Now, after reading through the chapter, I guess what I can say is, “I understand the doctrine.”  I won’t necessary understand or fully know how the parts of the Trinity fits together and that’s because part of the doctrine is that this idea of the Trinity is “something far removed from our human experiences.” 

So how do we know about the Trinity to even recognize it?  That part seems easy – we know because the Bible tells us so.  The Bible tells us the three main parts of the doctrine.  The Bible tells about God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and how they relate to each other – the three distinct persons.  The Bible also tells how these three persons have all the attributes of deity – all three persons are fully God.  But here is where it can get difficult for many – the Bile tells us that there is only one God.

How’s that possible?  It’s a reasonable question since that’s not possible in our natural, human existence – to be three, but yet one.  But obviously God is super-natural and NOT human.  And that takes me back to doctrine I learned in Chapter 5 and be reminded that I can’t fully understabd even just single attributes about God – how is He everywhere and know everything all at the same time?  These question are reasonable (or unreasonable – however you want to look at it) because going back to Chapter 4 we know “we can never fully understand God.”  But I can rest and find comfort and solice in the other doctrine that says, “what we we know about God is true.”  Again, we can’t know God fully, but what we do know about Him is true.

I can’t come close to the clarity in the way Grudem puts it without plagerism and that’s why this has been such a good read and learning experience.  Grudem has a way to explaining it and, more importantly, with clear references to the Bible to support the doctrine.  But for the purpose and exercise of putting it in my own words for my greater understanding (not yours), I’ll try to sum up the chapter lesson.

The concept of the Trinity is taught in the Bible as early as Genesis.  Though the Old Testament implies plurality of God’s persons, it is not until the New Testamant it explicit calls out God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.  We see clearly in the New Testamant how each of these persons relate to one another - as clear as it can be in the baptism of Jesus.  It’s hardly questionable whether Jesus and the Holy Spirit has deity attributes – for example, you can only be baptised in the name of all three – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  But some doubt or question if Jesus and the Holy Spirit is actually God.  Yet John says “In the beginning the Word was with God … the Word was God … He was with God … And the Word became flesh.”  And in Acts, Peter says, “Why has Satan filled your hearts to lie to the Holy Spirit … You have not lied to men, but to God.”  The Bible clearly refers to Jesus as God and the Holy Spirit as God.

Some theologians have tried to reconcile these three parts of the Trinity doctrine – God is in three persons; each persons is fully God; and there is only one God.  It’s probably arrogant to think we can fully understand this and be able to explain it in based and limited by our human experiences.  Even Grudem admits he explanation or analogies or illustration fall short and are inperfect.  And in the chapter, Grudem tells about how other religions’ attempts have led them to deny one of the three in their effort to make [human] sense of it all.  And it seems clear that to deny any part of the Trinity Doctrine is to deny Biblical truths.

Personally, I get it (no, not really).  But this is what I get.  For one, three persons really mean how the members relate with each other and how they relate to creation.  This is where the term “economic subordnation” come in.  No, it’s not about money, rather about order and the different roles.  Just like there’s order in a family, there’s also order in the Trinity.  But the word “subordnation” should be mistaken for “subordinationism,” which might imply one member is inferior than the other – they are all equal.  That’s where the term “ontological equality” comes in – the members are equal in importance and being.  This idea isn’t hard to understand when you bring it back to family life.  In Christain homes, the husband (or father) is the head and wifes submits to the husband.  The Bible teaches this and it is not negative.  Some might say, “well that all fine and dandy for men, but it sounds like it sucks for the wives.”  Out of context, it does, but then reconcile that with the fact the Bible also says, “men love your wives like Christ loved the church.”  And then think about how Christ died for the church – “men you need to love your wife to the point you’d be willing to die for them.”  If men were suppose to be superior to wifes, why are they essentially told die for them?  It’s really not the kind of subordination you normally think of when it comes to other application like the military – generals don’t usually die for the their soldiers.  It’s about order and different roles, but equal in their being.

Here’s a closing thought after having completed now one fifth of this study.  I’m starting to recognize and use the building blocks I already within the first 5 chapters.  It’s starting to feel like geometry.  It’s wierd to say that and I’m cautious not to make outragous analogies, so I apologize in advance.  Do you remember theorem and postulates in geometry?  In Geometry you can deduce/derive a truth by combining theorems or geometrical truths.  If you’re told one or two things about a geometric shape, you can combine that with a theorem to derive another fact about that shape.  This thought came to me during this study.  For example, some beliefs contend that Jesus was created by God.  He might be the first to be created even before the rest of creation, but nonetheless created.  Some who believe the Trinity might be able to make this fit, but when you couple that with the doctrine that God is eternal – He was, is and always will be unchanging – then that mean God has always been in three persons so the same goes for Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

The Bible is God’s Words and is true and without error, so everything it tells about God is true and without error.  This we know.  The things the Bible say about God’s love, power, and wisdom is what we can know for sure, but what we also know from Scripture is we can never know all there is to know about them. David writes about these facts – “Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, and his greatness is unsearchable.” (Psalm 145:3), “Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure.” (Psalm 147:5), “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain it.” (Psalm 139:6).

Personal Reflection:  I’m now just barely scratching the surface of the Bible and beginning to understand these various doctrines.  I may at some point get frustrated because I will not or cannot know everything.  It’s already been said that Bible leaves certain things a mystery and that God chose some things to be a “secret” from us.  While this can be a source of frustration, I realize how it can also be a source of hope.  Grudem points out Paul’s rejoices after explaining the same idea to the gentiles in Roman 11:33.  This verse reminds that I too should be in awe and wonder in God’s wisdom, power and love.  It wouldn’t be such a marvelous thing if it were something that I could fully comprehend.  I think it’s part of our sinful nature to reject something we can not understand and I its a struggle every day to accept God and His will.

It’s one thing to know that God exists or to know of him.  But it’s quite another to say I know God. Here Grudem distinguishes the difference between fact knowledge and intimate knowledge (my terms not Grudem’s).  For example, it’s one thing for me to say I know about the President of the United States, like his age, his height, his family, or even his politics – the facts.  But for me to say I know Barack would be to imply much more.  While we can’t know everything about God, we’re can have a relationship with God.  In several passages in the Bible, the term “know You”, “know Him”, “know the Father”, etc, are used to imply we can and encouraged to have a relationship and know God.

Personal Reflection: This past week my discussion with Josh led us into how we share the Gospel.  The topic of “faith by hearing” prompted the conversation.  So often I think of sharing the Gospel or the idea of evangelizing like this great big presentation I have to make.  It’s no wonder that I’m stricken with anxiety whenever I think of it or when the opportunity presents itself.  I feel like I’m constantly trying to formalize or even formulate a deliver of the Good News.  It’s as if I’m trying to develop or remember a checklist.  I can get so hung up on trying to awe and woo people with an amazing story that I almost often fumble the opportunity or just fail to take it.  This point that Grudem makes about knowing God goes directly to what Josh shared with me.  Sometimes, the best testimony is one that simply talks about a relationship.  Josh said someone once explained it to him this way.  Think about when you talk about your family with other people.  Think about when you pull out that picture of your kid from your wallet.  We hardly ever stop at sharing their age, rather we continue to share about some more intimate things like, “He’s so funny… he said this to me last week.”  If I’m living by faith, if I am accepting Christ every day, then I would not only believe I have this relationship, but I will know I have this relationship and it would become just as real as the relationship I have with my wife and kids.  And so if I’m really sharing my faith with other, it should sound more like this than just a “fact-sheet” about God.

Prayer:  “Lord Jesus, help today and the days to come to actively die to myself.  Lord I’ve been the knowledge that I’m dead to sin and alive with you.  Help me live out that knowledge every day so that I would be right with you and your Spirit be with me.”

Grudem explains to answer the first would require an in depth study of apologetics, but gives to primary reasons for knowing God exists.  First, as humans we have an inner sense of God’s existence.  The wonders of His creation around us make is plain to see (Roman 1:19).

Personal Reflection:  I struggled with this verse.  It seemed harsh.  How can someone who’s never heard of the one God be condemned?  As I’ve said, I might have a sense by what I can see that there is a god, but if I live among the tribal people in the Amazon I wouldn’t know of God – the one God.  But as I peered into these versus in the Bible study, I think I start to understand.  The sense we get from what we can see around us goes with the inner sense of moral standard we all have inherent within us – the inherent sense of right from wrong.  Even without being explained the Christian doctrine of God, this sense we have is God.  Having this sense, “they knew God.”  When I think of it this way, it makes sense for me for those who has literally never heard of God.  Paul says, “they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks.”  In other words, they chose to ignore him – they chose to ignore their conscience.

The verse in Romans continues to explain what results from denying truth – “…they instead became utter fools” (1:22).  And Grudem references Psalm 14:1, 53:1, and 10:3-4 to explain how this foolishness leads them to irrational thinking.

Personal Reflection:  Wow… and that’s when it hit me!  I wondered how many of those who have said, “There is no god,” also said, “Why is this happening to me?”  You know?  When things aren’t going well – “Why is this happening to me?”  The question implies and acknowledges that there’s a reason.  Are they really needing someone to explain the events that led up to their situation when they ask that question?  I don’t think so.  The natural out burst may be a cliche, but I think there’s a reason why it’s become a cliche.  And it’s got to be this inherent, inner sense that there’s a Creator in control of things and has a plan and a reason for the things in our lives.

Secondly, Scripture tells us God exist.  In the previous chapter, Grudem makes it clear that the doctrine of the necessity of the Bible is not to prove God exists, but nonetheless, the Bible assumes God exists.  The very first passages of the Bible tells about what God created – heaven and the earth.  So without Scripture, you know God by your inner sense.  With Scripture, you have very clear evidence and explanation.  Paul and Barnabas explains God’s provisions in his nature to the people in Lystra in Act 14:17.  And again, with the evidence in creation, David claims the same thing in Psalm 19:1-2.  Grudem ends his point with this, “Their rejection of the evidence does not mean that the evidence is invalid in itself, only that those who reject the evidence are evaluating it wrongly.”  Better yet, Grudem explains that the characteristic of true faith is the confidence not only in God’s word, but also in God’s work.

Personal Reflection:  Again wow!  I’ve heard my wife say about me a long, long time ago when we first met that I have a child-like faith.  And I know exactly what she meant – “I believed in God because the Bible tells me so.”  Or more accurately, “I believe in the God because someone I trust and respect told me so.”  Isn’t that what I said before?  I suppose “true-faith” is this confidence in knowing, not just believing. Knowing because I have acknowledged the (per Grudem) “overwhelming amount of reliable evidence from God’s word and God’s works.”  Sometimes I wish I never learned science.  Science, in itself isn’t evil, but our sinful nature uses it.  What do I mean?  I mean it’s causes us to trivialize nature.  When someone asks, “How did those mountains come to be there?”  Another might explain how the tectonic plates on the earth shifted and crashed in one another and resulted in the up heaving of the earth forming the mountains.  And because my first love was science and not God, it’s easy for me to stop there.  Science is not evil.  The discoveries we have made is a blessing from God.  But the sinful nature in us makes us prideful.  Because of the advancement we’ve made sin has made think that we are somewhat all-knowing and wise ourselves.  We have uncovered some of natures mysteries and that somehow makes us think we are god in ourselves.  Society has questioned if science has gone beyond the realm of moral standards (God) and have caused us to think or try to act like God – stem cell research, designer babies, etc.  It’s amazing the things that science has shown us.  It’s explained how many things work in nature.  And when also asked, “why these natural things happen,” some also might resort to the reasoning of randomness - it just happens.  Just like the the Big-bang theory … it just happened.    Yet with that, how often have we asked ourselves, “Why is this happening to me??”  Are we or the unbelieving just being just rhetorical?  Again, I don’t think so.  I think there is a hopelessness in this reasoning – it just random.  And that truth we suppress about God is what’s trying to come out when we instinctive react with, “Why is this happening to me?”

It reminds me of growing up.  I grew in a mid to low class, immigrant family where my parent had to work a lot to make ends meet.  In school I had friends that came from seemingly traditional, well to do American families. They seemingly had everything they ever needed.  It wasn’t just the material things nor did they necessarily always have the right clothes or shoes.  But one of the things that struck the most is when I’d spend time with them at their homes.  Their mom would often say things like, “Hey help yourselves with something to eat… there’s deli meat for sandwiches… snacks in the pantry, fruit in fridge…”

At my house we didn’t have a lot of food to go around.  Certainly not enough to be giving away to a bunch of my hungry teenager friends.  But even just the fact there was a “mom” at home was pretty special.  My mom past away when I was twelve, but these guys had both natural parents – mom and dad – who seemed to be always there for them.  I would see them drive my friends to school, pick them from practice or drive them to the mall.  I’d asked my over-worked father for a ride and he’d say, “Mall?  Why do you want to go there for?”

I know my dad did what he could for us and he did great by bringing us here to America where he has raised us to be successful, independent people.  But I use look at those friends and to think to myself, “Man, what must it be like to be in that family…?”  I wondered how great it must be to be in that kind of home.  That’s what I’m reminded as I’m starting study Ephesian.  Paul says that in my spiritual life and my life in Christ, I now live in that home… in that house… in that family.  I have these things and the riches from a father who feeds me and carries and who can meet all my needs.

In the recent weeks I’ve been reading the Bible a lot and reading about the Bible as well.  I’m starting to understand the doctrines that really makes up my belief system.  This, for one, is truly where I start to find just one of those treasures.  I have the Word of God.  Written by men for men, but all inspired by God.  The Bible is God’s Word.  God makes no mistakes nor does He lie.  I believe God is the highest authority, so that the Bible isn’t just true, but it is the truth.  All of these together leads to another doctrine of truth, which says that the Bible is sufficient – it’s not only what I need, but it’s all I need to have certainty in life.  When I think of others outside this family… I think about others who might be the ones outside looing in, I think how lost they must feel sometimes searching for answers when life throws curl balls at them.  I still have spells of self doubt, but being in this family, I now have the knowledge to know where my focus needs to be when the tough questions come up – the Bible.  I’m reminded of how Jesus responded in Matthew 4:4, “Man does not live on bread alone, but every word that comes from the mouth of God.”

That kind of certainty and assurance give me peace, hope, strength and confidence.  And I think to myself how I’m just scratching the surface of the kind of wealth we have in the Father in whom we have our inheritance.

How have you felt the riches of God’s lavished onto your life?

It’s made to be understood.  Grudem points out that in Deuteronomy 6: 6-7, Moses says we should not only be able to understand it, but teach it to our children.  Otherpassages refers to the “simple” made wise by it (Psalm 19:7; Psalm 119:130).

But what about misunderstandings?  Each time we see in the New Testament Jesus say, “Have you not read…?” or “Have you never read Scripture…?”, which implies no blame or complexity of Scripture.  But if there is misunderstanding, it is probably because the reader is unwilling to receive it.  1 Corinthians 2:14 (NLT) says, “But people who aren’t spiritual can’t receive these truths from God’s Spirit.  It all sounds foolish to them and they can’t understand it…”  Spiritual meaning it is only when we have a sincere heart seeking salvation that the Holy Spirit will be at work with us as we seek God’s message in the Bible.

Nonetheless there are misunderstanding among God’s people.  Even within the Christian community we see doctrinal disagreement.  Grudem puts it this way, “Scripture says Scripture is able to be understood, not that all understand equally well.”  It likely comes down to our individual faithfulness, or short-comings, or even the time we devote to studying it.  The more we study it, the likely the more we understand.  Bible is clear and we need not be scholars or of any origin, position, cast, believer, or unbelievers to begin studying it.  And if there’s still disagreements, like many that’s persisted in the history of the church, those may very well be related to issues God simply didn’t give answers those specific question or issues (like the specifics of church government or baptism or the order of worship).  This concept reminds me of what I first heard from Josh a long time ago, “Let the Bible be clear where it is clear.  Let the Bible be unclear, where it’s unclear.”

Personal Reflection:  Can people make the Bible say anything they want?  Where the Bible directly talks about things is when the Bible speaks.  The Bible does at times speak in poetic and metaphoric terms which probably should not be taken literally – I don’t think God really means for me to gouge out my eye.  So in these cases, inference comes into play.  But I think when one’s initial purpose is to “read into the Bible” versus just reading out of the Bible, then this can lead to this falsehood.  A definition of the term eisegesis seem to fit.  Exegesis on the other hand is the application of good and sound principle of hermeneutics to critically provide interpretation of Scripture.  Even when good interpretation is applied, we see disagreement in major denomination.  What I hope to find as I study the Bible would be that it’s fairly clear in general even where God’s has chosen to keep things “secret”.  I can’t imagine that in the realm of major doctrine I can assume that there’s right and wrong interpretation.  But in terms of minor ones, especially where the Bible is unclear, I have to believe that there are no right or wrong.

So if the Bible is clear and can be understood by “simple” people like me, why am I also reading Grudem’s book and not just God’s book for understanding and knowledge?  There’s still a place for Bible scholars as Grudem explains, which fulfills 4 main functions.  They can teach Scripture, which also leads to correcting false teaching.  They explore deeper understanding of Scripture and how it can be applied to new areas of life and answer persisting questions.  They defend Scripture against those with similar formal training.  They supplement the study of Scripture with the in-depth knowledge of history and culture of the time when Scripture was written.

The Bible is also necessary “… for knowledge of the gospel, for maintaining spiritual life, and for certain knowledge of God’s will, but is not for knowing God exists or for knowing something about God’s character and moral laws.”

John 14:6 shows Jesus’ words, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father, but by me.” Paul writes in Romans 10:13-17, “For ‘everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord [Jesus] will be saved.” How can anyone today get salvation without knowledge of the gospel.  In order for the above to be realized by an unbeliever they must first believe.  But how can they believe in something they’ve never heard?  Here I see again why it is important it is to share the Gospel to all nations.

Personal Reflection: This also re-affirms what I’ve heard over and over again – “faith comes by hearing.”  It compliments what was independently discussed at house church this past Sunday.  “Salvation”, “receiving the Holy Spirit”, “a believers baptism” – what’s the order?  It was kind of a trick question (for me), because its missing one other component – faith.  Faith comes first.  When we hear the Good News, we are left with a choice – accept Jesus or not.  With faith and a sincere belief in Jesus as our Savior, we receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).  And in terms of Scripture, it is the combination of that faith (a sincere heart that seeks God’s help and is willing to follow) and the Holy Spirit can we understand Scripture.

Matthew 4:4 – “… Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from God” - the Bible is necessary for spiritual life and health.

It is said that we have an omniscient God – all knowing.  We are not all knowing and philosophers will affirm the latter that we can never be certain about anything because we cannot know everything.  Though God has only revealed some to us to, He knows everything (Deut. 29:29).  “Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when the instinctively obey it, even without having heard it.  They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right” (Romans 2:14-15 NLT).  So we have our conscience, but Grudem points conscience alone doesn’t give us the certainty we need in a fallen world that skews our thoughts and desire.  By ourselves we easy fall into the philosophers skepticism.  So the Bible is necessary to have certainty of God’s will for us for God has revealed to us what he wants us to know that is good for the past, the present and will not never be contradicted by the future.

Personal Reflection:  How often am I second guessing myself?  How often does self-doubt arise?  And how often has these things lead me to a sense of losing or lacking of self-confidence?  Often.  Even in the beginning of this journal I said that there are things I believe but have no real assurance if they are true or why I believe them.  Perhaps it’s God’s written words on my heart.  But the sin inherent in me makes it so easy to reason and justify the wrong I’ve done.  Even those who know and certain of the law stumble, but how much easier is it for Satan to get a hold of me if I’m constantly second guessing what’s right from wrong.

Grudem continues and states that we don’t need the Bible to know God exists or about His character and moral laws.  Grudem introduces a term called general revelation, which basically means “just look around you and in your own hearts to know the existence of God” (Romans 1:19-21).

Personal Refelction: I know God and perhaps I would know God even without the Bible, but to me God is a name (capital “G”).  So how can I know that name if I was not introduced?  I see a person and know he/she has a father, but I don’t know her father (or the father).  So is it fair to say that I can know there is a god, but still not know God if we’ve never been introduced?  Without the Bible I think I can look around me and see the wonders of creation and know there is a god, a higher being, who created all this.  I think of tribal people in the remote corners of the world with no communication or knowledge of the industrialized world. They worship gods for they instinctively know that there’s something of greater power out there.  Am I splitting hair on this?  Or is it my sub-conscience, sinful nature suppressing this truth I already know?

Grudem follows his explanation of general revelation with an explanation of special revelation. With general revelation, we may know with limited certainty, that we owe obedience to God and our conscience accuse us of sinning.  But without the Bible, we can not know about the way of our salvation.  Grudem puts it this way, “… how the holiness and justice of God can ever be reconciled with the willingness to forgive sins is a mystery that have never been solved by any religion apart from the Bible… It never could have been conceived by man alone apart from God’s special, verbal revelation.”

The Bible is all I need. Grudem’s definition of the sufficiency of Scripture goes like this, “The sufficiency of Scripture means that Scripture contained all the words of God he intended his people to have at each stage of redemptive history, and that it now contains everything we need God to tell us for salvation, for trusting him perfectly, and for obeying him perfectly.” To find God’s will for us, all we need is the Bible.  2 Timothy 3:25 says, “From childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which will be able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”   To find God’s instructions for us to live good Christian lives, all we need is the Bible (Psalm 119:1 “Blessed are those whose way is blameless who walk in the way of the Lord!”).  Grudem points again to 2 Timothy where “Paul says that God gave Scripture in order that we may be ‘complete, equipped for every good work’…”

So what does it mean when Grudem says “… at each stage of redemptive history…”?  It basically means that for for those who only had the Old Testament and that in those times that was revealed so far by God.  We are to believe that at that time, that was sufficient.  Again, Grudem refers to Deuteronomy 29:29 that God reveals things to us and also hides things from us.  And for us today, what we have in full revelation is the Bible.  Grudem does guard against adding more law or sin to what the Bible says.  He states that we should be content with the Bible, which again likely goes back to the assurance we have that God has chosen these to reveal to us.

Personal Reflection:  Where Google has been tremendous for finding answers to questions in professional life and hobbies, I have the Bible Concordance for questions regarding the most important life questions.  I may find sometimes that the Bible is unclear and in those time I needs to remember not to be tempted to read into the Bible interpretation I wish for myself.  Instead, I should seek to find as many relevant passages, commentaries from scholars, and the guidance from my own pastor.

This week’s verse: Deuteronomy 6:6-7 These words which I command you this day shall be upon your hearts; and you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.

Josh mentioned “circular argument” to help me grasp this idea, too, which is also covered in the text by Grudem.  And some might object to this type of argument, but Grudem shows by example that this type of argument isn’t unique to the Bible.  When we peer into our own method of reasoning, we see that we use this type of argument to postulate our own human positions.  And as I read more, it becomes clearer to me what and how the Bible is self-attesting.

So if the Bible is self-attesting, then how do we know it’s God’s Words?  The prophets, as they wrote the books of Bible through various means of communications from God, shows evidence.  It is written, “Thus says the Lord…”  Whenever prophets spoke in the name of God, it was words that came from God and several passages tells this.  It also tell of false prophets (see Num. 22:38, Deut. 18:18-20, Jer.1:9; 14:14;23:16-22; 29: 31-32; Ezek. 2:7; 13:1-16).  And in the New Testament, the Apostle Paul attest that Scripture is God’s Words by using the metaphor “God-breathed” in 2 Tim. 3:16.  2 Peter 1: 20-21 puts it very clearly, “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation.  For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”  Here we see where the New Testament attest for the Old Testament, but there are also many passages that attest to New Testament writings as also being Scripture – God’s Words.  One good example is 2 Peter 3: 15-16, Peter catagorizes Paul’s letters with “other scriptures.”  And in 1 Corinthians 14:37, Paul himself writes, “… what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.”

So if Scripture is God’s Words, how do we know it’s truthful?  To think otherwise would be to think God intentionally lies, but Titus 1:2 says, “… God, who does not lie…”  Several passages in the Bible tells us of assurances in God’s oath and promise, which implies God doesn’t lie (see Hebrew 6:18 for example).  May be God’s mistaken sometime, but Psalm 12:6 says, “… the word of the Lord are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace…”  Proverbs 30:5 again says, “Every word of God is flawless…”

So if the Bible is truth and every words in it is true, then we have to believe it and obey it.  We can not do these things if for even a minute we think that there’s a possibility of errors in the Bible.  In this part of the chapter I start to understand what it means for the Bible to inerrant – the inerrancy of the Bible.  The opponents of this claim usually base their argument around the precision of truth – how true is the Bible?  Truth is truth in terms of “ordinary language of everyday speech.”  And that’s what’s used in the Bible by the prophets and apostles as they wrote from their perspective the inspiration of God.  What’s ordinary language of everyday speech?  Grudem puts it simply like this.  When I say I live a mile from the school, that’s true.  But put to the test of a GPS system, it might actually measure 1.2 miles, which then opponents might say the original state it not true.  Common sense practically says the argument is silly to begin with.  Some might become critical on the spelling of words or uncommon (or even “bad”) grammar and use it as a basis for arguments against inerrancy.  But we cannot use today’s standards and convention of spelling and grammar to the prophets and apostles.  The message is still true whether is spelled wrong or the grammar is improper by our standards today. Yet still others would say the the Bible is only “infallible” as it applies to faith and practice of a religious belief.  The use of the infallible limits the application of the Bible (to faith and practice).  Rather, the Bible is inerrant and is applicable to every aspect of life – from ethics to even science.  The Bible doesn’t detail every truth about everything, but what it does say about something is true.  There’s several evidence in the New Testament that apostles relied on every word of the Old Testament for instructions with no implication to catogarize it to mean that some were more significant than others (see Matt. 12: 3-4, 41; Luke 4:25-26; John 4:5; 1 Cor. 10:11)

It’s difficult for me to discern right now what must come first.  Does faith come first so that we believe in a self-attesting Bible?  Or does faith come from reading and knowing the Bible.  I have heard of atheists who, in search and purpose to disprove the Bible, end up becoming believers after what they discover.  Nonetheless, its clear that reading the Bible to seek God’s personal message to each of us doe not go without faith.  By faith and prayer can we ask for God’s Holy Spirit to transform our hearts and minds so that we may understand what we read.

This week’s verse: 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, and for training in righteousness…”

Funny enough, Chapter 1 takes care of this definition right away.  Grudem defined Systematic Theology just like I explained what I thought “doctrine” was to Raymond.  In Grudem’s words, “Systematic Theology is any study that answers the quesion, ‘What does the whole Bible teach us today?’ about any given topic.”

I’m learning that there are many discipline of theology that are often time included and referred to in a Systematic Theology study.  But Grudem makes it clear that his approach, while it will sometimes will lean on those other disciplines to add contrast to ideas, it “will not be historical theology (a historical study of how Christians in different time periods have understood various theological topics) or philosophical theology (studying theological topics largely without use of the Bible, but using the tools and method of philosophy reasoning and what can be known about God from observing the universe) or apologetics (providing a defense of the truthfulness of the Christian faith for purpose of convincing unbelievers).”  I think seeing these distinction will help in future conversation or study and know where an idea is coming from.

It’s also not going to be about Christian ethics – that’s answers a question that has this kind of bend, “‘What does God require us to do and what attitudes does he require us to have today?’ with regard to any given situation.”  The book will focus on what we should believe and how we should think more so than what we should do or attitudes we have.  And I really believe that good sound understanding of Bible doctrine is a likely platform for my Christian ethics. I guess it’s like the idea of being changed and transformed “from the inside out.”  But the book will lend to life application matters when it’s befitting to the doctrine topic.

I get Grudem’s distinction between Old Testament and New Testament theologies, where each focuses on what the Bible says based on a particular book of either testament.  So it’s like a snapshot of the doctrine at some point in the Bible.  There’s also Biblical Theology “that contains both Old and New Testament theology,” which answers the question, “What does the whole Bible say about a topic?” which starts to look a lot like Grudem’s definition of Systematic Theology.  So this is where I’m a bit confused and will need to get clarity from Josh.  But whatever it is, it probably hinges on how Grudem closes the section with this statement, it “focuses on the understanding of each doctrine that the biblical authors and their original hearers or readers possessed.”

Sometimes Systematic Theology involves using terms and concept not actually found in the Bible, but results from the combination of ideas from various authors in the Bible.  Examples are the words/concept of Trinity, incarnation, deity of Christ.

Grudem states that an adequate systematic theology “will have many of [the students'] … own personal belief challenged or modified, refined or enriched.”  As a Christian, I believe certain things, like “the only way to God is through faith in Jesus Christ… it is not by works I am saved, but by faith.”  I believe this because I’ve either been told this or I’ve read it in a passage once or both.  But systematic theology goes further than this and Grudem describes it in 4 different ways.  Systematic Theology is organized and topical doctrines are studied in a particular order and in combination to ensure consistency and accuracy.  As oppose to seeing one or two passage supporting a doctrine on a topic, systematic theology dives into details where the Bible supports the doctrine.  It will teach the student to be careful in the choice of words when summarizing Bible teachings to ensure accuracy.  Lastly it will treat all passages relevant to a doctrine fairly.

It is also worth noting the distinction between major and minor doctrines, especially when there controversy or disagreement.  Major doctrines is likely to impact other, minor doctrines.  This includes “doctrine such as the authority of the Bible… the Trinity… the deity of Christ… justification by faith…”  Minor ones may include “church government, some details about the Lord’s Supper…” etc.  While disagreement exists, it’s good to recognize this to know my own personal response.  There can probably be more tolerance around the differences on the minor ones than you can have on the major ones.

So why systematic theology?  Why do a doctrine study?  Grudem makes me realize that the Great Commission has two parts.  “Go and make disciples…” is the part I’ve known for sometime now.  It compels us to evangelize and share the good news and help other share the good news.  But I didn’t quite notice the second part of this passage in Matthew’s gospel that gives good reason to why we should have good and sound doctrince.  “… teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you…“  I don’t believe I need to be a master of Bible doctrine before I can share Jesus with unbelievers.  I think that’s why Jesus said first “Go…”  so drop what you’re doing and go!  And then, tell about what Jesus has said – tell them about what the Bible teaches us today about any given topic.

What’s the benefits?  Grudem breaks it down to 3.  It will make easier to combat our sinful nature when we have better knowledge of what the whole Bible says about that topic than if we only have a vague understanding of it.  The Bible is very consistent, so those things that have answered existing questions in life (and understanding of those doctrines) will serve to better answer new question that arise in the future.  Lastly, it will mature our Christian lives.

Studying Scripture doesn”t not go with intelligence alone, but relies on prayer to the Lord just like “the psalmist prayer in Psalm 119:18, ‘Open my eyes that I may see the wondrous things out of your law.’”  See 1 Corinthians 2:14 and Ephesian 1:17-19 also where the Bible tells us how important prayer is in knowing God through the Bible.  Studying scripture in humility – the acquired knowledge should not result in pride or the attitude or superiority over those who may not know it as well.  See 1 Peter 5:5, James 1:19-20, James 3:13, 17-18, and 1 Corinthians 8:1.  We can use our own reasoning to deduce ideas out of passages in Scripture.  But the principle to keep is that any deduction we make must not contradict other passages.  Grudem uses the idea of the Trinity to make this point.  We see in the Bible where it tells God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, which might lead one to believe there’s three gods.  But just clearly as it tells about the three persons of God, it also clear says there is only one God.  So to teach that there is three gods would be a direct contradiction.  In this case, Grudem introduces the idea of paradoxes in the Bible.  And while in life paradox may sometimes be intolerable, in God it can be because we know our understanding of His reality is limited.  The Bible assures in Psalm 119:160, “The sum of your word is truth; and every one of your ordinances endures forever.”  It assures us that the Bible’s passages are reconciled in God’s reality and that together (the sum), the whole Bible is truth (and endures forever).  Effectively studying theology should occur with a teacher and help from others.  That’s where Josh fits in.  We should discuss the things we’re learning with other Christians.  That might be where my weekly men’s night may fit in.  Grudem presents and outlines an approach to how students may find relevant passages in the Bible about other topics and other research tasks to best ensure any drawn conclusions are without errors.  Use a concordance.  Read the relevant verses and try to summarizes what it says.  It may be difficult sometimes to understand some verses, so we should also rely on other tools, like commentaries when necessary.  Then make a final summation about what the Bible affirms about the subject.  Guard against errors by finding other systematic theology text and seek the section relevant to the topic to uncover any potential contradiction.  But it is important to know that by seeking the truth for ourselves will usually be more rewarding and often times bring fresh ideas.

Chapter 1 Wrap-up

So how does Systematic Theology and “Doctrine” relate to each other?  Well, it seems like they are one in the say in that both is defined as to answer the question, “What does the whole Bible teach us today?” 

Christians should study systematic theology for the following reasons.  1) It follows the Great Commission.  2) You’d be less tempted to fall into sin when you’re well versed on what the whole Bible says about a given topic or sin issue.  3) It allows us to answer questions or topics that arise in the future.  4) Mature ourselves and our walk as Christians.

The six attitudes Christians should exhibit when studying systematic theology are these.  1) Be in prayer.  Our full and true understanding will only come when we ask for the Holy Spirit’s wisdom and guidance.  2) Be humble.  Knowledge in the Lord isn’t intended to produce arrogance.  3) Find it for ourselves and look up what the Bible says about other topics not covered in this text by using other tools like concordances, commentaries, etc.  4) Reasonably deduce and summarize what the Bible says, but be diligent to ensure all relevant passages and potentiall other references, like other systematic theology texts,  has been examined to be sure there are no contradiction or errors in our own deduction.  5) Study it with a teacher, get help from others and get with others for discussion.  6) Rejoice and give praise for a loving God.

Personal Reflection and Application

 After readgin Chapter 1, it affirms some of my own impression of what I thought a doctrine study might be.  I was eager before and now I find I’m even more enthusiastic about the venture.  I appreciate Grudem’s approach of being Scripture -based, like “the noble Bereans.”  I seek to find the truth founded on the Bible and I am encouraged this book will help guide me adequately.

It really does seem true that the more I learn, the more I realize I how much I don’t know.  It’s made me realize that I’ve been a Christian for a very long time (since high school) but only now do I hungerto understand the real teaching of the Bible.  I admit that I have not faithful read the Bible ’til about a year ago.  As I’m reading the preface, it’s great to know God didn’t intend for Theology to be “dry and boring.”  And it should not result in the student having more questions and uncertainty than when he started.  I’m hopeful that to some degree I may be “able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also confute those who contract it” as Grudem refers to Titus 1:9.  It can and should be applicable to life.  Grudem says this, “theology when studied rightly will lead to growth in our Christian lives, to workship.”  And that’s my desire.

Grudem says something that I’ve heard, but I guess never really listened or thought about very much.  The uniqueness of the Bible is that it’s God’s words.  It’s what sets it apart from all other religious books.  Though it’s words written by man, it was all inspired by God.  In fact I learned this week that the very first words were literally written by God on stone tablets  and then given to Moses – the Ten Commandments.  From then on, God inspired man – prophets (in the Old Testament) to write His book, starting with Moses.  From there other prophets and in the New Testament, the apostles of Jesus.

But there are disputes over doctrine even within the Christian community.  There are the conservatives and the liberals.  I’m learning the liberal viewpoint doesn’t quite believe that Scripture is the absolute truth – it’s not completely God’s very own words inspired in man or that it not completely inerrant.  But it seems this is the limited area where evangelical Christian has disputes – “the nature of the Bible and its authority.”  Then I also learned the term “Covenant theologians”, which seems to oppose the “Dispensational theologians” point of view.  Both word I had to look up.  My impression is that “Covenant” refers to evangelical Christians (God’s promise to His people idea) and “Dispensational” refers to the Catholicism, which is described in the dictionary as “a relaxation of law in a particular case granted by a competent superior or the superior’s delegate in laws that the superior has the power to make and enforce.”  But its important for Christians to remember that we have “limited understanding and limited certainty in many disputed areas.”  So we should “express tolerance and a willingness to minister with those who hold differing viewpoints.”

Grudem references Eph. 5:27 and Eph. 4:13 that gives hope that these Jesus is at work perfecting His church and that one day this differing viewpoints will one day be united as man faithfully continues to understand Scripture.

So what’s Systematic Theology?  Well, that’s what I’m suppose to find out.  But as you may guess, it has something to do with theology.  That’s “theo” as in “theos” which means God in Greek.  And of course “ology” which means the “the study of”.  The study of God.  Yes.  I want to study God.  How am I doing that exactly?  No, I haven’t enrolled in Seminary.  I simply have a book authored.  Authored by Wayne Grudem and given to me by my pastor, it’s called “Bible Doctrine, Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith” – condense version of his other book called, “Systematic Theology.”  Along with the book, I have my friend and pastor, Josh Luse, who will walk with me on this journey.  I feel privileged to have this opportunity and the support.

This venue or forum should allow me to express my thoughts and write down the things I am learning and ideas and thoughts provoked by it.  I’m also a horrible reader and studier.  I know I just can’t read passively or the knowledge just won’t stick.  This journal and the act of deliberately writing will hopefully get help me retain the knowledge.

So that’s it.  Hopefully what’s to follow after are my key take-aways from what’s to come.  There’s always a chance that this journal idea may not go as I plan and I may fall off the blog-wagon once more.  But my desire is that I be able to capture most of the details of what seems to be a really cool, life changing adventure.

I was so tired, I found myself tumbling and toppled over after being thrown off of my rig going about 30 mph.  The soft patch of grass that padded my landing kept me from any serious battle wounds.  Later, I coined the incident, “Riders Fatigue” … that’s when you’ve had way too much ATV’ing for one weekend.

Other than the endless, majestic scenery we encounter along the way, my ATV catapult was the talk of the day.  And on this day, we got out fill of water-crossing.  But this time, no matter how deep the water looked or how fast it went, everyone found their brass balls and crossed it without much thought.  In fact in one crossing, CJ takes an “alternate” route and practically submarines his rig just before pulling it off.

Without further ado, I present to you the video – a super nice way to commemorate the awesome trip.   So I’ll keep the words short and just let the video do the rest of the story telling.  Sit back, relax, and enjoy the show:

[ Gallery, Tales from the Trail (ATV) Taylor Park ]