God With A Capital “G” By Allan Turner


God With A Capital “G”
By Allan Turner

This study is about God with a capital “G,” that one state of being God (Deuteronomy 6:4), consisting of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (as we now know them), that is like no other state of being: self-existent, eternal, infinite, and immutable. As created beings, we need to know our Creator in order to be pleasing to Him. In fact, salvation and true worship are not possible without a proper knowledge of who and what God is.
Salvation Is Not Possible Without Knowing God
Salvation is not possible without a knowledge of God. I know this is true because when Jesus prayed for His disciples, He said, “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3). In other words, one's eternal destiny depends upon knowing God, the Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ. This means that the study of God and the study of Christ are absolutely essential pursuits for the one who wants to go to heaven. Furthermore, in addition to knowing the Father and the Son, there are other passages that inform us that the Holy Spirit is to be included in this intimate, knowledgeable relationship (cf. Acts 5:32). In fact, upon a confession of one's faith in Christ Jesus, a penitent believer is baptized into a relationship with the Godhead, namely, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). All in this saving relationship “Know the Lord,...from the least to the greatest” (Hebrews 8:11). Finally, and it is not without great significance, “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire,” He will be “taking vengeance on those who do not know God” (II Thessalonians 1:7,8).
True Worship Is Not Possible Without Knowing God
True worship, which is the only kind of worship that is pleasing to God, must be in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). This means that true worship must not just be with the right attitude or spirit, but it must be intelligent and knowledgeable as well. For example, although there were many reasons why the Samaritan woman's worship was not acceptable to God, the primary reason was stated by Jesus, when He said, “You worship that which you do not know” (John 4:22). In the same manner, the Athenians vainly worshipped at the altar “TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.” The Bible makes it clear that this kind of worship is unacceptable because it is “worship without knowing” (Acts 17:23b).
Ignorance Of God Is A Current Problem
It is sad that modern society knows very little about the true God. According to Langdon Gilkey, in his book, Maker of Heaven and Earth, the prevailing picture of God, among those in our culture who still believe in Him, is that of “a large, powerful, kindly elder statesman who treats us much as a doting grandfather might do, with occasional moods of needed judgment but with a balance of indulgence” (p. 81). Add to this the fact that many Christians today, reflecting the ignorance of God so prevalent in this age, are, like the ancient Athenians, attempting to worship an “UNKNOWN GOD,” and you have the potential for a major apostasy brewing in our midst.
If what I am reading in the religious papers can be trusted, if preachers and elders I have spoken with have a sense of what is happening in their midst, then few Christians today study their Bibles on a daily basis. It would be my guess that fewer still have ever engaged in a private study of the nature and person of God. If this is truly indicative of what is going on in the church of Christ, then many Christians actually know very little about God's attributes and characteristics. Such ignorance is, according to an inspired apostle, a “shame” (cf. I Corinthians 15:34). Just as a lack of knowledge about God made the Corinthians susceptible to false teaching about the resurrection, many Christians today, knowing little about the nature of God, are vulnerable to vain philosophy and empty deceit (Colossians 2:8).
Having placed this study in its proper perspective, it is now time to turn our attention to a study of God the Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer of the world.
God Is
The Psalmist said, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork” (Psalm 19:1), and the apostle Paul declared, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).
With these passages in mind, it is interesting to note that, down through the ages, men who were not even associated with the Bible have looked at God's magnificent creation and have understood there must be a Creator. This realization is called “the teleological argument for God,” and is the argument from design, inferring an intelligent designer of the universe, just like one infers that a product (a watch) has a producer (a watchmaker). Incidentally, if someone were to show us a watch, telling us that no one made it, but that it was the result of an explosion that had taken place accidentally in a scrap metal factory, we would think that person was either “pulling our leg” or mighty foolish. Why, then, should it be any different when we think about the greatest product ever created? In fact, the Bible says, “The fool has said in his heart, `There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1).
According to Plato, one of the things that makes one believe in the Creator is the argument “from the order of the motion of the stars, and of all things under the dominion of the mind that ordered the universe” (Plato, Laws). According to Plato, there had to be a “maker and father of all.” In addition, Aristotle, based upon his observation of the creation, concluded there had to be a First Unmoved Mover who is God, a living, intelligent, incorporeal, eternal, and most good being who is the source of the order in the universe (Aristotle, Metaphysica and On Philosophy).
In making note of the observations of these two men, I am not advocating the philosophies of either. Instead, I am simply pointing out that the greatest minds of antiquity understood the force of the teleological argument. As the Bible so plainly says, man is “without excuse” for not knowing that God is (Romans 1:20).
God Is Self-Existent
The God who has revealed Himself in nature and gradually, verse by verse, step by step, makes Himself known in His special revelation, the Bible, is a necessary being who depends on nothing else or anyone else for His existence. In fact, everything else depends on Him. This means that God, ontologically speaking (i.e. having to do with the being of God), is self-existent. This is the meaning of the name “I AM THAT I AM” (Exodus 3:14). It derives from the Hebrew verb “to be” and means “He who is.” It is this self-existence that is the primary point of difference between God and His creation. Therefore, in calling Himself “I AM,” God is arguing ontologically that His being is uncaused. He is saying that He is; always has been; and always will be. In other words, God's being is not derived from anything and is not dependent upon anything; He just exists.
There are three New Testament passages that convey this same idea. In Romans 1:23, God is identified as being “incorruptible.” In I Timothy 6:16, it is said that God “alone possesses immortality.” And in John 5:26 it is taught that only God “has life in Himself.” When God's self-existent nature begins to be comprehended by finite creatures, they feel the need to humble themselves before the totally independent and incorruptible I AM.
God Is Eternal
If God is self-existent, and this is what the Bible says, then He must also be eternal. In fact, belief in the Eternal is an essential part of the Christian's faith (Hebrews 11:6). And although it is true that the creature will one day put on immortality and live forever (I Corinthians 15:53,54), this is not the immortality that God possesses. God, contrary to His creation, is immortal by nature. In other words, only God has always existed and will always exist. How can this be? How can a being have no beginning and no end? How can it be that a being always was and always will be? Because, as we have already pointed out, God, and God alone, is self-existent, and a logical consequence of this self-existence is eternalness.
For the creature, immortality is a gift; for God, immortality is the essence of His nature. As finite creatures, our minds are controlled and limited by time. Consequently, it is impossible for us to fully understand the eternalness of God's nature. Therefore, as we stand before Him in awe, we reverently say, along with the apostle Paul: “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!” And surely we join with Moses in saying that the “eternal God” is our refuge, “and underneath are the everlasting arms” (Deuteronomy 33:27).
As we’ve pointed out, God has a unique existence. In addition to being self-existent and eternal, God is not limited by anything outside of Himself.
God Is Infinite
This kind of existence is referred to as being infinite, which means subject to no limitation or external determination, i.e., unbounded. But one needs to be careful with this word. As Jack Cottrell points out in his book, God The Creator, when referring to God as infinite, this term is not to be understood in its physical or mathematical sense, as if God were infinitely large, or as if He extended infinitely into space (p. 241). To say that God is infinite, is to say that He is not subject to the built-in limitations of a created being.
God Is Omnipresent
God's infinitude is to be defined by His self-existence, eternalness, and omni-characteristics, which are omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence. The God who is eternal, and therefore not limited by time, is omnipresent, and not limited by space (Psalm 139:7-10; Proverbs 15:3; Jeremiah 23:23,24). He is universally present to all of space at all times. Even so, this does not mean that He is dispersed throughout the infinite reaches of space, so that every part of space has at least a little part of God. In other words, God is not present in all space; he is, instead, present to all of space. This means that the unlimited God in His whole being is present at every point of our space. Perhaps a better way to express God's omnipresence is to say that all space is immediately present before Him.
God's omnipresence does not prevent Him from manifesting Himself in a localized place. In fact, although His ontological being is present to all of space equally, He has, on occasion, entered space at specific points and become present in it for a specific purpose. These “theophanies,” as they are called, most often involved redemption. For example, the pillar of cloud bearing the glory of God that appeared before the Israelites (Exodus 33:9; 40:34; I Kings 8:10ff) is but one example of such a case. Of course, the most dramatic incident of God entering time and space was the incarnation itself (John 1:14; I Timothy 3:16). Consequently, Jesus was called Immanuel, or “God with us” (Matthew 1:23). But, in entering time and space, God, in His self-existent, eternal, and infinite Being, did not cease to be omnipresent. He was, in fact, still present to every point of space, holding everything together by the word of His power (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). In fact, it is evident that the omnipresence of “God with us” is the subject of John 3:13, which says, “No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of God who is in heaven.” If omnipresence is not under discussion, then pray tell me what is? Remember, these words were being spoken by God Himself while enfleshed here on this earth. Another example of God interjecting Himself into time and space would be the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4), as well as His indwelling of the body of every Christian (I Corinthians 6:19). “Mind-boggling,” you say? Yes, but such is the magnificent nature of the great I AM.
God Is Omniscient
When one considers passages like Isaiah 46:9,10; Psalm 147:5; Romans 11:33; and I John 3:20, one comes to appreciate the fact that there never was a time when the self-existent, eternal, and infinite God of all creation knew less or more than He does right now. God, because of who He is, never learns and never forgets. This characteristic is called omniscience. Omniscience is not anything like the knowledge man possesses. Man, by his very nature, cannot know some things. God, on the other hand, knows all things, and does so because He is “He who is” (Exodus 3:14).
Nevertheless, some are willing to argue that there are things that even an all-knowing God cannot know. These argue that the future free will acts of men and women cannot be known by God because they have not yet happened. God, according to this position, cannot know what cannot be known, and the future, contigent, free will choices of men and women cannot be known. But, can this be true? What is it that the self-existent, eternal, and infinite God cannot know? There is, of course, absolutely nothing that such a being could not know, for He transcends the flow of time and sees the past, present, and future in a kind of eternal now. (For an in-depth study of the contrast between these two positions, see the Green-Turner debate that took place in Gospel Anchor mag-azine a few years back [Discussion On The Foreknowledge Of God, Vol. XVI, Nos. 3,4,5,6].)
Only a being with the infinite characteristics and attributes of God could be all-knowing. Consequently, it is omniscience that God uses to challenge those who claim to be gods, but who are, in fact, no gods (Isaiah 42:8,9; 43:3-7; 44:7,8; 45:20,21; 48:3-7). Surely, praise, honor, and eternal glory belong to the one and only true God, who said, “I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done” (Isaiah 46:9,10).
God Is Omnipotent
Since God is self-existent, eternal, omnipresent, and omniscient, it comes to us as no surprise that He is also omnipotent or all-powerful. In fact, if God is infinite in His relationship to time, space, and knowledge, it only follows that He is omnipotent as well. In the New Testament, this truth is taught in Matthew 19:26 and Revelation 19:6. In the Old Testament, when God appeared to Abraham, He said, “I am God Almighty” (Genesis 17:1). In Jeremiah 32:27, God says: “Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh. Is there anything too hard for Me?” For God, of course, “nothing is impossible” (Luke 1:37). Finally, God's omnipotence is grounded in the fact of creation: “Ah, Lord God! Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and outstretched arm. There is nothing too hard for You” (Jeremiah 32:17).
God Is Immutable
Given the nature of God, there is no chance that He can ever be anything other that what He is. This can be inferred from His self-existent, eternal, and infinite nature. His nature or essence cannot change, but is eternally the same, incorruptible (Romans 1:23) and immortal (I Timothy 6:16). In other words, He is unchangeable or immutable (Psalm 102:25-27; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17). What does this mean? It means that the Self-Existent One cannot be not self-existent; it means that the Eternal One cannot be not eternal; it means that the Infinite One cannot be not infinite; etc. God, ontologically speaking (i.e., by the nature of His being), cannot be anything else; if He were, He would not be God!
Included in God's unchangeable or immutable nature are His moral attributes, for His moral character is no less a part of His essence than are His power and wisdom. What this means is that God has always been, and always will be, the holy, righteous, and gracious God that He is right this moment. His goodness has not been developed, and will never be altered. From everlasting to everlasting, He is the same in character, infallible and immutable (Numbers 23:19).
Of course, it must be kept in mind that the immutability of God's nature does not mean that He cannot interact with His creation. In fact, the Bible teaches that the Almighty has agreed to, and does, interact with His creation in time. Such interaction is genuine and not pretended. God has agreed to be influenced by His creation. Whether or not I can explain this in view of God's immutable nature is not the point. I cannot even understand it; how, then, can I explain it? In truth, it is not my responsibility to explain it; it is, instead, my responsibility to believe, teach, and defend it. If I had to be able to understand and explain everything about God, especially those things He has not chosen to reveal to me, before I could believe in Him, I and every other finite creature could have no choice but to remain in unbelief. The Aristotelian or classical view of God as “the Unmoved Mover,” who is, in turn, unrelated to the world, impassive, and unconcerned, is, in my opinion, as ridiculous and it is un-Biblical.
As we’ve said, it is not possible that the essence of God could be anything other than what it has been, is, and always will be. If this essence were to change, then God would no longer be God. As a matter of fact, it is impossible to make distinctions between God, His essence, and His attributes. “I AM THAT I AM” or “He who is” (Exodus 3:14) exists as a self-existent (Romans 1:23; I Timothy 6:16; John 5:26), eternal (Deuteronomy 33:27), infinite (Psalm 139:7-10; Isaiah 46:9,10; Jeremiah 32:27), immutable (Psalm 102:25-27; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17) Spirit (John 4:24). If He ceased to be any of these, He could not be God. In other words, God's essence (i.e., that which makes Him what He is) could not be anything other than what it is; and that which makes God what He is, of course, is His attributes. Therefore, it is never correct to think of God apart from His essence or attributes. In other words, God does not have an essence; He is His essence, and He does not have attributes; He is His attributes.
God Is His Attributes
For example, the Bible tells us that God is love (I John 4:8,16). It informs us that God's love is great (Ephesians 2:4), eternal (Jeremiah 31:3; Ephesians 1:4,5),infinite (Ephesians 3:18,19), and dependable (Romans 8:35-39). If the theme of the Bible is man's redemption, then the central word of the Bible is love. In fact, the Bible tells us that the motivation for the scheme of redemption is God's love for His creation. How much did God love His creation? He loved it so much that He was willing to give His only begotten Son so that it could be redeemed (John 3:16; I John 4:9). But, what kind of love would do such a thing? To understand this, we must realize that God's love for mankind is a distinctive kind of love called agape (pronounced ah-gah-pay). And what is agape? Primarily, agape is good will toward others. It is deep, tender, and warm concern for the happiness and well-being of another; it is charity toward those in need.
When the Bible says, “God loves us,” it means that He really cares about us and always does what is best for us. God's love is different from other kinds of love in that it seeks to give and not to get; it seeks to satisfy not some need of the lover, but rather the need of the one who is loved. This is what God is, i.e., this is His nature! Strip from God His love and we no longer have the God who has revealed Himself to His creatures. Strip from Him His love and what remains is something similar to the gods of the pagans, which are idols for their own destruction (Hosea 8:4).
Nevertheless, what the Bible does not say about the essence or nature of God is just as important as what it does say. For instance, although the Bible teaches that God is His attributes and characteristics, it does not teach that any particular attribute of God is God; i.e., the Bible is not saying, and has never said, that “Love is God.” On the contrary, what the Bible teaches is that “God is love” (I John 4:8,16). Clearly, then, the Bible instructs us that God is His attributes and characteristics. Anyone who believes the Bible, believes this. Consequently, God is, has been, and always will be who and what He is at this exact moment.
God Is Triune
In the one state of being God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Romans 3:30; I Corinthians 8:4), there are three distinctly different personalities: the Father, the Son or Word, and the Holy Spirit. Each one of these personalities shares fully the one essence, nature, or state of being God. Everything involved in being Deity is possessed by each of these personalities. In other words, the Bible teaches there is one, and only one, God; but it just as plainly teaches that the Father is God (John 6:27; Galatians 1:1; Philippians 2:11), the Son is God (John 10:30; 20:28), and the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3,4). Even so, it must be understood that although the Bible says that God is three persons in one essence (cf. Matthew 28:19; II Corinthians 13:14), it does not teach “Tritheism” (i.e., three Gods). As Roy Lanier, Sr. wrote in his book, The Timeless Trinity: “We do not affirm that one God is three Gods; we affirm that there is but one infinite Spirit Being, but within that one Spirit essence there are three personal distinctions, each of which may be, and is, called God; each capable of loving and being loved by the others; each having a distinct, but not separate, part to play in the creation and salvation of man” (p. 46).
We think it prudent to caution that, when thinking of God, it is possible to use “person” or “personality” in a wrong sense. If we are not precise in our thinking, we might conclude that the three persons or personalities that are God are just like human persons or personalities, except more complex. This would be a serious mistake. Human personalities are totally different from each other, and their relationships are often inharmonious and completely external (i.e., they do not partake of the same essence). On the other hand, the three personalities that are God partake of one essence and are always harmonious. In other words, we must not try to think of divine personality within the limits of human personality, as if God were but a more complex image of the human person. To do so would be idolatry, pure and simple (cf. Romans 1:23). Consequently, one must not press too far the concept of personhood when applied to God. What, then, are we saying when we speak of God in three persons?
God In Three Persons
As we have already pointed out, divine personality is the archetype of human personality; it is not the other way around. If, of course, this is true, then there must be some similarities between divine personality and human personality. In fact, there are! As Paul taught the Athenians, “Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising” (Acts 17:29). In other words, we are not lifeless, impersonal matter, and neither is God. The Bible teaches that God is Spirit, and we, who are His offspring, have a spiritual nature. The Bible teaches that God is personal, and we, who are His offspring, partake of personhood. In his excellent book, What The Bible Says About God The Creator, Jack Cottrell points out four elements that are characteristic of personhood: (1) rational consciousness, (2) self-consciousness, (3) self-determination, and (4) the capacity to have relationships with other persons (p. 237). These characteristics are, in fact, a very intricate part of the portrait God paints of Himself in the Bible, from beginning to end. Based on the Scripture alone, no one would ever doubt God's personhood.
Furthermore, if the self-existent, eternal, infinite, and immutable Spirit has three personalities, and this is what the Bible teaches, then the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit partake of personhood. As such, each enjoys rational consciousness, self-consciousness, self-determination, and relationships with other persons. This means that the Father is conscious of Himself as an individual person apart from the Son and the Holy Spirit and vice versa. It means that the Father, of His own free will, decided to send His Son into this world for the redemption of mankind. It means that the Son, of His own free will, responded positively to His Father's decision when He came to this earth and experienced death for fallen humanity. Finally, it means that the Holy Spirit, of His own volition, came to this earth to do the bidding of the Father and the Son. And although it must be understood that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were and are all involved in man's redemption, nevertheless, each person in the Godhead had work to do that was unique only to Him (cf. I Peter 1:1,2). When one reads the Bible, these truths are clear. (By clear, we do not mean that we think it is easy for finite creatures to understand how this threeness is rooted in the divine essence. On the contrary, by clear, we simply mean that the doctrine of the triune nature of God is explicitly taught in the Bible.)
The Economic And Ontological Trinities
Theologians speak of the “economic Trinity” and the “ontological Trinity.” These are constructs that attempt to define God. The so-called economic Trinity refers to the “division of labor” that exists between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and concerns itself principally with the different works done by the three persons of the Godhead in relation to the scheme of redemption. For example, the Bible depicts God the Father as foreknowing and choosing the plan whereby man could be redeemed (cf. Romans 8:29). In His role or work, the Father is never portrayed as being the One sent. On the contrary, the Father sends the Son and the Spirit (John 5:37; 14:26; 20:21). In turn, the Holy Spirit is involved in the work of sanctification (I Peter 1:1,2), and He is also the agent of inspiration (John 16:13; II Peter 1:21). In this connection, it is interesting to note that it is only blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and not against the Father or Son, that is unforgivable (Matthew 12:31,32). (Surely, one can see from this that the three persons of the Godhead are truly distinct.) Of course, it is the works of Jesus, the Son of God, which receive most of the attention in the New Testament. This is because it is He who “became flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). It was only the Son who experienced death for us. It was only the Son who was resurrected from the dead, taken bodily into heaven, and seated at the Father's right hand. It is only the Son who is the High Priest and Mediator between God and man (I Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 4:14).
Therefore, the Bible teaches that, when it comes to the scheme of redemption, there are works done by the Father that are not done by the Son or the Spirit; there are works done by the Son that are not done by the Father or the Spirit; and there are works done by the Spirit that are not done by the Father or the Son. It is this Bible-based division of labor or economic Trinity that sheds some light on the so-called ontological Trinity (i.e., how the three persons of the Godhead are related within their own being, totally apart from any manifestations or works directed outside themselves). Discerning a threeness in the external manifestations and works of God is not too taxing, but when one turns his attention to the ontological Trinity, things begin to get a lot harder. For instance, are the appellations of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit eternal distinctions within the Trinity or are they derived from the various works of God in the scheme of redemption? Particularly, from the standpoint of the Scriptures, is the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ authentic? Alexander Campbell, for example, taught that Jesus Christ pre-existed as the Divine Logos or Word of God (cf. John 1:1), but that His Sonship began with the incarnation. According to Campbell, the entire “relation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit began to be” during the days of Augustus Caesar (The Christian System, pp. 9,10). Personally, I am not certain that the eternal Sonship of Christ is Biblical, and, furthermore, I do not really see what difference it makes. There are several explicit references to the Deity of Christ in the Bible; consequently, His Deity or equality with God does not depend on an eternal Sonship relation.
How, then, do we explain the ontological Trinity? Personally, I do not think we can with any large degree of specificity. When we do try, we seem to fail, and fail miserably. Furthermore, many attempts to explain or depict the ontological Trinity (i.e., three in One) actually incline toward idolatry (cf. Romans 1:22,23). We must always remember that God is not a man; therefore, He cannot ultimately be explained or understood by trying to compare Him with finite creatures. And although it is absolutely impossible for three finite creatures to consist of the same essence, nevertheless, God, who is three Divine persons, and Who is identified in the economy of redemption as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is also, and at the same time, one self-existent, eternal, infinite, immutable Spirit Being.
There can be no doubt that the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity transcends the limits of our finite knowledge. By reason alone, unaided by divine revelation, we cannot figure out the ontological Trinity. But, by concentrating on the economic Trinity revealed to us in the Bible, we can know what the Triune God wants us to know about Himself. Consequently, I agree with professor B.B. Warfield, who concluded, “When we have said these three things, then—that there is but one God, that the Father and the Son and the Spirit is each God, that the Father and the Son and the Spirit is each a distinct person—we have enunciated the doctrine of the Trinity in its completeness” (“The Biblical Doctrine Of The Trinity,” in B.B. Warfield, ed., Biblical And Theological Studies, pp. 22-59).
Mythology is filled with numerous triads, but there is only one Triune God. And if it had not been for the scheme of redemption, we would know very little of His threeness. In fact, although there are allusions in the Old Testament that the Godhead consists of more than one person, if Scripture had not depicted Jesus of Nazareth as God incarnate, and the Holy Spirit as Deity, the question of the Trinity would have never arisen. This means that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are the fundamental proof of the doctrine of the Trinity. This means that if the pre-existent Jesus (i.e., the Word or Divine Logos of John 1:1) actually divested Himself of His Godhood and Divinity, so that the “fullness of the Godhead” did not dwell in His earthly body (Colossians 2:9), as some are currently teaching, then the Triune God, who has identified Himself as a self-existent, eternal, infinite, immutable Spirit, ceased to exist as He had existed, at least for a period of time. Therefore, one can readily see that the current controversy over the Deity of Christ is not a “tempest in a teapot” issue; but is, instead, an issue that strikes at the very core of the gospel. We now turn our attention to the Biblical truth that there never was a time when the Divine Logos was not God with a capital “G.”
“Jesus Christ Is The Same Yesterday,
Today, And Forever”
Jesus is God. This is the basic meaning of the incarnation. In John 1:1, the Holy Spirit teaches that not only was the Word (i.e., the Logos) in the beginning with God, but the Word was God. In verses 14-34, we learn that the Logos became flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. And in a book written so that men would believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing might have life in His name, Thomas, speaking of Jesus, exclaims, after seeing Him in His resurrected body, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). There are, of course, other passages that directly speak of Jesus as God, but since they are all disputed by some, we have not mentioned them. Nevertheless, the cited passages serve to demonstrate, to those who are willing to believe the Bible, that Jesus is, in fact, God.
Furthermore, the writer of Hebrews, telling us what God had prophesied about Jesus, writes, “But to the Son He says: 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever'” (Hebrews 1:8). Also, He clearly identifies Jesus as the Jehovah and Elohim of Psalm 102:25-27, who eternally existed before He created the heavens and earth (Hebrews 1:10) and who remains eternally the same (Hebrews 1:11,12), and, therefore, in the person of Jesus Christ is “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). To see in Hebrews 13:8 only a reference to the faithfulness of Jesus, and not a reference to His immutability, is, I think, a serious mistake. In fact, Jesus Christ's faithfulness is grounded in His changelessness. In other words, because He does not change ontologically (i.e., because He has always been the fullness of God that He is at this very moment), He has been, is, and always will be, completely and totally reliable. It is only in this sense that Jesus could identify Himself as the “I AM THAT I AM” or “He who is” of Exodus 3:14 (cf. John 8:58). When Jesus said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM,” He used the aorist tense to describe Abraham's existence and the timeless present tense to describe His own existence, and thereby identified Himself as the self-existent, eternal, infinite, immutable God with a capital “G.” Well has it been said: “Lord, You have been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God” (Psalm 90:1,2).
As difficult as it may be for finite creatures to even begin to comprehend, when the Divine Logos, or Son of God, became flesh (John 1:14), or, as the Bible says elsewhere, came in the likeness of man (Philippians 2:8), or was manifested in the flesh (I Timothy 3:16), He did not divest, give up, or have stripped from Him, His Deity. Within the man Jesus of Nazareth dwelt, and continues to dwell (for such is the meaning of the present tense), all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9). In fact, from a Biblical standpoint, the historical Jesus is never understood apart from His embodiment as the self-existent, eternal, infinite, immutable God in time and space. And although it is true that a God divested of His Deity would still continue to exist, in truth, He would no longer be what He had been and, therefore, could not call Himself “I AM THAT I AM.”

"THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS" Chapter Three by Mark Copeland

                    "THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS"

                             Chapter Three


1) To see the error of placing confidence in fleshly accomplishments

2) To understand the need to strive toward perfection in our desire to
   know and serve Christ

3) To be reminded of our true citizenship in heaven


In this chapter we find a warning against those who place great 
confidence in the flesh (1-3).  If anyone had reason to boast about 
fleshly accomplishments, it was Paul with his Jewish heritage (4-6). 
But all such things were considered rubbish in relation to the 
excellence of knowing Christ Jesus (7-8).  Therefore Paul had as his 
goal to be found in Christ, having that righteousness which is by faith
in Jesus, knowing Him and the power of His resurrection, and even
sharing in His sufferings, that he might by any means attain to the
resurrection from the dead (9-11).

Paul then describes his attitude of pressing on, and encourages all to
follow his example and that of others who walk likewise (12-17).  Such 
an exhortation is necessary in view of the reality that there are many 
people who are enemies of the cross of Christ, who have made their 
fleshly appetites the focus of their minds, and indeed their god 
(18-19).  Christians, however, should remember that their true 
citizenship is in heaven, from which we eagerly wait for Jesus Christ 
who will transform our lowly bodies to be conformed to His glorious 
body (20-21).



      1. Rejoice in the Lord! (1)
      2. Beware of "dogs", evil workers, the false circumcision (2)
      3. For the true circumcision are those who...
         a. Worship God in the Spirit
         b. Rejoice in Christ
         c. Have no confidence in the flesh (3)
      1. Paul had many grounds for boasting in the flesh (4)
      2. A list of things pertaining to the flesh in which he could 
         have boasted (5-6)

      1. He counted all as loss for the surpassing value of knowing
         Christ (7-8)
      2. He supreme goal:
         a. To have that righteousness which comes through faith in
            Christ (9)
         b. To know Christ and the power of His resurrection (10a)
         c. To share in His sufferings, even in His death, that by any
            means he might attain to the resurrection from the dead


      1. He does not consider himself perfect, so he presses on (12)
      2. He forgets those things which are behind, and reaches forward
         to what lies ahead (13)
      3. His goal is the prize of the upward call of God in Christ
         Jesus (14)

      1. Let those who are mature have the same mind (15)
      2. To the degree you have already attained, so live (16)
      3. Follow the example set by Paul and others, who live this way

      1. With tears, Paul warns them of those who do not walk properly
      2. Such people set their minds on earthly things, making their
         belly their god (19)

      1. Our citizenship is in heaven, from which we eagerly wait for
         Jesus (20)
      2. Who when He comes will transform our lowly body to conform to
         His glorious body (21)

1) What are the main points of this chapter?
   - Warnings against Judaism (1-11)
   - Warnings against antinomianism (12-21)

2) Who does Paul warn against? (2)
   - Dogs, evil workers, the "mutilation" (false circumcision); i.e.,
     Judaizers, those who would impose circumcision and the keeping of
     the Law of Moses on Gentile Christians (cf. Ac 15:1-6)

3) What characterizes those who are the true circumcision? (3)
   - They worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have
     no confidence in the flesh

4) What sort of things could Paul have boasted pertaining to the flesh?
   - Circumcised the eighth day
   - Of the stock of Israel
   - Of the tribe of Benjamin
   - A Hebrew of the Hebrews
   - Concerning the Law, a Pharisee
   - Concerning zeal, persecuting the church
   - Concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless

5) How did Paul view these fleshly things? (7-8)
   - As loss, as rubbish, in contrast to the excellence of the 
     knowledge of Christ Jesus

6) What was Paul's earnest desire? (9-11)
   - To be found in Christ
   - To have the righteousness that comes through faith in Him
   - To know Him and the power of His resurrection
   - To know the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His
   - To attain to the resurrection from the dead

7) Did Paul view himself as having already attained, or having been
   perfected? (12)
   - No

8) According to Paul, what was the "one thing" he did? (13-14)
   - Forgetting those things which are behind, reaching forward to
     those things ahead, he pressed toward the goal for the prize of 
     the upward call of God in Christ Jesus

9) What is the attitude, or mind, of those who are "mature"? (15)
   - The attitude Paul had, of pressing on

10) How should the Christian walk? (16)
   - To the degree or rule that they have attained

11) Whose example were the Philippians to follow? (17)
   - Paul's, and those whose "walk" was similar to his

12) What description is given of those who are "enemies of the cross of
    Christ"? (18-19)
   - Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, their glory is
     in their shame, and they set their minds on earthly things

13) Where is our citizenship? (20)
   - In heaven

14) What will Christ do when He comes again? (21)
   - Transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker 

Islam Says a Husband May Beat His Wife by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


Islam Says a Husband May Beat His Wife
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The politically correct climate of American culture is characterized by a host of self-contradictory and nonsensical viewpoints. One example is the way the left is vociferous in its support and defense of the spread of Islam via the construction of mosques and permission to teach about Islam in public schools. The left quickly steps forward and loudly condemns anyone who would dare to raise a finger of concern about the impact of Islam on the American way of life.
Yet, ironically, the social liberal, who disdains Christian morality, gives a “free pass” to Islam on some of the very issues for which it has viciously opposed the Christian moorings of American society. The “women’s lib” movement of the 1960s is a glaring example. The fight for “women’s rights” and the equal status of women in the home and on the job has been a hallmark of the liberal establishment. And yet, incredibly, the Islamic world has been known since its inception to consign women to an inferior status and to exert a degrading influence on them. How many female advocates of “women’s lib” would be willing to wear what Muslim women are required to wear around the world? How many “liberated women” in America would be willing to be subjected to a polygamous husband who relegates her to one among several other of his wives? And how many American women would be in favor of implementing the Quran’s teaching regarding the right of the husband to beat his wife? Read it for yourself in Mohammed Pickthall’s celebrated Muslim translation:
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, andscourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great (Surah 4:34, emp. added; cf. 4:11; 2:223,228,282; 38:45; 16:58-59; see also Brooks, 1995; Trifkovic, 2002, pp. 153-167).
A host of Islamic translations confirm this translation. The words in bold above are rendered in Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation: “refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly).” Ahmed Raza Khan’s translation reads: “do not cohabit with them, and (lastly) beat them.” Abul A’la Maududi has “remain apart from them in beds, and beat them.” Wahiduddin Khan “refuse to share their beds, and finally hit them.” Muhamad Abib Shakir has “leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them.” Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar reads: “do not sleep with them and beat them.” The Saheeh International translation reads: “forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them.” Hassan Qaribullah and Ahmed Darwish have: “desert them in the bed and smack them (without harshness).” Ali Quli Qarai’s rendering reads: “keep away from them in the bed, and [as the last resort] beat them” (Tanzil Project, 2007-2014).
As if these instructions were not enough to awaken the sensibilities of the political/moral left, consider further the penalty enjoined by the Quran for the adulterer, keeping in mind that the practice of adultery is commonplace among the anti-Christian establishment of our nation (Bonewell, 2012).
The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment.... And those who accuse honourable women but bring not four witnesses,scourge them (with) eighty stripes and never (afterward) accept their testimony—They indeed are evildoers (Surah 24:2,4, emp. added).
Are those who believe Islam ought to be accommodated and encouraged to participate fully in the political and educational framework of the nation willing to allow Sharia law to become the law of the country?


Ali, Abdullah Yusuf (1934), The Meaning of the Holy Quran (Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications), 2002 reprint.
Bonewell, Kelly (2012), “Adultery: Just the Statistics,” The End of All Our Exploring,http://www.kellybonewell.com/psychology/adultery-just-the-statistics/.
Brooks, Geraldine (1995), Nine Parts of Desire (New York, NY: Anchor Books).
Tanzil Project (2007-2014), http://tanzil.net/#4:34.
Trifkovic, Serge (2002), The Sword of the Prophet (Boston, MA: Regina Orthodox Press).

The Holy Scriptures--Verbally Inspired by Wayne Jackson, M.A.


The Holy Scriptures--Verbally Inspired

by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

In logic, there is a principle called the Law of the Excluded Middle. Simply stated, it is this: a thing must either be, or not be, the case. A line is either straight, or it is not. There is no middle position. Applied to the Bible, one therefore might declare: The Scriptures are either inspired of God, or they are not inspired of God. If the writings of the Bible are not inspired of God, then they are the mere productions of men, and as such would merit no religious respect; in fact, in view of their exalted claims, they would merit only contempt.
Paul, an apostle of Christ, wrote: “Every scripture is inspired of God, and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). The Bible asserts its own inspiration—of this there is no doubt. But to what extent does the sacred volume claim inspiration? This is a question that has perplexed many.


Some have suggested that the Bible is “inspired” only in the sense that other great literary productions are inspired. That is, they all are simply the results of natural genius, characteristic of men of unusual ability. Such a notion must be rejected immediately since: (a) it makes liars of the biblical writers who claimed the Holy Spirit as the ultimate source of their documents (2 Samuel 23:2; Acts 1:16); and (b) it leaves unexplained the mystery of why modern man, with his accumulated learning, has not been able to produce a comparable volume that has the capacity to make the Bible obsolete.
Others have claimed that only certain portions of the Scriptures are inspired of God. We often hear it said, for example, that those sections of the Bible that deal with faith and morals are inspired, but that other areas, particularly those accounts which contain certain miraculous elements, are merely the productions of good—but superstitious and fallible—men. Again, though, such a concept is not consistent with the declarations of the divine writers. They extended inspiration to every area of the Scriptures, even emphasizing, in many instances, those very sections that modernists dub as non-historical, mythical, etc. See, for example: Matthew 12:39-40; 19:4ff.; Luke 4:27; John 3:14-15.
Too, the allegation has been made that the Bible is inspired in “sense,” but not in “sentence.” By that, it is meant that in some sense the Scriptures are of divine origin, but that the very words of the Holy Book are not to be construed as inspired. Such a view is nonsensical. If the words of the sacred narrative are not inspired, pray tell what is inspired? Is the binding? The paper? The ink? The truth is, if the words of the Bible are not inspired of God, then the Bible contains no inspiration at all!


What do we mean when we speak of the “verbal inspiration” of the Holy Scriptures? Frank E. Gaebelein has suggested that a sound view of inspiration holds that “the original documents of the Bible were written by men, who, though permitted the exercise of their own personalities and literary talents, yet wrote under the control and guidance of the Spirit of God, the result being in every word of the original documents a perfect and errorless recording of the exact message which God desired to give to man” (1950, p. 9). In his classic work, Theopneustia—The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, L. Glaussen, professor of systematic theology, Oratoire, Geneva, defined inspiration as “that inexplicable power which the Divine Spirit put forth of old on the authors of holy Scripture, in order to their guidance even in the employment of the words they used, and to preserve them alike from all error and from all omission” (n.d., p. 34).
Let us take a closer look at 2 Timothy 3:16. The Greek text says: pasa graphe theopneustos—“all scripture [is] God-breathed.” Something within this context is said to be “God-breathed.” What is it? All Scripture. The term “scripture” [graphe] denotes that which is written. But it is the words of the biblical text that are written; hence, the very words of the Bible are God-breathed! No one can appeal to 2 Timothy 3:16 as an evidence of Bible inspiration without, at the same time, introducing the concept of verbal inspiration. The truth is, the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures is abundantly claimed throughout the sacred canon. Consider the following examples.
  1. More than 3,800 times in the Old Testament, the claim is made that the Scriptures are theword [or words] of God. For instance, “And Jehovah said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book...” (Exodus 17:14). David declared: “The Spirit of Jehovah spake by me, and his word was upon my tongue” (2 Samuel 23:2). God instructed the prophet Jeremiah, “Behold, I have put my words in your mouth” (Jeremiah 1:9). The Scriptures are exalted as the Word of God some 175 times in Psalm 119 alone!
  2. Jesus Christ certainly endorsed the concept of verbal inspiration. He affirmed that neither “one jot nor one tittle” would pass away from the law “until all things be accomplished” (Matthew 5:17-18). The jot was the smallest Hebrew letter, and the tittle was a tiny projection on certain Hebrew characters. Professor A.B. Bruce has noted: “Jesus expresses here in the strongest manner His conviction that the whole Old Testament is a Divine revelation, and that therefore every minute precept has religious significance...” (1956, 1:104). The Lord frequently made arguments based upon the text of the Old Testament, wherein He stressed very precise grammatical points. His argument for the resurrection from the dead in Matthew 22:32 depends upon the present tense form of a verb—“I am [not “was”] the God of Abraham....”

    Within the same context, Christ quoted Psalm 110:1, showing that David, speaking in the Spirit, said, “The Lord said unto my Lord...” (Matthew 22:41ff.). Again, the emphasis is on a single word. Jesus (affirming His own deity) asked the Pharisees why David referred to his own descendant, the promised Messiah, as Lord. Not recognizing the dual nature of the Messiah (i.e., as man, He was David’s seed; as deity, He was David’s Lord), they were unable to answer. But had Christ not believed in the inspired words of the Old Testament, He could hardly have reasoned as He did (see also John 10:30ff.).
  3. Christ promised His apostles that the words of their gospel declaration would be given them. He told them: “But when they deliver you up, be not anxious how or what you shall speak; for it shall be given you in that hour what you shall speak” (Matthew 10:19). And, note Luke’s parallel that they were not to “meditate beforehand” how to answer their antagonists (Luke 21:14). That has to involve their very words!
  4. It is quite clear that the penmen of Scripture were conscious of the fact that they were recording the words of God. Paul wrote: “I received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you” (1 Corinthians 11:23). Again, “This we say unto you by the word of the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 4:15). “When you received from us the word of the message, even the word of God, you accepted it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, which also works in you that believe” (1 Thessalonians 2:13). When Philip preached in Samaria, those people to whom he spoke had heard “the word of God” (Acts 8:14).
    In a remarkable passage, Paul asked: “For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man, which is in him?” He means this: you cannot know what is in my mind until I, by my words, reveal to you what I am thinking. That is the apostle’s illustration. Here is his point. “Even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God...which things [i.e., the things of God] we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words” (1 Corinthians 2:11-13). There is not a more comprehensive statement of verbal inspiration to be found anywhere in the holy writings. The mind of God has been made known by means of the inspired words of those representatives whom He chose for that noble task.
  5. The biblical writers considered one another’s productions to be inspired of God. In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul writes: “For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. And, The laborer is worthy of his hire.” In this passage, the apostle has combined Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7, and classified them both as “scripture.” Similarly, Peter refers to Paul’s epistles as “scripture” in 2 Peter 3:15-16.


Whenever you hear someone accusing advocates of verbal inspiration of believing in “mechanical dictation,” most likely you are dealing with a theological liberal! The notion of “mechanical dictation” [i.e., that the Bible writers were only dictaphones or typewriters, hence, their cultural and personality factors did not enter into their works] is not taught by many conservative Bible scholars. Certainly, Paul’s writings differ in style from those of John, etc. But that does not negate the fact that after God used the individual writers of Scripture, in the final process, only the exact words that He wanted in the text appeared there!


“But suppose,” someone wonders, “the Bible was verbally inspired initially. Hasn’t the transmission of the text across the centuries caused a corruption of the original documents, so that verbal inspiration has been virtually destroyed?” No, not at all. The text of the Bible—both Old and New Testaments—has been preserved in a remarkable fashion. For example, after years of scientific research in connection with the text of the Old Testament, professor Robert Dick Wilson, who was thoroughly acquainted with forty-five languages, stated that “we arescientifically certain that we have substantially the same text that was in the possession of Christ and the apostles...” (1929, p. 8, emp. added). Evidence for the textual reliability of the New Testament is no less impressive. Scholars are now in possession of some 5,378 Greek manuscripts (in part or in whole) of the New Testament, and some of these date to the early part of the second century A.D. It has been estimated that textual variations concern only about 1/1000th part of the entire text (see Gregory, 1907, p. 528). Transmission, therefore, has not destroyed verbal inspiration.


Since the Holy Scriptures originally were penned in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and since then have been translated into many languages, some are concerned that the translation process has destroyed the Bible’s initial inspiration. But there is no need for concern over this matter so long as accurate translation is effected. When a word is translated precisely from one language into another, the same thought or idea is conveyed; thus, the same message is received.
That translation need not affect inspiration is evinced by an appeal to the New Testament itself. In the 3rd-2nd centuries B.C., the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek. This version, which was begun in Alexandria, Egypt, is known as the Septuagint. Note this interesting fact: Jesus Christ Himself, and His inspired New Testament writers, frequently quoted from the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament Scriptures! For example, in Matthew 22:32, Christ quoted from the Septuagint (Exodus 3:6), and of that passage said: “Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God?” (22:31). The translation from Hebrew to Greek did not alter the fact that the message was the Word of God!
It also might be observed in this connection that scholars generally agree that the Septuagint is not as reliable a translation as is the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Yet in spite of this, the New Testament frequently quotes it. However, as one author observed: “The writers of the New Testament appear to have been so careful to give the true sense of the Old Testament, that they forsook the Septuagint version whenever it did not give that sense...” (Horne, 1841, 1:312). The fact is, when a New Testament writer was quoting from the Greek Old Testament, the Holy Spirit sometimes led him to slightly alter the phraseology to give a more accurate sense. Thus, inspiration was still preserved though a less-than-perfect translation was being used.


The Scriptures are the verbally inspired Word of God. This view has been entertained by reverent students of the Holy Writings for multiplied centuries. Fritz Rienecker noted that the Jewish “rabbinical teaching was that the Spirit of God rested on and in the prophets and spoke through them so that their words did not come from themselves, but from the mouth of God and they spoke and wrote in the Holy Spirit. The early church was in entire agreement with this view” (1980, 2:301).
Let us therefore exalt the Holy Scriptures as the living Word of God (Hebrews 4:12), and acknowledge them as the only authoritative source of religious guidance.


Bruce, A.B. (1956), Expositor’s New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Gaebelein, Frank E. (1950), The Meaning of Inspiration (Chicago, IL: Inter-Varsity).
Glaussen, L. (no date), Theopneustia—The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Gregory, C.R. (1907), Canon and Text of the New Testament (New York: Scribners).
Horne, Thomas H. (1842), An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures (Philadelplhia, PA: Whetham & Son).
Rienecker, Fritz (1980), A Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Wilson, Robert Dick (1929), A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament (New York: Harper & Brothers).

The Universe—A “Waste of Space”? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


The Universe—A “Waste of Space”?

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

“The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be” (Sagan, 1980, p. 4). So begins Carl Sagan’s immensely popular book and PBS television series, Cosmos. A more atheistic, humanistic, materialistic declaration could not be spoken. Sagan (1934-1996), who was an astronomer at Cornell University who lived his entire life resistant to the possibility of God and an afterlife, maintained his unbelief—in the words of his third wife—“unflinching” to the end (Sagan, 1997, p. 225). She, herself, finds comfort after his passing “without resorting to the supernatural” (p. 228).
When people reject or avoid the implications of the created order—i.e., that it is logically the result of a Supreme Creator—they have inevitably “exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25). Skeptical of the survival of the Earth at the mercy of Homo sapiens, Sagan turned his attention to an almost obsessive dedication to finding answers and solutions from life forms beyond Earth. In his own words: “In a very real sense this search for extraterrestrial intelligence is a search for a cosmic context for mankind, a search for who we are, where we have come from, and what possibilities there are for our future—in a universe vaster both in extent and duration than our forefathers ever dreamed of ” (Sagan, 1973, pp. ix-x).
Less than a year after his death, Hollywood released a movie (on July 11, 1997) based on Sagan’s novel, Contact (1985). The film’s central character, Dr. Eleanor Arroway (played by Jodie Foster), is surely the embodiment of the formative experiences, philosophical perspectives, and spiritual beliefs of Sagan himself. On three separate occasions in the film, a pseudo-intellectual remark, obviously designed to defend the naturalistic explanation of the existence of the Universe while ridiculing the Christian viewpoint, is offered up to viewers. As a child, “Ellie” asks her father if life exists out in the Universe, to which he responds: “Well, if there wasn’t, it’d be an awful waste of space.” As an adult, she converses with Palmer Joss (played by Matthew McConaughey), and, staring up at the starry Puerto Rican sky, expresses her confidence in the evolution of other life forms elsewhere in the Universe: “If just one in a million of those stars has planets, and if only one in a million of those has life, and if just one in a million of those has intelligent life, then there are millions of civilizations out there” (as cited in Bohlin, 1998). [Of course, the scientific evidence does not support this conclusion—see Bohlin, 2002]. Ellie is pleasantly stunned when Joss repeats the same line that her father uttered to her when she was a child. Near the close of the film, Ellie speaks the line again to a group of school children when asked if life exists in space.
This triple declaration was obviously intended to offer a “logical” proof that, rather than looking to some supernatural Being Who is transcendent of the Universe, humans had best recognize that the only life beyond planet Earth are those life forms that have evolved (like our own) on other planets in far off galaxies. The materialist is forced to follow Sagan’s presupposition: life must exist elsewhere in the Universe since there is no God. If there is a God Who created life only on Earth, then He was guilty of poor teleological design—creating a vast physical realm that serves absolutely no purpose—and thus producing a nearly infinite realm of “wasted space.”
But wait! The Bible long ago anticipated the skepticism of the materialist astronomer. At the creation of the Universe, God said: “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth” (Genesis 1:14-15). The luminaries that God made included the stars: “God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night” (vss. 17-18). One very specific function of the stars that occupy space far beyond our solar system is illumination (cf. Psalm 136:9). They are “light-bearers” (Keil and Delitzsch, 1976, 1:56; Leupold, 1950, p. 71).
Another very specific purpose of the vastness of space is seen in the multiple declarations regarding the infinitude of God and the evidence that points to His existence, His glory, His eternality, and His power. Paul affirmed very confidently that “since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). It is absolutely incredible—and, according to Paul, inexcusable—for a rational human being to contemplate the magnitude of the Universe and the vastness of space, and then to reject the only logical, plausible explanation for it all: God. Indeed, atheism, evolution, and humanism are simply more sophisticated forms of the polytheism that has plagued humanity for millennia. Moses warned the Israelites of this very thing: “[T]ake heed, lest you lift your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, you feel driven to worship them and serve them, which the Lord your God has given to all the peoples under the whole heaven as a heritage” (Deuteronomy 4:19). Evolutionary astronomy assigns an inflated value to the vastness of space by postulating that it can provide mankind with an alternative explanation for the existence of life—an explanation that absents God. Any such postulation ultimately amounts to idolatry.
David, too, paid homage to the glory of the Creator, as evidenced by the eloquent symphony of the majestic Universe that is played perpetually—twenty-four hours a day:
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat (Psalm 19:1-6; cf. 74:16-17; 136:7-8).
Separate and apart from the latest evidence that confirms the movement of the Sun through space (see Thompson, 2001, p. 46), these verses reaffirm the fact that the created Universe loudly announces the existence of the Universe-Maker. David also declared: “O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is Your name in all the earth, You have set Your glory above the heavens! …When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained, what is man that You are mindful of him?” (Psalm 8:1,3). God “stretched out the heavens like a curtain” (Psalm 104:2). No wonder even a philosopher on the order of Immanuel Kant observed: “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me” (as quoted in Geisler, 1983, p. 59).
A third biblical explanation for the creation of the vast Universe was hinted at by God Himself in the attitude-adjusting lecture He delivered to Job: “Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion? Can you lead forth a constellation in its season? Or can you guide the Great Bear with its cubs? Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you fix their rule over the earth?” (Job 38:31-33). Notice the action terms that are used to refer to the movement of the constellations: bind, loose, lead forth, and guide. Observe also the “laws of the heavens” and their relationship to “ruling over the earth” (see Gaebelein, 1988, 4:1037,1042). These verses imply that the heavenly bodies have been deliberately orchestrated, modulated, and regulated by the Creator to serve a purpose or purposes far beyond our present understanding. The text seems to hint that Earth’s status, with its living beings, is somehow affected by the phenomena of the cosmic bodies. Even as the comprehension of scientists has been lacking through the centuries on many features of the physical realm, only eventually to discover the meaning that lay behind observable phenomenon, even so our present comprehension of space is woefully inadequate to justify passing judgment on the intentionality and teleology that lie behind many astronomical phenomena.
Evolutionists have far better arguments with which to attempt to prop up their atheistic stance (the “problem of evil” being the strongest, though refutable—see Warren, 1972). The “wasted space” argument is anemic, pitiful, and hardly worthy of rebuttal. However, since they brought it to our attention, the Christian is once again reminded of the unfathomable attributes of the great God Who stands above and beyond this vast physical realm. The immensity and vastness of the Universe only spurs the rational mind to marvel at the One whose own metaphysical transcendence surpasses the visible. In the words of the psalmist: “I will meditate on the glorious splendor of Your majesty, and on Your wondrous works. Men shall speak of the might of Your awesome acts, and I will declare Your greatness (145:5-6). “He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name. Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite” (Psalm 147:4-5). Isaiah agreed: “Lift up your eyes on high, and see who has created these things, who brings out their host by number; He calls them all by name, by the greatness of His might and the strength of His power” (40:26).


Bohlin, Ray (1998), “Contact: A Eulogy to Carl Sagan,” [On-line], URL: http://www.probe.org/docs/contact.html.
Bohlin, Ray (2002), “Are We Alone in the Universe?”, [On-line], URL: http://www.probe.org/docs/lifemars.html.
Gaebelein, Frank E., ed. (1988), The Expositor’s Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Geisler, Norman L. (1983), Cosmos: Carl Sagan’s Religion for the Scientific Mind (Dallas, TX: Quest).
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1976 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Leupold, Herbert C. (1950 reprint), Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Sagan, Carl (1997), Billions and Billions (New York: Random House).
Sagan, Carl (1985), Contact (New York: Simon and Schuster).
Sagan, Carl (1980), Cosmos (New York: Random House).
Sagan, Carl, ed. (1973), “Introduction,” Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence [CETI](MIT Press).
Thompson, Bert (2001), In Defense of the Bible’s Inspiration (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), second edition.
Warren, Thomas B. (1972), Have Atheists Proved There Is No God (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).