BTGE 3755 Theology 1
Final Exam
Instructions: This is a closed book final. Students may only use trading cards
made specifically for this course and a physical copy of the Bible (digital versions
are NOT acceptable) as a help on the final exam. The final exam should be
submitted by upload in Canvas by May 3 at 12:00 noon (EDT). Students may take
as long as they desire for the final exam and may return to the exam as many
times as they like before making the final submission.
This exam has two sections.
Section 1 (40 points) involves 20 basic identifications. Answers should be limited
to 1-2 sentences and should clearly identify the figure, event, or concept and its
importance in theological discussions.
Section 2 (60 points) allows the student to write 3 short answer responses. These
may be written in paragraph form, or they may be answered using bullet-points,
charts, etc. Grammar/syntax does not matter as long as the point can be
ascertained.
In all of these responses, please make sure to answer the full question(s) in order
to earn the highest possible point total.
Section 1: Identification [2 points each; 40 points total possible]
NB: Answers should indicate the significance of the person/event/issue as it
relates to the theological issues discussed in class: Theology
Proper/Trinitarianism, Bibliology, Creation, Humanity, Sin. Please note that for
people or events, dates should be included.
1. Pelagius – He was a Welsh 4th – 5th century monk who is responsible for the
heresy of Pelagianism, whose defining statement is “culpability implies
ability.” Basically, he pushes back against the idea of original sin, instead
arguing that the Fall only impacted Adam and Eve whereas their progeny
can live sinless, and thereby holy, lives.
2. Broad Revelation – Broad revelation is a category of revelation that stems
from one of God’s unique attributes – His knowability – and it shows its
observers that a God does indeed exist (an example would be creation).
Though it can also be referred to as general revelation, that viewpoint
implies this revelation is available to all people everywhere at all times, and
that may not be true.
3. Incommunicable Traits of God – Incommunicable traits of God are traits
that He possesses and we cannot similarly model. Examples of these traits
would include all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing, all-present, etc., as well
as eternality and moral perfection.
4. Shema – The Shema is referring to the verse Deuteronomy 6:4, which
states “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, The Lord is one” and follows up
with a command to love the Lord with all their hearts. The Shema, which
means “hear” in Hebrew, is crucial because it defines Israel’s monotheistic
theology yet also provides boundaries for later Trinitarian discussions.
5. Monarchianism – Monarchianism is a Trinitarian heresy that stresses the
singular nature (oneness) of God to the point where it stifles Trinitarian
discussion. It was championed by individuals such as Sabellius and Paul of
Samosata, and there are five main categories: Episcopal (there is only one
God), Modalistic (God shows different parts of Himself by just changing
roles/masks), Sabellianism (God the Father is the Spirit and Jesus),
Patripassionism (when Jesus died, the Father died), and Adoptionism (Jesus
received christos anointing when the Father decided to adopt Him).
6. Sufficiency of Scripture – The sufficiency of Scripture is the concept that
Scripture is sufficient to supply our knowledge of salvation, how to trust
God completely, and how to obey Him perfectly. It stems from issues of
Bibliology, textual variants, and how exactly the Bible interacts with fields
outside of theology (such as science).
7. Anselm’s Ontological Argument – This argument is associated with Anselm,
the 11th century archbishop over Canterbury who was passionate about
protecting the rights of the church in King William’s Regin. In this argument
for God’s existence, he explains that God is “the being than which none
greater can be conceived,” and He further argues for the necessity of God
by stating that 1). Existence (of a God) is better than nonexistence and 2).
Existence in reality is better than existence in the mind.
8. Sabellius – Sabellius was a third-century Roman Trinitarian heretic who
developed an extension of Monarchianistic ideology known as Sabellianism.
In this viewpoint, God is one, but He can show up in three different modes
(also known as “prosopon,” which means “visage” or “appearance” in
Greek).
9. Comma Johanneum – The comma Johanneum is a phrase between 1 John
5:7 and 8 (“the Father, Son, and Spirit are one”) that caused much trouble
for Erasmus when he was crafting his Textus Receptus translation in the
15th century. Because he did not find the phrase in any of the original 5
texts he was working with, he did not include it in the first edition;
however, he did under threat in later editions because it was a clear
statement of Trinitarian doctrine.
10. Homoousion – Homoousion is a term associated with Trinitarian doctrine
that became firmly established by Athanasius during the Council of Nicea in
325 AD. It means “one essence” and is associated with the phrase “three
hypostases” (persons), which became necessary terminology to push back
against Arius’ heresy.
11. Cappadocian Fathers – The Cappadocian Fathers were a group of three
church leaders – Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of
Nazianzus – who fought against the Trinitarian heresies as presented by
Marcion, Valentinus, and Montanus and initiated the First Council of
Constantinople in 381 AD.
12. Arianism – Arianism is a Trinitarian heresy presented by the Roman
presbyter Arius that opposed the idea of eternal generation of the Son in
favor that the Son was begotten at a specific point in history. Though it
sought to solve the issue of the Son’s subordination to the Father as
presented in Scripture, it caused a violent debate among Arius, Alexander,
and Athanasius, even precipitating the Council of Nicea (325 AD) to work
out Trinitarian relations between the Father and Son.
13. Divine Simplicity – The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity has three major
tenets: 1). God is not composed of parts, 2). God is not genus and species,
and 3). God does not have an essence; He is essence. This doctrine proved
to be especially important in Trinitarian theology when scholars were trying
to understand the singular and triune nature of God as presented in
passages such as Deuteronomy 6:4 (“The Lord is one”) and Genesis 1:26
(“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…”).
14. Inseparable Operations – The doctrine of inseparable operations states
that when (the Triune) God acts, (the Triune) God acts. It is associated with
Trinitarian doctrine and the idea of His aseity, which states that God exists
and acts independently of outside sources.
15. Shalom – Shalom is the Biblical concept of the world functioning as it is
supposed to. It has implications for the doctrine of Creation because it is
describing the universe’s “goodness” directly after creation before the Fall,
and is displayed by the term “crescite” found in multiple texts, it also
means spiritual maturity and fruitfulness.
16. Cultural Mandate – The cultural mandate, which is also synonymous with
the creation or dominion mandate, stems from Genesis 1:28, where God
tells Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply,” “fill the earth,” “subdue
it,” and “have dominion” over it. Inherently, it is the idea of Adam and Eve
spreading Shalom outside of the Garden and having headship over creation,
though their ability to fulfill that responsibility becomes broken after the
Fall.
17. Specific Revelation – Unlike broad revelation, specific revelation is the
revealing of the detailed truths of God, specifically His character, His past
and present actions, and His commands. Most specific revelation is
believed to exist through the Bible, though one may consider dreams and
visions to offer the same insights.
18. Total Depravity – Total depravity (as supported by Augustine) is a concept
in the doctrine of sin that states all men share in both the responsibility and
the guilt of Adam’s sin. Every human’s Imago Dei as passed on through
Adam has been corrupted by sin, as is represented in passages such as
Romans 3:23 and Matthew 15:18-20.
19. imago dei – Imago dei is a conclusion that many scholars draw from
Genesis 1:26, which states that God created us in His image. It seems to
have physical, moral, mental, communal, and magisterial implications, and
it affects how we interpret the doctrine of sin and total depravity (warping
of that image and Shalom).
20. Paul of Samosata – Paul of Samosata was another third-century Trinitarian
heretic who furthered Monarchianism with the ideology of dynamic
modalism, or adoptionism. In this viewpoint that played a part in
precipitating the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, Jesus was not eternally
generated from the Father, but instead received his divine “christos
anointing” when the Father decided to adopt Him as His Son.
Section 2: Short Answer [Answer any 3 of the following. 20 points each; 60
points total possible]
1. Hypothetical Situation: A new student arrives at Cedarville University from
a church that teaches that the only version of the Bible that contains the
true word of God is The Message. Explain the arguments you would use to
respond to (support or combat) this teaching. NB: You should take a stand
as to whether this church’s teaching is correct, and you should defend your
choice using biblical, theological, historical examples.
Though this would be an unlikely viewpoint to encounter today, it is
certainly worth considering given current perceptions about the
importance and meaning of numerous textual variants. To start out, one
could dive into the major translation methods of the Bible: formal
equivalence, optimal equivalence, and functional equivalence. While formal
equivalence concerns preservation of word-for-word meaning and
functional equivalence equates to thought-for-thought translation, optimal
equivalence involves a proper balance of both methods. Unfortunately for
The Message, it acts as a paraphrase of Scripture rather than a direct
translation and preservation of original meaning. Since it does not follow
methods of translation associated with established versions of the Bible, it
cannot be considered the direct Word of God.
That being said, it would be worthwhile to consider the development
of certain texts and why they were considered the Word of God. When
Erasmus was translating manuscripts in the 15th century to produce his
Textus Receptus, he held to a concept of ad fontes, which meant “back to
the fountain” or beginning. Though Jerome’s Latin Vulgate was a solid
translation at the time, Erasmus refused to reference it because it was a
secondary translation. His commitment to the original sources, however,
landed him in trouble when none of his translations included the Vulgate’s
“comma Johanneum,” a clear statement of Trinitarian doctrine. He was
forced to choose between staying true to the texts he had worked with or
satisfying the Pope. Though he eventually caved and inserted the comma
Johanneum, his translation approach seemed mostly to follow the ‘earliestreading-being-the-most-accurate’ approach. Similarly, in producing their
Masoretic text, monks concerned themselves with knowing the most
accurate version of the Old Testament that could find. They spent
generations producing their translation.
In spite of this impressive commitment, however, scholars such as
Bart Ehrman have shown that there are over 2 ½ variants that occur for
every word of the New Testament. If there could be this much variation in
the text, would it truly be surprising that scholars have produced so many
varying translations of the Bible, including The Message? Could we call it
the Word of God, except that the Word of God no longer contains its
potency? Interestingly, scholars have also calculated that only 0.0025% of
variants bear any significance in regard to the text’s meaning. Therefore,
though they may argue over the precise meaning of the text as obscured by
these variants, rarely does it affect a major theological issue. I think I can
logically conclude then that so long as The Message stays within the bounds
of orthodoxy, it can be a useful tool for Biblical teaching on occasion.
In the end, however, every version we have today is simply a
translation of the words God gave His prophets, apostles, and a few of His
followers to record. Furthermore, when God did not directly speak to them
as He did when He established the law, He worked through their
personalities to produce the text. Therefore, even the canonical books of
the Bible were produced by men who were “carried along” by the Holy
Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). This means that the Bible was inspired by God, but it
was recorded by men. When considering issues such as the inspiration of
The Message, we must accept that its goal is not to preserve this message
as closely as possible to the original intent, but to present Biblical truths in
a way that is engaging to young adults. That does not mean The Message
should be avoided. However, it should be treated as more of a commentary
on Scripture rather than God’s inspired word since it drifts away from both
extremes of ‘ad fontes’ and functional equivalence translation philosophies.
If they are using a ‘diverse reading’ method of translation, they seem to be
placing too much weight on ‘majority reading’ and not enough weight on
methods such as ‘the more difficult’ and ‘earlier’ readings (from my
knowledge).
That added passage in Mark 16:9-20
2. Using Anselm’s philosophical definition of God, explain why the God of the
Bible must have accomplished creation from nothing (creatio ex nihilo).
Interact with the biblical support for this position as well and explain why
you think the philosophical argument is (or is not) required for “proving”
this doctrine.
Anselm’s definition of God states He is “that being than which none
greater can be conceived.” He develops his argument by stating that
“existence (of God) is greater than nonexistence (of God)” and that
“existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind.” In other words,
he is saying that a God that exists is better than a god that doesn’t exist,
and by bringing creation forth, He would be expressing Himself in such a
way that is greater than just remaining in the immaterial realm. However,
for Him to be the greatest being in the universe, He would need to be more
powerful than His creation. We could consider man, created in His image,
as an example. Because mankind can use its own logic to bring forth
inventions and impressive physical works, God would need to outdo its
abilities to remain “that being than which no greater could be conceived.” If
He indeed created the universe from some preexisting material, then He
would be acting on the level of His own creation and therefore could not
exist as the greatest being. By contrast, if He accomplished creatio ex nihilo,
then He could exist as the Greatest Being above humanity and retain His
authority.
However, in considering other supports for the doctrine of Creation
and Biblical context, I do not believe that Anselm’s argument is necessary
to prove creatio ex nihilo. Though there is discussion of the “waters of the
deep” that the Holy Spirit hovered over in Genesis 1, the passage proceeds
by stating that the Lord created everything directly through His speech
except for mankind. That does seem to indicate He possesses the ability to
bring existence from nothing (assuming He did not use the waters
themselves to create everything). However, even more importantly, I
believe we must analyze both God’s ability and His nature. As with Elijah
and the poor widow in 1 Kings 17, we see that God proved He could supply
for her in her time of need by keeping her jug of oil and jar of flour
abundant. We might view this as His ability to supersede the rules of nature
He created. However, another major theme of this drought recorded in 1
Kings seemed to be that He is concerned with preserving the weak and
maintains the ultimate authority to do so. He even acts outside of nature by
bringing life back to the widow’s dead son. From this perspective, I believe
that whether God decided to use a preexisting medium for creation or not,
by His nature He holds authority to create ex nihilo if He chooses.
Otherwise, He would not be an all-powerful God, able to act outside of the
rules He established. I do not believe you need to use Anselm’s proof for
the existence of God to accept this point.
However, the argument above still contains some key points from
Anselm’s theology. Interestingly enough, John 1:3 states that “all things
were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that
was made,” which clearly shows us that God is the source of all creation.
Furthermore, Colossians 1:16 presents that “by Him [Jesus] all things were
created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible…” Therefore, I believe
Scripture affirms that the Lord created the deep and its waters in the
beginning, and since Jesus has created everything visible and invisible,
there is no room for there to be a preexistent medium by which God would
create. God does not need to outdo humanity in its abilities as a motivation
to create ex nihilo; it is simply by the very power of His nature that He
would choose to do so. There is no competition, as is implied by Anselm’s
ontological argument. Furthermore, God is just as real in the mental as well
as the physical realm, as is emphasized by His creation of things “visible and
invisible.” There does not seem to be a degree of gradation here; He
created the mind and the physical world. Therefore, Anselm’s argument
falls short in assuming that it is our rationale that makes Him real; He exists
in the physical and spiritual realms, whether we like it or not.
3. Can a Christian be considered a heretic for teaching in support of
transgenderism? NB: Make sure to define key terms (heresy, heretic,
transgender). Use biblical and historical support for the argument you
make. You should at the least consider historical examples of teachings
defined as heresy and/or teachers labeled as heretics.
Due to the broad intersection of theological concepts and Biblical
instruction at play, I do believe a Christian could be considered a heretic for
teaching in support of this ideology. To start out though, we must define
what heresy even is. According to my understanding of the topic, it is a
belief that directly contradicts the broader church’s stance on a theological
issue. One example of a heretic would be Pelagius, a monk who denied the
church’s establishment of total depravity under Adam’s federal headship
and biological transmission of sin. Instead, because this perspective on
God’s justice unsettled him, he stated that Adam bore the responsibility for
his own sin, but his progeny could lead perfect lives if they willed it.
Similarly, because they found themselves uncomfortable with Jesus’ human
nature, adherents of Docetism claimed that He could not be fully human.
Though certainly not always true, it seems that when heretics come across
a doctrine that conflicts with their set of morals or appears contradictory,
they step outside the direct meaning of Scripture to rationalize the matter
for themselves.
Moving on more specifically to transgenderism, it seems to fight
most directly against the theological concepts of headship, the Imago Dei,
total depravity, and the sufficiency/authority of the Bible. Furthermore, I
could see that such teachers would preach in support of this doctrine
because God’s justice makes them uncomfortable, as Pelagius was. To
formally define transgenderism, it would be when a person decides to
undergo either physical or nonphysical methods of transitioning to the
opposite sex.
When transitioners claim a different sexual identity than the one
they were assigned at birth, in essence they are claiming that the physical
and communal aspects of their Imago Dei are more important than the
moral, mental, and magisterial aspects. However, Genesis 1:27 states that
God created Adam and Eve as male and female, with no choice as to which
gender they would like to be. Even more importantly, he emphasizes the
importance of having dominion, subduing the earth, and multiplying to fill
it. When transitioners undergo certain surgeries, they are no longer capable
of having children by natural means, which further shatters the
theologically established concept of Shalom at Creation. If a man can
abdicate his headship responsibilities to his future wife by claiming a
female identity, and women can abandon their roles as encouragers to
their husbands by claiming a male identity, then Creation becomes even
more broken with another act of rebellion against God’s pronouncement
over Adam and Eve in Genesis 3.
One core tenet of the transgender movement is the validity of
feelings and following one’s heart in regard to sexuality. However, Matthew
15:19 tells us that evil thoughts proceed from the heart, and Jeremiah 17
states that our hearts are wicked above all other things. By testifying to the
goodness of their feelings rather than their root in our sin nature, they
reject the doctrine of total depravity. Interestingly enough, it is Augustine
who develops the concept of 4 basic human conditions in arguing against
Pelagius about total depravity: 1). Able to sin or not sin 2). Not able to not
sin 3). Able to not sin, and 4). Not able to sin. Those conditions would
reflect our state before the sin in the Garden, after that initial sin, during
sanctification, and at glorification. By rejecting the concept of total
depravity then, the teacher would be committing heresy against a wellestablished church doctrine explained largely by Augustine’s work.
In the end, these teachers do not respect that God gives us the Bible
to teach us how to trust and serve Him perfectly. A faulty foundation in
their bibliology might cause them to oppose these major church doctrines,
which would make them heretics. It is interesting to see how their doubt of
God’s justice and perfect design parallels so well with Pelagius’ doubts.
Given this link, I believe I can firmly say that acceptance in the church of
transgenderism is a heretical stance based on emotion rather than
theology.