Theology Proper Term Paper

STUDY OF GOD

(THEOLOGY PROPER)

,

Pastor

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF GOD (THEOLOGY PROPER)

A.Everyone is a theologian in one sense or another because everyone has a view about God one way or another. The question is, “Are we good theologians or sloppy theologians. The answer will be determined by how well we embrace this particular study.

B.The name and meaning of the word, “theology” comes from two Greek words, theòs– God and logia – study of. Therefore, theology is the study of God.

C.However, there is a distinction between theology (systematic theology) and theology proper.

D.Systematic Theology is the systematized study of the relationship of God with other Biblical studies (Christ, Holy Spirit, Church etc.).

E.Theology Proper is the particular study of the revelation, existence, nature, names, and works of God.

I.THE REVELATION OF GOD

A.The Source of Revelation

1.Definition of Revelation

a)Revelation (apokálupsis) literally means to uncover. In the study of theology, it means that which God discloses about himself and his truth.

b)Everything we know about Christianity has been revealed to us by God. To reveal means “to unveil.” It involves removing a cover from something that is concealed. (Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith)

c)Revelation means “unveiling” and describes the unveiling or disclosure of truth from God to mankind that man could not otherwise know. (The Moody Handbook of Theology)

d)Revelation simply means the disclosure of truth. It is initiated in the divine love and grace of God on behalf of His creatures. Revelation can be defined as the demonstration and sharing by God of His person, will, and redemptive activity. (Bancroft, Elemental Theology)

e)Revelation is a discovery afforded by God to man of Himself, or of His will, over and above what He has made known by the light of nature, or reason. (Horne from Bancroft Christian Theology)

2.Man’s Knowledge of Revelation

a)Man cannot know God in and of himself (Job 11:7-9; Rom 11:33-34; 1Co 2:14).

b)Man can only know what God reveals to him (Deut 29:29; 1Co 2:9-11; cp. Jn 17:3; Phil 3:10)

c)Man could not possibly have had any knowledge of God, if God had not made Himself known. Left to himself, he would never have discovered God. (Berkhof)

d)The Scriptures attest to two facts: the incomprehensibility of God and the knowability of God. To say that he is incomprehensible is to assert that the mind cannot grasp the [infinite] knowledge of God. To say that he is knowable is to claim that he can be known. (Ryrie, Basic Theology, pg. 27; brackets mine)

B.General Revelation

1.The Definition of General Revelation

a)General Revelation reveals aspects about God and His nature to all humanity so that they will have an awareness of the existence of God.

b)General Revelation is the truths God has revealed about Himself to all mankind through nature, providential control, and conscience. (Moody Handbook of Theology)

c)General revelation is called “general” for two reasons: (1) it is general in content, and (2) it is revealed to a general audience. (Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith)

2.The Means of General Revelation

a)Creation of the universe (Rom 1:20; Psa 19:1-6; 1:17)

b) in the world (Rom 8:28)

c)Creation of man (Gen 1:26-27)

d)Conscience of man (Rom 2:14-15)

C.Specific Revelation

1.The Definition of Specific Revelation

a)Special Revelation involves a narrower focus than General Revelation, was progressive, but is now ultimately expressed in Jesus Christ and the Scriptures

b)Special Revelation is the divine revealing of truth through Jesus Christ and through the Scriptures. In contrast to general revelation which is available to everyone, special revelation is available only to those who have access to biblical truth. (Moody Handbook of Theology)

2.The Means of Specific Revelation

a)Audible (Gen 1:28; 3:8-10; Ex 20:19).

b)Lots (Pro 16:33; Acts 1:21-26).

c)Urim and Thummim (Ex 28:30; Deut 33:8).

d)Dreams (Gen 20:3, 6, 40).

e)Visions (Isa 1:1; Ezek 1:1; Acts 10:10).

f)Theophanies (Gen 16:7-14; Ex 3:2; 1:15).

g)Angels (Dan 9:20-21; Lk 2:10).

h)Prophets (2 Sam 23:2; Zech 1:1).

i)Events (Micah 6:5; Ezek 25:7).

j)Christ

(1)Christ explains and exegetes the Father (Jn 1:14, 18)

(2)Christ is the visible of image of the invisible God (Jn 14:9; 1:15).

(3)Christ is the full revelation of God (Heb 1:1-3)

k)Bible

(1)The Scriptures record the life of the Son of God (Jn 5:39; 21:25; Lk 24:27).

(2)The Scriptures originated from God (2Ti 3:16-17; 1Th 2:13).

(3)The Scriptures are sent for God’s purposes (Isa 55:8-11).

(4)The Scriptures are God’s design for ministry (Acts 6:2, 4).

II.THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

A.Introduction

1.As Christians, we know that our sole authority for belief in the existence of God is based upon the presuppositions of the inspired and inerrant word of God.

2.But can we and should we use philosophical and natural arguments to postulate the existence of God?

3.The answer is that the Scriptures themselves open the door for such argumentation.

a)First of all, we are told in Rom 1:20 that it is inexcusable to miss the existence of God from the natural realm.

b)Secondly, the Scriptures teach that man is rationally responsible to perceive the existence of God (Ps 14:1; 53:1; Acts 17:23-29).

c)Thirdly, we are taught in Scripture that man is accountable to his moral conscience, which bears witness to the existence of God and his moral standards (Rom 2:14-15).

d)Therefore, such arguments can and should be used to persuade men to come to a saving knowledge of God through his Son as recorded in the Scriptures (1Pe 3:15).

(1)[Philosophical and natural arguments] …may be used to establish a presumption in favor of the existence of the God of the Bible, and they produce sufficient evidence to place the unregenerated man under a responsibility to accept further knowledge from God or to reject intelligently this knowledge and thus to relieve God of further obligation on his behalf. (Ryrie, Survey of Bible Doctrine)

4.Final note: The majority of the following arguments center on the Law of Causality. The Law of Causality can be defined as,every effect has an antecedent cause. It is also called the Law of Cause and Effect.

a)This is not to be confused with Bertrand Russell’s fallacious quote, If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God. …

b)The Law of Causality does not say, everything has an antecedent cause, rather it says, every effect has an antecedent cause.

c)Obviously, our eternal God does not have a cause. Neither does Logic insist that everything has a cause.

(1)Logic has no quarrel with the idea of self-existent reality. It is logically possible for something to exist without an antecedent cause. (Sproul, Not a Chance)

B.The Philosophical And Natural Arguments For The Existence Of God

1.The Cosmological Argument (Creation)

a)The Cosmological Argument is an a posteriori argument, which looks at the conception of the effect and infers its cause through induction.

b)The term cosmological comes from the Greek word, cósmos, which means world.

c)The argument then can be defined as, because the world exists, it must have a maker (God), because something does not come from nothing. (Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology)

d)The argument from Philosophy and Logic is…

(1)It is logically impossible for something to generate itself spontaneously out of nothing (Evolution).

(2)But it is logically possible for an eternal and omnipotent God to create out of nothing (ex nihilo - Gen 1:1 - Creation).

(3)Aristotle realized that logically there had to be a “First Cause” or Unmoved Mover.”

(a)… there is that which as first of all things moves all things… eternal unmovable substance…, the first mover must be in itself unmovable. (Metaphysics, Book XII, Part 4, 6 and 8).

(b)Though Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover” did not describe in detail the God of the Bible, it described the necessary role of Creator for the God of the Bible.

e)One may argue that it could be that something or someone other than God created the world. Ryrie logically responds to such an idea.

(1)While we have to admit that this cause-and-effect argument does not in itself “prove” that the God of the Bible exists, it is fair to insist that the theistic answer is less complex to believe than any other. It takes more faith to believe that evolution or blind intelligence (whatever such a contradictory phrase might mean) could have accounted for the intricate and complex world in which we live than it does to believe that God could. (Ryrie, Survey of Bible Doctrine)

2.The Teleological Argument (Design)

a)The Teleological Argument is also an a posteriori argument, which looks at the design of the effect and infers its cause through induction.

b) The term teleological comes from the Greek word, télos, which means end or purpose.

c)The argument then can be defined as, the argument that because there is order and harmony in the universe, an intelligent designer must have created such a universe. (Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology)

d)Thiessen, in his Lectures in Systematic Theology, 28 writes,) order and useful arrangement in a system imply intelligence and purpose in the organizing cause. The universe is characterized by order and useful arrangement; therefore, the universe has an intelligent and free cause.

e)It is akin to “Intelligent Design” which argues that biological complexity and detectable design rules out chance.

f)Mathematically, chance has less of a chance of creating a complex universe than a million monkeys who randomly pound on a keyboard and reproduce a line from Shakespeare.

g)It would take more faith to believe in chance than it would to accept that an omnipotent God designed an ordered universe.

(1)The question remains, however: Can random “by chance” actions result in the highly integrated organization which is evident in the world about us? To say it can is possible, but it requires a great deal of faith to believe. The Christian answer may also involve faith, but it is not less believable. (Ryrie, Survey of Bible Doctrine)

3.Anthropological Argument (Man)

a)The Anthropological Argument is also an a posteriori argument, which looks at the effect of man’s mental and moral nature and infers his cause through induction.

b)The term anthropological comes from the Greek word, ánthropos, which means man or humankind.

c)While the Cosmological and Teleological Arguments deal with the universe as a whole, the Anthropological Argument (sometimes called “Moral Argument”) is derived from the complex nature of man.

d)Though many today would see man simply as a biological being, his nature is also made up of intelligence, moral conscience, emotions, and volition.

e)Augustus Strong in his Systematic Theology (Vol 1, pg. 161), gives the argument in three parts:

(1)Man, as an intellectual and moral being, has had a beginning upon the planet.

(2)Material and unconscious forces do not afford a sufficient cause for man’s reason, conscience, and free will.

(3)Man, as an effect, can be referred only to a cause possessing self-consciousness and a moral nature, in other words, personality.

f)Lewis Sperry Chafer writes … There are philosophical and moral features in man’s constitution which may be traced back to find their origin in God. ...A blind force...could never produce a man with intellect, sensibility, will, conscience, and inherent belief in a Creator. (Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol 1, pg. 155, 157)

g)Christians know this cause as the Living God who is revealed in the Scriptures. He is the One in whom mankind lives, moves, and exists (Ps 94:9; Acts 17:28-29).

h)As for The Moral Argument, The Moody Handbook of Theology writes, the moral argument acknowledges that man has an awareness of right and wrong, a sense of morality. Where did this sense of moral justice come from? If man is only a biological creature why does he have a sense of moral obligation? Recognition of moral standards and concepts cannot be attributed to any evolutionary process.

i)Geisler summarizes C.S. Lewis’ Moral Argument in Mere Chrisitianity,

(1)Moral laws imply a Moral Law Giver.

(2)There is an objective moral law.

(3)Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver.

j)Logically and philosophically then, the mental and moral nature in man could only have come from a personal intelligent and moral Being.

4.Ontological Argument (Being)

a)The Ontological Argument is an a priori argument, which looks at an assumed cause to a necessarily related effect through deduction.

b)The term ontological comes from the Greek participle, óntos(from the “to be” verb eimí), which means to exist or have being.

c)In its simplest form it argues from the idea of God to the existence of God (Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics)

d)Anselm (1033-1109), the originator of the argument stated that, the mere idea of a being than which none greater can be conceived proves the existence of such a being (adapted from Anselm, Proslogium, by Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley in “Classical Apologetics”).

e)Or stated another way … since the idea of God exists universally in the minds of men, then the basis for their ideas must also exist. (Gibson, ).

f)Keathly maintains this argument is also called, The Religious or General Argument which is …since the belief in God and supernatural beings is universal even among the most backward tribes, it must therefore come from within man, it is something innate. The question is, could it have come from civilization or even from education when people all over the world possess it whether they are civilized and educated or not? The logical answer is no. (Theology Proper)

g)Some (theists and non-theists) contend that this argument has philosophical difficulties (such as the dollar in my mind but not in my pocket or the concept of Martians etc.) and therefore has little or no value.

h)The argument certainly has value when you include the presupposition from the Scriptures that God has placed within man an awareness of God. Therefore, the fact that man can conceive of God and can conceive of none greater than God proves the existence of God.

i)Geisler distinguishes this argument from the Religious Need Argument which says,

(1)Human beings really need God.

(2)What humans really need, probably really exists.

(3)Therefore, God really exists.

j)A similar argument is the Argument of Joy developed by C.S. Lewis, It basically states, Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger; food can satisfy. A duckling wants to swim; water fills its need. Men and women feel sexual desire; sexual intercourse fulfills that desire. If I find myself with a desire that no experience in this world can satisfy, I probably was made for another world. If no earthly pleasures satisfy the need, it does not mean the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it. (Lewis, Surprised by Joy, 120)

k)One final argument is the Argument from Congruity which states, …whenever someone finds the best possible solution to a problem, that solution must be accepted as a true solution until it is disproved. The belief in the existence of God best explains the related facts of our mental, moral, and religious natures. Therefore God exists. (Gibson, )

III.THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD

A.Introduction

1.In my humble opinion, studying the attributes of God is the crème de la crème of theology. As we understand who God is by understanding His attributes, it results in an indelible mark on our souls.

2.We are able to worship God properly when we understand God’s attributes. In addition, we are able to know how He deals with mankind and mankind is able to know how he is to respond to God.

3.Attributes are in reality a part of God’s nature and essence. Even though we systematize them to understand them, we must realize that God’s attributes are woven together so that no attribute is manifested independently or is preeminent over the rest. Therefore, God is who He is.

B.Definition For The Attributes Of God

1.The attributes of God are the qualities or characteristics inherent in and ascribed to God. These could also be called the “perfections of God” because God is the very essence of the totality of these perfect attributes.

2.The attributes of God could be defined as, those distinguishing characteristics of the divine nature which are inseparable from the idea of God and which constitute the basis and ground for his various manifestations to his creatures. (A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Valley Forge, Pa.: Judson, 1907 ), p. 244.)

C.Aspects Of The Attributes Of God

1.Customarily the attributes of God are divided into categories: Natural or Moral; Absolute or Relative; and Communicable or Incommunicable. Each has their own distinction and emphasis.

2.The terms, communicable and incommunicable express those attributes of God which are distinct to God alone (Incommunicable) and those which can be found in man albeit in an imperfect and finite resemblance (Communicable).

D.Incommunicable Attributes Of God

1.Self-Existence

a)Unlike man, God does not have a beginning or a cause, therefore God exists in and of Himself. Thomas Aquinas said, He is the first cause; himself uncaused.

b)This means that God has the ground of His existence in Himself, and unlike man, does not depend on anything outside of Himself. He is independent in His Being, in His virtues and actions, and causes all His creatures to depend on Him. (Louis Berkhof, Summary of Christian Doctrine)

c)God’s self-existence is expressed in His name, “I AM” (hayah) which is connected to the name Jehovah (yhvh - four letters; Tetragrammaton or Yehovah) in Exo 3:14.

(1)The Hebrew verb, “I AM” is a common Qal Imperfect of hayah(“to be” verb) which connotes continuous unfinished action, i.e. “the One Who Always Is.”

(2)In the LXX, it is expressed, egṓ eími ó ṓn (I am the One who is) with a present “to be verb” (eími)and a present participle (ṓn).

(3)There is a connection contextually with the covenant name Yahweh. It is expresses the basicidea that God has always existed as the Self-existent One and His covenants need only be based on Himself (Isa 41:4; 42:6).

(4)Self-Existent One is His name, there is no other, and He alone gives life (Isa 45:5-7; Rom 11:36; Acts 17:28 cp. Christ - Joh 14:6).

(5)Self-Existent One is His name and He will not share His glory with another (Isa 42:8).

(6)Self-Existent One is His name and He alone is Savior (Isa 43:10-11 cp. Christ - 2Pe 1:1).

(7)Though Christ became a man it is clear He retained His deity as the great “I AM” (Joh 8:58).

d)Since God is the self-existent One and He is the giver of all life, then He alone knows our true needs and He alone can meet our true spiritual needs.

2.Eternality

a)This attribute is a logical conclusion to God’s self-existent because if God is self-existent, He must also exist eternally and endlessly. However, it is more than a logical conclusion; it is a major theme in Scripture.

b)Eternality could be defined as, God is without beginning, or end…God is free from all succession of time though He is the author of it. (Gibson, Study of God, )

c)Louis Berkhof defines it as, that perfection of God whereby He is elevated above all temporal limits and all succession of moments, and possesses the whole of His existence in one indivisible present. (Louis Berkhof, ibid, pg. 60)

d)God’s eternality is also seen in His name found in Exo 3:14. The Great I AM (Self-Existent One) has always existed and will always exist (cp. Christ - John 1:1-2, 15; 8:58; 1:17).

e)God exists from “everlasting to everlasting” (Psa 90:2). “Everlasting” in Hebrew is olam. In order to demonstrate God’s eternality, He revealed Himself as El-Olam, i.e. the Everlasting God (Gen 21:33; Isa 40:28). In Rom 16:26, He revealed Himself as the “Eternal (aiṓnios) God.” The Greek expression, eístoúsaiṓnastṓnaiṓnas means, “forever and ever” (Gal 1:5).

f)Since God is the everlasting God, then the life He gives through His Son is also everlasting. Since He never ceases to exist, our eternal life in Him will never cease (Mat 25:46; Joh 3:15-16, 36; Joh 5:24).

3.Immutability

a)God is not capable or subject to change …God never becomes greater or lesser, better or worse ... never develops or improves, evolves or gets older. (Gibson, Study of God, )

b)Immutability is that perfection of God by which He is devoid of all change, not only in His Being, but also in His perfections, and in His purposes and promises...and is free from all accession or diminution and from all growth or decay in His Being or perfections.(Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), p. 58.)

c)Once again, we are brought back to Exo 3:14. God’s name, "I AM WHO I AM," not only expresses self-existence and eternality, but also immutability (Psa 102:26-27). God is who He is and He never changes. God does not change for better or for worse. He is already perfection and perfection needs no improvement.

d)God does not lie or go back on His word. He does not need to because He decrees it perfect the first time and every time (1Sa 15:29; Num 23:19).

e)Some challenge God’s immutability when they consider passages such as Gen 6:6 where God “repented” that He made man. First of all, God is sinless and therefore never sins or makes the wrong choice by which He must repent. The word “repent” (nacham - lit. “breath deeply,” sigh) in Gen 6:6, might be better rendered “sorrowful” or “grieved.” God was fully aware that man was going to sin, but God emotionally grieves over sin. Immutability does not mean that God does not interact with man. When man repents God changes His judgment to mercy. For God is not taken by surprise nor does He work on a trial an error basis.

f)God’s immutability is meaningful to the believer because He understands God will never change His mind concerning His promises (Heb 6:17-19; Mal 3:6). God’s immutability is an anchor for the soul because God’s word and counsel do not change (Psa 119:89; Psa 33:11 cp. Christ - Joh 14:2; Heb 13:8).

g)On the other hand, God will not wink at sin or change His mind concerning His judgment upon those who reject Christ (Joh 3:36).

4.Omniscience

a)Omniscient comes from two Latin words (omnis - all and scientia - knowledge) and means, “all knowing.” It refers to God’s infinite and perfect knowledge.

b)Ryrie states, God knows everything, things actual and possible, effortlessly and equally well.

c)A more comprehensive definition will state that God knows all things actual and possible, past, present, and future, in one eternal act. (Moody Handbook of Theology)

(1)Note: It is important to recognize that in speaking of God’s knowledge or foreknowledge it does not imply a passive awareness of what will happen, but in connection with His knowledge or foreknowledge He has decreed all events. (Compare Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 1:353–58, 396–99)

(2)[God’s foreknowledge could be stated as the], selective knowledge of God that makes one an object of God’s love; it is more than mere knowledge or cognition beforehand. (House, Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine, p. 91 cp. Gen 4:1, Je 1:5; Amo 3:2).

d)David understood the personal side of the omniscience of God in Psa 139:1-4.

(1)David’s life was known by God (vs. 1).

(2)David’s ways were known by God (vs. 2-3).

(3)David’s thoughts and words were known by God (vs. 2,4).

e)God not only knows all things that are possible but also all things that are actual (Ps. 139:1–6; 147:4; Matt. 6:8; 10:29–30 cp. Christ - Mat 16:21; Luk 11:17; Joh 2:24; 4:29).

f)God knows all future events. Because God is eternal and knows all things in one eternal act, events that are future to man are an “eternal now” to God. He knew the nations that would dominate (Dan. 2:36–43; 7:4–8), and He knows the events that will yet transpire upon the earth (Matt. 2425; Rev. 6–19). The Moody Handbook of Theology)

5.Omnipresence

a)Omnipresence comes from two Latin words (omnis - all and praesens - presence) and means, “everywhere present.” It refers to God’s presence everywhere at all times.

b)One definition simply states that, God is everywhere present with His whole being at all times. (Gibson)

c)Another definition says, God, in the totality of his essence, without diffusion or expansion, multiplication or division, penetrates and fills the universe in all its parts. (Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 279)

d)God’s presence is everywhere at all times. This is not the same as pantheism, which states that God is in everything. But, omnipresence does mean that since God is everywhere, everything is in His presence, yet he cannot be contained (Gen 16:13-14 - El Raah; 1Ki 8:27; Psa 139:7-12; Jer 23:23-24; cp. Christ - cp. Christ - Gen 16:7, 10, 11; Mat 18:20; 28:20).

e)The omnipresence of God is a comfort to believers in that they are always in his presence and they are always under His protective eye (Psa 139:18).

f)The omnipresence of God is a warning to those who sin because they are sinning under His watchful eye (Pr 5:21; 15:3; Job 14:16). In addition, because God is omnipresent He is able to see man’s inner thoughts (Mat 5:28; 6:4)

6.Omnipotence

a)Omnipotence comes from two Latin words (omnis - all and potentia - power) and means, “all powerful.”

b) Gibson states, God is able to accomplish anything He designs or desires, and it will not be contrary to His nature.

c)Thiessen, in his Lectures in Systematic Theology, p. 82 writes,God is all-powerful and able to do whatever he wills. Since his will is limited by his nature, God can do everything that is in harmony with his perfections.

d)Sadly, there will always be those who ask the ridiculous questions such as, Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? Or, Can God make a square triangle? The answer is that, God can never do anything that violates his own attributes and nature. If he did, he would cease to be God. Augustine argued that God could not do anything or create any situation that would in effect make God not God.

e)The psalmist declares God’s omnipotence when he contemplates his own creation (Psa 139:13-16).

f)The name, God Almighty (Heb El Shaddai- Strong One) declares that God is an “all powerful” being (Gen 17:1; 28:3; Isa. 13:6; Joel 1:15).

g)Christ also has the attribute of omnipotence (Mat 28:18).

h)The believer is entirely encouraged by the omnipotence of God because all things are possible with God (Gen 18:14; Mar 10:27). This does not mean that God will do whatever the believer wants, but if it is in accordance with His will (Mar 14:36), no one or nothing will thwart Him (Psa 115:3; Eph 1:11 cp. Christ - Mat 28:18; Mar 5:11-15; Mar 5:30; Joh 11:43-44).

i)Salvation is accomplished by the power of God (Rom 1:16; 1Co 1:18) and the believer is kept by the power of God (1Pe 1:5). In addition, God empowers the believer (Eph 3:16; 1:11).

j)The unbeliever who rejects Christ will experience the omnipotent power of God with eternal punishment (Mat 10:28).

k)All of God’s “omni’s” are referred to in Psa 139:

(1)God’s Omniscience (1-6)

(2)God’s Omnipresence (7-12)

(3)God’s Omnipotence (13-16)

(4)Man’s Omni - Response (23-24)

E.Communicable Attributes Of God

1.Holiness

a)We will begin the Communicable Attributes with the attribute of holiness. As was previously stated, the Communicable Attributes of God are those attributes, which can be found in man albeit in an imperfect and finite resemblance.

b)Though God possess all attributes perfectly and equally, His holiness is vigorously stressed in the Bible (Isa 6:3; Rev 4:8). It is emphasized because sinful man must grasp how far short he has fallen from God’s glory (Rom 3:23; Isa 6:5).

c)Gibson defines the holiness of God as, set apart from all uncleanness, impurity and is completely moral in all things.

d)Ryrie defines the holiness of God as, not only that he is separate from all that is unclean and evil but also that He is positively pure and thus distinct from all others.

e)Berkhof defines the holiness of God as, that divine perfection by which He is absolutely distinct from all His creatures, and exalted above them in infinite majesty. But it denotes in the second place that He is free from all moral impurity or sin, and is therefore morally perfect. In the presence of the holy God man is deeply conscious of his sin. (Berkhof, Summary of Christian Doctrine)

f)The Hebrew word for holy is qadosh and carries the literal meaning of “cut” or “separate.” In one sense, God is separate from all that is sinful and unholy (cp. Hab 1:13; Job 34:10 cp. Exo 26:33; Lev 16:16-17; Isa 1:4). In another sense, God is transcendent and separate from all others because He is perfect in holiness (Exo 15:11; Isa 57:15). Still, in another sense, qadoshrefers to that which is set apart for God’s holy use (Exo 3:5; Lev 11:44). The Greek word for holy is hágiosandreflects the same meanings as qadosh in the LXX and NT.

g)Because God is holy, everything He does is done in holiness (Psa 77:13). His name is holy (Lev 22:2; Psa 105:3) as is His word (Psa 105:42; Rom 1:2).

h)Because God is holy, he is to be worshipped in holiness (Psa 96:9; Psa 99:5).

i)Since God is holy, His people are to be holy (1Pe 1:15-16; 1Pe 2:9).

This guide is a summary of the main citation formats used in theological studies for print and electronic sources as outlined in the Chicago Manual of Style as adapted in Kate L. Turabian, A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, 7th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.

N refers to footnote or endnote usage. B refers to the format for bibliographic citation.

I Print Sources

Book (Single Author)

(N) Karl Barth, How I Changed My Mind (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1966), 27-33.

(B) Barth, Karl. How I Changed My Mind. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1966.

Book (Editor as Author)
(N) George R. Sumner and Ephraim Radner, eds., The Rule of Faith: Scripture, Canon, and Creed in a Critical Age (Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse, 1998).

(B) Sumner, George R. and Ephraim Radner, eds. The Rule of Faith: Scripture, Canon, and Creed in a Critical Age. Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse, 1998.

Single Author Contribution to an Edited Collection

(N) Robert Merrill Black, "Stablished in the Faith: The Church of England in Upper Canada, 1780-1867," in By Grace Co-Workers: Building the Anglican Diocese of Toronto, 1780-1989, ed. Alan L. Hayes (Toronto: Anglican Book Service, 1989), 23.

(B) Black, Robert Merrill. "Stablished in the Faith: The Church of England in Upper Canada, 1780-1867." In By Grace Co-Workers: Building the Anglican Diocese of Toronto, 1780-1989, ed. Alan L. Hayes, 21-41. Toronto: Anglican Book Service, 1989.


Secondary Source of Quotation

(N) Denis Nineham, Christianity, Medieval and Modern (London: SCM Press, 1993) quoted in Rowan Williams, Why Study the Past? The Quest for the Historical Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 89.

(B) Nineham, Denis. Christianity, Medieval and Modern. London: SCM Press, 1993. Quoted in Rowan Williams, Why Study the Past? The Quest for the Historical Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.


Article in a Theological Dictionary or Encyclopedia

(N) L.G. McLung, "Evangelism," in The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, ed. Stanley M. Burgess and Eduard M. Van Der Maas (Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 2002), 617-620.

(B) McLung, L.G. "Evangelism." In The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, ed. Stanley M. Burgess and Eduard M. Van Der Maas, 617-620. Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 2002.


Journal Article (volume and date)

(N) Crawford Gribben, "Defining the Puritans? The Baptism Debate in Cromwellian Ireland, 1654-56," Church History 73 (2004):63-89.

(B) Gribben, Crawford. "Defining the Puritans? The Baptism Debate in Cromwellian Ireland, 1654-56." Church History 73 (2004):63-89.


Journal Article (volume and issue)

(N) Colin Grant, "The Irony of Rorty's Lack of Theological Irony," Toronto Journal of Theology 22, no.1 (2006): 7-22.

(B) Grant, Colin. "The Irony of Rorty's Lack of Theological Irony." Toronto Journal of Theology 22, no.1 (2006): 7-22.

Magazine Article

(N) David Winfrey, "Biblical Therapy," The Christian Century 124, no. 2 (January 23, 2007): 24-27.

(B) Winfrey, David. "Biblical Therapy." The Christian Century 124, no. 2 (January 23, 2007): 24-27.


Book Review in a Journal

(N) Esther D. Reed, review of Theology in a Global Context: The Last Two Hundred Years, by Hans Schwartz, Reviews in Religion and Theology 14, no.1 (2007): 50-53.

(B) Reed, Esther D. Review of Theology in a Global Context: The Last Two Hundred Years, by Hans Schwartz. Reviews in Religion and Theology 14, no.1 (2007): 50-53.


Thesis/Dissertation

(N) Brian D.R. Cooper, "Human Reason or Reasonable Humanity? Balthasar Hubmaier, Pilgram Marpeck, and Menno Simmons, and the Catholic Natural Law Tradition," (Th.D. thesis, Wycliffe College, 2006).

(B) Cooper, Brian D. R. "Human Reason or Reasonable Humanity? Balthasar Hubmaier, Pilgram Marpeck, and Menno Simmons, and the Catholic Natural Law Tradition." Th.D. thesis, Wycliffe College, 2006.

II Electronic Sources

Electronic Books

(N) George Duncumb, Abraham's Faith Stated and Applied a Sermon Preached February 16, 1695/6 (London: Printed for Tim. Goodwin, 1697, Early English Books Online) http://eebo.chadwyck.com (accessed Feb. 22, 2007).

(B) Duncumb, George. Abraham's Faith Stated and Applied a Sermon Preached February 16, 1695/6. London: Printed for Tim. Goodwin, 1697. Early English Books Online. http://eebo.chadwyck.com (accessed Feb. 22, 2007).

Web Sites

(N) Miroslav Volf, "Miroslav Wolf on Trends in American Religion & the Challenge of Exclusion and Embrace in Christian Practice," Resources for American Christianity. February 21 2002, http://www.resourcingChristianity.org/WhatsBeenLearned.aspx?ID=56&t=3&I=95 (accessed April 3, 2007).

(B) Volf, Miroslav. "Miroslav Wolf on Trends in American Religion & the Challenge of Exclusion and Embrace in Christian Practice." Resources for American Christianity. February 21 2002. http://www.resourcingChristianity.org/WhatsBeenLearned.aspx?ID=56&t=3&I=95 (accessed April 3, 2007).

Electronic Journals

(N) Stephen S. Chester, "Paul and the Introspective Conscience of Martin Luther: The Impact of Luther's Anfechtungen on his Interpretation of Paul," Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary Approaches 14, no.5 (2006): 510, http://www.springerlink.com/content (accessed March 1, 2007).

(B) Chester, Stephen S. "Paul and the Introspective Conscience of Martin Luther: The Impact of Luther's Anfechtungen on his Interpretation of Paul." Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary Approaches 14, no.5 (2006): 508-536. http://www.springerlink.com/content (accessed March 1, 2007).

Online Newspapers & News Services

(N) Diane Bisson, "Say to the darkness, we beg to differ," Catholic New Times, Nov. 26, 2006, http://find.galegroup.com (Catholic New Times) (accessed March 1, 2007).

(B) Bisson, Diane."Say to the darkness, we beg to differ." Catholic New Times, Nov. 26, 2006. http://find.galegroup.com. (Catholic New Times) (accessed March 1, 2007).

Online Reference Works

(N) W. Ullman and G. Schwaiger, "Papacy," New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed. (Detroit: Gale, 2003, Gale Virtual Reference Library), http://find.galegroup.com/gvrl (accessed April 6, 2005).

(B)Ullman, W., and G. Schwaiger. "Papacy." New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003, Gale Virtual Reference Library. http://find.galegroup.com/gvrl (accessed April 6, 2005).


The following works have been used in the preparation of this guide:

Turabian, K., Wayne C. Booth & Gregory C. Colomb. A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations: Chicago Style for Students and Researchers, 7th ed. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2007. [LB2369 .T8].

Yaghjian, Lucretia B. Writing Theology Well: A Rhetoric for Theological and Biblical Writers. London and New York: Continuum, 2006. [BR44. Y34].

Revised, Nov. 2012.

Categories: 1

0 Replies to “Theology Proper Term Paper”

Leave a comment

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *