Common Grace and the Free Offer of the Gospel

Introduction

Within the sphere of human cultural activity, there are traces of the true, the good, and the beautiful. This is true despite the reality of human depravity. Human beings are sinners both by nature and by choice – as the Apostle Paul says, ‘None is righteous, no, not one’ (Romans 3:10). How then can we explain this paradox? There seems to be a tension between the relative good of human beings and their inherent depravity. How can we account for the noble and sometimes heroic actions of fallen men and women? How is it that lost humanity is in possession of great talents in the arts, humanities, and sciences? Why is there a universal impulse towards religion throughout the world? ‘How can the unregenerate still speak the truth, do good to others, and lead outwardly virtuous lives?’[1] These are questions which the Reformed doctrine of common grace seeks to answer. My own view of common grace builds upon the work of John Murray and Louis Berkhof – I am greatly indebted to these giants of Reformed theology. Once common grace has been established, we will consider the overture of grace in the free offer of the Gospel. God reaches out in love to lost mankind – calling sinners to faith and repentance and freely offering his mercy and grace to all who will call upon his name.

The Development of the Reformed Doctrine of Common Grace

The Augsburg Confession teaches that ‘man’s will hath some liberty to work a civil righteousness, and to choose such things as reason can reach unto; but that it hath no power to work the righteousness of God’. There was therefore a distinction between civil righteousness and saving righteousness within Lutheran theology. Zwingli argued that the sanctifying influence of God grace ‘penetrated in a measure even into the gentile world’ and that this accounts for the relative social and cultural good within society.[2] Calvin disagreed with both Luther and Zwingli to some extent by arguing that lost mankind was incapable of doing saving good and everything that men and women did was tainted by sin. Grace was saving, special, and particular to the elect. However, alongside this doctrine of total depravity and special grace, Calvin developed a doctrine of common grace to act as a limiting factor on the doctrine of total depravity. In the words of Louis Berkhof, 'This is a grace which is communal, does not pardon nor purify human nature, and does not effect the salvation of sinners. It curbs the destructive power of sin, maintains in a measure the moral order of the universe, thus making an orderly life possible, distributes in varying degrees gifts and talents among men, promotes the development of science and art, and showers untold blessings upon the children of men'.[3]

The Puritans insisted upon God’s forbearance with lost mankind, his compassion to all creatures, and his overtures of grace toward lost humanity. One only needs a cursory familiarity with John Bunyan or Richard Baxter to realise that this was the case among post-Reformation Reformed pastors and theologians within Britain – the overtures of the free offer of the Gospel are frequently found in their practical works. The Dutch Further Reformation similarly developed doctrines of God’s general love and mercy towards lost mankind in their practical writings. For example, in his consideration of the divine attributes, Wilhelmus à Brakel distinguishes between God’s general love of benevolence that is common to all mankind and his special love to the elect. He similarly distinguishes between general mercy for all mankind and special mercy for the people of God’s choice.[4] In the modern period, the doctrine of common grace received considerable development in the writings of Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck.[5] Kuyper is arguably the doyen of common grace and his three-volume study of the doctrine remains the most important work on the subject.[6] Notable advocates of common grace in the Reformed tradition of twentieth century include John Murray, Louis Berkhof, and Herman Kuiper who devoted significant aspects of their published writings to the subject.[7]

The Meaning of Common Grace

Reformed theologians carefully distinguish between their view of common grace and the view commonly held by Arminian theologians. Arminians generally believe that common grace is a link in the ordo salutis and that it has special salvific significance in giving all mankind the capacity to believe the Gospel. For Reformed theologians, common grace (gratia communis) has no salvific significance – it is purely general and non-saving. It is contrasted with special grace (gratia particularis), as given only to the elect, which brings them out of the darkness of sin and into the light of the Gospel. Common grace, in the Reformed sense of the term, is defined by Berkhof as being made up of two parts: '(1) Those general operations of the Holy Spirit whereby He, without renewing the heart, exercises such a moral influence on man through His general or special revelation, that sin is restrained, order is maintained in social life, and civil righteousness is promoted; or (2) those general blessings, such as rain and sunshine, food and drink, clothing and shelter, which God imparts to all men indiscriminately where and in what measure seems good to Him'. In the Kuyperian sense, we might add to this definition that God actively promotes the true, good, and beautiful within the sphere of culture, art, society, and science – this is all part of his common, non-saving, goodness to the world. John Murray offers a succinct but helpful definition of common grace as ‘every favour of whatever kind or degree, falling short of salvation, which this underserving and sin-cursed world enjoys at the hand of God’.[8]

The Operation and Fruits of Common Grace

Common grace may be said to operate in the world through the light of God’s general revelation and the work of civil governments. Firstly, Reformed theologians have argued that common grace is said to operate by the light of God’s general revelation – this is described by John as the light of Christ which ‘gives light to everyone’ (John 1:9). It is universal, but non-salvific. In his epistle to the Romans, Paul shows the gentiles have some capacity to observe what the law requires and carry out relative good: ‘For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law unto themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them’ (Romans 2:14–15). God has in some sense impressed upon the hearts or consciences of unregenerate men and women what he requires in the law. The conscience accuses those who break this law and acquits those who keep it. It is written in their hearts.

Common grace is also said to operate through the work of civil governments who act to restrain sin and impose order on society as Paul argues in Romans chapter 13. Civil magistrates are sent by God ‘for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well’ (1 Peter 2:14) In the words of the Belgic Confession: 'We believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, hath appointed kings, princes, and magistrates, willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and all things carried on among them with good order and decency' (Article XXXVI). In other words, God has instituted civil governments to restrain sin and promote relative good in society. Even though men and women are totally depraved, the confession assumes some capacity for ‘good order’ and ‘decency’ among men. This is God’s work of common grace in their hearts.

There are several fruits of common grace as identified by Reformed theologians including the delayed sentence of death, the restraint of sin, some degree of truth and morality in society, good works and civil righteousness among the unregenerate, and natural blessings to elect and reprobate alike.[9] Firstly, God warned Adam solemnly that should he eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he would surely die (Genesis 2:17). However, when Adam did eat of the fruit in disobedience to God’s command, he did not die immediately. God delayed the punishment of death and gave Adam the opportunity to repent. This is owing to his common grace. He gives humanity a chance to repent of sin. He does not immediately execute the punishment of death upon the sinner. This is owing to his goodness – a goodness designed to lead men and women to repentance as Paul argues in Romans 2:4. There is a restraint on the manifestation of God’s wrath towards sin. Secondly, God actively restrains the manifestation of sin in the world. The doctrine of total depravity does not mean that all men and women are as bad as they could possibly be. Not everyone is an incarnation of Adolf Hitler, Chairman Mao, or Stalin. God limits the manifestation of sin in the hearts of men and women. In the words of Calvin, ‘But we ought to consider that, notwithstanding the corruption of our nature, there is some room for divine grace, such grace as, without purifying it, may lay it under internal restraint’.[10] In the case of Abimelech, we see God’s sovereign hand in preventing him from committing a sin: ‘Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her' (Genesis 20:6). We have no reason to suppose that Abimelech was regenerate or a member of God’s covenant people, so clearly here is an example of an unbeliever being restrained by God from committing a sin.

Thirdly, God preserves some degree of truth, morality, and religion within society. Society is not hell on earth. Human beings are capable of relative good in the world. There is an outward semblance of morality in society, however corrupt this may appear. We have already argued that the Gentiles have some capacity to keep the law as Paul argues in Romans. Paul was also able to say of the Athenians, ‘I perceive that you are very religious’ (Acts 17:22). They had religion, albeit corrupt. They were able to worship the ‘unknown God’ (Acts 17:23), despite their great ignorance. Religion serves the purpose of common grace. It allows for a point of contact with lost mankind, as Paul used this in his debate with the Gentiles. In the words of the Canons of Dort, ‘There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the difference between good and evil, and shows some regard for virtue and for good outward behaviour’ (III–IV. 4). As the doctrine of common grace teaches, man is capable of some relative good, albeit non-saving – and this maintains good order and decency within society.

Fourthly, human beings are capable of outwardly good deeds and works of civil righteousness – this is commonly known as justitia civilis among Reformed divines.[11] The Bible often speaks of the works of the unregenerate as being relatively good. For example, when Jehu eradicated the worship of Baal from Israel, God said to him ‘Because you have done well in carrying out what is right in my sight and have done to the house of Ahab all that was in my heart, four generations of your sons will sit on the throne of Israel’ (2 Kings 10:30). Similarly, Joash and Amaziah are commended by God for their relatively good deeds, even though they did not ultimately remove the high places and prevent the people from worshipping there (2 Kings 12:2 [cf. 2 Chronicles 24:17– 25]; 14:3, 14–16, 20, 27 [cf. 2 Chronicles 25:2]). In the New Testament, Luke records Jesus as saying that sinners are capable of relative good: ‘And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same’ (Luke 6:33, cf. Matthew 5:46). Similarly, Matthew records Jesus as saying that those who are evil are nonetheless capable of giving good gifts to their children: ‘If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him’ (Matthew 7:11). Of course, none of these good deeds by the unregenerate are salvific in nature. They are relatively good as opposed to savingly good.

Finally, unbelievers are the recipients of many natural blessings. There are many passages of Scripture where it appears that God showers his gifts upon elect and reprobate alike. For example, the Lord promises to bless Ishmael, even though he is not the chosen line of God’s covenant grace (Genesis 17:20). God also blessed the house of the unregenerate Potiphar for Joseph’s sake – so much so that the ‘blessing of the Lord was on everything Potiphar had’ (Genesis 39:5). In a verse that captures the very essence of common grace, the Psalmist says that ‘the Lord is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made’ (Psalm 145:9). In other words, the psalmist speaks of a common grace on the part of God towards all of God’s creatures. The psalmist says, ‘He makes the grass grow for the livestock and provides crops for man to cultivate, bringing forth food from the earth: wine that gladdens the heart of man, oil that makes his face to shine, and bread that sustains his heart’ (Psalm 104:14–15). In other words, God provides for the happiness of humankind. He is a God who ‘gives food to all flesh: for his mercy endures forever’ (Psalm 136:25, emphasis my own). Notice that God’s generosity extends to all humanity, not exclusively to the elect.  

In the New Testament, Jesus commands us to love our enemies because this reflects God’s character, who showers blessings upon the righteous and the unrighteous alike: ‘But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise of the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous’ (Matthew 5:44–45). Not only are we to love our enemies as a reflection of God’s character, but God himself loves his enemies to the point of blessing them with rain and sunshine (cf. Luke 6:35–36). These are surely gifts of common grace. Paul and Barnabas entreat the unregenerate crowds by pleading God’s common grace towards them: ‘In past generations, he [God] let all nations go their own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony to His goodness: He gives you rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness’ (Acts 14:16–17). Rain and fruitful seasons are gifts of God’s common grace to lost mankind. Nobody deserves them, but God freely gives them.

The Scriptures clearly seem to support the doctrine of common grace as developed by Reformed theologians. God actively works to restrain sin in the world and promote his goodness through the civil magistrates and through the light of general revelation. His common grace is seen in his forbearance and longsuffering, his restraint upon the full exercise of his wrath until the day of judgement, the presence of some degree of truth and morality in society, the good works and civil righteousness of the unregenerate, and the natural blessings given to both righteous and unrighteous alike. Common grace prepares the way for the overture of grace in the free offer of the Gospel – the next subject of our consideration.

The Free Offer of the Gospel

The free offer of the Gospel is taught explicitly in several places of Scripture including Isaiah 45:22; Ezekiel 18:23, 32; 33:11; Matthew 11:28–30; 23:37 and 2 Peter 3:9. We shall shortly consider each of these texts in turn. However, we must first ask: what exactly do we mean by the free offer of the Gospel? By the free offer of the Gospel, we mean the indiscriminate overture of grace that is extended to sinners of lost mankind in the preaching of the Good News. It is nothing less than full salvation in the richest and fullest meaning of the term that is offered in the Gospel. As we shall see in our examination of some of the following texts, God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and desires that sinners should come to him in repentance and faith. In the Gospels, Jesus sometimes movingly invites sinners to come to him and find in him full salvation. For it is nothing less than Christ himself that is offered in the Gospel. It is not the mere possibility of salvation that is offered, but the certainty of it for all who will call upon the name of the Lord. As John Murray observes, ‘The grace offered is nothing less than salvation in its richness and fullness. The love or lovingkindness that lies back of that offer is not anything less; it is the will to that salvation. In other words, it is Christ in all the glory of his person and in all the perfection of his finished work whom God offers in the gospel’.[12]

In Isaiah 45:22, we encounter an overture on the part of God to the whole world: ‘Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other’. That the whole world is intended is sufficiently clear from the words ‘all you ends of the earth’ – the offer is universal in scope. It is also quite clearly salvific in its intent: turn and be saved. The reason attached is divine monotheism: ‘for I am God, and there is no other’ – this is clearly reinforced by the context in which all nations are being called to renounce their idols and worship God alone. The second and third texts of interest come from the book of Ezekiel: 'Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? … For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!' (Ezekiel 18: 23, 32). 'Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’ (Ezekiel 33:11). God himself speaks in these texts. He makes it plain that he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and would rather that the wicked would come to him in repentance. In Ezekiel 33:11, we actually encounter God pleading with the wicked to repent: ‘Turn, turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’ Of course, we are not speaking of the decretive will of God in this context. It is certainly true that God decrees that some should be saved according to his eternal purpose of election, while others should be lost. However, as Murray observes, ‘In the text [above] it is the will of God’s benevolence (voluntas euarestias) that is stated, not the will of God’s decree (voluntas eudokias)’.[13]

The fourth text comes from Matthew 11:28–30: ‘Come to Me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light’. In these verses, the Lord Christ offers and provides what is needed by those who are weary and burdened. These people are clearly sinners, but they have been put under a difficult yoke – that of the many rules and regulations of the pharisees. Jesus by way of contrast offers a yoke that easy and a burden that is light. Those who come to Christ and learn of Him will find rest for the soul. Clearly salvation in the fullest sense is freely offered in these verses to sinners of lost mankind. As John Murray observes, 'What is freely offered in the gospel? The word of Jesus already quoted (Matthew 11:28) gives the answer. It is Christ who is offered. More strictly, he offers himself. The whole gamut of redemptive grace is included … When Christ invites us to himself it is to the possession of himself and therefore of all that defines his identity as Lord and Saviour'.[14]  The whole Christ is offered freely to sinners of mankind lost in these beautiful verses and the free offer of the Gospel most clearly manifest.

The fifth text is taken from Matthew 23:37 (cf. Luke 13:34). Here Jesus pleads for the salvation of Jerusalem: ‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing’. It seems clear from this verse that Jesus desired to gather the people of Jerusalem as a mother hen would gather her chicks under her wings. As John Murray observes, ‘This surely means the gathering together of the people of Jerusalem under his saving and protecting grace. So we have the most emphatic declaration on the part of Christ of his having yearned for the conversion and salvation of the people of Jerusalem’.[15] Christ expresses intense emotion over the capital city of Israel. ‘Jerusalem’ is twice repeated for emphasis. Here is the very heart and centre of Israel, representing all the different kinds of people whom Jesus had encountered in his ministry. Jesus would gather them all under his wings, yet they refused him.

Our final text is taken from 2 Peter 3:9. ‘The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead, he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance’. Here Peter argues that the delay of the coming of judgement is due to God’s patience or longsuffering as some translations put the verse. There is a fundamental antithesis in this verse between the terrible sentence of death meted out to lost sinners, and the life which God offers through repentance. God does not desire that any should perish. The divine patience allows time for the sinner to repent. In other words, God desires that such sinners should repent while there is still time before the final judgement occurs. According to Murray, ‘there is in God a benevolent lovingkindness towards the repentance and salvation of even those whom he has not [eternally] decreed to save. This pleasure, will, desire is expressed in the universal call to repentance’.[16]

Given the above observations, it seems that there is a clear basis in Scripture for the doctrine of the free offer of the Gospel. God clearly desires that all would turn to him and be saved through repentance and faith in his Son, the Lord Christ. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and desires that sinners would turn to him and be saved. The Lord Christ himself pleads with lost mankind to come to him and even weeps over Jerusalem, desiring to see all Israel saved. Peter reminds us that there is still time for repentance. God is patient and has no desire to see anyone perish. All this impresses upon us the urgency of the free offer of the Gospel and of the overtures of divine grace to lost mankind. Today is the day of salvation. The Church has a duty and responsibility to proclaim the riches of God’s grace, lovingkindness, and forbearance with lost humanity. Mission should take seriously the overtures of God’s grace and the kindness of his genuine and well-meant offer of redemption to lost mankind.

Recommended Reading

Bavinck, Herman, ‘Calvin and Common Grace’, The Princeton Theological Review, vol. VII (1909), 437–465.

Berkhof, Louis, ‘Common Grace’, Systematic Theology (Edinburgh, 1958), pp. 432–446.

Kuiper, Herman, Calvin on Common Grace (Grand Rapids, MI, 1928).

Kuyper, Abraham, Common Grace: God’s Gifts for a Fallen World (Bellingham, WA, 2016–2020), 3 vols.

Macleod, Donald, Compel Them to Come In: Calvinism and the Free Offer of the Gospel (Fearn, 2020).

Mouw, Richard J., He Shines in All That’s Fair: Culture and Common Grace (Grand Rapids, MI, 2001).

Murray, John, ‘Common Grace’, in The Collected Writings of John Murray: Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Edinburgh, 1977), pp. 93–119.

Murray, John, ‘The Atonement and the Free Offer of the Gospel’, in The Collected Writings of John Murray: The Claims of Truth, vol. 1 (Edinburgh, 1976), pp. 59–85.

Murray, John, The Free Offer of the Gospel (Edinburgh, 2001).

Van Til, Cornelius, Common Grace and the Gospel, 2nd edition (Phillipsburg, NJ, 2015).

 

Footnotes

[1] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Edinburgh, 1958), p. 432.

[2] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 434.

[3] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 434.

[4] Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI, 1992), pp. 123–125.

[5] Herman Bavinck, ‘Calvin and Common Grace’, The Princeton Theological Review, vol. VII (1909), 437–465.

[6] Abraham Kuyper, Common Grace: God’s Gifts for a Fallen World (Bellingham, WA, 2016–2020). 3 vols.

[7] Louis Berkhof, ‘Common Grace’, Systematic Theology, pp. 432–446. John Murray, ‘Common Grace’, in The Collected Writings of John Murray: Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Edinburgh, 1977), pp. 93–119; Herman Kuiper, Calvin on Common Grace (Grand Rapids, MI, 1928).

[8] John Murray, Collected Writings, vol. 2, p. 96.

[9] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 442–3.

[10] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, II. 3. 3.

[11] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 443.

[12] John Murray, The Free Offer of the Gospel (Edinburgh, 2001), p. 30.

[13] John Murray, The Free Offer of the Gospel, p. 21.

[14] John Murray, ‘The Atonement and the Free Offer of the Gospel’, in The Collected Writings of John Murray: The Claims of Truth, vol. 1 (Edinburgh, 1976), p. 82.

[15] John Murray, The Free Offer of the Gospel, p. 12.

[16] John Murray, The Free Offer of the Gospel, p. 30.

‘Faith Seeking Understanding’: A Systematic Presentation of the Christian Faith (Chapter 1)

 Prolegomena

Prolegomena is the discursive introduction to a book. It means essentially to ‘say something beforehand’ or to ‘say something in advance’. In theology, prolegomena considers the method, sources, meaning, and purpose of theology. It asks the questions: what is theology, where does it come from, and where is it going. Christian theology is a discipline of study that aims to understand who God is and how He has revealed Himself in Scripture, nature, and history – and importantly what this means in the light of society and culture as a whole. This introduction will explore the meaning of theology, the sources of the theology, the ultimate end of theology, the relation of systematic theology to other theological disciplines, and the contextual relationship between theology and culture. Space will also be given to consider method in theology, the various loci of Reformed dogmatics, and the central methodological principle of ‘faith seeking understanding’ or as the title puts it in the Latin: fides quaerens intellectum. 

I.                     Theology: Meaning & Purpose

The word theology is derived from the Greek words theos and logia meaning ‘God’ and ‘word’ respectively. In other words, theology is a word about God. Scripture is the normative foundation of dogmatics. It is a word from another world and a treasure-trove of precious jewels from which the content of theology is mined. This is because God has revealed Himself in and through the Christian Scriptures, collectively known as the Bible. The writer to the Hebrews tells us, ‘Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, and through whom also he created the world’ (Hebrews 1:1–2). Under the Old Covenant, God spoke to the patriarchs and prophets, revealing himself to his chosen people, Israel. This revelation, including the great event of the Exodus, was carefully recorded in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. Supremely, however, God has spoken by Jesus Christ and the New Covenant written in his blood. Jesus Christ is his beloved and eternal Son through whom he created the world and everything in it. In the prologue to John’s Gospel, Jesus Christ is spoken of as the divine Word or logos who reveals God and who intervenes personally in the human situation by assuming our humanity and dying in our stead. John says, ‘And the Word [Jesus Christ] became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth’ (John 1:14).

Theology also explores the various questions connected with God, Scripture, and Jesus Christ. This means that it tries to explore God’s relationship with creation, particularly with human beings whom he made after his image and likeness. It considers the fall of humankind into a state of sin and spiritual death and the redemptive work of Christ in coming to save lost sinners from the dark paths of sin and restore to them the image of God which had been corrupted by the fall. Theology also considers the person and work of the Holy Spirit who inspired the prophets and was given at Pentecost, who is the Lord and Giver of life, and who breathed out the Holy Scriptures. The Holy Spirit is responsible for applying the work of redemption to the hearts and lives of those who trust in Jesus Christ. Theology is about a Trinity of persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These three are one God, equal in power and in glory. The Father elects a people for himself and gives the Son; the Son voluntarily assumes human nature and dies upon a cross to redeem his Father’s elect; and the Spirit is given by the Father through the Son and applies salvation to everyone who believes in Jesus Christ. If our theology is to be theocentric (God-centred), it must be robustly Trinitarian and centred on the person and work of the God-man, Jesus Christ. Not only does theology concern itself with Christ, humanity, redemption, and the Spirit, it also considers the Church. In fact, the great Swiss theologian Karl Barth called his work in systematic theology Church Dogmatics, emphasising the importance of the ecclesiastical community or those to whom God has revealed Himself in Christ. ‘Dogmatics is the science in which the Church, in accordance with the state of its knowledge at different times, takes account of the content of the content of its proclamation critically, that is by the standard of Holy Scripture and under the guidance of its Confessions’.[1] Barth emphasises the importance of the Church for dogmatics. Without the Church, there would be no theology at all. In the words of Cyprian of Carthage, ‘No one can have God for his Father, who does not have the Church for his mother’.

In terms of purpose, theology is fundamentally eschatological. It is going somewhere. There is an end and purpose in view. Eschatology is the doctrine of the last things. It may sound strange to modern ears, but we are actually living in the last days. Since Christ has come, established his Church, and ascended into heaven, we now await his return or Parousia to redeem his Church. Theologians emphasize what may be called inaugurated eschatology. In other words, there is an ‘already’ and a ‘not yet’ dimension to eschatology. Christ has already come and inaugurated his kingdom and the Father has given the Spirit to the Church as a sign of the last days. However, the work of the Spirit of Christ is not yet fully consummated in the new heavens and new earth. One day Christ will return, redeem his Church, judge the world, and establish his everlasting kingdom, world without end.  The Christian view of history is fundamentally teleological. In other words, it has a telos, a meaning or purpose. It is for this reason that the perspective of optimistic amillennialism is defended in subsequent chapters in this book. History has an eschatological goal. God through history is working to establish his kingdom through the global spread of Christianity, through revival and reformation, and through the building of his Church.[2] While I would not take the thousand years of revelation 20 literally, I would none the less expect an extended spiritual reign of Christ before the second coming as Christ’s kingdom advances in the world. Eschatology necessarily offers hope, not despair. In the words of Isaac Watts:

Jesus shall reign where’er the sun

Does its successive journeys run.

His kingdom stretch form shore to shore,

Till moons shall wax and wane no more.

II.                   Theology and Other Disciplines

Systematic theology is not the only subject studied in a theological department. It also stands in relation to historical theology, natural theology, and Biblical theology. Systematic theology or dogmatics as a discipline is to be distinguished from historical theology which considers the development of doctrine throughout history, or in a given historical period, or in the work of a particular theologian from history. This is important for dogmatics in order to reflect upon the teachings of the Church from the past 2000 years. It would be highly presumptuous of theology to begin as if nothing had previously been said upon the matter and as if the Holy Spirit had not given sufficient illumination to the Church throughout history. Tradition is therefore an important source of theology. The final word belongs to Scripture, but our theology is part of a conversation between Scripture and history.

Another potential source of theology is nature. Karl Barth furiously reacted against nature as a source of theology in the twentieth century. He gave precious little room in his dogmatics to developing a natural theology. His answer to Emil Brunner’s essay on nature and grace was a publication decisively called Nein! We might describe Barth’s view as something of an overreaction since Scripture clearly allows some scope for developing a natural theology. Philosophical or natural theology explores how God has revealed himself through nature. This is something familiar to the psalmist who says, ‘The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork’ (Psalm 19:1). Even the most irreligious will feel a sense of glory and wonder as he gazes up into the starry heavens. Paul argues in his epistle to the Romans, that God has revealed something of his glory in the things that have been made: ‘For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made’ (Romans 1:20). We will explore the arguments of natural theology in more detail as we consider the doctrine of God.

A word or two must also be said about Biblical theology. Sometimes there has been an unhealthy competition between Biblical and systematic theology as to which is normative for the Christian faith. Biblical theology may concern itself with what a given part of the Bible says on a particular matter. For example, one could ask what does the apostle Paul teach about justification or union with Christ, or what does the Psalmist teach about prayer, or what does the New Testament as a whole teach about inaugurated eschatology. Biblical theology also concerns itself with the progressive nature of divine revelation from creation, through to the Patriarchs, to the emergence of the nation of Israel, to Christ (his life, death, and resurrection), to the giving of the Holy Spirit, the emergence of the Church, and the final consummation and return of Christ to establish his eternal kingdom. All theology must be Biblical in the broadest sense, including systematic theology. The systematic theologian draws upon the work of Biblical theologians in the formation of doctrine, but he also considers what Church history has to say on a given topic, what philosophy might contribute, and how to relate doctrine to culture and society, as we have already argued.

III.                 Theology and Culture

Culture is not so much a source of theology as it is the context into which theology speaks. There is a danger of sacrificing truth to relevance, but there is also a danger of being so irrelevant as to be meaningless in the face of modern society. Theology must be both faithful to Scripture, mindful of tradition, but also relevant to humanity in the 21^st century. H. Richard Niebuhr proposed five ways in which Christians have engaged with culture in his famous work Christ and Culture published in 1951:

1.       First, there is the ‘Christ against culture’ model. This is the argument of those who wish to isolate themselves from society which is universally viewed as being corrupt and immoral. Fundamentalists often take this approach to culture: ‘don’t go to the cinema, don’t watch movies, don’t play non-Christian music, don’t read science fiction etc. It is also the position of more radical separatist movements like the Mennonite and Amish communities which isolate themselves almost completely from modern culture.

2.       Second, there is the ‘Christ of culture’ model. This views modern culture as essentially a good thing and something which believers should be willing to learn from, emulate, and incorporate into their systems of truth. Modern liberal Protestantism essentially adopts this uncritical view of culture and expects theology to do the same. Relevance is the keyword.

3.       Third, in the ‘Christ above culture’ model, culture is seen as essentially good, but Scripture is nonetheless necessary to evaluate and transcend those cultural expressions. This was the viewpoint adopted by Thomas Aquinas and subsequently incorporated into the ethos of the Roman Catholic Church. Anyone who has been to the Vatican will know of the tremendous ability of the Roman Catholic Church to appropriate art and culture as its own.

4.       Fourth, there is the ‘Christ and culture in paradox’ model. This model suggests that there is a tension between Christians and the cultures in which they find themselves. Christians are to be in the world, but not of the world. Niebuhr suggest that Martin Luther was a proponent of this view. And it has arguably also been seen within aspects of conservative evangelicalism, which often identifies itself as a countercultural.  

5.       Finally, there is ‘Christ as the transformer of culture’ model. This view is held by those who desire to redeem culture for the Gospel in the light of Christ’s death and resurrection. Niebuhr points to Augustine and Calvin as proponents of this view. Similarly the neo-Calvinism of Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck takes this particular model of cultural engagement as its own.[3]

This dogmatics adopts aspects of perspectives four and five. Sometimes culture goes against the teaching of Scripture and Christians should be reminded that they are not ‘of this world’ as expressed by the Apostle Paul in Romans12:2. However, Christ may also be said to redeem culture for Himself so that even in the new heavenly city ‘the kings of the earth will bring their splendour into it’ (Revelation 21:24). Herman Bavinck describes grace as something which restores nature. In other words, grace is not opposed to nature, but to sin. This is something the fundamentalist forgets in his crusade against modernity. God’s creation is a good gift to humanity and must be redeemed in that light as humans develop and expand upon the gifts given in nature. One day all creation will be restored and renewed into a place wherein righteousness dwells (2 Peter 3:13). In the words of Abraham Kuyper, ‘There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, “Mine”’.[4]

Modernism defined cultural expression for most of the eighteenth through to the late twentieth centuries. Building upon Enlightenment values, modernism emphasised certainty and rationality. It put considerable emphasis on foundationalism. Truth is said to rest upon justified belief. Culture today however is largely shaped by a reaction to modernism known as postmodernism. Postmodernists express incredulity towards metanarratives or stories which attempt to explain all of reality such as liberal humanism or Marxism. Postmodernists argue that all knowledge is perspectival. There can be no such thing as disinterested inquiry since we are all influenced by our political views, values, assumptions, background, and social contexts. Language doesn’t simply make records about reality; it actually shapes and constructs it. In other words, all reality is textual. Truth is provisional, rather than absolute. Meaning is contingent or subject to chance. And human nature is essentially a myth. Obviously, Christians cannot agree with all the implications and theories of postmodernism. However, acknowledging that we are not disinterested observers and are influenced by our presuppositions can go a long way towards liberating theological discourse from the straitjacket of modernism. Some theologians such as John Frame and Vern Poythress have even embraced the notion that truth is perspectival.[5] However, postmodernism suffers from problems with logical consistency. If all truth is relative and conditional, this must also apply to postmodernism itself. In other words, the doctrine is self-refuting. Christians should take the meat offered by postmodernism but leave bones.

IV.                Methodology

Methodology is the contextual framework behind a thesis. It includes views, beliefs, and values that determine the choices a researcher makes. Methodology is the framework for doing theology. This involves a disclosure of presuppositions and biases that influence the direction of research and a consideration of method in theology or how one goes about constructing a systematic theology.

In terms of beliefs and values behind this thesis, there are at least three core emphases that come to mind. First, this systematic theology intends to belong to the Reformed tradition or to be shaped by the theology of the Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin. This includes three key aspects:

1.       The belief that Scripture alone is our highest authority and rule of faith.

2.       The teaching that salvation is by faith alone, through grace alone, in Christ alone.

3.       The doctrine that all of life is to be lived for the glory and enjoyment of God alone.

A commitment to Reformed theology also aims to integrate and build upon the theology of the Reformed Confessions, particularly the Westminster Standards (The Shorter and Larger Catechism and the Westminster Confession of Faith) and the Three Forms of Unity (the Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dort, and the Heidelberg Catechism).

Second, this systematic theology aims to be broadly evangelical, building upon the experiential theology of George Whitefield and John Wesley. David Bebbington is famous for his four-point definition of evangelicalism, often referred to as the Bebbington quadrilateral, which was first published in his study of evangelicalism in modern Britain.[6] Bebbington identifies four key features that have characterised evangelicalism across its history from the 1730s to the present day:

1.       Biblicism – a high regard for Scripture as the normative source for theology and practice.

2.       Crucicentrism – a particular focus on the atoning work of Christ on the cross.

3.       Conversionism – an emphasis on the need to be converted or born again.

4.       Activism – the belief that the Gospel needs to be expressed in social and evangelistic effort.

Bebbington was by no means offering a summary of evangelical theology as a whole, he merely aimed to delineate some of its key characteristics as expressed in its historical development.

Thirdly, this theology aims to be catholic in its acceptance and use of the ecumenical creeds such as the Apostle’s Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and the writings of the early Church fathers. There are three salient features of a broadly catholic or ecumenical perspective:

1.       Monotheism – the belief that there is only one God who created the heavens and the earth, the maker of all things visible and invisible.

2.       Trinitarianism – the belief that this same God exists in three co-equal, co-eternal persons: namely, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These three are one God, equal in power and in glory.

3.       Christocentrism – the belief that God has revealed himself in the person and work of Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, who became a man of reasonable body and soul and who suffered the death of the cross for the salvation of the world.

The points provide the definition of what is broadly considered to be ‘Christian’ whether Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox.

With respect to method in theology, there are several key themes. Exegesis is the foundation of dogmatics. Without God’s revelation in Scripture, theology is almost impossible. Systematic theology asks the question: ‘What does the whole Bible teach about x, y, and z?’. However, systematics is not merely an exercise in proof-texting. It also considers theology within the context of the Church and the development of theology throughout history. In other words, theology also asks the question, ‘What has the Church historically taught and believed about x, y, and z?’. This involves gathering illumination from extrabiblical materials in the form of confessions, creeds, and catechisms, but also in the form of works of systematic theology or theological monographs on the specific loci of dogmatics. Theology should also be sensitive to developments in the history of philosophy, society, and culture. This is the contemporary context in which systematic theology is developed. Medieval theologians rightly assigned the role of handmaiden to philosophy in its relationship with theology. It helps to clarify theological language, organise reflections on Scripture, and provide methodological and interpretative frameworks to the theological enterprise. Method in theology is also concerned with the bones and skeletal structure of dogmatics which is the subject of the next paragraph.  

There are several key subdivisions within systematic theology which operates on a broadly Trinitarian framework. As Herman Bavinck observes concerning the nature of Christian religion: ‘The essence of the Christian religion consists in the reality that the creation of the Father, ruined by sin, is restored in the death of the Son of God, and recreated by the grace of the Holy Spirit into a kingdom of God’.[7] This sums up the work of dogmatics in a nutshell. The various themes of theology unfold according to the basic design suggested by Herman Bavinck. Theology proper explores the attributes of God and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. It also considers God’s role in creation, providence, and redemption. Space should also be given in theology proper to the doctrine of divine revelation in nature (natural theology) and in Scripture (Bibliology). Christology considers the person and work of Christ and gives attention to themes like the hypostatic union and the nature and extent of the atonement. Pneumatology explores the person and work of the Holy Spirit and considers issues surrounding Spiritual gifts and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Anthropology concerns itself with the doctrine of man, the image of God in man, and the fall of man into sin (also known as the study of hamartiology). Soteriology considers the application of redemption by the Holy Spirit to the believer and the explores the themes of election, calling, regeneration, faith and repentance, sanctification, adoption, and glorification. Ecclesiology is the doctrine of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church and the sacraments of baptism and Holy Eucharist. Finally, eschatology is the doctrine of the last things and explores themes such as heaven, hell, the millennium, and the second coming of Christ to establish his everlasting kingdom.

A central aspect of methodology in this thesis is summed up in title: ‘Fides Quaerens Intellectum’ or ‘Faith Seeking Understanding’. This method of doing theology has a long history as it is found in the writings of Augustine (354–430) and Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033–1109). One begins with a simple trust in God (a childlike faith, not a childish faith) and on the basis of that faith continues into a deeper awareness of divine truth. It means to grasp intellectually what we know by faith. In the words of the medieval theologian Anselm of Canterbury, ‘I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe, but rather, I believe in order that I may understand’. Of course, Anslem is well known for his ontological argument for the existence of God which builds upon this foundation. The ontological argument aims to prove not only that God exists, but also that he is endowed with all his traditional attributes of perfection (e.g. omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence etc.) or that he is ‘maximally great’. Anselm of Canterbury argued that God is the greatest conceivable being there is. Since it is greater for something to exist in reality than in the mind, God necessarily exists. Some have suggested that this argument is more a curiosity of language than a real argument for the existence of God. People quipped that you could imagine the greatest possible island to exist or conjure up unicorns simply by imagining them. However, it has become a serious argument in contemporary philosophy through the work of the analytic philosopher Alvin Plantinga who uses modal logic to develop a robust argument for the existence of God. In his version of the argument, Plantinga conceives of God as a being who is ‘maximally excellent’ in every possible world. The analytic philosopher and Christian apologist William Lane Craig explains Plantinga’s argument as follows:

1.       It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

2.       If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3.       If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4.       If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

5.       Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

This is clearly not just a curiosity of language – there is something about God that makes his existence necessary. It may be this fact that lies behind God’s revelation of his name to Moses as ‘I am that I am’ (Exodus 3:14). Just as we believe in the existence of other minds, so we believe in the existence of God. It is intuitive and innate. Belief in God is properly basic and every human being has an inward sense that God exists (cf. Romans 1:18–20).[8] Calvin called this belief the sensus divintatis and explained it as follows:

That there exists in the human mind and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity [sensus divinitatis], we hold to be beyond dispute, since God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead … this is not a doctrine which is first learned at school, but one as to which every man is, from the womb, his own master; one which nature herself allows no individual to forget.[9]

By nature, we supress this truth in unrighteousness as Paul teaches in the first chapter of his epistle to the Romans. We all have this sense within us, but it does not work properly in some of us, due to the noetic effects of sin. It is the Holy Spirit who enables us to see that ‘something lives in every hue Christless eyes have never seen’.[10] Jesus promised his disciples that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth: ‘But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you’ (John 14:26). The Holy Spirit has a tendency to hide himself and magnify Christ: ‘When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father – the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father – He will testify about me’ (John 15:26). The study and exposition of theology should not be in word only, but in the power and demonstration of the Holy Spirit (1 Thessalonians 1:5) or as Jesus reminded the Samaritan woman: ‘God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth’ (John 4:24). This means that there is an experiential aspect to theology. It is not merely a theoretical discipline. Theology should speak to the heart and change our behaviour in accordance with the teachings of the Scriptures. ‘Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in the their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world’ (James 1:27).

This brings us to the final point of prolegomena. Theology is doxology. This is why Paul breaks out in praise after expounding many theological topics in his letter to the Romans: ‘Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgements and how inscrutable his ways! “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor?” “Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen’ (Romans 11:33–36). The Reformers encapsulated this idea in the phrase Soli Deo Gloria (‘to God alone be the glory’) and the Westminster Shorter Catechism described the chief end of man as consisting in the glorification and enjoyment of God. The ultimate end and aim of theology should be the glory of God. We do not theologise to become puffed up with our own self-importance. We do theology and engage in theological studies to glorify God and enjoy him forever.

---

[1] Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline (London, 2001), p. 1.

[2] See Iain Murray, The Puritan Hope: Revival and the Interpretation of Prophecy (Edinburgh, 1971).

[3] H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (London, 1952).

[4] The famous quote in Dutch reads as follows: “Geen duimbreed is er op heel ‘t erf van ons menselijk leven, waarvan de Christus, die áller Souverein is, niet roept: ‘Mijn!”’ Souvereiniteit in Eigen Kring (Kok: Kampen, 3rd ed., 1930), 33.

[5] John Frame, ‘A Primer on Perspectivalism’ (June, 2012), available at frame-poythress.org; Vern Poythress, Symphonic Theology: The Validity of Multiple Perspectives in Theology (Grand Rapids, MI, 1987). Although they embrace multiple perspectives in the theology, the extent to which they may be describe as postmodern is debateable.

[6] David W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (London, 1989).

[7] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena (Grand Rapids, MI, 2003), p. 61.

[8] See Alvin Plantinga, Knowledge and Christian Belief (Grand Rapids, MI, 2015); Warranted Christian Belief (New York & Oxford, 2004).

[9] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.3.1, 3.

[10] From the hymn ‘Loved with everlasting love’ by George Wade Robinson.

Evangelical Theology by Michael F. Bird – An Analysis and Book Review

Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction, 2^nd edition (Grand Rapids, Mich., 2020).

The heart of theology is the Gospel. It is the Good News about Jesus Christ. Michael F. Bird takes the Gospel as the organising principle of his systematic theology with the unusual result that eschatology is placed somewhere in the middle of his dogmatics. For Bird, theology is about the Good News. It teaches of a God who loves us and chose us from before the foundation of the world, a Saviour who came to rescue us from the dark paths of sin, and a loving Holy Spirit who came to apply the great work of redemption to our hearts and lives. Bird is an academic dean and lecturer in theology at Ridley College in Melbourne, Australia. He comes from an eclectic theological or ecclesiastical background – first as a Baptist, then a presbyterian, and finally an Anglican. His thought is unified however by being evangelical, Reformed, and catholic. 

Prolegomena

Bird defines theology as talk about God within the context of the church and evangelical tradition. He begins with a discussion of prolegomena or pretheology which he considers to be a way of discussing issues of method, sources, and the meaning and purpose of theology. In terms of method, Bird adopts an eclectic approach, bringing together multiple insights from the Christian tradition, but ultimately adopting the Gospel as the chief organising principle of dogmatics. With respect to sources, he views Scripture as the ultimate norm for theology in accordance with the Reformed tradition of Sola Scriptura, but he also sees a significant place for tradition in shaping dogmatics. By tradition, he means the ecumenical creeds and teachings of the church fathers, the insights of medieval divines such as Thomas Aquinas, the confessions and catechisms of the Reformers, as well as the developments within modern theology. Bird is somewhat suspicious of natural theology, though he does see a cautious place for nature as a ‘theatre of revelation’. He sees culture as the contemporary context in which theology is developed. Bird suggests that theology should be a complex interaction between Scripture, the Christian tradition, natural theology, and culture.

Theology

Bird sees the Gospel as supremely being a revelation of God. He defines the Trinity in the light of the ecumenical creeds and Barth’s revival of Trinitarian doctrine in the 20^th century. He takes issue with Calvin’s understanding of Christ and the Spirit as autotheos, preferring to stick to a patristic doctrine of the Trinity. According to Bird, there is only one God who exists in three co-equal, co-eternal persons who are nonetheless identified by a certain particular order: the Father eternal and unbegotten, the Son eternally begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeding eternally from the Father and the Son. He is suspicious of both social Trinitarianism and arguments for eternal functional subordination, particularly as it applies to the issue of gender and authority in marriage. Bird divides discussion of God’s attributes into the traditional Reformed distinction between incommunicable and communicable attributes and holds to a classical theistic position. He raises concerns regarding attempts by feminist theologians to assign a feminine gender to God or to adopt the gender-neutral nouns such as Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. While he argues that God transcends human concepts of gender and so is neither male or female as such, he nonetheless maintains that in Scripture God is normally referred to by masculine nouns and pronouns. God is described in Scripture as a Father. And Jesus, of course, was a male human being. He does note some passages which attribute feminine characteristics to God.

The background to God’s work in redemption is his work of creation. Bird considers several defective accounts of God as creator. Deistic versions of creation see God as transcendent but uninvolved in his creation, a distant God, much unlike the God of Christianity who is involved by way of providence, miracle, and redemption. Pantheism is the view that God is literally identical with the universe; whereas panentheism views God as being greater than the universe, but nonetheless including it within his own being. Christian theism, however, maintains a Creator-creature distinction, ruling out philosophies which say God is to be identified with everything. Henotheism (the belief in a supreme God among a pantheon of lesser gods) and polytheism (the belief in multiple gods) are both obviously incompatible with a Christian worldview which insists that there is only one God who exists in three coequal persons. Gnosticism is the belief that a demiurge created this universe and entrapped souls in matter which is understood to be evil. Jesus Christ came to liberate souls from the material universe and this is achieved through secret knowledge or gnosis. Christian theology, however, does not differentiate the God of creation from the God of redemption; they are one and the same God, Lord, and Saviour. Salvation is freely offered to all publicly in Gospel, rather than through any rites of secret knowledge.

Bird’s doctrine of creation is thoroughly Trinitarian in nature. The Son and the Spirit were the two hands that the Father used in the formation of the universe and to create life. Though God originally created everything good, sin has left its mark on the world. This anticipates God’s plan to renew the heavens and the earth according to his righteousness. This plan was inaugurated with Jesus’ resurrection and the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost and will be brought to consummation at Jesus’ return in glory. Bird also maintains the classical doctrine of creatio ex nihilo and identifies several implications of a creation out of nothing: 1) God existed before the universe was made; 2) God and matter do not coexist and were not coeternal; 3) God did not use pre-existent materials to create the universe; 4) God was not limited by pre-existent materials; and 5) the universe had a definite beginning as taught by Scripture and confirmed by science in terms of big bang cosmology. Bird offers no assessment of human evolution at this point, but will take up this theme in his discussion of the historicity of Adam and Eve in his section on anthropology.

Bird also considers the subject of divine revelation which he defines as ‘God’s free action whereby he communicates saving truth about himself and the very presence of himself to humanity, especially through Jesus Christ, who is the incarnate Word of God, as testified by the apostles and attested by the Holy Scriptures and received by the community of believers’ (p. 292). There are three aspects to divine revelation: natural, special, and Christological. God reveals himself in nature, particularly in terms of his eternal power and divine nature as Paul teaches in Romans 1:20. However, this form of revelation is obscured by sin. Bird thinks that Karl Barth overreacted to the problem of natural theology by denying it altogether. He feels that there is a place for natural theology, but one should not overestimate its capabilities. He considers arguments for and against the traditional theistic proofs (the ontological, teleological, cosmological, and moral arguments for God’s existence). Like Barth, Cornelius Van Til firmly rejected these proofs as having any meaningful value for apologetics, relying instead upon a transcendental argument for the existence of God which Bird sees as being hopelessly circular. Bird is more sympathetic to the arguments of Reformed epistemologists like Alvin Plantinga who argue, on the basis of Calvin’s doctrine of the sensus divinitatis, that belief in God is properly basic. It is similar in other words, to our belief in the past, or that other minds exist, or in the existence of the material universe. However, Bird worries that Reformed epistemology may be nothing more than a sophisticated form of fideism.  

Bird defines special revelation as ‘God’s unique communication of himself through history, proclamation, Scripture, and illumination’ (p. 292). God has revealed himself in the mighty acts of redemption history such as in the Exodus or in the cross and resurrection of Christ. He revealed himself through the inspiration of prophets, apostles, and messengers who proclaim the Good News about Jesus Christ. And He reveals Himself by the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture. The ultimate revelation of God is found in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the God-man. Bird also considers what God’s purpose or plan is for the universe. He argues that God had one purpose and one plan: to glorify himself in redemption and to reconcile lost men and women to himself. He observes that there have been three major schools of thought on God’s plan and purpose as revealed in Scripture: dispensational, covenantal, and Reformed Baptist theologies. Bird opts for a covenantal approach that emphasises the covenant of grace and a plan which takes lost sinners from being ‘in Adam’ to being ‘in Christ’ as Paul teaches in Romans 5.

Eschatology

Bird’s Gospel centred approach leads him to place eschatology in the middle of his dogmatics. This is because he believes eschatology has a central place for understanding the Gospel message. He argues that all theology is driven by eschatology – meaning that eschatology is the plan or end to which all things are ultimately leading. He argues that Biblical eschatology is inaugurated eschatology. In other words, the kingdom of God has ‘already’ and ‘not yet’ dimensions. It is already present in Christ and his church; it is not yet consummated into the new heaven and new earth wherein righteousness dwells. One day Jesus will return to earth and establish his kingdom forever. His return will be physical and bodily – and so unmistakeable to all. The same Jesus who lived and died outside the city walls of Jerusalem will return to unveil the glory of his kingdom. He will be accompanied by the angels of heaven and the departed saints. Paul argues that God will redeem all Israel which some take to be those of physical Jewish descent; while others consider it to be an expression for the church or spiritual Israel made up of Jews and Gentiles.

There will be a literal and physical resurrection of believers into their glorified estate and Jesus will judge and subjugate all our and his enemies. Bird identifies three major views on the millennial reign of Christ: amillennial, postmillennial, and premillennial. Bizarrely Bird dismisses postmillennialism without much argument even though it would fit his missional and Gospel centred purpose perfectly. He argues that amillennialism is a close second to premillennialism. He is critical of dispensational premillennialism arguing that it is clearly unbiblical in the sharp separation it posits between Israel and the church. He opts in the end for a variation of historical premillennialism or chiliasm. He argues that the intermediate state means going to be with Christ in paradise, but the final state for believers will be a new heaven and a new earth in glorified bodily existence. Far from being a place of holy boredom, the new creation will be a place of ‘peace and joy, activity, art and action’ (p. 392). Unrepentant sinners will suffer eternally in the outer darkness of hell where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Christology

Bird argues that Jesus is essential to our understanding of Christian dogmatics. He should be the very centre and sum of our theology and Gospel message. There can be no Christianity without Christ. With respect to method in Christology, Bird considers the opposing approaches of Christology ‘from above’ and Christology ‘from below’. He concludes that we should try and approach Christology from multiple perspectives:

Christology is not top down or bottom up. Rather, we do Christology from behind, below, above, and before. We look at Jesus from behind (the Old Testament), from below (the historical Jesus and the Jesus professed in the historical development of the Church’s faith), from above (the Jesus of divine discourse in Scripture), from the margins (the Jesus of the poor and disempowered) and before us (the Jesus of creedal and confessional testimonies) (p. 407).

This perspectival approach to Christology transcends debates about the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith by embracing aspects of all approaches. Bird follows the ecumenical creeds in affirming the life, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. He also considers the Old Testament background in terms of prophecy, typology, Christophany, and allegory. Bird considers the Virgin birth to be an essential doctrine of the Christian faith and affirms Mary’s role as the mother of God (Theotokos). Her role is likened to that of a new Eve, ‘Without Mary as a new Eve, we could not have Jesus as a new Adam’ (p. 420). Bird devotes a chapter to the life and ministry of Jesus, something which is often overlooked by systematic theologians. Bird believes that Jesus’ public teaching and miracles are essential to understanding the person and work of Christ.

In his chapter on the death of Jesus, Bird considers several theories or models of the atonement including recapitulation, ransom, Christus Victor, satisfaction, moral influence, exemplary, government, and penal substitution. Bird also considers the argument of Stephen Chalke and Alan Mann that penal substitution is ‘divine child abuse’. Bird considers this to be a defective argument since the Father never stopped loving the Son throughout all his sufferings and the Son as the second person of the Trinity voluntarily took upon himself humiliation and death for the salvation of the world. Bird argues that the most central theory of the atonement is the Christus Victor model which sees Christ as triumphing over the devil and the forces of darkness. This model is combined with the doctrine of penal substitution in which Christ voluntarily assumes the penalty for sin in his own body. Bird observes that there are merits to all the various models of the atonement. The problem is not so much what they affirm, but what they leave out. On the question of the extent of the atonement, Bird argues that the death of Christ is sufficient for the whole world, but efficient only for the elect. Bird is closer to affirming an Amyraldian view of the atonement than he is to affirming the traditional Reformed doctrine of particular redemption or limited atonement. He also affirms a literal descent of Christ into hell as the Apostles’ Creed suggests and argues that hell should be translated as hades in this context. He seems to reject Calvin’s suggestion that Christ suffered hell for us upon the cross.

Bird argues that the resurrection of Jesus is ‘indelibly connected to the cross and marks the beginning of the new age bursting into our current world’ (p. 547). His neologism ‘anastasity’, from the Greek word anastasis, refers to the doctrine that believers are to live their Christian lives in the light of the resurrection of Christ with hope and joy. Bird laments that the ascension is a neglected doctrine in the Christian church and argues that it is crucial to understanding Jesus’ heavenly reign and work of intercession. Bird reminds us that Jesus is fully God, equal to the Father in authority, majesty, and substance. Jesus existed as the second person of the Holy Trinity prior to his incarnation. He shares eternity with the Father. Jesus assumed a human body in order to carry out the work of redemption. As the Church Fathers would say, ‘What has not been assumed has not been healed’. In order to heal us completely, Jesus had to assume our essential human identity and become a man of reasonable body and soul. According to Bird, the doctrine of the hypostatic union teaches that Jesus is fully God and fully man in one person. He has two natures: divine and human. These natures are not mixed or confused together. Jesus is not a hybrid or demigod. He is the God-man. These two natures are united in one remarkable person – Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour.

Soteriology

Bird views the Gospel as central to any exposition of soteriology. God’s plan of salvation is revealed supremely in Jesus Christ and is received by faith and repentance. Salvation should not be expounded as mere hell-fire insurance; rather, it should be viewed holistically as redeeming the whole person, body and soul, from sin and death. According to Bird, ‘salvation in the Bible … includes deliverance from many things, including enemies, physical danger, death, disability, demonic powers, illness, poverty, injustice, social exclusion, false accusation, shame, and of course from sin and its consequences at the final judgement’ (p. 662).  The outworking of God’s plan of salvation is known as redemptive history (sometimes referred to as heilsgeschichte or historia salutis in the scholarly literature). Bird sees this as unfolding in several acts: Act 1: creation and the fall; Act 2: the history of Israel and the stories of the Patriarchs; Act 3: the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ; Act 4: The giving of the Spirit and the emergence and growth of the Church; Act 5: The final consummation and return of Christ to establish his kingdom. Bird adopts a Pauline or Calvinistic conception of the order of salvation (ordo salutis): predestination, calling, regeneration, faith and repentance, justification, transformation or sanctification, and glorification.

Bird is hesitant to adopt a particular view on the order of the divine decrees on the basis that the mind of God is not disclosed to us in these matters which must remain a mystery. He does however argue that the incarnation of Christ was not afterthought. Bird proposes the following order of eternal decrees: God from all eternity decreed the incarnation of the Son, then to create the world, then to permit the fall, then to offer salvation in Christ, and then to redeem the elect. He also explores the various ways in which Scripture speaks of salvation including forgiveness of sin, redemption, rescue, reconciliation, justification, peace, adoption, eternal life, theosis, and nearness to God and access to his throne. He argues that the primary image for salvation in the Scriptures is that of communion with God, union with Christ, and life in the Spirit. Bird disagrees with those who posit various forms of universalism (the belief that everyone will eventually be saved) and argues instead for a version of exclusivism. He contends that there will be a final judgement in which the elect will be justified, and the reprobate condemned for all eternity. He rejects notions of universal salvation or annihilation for the non-elect. Bird argues that true believers will be finally and fully kept by God and will persevere in faith and holiness to the end. Those who fail to persevere in the faith were never truly saved in the first place; but the warnings in Scripture regarding apostasy should be taken seriously by those who belong outwardly to the covenant of grace lest they fall away and make a shipwreck of their faith.

Pneumatology

Bird argues that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is essential for a correct understanding of the Gospel. The gift of the Holy Spirit is both ‘a part of the promise of the Gospel and also the power for Gospel proclamation’ (p. 726). Pneumatology intersects with many other loci in dogmatics such as the doctrine of the Trinity and the inspiration of Scripture. According to Bird, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit must always be viewed in the light of the Trinity: ‘The Holy Spirit is the person within the Godhead who applies the work of Christ to us and enables us to personally encounter the triune God’ (p. 669). God works through the Holy Spirit enabling our prayers, worship, and ministry. The Spirit empowers and equips the Church for evangelism, mission, service, and proclamation. The twentieth century witnessed a great surge of interest in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit (particularly with respect to spiritual gifts and Spirit Baptism) with the emergence of Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, especially in the Global South. Bird argues that Western Christianity has tended towards patriarchy and an exclusive focus on the person of Christ. The result has been a decidedly cerebral theology. For Bird, ‘[A] responsible incorporation of the Holy Spirit will yield a theology that is more egalitarian, Trinitarian, and experiential’ (p. 669).

Bird stresses the personal nature of the Holy Spirit as a much-needed corrective to those who see the Holy Spirit as a kind of spiritual force or ecstatic vibe. In fact, Bird argues that the Holy Spirit is a person equal in power, glory, and dignity with the Father and Son. He laments the divisions caused by the Filioque controversy and suggests that evangelicals should consider dropping the phrase ‘and the Son’ altogether in order to foster greater unity with Eastern Orthodoxy. However, he also sees the importance of the phase for preserving the equal dignity and deity of the Son in relation to the Father as a corrective against Arianism. This is a tricky issue. The Eastern Orthodox Church rightly insists that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father and that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Whereas the Western Church rightly sees that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. I would suggest that evangelicals consider adopting the formulation which says that the Holy Spirit proceeds ‘from the Father, through the Son’ as a compromise between both views.

Bird argues that the gifts of the Holy Spirit (including tongues, prophecy, and healing) continue today. He agrees with Pentecostals and Charismatics on the importance of spiritual gifts but denies that the gift of tongues is the distinguishing mark of baptism with the Holy Spirit. He argues that Spirit Baptism happens at conversion and is essentially the same thing as regeneration. However, he argues that subsequent fillings with the Holy Spirit are possible post-conversion. With respect to the inspiration of Scripture by the Holy Spirit, Bird argues for a dynamic view of the relation between the divine and human authors and suggests that evangelicals should consider ‘veracity’ or ‘truthfulness’ as offering the best model for understanding the infallibility of Scripture. He argues that the Bible is authoritative for Christian doctrine and practice precisely because the Holy Spirit speaks to us in and through the Scriptures. This remains true even in the light of higher criticism. He does not appear to consider the Barthian view that the human words of Scripture become the Word of God, by the work of the Holy Spirit, whom we encounter as we read the Scriptures.

Anthropology

Bird argues that God created humanity to share in his glory. The Christian doctrine of anthropology provides an antidote to secular materialistic accounts of humanity. Human life is meaningful and has purpose because it stands in relation to God as creator. Bird accepts a theistic evolutionary account of the origins of mankind especially in the light of modern scientific evidence. The creation stories are mythical accounts that contain theological truths. They remind us that God is the Creator and man is a creature made after the image and likeness of a holy God. After considering several approaches to the doctrine of the imago dei (including the image as a rational ability, a relational capacity, or a human dominion), Bird argues that the image of God in man is largely a regal or royal status. Humankind is charged with the care and rule over creation as God’s royal vice regents. Bird contends that the litmus test for a theology of the divine image is how it relates to and portrays those who suffer with physical or mental disabilities. ‘If a definition of the imago diminishes or denies the divine image for disabled persons, then it is problematic and does not cohere with the arc of Scripture that affirms the humanity of the disabled and demonstrates God’s kindness and concern for the disabled’ (p. 752). Bird makes the case for anthropological dichotomism or the belief that humans consist of body and soul. Bird argues that this takes the form of a psychosomatic unity and that the soul is designed to exist with the body – hence the resurrection and glorification of the dead at the Parousia. One of the most challenging issues facing Christians today is that of personal identity. Many argue that identity is fluid and determined by the individual. For Bird, Christian identity is determined by our relationship with Christ and the Christian story. ‘This theological conception of Christian identity, determined by God’s story and by God-centred relationships, is that we are known by God, baptised into Christ, and made alive in the Spirit’ (p. 765).

Bird also considers the fundamental problem with humanity – sin. Humanity, since the Fall, is condemned, alienated from God, trapped in darkness, contaminated by moral impurity, enslaved to sin, and dead to God. The doctrine of sin is known as hamartiology and is a subbranch of anthropology in dogmatics. ‘The root of sin is the worship of the self in the place of the worship of God’ (p. 769). Bird suggests that the word sin causes difficulties in terms of explaining what has gone wrong with humanity. Sin is often seen by society as something naughty, a guilty pleasure. Bird suggests that we should speak of evil rather than sin since this is closer to the meaning of Scripture on the matter. People can understand the meaning of the word evil especially in the light of two world wars, the horror of Auschwitz, and the suffering caused by 9/11. Genesis 6:5 captures the essence of what it means to belong to a fallen world: ‘The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time’. Bird clearly affirms the Reformed doctrine of total depravity, though he reminds us that this does not mean that we are all as bad as we can possibly be in the light of God’s common grace; rather, it means that sin ‘totally permeates our intellect, wills, and hearts’ (p. 774). Bird believes that we have all inherited the guilt and corruption of Adam who is best seen as our federal head in the light of Romans 5 which presents Adam and Christ as contrasting federal heads. ‘Either one belongs to Adam and is under the sentence of death because of his disobedience, or else one belongs to Christ and is assured of eternal life because of his faithfulness and obedience’ (p. 785). Bird argues that the best theodicy or vindication of divine goodness is the Biblical story of God’s triumph over sin, death, and hell in the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Ecclesiology

Evangelical churches have the Gospel at their heart. In the words of Wolfhart Pannenberg, ‘The gospel thus takes precedent over the church. Over and against the church it represents the authority of Jesus Christ, the church’s Lord and Head. Though the gospel is proclaimed in the church and by its office bearers, it is not a product of the church; rather, the gospel is the source of the church’s existence’ (cited on p. 803). The Bible uses many words and images for the Church including the people of God, the elect, the flock, a priesthood, a remnant, the body of Christ, a temple of God, and a new creation. The traditional marks of the church are its oneness or unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity. ‘The church is one because it shares a single body, the body of Christ, the risen Lord. It is holy because it is called by God and sanctified by Christ through the Spirit. It is catholic because it is spread throughout the world and traverses geographic and ethnic boundaries. It is apostolic because it holds to the apostles’ teachings and is sent out by Christ into the world’ (p. 833). The apostolic church is signified by the faithful preaching of the Word and the correct administration of the sacraments (Baptism and Holy Eucharist). Bird argues that the main forms of church government are the episcopal, presbyterian, and congregational systems – as an Anglican, he naturally favours the episcopal system of Church government. He also considers multisite churches (a more recent ecclesiastical phenomenon) of church networks and parachurch organisations. Covid 19 has raised interesting questions about the presence of Church online and what this means for the future of the Church. As Bird points out, ‘It is now possible to livestream worship, attend Bible studies by video chat, watch sermons online, download podcasts by theologians, and get communion elements delivered to your home’ (p. 857). Of course, none of these things should be a substitute for actual fellowship with believing Christians, but their presence supplements ecclesiastical practice and service in interesting ways especially in terms of reaching the unchurched with the message of the Gospel.

Bird identifies several key purposes for the Church including evangelism or mission, discipleship, the administration of the sacraments, kingdom work, and evangelical worship. The sacraments include baptism and the Lord’s supper or Holy Eucharist. The three main views of baptism discussed by Bird are credobaptism or believer’s baptism, paedobaptism or infant baptism, and dual-practice baptism. Bird argues that baptism plays ‘a key part in the salvific drama and is integral to our faith, union with Christ, and reception of the Spirit’ (p. 910). He takes the Reformed view on Holy Eucharist which stresses the spiritual presence of Christ by the work of the Holy Spirit. Other views mentioned are the Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation, the Lutheran view of consubstantiation, and the Zwinglian memorial view of the Lord’s supper. He argues that the most Biblical model for Holy Eucharist is an open table – a table open to sinners who believe in Christ for their salvation. This would include children of an appropriate age who have been instructed concerning the significance of the meal by their parents and who profess faith in Christ.

Conclusion

Bird offers an excellent introduction to systematic theology in just over 900 pages. This book goes hand in hand with his video lectures available on DVD which offer brief twenty-minute videos on the various subjects of systematic theology. Bird writes with considerable wit and humour while also maintaining a deep seriousness and reverence for God throughout. The placement of eschatology in the middle of his dogmatics is somewhat unusual, perhaps owing to his use of the Gospel as an organising principle. One gets the feeling that Bird just wanted to do something differently to other systematic theologians. Bird’s theology seems inconsistent with his eschatology. He argues for a premillennial view where a postmillennial view would better suit the overall emphasis on the success and centrality of the Gospel. Bird engages many contemporary questions while also giving plenty of room to historical theology. Despite being a Biblical theologian, Bird is actually at his strongest when discussing matters of historical theology and church history. Bird could have said more on the subject of theistic evolution as this is a matter of considerable debate within evangelical circles. The same could be said for his discussion of gender identity and human sexuality. Nonetheless, Bird’s systematic theology remained gripping throughout and was usually thorough in its treatment of every doctrine. Bird should be commended for his focus on the Gospel as revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is clear that Bird has a deep love for the Triune God of the Gospel. The emphasis throughout his dogmatics is on the Father electing and sending his one and only Son, the Son redeeming a people for himself by his death and resurrection from the dead, and the Holy Spirit regenerating, sanctifying, and applying salvation to the elect as history unfolds.