Final Copy

Running head: FINAL COPY OF CREED + ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 1
Final Copy Of Creed + Annotated Bibliography
Rachel Welty
Messiah College

FINAL COPY OF CREED + ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 2
Rachel Welty
08 December 2016
The Nature of God
Christology: A Study of the Nature and Work of Jesus of Nazareth
Pneumatology: A Study of the Nature and Work of the Holy Spirit
The Sin & Brokenness of Humanity
Salvation
The Nature & Mission of the Church
The Lord’s Supper
Evangelism
Missions
Final Copy Of Creed + Annotated Bibliography
Doctrines
The Nature of God
God is one essence1 in three persons: God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit.2
He is omnipresent and omniscient;3 God is omnipotent,4 but does not wield His power
unrestrained.5 Further, He is active in the world today as He interacts with His children out of
His deep love.6 God is compassionate, gracious, “slow to anger,” loving, faithful, forgiving, and
1 Following this singular essence,I wish to add the acts of the Trinity are indivisible among Its three persons. God
the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit all participate in creation, redemption, and sustentation (cf.Genesis
1:1-3; John 3:16-17; 16:8-11, 13-14; Jude 1:1; Hebrews 10:10 New Revised Standard Version). An additional
profitable resource on the Trinity is Migliore, D. Faith seeking understanding:An introduction to Christian
theology.(2nd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
2 Cf. Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Erickson, M. J. (1998b). God’s three-in-oneness:Three-in-oneness.In
Christian theology.(2nd ed., pp. 352-357). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
3 Psalm 139:7-10; Job 37:16; 1 John 3:20; (2015, February 15). Does God ever change his mind? Retrieved from
http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/does-god-ever-change-his-mind.html/.
4 Genesis 17:1; 18:14; Jeremiah 32:27.
5 By this I mean God is capable of doing whatever He wills to do; He is all-powerful. Yet God does not make
humans’ choices for them. He gives them the freedom to obey or disobey Him, as can be seen in the story of Adam
and Eve (whether one interprets it literally or metaphorically). Genesis 2:16-17.
6 Philippians 1:6; cf. John 3:16-17; Romans 5:8; Rice, R. (1994). Biblical support for a new perspective.In The
opennessof God: A biblical challenge to the traditional understanding ofGod. (pp. 11-58). Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press.

just;7 He is a knowable mystery.8 God is working to holistically redeem and restore His world
(i.e. spiritually, politically, economically, socially, ecologically).9
Jesus of Nazareth, a person of the Trinity, is the singular God-man, His divine and human
natures forever co-operating and never eclipsing one another.10 He shares divine attributes with
the Father and only does what God the Father can do.11 Jointly, He developed as humans do and
had characteristically human qualities and experiences like us.12 Jesus Christ fulfills the roles of
prophet, king, priest,13 and judge.14 Jesus is the unique bridge between God and humanity, the
only Way15 by which men and women can be saved.16
7 Exodus 34:6-7; Fretheim, T. E. (1991). Exodus 34:1-8: A god gracious and merciful. In Interpretation:A Bible
commentary for teaching and preaching:Exodus. (pp. 301-302). Louisville, KY: John Knox Press.
8 God has been revealed decisively through Jesus Christ, creation and the human conscience,and His written Word;
however, God cannot be fully known – there is always more to know of God. Cf. Psalm 19:1; Romans 1:18-20;
2:15; Job 11:7-9; John 17:26; Hebrews 1:1-3; Migliore, D. (2004a). The meaning of revelation. In Faith seeking
understanding:An introduction to Christian theology.(2nd ed., pp. 20-43). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co.
9 Cf. Exodus 1-2; 4:23; 6:6-8; 12:12; 15:13, 17; Leviticus 25; Joshua 13-22; Judges 6:15, 27, 30-35; 8:20; Romans
8:22; Revelation 21:1-5; Ephesians 1:8b-10. Personal note: None of these Bible passages alone support God’s
holistic redemption and restoration; however, Christopher J. H. Wright integrates innumerable passages to show
God’s comprehensive plan. Wright, C. J. H. (2006). God’s model of redemption: The exodus; God’s model of
restoration: The jubilee. In The mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s grand narrative.(pp. 265-323). Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
10 Gonzáles, J. L. (1970). The council of Chalcedon. In A history of Christian thought:From the beginnings to the
council of Chalcedon.(Vol. 1, pp. 379-392). Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
11 John 1:18; 2:25; 6:64; 8:58; 16:30; Revelation 22:13; Mark 2:5-7; Matthew 8:26-27; 14:19; Hebrews 1:1-3; Ryrie,
C. C. (1987). The person of Christ incarnate. In Basic theology.(pp. 247-253). Wheaton,IL: Victor Books.
12 Luke 2:52; 24:25-26, 39; John 4:6; 11:36; 13:21; 19:28; Matthew 4:2; 26:38; Mark 14: 21; Grudem, W. (1994c).
The person of Christ: A. the humanity of Christ. In Systematic theology:An introduction to biblical doctrine.(pp.
529-543). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
13 I want to expound upon these delineations: Jesus eternally reveals the Father and heavenly truth as prophet, reigns
over all creation as king, and reconciles us to God the Father as priest; cf. Matthew 11:20-24; 13:41, 44, 46-50, 57;
19:28; 21:11, 46; Luke 22:32; 24:19; John 6:14; 7:40, 52; 9:17; 14; 17; Hebrews 1:8; 7:25; 9:24; Philippians 2:9-11;
2 Corinthians 5:17-21; Romans 5:9-11; Ephesians 2:13-16; Erickson, M. J. (1998c). Introduction to the work of
Christ. In Christian theology.(2nd ed., pp. 779-797). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
14 I want to further comment on this role of Jesus: On Judgment Day, Jesus will judge us for our thoughts,words,
and actions; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Romans 2:6, 16; Luke 12:2-3; Matthew12:36-37; Ecclesiastes 12:14; Martin, R. P.
(1986). 2 Corinthians: 2 Corinthians 5:10. In Word biblical commentary. (Vol. 40, pp. 114-116). Waco, TX: Word
Books.
15 I capitalize “Way” to emphasize Jesus’uniqueness as the only Savior; John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 1 Timothy 2:5-6.
16 Knitter, P. F. (2002). Total replacement. In Introducing theologies ofreligions.(pp. 19-32). Maryknoll, NY: Orbis
Books.

The “mode”17 of God’s presence with us,18 the Holy Spirit is a divine person of the
Trinity, inferior to no other member.19 It20 gives and sustains life itself,21 as well as unites
believers with Jesus Christ,22 joining us in His life, death, and resurrection; and with all other
believers.23 The Holy Spirit convicts men and women of their sins and leads them to repentance,
and then to affirm Jesus’ work and promises.24 It progressively transforms each believer’s
ethical and spiritual character to reflect Jesus Christ,25 granting believers new life, liberating
them from sin and death.26 The Holy Spirit also testifies to believers’ adoption into God’s
family,27 guides them into spiritual truth,28 and gives believers spiritual gifts29 for the edification
of entire Body of Christ.30
17 Using Marshall’s term “mode,” Erickson expresses simply, “it is particularly through this work that God is
personally involved and active in the life of the believer” (1998d, p. 881). I would go further to say the Holy Spirit
is what we can feel from God; not in the sense ofemotions, but, for example, it is the Holy Spirit who gives us the
peace that surpasses human intellect. The Holy Spirit makes God personal to the believer; Erickson, M. J. (1998d).
The work of the Holy Spirit. In Christian theology.(2nd ed., pp. 880-898). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
18 John 16:7; Marshall, M. T. (2003). Joining the dance: A theology of the Spirit.Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press,p.
102.
19 Acts 5:3-4; St. Basil the Great. (1980). Against those who say that the Holy Spirit must not be numbered with the
Father and the Son, but under them. A summary of the correct way of numbering them together; How belief in three
persons upholds the true doctrine of divine unity. Against those who subordinate the Spirit. In On the Holy Spirit.
(pp. 68-75). Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
20 Aware of the complex discussion about the genderof the Holy Spirit, I will use the pronoun “It” in my creed, as I
have not done study on this question,nor do I think it is of crucial importance to come to a conclusion on this
matter. If the pronouns he or she are used in my annotated bibliographies, they reflect the authors’ conclusions.
21 Genesis 2:7; Meaning all that is alive is alive because of the Holy Spirit; all is dependent upon the Holy Spirit for
life. Humanity and the rest of creation are not distinguished in this statement because I again do not see the matter
as essential to my creed.
22 A crucial element of this entire composition as I detail my theological beliefs as of present is biblical support.
Much could be said about the reasoning for my large emphasis on Christian Scripture; however, what is relevant to
note here is that I could not locate specific Christian Scripture to support my affirmation that the Holy Spirit unites
believers with Jesus Christ – in His life, death, and resurrection; however, this is still something I affirm. In placing
one’s faith in Jesus Christ, a believer is joined in Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. From my understanding of
pneumatology, soteriology, and other areas of theology, I am inclined, from my understanding of pneumatology,
soteriology, and other areas of theology, to state that this uniting of believers with Jesus Christ is the work of the
Holy Spirit. This is a question to be further explored through deepertheological research.
23 1 Corinthians 12:13; Romans 12:4-5; Marshall.
24 John 16:7-11, 13; Erickson, 1998d.
25 Erickson, 1998d.
26 Romans 8; 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15; Williams, J. R. (1990). The Holy Spirit. In Renewal
Theology:Salvation,the Holy Spirit, and Christian Living. (Vol. 2). Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books.
27 Romans 8:23; Williams.

The Sin and Brokenness of Humanity
God created all of creation31 as intrinsically good; however, Adam and Eve’s rebellion
against God fractured creation’s goodness.32 As a result, sin affects every human being, and all
humans are inherently sinful.33 It ravages humanity’s relationship with God,34 and brings death –
physical and spiritual.35 In addition, sin thus necessitates humanity’s mortality,36 chains the
sinner to sin,37 and detaches humanity from God eternally.38 Yet God is actively responding,39
working through His people to eradicate evil and inaugurate His new creation.40
28 John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7-13.
29 These gifts include but are not limited to prophecy, ministry, teaching, exhortation, generosity,leadership,
compassion, wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, “the working of miracles,” discernment of the spirits, tongues,the
interpretation of tongues,apostleship,evangelism, pastoring,and teaching (Romans 12:6-8; 1 Corinthians 12.8-11;
Ephesians 4:11; Erickson, 1998d, p. 891).
30 1 Corinthians 14:5; Erickson, 1998d.
31 I.e. Humanity and the world.
32 Although not directly pertaining to this creed, I want to note here anotherrelated belief: God desires all to love
and obey Him, but He gave humans free will. Adam and Eve rejected His instruction and thus rejected Him;
Genesis 1:4-31; 2:16-17; The Redemptorists. (1997). Sin: Original and personal. In The essential Catholic
handbook:A summary of beliefs, practices, and prayers. (pp. 28-33). Liguori, MO: Liguori.
33 Romans 3:23; 5:12; The Redemptorists; Grudem, W. (1994d). Sin. In Systematic theology:An introduction to
biblical doctrine.(pp. 490-514). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
34 Grudem, 1994d; Although it is not a scholarly resource, I would also recommend David Platt’s podcast “The
Privilege of Prayer Pt. 2” to support this affirmation, as Platt genuinely explains that sin does not re-condemn the
believer; he or she is securely justified. Asking for forgiveness in prayer is thus not a matter of legally absolving
one’s sins, but restoring intimacy in his or her relationship with God (Platt, D. (2015, January 26). The privilege of
prayer pt. 2. Radical TogetherAudio Podcast. Retrieved from ITunes.).
35 Genesis 3:16-19 ff.; Erickson, M. J. (1992). 21. The results of sin. In Introducing Christian theology.(L. A.
Hustad,Ed., pp. 185-193). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
36 Cf. Romans 6:23.
37 Cf. Acts 8:23.
38 Hosea 9:15; Psalm 106:39-40; cf. Romans 6:23; 2 Thessalonians 1:8-10; Erickson, 1992.
39 To further detail, God has been responding (in the past),and continues to respond (presently).
40 Cf. Genesis 3; 6-7; 11; 12:1-3; 15:16; 50:20; Exodus 32:11-14; 33:12-16; Isaiah 10:5-19; 40-55; Psalm 76:10; 89;
Daniel 7:13; 11-12; Job 38-41; These passages and chapters alone do not necessarily clearly support God’s work;
however, when viewed as a whole, God can be seen working, often through His people, to establish His new
creation; Wright, N. T. (2006). Evil and the justice of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press; I acknowledge
this is a blanket statement; however, N.T. Wright beautifully and intricately unfolds this reality throughout his entire
composition. I also recognize some may find this statement more appropriately categorized under “The Nature of
God” creed; however, it is important to me that I end my creed on sin not buried in that brokenness,but remind us of
the Good News Jesus Christ offers.

Salvation
Salvation entails holistic deliverance,41 and it is to be realized42 in the present as well as
in the future.43 Jesus is the only44 means of salvation, and His work45 made salvation
accessible46 to all people.47 In His great love, God the Father sent Jesus48 to be the
substitutionary sacrifice to atone for our sins,49 and Jesus’ work thence shattered the devil’s
power, thus abrogating death’s power.50 Accordingly, humanity was liberated to accept God’s
41 N. T. Wright only asserts this by referencing narratives where healing is connected to salvation,thus arguing
salvation can be physical, in addition to spiritual. Despite this narrow expansion; however, his message is aligned
with Christopher J. H. Wright’s argument that salvation entails spiritual, political, economic, social, ecological, and
other forms of deliverance, which I mentioned in my “The Nature of God” creed. Cf. Exodus 1-2; 4:23; 6:6-8;
12:12; 15:13, 17; Luke 4:18-19. Note: None of these Bible passages alone support God’s holistic redemption;
however, joined (excluding Luke 4:18-19 – my addition), they showGod’s intention for holistic salvation.; Wright,
N. T. (2008). Rethinking salvation: Heaven, earth, and the kingdom of God. In Surprised by hope:Rethinking
Heaven, the resurrection, and the mission of the church. (pp. 189-205). New York, NY: HarperOne.
42 I.e. Take effect, have impact.
43 Cf. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 ff.; It is not constituted exclusively by eternal life after death (i.e. everlasting
reconciliation with God; see Erickson, 1998c under my “Christology: A Study of the Nature and Work of Jesus of
Nazareth” creed), though that is a significant component of it; Wright, N. T., 2008.
44 Jesus Christ lived in perfect obedience to His Father (Romans 5:19) and suffered for us – throughout His earthly
life (Isaiah 53:3), endured the pain of the cross (Mark 15:24; Luke 24:25-26), the weight of humanity’s sins (Isaiah
53:6; 1 Peter 2:24), and separation from God the Father (Mark 15:34); and ultimately died (John 19:30). He thus
received the wages humans earn and rightly deserve (John 1:29; cf. Romans 3:10, 12, 23; 6:23). He was the only
One who could have satisfied God’s dishonorbrought to Him on account of humanity’s sins.Elwell, W. A. (2006).
The doctrine of the Son of God: Atonement. In The portable seminary. (D. Horton & R. Horton, Eds., pp. 134-146).
Grand Rapids, MI: Bethany House Publishers.
45 By generally saying “Jesus’work,” I am referring to Jesus’entire life and ministry, death,and resurrection; as I
believe all parts of His existence are significant. Although commonly distinguished (i.e. Jesus death did one thing;
through Jesus’resurrection we have another thing), I will not carefully assign parts of the atonement (or any benefit
we have from Jesus’work) to different stages ofJesus’existence; that is not my theological aim here.
46 Originally wanting simply to change Horton’s wording (as to not quote him verbatim) from “possible,” I realized
in later analysis that the term “accessible” better communicates my beliefs. The reason for this delineation is that
Calvinists traditionally assert Jesus’death sufficiently redeemed all, but only effectively redeemed the elect,
meaning that Jesus’death was commensurate to redeem all people’s sin, but really only redeemed the elect.
Reading Horton’s and then Olson’s counter works, I was faced with the contradiction of these statements. How
could Jesus’work be enough to redeem all sins, but really only effect redemption for the elect; s eemingly only
partially save? As will be footnoted below, I believe that Jesus’sufficient redemption does not equate with
universal atonement (that all are effectively saved through Jesus’work). Human initiative to place one’s trust in
Jesus is required. More will be said on this delineation below in my discussion of Olson. I acknowledge that one
could come back on my statements and say they, too,are contradictory; however, as I work through my beliefs, this
is where I stand. Schultz, who I quote in my bibliography of Olson, gives some insight to my position.
47 1 Timothy 2:5-6; 2 Corinthians 5:15; Hebrews 2:9; John 14:6; To add, it is only through Jesus’work that humans
can be made holy, or righteous,in God’s eyes (2 Corinthians 5:21; Ephesians 1:4; Hebrews 10:8-10; cf. Olson, R. E.
(2011). Yes to atonement; no to limited atonement/particular redemption: Problems with limited
atonement/particular redemption; The alternative to limited atonement/particular redemption. In Against Calvinism.
(pp. 145-154). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.); Horton, M. (2011). Mission accomplished (atonement): The extent
of Christ’s work; Responding to objections In For Calvinism. (pp. 90-98). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
48 John 3:16-17; 1 John 4:9; cf. Elwell.

free gift of grace – salvation51 – by placing their faith in Jesus Christ.52 Men and women must
choose to put their faith in Jesus in order to be saved,53 and only the elect, who God the Father
draws to Himself54 will put their faith in Jesus.55
The Nature and Missionof the Church
The Church is not a building, but a global and mystical56 people called together by God,57
and this chosen58 people is in a covenant relationship with God.59 The Church is divine in that
the Holy Spirit gives and sustains Its life60 and unifies the Church with God and other
49 Jesus was of the perfect condition (cf. Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 1:19), and humanity’s sins were therefore transferred
to Him (cf. Isaiah 53:6; 1 Peter 2:24). Jesus was slain (cf. Isaiah 53:12; Romans 4:25; 1 Corinthians 15:3; Hebrews
9:28), and His blood atones for humanity’s sins (cf. 1 John 1:7). Jesus’sacrificial work can be closely aligned with
the elements and practice of Israelite sacrifices; Youngblood, R. (1998). Sacrifice. In The heart of the Old
Testament. (2nd ed., pp. 81-90). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
50 Hebrews 2:14-15; Elwell.
51 Ephesians 2:8-9.
52 Cf. Olson; Romans 10:9-10.
53 Cf. John 3:18; 12:48; Olson.
54 John 6:44.
55 Accordingly, all who reject Jesus Christ separate themselves from God eternally (John 3:18; 12:48). Here I am in
no way espousing works-based salvation. It is only by grace through faith one is saved. As highlighted by Horton,
God could have rightly condemned all humanity; yet in His love and grace He chose some to be saved (not because
of any personal attribute or good work; it is only by God’s mercy and grace some are elected to salvation; Romans
9:11-16; Ephesians 1:4-6; Acts 13:48; Romans 8:29-30; 9:11-13; 11:7; Ephesians 1:4-6, 12; 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5;
2 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 1:9; 1 Peter 1:1; Revelation 13:7-8; 17:8); Ephesians 2:8-9;Acts 4:12; Romans
10:9-10; Olson; Grudem, W. (1994a). Election and reprobation. In Systematic theology:An introduction to biblical
doctrine.(pp. 669-691). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House; Moreover, I recognize and admit that
here, among several places, my affirmations are not fully fluid, but instead could be refuted, revealing several
apertures in my theology. How is faith essential if it is only by God’s grace that individuals are chosen to be elected
to salvation? I do not have the answer to this and its innumerable related questions; however,at this point in time,
these are the essentials of my faith.
56 Using the word “mystical,” I am specifically designating that the Church is comprised of all Christians (i.e.
“faithful believers,” Manser, McGrath, Packer, & Wiseman, 1999, theme number 7020) past,present, and future
(McKim; Rodríguez, J. (2006). Church: A Roman Catholic perspective; Martínez, J. F. (2006). Church: A Latina/o
Protestant perspective.In Handbook ofLatino/a theologies.(E. D. Aponte & M. A. De La Torre, Eds., pp. 40-57).
St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press).
57 Cf. 1 Chronicles 28:8; Nehemiah 13:1; Micah 2:5; 1 Corinthians 12:28; 1 Thessalonians 2:13-14; 2 Thessalonians
1:4.
58 Cf. Deuteronomy 7:6-8; 10:15; 14:2; Psalm 105:6; 1 Peter 1:2; 2:9; Ephesians 1:4.
59 Cf. Genesis 12-13; 15:8-18; 17:1-14; 18:18; Exodus 2:23-25; 19-24; 20:1-2; Deuteronomy 5:1-3; Judges 2; 2
Samuel 7:12-17; 23:5; 2 Kings 17; Psalm 89:3-4, 26-37; 132:11-12; Isaiah 42:6; 55:3-5; 59:21; Jeremiah 11:1-5;
22:1-8; 31:31-34; 34:12-22; Ezekiel 16:60, 62; 37:24-28; Hosea 8:1; Zechariah 2:11; 8:20-23; Matthew 26:28; Luke
22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Galatians 3:7-9, 14, 27-29; Hebrews 7:22; 8-10; 12:24; 13:20;
McKim, D. K. (2001). Church: The people of God. In Introducing the Reformed Faith. (pp. 118-129). Louisville,
KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
60 This sustaining act includes the Holy Spirit providing for all Its needs; cf. 1 Corinthians 12:7, 13.

believers.61 The Church is also human:62 a diverse63 Body64 of believers which is unified but not
conformed to one another.65 The Church is responsible to share the Gospel in word and deed –
which involves preaching the Good News66 and participating in Jesus’ continued work as He
establishes the Kingdom67 of God68 – and ultimately to worship and glorify God eternally.69
The Lord’s Supper
Just as Jesus broke bread and drank wine with His disciples,70 Christians are to continue
partaking of the Lord’s Supper71 communally.72 The Lord’s Supper is reserved specifically for
61 In other words, the Holy Spirit’s work of giving and sustaining the Church’s life, and unifying the Church with
God and other believers makes the Church divine. Cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13; Dulles, A. C. (2002). Introduction; The
use of models in ecclesiology; The Church as institution; The Church as mystical communion; The Church as
sacrament; The Church as herald; The Church as servant; The evaluation of models. In Models of the Church.
(Expanded ed., pp. 1-81, 181-194). New York, NY: Doubleday.
62 Dulles; A simple statement, the Church is human most basically because It is comprised of human beings; Cf.
Biblical references for the footnote directly following “The Church is … a … people called togetherby God.”
63 Cf. 1 Corinthians 12; Cf. Ephesians 4:3-6; Philippians 2:1.
64 I capitalize “Body” in reference to 1 Corinthians 12:27, Ephesians 5:23, and Colossians 1:24 and other biblical
passages which refer to the Church as the Christ’s body; directly associated with Jesus,I affirm the Body’s
significance via capitalization; Cf. Romans 12:4-5; 1 Corinthians 12:12; Ephesians 3:6; Colossians 1:18; Manser,M.
H., McGrath, A. E., Packer, J. I., & Wiseman, D. J. (1999). 7020 church, the. In Zondervan dictionary of Bible
themes: An accessible and comprehensive tool for topical studies.(theme numbers 7020-7028). Grand Rapids, MI:
ZondervanPublishingHouse.
65 E.g. Take on different forms, have different expressions; not all churches are the same, and they should not be.
Moreover, local assemblies should look different, though (biblical) boundaries (rightfully, e.g. essentialbeliefs)
limit the Church’s diversity; Chan, S. (2014). The church: Elitist ecclesiologies; The church and other religious
communities; Churchless Christianity; An assessment; Indigenous churches in Asia. In Grassroots Asian theology:
Thinking the faith from the ground up. (pp. 157-173). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
66 Mark 13:10; Cf. Matthew 24:14; 28:19; Luke 24:47; Acts 13:47.; Wherever the Gospel is shared, it must be
contextualized so that the hearers can understand it (Chan).
67 “Kingdom” is capitalized here (and otherplaces) to emphasize God’s headship of this dominion.
68 Cf. Acts 2:42-47; Dulles.; Namely, this work includes opposing societalinjustices and anything incongruent with
God’s Will, and meeting the physical, psychological, social, spiritual, and otherneeds of the people (Smith, R. D.
(2014). The church in African American theology.In the Oxford handbook ofAfrican American theology.(K. G.
Cannon & A. B. Pinn, Eds., pp. 228-241). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.; Rodríguez, & Martínez).
Anotherresource not utilized in this paper that further expounds upon the Church’s mission is Christopher J. H.
Wright’s The Mission of God’s People (2010). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
69 Cf. Psalm 66:4; Manser, McGrath, Packer, & Wiseman.
70 Preceding His arrest.
71 Mark 14:22-26; Matthew 26:26-30; Luke 22:14-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 ff.; Personal note: Many affirmations
in this creed concerning the Lord’s Supper cannot be directly buttressed by Christian Scripture; many points were
worked-out proceeding the Bible’s composition. Erickson, M. J. (1998a). The continuing rite of the Church: The
Lord’s supper: Points of agreement. In Christian theology.(2nd ed., pp. 1117-1121). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Books.
72 This point may be biblically supported by 1 Corinthians 11:33-34, but also has been interpreted as having to do
with ensuring all have enough to eat; Erickson, 1998a.

those who have made a deliberate Christian commitment,73 and those who partake must approach
the table with repentance and humility.74 Jesus is spiritually present in the meal,75 and through
It, Its guests are spiritually nourished.76 The Lord’s Supper is an act of proclamation77 which
interlaces grief, celebration,78 gratitude,79 and love as partakers who remember Jesus’ life and
death80 are called to hope in Jesus’ second coming.81 The sacrament82 unites believers with God
and with one another.83
Evangelism
Evangelism is only one form of witness,84 which, at its core, involves calling the
individual to transfer his or her allegiance to Jesus and His Kingdom.85 Christians are
necessarily empowered by the Holy Spirit to do the work of evangelism,86 and it is a
73 I.e. Those who have entrusted Jesus Christ with their lives and surrendered their lives to Him (i.e. those who are
saved). Moreover, this point is not explicitly buttressed by Christian Scriptures; however, I believe it comes from
Jesus’final meal with only His closest followers, or the twelve disciples; Kärkkäinen, V.-M. (2008). The Pentecostal
view. In The Lord’s supper: Five views: Roman Catholic,Lutheran,Reformed, Baptist,Pentecostal.(G. T. Smith,
Ed., pp. 117-135). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.
74 1 Corinthians 11:28-29; Kärkkäinen.
75 Kärkkäinen.
76 Grudem, W. (1994b). The Lord’s supper:B. the meaning of the Lord’s supper.In Systematic theology:An
introduction to biblical doctrine.(pp.989-991). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
77 1 Corinthians 11:26.
78 E.g. of Jesus’love for them and theirs’ for Him; Grudem, 1994b.
79 For God’s forgiving love, believers’ redemption, and the blessings of Jesus’work; Beahm, W. M. (1942). The
Communion. In The Brethren love feast. (pp. 13-16). Elgin, IL: Church of the Brethren General Offices.;
Kärkkäinen; Grudem, 1994b.
80 And all the suffering His death involved; Luke 22:19; Beahm.
81 As God’s reign of justice, liberation, and peace will one day be consummated; the Lord’s Supper inherently
operates as a bridge between Jesus’death and His second coming.; Cf. 1 Corinthians 11:26; Migliore, D. (2004b).
Proclamation, sacraments, and ministry: The meaning of the Lord’s supper.In Faith seeking understanding:An
introduction to Christian theology.(2nd ed., pp. 288-293). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.;
Kärkkäinen.
82 Here, I am using the term “sacrament” indiscriminately with others such as ordinance. Defining the classification
of the Lord’s Supper is not my agenda here.
83 Kärkkäinen.
84 To witness is to bear another’s image; both to testify on another’s behalf and stand in his or her place.
85 Cf. Luke 9:23-25; 57-62; Sunquist,S. W. (2013). Witnessing community: Evangelism and Christian mission. In
Understanding Christian mission: Participation in suffering and glory. (pp. 311-340). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic.
86 Cf. Acts 1:8; Green, M. (2005). Getting motivated. In Sharing your faith with friends and family: Talking about
Jesus without offending. (pp. 13-24). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

responsibility of all believers.87 The principle aim of evangelism is not conversion, but
discipleship,88 discipleship involving the new Christ-follower reorienting his or her life
according to Jesus’ example.89 Evangelism cannot be solely reduced to proclamation,90 and
there is no single right way to evangelize.91 It is crucial that message-bearers live-out the Good
News they proclaim.92
87 I.e. Evangelism is not solely a responsibility of the clergy. This is not explicitly stated in the Bible, but I believe
the Bible undeniably implies such; consult the great commission statements:Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-18;
Luke 24:45-49; Acts 1:8; and John 20:21-23; Green.
88 Matthew 28:16-20; Jesus did not instruct His disciples to make converts,but disciples. Though evangelism and
discipleship are inextricably linked, their connection is not able to be discussed here.; Sunquist.
89 Cf. Mark 12:30-31; John 13:12-15; Abraham, W. J. (2011). The options in evangelism.; Conversion, baptism, and
morality: Method in evangelism. In The art of evangelism: Evangelismcarefully crafted into the life of the local
church. (pp. 23-38, 62-63). Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock.
90 Though verbally sharing the Good News is a crucial component.; Cf. Acts 6:1-4; Abraham.
91 Cf. the Gospels; Although there is no single right way to participate in the work of evangelism, improper methods
have been historically employed, at times. A few words on this assertion: Some recommendations for evangelism
include employing a team approach,participating in conscious outreach via practicing hospitality, evangelizing via
dialogue, not monologue; and seeking to contextualize the Gospel message. First, a team approach is suggested
because every person has a unique personality and can thus relate to different people, possibly some that another
person cannot connect with as naturally or effectively. This is not to say that personal (individual) evangelism is not
effective; God can use anything. It is just to comment that there are advantages to engaging in evangelistic efforts
with others.Second, hospitality is arguably a critical platform for evangelism, as it is such a tangible embodiment of
the Good News of Jesus Christ, caring for those one comes in contact with. Third, sharing Jesus with others must
occur in conversation; simply talking-at someone arguably will not do. I must again say here, that God can use
anything. I just do not believe the absence of dialogue, the absence of relationship, is fruitful. Fourth, it is crucial to
not completely dismiss a person’s or people’s culture. Instead,one must present the Gospel in a way that is
culturally and otherwise understandable. Unfortunately, room does not allow for even a introductory discussion of
contextualization; however, recommended resources for further study are enumerated below. As for ill-advised
methods, I do not endorse those such as the “fire and brimstone” approach (i.e. scaring people into surrendering to
Jesus)and coercive approaches (e.g. during the crusades and early Christian history at large, that people could
choose either conversion or death, or specifically Muslims in Sicily in 1054 during the re-conquest of Sicily were
forced to either convert or flee). Yet here I must once again state,humbly and acceptingly, that God can use
anything.Cf. Sunquist; Green; Hunter III, G. G. (2010). The Celtic Christian community in formation and mission;
The Celtic future of the Christian movement in the West.In The Celtic way of evangelism: How Christianity can
reach the West … AGAIN. (Rev. & Exp. ed., pp. 36-45, 104-106). Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press
1. Hesselgrave, D. J. & Rommen, E. (1989). Contextualization:Meanings,methods,and models. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
2. Moreau, A. S. (2012). Contextualization in world missions: Mapping and assessing Evangelical models.
Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, Inc.
3. Wu, J. (2015). One Gospel for all nations:A practical approach to biblical contextualization.Pasadena,
CA: William Carey Library.
4. Georges, J. (2014). The 3d gospel: Ministry in guilt,shame, and fear cultures. N.p.: N.p.
92 Hunter.

Missions
Missions derives from God’s work in the world,93 and thus, all Christians are called to
participate in missions,94 as it is the task of the Church.95 The primary purpose of missions is to
glorify God,96 walking alongside97 others as they join in God’s eternal reign.98 It involves both
verbally proclaiming the Gospel and actively embodying it,99 and it necessarily prizes being over
doing.100 It should not reflect attitudes of cultural superiority nor condescending pity, and it
must not muddle Western culture with Christian values nor be driven by desires for self-gain.101
93 Cf. 1 Corinthians 3:9; 2 Corinthians 6:1; Ott, C., Strauss, S. J., & Tennent,T. C. (2010a). Introduction: Mission,
missions, and missionaries. In Encountering theology ofmission: Biblical foundations,historical developments,and
contemporary issues. (pp. xiv-xviii). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.; My springboard to this work was my
personal notes from the introductory [first day of class]lecture of Dr. George Pickens’s “Biblical Theology of
Missions” course:Mission is God’s activity, or work in the world. Mission begins with God, and thus began before
creation, and will always exist – it is eternal just as God is (i.e. God is omnipresent). The second component of the
dialectic, missions, is human participation in God’s work. The ideal relationship between the two is a partnership;
humans let God lead (like a dance), ascribing to God’s agenda (when, how, etc.).
94 Again, this is not explicitly stated in the Bible, but I believe the Bible undeniably implies such. Consult the great
commission statements:Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-18; Luke 24:45-49; Acts 1:8; and John 20:21-23. God’s
work is everyone’s business (Hosanna Industries,Inc.); Wright, G. D. (1998). The purpose of missions. In
Missiology:An introduction to the foundations,history, and strategies of world missions. (J. M. Terry, E. Smith, &
J. Anderson,Eds., pp. 18-29). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
95 Van der Meer, A. L. (2000). The Scriptures, the church, and humanity: who should do mission and why? In
Global missiology for the 21st
century: The Iguassu dialogue.(W. D. Taylor, Ed., pp. 149-161). Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic.
96 Cf. Psalm 66:4: The main aim of missions is to glorify God, being that all of creation is created to worship the
Lord.
97 I use the particular verbiage “walk alongside,” because it is God who draws people to Himself. God lovingly
invites His people to join Him in His work and humbly uses them, but without God, they could do nothing.
98 Van der Meer.
99 I.e. Involves exemplifying the Gospel through active ministry to others. Moreover, just as God’s work in the
world is holistic,, so should human participation in it be comprehensive. (cf. Exodus 1-2; 4:23; 6:6-8; 12:12; 15:13,
17; Leviticus 25; Joshua 13-22; Judges 6:15, 27, 30-35; 8:20; Romans 8:22; Revelation 21:1-5; Ephesians 1:8b-10;
none of these Bible passages alone support God’s holistic redemption and restoration; however, Christopher J. H.
Wright integrates innumerable passages to showGod’s comprehensive plan; cf. Wright, C. J. H. (2006). God’s
model of redemption: The exodus; God’s model of restoration: The jubilee. In The mission of God: Unlocking the
Bible’s grand narrative. (pp. 265-323). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.); Wright, G.D.; Van der Meer.
100 In other words, the ministry work accomplished via missions is significant, but not more so than one’s
relationship with Jesus Christ. I paused in writing this statement, part of me wanting to say that being is just as
important as doing; however, that is a worldly mindset, I believe driven by the West’s emphasis on success and
being able to document/present one’s accomplishments. Cf. Luke 10:38-42 – This passage in the Gospel of Luke is
often interpreted as emphasizing being over doing. It must be noted that it is not directly related to missions, but I
would employ it as a valid support to prioritizing being (i.e. being in relationship, spending time with God) over
doing things for God in missions.; Van der Meer.
101 This is not to say that the entirety of Western culture is unbiblical. Instead,it is just recognizing that Western
culture is not the penultimate embodiment of Christianity; Ott, C., Strauss,S. J., & Tennent, T. C. (2010b). The

Annotated Bibliography
The Nature of God
(2015, February 15). Does God ever change his mind? Retrieved from
http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/does-god-ever-change-his-
mind.html/
The article begins by focusing-in on the questions “Does he [change His mind]?” “Could
he?” and “Or are all his plans and purposes immutable?” (“Does God,” 2015). There are certain
dangers102 of God’s immutability, depending on how it is defined; consequently, the article
proceeds to define mutability. God’s eternality does not imply there is no change or development
in His relations to His creatures. Moreover, God will always act according to His character (i.e.
in line with what is revealed about Him);103 therefore, God’s deity is cannot develop.104
Additionally, God is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent;105 specifically connected to
God’s omniscience and omnipotence, there is no reason God ever has to change His purpose. So
can God change His mind?
The article then enters a discussion of the Hebrew nacham, which can designate
emotional pain (e.g. grief, sorrow), receiving comfort, “relenting from or repudiating a course of
action previously embraced,” reneging a statement or changing one’s mind; acknowledging all
these English delineations, the English meaning of nacham is undeniably vague (“Does God,”
2015). Both using the word nacham, there are various interpretations of Numbers 23:19 and 1
motivation for missions: Questionable motivations for missions. In Encountering theology ofmission: Biblical
foundations,historical developments,and contemporary issues. (pp. 165-177). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
102 Immutability can portray a God who changes His mind and “mode of being” (cf. John 1:14), and who is even
unpredictable and disloyal (“Does God,” 2015).
103 Which is supported by Christian Scripture verses including but not limited to Exodus 3:14; James 1:17; Malachi
3:6; and Hebrews 13:8.
104 Wrapped-up in God’s inability to change, I also want to affirm His aseity: God has no origin but Himself; He is
Creator, not something created (John 1:3; Romans 11:36; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Revelation 4:11).
105 Supported by Psalm 33:10-11, cf. Psalm 110:4; Isaiah 14:24; Isaiah 49:9-11; Proverbs 19:21; Job 23:13; Job
42:2; Hebrews 6:17.

Samuel 15:29 in light of 1 Samuel 15:11 and 1 Samuel 15:35, which seemingly refute 1 Samuel
15:29. Cited in this particular discussion, Bruce Ware asserts that to say God sometimes does
what He says and occasionally repents diminishes God’s otherness, or difference, from
humanity, as humans are, at times, unfaithful to their word and sometimes repent. Applying this
logic, Ware concludes Numbers 23:19 is “generally true,” not just “situationally true” (“Does
God,” 2015).106 Another proposal suggests God’s relenting is an anthropopasim; this
explanation is evangelicals’ loophole, of sorts. Also to consider in this qualm, there are divine
decrees (unconditional) and conditional divine announcements; however, an injunction’s
conditionality is not normally indicated (one way or another) in the text. Finally, the article
works from Jeremiah 18:5-12, pointing out God’s immutability obligates Him to treat the
righteous differently than the wicked. The final conclusion is that God will not change.
Wrestling with the testament of Christian Scripture,107 specifically Exodus 32:11-14 in
seeming contradiction of Numbers 23:19, I was seeking to the answer the question “Do God’s
plans change?” or more critically, “Does God change His mind?” I affirmed that God interacts
with His people, but for Him to change His mind in a way that negates His omniscience appeared
to seriously affect and call to question much of how I view God, and consequently, how I live in
the world. Thus, I really appreciated the detailed exploration this article gave to this question;
however, I simultaneously admit its argument leaves some apertures in its theology - specifically
concerning Exodus 32:11-14. Affirming God’s omnipresence and omniscience, this article gave
great insight to this point of this point of my theology of the nature of God which I am still
working through.
106 Unfortunately, this claim of circumstantial truth is not further explored or explained.
107 In this composition, the Bible will always be intentionally otherwise referred to as the Christian Scripture(s),
because in the field of religion, “scripture” is a general term sometimes used to refer to a number of sacred religious
texts (e.g. also the Quran/Koran,the Hindu sacred text Bhagavad Gita).

Erickson, M. J. (1998b). God’s three-in-oneness: Three-in-oneness. In Christian theology. (2nd
ed., pp. 352-357). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
In this short subsection, Erickson supports God’s three-in-oneness. He admits
insufficient biblical founding for the Trinity exists, but continues to integrate the research of
many other scholars as he looks at specific verses testifying to God’s triune nature. Considering
the Hebrew ‘elohim, its usage to refer to the God of Israel is usually plural. Many conjectures
existing for why ‘elohim is often used in the plural, Erickson also brings in another scholar who
commented on the writing of the singular noun ‘adonai as plural. Analyzing Genesis 1:26; 11:7;
and Isaiah 6:8; both singular and plural nouns and verbs are mixed in reference to God.
Cross-referencing Genesis 2:24 with Deuteronomy 6:4, there is some evidence for God’s
multiplicity (i.e. having multiple components), but the connecting of God the Father, Jesus the
Son, and the Holy Spirit reflects much more clearly and explicitly in several New Testament
passages (e.g. Matthew 3:16-17; 12:28; 28:19; 2 Corinthians 1:21-22; 13:14; Luke 1:35; 24:49;
Acts 2:33, 38; Romans 15:16; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14). Moreover, in these and other verses, no
member of the Trinity is ever suggested to be less important or a servant of any of the others.
The relation of the three persons and their interactions are most solidly evidenced throughout the
Gospel of John, which speaks to the Father, Son, and Spirit’s oneness and intimate communion.
Erickson concludes this subsection by saying although God’s triune nature is not explicitly
indicated in Christian Scripture, the doctrine is consistent with the biblical witness and the
Church fathers were not out of line in constructing it.
Enjoying the extensive detail Erickson provides, the biggest surface-level challenge in
reviewing his conclusions was his implicit statement (in the beginning of his subsection) –
concurrent with the reality of the Christian Scriptures, that there is not abundant direct biblical

basis for the Trinity. I do not object his admission; however, with the emphasis I put on
Christian Scripture (i.e. above tradition, reason, and experience), I struggled to go forward under
the seeming leadership of our church fathers.108 Recognizing the inherent interpretation
possessed by any translation of the Bible from its original languages (and its proceeding
manuscripts), I appreciated Erickson’s return to Hebrew and Greek, citing other scholars as he
expounded upon the use of both singular and plural words for the God of Israel. Discussing the
frequent connection of the members of the Trinity throughout the New Testament, I found a few
of his conclusions to be too-far surmised; however, overall I concede with his observation of the
New Testament authors’ seeming awareness of relationship between the three persons. In
summation, I align myself with Erickson’s assertion concerning our church fathers’ veracity, his
exposition providing sufficient support for my belief in God’s one essence and three persons.
Fretheim, T. E. (1991). Exodus 34:1-8: A God gracious and merciful. In Interpretation: A Bible
commentary for teaching and preaching: Exodus. (pp. 301-302). Louisville, KY: John
Knox Press.
Segmenting Exodus into small sections for commentary, Fretheim begins by noting
Exodus 34:1-8 is the resolve to Israel’s apostasy, Israel’s apostasy having been detailed
throughout the preceding two chapters. God appears to Moses, and He demands Moses
duplicates the previous tablets (as replacements), thus demonstrating God’s continued
willingness to “covenant” with Israel (Fretheim, 1991, p. 301). Upon producing the tablets, God
passes in front of Moses, proclaims His name, Yahweh; and summates His character.
Interestingly, the “confessional statement” of Exodus 34:6-7 appears many times throughout the
Old Testament in various fashions (e.g. Numbers 14:18; Nehemiah 9:17; Psalm 103:8, 17; 145:8;
108 Erickson first and foremost uses Christian Scripture as his guiding light and appears to refer to it first before
tradition; however, it in general seems we must first refer to the statements of our church fathers, and then return to
the Bible.

Jeremiah 32:18-19; Deuteronomy 5:9-10; 1 Kings 3:6; Lamentations 3:32; Daniel 9:4), as well as
in various traditions and genres (Fretheim, 1991, p. 302). Clearly abstract, it comprises a
fundamental principle of who Israel’s God is, and it is meant to be interpreted as God continues
to act throughout history.
Cross-referencing Exodus 34:6-7 with 20:5 and 23:21, Fretheim highlights the phrase “
‘merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness’ ” is
added, and the message of “ ‘forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no
means clear the guilty’ ” is transplanted from the beginning to the end of the declaration
(Revised Standard Version as cited in Fretheim, 1991, p. 302). Therefore, wrath is not an
unceasing component of God’s character, but instead a situational response. Further, jealousy is
absent, and when it is returned in Exodus 34:14, it will not be linked explicitly with the judgment
of Israel. Moreover, reflecting God’s steadfast love, the conditional phrase “ ‘who love me and
keep my commandments’ ” is missing, thus stressing God’s mercy, forgiveness, patience, and
enduring love (as cited in Fretheim, 1991, p. 302). Finally, the comment regarding not
neglecting the penalty for the guilty recognizes the moral order from Exodus 20:5.
Seeking to adequately delineate God’s character, I came upon Exodus 34:6-7,109 and thus
utilized a commentary which gave further discussion of these verses. Fretheim gives
surprisingly much detail in such a short entry; and intriguingly, he gives significant room (over
half of the section) solely to discussing verses six and seven of Exodus 34:1-8. I appreciated his
mention of other biblical locations of this confessional statement, seeming to buttress the
confession’s authenticity and validity, and enjoyed his significant exposition with cross-
109 “And he passed in front of Moses,proclaiming, ‘The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow
to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands,and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and
sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the p arents
to the third and fourth generation’ ” (New International Version).

reference to other verses. Particularly interesting, his discussion of the movement of “ ‘forgiving
iniquity … clear the guilty’ ” in regards to Exodus 20:5 and 23:21 offered interesting support to
his discussion of God’s character (as cited in Fretheim, 1991, p. 302). Overall, he gave a
surprising amount of detail on just two verses of Christian Scripture, providing credible support
for my understanding of God’s character.
Migliore, D. (2004a). The meaning of revelation. In Faith seeking understanding: An
introduction to Christian theology. (2nd ed., pp. 20-43). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co.
According to Migliore, revelation is God’s priceless, generous sharing of his character
and purpose, and His involvement in creation, redemption, and consummation concentrated in
Jesus Christ through specific events which are confirmed and explained by Christian men and
women. Although God has been revealed through writing (the Bible) and the life of Jesus Christ,
He remains hidden: Paradoxically, His familiarity uncovers His greater mysteriousness. In
addition, God’s revelation points to “particular events and particular people through whom God
has communicated God’s identity and will” (Migliore, 2004a, p. 28). Moreover, God’s
revelation commands the receiver’s acceptance, understanding, and reaction as it is an event that
turns the receiver’s life upside-down because its message is so radical; “revelation becomes the
new interpretative focus for Christians’ understanding of God, the world, and ourselves”
(Migliore, 2004a, p. 29).
The Bible instructs and life experiences affirm general revelation of God in the created
order, human conscience, and the lives of people who do not possess the Mosaic law and have
not heard the Good News. Exploring perspectives on revelation, some consider general
revelation authoritative doctrine, others believe one draws nearer to revelation as he or she learn

from historical research about events, others describe it as “an inner feeling of communion with
God” which results in spiritual renewal, and still others view it as a subjective interaction with
God’s Word; a final group views it as a fresh understanding that results in transformative action
(Migliore, 2004a, p. 34). As for God’s self-disclosure, God’s revelation can be understood as his
self-disclosure via individual action that reflects a specific pattern, the Bible reveres God’s
freedom to do the unexpected, God’s revelation is typified by His promises and calls to
faithfulness, and God’s identity is shared chiefly via narrative. Finally, God graciously chose to
let humans be a significant part of the event of revelation, primarily through the person of Jesus
Christ. Despite the constraints and imperfections of Scripture and church proclamation, they are
both types of the Word of God and have important roles in sharing with humankind God’s self-
revelation.
Returning to this text after first reading it for a first-level theology course, I appreciate
Migliore’s ability to convey clearly and simply complex theological concepts. Paying special
attention to the first three sub-sections of this chapter, I especially applaud his expansive
definition of revelation, and affirm the centrality of Jesus Christ which he expresses for
revelation. Also, I enjoyed his emphasis on the transformational quality of revelation, as coming
to know the Lord should be life-changing. Above all, I appreciated the paradox he identifies
within God’s self-revelation, that the more we learn of God reveals more we do not know of
Him, and it is this reality that there is always more to know of God which I wanted to express in
my creed.

Rice, R. (1994). Biblical support for a new perspective. In The openness of God: A biblical
challenge to the traditional understanding of God. (pp. 11-58). Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press.
Rice first surveys the dominant view of Christianity, that God’s will is the driving force
of all that comes to pass, affirming God’s supreme goodness and power, complete knowledge,
transcendence, and total changelessness. Rice suggests the Open View of God, which is founded
upon firm beliefs regarding God’s love – love being His most important attribute – and that it
implies sensitivity and responsiveness, this view argues God’s interaction, and consequently His
knowledge, is organic, not idle. God’s Will is not the only ruling, humans’ choices and actions
also impact the world,110 and moreover, God and humanity each influence one another.
Furthermore, God becomes privy to things as they happen. Then questioning what a biblical
view of God is, Rice notes God is mostly described via metaphors, and some of these analogies
are more accurate than others. Finally, there are two lines of support for God’s interactivity:
affirmations of God's responsiveness, how He is affected in one way or another by things of the
world, and also there are statements which imply the free will of God’s creation (e.g. divine
cautions, covenants, calls to repentance).
Keeping the biblical portrayal of God’s love in mind, there is abundant biblical support
for God’s interactive nature: In the Old Testament God feels a wide range of human emotions,
He makes plans and sometimes changes His mind – human intercession can impact God’s
actions, God makes decisions and then acts. In the New Testament, God became flesh and came
to earth, Jesus was extremely human, committed to serve humanity and suffer with them instead
of “power over” them; God experiences deep emotions and reacts diversely to different
110 Human free will along with the reality that not all things that occur fall within God’s Will (i.e. desires) for His
world support the tenet that God does not act in His power without end.

happenings, and in Jesus’ death one can see how God interacts extensively with the world and
particularly human life (Rice, 1994, p. 40). Further, there are Bible passages that appear to
question God’s interactivity which actually support the open view of God. Most passages
regarding God’s changelessness speak to His changeless character, not His changeless existence;
the open view perceiving God as both “changeless and changeable” (Rice, 1994, p. 48). With
regards to prophecy, there are conditional prophecies which depend upon human action.
Concerning foreknowledge and predestination, God’s prediction of them did not ensure their
occurrence; things could have happened differently. Clearly, there is biblical backing for the
open view of God, that He is not distant and impersonal, but interacts with the world He created,
significantly involved out of His love for His people.
Originally approaching this text111 with a spirit of rejection, I surprisingly found I agreed
with a significant number of Rice’s points. I would conclude the Biblestudytools.com article and
Rice’s chapter, though not appearing so at first glance, actually share a number of beliefs.112 I
affirm that God interacts with His creation, as a lack of interplay would negate God’s personal
nature many affirm. Also, I appreciate Rice’s emphasis on God’s love. Yet, I cannot bend so far
to affirm God’s Will is not the final say – as I believe that reality would remove His
omnipotence, and also cannot concede God does not know of things until they occur, as that
claim sacrifices His omniscience; His diminished omnipotence and omniscience both stealing
His divinity. Yet desiring to remain true to Christian Scripture, the implicit theme of greatest
111 I want to comment on why I approached this text in the first place. Wrestling with the testament of Christian
Scripture, specifically Exodus 32:11-14 in seeming contradiction of Numbers 23:19, I was seeking to the answer the
question “Do God’s plans change?” or more critically, “Does God change His mind?” Coming upon an article
“Does God change His mind?” I found particularly revealing its mention of Jeremiah 18:5-12 and related comments.
This article not being a scholarly source but really appreciating its discussion ofthe question,I desired to find a
source that further expounded upon Jeremiah 18, and/or a source along the lines of the conclusions ofthe article. At
the same time; however, I had been challenged by our seminar professorto read texts and authors different from
what we are used to, sources that may diverge from what we agree with. Responding to this challenge, I discovered
gems in Rice’s chapterof The Openness of God I did not expect to find.
112 E.g. God is passable,God’s character is consistent,and God is eternal.

importance in Rice’s composition is God’s interactivity, as I believe God is alive and active in
the world today. I leave Rice’s chapter still endorsing God’s omnipotence and omniscience, but
leave some of his arguments to draw upon his affirmation of God’s interactivity with and love
for His people.
Wright, C. J. H. (2006). God’s model of redemption: The exodus; God’s model of restoration:
The jubilee. In The mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s grand narrative. (pp. 265-
323). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
In order to understand God’s mission and how believers can participate, Wright argues
Christians must comprehend the nature and scope of God’s redemptive work, which is
paradigmatically exemplified through the Exodus. To achieve this comprehension, believers
must understand the historical-cultural role of a redeemer, a go’el, who was entrusted and
obligated to protect and care for those of his extended family who were in need. Further, God’s
redemptive work is holistic, extending beyond spiritual redemption to also effect political,
economic and social deliverance. God is driven to redeem Israel by His knowledge of their
suffering, along with His remembrance of the promise He previously made to their ancestor,
Abraham. God’s redemptive work in all the world, past, present, and future, is not one-sided.
Instead, both evangelism (spiritual deliverance) and concern and work for social justice are
integral facets of God’s redemptive work.
Paradigmatic of God’s idea of restoration, Wright argues, the Jubilee, was not just
spiritual, but also had social and economic significance; possessing familial, theological, and
functional implications as well. It aimed to support the poor and protect the extended family unit.
Moreover, it was not a singular event, but pointed forward to God’s eventual restoration, which
Jesus inaugurated and the early church endeavored to practice. The New and Old Testaments

integral to one another, God’s mission is not limited to evangelism, and anchored in Jesus’ cross,
salvation isn’t solely individual nor just spiritual – it is comprehensive. Evangelism and social
action both being crucial, missions is not missions without proclaiming the Gospel.
Having read Wright’s work for a previous class, I wanted to return to it to specifically
draw from these two chapters which combined encapsulate God’s mission, past, present, and
future: to holistically redeem and restore His world. Acknowledging there are many more details
to complete redemption and restoration, I enjoyed Wright’s detailed and simultaneously clear
delineation of God’s plan for His world; which originates in Genesis and spans through
Revelation. Believing in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who desires us to give all of our
lives to Him, I know He also cares for every part of our lives. Seemingly fitting, the God who
created a perfect, multifaceted world that became comprehensively broken – its social, political,
economic, spiritual, and other facets being interdependent – desires to holistically redeem and
restore it. being convinced of redemption’s and restoration’s comprehensiveness by Wright, I
specifically wanted to reference Wright to summate God’s work.
Erickson, M. J. (1998c). Introduction to the work of Christ. In Christian theology. (2nd ed., pp.
779-797). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Introducing the work of Jesus, Erickson begins by establishing one must comprehend
Jesus’ person and nature to understand His work, and additionally that Jesus’ three “ ‘offices’
”113 (prophet, priest, and king) are indivisible (1998b, p. 781). For one, Jesus reveals the Father
and heavenly truth; understanding His prophetic commission, His revelatory ministry is
comparable to that of the Old Testament prophets in several ways. His prophetic office
113 Erickson briefly discussed problems related to the delineating of Jesus’work into offices; however, room here
does not allow for further explanation, as Erickson’s exploration of this dilemma does not directly support his
exposition on Jesus’work.

commenced with the Logos, continued through His earthly ministry and then the Church’s
revelatory ministry, and will culminate with His return. Jesus also rules over all creation (as
king), and in this function Erickson stresses the eternality of all three offices. Third, Jesus
reconciles humanity to God the Father; here Jesus expounds specifically upon Jesus’ intercessory
ministry relevant to His role as priest.114
Following the delineations of Jesus’ three main offices, Erickson explores two multi-step
“stages” of Jesus’ work: incarnation being the first step of His humiliation, Jesus gave up so
much when He became flesh, entering such a lowly state (1998c, p. 788). There are various
theories concerning His divine attributes (i.e. what happened to them) during His incarnation;
Erickson argues Jesus relinquished their “independent exercise” (1998c, p. 789). His death only
furthered His humiliation, and third was His descent into Hades, although Erickson asserts Jesus
did not descend into Hell, but only from Heaven down to earth. Proceeding His humiliation,
Jesus was exalted: First, in His resurrection He overcame death, and Erickson notes in this step
that Jesus body, in between His resurrection and ascension, was not fully transformed.115 In His
ascension, Jesus returned to “equality with God,” and thenceforth has a perfected humanity
(Erickson, 1998c, p. 796).116 Now seated at the Father’s right hand, Jesus is in a place of
distinction and power, and the earth now await Jesus’ second coming when His victory will be
complete.
Enjoying Erickson’s extensive detail and simultaneous accessibility to the layperson, his
introduction to Jesus work seemed very comprehensive, excluding any discussion of the
atonement. Although I understand he discusses this in the following three chapters, I think it
114 It appears Erickson does not mention the atonement in this section because the proceeding three chapters explore
atonement at great length.
115 The question of Jesus’resurrected body is another subject of inconclusive discussion today.
116 Discussing Jesus’ascension,Erickson also attends to specific reasons why Jesus had to leave earth and return to
the Father; however, room does not allow a discussion of these necessities.

would have been appropriate to at least briefly mention it here in his introduction. The
delineation of offices of prophet, priest, and king is one I vaguely remember from a previous
course; however, Erickson’s clear exposition helped significantly to fill in the gaps and questions
I had. Concerning Jesus’ incarnation, I particularly enjoyed Erickson’s discussion of what
happened to Jesus’ divine attributes, as this helped me further understand Jesus’ full divinity
while on earth. Although not creed-worthy, I would be willing to adopt Erickson’s view – if
only it could be biblically-buttressed – as it resolves some remaining issues I have with Jesus’
co-divinity and –humanity. Recalling Jesus’ prophetic, priestly, and kingly offices, Erickson’s
exposition helped me more fully understand this component of my creed.
Gonzáles, J. L. (1970). The council of Chalcedon. In A history of Christian thought: From the
beginnings to the council of Chalcedon. (Vol. 1, pp. 379-392). Nashville, TN: Abingdon
Press.
Discussing the Council of Chalcedon, Gonzáles gives a detailed but concise social-
political117 history of the eighteen years leading up to the Fourth Ecumenical Council. The
peace, or seeming pact, of A.D. 433 notwithstanding, Nestorius’s error of muddling Jesus’
divinity and humanity was condemned by the Alexandrians and even abandoned by Nestorian’s
Antiochene ally. Dioscorus, Cyril’s successor, desired to triumph over Nestorius and Antioch.
With this victory in mind, Dioscorus had Eutyches, a monk of Constantinople, a fourth player in
the argument, who opposed Nestorianism and rejected the 433 creed of two natures, condemned.
Despite his ardor, Rome countered Dioscorus in the council in Ephesus in 449, Pope Leo
117 Political not in the sense of vying nations or territories, but the opposing arguments of several bishops and other
church leaders preceding the Council of Chalcedon, who had power-related interests related to the differing
theological positions. These theology-related interests appearto, at least to an extent, have influenced each player’s
defense.

including his own position: “For as God is not changed by the showing of pity, so man is not
swallowed up by the dignity” (as cited in Gonzáles, 1970, p. 384).
The Alexandrines, the Antiochenes, and those of the West were all at this 449 council.
Dioscorus of Alexandria held the power, confirmed by the Emperor himself, and he desired
nothing to be added to or removed from the conclusions of Nicaea in 325 and Ephesus in 431. At
Ephesus, Eutyches who had been previously rejected was restored, the leaders of the Antiochene
position were removed, and the affirmation of Nestorius’s and his followers’ creeds was banned.
Yet Pope Leo opposed these movements, and after the death of the Emperor, bishops dethroned
by Dioscorus were reestablished, and many allegiances were transferred to Pope Leo directly
preceding the Council of Chalcedon. At this fourth council, the happenings of the 449 council
were reviewed, and many bishops repented of their previous allegiances, although Dioscorus
maintained his position and was consequently rejected. Due to regal pressure, a new confession
of faith was drafted, which states Christ is made known in two natures [which exist]118 without
confusion, without change, without division, without separation…” (Sellers119 as cited in
Gonzáles, 1970, pp. 390-391). Even today, the question is not entirely settled.
Approaching the simultaneous divinity and humanity facet of this creed concerning Jesus,
Gonzáles’s exposition led me to encounter how much was really involved in the formation of
this conclusion. I will admit that I unfoundedly assumed the early church councils were
relatively tranquil, respectful conversations of theologians with no ulterior motives to more fully
understanding Jesus Christ and His call. Not possessing great interest in history, I was pleasantly
surprised with my intrigue on this subject, learning of all that went into coming to a conclusion
such as that of the Council of Chalcedon. Having received a (rightfully) abbreviated history of
118 Brackets Gonzáles’s.
119 Gonzáles referenced Sellers as the translatorhe used.

the council’s proceedings and conclusion, I gleaned so much historical context from reading this
more detailed account, including the reality that there is still opposition to the conclusion today,
and was given ample support for my affirmation of Jesus Christ’s two co-operating, distinct
natures.
Grudem, W. (1994c). The person of Christ: A. the humanity of Christ. In Systematic theology:
An introduction to biblical doctrine. (pp. 529-543). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan
Publishing House.
Expounding upon Christ’s humanity, Grudem neatly addresses several of its components
and supporting sub-components. First, the virgin birth is crucial because it demonstrated
salvation needs to come from the Lord, enabled the unification of full deity and full humanity in
one person, and allowed for Jesus’ humanity without inherited sin (because Jesus did not have a
human [biological] father). Jesus’ human weaknesses and limitations also lend to His humanity:
He had a human body, and became tired and hungry like us, and He rose in a fully human body.
In addition, he grew in wisdom as He matured, and had a human soul and experienced emotions
(e.g. sorrow, astonishment). Also, those surrounding Jesus saw Him as solely human.
In addition, Jesus’ sinless existence buttresses His humanity, Grudem noting Jesus’
sinless existence is the one distinctive attribute of Jesus’ humanity in contrast to ours. Jesus was
strongly tempted, yet persevered. The question is then raised, could Jesus have sinned? Brining
up James 1:13 which leads to the questioning of whether Jesus was truly ever tempted, Grudem
concludes Jesus could not have sinned (because of His united divinity and humanity), and
somewhat contradictorily, that He was truly tempted in His human nature. Next to last, the
question of why Jesus’ full humanity was necessary is answered: for representative obedience, to
be a alternate sacrifice, to be God and man’s mediator, to assume God’s intention of man ruling

creation, to be humanity’s model for living, to exemplify Christians’ redeemed bodies, and to
“sympathize” as their high priest (Grudem, 1994c, p. 542). Finally, Jesus’ divine nature will be
united with His human nature forever.
Although I have always affirmed Jesus Christ’s humanity, Grudem’s extensive work on
this topic put flesh on this vague understanding. As for his note on the virgin birth, I do not
disagree with its being a component of Jesus’ humanity; however, I do not find it as
theologically significant in the argument for Jesus’ humanity as Grudem appears to. One
component I struggled with in Grudem’s exposition was his point that Jesus had a human mind:
quoting Luke 2:52, Jesus “increased in wisdom” (New Revised Standard Version). Since I
believe God is omniscient, I struggle to reconcile my understanding with the testimony of Luke
2:52. As for Grudem’s assertion that people surrounding Jesus saw Him as solely human, I am
not certain if I agree on this point, and I do not know how important this point is in proving
Jesus’ full humanity. The point that was most helpful for me was Grudem’s support of Jesus’
eternal humanity, as I have been penning my creed regarding Jesus’ humanity, I always seem to
stumble over whether to use present or past tense. Even though I do not agree with Grudem on
all of his points, I do affirm his systematic theology was extremely useful in detailing my creed
of Jesus’ humanity.
Knitter, P. F. (2002). Total replacement. In Introducing theologies of religions. (pp. 19-32).
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Introducing the first of two variations of the replacement model of a theology of
religions, Total Replacement, a majority view amongst Christians today (comprise forty percent
of the U.S. population), states “Christianity is meant to replace all other religions” (Knitter,
2002, p. 19). Characteristically endorsed by Fundamental or Evangelical Christians, Knitter

delineates four sub-sects in the same general family: Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, New
Evangelicals, and Pentecostals or Charismatics. Despite differing views, these four sects all
unite on their unwavering devotion to biblical teachings, espousing belief in Jesus must influence
the way one lives, focusing on Jesus who “makes all the difference,” and committing to sharing
their hope (Knitter, 2002, p. 22). The most impactful theologian for this model is Karl Barth.
Very basically, the message of the Good News is that humans are saved solely by god’s grace,
solely by trust, specifically faith in Jesus Christ, and solely by Christian Scripture, in that the
Bible reveals Jesus to us.
Barth also affirmed that all religions, including Christianity, are “unbelief,” because they
are man’s attempts to do God’s work; religions get in the way of God (as cited in Knitter, 2002,
p. 25). Paradoxically, Barth also claims Christianity is the only true religion, because it
recognizes it is a false religion, and further that Jesus Christ saves it. For this model, it is the
Bible, and more specifically the New Testament as it reveals the truth of Jesus Christ, which is
an essential facet of Christianity, affirming Jesus’ work of salvation and other people’s inability
to save, how humanity is utterly lost without Jesus, and the need for someone to hear and believe
the Gospel in order to be saved. Wrapping up the chapter, Knitter shares how this model which
affirms there is only one way to salvation (Jesus) is only logical: Considering the world’s
multifaceted brokenness, this view would support that humanity needs a diverse unity, and
therefore, “if there is a God, this God would provide the one criterion of truth, the one center of
unity that can connect, and then hold people together”: Jesus (Knitter, 2002, p. 31).
Although I do not wholly agree with this model, it is where I feel most at home. The
model’s location of principal authority upon the Bible and its faithfulness to the Christian
Scripture particularly resonated with me. Also, I delighted in its offering of a decisive,

comprehensive, transformational response to the world’s brokenness. Conversely, Barth’s
discussion of Christianity as not a religion leaves confusion in how to designate faith in Jesus. It
is also problematic because interreligious dialogue always has an inherent ulterior motive, or at
least an inalienable hope: the other’s conversion. Despite the challenges it poses, I would align
myself with this model, affirming Jesus as the unique Savior.
Martin, R. P. (1986). 2 Corinthians: 2 Corinthians 5:10. In Word biblical commentary. (Vol. 40,
pp. 114-116). Waco, TX: Word Books.
Expounding solely upon 2 Corinthians 5:10, Martin suggests Paul arrives at the end of
the “ ‘digression’ ” of 2 Corinthians 4:7-5:10, presenting the Corinthian believers with a
motivation for God-honoring comportment (1986, p. 114). Though Christians’ futures (i.e.
salvations) are unassailable, he cautions his readers against false security. Scrutinizing word
choice, Martin concludes the phrase “ ‘for all of us’ ” indicates all Christians will be judged; this
judgment is done by God through Christ (as cited in Martin, 1986, p. 114)120. The question then
arises: Is this judgment universal, or only of Christians? Drawing upon other theologians’ work,
it is inferred there is a judgment “intended for Christians,” as Jesus’ court is necessary to fulfill
God’s justice – both regarding holiness and impartiality (Martin, 1986, p. 114).
The phrase “each one” evidences God’s judgment is universal. Further, each individual
is judged one-by-one, not “en masse” (Martin, 1986, p. 115). Continuing on, the Christian will
receive remuneration for his or her words and actions. Further, supported by the phrase
“whether good or bad,” “the Christian’s behavior is viewed by Christ as a unity, and not as a
concatenation of individual acts” (Martin, 1986, p. 115). Interestingly, Martin adds the note that
individuals’ recompense for their words and actions is not just penal, as those who do good will
120 The editor of Word Biblical Commentary notes their commentators (authors) were asked to complete and work
from their own translation of the original biblical text; thus,Martin denotes no specific version of the Bible.

receive good; this can be buttressed by 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. Finally, it is not clear whether this
judgment will occur at death, or at the Parousia; it is only clear it comes soon after one’s
appearance before Jesus.
Not having a clear understanding of the concept and event of judgment, I wanted to draw
from a text specifically focused on 2 Corinthians 5:10. Choosing this commentary, I appreciated
its in-depth exploration of the original Greek text, as it explains the Greek vocabulary almost
word-by-word. In the middle of this section, I enjoyed his statement that “The life of faith does
not free the Christian from the life of obedience” mentioning several theologians to support this
position (Martin, 1986, p. 114). I found especially helpful Martin’s clarification that Jesus will
judge our lives as a whole, not act-by-act; however, I wish he gave specific Christian Scripture to
buttress this conclusion. Martin’s exposition on 2 Corinthians 5:10 confirmed the answer of a
number of questions I had, or probably more accurately, did not like the answers to, allowing me
to affirm Jesus’ role as judge.
Ryrie, C. C. (1987). The person of Christ incarnate. In Basic theology. (pp. 247-253). Wheaton,
IL: Victor Books.
Working off of the Chalcedon Creed, Ryrie identifies Jesus’ “full Deity,” His “perfect
humanity” and that He is one person forever; expounding upon each of these components of
Christ incarnate (Ryrie, 1987, p. 247).121 Supporting Jesus’ deity, Jesus has qualities only God
possesses – eternality, omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, and immutability122 – and He
does thing only God can do: forgives sins forever, grants spiritual life, will resurrect the dead,
121 Note: Page numbers here and for all subsequent quotations are estimations, because when I went to access
Ryrie’s work to note the page numbers, the source was taken out past the due date of this assignment. That was my
fault for not checking for the source until the day before this assignment was due, which was mainly a fault of
memory to do so.
122 Ryrie notes that eternality, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence are all attributes claimed by Him,
whereas immutability was an attribute claimed for Him by others (cf. Hebrews 13:5).

and will judge all. In addition, titles of Deity were ascribed to Him, which equated Jesus to God
the Father: Son of God, Yahweh, God, Lord, King of kings, and Lord of Lords; likewise, He
claimed Deity. Affirming Jesus’ perfect humanity, Ryrie delineates Jesus had a human body,123
soul, and spirit; and manifested truly human characteristics (e.g. hunger, thirst, emotions,
testing). He also was given human addresses, namely Son of man and Son of David, along with
Paul’s reference to Him as a man.
Then exploring the union of Jesus’ deity and humanity, Ryrie distinguishes the terms
nature and substance, desiring to not regard Jesus as two persons, and goes on to explain how
Jesus’ two natures are united yet do not amalgamate, are undivided and inseparable; and the
divine and human attributes not transferring from one nature to the other. Ryrie also asserts
Christ incarnate was aware of His co-divinity and humanity, as well as asserts He had two
wills.124 To close this chapter, Ryrie briefly covers the early history of the doctrine of Christ
incarnate: First century Docetists affirmed Jesus’ divinity but claimed Jesus only appeared to be
human, whereas second century Ebonites and fourth century Arians affirmed Jesus’ humanity
but denied aspects of Jesus’ divinity. Fourth century Apollinarians affirmed Jesus divinity yet
stated “divine Logos” replaced Jesus’ human spirit (Ryrie, 1987, p. 253). Fifth century
Nestorians believed Jesus was two persons, while fifth century Eutychians asserted Jesus was a
single mixed nature; Orthodoxy states Jesus is one person with full divinity and perfect
humanity.
123 Citing Acts 1:11 and Revelation 5:6, Ryrie asserts Jesus continues to have a human body, despite His
resurrection, eternally. This comment was extremely insightful.
124 Vaguely coming to a conclusion, Ryrie says,“if will is defined as a ‘behavior complex’ …, then our Lord may be
said to have had a divine behavior pattern and a perfect human one as well; hence two wills. If will is defined as the
resulting moral decision …, then the person of Christ always made only one moral decision; hence one will” (Ryrie,
1987, p. 252). However, it seems to me that every single decision stemmed from either the will” of His divine
nature or the will of His human nature or a blending of both,making it proper to think of two wills. It appears you
can sway either way on this point.

One specific aspect of Ryrie’s work I appreciated was his substantial use of Christian
Scripture whenever possible. I also laud Ryrie’s very clear presentation of material, as he
utilizes several titles and subtitles to guide the reader through his explorations of various
doctrines. His closing discussion of the history of the doctrine of Christ incarnate was especially
helpful as it summarizes the message of Justo Gonzáles’s section on the Chalcedon Creed much
more succinctly.125 Not an exhaustive systematic theology, I would critique126 he could have
added further evidence for Jesus’ divinity. Considering Ryrie’s chapter overall, I would
recommend it to other students as it is a very accessible and biblically-grounded guide to
Christian doctrine, substantially supporting my affirmation of Jesus’ divinity.
Erickson, M. J. (1998d). The work of the Holy Spirit. In Christian theology. (2nd ed., pp. 880-
898). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Introducing the work of the Holy Spirit, Erickson shares, “… it is particularly through
[the Holy Spirit’s] work that God is personally involved in active in the life of the believer”
(1998d, p. 881). First illuminating the Holy Spirit’s work in the Old Testament, he discusses
how reference to the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament is often unclear. Yet the Holy Spirit is
active in creation – past, present, and future; in prophecy and inspiring the writing of the Bible,
and in giving specific, necessary skills and abilities. The Spirit was present in Israel’s spiritual
life (e.g. Ezra, David, Isaiah), and in these references the Spirit’s holiness and goodness are
emphasized. The Spirit’s presence is then explored in the life of Jesus: Involved before the
incarnation, John’s proclamation of Jesus ministry displayed the Holy Spirit’s place, and it is not
insignificant that Jesus is tempted immediately following His filling with the Spirit. Jesus’
125 I understand Gonzáles and Ryrie had different purposes in their writings; I am solely affirming Ryrie shared the
points I wanted to cover much more concisely, as well as understandably.
126 This comment comes only from encountering much more detailed systematic theologies.

ministry was guided and empowered by the Spirit, and throughout His life, Jesus’ use of the
Holy Spirit’s presence increased.
Then expounding upon the work of the Holy Spirit in the Christian’s life, the Spirit is
active in repentance and acceptance of Jesus and their transformation and acquirement of
spiritual vigor. The Spirit strengthens believers in their work for God, fills and enlightens
believers (e.g. to truth, understanding of the Bible), intercedes for believers, and sanctifies
believers. Having life in the Spirit, believers receive the fruit of the Spirit, as well as certain
gifts, these gifts’ character and use Erickson then discusses. There is then an expanded
discussion of the miraculous gifts, and Erickson concludes indecisively whether today’s
charismas are of the Holy Spirit, considering the fruit of the Spirit more important and reminding
readers that the biblical emphasis regarding spiritual gifts is not on those who receive the gifts,
but who gives them. Erickson finishes the chapter with implications of this theology: Spiritual
gifts are not of believers’ own doing, personal flaws should not hinder Christians in their service
to Christ, the fellowship of believers is essential for the individual spiritual growth, the Holy
Spirit will instruct us, and one should pray to the Holy Spirit just as he or she does the Father and
the Son.
Once again, I appreciated Erickson’s organized and understandable presentation of
doctrine. Of particular intrigue was his focus on the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of Jesus,
and also the space he devoted to discussing miraculous gifts (speaking in tongues, faith healing,
and exorcism of demons). To speak on the latter, I found it interesting that he saw it adequate to
apply his conclusions regarding glossolalia to the other miraculous gifts, and announcing this
conversation (about glossolalia), his discussion was not very focused, but instead mentioned
baptism and general reference to the charismas; he did not really focus on speaking in tongues

like he directed he would. Finally, being a common sense learner, I really appreciated his
implication section at the end. Although his discussion about miraculous gifts was weak, I
generally gained from his exploration of the work of the Spirit. I incorporated this chapter of
Erickson’s work because of his attention to the role of the Holy Spirit in conversion, which no
other sources I consulted affirmed.127
Marshall, M. T. (2003). Joining the dance: A theology of the Spirit. Valley Forge, PA: Judson
Press.
Focusing one chapter128 on the Holy Spirit’s action of vivification, the Holy Spirit is the
“powerful life force” of God, enabling and sustaining life (Marshal, 2003, p. 20). It is
omnipresent, and It demonstrates humanity’s intimacy with God, as God has shared His very
breath with us, and also allows believers to take part in the relationship within the Godhead. In
addition, all of creation is said to move toward God’s purposes as it dances within God’s Spirit,
and believers’ spirits are thus aligned with God’s. Inspiration originates from the Spirit, the
Spirit is the source of beauty, and the Spirit reveals how God works in the world. Also
expounding upon the act of transformation, It is the “mode” of God’s presence, and allows a
believer to become authentic like Jesus (Marshal, 2003, p. 102). Finally, the Spirit facilitates
lifelong transformation as It works to make believers “both fully God’s and fully ourselves”
(Marshall, 2003, p. 109).
Marshal also explores the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church and some of the
sacraments: An agent of reconciliation, the Spirit unites believers, thus assembling what the
Church is. The Spirit, though baptism, also joins Christians to Jesus’ birth, death, and
resurrection. During Communion, the Spirit aides those who partake in It to recognize Jesus in
127 The other sources did not deny the Spirit’s role in conversion,but did not mention Its role in conversion at all.
128 I drew from three different chapters of Marshall’s work, and thus share the insights from all three in this
annotated bibliography.

their presence and draws them to Him, as well as enables them to encounter one another in
communion. Moreover, the Holy Spirit helps believers distinguish their worldly hunger from
their true hunger – belonging, welcoming, intimacy; and nourishes them, and also gives them
hunger for communion with God and others, as well as “calls the thirsty to the well of worship”
(Marshall, 2003, p. 90). Gathering believers together, the Spirit conveys the prayer of the church
to God, and Its power also beseeches Christians to pray, uniting them to the corporate prayer of
the church.
I was initially drawn to this book because of the metaphor of dance used to give
understanding about the Holy Spirit. Written by a professor of theology, I was delightfully
surprised by the texts withstanding accessibility, explaining the author’s theology in a way that
the average human being would understand. One specific question I have of Marshal concerns
the meaning behind her statement that the Holy Spirit works to make us completely God’s and
entirely ourselves. Reflecting the taint of individualism and possibly unfettered freedom, what
does it specifically mean that the Spirit is working to make us fully ourselves? Is the implication
that the Holy Spirit is aiding the process of our coming to be who God made us to be? All in all,
her work seemed pretty consistently aligned with the biblical metanarrative; however, I would
delight in seeing more direct references to Christian Scripture. Marshall’s work helped me to put
words to some of my beliefs regarding the Holy Spirit.

St. Basil the Great. (1980). Against those who say that the Holy Spirit must not be numbered
with the Father and the Son, but under them. A summary of the correct way of numbering
them together; How belief in three persons upholds the true doctrine of divine unity.
Against those who subordinate the Spirit. In On the Holy Spirit. (pp. 68-75). Crestwood,
NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
St. Basil the Great wrote near the close of the Trinitarian controversies of the A.D. 300s.
Speaking-out against many things, he vehemently condemned others’ subnumeration of any
member of the Trinity under another, especially the subordination of the Holy Spirit: To
subordinate the Son was to diminish His dignity, and to subnumerate the Spirit was to neglect
Jesus’ instruction that a believer should be baptized in “ ‘the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit’ ” (Matthew 28:19 as cited in St. Basil the Great, 1980, p. 70).129 Neither
the Son’s or the Holy Spirit’s nature can be altered by numbering them, and because God the
Father said “ ‘I am the first and I am the last,’ ” neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit can become a
second God (Isaiah 44:6 as cited in St. Basil the Great, 1980, p. 72).130
Furthermore, in His three persons, neither God’s power nor God’s glory are separated.
The Holy Spirit being identified as singular, the Holy Spirit also has great intimacy with the
Father and the Son, and reflecting this intimacy, the Holy Spirit is a personal being. In addition,
because the Holy Spirit comes from God’s mouth, He is an equal member of the Trinity. Also,
since the Holy Spirit is concurrently the Spirit of Christ, only the Spirit can properly glorify God.
The Spirit is truth, and thus can reveal Christ and His glory, and God’s power and wisdom. All
of this is to say there exists no subordinate member of the Trinity.
129 No translation is noted since St. Basil would have been utilizing the Bible prior to modern translations (versions,
e.g. King James Version, Revised Standard Version).
130 No translation is noted since St. Basil would have been utilizing the Bible prior to modern translations (versions,
e.g. King James Version, Revised Standard Version).

Affirming the equality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son (in the sense of not
positioning one above another), St. Basil’s reflections were quite a buttress to this conviction. In
the few sections I read of this work, St. Basil was, at times, very long-winded, stating and
restating the same point; however, St. Basil’s seemingly conversational writing style seemed to
simplify the complex theological issue he wrestled with. Most of what was said in this section
supported his affirmation of the Spirit’s equal status with the Father and the Son; however, I
found points about the Spirit’s intimacy with the Father and the Son, and especially the
comments on the Spirit revealing Christ’s glory and God’s power and wisdom as irrelevant, or at
least not fluidly within his argument for the Spirit’s divine status. Nonetheless, my limited
historical knowledge was once again broadened, being able to discern between the lines
historically extant views which opposed St. Basil’s assertions. His argument against the Holy
Spirit’s subnumeration provided sufficient buttress for my belief in the Holy Spirit’s divinity and
equality (in status) with the Father and the Son.
Williams, J. R. (1990). The Holy Spirit. In Renewal Theology: Salvation, the Holy Spirit, and
Christian Living. (Vol. 2). Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books.
Elucidating the Holy Spirit, Williams starts by exploring the three words of Its name,
affirming the Spirit’s immateriality, His sacredness, and His singularity. Reviewing other names
for the Holy Spirit in the New and Old Testaments, the names the Spirit, the Spirit of God, the
Spirit of Christ, his Holy Spirit, and the Spirit of the Lord, all signify the Holy Spirit. The Holy
Spirit also is ascribed different titles: the Spirit of Truth, as He is the source of spiritual truth; the
Spirit of Holiness, as He makes believers holy and resurrects them from the dead; the Spirit of
Life, as He frees believers from sin, death, and the law; the Spirit of Adoption, as He certifies
believers’ adoption into God’s family and thus enables humanity to address God the Father

personally; the Spirit of Grace, as He makes available all Jesus did to bring about believers’
salvation, which “is wholly a matter of grace;” the Spirit of Glory, as He places God’s glory
upon believers, and the Eternal Spirit, as He has no beginning nor end (Williams, 1990, p. 143).
There are also symbols to aid humans in further understanding the Holy Spirit: He is wind, fire,
water, a dove, a seal, and oil. Finally, the Holy Spirit by nature is God: He is omnipresent,
omniscient, and omnipotent, and He is God in action; He is a person who has intelligence, a will,
and feelings; He personally relates to Jesus and to believers, and was sent from God the Father
through Jesus the Son, yet is concurrently God.
Drawing from several proceeding sections of William’s work,131 the Holy Spirit enables
individuals to supernaturally fulfill a specific vocation or task with his or her natural abilities;
this enablement is normally temporary. Additionally, the Spirit’s enablement appears to often be
associated with the Body of believers. Answering the question of the mission of the Holy Spirit,
He comes first and foremost to “guide His disciples into all the [spiritual] truth” and this
direction is not just a single event, but reflects continual teaching (Williams, 1990, p. 237). In
addition, He comes in order to bestow power for ministry: He enables believers to efficaciously
witness for Jesus, to perform “mighty works,” including but not limited to healing and
deliverance (Williams, 1990, p. 250). Third, He comes to certify, to convey God’s “acceptance
and approval of His people,” including Jesus Christ (Williams, 1990, p. 250). In addition, the
Holy Spirit makes real to believers God’s presence, bestows a fullness of joy, emboldens their
words and actions, intensifies the fellowship of believers, and perpetuates God’s praise.
Recently reading about the Christian Pentecostal/Charismatic Tradition and long
commending this tradition for their seemingly further understanding of the Holy Spirit, I wanted
131 Like with Marshall’s work, I pulled from several sections in Williams’ work, mainly focusing on one chapter, but
also drawing insights from a few othersections.

to respond to the challenge to read theologians and traditions different than my own. Renewal
Theology not familiar to me, I struggled to understand parts of William’s exposition, the symbols
of God such as fire and water being particularly unclear (i.e. in what they signify or mean for us
today). Also, it seemed as if some of Renewal Theology’s conclusions according to Williams
are somewhat far-fetched, in the sense that they seem to not oppose, but significantly diverge
(i.e. trail-off) from the biblical witness; however, I admit that many conclusions of Protestantism
can be said to do the same. Overall, William’s work was deeply insightful, and I would be
interested in reading it in its entirety as I continue to grow in my understanding of the Holy
Spirit, Williams providing substantial support for multiple components of my Pneumatology
creed.
The Sin and Brokenness of Humanity
Erickson, M. J. (1992). 21. The results of sin. In Introducing Christian theology. (L. A. Hustad,
Ed., pp. 185-193). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
Discussing sin’s ramifications, Erickson begins by stating how sin radically changes
humanity’s relationship with God: Sin sets humans in opposition to God because by hating the
sin, the sinner cannot receive God’s favor. Dishonoring and disobeying God by failing to interact
with Him as humanity ought and violating His commands, humans become blameworthy.
Further, their offenses necessitate their punishment. In addition, sin results in death – physically
(because Adam and Eve were conditionally immortal132 prior to their rebellion), spiritually (sin
separates humanity from God), and eternally (i.e. everlasting punishment).
Furthermore, sin affects the sinner in a multifaceted way: Sin shackles sinners to sin and
moves the sinner to refute sin itself. It is driven by self-deception and leads the sinner to deny all
132 Erickson argues, “[Adam] was not inherently able to live forever, but he need not have died. Given the right
conditions,he could have lived on forever” (1992, p. 190).

Final Copy

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Final Copy

Similar to Final Copy (20)

Final Copy