Gordon Clark Systematic Theology · SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY Gordon H Clark In memory of my wife and...

SYSTEMATICTHEOLOGY

GordonHClark

InmemoryofmywifeandMother

TableofContentsIntroductionChapterOneTheScriptures1. MethodsinApologetics

2. TheMethodofRevelation

3. TheBiblicalClaim

4. AnotherText

5. AdditionalVerses

6. NewVersusOldTestament

7. TheClaimtoTruth

8. IstheClaimTrue?

9. Axioms

10. ThePope

11. Perspicacity

12. TheMethodofExperience

13. KnowledgeisEssential

14. ANeo-CalvinisticView

15. TheProof-TextMethod

16. Language

ChapterTwoGod1. Omnipotence

2. Omniscience

3. Eternity

4. Immutability

5. RelationBetweenOmnipotenceandOmniscience

6. AreAllAttributesOne?

7. TheInfiniteandtheFinite

8. AFiniteGod

9. FinitudeandKnowledge

10. GodisSpirit

11. PhilosophicalDifficulties

(a)TheCosmologicalArgument

(b)FiveObjections

(c)AReconstructedArgument

(d)DoesScriptureRequireanArgument?

(e)AMeaninglessWord

(f)CanGodbeKnown?

(g)TheNatureorDefinitionofGod

(h)SubstanceandAttributes

(i)TheGloryofGod

ChapterThreeTheTrinity1. PreliminaryScripture

2. TheDeityofChrist

3. Athanasius

4. EternalGeneration

5. Terminology

6. TheOneGod

7. Realism

8. TheHolySpirit:HisPersonality

9. TheProcessionoftheSpirit

10. TheWorkoftheSpirit

ChapterFourCreation1. CreationExNihilo

2. ExNihilo

3. PlatoandPhilo

4. Materialism

5. Mechanism

6. BiblicalTeleology

7. TheGloryofGod

8. FourPartsofGod’sPurpose

9. TheParticularPurposeofCreation

10. ImmutabilityandCreation

ChapterFiveMan1. Creation

2. Evolution

3. TheImageofGod

4. EarlierViewsoftheImage

5. Behaviorism

6. DichotomyandTrichotomy

7. TraducianismandCreationism

8. Adam

9. FederalHeadship

10. TheFallandtheDecree

11. ImmediateImputation

12. TotalDepravity

ChapterSixTheAtonement

1. ThePenaltyforSin

2. PerfectObedience

3. TheCovenantofRedemption

4. TheCovenantofGrace

5. TheIncarnation

6. TheVirginBirth

7. TheHumanNatureofChrist

8. ThePurposeoftheIncarnation

9. ActiveObedience

10. TheVicariousSacrifice

11. APenalty

12. Expiation

13. Propitiation

14. ExtentandIntent

15. TheArminianDistortion

16. TheThree-FoldOfficeofChrist

ChapterSeven SalvationIntroduction

PartI RegenerationandGracePartII Faith

1. BiblicalBackground 2. NecessityofFaith 3.TheLanguage 4. PersonorProposition 5. HistoricalNote 6. Psychology

7.JohnOwen

8.TheObjectPartIIIJustification1. Definitions

2. AnAct

3. Pardon

4. TheGroundofJustification

5. ImputationandFederalHeadship

6. Berkouwer

ChapterEightSanctification1. ConversionorRepentance

2. AberrantTheories

3. Perseverance

4. TheChristianLife

5. TheSacraments

ChapterNineEschatology1. TheDefinition

2. TheIntermediateState

3. TheSecondAdvent

4. JudgmentandHell

5. Heaven

FIRSTLESSONSINTHEOLOGY

IntroductoryRemarks

Theologyissometimesheldincontempt.EvendevoutChristians,whoshouldbeitsfriends,maydismiss isashair-splitting;andsomeof themcontrastdeadorthodoxywithpulsatingChristian life. Itsenemiesaremoresevere.TheLogicalPositivistscallitnonsense.Devoteesofscientismcallitbigotry.Political leftists attack it as a reactionary hindrance to social advancement. But before anyone canproperlyadjudgeitasgoodorevil,hemustknowwhatthewordtheologymeans.

The English word comes from two Greek words: theos-logos. As bio-logy is the study,

knowledge,orscienceofbios,life;andasanthropo-logyisthestudyofanthropos,man;andassociologyis thestudyofsociety,andphysiology,geology,andtherest;so theo-logyis thestudyorknowledgeofGod(Theos).

Theology is not the only strangeword the studentmust learn.Hemust bewilling tomeet andconquerfederalheadship,immediateimputation,premillennialism,andevenTrinity.Somepeopleareafraidoflongwords;butnoteveryone.ThepeopleofGermanyseemtolikethem.OneoftheirlongestisConstantinopolitanischerdudelsachspfeiffenmachergesellschaft.ItmeansafirminConstantinople that manufactures bagpipes. The longest English word I can think of, if you rule out‘supercalifragilisticexpialidocious’ on technical lexicographical grounds is,Antidisestablishmentarianism.ItisevenmoreuselessthantheGermanword.

Anothertechnicalterm,thoughaneasierone,isatheism.AtheistsarepeoplewhoassertthatthereisnoGodtostudy.Theymaysaythatatomsinspacemakeupthesumtotalofreality.Orinmoremodernsciencetheatomsmaybeanalyzedintoneutrons,orfinallyintoenergy.Butwhatevertheanalysis,thesepeopleassertthatthereisnothingelse.Physicalrealityisallthereis.Itisnotsurprisingthatatheistsderidetheology.SincetheydenythatthereisanyGodatall,theynaturallyconsidertheologyfalse,useless,andharmful.Inthistheyareindubitablyconsistent.Thereis,however,anothergroupwhoalsocanconsistentlyobjecttotheology.ThesearereligiouspeoplewhoreallybelieveinaGodofsomesort,butwhoareconvincedthathecannotbeknown.AtheistsdenyGod;mysticsdenyknowledge.Thereligionof the latter isbasedon,and limited to trances, indescribableexperiences,orinexplicableemotions.Intheseexperiencesnoknowledgeisobtained.Itiswhollyamatterofsubjectivefeelings. There are indeed some semi-mystics who allow a theology. Schleiermacher, a Germantheologianoftheearlynineteenthcentury,thefounderofModernism,constructeda“theology”basedonfeeling.Strictlyspeaking,itwasnottheology;itwasthepsychologyofreligiousexperience.Godhimselfwasnottheobjectofstudy;feelingswere.EmilBrunner,aSwisstheologianofthemid-twentiethcentury,also wrote books on theology; but his “theology” is not knowledge of God. God and the medium ofconceptuality,aremutuallyexclusive.IfwetalkaboutGod,hesays,wearenottalkingaboutGod.Buthedoesindeedformulateatheoryofreligionandtriestofindsomesortofuseforit.Then,ofcourse,thereare thepurerandmoreconsistentmysticswho, though theymaywrite literature,donotclaim towritetheology.Thesetwogroups,atheistsandmystics,areprobablytheonlytwogroupsthatcanconsistentlyobject to theology. TrueChristians, because of immaturity and ignorance,may disparage theology, buttheirantagonismisnotconsistentwiththeChristianfaith.

Another group deserving mention, presents a puzzling appearance. They indeed assert theexistenceofGodand their theoriescanproperlybecalled theology.Theydonotwant tobeknownasatheists or as irreligious, but they define God as all that exists. Spinoza used the phrase,Deus siveNatura,God,thatis,Nature.SomemayusethetermPureBeing,orTillich’sphrase,theGroundofAllBeing.ThusGodistheuniverseitself.HeisnotitsCreator.Sincetheysay,GodistheAll,thesepeoplearecalledPantheists–anothertechnicalterm.

Logicallythereisnodifferencebetweenatheismandpantheism.TodenythatthereisaGodandtoapplythenameGodtoeverythingisconceptuallyidentical.ItisasthoughIshouldasserttheexistenceofcatsandtrytoproveitbypointingtogiraffes,stars,mountainranges,andbooks:theyareallcats,Iwouldsay, and therefore cats exist. The pantheists point to giraffes, stars, and so on, and say, thereforeGod

exists.ButthissortofargumenthasnomoreapplicationtoGodthantocats–thesmalldomesticanimalsthat cry meow. Those who deny God, atheists, and those who say God is everything, pantheists, areassertingthatnothingbeyondthephysicalworldisreal.InChristianlanguage,andincommonlanguagesaroundtheworld,Godisdifferentfromtheuniverseasacatisfromagiraffe,andmoreso.

Otherpeopleareagnostics.TheydonotassertthatthereisaGod;nordotheyassertthatthereisnoGod;theysimplysaytheydonotknow.Theyclaimignorance.Ignorance,however,isnotatheorythatonehastoargueabout.Ignoranceisanindividualstateofmind.Anignorantpersonisnotrequiredtoprovebylearnedargumentsthatheisignorant.Hejustdoesnotknow.Suchapersonneedstobetaught.

ProbablymostpeopleintheUnitedStatestodayareatheistsofasort.Ifyoushouldaskthem,theymightsaytheybelieveinGod.ButtheymightaswellnotbelieveinGodforallthegooditdoesthem.UnlesssomeonementionsGodtothem,theyneverthinkofhim;theyneverpraytohim;hedoesnotenterintotheirdailyplansandcalculations.Their livesareessentiallynodifferentfromthelivesofatheistsandagnostics.Theyarepracticingatheists.

Butdoall thesetechnical terms,andmoretocome,haveanythingtodowithprayerand‘heart-felt’religion?Doesn’tChristianityconsistinsinginggospelchorusestorockmusicandelectricguitars?Whatgoodistheology,whatgoodarepedantictermsanyway?

Youngstudentsareoftenimpatient,andtheyunthinkinglybrushasideevenimportantmatters.Buttheirquestionconcerningthevalueoftheologyisproper,pertinent,andimportant.Ithasthreeanswers.Thefirst is:God,if therebeaGod,issomeoneweshouldknow.Ifweshouldknowstars(astronomy)simplybecausetherearestars,andcopperandiron(chemistry)simplybecausetheyarethereandusefultous,sotooifGodisthere,andifheimpingesonourlifeinanyway,weoughttoknowhim.Thisfirstanswerneedsfurtherelucidation;butbeforecontinuingwithit,andbeforebeginningthesecondanswer,thediscussionwillbrieflyconsiderhowitmightbepossibletoknowGod.WheredowefindoutaboutGod?What is the source of our knowledge? To these questions there are two answers. Some peopleacceptthefirstanswerandrejectthesecond;somepeopleacceptthesecondandrejectthefirst;andsomeuseboth.

ThefirstmethodoffindingoutsomethingaboutGod,accordingtoalargenumberofrespectableauthors, is to study thegrowthof a plant, themotionof theplanets, and the fall of a stone.Now, if itshouldprovepossibletolearnsomethingaboutGodbythismethod,itnonethelesshastwodisadvantages.First, it is a veryhardmethod; and, second, notmuch canbe learned thisway.Supposewe canget amicroscopeandexaminethe internalphloemof the lykopersikonesculentum (L.).Ohme,ohmy, thesewordsaretoolong.Well,thestudyofbotanyisstilllonger;anditisnotimmediatelyclearwhatwecanfindoutaboutGodintomatoes.Or,youmayobservethemotionoftheplanets.Ifyoulookatthemverycarefully,youwillseethatthesquaresoftheirperiodictimesareproportionaltothemeandistancesfromthesun.Butyouhave to lookveryclosely.This isnoteasy. Ifweshouldsucceed ingetting thisbitofinformation,wemayconcludethatGodisagreatmathematicianandthatsalvationdependsonmajoringinmath.Suchwasessentiallywhat theancientGreekphilosophicalschoolof thePythagoreanssaid.Theybelievedthatahappylifeafterdeathwastherewardforstudyingarithmeticandgeometry.Asomewhatsimilar view is held by people todaywho think that all the problems of thisworld can be solved byscience.Butunlike thePythagoreans theydonotbelieve ina lifeafterdeath,nordo they think that thelawsofastronomycanprovethereisaGod.ToconvincethembydeducingtheexistenceofGodfromthelawsofsciencewouldbeextremelydifficultandperhapsimpossible.Ifbysomeothermethodwefirst

knowthereisaGod,thestudyofastronomymightshowthatheisamathematician.ButwewouldhavetoknowGodfirst.

Thereisasecondmethod,differentfromthescience,bywhichwemaylearnaboutGod.Wherethefirstmethodhadtwodisadvantages,thissecondmethodhastwopointsinitsfavor.Insteadofbeinghard,itiseasy;andinsteadofprovidingonlyalittleinformation,itfurnishesusagreatdeal.

ThissecondmethodconsistsofsimplylisteningtowhatGodtellsus.IfGodshouldsaytosomeman,“IamtheAlmightyGod,walkbeforemeandbethouperfect”(ashesaid toAbrahaminGenesis17:1), then thismanwouldknowsomethingaboutGodandhecould tellothermen.Neitherhenor theotherswouldhave to studyscienceormathematics.Allwewouldhave tounderstandwouldbea fewshortwords,thelongestofwhichisAlmighty.

Each of these two ways of learning about God has its own name. The first is called naturaltheology.ItscontentsarewhatwecanknowofGodbystudyingnature.Itisthehardway.Itmaybeanimpossibleway.However,theancientGreekphilosopherAristotlethoughthecouldprovetheexistenceof God by this method; and the Roman Catholic theologian, Thomas Aquinas, copied him. But theirargumentsareextremelycomplicated.OfcoursethePsalmssaythattheheavensdeclarethegloryofGod;and the apostle makes the paradoxical statement that the invisible divine attribute of omnipotence isclearly seen in the things that God has made. Such verses as these, however, do not guarantee thatAristotlemadenomistake.TheapostlePauldoesnotsomuchsaythatmenprovetheexistenceofGodbystudyingthestars,ashesaysthattheomnipotenceofaGodpreviouslyknowntoexistisdisplayedinthestars.Thisomnipotenceismanifesttomen,notbymeansofacomplicatedargument,butbecause“Godhath showed it unto them.”At any rate, in contrastwithRomanCatholicism,Reformation theology, asfoundinLutherandCalvin,madenouseofargumentsfromnature.

If the name of the firstway to learn aboutGod isnatural theology, the name of the second isspecialrevelation.ItistheeasywayofsimplylisteningtowhatGodsays.ThereisnopointintryingtoproveGod’sexistence,forifhetellsussomething,heobviouslyexists.Anon-existentnothingcouldnottellusanything.Whatismoreimportant, ifGodspeakstous, inadditiontoknowingthatthereissomesortofGod,webegintolearnwhatsortofGodthereis.

AtfirstitmayseemstrangethatknowledgeofwhatGodis,ismoreimportantthanknowingthereisaGod.Itmayseemstrangethathisexistenceislessimportantthanhisnature.Nevertheless,thisisthecase, for two reasons. First, we have seen, a few pages back that pantheists identify God with theuniverse.ThemerefactthattheyusethenameGodfortheuniverseandthusassertthat“God”exists,isofnohelptoChristianity.ThelateProfessorWiemaninsistedontheexistenceofGod;butforhim“God”isnot even all the universe – he or it is only some parts of the universe. Christians are not so muchinterestedintheexistenceofGodastheyareinwhatkindofGodexists.

ThesecondreasonfornotbeingmuchinterestedintheexistenceofGodissomewhatsimilartothefirst.Theideaofexistenceisanideawithoutcontent.Starsexist–butthistellsusnothingaboutthestars;mathematicsexist–butthisteachesusnomathematics;hallucinationsexisttoo.Apredicate,suchasexistence,thatcanbeattachedtoeverythingindiscriminately,tellsusnothingaboutanything.

WhenGodspeaks,hetellsussomethingabouthimself.HetellsuswhatsortofGodheis.IfthenourknowledgeofGoddoesnotcomefrommathematicsandastronomy,butconsistsinwhatGodhastoldusabouthimself,theologyasaformalstudyofGodwillbeessentiallyasurveyofwhatGodhassaid.HetoldAbrahamthathewasAlmighty.Almightymeansomnipotent.Wearenowno longerscaredof longwords like omnipotent. It simply means that God can do anything. But God did not tell Abraham

everythingabouthimself,eitheronthatoneoccasionoronalltheoccasionstakentogetherthatGodspoketoAbraham.TofindoutwhatsortofGodGodis,astudentmustcollectandsummarizeallthatGodhastoldusabouthimself.

Themention ofAbrahammay lead us several paragraphs back to the question of an impatientstudentwhoaskedconcerningthevalueofsuchanabstrusesubjectastheology.Therearethreeanswers.Thefirstanswerwasonlystarted.Evenatthecostofalittlerepetition,itmaybeworthwhiletoretraceourstepsandbeginagain.

First,God,iftherebeaGod,issomeoneweshouldknow.Everyonelikestoreceiveinformationabouttheirbestfriends,atleastiftheinformationisgoodnews.Weevenwanttohearbadnews,suchasaninjuryoraccident,thoughitsaddensus.IfnowsomeonelikeAbrahamisafriendofGod,newsaboutGodiswelcome;andmorewelcomeinproportionasGodisabetterfriendthanone’sclassmates.Toputit inamoreBiblicalway,“This is lifeeternal, that theymightknowthee, theonlytrueGod,andJesusChristwhom thouhast sent.”There ismore in this verse than appears to a hurried reader; but enoughappearstoshowthatonecannotbeaChristianwithouttheology–aknowledgeofGod.Thisfirstpointinansweringthequestionaboutthevalueoftheologyissooverwhelmingthatanyotherreasonsseemtrivialandunnecessary.However,theAmericantemperament,moreactivistand“practical”thantherelativelymorecontemplativeEuropeanmentality,maybefurtherimpressedbythenecessityoftheology for evangelism. To say, “Christ died, for our sins, according to the Scriptures,” is to talktheology.Infactthisversesumsupagreatamountoftheology;andonlyknowledgeofwhatis“accordingtotheScriptures”caninsureaBiblicalevangelism.Thentoo,whenaChristiantriestoevangelizecollegestudents,hemeetsallsortsofobjections.Itisfataltodismisstheseashypocrisy,eventhoughsometimesthey are; butmore often they are the deep seated opinions that have been inculcated by a humanisticeducation.Thecollege studenthasbeen taught that scienceconclusively refutesall claimsofmiracles,and that it isnomorepossible foraman to rise fromthedead than foracowto jumpover themoon.Sciencehasputamanonthemoon;maybesciencesometimeinthefuturewilldiscoverhowtoraisethedead;but ithasneverhappenedyet.Unfortunatelysome“evangelists”avoidthisobjectionbydroppingChrist’s resurrection out of their “gospel.” Either they never mention it, or as is the case with thedialectical theologians theyexistentialize itanddefineresurrectionas thathappyfeelingofconfidencewhen one rises out of the depths of frustration. Students under such instruction, if they had a collegecourseinreligion,believethatthePentateuchisacompilationofseveralauthors(datingperhapsfromthetime of David onwards) botched together by an unknown editor about 500 B.C. These students arepossibly behaviorists in psychology, and one college girl said openly in class, “Well, I am only ananimal.” Inviewof suchevangelistic challenges it isunfortunate if theChristianknows theBible lessthoroughlythanthecollegestudentknowshishumanism.

Thereisathirdreasonforstudyingtheology,abroaderreasonofwhichthesecondwasdoubtlessonly a part. The religion ofModernismwhich flourished from 1875-1925 was initiated by FriedrichSchleiermacher about the centennial year of 1800.ManyAmericans, peoplewho had never heard thenameSchleiermacher, came to disbelieve theVirginBirth and the vicariousAtonement because of hisinfluence. The great thinkers, either in theology, philosophy, or science, set a pattern that millions ofpeoplewill fall into in the following century. Theworks of aDanish theologian, SorenKierkegaard,about1840,throughKarlBarthfromabout1920,andEmilBrunnerafewyearslater,haveproducedinAmericaasinEuropea“ChristianExistentialism”thatisfarmoreexistentialthanitisChristian.

Thesemenandtheir theoriesarenodoubtawrongplace tobeginastudyof theology;butaftersome first lessons in theBiblical systemof thought, it is capitulation to ignore them.Only fromstrongstudents of theology can there arise anotherAthanasius to defend theDeity ofChrist, anAugustine tomaintainthedoctrinesofgrace,andaLutherandCalvintorejecttraditionandmysticismanddefendthefirstprincipleof“Scripturealone.”

It should now be clear that themethodology of the present volume isBiblical.Neither naturaltheologyderivedfromscience,normysticaltheologyderivedfromso-called‘religiousexperience,’playsany part. The content of this theology comes entirely from the Bible. The importance ofmethodologycannotbeoveremphasized.

To illustrate: Assuming that there is a God of some sort, many people, even glibly, makestatements about him.One such statementmight be,God loves everybody.Another statement,made inconversationbyaPresbyterianelder,noless,wasthatHinduismhas“redemptivevalue.”ThestatementitselfdoesnotcontainthewordGod,butitreflectsabeliefastowhatGodisandhowheoperatesonaworld-widescale.PeoplearemakingstatementsaboutGodallthetime.Intalkingwithsuchpeoplethebasic question to ask, especially for the Christian who disagrees with the statement, is, How do youknow?HowdoyouknowthatGodprovidesredemptionthroughHinduism?HowdoyouknowanythingatallaboutGod?Howdoyouknow?Anatheistwillput thesamequestion toanorthodoxChristian.Hewillsay,YoubelievethereisaGod;howdoyouknow,whatisyourevidence,whyshouldanyoneacceptsuchanotion?In the history of Christian theology many authors at the outset have tried to answer the atheist byconstructinganargumentthatvalidlydemonstratestheexistenceofGod.Aquinas’attemptwasmentionedafewparagraphsago.Butthoughthisseemssuchalogicalplacetobegintheology,reflectionshowsthatit is hardlyhelpful, fromaChristianviewpoint, toprovemerely the existenceof some sort ofGodorother.EveryseriousmindwantstoknowwhatsortofbeingGodis.Isheapersonwholoveseverybody?IsGodapersonat all?Spinozahadanargumentmorecomplicated thanAquinas’;but theGodwhoseexistenceheclaimedtohaveprovedwasjusttheuniverseitself.SupposeaHinduprovedtheexistenceofShiva. In thiscase theproofofGod’sexistencewouldbe thedisproofofChristianity.This iswhy theWestminsterShorterCatechism,rightnearthebeginning,asks,WhatisGod?Notjustanygodwilldo.

Thisisonereasonwhymethodologymustbecarefullyconsidered.Isittherightmethodtobeginwithsensoryexperience,orwithamystictrance,andconcludewiththetypeofGodthatlaterappears?Inparticular, will anything at all appear later concerning sin, atonement, resurrection, and so on? TheChristian needs a method that arrives at all this. He needs a singlemethod. Twomethods produce abifurcation that cannotbeunified.Theology thenwouldbe schizophrenic.A theoryofknowledgemustcover all knowledge. If it does not, and if a person uses twomethods he cannot answer the question,Whereshouldtheonebeused,andwheretheother?Hecannotusetheorynumberonetodefinetheplaceoftheorynumbertwo,norconversely,andhencehehasnogroundforchoosingoneratherthantheotheratanypoint.Thismeansthathereallyhasnotheoryofknowledgeatall.WhattheorythenwillgiveustheknowledgethatChristwasraisedforourjustification?

AfterWorldWarIKarlBarthintroducedatheologicalmethodthatcapturedmanyseminariesand

produced a voluminous literature. The method may be somewhat difficult to describe, but Barthunequivocally stateswhat it is not: “In dogmatics it cannever be a questionof themere combination,repetition,andsummarizingofBiblicaldoctrine”(ChurchDogmatics,I,1,p.16;Thomsontr.).Thetwopagesofimmediatecontextareconfusing.IfBarthmeantmerelythatthebooksmenpublishontheologyarenotinfallible,anorthodoxtheologianwouldagree.ButsinceBarthholdsthattheapostles,

evenintheirofficialcapacity,madeanumberofmistakes,thisisnotwhathecouldhavemeant.Onalaterpagehesays,“Thefact that thetheologywefavor ispurelyandsolelyevangelical[thought thepresentwriterwouldneverrecognizeBarthasevangelical],wecanaslittlediscussandaccountfor,asforthefact thatwearebaptizedandbelieve”(p.37).Thissentencecombines two incongruentparts.Thefactthatwebelieve,ifnotthefactthatwewerebaptized,cannotbeaccountedfor,exceptbyareferencetoGod’sregeneratingpowerandhisgiftoffaithtous.Butthefactthatthetheologywefavorisevangelical,if it is indeedevangelical, requiresadifferent formofaccounting.Thisaccountingcanbenothingelsethan themethodBarth forbidsdogmatics touse:viz.,exegesisofScriptureand logical systematization.Without this, no liberal can prove that he is an evangelical; with it he only proves that he is not anevangelical;norcanhejustifyhischoiceofwhichScripturalpropositionsaretrueandwhicharefalse,let alone which non-scriptural doctrines are. For an evangelical, in the historical sense of the word,theologyis–ofcoursenot“themerecombination,repetition”ofBiblicaltexts,but–certainlyasummarizingandespeciallyalogicalarrangingofthemainScripturaldoctrines.Themethod

usedinthisbookandthetheologythatnecessarilyresultsareBiblical.TheprincipleistotaketheBibleasarevelationfromGod.Inithegivesustheinformationhewantsustohave.Ourtaskistocollectthisinformation,“understand”itinapreliminaryway,andthensystematizeit.UnlessGodbeirrational,wecannotbesatisfiedwithdisjointed,unrelateddata.To understand the data in more than a preliminary way, they must be fitted together, systematized,organized.Wallpaper,akegofnailsscatteredaround,akitchensinkstandingonend,aheapofbricks,andsomebagsofcementarenotahouse.Theymustbeputtogether,ifwewantsomethingtolivein.SotooaChristianmayhavememorizedafeworevenmanyversesfromseveralbooksoftheBible,hemayknowwhichistheshortestverseandthelongestchapter,hemayevenhavesomeelementaryknowledgeoftheAtonement,andyethismindcanbe largely theconfusionofbuildingmaterials scatteredaround loose.Well, it isgood tohavebuildingmaterials. Indeed, theyare indispensable.But it isbetter to live in ahouse.

Contrasting with the concept of theology here maintained is the very first paragraph of TheEvangelicalFaithbyHelmutThielicke (WilliamB.Eerdmans, 1974). “Todo theology is to actualizeChristiantruth,or,better,tosetitforthinitsactualityandtounderstanditafreshthereby.Tothatextenttheologyisbynature,andnotmerelyinitspedagogicalimplications,historical.Ithasnothingtodowithtimelesstruth.Hencetherecanbenotimelessorsupertemporaltheology(theologiaperennis).”Thatanauthor,likemyself,mustunderstandtheologyafresh,ishardlyworthsaying.OfcoursemyfatherknewsometheologyandIasayoungmanhadtobeginafresh.Knowledgeisnottransmittedbyheredity.Furthermore, it goes without saying that I was influenced by my father, by the books I read, and bywhatever other factors theremay have been. But it does not follow that this “has nothing to do withtimelesstruth.”Theaimofeveryorthodoxtheologianistoarriveatsometimelesstruths.Indoingso,hemaymake somemistakes. But if he learns that God justifies somemen by the imputation of Christ’srighteousness,hehasgraspedtimelesstruth.EventhemerehistoricalstatementthatChristdiedinthefirsthalfofthefirstcenturyisatimelesstruth.Mylearningit,thepedagogicalimplicationsasThielickecallsit,doesnotmakeittemporal,relative,ordoubtful.Itisthetruth,anditisthetruthwelearn.

ButThielicke’smeaningisnotexhaustedinsuchpedagogicaltrivialities.Whathehasinmindisacompletelydifferentideaofwhattheology,oratleastChristiantheologyis.Onpage66hewrites,“Partof the intellectual honesty of adult man is that in the area of faith he will accept no truth-claim thatconflictswithscientificknowledge.”

To this we immediately reply that so-called ‘scientific knowledge’ is no fixed irrevocablediscovery. Virtually none of the physics that I was taught in my undergraduate days is now taught inphysicsclasses.Scienceistentative;itconstantlychanges.Whatistaughttodaywillbediscardedwithina decade or two. The theories of light are awell-known example of scientific change. The theory ofphlogiston isbynowforgotten.AsEinsteinhas replacedNewton, soa succeedinggeniuswill replaceEinstein – as he himself knew sowell. ThereforeThielicke’s proposal to test every theological truth-claimby thephysicsof theday is foolish. It ismore than foolish.The idea that sciencecandecide inadvancewhatGodcanandcannotreveal isutterlyunchristian.Furthermore,hisbrandingChristiansasdishonestbecausetheybelieveGodinsteadofswallowingthepresentlyheldlawsofphysicsisarrogant.

At thispoint itmayprovewise toconsider anobjection that some reviewersare sure tomakeagainstthepresentvolume.Butitisnotanobjectionthatfirstyearseminarystudentsarelikelytoraise.Theobjectionisthatsolittleattentionispaidtothegreattheologicaldevelopmentsofthelasthalfofthetwentiethcentury.Thereisverygoodreasonfortheseextensiveomissions.Brieflythereasonisthattheyhavelittletoofferin theadvancementorexplanationofBiblical theology.KarlBarthhasalreadybeencited. Ifa studentwantstoknowwhatGodsaid,thebestsourceisnotamanwhobelievesthattheapostleserredevenintheirofficialcapacityascanonicalwriters.Now,itispossibleanditistruethatonceinawhileBultmannorsomeonecancomeupwithusefulanalysesofaverseortwo.Indeedtheneo-orthodoxcommentatorsarebetterthantheoldmodernists.ThemodernistshadsomerespectfortheBible,andtheytriedtotwisttheBibletomakeitmeanwhattheybelieved.ButmenlikeBultmannarequitewillingtomakecleartheexact meaning of a verse; for though the meaning accords with historic evangelicalism, Bultmanndismissesitasmythology.Ontheotherhand,sopervasivearetheirexistentialpresuppositionsthatonemustwearilywade througha swampofnonsense to find thesegoodexamplesof exegesis. It ishardlyworththetime.

Otherauthorsareevenmoreuselessforourpurpose.Forexample,JamesH.Conehaspublishedthreevolumes,thelastbeing,GodoftheOppressed.Itisavolumeofso-calledblacktheology.Thetitleindicates and the contentmakes it certain that for him black theology and some other kind are not thesame.Thisresemblesthemedievaltheoryoftwo-foldtruth:whatistrueinphilosophyisfalseintheologyandconversely.Thatistosay,Cone’sblacktheoryresemblestwo-foldtruth,ifhewilladmitthatthereisany truth at all inwhite or yellow theology.Naturally the author is not greatly interested in theBible.Sociology,aparticularformofsociology,ishiscanon.OnthisbasisawealthyAmerican,likeAbrahamand Job, simply cannot have God’s truth. That eighteenth and nineteenth century slavery wasreprehensible,andthatinjusticeshavebeenperpetratedevensince1865,doesnotjustifythepropositionthat“anytheologianwhofailstoplacethatquestionatthecenterofhisworkhasignoredtheessenceofthegospel”(p.9).

ForustheessenceorcenterofthegospelistheAtonement;thebasisistheTrinity;thesourceandonlysourceistheBible.

Other contemporary works on theology may not be so perverted, but they are equally anti-Christian.Oneofthemwantstoreplaceverbalproclamationwithmusic.Othersaremoremystical.Butall reject theScriptureandput theirwhole trust insomeformofexperience.Since thepresentvolumeaims to give themain points of Christianity, it is only occasionally profitable to refer to theologians,better, religious philosophers, of this type.Wedo not aim to satisfy their values and assumptions; ourcontestwith them is the contest between two incompatible, antagonistic religions.Wedonot intend tocooperatewiththeminasearchforGod’smessage.Indeed,wecannotcooperatebecausetheirstartingpointandoursaredifferent.Whattheyappealto,wereject;andtheScriptureweappealto,theyreject.

Whatwecanandmustdoistopreachthemessagetothemandprayfortheirregeneration.

With these preliminary remarks onmethodology, remarks that the next chapterwill expand and

explain,remarkstoothatapplyinageneralwaytoallorthodoxtextbooksontheology,somethingaboutthepresentvolumeinparticularneedstobeadded.

Written on an elementary level, this attempt has at least two defects. First, none of the greatsubjectsreceivesadequatetreatment.Aminister’spersonallibraryshouldcontainseveralvolumesontheAtonementalone.StephenCharnock’sTheExistenceandAttributesofGodextends througha thousandpages.Andeschatologyoffersmorebooks thananyonecanbotherwith.Thebeginningstudentmaynotbelieveit,butthepresentvolumeisveryelementary.

Yetevenanelementary theologycanandought todiscusssomeopposingviews.Astudentwillnever have a satisfactory view of the Deity of Christ without knowing something about Athanasius’struggleagainstAriusandtheresultingNiceneCreed.Thisbookisnotahistoryoftheology;butwhocanwriteachapteronjustificationbyfaithwithoutpayinghisrespectstoMartinLuther,andhisdisrespectsto the Pope and the canons of Trent? Suchmaterial is not only historically interesting, it is necessarylogically. It is simply impossible to discuss the Atonement or Baptism conscientiously withoutconsidering objections and opposing views. Negative and positive are correlatives. To know whatsomething is, onemust knowwhat it is not.Acat is not adog.Anevennumber is not anodd.AndacompletelywrongideaoftheAtonementactuallyhelpsthestudentunderstandthetruth.Theseconddefectofthepresentvolumeissimilartothefirst.Tokeepthediscussiononanelementarylevel,agreatdealof,letussay,philosophyhasbeenomitted.Butbeitknownthattheologyandwhatiscommonly called philosophy are inseparable. Any discussion that eliminates philosophical problemssimply hides beneath its ambiguous lines. Most unfortunately, however, the greatest philosophicaldifficultiesoccurintheearlysectionsofabookontheology.Theretheyarerightatthestart.Thiseasilydiscourages the young student. For example, the ontological argument for God’s existence, whichAristotleformulated in less thanfourhundredwords,hasproducedmore thanfourhundredvolumesofexhaustinganalyses.Studentsmaywellskipsuchmaterialatfirst,jumpforwardtosomethingeasier,andreturntothesematterslater.Ifnewlyweds,beginnersinadultlifearebuyingahouse,theymustofcoursebeinterestedinthediningroom,thebedrooms,thekitchen,andeventhewallpaper.Andtheymaylookatthese first.But itwould not bewise to ignore the foundation, even though theymay look at it last. Inbuilding the house the foundation comes first. If buying a house already built, the examination of thebasementmaycomelast.Sotooabeginnerintheologymayconsiderthefoundationlessexcitingthanthewallpaper.Ifnecessarythenlethimskipitandstartwithsinorsalvation.HecanreturntoGodlateron.Hebetterhad!

Now, to approach the end of these introductory remarks, the author directs the reader to thenumerousScripturalquotationsinthefollowingpages.TheirpurposeisnottogiveanexhaustivelistofalltheScripturalpassagesontheparticularsubjectunderdiscussion.Itisrathertoremindthereaderofmanyothersbymeansofthequotedsamples.

The actual translationmoreor less followsageneral rule. If thequotation is simply to jog thestudentsmemory,andthisisusuallythecase,thewordswillbethoseoftheKingJamesVersion.Whenitis not theKing JamesVersion, themotivation is somepoint ofmeaning, some emphasis, that theKingJamesdidnotsufficientlybringout.

Thus endeth the Introduction.Or, better, the introductory remarks onmethodologywill now beexpandedinChapterOne.

CHAPTERONE

1.MethodsinApologetics

Basicallythereareonlythreeanswerstothequestions,HowdoyouknowthatthereisaGod,andifthereis,Whatsortofbeingishe?Thefirstanswerisexperience.Therearetwosortsofexperience,and the religious tone of their conclusions is considerably different. The first type of experience isordinarysensation:weseeablack,roundstonerollingdownaninclinedplane.

Thesecondtypeisoftencalled“religiousexperience.”Thisrangesfromfeelingsaboutmorality,RudolphOtto’sIdeaoftheHoly,tomysticvisionsandtrances.ThesecondanswertothequestionisthedictatesoftheChurch,theinfallibilityofCouncils,andsince1870theinfallibilityofthePope.ThethirdanswerisBiblicalrevelation.

Thenext chapter, under the titleGOD,will analyze the argument forGod’s existencebasedonsensoryexperience.Logicallyitfitsinbetterthere,fortheemphasiswillbeonthebeingofGodandthevalidityoftheargument,ratherthanonthenatureofthemethod;andthischapterhastodowithmethod.Mysticism,whichmaybedescribedasallmethodandnoresults,willfindaplacelaterinthischapter.SimilarlyRomanism,becauseitsmethodsandresultsintertwine,istobeconsideredhere.ButbecausetheaimofthisvolumeistoexpoundtheChristiansystempositively,usingobjectionsandcontrarytheoriesonlyforthesakeofcontrast,themethodofBiblicalrevelationisthefirsttopicofstudy.

2.TheMethodofRevelation

IfGodisthesortofGodthatChristiansbelievehimtobe,if,thatis,GodisthesortofGodwhohas planned redemption from eternity, it is prima facieunlikely that anyman could discover the factswithoutarevelation.ThisrevelationmightcomethroughthePope,oritmightcomethroughtheBible;butitisnotlikelytobediscoveredinsensationormystictrances.ButifwecanlearnoftheAtonementonlythrougharevelation,itisalsoclearthatwecanlearnwhattherevelationisonlythroughtherevelationitself.Thatistosay,revelationisselfauthenticating.Tounbelieversthissoundslikeacircularargument,andtheyaccuseChristiansofcommittingalogicalfallacyatthispoint.Yetawitnessinajurytrialswearsthathewilltellthetruth.He

1

witnessestohisowntruthfulness,notonlytothetruthoftheevidencehewillpresent,butfirstofalltothetruthofhisoath.Is thiscircular?Someonewillsay,histestimonyastothefactscanbetestedbyotherevidenceandsohisoathcanbetestedalso.Thisavoidsthecircle.Butitissometimesimpossibletotestthetruthofthewitness’sassertions.Thejurymaybelievehim,oritmaydisbelievehim;butthereisnoevidencefororagainsthistestimony.Thisisoftenthecasewithawitnessincourt.ItisalwaysthecasewithGod.ThePhariseessawJesusnailedtothecross,buttherewasnovisibleevidencethathediedforsin.Thedisciplesthemselves,insteadofdeducingthedoctrineoftheAtonement,concludedthathisclaimtobeMessiahwasfalse.Thetruthhadtoberevealed.

The prophets and the apostles were the recipients of a direct revelation.We today have theirwritings.Underoath,sotospeak:

Rom.1:9ForGodismywitness…

Rom.9:1IspeakthetruthinChrist,Idonotlie

Gal.1:20WhatIwritetoyou,look,beforeGod,Iamnotlying.

ITim.2:7Ispeakthetruth,Idonotlie.

Theysweartotellthetruth,notthewholetruth,fornotalltruthwasrevealedtothem,butthetruthnonetheless,andnothingbut the truth.TheBibleclaims tobe true. Is thiscircular? If so,how is itnotcircular when the Logical Positivists assert that a sentence is meaningless unless it is verifiable bysensory experience?Can sensation prove its truthfulness by appealing to sensation?The philosophicalissuesherewillbediscussedatslightlygreaterlengthinthenextchapter.WhatthischaptermustdoistodeterminewhatpreciselytheBibleclaimsasit takesthewitnessstand.Doesitreallytell thetruthandnothingbutthetruth?

3.TheBiblicalClaim

Nearlyeverybodywhoreadsthisbookknows,andwhenhecomestothesubjectoftheScriptures,willthinkof–

ITim.3:1617AllScriptureisinspiredofGod,andisusefulforteaching,forrefutation,forimprovement,for instruction in righteousness, that themanofGodmaybecompetent, completelyequipped foreverygoodwork.

Butevenseminarygraduates,whentheytaketheirordinationexaminations,willforgetalmostallthe restofwhat theBiblesaysabout itself.TheBiblesaysagreatdealmore thanmostpeople realizewhentheyreaditquickly.Herethenbeginsourfirst lessonintheology:WhatdoestheBiblesayaboutitselfandhowmuchdoesthisoneversetellus?

Theveryfirstwordof thisverse, theword All,introduces thedoctrineof“plenary inspiration.”Justas theword theologyis a technical term, so too the studentmust learn someother technical terms.Atonementisatechnicalterm;soisregeneration;andTrinity.Therearemanyothers,notsowellknown:incommunicable attributes, federal headship, justification, immediate imputation, the millennium. Animportant part of the learning process is the understanding of the terminology. Serious technicalterminologyisnotahindrance,itisratheragreathelpinanysubject.Iftheterm federalheadshipcouldnot be used, it would be necessary to write a paragraph every time we wanted to speak of Adam’srelationship to his posterity. If the word Trinityshould be deleted from our vocabulary, it would benecessarytorepeattheentireNiceneCreedwheneverwewantedtotalkoftheGodhead.

Now,theterm plenaryinspirationmeansthattheBibleisinspiredfrombeginningtoend:allofitis inspired. And while other verses will be quoted on this point, the word allin II Tim. 3:16 is anindisputableassertionofplenaryinspiration.

However,onemustask,Whatisitthatisinspired?Manytheologicalbooks,intheirdiscussionofrevelation,beginwiththeinspirationoftheprophetsandapostles.Now,thereisasenseinwhichtheseholymenwereinspired.EvenKingSaulwasinspiredandprophesiedononeoccasion,butwhoknowswhathesaid,andwhocouldbelieveeverythingelsehesaid?WerehisfulminationsagainstDavidtrue?NodoubtPaulhimself in someofhisdailyconversationsmademistakes.But theverseunderanalysissaysnothingatallabouttheapostles’beinginspired.LetthestudentbewarnedandnotecarefullythattheversesaysthattheScripturesareinspired.Thesubjectisnotthewriters,butthewordswritten.ThetermScripture,asanordinarywordintheGreeklanguage,meanssomethingwritten.AsatechnicaltermintheBibleitmeansthedivinewritings,theHebrewcanoninthefirstinstance,andweshallseewhetherornotitreferstotheNewTestamentaswell.

Note that the verse does not distinguish between what the writers thought and their perhapsinadequatewritten expressionof their thought.Someearly liberals, themodernists of preWorldWar I,adoptedsuchadistinctionbecauseitpermittedthemtoalterthesenseofthetextsoastoconformtowhattheythoughtGodoughttohavesaid,butdidn’t.Thismethodallowsofnocontrol.Eachpersoncanforhimself,tosuithisownpreferences,selectwhateverhewishestheapostleshadsaid;andsincetheappealistotheunknownthoughtandisnotrestrictedbytheactualwordingofthetext,oneman’salterationisasgoodasanyother’s.

However, for all IITimothy says, theapostlesmayhave thoughtnothing. In fact, sometimes thewritersdidnotthink,or,moreaccurately,theydidnotunderstandwhattheywrote.

Dan.12:8,9AndIheard,butIdidnotunderstand…Andhesaid,Gothyway,Daniel,forthewordsareshutupandsealedtillthetimeoftheend.

IPeter1:10,11 Concerningwhichsalvationtheprophetsenquiredandsearched, who prophesied about the grace [that came] to you, searchingintowhatorwhatsortoftimetheSpiritinthemmeant…

For this reason one must disagree with a contemporary theologian, popularly known as aconservative and evangelical, who wrote, “We contend for the inerrancy of the meaning which theinspired writers intended to convey in their original manuscripts.” First, the verses above show thatsometimes thewriters themselves had nomeaning to convey. Second, the subject before us is not theinspirationofthewriters,but,torepeatitforemphasis,theinspirationofwhatwaswritten.

AChristianmustinsistthatitwasthewordswrittenontheparchmentthatgodinspired.

Thedoctrinethereforeisnotonlythatofplenaryinspiration,butalsothatofverbalinspiration.

Plenaryreferstoall thewords;verbalreferstoallthewords .

So far the first twowords of II Timothy 3:16 have been discussed: “All Scripture.” Both theadjectiveandthenounhavebeenemphasized.Itisnecessarynowtogoontothethird(inGreek)wordofthisverse:“inspiredofGod.”Ofcoursetheideaofinspirationhadtooccurin

the foregoing discussion; but it was not there satisfactorily defined. Here we must ask, What isinspiration? Inspirationis really a poor word to express in English what Paul wrote in Greek. TheEnglishphrase“givenby inspirationofGod” isoneword, theopneustos.On itsmeaningnothingbettercanbequotedthanB.B.Warfield’stremendousparagraph.

“TheGreektermhas,however,nothingtosayof inspiringorof inspiration: it speaksonlyofa‘spiring’or‘spiration.’WhatitsaysofScriptureis,notthatitis‘breathedintobyGod’oristheproductoftheDivine‘inbreathing’intoitshumanauthors,butthatitisbreathedoutbyGod,‘Godbreathed,’theproductofthecreativebreathofGod….Noterm,however,couldhave

beenchosenwhichwouldhavemoreemphaticallyassertedtheDivineproductionofScripturethanthatwhichishereemployed.The‘breathofGod’isinScripturejustthesymbolofHisalmightypower,thebearerofHiscreativeword.‘BythewordofJehovah’wereadin thesignificantparallelofPsa33:6.‘were the heavensmade and all the host of them by the breath of hismouth.’…God’s breath is theirresistibleoutflowofHispower.WhenPauldeclares,then,that‘everyScripture’or‘allscripture’istheproductoftheDivinebreath,‘isGodbreathed,’heassertswithasmuchenergyashecouldemploythat

ScriptureistheproductofaspecificallyDivineoperation.” 1

ThatthewordsGodbreathedoutweretruewordsandnotfalseorerroneousmayeasilybesupposed;forGodwould not lie, would He? This result of the divine activity, however, and its purposes, will bediscussedintheanalysisofotherScripturepassages.

4.AnotherText

AlthoughIITimothy3:16is thebestknown,andforsomepeople theonlyoneremembered, theother texts on the nature ofScripture are extremely numerous and inmany casesmore compelling andinformative.Therearesomanyinfactthatnotverymanywillbegiven;anditishardtodecideinwhatorder to quote them. Itmaynot be themost logical procedure, but there is somepedagogical value inselectingthenextmostcommonlyknownverseonthesubject.

11. Peter1:20,21Knowingthisfirst,thatnoprophecyofScripturecomesthroughindividualinitiative;forprophecyneverwas

broughtbyhumanvolition,butbornebytheHolySpiritmenspokefromGod.

Peter,facingimminentdeath(v.14)wantshisaddresseestoknowthatthegospelisnotamyth(v.16).TheEnglishword fable(KJ,ARV)or tales(NAS),istheGreekword myth.Thishassomepoint inconnection with Rudolf Bultmann’s theory that the Bible is entirely mythology and needs to bedemythologized.Peterinsiststhathehadnotdevisedcleverstories,butthathereportshistoricaleventswhichhehimselfhadwitnessed,inparticulartheTransfiguration(v.

17). The Transfiguration, however, was momentary, and Christians have “the more durable (or,permanent)wordofprophecy.”Itisamisinterpretationtosaythe“morecertain”wordofprophecy,forsurelytheOldTestamentisnotmorecertainlytruethanGod’sowndeclarationinthecloud.ButtheOldTestament was written and therefore permanent. God’s voice was momentary – although it was laterwrittenintheGospels.Atanyrate,thereasonweknowwehavethemorepermanentrevelation,orbetter,thereasonweknowtheOldTestamentisarevelation,isfirstofallthatnowrittenprophecyevercamebyhuman initiative. Knowing this first,emphasizes the importance of what follows. If there are otherreasons,theyaresecondary;but firstweknowthatno“prophecyofScripture,”i.e.theprophecywrittenon the manuscript, came into existence by human initiative. The last two words in Greek are idiasepiluseōs,whichKJandRVtranslateas“privateinterpretation,”whiletheNASsays,“amatterofone’sown interpretation.” This translation, however, does not fit the context. To say that Scripture is not amatter of one’s own interpretation is not a reason why the Old Testament is a revelation. Moreparticularly thenextverse,which says thatprophecydidnot comeby thewillofman, isnot a reasonagainstprivateinterpretation.However,thedenialthatScripturewaswrittenasaresultofhumanvolitionand the assertion that itwas initiated by theHolyGhost ismost certainly a reason for translating thephraseinquestionas“nowrittenprophecyisofhumaninitiative.” Epilusiscanmeanreleaseorsolution,aswellasinterpretation.Theverbhastwomainsetsofmeanings:

(1)loose,untie,setfree,release;and(2)solve,explain,confute.Thesecondsetofmeaningsispoorforthisverse.Weshouldthereforechoosethefirst.TheprophecywasthereforereleasedbyGod,notman.Isaiahdidnotgetoutofbedonemorningandsay,Ihavedecidedtowritesomepropheciestoday.Onthecontrary,godpickedIsaiahoutofbedandcarriedhimalong;andso

Ezek.3:4

Jer.1:9

5.AdditionalVersesNum.23:5

Deut.18:18

supported, Isaiah spokewords fromgod.Nothingcanbe clearer thanv.21, “Forprophecywasneverbroughtbyhumanvolition,butholymen,broughtalongbytheHolyGhost,spokefromGod.”

EmphasishasbeenlaidonthefactthatthewordswritteninScripturearethewordsofGod.Sincethis is so clear, it may be acknowledgedwithout reluctance that the prophets and apostles were alsoinspired,especiallytheOldTestamentprophets.Notalltheirconversationswereinspired,butwhattheyfirst spoke and thenwrote down byGod’s commandwas.Many verses referring to them support thepreviousconclusions,andsincetheyhardlyneedanyexplanation,justafewwillbequoted.

AndJehovahputawordinBalaam’smouth,andsaid,ReturnuntoBalakandthusshaltthouspeak.

Iwill raise themupaprophet… likeunto thee;andIwillputmywordsinhismouth.

I Sam. 23:2TheSpirit of Jehovah spake byme,andhiswordwasuponmytongue.

Then Jehovahput forth his hand and touchedmymouth;andJehovahsaiduntome,Behold,Ihaveputmywordsinthymouth.(cf.9:12,13:15,30:4,50:1).

Andhesaiduntome,go,gettheuntothehouseofIsrael, and speakmy words unto them. (cf. 3:1,11).

Inadditiontothesepointedexpressionstherearemoreversesthatcanbequoted,whichsay,ThussaiththeLord,ThewordoftheLordcameuntome,orphrasestothesameeffect.

FromtheNewTestamentthreeverseswillnowbequotedbecausetheyareveryclearastowhattheBibleclaimstobe.

Acts1:16 Brethren,itwasneedfulthatthescriptureshouldbefulfilled,whichtheHolyGhostspakebeforebythemouthofDavid.

Acts3:1821ButthethingswhichGodforeshowedbythemouthofallthe

prophets, that his Christ should suffer, he thusfulfilled.…Jesus,whomtheheavenmustreceiveuntil the times of the restoration of all things,whereof God spake by the mouth of his holyprophetsthathavebeenfromofold.

Acts4:25OLord…whobytheHolySpirit,bythemouthofourfatherDavidthyservant,didstsay,WhydidtheGentilesrage…

These verses in Acts are unambiguous. One need not draw inferences or go to any length ininterpretingthem–thoughinferenceandinterpretationarealwayslegitimate–theysayexplicitlythatGodspokethroughthemouthsof theOldTestamentprophets.ThewordswhichissuedfromDavid’smouth,andwhichhewroteinthesecondPsalm,wereGod’swords.

Somedevouttheologianofanearliercentury,whohadatouchofthepoeticabouthim,usedafluteasapicturesque illustration.DavidandMoseswere likea flute,andGodblewnotes (words) throughthem.Unbelievershaveobjectedbothtothisillustrationandtothedoctrineofverbalinspirationonthegeneral ground that they conflict with the inviolability of human personality and with the obviousdifferencesinliterarystyleinMoses,David,andIsaiah.Now,itisalwaysunwisetotakeillustrationstooseriouslyandtopressthembeyondtheirfunctionofliteraryembellishment.Nevertheless,thisillustrationisnot toobad; and so far as thedoctrineofverbal inspiration is concerned the following rejoinder issufficientforthecritics’objection.

First,humanpersonalityisnotinviolableasthesecriticsthink.

Ex.4:11,15Whomademan’smouth?Orwhomadehimdumbordeaf,orseeingorblind?IsitnotItheLord?…IevenIwillbewithyourmouthandhis[Aaron’s]mouth,andIwillteachyouwhatyouaretodo.

ThedoctrineofGodandofthecreationofman,inwhichGod’sroleisthatofapottermakingaclaypot to suit his ownchoice–doctrines thatmust bediscussed in later chapters – show that everyman’spersonalityiscontrolledbyGod.Mandidnotmakehimself,nordoeshecontrolhimself.Second,neithertheillustrationnortheliteraltruthconflictswiththeobviousstylisticdifferencesbetweenMosesandDavid. If amusician blowsB flat on a flute, the note isB flat; if he blowsB flat on an oboe ortrumpet,thenoteisstillBflat,butthetonalqualityis

different.SimilarlyGodcanspeaktruth throughMosesandalso throughDavid–doesnotGodalwaysspeakthetruth?–buttheliterarystyleconformstotheinstrumentused.Andwhynot?ItisGodwhomadetheinstrumenttosuithispurposes.IfGodwantsamanwhohashadexperiencewithsheep,henotonlycallssuchaman,hefirstcreatedandtrainedDavidandAmosassuch.WhenGodneededsomeonewithexecutiveability,hesavedthelifeoflittleMoses,raisedhiminPharaoh’scourt,andeventuallyMosesusedtheliterarystyleGodwantedandadministeredtheaffairsofanewnation.

6.NewVersusOldTestament

Throughtheseinstruments,musicalorotherwise,Godbreathesout thenotesof truth.Beforethematteroftruthisfurtheremphasized,thereisanothermatterthatshouldnotbeleftdangling.MostofthediscussionsofarhasreferredtotheOldTestament.EventhemaintwoversesfromtheNewTestamenthavetodowiththeOld.WhenPaulsays,“AllScripture,”doeshenotmeantheJewishcanon?SimilarlydoesnotPeterhavetheOldTestamentinmindwhenhesays,“Nowrittenprophecy evercamebyhumaninitiative”?

Yet the unbelievers show themselves awkward if they press this as an objection against theinspirationoftheNewTestament.TheregularliberalpositionisthattheNewisanimprovementovertheOld. TheOld, they say, describes aGod ofwrath; theNew gives us aGod of love. Themorality ofAbrahamandDavidleftsomethingtobedesired.TheSermonontheMountexpressedthehighestmoralprinciples thathadeveryetbeenheard.But if so,would itnot follow that theNewTestament ismoreinspiredthantheOld?Certainlynotless.OfcoursetheliberaldenythateitherTestamentisinspiredintheBiblical sense of plenary and verbal inspiration. But they have no ground for asserting that the NewTestamentclaimsareinferiortotheOld.Ifsomeliberalwrylyreply,ItisoneoftheimprovementsoftheNewTestamentthatitdoesnotmaketheoutrageousclaimstheOldTestamentdoes,theChristianmeetshimwithasubstantiveexaminationofwhatpreciselytheNewtestamentclaims.

One of the best books on inspiration is Theopneustiaby Louis Gaussen (17901863), a Swisstheologianwhowascensured,suspended,anddeposedbyhisunbelievingcolleagues.B.B.Warfieldmaybebetterinseveralrespects,butnostudentlearnsverymuchaboutinspiration

unlesshereadsoneofthesetwoauthors.InhonoroftheSwissreformedauthortherefollowheresomepassagesfromhissectionentitled,AlltheScripturesoftheNewTestamentareProphetic.

“ThewholetenorofScriptureplacesthewritersoftheNewTestamentinthesamerankwiththeprophetsoftheOld….InthelifetimeoftheapostlesthebookoftheNewTestament

wasalreadyalmostentirelyformed,inordertomakeonewholetogetherwiththeOld.ItwastwentyorthirtyyearsafterthedayofPentecostthatSt.PeterfeltgratifiedinreferringtoALLTHEEPISTLESOFPAUL,hisbelovedbrother,andspokeofthemassacredwritingswhich,evensoearlyashistime,formedpart of the Holy Letters ( hierōn grammatōn),and behoved to be classed with THE OTHERSCRIPTURES ( hōs kai tas loipas graphas).He assigns to them the same rank, and declares thatunlearnedmencanwrestthembuttotheirowndestruction.

Markthisimportantpassage:‘OurbelovedbrotherPaulalsoaccordingtothewisdomgiventohimhathwrittenuntoyou;asalso INALLHISEPISTLES, speaking in themof these things; inwhichare somethings hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also theOTHERSCRIPTURES,untotheirowndestruction.’(IIPeter3:13,16.)

“Theapostle,atthesecondverseofthesamechapter,hadalreadyplacedhimself,alongwiththeother apostles, on the same rank, and assumed the same authority, as the sacred writers of the OldTestament,whenhesaid,‘ThatyemaybemindfulofthewordswhichwerespokenBEFOREbytheholyPROPHETS,andofthecommandmentOFUStheAPOSTLESoftheLordandSavior.’”

InsteadoffurtherquotationsfromGaussen,whomeverystudentshouldreadforhimself,therenowfollowsomeverseswhichGaussenusestoshowthattheNewTestamentisnotmerelyonalevelwiththeOld,butsuperiortoit,notthatitistruerormoreinspired,butthatitcompletesandfulfillstheOld.

Matt.28:1920

Acts1:8

John20:21

Go ye therefore and teach all nations … teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I havecommandedyou;and,lo,Iamwithyoualway,evenuntotheendoftheworld.Butyeshallreceivepower,aftertheHolyGhostiscomeuponyou;andyeshallbemywitnesses…

AsmyFatherhathsentme,evensosendIyou.

IICor.5:20WeareambassadorsforChrist,asthoughGoddidbeseech

you by us; we pray you in Christ stead, be yereconciledtoGod.

Luke10:16Hethathearethyou,hearethme;andhethatdespisethyou,

despisethme;andhethatdespisethme,despisethhimthatsentme.

TheseareonlyfiveofthesomefortyversesGaussenusestoshowthattheNewTestamentisasmuchthewordofGodasistheOld.AndastheOldsaysthatGodputhiswordsintothemouthsoftheprophets,wecansaynolessaboutthewordsoftheapostles.

7.TheClaimtoTruth

Now thatGaussenhas shownbothTestaments tobe equally inspired, it is time to return to thequestionof truth.Oneof course can argue: theScriptures are thewordsofGod,Godalways tells thetruth,thereforetheScripturesareinerrant.SuchanargumentcouldwellbeputinthenextchapteronthenatureofGod.ButsincethenatureofGodisdiscoveredonlyinScriptureandnotinreligiousexperience,agoodmethodologyrequiresthetruthoftheScripturestobeputfirst.ThereforeinsteadofdeducingthetruthofGod’swordsfromthecharacterofGod,theexplicitclaimsofScripturewillbequoted.Therearemanysuchverses,anditisnotobvioushowmanyshouldbequotedandhowextensivelytheyshouldbeexplained.Theyvary inweightandapplication to the subjectathand.Somearedefiniteanduniversalassertions; others are less basic and apply to just one book or one speech, though they are useful assupportingevidence.Asasample,andtogetthemoutofthewayfirst,hereareafewlessdefiniteverses.SinceJohn,bothintheGospelandinhisepistles,emphasizestruth,thislistcomesentirelyfromJohn.

John1:14AndtheWordwasmadeflesh…fullofgraceandtruth.

John1:17GraceandtruthcamebyJesusChrist.

John4:23ThetrueworshippersshallworshiptheFatherinspiritandintruth.

John8:31Ifyecontinueinmyword,thenareyemydisciplesindeed.

John8:40 Nowye seek tokillme, aman thathath toldyou the truth,whichIhaveheardofGod.

John14:6Iamtheway,thetruth,andthelife.

John14:17EventheSpiritofTruth.

John16:7Nevertheless,Itellyouthetruth.

John17:19Andfortheirsakes,Isanctifymyself,thattheyalsomightbesanctifiedthroughthetruth.

John18:37TothisendwasIborn…thatIshouldbearwitnessuntothetruth.

Everyonethatisofthetruthhearethmyvoice.

ThesecondverseonthislistcanstandalittleexplanationandwillleadontoversesthatapplymorestrictlytotheinerrancyofallScripture.John1:17says,“ForthelawwasgivenbyMoses,butgraceandtruthcamebyJesusChrist.”FromthissomeonemightconcludethatMosessaidnothingofgraceandthatnothinghesaidwasthetruth.Butthelastnineversesofchapterfivesay:

SearchtheScriptures,foryouthinkyouhaveeternallifeinthem;andtheyaretheywhichtestifyofme….IcomeinmyFather’sname,andyoudonotreceiveme….Howcanyou

believe?…ForhadyoubelievedMoses,youwouldhavebelievedme,forhewroteofme.Butifyoudonotbelievehiswritings,howshallyoubelievemywords?

Thisisamost importantpassage,firstforstatingtheBible’sclaimabout itself,andsecond,forshowingChrist’s view of theOldTestament. The Pharisees professed to believe the Scriptures. Theymisinterpreted them, but since they claimed to revere Moses, Christ appeals to him. Christ does sobecauseMosestestifiedofhim.ThoughthePhariseesrecognizedsomepropheciesasMessianic,theyhadmissedmanyothers,andappliednoneatalltoJesus.ButasheshowedlatertothetwodisciplesontheroadtoEmmaus,theOldTestamentisfullofChrist.HerethestudentwoulddowelltomakealistofalltheNewTestamentpassagesthatinterpretspecificversesintheOld.TheseversesaccusethePhariseestotheFather;forhadtheybelievedMoses,theywouldhavebelievedJesus.HereJesusidentifiesMosesastheauthorofthePentateuch.ThereisnohintthatthosefivebooksareacompilationoftheBabylonianera.Moseswrote them: “hewrote ofme.” If a person does not believeMoses’ writings,how can hebelieveChrist’swords?ThehardlydisguisedpresuppositionisthatbothMosesandJesusspokethetruth.

There are other verses also that assert the inerrancy of all Scripture. Here are two: one fromMatthewthatcallsfornocomment,andonefromJohnagain,towhichacommentwillbeadded.

Matt.5:18 Untilheavenandearthpassaway,neitherasingleiotanorasingleserifshallpassawayfromtheLawuntileverythingbefulfilled.

John10:35TheScripturecannotbebroken.

ThecommentonthisverseismotivatedbythefactthatmanyChristianshaveahighregardforthePsalms,butnosomuchforIIChroniclesorthepropheciesofNahumandZephaniah.Forthisreasontheremaybea latent thought thatperhaps thePsalmsare indeedinspiredbutmaybenot theothers,ornotsomuch.Christ’sargument,however,doesnotdependontheexcellenceofthePsalms.It istheotherwayaround.ChristdeducestheauthorityofthePsalmsfromthatoftheotherbooks,thewholeOldTestament.ItisnotthatPsalm82issuperiortoJoborLamentations.ThepsalmtellsthetruthbecausetheLawinitsentiretycannotbebroken.ThePsalmisapartoftheJewishcanon:“ItiswritteninyourLaw.”NotethatthetermLawdoesnotreferonlytothePentateuch,buttothePsalmsaswell,tothewholeOldTestament.Thewholeisinviolate:itcannotbebrokenatanypoint.

AfinalversefromJohn’sGospelis:

John17:17Sanctifythembythetruth.Thywordistruth.

TherecanhardlybeasimplerorclearerversethanthistoshowthatthewordsGodbreathedontothemanuscriptare true.Althoughonlya fractionof thepassagesGaussenusedhavebeenquotedhere,these,withthis lastone,areasufficientbasisfor thedoctrineofplenaryandverbal inspiration.God’swordistruth.

8.IstheClaimTrue?

Unbelievers, however, will quickly say that even if these verses are so understood, they onlyexpresstheclaimtheBiblemakes.Theydonotprovetheclaim.

In reply many contemporary Christians point with pride to the astounding archaeologicaldiscoveriesofthiscenturywhichsupportthehistoricalaccuracyofvariousBiblepassages.Indeed,thesecorroborationsoftheBiblicalaccountareoftenamazing.Oneofthemostcrushing

defeatsadministeredtotheliberalshadtodowiththeHittitenation.Thedefeatoccurredsomeseventyfiveyearsagonow,so that it isno longer freshnewsfor the frontpageofanewspaper;but itwassotremendousthatitmustneverbeforgotten.InthenineteenthcenturytherewasnoevidencethataHittitenationeverexisted,exceptforthestatementsintheBible.AndtheBiblepicturesthemasanationexistingfromGenesistoNehemiah–aperiodoffifteenhundredyears.Now,isitnotstrangethatanation,if itenduredsolong,shouldhaveleftnorecord,nomonuments,notraceofitself–exceptintheBible?Well,theBible,saythecritics,isanhistoricalnovel,andabadonetoo,fortheauthorsreallyknewnothingoftheearlieragesandsimplyimaginedwhattheyneededfortheirstory.SincenoevidencecorroboratestheBible, it follows by rigorous logic (does it not?) that the Hittites never existed. Today an ambitiousstudentcangototheOrientalInstituteinChicago,learntheHittitelanguage,andtranslatethebooksthatwereintheHittitelibraries.

More recently, on a smaller scaleby far, yet considerably embarrassing for dedicated liberals,wasadiscoverymadein1962.ThecriticshadarguedthatMosescouldnothavewrittenExodusbecausethe bookmentions a seven stemmed lamp; and seven stemmed lampswere not invented until the latePersianEmpire.TheBible,yousee,isanhistoricalnovel,writtenwithoutaknowledgeofthetimesitissupposed todescribe.Butnow there isondisplayasevenstemmed lamp thatdates fromfivehundredyearsbeforeAbraham, a thousandyearsbeforeMoseswrote thebookofExodus.SpeakingofMoses,Christwasright,andthecriticswerewrong.

However, though archaeology is an intriguing subject, and though a Christian worker ought toknow a large number of these gratifying results, archaeology, so far as the inerrancy of the Bible isconcerned,isseriouslydefective.Inthefirstplace,ifarchaeologycouldshowthatthehistoryoftheBiblewerecorrectinahundredinstances,thiswouldnotproveittobealwayscorrect.J.B.Bury’s HistoryofGreece,nottomentionGrote’smultivolumework,maybeaccuratemostofthetime;yetitispossible,andlikely,andevencertain,thattheyaremistakenonsomepoints.Inthesecondplace,archaeologyatbestcancorroborateonlyhistoricalassertions.Thedoctrinalmaterial,whichmakestheBibleareligiousandaChristianbook,cannotbededucedfromanobservationofbrokenpotteryandrustyweapons.

Infact,theresimplyisnopossibilityofdemonstratingtheBible’sinfallibility.

9.Axioms

Students are supposed to study geometry inHigh School. In doing geometry the student shouldlearnwhatademonstrationis,andwhenitislegitimatetoputQ.E.D.afteranargument.Ifthecourseisbetter thanusual, the student learns that the theoremsaredemonstratedon thebasisof axioms.But theaxiomsareneverdemonstrated.Everyargument,everysystemofthought,whetherthesubjectisgeometry,botany,orsociology,mustbeginsomewhere;butbecause thebeginning is thebeginning, itcannothavebeenprecededbyademonstration.

TakeforexamplethephilosophyofAristotleandJohnLocke.Bothofthesemenassumedthatallknowledgeisbasedonsensoryexperience.Butitcansensoryexperiencedemonstratethatthesolesourceof knowledge is sensory experience? Logical Positivism, amoremodern andmore advanced form ofempiricism,asserts thatanysentence(particularlymetaphysicalandtheologicalsentences) isnonsense,that is, has nomeaning, if it is not verifiable by sensation. But has sensation, even themost intricatelaboratoryexperimentation,eververifiedthe truthof thisbasicassumption?It issimplyimpossibleforsensationtoverifytheprinciplethatmeaningdependsonsensation.Soitiswithallbasicassumptions.Becausetheyarebasicandfirst,theycanneverbeverifiedordemonstrated.

Yet every system of philosophy depends on a basic assumption, or itwould never get started.ThereforetheunbelievercannotobjectonprincipletoaChristianwhochoosesabasicassumption.ItisatleastaslegitimatefortheChristiantochoosetheBibleashisbasicassumptionasfortheempiricisttochooseexperience.

This procedure, whichmay seem strange to someChristianswho never studied geometry, andoutrageoustounbelieverswhoholdtenaciouslytotheirownfaithbutdenyChristianstherighttotheirs,was well outlined in theWestminster Confession of Faith. This document, in which themost learnedtheologiansof theseventeenthcenturymoreaccuratelysummarizedthemainteachingsof theBiblethananyonebeforeorsince,speaksasfollows.

“TheauthorityoftheHolyScriptures,forwhichitoughttobebelievedandobeyed,dependethnotuponthetestimonyofanymanorChurch,butwhollyuponGod(whoistruthitself)theauthorthereof;andtherefore,istobereceived,becauseitisthewordofGod.

15

“WemaybemovedandinducedbythetestimonyoftheChurchtoanhighandreverendesteemoftheHolyScripture,andtheheavenlinessofthematter,theefficacyofthedoctrine,themajestyofthestyle,theconsentofallparts…;yet,notwithstanding,ourfullpersuasionandassuranceoftheinfallibletruthanddivineauthoritythereof,isfromtheinwardworkoftheHolySpirit,bearingwitnessbyandwiththewordinourhearts”(I,4,5).

IsitnotmostwrongheadedtobasethetruthoftheBible,allthedoctrinesofgrace,andourhopeofheaven,ontheworkofMissKenyonandDr.Albright?

10.ThePope

Atthispointsomeonemightremark,perhapsaRomanCatholic,ifindeedtheremarkfitsinwiththeirtheology,thatsofarasaselfauthenticatingsourceofrevelationisconcerned,thePopeislogicallyasgood as the Bible. The Pope can swear to his own truthfulness; his encyclicalsmake their claims toinfallibility;andtheyprovidethecontentnecessarytoarecognizablereligion.ToknowGod,revelationisindubitablyneeded;butwhyshouldnottherevelationcomethroughhisHoliness,PopeJulius?

Thisisacase,however,wherethewitnessonthestandmustfaceexternalevidence.HistorydoesnotinclineonetotakethePopesasholymenofGodbornealongbytheHolyGhost.Furthermore,thereisanembarrassinglogicaldifficulty.IfthePopesclaimedselfauthenticationandnothingmore,theirpositionwould be better. But they also claim that the Bible is infallible. This causes an insuperable logicaldifficultywhen it becomes clear that their encyclicals contradictwhat theBible teaches. Someof thiscontradictionwillbebroughttolightinthenextfewpages,andfortherestfurtherstudiesintheologywillbesufficient.WeshallthereforeimmediatelycontrastwhattheBiblesaysaboutitselfwithwhatthePopesays.

TheBiblical positionmaintains not only that the Scripture is the truth, as has now beenmadeclear,butalso that there isnoother sourceof truth.Romanismandat least someAnglicans (Lutheransalsowith reference to somedetailsofworship)hold that tradition somehowcompletes theScriptures.TheCouncilofTrent,whosedecreesremaintilltodaythemainstatementofRomanreligion,initsfourthsession,stated:

“Thegospel…ofourLordJesusChrist…firstpromulgatedwithhisownmouth…[theSynodofTrent] seeingclearly that this truth anddiscipline are contained in thewrittenbooks and theunwrittentradition…whichhavecomedowntous…receivesandvenerateswithanequalaffectionofpietyandreverenceall thebooksbothof theOldandof theNewTestament…as also the said traditions…Ifanyone receives not … and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid, let him beanathema.”

This statement puts unwritten tradition on a level with the words of Scripture. In practice,however, the Pope is superior to both, for he claims to interpret both infallibly.Before the Popewasdeclaredinfallible,thetheorywasthattheCouncilswereinfallible.Nodoubttheyremainso.Inanycase,RomanismdoesnotdependontheScripturealone,butratheronthelivingvoiceofthechurch.ThusontheauthorityofthechurchtheimmaculateconceptionofMaryandherassumptionintoheavenaremadebindingdogmas.

Latersomeattentionwillbepaidtosuchdogmas,atleasttotheRomishviewoftheAtonementand Justification. The claim that the Apostles transferred their full powers to the Popes as theirsuccessors,includingsomepowerstheApostlesthemselvesneverclaimedtohave,isamatterofinterestand importance.But not toget lost inother issues, thepoint here takenup is theScripture as the solesourceoftruth.ThispointisexpressedclearlyinDeuteronomy.

Deut.4:2 YoushallnotaddtothewordwhichIcommandyou,neithershallyousubtractfromit.

Deut.5:32 YoushallobservetodothereforeastheLordyourGodhascommandedyou;youshallnotturnasidetotherighthandortotheleft.

Deut.12:32WhatthingsoeverIcommandyou,thatshallyouobservetodo;youshallnotaddtheretonordiminishfromit.

Deut.17:11,20andDeut.28:14saythesamething.

Isa.1:12Whenyoucometoappearbeforeme,whohasrequiredthisatyourhand?

TheversesfromDeuteronomyareasexplicitaswordscanbe.TheysaythatinworshippingGod,hisservantsarenottoaddceremoniestowhatiscommanded,noraretheytoomitanythingthatGodhascommandedthem.ThecontextinIsaiahgivessomedetails.AlthoughtheseIsraelitesweredesecratingthesacrificesandprayersbyengaginginthemwhiletheywerepollutedingrosssins,theversequotedshowsthatGodrequirescertainthings,anditfurtherimpliesthatifGoddoesnotrequireacertainservice,itisnottobeperformed.WearetodowhatGodhasrequired.Butifwemakethesignofthecross,genuflect,observe lent andGoodFriday, or anything else thatGod has not commanded, hewill denounce us bysaying,Whohasrequiredthisnonsensefromyou?

Theversewithwhichthisstudyofinspirationbeganalsoimpliesthesamething.

13. Tim.3:16,17AllScriptureisinspiredofGod,andisprofitablefordoctrine…thatthemanofGodmaybeabletomeetall

demands ( artios),completely equipped for everygoodwork.

If, now, theScripture equips us completely for everygoodwork, and if theScripture doesnotcommandustopraytoMaryortowalkonourkneesacrosstheplazainGuadalupetothecathedralorsuch like things, we may be assured that God detests our doing them. John Gill, a learned Baptisttheologianoftheeighteenthcentury,wroteseveralpagesonthissubjectinhisBodyofDivinity.Hereisasmallexcerptthatoverlapsthepresentpoint.

“ Seventhly,Thismaybearguedfromthesufficiencyofthemtoanswertheendsandpurposesforwhich they are written: as for doctrine,for reproof,for correction,and for instruction inrighteousness(IITim.3:16).Theyaresufficientlyprofitableandusefulfordoctrine.Thereisnospiritualtruth,norevangelicaldoctrine,butwhat theycontain.Theyarecalled the Scriptures of truth,not onlybecause theycomefromtheGodof truth,andwhatsoever is in themis truth,but theycontain all truth,which theSpiritofGod, thedictatorof them,guides into,and thatbymeansof them(seeDan.10:21,John16:13).Everydoctrineistobeconfirmedandestablishedbythem…Everydoctrineproposedbymen,totheassentofothers,isnotimmediatelytobecredited;butistobetriedandproved,andjudgedofbytheholyScriptures,whicharetobesearched,astheywerebytheBereans,toseewhetherthosethingsbesoorno.”

SomeotherdeviationsfromtheBiblearethese:TheBibleprohibitstheuseofgravenimagesinworship, not only in the second commandment but also by implication inActs 19. TheBible teachesjustificationbyfaithalone,anddoesnotcondoneflagellation.Marriageisnotregardedasasacrament;theBiblepermitsdivorce;whichtheRomanchurchforbids,onlytoopenanescapehatchinannulments.Inthiscenturyweseeanewdevelopment.LikethedecadentProtestantswhodenytheMosaicauthorshipof thePentateuch, theRomanists, inanew translationof theBible, TheNewAmericanBible(with aNihil Obstatand Imprimatur),advocate the documentary of JEDP theory. Its introduction to thePentateuchsays, “Thegrandeurof thishistoric sweep is the resultofacarefulandcomplex joiningofseveralhistoricaltraditionsorsources.Theseareprimarilyfour:thesocalledYahwist,Elohist,Priestly,and Deuteronomic strands that run through the Pentateuch. … Each of these individual traditionsincorporatesmucholdermaterial.TheYahwistwashimself a collector and adaptor.…This is not todenytheroleofMosesinthedevelopmentofthePentateuch.Itistruewedonotconceivehimtobetheauthorof thebooksin themodernsense…”NorinChrist’ssense,either;for“Moses…wroteofme.”ChristsaidtheywereMoses’writings.Butinthisdocumentarytheory,whileMosesmayhavehada“role…inthedevelopmentofthePentateuch,”heisnotsupposedtohavewrittenmuchorevenwrittenatall.

ThedenigrationofScriptureisalsofoundinthenotesofthisversion.OnGen.6:14itsays,“Thisisapparentlyafragmentofanoldlegendthathadborrowedmuchfromancientmythology.”Theaccountof the flood in the followingchapters is called“an intricatepatchwork.”Andall this is assertedeventhoughthereisnoextantmanuscriptofanyoftheseallegedsourcedocuments,noranymentionofsuchintheancient literature.TheOldTestamentmentions thebookof Jasher;andHerodotusmentionsThales,whoseworkshaveallvanished;butthereisnoevidenceforaYahwistorElohistoraredactortomakethepatchwork.

The notes on the New Testament are not so radical; but John’s Gospel is also pictured as apatchworkofseveralauthors,andtheauthenticityoftheprisonepistles,IIPeter,andRevelationisatleastcalled intoquestion.However, if thePope is infallible,hecanestablishdoctrineonhisownauthority,andtheinfallibilityoftheBiblewillnotbemissed.

Thisideaisclearlyexpressedinapamphletdesignedfordistributionamongthelaity.TheBibleTodaybyFrederickL.Moriarty,S.J.(LiguorianPamphletsandBooks,bytheRedemptoristFathers,withtheImprimaturofJosephCardinalRitter,FifthPrinting,June1872)saysthis:

“However,onhearingthatsomesectionsoftheOldTestamentarenowconsideredbyscholarstobeparablesordramaticpoems,insteadofstricthistory,someCatholicsmayfeeluneasyandask:‘WhatdoesthisdototheNewTestament?Howfaristhistruehistory?WehavehearddoubtsexpressedaboutthestoryoftheMagiandtherealappearanceofanangeltoMaryattheannunciation.’

“This isagoodquestionandwewilltrytosettleitasbestwecan,ButwemustalwaysrememberthatnoCatholicneedbefearfulordisquietedbythenewadvancesinScripturestudy.GodhasleftHisChurchonearth as the guardian and authentic interpreter of the Scriptures. He has promised her the unfailingguidanceoftheHolySpirituntiltheendoftime.TheChurchwillneverletusbeledastrayinmattersthatconcernoursalvation.”

11.Perspicuity

InoppositiontothisdegradingtheBibletosecondplace,subjecttotheauthenticinterpretationofRome, there is another point in Reformation theology that needs emphasis. This is often called theperspicuityofScripture.TheRomanchurchhaslongopposedthetranslationoftheBibleintothecommonlanguages, though its ability to do so has been curtailed in this century, and has condemned BibleSocietiesfordistributingtheScripturesamongthelaity.ButtheReformersarguedthattheScriptureswereaddresses to “ allthat be in Rome;” that is, to the members of the congregations. Paul addressed theCorinthianletters:

ICor.1:2UntothechurchofGodwhichisatCorinth,tothosesanctifiedbyChristJesus,calledtobesaints,with allwhocalluponthenameofourLordJesusChristineveryplace.

I Cor. 1:1To the church of God which is inCorinth,withallthesaintsthatareinallAchaia.

TheScripturesweredefinitelynot restricted toanauthoritativehierarchy, for theBereansweremorenoblethansomeothersbecausetheysearchedtheScripturetoseewhetherwhatPaulhimselfhadpreachedwastrue.Thenextwordsare,“Thereforemanyofthembelieved.”TheirsearchingtheScriptureconvincedthem.

ItshouldnotneedtobesaidthattherearesomethingsinPaul’sepistleshardtobeunderstood.Norneed itbedenied that theservantsofSatanwrest theScripture to theirowndestruction.And it isagreedthatareadingofknowledgeofGreekandHebrewismosthelpful.Butnotewell,theepistleswereaddressed topeoplewhohad less thanagoodhigh schooleducation.Someof themcouldnot readorwrite,andhadtohavetheirfriendsreadPaul’sletterstothem.MorestudiouspeopleareunderobligationtoexplaintheScripturetothoselesseducated;butthelatterareunderobligationtosearchandstudyandseewhetherornottheexplanationsarecorrect.Again,werefertotheinitialverseofIITim.3:1617.AllScripture is profitable for theman ofGod, anyman ofGod, andwemust read it becausewe all canunderstandsomeofit.

12.TheMethodofExperience

Thequestionswithwhichthischapterstartedwere:HowdoweknowthereisaGod;andifthereis,whatsortofabeingishe?OneanswerwasBiblicalrevelation;thesecondanswerwasthePopeorCouncils.Thethirdanswerlistedatthestartwasexperience.Butunderthisheadingtherearetwogroupsofpeople,orperhapsthreegroups,for thefirstcanbesubdivided.Thefirstof thetwosubdivisionsisrepresentedbest by themajor philosopher,ThomasAquinas.Heused the basic thought ofAristotle toconstruct an argument that beganwith the simplest sensation and by unimpeachable and demonstrativereasoningcame to theconclusion thatGodexists.Thiscosmologicalargumentwillbediscussed in thenextchapter.Thesecondsubdivisionof thefirstgroupdiffersfromthefirst,not inanybasicappeal toexperience,butinwideningtheconceptofexperience,withtheresultthatthesethinkersarenotsosurethattheyhavereallydemonstratedGod’sexistencewiththelogicalnecessitythatAquinasclaims.

For example, in Experience and GodJohn E. Smith forcibly repudiates the restriction of“experience”tosensoryperception.Hisreasonisthatpurelysensoryempiricismleadsto

subjective idealism. After the time of Aquinas the British empiricists, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume,showedthatifknowledgeisbasedon“experience”alone,therecanbenoknowledgeotherthanimagesinthe individual mind. Smith therefore wishes to extend experience to include something other thansensationandperception.Experience,hesays,isencounter;itisobjective,notsubjective;itisacriticalproductoftheintersectionbetweenrealityandaselfconsciousbeing.Experiencedoesnotresideuniquelyinthepersonwhohasit. Indeed,experienceisnotmentalatall(p.36); ithasasocialcharacter.“Theexperienceofbeingaselfdistinctfromaworldofeventsandotherselvesisitselfanevent,andonethatisusuallyaccompaniedbyashock”(p.32).

Thepresentwritercannotrecallanysuchshock.Heseemsalwaystohaverealizedthathewasnotthe little boywho lived next door. Perhaps before this is called unusual, a poll should be taken. Thepresentwriteralsoremembersbeinghitbyabaseballbatatanearlyage,asthebatterslungthebatandran for first. The game was no doubt a social situation, but the hurt and bruise were private andindividual.So,too,whenthelawrequiredvaccinationagainstsmallpox,thedoctorvaccinatedthislittleboy;hedidnotvaccinatethesocialsituation.

Therearefurtherdifficulties.Evenif“experience”isbroadenedbeyondsensation,andiscalledencounter,there is no guarantee that it escapes the subjective idealism of the former. The termencountermayseemtoescapesubjectivismbecauseitconnotesanencounterwithReality.ButdoesnotperceptionalsoconnoteaperceptionofReality?Whatinformationdoesanencounterwithatreegiveusthataperceptiondoesnot?Whatisthereabouttheterm encounterthatpreventsitsbeinganalyzedintosubjective states of mind? What does the word mean? Professor Smith leaves a gap between his“experience” and any object, whether it be a tree or God. He provides no continuity between hisundefinedexperienceandhisassertionoftherealityofareligiousobject.NeitherthebeingofaGodnortheobligationofanymoralnormscanbederivedfromtheencounter.

Insteadofjustifyingrealobjectsandnorms,theauthorasserts,reiterates,andbegsthequestion.Forexample,“ToignorethereligiousdimensionsofexperienceinfavorofawhollydogmaticapproachtoGodthroughrevelationisanerror”(p.64).Butwhyanerror?Couldnotdogmaticrevelationitselfbethereligiousdimensionofexperience?Thenhecontinues,“The

attempt topresentGodasabeingwhobreaks into theworldandhuman lifeentirely abextra throughsheer selfdisclosuremust always fail to convey to thewouldbebeliever aproperunderstandingofhisbelief.”Justwhatthewords“entirely abextra”areintendedtomeanisdifficulttosay.Butwhy mustthesheerdisclosureofaverbalrevelation alwaysfail toconveyaproperunderstanding?Thisonesentencebegsthequestionthreetimesover.Tosupportthe“always”theauthorhasnottakenthepollpreviouslysuggested.Nor has he shown howhe can justify his notion ofwhat is “proper.”AndwouldAbrahamagree with the “must”? If the author believes Abraham to have been deceived or without properunderstanding,somethingmoreisneededthanthesheerstatement,“Thisisanerror.”

TodoProfessorSmithjustice,onemustreportthatheacknowledgesagapbetweenhisstartandhisconclusions.Itisimpossible,heagrees,toderiveanypositivereligionfromthe“religiousdimensionofexperience.”Thisleavesunsupported,notsomuchhisdenialthatChristianityisfinalandexhaustive(p.74),ashisassertionthatBuddhismandHinduismcontaintruerevelationsfromGod.OnewouldliketoseeastepbystepaccountofhowexperiencejustifiesthisorthattruthinHinduism.Iftheallegedtruthisdefinite,eventheauthoradmitsthegap;butifthe“truth”isvagueenoughtobefoundinsomeforminallthreereligions,then“God”isthecommoncharacteristicofJehovah,Shiva,andNirvana;andthisisnothingatall.

There is a third type of empirical religion. The first two, the first more than the second,acknowledgethatsomethingcanbeknownaboutGod.ThisthirdviewclaimsthatGodcannotbeknown.This is the view ofmysticism.Mysticism is an Englishwordwith awide variety ofmeanings. In itspurestormost extreme form it is a religionof trances.Certainpeople claim tohavebeen temporarilyabsorbedintothedivinebeing.Time,space,andsensationdisappeared;sodidknowledge;andtheywereone with God. On the other end of the scale are people whomay bemerely playing hunches. Thesepersonsmighthavebeenphilosophical, if their first and secondhuncheshadbeen logicallydevelopedintoasystem.Buttheireducationorlackofitpreventsthemfrombeingsystematic,andthereisageneraldisinclinationtospeakveryaccuratelyorlogically.Betweenthesetwoextremesthereareallshadesanddegrees. In thenineteenthcenturySorenKierkegaard insisted that tobeaChristian itwasnecessary tobelievebothoftwocontradictorypropositions.Itwasnecessarytoabandonreason.Knowledgewas

useless and impossible, unless it be the knowledge that an eternal being could not possibly becomeincarnateandyetdid.Thecontentofbeliefmadenodifference.BeliefinJehovahandbeliefinShivaareequallyprofitable,providedonlythatonebelievewithpassion,infinitepassion.

This is no place to give a history of mysticism. It is sufficiently characterized as denying thepossibilityofknowledge,oratleastknowledgeofGod,andingeneralholdingintellectinlowesteem.OneancientexamplewasDionysiustheAreopagite.ThisauthorwasnotthedisciplethatPaulgainedinAthens.ItwasamanwhousedthatnameinthefifthcenturyandincludedinhiswritingssomesectionsfromProclustheNeoplatonist.HeopenshisworkofMysticTheologywiththisprayer:

“Triad supernal, both superGod and supergood, Guardian of the Theosophy of Christian man,directusarighttothesuperunknownandsuperbrilliantandhighestsummitofthemysticOracles,wherethesimpleandabsoluteandchangelessmysteriesoftheologyliehiddenwithinthesuperluminousgloomofthesilence,revealinghiddenthings,whichinitsdeepestdarknessshinesabovethemostsuperbrilliant,and in the altogether impalpable and invisible, fills to overflowing the eyelessmindswith glories ofsurpassingbeauty.”

A mild form of mysticism, purportedly Biblical, is defended by R.W. Dale in his ChristianDoctrine,chapter one. He describes a man who, after strolling a mile or two on a glorious Sundayafternoon,laydownonagrassybank.Ashelookedatthemeadowsandorchardsandthecloudlessskybehindthem,hesawtheverygloryofGod.WeknowGod,heconcludes,notbydeliberatesearch,notbyinferringGod’sexistence from theobservationof theuniverse,butby“immediateperception” (p.15).“His everlasting power and divinity… are not reached by logical deduction: they are seen,they areperceived,bytheorgansof themind;how,wecannot tell…it isadirectperception”(pp.16,18,19).“God’sexistenceismadecertaintous

notbyreasoningbutbyexperience.Godisperceivedandknownbytheorgansof themindjustas thematerialworldisperceivedandknownbytheorgansofsense”(p.22).

Such ecstatic utterances assume that perception is immediate.Hegel is not the only one whodeniedthispossibility,andR.W.Daleshoulddefendtheassertionthatprobablymostpsychologistsdeny.Notetoothatoursensesarenotoriouslydeceptive;andifsothecomparison

Daledependsonisfaulty.Further,nodoubttheeyesandearsareorgansofsense.Whataretheorgansofthemind?Anumber of philosophers have said that themind has no organs.Dale’s language is not soextremeasthatofDionysius,butitisequallyempty.

Sincethelastthirdofthetwentiethcenturyhaswitnessedanotableupsurgeofmysticism,bothinthesocalledPentecostalcharismaticmovementandalsointheinfluxofZenBuddhismandotherorientaltrends, the studentmaywish to consider a few additional points. For one thing the absorption of theindividual into theprimalBeing isessentiallyapantheisticconstruction. JohnScotusEriugena tried toavoidtheaccusationbysayingthatalthoughironinthefireglowedwiththefire,itstillremainediron.Butothersloseorexplicitlydenycontinuedindividualexistence.

Foranotherthingmysticismregularlyminimizesdoctrinaltruth.Thisisthecase,notmerelywithZen, but even with Pentecostalism. The Pentecostals were overjoyed when the Romanists at theUniversity of Notre Dame spoke in tongues. They welcomed them as brothers and were oblivious toMariolatry and justification byworks. It is natural that when subjective experience ismade supreme,historicalevents,likethedeathofChrist,andintellectualdoctrineslikeJustificationareobscured.

Thisofcourse iswhyPentecostalism,whichwasonceevangelical,cannowacceptRomanism,andperhapsZenalso.Itistheexperiencethatisimportant,notthetheory.NodoubtPentecostalsvaryasto what lengths they should go, but the principle of mysticism unites all who have the experience.ThereforemysticismmustbeintolerantofevangelicalChristianitybecausethelatterrestrictsthewayofsalvationtoChrist’snamealone.

On this point some words from ProfessorWilliam E. Hocking are appropriate. In hisLivingReligionsandaWorldFaith,hecommencesbysaying,“Initsnaturereligionisuniversalandone.” Inthelatervolume, TheComingWorldCivilization,ProfessorHockingrepeatshisvigorousassertionsofunity.IneffecthesaysthattheChristianfaithand afortioritheBuddhistdoctrinedonotofferthemselvesas hypotheses competing with other hypotheses. Each one says, This is aWay to Peace; and such anaffirmationdoesnotexcludeotherways.InasensethereisanOnlyWay,butitisnottheOnlyWayofaParticularreligion.Theessenceofthepreceptsanddoctrinesthatmysticsinallreligionshavediscernedisthesame.Theagreementsarenoteven

meresimilarities;theyareidentities.ThustheOnlyWayisnottheWaythatmarksoffonereligionfromanother,but“itistheWay alreadypresentinall.…Theseveraluniversal religionsarealreadyfusedtogether,sotospeak,atthetop”(p.149;ital.his).

13.KnowledgeisEssential

InoppositiontomysticismitwillbesufficienttoshowhowtheBibleisprofitableandprofitableby the knowledge it gives us. To be sure, this could hardly be absent from what has already beendiscussed,forthepartsoftheologyallfittogethertoformasystem.Noverseisintellectuallyorlogicallyunrelatedtotherest.Now,theinitialverseortwoversesinsubsectionthreestatethepurpose,oratleastthemainpurposeofScripture.It is that themanofGodshouldbecompletelyequippedforeverygoodwork.Anotherverse,alreadyquoted,saysthatChristiansaresanctifiedbythetruth(John17:17,19).

Severalverses,whichChristiansseemnevertothinkof,placegreatemphasisonknowledge.

11. Peter1:2,3Graceandpeacebemultiplied intoyoubyknowledgeofGodandJesusourLord, inproportionashisdivinepowerhasgrantedus,bytheknowledgeofhimwhocalledusbyhisowngloryandvirtue,allthingsthattendtolifeandpiety.

Thissentence,notcompletelyquotedhere,iscomplicatedinconstruction;itmustbereadtwice;and if read slowly, one will see that all of God’s gifts that tend to life and piety come bymeans ofknowledge.AsJohnTrappwroteinhisCommentary,“Thereisnotanewnotionorfurtherenlargementofsavingknowledge,but itbringssomegraceandpeacewith it.All thegrace thatamanhath, itpasseththroughtheunderstanding;andthedifferenceofstatureinChristianitygrowsfromthedifferentdegreesofknowledge.”Peter’sstressonknowledge,whichcanonlybehadbystudyingtheBible,continuesontohisconclusionin3:1718.

Peter’semphasisonknowledge,whichpresupposestheperspicuityofScripture,isnotuniqueintheNewTestament.Paulstressestheideabyusingitfivetimesintwolines.

Eph.1:17,18That theGodofourLordJesusChrist, theFatherofglory,maygiveyou[a,or,the]spiritofwisdomandrevelationinthe

knowledgeof him, the eyes of your heart [i.e.mind] being enlightenedin order that you mayknowwhatisthehopeofhiscalling…

Further stress on wisdom, knowledge, and revelation for the purpose of edification andsanctificationoccursthroughoutICorinthians.Thereistheextendedargumentofchapterstwoandthree.Thenalsoin thechapterontonguesPaulprefers tospeakfiveintelligiblewordsthantenthousandinaforeignlanguagebecause theaimofspeakinginachurchservice is theedificationof thecongregation;andthecongregationcannotbeedifiedwithoutanintellectualgraspofwhatissaid.

Sofartheevidencethatknowledgeisessentialtoagodlylife,andforthispurposeGodgaveushisrevelation,hasbeentakenfromtheNewTestamentonly.TheOldTestamentishardlylessexplicit.

Psalm119Blessedaretheundefiled…whowalkinthelawoftheLord… Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently …Wherewithall shall ayoungmancleansehisway?By takingheed theretoaccordingtothyword…ThywordhaveIhidinmyheartthatImightnotsinagainstthee.

Is it really necessary to quote all one hundred seventy six verses of this Psalm, plus anotherhundred seventy six from other Old Testament passages to justify the position that the Scriptures areperspicuousinorderthattheservantsofGodbeedified,sanctified,andpreparedforthateternalkingdominwhichdwellethrighteousness?

Unfortunately in this age knowledge and scholarship are frequently disparaged by selfstyledreligiouspeople.The“heart” is superior, farsuperior, to the“head.”Confusionofmind isconfoundedwith spirituality.Emotions are alive, but logic and theology is cold anddead.But this is notwhat theBiblesays,asonemayseeinthetwoversesthatfollowthenextparagraph.

Liberal ecumenism sometimes, Pentecostalism usually, and Romanism always contrast theReformationpositionontheBibleasthesolesourceofknowledgewith“thelivingvoiceofthechurch.”ThePentecostalistswantnothingtodowith“deadorthodoxy.”Theliberals

misinterprettheverse,theletterkillethbutthespiritgivethlife,asiftheletteroftheBiblewasonething,usuallywrong,andthespiritoftheBiblewasanother,oftenright.OfcoursetheversemeansthattheLawimposesthedeathpenaltyonsin,andtheSpirit,notthespiritofthelaw,buttheHolySpirit,regeneratesandgiveslife.Asforthelivingvoiceofthechurch,letusindeedinsistthatthereisalivingvoice,butitisnotwhatRomanismorPentecostalismthinksitis.ThelivingvoiceofGodistheBibleitself.

Acts 7:38 Moses … who was in the church in the wilderness …receivedlivingoraclestopassontoyou.

John 6:63, 68 It is the Spiritwho gives life… thewordswhich I havespoken to you are spirit and life.…Simon Peter answered him…Youhavethewordsofeternallife.

14.ANeoCalvinisticView

Recently some professedly Reformed scholars, mainly with a Christian Reformed background,and taking their cue from Professor HermanDooyeweerd of the Free University of Amsterdam, haveorganized theTorontobasedAmericanAssociation forChristianScholarship.Their viewof theBiblederivesfromtheirmoregeneralconceptoftheWordofGod.ThattheBibleandtheWordofGodarenotsynonymous terms may be granted by the most orthodox of theologians. God spoke to Adam, Noah,Abraham,andtheprophets.Thisspeakingisnotthewrittenword,evenifallthatwasspokenandthisisdoubtfulwas laterwritten in theBible.Then too themostorthodoxof theologiansadmit thatJesus, theWordofGod,wasnotliterallytheinksymbolswrittenonapieceofpapyrusorvellum.Furthermore,thePowerofGodandtheWisdomofGod,asidentifiedinICor.1:24,aswellasthecreativeWordinProv.3:1920,arenot theHebrewcharactersonapage.Henceonemay legitimatelysay that theBible is theWordofGod,eventhoughtheWordofGodisnottheBible.

Butotherideas,notsolegitimatearealsofoundinthewritingsoftheTorontogroup.ThereisadisconcertingtendencytorefertotheBibleasaphysicalobjectconsistingofpaperwithinkspotsonit.There isa tendency toconcentrateonwords,printedorspoken, rather than the thoughtandmessageofwhichtheinkspotsaremerelysymbols.ThusHendrikHart( Canthe

BiblebeanIdol,pp.910)cansay,“ThesewritingsarenotthatWord,theyrevealit.…Wemay

calltheBibleinananalogicalsensetheWordofGod.Butwhenwelosetheanalogy,thepointingbeyonditselfforitsoriginalmeaning,therevelationalwitnessoutofsight;whenweidentifythetwomeanings,thenweshallnevercometoChrist,ashehimselfsaid(John5:39,

46).TheWordofGodisGod,itwasinthebeginning,creator,wisdom,truth…WecannotsayallofthisabouttheBible…TheWordofGodisnotabookatall.”

Onemust note the confusion, themixture of truth and error, the ambiguity in this quotation. If“thesewritings”areregardedasabookinthepaperandinksense,theyareindeed“notthatWord.”Butifthe term Bibleis used to designate themeaning of thesewritings, themessage, the intellectual contentsymbolizedininkspots,itisindeedthatWord.ThesewritingsdonotmerelyrevealthatWord.TheyarenotthatWordinsomeundefined“analogical”sense.Theydonotpointtosomeoriginalmeaningbehindthemeaningof thewords,something“outofsight.”No, thesewritings are,ormorepedantically, ifyouwish,thismessageisitselftheveryWordofGod.HartmaysaythatinthiswayweshallnevercometoChrist;buttheverseshecitesdonotsupporthim,andotherversescontinuetorefutehim.

John5:39doesnotdisparagesearchingtheScriptures.Evenifthefirstverbisdeclarative,“yousearch,”Hart’simplicationcannotvalidlybedrawn,forthelastphraseis,“theyaretheywhichtestifyofme.”Iftheverbisimperative,asismorelikely,still lessdoesHart’simplicationfollow.Furthermore,JesusdoesnotsayorimplythatthePhariseeswerewronginthinkingthateternallifewastofoundintheScriptures.TheotherverseHartcitesexplicitlystatesthatifthePhariseeshadunderstoodandbelievedthe Scriptures they searched, they would have believed Christ. Unbelief ofMoses’ writings, even onparchmentastheywere,precludesbeliefinChrist’swords,spokenintheair.

Inaddition to these twoverses thatHartquotesandmisunderstands,John(8:32)alsosaid,“Yeshall know the truth, and the truth shallmakeyou free.”Once again John (17:17) says, “Sanctify themthroughthytruth;thywordistruth.”SuchversesastheseassertthatthemessageoftheBibleistrue.Itisnotsome“analogy”ofthetruthoutsideitselftowhichitpoints.Itisitselfthetruththatsanctifies.

TheBiblethenisthetruthandwisdomofGod,themindofChrist,theScripturesthatcannotbebroken.OrthodoxyeasilyadmitsthattheBibledoesnotrevealallthemindofChrist.TheWisdomofGodcontains secret things (Deut. 29:29) thatGodhasnot revealed andmaynever reveal.Butwhen JamesOlthuis( TheWordofGodandHermeneutics,p.5)says,“ItisnotthattheScripturesareonepartoftheWordofGodandthatthereareotherparts,”heseemstodenythedistinctioninDeuteronomy.Atanyrate,thisdistinctionplaysnoroleintheAACStheory.ButtheBiblicalteachingconcerningtheBibleonthispointseemstobesatisfiedbymaintainingthatthepropositionsthatmakeuptheBibleareonlysomeofthepropositionsinthedivinesystemoftruth.ThustheBibleisindeedapartoftheWordofGodandthereareotherparts.

Furthermore,althoughthesepeopleallowthattheBibleisinsomesensetheinscripturatedWord(cf.Hart, TheChallengeofourAge,p.119), theirantipathy towardpropositionswouldseemtomakeinscripturation impossible. What else can possibly be inscripturated except propositions? Of course,questionsandcommandscanbewrittendown.Thesearenotpropositions.ButdoestheBibleconsistonlyofquestionsandcommands?ISamuel25:42says,“Abigail…wentafter themessengersofDavidandbecame his wife.” This is a proposition, a declarative sentence, a piece of information. Can anyoneexplain how this could possibly be an inscripturation of something nonpropositional, noncognitive,meaningless?PerhapstheansweristhatHart(ibid.p.118)inscripturatesunintelligiblenonsensewhenhewrites,“TheWordofGod,God’srevelation,hasbeeninscripturatedwithoutbecomingaScripture.”

IftheaboveisnotquiteenoughtoshowhowfartheTorontotheologiansarefromtheCalvinisticposition,perhapsthisconcludingpointwillsufficetoexhibittheNeoorthodoxnatureoftheirthought.InUnderstandingtheScriptures(pp.910,and2)ArnoldDeGraaffwrites,“TotreattheScripturesasifitdidcontainsuchgeneraltheologicalstatementsandpropositionaltruths,thereforewouldbetodistorttheverynatureandpurposeoftheWordofGod.TheBiblewantstoproclaim,notexplain!ItisonlyinhisactionsthatGod’sbeingandhisattributesarerevealed”(pp.9,10).

DeGraaff’sstatementsaresoobviouslyfalsethatfurthercommentisunnecessary.

15.TheProofTextMethod

To conclude this chapter two more subdivisions seem helpful. The first is a defense of thesocalled prooftext method, and second, although external objections are to be kept to a minimumthroughoutthisvolume,arefutationofthetheorythathumanlanguageissoimperfectthatnotevenGodcantellusthetruth.

Itishardtodiscoveranyhonestreasonforopposingtheprooftextmethod.ThewellwornoutjokeJudaswentoutandhangedhimself;Gothouanddolikewise;andwhatthoudoest,doquicklycanhardlybe taken seriously enough, evenbya liberal, to justify theobjection.Of course it is possible toquoteverses and by a disregard of their context apply them improperly. Nor need one deny that sometheologianshavemademistakes, evenblunders, inquoting anddrawing implications.The liberals caneasily point tomany such examples. Nomethod guarantees itself against all misuse. Physicists in thelaboratory,withthebestofintentions,havegoneastray.Andsurelytheliberals,whousedtheirsocalledscientificmethodandconcludedthattheHittitesneverexistedareinnopositiontocastthefirststone.

Secularscholarsdonotdisdaintheprooftextmethod.ExaminetheoldissuesoftheArchivfürGeschichtederPhilosophie,theNewScholasticism,orthePhilosophicalReviewandreadsomearticlesonPlatoandAristotle.Themorescholarlysucharticlesare, themoreobviously theydependoncitingtexts.TheexcellentFrencheducationalsystemprominently featured the explicationdu texte.How elsecould one grasp Aristotle’s views on any matter? Or beyond articles, take books. Das Problem derMateriebyClemensBaeumker,anexampleofthehighestscholarship,isstuddedwithfootnotescitingthetextsthatsupporthisassertions.Thentheliberalssneer,Judaswentoutandhangedhimself.

For a first lesson in theology, however, the student must learn to use the text properly. Somestudentshavememorizedverseshereandthereandhaveforgotten,if theyeverknew,whatthecontextsare.Itisnotsurprisingiftheymisapplythem.Thepresentvolumequotesagreatdeal.Theauthorhopeshehasnotviolatedhisownprecept,butthestudentisencouragedtoseeifhehas.Thisexaminationalsoinclude thequestionwhether theauthorhasquotedenoughverses.Backapageor two,whereGaussenwasmentioned,fiveverseswerequotedfromhis

31

fortyonagivenpoint.Enoughversesshouldbequotedtomakewhateverpointisunderconsideration;butthe studentwill find it useful tomake extensive lists of verses on each point for convenient referenceduringhis laterministry.Granted, theproof textmethod isnot foolproof, but itwould takemore thanfoolstobringdishonoronthemethoditself.

16.Language

Now,thefinalpointfordiscussioninthischapterhastodowiththeoriesoflanguage.Thiswillbesomewhattechnicalandabitdifficult.Ifayoungstudentgetsboggeddown,lethimskiptochaptertwo.However,eventhoughthistextbookissupposedtobeasummaryofBiblicalteaching,andeventhoughtheories of language do not seem to allow for substantiation by prooftexts, yet recent developmentsnecessitatethissubject.NoristheBiblealtogethersilentonthenatureoflanguage.EarliercriticshaveattackedsomehistoricaldetailintheBible;ormaybetheyhavetriedtoshowthattheBiblicaltextdoesnotteachverbalinfallibility.Butmorerecentcritics,insteadofattackingthisorthatpoint,havearguedthatthenatureofhumanlanguagepreventsanymeaningfuldiscussionofreligioustopics.Thusitisnotapointortwo,butthewholeBiblethatisdiscarded.

Thehistory isbriefly as follows.Early this centuryBertrandRussell andLudwigWittgenstein,greatlyexercisedoverthefrequentconfusionsandambiguitiesinmetaphysicaldiscussions,proposedtheinventionofanartificial languagethatwouldavoidall thedifficultiesofordinaryEnglish.AfterWorldWar I the Vienna Circle initiated Logical Positivism with its sensory verification principle, makingnonsenseoftheologyandmetaphysics.ThisviewquicklyspreadtoAmericapartlybecauseseveralofitsexponents fled here to escapeHitler. InEnglandA. J.Ayerwrote his Language, Truth, and Logicin1936. These men were thoroughgoing secularists. Later some philosophers of religion modified theextremesecularPositivismsoastoprovidesomelegitimatesphereforreligion.

Butwhatisnotsowellknownisacatenaofearlynineteenthcenturytheologianswhoanticipated,in substantial respects, the late twentieth century theories of language. Perhaps themost influential ofthesewasHoraceBushnell (18021876).Conservative theologians took note of and argued against hisMoralInfluencetheoryoftheAtonement,andtoalesserextenthis

viewoftheTrinity;butwithperhapstheexceptionofCharlesHodgetheypaidlittleornoattentiontohislanguagetheory,onwhichthoseviewsoftheAtonementandtheTrinitywerebased.

In 1975 Bushnell’s theory of language was brilliantly resurrected by a younger scholar, verycompetent,eveniftoeenamouredofhisnineteenthcenturyforerunner:DonaldA.Crosby,

HoraceBushnell’sTheoryofLanguage.

Prior to Bushnell Calvinistic and Lutheran theologians prettymuch restricted their remarks onlanguage to the assertion that God gave language to Adam at creation. Bushnell countered, thoughevidence seems impossible to obtain, that God gave toAdam, not words,but an instinctfor language.Genesis,however, recordsconversationsbetweenGodandAdam,andhenceanyalleged instinctmusthaveproducedalargevocabularyinaveryshorttime.

Bushnell,having rejectedGenesisas literal truth, taught that languagebeganby theattachingofsoundstophysicalobjects.Itwasatfirstalanguageofnouns.Allwords,heheld,originateinphysicalimages.Intimeanimpossibilityoftenseemspossibleifdilutedbyalengthytimeintellectualtermscameintouse.Thusphysicalobjectsfurnishtheground,theonlyground,forsymbolicandmetaphoricalwordsofintellectualdiscourse.Butsincewordscannotproperlyrepresentevenphysicalshapes,forinfacttheyname only our subjective sensations, the inexactitude of physical language is greatly increased whenwords are used for intellectual concepts. There is no way to eradicate this distortion. Since logic isgroundedingrammar,andsincegrammarcomesfromrelationsinnature,languagecanapplytotruthonlyinananalogicalsense.Understandingrequires“poeticinsight;”wecomeclosertothetruthonlywhenitis offered “paradoxically.” Poetry is better than prose; the poet’s contradictions are all facets of thecomplextruth;poetryfurnishesimages;inconsistencyisapositivegood;andthetruthresidesinfeeling.

Atthispointapreliminaryremarkcomes tomind. Ifonecanassert thatvariedand inconsistentimagesapproximate the truth,onewouldhavetoknowthe truth inorder to judgetheapproximation.Apassenger cannot know that the plane fromNewYork is getting nearer toLosAngeles, unless he firstknowswhereLosAngelesinlocated.

Disregarding such logical considerations, Bushnell thought it silly to debate whether faithprecedesrepentance,orothertheologicalniceties,becausethesedetailsignorethemanyfacetedwhole.The Gospel of John, for example, is the greatest of the four, since it contains the greatest number ofcontradictions. In his God andChrist(p. 96) Bushnell wrote, “The principle difficulty we have withlanguagenowis,thatitwillnotputintothetheoreticunderstandingwhattheimaginationonlycanreceive,andwillnotopen to theheadwhat theheartonlycan interpret.”Theologyorat least truereligion isamatterofmetaphorsandimagesnotlogicaldefinitions.InfacttheUnitariansareasbadastheTrinitariansbecausetheybothuselogic.Really, theUnitariansareworsebecausetheyuselogicbetter.Butfaith isfeeling,notthinking;itisimaginativeandpoetical,notliteralandprosaic.“Thegrandtestoforthodoxyisinwhattheheartreceives,notinwhattheheadthinks”( ChristinTheology,p.77).

In several placesBushnell contrasts the head and the heart. This contrast is based on his ownaesthetic and emotional experience. It has no basis in the Bible. On the contrary, it is distinctlyantibiblical.TheBibledoesindeedcontrastthelipsandtheheart:thatis,hypocrisyversussincerity.ButintheBibleitistheheartthatthinks.Thinkingisthefunctionoftheheart.Dozensofversescanbeandlaterwillbecited.TocontrastheartwithheadistorejecttheBiblicalteachingonthecreationofmaninGod’s image; andwe shall seehow it affects the taskof evangelism, for thesephilosophical theories,remoteastheyfirstappeartobe,impingeonallmattersoffaithandpractice.

OneofBushnell’sadmirers,GeorgeH.Hastings,putsthematternicelyinmetaphorical

terms:“Itismuchtoberegrettedthat,tothemassofreaders,theBibleisallprose…a

homoeopathicmedicinebox…”(Lyrical PoetryoftheBible,intheBiblicalRepository,1847,p.

323).BecauseofsuchviewsBushnellinsistedthatpreachingshouldbeoratorical,designedto

produceanemotionaleffect,nottoteachtruth,thenotionssofrigidlyanddistortedlyaggregated

inourdoctrinalcompends.Insteadofdull,prosydogmatism,superciliousauthority,andmerely

traditionalanswerstotraditionalquestions,thepreachershouldbeeloquentandexpresshis

personalinvolvementwithrichimagery.AndaccordingtoreportsthisishowBushnellactually

preached.HewasextraordinarilyeffectiveinunderminingBiblicaltruth.

Toall thisaBiblebelievermaymakeseveral replies.First,whileadmitting that thePsalmsarepoetry, and that many books contain figures of speech andmetaphors, such as the difficult visions inRevelation, the believer must insist that without literal language the body of the Bible, to use somemetaphorsofourown,howevercosmeticitmightappear,wouldhaveneitherskeletonnormuscles.ThatMosesdeliveredtheIsraelitesfromEgyptianslaveryisliteralhistory.OrconsiderachanceparagraphintheNewTestamentviz.,Mark6:16:"Andhewentoutfromthenceandcameintohisowncountry…andwhenthesabbathwascomehebegantoteachinthesynagogue…Andtheywereoffendedathim…Andhemarvelledbecauseoftheirunbelief.Andhewentroundaboutthevillagesteaching.”Allthisisliterallanguage;thereisnotevenaparableintheparagraph.Aboveall,whataboutthebookBushnellcallsthemostcontradictoryofall?John19reads,inpart,“Thesoldiersplattedacrownofthornsandputitonhishead…They crucifiedhimand twootherwithhim…When Jesus therefore received thevinegar, hesaid, It is finished.”Straightforward, literal, intelligiblepropositions, sentences,piecesof information.WithoutsuchtheBible’spoetrywouldbeasham.EquallyindispensableistheliterallanguageoftheTenCommandments.Acommandisnotanhistoricalsentence,itisnottrueorfalseaspropositionsare;butitis not poetry either; and unless the commands, Thou shalt not steal etalare literal and intelligible, theChristianisleftwithoutmoralnorms.Bushnellinhisdependenceonexistentialexperienceandpersonalpreferencesishardputtoittojustifyanyobjectivetypeofmorality.

Thesecriticismspresuppose thatChristianity requires literalhistorical informationandclearcutmoralprinciples.Thisnecessitatesalanguagethatiscapableandadequatetoexpresssuchmeanings.IftheScripturesays,“menleavingthenaturaluseofthewomanburnedintheirlusttowardoneanother”itisnottobetakenasasymbolicjustificationoftheordinationofsuchmenandwomentotheministry.Notonlyhistoryandethics,butdoctrinesalsotheDeityofChrist, theperseveranceof thesaints,andsoonmustbeputinunderstandablelanguage,forthereisagreatdifferencebetweentheideaofearningheavenbyone’sownmeritsandreceivingsalvationonthebasisofChrist’smerit,orbetweenUnitarianismandTrinitarianism.

Thetheologicalstudent,however,ifsatisfiedbythisappealtotheBible,shouldnotignoremoregeneral, philosophical objections to Bushnell’s theory of language. Here are some brief samples, andmorewillcomelater.

A linguistor at least amathematicianmaywellpointout that theconceptof the square rootofminus one, or the concept of the general conic, has no sensory content and cannot be produced fromsensation.OneofBushnell’sacerbiccritics,DavidLord,taunted,“Thedifficultywithhimisnotatall…thattherearenowordsthatareadequatetoconveythethoughtswithwhichhismindteams;butinstead,that he has not the thoughts which it is the office of the words he uses to convey.” No doubt thisapproximates the truth; but it may be more witty than accurate. One can say simply that hispresuppositionsagainstlogicalCalvinismledhimtoerroneousanalysesoflanguage.

ClearlythebasicobjectiontoBushnell’stheoryoflanguageisitsimplicitdenialofalldistinctionbetweentruthanderror.UnitarianismandTrinitarianismbecomethesamething.Forhimdoctrineisthemetaphoricalformulationofsubjectiveexperience.ToescapecompletesubjectivityBushnellsometimesappealstochurchhistoryorto(western)society.Socialexperience,however,cannotsupplytheneededobjectivity, for to use it the individualmust first judge one societymore acceptable than another. TheChinese,theBantus,theHindus,andthehippiesdonotshareBushnell’spreferencefornineteenthcenturyAmericanism.Societythereforecanfurnishnoobjectivedefenseagainstpersonalproclivities.

Bushnell had a certain leverage against his nineteenth century critics because they too operated on aphilosophicempiricism.Empiricismresultsintotalskepticism,evenifLocke,Edwards,andHodgedidnotrecognizeit.Yetthewholeearlynineteenthcenturycontroversytookplacewithinempiricallimits.'AmorethoroughgoingandfundamentalrefutationofBushnell,hisunitariantrinity,andhismoralinfluencetheoryoftheatonement,canbemadeonthebasisofanonempiricalrealism.SuchwasPlato’stheoryofIdeas, which Philo and Augustine altered for the better. Later chapters will discuss its relation toimmediateimputation,theintermediatestate,andotherdoctrines.

The twentieth century,s most prominent theory of language, as the beginning of the presentsubsectionnoted,isthatofLogicalPositivism.Itismoreconsistentlyempiricalthan

BushnellandleavesnomoreroomforhisemotionalreligionthanfortheologicalCalvinism.BrieflytheLogicalPositivistshold that language isanevolutionarydevelopment fromanimalcries,and thatmorecomplicated organisms found it useful for their immediate needs.With this empirical origin languagecannot be properly extended to nonempirical metaphysics, philosophy, or religion. A sentence ismeaningful only if it can be tested by sensory perception. Since religion purports to express thetransphenomenalortranscendental,thelanguageismeaningless.

AquotationfromLeonardBloomfield,InternationalEncyclopediaofUnifiedScience(Vol.I,p.227)willserveasanexampleofLogicalPositivism.

“Language creates and exemplifies a twofold value of some human actions. In itsbiophysicalaspectlanguageconsistsofsoundproducingmovementsandoftheresultantsoundwavesandofthevibrationofthehearer’sear.The biosocialaspectoflanguageconsistsinthefactthatthepersonsinacommunityhavebeentrainedtoproducethesesounds…Theyhavebeentrainedtoutterconventionalsoundsas a secondary response to situationsand to respond to these slight sounds in akindof triggereffect.”Onpage233hecontinues,“Languagebridgesthegapbetweentheindividualnervoussystems…Themovementsofspeech[lipmovementsofyoungchildren]arereplacedbyinternalmovements…Thisinnerspeechaccountsforthemainbodyofvaguelyboundedsystemsofactionsthatineverydayparlancegoesbythenameof‘thinking’”(p.235).

This quotation contains three parts. First is a description of the purely physical production ofnoises,butnot reallynoises,onlyvibrations in theeardrums.Cansuchphysicalmotionsbe identifiedwithsensationsorperceptions;or,ifnotidentifiedastheLogicalPositivistswish,cantheysomuchasproduceamental event?The secondpartof thequotation leaps to a society thathas trainedpeople tomakeconventionalsounds.Howasocietycouldbeorganizedandhowseveralpeoplecouldgiveasounda conventional meaning, merely on the basis of physical motions, are questions behaviorism cannotanswer.Physicsandchemistryproducenobasisformakingamotionrefertosomethingelse.Referenceisstrictlymental.Bloomfielddependsona“triggereffect.”Thusconventionalreferencesareproducedthewayaspringsnaps.Thethirdpartofthequotationisequallyimpossible.Ifconventionalsignsaremerelytriggereffects,their

snappingsmayindeed“bridgethegapbetweenindividualnervoussystems,”justasanelectricshockcanstimulate the gastrocnemius muscle of a dead frog; but the frog never succeeds in understanding thephilosophicbeliefsoftheelectricity.

Difficulties inherent inLogicalPositivismhaveforcedextensivealterations in the theory.Then,too,otherauthorshavebroachedothertheoriesoflanguage.WilburMarshallUrbanwasnotadefenderofCalvinism; but neither was he a behaviorist. His exceedingly interesting volume, Language andReality,proposesadifferenttheoryoflanguagethatallowsforatypeofreligionandrevelation.Sincehisengrossingbookisaboutsevenhundredpageslong,itisobviousthatwhatfollowsisutterlyinadequate;butsomeslightviewofanonbehavioristictheorycanbehad.

AgainstbehaviorismUrbannotesthatDarwiniannaturalismmakeslanguagemerelyaninstrumentofadaptionandcontrol,andthereforeincapableofapplicationtowhateverisnonphysical(p.31).Thisincludes both mathematics and religion. The great flaw in naturalism, which holds that language is“natural” rather than divine, and has evolved fromgrunts and screeches, is its inability to account formeaning(p.67).Stickapininadogandityelps;buthowonanevolutionaryviewcanayelpbecomeasymbolforsomethingelse,asthesounddogisasymbolfortheanimalstuck?Mereanimalnoisesdonotsymbolize,indicate,or represent objects (p. 75). When behaviorism depends on the causal theory ofmeaning,thatis,onthetheorythatthemeaningofboththethingandthewordareidenticaltoourmodeofreacting, itdoesawaywith representationandcorrespondence.Asounddoesnotbecomeaworduntildetachedfromthecausalcontext,andthisdetachingcannotbeafunctionofthephysicalenvironment(p.129).

Urbanistobeadmired.HeattemptstogiveapositivetheoryoflanguageinadditiontohiscriticalargumentsagainstLogicalPositivism.Butitmaybequestionedwhetherornothispositiveprocedureisasgoodashisnegative.

Urban lays great stress on the fact that language ismeaningful.This is the quality bywhichherefutes Darwinism and behaviorism. To this end he builds a masterful argument over many pages(185225).Bytheconceptofmeaninghealsotriestobuildapositivetheory.Somesounds,hesays,thoughnotwithgreatplausibility,areselfauthenticating.Thewordsacheand

buzzsoundliketheirmeaning.Thenheseemstoskipfromafewsuchwordstoametaphoricalextensionof them. The word kid(though who would say it sounded like a goat?) means a young goat, but bymetaphoritistransferredtoahumanchild;andfromthisUrbanconcludesthatmetaphoristheprimarylaw of speech construction (p. 112 ff.). In conformity with this he instances the primitive wordouatou,which means stream. Then ouatououcucomes to mean ocean. This, he says, is intrinsicexpressiveness.Itismorethanindication;itisrepresentation.Thesymbolisimitativeandconjuresupthethingitself.

Buthowmanyreaders,whentheyfirstcametotheletters ouatouabove,conjureduptheideaofastream? Do an experiment on some friends. Tell them you have learned a new word in a primitivelanguageandaskthemtoguessitsmeaning.Willtwentyfivepercentguessstream?

Probably less than five percent, or less than one percent, would guess correctly. Could it not be theNavajowordforagave?

At any rateUrbanwould have language growbymetaphor, andmetaphor is closely connectedwithmythology (p. 176).Althoughno evidence is given thatmetaphor ismore closely connectedwithmythology than it is with love poems, the point is interesting for the Christian student because recentliberaltheologyusuallytakesrevelationtobemythological.

Inhiseffortstoavoidbehaviorism,andfurthertodojusticetononsensoryobjectsofknowledge,purposes thatstrainbothmetaphorandmythology,Urban launches intoa longmetaphysicalsection, theconsistencyofwhichisnotapparent.Heholdsthatlanguagedevelopsfromtheperceptualstage,throughthemetaphorical,andontothesymbolic.Inthesymbolicstagewediscoverlogic;andlogicleadstoametaphysicofcategories(p.305).Ifthismetaphicisfalse,aspositivisminsists,logiccannotshowthatitis false; only another metaphic could; but since positivism repudiates all metaphysics, its theory oflanguagefailstodisprovetheopposingtheory.Further,logicisnormative.Psychologymaytellhowweactuallythink;logictellsushowweoughttothink.AndpresumablyUrbanwantstoshowthatpositivismhasnoplaceforuniversalnorms.

After a long discussion of poetry and physicsUrban comes to consider religion. Religion andpoetry,hesays,arealmostidentical.Thelanguageisemotiveanddramatic;andhereferstothePsalmsandJohn17asexamples.Butwhereaspoetryisnotseriously“evocative,”religionis

evocative,invocative,andhasthequalityoftheholy.ThereforereligionhasapersonalGod,andthisisdramatic(pp.573,574).Butforthisveryreasonreligiouslanguageisalsomythological;thatis,itseeksanonscientific intelligibilitywhichdramatic languagealonecannotexpress.Thereforereligious languagecommunicates something other language cannot. All religions speak a common language and areimmediatelyfriends.Thewordsofallreligionshaveacommonreference.

Allsymbolismisdistortion;butreligioussymbolsaredistortionsofintuitable[sensory]realitiesforthepurposeofexpressingwhatisinfiniteandtransphenomenal.UrbanusestheexampleofthemanyarmsandlegsofaHinduidol;andheshouldhaveaddedthattheidolandthecrosssignifythesamething.Thepassageisthoroughlyidolatrous(pp.582ff.).Suchmyths,hesays,representthenoumenalworld,buttheyneverareliteralpicturesofthatworld.“Theessenceofthereligioussymbol…isthatitbothisandisnotthetruthabouttheobjectsymbolized”(p.585).TheLord’sSupper,forexample,expressesideastoogreatforordinarylanguage;butwhenweaskthemeaningofthesymbols,thereplyisgiveninwords.Therefore the language of religion must be theology, and rather obviously Urban considers thisinadequate,adistortion,andnotprosaicallytrue.

TheGenesisaccountofAdamandEve,forexample,isnottrueliterally.Likeafableitrepresentsthe separation of man from God, and this is a phenomenon of religious life. But if one separate the“beliefcontent” from themythical language, there is no religion left.Myth is indispensable to religionbecause(1)mythistheonlysourceofreligioussymbolism,and(2)mythisauniquewayofapprehendingreality(pp.590593).Whatreligiontellsusimplicitlyisofmoreimportancethanwhatissaysexplicitly.Religionisthebeliefintheconservationofvalues.TheideasofaCreatorandafinaljudgmentmeanthatvalues have cosmic significance. Therefore science and mathematics can never contradict religionbecausetheydonotspeakthesamelanguage(pp.619624).

ToallthisaChristiancanreplythattheexplicitmeaningofAlmightyGod’screatingtheuniverseby thewordofhispower isof fargreater importance thanavaguebelief in theconservationof someundefinedvalues.TheliteralresurrectionofChristfromthedeadmayconflictwithscienceorscientism,butsomuchtheworseforscientism.Theprosestatementof

justificationbyfaithinRomans3:2426outweighsallmythologicalpoetry.Urbanwillreply:youhavelostall religion andwe do not speak the same language.We answer: Correct, we do not speak the samelanguageandneitherdoweacceptyourunintelligiblereligion.

At thebeginningof this subsectionon language the studentwaswarned to skip it ifhe found itdifficult.Butanystudentwhodidnottakethisgoodadvice,andhasreadtothispoint,shouldbynowtryto realize that the subject matter is not foreign to the most important doctrines of Christianity. It isfundamental, for if language is inherently incompetent to express theological truth accurately, then nodoctrinecanbeaccepted.Thewholeispoetry,myth,ornonsense.Wittgensteinheldthat languageisanillfittingmoldofthought.BergsonandWhiteheadsaythatlanguagedistortsrealitybecausethepurposeoflanguage is practical. Urban we have just completed; and Brunner insists that not only language, butthoughtitselfcannotgraspGod.

Another example, though not so intricate, of the relation of religion and language, is found inFrederickSontag’s HowPhilosophyShapesTheology.Afterendingchaptertwowiththeremarkthatthephilosophies of Spinoza,Hume, andKant are all “verbal patterns of crucially defined terms,” Sontagbegins chapter three with the additional remark that “it is possible to lead a religious life withoutdiscussingitorverbalizingverymuchaboutit.”Althoughthesestatementsareliterallytrue,asinthecaseofamutemoron, theyseemto invitemisunderstanding.First,manycontemporarybooksonreligion,orevenonphilosophyasawhole,reducethesubjectmatterto“verbalizing,”withtheresultthatthetestofacceptability,nottosaytruth,issimplygrammatical.Ifthelanguageusedis“ordinary”English,thenthespeakercannotbecriticized.Sofarastheavowed“ordinarylanguage”philosophersareconcerned,thereseems to be no question beyond the determination of whether or not the speaker conforms to somerelativelywide linguisticusage.The thoughtbehind thewordshasevaporated. In thesecondplace,noonewilldenythatareligiouslifecangoon“withoutdiscussingitorverbalizingverymuchaboutit.”Inadditiontothedeafanddumb,thewhirlingdervishesaregoodexamples.EvensomedevoutChristians,uneducatedandbornunintelligent,mayfailtoverbalizeandeventothinkverymuch.ButonemustdoubtthatitispossibletoleadaChristianlifewithoutsomethinking.Sontag’suseof“religiouslife,”andnotSontag’sonly,dependsonclassifyingallprofessed“religions”inonecategory.Thisresultsinconfusion.Suchphilosophers

mayclaimthatallreligionsbelieveinsomesortofGod,andthusfindaunitary,allinclusivereligion.ButthetermGodisanexcellentandfatalexampleofverbalizingwithoutthought.SpinozaconstantlyspeaksofGod Deussivenatura andmeans theuniverse;Moslemshavea fairlydefiniteconceptofAllah,quitedistinctfromSpinoza’sconcept;andChristiansmeantheTrinity.IfBuddhismisareligion,asitisusuallysupposed tobe in“ordinary” language, then it is false to say that all religionsbelieve in somesortofGod. Perhaps, however, all religions believe in some sort of “heaven.” Again, this is verbalizationwithoutthought.Nirvana,theIslamicheaven,andtheChristianheaven,nottomentionSpinoza’s speciesaeternitatis,havenocommonintellectualcontent.Henceadiscussionof“religiouslife”mustbevitiatedfrom thebeginningby radical ambiguities.Clarityof thought,not similarityofwords, canbeachievedonlybyexplicitdiscussionsof theKoran’sviewof life,or theBible’s,orSpinoza’s.Theambiguityofclassifyingthemall togetherallowsSontag tosay,“if this is true, thenreligionasawayof lifecanbequite independentofphilosophy” (p.46).But theChristianwayof lifecannotatallbe independentofthought.Fromtheambiguouslytruestatementquoted,Sontagdrawstheunambiguouslyfalsestatementthat“in order to understand either religion or philosophy, the independence of the religious life must berealized.” It should not be necessary to add, but to avoid unintelligent criticism let it be said, thatChristianity does not regard the inarticulate and unintelligent devotion of a disadvantaged child as theidealChristianlife.Athanasius,Luther,andCalvinseemtobebetterimitatorsofPaul.

ICor.11:1Beimitatorsofme,asIalsoamofChrist.

AfinalandlastexampleoftheoriesoflanguageandtheirapplicationtoreligionwillbeWordsand the WORDby Kenneth Hamilton (Eerdmans, 1971). Although the theory is basically the same,Hamilton differs fromUrban in two points: he is a theologian and not a secular philosopher, and hecarrieshistheorybeyondthestageofmythologicallanguageinhisattempttoexplainreligiouslanguage.LikeUrbanherejectsLogicalPositivism,foritturnstheologyintononsense;andhealsojudgesidealismasinadequatebecauseinextendinglanguagetocovertransphenomenalrealityitlosestheworldofsensewherehistorytakestimeandspace.

Althoughtheauthorrejectsidealism,heretainsasomewhatsimilarviewofmythicallanguage.Onpage86,wherehehasleftoffhisdescriptionsofotherviewsandistotallyengaged

inexplaininghisown,hesays,“Nevertheless,aswehaveseen,alllanguagegrowsoutofmythicthinkingandstillbearsthemarksofitsorigin.”Thisisasurprisingstatementfortworeasons.First, thewords,“aswe have seen” are surprising because the reader has nowhere seen it. Hamilton has provided noreason. In thesecondplace, it isequally implausible toassert,withoutevidence, thatall languagestillbearsthemarksofitsmythologicalorigin.Trueenough,Hamiltonadmitsthatscientificthought“triesasmuchaspossibletoescapefromthesubjectivitiesoflanguagebyusingthesignlanguageofmathematics"(p.87).Butit isnotenoughtobrushmathematicsasidewithsuchabriefadmission.Whatisneededisevidencethatthewords twoand threebearthemarksoftheirmythicorigin.Whatarethesemarks?Theyshould be specified. For that matter Hamilton makes no effort to show that even the word cathas amythologicaloriginandstillbearsdiscernibletracesofthesame.

Chapter two, where Hamilton apparently tries to justify his mythical view, is replete withungroundedassertions.Examplesare:(1)“Myththenisnotinthefirstinstanceafictionimposedonone’salreadygivenworld…”Ishouldthinkitis;(2)“eachlifereenactsinpartthehistoryofthehumanrace”sufficiently vague to be true in some sense or other, but does Hamiltonmean ‘ontogeny recapitulatesphylogeny,’ or that each boy sometimes suffers a Napoleonic complex; (3) “The close relationshipbetweenthemythicandthereligiousconsciousnessisveryvisible here[italicsmine],”i.e.inthefactthatchildren’s“personalexcursionsintomythmakingresultintheirbeingaccusedofbeingdeliberateliars!”where is there hereany relationship between the religious consciousness andmyth; (4) similarly to apreviousthought,“Beingsomething[likeacat]hasbeengivenaname,itremainsunknown…Namingitcausesitto‘be’inthesensethatitnowentersintohumanconsciousnessasanentityexistinginitsownright…”

wasthistrueoftheplanetNeptuneafteritwasdiscoveredandbeforeitwasnamed,orthecontinentnownamedAmerica?

Here then are four instances in which Hamilton has given no reasons for asserting that “alllanguagegrowsoutofmythicthinkingandstillbearsthemarksofitsorigin.”

Althoughmythology is thebasisofHamilton’s theoryof languageand inspiration,onemustnotsuppose that he is a simple “mythologist.” He is far from endorsing Bultmann’s program ofdemythologization.ToarriveatBiblicallanguage,twostepsawayfrommythology

mustbetaken.Thefirstistodilute,orrefine,mythintopoetry.Thisadvance,hesays,givesusaGodwhoreallyexists,asopposedtomythologicalgodswhodonot.

Inanycase,poetrycannotgiveusany literal truthaboutGod. It still retains toomuchmyth.Ofcourse, the retention isnot allbad.Myth, says theauthor, isnotmerely superstition (p.63). “The truereligionisborninthemidstofthemanyfalsereligions.”Fromwhichonemayconcludethatmythologyhad towork towardaconceptof JehovahbeforeAdamcouldhavehad this idea.Noevidence for thequotedstatementisgiven.Itapparentlydependsontheevolutionaryprinciple thatmonotheismisa latedevelopment.

Even so, the influence of the old mythological language continues, either in poetry or inHamilton’ssecondstep.‘TheScripturesdidnotfalldownfromheaven…”(p.63).Well,ofcourse,noteventhetablesofstoneonwhichGodwrotetheTenCommandmentsfelldownfromheaven.Mosesusedapentowrite them.Thereforewhat theauthorexpresslysaysis literallytrue.ButdoeshenotmeantosuggestthattheverbalmessageoftheScripturesdidnotcomefromheaven?“TheWordofGodcomestousasthewordsofmen,menrootedintheirtimesandspeakingthelanguageoftheircountry.”Again,trueliterally,apartfromitscontext.TheScripturescome tousinthetwentiethcenturytranslatedintoEnglish.Theydidnotfalldownfromheaventousinourlifetime.ButwhataboutrevelationstoAdam,Abraham,andeventoMosesbeforehewrotethemdown?CouldnotGodhaveusedHebrew?MustGodhaveusedlanguage formedbymythology? IsGod incapableof revealing the literal truth?HamiltonclearlyholdsthathumanlanguageisincapableofexpressingliteraltruthaboutGod.HislastsentenceinchaptertwowouldhavebeenunnecessaryandimpossibleifhehadthoughtthatScripturallanguagewasliteral.Thelastsentenceis:“Howhumanlanguage,formedonpatternsthathavegrownoutofmythcanconveytousthetruthofGod’sownrevelation:thisisthesubjectofmynexttwolectures”(p.63)

Before summarizingchapters threeand four,onecanwellpause toconsider thephrasehumanlanguage.WhenPaul inhumanGreeksays thatGodjustifiesbelievers,didhespeak the literal truthorsomeother,unknowablekindoftruth,thatisnottruthatall?Aphrasesimilarto“humanlanguage”occursfrequently in other authors. They contrast “human logic” with “divine logic.” But do they dare makeexplicitwhatthisphrasemeans?Humanlogicsays,Ifallmenare

mortal,andifSocratesisaman,thenSocratesismortal.Butifdivinelogicisdifferent,thenallmencanbemortalandSocratescanbeaman,yetSocrateswillnotbemortal.Or,again, ifhumanmathematicssaysthattwoplustwoisfour,andifdivinetruthdiffersfromours,thenforGodtwoandtwoarefiveortenoranythingbutfour.Thepointhereisthathumanlogicanddivinelogicareidentical.Humanlogicisapartof thedivine image inman. It isGod’s trademarkstampeduponus.Onlybyrejecting theBiblicaldoctrine ofGod’s image can one contrast human languagewith divine language and divine logicwithhuman.

Finally,ifhumanlanguagecannotbeliterallytrue,anyassertion“languageisnotliteral”cannotbeliterally true. The position is selfrefuting; and one can have little hope of explaining how “languageformedonmythicalpatterns”canconveyGod’struth.

At this point Hamilton begins to take his second step away frommyth. He goes frommyth topoetrytoparable.“Christianfaith…gladlyadmitsthatbetterknowledgeoftheobjectiveworldhasmade

religionsfoundedupontheliteralacceptanceofmythuntenable”(p.67).2Yethewillhaveman,byreasonof symbolic language, remain a “mythmaking creature.” Then, he continues, Christian faith gives “noprivilegedinstructionabout‘whatthecaseis’inthecreatedworld,”e.g.thatDavidwasKingofIsrael,“nevertheless[it]giveshimessentialknowledgeabout theworldasdivinelycreated. Italsogiveshimassuranceofthehumanmeaningofhisexistence.Itmediatesthismeaningbeyondthereachesofhisownconsciousness…”

But if faithor revelationcannot tellusaboutDavid,howcan it tellusabout thedivinecreationof theworld?Surely the latter isharder todiscover.Then too,howcan faith “mediate”anymeaningbeyondconsciousness?Isnotfaithanelementofconsciousness?

But let us get on with the second step away frommythic language, to parabolic language thatsupposedlyrevealsdivinetruthbetterthanplainliteralstatementcan.WhyandhowdoesHamiltonarriveat parable? The how is not at all clear. No theory is worked out to show that language, assumed tooriginate inmyth,must by the laws of evolution becomepoetry, and then by those same laws becomeparabolic.Hamilton’s whyisclearerthanhis how.Thereasonisthathedoesnotwanttogetsofarawayfrommythology as to arrive at literal truth. Hewants to prepare the ground by rejecting plenary andverbalInspiration.“’Dictation’theoriesofrevelation

sometimesseemtoassumethatGodcommunicatesHisWordthroughvocables,3sothatunderstandingtheexact sense of an aggregate of propositions is to receive theWord ofGod. This is surely to bind thedivineWordtothemeasureofhumanwords…”

ThistypeofargumentisessentiallysimilartothePentecostalistchargethatthosewhorepudiatespeakingintongues‘bindthedivineSpirittothemeasureoftheirhumantheology.’Thisisirrelevance.ItisnotaquestionoftheSpirit'somnipotence.ItisaquestionofwhattheSpiritwilltodo.IfGodhasrestrictedtheworkingofmiracles to theageof theprophetsand theapostles, itdoesnot limithispower tosay thattherearenomiracles today.Similarly,whenwesay thatGodspokeHebrewtoAbrahamandGreek toPaul,wedonotbindGodatall;wesimplyresortwhathedid.ItisratherHamiltonwhobindsGodbydenyinghimtheabilitytospeakliterallanguagetohiscreatures.

This impoverishedviewof theBible seems to leadHamilton to expect revelations outside theScripture.Theremainderofhissentencehalfquotedaboveis:

“foritistosaythatwealreadyhavethewordsthatcanstateallthatGodcanpossiblywantustoknow.” “Can possibly” is the language of propaganda. The question does not concern what God canpossiblydo:itisaquestionofwhatGodhasactuallydone.TheReformationviewisthattheScripturesgiveusalltheinformationaboutsalvationthatGodwantsustoknow.AsIIPeter1:3says,God’s“divinepower has [already] given us everything pertaining to life and piety.” And the wellknown II Timothy3:1617saysthatScripturefurnishesaman completelyfor everygoodwork.Nothingelseisneeded.ForthisreasonHamilton’sword“state”isalsoapropagandadevice.ItwasnevertheReformationviewthattheBiblestates,explicitly,allthatGodwantsustoknow.ButastheWestminsterConfessionsays,“ThewholecounselofGod,concerningallthingsnecessaryforHisownglory,man’ssalvation,faith,andlife,iseitherexpresslysetdowninScripture,orbygoodandnecessaryconsequencemaybededucedfromScripture,”i.e.byhumanlogicthatislogicalbecauseitisfirstdivinelogic.

Therefore,whatHamiltonobjectstoseemstobeBiblicaldivinetruth,viz.,“faithinGodconsistsessentiallyinthebelievingreceptionof…”notperhapsof“eachandeveryscripturalstatement,”forthiswouldrequireaprodigiousmemory,butatleastofthebasictheology“asobjectivelytrue”(p.75).

ItisquiteclearthatHamiltondoesnotaccepttheBibleastheWordofGod.“ThefactthatwordsareintheBible...doesnotmeanthatourreadingofthemnecessarilymustyieldauthoritativestatementsthatwe can proceed forthwith to identifywith theWord ofGod.”Well, of course, not necessarily,forsomepeoplesomeofthetimedonotunderstandthewordstheyread;sothat“ourreading”thewords,ifwe are such people, does not necessarily yield correct propositions. The phraseologyhere is againpropaganda, for the importantquestion is notwhether somepeoplemisread theBible, butwhether thewordsandsentencesoftheBibleareauthoritativestatementsbecausetheyaretruebecausetheyarethewordsofGod.ItisobviouslypoorthinkingtoattackatheoryoftheinspirationandtruthoftheScriptureson theground that somepeopledonot understand thewords.Must one take a textbookon calculus asmythological, poetic, or parabolic and not literally true, because some high school students cannotunderstandit?ItisbysuchinvalidreasoningthatHamiltonrejectstheScriptureasrevelation.Hesays,“Werethisthecase[identifyingthewordsoftheBiblewiththewordofGod]thentheBible,ratherthanbeingthatinspiredrecord...wouldbethewrittenlawofGod.”

Now there is a sense in which the Bible is an inspired record. It inerrantly records God’srevelationtoAbrahamandthewarsofDavidKingofIsrael.Butinadditiontobeingarecordofdivinerevelations, it is itself the complete revelation.As the opening section of theWestminster Confession(determinative of the evangelical position) says, “it pleased the Lord ... to commit the same [earlierrevelations]whollyuntowriting...thoseformerwaysofGod’srevealinghiswilluntohispeoplebeingnowceased.”ThusincontrastwithHamilton’sdenial,theBibleisindeedthewrittenlawofGod.

ItmustbeemphasizedthatHamiltonhasrejectedthehistoricalpositionofProtestantism,andindoing so has misunderstood what that position is. He speaks of “a lapse into legalism among thosefollowersofCalvinwhohadgonebeyondCalvin’srobustpracticalgraspofChristianfaithtoerect,ashedidnot[italicsmine],theoriesofverballyinerrantinspiration.”

Now,besidesthepejorativeuseofthewords lapseandlegalismincontrastwith robust,onemustnotethehistoricalreferenceinthewords“ashedidnot.”

Calvin’sposition,whichissomewhatdifferentfromwhatHamiltonwouldhaveusbelieve,issetforthatlengthbyKennethKantzerintheE.T.S.publication,Inspirationand

Interpretation(edited by John F. Walvoord, Eerdmans, 1957) chapter four, Calvin and the HolyScriptures.HereKantzerquotesCalvin’sInstitutes,“God...waspleasedtocommitandconsignhiswordtowriting…hecommandedalsotheprophecies tobecommittedtowriting,andtobeheldpartofhisword.Totheseatthesametimewereaddedhistoricaldetails,whicharealsothecompositionofprophetsbutdictatedbytheHolySpirit”(p.137).

Infact,asKantzerpointsout,CalvinfrequentlyassertedthatGod“dictated”thetext.Trueenough,Calvin did not use the verb as it applies in amodem business office. But its frequency should warneveryoneagainstattributingtoCalvinaviewthatGoddictateserrors.KantzerreferstoCalvin’scallingthe prophets “clerks” and “penmen,” “sure and authentic amanuenses of theHoly Spirit; and thereforetheirwritingsaretobeconsideredastheoraclesofGod.”Healsocallsthem“organsandinstruments.”HereferstoScriptureasthe“sureandinfalliblerecord,”“theunerringstandard”hereisinerrancy,“thepureWordofGod”and“theinfallibleruleofhisholytruth.”Quotingnolessthanthirteenotherpassages,Kantzer remarks, “The merest glance at Calvin’s commentaries will demonstrate how seriously thereformerappliedhisrigiddoctrineofverbalinerrancytohisexegesisofScripture”(p.142).

MayIalsoaddaquotationfromtheInstitutesI,vii,1:“Believers…aresatisfiedof itsdivineorigin,asiftheyheardtheverywordspronouncedbyGodhimself.”

InspiteofthefactthatHamiltonwantstoescapemyththroughpoetrytoparable,hecontinuestosay,“ThelanguageofScripture…wouldhavebeenincomprehensibleotherwise…"i.e.unlessmythicpatternshadbeenused.AnaniaswouldnothaveunderstoodthedirectionstoStraightSt,haditnotbeenmythologicalin form. “Sumerian, Babylonian, Phoenician, and Egyptian myths [were] taken up into the biblical

accountsofcreation”and"Gnosticmyths[are]presentintheN.T.descriptionsofChrist4…Thebiblical

languageemploystheimageryofmyth,whiletransformingitscontent.5CreationmythsinwhichthegodswrestedapartearthandheavenoutofthebodyofthemonsterChaosaccountforsomeofthephrasingofthebiblicalaccountofcreation”(p.89).

Clearly,howevermuchHamiltonmaywanttogobeyondmyth,hedoesnotseemtogetveryfaraway,foronthenextpagehesays,“Lackingthemythicpattern[ofGnosticism]thatoriginally

producedthenecessaryterminology,weshouldnotbeabletospeakofChrist’sdeathandresurrection”(p.90).

Isthisnotcompletenonsense?AmIdependentonGnosticorothermythswhenIspeakofRomansoldierslaying Jesus on a cross and pounding nails into his hands and feet? Certainly I understood this inchildhoodlongbeforeIeverheardofGnosticism.NoramIatallsurethatMatthewknewanythingaboutGnosticism.IfanyonenowrepliesthatMatthewandIdidnotneedtohaveknownGnosticismbecauseweuse language already formed, let him explain to us howmythology formed thewords: nails, soldiers,cross,spear,anddeath.SimilarlywhatmythologyisneededforPetertoseethatthetombwasemptyandlatertoseeJesusinGalileeandtalkwithhim?IsitnotthereforecompletenonsensetosaythatwecouldnottalkaboutChrist’sdeathunlessmythologyhadgivenusthesewords?

One hardly escapes the impression that the author does not treat his opponents fairly. He says, “Yetbecauserevelationisgiveninhumanwords,itcannotbemoreprecisethanlanguageallows.[Howtrue!Aperfect tautology.But isGod,who'produced language,unable touse itwithperfectprecision?]Thebelief that theBibleconsistsofstatementsof literal truth[italicshis], therefore, is illconceived. [Thethereforeis a logical fallacy.] The notion of literal truth is quite correct if we oppose literal to themythical…InthissensewemustsaythatGod literallycreatedtheworld....It isquiteanothermatter,though,ifweinsistthatallthestatementsof

Scripture are literally true…” (p. 91). This sort of argument is hardly fair to the Reformation viewbecausenoonefromthetimeofMosestothepresenteversaidthatallstatementsarestrictlyliteral.DidLuther;Quenstedt,Gaussen,orWarfieldeversayso?Ofcoursetherearefiguresofspeech,metaphors,anthropomorphisms,and,thelike.Butthesewouldbemeaninglessiftherewerenoliteralstatementstogivethemmeaning.Forexample,IIChronicles16:9,“TheeyesoftheLordruntoandfrothroughoutthewholeearth,”isludicrouslyridiculousiftakenliterally:littleeyeballsrollingoverthedustyground.Butunlessthestatement,Godisomniscient,isliteral,thefigurehasnothingtoreferto.SurelyHamiltondidnotpublishhisbooktoremindus that theBiblecontainssomefiguresofspeech.Andyethisargumentheredependsontheallegedfactthatsomeonesaid“allthestatementsofScriptureareliterallytrue.”

Consider the footnote on this page: “’Literal’ is not synonymouswith ‘historical.’ Inspirationdoesnotimplythatwhatisinspiredmustbeunderstoodliterally,andevenlessthateverythingmustbeviewedashavingactuallyhappened…Toputitbluntly,toaccepteverythingreportedintheBibleashavingactuallyhappened,onemusttamperwiththetext.”Thesewords,whichHamiltonwithapprovalquotesfromH.M.Kuitert are unclear. The language is typical of liberals whowant to appear conservative to orthodoxpeople,whiletheyunderminethetruthoftheScripture.WhenKuitertsays“everythingreported,”doesherefer to metaphors, to statements made by Satan, or does “everything reported” refer to everythingreportedashavingactuallyoccurred?Thefirsttwopossibilitiesarepuerile.ThethirdisarepudiationofEvangelical religion. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the latter is the meaning intended. Forexample, IIPeterclaims that itwaswrittenbyPeter.AboutsuchaclaimHamiltonwrites,“Fora longtimenow,everyauthorhasbeenconsideredtohaveaproprietaryrightoverhisworks.Butthebiblicalbookscameoutofamilieuinwhichsuchaconceptwasunknown,andwheretherewasnoissueoftruthor falsehood involved in using a revered name in connection with writings by other hands.” Thisstatementisnottrueevenofpaganscholarship,fortheAlexandrianphilosopherscarefullydistinguishedbetweenthirtysixgenuine.Platonicdialoguesandtenspurious.SeealsoE.M.B.Green, SecondPeterReconsidered(Tyndale Press, 1960), where he writes to the effect that forgeries were not cordiallyreceived as the criticsmaintain, but that the subapostolics distinguished themselves and evenApollosfrom theapostles,anddeposed theauthorof PaulandTheklaforhis imposture.Another instancewasSerapion, who banned the Gospel of Peterfrom his church because by careful investigation he haddiscovereditwasaforgery.

Afterhis remarkson theauthorshipofspuriouswritings,Hamiltoncomesquickly tohissolution to theproblemofhowlanguagewithitsmythicalinheritancecanexpressdivinetruth.Itisdonebyparable.ThebookofJonah,hesays,doesnot reportactualoccurrences. Its literary formshows that it isaparable.[There neverwas a Jonah. I guess therewas noNinevah, either.] Everyone acknowledges that Christ

taught in parables.6Not everything in theBible,Hamilton acknowledges, is a parable; the apocalypticvisionsarenot.But“ifwearetolookfora‘key’

modeoflanguageusageinScripture,thenparablefitsthispositionmuchmoresuitablythanmythdoes”(p.100).

Let us immediately agree. There are also other sentences in the book, which, if detached from theircontext, can be understood in an orthodox sense. So, it is true that parable is more suitable thanmythology.Butisparablemoresuitablethanandasubstituteforliterallanguage?Hamiltonhasmadethewrongcomparison.Hehashereavoidedmentioningtheweaklinkinhisargument;forifthereisnoliteraltruthofwhichtheparableisanillustration,ithasnoreferentandbecomespointless.

Inconclusion, first,Hamilton’s theoryof language isdestructiveofChristian truth.Surely language, asGod’sgifttoAdam,hasasitspurpose,notonlycommunicationamongmen,butcommunicationbetweenman and God. God spoke words to Adam and Adam spoke words to God. Since this is the divineintention,wordsorlanguageisadequate.Tobesure,onoccasion,evenonfrequentoccasions,sinfulmancannot find the right words to express his thought; but this is a defect of man, not an inadequacy oflanguage.TheBibledoesnotcountenanceatheorythatoriginateslanguageinpaganmythologywiththeresultthatdivinetruthisunintelligible.Similarly,second,onHamilton’stheoryGodremainsunknowable.Thechiefdifficultywithmyths isnot that theyare literallyfalse,but rather that theirallegednonliteral“truth” ismeaningless.Hamilton fled frommyth topoetry toparable inorder toarriveat somesortofrevelation,butheneversucceededinshowinghowparablesconveytruthorwhattruthsparablesconvey.Their“message”remainsunintelligible.

Third,HamiltonhasrejectedthedoctrineofverbalandplenaryinspirationandplaceshimselfoutsidetheboundsofhistoricalEvangelicalism.

The Scriptural refutation ofHamilton’s theory of parabolic language, aswell as that of other theoriesdependingonpoetry,myth,orothernonliteralexpressions, isveryplainlyand literallystatedbyJesushimself,asrecordedin

John16:25,29 ThesethingshaveIspokenuntoyouinproverbs;butthetimecomethwhenIshallnomorespeakuntoyou inproverbs;but Ishallshowyouplainlyof theFather…Hisdisciplessaiduntohim,Lo,nowspeakeththou

plainly,andspeakestnoproverb.

ThisconcludesthechapterontheScripturaldoctrineofScripture.Asforthesetheoriesoflanguage,theirselfrefuting quality is enough to discredit them. Even if theywere not selfrefuting, their futility in thepracticeofanyintelligiblereligionmakesthemworthless.ButfortheestablishmentofapositivetheoryoflanguageitisnecessarytoconsiderthenatureofGodasarationalbeing,thenatureofmanasacreatedbeing, the nature of the revelational message as an intelligible communication; and these matters areproperlyconsideredintheirplacesinthefollowingchapters.

1RevelationandInspiration,p.79.OxfordUniv.Press,1927.

17. By objectiveworldhereHamiltonseemstomean sensoryworld,asiftheworldofmeaningorintelligibilityweresubjective.Yetonp.68hespeaksoftheWordHimself–surelynotasensoryobject–asobjective.Itishardtosaypreciselywhathisargumentisonthesetwopages.

3Forinstance,GoddirectedAbrahamtosacrificeIsaac,or,GoddirectedAnaniastogotothe

houseofJudasonStraightSt.andaskforamannamedSaulofTarsus.Orarenotthesepassages,withtheirspecificdirections,thewordofGod?

4Foradefinitiverefutationsee TheOriginofPaul’sReligion,J.GreshamMachen.

7. Doesit?How?Withwhatresult?

6AcommoncriterionfordistinguishingaparableofChristfromsomethinghereportsashavinghappenedistheabsenceinthefirstandthepresenceinthesecondofnames:amanthatwasahouseholderwentoutearlytohirelaborers,oracertainkingmadeamarriagefeastforhisson,versus,thebloodofAbel…ofZachariah,sonofBarachiah,whomyeslew,orotherreferencestoOTevents.

ChapterTwo

GOD

Aschapteroneexplained,itistheBible,thesixtysixbooksoftheOldandNewTestaments,thatprovidesmankindwiththecontentsofTheology.Thesebooks,thisBook,theHolyScripturegivesusanenormous amount of information. It is information, no less. Liberals frequently show a dislike forinformation.TheyreducethehistoryoftheOldTestamenttothelevelsofAesop’sfables—interesting,evenprofitable,butnot true.Or ifsomeof thehistoricalaccountsare true, theyarenomorethangoodexamples and psychological reactions to religious experiences. This is not theChristian position. TheBiblegivesinformation.Itcontainsuninterestinggenealogiesandhairraisinghistories,aswellaslyricpoetryandpuzzlingprophecies.AllofitinonewayoranotherrelatestoGod.Whereshouldonestart?Well, since the word theologymeans the account, the study, the theory of God, it is best to postponeeverythingelse,eventhesavingactivityoftheincarnateChrist,andbeginwithGodasheisinhimselfalone.“Inthebeginning,God.”

Question four in theWestminster Shorter Catechism asks, “What is God?” The catechism thenanswers, “God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness,justice,goodness,andtruth.”ThelastseveralwordsareusuallycalledtheattributesofGod.Theyarehischaracteristics. IfweknowGod’scharacteristics,weknowhischaracter.Weknowwhat sortofbeingGodis.Whocansaythatsuchknowledgeisunimportant?Theologyisthemostimportantknowledgethereis.

The term attribute,and thequestionwhatanattribute isanattribute of,andsomesimilarmatters,havegivenrisetoextremelyintricatediscussionsofdifficultphilosophicalproblems.Theycanhardlybecalledelementary.Hence theyseemoutofplacehere.Yet, sinceeveryministerof theGospelought toknowsomethingaboutthem,theycannotbecompletelyomitted.Tocompromise,theywillbereservedforaconcludingsectionofthischapter,andtheveryyoungstudentcanskipthem,ifhewishes.

Now,then,thebiblebeginswithGod.ItsaysthatGodwasinthebeginning.ThismaynotquitesaythatGodiseternal;atanyratesuchisnottheemphasis.Theemphasisisthat“InthebeginningGodcreatedtheheavensandtheearth.”Creation,ofcourse,isadivineaction.ItissomethingGoddid.Inthissense it is not directly a statement ofwhatGod is in himself alone.Nevertheless the idea of creationpresupposestheattributeofomnipotence.Itmightrequireconsiderablepowertomoveatentonrock.Buthowmuchpowerisrequiredtoproduceonetenthofanounceofrockfromabsolutelynothing?CreationandomnipotencethereforeseemtobethefirstthingtheBiblewantsustolearnaboutGod.

18. Omnipotence

InadditiontothefactthattheBiblebeginswiththedivineomnipotence,thereareprobablymoreversesintherestoftheBiblethatassertthisattributethanthereareassertingotherattributes,omniscienceforexample.Followingareafew,onlyafew,thatascribeomnipotencetoGod.

Gen.17:1JehovahappeareduntoAbramandsaid,IamGodAlmighty.

Gen.28:3GodAlmightyblessthee.

Gen.35:11AndGodsaiduntohim,IamGodAlmighty.

Job24:1WhyarenottimesstoredupbytheAlmighty?

Job42:2Iknowthatthoucanstdoallthings,andthatnopurposeofthinecanberestrained.

Psa.135:6WhatevertheLordpleased,hedid.

Jer.32:17Thereisnothingtohardforthee.

Dan.4:35 Hedoethaccordingtohiswillinthearmyofheavenandamongtheinhabitantoftheearth,Andnonecanstayhishandorsayuntohim,Whatdoesthou?

Matt.19:36WithGodallthingsarepossible.

Thisbrief list, towhich scoresofmoreor less explicit verses couldbe added, is sufficient toshowthattheBiblerepresentsGodasAlmighty.Nothingistoohardforhim;hecandoanything,andheactuallydoeseverythinghewantsto.Nopowercanstophim.

DoesnottheBiblesoteach?Strangely,GeddesMacGregor,professorinBrynMawrCollege,inhisIntroductiontoReligiousPhilosophy(p.269)says,“ThereisnosuggestionsanywhereineithertheOTortheNTofthenotionofomnipotenceinthesenseof‘theabilitytodoanythingwhatsoever.’Nor...wasitimpliedintheuseofthewordpantokratorintheancientCreeds.”

ThequestionhereisnotwhetherGodisomnipotent.Thequestionissimply,DoestheBibleteachthatGodisomnipotent?Anotherquestionanswersthis lastone.Donot thetexts justquotedshowwithsufficientclaritythatMacGregorhasseriouslymisunderstoodagreatdealoftheBible?Lettheprofessorand all other secularists believe in whatever sort of God they wish to, or in no God at all; but letscholarshipdetermineaccuratelywhat theBiblesaysinsteadofalteringtheBible’smessagetosuit thescholar’snotionofwhattheBibleoughttohavesaid,butdidn’t.Asforthemainquestion,DoestheBibleteachomnipotence?letoneask,whatcouldpossiblybebeyondthepowerofaBeingwhocouldcreatesomething,eventheleastthing,fromnothing?

Somepeoplewhodonotthinkveryclearlyhaveobjectedthatomnipotenceisaselfcontradictoryconcept.IfGodcandoeverything,heoughttobeabletocreateastonesoheavythathecouldnotliftit.Or,heoughttobeabletodrawaEuclideanplanesquarewithonlythreestraightlines.However,itisnottheconceptofomnipotencethatisselfcontradictory;itisthesetwoexamples.Asquarebydefinitionisafoursidedfigure.Tospeakofasquarewithonlythreesidesistotalknonsense.Thesentencedoesnotmeananything.Athreesidedsquareis

3

nothing.ThereforetochallengeGodtodrawathreesidedsquareisnottochallengehimatall.Similarly,if a bit less obviously, a stone so heavy that omnipotence could not lift it is not a stone. Stones bydefinition are things that omnipotence can life. Or, in general, what omnipotence cannot do, whenexpressed in words, is a sentence that has no meaning. The objection therefore is empty because itproposednothingthatcanbeunderstood.Itdoesnotpresentanintelligibleproblem.

Thereisanotherandmorepointedformofthisobjection.CanGodsin?OneansweristhatGodcansin,ifhewishedto,buthewillneverwishto.Thisanswer,however,isratherpoorbecauseitallowsthenextquestion,CanGodwishtosin?IfGodcandoeverything,cannothewishtosin?Thereplymustbethesameasthatgiventothemoreobviouslyfaultyobjectionaboutathreesidedsquare;namely,thatitdisguises a selfcontradiction. For one thing, it depends on the definition of sin. Later on sin will bedefinedas“anywantofconformityuntoortransgressionofthelawofGod.”Theselaws,however,applytoman, and not toGod. God cannot dishonor his father andmother because he has none. He can, ofcourse,killaman,andhedidsointhecaseofAnaniasandSaphira;buthecannotcommitthecrimeofmurderbecauseheisthePotterandhaseveryrighttodoanythingwiththeclay.ManhasnorightsinhisdealingswithGod.SimilarlyGodcannotstealbecauseheownseverything.Behindtheseparticularsthereis a deeper reason. God wills the moral law much as he wills creation. His command, the law hepromulgates,is ipsofactothenormofrightandwrong.Hencewhateverhedoesisbydefinitionright.Tosuppose thatGodcanwish to sinbecauseGodcando everything is tobogdown in selfcontradiction.Concerning this pointmore needs to be said in later connections, for everything in someway fits intoeverythingelse.Thereforeitisbesttocontinueenumeratingtheattributes.

3Omniscience

Asecondattributeisomniscience.Itisrelatedtoomnipotenceandtotheremainingattributes;butthe relationships cannot be discussed without first looking at the Biblical data for each one. As foromnisciencesomepassagesintheBibleareperfectlygeneralstatementsthatGodknowseverything.Butthereisalsosuchavarietyofparticularitemsofknowledgementionedthatwhencompiledtheysupportthewidestgeneralization.Thefirstgroupissmallerinnumber.

ISam.2:3TheLordisaGodofknowledge.

IIChron.16:9TheeyesoftheLordruntoandforthroughthewholeearth.cf.

Zech.4:10

Psa.147:5Hisunderstandingisinfinite.

IJohn3:20God…knowethallthings.

The first of these verses, since it does not specify howmuchGod knows, is better adapted tosupportingthepointthatGodisspirit,thanthatheisomniscient.Thesecondispicturesque,andinawaysuggests that God knows at least what takes place on earth. The fourth is completely general andconclusive.

Thethirdintheabovelistmayneedsomeexegesis.IsGodinfinite?IsGod’sknowledgeinfinite?Whatdoestheterminfinitemean?Subjecttolaterqualifications,wemayask,andsometheologianshaveasked,whetherthereisaninfinitenumberofpropositionsforGodtoknow?

Godmaybeomniscient,i.e.hemayknoweverytruththatthereistoknow,butisalltruthafiniteoraninfinitenumberofpropositions?

If the verses that assert omniscience in all its generality are only a few in number few butsufficientthenumberofversesthatspecifyparticularitemsofGod’sknowledgeareverynumerous.Thelisthereislongandyetitisonlyasample.

ICor.2:10TheSpiritsearcheth…thedeepthingsofGod…thethingsof

God,noneknowethsavetheSpiritofGod.

Ex.4:11Whohathmademan’smouth…isitnotItheLord?

Psa.90:4,8.Forathousandyearsinthysightarebutasyesterdaywhenitis

past…Thouhastsetouriniquitiesbeforethee.

Eccl.3:15Thatwhichishathbeenlongago…andGodseekethagainthat

whichispassedaway.

Isa.43,44,45IhavegivenEgyptastheyransom.…Yetnowhear,OJacob…

whomIhavechosen.…Ihavemadetheearth…I,evenmyhands,havestretchedtheheavens.

Hos11:1WhenIsraelwasachild,thenIlovedhim.

Job38:41Whoprovidethfortheravenhisprey,whenhisyoungonescry

untoGod.

Psa.103:14Forheknowethourframe;heremembereththatwearedust.

Psa.139:16OLord,thouhastsearchedmeandknownme…Thou

understandeth my thought … thou knoweth italtogether…

Prov.5:21ThewaysofmanarebeforetheeyesoftheLord.

Matt.10:30Theveryhairsofyourheadareallnumbered.(cf.Acts27:34)

Acts15:18TheLord,whomakeththesethingsknownfromofold.

Gen.3:15Iwillputenmitybetweentheeandthewoman…heshallbruise

thyhead,andthoushaltbruisehisheel.

IKings13:2AsonshallbeborntothehouseofDavid.

Isa.45:11Askmeofthethingsthataretocome.

Isa.46:10Declaringtheendfromthebeginning.

Dan.2:47Ofatruth,yourGodistheGodofgods…andarevealerof

secrets.

John6:64Jesusknewfromthebeginningwhotheywerewhobelievednot,

andwhoitwasthatshouldbetrayhim.

Heb.4:13Thereisnocreaturethatisnotmanifestinhissight;butallthings

are naked and laid open before the eyes of himwithwhomwehavetodo.

Someof theseversesmay seem irrelevant, and it is certain that theydonot all carry the same

weight for the subject at hand. Exodus 4 and Isaiah 43 were not written primarily to teach God’somniscience; but they indicate that God knew, in the time of those prophets, what he had previouslycreated.SimilarlyJob38andPsalm103emphasizeGod’sprovidentialcare;buttodosohemustknowthe ravens andus.Thus eachof theseverses,with ahundredothers, has its point and contributes to acumulativedescriptionofGodasallknowing.

ThatGodknowshimselfmightseemtogowithoutsaying.Itsusefulness,however,liesinthefactthat, since I Cor. 2 shows thatGod knows his ownmind, and these other particularities also,we arewarnedagainst thedialecticalorneoorthodoxtheologians(Barth,Brunneretal)whoclaimthatGodis“WhollyOther”.IfGodwerewhollyother,thensincemanisrational,Godwouldbeirrational.Sincetoomanknowsoneor two truths, it follows that aGod totallydifferent couldnot knowanything.What iswhollyothercannotbeanobjectofknowledge:sincemanisanobjectofknowledgetoman,himselfandothers,Godcouldnotbeanobjectofknowledge,eithertohimselfortous.SuchisoneoftheunfortunateresultsofNeoorthodoxy.

ThatGodmademan’smouthand,sotospeak,remembersthathedidso;thatman’siniquitiesarebeforehismind;thatheknowshegaveEgyptforaransom,andsoonthatGodknowspasteventsalsoseemshardlyworthmentioning.ButitservestodistinguishtheChristianpositionfromthatofAristotle.ThisphilosopherarguedthatsinceGodwasthebestofallbeing,andtobebestincludedhavingonlythebestthoughts,thoughtsofthebestthings,Godcouldnotdegradehismindbythinkingofmen’sevils.NorcouldGodknowtheeventsofhistory,foreveniftheywerenotpositivelyevil,yettheyweretrivialandbeneathhisnotice.ForAristotle thereforeGodcouldknowonlyhimself.TheGodof theBibleknowshowmanyhairswehaveonour heads.God alsoknowsour secret thoughts.Heknew that themenofKeilahwanted tokillDavid. It is impossible forman toclosehismind toGod.Somepeoplehaveanexaggeratednotionof the inviolabilityofpersonality. In theirviewGodmust respectour individuality,our thought, our rights, our socalled freedom. But Jehovah penetrates our minds and understands ourthoughtaltogether.

All the predictions in the Bible certify that God knows the future. He prophesied the birth ofJosiahsomethreehundredyearsaheadoftime.HepredictedthatCyruswouldfavortheJews.Itisnotasthough God said: I shall manage this somehow; if Cyrus does not want to favor the Jews, I can getsomeoneelsewhowillbewilling.ThefutureeventwastheactionofCyrus.Therearealsopredictionsofeventsthatarestillfuturetous.Aristotlesaidthatthiswasimpossible.Hisreasonwasnotonlythattheseeventsare too trivial forGod tobotherwith;butmoreparticularly that futureevents cannotbeknownbecausethefuturedoesnotexist.Only

whatis,canbeknown.Thefuturenotonlyisnot,butitisuncertain.Itmayturnoutonewayortheother.Now,Christianitywilladmitthatonlythefixedanddeterminedcanbeknown.Tosaythatthefuturemayturnoutonewayoranothersurelymakesthefutureunknowable.ButChristianityteachesthatthefutureisinevitable.JudaswaschosenasadisciplebecausehewastheonetobetrayChrist.AndChrist’sbetrayaland death were known from eternity. God can declare the end from the beginning, for he made thebeginning in order to bring about the end.Thus the list of quotations above refers not only towhat ispresent,buttoallthings,past,present,andfuture:allthingsarenakedandlaidopenbeforetheeyesofGod.

4Eternity.

The next attribute for discussion is God’s eternity, for eternity and omniscience are closelyrelated.Maybe theyare identical!The first thing todo is to seewhether theBible teaches thatGod iseternal, and whether the notion of eternity is well defined. The items in the list will require someexplanation.

Gen.21:33TherehecalledonthenameoftheLord,theeverlastingGod.

Ex.3:14IAMTHATIAM.

Psa.41:13BlessedbytheLord,theGodofIsrael,fromeverlastingto

everlasting.cfPsa.90:2

Isa.9:6Hisnameshallbecalled…EverlastingFather.

John5:26TheFatherhathlifeinhimself.

Rom.1:20hiseverlastingpowerandGodhead.

Rom.16:26theeternalGod.

With the possible exception of Ex. 3:14 where the French version translates God’s name asL’EterneltheseversemaysaymerelythatGodiseverlasting,thathisyearsarenumberless,butthattheyareyearsnonetheless,andthatthereforeGodisnoteternal.Inphilosophyandtheologyeternityhasusuallybeen regardedas somethingdifferent fromendless time.Popularly,however,mostpeopledonotmakesuchadistinction.ItwouldappearthatJ.OliverBuswell,Jr. in ASystematicTheologyoftheChristianReligion(pp.40ff.)holdstothepopularviewanddeniestimelesseternity.Hewrites,“TheBiblewritersexplicitlyteach…thatthebeingofGodiseternal,bothastothepastandastothefuture.Godhasalwaysexisted andalwayswill exist… Indiscussing the cosmological argument for the existenceofGod,weshallshowthatallsystematicthinkersareobligedtopostulatesomeuncausedeternalbeing.Ifanythingdoes now exist, then somethingmust be eternal, unless something can come fromnothing.Materialistsgenerallyholdthatthematerialcosmicsystemisitselfeternalasasystem,andasachainofcausality.”Sincenomaterialisteverheldthattheuniverseistimeless,thiscomparisonbetweenGodandtheuniverseas, in the respective systems, both eternal, shows thatDr.Buswell considersGod to exist extended intime. In other words, God is everlasting but not eternal. Below he has a subhead, Eternity is notTimelessness.

Parmenides, an ancient Greek philosopher, argued that origin, absolute origin, is impossible.Sincehisdayprobablynoonehasevermaintainedthatsomethingcomesfromnothing.Thereforeeitherthere is an eternal, timeless, unchanging reality and nothing else ever comes into being (and thiswasParmenides’ conclusion), or there is an everlasting series of events (which is the position of socalledmaterialism); or there is an eternal reality and a temporal series of events. The latter is the standardChristianposition,which,if it is tobedefended,mustbeshowntobeanimplicationfromtheBiblicaldata.

Thisimplicationcannotbebasedonsuchphrasesas“beforethefoundationoftheworld”(John17:24,Eph.1:4).Suchverses,ifthereareclearimplicationsofeternityinotherplaces,canbeinterpretedashumanphraseologylike“theeyesoftheLord,”buttheycannotbetheprimary

ground for a belief in God’s eternity. There are other verses, however; and they have to do withomniscience,alreadydiscussedsomewhat,andimmutability,yettobeconsidered.

The questionmay be put in severalways.Onemay ask, is eternity qualitatively different fromtime?Or,istheretimeinGod’sownbeing,orisitacreatedsomething?Andoneshouldsurelyask,whatistime?Unlessweknowwhattimeis,wecannotbegintoconsiderwhetherornotitwascreatedandhasonlyafinitepast.Thesameistrueofspace.

IfthebeginningstudentoftheologyhadafewcoursesinPhysicsbeforeenteringSeminary,hemayhavecomeacrossargumentsrefutingtheNewtoniantheoryofspaceandtimeasindependentframeworks.Modernphysics talksaboutafourdimensionalcontinuum,calledspacetime.Prior to thephysicsof thetwentiethcentury,thephilosopherlaboredwithgreatdiligenceovertheproblemsofspaceandtime.ThismaterialmightbeincludedinanAppendix,butletusnotclutterupthepresentparagraph.Yet,onemustinsistthatunlesswehavesomenotionofwhattimeis,wecannotdecidewhetherGodistemporalornot.ItwouldbeliketryingtodecidewhetherGodisspalificerousordoriconimous.

ThegreatChristianphilosopher,AugustineofHippo,connectedtimewiththesuccessionofideasinamind.Weknowsomethingstoday;tomorrowwelearnmore;thenextdayweforgetsome.Eveninanyfiveminuteoroneminuteperiod,ideascomeandgo.This,saysAugustine,istime.

Now,Godisomniscient.Hedoesnotlearnwhathedidnotknow,andheneverforgets.

Therecanbenosuccessionofideasinthedivinemind.Therefore,Godisnotatemporalbeing.

Omnisciencerequireseternity,andeternityistimelessness.

8. Immutability.

CorroboratingthisargumentistheBiblicalteachingonimmutability.Someversesare:

Num.23:19Godisnotamanthatheshouldlie;neitherthesonofmanthat

heshouldrepent.cf.ISam.15:29

Dan.6:26HeisthelivingGodandsteadfastforever.

Mal.3:6I,theLord,changenot.

Matt.5:48YourheavenlyFatherisperfect.

Heb.1:1012theworksofthyhands,theyshallperish,butthoudost

continue…theyshallbechanged,butthouartthesame.c.f.Psa.

102:27.

Heb.6:17theimmutabilityofhiscounsel.

James1:17theFatheroflights,withwhomcanbenovariation,neither

shadowcastbyturning.

First, a fewcommentson theseverses. In the sectionon language inchapteroneabove, itwaspointedoutthatfigurativelanguagedoesnotconflictwithinerrancy,foritcanalwaysbetranslatedintocommonprose.Onestrikingversehasbeenalludedtoseveraltimesnow:theeyesoftheLordruntoandfromthroughoutthewholeearth.ThefirstverseinthelastlistsaysquiteliterallythatGoddoesnotrepentorchangehismind.ThewordsarerepeatedinISam.15:29.Aremarkablecontrastoccursinthischapter.VerseIIsays,ItrepentethmethatIhavesetupSaultobeking.Verse35says,TheLordrepentedthathehadmade Saul over Israel. And between these two verses, I Samuel quotesNumbers and says, “TheStrengthofIsraelwillnotlienorrepent,forheisnotamanthatheshouldrepent.”

Therearetwotechnicaltermsthatnamethesetypesoffigurativeexpression.Whenarms,legs,or

eyes are ascribed to the Lord, the figure is called anthropomorphism. It means that bodily parts arefigurativelyascribedtoGod.ButwhenmentalpassionsareascribedtoGod,itiscalledanthropopathism.TheThirtyNineArticlesoftheChurchofEnglandandtheWestminster

ConfessiondenythatGodhasbody,parts,orpassions.Thewordsare“God…amostpureSpirit

6withoutbody,parts,orpassions.”Theproof test in theWestminsterConfession isActs14:15whereobviouslymentalorpsychologicalpassionsareintended.NotethattheseConfessionsdonotsaythatGodiswithout“bodilypartsandpassions.”Thesewordscouldmean, though theywouldnothave tomean,bodilypartsandbodilypassions.Thisambiguityisavoided.Thereisnomentionofbodilypassions.Godiswithoutbody,parts,andpassions.

TheverseinActs14:15anditsimplicationsdeservesomeexamination.PaulhadjusthealedthelamemanatLystra.ThemultitudesthenjumpedtotheconclusionthatBarnabaswasZeusandthatPaulwasHermes.Theypreparedtosacrificeoxentothem.ThenPaulsaid,“Sirs,whydoyethesethings?Wealsoaremenoflikepassionswithyou.”Themainmeaningofthe

wordpathosissuffering,anditusedwithreferencetothesufferingsofChrist.Itisalsousedtodesignatelustfulsexualpassions,anger,emotions,andingeneralhoweveroneis affectedbyanything.Paulassertsthatheexperiencesthesementalchanges,andforthatreasonheisnotGodbecauseGodhasnoemotions,nosuddenmentalchanges,nogradualchangeseither,andiscompletelyimpassible.

Inaveryelementaryvolumesuchasthisitisperhapswisetoacknowledgehere,aswellaslaterwhentheincarnationisdiscussed,thatChristinhishumannaturesufferedandexperiencedpassions.ButasAthanasius says (inhisDiscourse IIIofhis SelectTreatises InControversywith theArians,chapterxxvi, paragraph 13) “Let noman stumble at these human affections, but rather let aman know that innaturetheWordhimself is impassible.…Hehimself,beingimpassible innature,remainsasheis,notharmedbytheseaffections.”

WhatistrueoftheSoninthisregardissurelytrueoftheFather.Godisimpassible.ThisisnottodenyGod’s wrath and anger against sin. But wrath and anger in God, like repentance, are figures ofspeechtomakevividtousGod’simmutablewilltopunishsin.

Toreturnnowtothelist:Mal.3:6isliteralandconclusive.Matt.5:48implies

immutabilitybecauseachangewouldmeanthateitherGodhadnotbeenperfectbefore,oris

nownolongerperfect.James1:17,inspiteofsomeflowerylanguage,isessentiallyliteral,obvious,andconclusive:thereisnovariation(parallax)inGod,noranyshadowcausedbychange(asoccurswhentheheavenlybodieschangetheirpositions).

5. RelationBetweenOmnipotenceandOmniscience.

Perhapsenoughhasnowbeengiven tobeginconsidering therelationbetweenomnipotenceandomniscience.Augustineinhis Confessions(XII,53)wrote,“Weseethosethingsthouhastmadebecausetheyare; theyare,however,becausethouseest them.”Aquinasmoreclearlywrote,“TheknowledgeofGodisthecause[theformalcause]ofallthings,fortheknowledgeofGodistoallcreatedobjectswhattheknowledgeofanartificeristothingsmadebyhisart.…Hencetheformintheintellectmustbetheprincipleofaction.…NowitismanifestthatGodcausesthingsbyhisintellect,sincehisbeingishisactofunderstanding.”(I,14,8).

Charles Hodge takes these two quotations to mean that omnipotence and omniscience areidentical.Hodge himself denies this identity.One of his reasons is thatwhen they are identified, “thepossibilityofknowledgeinGodisvirtuallydenied.”(I,p.394)Thisishardlyalogicalinference.Tosaythattwonamesrefertothesamething,isnottodenythething.Theidentificationofknowledgeandpowernomoredeniesknowledgethanitdoespower.Andsurelythosewhoidentifytheseattributesdonotmeanthat God is neitherknowledge norpower. Hodge admits that the Lutheran and Reformed theologiansgenerallyassert the identity.Against theReformationviewHodgeobjects,“Toknowa thing is,and towillit,arethesameundividedandperpetualact.Fromthisitwouldseemtofollow,thatasGodknowsfrometernity,hecreatesfrometernity”(p.395).AndthisaccordingtoHodgeispantheism.

Well,ofcourse,itisnotpantheismatall.Evenifcreationwerefrometernity,thecreateduniversewouldnotbeGod.Aristotleheldthatthephysicaluniverseneverhadabeginning;buthisGodwhositsonthecircleoftheuniverse,ignorantofwhatgoesonbelow,isnotequated

withtheuniverse.Whateverthisis,itisnotpantheism.Furthermore,itisstrangethatHodge,afterquotingAquinas, shouldherehave ignoredAquinas’ reply, forAquinas in the samesection fromwhichHodgequotesanswersHodge’sobjection:“TheknowledgeofGodisthecauseofthingsaccordingasthingsareinhisknowledge.ButthatthingsshouldbeeternalwasnotintheknowledgeofGod;hencealthoughtheknowledgeofGodiseternal,itdoesnotfollowthatcreatedbeingsareeternal.”

Let us observe some caution, however. The subject is complicated. Not to anticipate laterconsiderations, let us note here that the word causedoes not mean today what it meant in the fifth,thirteenth,andsixteenthcenturies.ForHodge causeprobablymeantsomesortofphysicalforce.Gravity,for example, forces a heavy body to fall. But this idea is repudiated by all physicists. Gravity wasintendedtobeadescriptionofhowtwobodiesmove.Itwasnever intendedtoexplainwhat itwas, ifanything,thatmadethemmove.WhenAugustineusedtheword cause,hemeanttheChristiancounterpartofthePlatonicIdea.ForAristotleandAquinasthecauseintendedhere,distinguishedfromthe materialcause, was the formalcause. To untangle all of this, the student will need considerable philosophy.CertainlytheBibledoesnotmakeGodthecauseoftheworldintheKantiansenseofaprecedingevent,whichinturnhasacauseinastillpreviousmotion.

Hodge’srejectionoftheidentityofomniscienceandomnipotencecontainsanotherverysurprisingstatement.Hequotesatheologianwhotakespainstorejectpantheismbydefiningomniscienceas“SofarasweconceiveGodascomprehendingtheworldinhisconsciousness,wecallhimomniscient.”Now,this is a poordefinitionof omniscience, forGodknowsmuchmore than thephysical universe.Not tomentiontheangelsandthedevil,whomayperhapsbeincludedinthetermworld,Godknowsalltheologyincludinghimself, and this is hardly the “world” in anyordinary sense.But aside from this objection,whichHodgedoesnotconsider,henotonlycallsthelanguageunintelligiblebysaying,“Whateversuchlanguagemaymeantothosewhouseit,”butgoesontowaxindignantinthephrase,“totheordinarymindit conveys the revolting idea that all the sins of men enter into the consciousness of God.” But thisindignation

is Aristotelianism, and it is an explicit contradiction of the Biblical assertions, “Thou hast set ouriniquitiesbeforethee;”“Thouunderstandethmythoughtaltogether;”“Yournewmoons…mysoulhateth,…theyareatroubleuntome…yourhandsarefullofblood;”andaswelleverypredictionofevilsuchasthefutureactivitiesoftheantichrist.SurelytheBibleteachesthatGodknowsall.

Theproblemofthissubsection,therelationofomnisciencetoomnipotencecanwellbeconcludedbyacomparisonbetweenCharlesHodgeandStephenCharnock.

StephenCharnock, a great Puritan divine of the seventeenth century,wrote a bookwell over athousandpagesonTheExistenceandAttributesofGod.AmongtheotherexcellentchaptershehasoneonGod’somniscience.Whereasthepresentelementaryvolumerestrictsitselftoafewversesandurgesthereadertolookformore,CharnockprovidessuchalonglistoftheitemsofGod’sknowledgethatoneistempted to think it is complete. The student is urged to become acquainted with the Rev. StephenCharnock.

ThecomparisonofHodgewithCharnockisnotmeanttoimplythatCharnockisalwaysrightandHodgealwayswrong.NeitherofthemwasinfallibleastheBibleis;butbothofthemaretobeconsideredasmuchasanyotherwriterontheology,andmorethanmost.ThefirstquotationfromCharnockisnotsomuchon the relation between omniscience and omnipotence; but to provide a foundation it asserts thedoctrineofeternity.Sothen,Charnockwrote,“IfeternitywereanythingdistinctfromGod,andnotoftheessenceofGod,thentherewouldbesomethingwhichwasnotGod,necessarytoperfectGod.…Godisessentiallywhateverheis,andthereisnothinginGodbuthisessence.Durationorcontinuanceinbeingincreaturesdiffersfromtheirbeing;…theyarenotthereforetheirownduration,nomorethantheyaretheirownexistence.Andthoughsomecreatures…maybecalledeverlasting…yettheycanneverbecalledtheirowneternity…butasGodishisownnecessityforexisting,soishehisowndurationinexisting;as

hedothnecessarilyexistbyhimself,sohewillalwaysnecessarilyexistbyhimself.”1

4. TheExistenceandAttributesofGod,Vol.II,pp.285286,misplacedintheeditionof1873fromVol.I.

6. AreAllAttributesOne?

ThereisasecondquotationfromCharnock.Butintheprogressthesubjectmatterbroadens.Itisno longeraquestionwhetheromnipotenceandomniscienceare identical,butwhetherallattributesareone.

If in thepreviousquotationCharnockhascorrectlyunderstood the implicationof theScripture,thenalltheattributesofGodareidenticalbecauseeachoneisnecessarytotheessenceofGod.Charnocksays thatGod is his ownduration (though thiswordmaybeunfortunate);God thenwouldbehis ownpower and knowledge. In fact he says (Vol. I, p. 318), “In our notion and conception of the divineperfections,hisperfectionsaredifferent…butimmutabilityisthecenterinwhichtheyallunite.…AllthatweconsiderinGodisunchangeable;forhisessenceandhispropertiesarethesame,andthereforewhat is necessarily belonging to the essenceofGod, belongs also to everyperfectionof the nature ofGod.”

Inconformitywiththis,healsowrites(p.325),“ThewillofGodisthesamewithhisessence.IfGodhadawilldistinctfromhisessence,hewouldnotbethemostsimplebeing.Godhathnotafacultyofwilldistinctfromhimself;ashisunderstandingisnothingelsebutDeusintelligens,Godunderstanding,sohiswill is nothing else but Deusvolens,Godwilling, being therefore the essence ofGod; though it isconsidered,accordingtoourweakness,asafaculty, it isashisunderstandingandwisdom,eternaland

immutable;andcannomorebechangedthanhisessence.”2

Afewpagesbackcommentsweremadeonalistofverses,relatingtotheeternityofGod,withtheexceptionofone.Thatversewas,“IAMTHATIAM.”Itishardtosayhowmuchcanbedrawnfromthisname,orhowmuchcanbereadintoit.ProbablyonecannotvalidlyinferfromthisversealonethatGodispuresimplebeing,andthathisessenceandattributesareallonereality;butitwouldbehardertoshowthatthisverseruledoutCharnock’sposition.Itrathersupportsit.

2Cf.later,JamesDaane’sattackonthisposition

17

6. TheInfiniteandtheFinite.

TheShorterCatechism,quotedearlier,definedGodasaspirit,infiniteinhisbeing,wisdom,power,etc.Wisdomandpowerhavenowbeensufficientlydiscussed.ButinadditiontoGod’sbeinginfiniteinhiswisdom and knowledge, the Catechism asserts that God is infinite in his being. This needs furtherexplanation.

Aquotation fromH.B.Smithmakesanappropriatestartingpoint.Oneof theaimshere is toshow thatevenagoodtheologiansometimesfloundersinconfusion.Toquote:

“God is unconditioned andunlimitedby space and time.This is definingGod in contrast with the finite. The infinitude of God has in it twoelements…The limitations of the finite, being comprehended in the twoparticularsof timeandspace, the infinitudeofGodmaybe resolved intotwopoints,whicharedefinedanddescribedastwoattributes,eternityandimmensity.Bytheverynecessityofourthinkingweareobligedtoconceiveofallthatisfiniteunderthelimitationsofspaceandtime.Wecannotdefineanything except in reference to space and time” (System of ChristianTheology,p.17).

Thereseemtobesomeinaccuraciesinthisstatement.Forthosewhobelievethattimeandspaceareboth infinite, it is suspicious that“This isdefiningGod incontrastwith the finite”.Althoughsomewhobelievethattimeisinfiniteassertaninfinitepasttime,andthisvolumedoesnot,theobservationstillapplies, for while this volume denies an infinite past, it asserts an infinite future. Since then time isinfinite, Smith’s “defining God in contrast with the finite” is a phrase he might well have omitted.Furthermore, it is not true that the limitations of the finite, such as a dog, a mountain, or a star, areexhaustedinthetwoparticularsoftimeandspace.Adog

18

hasatail,andthoughcometsdotoo,starsdonot.Tailsaresurelylimitationsofsomesort,buttailsareneithertimenorspace.Norisitcorrecttosay,“Wecannotdefineanythingexceptinreferencetospaceandtime.”TheCatechismdefinedGodwithoutmentioningspaceortime.Forthatmatterthenumbertwoisafinitenumber,butspaceisnotaterminitsdefinition.Thenthereiszero,nottomentionthesquareroot of minus one. Dr. Smith was a good theologian; but when theologians indulge in philosophy ormathematicstheysometimesmakemistakes.

Thus many of the infelicities in theology books do not arise from a definite rejection of theBiblical data. The trouble is that the author fails to pay attention to the usage of words in secularphilosophy and scholarly publications. Another example is the word cause.From the time of ThomasAquinasontotheeighteenthcentury,theologianscouldusetheterminthefourAristoteliansenses.Fromthe sixteenth or seventeenth century to the very recent past, the idea ofmechanical causation grew inpopularityandsubmergedthefourAristoteliancauses.About1752Humeshowedthattheideaofcauseresultedfromaconfusionofmind,andthatsciencecouldneithersupportnorusesuchaconcept.Withtheadventofevolution,theancientcausethatwasalwaysgreaterthanitseffect,andthemoderncausethatwas always equal to its effect, turned into the contemporary cause that is always less than its effect.Thereforewhentheeducatedpublicisaskedtoreadtheology,theauthorisobligedtoinformhisreaderswhathemeansbyhisterms.Infiniteisanotheroneoftheseterms.

Now,H.B.Smith’sreferencetoinfinitetimeandspacebringsSpinozatomind.HeheldthatGodisabsolutelyinfinite:“BYGodImeanabeingabsolutelyinfinitethatis,asubstanceconsistingininfiniteattributes,ofwhicheachexpresseseternalandinfiniteessentiality.Explanation:Isayabsolutelyinfinite,notinfiniteafteritskind;for,ofathinginfiniteonlyafteritskind,infiniteattributesmaybedenied;butthat which is absolutely infinite contains in its essence whatever expresses reality and involves nonegation.”

Inearlier theology,even in thepaganphilosophyofPlatoandAristotle,not tomention theJewPhilo, and the Christian Augustine and Aquinas the attributes of time and space were denied to GodbecausesomehowtheseattributeswereconsideredimperfectandunworthyofGod.EvenwhenAnselmandDescartesargued:Godisthebeingwhohasallattributesor

perfections,existenceisaperfection,thereforeGodexists;theydeniedthatspacewasaperfection.ButSpinozaattributedspaceaswellasknowledgetoGodandconcludedthatGodisanextendedbeing,theuniverse.

Since Spinoza has had considerable influence on the subsequent history of thought, aChristiantheologian,ifhewishestobeunderstood,mustdenythatGodisabsolutelyinfinite.Godis“infinite”onlyafter his kind, or in certain particulars. The God of the Bible may know an infinite number ofpropositions;but,withallduerespecttotheShorterCatechism,writtenbymenwhohadneverheardofSpinoza,wetodaydarenotsaythatGodisinfiniteinhisbeing.TherearemanypredicatesthatmustnotbeattachedtoGod,suchasgreen,feline,andextendedinthreedimensions.

TurnnowtoaquotationfromCharlesHodge(Vol.I,p380.):

“Heisinfiniteinhisbeingandperfections…Inallageswrongviewsofwhattheinfiniteis,haveledtofatalerrorsinphilosophyandreligion.…WhenitissaidthatGodisinfiniteastohisbeing,whatismeant is, that no limitation canbe assigned to his essence.…The infinite, although illimitable andincapable of increase, is not necessarily all. … The sense in which Spinoza and Mansel make thisassertionisthefundamentalprincipleofPantheism.…Athingmaybeinfiniteinitsownnaturewithoutpredicating thepossibilityof the existenceof thingsof adifferentnature.…Theremayevenbemanyinfinitiesofthesamekind,aswecanimagineanynumberofinfinitelines....“

It isobvious thatHodgehas tried todistinguishbetween theabsolutely infiniteGodofSpinozaandtheBiblicalGodwhoisonlyinfiniteafterhiskind.Thelasthalfofthequotationisunexceptionable.Butshouldwesaythat theinfinityof theBiblicalGodmeansthat“nolimitationcanbeassignedtohisessence”? The difficulty lies in the pejorative ambiguity of the word limitation.When we “limit” theconcept animal by attaching the predicate canine,we limit it to dogs, wolves, foxes. Limitations ofconceptsarepredicates.Allpredicateslimitordelimit

their subjects. Thus we limit God by attaching the predicate spirit.God is spirit.Furthermore; otherlimiting predicates must be attached to distinguish this God from other alleged Gods. Zeus was notomnipotent.Ifnopredicatecanbeattachedtoasubject,thatsubjectisunknowable.ButtheBiblicalDeitycanbeknown.Thereforepredicatesorlimitationsmustbeattached.Atthesametimetherearepredicatesthatmustnotbeattached.Godnotonlyisx,butheisalsonoty.

Thishighlightsthenecessity,notonlyofspecifyingwhatinGodisinfinite,butmoreimportantlyofdefininginfinity,i.e.oflimitinginfinity!Hodgewrites,“Notwithstandingtheconflictingstatementsofphilosophers[aboutspace],andtherealobscurityofthesubject,everymanknowsclearlyanddefinitelywhattheword‘space’means.…Itismuchthesamewiththeideaofinfinity.Ifmenwouldbecontenttoleavethewordinitsintegrity,assimplyexpressingwhatdoesnotadmitoflimitation,therewouldbenodangerinspeculatingaboutitsnature.”(Vol.I,p.381).Butthisisperniciousnonsense,anditcontradictswhathesowellsaidaboutSpinozaandthe“manyinfinitesofthesamekind”inthepreviousquotation.Nooneshouldobjecttothereferenceinthepresentquotationto“therealobscurityofthesubject;”buthow can he immediately continue by saying, “everyman knows clearly and definitely what the word‘space’means”?ConsiderPlato’sreceptacle,Aristotle’splace,Locke’shesitationbetweenasimpleideaand an idea of relation,Kant’s a priori intuition,Hegel in the first chapter of hisPhenomenology, andNietzsche’sfinitespace.WouldHodgeagreewithEinsteinthatSpaceiscurved?Itisfoolishnesstoleavethewordinitsnonexistent“integrity”.IfasHodgeadmits,“wrongviewsofwhattheinfiniteishaveledtofatalerrors,”isitnotthepartofwisdomtoavoiderrorsbysearchingforacleardefinition?Ifwefail,atleastweshallavoidusingadefinitionweconcludedtobebad.

At this point an appeal toScripture shouldbemade. ifwe cannot find inScripture the correctdefinitionofspace,atleastwecanseewhatitsaysabouttheinfinite.ThereareinfactonlythreeversesintheentireBible(KJversion)wherethewordinfiniteisfound.TheRSVwillalsobegivenhere.

Job22:5Isnotthywickednessgreat?andthineiniquitiesinfinite.

RSVThereisnoendtoyouriniquities.

Psa147:5Hisunderstandingisinfinite.

RSVHisunderstandingisbeyondmeasure.

Nahum3:9EthiopiaandEgyptwereherstrength,anditwasinfinite.

RSVandthatwithoutlimit.

These three verses provide very fragile support for a doctrine of the infinitude of God. Twowords,notone,areused.JobandNahumusearootthatmeanstochopoff,tocutordestroy,fromwhichcometwosimilarnounsforanextremity,border,and,brink,edge,orfrontier.SinceitisclearthatEgypt’sstrengthwasnot infinite,thewordisbettertranslatedextreme,orsimply, verygreat.Inanycase,thewordisnotapplied toGod.Thewordapplied toGod inPsa147 isadifferentword.Theverbal root is toscore, to tally, or to enumerate; and the noun means a number,either innumerable or a few.Song ofSolomon6:8usesthewordwhenitsays,“Therearethreescorequeens,andfourscoreconcubines,andvirginswithoutnumber.”Thisshows that theHebrewworddoesnotexactlycorrespond to theEnglishwordinfinite.It isbettertranslated“verymany.”Certainlythevirginswerenotwithoutnumber.Twooftheverymanyoccurrencesofthiswordare

Joel1:6Anationiscomeupuponmyland,strongandwithoutnumber.

IChron22:4Cedartreeswithoutnumber.

ObviouslytherewasanexactnumberofsoldierswhocameupagainstIsraelandJudah;andobviouslythecedars were not infinite in number. The Hebrew words therefore must be regarded as they were inordinary conversation. They clearly do not bear the meaning of the term infinite in modern English.Infiniteisawrongtranslation.TheHebrewexpressionsimplymeans“verymany”.

ToprovethatGodis“infinite,”theologiansregularlyuseversesinwhichtheworditselfdoesnotoccur.Forexample,

Job11:710CanstthoubesearchingfindoutGod…Themeasurethereofislongerthantheearth.

Psa145:3Hisgreatnessisunsearchable.

Matt5:48…asyourFatherinheavenisperfect.

Theseversesareirrelevant.Thefirsttwoarerepudiationsofthecosmologicalargument;buttheydonotspecifyhow“long”Godis,orhowgreathispower.Thelastverseisethicalandlittletodowithinfinitebeing.Infact,ifpressed,itseemstosuggestthatmanbeequaltoGodinthisrespect.

CharlesHodgeusesEph1:23 toprove thatGod is infinite inhisbeing.Theverse isextremelydifficult to exegete. Students may consult several commentators: the Puritan Thomas Goodwin, T.K.AbbottintheInternationalCriticalCommentaryseries;FrancisFoulkesintheTyndalPress;andCharlesHodgehimself.Theydiffer as towhether pleromameans thatwhich fills or thatwhich is filled; as towhether tapantameanstheuniverseor theChurch;andas towhether pleroumenou isactive, thatwhichdoesthefilling,orpassive,thatwhichisfilled,ormiddle,hewhofillssomethingforhisownadvantage.ButregardlessofthemanycomplexitiesitcaneasilybeseenthatnothingintheverseassertsthatGodisinfiniteinhisbeing.

AnotherverseHodgeuses isActs17:28. If thisversehadsaid thatGodextends throughout theuniverse,itwouldnodoubthavesuggestedagreatspatialextent,notnecessarilyinfinite,foritdoesnotsaythattheuniverseisinfiniteinextent.Oneshouldnotsupposecarelesslythattheuniverseisinfinite.AtleastAristotleandNietzschedeniedthatitis.Furthermore,Godisnotanextendedobjectatall;heisaspirit.Inanycase,theversedoesnotsaythatGodextendsthroughtheuniverse:itsaysthattheuniverse“extends” throughGod.Moreaccurately, it says thathumanbeings, thepaganpoetaswellasPaulandLuke,liveandmoveandhavetheirbeinginGod.

Hodgeofcourserecognizesthattheterminfinitegivesussomedifficulties.Thetroubleisthathedoes not seem to take his own recognition seriously enough. Certainly wemust reject his previouslyquotedsentence,“WhenitissaidthatGodisinfiniteastohisbeing,whatismeantis,thatnolimitationcanbeassigned tohisessence.”Now,God’sessence ishisdefinition.Esse is theLatin for theGreekeinai;andtheeinaiofanythingisitsdefinition.Thedefinitioniswhattheobjectis.TheGodoftheBibleis definite.Heisnotasubjecttowhicheverypredicatecanbeattached.Heisnotheavy,white,tall,orsweet.Thenumberofappropriatepredicatesisdefinitelylimited.

NorisiteasytounderstandwhyHodgesaid,“Theinfinite,althoughillimitableandincapableofincrease” etc. The number of series is illimitable precisely because it is always capable of increase.Indeed,whateverisillimitablemustbecapableofincrease.Forsuchreasonswemustreaffirmthefirstsentencequoted,“Inallageswrongviewsofwhattheinfiniteishaveledtofatalerrorsinphilosophyandreligion.”Unlessoneisreadytodefinewhattheterminfinitemeans,itwouldbebetternottouseit.

It is possible, however, to defend the proposition that God is infinite even in his being. ThewordingoftheCatechismcanberetained,ifthewordbeingistakenasaparticipleinsteadofasanouncoordinatewiththenounsthatfollowit.Theargumentwouldbe:Godisspirit,

24

mind, truth. God iswhat he thinks.Since what he thinks is an infinite series of propositions, as themathematiciansgrantus,Godisinfiniteinhisbeingthesetruths.Godistruth.Doubtlessthiswouldpuzzlethe Westminster authors of the Catechism. Were is not for the indisputable authority of professionalmathematicians,whoassertaninfinitenumberoftheoremsdeduciblefromthemeredefinitionofaplane;wereitnotfortheacuityofSpinozainprovidinganinfinitenumberofpropositionsdeduciblefromeachofGod’sinfinitenumberofattributes;wereitnotfortheunsurpassedBiblicalscholarshipofourfathersatWestminster,wecould thinkof truthas a closedandcompletewhole, inwhichcaseGodwouldbeentirelyactualandperfect,withoutanyunrealizedpotentiality.Hisknowledgethenwouldnotbeinfinite,buthehimselfwouldbe,evenmoreclearlyomniscient.

8. AFiniteGod.

IfcautionabouttheinfinitecauseshesitationoverthismathematicaldefenseoftheCatechism,andifthereforeallthepreviousconfusioncontinues,itisstillpossibletodiscussandrejecttheoriesaboutafiniteGodbecause these theories do not concern the concept of an infinite being.Here the term finitereferstojustoneortwoparticularities.WilliamJamesandconsistentArminianslimitGodbydenyinghisomnipotenceandomniscience.TheysaythattherearecertainthingsGodcannotdoandcannotknow.

ThoughitmaybeunnecessarytoinformanyonethatWilliamJameswasavigorousantagonistofChristianity, threecitationsfromhis PluralisticUniverse followtodocument the twopointsmentioned.Contrasting thenominalistpointofview that regards theuniverseasacollectionofdiscrete“eaches,”with the idealisticview that theuniverse is awhole and thatpartsmustbeunderstood in termsof thewhole,Jameswrites,“Whereasabsolutismthinksthatthesaidsubstancebecomesfullydivineonlyintheformof totality, and isnot real self in any formbut the allform, thepluralistic viewwhich I prefer toadoptiswillingtobelievethattheremay

ultimately never be an allform at all, that the substance of realitymay never get totally collected, thatsomeof itmayremainoutside the largestcombinationof itevermade.” (p.34). James,ofcourse,hasHegelianabsolutismchieflyinmind,butsincehesaysthattheismisworse,itisclearthatthisisadenialofomniscience.

Laterhewrites,“WhenJohnMillsaidthatthenotionofGod’somnipotencemustbegivenup,ifGod is to be kept as a religious object, hewas surely accurately right… I believe that the onlyGodworthyofthenamemustbefinite…”(pp.124125).HereJamesrejectsomnipotence.Inthelastofthesethreequotationsthelanguageisbroadenoughtocoverbothomniscienceandomnipotence.“Theonlywayof escape, I say, from all this [Hegel’s absolutism] is to be frankly pluralistic and assume that thesuperhumanconsciousness,howevervastitmaybe,hasitselfanexternalenvironment,andconsequentlyis finite… it is not allembracing… he is finite in power or in knowledge or in both at once” (pp.310311).

9. FinitudeandKnowledge.

Lutheransare inclined todenyomniscience.BishopMartensenofDenmarkattracted the ireandvituperationofSorenKierkegaard, but thegoodbishopwas far frombeing the scoundrelKierkegaardthoughthewas.LetusadmitthatthegentlemanwasadevotedandsincereChristian;butonthematterofomniscience he was woefully mistaken and virtually contradicted the Christian position. Here is apassagefromhisChristianDogmatics,(tr.byUrwick,1880)pp.218,219.

Thecontradictionwhichhasbeensupposedtoexistbetweentheideaofthefreeprogressof the world and the omniscience of God, rests upon a onesided conception ofomniscience ,as a mere knowing beforehand and an ignoring of the conditional in thedivinedecrees.Anunconditionedforeknowledgeundeniablymilitatesagainstthefreedomofthecreature,sofarasfreedomofchoice isconcerned;andagainst theundecided, thecontingent,whichisanideainseparablefromthedevelopmentoffreedom

in time. The actual alone which is in and for itself rational and necessary, can be thesubjectofanunconditional foreknowledge; theActualwhich isnot this,cannotbeso; itcanonlybeforeknownaspossible,aseventual.butsuchanunconditionalforeknowledgenotonlymilitatesagainstthefreedomofthecreature,itequallyisopposedtotheideaofafreelyworkingGodinhistory.AGodliterallyforeknowingallthings,wouldbemerelythespectatorofeventsdecidedandpredestinedfrometernity,notthealldirectinggovernorinadramaoffreedomwhichHecarriesoninreciprocalconflictandworkwiththefreedomof the creature. If we would preserve this reciprocal relation between God and Hiscreatures, we must not make the whole actual course of the world the subject of Hisforeknowledge,butonlyitseternalimport,theessentialtruthitinvolves.Thefinalgoalofthisworld'sdevelopment,togetherwiththeentireseriesofitsessentiallynecessarystages,mustberegardedasfixedintheeternalcounselofGod;butthepracticalcarryingoutofthis eternal counsel, the entire fulness of actual limitations on the part of this world'sprogress,insofarastheseareconditionedbythefreedomofthecreature,canonlybethesubjectofaconditionalforeknowledge;i.e.,theycanonlybeforeknownaspossibilities,as Futurabilia,butnotasrealities,becauseotherpossibilitiesmayactuallytakeplace.InthusassertingthatGoddoesnotforeknowallthatactuallyoccurs,webynomeansimplythateveryeventisnotthesubjectofhisallpenetratingcognizance.GodisnotonlybeforeHiscreatures"beforethemountainswerebroughtforth,orevertheearthwasmade,"HeisalsoinandwithHiscreatures,ineverymomentoftheirdevelopment.WhileGodneitherforeknows,norwillforeknowwhatHeleavesundecided,inordertobedecidedintime,Heisnolesscognizantofandprivytoallthatoccurs.EverymovementofHiscreatures,eventheirmostsecretthoughts,iswithintherangeofHisallembracingknowledge."Thoucompassestmypath, andmy lyingdown, and art acquaintedwith allmyways.Whithershall Igo from thySpirit?orwhithershall I flee from thypresence? If Iascendup intoheaventhouartthere:ifImakemybedinhell,beholdthouartthere"(Psalmcxxxix.).Hisknowledge penetrates the entanglements of this world's progress at every point; theunerringeyeofHiswisdomdiscernsineverymomenttherelationsubsistingbetweenfreebeingsandHiseternal

plan;andHisalmightyhand,Hispower,pregnantofgreatdesigns,guidesandinfluencesthemovementsoftheworldasHiscounselsrequire

ArminiansalsolimitGod’sknowledge,iftheyareconsistent.Notallare.Whedonvacillates,butitisclearthatheinclinestoadenialofomniscience:“OurviewoffreeagencydoesnotsomuchrequireinGodaforeknowledgeofapeculiarkindofevent[i.e.asingleparticularevent?]asaknowledgeofapeculiarquality existent in the freeagent.…If anypowerbeplanted inanagent,God,whoplaced itthere,mustknowit.Andifthatpowerbe…apowertodootherwisethantheagentreallydoesdo,Godmaybeconceivedtoknowitandtoknowitineveryspecificcase”(D.D.Whedon, TheFreedomoftheWill,pp.271272).Now,thisquotationcertainlymeansthatGoddoesnotknowwhatthefreeagentwilldo;heonlyknowsthat theagent isfreetodoanoneofseveralpossibilities.Whedoncontinues,“Asacorollaryresultingfromtheseviews,wenotethatanagentmaybesupposedtopossessapowerofactingotherwisethanthewaythatGodforeknowshewillact.”Butthenhesurprisesthereaderbysayingonthenextpage,“AstheimpossibilityofperformingacontradictoryactisnolimitationofOmnipotence,sotheimpossibilityofacontradictoryknowledgeisnolimitationofOmniscience.

6. IfbytheabsoluteperfectnessofGod’somnisciencethatonetrainoffreeevents,putforthwithfullpowerotherwise,beembracedinhisforeknowledge,itfollowsthatGodforeknowsthefreeact.”InthisparagraphWhedonattemptstopreservetheomnisciencehedeniedonthepreviouspage;butthathis attempt fails becomes clear in the difficulty he cannot escape: “the real difficulty which wedistinctly profess to leave forever insoluble … is to conceive how God came by thatforeknowledge.”

A.H.Strong(SystematicTheology,Vol.I,p.285)quotesanauthor,DanielCurry,whosaid,“Thedenialof absolutedivine foreknowledge is theessential complementof theMethodist theology.”Now,WhedonisunabletoconceivehowGodcametoknowthefuturebecausetheMethodisttheologymakesforeknowledgeand thereforeomniscience impossible.OnArminianprinciples theproblemof retainingomniscienceisinsoluble.ButifonerejecttheArminianism,

theproblempresentslittleifanydifficulty.Firstofall,Goddidnot“comeby”hisforeknowledge.EternalknowledgeisaneternalattributeoftheeternalGod.PerhapsitsnotfairtostretchWhedon’sunfortunateexpression“comeby”beyonditsdisclosureofWhedon’shabitualstateofmind;butevensoitrevealsthetendencytoexplainGod’sknowledgeoftheworldasempiricallybasedonobservation.Sincetherecanbenocausesinthepresenttodeterminethefutureactionofhumanfreewill,thereisnothingnowforGodtolookat,ifhewishestoknowthefuture;andofcoursethefutureevent,untilitoccurs,isanunknowablenonentity.

TheBible,however,saysthateveryeventiscausedordetermined,andthatthedeterminerisGod.Godthereforeknowswhatisfuturetousbecausehedeterminedittohappen.Otherwisepredictionwouldbeimpossible.TakeforexampleCyrus’restorationoftheJewstoJerusalem.Theeventpredictedwasnotanisolatedeventthatcouldhaveoccurredundernearlyanycondition.ItrequiredtheconsolidationoftheMedesandPersiansintooneempire;itrequiredthedefeatofCroesus,and,obviouslythedestructionofBabylon. This latter depended on Nabonidus’ neglect of his own interests and the irresponsibility ofBelshazzar. It also required changes in the policies regarding the treatment of captive peoples. ThepredictionthereforeisnotlimitedtoThursdayat10:33A.M.whenCyrusstampedhissealonadocument.Theeventdependedonmultitudinousmatters,everyoneofwhichGodknewbecausehehadplannedthewholething.

Charnock(p.443,444)hasahumorousdescriptionofasimilarsituation.Gen.15:16predictsthat“in thefourthgeneration they[theposteriorofAbraham]shallcomehitheragain[intoCanaan], for theiniquityoftheAmoritesisnotyetfull.”ContinuesCharnock,“IfAbrahamhadbeenaSocinian,todenyGod’sknowledgeofthefreeactsofmen,hadhadnotafineexcuseforunbelief?WhatwouldhisreplyhavebeentoGod?Alas,Lord,thisisnotapromisetobereliedupon;theAmorites’iniquitydependsonthe acts of their freewill, and such thou canst have no knowledge of; thou canst see nomore than alikelihood of their iniquity being full, and therefore there is but a likelihood of thy performing thypromise,andnotacertainty.”

With respect to God’s knowledge, theologians usually try to give an account of the divinepsychology. They say that God’s knowledge is intuitive, not discursive. Thewords are not altogetherappropriate. Psychology ishardly the termforastudyof the immutabledivinemind. If intuitionmeansmerelythatthereisnotemporalsuccessioninGod,thetermcanbeused,butitisuseless;if,however,itmeanstheimmediateperceptionofasensoryindividual,asinKant,butnottheunderstandingofageneralprinciple or even a concept, the term is worse than inappropriate. Similarly, if discursion means atemporalsequence,itmaybeproperlydeniedofGod;butifthetermisintendedtoassertGodisignorantoftherelationshipbetweenpremisesandconclusions,itcannotbedeniedtoGod.

Mostsimply,God’sknowledgeiseternalandimmutable.Godknowstheendfromthebeginningbecausehecreatedtheworldandcontrolsitaccordingtotheeternalplan.

Psa.104:24OLord,howmanifoldarethyworks;inwisdomhastthoumadethemall.

Howcouldthisbetrue,ifthethingsknownwerethecauseofhisknowledge,andsopriortohisknowledge,andthereforeantecedenttohisaction?DoesGodactinignoranceandthendiscoverwhathehasmade?IfthedivineperfectioninknowledgeweregainedfromthingsexternaltoGodandinferiortohim,unless therebeobjects superior tohimGodwouldnotbe selfsufficientor independent;whateverperfectionofknowledgehehadwouldbederivedfromtheseinferiorthings.Suchaconclusion,however,wouldbebothqueerandunbiblical.ItfollowsthereforethatGodis essentiallyomniscient.Thereisnotruthoutsideofhismind.AndthereissobecauseGodhimselfistruth.TruthiswhatGodthinksorknows.

10. GodisSpirit.

30

For many pages now the discussion has dealt with the attributes of God. There was eternity,omniscience,omnipotence,and infinity.Because theysomuchoverlappeditwasnecessary toconsidertheirmutualrelationships.Thiswentfurtherperhapsthananelementaryexpositionissupposedtogo.Butonepoint,inasensethemostimportantpoint,wasomitted,eventhoughimplicitlyitunderlaythemall.Theseattributesthatwerediscussedarepredicatesorcharacteristicsofasubject.Traditionallyitissaidthatthe“attributes”attachtoa“substance.”Insimplertermsthequestioncouldbe,whataretheattributesattributesof?Speaking inordinary languageonemay say that aman haswisdomor courage.Themanisone thing, and wisdom or courage is something else he has.One may also say, the man is wise orcourageous;andnowthesentenceseemstostatewhatthemanis,ratherthanwhathehas.Since,however,theologyforcenturieshasdiscussedattributesandsubstance,thequestionwillbe,WhatisthisGodwhohasknowledge,power,goodness,andtruth?

TheCatechism answers in its first phrase, “God is a spirit.” Spirit is not somethingGod has;Spirit is what he is. Had this chapter on God proceed logically, the idea of spirit would have beendiscussedbeforetheattributes.Shouldnotlearnwhatxisinitselfbeforelearningwhatcharacteristicsithas?Dowenotfirstdecidedwhatadogis,andtheaddthatdogshavetails?Ifwedidnotfirstknowdog,whatwouldthetailattachto?Butperhapstailsareessentialtodogs,andifwecutoffFido’stail,henolonger remains a dog. Can we really know what a thing is without knowing its characteristics? Is itpossible to study what God is in himself without explicitly describing his attributes? Maybe it wasnecessarytobeginwiththe“attributes”andonlylaterarriveatthe“substance.”Howeverthatmaybe,theCatechismsaysthatGodisaspirit.Whatisspirit?Well,surely,spiritisdistinguishedfromnonspiritbyattributesoflife,consciousness,andinhigherforms,knowledge.

Althoughtheconceptofspiritisofsuchtremendousimportance,or,better,becauseitisofsuchtremendous importance, it isutterlyeasy tofindScripturalevidence to justify thestatement thatGodisspirit.Ofcourse,thereisJesus’briefassertioninJohn4:24.ButthemassiveevidencepermeatestheOldTestament.There is no point in listing a number of verses.God spoke toAdamandEve; he spoke toNoah, Abraham, and Moses; to David, Elijah, and Isaiah. The continuous denunciation of idolatryrepeatedlyasserts

“Theyhavemouths,but theyspeaknot; theyhaveears,but theyhearnot…Theyhireagoldsmithandhemakethitagod…theybearhimupontheshoulder…yeaoneshallcryuntohim,yetcanhenotanswer.”

OurGod is aGod of truth; he knows; he speaks; he is alive; he is not a body, he is a spirit.UnfortunatelynotonlyinOldTestamenttimesdidsomepeopleturnfromthelivingGodtoworshipdumbidols;eventodaythereareunhappytheologianswhoteachthatGodisdead.

11. PhilosophicalDifficulties.

Although this elementary textbook promises to restrict philosophical diversions to aminimum,therearesomethatoughtnotbeavoided.Studentswhoarenotreadyforthemmayskipthissection,butitwouldnotbe fair toothers slightlymoreadvanced ifphilosophywereomittedcompletely.Norshouldthis material be considered “philosophy” in sharp distinction from “theology.” For years, in fact forcenturies,thesesubjectshavefilledmanypagesintheologicaltextbooks.Thisisthenapartofthehistoryoftheology.

Sometheologicaltextbooks,usingastheirfirstprinciplesomethingotherthantheBible,beginbyasking,CanGodbeknown?But if there isnoGod, therecanbenopoint inaskingwhetherhecanbeknown.ShouldwenotthereforebeginbyprovingtheexistenceofGod?ButifGodisnotknowable,howcould one prove his existence? These two questions are so intertwined that one cannot be answeredwithouttheother.Wecannotprovetheexistenceofanobjectwithoutknowingwhatitiswehaveproved;andcannotknowanobjectwithoutknowing that thereexists suchanobject.Themedieval theologiansbeganwiththeexistenceofGod,andtheirexampleisasgoodasanytofollowhere.

Augustine(354430),ifhedidnotabsolutelyintroduceitintoChristiantheology,elaboratedatypeofPlatonicphilosophybywhichheworkedoutaproofofGod’sexistence.

Augustine’swritingsonmanysubjectsareextremelyvaluable;butAnselmaboutA.D.1100gaveatwisttoAugustine’sproof thatwasbrilliant in theextreme. It iscalled theOntologicalArgument.Strange tosay,itpossiblyisnotanargumentatall,butratherapostulationofafirstprinciple,anexplanationoftheultimateaxiom,asettingdownofthebaseonwhicheverythingmustbebuilt.Atanyrate,itissointricateandprofound,ithascausedsomuchdiscussion,anditsopponentsthinkit issupremeasanexampleofplausibleconfusion, that itmustbeomittedhere.Thesecondattempt toproveGod’sexistencewillbedifficultenough.

(a)TheCosmologicalArgument.

Thomas Aquinas (12241274) rejected the Platonic cast of Augustine’s theology and based histhought on Aristotle. Therefore he had no time for the ontological argument, but reconstructed thecosmological argument.To refer again to thequestionofknowledge, thedifferencebetween these twoarguments is basically a difference in epistemology: ForAugustine it was not necessary to start withsensory experience, for one could go directly from the soul to God; but Aquinas wrote, “The humanintellect… is at first like a clean tablet onwhich nothing iswritten” (Summa Theol.I,Q 97, 2). It issensation thatwrites on the tabula rasa.Themind has no form of its own.All its contents come fromsensation. on this basisThomas gave five arguments forGod’s existence; but the first four are almostidentical,andthefifthissolittledifferent,thatonlythefirstwillbereproducedhere.

“Thefirstandmoremanifestwayistheargumentfrommotion.Itiscertain,andevidenttooursenses,thatintheworldsomethingsareinmotion.Nowwhateverisinmotionisputinmotionbyanother,fornothingcanbeinmotionexceptitisinpotentialitytothattowardswhichitisinmotion;whereasathingmovesinasmuchas it is inact.Formotion isnothingelse than the reductionofsomething frompotentiality toactuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state ofactuality.Thusthatwhichisactuallyhot,asfire,makeswood,whichispotentiallyhot,tobeactuallyhot,andtherebymovesandchangesit.Nowitisnotpossiblethatthesamethingshouldbeatonceinactualityand

potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannotsimultaneouslybepotentiallyhot;butitissimultaneouslypotentiallycold.Itisthereforeimpossiblethatinthesamerespectandinthesamewayathingshouldbebothmoverandmoved,i.e.thatitshouldmoveitself.Therefore,whatever is inmotionmust be put inmotion by another. If that bywhich it is put inmotionbeitselfputinmotion,thenthisalsomustneedsbeputinmotionbyanother,andthatbyanotheragain.Butthiscannotgoontoinfinity,becausethentherewouldbenofirstmover,and,consequently,noothermover; seeing that subsequentmoversmoveonly inasmuch as they are put inmotionby the firstmover;asthestaffmovesonlybecauseitisputinmotionbythehand.Thereforeitisnecessarytoarrive

atafirstmover,putinmotionbynoother;andthiseveryoneunderstandstobeGod.”3

Thefirstthingtobenoticedisthatthisisaformalargument.ThomasintendedittobeaconclusivedemonstrationthatGodexists.ItisnotacollectionofevidencesthatmakeitplausibletobelieveinGod.ItisananalysisofsensoryexperiencewiththeconclusionthatonlyGodcanexplainit.Farfrombeingalistofevidences,itappealsonlytoapebblethatrollsdownthehillsideoramarblethatrollsacrossthefloor. It claims to prove conclusively that on this basis Godmust of necessity exist. It is amatter oflogicalnecessity.

Thesyllogismisthemostcommonformofnecessaryinference.Therearetwentyfourvalidformsofthesyllogism.Anyotherform,andtherearetwohundredfiftysixinall,isinvalid.Anexampleofthevalidformistheancientillustration:Allmenaremortal;Socratesisaman;thereforeSocratesismortal.Butifonesay:Alldogsaremammals;somemammalsarecats;thereforeallorevensomedogsarecats;the argument is a fallacy. Even if we say: All dogs are mammals; some mammals are fox terriers;thereforesomedogsarefoxterriers;theargumentisinvalid.Theconclusionhappenstobetrue,butthepremises do not prove it. It is fallacy of the undistributedmiddle. To estimate the value of Thomas’cosmologicalproof,wemustseeifthepremisesnecessitatetheconclusion.

3Summatheologica,Part1,Qu.2,Art.3

(b)FiveObjections.

Fiveobjectionscanbemadeagainstthiscosmologicalargument.First,theoriginalpremisesays,“Itiscertainandevidenttooursensesthatintheworldsomethingsareinmotion.”Thispremiseisanacceptanceofempiricalepistemology.InThomas,ifnotelsewhere,itrequirestheassertionthatthemindhas no apriori forms, that it is actually nothing before it receives sensory impressions, and thatmoreadvancedknowledgeisdevelopedthroughimagesandabstraction.

Empiricismisperhapsacommonsenseview.Ithasalsobeentheviewofmanyphilosophers.Butitfacesinsuperableobjections.Inthefirstplacethesensesofmenandanimalsproduceconflictingdata.Dogs, for example, are supposed to be color blind, but they have sensations of soundwhenmen hearnothingForthatmatter,mendifferamongthemselves.Esotericartistsseecolorsingrassthatnocommonmanfindsthere.Whichthenofthesesensationcorrectlyrepresentthecoloroftheobjectseen?Insomecasesthesensecontradicteachother,aswhenastickhalfsubmergedlooksbentbutfeelsstraight.Thentherearemiragesandotheropticalillusions.Whiletheylast,wecannottellthattheyareillusions;andwecannottellwhetherourpresentsensationsareillusions.Again,arewedreamingornot?Anelementarytextbookonpsychologywilldescribemanyofthesephenomena,withtheresultthatitisimpossibletrustwhatwecallsensoryperception.Beyondthis, the theoryof imagination,bywhich thesesensationsaresupposedtobepreservedandlaterraisedtoconcepts,collapsesonthefactthatsomepeopledonothaveimages. Many people lack olfactory or tactual imagery; some also lack visual imagery as well.Empiricism then would have to say that these people can know nothing. But some of them areaccomplishedscholars.

Thisfirstobjection,however,doesnottestthevalidityoftheargument.Itdisputesthetruthofthepremise. Yet the skepticism which Hume showed so well follows upon empiricism is fatal to thisapproach.

Thesecondobjectionwillalsobesomewhatdisappointingasgivenherebecauseitcanonlybepartially developed. The objection notes that the quoted passage is more a summary than a completeargument.Infacttheargumentwouldincludeagreatamountofphysicsandmetaphysics.Forexample,thesecond,third,andfourthsentencesinthequotedargumentneedlengthysubstantiation.Theextentwouldcoverhundredsofpages,asitdoesbothinAristotleandAquinas.Forthefinalcosmologicalargumenttobevalid,all thesubsidiaryargumentsmustbevalid.Now,whilethis is theoreticallypossible, it isnotprobable.SurelyAristotleandAquinasmusthavemadeamistakesomewhere.Andonemistakebreaksthechainofconsequences.Ofcourse,someoneissuretocomplainthatthisunfairandbegsthequestion.Toavoidthisaccusation,itmaybepointedoutthatthetwophilosophersusetheconceptofpotentiality.Aristotleneededtheconceptofpotentialityinordertodefinemotion.ButinthethirdbookofthePhysics,whereAristotle takesup thisproblem,henotonlydefinesmotionbypotentiality,buthealsoexplainspotentiality by the concept ofmotion. If the studentwants to spend the time, hemay studyAristotle’sPhysicstodeterminewhethertheargumentiscircularandwhetherthereareanyotherflawsinbooksfourtoeight.

Thethirdobjectioncanbeseeninthesummaryitself.TowardtheendAquinastalksaboutaseriesofmotionsandmovers,andsays that thisseriescannotgoon to infinity.Thereason itcannotgoon toinfinityisthatifitdidtherewouldbenofirstmover.Butunfortunatelytheargumentasawholeclaimstoprovethatthereisafirstmover.ThereforeAquinashasusedforoneofhispremisestheverypropositionthathewantsastheconclusion.

The fourth objection is more complicated. Because Aquinas holds that God’s existence isidenticalwith his essence,which is not true of any other object of knowledge, hemust assert that nopredicatecanbeattributedtoGodinthesamesensethatitissaidofcreatedbeings.WhenbothmanandGodare said tobegood, or rational, or conscious, or anything, thewordsgoodand consciousdonotmeanthesamethinginthetwocases.IfGodisamoverandmanisamover,thewordmoverdoesnotmeanthesamething.Notonlyso,butsinceGod’sexistenceandessenceareidentical,theverbtobedoesnothavethesamemeaninginthetwocases.Ifwesay

Godisgood,neitherthe goodnorthe ismeanswhatitmeansinthecreatedworld.HencewhenwesayGodexists, thisexistencedoesnotmeanexistence in thesamesenseweuse it forpebblesormarbles.Now, in a valid argument the only terms that can occur in the conclusion are those that occur in thepremises. If some additional element is added in the conclusion, the syllogism is a fallacy. But thecosmologicalargumentbeginswiththeexistenceofapebbleorsomesensoryobjectthatmoves.Itends,however,withanexistencethatisdifferent.Thereforetheargumentisfallacious.Thedifferentmeaningofthewordintheconclusioncannotbederivefromtheoriginalmeaninginthepremises.

Now, finally, the fifth objection is directed against the last sentence of the argument,which is,“and this everyone understands to be God.” But this is not what everyone understands to be God.ParticularlyChristiansdenythatthisisGod.Aquinasclaimstohaveprovedtheexistenceofafirstmover,aprimummovens,anens perfectissimum,orevena summumbonum.Buttheseneutersarenotsatisfactoryforaconceptoftheliving,selfrevealingGodoftheScriptures.Itcanevenbesaidthatifthecosmologicalargumentwerevalid,Christianitywouldbefalse.TheGodoftheBibleisaTrinityofPersons.NoformsofthecosmologicalargumenthasevenclaimedtodemonstratetheexistenceofthisonlytrueGod.

(c)AReconstructedArgument.

DespitetheseobjectionsRomanCatholicscontinuetodependonthecosmologicalargument.SodomostLutherans, asmaybe seen fromLeanderS.Keyser’s ASystemofNaturalTheism (1917); andsomeCalvinistsdefend it too. J.OliverBuswell, Jr.wasoneof these, at least inhis earlierwritings,though he seems to have agreed later that it is not strictly valid. Cornelius Van Til of WestminsterSeminary, Philadelphia, makes very strong statements on the validity of the argument. Buswell hadaccusedVanTilofdisparagingtheobjectiveevidencesforChristianityandofrejectingthecosmologicalargument.VanTilrepliedinAChristianTheory

ofKnowledge (pp. 291292) and charged Buswell with formulating the argument improperly. Quotingpartlyfromoneofhisearlierworks,CommonGrace,hesays

“TheargumentfortheexistenceofGodandforthetruthofChristianityisobjectivelyvalid.Weshouldnottonedownthevalidityofthisargumenttotheprobabilitylevel.Theargumentmaybepoorlystatedandmayneverbeadequatelystated.Butinitselftheargumentisabsolutelysound.…AccordinglyIdonotrejectthetheisticproofs,butmerelyinsistonformulatingtheminsuchawayasnottocompromisethe Scripture. That is to say, if the theistic proof is constructed as it ought to be constructed, it isobjectivelyvalid.”

Thisassertionthatthecosmologicalargumentisvalid,absolutelysound,aformaldemonstration,andnotmerelyaprobabilityargumentdoesnotholdtrueofanycosmologicalargumentpublishedinanybook.VanTilpaysnoattentiontothefallaciesembeddedinThomasAquinas.Theargumenthedefendsisone that noonehas ever yetwritten.But howdoes he know that it is possible to formulate this idealargument?Whatistheargumenthedefends?Hesaysheinsistsonformulatingitcorrectly.Formanyyearssome of Van Til’s contemporaries have been challenging him to produce this reformulation he insistsupon.Hehasnotdoneso.

ThomasHobbesisreportedtohavesquaredthecircle.Whenthemathematiciancomplainedthatinhisproofthreelinesshouldhavecrossedatapoint,butdidnot,Hobbesrepliedthattheycamesoclosetogetherthatapointcouldcoverthemall.Hemighthaveaddedthataslightlybetterreformulationcouldbemade, and therefore the circle couldbe squaredby an absolutelyvalid argument, and that an anglecouldbetrisectedtoo.Butsuchappealstoanunknownidealareirrelevantandincompetent.

A cosmologist, eager to squeeze out of a tight spot, might reply: But an angle can indeed betrisected. So it can, but by no geometrical (straight edge and compass) method. All the geometricalargumentsareinvalid.Sotoohere:perhapstheontologicalargumentisvalid;itisnottouchedbyanyofthiscriticism;butthecosmologicalargumentisafallacy.

AbetterexamplethansquaringthecircleisFermat’stheorembecause,whilenooneagreesthatthe circle can be squared, many mathematicians have supposed that Fermat’s theorem could bedemonstrated.Onlyrecentlyhavesomebeguntohavedoubts.Butnoreputablethinker,regardlessofhisanticipation,willpronounceanargumentvalidandsoundwithouthavingseenit.

Since Van Til and Buswell in the passage cited are engaged in recommending a method ofpreaching thegospel tounbelievers, it isdoublyunfortunate thatVanTilcannot justifyhisposition, forunbelieverscannotbeexpectedtobeimpressedwithanargumentthattheevangelisthimselfisunabletopresenttothem.

(d)DoesScriptureRequireanArgument?

TheChristianneednotbedisturbedat the impossibilityofprovingGod’sexistence. In fact,heshould never have expected to demonstrate it, for two reasons: (1) a secular proof must adopt someprinciplemoreultimatethanGodfromwhichGodcanbededuced;and(2)theBiblemakesnoattempttoproveGod’sexistence.ItstartsrightoffwithGodinGenesis1:1.Tobesuretherearesuchversesas

Psa.8:1Lord,ourLord,howexcellentisthynameinalltheearth,whohassetthygloryupontheheavens.

Psa. 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth hishandiwork.

Rom.1:20 …becausewhatisknownofGodisapparentinthem;forGodhasmadeitclearforthem;forhisinvisible[attribute]sincethecreationof

39

the world are perceived, being understood by the thingsmade,namelyhiseternalpoweranddeity…

The last verse, here translated somewhat more literally than in the standard translations, withwhich the studentmay compare it, consulting commentaries also, has actually been used to defend thevalidityofAquinas’argument.Butnoneoftheseversesarearguments,nordotheyvalidateanyargument.Godhasindeedsethisgloryupontheheavens,andthefilamentsoftheundersideofatinyleafdisplaythrough a microscope God’s amazing geometrical handiwork; but neither an ancient polytheist nor amodernhumanistrecognizedit.ToseethegloryoftheheavensasthegloryofGod,onemustbelieveinGodfirst.TheverseinRomanssoundsmorelikeanargumentthantheothers;andwhileitcannotbeusedto guaranteeAquinas against allmistakes, it can plausibly be interpreted tomean that there is a validcosmological argument if only somebody could find it. Nevertheless such an interpretation seemsmistaken:mistakenbecauseitisunlikelythatanyone,aftertheprofoundlaborsofAristotleandAquinas,nottomentionthelessercontemporarieslikeHartshorne,Tennant,andothers,candowhattheycouldnot.Mistaken also because sensation replaces God and the Scriptures as the first principle. The verse inRomansthenisbestunderstoodasanequivalentofthePsalmsquoted.

Furthermore,althoughRomanscanseemtoapproveanunknowncosmologicalargument,thereareotherversesthatgivetheoppositeimpression.Onesuchpassageis

Job11:78 CanstthoubysearchingfoundoutGod?CanstthoufindouttheAlmightytoperfection?Itisashighasheaven;whatcanstthoudo?

Although these two verses may state the truth, and imply that there is no valid cosmologicalargument,oneshouldobservealittlecautionbecauseattheendofthebook(Job42:7)theLordexpresseshiswrath against Job’s friends and condemns them for having said some false things.Hence it is notcertainthatwhatZopharsaidsomefalsethings.Henceitisnot

certainthatwhatZopharsaidistrue.Inanycaseadoctrineshouldneverbebasedononeversealone;notbecauseGodmightbemistaken,butbecausewemightbemistaken.Whenmanyversessaythesamething,and we compare them all, then wemay have confidence that we have understood; but when there isnothingwithwhich to compare a verse (such as a phrase inGal. 3:19 or ICor. 15:29)we remain indoubt.ThereforeinadditiontoZopharonemayhopefullyadd:

Psa. 145:3 Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised; and his greatness isunsearchable.

Isa.40:18ff.TowhomthenwillyelikenGod,orwhatlikenesswillyecompareuntohim?… Have ye not known? Have ye not heard? Hath it not been told you from thebeginning?…Towhomthenwillyelikenme,thatIshouldbeequaltohim?…Hastthounotknown?Hastthounotheard?

Rom.11:33OthedepthoftherichesbothofthewisdomandtheknowledgeofGod!

How unsearchable are his judgments and his ways pastfindingout!

ICor.2:9Whatthingstheeyedidnotseeandtheeardidnothear…tousGodrevealedthemthroughtheSpirit.

Theseverses, even the last, teach that sensoryperceptioncannot form inourminds the ideaofGod.Godcannotbesearchedoutordiscoveredbyempiricalphilosophy.Therefore,sincetheargumentsusedbythephilosophersarelogicalfallacies,sincetheBiblegivesnocosmologicalargumentofitsown,sinceitbeginswithGodandinsistsonrevelation, itseemsbest torejectallnatural theologyandpositdivinerevelationasthefirstprincipleandbasicaxiomofoursystemofthought.ThetaskthenistoshowhowtheBibledescribesGod,asthefirsthalfofthischapterhastriedtodo.

(e)AMeaninglessWord.

Anadditional reasonforrejectingnatural theologyis theutteruselessnessofasserting thatGodexists. If I shouldsay,Thiscat isblack, itwouldnotbeuselessbecausesomecatsarewhiteor someothercolor.Butifallcatswereblack,andespeciallyifeverything,completelyeverything,wereblack,itwouldbeuselesstosaythatthiscatisblack.Or,again,mostwordshavefourorfivedifferentmeanings.In English we speak of domestic animals and domestic as opposed to foreign policy in government.Germanhastwodifferentwordshere;wegetalongwiththesameword,andalllanguageshavewordsofseveralmeanings.Butthemeaningsmustbefiniteinnumber.Supposeawordhadaninfinitenumberofmeanings.WewouldlookupthewordtamiginMerriamWebster’sunabridgeddictionaryandseethatthemeaningsof tamigincludedall thewordsfromAtotheendofZ. Tamigmeansnotonlycatanddog, italsomeanslongandsharp,aswellasrunandfly,aswellasiodineanduranium,aswellasalltheotherwordsinthedictionaryandthensome.Asanadjectiveitcouldbeattachedtoanynoun,anditcouldbesubstituted for every verb.But aword thatmeans everythingmeans nothing.An adjective that can beattachedtoeverynouncarriesnoinformation.Thewordexistenceissuchaword.Catsexist.Dogsexist.Sodoesthesquarerootofminusone.Dreamsexist.Theyarereal:theyarerealdreams.AndGodreallyexiststoo.ButtosaythatGodexistsdoesnotdistinguishGodfromacatoradream.WewanttoknowwhatGodis.TheWestminsterShorterCatechismdidnotask,DoesGodexist?Itproperlyasks,WhatisGod?ProvingtheexistenceofGodtherefore,evenifpossible,isauselesstask.

(f)CanGodbeKnown?

This isanotherstandardquestioninChristiantheology.Yet there issomethingpeculiarabout it.Shoulditprecedeorshoulditfollowthequestion,WhatisGod?Supposeweask,Canrachisbeknown?NearlyeveryoneitisagenuineEnglishwordthereforenearlyeveryonewouldimmediatelyreply,whatisrachis?Howcanwetellwhetherornotitcanbeknown,ifwe

donotknowwhatitis?Or,similarly,supposeweaskanonmathematician,Canthesideofasquareandthediagonalbeexactlymeasuredby the same ruler?Or, can the square rootof twobeknown?But toanswerthesetwoquestions,whichareinrealityidentical,onehastoknowwhatadiagonalis.IsitnotthesamewithGod?UnlessweknowwhatGodis,wecannotdecidewhetherheisaknowableobject.ButifwealreadyknowwhatGodis,whatistheuseofasking,CanweknowGod?

Yetitisnotallthatsimple.Therearecomplications.Complicationsshouldhavebeenexpected.Ifgeometryrequiressomecarefulargumentation,andifthefinestmathematicianshavenotyetbeenabletosolvetheFermatTheorem,wouldnotaseriousstudentexpecttheology,whoseobjectofstudyisGod,tobeevenmorecomplicated?IfChristianitytellsthetruthwhenitsaysthatGodcreatedtheworld,mustnottheologybemoreprofoundthanphysics?Ifphysicscanlegitimatelyclaimtheintensesteffortsofthemostbrilliantminds,shouldnotayoungstudentofGodbewillingtodohisbest?

Well, then,canGodbeknown?It isdoubtlessobviousenough thataChristian theologicalmustanswerthisquestionintheaffirmative.DoesnottheBiblegiveusagreatdealofknowledgeaboutGod?Is thisnotenough?No, it isnotenough.Therearepeoplewhodeny that theBible tells the truth.LikeWilliamJamestheyhaveargumentsdesignedtoprovethatGodisnotomniscient,orthattheworldwasnot createdand isnotgovernedbya transcendent spirit.Ordained theologians, ifnot communicant laymembers,havetheobligationofdissectingtheseantitheistictheories.Wemustnotshirkourtask.

Someof thearguments thatdenyallpossibilityofknowingGoddependon taking theChristianconceptofGodandshowingthatsomeofitsfeaturesmakeGodascompletelyunknowableastheunitthatmeasurethediagonalandtheside,thusconvictingtheChristianviewofselfcontradiction.Forexample,one might say: God is regarded as omniscient or infinite; mankind has not the remotest notion ofomniscienceorinfinity;accordingly,ifthereweresuchanobject,itcouldnotbeknown.

So far as nonChristian material is concerned, Plotinus, motivated by the philosophic need forunity,positedaOnesounitarythatittranscendedthedualityevenofsubjectandpredicate.YetPlotinushadsubjectsandpredicates,i.e.propositionalargumentsbywhichtoarriveatthisconclusion;andhe,nodoubtinconsistently,madeafewassertionsabouttheOne;buthetriedconscientiouslytorestrictman’sconnectionwiththeOnetoamystictranceinwhichheknewneitheritnorhimself.

Amoremodern variation (of the) unknowability theme is the theory that human knowledge isentirelybasedonsensoryexperience.Ifso,thenGod,whoisordinarilyregardedasanonsensoryobject,cannotbeknown.RecentLogicalPositivistsmakessensoryverificationnotmerelythecriterionoftruthbuteventhecriterionofmeaning.Fromwhichitfollowsthatmetaphysicalandtheologicalstatementsarenotsomuchfalseascompletelymeaningless.

The Christian must rebut these two views, no doubt with the assertion of a revelationepistemology, but also, with reference to Plotinus, by insisting on the metaphysical impossibility ofdeducingpluralityfromanabsolutelyundifferentiatedOne;andwithreferencestoLogicalPositivismbypointingoutthattheircriterionofmeaningisbyitsownassertionmeaningless.

AlthoughallorthodoxtheologiansmustassertthatGodisinsomewayknowableandknown,yettheyhavealsoaffirmedthatheis“incomprehensible.”Thistermisapoorone.Itmayhavebeenproperlyunderstoodcenturiesago;butifitwere,itcarriesfatalconnotationstoday.SincethetimeofKierkegaard,andevenbefore,the incomprehensiblehasbeenidentifiedwiththe irrational.Forexample,philosophershave said that all things can be “thought away,” but that the absence of space is inconceivable.Now,obviously, the Bible presents a God who understands or comprehends himself. Therefore God is notincomprehensible.Hemaydoubtlessbe uncomprehendedbymankind;butinhimselfheisofallobjectsthe most comprehensible.The actual problem is, as above, whether man can know God. BecauseChristianitymustaffirmsuchknowledge,theideaof“incomprehensibility”mustbelimitedtothequestionof howmuchamancanknowofGod.TheBiblicalpositionisofcoursethatwecananddoknowsomethingsaboutGodanddonotandbyGod’sdecreecannotknowsomeotherthings.However,thissimpleargument, which really comprehends everything about incomprehensibility, has been adumbrated byconsiderabletheologicalconfusion.

LouisBerkhof(SystematicTheology,4thed.,p.30)statescorrectlythat“ReformedtheologyholdsthatGodcanbeknown,butthatitisimpossibletohaveaknowledgeofhimthatisexhaustiveandperfectineveryway.TohavesuchaknowledgeofGodwouldbeequivalenttocomprehendinghim,andthisisentirelyoutof thequestion.”Sofarsogood.But thereasonhegivesfor this,viz.,“Finitumnonpossitcapereinfinitum.”isnotsogood.DescarteswasnotaReformedtheologianbyanymeans,yetonedoeswell toconsiderhisviewthatmenmustknowthe infinitebefore theycanknowanythingfinite.CalvinhimselfinthefirstchapterofhisInstituteshadearliersaidthatGodisourfirstobjectofknowledge,andonlyafterweknowGodis itpossible toknowourfiniteselves.ThentoomathematiciansknowAlephnullatypeofinfinityandotherinfinites.Infiniteseriescanbeadded;andthough infinite,their limitscanbedeterminedwithaccuracy. Itwould seem therefore that thepompousLatinphrase Finitumno capaxinfiniti,iffalse.

Thisshouldbeenoughsofaras the ideaof infinity isusedfordenying thepossibilityofman’sknowingGod.Thenextsubheadingwillintroducethedelayedquestions,WhatisGod?IfinfinityistobemadeanattributeofGod,itwillagainbediscussedinthisdifferentconnotation.

(g)TheNatureorDefinitionofGod.

TostatethenatureofGodistoanswertoquestion,WhatisGod?SometheologianshavedeniedthepossibilityofdefiningGodbecausedefinitionisalwaysintheformofsubsumingaspeciesunderagenus. Thus, to use only a partial definition, a cactus is a succulent. There are various species ofsucculents,andthecactusisonespeciesofthisgenus.ButifwemakeGodaspeciesofahighergenus,we seem toplace something aboveGod.This is impossible, so theobjection runs, becausenothing issuperiortoGod.If,ontheotherhand,Godisthesupremegenusandnotaninferiorspecies,itfollowsthatmen,plantsandrocksarespeciesofGod.ManisonetypeofGod,asacactusisonetypeofsucculent,andarockisanotherspeciesofGod.

45

LouisBerkhof (SystematicTheology,4th ed., p.41)writes, “It is quite evident that theBeingofGoddoesnotadmitofanyscientificdefinition.Inorder togivea logicaldefinitionofGod,wewouldhave tobeginbygoing in searchof somehigherconcept,underwhichGodcouldbecoordinatedwithotherconcepts:andwouldthenhavetopointoutthecharacteristicsthatwouldbeapplicabletoGodonly.Sucha geneticsynetheticdefinitioncannotbegivenofGod, sinceGod isnotoneof several speciesofgods,whichcanbesubsumedunderasinglegenus.”

There are, however, certain unfortunate expressions in this quotation. Thewords higher, under,coordinated,geneticsynthetic,speciesofgodssuggestmisleadingconnotations.Higherandlowergivetheimpression that thegenus ipso factomustbemorevaluable, stronger,morewitty,morecuddly than thespecies or an individual in the species.But only kitten ismore cuddly than the genus animal, and thespeciesmercuryismoreeffectiveforsomepurposesthanthegenusmetal. Higherand lowerarespatialterms,andwhenusedfigurativelyarelikelytomislead.Thetermcoordinatealsosuggestsanequalitythatmightnotexist.Man,elephant,andmousearecoordinateinthesensethattheyareallspeciesofanimal;but they areno coordinate inother senses.The termgeneticsynthetichardly applies to theAristotelianmethod of definition plus difference. One should note that Berkhof’s argument depends on thisAristotelianmethod.Thismethodofgenusplusdifferenceseemstoworkwellinbiology.Butitdoesnotworksowellinarithmetic.Thenumbertwoishardlyaspeciesofahighergenusnumber.Primenumbersmightbeaspecies,buthardlytwo.Somemathematiciansdoindeeddefinetwoasthenameoftheclassofallpairs,andthissomewhatresemblesgenusplusdifference.But, first, it ishard tounderstandwhatapairisbeforewecounttotwo;then,second,othermathematicians,followingLeibniz,definetwoasthenumber that comes after one, or in figures, 2=1+1. This definition does not seem to fit thegenusplusdifference formula (incidentally, plus in this phrase is not +), and thosewho use it naturallythinkitistechnicallysuperiortotheother.Tocontinue:inPhysicsF=ma,andNewtoniangravitationmaybe a species of force; butEinsteinian Energywell, perhaps physics is a difficult subject. In theology,however, is justification a species of something? Is an “act of God’s free grace” a genus of whichjustificationisaspecies?Then

sanctification would be a species of the genus work.Accordingly, if there be an alternate method ofdefinition,Berkhof’sobjectionstodefiningGodhavenoweight.

Berkhof’sdifficultiesmultiply.Hehadsaid,“God isnotoneofseveral speciesofgods,whichcanbesubsumedunderasinglegenus.”Butneitheris appletreeoneofseveralspeciesofapple trees.Itcan, however, be subsumedunder the rose family; but this does notmake every species of that familyappletrees.Andofcourse,onAristotelianprinciples,asingleappletreeisnotaspeciesatall,yetitcanbesubsumedunderthespeciesappletreeandunderthegenusroseaceaeaswell.Furthermore,toclassifyGod “under” some “higher” species does not imply that God is less real than that from which he is“deduced.” Aristotle never deduced a single apple tree from the species; and, more to the point, heassumedthattheindividualisaprimaryreality,whereasthespeciesisasecondaryreality.HenceifGod,theindividual,orthethreeindividuals,couldbesubsumedundersomeconceptorother,itwouldinnowayminimizethedivineperfections.ButperhapsitisnotnecessarytorelysogreatlyonAristotle.

BuriedbeneaththesurfaceofthisargumentliesPlato’sParmenides.ThosetheologianswhodislikePlatoforgetthatPlato’sspokesmanintheParmenidesgentlyremindedtheyouthfulSocratesthatthetheoryrequires Ideasofhair andmudand filth.Howeverdisagreeable this logical extensionofRealismmayhavebeen toSocrates’ idealistsensibilities, it removedsomeobjections toan incomplete theory.ThentherefollowstheThirdManargument.NotethatPlatohimselfastheauthoroftheParmenidesstatedthisobjection with great clarity. Note also that this was one of the objections Plato did not answer: heansweredonlyoneof theseries.Washeunable todefendhisown theory?Ordidhe think theomittedanswerstooobvioustostate?

WoulditnowbetooboldtosuggestthatthedifficultieswiththeAristoteliantheoryofdefinitionandtheThirdManobjectiontoRealismcanbesolvedbytheChristiandoctrineoftheimageofGodinman?ItwillbeshowninchapterfivethatGodcreatedmaninhisownimageandlikeness.HencebothGodandmancanbeclassified“under”or,better“by” theconceptof spirit.Body is something that isextendedbutdoesnotthink.Spiritisthatwhichthinksbutisnot

extended.ThepreviousmaterialonomniscienceshowedthatGodisathinkingbeing.Hehasknowledge.Thisisthesort(species?)ofbeingheis.Torespect:

John4:24 Godisspirit,andthosewhoworshiphimmustworshiphiminspiritandintruth.

It is interesting to note that this profound theological pronouncement, with all its intricateAristotelian and Platonic implications,was notmade to the learnedNicodemus, but to an uneducatedSamaritanwoman.Thisverse,andperhaps

IICor.3:17FortheLordisSpirit

seemtobepertinentandpointed;butthoughnotsoobvioustherearehundredsofothersrepresentingGodasthinking,talking,revealinghimself,teachinghisdoctrine,thatequallywellsupporttheidentificationofGod’sessence,nature,orrealityasspiritbecausetheyallsaythatGodthinks.Lateron,inthechapteronMan,somereasonsforrejectingbehaviorismwillbeoutlined.Thoughtisnotafunctionofthebrain,thelarynx,orthemuscles.Thoughtisaspiritualorintellectualactivity.Godthinks;heisnotandhasnotabody;heisnotextendedinspace;hehasno“parts.”ThereforeGodistobedefinedasmind,intelligence,intellect,spirit,letspeciesandgenerabeastheymay.

ThisdisposedofBerkhof’sobjectionthat“Godisnotoneofseveralspeciesofgods.”Godisoneofseveral“species”or typesofspirit.Mantoo isa typeor formofspirit;butmanisnotaspeciesofgods.

Forafinaladhominemremark,letusnotethatanytheologianwhoinveighsingeneralagainstthepaganPlatoasifAristotlewerenotalsoapaganisforthatreasonsingularlydisqualifiedfromusingthisobjection.RejectingancientGreekpagantheoriesofdefinition,atheologianwhocanclassifycarpettackswithcactusthornsbecausebothcanstickyou,cannotobjecttoclassifyingbothGodandman“under”theconceptofspirit.

PerhapssomedevoutpersonswouldprefertocallGodaperson.Tobemoreaccurate,asthenextchapterwilltrytomakeclear,Godisthreepersons.Atanyrate,Godispersonal.Thenineteenthcenturymodernists, influencedbySchleiermacherandHegel,sometimesdenied thepersonalityof theDeity,orsometimes tried unsuccessfully tomaintain it. However unorthodoxKarl Barthmay be, he has a fineanalyticalsectiondescribingwhy themodernistscouldnot logicallydefend thepersonalityofGodandhad to substituteman in his place.At any rate,God thinks and communicates his thought tomen.Godthereforeisamindorspirit.

(h)SubstanceandAttributes.

AftertheShorterCatechismsaysthat“Godisaspirit,”itsnextwordsare“infinite,eternal,andunchangeableinhisbeing...“TheBiblicalaccountof“infinite,eternal,andunchangeablewasgiveninthe firsthalfof this chapter.Thesearedifferentiaewhich,whereadded to thegenus,give the species.Theyare thepredicatesattachedto thesubject: thisSpirit iseternal.Butwhathashardlybeentouchedupon is the term “being.” The word being is perhaps not the most usual word in this connection.Theologicalbooksusuallydiscusssubstanceandattributes,ratherthanbeingandattributes.Thedoctrineof theTrinity too is expressed in thewords substance andpersons.Butwhatdoes theword substancemean? No one is puzzled by the statement that the cat is black. The color black is an attribute orcharacteristicorqualitythatthecathas.Thejudgeisjust.Justiceisaqualityofthisjudge.Thejudgeisthesubstanceinwhichthejusticeinheres.Orishe?

TheconceptofsubstanceisthefirstofAristotle’scategories.Therearetwokindsofsubstance:primaryandsecondary.Primarysubstancesarethingslikecatsandjudges,individualcatsandindividualjudges.Secondarysubstancesare theconceptofcatand theconceptof judge.Thesearenot individualthings, but abstract conceptsor forms.The chiefdifferencebetween the two is that the individual is acompositeofmatterandform,while theconcept is theformandis immaterial.Sincematter isactuallynothing,foronlyformscanbeseenortouchedorthought,

and since God is perfect, God can have nomatter; therefore God is not an individual person but anabstractform.Well,thisisAristotelianism,butitdoesnotsoundlikeChristianity.Furthermore,Aristotlemaynothavequiteavoidedallconfusioninhistheoryofqualities,relations,andquantities.Infact,itmaybethatfinallyhisdistinctionbetweenprimarysubstanceandquality,hisdistinctionbetweenqualityand

quantity,andtheverynotionofanindividualfadeintonothingness.4

Themodernphilosopher,JohnLocke,alsodefendstheconceptofsubstance.Heinsists,asseemssomuchlikecommonsense,thattheremustbesomethingstandingunder qualitiessuchasshape,motion,hard,thinking,andwilling.Underthefirstthreeofthesequalitiesstandsmatter;underthelasttwostandsspirit.Matterandspiritareabstract ideas,abstractedoutofsensationsand introspectionsrespectively.Buttheyaresoabstract,andsofarfromactualexperiencethatLockecallsthem“somethingIknownotwhat.”Noonehaseverseenortouchedmatter.Itisfarmoreabstractthanjustice,nottomentionfeline.Inshort, matter and spirit are not only unknown, but unknowable, Would it not seem therefore that theconceptofsubstance,eithermaterialsubstanceforphysics,orspiritualsubstancefortheologyisaratheruselessconcept?

Ofcourse the theologianscould reject theAristotelianandLockeanphilosophiesandgive theirowndefinitionofsubstance.Butmostdonot.CharlesHodge,even thoughhestrenuously insistson thenecessity of substance, is forced to say, “we have no definite idea of substance,whether ofmatter ormind, as distinct from its attributes.” (Vol. 1, p. 367).H.B. Smith is not so explicit, butwhat he saysamountstomuchthesamething.“Westartfromthepositionthatthereisadivinesubstance,oressence;andanattribute,indistinctionfromthesubstance,isanynecessarypredicatethatcanbeappliedtothisessence.… The essence and the attributes are not separable. The attributes express the essence, theessenceisthegroundoftheattributes.Itisonesimplespiritualessenceinthesedifferentmodes”(SystemofChristianTheology,pp.12,14).

4G.H.Clark,ThalestoDewey,pp.108112,143144.

Athanasius, who finally was successful in defending the doctrine of the Trinity in the NiceneCreed (which will be studied in the next chapter), while he insists on Substance for the purpose ofunmaskingtheArianheresy,is,surprisingly,notgreatlyenamouredoftheterm.Atleast,herecognizesthatitwillsoundforeigntosomedevoutears.InhisDeDecretis(V,22)hesays,“IfthenanymanconceivesasifGodwerecompound,soastohaveaccidentsinhissubstance,oranyexternaldevelopment,…orasifthereisaughtabouthimwhichcompletesthesubstance,sothatwhenwesay‘God’orname‘Father’wedo not signify the invisible and incomprehensible substance, but something about it, then let themcomplainoftheCouncil’sstatingthattheSonwasfromthesubstanceofGod;butletthemreflectthatinthusconsideringtheycommittwoblasphemies,fortheymakeGodmaterial,andtheyfalselysaythattheLordisnotSonoftheveryFather,butofwhatisabouthim.…Thereforeletnoonebestartledtohearthat theSonisfromthesubstanceof theFather.…For they[thechurchfathers’consideredit thesamethingtosaythattheWordwasofGod,and‘ofthesubstanceofGod,’sincetheword‘God,’asIhavesaidalready,signifiesnothingbutthesubstanceofHimWhoIs.”

At this juncture the point in question is not the doctrine of the Trinity, which was of courseAthanasius’maininterest,buttheidentificationofGodwiththesubstanceofGod.Godisnotacompoundofsubstanceandattributes, thesubstance standingunder theattributes, supporting them lest they fall toearth;noraretheattributessomeadditiontothesubstance,completingit.Todaywemighthavedifficultyinseeingthatthedistinctionbetweensubstanceandattributeisblasphemy,butAthanasiusspecifieswhyitisdoubleblasphemy.ItmakesGodmaterialbecausethesubstancewouldbematterandtheattributeform,andthisresultsinsayingthattheSonisnottheSonoftheFatherhimself,buttheSonofonlyapartoftheFather.

Berkhof is a contemporary example of one who denies the distinction between substance andattribute.His SystematicTheology(p.62)saysplainlythatattributesarenotdistinctfromessence.ItispossiblethatthedrivingforceindistinguishingsubstancefromattributeisRomanism,forthisdistinctionis necessary to the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation. In the Mass the miracle is located in thecontinuingpresenceofthesensoryattributesofbreadand

wine,whilethepriesthaschangedthesubstancefromthenaturaltothedivine.Itmightprovedifficulttofindsocompellingareasoninevangelicaltheologyformaintainingthisdistinction.

Godthereforeishissubstance;hissubstanceishisattributes;allhisattributesareone;andthisOneisGod.

(i)TheGloryofGod.

AllthematerialofthischaptercanbereferredtounderthetitleofthegloryortranscendenceofGod.Becauseof thementionofCyrusafewparagraphsabove,aconclusioncanbeformedoutof thatwellknownprophecy.

“ThussaiththeLordtohisanointed,toCyruswhoserighthandIhaveholden.…Iwillgobeforethee,andmakethecrookedplacesstraight…andIwillgivetheethetreasureofdarkness

..thatthoumayestknowthatI,theLord,whichcalltheebythyname,amtheGodofIsrael.…IamtheLord,andthereisnoneelse,thereisnoGodbesideme;Igirdedtheethoughthouhastnotknownme:thattheymayknowfromtherisingofthesun,andfromthewest,thatthereisnonebesideme.IamtheLord,andthereisnoneelse.Iformthelightandcreatedarkness;Imakepeaceandcreateevil;ItheLorddoallthese things.…Woe tohim that strivethwithhisMaker…Shall theclay say tohim that fashioneth it,Whatmakestthou?ofthywork,hehathnohands?…Ihavemadetheearth,andcreatedmanuponit;I,evenmyhands,havestretchedouttheheavens,andalltheirhosthaveIcommanded…Ihaveswornbymyself,thewordisgoneoutofmymouth…thatuntomeeverykneeshallboweverytongueshallswear.…Blessing and honor, glory and power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne… for theLordGodOmnipotentreigneth.”

ChapterFour

TheCreation

Under the heading of omniscience one could discuss, not only God’s selfknowledge of theTrinitarianrelations,butalsothepresentworld,itsconstitution,itshistory,anditsculmination.Thusthewars of Israel and the Babylonian captivity could be placed as a subparagraph under the heading ofomniscience.Butsincetheologiansandseminarystudentsdonotseeallknowledgeatasingleglance,wemustbreakupthewholeintosmallerparts.Onepartofthiswholeisthewholeitselfoveragain.AfterachapteronGod,itiscustomarytodiscussthedivinedecree.SincethisisGod’seternalplanandpurpose,andisthereforelogicallypriortoitsexecutionintheworksofcreationandprovidence,thedecreeshouldprobablybestudiedbeforetakingupthecreationofheavenandearth.Butsincethedoctrineofcreationincludes the purpose for which the world was made, the eternal decree can be discussed under thesubheadsubheadindeed!oftheworld’spurpose.

Creationexnihilo

TheBible,arrangedchronologicallyinthemain,beginswiththefirstexhibitionofomnipotenceandomniscience,viz.,thecreationoftheuniverse.Asusual,thestartingpointistheBiblicaldata.

Gen.1:1InthebeginningGodcreatedtheheavenandtheearth.

Neh.9:6 Thou art theLord, even thou alone; thou hastmade heaven, the heaven ofheavens,withalltheirhost,theearthandallthingsthataretherein,theseasandallthatisinthem.dr.Isa.42:5.

Acts14:15Wealsoaremenoflikepassionswithyou,andbringyougoodtidings

thatyeshouldturnfromthesevainthingsuntoalivingGodwhomadetheheavenandtheearthandtheseaandallthatinthemis.

Heb.3:4HewhoconstructedtheuniverseisGod.

In theseverses andothers to bementioned, the first point to note is thatGod created all thingsout ofnothing.Thetermsusedintheologyarecreationexnihiloorfiatcreation.ThisreferstoGod’sinitiationoftemporalsequence;andtolearnhowinterconnectedallrevelationis, thestudentmayconsiderhowtheaccountofcreationsupportssomepreviousmaterialonthenatureofGod.Whenweask,WhatisGod?thereplyis,makerofheavenandearth.

InActs14:15,quotedabove,PaulandBarnabas,after theyhadbeenmistakenforMercuryandJupiter,distinguished these pagan gods from the living God who made heaven and earth. Creation was thedistinguishingfeature.TheversesteachthatGodisomnipotentbecauseonlyomnipotencecouldcreateexnihilo.

TheHebrewverbbarainGenesis1:1perhapsdoesnotconclusivelyprovecreationexnihilo;butitsmeaning,aboutwhichthestudentcanaskhisHebrewprofessor,issostrangeastostronglysuggestit.Addedtoitslinguisticpeculiarities,thephrase“inthebeginning”showsthattherewasnothingpriorfromwhichtoconstructauniverse.Furtherpassagesareevenclearer.

Gen.1:3AndGodsaid,Lettherebelight,andtherewaslight.

Psa.36:6,9BythewordoftheLordweretheheavensmade,

andallthehostofthembythebreathofhismouth....Forhespakeanditwasdone.

John1:3Allthingscameintobeingthroughhim,andwithouthimnotasinglethingcameintobeingthathascomeintobeing.

Col.1:16,17Forbyhimallthingsinheavenandonearthwerecreated.

11. ..andheisbeforeallthingsandbyhimtheuniversehasstoodforth.

Heb.11:3ByfaithweunderstandthattheworldsweresetinorderbythewordofGod,sothatsensoryobjectsdidnotariseoutofphenomena.

ThattheuniversecameintobeingthroughGod’smerecommand,isclearbothinGen.

1:3andPsa.36:9.Godspakeanditwasdone.Withtheverb madePsalm36couldstillbe trueeveniftherewerepreexistingmaterialsoutofwhichGodorganizedtheheavensbyhisfiat.However, the lastthreepassagesinthelistcouldnotbeplainerindenyingGod’suseofbuildingmaterials.NothingexceptGodexistedbeforeGodspoke.Theseverses,whichteachcreationexnihilo,alsobearonthedoctrineoftheTrinity, forJohn1:3andCol.1:16showthatChristwas thecreator.This isnoteworthy, though themainpointnowisnottheroleofChristasaperson,butthefactthattheworldwascreatedfromnothing:allthingswithoutexceptioncameintobeingthroughChrist,andnotasinglethingcameintobeingwithouthim.Heisbeforeallthings.Nothingexistedforhimtoworkon.ByHimtheentireuniversestoodforth,or,wascompleted.Theworlddoesnot“consist”ofChrist,aswaterconsistsofhydrogenandoxygen,orasbreadconsistsofwheat.EventheKingJamesversion,whenitusesthewordconsist,doesnotmeantosaythis.“Stoodforth”isabettertranslation.Insteadofsaying“inhimallthingsconsist”,”oneisjustifiedinsaying,“Byhisfiatallthingsstoodforth.”Thisrulesoutallpreexistentmaterials.

AboveitwasnotedthattherewassomelogicaladvantageindiscussingthenatureofGodfirstandafterwardshisworks.Hebrews11:3hasmoreabouthisworksthanaboutGodhimself.Itsaysfirstofallthatthedoctrineofcreationisnottobeunderstoodbyempiricalobservation,butbyfaith.ForthisreasonattemptstodemonstratetheChristianviewofnatureonthebasisof

scientificexperimentationarefutile.Thesecondlawsofthermodynamics,orhypothesesthatthesunwillexplode or freeze, and such like, are all irrelevant.We understand by faith. Secular thinkers regularlyreject faith;unfortunately someChristians rejectunderstanding.Bothmisinterpret faith.As JohnOwen,thegreatPuritanwritersaysinhisCommentaryonHebrewsatthispoint,faithisourassenttothetruthsofrevelation. Then the versemakes a puzzling statement, denying one particular type of cosmology. Theunfamiliartranslationabovewasmadeinordertoarrestthestudent’sattention.Strangethoughitbetoourearsandmemory,itisasufficientlyaccuratetranslation.Butsomeexegesisisrequired.

Ifwhat is seen, i.e. visibleobjects suchas trees and rivers, didnot arise fromphenomena,or,moreinaccordwiththeorderofthewordsinthetext,ifvisibleobjectsevenif tousaionas is taken torefer to historical ages, the age ofAbel, of Enoch, ofNoah, the phrase includes visible objects if, torepeat, visible objects arose from what is nonphenomenal, one may ask,What is the identity of thatnonphenomenalfromwhichthesensoryobjectsweremade?Tosaysimplythat theycamefromnothingseemstoignoreapossiblecontrastthatthisversesuggestsbythewordphenomena.Delitzschsaysthatthesenseoftheversemustbecompletedbyaddingtothephrase notfromphenomenathecontrast“butfromnoumena.”

PlatoandPhilo

Hodge (Vol. I, p. 560) objects that “This is Platonism, and foreign to the Scripturalmodes ofthinkingandteaching.”ButitisnotPlatonism,andthereareotherScripturaltextstosupportDelitzsch’ssuggestion. Unlike Biblical monotheistic trinitarianism, Plato posited three eternal independentprinciples.ThesupremeprinciplewastheWorldofIdeas.ThisIdealworld

consistedoftheIdeasofman,animal,beauty,justice,etc.,andattheverytoptheIdeaoftheGood.

SomePlatonicscholars,bothChristianandsecular,wouldunderstandtheseIdeasmuchasrecentphysicistsviewthelawsofphysics.ThisviewoftheworldofIdeasasanimpersonalsetoflawsismademoreplausible by including thenumbers of arithmetic among them.The latter point and its relation toNeoplatonismismuchtootechnicaltodiscusshere;butthedialogueSophistmakesitfairlyclearthatforPlatotheworldofIdeaswasnotadead,impersonalsetoflaws,butalivingmind.However,itwasnotthemakerofheavenandearth.

SecondtotheworldofIdeaswastheunbegottenDemiurge,thedivineSoulwhoformed,forms,andwillformthevisibleworldaccordingtothepatternsoftheIdeas.AtreeisatreeandamanisamanbecausetheDemiurgemadeitliketheIdealTreeandIdealMan.Thethirdprinciple,alsoindependent,ischaotic, recalcitrant Space out ofwhich theDemiurge fashions the visible cosmos, or uponwhich heforciblyimposestheIdealpattern.ThisisPlatonism.

Philo, a Jewish philosopher and an older contemporary of Christ, was indeed influenced byPlatonism;buthesawthatthisbasicpartofthesystemdidnotaccordwiththeOldTestament.Henceheputthemakerofheavenandearth,Jehovah,inthesupremepositionandplacedtheIdeasinGod’smind.

Thesearethenoumena,theobjectsGodthinks.1

Thedifference is this:Platodistinguishedbetween thehighestprincipleand theSoulwho fashions thevisibleworld.Thelatter,thoughindependent,hasnopartinmakingtheIdeaswhattheyare.Theydonotexistbecausehethinksthem;buthethinksthembecausetheyexistindependentlyofhim.InChristianity,howeverthesupremephilosophicprincipleandthe

1Cf.ThalestoDewey,GordonH.Clark,pp.195210

Creatorareoneandthesame.TheBiblealsoeliminatesthechaoticSpaceormatteronwhichtheFormsareimposed.ThereforeitisnotPlatonismtomaintainwithDelitzschthattherearenoumenafromwhichthephenomenaderivetheircharacteristics.ThisviewisPhilonicorBiblical.

TheotherScripturalevidencesforsuchnoumena,whichHodgesaysdonotexist,areeverywherethatascribestoGodaplanoftheuniverse.NotonlyisthereanallinclusiveplanwithaforeordainedendamattertobeconsideredinamomentwithreferencetoGod’spurposeincreationbuttheScripturealsoreferstothesenoumenawhenspeakingonverysmallmatters.Godcreatedmanaccordingtotheblueprint(so to speak) eternal in his mind. Exodus 25:9 says that God showed to Moses the pattern of thetabernacle and the pattern of all its furniture. Numbers 8:4 mentions the pattern of the candlestick,including the flower design. See also Heb. 8:5. These patterns are the Ideas. Therefore the cause orexplanationofthevisibleobjectsMosesmade,andallotherphenomena,istheidealpatternthatdoesnotappeartothesenses.

Thereisanotherreason,notsoimmediatelyconnectedwiththedoctrineofcreation,thatrequiresthe positing of divine noumena. In the latemiddle ages there appeared nominalistic philosopherswhoassertedthatonlysensoryindividualsarereal.JohnandJamesarereal;butmanisnot.Nominalismisawidely held position in this century also. Oswald Spengler said, There are men, there is no Man.Contemporary disciples of Berkeley and Hume reduced “abstract ideas” to linguistic peculiarities.Pussiesthatmeowarereal,butcatisjustasound.Allabstractnouns,likecat,dog,manhavenoexistenceotherthanvibrationsintheair.Butifthis

nominalismwereso,howcouldaChristianmeananythingbywordssuchas justification, imputation,oreven sin?These are no sensory individuals, Reality is largely nonsensory. This is not paganism. It isChristianity.

4. Materialism.

If enoughhas nowbeen said about creation exnihiloaccording to the Ideas inGod’smind, thediscussionmaynowpassontotherepresentationofthoseIdeasinspace.Sincethismeansthevisibleorphysical universe, the subject impinges on matters of secular science. One most important contrastbetween secular views and the Biblical position is the contrast between purposeless materialism ormechanismanddivineteleology.ThiscontrastcanbeintroducedbyanotherreferencetoHodge’sdistasteforPlatonism.

IftheassertionofIdeasinGod’smindisPlatonism,thentheassertionofapurposeinnaturemustbe Platonism too, for Plato’s Ideas were purposes. Plato only dimly anticipated by Heraclitus andAnaxagoras, was the first philosopher to emphasize teleology, i.e. the fact that the world must beexplained in terms of purpose. In this twentieth century almost all nonChristian philosophers denyuniversalpurposeanddescribenatureinmechanicalterms.ThisresultedfromthesuccessofRenaissancescientists,suchasGalileo,incontrastwiththefutileAristotelianteleologyoftheMiddleAges.Descartes(15901650) still acknowledged that God had purposes; but men could give only mathematical ormechanicalexplanationsofnaturalphenomena.LaterscientistssimplydroppedGodandpurpose.

Sometimesthisviewiscalledmaterialism,especiallywhenitwasextendedtocoverthebehaviorofanimalsandmen.Now,inancientGreekandinnineteenthcenturyGermanythere

werematerialistsproperly socalled.Democrituspictures theuniverse as a complexof atoms in emptyspace.Theseindivisibleandimpenetrablebodiescollidedwithoneanother,andtheircombinationsarethevisibleworld.InGermanyVogtandBüchnerwroteonKraftundStoff,andexplainedhowonemotioncausedanothermotionaccordingtotheNewtonianlaws.Buthardlyanyonetodaythinksofthetheworldasacollectionofdiscreteparticles.Thisrejectionofatomismormaterialismwasnotbasedontherecentsplittingofthe“atom.”Tobesure,nuclearphysicshasdestroyedtheatomictheoryoflastcentury;yetitcould still have posited smaller three dimensional bodies. But even before nuclear fission,Mach andHaeckeldiscardedatomsandsubstitutedsensations,spirits,orperhapspointcentersofforce.Spacewasnolongerempty;itwasbothaplenumandacontinuum.

ErnstNagelinhispresidentialaddresstotheAmericanPhilosophicalAssociationin1954,morematerialisticthanHaeckel,declaredthatthecausalprimacyoforganizedmatter,thecontingencyofeventson the organization of spatiotemporally located bodies, is one of the best tested conclusions ofexperience.Heisparticularlyemphaticthatthereisnoplaceforanimmaterialspiritorforthesurvivalofpersonalityafterthebodydecays.Theseprinciples,herepeats,aresupportedbycompelling,conclusiveevidence.

IfthiswasintendedtodenythatEnergyistheultimateandsingleconstituentoftheuniverse,andtoasserttheultimacyofthreedimensionalbodies,howeversmall,itmaybecalledmaterialism.Butthisisnot themajority view of top level physicists; andmaybeNagel deliberately said “bodies” instead ofparticlesbecauseheclearlyhadinmindonlymacrophysicsandantitheology.

Newtonian and ancientmaterialism is gone.The twentieth century has produced a profusionofnewideas,somerestrictedandsomequitegeneral.Ifthereisanythingsurebesidesdeathandtaxes,itisthat sciencewill continue to change, not only in details, but in general.Therefore it is bad policy forChristiantheologianstotakecontemporarysciencetooseriously.NodoubtthepopulaceortheChristianpopulacewantssomeclarificationastohowatheisticsciencecanbecountered.Butitshouldalwaysberememberedthatscienceisconstantlychangingandthat,afterthelongreignoftheNewtoniansynthesisendednotquiteacenturyago,thetheoriesthattookitsplacehavechangedandbeenreplacedwithmuchgreaterrapidity.

6. Mechanism

Since the promulgation ofHeisenberg’s principle of indeterminacy about 1930, some scientistsandsomephilosophershaveacceptedatheoryoffreewillandadisordereduniverse.Strictlyspeaking,although Heisenberg’s work was an important advance in physics with reference to the position andvelocity of tiny particles, his indeterministic philosophy does not validly follow from hisexperimentation. For this reason the theory which in the main has replaced materialism, and whichcontrolsscientificinvestigation,ismechanism.Thistheoryisconjoined,sometimes,withametaphysicsthatpostulatesacontinuum,i.e.astuff,substance,ormatter,or,better,anelectromagneticfieldthatisnotatomic or composed of discrete particles, but is unitary or homogenous in its infinite extent; or,sometimes, and even less “materialistic” substance that consists of “experience” or sensations. ErnstHaeckelinTheRiddleoftheUniverse(pp.2021),hassaid,“Matter,orinfinitelyextendedsubstance,andspirit (or energy) or sensitive and thinking substance are the two fundamental attributes… of the allembracing

divine essence of the world, the universal substance.” Ernst Mach (18381916), one of hiscontemporaries,withbetterscientificcredentials,more thoroughlyresolve theuniverse intosensations.However,when“experience”ismadebasic,itdoesnotfollowthat“experience”ismental.JohnDeweyand other reject bothmaterialism andmentalism, though here, as alsowith Spinoza, whose substancepossessedallattributes,itishardtounderstandwhatpreciselythestuffoftheuniverseis.Inanycasetheresultantphysicsismathematicallydeterministic.Giventhepositionsandvelocitiesofpoints,theirfuturepositionsandvelocitiescanbepredictedbymeansofdifferentialequations.

The theologians of last century were particularly unfortunate in living at a time when scienceseemedmonolithic. Addressing themselves to their day, theymade several blunders. Part of Hodge’srefutationofmaterialismdependsontheassumptionthattheproductofinfinityandzeroiszero.(Vol.I,p.211).Strong(Vol. II,p.371),seemstoaccept thedefinitionofforceas“energyunderresistance.”TheactualdefinitionofforceinNewtoniansciencewas“theproductofmassandacceleration.”Strongalso(Vol. I, pp. 90, 91) says, “Deprive atoms of force and all that remains is extension,which= space =zero.” Just how space equals zero, hedoesnot explain.But if it does, thenhe says, “If atoms are notextended, then even an infinitemultiplication and combination of them could not produce an extendedsubstance.”Hereisaplausiblefallacy:plausiblebutnotthelessfallacious.Theunexpressedpremiseofthis argument is that thequalitiesof a compoundmustbe found in its elements.This is theassumptionunderlyingtheEleaticZeno’scriticismofDemocritus’viewofsensation.Ifagreatoceanwavecrasheswithathunderousroaronarockycoast,thefinestparticlesofspraymusthavemadeasmallnoise,foranadditionofnonoisesequalsnonoise.Now,ifnooceanwavesarehandy,the

experimentermaytakeaflakeofgroundpepper,standonastepladder,andlettheflakefalltocrashuponthekitchenfloor.Thesoundwillbezerohewillhearnothingatall.Itfollowsthatawholeisnotoftenthesum of its parts. And Leibniz was not stupid when he attempted to construct extended bodies fromunextendedmonads.

Equallypeculiaristheapparentblindnessofthetheologiansinthinkingthatcausalityasusedinnineteenthcenturyphysicsissimilartothedivinecausalityincreatingtheworld.ThereforetheybristledwhenthephilosopherHumeexplodedtheconceptofcauseandshowedthatexperiencegivesnobasisfortheideaofnecessaryconnection.KantthensoughttodefendNewtonianphysicsbyreintroducingcauseasanaprioriformofthemind.ButforKantandthescientistseveryeventwasbothacauseandaneffect.Everycausewasamotionofaphysicalbody.Hume’sargumentsthereforedidnottouchdivinecausality,nordidKant’s arguments support it; forneither thephilosophersnor the scientistswerediscussing thekindofcausethetheologianshadinmind.Conversely,thetheologiansmisunderstoodwhatthescientistswere talking about. Since the God of the Bible is not an effect, and therefore cannot be a cause, thetheologians’ arguments were often beside the point. Whatever those theologians thought they coulddiscoveraboutcausalityfromtheirnaiveconsciousness,itwouldhavebeenbetter,hadtheyread NotesonCausalitybyHerbertFeigl,TheCausalCharacterofModernPhysicalTheorybyErnestNagel,or DerKausalbegriffinderPhysikbyMaxPlanck.

Thereare two lessonshere for theologians to learn: first,not to takescience tooseriously;andyet,second,nottomisunderstandthemeaningofscientificterms.Inadditiontomisunderstandingthetermcause,thenineteenthcenturytheologiansusedthelawofgravitationtoexplainmiracles.Toquote,“Onelawissupersededbyanother.WhenIsupportanappleinmy

hand,thelawofgravitationdoesnotceasetoact,butanotherpowerpreventstheapplefromfalling.Sowhenanaeroplane fliesamong theclouds,ora steelvessel floats,ora ramforceswater to runupanincline.Thenaturallawsareoperativeallthetime,buthumancontrivanceseffecttheirpurposewhilenolawofnature is suspendedorviolated.”But this reducesmiracles toordinarycomplexitiesamong thelawsofNewton.SincetodaytheNewtoniansynthesishasbeendiscarded,atomismentirelyrepudiated,and instead of bits of matter the stuff of the universe is called Energy, to which only an operationaldefinitioncanbegiven,weshouldnotfall intothesametrapofdependingoncontemporaryscienceorphilosophy.Operationalismseemstobethebestmethodofdealingwithphysics,butifthereisanythingcertainaboutphysics,itisthatthephysicsoftodaywillbediscardedtomorrow.Thelawofgravitationdoesnotconformtotheobservationalmaterial;theconceptsofcausalityanduniformityofnatureplaynoroleinphysics;andwhatprevioustheologiansthoughtwasobviouscommonsensecannotbereliedupon.OuridealshouldbetoadheretotheBiblicaldataandpaynoattentiontoextraneousideas.Thisismoredifficult than it sounds,however; all ofus are affectedbyour environment and it is hard topurgeourmindsofourseculareducation.Butperhaps it iseasier todosonowthanitwasahundredyearsago.Sincetodayscienceisseentobechangingrapidly,itnolongerseemssoabsurdtosupposethatscienceneverhasandneverwilldescribetheprocessofnature.HadHodgenotbeensoantagonistictowardPlatoandsofriendly towardAristotleas toaccept the latter’sviewthatsciencearrivesatabsolute truth,hemighthavegivenmorecredittotheformerphilosopher’sviewthatscienceisalwaystentative.ItwasnotonlythephilosopherHume(Einsteincomesinamoment)whosaid,

“Hencewemaydiscoverthereasonwhynophilosopher,whoisrationalandmodest,haseverpretendedtoassigntheultimatecauseofanynaturaloperation,ortoshowdistinctlytheactionofthatpower,whichproduces any single effect in the universe. It is confessed, that the utmost effort of human reason is toreducetheprinciples,productiveofnaturalphenomena,toagreatersimplicity,andtoresolvethemanyparticular effects into a few general causes, by means of reasonings from analogy, experience, andobservation.Butastothecausesofthesegeneralcauses,weshouldinvainattempttheirdiscovery;norshallweeverbeabletosatisfyourselves,byanyparticularexplicationofthem.Theseultimatespringsandprinciplesaretotallyshutupfromhumancuriosityandenquiry.Elasticity,gravity,cohesionofparts,communication ofmotion by impulse; these are probably the ultimate causes and principleswhichweever discover in nature; and wemay esteem ourselves sufficiently happy, if, by accurate inquiry andreasoning,wecan traceup theparticularphenomena to,ornear to, thesegeneralprinciples.Themostperfectphilosophyof thenaturalkindonlystavesoffour ignorancea little longer:asperhaps themostperfectphilosophyofthemoralormetaphysicalkindservesonlytodiscoverlargerportionsofit.Thustheobservationofhumanblindnessandweakness is theresultofallphilosophy,andmeetsusateveryturn,inspiteofourendeavourstoeludeoravoidit.”

Ifanyonedisparagephilosophersandsayscientistsshouldbequoted,hesurelymustpayattentiontoEinstein.ChaimTschernowitzquotesEinsteininaconversation:Weknownothingaboutitatall.Ourknowledgeisbuttheknowledgeofschoolchildren.…Weshallknowalittlemorethanwedonow.Buttherealnatureofthingsthatweshallneverknow,never”(ReadersDigest,Aug.1972,p.28).

AChristiantheologianoughtthereforetobecautiousinrefutingantitheisticviewsonthebasisofsomescientific theory. It can indeedbeshown that thephilosophyofmechanism isnotderivedbyanyvalid argument from the date of laboratory experimentation. It can also be shown that every law ofphysics is false, if taken as a description of the processes of nature. But though all science be false,

mechanismforallofthatmightstillbetrue.2Whetheroneadoptsmechanismorteleologydependsonthefirstprinciplesamanchooses.TheBibleclaimsthatGodactsforapurpose,andnowthediscussionturnstothatpurpose.

6. BiblicalTeleology

Sincethesubjectionofpurposeissoimportantandleadsintothedoctrineofthedivinedecree,alist of references somewhat longer than usual will be given. The verses vary in specificity anduniversality;andsomeexpositionwillthereforefollow.

JSam.17:14FortheLordhadappointedtodefeatthegoodcounselofAhithophel,totheintentthattheLordmightbringeviluponAbsalom.

Jer.26:3Ifsobe theywillhearken…thatImayrepentmeof theevilwhichIpurposetountothem.

Jer.36:3…AlltheevilwhichIpurposetodountothem…

Jer.51:29EverypurposeoftheLordshallbeperformedagainstBabylon.

12. GordonH.ClarkThePhilosophyofScienceandBeliefinGod

John 13:13 I knowwhom I have chosen; but that theScripturemay be fulfilled,He that eatethbreadwithmehathlifteduphisheelagainstme.

Acts26:16Ihaveappeareduntotheeforthispurpose.

Rom.8:28WeknowthatallthingsworktogetherforgoodtothemthatloveGod.

Rom.9:11,17 that thepurposeofGodaccording toelectionmightstand…Evenfor thissamepurposehaveIraisetheeup…

Eph.1:11Beingpredestinatedaccording to thepurposeofhimwhoworkethall thingsafter thecounselofhiswill.

Eph.3:11AccordingtotheeternalpurposewhichhepurposedinChristJesusour

Lord.

IITim.1:9Accordingtohisownpurpose.

IJohn3:9ForthispurposetheSonofGodwasmanifested.

Some of these verses state quite particularly thatGod had a purposewith respect to a certainindividualoracertaindatedevent:AhithophelandAbsalom,Babylon,Judas,andPaul.If,now,GodisaGodofWisdom,andifpredictionsmustbefulfilledbyintermediateevents,we

canconcludethatGodhasapurposeforeveryperson.Wecouldalsoinferthathehasapurposeforeveryanimal, since it isexplicitly stated thatnota sparrowfalleth to thegroundwithout theFather’snotice.ObviouslytheFather’snoticeisnotrestrictedtosparrows:itextendstosquirrels,elephants,coyotes,andJonah’sbigshark.

Anunfriendlyphysicistmightcomplainthat this isnoreasonforsayingnatureasawholehasapurpose,foritispossibletoconstructamechanisticsysteminwhichtherearepurposesthoughthewholehasnone.TheunfriendlyphysicistbythesamereasoningwillalsosaythattheScripturalreferencesdonotsupportthePlatonicpositionthatallconceptsmustbedefinedteologically.TowhichaChristianmayreplythattheScriptureassignspurposestoinanimateobjects,sinceGodmadethesunforthepurposeof"rulingovertheday"andwiththemoonandstarstomeasuretheseasons.

Tomaintainateleologicalviewofnature,itisnotnecessarytoincludeteleologicalconceptsinthedefinitionofforce.Forcecanstillbemasstimesacceleration,andtheproductofohmsandamperescan still be volts. This is all the more the case if scientific terms are operational and that for twoapparently opposite yet actually complementary reasons. First, operational physics has nothing to sayabout theconstitutionofnature.Therefore its termsmaybedevoidofpurposive intentwithoutdenyingpurposeintheworld.Then,second,inoperationalismthepurposeisveryclearlylocatedinthescientisthimself.Sciencethereforefurnishesnoevidenceagainstateleologicalconceptofnatureasawhole;andtheChristianpositiononitsownbaseremainsuntouched.

Now,inadditionto thestatementsconcerningparticulareventsandindividualpersons,someoftheversesinthelistmakemoregeneralassertions.Romans8:28speaksofallthings.It

is not as if thingsworked. There is a reading attested bymanuscripts p 46,A, andB, that says, "Godworksallthings.”Thismaynotbethebestreading,butitisthebestsense,forthereisnothingintheBibletosuggestthatthingsworkindependentlyofGod.Inanycase,Eph.1:11saysthatwearepredestinatedaccordingtothepreviousresolveofhimwhoworksallthingsafterthecounselofhiswill.ThistotallyuniversalpropositionsaysclearlythatitisGodwhoworksorcontrolseverylastitemintheuniverseofphysicsandhistory.ItisGod’sdecisionthatfixesthenumberofhairsonourheadsandmakesitrainonthefourthofJulyforthebenefitofthemthatlovehim.

This is not to say that the only purpose God has inmind is the good of those who love him.Purposesregularlycomeinseries.Amangetsdressedinorder to leavethehouse, inorder to takethebus,inordertoridedowntown,inordertogettothedepartmentstore,inordertobuyapresentforhiswife'sbirthdayyesterday.GodpreservedNoahinordertomakeacovenantwithAbraham,sothattherecouldbeapeopleoverwhomDavid.wastorule,inordertopreparefortheMessiah,sothatPaulcouldpreachthegospelinCorinth.Goddoesindeedworkallthingsforthegoodofhissaints,butthepurposeofcreation,thepurposeoftheactofcreation,goesbeyondthis,importantasthisistous.

(2)TheGloryofGod.

It isproper, it is important,andit isverynecessarytosaythatGoddoesall thingsforhisownglory.ThegloryofGodisthefinalandfullpurposeofeverything.

Isa.48:11Formineownsake,formineownsake,willIdoit;forhowshouldmynamebeprofaned?AndmyglorywillInotgivetoanother.Ezek.20:9Iwroughtformyname’ssake…

Rom11:36Forofhim,andthroughhim,anduntohimareallthings.Tohimbethegloryforever.Amen.

ICor.15:28…thenshalltheSonalsohimselfbesubjectedtohimthatdidsubjectallthingsuntohim,thatGodmaybeallinall.

Col.1:16Allthingshavebeencreatedthroughhimanduntohim.

Rev.4:11Worthyartthou,ourLordandourGod,toreceivetheglory…forthoudidstcreateallthings,andbecauseoftheywilltheywereandwerecreated.

UndoubtedlyGodintendedtobenefithissaintsbythecourseofhistory;butwhydidhechoosetohavesaintsinthefirstplace?Theansweris,forhisownglory.Theuniverseisofhim,byhim,andtohim.Whohasinstructedhim?Whohasfirstgivenhimanything?Mankindisasadropinabucketorthefinedustonthescales(Isa.40:15).Allthingsareuntohim;heistheirend;andbecauseofhiswill,orgoodpleasure,theuniversewascreated.ThatthegloryofGodistheultimateandoriginalpurposeforwhicheverything was made is an idea of the greatest importance. A few pages later much of this will besummarizedundertheconceptofthesovereigntyofGod.Itmustnotbeunderestimated.YettheScripturealsogivesanotherpurposeforthecreationoftheworld,subsidiarytotheultimatepurpose,yetnearertheultimatecausethanthebenefitofthesaints.Itsimportanceisgreaterthanthelesserpurposesanditis

particularlyusefultoknowbecauseitgivesakeytotheunderstandingofthelogicalorderofthepartsoftheeternaldecree.

JFourPartsofGod’sPurpose.

God'spurpose,ashasbeenmadeobvious;embracesmany, indeedallevents.But someevents,someofGod'schoicesordeterminations,aremoreimportantthanothers;andtheologianshavewonderedhowthesedecrees,astheyarecalledintheplural,dependononeanother.Ofcourse,veryliterally,onecouldspeakofthedecreetocallAbraham,tomakeDavidkingofIsrael,torebuildJerusalem,andsoon.Butthefourmoregeneraldecreesusuallyselectedforstudyarecreation, thefallofman, thedecreetosavesomeandreprobateothers,andthedecreetoprovidesalvationfortheelect.Thetwochiefviewsrelative to the logical order of these decrees are called infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism,depending onwhether the decree to elect presupposes and therefore comes under or after the fall, orwhetherconverselyelectionisprior.

TheexponentsofbothviewsagreethattheorderofthedecreesinnotatemporalorchronologicalordersincetheyarealleternalinGod'smind.Itisthelogicalorderthatissought.Butneitherpartyistooclear as to what the term logical order means. In fact, the infralapsarian view seems to be simplychronological: creation, fall, provision for salvation, and the election of those saved. Someinfralapsariansmakea slightchangeand list themas: creation, the fall, election, and theprovision forthoseelected.

Thesupralapsarianview,atleastassometimesstated,isalsochronologicalexceptthatthedecreeofelectionisputfirst.H.B.Smith(p.118)describesitasfollows:"The

Supralapsarian says that thedivinepurpose in respectof sinwas subsequent to thedivinepurpose forsalvationandpunishment,i.e.intheorderofdecrees,thelogicalorder,thefirstdecreeisthatGodwillsetforthhisglory,thesecondthathewilldothisbysavingsomeandcondemningothers,andthethirdisthedecreeofthefall,theLapsus.”Smithfavorstheinfralapsarianposition,buttakesadefeatistattitudeandconcludes,"thewholesubjectofthedivinedecreesisaboveman'scomprehension."

Such seeming humility has often been used when a theologian cannot see how to solve hisproblem.But actually it is a formof conceit. Itmeans in the firstplace that ifDr.Xcannot thinkof asolution, no one else can. In the second place, it means that Dr. X. has so thoroughly understoodeverything fromGenesis to Revelation that he can assert with complete infallibility that the Scripturecontainsnotasinglehintfromwhichasolutioncanbededucedorevenguessedat.Andifthismeans,asitcertainlyseemsto,thatsomeScriptureisunintelligible,itcontradictsGod'sWord,whichtellsusthatallScriptureisprofitablefordoctrine.

Theseremarksdonotdenythatexegetesmakemistakes,northatman'signoranceisgreaterthanhisknowledge.NordotheydenythatGodhasgivenusonlyapartialrevelation.Butwhenaproblemispresented by the Scripture itself, it seems wiser and more humble to admit that one has failed tounderstandthantoassertthatnooneelsecanunderstandit.

Theparticularproblemontheorderofthedecreesisnotnearlysodifficultasmanythink.H.B.Smith'sdefeatism, the twoformsof infralapsarianism, theodditiesadvancedforoneviewor theother,aremainlytheresultofnothavingaclearnotionofwhatismeantbylogicalasopposedtochronologicalorder.Otherodditiesmayhaveadifferentorigin.

Turretinarguedagainstsupralapsarianismbysayingthat,“Ofanonensnothingcanbedetermined;”hencethedecreetocreatean ensmustprecedethefallandelection.Thisisbadscholasticism.ItwouldentailtheimpossibilityofGod’sdecreeinganythinginadvance.Forexample,onthisview,GodcouldnothavedecidedtodestroyAbsalomthroughbadadviceuntilafterAbsalomhadbeenborn.Or,moretothepoint,Godcouldnothavedecreedtocreatemanasarationalbeing,sincebeforetheactualcreationmanwouldhavebeena nonensaboutwhichnothingcouldbedetermined.Infact,allfourofGod’sdecreesineternityrelatetononentia.Turretin’sargumentthereforeseemstoimplythatGoddecreednothing.

Various writers object to supralapsarianism because the Scriptures often picture the saints ashavingbeen savedoutof themassof fallenhumanity.The saint is “abrandplucked from theburning"(Zech.3:2).“YouonlyhaveIknownofallthefamiliesoftheearth"(Amos3:2)"Saveyourselvesfromthis crookedgeneration" (Acts2:40).But suchverses andother like themare irrelevant to thepresentproblem. The Scriptures proceed historically, chronologically. They describe the threatenings of theprophetsandtheexhortationsoftheapostles.NaturallytheScripturessaythatChristcameto"deliverusoutofthispresentevilworld.”Butthisobviouschronologyisnotintendedtostatethelogicalorderofthedecrees.Neverthelessthechronologicalaccountgivesusahintastothelogicalorder.

14. TheParticularPurposeofCreation.LetusexamineEph.3:10.

The main exegetical problem of Ephesians 3: l0 is the identification of the antecedent of thepurposeclause:"inorderthatthemanifoldwisdomofGodmightnowbemadeknown,bymeansoftheChurch, to theprincipalitiesandpowers inheavenlyplaces,according to theeternalpurposewhichhepurposed in Christ Jesus our Lord." Something happened in the preceding verses for the purpose ofrevealingGod'swisdom.Whatwasitthathadthispurpose?

Therearethreeandapparentlyonlythreepossibleantecedents:(1)Paulwascalledtopreachinorderthat,(2)Themysterywashidinorderthat,and(3)Godcreatedtheworldinorderthat.

First, I should like to eliminate from consideration the second of these possibilities. ThisinterpretationwouldholdthatGodkeptacertainsecrethiddenfromthebeginningoftheworldinordertoreveal it inNewTestamentdays.Theonlytextualsupportfor thisexegesis,asidefromthefact that theeventofhidingismentionedpriortothepurposeclause,isthewordnow.Byemphasizingthewordnow,onemaysaythatthemysteryorsecretwaskepthiddenforthepurposeofrevealingitnow.Itistruethattheemphaticpositionisgiventotheverbmightbemadeknown,andhenceacontrastwiththeprevioushidingispointedout.Thewordnow,however,isnotparticularlyemphaticandcannotbeartheburdenofthisexegesis.Theburdenisconsiderable,forwhileitispossibletohidesomethinginordertomakeitknownatalaterdate,itismoreprobablethattherevelationisthepurposeofPaul'spreachingorofGod'screationof theworld.Hiding isamoreor lessnegative idea,and it seems reasonable toexpect somedefiniteandoutwardeventthathasthepurposestatedhere.

Letusthenconsiderthenextpossibility.TheinterpretationthatPaulwascalledtopreachinorderthatGod'swisdommightbemadeknownseemstofitinverywellwiththeprecedingcontext.

Inverse8PaulhadjustreferredtothegraceGodhadgivenhimforthepurposeofpreachingthegospeltotheGentiles.Fromthispoint thelongcomplicated,sentencecontinuestotheendofverse13.Evenfurtherback,asearlyasverse2.theideaofPaul'spreachinghadbeenintroduced.ThereforenoonecandoubtthatPaul'spreachingisthemainidea.oratleastoneofthemainideas,ofthispassage.WhetherornotPaul'spersonalministryrecedesfromitsmainpositionastheparagraphapproachesitsend,andwhat other subordinate ideas may be found in verses 911, must of course be determined by directexamination.ButtheideaofPaul’spreachingiswithoutdoubtprominent.

WenowaskthequestionwhetherornottherevelationofGod'swisdomtopowersinheavenisthepurposeofPaul'spreaching.

Charles Hodge thinks it is. Aside from his objections to other views, which we shall studypresently,hispositiveargumentisasfollows:"Theapostleisspeakingofhisconversionandcalltotheapostleship.TohimwasthegracegiventopreachtheunsearchablerichesofChrist,andteachallmentheeconomyofredemption,'inorderthat'throughtheChurchmightbemadeknownthemanifoldwisdomofGod.Itisonlythusthattheconnectionofthisversewiththemainideaofthecontextispreserved.Itisnotthedesignofcreation,butthedesignoftherevelationofthemysteryofredemption,ofwhichheisherespeaking(Commentary,inloc.p.119).

For.themomenttheonlyobjectiontoHodge'sexegesisistheseeminglypeculiarnotionthatPaul'spreachingonearthrevealsGod'swisdomtothepowersinheaven.OnewouldnotbesurprisedifPaul'spreaching on earth revealed God's wisdom to men. But Paul did not preach to angels, demons, orwhomeverthesepowersmaybe.Admittedly,Paul'spreachingandthefoundingoftheChurchcanbesaidto revealGod'swisdom to these powers, ifwe suppose thatGoddirected their attention towhatwasgoingon. In thiscasePaul'spreachingwouldhave thispurpose,but itwouldbeapurposeoneor twosteps removed. Immediately itwouldseemmorenatural toconnectPaul'spreachingwith itseffectsonmen,ratherthanonangelsordemons.

However,sincenodecisivegrammaticalreasoncanbeadvancedagainstthisinterpretation,itispresumablyimpossibletodisproveit.

Ontheotherhaud, thereisa thirdinterpretation,alsogrammaticallypossible,onethatseemstohave weightier reasons in its favor, and which does not suffer under the objections raised against it.Grammatically,infact,thisthirdinterpretationisnotmerelyequallygood,butsomewhatpreferable.

WhenwesaythatGodcreatedtheworldforthepurposeofdisplayinghismanifoldwisdom,weconnect the purpose clause with the nearest antecedent. As anyone can see, the reference to Paul'spreachingliesseveralclausesfurtherback.Theimmediateantecedentiscreation,andthisposition,wehold,isofsomevalueindecidingthematter.

Since therefore the syntax is at least somewhat in its favor, the best procedure is to examineobjectionsagainstsounderstandingit.

WetumagaintoHodgefortheseobjections.TheviewthatGodcreatedtheuniverseinordertodisplay his manifold wisdom is, as Hodge says, the supralapsarian view. Against this interpretationHodge urges four objections: (1) This passage is the only passage in Scripture adduced as directlyasserting supralapsarianism,andsupralapsarianism is foreign to to theNewTestament. (2)Apart fromdoctrinal objections, this interpretation imposes an unnatural connection upon the clauses.The idea ofcreation isentirelysubordinateandunessential: itcouldhavebeenomittedwithoutmateriallyaffectingthesenseofthepassage.(3)ThethemeofthepassageconcernsPaul'spreaching;onlybyconnectingthepurpose clausewithPaul's preaching can the unity of the context be preserved. (4)Theword now, incontrastwiththeprevioushiding,supportsthereferencetoPaul'spreaching.ItwasPaul'spreachingthathadnowputanendtothesecret'shiddenness.SuchareHodge'sfourobjections.

Letusconsiderthelastonefirst.Admittedly,itwasPaul'spreachingthatfoundedtheChurch,andthe founding of the Church made known God's wisdom to the powers in heaven. The supralapsarianinterpretationdoesnot deny thatPaul's preachingplayed this important part inGod's eternal plan.Buteven so, Paul's preachingwas not the immediate cause of the revelation ofGod'swisdom. Itwas theexistence of the Church that was the immediate cause. Yet grammar prevents us from saying that theChurchwasfoundedinorderthatGod'swisdommightberevealed.ItistruethattheChurchwasfoundedtorevealGod'swisdom,butthisisnotwhattheversesays.Now,ifseveraleventshadoccurred,leadingup to this revelation ofGod'swisdom, including the founding of theChurch, Paul's preaching, and ofcoursethedeathandresurrectionofChristwhichPaulpreached,thewordnow intheversecannotbeusedtosingle

outPaul'spreachingincontrastwithothereventsmentionedinthepassage.Hodge'sfourthobjectionisthereforepoor.

Next, the first objection: this is the only passage in Scripture adduced as directly assertingsupralapsarianism, and supralapsarianism is foreign to the New Testament. The latter half of thisobjection is of course a petitio principii, i.e., Hodge begs the question. If this verse teachessupralapsarianism,thenthedoctrineisnotforeigntotheNewTestament.Wemustfirstdeterminewhattheversemeans;thenweshallknowwhatisintheNewTestamentandwhatperhapsisnot.

To be sure, if this one verse were indeed the only verse in the Bible with supralapsarianovertones,wewouldbejustifiedinentertainingsomesuspicionoftheinterpretation.Hodgedoesnotsayexplicitly that this is the only verse; he says it is the only verse adduced as directly assertingsupralapsarianism.

Well,really,eventhisversedoesnotdirectlyassertthewholecomplexsupralapsarianview.Veryfew verses in Scripture directly assert the whole of a major doctrine. Therefore we must recognizedegreesofdirectness,partialandeven fragmentaryassertionsofadoctrine.Andwith this recognition,regularlyacknowledged in thedevelopmentofanydoctrine, it isevident that thisversedoesnot standaloneinsuspiciousisolation.

Supralapsarianism, forall its insistenceonacertain logicalorderamong thedivinedecrees, isessentially,soitseemstous,theunobjectionableviewthatGodcontrolstheuniversepurposefully.Godactswithapurpose.Hehasanendinviewandseestheendfromthebeginning.EveryverseinScripturethatinonewayoranotherreferstoGod'smanifoldwisdom,everystatementindicatingthataprioreventisforthepurposeofcausingasubsequentevent,

everymentionofaneternal,allembracingplancontributes∙toateleologicalandthereforesupralapsarianviewofGod’scontrolofhistory.InthislightEphesians3:10clearlydoesnotstandalone.

The connection between supralapsarianism and the fact that God always acts purposefullydepends on the observation that the logical order of any plan is the exact reverse of its temporalexecution.Thefirststepinanyplanningistheendtobeachieved;thenthemeansaredecidedupon,untillastofallthefirstthingtobedoneisdiscovered.Theexecutionintimereversestheorderofplanning.Thus creation, since it is first in history,must be logically last in the divine decrees. Every BiblicalpassagethereforethatreferstoGod’swisdomalsosupportsEphesians3:10.

Next comesobjectionnumber two.Hodge claimed that the supralapsarian interpretationof thisverse imposes an unnatural connection upon the clauses. The idea of creation, he said, is entirelyunessentialandcouldhavebeenomittedwithoutmateriallyaffectingthesenseofthepassage.

IsitnotevidentthatHodgedoesnotknowhowtohandlethereferencetocreation?Heclaimsthatit is unessential, a chance and thoughtless remark that does not affect the sense of the passage. SuchcarelesswritingdoesnotseemtometobePaul'susualstyle.

Forexample,inGalatians1:1,Paulsays,"Paul,anapostle,notfrommennorthroughaman,butbyJesusChristandGodtheFatherwhoraisedhimfromthedead."WhynowdidPaulmentionthatGodraisedJesusChrist?Ifitwereachanceremarkwithoutlogicalconnectionwiththesenseofthepassage,aremark intendedonly to speakof someaspectofGod'sglory,Paul couldaswellhave said,Godwhocreatedtheuniverse.

ButitisfairlyclearthatPaulhadaconsciouspurposeinselectingtheresurrectioninsteadofthecreation.Hewantedtoemphasize,againsthisdetractors,thathehadapostolicauthorityfromJesusChristhimself.And JesusChristwas able to give him that authority because hewas not dead, but had beenraisedupbyGod.

So, as Paul chose the idea of resurrection instead of creation in Galatians 1:1, he also chosecreationinsteadofresurrectioninEphesians3:9becausetheideaofcreationcontributedsomemeaningtohisthought.CertainlythesupralapsarianorteleologicalinterpretationofEphesians3:10accommodatestheideaofcreation,andcontrariwiseaninterpretationthatcanfindnomeaninginthesewordsisapoorerinterpretation.

The remaining objection is that only bymaking Paul's preaching the antecedent of the purposeclausecantheunityofthecontextbepreserved.Thereverseseemstobethecase.NotonlydoesHodgefailtoaccountforthementionofcreation,andthusdiminishtheunity,butfurtherthestressonpurpose,running fromcreation to thepresentunifies thepassage inamost satisfactorymanner.The teleologicalunderstandingofGod'sworkinginfactenablesustocombineallthreeoftheseinterpretations,includingthesecondwhichinitselfhassoverylittleinitsfavor,inaunifiedthought.SinceGoddoeseverythingfor apurpose, and sincewhateverprecedes in timehas in ageneralway thepurposeofpreparing forwhatfollows,wemaysaythatGodkept thesecrethiddeninorder toreveal itnow,andalsothatPaulpreached thegospel inorder toreveal itnow.But ifGodhadnotcreated theworld, therewouldhavebeennoPaultopreach,noChurchbywhichtherevelationcouldbemade,noheavenlypowersonwhichtoimpresstheideaofGod'smanifoldwisdom.Onlybyconnectingthepurposeclausewiththe

immediateantecedentconcerningcreation,canaunifiedsensebeobtainedfromthepassageasawhole.

Therefore,inconclusion,althoughtheotherinterpretationisgrammaticallypossible,theideathatGodcreatedtheworldforthepurposeofrevealinghiswisdommakesmuchbettersense.

The doctrine of the divine decrees must again be considered in the discussion on sin andatonement.Butperhapssufficienthasbeensaidforachapteroncreation.

10.ImmutabilityandCreation.

Itwouldnotdo,however,toomitfromthischapteradiscussionofanextremelydifficultpointthatbesetsthedoctrineofcreation.Thedifficultyliesintheapparentantithesisbetweendivineimmutabilityand the single, onceforall act of creation, from which God rested on the seventh day. The history oftheologyhasnotoverlookedthisdifficulty,butthesolutionsproposedaresometimespainfullysuperficial.

Augustinedidhisbestwiththeproblem:Howcantheeternalandimmutableproducethetemporaland changing?The famous Passage in theConfessions (XI, 10, or 12) beginswith the question of theManichaeans: "WhatwasGod doing before he created the heaven and the earth? If hewere lazy andinactive,why,theyask,whydidhenotremainsofortherestoftime,thesameasbefore,doingnothing?IfachangeoccurredinGod,anewvolition,tocreatewhathehadnotyetcreated,howcouldtherebeatrueeternity,when a volition occurred that had not occurred previously? Indeed, thewill ofGod is not acreature; it precedes every creature; nothing is createdwithout thepreexistingwill of the creator.ThewillofGodbelongstothevery

substance ofGod. If in the divine substance, something comes forth that did not previously exist, thatsubstancecannotbetrulycalledeternal.AndifGodhasalwayswilledtheexistenceofthecreature,whyisnotthecreaturealsoeternal?"(cf.CityofGod,XI,45).

ThewaytheManichaeansandAugustineunderstoodtheproblemresultsinasolutionthatdependsonatheoryoftime.ThefirstwordofGenesis,"inthebeginning,”indicatesamomentatwhichcreaturesfirstbegantoexist.Since,now,changedefinestime,timeitselfisacreatureandbeganinthefinitepast.Hence it iswrong topictureGodasdoingnothing fora long timeand thenafter this timecreating theworld.Therewasnotimebeforecreation.Godiseternal,nottemporal.Atimeprecedingcreationwouldposethequestion,WhydidGodchooseonemoment,ratherthananearlierorlatermoment,inwhichtocreate?Inaninfinitevoidtime,everymomentwouldbeindistinguishablefromeveryother.Noonemorethan any other would contain a reason for choosing that one to be the moment of creation. Thisirrationalitythereforeprecludesaninfinitepastofemptytime.Similarlytherecouldbenoinfiniteemptyspace,forthesamequestionreappears:WhydidGodcreatetheworldhereratherthanthere?

Augustine locates the difficulty in ourmistaken attempt to compare twoheterogeneous types ofduration if indeed duration isat all proper in this ease. These two 'durations' are based on twoheterogeneous types of being. He then seems to conclude (not obviously in harmony with his strongantiskepticalinsistencethatwemostsurelyknowGod)thatsincewedonotknowthebeingofGod,wecannotsolvetheproblem.

Thomas Aquinas' solution is much the same, in that it depends on considerations of time andmotion; its technicalities, however,make itmore difficult to understand.He recognizes that a delayedvolitionseemstopresupposesomemodificationorchangeinGodcausinghimto

initiatetheaction.IfthereforeGodimmutablywillstheworld,theworldmustalwayshaveexisted.Thisdifficulty,Thomasargues, results fromapplying to theFirstandUniversalCauseconditionsapplicableonlytoparticularcausesactingintime.Aparticularcauseisnotthecauseofthetimewithinwhichitsactiontakesplace;butGod,onthecontrary,ishimselfthecauseoftime.Whatistrueofparticularcausesintheirinterlockingrelationships,onepartoftheuniversewithanother,isnottrueoftheproductionoftheuniverse as aWhole. Furthermore,Aquinas argues, creation is not a change ormotion. For a thing tomove, it must be first in a certain place (or condition), and then it must get to another place. But increation,thereisnopointofdeparture.Thisdoesnotmeanthatcreationisimpossible,asopponentsaver,butonlythatcreationisnotamotion.Ourimaginations,dependingastheydoonsensoryexperience,mustalways picture creation as amotion; but in reality it is something quite different beyond the range ofhuman experience. In the SummaTheologica(I,Q. 45,Art. 2) he says, "Creation is not change, exceptaccordingtoourwayofunderstanding.Forchangemeansthatthesamethingshouldbedifferentnowfromwhatitwaspreviously.Sometimesitisthesameactualrealitywhichisdifferentnowfromwhatitwasbefore,ashappenswhen themotion isaccording toquantity,qualityandplace;but sometimes it is thesamebeingonlyinpotentiality,asinsubstantialchange,thesubjectofwhichismatter.Butincreation,bywhichthewholesubstanceofathingisproduced,thesamethingcanbetakenasdifferentnowandbeforeonlyaccordingtoourwayofunderstanding,sothatathingisunderstoodasfirstnotexistingatall,andafterwardsasexisting.But asactionandpassion coincideas to the substanceofmotion,and differonlyaccordingtodiverserelations,itmustfollowthat,whenmotioniswithdrawn,thereremainonlythediverserelationsintheCreatorandinthecreature.Butbecausethemodeofsignification

follows the mode of understanding, as was said above creation is signified as a change; and on thisaccount it is said that tocreate is tomakesomething fromnothing.Andyet tomake and tobemade aremoresuitableexpressionsherethantochange andtobechanged,because tomakeandtobemade importarelationofcausetotheeffect,andofeffecttothecause,andimplychangeonlyasaconsequence.”

Thisargumenthardlycarriesconviction,notonlybecauseofitsdifficultscholasticterminology,butbecause,whileitmayshowthatcreationisnotamotionofthecreatedobject,itfailscompletelytoshowthataonceforallvolitionisnotachangeinanimmutableGod.

Butevangelicaltheologiansareevenmoreunsatisfactory:eithertheydonotseepreciselywhatthedifficulty is, as Augustine so clearly did, or they deny that God is immutable. For example, StephenCharnockand,aboutsixtyyearslater,JohnGill,saidmuchthesamething.Thelatterwrote,"Noristheimmutabilityofthedivinenaturetobedisprovedfromthecreationoftheworld,andall thingsinit;aswhen it is suggested, God, from a nonagent, became an agent and acquired a new relation, that of aCreator, fromwhichmutability isargued.but it shouldbeobserved, thatGodhad fromalleternity thesamecreativepower,andwouldhavehad,ifhehadnevercreatedanything;andwhenheputitforthintime, itwasaccording tohisunchangeablewill ineternity,andproducednochange inhim; thechangewasinthecreaturesmade,notinhimtheMaker;andthougharelationresultsfromhence,andwhichisrealincreatures,isonlynominalintheCreator,andmakesnochangeinhisnature."(BookI,chapterV).Notonlydoesthisevadetheproblem;itassertsthatcreationisachangeinthecreatedobject,andonthispointAquinashasthebetterofit.

Charnock andGill in effect deny thatGod is immutable.Not that they intended to. In the samesection fromwhich the quotation abovewas taken,Gill says, "Immutability is an attributewhichGodclaims...Mutabilitybelongstocreatures,immutabilitytoGodonly;creatureschange,buthedoesnot....He is unchangeable… in his nature and essence, being simple and devoid of all composition ...Godbeing an infinite and uncreated Spirit, and free from composition in every sense, is intirely [sic] andperfectlyimmutable...Timedothnotbelongtohim,onlytoacreature...hiseternityisaneverlastingandunchangingnow."

The conclusionmust be thatGill didnot have as clear anunderstandingof theproblemasdidAugustineandAquinas,andthathethereforefellintoacontradiction.

J.OliverBuswell,Jr.,inhis ASystematicTheologyoftheChristianReligion (pp.40,42,4748,5253)) solves the present problem by denying what previous theologians have called immutability.BuswellofcourseassertsthatGodiseternal,buthedeniesthateternityistimelessness.Heobjectstotheidea of an eternal now,and disapproves of Augustine and Aquinas. Although he asserts that God is“unchangeable inhisbeing,”herepudiates"a timelessmentalandspiritual immobility.”Hedenies thatGodis"fullyactualized,"andassertsthatGodis(partlyatleast)potential;fromwhichwemustconcludethatBuswellisconceivingofGodasinastateofdevelopment.Hesays,"TheimplicationsofthedoctrinethatGodis'pureact,''fullyrealized',thatinhimthereis'nopotentiality(dunamis)'aredevastating."

Naturally there is no antithesis between a temporal, potential, developing God and an act ofcreationprecededbytime.

Firstlessonsintheology,nomatterhowelementary,donotdaretoomittheScripturalmaterialonomniscience,immutability,andcreation.Butitwouldbeunfairtothestudentto

leavetheimpressionthatalliselementaryandeasy.Whileitisconceittoassertthattheproblemhereisinsoluble,fornooneknowsenoughtosetlimitstotheimplicationsofScripture,itisnotconceit,itisnotevenmodesty,itisbutfrustratingfacttoacknowledgethateventhebetterattemptstosolvethisproblemleavemuchtobedesired.

CHAPTERSEVEN

Salvation

ThetitleSalvationisdoubtlesstoobroadasanaccurateindicationofthischapter'scontents.Butit is not so narrow as one of its common uses. Some untutored people use the term as a synonym forregeneration.Theyspeakofsomeoneorthemselvesasbeing"saved"atacertaintime,withouthavinginmindanynotionof justificationor sanctification.Salvation,however, includes these. It is regenerationplus all the spiritual blessings that succeed upon it. For this reason salvation is incomplete withoutresurrectionandglorificationinheaven.

Nevertheless, eschatology with the promise of resurrection, the return of Christ, glorification,heaven,andthepenaltyofhelltoo,issuchanextensivetopic,thatthoughallofitisapartofsalvation,itwill be reserved for the final chapter.Themain topics here areRegeneration,Faith, Justification, andSanctification. This is already too much for one chapter, and to alleviate the length there will be adivisionintoparts.

PartIRegenerationandGrace

The actual, personal, or subjective first stage in salvation from sin and divine wrath isregeneration.ThiswordderivesfromthepictureofanewbirthintheGospelofJohn.Everyoneknows,orperhapsinthispostreformationdecadencenoteveryoneknowsthatJesustoldNicodemus

John3:3 Verily,verily,Isayunto theeExceptamanbebornagainhecannotsee thekingdomofGod.

ThisfigurativelanguageisnottheonlynoreventhemostfrequentdescriptionoftheinitialeventofChristianlife.Theideaofdeathinsinleadstospeakingoflifeasaresurrection.

Eph.2:5Whenweweredeadinsins,[God]madeusaliveto[withreferenceto]

Christ...andresurrectedus...

Thisinitiationofthenewlifeisalsoreferredtoasanewcreationandevenasanadoption.

19. Cor.5:17IfanyonebeinChrist,heisanewcreation.

Eph.2:10Wearehisproduct,createdbyChrist.

Rom8:1415OurFather...sonsofGod...TheSpiritofadoption,bywhomwecry,Abba,Father.

Ofthesefourfiguresofspeech.newbirth.newcreation.andadoption.givehardlyanyhintofthecharacteristicsofordinarylifeprecedingthischange.Theideaofcreation.exnihilo,couldsuggestthattherewasnopreexisting'matter".thatis,nopersonexistingpriortothiscreation.Similarly.thenewbirth.Adoption presupposes a person existing previously, but there is no hint as to his condition; in fact,adoptiondoesnotevennecessitatebeinganorphan.Theideaofresurrectionfurnishesthemorecompletepicture.CreationandadoptionclearlyindicateGod'sinitiative;andallfourmorethanhintattheabsenceofanyhumanroleintheevent.Buttheideaofresurrectionmostclearlyrequires,notonlyapreexistingperson(ascreationandnewbirthdonot),butalsodescribeshisconditionasoneofdeath.Andthedeathisdeathinsin.

Tothefewversesjustquotedandthereferencestosomeothers,afewmorewillnowbeadded.After these an attempt will be made to express the literal meaning and truth of these figurativeexpressions,sothatwemayhavesomeclearideasaboutwhatregenerationactuallyis.

Acts26:18 Toopen theireyes,and to turn themfromdarkness to light,andfromthepowerofSatanuntoGod,thattheymayreceiveforgivenessofsins,andinheritanceamongthemwhicharesanctifiedbyfaiththatisinme.

2

Gal. 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, noruncircumcision,butanewcreature.

Col.2:12Buriedwithhiminbaptism,whereinalsoyearerisenwithhimthrough

the

faithoftheoperationofGod,whohathraisedhimfromthedead.

IPeter2:9Butyeareachosengeneration,aroyalpriesthood,anholynation,apeculiarpeople;thatyeshouldshewforththepraisesofhimwhohathcalledyououtofdarknessintohismarvelouslight:

Thesubjectofalltheseversesis,presumably,regeneration;andjustabovethiswasidentifiedasthefirststageofsubjectivesalvation.Theterm,however,hasnotalwaysbeensorestrictedinmeaning.Romanismusesthewordtodesignateeverythingfromthefirststagetocompletesalvationinheaven.BoththeLutheranandtheCalvinistictheologiansalsohavegivenitawidesense,includingsanctificationifnotglorification.Calvin(InstitutesIIIiii9)wrote“Inthisregenerationwearerestored...andthisrestorationis not accomplished in a single moment, or day, or year; but by continual and sometimes even tardyadvances theLord destroys the carnal corruptions of his chosen ... terminated only by death.” In laterhistory,thenatureoftheveryfirststageofthisprocesshasattractedmoreattention,anditmightaswellbe called regeneration, if the readers understand that the discussion is limited to the initiation,thebegettingofortheresurrectiontoanewlife.

Birth and especially resurrection are never the acts of the person born or resurrected. LazaruswalkedforthonlyafterGodhadrestoredhimtolife.Thepersonresurrectedneverhasanyactiveroleintheevent.

ThedoctrineofcompletehumanpassivityinregenerationwasdirectlyattackedbytheCouncilofTrent.Thedocumentstates,"Ifanyoneshallsaythatthefreewillofman,movedand

excitedbyGod,doesnotcooperatebyassentingoryieldingtoGod,excitingandcallinghiminorderthathemaypredisposeandpreparehimselftoreceivethegraceofjustification,orthathecannotrefusehisassent,ifhechooses,butthatheactsaltogetherlikesomeinanimatething,andismerelypassive,lethimbeanathema."

ThisisstilltheofficialpositionofRomanism;andArminianismisindistinguishablefromit.Thewill,freeandindependentofGod,isabletoresistandovercometheomnipotentpowerofGod."Inthemoment of decision," says one American evangelist, "prayer is useless, for not even God can help."Therefore these people say that the unregenerate sinner can and must cooperate with God in hisregeneration.Notonlyso,butalsoinhisunregeneratestatehecanpreparehimselfforthatevent.Thisofcourse implies that man, before regeneration, is not dead in sin; as the Scripture repeatedly asserts.RomanismandArminianism,therefore,contradictthepositionoftheWestminsterConfessionthat"man...being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength, to converthimself,ortopreparehimselfthereunto."(IX,3)

Thatmaniscompletelypassiveinregenerationisbothanexplicit teachingofpartsofScriptureand a necessary consequence of other parts.A deadman cannot prepare himself for resurrection.DidLazarussquirmalittleinhisgraveasapreparationforthemomentChristwouldcallhimforth?WasPaulashemadehiswaytowardDamascuspreparinghimselftobeaChristian?

One detail should doubtless be put out of the way immediately. The Romanists caricature theLutheranandReformeddoctrineasanassertionthatmanisan"inanimatething"orpuppet.NowitistruethatLutherusedsomevigorousfiguresofspeechtodescribe'man'ssinfulestate.Hecalledmanastockorastone.ButtotakethisasaliteralstatementofProtestanttheologyisbothtoexhibitpoorliteraryinsightandtoconfessbewildermentatLuther'svigor.

Manisnotapuppet,awkwardlycontrolledbystrings.Infact,theoperatorcannot

completelycontrolthepuppet'smotions.Godcan.Norismanastockorstone,howeverforceful

thefigureofspeechmaybe.Luther,Calvin,andalltheReformersheldthatnaturalhumanpsychologywasoperativebothbefore andafter regeneration.But regeneration itself isnot somethingamandoes: it issomethingthatisdonetohim.Strictlyspeaking,regenerationshouldnotbecalledan"experience"atall,asitoftenis.Lazarusexperiencedhiswalkingforthfromthetomb;heexperiencedhisnewlife;butdidhe"feel"theactofresurrection?"Conversion"andthefurtheractivitiesofthenewlifeareordinaryelementsofconsciousness;but, ifregenerationis theimplantationofanewhabitus,aswill laterbeargued, it iscertainlynotaconsciousevent.Thesameconclusionfollowsifregenerationisacreativeandthereforeinstantaneousdivinefiat.Consciousstatesextendthroughtime.

ThusregenerationorresurrectionfromthedeadisanactofGod,notanactofman.Mancannotevencooperate;forbeingdead,i.e.unabletodoanyspiritualgood,heiswithoutanypowertopreparehimselfforthischange.

TheOldTestamentexpressesthisviewasclearlyastheNew:

Ps.51:10Createinmeacleanheart,OGod;andrenewarightspiritwithin

me.

Ezek.11:19AndIwillgivethemoneheart,andIwillputanewspiritwithin

you;

and Iwill take the stonyheart out of their flesh,andwillgivethemaheartofflesh:

Ezek.36:26,27AnewheartalsowillIgiveyou,andanewspiritwillIputwithin

you: and Iwill take away the stony heart out ofyour flesh and Iwill give you an heart of flesh.AndIwillputmyspiritwithinyou,andcauseyouto walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep myjudgments,anddothem.

Ezek.37:13,14AndyeshallknowthatIamtheLord,whenIhaveopenedyourgraves,omypeople,andbroughtyouupoutofyourgraves.AndIshallputmyspiritinyou,andyeshall live,andIshallplaceyouinyourownland: thenshallyeknowthatI theLordhavespokenit,andperformedit,saiththeLord.

Ifall this isnotsufficient toconvince thePopeandanystubbornArminian, there isone furtherpassagesoclearandunambiguousthatattemptstoevadeitsforceareludicrous.

John1:12,13

Butasmanyasreceivedhim,tothemgavehepowertobecomethesonsofGod,eventothemthatbelieveonhisname:Whichwereborn,notofblood,norofthewilloftheflesh,norofthewill

of

man,butofGod.

Thelatterversesays twothings: itsayshowregenerationdoesnot takeplaceandhowitdoes.Contrary to a common Jewish opinion, a person does not become a child of God by descent fromAbraham.Theregeneratehavenotbeen"bornofbloods,"bloods,plural, to indicatedescentbyhumanheritage.NeitherareChristiansbornof thewillof the flesh.Since the termflesh often carries an evilmeaningintheNewTestament,thephraseistobeunderstoodasdenyingbirthonthebasisofordinaryfallenhumannature.Butthen,neitherisaChristianbornbyanactofhisownwill“norofthewillofaman."Humanwill is completely ruled out by the last two of these three, wrong answers to themainquestions.Well, ifnoneof thesethreedescribeshowapersonisbornagain,howthendoesithappen?Theanswerisunambiguous:notbythewillofanyman,butofGod.

Andwasnotthefigureofbirthchosenforthepurposeofrulingouttheperson'sownactivity?Thebabyhasnowilltocausebirth.Ofcourse,theparentshave;butthiswasruledout

6

inthefirstofthethreesuggestedmethods.Ruleoutparentage,commonhumannature,theindividualwill,andGodaloneremains.

Allowtwomoreversestoserveasananticlimax:

James1:18Ofhisownwillbegatheuswiththewordoftruth.

IPeter1:3BlessedbetheGodandFatherofourLordJesusChrist,whichaccording

tohisabundantmercyhathbegottenusagain...

Thenextquestionis,whatpreciselyisregeneration?Inthesedecadentdays,someseemtothinkitconsistsinwalkingdowntheaisleandshakinghandswithanattractiveevangelist.Or,iffewaresofarfrom the truth, many equate regeneration with a vivid emotional upheaval. Others might allow thepossibilityofacalmerexperience.Butnotsomanywoulddenythatitwasanexperienceatall.

Yetthefigureofanewbirthrulesoutexperienceasmuchasthefigureofcreationdoes.Adamdidnotexperiencehiscreation;andinourfirstandnaturalbirth,ifwedidexperienceamomentarypain,weneverhadanymemoryof it.Theevangelistwhowithgreatemphasisproclaimed,"Iwas therewhenithappenedandIoughttoknow,”justdidnotknow.Beingborngivesnobabyaknowledgeofgynecology.Wemaybeandarelaterconsciousofsomeoftheeffectsofbirth.ButsinceitwasGodwhoacted,wecannotremembertheactweneverdid.

What thenpreciselydidGoddo? In technical,unpopular, theological language,God imposeda'habit'uponus.TheAristotelianterm'habit',orthescholastictermhabitus,needssomeexplanation.

Letuslookatthehandsoftwopersons.Whateverminusculedifferencestherearebetweenthem,theyaresubstantiallyalike.Ifthepersonswerehiddenfromviewandonlytheirhandscouldbeseen,onecould hardly tell which pair belonged to which person. But actually, though invisibly, there is anenormousdifferencebetweenthem;foroneofthemcanonlyawkwardlyandslowlyrunascale,whereastheotherperfectlyexecutesaMozartsonata.Thesehandspossessahabitusthattheotherperson'sdonothave.

Thisillustrationisdefective,asallillustrationsare.Themusician’s habitus,orhabit,istheresultofhoursandyearsofpractice.Thisishowhabitsareformed.Butthereisonehabitthatisnotformedthisway.ItisassupernaturalasifGodtookamanwithoutmusicaltrainingandenabledhimimmediatelytoplayBeethoven'sNinthSymphony.Butinsteadofmusicalability,regenerationconsistsintheimplantationoffaith,notfaithincurativepowersofsnakeoil,butfaithinthesavingpowerofJesusChrist.

Atthispoint,betweenregenerationandfaith,itisappropriatetoinsertaparagraphortwoontheideaofgrace.Not thatsuchparagraphswillcontainmuchmore thanwhathasalreadybeensaid,oratleastimplied,forthematerialonregenerationisparticularlyclearonthepointthatitisGod'swork,notours.Ofcourse,afterregenerationtherecomesaprocessofsanctification, tobeconsideredinthenextchapter,inwhichprocessthereisampleroomforourgoodworks.Butevenso,wedependongracetoaccomplishthem.ItishardlynecessarytoquoteversestoshowthattheScripturesteachatheoryofgrace;butproformaandforconsistencyaveryfewmaybegiven.

Rom.5:15 ThegraceofGodand thegiftofgrace,by theonemanJesusChrist,hasaboundedtomany.

Rom.5:21Soalsoshallgracereignthroughrighteousnesstoeternallife.

Rom.11:5Thereisaremnantaccordingtotheelectionofgrace.

Eph.1:7Inwhomwehaveredemptionaccordingtotherichesofhisgrace.

Eph.2:8Bygraceare…

Titus3:7Beingjustifiedbyhisgrace.

Letthesehalfdozenversesrepresentahundredothers.Graceandgift,asinEph.2:8,gotogether.Grace is very simply defined as 'unmerited favor.'WhenGod gives us anything we have not earned,anythinghedoesnotoweus,anythingwehavenotmerited,itisagiftofgrace.Thesunlightisagiftofgrace, but naturally we are here interested in salvation and its accompanying benefits. These haveaboundedtous,asRom.5:15says,byreasonoftheonemanJesusChrist.Thatthereremainsaremnantofthe Jewishpeoplewhoaccept theirMessiahandLord is "according to theelectionofgrace."No lessconnectedwithelectionandpredestinationisthegraceaccordedtoGentilebelievers.Thegiftofbelieforfaithisalsograce:itisnotofourselves,itisagiftofGod.ThereforeTitus3.:7cansaythatwearejustifiedbygrace, rather than themore commonphrase 'justifiedby faith,' because faith is onepart ofGod'sgrace.Thatregenerationisaworkofgraceismostobviousofallbecauseamanhasnoactivepartinitatall.

Noneofthisishardtounderstand;butinthehistoryoftheologythosewhoshiedawayfromtheScripturalpositiononelectionandpredestinationcouldnothelpdiluting,compromising,orcompletelydenyingtheroleofgrace.

Beforethediscussionofclearlyhereticalviewsbegins,onemayconsiderforamomentatheoryofsocalledcommongracethatisundoubtedlyBiblical.Ifthereisanythingwrongwithit,thefaultliesinits defenders' overemphasis. Since it is no part of saving grace, it is bestmentioned briefly and thenpassedby.Thisgraceiscalledcommonbecauseitconsistsof

benefits which God confers on all men indiscriminately. They are common to the regenerate and theunregeneratealike.Theverseusuallyquotedis:

Mt.5:45Hemakethhissuntoriseontheevilandonthegood,andsendethrainonthejustandontheunjust.

This can be called grace,if it be agreed that it is both unmerited and a favor or blessing. Butthoughsunandrainareessentialforfood,incomparisonwitheternalsalvationtheyarerathertrivial.Thefrivolitymaydisappear,however,ifthepreachingofthegospeltoallandsundryisanunmeritedfavor.Onetheologianarguesthatthegospelisbothasavoroflifeuntolifeandalsoasavorofdeathuntodeath.To the reprobate the preaching of the gospel is no favor because as it increases their knowledge, itincreasestheirresponsibilityandcondemnation.Betteriftheyhadneverheardthegospel.Onecanreply,nonetheless,thatinsomecasesthepreachingofthegospelmayrestrainanevilmanfromsomeofhisevilways.Sincethereforesinsarenotallequal,andsincesomearepunishedwithmanystripes,butotherswithfew,thepreachingofthegospelresultsinthelesseningofthepunishment.Thuspreachingwouldbeasmallfavor,amodicumofgrace.Wenoteitandpasson.

IfthistheoryofcommongraceisBiblical,anditsonlyfaultisfrivolity,theLutheranview,inalogicalseriesofdegreesamongdefectiveexplanations,departstheleastfromtheteachingofScripture.Graceisamatterofsalvation,notjustsunshine,andthereforeofgreaterimportance.BishopMartensenofSeeland,Denmark,whomSorenKierkegaardsounfairlylampooned,isagoodexampleoftheLutheranposition. To quote from his ChristianDogmatics (pp. 362, 363): "God's grace is universal; and frometernity,ithasbeenconcludedthatallshallbegatheredtogetherunderChristastheHead.IneternityGodlooks on all human souls according to this essential testinglooks over them as possible subjects ofregeneration...Dualismdoesnotappeartill timebegins...Electionofgrace...fromthesinfulmass...Butthis

Dualismprevailsonlyintime;asitisexcludedfromtheeternalcounselsofGod,...Gracemustsubmittothecommandmentsoftime...itmustsubmittothelimitationsofhumanfreedom."

MostobviouslyGod'sgrace isnotuniversal, forGoddidnot extend savinggracenorgive theunmeritedgiftoffaithtoEsauandJudas.Furthermore,Godineternitycouldnothavebeenignorantoftheeventsofhistory, forChristwasslain fromthefoundationof theworldandJudaswasselectedfor thepurposeheaccomplished.Martensen’s"Dualism"was thereforepresent inGod'seternalplan; it isnot"excludedfromtheeternalcounselsofGod."Normustgrace"submit"toanything.

AftercriticizingCalvinforhaving"confoundedpredestinationwiththeelectionofgrace,"andforhavingmade theseparationof thesavedfromthe lostnotmerely temporalbutwith"foundations in theeternalcounselsofGod,"Martensencontinues:"Augustinian theologianshaveoftenmaintained that theoperations of Christianity are never fettered by natural restrictions, but that grace can accomplish itsobject'what,when,andwhere'itwill.Theythinkthatbythisdoctrinetheyextolthepowerofgrace.Butthisisnotonlycontradictedbytheuniversalexperienceofchurchhistory,itisinitselffalse;itmagnifiesthesecondcreationattheexpenseofthefirst,whichonsuchaprincipleisviolated;itglorifiestheSonatthesacrificeoftheFather'sglory"(p.369).

ThisLutheranposition,however,cannotbemaintained.Notonlyisthisnotcontradictedinchurchhistory; itpermeatesthehistoryoftheOldTestament,not tomentionthedoctrinalmaterialof theNew.Augustinianismnodoubtmaintains theBiblical teaching that "Theoperations ofChristianity are neverfettered by natural restrictions;" but it is not so obtuse as to deny that themanifestations of grace areintegratedwith"natural"conditions.MosescouldnothaveledtheIsraelitesthroughtheRedSea,iftheRedSeahadnotbeenthere.ThepointisthatGodputtheRedSeathereinthefirstplace.SimilarlyChristmetPaulonthe"natural"roadtoDamascus;butthisdidnot“Fetter"God.Godsurelyaccomplisheshisprecisepurposeswhen,where,andhowhepleases.JustwhyChrist'smeetingPaul,atthatplaceatthattimeandwith

thatlightandvoice,"violates"thefirstcreation,Martensendoesnotexplain.EvenlessexplicableishowanyofthisglorifiestheSonatthe"sacrifice"oftheFather'sglory.

RegardlessofhowvociferouslyaCalvinistobjectstothesepointsofLutherandoctrine,itoughttobesaidagainthatKierkegaard'schargeagainstMartensenofhypocrisy,paganism,andotherthingswascompletelyundeserved.Let a strongCalvinist, alongsideofpassageshewishes to refute,quoteone todefendtheBishop'ssincerityandgoodreputation."ThechildrenofIsrael,whoareapermanenttypeofanelectnation,wereemphaticallytheelectpeople;yettherewasonlyasmallremnantofelectindividualsamong them (a holy election)who represented the true and spiritual Israel. So dowe find it in everyChristiannation.AllperhapshavebeenbaptizedandincorporatedintoChrist'skingdomandoutwardlyunited tohim,andyet ineveryperiod there is tobe foundbuta smallnumberof reallyawakenedandregeneratepersonsinwhomChristianitydwellsasasubjectiveandpersonallife"(p.373,374).

TheRomanCatholicpositionongraceisfarlessBiblicalthantheLutheran.Itisalsoexcessivelycomplicated. TheNewCatholicEncyclopediahas lengthy articles on the subject, and its history of thedoctrineisverythorough.Forthepresentpurposeitmaybenotedthat ACatholicDictionary,editedbyDonaldAttwater (3rded.,1961)andgivenacardinal's imprimatur, lists fifteensubspeciesof"grace”:actual,baptismal,efficacious,elevating,andontosubstantial.

Baptismalgraceisa"specialaspect"ofsanctifyinggrace.

Efficaciousgraceis"thatgracetowhichthewillfreelyassents,sothatthegracealwaysproducesits effects. ... It is an article of faith that this gracedoesnot necessitate thewill, although its result isinevitable."

"Grace, Irresistible. The supposedly irresistible efficacy of divine aid, bywhich, according toCalvinism,man,thoughfreefromanyphysicalnecessity,isforcedtowelldoing."TheshortarticlethenquotestheCouncilofTrent'srejectionoftheProtestantposition.

"Grace,Prevenient.Actualgraceenlightensthemindandfiresthewillwithaviewtotheworkof:salvation.Inthisstringofthewilltherearetwomoments;thefirstoftheseisagracewhichmovesthewillspontaneously,unfreely[!],makingitinclinetoGod...Theheavenlyinspirationsmaybeacceptedfreely or rejected freely by the arousedwill. If they are accepted, it is in virtue of a further grace…calledconsequentorcooperatinggrace."

"Grace,Sufficient.Thegracewhichforlackofcooperationofthereceivergoeswithouttheeffectfor which it was bestowed and thus is opposed to efficacious grace ... " (Pascal wryly remarks thatsufficientgraceisnotsufficient.)

Atthispointwearriveat:consciousnessorexperience;thereforethesubjectnowbecomesfaith.

PartII.Faith.

Secularphilosophers,at leastsomeof them,havebeenasmuchinterestedinfaithasChristianshave. Brand Blanshard, The Nature of Thought(Vol. I, pp. 112 ff., 286, 303), a work of superbscholarship,discusses faithorbelief.LongbeforeBlanshard,Platohada theoryofopinion.ForPlatoopinion was a mental state distinctly inferior to knowledge, though in some cases nearly as useful.Perhapswith this inmind someChristian theologians attempt to place faith above opinion and belowknowledge.BlanshardandPlatodonotdiscusssavingfaith;neverthelesstheChristianstudentfacestheirproblemalso,aswellasoneofhisown:hemustfirstgiveanaccountoffaithassuch,andthenhemust,ifhecan,enumeratethedistinctivecharacteristicsthatmakeonefaithsaving,whileanotherisnot.

I.BiblicalBackground

Before the systematic analysis begins, some Biblical material and even a few extrabiblicalremarksareinorder.NooneneedstobetoldthattheBiblehasagreatdealtosayaboutfaith.Almostasobvious, the fact that Abraham is the outstanding example of faith was a part of the refutation ofdispensationalisminthepreviouschapter.Rom.4,Gal.3,Heb.11,andJames2,all,notmerelymention,butemphasizeAbraham.ButbeforeAbrahamtherewasNoah.Gen.6maynotusetheword faith,but itmakesclearthatNoahbelievedwhatGodsaidandobeyedhisdirections.ClearlythereforefaithisnotaNewTestamentnovelty.

Norshould the roleof faithduring theMosaicerabeminimized.There isaHebrew termonlytwice translatedfaith,sometimes translated truth,or truly,butwhich is frequently translatedbelieve.AnegativeinstanceisfoundinPs:78:2122,32:

"AngeralsocameupagainstIsrael,

becausetheybelievednotinGod...

Forallthistheysinnedstill,and

believednotfor[in]hiswondrousworks.

For all the New Testament material, which we too often read without thinking much of itsmeaning,therearesomepassagesthatcausedifficulty.James2:20speaksofadeadfaith.Hedescribesitasafaithunproductiveofgoodworks.Preciselywhatamanofdeadfaithbelievesisnottooclear.Onethingisclear:theword faith herecannotmean 'personaltrust' inthesensethatsomepopularpreachersimposeonit. 'Deadtrust'wouldbeanunintelligiblephrase.ClearlyJamesmeansabeliefofsomesort;andtheonlybeliefJamesmentionsisthebeliefinmonotheism.Islamthereforewouldbeadeadfaith.

Therearesomeothervarietiesoffaithwhichmaybementionedasthissubsection

concludes.Matthew13apparentlyreferstowhatsometheologianscall"temporaryfaith."Hodge

(III,P.68)writes,"NothingismorecommonthanfortheGospeltoproduceatemporaryimpression…Thoseimpressed,believe."ButHodgedoesnotsaypreciselywhattheybelieve.Hehardlyacknowledgesthatthepersonintheparablewhoisrepresentedbythestonygroundbelievesanything,eventhoughweread"heareththewordandanonwithjoyreceivethit."Thissoundasifthestonymanbelievedsomeorevenallofthegospel.However,thepreviousversesdescribesuchmenas"seeing,seenot;andhearing,hear not; neither do they understand;" followingwhich Jesus quotes Isaiah.A person can indeed hearwords without understanding them, but can he thus believe them, and can he receive them with joy?Clearlythereareheresometroublesthatwemustponder.

Other theologians speak of an "historical" faith, by which, strangely, they do not mean only abelief in the truthofhistoricalevents recorded in theBible,butalso insome,many,orperhapsall theBiblicalnormsofmorality.Possiblytherichyoungrulerwouldexemplifythissortoffaith.Hecertainlybelievedthathehadkeptallthecommandments;butunfortunatelythiswasamistakenbelief.HowmuchelseoftheOldTestamenthebelieved,Gen.17?,isnotclear.

One furtherpointmaybemadebefore the systematic expositionbegins. It hasmore todowithchurchhistorythanexegesis.InthesecondcenturyawidespreadheresyalmostengulfedanddestroyedtheChurch.ItwasGnosticism.Thenamecomesfromthewordgnosis,knowledge.Latertheologianshavesometimescontrastedfaithwithknowledge.Thisisthewrongcontrast,fortworeasons.First,IIPeter1:3says thateverythingpertaining togodlinesscomes tous throughknowledge.Therearemanysupportingreferences.ThePastoralshaveseveral.Thesecondreasonis that theknowledgeofwhichtheGnosticsboastedwasatheoryofcosmology,includinghighlyimaginativeaccountsofwhathappenedbeforeGen1:1.

Admittedly,theGnosticsweredevoidofChristianfaith;butthecontrastisnotbetweenfaithandknowledge it is a contrast between the different objects known or believed. The Gnostics knew, orbelievedin,thirtyeons,adoceticincarnation,andapseudoatonement.TheChristiansbelievedadifferentsetofpropositions.Since,however,somestudentsofevangelistic

zealmayquestionthevalueofa"merelysecular,psychological"analysisofbelief,itisbesttoshowtheimportanceandnecessityofsavingfaith.Thenassavingfaithisrecognizedasaspeciesofgenericfaith,theanalysiswillhaveitspropersetting.

3NecessityofFaith

Faith,likeregeneration,isnecessarytosalvation,ifforthemomentwedeferdiscussionofinfants,imbeciles,andtheinsane.Becausenecessarytosalvation,itisnecessaryfortheology.Since,too,faithisthe first phase of conscious Christian life, it is likely to attract one's attention sooner than the priorregenerationorthesubsequentsanctification.Thefollowingverseswillshowthatfaithisnecessary.Hostassuredly they teachmore than this, and references to themmust later bemade in explanationofotherphasesofthedoctrine.Buttheyaregivenhereforthesolepurposeofpointingoutthenecessityoffaith.

Jn.3:15,16 Everyonewhobelievesinhimhaseverlastinglife....Hewhobelievesinhimshallnotperish.

Acts16:31BelieveontheLordJesus,andthoushaltbesaved.

Strictlyspeaking,thesetwoversesdonotshowthatfaithisnecessarytosalvation.Theyshowthatfaith is sufficient. If someonebelieves,hehaseternal life.Noone is lostwhobelieves.But these twoverses,iftakenalone,allowforthepossibilitythatsomethingelsecouldbesubstitutedforfaith.SupposeIamdrivingsouthonInterstate65,andinKentuckyIcometoCaveCity.Theattendantatthegasstation,says,ifyoutakeroutes9and231youwillsurelygettoMurphreesboro.Trueenough.ButitisalsotruethatifIcontinueon165and24IshallgettoMurphreesborojustaswell.Now…

Mk.16:16Hewhobelievesandisbaptisedshallbesaved,buthewhodoesnotbelieveshallbecondemned.

teachesnotonlythatfaithissufficient,butalsothatwithoutfaithsalvationisimpossible.

However,sincesomescholarsdonotregardthisaspartofthecanon,threeotherversesfollow.

Jn.3:18 Hewho believes in him is not judged: hewho does not believe is judgedalready.

Jn.3:36HewhobelievesintheSonhaseternallife:buthewhodisobeystheSonshallnotseelife.

Heb.11:6Withoutfaithitisimpossibletoplease[God].

Theseversesaresufficientlyexplicit:butthegeneraldoctrineofjustificationbyfaithaloneisastronger proof than a few sample verses. The passages on justification may not be so explicit: it isnecessarytocombinethemanddrawinferences.Buttheconclusionisthemorecompellingbecausethebaseisbroader.

3.TheLanguage

Since faith is of such importance, and even if it were not of such importance, theology mustdetermineitsmeaning.Thosewhowishtotalkaboutitoughttoknowthenatureoffaithassuch,andaswell the nature of that particular kind of faith which is necessary for salvation. Herman Hoeksema(Reformed Dogmatics,Grand Rapids, 1966, p. 479) begins his chapter on Saving Faith with thisparagraph:"SavingfaithisthatworkofGodintheelect,regenerated,andcalledsinnerwherebythelatterisingraftedintoChristandembracesandappropriatesChristandallhisbenefits,relyinguponhimintimeandeternity.”Asidefromthefactthatsomeoftheverbsinsentencearetoovaguetobeuseful,onemayadmitthatthesentenceistrue.Butitisnotadefinitionoffaith.TosaythatfaithingraftsusintoChristsaysless than tosay roastbeefgivesusnourishment.The latterdoesnot telluswhatbeef is.Nordoes theformertelluswhatfaithis.

17

Theologicaltermsneedtobedefined;theyneedtobeunderstood;orelsewedonotknowwhatwearetalkingabout.Tomakeprogresstowardadefinition,webeginwiththeusageofthelanguage.

TheGreekverb for thenoun is hardly less frequentmeans believe. So itwas translated in thepreviousversesquoted.Herewillfollowsomeinstancesofitsordinaryuse,bothinpagansourcesandintheBiblealso.

TheBiblical verses from theSeptuagint are not chosenbecause they areBiblical, but, like thepagansources,theyshowhowthewordwasusedinprechristiantimes.WhentheNewTestamentauthorsbegantowrite,theyperforceusedthecommonlanguage.

Aristotle,DeAnima428b4:"Thesunisbelievedtobelargerthantheearth."

Aristotle, Meteorologica343 b 10 On a certain point "it is necessary to believe theEgyptians."

ThucydidesI,20says"itishardtobelieveeverybitofevidenceaboutthem."

Ps:78:22intheSeptuaginttranslationsaysthattheIsraelites"didnotbelieveinGod."

Isa.53:1Whohasbelievedourreport?

EventhoughthisisthecommonusageandinamomentalargenumberofNewTestamentpassageswill show the same thinga number of theologians give the impression that the translation believe ismisleading.Theywanttomake"faith"somethingotherthan"mere"belief.Thefollowinglengthylisthassomebearingonthiscontention.

Jn.2:22TheybelievedtheScripture.

Jn.3:12IfItoldyouaboutearthlymattersandyoudonotbelieve,howshallyoubelieveifItellyouaboutheavenlythings?

Jn.4:50ThemanbelievedthewordthatJesushadspokentohim.

Jn.5:47Ifyebelievenotthatman'swriting,howshallyebelievemywords?

Jn.6:69WehavebelievedandknowthatthouarttheHolyOneofGod.

Jn.8:24IfyebelievenotthatIam[whatIclaimtobe]yeshalldieinyoursins.

Jn.8:45BecauseItellyouthetruth,youdonotbelieveme.

Jn.9:18ButtheJewsdidnotbelieve....thathehadbeenblind.

Jn.11:26Doyoubelievethis?

27Yes,Lord,IbelievethatthouarttheChrist.

Jn.11:42Isaiditthattheymaybelievethatthouhastsentme.

Jn.12:38Whohathbelievedourreport?

Jn.13:19YemaybelievethatIamhe.

Jn.14:29 NowIhavetoldyoubeforeithappens,sothatwhenithappensyoumightbelieve.

19

Jn.16:27AndhavebelievedthatIcameoutfromGod.

Jn.16'30WebelievethatthouearnestforthfromGod.

Jn.17:8havebelievedthatthoudidstsendme.

Jn.17:21thattheworldmaybelievethatthouhastsentme.

Jn.20:31 ThesearewrittenthatyoumightbelievethatJesusistheChrist, theSonofGod.

ICor.13:7Lovebelieveseverything.

In reading over these verses carefully, the student should note that the object of the verb issometimesanounorpronoundenotingastatement(word,this,things,writings),andsometimesaperson(inthislist, me;inotherverses God),andsometimesthereisnoexplicitobjectatall.Thesignificanceofthisshouldbecomeapparentinamoment.

ButfirstitisclearthattheGreekverb pisteuoisproperlytranslatedbelieve,andthatthisGreekverbandtheEnglishbelievemeanpreciselythesamething.Theimportantpointnowistoseewhattheobjectofthisverbcanbe.Obviouslyitcanbe,andintheBibleusuallyis,thetruth.Ofcourseapersonmaybelievesomethingfalse;butevensothenatureofthepsychologicalactofbelieving,calledfaith,isthesame,forthemanwhobelievesafalsehoodbelievesittobetrue.

IntheScripturesmanyoftheinstancesoftheverbhaveastheirexplicitobjectthenounGod;forexample,AbrahambelievedGod.Thisshouldnotbetakentosignifysomethingdifferentfromtheotherinstances.WhatAbrahambelievedwasthepromiseofGod.Wheneverwesaythatwebelieveaperson,wemeanthatweaccepthisstatementastrue.Ifwesaythatwebelieve"in"aperson,wemeanthatwebelievehewillcontinuetospeakthetruth.

Kittel(Vol.VI,pp.203208)hasthesethingstosay."ThereisnothingdistinctiveintheNTusage...ascomparedwithGreekusage....Pisteueineisis;neitherGreeknorLXX....

Pisteuein eisis equivalent to pisteuein oti,to regard credible or true. Pisteuein eis XJ... simply meanspisteueinotiI.apethanenkaianeste....InJohnespeciallypisteueineisandpisteueinotiareconstantlyusedinterchangeably.Cf.alsoActs8:37…Thisisprovedalsobythepassiveexpressionepisteuthe(cf.ITim.3:16)andthefactthatpistiseisisequivalent,nottopistisc.dat.buttopistisc.gen.obj..."

Twopages later it says, "Pisteuein... oftenmeans tobelieveGod'swords.Belief is thusput inScripture(Jn.2:22)inwhatiswrittenintheLaw,inwhattheprophetshavesaid(Lk.24:35)...inMosesandhiswritings(Jn.5:46ff.)."Cf.alsopp.208,222.

InoppositiontoKittel'slinguisticstudies,sometheologiansandmanyministerswishtominimizebeliefanddetachfaithfromtruth.LouisBerkhoftendsinthisdirection.Sinceatthistimehecommandswidespreadrespectandsincemanyschoolsusehisbook,itprovesprofitabletoconcludethissubsectionwith a fewparagraphs concerninghis views.Thematerial comes fromhis Systematic Theology,fourthedition,1969,PartIV,chapter8,pp.493ff.

HeadmitsthatJohn4:50usestheverbpisteuointheliteralsenseofbelievingthatapropositionistrue.Naturally,fortheexplicitobjectisthe wordorsentences thatJesushadjustspoken.SimilarlyJohn5:47.BerkhofevenallowsActs16:34,Romans4:3,andIITimothy1:12tomeanbeliefinthetruthofaproposition,althoughtheexplicitobjectoftheverbisGodorChrist.

Inspiteoftheseinstances,wherethepredicateisthenoun God,thoughtheactualandimmediateobject is a proposition, and particularly in contrastwith the instanceswhere the object is explicitly aproposition,Berkhofsays,"Onthewholethisconstructionisweakerthanthepreceding"(p.494),wherepisteuomeansconfidenttrustinaperson.Butwhyweaker?Woulditnotbemoreaccuratetosaythatthisconstructionwithapropositionastheobjectismoreliteralandaccuratethantheprecedingabbreviatedexpressions?Berkhofcontinues,"Inacoupleof

casesthematterbelievedhardlyrisesintothereligioussphere,John9:18,Acts9:26..."Butiftheseareinstancesofordinaryusage, suchas"TheJewsdidnotbelieve thathehadbeenbornblind," it shouldshowallthemoreclearlywhattheordinarymeaningof"believe"is.Noreligiousmotifistheretodistractone'sunderstanding. It is true that theobjectofbelief in such instancesdoesnot rise into the religioussphere;sometimestheobjectmaybebanalortrivial;butthepointatissueisnottheobjectofbelieforfaith,butthenatureoffaithandthemeaningoftheverbpisteuo.

Frompage493onBerkhof speaks as follows. Pistis(the noun) and Pisteuein(the verb) "do notalwayshaveexactly the samemeaning."Hespecifies twomeaningsof thenoun inclassicalGreek. "Itdenotes (a) a conviction based on confidence in a person and in his testimony, which as such isdistinguishedfromknowledgerestingonpersonalinvestigation;and

4theconfidenceitselfonwhichsuchaconvictionrests.Thisismorethanamereintellectualconvictionthataperson is reliable; itpresupposesapersonal relation to theobjectofconfidence,agivingoutofoneselftorestinanother."

The lexical information of this quotation is accurate enough; but the comments are groundless.Why isconfidence inaperson’s truthfulnessmore than"a mere intellectual conviction that aperson isreliable"?What is intended in the pejorative use of theword "mere"?Why is a conviction of anotherperson’shonestyandreliabilitynota“personalrelation”?Andcananyintelligiblesensebefoundinthephrase"agivingoutofoneselftorestinanother"?

However, tocontinue thequotationsfrompage494on,weread that in theNewTestament“thefollowing meanings [of the noun pistis]should be distinguished: an intellectual belief or conviction,resting on the testimony of another, and therefore based on trust in this other rather than on personalinvestigation,Phil.1:27[whichratherobviouslyreferstothedoctrinesofthegospel],IICor.4:13,IIThess.2:13[theobjecthereistruth]andespeciallyinthewritingsofJohn;and(b)aconfidingtrustorconfidence...Rom.3:22,25;5:1,2;9:)0,32. ...Thistrustmustbedistinguishedfromthatonwhichtheintellectualtrustmentionedunder(a)aboverests.”

But,why?Noreasonisgiven.Rom.3:22doesnotsupporthim,nordoes3:25.Nordotheotherverses.TheymakenodistinctionsuchasBerkhofmakes.Theysimplyspeakoffaith.Bysayingfivelinesbelowthat"Thislast[yieldingtoChristandtrustinginhim]isspecificallycalledsavingfaith,”Berkhofimpliesthattheconvictionofthetruthofthegospeland"intellectualtrust"isnotsavingfaith.Romansisagreat book, andwe arewilling to quote it,more thanwilling; anxious;Romans10:9 says that “if youconfesswithyourmouththatJesusisLord,andbelieveinyourheartthatGodraisedhimfromthedead,youshallbesaved."AstheOldTestamentmakesabundantlyclear, theheart is themind;andbelievingthatGodraisedChristfromthedeadisasintellectualanexerciseasbelievingthattwoandtwoarefour.Emotionscannotbelieveanything.

Onpage495Berkhofcontinues,Faith“isalsorepresentedasahungeringandthirsting…Ineatinganddrinkingwenotonlyhave theconviction that thenecessary foodanddrink ispresent,butalso theconfidentexpectationthatitwillsatisfyus."

Therearetwothingswrongwiththisparagraph.First,itliteralizesametaphoricalexpression.Ofcoursehavingfoodpresentbeforeusdoesnotnourishus.Itmustbeeaten.Similarly,havingthegospelpresentedtous,sothatweunderstandthemeaningofthewordsdoesnotsaveus:itmustbebelieved.Thetruthmustbeconfessedwiththemouthandbelievedwiththeheart.Theterm confess,Ibelieve,excludeshypocrisy.ButBerkhofseemstoconfusethepresenceoffoodwiththebeliefinthegoodnews;whereasitis theeating that represents thebelief.Then in thesecondplace,“theconfidentexpectation that itwillsatisfy us" (though Paul hardly had any confident expectation as he journed toDamascus) is itself anintellectual belief. It is a thought that we entertain. It is an idea that we accept. Any belief is anintellectualevent.Emotionscannotbelieve.

Frompage501to505Berkhofdiscussesvarioustypesoffaith:opinion,certainty,

historicalfaith,miraculousfaith,temporalfaith,andsavingfaith.Briefly,foritwillbediscussed

23

later,savingfaithincludesanintellectualelement(notitia);italso,hesays,hasanemotionalelement.Thisemotionalelementheidentifiesasassensus.Butassent,throughoutthehistoryoftheologyandphilosophy,hasalwaysbeenvolitional,notemotional.Furthermore,hefailstooverturnthisagelongunderstandingofthe term, forhenowhere shows that there is anythingemotional about assent. Indeed,hegiveshimselfaway by admitting that “It is very difficult to distinguish this assent from the knowledge of faith justdescribed."MustwenotconcludethatBerkhof'saccountoffaithisutterlyconfused?

Thereare,hesays,other instancesof theverb believe where"thedeepermeaningof theword,thatof firm trustful reliance, comes to its full rights."But.Berkhof, likeothers, fails to showhow this"deepermeaning"differsfromthestraightforwardliteralmeaning.Amongthemanyinstancesoftheverbbelieve,thereis,torepeat,adifferenceofobjects.Onemaybelievethattwoandtwoarefour,andthisisarithmetic;onemayalsobelievethatasparagusbelongstothelilyfamily,andthisisbotany.Botanyisnotmathematics,ofcourse;but thepsychologyor linguisticsof believe isidentical in all cases.Therefore,oneshouldnotconfuseananalysisofbeliefwithananalysisofnumbersorplants.Christ'spromisesofsalvation are vastly different from the propositions of botany; but believing is always thinking that apropositionistrue.Thefurtherdevelopmentwillalsosupportthisconclusion.

4.PersonorProposition?

WhiIeProfessorBerkhofservesasagoodexample,manyotherProtestanttheologiansalso,bothLutheranandReformed,tendtomakeasharpdistinctionbetween'aconfidentrestingonaperson'and'theassent given to a testimony.' 'Confident reliance' is supposed to differ from 'intellectual assent.' Thispositionisoftenbolsteredupwithreferencesto pisteueineis;butafewparagraphsbackKitteldisposedofsuchacontention.Englishalsohasthesameusage.Asmodernismdevelopedandsuspicionattachedtothis or that minister, people would ask, Does he believe in the Virgin Birth, does he believe in theAtonement?Onedidnotask,DoeshebelievetheVirginBirth'?Theprepositioninwasregularlyused.Butofcoursethemeaningwas,DoeshebelievethatChristwasbornofavirgin?Tobelieveinapersonistobeconfident,i.e.tobelieve

that hewill continue to tell the truth. But Berkhof (p. 494) says, "Confidence ... ismore than amereintellectual conviction that a person is reliable; it presupposes a personal relation to the object ofconfidence,agoingoutofoneselftorestinanother."Ifanyonestopstothink,hewilleasilyseethatsuchlanguageiscompletelyunintelligibleandgivesnounderstandablemeaning.

Inspiteofthepopularity,andsupposedsuperiorspirituality,ofsuchaview,itseemstorestonamistakenpsychologicalanalysis.EvenBerkhofadmits,withatleastanappearanceofinconsistency,that"As a psychological phenomenon, faith in the religious sense does not differ from faith in general ...Christianfaithinthemostcomprehensivesenseisman'spersuasionofthetruthofScriptureonthebasisoftheauthorityofGod"(p.501).ThisisanexcellentstatementandshouldbedefendedagainstBerkhof'searliercontraryassertions.

The present textbook wishes to insist that believing or faith is an activity of the mind. It issomething that the person does. Not that it is an overt physical action, but it is activity, intellectualactivity,nonetheless.

HermanHoeksemadeniesthis.Hemakesfaithahabitus.Itwasexplainedabovethatregenerationis a habitus.But as the musician's habitus gives its evidence by the musician's execution of aMozartsonata,sothehabitusofregenerationproducestheactivityofbelieving.Hoeksemasaysthatthehabitusfaithmakesthesoul"peculiarlyfittoapprehendspiritualthings.Itisthefitnesstobelieve,indistinctionfromtheactofbelievingitself"(p.480).Megenoito!Notatall;faithisbelieving.Itistheactivityoftheregeneratedsinner'smind.This isnot todeny that faith isagiftofGod.Godcausesus tobelieve.WecannotbelieveunlessGodhimselfmakesuswilling.Andfaithisthewilltobelieve.WhenPaulsawthelightandheardthewordsasheapproachedDamascus,heindeedsawandheard.Thesewerehisactions,howevermuchGodhadcausedthem.Now,oneofHoeksema'stroublesisthatheacceptsanextremeformof facultypsychology.Hesays, "there isno reason"whatever to limit faith to intellectorwill;butwemustratherconceivethetruthofthematterinthisway,thatfromtheheartofmanthespiritual habitusoffaithcontrolsbothintellectandwill"(p.484).Wereply,faithisbelieving.

Becauseofthepietismofthosepeoplewhomightwellbecalledsuperdevout,butmorebecauseof twentieth century antiintellectualism in the forms of existentialism and socalled neoorthodoxy, thissection under the subhead of person versus proposition will conclude with a few more Scripturalpassages.Thewordgospelitselfmeansgoodnews.Markstartswiththebeginningofthegoodnews;andin1:15afterdescribingJesusaspreaching thegoodnews reports that Jesuscommanded thepeople tobelieve this information. Information consists of propositions to be believed.But rather than a lengthy

examinationoftheGospels1itseemsbettertoconsidersomelesswellknownversesinActs.

Thewordlogos,unfortunatelytranslatedwordinJohn1:1,isbettertranslatedTreatiseinActs1:1.A treatise is presumably amassof information.Acts 2:41 says that thepeople received theword, themessage,theinformationgladly.Itdoesnotsaythattheyreceivedapersonwithoutamessage.LogosinthisversecouldwellrefertoPeter's sermon.Andcertainlythenextversespeaksofdoctrineorteaching(didache).InActs4:29,31wehavethetermwordagain,butthemeaningisobviouslymessageorsermon.Naturally sermonsarecomposedofpropositions.When the servantsofCorneliuscame to seePeter inActs 10:21, the apostle asked them, For what .. logos,reason, did you come to see me. Reasons arepropositionsthatexplainotherpropositions.

Morepointedlythemeaningof logos,theimportanceoftruedeclarativesentences,andalsotheirrelationtopersons(forthismaterialbearsontheallegedseparationbetweenpersonsandpropositions)morepointedlythesignificanceofthewordlogosisclarifiedintheremainderofthechapter,especiallyActs10:3638,and44.HerethereadermustfollowtheexampleofthenobleBereansandopentheBibletoexaminewhetherthesethingsbeso.Inverse36GodsentawordtothechildrenofIsrael;thiswordwasamessageofpeacethroughJesusChrist.Itwasasermon,aseriesofpropositions.Thissamemessageisdesignatedbythetermrhemainthefollowingverse.Whereas logoscanmeananyexpressionofreasonitcanmeana

9. Cf.myJohannineLogos,PresbyterianandReformedPub.Co.,1972.

26

mathematical ratio, a book, a question, an argument the term rhemaregularly carries the connotation ofwords,wordsaslistedinthedictionary,thatis,justplainordinarywords.(ThatlogosandrhemacanbeandoftenareidenticalisclearintheGospelofJohn.)ThesewordswerepublishedthroughoutallJudaeaandGalilee.Andthefollowingverse(v.38)showsthatthisLogosortheserhemataaretheworksofJesusChrist.ForthepersonofJesusisnotapersonwithoutanintelligiblemessage.Subtractthewordsandtheperson cannot be known. Then in v. 43 all that believe on him, that is, all who believe the wordspreached,receiveforgivenessofsin.Andverse44usesthetermrhemataagain.

For thosewhoare linguistically inclined itmightbewise tomention inpassing thatwearenotreallytalkingaboutwords.Wordslike dog,chien,Hund,areonlysymbols.Theyaresymbolsofthoughts.So thatwhenwe identify a personwith hiswords, the point is that the person iswhat he thinks.Thepersonishismind.PaulexhortsustohavethemindofChrist,thatis,tothinkhisthoughts.Butthetheoryoflanguageneedsanotherpublication.

Acts15:6saysthattheapostlescametogethertoconsiderthis matter.TheGreekwordislogos.Itrefers to thequestionwhetherornot theGentilesshouldbecircumcised inorder tobeChristians.Thenextversespeaksofthewordofthegospel.Itisnotasingleword,butanextendedmessage.Verse32speaks of a large or greatword (in the singular). It refers to two long speeches. Finally, to bring thistediouslisttoanend,Acts20:7tellshowPaul'sfiveorsixhoursermon(logos)putayoungmanasleep.

All these references show that logos shouldhardlyeverbe translated word.Itmeans thoughtormindorreason,sothatJohn1:1canbecomparedwiththewisdomofGodandthemindofChristasgiveninICor.1:24and2:16.Faithconsistsinbelievingtheword.

5.HistoricalNote

Sincetheearly.Christians,beforeA.D.325,hadnotsettleduponthedoctrineoftheTrinity,itisnot surprising that theyhadnoclearviewof faith.Tertullian spokeaboutbelievingonauthority ratherthanby personal investigation andknowledge.AfterAthanasius,Augustine hadmore to say. Faith, forhim,was voluntary assent to the truth. This ismore to the point thanTertullian's very good, but quiteinadequate,remarks.ThepresentvolumedefendstheAugustinianposition.

The Thomistic view of faith may well be introduced by a reference to an earlier medievaltheologian,Hugo.HugoofSt.VictorproposedadefinitionoffaiththatwaswidelyacceptedbothbeforeandaftertheReformation:"Faithisakindofmentalcertaintyconcerningabsentrealitiesthatissuperiorto opinion and inferior to knowledge." Thomas then notes an objection toHugo's view.Ameanmustalwaysbehomogeneoustoits twoextremes.Sincebothscienceandopinionhavepropositionsas theirobjects, theobjectsof faithmust likewisebepropositions.But contrary to this theApostlesCreed, anexpression of faith, says, "I believe in God the Father Almighty;" and this is different from theproposition,“GodisAlmighty."Thereforefaithconcernsareality,notaproposition.Further,inheavenfaithgiveswaytovision,asICor.13:12says;thisisavisionofGodhimself,notaproposition;thereforesimilarlytheobjectoffaithisaperson,notaproposition.

ThomasAquinas, noting the divergence between these twoviews, states his conclusions in hisSummaTheologica,(Blackfriars edition,Vol. 31, pp. 11 ff.). "Theway theknownexists in theknowercorrespondstothewaytheknowerknows...Forthisreasonthehumanmindknowsinacompositewaythings that are themselves simple. ... From the perspective of the one believing, the object of faith issomethingcompositeintheformofaproposition…Inheaven...thatvisionwillnottaketheformofaproposition,butofasimpleintuition."

This quotation will puzzle anyone who has not studied Thomism. Yet it does have a certainplausibility.Naturally,trivially,tautologically,thewaytheknownexistsintheknowercorrespondstothewaytheknowerknows.Lessplausibleistheideathatsomethingsosimpleas

not to be a proposition, something that has no subject and predicate, can miraculously turn into aproposition;orthataproposition,truebecausethepredicateisappropriatetoitssubject,canbeknownotherwise.Cantheterm catbeatruth?Theproposition,'thiscatisblack,'maybetrue;butcanasubjectminusapredicatebetrueallalonebyitself?

Thefollowingismuchlessplausible:Thomasinsistswecannotbelieveanythingthatisfalse.Atleasthesays,"Nothingcanbethecompletionofanypotentiality...exceptinvirtueoftheformalobjectiveof that power. For example, color cannot be the completion of sight except through light. ... NothingthereforecancomeunderfaithexceptinitsstatuswithinGod'struth,wherenothingfalsehasanyplace....Wecanonlyconcludethatnothingfalsecanbetheobjectoffaith."

SuchwasnotAugustine'sview,forinhisdefenseoffaith,againstitsrepudiationbyscience,heusedasanexamplethebeliefofaboythatacertainmanandwomanwerehisfatherandmother.Inthecaseofbabiesadoptedininfancythisbeliefisoftenfalse.

Somepagesfurtheron(Blackfriars'edition,p.61)Thomasgivesafullerexplanation."Theverbtothinkcanbeusedinthreesenses.Thefirstisthewidestsenseanyactofintellectualknowing....Thesecond is a narrower sense,where thinkingdesignates a thinking of themind that is accompanied by acertainsearchingpriortoreachingcompleteunderstandinginthecertitudeofseeing.....Thethirdsenseisanactofthecognitivepower[andhasnopartinthis

discussion]…Initsfirstandbroadestsense,'tothinkwithassent'doesnotbringouttheprecisemeaning....If,however, tothinkisunderstoodinitspropersense,thetextdoesexpressthemeaningdistinctiveoftheactofbelief.Amongtheactsoftheintellect,someincludeafirmassentwithoutponderingthuswhensomeonethinksaboutwhatheknowsscientifically....Othermentalactsare...inconclusive...suspicion... opinion.Theactofbelieving,however, is firmlyattached toonealternative, and in this respect the

believerisinthesamestateofmindasonewhohasscienceorunderstanding.”2

6ThenotesintheBlackfriars'editionlistotherpassagesthatgointofurtherdetails.

SincethisisnotatreatiseonThomistictheology,theconclusionisonlythatThomas,withmanydetails,definedfaithasassenttoanunderstoodproposition.

Somewhere inadiscussionon faith, theRomishviewof "implicit" faith shouldbeconsidered.WhenanItalianorIrishpeasantassertsthathebelieveswhatevertheChurchteaches,though,ofcourse,his knowledge of what the Church teaches embraces no more than one percent of the Tridentineconfession,he issaid tohaveimplicit faith.EvenaneducatedCatholic,aprofessorofphilosophyinasecular university, did not know the essential element that makes baptism valid. But all such peopleprofess belief in whatever the Church teaches. Protestantism has always rejected this proposition asabsurd.Itshouldbeclearthatnoonecanbelievewhathedoesnotknoworunderstand.SupposeapersonwhoknowsnoFrenchis told,"Dansceromanc'estM.DuPresquiestIemeurtrier':canhebelieveit?Certainly the Scripture does not countenance such ignorance. The sacredwriters constantly emphasizedoctrine,knowledge,wisdom,edification.Thewellknownverse,Matt.28:20,says,"TeachingthemtoobserveallthingswhatsoeverIcommandyou."Nothingistobeleftuntaught.Apersoncannot"observe"adoctrineorobeyacommandunlessheknowsit.Faithisstrictlylimitedtoknowledge.

This note on implicit faith serves to introduce Calvin's discussion in the Institutes, Book III,chapter ii.Ridiculingimplicitfaithhesays,"Is thisfaith tounderstandnothing? ...Faithconsistsnot inignorance,butinknowledge....Bythisknowledge[thatGodispropitioustousthroughChrist]Isay,notbyrenouncingourunderstanding,weobtainanentranceintotheKingdomofheaven. ...Theapostle[inRom.10:10]…indicatesthatitisnotsufficientforamanimplicitlytocredit[believe]whatheneitherunderstandsnorevenexamines;butherequiresanexplicitknowledgeof theDivinegoodness. ...FaithconsistsinaknowledgeofGodandofChrist"(IIIii2,3).

30

Further:"Paulconnectsfaithasaninseparableconcomitantwithdoctrine,wherehesays...'’asthetruth is in Jesus ... [and] 'thewordsof faithandgooddoctrine' ...Faithhasaperpetual relation to theword....'Thesearewritten,thatyemightbelieve.'…Takeawaytheword,andthentherewillbenofaithleft. ...Wemust further inquire what part of the word it is, with which [saving] faith is particularlyconcerned. ... When our conscience beholds nothing but indignation and vengeance, how shall it nottremble with fear? ... But faith ought to seek God, not fly from him. But suppose we substitutebenevolenceandmercy[andCalvinquotesanumberofverses].

....Nowweshallhaveacompletedefinitionoffaith,ifwesay,thatitisasteadyandcertain

knowledge of theDivine benevolence towards us,which, being founded on the truth of the gratuitouspromiseinChrist,isbothrevealedtoourminds.andconfirmedtoourhearts,bytheHolySpirit"(6and7).

WithduerespecttoCalvin,onemayaskwhetherornotthisdefinitiontendstoconfusefaithwithassurance.Moreonthislater.ItmayaIsobedoubtedwhetherthedefinitionis"complete."Atleastthereismoretobesaid.Itisclear,however,thatCalvinemphasizesknowledge,inparticulartheknowledgeofGod'spromise.Hencetheobjectofbeliefisaproposition.

In readingCalvin onemust consider the date of the Institutes.Thisworkwas first published in1536. The final edition, much enlarged, came in 1559. The Council of Trent was called in 1542; itrecessedin1547andresumedin1551.Itrecessedagainfrom1552to1562;anditsfinaldecisionswereconfirmedbythePopein1564.Thus,CalvinbeganwritingbeforetheCouncilconvened;hefinishedhisworkbeforetheCouncilconcluded;andhencehisdescriptionofRomanismcouldnotbeaccuratelybasedon theCouncil's conclusions.Hehad touseconcreteexamples fromactualauthorsandpreachers.TheresultisthatsomeofhisdescriptionsofRomanismarenottrueofwhatlaterbecametheofficialRomanposition.

For example, in III ii 8, he says, "Theymaintain faith to be amere assent, with which everydespiserofGodmayreceiveastruewhateveriscontainedintheScripture."Now,maybe

somebrashorstupidSchoolmansaidthis;butitisnottheposttridentineposition.InthetwentiethcenturyCatholicEncyclopedia,faithisstatedtobe"fiducialassent."NorisitclearthatadespiserofGodcanreceiveastruewhateversomethingsnodoubt,buteverything?iscontainedintheScripture.

Howevermuchwe oppose theRoman church, even to asserting theReformation view that thePapacyistheantichrist,itisunnecessary,andwedoourcausenogood,tomisrepresenttheseidolaters.Hence,asamatterofhistory,therefollowsasectiononthedecreesofTrent.Thesedecreescontainmuchthat iswrong.They teach thatbaptismis the instrumentalcauseof justification,and that in justificationGodmakes us just.They assert human cooperation and deny irresistible grace; andmanyother things,includingofcoursetheabominationsoftheMass.However,andnonetheless,therearesomeremnantsofChristianity. The quotation following concerns faith, and thoughmixedwith stultifying error, there aresomegoodphrases.

Sixth Session, chapter viii: "We are therefore said to be justified by faith because faith is thebeginningofhumansalvation....withoutwhichitisimpossibletopleaseGod.…Wearethereforesaidtobejustifiedfreelybecausenoneofthosethingswhichprecedejustificationwhetherfaithorworksmeritthegraceitselfofjustification…otherwisegraceisnomoregrace."

Then follow (Chapter IX) a repudiation of Reformation heretics, (Chapter X) the increase ofjustification; then on keeping the Commandments, presumption and predestination, perseverance,(ChaptersXI,XII,XIII)etc.

After Chapter XVI come some Canons opposing the Reformation view of Justification. Forexample,"IfanyonesaiththatmenarejustifiedeitherbythesoleimputationofthejusticeofChrist...totheexclusionof(infused]graceandthecharitythatispouredforthintheirheartsbytheHolyGhost,aridisinherentinthem....lethimbeanathema"(CanonXI).

Even here this is not so bad as it sounds to postreformation ears; or at least the error is oftenincorrectlyidentified.TheRomanistsincludedintheirtermjustificationwhattheReformersandtheBiblecallsanctification.Thislatterofcourserequiresinfusedgraceandlove.AmoreaccurateidentificationoftheRomisherrorwouldbetheircompleteblindnesstoBiblicaljustification.Theyusedtheterm,buttheyomittedanddeniedGod'sjudicial,justifyingacquittal,ofwhichmorewillbesaidlater.

InadditiontothedecreesofTrent,somethingfromthe DogmaticDecreesoftheVaticanCouncil(A.D. 1870) forms an interesting historical note. "Chapter III, On Faith,Man beingwholly dependentuponGod,asuponhisCreatorandLord...weareboundtoyieldtoGod,byfaithinhisrevelation,thefullobedienceofour intelligenceandwill.And theCatholicChurch teaches that this faith,which is asupernaturalvirtue,whereby,inspiredandassistedbythegraceofGod,webelievethatthethingswhichhehasrevealedaretrue...becauseoftheauthorityofGodhimself...Butthoughtheassentoffaithisbynomeansablindactionof themind, stillnomancanassent to theGospel teaching,as isnecessary toobtain salvation, without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit who gives to all mensweetnessinassentingtoandbelievinginthetruth.Whereforefaithitself,evenwhenitdoesnotworkbycharity, is initselfagiftofGod,andtheactoffaithisaworkappertainingtosalvation,bywhichmanyieldsvoluntaryobediencetoGodhimself,byassentingtoandcooperatingwithhisgrace,whichheisabletoresist."

ThisiscertainlynotReformationtheology,andsomeofitsphrasesclearlycontradicttheteachingofScripture.Nevertheless itmayappear thatCalvindidnotcorrectlyanticipate theTridentineSymbolwhenhegavetheRomishdefinitionoffaithas"amereassentwhicheverydespiserofGodmayreceiveastruewhateveriscontainedintheScripture."

In addition to the fact that Calvin wrote before the Council of Trent assembled, and finishedwritingbeforeitconcluded,misunderstandings,especiallyonourparttoday,canarisebecauseofchangesinthemeaningsofwordsoverfourcenturies.Calvinsays"theassentwhich

wegivetotheDivineword...isfromtheheartratherthanthehead,andfromtheaffectionsratherthantheunderstanding." Since the Scripture never contrasts the head and the heart, but frequently contrasts theheartandthelips,oneoughttosupposethatbyheadCalvinmeanttheunderstandingandbyheartthe will.Noris"theobedienceoffaith,"whichhequotesintheverynextsentence,an"affection,"butavolition.Obedienceisalwaysvoluntary.AfewlinesbelowCalvinspeaksmoreclearly:"Itisanabsurditytosay,thatfaithisformedbytheadditionofapiousaffectiontotheassentofthemind,whereaseventhisassentconsistsinapiousaffection,andissodescribedintheScriptures"(IIIii8).

IfmuchthatCalvinsaysexposestheerrorsofRome,theselastwordsshouldwarnevangelicalsnottobelittleassent,'mere'assentofthemind,forthisvoluntaryacceptanceofthetruthisitselfapiousaction(ifnotan'affection').

TheLargerCatechism(Question72)willserveasaconclusionforthishistoricaldigression.

"Justifyingfaithisasavinggrace,wroughtintheheartofasinner,bytheSpiritandwordofGod,wherebyhe,beingconvincedofhissinandmisery,andofthedisabilityinhimselfandallothercreaturestorecoverhimoutofhislostcondition,notonlyassentethtothetruthofthepromiseoftheGospel,butreceiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and foracceptingandaccountingofhispersonrighteousinthesightofGodforsalvation."

UnfortunatelythereisonephaseinthisanswerthatseemstodeviatefromCalvin,andforwhichtheprooftextfollowsaninaccuracyintheKingJamestranslation.Nottoextendthissubsectionunduly,thestudentmaystudytheexegesisofEphesians1:13,inHodgeandothercommentators.Thoughitdifferssomewhat from Hodge, the student may consider this translation: "In whom also you received aninheritance,havingheard thewordof truth, i.e., thegospelofyoursalvation, in [orby]which[neuter]alsohavingbelieved,youweresealed...."

6. Psychology

ThoughtheLargerCatechismdoesnotaddressitselfdirectlytothepsychologicalanalysisoffaithorbelief)thisproblemisonethathasmeritedtheattention,notonly

ofChristiantheologians.butalsoofsecularphilosophers.Thesesecularists,evenwhentheyarenotsosuccessful as the theologians, have one advantage; to wit, their task is simpler because they do notconsider religious complications. Many theological discussions fall into confusion because elementsnecessarytosavingfaithareassignedtoanybeliefwhatever.Hereonemustfirsttrytoanalyzebeliefassuch,andthencharacterizethosebeliefs,orthatbelief,whichjustifies.

Themostusual evangelical analysisofbelief separates it into threeparts: notitia, assensus,andfiducia,or understanding, assent, and trust. Perhaps even theologianswho use this analysismight omitfiducia,iftheyconfinedthemselvestobeliefassuch;forinacolloquialmannerapersonwhobelievesthatColumbusdiscoveredAmericain1492,orin1374,isnottakenasanexampleof trust.Yetishenotactuallyanexampleofconfidence?

ThomasMantoninhisCommentaryonJamesexpressestheusualevangelicalviewquitewell;andhedistinguished,wellorpoorly,betweensavingfaithandotherfaiths.Thepassageistoolongtoquote,soacondensation,sometimesverbatim,sometimesnot,mustsuffice.

QuotingJames2:19aboutthedevilsMantonremarksthatthefaithhereisa"barespeculation"andcannotpossiblysaveanyone.

That this faith cannot save is very true. It is no more than a belief in monotheism. This theMoslemspossess.ButhoweveritmaybewithMoslems,itseemsincorrecttocall thefaithofdevilsabare"speculation."Thiswordoftenisusedtorefertosomepropositionthatisso

35

unverifiableastobemorelikelyfalsethantrue.Granted,Mantonalsocallsitaknowledge;andthisisbetter,becauseonthispoint,ifonnothingelse,thedevilsbelievethetruth.

Hecontinues:"Thoubelievest;thatis,assentesttothistruth."~Beliefthereforeisanactofassenttothetruth.YetMantonadds,believingisthe"lowestactoffaith.”InviewoftheScripturalcommandstobelieve,thissoundsverystrange.

Istherethanahigheractoffaith?Andifso,isithigherbecauseithasamoredetailedobject,i.e.agreaternumberofpropositions?Butinthiscaseitwouldstillbeanordinaryactofbelieving.Orisithigherbecausesomeelementbeyondtheactofbelievingispresent?

Manton continues with the object of this belief. "There is one God. He instanceth in thisproposition,thoughhedothlimitthematteronlytothis."Thisisanowrareusageoftheverb,notnoun,toinstance.Itmeans, to give an instance; theproposition, 'there is oneGod,' is therefore an instanceorspecificationofwhatthemanbelieves.Mantonsuggeststhatthemanbelievesorassentsto"otherarticlesof religion." This is doubtless true, for nearly everyone who believes in any sort of God believessomething else about him beyond bare existence. That the man has an extensive Jewish or Christiantheology,however,isnotclear.

"Thoudoestwell",quotesManton;"it[thescripturalphrase]isanapprobationofsuchassen:,sofarasitisgoodandnotrestedin."

AgainMantonhasdescribedtheactasvoluntaryassent.Naturally,allassentmustbevoluntary.Butwhatalsoneedstobenotedherearethewords"restedin."Whenwesaywerestin,orshouldnotrestin, this or that, dowemean that in addition to notitia and assensus there is some other psychologicalelement in saving faith called "resting"? Or does it mean that saving faith, rather than beingpsychologicallydifferent,mustbeanassent tootherpropositionsinadditiontomonotheism?Thelatterseemstobethecase,whetherornotMantonmeantitso.Weshouldnotrestin,"i.e.besatisfiedwiththesingleproposition,'ThereisbutoneGod.'This

proposition even the devils accept. But for salvation men must not only accept the monotheisticproposition,butaswellotherpropositionsrelatingtotheAtonement.

OnthenextpageMantonnotesthatthedevilsassenttothisonetruthandtoothertruthsrevealedintheword,evento"manytruthsintheScriptures"(onthefollowingpage).ButhowmuchoftheBiblethedevilsbelieve,justificationbyfaithperhaps,isaquestionthatweinourignoranceofsatanicpsychologycannotanswer.Mantonapparentlywantstomaximizethedevils'orthodoxy.

"Bareassent”,saysManton,"tothearticlesofreligiondothnotinfertruefaith.TruefaithunitethtoChrist,itisconversantabouthisperson."TwofactorsseemtobeconfusedinManton'smind:thepsychologyand thepropositions.Does thisquotationmeanthatsavingfaith, inaddition tobelief inmonotheism,mustalsoincludetheChalcedonianChristology?CertainlyanassenttoChalcedon,however"bare," is "conversant abouthisperson."OrdoesManton' s statementmean that thedevils themselvessubscribetoChalcedon,andthat"conversant"isapsychologicalelementinadditiontoassent?It\vouldseem so because otherwise no contrast could bemade between "assentto the articles of religion" and"conversantabouthisperson."

Faith "is not only assensus axiomati,an assent to a Gospel maxim or proposition; you are notjustifiedbythat,butbybeingonewithChrist.Itwasthemistakeoftheformeragetomakethepromise,ratherthanthepersonofChrist,tobetheformalobjectoffaith."

ThementionofthepersonofChristispiouslanguage.Similarexpressionsarecommontoday.Onesloganis,"NocreedbutChrist."Anotherexpression,withvariationsfrompersontoperson,is,Faithis

notbeliefinaproposition,buttrustinaperson.3

5. In recent years the neoorthodox and pseudoevangelicals have propounded the pious nonsense that the Greekword for faith (pistis)shouldbeunderstoodbyitsuseforaHebrewtermandnotinitsGreekmeaning.TheHebrewtermortermsmeantrustorfaithfulnessandnotbelief.JamesBarr,whocanin

Though this may sound very pious, it is nonetheless destructive of Christianity. Back in thetwenties, before theMethodist Church became totally apostate, a liberal in their General Conferenceopposed theological precision by some phrase centering on Christ, such as, Christ is all we need. Acertainpastor,aremnantoftheevangelicalwingofthechurch,hadthecouragetotakethefloorandaskthepointedquestion,"whichChrist?"

Thename JesusChrist, at least since1835 inStrauss'Leben Jesu, hasbeen applied to severalalleged persons. Strauss initiated the "Life of JesusMovement." It ran throughErnestRenan toAlbert

Schweitzer.4ButthepersonsdescribedarenothinglikethepersondescribedintheCreedofChalcedon,nor,forthatmatter,aretheyalikeamongstthemselves.Itisnecessarythereforetoask,whichChrist,or,whoseChrist?TheChristianorBiblicalansweris theCreedofChalcedon.Apersoncanbeidentifiedonlybyasetofpropositions.

ThisiswhatMantonreferstoas“themistakeoftheformerage.”ThomasMantonwasaPuritanoftheseventeenthcentury,andwhenhespeaksof"theformerage,"heisnotreferringtoapostateRomanism,buttotheReformersthemselves.HenceheisawitnessthattheydefinedfaithasanassenttothepromiseoftheGospel.Bythesametoken,hewishestointroducesomeotherelementintofaithinadditiontothis

actofwill.Whatisit?Heanswers,"Thereisnotonlyassent infaith,but consent5:notonlyanassenttothetruthoftheword,butaconsenttotakeChrist.…Truebelievingisnotanactoftheunderstandingonly,butaworkofalltheheart."

Acarefulstudyofthesewords,,andofthecompletecontextinManton,plusacomparisonwiththeScripture,shouldconcludethatMantonisconfused.Thefirstpointisthattheword consent receivesnoexplanation.Itmakesapleasantalliterationwithassent,butliterary

no sense be thought favorable to whatManton calls "themistake of the former age" i.e. themistake of the Protestant reformers, in hissuperbly scholarly volume, The Semantics of Biblical Language,Oxford University Press, 1961, reduces the pseudoevangelical view tounscholarlyruins.

7. Cf.GeerhardusVos.TheSelfDisclosureofJesus

2Possibly the first systematic theologian touse this termwasJohnofDamascusorDamascene:"fidesestnon inquisitusconsensus;" i.e.,"faithisanunquestionedconsent."

38

styleisnosubstituteforanalysis.Is"consent"anactofwill?Ordinarylanguagewouldmakeitseemso;but ifso,howis itdifferent fromassent?If"consent" isnotvoluntary,and if itcannotbeanactof theunderstandingeither,whatsortofmentalstateisit?Thentoo,whenhesaysthat"truebelievingisnotanactof theunderstandingonly,but aworkofall theheart,"he isnot accuratelyconfronting"the formerage." The former a~e never said that true believing, or false believing either, is an act of theunderstanding only. The former age and much of the Eater ages too specify assent in addition tounderstanding. They make this specification with the deliberate aim of not restricting belief tounderstandingalone.OnecanunderstandandlectureonthephilosophyofSpinoza;butthisdoesnotmeanthat the lecturer assents to it.Belief is the actof assenting to somethingunderstood.Butunderstandingaloneisnotbeliefinwhatisunderstood.

Mantonhimselfacknowledges,"IconfesssomeexpressionsofScriptureseemtolaymuchuponassent,asIJohn4:2and5:1;ICor.12:3;Matt16:17;buttheseplaces[Mantonstrangelysays]doeithershowthatassents,wheretheyareseriousanduponfullconviction,comefromsomespecialrevelation;orelse,iftheypropoundthemasevidencesofgrace,wemustdistinguishtimes."

Now,Matt. 16:17 is not clearly a special revelation. It canwell be, andmoreprobably is, anilluminationsuchasGodgivestoeverybeliever.NorisICor.12:3aspecialrevelation:itreferstoallmenitisacompletelygeneralstatementandcannotapplyonlytothefewrecipientsofspecialrevelation.UnlessthereforeonewishestobeverydogmaticaboutPeterinMatthew,alloftheseverses,inManton'sopinion,are tobesetaside,are tobeexplainedaway,by"distinguishingthetimes.”Trueenough,GodadministeredthecovenantintheOldTestamentinamannerdifferentfromhisadministrationoftheNew.Thentoo,butthedifferencesaremuchlessimportant,theapostolicage,andthefollowingtwocenturies,faced difficulties that do not so directly trouble us now∙. But such historical differences are entirelyirrelevant to thepresentdiscussion.Whether thepropositionsandpromisesof theOldTestamentweremorevagueandlessspecific thanthosein theNew,andwhether thetruthsof theGospelseemedmore"contrary to the ordinary and received principles of reason" there than now [which is much to bedoubted),

all this is irrelevant because the mental act of believing is the same in every age and every place.Manton's account of faith is therefore confused, and it has led him to set aside some instructiveNewTestamentmaterial.

Thecruxofthedifficultywiththepopularanalysisoffaithintonotitia(understanding),assensus

(assent),andfiducia(trust),isthatfiduciacomesfromthesamerootasfides(faith).6Hencethispopularanalysisreducestotheobviouslyabsurddefinitionthatfaithconsistsofunderstanding,assent,andfaith.Somethingbetterthanthistautologymustbefound.

7. JohnOwen

If now Thomas Manton has deserved mention, all the more so does his younger and greatercontemporary,JohnOwen,who,amongotherthings,wroteafourthousandpagecommentaryonHebrews.Here his smaller four hundred and fifty page book on Justificationby Faithcompels our attention. ThepagenumbersarethoseoftheSovereignGraceeditionof1959.

Onpage70,Ovenbeginsanexaminationofthenatureoffaith.Butthereadermusttakecare.Theexaminationisintroducedthus:"Ofthenatureoffaithingeneral,oftheespecialnatureofjustifyingfaith,ofitscharacteristicaldistinctionsfromthatwhichiscalledfaithbutisnotjustifying...."

Noobjectioncanbemadetosuchanexamination;butthestudentshouldtakecaretounderstandwhatthenatureoffaithisingeneral.Justifyingfaithisaspeciesoffaith,andifonedoesnotknowwhatfaithingeneralis,onecannotknow'whatthefaithisthatjustifies.DoesOwenkeepthisdistinctionclear?

Unfortunatelyhedoesnotmakeitsufficientlycleartous.Infacthesays,"Thedistinctionsthatweusuallymadeconcerningfaith...Ishallwhollypretermit:notonlyas

9. TheLatinfidesisnotagoodsynonymfortheGreekpisteuo.

obviousandknown,butasnotbelongingtoourpresentargument."Owenseemstohavehadanoptimisticviewofhisgeneration."Butevenifthesedistinctionswereasobviousandwellknownthenashesays,theyarenotsotoday.Buteven"pretermitting"much,Owencannotescapegivingsomeindicationofwhattheactofbelievingis.

Hisverynextparagraphspeaksofanonjustifying"historicalfaith."Itisnotbecausethisfaithhasmuchtodowithhistorythatitiscalledhistorical.Inadditiontoeventstohistory,thisfaithbelievesthepromises of the Gospel. "But it is so called from the nature of the assent (ital. his) wherein it dothconsist."Apparentlythentherearetwokindsofassent.Whatthisdifferencespecificallyis,Owendoesnotsay.Heindeedsaysthedifferencedoesnotlieintheobjectofthefaith,thepropositionbelieved,butin thenature,orpsychological characteristicsof thisparticular typeof assent.Wewould like toknowwhatthisdifferentpsychologyis.

Owenisquiteclearthat"allfaithisanassent upontestimony"(p.72)'."Divinefaithisanassentuponadivinetestimony."Obviouslydivinetestimonyisdifferentfromhumantestimony;andasthegreatPuritansaid,theeffectsofsomebeliefsdiffervastlyfromtheeffectsofotherbeliefs.Butdifferencesineffectsaswellasinobjectsareirrelevanttothequestionwhethertherearespeciesofbelieving.Itistobefearedthatsomenotionof~speciesofbeliefs'hasbeenconfusedwith'speciesofbelieving.'Norisareferencetoatemporaryfaithasopposedtoapermanentfaithanymorerelevant.InfactBerkhof(op.cit.p.501) who follows Owen, adds that temporary faith may last all through one's life, that it is notnecessarily hypocritical and that it includes a stirring of the conscience. No wonder he remarks that”Greatdifficultymaybeexperienced inattempting todistinguish it fromsaving faith,."Thisviewalsobearsonthedoctrineofassurance.YetOwensays,"Justifyingfaithisnotahigher,orthehighestdegreeofthisfaith,butisofanotherkindornature."Yetallhisevidenceshowsnotadifferenttypeofbelieving,butadifferentobjectofbelief.Herefers to:(1)differentcauses,(2)differentobjectsofapreviousorpreparatorybelief,and(3)differentobjectsoffaith(p.80),thoughhehadpreviouslyruledoutobjectsasthedifference.

AsOwen's account continues, the confusion growsworse.Not only does hemisunderstand theRoman position, describing their faith as an assent that does not produce obedience: but also he isdissatisfiedwith "such a firm assent as produceth obedience unto all divine commands" (p. 801). ForOwen,faithseemstohavethreemaincharacteristics,thethirdofwhichhaseightsubdivisions.

Thefirstoftheseisassenttothetruth:"alldivinefaithisingeneralanassentuntothetruththatisproposeduntousupondivinetestimony."Thesecondpoint isratherareassertionof thefirst.Theonlydifferenceseemstobethatthefirstreferstosomelimitednumberoftruthsagivenindividualhappenstoknow, while the second includes "all divine revelation." Now, it is not likely that a new Christian,recently justified,understandsandassents toeveryproposition in theBible.Aftera lifetimeofstudyalearned theologian could hardly know so much. But, one may say, even the new Christian assents toBiblicalinfallibility.Quiteso,thatisasingleproposition.DoeshethenhaveimplicitfaithinalltheotherBiblical propositions?On the contrary,Evangelicalism excludes theRomish doctrine of implicit faith.Hencejustificationcannotdependonourassenttoallrevealedtruth.Justifyingfaithmustbeanassenttosometruths,notall.EvenOwenhimself,afterhavingsaid"alldivinerevelation,"restrictsjustifyingfaithtosometruthsonly.Butinadditiontowhatever,allorsome,isbelieved,Oweninsiststhatjustifyingfaithmustincludecertaincausesandadjuncts.

Histhirdparagraphbeginswithanexplicitdenialthatfaithisanassent,nomatterhowfirmandsteadfast, no matter how perfect an obedience it produces. Nor does it equally respect all divinerevelation,butonlysome.Andthenfolloweightpoints,mainlynegative.

10. Assent isnotanactof theunderstandingonly.Since,however,nooneeversaid itwas,butallatleastincludeit,onemaytakE.~Owen'sfirstsubpointmerelyasanattempttobecomplete.

42

7. "Alldivinetruthisnotequallytheobjectofthisassent."Ifitwere,thestatementthatJudaswasatraitorwouldasmucheffectourjustificationasthatChristdiedforoursins.

8. Justifyingfaithcannotexistwithoutapreviousworkofthelaw.Thismaybetrue,thoughthesuddenconversionofSaulmightmakethewordpreviousalogicalratherthanatemporalsuccession.Inanycase,andnomatterhowtrue,thisdoesnotcontributetoananalysisoftheactofbelieving.

9. Pointfourisveryconfused,andpoint(5)asserts,whatisatbestdoubtful,thatthedevilsinJamesassenttoeverythingintheBible.Point(6)assertsthathopeandtrustarenotcontainedina"mere"assenttothetruth,"buttheyhopeandtrustrequirementalactionsotherthanwhatarepeculiartotheunderstandingonly."ButisnotOwenoffthetrack?Ofcoursehopeandtrustrequirethevolitionofassentaswellasanunderstandingofthepromiseorhope.

Point(7)strayscompletelyawayfromScriptureanddependsentirelyonintrospectiveexperience.Thushisobjection toassenthere isgivensolelyonhisownauthority, rather thanupon theauthorityofScripture.

11. Point 8, however, is indubitable because tautological. "That faith alone is justifying which hathjustification actually accompanying it. ... To suppose aman to have justifying faith and not to bejustified., is tosupposeacontradiction."Ofcourse it is;but for thatvery reason it isa fallacy toconclude"Wherefore it issufficientlyevident that there issomewhatmorerequireduntojustifyingfaiththanarealassentuntoalldivinerevelations."

Owen continues for several difficult pages. He objects to identifying the object of faith withChrist'spromiseofforgiveness.InsteadhemaintainsthatChristhimself is theobjectof justifyingfaith.Althoughthissoundsverypious,Owenandothersmightnothavesaidthis,ifinsteadofthetermfaith theyhadusedtheScripturalwordbelieve.Whenwebelieveaman,webelievewhathesays.NordoesithelpOwen'sviewtoinsistontheScripturalphrase, believeinChrist,assomethingessentiallydifferentfrombelievingChrist.Aswesaidbefore,believingina

manmayindicateawillingnesstobelievewhathewillsayinthefutureaswellaswhathehassaidinthepast.Butbeliefmustalwayshaveapropositionasitsproperobject,andthereforemustbeassent.Owen,letitberepeatedforthesakeofclarity,doesnotdenythatassentmustalwayssomehowbeincludedinfaith.Speakingof thepromisesof forgivenesshesays,"Itcannotbebut that in theactingsof justifyingfaith, there isapeculiarassent to them.Howbeit, thisbeingonlyanactof themind,neither thewholenaturenorthewholeworkoffaithcanconsisttherein"(p.87).Nowitmaywellbesaidthattheworkorresultsoffaithareseveral;butsuchresults,suchasthepreachingofthegospelbyanevangelist,arenotjustifyingfaiththeyareworksofrighteousness,noneofwhichjustify;butiffaithorbelievingitselfisnotanactofthemind,thereremainsnohopeforfindingitanywhereelse.Darewesuggestitistheworkofthefingers,lungs,orstomach?

AlltheforegoingcomesfromOwen'schapteronthe causes andobject ofjustifyingfaith;andthismaytoacertainextentexcusetheconfusion.Thefollowingchapteristhenatureof";justifyingfaith;anditwouldseembettertohavedescribedwhatbeliefisbeforespecifyingtheobjectofparticularbeliefs.

At thebeginninghe remarks that the faithhe isdiscussing isasincere faith.Sobe it.Assent isalways sincere.Nomatterwhat apersonbelieves, hebelieves it sincerely.Apersondoesnot alwayssincerelystatewhathebelieves.Hemayobscureorevendenyhisbeliefs.Butassenttoapropositionisipsofactosincere.

Owenthengivesnegativeaswellaspositiveexamples."TheunbeliefofthePharisees...iscalledthe 'rejectingof thecounselofGod' ...mostof thosewho rejected theGospelby theirunbelief,did itunder the notion, that the wayof salvationand blessedness proposed thereinwas not away answeringdivinegoodness..."(p.9495).Surelythisquotationisastatementoftruth;butitconfutesmuchthatOwenhas said, for whereas the disciples assented to Christ's statements when they understood them, thePhariseesassentedtoorbelievedcontradictorypropositions.Therefore,onemustrejectwhatOwensaysafew'linesbelow;towit,"unbelievers...maygiveanassentuntothetruthofit[thegospel],sofarasitisamereactofthemind."Thisislogical

nonsense,psychologicalimpossibility,andtheologicalconfusion.Hisonlydefensehere,justafewlinesbelow,isthatheisnolongertalkingaboutsincerefaithbutonlyinsincerefaith.

HoweverseverethiscriticismofOwenmayseem,letnotthestudentsupposethatOwenistobedespised.HeisoneofthegreatestPuritans,andweshouldbeextremelyhappyifwecouldmakeasfewmistakes as they did. Furthermore, for all the confusion on this point, Owen nonetheless seems toacknowledgethatbelievingisvoluntaryassenttoanunderstoodproposition.Putasidequestionsastotheobject or objects believed, recognize that phrases not containing the words voluntaryor assentmaynonethelesshavethesamemeaning,andrealizethattheactofbeliefispsychologicallythesamenomatterdowhatisbelieved,anditishardtofindaphrasedescriptiveofbeliefbetterthanvoluntaryassent.

ThusinhisgreatcommentaryonHebrews,atchaptereleven,verse8,Owensays,"'Byfaithweunderstand,'thatis,byfaithweassentuntothedivinerevelation....wecomenotonlytoassentuntoitastrue,buttohaveaduecomprehensionofit[creation]initscause,soasthatwemaybesaidtounderstandit ...Thosewho firmlyassentuntodivine revelation,dounderstand thecreationof theworld,as to itstruth, its season, its manner, and end." Perhaps Owen is too optimistic as to the extent of ourunderstanding;butanyratefaithorbeliefisavolitionalassenttoanunderstoodproposition.

Sincechapter sixon TheAtonementquoted theLutheran theologian JohnTheodoreMueller anddisagreedwithhim,itmaybeinterestingbrieflytonotewhathesaysabouttheelementsoffaith.Onpage325heusesthecommonthreefolddivisionofknowledge,assent,andconfidence.Butheseemsandthispuzzlesareadertorestrictknowledgeandassenttouninterpretedhistoricalevents.Surelyhecannothavemeant this, for obviously a person can believe a doctrine as well as an historical event. Somemodification, fortunately, occurs on the next page, where he says, "However, if the term notitia isunderstoodinthesenseoftruespiritualknowledgeofChrist...andthetermassensusisconceivedasspiritualassenttothepromisesoftheGospel...thenbothofthesetermsincludethefiduciacordis."

Evenonthepuzzlingpagehesaid,"Faithwhichjustifiesisnotmerelyaknowledgeofhistory...but it isassent to thepromiseofGod…”Andtwopagesearlier (p.323)heasserted,"Savingfaith isalwaysfidesactualis(nottheRomishimplicitfaith),ortheapprehensionofthedivinepromisebyanactoftheintellectandwill."

IfaReformedtheologianbegstodifferwiththeLutheranonsomeveryimportantpoints,hemaystillbegratifiedhere.Somesupportingversesarenowappropriate.PromisesintheBible,allofwhichrequireassent,aretoonumeroustoquote;butthefollowingtouchonknowledge.

John17:3Thisislifeeternal,thattheymightknowthee...

12. Cor.4:6…hathshinedinourheartstogiveusthelightoftheknowledgeofthegloryofGodinthefaceofJesusChrist.

Phil.3:8 IcountallthingsbutlossfortheexcellencyoftheknowledgeofChristJesusmyLord.

IJohn5:1,5WhosoeverbelieveththatJesusistheChristisbornofGod...Whois

hethatovercomeththeworldbuthethatbelieveththatJesusistheSonof

God? (Note the emphasis on knowledge in verses 18, 19,20).

Somuchthenfordefiningfaithasvolitionalassenttoanunderstoodproposition.Butwhichofallpossiblepropositionsistheobjectofjustifyingfaith?

(b)TheObject

If theRomishdoctrineof implicit faithbe rejected, and if it is impossible, at least in any fiveminuteperiod,tobelieveeverydeclarativesentenceintheBible,itisnaturaltoask,Whichofallthesepropositionsistheonebywhosemeansasinnerisjustified?

This question obviously issues from the wording of some of Owen's paragraphs. It is notirrelevant to the preceding discussion.But it is a question no one can answer.Years afterAthanasiuswrote the Nicene Creed a socalled Athanasian Creed was formulated that pronounced damnation oneveryonewhodidnotbelieveitsnumerouspropositionsontheTrinity.Thepropositionsthemselvesareon the whole very good; but less than one percent of the Christian community can recite them frommemory.Possiblynotmorethantwentyfivepercenthaveevenheardthem.NoCalvinistwouldassertthatsalvationrequiresustobelievethemexplicitly.OntheoppositeendofthescalefromthosewhowouldinsistonthewordingoftheAthanasianCreed,someindependentchurcheswritetheirowncreedoffiveor six articleswith fewerwords than this one article on theTrinity.But are these few the irreducibleminimum for salvation? The question above asks for precisely those beliefs which are necessary forjustification.

Consider the case of JustinMartyr, one of the earliest heroes of the faith. Did he really havesavingfaith?ButhewasaChristian,washenot?HediedforthenameofourLordandSavior.Hemusthavebeenregeneratedandjustified,musthenot?ButitisdoubtfulthatanystrongLutheranorCalvinisticchurch todaywouIdhave admittedhim tomembership.Quite possible the strifetorn church inCorinth,troubledwith fornication, lawsuits, and idolworshipitsmembers do not seem to have deniedChrist'sresurrection,butonlytheresurrectionofbelievershadabettertheologythanhis.Buttowhatpropositionsdidheassentthathemightbejustified?

Now,JustinMartyrwasnotamoron.Moronshavedoubtlessbeenregeneratedandjustified.Somemembersofextremelyprimitivetribesalso,withtheirmindsincrediblyconfused.Whatpropositionsdidtheybelieve? Is there anypassage inScripture that identifies, in a scaleof decreasingknowledge, theveryminimumbywhichsomeonecanstillbejustified?

Buteven if aminimumofpropositionscouldbe listed,belowwhichnumber justificationwereimpossible,itwouldstillbethewrongquestionwithapervertedoutlook.TheChurchisnotcommanded,encouraged,norevenpermittedtobesatisfiedwithabarestminimumoftheology.Thecommandrequiresthemaximumpossible:

Matt. 28:19,20 Teach all nations … instructing them to observe all whatever Icommandedyou.

There seems to be no other conclusion but that God justifies sinners by means of manycombinationsofpropositionsbelieved.Forwhichreasonaministershouldnotconfinehimselftotopicspopularlythoughttobe"evangelistic,"butshouldpreachthewholecounselofGod,trustingthatGodwillgivesomeone thegiftof faith throughsermonson theTrinity,eschatology,or thedoctrineof immediateimputation.

PartIIIJustification.

The twobasicandessentialprinciplesof theProtestantReformation, inscholastic termscalledtheformalprincipleandthematerialprinciple,are(1)theScripturealone,itsinerrancyastheverywordofGod,towhichwemustaddnothingandfromwhichwemustsubtractnothing;and(2)Faithalone,thedoctrineofjustificationbyfaithwithoutanyadmixtureofhumanworksormerit.Thesetwoarethechiefand indispensable parts of the defini tion of the term evangelical.Deny the inerrancy and logically noChristianityisleftatall.DenythetwoaloneandwehaveRomanism.

TheopponentsofevangelicalChristianitythereisnoChristianitythatisnotevangelicalattackonboth fronts.The firstchapterof thepresentvolumeexamined theattackagainst theBible.Thischapterwillmentionthelesswellknownattackonthedoctrineofjustificationandthenproceedtoexpoundthesame.

48

LutherinparticularandvirtuallytheentireProtestantmovementemphasizedjustificationbyfaithalone. On the corner stones of many Lutheran churches one can read the name Evangelical LutheranChurch. It is no exaggeration to say that justification by faith alone was the driving impetus of theReformation.EventhelaterArminianstriednottodenyit.

However,todaytheecumenicalmovementseeksreconciliationwithRome.Thisistrue,notonlyoftheAnglicans,butevenofseveralLutheranbodies.Incredibleasitmayseem,acontingentofLutherantheologians,meetingatWartburg(whatmemoriesthename Wartburgstimulates!)SeminaryinDubuque,Iowa,madeplans to celebrate the450th anniversaryof theAugsburgConfession in a joint conferencewith the Roman Catholics. The name Reformation Sunday,it is planned, will become ReconciliationSunday.Doesn't anybody have an inkwell to throw at the devil? The arguments for rapprochement aresimilar and even verbally identical to those used in the sixteenth century. Because of this Lutherandevelopment, because of the liberal rejection of all Christian doctrines, and because even the earlyArminians, perhaps unwittingly, undermined the doctrine of justification, this essential element ofChristianityneedsspecialemphasistoday.

1.Definitions

The plan now is to give a brief statement as to what Romanists and Arminians consider theessenceofjustificationandthentostatetheCalvinistdefinition.

Both Sola Scripturaand Sola Fideare contrary to Romanism.As explained in an early chapter,Romanismadds traditionandpapal infallibility to theScripturewitness its rosaries andcrucifixes, itssacraments and its priesthood, its idolatry andMariolatry. It also lacks the doctrine of justificationbyfaithalone.TodojusticetotheRomishdoctrineofjustification,thesimplecontrastbetweenjustificationbyfaithandjustificationbyworksisnotquiteaccurate.TheunderlyingdefectinRomanismatthispointisratherthelackofanydoctrineofjustification.

49

One should say, the lackof anyBiblical concept of justification.What theRomanists call justificationmostassuredlydependspartlyonworks;butwhattheycalljustificationisnotwhattheBiblemeansbytheterm.Theiruseofthetermisessentiallytheequivalentofsanctification.Ofcoursethisrequiresgoodworks.ButwhatislackinginRomanismistheconceptofadivinejudicialpronouncementofacquittal,plussomeotherelementsyettobeenumerated.

Itisthereforeessentialandelementarytodefinethetermjustification;i.e.tostatewhatthewordmeansintheBible,particularlytheNewTestament.Forthispurpose,instancesofitsusearenowquoted.

Luke7:29ThepublicansjustifiedGod.

Luke7:35Wisdomisjustifiedofallherchildren.

Rom.3:4 Thatthou[God]mightestbejustified…andmightesthavethevictorywhenthouartjudged.

Rom.3:20Byworksofthelawnofleshshallbejustified.

Rorn.3:24Beingjustifiedfreelybyhisgrace.

Rom.3:26ThathemightbejustandthejustifierofhimwhobelievesinJesus.

Rom.3:28Amanisjustifiedbyfaithapartfromworksoflaw.

Rorn.5:1,9Beingjustifiedbyfaith...justifiedbyhisblood.

Someoftheseversesandmanyothersinadditionspeakofjustificationbyfaithaloneapartfromgoodworks.Thisisthesubstanceofthedoctrine.Butatthispointthepreliminary

questionis,Whatdoesthewordjustificationmean?Thismayappearas'meresemantics'tosome:cannotanyonedefinehistechnicaltermsashepleases?Yes,hecan;butouraimistodeterminehowitpleasedtheHolySpirittodefinethisterm.WewanttoknowwhattheBibleteaches:notwhatsomenonbiblicalreligion teaches.Definition in any case is no trivialmatter.Themore important a subject is, themorepreciselymustitstermsbedefined.

TheLiddellandScottlexiconliststheseclassicausages:tosetright(fromafragmentof

Pindar);provedortested(passiveparticiple);holdordeemright...;pronouncejudgment:doa

manright,chastise,passsentenceon;pronounceortreatasrighteous,vindicate.Arndtand

Gingrich,briefly,have:todojusticetosomeone,vindicate,acquit,makefreefrom(cf.Acts

13:38)and,toquote,"InICorinthians6:11edikaiothetemeansyouhavebecomepure."Thelast

assertion,however,ismorethandoubtful:Thecontextbynomeansrequiresameaningnot

foundelsewhereintheNewTestament,asmanycommentarieswillshow.

Lexicons get their information from the Greek texts themselves. We can begin this work byexaminingthelistofversesjustquoted.Themainquestionis,Doesjustifymeantomakeamanjust,ortodeclarethatheis(already)just.

ItisincrediblethatevenRomanistsshouldhavemissedthemeaning.Thefirstversequotedsays,"The publicans justified God." How can anyone think that the publicans made God just? Next, themetaphoricalphrase,"Wisdomisjustifiedofallherchildren,"obviouslymeansthattheresultsofwisdomdemonstratethegoodnessofwisdom.Wisdomdidnotwaittobecomegooduntilherchildrenmadeherso.ThethirdverseagainspeaksofGod'sbeingjustified.Godisjudged,andpronouncedjust.Godisnotmadejust;heispronouncedoracknowledgedtobejust.Thefourthverse,"Bytheworksofthelawnoflesh shall be justified," supports the same conclusion because the works of the law are essential tosanctification. Hence justification, which excludes works, is not any part of the process of becomingsubjectivelyrighteous.Thisverseandtheremainderinthelistemphasizeanotheraspectofthedoctrineofjustification,buttheyarealsoinstancesofthesameusage.Theconclusionthereforeis:Theverbtojustify

toacknowledgesomeoneasjustorrighteous,tovindicateortoacquithimofaccusations.Itdoesnotrefertoanymoralchangebywhichapreviouslyunjustpersonismadesubjectivelygood.Onthecontrary,itisajudicialpronouncement,whichinitselfdoesnotalterthecharacteroftheaccusedinanyway.

Thedefinition,however, isnot the fulldoctrine. Itmerely tellsuswhat theBiblemeansby theword.

(c)AnAct

Thewholedoctrine,succinctlystatedintheShorterCatechism,is"JustificationisanactofGod'sfree grace,whereby he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, only for therighteousnessofChristimputedtous,andreceivedbyfaithalone."Thesubheadswillnowfollowthisoutline.

Justification is an act of God's free grace. This proposition is most directly derived from themeaningofthemainterm.TheShorterCatechismhasanotherquestion:"WhatisSanctification;"towhichtheanswer inpart is,"SanctificationisaworkofGod'sfreegrace. . . ."Thecontrastbetween act andwork isdeliberate, as are all thewords of theCatechism.Theyweremeant to distinguish between aninstantaneouspronouncementandalifelongprocess.

Asalludedtoearlier,thisdistinctionmustbekeptinmindinoppositiontoRomanism.TheRomanCatholics have no concept of a judicial acquittal. For them, justification is a long process of moralimprovement.But in favorof the term act intheCatechism, themeaningof theGreekverb isdecisive.WhenthepublicansjustifiedGod, theydidnot initiatea long,drawnoutprocessofmoralpurification.Theymadeajudgment.Itwasamomentaryact.

Although the publicans were not official, legal judges, God is; with the result that one mayproperlycallhisactofacquittalforensic.Itisthejudicialactofacompetentjudgein

absolvinganaccusedpersonfromthepenaltyofthelaw.Thatthisisaforensicactisindicatedbysomeotherversesnowtobequoted.

Rom.5:16Forthejudgmentwasfromonetocondemnation,butthefreegiftwasfrommanytrespassestojustification.

Rom.8:33WhoshallbringanyaccusationagainstGod'select?Godisthejustifier.Whoisthecondemner?

Itisobviousthatcondemnationisnotamoralchangefortheworseinthecondemnedman.Whenajudgecondemnsamanforafelony,hedoesnotmakehimalawbreaker.Thejudgedeclaresthathehasalready broken the law. The judge declares that he is a criminal and is guilty as charged. But thisdeclaration is not a moral process in the prisoner. Since now, in these both verses, justification andcondemnationareantithetical,theoneisasmuchobjectiveandforensicastheother,andaslittleamoralprocess.

(d)Pardon

The previous chapter, under the subhead of Expiation, discussed the cancellation of sin by theworkofChrist.Heretheconcernistheapplicationofredemptiontobelievers,particularlyinconnectionwithjustification.Theformeristheprerequisiteofthelatter.

Now,essentialasitis,inviewofRomanism,toknowthatjustificationisaforensicjudgmentofacquittal, more/a good deal more, must be said concerning its effect on the justified sinner. Thiseventuallyincludes,asaninevitableconsequence,thewholeprocessofsanctification,butatthemomentweareconcernedwithwhatoccursatthetimeofjustification.Severalthingsoccurwithorareincludedinjustification.Thefirst,atleastintheordertheCatechismgives,ispardonofsin.Asamatteroffact,theEnglishwordpardonoccursrarelyintheKingJamesBible.ItseemsstrangethattheCatechismchoseit.Butthoughthewordisrare,

theideaisfrequent.Itisexpressedintermsofforgiveness,remission,purgingaway,washing,cleansing,andthelike.Thelistis:

Isa.40:2Heriniquityispardoned.

John20:23Whosesoeversinsyeremit,theyareremitted.

Acts2:38Repent...fortheremissionofsins.

Acts13:39Byhimallthatbelievearejustifiedfromallthingsfromwhichyecould

not

bejustifiedbythelawofMoses.

ICor.6:11Butyearewashed...sanctified...justified.

James5:15Itshallbeforgivenhim.

IJohn1:9Heisfaithfulandjusttoforgiveusoursins.

That God is a God of mercy, and that "there is forgiveness with thee" (Psa. 103:4) is notsomethingaBiblestudentwouldlikelydoubt.Hemightsuggest,however,thattheversesquoteddonotclearly place pardon in the act of justification. In reply, one might say that Acts 13:39 connectsjustificationandbelief,andthatthisisconnectedwithfreedomfromthelawofMoses,i.e.freedomfromitspenalty,andwemayinferthatfreedomfrompenaltyistheequivalentofforgiveness.

I Cor. 6:11makes a clearer connection between justification and pardon or washing.Washingsurelyindicatessomesortofescapefromsin;andforallitsfigurativestyleitisstillarathermomentarythananincessantlifelongprocess,likesanctification.Infact,itismorethan

doubtful that "youwere sanctified" (aorist tense) refers to the process of sanctification.Rather, as thenouninICor.7:14,itreferstobeingsetapartordedicatedtoGod.Thus,amomentaryactisindicated.Withthisunderstanding,theversedefinitelyconnectspardonorwashingwithjustification.Butitisnotsomuchthesedisjointedversesthatsostronglyconnectforgivenesswithjustification,asitisthepervasivemeaning of the term itself as already s explained.When a judge pronounces acquittal, the accused isdischargedfromallobligationtopaythepenalty.

That JohnWesleyand theArminiansdonot regard justificationas a judicial actof acquittal isevident fromSermonV in SermonsonSeveralOccasions(1746). "Leastof alldoes justification implythatGodisdeceivedinthosewhomhejustifies,thathethinksthemtobewhat,infact,theyarenot;thatheaccountsthemtobeotherwisethantheyare."BeforecontinuingthequotationonemaynotethatthislastphrasedeniesthatChrist'srighteousnesscanbeaccountedtosinners.OfcourseGodisnotdeceivedintothinking that his saints are subjectively and perfectly sinless; but the Scripture surely declares thatrighteousness is imputed to us and that justification is the contradictory of condemnation. Now, thequotationcontinues,“

(e)Neithercan it everconsistwithhisunerringwisdom to think that I am innocent, to judge that I amrighteousor holybecause another is so.He cannomore confoundmewithChrist thanwithDavidorAbraham."Again,ifthiswereso,thenneithercouldGod"confound"mewithAdam,andthereforeIdidnotdie"inAdam."Clearlyanerrorinoneplacereappearsoftenthroughoutanysystemoftheology;andnaturallyso,becauseasystemisaslogicallyconsistentasitsauthorcanmakeit.

Wesley thus restricts the meaning of justification to pardon. "The plain scriptural notion ofjustification ispardon."Tobesure,headds that theFatherpardonsus"for thesakeof thepropitiationmadeby thebloodofhisSon;"butwhytheFatherneedspropitiation inorder topardoncanhardlybemadeclearonWesley's premises.Paulgives thewhy.That Godmaybe justand the justifier" etc. TheCalvinistofcoursedoesnotdenythatGodpardonsoursins,buthefindsinScripturemorethanpardoninthedoctrineofjustification.

Thedifficulty,however,isnotyetentirelydissolved.Arminiansarelikelytocontendthatacquittalandpardonareincompatible.Ifamanispronouncedinnocent,hecannotbepardoned,sinceifinnocenthehasnocrimethatneedspardon;butifheispardoned,thenhecannotbeacquitted,forpardonisbasedonhishavingcommittedacrimeandthushisbeingineligibleforacquittal.

Thisdifficultywouldbeseriousiftheconditionsofthedivinejudgmentseatwerelimitedtotheconditions of a human court.When in human affairs aGovernor of a State or thePresident pardons apersonwhohasbrokenthelaw,itisindeedanactofmercy,butitisnotanactofjustice.Justiceissimplysetaside.Thereareoftengoodreasonsforthis;andinanycasethatisthemostamercifulexecutivecando.

ButGod,ifwemaysospeak,facesaproblemthatnohumanjudgecanmeet.Thepertinentverseis found in one of themost important paragraphs in thewholeBible. Itwould be difficult to find anypassage of comparable length that so succinctly and completely presents theGospel in its entirety.Ofthesehalfdozenverses,thequotationis:

Rom.3:26Todeclare,Isay,atthistimehisrighteousness:thathemightbejust,andthejustifierofhimwhichbelievethinJesus.

Thedifferencebetweenahumancourtandthedivineassizeisthattheformerdoesnotmaintainstrictjustice.The"problem"Godfaceswashowtobejust,completelyjustandrighteous,andatthesametimetojustifytheungodly.ItsversequotedanditspredecessorspeakofGodexhibitinghisrighteousness.Asamatteroffact,thereisnomentionofpardonatallinthesehalfdozenverses.Weresalvationmerelyamatterofpardon,Godcouldsimplyforgetjusticeandthelawandlettheguiltysinnergofree.Pardon,ordinarypardon,requiresnoatonement.God'ssalvationdoes.ThisdisposesoftheArminianobjection.

(f)TheGroundofJustification

The question here to be answered is,On “what ground, or forwhat reason goesGod justify asinner?TheanswertothisquestionalsoshowshowGodcanhimselfbejustandalsothejustifierofhimwhohasfaithinJesus.

Since all men are sinners, totally depraved and utterly unable to do any spiritual good, it isobviousthatGodcannotacquitthemonthebasisoftheirconduct.EvenifsomeoneatagenineteencouldfromthatdayforthperfectlykeepthelawofGod,hecouldnotbeacquittedonsuchabasis,forhehadalreadybrokenthelaw∙beforehebecamenineteen.Itisnodefenseagainstachargeofmurder,thatonehasnowgivenuphisprevioushabitofmurderingpeople.

Furthermore,theScripturesteachthat,whateverothergroundsorreasonsGodmayhave,sofarasthe sinner himself is concerned, the benefit is conferred upon himbyGod's free grace.The followingpassagesexcludeallhumanworksandassertunmeritedfavor.

Rom.3:20,24 By theworksof the lawshallno fleshbe justified. ...being justifiedfreelybyhisgrace...(cf.2728)

Rom.4:4,5Nowtohimthatworkethistherewardnotreckonedbygrace,butofdebt.Buttohimthatworkethnot,butbelievethonhimthatjustifieththe

ungodly,

hisfaithiscountedforrighteousness.

Ga1.2:16....notjustifiedbytheworksofthelaw,...becausebytheworksofthe

lawshallnofleshbejustified.(cf.3:11).

Eph.2:8Bygraceareyesaved.

Butwhilethethemeofgraceexcludesallhumanmerit,itdoesnotspecifythegroundorreasonforwhichGodextendshisjustifyinggracetoanyone.Toacquitistopronounceinnocent,

righteous,acceptableinGod'scourt.Now,ifGod,whodoesnotlie,pronouncesasinnerrighteous,whatissuchrighteousnessandwheredoesitcomefrom?HowcanGodbebothjustandjustifier?

TheShorterCatechism,whoseorderthissectionsomewhatfollows,said,"JustificationisanactofGod'sfreegrace,whereinhepardonethalloursins,andacceptethusasrighteousinhissight,onlyfortherighteousnessofChrist,imputedtous,andreceivedbyfaithalone."Thusthisdocument,writtenfortheinstructionofchildren,assertsthatthegroundofjustifir'!ationistherighteousnessofChrist.

SomethinghasalreadybeensaidabouttheactiveobedienceofChrist.Hadhenotbeenaltogetherinnocent and perfectly righteous, had he offended in one point, had he sinned, hewould himself havedeserved his punishment, which then could not have availed for anyone else. This is all part of thedoctrineofthevicarious,propitiatoryatonement.Butnowthathedidnotsufferforhimself,hepaidourpenalty andGod imputeshis righteousness tous.On thegroundofChrist's righteousness, therefore, asimputed to us, God is both just and the justifier of him who has faith in Jesus. The present subheadthereforemergesintothenext.

(g)ImputationandFederalHeadship

ThatChrist'sdeathwasavicarioussacrifice,thathepaidourpenalty,thathewasoursubstituteisthe equivalent of asserting his federal headship. He was our representative, and what he did in thiscapacityisreckonedorimputedtous.Adamwasalsoourrepresentativeorfederalhead,andwhathedidin such capacity had also been imputed to us.A page or so further on itwill be necessary to discussRomans5:1219.At thatpointoneshouldnote,whatseemsstrange tous today, thatPaularguesfor thefederalheadshipofChristonthebasisofAdam'sposition;whereaswe,withourmodernmindset,mustdefendAdam'sheadshiponthebasisofChrist'sposition.

Firstofall,andasidefromRomans5:1219,isaselectionofversesthatmentionimputation.Thesewillillustratetheusageandmeaningoftheterm,andthenthedoctrinaldiscussioncanfollow.

Rom.4:38AbrahambelievedGodanditwascounteduntohimforrighteousness.(cf.

James2:23,imputed)....therewardisnotreckonedofgrace,butofdebt.

...hisfaithis countedforrighteousness...untowhomGodimputeth righteousness without works . . . Blessed is themantowhomtheLordwillnotimputesin.

(h)Cor.5:19GodwasinChrist....notimputingtheirtrespassesuntothem.IITim.4:16Letitnotbeimputedtothem.

Philemon18Ifhehathwrongedthee,oroweththeeought,putthatonmineaccount.

As various translations show, impute (logizo)means to reckon or to put to one's account. TheversesfromRomans4saythatGodcountedsomethingasrighteousnessforAbraham;thissomethingwasagiftofgracetoAbraham;itwasnotadebtthatGodowedhim.Becauseofthisgiftsinwasnot,ornolonger,counted.Now,whatwasitthatGodimputedtoAbrahamforrighteousness?IfoneshouldrestricthisreadingtojustoneortwoversesinRomansfour,ortoJames2:23,itwouldseemthatGodacceptedthe subjective act of believing in place of actual righteousness. Belief then would be taken for therighteousnessnecessaryforAbraham'sacquittal.Doesitnotsay,"Hisfaithiscountedforrighteousness"?However, thisseems to imply thatGodsetaside therequirementofperfectobedience,disregarded themaintenance of justice, and pardoned Abraham on the basis of his belief in God's promise. Thus,Abraham'sownactwouldbethegroundofjustification;andhecouldboastofhis insight intospiritualaffairs,aninsightothersdidnothave,forhewasabettermanthanthey.However,Romans4:5doesnotstandalone.Ithasbothanimmediatecontextandawidercontext.Theimmediatecontextsays

two things: (1)Abrahamhad no ground for boasting; (2) verse six says that the somethingwhichwasimputedwas, not faith itself, but righteousness. TheArminian dependence on verse five, for the viewbeing discussed is Arminianism, is plausible only so long as the context is ignored, not only theimmediatecontext,butevenmorethepassageintheprecedingchapter.NotethatafterPaulincludesthewholehuman raceunder sin,he summarizes thedoctrinesof theatonementand justification in3:2126.Here we have Christ's propitiation and God's justice. Now, if faith as the mental act of believing issufficientforpardon,ifnotforacquittal,whereistheneedforanatonementatall?MustnotthejusticeofGodbemaintained?IfGodknewthathewasgoingtolowerhisstandardsaftermansinned,whydidheestablishstricterstandardsinthegardenofEden?Well,then,afterPaulinRomans3:26insistsondivinejustice, he usesAbraham as an outstanding example of justification. But having already described theworkofChrist,heshortenshisphraseology,expectinghisreaderstobeartheprecedingsectioninmind.This should be sufficient forRomans 4 and James 2. But there is a stillwider context to support theconclusionthatthebasisofjustificationisChrist'smerit,andnotouractofbelieving.AveryimportantpartofthiscontextisRomans5:1219.ButsinceArminianismhasbeenmentioned,letuscontinuewithitforawhile,sincethisdiscussiontoowillhelptoclarifythesubjectmatter.

Firstofall,letitbestatedthatwedonotwishtomisrepresenttheArminiansanymorethanwewishtomisrepresenttheRomanists.LetitalsobeacknowledgedthatatleastsomeArminiansrepudiatetheobjectionsabovestatedrelativetofaithratherthanChrist'srighteousnessasthebasisforjustification.Arminiushimself(asquotedbyWiley)wrote,"JustificationisajustandgraciousactofGodbywhich...heabsolvesmanfromhissins...onaccountofChristandhisobedienceandrighteousness..."Wesleydefinedjustificationas"thatactofGodtheFather,wherebyforthesakeofthepropitiationmadebythebloodofhisSon,heshewethforthhisrighteousnessbytheremissionofthesinsthatarepast."

Bothofthesequotationsseemtoruleoutfaithasthebasisofjustification;bothmentionChrist'spropitiation,obedience,andrighteousness.Theymightinsomeotherrespectbe

incomplete; they might restrict the effect of justification to pardon alone; but what they assert seemsScriptural.

More surprising to those who have criticize Arminianism is Article IX of the TwentyFiveMethodistArticles: "Justification is an act ofGod's free grace,wherein he pardoneth all our sins andacceptethusasrighteousinhissight,onlyforthesakeofChrist."

This is taken from theWestminsterShorterCatechism, verbatimwith the exception of the finalclause. Perhaps that change is significant; it has to dowith imputation; but at least it does not restrictjustificationtobarepardon.

Wileyhimself,whogavethesequotations,showssomevacillation.Onpage.382hesays,"Hereitisevident that forgivenessand justificationaresynonymous terms, theoneexplanatoryof theother,butwithashadeofdifference."However,onthenextpageheindicatesconsiderablymorethana"shade"ofdifference: "The justified sinner is accepted as righteous ... It is thus distinguished from mereforgiveness."Buthedoesnotstaywiththis,becauselater(p.

(i)headds,"ThesolegroundofjustificationbeingfaithinthebloodofChrist...worksofthe

lawareimmediatelyexcluded."Herefaithisthesolegroundofjustification:Christ'sactiveobedienceisruledout.Andfurtheronthesamepagehecontinues,theword imputation "isneverusedinthesenseofreckoning or accounting the actions of one person to have been performed by another.Aman's sin orrighteousnessisimputedtohimwhenheisactuallythedoerofthesinfulorrighteousact."

These verbatim quotations, and their contexts which any student can look up, are sufficient toshowthatwithoutanymisrepresentationArminianismdifferssubstantiallyfromCalvinism.Whatfollowsismorethansufficient.

AfterthepreviousquotationWileycontinuesbysummarizingthreetheoriesofimputation.Firstisthe"ImputationoftheActiveObedienceofChrist."ThisisgenerallyknownastheHyperCalvinisticorAntinomiantheoryofJustification"(p.396).

IfnowwedoourbestnottomisrepresentArminianism,wewouldbepleasedifArminiansmadeasimilareffort.Asidefromthefactthat HyperCalvinismisapejorativeterm,usuallyleftundefined,andrecklessly asserted even ofweakCalvinists,Wiley's subhead, "Imputation of theActiveObedience ofChrist" fits Hodge, Warfield, and the Westminster standards themselves (cf. Conf. XI, 1,2, LargerCatechism,70,73).Thatthisdoctrine"isgenerallyknownasthe...AntinomianTheoryofJustification"isludicrouslyfalseandpositivelyslanderous.Whatothercreedofanyotherchurchplacessomuchstresson the Ten Commandments? Have the Arminians ever read the Larger Catechism, Question 93: "ThemorallawisthedeclarationofthewillofGodtomankind,directingandbindingeveryonetopersonal,perfect,andperpetualconformityandobediencethereunto..."Ifthisbehypercalvinisticantinominanism,letushavemuchmoreofit.

Wileyhasfurtherobjections .TheCalvinisticposition,hesays,"overlooksandundervaluesthesubjectiveworkof theSpirit in imputationof righteousness."But, to reply, justification isanobjectivejudicial pronouncement; it is not a change in the sinner's subjectivity at all. Regeneration produces,subjectiveeffects,particularlyfaith)andsanctificationinevitablyfollowsjustification.Anallegedfaiththatresultsinnogoodworksisnotsavingfaithatall.Butjustificationisadecisionfromthebench.TheArminianholds,saysWiley, that"thefaithbywhichwearejustified…hasinit theinherentpowerofrighteousness." So it does, but not asWiley thinks.The righteousness, an imperfect righteousness, thatfaithproducesintheworstorbestofsinnersisnottheperfectrighteousnessonthebasisofwhichheisacquittedofallguilt.

FurtherincompetentobjectionstoCalvinismfollow.Wiley(p.397)quotesfromWesley'sSermononJustification,"GodcannomoreconfoundmewithChristthanwithDavidorAbraham."Remarkable!AsifGodcouldnotdistinguishChristfromthepersontowhomhehas

imputedChrist'smerit.Thenagain,beginningwithaCalvinisticquotation,Wileyadds,"'HewhoclaimsforhimselftherighteousnessofChristpresentshimselftoGod,notinthehabitofarighteousman,butingloriousattireof theDivineRedeemer.'Thisattitudeisnotcharacteristicof thehumilityof thegenuineChristian."

ButevenJohnWesleytranslatedZinzendorf,“

Jesus,Thybloodandrighteousness,

Mybeautyare,mygloriousdress.”

Thisispreciselythepoint:westandbeforeGod'sthrone,dressedintherighteousnessofChristalone.

ZinzendorfwasnotmuchofaCalvinist,sothatperhapsWesleyhadlessqualmsabouttranslatinghim.ButHoratioBonaradded:

"Thyrighteousness,OChrist,Alonecancoverme."

AndEdwardMotesang:

"Myhopeisbuiltonnothinglessthan

Jesus'bloodandrighteousness

...

Dressedinhisrighteousnessalone

Faultlesstostandbeforethythrone.

...

Allothergroundissinkingsand."

TocompletewhatWileywoulddoubtlesscall thisdiatribeagainstArminians,notethatonpage400he says, "it is faith itself, as a personal art of the believer, and not the object of that faith that isimputedforrighteousness."Thismeansthatoursubjectiveorpsychologicalactofbelieving,isimputedorputtoouraccountandnaturallyso,foritisourownpersonal

psychologyinsteadoftheperfectrighteousnessofChrist.Henceweareacquitted,declaredinnocent,notbecauseweareinnocent,butbecausewebelieve.TheArminiansmaysayandhopethatthisbelievingisnot to be classed as a "goodwork"; but surely it is. It is such a goodwork that for them it producesregeneration; regeneration does not produce it. For to continue,Wileywrites, "Justification ... cancelsguilt...[regeneration]renewsthemoralnature...Thetwo,however,arecoincidentintime,fortheyareaccomplishedinanswertothesameactoffaith"(p.402;cf.pp.416ff.).Surelythismakesfaithaworktoogoodtobetrue.

Thediscussionnowapproachesamoreexpositoryform.ThedoctrineofthefederalheadshipofAdamandimmediateimputationofAdam'ssintoallhisnaturalposteritydependschieflyontheexegesisofRomans5:1219.It isdoubtlessadifficultpassage;but there isoneexceedinglyclearpoint,andthisclearpointisthekeytothemainmessage.ItisextremelyclearthatthepassagedrawsaparallelbetweenAdam in his relation to the race andChrist in his relation to the elect. Furthermore this basic thoughtsufficientlydisposesofthemainobjectionBerkouwerbelabored.WhilevarioustheologiansbemoantheinjusticeofGodifheimputesguiltapartfromtheindividual'sownpersonalactofsin,theyall,perhapswith the exception of Pelagius, are quite satisfied to have God impute righteousness apart from theindividual'sownpersonalperfectobediencetothelaw.Consistencyrequiresoneortwopositions:eitherthere isno immediate imputationofguilt or righteousness, or there is immediate imputationofboth. Ifwhatiscalledvicariousethicsisacceptableinthecaseofrighteousness,noonecanconsistentlyobjecttovicarious ethics in the other case. And conversely, if one rejects the immediate imputation of sin asimmoral,logicrequireshimtorejecttheimmediateimputationofrighteousnessasequallyimmoral,forpreciselythesamereasons.Now,then,theexegesis.

Romans5:1221,aswassaidbefore,drawsaparallelbetweenAdamandhisnaturaldescendentsontheonehandandontheotherhandChristandhisspiritualdescendants.Thepassage,noneedtoquoteitnow,beginsbystatingthatsinenteredtheworldofhumanitybytheactofoneman.ItwasnottheactofEve,forshewasdeceivedandAdamwasnot;norwastheintroductionofsinanddeathduetoAdam'ssucceedingsins.Itwasthroughhis(one)sin,or

throughthe(this)sin,thatdeathcame.Thecausewastheoneactoftheoneman.Ifanyonesuspectthatinviewoftheexactwordingoftheverse,theideaofonehasbeengiventoogreatanemphasis,thereplyisthat verses 15, 16, and 17 make this emphasis is more than sufficiently explicit. The cause of deathcominguponallmenwastheactoftheoneman"becauseallsinned."

Buthowcanallhavesinned,whenonlyoneman,byoneact,committedasinglesin?Thosewhoholdtostraightforwardjustificationbyworks(andthisisnotRomanism),andthoseorsomeofthosewhoassert free will, answer that Adam's posterity followed his bad example, so that their later personaltransgressionscausedtheirdeath.Tothisthereplyis,(1)ThetextdoesnotsaythatallAdam'sposterity"havesinned";thetextsaystheyall"sinned",(thisisanaoristtense,denotingasingleact,notaperfect,indicatingacontinuedseriesofactsorapresentstate);then(2)thisaoristisinkeepingwiththeideaoftheonemanandhis oneact.Noteparticularlytheadverb"thus:"onemansinnedand thus alldied.Deathwasthepunishmentforsin,andsincetheyalldied,theymustallhavebeenguiltyoftheoneactoftheoneman.TheimplicationisthatAdamandChristwerebothourrepresentatives:theonefordeath,theotherforlife;butbothoursubstitutes.

Verse12isnotacompletesentence.Verses1318formaparenthesisandasubparenthesis;thenverse19 rephrasesverse12andcompletes theparallel.Note that inverse12 thereoccurwords"andthus"butinverse19thewordsare"thusalso."Theformerdoesnot,thelatterdoescompletetheparallel.However,sincethisisnotaCommentaryonRomans,onlyonepointwillbemadeforverses1314,whichis thatAdam is a type ofChrist. There are of course important differences between these two,whichdifferencesare indicated inverses1517.But there isonegreat similarity: theybothsubstituted forus,theywerebothourfederalhead,oneinsin,theotherinrighteousness.

The connection with justification and imputation becomes clearer in verse 18. Adam as thesubstituteforallhisnaturalposterityandbyhisonesincausedourcondemnation;Christ,

also by substitution, and by one righteous act of acquittal (verses 16 and 18) gave all his spiritualposterity justification of life. By Christ's obedience, both active and passive, the many shall beestablishedasjust.

Somuch should be enough for the conclusion that Adam's sin was imputed to us and Christ'srighteousnessalsotohischosenpeople,characterizedasthosewhoreceivethefreegiftofrighteousness.

There is another important point to be observed in this paragraph; but its discovery requires alittlemeditation.Thepointisthatinbothcasestheimputationisimmediate,i.e.,withoutmeans.Thetwoviewsmaybecontrastedasfollows:Adam'ssinproducedhismoraldegradation,adepravednature,andtendencies to sin, all of which were transmitted to his posterity by natural generation; this inheriteddepravitycausedposteritytosin,andAdam'ssinwasimputedtothembymeansofinheriteddepravity.Inthisviewthedeathofadescendentisduetopersonaldepravity.Theotherviewisthatdepravityisnotthemeansormethodofimputation,butitsresult.

InsupportofthislatterviewonemustnotethatthedeathAdamincurredwasnotphysicaldeathalone.Itwasspiritualdeath,ofwhichphysicaldeathisonlyapart.Godhadsaid,"Inthedaythoueatestthereof,thoushaltsurelyelie."Adamdiedthatday;thoughhisphysicallifecontinuedforninecenturies.Thismeansthatadepravednatureisapunishmentforsin.Thissinisthegroundofthepunishment;hencethe punishment or depravity cannot be the means of imputation. It is the imputation that makes thedepravityajustpenalty.ThereforeAdam'sonesinmusthavebeenimputedwithoutdepravityasameans,much more without subsequent sins as a means, for these follow naturally from the depraved nature.Imputationofsinthereforeisimmediateimputation.

TheScripturalbasisforthisisnothardtounderstand.Onemust,however,considertheobjectionsof thosewhodonotwant to see theScripturalposition,probablybecause theyarecommitted to someforeignphilosophicalposition.Oneneedsalsotoconsiderhowimmediate

imputationisintegratedwithfederalheadship,foranobjectionatonepointaffectsallothers.Achapterfrom.Berkouwermakesagoodexample.

4Berkouwer

Berkouwer(Sin,1971)seemstoaccusefederaltheologyofattributingcapriceorarbitrarinesstoGod,ifheimputesguiltandsintoothermenonthebasisofAdam'sfirstsin.InsupportofthisaccusationhereferstotheattemptofSheddannotherstoestablisha"realistic"connection,betweenAdamandhisposterity in their commonhumannature.Thus the realists arriveat somesortofpersonal identitywithAdamsothatposteritypersonallysinnedwhenAdamsinned;andthereforeGoddidnotarbitrarilyimputeguiltandsintoanyonewhohadnothimselfpersonallysinned.

ThemotivebehindSheddandothersintheearlierhistoryoftheologyistovindicateGod'sjusticeby denying that he imputes guilt to any man for a sin which that man did not personally commit. Tocondemnmeforwhatanothermandidisunjust.

The individual identificationof JohnDoewithAdam isdifficult tomaintain.Platohimself, thefounderofRealism,neverconfusedSocrateswithAristotle.SurelyAdamandIarenotthesameperson..Berkouwer points out that even Bavinck sidesteps the problem by qualifying the identity of the twopersonsbyphrasessuchas"inacertainsense,""virtually,""potentially,"and"seminally."Suchevasionsmaypointatthedifficulty,buttheyarefarfromsolvingit.Sheddtriedtosolveitbyasocalled"realism"thatmergedallmen intoAdam.HencewhenAdamsinned, Imyselfpersonally sinned,andhenceGoddoesnotsomuchimputeAdam'ssinandguilttome,asheimputesmyown.

At this point it is necessary for us to distinguish between problems,which, though related andevenoverlapping,arenonethelessdistinct.Thegeneralproblemofrealismisone.Inphilosophythetermrealismdenotesanytheorythatholdsitpossibletoknowthe"real"objectandnotjustarepresentationofit.AristotlethereforewasarealistthoughnotaPlatonicrealist.

SincethepresentwritercannotaccepttheAristoteliantheoryofabstraction,aswellasmuchelseinthatencyclopedicphilosopher, thisvolumeisbasedonwhatmaylooselybecalledPlatonicrealismthoughactuallyPhilonicrealism;fortherearevarietiesofeven"Platonic"realism.Briefly,realismisnecessarytomakeknowledgepossible.ItwasthewellnighuniversalpositionoftheChurchuntilThomasAquinasrejectedAugustine;anditbecame,atleastmorethananyotherphilosophy,thesomewhattacitpositionofCalvinandtheReformedChurch.

Undoubtedly realism can be used in the manner to which Berkouwer objects. His account ofBavinck's vagaries andGreijdanus' rather clearly unbiblical construction.s arewell taken.But realismitself does not require "a clear distinction between the ground for imputation in the case of Christ'srighteousnessandthegroundinthecaseofAdam'ssin"(p.439,n.10).Realismandfederalismarefarfrom being incompatible. There may of course be realists who reject federalism; but there are alsonominalistswhorejectfederalism.

ForthisreasonacertainawkwardnessrunsthroughBerkouwer’sdiscussion.Hewrites,"Wecanonlydo justice to realism, however,whenwe inquire exactlywhat ismeant by this 'cosinning.’”Thiswouldbetrueifthemenhehasmentionedweretheonlyrealists.Inthatcase"realism"wouldbenothingelse than the realism of these men. But Berkouwer gives the impression that refutation of these mendestroys all forms of realism. If it did, Berkouwer would be obligated to provide a differentepistemology.Hewouldhavetoadoptnominalism,ortheAristoteliantheoryofabstraction,orsomeformofrepresentationism.

Aside fromsuchbasicphilosophicchoices,Berkouwer'sobjections toBavinckandGreijdanusarewelltaken:"Itisverystrikingthatwhenweaskthatperfectlylegitimatequestion,wereceivenoclearanswer"(p.440).Buthisawkwardnessappearswhenhetriestotieinthepreexistenceofthesoul.Tobesure,Plato'srealism,orbetter,Plato'sgeneralphilosophydefendedpreexistence.Augustine,ontheotherhand,explicitlyrepudiatedpreexistencewithoutdiscardingrealism.

TheimmediateconclusionisthereforethatBerkouwerreducestoabsurditytheparticularformofrealism adopted byBavinck and others; but the refutation is basedmore on the Scriptural concept ofimputationthanonanyphilosophicdifficultyingenericPlatonism.

InthenextchapterBerkouwerconsiders Federalism.If thebiologicalunityof therace, towhichBavinckhadvirtuallyreducedrealism,isnotsufficienttoexplaintherelationbetweenAdam'ssinandthesinofhisposterity,whatothertheoryisthereforthispurposeandalsoforthepurposeofexplainingtherelationshipbetweentherighteousnessofChristandthatofhispeople?Thefirsthalfoftheproblemisnotthefactthatsomepeople suffer becauseofthesinsofothers,buttheideathatsomepeopleare punishedforthesinsofothers,towit,thesinofAdam.Doesnotthisideaconflictwiththejustice ofGod?Aretheimputationandrepresentationofthefederaltheoryjust?

ThedifferencebetweenfederalismandBavinck'sformofrealismliesinthefactthatBavinckandGreijdanusconsidermenaspersonallycosinninginAdam,whereasfederalismassertsthatGodregardsallmenassinnersonthebasisofGod'shavingchosenAdamashisposterity'srepresentative.

Berkouwermakesveryclearhisbeliefthat"Consistentrealismcannotbealliedwithfederalism"(p.451,n.12),Ifhehadsaid, 'Thebiologicalunityoftheraceandthefederalistviewofrepresentationcannotbothbetheexplanationofuniversalhumansinfulness,'everyonewouldhavetoagree.Berkouwer,however, objects even toHonig's statement that the physical unity is of great importance, even thoughinadequateasanexplanationoforiginalsin.But thisstatementbyHonigissurelyunobjectionable,andindeedunavoidable.DoesBerkouwerthinkthatfederalismmustdenythe"physicalunity"oftherace?Ofcoursenot;butthenonceagainHonig,whateverelsehemayhavesaid,iscorrectthatthisobviousunitydoesnotexplainoriginalsin.

Becauseofitsimportancethepointatissueallowsforemphasis.Animputationofguilt,sin,andpunishmenttoamanwhohasnotindividuallycommittedasiniscapriciousandarbitrary,accordingtothese"realists."

The tacit but plausible assumption in this view is that a wise, rational, just God cannot actarbitrarily. But perhaps these theologians do not reflect sufficiently on the nature of arbitrariness in asovereignBeing.Takeforanexamplesomelessexplosivematter.Thesolarsystempresumablycontainstenplanets.Theexactnumber isunimportant.Now,anomnipotentGodcouldhavecreated, for allweknow,asolarsystemwithonlyseven,orasmanyasthirteenplanets.Isnotthereforethepresentnumberarbitrary?Did it not dependonGod's choice?Hence an accusation that federalism is false because itpicturesGodasarbitrarycarriesnoweight.UltimatelyeverythingthatGoddoesisarbitrary.

Now suppose someone was to reply: Of course God is sovereign and the ultimate cause ofeverything; but this does not make his choices arbitrary because in everything he does, he acts for apurpose.Purposefulactionsarenotarbitrary.

Thisreplyis,ofcourse,nomorethanadefinitionofthetermarbitrary.Thetermshouldindeedbedefined,foritisratherclearthatthoseorsomeofthosewhochargeGodwithcapricearenottoosureofwhat theymean by theword. So far, so good; but the reply itself is not of great help to the "realists"mentioned.TheiropponentscanstillobjectthatthoughGodalwaysactspurposefully,yetifheentertainedimmediateimputationasanessentialmeansofhisend,hewouldbeactingunjustly.

Turning thequestionaround,and inquiringwhether the theoryofmediate imputationone cannotdiscard imputation altogether, for the Bible mentions it too often escapes the charges leveled againstimmediateimputation,onemightconsideroneofitsadvocates.

Placaeus, a French theologian, tried to avoid arbitrariness, not by a realistic theory, but byasserting thatmankind inheritedadepravednature fromAdam,anrlon thebasisof thisdepravityGodadjudged themguilty.TheSynodofCharenton in 1644,Greijdenus the realist, Shedd inAmerica, andothers not so attached to realism easily pointed out the flaw in the theory ofmediate imputation. Thequestionisobvious:OnwhatbasisdoesGodcausedegenerationinAdam'sposterity?Or,asSheddputit,"Why should the effect be imputed, and not the cause?"PIacaeus thus did not escape arbitrariness; hemerelylocateditinadifferentspot.

Since it seems impossible on any ground to escape arbitrary sovereignty,why should one try?

Whynotembrace it?7BerkouwerandBarthquotePolanus:"The reasonfor thistruth [of imputation] isnothingotherthanthewilloftheCreator."Barth,andnodoubtBerkouweragrees,callsthisastrangeandbittertruth,buthealsocallsitindisputable.Indisputabletruth,however,canbestrangeandbitteronlytothosewhofeelmorecomfortablewitherrorthanwithtruth.

In spite of Berkouwer's declaration that "federalism is unable to answer these questions in asatisfactorymanner,thefederalistissatisfiedupontwogrounds:first,theexegesisofRomans5:12ff,andsecond,theconceptofjustice.

Thesubjectofjusticeisdoubtlessamoreprofoundtheologicalandphilosophicalmatterthantheexegesisofasinglepassage';butitislessdetailed.Thequestionis,Whatisjustice,whichactsarejustandwhicharenot,anddoesGod'sjusticedifferfromours?Humanobligationstoactjustlycaneasilybedefinedbyreferringtothedivinecommandments.Forman,stealingisunjust,soismurder,andanyotherinfractionofthemorallaw.Butwhatisdivinejustice?Itcannotbethesameashumanjusticebecause,forone thing, the Ten Commandments do not apply to God. God cannot steal, for he is the owner of allwealth.Godcannothonorhis

(ii)Parentheticalnote.Perhapsarealistmightbefoundor imaginedwhowouldsaythatsinceAdamisgenerichumanity, thesinofgenerichumanity(thisrealist'ssubstituteforthePlatonicIdea)is ipsofacto,thesinofeveryman. 'Thissurelyseemstoavoidarbitrariness,butatanimpossibleprice,fortheScripturedescribesAdamasanindividualhumanbeing,notasaPlatonicIdea,andhissinwasatemporalact,notaneternalcharacteristicofaneternalidea.

fatherandmother;norcovet,andsoon.Therefore,whenwesaythatGodisjust,weusethepredicateinasomewhat different sense from that by which it is predicated of men. This view, which frequentlystimulates expressions of horror on the part of devout and pious saints, has been almost uniformlyacceptedbytheologianswhoonothermattersdisagreeconsiderably.

Thesolutionmustbethatmenarejust,orunjust,assubjecttothelawsGodimposesonthem.ButGod is just in the sense of imposing these laws. If one asks,why is an act just, the answermust be,becauseGodcommandedit.Butwhatanswercanbegiventothequestion,wasGodjustinissuingthisparticularcommandment?

Onlytwoanswershavebeentriedinthehistoryofphilosophy.Plato,especiallyinhisEuthyphro,andLeibnizpositedaprincipleofjusticesuperiortoGod.Ofcourse,Plato'sDemiurge,makerofheavenandearth,wasneitheromnipotentnor sovereign.Therewas aWorldof Ideas abovehim, towhichheowedmoralconformity.TheWorldofIdeasitself,thesupremereality,containedtheIdeaofjustice,andcanevenbetakenasapersonalGod;buttheDemiurge,nottheIdeas,wasthemakerofheavenandearth.With further Platonic scholarship, we have nothing to do at themoment. Leibniz, with his astoundingtheoryofthebestofallpossibleworlds,picturedGodtoputitinmoderntermsaslookingoveralltheblueprintsofworldshehadinhisfilingcabinet.Somewerepoor,somewerebetter,andonewasthebestofallpossibleworlds.SoGodcreatedourworldonthisplan.InsuchaviewGodisnotsovereign;thereisaprincipleofgoodnessandjustice independentofhiswillandhemustsubmit to it inorder tobeagoodGod.

Calvin and Descartes had a different view. For Descartes there is no "best of all possible"worlds.AnyworldthatGodmighthavecreatedwouldhavebeengoodsimplybecauseGodwouldhavehadcreatedit.Thispresentworldisgoodforthesamereason.GoodnessdependsonGod'sdecision.

MaybeDescartes(died1650)tookthisviewfromJohnCalvin(died1564).Inanycase,Calvinwrote, "Augustine justly complains that it is an offense againstGod to inquire for any cause of thingshigher than his will" (Institutes, I, XIV, 1). Later, in two chapters or a whole book that should berepeatedlystudied,hesays,"ThewillofGodisthehighestruleofjustice;sothatwhathewillsmustbeconsideredjust,forthisveryreason,becausehewillsit.WhenitisinquiredthereforewhytheLorddidso,theanswermustbe,Becausehewould.Butifyougofurtherandaskwhyhesodetermined,youareinsearchofsomethinggreaterandhigherthanthewillofGod,whichcanneverbefound"(IIIxxiii,2).Thenhe explodes the pretensions of thosewho try to solve the present problems by inventing a distinctionbetweenadecretiveandapermissivewill.Calvinremarks,"Heretheyrecurtothedistinctionbetweenwillandpermission,andinsistthatGodpermitsthedestructionoftheimpiousbutdoesnotwillit.Butwhatreasonshallweassignforhispermittingit,butbecauseitishiswill?”(III,xxiii,8;cf.III,xxiv,14).

SimilarlyZanchiusinhis AbsolutePredestinationsays:"Whatevercomestopass,comestopassbyvirtue,ofthisabsoluteomnipotentwillofGod,whichistheprimaryandsupremecauseofallthings"(I,PositionSix)."Hiswillistheruleofallthings.Hedidnotthereforewillsuchandsuchthingsbecausetheywereinthemselvesright...buttheyarethereforeequitableandrightbecausehewillsthem...Bucerlikewise observes, 'God has no othermotive forwhat he does than ipsa voluntas,his ownmere will,whichwill is so far frombeingunrighteous that it is justice itself'" (I , PositionSeven) .And finally,"Whatever thingsGodwills or does are notwilled and done by him because theywere in their ownnatureandprevioustohiswillingthem,justandright,orbecausefromtheirintrinsicfitnessheoughttowillanddothem;buttheyarethereforejust,right,andproperbecausehe,whoisholinessitself,willsanddoesthem"(V,PositionThree).

ThesepassagesshouldbestudiedallthemorecarefulbecausecontemporaryevangelicalismhassodeterioratedfromthedoctrineoftheReformersthatthelatterseemsstrangenow.Therearestillsome,however,whohoIdtotheReformationprinciples.

73

ThereisonethemeinBerkouwerthatdeservesexplicitcommendation.Heexcoriatestheseveraltheologianswho,eitherthroughincompetenceor,worse, throughacowardicetoacknowledgetheclearimplications of their positions, take refuge in pseudopious protestations of humility and finitecomprehension.Inthesixteenthcentury,whensuchtremendousprogresswasbeingmade,theabsenceofsome distinctions that were later drawn is not surprising. Calvin himself cannot be blamed for notarrivingataclearerdistinctionbetweensavingfaithandassurance,norfornotgoingfurthertowardtheimmediateimputationofAdam'ssinthansomenowtantalizingreferencestoAdam'sbeingthe"trustee"ofhumannatureandtheonewholostGod'sgiftsnotonlyforhimselfbutalsoforothers.However,afterthedistinction between imputed guilt and inherited depravity had been made, and after the WestminsterConfessioncontrasted theguilt's being imputed with the corruption's being conveyed,a theologianmustfacetheproblemantigivehisopinioninclearlanguage.Hemayfailthroughincompetence,buttoevadeisdishonest.

Nine

Eschatology

KTheDefinition

Etymologicallythistermreferstotheeventsthathappenlast,attheendoftheworld.TraditionallytheseeventshavebeenidentifiedasthereturnofChrist,theresurrection,thejudgment,heavenandhell.Inrecent years, however, some liberals have extended the term eschatologicalbeyond the limits of itspreviousmeaning.TheylabeltheincarnationandtheresurrectionofChristaseschatologicalevents.EventheFlood,theExodus,andtheBabyloniancaptivityqualifyforinclusion.Orthodoxtheology,ontheotherhand,andMerriamWebster’sUnabridgedDictionary,remaintruetothetemporaletymologyofthewordthedictionaryspecifyingdeath,resurrection,immortality,thesecondadventofChrist,judgment,andthefuturestate.

To include the death and resurrection of Christ, or any other divine intervention in the past,obscuresthepredictionsofChrist’sreturn.Thereisindeedaworthwhilepointintheliberaldiscussions,and it evenbearsoneschatologyproperly socalled. It isnot,however, a recent liberaldiscovery.ThepointisthatChristianityisanhistoricalreligion.ThisdoesnotmeanthatChristianity,likeBuddhismorHinduism, has a history. It means that the theological contents of Christianity include assertions ofhistoricalevents.ThedoctrinesoftheAtonementisnotanhistoricalevents;butthecrucifixionofChrist,whichisanhistoricalevent,isanessentialpartofthatdoctrine.SotooistheExodusandthegivingoftheLawofMoses; and soon. If theenemiesofChristianitycoulddisprove theactualoccurrenceof theseevents, Christianitywould have been refuted. Christianity is historical. Islam could perhaps get alongwithoutMohammed;HinduismandespeciallyBuddhismdonot standor fallwithanyeventofhistory.Moreobviouslythesystemsof thegreatphilosophers,Plato,Aristotle,Kant,andHegel,donotcontainhistoricaldata,butChristianitydoes.

Thismeansthattheworld,andinparticularmankind,isgovernedbyteleologicallaws.Historyisnotpositivisticbutprovidential;andassuch,likeaDivineComedy,ithasabeginning,amiddle,andanend. Though the beginning, the creation, and the middle, the Flood, the Babylonian captivity, andespecially the incarnation, require supernatural intervention, the endevents, resurrectionand judgment,arealoneproperlydesignatedaseschatological.

15. TheIntermediateState.

Unfortunately this strict definition leads to an embarrassment.With the emphasis on the end ofhistory in the future, it seems improper to classify as eschatological events that have been repeatedinnumerable times in the past.But the state of the soul betweendeath and the resurrection, a past andpresentrealityforourancestors,continuesuntiltheend.Whereelsethen,otherthanineschatology,canthisBiblicalteachingbelocated?

ChapterOneofthisvolumementionedthebehavioristictheoryoflanguageinconnectionwiththeintermediatestateof thesoul.Behaviorismvirtuallydominatespsychology today.NotonlydidLogicalPositivism school now in considerable disarray propagate it; but influential philosophers also, forexample,BertrandRussellandJohnDewey,wereitsadvocates.Innumerablepsychologiststeachit.

B.F. Skinner, undoubtedly the best known of contemporary behaviorists, has all human actiondeterminedbythestrictlymechanicallawsofphysicsandchemistry.Sincebehavioristsbestunderstandthelawsinthebiologicalrealm,itistheywhoshouldcontroltheconductofallpeople.Politiciansandordinarycitizensshouldbemadetoconformtothebehaviorists’plansforsociety.

Now,ifwegrantthatbehavioristsunderstandthissciencebetterthananyoneelse,itstillfollowsthattheirthoughtsandplans,whichareofcourseonlytheirbodilymotions,areasmuchastheresultofmechanical causes as the motions of other human bodies. But if all plans and ideals are equallymechanical, it is hard to show in what way the behaviorists’ plans are better than those of corruptpoliticians.Theyareallgeneratedbythesamemethod.

Now,itmayeventuatethroughthiscausationthatsuchpsychologistswillbeabletoseizepoliticalpower.Butifphysicsdoesnotsofavorthem,andanothergroupcomestopower,thebehavioristscannotcomplain, for there is no rational basis for preferring their ideals above other ideals. Hence Skinnercannot rationally justify his view that since human behavior is determined in any case, it oughtto bedeterminedbyscientificbehaviorism.WheredoesSkinnerfoundanoughtinmechanism?Orevenabetter?

SomuchfortheobviousenemiesofChrist.ThereisalsoalessonhereforChristianapologetes.Itisthis:Sinceapersonhimself,Paul,Calvin,youandI,orbetter,sincethesoulsofbelieversareattheirdeathmadeperfectinholiness,anddoimmediatelypassintoglory,“while”theirbodies…restintheirgraves till the resurrection,” it follows that the man himself, far from being an instance of organicchemistry,isnotevenacombinationofsoulandbody,butisstrictlythesoul.ThomasAquinasfollowedAristotletoocloselyinthedefinitionofthesoulas“theformasanorganicbody.”Aquinastriedtoavoidthe denial of immortality inherent in Aristotle’s definition, but avoidance is difficult. Some othertheologiansorapologetes,even if theyarenotThomists,argue thatman isaunity,and that there isnodualityofsoulandbody.Well,ifmanisthesoul,heisaunity.ButifwefollowAugustineamanisnomoreaunityofsoulandbodythanacarpenter isaunityofhandandhammer.ForAugustineandwhatothertheorysowellaccommodatestheBiblicaldataontheintermediatestate?thesoulisthepersonandthebodyisitsinstrument.SoalsoCharlesHodge:“Thesoulistheself,theEgo,ofwhichthebodyistheorgan” [instrument] (Vol III, p 725). Also, “the body [is] not a necessary condition of [the soul’s]consciousnessoractivity.”(p.726).TowhichHodgeadds

Rev.14:13 BlessedarethedeadwhichdieintheLordfromhenceforth;yea;saiththeSpirit,thattheymayrestfromtheirlabors,andtheirworksdofollowsthem.

ThisisnotthetheonlyverseintheBiblethatteachestheexistenceofsuchasoul(psyche),mind(nous),orspirit(ruach,pneuma).Thiswasdocumentedinthediscussiononthecreationandnatureofman.TothistheNewTestamentadds:

Matt.22:32IamtheGodofAbraham,theGodofIsaac,andtheGodofJacob?HeisnottheGodofthedeadbutoftheliving.

Luke23:43 Jesusansweredhim,“I tellyou the truth, todayyouwillbewithme inparadise.”

JCor. 5;8We are confident, I say, andwould prefer to beawayfromthebodyandathomewiththeLord.

ThefirstofthesethreeoccursinJesusdiscussionwiththeSadduceesconcerningtheresurrectionofthedead.Theresurrection,however,requiresthecontinuousexistenceofthepersonfromthetimeofdeath on. Hence the phrase, “the God of Abraham” asserts that Abraham is living now, even morepointedly than it asserts the resurrection. And lest it be thought that Jesus did not quite meet theSadducees’denial of the resurrection, be it remembered that theydenied the resurrectionbecause theydeniedalllifeafterdeath(Josephus,WarsII,8,14).

The Sadducees’ denial invites comparison with an extremely opposite, though equallynonchristian, assertionof the“immortality”of the soul.Theword immortalityis put in quotationmarksherebecauseit isnot theright term.ThePythagoreansandespeciallyPlatoitsnot trueofDemocritus,Epicurus,norpresumablyofAristotleeitherthoughtnotonly that thesoulsurvivesdeath,andis in thissense immortal, but also that itwill be reincarnated. Itwill not only survive all future deaths but hasalreadysurvivedallpastdeath.Thesouliseternalormoreaccuratelyeverlasting.SuchistheargumentofPlato’sPhaedo;thoughtheTimaeusseemstospeakoftheconstructionoftheWorldSouloutofpreexistingelements,andiftheWorldSoul,then afortiorihumansouls.AtanyratetheBible,denyingthatsoulsareeternal,assertsthatbyGod’sprovidencetheyareimmortal.

4

With respect tosomemoremodern religiousgroups, themost importantof the threeverses justquotedistheoneinLuke.Tothis,however,onemayaddtheaccountoftheTransfiguration.AswiththethiefonthecrosswhoenteredparadisewithChristlateFridayafternoon,sowithMosesandElijah.OnthemounttheyappearedanddiscussedthedoctrineoftheatonementwithJesus.Thebodilyappearancewasdoubtlessa theophanyPeterwouldneverhave recognized thembysightanyhowbut the importantpointisthattheydiscussedtheology.Theirmindswereactive,andnodoubtacute.

If,now,thinkingwereafunctionofthebrain,ofofthemusclesasDeweyholds,MosesandElijahcould have taken no interest in the atonement. Although this consideration does nothing to convincesecularpsychologists,aswasexplainedinchapterone,itoughttowarnChristianpsychologiststoavoidcontaminationfromtheirprofessionalcolleagues.

Fromtime to time in thehistoryof theologyaviewsurfaceswhich, though itdoesnotdeny theexistence of the soul, nevertheless denies that the soul immediately upon death enters upon a state ofconsciousbliss.Thosewhoholdsuchaviewdivideintotwogroups.Theoneassertsasleepofthesoul;theotherassertsaperiodofpunishmentinpurgatory.

Eusebius reports that therewas a sect ofChristians inArabiawhoheld that the soul remainedunconsciousfromdeathtotheresurrection.Calvinwrotearefutationagainstasimilargroupinhisday.Sincetheviewisnotunknowntoday,somespacecanwellbeallottedtoitspresentexponents.

TheSeventhDayAdventistchurchisthebestknowncontemporaryexponentoftheviewthatthesouldoesnot remain conscious after death.To support their position they assemble a largenumberofScripturereferences.(QuestionsonDoctrine.1957,pp.522ff.)

Someoftheseare:

Psa.6:5Forindeaththereisnoremembranceofthee:inthegravewhoshallgivetheethanks?

Psa.30:9 Whatprofitisthereinmyblood,whenIgodowntothepit?Shallthedustpraisethee?Shallitdeclarethytruth?

Psa.115:17ThedeadpraisenottheLord,neitheranythatgodownintosilence.

Isa. 38:1819For the grave cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee; they that godownintothepitcannothopeforthytruth.(19)Theliving,theliving,heshallpraisethee,asIdothisday:thefathertothechildrenshallmakeknownthytruth.

Strangetosay,theyincludeinthisverylist

ICor.15:1718AndifChristbenotraise,yourfaithisvain;yeareyetinyoursins.ThentheyalsowhicharefallenasleepinChristareperished.

ThisisstrangebecausePaul’sgeneralargumenthereisahypotheticaldestructivesyllogism.Thepremise “Christ is not raised” implies the conclusion “They that have fallen asleep in Christ haveperished.”Butsince thepremise isnotPaul’sown it is thepremiseof thoseheopposesneither is theconclusionhis.WhentheSDAincludesthisinitslist,itgivetheimpressionofdenyingtheresurrectionofChrist.OnewouldalsoliketoknowwhattheysayaboutChrist’sconditionbetweenFriday3:00P.M.andSunday5:00A.M.Theyquote,“Hissoulwasnotleftinhell(Greek,hades,“thegrave”).”IFthenhissoulwasnotinHades,andcertainlynotinthegrave,forsoulsarenotbodies,norinheavenconsciouswiththeFather,wherewasitandwhatwasitdoingthatSaturday?

Atanyratetheysayaboutthedead,andthereforepresumablyaboutChrist,“Thesaintsgotothegrave…whileasleepinthetombthechildofGodknowsnothing.…OnewhoservesGodcloseshiseyes indeath,andwhetheronedayor two thousandyearselapse, thenext instant inhisconsciousnesswillbewhenheopenshiseyesandbeholdshisblessedLord”,(pp.

523524).ButthiswasnottrueofMosesandElijah.

TheSDAwriterconsidersthecasesofsomewhohavebeenraisedfromthedead;thewidow’sson,thedaughterofJairus,Lazarus,andfourothers.Theargumentisinteresting:“Itwouldsurelybetoobad to bring one back from heaven, where having once arrived, he would naturally expect to remainforever.”This,however,isnotstrictlyso;forpresumablywhenasoulentersParadiseatdeath,hewillknowthatheisnotyetinthefinalstate.Buttocontinuethequotations,“tobringonebackfromtherealmsofbliss to thisvaleof tearswouldbe to run the riskofhis sinningagain, and soof losinghis eternalreward!

ThisargumentmayimpressArminiansandanyotherswhodenypredestination.ButitonlycausesCalvinists to smile. The present volume has tried to stress the point that Christianity is a logicallyconcatenatedsystem.Numerousexampleshavebeengiven.Butwhatstudentatthestartsuspectedthatthedoctrineoftheintermediatestatepresupposesthedoctrineofpredestions?

TheSDAauthor picks up someverses onwhich orthodoxChristians have placedmoreweightthantheycanbear.Butnotalways.IICor.5:8containsthephrase,“absentfromthebodyandpresentwiththeLord.”TheSDAargumentis,“Nothinginthistext[justifies]…theconclusionthatbeingpresentwiththeLordwilloccurimmediatelyupon‘beingabsentfromthebody.’Thetextdoesnotindicatewhentheseexperiences take place. We simply recognize the interval of death between the two experiences. …Makingreferencetothefuturestate,Paulspeaksofa‘buildingofGod…eternalintheheavens’and‘...ourhousewhichisfromheaven’.Whenthechangetakesplacesandweputonimmortality,heremarksthatitisinorderthat‘mortalitymightbeswallowedupoflife.’Thenitisattheresurrection,itseemstous,thatPaul

expectedtobe‘presentwiththeLord,’forhesaysinICor.15:53thatatthesecondcomingofChrist,thismortalmustputonimmortality”(p.529).

Theseconclusionarefarfromcertain.First,thesubjectmatterinICor.15:33isnotthesameasinIICor.5:8.The former says thatour“phthartonmustputon aphtharsia.”i.e. the corruptiblemustputonincorruption.Butthisdoesnotrefertothesoulreceivingaresurrectionbody,becausethesoulisalreadyincorruptible.Thesoulwehavenow,thesoulwenoware,isimmortal.Thenextphraseis,“thisthingthatissubjecttodeath(thnetontouto)mustputondeathlessness.”Butthisreferstothebody,nottothesoul.Theversesays,“Thismortalbodymustputonanimmortalbody.”Suchaninterpretationfitsverywellwith the illustration of the grain ofwheat in ICor. 15:36, 37, 44.Hence the idea is not that the soulbecomesdeathlessattheresurrection.

WiththiseliminationoftheformerpassagetheexegesisofIICor.5:8willnotbeburdenedwithafalse comparison. The verse said, “absent from the body… present with the Lord.”What or who isabsent from the body?Paul of course.ThenPaul is not his body. Paul is his soul.Note previously ininverse6,Paulwasathomeinthebody,andthereforeabsentfromtheLord.Whoorwhatwas“athome”?Paulofcourse.Thenhisbodyishishome;itisPaul,thatis,Paulhimself,whoresidesthere.AthomeinthebodyisabsentfromtheLord;andabsentfromthebodyispresentwiththeLord.ClearlytheSDAismistakeninreferringthistotheresurrectionofbody.

Ifanyone think that this isnot sufficient to refute theopposingposition, somethingmorecanbesaidIICor.5,notonlytorefute,buttoexplainmorefullywhattheBiblesaysabouttheintermediatestate.

In chapter four Paul had been speaking of his many afflictions. He could hardly have beenunawarethathemightbemurderedorexecutedbyhisenemies.Neverthelessheknowsthat

if the home inwhich he now lives be destroyed, he has an eternal home in heaven.He groans in hispresenthomeanddesirestoliveinhisheavenlyhome.

What is this heavenly house? The SDA says it is the resurrection body. There are two otherinterpretations.Oneisthatthehouseorhomeisheavenitself.Theotheristhatthesoulatdeathentersan“intermediate body” suitably constructed to last until the resurrection. For this view there is neithersupport elsewhere in Scripture, nor hint in these verses. It has been based only upon nonrevelationalpsychology: “As without body there is no soul, so without a corporeal organisation there can be nosalvation;acorporealorganisationasthenecessaryconditionofpersonality,istheendofGod’swork.…Thecontinuedexistenceofthesoulasapurespiritwithoutabodyistotheapostleanimpossibility…forselfconsciousness in a created being necessarily supposes the limitation of a bodily organisation”(Olshausen,Commentary,inloc.).

ThisviewisprobablybasedonAristotle’sdefinitionofthesoulastheformofanorganicbody,as opposed to Plato’s view of the soul as an independent reality. Eusebius (ChurchHistory, VI, 37)reportsaviewverysimilartothatoftheSDA.Calvininhisdayattackedaviewof“soulsleep”,calledPsychopannychianism.ButletusreturntoIICor.5.

Doesthenthepassageinquestionrefertotheresurrectionbody?Inoppositiontothisview,onemaynotethatheavenisdescribedasaplaceofmanymansions,acitywithmanyhouses,orahabitation(Jn.14:2;Heb.11:10,14;13:14;Rev.21:10;Lk.16:9,22).Thentoo,theresurrectionbodyisnoteternal.Itmayinsomewaybederivedfromourpresentnaturalbody;butthisisnoteternal.Hencethehousemustbeheaven,notanewor renovatedbody.Furthermore, inconsolinghimselfandotherswhomaysufferdeathinthepersecutions,Paulsays,“wehave...“Theargumentis:Donotbealarmed: ifwedie,wenowhaveaheavenlyhometowhichweshallgo.Itisratherobviousthattheconsolationdependsonthefactthatimmediatelyatdeath,weenteraglorioushome.Thecontentionthatitmerelyseemsimmediatebecauseweareunconsciousforathousandyearsorsoisaverystrainedinterpretation.The

conclusionthereforeis justifiedthatbeingabsentfromthebodyiscoterminouswithbeingpresentwiththeLord.

However,theSDAquotedversesfromtheOTandtheserequireamention.TheywereingeneralsimilartoPsa.115:17,“ThedeadpraisenottheLord.”

Now,asapreliminaryremark,onemaymentionthefactthattheOTsayssolittleaboutlifeafterdeath thatsomeliberalsassert theOTdenies it.TheliberalpositiononthispointcanbemetwithJob19:2527andwithvariouspassagesdescribingtheintimatecovenantalrelationshipbetweenGodandhispeople.ButiftheOThaslittletosayaboutafuturelifeandaresurrection,itisnotsurprisingthatithasstilllesstosayabouttheintermediatestate.

Since,however,theSDAisatthistimearatherprominentreligiousgroup,itiswelltoconsidertheiruseoftheOT.ForthispurposeafairlylongquotationwillbemadefromabookinwhichtheauthoranalysesSDAtheologyinconsiderabledetail.Thestudentwilldowelltoreadtheentirebook.

“Theappealtoversesreferringtotheconditionofmanindeath. IntheOldTestament,especiallyinthePsalmsandEcclesiastes,therearemorethanafewverseswhichspeakofthesilenceofthedead,theperishing of the dead man's thoughts, and so forth. These passages prove to the satisfaction of theAdventiststhatthereisnocontinuationofconsciousnessorofanykindofactivityaftertheoccurrenceofdeath.Anexaminationofsuchtextsintheirsetting,however,mayverywellleadtoaconclusiondifferentfrom that reached by Adventism, namely, that at the least they allow, and in some cases fairly wellrequire, theconstruction that they refer to thedeadnot inanabsolute sensebut in their relationship tolivingpersonsorearthlyactivities.”

“Anexaminationofoneofthese,selectedatrandom,evincesthisfact.Psalm146:4,citedonpage522ofQuestionsonDoctrine ,reads:"Hisbreathgoethforth,hereturnethtoearth;inthatverydayhisthoughtsperish."Thisverse,however,isfoundinthecourseofanexhortationby

thePsalmistthatmenshouldtrustinGodandnot"inprinces,norinthesonofmaninwhomthereisnohelp."Whyisthiscounseltobeheeded?Itisbecauseallmenaresubjecttodeath;eventhemightiestofthemexpireandareburiedoutofthesightoftheirfellows;alltheirdesignsandplans,everythingthathasrelevancetothispresentformofexistence,arefinishedcompletelyandfinishedforever.Thisiswhatthetextintendstoteach;thereisnoreflectiononewayortheotheruponthestateofthepersonafterdeath.Indeed,ifitshouldbeinsistedthatthisandsimilarversesmustbeappliedtothedestinyoftheindividualinarigidlyliteralsense,andthatthewritersofsuchpassageshadinmindtosayeverythingthatistobesaid concerning death, one who believed in no kind of immortality or resurrection at all would beperfectly justified in finding support for his view in thesewords.Understood as referring to anythingmoreultimate thanthe thephenomenalaspectsofdeath, theyfitaviewofmanof the typewhichB.B.Warfieldclassifiesas"PureMortalism"betterthantheydothedoctrineofconditionalimmortality.DoesnotEcclesiastes9:5 say" ... thedeadknownot anything, neitherhave they anymore a reward; for thememoryofthemisforgotten"?Where,bySeventhdayAdventistcanonsofinterpretation,isthereroomforevena"conditionalimmortality"here?”

“Theappealtopassagesreferringto"immortality"and"life". TheAdventistsarguethatsince"Godalonehathimmortality"(lTim.6:1316),mandoesnothaveitinnately;further,since"manisurgedtoseekforimmortality(Rom.2:7),hedoesnotnowpossessit."

“Theformeroftheseverses,Paul'swordstoTimothy,areamongthefavoritetextsbywhichAdventismprovesthatmanisnotimmortal,andatfirstglanceitwouldseemthatthisisalltheyneedtomaketheircase; the verse says in somanywords that immortality cannot be predicated of anyone butGod. Thedifficulty is, however, that if the "immortality" which is envisioned here is of a kind which can bepartakenofbyacreatureatall,themovementhasonitshandsatextwhichprovesfartoomuch.How,if"Godalonehathimmortality,"canmanhave"conditional immortality"?Itshouldbeobvious, therefore,thatPaul is at thispointusing theword in a sense inwhich it cannotbeapplied to anycreature.This"immortality"isanexclusivelydivinequality;noangelorglorifiedsaint,nottomentionthedemonsorlostmen,willeverpossessitasGod

possesses it. Indeed, it isunlikely thatanygroupin thehistoryofChristianity,other thananoccasionalisolatedandshortlivedmysticalsect,hasevertaughtthatmandoesorshallhaveimmortalityinthissense,namely,asanoriginal,eternalornecessaryquality.CertainlywhentraditionalProtestantismaffirmsthatmenarenaturallyimmortal, itdoesnotmeanthattheyaresointhesamewayasGodisimmortal; it isusing the term "immortality of the soul" with respect tomen in general as the equivalent of "endlessexistence."”

“Thelatterofthesepassages,Romans2:7,speaksof"immortality"instillanothersense.Thatthisissoisevidentfromthecontext,inwhichthewords"glory,""honour,"and"peace"(v.10)areconjoinedwiththe"immortality"forwhichmenareurgedtoseek.Alloftheseareinantithesisto"indignationandwrathandtribulation and anguish," the lot of the unrighteous. The force of "immortality" here, then, is notquantitative,inthesenseofbarecontinuanceofexistence(inwhichsenseallmenare"immortal"),norisitthatofeternalandoriginalimmortality(inwhichsenseonlyGodis"immortal");this"immortality"isofaqualitativekind,connotingincorruptibility,inwhichsenseitisusedoftheredeemedpeopleofGodandofnoothers.Thesameprinciplemaybeappliedto thosepassageswhichspeakof"eternal life"as the"giftofGod."Thisisnota"gift"ofendlessexistence,butofperfectblessedness"inthefullenjoyingofGodtoalleternity.””

“Theappealtopassagesreferringto"death".Thesituationhereisparalleltothatwhichwasnotedintheprecedingsection."Death"isusedinScriptureinmoresensesthanone,and"ceasetoexist"isbynomeans itsmost frequentmeaning.This ismanifestly thecaseevenon theAdventists'ownprinciples; ifthere is to be any future punishment at all (as theAdventists say therewill be), "annihilation" cannotexhaustthemeaningof"death"asthe"wagesofsin."Theterm,aswillbeapparentwhenthequestionofannihilationismcomesunderdiscussion,isusedinafullerandfarmoresobersense.”

“Theappealtotheuseof"sleep"torefertodeath.ThepointisemphasizedbytheAdventiststhat"theGreekwordsfor'sleep'...referinmanyinstancestothesleepofdeath."Inthis

connection theycite the remarkofW.E.Vine:Thismetaphoricaluseof thewordsleep isappropriatebecause of the similarity in appearance between a sleeping body and a dead body. It is difficult todeterminewhatthewritersofQuestionsonDoctrinehadinviewincallingattentiontothisfact.Vine'sobservationisquitecorrect,anditistheinterpretationplaceduponthisterminologybythegreathostofChristianwriters."Sleep"isindeedanaturaleuphemismfordeath,referringtotheappearancesofthings,no reflection upon matters more ultimate being intended. As far as the nonmaterial part of man isconcerned,therefore,itisimpossibletodecidefromthisexpression,takenbyitself,whetherornotthereisconsciousnessafterdeath.Thereis,infact,butoneplaceinScripturewheretheterm"fallasleep"isusedincloseconjunctionwithareferencetothedepartureofthenonmaterialpartofman,namelyActs7:5960.Here, in the account of themartyrdom of Stephen, the verses read:And they stoned Stephen,callinguponGod,andsaying,LordJesus,receivemyspirit.Andhekneeleddownandcriedwithaloudvoice,Lord,laynotthissintotheircharge.Andwhenhehadsaidthis,hefellasleep.”

“Thepointwillprobablynotneedtobeelaboratedthatthisconnectiongivesscantsupporttotheviewthatto"fallasleep,"usedofdeath,impliesthatStephendidnotenterconsciouslyintothepresenceofhis

SaviourandLord.”1

The section on Seventh Day Adventism began with a remark that two groups deny that therighteous soul upon death immediately experiences conscious bliss. The second of these groups isRomanism.Unlike theSDARomanismaffirms theconsciousnessbutdenies thebliss in itsdoctrineofpurgatory. If the former section has been so long, two short considerations are enough to dispose ofpurgatory.

The first point is that thebible containsnomentionsofpurgatory.Sometimes ICor. 3:15, and,evenlessappropriate,Jude23areused.Neitheroftheseprovideanybasisforthedoctrine.

HerbertS.Bird,TheologyofSeventhDayAdventismpp.5053,Eerdmans1961.

Rev. 21:27 says that nothing defiled shall enter heaven; but this would imply purgatory only if theredeemed saints continued in their defilement. The apocryphalMaccabees 12:43 is a little better, butneitherJewsnorProtestantsaccept theApocrypha.Theonlyvalidargument thatRomanistscanuse is:ManytruthsnotwrittenintheBibleweregiventotheRomanchurchandconstituteitstradition;purgatoryis one of these truths; therefore this doctrine must be accepted. This argument differs from thosepreceding. The former Scripture references are excellent premises, but the inference to purgatory isinvalid.Herethelogicisperfect,butthepremisesarefalse.

ThesecondpointcanbeconnectedwithICor.3:15andRev.21:27.Nothingdefiledentersheavenandallevilworksarelikehayandstubbletobeburnedup.Thisfigureofburningupstubblemayseemtohintatpurgatory.Actually,however,thereisagreatdifference.Purgatoryissupposedtobeaplacewheresinnersufferfortheirsinsandthuscompletetheiratonement.Christ’ssufferingshaveexpiatedsomesins,butnotall.SinceChrist’sdeathwasnotsufficient(howevernecessaryitmighthavebeen)toatoneforallsin,thesinnerhimselfmustpaythepenaltyfortheremainder.Thepresentwriterinanotherbookquotedawellknowngospelhymn:

Jesuspaiditall,

AlltohimIowe.

Sinhadleftacrimsonstain

Hewasheditwhiteassnow

TheRomishcounterpartisworthrepeatingherebecauseitemphasizesthecontrast.

Jesuspaidinpart:

ThankstohimIsay.

Sinhadleftabluishstain;

Hewasheditsomewhatgray.

3.TheSecondAdvent.

Withthedoctrineoftheintermediatestateplacedherebecausethereisnobetterplaceforit,thenext discussion takes up what is more properly called eschatological. The first point, possibly tooobvioustomention,butclearlyessential,isthefactthattheNTpredictsthefuture.

Luke 21:6 ff. There shall not be left one stone upon another. ...Nation shall raiseagainstnation…yeshallbehatedofallmenformyname'ssake.

John21:18 Whenthoushaltbeold,anothershallfindtheeandcarrytheewhitherthouwouldestnot.

Rom.11:26AndsoallIsraelshallbesaved.

Rev.20:7 Andwhenthethousandyearsareexpired,Satanshallbe loosedoutofhisprison.

Of the events theNTpredicted, somehave alreadyoccurred, e.g. thedestructionof Jerusalem.Others,suchastheworldwidepreachingofthegospel,areoccurring.Theremainderareyettocome;anditisthese,or,better,thetemporalrelationsamongthese,thatpuzzleusasweread.

Thoughtherearethreedistinctlydifferentviewsconcerningtheorderoftheseveraleventswhichconstitute the age to come, the one event, of all the most important, and so acknowledged by allevangelicals,isthereturnofChrist.

Acts1:11 ThisJesus,hewhohas[just]beentakenupfromyouintoheaven,shallsocomeintheHayyouhaveseenhimdepartintoheaven.

TheremaybeahundredversesintheNTthatpredictorrefertothereturnofChrist.Most,ifnotall of the others, add some detail concerning concomitant circumstances.This one inActs, unless onebogglesatthesimplephrase“inlikemanner,"seemstobetheonlyonethat

restricts itself to thebare event itself.Even so, it is unambiguous inpredicting that JesushimselfHillreturnfromheaventoearth.

Withtheriseofmodernisminthenineteenthcentury,manyliberalwhowishedtoavoidtoogreatarejection of Scripture tried to interpret the return ofChrist as the destruction of Jerusalem inA.D. 70(Jesus on his Second Coming,byW.Roy Goff, 1917), or as the death of the believer, or even as theexperienceofregeneration.Againsttheseviewsthefundamentalistsemphasizedthepersonal andbodily returnoftheLord.Ofcourse,theywereright.Butthisemphasisneednotbesovociferoustodayasitwasthen because the liberals’ subterfuges are no longer possible. The subterfuges are no longer possiblebecause (1) theywereexegetically incompetent,andbecause (2) the liberals todaydonotneed to fearoutragingtheirunbelievingcongregationsbydenyingtheBible.∙Infact,thoughtheyoftentrytoprovethatPaul believed andhasmistaken thatChristwould return in his own lifetime, liberals can often pleaseorthodoxbelieverswiththeirfairlyaccurateexegesisSuchiswhattheBibleteaches,thefundamentalistsunderstoodtheBiblecorrectly,buttheybelievedithowstupid!

WhattheunbelieversrejectasstupidistheobvioussupernaturalismofChrist’sreturn.Scriptureemphasizesthisinitsdescriptionoftheevent.Thoughevangelicalsdivideintothreemaingroupsonthequestionofthemillennium,theyallagreethatChristwillreturnonthecloudsofheaven,inflamingfire,with the sound of the trumpet and the voice of the archangel, accompanied by angels and saints. Thestudent may make his own list of verses to complete this description. Deny the supernatural, and noChristianityremains.

Butbeyond thisunanimousagreementon themainpointofChrist's personal andvisible return,therearethreedivergenttheoriesconcerningthetemporalrelationsamongsomeconcomitantevents.Thequestionsarebasically:Willtherebeamillenniumornot;andifso,doesitcomebeforeorafterChrist’sreturn.

16

12. a)Postmillennialismistheviewthatthepreachingofthegospelwilleventuallyconverttheworldandthatathousandyearperiodofallbutuniversalrighteousnesswillensue.ThenChristwillreturn.Hisreturnispostmillennial.Byfarthemostthoroughdefenseofthisviewis

DavidBrown’s The SecondAdvent(on the cover of the book ) or Christ’s SecondComing,Will it bePremillennial?(onthetitlepage).

Itisnotpossibleheretoreproducethe489pagesofthiscarefullywrittenvolume;butsomeofthescriptureadducedmustbementioned.EarlyinthevolumeDr.Brownconsiderstheparables.

FirsthereferstoMatt.28:1820asindicatingalongtimeandextensivechangesbetweenthetwoadvents.Christ's return thereforecouldnothavebeenimminent.Tothisagrees theparableof the tares.Thefield is theworldnot theChurch, as thosewhoopposeecclesiasticaldiscipline try tomaintain inwhichtaresandwheatbothgrowluntiltheharvest.Thisindicatesalongtimeofslowbutsteadygrowth.The mustard seed and the leaven teach the same lesson. Something small becomes large through itsinherentpower.

Butalthoughthegospelisthustopermeatetheworld,therewillbegreatreversesattimes(ITiml.4:13;IITim.3:15;IIPeter3:34).ThesereversesdonotannultheteachingoftheparablesontheeventualtriumphofChristianity,buttheydoindeedshowthatitwillbealonglongtimebeforeChristreturns.

ThewordingofActs3:2021also,“whomtheheavensmustreceiveuntilthetimesofrestitutionofallthings..."tendstodiscourageanexpectationofChrist’sreturnduringthefirstcentury.

Theparableofthetenpoundslikewiseteachesthatthenoblemanwentintoafarcountryforalongtime.Thedetailsofthestorytheantagonismofthecitizens,theinvestmentofthemoney,andthewordsofthenoblemanuponhisreturnallteachthatChrist’sreturnwasnotimminent.

Dr.Brownthenquotesanearlierwriter:

"ItisworthyofnotethattheonlyerrorsmentionedintheNewTestamentrespectingthetimeofourLord’scoming, all consist in dating it too early... The case of the servant represented as saying, ‘My Lorddelayethhiscoming.’...TheservanthadtakenupawrongimpressionofthedatewhenhisMasterwastobelookedfor;andashisMasterdidnotshowhimselfaccordingtothatfalsedate,theservant,insteadofdistrustinghisownunderstanding,memory,orcalculation

actedontheassumptionthathisMasterwouldnotcome...andsoactedtohisruin.AndDr.BrowngoesontoshowhowPaulrebukedtheThessaloniansfortheirbeliefinanimminentreturn.Thantheapostleinthe secondepistle explains someevents thatmust takeplacebeforeChrist returns.TheScofieldBibletriestodefendanimminentreturn,thoughtwothousandyearshavenowelapsed,bydefiningimminenceastheabsenceofanyknownorprophesiedeventthatmustoccurbeforethesecondadvent(NoteonMt4:17).ButPaulmadetheprophecy.

Later in the volume ( pp.335358, et passim)Dr. Brown finds in Daniel the gospel's gradualconquestofallnationsasthesmallstonegrewintoagreatmountainandfilledthewholeearth.

In addition to a great amount of similar scriptural argumentation, Dr. Brown is, let us say,vehementagainstthepremillennialists'lukewarmnesstowardforeignmissions.Inparticularhecastigatesthe Messrs. Bonar, quoting A. Bonar who called missionary zeal “a visionary hope” (p. 317), andreferringtoH.Bonar’srebuketotheLondonMissionarySociety(p.319).

Unfortunatelycastigationhasnotbeenconfinedtoonesideofthisdebate.Timeandtimeagainthepremillennialistshaveaccusedtheiropponentsofsubstitutingpoliticalsocialismforthegospel.Thisisacompletelyfalseaccusation.Itistruethatthemodernistslargelydependonandtrustinleftwingpolitics“tobringintheKingdomofGod."Butthisisnotpostmillennialism.

ThemodernistsalongwiththeirrejectionoftheVirginBirthandthevicariousAtonementalsorejectthepersonalreturnofChrist.Butthepostmillennialistsputtheirtrustinthepreachingof

18

thegospel.ThecontrastbetweenthetwomillennialviewshastodowiththequestionwhetherGodhasordained a general conversion of all people under the preaching of the gospel, or "whether God hasreservedhisregeneratingpower,onthisscale,untilChristreturnsandushersinamillennium.

RelianceonthereturnofChristfortheconversionoftheworldDr.Brownconsiders,notmerelypessimistic,butasadenigrationofthegospel.HeholdsthatthegospelisthepowerofGodtosalvation,to the Jew first and also to theGreek. Therefore tomake the return ofChrist the power of salvation,chieflythroughhisconvertingtheJewsbyhisappearance,istocontradictRomans,eveniftheJewsthenpreachthegospel to theGentilesandusher inanageofrighteousness.Notonlydothepremillenariansdenigratethepowerofthegospel,theyalsofaceadifficultyintheroletheyassigntheJews.ForifChristconverts the Jews by his appearing,why should not the same event also convert theGentileswithoutmakinguseofJewishpreachers?Onthissuppositionthegospelremainsentirelyuseless.

Dr.Brownwasnomodernistorliberal;yethelivedinanagethatwasunbelievablyoptimistic.HerbertSpencerhad justpredicted thathismillenniumwas justabout tobreakforth.Nearlyeveryone,evengoodChristians,wereinfluenced.bythisgeneraloptimism.Greatmissionaryendeavorwouldsoonconvert theChinese.But todaytheworkof thegreatChinaInlandMissionis inruins.Since theCongobecameZaire,nearlyallAfricahasturnedviolentlyantichristian.WhenChristreturns,willhefindfaithontheearth?

Although the foregoing summary is quite inadequate to indicate the scope ofDr.Brown’s constructiveargument, exegeting hundreds of verses, a great deal of it is not so much constructive as it is anexploitation of the unavoidable difficulties, as well as some distressing stupidities, into which manypremillenarianshavefallen.Theproliferationofimposingcharts,predictingtheorderoffutureeventsingreatdetail,andwithgreatimagination,couldhardlyavoidtheabsurditiesofcarelessenthusiasm.Manyofthesechartmakershadlittleornotheologicaltraining.Eventhosewhodid,sometimesmadewhatwetodaycanseeareegregious

blunders. In 1927 a well educated, popular preacher in Philadelphia explained that the nationalboundaries in Europe were then precisely those of ancient Rome. No further changes would occur;MussoliniwasrestoringtheRomanEmpire;hewastheantichrist;andtheLordwouldreturnveryshortly.WhataboutHitler?Oh,no;Hitlerisunimportant;MussoliniandRomewilldominateuntilChristreturns.Thatwas1927.

On theotherhandandquite aside from the fundamentalismofpostWorldWar I, theexegeticalproblems are very real and very great. Then after exegesis the piecing together of the Scripturalpropheciesismoredifficultthananyjigsawpuzzle.Thisischaracteristicofpredictiveprophecy.Christsaid,“andnowIhavetoldyoubeforeitcometopass,thatwhenitistocometopass,yemightbelieve”(John14:29).ThisstatementmayrefertothedeathandresurrectionofChrist,toPentecost,oreventothesecondadvent.Inanycasethedisciplescouldnothavedescribed,onthebasisofJohnfourteen,whatwasgoing to happen the next day, fifty days afterward, or two thousand years later. Jesus upbraided hisdisciplesfornotunderstandingtheOldTestament.Butifwearehonestwithourselves,weshouldhardlyclaimtohaveunderstoodthepropheciesbetterthanthey.So,today,thosewhoconstructdetailedchartsofthefuturemusthaveaverygoodopinionofthemselves.

An integral part of the postmillenarian argument is the inability of the humanmind to decipherpredictive prophecy.This includes particularly the premillennialist's preference for a literal fulfilmentratherthanaspiritualone.

OneitemthatDr.Brownlaborsuponforsomelengthis theassertionbymanypremillennialiststhattheJewishtemplewillbeliterallyrebuiltonthespotthatnowsupportstheDomeoftheRock.ThattheIsraelismayyetdriveouttheArabsandbuildatemplewhereAbrahamwasabouttosacrificeIsaaccannotbeadjudgedimpossible.ButthatsucharebuildingisafulfillmentofEzekiel'sprophecyandthatGodandtheMessiahwouldacceptthesacrificesoflambsagainisquiteanothermatter.

For one thing, not all prophecies were intended literally, though a good number ofpremillennialistssoassert.ForproofoneneednotreadbeyondGenesis3:15.ButthereisalsoNumbers24:17,“ThereshallcomeastaroutofJacobandaSceptershallriseoutofIsrael…”

Thismightbeaprophecyofthesecondcomingratherthanthefirst;butJesusisnotaplanetorasun.Norishealiteralcornerstone,asIsaiahsays.

CannotthenthetempleprophecyofEzekielalsobefigurative?AsidefromthefactthatthemaninEzekiel4043wasnotaliteralman,therestofthechaptersoundsveryliteral.However,adoubtariseswhenwereadthatholywatersflowfromunderthesanctuaryintotheDeadSeaandpurifyitsothattheIsraeliteswill have fish to eat.The assignment of territories to the tribes is also suspicious.Ezekiel'sscheme requires parallel strips of land, each extending from the Mediterranean to the Jordan. Thesymmetryisperfect,butthegeographyispuzzling.

(b)Amillennialism.

Theexceptionaldifficultiesthateschatologypresentshaveledsometheologianstoescapethembya complete denial of amillennium. If there is nomillennium, then it is foolish to askwhetherChrist'sreturnprecedesitorfollowsit.TheonlyplacewheretheBibleexplicitlymentionsthethousandyearsisintheextremelypuzzlingandapocalypticbookofRevelation(20:47).Thesevisionsfromchapterfouron,withtheexceptionoftheeventualvictoryofGodoverSatan,arealmostcompletelyunintelligible.

Commentatorscannotagree.Thosewhotakechapterstwoandthreeliterally.i.e.letterstoexistingchurches in Asia minor divide on the remainder. One group dates the book at A.D. 64 and explainschapters 412 as a description of Jewish persecutions ofChristians; then to the end of chapter 18 is apredictionoftheRomanpersecutions.Finallychapters19and20describetheworldwideconquestofthegospel.

Otherswhoalsotakethelettersliterally,butwhodatethebookatA.D.96,explainchaptersfouronasaseriesofvisionsallwiththesamemeaningandallcoveringthesametime.ThemeaningisGod'svictoryoverSatan,andthetimeineverycaseisfromJohn'sdaytothereturnofChrist.

Buttherearesomeunfortunatesoulswho,thoughtheyacknowledgethattheselettersweresenttosevenactualchurchesinAsiaMinor,holdthatthesesevenchurchesprefiguresevenagesinhistoryfromJohn’sdaytothesecondadvent.

To support this view Scofield's note on Rev.1:20 states, " It is incredible that in a prophecycoveringthechurchperiodthereshouldbenosuchforeview."Now,assumingthattheApocalypsemustcover the“churchperiod”,onemayaskwhychapters419cannotbe sucha foreview.Clearly there isnothinginthesevenletterstosuggestthattheypredictthecourseofhistory.NorisScofield’sdivisionofhistoryathisparticularjuncturesrequiredbyanythinginScripture.Norbyanythinginhistoryeither.Trueenough,heselectssomeimportantpoints,suchasEmperorConstantineinA.D.316.gutwhynotspecifythefallofRomeinA.D.410andtheensuingfourhundredyearsoftheDarkAges?WhynotputadivisionaboutA.D. 1274,whenAristotelianism conqueredAugustinianism?But theworst aspect of Scofield'sdivisionishisviewoftheProtestantReformation.Nodoubtits"workswerenotfulfilled",forRomanismliveson;butshallwesaytheReformationhasIta“namethatlivest,andartdead…Ihavenotfoundthyworks perfect beforeGod…Repent…Thou has [only] a few names…which have not defiled theirgarments…”DoesthisdescribetheactivitiesofLuther,Calvin,andKnox?

Then,next,Scofieldplacesthesecondadventtheendofchapterthree.Thetextitselfgivesnohintof this, forwhichreasonScofielddescribes itasa"secret"rapture,quitedifferentfromtheverynoisyandvisibleraptureofIThess.5:1617andRev.1:7.Thenchaptersfourtotwentyaresupposedtodescribeagreattribulationonearth,afterwhichChristcomesthethirdtime.

In view of all these perplexities it is not surprising that some expositors simply denied themillenniumandthoughttherebytoescapethedifficulties.

If the outright denial of a millennium is not attractive, for Rev.20:47 must mean something,amillennialismcanbeequatedwithoneformofpostmillennialism.OfcourseDavidBrownexpectedamillenniumofrighteousnessinthefuture.ButSt.Augustine,comparingtherestrictedknowledgeofGodduringOTtimeswiththeworldwidepreachingofthegospelsincetheapostles,taughtthatthemillenniumextends fromChrist’s resurrection to his return.MostChristians, however, at the end of this twentiethcentury, have amore pleasant picture of themillennium and are less enthusiastic about contemporarycivilization.

Amillennialism can more easily accommodate contemporary savagery. Though someamillennialistsexpectgreatrevivals,oratleastvigorouslyassertthatnoonecandenytheir

possibility, the system does not need any further extension of the gospel, If the Russian communistsregularlyemploytorture,ifMaohasmassacredtwentyorthirtymillionChinese(andsoalleviatedhungerinChina),nottomentionhisexterminationoftheTibetans,andifsavageshavebroughtbackcannibalismtotheCongoandterrortoallsouthernAfrica,theamillennialistcanaccommodateitallundertheparableofthetaresandthewheat.Hemaynotbesoadamantasthepremillennialistinassertingtheinevitabilityofthingsgettingworseandworse,buthecanstillask,withthepremillennialist,willChristfindfaithontheearthwhenhereturns?

Nevertheless, arguments against a future millennium are not too convincing.When carried outconsistently they become improbable. Sometimes extremely so. Two examples are those of WilliamMilligan,TheBookofRevelation,andB.B.Warfield,TheMillenniumandtheApocalypse,inhisBiblicalDoctrines.

Milligan’s exposition ofRev. 20 begins plausibly enough. “the overthrowof Satan and not thereign of a thousand years is the main theme of the first ten verses" (p. 336). "The thousand yearsmentioned express no period of time." This seems strange. But "They are not a figure for the wholeChristian era [aswithAugustine] ...Nor do they denote a certain space of time ... at the close of thepresentdispensation....Theyembodyanidea;andthatidea,whetherappliedtothesubjugationofSatanortothetriumphofthesaints,istheideaofcompletenessorperfection"(p.337).Toshowthatthetermsyearandmonthdonotalwaysdenoteperiodsoftime,MilliganreferstoEzek.39:9,12.Heacknowledgesthata"difficultyconnectedwith thisviewis that in the thirdverseof thechapterSatan issaid tohavebeen shut into theabyssuntil the thousandyears shouldbe finished, and in the seventhversewe read,'Andwhenthethousandyearsarefinished,Satanshallbeloosed'"(p.)39).Milliganimmediatelyadds,"but thedifficulty ismore specious than real."What ismore specious than real,however, seems tobeMilligan's defense of his claim by a further reference to Ezekiel. More of this in a moment, after aconsiderationofB.B.Warfield'sargument.

One of the most capable defenders of Amillennialism was B.B. Warfield, who published anarticle The Millennium and the Apocalypsein the Princeton Theological Review (Vol 2, 1904 nwincluded inBiblicalDoctrines,OxfordUniv.Press. 1929pp.643 ff.).His thesis is not simply that thescripturesaresilentastoamillennium,butthatthey“definitelyexcludethewholeconception”(p.644).Tosustain thispositionWarfieldassumes thateachof thesevensectionsofRevelationbeginswith thefirstadventandpictureshistoryontothesecondadvent.Hecallsthis

1 theprincipleof recapitulation."This is, of course, an assumption. It is the assumptionof someveryestimabletheologians,fromAugustinetoHengstenberg.Butotherswouldsaythatanyassumptionbegsthequestion.

Warfieldalsostressesthefactofsymbolism.Johnsawvisions,nothistory.Manyofthedetailsofthesevisionsbelongtothevisionsonly.Theirpurposeistomakethepicturevividnomore;andhencetheydonotindicateeventsadditionaltothemainonethatthetotalpicturesymbolizes.

Less acceptable isWarfield's next assumption: “Here as in all prophecy: it is the spiritual andethicalimpressionthatrulesthepresentationandnotanannalisticorchronologicalintent”(p.646).

Well,ofcourse,someethicalormoralinstructioncanbefoundinthesevisions;butin

contrastwiththeparableoftheunjuststeward(Mt.18:23)orthefamousSamaritanneighbor

ortheparableofthesower,wheretheethicalelementispredominant,andwherethehistoricalif

presentatallissubordinate,incontrastwiththesethematerialinRevelationisstrongly

chronological.Nodoubtexegetesdiffer;buttheinterpretationthatfindsfirstaJewish

persecutionandthenaRomanpersecutionisnotsoabsurdastobedisposedofbyamere

assumptionthatthematerialisethicalandnothistorical.

Thereisonepointthatshouldbenotedbeforediscussingchaptertwenty.DavidBrownmentionedit,andWarfieldmentions it twice.Thereference is to theconqueringswordofChrist,whichproceedsfromhismouth.WarfieldbelaborsthefactthatChrist'svictoryisnotachieved

through literalwarfarebulletsandatombombs.Heholds that thesword inChrist'smouthsignifies theworldwide preaching of the gospel. But this latter view cannot be deduced simply from a denial ofmilitarymight.TheswordinChrist’smouthcouldbeapersonaldeclarationofChristhimselftotheJewsthatheisMessiah.or,moreinaccordwiththecontext,ajudgmentofdoom.

WhatisreallytroublesomewithWarfield'sviewisthatthepersononthewhitehorse,thepersoncalledFaithfulandTrue,whoseeyeswereasfire,withmanycrownsonhishead,whohadanamenomanknewbuthimself,istakenasasymbolofathousandmissionaries,noneofwhom,noralltogether,meritthisgloriousdescription.IsitnotclearthatthevisionsymbolizesChristhimself?Athisfirstadventhespokeinpersonandmiraclesoccurred.Whynotagain?

Nowcomesthemainquestion:DoesRev.20teachthatthereisafuturemillenniumordoesitnot?

Warfield'sfirstargument(p.649)againstamillenniumdependsonthewordsoulsinRev.

20:4.Themillenniumsupposedlytakesplaceonearthandthosewhoenjoyitarepeopleintheflesh.ButRev.20:4isinheaven,andthesoulshavenobodies.

HereWarfieldhasforgottenwhathesovigorouslyurgedagainstthepremillennialists,thatthesearevisionsorpicturessymbolizingrealitiesonearth.IfWarfieldwishestotakesoulsliterally,asdistinctfrombodies,heshouldexplainhowsoulscansitonthrones.Canheholdthatthronesandsatarefigurative,whilesoulsintheverynextphraseisliteral?Thentoo,ifwemustbeliteral,thesoulswerethesoulsofthemwho had been beheaded.Hence saintswho had died a natural death are excluded.YetWarfieldwantsthethousandyearstobeadescriptionoftheintermediatestateofallbelievers.

Andforgoodmeasure,whenJohnsaid,"Isawthesoulsofthem"whohadbeenbeheaded,”andfourlineslatersays,“theylivedandreignedwithChrist,"mustthe theywhichismerelythethirdpluralformoftheverbmustthetheymeansouls?Coulditnotpossiblybethosewhohadbeenbeheaded”?ThismaynotseemsoconvincingasthepreviousobjectionstoWarfield;neverthelessthefollowingwordsare,"therestofthedead..."Henceinbothcasesthe

subjectoftheverbcouldbesimply“thosewhohadlived"withoutanynecessaryinferencethatJohnistalkingaboutsoulsinsharpdistinctionfrombodies.

The idea that the thousand years is the intermediate state of redeemed souIs in heaven leadsWarfieldtostrangeconclusions.Thestudentmayconsultthefulltext,butthisabbreviationcannotmuchmisrepresent it. “Thepicture is ... thepictureof the intermediate stateof thesaintsofGodgathered inheavenaway from theconfusednoiseandgarmentsbathed inblood ...The thousandyears, thus, is thewholeofthepresentdispensation...Thisperiodbetweentheadventsis,onearth,abrokentimethreeandahalfyears,a“littletime”(Ver.3)...Tothesaintsinblissitis,onthecontrary,alongandblessedperiod...“athousandyears"...The“bindingofSatan”isthereforeinrealitynotforaseason,butwithreferenceto a sphere; andhis “loosing” again is not after a periodbut in another sphere. ...There is indeednoliteral“bindingofSatan”…whathappens,happensnottoSatanbuttothesaints,andisonlyrepresentedashappeningtoSatanforthepurposeofthesymbolicalpicture”(pp.649651).

Surely such an attempt at exegesis is a device of desperation. Augustine' s view that currentearthlyhistoryisthemillenniummaysoundstrangetothosewhoexpectedpeaceandblessednessonearthinsteadofWorldWars,communism,andterror;but it isnotutterlyabsurd.Thegospelhasindeedbeenpreached to all kindreds, tribes, and nations. This is history, chronology, on earth. Warfield well,chronologycanprofitbyanothermention.

Warfieldhadruledout“chronologicalintent,”notonlyfromchapter20,butfromRevelationasawhole.Letuslookatthechronologyofchapter20.

FirstthereisthebindingofSatanforathousandyears.Itisjustnitpickingtodebatewhetherthethousandyearsareprecisely365x24x60x1000minutes.Thisprecisenumberofminutesoryearsmayindeed be symbolical; but itmust be symbolical of a long period of time.During this time Satan candeceivethenationsnomore.ThetextdoesnotsaythatSatancannotdeceivethesoulsinheavenanymore.Nodoubthecannot.ButthetextsayshecannotdeceivetheRussians,Chinese,andAmericansanymore,untilthethousandyearsiscompleted.Hereis

another point of chronology: Satan deceived the nations for centuries; then for a long time hewill beunabletodoso;thenhewillagaindeceivethenationsforalittleseason.

Ifthisdoesnotrefertohistoryandchronologyonearth,WarfieldwouldhavetosaythatalthoughthedisembodiedsoulsofthesaintsarenowfreefromSatan'spower,theywillagainbedeceivedforalittlewhilebeforetheyarereunitedwiththeirbodies.

Anotherchronologicalnotecomesinversefive:therestofthedeaddonotlive[again]untilSatanisreleasedfromhisbonds.Theverseisdifficult.Whotherestofthedeadareisnotexplained.Anditdoesnotseempropertoattachtothemtheimmediatelyfollowingphrase,"Thisisthefirstresurrection,”Nevertheless,itisperfectlyclearthatchronologyisinvolved.WemustconcludethatWarfieldisgreatlymistakeninrulingoutalltemporalsequencefromthispassage.

Read carefully what Warfield says. The quotation is abbreviated, but the sense is clear; andanyonecaneasilyfindtheoriginalandstudyisslowly.

"Anyhesitancy...toadoptthis[amillennial]viewappearstoarisechieflyfromthedifficultywenaturallyexperience inreading thisapparentlyhistoricalnarrativeasadescriptivepictureofastate intranslating,sotospeak,thedynamiclanguageofnarrativeintothestaticlanguageofdescription.Doesnottheveryterm"thousandyears"suggestalapseoftime?...

Naturalas thisfeelingis,wearepersuadedit isgroundedonlyonacertainnotunnatural incapacity toenterfullyintotheseer'smethodandtogiveourselvesentirelytohisguidance....

Thenumber1000representsinBiblesymbolismabsoluteperfection…Whentheseersayssevenorfouror threeor ten,he ... expressesbyeacha specific [nonnumerical]notion.The sacrednumber seven incombinationwiththeequallysacrednumberthreeformsthenumberofholyperfectionten[ofcourse,nottwentyone]andwhenthisteniscubedintoathousandtheseerhassaidallhecouldsaytoconveytoourmindstheideaofcompleteness."ThusWarfieldtriestoridRevelationofitschronology.Howheknowsthattheseerbyusingthenumber1000

hassaidallhecouldsayaboutthecompleteblissofthesaints,remainsunexplained.ItwouldseemthatnearlyanyordinaryChristiancouldsayconsiderablymore.

20. Premillennialism

The present volume advocates premillennialism, though in amanner thatmany premillenarianswillnotlike.Foritistobefearedthatpremillenariansaretheirownworstenemies.Why,maybecomesomewhatclearastheendapproaches.Atanyrate,theargumentofthepresentvolumeisnotsomuchthattheBibleteachesitunmistakably,asthatpostmilennialismandamillennialismcaninnowaybefittedintotheBiblicaldata,andhenceonlypremillenarianismisleft.

Since the dispensationalists have been so vociferous and so dogmatically detailed with theirchartsonlyanarchitectcoulddraw,theexegesisofafewmorepassagesisneededtopointuphowmuchwedonotknowaboutthesubject.

True,dispensationalistsarenottheonlyonesstronglyattachedtotheirformulations.GeerhardusVoswroteThePaulineEschatology,atremendouslyscholarlyworkandatremendouslydifficultone.Inithe tries to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that I Cor. 15 definitely makes premillennialismimpossible. After one had studies his argument for hours and analyzed it for more hours, one shouldconcludethatVosfailedtoprovehispoint.Atthesametimealsoitseemsthatpremillennialistswhowanttofindtheirviewineradicablyembeddedinthatchapterareequallyunsuccessful.

TherewasashortdiscussionofRev.20afewparagraphsback.Inordernownottobeonesidedlycriticalofsomepremillenarians,anamillennialobjectioncanbedisposedof.SomeofthemarguethatinRev.20:4 the thronesare inheaven, that thesoulsof themartyrsare inviewandnot theirbodies;andthereforeJohnisnotpredictingamillenniumonearth.Therearetwoanswerstothis.First,chapters420areallvisionsinheaven,butclearlythevisionsare

symbolicofwhathappenson earth.Of thebeastwith sevenheads (Rev.17:9), John said, "The sevenheads are sevenmountains onwhich thewoman sitteth ... and thewoman… is that great city whichreignethoverthekingsoftheearth"(17:18).WhatisseeninheavensymbolizesRome.ItmaybeimperialRome,asmanyearlyChristiansthought;oritmaybethePapacyastheReformersthought;butitmustbesomethingonearth.Second,thereferencetosoulsreads,"thesoulsofthemthatwerebeheaded…”Thenitsays,"Theylivedandreigned."Thepronountheycanrefertosoulsthoughevensothesoulssymbolizesomethingor it can aswell refer to "them thatwerebeheaded."There isno intent to contrast souls inheavenwithbodiesonearth.

Butthepremillennialists,especiallythedispensationalists,faceembarrassmentstoo.Thepassagenowunderconsideration, inverse5says,“This is the first resurrection."Are there two resurrections?Well,inhisGospelJohn(5:29)assertsaresurrectionoflifeandaresurrectionofdamnation.ButinRev.20:5,6thecontrastisnotbetweenafirstandasecondresurrection,butbetweenafirstresurrectionandthe second death.What is envisaged is one resurrection and twodeaths. Further, theremay be a thirdresurrectionbesidesthetwoinJohn5:29.Tograspthewholepicture,or,better,torecognizesomemoreelementsoftheintricatepuzzle,onemustnotethatnotonlyinthesymbolicbookofRevelation,butintheprosaicepistles, thewordresurrectionand itsequivalentsdonotalways,donotusually,meanabodilyresurrection from the grave. Ephesians 2:16 identify resurrection and regeneration. Indeed, the NewTestamentdesignatestheinitialactoftheHolySpirit insavingasinnerasaresurrection,andusesthistermmorefrequentlythantermsexpressinganewbirth.

Warfield,however,doesnotinterprettheresurrectionofRev.20:5asthenewbirth.HeidentifiesboththebindingofSatanandthisfirstresurrectionwiththeintermediatestateofthesaints.

Though Warfield's interpretation is bizarre, it cannot be denied that the verses pose difficultproblems.Oneistheidentificationof"therestofthedead[who]didnotlive[againshouldbeomitted]untilthethousandyearswerefinished."Asecond,closelyrelatedtoit,isthe

meaning,ofthewordlive.Couldtherestofthedeadbetheunregenerate?Thereisnohintofthisintheverse.Similarly,iftheydidnotliveuntilthethousandyearswerefinished,onewouldsupposethattheydidliveafterward.Since,now,theword liveinversefourcanhardlyberestrictedtomerephysicallifesuchas the lostmayhave,but includesareigningwithChristnor isanyresurrectionyetmentionedtheideaof spiritual lifecannotbe immediately ruledout inverse five. Italmost seemsrequired.MustwethenconcludethatversefourrefersonlytoChristianswhoweremartyrs,whilethosewhowereindeedChristiansbutnotmartyrshavetowaitathousandyearsforsomethingsimilartoversefour?

Nextcomesthepuzzlingphrase,“Thisisthefirstresurrection."Ithasalreadybeennotedthattheterm resurrection oftenmeans regeneration. John himself in hisGospel (5:25) uses the idea if not theword resurrection todescribe spiritual life.Andofcourse there isEzekiel'svalleyofdrybones.ThisinterpretationofRev.20:5hasatleastonethinginitsfavor:itremovesalltheawkwardnessofattachingthe lastphraseof theverse to thepeople inverse four,withanothergroupbetweenwhodonotbelongthere.The restof thedeadalsohadbeen raised fromwith the result that they toowouldnot suffer theseconddeath.

Anotherindefensibleaberrationofthedispensationalistsistheirinsertion,betweenRev.3:22andRev.4:1,ofarapturesosecretthatthereisnoreferencetoitinthewholeBible.Incompetentnovelistshavedescribedthebewildermentofthenonchristianpopulationwhentheydiscoverthatafairnumberofpeople have vanished. The novelists try to achieve a dramatic effect by having engineers on trainssuddenlycaughtupintheairwithChristwhilethetrainploughsontodestruction.Theideacouldbeusedintheageofairtravelasitwasinanearlieryear,butperhapsdispensationalismhasrecededsomewhatsincethedemiseoftheBroadwayLimited.

However, the appeal must be to Scripture. In support of a "secret rapture" J Rene Pache (LeRetourdeJesusChrist,pp.120,121)arguesthatnoonesawEnochashewastakenaway.NordidanyoneseeElijahascendinthefiery,fierychariots(exceptElisha).Onlythedisciples

saw Jesus ascend.Further only theWiseMen, not the general public, saw the star ofBethlehem.AndPaul'scompanionsontheroadtoDamascus,thoughtheysawthelight,didnothearChrist'swordstoPaul.Then continuesM. Pache, "Similarly it could. be that the voice of the archangel and the sound of thetrumpet...willbeheardonlybybelievers.ltOfcourse,M.Pachecannotshowanynecessitythattheseseveralincidentsprefigurethesecondadvent.Itisallunfoundedsupposition.Whatismoredisconcerting,hedoesnotexplainasheshouldhaveifhewishedtoanticipateobjections

Rev.1:7 Behold,he comethwith clouds andevery eye shall seehim, and theyalsowhichpiercedhim.

Although I Thess. 4:7 does not say in so many words that the unregenerate will see Christdescending with clouds, angels, and saints, the text surely describes a noisy spectacular affair.Moreexplicitis

Mt.24:27ff.Asthelightningcomethoutoftheeastandshinethuntothewest...thesunshallbedarkenedandthemoonshallnotgiveher light ... thenshallall the tribesof theearthmourn,andtheyshallseetheSonofMancominginthecloudsofheavenwithpowerandgreatglory.

Now,someonemaysaytherearetwofutureadvents,onesecret,onepublicandMatt.24:27referstothesecond,whileIThess.4,whosesaintsarenotseenandwhosetrumpetisnotheard,referstothefirst.But this device begs the question. If exegesis shows that there are two future advents, onemightpossiblybesecret.ButtherewouldbenoScripturalreasontosupposeso,unlessexegesissupportedtheideaofsecrecy.Unsupportedsuppositionsbegthequestion.

Thereareindeedgoodexegeticalindicationsofmorethatoneadvent;buttheydonotestablishthedispensationalview,forthepassagesassertmorethantwoadvents,comings,

parousia.

Mt.10:23YeshallnothavegoneoverthecitiesofIsraeltilltheSonofManbecome.

Mt.16:28 Therebesomestandinghere,whichshallnottasteofdeath,tilltheyseetheSonofMancominginhiskingdom.

Bothoftheseversesspeakofacomingwithinthefirstcentury.Oneinterpretationofthesecondverseidentifies thecominginglorywiththeTransfigurationthat immediatelyfollows.Somesupportofthis view comes from IPeter 1:16,wherePeter himself calls theTransfiguration theparousia.Thus thetechnicalterm,whichmostpeoplereserveforaneventstillfuture,isassignedtoaneventthattookplacebeforeChristwascrucified.

However,whiletheTransfigurationisaparousia,onPeter'sauthority,arelativesecretparousia,seenonlybythreedisciples,itcanhardlybethecorrectinterpretationofMatt.16:28.ThereasonisthatintheversethatprecedesitJesushadconnectedthiscomingwithajudgmentuponallmen.ObviouslythisdoesnotfittheTransfiguration.Thereforeitseemsbesttotakeboth10:23and16:28asreferencestoanevent thatwas far from secret, invisible, or ∙inaudible, viz., the destruction of Jerusalem.Both versespredictsomethingthatwastohappeninthefirstcentury.OccasionallysomeonetriestounderstandsuchpropheciesasreferringtoPentecost.Butthoughthisoccurredinthefirstcentury,theHolyGhostisnottheSonofMan,andPentecostisnotajudgmentorcondemnationofmenbecauseoftheirevilworks.

There is anothermatter thatoughtnot tobepassedover in silence.Standarddispensationalismpredictsatimecalled"TheGreatTribulation."

Rev.1:13,14Whatarethesethatarearrayedinwhiterobes?...Thesearetheywhichcameoutofgreattribulation[KJomitsthedoublearticle:thetribulation

the

32

great]andhavewashedtheirrobes...

The dispensational construction is that Christ returned secretly between 3:22 and 4:1. It is sosecretthatthetextdoesnotmentionit.AtthisreturnChristrapturedalltruebelievers,takingthemupintothecloudswithhimself.Thenforaperiodofsevenyearsthegreattribulationfallsontheunbelieversleftonearth.Somehoworother,duringthisperiodanumberofpeopleareconverted,towhomalone7:1314refer.

In recent years some dispensationalists have had doubts about the pretribulation rapture. Twoviews have emerged. One allows the church to go halfway through the tribulation to amidtribulationrapture.Theotheristhatofaposttribulationrapture.

Now,therearetwomainobjectionstoboththeseviews.First,Matt.24:21andLuke

21:1624describethefallofJerusaleminA.D.70.Theseversesdonotrefertothesecond

advent,asMatt.24:24makesclear.FurtherMatthewsays

Mt.24:21 Thenshallbegreat tribulation,suchaswasnotsince thebeginningof theworldtothistime,no,norevershallbe.

NotevenHitler'streatmentoftheJewswasworsethanthatoftheRomanarmies.Andifnofuturetribulationcanbesoterrible,nothingcannowoccurtodeservethenameofTheGreatTribulation.

What then can Rev. 7:13,14 mean? The answer, which is the second objection to thedispensationalscheme,isnotonethatappealstoChristiansintheUnitedStatesofAmerica,forwe,byGod’s grace, have lived a calm, protected, and quiet life. But beginning with the persecutions in theRomanEmpire,Christiansinothernationshavenotbeensoblest.Evenwefaceatleast…Bunyan'sHolyWar.Thegreattribulationthereforeissimplythepresentlife.

Matt.13:21…whentribulationorpersecutionariseth…

John16:33Intheworldyeshallhavetribulation.

Acts14:22WemustthroughmuchtribulationenterintothekingdomofGod.

IThess.3:4Wetoldyoubeforethatweshouldsuffertribulation.

Then,finally, if this isa thirdpoint inoppositiontodispensationalism, thepeoplementionedinRev.7:13,14donotseemtoberestrictedtoasmallnumberwhoweresomehowconvertedduringasevenyearperiod.Tobeginwith,thereasasymbolic144,000Jews.Inadditiontothesetherewasanothergreatmultitudewhichnomancouldnumber,ofallthenationsandkindred,andpeople,andtongues.Thesearetheythatcameoutofthetribulationthegreatandhavewashedtheirrobes...inthebloodofthelamb.

Letthismuchbesufficientforthegreattribulation.

Since the return of Christ is a very important event and is also a very interesting subject, thestudentwillnodoubtreadaboutitinmanyarticlesandbooks.Asmallvolumeofsystematictheologyisnot supposed to be interminably exegetical. Therefore this subsectionwill concludewith a very briefdefenseofpremillennialism.

First,Rev.20mentionsamillennium.Theversemustmeansomething.Itclearlymeansaperiodoftime.Vision though the chaptermay be, it refers to events on earth.Thismuch refutes amillennialism.Furthermore, if Rev. 19 depicts the return ofChrist, premillennialism is the only possible view. TwoconsiderationssupportthecontentionthatthechapterindeedpredictsChrist'sreturn.First,thedescriptionof the rider on the white horse fits Christ and no one else, as previously argued. Second, in an'apocalypticbooksuchasRevelation,whetherthesuccessive

visionsareeachasummaryofallhistoryorwhether theyareconsecutive,oneexpects to findChrist'sreturnsomewhere.Othereventsanddetailswemightbeinterestedincanwellhavebeenomitted,suchasthe Protestant Reformation, but not the I return of Christ. It is irresponsible to find it, unmentioned,between chapters three and four. Chapter nineteen is the only possibility. This disposes ofpostmillennialism.

Thennext,manypostmillennialandamillennialobjectionsarebasedontheideathatthesecondcomingisaninstantaneousevent;forexample, there isanhourofnotmorethansixtyminuteswhenallwhoareintheirgravesshallcomeforthtoaresurrectionincludingbothsavedandlost.Henceathousandyears cannot intervene. Other events which premillennialists separate in time must likewise besimultaneous. But the parousia is not an instantaneous coming. It is a presence. In classical GreekSophoclesandAristotlebothusethewordtodenoteabeingpresent,especiallyaroyalvisit.IntheNewTestament parousia very definitelymeans a presence; (cf. ICor. 16:17, IICor. 10:10, Phil. 2:12, andparticularlyIIPeter1:16).Sincearoyalvisit,atourofinspectioninoneoftheking'sprovinces,canlastseveralmonths,whycannotthevisitoftheKingofkingslastathousandyears?Thereforethemeaningofthetermparousiadisposesofseveralobjectionstopremillennialism.

A final point in this discussion is not somuch an argument for or defense of the premillennialreturnofChrist,asitisabitofadvicetoallthreegroupsofproponents.ItwassaidearlierthattheJews,notmerely thePharisees,butall theJews fromAdam(orAbraham)on failed tounderstand thedivinepredictions. Though Christ rebuked the Pharisees, we cannot see the future, even with our additionalinformation,muchbetter thantheJewsdid.Yes,wehaveadditional informationintheNewTestament.WithoutdoubttheNewTestamentimpliesmorethanwecansee.Thatisjustthepoint.Wedonotseetooclearly.ImplicationsdefinitelycontainedintheBibleescapeourdeductiveactivity.Butalsoit isclearthatnotallfuturehistoryhasbeenrevealed.Nooneshouldtrytopreventsomeoneelsefromdeducingasmanyimplicationsaspossible.RatherweshouldthankGodthathehasgivensomemensuperior

minds.Butintheactualsituation,andonthissubjectascontrastedwiththedoctrineoftheAtonementforexample,thewisecourseisthatofcautioushumility.

3JudgmentandHell

0. Judgment

The first point, obviously, under this heading, is the fact that God, themoral Governor of theuniverse, will pronounce judgment upon all people. More explicitly the judge will be Jesus Christhimself.

John5:22,27FortheFatherjudgethnoman,buthathcommittedalljudgmenttotheSon.

Acts17:31Becauseheahathappointedaday,inthewhichhewilljudgetheworldinrighteousnessbythatmanwhomhehathordained.

Rom.2;6,16Whowillrendertoeverymanaccordingtohisdeeds....Inthedaywhen

GodshalljudgethesecretsofmenbyJesusChrist...

Rev.20:1215AndIsawthedead,smallandgreat,standbeforeGod...andthedeadwerejudged…according to theirworks. ... Theywere judged everyman according to theirworks…Andwhosoeverwasnotfoundwritteninthebookoflifewascastintothelakeoffire.

As a preliminary observation one notes that premillenarians generally assert two temporallyseparated judgments: Christ judges the saints at his coming, and God judges the reprobate after themillennium. Without prolonged exegesis it may be further noted that there is no good reason for ajudgmentatthebeginningofthemillennium.Thesaintsattheirdeathare

madeperfectinholinessanddoimmediatelypassintoglory.Ifthereforenoformaljudgmentisnecessaryfor a saint at death in order to be received into heaven, none is necessary in order to be raised andparticipate in the millennium. So also the wicked at their death begin their punishment, though theirjudgmentmaybedelayedseveralthousandyears.

Perhapssome,forthepurposeofhavingajudgmentbeforethemillennium,willquote

4 Tim. 4:1 ... the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge thequick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom. (cf.Mt.25:3132).

The difficulty with this interpretation is first, that the phrase "the quick and the dead" rathersuggestsajudgmentofallpeople,andnotsaintsonly.Then,second,ifthetermparousiadoesnotmeanamomentary instantaneous event, but a lengthy visit; epiphameia (appearing) can also refer to a lengthyappearance.Similarly,andevenmoreclearly, the term kingdom isnotsynonymouswith themillennium,andsurelycannotberestrictedtothelatter'sinitialmoment.

Iftherewereajudgmentdayforsaintsonlyatthebeginningofthemillenniumandanotherforthewickedattheenditwouldbedifficulttoexegete

Matt.25:3233WhentheSonofManshallcomeinhisglory.andallhisholyangelswithhim...heshallatsetthesheeponthehisrighthand,butthegoatsontheleft.

Thusthejudgmentisdepictedasseparatingthesheepfromthegoats;andifso,bothmustappearbeforethejudgmentbartogether.Variousversesspeakoforindicateallhumanbeings,notjusthalfthepopulation:

Heb.9:27Asitisappointed.unto[all]menoncetodie,butafterthisthejudgment.

Heb.12:23God,thejudgeofall.

IPeter4:5...thequickandthedead.

Jude1415Behold,theLordcamewithhisholytenthousandstoexecutejudgment

onall,...

Considertheseverses.Thefirstquotedsuggeststhatthejudgmentisforallthedead.True,mendonot die all at the same time; but if thiswere pressed to support judgments at different times, itwouldimplyaseparatedayforeachman(orforallmenwhodiedononesingleday),nottwofortwoclasses,the days being separated by a thousand years. The second verse speaks of all. This does not of itselfprecludeseveraldaysofjudgment,tntneitherdoesitfavorsuchadivision.Peterspeaksgenerallyofallthe dead. Jude strengthens this inference. The Lord is descending with his holy myriads, presumablyangels,possiblysaintsalso;atthisdescentheexecutesjudgmentonall.Tobesure,theemphasisfallsontheunrighteous;tntthe"all"includesthesaintstoo.Versesixincludesthewickedangelsaswell.

Thatthesaintsalsomuststandinjudgmentisclearfrom

ICor.4:4,5HethatjudgestmeistheLord…whowillbringtolightthehiddenthings

of

darknessandwillmakemanifestthecounselsofthehearts;andthenshalleverymanhavepraiseofGod.

Here Paul may first have in mind the adverse judgments of some Corinthians against him incontrast with the Lord's contemporary approval. But beyond the troubled situation in the Corinthianchurch,thereisafuturepublicjudgmentindicated.Atthattimewhatishiddennowwillbemademanifesttoall.Itmayseemstrangethat"everymanshallhavepraisefromGod,"

when there was so much evil in Corinth. This seeming universalism is, however, ruled out by twoconsiderations.Thefirstconcernsthetranslation.Onecanreadthephraseas"thenthepraiseduetoeachoneshallcomefromGod."Stressingthearticle"thepraisedue"allowssometoreceiveazeroamount.More on the surface is the idea that the faithful servants of the Lord who are misjudged by theircontemporarieswillattheendreceiveGod'sapprobation.Thussaintsaswellasreprobatesarejudged.

If now it be admitted that there is one future it great day of judgment, the next andmuchmoreimportant topic is the nature of such a judgment.This ties in toowith the nature ofGod, discussed inpreviouschapters.

WhenGodfirstrevealedhimselftoAdam,hedidnotparticularlyspeakofhismercy.Nodoubtheexhibited his love by placing Adam in a beautiful garden and by giving him a lovely wife. But theemphasis isontheblessingsofobedienceandthepenaltyfordisobedience."Inthedaythat thoueatestthereof, thou shalt surely die."Man sinned, the punishment fell, andmercywas then revealed.But themercywasnotanignoringofthepenalty;itconsistedinprovidingasubstitutetobearthepenalty.Abelmade use of the substitute; and Moses instituted a complicated sacrificial system. The details aresomewhatmultitudinous;butnothingobscurestheneedofsheddingblood.

ChristianScienceandthoseofthegeneralpopulacewhobelieveinafuturelifeemphasizeaGodoflove.Inthistheymaketwomistakesatonce.TheymisunderstandloveandtheydenythatGodisjust.Punishment is not punishment, in their view; it it is rehabilitation. Civil society inAmerica generallyaccepts this theory of penology. The murderer is not sinful; he is sick and must be cured. Capitalpunishmentisimmoralbecauseitpreventsrehabilitation.ButthisisnottheChristianviewofman,crimeandpunishment,norofGod.ChristdiedtosatisfythejusticeofhisFather.NodoubtthecrossisalsoanexpressionofGod'sloveforhiselect.ButthissortofloveisentirelydifferentfromtheChristianSciencekind.

IJohn3:16Inthishaveweknownlove,namely,thatthisonelaiddownhissoulforus.

IJohn4:9,10InthiswasmanifestedtheloveofGodtowardus,thatGodsenthisonlySon...tobethethepropitiationforoursins.

The Bible teaches throughout that sin deserves punishment. Otherwise there was no need ofChrist's propitiatory sacrifice. One of the strongest assertions of God's justice and the necessity forpunishmentis

Rom.2:511ButafterthyhardnessandimpenitenthearttreasurestupuntothyselfwrathagainstthedayofwrathandrevelationoftherighteousjudgmentofGod,whowillrendertoeverymanaccordingtohis deeds: to themwhobypatient continuance inwelldoing seek for glory andhonor and immortality,eternal life; but unto them that are contentious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness,indignationandwrath,tribulationandanguishuponeverysoulofmanthatdoethevil,oftheJewfirst,andalsooftheGentile;butglory,honorandpeacetoeverymanthatworkethgood,totheJewfirst,andalsototheGentile;forthereisnorespectofpersonswithGod.

Itishardtorestateinotherwords,certainlyinanyclearerwords,theprinciplesofthissection.Itsaysthattherewillbeadayofwrathandrighteousjudgment.Thepopulargodoflovehasneitherwrathnorindignation,norrighteousness,either.TheGodoftheBibleisrighteousbecauseherenderstoeverymanaccordingtohisdeeds.Tothosewhocontinuepatientinwelldoingandwhoseekglory,immortality,andhonor,Godwillgiveeternallife.Thatis,ifthereareanysuchpersons.ButonthedisobedientandallhavesinnedGodwillimposeindignation,wrath,andtribulation.Thisisdivinejustice,impartialbecauseit applies to the Jewaswell as to theGentile. "For there isno 'pull'withGod."Note then thatGod'srewardsandpunishmentsdonotaimatthereformationofthesinner.Onasmallerscalethefloodandthe

doomofSodomdidnothavethataim.Norcaneternalpunishmenthavethataim.ThepointisthatGodisaGodofjustice.

In thisdiscussionof the final judgment it hasbeen impossible to avoid saying something aboutsubsequentpunishment.Butbeforegoingon,wemaysummarizethemainteachingsonthejudgmentitself.AdmittedlymuchoftheScripturalteachinghasbeenomitted,particularlyJesus'parables.However,someofthismustbeincludedinthenextsubsection.

Asforthejudgment:thereisindeedsuchafutureevent.ChristwillbetheJudgeandpronouncetheverdict.Thisjudgmenttakesplaceat,orinsignificantlylaterthan,theresurrection.Thosejudgedareallhumanbeingsandwickedangels.Isthereaversethatincludestherighteousangelsalso?Thesubjectmatterof the judgmentwillbe theactions (externalactionsand internal thoughts)of those judged.Andapartfromasubstitutetopaythepenalty,allwillbedeclaredguilty.

10. Hell

TheWestminsterShortercatechismasks,"Whatdotheverysindeserve?"Theansweris,"EverysindeservethGod'swrathandcurseboth in this lifeandthatwhichis tocome."Eternalpunishment inhellisanuninspiringtopic.Evenanevangelical,J.OliverBuswell,Jr.,inhisSystematicTheology(Vol.II,~.302),canrestricthimselftoonethirdofapageinathousandpagework.Hissectiononeschatologycovers 243 pages, but there are less than twenty lines on hell. This hardly does justice to the NewTestamentemphasis.Tominimizethedoctrinebecauseof itsunpleasantness issomewhatnatural, for ifthe doctrine had not been divinely revealed, it is unlikely that any mademade religion would haveinvented it. True, the Homeric religion seems to have punished Tantalus and Sisyphus with unendingtorment;butwiththeotherexceptionofafewheroeswhobecamedemigods,allmenmeetadismalfuture.Dismal, but not punishment for sin. So too inBuddhism:Nirvana is tantamount to personal extinction;what punishment there is in Buddhism is temporary. Other religions uninfluenced by Judaism orChristianityhold

ambiguous, illdefinedviews.Religiousliberals,withtheirdoctrineof theuniversalfatherhoodofGod,hopetositdownwithHolyHitlerandSaintStalinintheheavenlykingdom.Thesecularistsdenyafuturelifealtogether.ButtheBiblesays,

Matthew:Fearnotthemwhichkillthebodybutarenotnotabletokillthesoul;but

ratherfearhimwhichisabletodestroybothsoulandbodyinhell(10:28).

Hisangelsshallcastthemintoafurnaceoffire:thereshallbewailingand

gnashing of teeth (13:42, 50).Depart fromme, ye cursed,intoeverlasting

firepreparedforthedevilandhisangels....Andtheseshallgoawayinto

everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal(25:41,46).

These are not the only verses in the Gospels, or even in Matthew, that speak of everlastingpunishment.Iftheywereallassembled,onemightseethatthepersonwhomostforcefullyandmostoftentaughtthedoctrineofhellwasnotPeterorPaul,butJesushimself.PaulofcoursestressesthewrathandjusticeofGod;Peter,Jude,andJohn',particularlyJohn,makesomestatements;butJesushimself is themainsourceforthedoctrineofhell.Wereitnotso,evenmoretheologiansthanatpresentwouldatleastkeepsilentaboutit.

Early in this volume the proof text method was defended, not merely as permissible but asindispensable.Likeanymethodit toomaybeabusedbycareless thinkers.But there isnootherwaytofindoutwhattheBibleteachesexceptbyreadingthetext.Herethenareafewsamplessamplesonly,notexhaustivelistsselectedfromPeter,Jude,andJohn'sApocalypse.

Revelation:Ifanymanshallworshipthebeast…thesameshalldrinkofthewineofthewrathofGod,whichispouredoutwithoutmixtureintothecupofhisindignation;andheshallbetormentedwithfireandbrimstoneinthepresenceoftheholyangels,andinthepresenceoftheLamb;andthesmokeoftheir torment ascendeth up for ever and ever; and they shall have no rest day nor night (14:911).Andwhosoeverwasnotfoundwritteninthebookoflifewascastintothelakeoffire(20:15).

Revelationisanapocalypticbook,andamillennialistsnevertireofsayinghowunintelligibleitis.Assuredly there are many passages whose meaning we can hardly guess at; but some passages areexceedinglyclear.

6Peter 2:49 IfGod spared not the angels that sinned, butcast themdown tohell • • • tobe reservedunto judgment,andsparednottheoldworld...turningthecitiesofSodomand Gomorrah into ashes ... the Lord knoweth how todeliverthegodlyoutoftemptation,andtoreservetheunjustuntothedayofjudgmenttobepunished.

Jude46 Therearecertainmencreptinunawares,whowerebeforeofoldordainedtothiscondemnation,ungodlymen...denyingouronlyDespotandLord,JesusChrist,...andtheangelswhichkeptnottheirfirstestate…hehathreservedineverlastingchainsunderdarknessuntothejudgmentofthegreatday.

In addition to the idea of a terrible punishment, these verses in Jude assert the doctrine ofreprobation.God'ssovereignty,hisdoingwhateverhepleases,hisgovernanceofallhiscreaturesandalltheiractions,thedoctrineofpredestination,haveallbeendiscussedinearlierchapters.

Herewehaveanexplicitstatement,similartoRom.9:1622,thatGodhasordainedcertainmen

todestruction.Thisordinationdidnotoccurafterthemenhadinfiltratedsomeisfirst

centurycongregations:theordinationoccurredbefore,ofold.Frometernitytheywereordained

tothiscondemnation,asJudashadbeen.

SomepeopleaccepttheBibleastheWordofGod.It istheexplicit,propositionalrevelationofhistruth;andhehimselfistruth.Otherpeoplepickandchooseasmuchoraslittleastheylike,justastheymightfromThusSpakeZarathustra,usingtheirownpreferencesasthecriterionoftruth.Butanyonewhotries to say that the Bible does not teach what these verses express entangles himself in exegeticalimpossibilities.Theversesthemselvesareunmistakably

clear,andthepresentexpositionhasrefusedtosoftenthem.Thepopularglibdismissalofthedoctrineofhellhasofcoursenologicalforce;nordoesitevincewisdom,for

Inthatsleepofdeathwhatdreamsmaycome

Mustgiveuspause.

OrifBerdyaevismorecontemporarythanShakespeare:"Itisremarkablehowlittlepeoplethinkabouthellortroubleaboutit.Thisisthemoststrikingevidenceofhumanfrivolity."2

Since it was Jesus Christ himself who spoke more often about hell than anyone else did, (inaddition to the verses quoted, see alsoMatt. 7:22,23; 11:23;Mark 9:4348; Lake 9:25; 12:9, 10, 46;16:22,23;John5:28,29;8:21)aChristianmustnotbesilentbutmustcontinuetopreachthemessage.

TheChristianmustpreachthemessageaccurately,notonlybecausethesecularworldhatesit,butalso because various religious writers dishonestly misrepresent it. Nels F. Ferre (The Sun and theUmbrellap.33)saysthatthedoctrineofChrist'ssecondcoming"shutsoutthelivingGodembracingandreconcilingallmenwithhiseternaltimeandpower,"andsubstitutestheconceptthat"allmankindwouldbeextinguishedor tormentedforeverexcept thefewwhowouldescapepunishment throughfaith in themeritsofJesus....ItseemsdoubtfulthatJesusevertaughtsuchadoctrine."

InviewofthemanypassagesinwhichJesusspeaksoffire,wailing,andgnashingofteeth,andsoon,itfollowsthatiftheNewTestamentissounreliableastomakeit"doubtfulthatJesusevertaughtsuchadoctrine,"thentheNewTestamentisalsosoIunreliablethatFerrehasnogroundforhisprincipleofAgape.Moreofthisinamoment.TheimmediatepointisFerre'smisrepresentations.

7. ThisquotationwasgivenbythelateFredCarlKuehner,HeavenandHell,inFundamentalsoftheFaith,ed.byCarlF.H.Henry(p.236).Dr.Kuehnerreceivedaspateofhatemailbecauseofhischapter;yethesaidnomorethanwhattheNewTestamentsays,andlessthanthepresentchapterhere.

Thecharge that thedoctrineofhellmeans thatnearlyeverybodywillbe tormented foreverandonlyafewwillenjoyeternalfelicityissometimesansweredbythestatementthatallwhodieininfancywill be saved, and since there is such a high infant mortality rate in pagan lands, it follows that theredeemed will be "a great multitude which no man could number." But the question of proportion isirrelevantboth to theChristianandantichristianalike.Ferreneednothavepresupposedwhat theexactproportionofsavedtolostmaybe;moreperspicaciousthaneithertheliberal,ortheortheorthodoxwhousesinfantmortalityinhisreply,WilliamJamessaidbluntlythatonecouldnotbelieveinanomnipotentGodifevenonecockroachsufferedfromanunrequitedlove.Thisishonestopposition.

Dr.Ferre'srejectionofJesus'teachingonhellissetinacontextwhichincludesthedenialoftheVirgin Birth. His basic principle is Agape or "indiscriminate kindness to all" (p. 57). Thisof course

meansuniversalsalvation(pp.246247),3ifthereissuchathingassintobesavedfrom.

It is worthwhile here to point out some of the inconsistencies in Dr. Ferre’s position,inconsistencieswhichinoneformoranotherplagueotherliberalsaswell.

First,ifAgapeissufficientlydefinedasindiscriminatekindness,based(?)ontheversethatGodsends the sun and rain upon all people, it is still impossible to deduce from this basic principle theChristologyDr.Ferrewants,oranyotherChristology,either.Second,Dr.Ferrecannotappealtotheverseonsunand rainbecausehecannotdependon"any fanciful ipsissimaverba"(p.57); andbecause Jesushimselfwasinconsistent(p.60);nordidthedisciplesunderstandhim.Forexample,Jesus'denunciationofthePharisees isnotan"authenticreport indetail"andremains"aproblemwithin themajorconclusivecontextofJesus' livingandteachingAgape"(p.83).Further,"wecannotknowthehistoricalJesus"(p.58).If,now,theScripturesaresountrustworthyasDr.Ferresays,noonecanappealtothemforanything.Dr.Ferre’'sreligion

6. ChristandtheChristian.

45

therefore is not Christianity, but a personal subjective invention. "The use of the Bible as the finalauthorityforChristiantruthisidolatry.ActuallyithasbecomeaverythickandformidableUmbrellato

hidetheSun."4ButitistheBibleinitsentirety,andtheBiblealone,thatdefinesChristianity.

OtherliberalsprofessingasomewhatgreaterrespectforScripturehavetriedtoavoidthedoctrineofhellbyexpedientssopuerilethataSystematicTheologyislikelytothinkitawasteoftimetomentionthem.Butanexampleor twomaybegiven.Oneattemptwas toassert that thewordeternal in"eternaldestruction"merelymeant"agelong."Thiswouldterminatehell inafinitetime.Butitwouldalsosetaterminus forheavenaswell, for it is thevery sameword that isused for "eternal life."Nor can it bemaintained, a really foolish idea, that eternal does not denote length of time, but quality of state.Obviouslythequalityisdenotedbythewordslifeanddeath;bothareeverlasting.J.A.T.Robinsontriedtoreducetheideaofeternalpunishmenttothephrase,"theeternalseriousnessofthechoicebeforeman."Butsotoreducehellisalsotoreduceheaven;anditbecomesquestionablewhethertheauthorbelievesinanyfuturelifeatall.

TheanswertoallsuchevasionsliesintheNewTestamentusageofthewords.Therethemeaningisclear.Tobespecific,theword aionios,eternaloragelong,describesthefuturehappinessofthesaintssomefiftytimes,andseventimesthepunishmentofthewicked.Dr.KuehnerwascompletelyjustifiedinquotingW.R.lnge,"NosoundGreekscholarcanpretendthat aionios meansanythingless thaneternal"(p.238).

Thereisanotherconfusionthatcaneasilybeavoided.Inadditionto Gehenna,theOldTestamentmentions sheol and the New Testament mentions hades.There is also “Abraham' s bosom." Quitecommonlythesehavebeenregardedasplaces,positionsinspace,geographicallocalities.Sinceboththerighteous and the wicked equally descend there at death , some people divide the place into twocompartments.Oneispurgatory,wheretherighteousaddtothemerits

8. TheSunandtheUmbrella,p.39.

ofChristbysufferingenoughtomakeupforwhatChrist'ssacrificedidnotcover;andtheotherisaplaceoftormentwhichiseventuallycastintotointothelakeoffire.

Itshouldbeobviousthat sheol andhades arenotplaces.Thetwowordssimplyrefertothefactthat the persons in question are dead. That this does not involve space is clear from the fact that theresurrectionhasnotyetoccurred,andthebodiesofthedeadareintheirgraves.Themanishismindorsoul;thisisspiritandlikeGoddoesnotoccupyspace.

IPeter3:1822isapassagewhichingeniousimaginations,undertheillusionthat sheolisaspace,haveusedfortheirfancifulviewsofapartoftheintermediatestateandtime.

Verses 19 and 20 have puzzled a great many people, and they have tried various devices toexplainhowChristpreachedtothespiritsinprison.Ingeneraltherearetwotypesofexplanation.First,theversesaretakentomeanthatChristusedNoahtopreachtothewickedthatwereabouttobedrownedin the flood.Second, theversesare interpreted tomean thatChrist inpersonpreached tospirits in therealmof thedead.This second interpretation isdividedon the identityof thedead: thedead towhomChristpreachedmightbetherighteousdead,ortheymightbethewickeddead.Letusexaminethissecondinterpretationfirst.

Thisisanoldandwidelyacceptedinterpretation.Irenaeus,Tertullian,boththeGreekandRomanchurches, and also Zwingli and Calvin hold that Christ announced salvation to the Old Testamentbelieversandbroughtthemfromtherealmsofdeathintoheaven.InaccordancewiththisideaJohn3:13,"No one has ascended into heaven but he that came down from heaven," is said tomean that noOldTestamentsaintcouldprecedeChristintoheaven.TheyhadtowaitforChrist'sascension.Theprisonistheabodeofthedead,andthepreachingistheproclamationofChrist'svictory.

AsfurthersupportofthisviewActs2:27,31aretakentomeanthatChrist'ssoulwenttohelloratleast to theabodeof thedead, thoughofcourseGodwouldnotpermithissoul tobeheld there.SomehavealsoappealedtoPhilippians2:10bytakingthethingsundertheearththat

bow at the name of Jesus to be either the righteous or wicked dead. More plausible is the use ofEphesians4:8,9."Whenheascendeduponhigh,heledcaptivitycaptive…Nowthatheascended,whatis it but that he also descended into the lower parts of the earth?"These lower parts of the earth aresupposed tobe the realmof thedead, and the idea is repudiated that thisdescent is the IncarnationorChrist'sdescenttoearth.

Beforeadopting thisancientviewcertainproblemsmustbefacedandsolved. In thefirstplacePeter'stextdoesnotmentionanythingaboutpreachingtothesaints.ThespiritstowhomChristpreachedareexplicitlycalleddisobedient.This factmustbe takenasafixedpointof interpretation.There isnoreference toOldTestament saints. So, ifChrist preached in person to anyone between the time of hisdeathandresurrection,itwouldhavetobethewickeddead,andwhatevercaptivityChristledcaptive,itcouldnotbetheOldTestamentsaintsconsideredasheldinprison.

InthenextplacetheonlydisobedientpeoplethatPetermentionsarethosewholivedinthedaysofNoah.ThistimereferenceisanotherreasonforrefusingtothinkthatChristpreachedtoAbraham,David,andtheprophets.Notonlyisitwrongtocall thesemendisobedient,butfurthertheydidnotliveatthetimePetermentions.

This timereference alsomilitates against the view thatChrist preached to all thewickeddead.From what Peter actually says, we could only conclude that Christ preached to those who weredisobedient in the timeofNoah.Butwithoutpressing this point too far at themoment, let us considerotheraspectsoftheideathatChristpreachedpersonallytothewickedinhell,andthatthepreaching,ofnecessity,istheannouncementoftheircondemnation.

AsforthenotionthatChristannouncedthedamnationofthewickedinhell,itishardtoseehowittiesinwiththecontext.ThemainideathatPeterwantstoenforceisthatChristiansshouldbewillingtosuffer forChrist's sakeand to sufferunjustly.Preaching to thewicked inhelldoesnotadvancePeter'smainpurpose.Or,ifattentionbecenteredonthenearerideaofChrist's

beingraisedfromthedeadby theHolySpirit, it stilI isnotcIearhowthisannouncementofdamnationaddstothetheme.AnditwiIIhardlydotosaythatPeterjusthadtofillspacetomakehisepistlelongenough,andsowasdriventoinsertsomethingtruebutirrelevant.

Butthedecisiveobjectiontounderstandingthesewordstorefertotheannouncementofdamnationisthattheverb,topreach,ordinarilymeanstopreachthegospel.Itdoesnotmeanajudicialsentence,norintheNewTestamentdoesitrefertosundryannouncements.Theregularmeaningistheannouncementofthegospel.

Because this is so obvious, some interpreters have tried to hold to the general view whilemodifyingittomakeChrist'sworkthepreachingofthegospelinsteadoftheannouncementofdamnation.Whilethismaneuverescapestheseimmediateobjections,itmustfaceothers.

SincetheBibledoesnotteachthatthereisasecondchancetobesaved,achanceinthenextlife,butteachesthatman'sdestinyisirrevocablyfixedinthislife,therewouldremainnoreasonablepurposeforpreachingthegospeltothewickedinhell.And,toreturntoapreviouspoint,alltheseattemptsfailtoexplainthementionoftheantediluvianunbelievers.Anypreachinginhellshouldbedirectedtoall,andnottojustafew.ButthetextspecificallymentionsthosewholivedinthedaysofNoah.

This view therefore, though adopted bymany and held for so long a time, must be set aside.Perhapstheotherview,heldbyAugustineandBeza,willprovebetter.According

to this interpretation Peter is thought to say that Noah spoke by the Holy Spirit to his disobedientcontemporariesandthatthefloodwhichdestroyedthemisatypeofbaptism.

Thisinterpretationmustalsofaceobjections.Foronething,itispointedoutthatPetermakesthesubjectoftheverbChrist.Christwentandpreached,andhenceNoahcannotbethepreacher.However,thisobjectionisnotsoseriousasitmightseematfirst.Peteractuallysays,ChristwasmadealivebytheSpirit,bywhomalsohepreached.Thispreachingthereforewas

donebyChristthroughtheSpirit.Whatthismightmeancanbeseeninchapteroneverseeleven.InthefirstchapterPeter speaksof theOldTestamentprophets.Theseprophetshad receivedamessage fromGod,andtheystudiedthemessagetoseewhatGodmeant.Thewordsare,"searchingwhat...theSpiritofChristwhichwasinthemdidsignifywhenittestifiedbeforehand

..."Now,obviously,iftheSpiritofChristspokethroughtheprophets,thentooChristthroughtheSpiritcouldverywellpreachinthepersonofNoah.TosupposethattheSpiritofChristisnottheHolySpiritand could not therefore inspireNoah is a supposition contrary toPeter's thought and contrary to otherNewTestamentpassages.Forexample,PaulinEphesians2:17virtuallysaysthatitwasChrist,throughhis missionaries, that preached the gospel in Ephesus. So far as this point goes therefore, thisinterpretationstandsupunderscrutiny.

IfthepreachingwasNoah'stestimonytohiscontemporaries,thenone,mustaskthequestion,Whatistheprison?Theotherinterpretationassumedthattheprisonmustbehellorhades.Butcoulditbehell,ifNoahwaspreachingtolivingpeople?Therearetwoanswerstothisquestion.First,onemightassumethattheprisonistheprisonhouseofsin.Itisasreasonabletospeakofthebondsofsinasitis,tospeakof the bonds of hell. Themention of a prison therefore does not rule out the idea that Noahwas thepreacher.Butthereisasecondandabetteranswertothequestion.TheprisonmaystillbehellandNoahstillthepreacher.Fortheversecanbeinterpretedtomean"thespirits(now)inhell."Thatis,thementowhomNoahpreachedarenowinPeter'sdaysufferingtheirjustrecompense.Thisisnotjustaguess,butisbasedonPeter'smannerofspeech.In4:6weshallseethatthegospelwaspreachedtocertainpeoplewhoarenowdead.Thepreachinghadbeendonepreviously;whenPeterwrote,theyweredead.Further,thatNoahwasthepreacherissupportedbyIIPeter2:5.

Anotherargumentisthattheparticiples,died,Madealive ,went ,andtheverbpreached,indicateatemporalsuccession,andhencethepreachingmusthaveoccurredafterthedeathofChrist,andnotinthetimeorNoah.Butinthefirstplace,ifthiswereso,thepreachingwouldhavehadtooccurafterChrist'sresurrection,andnotbetweenhisdeathandresurrection,asisusuallysupposed.Furthermore,thementionofthepreachingisnotsoclearlyconnectedwithany

alleged temporal succession as it iswith the reference to theSpirit.Of course the resurrectionhad tofollowthecrucifixion;butthethoughtofthepassageisnotonthetimeelement,butonthesignificanceoftheseeventsinbringingsinnerstoGod.

Thus theseveralobjections thatare raisedagainst thepersonalpreachingofNoahdonotmakethisinterpretationimpossible.

Now,positively,thisinterpretationistheonlyonethatcanexplainthementionofthewickedatthetimeofNoah,andthementionofNoahismotivatedbyPeter'sdesiretoshowthatthefloodisatypeofbaptism. In the largerconnectionPeter isexplaining theworkofChrist, the turningaway fromsin, thesalvationofbelieversoutofanungodlyworld,andtheirtribulationsduringtheirlifetime.PeterthinkshecanmakehisideasclearbyanOldTestamentexample,andNoahismoresuitablethananyother.ForthisreasonPetercanconfinehisthoughttoonegroupofmen.HadhebeenthinkingofapersonalpreachingbyChristinhell,hecouldnothaverestrictedhisattentiontothisonegroup.

ThereferencetothetimeofNoahisofcourseexplicitandobvious;andthestatementthateightsoulsweresavedinthearkisaplainmatteroffact.

Some further historical information could prove useful. In earlier centuries several theologianshave held nonscriptural views about hell. Origen (185254) of Alexandria and John Scotus Eriugena(810877) bothmake statements that sound like universalism.But also they seem to speak of the fixedreprobationof thewicked.Oftenbyveryconservativewriters theyarecastigated forhavingcorruptedChristianitythroughtheinterventionofNeoplatonicphilosophy.Thereissometruthinthis,particularlyinthecaseofEriugena,wholaboredunderthemisapprehensionthat'DionysiustheAreopagite'wasactuallyPaul'sconvert,whenfactuallyhelivedinthefifthcentury.Origen,ofcourse,couldnotmakethismistake.OnemustnotethathelivedbeforeAthanasius,thatheopposedGnosticism,thathecameatleastclosetothedoctrine

of the Deity of Christ by using the Old Testament concept of Wisdom, that thus and in other waysanticipatedthefullAthanasiandoctrine,evenusingthe"termsconsubstantialityandcoeternity.Butitishardforus,wholiveundertheinfluenceofsixteencenturiesofTrinitarianism,andalmostfivecenturiesofReformedtheology,toevaluatejustlytheconfusionofthoseearlyminds.

TheAnabaptistsat the timeof theReformationwereclearlyuniversalists thanwasOrigen.ThegreatLutherancreed,theAugsburgConfessionof1530(chapter17)says,"They[theLutheranchurches]condemntheAnabaptistswhothinkthattocondemnedmenanddevilsshallbeanendoftorments.”

At the present time, in addition to the "mainline' liberal churches, such smaller groups asJehovah'sWitnesses and theSeventhDayAdventists deny theScriptural doctrine of hell.Oneof theirnumber(andthereforenotnecessarilyanofficialopinion)explainedtothepresentwriterthatthefiresofhellconsumethewicked,butaftertheyarecompletelyburnedup,thefiresnaturallygoout.Strange:hadheneverheardofthewormthatdiethnotandthefirethatisnotquenched?

Objections to the Scriptural doctrine of hell are easily answered exegetically, if the objectoracknowledgesthewrittenwordsofGod.OfcoursethelargemajorityofcontemporaryobjectorsdonotbelievetheBible;anditisquiteuselesstobaseaChristiananswerontheirprivatenonchristiancriteria.Yet a little attention to their views may disclose, sometimes, either selfcontradictions ormisrepresentationsoftheBiblicalposition.Forexample,somemaysayitisunreasonableandunjusttopunish a man eternally for an offense that took only a few minutes to commit. The more thoroughprocedurewouldbetorequiretheobjectortodeducehistheoryofjusticefromhisempiricalbasis;andthis cannot be done because normative principles never follow from factual observation. But moresuperficially,thoughatthesametimemoreembarrassingly,Atcanbepointedoutthattheseriousnessofacrimeisnotproportionaltothetimeittakes.Amurdermaytakeasecond;anembezzlementalongtime;butmostpeoplewould

admitthatmurderisworsethantheft.Furthertoo,theseriousnessofacrimedependsonthepositionofthepartyoffended.Tolietoyourneighborisasin;buttolieincourtunderoathisagreatersin.TosinagainstGodmeritseternalpunishmentbecauseGodistheeternalGod.

Togivesuchanswersistoobeythedivinecommandof

IPeter3:15 Sanctify theLordChrist inyourhearts always andbe ready togive ananswertoeverymanthataskethyouareasonofthehopethatisinyou.

Insummationthen,theBibleteachesthateverysindeservesGod'swrathandcursebothinthislifeandinthatwhichistocome;andthatthispunishmentlastsforever.ItwouldbehardtostatethedoctrineinclearerlanguagethatthewordsoftheBibleitself.

2Heaven

IfDr.Buswellgavesofewlinestotheunpleasantsubjectofhell,onemightthinkthattheologianswouldwaxexpansiveonheaven.H.B.Smithhasonepagein621.H.C.Thiessenhasaboutapageandahalfin281.W.G.T.Sheddgivesheavenjustabouttwopagesoutofsome1350,andconcludeswith137pagesonhell.Hodgedoesnotdomuchbetter.Ifthepresentwriterisanyimprovementinproportion,itmaybebecausehehaspaddedthesectionwithScripturalquotations.

Thattherighteousdead,aftertheresurrection,willenjoyaneverlastingfelicityhasalreadybeenindicatedinthoseverseswhichcontrastitwiththeeverlastingpunishmentofthewicked.SeveralversesfromMatthew(chapters10,13,and25)werequoted,And there isnoneed to repeat themhere.TherewasalsoaslightreferencetoIIPeter2:49,somethingalittlefullerthanRomans2,andsomereferencebychapter andverse only.To thesemust nowbe added, in a condensed form, the longest of allBiblicalaccountsofheaven.

Rev.21:122:5AndIsawanewheavenandanewearth…thenewJerusalem

8. preparedasabride…AndIheardagreatvoice...Behold,thetabernacleofGodiswithmen...AndGodshallwipeawayalltearsfromtheireyes,andthereshallbenomoredeath,neithersorrownorcrying,neithershalltherebeanymorepain...theholyJerusalem...havingthegloryofGod...AndIsawnotempletherein,fortheLordGodAlmightyandtheLambarethetempleofit…Andthereshallbenomorecurse;butthethroneofGodandtheLambshallbeinit..hisservants…shallseehisface...FortheLordGodgiveththemlight;andtheyshallreignforeverandever.

Inadditiontotheabsenceoftears,sorrow,crying,anddeath,this.passageexcludesalsothecauseofsuchevils,namelysin.Asitissaidin

Matt.13:43Thenshalltherighteousshineforthasthesun.

Sincethetareshavebeengatheredandburned,andallthingsthatoffendandthemthatdoiniquityhave been cast into the furnace, and Satan has been cast into the lake of fire, the redeemedwill findthemselvestobethespiritsofjustmenmadeperfect.Furtherreferenceswillsubstantiatethispointinonewayoranother.

Toshowthesystematicorinterrelatednatureoftheologicaltruth,thementionoftheindefectiblerighteousness of those in heaven reminds us of the earlier denial of freewill.AsAugustine long agopointedout,inheavenmannonpossepeccare,cannotsin.Hehasnofreechoicewhethertosteal,commitadultery, curseGod, or not. If therewere such a thing as freewill, itwould be a curse, rather than ablessingastheArminianshold.

BeforecontinuingwithNewTestamentreferences,letusnotethatmanyliberaltheologiansdenyto the Old Testament any notion of heaven and a future life. Such a view, however, seems utterlyinconsistent with the theme of the Covenant.When God said, "Fear not, Abram, I am thy shield andexceedinggreatreward,"thoughthecontextmostlyconcernsearthlyaffairs,onemustreflectthatiftherebe a God and it is hard to understand how those who deny God can have any hope of a future lifewhateverandifGodmakessuchacovenantwithhischosenpeople,aneverlastinglifewithhimwhoiseternal ismost probable.But in addition to sections on theCovenantwhich predict earthly blessings,thereareotherandclearerOldTestamentteachings.WeadmitthattheOldTestamentsaysmuchlessthantheNewTestament. However, there are definite statements and fairly clear implications. The case ofEnochandElijahcomeimmediatelytomind.Thesetwotranslationsabsolutelyrequirealifeafterdeath.Otherwisetheaccountswouldbemeaningless.Anotherpassage,shortbutmoreexplicit,is

Job19:26Aftermyskinwormsdestroythisbody,yetinmyfleshshallIseeGod.

Then,too,thoughanorthodoxJewishrabbiwouldbehesitanttoadmitthattheNewTestamentcorrectlyinterpretstheOld,forus

Heb.11:1719ByfaithAbraham…offeredupIsaac...hisonlybegottenson,…

accountingthatGodwasabletoraisehimup,evenfromthedead...

isatleastahintthatAbrahambelievedinthepossibilityoflifeafterdeath.True,theversemightmeanonlythatAbrahamexpectedGodtoraiseIsaactothislifeagain.Buteventhisminimummeaningwouldsuggestfurtherideas.Oneshouldnotautomaticallyoptfortheliteralminimum.

Similarly the resurrection in I Kings 17:21 ff. and II Kings 4:34 ff. require some sort ofintermediate state and an incorporeal soul. In conjunctionwith the covenants and promises, these twoimplicationswouldcauseameditativemindtothinkofheaven.Psalm86:1213issomewhatofasupport;andPsalm16:1011speaksexplicitlyofeverlastingfelicityatGod'srighthand.

AlthoughthisshouldbesufficienttoshowthattheOldTestamentdoesnotlimithumanlifetothreescore years and ten,whichmeans that there is no further obligation to defend the presence in theOldTestamentoftheideasofheaven,referencemaybemadeto

Provo 14:32 The righteous hath hope in his death. And if anyone object to thistranslation.

Prov.15:24Thewayoflifeisabovethewise,thathemaydepartfromhellbeneath,

cannotbealteredbyabettertranslation.SeealsoProv.23:14

It is indubitable therefore thatScripturecontainsaclearpromiseofheaven.Butdoes theBiblegive any detailed information about the character and activities of that future life? This is a questionwhichnotonlyinterestsbelievers,butwhichalsostimulatesunbelieverstotheirobjections.

CorlissLamont,inaremarkablechapter,ThisLifeisAllandEnough(HumanismasaPhilosophy,secondedition,pp.100144;andThePhilosophyofHumanism,i.e.thefiftheditionofthepreceding,pp.81115) inaddition tohisarguments forevolutionarybehaviorism,wherememoryconsistsof"neuronicpathwaysofthecortex,"whichmeansthat"Humanbodiesthink"(ital.his),attackstheideaofalifeafterdeathonthegroundofitsboringtriviality.Iftherewereafuturelife,notonly"goodoldRover”shouldbeimmortal,butpoisonivyaswell.Now,whilemanypeoplewouldlovetopetgoodoldRoverinheaven,the idea of poison ivy is not so appealing. Since heavenly flees and lice are, in Lamont's view,foolishness,"ThisLifeisAllandEnough."Communisticequalitycanmakethispresentlifesolovelythatnoonewouldwantimmortality.Medicinewillincreasethelifespanthoughif100yearsisbetterthan70,whyisnotathousand,oraneternity,stillbetter?However,deathisinevitableandwemightaswelllikeit.Thisviewalsoremovesthefearofhell.Anyhow,thereisplentyofenjoymenthere.Manis

clearlyasuccessbecausethepopulationissteadilyincreasingandataneverhigherrate"(p.137).Wemay soon produce the Superman and how that will rejoice the neuronic pathways of our cortex as itdecaysinthegrave!Alsointhelongerrun,weneednetanticipateanendtoprogressbecauseweneednot

acceptthe'trsecondlawofthermodynamics:whichisofcoursetrue,butirrelevant.5

Butthenandincredibly,ThisLife,ifitisAll,reallyisnotEnough;for“EvenI,disbelieverthatIam,wouldfranklybemorethangladtoawakensomedaytoaworthwhileeternallife"(p.124).Lamontclearly thinks that the Biblical picture of the future life is not worthwhile. But how pitiful is hishumanisticlament!

IfanyChristianinthepewisdisturbedbyLamont'srefutationsofargumentsinfavorofimmortality,onewordwillstabilizehim.Wellmeaning,butnotalwaystoointelligenttheologianshavetriedtodefendthedoctrineofimmortalityandheavenby,forexample,"thelightofnatureandreason."EvenBishopButler,whosescholarshipwasconsiderable,openedhisAnalogy

of Religionwith a chapter on the Future Life, based on empirical observations, and did not get toRevealedReligionuntilpage185(Works,ed.byGladstone,1896).EvenJohnGilltriedthis,andaddedaparagraph on the natural desire inmankind for happiness, plus another on the unequal distribution ofgoodsandevils.Wemaygrantthatallsuchargumentsarelogicalfallacies,asDunsScotus,whowasnota dunce by any means, long ago showed. Lamont's arguments therefore do not disturb the Christianbecausehebaseshishopeonrevealedinformationratherthanonsensoryobservation.

Acceptingnowthetruthofafuturelifeinheaven,welooktorevelationforsomeinformationon

thenatureofitsactivities.6

10. Astoinevitableprogress,cf.AChristianViewofMenandThings,pp.42ff.;andonthermodynamics,cf.ThePhilosophyofScienceandBeliefinGod(bothbythepresentwriter).

6Mysticallyminded liberalsandneoorthodoxoftendeny that revelation isamatterof information.God isnot suppose tocommunicateanytruthtous,anyinformation,buthegivesushimself.Andwhatistrueaboutsuchagod?

Withsinandallitsdeleteriouseffectsgone,arewerestoredtoAdam'spositioninEden,ordoweenjoyahigherandhappiertypeoflife?WhatdoestheBiblesay?

Pointone,thoughexpressedinfigurativelanguage,istheBiblicalassertionofadirectvisionofGod.InadditiontotheverseinJob,previouslyquoted,thereare

Matt.5:8TheyshallseeGod.

ICor.13:12Fornowweseethroughaglassdarkly,butthenfacetoface.

IJohn3:2Weshallbelikehim,forweshallseehimasheis.

Rev.22:4Theyshallseehisface.

TheOldTestamenthadalreadysaidthatweshallbelikehim:

Psalm17:15Iwillbeholdthyfaceinrighteousness,Ishallbesatisfied,whenIawakewiththylikeness.

SinceGod is spiritual and not corporeal, this 'vision' will be quite different from our presenteyesight.Letusnotinattentivelyquote"Eyehathnotseen…neitherhaveenteredintotheheartofman,thethingsGodhathpreparedforthemthatlovehim.”HerePaulspeaksofwhat"Godhath[already]revealedunto us by his Spirit.”Wemust notminimize the riches ofGod's present revelation.Nevertheless theheavenlyrevelationwillbegreater.WhenPaul

wascaughtupintothethirdheaven,Godrevealedtruthstohimthathewasforbiddentorepeat

tous.DoubtlessGodwillgiveusthosetruthsandotherstoowhenweseehim'facetoface.'By

wayof"contrast,Peter,onthelakeofGalilee,atthe'greatdraftoffishes,saidtoJesus,“Depart

58

fromme,forIamasinfulman,OLord."AttimesthereforeJesussorevealedhisdeitythatmenwantedtoescapefromhispresence.Butinheaven,withsineradicated,wecanseeGodasheis.

Butdowejuststandandlook?Hardly:atleast 'vision'isfigurative.AnentirelyliteralmeaningcanbehadfromthesceneontheMountofTransfiguration.ItisnotthatMosesandElijahliterallysawChristthroughtheireyeballs,forMoses'body,ifnotElijah's,layburiedbeyondJordan.Whatthey'saw,wasthedoctrineoftheAtonement,astheydiscusseditwithChrist.Theverbseeoftenmeansunderstand.When a student inHigh School puzzles over the instructor's explanation of a theorem in geometry, hefinally(wehope)exclaimsasthetruth'dawns'onhim"Iseeit.”Fromcommonlanguagetherefore,andfrom theTransfiguration,wemaywell surmise thatmuchofour activity inheavenwill be theologicalstudy.ButbeforegoingonwiththeideathatGodistruthandthusrational,andthatthereforethesurmiseiscorrect,hereonearthweareinterestedinsomeothermatters.

Somethingsthathaveinterestedusinthislife,suchastheology,willinterestusinheavenalso;butnotallofourpresentactivitieswillbereproduced.Thisistobeexpected,for"Weshallbelikehim."Inwhatrespectsweshallbelikeandinwhatweshallremainunlikehimmustbedeterminedbyvariousreferences.Onepresentinterest ismarriage.Yetevenonearththemarriagebondisdissolvedbydeathandthesurvivingspouseisfreetomarryagain.Wenowallrememberthequestionaboutthewomanwithsevenhusbands.Itcameasanobjectiontotheconceptoftheresurrection;andJesusreplied

Mark12:25 Whentheyshall risefromthedead, theyneithermarrynoraregiven inmarriage,butareastheangelswhichareinheaven.

Otherbodilyfunctionsalsocease.Considerroastbeefandlobstertails.

ICor.6:13Meatsforthebelly,andthebellyformeats;butGodshalldestroybothit

andthem.

Thisversegivesussomedifficulties.InLuke24:43theresurrectedChristatealittlefish.Sofarasthe"marriagesupperoftheLamb"isconcerned,andChrist'snotdrinkingwineagainuntilhedrinkitnewwithusinhisFather'skingdom(Matt.26:29),wemayregardthelanguageasfigurative.Certainlytherearenoflocksandherdsinheaven,ofifthereare,thereisnobeefandnoovens.ButChrist'seatingfishbeforehisdiscipleseyescanonlybeliteral.Now,itmustbeacknowledgedthatChrist'sbodyafterthe resurrection was surprisingly different from the one he had before. First, it was not alwaysrecognizable, asLuke 24:16 indicates. If this versemeans only thatGod altered the vision of the twodisciples, and thushasnobearingon the recognizabilityofChrist'sbodyas such, the lastverseof theaccount (at 24:31) relates something that never happened before the resurrection. Verse 36 also isstartling;and

verse51recordstheascension.Similar toLuke24:36isJohn20:26.So, then,hiseatingfish, itseemsreasonable to suppose, may have been an anomalous miracle, uncharacteristic of resurrection life.OtherwiseICor.6:13wouldbehardtounderstand.

But there is something further. Paul in I Cor. 15:322 most strenuously asserts the bodilyresurrection of Christ, not only as an historical event but as an historical event that is absolutelyindispensabletoChristianity.KarlBarththereforecannotbecalledaChristian,ashisfamousorinfamousinterviewwithCarl F.H.Henry proved.Nevertheless Paulmakes some puzzling statements about theresurrectionbody.

I Cor. 15∙: 3550 With what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is notquickenedexceptitdie.Andthatwhichthousowest,thousowestnotthatbodythatshallbe...ButGodgivethitabody...Itissownincorruption;itisraisedinincorruption...aspiritualbody

...[so]weshallalsobeartheimageoftheheavenly...Neitherdothcorruptioninheritincorruption.

TheseversescomeinanswertoobjectionsraisedbysomepersonsintheCorinthianchurch.Theythought that a resurrectionwas impossible because of the nature of the body. Paul sharply begins hisanswerbycallingthem"Stupid!"Hegoesontostressthegreatdifferencebetweenourpresentbodyandthe resurrectionbody. Insteadof referring to the changednature ofChrist's resurrectionbody (perhapsbecausehehadalreadyspokenat lengthaboutChrist'sresurrection),hedrawsananalogyofagrainofwheatandtheplantthatgrowsfromit.Butanalogiesdonotgivemuchspecificinformation.Thestudentmaywishtoconsultafewcommentaries.

However,andhowevergreatthedifferencesmaybe,atleastonethingremainsthesame.Manisstill a temporal being in heaven. TheGreekOrthodox often say, 'God becameman so thatman couldbecome God.' But it is a little late for man to become eternal and omniscient. Eternity is withoutbeginning;manbegan.Omnisciencedoesnotmerelymean'knowingeverything;'italsomeansnothavinglearned. But men learn. In conjunction with this, Augustine made memory the principle of personalidentity.Mr.Jones inheaven is thesamepersonasMr.Joneswasonearth,becauseofhis intellectualcontinuity.Butmemoryrequiresapriortime.Man,acreatedbeing,remainsforeveracreatedbeingandthereforeremainstemporal.

Parenthetically let the student be advised to compare Hume's humanistic account of personalidentitywiththatofthegreatbishopofHippo.

Butthoughtemporal,manwascreatedintheimageofGod.TheimageisrationalitybecauseGodisspiritandtruth.Thereforelifeinheavenwillbechieflyorperhapsentirelyintellectualactivity,forweshallbelikehim.Ifmemoryservethewriter,itwasC.S.Lewiswhosaidthatwhateverinheavenisnotsilence ismusic. Ifby"silence”hemeant theabsenceofcommunication, theBibleadjudgeshim tobewrong.WeshalldiscusstheAtonementwithMosesandElijah,andwithChristtoo,andwiththeFatheralso.Inheavenweshallknowandknowmore.

ICor.13:12Nowweseethroughaglassdarkly,butthenfacetoface.NowIknowinpart,butthenIshallknow,evenasalsoIamknown.

Sometheologians,thegreatexegeteH.A.W.Meyer,forexample,wantthisversetosay,'Ishallknow as God knew or chose me at the moment of my conversion.’ This interpretation depends onrestricting the aorist tense to a single point of timewhich is often the case. But the chapter does notconcernitselfwithacontrastbetweenourpartialchoiceatthemomentofconversionandourfullerandperfect choice of God later in heaven. Meyer takes his view in order to avoid the superficialunderstandingoftheversethatmakesourfutureknowledgeentirelyonalevelwithGod'somniscience.Yetevensohedoesnotsucceed,forhesays,"ThenwillmyknowledgeofGodbesowhollydifferentfromamerelypartialone,asitisnow,that,onthecontrary,itwillcorrespondtothedivineknowledge,so far as it once at my conversion made me its object, namely (opposite of ekmerous)by completeknowledge of the divine counsel." But in complete knowledge one item is integral with all others.Complete knowledge of one event involves knowledge of every other event. Thus with "completeknowledgeofthedivinecounsel"Meyerascribestoomuchtohumanbeingsinheaven.

Neverthelesswemust insist that theheavenly life isoneofknowledge.This introducesaslightdifficultywithoneverse, for ICor.13:8 says thatknowledgeshallvanishaway.Thiscouldmean thatGod'sactivity in revealingnewinformation to theapostleswillceasewith theirdeath.Thecanon thenwill be closed.Or onemay seek the explanation in the next verse, introduced by the conjunction gar toindicateareasonforwhatprecedes:"forweknowinpart."Thusafullerknowledgewillabolishthepartialcharacteristicofformertimes.Atanyrate,verse12assertsthecontinuanceandmultiplicationofknowledge in heaven.Naturally love or obedience also remains because, as previously shown, sin ordisobediencehasended.

Somepeopleonthebasisofverse2,deprecateknowledge.Theyshouldremember,however,thatwithoutknowledgetherecouldbeneitherlovenorobedience.Paulexcuses,orat

least extenuates, his youthful persecution of the Christians because he did it ignorantly in unbelief.Responsibilitydependsonknowledge.

Inanycase,whenPaulmostemphaticallyasserts,"ButwehavethemindofChrist,"and"LetthismindbeinyouwhichwasinChristJesus,"andwhenJohnrecordsJesus'words,"Yeshallknowthetruthandthetruthshallmakeyoufree,I,wemustnotassumethattheirfullforce.andapplicationisexhaustedinthisearthlylife.

On thecontrary, ''We shallbe likehim, forwe shall seehimashe is," as Job saidpreviously.WhilethisdoesnotguaranteethatthepoorpupilwhohasbeendeprivedofasolideducationbythefadofthenewmathandotheratrocitiesoftheNationalEducationAssociationwillinstantlybecomeexpertinincalculus;neverthelesseachsaintwillbecomefullyrational,asGodis,sincethenoeticeffectsofsinwillhavedisappeared,sothatnolongerwillanyonemakemistakesinsimpleaddition.

Nor shall we any longer be deceived by disturbing emotions, for God is without parts andpassions;andnoonewillbasehisconclusionsonempiricalinductions.Rather,

Psalm36:9Inthylightshallweseelight.

IJohn1:5Godislight,andinhimisnodarknessatall.

Ifinthislife

IJohn5:20TheSonofGodhathgivenusanunderstanding,thatwemayknowhimthatistrue,...ThisisthetrueGodandeternallife,

ifinthislifewehavethegloriousyetincompletelightofthegospel,andif"nowareyelightintheLord[and]walkaschildrenof light,”howmuchmoreshallwe live in truthandunderstandingwhenwenolongerareconfinedtoamirrorandadarkenigma!

IJohn5:6TheSpiritistruth.

Rev.21:24Thenationsofthemwhicharesavedshallwalkinthelight[ofGod'sgloryandoftheLamb].

Rev.22:5FortheLordGodgiveththemlight.

Rom.11:33,36Othedepthof therichesof thewisdomandknowledgeofGod ...Forofhimandthroughhimandtohimareallthings:towhombegloryforever.Amen

Gordon Clark Systematic Theology · SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY Gordon H Clark In memory of my wife and...

Documents

Transcript of Gordon Clark Systematic Theology · SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY Gordon H Clark In memory of my wife and...