediator-of-the-reign-of-god/
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 80

Chapter I
1. Introduction:
Traditional Christian theology understands the Holy Spirit as the ‘third’ person of the Trinity, equal in
divinity with the Father and the Son. In twentieth and twenty first century, because of the repeated
Trinitarian revivals, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, that is, Pneumatology has become the topic to be
discussed. For the majority of Christian denominations, the Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost, is believed to be
the third person of the Trinity, a Triune God manifested as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy
Spirit, each entity itself being God.

In Christian theology, pneumatology refers to the study of the Holy Spirit. Due to Christianity's historical
relationship with Judaism, theologians often identify the Holy Spirit with the concept of the Ruach
Hakodesh in Jewish scripture, on the theory that Jesus (who was Jewish) was expanding upon these Jewish
concepts. Similar names, and ideas, include the Ruach Elohim (Spirit of God), Ruach YHWH (Spirit of
Yahweh), and the Ruach Hakodesh (Holy Spirit).[6][7] In the New Testament it is identified with the Spirit
of Christ, the Spirit of Truth, the Paraclete and the Holy Spirit.

2. Pneumatology:
Pneumatology refers to a particular discipline within Christian theology that focuses on the study of the
Holy Spirit. The term is derived from the Greek word Pneuma (πνεῦμα), which designates "breath" or
"spirit" and metaphorically describes a non-material being or influence. The English term pneumatology
comes from two Greek words: πνεῦμα (pneuma, spirit) and λόγος (logos, teaching about). Pneumatology
includes study of the person of the Holy Spirit, and the works of the Holy Spirit.

2.1 Etymology and usage

The Koine Greek word pneûma (πνεῦμα, pneuma) is found around 385 times in the New Testament, with
some scholars differing by three to nine occurrences. Pneuma appears 105 times in the four canonical
gospels, 69 times in the Acts of the Apostles, 161 times in the Pauline epistles, and 50 times elsewhere.
These usages vary: in 133 cases it refers to "spirit" and in 153 cases to "spiritual". Around 93 times, the
reference is to the Holy Spirit. Sometimes under the name pneuma and sometimes explicitly as the pneûma
tò Hagion (Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον). In a few cases it is also simply used generically to mean wind or life. It was
generally translated into the Vulgate as Spiritus and Spiritus Sanctus.

The English terms "Holy Ghost" and "Holy Spirit" are complete synonyms: one derives from the Old
English gast and the other from the Latin loanword spiritus. Like pneuma, they both refer to the breath, to
its animating power, and to the soul. The Old English term is shared by all other Germanic languages
(compare, e.g., the German Geist) and it is older; the King James Bible typically uses "Holy Ghost".
Beginning in the 20th century, translations overwhelmingly prefer "Holy Spirit", partly because the general
English term "ghost" has increasingly come to refer only to the spirit of a dead person.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 81

3. The biblical, historical, and contemporary issues and debates concerning doctrines related to the
Spirit
3.1 Biblical teachings:
The Spirit in the OT is referred to in Hebrew as ‘ruach' and in the Greek as 'Pneuma' and the English
translation ‘spirit' is derived from the Latin "spiritus”. In the OT, the spirit of Yahweh is God's power in
action. Yahweh's spirit is God himself present and at work, as are his hand and his arm". The Spirit's distinct
personhood can, and according to the NT should, be read into the OT, but cannot be read out of it. In the
NT the Holy Spirit is shown active in the life of Jesus Christ and in the life of the early disciples. The Spirit
was referred to being active in the words and works of Jesus during his ministry (Jn. 6:63).

The Holy Spirit was recognized by the disciples indwelling in them, as promised by Christ (Jn 14:17) and
received accordingly by the disciples at the departure of Christ from them (Acts 2:1). With the ascension
of Christ, the disciples began proclaiming the good news soon after the experience of the Holy Spirit at
Pentecost (Acts 2)

3.2 The Person of the Holy Spirit

The Church believed in the personality of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is referred to in John in the
masculine pronoun 'he' (Jn 14:26; 16:14). The use of masculine pronoun to the Holy Spirit in John is similar
to the references made for Christ (I Jn 2:6; 3:3,5, 7,16). The Holy Spirit is referred to as "another" Paraclate
shows that he is distinguished from the person of Christ. The Holy Spirit has personal characteristics as
searching the truths of God (1 Cor 2:10,11), as distributing gifts to the believers (I Cor 12:1ff) and as
possessing a mind (Rom 8:27). Such qualities are a part of the personality.

In the NT, spirit is pneuma a word with similar associations to ruach and the Holy Spirit poured out by
Christ at Pentecost (Jn. 1:33; Acts 2:33) is identified with the OT spirit of God (Acts 2:16-21). But now he
appears as a person distinct from the Father and the Son, with a ministry of his own. Over and above his
previous functions, he is now given to the church as another (e. a second) Paraclete (Jn. 14:16), taking over
Jesus' role as counsellor, helper, strengthener, supporter, adviser, advocate, ally (for the Gk. Paracletos
means all of these). Like the Father and the Son, he acts as only a person can do - he hears, speaks,
convinces, testifies, shows, leads, guides, teaches, prompts speech, commands, forbids, desires, helps,
intercedes with groans (Jn. 14:26; 15:26; 16:7-15; Acts 2:4; 8:29: 13:2; 16:6-7; 21:11; Rom. 8:14, 16; 26-
27; Gal. 4:6; 5:17-18; Heb. 3:7; 10:15; 1 Pet. 1:11; Rev. 2:7, etc.). Again like the Father and the Son, he
can be personally insulted (blasphemed, Mt. 12:31-32; lied to, Acts 5:3; resisted, Acts 7:51; grieved by sin,
Eph. 4:30).

3.3 The Work of the Holy Spirit:

In the OT we see that the Spirit was present and at work in the creation (Gen 1:2). The Spirit was active in
the creation of man. God was and is communicating himself through the Spirit. Again in the OT the prophets
used to experience ecstatic moods or feelings and acted accordingly: Ezekiel was a typical case among the
prophets of the Old Testament in above regard. He used to speak of the Spirit lifting him up (Ezek 3:12)
and dropping him in another place (Ezek 11:1). Elijah called for the ministerial to play the musical
instrument to switch on as it were to his prophetic mood (1 Kgs 3:14-15). At the time of Moses, he desired
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 82

that all Israel were prophets of the Lord like him (Num 11:20). Joel spoke of the pouring of the Holy Spirit
upon all flesh and Peter quotes him in pointing out that it is the fulfillment as spoken by Joel as the sign of
the last days (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17-21).

Vision was a medium for the reception of the divine oracles (Num 12:6). The prophets had developed the
capacity for visionary experience, often an esoteric experience through the influence of the Holy Spirit
(Num 126; Amos 1:1).

3.3.1 In the life of Jesus

The Holy Spirit is active in the life of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit descends upon him at his baptism (Mk
1:10), leads him into the wilderness prior to his temptation (Mk 1:12). According to Luke Jesus left the
Jordan waters of baptism 'full' of the Holy Spirit (Lk 4:1); so also Jesus returns to Galilee in the power of
the Holy Spirit (Lk 4:14) Jesus applies to himself the reference to the dwelling of the Holy Spirit upon the
Messiah quoting from the prophecy of Is 61:1 in his inaugural speech at the Nazareth synagogue. The Spirit
was subsequently referred to being active in the words and works of Jesus during his ministry (John 6:63)

John reports Jesus as saying that the Spirit's second-paraclete task is to mediate knowledge of, and union
and communion with the physically withdrawn, ascended, and glorified saviour (Jn. 14:15-26; 16:14). Less
explicitly Christocentric statements about the Spirit elsewhere in the NT should be understood as rooted in
this which the tap-root of apostolic spirituality from first to last. Only after Jesus return to glory (Jn 17:5)
could the Spirit’s paraclete ministry start (Jn 7:37-39, 20:22).

3.3.2 The Holy Spirit in the Life of the Church

The church is essentially not an organization but an organism. It is the Body of Christ, which is baptized by
the Spirit (1 Cor. 12-13). The Church is the new-created humanity in which the risen life of Christ (Col.
3:3) is realized through worship in the Spirit (Eph. 2:18). In the Church, the life of Christ is shared through
the ministry in the Spirit (1 Cor. 12). And also it is shown forth through good works and evangelism in the
power of the Spirit (Rom 15:18-19). Each local church is a part of the one universal church, because the
Holy Spirit acts as Lord in it, designating and equipping particular individuals for particular ministries (Acts
13:1-2; 2 Tim. 1:6-7) and enabling every member of the body to render service that furthers corporate
growth into Christ like maturity (Eph. 4:11-16). When the renewing ministry of the Spirit is sought and
found (Lk. 11:13) there is revival in the Church like on the day of Pentecost. Mission is empowered by the
Spirit (Jn. 20:22).

3.3.3 The Holy Spirit as the Life-Giver and the Sanctifier

The Holy Spirit is the constant source of power to lead a victorious life. "Be filled with the Spirit" (Eph
5:18) is the advice given to the believers. On the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit came down upon the one
hundred and twenty disciples waiting in the Upper room at Jerusalem as promised by Jesus (Acts 1:8).
Pentecost morning was when it actually began. In this ministry, the Spirit:

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 83

 Reveals Jesus reality and the truth about him(Jn 14:26) and then by so enlightening others that they
receive the apostolic witness with understanding, confess the divine Lordship of the man Jesus, and
experience his life-changing power through faith (Jn. 16:8-11; Acts 10:44-48);
 Unites believers to Christ in regenerative, life-giving co-resurrection, so that they become sharers
in his kingdom and members in the body of which he is head (In. 3:5-8);
 Assures believers that they are children and heirs of God
 Mediates fellowship with the Father and the Son transforms believers progressively through prayer
and conflict with sin into Christ likeness (2 Cor. 3:18)
 Gives gifts
 Prays effectively in and for believers in Christ (Rom. 8:26-27),
 Prompts missionary action to make Christ known (Acts 8:29: 13:2; 16:6-10),
Sanctifier: The Holy Spirit has the function of conferring holiness upon us, Paul reminded the Christians of
his day "Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit within your" (1 Cor 6:19). Paul
uses the Spint of God and the Holy Spirit interchangeably to refer to the sanctifying function of the Holy
Spirit (1 Cor 6:11). This sanctification is necessary for without the holiness no one will see the Lord (Heb
12:14), i.e. communion with God is possible only when we are endowed with holiness. The Holy Spirit thus
forms and increases the church by regeneration and sanctification. He dwells in the believers as the principle
of new life (Eph 1:22-23).

4. History of the Doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit

During the Ante-Nicene period, the Church believed concerning the Holy Ghost what was revealed On the
surface of Scripture, and what was involved in the religious experience of all Christians. There is to them
one God, the Father, whose favor they had forfeited by sin, and to whom they must be reconciled: one Lord
Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, through whom this reconciliation is effected; and one Holy
Spirit, by whom they are, through Christ, brought near to God. This all Christians believed, as they professed
in their baptism, and in repeating and receiving the apostolic benediction. With this simple faith underlying
and sustaining the life of the Church, there coexisted among theologians great obscurity, indistinctness, and
inconsistency of statement, especially in reference to the nature and office of the Holy Ghost. This ought
not to be a matter of surprise, because in the Scriptures themselves the same work is often ascribed to God
and to the Spirit of God, which led some at times to assume that these terms expressed one and the same
thing; as the spirit of a man is the man himself. In the Scriptures, also, the terms Word and Breath (or Spirit)
are often interchanged; and what in one place is said to be done by the Word, in another is said to be done
by the Spirit.

The Λόγος is represented as the life of the world and the source of all knowledge, and yet the same is said
of the Spirit. Paul declares in one place (Gal. i. 12) that he received the doctrines which he taught, by the
revelation of Jesus Christ; in another (1 Cor. ii. 10), that he was taught them by the Spirit. Misled by such
representation, some of the fathers identified the Son and Spirit. Even Tertullian, in one place says, “Spiritus
substantia est Sermonis, et Sermo operatio Spiritus, et duo unum sunt.” Finally, as it is plain from the
Scripture that the Spirit is of the Son, as the Son is of the Father (the difference between generation and
procession being perfectly inscrutable), all the Arians and semi-Arians who taught that the Son was created
by the Father, held that the Spirit was created by the Son. This roused so much controversy and agitation,
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 84

that first the Council of Nicea, A.D. 325, and then that of Constantinople, A.D. 381, were called to frame a
satisfactory statement of the Scriptural doctrine on this subject.

In the Creed of the Apostles, as it is called, which is so ancient that Rufinus and Ambrose referred it to the
Apostles themselves, it is simply said, “I believe on the Holy Ghost.” The same words without addition are
repeated in the Nicene Creed, but in the Creed of Constantinople it is added, “I believe in the Holy Ghost,
the divine (τὸ κύριον), the life-giving, who proceedeth from the Father, who is to be worshipped and
glorified with the Father and the Son, and who spoke through the prophets.”

In the Athanasian Creed (so-called), it is said that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son;
that He is uncreated, eternal, and omnipotent, equal in majesty and glory, and that He proceeds from the
Father and the Son. These creeds are Catholic, adopted by the whole Church. Since they were framed there
has been no diversity of faith on this subject among those recognized as Christians.

Those who, since the Council of Constantinople have denied the common Church doctrine, whether
Socinians, Arians, or Sabellians, regard the Holy Spirit not as a creature, but as the power of God, i.e., the
manifested divine efficiency. The modern philosophical theologians of Germany do not differ essentially
from this view. De Wette, for example, says, that the Spirit is God as revealed and operative in nature;
Schleiermacher says the term designates God as operative in the Church, i.e., “der Gemeingeist der Kirche.”
This, however, is only a name. God with Schleiermacher is only the unity of the causality manifested in the
world. That causality viewed in Christ we may call Son, and viewed in the Church we may call the Spirit.
God is merely cause, and man a fleeting effect.

History of Christian theology is traditionally divided into four main stages, representing also the main
periods in historical development of Christian pneumatology:
1. Patristic period. The early Church engaged in a debate over the divinity of Jesus, with Arius asserting
that the Son is a "creature" or "angel" and Athanasius countering that the Son possesses divine
attributes (such as immutability, transcendence, ability to sanctify, and involvement in creation).
Although the debate was not pneumatological in nature, it led to a very similar debate between
the Pneumatomachians and the Cappadocian Fathers.
2. Medieval period. In this period ensued a debate regarding the relationship between Christ and the
Holy Spirit. The Eastern Church asserted that the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father alone (as
stated in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed), while Augustine of Hippo and the medieval Catholic
Church added the "filioque" clause to the Creed (the Spirit proceeds from the Father "and the Son").
3. Reformation and Counter-reformation. Here the relationship between the Spirit and the Scriptures is
re-examined. Martin Luther and John Calvin hold that the Spirit has a certain "interpretive authority"
to "illuminate" scripture, while Counter-reformation theologians respond that the Spirit has authorized
the Church to serve as authoritative interpreter of Scripture.
4. Contemporary era. The contemporary church understands a distinctive relationship between the Spirit
and the Church community. Various contemporary theologians grant the Spirit as authority to govern
the church, to liberate oppressed communities, and to create experiences associated with faith.
Contemporary pneumatology is often marked by the Pentecostal Movement.
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 85

Chapter II
5. Understanding of the Holy Spirit in Christian Theology:
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity includes the concept of God the Holy Spirit, along with God the Son
and God the Father. Theologian Vladimir Lossky has argued that while, in the act of the Incarnation, God
the Son became manifest as the Son of God, the same did not take place for God the Holy Spirit which
remained unrevealed. Yet, as in 1 Corinthians 6:19, God the Spirit continues to dwell in the faithful.

In a similar way, the Latin treatise De Trinitate (On the Trinity) of Saint Augustine of Hippo affirms: "For
as the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, which no one doubts to be said in
respect to substance, yet we do not say that the very Supreme Trinity itself is three Gods, but one God.
...But position, and condition, and places, and times, are not said to be in God properly, but metaphorically
and through similitudes. ...And as respects action (or making), perhaps it may be said most truly of God
alone, for God alone makes and Himself is not made. Nor is He liable to passions as far as belongs to that
substance whereby He is God. ...So the Father is omnipotent, the Son omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is
omnipotent; yet not three omnipotents, but one omnipotent. ...Whatever, therefore, is spoken of God in
respect to Himself, is both spoken singly of each Person, that is, of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy
Spirit; and together of the Trinity itself, not plurally but in the singular."

In Christian theology the Holy Spirit is believed to perform specific divine functions in the life of the
Christian or the church. The action of the Holy Spirit is seen as an essential part of the bringing of the person
to the Christian faith. The new believer is "born again of the Spirit". The Holy Spirit enables Christian life
by dwelling in the individual believers and enables them to live a righteous and faithful life. The Holy Spirit
also acts as comforter or Paraclete, one who intercedes, or supports or acts as an advocate, particularly in
times of trial. And he acts to convince the unredeemed person both of the sinfulness of their actions and of
their moral standing as sinners before God. Another faculty of the Holy Spirit is the inspiration and
interpretation of scripture. The Holy Spirit both inspires the writing of the scriptures and interprets them to
the Christian and the church.

6. Symbolism of the Holy Spirit:

The Holy Spirit is frequently referred to by metaphor and symbol, both doctrinally and biblically.
Theologically speaking these symbols are a key to understanding of the Holy Spirit and his actions, and are
not mere artistic representations.

6.1 Dove:
At the baptism of Christ the Holy Spirit descended “like a dove.” Was it an actual dove? A study of the
passages is helpful: “as a dove” (Matt. 3:16); “like a dove” (Mark 1:10); “in bodily form like a dove” (Luke
3:22); “beheld the Spirit descending as a dove” (John 1:32). According to Luke 3:22 and John 1:32 there
must have been a physical representation of a dove. However, the dove only represented the Holy Spirit.
Something in the quality and characteristics of the dove served as a vehicle to portray the Holy Spirit. Each
of the Gospels emphasizes the descent of the Spirit as a dove “out of heaven,” which stresses that the Holy
Spirit has come from the presence of God in heaven.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 86

The dove portrayed the Holy Spirit coming upon Christ at the beginning of His public ministry and therefore
emphasizes the power of the Holy Spirit on Christ for His work. The dove is also a symbol of purity (cf.
Matt. 10:16) and a representation of peace.

6.2 Water
Water signifies the Holy Spirit's action in Baptism, such that in the manner that "by one Spirit [believers]
were all baptized", so they are "made to drink of one Spirit".[1Cor 12:13] Thus the Spirit is also personally
the living water welling up from Christ crucified[Jn 19:34][1 Jn 5:8] as its source and welling up in
Christians to eternal life.

During the final ritual at the Feast of Tabernacles the priest brought water from the pool of Siloam and
poured it in the funnel beside the altar, amid the singing of worshipers. The event was a joyous one, in
anticipation of Messiah’s glorious reign (Zech. 14:16–21). During that event Jesus proclaimed, “If anyone
is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost
being will flow rivers of living water’” (John 7:37– 38). The next verse gives the explanation: “But this He
spoke of the Spirit” (John 7:39).

Water as an emblem of the Holy Spirit signifies eternal life (cf. John 4:14; 7:37–39).
Water signifies a reception of the Holy Spirit (Ezek. 36:25–27; John 7:39).
It anticipates millennial blessings (study the background of John 7:37–39; cf. Isa. 12:3; Joel 2:28–32).

6.3 Anointing
The symbolism of blessing with oil also signifies the Holy Spirit, to the point of becoming a synonym for
the Holy Spirit. The coming of the Spirit is referred to as his "anointing".[2Cor 1:21] In some denominations
anointing is practiced in Confirmation; ("chrismation" in the Eastern Churches). Its full force can be grasped
only in relation to the primary anointing accomplished by the Holy Spirit, that of Jesus. The title "Christ"
(in Hebrew, messiah) means the one "anointed" by God's Spirit.

6.4 Fire
Fire symbolizes the transforming energy of the Holy Spirit's actions. At Pentecost “tongues of fire”
distributed themselves and rested on the apostles (Acts 2:3). God’s revelation of Himself by fire was not
unusual and would have been understood by the Jews. It would have denoted the presence of God. This
unusual occurrence, with the descent of the Holy Spirit, would signify that God was in this event (cf. Ex.
3:2). The occurrence also indicated the approval of God. When Peter proclaimed the resurrected Jesus
moments later, the fire would symbolize the approval of God upon Peter’s message (cf. Lev. 9:24; 1 Kings
18:38–39). The fire also symbolized the judgment of God (cf. Lev. 10:2). The unbelievers at Pentecost were
ultimately judged for their unbelief at
the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70.

6.5 Cloud and light

The Spirit comes upon the Virgin Mary and "overshadows" her, so that she might conceive and give birth
to Jesus. On the mountain of transfiguration, the Spirit in the "cloud came and overshadowed" Jesus, Moses
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 87

and Elijah, Peter, James and John, and "a voice came out of the cloud, saying, 'This is my Son, my Chosen;
listen to him!'Lk 9:34–35]

6.6 Wind
The Spirit is likened to the "wind that blows where it will,"[Jn 3:8] and described as "a sound from heaven
like the rush of a mighty wind."[Acts 2:24]. Wind is a most natural representation of the Holy Spirit since
the word spirit (Gk. pneuma) may be translated wind as well as spirit. English words like pneumatic derive
their meaning from the word pneuma. In explaining the new birth to Nicodemus, Jesus compared the birth
by the Holy Spirit to the wind (John 3:8). The new birth was an inexplicable sovereign work of God; just
as the wind blowing through the trees is inexplicable and sovereign, so is the new birth by the Holy Spirit.
The Spirit does “as He wills;” no one dictates to Him just as no one dictates to the wind (cf. 1 Cor. 12:11).

6.7 Seal
The Holy Spirit is identified as the seal of the believer (2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13; 4:30). A seal means securing
or fastening a stone with a seal as in Matthew 27:66 by the Roman authorities. Figuratively, sealing means
to “mark (with a seal) as a means of identification … in papyrii, of all kinds of animals, so that the mark
which denotes ownership also carries with it the protection of the owner.”23 Cattle branding would be a
modern parallel of ancient sealing (cf. Isa. 44:5; Ezek. 9:4).
Several important truths emerge from the sealing of the Spirit. (1) It signified ownership by God. The
Spirit’s seal upon the believer indicates the believer belongs to God. (2) It suggests security. The seal is
permanent, “for the day of redemption” (Eph. 4:30). (3) It also suggests authority. Just as the Roman
authority existed over the area where the Roman seal was placed, so the authority of God is over the believer
to whom He has given His Spirit.

6.8 Oil
Oil is a type of the Holy Spirit inasmuch as the Old Testament practice of anointing priests and kings served
as a type of the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Zechariah 4:1–14 illustrates the significance of oil as a type;
oil depicted the Holy Spirit’s power in strengthening Joshua and Zerubbabel to lead the people in
completing the construction of the temple in 515 B.C. The constant flow of oil from the lampstand (v. 2) to
the two leaders (vv. 3,14) is interpreted in verse 6, “Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit.” In 1
Samuel 10:1, Samuel anointed Saul as king of Israel, the anointing representing the Spirit of the Lord
coming upon him to lead the people (1 Sam. 10:6, 10). The Old Testament events, however, were only types
for the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament.

7. The motivating concerns, goals and criteria of the presentation of the Holy Spirit in the texts of
the contemporary theological discussion
7. Divine Works of the Spirit
7.1 Creation (Gen. 1:2).
Several Scripture passages affirm that the Holy Spirit was involved in the work of creation. Genesis 1:2
indicates that the Spirit brooded over creation, bringing it to life. In Psalm 104:24–26 the psalmist describes
the creation, and in verse 30 he indicates how God created: “You send forth Your Spirit, they are created.”
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 88

Job 26:13 expands the creation of God to the heavens; the Holy Spirit created not only the earth but also
the heavens.

7.2 Generating Christ (Matt. 1:20).

The overshadowing of Mary by the Holy Spirit assured a sinless humanity of Christ. Christ in His deity is
eternal, but the Holy Spirit begat the sinless human nature of Christ. He brought the humanity of Christ into
being. It is too often assumed that Mary the mother of Christ contributed His humanity and that the Holy
Spirit contributed His deity; but a moment’s reflection would disclose that the deity of Christ was His own
from all eternity and therefore was not originated at the time of His birth. He became incarnate when His
eternal Person took on the human form. The Spirit caused the humanity of Christ to originate and that is
His act of generation.

7.3 Inspiration of Scripture (2 Peter 1:21).

There is an analogy between the Holy Spirit’s generating Christ’s humanity and the Spirit’s superintending
the writers of Scripture; just as the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, guaranteeing the sinlessness of Christ’s
humanity, so the Holy Spirit superintended the human writers to guarantee an inerrant Scripture. By
analogy, a denial of one necessitates a denial of the other. The writers of Scripture were carried along by
the Holy Spirit, guaranteeing the inspiration of the books of Scripture. The Spirit’s work in inspiration is
analogous to the Father’s work (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16).

7.4 Regeneration (Titus 3:5).

To regenerate means to give life. The Holy Spirit causes the new birth; He is its author. Regeneration by
the Holy Spirit is the spiritual counterpart of human reproduction in the physical realm. Human generation
produces human life; spiritual regeneration produces spiritual life. The Holy Spirit produces the new birth,
but He does it through the instrumentality of the Word of God (1 Peter 1:23). The same truth is taught in
John 3:6 where Jesus indicates the Holy Spirit produces the new birth in that He regenerates the person.

7.5 Intercession (Rom. 8:26).

Christ is an intercessor for believers, but so is the Holy Spirit. Sanctification (2 Thess. 2:13). There are
three aspects of sanctification, the first being positional: “the setting apart which occurs when by the Holy
Spirit the one who believes is joined unto Christ and thus comes to be in Christ.” (Cf. 1 Cor. 1:30; Heb.
10:14–15; 1 Peter 1:2.)

7.6 Helping saints (John 14:16).

In this text Jesus promised the disciples “another Helper.” Helper is the Greek word parakleton, which
comes from two words, “alongside” and “called,” hence, “one called alongside to help.” In 1 John 2:1 the
Lord Jesus is called the sinning saint’s Paraclete (“Advocate” in most versions). The Holy Spirit is “another
of the same kind” as Christ, a Helper who is called alongside to help the believer. The Holy Spirit’s work
as the believer’s Paraclete (Helper) demands His deity since His work is the same as Christ’s in His role as
Paraclete. It becomes apparent that the works of the Holy Spirit indicate His deity—His oneness within the
Godhead, together with the Father and the Son.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 89

Chapter III
Spiritual formation practices to one’s personal life, professional behavior and the broader context
of the Church.
8. Who Is the Spirit?
The Spirit is God, like the Father and the Son. He stands alongside them as an object of worship. People
are baptized in the threefold divine name, which includes the Spirit (Matt. 28:19). And the apostolic
blessing, too, places the threefold name of God on the people: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 13:14).

The Biblical writers coordinate the Spirit with the Father and Son when mentioning about the source of
spiritual blessing. (Ephesians 2;21-22, Rom. 15:19; Eph. 4:4–6; Phil. 3:3; Rev. 1:4–5; 2:7.)

NT writers often quote OT texts that contain the name of God and replace that name with the name of Jesus.
The same is true of the Holy Spirit. In Jeremiah 31:33–34, the Lord is the speaker. But when the author of
Hebrews quotes this text in Hebrews 10:15–17, the speaker is the Holy Spirit.
Note also Leviticus 16 and Hebrews 9:8.

The Spirit is called “God” in Acts 5:4. He bears divine attributes of eternity (Heb. 9:14), omniscience (Isa.
40:13; 1 Cor. 2:10–11), wisdom (Isa. 11:2), omnipresence (Ps. 139:7–10; Acts 1:8), and
incomprehensibility (Isa. 40:13). He is called holy nearly a hundred times. Clearly, his holiness is not a
merely creaturely holiness. He is perfectly holy by his very nature, the very definition of holiness for us.
His holiness is a divine holiness, a divine attribute. And just as Jesus performs all the acts of God, all the
things that God alone can do, so does the Spirit: creation (Gen. 1:2; Ps. 104:30), judgment (John 16:8– 11),
giving of life (both physical and spiritual) (Job 33:4; Ps. 104:30; John 3:5– 8; 6:63; Rom. 8:11). Like the
Father and the Son, he participates in our salvation.
Through him we are washed, sanctified, and justified (1 Cor. 6:11). And he is the Teacher of the church
(Num. 11:25; Matt. 10:20; 2 Tim. 3:16; 1 John 2:27). So the Spirit is God. He is equal to the Father and the
Son, worthy of honor equal to theirs.

The Spirit is a divine person, not an impersonal force. This is obvious to most of us as we read the Bible,
but some cultists have actually wanted to deny that the Spirit is personal. They believe that
the Spirit is an it, not a he: a kind of force or power from God, but not a person. But the Bible is very clear
on this. It’s true that the Greek word for “Spirit,” pneuma, is neuter (the OT ruach is feminine), but the NT
writers regularly use masculine pronouns to refer to the Spirit. He is “he,” which emphasizes his personality
(John 14:17, 26; 16:14; 1 Cor. 12:11).

He is, to be sure, the power of God (Acts 1:8), which might suggest an impersonal force. But he is also
God’s wisdom (Isa. 11:2; Acts 6:10; 1 Cor. 2:4), and wisdom cannot be impersonal. The Spirit also has a
mind (Rom. 8:27), and he speaks. He speaks in the first person (Acts 10:19–20; 13:2) and performs personal
actions such as creating, judging, and so on. The fact that the Spirit is coordinate with the Father and Son
in passages such as Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Ephesians 2:21–22; and elsewhere, the divine

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 90

attributes ascribed to him, and the divine acts he performs make it plain that the Spirit is a person, together
with the Father and the Son.

9. What Does the Spirit Do?

Scripture often presents him as the power of God exerted in the world. This power is the control of God,
the first of the Lordship attributes. He is the Creator and the Provider, as we have seen. He also empowers
and strengthens angels (Ezek. 1:12, 20) and human beings.

Remember how the Spirit fell upon Samson, and he tore a lion in pieces (Judg. 13:25; 14:6). Remember
how later the Spirit came upon him and he killed thirty Philistines all by himself (Judg. 14:19; cf. 15:14)?
Well, then you have a way of understanding how the Spirit in the NT empowers preaching. In 1 Corinthians
2:4, Paul says that “my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration
of the Spirit and of power.” Cf. Luke 4:14; Acts 2:1–4; Rom. 15:19; 1 Thess. 1:5. When you present the
gospel to others, think of Samson tearing that lion in pieces. The same Spirit is present in you. As the Spirit
speaks the word powerfully, he also speaks it authoritatively: Prophets speak their word by the authority of
the Spirit (Gen. 41:38; Num. 24:2; 1 Sam. 10:6; Isa. 61:1; Luke 1:17; 1 Peter 1:11). So do Jesus and the
apostles (Matt. 10:20; Luke 4:14; John 3:34; 14:16–17; 15:26; 16:13; Acts 2:4; 1 Cor. 2:4; 12:3). So the
Spirit gives wisdom: both in the sense of practical skills, such as Bezalel and Oholiab had to build the
tabernacle (Ex. 28:3; 31:3; Deut. 34:9), and in the sense of ethical understanding (James 3:13–18). As we
will see, the Spirit’s authority also comes with the gifts that he gives to the church (1 Cor.
12:1–11).

Power, authority, and now the third lordship attribute: presence. The Spirit is God’s presence on earth.
David asks, “Where shall I go from your Spirit?” (Ps. 139:7). It is the Spirit who dwells in Christians as his
temple (1 Cor. 3:16; Gal. 4:6; 5:16–26; 1 Peter 1:2), so that we worship God “in spirit” (John 4:24).

Scripture associates this attribute of God with the Holy Spirit. Particularly when God makes himself visible
to human beings, he often takes on a form the “glory cloud,” which is identified in turn with the Spirit.

The Spirit is God’s control, authority, and presence in the world. That is to say, he is the Lord. As Jesus is
Prophet, Priest, and King, the Spirit is God’s authoritative word, his abiding and mediating presence, and
his powerful control over all things.

10. The Spirit in the Lives of Believers

The Spirit does everything for us that we need in our life with God. The atoning work of Jesus occurred in
the past, objectively, definitively. And the Spirit continues to work today, often in our own subjectivity.
Now, this is not to separate the work of the Spirit from the work of Christ. The Spirit is the Spirit of Christ.
Christ is in him and he in Christ. As we said earlier, everything that any person of the Trinity does, he does
along with the other two. But the main emphasis of the Bible in the Spirit’s work is that he gives us what
we need for our present, continuing walk with God.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 91

Indeed, he did the same for Jesus, during Jesus’ earthly ministry. Remember how the Spirit descended on
him like a dove at his baptism (Matt. 3:16). The Spirit filled him with power for preaching and for working
miracles. Cf. Isa. 11:2–3; 42:1; 61:1; Luke 4:1, 14, 18; John 1:32; 3:34.
The Holy Spirit is the One who equips us to serve God (Num. 27:18; Deut. 34:9; Judg. 3:10), to preach
(Acts 1:8; Rom. 15:19; 1 Cor. 2:4), to pray effectively (Rom. 8:26; Eph. 2:18). He regenerates us (John
3:5), gives us the new birth. He sanctifies us (Rom. 8:4, 15– 16; 1 Cor. 6:11; 2 Thess. 2:13; Titus 3:5; 1
Peter 1:2), makes us holy in thought and deed, putting to death the sins of the body (Rom. 7:6; 8:13; Phil.
1:19). He is grieved when we sin (Eph. 4:30). The Bible puts a special emphasis on the work of the Spirit
to create unity and peace in the body (2 Cor. 13:14; Gal. 5:18–20; Eph. 2:18; 4:3; Phil. 2:1–2; Col. 3:14).
He is the One, after all, who enables us to cry, “Abba! Father!” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6), and thereby
establishes the church as God’s sons and daughters together in a family.

And of course, the Spirit is the great Teacher of the church. The writers of Scripture, both Testaments, were
inspired by the Holy Spirit to write God’s truth (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21). The prophets and apostles spoke
God’s truth because the Spirit came upon them and enabled them to do it (Matt. 22:43; John 14:26; 15:26;
16:13; Acts 1:16). And the Spirit comes not only upon speakers and authors, but also upon hearers and
readers. The Spirit illumines us, enabling us to understand the Scriptures (Ps. 119:18; 1 Cor. 2:12–15; Eph.
1:17–19) and persuading us that the Word is true (1 Thess. 1:5).

11. Baptism in the Spirit

How do people receive the Spirit? First, the Spirit regenerates, gives a new birth. In the new birth, the Spirit
is like the wind, which goes anywhere it wants (John 3:8). So in the first instance, it is not we who receive
the Spirit, but it is the Spirit who receives us. This initial regeneration is sometimes called in Scripture the
“baptism in the Holy Spirit.” Paul describes it this way, in 1 Corinthians 12:13: “For in one Spirit we were
all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.” Cf.
Matt. 3:11; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16.

The baptism of the Spirit includes all believers. In fact, the baptism of the Spirit is what makes us one body.
Without that baptism, we are not part of the body of Christ. So everyone in the body has been baptized in
the Spirit. Some people think that the baptism of the Spirit is an experience that comes after conversion.
But 1 Corinthians 12:13 and other texts show that that is not so. Everybody who is converted, everyone
who is a Christian, is baptized in the Spirit. There are not two groups in the church, one baptized in the
Spirit and the other not. If that were true, it would be a basis for disunity, rather than, as Paul says, a basis
for unity.

Nor is this a repeated experience. It happens at regeneration, at the new birth. In the baptism of the Spirit,
the Spirit comes on us with power to serve Jesus as his covenant people. He unites us to all the other people
in his body, so that together with them we may do God’s work in the world.

12. Filling of the Spirit

Now, although the baptism of the Spirit occurs only once, there are other experiences of the Spirit that occur
repeatedly. Ephesians 5:18 says, “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 92

the Spirit.” Paul addresses this command to Christians, and so to people who are already baptized in the
Spirit. The filling is something more. We see it also in passages such as Acts 4:31, where the disciples are
filled with the Spirit and go on to “speak the Word of God with boldness.” The filling of the Spirit gives
fresh power for ministry.
The Spirit is sovereign. Ephesians 5:18 is a command addressed to us: we are to “be filled with the Spirit.”
There is both divine sovereignty and human responsibility here. It is hard to imagine what we can do to fill
ourselves with the Spirit. It would be easier to think that since the Spirit is sovereign, we can only wait
passively for him to decide whether to fill us. But according to this verse, our decisions have something to
do with his filling. Evidently our behavior has some bearing on the degree and frequency with which we
are filled with the Spirit.

In the context of Ephesians 5:18: if you are a drunkard, don’t expect the Spirit to fill you. You have filled
yourself with drink, abusing a good creation of God, and in doing so you have said that you don’t want the
Spirit to fill you. Those who fill their hearts with Scripture and prayer open themselves to a greater fullness
of the Spirit.

13. Fruit of the Spirit

The fruit of the Spirit, described in Galatians 5:22–23: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,
patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.”
The picture of a “filling” of the Spirit is the picture of a discrete event, repeated on a number of occasions.
The picture of the “fruit” of the Spirit is the picture of a slow process that is always going on. The Spirit
not only grabs us at various moments, but also works inside us moment by moment, changing us to conform
to the image of Christ.

To emphasize spiritual gifts without an emphasis on the fruit of the Spirit is not only responsible but
spiritually dangerous. Gifts that are practiced apart from the fruit of the Spirit can do more arm than good.
It is only in the context of the fruit of the Spirit that gifts can be properly used, that is, used for the very
purpose God intended: to build up the body of Christ. Therefore the relationship between fruit and gifts is
fully examined.

It is extremely important that whenever the topic of the gifts of the Spirit are discussed that the emphasis is
brought to the fruit of the Spirit. When the gifts are studied and used in the context of the fruit of the
Spirit, balance occurs. Fruit has to do with character—who we are, our spiritual condition—whereas gifts
has to do with ministry, our effectiveness in service. The fruit of the Spirit must be central since who we
are always is more important that what we “have” or “do.”

The Fruit of the Spirit:

13.1. Believers Relation to the Spirit: Love, Joy, Peace
LOVE–Wanting the best for others and willing to help to bring it about. Paul in speaking of the fruit of
the Spirit begins with love which really captures the rest of the fruit. Joy, peace, patience, kindness,
goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control are different manifestations of love. This is clearly
seen in Paul’s description of love in I Corinthians 13.
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 93

John Wesley put it: “Love is the root of all the rest.”
It is also appropriate that Paul lists love first since “God is love” (I Jn. 4:8,16) and, therefore, the greatest
of all virtues is love (I Cor. 13:13). The word love (agape) that Paul uses here is descriptive of that love for
God and man described by The Great Commandment (Lev. 19:18; Gal. 5:14; Mt. 7:12; Mk. 12:31). The
entire law (the Law and the Prophets) is summed up by love for God and neighbor.
John tells us how we can experience this fruit of love: abiding and obeying (Jn. 15:9-10, 12). At the basis
of love is self-sacrifice. The ultimate expression of that love is laying down one’s life
for someone else (Jn. 15:13; Rom. 5:6-8).

JOY—Inner assurance of God’s love that is not affected by circumstances. Joy is frequently associated
with the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:52) and Paul describes it as inspired by the Holy Spirit (I Thess. 1:6). The
word is used 60 times in the New Testament with the word “rejoice” being used 72 times. It is the most
typical and popular Christian greeting (Mt. 28:8).
Joy is that inner sense of delight and gladness which springs from the consciousness of the presence of God.
It is a “holy optimism” which keeps a person going in spirit of difficulties.

PEACE—Cessation of strife and well-being (harmony).

The word peace (shalom) is used 88 times in the New Testament. Next to joy it is the most popular Christian
greeting in the New Testament. Paul refers to the peace of God as “surpassing all understanding” (Phil.
4:7)—peace that goes beyond our reasoning powers. As Jesus spoke of the Comforter to come He assured
His disciple, “Peace I leave with you; My peace I give you. I do not give you as the world gives” (Jn 14:27).
The peace that the world gives is based on circumstances (happenstances). God’s peace is grounded in His
character, His promises and faithfulness. Peace is being secure in His love (Rom. 8:38-39).

13.2. Believer’s Relation to Others: Patience, Kindness and Goodness

PATIENCE - positively putting up with others when severely tried. The primary meaning is patience with
people although it includes patience in difficult circumstances. It means “forbearance” or “longsuffering”
(I Cor. 13:4). It is the willingness to “suffer long” for the benefit of others.

The Greek word paus is commonly used in the New Testament to describe the attitude of God and Jesus
towards people (Rom 2:4; I Pet. 3:20). Continually in the Bible we see the picture of God the Father and
Jesus suffering long, bearing with people in all their sinning and rebellion, all their apathy and unconcern.
He does not draw back when people spurn His love. Patience is manifest when we refuse to retaliate for
wrong done to us. Christ has left us a great example in this respect (I Pet. 2:20-25). When we are patient
we show forth the Spirit of Christ.

KINDNESS - Love in little things.

Kindness is another positive characteristic of love (I Cor. 13:4). It is an attribute rooted in the very fiber of
God’s character: “And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with Him in the heavenly realms in Christ
Jesus, in order that in the coming ages He might show the incomparable riches of His grace, expressed in
His kindness to us in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:6-7).

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 94

Like goodness, kindness is love that is active. It is that gentle and gracious spirit which Jesus manifested in
forgiving the sinful woman who washed His feet with her hair (Lk.7: 37-50). Kindness offers a cup of cold
water in the name of Christ (Mt. 10:42). It visits orphans and widows in distress (James 1:27). It stops to
help the injured traveler on the road (Lk. 10:29-37).

GOODNESS—Active benevolence expressed in deeds for others. Goodness is not a passive, ietistic
withdrawal from society. It is that characteristic of ministry which Peter referred to in Jesus: “You know...
how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power and how He went about doing good and healing
all who were oppressed by the devil; for God was with Him” (Acts 10:38; 11:24). In the same way Jesus’
disciples (all of His followers) are to be active in “well-doing”—in selflessly reaching out to do good for
the benefit of others (I Peter 2:15,20; 3:6,11,17; 4:19). The Spirit of Christ is the spirit of goodness.

13.3. BELIEVERS RELATION TO SELF-Faithfulness, Gentleness and Self-Control

FAITHFULNESS—Trustworthiness, loyalty and reliability in fulfilling a promise or completing a task.
Faithfulness is faith in the sense of fidelity (Titus 2:10). It (pistos) describes the trustworthy nature of God.
He remains available, accessible and always dependable. He is never too busy or distracted to pay attention
to any of us. Our present and future life depends on the reliability of God to honor His covenants (I Thess.
5:24).
Faithfulness is not only a characteristic of Christ (Rev. 19:11); “Faithful” is also one of His names (Rev.
1:5). Faithful describes Jesus’ witness (Rev. 1:5), priesthood (Heb. 2:17) and ministry (Heb. 3:2).

Adam Clarke described faithfulness as “punctuality in performing promises, conscientious carefulness in

preserving what is committed to our trust, in restoring it to its proper owner, in transacting the business
confided to us, neither betraying the secrets of our friend nor disappointing the confidence of our employer.”

GENTLENESS—Strength that is expressed in tenderness, consideration and sensitivity. Gentleness is

meekness which is “strength under control.” Meekness is not weakness. It was used in referring to the
taming or domestication of animals. A gentle person is one who is mild toward others in trying and difficult
circumstances, tender when others are rough, and quiet and kind when others are loud and coarse.

As the use of the term in Galations 6:1ff. indicates, meekness or gentleness is that quality which Paul
otherwise describes as not thinking of oneself more highly than one ought to think (Rom 12:3). It is that
humble spirit which, in climbing higher, refuses to trample on others. The gentle person is one who does
not fight (II Tim. 2:24-25). Instead he is one who gently restores another in humility (Gal. 6:1-2). Our Lord
described Himself as “gentle and lowly of heart” (Mt. 11:29) and He pronounced His blessing upon those
who are of like mind and spirit (Mt.5:5).

SELF-CONTROL—Mastery of one’s own desires, impulses, and behavior. Self-control is pecifically

opposed to the drunkenness and carousing of the “works of the flesh” (Gal.5:19-21). However, its meaning
extends to all the carnal lusts insofar as they threaten to enslave a man and dominate his life (Rom. 6:12).
Paul rigorously disciplined himself so he would not be enslaved by anything but be able to accomplish what
God has called him to: “Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run
Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 95

in such a way as to get the prize. Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it
to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. Therefore I do not run like
a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. No, I beat [discipline] my body and make
it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize” (I Cor.
9:24-27).

The Spirit of Christ sets a man free from his evil desires, impulses and behavior to selflessly and sacrificially
serve his fellow man in love (Gal. 5:1,13). The Spirit-filled and Spirit-led life, then, manifests itself in
Christ-like attitude, words, conduct and loving service to others.

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 96

CHAPTER IV
14. Gifts of the Spirit
Now, besides the baptism of the Spirit, the filling of the Spirit, and the fruit of the Spirit, there are also gifts
of the Spirit, according to Scripture (Rom. 12:3–8; 1 Cor. 7:7; 12:4–11, 27–31; Eph. 4:7–16; 1 Peter 4:11).
Wayne Grudem defines a spiritual gift as “any ability that is empowered by the Holy Spirit and used in any
ministry of the church.” He points out that some of these are related to our natural abilities, such as teaching,
showing mercy, and administration. Others are more “supernatural,” such as tongues, prophecy, healing,
distinguishing spirits.
Any divinely given ability that edifies the church should be considered a spiritual gift. I wouldn’t hesitate
to say that the ability to sing in worship is a spiritual gift. Or the ability to cook meals for church gatherings
or mercy ministry. Or the ability to manage finances for the church body.

Spiritual gifts are not our natural talents. God, through the Holy Spirit, gives them. They cannot be inherited.
The spirit filled believer has a responsibility to function in the body of Christ, where God has set him. All
believers have a definite function. You are a special instrument in the hands of God .Are we available and
willing to be used?

14.1 PURPOSES OF THE GIFTS

 Spiritual Maturity: You cannot strengthen someone who is weak unless you are mature yourself.
Spiritual gifts help you mature so you can edify the Church and strengthen others (I Corinthians 14:12).

 Edification: Spiritual gifts are used for the edification of the Church and are tools that bring us into
spiritual maturity: "Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to
the edifying of the church." (I Corinthians 14;12)

 Credentials: A credential is having evidence or testimony concerning your authority. When the gifts
are displayed, it publicly confirms that you are a true believer, an ambassador of God: (Mark 16:17-
18,20)

 Spiritual Prosperity: I Corinthians 12:7 declares, "But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every
man to profit withal." The gift of the Holy Spirit can be compared to a precious stone which brings
prosperity. Proverbs 17:8 says that "A gift is as a precious stone in the eyes of him that hath it:
whithersoever it turneth, it prospereth."

14.2 WHO IS GIVEN A SPIRITUAL GIFT?

Every Christian is given a spiritual gift as soon as he or she is born again. At that very moment the Holy
Spirit will unite with that person's spirit (Romans 8:16-17). When we are born physically, we possess certain
natural abilities. When we are born again spiritually, God takes these natural abilities and turns them into
the means by which He can work through us supernaturally. Jesus "gave gifts unto men ... For the perfecting
of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity
of the faith..." (Ephesians 4:8, 12-14).

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 97

Three Categories of Spiritual Gifts

SOURCE REFERENCE CATEGORY
Gifts of the Father Romans 12:6-8 Motivation
Ephesians 4:11
Gifts of the Son Ministry
I Corinthians 12:28
Gifts of the Holy Spirit I Corinthians 12:7-11 Manifestation

14.3 CATEGORIES OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS

Foundations to Theology-20TH2001-KATE
 98

Revelation Gifts
 Word of Wisdom.
 Word of Knowledge.
 Discerning of spirits
Utterance Gifts
 Speaking in Tongues
 Interpretation of Tongues
 Prophecy
Power Gifts
 Faith
 Healing
 Miracle

The gifts are the spiritual senses of the Church. Just as we have five physical senses that allow us
to function in the natural realm (world), so we also have nine gifts of the Holy Spirit (the "spiritual
senses") that enable us to function properly in the spiritual realm.
THESE GIFTS ARE IDENTIFIED IN I CORINTHIANS 12:8-11
"For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the
same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to
another diverse kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh
that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will."
14.3.1. Gift of Wisdom
 The wisdom of God (I Corinthians 2:6-7)
 The wisdom of the world (I Corinthians 2:6)
 The wisdom of man (Ecclesiastes 1:16-18)
The gift of the word of wisdom is the application of knowledge that God gives us. (1 Cor. 2:6-7)
This type of wisdom is a gift which cannot be gained through study or experience and should by
no means try to replace them. The gift of the word of wisdom is seeing life from God's perspective.
As the Christian exercises this gift, he begins to develop a fear of the Lord. This is the "beginning
of wisdom" according to Proverbs 1:7.
The gift of the word of wisdom is also the revealing of prophetic future; it is speaking hidden truths
of what is not known. Furthermore, this gift involves having a sense of divine direction, being led
by the Holy Spirit to act appropriately in a given set of circumstances, and rightly applying
knowledge. The gift of wisdom is the wisdom of God. It is the supernatural impartation of facts;
it is not natural. You can't earn it. It is received from God through prayer (Ephesians 1:17). The
gift of the word of wisdom works interactively with the other two revelation gifts: knowledge and
discernment.

20TH2001-Foundations to Theology-KATE-December 2020

 99

14.3.2. Gift of Word of Knowledge

A word of knowledge is a definite conviction, impression, or knowing that comes to you in a
similitude (a mental picture), a dream, through a vision, or by a Scripture that is quickened to you.
It is supernatural insight or understanding of circumstances, situations, problems, or a body of facts
by revelation; that is, without assistance by any human resource but solely by divine aid.
Furthermore, the gift of the word of knowledge is the transcendental revelation of the divine will
and plan of God. It involves moral wisdom for right living and relationships, requires objective
understanding concerning divine things in human duties, and refers to knowledge of God or of the
things that belong to God, as related in the Gospel. The gift of the word of wisdom and the word
of knowledge function together; knowledge is raw material and wisdom builds on it.

14.3.3. Gift of Discerning Spirits

Discerning of spirits is the supernatural ability given by the Holy Spirit to perceive the source of a
spiritual manifestation and determine whether it is of God (Acts 10:30-35), of the devil (Acts
16:16-18), of man (Acts 8:18-23), or of the world. It is not mind reading, psychic phenomena, or
the ability to criticize and find fault.
Discerning of spirits must be done by the power of the Holy Spirit; He bears witness with our spirit
when something is or is not of God. The gift of discerning of spirits is the supernatural power to
detect the realm of the spirits and their activities. It implies the power of spiritual insight - the
supernatural revelation of plans and purposes of the enemy and his forces. It is a gift which protects
and guards your Christian life.
How to Test a Spirit?
 Observing what a person does. In Matthew 7:15-20, Jesus explains that false prophets are
known by their fruit - by their conduct and actions
 Observing whether or not a person exalts Jesus Christ as the Son of God and as Lord and
Saviour (I Corinthians 12:3).
 By listening to what a person says (I John 4:1-3). Does their confession line up with the truth
of God's Word?

14.3.4. Gift of Faith

The gift of faith is the supernatural ability to believe God without doubt, combat unbelief, and
visualize what God wants to accomplish. It is not only an inner conviction impelled by an urgent
and higher calling, but also a supernatural ability to meet adverse circumstances with trust in God's
words and messages.
This gift not only operates in healings and in miracles, but in the realm of the impossible as well.
Saving faith produces the active faith of the fruit of the Spirit which, in turn, produces the gift of
faith. When the gift of faith is empowered, the results are miraculous!

20TH2001-Foundations to Theology-KATE-December 2020

 100

14.3.5. Gift of Healing

The gift of healing refers to supernatural healing without human aid; it is a special gift to pray on
specific diseases. Healing can come through the touch of faith (James 5:14-15); by speaking the
word of faith (Luke 7:1-10); or by the presence of God being manifested (Mark 6:56; Acts 19:11-
12).
The Bible speaks of "gifts" of healing because there are three types of healings: physical (diabetes,
blindness, cancer, deafness, etc.), emotional (jealousy, worry, discouragement, and other
destructive attitudes), and spiritual (bitterness, greed, and guilt, etc.).

Although there are three main types of healings, there is much diversity with the gift of healings.
While one person might have the gift of healing to rid a person of cancer or perform a creative
miracle, another person might have a diversity of the same gift to correct lower back problems or
remove a root of bitterness).

14.3.6. Gift of Performing Miracles

A miracle is the performance of something, which is against the laws of nature; it is a supernatural
power to intervene and counteract earthly and evil forces. The word miracles comes from the Greek
word dunamis which means "power and might that multiplies itself." The gift of miracles operates
closely with the power gifts of faith and healings to bring authority over Satan, sickness, sin, and
the binding forces of this age.
Miracles can also be defined as supernatural intercessions of God. God exhorts us with energy to
do something that is not natural or normal to us. Just as the ministry, gift of miracles is the
expression of prayer, so is the function of the Holy Spirit to direct our prayers (Romans 8:26).
However, the greatest miracle (and often least talked about) is the miracle of salvation. Sure, it
doesn't appear as spectacular as parting a sea or even raising a person from the dead, but then
again, we as human beings are truly impressed by the manifestations of outward signs and
wonders. God, on the other hand, isn't so concerned about outward appearances and flamboyant
showmanship but rather a person's heart condition. It is God's desire that believers utilize these
spiritual gifts to combat unbelief and bring non-believers to repentance in order that spiritually
dead people can be transformed into new creatures in Christ Jesus.

14.3.7. Gift of Prophecy

The gift of prophecy edifies, exhorts, and comforts (I Corinthians 14:3); helps us build up or
strengthen; and should lead us to the Word of God. It is the ministry of the Holy Spirit to convict
of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment to come (John 16:8-11).
Prophecy is divinely inspired and anointed utterance; a supernatural proclamation in a known
language. It is the manifestation of the Spirit of God - not of intellect (I Corinthians 12:7), and it
may be possessed and operated by all who have the infilling of the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians
14:31)

20TH2001-Foundations to Theology-KATE-December 2020

 101

Intellect, faith, and will are operative in this gift, but its exercise is not intellectually based. It is
calling forth words from the Spirit of God. The gift of prophecy operates when there is high
worship (I Samuel 10:5-6), when others prophets are present (I Samuel 10:9-10), and when hands
are laid on you by ministers (Acts 19:1-6). There is a ministry of the prophet, but not everyone is
a prophet.

14.3.8. Gift of Tongues

Gift of tongues is the Supernatural utterance through the power of the Holy Spirit in a person that
manifests as spiritual language. The Holy Spirit energizes the tongue to edify believers through
language and music. Diverse Tongues is the most misunderstood and dynamic gift. It is not your
prayer language, but it can surface through intercession, or through the individual.
Supernatural utterance in languages not known to the speaker; these languages may be existent in
the world, revived from some past culture, or "unknown" in the sense that they are a means of
communication inspired by the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 28:11; Mark 16:17; Acts 2:4, 10:44-48, 19:1-7;
I Corinthians 12:10, 13:1-3, 14:2, 4-22, 26-32).

The Spiritual Gift involving the ability to speak in foreign language(s) not previously studied or to
respond to experience of the Holy Spirit by uttering sounds are those, which cannot be understood
without the gift of interpretation. At Pentecost the church received the gift to communicate the
gospel in foreign languages (Acts 2). God gave His Spirit to all His people to empower them to
witness and prophesy. In Corinth some members of the church uttered sounds the rest of the
congregation did not understand (I Corinthians 12-14). This led to controversy and division. Paul
tried to unite the church, assuring the church that there are different gifts but only one Spirit
(I Corinthians 12:4-11).

14.3.9. Gift of Interpretation of Tongues

Interpretation of tongues is a supernatural verbalization and subsequent interpretation to reveal the
meaning of a diverse tongue. This gift operates out of the mind of the Spirit rather than out of the
mind of man.
It is important to note that "interpretation" of tongues is not the same thing as "translation" of
tongues, for the interpreter never understands the tongue he or she is interpreting. For example,
the message in tongues may be long and the interpretation short because the interpretation only
gives the meaning. On the other hand, one may speak a short time in tongues and then given a
lengthy interpretation. Yet still, at other times, the interpretation is almost word for word. The
Word of God says that if you pray in tongues, you should pray that you would also interpret - not
only for the benefit of others - but for your own benefit as well.
If someone speaks in tongues, you can ask God to move through you to give the interpretation so
that others will understand, but you can also do this in your private prayers for your own personal
benefit. You can pray, "Father, help me understand what I've just said to you in the Spirit," and the
Lord will give you the interpretation. The gift of interpretation of tongues is the second of three

20TH2001-Foundations to Theology-KATE-December 2020

 102

inspirational or vocal gifts of the Holy Spirit. When combined with the inspirational gift of diverse
tongues, the miraculous and supernatural phenomenon known as prophesies results.

15. Conclusion:
The Bible presents the Spirit as a divine personality, with intelligence and power to enable
believers. If in the Old Testament the personality and deity of the Spirit are strongly suggested, in
the New Testament they become quite clear. Although several aspects of the New Testament
pneumatology remain open to later debate, some questions find answers. The view of the Spirit as
a center of individual consciousness, rather than an impersonal energy, seems to better express the
scriptural data. The biblical authors do not theorize about the identity of the Spirit, but assume that
he is the powerful personal presence of God. Where the Spirit is, God is. To focus on any function
of the Spirit, be it the principle of life or a set of divine characteristics (love, holiness, power), as
if it were the Spirit himself, reveals a confusion between cause and effect. These categories can be
used as metaphors for the Spirit, but they are not the Spirit. Therefore, the Spirit is real and able to
purposely enable believers for ministry. The biblical Ruah/Pneuma is God manifested and sensed
as an infinite, mysterious, and unpredictable personal self-moving in closeness to us, the divine
wind/breath/mind creating an environment of cosmic intimacy and conspiring for life, wisdom,
and love. Above all, the Spirit is divine and personal because he is God. In the Scripture, we find
two parallel streams regarding the Spirit: one more functional, emphasizing his role as source of
life, power, love, etc.; and another more personal, presenting him as teacher, comforter, lover, and
so on. At the same time, the Spirit is poured and pours, is breathed and blows, is felt and feels.
Accordingly, the believer can live in the spiritual atmosphere created by the Spirit, as well as can
be controlled by the Spirit. The spiritual/psychological/social impact of either focus is as real as
the Spirit is real.

20TH2001-Foundations to Theology-KATE-December 2020