The doctrine of the Trinity affirms that the one true God eternally exists as three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who are coequal in essence, power, and glory. This theological mystery is revealed in scripture and has been faithfully articulated by the church throughout the centuries in creeds, confessions, and theology. It is an essential doctrine of the church and should be taught routinely. As Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson observe, “theology is possible only through divine initiative…is linked to all of life, and its study is a perennial process.” The Trinity reveals a relational God who acted in history for our salvation and invites us into a relationship with Himself.

This paper will define the key elements of the doctrine of the Trinity, defend it against major heresies, and explore its value for Christian living and ministry. It will draw on the witness of scripture, the historic creeds and confessions of the church, and the theological works of such men as Wayne Grudem, Fred Sanders, and James R. White. The goal is to demonstrate that the doctrine of the Trinity is not an abstract philosophical idea but the foundation of biblical revelation. A correct understanding of this doctrine equips believers to worship the Triune God rightly, understand the Gospel, and live in unity with fellow believers.

Definition

The doctrine of the Trinity can be summarized by several affirmations that come directly from the text of scripture and have been clarified through the church’s careful reflection under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. These elements include the oneness of God, the threeness of the divine persons, and the unity of essence, along with the distinction of the three persons. Together, they form a helpful picture that avoids errors like unitarianism and polytheism.

The Oneness of God

Scripture consistently affirms the unity and uniqueness of God. The foundational declaration of the Old Testament is found in Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” This is a monotheistic confession repeated and taught by all of the prophets. Isaiah records the Lord’s own words: “I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God” (Isaiah 45:5). The New Testament affirms this truth while, at the same time, further revealing the triune nature of God. The Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 8:6, “yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” The one God exists as a unity of three persons who share the same divine nature.

The Threeness of God

While there is only one God, scripture presents three distinct persons who are each fully and truly God. The Father is repeatedly identified as God. Jesus Himself refers to “God the Father,” who has placed his seal of approval on the Son of Man (John 6:27). The Son, referred to as the eternal Word, “was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). He “became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (John 1:14). The writer of Hebrews references Psalm 45 as he applies it to the Son: “But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.” (Hebrews 1:8). Paul describes believers as “waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” (Titus 2:13). The Holy Spirit is also presented as fully divine. In the story of Ananias and Sapphira, Peter equates lying to the Holy Spirit with lying to God: “You have not lied to man but to God” (Acts 5:4). The end of 2 Corinthians 13:14 says, “the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all,” naming all three persons in Paul’s blessing of the church.

These three persons are not merely different names or modes of the same being; they are genuinely distinct. The distinction is evident in the baptism of Jesus, where the Son stands in the Jordan River, the Father speaks from Heaven, and the Spirit descends visibly as a dove (Matthew 3:16-17). Jesus often prays to the Father (John 17). He promises to send “another Helper” (John 14:16), and mentions the Spirit proceeding from both the Father and Himself (John 15:26, 16:7). The persons in the Trinity all relate to one another as distinct while remaining perfectly united in their will and their purposes.

Unity of Essence and Distinction of Persons

The church has been purposeful in articulating this mystery using very careful theological terminology. There is one divine essence (Greek ousia) that is shared fully and equally by the three persons. The persons are not parts or divisions within God, nor are they projections or temporary manifestations. The Father is not begotten (given or created) and is the source of the Son and the Spirit. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son. These relations of origin are eternal and distinguish the persons of the Trinity without implying any order of subordination.

The Athanasian Creed provides the best and most precise summary of this doctrine: “We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.” Similarly, the Nicene Creed confesses belief in “one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth…And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds…And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and Son together is worshipped and glorified.” Both of these creeds guard against confusing the persons or dividing their essence.

Wayne Grudem offers a widely used definition: “God eternally exists as three distinct persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each of whom is fully God, yet there is only one God.” Grudem’s definition simplifies the biblical balance between unity and diversity. Fred Sanders, in The Deep Things of God, stresses that the Trinity is not an optional or “peripheral” doctrine but the very structure of the Gospel itself. The Father sends the Son in the power of the Spirit to accomplish redemption, and believers are brought by the Spirit into the fellowship of the triune God. “Because the Gospel is Trinitarian, evangelicals as Gospel people are by definition Trinity people, whether or not they think so.” The Trinity reveals that the God who saves is eternally relational and invites us into that relationship. Dr. James R. White states, “...the Trinity is the highest revelation God has made of Himself to His people.”

Defense

Throughout church history, various heresies have appeared that distort or deny the biblical teaching on the Trinity. These errors typically either collapse the three persons into one (called Modalism) or divide the one essence into multiple gods or a hierarchy of beings (Arianism/Tritheism). The church has rejected these definitions because they contradict the clear teaching of scripture and undermine the Gospel itself. By examining the major Trinitarian heresies and their biblical responses, we can gain clarity and defend this doctrine.

Modalism

Modalism, associated with Sabellius in the third century, teaches that there is one God who manifests Himself into three successive modes or roles: Father in the Old Testament, Son in the incarnation, and as the Holy Spirit in the church age. The persons are not eternally distinct but are different ways that the one God appears at different times. This view preserves monotheism but denies the real, eternal distinctions between the persons of the Godhead.

Modalism is refuted by several biblical texts that show the three persons acting distinctly and simultaneously. “Simultaneously” is an important distinction as it shows there is no succession. “Against Modalism, the church teaches that these are not just three manifestations of His being but that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God simultaneously, not successively.” At the baptism of Jesus, the Father speaks, the Son is baptized, and the Spirit descends (Matthew 3:16-17). Jesus prays to the Father throughout His ministry and promises to send “another” Helper, the Spirit (John 14:16). In John 17, Jesus addresses the Father as a distinct person with whom He shared glory “before the world existed” (John 17:5). If the persons were merely successive modes of God, simultaneous distinction and eternal relational language would not make sense. The Athanasian Creed explicitly rejects this error by insisting that we must neither confound the persons nor divide the substance.

Modern expressions of modalism appear in Oneness Pentecostalism, which denies the eternal distinctions within God, and Oneness Pentecostals will often re-baptize converts in the name of “Jesus only.” Teachings like this contradict the Trinitarian formula of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19) and confuse church-age worship and prayer.

Arianism and Subordinationism

Arianism, named after Arius (250-336), taught that the Son was a created being, the first and greatest of God’s creations, and therefore is not eternal or of the same essence as the Father. This view preserves a form of monotheism by making the Son and Spirit subordinate in nature, not just in role. It was rejected at the Council of Nicaea in 325, which affirmed that the Son is “begotten, not made”. The Council of Constantinople in 381 extended this affirmation to the Holy Spirit to add clarity.

Arianism is contradicted by texts that affirm the full deity and eternal existence of the Son. John 1:1 states that the Word “was God” and was “with God” in the beginning. This verse shows Jesus’ deity and eternality. Colossians 1:15-17 describes the Son as the one by whom “all things were created” and in whom “all things hold together,” language you could not assign to a created being. Hebrews 1:3 calls the Son “the radiance of God’s glory and exact representation of His being,” and Hebrews 1:8 directly addresses Him as “O God.” Titus 2:13 calls Jesus “our great God and Savior.” If the Son were a creature, these texts would be promoting idolatry. Grudem notes that the Nicene formulation of homoousios was necessary to preserve the biblical truth that only God can save, and the Son is the Savior.

Modern forms of Arianism or Subordinationism exist in groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who translate John 1:1 as “a god” and teach that Jesus is the archangel, Michael. These views undermine the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning work and degrade the real work of Christ on the cross. If Jesus were not God, He could not atone for our sins. Only one who is truly God can bear the infinite weight of human sin to reconcile us to the Father.

Tritheism and Other Errors

Tritheism errs in the opposite direction of Arianism by teaching that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate gods who cooperate. While it preserves the distinction of persons, it destroys the unity of the one God affirmed throughout the Bible. The scriptures make clear that there is only one God, not three. Tritheism would lead to, as Grudem says, “wonder[ing] to which God we should give our ultimate allegiance.” This would end in idolatry as the church would likely divide over which of the three we should truly worship.

Other related errors include Adoptionism (Jesus was a human adopted as a Son at His baptism) and Pneumatomachianism (that the Spirit is a created being, not divine). Both are refuted by the same scriptures that affirm the eternal deity of the Son and the full divinity of the Spirit. The creeds and a careful exegesis of scripture provide the standard by which all heresies are judged and rejected. We should consider them like guard rails, keeping us on the road and preventing us from driving into a ditch.

Application

The doctrine of the Trinity is not merely an academic or religious mystery; it is practical and necessary for Christian life. A solid Trinitarian belief and understanding promote right praise and worship, deepen our assurance in salvation, shape Christian relationships, and motivate the mission of the Gospel. Because God is triune, every aspect of relationship in life takes on a deeper, richer meaning.

Worship and Prayer

Christian worship is relational and inherently Trinitarian. The way we position ourselves in community with others, in unity of spirit on one accord, all flow from the Trinity. We pray to the Father, through the Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit. The pattern of prayer reflects the means of salvation; we approach the Father based on Jesus’ finished work, enabled by the intercession of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:26-27, Ephesians 2:18). We baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), and the Lord’s Supper is celebrated in remembrance of the Son’s sacrifice, in the presence of the Spirit, to the glory of the Father. Hymns and songs that praise the triune God form believers with the right doctrine. As Sanders observes, when we worship the Trinity, we are not just affirming an idea; God is drawing us into life and love. Christians relate to God because God relates to Himself. Just as we cannot know love without God, because God is love (1 John 4:8), we cannot know relationship without God, because God is relationship via His triune nature. Relationship and love are just two of God’s many attributes that flow from His nature and being.

Salvation and the Christian Life

The Trinity is the framework and foundation of our salvation. It is also the reason we can relate to others and God. The Father elects and sends the Son (Ephesians 1:3-6; John 15:1-8). The Son accomplishes redemption through His incarnation, obedient life, atoning death, and resurrection (Mark 10:45, Ephesians 1:7). The Holy Spirit applies that redemption by regenerating, indwelling, sealing, and sanctifying believers (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 1:13-14; 1 Corinthians 6:19). Kuyper’s classic work on the Holy Spirit highlights how the Spirit’s work is essential to every stage of the Christian life, from conviction of sin to final glorification. The order of salvation (Latin ordo salutis) reflects the nature of the Trinity, and our security in salvation is solely dependent on the Trinity’s work, and not our own.

To bring us into relationship, believers are adopted as children of the Father (Romans 8:15-17), united to the Son (Ephesians 1:3-14), and indwelt and empowered by the Spirit (Romans 8:9-11). Our salvation is secure because it is grounded in the eternal relations and covenant love of the triune God. The Trinity also shapes Christian ethics. Because God is a relational unity of love, believers are called to love one another in unity that reflects the divine relationship. We see examples of this in the call to unity within the church (Colossians 3:15, 1 Corinthians 1:10) and especially within marriage. Husbands are called to love their wives as Christ loves the church. Wives are called to submit to their husbands as unto the Lord. (Ephesians 5:22-24) The church is both the body of Christ and the temple of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19). This is just one way God displays the relational beauty of the Trinity to a watching world.

Mission and Ministry

In ministry, a Trinitarian perspective guards against false teaching or reducing God to a man-made construct. Preaching that is Trinitarian presents the full counsel of God rather than reducing the Gospel to a single theme or a therapeutic moral deism. Evangelism doesn’t just present a set of options for better living, but an actual invitation into relational fellowship with the living God who is Father, Son, and Spirit. Discipleship and counseling point believers to their identity in Christ, their adoption by the Father, and the Spirit’s ongoing work of transformation. Pastoral ministry reflects the relational nature of God as shepherds care for their flock. Pastors promote and compel unity within the body of believers in the church. They are called to teach how to mirror the relationships demonstrated to us by God.

Finally, the Trinity motivates mission. The Father sends the Son; the Son sends the church in the power of the Holy Spirit (John 20:21-22). Our mission participates in the Son’s mission from the Father and is empowered by the same Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead. We are called to join Jesus in His mission until the ends of the Earth. We do so by submitting to and trusting the Helper, who is the Holy Spirit. This gives both urgency and confidence because God went before us and goes with us.

Conclusion

The doctrine of the Trinity is the church’s faithful summary of the biblical revelation of God. It affirms one God in three coequal, co-eternal persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The three share one undivided essence while remaining genuinely distinct in their eternal relations of origin. This doctrine has been clearly articulated in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds and defended against such heresies as Modalism and Arianism that either confound the persons or divide His divine essence. Far from being an irrelevant teaching, the Trinity is the very foundation of Christian worship, salvation, community, and mission. It reveals that the God who saves is eternally relational and invites us into that fellowship through the work of Christ and the Spirit.

Students of theology and ministers of the Gospel are called to confess, teach, and live this doctrine with humility and conviction. As Morgan and Peterson remind us, “We rightly value theology: it glorifies God and naturally grows out of the biblical story.” Theology at its best builds up the church, leads it to maturity, and promotes unity in the body of Christ.

The doctrine of the Trinity is essential and foundational for Christians everywhere, at all times. Kevin DeYoung, in his devotional, Daily Doctrine, says, “If any doctrine makes Christianity Christian, then surely it is the doctrine of the Trinity.” We must begin with a right and proper understanding of God’s trinitarian nature to make sense of anything and everything else found in the Bible.

Bibliography

DeYoung, Kevin. Daily Doctrine: A One-Year Guide to Systematic Theology. Wheaton, IL:

Crossway, 2024.

Grudem, Wayne. Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith. Edited by Jeff

Purswell. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.

Kuyper, Abraham. The Work of the Holy Spirit. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900. Reprint,

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

Morgan, Christopher W., with Robert A. Peterson. Christian Theology: The Biblical Story and

Our Faith. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2020.

Sanders, Fred. The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything. Wheaton, IL:

Crossway, 2010.

Van Dixhoorn, Chad, ed. Creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms: A Reader’s Edition. Wheaton,

IL: Crossway, 2022.

White, James R. The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief.

Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998.

The Nicene Creed is one of the most significant statements of faith in all of Christian history. Week after week, believers across denominations rise in worship and confess together, “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty…” This historical summary of the Gospel has shaped how the church thinks about and how we communicate His Good News to the entire world.

The thesis of this paper is that the Nicene Creed, created at the Council of Nicaea in 325, during the Arian controversy and expanded at Constantinople in 381, established the standard of Trinitarian orthodoxy that unified the early church and continues to add clarity today. “Most Christian traditions regard the Council of Nicaea to be the first (of seven) “ecumenical,” that is, “universal,” councils, each of which deliberated about and confirmed specific beliefs and practices that Christians hold to be correct.” The Nicene Creed expresses an essential truth about God that sets appropriate guardrails against heresies like Arianism, Modalism, or Tritheism.

This paper will first examine the historical context in which the Nicene Creed was formed. It will then analyze the Creed itself by interacting with the text found in Creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms and trace its influence from its inception in the fourth century to the present. It will apply these truths to the life of the church today, showing how the Creed reinforces proper thinking about God and equips us to communicate that truth effectively.

Context of Composition

The Nicene Creed was created to address a crisis of unity in the church over the threat of Arianism. In the early fourth century, a man named Arius in Alexandria began teaching that Jesus was not eternal but was created by the Father. According to Arius, there was a time when the Son “was not.” This view quickly spread and caused division in the church.

Emperor Constantine, who had recently legalized Christianity through the Edict of Milan, saw the lack of unity as a threat to Rome’s stability. In 325, he called the bishops of the church to gather in the city of Nicaea (modern-day Turkey). Approximately 300 bishops attended, most of them from the Eastern part of the empire. Key figures included Alexander of Alexandria and his deacon Athanasius, who defended the full divinity of Christ, and Eusebius of Caesarea, who tried to mediate the position.

The council produced the original Nicene Creed of 325, which included the crucial word homoousios (of the same substance) to affirm that the Son is of the very same essence as the Father. Wayne Grudem wrote that the formulation of homoousios at the Nicene Council was necessary to preserve the biblical truth that only God can save, through Jesus (the Son) our Savior. Arius was willing to agree with using the term homoiousios (similar substance), but that definition was not sufficient for the council. “But the Council of Nicea in 325, and the Council of Constantinople in 381, realized that this did not go far enough.” While the 325 version focused primarily on the Son, the version we commonly use today was the expanded version from 381. This is sometimes referred to as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

The “why” behind the Creed was both theological and pastoral. The church needed clarity on the nature of Christ so that the Gospel itself would not be distorted. If Jesus were merely a created being, then our salvation would rest on something less than God Himself. The bishops at Nicaea recognized that the stakes were significant. As Lewis Ayres notes in his study, the controversy was not simply about words but about how the church should speak about the one God who made Himself known in Jesus Christ. “It is impossible to mention without reverent fear and holy trepidation that moment-infinitely significant and unique in its philosophical and dogmatic importance-when the thunder of Homoousios first roared over the city of Victory…” The theological significance of proclaiming the Son and Holy Spirit to be of the same essence as the Father is still felt today.

R. P. C. Hanson’s work on the Arian controversy shows that the struggle lasted for decades after Nicaea, even after Constantine wrote that Arius had accepted the Council’s decision. “There are extracts from a letter from Constantine to Alexander informing him that Arius has come to him at his court and satisfied him about his orthodoxy and his acceptance of the decisions of the Council of Nicaea.” Still, the Creed’s core affirmation endured because it faithfully and accurately summarised what the scripture already taught. As Dr. James R. White writes on the matter, “The Arian Resurgency that took place in the decades after Nicaea was due mainly to political factors and the maneuvering of particular leaders who were opposed to the Nicene definition.” Even after Constantine’s death, many Arian followers attempted to produce their own creeds, to no lasting avail.

Analysis of the Document and Its Influence

When we open the textbook Creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms and read the Nicene Creed, we encounter a carefully worded summary of Christian faith. The document begins:

“I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father…” The phrase “begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father” directly counters Arius. This is not speculation but a faithful guarding of the biblical truth that Jesus is fully God.

The Creed continues with the work of Christ: “Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man…” Here we see a glimpse of the Gospel, the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and return. The Creed does not just list facts found in the Bible; it proclaims the story of our redemption.

The Creed’s expansion in 381 adds clarity on the Holy Spirit: “And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and Son together is worshipped and glorified…” This completed the Trinitarian understanding and officially affirmed the deity of the Holy Spirit.

The influence of the Creed was immediate and lasting. It became the standard for orthodoxy. Churches used it in baptisms and worship. Later councils, such as Chalcedon in 451, built on its foundation when they clarified the two natures of Christ. Chalcedon’s words on Christ, “the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man”. The groundwork was laid in Nicaea for Chalcedon to offer this fundamental clarification. Both Creeds have significantly shaped Western and Eastern Christianity and led to the Protestant Reformation.

Even during the Reformation, the great Protestant confessions retained and affirmed the Nicene Creed. It has served as a unifying document across centuries of schism and division. Today, it remains one of the few statements of faith that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants confess together. In fact, while reading through the Creeds, I was reminded of the recitations of them I had learned as a young man in the Catholic church. As evangelical Protestants, we can appreciate the Christian unity found because of the Nicene Creed, and can echo what Fred Sanders said in The Deep Things of God, “The Trinity belongs to the necessary presuppositions of the Gospel.” We cannot even begin to call ourselves biblical Christians if we do not have a Trinitarian foundation.

Application

How does this historical Creed speak to us today? First, it guards doctrinal fidelity. In a time when many voices question the full divinity of Christ or reduce the Trinity to a secondary doctrine, the Nicene Creed keeps us anchored in the truth. With the rise of social media, the discussions have moved from debate halls to online videos. This fact has led to a resurgence of ancient heresies that Christians must continue to dispel. We are reminded that right thinking about God is not optional for the believer. When we confess “God from God, Light from Light”, we are protecting the Gospel. This fidelity matters for our own peace and the health of the churches we serve.

Second, the Creed calls us to behave biblically. The God we confess is not distant; He is the triune God who has acted for our salvation. Because the Father chose us, the Son redeemed us, and the Spirit seals us, we are called to live as people who have been set apart (made holy). The unity expressed in the Creed, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism”, should shape the way we treat each other in the local church. Division and hostility contradict the Gospel we confess. As believers who have been brought near by the blood of Christ, we are to pursue the unity for which He prayed. Unity within the body is only possible because of the unity within the Trinity. We are called to mirror that relational status in our own lives, whether at home or at church.

Third, the Creed helps with the effective communication of church doctrine. Its concise, memorable form makes it an excellent tool for memorization, discipleship, and teaching. When someone asks, “What do Christians believe about God?” we can point to the Creeds and walk through their clear statements. It helps us avoid speculation and stay close to the biblical story. In small/life groups, new believers’ class, or conversations with other believers, the Creed provides a trustworthy summary that points people to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Lastly, the Nicene Creed guards against anti-Trinitarian heresies. “He did not deny the Son should be worshiped; rather, the Son is less than the Father.” While Arianism was the driving force behind the Council of Nicaea, its core error continues to appear in various forms today. The Creed’s clear statements that the Son is “begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father” still protect the Gospel by affirming that only God can save. These statements continue to address the heart of Arius’ error whenever it reappears.

Modalism taught that God, “...merely reveals himself in three different modes or manners, usually related to an epoch.” It was a common Christian view for more than a century. These first two views attempted to keep a monotheistic belief of God but degraded the unity and relationship found in the truth of the Trinity. Finally, Tritheism, “separates the Three into many gods.” This view separates each person into their own individual God, forcing a form of idolatry on its adherents. The result then becomes having to make a choice between which god to offer worship to.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we can see how the Nicene Creed is such a significant statement of faith. We have seen how the combination of the Nicene Creed and the later addition at Constantinople established the standard of Trinitarian orthodoxy that unified the early church. This paper has demonstrated how the Creed defends against Arian, Modalistic, and Tritheistic heresies and has examined the historical context surrounding the construction of the Creed. Additionally, I have shown how we Christians can apply this truth to our daily walk and faith.

We thank God for the faithful bishops who gathered at Nicaea and Constantinople. Their work was not perfect, but under the Spirit’s guidance, they gave the church a treasure that has protected the faith for seventeen centuries. As the church, we should embrace the language found in the Creeds, not just in platitudes but infused in our daily walk in faith. “If we are to be creedal Christians in any meaningful sense, we would like to see the creed play a more profound role in the church than merely as a text to be recited.” Let us walk with confidence and assurance that the work that was done by our forefathers in the faith helped to lay the foundation that we currently stand on in Christ. May we, like our predecessors, contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. And may the God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit receive all glory in the church, both now and forever.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ayres, Lewis. Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Bernard, David K. “The Development of Modalism in Early Church History.” Journal of Early Christian History 9, no. 3 (2019): 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/2222582X.2019.1660905.

Grudem, Wayne. Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith. Edited by Jeff Purswell. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.

Hanson, R. P. C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318–381. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988.

Kim, Young Richard, Paul C. H. Lim, George E. Demacopoulos, Kyama Mugambi, Nancy R. Heisey, Rebecca Lyman, Benjamin Keogh, Christopher Boyd Brown, Mary K. Farag, Samuel Fernández, and Mark S. Smith. “Reflections on Nicaea at 1700: A Forum on the Legacy of the Council and the Creed.” Church History 94, no. 2 (June 2025): 338–77. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009640725102515.

Maxwell, David R. “The Nicene Creed in the Church.” Concordia Journal 41, no. 1 (2015): 13–22.

Sanders, Fred. The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010.

Van Dixhoorn, Chad, ed. Creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms: A Reader’s Edition. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2022.

Wendland, Robert E. “We Still Confess: The Council of Nicaea (325).” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 122, no. 4 (2025): 301–4.

White, James R. The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998.

Yarnell, Malcolm B., III. “The Trinity.” In A Handbook of Theology, edited by Daniel L. Akin, David S. Dockery, and Nathan A. Finn. Theology for the People of God. Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2023.

The systematic method of theology is a discipline that seeks to organize and articulate the doctrines of faith in a coherent and logical manner. The purpose of theology is “knowing God through the biblical story and recognizing the key teachings of the Christian faith that flow from that story.” Theological method combines biblical revelation with careful reflection to aim for intellectual understanding and the transformation of life and ministry. Theology is both a science and an art form.

This paper will summarize Systematic Theology by examining its purpose, sources, and relation to other theological disciplines. It will draw from perspectives that uphold the authority of scripture while engaging with church history and tradition. The goal is to demonstrate how theology serves the church by providing a framework for understanding God’s revelation and applying it. Theology has a three-fold purpose: “(1) to build up the church; (2) to lead the church to maturity in faith; and (3) to lead the church to unity. Theology at its best aims to do these three things, equipping and strengthening God’s people in a holistic way.” Through studying theology and its methods, the church will only grow in strength.

The Purpose of Theology

The primary purpose of studying theology is to know God fully and to glorify Him through obedience, faith, and practice. Theology flows from God’s self-revelation and equips believers to understand the biblical story and their place in it. Chapter 1 of Christian Theology frames knowing God as central and highlights relational knowledge of the Triune God over just mere information. Theology serves the church by promoting spiritual maturity, unity in the body of believers, and an effective witness to our fallen world. Theology combats false teachings and gives a framework for Christian living. It addresses questions of our identity and purpose in Christ while clarifying God’s redemption narrative.

Our attitude towards theology should be one of humility and total dependence on God. As created beings, we must approach our creator with a teachable spirit while recognizing that true knowledge of God comes through His initiative, not our hard work. This posture ensures that theology leads to a greater love for God and neighbor while sustaining our faith to do the work of God. “Ultimately, a theology for the people of God seeks to serve the church by building up the body of Christ so that it may grow up into the Head, which is Christ himself, in order to bring maturity in thought and in life.” Knowing God more should be the goal of every Christian believer in all of the church. It is not solely for our benefit (though there is much to benefit from), but it is also necessary for a right and proper relationship with the rest of the body of Christ.

The Sources of Theology

Scripture is the most important and necessary source for theology, as it’s the inspired word of God. Morgan and Peterson ground their entire systematic presentation in the biblical storyline, beginning each doctrinal discussion with exegesis (the critical explanation or interpretation of a written text) and context. “We view the various doctrines in light of the biblical story line: creation, fall, redemption, and new creation.” Every theological statement must be vetted through the entirety of scripture. We cannot build a foundation on anything other than solid and reliable scripture, for outside of that, we have only experience and opinion. The Bible is meant to challenge us to be transformed by the Word of God, and not be conformed to the world (Romans 12:2). Other sources, such as history and philosophy, can be beneficial, but they are subordinate to scripture and must be evaluated by it first.

Tradition serves as a helpful secondary source, transmitting the church’s historical understanding and guarding against trendy ideas or emerging cultural ideologies. A Handbook of Theology highlights how creeds, writings, and confessions support interpretation but do remain accountable to the scripture. Reason functions as a tool for logic and clarity, but is limited to and corrupted by sin (even as saved human beings, we are susceptible to fleshly error). Experience has value, but it must be illuminated by the Holy Spirit and interpreted through scripture to avoid subjectivism.

Morgan and Peterson’s method prioritizes exegesis and biblical theology while incorporating historical insight and practical application. “We study theology with conviction, knowing that God’s Word and teachings are true, even when governments, teachers, or societies try to shame us.” Regardless of the world’s teachings and attempts to make sense of God’s creation, we cannot rely solely on someone’s explanation for the things of God without first verifying it with the biblical texts, regardless of how appealing it might be.

The Types of Theology

Systematic theology integrates the insights of other disciplines into a palatable presentation of Christian doctrine. It is always focused on the biblical story and how to apply principles found within. “Systematic” as a word can feel mechanical and evoke hesitation from the listener. “The desire to be systematic can lead to the exclusion of data that do not fit neatly into one’s system.” Systematic theology builds directly on the proper exegesis of scripture through textual analysis, while using biblical theology to trace themes across the Bible and historical theology to trace the concept’s inception. Systematic Theology neatly categorizes all of the many theologies in a way that we can process and understand them in a “system”. Because the term theology is broad and incorporates many facets, systematizing the range of theologies can give us a clearer direction in what it is we are learning.

Exegesis provides a thorough and careful study of individual passages. Biblical theology provides the narrative framework of how doctrines unfold across the pages of scripture. It is, “Principally concerned with the overall theological message of the whole Bible.” Systematic theology then takes those other forms and synthesizes them into more palatable categories like theology proper, Christology, or soteriology, which then highlights all of the ways they are interconnected.

Historical theology is “the academic pursuit of understanding how God has continued to work with and through his people after the closing of the canon of scripture and without the direct revelation of God himself regarding his ongoing activity.” Practical theology applies doctrines to life and ministry while Pastoral theology focuses on the “identity and responsibilities of pastors.” We can see there is a wide range of things about God we can study and learn.

Conclusion

The method of systematic theology found in Christian Theology and A Handbook of Theology offers a biblically grounded and practical approach to knowing and proclaiming God. With the Holy Scripture as the foundation, when pursued with humility and practiced with various disciplines, it can equip believers to live out biblical truth in their context by defending against heresy and harmful ideologies and simultaneously encourage and build up believers. Ultimately, theology serves us in worship, unity, and our mission in God. It calls the church to glorify the Triune God through faithful doctrine and devotion, and most importantly, truth. Students of theology are challenged to engage these methods, not only academically but personally, for the sake of Christ’s kingdom.

Bibliography

Akin, Daniel L., David S. Dockery, and Nathan A. Finn, eds. A Handbook of Theology. Theology for the People of God. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2023.

Morgan, Christopher W., with Robert A. Peterson. Christian Theology: The Biblical Story and Our Faith. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2020.

Ephesians 1:1-14

(1) We are chosen: The Father chose and adopted us in Christ before the foundation of the world. (vv. 3-6).

Explanation: Before creation, God set his affection on us, predestining us for adoption and holy sonship through Jesus, according to God’s own will and plan. (v. 5)

Illustration: If you are a parent, when did you choose the name of your child? Like many parents, you chose their name long before you ever had them. You had dreams and plans about what your child would be like and what you would teach them and show them. If we, as earthly parents, can have these good plans and intentions for our own children, how much more does our Heavenly Father have for us? We humans, have limitations as to what we can provide, but God’s abilities are infinite.

Application: How does it feel, knowing that you were chosen before the foundation of the world? Does it assure you or intimidate you? When you realize that God has a plan for you, established long ago, do you still feel the pressure to earn God’s approval?

(2) We are redeemed: The Son redeemed and forgave us through His blood and revealed God’s mysterious plan (vv. 7-10).

Explanation: “Redemption is payment of a price or ransom. The price was Christ’s own blood, and the object was our souls.” - R. Kent Hughes

In Christ, we have redemption and forgiveness according to the riches of God’s grace, which He lavished on us; the mystery that was formerly concealed has been revealed through Christ, that God is actively uniting all things in Heaven and on Earth under Jesus Christ.

Illustration: In Japan, if you disturb or damage someone’s rice paddy, you will become indebted to that person for all the profit from rice that was lost due to the damage, in addition to any number of years it takes for that farm to return to its normal state. You now owe a debt that must be paid. Imagine someone were to come along and say, “I will pay that person’s fine”. They were not the ones who did the damage, and yet, they redeem the person who caused the damage by paying the fine for them. This is similar to the way in which Jesus redeems us. He pays the price for us and takes the fine (penalty of sin) on Himself.

Application: Have you ever had a stranger pay for your meal? How did it make you feel when they did? Do you think you still must pay for your meal after it’s been paid for? If so, why? Is there guilt and shame over your choices? How might believing in this ‘mystery’ of cosmic unity change the way you treat others whom you consider to be “outside” of your group?

(3) Sealed by the Holy Spirit: The Holy Spirit has sealed us for salvation as a guarantee of our inheritance (vv. 11-14).

Explanation: When we heard and believed the Gospel, we were marked by the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our redemption.

Illustration: When someone in the United States is in the market to buy a house, and they find the one they would like to purchase, they deposit an amount of money called “earnest” money. This is to show the home sellers that they are serious and intend to follow through with that purchase. They place the earnest money down as a guarantee that if the offer is accepted, they will buy the home. When Jesus pays the price for our redemption, He gives us the Holy Spirit as a guarantee that He will fulfill His promise to save us from sin and bring us into relation with God.

Application: Does knowing the Holy Spirit seals you for salvation give you confidence to walk with God? What would you change about your life right now if you lived as someone who was guaranteed redemption? Pray together about areas where you need assurance this week.

Conclusion: As this week’s study comes to an end, let us praise God for His sovereign plan. We are not random accidents; we are chosen, redeemed, and sealed people who bring glory to God. “In addition to being redeemed and forgiven, we are now eternal objects of His divine favor according to the riches that He lavished on us and will continue to lavish!”

Ephesians 1:15-23

(1) We need the Spirit. As Christians, we are dependent on the Spirit of wisdom and revelation to know God better. (vv. 15–17).

Explanation: Paul never stops thanking God for the Ephesians’ faith and love, and he prays continually for deeper knowledge and relationship of and with the Father through the Holy Spirit.

Illustration: Do you remember the era before high-definition televisions? You might look back on some older videos and see something that is quite blurry compared to the media we watch today. There are even those groups who painstakingly reproduce older non-HD content into a higher and clearer definition product. By the Holy Spirit, we are able to see and understand things that were once maybe a little blurry or fuzzy, but now are clear. We require His work for us to grow any further with God.

Application: Has your knowledge grown stagnant? Do you feel like every time you read the Bible or go to church, you just don’t understand what is being taught? What would it look like if you prayed to God for clarity this week?

(2) Enlighten our hearts. We need enlightened hearts to understand the hope of our calling and the richness of our inheritance (v. 18)

Explanation: The “eyes of our hearts” must see the expectation of God’s calling for us to be confident in the inheritance He has in His holy people.

Illustration: When a ship is out to sea, and a rough storm approaches, to be stable, the ship must drop the anchor down deep into the sea. The anchor keeps the boat from drifting away or being turned over in the rough weather. Hebrews 6:18-19 brings this into perspective: “We who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain.” We hold on to the hope within us to remain steady among the torrents of life.

Application: Have you ever felt lost and hopeless as a Christian? What brought you clarity in that moment? Share one instance of losing hope and how it was restored.

(3) Know the power of Christ. We need to know and remember that same power that raised Christ and made Him head of the church, seals us for salvation. (vv. 19-23).

Explanation: This power is the same might that God used to raise Jesus Christ and seat Him above every authority, making Him head over everything for the benefit of the church, His body.

Illustration: If you visit Niagara Falls, you may be impressed by the magnitude and power of the water perpetually dumping into the basin below it. Many visitors are able to take a boat ride close to the falls. Even though the boats don’t go underneath the falls, people still wear raincoats to keep from getting soaked because of the spray mist the falls create. The falls pale in comparison to the power and might of God, and He shares this with His children. “The power Christians have is not intrinsic power, something they have in themselves, but a power that comes from god, defined by the resurrection of Jesus and His exaltation as Lord over every other power, both now and in the future”. We do not have power on our own, but we are powerful in Christ.

Application: What area of weakness or fear do you need this power in your life today? How can your group live in unity as one body under Christ’s headship instead of chasing your own agendas? How should we respond to day-to-day fears or anxiety in light of this power from God?

Conclusion: This week, we have focused on what the Lord provides to His children. We would do well to remember all the things taught in scripture about God’s plan and His power. We should pray that God continue to open our eyes, align our hearts to His will, and submit ourselves to an ever-powerful, living God, who has chosen us to bring Him glory.

Ephesians 2:1-10

(1) We were dead. We were once dead in sin and deserving of God’s wrath (vv. 1-3).

Explanation: Apart from Jesus, every person follows the world, Satan, and fleshly desires, and lives under God’s wrath.

Illustration: Imagine a body at the bottom of the ocean. It would be a ridiculous notion to think that the body can revive itself and swim back to the surface. No matter how much will that body had, dead is dead. We are that body in this scenario, and God reaches down into the ocean, carries us to land, gives us breath, and makes us alive.

Application: What areas of your life do you think you are self-sufficient? Do you think you attained that status on your own? How does remembering your former state make you grateful?

(2) But God… made us alive in Christ because of the richness of His love and mercy (vv. 4-7).

Explanation: While we were dead in sin, God’s love and mercy raised us up with Christ and seated us in the heavenly places so that He could display the riches of His grace.

Illustration: The phrase “But God…” is a powerful statement to say that in spite of all you have done, I still love you.

Application: Do you have a “But God…” moment? Share with the group.

(3) Saved by grace. We are saved by grace through faith to do the good works God has prepared for us (vv. 8-10)

Explanation: Salvation is God’s gift, not earned by our works so that no one can boast or brag; yet we are His workmanship (His proud creation), created in Christ for good works.

Illustration: We live in a world where we expect that to earn something good, we must work for it. We have euphemisms like “nothing comes for free”, that guide the way we think and interact. This is the radical move of God, that we get what we don’t deserve (grace), and that Jesus got what we deserve instead.

Application: Have you ever been given an unexpected physical gift from someone? How did it make you feel? Did you express gratitude to the gift-giver? What are some ways you express gratitude for what Jesus did on the cross?

Conclusion: God’s grace changes everything. It brings dead things to life. We went from wrath to welcome in God’s eyes.

Ephesians 2:11-3:21

(1) No longer outsiders. Jesus brought former outsiders near to Him and created one new humanity (2:11-22)

Explanation: Gentiles who were once far away from God have been brought near by Christ’s blood; He destroyed the dividing wall, making peace and building both Jew and Gentile into one holy temple, Christ’s body.

Illustration: Imagine two families who live lives opposite of each other. One family from a prestigious group and the other from a less fortunate group. One day, a son from the prestigious group marries the daughter of the other group. This marriage brings two separate families together as one larger family. Jews were one group while the Gentiles were another, and Jesus’ death and resurrection is the wedding that brought both families together.

Application: Is there division and hostility between people in your personal life? What would it look like to bring reconciliation to that situation? How is the church strengthened by including both Jew and Gentile?

(2) The mystery revealed. The mystery of Christ has been revealed through Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles (3:1-13).

Explanation: The mystery of the Gentile inclusion as God’s people was hidden prior to Paul’s ministry, but has been revealed by the Holy Spirit. Paul became a servant of Christ and His Gospel so that the church would display God’s wisdom.

Illustration: Have you ever been to a surprise birthday party? People gather together to celebrate the birthday of a friend and wait in anticipation for them to arrive. The party itself was planned without the knowledge of the birthday recipient, but it is revealed when they arrive, and everyone shouts, “Surprise!” The party was planned long before the event, but is revealed on the day of the birthday.

Application: How does the inclusion of every nation in Christ change the way you view the global church? What part is God calling you to play in the building of His holy temple?

(3) Strengthened by the Spirit. We are strengthened by the Spirit to grasp the love of Christ and are filled with God’s fullness (3:14-21).

Explanation: Paul’s prayer is that we may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God. God can do immeasurably more than we could ever ask.

Illustration: Picture a drinking glass having water poured into it. The water doesn’t stop pouring, but the glass fills and begins to overflow. There is far more water than the glass can handle. Perhaps you grab another glass to help hold all the water, but it never stops. This is similar to how God pours out blessings on us, an overflowing blessing that cannot be contained.

Application: Would you like to comprehend Jesus’ love more fully? How would that change the way you think about life and relationships? As a group, how can we pray a similar prayer to Paul’s, catered to our church group?

Conclusion: Four weeks into our study of Ephesians 1-3 have shown us a God who blesses, enlightens, saves, and unites us in Christ (both Jew and Gentile). Our prayer is that we go forth in confidence as God’s chosen, empowered, and reconciled people. May the God who is able to do immeasurably more than we ask receive all the glory in us, the church, the nation, and the world! Amen.

Sentence Level Observations

The passage of Nehemiah 1 begins with the prophet seeing his brother returning from Judah, and Nehemiah asks about the remaining Jewish people and what has become of Jerusalem. Hanani, his brother, replies that things are not good, quite the opposite. The people are suffering, and things are in disorder. This leads to Nehemiah praying to God on behalf of the people of Israel. The very first thing that struck me was that Nehemiah, as a prophet of God, was not all-knowing, or even informed about the status of his people. Though God will speak through Nehemiah throughout the book, it is a good reminder that the prophets were not supernaturally different than the rest of the Jewish people, meaning they themselves were sinners that God used, like all of us.

On a sentence level, the very first thing that stood out to me was Nehemiah’s use of the word “your” when he prays to God. He uses “your” sixteen times in this chapter. He says, “let your ear be attentive”, “your eyes open”, “the prayer of your servant”, “the people of Israel your servants” (v. 6), “your servant Moses” (v. 8), “your servants”, “your people”, “your great power”, “your strong hand” (v. 10) and “your name” (v. 11). Nehemiah’s use of this term shows that he recognizes God’s omniscience and omnipotence. Everything belongs to God, and Nehemiah gives due reverence in acknowledging that.

Nehemiah prays on behalf of his people with the use of words like “we have sinned against you” and “I and my father’s house have sinned” (v. 6), showing corporate guilt and also humility in recognizing that he and his family are included in God’s judgment of Israel. There is no special position for the prophet of God; he is guilty too.

Another interesting observation is that Nehemiah’s brother did not report that the people had fallen into sin or had angered God in any way. Hanani only stated that the people are in trouble and shame, and that the wall of Jerusalem was broken. Nehemiah didn’t pray for God to fix the wall or make His people happy; he prayed a prayer of repentance for the sins of the people, because he knew that God would not have allowed that destruction to come if His people were obedient.

Paragraph Level Observations

The structure of this chapter of Nehemiah follows an introduction of when and where Nehemiah was while this was written. What follows is a prayer to God over the Jewish people. Like other prayers in scripture, it begins with exultation and adoration, then confession of sin, remembrance of what God has done for them, and petition towards Him for help. Some additional examples of this prayer pattern are Daniel 9:4-19 and Solomon’s prayer at the temple dedication in 1 Kings 8:22-53, as well as the Lord’s prayer in Matthew 6:9-13. The final line of this chapter reveals that Nehemiah is a cupbearer to the king. This position of trust with King Artaxerxes allows Nehemiah to later petition the king to go and rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. It is noteworthy to understand that the cupbearer of the king was the one to guard the wine from being tainted or poisoned.

Discourse Level Observations

The beginning of Nehemiah reveals to us the motivation for the prophet to go and rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. The rest of the discourse of his book shows how the Lord used Nehemiah and others to restore Jerusalem to safety and prominence. The prayer we read in Chapter 1 is not only a petition to King Artaxerxes regarding Nehemiah’s call to restore Jerusalem, but it is written out as a petition to God on behalf of the Israelites. There is a parallel between the two kings to whom Nehemiah petitions. This parallel shows us the dual authorities that we as humans are subjected to. We have earthly rulers and kings, but more importantly, we have a high and mighty king of all creation! Even though Nehemiah was called directly by God, he recognized God’s sovereignty in the secular rulers of that day. Just as Paul echoes in Romans 13:1, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” He knows that God’s people are not meant to demonstrate rebellion to the world, but order. Those who are called God’s people are to exemplify His holiness, “I am the Lord your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy.” (Leviticus 11:44) Our purpose is to be God’s representatives on earth in all our words and deeds, as Paul says in the 1 Corinthians, “Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us.” (5:20) God’s people have always been set apart from the world, and Nehemiah in honor to God was reverent to his earthly king, as any good ambassador should be. An additional parallel we see is the trust in Nehemiah by both King Artaxerxes and God. He may be just a cupbearer for the earthly king, but He is the prophet of the King of Kings. He is a trusted representative for both God and the king. Just as Nehemiah petitions God on behalf of his people, we have one who petitions God on our behalf, that being the Lord Jesus Christ.

The overall theme of Nehemiah could be that God brings true restoration when we express a burden for God’s will through prayer. Nehemiah 1 sets the stage for the remaining chapters that are fraught with equal joy and frustration as he works to restore God’s city and builds upon the spiritual restoration promoted by his predecessor, Ezra.

This is how I would nickname the Five Steps of the Interpretive Journey:

Step 1: Grasping the Text in Their Town, I would change this to “What did it mean to those who read it?” The first step is identifying that there was a purpose in the prophecy or letter to the original audience. What it meant to them may mean something different to us. Step 2: Measuring the Width of the River to Cross, I would rename “What differences and similarities are there between us in modern day, and them in the past?” This allows me to see differences and similarities between two different audiences. Step 3: Crossing the Principalizing Bridge, I would rename it as “What is the core message to both audiences?” We would call the core message the principle of what is being taught. Instead of nitpicking the nuances of a specific passage, what is the overarching core of the thing being taught? Step 4: Consult the Biblical Map. I would rename it to “Where else does the Bible mention this?” In Grasping God’s Word, it says, to “reflect back and forth between the text and the teachings of the rest of Scripture.” If something is important for us to know and learn from the scriptures, we should be able to find that principle or core in the totality of scripture, not just one verse. Step 5: Grasping the Text in our Town, I would rename “How does this apply to us?” Though there are things within the scriptures that only apply to certain people at certain times, we must ask what and how something would apply to the church today.

Interpreting Ephesians 2:1-10

1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”

Step 1: Grasping the Text in Their Town

It is important to understand the city of Ephesus in order to grasp the mindset of the Ephesian church. Ephesus was the home to one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, that wonder being a monument to the pagan goddess Diana, or as the Romans called her, Artemis. The town itself was known as the “nurturer” of the goddess. The goddess they worshipped was the goddess of hunting, wild animals, forests, and childbirth/protection. The people of the church at Ephesus would have connected to certain words and concepts from Paul, such as “children of wrath” and “passions of our flesh” (v. 3). Paul also equates their former lives of paganism with following the prince of the power of the air, revealing that they had been dead in their sin because of how they lived. Paul reminds them of their new position, which is an eternal one, where they are “seated with Him in the Heavenly places” (v. 6). This was likely encouragement over any persecution or social outcasting they were facing for their profession of faith in Jesus. We should also know that the idea of working in your faith towards pleasing the deity you worship is ingrained in all other religions. Being saved by faith was a foreign concept to the pagan audience of Ephesians.

Step 2: Measuring the Width of the River to Cross

We now look to see what some of the similarities and differences are between the audience of the letter and our modern audience today. Most people do not live in a city that is wholly devoted to a pagan god or goddess; many people do come from a background that is generally pagan. The concept of once being dead in sin applies to both audiences. Most people can identify with living according to the passions of our flesh, as sin’s effects have not changed throughout history. We are all by nature children of wrath, there is no cultural or time difference in that fact. We can connect with the Ephesian audience because we are also born into sin, and share that nature from birth. What God does for us in salvation is also shared; there is no difference between them and us, in God being rich in mercy and love. Salvation by grace through faith is a shared and recurring theme.

Step 3: Crossing the Principlizing Bridge

The core principle is that humanity as we know it is spiritually dead and deserving of the wrath of God due to sin. We know that God saves people because He is love and full of mercy, and that our salvation is due to our faith, and not our works. Instead, believers should see themselves as God’s workmanship, designed for good works. This principle affirms that salvation is a gift from God Himself, which emphasizes His sovereignty and yet calls us to be obedient to all He has commanded.

Step 4: Consult the Biblical Map

In the Old Testament, we see the dawn of human depravity and the origin of our sin nature in Genesis 3 with the fall of Adam and Eve. This affirms that all of humanity has been born into darkness and enslaved to sin. We see that sin is worthy of God’s wrath in His flooding of the Earth in Genesis 6 and at the same time see God’s mercy towards us in His saving Noah and his family. 2 Peter 2:5 “he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;”. In Deuteronomy 9:4-6, God warns Israel not to boast in their own righteousness, because God chose them by His grace, and not by their deeds. Isaiah 63:6 calls human righteous acts “filthy rags”, showing that we can do nothing good on our own effort. Finally, we see God intending to give us new hearts for obedience in Ezekiel 36:26-27, which emphasizes the principle of new creation.

In the New Testament, we continue to see these principles of human depravity in Romans 3:23, where Paul says, “all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory”, followed by verse 24, “and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” This echoes Paul’s point in Ephesians 2:9 when he says, “not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” James further supports this claim in 2:14-26, where he argues that faith without works is dead. On the surface, this seems to contradict the rest of the passages regarding salvation by faith alone, but with careful attention, we know that James is saying that if your faith doesn’t produce good works, you don’t actually have faith.

Step 5: Grasping the Text in our Own Town

This is the step where we learn how to take these principles and apply them to our own lives as Christians. Firstly, we must begin by realizing that we no longer live the way we used to as sinners. We must realize and embrace that the life we live in Christ is opposite from the life we once lived in sin. We can also grasp that those who are not in Christ still live according to the prince of the power of the air, but we should not return to or live that way any longer. We were once deserving of God’s wrath, but because of the cross, Jesus Christ took the wrath we deserved onto Himself.

Even though we deserve God’s wrath, on our own, for our disobedience, God is merciful in that He gives us something that we didn’t earn or deserve. There was nothing we could do to prove to God that He should give us grace or mercy. In fact, the word for grace is best translated as unmerited favor. We have God’s favor because God decided to have favor on us, based on His will and not our deeds. We can know that our salvation comes by God’s grace (unmerited favor) through our faith (a gift from God) and not based on anything we ourselves could ever do. We should see ourselves as God’s workmanship (v. 10) in that God is the master crafter, the molder of our clay. God gives us grace that we don’t deserve, to have faith that we can’t create, to do works that we are incapable of doing on our own. So not only should we trust God to do what He says, because all throughout scripture He proves Himself repeatedly, but we can be at peace that we are no longer having to strive to impress God or earn something from Him.

Conclusion

When we understand the Interpretive Journey concept of reading and studying the scripture, we have a much clearer and biblically appropriate understanding of the text in its proper context. We can ensure that we are not adding to or taking away from the original intent of the writings or prophecies. Discovering the principles of the scripture will prevent us from asserting our own opinions into the text. We must read the Bible through the lens of the original audience and yet understand the implications for us today.

Bibliography

Duvall, J. Scott, and J. Daniel Hays. Grasping God’s Word: A Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible. 4th ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020.

Sproul, R. C., ed. The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version. Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2015.

Nathanael “Nate” Saint was born on August 30, 1923, near Hershey, Pennsylvania, into a family that encouraged his interest in aviation. Nate was obsessed with flying after a plane ride he took with his brother Sam when he was just seven years old. He later joined the Army Air Corps during World War II with the intention to fly planes, but was grounded due to a leg injury. Instead of flying, he maintained the aircraft for other Army pilots, which resulted in considering the potential for aviation in Christian missions. He attended Wheaton College and married Marjorie Farris on February 14, 1948. They moved to Ecuador, where Nate helped found a base for Mission Aviation Fellowship (MAF), flying medical supplies and supporting missionaries in isolated villages for eight years.

In 1955, Saint joined Operation Auca, an effort to evangelize the Huaorani people, also called Waodani. The Waodani were unreached and known for their violence towards outsiders. Using his piloting skills and a technique called the bucket drop, used to establish contact with hostile people without being physically present, Saint was able to build trust with Waodanis over time. After close to a year of establishing a rapport with the people, on January 3, 1956, a team of people, including Jim Elliot, Ed McCully, Peter Fleming, and Roger Youderian set up a camp and airstrip on a beach near a Waodani settlement. The interactions between the groups were initially positive and safe. Just five days later, when they returned, they were ambushed and speared to death by Waodani warriors.

Steve Saint was born just five years prior, in January 1951, in Quito, Ecuador. He was the second of Nate and Marjorie’s three children. Though he lost his father at age five, by age ten he was spending summers with the Waodani. He learned their ways and was even baptized in the Curaray River by Waodani tribe members who were converted to Christianity, including some who were involved in the killing of his father. Steve himself graduated from his father’s alma mater, Wheaton College, and worked as a tour guide in Ecuador. He married his wife, Ginny, and built a business career in the United States. In 1994, he returned to Ecuador on an invitation from the Waodani. From 1994 to 1996 he worked to support the development of their community. He left to help them promote their own independence in faith by not relying on missionaries, as many groups have a tendency to do.

Missionary Significance

Nate and Steve Saint stand out as missionaries for the use of Nate’s innovation in flying and the use of technology to reach people groups, while Steve exemplifies reconciliation and forgiveness in his continued work with the Waodani people. Both men exemplify a willingness to risk everything for the unreached Waodani people, despite their reputation for violence. This act of self-sacrifice highlights the cost of discipleship and sparked a global missions movement, covered by television and other media.

Steve’s significance builds on his dad’s foundation by not only pursuing the evangelizing of a group of people who killed his father but also in his willingness to forgive them. His work challenges missionaries to prioritize long-term sustainability of mission work in particular areas, but also to know when to support the independence of the groups in their growth as Christians. Steve showed that there is great value in equipping locals to lead their own Gospel and evangelism efforts instead of being dependent on foreign missionaries. The story of both Nate and Steve Saint illustrates how faithfulness to God’s mission can redeem tragedy.

Specific Contributions of the Missionaries

Nate Saint contributed to leveraging aviation for missionary efficiency. His organization, MAF, perfected techniques like the bucket drop, enabling non-intrusive contact with hostile people, building rapport without risk. During Operation Auca, the bucket drop made 13 contacts with the Waodani, resulting in the first aerial survey of their settlements and a beach landing strip that enabled direct engagement. These strategies allowed for patient and culturally sensitive outreach, which built trust with the tribes over time, instead of the usual method of moving into a territory and immediately into the culture.

Steve Saint’s contributions emphasized empowering the tribes through technology, equipping them to learn and become self-reliant and motivated. Saint founded the company I-TEC in 1996 and created tools like the Maverick flying car that allowed traversing large-scale terrain in places that don’t have road access. He also helped create portable dental units and education programs to equip native Christians to be self-sustained for missions. This approach emphasized partnership over dependency, training the Waodani in skills like piloting and healthcare to reach their own people.

Ongoing Legacy of the Missionaries

The legacy of Nate Saint endures through the MAF, which continues to use aviation to serve isolated communities around the world. His martyrdom led to the conversion of many Waodani, including six who were involved in the attack. Institutions like the Nate Saint Memorial School in Ecuador operated until around 2017, and displays of his plane at the MAF headquarters preserve his memory. His story is memorialized in books like Jungle Pilot and movies such as End of the Spear, motivating mission work to this day.

Steve Saint’s legacy continues in his business I-TEC, which equips indigenous believers with tools for evangelism, extending well beyond Ecuador. His reconciliation with the Waodani people models forgiveness and inspires joy in the miraculous works of God. The Waodani now lead their own outreach.

The lives of Nate and Steve Saint show how the power of innovation can overcome cultural and physical barriers in reaching foreign people groups. Their determination to evangelize the Waodani continues to inspire missionaries worldwide. They show the importance of becoming self-reliant rather than relying on missionaries for teaching and instruction, and that if given the proper tools, unreached people can be trained to carry on the work started by temporary missionaries. As modern missions face similar challenges of isolation and cultural divides, the Saints’ example will encourage believers to integrate skills with faith to ensure we can reach all tribes, tongues, and nations with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Benge, Janet, and Geoff Benge. Nate Saint: On a Wing and a Prayer. Lynnwood, WA: YWAM Publishing, 1998.

Hitt, Russell T. Jungle Pilot: The Life and Witness of Nate Saint. Grand Rapids, MI: Discovery House Publishers, 1997.

Mission Aviation Fellowship. “Nate Saint.” MAF.org. Accessed January 23, 2026. https://maf.org/about/history/nate-saint.

At its foundation, Marxism is a philosophy of materialism focused on the disparity between the working class and the ownership class. Marx teaches that the only way for the working class to have true freedom would be for them to own the means of production themselves. Marx predicted that the struggle between classes would be a reality in every capitalist society until those disenfranchised workers revolted and established a classless communist society. Most defenders of Marxism would do so by saying it was simply a scientific worldview, based on historical and empirical data, and that there was no room for supernatural delusions. Any person attempting to make the connections that Marxism is a religious worldview would be accused of trying to reduce Marxism in bad faith, considering Marx’s atheistic worldview.

This paper argues that, despite its atheistic foundations, Marxism functions as a secular religion through its sacred texts (scripture), prophecies, dogma, and communal rituals. Each is necessary for any definition of religion. It offers a form of salvation, not from the wrath of God (Romans 5:9) but from the oppression of the oppressors, providing existential meaning in a disenchanted society. As mentioned by Raymond Aron in The Opium of the Intellectuals, Marxism emerges as a secular religion that retains “the prestige and the force of the prophetism” in what we would recognize as a growing dissatisfaction and trust in religious institutions. This essay will first examine Marx’s religious critique and the elevation of his own works; second, demonstrate the similarities of his eschatological view and religious apocalyptic narratives; third, explore how Marxist dogma is enforced; fourth, address counterarguments; and lastly discuss Marxism’s implications for understanding modern ideology.

Marx’s attacks on religion were intentional, and they formed the foundation of his worldview. This is to say that he had to disparage religion and transform the people’s view of it to reteach them towards his ideology. He blamed capitalism for the emphasis that people had on faith and religion, that it was a tool for capitalists to keep workers hopeful of a heavenly future, but content enough not to revolt against it. In The German Ideology, he and Friedrich Engels argued that religious ideas serve to enforce class domination: “the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.” Instead of religion being divine revelation from a creator God, they demote it to an ideological structure, preventing people from seeing the ways they were being exploited. By focusing on the materialism of labor, wages, and ownership, he could offer what he’d consider a rational alternative in society that would be advancing toward true freedom. However, by attempting to dismantle traditional faith, Marxism created its own idols to revere and its written words to become canonized.

Marx’s foundational texts became an infallible scripture in the hands of his followers. The Communist Manifesto and Capital are not just “books” but are treated in the same way Christians would treat the Bible, as holy scripture. Just as biblical scripture is often scrutinized and interpreted by an academic community, so are Marx’s writings. In chapter 31 of Capital, Marx describes the dawn of capitalism in an almost biblical way. “The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population… signaled the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production”. Just as the Bible teaches that much of the woes of the world are a result of original sin, Marx’s “original sin” would be the fetishizing of material, or the desire to have.

Marxism’s sacralization has been noted by men like Eric Voegelin, who called Marxism a “gnostic revolt against the world”. Voegelin argues that these ideologies reject order and substitute closed systems of interpretation that won’t allow any equivalent of heresy against it. Leszek Kolakowski, in Main Currents of Marxism, writes: “In this sense, Marxism performs the function of a religion, and its efficacy is of a religious order”. Kolakowski would argue that the mythical structure of Marx’s texts transforms empirical critique into its own liturgy. This is not an abstract idea either; proceeding Marxist scholars continue to debate the meaning and interpretation of Marx’s writings, much like biblical scholars may debate the use of certain words in the New or Old Testament.

If Marx’s writings evoke scripture, his philosophy regarding history does the same with eschatology. In other words, Marx speaks of a future hope of release from oppression, freedom from those who control and oppress, and a world where every person is equal on every level. The materialist view of Marxism’s history evolves from a primitive form of communism through the means of slavery, to feudalism, to capitalism, resulting in a proletarian revolution that enters the dawn of communism just as Christianity would trace its origin to the dawn of mankind in the Garden of Eden, through theocracy and monarchy, to a socialistic or democratic society, resulting in Christ’s return and rule for eternity. Both Marxism and Christianity point to an apocalyptic end. “What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable”. Here, Marx argues almost prophetically that the bourgeoisie will inevitably cause their own fall, ushering in a revolt and true change in society. Christians would dub this character as an anti-Christ, who would lead to the coming of the true Christ. Christianity promises a heavenly reward for rejection of the anti-Christ, while Marxism rewards those laborers who reject the bourgeoisie. The deity in Marxism is human agency, or autonomy, from the controlling class. Kolakowski explains more by dubbing the “mythology of the proletariat” that secularizes and times promises, where class struggle atones for history’s sins. In Critique of the Gotha Program, Marx wrote,

“in a higher phase of communist society, after the enclaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want…only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners” from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”

Marx’s own prophetic view of the end days is one in which all who have toiled and labored share the fruit of the work in a way where no man is given more than any other. A truly “heavenly” view of a day which Marx claims will come inevitably. Yet, it must be a self-fulfilling prophecy that has yet to be realized, just as biblically prophetic promises of a future hope we have in the return of Jesus, Marxism’s future hope is realized upon the completion of the coming proletariat revolt. Just as Christian teaching would show that throughout history, various societies functioned as a catalyst for the future society, Marx similarly teaches that each previous age is meant to lead to the next and finally result in utopia. Karl Lowith, in Meaning and History, reinforces this idea by arguing a philosophy of history of ages succeeding one another toward perfection. In a world without God, this offers a sort of redemption through revolution, but at the cost of a zeal that has justified terrors from the Gulag to the Killing Fields. This type of materialistic view not only predicts the end but makes it sacred, transforming the ideology into a type of faith.

Defenders of Marxism reject any analogy to religion, insisting that its materialistic view is scientific and not as blind as faith. Engels in Anti-Dühring, claimed it as “the science of the general laws of motion and development of nature, human society, and thought”. Supernaturalism is considered ridiculous, and progress stems from productive forces and not providence. This is the argument that defenders would say distinguishes Marxism from faith in that it predicts, tests, and adapts to changes that could not be foreseen. It would allow for changes in the specifics of predictions made by admitting it couldn’t perfectly predict every detail of society’s future. Though defenders of Marxism would claim that their views are grounded in science, Voegelin warns that gnostic ideology, as seen in Marxism, elevates humans to divinity, “for the men who fall into these experiences divinize themselves”. Even though a century has passed since the writing of the Manifesto, Marxists still hold to the idea that the forecasted imminent collapse of capitalism is on the horizon. “They accept the reality which surrounds them, and deny the other,” that makes followers immune to any disproof. Marxism also holds to a few tenets of moral absolutism, namely equating capitalism to evil and revolution to virtue, defining for its followers what it claims are moral and immoral.

In conclusion, Marxism is more than just an ideology but is the embodiment of a secular religion. Its texts are its scripture, its history is its eschatology, and its institutes are its dogma. While Marxists may deny the label of religiosity, they embody the very essence of a religious people. They replace God as the ultimate authority and end with the will of the people. They worship the capability of humanity, not any form of creative being. Marxism points to the ownership class and capitalism as the cause of all of society’s problems and predicts the fall of capitalism and the rise of the workers as inevitable. Though some of Marx’s ideas have morphed with the change of society, the foundation of Marxism is not only alive in the halls of today’s academia, but also in the politics of American and other Western capitalistic societies. Marxism cannot be simply dismissed as a relic of politics past, but must be addressed head-on as the secular religion that it still is today. Marx did not create an ideological replacement of the woes he perceived in society; he created his own version of the “opiate of the masses”.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aron, Raymond. The Opium of the Intellectuals. 1955. Translated by Terence Kilmartin. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2001.

Corduan, Winfried. Neighboring Faiths: A Christian Introduction to World Religions. 3rd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2024.

Engels, Friedrich. Anti-Dühring: Herr Eugen Dühring’s Revolution in Science. 1878. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1978.

Kolakowski, Leszek. Main Currents of Marxism: Its Origin, Growth, and Dissolution. Vol. 3, The Breakdown. Translated by P. S. Falla. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978.

Löwith, Karl. Meaning in History: The Theological Implications of the Philosophy of History. 1949. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967.

Marx, Karl. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Vol. 1. 1867. Translated by Ben Fowkes. London: Penguin Classics, 1990.

Marx, Karl. Critique of the Gotha Programme. 1875. Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1978.

Marx, Karl. “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction.” 1843–44. In Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 3, 175–187. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975.

Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The German Ideology. 1845. In Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 5. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976.

Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. 1848. Edited by Gareth Stedman Jones. London: Penguin Classics, 2002.

Voegelin, Eric. The New Science of Politics: An Introduction. 1952. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.

Usually, when you hear about division in the church, the connotation is negative. Even Paul, in this same letter to the church in Corinth, says that some follow after Paul, others after Apollos, and still others after Jesus. He asks them if Jesus, Himself, is divided, and the natural answer is “no!” The division Paul speaks out against here is not the same division Paul is speaking of in chapter 11. Unless, of course, we believe Paul would intentionally contradict himself.

In the case that Paul isn’t being contradictory, we must then look at the context of what Paul is discussing when he states that “there have to be differences among you”. Note, Paul uses the term “differences” in tandem with “divisions” in verse 18. Paul had previously rebuked the Corinthians for their division, yet here he is reassuring them that some divisions are necessary. He then gives the answer as to why the divisions are necessary when he says, “to show which of you have God’s approval”. There are two potential ways to understand what he means by God’s approval. It could be that he is drawing the line between those who are saved and those who are not, or those who are mature and tested versus those who are not.

With the news of Charlie Kirk’s assassination last week, the church and the United States at large have been processing the value of disagreement. Charlie’s legacy is one that shows dialoguing with people you disagree with is right and proper. He has shown that there is a way in which people can hold completely different opinions and still attempt to find a middle ground. America has held to the right of free speech under the impression that good, logical, and reasonable dialogue is the best defense against bad, illogical, and harmful dialogue. Many have also made the case that any time either side attempts to silence their opponent through intimidation or coercion it only creates fervor for the silenced view. In other words, let the best argument win!

This, I believe, is at the core of the point the Apostle Paul is making in his letter to the Corinthian church. If I were to paraphrase Paul, I would say “let the best argument win, for the mature believer to be proved”. God has built this type of thing into the church for the sanctification of the body of believers. Division in the church is a check-and-balance for the growth and maturity of the body as a whole. It is baked-in to the DNA of the human experience for a purpose. If a church does not allow for questions or disagreements in policy, liturgy, or doctrine, the church does not and cannot grow. This is one of the complaints that many “Deconstructionists” have made toward their church experiences. They have said that they had questions or objections, and the church either couldn’t answer them or told them to sit down and be quiet.

It’s a feature, not a bug.

Having differences of views within the church body is not something to be rid of. The church as a whole does a disservice to itself when it fails to follow the scriptural example of, “come, let us reason together” (Is 1:18). We fail to build up our spiritual muscles through discipline when we try to sharpen iron with clay (Prov 27:17). We cling to bad ideas when we are forced to follow one man’s opinions, “Put Me in remembrance, let us argue our case together; State your cause, that you may be proved right” (Is 43:26). We remain children in the faith, subject to milk when we refuse to grow through challenging dialogue, “When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things” (1 Cor 13:11).

Not only is it good to have differences within the church, but if we refuse to entertain challenging views, we are refusing to allow the Lord to grow and mature us into becoming what He wants us to be. We stifle the growth of those whom we are called to teach and disciple. God loves His church so much that He brings along those who hammer away at our imperfections through challenge. It is good to reason with others, because this is the process God has given for our sanctification, and helps us to be “ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;” (1 Peter 3:15).

The problem with the celebratory response to Kirk’s murder is not the simple fact that one person, or a group of people, hated one man. Those who are relishing in his death are proclaiming their own hatred for the very ideas he held. The same ideas that a majority of Christians in the United States and abroad also hold, and in many cases to an even further extreme. You’ve probably heard it before, but Charlie was in fact a moderate. He was able to hold such a position because of his ability to dialogue and to hear the other side without violently reacting. He was truly able to attack the idea, and not the person. This was not the case with the shooter. The shooter and those celebrating hoped to kill the idea by killing the person. This is the truest form of authoritarianism, a tactic of true fascism.

Politics is hardly a cause worth dying for, but truth certainly is. Truth in its truest form, as believing Christians would say, is found in the reality of God the Father, who sent Jesus Christ to die for our sins. Charlie would agree. Charlie would say we can disagree on issues of politics and society, but he would not be willing to compromise on matters of truth. Charlie was not killed because of his politics, though many would try to argue that. Charlie was killed because he proclaimed the truth, specifically that Jesus Christ is king, and there are no others worthy of worship.

The celebratory reactions to Charlie’s death tell Christians everywhere, “you’re next”. They shout to pastors, deacons, clergy, and lay people, “There is no room for you”. They echo with the reality that scripture teaches in Proverbs 8:36: “but he who fails to find me injures himself; all who hate me love death.” The reactions to Charlie are a glimpse into darkness, a darkness that wants us dead as well. A darkness that would happily post on our social media, “you reap what you sow”. The glorious irony in this statement is one that only God Himself could posit. One that dismantles the fear and sting of death at its core. Where they say we would get what we deserve, God says, I will give you what you don’t deserve, and take upon myself what I don’t deserve.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ, the ultimate reason why Charlie Kirk was killed, says that we all deserve death (and the world agrees), but the part that leaves us unashamed is grace; the fact that we do not get what we do, in fact, deserve.

My Atheist friend, Greg, rejects Christianity based on the notion that Christianity’s core doctrines cannot be experimentally tested. This causes him to believe that Christianity is unscientific and seemingly superstitious. This paper will argue that while Christianity’s core doctrinal claims may not be testable, it is no less valid as a belief system and should not be rejected on scientific grounds, as science itself is the practice of observation and not a foundational, objective truth.

As Winifred Corduan writes, “A religion is a set of core values or beliefs that provides meaning and coherence to a person’s life.” This definition does not mean that religion, and particularly Christianity, cannot also be validated as truth through observation. Greg may believe that having faith in God or following a religious practice relies primarily on a level of hope without verifiable proof. What may be of value in this dialogue is to mention that the historical claims of Christianity can be observed through records of not only early Christians, but also in one of the oldest remaining religions on Earth, Judaism.

Science does a great job at investigating natural phenomena that may initially be unexplainable, such as what the clouds in the sky are made of or where the stars go during the daytime. Science does not, however, do well to explain some of the metaphysical phenomena, like the substance of dreams or even the existence of God. I would tell Greg that while science is not meant to be dismissed, as its value can extend to that of historical observation, it can not be the sole source of all truth. To place your full trust in the practice of science would be to ignore the reality that there are instances in life that, though observed, are nearly impossible to explain without some study of religion.

The quest for knowledge and the way that things work in the world around us are central to the experience of being a human being. We are able to predict the weather due to observations of weather patterns and records of temperature throughout the years. We know how to build homes that can withstand hurricanes and earthquakes because science has allowed us to study these things. Curiosity about how things work is one of the characteristics of being human. In addition, love, beauty, and meaning are also central to humanity, and yet there is no tangible way in which to measure or understand those things through scientific observation. We can study the effects of love, we know how the human brain reacts to seeing images of beauty and nature, but we aren’t able to conclude the answer as to why these things are significant. Religion, and Christianity in particular, helps us to understand where these metaphysical things come from and why we have these experiences in the first place.

When it comes to Greg’s need to have observational proof of the existence of things to be considered valid. I would point him to the historical record of Jesus’ life on Earth. “One of the clearest nonbiblical references to Jesus is found in the writings of Josephus, a Jewish historian from the first century AD. He was not a Christian and therefore had no reason to embellish his mention of Jesus.” Just as we would trust what we know about Julius Caesar due to the historical records about him, we can have even more confidence in the historical records about the existence of Jesus Christ. Even more important to note is that books written about Caesar were not compiled until approximately three hundred years after his death, while the letters of the Apostles and the Gospels were written as early as thirty years after His resurrection.

Greg may argue that only scientifically verifiable claims are reliable, and historical evidence is too subjective or unreliable to justify believing in Christianity. It’s possible that Greg may say that metaphysical claims like the existence of God or the soul are untestable and no different than superstition. To these claims, I would explain that what he is describing is called Scientism. Scientism is the belief that science is the only valid source of knowledge. This view itself is a philosophical stance, and not one based on scientific observation. Greg seems to hold the view that science and faith are opposed to each other, but I would argue that many reputable scholars would reject this idea. Author Bob Stewart wrote, “Today the thesis that science and Christianity are now and forever have been at war is seen to be a myth by virtually all scientists and historians of science.” In fact, I would claim that the Bible never asserts itself to be a science book, and many have made the damaging claim that we can prove science true through scripture.

In conclusion, though Greg has many concerns about faith and science being incompatible, Christianity can be historically and reasonably verified as reliable. I would encourage Greg to pursue further study and research into the reliability of scripture to answer the more important questions of “why are we here” and “what is our purpose”. Science can coexist with faith because faith does not demand the scientific method for its reliability.

The term theodicy comes from the Greek words “theos,” meaning God, and “dike,” meaning justice. Theodicy is most often understood as the problem of evil. “This problem can be framed in two important ways: first, God (an omnipotent and morally perfect being) could have created free creatures that only do what is good, but since there is evil in the world, evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of God; and second, it seems that God has no reason to allow evil.” These questions are explored in scripture and specifically in the question of why the righteous suffer while evil people in the world seem to prosper. Both Ecclesiastes and Job wrestle with this subject without giving the answers many expect them to. "There is a vanity that takes place on earth, that there are righteous people to whom it happens according to the deeds of the wicked, and there are wicked people to whom it happens according to the deeds of the righteous" (Ecc 8:14). "It is all one; therefore I say, He destroys both the blameless and the wicked. When disaster brings sudden death, he mocks at the calamity of the innocent" (Job 9:22-23). Both of these verses encapsulate the core theodicy question of “Why do the innocent suffer?”

There are many ways that scholars and philosophers try to reduce theodicy to solely the free will of men. They will answer by saying that man’s will is free and God will not encroach on the will of man; therefore, evil exists as a result of the choice being made by man, and there is nothing that God can do about that. This reduces the sovereignty of God to being subjected to the will of man. The notion that God is incapable of modifying the will of man, or that He cannot force man’s will, is infantile and unserious. There is another idea that suffering builds character, which is true throughout scripture, but as an argument for theodicy could imply that God needs evil to bring about His will, undermining God’s self-sufficiency (that God needs anything). Both Ecclesiastes and Job avoid making these mistakes and leave a bit of mystery in God’s motives without diminishing the character of God. Ecclesiastes 3:11 explains, “He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end." This shows us that God has given humans a limited understanding of His ways. Job affirms this in his conversation with God, as the Lord asks Job rhetorically, "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding" (Job 38:4). How God responds to Job exemplifies that humans cannot understand the motivations of their creator, and what little they do, must be sufficient.

When we improperly address theodicy, we risk diminishing God’s attributes for the sake of making a clear argument. We can limit God’s power when we try to explain evil from a human perspective. We can assault His omnipotence when we try to say that evil happens as a result of the will of man that God cannot control. We also risk portraying Him as unloving when we write off the problem of evil as outside the realm of God’s will, often parsing out God’s perfect will by His permissive will. There is no room in scripture for there to be separate wills of God, and it is a foolish attempt to make sense of suffering and pain. Those who argue in favor of man’s free will are often called Free Will Theists. They reduce God’s will to be in subjection to man’s, as if God is nobly respecting their autonomy. “The free-will defense views God’s providence as a noble model of self-restraint and noninterference, affording humanity a remarkable degree of autonomy.” This view places the power of man’s will above God’s. It is thoroughly appropriate for human beings to fail to understand the mind of God. "As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything" (Ecc 11:5). The scriptures do not demand that we humans can attain or even match the knowledge of God.

Retribution Theology tries to answer theodicy by saying that good deeds bring blessings and sin brings suffering. Another way to understand that is to say that because we suffer, it proves we are guilty and deserving of suffering. This idea ignores the suffering of innocents and is an oversimplification of God’s justice. Job addresses this with his friend when he says, “Remember: who that was innocent ever perished? Or where were the upright cut off?” (Job 4:7). The entire narrative between Job and his friends is an exchange on Retribution Theology. Qohelet says, "In my vain life I have seen everything. There is a righteous man who perishes in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man who prolongs his life in his evildoing" (Ecc 7:5). Estes agrees, “Job’s friends, holding to a rigid theology of retribution, reason from the fundamental premise of practical wisdom that if wisdom leads to life and folly leads to death, then every case of suffering presumes prior personal sin.” It is easy to see why many would revert to Retribution Theology as an answer for suffering, because we see the mechanics of cause and effect play out in everyday instances of life. Even the concept of reaping what we sow can give us an unfulfilling answer to theodicy.

Theodicy resolves in fearing God, trusting His sovereignty, and not having all of the answers. It is appropriate to say that sometimes we cannot know the fullness of God’s reasons, and both Ecclesiastes and Job express this notion. “Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know” (Job 42:3). By accepting a form of mystery in God’s dealings with humanity, we can avoid common pitfalls of retribution and be sure not to unduly burden a suffering believer with an insufficient answer to their pain. Theodicy also produces humility in the hearer, because we are forced to acknowledge that we are not in control of much at all, but we can have peace that we know the One who is.

Ecclesiastes and Job solidify theodicy by clarifying truth and rejecting unbiblical explanations and simplifications of the character and nature of God. These books also affirm the appropriateness of divine mystery, allowing us room and permission to not know certain things. We can be encouraged that God is capable of handling our questions and frustrations, while at the same time humbled and reminded that He is a God with a divine plan, and we are privileged to know our creator in an intimate yet fearful way. “Pain is an inescapable part of our world. But as the inexorable forces of our post-Christian zeitgeist seek to expel God from our collective conscience, the story that the world tries to tell us becomes hollow and hopeless, leaving us lost and unable to cope with the obstinate reality of pain.” Christians must wrestle with these deep questions and be prepared to answer them, not only for our peace and sanctification, but for the comfort of others as well.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Christensen, Scott. What about Evil?: A Defense of God's Sovereign Glory. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2020.

Estes, Daniel J. “The Place of the Wisdom Literature.” In Handbook on the Wisdom Books and Psalms. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005.

da Silva, Gesiel Borges. “Are Plantinga’s Theodicy and Defense Incompatible?” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 96, no. 2 (October 2024): 147–56. EBSCOhost.

On abortion, there are two primary views, and one view rising in popularity amongst Christian circles. Pro-life is the predominant anti-abortion view, while Pro-Choice is pro-abortion, and the third rising view is Abolition. For racism, there is a separation between individual racism and systemic racism. For this essay, I will only be discussing racism and anti-racism without delving into the nuanced and often complicated definition of systemic racism. “The moral question is not about when life begins, but about what kind of life is worthy of protection.” Both abortion and racism present complex moral dilemmas, where competing views on human dignity and justice can cause tension between the views and require careful consideration.

Pro-life, Pro-Choice, and Abolition

The Pro-Life position emphasizes the sanctity of human life from conception. Pope John Paul II says, “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God.” This stance encapsulates the entirety of the Pro-Life position, that from the point of conception, the life in the womb has the same inherent rights as those born. The Pro-Life position has been the dominant position amongst Christians for many centuries, but it is not without its flaws.

Pro-choice is the position that advocates for bodily autonomy and individual freedom. This position argues that the mother carrying the baby has more rights to choose what happens to the baby than the baby has the right to live. The Pro-Choice argument hinges on the ability and absolute authority that the mother has to choose what happens to her and in her. American philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson on abortion and choice said, “The right to control one’s body is a fundamental aspect of human dignity.” This statement does not take into consideration the body of the child being killed having the same rights to dignity. Instead, to maintain consistency, those who subscribe to this philosophy have to argue that human life in the womb is not life until born.

The third and less popular position on abortion is the Abolitionist position. Abolitionists would hold a position very similar to the Pro-Life position, where the value of human life begins in the womb at conception. The main distinction between Pro-Life and Abolition is the fight for equal justice for those in the womb. Where many Pro-Life organizations would reject abortion at face value, they would hesitate in the instance of upholding the law in the form of punishment for those who commit abortion. Abolitionists see the fight against abortion similarly to how slavery abolitionists saw it. They would say that because human life begins at conception, the life in the womb is entitled to the same rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as those born. They argue that a person who commits murder should be punished under the law, regardless of the location of the murder. In this case, the location is the womb of the mother. Many Pro-Life leaning Christians wince at the idea of those who abort their children being punished by the law and would argue for what is called the “second victim narrative”. In summary, many Pro-Lifers would look at the mother as being a victim of abortion on the same level as the child killed in the womb.

Of the three positions on abortion, I believe that abolition is the most biblical and moral position a Christian can hold. The flaws of the Pro-Life position are in their lack of willingness to prosecute those who murder through abortion. In the United States, our Constitution does not differentiate human value based on location. We would not say that a homeless person is less valuable and deserving of rights compared to someone who has a home. In the same instance, we should not state that a child in the womb has less intrinsic value than someone born. In fact, the Bible clearly states that we as believers should not show partiality in our interactions and laws. “A false balance is an abomination to the LORD, but a just weight is his delight.” Even in the New Testament, James writes, “If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.” God is clear that we should not be partial in our judgments of justice.

The common theme among the views on abortion is focused on upholding human dignity. For Pro-Choice, the focus is on the mother’s human dignity and her right to autonomy. For the Pro-Life and Abolitionist, the dignity and rights are focused on both the mother and the child in the womb, as the child is entitled to the same rights as the mother. Philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre was in favor of human autonomy and yet said this, “Autonomy cannot be absolute when it negates another’s existence.” There is no law that gives additional rights to someone in the case that they are outside the womb. Either human beings have dignity from conception, or human dignity is based on a system that is unbalanced and unjust and favors some over others.

Racism

The positions on racism are far more nuanced in my understanding, so for this paper, I will only focus on the aforementioned definition of racism. Racism is the view that some races are superior to others and that superiority is inherent. The first glaring issue that we have to address with racism is determining who decides which race is superior based on what standard? To make such an objective claim, we would have to discover foundational proof that one group's ethno-national background is less valuable than another's. There are arguments from people in favor of racism, but their conclusions are based on subjective instances and anecdotes, and not on any provable reasons.

As Christians, we can use the same Biblical argumentation as we did with abortion in the form of partiality. It would take an active partial view of someone to justify being racist towards them. In some ways, being racist would be definitional of being partial. Favoring one group over another group is textbook partiality. In scripture, we are told by Paul in Galatians, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This verse is one that has been a cause for confusion in many Christian arguments when it’s used out of context. In the case of racism, I believe this verse finds its intended context. Paul is addressing that salvation does not belong to only the Jewish people, but that God plans that people of any race, ethnic background, or station in life can be welcomed into God’s family through the salvation God provided on Jesus’ cross. If God does not set racial lines and barriers for salvation, we as humans have no right either.

As Christians, we must agree with Augustine when he says, “Every human being is created in the image of God,” which also echoes the Bible in Genesis 1. If we hold to this stance and believe that all human beings have inherent dignity and rights, we would treat them in line with the truth that God has created all of us. This includes children in and outside of the womb, and people of any and every race and nationality. God does not treat human beings with partiality. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” this statement by Paul in Romans does not leave room for there to be partiality on our behalf. We are called to mirror Christ and reflect His glory on the Earth, and if God judges His creation with equal weights and measures, we have no excuse to do the opposite.

When it comes to a moral foundation, both Aquinas and Augustine see God as the author of Natural Law. They both also acknowledge the pursuit of God as the ultimate good for human beings. However, Augustine’s ethics are rooted in the love of God which he says orders all moral actions. In other words, Augustine would argue that if we don’t pursue loving God as our ultimate purpose, we are incapable of achieving any other virtue. In City of God, Augustine says “The good will be he who loves God… for God is the supreme good.” Aquinas on the other hand would say it’s possible for even a non-believer to attain moral good and to know God through the person’s ability to reason. “The rational creature is subject to divine providence… participating in eternal reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end.” If a person uses reason, he would be naturally led to understanding and possibly coming into relationship with God. Both see God as the ultimate good, but Augustine prioritizes divine love and illumination, viewing reason as limited by sin, while Aquinas trusts reason to understand natural law and integrating it with faith. Augustine’s approach is more supernatural and heart-centered; Aquinas’ is systematic and rational.

On human nature and original sin Augustine views human nature as profoundly corrupted, rendering the will inclined to evil without divine grace. He writes, “Through the sin of the first man… the whole human race was corrupted and became a mass of perdition” Humans cannot achieve moral good without God’s grace, which restores the will to love rightly. This view highlights the human’s dependence on God. Aquinas, however, sees human nature as damaged by, but not wholly corrupted by sin. He asserts, “Human nature is not altogether corrupted by sin, so as to be deprived of its natural goods”. He believes that reason and free will are still natural human attributes, enabling humans to pursue natural goods, but grace is needed for supernatural reasons. Aquinas sees the potential for human beings to do natural good on their own, apart from the working of God where Augustine would argue that without loving God first, one couldn’t properly reason to do good. Augustine sees humans as utterly dependent on grace, while Aquinas allows for natural moral capacity, with grace perfecting it.

When we discuss ethics we have to remember that while historical philosophers varied in opinion on many issues, most of them did agree on what things are considered virtues. Virtues were the means to the end of achieving happiness. The ultimate end for many of the historic philosophers was becoming the happiest and best versions of themselves. In order to become that, human beings must pursue upholding and practicing virtue. The four virtues most agreed upon as primary are called Cardinal Virtues. These virtues include; wisdom, justice, courage and temperance. For Augustine, virtues are gifts of grace, rooted in love for God. In On the Morals of the Catholic Church, he writes, “The virtues… are nothing else than the perfect love of God”. Moral development depends on divine grace, transforming the will to align with God’s love. Augustine’s virtues are theologically driven, with charity (love) as the chief virtue. Aquinas distinguishes between acquired virtues developed through habit and infused virtues given by grace, including theological virtues (faith, hope, charity) and cardinal virtues. He states, “The infused moral virtues are those whereby man is perfected for the performance of acts conducive to his supernatural end”. Moral development involves cultivating virtues through reason and grace. Both see virtues as oriented toward God, but Augustine views them as expressions of divine love, while Aquinas divides them into categories of natural and supernatural. Aquinas’ approach is more structured, integrating human effort, while Augustine’s is more grace-dependent.

Both Aquinas and Augustine offer compelling ethical systems, but their differences highlight distinct strengths and weaknesses. Augustine’s emphasis on love as the moral foundation resonates deeply with Christian theology, aligning with Jesus’ command to love God and neighbor. His focus on human dependence on grace recognizes sin’s pervasive impact, giving a realistic view of the human condition. I agree with his approach, as it discourages self-reliance and keeps God at the center. His insight that disordered love leads to sin is profound, providing a diagnosis for moral failure, as seen in modern idolatries like materialism. I also agree with much of what Aquinas says regarding the need for reasoning and for God’s grace to surpass the natural good of natural law and move into the supernatural good of it. I would disagree with Aquinas only on his emphasis for human effort to attain ultimate good. I am reminded of the Prophet Zechariah’s words to Zerubbabel regarding the completion of the building of the temple. He says, “This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel: Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord of hosts.” God was telling Zerubbabel that the temple was not dependent on human effort for its completion. Much like we, being the temple of the Holy Spirit, are perfected by God and not through works.

When comparing both Augustine and Aquinas I tend to be drawn more toward the middle of each of their views regarding the responsibility and ability of man in relation to God. Like Augustine, I agree that our ultimate good is to love God. As the Lord said in Deuteronomy, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” Once a person comes into a relationship with Jesus Christ, they are enabled by the grace of God to do good works that He has prepared for us. When we are not in Christ, our righteousness is like filthy rags. Because of this verse in Isaiah, I am unable to agree with Aquinas that any ethical good we do outside of Christ is any good at all. Though, in the case of natural law, I would agree that man can do good works, only that those good works are morally good but not theologically good. In other words, without Christ we are incapable of pleasing God.

Both Augustine and Aquinas hold high the pursuit of God and doing things that God would consider to be morally good. Both men acknowledge the necessity of God’s grace in the lives of believing Christians. Some would argue that Augustine’s view is less optimistic than Aquinas’ because it puts the ultimate responsibility on God in a deterministic way leaving out the human responsibility. However, Augustine doesn’t seem to argue that humans are not at all responsible for their actions, instead he argues that our actions should be motivated by the love of God that we have and that He has put in us. We should do good works and pursue virtue as a response to the work God has done in us. Aquinas seems to agree with this point as he promotes the idea of God infusing His grace into us, which enables us to pursue virtue. I do not believe that these ideas are in conflict with each other but actually complement each other. We as Christians are called to love God first. If we rely on ourselves and our own capacity to work in a way that is pleasing to God, we diminish the work of the Gospel. Instead we should seek to pursue knowing God continually and in result we are bound to do good works.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1981.

Augustine. Against Julian. In The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, vol. I/25, Answer to the Pelagians III. Translated by Roland J. Teske. Hyde

Park, NY: New City Press, 1999.

Augustine. City of God. Translated by Marcus Dods. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009.

Augustine. On the Morals of the Catholic Church. Translated by Richard Stothert. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol. 4, edited by Philip Schaff, 41–63. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

The appeal to the game is that it includes real historical places and people while building an entirely fanciful storyline about a man named Henry of Skalitz. Henry is on a quest to avenge his father who was killed during a raid by King Sigismund to seize the village's silver mines. Henry and his acquaintances are loyal to King Wenceslaus and serve his rule. This video game features a strong and intriguing story with many interesting sub-story lines (side quests). The environments are visually stunning and historically accurate and help to teleport the player into a moment in history. The characters are well written with depth and character development. Many video games try to create unique and memorable characters but Warhorse Studios has crafted several fantastic characters in just one video game.

When a video game like this is done well, it provokes so many different thoughts for me while playing. I appreciate the superior graphical quality of such a game as well as the way they craft the ability for you to play as the protagonist Henry. Many people don’t consider how important it is when playing a video game that the movements on the controller or keyboard feel like they belong to the actions the player is taking. It’s very common to press a button and expect a result but it’s an entirely different experience to make button presses and controller movements that actually flow with the actions on screen. KCD2 has figured out a way to make on moves feel like you are doing the action and further immersing you into the game itself. It’s easy to lose track of time when you play a game that is so well done like this one.

Of all of the details that Warhorse paid attention to, the dialogue of the player and the Non-Playable Characters (NPC) stood out most. It was not uncommon to walk into a town you hadn’t yet been to and hear one of the residents greet you with a “praise be Jesus Christ!”. This little detail caught me off guard at first. I looked into the background of Warhorse Studios to see if they were a Christian-based company and there is no indication that they are. In fact, a 2020 Pew Research Center study claims that 72% of Czechs identify as religiously unaffiliated. This little detail actually helped to grow my appreciation for the artistic style of this game. The fact that the studio was willing to be historically accurate caused me to reflect on what the religious atmosphere and influence would have been in the 1500s. This reflection caused my view of God’s Kingdom to increase as I thought about the growth of His church over the course of history. The timeline of this game would have happened prior to the Protestant Reformation when the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches would have been the main influence on these parts of Europe. Experiencing a virtual life of a time before the Protestant Reformation was a fascinating experience for me. It caused me to further appreciate the time in history that I am alive. The game exposed the challenges of medieval life and how the people would have lived, worked and worshipped together.

One of the most beautiful features in the game are the cathedrals built in the smaller towns and notably the large cathedral built in the city of Kuttenburg. The Cathedral of St. Barbara is still standing in Kutna Hora, Czech Republic to this day and the game did a fantastic job preserving the architecture in the in-game experience. These monuments of beauty dedicated to God are true testaments to the creativity God has given to human beings. I was reminded of God’s glory and beauty every time I rode my virtual horse past these cathedrals. The cathedral is adorned with blue stained glass and multiple spires running down both sides of the structure. Great care for beauty and design was taken in the planning and virtual building of the cathedral.

Outside of the great city of Kuttenberg you could explore wide open fields of grass or densely unpopulated woods. You may randomly encounter a traveling family or perhaps a local trader to interact with. The wide expanse of nature prior to the invention of modern technology is stunning. I spent a lot of time thinking about the way in which God has commanded us to take dominion over the Earth. In the book of Genesis, God tells Adam and Eve to, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” When I think about the passage of time and what human beings have accomplished to this date, I am reminded of the ever-increasing expansion of the Genesis mandate. KCD2 is so well created by human beings that it increased my own perspective on the story written by God Himself.

The ability for human beings to create a medium that allows the user to experience a life that they have only heard stories about, says something about the beauty of shared creativity. God did create this world for us, but He also gave us the gift of taking what was once chaotic (nature) and allowing us the creative freedom to put that chaos in order. This is the reason that the creation of art and the support for those Christians who do create is so important. God has gifted us with the ability to take something plain and turn it into something that expresses the truth and beauty of God’s creation. The reason that Kingdom Come Deliverance II is such a wonderful piece of art is that it expresses the beauty of the past truthfully. Such mediums as this can allow us to reflect on the majesty and creativity of God throughout the ages.

The Kingdom of God is the term used to denote God’s rule and reign from Heaven to Earth. Though in God’s sovereign rule, everything belongs to Him, the Kingdom of God calls to mind the operation and working of God that is the plumb line of truth throughout all of history. God’s kingdom is in conflict with the earthly kingdom but that does not mean God only rules His own kingdom. “He reigns, even though some angels and some human beings do not acknowledge his sovereignty”1 As the Psalmist says, “our God is in the Heavens; He does all He pleases”2 God permits things to happen that He does not condone, but nothing happens without God’s knowing and approval. The prophet Jeremiah furthers this in the book of Lamentations, “Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it?”3 In other words, if it has come to pass God has commanded it to be so.

The very first time in scripture we see God’s intention to call a people to Himself was when He revealed Himself to Abram and instituted a covenant with him. God told Abram that He was going to give him a son and through him He would bless him with land and a multitude of people that would outnumber the stars in the sky. In Genesis we read,

“Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”4

God promises Abram whom He renamed Abraham that through his lineage He would bring about a “great nation” and not only that but every family on Earth will be blessed by what He was going to do. Historian John Bright confirms this, “The promises to Abraham…point forward to a universal kingdom in which all the families of the earth will be blessed.”5 It wasn’t for approximately four hundred and thirty more years that God would make the next move toward establishing His nation and law through Moses.

God’s physical kingdom was established when through Moses, He called the nation of Israel to Himself. God tells Moses in Exodus that the People of Israel are to be a nation for Himself that is set apart from the rest of the nations. “Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”6 The word holy means “set apart”7 and here we see that God is telling the Israelites that He will be their king and they will be His people. Author and theologian Walter Brueggemann says, “Israel’s life with Yahweh is to be a life of obedience, reflecting the rule of God in justice, righteousness and peace”.8 By God establishing the law for the Israelites He is calling them to be different from the nations around them and that through them the world would see the glory of God in how they reflect His just laws and righteousness. God was going to take the nation of Israel out of their captivity in Egypt and set them on a journey to the land that He had promised them through Abraham. This is the humble beginning of God’s kingdom on the Earth that He Himself established through the people of His choosing.

It would not be for another two hundred years that we see another significant step in the foundation of God’s Kingdom through King David. The nation of Israel would defeat many of her enemies who hoped to stop Israel from growing into power. Israel was now a kingdom of people similar to the ruling kingdoms on the Earth at that time. Bright explains the status of the cultures and people that surrounded the nation of Israel under King David,

"David’s reign saw Israel rise to a position of power and influence unmatched in her history. The Philistines were decisively defeated and their threat eliminated; the petty states of Moab, Ammon, and Edom were subdued and brought under Israelite control; and relations with the Phoenician cities, particularly Tyre, were strengthened. To the north, the Aramean states, including Zobah and Damascus, were checked, ensuring Israel’s dominance in the region."9

Even among many nations that were against the nation of Israel, God provided them safety and abundance. David is still considered the greatest king that ever ruled over Israel and is even called “a man after God’s own heart”10 by the prophet Samuel. Though not without his own sin and faults, the people of Israel highly honored and respected David and the nation of Israel prospered for many years under his rule. It is through David’s own lineage that God would promise a Messiah that would come and remove the stain of sin from God’s people. The prophet Isaiah wrote this about the promised Messiah,

“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.”11

It is important to note that Isaiah says there will be no end to His (Jesus) government as the prophet confirms that the Messiah will come through King David’s line. He would not only rule but will be the rightful heir to David’s kingdom. “The Davidic king was seen as God’s anointed, through whom the divine rule would be mediated, pointing to a future Messianic fulfillment.”12 David’s reign was only a foreshadow of Jesus Christ’s reign and the people of Israel lived in expectation of the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy.

The Old Testament records a significant number of Messianic prophecies pointing to Jesus after King David had ruled over Israel. The Major Prophets that record words about the Messiah are Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets are Micah, Zechariah and Malachi. Approximately one thousand years from the rule of King David pass before the arrival of Jesus on the Earth. The first time we hear about the Kingdom of God in the New Testament is when John the Baptist is in the wilderness and is baptizing followers to “prepare the way” for the Lord. The Gospel writer Mark recognizes that John the Baptist is the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy by his use of quoting his words in Mark chapter one. Mark records the words of Jesus as He was gathering His disciples in Galilee, “The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”13 This moment is seen as the arrival of God’s kingdom as promised in the Old Testament. George R. Beasley-Murray affirms this idea, “Jesus announced the presence of the Kingdom in his person and ministry, fulfilling the hopes of Israel’s prophets.”14 Once again we see an expansion of God’s kingdom and for the first time after David’s rule there is a significant proclamation that the kingdom that Israel had been waiting for had finally arrived via Jesus.

The Kingdom of God had now grown over thousands of years from the calling of Abraham and his small family to a people rescued from captivity and eventually a nation ruled by an appointed king. The arrival of Jesus opened the doors of the kingdom, in fulfillment of the prophecies, to all nations, tribes and people. God’s kingdom would expand to include Gentiles, which was a term used to describe any non-Jewish person. No longer would a specific nation of people be called by God to bring about glory to Himself, instead, specific people from all nations would inherit the promises of God to Abraham. One may ask something like, “but Jesus isn’t king yet, He didn’t take up an Earthly throne and rule from Jerusalem” and that is true that His kingdom was not a physical one, yet. “The Kingdom of God is both a present reality in the ministry of Jesus and a future hope to be consummated at his return.”15 George Ladd makes the point that while Jesus did inaugurate Himself as king, His physical presence as King of Earth is still a future event. The Biblical World journal writer A.C. Zenos agrees, “In this sense the Kingdom of God would be the “invisible church.” but we may discover in this kingdom, a real organization, external and visible”.16 Christians believe that Jesus will one day return to Earth and what we know of now as Earth will fade away but that doesn’t mean that God’s kingdom is not presently here with us now. There is a tension between the present kingdom and its future status.

There are a growing number of believers who see Jesus’ time on Earth as the beginning of His kingdom reign that will never come to an end both spiritually and physically. I believe that before the transfiguration of Jesus, he proclaimed the beginning of His kingship when He says “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”17 There is no ambiguity about what Jesus is saying here. When Jesus says the words “all authority” I think it is wise to believe that He means all authority. Jesus then gives His disciples the Great Commission, which Christians know is a command to all believers. Jesus says, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”18 This order is an expression of God’s desire to increase His kingdom here on Earth which has now been opened to people of every nation.

Jesus prepared His disciples and those who would hear Him by teaching them in the form of parables. Parables were a way to use concepts familiar with the audience to reveal a more profound point. The parables of Jesus that address the Kingdom of God most specifically are the Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven found in Matthew 13:31-33. In the mustard seed parable, Jesus compares God’s kingdom to that of one of the smallest seeds the world has known. He explains that such a small seed can grow into an enormous tree in which the birds can land and rest in. Jesus then compares the kingdom to leaven that is placed into some flour until all the flour is leavened. The imagery used here is that a small thing like a seed or leaven can grow over time into such a large tree or until the flour is full of leaven. This is what Jesus says the Kingdom of God is like. Author Shailer Matthews says this in a journal article, “Two beautiful parables are used by Jesus to set forth the thrilling fact that however small the kingdom might be in its inception, its triumph was to be limitless.”19 Much like God’s kingdom began with Abraham and a promise, it eventually grew into a powerful nation of people. Ladd agrees, “The parables of the mustard seed and leaven teach that the Kingdom, though small in its beginnings, will grow to fill the earth.” 20

Jesus’ death on the cross gave victory over death and established Christ’s universal kingship. The Apostle Paul in the book of Philippians says “Therefore God has highly exalted him [Jesus] and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” God has exalted Jesus as our king. The language of every knee bowing and every tongue confessing is one of rule and reign. “Through the cross and resurrection, Jesus defeated the powers of evil, establishing his lordship and advancing the Kingdom.”21 This is yet another example of the advancement of God’s kingdom on the Earth. The New Testament reveals the Kingdom of God as inaugurated through Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, expanding through the Church and awaiting final consummation at the end of days.

What does this mean for us as Christians living in this era of God’s Kingdom? Christians are to live in the realization that we are citizens of God’s Kingdom right now. We are to live in the knowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord and King now and not just when He returns for judgement. “But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,”.22 As citizens of God’s kingdom we are called to obedience and servitude to our King. Norman Perrin in his book The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus says, “To live in the Kingdom is to acknowledge Jesus as Lord and to align one’s life with his teachings.” The Apostle Paul calls believers “ambassadors” for Jesus which is to help us understand the role we play in God’s kingdom. Ambassadors are people who live in a foreign country but represent the country they are citizens of. We are placed here in the midst of God’s kingdom to represent the rule and authority of our king, Jesus. This calling is far more meaningful than someone just passing through a foreign world. We are established representatives of God’s kingdom here on Earth and we are called by Jesus’ Great Commission to teach people to be obedient to all He had taught us. Christians should live like foreign ambassadors and teach those who are not yet heirs with Christ to live a life set apart from the world much like the Israelites when God established His covenant with Abraham. The Kingdom of God is not relegated to one particular people group or nation any longer. Through Jesus’ work on the cross “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Paul wrote this in the book of Romans to a primarily Gentile audience showing that salvation did not belong solely to the Jewish people but even in God’s covenant with Abraham, “all the nations of the Earth would be blessed”. God’s Kingdom has expanded to include the Gentiles and continues to grow in our lifetime.

Just as the nation of Israel was called to make the name of God known throughout the nations that surrounded them, we as believers share that same calling. The church as a whole now embodies the responsibilities once given to Israel. Evangelism is the means by which believers do this. Ladd adds, “The mission of the Church is to proclaim the Kingdom and invite all people to enter its fellowship.” Like Israel, our primary job as God’s people is to tell the world about the goodness of God. We are to uphold His standards and magnify His name.

God’s Kingdom is not far off but certain and active right now as we live. The Apostle John in Revelation wrote, “and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.” There are some that believe John was writing of a future event that has yet to take place, but this seems to contradict Jesus’ own authoritative proclamation on the Mount of Transfiguration. Knowing that we are working in and for God’s Kingdom as it progressively expands on the Earth helps comfort us when we go through suffering and trials. “The certainty of the Kingdom’s consummation gives Christians hope to endure suffering and opposition.” God has placed us on Earth for a very specific purpose and calling. He is calling Christians to represent and expand His Kingdom by preaching the Gospel and teaching others to be obedient to Jesus.

The Kingdom of God, evolving from Old Testament promises to New Testament realities, shapes the identity of Christians and gives us our mission and purpose. We see in the covenantal promises of God beginning with Abraham and being fulfilled in Jesus and the work He has set us to accomplish. Christians should actively participate in the growth of God’s Kingdom through faithful living and witness. We can trust God’s promises because we can see their fulfillment throughout the passage of history.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beasley-Murray, George R. Jesus and the Kingdom of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986.

Bright, John. The Kingdom of God: The Biblical Concept and Its Meaning for the Church. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1953.

Brueggemann, Walter. Theology of the Old Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997.

Douglas, J.D., N. Hillyer, and D.R.W. Wood, eds. New Bible Dictionary. 3rd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996.

Ladd, George Eldon. The Gospel of the Kingdom: Scriptural Studies in the Kingdom of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1959.

Mathews, Shailer. “The Kingdom of God.” The Biblical World 35, no. 6 (1910): 420–27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3141494.

O’Neill, J.C. “The Kingdom of God.” Novum Testamentum 35, no. 2 (1993): 130–41. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853693X00101.

Perrin, Norman. The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963.

Zenos, A. C. “Jesus’ Idea of the Kingdom of God.” The Biblical World 3, no. 1 (1894): 35–44. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3135408.

Those conversations are good and necessary because there are reasons gendered spaces exist and are important for the reasons they do exist. In this instance we are going to talk about the space that should exist within the church for Biblical elders.

I want to give you a story as an example before I make my point.

My wife is a fan of the Kansas City Chiefs. When I say she's a fan, I am not sure that you can fully understand the depth of her fandom. She knows stats, names, trades, personality conflicts between players and dissenting opinions from rival fans. She listens to commentators and watches highlight reels. She's into it!

Football fandom is traditionally a male space but over the years it has seen a surge in female fandom. (My wife implored me to say it has nothing to do with Taylor Swift) Social media allows people to connect online and so naturally people bring their fandom's to the Internet. There is no shortage of “smack talking” being done between sports rivals.

My wife recently got into a public discussion with an old pastor friend of ours about the Kansas City Chiefs and the controversy around their winning streak. Many people have negative opinions toward the team, going as far as accusing them of cheating or paying off the officials.

For many guys, this type of back and forth banter is a way we relate to each other. Men fight with each other over incredibly stupid things, often just for the sake of fighting or giving each other a hard time. This type of playful fighting has been a staple of masculine spaces for a very long time. When I was in the military, gathered with my fellow Sailors, we would talk to and do things to each other that for many people (especially those outside of the military) would look like violent and hateful harassment. Yet for the guys involved this was a way that we bonded.

So when our Pastor friend began to chide my wife with playful dissent toward the Chiefs, it actually bothered her. It dawned on me that this is one of those instances where we can see the difference between a male versus a female space. For Rachel, this was a serious conversation about stats and history and reasonable exchange, for our Pastor friend, it was friendly masculine sports banter that he likely wasn't serious about.

My wife, hanging with the boys, wasn't able to differentiate between serious argument and playful (seemingly serious) banter. She had entered the male space.

When the Apostle Paul was instructing the church on how it should run and function, he stated that the office of Overseer be male. (1 Tim 3, Titus 1) That may seem like Paul didn't like women, or didn't respect or appreciate them, but really Paul is instructing this to be so, because of how the space of elder should be treated. This is actually for the protection of the church and the women in it. Men relate to each other in a way that is mostly foreign to women. The old stereotype of boys fighting with each other one minute, then hugging it out and going on like nothing was wrong the next minute is actually real. Men have a way of compartmentalizing that is unique to the way God made them. Men can hoot and holler at each other in a way that from the outside seems violent and inappropriate.

When it comes to the church and the decisions the church must make in their mission, vision and direction, men must have the space to fight out what they think and believe. Can it get tense? Yes! Can it appear volatile? Absolutely! Does it usually end in hurt feelings and cattiness? Sometimes, but not usually.

When men are given the ability to fight over things that are important, resolution usually happens. When women enter into these spaces, regardless of their genuine intention to help, the space then shifts into something it was not meant to be.

I will give one more example from author Joe Rigney, who wrote Leadership and Emotional Sabotage. In it he gives the example of an elders meeting where the church was to vote on an important issue. At the meeting the men discuss and come to a decision to vote in a specific direction. After the vote, the elders go home and tell their wives about the decision. Some of the elder’s wives influenced the original decision they had all agreed to, and now the elder goes back to the group and changes his vote, influenced now by the opinion of his wife.

I am not stating that it is wrong for a husband to discuss church business and things with his own wife. I would always advocate for the transparency of discussion between a married couple. However, Paul does stress the need for there to be a role of leadership and one of submission within a marriage. This emphasizes that there is an orderly way of doing things and that God has designed things to work in this way.

There are many books written on the differences in which men and women think and process information. To deny there are differences would be to blur the line on how God has made us to function. Men should not act like women and women should not act like men. There are designated strengths and weaknesses for both parties. We become better versions of ourselves when we are in a covenant relationship with one another. I can say with total confidence that if it weren’t for my wife, I would not be the way I am today and I know she would say the same.

Our society has come a long way from the days where women were treated as unequal humans in day to day relationships. This edict from the scripture is not attempting to undo the work that has been done, but to emphasize the importance of our differences. We must learn to embrace our roles in the masculine and feminine and honor them both. We do a great disservice to ourselves and the body of Christ when we try to blur the lines between the genders.

After Ehud came Shamgar son of Anath, who struck down six hundred Philistines with an oxgoad. He too saved Israel. – Judges 3:31

There are plenty of places you can go to reference what others have learned about Shamgar but to sum it up; 1. He was a judge. 2. He was a son of Anath. 3. He killed 600 Philistines with a tool. 4. He saved Israel. That’s it. There is a short mention of him in the song of Deborah and Barak.

“In the days of Shamgar son of Anath, in the days of Jael, the highways were abandoned; travelers took to winding paths. – Judges 5:6 NIV

Trying to discover more about Shamgar’s lineage you may do a study on who Anath was. The majority of scholars agree that Anath is probably referring to the Canaanite god by the same name. There are few who may try to argue that his name is short for another name, which may or may not be true. In fact, scholars claiming the first is true would tell you that though wrong, many Israelites did worship or incorporate the worship of foreign gods into their religious practices. This was not unusual.

Killing 600 Philistines is no small feat! You would hope that we’d get more information about a guy who did such a thing. In fact, not only did he kill them, but he killed them with a tool that was used to motivate oxen to plow fields. Even though his name means ‘sword’ he wasn’t known for using one.

I looked up how many people are uniquely named in all of the Bible, both New and Old Testaments. The best answer I could find was between 3,000 and 3,500 (making room for translations and unknown names). Let’s say it’s the latter. In all of human history, from the beginning of time until right now, after billions upon billions of people that have existed in the Earth’s history, the Bible identifies 3,500 of them. For the ‘un-mathed’ that’s not a lot of people.

Has God interacted in all of human history with only 3,500 people? I think we could agree that’s probably silly. So why is it that we think that only those mentioned in the Bible are the ones who are important? I think the mention of Shamgar is incredibly vital to see this truth! This guy saved Israel, he got two lines. Saving Israel seems pretty important to me. It led to Deborah, Saul, David, Solomon…..to Jesus!

Shamgar’s existence was just as critical for the advent of the Messiah as was Noah’s. To me that’s pretty startling and humbling! It reminds me that we are likely living around Shamgar-esque people in every generation, even less so those who aren’t mentioned or known. Those who aren’t making popular content on social media or praying publicly for presidents. You or I could be a Shamgar.

Even Jesus tells us that we who are full of the Holy Spirit will do greater things than are mentioned in the scripture.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. -John 14:12

Jesus said this two-thousand years ago! In the last two thousand years, greater works have been done and by people who aren’t mentioned in our treasured texts. We can be thankful for the Luthers and the Spurgeons, the Sprouls or the Augustines but don’t dismiss the work God is doing through you, and your neighbor. Don’t dismiss the glory God is receiving through your small church or your “insignificant” friend group. God is working all of the time, and using Shamgars in every generation.

“We are supposed to forgive anyone who offends us unconditionally”

This was my understanding up until I read the book Unpacking Forgiveness by Chris Brauns. In it, he challenges the response I mentioned above. He makes the case that without repentance, there is no obligation for forgiveness. In other words, if someone sins against you, and they don’t repent to you, you aren’t obligated to forgive them.

He used an example of a tragic school shooting in which the students in the aftermath of the shooting held a candle-light vigil, holding signs proclaiming forgiveness towards the shooter, though the shooter had zero remorse for what he did. What seemed like a good Christian gesture was actually just virtue signaling.

Now I want to be clear that having a posture of forgiveness is where all Christians should arrive. What I mean by that is that when someone does repent to you, Christians do have a biblical obligation to forgive them. Even Jesus tells us in response to his disciples question, “Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you (forgive them) seven times, but seventy-seven times.” (Matt 18:22) In the parable, Jesus tells us of a ruler who was collecting debt from his subjects and had a servant brought before him who owed ten thousand talents. The man cried out to the ruler to have mercy on him, and the ruler did. The rest of the parable tells us how this man then went to collect debts owed to him and he was not as charitable as the ruler.

Notice that the ruler didn’t have compassion on the man, until he begged for patience from the ruler. We do not see in this instance where the ruler unconditionally forgave the debt of his subjects but was willing to have compassion when some form of repentance (begging) had been made.

As Christians, one of the pillars of our faith is that there is no forgiveness of sins without repentance. Now I do understand this is referring forgiveness being given by the creator of the universe, who is not like us in many ways. Much of what God does, if we did, we would be in sin (i.e., jealousy, wrath). However, in this principal we see that until we as sinful humans repent (turn and go the other way, change our minds) we cannot be saved from the wrath of God. Let’s go to the scriptures and see what they say.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. - 1 John 1:9

Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, - Acts 3:19

Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.” -Luke 17:3-4

Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy. -Proverbs 28:13

See also Ezekiel 18:21-22, 2 Chronicles 7:14, Acts 2:38

Notice that each of the examples listed above have a condition attached to them, for forgiveness. I want to emphasize once again that even though the scriptures seem to require a condition for forgiveness, even Jesus says that we MUST forgive when repentance takes place. This speaks of our hearts posture toward forgiveness and a total willingness to forgive. In fact I would agree with many who may still disagree with me, that if we don’t forgive others, we are in sin.

Now, it wouldn’t be totally fair if I didn’t try to dissect this topic without giving some scripture that could imply that unconditional forgiveness is a Christian concept. Let’s look at those verses.

And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments. -Luke 23:34

And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep. -Acts 7:60

In the two above instances, we see both Jesus and Stephen crying out to God to forgive the men who were killing them. We see no indication that there was a sign of repentance on the part of the murderers. So, we could make a case that these prayers are examples of unconditional forgiveness.

My argument then is, perhaps we mistake God’s divine mercy and common grace as a call to forgive unconditionally. We know that God has mercy on the sinners and the righteous. Some examples of the Doctrine of Common Grace are:

so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. -Matthew 5:45

The Lord is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made. - Psalm 145:9

These all look to you, to give them their food in due season. When you give it to them, they gather it up; when you open your hand, they are filled with good things. When you hide your face, they are dismayed; when you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. When you send forth your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground. -Psalm 104:27-30

These are but a few examples in scripture where we see that God cares for all of His creation, regardless of what they think of Him. We even see in Psalm 104 His love for animals and creatures He has created that rely on Him. Even the sparrows!

The act of forgiveness appears to be contingent on the precursor of repentance. We know certainly that God has not saved the world universally. We know that there are many that will never repent and come to a saving faith in Jesus, and the reason for that is the lack of repentance on their part.

In the case that you and I aren’t in agreement on the conditionality of forgiveness, I think the best practice would be to forgive any person who has offended you, regardless of repentance. This mindset seems to be the result of a heart made new and prepared to forgive. The purpose of this article is not to necessarily change how we view forgiveness or repentance, but instead to challenge ourselves to dive further into the beautiful tapestry of scripture and shore up our doctrinal foundations. Because when we better understand the deeper things of God, we grow stronger in our sanctification.

Imagine a shepherd that hated sheep. Will that shepherd tend the flock and protect them from wolves?

Now imagine you meet a pastor that tells you they don't like people.

Be a shepherd that serves others, not one that serves yourself.

For references on pastoral and elder qualifications see:

1 Timothy 3:2 - "Therefore an overseer must be above reproach..."

Being above reproach means living in such a way that one's behavior cannot be legitimately criticized, reflecting a life of integrity and moral purity.

1 Timothy 3:2 - "...the husband of one wife..."

This is generally interpreted to mean faithful in marriage, not necessarily excluding unmarried men, but emphasizing marital fidelity.

1 Timothy 3:2 - "...sober-minded..."

This suggests being temperate, clear-headed, and not given to excess in any area of life.

1 Timothy 3:2 - "...self-controlled..."

An overseer should display discipline over their actions and emotions, showing maturity.

1 Timothy 3:2 - "...respectable..."

Their behavior should be such that it commands respect from others, indicating a life of honor and dignity.

1 Timothy 3:2 - "...hospitable..."

This refers to being open and welcoming, particularly to strangers or fellow believers.

1 Timothy 3:2 - "...able to teach..."

An elder must have the capability to instruct others in the faith, implying knowledge and communication skills.

1 Timothy 3:3 - "not a drunkard..."

They should not be given to excessive drinking, which could impair judgment or lead to sin.

1 Timothy 3:3 - "not violent but gentle..."

An overseer should handle conflicts peacefully and not be prone to aggression.

1 Timothy 3:3 - "not quarrelsome..."

They should strive for peace and avoid unnecessary disputes.

1 Timothy 3:3 - "not a lover of money..."

The motivation for leadership should not be financial gain but service.

1 Timothy 3:4-5 - "He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?"

If one cannot lead their family well, they are not prepared to lead the church.

1 Timothy 3:6 - "He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit..."

Maturity in faith is necessary to avoid the pitfalls of pride and unpreparedness.

1 Timothy 3:7 - "Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil."

Their reputation should be good even among those outside the church to maintain credibility and avoid scandal.

Additional from Titus:

Blamelees: Titus 1:6-7, echoing the need to be above reproach.

Holy: Titus 1:8 - "holy", reflecting a life set apart for God's purposes.

Disciplined: Titus 1:8 - "disciplined", showing self-control.

Holding Firm to the Trustworthy Word: Titus 1:9 - essential for teaching and refuting error.