|
Home
Poems Newspaper
Articles Biblical
Subjects | |
|
Dissertation THE HISTORY AND DOCTRINES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION By JOHN HENDERSON LIGHTBODY MCMXCVIII PRIVATE "Il m'est permis de reprende mon bien ou je le trouve." Moliere ("On the assumption that I can make good use of it, it is quite right for me to take my material wherever I find it.")
INDEX Preface Summary Doctrinal Convictions
PART I Theology, Union, Justification, Sin. PART II Creation, Man, God, Trinity, Christology. PART III Atonement, Religion, Preservation, Providence. PART IV Sanctification, Holiness, Eschatology Faith. PART V Transfiguration, Predestination, Hell, Satan, Inspiration. PART VI The Church - Ecclesiology.
Offices Of Christ.
Reflections And Some Conclusions Of The Cross.
Anselm's Famous Maxim.
Index of Bible References.
Bibliography. (Shortened List)
"I may truly say that I have never been in the practice, since I was a boy, of attempting to write well, or to form an elegant style. I think, I have never written for writing's sake, but my one and single aim has been to do what is so difficult, namely, to explain clearly and exactly my meaning; this has been the whole principle of all my corrections and re-writings." Cardinal Newman
"Studies serve for delight, for ornament, and for ability. Their chief use for delight, is in privateness and retiring; for ornament, is in discourse; and for ability, is in the judgement and disposition of business......Crafty men condemn studies, simple men admire them, and wise men use them...Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested. This is some books are to be read only in parts; others to be read, but not curiously (i.e. carefully); and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention."
Lord Bacon
PREFACE
This dissertation on The History And Doctrines Of The Christian Religion (without any apology) contains devotional and homiletical notes; but not extensively. "Holy Scripture" J.I. Packer reminds us, " has a way of applying its own message to the hearts and consciences of men when it is properly understood."
I have endeavoured in this work to be more concise than copious in conveying the meaning of the Cross. Less pious and more pragmatic, though not to underestimate passion and value.
The History And Doctrines Of The Christian Religion is a 'well' that shall never dry up. My approach in research of this subject has been to explore the avenue of doctrinal conviction: selecting important doctrines pertaining to the meaning of the Cross. Indeed, my approach has been systematic in so far as order and system matter. The reader will find no sub-headings in either of the parts I to V. This is deliberate, because, as Weston points out "the story or subject matter should be clear enough for the reader to grasp the subject/story title" or on this case the doctrine dealt with.
In order to maintain and sustain, a limitation of words and space, none of the doctrines dealt with has been exhausted; but quality rather than quantity has been the criteria followed. Therefore some doctrines used are more in-depth than others; but the fact-finding exercise is the essential ingredient of qualification. I am indebted for the assistance and help given to me from librarians at Greenock Central Library and Glasgow Bible College in my researching and compilation of facts for this dissertation.
In the study involved, I have had my eyes opened time and time again in searching for, not the clever statement, nor the clever argument, but scrutinising for a sound compilation of facts; dispelling any notion of fiction, or mere myth, or 'half-baked' truths.
As well as graduating from the Bible Training Institute, Glasgow, I have also graduated from Jordanhill College of Education, Glasgow in community education studies; back in 1974, attending both these colleges as a full time student.
I make this point, to indicate the road of study I have travelled. Subject studied included psychology, sociology, theology, and to a lesser extent geology. I have also studied to a Higher level, biology. This point is made, so as to allow me the opportunity to endorse the claim of some theologians during the Middle-Ages, that "theology is the queen of sciences".
This dissertation contains over six hundred biblical references taken mainly from the Authorised Version of the Bible.
J. Henderson Lightbody
MCMXCV111
************** SUMMARY
"The death of Christ is the central theme of the New Testament", said James Denney. This statement may be expanded to take in the whole Bible, although our vision of this crucial event in human history may seem a bit 'cloudy' as we see it in the Old Testament.
Our first gospel message is of the coming of the Redeemer - Genesis 3:15. Here we see the serpent identified with the Saviour; Jesus Christ, and even at this point we see Christ emerging as a conquering Saviour, out of the conquest with Satan. But before he achieves such a kingly position he must be rejected and despised of man. He must suffer untold agony before this glory is his. An agony which means ultimate death, and that death comes of the cross. But was this necessary ?
The Bible tells us he need not have died - "Who did no sin", "Who knew no sin", "No man taketh it (his life) from me but I lay it down of myself" - John 10:18. Therefore his death must have been voluntary and he must have had reason to submit his life to death; even the death of the cross, What was his reason ? We read, in the beginning God created man, calling him Adam. Adam was made in God's image and likeness so he must have been pure and holy. Did not God see all his creatures were good ? God also gave Adam a free-will, a freedom to choose right or wrong, but Adam in his free-will chose to disobey the commandment God had given and therefore transgressed God's law, herein lies sin.
All men have been given Adam's nature and have the same characteristics -the freedom to choose between right and wrong, and in this free-will men have transgressed God's law, in that they have followed their forefather Adam's nature.
All men who follow after man's footsteps are guilty of sin against God. "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God ". Rom 3:23 "Dust thou art and to dust shalt thou return".
God is pure and holy and in his righteous judgement passes the sentence of death upon sin, therefore all men being guilty, are condemned to die. "The wages of sin is death " - Rom 6:23.
God made man for his own glory, so that he might have fellowship with him, and it is not his will that any should perish. If death is the result of sin, how can man be restored to this fellowship with his Creator? For through sin man's condition is hopeless and useless. But "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life" - John 3:16.
Herein is man's hope of restoration with God. Notice the remedy is of God's provision. The necessity for Christ's death is beginning to unfold. He was the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world". Christ's death involved the spilling of blood, "without shedding of blood there is non remission for sin" - Heb 9:22. In Christ Jesus, God has provided a means of redemption through which his sinful and lawless creature man, can be 'washed' and made clean through the blood which was shed. There are references to blood redemption’s in the Old Testament too; these are incomplete in one way or another but serve as signposts to the true redemption, which was a perfect and complete act. Another similarity is the fact that for such a redemption, it was necessary to put to death innocent animals which brings in also that they must have been 'wounded' for the blood to pour out. These are types of the 'Lamb slain at Calvary', an innocent Lamb in whom there was no cause for that shameful death.
To get right with God man must come to Christ and be 'washed' in his blood. By his death on the cross, Christ has paid the price of sin and has made it possible for man to be saved from an otherwise hopeless end, and it is by him and him alone that man can obtain the endless hope of (eternal life) redemption. "He gave his life as ransom for many" - Mark 10:45.
In Genesis 3:7 we are told that Adam and Eve endeavoured to clothe themselves with leaves, but God provided them with animal skins, thereby demonstrating that innocent blood had to be shed to sanctify his holiness. Perfection can only be satisfied with perfection, and he was illustrating symbolically that the blood of another had to be shed to appease his righteous wrath. Salvation from sin is the work of God alone and the only sacrifice acceptable in his eyes is that of his Son, Jesus Christ. As God provided Adam's race with a covering, so also has he provided Adam's race with a 'covering' for men's sin and this 'covering' was the death of his Son.
In order that he might shed his blood Christ had to die, and in order to die he had to come in flesh, which involves his humanity. He was born as an ordinary babe in a very 'lowly' place for a birthplace. As a babe he was entirely dependent on his mother and needed motherly care. Like all men, his human body hungered, thirsted, rested, slept and endured physical agony, and he earned his living by working as a carpenter in Nazareth, while his rational soul loved, wept, underwent mental suffering and grew in wisdom. "Christ is God's gift to humanity" said Denney. His humanity is turn involves humiliation. Where does this humiliation lie ? In being born and that humbly, made him under the law and exposed to the weakness of the flesh, which entailed misery and exposure to the wrath of God and the cross. His humility consisted in his incarnation, his taking flesh and being born of a woman - Gal 4:4 "Made of woman". In the creation man was made in God's image in the incarnation, God was made in man's image. " God sent forth his Son ". He came not in majesty as a king, but he came poor, unlike an heir of heaven but like one of the low estate, one of low descent. His birthplace was the poorest of the poor, not in high and noble Jerusalem but in humble Bethlehem. His seat was not a throne but a lowly manger which was curtained by cob-webs and carpeted by the dust of the earth, and perfumed by the odour prevalent in a stable. His parents were of low lineage. Their low estate is seen in their offering of " A pair of turtle doves" -Luke 2:24.
Jesus himself was financially poor too. He needed to perform a miracle in order to acquire money. Mat 17:27 " He who was rich became poor, that man, through his poverty might become rich". In his poverty, Christ is able to make man rich. He was born of a virgin, in a manger, that men might be born of God into Paradise. He was not content to look down - He came down to lay down his life that man might be lifted up to the heavenly places. His birth was more humiliating than his death, because in his death he was victorious but in his incarnation he was humiliated. As the second Adam he was more human than the first, for he was born of a woman, "He was numbered among transgressors ". Although he was numbered amongst sinners yet he did no sin, he had no need to ask for forgiveness for himself. Thus identification with man is indeed a great humiliating experience. Yet in the cross he cried "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me " - Ps 22:1; which would seem he is taking upon himself the sin and iniquity of man as his own. His humility was not so much for man to die, but for God himself to become man was the wonder of his humility. God created man and God found it necessary to create man anew. Thus, Christ accomplished through his humility, in that; as the Saviour, "He bore our sins".
"The marvel of the incarnation was that Christ was a Divine person, who took another nature to his own yet maintaining his own position", said Nolloth. He was truly man and he was truly God, indeed he was truly God-man. John the Baptist recognises Jesus to be a divine person. As Jesus approached John to be baptised, John replied: "Behold the lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world" - John 1:29.
Every miracle performed by Jesus was an outward sign of his divine power and authority from God. He had no need to confess sin before being baptised, for his baptism was one of righteousness. At the cross, the Roman Centurion exclaimed "Truly this was the Son of God".
His divinity is anticipated in many Old Testament prophecies, his divinity being linked with the "Shepherd and his sheep". What clearer mark of his divinity is there that is contained in the gospel of John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the word was God" - John 1:1. W.F. Harvard says, "In no writings outside the New Testament are there any true parallels to the statements made of the Logos in the Johanine prologue. "The Divine Logos," said Harvard, and went on to say, "Scriptures are GOD-breathed hence their authority". George Bernard Shaw in his 'The Dark Lady Of Sonnets' said, "I tell you there is no word yet coined and no melody yet sung that is extravagant and majestical enough for the glory that lovely words can reveal. It is heresy to deny it; have you not been taught that in the beginning was the Word ? That the word was with God ? Nay, that the Word was God ?".
The Word was to be the mediator of the New Covenant; between God and man. The word 'covenant' signifies an agreement between two contracting parties, both of which are held responsible for the fulfilment of the contract. If one breaks the covenant, the other is legally entitled to exact retribution from him. Sometimes covenants were made between a superior person and an inferior person. Sometimes it was made between parties of equal class. In the case where it was a superior person making a covenant with an inferior person, the latter came to advantage. Covenants indicate that there was to some degree, between the two parties, a love for each other which may not have been evident on the surface, but existed nevertheless. This is yet another Old Testament signpost pointing to the Cross. When a man made a covenant with man, it was of a temporary nature, but when God made a covenant with man it was on an everlasting basis.
Of such a nature was his covenant with Noah, affirming that he would not flood the earth again - this covenant being sealed with a rainbow in the clouds. In the Cross of Christ there is an eternal covenant which God has made with man; the new covenant as the scriptures describe it. This new covenant is made possible by the death of Christ. "Mediator of a better covenant, " - Heb 8:6. Here God is seen as the superior and man the inferior, and God demonstrates by the Cross that he takes the initiative as he is infinite and man finite. This new covenant is a revelation of God's love towards man. "Herein is love, not that we loved him, but that he sent his Son to be a propitiation for our sins" - 1 John 4:10. Research indicates that God never speaks of these covenants as 'our servants' but as 'My covenant'. This new covenant was made possible through Christ's sacrificial act.
We have a preview of this sacrificial act in Genesis Chapter 22, where Abraham obeying God's command seeks to deliver up his son, his only son Isaac for a sacrifice. But in seeing Abraham's faith, God again steps in and provides a 'ram caught in a thicket' as a satisfactory substitute. Isaac's life is saved through the provision of a sacrificial substitute, men are saved through the Substitute for man on the Cross. Christ is man's substitute - "He bore our sins". The heart of God is revealed in that he spared Abraham's son, but his own he spared not. As Abraham walked together with his son obeying God's command, in like manner the Father walks with his Son to the Cross.
There is no full gospel of the Cross with a dead Saviour. The message or meaning of the Cross includes the resurrection - Acts 1:22. "His resurrection". "This Jesus whom God has raised up" - Acts 2:32. By returning to heaven without the resurrection of the body, Christ would not have displayed himself as the complete conqueror of death, hell, and the grave - Ps 16:10. He would have triumphed over death only spiritually and morally, but this would not have been a complete victory in the true sense. Death separates the body from the soul, therefore Christ had to rise and be in a position to show the nail - scarred hands. Without the resurrection of the body no one would have believed in the person crucified and this would be a contradiction of Christ's prior announcements of his resurrection and triumph - John 2:19, Mat 12:40. The resurrection is the seal of the Father on the Person and work of the Son - Acts 2:32. By his resurrection Christ is declared 'to be the Son of God', and by it he fulfilled his kingly position with the full authority of being universal judge.
It can be said that Christ's resurrection is very important in that it ensures man's resurrection to glory - 1 Thes 4:4. Christ died for man's justification and rose for man's glorification. His death and resurrection are first and foremost in accordance with scripture - 1 Cor 5:3-4. When Christ was risen he was seen by Cephas and the disciples and five hundred men, and one of his disciples did touch his hands and side thus inciting forth in him belief in the resurrection. If the resurrection is not fact then preaching is in vain, and faith is also in vain - 1 Cor 15:4.
By his resurrection Christ is demonstrated to be a 'prophet of God', whose coming was foretold in Duet 18:15-18. He declared while here on earth that the works he did and the words he spoke were not of himself, but of God, the Father. He was God's perfect representative to the Jews and the proclaimer of God's grace to a sin-cursed world. "Set on the right hand of the throne of God in the heavens". We have in Christ also the Great High Priest. "A priest after the order of Melchisedek" - Heb 6:20. But Christ was more than that, he was unique, for he is the only person ever to fulfil the offices of Prophet, Priest and King. He talked of the coming kingdom and set himself to go to Jerusalem. His disciples expected to establish an earthly kingdom, but he was to be rejected, despised of men in order to set up his kingdom in glory. On the cross he declared in action his kingship by defeating Satan completely. It was Christ who administered the government of God like a ruler or king. This prophet, priest and king was the Messiah prophesied in the book of Daniel, who is made both Christ and Lord.
Another Old Testament signpost to the cross of Christ is, namely, the passover, which was instituted when the Israelites were in captivity in Egypt. Jehovah, about to 'cut off' the first born in Egypt, commands the blood of a lamb to be sprinkled on each door, and seeing this witness he would pass-over. This is typical of Christ's death on the cross, when men identify themselves with his death and resurrection, God will forgive their iniquity and sin. In both these instances death is necessary; and again innocent deaths at that, no fault of the victims.
As a reminder, the people were to eat of the lamb and to keep such a feast as a memorial, which relates to Christ's last passover supper before the cross. This passover was held only hours before the event of the cross and is to be kept as a memorial to his death and coming again. In other words Christ is man's passover sacrifice and man is to partake of this feast in rememberance of him until the day he returns. Each person of the Israelities had to partake of a lamb by themselves, as man must partake of Christ individually. The passover lamb had to be perfect, without blemish. To make this possible it was found necessary sometimes to keep the lamb for fourteen days until it reached perfection, which shows all the Old Testament sacrifices and offerings and other works to be imperfect, whereas Christ was perfect, there was not a spot or blemish on him. Christ was holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sin. The passover lamb had to be male of no more than one year old, this speaks of superiority and innocence combined and in Christ both these characteristics are displayed.
"The whole congregation of Israel shall kill it" - Ex 12:6. This speaks of the church of the redeemed. Pilot and the Jewish rulers were mere instruments in the 'killing' of the Lord Jesus Christ. The passover lamb was necessary for the deliverance of Israel from the bonds of slavery in Egypt, in like manner the Lamb of God's death was necessary to deliver his people from their sin. In him men have their liberation. "Neither shall ye brake a bone" - Ex 12:46. The lamb was to be whole, not a bone to be broken. For mankind to receive salvation it required the complete and perfect sacrifice. He who came "not to be ministered unto, but to minister" - Mark 10:45. He was the paschal Lamb of God.
Isaiah in his fifty-third chapter declares Christ to be the suffering Servant, the one who would be wounded and bruised for man's iniquity and sin. It is by his service we can say with some degree of certitude, that man has an entrance into eternal life. " We like sheep have gone stray" but Christ the Good Shepherd met with death, bearing man's sins upon him and with his "stripes we are healed", this was stoning death. This atonement demonstrated God's love toward man and his judgement upon sin. Christ took upon himself as we have cited before, man's sins. This is another glimpse of this perfect achievement, for in the Old Testament day it took two goats to 'atone' for the sins of men. One goat 'bore' the sin by dying (put to death), the other was released into the wilderness signifying the carrying away of sin.
God has declared that death is the punishment for sin, so in keeping with his word he sent his only Son into the world to live the life of a man and thence to meet with death, paying the penalty in order to free man from sin's condemnation. The atonement was necessary to meet God's satisfaction and it reveals God's self-consistency; a God who is true to his word.
What does all this mean ? It reveals, we can say with certitude that first and foremost we have a revelation of the heart of God which declares and demonstrates his love for man, and his free grace toward sinful man. That is holy love toward man and his judgement toward sin. "The love of God provided what the justice of God demanded" said F. Coloquhoun. "A just God and Saviour" - Isa 45:21.
Christ's death on the cross was a once and for all sacrifice, a universal sacrifice, and was the revelation of God's purpose and plan of redemption. After offering himself as the sacrifice he sat down on the right hand of God, revealing his work was done. "I have finished the work thou gavest me to do " - John 17:4. From the Old Testament account, priests had to continually offer sacrifices, and moreover, that only once a year was the high priest allowed to enter the holy of holies, a service which was imperfect. But in Christ it was a 'once for all' sacrifice. So it is clear that sacrifices of the Old Testament can be seen as signposts to the sacrifice on the cross, they are but mere shadows and imperfect as to the meaning of the cross of Christ and the Christ of the cross. ********************* The word cross is understood as a gibbet made of two pieces of wood put across; whether they cross with right angles at the top as a 'T' or in the middle of their length like an 'X'. The cross was the punishment of the vilest criminals or slaves, and was called a servile punishment. This punishment Jesus Christ underwent - Mat 27:35, Phil 12:8. This penalty was so common among Romans, that pains, afflictions, troubles, improsporous affairs were called crosses; and the verb cruciare was used for all sorts of chastisements, and pains of the body and mind.
Scripture repeatedly reminds us that he who would be Christ's disciple must take up his cross and follow him - Mat 16:24. He must submit readily to whatever afflictions God lays upon him, or any suffering that befalls him in the service of God even to death itself. The cross is taken as meaning the service of God even to death itself. The cross is taken as meaning the whole of Christ's sufferings upon the tree - Eph 2:16, Heb 12:2. Also for the doctrine of the gospel - that is of salvation through Christ crucified - 1 Cor 1:18.
Jesus died on a cross; hence it is an emblem of the crucifixion of Christ, so that we read of the 'death of the cross' and 'the blood of the cross' - Phil 2:18 - also 'the preaching of the cross' - 1 Cor 1:18.. The cross makes nothing of man and sets aside all his pretensions; therefore to preach 'the cross' arouses men's hatred and persecution - Gal 5:11. 'The cross' is also a symbol of shame and self denial that be in the believer's path.
False teachers who press for the observation of the law of Moses as necessary for salvation, besides faith in Christ, are called enemies of the cross of Christ - Phil 3:18. Because by such doctrine they undermine the power and merit of Christ's passion, and sought to avoid persecution, which they would have been exposed to had they preached salvation only by Christ crucified, as the apostle Paul did - Gal 5:11. To crucify is not only taken for putting to death on a cross - Mat 27:35 - but subduing and mortifying sin; for breaking the strength and suppressing the motions out of corrupt nature Gal 5:24. They that are Christ's have crucified the flesh. Christ's death on the cross has not only merited reconciliation with God, but is also made effectual to mortify and subdue the lusts of the flesh Gal 2:20. “I am crucified with Christ”: It is said of them who at one time made profession of religion and afterwards turn apostates, that they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh - Heb 6:6. That is they show themselves to be of the same opinion with those that did crucify Christ and would do it again were it in their power.
The cross is the very centre and circumference of Christianity. The cross is the evangel of love and compassion demonstrated by the Creator for the creature. The cross is the confirmation of God's love and the merging of holiness and love. It is the denial of self-righteousness and vanity. Love must have a norm or standard and this norm or standard can be found only in holiness. The old conviction of sin and the sense of guilt that drove the convicted sinner to the cross are inseparable from a firm belief in the self-affirming attribute of God.
The cross is the power of Christ even dying - Mat 27:51-53. But an even greater manifestation of the crucifixion power was when Christ opened the kingdom of heaven to a sin-stained man who was dying on a cross beside him - Luke 23:39-43. "The Lord has reigned from the tree" - Ps 96:10.
A puritan divine said, "The suffering of his soul was the soul of suffering". He is very God for he conquered death, he is very man for he died for us. "Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness. God was manifest in flesh." - 1 Tim 3:16. The cross is God's great scheme of blessing for men and glory for his Son. The blood Jesus shed on the cross deals with what men have done. The cross deals with what we are. We need the blood for righteousness, we need the cross for deliverance. The cross signifies the entire redemptive work accomplished historically in death, burial, resurrection and ascension of Jesus himself.
In a wider sense - the union of believers with him therein through grace, was the demonstration of God's power of mercy and pardon from the cross. The operation of the forgiveness of man's sins is from God's viewpoint - included as part of the work of the cross. Jesus was delivered up for man's deliverance from trespasses and was raised for man's justification. The effect of justification by faith in God is peace. This means that now that man has forgiveness of sins, God will no longer be a cause of dread and trouble to man, that is the man of faith to believe. We who were enemies are now reconciled to God - through the death of his Son - Rom 5:10. On the cross Jesus has borne our transgressions as our substitute and has therefore obtained for us forgiveness, justification and reconciliation.
The blood of Jesus Christ shed on the cross can, as already cited 'wash' away the 'old man'. It needs the cross to crucify me, The blood deals with sin, but the cross deals with the sinner. Man is a sinner because he is born a sinner; not because he has committed sins. "I am not a sinner because I sin, but I sin because I am a sinner", says Watchman Nee. Men are constituted sinners by Adam's disobedience. The blood of Jesus Christ procures man's deliverance. Man's state by nature is clearly defined in this way - through one man's disobedience (Adam) many were made sinners, even so, through one man's obedience (Jesus) shall many be made righteous.
Man came into sin by birth - to do away with that sinfulness man must do away with man's life - deliverance from sin comes by death - and God has provided a way of escape. Death is the secret of emancipation. "We died to sin" - Rom 6:2. The way out is by recognising God has dealt with man in Christ - this is summed up for us in Romans 6:3. But if God has dealt with man in Christ Jesus then man has to be in Him for this to be come effective. What man cannot do for himself God has done for him - 1 Cor 1:30. It is a divine act, and it is accomplished.
As cited earlier, the cross is a 'once for all' tense. The eternally past tense - Rom 6:6, Gal 2:20,5:24,6:14. man does not have to crucify himself when Jesus was crucified, for God put us there in Him. That man has died in Christ is not merely a doctrinal position, it is an eternal fact. Jesus gave his sinless life for an atonement for man's sins, and to satisfy the righteousness and holiness of God. He is man's representative in death. His death was not only a substitute but an identification.
In 1 Corinthians Chapter 15 Jesus is referred to as the last Adam, not the second Adam, nor does it refer to him as the last man but the second man. The last Adam indicates the sum total of humanity. Referred to as the second man - he is the Head of the new race. As the last Adam he wiped out the old race -[ as the second Adam he brings in the new race.] The cross of Christ is therefore the power of God which translates us from Adam to Christ. "The story of Jesus is an assurance of hope for the future of the world, but it is not naive optimism. It was forged in the fires of conflict with powers and dominions that seemed to rob the future of hope." says Prof. D.Tiede; and he has goes on to say, "Neither history nor the New Testament was ever neutral about Jesus. The historical memory of Jesus' execution as "King of the Jews" was foundational for their vision of the future. In the Resurrection, God confirmed Jesus as the "anointed one", which is the exact translation of the Hebrew title "Messiah" or the Greek title "Christ", whether or not this title had been used directly for Jesus in his lifetime, it interpreted the ironic truth of the title above his head of the cross."
God with a purpose in history, who is grieved by the failure of his people to live to that purpose, but never abandons them. He continues his purpose through acts of mercy and judgement. His divinity lies in the self-existent completeness and perfection. His freedom from the passions of man's human historical existence. The culmination action of self-revelation of God is in the death of his Son on the cross.
Christ is both divine and human - both God and man. Jesus is not to be identified with God without qualification; he is the Son not the Father. But he is not some lesser, junior, second in the order to God. This is not to imply any lower level of divinity in the case of the Son. What Christ is and does , is what God is and does. But that does not make Christ any less human. He was tempted as men are - like men in everything except sin. He is the model of not only what it is like to be God, but what it is to be truly human also. His humanity is more than an envelope for his divinity.
For some Christians and some Christian communities it has been the incarnation that has been the central; co-ordinating symbol; for others it has been the crucifixion. The former tends towards a more world-affirming style of belief. God has not only created the world; he has entered right into it and brought to it a new dimension of value. Grace perfects nature. The latter has tended in the past to emphasise God's judgement on human sin, and has lent itself to a more pessimistic evaluation of the world and of human life within it.
Today the same stress on the crucifixion as the primary key to truly Christian belief in God is more inclined to see in it an answer to suffering. The crucifixion is God's way of moving forward the day of its elimination, of which the resurrection is the foretaste and the promise. "To whom shall you compare me, that I should be like him ? ", says the Hebrew prophet, speaking in the person of God - Isa 40:25. "God can in no way be described", said Plato. "We have to understand the fact that the church came first then the New Testament.", Irene Allen in 'The Early Church And The New Testament'.
The canon of the New Testament was not settled till about the third century. Nevertheless, the documents - both of the Old Testament itself, and most of the constituents of the New Testament - were widely known and are constantly referred to in Christian literature of the second and third centuries.
The word 'bible' comes from the Greek word biblia (books). A diminutive of biblio (book). In the book of Daniel Chapter 9, reference is made to the Old Testament prophetic writings as 'the Scriptures' (ta biblia, in the Greek). The term 'books' evidently has reference to scriptures. The advent of the Lord Jesus who was the great subject of the scriptures (John 5:39), and in whom as 'Son', God spoke. This led to the division of the sacred writings into two parts called the Old Testament and the New Testament. The message contained in both Testaments is for the whole world, and were written in the language most commonly known at that time for its promulgation. In his book 'The Authority Of The Old Testament' John Bright has this to say; "The place of the Old Testament in the bible and in the life of the church hangs ultimately on the question of its authority. Its is, in the final analysis, profitless to attack the problem at any other level. Little would be gained, " says Bright, "by arguing that the Old Testament contains many things of abiding value, or that some knowledge of it is essential for the proper understanding of the Christian faith."
Bright quotes Marcion as claiming that "The Old Testament has been rejected on the grounds that is was not inspired by, and is in no sense a revelation of, the Christian's God". In an attempt to resolve the problem, Bright asks two questions;
1) "Is there such a thing as a supreme authority that governs Christian belief and Christian action and, if so, what is it ?"
Or, to put it differently;
2) "Is there a final authority to which Christians may appeal in deciding all matters of faith and conduct and, if so, what is it ?".
In approaching the meaning of the cross, do we enter into the meaning in the abstract or general grounds ; into discussion in which no abstract or general conclusions can be reached. In the region with which the New Testament deals, we should be on our guard against pressing too strongly some current distinctions which, within our limits, make everything in the New Testament seem unintelligible. The most important of these is the distinction of historical and dogmatic, or historico-religious and the dogmatico‑religious. If the distinction between historical and dogmatic is pressed, it runs back into the distinction between fact and theory, There is a point at which the two sides in such contract pass into each other.
He who does not see the meaning, does not see the thing, or to use more imposing words, he refuses to take a 'dogmatic' view; and proves by doing so that he falls short of a completely 'historical' one. The same kind of consideration has sometimes to be applied to the distinction of 'Biblical' or 'New Testament', and 'Systematic' theology. Biblical or New Testament theology deals with thoughts, or mode of thinking, of the New Testament writers.
DOCTRINAL CONVICTIONS PART I
The Bible is a theological treatise. As the word 'theology' suggests, it is a scientific study of God and of the Bible. the study of God, the triune God, and the providence of God at work, whether it is poetry or prose has been canonised for our instruction, guidance and betterment, within the Bible. "Theology must be a passion, " said Strong. Abstract theology is not really scientific. Only that theology is scientific which brings us to the feet of Christ. To acknowledge the universal meaning of the purpose and plan of the cross. The scientist asks the question 'why ?'. The Christian asks the question 'who ?'. For the Christian it is personal, the meaning of the cross. It was no experiment - it is experience. Martin Luther's theology of the cross was taken from Paul, who had told his Corinthian converts that the cross of Christ had shown that God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is stronger than human strength.
Systematic theology is the independent construction of Christianity as a whole in the mind of the later thinker. There is a distinction in this, though not absolute, it is the Christian thinking of the first century in the one case, and of the twentieth century, let us say, in the other case. In both cases there is Christianity and there is thinking, and if there is truth in either there is bound to be a place at which distinction disappears. So that it may appear that biblical theology and systematic or philosophical theology are one thing and another, they may be taught in the same rooms in a college, but, except for the pedant, the distinction between them is a vanishing one.
The definition of theology is the science of God and of the relationship between God and the universe. Theo means God. Logos means 'word' or discourse/ Thus, theology is a discourse on God. In Christian theology God is portrayed as the Sovereign of the universe. He is described as 'Spirit', perfectly wise, self sufficient, omnipotent and omniscient. Theology is sometimes employed in dogmatic writings to designate that single department of the science which treats of the divine nature and attributes, prevailing usage. Abelard (1079-1142), in his general treatise entitled 'Theologia Christiana', has included under that term the whole range of Christian doctrine. There were a number of theologians who shared the historical scepticism of Professor Bultmann, who gave prominence to the inconclusiveness of hermeneutics. Theology gives accounts, not only of God, but of those relations between God and the universe in view of which we speak of Creation, Providence and Redemption. John the evangelist is called by earlier scholars as 'the theologian' because he most fully treats of the internal relations of the persons of the Trinity . So, we could argue that theology is not only science of God and man, but theology also gives account of the relations between God and the universe. Theology is the science of sciences; not in the sense of including all these sciences but in the sense of using their results and of showing their underlying ground. God is known through his works and his activities so far as they are within our knowledge. All other sciences require theology for their complete explanation. "If you go deeply into politics you are sure to get into theology," said Proudhon.
The aim of theology is the ascertainment of facts respecting God and the relations between God and the universe, and the exhibition of these facts in their rational unity, as connect parts of a formulated and organic system of truth.
If we define theology as a science we indicate its aim. Science does not create, it discovers. Science is not only observing recording, verifying and formulating of objective facts; it is also the recognition and explication of the rational principles which unite them in a comprehensive, rightly proportioned organic system. Scattered bricks and mortar do not constitute a house; severed arms, legs, heads from a dissecting room do not constitute a man - and facts alone do not constitute science. Science = facts + relations. A theologian is the servant and interpreter of the objective truth of God. "Faith-belief is the organ by which we apprehend what is beyond our knowledge", says Sir William Hamilton. Knowledge and faith cannot be severed from one another. The mind is one: "...it cannot be cut in two with a hatchet". Faith is knowledge conditioned by holy affection. The faith which apprehends God's being and working is not opinion or imagination. It is certitude with regard to spiritual realities, upon the testimony of our rational nature and upon the testimony of God. Its only peculiarity is that it is conditioned by holy affection. Faith is the highest kind of knowing. It gives us understanding of realities which, to sense alone, are inaccessible, namely God's existence, and some at least of the relations between God and his creation.
Religion is not as Kant maintained, morality or moral action, for morality is conformity to an abstract law of right, while religion is essentially a relation to a person, from whom the soul receives blessings and to whom it surrenders itself in love and obedience. If love is not subject to will, it makes the Christian a servant only, not a friend: John 15:15 - "No longer do I call you servants....but I call you friends".
Kant 1724-1804 in his “The Critique of pure reason”, attempted to bridge the gap between EMIRICISM and RATIONALISM. He was concerned that conventional metaphysics had failed to realise issues such as the existence of God, the immortality of the soul and the operation of free will. Kant maintained that the first step to answering such questions was to investigate the limits of human understanding and reasoning - a type of investigation he called a critique. In the end he concluded that we cannot ever know a ‘thing in itself’, but only as it appears to the human mind. Kant also argued that ‘right action’ could not be based on intuition or desire but must conform to a law of reason, the Categorical Imperative, which urges people to behave as they would wish everyone else to.
"The methodology of studying theology is to have a disciplined mind, for only such a mind can patiently collect facts, hold in its grasp many facts at once, educe by continuous reflection their connecting principles, suspend final judgement until its volumes are verified by scripture and experience," said A.H. Strong.
The Scriptures urge upon us the thorough and comprehensive study of the truth. John 5:39 - " Search the scriptures," comparing and harmonising of its different parts. See 1 Cor 2:13 - "...comparing spiritual things with spiritual". Shakespeare in his King Henry play has this to say; "Ignorance is the curse of God; knowledge, the wing wherewith we fly to heaven."
"The central truth of all theology and of all religion is the .....union of the believer with Christ", says Dr J.W. Alexander. yet it receives little of formal recognition, either in dogmatic treaties or in common religious experience. Many printed systems of doctrine, however, contain no chapter or section on 'union with Christ', and many Christians much more frequently think of Christ as a Saviour outside themselves, than as a Saviour who dwells within.
We can say with certitude that New Testament theology is the theology of he Church at a time when as yet it had no New Testament. But the New Testament books have a unity, nevertheless neither external or imposed, not due to the accident of their being approximately contemporary, but inward, essential and spiritual. This qualifies them to be canonised.
The question may be asked, is theology a necessity in the organising instinct of the human mind? The mind cannot endure confusion or apparent contradiction on known facts. The tendency to harmonise and unify its knowledge appears as soon as the mind becomes reflective, just in proportion to its endowments and culture does the impulse to systematise and formulate increase. This is true of all departments of human enquiry, but it is peculiarly true of our knowledge of God. Since the truth with regard to God is the most important of all, theology meets the deepest want of man's rational nature. Theology is a rational necessity. If all existing theology systems were destroyed today, new systems would arise tomorrow. So inevitably in the operation of this law, that those who must decry theology show nevertheless that they have made a theology for themselves, and often one sufficiently meagre and blundering. Hostility to theology, where it does not originate in mistaken fears for the corruption of God's truth or in a naturally illogical structure of mind, often proceeds from a licence of speculation which cannot break the restraints of a complete scriptural system.
Natural theology’s attempt to base religious thoughts on a rational foundation, the belief that knowledge of God and the divine order can be based on observation of the natural world, without need for revelation. One example is the so called ‘argument from design’, according to which the natural world shows such intricate and beautiful design that it could not have arisen accidentally but must have been created. The medieval thinker St. Thomas Aquinas offered five proofs of God based on general facts about the world. However, there are logical problems with all of them.
The universe is a source of theology. The scripture asserts God has revealed himself in nature. There is not only an outward witness to his existence and character in the constitution and government of the universe - Ps 19, Acts 14:17, Rom 1:20, but an inward witness to his existence and character in the heart of every man - Rom 1:17,18,19,20,32, Rom 2:15.
The Christian revelation is the true source of theology. The scripture plainly declares that the revelation of God in nature does not supply all the knowledge which a sinner needs - Acts 17:23., Eph 3:9. Science and scripture throw a light upon each other. The same divine Spirit who gave both revelations is still present, enabling the believer to interpret the one by the other and thus progressively to come to a knowledge of the truth. Because of our finiteness and sin, the total record in scripture of God's past communication is a more trustworthy source of theology than are our conclusions from nature or our private impressions of the teaching of the Spirit. Theology, therefore, looks to the Scripture itself as the chief source of material and its final standard of appeal.
Christ is the one revealer, and the only one, of God: in nature, in history, in science, in Scripture, and this must be the key to theology. A revelation which is not only international but universal. Neither evolution nor higher criticism has any terrors to one who regards them as parts of God's creating and ever lasting process: "History is the workshop of revelation, " Dr. R. Abba.
The English word 'revelation' may be taken either actively or passively. In the former sense it means that activity of God whereby he makes himself known to men; in the latter, the knowledge thus imparted. The biblical idea of revelation must be elicited by means of a broad induction of evidence.
For example, the Old Testament constantly affirms that Israel's existence and history as a nation, and her religion as a church were wholly the result of divine revelation. God had revealed himself in covenant with Abraham, as his God. His law taught them how to worship.
True religion to Israel was precisely the knowledge of Jehovah. The revealed religion of Israel threw into relief the essential blasphemy of all other religion whatsoever.
Adam in Eden needed revelation if he was to live in fellowship with God. Revelation is a personal self-disclosure of God to his rational creatures. This relationship which God initiates is compared in Scripture to husband and wife, father and son, friend and friend. Revelation approached as Emotional Pietism - the special, most important contribution of Schleiermacher, by which doctrines of Christianity (including that of Holy Scripture) are re-interpreted in terms, not now of reason, or history, or poetry, but of the individual emotional experience.
Philosophical Idealism, which in its final form, according to Hegel, gave a new rational interpretation upon a different philosophical basis: a basis which has as its starting point the individual thinking ego. In what does that challenge consist ? It consists first in the rejection of a transcendent Deity and of supernatural acts of God.. This means that the Bible has to be explained as reason, or history, or poetry, or religion, but not as the Word of God. The Bible is reduced to the level of a human book, outstanding perhaps of its kind, but not above all other books. Their Bible has to be studied comparatively, with other books of religion, poetry, history, or rational truth. It is inspired by the God immanent in all things. Thus the Bible ceases to be studied as a divine message, a Word of salvation; instead it comes to be studied as a product of the human spirit.
In the investigation of the authority of Scripture questions of authorship, date, circumstances, style and development of thought replace the first and fundamental question, the question as to the content of the revelation of the Creator-Lord and Saviour.
Philosophy and science are good servants of Christ, but they are poor guides when they rule the Son of God. The old conviction of sin and the sense of guilt draw the convicted sinner to the cross are inseparable from a firm belief in the self-affirming attribute of God as logically conditioning the self-communicative attribute.
Communication is to convey information by words and ideas. God's revelatory act was that the Word became incarnate. "Just as the words of Mr Smith to Mrs Smith, is Mr Smith communicating not just his ideas, but himself to his wife, so the Word of God is communicating himself to man, God making contact with us, God meeting us, coming to us, " says Dr Abba, and adds, "It is a sacramental means by which God the Holy Spirit makes Himself present to faith."
To have a personal knowledge of me, you need to depend on my word communicated to you - just as you could not know me if I refused to speak to you: so, to know God, we can only know God through his own communication of himself to us - that is through his Word. A brief history of historical theology and church history are not the same. Historical theology is the history of ideas, whilst church history on the other hand is a history of events of the church.
"Christian theology as taught in the Bible is an organic unit, and should be studied as such. No part is properly understood except in relation to the whole. No single doctrine is mastered till one knows its place in the system." Dr Abba's belief: " The Bible is both the record and the instrument of a unique divine revelation, given through the history of Israel and culminating in Jesus Christ, interpreted by the church and authenticated in religious experience." The possibility of theology has a three-fold ground:
1) In the existence of a God who has relations in the universe;
2) Is the capacity of the human mind for knowing God and certain of these relations;
3) In the provision of means by which God is brought into actual contact with the mind, or in other words in the provision of a revelation.
However, it has been objected indeed, that since God and these relations are objects apprehended only by faith, they are not proper objects of knowledge, on subjects of science. It can be argued that faith is knowledge, and a higher sort of knowledge - physical science also rests upon faith - faith in our own existence, in the existence of the world objectives and external to us, and in the existence of other persons than ourselves; faith is primitive convictions, such as space, time, cause, substance, design, right; faith is the trustworthiness of our faculties and in our testimony of our fellow men. But physical science is not thereby invalidated, because this faith though unlike sense, perception or logical demonstration, is yet a cognitive act of reason, and may be defined as certitude with respect to matters in which verification is unattainable.
Faith is a knowledge conditioned by holy affection. The faith which apprehends being and working is not opinion or imagination. It is certitude with regard to spiritual realities, upon the testimonies of our rational nature and upon the testimony of God. Its only peculiarity and a cognitive act of reason is that it is conditioned by holy affection. As the science of aesthetics is a product of reason as including a power of recognising beauty practically inseparable from love for beauty, and as the science of ethics is a product of reason as including power of recognising the morally right practically inseparable from a love for the morally right, so the science of theology is a product of reason, but of reason as including power of recognising God which is practically inseparable from a love of God.
Faith, therefore, can furnish, and only faith can furnish, fit and sufficient material for a scientific theology. As an operation of man's higher rational nature, though distinct from ocular vision or from reasoning, faith is not only a kind, but the highest kind of knowing. It gives understanding of realities which to sense alone are inaccessible, namely God's existence, and some at least of the relations between God and his creation.
The aim at this juncture is simply to show that, granting the fact of revelation, a scientific theology is possible. This has been denied on the following grounds: that revelation is necessarily internal and objective - either in mode of intelligence, or a quickening of man's cognitive powers - and hence can furnish no objective facts such as constitute the proper material for science.
In reply to objection by idealists in philosophy, it can be said that revelation, to be effective must be the means of inducing a new mode of intelligence, or in other words, must be understood. The understanding of divine things is impossible without a quickening of man's cognitive powers, moreover, that revelation, when originally imparted was often internal and subjective.
It can be denied that external revelation is therefore useless or impossible. Even if religious ideas sprang wholly from within, an external revelation, might stir up the dormant powers of the mind. Religious ideas, however, do not spring wholly from within. External revelation can impart them. Man can reveal himself to man by external communications, and , if God has equal power with man, God can reveal himself to man in like manner.
Hence, God's revelation may be, and , as we shall here-after see, it is in great part, an external revelation in works and words. The universe is a revelation of God; God's works and nature preceded God's word in history. In many cases where truth was originally communicated internally, the same Spirit who communicated it has brought about an external record of it, so that the internal revelation might be handed down to others than those who first received it .
Compare this with the thinking of Von Hugel: "Its is impossible to see only Plato, Aristotle, Liebniz and Kant and only again Pheidias and Michael Angelo, Raphael and Rembrandt, Bach and Beethoven, Homer and Shakespeare are to be held in the deepest gratitude, as revealers respectively of various kinds of reality and truth, if Amos and Isaiah, Palk, Augustine and Acquinas, Francis of Assisi and Joan Of Arc are to be treated as pure illusionists in precisely what constitutes their specific greatness."
Aristotle 384-322 BC. An ancient Greek philosopher - a pupil of Plato. He developed his ideas more methodically and scientifically. He devised a comprehensive system of thought embracing logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, politics and science. His method was analytical and systematic, questioning everything and always looking for essential principles in every area of knowledge. He was a tutor to Alexander the Great.
Thomas Acquinas adapted his theories to Christian Theology.
If this be granted, the Christian experience of divine authority mediated through the Bible may not be denied.
W. Robertson Smith stated, "If I am asked why I received Scripture as the Word of God, and as the only perfect rule of faith and life, I answer with all the fathers of the Protestant Church, because the Bible is the only record of the redeeming love of God, because in the Bible alone I find God drawing near to man in Jesus Christ, and declaring to us in Him, His will for our salvation. And this record I know to be true by the witness of his Spirit in my heart, whereby I am assured that none other than God Himself is able to speak such words to my soul.....[“This is no experiment - this is experience”]. With the external record we shall also see that there is given under proper conditions a special influence of God's Spirit, as to quicken our cognitive powers that the external record reproduces in our minds the ideas with which the minds of writers were at first divinely filled. Internal revelations thus recorded, and external revelations thus interpreted, both furnish objective facts which may serve as proper material for science. Although revelation in its widest sense may include, and as constituting the ground of the possibility of theology, does include, both insight and illumination, it may also be used to denote simply a provision of external means of knowledge, and theology has to do with inward revelations only as they are expressed in, or as they agree with, this objective standard. Nineham and Evans: " show an astonishing confidence that the theology and proclamation of the Church need no external norm. They are therefore opposed to the idea of any systematic and pre-defined priori 'authority'." See also Abba's 'The Nature and Authority of The Bible', page 268. Theology has to do with subjective feelings only as they can be defined, and shown to be effects of objective truth in the mind. They are not more obscure than are the facts of morale or psychology, and the same objection which include such feelings from theology would make these latter sciences impossible.
Those facts of revelation which are beyond our full understanding may, like the nebular hypothesis in astronomy, the atomic theory in chemistry, or the doctrine of evolution in biology, furnish a principle of union between great classes of other facts otherwise irreconcilable. We may define our concepts of God, and even the Trinity, at least sufficiently to distinguish them from all other concepts; and whatever difficulty may encumber the putting of them into language only shows the importance of attempting it and the value of even an approximate success. The necessity of theology has it grounds, in the organising instincts of the human mind. This organising principle is part of our constitution. The mind cannot endure confusion or apparent contradiction in known facts. Theology is a rational necessity About theology Berkhof says, "The position must be maintained however, that theology would be utterly impossible without the self-revelation of God. When we speak of revelation, we use the term in the strict sense of the word. It is not something in which God is passive, a mere 'becoming manifest', but something in which he is actively making himself known." Berkhof goes on to say, "It is not, as many moderns would have it, a deepened spiritual insight which leads to an ever-increasing discovery of God on the part of man; but a supernatural act of self-communication, a purposeful act on the part of the living God. There is nothing surprising in the fact that God can be known only if, and in so far as, he reveals Himself." Martin Anstey said, "The critics have been refuted and the Bible has been vindicated, but still the controversy goes on. The Book has always has its enemies. It has always been attacked. Christianity itself has always been opposed from the very first. The best defence of Christianity is not a clever argument, which can always be met by a cleverer one, but the life of a true Christian man and which its high principles are adequately realised and faithfully expressed, and the best defence of the Bible is the life of a truly devout Bible student in which its holy precepts are lovingly enshrined."
Anstey also points out that, "The science of Textual Criticism has simply vindicated the claim that the Bible, as it was held in the hands of our Lord, is the Bible as we hold in our hands today. The 'assured results' of the 'Higher Criticism', reversing the traditional view of the date, authorship, and compositions of the books of the Bible, and unduly emphasising the so-called 'Divine Element' in it, have been examined in detail and have been proved to be entirely dependent upon naturalistic assumptions and speculative presuppositions that would not be entertained for a moment by any person capable of pronouncing judgement upon evidence brought forward in a court of law; whilst the vagaries of 'Historical Criticism' have reached their climax, and their reductio ad absurdum in the doubts now beginning to be entertained as the historical character of the events of the life of our Lord the surest and best attested events in human history." "Communication and action - whatever the sequence - are indissolubly lined as elements in a divinely controlled process in history; and revelation is given, not through either in isolation, but through the interaction of both." - Dr. Abba.
This view is supportive of the 'God who not only communicates but acts' type of theology.
Compare this to Professor Barr's distinction of divine communication as a pre-condition and as a consequence of the divine act. "Whether history is secular (historie) or sacred history (Heilsgescgiche), whether God makes the divine intervention by miraculous means of a providential concatenation of historical circumstances, nevertheless, the faith of the Old Testament reposes in the acts of Yahweh in history, a principle which is indisputable”.
We must ask ourselves are we right in what we affirm but wrong in what we deny?
The main interpretation of history as manifesting the mighty works of a living God help us to look to the future; to God vindicating his purposes. ********************
The " union of the believer with Christ", said Alexander, "is the central truth of all theology.” The doctrine of the union with Christ is taught abundantly and variously that to deny it is to deny inspiration itself. The scriptures declare that through the operation of God, there is constituted a union of the soul with Christ.
Christ is different in kind from God's natural and providential concurs with all spirits, as well as from unions of mere associations or sympathy, moral likeness, or moral influence, a union of life, in which human spirit, while then most truly possessing it's own individuality and personal distinction, is interpreted and energised by the Spirit of Christ, is made inscrutably but indissolubly with him, and so because a member and partaker of that regenerated, believing and justified humanity of which he is the head.
Union is described in the Bible along the lines of: the union of a building and its foundation. From the unions between husband and wife. From the union between the vine and its branches. From the union between the head and the body. From the union of the race with the source of it's life in Adam. Direct statements such as: the believer is said to be in Christ, Christ is said to be in the believer. The Father and Son dwell in the believer. The believer has life by partaking of Christ, as Christ has life by partaking of the Father. A union mediated and conditioned by participation of the sacraments, as held by Romanists, Lutherans, High-church Episcopalians.
An organic union is a union where we become members of Christ and partakers of his humanity. It is a vital union as well as positive in which Christ's life becomes the dominating principle within us. It is a spiritual union in that it is a union whose source and author is the Holy Spirit. It is an indissoluble union, a union, in which consistently with Christ's promise and grace, can never be dissolved.
Union with Christ involves a change in the dominant affection of the soul. Christ's entrance into the soul makes it a new creature, in the sense that the ruling disposition, which before was sinful, now becomes holy. This change is called Regeneration. Union with Christ involves a new exercise of the soul's powers in repentance and faith; faith, indeed, is the act of the soul by which , under the operation of God, Christ is received. This new exercise of the soul's powers is called conversion (repentance and faith). It is the obverse or human side of regeneration.
Union with Christ gives the believer the legal standing and rights of Christ. As Christ's union with the race involves atonement, so the believer's union with Christ involves justification. The believer is entitled to take for his own, all that Christ is, and all that Christ has done; and this because he has within him the new life of humanity which suffered in Christ's death and rose from the grave in Christ's resurrection. In other words, because he is virtually one person with the Redeemer. In Christ the believer is prophet, priest and king. . Union with Christ secures for the believer the continuously transforming assimilating power of Christ's life - first for the soul and secondly for the body, consecrating it in the present, and in the future raising it up in the likeness of Christ's glorified body. This continuous influence so far as it is exerted in the present life, is sanctification, the human side or aspect of which is perseverance.
Union with Christ brings about a fellowship of Christ with the believer - Christ takes part in all the labours, temptation and sufferings of his people; a fellowship of the believer with Christ, so that Christ's whole experience on earth is in some measure reproduced in him, a fellowship of all believers with one another, furnishing a basis for the spiritual unity of Christ's people on earth; and for the spiritual unity of Christ's people on earth; and for the eternal communion of heaven. The doctrine of the union with Christ is therefore the indispensable preparation for Ecclesiology and for Eschatology. Regeneration, or new birth, is the divine side if that change of heart which, ruined from the human side, is called conversion. It is God turning the soul to himself, conversion being the soul turning itself to God, of which God's turning it is both the accompanied and the cause. It will be observed from the above definition, that there are two aspects of regeneration; in the first of which the soul is passive, and in the second of which the soul is active. God changes the governing disposition, in this change the soul is simply acted upon, Yet these two aspects of God's operation are simultaneous. At the same moment he makes the soul sensitive, he pours in the light of his truth and induces the exercises of the holy disposition he has imparted. Regeneration or the union with Christ ought not to be treated as a separate topic, but under the heading of justification.
********************
By justification is meant the judicial act of God by which on account of Christ, to whom the sinner is united by faith, God declares that the sinner is no longer to be exposed to the penalty of the law, but to be restored to his favour. Justification is the reversal of God's attitude towards the sinner, because of the sinner's relation to Christ. God did condemn, he now acquits. He did repel, he now admits to favour. Justification as thus defined is therefore a declarative act, as distinguished from am act within the sinner's nature and changing that nature, a judicial act as distinguished from a sovereign act; an act based upon and logically presupposing the sinner's union with Christ, as distinguished from an act which causes and is followed by that union with Christ. C.B. Firth says "To the Greeks justice meant the giving of his due to every individual and to every group of men; the proper work, rewards, position”. “In an organised community, justice”, says Pluto, is "the power that makes each member of it do his own work", and from the individual's point of view, "to have and to do what belongs to us and is our own is justice.” "Aristotle", quotes Firth, on the other hand emphasises that "justice is essentially a virtue exercised towards other people.” (Plato was a pupil of Socrates and a teacher of Aristotle). The words “justify” and “justification” found in the Septuagint as well as in the New Testament, signifies not to make righteous, but the declare just, or free from guilt and exposure to punishment. In the letter of James we learn his doctrine of justification is to be justified by faith, such faith as makes us faithful and brings forth good works. God acquits the ungodly who believes in Christ and declares them just. This is not to declare them innocent - that would be a judgement contrary to the truth. It declares that the demands of the law have been satisfied with regard to them, and that they are now free from its condemnation. Justification, then, is an act of God, personally grieved and injured by sin, yet showing grace to the sinner, this is forgiveness. Justification, in its first element, is therefore that act by which God, for the sake of Christ, acquits the transgressor and suffers him to go free. Justification in Paul. Although the substantive justification occurs only twice - Rom 4:25, see also Rom 5:16. The verb to justify is not met with very often in the writings of Paul (26 times). As with the word righteous, the references occur for the greater part in Romans and Galations, that is to say in letters in which Paul opposes the Jewish teaching of salvation and with it that which governed his own past. This means that, in order to determine exactly the Pauline conception of justification, it is in the first place necessary to take a closer look at the Jewish concept. The Jewish doctrine of salvation, even although differing sharply within itself in particular points, is based on the fundamental assumption that man has within himself the possibility of fulfilling the law and he who has fulfilled the law is righteous. Justification is therefore the work of man himself and is, in the strictest sense of the term, his own merit. This sum total of individual compliance’s with or transgressions of the law determines whether a man is righteous or not. The judgement on the final condition is reserved to God and passed out at death on the final judgement. He who has a credit balance is justified by God, that is , he is reckoned as righteous and has a claim to share in the life of the world to come. He who has not will be condemned. Judaism is certainly familiar with the idea of grace and forgiveness of sins, but these play no part in the doctrine of justification. This is conceived of a purely external act consisting in acknowledging a reality which is already there. Man is not for the first time made righteous through justification, nor does justification arise out of this act of acknowledgement, nor is it contributed by it, rather, justification is the recognition of righteousness which has already been brought about and which is therefore already in existence. The Jewish teaching on justification could be summed up objectively in a phrase; man is righteous because he is declared so by God. This implies that justification is not a grace but strictly a merit of man, something that God owes man and to which man, in the strictest sense, has a claim.
Paul’s teaching shows itself to be a radical opposition to this Jewish concept both in the way he formulates it and in its content. In this respect there appears some essential differences in his teaching on justification in respect to that which had gone before. Paul agrees with the Jewish idea only in one respect - that only those who fulfil the law will be justified in the final judgement - Rom 2:13. In this text the term “justify” evidently has the same meaning as in Judaism, namely, to be declared and acknowledged as righteous. This meaning also occurs in Paul’s statement: ‘I am not thereby justified’ - 1 Cor 4:4. Or where he says in Romans 8:33: ‘It is God who justifies’, meaning at the final judgement for it is significant that the term which is used as the opposite of this is to “condemn”.
The declaration that the sinner is no longer exposed to the penalty of the law, has its grounds, not in any satisfaction of law’s demand on the part of the sinner himself, but solely in the bearing of the penalty by Christ to whom the sinner is united by faith. Justification is more than remission or acquittal. These would leave the sinner simply in the position of a discharged criminal, law requires a positive righteousness also. Besides deliverance from punishment, justification implies God’s treatment of the sinner as if he were, and had been,, personally righteous. The justified person receives not only the remission of penalty, but the rewards promised to obedience.
In an earthly pardon there are no special helps bestowed upon the pardoned. There are no penalties, but there are also no rewards, law cannot claim anything of the discharged, but then they also can claim nothing of the law. But what is left unprovided by human government, God does provide. In justification there is not only acquittal, but approval, not only pardon, but promotion. Permission is never separated from restoration.
The declaration that the sinner is restored to God’s favour, has its grounds, not in the sinner’s personal character or conduct, but solely in the obedience and righteousness of Christ, to whom the sinner is united by faith. Thus, Christ’s work is the procuring cause of our justification, in both it’s elements. As we are acquitted in account of Christ’s suffering of the penalty of the law, so on account of Christ’s obedience we receive the rewards of law. According to Strong: ”Justification has been shown to be a forensic term.” He goes on to explain this statement as follows: “A man may, indeed, be conceived of as just; in either of the two senses: a) as just in moral character, that is absolutely holy in nature, disposition, and conduct; b) as just in relation to the law, or free from all obligation to suffer penalty, and as entitled to the rewards of obedience.” Dr Strong adds “But the scriptures declare that there does not exist on earth a just man: Eccl 7:20. Even in those who are renewed in moral character and united to Christ, there is a remnant of moral depravity.”
So, if there is such a thing as a just man, he must be just not in the sense of possessing an unspotted holiness but in the sense of being delivered from the penalty of the law, and made partaker of its rewards. If there is any such thing as justification, it must be, not an act of God which renders the sinner absolutely holy, but an act of God which declares the sinner to be free from legal penalties and entitled to legal rewards.
We must accept this fact based on the testimony of the Scriptures. If this testimony is not accepted, there is no deliverance from the condemnation of the law. So the difficulty of conceiving that God has declared to the sinner that he is no longer exposed to the legal penalty, is removed.
Justification is possible, therefore, because it is always accompanied by regeneration and union with Christ, and is followed by sanctification. Justification is instantaneous, complete and final: instantaneous; since otherwise there would be an interval during which the soul was neither approved nor condemned by God - Mat 6:24; complete; since the soul, united with Christ by faith, becomes partaker of his complete satisfaction to the demands of the law - Col 2:9,10; and final; since the union with Christ is indissoluble - John 10:28,29.
As there are many acts of sin in the Christian’s life, so there are many acts of pardon following them. But all of these acts of pardon are virtually implied in that first act by which he was finally and forever justified; as also successive acts of repentance and faith which logically preceded justification. Berkhof has this to say: “It is unique in the application of redemption in that it is a judicial act of God, a declaration respecting the sinner, and not an act or process of renewal, such as regeneration, conversion, and sanctification. While it has respect to the sinner, it does not change his inner life. It does not affect his condition, but his state, and in that respect differs from all other principle parts of the order of salvation. It involves the forgiveness of sins, and restoration to divine favour. Some hold it includes only the former, and not the latter; but the Bible clearly teaches that the first fruits of justification is much more than pardon. They who are justified have “peace with God”, “assurance of salvation” - Rom 5:1-10, and an “inheritance among them that are sanctified” - Acts 26:18.
Justification removes the guilt of sin - Sanctification removes the pollution of sin. Justification takes place outside the sinner in the tribunal of God. Sanctification takes place in the inner life of man and gradually affects his whole being. Justification takes place once and for all. It is not repeated, neither is it a process. It is complete. In distinction sanctification is a continuous process, which is never completed in this life.
The meritorious cause of both lies in the merits of Christ, there is a difference in the efficient cause. Speaking economically, God the Father declares the sinner righteous, and God the Holy Spirit sanctifies him.
*************************
Justification is an act of God, personally grieved and injured by sin. To treat the subject of sin comprehensively we have to start from the origination of law and that the law of God. From this we deduce firstly that the law is an expression of will and that enforced by law. This implies a) a lawgiver, or authoritative will, b) subjects or beings upon whom this will terminates, c) a general command or expression of will, and d) a power, enforcing the command.
These elements are found even in what we call natural law. The phrase ‘law of nature’ involves self-contradiction, when used to denote a mode of action or an order of sequence, behind which there is conceived to be no intelligent and ordaining will. Physics derives the term ‘law’ from jurisprudence, instead of jurisprudence deriving it from physics. It is first used of the relations of voluntary agents. Causation in our own wills enables us to see something besides mere antecedents and consequence in the world about us. Physical science, in her very use of the word ‘law’, implicitly confesses that a supreme Will has set general rules which control the processes of the universe.
The characteristic of the law is generality. It is addressed to substances or persons in classes. Special legislation is contrary to the true theory of law. It is essential to the existence of law, or mere wish or advice. Since physical substances and forces have no intelligence and no power to resist. Law implies duty or obligation to obey; and sanctions, or pains and penalties for dis-obedience.
The Will which thus binds its subjects by command and penalties is an expression of the nature of the governing power, and reveals the normal relations of the subjects to that power. Therefore, law is an expression of the lawgiver; and sets forth the condition or conduct in the subjects which is requisite for harmony with that nature. Any so-called law which fails to represent the nature of the governing power soon becomes obsolete. All law that is permanent is a transcript of the facts of being, a discovery of what is and must be, in order to harmony between the governing and the governed; in short, positive law is just and lasting only as it is an expression and republication of the law of nature.
The law of God is a general expression of the divine will enforced by power. It has two forms; Elemental law and Positive Enactment. Elemental law or law unwrought; into elements, substances and forces of the rational and irrational creation. This is two-fold; 1) The expression of divine will in the constitution of the material universe; this is physical or natural law. Physical law is not necessary. Another order of things is conceivable. Physical order is not an end in itself; it exists for the sake of moral order. Physical order has therefore only a relative constancy, and God supplements it at times by miracle. 2) The expression of divine will in the constitution of rational and free agents; this is called moral law. this elemental law of our moral nature with which only we are now concerned, has all the characteristics mentioned as belonging to law in general. It implies a) a divine lawgiver or ordaining will; b) general command, or expression of will in the moral constitution of the subjects; c) subjects or moral beings upon whom the law terminates; d) power, enforcing the command; e) duty, or obligation to obey; f) sanctions or pains and penalties for disobedience.
All these are of a loftier sort than are found in human law. But we need especially to emphasise the fact of law. It is an expression of the moral nature of God, and therefore God’s holiness, the fundamental attribute of that nature; and that is sets forth absolute conformity to that holiness, as moral condition of man. This law is unwrought into man’s rational and moral being. Man fulfills it, only when in his moral as well as his rational being he is the image of God.
The divine law is all comprehensive. It is over us at all times; it respects our past, our present our future. It forbids every conceivable virtue; omissions as well as commissions are condemned by it.
Spirituality requires not only right acts and words, but the right dispositions and states. Perfect obedience requires not only the intense and unremitting reign of love toward God and man, but conformity to the whole inward and outward nature of man to the holiness of God.
Solidarity exhibits in all its parts the nature of the one lawgiver, and it expresses, in its least command, the one requirement of harmony with him. Only to the first man was the law required as a method of salvation. With the first sin, all hope of obtaining the divine favour by perfect obedience is lost. To the sinner the law remains as a means of discovery and developing sin in its true nature, and of compelling a recourse to the mercy provided in Jesus Christ.
Thus it can be said that sin is a lack of conformity to the moral law of God, either in act, disposition, or state. To explain this definition as regards sin that it is predictable only of rational and voluntary agents. It assumes that man has a rational nature below consciousness, and a voluntary nature apart from actual volition. It holds that the divine law requires moral likeness to God, in the affections and tendencies of the nature, as well as in its outward activities. It therefore considers lack of conformity to the divine holiness in disposition or state as a violation of the law, equally with the outward act of transgression.
The essential principle of sin is selfishness. By selfishness is meant not simply the exaggerated self-love which constitutes the antithesis of benevolence, but that choice of self as the supreme end which constitutes the antithesis of supreme love of God. That selfishness is the science of sin shows as follows; a) love to God is the essence of all nature. The opposite of this, the choice of self as the supreme end, must therefore be the essence of sin; b) we are to remember, however, that the love of God to which virtue consists is love for that which is most characteristic and fundamental in God, namely, his holiness. It is not to be confounded with supreme regard for God’s interests or for the good in being in general. Not mere benevolence but love for God as holy, is the principle and source of holiness in union. Since the love of God required by law is of this sort, it not only does not imply that love in the sense of benevolence, is the essence of holiness in God. It implies rather that holiness, or self-loving and self-affirming purity, is fundamental in the divine nature. From this self-loving and self-affirming purity, love properly so-called or the self-communicating attribute, is to be carefully distinguished.
All the different forms of sin can be shown to have their root in selfishness, while selfishness itself, considered as the choice of self as a supreme end, cannot be resolved into any simpler elements. Selfishness may reveal itself in the elevation to supreme dominion of any one of man’s appetites, desires, or affections. Sensuality or selfishness in the form of inordinate appetite. Selfish desire takes the forms respectively of avarice, ambition, vanity, pride, according as it is set upon property, power, esteem, independence. Selfish affliction is falsehood or malice, according as it hopes to make others its voluntary servants, or regards them as standing in its way; it is unbelief or enmity to God, according as it simply turns away from the truth and love of God, or conceives of God’s holiness as positively resisting and punishing it.
Berkhof on sin says: “The earliest method of explaining the connection between the sin of Adam and the guilt and pollution of all his descendants was the realistic theory. This theory is to the effect that human nature constitutes not only generically but numerically as well, as single unit.” He goes on to say, “Adam possessed the whole human nature, and in him it corrupted itself by its own voluntary apostatising act in Adam. Individual men are not separate substances but manifestations of the same general substances; they are numerically one. This universal human nature became corrupt and guilty from the very beginning of its existence. This means that all men actually sinned in Adam before individualisation of human nature began. This theory was accepted by the Early Church Fathers and by some of the scholastics, and was defended in more recent times by Dr Shedd.”
Accepted by most Christian thinking people as the ‘Seven Deadly Sins’ are pride, anger, envy, impurity, gluttony, slothfulness and avarice, yet nowhere collectively mentioned in a single passage in the Bible, but they are all condemned separately in many places. Thomas Acquinas and most of the great theologians have agreed with Pope Gregory, and these seven deadly sins become a recognised part of moral philosophy. These sins have become the subject of poets. The scheme of Dante’s ‘Purgatory’ follows the order of the seven deadly sins. They are also discussed fully in Chaucer’s ‘Parson’s Talk’, and in Marlowe’s ‘Doctor Faustus’. There has even been an Italian film entitled ‘The Seven Deadly Sins’. ************************************* ***************************************** PART II Robert Clarke, “The Universe: plan or Accident” says ,”Is it order or design ?.” He goes on: “In the first place, it ought to be mentioned that, although there is much agreement as to the facts, there are many who insist on describing them in such a way that no implication of natural theology shall emerge.” Dr Clarke suggests: “Order is of two kinds. the man who paints a picture, orders paint upon the canvas, but when a pile of sand is placed in a tray and shaken vigorously the sand orders itself to form a layer equally thick all over the tray. By the first kind of order is meant design and the implication is that it implies an orderer is no less and no more than the implication that design implies a designer.” It can be stated that sin entered the world fully grown, it birthed at the creation of man. By creation is meant that free-will/act of a triune God by which in the beginning, for his own glory he made, without the use of pre-existing materials, the whole visible and invisible universe. Creation is designed origination, by a transcendent and personal God, of that which itself is not God. the universe is related to God as our own volition’s are related to ourselves. They are not ourselves and we are greater than they. Creation is not simply the idea of God, or even the plan of God, but is the idea externalised, the plan executed; in other words, it implies exercise, not only of intellect, but also of will that is personal and free. Such exercise of will seems to involve not self-development, but self-limitation, on the part of God; the transformation of energy into force, and as a beginning of time, with its finite successions. But, whatever the relation of creation to time, creation makes the universe wholly dependent upon God, as its originator. As an explanation of definition, creation is not “production out of nothing”, as if “nothing” were a substance of which “something” could be formed. Creation is not a fashioning or pre-existing materials, nor an emanation from the substance of the Deity, but is a making of that to exist which once did not exist, either in form or substance. Creation is not an instructive or necessary process of the divine nature, but is a free act of a rational will, put forth for a definite and sufficient end. Creation is the act of triune God, in the sense that all the persons of the Trinity, themselves uncreated, have a part in it, the Father as the originating, the Son as the mediating, the Spirit as the realising cause. Creation is a truth which mere science or reason cannot fully assure us. Physical science can observe and record changes, but it knows nothing of origin. Reason cannot absolutely disprove the eternity of matter. For the proof of the doctrine of Creation, therefore we rely wholly on the Scriptures. Scripture supplements science, and renders its explanation of the universe complete.
The idea of production without the use of pre-existing materials unquestionably existed among the Hebrews, while it is either not found at all, or very dimly and ambiguously expressed in the sacred books of the heathen, can be best explained by supposing that it was derived from early revelation in Genesis.
“By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of God - Heb 11:3, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things which appear”, the world was not made out of sensible and pre-existing material, but by the direct feat of omnipotence.
The past duration of the world is limited; before the world began to be each of the persons of the Godhead already existed; the origin of the universe is ascribed to God, and to each of the persons of the Godhead. These representations of the Scriptures are not only the most consistent with the view that the universe was created by God without the use of pre-existing materials, but they are inexplicable upon any other hypothesis. “Hot objects always warm cold ones until the two are at the same temperature. But the universe contains hot and cold bodies which have not, apparently, had time to reach thermal equilibrium. It follows that such a state of affairs cannot have existed for ever. It was quite impossible, too, to suppose that a primordial gas condensing as a result of gravitational forces, could have produced both cold and hot bodies...the universe could not therefore be explained on materialistic lines but must have been made by God,” said Isaac Newton.
The emanation theory holds that the universe is of the same substance with God and is the product of successive evolution’s from his being. This was the view of the Symongnostics. Their system was an attempt to interpret Christianity in the forms of Oriental theosophy. A similar doctrine taught, in the last century by Swedenborg. “Without them knowing it, the first two chapters of Genesis are a kind of exercise by the ancient Hebrews in the scientific method. A scientist collects facts, uses then as a framework on which to build a theory, and collects more facts to see if this will continue to fit into the framework. If they will no, then he alters the framework so that it will incorporate the new facts.Sir Isaac Newton’s conception of the universe lasted for more that two centuries before it was reviewed by Albert Einstein.” Guy Daniel.
Objections can be made on the following grounds; a) it virtually denies the finity and transcendence of God, by applying to him a principle of evolutions, growth and progress which belongs only to the finite and imperfect; b) it contradicts the divine holiness, since man, who by theory is of the substance of God, is nevertheless morally evil; c) it leads logically to pantheism, since the claim that human personality is illusory cannot be maintained without also surrendering belief in the personality of God.
The creation from eternity regards creation as an act of God in eternity past. It was propounded by Origen, and has been held in recent times by Martinsen and others. The necessity of supposing such creation from eternity has been argued from God’s omnipotence, God’s timelessness, God’s immutability and God’s love.
Consider the argument; 1) Creation from eternity is not necessitated by God’s omnipotence. Omnipotence does not necessarily imply actual creation; it implies only the power to create. Creation, moreover, is in the nature of the case a thing begun. Creation from eternity is a contradiction in terms, and that which is self- contradicting is not an object of power.
2) Creation from the eternity is not necessitated by God’s timelessness. Because God is free from law of time it does not follow that creation is conceivable, since this involves infinite numbers. Time must have had a beginning, and since the universe and time are coexistent, creation could not have been from eternity.
3) Creation from eternity is not necessitated by God’s love. Creation is finite and cannot furnish perfect satisfaction to the infinite love of God. God has, moreover, from eternity an object of love infinitely superior to any possible creation, in the person of his Son.
4) Creation from eternity is inconsistent with the divine independence and personality. Since God’s power and love are infinite, a creation that satisfied them must be infinite in extent as well as eternal in the past duration, in other words, a creation equal to God. But a God thus independent upon external creation is neither free nor sovereign. A God existing unnecessary relations to the universe if different in substance from the universe, must be the God of dualism; if the same substance with the universe must be the God of pantheism.
The Mosaic account of creation - its a two-fold nature as writing the idea of creation and of development. a) Creation is asserted. The Mosaic narrative avoids the error of making the universe eternal or the result of an eternal process. The cosmogony of Genesis, unlike the cosmogony of the heathen , is prefaced by the originating act of God, and is supplemented by successive manifestations of creative power in the introduction of brute and of human life.
b) Development is recognised. The Mosaic account represents the order of things as a result, not simply of original creation, but also of subsequent arrangement and development. A fashioning of inorganic materials is described, and also a use of these materials in providing the conditions of organised existence. Life is described as reproducing itself, after its first introduction, according to its own laws and by virtue of its own inner energy.
Infinite wisdom must, in creating, propose to itself the most comprehensive and most valuable of ends, the end most worthy of God, and the end most fruitful in good. Only in the light of the end proposed, can we properly judge of God’s work or of God’s character as revealed therein.
In determining this end we examine the testimony of Scripture. This may be summed up in four statements. God finds his end: a) in himself; b) in his own will and pleasure c) in his own glory d) in the making known of his power, his wisdom, his holy name. All of these statements may be combined in the following, namely, that God’s supreme end in creation is nothing outside of himself but is his own glory in the revelation, in and through creatures of the infinite perfection of his own being.
Creation as the work of God, manifests of necessity God’s moral attributes. But the existence of physical and moral evil in the universe appears, at first sight, to impinge these attributes and to contradict the Scripture declaration that the work of God’s hand ‘was very good’ - Gen 1:31. This difficulty may be removed in part by considering the Scripture declaration that: a) at its first creation the world was good in two senses; first, as free form moral evil, sin being a later edition, the work, not of God, but created by spirits; secondly, as adopted to beneficent ends, for example, the revelation of God’s perfection, and the probation and happiness of intelligent and obedient creatures. b) Physical pain and imperfection, so far as they existed before introduction of moral evil, are to be regarded, first; so congruous parts of a system of which sin was foreseen to be an incident; and secondly, as constituting, in past, the means of future discipline and redemption for the fallen.
Berkhof says: “The prevailing view has always been that the days of Genesis chapter one are to be understood as literal days. Some of the early Church Fathers did not regard them as real indicators of time in which the creation was completed, but rather as literary forms in which the writer of Genesis cast a narrative of creation, in order to picture the work of creation - which was really completed in a moment of time - in orderly fashion for human intelligence. It was only after the comparatively new sciences of geology and prolaeontology came forward with their theories of the enormous age of earth, that theologians began to show an inclination to identify the days of creation with the long geological ages. Today some of them regard it is an established fact that the days of Genesis chapter one are mere long periods; others are somewhat inclined to assume this position but show considerable hesitation. Hodge, Sheldon and others are not entirely averse to this view, are all agreed that this interpretation of the days is exegetically doubtful, if not impossible.”
“The science of geology is not only young but it is still in bondage to speculative thought. It cannot be considered as an inductive science, since it is largely the fact of a posteriori or deductive reasoning.” Spencer, he adds, “It is ILLOGICAL GEOLOGY” and ridiculed its methods, and Huxley spoke of its grand hypothesis as “not proven and not provable.” Up to the present time, it has done little more than scratch the surface of the earth, and that in a very limited number of places. As a result its conclusions are often mere generalisations, based on insufficient data. Facts deserved in some places are contradicted by those found in others.”
Professor Huxley in his lecture on “Persistent Types” insists “that we have evidence of a pre-geological era of unknown duration. Palaeontological records which we find do not negate the theory of evolution, but they are such as might rationally be looked for.” Professor Owen, along these same lines tells us, “..that all organic forms have arisen by the superposing of modifications upon modifications; increase in heterogeneity being an average implication.”
***********************
In an article entitled “Chapters in Genesis You Will Never Exhaust” Dr W.Griffith Thomas says, “The truest method of interpretation is that which regards these narratives; (reference chapters 1 - 3) as pictorial records of actual facts; solid history in pictorial form. It is inadequate to speak of the narrative as poetic or merely symbolic lest we should give the impression that the story is not concerned with actual fact,” Thomas adds, “Later Psalms and especially Isaiah (see Isa 40:26,28; 41:20;, 43:1-7; 45:8,1,18) put creation in the context of God’s redeeming Purpose for Israel. Indeed the parallelism in Isaiah 65:17,18, seems to suggest that Jerusalem is God’s final New Creation, and the goal of all creation. It would therefore, be fair to say that Israel did not so much start off with the Creation story and then come round to a doctrine of Election and Redemption. Rather it seems as though the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob became their Deliverer out of bondage of Egypt, and this central belief enabled them afresh to examine the story of Creation and see enhanced meaning in it. The sweep of God’s power as Maker of heaven and earth is never bare, imperial truth, but is clothed in the warmth and wonder of his love for the sons of a man like Jacob.” He adds, “Remember that scientists and philosophers declare that creation is something that they simply cannot understand. How a universe that previously was not there should come into being is beyond them. Of course ! Why argue the point ? Why be intimidated ? They can only grasp what comes within their experience as human beings: the same limitation blinds them to the glory of Christ, the joy of reconciliation with God, the peace of sins forgiven, and the power of a new life. It is spiritually grasped,” says Dr Thomas.
“As a book, Genesis is taken up by three men, Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph. Then the stage is set for the Nation (Sons of Jacob when he gets the new name and the new nature) to emerge. That ushers in Israel’s story,” as Thomas described it.
The fact of man’s creation is declared in Genesis 1:27, “and God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him.” Genesis chapter 2 verse 7, in which, as a result of the inbreathing of the divine Spirit, the body becomes possessed and vitalised principle - the living soul. Passages in which the human soul, or spirit, is distinguished , both from the divine Spirit from whom it proceeds, and from the body which it inhabits. The mention of the body and soul (or spirit) as together constituting the whole man.
The Scriptures on the one hand negates the idea that man is the mere product of unnecessary natural forces. They refer his existence to a cause different from mere nature, namely, the creative act of God. But on the other hand, the Scriptures do not declare the method of man’s creation. Whether man’s physical system is or is not derived, by natural generation, so the forming of man “of the dust of the ground” - Gen 2:7, does not in itself determine whether the creation of man’s body was immediate or mediate.
It can be conceded, then , that man has a brute ancestry, we can make two claims by way of qualification and explanation; first, that the law of organic development which has been followed in man’s origin are only methods of God and proofs of his creatorship; secondly, that man, when he appears upon the scene, is no longer brute, but a self-conscious and self-determining being, made in the image of his Creator and capable of free moral decision between good an evil.
The truth that man is the offspring of God implies the correlative truth of a common divine Fatherhood. God is Father of all men, in that he originates and sustains them as personal beings like in nature to himself. Even towards sinners God holds this natural relation of Father. It is his fatherly love, indeed, which provides atonement. Thus the demands of holiness are met and the prodigal is restored to the privileges of sonship which have been forfeited by transgression. This natural fatherhood, therefore, does not exclude, but prepares the way for, God’s special Fatherhood towards those who have been regenerated by his Spirit and who have believed on his Son; indeed, since all of God’s creations take place in and through Christ, there is a natural and physical sonship of those who join themselves to him by faith. Man’s natural sonship involves the history of the fail, and qualifies the doctrine of sin.
C.S. Lewis, “Mere Christianity”, says, “What, then, is the difference which God has made to the whole human mass ? It is just this, that the business of becoming a son of God, of being turned from created thing into a begotten thing, of passing over from temporal biological life into timeless ‘spiritual’ life, has been done for us. Humanity is already ‘saved’ in principle. We individuals have to appropriate that salvation.” Lewis adds; “But the really tough work -- the bit we could not have done for ourselves - has been done for us. We have not got to try to climb up into spiritual life by our own efforts; it has already came down into the human race.”
The Scriptures teach that the whole human race is descended from a single pair. The truth has not foundation of Paul’s doctrine of organic unity of mankind in the first transgression, and the provision of salvation for the race in Christ. This descent of humanity from a single pair also constitutes the ground of man’s obligation of natural brotherhood to every member of the race. The Scripture statements are corroborated by consideration drawn from history and science. Four arguments may briefly be mentioned:
1) The argument from history. (“This is not the fabled past of ‘Once upon a time’, which could only yield a fictional future.”) Tiede. “Historical facts are indispensable, but the meaning of these facts is even more crucial. The issue is more ‘What is going on in history?’ than simply ‘What happened?’.” Prof Tiede. So far as the history of the nations and tribes in both hemispheres can be traced, the evidence points to a common origin and ancestry in Central Asia. 2) The argument from language. Comparative philology points to a common origin of all the more important languages, and furnishes no evidence that the less important languages are not also so derived. 3) The argument of psychology. The existence among all families of mankind, of common mental and moral characteristics, as evinced in common maxims, tendencies and capacities, in the prevalence of similar traditions, and in universal applicability of a philosophy and religion, is not easily explained upon the theory of a common origin. 4) The argument of physiology. It is common judgement of comparative physiologists that man constitutes but a single species. The differences which exist between the various families of mankind are to be regarded as varieties of this species.
In proof these statements can be considered; a) The memberless intermediate gradation which connect the so-called races from each other. b) The essential identity of all races in cranial, asteological and dental characteristics. c) The fertility of unions between individuals of the most diverse types, and the continuous fertility of the offspring of such unions.
Unity of species is presumptive evidence of the unity of origin. Oneness of origin furnishes the simplest explanation of specific uniformity, if indeed the very conception of species does not apply the repetition and reproduction of primordial type-idea impressed at its creation upon an individual empowered to transmit the type-idea to its successors.
To this view is opposed the theory, propounded by Agassiz, of different centres of creation, and of different types of humanity corresponding to the varying fauna and flora of each. But this theory makes the plural origin of man an exception in its creation. Von Baer’s generalisation was “that every individual organism in the course of its development advances from homogeneous to heterogeneous.” Spencer continuous, “Abstract as these words are, they presented the truth previously recognised, in a form which permitted extension of it from organic phenomena to inorganic phenomena.” Spencer adds, “Earth’s present Flora and Fauna are more heterogeneous than the Flora and Fauna of the past.”
Science points rather to a single origin of each species, whether vegetable or animal. If man be as this theory grants, a single species, he should be, by the same rule restricted to one continent in his origin. This theory, moreover, implies an improved hypothesis with regard to the distribution of organised beings in general to the very being whose whole nature and history show conclusively that he is an exception to such a general rule, if one exists. Since man can adapt himself to all climes and conditions, the theory of separate centres of creation is in his case gratuitous and unnecessary.
It is objected, moreover, that the diversities of size, colour and physical conformation among the various families of mankind are inconsistent with the theory of a common origin. These diversities are of superficial character and can be accounted for by corresponding diversities and are recorded within historical times show that the differences alluded to may be the result of slowly accumulated divergences from one and the same original and ancestral type. The difficulty in this case, is greatly relieved when we remember, 1) that the period during which these diversities have arisen is by no means limited to six thousand years; and 2) that, since species in general exhibit their greatest power of divergence into varieties immediately after their first introduction, all the varieties of the human species have presented themselves in man’s earliest history.
The Dichotomous Theory suggests man has a two-fold nature, on the one hand material, on the other hand immaterial. He consists of body and spirit, or soul. That there are two, and only two elements in man’s being, is a fact to which consciousness testifies. This testimony is confirmed in Scripture, in which the prevailing representation of man’s constitution is that of dichotomy.
In Pope’s ‘Essay Of Man’ we read; “The proper study of Mankind is Man.” As the Psalmist puts it; “For I am fearfully and wonderfully made. “ - Psalm 139:14. “Man is but a part of the living world, and what we can learn from the study of animals and plants can help us to understand ourselves. From Aristotle onwards, many have studied the lives and structures of animals and plants around them.” Cooke, Burkitt, Barker in their textbook on biology, “A Textbook For Examinations.”
On this doctrine of man, Hopkins had this to say; “So long as man’s opposition of heart and will continues, he cannot come to Christ. It is impossible, and will continue so, until man’s willingness and opposition be removed by a change and renovation of his heart by divine grace and he be made willing in the day of God’s power.” Hopkins speaks of “utter inability to obey the law of God, yea, utter impossibility.” Hodge states; “Inability consists not in the loss of any faculty of the soul, nor in the loss if free agency, for the sinner determines his own acts, nor in mere disinclination to what is good. It arises from want of spiritual discernment and hence want of proper affections. He cannot put forth any act which merits the approbation of God. Sin cleaves to all he does, and from its dominion he cannot free himself.” Shedd said, “The origin of this helplessness lies, not in creation but in sin. Sin contains in itself the element of servitude. In this act if transgressing the law of God, there is a reflex action of the human will upon itself, whereby it becomes less able than before to keep the law. Sin is the suicidal act of will.”
Berkhof says, “The creation of man was in the strictest sense of the word an immediate act of God. Some of the expressions used in the narrative preceding that of the creation of man indicate mediate creation in some sense of the word. Notice the following expression, “and God said, let the earth put forth, grass herbs, yielding seed, and fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind”, “let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures”, and “let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind”, and compare these with the simple statement, “and God created man.” Whatever indication of mediacy in the work of creation is contained in the former expressions, is entirely wanting in the latter. Evidently the work of God in the creation of man was not mediated in any sense of the word. He did make use of pre-existent material in forming the body of man, but even this was excluded in the creation of the soul.”
William Lane Craig states, “The biblical view of history and prophecy seems to necessitate a God who knows not only the present and the past, but also the future. Indeed, so essential is God’s knowledge of the future that Isaiah makes knowledge of the future the decisive test in distinguishing the true God from false gods.”
The derivation of the English word for God is uncertain. For the Christian conception of God, the bible is our only textbook. In its pages we have the self-revelation of God. The Hebrew words, El, ‘eloah’,’elohim’.
*********************
El derives from a root indicating strength or might, and with the connotation applied in the Old Testament to man, and even abstractly to things, as well as to God. When applied to deity it is frequently coupled with some such epithet as ‘almighty’ e.g. El Shaddai, God almighty or all-sufficient. Eloah (rarely used except in poetry) and Eliham are also used, the plural a remnant of polytheism, others an adumbration of the Trinity. It is more likely to be an instance of a usage common in Hebrew by which the plural serves to intensify or enlarge the idea expressed in the singular. It would thus draw attention to the inexhaustible fullness of the Godhead, to the plenitude of life in God.
Yahweh frequently translated ‘Jehovah’, but rendered in the A.V. commonly by ‘Lord’, is the personal name of the God of Israel, ‘Elohim’ is the generic name for deity. It is, therefore, distinctly the name of the living God of biblical revelation. Its derivation is uncertain though it probably comes from the root HWH or HYH, conveyed to Moses from the burning bush. Ex 3:11-15, the flame that derived its sustenance from itself and not from its environment was an impressive symbol of independent existence. The divine disclosure of the meaning of the name ‘I am that I am’ or perhaps more accurately ‘I will be that I will be’, announces the faithfulness and unchangeableness of God, the same yesterday, today, and forever. While Exodus 6:3 would suggest that the name Yahweh had not been known before, in view of Gen 15:7, 28:13, it can mean no more than that the name had not been formerly revealed in real meaning and import. It is note worthy that in its revelation Yahweh declared himself to be no new or strange God, none other than indeed ‘Yahweh, the God of your fathers’ - Ex 3:15.
Donay, is also a plural form of designating God as a Being, full of life and power. It signifies ‘Lord’ or in its strengthened form ‘Lord of Lords’, and ‘Lord of all the earth’, indicating God as the Ruler to whom everything is subject and to whom man is related as servant - Gen 18:27. It was the favourite form of the divine name in later Greek writers, by whom it was superimposed on the sacred name YHWH.
The assumption that the uses of these names point to a distinction in the earlier Old Testament writers between a higher and lower deity does violence to the facts, and when it is made a criterion for the determination of sources it tends to hopeless confusion. Its is to be denied that the several Old Testament writers emphasise different aspects of the divine character, but this gives no support to the evolutionary view of religion of Israel from polymonism to monotheism. The general tendency in Israel was in the opposite direction, that of the corruption of a pure monotheism into an accommodation to the polytheism of the surrounding nations. Whilst there is historical development in the self-revelation of God to Israel, his nature and character remain constant throughout.
The God whom the Bible reveals is a personal Being; self-existent, self-conscious, the Creator of the universe, and the fountain of life and blessedness. His Being, character, and will are the themes that engage the thoughts of all biblical writers.
It is true that Scriptures never discusses the Being of God apart form his attributes, inasmuch as God is what he reveals himself to be. It is possible, however, to conceive of the Being of God in relation to our own beings in the way either of similarity or of contrast, even if his essence must remain incomprehensible. It can be said that God is Spirit, Pure, Personal and Infinite Spirit. D.M. McIntyre, “Christ the Life”, draws our attention to , “A question much debated by scholars was: ‘Can we contemplate the divine essence ?’ The answer most frequently offered was, ‘We cannot;’ but some said, ‘We can: for the very Being of God is love; and hereby know we love, because he laid down his life for us.’ Love is the sum of the divine attributes; wisdom, righteousness, truth, and grace are all manifestations of the Divine perfection.” Dr McIntyre relates the story of Thomas Aquinas; according to the legend, the Spirit of the Father said to him, “Thomas, thou hast spoken well of Me. What reward shall I offer thee ?” The renowned theologian answered, “Nothing Lord, except thyself.”
According to Christ’s disclosures to the woman of Samaria, God is Spirit - John 4:24 - and we must conceive of him as Pure Spirit in the sense that he is not complex or made up of parts, but without body or bodily presence, and therefore not visible to bodily senses - John 1:18. It is clear also from Scripture that God is a personal Spirit, rational, self-conscious and self-determining, an intelligent moral agent, God is supreme Mind and the source of all rationality in his creatures.
R.W. Emerson’s contention is true, “The Bible is not a book - it is a literature. Written by shepherds, fisherman, priests, statesmen, kings. Yet the Bible is the work of one Mind.”
God is Infinite Spirit, without bounds or limits to his Being or to any of his attributes, and every aspect and element of his nature is infinite. His infinitude in relation to time is spoken of as eternity in relation to space it is omnipresence. In relation to the universe it implies both transcendence and immanence. By the transcendence of God is meant his detachment from all his creatures as an independent, self existing Being. He is not shut in by nature, but infinitely exalted above it. Even these passages of Scriptures which stress his temporal and local manifestations lay emphasis on his exaltation and omnipotence as a Being external to the world, its sovereign Creator and Judge - Isa 51:12-17.
By the immanence of God is meant his all pervading presence and power within his creation. He does not stand apart from the world, a mere spectator of the works of his hands; he pervades everything organic and inorganic, acting from within outwards, from the centre of every atom and from the innermost springs of thought and life and feeling, a continuous sequence of cause and effect. As Schleiermacher so rightly puts it, “My God is the UNIVERSE - God is causation force. “ In Isaiah 57:15 we have an expression of the transcendence of God as the ‘high and lofty one that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is holy’, and his immanence as the One who dwells ‘ with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit’.
“We maintain, on the one hand following the VIA EMINENTIAE ET CAUSALITATIS, that the divine is indeed the highest, strongest, loveliest and dearest that man can think of; but we assert on the other hand following the VIA NEGATIONIS, that God is not merely the ground and superlative of all that can be thought; he is in himself a subject of his own account and in himself,” said Otto in his book ‘The Idea Of Holy’.
If God is a person, then as a moral agent he possesses character. Thus we may speak of the attributes of God, of qualities we can attribute in the divine character. Though there is no attribute which can adequately express God’s Being, yet the many attributes given in Scripture serve the purpose of giving us a worthy impression of both his transcendence and his immanence. We must, however, bear in mind that the attributes of God belong to the very essence of his Being and that they are therefore co-existent with his nature. That is to say, in God attributes and being are one. This is not so in the case of men. The attribute’s of man’s character, because he is finite, are subject to limitation. For example, we cannot say that God is partly love and partly justice; he is all love and all justice. Each attribute is itself God, and God is fully expressed in each attribute. The again, man remains man even of he does not possess certain human attributes; God is not God without all his attributes.
It has been convenient to classify the attributes of God as two kinds, communicable and incommunicable. (Sometimes referred to as related and unrelated respectively). Communicable attributes are qualities that can in measure be communicated to his rational and mortal creatures, such as wisdom, goodness, righteousness, justice, love; that is, attributes which express the immanence of God. Incommunicable attributes are divine perfection’s which can have no analogy in human character, such as self-existence, immutability, omniscience, eternity; that is, the attributes that emphasise his transcendence. These are capable of definition in part at least. By his self-existence is meant that God has an independent existence by the very necessity of his Being; he does not, like his creatures, depend for his existence on anyone outside himself. By his immutability is meant that he is devoid of all change attributed to him in Scripture as figures of speech, an accommodation to our viewpoint. By his eternity is meant that God is above the limitations of time, without beginning and without end, and without succession of moments. This is more readily understood if we remember that time has no existence in and by itself and is but an inseparable accompaniment of created existence. In God there is not time; no becoming; he is the eternal ‘I AM’,’ and his present is eternity. By the omniscience and omnipresence of God is meant that he is above the limitations of space. God’s knowledge is part of the his nature and is not acquired like ours. His knowledge is, therefore, complete and absolute, and extends to past and future. Omniscience carries with it omnipresence, inasmuch as God’s knowledge involves God’s presence in all places and at all times.
It is not so much that God is everywhere; he is himself the Everywhere. Moreover, he is wholly, and not partly, present everywhere. By the omnipotence of God is meant something quite different from the power in man. In man, power is an effort of will that harnesses or employs pre-existing power.; in God power is a creative attribute, it is energy that brings creation out of mere nothing. In God all power is creative. Holiness may be said to the distinctive overall attribute of God, the outshining of all that is God. It is his holiness that particularly sets him apart from all his creation - for he only is holy - and that renders him unapproachable in all his perfection’s. It is his intellectual and moral splendour, the ethical purity in virtue of which he delights in good and hates evil.
The will of God expresses primarily his attribute of self-determination, by which he acts in accordance with his eternal power and Godhead. Though God’s will cannot be said to be limited in any sense, his perfection’s ensure that he will never do anything that is incompatible with his nature. Theologians distinguish between the decretive will of God, by which he decrees whatsoever comes to pass, and his perceptive will, by which he enjoins upon his creatures the duty that belongs to them. In the light of this definition it can be understood that the decretive will is always accomplished, while the perceptive will is often disobeyed. When we conceive the sway of the divine will we recognise that it presents God as the final ground of all existence and of all that ever happens actively in bringing it to pass. Thus, this entrance of sin into the world is attributed to the permissive will of God. The characteristics of the will of God are that there is infinite wisdom and holiness behind it, that it is gracious and kind in its operation, and that it is unconditional in its actions because it is not dependent on anything outside God himself. Its end is said to be his own glory, or , put otherwise, that manifestation of his glory in which lies the fullest blessedness of his creatures.
The aspect of the will of God that is most frequently alluded to in Scripture is his sovereign purpose. The purpose of God is all-embracing and all comprehending. This follows from the very nature of God, inasmuch as his knowledge is immediate and complete and he does not need to wait for the unfolding of events as we do. He is thus able to embrace all in one comprehensive plan. His purpose is said to be free, sovereign, and immutable - free in the sense that he cannot be under the influence of anything or anyone outside himself; sovereign inasmuch as God, for change would simply lack of wisdom in planning, or lack of power in executing. It therefore follows that since there can be no unforeseen emergency and no inadequacy of means, the causes of change have no existence for him.
If we are not able to reconcile God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility, it is because we do not understand the nature of divine knowledge and his comprehension of all the laws that govern human conduct. The Bible throughout teaches that life is lived in the sustaining and upholding power of God in whom we live and move and have our being, and as a bird is free in the air and a fish in the sea, each in its native element, so man has his true freedom in the will of God who created him for himself.
The Christian revelation of God is supremely that of the Father. That was Christ’s most common designation of God. In Christian theology the designation is reserved specially for the first person of the Trinity. But inasmuch as the First Person is regarded as the font of the Deity, the one who represents the dignity, honour and glory of the Trinity, the designation Father is sometimes used when referring to Deity or the Supreme God. 1 Pet 1:17, Jas 1:27 also Isa 9:6, where Messiah is called ‘Everlasting Father’ as the designation of the supreme Deity.
The conception of God as Father did not originate with the teaching of Jesus, though he gave it new depth and meaning. The thought is present in the Old Testament, where it expresses both a creative and a theocratic relationship. The fundamental relation of God to man whom he made in his image finds its most full and fitting illustration in the natural relationship which involves the gift of life. Malachi asks the question “Have we not one Father, hath not one God made us ?”- Mal 2:10. Isaiah also exclaims ‘But now, O Lord, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou art the potter, and we are all the work of your hand.” - Isa 64:8. But it is more particularly for man’s spiritual nature that this relationship is claimed. In Hebrews 12:9 God is called ‘the Father of spirits’ and in Numbers 16:22 ‘the God of the spirits of the flesh’. Paul speaking from Mars Hill used this argument to drive home the irrationality of rational man worshipping idols of wood and stone, quoting the poet Aratus (‘For we are also his offspring’) to indicate that man is a creature of God. Thus the creaturehood of man is the counterpart of the general Fatherhood of God. Without the Creator-Father there would be no race of man, no family of mankind.
The designation of Father is used in the Old Testament also in expression of the covenant relationship of God to his people Israel. In this sense it is a collective relationship that is indicated rather than a personal one. Israel as a covenant nation was the child of God, and she was challenged to recognise and respond to this filial relationship; “If I then be a Father, where is mine honour ?” - Mal 1:6. But since the covenant relationship as a free shadowing of the New Testament revelation of the divine Fatherhood.
In the New Testament the appellation Father is used in a specific and personal sense. Christ applies it, first of all to the relationship in which he himself stood to God. There is every evidence that this relationship is unique and not to be shared by mere creature. God was his Father by eternal generation, expressive of an essential and timeless relationship. It is significant that Jesus in his teaching of the twelve never used the term ‘Our Father’ as inclusive of himself and them. In his resurrection message he indicated two distinct relationships; ‘My Father, and your Father’ - John 20:17; but the two are so linked together that the one becomes the ground of the other. His Sonship, though on a level altogether unique, was the basis of their relationship. This is the redeeming relationship that belongs to all believers, and in the context of redemption it is viewed from two aspects; that of their standing in Christ, and that of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in them. From the one aspect they, in living union with Christ, are adopted into the family if God and so granted all the privileges that belong to their relationship.; ‘if children, then heirs’ is the sequence - Rom 8:17. Under the other aspect they are regarded as born into the family of God by regeneration. The one is the objective aspect, the other the subjective. Because of their new standing (justification) and relationship (adoption) to God the Father in Christ, they become partakers of the divine nature and are born into the family of God.
It is clear that Christ’s teaching of the Fatherhood of God restricts the relationship to his believing people. In no instance is he reported as assuming this relationship to exist between God and unbelievers. Not only does he not give a hint of a redeeming Fatherhood of God towards all men, but he said pointedly to the cavilling Jews; ‘Ye are of your father the devil’ - John 8:44.
It is under this relationship of the Father that the New-Testament brings out the tenderer aspects of God’s character. his love, his watchful care, his bounty and his faithfulness. In his training of the twelve, Christ used the figure of an earthly father’s relationship to his children and from there proceeded to the higher level. ‘How much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him ?’ - Luke 11:13.
As Berkhof puts it, “The only proper way to obtain perfectly reliable knowledge of the divine attributes is by study of God’s self-revelation in Scripture. It is true that we can acquire some knowledge of the greatness and power, the wisdom and goodness of God through the study of nature, but for an adequate conception of even these attributes it will be necessary to turn to the Word of God. In the theology of revelation we seek to learn from the Word of God which are the attributes of the Divine Being. Man does not elicit knowledge from God as he does from other objects of study, but God conveys knowledge of Himself to man, a knowledge which man can only accept and appropriate. For the appropriation and understanding of this revealed knowledge it is, of course, of the greatest importance that man is created in the image of God, and therefore finds helpful analogies in his own life. The distinction from the a priori (you reason by induction) method may be called a posteriori (you reason by deduction), since it makes its starting point, not in an abstract perfect Being, but in the fullness of the divine self-revelation, and in the light of this seeks to know the Divine Being.”
********************* “When Paul and John speak about Jesus as though he had some kind of pre-existent life, they were not suggesting that he was a second divine ‘person’ in the later Trinitarian sense. They were indicating that Jesus had transcended temporal and individual modes of existence. Because the ‘power’ and the ‘wisdom’ that he represented were activities that derived from God, he had in some way expressed ‘what was there from the beginning”, says Karen Armstrong. In the nature of one God there are three eternal distinctions which are represented to us under the figure of persons, and these three are equal. This tripersonality of the Godhead is exclusively a truth of revelation. It is clearly though not formally, made known in the New Testament and unitations of it may be found in the Old Testament.
Berkhof says, “The word ‘Trinity’ is not quite as expressive in the Holland word ‘DRIE-EENHEID’, for it may simply denote the state of being three, without any implication as to the unity of the three. It is generally understood, however, that, as the technical term in theology, it includes that idea. It goes without saying that, when we speak of the Trinity of God, we refer to a trinity in unity, and to a unity that is trinal”. The doctrine of the Trinity may be expressed in six statements as follows: 1) In the Scriptures there are three who are one recognised in God; 2) In Scriptures these three are so described that we are compelled to conceive of them as distinct persons; 3) The tripersonality of the divine nature is not merely economic and temporal, but it immanent and eternal; 4) This tripersonality is no trutheism; for while there are three persons, there is but one essence; 5) The three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal; 6) Inscrutable yet not self-contradictory this doctrine furnishes the key to all other doctrines. These statements can be proved and elucidated.
In Scripture there are three who we recognise as God. Proofs in the New Testament. a) The Father is recognised as God, and that is in a number of passages, such as John 6:27 “...him the Father, even God hath sealed”, and 1 Pet 1:2, “foreknowledge of God the Father”, that we need not delay to adduce extended proof. b) Jesus Christ is recognised as God. He is expressly called God in John 1:1, ‘The Logos’, was not only with God, but was God. In John 1:18 ‘the only begotten God’ as a plain ascription to absolute Deity to Christ. He is not only the revealer of God but he is himself God revealed. In John 20:28 the address of Thomas ‘My Lord and my God’, since it was unrebuked by Christ, is equivalent to an assertion on his part of his claim to Deity. Rom 9:5 can be interpreted justly as a description of a higher nature of the Christ. In 2 Pet 1:1 is revealed the author’s certainty of the oneness of God and Jesus Christ.
The writer of the epistle of Hebrews 1:8 is quoted in an address to Christ, and verse 10 which follows, “Thou Lord, in the beginning - but had the foundation of the earth” - by applying to Christ an Old Testament ascription to Jehovah. In verse 8 the Greek word is used in the sense of the absolute Godhead.
The works of God are revealed in him, Jesus. We do not here speak of miracles, which may be wrought by communicative power, but of such works as the creation of the world, the upholding of all things, the final raising of the dead, and the judging of all men. Power to perform these works cannot be delegated, for they are characteristic of omnipotence.
Jesus receives honour and worship due only to God. In addition to the address of Thomas in John 20:28, which has been cited as one of the proofs that Jesus is expressly called God, and in which divine honour is paid to him, we may refer to the prayer and worship offered by the apostolic and post apostolic church. His name is associated with that of God upon a footing equality. Equality with God is expressly claimed and not only claimed by Jesus himself, but also by his disciples. See John 5:18 and Phil 2:6. Further proof of Christ’s Deity may be found in the application to him of the phrases, ‘Son of God’, ’Image of God’; in the declarations of his oneness with God; in the attribution to him of the fullness of the Godhead.
The Christian experience of recognising Christ as an absolute perfect Saviour, perfectly revealing the Godhead and worthy of unlimited worship and adoration. Through Christ the Christian has introduction to God and reconciliation. This must be claimed as a recognition of Christ’s absolute Godhead.
The Holy Spirit is recognised as God. He is spoken of as God; the attributes of God are ascribed to him, such as life, truth, love, holiness, eternity, omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence. He does the work of God, such as creation, regeneration, resurrection. He receives honour only due to God; and he is associated with God on a first equality, both in the formula of baptism and in the apostolic benedictions.
Passages relating to the angel of Jehovah identifies himself with Jehovah. He is identified with Jehovah by others. He accepts worship due only to God. Though the phrase ‘angel of Jehovah’ is sometimes used in later Scriptures to denote a merely human messenger or created angel, it seems in the Old Testament, with hardly more than a single exception, to designate the pre-incarnate Logos, whose manifestations in angelic or human form foreshadow his final coming in the flesh.
Descriptions of the Messiah indicate that he is one with Jehovah. It is to be remembered, in considering this, as well as other classes of passages previously cited, that no Jewish writer before Christ’s coming has succeeded in constructing from them a doctrine of the Trinity. Only those who bring them the light of the New Testament revelation do they show their meaning. Father and Son are persons distinct from each other. Christ distinguishes the Father from himself as ‘another’. The Father and Son are distinguished as the begetter and begotten. The Father and Son are distinguished as the sender and the sent. John 5:32,37; Ps 2:7; John 1:14; John 10:36; Gal 4:4. The Father and Son are persons distinct from the Spirit. Jesus distinguishes the Spirit from himself and from the Father. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Father and by the Son. The Holy Spirit is a person, the Comforter, Instructor, Patron, Guide, Advocate. When these terms are used this must be a person. This is evident from the application to Christ in 1 John 2:1, “we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteousness’. His name is mentioned in immediate connection with other persons, and in such a way as to imply his own personality, in connection with Christ, in connection with the Father and the Son. If the Father and Son are persons, the Spirit must be a person also.
He performs acts proper to personality. That which searches, knows, speaks, testifies, reveals, communes, commands, strives, moves, helps, guides, creates, recreates, sanctifies, inspires, makes intercession, orders the affairs of the church, performs miracles, raises the dead cannot be mere power, influence, efflux, or attribute of God, but must be a person. He is affected as a person by acts of others. That which can be resisted, grieved, vexed, blasphemed, must be a person.; for only a person can perceive insult and be offended. The blasphemy against a power or attribute of God, since in the case of blasphemy against God would be a less crime than blasphemy against his power. That against which the unpardonable sin can be committed must be a person. Isa 63:10; Mat 12:31; Acts 5:3,4,9; Acts 7:51; Eph 4:30. Here we have the indication of the Spirit’s emotional nature. The Holy Spirit manifests himself in visible form as distinct from the father and the Son, yet in direct connection with personal acts performed by them.
While these are three persons, there is but one essence as stated earlier. The undivided essence of the Godhead belongs equally to each of the persons; Father, Son and Holy Spirit, each possesses all the substance and all the attributes of the Deity. The plurality of essence; but a plurality of personal distinctions. God is not three and one but three in one. The one indivisible essence has three modes of substance.
In contrast MONISM is the view that reality consists of only one basic substance generally either mind (thoughts, emotions, perceptions, intuitions and all other inner experiences) or matter (physical objects and forces). Materialism and idealism are both monist theories. Monism is opposed by dualism, which maintains that there are two basic substances, and by pluralism, which maintains that there are many.
Franks cites the thinking of one called Wallis, a Cambridge mathematician; Wallis defines the Trinity in this way; “It must be recognised that ‘Person’ in the doctrine of the Trinity has not the same sense as when it is applied to man. It simply stands for a distinction such that one person is not another person, and yet all are only one God. How this may be possible may be illustrated from a cube, which has three dimensions and yet is only one cube. So also to be, to know and to do are all distinct from one another, and yet it is the same soul that is, that knows, and that acts”.
Each believer in having the Holy Spirit, has the whole Christ for his own. The three Persons of the Holy Trinity are not separate individuals. Each involves the others. Thus the coming of the Spirit must have involved the coming of the Son. But the speciality of the Pentecostal gift appears to be the coming of the Holy Spirit out of the uplifted and glorified manhood of the incarnate Son. “The Spirit is the life-giver, but the life with which he works in the church is the life of the incarnate; the life of Jesus,” as Gore puts it in his ‘Incarnate’.
Karl Barth: a Swiss theologian 1886-1968 set his face against the Liberal Protestantism of Schleiermacher with its emphasis on religious experience. Barth was also a leading opponent of natural theology. It was, he thought a radical error to seek to explain God in rational terms not simply because of the limitations of the human mind but also because humanity has been corrupted by the Fall. Any rational idea we form about God is bound to be flawed, therefore, to worship such a God was idolatry. The only valid source of God-knowledge was the Bible.
Armstrong replies thus: “Experience is out, natural reason is out; the human mind is corrupt and untrustworthy, and there is no possibility of learning from other faiths, since the Bible is the only valid revelation.
Barth, in his work ‘Dogmatics’ says, “God speaks; He is Revealer (Father), Revelation (Son) and Revealedness (Holy Spirit) - three fold mode of being. Three different modes of, not of manifestation, but of existence or subsistence”. Calvin said, “A subsistence in Divine essence”.
The three persons in the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal. The Father is not God as such; for God is not only Father but also Son and Holy Spirit. The term Father designates that hypostatical distinction in the divine nature is virtue of which God is related to the Son, and through the Son and the Spirit to the church and the world. As author of the believer’s spiritual as well as natural life God is doubly his Father; but this relation which God sustains to creatures is not the ground of the title. God is Father primarily in virtue of the relation which he sustains to the eternal Son; only as we are spiritually united to Jesus Christ do we become children of God. The Son is not God as such; for God is not only the Son but Father and Holy Spirit. ‘The Son’ designates that distinction in virtue of which God is related to the Father, is sent by the Father to redeem the world, and with the Father sends the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is not God as a such; for God is not only Holy Spirit but also Father and Son. ‘The Holy Spirit’ designates that distinction in virtue of which God is related to the Father and the Son, and is sent by then to accomplish the work if renewing the ungodly and of sanctifying the church.
“The Holy Spirit is a living, loving, intelligent Person.” Writes Tom Rees, “Notice how the Lord speaks of him, ‘Another Comforter’, that He may abide...the Spirit of Truth Whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him, but ye know Him, for He dwelleth with you.” - John 14:16,17. Rees adds, “You would naturally be offended if friends referred to you as ‘it’ “.
Like the word ‘person’, the name father, Son and Holy Spirit are not confined within the precise limitations of meaning which would be required if they were applied to men. The Scriptures enlarge our conceptions of Christ’s Sonship by giving to him in his pre-existent state the name ‘Logos’; and ‘the Image and the effulgence of God’. The term ‘Logos’ combines in itself the two ideas of thought and word, of reason and expression. While Logos as divine thought or reason is one with God, the Logos as divine word or expression is distinguishable from God. Words are the means by which personal beings express themselves. Since Jesus Christ was ‘the Word’ before there were any creatures to whom relations could be made, it would seem to be only a necessary reference from this title that in Christ, God must be from eternity expressed or revealed to himself; in other words, the Logos is the principle of truth, or self-consciousness, in God.
The term ‘Image’ suggest the idea of copy or counterpart. Man is the image of God, only relatively and derivatively. Christ is the image of God absolutely and archetypically. The term ‘effulgence’ finally is an allusion to the sun and its radiance. As the effulgence of the sun manifests the sun’s nature, which otherwise would be unrewarded yet inseparable from the sun and ever one with its Christ reveals God, but is eternally one with God. Here is a principle of movement of will which seems to connect itself with the holiness or self-asserting purity, of the divine nature.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not self-contradictory. This it would be, only if it declared God to be three in the same numerical sense in which he is said to be one. We cannot assert this, but we can assert simply that, the same God who is one with respect to his essence is three with respect to the internal distinctions of that essence, or with respect to the modes of his Being. The possibility of this cannot be denied, except by assuming that the human mind is in all respects the measure of the divine.
The fact that the descending scale of life is marked by increasing differentiation of faculty and function should rather lead us to expect in the highest of all beings a nature more complex than our own. In man many faculties are united in one intelligent being, and the more intelligent he is, the more distinct from each other those faculties become; until intellect and affection, conscience and will assume a relative independence, and there arises even the possibility of conflict between them. There is nothing irrational or self-contradictory in the doctrine that in God the leading functions are yet more markedly differentiated, so that they become personal while at the same time these personalities are united by the fact that they each and equally manifest the one individual essence.
It is essential to any proper revelation. If there is no Trinity, Christ is not God, and cannot perfectly know or reveal God. Christianity is no longer the one all inclusive, and final revelation but only one of many conflicting and competing systems, each of which has its portion of truth, but also its portion of error. So too with the Holy Spirit. “As God can be revealed only through God, so also can the Holy Spirit be appropriated only through God. If the Holy Spirit be not God, then the love and communication of God to the human soul are not reality.” In other words, without the doctrine of the Trinity, we go back to mere natural religion and the far-off God of deism.
Thomas Paine , ‘The Age of Reason’ has caused many ‘rude shakes’ to many cherished convictions. Paine said, “Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst; every other species of tyranny is limited to the world we live in; but this attempts to stride beyond the grave, and seeks to pursue us into eternity.”
The doctrine of the Trinity is essential to any proper redemption. If God be absolutely and simply one, there can be no mediation or atonement, since between God and the most exalted creature the gulf is infinite. Christ cannot bring us nearer God than he is himself. Only the one who is God can reconcile us to God. So, too, only one who is God can purify our souls. A God who is only unity but in whom is no plurality, may be our Judge, but can he be saviour or sanctifier ?
Psychology and physiology reveal to us the possibility of the three-fold life within the bounds of a single being. In the individual man there is sometimes a double and even triple consciousness. Herbert Spencer says, “Most active minds, I presume, more or less frequent experience of double consciousness - one consciousness seeming to take note of what the other is about, and to applaud or blame it.” He mentions an instance in his own experience; “May there not be possible cerebral thinking, as there is a binocular vision ? As though one part of myself was an independent originator over where sayings and doings I had control and which were nevertheless in great measure consistent; while the other part of myself was a spectator or listener, quite unprepared for many of the things that the first part said, and which were nevertheless, though unexpected, not illogical.”
Edmund J. Fortman had this to say in relation to this doctrine: “Most theologians no longer expect to find in the New Testament a formal trinitarianism, only an elemental trinatarianism. ‘the dogma of the Trinity...was a late arrival, product of three centuries reflections and debate,’ but confession of Father, Son and Holy Spirit...and hence an elemental trinitarianism...went back to the period of early Christian origins. Another writes that “ elements of the trinity of persons within the unity of nature in the Bible appear in the use of the terms Father, Son and Spirit but the personality of the Spirit emerged more slowly than the personal reality if the Father and Son. A new Catechism says that the message of Scripture proclaims so vigorously both the distinct properties of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and their divine oneness, that we cannot but confess one God in three persons.” Franks cites the ‘shepherd of Hermas’ claim that “The unity of God and his creatorship is the prime article of faith.” for him. His Christology like Ignatius was based on two quotations form II Clement:
1) Brethren we ought to think of Christ as of God, as of Judge of the living and the dead; 2) Christ the Lord who saved us, being the first spirit, became flesh.
In the second century a Christian writer of Rome, Hermas by name expressed a view in his allegorical work called ‘The Shepherd’, which was widely read among churches in the early centuries as Professor Bruce says, ‘a sort of Pilgrim’s Progress’. Some of his views were controversial. He believed, for instance, that there might be forgiveness for one sin committed after baptism, but not for more than one. Many thought there was no hope of forgiveness for sin committed after baptism - post baptismal sin.
In reply; Tertullian sarcastically brands Hermas’s treatise as ‘The Shepherd of the adulterers’. He was critical of Hermas thinking that one sin after baptism was OK but only one. Hermas knew in his heart how prone humanity is to yield to temptation, even if it be confined to thought life, so Tertullian thought. Yet Hermas had some important things to say.
Hermas calls the indwelt Spirit the ‘Servant’. His doctrine obviously has affinities with Romans 1:1-4 and Phillipians 2:5-11. But he goes altogether beyond them to a definite adoptionist Christology. The Flesh or the man, by obedience to the Spirit, becomes a partner with him; or, in other words, becomes ‘Son’ by adoption. Hermas is important, not only for Christology, but also for the doctrine of the Trinity. By identifying the pre-existence of Christ with the Holy Spirit he sets the pattern or a doctrine of two persons only in the Godhead instead of three; this doctrine has been called Binitariasm.
“Three fundamental acts of God in history, the recognition of which forms the basis of the doctrine of the Trinity. There is first of all God’s choice of Israel as his peculiar people. TO them his became known under the sacred name Yahweh, and with them he made a covenant which is expressed in the words, “I will be their God and they shall be my people” - Jer 31:33. Second comes the sending of Jesus, who was born of the stock of Israel; and third is the gift of the Holy Spirit to the church, which is the society of those confessing Jesus as Messiah or Christ. God chose, God sent, God gave; the acknowledgement of these three great moments of Divine revelation is a starting point,” says Franks.
*******************
Since God had from eternity determined to redeem mankind, the history of the race from the time of the Fall to the coming of Christ was providentially arranged to prepare the way for this redemption. The preparation was two-fold:
1) Negative Preparation, in the history of the heathen world. This showed the true nature of sin, and depth of spiritual ignorance and of moral depravity to which the race, left to itself, must fall. Secondly, the powerlessness of human nature to preserve or regain an adequate knowledge of God, to deliver itself from sin by philosphy or act.
2) Positive Preparation, in the history of Israel. A single people was separated from all others, from the time of Abraham, and was educated in the three truths: a) the majesty of God, in his unity, omnipotence and holiness; b) the sinfulness of man, and his moral helplessness; c) the certainty of a coming salvation. This education from the time of Moses was conducted by the use of three principle agencies; A) LAW, the Mosaic legislation, by its theophanies and miracles, cultivated faith in a personal and Almighty God and Judge; by its commands and threatenings, awakened the sense of sin; by the priestly and sacrificial system, inspired hope of some way of pardon and access to God. B) PROPHECY. This was of two kinds; verbal; beginning with the protevangelion in the garden (Eden) and extending to within four hundred years of the coming of Christ; typical, in persons Adam, Melchisedek, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Jonah; and in acts as Issaac’s sacrifice, and Moses lifting up the serpent in the wlderness. C) JUDGEMENT, Repeated divine chastisement for idolatry culminated in the overthrow of the kingdom, and the captivity of the Jews. The exile had two principle effects - 1) RELIGIOUS, in giving monotheism firm root in the heart of the people, and in leading to the establishment of the synagogue-system, by which monotheism was thereafter preserved and propagated. - 2) CIVIL, in converting the Jews from an agricultural to a trading people, scattering them among all nations, and finally imbuing them with the spirit of Roman Law and organisation.
Thus a people was made ready to receive the gospel and to propagate it throughout the world, at the very time when the world had become conscious of its needs, and, through its greatest philosophers and poets, was expressing its longings for deliverance.
The redemption of mankind from sin was to be effected through a Mediator who should unite himself both the human nature and the divine, in order that he might reconcile God to man and man to God. To facilitate and understanding of the Spiritual doctrine under consideration it will be desirable at the outset to present a brief historical survey of views respecting the Person of Christ.
The Elionites denied the reality of Christ’s divine nature, and held him to be merely man, whether naturally or supernaturally conceived. This man, however, held a peculiar relation to God, in that, from the time of his baptism, an unmeasured fullness of the divine Spirit rested upon him. Elionism was simple Judaism within the pale of the Christian church, and its demands of Christ’s Godhead was occasioned by the apparent incompatibility of this doctrine with monotheism.
The Docetoe, like most of the Gnostic’s in the second century and the Manichess in the third, denied the reality of Christ’s human body. This view was the sequence of their assumption of the inherent evil of matter. If matter is evil and Christ is pure, then Christ’s human body must have been merely phantomal. Docetism was simply pagan philosophy introduced into the church.
The Avarians denied the integrity of the divine nature of Christ. They regarded the Logos who united himself to humanity in Jesus Christ, not as possessed of absolute godhead, but as the first and highest of created things. This view originated in a mis-interpretation of the Scriptural accounts of Christ’s state of humiliation, and in mistaking temporary subordination for original and permanent inequality. The Appollinarians condemned at Constantinople denied the integrity of Christ’s human nature. According to this view, Christ had no human nature or attributes, other that that which was furnished by the divine nature, the place of the human nature was filled by the divine Logos. Apollinarism is an attempt to contrive the doctrine of Christ’s person in the forms of the Platonic trichotomy.
The orthodox doctrine (promulgated by Chalcedon 451) holds that in one person Jesus Christ there are two natures, a human nature, and divine nature, each in its completism and integrity, and that these two natures are organically and indissolubly united, yet so that no third nature is formed thereby. In brief, to use the antiquated diction, orthodox doctrine forbids us either to divide the person or to confound the natures.
The two natures of Christ - their Reality and Integrity. The humanity of Christ - its reality. He expressly called himself, and was called “man”. He possessed the essential elements of human nature as at present constituted, a material body and a rational soul. He was moved by instructive principles, and he exercised the active powers, which belong to a normal and developed humanity ( hunger, thirst, weariness, sleep, love, compassion, anger, anxiety, fear, groaning, weeping, prayer.).
He was subject to ordinary laws of human development, both in body and soul ( grew and waxed in spirit; asked questions; grew in wisdom and stature; learned obedience; suffered being tempted; was made perfect through sufferings). He suffered and died (bloody sweat; gave up his spirit; his side pierced, and straightway, there came out blood and water).
The humanity of Christ - its Integrity. The term ‘integrity’ is used not merely as completeness, but perfection. That which is perfect is, complete in all parts. Christ’s human nature was supernaturally conceived; since the denial of his supernatural conception involves either denial of purity of Mary, his mother, or a denial of the truthfulness of Matthew’s and Luke’s narratives.
Free from both heredity depravity and from actual sin; as is shown by his never offering sacrifices, never praying for forgiveness. teaching that all but he needed the new birth, challenging all to convict him of a single sin.
His was an ideal human nature, furnishing the moral pattern which man is progressively to realise, although within the limitations of knowledge and of activity required by his vocation as the world’s Redeemer. A human nature that found its personality only in union with the divine nature, in other words, a human nature impersonal, in the sense that it had no personality separate from divine nature, and prior to its union therewith. A human nature germinal, and capable of self-communication, so constituting him in the spiritual head and beginning of a new race, the second Adam from whom fallen man individually and collectively derives new and holy life.
The union of the two natures in one Person. Distinctly as the Scriptures represent Jesus Christ to have been possessed of a divine nature and of a human nature, each unaltered in essence and undivested of its normal attributes and powers, that with equal distinctness represent Jesus Christ as a single undivided personality in whom these two natures are vitally and inseparably united, so that he is properly, not God and man but God-man. The two natures are bound together, not by moral tie of friendship, nor by the spiritual tie which links the believer to his Lord, but by a bond unique and inscrutable, which constitutes them one person with a single consciousness and will, this consciousness and will including within their possible range both the human nature and the divine.
Proof of this union is that Christ uniformly speaks of himself and is spoken of, as a single person. There is no interchange of “I” and “Thou” between the human and divine natures, such as we find between the persons of the Trinity - John 17:23. Christ never uses the plural number in referring to himself, unless it be in John 3:11, ‘..we speak that we do know’, and even here “we” is more probably used as inclusive of the disciples. In 1 John 4:2 ’..is come in the flesh’ is supplemented by John 1:14 ‘become flesh’, and these texts together assure us that Christ is come in human nature so to make that nature an element in his single personality.
In her book, “A History of God”, Karen Armstrong, sees part of the letter of Paul to the Philippians in the form of a hymn in which it seems the early Christians saw that Jesus enjoyed some kind of pre-existence ‘with God’ before becoming a man (two natures) in the act of self-emptying (kenosis) by which he had decided to share the suffering of the human condition. Paul was too Jewish, she says, “to accept the idea of Christ existing as a second divine being beside YHWH from all eternity.” Armstrong indicates that God raises him (Jesus) and confers the title kyrios upon him.
Armstrong states, “Jesus cannot assume the title kyrios himself but is given the title only ‘to the glory of God the Father.’ She further points out that “John in his prologue describes the Word (LOGOS) which had been ‘with God from the beginning’ and had been the agent of creation. ‘Through him all things came to be, not one thing had its being but through him’.”
The attributes and powers of both natures are ascribed to the one Christ, and conversely the works and dignities of the one Christ are ascribed to either of the two natures, in a way inexplicable, except upon the principle that these two natures are organically and indissolubly united in a single person.
“There is a very close connection between the doctrine of man and the doctrine of Christ. The former deals with man, created in the image of God and endowed with true knowledge, righteousness and holiness, but through the wilful transgression of the law of God, despoiled of his true humanity and transformed into a sinner. It points to man as a highly privileged creature of God, still bearing some of the traces of his original glory, but yet as a creature that has lost its birthright, its true freedom, and its original righteousness and holiness, “ says Berkhof in his ‘Systematic Theology’ work, he goes on to say; “Christology in essence acquaints us with the objective work of God in Christ to bridge the chasm, and to remove the distance. Its shows us God coming to man, to remove the barriers between God and man by making the conditions of the law in Christ, and to restore to his blessed communion.”
“Perhaps no twentieth century theology has seen this more clearly or expressed it more vigorously, than Karl Barth. Christology, he insisted, is the key doctrine of reconciliation. Christology means confessing Jesus Christ the Mediator, he repeated several times, as ‘very God, very man, and very God-man’. He is altogether man, just as he is altogether God. That is how he is the Reconciler between God and man” Quotes John Stott from Karl Barth’s ‘Church Dogmatics’.
The relation of Christology to other doctrines:
God: Christ is “the express image of God”, the one through whom our knowledge of God comes to us. So a study of the character of Christ is of fundamental importance in determining our conception of God. “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” and so to know Christ is to know God. Every facet of the character of God is revealed in his face and in his cross.
Man and Sin: Christ not only revealed God but also man and, indirectly, sin. In his character he showed what God had intended man to be and what man in fellowship with God could become. His incarnation and death revealed God’s estimate of the value of a human soul. Just as the holy law provoked sinful man to express his sin, so the holy presence of Christ in the world led to the attacks of sinners upon him. In its essence, sin is rebellion against God, and that rebellion is expressed supremely in the rejection of his Son.
Angels and Demons: Where the transcendence of God is stressed, created supernatural beings are sometimes regarded as mediators between God and man, worthy of worship and adoration. Satan is sometimes regarded as the equal of God. This is true of later Zoroastrianism, for example. As both God and man, however, our Lord was not only uniquely fitted to mediate between God and man but has exclusive right to do so. The angels are simply his servants (“ministering spirits”) and his victory over Satan in life, death and resurrection demonstrates his inferiority and the certainty of his ultimate defeat.
The Work of Christ: The value of Christ’s work depends utterly and completely upon the value of his person. A ‘Saviour’ who was not God could not break the power of Satan and of sin nor offer a sacrifice of infinite value. A ‘Saviour’ who was not man could not stand as substitute for sinful man. A ‘Saviour’ who did not rise from the dead could not enter into living fellowship with men.
The Work of the Holy Spirit: The Holy Spirit deals with sinful men on the basis of the work of Christ. The Son purchased salvation for us, while the Spirit makes salvation a reality within us. He makes the Lord Jesus real to us, inclining our hearts towards him, re-creating us after his image, and seeking to conform us to that image.
It is He who breaks us and makes us to be aware of the truth. As John Bunyan relates in his ‘Pilgrim’s Progress’, “After this was noised abroad that Mr Valiant-for-truth was sent for by summons, by the same post as the other, and had this for a token that the summons was true, ’That his Pitcher was broken at the Fountain.’ When he understood it, he called for his friends, and told them of it. Then said he I am going to my Father’s, and though with great difficulty I am got hither yet now I do not repent me of all the troubles I have been at to arrive where I am.”
The Church: If Christ is given his rightful place sacerdotalism is discountenanced, for the individual soul may have direct dealings with God in Christ. The Church does not join us to Christ. Rather Christ joins us to the church. As the Churches head he is its supreme Authority. Jesus thrice answers the tempter with ‘It is written’ indicating that authority and the authority of Scripture. On the Mount of Transfiguration Jesus tells his disciples that it is written of the Son of Man that he should suffer many things. He is the theme of the gospel and of its ordinances. Its officers are appointed and called by him. He should be Lord in its every meeting, whether for worship, prayer, fellowship, Bible study - or business.
“The dwarf sees further than the giant, when he has the giant’s shoulders to mount on. “Coleridge: Essay 8 The Friend.”
The Last Things: The destiny of the individual, of the church and the world are all related to the glorious triumph of Christ. He comes to receive his own and to judge nations. The central characteristics of heaven and hell are determined respectively by the presence or absence of Christ. He must reign until he has put all enemies beneath his feet. Only the God-man could hold such a place in the counsels of God and in the worship of men.
The Bible: We receive the Bible as the word of God because we receive it from the hands of Christ himself. He has set his seal upon it and his presence everywhere in its pages constitute it a living unity. A low view of the person of Christ is likely to lead to a low view of the Bible.
All this reveals that Christianity is Christ. In its essence Christianity is not a series of connected ideas but a Person, not a doctrine but a life, not an explanation of the universe but the loving adoration of a Saviour.
F.F. Bruce, drawing attention to an oracle of the earliest Christian Creed had this to say, “This oracle which is ascribed on critical grounds to a very early collection of sayings of Jesus, expresses a very high doctrine of the Person of Christ, and is sufficient proof that a high Christology is not a late development in the history of Christian doctrine. The resurrection and exaltation of Christ were regarded as a demonstration of the Divine Sonship, confirming the truth of the baptismal allocution made for himself.”
*********************************** *************************************
PART III
John Stott, “The Cross of Christ”, says: “If the essence of atonement is substitution, at least two important inferences follow, the first theological and the second personal. The theological inference is that it is impossible to hold the historic doctrine of the cross without holding the historic doctrines of Jesus Christ as the one and only God - man and Mediator. Only God in Christ, God the Father’s own and only Son made man, could take our place. At the root of every caricature of the cross there lies a distorted Christology. The person and work of Christ belongs together. If he was not who the apostles say he was, then he could not have done what they say he did. The incarnation is indispensable to the atonement. In particular, it is essential to affirm that the love, the holiness and the will of the Father are identical with the love, the holiness and the will of the Son, God was in the world reconciling the world to himself.”
The Christian doctrine of atonement meets man’s need with the one really relevant message of deliverance and salvation. Not only does it declare that the ultimate truth is the truth of God’s love. Such a declaration by itself could never have carried conviction, in either sense of that word, to fallen mankind. The Christian gospel presents, as evidence of the truth, the fact that by a supreme act of love God in Christ has put himself at man’s side to suffer with him and for him in his sinful condition, and so to win from him the free response of penitence which is the first condition of salvation through forgiveness. By that same act God in man, and man in God, has vanquished the powers of evil and exalted human nature to God’s throne by complete self-sacrifice. In Christ first the purpose of the original creation has been accomplished, and the life of the world to come has been made not only a future of hope but also a present reality.
The gospel of atonement is as simple in its total effect that its essence can be grasped by the least theological minded Christians; yet at the same time its doctrinal implications are so many-sided that libraries of exposition cannot do justice to its inexhaustible meaning. At the present time we must try to make clear some of the main aspects in which the doctrine of the atonement shows us the life and works of Christ as the true and sufficient remedy for the evil of the world, when, by the light of Christ, we see that evil in its true colours.
The atonement primarily consists in a divine act of loving and gracious condescension. Whereas man has sinned by self-assertion, self-exaltation, ‘snatching at equality with God’, God in Christ redeems man by ‘self-emptying’, ‘self-humiliation’, putting himself on an equality with man. There can be no Christian doctrine of the atonement apart from the Christian doctrine of the incarnation. Some of the early fathers taught that the incarnation was itself the atonement. The main tradition of theology regards the atonement rather as the effect of the incarnation accomplished through the cross. In any case the incarnation and the atonement together make it clear the tremendous paradox of Christianity that the true path of ascension begins with an immeasurable descent, and God alone, who “came down from heaven” and “descended into hell”, could reveal and open up the way. P.T. Forsyth said, “His love transcends all human measure, if only, out of love, he renounced the glory of heavenly being for all he here became. Only then could we grasp the full story and comfort of words like these, ‘Who shall separate us from the love of God?’ Unlike us, he chose the oblivion of birth and the humiliation of life. He consented not only to die but to be born …. What he gave up was the fullness, power and immunity of a heavenly life.” Oswald Saunders reinforces this thinking of Forsyth when he says: “How rich he was - yet how poor he became - ‘that we through his poverty might be rich’.”
In its relation to sin, atonement recognises the fundamentally moral nature of evil, and at the same time provides a more than moral way of salvation, because it expresses God’s love in a message of free forgiveness, which brings good even out of the evil of sin itself. Strict morality condemns the wrongdoer, and justifies the doer of right. But in strict morality, as both Paul and Kant in their different ways have made plain, there is no gospel for the sinner. Morality may indeed provide a rough and ready way of purging an offence by undergoing punishment. But forgiveness, strictly speaking, is not a moral conception at all. If an offence be not fully purged, morality requires further penalty; if an offence be fully purged, then there is nothing left to forgive. The law may temper justice with mercy; but it knows nothing of free and absolute forgiveness. To this day the law of England, which is severely moral in its theoretical foundations, reserves the expression “free pardon” for the one case where it is obviously a fiction, the case of an innocent man found to have been guilty by mistake, who thereupon receives a “free pardon” from the Crown.
But the gospel atonement puts the whole problem of right and wrong in a new light. Wrongdoing is seen not only as a breach of law, but also and, more fundamentally, as a rejection of God’s love. Now, if a man realises his wrongdoing to be essentially an offence against another’s love, he knows at once two things: first, that no punishment by itself can ever purge its guilt; secondly, that he is penitent for what he has done. For he cannot realise what it means to have offended against love, unless the awakening response of love within him reveals it; and that is penitence. But, if what he has offended against is the perfect love of God, his penitence is met by free forgiveness.
This forgiveness does something different from, and better than, merely abolishing guilt, it does something more than even restore him to that fellowship with God which he had forfeited. It converts the repented and forgiven sin into an actual stepping-stone by which he has been raised, and can be raised further, into recognition of God’s goodness which could never have been his apart from the sin. The greatest of all triumphs revealed through the cross - and apart from this greatest triumph no full doctrine of salvation is possible - is to over-ride sin itself for some good end, to produce out of it some good which could not otherwise have been. “O felia culpa quas tantum et talen merit habere redemptorium.” Certainly the truth in that cry of gratitude transcends morality altogether.
If we consider more closely what we are to say of that historic doctrine of atonement which in various forms has, together with that of the incarnation, made up the very substance of the Christian creed. But the doctrine itself cannot be rightly understood without some appreciation of the preparation for it which we find in the religion of the Old Testament.
The Old Testament Preparation for the atonement; Nowadays many scholars maintain that the Old Testament records are not so much the development of one religion as the story of conflict between two, the prophetic religion and the priestly. The two religions, they would say, are irreconcilable in principle, though the deutoronomic writers and the later prophets effected an unsatisfactory compromise between them. For the point of view of logical analyses rather than strictly historical description, the opposition between priests and prophet amounts almost to a conflict between two religions.
The two religions are differentiated from one another by their treatment of sin, no less by their estimate of sacrifice. The prophetic religion rejects sacrifice as a remedy for sin altogether. Nothing can avail but a changed way of life. The priestly religion, on the other hand, especially as it expresses itself in the post-exilic parts of the Pentateuch, sets forth an elaborate code of ritual sacrifice, the chief aim of which is to expiate the sins both of individuals and nations.
The fact of the Atonement in the New Testament; Doubtless there are in the New Testament diversities and developments of theological interpretation. Traces may be found, especially in Luke’s gospel and Acts, of primitive Christianity which had not yet begun to understand Christ’s death as the sacrifice for human sin. But one convictional is universal, and apart from it no Christian document could have been written. Through the coming of Jesus the Christ, God, by an act of forgiving and redeeming love, has touched man’s heart in a new way. A new communion between God and man has been established, a new Israel has been born. Through Christ both the defect of the prophetic religion has been made good, and the need for priestly sacrifices done away. For now Christians are delivered from the powers of evil, and set in a perfect relation to God as their Father. In Christ both the VITIUM and REATUS of sin are overcome. The atonement is a fact.
It is suggested that there are four types of the atonement theory. These can be tabled thus: A) Some have said, “It is because Christ brought God’s message of forgiveness, and his human life revealed God’s Fatherly love in a way which has stirred man’s heart to fresh repentance.” This answer leads to the “subject” or “moral” theory of atonement. B) Some have said, “It is because God in Christ has won the victory over all the forces of evil, sin and death, and has broken the power of the devil over man.” This answer leads to what may be called (using Bishop Anlen’s terms) the “classic” or “dogmatic” theology. C) Some have said, “It is because Christ as man has borne the penalty of sin on man’s behalf, and thus made it possible for God to forgive man freely.” This answer leads to what may be called the “juridical” theory. D) Some have said, “It is because Christ, the Son of God who is also the sinless man, has suffered through death that life of perfect human obedience and self-surrender, which having died, becomes the universal expiation and cleansing power for sin-stained souls.” This answer leads to what may be called the “sacrificial” theory.
Theological controversy has intensified the opposition between types of theories, so that they are often represented as quite antagonistic to one another. Nevertheless, if we start from a fundamental thought of God’s act of love in Jesus Christ we may reach a reconciling point of view, from which each type of theory is seen to make its essential contribution to the truth, although no one theory, nor any number of theories, can be sufficient to express its fullness.
In a summary, it may be said that the word “atonement” is one of the few theological terms which derive basically from Anglo-Saxon. It means ‘a making of one’, and points to a process of bringing those who are estranged into a unity. The word occurs in the Old Testament meaning into a unity. In the New Testament it is rendering katallage (which is better translated ‘reconciliation’). Its use in theology is to denote the work of Christ in dealing with the problem posed by the sin of man, and in bringing sinners into right relation with God.
The need for atonement is brought about by three things, the universality of sin, the seriousness of sin, and man’s inability to deal with sin. The first point is attested in many places: “there is no man that sinneth not.” 1 Kings 8:46; “there is none that doeth good, and sinneth not.” Eccl 7:20. Jesus told the rich young ruler, “there is none good but one, that is, God.” Mk 10:18, and Paul writes, “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Rom 3:23. Much more could be cited. The seriousness of sin is seen in passages which show God’s sovereign aversion to it. Habbakuk prays “Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity.” Hab 1:13. Sin separates from God. Isa 59:2; Pr 15:29. Jesus said of one sin, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, that will never be forgiven, Mk 3:29, and of Judas he said, “good were it for that man, if he had never been born.” Mk 14:21. Before being saved men are “alienated and enemies in (their) mind by wicked works.” Col 1:21. There awaits the unrepented sinner only “a certain fearful looking for the judgement and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.” Hab 10:27.
Man cannot deal with the situation. He is not able to keep his sin hidden, Num 32:23, and he cannot cleanse himself of it. Pr 20:9. No deeds of law will ever enable man to stand before God justified. Rom 3:20, Gal 2:16. If he must depend on himself, then man will never be saved. Perhaps the most important evidence of this - is the very fact of the atonement. If the Son of God came to earth to save men, then men were sinners and their plight serious indeed.
God and man, then, are hopelessly estranged by man’s sin, and there is no way back from man’s side. But God provides the way. In the Old Testament, atonement is usually said to be obtained by the sacrifices, but it must never be forgotten that God says of atoning blood, “I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls.” Lev 17:11.
E.G. Robinson said, “Atonement is not an arbitrary contrivance so that if one person will endure a certain amount of suffering, a certain amount of others may go free.” Atonement is secured, not by any value inherent in the sacrificial victim, but because sacrifice is the divinely appointed way of securing atonement. The sacrifices point us to certain truths concerning atonement. Thus the victims must always be unblemished, which indicates the necessity for perfection. The victims cost something, for atonement is not cheap, and sin is never to be taken lightly. The death of the victim was the important thing. This is brought out partly in the allusions in blood, partly in general character of the rite itself, and partly in other references to atonement.
There are several allusions to atonement, either effected or contemplated by means other than the cultus, and where these bear on the problem they point to death as the way. Thus in Exodus 32:30-32, Moses seeks to make an atonement for the sin of the people, and he does so by making God blot him out of the book which he has written. Phinehas made an atonement by slaying certain transgressors. Num 25:6-8, 13. Other passages might be cited. It is also clear that in the Old Testament it was recognised that death was the penalty for sin, Ezek 18:20, but that God graciously permitted the death of a sacrificial victim to substitute for the death of the sinner. So clear is the connection, that the writer to the Hebrews can sum it up by saying “without the shedding of blood there is no remission.” Heb 9:22.
In his book “Life”, Brooks says: “Atonement by suffering is the result of the incarnation. Atonement being the necessary, and suffering the incidental element of that result. But sacrifice is an essential element, for sacrifice truly signifies here the consecration of human nature to its highest use and utterance, and does not necessarily involve the thought of pain. It is not the destruction but the fulfilment of human life. In as much as the human life thus consecrated and fulfilled is the same as in Jesus, and in as much as his consecration and fulfilment makes morally possible for us the same consecration and fulfilment of it which he achieved, therefore his atonement and his sacrifice and incidentally his suffering, become vicarious.”
The New Testament takes the line that the sacrifices of old were not the root cause of the putting away of sins. Redemption is to be obtained even of the transgressions that were under the first testament only by the death of Christ. Heb 9:15. The cross is absolutely central to the New Testament and indeed to the whole Bible. All before leads up to it. Since it occupies the critical place, it is not surprising that there is a vast volume of teaching about. The New Testament writers teaching from different standpoints, and with different emphasis, give us a number of facets of the atonement. There is no repetition of a stereotype line of teaching. Each writes as he sees. Some saw more and more deeply than others. But they did not see something different.
Moberly, “Atonement and Personality”, writes “Christ sanctified the present and cancels the past. He offers to God a living holiness in human conditions and character; he makes the awful sacrifice in humanity of a perfect contrition. The one is the offering of obedience; the other the offering of atonement; the one is the offering of life, the other the offering of death.”
The atonement reveals God’s love for man. All seem to agree that the atonement proceeds from the love of God. It is not something wrung from a stern and unwilling Father, perfectly just, but perfectly inflexible, by a loving Son. The atonement shows the love of a Father as well as the love of the Son. Paul gives no classic exposition of this when he says, “God commendeth his own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Rom 5:8 r.v. In the best known text in the Bible we find that, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son.” John 3:16. In the synoptic gospels it is emphasised that the Son of man ‘must’ suffer. Mk 8:31 etc. That is to say, the death of Christ was no accident; it was rooted in a compelling divine necessity. This we also see in our Lord’s prayer in Gethsemane - that the will of the Father be done. Mat 26:42. Similarly in Hebrews we read that it was ‘by grace of God’ that Christ tasted death for us all. Hebrews 2:9. This thought is found throughout the New Testament, and we must hear it well in mind when we reflect on the manner of the atonement.
For those who argue for a limited atonement, Berkhof advances this thought.
A) It may be laid down, first of all, as a general principle, that the designs of God are always surely efficacious and cannot be frustrated by the notions of man. This applies also to the purpose of saving men through the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. If it had been his intention to save all men, this purpose could not have been frustrated by the unbelief of man. It is admitted on all hands that only a limited number is saved. Consequently, they are the only ones whom God has determined to save.
B) Scripture repeatedly qualifies those for whom Christ laid his life in such a way as to point to a very definite limitation. Those for whom he suffered and died are variously called, ‘His sheep’, John 10:11-15; ‘His church’, Acts 20:28; Eph 5:25-27; ‘His people’, Mat 1:21; and ‘The elect’, Rom 8:32-35.
************************
Worsley says, “When we look at the sweep of human history, we ask ourselves ethical and philosophical questions, questions of value as well as of fact. For through looking at Man as a natural species might seem a purely ‘scientific’ operation, to do so raises philosophical and ethical questions in particular sharp form, for men have always projected their values, beliefs, prejudices, hunches, hopes, and fears upon ‘nature’.”
William Barclay, “Ethics in a Permissive Society”, points out that “ethics is that bit of religion that tells us how we ought to behave.” Indeed, Professor Barclay defined ethics “as the science of behaviour.” He added that the cry at one time was, “Don’t bother about theology; stick to ethics.” People would say ‘Stop talking about the Trinity and about the two natures of Jesus, and all that sort of thing, and stick to ethics. Never mind theology; just stick to the Sermon on the Mount, and let the Abstractors and the abstrusenesses and the philosophy and the metaphysics go. People said: ‘Take theology away - I can’t understand it anyway’.”
Paine describes the book of Proverbs as “an instructive table of ethics.”
Truth thoroughly digested is essential to the growth of the Christian character in the individual and in the church. All knowledge of God has its influence upon character, but most of all the knowledge of spiritual facts in the relations. Theology cannot, as has sometimes been objected, deaden the religious affections, since it only draws out from their sources and puts into rational connection with each other, the truths which are best adapted to nourish the religious affections. On the one hand, the strongest Christians are those who have the firmest grasp upon the great doctrines of Christianity. The heroic ages of the church are those which have witnessed most consistently to them; the piety that can be injured by the systematic exhibition of them must be weak, or mystical or mistaken.
R.S. Franks writes, “Religion as such is not necessarily ethical, but Christianity is, as Schleiermacher said, both monotheistic and ethical, uniting religion and ethics in the idea of the kingdom of God, which is at once God’s gift to men and their moral task. The religious-ethical dominance of spirit over nature which Christianity secures, RITSCHL called, ‘Lordship over the world’, which he equated with eternal life.” “Barth”; points out Franks, “agrees with Schleiermacher and Ritschl that theology is to be developed from within the church: faith is required as its pre-supposition.”
Theology and religion are related to each other as effects in different spheres, of the same cause. As theology is an effect produced in the sphere of systematic thought by the facts respecting God and the universe, so religion is an effect which these same facts produce - in the sphere of the individual and collective life.
“We are always zealous when religion goes in his silver slippers; we love much to walk with him in the street, if the sun shines, and the people applaud him,” said John Bunyan in his “Pilgrim’s Progress”. Bunyan adds: “I like that religion best that will stand with the security of God’s good blessings unto us. Surely as Judas designed the world in becoming religious, so surely did he also sell religion and his Master for the same.”
The word religion is derived from the word ‘religare’; “to bind back” (man to God). Another derivation of religion or RELIGARUS ‘to go over again’, or ‘careful ponder’. Its original is therefore ‘reverent observance’ (of duties of God). Religion is not a kind of knowing; for it would then be only an incomplete form of philosophy, and the measure of knowledge in each case would be the measure of piety. On the other hand religion is not the mere feeling of dependence; for such feeling of dependence is not religious, unless exercised toward God and accompanied by moral effort.
Religion is life in God, a life lived in recognition of God, in communion with God, and under control of the indwelling Spirit of God. Since it is a way of life it cannot be described as consisting solely in the exercise of any one of the powers of intellect, affection or will. As physical life involves the unity and co-operation of all organs of the body, so religion or spiritual life involves the united working of all the powers of the soul. To feeling, however, we must assign the logical priority, since holy affection toward God, imparted in regeneration, is the condition of truly knowing God and of truly serving him.
Religion was a means of ‘binding’ men together as they sought to improve social conditions. By nature men are gregarious - (living in flocks or communities; fond of company). Men found security in religion, but not all, for the educated pagans looked to philosophy not religion for enlightenment. Their saints and luminaries were such philosophers of antiquity as Plato, Pythagoras or Epictetus. They even saw them as ‘sons of God’: Plato, for example, was held to have been the son of Apollo. The philosophers had maintained a cool respect for religion but saw it as essentially different from what they were doing.
Both Socrates and Plato had been ‘religious’ about their philosophy, finding that their scientific and metaphysical studies had inspired them with a vision of the glory of the universe. Men turned to them for an explanation of the meaning of life, for an inspiring ideology and for ethical motivation.
Were these ideologies and ethics the earliest glimpse of a developing social psychology?
Religion ‘covers’ different mantles for different people or different ‘tribal’ groups, and in a wider sense has changed in some measure. Today some people are not so much interested in theology, for example, as in religion.
It is clear also that, “Social psychology today differs from the social psychology of earlier decades of this century in two main respect: Firstly, its theoretical content is based on scientific evidence gained by planned observations either in the field of studies or through experiment. Secondly, it is more immediately concerned with the smaller and simpler face to face groups than with the more complex organisations such as ‘a nation’ or ‘society at large’.” W.J.H. Sprott; “Human Groups”.
“Religion consists of external observance - characterised by formality devoid of powers,” said G. Campbell Morgan.
Man is a religious being, indeed as having the capacity for this divine life, he is actually religious, however, only when he enters into this loving relationship to God. False religions are the caricature which men given to sin; or imaginations which men; groping after light, form of this life of the soul of God.
H. Wheeler Robinson, “Inspiration and the Revelation in the Old Testament,” says, “Mortality, as its etymology implies, originates historically in customs and manners of society.”
“Religion of much more obscure etymology, may have denoted ‘binding custom’ in relation to superhuman powers,” Robinson points out. Robinson quotes Robertson Smith who regards religion as ‘a series of acts and observances, the correct performance of which was necessary or desirable to secure the favour of the gods or to avert their anger’, and argues that a man’s religion ‘was simply one side of the general scheme of conduct prescribed for him by his position as a member of society.’
The content of religion is greater than that of theology. The facts of religion are within the range of theology only in so far as they can be definitely conceived, accurately expressed in language, and brought into rational relations to each other. Religion is to be distinguished from form of worship, which is simply the outward expression of religion. As such expression worship is “formal communion between God and his people.” In it God speaks to man, and man to God. It therefore properly includes the reading of Scriptures and preaching on the side of God, and prayer and song on the side of the people.
God himself, in the last analysis, must be the only source of knowledge with regards to his own being and relations. Theology is therefore a summary and explanation of the content of God’s self-revelations. These are first, the revelation of God in the Scriptures. Ambrose said, “To whom shall I give greater credit concerning God than to God himself?” or as Von Baer put it: “To know God without God is impossible; there is no knowledge without him who is the prime source of knowledge.” The relation between Scripture and nature can be explained thus: Nature means not only physical facts with regard to substance, properties, forces, and laws of the material world, but also spiritual facts, or facts with regards to the intellect and moral constitution of man, and the orderly arrangement of human society (social behaviour) and history. Michael Argyle, “The Psychology of Interpersonal Behaviour”, referring to Moliere’s Monsieur Jourdain, who discovered that he had been speaking prose all these years, “However it is necessary to categorise and label the whole range of social techniques of different types and degrees of complexity, in order to move towards a scientific analysis of social behaviour.” Can we deduce from this that religion can bring order, and a certain mode of behaviour to society?
“What little there is left of religion is largely its outer garments, a shallow empty profession, very often a passport into certain sections of society.” D. Tiede.
“If man seeks to dispose of God,” says Jung - “then he should find out at once where this considerable energy which was first invested in our existence as great as God, has disappeared to … if dull people lose the idea of God nothing happens - at least not immediately and personally. But socially the masses begin to breed mental epidemics, of which we now have a fair number.”
The psychological truth of this need to believe can be defended from many other sources, by no means all of them religious … But the need to believe carries with it its own inescapable difficulties; it confronts men with the need to make an act of faith in a God whose immediate Presence is not apparent.
“Freud saw in the idea of God the illusion created by human beings to comfort them in the face of their helplessness when they had outgrown their parents. His view has been described as the wish-fulfilment attitude to religion; believing because it is more comfortable to believe, because such a belief implies a promise of pie in the sky when you die. The popular version of this theory is a peculiarly superficial one. It entirely ignores the fact that the central idea of religion is not a projection of gratification, but a quest; a quest for the purpose of life, and for the individual’s place in this purpose; a quest for a relationship in which men can give rather than to receive. Worship, not reward, is the consistent feature of the religions of the world.” writes Philip Mariet, “Essays in Psychiatry.”
Glory is not vain-glory, and in expression his ideal, that is in expressing himself, in his creatures the utmost possible good. God’s glory is the end which in a right moral system is proposed to creatures. This must be the end which he in whose image they are made proposes to himself. He who constitutes the centre and the end of all his creatures must find the centre and end in himself. This principle of moral philosophy and the conclusion drawn from it, are both explicitly, implicitly taught in Scripture.
“To reach that point of view from which the seeming discordance of religion and science disappears, and the two merge into one, must surely be worth an effort.” Herbert Spencer.
“Evolution is continuous throughout all time, and is still in progress.” (Homogenous to Heterogeneous). “Life of human nature must influence our ideas of right and wrong, and therefore modify our conduct.” Spencer. Nothing can have existence from God the Creator except use. That the uses of all created things ascend through degrees from outermost things to man, and through man to God their Creator. That the end of creation exists in outermost which end is, that all things may return to God the Creator and that there may be conjunction. That they are uses so far as they have regard to the Creator. That divine must of necessity be and exist in others created by Itself. That all things of the universe are recipients according to degrees. That the universe regarded from uses, is an image of God, besides many other things. From these this truth is clear, that all created by God are uses, and that they are uses in that order, degree and respect, in which they relate to man, and through man to God from whom they are. By man to whom uses relates, is meant not an individual man, but a gathering of men, and a society, smaller, or larger, maybe state, kingdom, empire or that largest society, the whole world, for each of these is man. Likewise in the heavens the whole angelic heaven is one man in the sight of God, and equally so every society of heaven; from this it is clear that each angel is man. What uses may be evident from the end of creation of the universe, that end being the existence of an angelic heaven. Since the angelic heaven is the end, man also, or the human race, is the end because heaven is from the human race. Hence it follows that all created things are mediate ends and that these are uses in that order, degree and respect, in which they relate to men, and through man to God.
It must be known that the outer appearance of the spiritual world is exactly like that of the natural world. Lands, mountains, hills, valleys, plains, fields, lakes, rivers, springs, are to be seen here, as in the natural world; thus all things belonging to the mineral world. Paradises, gardens, glades, woods, and in them trees, shrubs, of every kind bearing fruit and seed, also plants, flowers, herbs, and grasses; thus all things of the animal kingdom.
This fact is advanced in order that it may be known that the universe of the spiritual world is exactly like the universe of the natural world; with the sole difference that things that are immovable and static as in the natural world, because nothing there is natural but everything is spiritual.
“There is continuous influx from the spiritual world into the natural world … since it is known that there is a spiritual world, and that the spiritual world is free from the Sun where the Lord is and which is from the Lord, and that it impels nature to action as what is living impels what is dead, also that in that world there are similar things to those in the natural world, it may be evident that vegetables and animals have come into existence from no other than the Lord through that world and by its agency exist perpetually - so there is continuous influx from the spiritual world into the natural,” said Swedenborg. He adds, “I heard two presidents of the English Royal Society, Sir Hans Sloane and Martin Folkes, conversing together in the spiritual world about existence of seeds and eggs and their products in the earths. The former ascribed them to nature, saying that power and force had been given to her from creation to produce such effects by means of the sun’s heat. The other declared that this force in nature comes unceasingly from God the Creator. In order to settle the contention a beautiful bird was shown to Sir Hans Sloane, and he was asked to examine it to see if it differed in the slightest degree from a similar bird on earth. He held it in his hand, examined it, and affirmed there was no difference. He knew, indeed, that it was nothing but the affection of a certain angel represented outwardly as a bird, and that it would vanish or cease with his affection which also came to pass. This proof convinced Sir Hans Sloane that nature contributes absolutely nothing to the production of vegetables and animals, but only that which flows from the spiritual world into the natural world effects it.”
Swedenborg continues, “If he had known, what he knew now of the spirit world, he would have ascribed no more to nature than that it was serving the spiritual from God by fixing those things which flow without ceasing into nature.”
Swedenborg cites three major attributes of God: 1) the Divine love; 2) the Divine wisdom; and 3) the Divine of use; which are the Lord; and these three are represented outside the Sun of the spiritual world, the Divine of love by heat, the Divine of wisdom by light, and the Divine of use by the atmosphere containing them.
************************
Preservation is that continuous agency of God by which he maintains in existence the things he has created, together with the properties and powers with which he has endowed them.
Preservation is not creation, for preservation presupposes creation. That which is preserved must already exist, and must have come into existence by the creative act of God. Preservation is not a mere negation of action, or a refraining to destroy on the part of God. It is a positive agency by which, at every moment, he sustains the persons and the forces of the universe.
Preservation is a natural concurrence of God in all operations of matter and mind. Though personal beings exist and God’s will is not the sole force, it is true that, without his concurrence, no person or force can continue to exist or act.
Proof of the doctrine of Preservation from Scripture passages is expressly distinguished from creation. Though God rested from his work of creation, and established an order of natural forces, a special and continuous divine activity is declared to be put forth in the upholding of the universe and its powers. This divine activity, moreover, is declared to be the activity of Christ; as he is the mediating agent in creation, as he is the mediating agent in preservation.
Reason would argue the preservation agency of God from the following considerations: A) Matter and mind are not self-existent. Since they have not the cause of their being in themselves, their continuance as well as their origin must be due to a superior power. B) Force implies a will of which we have direct knowledge - it is direct or indirect expression. We know of force only through the exercise of our own wills. Since will is the only cause of which we have direct knowledge, second causes in nature may be regarded as only secondary, regular and automatic workings of the great first cause.
God’s sovereignty requires a belief in his special preserving agency since this sovereignty would not be obsolete; if anything occurred or existed independent of his will.
Theories which virtually deny the doctrine of Preservation: DEISM: This view represents the universe as a self-sustained mechanism, from which God withdrew as soon as he had created it, and which he left to a process of self-development. It was held in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries by Herbert, Collins, Tindal, and others. Thomas Paine in his controversial and provocative book, “The Age of Reason” already referred to earlier, said “The word of God is the Creation we behold, and it is in this word which no human invention can counterfeit or alter that God speaketh universally to men.”
An objection is that this theory rests upon a false analogy. Man is able to construct a self-moving watch only because he employs pre-existing forces such as gravity, elasticity, cohesion. But in a theory which likens the universe to a machine, these forces are the very things to be accounted for.
It is a system of anthropomorphism, while it professes to exclude anthropomorphism. Because the upholding of all things would involve a multiplicity of minute cares of man - it conceives of the upholding of the universe as involving such burdens in the case of God. Thus it saves the dignity of God by virtually denying his omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence.
It cannot be maintained without denying all providential interference, in the history of creation and the subsequent history of the world. But the introduction of life, the creation of man, incarnation, regeneration, the communion of intelligent creatures with a present God, and interpositions of God in secular history, are matters of fact. Continuance Creation: This view holds that the universe as from moment to moment is the result of a new creation. This theory was held by Edwards, Hopkins and Rothe.
The objection to this theory is that it contradicts the testimony of consciousness that regular and executive activity is not the mere repetition of an initial decision, but is an exercise of the will entirely different in kind. It exaggerates God’s power only by sacrificing his truth, love and holiness; for if finite personalities are not what they seem - namely, objective existences - God’s verocity is impugned; if the human soul has no real freedom and life, God’s love has made no self-communication to creatures; if God’s will is the only force in the universe, God’s holiness can no longer be asserted for the divine will must in that case be regarded as the author of human sin.
As Deism tends to atheism, so that the doctrine of continuous creation tends to Pantheism. Arguing that, because we get our notion of force from the action of our wills, therefore all force must be will, and divine will, it is compelled to merge the human will in this all-comprehending will of God. Mind and matter alike become phenomena of one force, which has the attributes of both; and, with the distinct existence and personality of the human soul, we have the distinct existence and personality of God, as well as the freedom and accountability of man.
The divine efficiency interpenetrates that of man without destroying or absorbing it. The influx of God’s sustaining energy is such that men retain their natural facilities and powers. God does not work all, but all in all.
Though God preserves mind and body in their working, we are ever to remember that God concurs with the evil acts of his creatures only as they are natural acts and not as they are evil.
Upton writes: “The defect of Deism is that, in the human side, it treats all men as isolated individuals, forgetful of the immanent divine nature which inter-relates them and in a measure unifies them; and that, on the divine side, it separates men from God and makes the relationship between them a purely external one.”
*************************
Professor Mackay says, “The divine ‘foreknowledge’ of our future oddly enough, has no unconditional logical claim upon us, unknown to us”. Theology, he believes, demonstrates the fallacy underlying both the theological dispute between Arminianism and Calvinism, and the philosophical dispute between physical and psychological determinism (in the technical scientific sense) and Libertarianism in relation to man’s responsibility. What Mackay is suggesting is that even God’s sovereignty over every twist and turn of our drama does not contradict (i.e. offers no valid alternative to) our belief that we are free, in the sense that no determining specification already exists which if only we knew it we should be correct to believe and in error to disbelieve, whether we like it or not.
“Providence continually regards what is eternal, and continually leads to salvation, and this through various states, sometimes glad, sometimes sorrowful.” Swedenborg.
As with Preservation, Providence is an on-going and continuous agency of God, by which he makes all the events of physical and moral universe fulfil the original design with which he created it. As creation explains this continuance, so providence explains its evolution and progress.
“The idea of providence may be defined as that continued exercise of the divine energy whereby the Creator preserves all his creatures, is operative in all that comes to pass in the world, and directs all things to their appointed end,” said Berkhof.
Providence is not to be taken in its etymological sense of foreseeing. It is foreseeing also, or a positive agency in connection with all events of history. Providence is to be distinguished from preservation. While preservation is a maintenance of the existing and powers of created things, providence is an actual care and control of them. Providence deals with the small as well as the great in exercising care over individuals as well as over classes.
In respect of the good acts of men, providence embraces all the natural influences of birth and surroundings which prepare men for the operation of God’s word and Spirit, and which constitutes motives to obedience. In respect to evil acts of men, providence is never the efficient cause of sin, but is by turns, preventive, permissive, directive and determinative.
Since Christ is the only revealer of God, and he is the medium of every divine activity, providence is to be regarded as the work of Christ, see 1 Cor 8:6, “One Lord Jesus Christ through whom we are all things”, and compare John 5:17, “My Father worketh even until now, and I work.”
Providence is the government control over the universe at large, and over the physical world, over the affairs of nations, over men’s lot and life, over outward success and failures of men’s lives, over things seemingly accidental or insignificant. Providence deals with the protection of the righteous and in the supply of the wants of God’s people; also in the arrangement of answers to prayer and the exposure and punishment of the wicked.
Providence is normally defined in Christian theology as the unceasing activity of the Creator whereby, in overflowing beauty and goodwill; Ps 17:28; Mat 5:45-48, he guides and governs all events, circumstances, and free acts of angels and men; Ps 107; Job 1:12;11:6; Gen 14:5-8, and directs everything to its appointed goal, see Eph 1:9-12.
As Henry Ward Beecher reminds us, “There seems to be no order in the movements of the bees of a hive, but the honeycomb shows that there was a plan in them all.”
This view of God’s relation to the world must be distinguished from A) Pantheism, which absorbs the world unto God; B) Deism, which cuts off from him; C) Dualism, which divides control of it between God and another power; D) Interdeterminism, which holds that it is under no control at all; E) Determinism, which points a control of a kind that destroys man’s moral responsibility; F) The doctrine of chance, which denies the controlling power to be rational (Rationalism - doctrine that knowledge can only be gained through reason; rejection of religion on the grounds that it is contrary to reason); and G) The doctrine of fate, which denies it to be benevolent.
Chance, according to the English dictionary, is the way things happen - absence of design, or discoverable cause (a game of choice decided by luck not skill). If chance is only another name for human ignorance, a name for the fact that there are trivial occurrences in life which have no meaning or relation to us - we may acknowledge this, and still hold that providence arranges every so-called chance, for purposes beyond our knowledge. Chance in this sense is providential coincidence which we cannot understand, and do not need to trouble ourselves about.
If chance be taken in the sense of utter absence of all causal connections in the phenomena of matter and mind - this notion has opposition - the fact that causal judgement is formed in accordance with a fundamental and necessary law of human thought, and that no science or knowledge is possible without the assumption of its validity. If chance be used in the sense of undesigning cause - it is evidently insufficient to explain regular and uniform consequences of nature, or moral progress of human nature. These things argue a superintending and designing mind - in other words, a providence. Since reason demands not only a cause, but a sufficient cause, for the order of the physical and moral world, casualism must be ruled out. (Casualism transfers the freedom of the mind to nature, as fatalism transfers the fixity of nature to mind. It thus exchanges providence for chance). Professor Donald Mackay points out that there are two kinds of chance: 1) In science; it is used as a technical term to mean absence of knowledge of casual connections between events. For instance, the toss of a coin, or the explosion of a radium atom, or the mutation of a gene, are ‘chance’ events in that for one reason or another no prior event is (or perhaps can be) known by us to account for them in some particular. 2) In popular usage, however, the word tends to take on a different shade of meaning, as chaos, the antithesis of intelligence, - ‘blind chance’.
The Bible itself has clues that ought to have warned us against confusion of this sort. Chance in the sense of chaos is indeed recognised (Genesis 1:2), but only as something banished from the world by God’s creative word. Chance in the neutral sense in which it is first defined here, however, is accepted in a very different spirit. ‘The lot is cast into the lap’, says the book of Proverbs (16:33), ‘but the decision is wholly from the Lord’. Could there be a clearer indication that God is the Lord of events which in this sense ‘happen by chance’, just as much as of those that seem orderly to us? It may indeed be easier for us to see God’s hand in the obviously orderly pattern, but the Bible at least will not tolerate the idea that He must always work in this way. The ‘either’ ‘or’ (either God or chance) is simply not the way the bible relates the two, if we take ‘chance’ in the first technical sense.
Fatalism defines everything is pre-destined, as by fate, and that human will and action are powerless to effect events.
Fate is a power pre-determining events from eternity. (Person’s appointed lot or ultimate condition).
It is observed that fate, is unintelligent, while the decrees are framed by a personal God in infinite wisdom; fate is indistinguishable from material causation and leaves no room for human freedom, while the decrees exclude all notion of physical necessity; fate embraces no moral ideas or ends, while the decrees make these the controlling, in the universe.
“No Christian doctrine is free from problems; and that is for a very good reason. God has put forward his truth as an object of faith, and the proper ground of faith is God’s own authoritative testimony. (TESTIMONIUM SPIRITUS SANCTI INTERNUM).” Packer.
“The reformers on the whole subscribed to the Augustinians doctrine of divine providence, though differed somewhat in details. While Luther believed in general providence, he does not stress God’s preservation and government of the world in general as much as Calvin does. He considers the doctrine primarily in its soteriological bearings. The control of the world was really taken out of the hands of God, and given into the hands of man. Modern liberal theology, with its pantheistic conception of the immanence of God, also tends to rule out the doctrine of divine providence.” points out Berkhof.
Providence is presented in Scripture as a function of divine sovereignty. God is king over all, doing just what he wills. Ps 103:19; Ps 135:6; Dn 4:35; Eph 1:11. This conviction robustly held, pervades the whole Bible. “During the middle ages there was very little controversy on the subject of divine providence. Not a single council expressed itself on this doctrine. The prevailing view was that of Augustine, which subjected everything to the will of God. This does not mean, however, that there were no dissenting views. Pelagianism limited providence to the natural life, and excluded the ethical life. Semi-Pelagians moved in the same direction, though they did not all go equally far. Some of the Scholastics considered the conversation of God as a continuation of his creative activity, while others made a real distinction between the two. Thomas Acquinas’ doctrine of divine providence follows in the main that of Augustine, and holds that the will of God, as determined by his perfections, preserves and governs all things; while Duns Scotus and such nominalists as Beil and Occam made everything dependent on the arbitrary will of God. This was a virtual introduction of the rule of Chance,” says Berkhof.
The main strands in it may be analysed as follows: Providence and the natural order. God rules all natural forces, all wild animals, and all happenings in the world, great and small, from thunderstorms and plagues, to the death of a sparrow, or the fall of a Lot. Prov 16:33. Physical life in men and animals is his to give or take away, so are health and sickness, prosperity and adversity.
Effectively contrasting Prosperity with Adversity: Bacon says, “The virtue of prosperity is temperance, the virtue of Adversity is fortitude; which in morals is the more heroical value. Prosperity is the blessing of the Old Testament; Adversity is the blessing of the New: which carrieth the greater benediction, and the clearer revelation of God’s favour. Yet, even in the Old Testament; if you listen to David’s harp, you shall hear as many hearse-like airs and carols; and the pencil of the Holy Ghost hath laboured more in describing the afflictions of Job than the felicities of Solomon. Prosperity is not without many fears and distastes; and Adversity is not without comfort and hope. We see in needleworks and embroideries it is more pleasing to have a lively work upon a lightsome ground; judge therefore of the pleasure of the heart by the pleasure of the eye. Certainly virtue is like precious odours, most fragrant when they are incensed or crushed: Prosperity doth best discover vice, but Adversity doth best discover virtue.”
Since the regularity of the natural order is thought of as depending directly upon the divine will - Gen 8:22, the Bible finds no difficulty in the idea of an occasional miraculous irregularity; God does what he wills in his world and nothing is too hard for him. Gen 18:14.
God’s providential government of the created order proclaims his wisdom, power, glory and goodness. Ps 81:1, Acts 14:17; Rom 1:19. The man who in face of this revelation does not acknowledge God is without excuse. Rom 1:20.
“When we sink all other themes in the one theme of the Cross, we are rewarded in a two-fold manner: we see the soul of man born into the Kingdom of God; and then, as an inevitable consequence with which they had little to do directly, but which is taken care of by the providence of God, and the laws by which he administers his government on the earth, they also see arts, sciences, trade, commerce and political prosperity flowing in of themselves.” declares W.G.T. Shedd. Shedd adds, “They that are willing to seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, find all these minor things - infinitely minor things, when compared with the eternal destiny of man … added to them by the operation … of divine providence.”
The Bible presents God’s constant fulfilling of his kindly purposes in nature both as matter for praise in itself; Ps 104; Ps 147, and as a guarantee that he is Lord of human history, and will fulfil his gracious promises in that realm also. Jer 31:35; 33:19-26.
Since the full God has been executing a plan of redemption, this plan pivots upon Christ’s first coming and culminates in his return. Its goal is the creation of a world-wide church in which Jew and non-Jew share God’s grace on equal terms; Eph 1:9-12; Phil 2:9; Col 1:20. Through Christ’s present reign and future triumph, the Old Testament prophecies of God’s messianic kingdom, Isa 11:1-9; Dan 2:44; 7:13-27, are fulfilled. The unifying theme of the Bible is God’s exercise of his kingdom in setting up his kingdom. No foe can thwart him; he laughs at opposition to his plan; Ps 2:4, and uses it to his own ends; Acts 4:25-28, quoting Ps 2:1. The climax of history will be the overthrow of those who fight against God and his kingdom, as the book of Revelation shows. Rev 19 etc. Paul analyses the steps in God’s plan in terms of Jew-Gentile and law-grace relationships. Gal 3; Rom 9-11; Eph 2: 12-3:11.
God told Israel as a nation he would prosper them while they were faithful but bring disaster on them if they sinned. Luke 26:14; Dt 28:15. The attempt to understand the fortunes of individual Israelites in the light of this principle raised problems. Why does God allow the wicked to prosper, even when they are victimising the just? Why is disaster so often the lot of the Godly?
The first question is answered by affirming that the wicked prosper only for a moment; God will soon visit them and take vengeance, Ps 37; Ps 63, though for the present he may forbear, in order to give them further opportunity for repentence. Rom 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9; Rev 2:21. The New Testament identifies the day of God’s visitation with the final judgement. Rom 2:3; 12:9; Jas 5:1-8.
The second question is tackled in several ways. It is asserted: 1) that the righteous will be vindicated when the day of visitation for the wicked comes. Ps 37; Ma 13:13-4:3; 2) that meanwhile suffering is valuable as a God-given discipline, Pr 3:11; Ps 119; Ps 67; Ps 71; that sufferings faithfully borne, even if not understood, glorifies God and leads to blessing in the end, Job 1,2,13; that communion with God is the supreme good, and to those who enjoy it outward impoverishment are of ultimate importance. Ps 73:14; Hab 3:17.
Belief in providence determines many of the basic attitudes of biblical piety. The knowledge of God determines their circumstances, teaches the faithful to wait in him in humility and patience for vindication and deliverance. Ps 37; Jas 5:7; 1 Pet 5:6. It forbids them to grow despondent or despairing. Ps 52; Ps 53, and brings them courage and hope when harassed. It inspires all prayers for help, and praise for every good thing enjoyed.
Providence and human freedom. God rules the heart and actions of all men, Pr 21:1; Ezr 6:22, often for purposes of his own which they do not suspect. Gen 45:5-9; Isa 10:5; John 11:49; Acts 13:27. God’s control is absolute in the sense that men do only that which he has ordained that they should do; yet they are truly free agents, in the sense that their decisions are their own, and they are morally responsible for them. Dt 30:15. A distinction, however, must be drawn between God’s allowing (or ‘giving up’) sinners to practice evil that they have preferred, Ps 70:12; Acts 14:16; Rom 1:24-28, and his gracious work of prompting his people to will and do what he commands, Phil 2:13; for in the former case, according to the biblical rule of judgement the blame for evil done belongs entirely to the sinner, Luke 22:22, Acts 2:23; Acts 3:13-19, whereas in the latter case the praise for the good done must be given to God. 1 Cor 15:10
Particular providence is the agency of God in what seem to us the minor affairs of nature and human life. Special providence is only an instance of God’s peculiar impression upon us. It is special, not as respects the means which God makes use of, but as respects the effect produced upon us. In special providence we have only a mere impressive manifestation of God’s universal control.
Miracles and works of grace like regeneration are not to be regarded as belonging to a different order of things from God’s special providence. They too, like special providence, may have their divine authorship. Nature and God are not mutually exclusive, nature is rather God’s method of working. Since nature is only the manifestation of God’s special providence, miracle, and regeneration are simply different degrees of extraordinary nature. Certain of the wonders of Scripture, such as the destruction of Sennacherib’s army, and the dividing of the Red Sea, the plagues in Egypt, the flight of the quails, and the draught of fishes, can be counted as exaggerations of natural forces while at the same time they are operations of the wonder-working God.
“Despite the fall, the natural forces of the universe, and particularly of our planet, remain orderly. While the fall has resulted in the original creation being ‘unmade’, nevertheless, by the goodness of God, nature is largely predictable, at least at the ‘micro’ level even if not sub-atomically! God could have cursed the creation with more disorderlies than we experience. Scripture appeals to this orderliness as evidence of God’s faithfulness, and even represents it as a covenant promise. Gen 8:22. But the orderliness is not so rigid as to preclude unexpected events, including miracles,” says Paul Helm. ********************************* ************************************* PART IV The term sanctification is from the term quadesh, ‘to act apart to sacred purposes, consecrate.’ It has various applications in the Old Testament as to days; God sanctified the seventh day on which he rested; it was afterwards to be kept holy by the Israelites. Gen 2:3; Ex20:8. As to persons: The Israelites were sanctified to God. Ex 19:10, 14. The first born were further sanctified to God, to be redeemed by the Levites. Ex 13:2. The priests and the Levites were sanctified to the service of God. As to the places and vessels used therein, were devoted to sacred use in the worship of God. Ex 30:29. We have thus what was suitable in view of God; there was also what was obligatory on the part of those that approached.
The priests and Levites, and people were often called upon to sanctify themselves, to be ceremonially fit to approach God and his sanctuary. Lev 20:7; Num 9:18. God declared, “I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me.” Lev 10:3. God must be approached with reverence and in separation from what is unsuited to him.
In the New Testament sanctification has many applications. 1) The thought is twice expressed by the Lord Jesus as to himself. He spoke of himself as one ‘whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world.” John 10:36. He was set apart by the Father for the accomplishment of the purposes of his will. In his prayer for his disciples in John 17 the Lord says, ‘For their sakes I sanctify myself’. He set himself apart in heaven from rights that belonged to him as man, that his own might be sanctified by the truth. He was sanctified on earth for the Father, he has sanctified himself in heaven for the saints.
2) Believers are said to be ‘sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all.’ Rom 15:16; 1 Cor 1:2; Heb 10:10. they are thus saints, ‘sanctified ones’ before God, apart from the weakness of the flesh, a class of persons set apart to God for priestly service. Acts 20:32; 26:18; Rom 1:7; - In this there is progress: in effect it implies the most intimate identification with Christ. Such are his brethren. “He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one,” Heb 2:11: “the sanctified are ‘perfected for ever’ by one offering.” Heb 10:14. 3) But believers are viewed also on the side of obligation and are exhorted to yield their members, “servants to a righteousness unto holiness.” Rom 6:19. Without sanctification no one will see the Lord. In this there is progress: a growing up into Christ in all things. Eph 4:15. The apostle Paul prayed that the God of peace would sanctify the Thessalonians wholly. 1 Thes 5:23.
4) Sanctification appears to refer to change of association, for the possibility is contemplated of some who had been sanctified treading under foot the Son of God, and treating the blood of the covenant as an unholy or common thing, thus becoming apostates from Christ, and departing from the association in which they had been sanctified. Heb 10:29.
5) In the existing mixed and corrupt state of Christendom (viewed as a great house, in which are vessels, some to honour and some to dishonour), the obligation to sanctification from evil within the sphere of profession has become obligatory in order that a man may be “a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.” 2 Tim 2:21.
6) An unbelieving husband or wife is said to be sanctified in the believing partner, and their children are holy. They can dwell together in peace, instead of having to separate from an unbelieving partner as in Old Testament times. 1 Cor 7:14; cf Ezra 9,10.
7) Food is ‘sanctified by the word of God and prayer.’ Hence ‘every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving.’ ITim 4:4,5. This is altogether opposed to restrictions prescribed by the law, or which man may impose on the use of what God in his goodness has created for man’s use.
The noun and the verb, derived from the Latin sanctus, ‘holy’, and facere, ‘to mok’, translate Hebrew qds and Greek hagiasmos, hagiazo.
The basic sense of the Hebrew qds is variously given as 1) ‘set apart’, 2) ‘brightness’. The former may underlie holiness or sanctification in terms of position, status, relationship, where the words are translated ‘cut off’, ‘separated’, ‘set apart for exclusive use’, ‘dedicated;, or ‘consecrated’, ‘regarded as sacred or holy in contrast to common, profane or secular’. The latter may underlie those usages which relate to condition, state or process, leading as in the New Testament to the thought of an inward transformation gradually taking place, resulting in purity, moral rectitude, and holy, spiritual thoughts expressing themselves in an outward life of goodness and Godliness. While the verb ‘sanctify’ is used in the Authorised Version of the Old Testament, the noun ‘holiness’ is used rather than ‘sanctification’.
In the Old Testament, the two sets of meanings outlined above may be roughly designated the priestly and the prophetic, but they are not exclusive. The primary reference of both is Godhead.
A) God is depicted as holy in majesty, mysterious in his numinous otherness loftily recovered from man, sin and earth. (cf Ex 3:5, Isa 6:3), and God says he will sanctify himself and be sanctified in or by them, i.e. recognised in his sovereign claims (similarly he will be glorified, i.e. his sublimity will be acknowledged through his people’s attitude and relationship to him). Any thing or person sanctified is recognised as set apart by God as well as by man. E.g. Sabbath, Gen2:3; altar, Ex 29:37; tabernacle, Ex 29:44; garments, Lev 8:30; fast, Joel 1:14; house, Lev 27:14; field, Lev 27:17; people, Ex 19:14; congregation, Joel 2:16; priests, Ex 28:41. This does not necessarily involve an inward change. The ceremonial ritual of the law made provision for the infringements of which the people of God, who set apart by God to belong exclusively to him, to be used as his instruments, were guilty.
B) While these were primarily external and ritual instances of sanctification, they were sanctions accompanied by the deeper, inward reality. God’s exhortation, ‘Be ye holy, for I am holy’, required a moral and spiritual response from the people, a reflection of his moral excellences of righteousness, purity, hatred of moral evil, loving concern for the welfare of others in obedience to his will; for the Holy One of Israel was actively engaged for the good of his people, Ex 19:4, as well as being separated from evil. His holiness was both transcendent and immanent, Deut 4:7; Ps 73:28, and theirs was to be correspondingly characterised. The prophets were alert to the dangers of a merely outward sanctification, and so they were not accompanied by practical holiness. Isa 1:5, 11; Isa 8:3. The children of Israel were derogating from the holiness of God by their unholy lives among the nations. They were failing to observe the law of holiness. Lev 17:26, which combined admirably both moral and ritual respects.
In the New Testament there are five references to sanctification and another five instances in which the same word HAGIASMOS is translated ‘holiness’ in the Authorised Version. As in the Old Testament, we find a two-fold usage of sanctification, but there are significant differences. The two synoptic usages of the verb ‘sanctify’ are ceremonial or ritual. Our Lord speaks of the Temple that sanctifies the gold; and the altar that sanctifies the gift. Mat 23:17,19. Here the primary meaning is consecration; the gold and gifts are dedicated, set apart, and reckoned as specially sacred and valuable by their relation to the already holy temple and altar. In a parallel use of this concept, but one more exalted and more directly spiritual since it has to do with the personal realm, Christ sanctifies or consecrates himself for his sacrificial work, the Father sanctifies him, and he bids his followers, ‘hallow’; (regard with sacred reverence, devote a unique position to) the Father. John 17:19, 10:36; Mat 6:9. A further extension of the thought comes in Christ’s sanctifying of the temple with his own blood, Heb 13:12, and possibly in John 17:17, the Father’s sanctifying of the believers through the word of truth.
Concerning the latter and kindred texts the word ‘possibly’ is used advisedly because the idea of sanctification here widens its meaning in the direction of a moral and spiritual change. The Epistle of Hebrews forms a bridge between the external and the internal meanings of sanctification. Christ by his sacrifice sanctifies his brethren not only in the sense of setting them apart but also in that of equipping them for the worship and service of God. This he does by making propitiation for their sins, Heb 2:17, and cleansing their consciences from dead works, Heb 9:13. This sanctification, however, is not conceived primarily as a process but as an accomplished fact for ‘by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified’, Heb 10:10, 14. At the same time the exhortation to grow in sanctification is not absent (Heb 12:14) where holiness is more of a state than a status. While ‘sanctification’ in holiness is somewhat akin to ‘justific action’ in such epistles as Romans and Galatians, the distinction between the usages of ‘sanctification’ in these writings must not be overdrawn. Paul uses the term in two senses also. In some cases he regards it as a status conferred upon believers who are in Christ for sanctification as for justification. The derived word ‘saint’ refers primarily to their status in Christ (‘sanctified’ in Christ Jesus, 1 Cor 1:2; cf 1 Pet 1:2). A vicarious sanctification is the privilege of the non-Christian partner and children when one parent is a believer; this again is status-sanctification. 1 Cor 7:14.
The second meaning of sanctification in Paul concerns the moral and spiritual transformation of the justified believer who is regenerated, given new life, by God. The will of God is our sanctification, 1 Thes 4:3. To be sanctified wholly is to be conformed to the image of Christ and so to realise in experience what it is to be in the image of God. Christ is the content and norm of the sanctified life; it is his risen life that is reproduced in the believer as he grows in grace and reflects the glory of his Lord. In this progressive experience of liberation from the letter of the law, man’s spirit is set free by the Lord the Spirit, 2 Cor 3:17,18. The Holy Spirit is the operator in man’s sanctification, but he works through the fellowship of believers, Eph 5:26; as they test themselves in the light of the ideal of the love of the Spirit and the indispensability of holiness. Heb 12:14. Faith, itself produced by the Holy Spirit, lays hold of the sanctifying resources.
As justification implies deliverance from the penalty of sin, so sanctification implies deliverance from pollutions, privations, and potency of sin. As to the intensity and extensiveness and steps of this latter deliverance, however, there is much discussion. The prayer that God will sanctify the believers wholly so that their whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of Christ is followed by the assertion that ‘faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it’. 1 Thes 5:23,24. This raises three important questions.
A) Will God do it all at once? Does sanctification of faith mean that complete sanctification is received as a gift in the same manner as justification, so that the believer is instantaneously made holy and enters once for all into actual, practical holiness state? Some would urge that at a crisis-experience, subsequent to conversion, the old man is crucified once for all, and the root of sin extracted or the principle sin eradicated. Some would go further and would stress the need for the reception and exercise of the gifts of the Spirit; (notably the gift of tongues) as evidence of such a work of the Spirit. Others consider that New Testament teaching is definitely opposed to this view and that the very existence of the Epistles with their reasoned statements of doctrine, arguments, appeals and exhortations, contradicts it.
B) Will God do all within the believer’s lifetime? Among both those who emphasise the crisis character of the experience of sanctification and those who see it rather as a process are some who claim for themselves very high attainments of sanctified living. Underlying such injunctions as ‘Be ye therefore perfect’, (Mat 5:48), and not interpreting ‘perfection’ here as meaning ‘maturity’, they maintain that perfect love is achievable in this life. High claims in the direction of ‘sinless perfection’, however, usually minimise both the description of sin and the standard of moral living required. Sin is defined as ‘the voluntary transgression of a known law’. Rather than as ‘any want of conformity into, or transgression of, the law of God’, (Westminster Shorter Catechism), the latter being s definition which covers our sinful state and sins of omission as well as sins openly and deliberately committed. Others, agreeing that unbroken holiness and unblemished perfection may not be possible, claim that it is possible nevertheless to have the perfect possession of the perfect motive of love.
A minimising of the standard occurs in C.G. Fleming’s claim that the Bible “expressly limits obligation ability. The very language of the law,” he writes, “is such a level its claims to the capacity of the subject however great or small that subject may be.” “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.” Here then it is plain; that all the law demands, is the exercise of whatever strength we have, in the service of God. Now as entire sanctification consists in perfect obedience to the law of God, and as the law requires nothing more than the right use of whatever strength we have, it is, of course, forever settled, that a state of entire sanctification is attainable in this life, on the ground of natural ability. This is based on a lamentable misunderstanding. cf. Deut 6:5. C) Will God do it all without the believer’s activity? Those who minimise sin and the standard of holiness God requires, are in danger of placing undue stress on human enterprise in sanctification. There is, however, an opposite extreme which lays the entire onus of sanctification on God. He is expected to produce a saint instantaneously, or gradually to infuse a Christian with grace or the Spirit. This is to reduce man to a mere robot with no moral fibre and thus virtually to produce an immoral sanctification - which is a contradiction of terms. Those who are concerned for the intrinsic character of human spirit deny such impersonal operations of the Holy Spirit. They are also dubious of the claims that the Spirit works directly upon the unconscious, rather than through the conscious, processes of a man’s mind.
The believer is to have no illusions about the intensity of the struggle with sin, Rom 7,8 and Gal 5, but should realise also that sanctification does not occur in instalments merely by his own endeavours to counteract his own evil tendencies. There is a progression of moral accomplishment but there is also a mysterious sanctifying work within him. Moreover, it is not merely a synergism (conversion is the result of combined action (copulatio) of three causes, the truth of God, the Holy Spirit, and the will of man) whereby the Spirit and the believer each contribute something. The action is attributable both to the Spirit and to the believer in the paradox of grace. God the Spirit works through the faithful recognition of the law of truth and the believer’s response of love, and the net result is spiritual maturity expressed in the fulfilling of the law of love to one’s neighbour. The consummation of sanctification to the believer who, by gracious faith in the work of Christ, by the Spirit ‘purifieth himself’. 1 John 3:3. This is indicated by assurance: ‘we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is’. 1 John 3:2.
“The affects of the whole man - body and soul; intellect; affections; and will,” claims Berkhof in relation to sanctification and goes on to add, “This follows from the nature of the case, because sanctification takes place in the inner life of man, in the heart, and this cannot be changed without changing the whole organism of man. If the inner man is changed, there is bound to be change also in the periphery of life. Moreover, Scripture clearly and explicitly teaches that it affects both body and soul. 1 Thes 5:23; 2 Cor 5:17; Rom 6:12; 1 Cor 6:15, 20. The body comes into consideration here as the organ or instrument of the sinful soul, through which the sinful inclinations and habits and passions express themselves. The sanctification of the body takes place especially in the crisis of death and in the resurrection of the dead. Scripture shows that sanctification affects all the powers or faculties of the soul; - the understanding, Jer 31:34; John 6:45; - the will, Ezek 36:25-27; Phil 2:13; - the passions, Gal 5:24; - and the conscience, Tit 1:15; Heb 9:14.”
***********************
Otto says, “Holiness - ‘the holy’ is a category of interpretation and valuation peculiar to the sphere of religion. It is indeed, applied to transference to another sphere - that of ethics - but it is not itself derived from this.” He points out, “’the holy’ is very often taken to mean morally good or completely good - if ethical element was present at all at any rate it was not original and never constituted the whole meaning of the word.” Rudolph Otto continues on this theme. “Holiness or ‘the holy’ is treated with vigour in the Bible. In the Greek, Latin and Hebrew it has a name of its own. There seems to be no argument that the meaning of the word holy in all three languages means good, absolute goodness in its fullest development.”
There is probably no religion without a distinction between holy and profane, and in most, indeed if not in all, the religious man is the one to whom something is holy. The word may come from a root expressing ‘separation’ or ‘cutting off’, applied to the separation of a person or thing to divine use, and so eventually to a state of the object or person so revered. The same fundamental thought of ‘separation’ as in consecration to God. The implication being the right relation to God as holy or pious, with the further connotation; perhaps of ‘beloved’ of God. In this latter sense the Messiah is termed the Holy One. Acts 2:27. References to a holy character see Titus 1:8.
In the Old Testament holiness is designated of places, things, seasons, and official persons, in virtue of their connection with the worship of God. The first application of the term is to be the seventh day Sabbath which God is said to have made holy. Gen 2:3. It is likewise applied to the place of worship or sanctuary, and also to things within the sanctuary used in the worship of God. Similarly it is said in connection with persons, priests, Levites, etc., officially connected with the worship of God. In these instances holiness signifies a relation that involved separation from common use and dedication to a sacred one.
The holiness of God’s character in the Old Testament - as in the New is implied in the highest sense. It denotes, first, his separations from creation and elevation above it. It thus sets forth the transcendence of God. Yahweh as the Holy One stands in contrast to false gods, Ex 15:11, and to the whole of creation. Isa 40:25.
The word holy also denotes relationship, and signifies God’s determinations to preserve his own position relative to all other free beings. It is God’s self-affirmation, ‘the attribute in virtue of which Jehovah makes himself the absolute standard of himself,’ said Godet. Not only does it bring out the contrast between the divine and the human (Hosea 11:9), but it becomes almost synonymous with supreme deity, and emphasises in particular, the awe-inspiring side of the divine character. Ps 99:3.
The ethical quality in holiness is, however, the aspect under which the term is applied most commonly to God. Holiness is a term for the moral excellence of God and his freedom from all limitation in his moral perfection. Hab 1:13. In this exalted sense God only is holy and sets the standard of ethical purity in his creatures.
Since holiness embraces every distinctive attribute of the Godhead, it may be defined as the outshining of all that God is. Holiness has been called ‘An attribute of attributes’, that which lends unity to all the attributes of God. To conceive God’s being and character as merely a synthesis of abstract perfections is to deprive God of all reality. In the God of the Bible these perfections live and function in holiness.
In his “A Treasury of the New Testament”, Charles Spurgeon says, “You shall never discover a truly holy life which has not, for its root and foundation a living faith upon the righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
For these reasons we can understand why holiness is expressly attributed in Scripture to each Person of the Godhead; to the Father, John 17:11; to the Son, Acts 4:30; and especially to the Spirit as the one who manifests and communicates the holiness of God to his creatures.
The Old Testament applies the word ‘holy’ to human beings in virtue of their consecration to religious aHHHpurposes, e.g. priests who were consecrated by special ceremonies, and even to the whole nation of Israel as a people separated from nations and consecrated to God. Thus it was relationship to God that constituted Israel holy people, and in this sense it was the highest expression of the covenant relationship. This idea is not altogether absent in the New Testament, as in the passage in 1 Cor 7:14, where the unbelieving husband is sanctified in virtue of his relationship to the believing wife and vice versa.
But as the conception of holiness advanced, alongside the progressive revelation of God, from the outside to the inside, from the ceremonial to reality, so it took on ethical significance, and this is its main, and practically its exclusive, connotation in the New Testament. The old prophets proclaimed it as pre-eminently God’s self-disclosure, the testimony he bears to himself, and the aspect under which he wills his creatures to know him. Moreover, the prophets declare that God willed to commune his holiness to his creatures, and that, in turn, he claims holiness from them. If ‘I am holy’ is the divine self-assertion, lifting God immeasurably above his creatures, so ‘Be ye holy’ is the divine call to his creatures to become ‘partakers of holiness’. Heb 12:10. It is this imparting of divine holiness which takes place in the soul of man in regeneration and becomes the spring and foundation of holy character.
Christ in his life and character is the supreme example of the divine holiness. In him it consisted of more than mere sinlessness; it was his entire consecration to the will and purpose of God, and to this end Jesus sanctified himself. John 17:19. The holiness of Christ is both the standard of the Christian character and its guarantee: ‘Both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all one.’ Heb 2:11.
Yet, as Dr Thomas said, “He did not have a monastic life to demonstrate his holiness - he met with men and women - his life was in full contact. There is a distinction between sinlessness which is negative and holiness which is positive. The Scriptures are certain that he faced temptation as a man for men. The idea of God as God being tempted by sin is not only inconceivable but is illogical. But what would be illogical in other circumstances becomes feasible in the incarnation. He placed himself under subjection to his Father. This brought him within the sphere of temptation.”
In the New Testament the apostolic designation for Christians is saints, and it continued to be used as a general designation at least up to the days of IRENAEUS and TERTULLIAN, though after that it degenerated in ecclesiastical usage into an horrific title. Though its primary significance was relationship. It was also descriptive of character, and more especially of Christ-like character. The New Testament everywhere emphasises the ethical nature of holiness in contrast to all unclean-ness. It is represented as the supreme vocation of Christians and the goal of their living. In the formal assessment of human destiny the two categories known to Scripture are the righteous and the wicked.
Scriptures emphasise the permanence of moral character. Rev 22:11. It also emphasises the attributive aspect of the divine holiness. It involves the world in judgement. From a moral necessity in God, life is so ordered that in holiness is welfare, in sin is doom. Since the divine holiness could not make a universe in which sin would ultimately prosper, the retributive quality in the divine government becomes perfectly plain. But retribution is not the end; the holiness of God ensures that there will be a final restoration, bringing to pass a regeneration of the moral universe. The eschatology of the Bible holds out the promise that the holiness of God will sweep the universe clean, and create new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness will dwell. 2 Pet 3:13.
On this subject Berkhof has this to say: “The Scriptural idea of holiness of God is two-fold. In its original sense it denotes that he is absolutely distinct from all his creatures, and is exalted above them in infinite majesty.” He adds, “It may be called the ‘majesty holiness’ of God, and is referred to in such passages as Ex 15:11; 1 Sam 57:15; Hos 11:9. It is this holiness of God which Otto, in his important work on DAS HEILIGE, regards as that which is most essential in God, and which he designates as ‘the numinous’.”
************************
“The Eternal State will be more glorious than the millennial kingdom had been, and the New Heaven and Earth will excel the glory of the old, even so the second Man and the last Adam, excels the first. All therein will be of and according to God.” So said John Ritchie in his book, “The Second Advent.”
Ritchie leans heavily on the Book of Revelation for his book. Henricksen holds that there are seven sections in the Book of Revelation, and that these seven are parallel, each spanning the entire age between the first and the future Coming of Christ. His sections are: chapters 1-3, 4-7, 8-11, 12-14, 15-16, 17-19, 20-22. He also adds, “In the book’s 404 verses there are about 550 allusions to the Old Testament. About 265 verses contain Old Testament language…..The New Testament begins in Bethlehem and ends in the City of God.”
The eschatology of the Bible holds out the promise that the holiness of God will sweep the universe clean; as cited earlier. Berkhof says: “If eschatology is not theology it has no proper place in dogmatics.” On eschatology Pohle says: “Eschatology is the crown and the capstone of dogmatic theology.” Berkhof insists: “It is the one locus of theology in which all the other loci must come to a head, to a final conclusion.” Dr Kuyper points out: “… that every other locus left some question unanswered, to which eschatology should supply the answer. In theology it is the question, how God is finally perfectly glorified in the works of his hands, and how the counsel of God is fully realised; in anthropology, the question, how the disrupting influence of sin is completely overcome; in christology, the question how the work of Christ is crowned with perfect victory; in soteriology the question, how the Holy Spirit at last moves in the complete redemption and glorification of the people of God; and in ecclesiology, the question of the final apotheosis of the church.” Dr Kuyper adds:
“All of these questions must find their answer in the last locus of dogmatics, making it the real capstone of dogmatic theology.” Haering testifies to the same fact when he says: “As a matter of fact it (eschatology) does shed a clear light upon every single section of doctrine.”
While the Scriptures represent all punishment of individual transgressions and all manifestations of God’s vindicting justice in the history of nations as acts or processes of judgement, they also intimate that these temporal judgements are only partial and imperfect, and they are therefore to be concluded with a final and complete vindication of God’s righteousness. This will be accomplished by making known to the universe the character of all men, and by awarding to them corresponding destinies. Ps 9:7; Isa 26:9; Mat 16:27,28; John 3: 18,19 etc.. The nature of the final judgement is not a spiritual, invisible, endless process, identical with God’s providence in history, but is an outward and visible event, occurring at a definite period in the future, Acts 24:35, Heb 10:27; something after death, Heb 9:27, something for which the resurrection is a preparation. John 5:29.
The accompaniments of the judgement, such as the second coming of Christ, the resurrection, and the outward changes of the earth, are events which have an outward and visible, as well as inward and spiritual, aspect. We are compelled to interpret the predictions of the last judgement upon the same principle.
God’s justice, in the historical and imperfect work of judgement, needs a final outward judgement as its vindication. “A perfect justice must judge, not only moral units, but moral aggregates; not only the particulars of life, but the life as a whole.” The crime that is hidden and triumphant here, and the goodness that is here maligned and oppressed, must be brought to light and fitly recompensed. “Otherwise man is a tantalas - longing but never satisfied”, and God’s justice, of which his outward administration is the expression, can only be regarded as approximate.
The object of the final judgement; is not the ascertainment, but the manifestation, of character, and the assignment of outward condition corresponding to it. To the omniscient Judge, the condition of all moral creatures is already and fully known. The last day will be only the revelation of the righteous judgement of God. In the nature of man, there are evidences and preparations for this final disclosure. Among these may be mentioned the law of memory, by which the soul preserves the records of its acts, both good and evil, Luke 16:25, the law of conscience, by which men involuntarily anticipate punishment for their own sins, Rom 2: 15, 16; Heb 10:27; the law of character, by which every thought and deed makes indelible impress upon the moral nature. Heb 3:8,15.
Single acts and words, therefore, are to be brought into judgement only as indications of the moral condition of the soul. This manifestation of all hearts will vindicate not only God’s past dealings but his determination of future destinies.
The Judge in the final judgement is God in the person of Jesus Christ. Though God is the judge of all, Heb 12:23, yet this judicial activity is exercised through Christ, at the last day, as well as in the present state. John 5:22,27.
There are three reasons for this:
A) Christ’s human nature enables men to understand both the law and the love of God, and so make intelligible the grounds on which judgement is passed.
B) The perfect human nature of Christ, united as it is to the divine, ensures all that is needful in true judgement, is that it be both merciful and just.
C) Human nature, sitting upon the throne of judgement, will afford convincing proof that Christ has received the reward of his sufferings, and that humanity has been perfectly redeemed. The saints shall “judge the world” only as they are one with Christ.
The subjects of the final judgement are the persons upon whose characters and conduct this judgement shall be passed and these are of two classes: 1) All men - each possessed of body as well as soul, - the dead having been raised, and the living having been changed. 2) All evil angels - good angels appearing only as attendants and ministers of the Judge.
The grounds of the final judgement will be two in number. 1) The law of God, - as made known in conscience and in Scripture. 2) The grace of Christ. Rev 20:12, - those whose names are found “written in the book of life” being approved, simply because of their union with Christ and participation in his righteousness. Their good works shall be brought into judgement only as proofs of this relation to the Redeemer. Those not found “written in the book of life” will be judged by the law of God, as God has made it known to each individual.
The final state of the righteous and the wicked. Of the Righteous: - The final state is described as eternal life. Mat 25:46; glory, 2 Cor 4:17; rest, Heb 4:9; knowledge, 1 Cor 13:8-10; holiness, Rev 21:27; service, Rev 22:3; worship, Rev 19:1; society, Heb 12:23; communion with God, Rev 21:3.
Summing up all these, it can be said that it is the fullness and perfection of holy life, in communion with God and with sanctified spirits. Although there will be degrees of blessedness and honour, proportioned to the capacity and fidelity of each soul, Luke 19:17, 19; 1 Cor 3:14, 15; each will receive as great a measure of reward as it can contain, 1 Cor 2:9, and this final state, once entered upon, will be unchanging in kind and endless in duration. Rev 3:12, 22:15.
With regard to heaven, two questions present themselves, namely: 1) Is heaven a place as well as a state? The answer is probably yes, for the reason that the presence of Christ’s human body is essential to heaven, and that this body must be confined to place. Since deity and humanity are indissolubly united in Christ’s single person, we cannot regard Christ’s human body as thus omnipotent. As the new bodies of the saints are confined to place, so, it would seem, must be the body of their Lord. But, though heaven be the place where Christ manifests his glory through the human body which he assumed in the incarnation, our ruling conception of heaven must be something higher even than this, namely, that of a state of holy communion with God. 2) Is the earth the heaven of saints? The first thing to notice is that the earth is to be consumed by fire and perhaps prepared to be the abode of the saints, - although this last statement is not rendered certain by the Scriptures. Secondly, - this fitting up earth as man’s abode, even if it were declared in Scripture, would not render it certain that the saints are to be confined to these narrow limits. John 14:2. It seems rather to be intimated that the effect of Christ’s work will be to bring the redeemed into union and intercourse with the orders of intelligence, from communion with, when they are now shut out by sin. Eph 1:20; Col 1:20.
Of the wicked:- the final state is described under the figures of eternal fire, Mat 25:41; the pit of the abyss, Rev 21:8; eternal destruction from the face of the Lord, 2 Thes 1:9; eternal sin, Mark 3:29.
Summing all this up, it can be said that it is the loss of all good, whether physical or spiritual, and the misery of an evil conscience banished from God and from society of the holy, and dwelling under God’s positive curse forever. Here we are to remember, as in the case of the final state of the righteous, that the decisive and controlling element is not the outward, but the inward. If hell be a place, it is not only that the outward may correspond to the inward. If there be outward torments, it is only because these will be fit, though subordinate, accompaniments of the inward state of the soul.
The future punishment of the wicked is not annihilation. By virtue of man’s original creation in the image of God, the human soul is naturally immortal; that neither for the righteous nor the wicked is death a cessation of being, that on the contrary, the wicked enter at death upon a state of conscious suffering which the resurrection and the judgement only augment and render permanent. It is plain, moreover, that if annihilation took place at death there could be no degrees in future punishment, a conclusion itself at variance with express statements of Scripture.
There are two forms of annihilation theory which are more plausible, and which in recent times find a larger number of advocates, namely: a) That the powers of the wicked are gradually weakened, as the natural result of sin, so that they finally cease to be. Firstly the moral evil does not, in this present life, seem to be incompatible with a constant growth of the intellectual powers, at least in certain directions, and there is no reason to believe the fact to be different in the world to come; secondly, that if this theory were true, the greater the sin, the speedier would be the relief from punishment. That there is for the wicked, certainly after death, and possibly between death and the judgement, a positive punishment, proportioned to their deeds, but that this punishment issues in, or is followed by, annihilation.
From Scripture it can be claimed that future punishment is a matter of grace as well as justice - also that Scripture not only gives no hint of the cessation of this punishment, but declares in the strongest terms to endlessness.
Death is not degeneracy ending in extinction, nor punishment ending in extinction. Scriptures declare this future punishment of the wicked to be eternal. Mat 25:46; Rom 16:25,26; compare Jer 31:3.
**********************
Emmerson, on the subject of faith: “Belief consists in accepting the affirmations of the soul - unbelief in rejecting them.”
Moral philosophy of religion says: “Faith consists in the synthesis of the reason and of the individual will and by virtue of the former (that of reason) faith must be a light, a form of knowing, a beholding of truth.”
Spurgeon writes: “The word of the Lord deserves all faith, both implicit and explicit.” He adds, “Our consolation rests upon the immutable things of God.”
Faith is a kindred word to ‘believe’, and indeed the two cannot be separated. In the Old Testament the word ‘faith’ occurs but twice Deut 32:20; Hab 2:4. The words are EMUN, EMUNAH: but AMAN is often translated ‘to believe’. The first time this occurs in the Old Testament is when it is said to Abraham that “he believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness.” Gen 15:6. This is referred to in Romans 4 where the faith of the believer is counted for righteousness, and the conclusion is drawn that if any believes on him that raised up Jesus the Lord from the dead, righteousness will be reckoned to them.
This may be called saving faith. It is confidence in God founded on his word, it is believing on a person, so Abraham believed God. Eph 2:8. Salvation is on the principle of faith in contrast to works under the law, Rom 10:9, but true faith is manifested in good works. If a man says he has faith, it is reasonable to say to him, “Show me thy faith by thy works.” Jas 2:14-26. Otherwise, if faith does not manifest itself, it is described as ‘dead’, and is altogether different from real, active belief. A mental resent to what is stated, as a mere matter of history, is not faith. A natural man can believe such things: “the devils also believe and tremble”, but true faith gives joy and peace.
“Faith is revealed as the principle of victory, with particular reference to Hebrews chapter 11,” wrote G. Campbell Morgan. Morgan draws attention to the “great names - whose faith was their means of contentment, endurance, and their very movement. The same process is required today.”
There is also the power and action of faith in the Christian’s walk; “walk by faith; not by sight.” 1 Cor 5:7. We see such faith exemplified in the lives of the Old Testament saints, as given in Hebrews Chapter 11. The Lord had often to rebuke his disciples for their want of faith in their daily walk. The believer should have faith in the living God concerning all the details of his daily life.
Faith is referred to at times in the sense of ‘the truth’; that which has been recorded, and which the Christian has believed, to the saving of his soul. For this the Christian should contend earnestly for it is fundamental; and many false prophets are gone into the world, and have crept into association with the saints unawares. Jude 3.
The meaning of faith - the first three words of the Creed, “I believe in”, are perhaps neither the least important nor the least misunderstood. Faith and assent are both kind of belief. The difference between them is often marked by the presence or absence of the word “in” after the verb “believe”. To believe that God exists is or may be bare assent. To believe in God is faith. There are many things which we believe without any thought of believing in them at all. We believe, in a quite detached manner, all sorts of facts which we are informed of by competent authorities. We believe, for instance, so far as modern themes of relativity still permit, that the earth is a more or less spherical mass traversing on orbit round the sun. Matters to believe in because of intense personal conviction.
The Creed affirms faith in God and what God has done and revealed for man’s salvation. This faith is a kind of belief quite different from bare assent. Doubtless that Christian faith is a gift of God. Doubtless also, all religious faith, has for its object the unseen spiritual world which cannot be apprehended by the bodily senses.
The Christian faith, then, differs radically from assent, is not a special kind of belief reserved for Christians alone. Men today believe enthusiastically in Communism or in National Socialism, partly because these movements and their characteristic doctrines appear to be new, whereas orthodox Christianity is old. But time was when that doctrine also was new, and its discoverer believed in it so intensely that he was almost ready to be a martyr for its truth.
G.E. Altree Coley tells the story of Sir John Elliot, the patriot who perished in the Tower, who demonstrated the place of the Bible in the Nation when he said in the House of Commons: ‘The Gospel is that truth in which this kingdom has been happy through a long and rare prosperity.’ “Here was faith,” said Coley, “that saw the struggle through.”
If there can be any permanent object of a lively faith, it must be such as to afford permanently something of the freshness of a new discovery. For though “in a higher world it is otherwise - here below,” as Newman saw it, “to live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often.” Lively faith is the possession of a man and principle of direction which enables us to travel hopefully through ever-changing experiences, because we know that our journey has a worthy end.
(Of the Catechism, Lancelot Andrews said, “The Papists acknowledge that all the advantage which the Protestants have gotten of them, hath come by this exercise.”
Matthew Henry referring to the use of the Catechism says, “hereby the main principles of Christianity, which lie scattered in the Scriptures, are collected and brought together; and by this means they are set in much easier view before the minds of men.” Henry adds: “Hereby the truths of God, the several articles of Christian doctrine and duty, are methodised and put in order.”
The short questions and answers, making it easier to receive the full message of the Bible.)
“A creed as a rule of faith stood as a concise statement of the common belief of all Christians.” R.S. Franks. The same writer writes, “Authority and reason are welded together by charisma (faith) - in charismatic theology of the New Testament - authority and reason are both in evidence.”
The Christian Creed sets before us as the object of our faith nothing less than an unsearchable love of God. It affirms that that love was once for all revealed in Jesus, who died in circumstances of shame and horror, and rose again for men. Therefore it assures us at the same time that no experience, however terrible or repugnant, can be such that through it no fresh discovery of God’s love is possible for one who had God’s Spirit in his heart. Here then, is the gospel which provides the truly permanent object of faith.
Nineteen hundred years ago that gospel itself was new in time. Then to say, “I believe in God the Father and in Jesus Christ, his Son our Lord” was indeed a new discovery, the discovery of a new world. Paul writes at times as one bewildered by the novelty of the one new thing which the clever Athenians could neither tell nor hear, the thing which had shown the weakness of God to be stronger; and the foolishness of God to be wiser, than everywork of man’s hands and thought of man’s brain. What we have to prove today, in thought and life is this, that the essential newness of the Christian revelation is not temporal newness, which, as the centuries pass, passes itself into old age. It is as true now as it was when the epistle of the Hebrews was written, that “that which was of old is near to vanishing away.” We believe in Christianity not because it is old but because it is still new. It is the gospel of an ageless truth of which ever fresh discoveries are to be made, and in making them our faith itself must live. Christ’s call to union with himself through sacrifice will bring as fresh a revelation when the earth is becoming uninhabitable, by the exhaustion of the sun, as it did when Mary cried “Rabboni” and Paul was blinded by the light on the Damascus road.
What then of the opposition of faith and doubt? There is a kind of doubt which is the enemy of faith and there is a kind which proceeds from faith, and is so often a condition of growth. An illustration can be cited in Matthew’s gospel where Jesus calls Peter to walk to him on the water - Peter starts; but when he sees the wind he becomes afraid and starts to sink. Jesus takes hold of his hand and says, “O thou of little faith, wherefore dids’t thou doubt?”
Faith is essentially that by which a man directs his life in the following of Christ. If he has at all realised the meaning of the cross, he will not expect on earth any clear or uninterrupted vision of his goal. “All sincere questioning has faith at its roots,” says Oliver Quick. Faith is a movement of the mind and soul towards an end. Therefore it is incompatible with two states of mind and two only; first, the doubt which makes a man abandon search in despair, and secondly, the self-satisfaction which makes him content to stay where he is. In fact, these two states of mind are nearer to one another than at first sight; they appear to be. The real faithfulness of the modern world is seen in its half-despairing, half-complacent, agreement to give up ultimate questions. Most of the so-called “sceptical” philosophies collapse at the first breath of a scepticism which is genuine and thorough.
Creeds were originally professions of faith made by converts at their baptism and they formed the basis of instructions. By the fourth century they had also become formulae of assent used as tests of orthodoxy for the Church’s teachers. It was a test word the Aranians could not accept, that the term HOMOOUSION was introduced into the Creed of Nicea. Subsequently Creeds have also had a regular place as acts of praise in the Church’s worship.
The object of the Christian faith is Jesus Christ himself and the facts concerning him, which the New Testament records. These facts constitute the Gospel, the Creeds are distinct from the Gospel itself. It is important to bear this distinction in mind. In the nature of the case no Christian creed could be delivered by the incarnate Lord himself. Indeed all the evidence goes to show that he carefully refrained from formulating or handing down to his followers any statements of a creedal sort.
By insisting that the Creeds are primarily the inspired “expression work” of a particular age, we secure from subsequent ages a freedom of interpretation which is necessary for the life of faith itself. The real and permanent object of Christian faith is, not the Creeds, but Christ and his gospel. To substitute creed for gospel is to go back from the “newness of Spirit” to orthodoxy of mere assent which as James grimly puts it, may in principle be shared by devils. A living faith must re-express and reinterpret ancient truths, and make ever-fresh discoveries of their meaning.
What is the true relation of faith to reason?
Scholasticism divides the truths about God and man which a Christian holds into two classes; A) truths of natural theology, which can be proved by reasoning from axiomatic premises, and B) truths of revelation which though not contrary to reason, are neither discoverable nor demonstrable by meaning, and require for their acceptance faith or trust in Christ, as the revelation of God. To the first class belong perfection of God, the validity of the moral law, the freedom of will and the immortality of the soul. To the second class belongs the divine triunity, the incarnation and the atonement, and the doctrine of Church and sacraments. Thus though faith is not held to be irrational, the spheres of pure reason and of faith are clearly marked out and distinguished from one another.
In recent times some Evangelical theologians have been so much impressed by the objections to the scholastic distinction between natural theology and revelation, that they have attempted a quite opposite line of approach to Christian theology as a whole. Everything of value, they would suggest, in the Christian doctrine of God and man, is derived from Christian revelation; and is apprehended by faith and not by reason. Therefore the best order of exposition is to start from the records of facts concerning Jesus, and draw from that source exclusively the whole content of the Christian’s creed. This context is then presented as an object of faith essentially alien from everything which rational philosophy or non-Christian religion may claim to have learned or discovered.
The scholastic distinction between the spheres of reason and of faith identifies the sphere of reason with that of cogent logical demonstration, faith being concerned with the apprehension of truth which cannot be thus logically proved. But this distinction cuts across another which appears to be more important, that between logic, as science of accurate thinking, and reason, as that by which we apprehend the rational order of actual being.
The relation logic to truth must first be examined. The use of logic can assure us that if certain premises be accepted as true, then a certain conclusion must be accepted as true also. But logic by itself can never take us beyond the assertion of a hypothetical truth: if A then B. If all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal. That syllogism is an instance of strict logic. But logic cannot tell us either that all men are really mortal, or that Socrates really is man. Nor would the logic of the syllogism be in the least impaired, if some men were in fact immortal, or Socrates were a mythical being.
But what does it mean to confirm that the universe is rational? It means that reality throughout is informed by a single principle of order and intelligibility, so that the meanings of all truths must be coherent and consistent with one another for the thinking mind, though they need not be demonstrable from one another by any process of purely logical deduction. It is on such faith in the rationality of things that the scientific search for truth depends.
We must recognise that physical science does not take into account the whole reality, or concern itself with the coherence of the universe in its deepest and widest respects. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the universe is using up its energy and gradually “running down”, as the second law of THERMODYNOMIES seems to suggest; and suppose further that the process of space and time in which the universe is thus exhausting itself is the ultimate order of reality, it might then still be argued that there is nothing in all this which conflicts with the rationality of the universe as physical science assumes, it is for the purpose of pursuing its enquiries. Yet the conclusion we have supposed, if it is clearly thought out in all its implications, must appear utterly unintelligible to the spiritual reason and conceive of mankind.
It can be concluded therefore that any faith, which can interpret the ultimate order of the universe so as to make man’s spiritual nature and experience somehow coherent with other aspects of reality, may legitimately claim reason for its ally. If the faith which can best perform the task - is one which recognises a special revelation of God to man in certain particular events, then that faith is seen to be supremely rational.
“Revelation,” said Paine, “when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.” It is not that Christian faith goes beyond reason. For we do not mean by reason an activity of thought which demonstrates truth ‘a priori’ before the facts of experience are considered. It is our Christian conviction that the life of Jesus interpreted as God’s unique and supreme self-revelation is uniquely and supremely illuminating to the reason of mankind. Reason and faith are not concerned each with a distinct sphere of cognition.
Faith in Jesus shows itself to be true illuminating the reason and submitting to its criticism; and the philosophy which is enlightened by that faith is simply a better, truer, and fuller philosophy.
Tertullian “… is the first Christian thinker of the west. He had the most happy knack of hitting on the right word.” He preferred to use the term Son to the term Logos. He showed with Justin Marter that the ideal was not until creation. He too is consistent that the Son is one with the Father. He uses a number of illustrations. He likens the Father and the Son with root and tree, fountain and river, the sun and its rays.
Origen, “who was a prolific writer,” expressed the subordination of the Son to the Father. ‘Eternal generation of the Son from the Father. It denotes no finite act either temporal or pre-temporal but an eternal or temporal process or relation.’ “Origen has never been forgiven for describing Christ as aged of all creatures.”
Aphanasus, who was a great opponent of ARIANISM, believed in the unequal deity of Christ.
From these sages of the past, Tertullian stressed the fact that faith accepts a thing on authority, and not because it is warranted by human reason. He also used the term in an objective sense, as a designation of that which must be believed, - REGULAR FIDEI. Even up to the time of Augustine, little attention was devoted to the nature of faith, though it was always acknowledged to be the pre-eminent means in the appropriation of salvation.
“From the very earliest times of the Christian Church faith stood out in the minds of the leaders as the great condition of salvation,” said Berkhof; and he added, “Alongside of it repentence also soon became rather prominent. At the same time there was little reflection at first on the nature of faith to the other parts of the ORDO SALUTIS. While there was a tendency to use the word “faith” to denote the acceptance of the truth on testimony. It was also in some cases employed in a deeper sense, so as to include the idea of self-surrender to the truth intellectually received.”
****************************** ******************************** PART V
A brief look at another important Scriptural issue, that of the Transfiguration. The transfiguration is recorded in Mat 17:1-8; Mk 9:2-8; Luke 9:28-36. Its absence from John is usually accounted for on the ground that the whole of Christ’s life was a manifestation of the divine glory. John 1:14; 2:11 and so on. There is also a reference to it in 2 Peter 1:16-18.
In the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) the event takes place about a week after Peter’s confession of the Messiahship of Jesus. He took his three closest disciples, Peter, James and John, up to a mountain (probably Hermon, which rises to a height of 9000 feet above sea level). There he was transformed (rather than changed in appearance) and his garments shone with heavenly brightness. Moses and Elijah then appeared and talked to him, and Peter suggested making three tents for them. A voice then came from a cloud declaring Christ’s Sonship and his authority, after which the vision ended. The narrative suggests that the whole event was objective, though many modern scholars have sought to describe it in terms of a subjective experience of Jesus or of Peter.
The transfiguration marks an important stage in the revelation of Jesus as the Christ and the Son of God. It is an experience similar to his baptism. Mat 3:13-17; Mk 1:9-14; Luke 3:21. Here his glory is revealed not just through his deeds, but in a more personal way. The glory denotes the royal presence, for the kingdom of God is in the midst of his people.
There are many features about the account which derives significance from the Old Testament. Moses and Elijah represent the Law and the Prophets witnessing to the Messiah and being fulfilled and superseded by him. Each of them had had a vision of the glory of God on a mountain, Moses on Sinai, Ex 24:15; and Elijah on Horeb, 1 Kings 19:8. Each of them left no grave Deut 34:6; 2 Kings 2:11. The law of Moses and coming of Elijah are mentioned together in the last verses of the Old Testament. Mal 4:4-6. The two men at the empty tomb, Luke 24:4; John 20:12, and at the ascension, Acts 1:10, and the ‘two witnesses’, Rev 11:3, are sometimes also identified with Moses and Elijah. The heavenly voice, ‘This is my beloved Son, hear him’, Mark 9:7, marks Jesus out not only as the Messiah but also as the Prophet of Deut 18:25.
The cloud symbolises the covering of the divine presence. Ex 24:15-18, Ps 97:2. There is a cloud to receive Christ out of his disciples’ sight at the ascension. Acts 1:9. The return of Christ will be with clouds, Rev 1:7.
In Luke we are told that the subject of their conversation was the exodus which he was to accomplish at Jerusalem. This seems to mean not only his death but the great facts of his death and resurrection as the means of redemption of his people typified by the Old Testament exodus from Egypt.
The transfiguration is therefore a focal point in the revelation of the kingdom of God, for it looks back to the Old Testament and shows how Christ fulfils it, and looks on to the great events of the cross, resurrection, ascension and PAROUSIA. Peter was wrong in trying to make the experience permanent. What was needed was the presence of Jesus alone and attention to his voice.
**********************
Robert Shank “Elect in the Son,” says, “The election of grace does not rule out the salvation of any man, and God truly wills that all men be saved. Election and Predestination (the two are not the same) are shown to be great truths that, when properly understood, augment the joy and the assurance of the believer.”
Shank’s sees Christ, the Foundation of Election. In him who is the Elect from eternity is posited the gracious election of men. Calvin insisted that the election to salvation is in Christ. “We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose?” Shank asks, “Who are those favoured ones, thriced blessed and marked for everlasting glory - those who are called according to his purpose?”
Paul identifies them as ‘those who love God’. But the question arises especially in view of Romans 8:29, 30, why do some love God, while others do not? Have men a choice whether to love God or has God predestined some men to love him and others to despise him, or at best, to be indifferent toward him?
Predestination - ‘to mark out beforehand, predetermine’. In Romans 8:29,30, it forms a link in the chain that connects the foreknowledge of God in the past with the glory in the future. Election is God’s choice of individuals; predestination is to a blessing, as in Eph 1:5, 11, believers are predestined to the adoption of sons, recording the purpose of God. Predestination does not, as insisted on by some, imply reprobation of some to wrath. God, “will have (or desires) all men to be saved.” 1 Tim 2:4; but to ensure some being saved, he predestined, called justified, and glorified them in his sovereign purpose.
The English ‘predestinate’ comes from the Latin PRAEDESTINO, which the Vulgate uses to translate the Greek PROORIZO. The Authorised Version of the Bible - renders proorizo as predestinate. Rom 8:29, Eph 1:5, 11. The Revised Version has ‘foreordained’.
Proorizo, which in the New Testament, is used only with God as subject, expresses the thought of appointing a situation for a person, or a person for a situation, in advance. PROETOIMAZO, ‘prepare beforehand’, Rom 9:23; Eph 2:10; ‘foresee’ carries the thought of God’s effective pre-ordaining in Gal 3:8; Heb 11:40; as the context shows.
The New Testament formulates the thought of divine foreordination in another way, by telling us that what motivates and determines God’s actions in his world, among them the fortunes and destiny which he brings upon men, is his own will. Acts 2:23; 4:28; Eph 1:11; Heb 6:17.
The Bible conceives of God’s purpose for men as expressed both by his revealed commands to them and by his ordering of their circumstances. His ‘will’ in Scripture covers both his law and his plan; hence some of the above terms are also used with reference to particular divine demands, e.g. BOULE, Luke 7:30; THELEMA, 1 Thes 4:3; 5:18. But in the texts referred to above it is God’s plan of events that is in view, and it is this that predestination concerns. The Old Testament lacks words for expressing the idea of predestination in an abstract and generalised form, but it often speaks of God purposing, ordaining, or determining particular things, in context which call attention to the absolute priority and independence of his purposing in relation to the existence or occurrence of the thing purposed. Ps 139:16; Isa 15:24-27; 19:17 etc.
To grasp the meaning of predestination as Scripture presents it, it must be set in its place in God’s plan as a whole. The Old Testament presents God the Creator as personal, powerful and purposeful, and assures us that his power is unlimited, so his purposes are certain of fulfilment. Ps 33:10; Isa 14:27; 43:13; Job 9:12; 23:13; Dan 4:35. He is Lord of every situation, ordering and directing everything towards the end for which he made it, Pr 16:1-9, to the seemingly random fall of a Lot, Pr 16:33. Nothing that God sets before himself is too hard for him, Gen 18:14; Jer 32:17; the idea that the organised opposition of man could in any way thwart him is simply absurd. Ps 11:1-4. Ritschl defined Christianity as “a teleological religion and made its end the Kingdom of God.” (Teleology: doctrine of first causes)
Yahweh governs human history teleologically, to bring about his own predestined purpose for human welfare is made clear in the Bible story as early as the PROTEVANGELIUM, Gen 3:15, and the promise to Abraham. Gen 12:3. The theme develops through the wilderness promises of prosperity and protection in Canaan, Deut 28:1-14, and the prophetic pictures of the messianic glory which would succeed God’s work of judgement, Jer 23:5; Ezek 34:20; 37:21; Hos 3:4 etc., and it reaches it climax in Daniel’s vision of God overruling the rise and fall of pagan world-empires in order to set up the rule of Son of Man. Dan 7. A global eschatology of this order could not be seriously put forward save only the presupposition that God is the absolute Lord of history, foreseeing and foreordaining its whole course.
The New Testament writers take for granted the Old Testament faith that God is the sovereign Lord of events and rules for history for the fulfilling of his purposes. Their uniform insistence that Christ’s ministry and the Christian dispensation represented the fulfilment of biblical prophecies, given centuries before. Mat 1:22; 2:15; 23; 4:14; Acts 2:17 etc.. The uniform New Testament conception is that all saving grace given to men in time, knowledge of the gospel, understanding of it and power to respond to it, preseveration and final glory, flows from divine election in eternity.
Luke’s language in the narrative in Acts bears a striking witness to his belief, not merely that Christ was foreordained to die, rise and reign, Acts 2:23; 30; 3:20; 4:27, but that salvation is the fruit of prevenient grace, Acts 2:47; 11:18; 14:27; 15:7 etc., given in accordance with divine foreordaination, Acts 13:48, 18:10. Because God is sovereign, his predestination choice, guarantees salvation. From it flows an effectual ‘calling’ which elicits the response of faith, which it commands. Rom 8:28; 9:23; 1 Cor 1:26.
It has been argued that God’s foreknowledge is not foreordaination, and that personal election in the New Testament is grounded upon God’s foresight that the person chosen will respond to the gospel themselves. The difficulties in this view seem to be; 1) This assents in effect election to be of grace. Rom 9:11; 2 Tim 1:9, and grace excludes all regard to what a man does for himself. Rom 4:4; Rom 11:6; Eph 2:8. 2) If election is unto faith, 2 Thes 2:13; and good works, Eph 2:10, it cannot rest upon foresight of these things; 3) On this view Paul ought to be pointing, not to God’s election, but to the Christian’s own faith, as the ground of his assurance of final salvation; 4) Scripture does appear to equate foreknowledge with foreordaination. Acts 2:23.
“The sinner has absolutely no right or claim in the blessings which flow from divine election. As a matter of fact he has forfeited these blessings. Not only have we no right to call God to account for electing some and passing others by, but we must admit that he would have been perfectly just, if he had not saved any. Mat 20:14,15; Rom 9:14,15,” according to Berkhof’s interpretation, and he goes on to say, “The purpose of election is two-fold: 1) the proximate purpose in the salvation of the elect. That man is chosen or elected unto salvation is clearly taught in the Word of God. Rom 11:7-11; 2 Thes 2:13. 2) The final aim in the glory of God is the highest purpose of the electing grace is made emphatic in Eph 1:6, 12, 14.”
********************** Berkhof on Hell has this to say: “The last judgement determines, and therefore actually leads on, the final state of those who appear before the judgement seat. Their final state is either one of everlasting misery or one of eternal blessed. He describes Hell as the place to which the wicked are consigned. In present day theology there is an evident tendency in some circles to rule out the idea of eternal punishment. The Annihilationists, which are still represented in such sects as Adventism and Millennial Dawnism, and the advocates of conditional immortality, deny the continued existence of the wicked, and thereby render a place of eternal punishment unnecessary. In modern liberal theology the word ‘hell’ is generally regarded as a figurative designation of a purely subjective condition, in which men may find themselves even while on earth, and which may become permanent in the future. But those interpretations certainly do not do justice to the data of Scripture. There can be no reasonable doubt as to the fact that the Bible teaches the continued existence of the wicked. Mat 34:5; 25:30,46; Luke 16:19-31.”
Hell can be described as a total absence of favour of God. 2) Positive pains and sufferings in body and soul, and 3) such subjective punishment as pangs of conscience, anguish, despair, weeping and gnashing of teeth. Mat 8:12; 13:50; Mk 9:43, 44, 47, 48; Luke 16:23,28; Rev 14:10; Rev 21:8.
The duration of punishment:- It is said that the words used in Scripture for ‘everlasting’ and ‘eternal’ may simply denote “age” or “dispensation”, or any other long period of time.
Other expressions are used which cannot be set aside for the consideration preceding. The fire of Hell is called an “unquenchable fire”, Mk 9:43; and it is said of the wicked that “their worm dieth not”, Mk 9:48. Moreover, the gulf which will separate saints and sinners in the future is said to be fixed and impossible. Luke 16:26.
In the Authorised Version of Scripture the word ‘hell’ is translated ‘shoel’ which is often translated ‘grave’, and three times as ‘pit’. It refers to an invisible place or state, which may have several implications, according to the connection of each passage. Korah and his company and their houses went down into ‘shoel’. Num 16:33. Jonah said, “Out of the belly of ‘shoel’ cried I.” Ps 55:15; Pro 7:27. But for the redemption which faith looked for ‘shoel’ must have had to Old Testament saints the character of eternal punishment, and so finally ‘hades’ will be cast into the Lake of Fire. The word also refers to the place of departed spirits. The Lord said, “Thou wilt not leave my soul in ‘shoel’.” Ps 16:10. Hades occurs in Acts 2:27,31; and has the same meaning in other passages: Mat 11:23; 16:18; Luke 16:23; Rev 1:18; 6:8; 20: 13,14. Gehanna, the Greek equivalent for two Hebrew words, signifying ‘valley of Hinnom’. It was the place near Jerusalem where the Jews made their children pass through fire to heathen gods, and which was afterwards defiled. 2 Kings 23:10. A continued fire made a pit emblem of the place of eternal punishment. Mat 5:22, 29,30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15,33; Mk 9:43,45,47; Luke 12:5; Jas 3:6.
The above named place of defilement and fire is also called in Old Testament TOPHET or TOPHETH. 2 Kings 23:10; Isa 30:33; Jer 19:13.
‘To cast into TARTARUS’, - a term used by heathen writers for the ‘deepest abyss of the infernal regions, a place of extreme darkness’. 2 Pet 2:4; cf verse 17 and Jude 13.
Whatever figurative meaning there may be in the use of any of the above words, it is plain, and certain from Scripture that there is a place of everlasting punishment. It is awfully described as the Lake of Fire, ‘the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone’. Rev 19:20; 20:10,15; 21:8. It is prepared for the devil and his angels, but into it, the wicked also will be cast. Mat 13:40,42; Mat 25:42; 2 Pet 2:4; see also Mat 25:46; damnation, Mark 3:29; destination, 2 Thes 1:9; and fire in Jude 7; see also Isa 33:14. Hell in the Authorised Version normally renders one of these three words, Shoel, Hades, Gehanna.
*********************
Satan is the name of the prince of evil. The Greek word for Satan is ‘SATANAS’, which means basically ‘adversary’ (this word is so rendered e.g. in Num 22:22). In the first two chapters of Job we read of ‘the Satan’ as presenting himself before God among the ‘sons of God’. It is sometimes said that in such passages Satan is not thought of as especially evil, but as simply one among the heavenly hosts. Admittedly we have not yet the fully developed doctrine, but the activities of ‘the Satan’ are certainly inimical to Job. The Old Testament references to Satan are few, but he is consistently engaged in activities against the best interests of men. He moves David to number the people. 1 Chron 21:1. He stands at the right hand of Joshua the high priest, ‘to resist him’, thus drawing down the Lord’s rebuke. Zec 3:1. The psalmist thinks it a calamity to have Satan stand at one’s right hand. Ps 109:6 a.v. but the r,v, ‘an adversary’, r.s.v. ‘an accuser’. John tells us that ‘the devil sinneth from the beginning’, 1 John 3:8, and the Old Testament references to him bear this out.
Most of our information, however, comes from the New Testament, where the supremely evil being is referred to as Satan or as ‘the devil’ (ho diaboles) indifferently, with Beelzebub (or Beelzeboul or beezeboul) also employed on occasion, Mat 10:25; 12:24,27. Other expressions, such as ’the prince of this world’, John 14:30 or ‘the prince of power of the air’, Eph 2:2, also occur. He is always depicted as hostile to God, and as working to overthrow the purposes of God. Matthew and Luke tell us that at the beginning of his ministry Jesus had a severe time of testing when Satan tempted him to go about his work in the wrong spirit. Mat 4; Luke 4; see also Mark 1:13. When this period was completed the devil left him ‘for a season’, which implies that the contest was later resumed. This is clear also from the statement that he ‘was in all points tempted like as we are’. Heb 4:15. This conflict is not accidental. The express purpose of the coming of Jesus into the world was ‘that he might destroy the works of the devil’. 1 John 3:8; Heb 2:14. Everywhere in the New Testament sees a great conflict between the forces of God and of good, on the one hand, and those of evil led by Satan, on the other hand. This is not the conception of one writer or another, but a common ground.
There is no doubting the severity of the conflict. Peter stresses the ferocious opposition by saying that the devil is ‘as a roaring lion, who walketh about, seeking whom he may devour’. 1 Pet 5:8. Paul thinks rather of the cunning employed by the evil one. “Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” 2 Cor 11:14, so that it is small wonder if his minions appear in an attractive guise. The Ephesians are exhorted to put on ‘the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil’. Eph 6:11, and these are references to ‘the snare of the devil’. 1 Tim 3:7, 2 Tim 2:26. The effect of such passages is to emphasise that Christians (and even archangels Jude 9) are engaged in conflict, that is both relentless and cunningly waged. They are not in a position to retire from the conflict. Nor can they simply assume that evil will always be obviously evil. There is need for the exercise of discrimination as well as stoutheartedness. But determined opposition will always succeed. Peter exhorts us to resist the devil ‘steadfast in the faith’, 1 Pet 5:9, and James says, ‘Resist the devil, and he will flee from you’. Jas 4:7. Paul exhorts not to ‘give place (i.e. an opportunity, through indulgence in unrestrained anger) to the devil. Eph 6:11,13. Paul puts his trust in the faithfulness of God. ‘God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with temptation also make a way of escape’. 1 Cor 10:13. He is well aware of the resourcefulness of Satan, and that he is always seeking to ‘get advantage of us’. But he can add ‘we are not ignorant of his devices’ (or as F.J. Rae translates, ‘I am up to his tricks’), 2 Cor 2:11.
Satan is continually opposed to the gospel, as we see throughout our Lord’s ministry. He worked through Jesus followers, as when Peter rejected the thought of the crow and was met with the rebuke; ‘Get thee behind me Satan’. Mat 16:23. Satan had further designs on Peter, but the Lord prayed for him. Luke 22:31. He worked also in the enemies of Jews, for Jesus could speak of those who opposed him as being ‘of your father the devil’. John 8:44. All this comes to a climax in the passion. The work of Judas is ascribed to the activity of the evil one. Satan ‘entered into’ Judas. Luke 22:3; John 13:2. With the cross in prospect Jesus can say “the prince of this world cometh”. John 14:30.
Satan continues to tempt men. 1 Cor 7:5. We read of him at work in a professed believer, Ananias (‘why hath Satan filled thine heart …?’) Acts 5:3, and in an avowed opponent of the Christian way, Elymos (“thou child of the devil”) Acts 13:10. The general principle is given in 1 John 3:8, ‘He that committeth sin is of the devil’. Men may so give themselves over to Satan that they in effect belong to him. They become ‘his children’. 1 John 3:10. Thus we read of ‘the synagogue of Satan’ Rev 2:9; 3:9, and of men who dwell ‘where Satan’s seat is’. Rev 2:13. Satan hinders the work of missionaries. 1 Thes 2:18. He takes away the good seed sown in the hearts of men. Mark 4:15. He sows ‘the children of the wicked one’ in the field that is the world. Mat 13:38. His activity may produce physical effects. Luke 13:16. Always he is pictured as resourceful and active.
But the New Testament is sure of its limitations and defect. His power is derivative. Luke 4:6. He can exercise his activity only within the limits that God lays down. Job 1:12; 2:6; 1 Cor 10:13; Rev 20:2,7. He may even be used to set forward the cause of right. 1 Cor 5:5; 2 Cor 12:7. Jesus saw a preliminary victory in the mission of the seventy. Luke 10:18. Our Lord thought of ‘everlasting fire’ as ‘prepared for the devil and his angels’. Mat 25:41, and John sees this come to pass. Rev 20:10. We have already noticed that the conflict with Satan comes to a head in the passion. There Jesus speaks of him as ‘cast out’. John 12:31, and as ‘judged’. John 16:11. The victory is exclusively alluded to in Hebrews 2:14, and 1 John 3:8. The work of preachers is ‘to turn’ men ‘from the power of Satan unto God’. Acts 26:18. Paul can say confidently ‘the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.’ Rom 16:20.
The witness of the New Testament then is clear, Satan is a malignant reality, always hostile to God and to God’s people. But he has already been defeated in Christ’s life and death and resurrection, and this defeat will become obvious and complete in the end of age.
Evil is a force or power working against mankind, God or the gods. In ancient Greek thought and in Buddhism there is little concern for the origin of evil, which is generally seen as the result of human ignorance and error. In Christianity, Judaism and Islam, however, the Devil, Satan or Iblis is widely perceived to be a central, intelligent source of evil.
In Islam, the devil Iblis is considered responsible for the Fall, and so guilt is not passed on to all mankind.
********************* J.I. Packer says: “The biblical concept of Scripture is of a single though complex God-given message, set down in writing in God-given words; a message which God has spoken and still speaks. On the analogy of Scriptural usage therefore, it is evident that to describe Scripture as the Word of god written is entirely accurate. Accordingly, if we speak of ‘the Bible’ we mean not just the quantity of printed paper, but a written document declaring a message-if, that is, we view the inspired volume as a literary product, a verbal expression of thought - then ‘the Bible’ and ‘Scripture’ will be synonyms: it will thus be correct to call the Bible the Word of God, and to affirm that what it says, God says. If, on the other hand, we are thinking of the Bible simply as a printed book, it will not be wrong to say that the Bible contains the Word of God, in the same sense in which any other book contains the pronouncements of its author. To speak in these terms, however, is to invite misunderstanding, since Liberal theologians have been in the habit of using this formula to insinuate that part of what the Bible contains is no part of the Word of God. It is worth guarding against our language in order to avoid seeming to endorse so unbiblical a view.”
Packer indicates: “It is customary to use the term inspiration to refer to the divine origin of Scripture. The biblical warrant for this is the phrase ‘given by inspiration of God’ which is used in the Authorised Version to render the adjective THEOPNEUSTOS in 2 Tim 3:16. As B.B. Warfield showed, this Greek word actually means ‘breathed out by God’ - not as much in-spired as ex-pired; so that the text explicitly teaches the divine origin of ‘all Scripture’ - here, the written word of the Old Testament. The divine origin of the Old Testament is everywhere assumed in the New Testament.”
When we use the phrase ‘inspiration of Scripture’, the noun may be taken either passively, as meaning ‘inspiredness’, or actively, as denoting the divine activity by which God- breathed Scripture was produced. In this sense, inspiration is to be defined as a supernatural, providential influence of God’s Holy Spirit upon human writers which cause them to write what he wished to be written for the communication of revealed truth to others. It was a divine activity which, whether or not it had any unusual psychological effects (sometimes it did, sometimes it did not), effectively secured the written transmission of saving truth; in this respect, it is something quite distinct from inspiration of the creative artist, which secures no such result. And it is more confusing than helpful to try to relate the two things together. It is true that some of those who were ‘inspired’ in the theological sense were also ‘inspired’ literary artist in the secular sense - Isaiah or John, for instance; but this comparison obscures the point of the idea of inspiration put forward in 2 Tim 3:16, which is simply of a divine activity that produced Scripture - are, in other words, which involved human writers as a means to an end, but which actually terminated not on them, but on what they wrote.
Inspiration did not necessarily involve an abnormal state of mind on the writer’s part, such as a trance, or vision, or hearing a voice. Nor did it involve an obliterating or overriding of his personality. Scriptures indicate that God in his providence was from the first preparing the human vehicles of inspiration for their predestined task, and that He caused them in many cases, perhaps in most, to perform that task through the normal exercise of abilities which He had given them.
Up to about a century ago it was generally believed that every word of the Bible was directly inspired by God, as if God dictated the words and the writers wrote them down. Such a view is no longer widely held. It arose out of the wise of men and women to have some definite authority to which they could refer. The Roman Catholics could appeal to an infallible Church. The Protestants denied this, so they put in its place an infallible Bible, and claimed that the Bible was what they called ‘verbal inspiration’ by God.
This theory overlooked the fact that there are many contradictions in the Bible story; for instance one small example, all four Gospels give a different version of the inscription on the cross.
The main defect of the idea of Verbal Inspiration is that it makes God selective. It makes him pick out certain men who lived between 1000 B.C. and A.D. 100, to whom he reveals certain truths; and then he stops. Why does he go no further? Was no one born after A.D. 100 sufficiently good and worthy to be inspired by him?
Another defect of the idea of Verbal Inspiration is that it makes God become out of date. For instance, Paul does not condemn slavery in his letters. All Christians now unite in declaring it to be wrong, but slavery was so much a part of Paul’s time and outlook that it never even occurred to him that it might be wrong. Not until many centuries after his death did it begin to dawn on men and women that they ought not to own other men and women. It is not God who has changed his view, but man.
The men who wrote the books of the New Testament are famous, not because they were picked out by God as suitable authors, but because they happened to be living in a particular place at a particular moment in history, and because they had the insight to recognise Jesus for what he was. The writers of the Old Testament were men inspired by a higher idea of God than the people around them, so inspired that they had to try to pass on what they had glimpsed.
This, then, is the real inspiration of the Bible - the ability to see further than most people and also the readiness to accept what is seen.
Inspiration like this is found in the Old Testament in people such as Moses, Amos, Isaiah and Jeremiah. It is found in the New Testament in those who recognised Jesus for what he was. It is found down the ages in such varied people as St Francis, Martin Luther, John Wesley and Albert Schweitzer.
Speaking of New Testament writers Leon Morris says, “They differ in their terminology and their habits of thought. They are writing independently. They are not simply copying ideas from one another. Each, as the Spirit of god leads him, gives expression to his own insights into the Person and work of the Lord Jesus. There is a great variety in language and method. When we compare, say Mark’s Gospel with the letters of Paul, or the writings of Luke with those of John, we are in no doubt that none of these men are simply repeating a stereotyped tale. Each has something to say that matters intensely to him, and he says it in his own way.” Morris continues, “All the more impressive is the fundamental agreement which emerges.” “All Scripture is given by inspiration, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction, in righteousness.” 2 Tim 3:16,17. Points out Andrew Dukes, “The Law of the Offerings.”
All faith in God is quickened by Scripture, and all faith in Scripture is quickened by God, and is invincible. There is no need and no room for further proof, or demonstration or support from observation, experience or reason. Faith gives us the highest possible assurance. The supremacy and inspiration of the word is guaranteed by the immediate testimony of the Spirit.
Anstey says, “Inspiration is the activity of God in the minds of the prophets who wrote the Old Testament; and the apostles who wrote the New Testament. Inspiration is over - it is a thing accomplished. If inspiration were continuous, production of other works of the same rank and quality as the books of the Bible would be possible. Inspiration is designed to restore the knowledge of God which reason does not and cannot give.”
Inspiration is that influence of the Spirit of God upon the minds of the Scripture writers which made their writings the record of a progressive divine revelation, sufficient, when taken together and interpreted by the same Spirit who inspired them, to lead every honest inquirer to Christ and to salvation.
Inspiration is therefore to be defined, not by its methods, but by its results. It is a general term including all those kinds and degrees of the Holy Spirit’s influence which were brought to bear upon the minds of the Scripture writers, in order to secure the putting into permanent and written form of the truth best adapted to man’s moral and religious needs.
Inspiration may often include revelation, or the direct communication from God of the truth to which man could not attain by his unaided powers. It may include illumination, or quickening of man’s cognitive powers to understand truth already revealed. Inspiration, however, does not necessarily and always include either revelation or illumination. It is simply the divine influence which secures a transmission of needed truth to the future, and, according to the nature of truth to be transmitted, it may only be an inspiration of superintendence, or it may be also and at the same time an inspiration of illumination or revelation.
There is affirmation rather than denial that inspiration may qualify for oral utterance of the truth, or “for wise leadership and daring deeds.” The Scriptures cite many instances in support of this fact. Men may be inspired to render external service to God’s kingdom, as in the cases of Bezaleel and Samson; even though this service is rendered unwillingly or unconsciously, as in the causes of Balaam and Cyrus. “All human intelligence, indeed, is due to the inbreathing of that same Spirit who created man at the beginning.”
Instances where inspiration pertains to the authorship of Scripture can be tabulated as follows: - Inspiration without revelation as in Luke or Acts. Luke 1:1-3 - Inspiration including revelation as in the Apocalypse. Rev 1:1,11 - Inspiration without illumination, as in the Prophets. 1 Pet 1:11 - Inspiration including illumination as in the case of Paul. 1 Cor 2:12.
Revelation without inspiration, as in God’s words from Sinai. Ex 20:1,22. Illumination without inspiration, as in modern preachers. Eph 2:20.
The proof of inspiration lies in the evidence of God’s self-revelation to man and from this it can be reasonably presumed that he will not trust this revelation entirely to human tradition and misrepresentation, but will also provide a record of it essentially “trustworthy” and “sufficient”, or to put it another way, that the same Spirit who originally communicated the truth will exercise control over its publication, in endeavouring to accomplish its religious purpose.
Jesus, who has been proved to be not only a credible witness, but a messenger from God, vouches for the inspiration of the Old Testament, by quoting it with the formula: “It is written”; by declaring that “one jot or title” of it “shall in no wise pass away”, and that “the Scripture cannot be broken.”
The main proof of inspiration must be found in the “internal characteristics” of the Scriptures themselves, as these are declared to the sincere inquirer by the Holy Spirit. It is the testimony of the Holy Spirit and the teaching of the Bible combined which convinces the earnest reader that this teaching is in the whole of its elements beyond the power of man to communicate, and that it must have been put into permanent written form by special inspiration of God.
Inspiration, like many other doctrines, has many theories. Among these are, the INTUITION theory, the ILLUMINATION theory, the DICTATION theory, and the DYNAMIC theory. Before looking at these theories one by one, here is what Felix Cohen says about theories in general, “Generally the theories we believe we call facts, and the facts we disbelieve we call theories.”
a) The theory of INTUITION maintains that inspiration is a higher development of the natural insight into the truth which all men possess to some degree; a mode of intelligence in matters of morals and religion which give rise to sacred books, as a corresponding mode of intelligence in matters of secular truth gives rise to great works of philosophy or art. This mode of intelligence is regarded as the product of man’s own powers, either without special divine influence or with only the inworking of a personal God.
Man has a certain natural insight into truth and inspiration makes use of this, in a measure, and makes it an instrument in discovering and recording facts of nature and history.
Where matters of morals and religion are concerned, man’s insight into truth may have wrong affections and unless a supernatural influence guides him, he is certain to err, himself, and to lead others into error.
If the intuition theory, claiming as it does that actual insight is the only source of religious truth, this would be a self-contradiction; - if this theory is true, then one man is inspired to utter what a second is inspired to pronounce false. “The Vidas, the Koran and the Bible cannot be inspired to contradict each other.”
This theory makes moral and religious truth to be a purely subjective thing - a matter of private opinion - having no objective reality independently of men’s opinions regarding it.
The theory logically denies us of a personal God, who is truth and reveals truth, thus making man the highest intelligence in the universe.
The intuition theory is to explain inspiration by denying its existence; because if there is no personal God, inspiration is but a figure of speech for a purely natural fact.
b) The second theory regards as merely elevating and increasing intensity of the religious perception of the Christian, similar, but to a greater degree with illumination of every believer by the Holy Spirit.
The theory of ILLUMINATION maintains that the Bible contains the word of God, but not that it is the word of God, and only the writers were inspired and not the writings. The illumination given by the Holy Spirit gives the inspired writer full possession of his moral powers, but does not communicate objective truth beyond the writer’s ability to discover and understand.
There is no doubt an illumination of the mind of every believer by the Holy Spirit, and that there may have been instances in which the influence of the Spirit, in inspiration, amounted only to illumination.
Some scholars deny that this was the constant method of inspiration as that such an influence can account for the revelation of new truth to the prophets or the apostles. The illumination of the Holy Spirit gives no new truth, but only a vivid understanding of the truth already revealed. Any original communication of truth must have required a work of the Spirit different, not in degree, but in kind.
It can be argued that mere illumination could not prevent the Scripture writers from frequent and grievous error. The spiritual perception of the Christian is always rendered to some extent imperfect and deceptive by remaining depravity. The subjective element so predominates in this theory, that no certainty remains even with regard to the “trustworthiness” of the Scriptures as a whole.
The theory is logically indefensible, as intimating that illumination with regard to truth can be imparted without imparting truth itself, whereas God must first furnish objective truth to be understood before he can illuminate the mind to understand the meaning of truth.
c) The DICTATION theory maintains that inspiration consisted in such a possession of the minds and bodies of the Scripture writers by the Holy Spirit that they became passive instruments or AMANUENSES - pins and pinsmen, of God.
“The use of the term ‘dictation’ was always figurative, and the whole point of the figure lay in the fact that it asserted this relation. It was never used with psychological overtones. The proof of this lies in the fact that, when these theologians addressed themselves to the question, What was the Spirit’s mode of operating in the writer’s minds?, they all gave their answer in terms not of dictation, but of accommodation, and rightly maintained that God completely adapted His inspiring activity to the cost of mind, outlook, temperament, interests, literary habits and stylistic idiosyncrasies of each writer,” says Packer.
There are instances when God’s communications were uttered in an audible voice and took a definite form of words, and that this was sometimes accompanied with the command to commit the words to writing. The theory in question, however, rests upon a partial induction of Scripture facts, - in no doubt assuming that such occasional instances of direct dictation reveal the unchangeable method of God’s communication of the truth to the writers of the Bible.
It cannot account for the manifestly human element in the Scriptures. There are peculiarities of style which distinguish the productions of each writer from those of every other, and there are variations in accounts of the same translation which are inconsistent with the theory of a solely divine authorship.
It would be wrong to suppose that the Scripture writers should have had dictated to them what they knew already, or what they could inform themselves of by the use of their natural powers. It contradicts what we know of the law of God’s working in the soul. The higher and nobler God’s communications, the more fully is man in possession and use of his own faculties. It cannot be supposed that this highest work of man under the influence of the Spirit was purely mechanical.
Dr Strong prefers ‘dynamical’ inspiration rather than use the term ‘verbal’ which he fears, with others, is too closely linked with mechanical ideas. The mechanical view of inspiration is explicitly disclaimed in ‘The Fundamentals’ written in 1917 by J.M. Gray.
Packer refers to B.B. Warfield who said, “It ought to be unnecessary to protest again against the habit of representing the advocates of ‘verbal inspiration’ as teaching that the mode of inspiration was dictation.”
“The ‘Dictation theory’ is a theological mare’s-nest; it never existed at any time during the past century save in certain people’s imagination,” points out Packer.
d) The DYNAMIC theory opposes the first of these theories in that, this theory of inspiration was not simply a natural but also a supernatural fact, and that it is the immediate work of a personal God in the soul of man.
It opposes the second theory, in that inspiration belongs, not only to the men who wrote the Scriptures, but to the Scriptures which they wrote, so that these Scriptures, when taken together, constitute a “trustworthy” and “sufficient” record of divine revelation. The dynamic theory opposes the third theory (dictation), in that the Scriptures contain a human element as well as a divine element, so that while they present a body of divinely revealed truth, this truth is shaped in human moulds and adapted to ordinary human intelligence.
In short, inspiration is characteristically neither natural, partial, nor mechanical, but supernatural, plenary and dynamical.
“The Scriptures are the production equally of God and of man, and are therefore never to be regarded as merely human or merely divine. The mystery of inspiration consists in neither of these terms separately, but in the union of the two. Of this, however, there are analogies in the interpretation of human powers by the divine efficiency in regeneration and sanctification, and in the union of the divine and human natures in the person of Jesus Christ,” says Dr Strong, and he adds: “The union of divine and human agencies in inspiration is not to be conceived of as one external importation and reception. On the other hand, those whom were raised up and providentially qualified to do this work, spoke and wrote the words of God, when inspired, not as from without, but as from within, and that not passively, but in the most conscious possession and the most exalted exercise of their own powers of intellect, emotion and will.”
Inspiration, it can be said, did not remove, but rather pressed into its own service, all the personal peculiarities of the writers, together with their defects of culture and literary style. Every imperfection not inconsistent with the truth in a human composition may exist in inspired Scripture. The Bible is God’s word, in the sense that it presents to us divine truth in human forms, and is a revelation not for a select class but for the common mind. If we understand it rightly, this very humanity of the Bible is a proof of its divinity.
In inspiration God may use various methods of literary composition. As we recognise in literature the proper function of history, poetry and fiction; of prophecy, parable and drama; of personification and proverb; of allegory and dogmatic instruction; and even of myth and beyond; we cannot deny the possibility that God may use any one of these methods of communicating truth, leaving us to determine in any single case which of these methods he has adapted. The inspiring Spirit has given the Scriptures to the world by a process of gradual evolution.
As in the case of communicating the truths of natural science, God has communicated truths of religion by successive steps, germinally at first, more fully as men have been able to understand them. The education of the race is analogous to the education of the child. First came the pictures, object-lessons, external rites, predictions; then the key to those in Christ, and their didactic exposition in the epistles.
“Inspiration did not guarantee inerrancy in things not essential to the main purpose of Scripture.” Strong.
Inspiration went on further than to secure a “trustworthy” transmission by the sacred writers of the truth they were commissioned to deliver. “It was not omniscience. It was a bestowal of various kinds and degrees of knowledge and aid, according to need; sometimes suggesting new truth, sometimes presiding over the collection of pre-existing material and guarding from essential error in the final elaboration. As inspiration was not omniscience, so it was not complete sanctification. It involved neither personal infallibility, nor entire freedom from sin.” Dr Strong.
Inspiration did not always, or even generally, involve a direct communication to the Scripture writers of the words they wrote. Thought is possible without words, and in the order of nature precedes words. The Scripture writers appear to have been so influenced by the Holy Spirit that they discerned and felt even the new truths they were to publish, as discoveries of their own minds, and were left to the action of their own minds in the expression of these truths, with the single exception that they were supernaturally held back from the selection of the wrong words, and when needful were provided with the right ones. Inspiration, is therefore not verbal, whilst it can be claimed that no form of words which taken in its connections would teach that error has been admitted into Scripture.
Yet, despite the ever-present human element, the all pervading inspiration of the Scripture constitutes those various writings an organic whole.
“The speaker called upon to praise Oxford, speaks of its glories and he continues, ‘When I speak of Oxford, I do not think of this college or that college but of Oxford as a whole. And, gentlemen, what a whole Oxford is!” Pope.
Since the Bible is in all its parts the work of God, each part is to be judged, not by itself alone, but in its connection with every other part. The Scriptures are not to be interpreted as so many merely human productions by different authors, but as also the work of one divine mind. Seemingly trivial things are to be explained from their connection with the whole. One history is to be built up from several accounts of the life of Christ. One doctrine must supplement another. The Old Testament is part of a progressive system, whose culmination and key are to be found in the New Testament. The central subject and thought which binds all parts of the Bible together, and in the light of which they are to be interpreted, is the person of Jesus Christ.
When the unity of Scripture is fully recognised, the Bible, in spite of imperfections in matters non-essential to its religious purpose furnishes a safe and sufficient guide to truth and salvation. The recognition of the Holy Spirit’s agency makes it rational and natural to believe on the organic unity of Scripture. When the earlier parts are taken in connection with the latter, and each part is interpreted by the whole, most of the difficulties connected with inspiration disappear. Taken together, with Christ as its culmination and explanation, the Bible furnishes the Christian rule of faith and practice.
While inspiration constitutes Scripture and authority more trustworthy than are individual reason or the creeds of the church, the only ultimate authority is Christ himself. Christ has not so constructed Scripture as to disperse with his personal presence and teaching by his Spirit. The Scripture is the imperfect mirror of Christ. It is defective, yet it reflects him and leads to him. Authority resides not in it, but in him, and his Spirit enables the individual Christian and the collective church progressively to distinguish the essential from the non-essential, and so to discern the truth as it is in Jesus. In this judging Scripture and interpreting Scripture, does not mean being rationalistic but rather as being believers in him who promised to be with us always even unto the end of the world and to lead us by his Spirit into all truth.
In connection with a divine-human work like the Bible, insoluble difficulties may be expected to present themselves. So long, however, as its inspiration is sustained by competent and sufficient evidence, these difficulties cannot justly prevent our full acceptance of the doctrine, any more than disorder and mystery in nature warrant us in setting aside the proofs of its divine authorship. These difficulties are lessened by time; some have already disappeared; many may be due to ignorance, and may be removed hereafter; those which are permanent may be intended to stimulate inquiry and to discipline faith.
There is an acceptance that the common objections to inspiration are not so much propelled against the religious teaching of Scripture, as against what is thought of as certain errors in secular matters which are supposed to be interwoven with this teaching. But if these so-called errors are proved, this will still not knock down the doctrine of inspiration, what it does is to compel us to give a greater place to the human element in the structure and composition of the Scriptures, and to regard them more exclusively as a textbook of religion. As a rule of religious faith and practice, they will still be the infallible word of God. “The Bible is to be judged as a book whose one aim is man’s rescue and reconciliation to God, and in these respects it will still be found a record of substantial truth.” Strong.
Objections to Scriptures infallibility are raised in the fields of A) science, B) history, C) immorality, D) reasoning and E) prophecy.
A) There is no concrete or substantial evidence of scientific error in the Scripture and what is claimed to be such is simply truth presented in popular and impressive forms. The common mind receives a more accurate picture of unfamiliar facts when these are narrated in remarkable language and in ‘summary form’ than when they are described in the abstract terms and in the exact details of science. To receive a clearer picture of inspiration it is not necessary that the human authors of Scriptures were moved to write with a proper scientific interpretation of the natural events they recorded. It is sufficient that this was in the mind of the inspiring Spirit.
It can be claimed that despite the narrow conceptions and inadequate language of the Scripture writers that the Spirit of inspiration may have made sure the expression of the truth in such ‘germinal’ form as to be intelligible to the times in which the Scriptures were first published and yet being capable of indefinite expansion just as science advances. A strong proof of inspiration can be seen from the miniature picture of creation in Genesis Chapter One, which has stood the advances and investigations of science.
It may confidently be said that science has, as yet, not shown any fairly interpreted passage of Scripture to be untrue. It can be said, with regard to the antiquity of the race, that owing to the differences of reading between the Septuagint and the Hebrew there is no room for doubt whether either of the received chronologies has the sanction of inspiration. Although science has made probably the existence of man upon the earth at a period preceding the dates assigned to these chronologies, no statement of inspired Scripture is thereby proved false.
Inspiration would still not be disproved even if scientific errors were found in Scripture for inspiration concerns itself with science only as far as applied scientific views are necessary to morals and religion.
B) History’s objections to inspiration are more often mistakes in transcripts and have no force as arguments against inspiration, unless it can be shown that inspired documents are by the very fact of their inspiration exempt from the operation of those laws which affect the transmission of other ancient documents.
“So-called errors are to be explained as permissible use of round numbers, which cannot be denied to the sacred writers except upon the principle that mathematical accuracy was more important than the general expression to be secured by the narrative.”
What appears to be contradictory or diverse statements in accounts of the same event, may be due to the meagreness of the story and might be explained if some single fact now unrecorded were only known. The principle point is that as long as these diversities do not touch any substantial truth. To explain these discrepancies would be beside the purpose of the record and would destroy the independence of the writers and witnesses.
However, history as well as archaeological discovery in many important particulars demonstrate the general accuracy of the Scripture stories, and no statement essential to the moral and religious teaching of Scripture has been invalidated. Inspiration does have imperfections in historical detail and the stories are not exempt from possible error.
C) What finds itself in the realm of immorality are such acts and words of good men - words and acts not sanctioned by God. These are recorded by inspired writers as simple matters of history, and subsequent results, or the story itself is left to point to the moral of the story. Where evil acts appear at first sight to be sanctioned, it is often the intention to reveal the virtue rather than the act itself. It is the virtue which is commended.
It is conceivable that certain deeds are sanctioned to reveal a just-expression of justice such as could be comprehended, and are to be judged, as parts of a progressively unfolding system of morality whose key and culmination we have in Jesus Christ. God’s righteous sovereignty enables him to do what he will with his own, and to punish the transgressors when and where he will and he may justly make men the foretellers or executors of his purpose.
Other so-called immoralities may be due to false interpretation. Symbol is sometimes taken for literal fact; the language of irony is understood as sober affirmation. The style of writing may be judged by the style of Western literature. The appeal to lower motives can be taken to exclude higher motivates instead of preparing for higher motives.
D) What are seen as mistakes in reasoning are generally explained as valid arguments expressed in highly condemned form. What looks and seems to be error may be due to expression of one or more links in the reasoning.
Where inspiration cannot be seen in conclusions drawn from given premises, there is a higher possibility to attribute this to our failure or ignorance of divine logic on our part, than to arguments on the part of Scripture writers.
The adoption of the Jewish methods of reasoning, where it could be proved, could not indicate error on the part of Scripture writers, but rather an inspired sanction of the method as applied to that particular case.
If investigation appears to show Rabbinical methods have been wrongly employed by the apostles in their arguments, the truth might still be seen to be conveyed. Inspiration may leave the expression of the truth to human dialectic as well as to human rhetoric.
E) In the case of mistakes in prophecy - an explanation would be to remember that much of prophecy is yet unfulfilled. Also, the personal thinking of the prophets as to the meaning of the prophecies which they recorded may have been incorrect, yet the prophecies themselves are inspired.
The prophet’s earlier utterances are not to be severed from the latter utterances which elucidate them. It would be wrong to expect the prophet not to explain his own meaning.
The character of prophecy is a rough general sketch of the future. This often in highly figurative language and without historical perspective. This may render the prophecy on first sight as having an error which is often down to misinterpretation on our part, which confounds the ‘drapery’ with the substance.
“Generally speaking, it (prophecy) is a subject severely left alone. ‘Too problematic, too nebulous’, we give our attention and devote our time to the things that are more practical.” Anon.
“The Bible is largely a prophetic book, some of its books are purely prophetic, which so few take any interest in - that is why the Bible is so misunderstood - one of the reasons why the Bible is so sadly misinterpreted is that, instead of taking its prophecy as something foretold - it has been spiritualised - it is given a present day meaning and applied to the individual or the church - and the sense of divine purpose of the message is entirely lost.” Wm. H. Auret Pritchard, “Jesus Shall Reign.”
F) What is claimed as errors in quoting and interpretations of the Old Testament, are interpretations of the meaning of the original Scripture by the same Spirit, who first inspired it. Where it appears that false translation is quoted from the Septuagint the sanction of inspiration is given to it, as expressing a part at least of the fullness of meaning contained in the divine original - a fullness of meaning which two varying translations do not in some cases exhaust.
However the liberty of these inspired interpretations does not allow us the same liberty in the case of other passages which have no known authority to their meanings.
There are no grounds for assuming that New Testament writers in any sense misquoted or misinterpreted the Old Testament. It is not essential for absolute correctness in respect of inspiration. The inspiration Spirit in communicating truth may have through Scriptures as a whole secured sufficient truth for men’s moral and religious needs, without imparting perfect gifts of scholarship or exegesis.
Inspiration is not itself a biblical word. It is usually defined as a supernatural influence of God’s Spirit upon biblical writers which ensured that what they wrote was precisely what God had intended them to write for the communication of his truth and hence could be truly termed ‘inspired’, THEOPNEUSTOS, “breathed out by God”. II Tim 3:16. There are objections to inspiration, some of which are intolerable to accept. For example, “the Bible is neither what God intended it to be nor what Christ thought and taught that it was.” J.J. Packer. The fundamental contention is that faith’s attitude to the doctrine of biblical inspiration, as to all other doctrines, is one of acceptance on God’s testimony.
Nothing, therefore, will shake faith’s certainty here, for nothing can shake the testimony on which it rests. When faced with difficulties in and objections to the doctrine as he understands it, the believer will infer that the cause is his own failure to comprehend God’s testimony rather than God’s failure to make plain the truth, and will accordingly be driven back to a closer re-thinking of the matter in the light of a closer study of the biblical evidence. This is how all doctrinal advance has been made throughout the history of the church.
All of these doctrines coalesce to form a whole. These groupings are made to facilitate the arrangement and acquisition of knowledge. That whole is the Bible! “The status of the Bible in the church and in Christian faith, “ says Professor James Barr, “is of quite paramount importance. It affects every aspect of the life of the churches and the presentation of their message to the world.”
********************************* ***********************************
PART VI THE CHURCH - Ecclesiology
Martin Anstey says,” The Bible is pre-eminently a manual for life and conduct for the layman. In the early days of the Christian Church, as also at the time of the Reformation and again in the century following the great Evangelical Revival, ushered in by the preaching of Whitfield and Wesley, the real meaning, the true purport and the actual content of the Bible were well understood.” Anstey adds, “The assumption of the incapacity of the unlettered layman to ascertain the true meaning of the Word of God must be resisted at all costs. It is made by the craft of the critic no less than by the craft of the Roman priest.”
The word ‘Criticism’ as properly used, often conveys an expression quite different from its original and true meaning. To many people the term implies fault-finding and there are those who, hearing about critical work on the Bible or about critics of the Gospels, indignantly ask: what right have we to find fault with such books. If, however, the term is used correctly and is understood, no such intention is implied. H.A. Guy says “The words ‘critic’ and ‘criticism’ come from the Greek word KRITES, meaning a judge. Criticism means the careful and systematic study of a subject by one who is qualified to judge.” Guy continues, “As with the drama critic, the film critic, the art critic, the critic of the Bible is one who knows the books and their contents and is also acquainted with the views of other people about them. On this basis he is able to proceed to further study of the Bible and to help others along the same path.”
“The Church if it is to be a true Church, must pursue ceaselessly the task of critical Dogmatics,” says Daniel Jenkins. The Swiss theologian Karl Barth says, “As a theological discipline, dogmatics is the scientific test to which the Christian Church puts herself regarding the language of God, which is peculiar to her. The subject-matter is Jesus Christ, the content of the apostolic testimony, its method is the leading the mind of the Church away from ‘the wisdom of words’ to the ‘cross of Christ.”
Barth says, “Holy Scripture itself governs the Church. The ecclesiastical order and the congregation are not the lords over it but organs serving it.” Barth adds, “The ecclesiastical order has its life solely in the congregation, but the congregation has not its life in the ecclesiastical order.”
Scholars such as H.B. Smith, Shedd, Dabney and others appear to have left the doctrine of the Church out of a place in their Dogmatics. Louis Berkhof points out that, “the names; ‘Church’, ‘Kerk’, and ‘Kerche’ are not derived from the word EKKLESIA, but from the word KURIAKE; which means ‘belonging to the Lord’. Other descriptions to describe the Church include, ‘The body of the Christ’. Some, indeed, regard this as a complete definition of the New Testament Church. This name is also applied to the Church universal, as in Eph 1:25; Col 1:18, but also a single congregation 1 Cor 12:27. It stresses the unity of the Church whether local or organic, and that the organism of the Church stands in vital relationship to Jesus Christ as her glorious head. “Pillar and ground of truth” 1 Tim 3:15. The English word ‘church’ is derived from the Greek which signifies ‘pertaining to the Lord’, and is commonly used both for association of professing Christians, and for the building in which they worship. The Scriptural use of the word is ‘assembly’. Dr Strong defines it in its largest signification as the “whole company of regenerate persons in all times and ages, in heaven and on earth Mat 16:18; Eph 22:23; 3:10; 5:24,25; Col 1:18; Heb 12:23. In this sense the Church is identical with the spiritual kingdom of God; both signify that redeemed humanity, in which God in Christ exercises actual spiritual dominion John 3:3,5.”
H.C. Vedder says, “The Church is a spiritual body, consisting only of those regenerated by the Spirit of God.” The Westminster Confession says, “The Church consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children.” Augustine held that “good and bad alike were to be permitted to dwell together in the Church without attempt to try to separate them.”
The Church in this large sense, is nothing less than the body of Christ-( the epistles illustrate that the Church is Christ’s body)- the organisation to which he gives spiritual life, and through which he manifests the fullness of his power and grace. The Church therefore cannot be defined in merely human terms, as an aggregate of individuals associated for social, benevolent or even spiritual purposes. There is a transcendent element in the Church. It is the great company of persons whom Christ has saved, in whom he dwells, to whom and through whom he reveals God, Eph 1:22,23.
The Bible clearly shows the connection between the invisible or universal Church and the visible or local Church. The local Church takes the form of the universal Church in a temporal form and the idea of the Church as a whole positively exhibited.
“The Church becomes a Church, not by tradition in itself, but by the repeated action of the Spirit, which brings such tradition into the preaching of the apostles, but also into the interpretation of the teacher, the prophets, and the speaker of tongues,” says Eduard Schweizer. Strong says, “The local church (or individual church) may be defined as that company of regenerate persons, who in any given community, unite themselves voluntarily together, in accordance with God’s laws, for the purpose of securing the complete establishment of his kingdom in themselves and in the world.” Schweizer says, “Jesus taught that the coming of his kingdom was not only like the slow-growing plant but like the sudden lightening flash.”
The Church is an institution therefore by divine appointment. The evidence for this is seen in the relationship of the local Church with the invisible or universal Church. It is further evident from the fact that its necessity is grounded in the ‘social and religious’ nature of man. Also from Scriptures, as for example, Christ’s command in Mat 18:17, and the designation ‘church of God’; applied to individual Churches 1 Cor 1:2.
It is a fact that the Church is a voluntary society. This comes from the fact that the local Church is an outward expression of the ‘rational and free’ life in Christ which is a character of the Church as a whole. This then, differs from other organisations of divine appointment, entrance into which is not optional.
“A real Church therefore, can only exist where, having regard to the problems, dangers, and promises of the existing situation, and listening in humility to precious history, we seek enlightenment afresh in the New Testament, not for a legalistic reproduction of its details, but to heed, in the light of the gospel, the message that it contains, “ Shweizer reminds us. He adds, “Reality is what the Church is before God, not what enlightened eyes of man can see in it.”
Clearly membership of the local Church is not hereditary or compulsory. The doctrine of the Church, as thus defined, is a necessary outgrowth of the doctrine of regeneration. Regeneration is fundamentally a spiritual change and is mediated, not by outward appliances but by inward and conscious reception of Christ and his truth. Union with the church logically follows, not precedes, the soul’s spiritual union with Christ.
The word ‘church’ is used in reference to Israel in the New Testament in one occasion in Acts 7:38, and to a Gentile throng in Acts 19:32,41. Its first occurrence in relation to Christianity is in Mat 16:18, where upon Peter’s confession, that Jesus was the Son of God, the Lord replies: “Upon this rock, I will build my assembly.” (The Greek word for Peter is PETROS, the Greek for rock is PETRA). Historically this spiritual building (for building never refers to a material edifice) was began after his death and resurrection, when the Holy Ghost descended at the day of Pentecost.
In this aspect of the Church there is no room for any failure “the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” The Church is what Christ himself effects by his Spirit in souls, and it contemplates the full and final result. In 1 Pet 2:4,5; we have the progressive work, “Ye also as living stones are being made built up as a spiritual house.” The idea of building here supposes a work as wrought that souls become conscious of forming part of the dwelling place of God, and are rendered able to offer up spiritual sacrifices as a holy preisthood.
But there is an aspect of the assembly as a building in which it is viewed in relation to human responsibility, and where consequently human failure has left its unmistakable mark. In 1 Cor 3, the apostle speaks of himself as a wise master-builder who has well laid the foundation, which is ‘Christ Jesus’; but he adds that ‘others build thereupon and warns every one to take heed hoe he does so. Here may be found ‘wood, hay and stubble,’ and alas! This has been done only too effectually by professing Christendom being the outcome of it. But this aspect of it must in no way be confounded with that which Christ builds, where no failure is found.
There is also another view of the Church or assembly and that is the Church is seen as the body and bride of Christ, Eph 1:22,23; 5:26,27. By one Spirit, believers are baptised into one body 1 Cor 12:13. They are God’s “workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works…” Eph 2:10. There is the effectual operation of God in quickening them with Christ, in raising them (Jews and Gentiles) up together, and making them to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.
The visible or local Church is united with the invisible or universal Church by him who is head, by the Spirit of God. The body on earth receives the graces of God, his compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, long-suffering, Col 3:12-17. This is the mystery hidden throughout the ages, but never revealed, so that the powers in the heavenlies might be known through the assembly; the wisdom of God Eph 3:9,10. The Church or assembly will be presented by Christ to himself as his bride, without spot or blemish or wrinkles. There can be no false members of Christ’s body, no spot no wrinkle in his bride.
The Scriptures teach that those united to him are ‘all of one’ with the sanctifier himself. They are ‘his brethren; they are those likened to the corn of wheat which has fallen into the ground and died, and which has borne much fruit John 12:24. The assembly is one Eph 4:4; 1 Cor 12:13.
Even if division presents itself as it did at Corinth, faith will still show that the body is one, and will maintain the truth of it. The assembly has had gifts bestowed upon it which faith will acknowledge and the exercise of these gifts will be welcomed in whatever feebleness. If the assembly be likened to a house which has vessels of gold and silver as well as wood and earth 2 Tim 2:20, the believer is encouraged to purge himself of the latter, “the dishonourable vessels, that he may be a vessel of honour,” sanctified and meet for the Master’s use, and prepared unto every good work. The Bible teaches how to behave in the house of God. 1 Tim 3:15.
It can be observed that assemblies or churches at Jerusalem, Corinth, Rome etc. were not separate or independent organisations, as in the modern idea of the Church of Rome, the Greek Church, the Church of England etc.. In the fullest sense there was only one assembly, the Church of God, though expressed in different localities, in which were local office bearers, as elders and deacons, and where also discipline was locally carried out. There was entire inter-communion. “The holders of special offices have to speak and act only as PRIMI INTER PARES, joint responsibility being shared by all the rest,” says Kornfield.
“In the present divided state of God’s people, the man of faith will be careful to recognise that every true Christian is part of one body, with which, as has been said, there can be no failures, while at the same time he will pursue a faith of separation from evil; and will “follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.” 2 Tim 2:22. David Kornfield puts forward this question and answer: “Did Jesus get into lengthy conversation with evil spirits? No, he cast them out without a word!”.
Daniel Jenkins says, “Where a Church possesses in Scriptures, proclamation, the sacraments, the apostolic ministry, the Church meeting, it is equipped - under God - for God’s service, for the manifesting of Jesus Christ to the world, and walking in his way, and no body can be more truly or more fully the Church than it,” Jenkins continues: “Modern Independency has almost entirely lost sight of this fact, and as a consequence, has frequently been a denial of true ‘Independency’.” The Bible reveals, that the Church will continue until the rapture 1 Thes 4:15-18.
Arnold Ehrhardt points out, “Both Irenaeus and Origen held that the Apostolic succession cannot be detached from the Apostolic tradition, because the first - and for Origen the most important - duty of Christian priests is the ministry of the Word.”
“The real history of Christianity is the history of a great spiritual tradition . The true apostolic succession is the life of the saints. Clement of Alexandria compared the Church to a great river receiving affluents from all sides. The great river sometimes flows impetuously through a narrow channel; sometimes it spreads like a flood; sometimes it divides into several streams; sometimes, for a time; it seems to have been driven underground. But the Holy Spirit has never left himself without a witness,” says Dean Inge.
“Certainly the Church that lacks order does not cease to be a Church but its service is impaired..” says Schweizer, he goes on, “It is a Church that has established itself in the world… marriage and bringing up children become essential; indeed it is assumed that those who serve the Church have a family of believers,” he adds, “the Church is now God’s people moving from the cross and resurrection to the PAROUSIA of Jesus Christ and thus its historicity is clearly seen.”
The Church is an organisation which is appointed by Christ. The fact that it is an organisation is clearly shown from its stated meetings, its offices including ministers, elders, deacons, authority, its discipline, contributions, letters of commendations, uniform customs, and ordinances. Also from Church order adhered to and observed, the qualifications of membership and the common work of the whole body. These factors are all indicative of a developed organisation in the New Testament Church.
It is important to notice the progress in names from the Gospels to the Epistles. In the Gospels, the word ‘disciples’ is the common designation of Christ’s followers but it is not found in the Epistles. In the Epistles, there are only ‘saints’, ‘brethren’, ‘churches’. Consideration of these facts should be sufficient to show the unscriptural nature of two modern theories of the Church.
The first theory that the Church is an exclusively spiritual body void of all formal organisation, and bound together only by the mystical relation of each believer to his indwelling Lord. On this view, so far as outward bonds are concerned, the Church is a collection of isolated units. Those believers who chance to gather at a particular place, or to live at a particular time, constitute the Church of that place or time. This view is held by the Friends and the Plymouth Brethren. This ignores tendencies to organisation inherent I human nature. It overlooks the fact of the visible and invisible Church and directly opposes Scripture representations of the visible Church.
The second theory is that the form of Church organisation is not definitely prescribed in the New Testament, but is a matter of expediency, each body of believers being permitted to adapt that method of organisation which best suits its circumstances and condition.
This view seems in some respects to be favoured by Neander, and is often regarded as incidental to his larger conception of church history as a progressive development. Some scholars remind us that a proper theory of development does not include the idea of a church organisation already complete in the essential particulars before the close of inspired canon. This view exaggerates the differences of practice among New Testament churches, underestimates the need of divine direction as to the methods of Church union, and admits a principle of ‘church power’, which may be historically shown to be subversive of the very existence of the Church as a spiritual body. The nature of any organisation may be determined by asking first: who constitutes is members? Secondly, for what object has it been formed? Thirdly, what are the laws which regulate its operations?
“The shaping of the Church and keeping her together is both charisma and office which firmly go together. The Johannine and the Pastoral letters (Timothy & Titus) represent two extreme possibilities in shaping the Church’s order. Throughout the centuries the ‘institutional’ Church has laid the emphasis on the latter view, while the ‘free’ churches have laid it on the former. The Church would not become heretical however, unless it saw only one side and completely forgot the other”, says Schweizer.
Theologians such as Strong claim: “They only can properly be members of the local church, who have previously become members of the universal church, or in other words, become regenerate persons.” This limitation of membership to regenerate persons results in the following: Since each member bears supreme allegiance to Christ, the Church as a body must recognise Christ as the only lawgiver. The relation of the Christian to the Church expresses his relation to Christ. Each regenerate man recognises an other regenerate man as a brother - a footing of absolute equality Mat 23:8-10. Since each local church is directly subject to Christ, there is no Jurisdiction of one church over another - all are on equal footing and all are independent of interference or control by the civil power.
The sole object of the local church is to glorify God in the complete establishment of his kingdom, both in the believer and in the world. Why is this Kingdom of God important? “Because it frees us from temporal and eternal bondage. Bondage to selfishness, alienation, sin, Satan and death which have been overcome Col 1:13. It frees us to live as we were created to live - in right relationship with God, with ourselves, with God’s people, with the world and with his creation.”
This object is to be promoted: By united worship, including prayer and religious instruction, by mutual watchcare and exhortation, by common labours for the reclamation of the impenitent world.
Any number of believers, therefore, may constitute themselves into a Christian Church, by adapting their rule of faith and practice Christ’s laws laid down in the New Testament, and by associating themselves together, in accordance with it for his worship and service.
“It has misunderstood the text, ‘where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them’, to mean that any group of people who announced that they were gathered together in Christ’s name were the Church of Christ and possessed the fullness and freedom of the Church of Christ, and has overlooked the fact that it is only the presence of the Word, Sacraments, ad apostolic ministry with Dogmatics which can ensure that the gathering together is in fact in Christ’s name”, says Jenkins, and he adds, “Because of this we have not realised that the Church Order of traditional Catholicism is, in fact, that of ‘Independency’, though corrupted in its Roman form of the Papacy and in its Anglican form by secular ideas of administration.”
A band of converts, among the heathen or providentially precluded from access to existing churches, might rightfully appoint one of their number to baptise the rest, and then might organise, DE NOVO a New Testament church.
The letter to the Hebrews reveals the dangers of apostasy. Its contents are absolutely Christ-centred. Next to Christocentricity comes its emphasis upon Scriptures as the living voice of God, “Draw near” and “go on” the great concern.
Marcus Dods describes Hebrews as “the unique supremacy of Christ and the finality of his work.” Dods says, “The epistle of Hebrews holds in literature the place which the transfiguration holds in the life of Christ. Former mediators give place and Christ is left alone under the Divine voice, ‘Hear ye Him’.”
J.P. Alexander says, “Paul, if not the author, would have been quick to recognise and clasp hands with the author as a brother and fellow worker.”
The Church is an organism of the communion of the believer, who is united in the bond of the Spirit while the Church as an institution, on the other hand exists in an institutional form and functions through the offices and means which God has instituted. The two are co-ordinate in a sense and yet share also a certain subordination of one to the other.
The invisible Church, becomes visible, not by the bishops, cardinals, not in the headship of the Pope, but by the pure administration of the Word and of the sacraments. Schleiemacher says, “The Church was eventually the Christian community, the body of believers who are animated by the same Spirit.” Therefore as there is a distinction in the nature of the Church between invisible and visible, so also there is a distinction between the organic and the institutional.
It is a mistake to think that the Church becomes visible only in the offices, in the administration of the Word and the sacraments and in certain forms of Church government. Even if all these things were absent, the Church would still be visible in the commercial life and profession of believers, and in their joint opposition to the world. Nonetheless though it is true that these are two different aspects of one visible Church they do represent important differences.
Calvin defines the visible Church as : “The multitude of men diffused through the world, who profess to worship one God in Christ, are initiated into this faith by baptism; testify their unity in doctrine and charity by participating in the Supper; have consent in the Word of God, and for the preaching of that Word, maintain the ministry ordained of Christ.”
Another definition is the Church as a company of the elect who are called by the Spirit of God (COETUS ELECTORUM VOCATORUM), as the body of those who are effectually called (COETUS VOCATORUM), or, even more commonly as the community of the faithful or believers (COETUS FIDELIUM). The first two of these definitions serve the purpose of designating the Church as to its invisible essence, but give no indication whatsoever of the fact that it also has a visible side. This is done, however, in the last named definition, for faith reveals itself in confession and conduct.
The Church has been defined from the point of view of baptism and profession. The Church has been defined as the community of those who are baptised and profess true faith, or as the community of those who profess the true religion together with their children.
According to Protestants the attributes of the Church are ascribed primarily of the Church as an invisible organism, and only secondarily to the Church as an external institution. Romanists ascribe them to their hierarchical organisation. The former speaks of three attributes, but to these three the latter adds a fourth.
Romanists ordinarily recognise only the hierarchical organised ecclesia as the Church. The unity of the Church manifests itself in its imposing world-wide organisation which aims at including the Church of all nations. Its real centre is not found in believers but in its hierarchical truth, its concentric circles. There is first of all the broad circle of lower clergy, the priest and other inferior functionaries; then the small circle of bishops; next the still smaller circle of archbishops; and finally, the most restricted circle of cardinals , the entire pyramid being capped by the Pope, the visible head of the whole organisation, who has absolute control of all those who are under him. Thus the Roman Catholic Church presents to the eye a very imposing structure.
Irenaeus was strongly attached to the Roman cause. He referred for the “Apostolic Tradition” - the direct support of the Catholic Creed and canon - to the testimony of the presbyters - It has to be shown that the title of presbyteros had its origin from the members of the Jewish Sanhedrin. According to W.G. Manley the term presbyteros was normally used in the early church as one commanding respect, and an examination of the evidence from Irenaeus will confirm this view.
The relationship between churches was previously one of fellowship (KOINONIA) and charity (AGAPE). The churches united by this bond came in the second century to be denoted comprehensively as the Catholic Church. The first appearance of this expression does not bear this sense: It comes in one of Ignatius letters, in the sentence: “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius founded the Jesuit society in 1534 which was approved by the Pope in 1540 - They spearheaded the Counter-Reformation. It was he who said that, “Essentially the Church is shaped by its oneness with the ‘flesh and blood of Jesus Christ’.”
Professor Bruce indicates, “The fellowship might be that of an obscure little group of Christians in a remote and insignificant locality, but if Christ was there, there too was the Catholic Church; that little group was the Church Universal in its local manifestation.”
Has the history of the Church been chequered? Yes. Jesus had predicted it John 16:33; Mat 24. The epistles illustrate it. As samples note, Heb 5:12; Gal 4:9;L 5:4; Phil 2:21; 1 Tim 4:1; 5:15; 2 Tim 3:1-5; 1 John 2:18-22; 2 Pet 2:1. So “things do not melt quietly into the peace of the kingdom of God. There is a crash ruin, a winepress of the wrath of almighty God, and a lake that burns with fire and brimstone.”
The Protestant conception assets that the unity of the Church is not primarily of an external, but of an internal and spiritual character. It is the mystical body of Jesus Christ, of which all believers are members. The body is controlled by the head, Jesus Christ, who is also King of the Church, and is animated by one Spirit, the Spirit of Christ. This unity implies that all those who belong to the Church share the same faith, are cemented together by the common bond of love, and have the same glorious outlook upon the future.
There can be no doubt about the fact that the Bible asserts the unity, not only of the invisible, but also the visible Church. The figure of the body, as it is found in 1 Cor 12:12-31, implies this unity. Moreover in Eph 4:4-16, where Paul stresses the unity of the Church, he evidently also has the visible Church in mind, for he speaks of the appointment of office-bearers in the Church, and of their labours on behalf of the ideal unity of the Church.
In relations between churches; unity needs not imply uniformity. Professor Bruce says, “When the Roman bishop Victor tried to impose uniformity on the Asian churches by the threat of excommunication, this excess of authority was sharply rejected by the Asian bishops, led by Polycrates of Ephesus. Irenaeus, as Eusebius remarked, maintained and restored peace, (Irenaeus means peaceable) in that the non-uniformity was fact; not a breach of fellowship.” In other words if you can imagine various species of ducks in their own pens, living according to their own style of ‘worship’. Then the flood comes and raises the ducks above their pens to make them as one, despite their own peculiar identity they become united but not uniformed.
The Roman Catholic conception of holiness of the Church is also primarily of an external character. It is not the inner holiness of the members of the Church through the sanctification work of the Holy Spirit, but the outer ceremonial holiness that is placed in the foreground. According to Fr Devine the Church is holy first of all “in her dogmas, in her moral precepts, in her discipline”, in which “all is pure and irreproachable, all is of such a nature as is calculated to remove evil and wickedness, and to promote the most exalted virtue.” Only secondarily is the holiness of the Church conceived of as moral. Fr Deharre says that the Church is also holy, “because there were in her at all times saints whose holiness God has also confirmed by miracles and extraordinary graces.”
The Protestant conception of the holiness of the Church is quite different. They maintain that the Church is absolutely holy in an objective sense, that is, as she is considered in Jesus Christ. In virtue of the mediatorial righteousness of Christ, the Church is accounted holy before God.
This holiness is first of all a holiness of the inner man, but a holiness which also finds expression in the outer life. Consequently, holiness is also attributed, secondarily, to the visible Church. That Church is holy in the sense that it is separated from the world in consecration to God, and also in the ethical sense of aiming at, and achieving in principle, a holy consecration I Christ. Paul does not hesitate to address them as churches of the saints.
The marks of the Church in particular, are, a) The true preaching of the word John 8:31,32,47; 14:23; 1 John 4:1-3; 2 John v9. b) The right administration of the sacraments Mat 28:19; Mark 16:15,16; Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 11:23-30. C) The faithful exercising of discipline Mat 18:18; 1 Cor 5:1-5,13: 14:33,40; Rev 2:14,15,20.
Karl Barth says, “The true Church, i.e. the reformed church, is always undergoing this reformation, that is, of her preaching, her sacraments and her ordinances by the Word of God.”
Various theories confront us in the government of the Church. Reformers claim Christ is the Head of the Church and not the Papacy and Christ alone is Head of both the visible and invisible Church. He has the mediatorial capacity Mat 28:18; Eph 1: 20-22; Phil 2:10,11; Rev 17:14; 19:16. In a very special sense, he is the Head of the Church which is his body he controls spiritually John 15:1-8; Eph 1:10,22,23; 2:20-22; 4:15; 5:30; Col 1:18; 2:19; 3:11.
A Church of Scotland minister, the Rev Alexander Fraser says, “That renewal is the perpetual requirement of the Church; she is always in need of reviving. Formality and prayerlessness creep in all too easily.” Fraser continues, “She compromises with sin and allows the spirit of the world to dominate her outlook and her service. She so easily forgets the purpose and power of the Holy Spirit.”
The evidence is clear that the reaction of each member of the Church, and of the Church as a whole, to Christ as sovereign and lawgiver, that the government of the Church so regards this source of authority, as an absolute monarchy.
Each member is enlightened by the Holy Spirit in ascertaining the will of God and in applying his commands. The process of the combined deliberations is preceded by counsel of one another, guiding the whole body to right conclusions. The work of the holy spirit is the foundation of unity. Christ is sole King, therefore, the government of the Church insofar as regards interpretation and execution of his will by the body is an absolute democracy, in which the whole body of members is instructed with duty and responsibility of carrying out the laws of Christ as expressed in his Word.
Proof of this democracy or congregational government can be demonstrated i9n the duty of the whole Church to preserve unity in its action. From the responsibility of the whole Church for maintaining pure doctrine and practice. From the committing of the ordinances to the charge of the whole Church to observe and guard. As the Church expresses truth in her teaching, so she is to express it in symbol through the ordinances. Further proof of democracy within the Church is found in the election by the whole Church, of its own officers and delegates. In Acts 14:23, the literal interpretation is to be pressed. In Titus 1:5, when Paul empowers Titus to set presiding officers over the communities, that circumstance decides nothing as to the mode of choice, nor is the choice by the community itself thereby necessarily excluded. Finally this democracy is seen by exercising discipline. Passages which show the right of the whole body to exclude, show also the right of the whole body to admit, members.
The world church theory or Romanist view refutes this democratic view, Romanists hold that all local churches are subject to the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome, as the successor of Peter and the infallible vicegerent of Christ, and thus united, constitute the one and only Church of Christ on the earth.
The argument opposed to this view is that Christ gave no such authority to Peter. Mat 16:18,19 simply refers to the personal position of Peter as first confessor of Christ and preacher of his name to Jews and Gentiles. Hence other apostles also constitute the foundation Eph 2:20, Rev 21:14. On one occasion the counsel of James was regarded as the equal weight with that of Peter Acts 15:7-30, while on another occasion Peter was rebuked by Paul, Gal 2:11, and Peter calls himself only a fellow elder 1 Pet 5:1. Then if Peter had such authority given him, there is no evidence that he had power to transmit it to others. Also there is no conclusive evidence that Peter ever was in Rome, Much less that he was bishop of Rome.
However, the accounts of Eusebius and Jerome ascribe to Peter living in Rome for twenty-five years episcopate A.D. 42-67. In the earlier part of that period we find him at Jerusalem and Antioch; as for the latter part, there is no hint that he was in Rome either when Paul wrote his letter to the Roman Church early in 57 or when Paul arrived at Rome at the beginning of A.D. 70 to spend two years in custody there.
A French Roman Catholic scholar, Jacques Zeiller writes, “How long had St Peter been in Rome before his martyrdom? Here we must confess an almost complete ignorance. The so-called tradition of the 25yrs of Peter’s Roman episcopate rests on historic data---. But of Peter’s life in Rome we know for certain only the last act, his martyrdom.” Clement’s first letter A.D. 96 from Rome to Corinth, is the removal of certain presbyters from office - there may have been behind that, a more far-reaching dispute in which the defenders of an older and freer order opposed the consolidation of the institutional Church. The arguments of the letter only show that the idea of order in general seems very important to the writer.
The Church is on a ‘journey’ through history to the PAROUSIA which is at hand, its course decided by the imminent judgement and the promised resurrection.
From the words of Clement a leader in the Roman Church. The course of his letter to the Corinthian Church, suggests a natural inference from his language is that Peter and Paul met their ends about the same time and under the same general circumstances. Paul’s association with Rome and his death there have not been seriously doubted. Peter’s association with Rome and his death there, unfortunately have been confused by dogmatic controversy reflecting opposite ecclesiastical interests.
If we consider the question in the light of historical and archaeological evidence we are led to the conclusion that Peter, like Paul, spent some time in Rome and died there.
The German Protestant scholar Hans Lietzmann writes, “All the early sources about the year 100 become clear and easily intelligible, and agree with their historical context and with each other, if we accept that they clearly suggest to us, namely, that Peter sojourned in Rome and died a martyr there. Any other hypothesis regarding Peter’s death piles difficulty upon difficulty, and cannot be supported by a single document.” Lietzmann adds, “I cannot understand how, in the ace of this state of things, there can be any hesitation in accepting the conclusion.”
There is no evidence that Peter really did appoint the bishops of Rome as his successors. If he did, the evidence of continuous succession since that time is lacking. Moreover there is evidence in abundance that a hierarchical form of Church government is corrupting to the Church and dishonouring to Christ.
Irenaeus referred to a presbyter (bishop) or the presbyters as the authorities for his teachings. He fairly often referred to one particular “better man” (KREISSON), and in one instance very impressively refers to “The presbyter, the disciple of the Apostles” who had instructed him in the significance of the existence of the two Testaments, the Old and the New.
It was he (Irenaeus) a presbyter when the martyrs of Lyons had sent him to Pope Eleutherus of Rome, chose to contrast sinful, careless presbyters of his own time with that prebyterate “which guards the teaching of the Apostles and in the order of presbyter preserves pure preaching and an innocent life.”
The national-church theory, or the theory of provincial or national churches, holds, that all members of the Church in any provincial or national churches, holds, that all members of the Church in any provincial or nation are bound together in provincial or national organisation, and that this organisation has jurisdiction over the local Churches.
“This theory,” says Dr Strong “has no support in Scriptures. There is no evidence in the New Testament of any meaning of a national church organisation. 1 Cor 12:28; Phil 3:6; and 1 Tim 3:15, may be more naturally interpreted as referring to the generic Church. In Acts 9:31 the Greek is mere generalisation for the local churches then and there existing, and implies no sort of organisation among them.”
It is contradicting by the intercourse which the New Testament churches held with each other as independent bodies, for example at the Counsel of Jerusalem Acts 15:1-35. Moreover it has no practical advantages over the ‘congregational policy’, but rather tends to formality, division, and extinction of the principles of self- government and direct responsibility to Christ.
It is consistent with itself, in binding a professedly spiritual Church by formal and geographical lines. Arguably it logically leads to the theory of Romanism. “If two churches need a superior authority to control them and settle their differences, then two countries and two hemispheres need a common ecclesiastical government and a world church, under a visible head, is Romanish,” says Dr Strong.
Father Schillebeech says, in repetitive fashion there are seven acts of sacraments. He sees the Church as the sacramental sign of salvation. He claims, “That Christ himself laid down the seven-fold direction of the sacramental visible acts of the Church.”
Schillebeech holds the Romanist view which implies that the authority of the Church is as of substantial importance, on a level with the Scriptures. His overall writings display more about the visible Church than the invisible. The Eucharist is the only sacrament in which Christ is personally really present, is both priest and victim under sacramental forms. Christ’s presence in the Eucharist by the power of transubstantiation.”
In Roman Catholic theology the discussion of the Church takes precedence over everything else, preceding even discussions of the doctrine of God and of divine revelation. The Church, it is said, has been instrumental in producing the Bible and therefore takes precedence over it. It is moreover the dispenser of all supernatural graces. It is not Christ who leads us to the Church; it is the Church that leads us to Christ. All the emphasis falls not on the invisible Church as the COMMUNIO FIDELIUM, but on the visible Church as the MATER FIDELIUM.
The Reformation broke with this Romanist view and centred attention on the Church as a spiritual organisation. Reformers emphasise the redemptive work of Christ and from the renewing operations of the Holy Spirit; the discussion of these logically precedes the consideration of the doctrine of the Church.
Jenkins says, “Where the ‘Reformed’ churches have gone wrong has been in imagining that because they are ‘lineal descendants’ of the Reformers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries they need reform themselves no more, that they are now reformed, whereas in point of fact, the Church is never reformed but is always in the process of reformation. This is to reveal the true Church and not the false.”
“With the Reformation, of course, different Church patterns emerged in Western Christianity. Yet, somewhat surprisingly, this new situation made little difference to the still universal view of Christian beginnings. The different denominations continue to hold the same belief about the character of earliest Christianity. They simply applied the universal thesis to their own denominations each maintaining that they (their denomination, their form of Church) were most nearly in accord with the original pattern,” says James D.G. Dunn. He continues, “ The trouble was that each denomination saw its own pattern within the New Testament. They treated the New Testament as a kind of mirror which, not surprisingly, reflected their own convictions and prejudices - Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed (Presbyterian), Anglican, Baptist and Independent. That would not have been so serious - except that in order to maintain the belief that they were right, they had to maintain also that the others were wrong. They were the true heirs of the apostolic Church; the others were false teachers with their deluded flocks. So wrong were they that they had to be denounced and where possible rooted out.”
Historical scholarship has helped us to see that such views are all an oversimplification. The reason why each can see its own image in the mirror of the New Testament is simple - because all are there. All different Church orders current today can be validated from the New Testament,” says Dunn, he adds “If episcopacy, presbyterianism, congregational and baptist ecclesiologies can each be justified individually, then all can be justified. The diversity of the patterns of Church organisation and ministry had already been recognised more than a hundred years ago, by one of Durham’s greatest scholar-bishops, J.B. Lightfoot, in his majestical treatment of ‘The Christian Ministry’, (1868).”
“Accepting and affirming diversity is actually the key to being alive and vibrant; when we try to be all the same or tone down so that nothing surfaces except what we have in common, we will indeed become salt that has lost its savour,” says David Kornfield.
Professor Adrian Hastings in his book, ‘A History of English Christianity 1920-1990’ asks, “What really in religious terms divided the Free Churches from the Church of England? It was not so much a manner of doctrine. Both Old Anglican and the Old Dissent had been largely Calvanist. With the coming of the New Dissent there was change on both sides. Nineteenth century Non-conformity then, like the Church of England at the same time, was partly Calvanist, partly not, but both were increasingly not. It was not this that separated them. Yet the Free Churches were undoubtingly in several ways more emphatically Protestant than was the Church of England and prided themselves in being so: ‘The real religious principle of Protestantism has been in the care of the non-conformist’, exclaimed Forsyth.” Hastings continues, “The heart of the Anglican lies in the Book of Common Prayer and the episcopate; a given order of prayer and a given order of Church government - given and therefore not free. For the Free Churches, for their laity most especially, what was given was the Bible and no more. The authority of the Scriptures was one supreme doctrine, preaching and hymn singing the only communal Church practice which had not been effectively developed.” Professor Hastings adds, “For the Free churchman the Church of England had not freed itself from the basic grip of priestcraft, manifested by a fixed liturgy and by Episcopal rule.”
The visible Church is an agency for witnessing to the truth and doctrine of revelation. “This truth is God’s truth,” says Dr Shedd, and he continues, “God the Spirit finds his own word congruous with his own agency, and therefore acts with it, and by it. The Holy Ghost, like the Redeemer, ‘comes to his own’, and ’his own’ are the doctrine of revelation. God honours his own revelation.”
Dr Murray points to the fourth Article contained within the Articles Declaratory enshrined in the Church of Scotland Act 1921 which “Sets out the spiritual freedom of the Church - subject to no civil authority to legislate, and adjudicate finally, in all matters of doctrine, worship, government, and discipline in the Church, including the right to determine all questions concerning membership and office in the Church, the constitution and membership of its courts, and the mode of election of its office-bearers… .”
The Church of Scotland committee agreed that the spiritual autonomy of the Church was a fundamental principle and that government of the Church derived from Christ alone, the sole head of the Church. This is the historic position of the Church. This is the doctrinal article to be maintained and sustained.
Certain doctrines form the basis of the identity as a church. The supreme standard is not confessional or other statement drawn up by the Church but by the Word of God. Dr Murray says, “ The Church of Scotland acknowledges the Word of God which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old Testament and the New, to be the rule of faith and life.”
“Professor James Denney stood for the fluidity of doctrinal statements, on the other hand professor James Cooper stood for the fixity of the Creeds. Cooper was uneasy about the Church’s ability to change certain forms of expression. Professor Cooper thought it important ‘retaining unequivocal statements of the Catholic faith’. To Cooper it was not just the truth but the ‘forms of sacred words’. Catholic here refers to the Holy Catholic or Universal Church, believing in one Father Almighty and in Jesus Christ his only Son, Incarnate for our salvation, and in the Holy Ghost. The Church of Scotland being a branch of the Holy Catholic or Universal Church.”
Dr Colin Brown says, “The important questions for the future are about the kind of change, and pace of change, and the handling of change. For change in a matter as important as worship is always disturbing and must be introduced with great sensitivity, with much explanation and education.” Dr Brown wishes to see “a restoration of the centrality of the Lord’s Supper by making its celebration the principle act of worship Sunday by Sunday”. In addition he wishes to see, “a far greater sense that in worship the whole people of God participate in an action, rather than listening to a ministerial monologue - more flexibility, informality and spontaneity within simple, orderly structure.” He adds, “For worship must be constantly reformed, thoroughly evangelical - - - .” In Karl Barth’s words, “…the most momentous, the most urgent, the most glorious action that can take place in human life.”
Schweizer says, “All expressions used in describing the service stress the impuls4e of coming together. It is therefore essential for the service and for the Church order that it expresses, that the Church is actually physically together,” He adds, “We next have to ask in what way the apostles ministry is continued in the Church. The historically unique testimony to the risen Lord cannot recur although the apostolic message is never a ‘chemically pure’ substratum, but an unfolding of the gospel into the thought and speech of a particular time and place, and therefore in constant need of re-interpretation, it is still the first proclamation, which cannot simply be reproduced. It is that sense that the apostle lives on in the form of the New Testament in the Church today.”
“Worship is renewing our relationship with God, God’s people ant the world. What brings renewal in our lives? There are two dimensions - the dream and the journey. The dream comes from God. The journey is living out of the dream - putting into practice the vision God gives us.”
“All men should honour God, should ascribe to Him the honour and glory which are due to His name. Indeed this is the meaning of worship. The very word ‘worship’ implies it. Being an abbreviation of ‘worthship’, it indicates that God is worthy to be praised, that worship is but a due recognition of His absolute worth. In worship we come to Him as creatures to honour Him as our Creator, as sinners to honour Him as our Saviour, as children to honour Him as father, as servants to honour Him as our Lord. Worship is, therefore, not an optional activity which may be added to life’s curriculum by those who enjoy that sort of thing, and discarded by those who do not. It is rather an obligation because it is the acknowledgement of plain facts,” says John Stott.
Any proper government has a structure by which it operates. The government of the local Church is no different but the formation of this structure has differences within local churches. This structure is the officers in the Church, those given the responsibility for the affairs, financially and spiritually.
Paul writing to the Philippians salutes the Church together with its ‘bishops and deacons’ or, to render the Greek term by words of a different flavour, its ‘superintendents and ministers’.
These terms were used interchangeably by Paul in the Pastoral Letters (those of Timothy and Titus). By the last quarter of the second century, the local ministry exhibits a three-fold order: the local Church has one bishop, several elders or presbyters and several deacons. The transition from the earlier to the latter stage is a subject of debate. Even if the subject is treated dispassionately as a matter for purely historical research, it is difficult to be sure that unconscious theological or ecclesiastical lines has not affected the conclusion in some degree.
Eph 4:11 ‘pastors and teachers’, mentioned as a single class to the Church, clearly shows that these two did not constitute two different classes of officers, but one class having two related functions, see 1 Tim 5:17; 2 Tim 2:2. Also Rev 2:1,8,12,18; 3:1,7,14. In Reformed circles the ministers now rule the churches together with the elders but in addition to that administer the Word and the sacraments. Together they make the necessary regulations for the government of the Church.
Deacons being similar to elders is the option of some. Others see the two combine referring to Acts 6. Seven chosen and some churches adhere to this figure seven, it is also noted that at least two of the seven here, Philip and Stephen were evidently in teaching.
Dr Strong suggests “The number of offices in the church is two: first the office of bishop, presbyter, or pastor; and secondly, the office of deacons.” He adds, “That the appellations ‘bishop’, ‘presbyter’ and ‘pastor’ designate the same office and order of persons, may be shown from Acts 20:28; Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:18; Titus 1:5,7; 1 Pet 5:1,2.”
Conyheare and Howson claim: “The terms ‘bishop’, and ‘elder’ are used in the New Testament as equivalent, the former denoting (as its meaning of overseer implies) the duties, the latter the rank of office.” The word ‘elder’ has a Jewish background, whereas ‘bishop’ has a Gentile background. Another modern term ‘steward’ is also used in some churches (the Greek word for steward is OIKONOMOS) and it means to arrange or oversee a house. A working definition of steward is: “God’s manager of resources temporarily entrusted to him to express and extend God’s Kingdom here on earth.”
The only plausible objection to the identity of the presbyter and the bishop is that first suggested by Calvin, on the grounds of 1 Tim 5:17. But this text only shows that the one office of presbyter or bishop involved two kinds of labour, and that certain presbyters or bishops were more successful in one kind than in the other. That gifts of teaching and ruling belonged to the same individual, is clear from Acts 20:28-31; Eph 4:11; Heb 13:7; 1 Tim 3:2.
An eminent Lutheran historian, Karl Mueller ventured to state: “Irenaeus clearly nowhere speaks of a special charisma given to bishops on account of their ministry. If the bishops are indeed of a special importance, as the successors of the Apostles, this is so for two reasons which enable them to continue the ministry of the Word: first, that their predecessors had received the truth from the Apostles; and secondly, that they, through their desire for truth and their pure life, had been able to pass on the undefiled truth, so that it was handed on from generation to generation.
Tertullian also stated quite plainly that the Apostolic succession was the continuation of the Levitical priesthood.
“The fixing of the Christian canon of Scripture means that the Church itself, at a given time, traced a clear line of demarcation between the time of the foundation and that of construction, between the apostolic community and the church of bishops, in other words, between apostolic tradition and ecclesiastical tradition. Otherwise, the formation of the canon would be meaningless,” says John Stott and He adds; “Episkope (pastoral oversight) is required by Scripture, and is set forth there as a gift of God to His Church; but monarchical episcopacy in the historic or Catholic sense is not. Therefore churches would be right to insist in the former, but not the latter.”
In certain of the New Testament churches there appears to have been a plurality of elders Acts 20:17; Phil 1:1; Titus 1:5. There is, however, no evidence that the number of elders was uniform, or that the plurality which frequently existed was due to any other cause than the size of the churches for which these elders cared. The New Testament example, while it permits the multiplication of assistant pastors according to need, does not require a plurality eldership in every case; nor does it render this eldership, where it exists, of co-ordinate authority with the Church. There are indications, moreover, that, at least in certain churches, the pastor was one, while the deacons were more than one, in number.
Dr Strong stresses that, “From the beginnings of the Church there are two types of officers: 1) The extraordinary and 2) The ordinary. What is meant by this is the extraordinary were those who were apostles, prophets and evangelists. Ordinary officers includes, elders, teachers, deacons. Elders are officers clearly with oversight of the flock, those entrusted to their care. They had to provide it, govern it, protect it, as the very household of God. A distinction between the extraordinary and the ordinary is that the extraordinary received their ministry directly from God.”
Strong continues: “The calling of the ordinary officers is two-fold: Internal calling and External calling. Internal calling is, by some, thought to be some special revelation. But is this correct? It consists rather of certain ordinary providential indications given by God, and includes especially three things: a) The consciousness of being impelled to a special task in the Kingdom of God, by love to God and his cause; b) The conviction that one is at least in a measure intellectually and spiritually qualified for the office sought; and c) The experience that God is clearly paving the way to the goal.”
External calling comes through the instrumentality of the church. It is not issued by the Pope (Roman Catholic), nor by a bishop or a college of bishops (Episcopalian), but by the local Church. Both the officers and the ordinary members of the Church have a part in it. That the officers have a guiding hand in it, but not to the exclusion of the people, is evident from such passages as Acts 1:15-26; 6:2-6; 14:23. The people were recognised even to the choice of an apostle, according to Acts 1:15-26. It would seem in the apostolic age the officers guided the choice of people by calling attention to the necessary qualifications that were required for the office, but allowed the people to take part in choosing Acts 1:15-26; 6:1-6; 1 Tim 3:2-13.
Ehehardt claims: “The Church is really and primarily the Spirit Himself in whom the Trinity of the One Godhead, Father, Son and Holy Ghost… Therefore the Church will forgive sins, that is the Church of the Spirit through a spiritual man, not the Church of the synod of bishops.”
Induction into office is first by ordination and this after the examination of the candidate. Hodge says, “Ordination is the solemn expression of the judgement of the Church- - -. “This is a necessary condition in ordinary circumstances for the exercise of ministerial office. It may be called a public acknowledgement and confirmation of the candidate’s calling to this office.
The Pastoral Letters display these qualifications as follows: Self control 1 Tim 3:2 Titus 1:8 Hospitality 1 Tim 3:2 Titus 1:8 Able to teach 1 Tim 5:17 Titus 1:9 Not violent by gentle 1 Tim 3:3 Titus 1:7 Not a lover of money 1 Tim 3:3 Not quarrelsome 1 Tim 3:3 Not a recent convert 1 Tim 3:6 Good reputation with outsiders 1 Tim 3:7 Not overbearing Titus 1:7 Not quick-tempered Titus 1:8 Loves what is good Titus 1:8 Upright and holy Titus 1:8 Disciplined Titus 1:8 Above reproach (blameless) 1 Tim 3:2,9 Titus 1:6 Husband of one wife 1 Tim 3:2 Titus 1:6 Temperate 1 Tim 3:2 Titus 1:7 Respectable 1 Tim 3:2 Not given to drunkenness 1 Tim 3:3 Titus 1:7 Manages his own family well 1 Tim 3: 4 Sees his own children obey him 1 Tim 3:4,5 Titus 1:6 Does not pursue dishonest gain Titus 1:7 Keeps hold of deep truths Titus 1:8 Sincere 1 Tim 3:8 Tested 1 Tim 3:10.
Daniel Jenkins says, “We cannot shut out the possibility, of course, that god may call all members of the Church to the office of ministry, so that a ‘professional’ ministry in the narrower sense may not be needed. It is on this assumption that this has, in fact, happened that such bodies as the Plymouth Brethren work. While there is a sense in which it is true that, the church as a whole is the custodian of the apostolic testimony, we are bound, however, to enquire whether Scripture and experience do not prove that the Ministry is a particular office in the Church to which particular members are ordained of god.” Ordination is accompanied by the ‘laying on of hands’. The two went together in apostolic times Acts 6:6; 13:3; 1 Tim 4:14; 5:22. This signifies the person was set aside for a certain office, and that some special spiritual gift was bestowed upon him.
The Roman Catholic Church is of the opinion that these two elements are still included in the laying on of hands, that it actually confers some spiritual grace upon the recipient, and therefore ascribes to it sacramental significance.
Ordination is the initiation into the Christian priesthood. The Orthodox Church as well as the Romanists also see it as a sacrament of solemnity bestowing spiritual powers, such as the power to consecrate the Eucharist and to give communion and absolution.
Protestants maintain that the ‘laying on of hands’ is merely a symbolic indication of the fact that the one is set aside for ministerial office in the Church. While they regard it as a Scriptural rite and as one that is entirely appropriate, they do not regard it as absolutely essential. The Presbyterian Church makes it optional.
Ordination is the setting apart of a person divinely called to a work of special ministration in the Church. It does not involve the communication of power, it is simply a recognition of powers previously conferred by God, and a consequent formal authorisation, on the part of the Church, to exercise the gifts already bestowed. This recognition and authorisation should not only be expressed by the vote in which the candidate is approved by the Church or the council which represents it, but should also be accompanied by a special service of admonition, prayer, and laying on of hands Acts 6:5,6; 13:2,3; 14:23; 1 Tim 4:14; 5:22.
Li censure simply commands a man to the churches as fitted to preach. Ordination recognises him as set apart to the work of preaching and administering the ordinances, in some particular Church or in some designated field of labour, as representative of the Church.
Of his call to the ministry, the candidate himself is to be first persuaded 1 Cor 9:16; 1 Tim 1:12; but secondly, the Church must be persuaded also, before he can have authority to minister among them 1 Tim 3:2-7; 4:14; Titus 1:6-9.
In so far as ordination is an act performed by the local Church with the advice and assistance of other rightly constituted churches, it is justly regarded as giving formal permission to exercise gifts and ordinances within the bounds of such churches. Ordination, is not, therefore, to be repeated upon the transfer of the minister’s pastoral relation from one church to another.
The duties belonging to these offices, namely, pastor, bishop or elder are first, a spiritual teacher, in public and private. Secondly an administrator of the ordinances. Thirdly, as superintendent of the discipline, as well as presiding officer at the meetings of the Church.
The deacon is helper to the pastor and the Church, in both spiritual and temporal things. Firstly, relieving the pastor of external labours, informing him of the condition and wants of the Church, and forming a bond of union between pastor and people. Secondly, helping the Church, by relieving the poor and sick and ministering in an informal way to the Church’s spiritual needs, and performing certain external duties connected with the service of the sanctuary.
The kinds of discipline in the church are of two sorts, according as offences are private or public. Private offences are to be dealt with according to the rule in Mat 5:23,24; 18:15-17. Public offences are to be dealt with according to the rule in 1 Cor 5:3-5,13 and 2 Thes 3:6.
Relation of the pastor to discipline - he has no original authority but is the organ of the Church, and superintendent of its labours for its own purification and for the reclamation of offenders; and therefore may best do the work of discipline, not directly, by constituting himself a ‘special policeman’ or ‘detective’. But indirectly, by securing proper labour on the part of the deacons or brethren of the Church.
The relationship of local churches despite differences of style on worship is that there is a fellowship of equals. Each responsible to Christ. Each has control of its own actions. Every other Church is presumptively possessed of the Spirit, in equal measure within itself. There must therefore be sympathy and mutual furtherance of each other’s welfare among churches, as among individual Christians.
D.F.M. McDonald in his book ‘Practice & Procedure in the Church of Scotland’, says, “Discipline in the government of the Church is of Scriptural authority. The ends contemplated by it are the glory of god, the purity of the Church, and the spiritual benefits of members.” McDonald adds, ”It is to be administered in faithfulness, meekness, love and tenderness.”
Discipline is a requirement in any family or group of people and the Christian community or family is not exempt. Larry Christensen offers the following simple definition for the Christian family in a different context but nonetheless befitting the Christian family of members. Christenen says, “A Christian family is a family that lives together with Jesus Christ.” He went on to say, “The secret of any good family life is disarmingly simple; cultivate the family’s relationship with Jesus Christ.”
Watchman Nee, in his book, entitled, ‘SIT, WALK, STAND’, says, “The Christian life has an inherent order of priority - Until we have SAT in the presence of God, we cannot WALK in the Christian life or STAND in the spiritual warfare Eph 2:6; 4:1; 6:10-12. When we worship we put our roots down into the rich soil of God’s life.”
Dr Ian Henderson, formerly Professor of Systematic Theology in Glasgow University, wrote an extremely outspoken book called ‘Power without Glory’ and the subtitle ‘A Study in Ecumenical Politics’. He says, “In the fantasy world of ecclesiastical power mythology, the Church of England bishops are the successors of the apostles.” He describes the Church of England’s ‘Ruthless series of take-over bids, which in ‘ecumenical terms…are called Church Unions’. “Basically then”, Professor Henderson continues, “Anglican diplomatic policy is the extermination of all Protestant (i.e. non-episcopally ordained) ministers”, and he attributes the policy to arrogant English nationalism, “one of the most grotesque, manifestations of the 20th century racialism.” John Stott finds Professor Henderson’s tone polemical and his language at times intemperate. Stott also doubts if it is correct to ascribe either nationalist or racialist motives to the Anglican episcopate. Stott adds: “It is easy to point an accusing finger at others. It is easy to see the speck of sawdust in the eye of others and miss the log in your own. The need to subordinate tradition to Scripture is not only the corporate affair of churches; it is the individual Christian’s responsibility also. It is urgently necessary for us to study the Scripture with greater industry and humility, with a view to submitting our whole mind, will and life to what God has said in His Word. Only so can we ‘Learn….to live according to Scripture’.
*********************
BAPTISM
Daniel Jenkins says, “Whatever takes place in the Church’s service must have its origin in baptism, in the existence of the Church, in the three-fold fact that Jesus Christ had once and for all died and risen again for us, that we are irrevocably His and that we are destined for no other end than to be justified, sanctified, and glorified through Him.”
Baptism (or christening) is a rite or sacrament that initiates a person into the Christian community. Community here is not simply being together but doing together. This is being committed together in a new covenant. It is important to Jesus Christ that we should be one. Therefore we should handle differences on convictions with honour and respect.
Baptism usually occurs soon after birth though in some denominations such as Baptist Churches (which was founded in the sixteenth century), baptism is reserved for adult converts and involves complete bodily immersion. In the early church it was often administered shortly before death, to absolve the person’s sins. The first Christian emperor, Constantine was accused by pagan enemies of choosing Christianity because baptism offered the chance of washing away the guilt of executing members of his family.
The early church consisted clearly of a body of people who followed Jesus. They were the Christian Church. Just like that. No descriptive adjectives like ‘Baptist Church’, ‘Roman Catholic Church’, or ‘Orthodox Church’. Just Church. One body of people - one extended family. But there were differences of views even then. For example, between the Church at Jerusalem and the Church at Antioch. The former continued to practice of circumcision of boys, while the latter made no fuss of this. But the churches all had certain central things in common - one of these was baptism, each of the churches adhering to “One Lord, one faith, one baptism”. Confusion reigns as to the mode of baptism. Michael Green says, “Baptism is meant to plunge you into the waters of God’s Holy Spirit”. Green also says. “Baptism is how the churches extend their frontiers. It is not a witness, nor a reward: it is an invitation.” He adds, “baptism is not a charm or a social function.”
There are two agencies in baptism, these are - the Holy Spirit (the Divine agency) and faith (the human agency). If repentance and faith are essential to baptism then what of infant baptism. Thinkers like Green suggest that infant baptism (or christening) makes for gross nominalism. They are of the opinion that this practice ‘inoculates’ people against the gospel by making them think that they are Christians when they may be nothing of the kind.
The real question is, should baptism be attached primarily to man’s response, or to God’s initiative? For some, baptism primarily bears witness to what we do in responding to the grace of God. For the witness to what we do in responding to the grace of God. For the paedobaptist, it primarily bears witness to what God has done to make it all possible.
There is agreement that baptism is an ordinance which is and outward rite which Christ appointed to be administered in the church, as a visible sign of the saving truth of the gospel. It is a sign which vividly expresses this truth and confirms it to the participant. It treats the death of Christ (the sinless one) as death to sin and to the state man was in, and draws conclusions from it for us in as much as he is risen. This meaning is found in Romans 6:3,4. The consequence of this baptism is that the baptised are risen in Christ - not to law, and hence sin was not to reign any longer. Baptism is prefigured by Israel’s passage through the Red Sea, not by the crossing of Jordan, though resurrection is added in Col 2:12, as leaving sins behind. “Having forgiven all your trespasses.”
There can be no doubt that baptism is individual, and it is the reception into the profession of Christianity or the Holy Catholic Church. Daniel Jenkins says, “The Catholic Christian is the man who stands under the judgement and promise of God through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. He arrives at his true membership of the Church, his catholic status, through Baptism by which he is incorporated into Christ.” “The sacrament of Baptism,” Jenkins continues, “in a pre-eminent way, brings home to us that the essence of the Church is the presence of Jesus Christ.”
The signification of baptism goes further in Colossians than in Romans, but is always connected with status upon earth, and not with heavenly privileges. It saves 1 Pet 3:21, we ‘wash’ away our sins in it Acts 22:16, we go into death in it, and in Col 2:12 it is added, we ‘are risen’, hence also it is individual. The Church’s very origin is in the resurrection of Christ Col 1:18.
It is clear that baptism, though in a certain aspect it places the recipient in a resurrection status, giving Christ for our life, never takes us out of earth, but puts us in a position of Christian responsibility in it; according to newness of life, as it is said, “so we should walk in newness of life.” There is a warning in 1 Cor 10:1-6 - “they were baptised….but with many of them God was not well pleased.” Baptism no more makes one a Christian, than putting a crown on one’s head makes him a king.
A mere sacramental position is not enough: we have to “continue in the faith, grounded and settled.” Col 1:23. We are called as baptised to walk in this world as dead and risen again, as in a wilderness. Baptism is the expression of the outward visible church in its profession. In baptism we have a good conscience by the resurrection 1 Pet 3:21. We wash our sins away in it, calling on the name of the Lord Acts 22:6; and we are received by it into the responsible place of God’s people in this world.
In the epistle to the Hebrews “the whole pattern of Christian life is conceived in terms of worship. That is the continuous, and indeed the eternal approach to the holy house of God.” We enter this presence not by ancient sacrifices for the removal of guilt, but “through the blood of Jesus.” This new way is instituted by Christ. “Our hearts purified by sprinkling from an evil conscience,” as well as “our bodies washed in pure water.” Dr Wm. Manson says, “Christian baptism as the rite which from the first days of the Church signified destination for, and proleptic entrance into the eternal Kingdom of God, the sphere of salvation.” He adds, “Baptism is an incorporation into the Church.” “Three key characteristics of this Kingdom are: 1) justice or right relationships, 2) harmony, 3) gladness or celebrations,” says David Kornfield.
With Peter, Christian Baptism seems more connected with the kingdom of heaven: cf. Mat 16:19; Acts 2:38; 10:48: with Paul it was connected rather with the house of God when he did use it. Paul had a new commission. He is not found like Peter, ministering in the midst of a known people who had promises, calling souls out of it to repentance, that they should receive remission and be separated from the untoward generation. Paul takes up man as man (though owning the Jews) and brings him into God’s presence in light. For the Gentiles it was, even in testimony, a wholly new resurrection state, not merely a good conscience through the resurrection; and baptism which gives a status on earth founded on resurrection, forms no part of Paul’s testimony, any more than of the mission in John 20:21-23; and Paul tells us himself, that he was not sent to baptise.
Faith sees that when God brings a man into privileges on earth, he does not separate his household from him, for example Gen 7:1 etc.… Under Christianity this surely holds good: see 1 Cor 7:14; and we see households were baptised by Paul.
At the end of Matthew’s gospel we have a commandment connected with baptism and apostolic mission to the Gentiles exclusively, but then there is nothing of repentance or remission. It is simply discipling all the nations, baptising then teaching them. Mat 28:19,20 (This passage contemplates in its full sense work to be done at the end of the age by the Jewish remnant toward the Gentiles. Christian Baptism now is for Jews and Gentile alike, that by it they should lose their standing as such, and being committed to the death of Christ be brought into Christian profession, leaving their distinctions behind them.) The direction in Luke 24:47 is repentance and remission of sins. In Mark 16:15,16 salvation belonged to him who believed and was baptised; for if he was not, he refused to be a Christian.
Scripture gives no definite teaching as to the mode of baptism, the great point being what the recipients of the ordinance were baptised to: cf. Acts 19:3. The idea conveyed by the word is ‘washing’ as with the priests of old Ex 29:4, rather than ‘sprinkling’, as with the Levites Num 8:7.
As to the formulae used, some have supposed that because we read in the Acts that persons were baptised ‘to the name of the Lord Jesus’, the instruction given in Mat 28:19 to baptise ‘to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’, was superseded, but this does not follow: Baptism is always to some person or thing. The disciples, found at Ephesus, had been baptised to Moses; and those baptised in the Acts were to the ‘name of the Lord’ as Saviour and Lord; and there is no reason why this should not be combined with the words found in Matthew, and a person be baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus unto the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
In Acts 8 the story about the Ethiopian official’s encounter with Philip as he was journeying back home from a pilgrimage-visit to Jerusalem. He asked Philip to baptise him. The A.V. has an amplified version of this story which includes a confession. Philip said, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest,” and the Ethiopian replied: ”I believe that Jesus Christ, is the Son of God.” This certainly reflects early Christian practice. The Ethiopian made a public confession of Jesus as Lord, and was forthwith baptised, “unto the name of the Lord.” His profession of belief, was one of few words, “Jesus is Lord”. The simplicity and brevity of the statement need not imply a ‘simple’ Christology. When earliest Christians gave Jesus the title ‘Lord’ they used it as a divine title. The Greek word KYRIOS 9which is translated thus), as cited before, was used in the Septuagint, the pre-Christian Greek version of the Old Testament, as the rendering of YAHWEH (JEHOVAH), the Hebrew name of the God of Israel. In contrast with this characteristically Protestant view, the Romanist regards the ordinances as actually conferring grace and producing holiness. Instead of being an external manifestation of a preceding union with Christ, they are the physical means of constituting and maintaining this union. Sacramentalists of every name substantially agree, in this particular, with the Romanists. The Papal Church holds seven sacraments or ordinances:- ordination, confirmation, matrimony, extreme unction, penance, baptism and the eucharist.
Dr Strong is adamant that the New Testament prescribes two ordinances and only two:- Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (or eucharist). Strong holds firmly to the view that baptism, by the repeated use of the Greek word, means immersion of a believer in water, and this says strong, “Is in token of his previous entrance into communion of Christ’s death ad resurrection,” or in other words, in token of the believer’s regenerated state through his union with Christ.
Baptism is an external rite which was instituted be Christ. We have abundant proof of this from Scriptures primarily. The evidence can be found from the words of the great commission as well as from the injunctions of the apostles and from the fact that the members of the New Testament churches were baptised believers. Add to this the evidence of universal practice of such a rite in Christian churches of subsequent times.
Again it is evident that this external rite was intended by Christ to be not only universal but a ‘perpetual obligation’. We learn that Christ recognised John the Baptist’s commission to baptise as derived immediately from heaven. In his own submission to John’s baptism, Christ gave testimony to this ‘binding obligation’ of the ordinance Mat 3:13-17. John’s baptism was essentially Christian baptism Acts 19:4, although the full significance of it was not understood until after Jesus’ death and resurrection Mat 29:17-23; Luke 12:50; and Rom 6:3-6.
Further evidence of this ‘binding obligation’ and its universality is seen in the continuing practice of baptism through the disciples John 4:1,2. It was a work placed upon the disciples which was to last to the end of the world Mat 28:19,20. It is clear that Christ manifestly adapted and appointed baptism as the invariable law of the church.
Both ordinances, the Lord’s Supper and baptism lead to the conclusion that they are to be observed as an authoritative memorial of Christ and his truth until his second coming. There is no hint whatsoever that the command of baptism is limited, or to be limited in its application nor has it been or ever is to be repealed; and, until some evidence of such limitation or repeal is produced, the statute must be regarded as universally binding.
An argument is that the Church has no right to modify or dispense with this command of Christ. The grounds for this argument are based it is claimed on the lines of the nature of the Church. For instance, that, besides the local church, no other visible church of Christ is known in the New Testament. Further to this is that the local church is not a legislative body but is simply an executive body. Only the authority which originally imposed its laws can amend or cancel them. Then again, the local church cannot delegate to any organisation or council of chambers any power which it does not rightfully posses itself. The opposite principle puts the Church above the Scriptures and above Christ, and would sanction all the usurpation’s of Rome.
No church has the right to modify or dispense with the command of Christ as we see from the nature of the church, but also from the nature of God’s command. First, as forming part, not only of the law, but the fundamental law, of the Church of Christ. The power claimed for a church to change is not only legislative but constitutional. Secondly, as expressing the wisdom of the lawgiver. Power the change the command can be claimed for the church only on the ground that Christ has failed to adapt the ordinance to changing circumstances, and has made obedience to it unnecessarily difficult and humiliating. Thirdly, as providing immersion the only adequate symbol of those saving truths of the gospel which both of the ordinances have it for their office to set forth, and without which become ceremonious and forms. In other words, the Church has no right to change the method of administrating the ordinances, because such a change vacates the ordinance of its essential meaning. Those who hold this view that baptism is by immersion, maintain that baptism symbolises the previous entrance of the believer into communion of Chris’s death and resurrection, or, in other words, regeneration through union with Christ. Baptism is a symbol of the death and resurrection of Christ. The purpose of this death and resurrection is to atone for sin and deliver sinners from such penalty and power. Professor Bruce says, “sometimes baptism is designated as ‘enlightenment’ which may go back to such New Testament passages as Eph 5:14 and Heb 6:4.”
So the accomplishment of the purpose of baptism is the believer’s profession of death to sin and resurrection to spiritual life. The method is giving oneself in union with Christ in faith. This is a declaration of spiritual change.
Inferences from the fact that only persons giving evidence of being regenerate are proper subjects of baptism. Baptism cannot be a means of regeneration. It is the appointed sign, but is never the condition, spiritual and ritual, is referred to in language belonging strictly only to the outward aspect of it.
The immersion view insists that baptism is a sign of a spiritual change already wrought, it is an act, not of the administrator, but of the person baptised. It is an expression of a person’s union with Christ and his following Christ in baptism. It is the duty of the church to see that the opportunity is available to follow Christ in baptism. It is the duty of the Church to see that there is credible evidence of regeneration. Baptism is an outward expression of the inner experience. Regeneration and baptism, although not holding to each other the relation of effect and cause, are both regarded in the New Testament as essential to the restoration of man’s right relations to God and God’s people. (Kant contended that cause and effect is a fundamental principle of human thought.) This outward expression and inner experience properly constitute parts of one whole and are not to be unnecessarily separated. Baptism is not for repetition, as with regeneration which is a work accomplished once for all. The formula of baptism prescribed by Christ is “unto the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
On the other hand, the rejection to infant baptism is based on the following grounds: First, there is no express command that infants should be baptised. Second, there is no clear example of the baptism of infants. Thirdly, the passages held to imply infant baptism contain, when fairly interpreted, no reference to such a practice.
Indeed Jacobi says of 1 Cor 7:14 “a sure testimony against infant baptism, since Paul would certainly have referred to the baptism of children as a proof of their holiness, if infant baptism had been practised.”
Schleiemacher says, “All traces of infant baptism which it has been desired to find in the New Testament must first be put into it.”
Dr Strong’s case against infant baptism is that it is expressly contradicted: First, by the Scriptures’ requirements of repentance and faith as signs of regeneration. In the great commission, Matthew speaks of baptising disciples and Mark of baptising believers; but infants are neither of these. Second, by the Scriptural symbol of the ordinance as we should not bury a person before he dies, so we should not symbolically bury a person by baptism until he has in spirit died to sin. Thirdly, by the Scriptural constitution of the Church. The Church s a company of persons whose union with one another presupposes and expresses a previous conscious and voluntary union of each with Jesus Christ. But of this conscious and voluntary union with Christ infants are not capable. Fourthly, by the Scripture prerequisites for participation at the Lord’s Supper. Participation in the Lord’s Supper is the right only of those who can discern the Lord’s body 1 Cor 11:29. No reason can be assigned for restricting intelligent communicants the ordinance of the Supper, which would not equally restrict intelligent believers the ordinance of baptism.”
Neanders’s view. “Infant baptism was established neither by Christ nor by his apostles. Even in later times Tertullian opposed it.” The newly discovered teachings of the apostles, which Bryennois puts at A.D. 140-160; and Lightfoot at 80-110 A.D.; seems to know nothing of infant baptism.
Professor A.H. Newman, “Infant baptism has always gone hand in hand with State churches. It is difficult to conceive how an ecclesiastical establishment could be maintained without infant baptism or its equivalent. We should think, if the facts did not show us so plainly the contrary, that the doctrine of justification by faith alone would displace infant baptism. But no. The establishment must be maintained.”
A conclusion might be drawn that the rejection of infant baptism implies insistence upon a baptism of believers or adults. Some insist that only those who are baptised believers are proper members of the Church. Rejecters of infant baptism insist that such a practice is retained as the “necessary concomitant of a State Church.”
Indeed Dr Strong describes the exercise of infant baptism as “putting into place of Christ’s command, a commandment of men,” he continues forcibly, “so admitting the essential principle of all heresy, schism and false religion.”
Strong asks two questions: First, “What good does it do to be baptised if you have never come to Christ?” He then asks, “What in that case has your baptism effected?” He continues, “The answer must be nothing at all. For baptism is like a cheque which may be used to convey to us £1000 but which does nothing of the sort if we do not cash it.”
Those on the other hand who subscribe to infant baptism, claim to base their argument also on Scripture, with equal credibility.. Their reply to the question: should children be baptised? is along these lines. Children were admitted into the Old Testament Church Gen 21:4. Abraham’s covenant - his circumcision of Isaac. This was part of God’s purpose. Again the whole family was baptised when the proselytes came over into Judaism.
In New Testament days whole families were baptised Acts 16:15,33;; 11:14 and 1 Cor 1:16. For non-paedobaptists to hope there were no small children in these families is hypothetical. The argument in favour or support of infant baptism is supported by the fact that Jesus, indeed, accepted and blessed children too young to respond - see Mark 10:2-16. Paedobaptists claim deepens by the claim that the Church down its history has baptised children.
A few examples from the history of the Church favours child baptism. For instance, Polycarp A.D. 69-155 himself, it appears, a child of Christian parents declared at his martyrdom, “Eighty-six years I have served Him and He has never done me any wrong, how should I recant now..” This takes us back to around A.D. 70, in the heyday of the young Church’s advance, when apostles were still alive. It is almost incredible that Polycarp means us to understand that he came to Christian beginnings in baptism as a lad of 12 or 14, when he would have been old enough to make his own adult decision for Christ. Had that been the case he would have been 100yrs when he died. Not many reached that age in those days!
Consider also: Origen A.D. 185 who mentions in his commentary on Romans 6:5-7, “For this reason the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptising children too.” Origen was born into a Christian family, he must surely have been baptised as an infant himself.
Again Irenaeus A.D. 130-200 is no less clear and no less relaxed about the practice. He says that, “Jesus came to save all who through him are born again to God-infants, children, boys, youth and old men. Irenaeus is credited with saying, “He (Jesus) passed through every age.” (Iranaeus was bishop of Lyons in Gaul writing about A.D. 180. He regarded “the four-fold gospel as one of the axiomatic facts of the universe. There are four quarters of the world,” he says, “and four winds, and thus it is natural that the Church Universal should rest upon four pillars, and these pillars are the four gospels.”)
Yet another source included in the pro-infant baptism is Tertullian who was initially unsure about infant baptism but years later came round to being “happy for the baptism of children even if one parent is not a Christian on the basis of a combination of 1 Cor 7:14 and John 3:5.”
Neander however claims that Tertullian was later to oppose infant baptism. Some theologians claim that infant baptism stresses the objectivity of the gospel. It points, they claim, to the solid achievement of Christ crucified and risen, whether or not we respond to it. To these theologians infant baptism stresses the initiative of God in salvation. They reinforced their thinking, arguing that circumcision is a strong argument in favour of such a practice.
To this view they argue that the New Testament thinkers declare a break from the Old Testament, but isn’t God the God of both Testaments. Objections raised for instance is that infant baptism is a Christian sign but not the Christian reality. Why baptise children if they cannot repent and believe?
Paedobaptists say, Jesus healed because of the faith of others Mark 2:5. This must have been at the root of the second century practice of the baptism of a child, on the strength of the parent’s faith. However, Alan Wright claims, “that the necessity of faith for baptism means that it is impossible to justify theologically the practice of baptism of infants, claiming that nowhere is there a suggestion that such a baptism can take place on the strength of the faith of anyone else.”
Clifford Owen says, “that baptism whether infant or adult was instrumental provided it was received rightly.” “It was the means of grafting into the Church,” declares Owen. The Holy Spirit was given in regeneration or new birth provided there was faith present on the part of the recipient.. How can an infant have that kind of faith that would appropriate the baptismal promises.
Owen turns to Luther and Calvin. “Both Luther and Calvin,” he says accepted baptismal regeneration of infants, but would qualify what they meant by regeneration. To them it was not an instantaneous change, but a sowing of the seed of spiritual life which is merely the beginning of a process which is life-long and not complete even in this life.” “Hence they would mean,” continues Owen, “by regeneration what nowadays might be meant by regeneration and sanctification taken together. They stressed the importance of faith to bring the sacrament of life, to make it work. The sacrament without faith is reduced to superstition.”
Clifford Owen thinks that, “whatever is given in baptism objectively through the grace of God (in older scholastic language - EXOPERIE OPERATO) must to a certain extent lie dormant if the personal response element of faith is not there. It is the infant’s own response in due course that will ‘activate’ his baptismal grace.” It is a matter of debate at what age this should be. It could be as early as after birth.
When Jesus called ‘Little children to come unto him…’ It is highly unlikely he would take a stranger’s child above a certain age upon his knee---.
**********************
THE LORD’S SUPPER
“The Lord’s Super like baptism, is the symbol of a previous state of grace. It has in itself no regenerating or sanctifying power”, Professor Bruce reminds us.
The Lord’s Supper is one of the two prescribed ordinances taught in the New Testament, and is referred to as communion, eucharist, mass, or the Lord’s Table. It is the central sacrament in the Christian religion. The expression, the Lord’s Table is used in 1 Cor 10:21, in contrast to the table of demons, with which those were identified who partook of idolatrous feasts. In this passage the expression appears synonymous with the bread and the wine being spoken of as the cup of the Lord. The idea connected with the Lord’s Table is the identification of the saints as one body with the death of Christ. Hence “Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s Table and of the table of demons.” The cup is the fellowship of the blood of Christ the bread is the fellowship every believer is bound to be faithful. It expresses the separation of the entire company from all to which the god of this world furnishes his table.
The ‘one loaf’ was expressive of the oneness of the assembled company of believers at Corinth, as bound together in the fellowship of the death of CHRIST.
Referring to the letter to the Hebrews, Dr Manson says, “The difficulty of bringing the sacrament of the Holy Communion in the Church into relation with the Hebrew writer’s insistence on the holocaust nature of the saviour’s obligation is not insuperable.” He adds, “While the problem is not to be solved either by exegetics of the type of Dr Westcott’s or by critical negations of the type of Dr Peake’s or Dr Moffat’s, it does admit of possible solution along other lines of approach.” Manson continues, “at the institution of the Supper the Body and Blood of Christ were present in his living person and as such they were sacramentaly offered. The Body was that which was to be broken on the cross. The Blood was that which was shed. These terms used of the elements are on the same sense as understood by Mark, Paul, Matthew and Luke.”
The expression the Lord’s Supper is found in 1 Cor 11:20, and is in connection with the remembrance of the Lord in the breaking of bread and drinking the cup by the saints as in assembly. This chapter gives the positive character of the ordinance, as chapter 10, is rather the separation consequence on it. It is the assembly come together and the affections of the saints stirred by the remembrance of the Lord’s love in presence of the memorials of that which is the proof and expression of it, namely, his death. It is the introductory to the assembly’s proper privilege as brought, in company with the Lord Jesus Christ as the leader of its praises, to know and enjoy God as Father, and to worship him by his Spirit. In chapters twelve to fourteen, which succeed, the organisation, the motive spring, and functions of the assembly are referred to. The expression, the Lord’s Supper re-enacts the Last Supper in which Jesus blessed the bread and wine before giving them to his disciples, saying, “This is my body, this is my blood.” The Lord’s Supper is an opportunity of ‘thanksgiving’.
The verb for giving thanks in Greek is EUCHARISTO - it is for this reason that the Holy Supper is called the EUCHARIST: Greek EUCHARISTIA, which simply means the ‘thanksgiving’. In this thanksgiving there is a four-fold action: 1) took the bread and wine, 2) gave thanks, 3) broke the bread, 4) distributed the bread and wine; with an explanation of their significance.
Unlike Protestants, Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians believe that by repeated miracles, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ, this is called TRANSUBSTANTIATION. Lutherans maintain that the bread and wine of the eucharist COEXIST with the body and blood of Christ, this is called CONSUBSTANTIATION. Members of the reformed churches accept his presence in a symbolic way only. In roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, children celebrate their first communion at the age of seven or eight, in the Anglican churches, the first communion is usually taken after confirmation.
“Whatever takes place in the Church service must have as its end, the Lord’s Supper, the continuance of the Church,” says Jenkins.
The Lord’s Supper is an outward rite in which the assembled church eats bread broken and drinks wine poured forth by its appointed representative, in token of the constant dependence on Christ crucified and resurrected as the source of the Church’s spiritual life or in other words, in token of that abiding communion of Christ’s death and resurrection through which the life begun in regeneration is sustained and perfected.
The Lord’s Supper is an ordinance instituted by Christ himself - it is a command, a command to be carried out in remembrance - a memorial. From the apostolic injunction with regard to its celebration in the Church, until Christ’s second coming.
Dr Strong says, “The Lord’s Supper is the uniform practice of the New Testament churches, and the celebration of such a rite in subsequent ages by almost all churches professing to be Christian, is best explained upon the supposition that the Lord’s Supper is an ordinance established by Christ himself.”
The mode of administering the Lord’s Supper based on Scriptures is that this ordinance has two elements, those are bread and wine. The ordinance is of both kinds, that is communicants are to partake both of the bread and wine, The partaking of these elements is of a festal nature. It is a celebration. The Lord’s Supper is a festival commemoration, not simply bringing Christ to our remembrance, but participants are proclaiming his death to the world.
Irene Allen says, “On the two great sacraments of baptism and eucharist John’s teaching is much the same in both cases. He insists in their ‘effectiveness’ for they are the divinely appointed channels, by which God’s grace reaches man, but God’s grace is not confined to these channels, and in every case it is freely given; it cannot be ‘secured’ or ‘won’ by the use of sacraments, as if they were magical rites, or spells, such as the pagans used in the belief that the gods could be compelled to give men the blessing they sought. The blessing of the one true God is given in response to faith alone.”
It is not a solitary observance on the part of individuals. No ‘showing forth’ is possible except in company. E.G. Robinson says, “No single individual in the New Testament ever celebrates the Lord’s Supper by himself.”
The Church is responsible for seeing that the ordinance is properly administered - the church as a body, and the minister is, in this matter, the proper representative and instrument of the Church. However, in cases of extreme emergency where the Church has no pastor and no ordained minister can be secured, it is competent for the Church to appoint one from its own members to perform the task of administering the ordinance.
The Lord’s Supper is a form of renewing - a constant reforming. The Reformation’s cry was ‘SEMPER REFORMATA, SEMPER REFORMANDA!’ (Always reformed, always reforming!). As David Kornfield put it: “A call for fresh obedience to Christ,” Kornfield adds, “confirming our unity with Christ and with one another.” Church renewal is never a ‘finished product’. Kornfield insists: “We should celebrate the Lord’s Supper as a central part of Church life. The early Church shared the Lord’s Supper at least once a week.” He argues for changing the structure of Church services for more celebrative giving. For instance some churches have everyone singing songs of praise as they bring their offerings to the front.” Kornfield tells us “Not until the sixteenth century did the Lord’s Supper cease to be a daily or at least weekly, highlight of church life.”
The frequency of celebrating the Lord’s Supper varies from one church to another, some daily others weekly and still others less frequently. There is no guideline as to the frequency either in the New Testament precept or uniform New Testament example. With respect to this, as well a with respect to the accessories of the ordinance the Church is to exercise sound discretion.
The symbolism of the Lord’s Supper is that in general, it sets forth the death of Christ as the sustaining power of the believer’s life - the death of Christ for our sins. The personal appropriation of the benefits of that death, the method of this appropriation through identifying with Christ and through union with Christ himself.
The Lord’s Supper is a reminder of the continuous dependence of the believer for all spiritual life upon Christ’s death and resurrection and in whom he is united. It symbolises also the sanctification - of the Christian through a spiritual reproduction in him of Christ’s death and resurrection, also the consequent union of Christians in Christ, their head and coming joy and perfection of the Kingdom of God.
Moreover the Lord’s Supper contradict the evidence of senses, as well as of all scientific tests that can be applied. If we cannot trust our senses as to the unchanged material qualities of bread and wine, we cannot trust them, when they report to us words of Christ.
It involves the denial of completeness of Christ’s past sacrifice and the assumption that a human priest can repeat or add to the atonement made by Christ once for all Heb 9:28. The Lord’s Supper is never referred to as a sacrifice, nor are altars, priest or consecration ever spoken of in the New Testament. The priests of the old dispensation are expressly contrasted with the priests of the new. The former ‘ministered about sacred things’, i.e. performed sacred rites and waited at the altar; but the latter ‘preach the gospel’ 1 Cor 9:13,14.
By externalising the Lord’s Supper it destroys Christianity. Romanists make all other services a mere appendage to the communion. Physical and magical salvation is not Christianity, but mere paganism.
Luther argued that although the elements, bread and wine remain as they are, there is in the Lord’s supper nevertheless a mysterious and MUSCULAN real presence of the whole person of Christ, body and blood, in, under, and along with, the elements. Loius Berkhof says, “They also teach the so-called MANDULATIO OBALIS, which means, that those who partake of the elements in the Lord’s Supper, eat and drink the Lord’s body and blood, ‘with the bodily mouth’, and not merely that they appropriate these by faith.”
Some objections to this are, firstly, that this view is not required by Scripture. All passages cited in support of this view ought to be interpreted as referring to partaking of the elements as symbols. Secondly, this view contradicts the doctrine of justification by faith. Or as Strong suggests, “it changes the ordinance from a sin into a means of salvation.” Another objection to the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper is that it requires the sacerdotal consecration of the elements and tends to the Romanist conclusions of ritualism and idolatry. It holds each partaker of Christ’s veritable body and blood, whether he is a believer or not, the result is the absence of faith, being condemnation instead of salvation. Thus the whole character of the ordinance is changed from a festival occasion to one of mystery and fear, and the whole gospel method of salvation is obscured.
For the Roman Catholic, when the priest utters the formula, “HOL EST CORPUS MEUM” the bread and wine change into the body and blood of Christ. This view of Rome also violates human senses, where it asks us to believe that what tastes and looks like bread and wine, is really flesh and blood; and human reason, where it requires belief in the separation of a substance and its properties and in the presence of a material body in several places at the same time, both of which are contrary to reason.
Robinson says, “The greatest power in Romanism is its power of visible representation, ritualism is only elaborate symbolism.”
The Zwinglian view gave a very general impression, not altogether without foundation, that his view of the Lord’s Supper was very defective. He is usually alleged to have taught that it is a bare sign or symbol, figuratively representing or signifying spiritual truths or blessings; and that its reception is a mere commemoration of what Christ had done for sinners, and above all a badge of Christian profession. This hardly does justice to the Swiss Reformer. In fact he seems to have changed his view somewhat in the course of time. He identified the eating of the body of Christ with faith in him and a trustful reliance on his death. He died the bodily presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, but did not deny that Christ is present there in his divine nature and in the apprehension of the believing communicant.
Calvin objected Zwingle’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper on the basis of: 1) that it allows the idea of what the believer does in the sacrament to eclipse the gift of God in it; and 2) that it sees in the eating of the body of Christ nothing more or nothing higher than faith in his name and reliance on his death. According to Calvin the sacrament is connected not merely with the past work of Christ, with the Christ who died, but also with the present spiritual work of Christ, though not bodily or locally present in the Supper, is yet present and enjoyed in his entire person both body and blood. Calvin emphasised the mystical union of believers with the entire person of the Redeemer. Berkhof says, “His (Calvin) representation is not entirely clear, but he seems to mean that the body and blood of Christ, though absent and locally present only in heaven, communicates a life-giving influence to the believer when he is in the act of receiving the elements. That influence, though, real, is not physical but spiritual and mystical, is mediated by the Holy Spirit and is conditioned to an act of faith by which the communicant symbolically receives the body and blood of Christ.”
The Lord’s Supper is not only a sign but also a seal. There are those in modern thinking who appear to have lost sight of this, and have adapted a superficial view of the sacrament, regarding it merely as a memorial of Christ and as a badge of Christian profession. These two aspects of the sacrament, namely, as a sign and as a seal, are not independent of each other and ought no to be divorced. The Lord’s Supper is the sign and seal of the New Covenant.
The seal is attached to the things signified, and is a pledge of the covenanted grace of God revealed in the sacrament. The HEIDELBERG CATECHISM says that Christ intends “by these visible signs and pledges to assure us that we are really partakers of his true body and blood, through the working of the Holy Spirit, as we receive by mouth of the body these holy tokens in remembrance of him; and that all his sufferings and obedience are as certainly ours as if we ourselves had in our own persons suffered and made satisfaction to God for our sins.”
The Lord’s Supper seals to the participant the great love of Christ, revealed in the fact that he surrendered himself to a shameful and biter death for them. This does not merely mean that it testifies to the reality of that sacrificial, self-surrender, but that it assures the believing participant of the Lord’s Supper that he personally was the object of that incomparable love.
It pledges the believing partaker of the sacrament, not only the love and grace of Christ in now offering himself to them as their Redeemer in all the fullness of his redemptive work; but gives him the personal assurance that all the promises of the covenant and all the riches of the gospel offer are his by divine donation, as that he has a personal claim on them.
It not only ratifies to the believing participant the rich promises of the gospel, but it assures him that the blessings of salvation are his in actual possession. As surely as the body is nourished and refreshed by bread and wine, so surely is the soul that receives Christ’s body and blood through faith even now in possession of eternal life, and so surely will he receive it ever more abundantly.
“The gospel of God is Jesus Christ, where Christ is, His Church is UBI CHRISTUS IBI ECCLESIA. That is the beginning and the end of our argument,” says Daniel Jenkins. “Jesus is Lord” marks the foundation of the Church; the words of Institution, “This is my body which is broken for you,” marks the continuance of the Church, and summing up of all things in Christ.” “In fullness of time, marks the consummation of the Church,” added Jenkins.
Daniel Jenkins also says, “It is not Jesus Christ ‘and’ or Jesus Christ ‘but’ - It is the Jesus Christ who came ‘in the flesh;’ with all the stubborn historicity and particularicity which the fourth Gospel implies by that Church of God.”
This is Pauline theology and teaching: “Paul’s teaching was not about showing his readers or listeners their mistakes, though he did that too (even rebuking Peter), his teaching was about what to aim for, and to set out as clearly as possible what belief in God and in Jesus Christ actually implied when related to a given situation. This is one thing which makes his epistles so extremely valuable, but there is also a second point. These epistles were written before any other books in the New Testament. They are older even than Mark’s Gospel and that was probably completed between A.D. 65 and 70. So it is from Paul’s letters that we obtain our earliest information about such important matters as the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and the institution of the Lord’s Supper,” says Irene Allen.
“The Lord’s Supper completes and fulfils the preaching of the Word,” declares Jenkins.
The Lord’s Supper has been described as a reciprocal seal and a badge of profession for those who partake of it. Those who eat the bread and drink the wine are in fact professing their faith in the Christ whose body was broken and whose blood was shed for their sins. In other words partakers of the Lord’s Supper are sharing their allegiance to Christ as King and their obedience to his commandments. The Church in its executive role has the duty for administering and protecting the ordinance. As the Church has no legislative power to form rules, it must abide by the rules of Christ in these matters as the lawgiver, and these rules are given in the pages of Scripture. Therefore no church has the authority to establish any terms of communion, it is responsible however in making known the terms taught by Christ and his apostles.
Some scholars maintain the New Testament indicates certain requirements for those wishing to participate in the Lord’s Supper. Their understanding of the Scriptures is that there are four basic requirements these are; Regeneration, Baptism, Church membership, and an orderly walk.
The ordinance is an outward sign of an inner life which has previously entered into a union with Christ - regeneration. “The command of Christ places baptism as first in order after discipleship,” says Jenkins. The symbolism of the ordinance requires that baptism should precede the Supper. Church membership precedes the Supper. The suggestion here is that the Lord’s Supper is a family rite, therefore the participant should first be a member of the family. There is an argument today that some think that being members of the invisible Church, the universal Church is sufficient for them to participate at the Lord’s Table. This is sometimes referred to as ‘open table’. The other requirement, an orderly walk ought to be adhered to. Disorderly walking is contrary to the precepts of God. Disorderly walking is a barrier to participation at the Lord’s Supper, the Lord’s Supper being a sign of fellowship. Disorderly walking includes, immoral conduct, disobedience to the commandments. It also includes having or holding or teaching of false doctrine, schism, or the promotion of diversion or dissension in the church. This also requires exclusion from the Church fellowship as well as the Lord’s Supper.
“The Lord’s Supper plays a large part, though the thesis that it was the climax f every meeting for worship is very much in question. It is the proclamation of Jesus death, and it tells every individual that that death took place for them. But it is above all the event in which the Church continually presents itself as the body of Christ; and therefore a sacramental Lord’s Supper at which there is not actually a common meal is for Paul a misuse of the service. The Lord’s Supper is, after all, an anticipation of future table-fellowship with the risen Lord, and is therefore celebrated in exultation,” says Eduard Schweizer.
The Lord’s Supper as aforementioned is a sign of fellowship and fellowship in Scripture is association, having things in common, identifying. The Lord’s Supper is an expression of fellowship of Christ’s death. The association is proper Christian fellowship and reveals itself in the light of God revealed - the Father and Son. The apostles expressed the truth of this fellowship, it follows that as regards the gospel for the world, the welfare of saints and the maintaining and sustaining the truth, the believer has the same aims and objections in his soul, as the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ have. Out of this flows the fellowship of the saints, one with another Acts 2: 42; 2 Cor 8:4; Gal 2:9; 1 John 1:3-7. It is also called fellowship of the Spirit 2 Cor 13:14; Phil 2:1. The converse of this is also true: Christians cannot consistently have any fellowship with that which is evil or which brings dishonour upon the Lord Jesus Psa 94:20; 1 Cor 10:20; 2 Cor 6:14; Eph 5:11.
Some passages in the Authorised Version of Scriptures has the word ‘communion’ for the same Greek, with the same meaning. Thus in 1 Cor 10:16 “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?”
There is an allusion to the peace offering in verse 18, to show who ate the sacrifice were partakers of, had communion with, the altar; hence to eat things offered to idols would be to have fellowship with demons. The local Church is to be the judge as to whether the requirements, mentioned earlier are fulfilled before admission is given to the Lord’s Table. The evidence for this is plain according to some scholars - from the command to observe the ordinance which was not given to individuals but to a company. So that obedience to the command is not an individual act, but is the joint action of many.
Further evidence on the local Church being the judge on these matters is based on the claim that the only organised body in the New Testament is the local Church, and this school of thought expresses the local Church is the only body, of any sort, competent to have charge of the ordinances. The invisible Church has no officers.
Moreover, some scholars claim, that the New Testament accounts indicate that the Lord’s Supper was observed only at regular appointed meetings of local churches, and was observed by these churches as regularly organised bodies. The regular observances of the Lord’s supper cannot be secured, nor the qualifications of partakers in it be scrutinised unless some organised body (local church) is charged with the responsibility. “Our greatest spiritual director is the person with whom we have the most friction,” says Thomas Merton.
To participate in the Lord’s Supper - bread and wine which is the physical side of the Supper and the physical speaks of the spiritual. That is not to be confused with great events solely being spiritual; i.e. The Creation, Fall, Incarnation, Passion, Redemption, Resurrection, Ascension, Pentecost, the Second Coming or Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Ardour or order? Which is the more important - answer both! They need to be kept in continual creative balance and harmony, “God,” says David Kornfield “looks for earthly expressions of our heavenly love.”
The participant of the Lord’s Supper or communion has to present himself in the right attitude;- gratitude, praise, and humility. Practical obedience in action as the result of Christ’s teaching. A willingness to confess past mistakes and leave them behind us.
The Lord’s Supper is affirming our unity with Christ and with each other as equals… unity need not be uniformity.
*********************************** ***************************************
THE OFFICES OF CHRIST
The Scriptures represent Christ’s offices, as three in number, prophetic, priestly and kingly. Although these terms are derived from concrete human relations, they express perfectly distinct ideas. The prophet, priest and king of the Old Testament were detached but designed prefigurations of him who should combine all these various activities in himself, and should furnish the ideal reality, of which they were the imperfect symbols.
“The roots of the New Testament are firmly in the Old, making the connection between the two very close indeed. Not only does the New Testament take up much of the imagery of the Old Testament and re-interpret it in the light of further events …” John Bowden.
“What about the Old Testament?”
The prophetic office of Christ: Here we must avoid the narrow interpretation which would make the prophet a mere foreteller of future events. He was rather an inspired interpreter or revealer of the divine will, a medium of communication between God and man, not a foreteller or forthteller. Gen 20:7 - Abraham; Ps 105:15 - of the patriarchs; Mat 11:9 - of John the Baptist; 1 Cor 12:28, Eph 2:20, 3:5 - of the New Testament expounders of Scriptures. The prophet commonly united three methods of fulfilling his office - those of teaching, predicting and miracle-working. In all these respects Jesus Christ did the work of a prophet. Deut 18:15; Acts 3:22; Mat 13:57; Luke 13:33; John 6:14. He taught - Mat 5-7; he uttered predictions - Mat 24,25; he wrought miracles - Mat 8,9; while in his person, his life, his work and his death, he revealed the Father - John 8:26; 14:9; 17:8.
There are four stages of Christ’s work. 1) The preparatory work of the Logos, in enlightening mankind before the time of Christ’s advent in the flesh. All preliminary knowledge, whether within or without the bounds of the chosen people, is from Christ the revealer of God. 2) The earthly ministry of Christ incarnate. In his earthly ministry Christ showed himself the prophet par excellence. While he submitted like the Old Testament prophets, to the direction of the Holy Spirit, unlike them he found the sources of knowledge and power within himself. The word of God did not come to him, he was himself the Word. 3) The guidance and teaching of his church on earth, since his ascension. Christ’s prophetic activity is continued through the preaching of his apostles and ministers, and 4) By the enlightening influence of his Holy Spirit, - John 16:12-14; Acts 1:1. The apostles unfolded the germs of doctrine put into their hands by Christ. The church is, in a derivative sense, a prophetic institution, established to teach the world by its preaching and its ordinances. But Christians are prophets, only as being proclaimers of Christ’s teaching. Num 11:29; Joel 2:28. 5) Christ’s final revelation of the Father to the saints in glory. - John 16:25; John 17:24,26; Isa 64:4; 1 Cor 13:12. Thus Christ’s prophetic work will be an endless one, as the Father whom he reveals is infinite.
The Priestly Office of Christ. The priest was a person divinely appointed to transact with God on man’s behalf. He fulfilled his office, first by offering sacrifice, and secondly by making intercession. In both these respects Christ is priest.
The Scriptures teach that Christ obeyed and suffered in our stead, to satisfy an immanent demand of the divine holiness, and thus remove an obstacle in the divine mind to the pardon and restoration of the guilty. This statement may be expounded and explained in a preliminary way as follows: a) The fundamental attribute of God is holiness, and holiness is not self-communicating love, but self-affirming righteousness. Holiness limits and conditions love, for love can will happiness only as happiness results from or consists with righteousness, that is, with conformity to God. b) The universe is a reflection of God, and Christ the Logos is its life. God has constituted the universe and humanity as a part of it, so as to express his holiness, positively by connecting happiness or suffering to sin. c) Christ the Logos, as the revealer of God in the universe and in humanity, must condemn sin by visiting upon it the suffering which is its penalty; while at the same time, as the life of humanity, he must endure the reaction of God’s holiness against sin which constitutes that penalty. d) Our personality is not self-contained. We live, move and have our being naturally in Christ the Logos. Our reason, affections, conscience, and will are complete only in him. He is generic humanity, of which we are the off-shoots. When his righteousness condemns sin, and his love voluntary endures the suffering which is sin’s penalty, humanity ratifies the judgement of God, makes full propitiation for sin, and satisfies the demands of holiness. e) While Christ’s love explains his willingness to endure suffering for us only his holiness furnishes the reason for that constitution of the universe and of human nature which makes this suffering necessary. As respects us, his sufferings are substitutionary, since his divinity and his sinlessness enable him to do for us what we could never do for ourselves. Yet this substitution is also a sharing - not the work of one external to us but of one who is the life of humanity, the soul of our soul and the life of our life, and so responsible with us for the sins of the race.
The historical work of the Incarnate Christ is not itself the atonement, it is rather the revelation of the atonement. The suffering of the incarnate Christ is the manifestation in space and time of the eternal suffering of God on account of human sin. Yet without the historical work which was finished on Calvary, the age-long suffering of God could never have been made comprehensible to man. The historical sacrifices of our Lord is not only the final revelation of the heart of God, but also the manifestation of the law of the universal life - the law that sin brings suffering to all connected with it, and that we can overcome sin in ourselves and in the world only by entering into the fellowship of Christ’s sufferings and Christ’s victory or, in other words, only by union with him through faith.
The kingship of Christ. This is distinguished from the sovereignty which Christ originally possessed in virtue of his divine nature. Christ’s kingship is the sovereignty of the divine-human Redeemer, which belonged to him of right; from the moment of his birth, but which was fully exercised only from the time of his entrance upon the state of exaltation. By virtue of his kingly office, Christ rules all things in heaven and earth, for the glory of God and the execution of God’s purpose of Salvation.
A) With respect to the universe at large, Christ’s kingdom is a kingdom of power; he upholds, governs and judges the world.
B) With respect to his militant church, it is his kingdom of grace; he founds, legislates for, administers, defends, and augments his church on earth.
C) With respect to his church triumphant, it is his kingdom of glory; he rewards his redeemed people with the full revelation of himself, upon the completion of his kingdom in the resurrection and the judgement.
In summary, all of these offices; prophet, priest and king, are MEDIATORIAL and due to the fact of sin. Sin cut man off from the knowledge of God. Prophets were needed to bring the word of God to men. We are separated from fellowship of God therefore priests bring us to God, we are rebels by nature; kings bring us to God.
PROPHET: Prophecy is a fundamental human need. Man is severed from God through sin. Christ’s whole life was a living prophecy in deeds. Everything he did spoke of God. He prophesied by what he was. John 14:6-9. After the resurrection he continued his agency through the Holy Spirit.
PRIEST: (presbyter) - “Presbyter is the original Greek stripped of inflection, priest is the later, (not as Milton suggests) the earlier modification,” says Weston. Priests are also fundamental to human needs. A priest’s chief function was to make intercession. Christ fulfilled this function. He is unique - he is priest and sacrifice. He commenced his work of intercession after the resurrection. Leon Morris says: “Constituting one of Jesus’ qualification to be a High Priest, it is important to know that ‘A high priest must know the limitations of those he represents. He must be touched with their infirmities. In Jesus we have not a High Priest who is unable to sympathise with our weaknesses Heb 4:15. He was himself man, and he knows the weaknesses of our frame. The writer of Hebrews explicitly relates this to his priesthood. He had to be made like his brethren in every aspect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful High Priest in the service of God. Heb 2:17. The humanity of Jesus is not something to be explained away or glossed over. The writer thinks of the sojourn on earth as not merely a temporary eclipse and humiliation, but as the indispensable prelude to the heavenly life. Genuine humanity is an integral part of the pattern of priesthood…”
Morris continues: “He is Priest after the order of Melchisedek - has neither beginning nor successor. ‘No beginning’ raises in our minds thoughts of pre-existence and deity. ‘No successor’ is another way of indicating that here we have the final religion. This Priest will never be superseded as was Aaron. It is repeatedly said that his priesthood after the order of Melchisedek is ‘for-ever’ Heb 5:5; 6:20; 7:17,21. Melchisedek is a mysterious figure. We hear of him only in Genesis 14:18-20. He flashes across the scene like a meteor. There is no heralding of his appearance, nor any mention of his results. There is no account of his family, there is no account of his work. We learn only that he was King of Salem and priest of God Most High. No other writers made reference to him but this writer to Hebrews does - neither genealogy nor posterity are recorded of this man.. The writer refers to earthly shadows pointing to heavenly perfection’s, of types and figures which are unique. He is sure of the genuine manhood of Jesus, none surer. But equally he ascribes to Him such functions and accords Him such a place as none but God Himself can perform and occupy.”
KING: We need a king to rule over us, a king to subdue us. Deut 17:14. He had to be simple in tastes; God-fearing and humble. David was a good type of king. Jeroboam was a bad type of king. Even David was imperfect and it is during the period of the kingdom of Israel that the Messianic prophecies come from. 2 Sam 7. Christ’s kingship was two-fold. 1) First of all as God, he was king of all things for he is creator. 2) In his sovereignty over Satan and the demons. H.R. McIntosh said, “No miracle of Christ equals the miracle of his life. To be holy in all thought and feeling - never to come short - never to fail in duty to others - never to transgress the law, this is a condition outstripping the power of imagination and belief. Here is a casement opening in a Divine world.”
******************************** ***********************************
REFLECTIONS AND SOME CONCLUSIONS OF THE CROSS
The Scriptures are a Revelation from God, already cited before on different aspects. Reasons for expecting a revelation from God, man’s intellectual and moral nature requires, in order to preserve it from constant deterioration and to ensure its mere growth and progress, as authoritative and helpful revelation of religious truth, of a higher and completer sort than any to which, in its present state of sin, it can attain by the use of its unaided powers. The proof of this proposition is partly psychological and partly historical. Psychological Proof: 1) Neither reason nor intuition throws light upon certain questions whose solution is of the utmost importance to us; for example, the Trinity, the Atonement-Pardon, method of worship, personal existence after death. 2) Even the truth of which we arrive by our natural powers needs divine confirmation and authority when it addresses minds and wills perverted by sin. 3) To break this power of sin, and to furnish encouragement to moral effort, we need a special revelation of the merciful and helpful aspect of the divine nature.
Historical Proof: 1) The knowledge of moral and religious truth possessed by nations and ages in which special revelation is unknown is grossly and increasingly imperfect. 2) Man’s actual condition in anti-Christian times, and in modern heathen lands, is that of extreme moral depravity. 3) With this depravity is found a general conviction of helplessness, and as the part of some nobler natures, a longing after, and a hope of, and direction from above.
From our necessary conviction of God’s wisdom. Having made man a spiritual being, for spiritual ends, it may be hoped that he will furnish the means needed to secure these ends. From the actual, though incomplete revelation given in nature. Since God has undertaken to make himself known to men, we may hope that he will finish the work he has begun. From the general connection of want and supply. The higher our needs, the more intricate and ingenious they are, in general, the contrivances for meeting them. We may hope that the highest want will be all the more surely met. From analogies of nature and history-signs of reparative goodness in nature and forbearance in providential dealings lead us to hope that, while justice is executed, God may still make known some way of restoration for sinners. Marks of the revelation; man may expect. As to the substance, we may expect this latter revelation not to contradict, but to conform and enlarge the knowledge of God which is derived from nature, while it remedies the defects of natural religion and throws light upon its problems.
The authority of the Scriptures in the early Church. Not only was Christ central in the early Church, but the Bible was basic to all its life and witness. It was this belief in the inspiration and reliability of Scripture as the Word of God which made the Church so positive in its message, and so invincible in its evangelism. Let us note then the doctrine of Scripture. Five statements can summarise for us this doctrine.
A) They accepted its history as factual. This runs counter to much present-day theology in which the historical existence of such men as Abraham is not only questioned, but denied. Acts 3:22,25; 7:2, Acts 13:17.
B) They accepted revelation as valid. There is today a theory of progressive discovery, where it is claimed that the Old Testament is an account of man’s growing development in the search after God. But note, Acts 3:25; 7:2, 30-34 etc.
C) They accepted its inspiration as divine. It is claimed by many at present that the Bible contains, not is, the Word of God, and that its inspiration and worth various from part to part. Not so in the Early Church. For them it was verbally inspired in its totality. See Acts 1:16; 2:17; 3:12; 4:25; 10:43; 28:25.
D) They accepted Pronouncements as infallible. Nowadays the accuracy and dependability of the Scriptures are increasingly questioned. The Early Church, on the other hand, expected and noted its fulfilment in even the smallest of prophetic detail. Acts 2:25; Acts 3:18; 7:52; 8:35; 10:43; 13:27; 29 etc.
E) The doctrine of Scripture was not their own deduction, nor yet arrived from contemporary Judaism. It was learned from Christ. Luke 24:25-27; 24:44-47, for instance.
Their use of the Scripture. The Scriptures were certainly given primary place in the church. Acts 6:2.
1) In Apologetics Acts 2:25-31; 13:33-37; 17:23; 18:28; 28:23 2) In Preaching Acts 2:16; 3:13; 18, 22, 24; 4:11, 31; 7:2 3) In Teaching Acts 6:4; 18:11 4) In Guidance Acts 1:16; 13:47; 15:15; 23:5 5) In Prayer Acts 4:25
Their experience of Scripture was of the Bible’s power and effectiveness - which served to deepen their doctrinal convictions.
1) It was desired Acts 13:7; 13:44 2) It was received Acts 2:41; 8:14; 11:1 3) It was effective Acts 2:37; 16:32,33; 10:44; 14:3; 20:32 4) It increased Acts 6:7; 12:24; 13:49 5) It prevailed Acts 19:20 6) It was glorified Acts 13:48
In conclusion - the second secret of the Early Church’s life and growth is this - they honoured the Scriptures as the Word of God, and made them the basis of their life and witness.
**********************
The cross and the word of the cross, the cross and the rationale of its relation to the love of God and the sin of man, are for religion one thing. This being so, it is apparent that both for the propagation and for the scientific construction of the Christian religion; the death of Christ is of supreme importance. Not that we should draw too abstract a distinction. Preaching and theology should never be divorced. The simplest truth of the gospel and the profoundest truth of theology must be put in the same words. If our gospel does not inspire preaching, there is no Christianity in either. Yet vitally related as they are, there is sufficiently clear distinction between them. Jesus set himself deliberately, systematically, and with unwearied reiteration to bring home to his disciples the meaning of his death. Everything conspires to make us see how deeply it moved him, and how deeply he was concerned to have it apprehended by his disciples for what it was. The very names by which he names it, ‘My baptism’, ‘My cup’, the profound virtue he ascribes to it as a ransom, and as the basis of a new covenant between God and man. The striking ordinances of baptism and the supper which he associated with it, and which in spite of intelligible yet mis-conceived protests will guard its meaning while the world stands.
It is claimed that arguments against Christianity arise out of doubt. This is a total misunderstanding. The arguments against Christianity arise out of insubordination, reluctance to obey, muting against all authority, therefore the battle against objections has been shadow-boxing because it has been intellectual combat with doubts instead of ethical combat against muting.
Dogma is the science of faith. Every department of science has its dogma; and in the hierarchy of the sciences these dogmas qualify and supplement each other. In one region we have the dogma of gravitation; in the other that of evolution; in another that of infinity and so on. Thus in the region of spiritual life we have also a science. We have the science of faith.
The key to the Christian religion is found in a personal faith. The Reformation rekindles this factor. The Reformation concentrated on a religion of the conscience, and on the guilty conscience. Christianity became once more personal and evangelical. Not faith founded in institutes of theology or institutes of the Church. It was in moral and religious experience, in contact of a historic Redeemer, with our living and personal experience of redemption. That was what had really been Christianity in the first century. It became less somewhat until the personal faith of the New Testament was received from a religion chiefly institutional and creedal, at the Reformation. The work of Christ, realised in the Church’s experience through faith, becomes the science and the key to the person of Christ. Soteriology is the way of access to Christology.
There are a number of people who feel that the book of Genesis has no longer any great meaning or value to them. They do remember the stories contained therein, either from Sunday School or Bible Class days, and that is as far as they wish to explore. But Genesis has much more to offer than that. We could argue that it is a book of science for it covers many sciences which must arise in the thinking mind.
The permanent values of Genesis may be stated precisely and concisely in order that the ‘living message’ may be deduced therefrom. These permanent values reveal the very importance of Genesis for today. Its values may be tabulated thus. The book contains the foundation truths of theology, cosmogony, anthropology, sociology, harmartiology, ethnology, soteriology. These are used with express purpose of indicating the profound conviction that Genesis is pre-eminently a scientific book. All of these subjects are presented fundamentally but not dealt with in finality.
The essential value of the book is the fundamental character of its teaching in all these matters. The declarations present themselves to us as we investigate for knowledge. Investigation is a healthy exercise and perfectly proper for the human mind, in attempting to discover the underlying secrets of nature and life; and is in harmony with the purpose of God in the creation of human intellect.
Let us look at the subjects mentioned: Theology; Genesis presents God as Creator, King and a determined Redeemer and upon these fundamental facts all Christian theology depends. Professor A.B. Davidson said that “A theology of the Old Testament is really an impossibility because the Old Testament is not a homogenous whole.” But doctrines in early Scripture are like rivers at their source; they are not yet fully expanded; many affluents are yet to come. Cosmogony: Genesis declares that the whole universe has come into being by the will of God, and act of God. The hallmark of the Divine handiwork is upon every blade of grass and upon every flaming constellation. Anthropology: Genesis teaches us that man is a mingling of dust and Deity by the will and act of God; a being placed under authority, and having dominion over all things beneath him, a being responsible, therefore to God. Sociology: Genesis reveals the truth that the first circle of society is the family, based upon marriage relationship; and that the true nation is made up of families which recognise their inter-responsibility under Divine government. Harmartiology: Genesis affirms that sin in the case of man is failure of faith in the goodness of God, and consequent rebellion against God’s government. Ethnology: Genesis makes it perfectly plain that human salvation must come from God, and through man. In whispers and symbols and shadows man is taught that having sinned, his only hope is that God will be his redeemer.
To deny the accuracy of these fundamental statements is to lose the meaning of subsequent teaching; and the meaning of the cross. If God is not Creator, King and Redeemer, there is no resting place for man other than the restlessness of agnosticism.
From the historical point of view the cross is the instrument of the passion of Christ. The historical connection with the death of Christ introduced the word STAUROS (= cross) into the field of theological language. This usage is exclusive to the New Testament and is in a special way Pauline. The gospels use it in the historical sense only, with one exception. In Paul the cross stands for the passion of Christ, both as showing forth his humility and death, and an expression of his obedience to the Father, reaching as far as self-emptying. Phil 2:8.
The cross also expresses the mysterious way of salvation which goes against ordinary human wisdom. 1 Cor 1:17; Gal 5:11. The life of the Christian must be conformed to the cross. Phil 3:19; Gal 2:19; Gal 6:14. In presenting this view Paul follows Isaiah Chapter 53. In addition, we also find the idea of the cross of glory as the sign of victory of the Son of Man which will appear with him at the PAROUSES. Mat 24:30 already presents this sense and it occurs in Judaes-Christian literature.
It is in this same sense that we have to interpret the custom of drawing a cross on the eastern walls of homes. Another theme allied to that of the cross of glory is that of the cross which accompanied Christ in his descent into the underworld or his ascent into heaven, in these texts the cross appears as a living person. It stands, in fact, for Christ himself, a point which emerges in particular in the Acts of the Apostles. The cross stands less for the humiliation of Christ than for his victorious power. It was not long before people began to look for types of the cross in the Old Testament, the most ancient of these being the serpent raised up in the wilderness, John 3:14, and Moses praying with uplifted arms. In the oldest collections of Testimonia we also find Isaiah 65:2 and Deuteronomy 33:3. The apologists also took for symbols of the cross in natural order. Thus mast and plough point to the cross. The word of the cross, as distinct from its shape, brings to mind types such as the Tree of Life; and the Staff of Moses. The mention of the word is given a place in an ancient Judae-Christian targum in Psalm 96:10.
The cross admits of different symbolic interpretations. In the first place, its four dimensions can stand for the universality of redemption, which units the heavenly and the earthly spheres and bridges the gap between Jew and Gentile. The symbol also appears in Ephesians 2:16; John 12:32 but not in Ephesians 3:18.
Again the cross is interpreted as something which divides (merizon) a view which is developed especially in the Valentian gnosis in which STAUROS and HOROS (= boundary, border) are more or less identified. But the fundamental idea is evidently the identification of the function of the cross with that of the ‘Word’, Ezek 9:4 signed on the forehead. See Rev 7:3. SPRAGOS with which the servants of God would be signed on the forehead. The sign stands for the name YAHWEH.
The ‘shepherd’ of Hermas in parable speaks in the sense of those who bear the name (BASTAZEIN), in which connection we must bear in mind that for Hermas ‘name’ and ‘word’ are used as synonyms. Very soon, however, the interpretation of the cross as the instrument of Christ’s passion prevailed as at present, in fact in the New Testament. Matthew 10:38, “He who does not take up his cross and follow me, is not worthy of me.” In Luke 14:27, “Whosoever does not bear his own cross …” The similarity to Hermas suggests that it is a question here of a play on the idea of a sign on the forehead. One could compare Galatians 6:17, “I bear on my body the mark (STIGMA) of Jesus.” Shortly before the cross had been mentioned in connection with circumcision, Gal 6:12, which would appear to indicate that it was considered a sign belonging to the new Israel.
In these texts then, the sign on the forehead seemed to signify ‘name’, and this is brought into relation with the cross of Christ’s passion. Randolf Bultman said, “Humility has a central position in the New Testament.” Elsewhere he writes of “humility’s opposite - worldliness and how it is manifested in human ‘care’ and ‘pride’. The pre-exile texts refer to humility (baseness and lowliness) as a condition rather than as an attitude of mind.
The desolation of Israel in Egypt is described as abasement (TAPEINOUS); the Israelites cried to their Lord, the God of their fathers, and he heard their cry and saw their affliction, their labour and their distress and brought them out of Egypt, with a strong hand and an outstretched arm, with dreadful power and with signs and wonders, Duet 26:7; Neh 9:9; Ps 89:10. This resulted in Israel’s conviction that God always looks on the misery and desolation of his people and would help them when they cried to him. 1 Sam 2:1-10, 2 Sam 16:12; 2 Kings 14:26.
God humbles the proud in this way by casting them down from their high positions in order to call them to conversion. 1 Kings 8:35; 1 Chron 4:10; 2 Chron 6:26; Ps 90:15; 17:17; 119:75; Lam 3:32. Exaltation must always go hand in hand with humility. God reigns as the Holy One in the highest, yet he is a humble man and who is contrite in spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble and to revive the heart of the contrite. Isa 57:15. In the words of the Psalmist, Yahweh is near to the broken hearted and saves the crushed in spirit. Ps 34:18. The ‘Servant of the Lord’ is portrayed as a figure combining outward lowliness with inward humility. Isa 53:7; 42:1-4; 49:1-6; 60:4-10; 52:13-53. The Messiah is not expected to come in the form of a proud warrior, riding on a horse, but in humility riding on an ass. Zech 9:9.
The ideal religious person is found in the Psalms as being a humble man who places all his hopes not in worldly possessions but in God, and who acknowledges God alone to be his highest possession. Ps 10:17; 22:26; 25:9; 34:2; 37:11; 69:33; 76:9; 149:4. The religious shade of meaning is also usually present, even the word poor is used. Ps 10:2; 2:9; 14:6.
Humility is to be found in man’s spiritual attitude not in his outward behaviour. The fruit of humility are recognition of God and man - ‘the mercy and grace of God’. Job 22:29; Ps 33:18-20. Humility is not held high in esteem by the proud, who regard it as rather an abomination.
In the New Testament, the translation from the Old Testament attitude towards humility to that of the New Testament is most clearly shown in that part of Luke’s gospel which deals with Christ’s childhood and early life. The Jews at this point figure in the account as those of the past exile books, the humble who are waiting for the consolation of Israel. Luke 2:25. The magnificat Luke 1:46-54 is imbued with the Old Testament idea of humility. Humility is a necessary condition for entry into the kingdom of God. The beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount promise the kingdom of God to the poor. Neither the word TAPEINOUS nor any of its derivations are in John, but humility has a place in his writings.
Jesus was to such an extent the revealer of his Father to mankind that his mission, and the accomplishment of his Father’s will were all important to him. What he sought was not his own glory but his Father’s honour. John 8:5; 7:18; 17:4. Men on the other hand seek their own glory. John 12:43.
The glorification of Jesus with the Father was glorification of God himself. John 17:1-5. Death was seen as a service of humility to men, no washing the disciples feet. John 13:1-20. This lowly servile duty was necessary for the establishment of the Christian community - united with Christ and the share Christians were to have in his day. John 13:8. The man who is intent only in himself and wrapped up in his own importance cannot begin to understand Jesus’ way of humble service. John 13:6. It is impossible to have any share in Christ unless full assent is given to this way. Jesus’ humility opened the minds of the disciples to the possibility of humility towards each other and indeed demanded humility in their part. Their sharing in him achieved his service of humility towards them and would result in their service of humility towards others. John 13:12. Even more than Paul, there is, in John an intermingling of charity, obedience, humility and those, like the death of Christ, are viewed as glorification. Probably the greatest definition in Scripture is the fact that the pre-existent Logos, Jesus gave up his divine glory with the Father, in order to take on a servant form.
The Hebrew word for glorification is KABOD which is rendered DOXA in the Greek bible. The extra biblical usage among ancient writers DOXA, which is of course connected with the verb DOKEO (hit - to think) is used with two meanings: 1) ‘The opinion which I have’ and 2) ‘The opinion which others have to me.’ In the first case, the meaning is extended to include expectation, perception, doctrine dogma, axiom, imagination, outward appearance etc. and in the second; to include good reputation. In conjunction with an appropriate adjective; however, it can also mean ‘bad reputation’.
Biblical usage in general - In the Septuagint and the New Testament DOXA is never found with the first meaning, that is opinion, but can mean a) fame, reputation or honour, b) brightness, brilliance, or splendour, c) reflected splendour and d) when referring to God; heavenly brilliance, sublimity or magnificence. In the last meaning DOXA can even be used in parallelism with the name of God, and elsewhere as a substitute for God. This arises from the fact that in LXX, DOXA is equivalent to KABOD and is in fact even used to translate other Hebrew words closely related, in their context, with the idea of KABOD.
The Old Testament usage: KABOD has the secular Hebrew meaning ‘honour’, what adds to a person’s standing, what increases a person’s position and influence.
“Concise rather than copious, economising the attention of our hearers or (when fortune gives us any) of our readers. Yet language is a matter of co-operation; you need the help of your hearers or your readers,” says J.G. Weston.
“Let your speech be short, comprehending much in few words.” Apocrypha.
In spite of his world recognition for being a brilliant wordsmith, Shakespeare was criticised by one sage for, not the quality but the quantity of words, “Shakespeare used too many words” said this critic.
A radio programme was discussing the contribution of Wm. Shakespeare’s works to the English language. One ‘expert’ on the programme intimated that Shakespeare has introduced no less than two thousand words to the English language.
********************************** ************************************
ANSELM’S FAMOUS MAXIM “I do not seek to understand so that I may believe, but I believe so that I may understand. For I believe this also that unless I believe, I shall not understand.” (Anselm of Canterbury (1034-1109)
******************************** ***********************************
SUMPTA SUNT VOCABULA, UT INTELLEGI ALIQUATENUS POSSET QUOD COMPREHENDI NON POTERAT. (These words were chosen, that that which could not be comprehended might yet in some measure be understood).
INDEX OF BIBLE REFERENCES OLD TESTAMENT
Genesis Exodus con’t Deuteronomy con’t 2 Chron 1:27 29:4 28:15 6:26 1:31 29:37 30:15 2:3 29:44 32:20 Ezra 2:7 30:29 33:3 6:22 3:15 32:30-32 34:6 9:1 etc. 8:22 10:1 etc. 12:3 Leviticus 1 Sam 14:5-8 8:30 2:1-10 Neh 15:6 10:3 16:12 9:9 15:7 17:11 57:15 18:14 20:7 Job 18:27 27:14 2 Sam 1:12 20:7 27:17 7:1 etc. 2:6 28:13 16:12 9:12 45:5-9 Numbers 11:6 8:7 1 Kings 22:29 Exodus 9:18 8:35 23:13 3:5 16:22 8:46 3:11-15 16:33 19:8 Psalms 12:6 25:6-8,13 2:1 12:46 32:23 2 Kings 2:4 13:2 2:11 2:7 15:11 Deuteronomy 14:26 2:9 19:4 4:7 23:10 9:7 19:10,14 6:5 10:2 20:1,22 17:14 1 Chron 10:17 20:8 18:15-18 4:10 11:1- 4 24:15-18 18:25 21:1 14:6 28:41 26:7 17:28
Psalms con’t Psalm’s con’t Isaiah Con’t Ezek con’t 19 139:14 41:20 18:20 22:1 139:16 42:1-4 34:20 22:6 149:4 43:1-7 36:25-27 25:9 43:13 37:21 33:10 Prov 45:8,12,18 33:18-20 3:11 45:21 Daniel 34:2 7:27 49:1-6 2:44 34:18 15:29 50:4-10 4:35 37:11 16:1,9 51:12-17 7:13-27 52 16:33 52:13-53 53 20:9 53:7 Hosea 55:15 21:1 57:15 3:4 63 59:2 11:9 67 Eccles 63:10 69:33 7:20 64:4 Joel 70:12 64:8 1:14 71 Song/Sol 65:2 2:16 73:14 8:7 65:17,18 2:28 73:28 76:9 Isaiah Jer Habbakuk 81:1 1:4,11 19:13 1:13 89:10 6:3 23:5 2:4 90:15 8:3 31:3 3:17 94:20 9:6 31:33,34 10:27 96:10 10:5 31:35 97:2 11:1-9 32:17 Zech 99:3 14:27 33:19-26 3:1 103:19 19:17 104 26:9 Lam Malachi 105:15 30:33 3:32 1:6 107:17 33:14 2:10 119:75 40:25 Ezek 3:13- 4:3 135:6 40:26,28 9:4 4:4-6 INDEX OF BIBLE REFERENCES NEW TESTAMENT
Matthew Matthew con’t Mark con’t John 1:21,22 18:18 16:15,16 1:1 2:15,23 20:14,15 1:14 3:13- 17 23:8 -10 Luke 1:18 4:14 23:15,33 1:1- 3 1:29 5:22,29,30 23:17,19 1:46-54 3:3,5 5:23,24 24:25 2:25 3:11 6:9 24:30 3:21 3:14 6:24 25:30,46 4:6 3:16 8:9 25:41 7:30 3:18,19 8:12 25:42 9:28-36 3:36 10:25 25:46 11:13 4:1,2 10:28 26:42 12:5 4:24 10:38 27:35 12:50 5:17 11:9 27:51- 53 13:16 5:18 11:23 28:18,19,20 13:33 5:22,27 12:24,27 29:17- 23 14:27 5:29 12:31 34:5 16:18 5:32 12:40 16:19-31 5:37 13:38 Mark 19:17,14 5:39 13:40, 42 1:9- 14 22:3 6:14 13:50 2:5 22:22 6:27 13:57 3:29 22:31 6:45 16:18,19 4:15 23:39-43 7:18 16:23 8:31 24:4 8:5 16:24 9:2- 8 24:25-27 8:26 16:27,28 9:7 24:44- 47 8:31,32,47 17:1- 8 9:43,44,47,48 26:14 8:44 17:27 10:18 10:18 10:11,15 18:9 10:45 10:18 18:15- 17 14:21 10:28,29 John con’t Acts con’t Acts con’t Acts con’t 10:36 2:16 11:1 22:16 11:49 2:17 11:18 24:35 12:24 2:23 12:24 26:18 13:2 2:25 13:2,3 28:25 13:12 2:27 13:7 14:1 2:32 13:10 Romans 14:6-9 2:37 13:17 1:1-4 14:9 2:38 13:27,29 1:17,18,19,20 14:23 2:41 13:35-37 1:37 14:30 2:42 13:44 2:3 15:1-8 2:47 13:47 2:4 15:15 3:13-19 13:48 2:13 16:12-14 3:18 14:3 2:15,16 16:25 3:20 14:16 3:20 17:1-5 3:21 14:17 3:23 17:8 3:22,24,25 14:23 4:4 17:11 4:25-28 14:27 4:25 17:17 4:11,31 15:1-35 5:10 17:19 4:30 15:7 5:16 17:23 5:3,4,9 15:7-30 5:18 17:24,26 6:1-6 15:15 6:2 20:12 6:4 16:32,33 6:3 20:17 6:7 17:23 6:3-6 20:21-23 7:2 18:10 6:4 20:28 7:30-34 18:11 6:6 7:38 18:28 6:12 Acts 7:51 19:3 6:19 1:1 7:52 19:18 6:23 1:9 8:14 19:20 8:17 1:10 8:35 19:32,41 8:19 1:15-26 10:43 20:17 8:28 1:16 10:44 20:28 8:29,30 1:22 10:48 20:32 9:5 Romans con’t 1 Cor con’t Gal con’t Eph con’t 9:11 10:13 5:11 5:30 9:14,15 10:16 5:24 6:10-12 9:23 10:20 6:12 6:11,13 10:9 10:21 6:14 11:6 11:20 6:17 Phil 11:7-11 11:29 1:1 12:9 12:12-31 Eph 2:1 12:28 12:13 1:5 2:5-11 13:12 12:27,28 1:9-12 2:6 15:16 13:8-10 1:20 2:8 16:20 14:38,40 1:20-22 2:9 16:25,26 15:3,4 1:22,23 2:10,11 15:10 1:25 2:13 1 Cor 2:6 2:18 1:2 2 Cor 2:7 3:6 1:17 2:11 2:8 3:18 1:18 3:17,18 2:10 3:19 1:26 4:17 2:12 1:30 5:17 2:16 Col 2:9 6:14 2:20 1:8 2:12 8:4 2:20,22 1:13 2:13 11:14 3:3-11 1:18 3:14,15 12:7 3:18 1:20 4:4 13:14 3:20 1:21 5:1-5,13 4:1 1:23 5:7 Gal 4:4 2:12 6:15,20 2:9 4:11 2:19 7:5 2:11 4:15 3:11 7:14 2:16 4:30 8:6 2:19 5:11 1 Thes 9:13,14 2:20 5:14 2:18 9:16 3:8 5:24 3:12-17 10:1-6 4:4 5:25-27 4:3 1 Thes con’t Titus Hebrews con’t I John con’t 4:4 1:5,6,7 12:14 3:2 4:15-18 1:8 12:23 3:3 5:18 1:9 13:7 3:8 5:23,24 1:15 3:10 James 4:1-3 2 Thes Hebrews 1:27 4:2 1:9 1:8 2:14-26 2:13 2:9 3:6 2 John 3:6 2:11 4:7 v9 2:14 5:1-8 1 Tim 2:17 5:7 Jude 1:12 3:8,15 v3 2:4 4:9 1 Peter v7 3:2,3,4,5,6,9 4:15 1:2 v13 3:8 6:4 1:11 3:10 6:6 1:17 Rev 3:15 6:17 2:4,5 1:1,11 3:16 6:20 3:21 1:7 3:18 8:6 5:1,2 1:18 4:4,5 9:13 5:6 2:9 4:14 9:14 5:8 2:13 5:17 9:15 5:9 2:14,15,20 5:22 9:22 2:21 9:27 2 Peter 3:9 2 Tim 9:28 1:1 3:12 1:9 10:10 1:16-18 6:8 2:20 10:14 2:4 7:3 2:21 10:29 3:9 11:3 2:22 11:3 3:13 14:10 2:26 11:40 17:14 3:15 12:2 1 John 19:1 3:16,17 12:9 1:3-7 19:16 12:10 2:1 19:20 Rev con’t 20:2,7 20:10,15 20:12 20:13,14 21:3 21:8 21:14 21:27 22:3 22:11 22:15
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Shortened List)
Abba, R The Nature and Authority of the Bible Allen, Irene The Early Church and the New Testament Andrews, R. & Schellenberger, D. The Tomb of God Anstrey, Martin How to Master the Bible Argylle, Michael The Psychology of Interpersonal Behaviour Armstrong, Karen A History of God Barclay, William Ethics in a Permissive Society Berkhof, Louis Systematic Theology Bright, John The Authority of the Old Testament Brooks, J. Life Brown, C. The Social History of Religion in Scotland since 1730 Bruce, F.F. The Spreading Flame Buchanan, C.; Owen, C.; Wright, A. Reforming Infant Baptism Bunyan, John Pilgrim’s Progress Burroughs, John The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment Cairns, D. The Image of God in Man Capper, W., William, H.M. Heirs Together Clarke,R. The Universe: Plan or Accident? Coley, G.E. Altree The Faith of the Present Need Cook, Burkett, Barker Biology: A Textbook for examinations Craig W. Lane The Only Wise God Cullman, D. Christ and Time Daniel, Guy The Bible Story Davis, D.B. The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture Denney, James The Death of Christ Dunn, James The Evidence for Jesus Dodd, C.H. The Coming of Christ Donaldson, G. Scottish Church History Ehrhardt, A. The Apostolic Succession Firth, C.B. Christ in Conduct Flethcher, Ronald The Family and Marriage Forrester, D. & Murray, D. Studies in the History of Worship in Scotland Forsyth, P.T The Person and Place of Christ Fortman, Edmund J. The Triune God Franks, R.S. The Doctrine of the Trinity Gray, J.F. Excellent Thoughts Green, M. Baptism: Its Purpose, Practice and Power Haldane, Sean Emotional First Aid Harrison-Barret, Anthony Mastering Philosophy Hastings, Adrian A History of English Christianity 1920-1990 Helm, Paul The Providence of God Hercut, John God’s Case-book Jaki, Stanley L. Science and Creation Jenkins, Daniel T. The Nature of Catholicity Jukes, Andrew The Law of the Offerings Kornfield, David Church Renewal Laubach, C.S. The Master Speaks Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity Mairet, Philip Essays in Psychiatry Mauley, G.T. The New Bible Handbook Meyers, D.G. The Pursuit of Happiness Moore, R.I. The Origins of European Dissent Morgan, G. Campbell Living Messages of the Books of the Bible Morris, Leon The Lord from Heaven Murray, D. Freedom to Reform McDonald, D.F.M. Practice and Procedure in the Church of Scotland Mackay, D.M. The Clockwork Image McIntyre, D.M. Christ the Life McLaren, A. Social Class in Scotland Osborn, T.L. The Harvest Call Otto, Rudolf The Idea of the Holy Owen, Clifford Baptise every Baby? Owen, J. Temptation and Sin Packard, Vincent The Hidden Persuaders Packer, J.I. Fundamentalism and the Word of God Paine, Thomas The Age of Reason Quick, Oliver Doctrines of the Creed Rees, T. The Spirit of Life Ritchie, John The Second Advent Robinson, H. Wheeler Inspiration and the Revelation in the N.T. Sanford, Agnes The Healing Light Saunders, J. Oswald Christ Incomparable Schillebeech, E. Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God Schweizer, Eduard Church Order Shank, R. Elect in the Son Shedd, W.G.T. Homiletics and Pastoral Theology Simon, Paul Martyr to Freedom Spencer, Herbert First Principles Sprott, W.J.H Human Groups Spurgeon, Charles The Treasury of the New Testament ‘’ ‘’ According to Promise Stewart, J.S. A Man in Christ Stott, John The Cross of Christ ‘’ ‘’ Christ and the Controversialist Strong, A.H. Systematic Theology ‘’ ‘’ Philosophy and Religion Summers, R. The Life Beyond Swedenberg, Emanuel Divine Love and Wisdom Taylor, V. The Gospels ‘’ ‘’ The Atonement of the New Testament Teaching Tiede, D. Jesus and the Future White, Vernon Atonement and Incarnation Worsley, P. Introducing Sociology
The Hodder Handbook Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity The Cambridge History of the Bible The Lion Bible Handbook New Testament Greek Dictionary New Bible Dictionary Authorised Version Revised Standard Version New English Bible Thomson’s Chain Reference Bible Moffat’s Translation J.B. Philip’s Translation of the Gospels Illustrated Dictionary of Essential Knowledge The New Bible Commentary N.I.V. New International Version Encyclopaedia of Biblical Theology Vols. 1,2,3 Johannes Bauer The Book of Saints Canonised by the Roman Catholic Church Dictionary of the Christian Church
| |
|