BAYLOR UNIVERSITY

GEORGE W. TRUETT THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

FINAL PAPER:
SUMMA THEOLOGICA

SUBMITTED TO:

DR. KIMLYN J. BENDER

FOR THE COURSE:

THEO 7382 CONSTRUCTIVE THEOLOGY

BY

ELI GUTIERREZ
The following paper is an exposition of my basic Christian Theology. It is not only my personal opinion

but a reflection on the witness of Scripture as interpreted by the Christian Tradition throughout twenty

centuries. It is an intellectual affirmation of my beliefs but it is much more than that. This is my

confession of faith, a presentation of the beliefs that give meaning to my life and through which I

understand the world. I have divided my work in four main units divided themselves in a number of

sections. The first unit will address the method of Christian theology, and the following three units

address the Christian doctrines grouped under the doctrine of God the Father, God the Son, and God

the Holy Spirit.

1. The knowledge of God

Throughout this paper I am going to present my theological Christian confession. Which is to say that

I will discuss who is the God that I worship, and what is the content of the faith I confess. Thus, a

natural question to answer before my exposition is what is the source of my knowledge of God? How

did I come to know God and what is the process of the theological thinking that results in the

formulation of this confession of faith? This unit will address those questions. In other words, this unit

is about the method of theology, the sources and the norms of Christian doctrine, and the nature of

theological reflection. In answering these questions, I will focus on two important Christian doctrines,

the doctrine of revelation and the doctrine of Scripture.

1.1 The doctrine of Revelation. The fact that God reveals himself is a presupposition of Christian

theology. Divine revelation is the self-communication of God. This section will address the Christian

doctrine of revelation, exploring how has God revealed himself and how have we received such

revelation.

1.1.1 Consensus. The Christian consensus is that Jesus Christ is the revelation of God’s Word. He is

and must be the starting point of Christian theology. That does not mean God has not revealed before

or after Christ, but that in him God has revealed himself in a unique and definitive way. This revelation

of God is received, confessed, and preached by the Christian community. The Christian church
received the Hebrew Bible, the teachings of Jesus, and the writings of the apostles and has kept

embracing God’s message and handing it down to every generation. Finally, the Christian Tradition

has affirmed that the special revelation of God in Jesus Christ is definitive. This means that even if

there is some kind of revelation of God in the created world, the special revelation cannot be

contradicted nor surpassed by natural revelation. Also, it means that no Christian theology could be

grounded on natural revelation. The only ground and starting point of Christian belief is God’s special

revelation in Jesus, and witnessed by Scripture.

1.1.2 Alternatives. The Christian Tradition has always rejected and must reject any view in which the

special revelation of God in Jesus Christ is surpassed or contradicted. Some have seen in political

figures a new, higher revelation of God. Others have used philosophy, science, and human reason as a

revelation of God greater than Jesus and Scripture. And others have used individual, inner revelation

as the highest form of revelation. Moreover, pluralists, while affirming that Christ and the Bible are a

form of divine revelation, they do not see it is definitive or exclusive. For pluralists, there are multiple

revelations of God with equal value in all religions. All these ideas fall outside proper Christian belief

and must be rejected by Christian theology.

1.1.3 Diversity. The main area of diversity within Christian theology is about the role of natural

revelation. Although Christian theology affirms that special revelation is always superior to natural

revelation, most traditions will affirm that God has indeed revealed himself in the created world. While

it is clear that natural revelation cannot be the starting point of Christian theology, there is disagreement

regarding its function. Throughout the spectrum, one extreme considers that God has revealed himself

in nature and can be known through his creation. This knowledge is limited and inferior to special

revelation and it is not a redemptive knowledge. On the other extreme of the spectrum within Christian

theology, some theologians have rejected that knowledge of God can come from natural revelation.

1.1.4 My statement of faith. I believe that all knowledge of God comes from his self-revelation. Human

beings, in our fallen nature, are not capable of knowing God through reason or experience alone. Our
whole humanity has been corrupted by sin; therefore, our fallen reason cannot know God by itself.

Thus, knowledge of God is a miracle operated by his Holy Spirit, so that we can know who is God

only through his self-communication. God has revealed himself in Jesus Christ in a unique and

definitive way. God also revealed himself in the Hebrew writings that pointed to and found fulfilment

in Christ. And finally, God keeps passing this revelation through the confession and preaching of the

church.

1.2 The theological method. How are we to determine what are proper Christian beliefs? In order

to answer this question, there has to be some kind of authoritative source and norm in theology. Thus,

this section will reflect on what should be the sources for Christian doctrines. In other words, it is about

the method of theology.

1.2.1 Consensus. Although the different Christian traditions affirm different authoritative sources,

there has been a general consensus throughout history. Firs of all, following the Hebrew traditions,

Christianity has affirmed that God has revealed himself in a particular history and not only in a general

way in nature. In this way, the Christian Tradition has held special revelation as the authoritative source

of theology over natural revelation. This special revelation of God in the history of Israel and

particularly in the life of Jesus Christ is witnessed in the biblical writings. Once the canon of Scripture

was formed, the Christian Tradition has always affirmed that God’s revelation has been witnessed in

the writings of the Old and the New Testaments. Moreover, the Christian Tradition itself has had, at

least in a secondary way, some authority for Christian doctrine. It has served as a hermeneutical way

to interpret Scripture.

1.2.2 Alternatives. From the earliest years, Christians have rejected the idea that personal, individual

revelations have authority over Scripture. Gnosticism was an early heresy that appealed to a secret

revelation not available to the non-initiated. Montanism was another early heresy that elevated

individual prophecies to an authority equal or even superior to Scripture. The early church rejected and

condemned both heresies and affirmed the authority of Scripture. In the 18th century, some thinkers
that considered themselves Christians affirmed that reason was to be the norm to determine all truth

including Christian doctrines. Some liberal theologies, in a more nuanced way, follow this trend.

Throughout Christian history, including our own days, there have been movements that affirmed other

authorities and sources of revelation over Scripture, such as individual prophecies, personal

experience, and natural reason. But the consensus of Christian Tradition has rejected those views and

affirmed Scripture as the source of Christian belief and Tradition as the guide for interpretation.

1.2.3 Diversity. The main are of disagreement within the Christian Tradition has been on the place of

Tradition itself as an authority. For Eastern Orthodox and Catholics, Tradition is as important as

Scripture, whereas for Protestants Scripture is always the sole source of Christian belief and Tradition

only a secondary authority. I think there is room for diversity as long as Tradition does not trump or

contradicts Scripture and its authority stems from a reflection and interpretation on the special

revelation of God witnessed in the sacred biblical writings. Moreover, another area of disagreement is

the role of reason and experience in theological reflection. Some Christian groups claim to reject reason

altogether. I would argue that it is impossible to reject any of them in an absolute sense, because the

very claim of rejection would be an exercise of reason from a particular experience. I think there is

room for diversity as long as reason and experience do not become an authority in themselves but only

tools to articulate the beliefs that stem from Scripture as read with the aid of Tradition.

1.2.4 My statement of faith. I believe that Scripture is the main source and only norming norm for

Christian belief because it is the authoritative witness to God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. The Christian

Tradition serves as a guide to interpret Scripture, its authority is secondary and dependent upon the

witness of the Bible. Reason is a tool by which Christians articulate Christian doctrine into intelligible

speech, but it has no authority in itself. Experience has no authority in itself either, but it is a necessary

condition of Christian theology.

1.3 The doctrine of Scripture. I have affirmed already that, in the theological method, Scripture

is the source to determine proper Christian belief. I have also argued that Scripture is the written
witness to God’s special revelation. However, there are still some specific questions about the nature

and authority of Scripture that will be addressed in this section.

1.3.1 Consensus. The Christian consensus is that Scripture is inspired by God, the authority for

Christian faith and practice, and God’s Word in written form. Although each of those statements have

been interpreted in different ways they define the boundaries that determine what is a proper Christian

belief on Scripture. The Bible is unique and definitive in the sense that there are no other books or

witnesses of God’s revelation higher than Scripture. Its origin is divine but it was delivered through

the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to human authors. In that sense, it is a human and divine book. While

its origin is divine, its form, language, and style are proper of the human context.

1.3.2 Alternatives. One of the alternatives that fall outside the consensus of Christian Tradition is that

Scripture is no more than a classical religious literature with no supernatural divine origin. For

example, for the deists and some liberal theologians there is hardly anything supernatural about the

Bible, and its authority does not depend on its unique divine origin but, if it has some authority at all,

in its function. On this side of the extreme the error is that these views do not do justice to the divine

quality of Scripture. On the other extreme, there have been some beliefs among Christians that do not

do justice to the human side of Scripture. The Bible is seen as a book fallen from heaven through a

mechanical dictation in which there was no participation of the human writer. This view is rarely found

among professional theologians but it is very common in folk religion and it usually leads to bibliolatry.

1.3.3 Diversity. There are two main areas of diversity within proper Christian theology regarding the

doctrine of Scripture. The first one is about the nature of inspiration. While I have rejected a

mechanistic view of inspiration in which there is no participation of the human writer, there is diversity

among the views on how the human authors participated in the writing of the Bible. On one side of the

spectrum is found a plenary verbal doctrine of inspiration. In this view, God inspired every single word

the human author freely chose to write. On the other side of the spectrum it is found a dynamic doctrine
of inspiration. In this view, the Holy Spirit inspired not every single word but the authors themselves

in a way that allows them to imprint their own styles and even ways of thinking.

1.3.4 My statement of faith. I believe the Bible is the written witness to God’s self-revelation. It is the

written form of the Word of God. It is inspired by the Holy Spirit in a dynamic, unique, and definitive

way such that there is no higher authority for Christian theology and living. And above all, its content

is the story of God with humanity. Its content is God’s revelation and its shape is human language and

particular historical context. Moreover, the Bible was formed through a long and complicated process

of oral transmission, writing, edition, compilation, canonization, copying, and translation. I believe the

Holy Spirit inspired and worked in all the stages of that process in a way such that God revealed his

Word in it and, at the same time, he allowed human beings to imprint their own particular cultural

traits.

2. God the Father

The next three units are titled after the three persons of the Trinity. In this unit, under the title “God

the Father”, I will discuss what is the nature of God (the doctrine of Holy Trinity), what is his character

(the attributes of God), what is the nature of the world he created (the doctrine of creation), including

humans (the doctrine of humanity) and how he relates to the world he has created (the doctrine of

providence).

2.1 The Holy Trinity. The doctrine of Trinity is the distinctive of Christian belief. The early church

formulated the doctrine of Trinity in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed after almost a century of

theological discussion. This was a crucial time for the formation of Christian doctrine. And all major

branches of Christianity (Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants) share this dogma in

spite of their differences about other doctrines. In this section, I will address the importance and the

content of this doctrine.

2.1.1 Consensus. Christians believe in the Triune God and not in any God. The Christian God is not

the supreme deity of the philosophers but the God revealed in Jesus Christ who is active in the world
through the Holy Spirit. Also, Christians believe in one God and not in many. The Christian God is not

one more of the gods of polytheistic religions. He is the God revealed to the people of Israel with whom

he made a covenant in a particular history. In a nutshell, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity states that

Christians believe in one God in three persons. He is one divine substance and three different divine

modes of being. Scripture does not present a systematic doctrine of the Trinity, but it does portray

Jesus and the Holy Spirit as God and, at the same time, different from each other.

2.1.2 Alternatives. The doctrine of the Trinity was originally formulated as a response to theological

misunderstandings that were brought by some Christian leaders. These alternatives have reappeared in

different times in history with different names but they can be classified under three categories. First,

modalism is the view that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not really three different persons

but three different modes of manifestation of one same God. This is a rejection of the immanent Trinity.

Besides its opposition to the witness of Scripture, the problem with modalism is that it implies God is

not truly revealing himself in Jesus. Second, subordinationism is the idea that one or two persons of

the Trinity are not equal to God in nature and eternity. Some forms of subordinationism are Arianism,

adoptionism, the theology of the Jehovah’s witnesses, and some liberal theologies. For some, he is just

a human being adopted by God in a special way but with no pre-existence. And for others Jesus is the

first and greatest creature of God, but not equal to God. The commonality is that Jesus is a lesser being

than God. The problem with subordinationism, besides it is contrary to Scripture, is a soteriological

one. Only God can save, and if Jesus is not God then he cannot save. And third, tritheism is the belief

in three different gods. This is clearly against the witness of Scripture and it is precisely the error that

trinitarianism and all other alternatives were trying to avoid. However, popular Christian talk on Trinity

too often resembles tritheism.

2.1.3. Diversity. Within proper Christian beliefs there has been diversity in the way to present the

doctrine of Trinity. There are two sides of the spectrum. Some prefer to present the doctrine of Trinity

in a way that avoids tritheism. And others prefer to present it in a way that avoids modalism. Perhaps
the difference is which one they fear the most, and many times this is a reaction to an overemphasis on

the other aspect of Trinity. This diversity is shown in the analogies that are used when talking about

the Threeness of God. Those who try to avoid tritheism use psychological analogies or individual

analogies. And those who try to avoid modalism use social or communal analogies. I believe that both

aspects are to be affirmed and proper Christian belief needs to hold and embrace the tension.

2.1.4 My Statement of faith. I believe in the Triune God revealed in Jesus Christ and witnessed in

Scripture who is at work through the Holy Spirit in the communion of the church. I believe the Father,

the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God yet they are different from each other. The Holy Trinity is, thus,

one divine substance and three different modes of being. Together with some twentieth-century

theologians I believe the word “person” does not communicate well the Threeness of God in our

western context. The three persons of the Trinity are not three distinct individual selves with different

will and essence. Rather, they are three distinct modes of being but only one divine essence.

2.2 The attributes of God. Much of Christian theology has focused on the attributes of God. In this

unit, I started by affirming the Threeness and the oneness of God because I believe our knowledge of

him is not measured by external metaphysical concepts such as goodness and greatness. Rather, we

know who God is because of his special revelation in Jesus Christ. Thus, if we know God is good and

great it is not because we know greatness and goodness apart from God but the other way around, we

know what they are because, in Jesus Christ, we know the God who is the measure of greatness and

goodness. And the same can be said about power and justice, grace and wisdom, and all his attributes.

2.2.1 Consensus. The Christian Tradition has always confessed two sides of God’s character. On the

one hand, Christians have always affirmed that God is great. This is expressed with affirmations that

God is great, transcendent, holy, free, or wholly other. On the other hand, the Christian tradition has

always affirmed that God is good. This is God’s immanence, involvement in the world, or benevolent

presence. The Christian consensus is that God is both, good and great, free and loving, immanent and

transcendent. All of God’s attributes could be listed under these two aspects. The attributes of God’s
transcendence are aseity, eternality, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence (and more). And

the attributes of God’s immanence are love, justice, mercy, faithfulness, and wisdom (and more). Being

one, God’s attributes are not divided or separated. Moreover, they are defined by their subject and not

by some metaphysical external concept.

2.2.2 Alternatives. Throughout history some theologians and traditions have emphasized one aspect to

the detriment of the other. Usually it has happened as a reaction to an overemphasis of the other side.

However, proper Christian belief exists as long as both aspects are affirmed in spite of different degrees

of emphasis. Alternatives happen when one of them is radically neglected or blatantly denied. On the

one hand, any view that emphasizes God’s transcendence to the point of denying his immanence falls

outside the consensus of Christian tradition. This is, for example, the view of deism, and some liberal

theologians. On the other hand, any view that emphasizes God’s immanence to the point of denying

his transcendence falls outside the Christian consensus too. This view might be labeled panentheism,

and it is the view of process theology, and some twentieth century theologians.

2.2.3 Diversity. Each attribute of God has been interpreted in different ways. Therefore, there is plenty

of room for diversity. For example, some theologies, without neglecting God’s immanence, have

emphasized his transcendence to the point of positing a hiddenness of God (e.g. Martin Luther). On

the other hand, reacting to that emphasis (if not overemphasis) other theologians have affirmed the

non-hiddenness of God (e.g. Karl Barth). Another area of diversity is the question of God’s

immutability. Some Christian theologians have affirmed the immutability of God, which is to say that

God cannot change, and his impassibility, which is to say God cannot suffer (e.g. Anselm of

Canterbury). On the other hand, some Christian theologians have affirmed that God can and does

change in response to his creatures, while remaining true to his nature and character. That is why, for

example, Barth prefers the term constancy over immutability.

2.2.4 My statement of faith. I believe God is the beginning and measure of all things. He has revealed

his character through his actions in the world. Moreover, he has uniquely and definitely revealed
himself in Jesus Christ. In him we know God’s attributes, both of transcendence and immanence. This

revelation has been recorded in Scripture and we learn about God through a prayerful, faithful reading

of the Bible empowered by the Holy Spirit. We know God is good and great for what he has done for

humanity. There is no concept of love, power, justice, or any other attribute outside of God. Rather, in

Jesus Christ we know God is good, loving, merciful, just, and wise, and we know he is great, holy,

transcendent, all-knowing, all-powerful, and omnipresent.

2.3 Creation. The first chapter of the Bible begins by affirming that God is the creator of heaven and

earth. The following is a reflection on the Christian doctrine of creation based on Scripture as read by

the Christian Tradition.

2.3.1 Consensus. The biblical accounts of creation were written in a way that polemized with other

views on the world. The main argument of the Hebrew stories of creation is that God is one God and

not many, that created the world different from him rather than from his own being, not by necessity

but with a purpose, not for his own benefit but with love, with a moral order, and essentially good. The

Christian Tradition received and embraced that revelation of God. Although it is not systematically

stated in Scripture, the necessary implication is that God created the world from nothing (creatio ex

nihilo). Moreover, it is important to note that God is not the creator of evil. In sum, the Christian

consensus is that God is the source of all that exists, he created freely and with a purpose, he created

from nothing, creation is good but not God, and creation is fallen and in need of healing.

2.3.2 Alternatives. Any view of creation that negates any part of this consensus is incompatible with

proper Christian belief. Dualism is the idea that there are two eternal, equally ultimate realities. Some

extreme forms of Pentecostalism portray Satan in this dualistic way. This is problematic because it

goes against the witness of Scripture and denies the sovereignty of God as Lord over all. Pantheism is

the belief that God is the world. While few Christians, if any, have ever affirmed Pantheism, some

have affirmed a similar view called Panentheism, the belief that God and the world are interdependent.

Emanationism is the belief that God created the world from his own being. Most early gnostic heretics
embraced this view. Besides opposing the witness of Scripture, these views have the problem of falling

into idolatry. Since the world is also God then it is worthy of worship. Moreover, they deny the

transcendence of God, the fact that he does not need anything. Finally, a more recent alternative is

naturalism, the view that the world is all that exists. While this is a non-Christian view, some liberal

theologies have tried to reconcile two incompatible views such as biblical trinitarianism and

naturalism.

2.3.3 Diversity. There exist some room for diversity regarding when and how God created the world.

Some Christians embrace a young-earth view of creation. For them, God created the world a few

thousand years ago. They reject evolution and sometimes affirm God created the world with the

appearance of millions of years old. Another Christian view is theistic evolution, which reconciles the

scientific consensus with the biblical account of creation. Still there is a kind of third view in the middle

of young-earth creation and theistic evolution. This middle ground would affirm that God is always

active in his work of creation, from the big-bang to the formation of planets, and from the origin of life

to the formation of complex organism.

2.3.4 My statement of faith. I believe God is the creator of all that exists. The universe is different from

God but it is good. It is not an emanation but a creation out of nothing. God created the world freely

and not by any necessity imposed on him. And he created it for a good purpose. I believe the purpose

of creation is to be a stage for the covenant of God with humanity. In Jesus Christ, from eternity past,

God chose to be God for us and to establish a covenant of love and grace for the redemption of human

beings. Moreover, I believe creation is fallen and corrupted. God is not the creator of evil, for evil is

nothing but the absence and corruption of good. Rather, God is the healer, savior, and redeemer of the

world. Thus, Christians are to take care of God’s world and participate in his work of redemption for

the whole creation.

2.4 Providence. I have affirmed that God is the sole creator and Lord of all that exists. But how does

he exert his power and dominion on the world? This is the question of God’s providence and this

section will deal with it.

2.4.1 Consensus. The witness of Scripture describes God as the one who has power over all. He is the

only Lord above all other powers. And he always gets his way done. This is what in theology is called

God’s sovereignty. Thus, Christians have always affirmed that God’s sovereign providence means that

nothing happens without his permission and his ultimate purpose can never be thwarted. In sum, based

on the witness of Scripture, the consensus in Christian tradition is that God is powerful enough to be

in charge over nature and history, he exerts his dominion according to his good character of love, and

he is involved and active in the world.

2.4.2 Alternatives. Any view that negates God’s good, powerful, and involved sovereign providence is

incompatible with proper Christian belief. The first alternative is fatalism, the belief that there is no

good purpose governing the world. While it is rarely affirmed by Christians, some forms of radical

divine determinism fall into fatalism, often disguised as a spirituality that focuses so much on eternity

that denies any meaning in this world. Also, some existentialist theologians have denied any purpose

or meaning to historical events. Second, deism believes in a God that is not actively involved in the

world. This clearly goes against the witness of Scripture and makes petitionary prayer meaningless.

And third, process theology is a view that tries to avoid making God the responsible one for evil, sin,

and terrible events in nature and history (such as natural disasters, and genocides) by affirming that he

did not cause or allowed them because although he wanted to he could not. Clearly this view is against

Scripture and the Christian Tradition in the sense that it undermines God’s omnipotence and sovereign

providence.

2.4.3 Diversity. There are a number of views within Christian Tradition that deal with the issue of

God’s providence in a different way. They receive different names in different traditions but four main

categories can be distinguished. First, meticulous providence is the belief that God exhaustively
foreordains, actively wills, and renders certain every single event in the world. Second, limited

providence is the view that considers God can and does self-limit himself. While he could meticulously

control the world, he freely and sovereignly chose not to in order to allow freedom to human agents.

Third, middle knowledge (also known as molinism) is a view that argues that God knew all possible

worlds and chose to create the best possible one, in which human agents freely made their decisions

while, at the same time, God fulfils his ultimate purpose. Fourth, open theism is the belief that God

does not know the future. Although he knows all things, the future is no-thing; however, in his

omniscience God knows all the possible alternatives and acts purposefully with power and goodness

in the world without thwarting the individual freedom of human agents. All of these views believe in

God’s good, all-powerful, and actively involved sovereignty. They find support in Scripture and are

within proper Christian belief. However, the main area of diversity is how they respond to the problem

of evil. From my estimation the view of meticulous providence is a divine determinism in which it is

extremely hard to see how God is not the active author of evil and sin. And open-theism fins no support

in Christian tradition and portrays God as limited by time.

2.4.4 My statement of faith. I believe God is the only Lord and sovereign of all that exists. Nothing

happens outside his will. However, in his sovereignty, he has freely chosen to give freedom to his

creatures. In their freedom, humans have taken choices against God’s goodness and that has brought

evil into the world. In any sense does this thwart God’s ultimate purposes for the world. This is why it

is useful to distinguish between God’s absolute will and God’s permissive will. While sometimes the

world might seem ran by the free choices of human agents, God is always working out his purpose.

How does God make all things work for his good purpose is beyond my understanding but it is my

confession that he is powerful, good, and involved enough to do so.

2.5 Humanity. I include the doctrine of humanity under the unit of God the Father because humanity

is part of God’s creation and its climax. As I mentioned above, I believe creation is the stage for God’s
covenant with humanity in Jesus Christ. In that sense, the agent, goal, and source of creation is Christ

the God-human.

2.5.1 Consensus. The witness of Scripture affirms that humanity was part of God’s good creation.

Actually, it is the climax of creation and God calls the creation of man and woman extremely good.

Also, human beings are created in God’s image. While the specific meaning of that phrase is debatable,

it is clear that all humans both male and female of all races and ages, are of extreme value and dignity

to God. However, while humanity is God’s good creation, it has been corrupted by the entrance of sin

after the fall. Probably this truth is well encapsulated by the phrase “humanity is essentially good and

existentially estranged.” Moreover, since humanity has a sinful nature, it needs a redemption that

cannot come from itself but only from God’s grace. Thus, only through the incarnation of the Word of

God in Jesus Christ, the God-man, can humanity be restored to its essential goodness.

2.5.2 Alternatives. Any view that denies the goodness of humanity, its special value and dignity over

creation, or its sinful nature falls outside proper Christian belief. For example, some forms of

Gnosticism have denied the goodness of the human body and have elevated the spiritual side of humans

to a divine status. As I have argued, the Christian consensus is that creation (including humans) is good

but different from God. Moreover, there have been views that elevate some human groups to others

because of their gender, race, or age. But the Christian consensus, based on the witness of Scripture

and the reading of Tradition, is that all human beings are of infinite worth because they bear God’s

image and Christ himself took the human form. Finally, some self-identified Christian beliefs have

argued that humanity is capable of not sinning. This would mean human beings can achieve restoration

and salvation apart from God’s grace. Scripture and Tradition are overwhelmingly clear against that

view.

2.5.3 Diversity. There is room for diversity within Christianity regarding a number of questions about

humanity. Are humans composed of two elements (soul and body), three elements (spirit, soul, and

body), or are they one whole unit? Scripture seems to point in different directions. And different
Christian answers seem valid as long as they affirm the goodness of humanity, its sinful nature, and its

worth above creation. Another question is about the specific meaning of the image of God. Some

Christian answers to this question are reason, ability to love, freedom, personhood, responsibility over

creation, and so forth. And finally, another question is about the meaning and interpretation of the

doctrine of original sin. While it is clear all human beings are sinners and in need of redemption, it is

not exactly clear how does that work. For example, what about those the babies who die? Do all humans

inherited Adam’s guilt? How to interpret total depravity?

2.5.4 My statement of faith. I believe humanity is the climax of God’s good creation. Jesus Christ, God

incarnate, is the purpose, goal, agent, and source of creation. And he is human too. Therefore, only in

Christ do we find what true humanity is. Our present condition as humans has been corrupted by sin

and we need a redemption that we cannot possible achieve on our own. All humans need God’s

redemptive grace. However, humanity is essentially good and God promised to restore our being in

order to take away our sinful nature and bring about a new humanity. This applies to all human beings

male and female, of all races, all ages, all spaces, and all times.

3. God the Son

This third unit is the climax of Christian Theology. I have confessed Jesus Christ at the center of the

other doctrines and now it is time to present the Christian beliefs on Christ himself. The doctrine of

Christ, or Christology, is the distinctive belief of Christianity in the face of any other religion or system

of thought. It is certainly the distinctive belief of Christianity in front of the other two global

monotheistic religions. And it is the most ancient Christian confession: Jesus Christ is Lord. Moreover,

Christology is the unifying doctrine in all Christian traditions in spite of their differences. Without any

doubt, Christianity is Christ.

3.2 The person of Christ: incarnation. The doctrine that God became incarnate in a specific man is

the most scandalous Christian belief because it affirms the exclusivity that only in Jesus Christ there is

salvation. And it is also the most discussed doctrine in the history of Christianity. Perhaps that is also
the reason why it is the most unifying belief among Christian traditions. The early church struggled

deeply to answer the question of Christology, how can Jesus Christ be man and God at the same time.

In a number of ecumenical councils, they brought about a specific way to read the special revelation

of God revealed in Christ and witnessed in Scripture that has become authoritative for most Christian

confessions whether they recognize it or not. Together with Christian Tradition, I confess the faith of

the Nicene-Constantinopolitan-Chalcedonian creeds.

3.2.1 Consensus. The witness of Scripture portrays Jesus as both God and human; however, it never

systematically explains how does that work. The Christian Tradition struggled to affirm God’s

revelation in an intelligible way without eliminating the mystery. The technical term to refer to the

Christian consensus on Christology is the hypostatic union. This is the belief that in one eternal divine

person, Jesus Christ, two distinct but not separate natures were united but not confused. This is not a

rational explanation to eliminate the mystery of incarnation, but a doctrinal protection precisely not to

mislead our talk of Christ. In sum, the Christian consensus on incarnation is that Jesus Christ is fully

human and fully God.

3.2.2 Alternatives. Throughout history there have been numerous Christological heresies. Suffice it is

to group them here in a few categories. Docetism is the view that Jesus did not possess a physical body.

Subordinationism is the view that Jesus is a lesser creature not equal to God. Arianism was a form of

subordinationism in which Jesus was a pre-existent divine being but not co-eternal with God. Another

form of subordinationism is adoptionism, the view that Jesus was not the eternal Son of God but a

human adopted by God as his son (this is the view of many liberal theologians who hold a functional

Christology). Then there are some more technical alternatives that tried to explain Jesus’ natures (or

single nature) that either denied Jesus’ full humanity or his full divinity. The problem with these

alternatives it that they worked so hard to eliminate the mystery that they denied one essential element

of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ.

3.2.3 Diversity. There is room for some diversity in Christology as long as one does not deny Jesus’

full humanity and divinity. This diversity arises from attempts to understand how Jesus’ two natures

worked out during the time of his incarnation. Sometimes Jesus said and did somethings that showed

one of his natures more than the other. On the one hand, he did miracles and walked on the waters. On

the other hand, he said he did not know the time of the second coming. One Christian view affirms that

while he had both natures, the gospel narratives point to an act of the divine nature at times, and other

times to an act of his human nature. And another Christian view affirms that, without losing his divine

nature, Jesus emptied himself from those divine attributes that were incompatible with humanity such

as omniscience and omnipotence.

3.2.4 My statement of faith. I believe Jesus Christ is the incarnation of the Word of God. He is co-

eternal and equal to God. However, he is also fully human in every respect except he is without sinful

nature. In sum, I believe Jesus is fully human and fully divine.

3.3 The work of Christ: salvation. I have affirmed that Christianity is Christ. And since Jesus Christ

is Lord and savior, at the heart of Christian theology is the doctrine of salvation, or soteriology. I think

it is fair to say that God’s salvation of humanity in Jesus Christ is the theme of the New Testament. In

Christian theology, this salvific work of Christ is called atonement.

3.3.1 Consensus. Scripture is clear and abundant about the salvific work of Christ. And Christian

Tradition has embraced and articulated the biblical witness in such a way that there is a clear consensus

among most Christian traditions throughout history. This consensus is that the life, death, and

resurrection of Chris provide salvation for those who trust in him. The cross is not the only moment in

Jesus’ life that has a salvific power, but his whole life, incarnation, ministry, and resurrection.

However, the cross is at the heart of the atonement God acted to reconcile sinners with himself, forgive

them, and transform them. Furthermore, since all human beings are sinners, all humanity needs God’s

salvation. And this salvation is exclusively found in Christ. Humans can do nothing to save themselves

apart from God’s grace in Jesus’s work.

3.3.2 Alternatives. There are many alternatives to proper Christian soteriology, here I will only mention

some major ones. One alternative is the idea that not everyone needs Christ’s salvation. Some pluralists

have argued that Christ saved those who trust in him but there are other saviors. Another view is that

Jesus’ life and death did not achieve any actual salvation but it is only a moral example of God’s love

to be imitated. While certainly it is a demonstration of God’s sacrificial love and something Christians

are to imitate, God’s revelation clearly affirms that Jesus’ work actually achieved salvation. Still

another alternative is the view that human beings could achieve salvation on their own. This view is

usually called Pelagianism. The problem with this view is that Christ’s work becomes unnecessary

since human beings could save themselves through works apart from God’s grace. Finally, the last

alternative is universalism, the believe that God will save everyone without distinction. This belief is

problematic because it finds some support in Scripture; however, the Bible clearly teaches

particularism. While universalism perhaps should not be condemned, it certainly must not be taught as

a Christian belief.

3.3.3 Diversity. Within Christian soteriology there has been developed different theories of atonement.

In evangelical theology the penal substitution theory of atonement has been the most prominent. While

I recognize that a substitutionary element is essential to proper Christian thought, I think it does not

exhaust the meaning of Christ’s sacrifice. Scripture does not offer a systematic account of Christ death

but rather images that gave raise to these theories, and all communicate something important. Perhaps

the ransom and satisfaction theories are the most problematic, but they still can be used as images or

even metaphors of Christ’s work. The moral influence theory has much of truth but could never be

used alone since the work of Christ is much more than just an example, it actually achieved something.

And finally, the Christus Victor theory of atonement is important because it was not only the cross of

Jesus that brought salvation but his life and resurrection that achieved the possibility of salvation and

forgiveness of sins. Another area of diversity is in answering who are saved and what is the role of

human beings in salvation. On the one hand, monergism (usually associated with Calvinism) is the
view that affirms God alone elects who are saved with no participation of the human person. And on

the other hand, synergism (usually associated with Arminianism) is the view that affirms that salvation

by grace requires the acceptance of the human person. It has to be noted that both views affirm that

salvation comes from God alone. The question is not about the who of salvation but about the how. I

find monergism less consistent with God’s self-revelation of his character. The idea of God arbitrarily

choosing some people for salvation while abandoning others to condemnation is contrary to God’s

character of sacrificial love revealed in Scripture. But I will not consider this view as incompatible

with proper Christian belief.

3.3.4 My statement of faith. I believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and savior. His life, death, and resurrection

brought salvation for those who trust in him. All human beings are sinners in need of a redemption that

can only come from God. Christ is the only source of salvation. On the cross Jesus Christ suffered

more than just physical death, he experienced the wrath of God as a substitution for our transgressions.

In his resurrection, Jesus conquered death and prefigured the destruction of all sin. This salvation

comes to humans by grace alone, which means it depends solely on God. At the same time, it comes

through faith alone, which means it requires a human response. However, this human response is only

possible by God’s grace. I believe God offers this grace to all humanity, every person receives the offer

of God’s grace but not everyone accepts it.

4. God the Holy Spirit

In the section on Trinity, I affirmed I believe in one God in three divine modes of being: the Father,

the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Unlike the Son, the Holy Spirit has not received that much attention in

Christian theology. However, it is no less true that the Christian Tradition, based on the witness of

Scripture, has believed in the Spirit as a divine person equal yet distinct to the Father and the Son. In

this section I will discuss the person of the Holy Spirit and his work in the church. And finally, we I

end with a reflection on eschatology, the doctrine of the end times.

4.1 The person of the Holy Spirit. All Christian traditions believe in the Holy Spirit as the third person

of the Trinity; however, there is wide diversity in their emphasis on his work. In this section, I will

explore pneumatology, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

4.1.1 Consensus. There is not a systematic teaching on the Holy Spirit in Scripture. However, the

biblical narrative says enough about his that the Christian Tradition has been able to form a brief but

clear consensus on pneumatology. The Holy Spirit is a divine person distinct from the Father and the

Son, but one in substance with them. He is at work in the world, particularly through the community

of believers, the church. He empowers the church to do God’s work. And he empowers the Christian

to overcome temptation and endure trails.

4.1.2 Alternatives. There is much diversity in pneumatology and it is difficult to categorize it. Christian

denominations have very different emphasis on the Spirit’s operation. However, it is important to note

that any view that affirms the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force rather than a divine person is

incompatible with proper Christian belief. Another alternative are those views that emphasize the work

of the Holy Spirit so much than end up attributing to his work other revelations different from Scripture

and equal or superior in authority.

4.1.3 Diversity. In would be hard to explore the diversity among all Christian traditions, suffice it is to

point to an area of diversity among evangelicals. All evangelicals believe that the Holy Spirit is the

third person of the Trinity and that he is at work in the world. However, there is a debate on whether

the charismatic gifts are still active or not today. The continuationist view argues that the charismatic

gifts mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10 were intended to continue throughout history. And the

cessationist view holds that such charismatic gifts were intended to cease after the early period of the

Christian church.

4.1.4 My statement of faith. I believe the Holy Spirit is a divine person. This means he is equal to the

Father and the Son, and he is a person and not just an impersonal power. He is actively at work in the
church and world. He works in the Christian to overcome sin and endure trails. The work of the Holy

Spirit is the empowerment of the church and the sanctification of the Christian.

4.2 The church. One of the most pressing questions in contemporary theology is about the nature of

the church. What is the church? What makes a group people the body of Christ? How can imperfect

individuals get together and be called the people of God? Who forms the church? These and other

questions are answered in ecclesiology, the Christian doctrine of the church.

4.2.1 Consensus. In spite of all the suspicion that surrounds the church these days, Christians still hold

to the believe that the church is a community instituted by Christ, which has its origin in God’s election,

and is empowered by the Holy Spirit. Christians have confessed that the church is one and universal,

which is to say that in spite of their differences and separation in space and time, all those who confess

Jesus as Lord and savior are part of his body. Also, the church is holy in the sense that it has its origin

in God’s election to form a people. Moreover, the church is apostolic in the sense that it proclaims

God’s Word, the special revelation of God in Jesus Christ witnessed by the apostles and written in the

New Testament. Finally, the church is the community that obeys, remembers, and preaches Christ in

the realization of the ordinances he commanded. In sum, the church is the community that worships

the Triune God.

4.2.2 Alternatives. To begin with, any view of the church that identifies a particular local group or

denomination with the one Holy Church to the rejection of all others is incompatible with proper

Christian belief. This view might be called sectarianism. Another alternative is the view that a church

is any group of people which gathers with a religious purpose regardless the content of their

proclamation. Rather, a church is defined by their proclamation of God’s Word in Jesus Christ,

otherwise it is not a Christian church. Finally, the last alternative is the view that the church should not

obey Christ in the practice of the sacraments.

4.2.3 Diversity. There is plenty of room for diversity within proper Christian belief on ecclesiology.

However, it should be noted than in spite of the great variety of styles of worship, architecture, church
government, number of sacraments/ordinances and their interpretation, there is a more profound unity

in the church found in God’s election, Jesus’ work, and the power of the Holy Spirit. While most

Christians affirm the visibility and invisibility of the one universal holy church, some emphasize more

one than the other. However, as long as both are affirmed there is room for disagreement. Another area

of diversity is the number and interpretation of sacraments. Without a doubt, baptism and the Lord’s

supper are the two sacraments widely recognized by virtually all Christian traditions. However, they

have been interpreted differently. I have no space to deal with their meaning, but its importance must

be highlighted. I do not hold a mystic theory of the sacraments, but I truly believe they are an essential

aspect of the proclamation of the church.

4.2.4 My Statement of faith. I believe Jesus Christ instituted the Christian church which is grounded on

God’s election to form a people. I believe the church is one, universal, holy, apostolic community that

worships the Triune God. I believe the church must preach the Word of God as witnessed by Scripture

and practice the ordinances Christ commanded, baptism and Lord’s Supper.

4.3 The end times. Eschatology is the doctrine of the end times. There are a number of issues related

to this doctrine such as the second coming of Christ, the final judgment, the resurrection of the death,

the eternal destiny of humanity, and the completion of the Kingdom of God. However, Scripture does

not present a systematic way to speak about these issues. Thus, with much questions to discuss, little

specific answers in the canon, and only a few more lines to finish this paper, it is extremely hard to

offer a comprehensive statement on eschatology. Nevertheless, I will offer a brief general confession

of faith regarding the end times.

4.3.1 Consensus. Scripture affirms that Jesus Christ will return to raise the dead, judge them, and

redeem his people into a new earth and new creation. Regarding the life after death, the biblical witness

is that those saved by grace will experience a bodily resurrection. This is the consensus in Christian

Tradition in spite of the more popular contemporary belief in only soul afterlife. Moreover, the
Christian consensus on the future Kingdom of Christ is that he will establish a reign of peace that,

although not completed, is at work in the present and will be completed in the future lasting forever.

4.3.2 Alternatives. Perhaps this is the doctrine where it is the hardest to categorize the alternatives that

are incompatible with God’s revelation. However, suffice it is to say that any view that negates the

core consensus is not proper Christian belief. For example, there are some self-identified Christians

that negate the bodily resurrection and affirm only the immortality of the souls. Also, some have

affirmed an immortality in which human beings lose their personhood and conscience and are absorbed

into the cosmos. Some have negated the existence of hell, and few others have negated the existence

of heaven. And finally, some have even tried to bring together a belief in reincarnation with Christian

belief.

4.3.3 Diversity. On biblical grounds, hardly more can be affirmed about eschatology than what I

described in the section on the Christian consensus. However, Christians have speculated about many

issues such as an intermediate state between death and resurrection, the nature of heaven and hell, the

characteristic of the new body and the new earth, even the time and place of Jesus’ second coming,

and the schedule of the establishment of his reign. While not all speculation is necessarily wrong, one

needs to be cautious not to elevate to the status of dogma our theological speculations when, although

there are hints in Scripture, there are not systematic answers.

4.3.4 My statement of faith. I believe Jesus Christ is coming again as he promised. He will raise the

death and judge them. He will create new bodies, new earth and heavens, and a new creation. He will

establish a kingdom of peace and justice that will last forever in which there is no sickness or pain. I

believe this is our Christian hope to which we cling, not to forget about this world but to live faithful

lives confessing our Christian faith.