========================================================================
  WRITINGS OF JOHN H GERSTNER
  by John H. Gerstner
========================================================================

A collection of theological writings, sermons, and essays by John H. Gerstner,
compiled for study and devotional reading.

  Chapters: 23

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. 01.00. Biblical Inerrancy
    2. 01.01.     The Bible's Own Testimony as the Basis for Inerrancy
    3. 01.02.     The Holy Spirit’s Testimony as the Basis for Bible Inerrancy
    4. 01.03.     The Believer’s Testimony as the Basis for Bible Inerrancy
    5. 01.04.     The Church’s Testimony as the Basis for Bible Inerrancy
    6. 01.05.     The Testimony of Divinely Commissioned Messengers as the Basis for Bible Inerrancy
    7. 01.06.     The Testimony of Divinely Commissioned Messengers (cont.)
    8. 01.07.     Objections Allegedly Arising from Science
    9. 01.08.     Objections Arising from an Alleged “Docetism”
   10. 01.09.     Appendix on Confession of 1967 (of UPCUSA)
   11. 01.10.     Select and Recommended Bibliography
   12. 02.00. Theology for Everyman
   13. 02.01.     CHAPTER I Everyman Must be a Theologian
   14. 02.02.     CHAPTER II God’s Providence: A Two-edged Sword
   15. 02.03.     CHAPTER III Sin Makes No Racial Distinctions
   16. 02.04.     CHAPTER IV Jesus Christ: The God-Man
   17. 02.05.     CHAPTER V Atonement: How Jesus Paid It All
   18. 02.06.     CHAPTER VI Justification by Faith: Twofold Salvation
   19. 02.07.     CHAPTER VII Sanctification: Christianizing the Christian
   20. 02.08.     CHAPTER VIII Assurance: How We Know That We Know Christ
   21. 02.09.     CHAPTER IX The Church: Body of Christ
   22. 02.10.     CHAPTER X The Future: Gulf Between Two Worlds
   23. 02.11.     CHAPTER XI The Way: Straight and Narrow

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: 01.00. BIBLICAL INERRANCY
========================================================================

Biblical Inerrancy by John H Gerstner Part I. Some Unsound Bases for Sound
Doctrine 1. The Bible’s Own Testimony as the Basis for Bible Inerrancy 2. The
Holy Spirit’s Testimony as the Basis for Bible Inerrancy 3. The Believer’s
Testimony as the Basis for Bible Inerrancy 4. The Church’s Testimony as the
Basis for Bible Inerrancy Part II. A Sound Basis for Sound Doctrine 5. The
Testimony of Divinely Commissioned Messengers as the Basis for Bible Inerrancy
(a) The Argument from Commissioned Messengers to Inspired Bible 6. The Testimony
of Divinely Commissioned Messengers as the Basis for Bible Inerrancy (b) The
Argument from Inspired Bible to Inerrant Bible Part III. Some Objections to
Inerrancy and Their Answers 7. Objections Allegedly Arising from Science 8.
Objections Arising from an Alleged “Docetism”

Appendix on “The Confession of 1967” (of the UPCUSA) Select and Recommended
Bibliography http://www.the-highway.com/inerrancyTOC_Gerstner.html Reformatted
for e-Sword by Stored on http://www.davidcox.com.mx/


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: 01.01.     THE BIBLE'S OWN TESTIMONY AS THE BASIS FOR INERRANCY
========================================================================

Some Unsound Bases for Sound Doctrine 1º The Bible’s Own Testimony as the Basis
for Inerrancy

We could compose a book many times the size of this one consisting merely of
fervent and eloquent evangelical appeals to the Bible itself as the proof of its
own inspiration. Some three thousand times the Bible does make this claim for
itself. “Thus saith the Lord” is a veritable refrain of the Scriptures. No book
in the history of literature has made such frequent and moving assertions of its
divine origin. Because of this remarkable characteristic of the Scriptures many
have almost unconsciously concluded that the Bible is the Word of God. This we
believe and later shall attempt to prove is the right doctrine. The Bible is the
Word of God; the inerrant revelation from above. It is the Word of God indeed,
but not because it says so. Rather, it says so because it is.

How, we ask, would anyone prove the Bible is the Word of God simply because it
so often says so? There could only be one basis for accepting Scripture for
Scripture’s sake; assertion for assertion’s sake. But what an incredibly naive
notion: A thing must be what it says it is. A man must be what he says he is. A
book must be what it says it is.

Surely the mere setting forth of such an argument must be its sufficient
refutation. An identification of claim with proof of claim is palpable error.

If it is not beating a horse that was born dead, let us point out the absurd
consequences of the position we are here considering. If everything is to be
believed simply because it says it is to be believed, then Hitler was a Messiah,
the devil is an angel of light and anti-Christ is Christ. As Jesus said: “Then
if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not”
(Matthew 24:23). But on the principle under scrutiny we would have to believe
everyone who claims to be Christ — here and there, now and then. After all,
according to the supposition we first believed in Jesus as the Christ because he
said he was the Christ. We would have to be fair with other claimants whose
claim is as loud or louder than his. If we would say: “You are not the Christ
because the Christ says you are not the Christ,” anti-Christ could well say: “If
you believed this other one because he said he was the Christ; why do you not,
on the same principle, believe me when I say that I am the Christ? and if you
will not believe that I am the Christ because this other Christ, whom you
believe merely because he said what I also say, why not believe me when I say
that he is not the Christ?”

There cannot be any answer to this criticism for even to attempt to answer it is
to admit it, by retreating from the position being maintained (acceptance on
mere assertion without any argument). If, for example, one says to anti-Christ,
“I believe Jesus’ claim because he has confirmed it in my experience,” then you
do not believe Jesus simply because he says he is the Christ. Rather, you
believe him because of something which he does in your heart. Your ground has
changed. You are no longer believing him for his mere word’s sake but for his
work’s sake; specifically, his work in your heart.

Consequently, if you give no answer to the criticism of belief on the mere basis
of assertion you are exposed to palpable naiveté and absurdity. But, if you do
give an answer you flatly contradict yourself.

Some suppose that the Word of God is a special case to which ordinary rules of
evidence do not apply. They admit essentially what has been written above but
take exception to its application to the matter in hand. It is true of men, they
say, that their word may be challenged and must be proven to be true. But God’s
Word cannot be challenged but must be immediately accepted as true and obeyed as
right. To hesitate when God speaks is to be both foolish and impious, they say.
With all of this we cordially agree. But it misses the point under discussion.
We are not here asking whether God should be obeyed when he speaks. We are
simply asking whether a being must be acknowledged as God speaking merely
because he so claims; or, more particularly, whether the Bible is to be regarded
as the Word of God merely because it so claims. It cannot be said too
emphatically that when God speaks he is to be instantly believed. Any question
whatsoever at that moment is utterly and dangerously out of order. When God the
Lord does speak, the devout and intelligent mind can only reply: “Speak Lord for
thy servant heareth.” But like Samuel, who spoke those words, we must first know
that the voice speaking is that of God.

It would be just as foolish and impious to accept and obey any voice whatsoever
which claimed to be divine as it would be not to accept and obey the divine
voice when it is shown to be such. To apply some reasonable test for
ascertaining the voice of God and distinguishing it from the voice of men is not
presumptuous as many charge; but, on the contrary, as humble as it is necessary.
Humble? Yes, humble because it is using the only means which our Maker has given
us whereby we may distinguish between truth and error; God and men; his Word and
theirs. To accept any voice which claimed his divine name would be arrogantly to
disregard the means God himself has graciously provided to prevent just such a
mistake. The person who professed to believe without evidence would be despising
the God who gave us minds which must needs have evidence in order to provide a
basis for reasonable belief. While God is, of course, infinitely above his
creatures it does not follow that, if and when he condescends to speak to them,
he will speak in a manner which is infinitely above them. Manifestly if he
speaks to men he must speak so that men can understand what he says. He must, as
Calvin has said, “lisp.” If parents must accommodate their language to their
infants when they would be understood, surely God must indulge in baby talk when
speaking to those infinitely below him. If he chose to speak to us in a manner
which is as infinitely above us as his being is above ours he would be,
literally, infinitely over our heads. This would not only make comprehension by
us infinitely impossible, but it would inevitably reflect on God’s infinite
intelligence which would know no better than to attempt to communicate with
finite creatures by going infinitely over their heads. It is equally evident
that he will make it known that he is speaking — which means he will give some
signs of his presence which the human mind can recognize. In conclusion, then,
the fact that the Bible claims its inspiration is not the basis for Inerrancy.
If there is a sound basis for believing in Inerrancy, as we shall attempt to
show in the second part, the self-testimony of Scripture will be a wonderful
confirmation of it. Without the Bible’s own claim it would not be impossible,
but it would be more difficult, to believe that it is the Word of God. But with
such self-attestation the truth of divine Inspiration is gloriously sealed.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: 01.02.     THE HOLY SPIRIT’S TESTIMONY AS THE BASIS FOR BIBLE INERRANCY
========================================================================

2º The Holy Spirit’s Testimony as the Basis for Bible Inerrancy

One of the precious doctrines of the church is called the “Internal Testimony of
the Holy Spirit.” Like the self-attestation of Scripture it is a most gracious
gift of God to his church. And like that gift it is sometimes misunderstood and
misused even by those who love it most. A case in point is the one before us in
which the Internal Testimony is submitted as proof that the Bible is the
inerrant Word of God. The thinking here may be shown to be wrong, but it does
have the merit of being clear. It runs like this. Just as the Bible certifies
itself by the letter of Scripture, so by the living voice of God the Spirit
convinces the hearts of men. Many think that the Bible’s witness to itself
remains a dead letter until the living Spirit of God speaks within the soul. But
when the Spirit does thus speak men have the most solid possible basis for
knowing that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Some, by no means all, of
the advocates of this view go on to teach that unless the Spirit testifies, the
Bible is not the Word of God; and only when he does is it the Word of God. In
any case, the argument at first glance is quite impressive. When God witnesses
to his own Word, how can there be any doubt that it is his inerrant Word? If you
want evidence, these men assure us, here is the best. What more can any
reasonable or spiritual person desire than to have God speaking directly to his
own soul?

We agree. As this case is often stated it leaves nothing to be desired. We would
never be so foolish as to question the very voice of God in our souls. Our
search for truth would be ended promptly when God opened his mouth and spoke and
that to each of us individually and inwardly.

We agree, that is, if the Holy Spirit does actually thus speak to individual
souls. But I have never heard the Holy Spirit say to my soul or mind: “The Bible
is the Word of God.” I have never met anyone who claims to have heard the Holy
Spirit say that or anything like that to his soul. In fact, the advocates of the
Internal Testimony as the basis of Inerrancy never quite get around to saying it
either. Rather, most of them would be inclined to rebuke us at this point for
gross misunderstanding if not outright caricature of their opinions on this
subject. “We do not mean,” they will reply, “‘testimony’ as an audible voice in
the soul. Of course, the Holy Spirit has not spoken to individual hearts telling
them that the Bible is His Word. Of course, you cannot find anyone in his right
mind who claims any such experience,” they may indignantly respond.

“Very well,” we reply. “We are sorry; we meant no offense and intended no
caricature of a brother’s doctrine. Nor are we totally ignorant of the history
of this doctrine. Indeed, we ourselves believe it in the sense in which Calvin,
for example, meant it. But when it is used as the argument for Inerrancy (which,
incidentally, we do not think was Calvin’s idea at all) that is something else.
It is that something else which we are now considering.” If it is so used as
proof of Inerrancy how is it such unless somehow God’s Spirit testifies, tells,
signifies to us, reveals in us or the like that the canonical Scriptures are
from him? But very well, we will withdraw our query as we hear our wounded
brethren protesting that they mean no such thing. Let it be agreed, then, that
the “testimony” of the Spirit is not like the testimony of a witness in court
speaking to what he did or did not see or hear. The Spirit’s testimony is
non-verbal, more subtle, more in the nature of an influence on the soul than an
audible voice or mystical writing. But, we must insist, how then does the
Spirit’s witness reveal Inerrancy?

If the advocates of this line of thought say that the Spirit confirms our own
convictions when we read the Bible; if they say that he makes the Bible student
sure that the Bible is what the Bible student feels that it is; then the Spirit
does not communicate any new information which the Bible reader receives, but
somehow intensifies his experiences as he meditates on Holy Writ. We are
inclined to believe that the Holy Spirit does precisely that in the hearts of
many. But we do not see that even if he does do it that this proves the
Inspiration of the Bible. All we would now have is this: A man reads his Bible.
His feelings are stirred as he reads. He senses, or thinks he senses, that there
is some other spirit besides his own at work in his heart as he reads. He cannot
be sure that there is another spirit. If he does believe it he cannot know what
spirit it is. Certainly, he has no way of knowing that it is the divine spirit.
And even if he did, all he knows is that the divine Spirit is working in his
heart as he reads the Scripture and not “testifying” or saying that this
Scripture is the inerrant Word of God. If it is said: “But the Bible tells us
that the Spirit bears witness and therefore it must be true and the Word to
which he testifies must truly be God’s Word” we are back where we began:
accepting the testimony of the Scripture to itself without any (at present) just
reason for so doing. In summary: we must reject the Testimony of the Spirit as
the basis of Inerrancy (not, please note, the Testimony of the Spirit) because:
first, if his “Testimony” is construed as audible or verbal, it simply does not
exist; second, if his “Testimony” is construed as a spiritual effect
intensifying our feelings as we read Scripture this is not a proving of the
Inspiration or Inerrancy of Scripture.

It may be necessary to show that we are not here opposing the Westminster
Confession of Faith’s view of things but actually defending it. It teaches that
“our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority
thereof” (of the Scriptures), “is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit
bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts” (Acts 1:5). But these words
teach only that the “Testimony of the Holy Spirit” “persuades” us of the
Inspiration of the Bible. It does not prove the doctrine but persuades us of the
truth of the doctrine. It leads us to acknowledge the evidence for Inspiration
which apart from the Holy Spirit’s influence we (as sinful persons, cf. Acts
6:1-47) are prone to resist. This evidence is utterly sufficient to persuade us
if we were frank enough to admit evidence when we see it. Thus the Westminster
Confession of Faith says in full: “We may be moved and induced by the testimony
of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture; and the
heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the
style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give
all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s
salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection
thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word
of God; yet, not withstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the
infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the
Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.” (Acts 1:5).

According to this great creed the various characteristics of the Bible
“abundantly evidence” (prove) its Inspiration but only the influence of the Holy
Spirit (overcoming our sinful dispositions) can “persuade” us to acquiesce in
what we clearly see is the Word of God. The reader may notice a certain
difference (not discrepancy) between the approach of the WCF here cited and that
of this little monograph. The “arguments” to which Westminster appeals are
internal evidences drawn from the nature (not testimony) of the Bible itself
such as its harmony, perfection, etc. That these, in their cumulative effect,
are arguments we agree and have so written elsewhere. We are by-passing them in
this monograph only because they take longer to develop, involve more debates
with modernity, and are not so directly conclusive as the argumentation
developed in Part II. That the approach of this Primer was abundantly used by
the Westminster divines and seventeenth century Orthodoxy, in general, could be
extensively illustrated were there any necessity to prove what no one questions.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: 01.03.     THE BELIEVER’S TESTIMONY AS THE BASIS FOR BIBLE INERRANCY
========================================================================

3º The Believer’s Testimony as the Basis for Bible Inerrancy

It may not have been obvious that the fallacies of the preceding views lay
ultimately in their unconscious elevation of the creature above the Creator who
is blessed forever. It seemed to have been quite the opposite. By accepting the
authority of the Bible on the basis of its own divine affirmation or its divine
corroboration in the soul, advocates of these positions intended to bow before
the majesty of heaven; but, in fact, did not. Since there is no evidence that an
avowed Word of God is a genuine Word of God simply because it avows itself to be
such, accepting it for no reason is sheer arbitrariness (however reverent the
intention). Instead of abiding by the laws of evidence which God has given us we
become laws to ourselves. In other words, the first two unsound bases for sound
doctrine, though they appear to be quite objective, are actually only appeals to
mere personal feelings. But to this position, in the purity of its expression,
we now come. The view runs something like this. The Bible is inspired because it
inspires me. It “finds” me. It rings a bell in my soul. I know that this is
God’s book because I feel within that this book is God’s book. It affects me as
no other literature does. It exhibits a power and an energy which speak to me.
This view is not intended, by those who favor it, to be an appeal to
subjectivity. It is, of course, an appeal to the subject’s experience. However,
it is claimed that the subject experiences something not himself. He senses the
presence of a spirit not his own. The argument is not subjective, then, in the
sense that the subject himself “existentially” produces the experience. It is
not a creation of the human soul but something that happens to the soul which is
thought to prove that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. This experience
then is offered as the basis for believing that the Bible is the Word of God. In
itself, and in it alone, is the argument for Inerrancy. No matter how sincere
the Christianity of those who reason thus, no matter how truly the Bible, of
which they speak, may indeed be the Word of God, still their argument amounts to
this: “My heart is moved when I read the Bible more and/or differently than when
I read any other literature. Therefore, this Bible, which is the occasion or
cause of this wonderful feeling, must be God’s Word.” These good men do not
phrase their argument that way or they, too, would immediately recognize its
futility as an argument. They imply this but do not usually express it. Some of
them will not even recognize it when someone else expresses it. They may even
sincerely resent such a spelling out as saying something which they never
intended. And, of course, they may not have meant it. People often imply what
they do not intend. “Happy inconsistencies” abound everywhere. Whatever their
inner intentions may be we leave to God the only Searcher of Hearts. We concern
ourselves only with their reasoning. Experience is set forth as a case for
Inspiration and the only way that it could appear to be such is by supposing
that such an inference is valid. But is it valid to suppose that because I have
a certain experience when I read the Bible that the Bible is thereby shown to be
the Word of God? Surely not. First, the experience could be a mere coincidence.
One may have happened to have felt well, for some reason, when he began to read
the Bible. By association he may have attributed this to what he was reading.
Thus the Bible reading may have been a mere concomitant, rather than cause, of
his experience. Christians do, in fact, testify that often when they read the
Bible nothing “happens.”

Even if something always happened when one read the Bible, that would not prove
that the Bible was the cause of what happened. We all have heard of the rooster
who thought that his crowing caused the sun to rise each morning, until he found
it rising one morning when he had a sore throat. But suppose that that rooster
had never had a sore throat; he would have gone to his death still thinking that
his crowing was the cause of the sun’s rising. We must have more than succession
for a causal argument. There must be necessary succession. But this can never be
shown by mere experience. Second, even if the Bible were the cause of these
experiences that would not prove that the Bible was the Word of God. It would
prove that it had a unique power, but not divine power. A unique power is not
necessarily a divine power. The devil has power that is unique and, so far as
men apart from special revelation know, it could account for such a phenomenon
as that we are considering. Of course, that is not the case here. Of course, the
advocates of this view are correct in saying that this power comes from God.
They are right; but, they have no basis for being right. Their conclusion may be
correct (as we think); but, their premises are incorrect (as we have shown). No
one is likely ever to admit that the Bible is the Word of God apart from this
experience here described. Nothing so powerfully affects men’s convictions about
Inspiration as this experience. Nevertheless, precious and valuable as it is,
the believer’s testimony is not the basis of an argument for Inerrancy. On the
contrary, Inerrancy must be the basis of validating Christian experience.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: 01.04.     THE CHURCH’S TESTIMONY AS THE BASIS FOR BIBLE INERRANCY
========================================================================

4º The Church’s Testimony as the Basis for Bible Inerrancy The very futility of
the preceding views has led some to the church’s testimony as the basis of
Inerrancy. Sensing that they cannot prove, even to themselves not to mention
others, the Inerrancy of Scripture from something within themselves or within
the Bible they succumb to the temptation of appealing to Mother Church. Yet,
there is more here than that. It is not simply that many are thought to be able
to do what a few cannot accomplish but that God does in the many what he has not
chosen to do in the few. That is, God has promised guidance to the body of the
faithful and will lead them into all truth and not permit them to be misled
fatally.

Now, where does the church get the idea that it is the “pillar and ground of the
truth”; that it is to bind and loose on earth? From the Bible! So it is the
Bible which is the basis of the church’s authority, not the church which is the
basis of the Bible’s authority. The Bible is the pillar on which the church
rests, not the church the pillar on which the Bible rests. Incidentally, the
expression in 1 Timothy 3:15 that the church is the pillar and ground of the
truth does not point to a pillar on which truth rests but to a pillar on which
truth was posted for public announcement in antiquity. In other words, it refers
to the church as witness to the truth and not the basis of it. But some will say
that the church came into existence before the Bible and then called everyone’s
attention to the Bible as the Word of God. This is true in an irrelevant sense
and false in a relevant sense. When we say that it is true in an irrelevant
sense that the church existed before the Bible we mean that granting the church
existed before the written and canonical form of the Bible is no proof of
Inerrancy. If, for example, the church is thought of as beginning when the first
sinners trusted in the mercy of God and if sinful Adam and Eve were the first
sinners to trust in the mercy of God then the church existed centuries before
the Bible was probably written and certainly many centuries before it was
gathered into a canon of books recognized as Bible. If the church is thought of
as coming into existence at Pentecost then the Bible (the Old Testament)
preceded it by centuries. Still, the New Testament church would have preceded
the New Testament Bible because there were New Testament Christians before a
word of the New Testament was written.

All of this is obviously true and just as obviously irrelevant to the matter in
hand. First, granted that the church, in a sense, existed before the Bible in
its written form, what does this prove? According to the advocates of the view
in question it is supposed to prove that the church’s testimony is the argument
for Inerrancy. But does the church’s testimony, which preceded the Bible, prove
the Inerrancy of the Bible? How does the fact that the church may have preceded
the Bible in existence prove that the Bible is inspired and inerrant? How does
the fact that the previously existing church testifies to the subsequently
existing Bible prove the Bible to be what the church says that it is? It is no
doubt true that if the church had not testified and did not continue to testify
to the Bible as the Word of God the world might soon forget about the Bible and
thus never come to realize its Inspiration. The church is indispensable to the
Bible’s being considered for what it is. But, this fact is in no sense a proof
that the Bible is what the church says it is. The Bible is, we believe, exactly
what the church says that it is; but, it is not what the church says it is
because the church says it is. Rather, in the true order of events, the church
testifies because the Bible is what it is, rather than that the Bible is what it
is because the church so testifies.

Perhaps it will become clearer if we outline the order of events:

1. God speaks (revelation).

2. Men respond in faith (church).

3. Revelation is recorded (inerrant Bible).

4. The church recognizes, receives and testifies to the inerrant Bible.

(The question is: What is the basis of the church’s testimony: Surely it is not
the church’s testimony.)

Some will still say: Granted, that the church’s testimony is not the basis of
Inerrancy but Inerrancy is the basis of the church’s testimony; still, is not
the church’s testimony the basis of Inerrancy for us? That is, granted that the
church had good and sufficient reasons for recognizing the Bible for what it is,
nevertheless we do not have access to these reasons; or even if we did, we do
not have the infallible divine guidance necessary for correctly perceiving them.
So, we must rest on the church’s testimony as the basis for our belief in
Inerrancy though the church herself must have another basis. We reply, that even
if this were so it does grant our main point: namely, that the church’s
testimony cannot be the basis for Inerrancy. But this point would still be
important because it would terminate our search for the basis for Inerrancy. Our
search would have ended in a realization that we should not search anymore; that
the answer has been found by another (the church) and can be found by none
other.

If this is so, so be it. But, is it so? It is not so, nor could it possibly be
so. Why not? For the simple reason that if it be proposed that the church’s
testimony must become our argument for Inerrancy, we must ask why? If the answer
is: “Because the Bible says so,” it is obvious that we are right back where we
began. It is the inerrant Bible itself which alone can tell us that the church
alone can tell us that the Bible is inerrant! So, for us to accept this position
that we can only know that the Bible is inerrant by the testimony of the church
we must first know that the Bible is inerrant. For example, Rome claims papal
authority from Matthew 16:18 but to do so she must first prove the authority of
Matthew 16:18. If that church is to establish her authority, she must first
establish the Inerrancy of the Bible. That is, even according to her own
argument, she cannot establish the Bible’s authority, but the Bible must
establish hers (which, incidentally, it does not do). This then is another wrong
basis for a right answer. We must continue our search. We have not yet found the
right basis for accepting the Bible’s Inerrancy.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: 01.05.     THE TESTIMONY OF DIVINELY COMMISSIONED MESSENGERS AS THE BASIS FOR BIBLE INERRANCY
========================================================================

Part II - A Sound Basis for Sound Doctrine 5º The Testimony of Divinely
Commissioned Messengers as the Basis for Bible Inerrancy (a) The Argument from
Commissioned Messengers to Inspired Bible.

Let us outline the steps of this argument before proceeding to explain it:

1. There is a God.

2. Men were made in his image, rational creatures.

3. As such, they are designed to make their choices on the basis of evidence.

4. The evidence for the Inspiration of the Bible is as follows:

1. Men have appeared in history with powers which only God could have given them
(miracles). 2. Miracles are God’s seal to mark men unmistakably as his
messengers. 3. God’s message is indubitably true. 4. God’s message includes the
Inspiration of the Bible. 5. Therefore, the Inspiration of the Bible is
indubitably true.

1. There is a God. This must be assumed here. This is a small, popular Primer on
Bible Inerrancy. Time, space and the nature of the undertaking make certain
assumptions inevitable. What is here an assumption (the existence of God) has
been proven elsewhere in many, many volumes. If the reader of the Primer does
not believe in God’s existence its argument may interest him but it cannot
possibly convince him. We must believe there is a God before we can consistently
believe that there is a special revelation of God in the Bible or anywhere. But
here we will detour a little for there are many today who say that we can only
know the existence of God from special revelation (such as the Bible). Exactly
opposite to what we said in the preceding paragraph they contend that God is
utterly unknown until he supernaturally discloses himself. We say: God cannot
supernaturally reveal himself until he has naturally made his existence known.
They say: No, his existence cannot be naturally known until he supernaturally
reveals himself.

Let us examine their view. According to it:

First. There is a book, the Bible, claiming the existence and revelation of God.

Second. We are to believe in this God.

Third. Apart from this revelation we could not know that there is such a God.
The paucity of this approach is plain to see. First, we would have no possible
tests to ascertain whether the deity revealed in the Bible is what he says he
is. We do not know, on this view, that there is such a being nor whether this
Biblical being is such. If this be God we can only accept it on his own word. We
would not trust a dollar to a human being whose honesty we know only because he
claims it. Here we trust our lives to a being whose Godness and whose very
existence we know only from himself. Custom inspectors look at a visitor to see
whether he resembles the picture in the passport before they admit him to their
nation. But here comes a God without passport; a God who wants to rule our lives
merely because he says he has a right to do so. If this were not bad enough, we
have, second, the further objection that there are many claimants to this role
of God. Many books present their candidates. If we worshiped any one of them
without credentials we would be out of our mind; if we worshiped all of them we
would be multiple-schizophrenic.

No, there must be evidence of the existence of God from the creation, of which
we ourselves are the most exalted part, if we are to recognize a further
revelation of this glorious being, if and when it comes. So here we assume, what
most people do quite rightly assume, that God exists. This we can safely assume
here only because it is proven elsewhere. Otherwise, the assumption would be
gratuitous.

2. Men were made in God’s image, rational creatures. This point also we must
largely assume because of the limitation of this little book. But this is a very
safe assumption, is it not? If we were not rational beings, you would not be
reading this (or any other) book in your search for knowledge, nor would we be
writing books. Aristotle was quite right: man is a rational animal. If we were
not rational beings no one could prove (for this involves reasoning) that we
were not rational beings. We could not even think that we were not. So our
rationality must be assumed for even to deny it is to assume it.

3. As rational beings, men are designed to make their choices on the basis of
evidence. Being rational beings they are not the mere product of natural forces.
They choose according to reason (or what appears reason). That is virtually the
definition of a rational being. If he were merely the product of external forces
how could his own reason and will be operative and if not, how could he be a
rational being? Being rational beings they are not the mere product of
supernatural forces. That is, not only does nature not force rational beings but
even supernature, that is God himself, does not force them. We would go so far
as to say that God cannot force men. By definition, they have been made (by God
himself) rational beings. If they were forced, even by God, they would cease to
be the kind of beings he had made them; that is, rational beings. So if God
forced men they would cease to be men. Or, to put it another way, so long as men
remain men they are not forced even by God (in fact, least of all by God who
made them rational in the first place). Being rational beings they cannot be
forced by sin. Granted that man is not what he ought to be. Granted that there
is something perverse within him. Granted that he does not always (if ever)
think what is true and do what is right. Still, this evil bent of his nature
does not actually force him to will against his will. The absurdity of the
notion is seen in the last statement: “Still this evil bent of his nature does
not actually force him to will against his will.” How could he meaningfully be
said to will against his will? If he will against his will that would be his
will; namely, to will against his “will.” So his willing against his “will”
would not truly be against his will; or if it were against his will it could not
be his will.

Therefore, man is a rational being. It is his very nature to choose according to
the judgments of his mind. Nothing could possibly take that character away from
man without taking his humanity away from him.

Consequently, if God is graciously disposed to reveal himself to his creature,
man, God must necessarily reveal himself according to the rational nature of his
human creature. The necessity is self-imposed and therefore, consistent with the
sovereignty of God. God cannot go over or under the “head” of man; he cannot
treat him as a God or an animal but as the creature which he, God. made: a
rational being.

4. The evidence for the Inspiration of the Bible is as follows: a. Men have
appeared in history with powers which only God could have given them; namely,
miracles. The discussion of miracles which follows is reproduced from the
author’s Reasons for Faith with the kind permission of the publishers, Harper
and Row.

Concerning miracles there are two important questions to be asked. First, what
is the evidence for miracles and, second, what is their evidential value? If
there is to be any argument from miracles, there must first be clear evidence
that they actually occur.

Before we proceed to consider the evidence for miracles, let us ask ourselves
whether there can be any such evidence. This is a rather absurd question, we
grant, but we must consider it. Many persons never face the question at all
because they rule out the possibility of miracles before they consider any
actual evidence for them. One of the most outstanding Biblical scholars in the
country once said publicly, in answer to a question concerning his
interpretation of miracles in the Old Testament, “When I meet an alleged
miracle, I simply treat it as legend.” This scholar no doubt would not bother
reading this chapter or anything like it. He knows in advance that any and all
alleged miracles are merely legends. But how does he know it? He does not know
it; he merely declares it. However, there are more philosophically minded
thinkers who would say that this professor is right in his conclusion but wrong
in the way he arrives at it. They agree that there is no such thing as miracles
and that records of them must be legends of some sort. But these men attempt to
prove their statement and not merely to assert it arbitrarily.

Some would offset the evidential power of miracles by claiming that there never
could be enough proof of a miracle in the face of the overwhelming evidence of
natural law against it. David Hume once argued that there is more evidence for
regularity in nature than for irregularity (supernaturalism); therefore,
regularity and not irregularity must be the truth of the matter. The argument is
palpably unsound, indeed irrelevant. Certainly there is more evidence for the
regular occurrence of nature than there ever could be for any supernatural
occurrence. But the argument for miracle is not meant to be an argument against
the regularity of nature. It is merely an argument against the regularity of
nature in every particular instance. Indeed the argument for miracle rests on
the regularity of nature generally. There is no such thing as supernatural
events except as they are seen in relation to the natural. And they would not be
extraordinary if there were no ordinary against which background they are seen.
They could not be signs of anything if they were not different from the status
quo. When one argues for the occasional miracle, he is in the same breath
arguing for the usually non-miraculous. If all nature became supernatural, there
would be no room for miracle; nothing would be miracle because all would be
miracle. At the same time, all the evidence that there is for the regularity of
nature generally is no argument at all against the occasional miracle. Such
evidence simply argues for the fact that the normal course of nature is natural.
It does not rule out or in, for that matter, the possibility that the irregular
may happen. It only proves that as long as there is nothing but nature to take
into consideration, there will probably be no deviation from the order with
which we have become familiar. If there be a God, all the evidence of an
undeviating nature from its creation to the present moment does not provide the
slightest certainty that nature will continue the same way another moment. The
same God who made it and preserved it in the present pattern for so long may
have fulfilled his purpose in so doing and may proceed immediately, this moment,
to do otherwise than in the past. Only if the evidence for the regularity of
nature were somehow to show that there is no being outside nature who can in any
way alter it, can there be an argument against the possibility of miracles. But
this the evidence does not do, does not purport to do, cannot do. Therefore it
can never be regarded as an argument against miracle. In the strictest sense
Hume’s objection is irrelevant.

What is the relation of unpredictability in modern physics to the notion of
miracle? Certainly the universe is no longer thought to be fixed in the sense
that it once was. The quantum theory has satisfied most physicists that there is
such a thing as indeterminism, or unpredictable behavior in the laws of nature.
As Bertrand Russell has remarked, while psychology in our time has become more
deterministic, physics has become less so. Some have utilized the concept of
indeterminacy in nature as a wedge for miracle. Having felt fenced in by the
arguments based on the regularity of nature, they have welcomed this apparent
avenue of escape by which they may remain scientific and still affirm miracle.
Indeterminacy runs interference for the power of God, or more piously we should
say, makes it possible to believe that God may act miraculously inasmuch as he
acts indeterministically in created nature. So far as we can see, the situation
for the credibility of miracle is neither improved nor worsened by
indeterminacy. For one thing, indeterminacy is hardly a proven concept. Or more
precisely, it would seem more likely that man cannot in every case determine the
laws by which nature operates, than that she herself is indeterministic. It is
conceivable that in the area of quantum physics no less than elsewhere nature is
deterministic, and what is undetermined are the laws of her behavior. Nature may
be determined, but man has not determined how. If this is the case, the to-do
about indeterminism is wasted mental effort.

If nature herself is indeterministic, then what? Then it still would remain
highly unlikely that an indeterminism in nature could explain why once and only
once, thousands of years ago, a man walked on water, but no one else has been
able to do so before or since. Presumably the indeterminism of nature could
never be employed to account for such a unique phenomenon. Furthermore, if this
is the explanation, Christ himself was deceived. He should have been surprised
to be around at the one moment when nature was behaving differently from all
previous times. He should have been as much amazed as the others, unless (and
here is the hopeless supposition) he were a downright sophisticated fraud who
took advantage of the most unbelievable opportunity that the world could
imagine. Furthermore, there is the matter of his actual predictions, which would
be rendered impossible in an indeterministic universe.

Some would affirm the a priori impossibility of miracles because of the
nonexistence of God. They rightly state that a miracle to have meaning must be
the work of an intelligent, powerful, and purposive divine being. In this we go
along with them. Then they say that since there is no such being as this, there
can be no such thing as miracle. And we agree with that. If it can be shown that
there is no God, it will also be shown in the same effort that there is no
miracle. But the non-existence of God cannot be proven, while his existence has
been.

What is the positive evidence that miracles have occurred? A discussion of this
subject with any degree of fullness would require an entire volume itself. We
must delimit the field. And so we will consider here only the miracles of Jesus
Christ.

Everyone knows that the Gospel narratives (considered only as good historical
sources, not necessarily inspired) tell of a large number of miracles that were
performed by Christ. A great many more are alluded to but not related. This is
so generally known that I feel perfectly safe in assuming the readers’
acquaintance with the accounts of Christ’s healing the sick, opening the eyes of
the blind, raising the dead, walking on water, multiplying a boy’s lunch to feed
more than five thousand hungry persons, and a host of other such deeds. No one
disputes the fact that the Gospel accounts tell of Jesus Christ’s performing
miracles. There have been attempted naturalistic explanations, to be sure, but
so far as we know no one has attempted the job of showing that all accounts of
the apparently miraculous are merely accounts of natural events which were
misconstrued by the writer or reader. For example, who would care to show that
John’s report of Thomas’ placing his fingers in the side of the resurrected
Christ to feel his former wounds was not meant to present an essentially
supernatural event, namely, physical resurrection? Persons may or may not
believe what John says, but how can they doubt that John presents them as
happening? As even naturalistic New Testament critics usually say, there is no
doubt that the early Christians believed these supernatural things did occur.

If it be granted that the biographers of Christ say he wrought miracles, the
only questions remaining are: can these writers be believed? (please note again
we are not, in a circular fashion, assuming their Inspiration but the
well-established historical value of their manuscripts) and if so, what do the
miracles prove? Can these writers be believed when they relate that Christ
wrought supernatural deeds or miracles? Well, why not? People are assumed to be
reliable in their relating of events unless there is some reason for thinking
that they are not so. What reason is there for thinking that these writers are
not reliable? So far as they are known, they have the reputation of honesty. Was
there some bias present which would have tended to corrupt their honesty in the
case of these miracles? There is no evidence of bribery by money or position.
Their reporting of miracles as vindications of Jesus did not bring them into
good standing with the powers in their own community. It caused Peter and John
to be imprisoned and all the apostles to be brought into disfavor with most of
the Jewish community. It stands to reason that a person cannot advance his own
worldly interests by championing a person condemned by law and executed as a
criminal. But what about their other-worldly interests? Is it possible that
these men believed that by shading the truth and relating what did not occur
they would thereby gain an interest in heaven? Did they think that because of
their lying about “miracles,” Jesus would own them in the next world? Merely to
ask this question dispels it. The whole picture of Jesus is that of a teacher of
righteousness who required his disciples to make righteous judgments and speak
the truth which alone could make free. It would not seem reasonable to believe
that they could have thought they would please Jesus by telling lies about him
and actually earn his praise in the world of perfect righteousness to come. Or
could they have been sentimentalists? That is, could they have supposed that by
telling what they knew to be untrue, they could nevertheless do good? Could they
have felt that if people could be persuaded that this Jesus was a supernatural
being with supernatural powers, they would then obey him and walk in paths of
righteousness? Could they have supposed that by doing evil this great good would
come? Is it possible that they, knowing there were no miracles, were nonetheless
willing to follow Christ to the death, but that others would need the help of
such superstition?

There is an insuperable objection to this “pious fraud” idea. As we have already
mentioned, Christ himself is depicted as a teacher of strict truth and
righteousness. If the disciples had told deliberate and huge falsehoods, their
very zeal would have led them into the grossest kind of disobedience. They would
also have known that their own souls were in peril, for Christ had said that a
good tree brings forth good fruit and that he would say to liars in the last
day, “I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matthew
7:22-23). “If you love me,” Christ had said, “keep my commandments.” It seems
incredible that the disciples in their very zeal for Jesus would zealously
disobey his commandments, that in their desire to be with him and advance his
cause they would seal their own doom. So much for the inherent improbability of
such a course on the part of the disciples. But there is equally great
difficulty in the external situation. Even if it were conceivable that the
disciples so forgot their Master’s teachings and their own spiritual interest as
to violate thus grossly his canons of righteousness, it does not at all follow
that those to whom they addressed themselves stood to be deceived. After all,
the disciples would have foisted these “pious frauds” upon those among whom they
were supposed to have been done. They would have told the very people who were
supposed to have been present on the occasion, the fiction that Jesus fed five
thousand. They would have told the people of Cana themselves that Christ turned
water to wine at a feast in their small community, which everybody in that
community would immediately deny ever took place there. The “pious fraud” idea,
even if it were psychologically thinkable, could be historically thinkable only
if it were perpetrated in a different land at a different time. But that in the
same generation these things could have been preached as having occurred among
the very people who knew that they had not occurred is hardly credible.

Although the witnesses of these events might have gotten away with such reports
among highly credulous strangers who knew nothing about the events in question,
they could never have deceived the very people among whom the miracles were
supposed to have taken place. It would therefore seem impossible to impeach the
honesty of the witnesses. All the factors actually favor their honesty, which
must be assumed in the first instance unless there is some reason for
questioning it. But when we examine any possible reasons, we find none. Candor
requires that their record be received as a record of what they thought took
place. But the question still remains whether what they thought took place did
actually take place. Granted that they meant to tell the truth, did they succeed
in their honest intention? With the best of intentions men have often been
grossly mistaken. Is it not possible that these writers were similarly mistaken?
In other words, there remains the question of the competency of the witnesses.

We note, in the first place, that they had the best possible jury to test their
competency — their own contemporaries among whom the events related were said to
have taken place. If the writers had been palpably contradicted by the facts,
the people to whom they related the facts would have been the very ones to
expose them. If they had been misguided zealots, the non-zealots to whom they
spoke could have spotted it in a moment and repudiated it as quickly. If they
had garbled the actual events, eyewitnesses in quantity could have testified to
the contrary. If these historians had actually been bigoted, benighted fanatics
with no historical sense, incapable of distinguishing between fact and fancy,
between occurrences in external nature and in their own imagination, thousands
of Israelites could have made that very clear. As a matter of fact, their record
went unchallenged. No man called them liars; none controverted their story.
Those who least believed in Jesus did not dispute the claims to his supernatural
power. The apostles were imprisoned for speaking about the resurrection of
Christ, not, however, on the ground that what they said was untrue, but that it
was unsettling to the people. They were accused of being heretical, deluded,
illegal, un-Jewish, but they were not accused of being inaccurate. And that
would have been by far the easiest to prove if it had been thought to be true.

Actually, the Israelites of Jesus’ own day, so far from denying his miraculous
power, admitted it. They not only admitted it, but they used it against him.
Precisely because he did miracles, they condemned him. That is, they attributed
the miracles, which they admitted he did, to the power of the devil (Matthew
12:24). We are not here concerned with the accusation but with the incidental
admission. What we are concerned with here is that hostile contemporary leaders
freely admitted that Jesus’ miracles were true, however evil they held their
origin to be. The fact they did not dispute, only the interpretation of it. The
witness they did not question. The competency of the writers was not doubted by
the very generation which alone could have challenged it. It seems highly
irrelevant, on historical grounds, for subsequent generations to raise such
questions when the generation in which the events are said to have occurred did
not do so. Later generations may object on philosophical grounds or argue a
priori that these things could not have happened. Those arguments have to be met
on their own grounds as we have attempted to do. But the historicity of certain
events cannot be questioned by people who were not there when they were not
questioned by the people who were there. We may or may not agree with the
Pharisees’ interpretation that Christ did his works by Satan’s power, but we are
in no position to contest the Pharisees’ knowledge of what he did. They were
there and we were not. This corroborative testimony of contemporaries, friends,
and, especially, enemies, is the main vindication of the competency of the
Gospel witnesses. But there is also the feasibility of the documents themselves.
These miracles are not fantastic things such as those recorded in the apocryphal
accounts of Jesus. They are of a piece with the character of Jesus himself —
benign, instructive, redemptive. He himself was a special and unique person; it
is not surprising that he had special and unique powers. Indeed, it would be
more surprising if he had not had them. Never man so spake, never man so lived,
never man so loved, never man so acted. As Karl Adam has said, Jesus’ life was a
blaze of miracle. Miracles were as natural to him as they would be unnatural to
other men. He was a true man indeed, but he was no ordinary man. Miracles are
surprising when attributed to other men; it would appear surprising if they had
not been associated with this man.

Some have asked whether the miracles may not be naturally explained as the
result of Christ’s unusual knowledge and understanding of the laws of nature.
May he not have possessed some occult acquaintance with the secrets of nature
that enabled him to unleash certain of her powers in a perfectly natural manner,
however supernatural it may have appeared to those unfamiliar with these
esoteric laws? To this there are several negative replies. For one thing there
is a moral objection. Jesus himself referred to his works or allowed others to
refer to them as evidence of his supernatural power. It would have been palpable
dishonesty to do so if he had known all the time that he was merely exerting
secret, but natural, power. Thus he asked his disciples, if they could not
believe him for his words’ sake, to believe him for his works’ sake (John
14:11). He reassured the doubting John the Baptist of the reality of his
Messianic calling by appealing to the miracles he wrought (Matthew 11:2-4). He
did not object when Nicodemus said, “We know that thou art a teacher come from
God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him”
(John 3:2). The blind man whom he healed believed on him because of this
miracle, and Christ took full advantage of that belief to press his claim to
being the Messiah (John 9:35 f.). He refuted the Pharisees who had criticized
him for forgiving a man’s sins, by pointing out that he was able to do the
equally supernatural thing of instantly curing his sickness. “Whether is easier,
to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? But that ye may
know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to
the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thine house”
(Matthew 9:5-6). The Messianic prophecies had frequently foreseen the Messiah as
a miracle worker. Jesus not only knew this but obviously pointed to himself as
qualified in this very particular. If he did not believe himself to be possessed
of supernatural powers, He must have known himself to be engaged in palpable
fraud and deliberate deception. So from the moral angle, if Christ wrought what
he wrought merely by an unusual knowledge of nature and not by supernatural
power, he must have been a lying deceiver. That is more difficult to believe
than any miracle with which he has ever been credited.

Second, on the supposition before us, his own argument in his defense would be
an argument against him. That is to say, when the unbelieving Jews claimed that
he did his works by the power of Beelzebub, he replied, “How can Satan cast out
Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan
rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end” (Mark
3:23 ff.). But if Christ really did not do true miracles but only took advantage
of his superior knowledge to play on the credulity of his times and later times,
then he would have been perpetrating fraud as the prince of deceivers, and as
such he would have been the devil’s instrument. For he regarded the devil as the
father of lies, and he would have been his son. Not only is such a thing utterly
unthinkable from a moral standpoint, but it is, as his argument makes it,
utterly irrational. For Satan would have been using lies to destroy his own
kingdom. By these frauds of his servant Jesus, he would have been establishing
the kingdom of Jesus which was founded on truth and which called men to repent
of their sins. Thus Satan’s house would have been divided against itself, for
Christ, the son of lies, would by his lies have been destroying his father’s
kingdom of lies.

Third, if Christ had had the kind of knowledge which this theory attributes to
him, such knowledge would have been as miraculous as the miracles it attempts to
explain away. For centuries before and for centuries after, no other person but
this solitary, untutored Jew knew how to walk on water. Modern science has
performed many amazing feats in this century, but it still is nowhere nearer
than it was in Jesus’ day to multiplying loaves and fishes by a mere word.
Machines can compare, classify, and do hitherto unbelievable things, but with
all their powers they still depend on the feeble mind of man their inventor.
They cannot even put a question to themselves but can only operate with their
wonderful efficiency along channels made for them by men. Certainly none of them
can anticipate an historical event tomorrow, much less predict the fall of a
city a generation hence as precisely as Jesus did (Matthew 24:1 ff.). This
explanation of the miracles of Jesus, therefore, requires as much, if not more,
explanation than the miracles. It would be the miracle to end all miracles.
Intellectually, it would be straining the gnat and swallowing the camel. b.
Miracles are God’s seal to mark men unmistakably as his messengers.

If the evidence is convincing that Christ did work miracles, what do these
miracles prove? Miracles as such do not prove that Jesus was more than a man.
For though men do not have this power as men, they could be enabled by God to
perform them in his name. Miraculous power belongs only to the Author of nature,
but apparently it is not incommunicable as God’s omniscience, omnipotence, or
eternality must be. So the power to work miracles is not necessarily proof that
the person who has that power is God himself. But it does prove him to be sent
from God, for only God has this power and can delegate it. This is the very
conclusion which Nicodemus drew when he said to Jesus, “We know that thou art a
teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except
God be with him” (John 3:2). At this point, however, we face another problem or
question. Is it not possible that there are other, nonhuman beings who, though
not the Author of nature, are nevertheless able to influence nature in
supernatural ways? Apart from revelation, we cannot know there are not such
beings; we therefore consider the possibility that Christ’s miracles were
wrought by a man who had received his power from some supernatural being other
than God, whether good or evil. If there are such beings, and they are good,
then they are in subjection to God and his servants. If, therefore, they
communicated their powers to the man Jesus, they must have done so in obedience
to the will of God. Thus their giving of power would be essentially the same
thing as God’s giving it, for they would give it in accordance with his will.

If these beings are evil beings, what then? Then they are not subservient to God
and do not deliberately do his will. In that case they would not necessarily
have power over nature, for that would obviously be in the hands of the Author
of nature and of those to whom he willingly permits it to pass. If, therefore,
these evil spirits possess any such power as we are here supposing, it can only
be by the permission of God. So the question is, is it conceivable that God
would permit these evil spirits to possess such power? Maybe we cannot answer
that question, but we do not have to. The question that really concerns us here
is not whether such spirits could possess such powers, but whether, even if they
could, they would be able to communicate them to a human being. But we do not
even have to answer that question, for we are dealing with a specific human
being, Jesus Christ. So the question precisely is: if there are such evil beings
and these beings are permitted by God to have power over nature which could
conceivably be communicated to some human being, could they conceivably
communicate it to such a human being as Jesus Christ? We have already shown that
they could do so only if they wished to destroy themselves. They would be
empowering him to make converts to a kingdom which was set up to destroy the
kingdom of evil. They would be giving power to one who would use it only for
good when, by definition, evil spirits would want it to be used only for evil.
They would be providing an instrument for healing when they wished only to
spread sickness and death; they would insure the success of the person best
fitted to insure their own failure. If these evil spirits were intelligent
spirits, they simply could not do such a thing even if God would permit it. And
is it possible that God would communicate his great power to a man after his own
heart by spirits utterly alien to him? So, from the standpoint of the devils
themselves or from the standpoint of God himself, it would seem inconceivable
that Christ’s supernatural power could have been derived from Satan, if there be
such a being. And since there is no other conceivable source from which his
power could have come, it must have come, as Nicodemus said, from God. As
observed above, what is shown of Christ in particular would apply in general to
all true miracle workers from whom the Bible comes. c. God’s Message Is
Indubitably True.

There are only two ways by which any person can come to say something that is
untrue: either by ignorance or lying. A person may either mean to speak the
truth but not know it; or know the truth but not mean to speak it. Thus the
error must come from a defect of mind (not knowing enough) or a defect of heart
(not loving the truth). God suffers from neither limitation and therefore cannot
speak untruth. His message must be true indubitably.

First, God cannot err from ignorance. His knowledge is infinite. There is
nothing which he does not know. All things which exist, exist of his power and
will and cannot lie outside the range of his knowledge. If there were anything
which God did not know it would lie outside his domain. If so, he would not be
infallible, all-powerful, independent; in short, he would not be God.

Second, God cannot err by lying. If God lied as well as told truth his creatures
could never know which was which. Nor would it do any good to ask him for if he
lied he would tell us that the truth was falsehood and falsehood was the truth.
This would be cruel. It would leave the creature in hopeless confusion. It would
also be unintelligent on the part of Creator for his creature would be of no use
as he wandered hopelessly in the dark. So, if God lied he could not be God for
he would not be good or intelligent or holy.

Thus, God’s message is indubitably true. He could not lie if he would nor would
he lie if he could. He could not be wrong if he would and he would not be wrong
if he could. d. God’s Message Includes the Inspiration of the Bible.

Jesus Christ, the “teacher sent from God” taught that the Bible (Old Testament)
was the inspired Word of God. “Scripture,” he said, “could not be broken” (John
10:35). Every “jot and tittle” was to be fulfilled (Matthew 5:18). He claimed to
be divine (Matthew 11:27; John 10:30; John 14:9) and also said that the
Scriptures bore witness of him (John 5:39) which implied their Inspiration. He
argued from details (John 10:34) and recognized Biblical authority by the
formula: “it is written” (Mark 11:17; Luke 18:31). This is admitted by virtually
all modern scholars as one of them put it: Christ’s teaching concerning the Old
Testament Bible was “fundamentalistic.”

Likewise, Christ authenticated the New Testament by promising to send the Spirit
to lead the apostles into all truth (John 14:26). This leading the apostles in
turn claimed (cf. for example, 2 Corinthians 12:1-13) as they wrote or
sanctioned the writing of the New Testament. e. Therefore the Inspiration of the
Bible Is Indubitably True.

One may and must question whether a message is from God but one cannot question
a message which is once shown to be from God. This is the basic point which
those who rest the Inspiration for the Bible on the Bible’s own testimony
overlook. They rightly and righteously recognize that the Bible must be
instantly accepted as what it says it is; namely, the Word of God. But they
overlook the fact that the Bible is not instantly accepted because it says it is
the Word of God. They are unconsciously persuaded of the Bible’s divinity on
other grounds. Consequently each time they hear the Bible referring to its
Inspiration they know and accept this as true. Nevertheless they forget, because
they never consciously recognize, that the truth of this self-affirmation is
established on other grounds and merely confirmed by the self-affirmation.

There can be no higher proof of anything than the ipse dixit of God. God
speaking is Truth speaking. What God says is so, is so. It could not be
otherwise. If God could be supposed to have made an error our world and all
worlds are in ruins. Reason, meaning, life and all have perished instantly. We
may ask these prior questions about God’s existence necessarily assuming the
validity of our thinking processes as we do. These lead us to the knowledge of
God. He, in turn, verifies the validity of our prior assumptions. But if he did
not exist, or if he could err (which are one and the same thing), then the very
thinking processes by which we arrive at the conclusion that God does not exist
are so many gratuitous assumptions. Therefore if God could err, error would have
no meaning for truth would have no meaning. Nothing would have any meaning.
Nothing would even be. So God who is truth, who cannot err, has inspired the
Bible and the Bible is truth and cannot err.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 7: 01.06.     THE TESTIMONY OF DIVINELY COMMISSIONED MESSENGERS (CONT.)
========================================================================

6º The Testimony of Divinely Commissioned Messengers as the Basis for Bible
Inerrancy (cont.) (b) The Argument from Inspired Bible to Inerrant Bible. So far
we have shown the Inspiration of the Bible. But some will say: “You are supposed
to show more than that: namely, the Inerrancy of the Bible.” They seem to think
that it is possible to have an inspired Bible which is yet an errant Bible. Or,
to put it another way, they suppose that it is possible to have a partially
inspired Bible. If this were so we would readily grant that we have not proved
our point. If the Bible is partially inspired and partially not inspired, there
can be no denying the possibility of error in the uninspired part of the
Scriptures. So let us attempt to show the movement from inspired to inerrant
Bible.

1. An inspired Bible means an inerrant Bible. They are one and the same thing.
To put it another way: an inspired Bible is a completely inspired Bible. If it
is completely inspired it is, as we have shown above, a completely inerrant
Bible because God cannot err or lie.

Why do we say that for the Bible to be inspired is to be completely inspired?
The question should be the other way around. That is, if a message is said to he
inspired why does anyone say that it is only partly inspired? We have said above
that God commissioned these Bible writers and that they wrote under his
commission. If this is so, why would we not assume that all that they wrote
rather than certain parts of it were inspired? We admit that if they said that
their message was only partly inspired that would prove that such was the case.
But then for those parts they would not be speaking as the divinely commissioned
writers but on their own, as it were. In other words, the burden of proof is on
partial inspirationists and not total inspirationists. They must show that these
writers who claimed Inspiration for the Bible exempted certain parts of it from
their claim.

Some have accepted this burden of proof. Let us examine one of the very few
texts to which they appeal to show the merely human writing of certain parts of
the Bible. Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 7:10, “And unto the married, I command,
yet not I, but the Lord, . . .” First, we note that this proves far more than
our friends want to prove or can admit. If these words were intended by Paul as
this interpretation would have it, then he is uninspired unless he specifically
claims to be inspired within the contexts of his writings. “Not I but the Lord,”
according to this view, means that it was Paul alone who had been speaking but
at this particular juncture the Lord himself speaks. That this is not the
meaning we have already shown by proving that the Bible writers claimed the
authority of Christ in writing. They were commissioned by God to give his
message. On the view being considered, Paul would be going back on that and
rarely, on occasions such as this one, actually claims Inspiration for himself.
According to this, then only a tiny fragment of the Bible is the Word of God.
Second, another construction of these words is possible which would fit with
Paul’s overall doctrine and appears, therefore, to be his meaning. He may,
according to the words themselves, be here distinguishing his particular
revelations on the subject of marriage from that which came from the teaching of
Jesus himself. (Jesus, in fact, did teach in Matthew 5:32 that infidelity was a
just basis for divorce by the innocent party but said nothing about separation
which Paul here reveals as another just ground for divorce.)

Paul is also thought to contradict total Inspiration doctrine when in 1
Corinthians 1:16 he says he is unable to remember whether he had baptized any
others. But how this in any way, directly or indirectly, denies his Inspiration
at that moment is never shown. It is merely insinuated. The insinuation seems to
be that God could not inspire forgetfulness. But God’s Inspiration guarantees
only Inerrancy not necessarily total recall. If Paul remembered wrongly we would
have an uninspired Paul; but a Paul who does not remember is a Paul who is
inspired to record that very fact for our instruction (presumably, concerning
the nature of Inspiration, what it does and does not include, what it does and
does not exclude).

2. There are not merely implicit but also explicit statements that the Bible is
completely, and not merely partially, inspired. The classic text is 2 Timothy
3:16. We cannot in a small work go into a detailed exposition but can merely say
here, as is generally granted, that the correct translation of this text is:
“All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, and for training in righteousness” (RSV). “Not one jot or one
tittle” (the slightest detail, that is) of the law shall pass away until all is
fulfilled (Matthew 5:18; cf. also 1 Corinthians 2:13). This could never be said
of any partially fallible law. Christ and Paul could not make their arguments
rest on single words (John 10:35; Galatians 3:16) if Inspiration did not extend
to the individual words.

3. If the Bible were merely partially inspired we would be worse off than if it
were totally uninspired, for we would then have the excruciating task of
distinguishing the Word of God in the Bible with no means for so doing. No one
who has ever advocated the partial Inspiration view has provided us with a means
of separating the inspired and uninspired parts. Some think that Luther, for
example, used the doctrine of justification by faith alone as the touchstone of
Inspiration. We do not think that is an accurate understanding of Luther; but,
for the moment, let us suppose it is. How could Luther or anyone else know that
justification by faith is true, if not on the ground that it is taught by the
Word of God? If the Bible is the Word of God because it teaches justification
rather than justification being the truth of God because it is taught in the
Bible by what means do we know this? We have shown how we know that the Bible is
the Word of God and how from this we could know that justification is true, but
how can anyone prove that justification is true and able to serve as the
touchstone to the Word of God? This is a basal fallacy of the “Confession of
1967” (cf. appendix) which virtually makes “Reconciliation” as the mark of the
Word of God.

If we pushed this matter to fundamentals we would find ourselves back on one of
the wrong bases for the right doctrine which we considered in Part I. This is no
doubt the reason that adherents of this view prefer merely to advocate it rather
than argue for it; that is, to assume that one can know what part of the Bible
is inspired and what part is not (but neglect to tell us how to do this little
thing).

We said above that the partial Inspiration doctrine is actually worse than no
doctrine of Inspiration. With no doctrine of Inspiration you would be most
unfortunate; however, you would not be doomed to searching for it where it could
not be found. On this present view one would have to search without ever knowing
whether he had found. By comparison, searching for a needle in a haystack would
be child’s play for you know there is the needle and given sufficient effort and
time it can be found. But on the partial Inspiration theory you know that a
great and invaluable mine of divine truth is there but you also know that while
you must seek for such a treasure it is impossible that you would ever find it.
You could never know that you found it even when you had it in your hands, as it
were. You could hold the precious gold of God’s Word in your hand and not be
sure that it was not human slime while, on the other hand, you could hold human
slime and not be sure that it was not God’s precious truth. You must ever be
searching and never coming to the knowledge of the truth.

Thus, we believe that we have shown that the Bible is the Word of God inspired,
and inerrant. Not everything that God says, he says in the Bible. We have
indicated that he revealed himself to us before he revealed himself further and
savingly in sacred Scripture. But everything that the Bible says, God says.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 8: 01.07.     OBJECTIONS ALLEGEDLY ARISING FROM SCIENCE
========================================================================

Part III - Some Unsound Bases for Sound Doctrine 7º Objections Allegedly Arising
from Science

It is objected to the Inerrancy doctrine that the Bible has many errors
traceable to the inadequacy of the knowledge of the period during which the
Bible was written. This is a major reason for setting aside the Westminster
Confession by the drafters of “The Confession of 1967” as may be seen in the
Appendix. It is added that these errors do not invalidate the message of the
Bible; but merely disprove its Inerrancy and Inspiration. Adherents of
Infallibility, it says, are forced into all sorts of unscholarly and
obscurantist positions in their necessary defense of the Bible versus the
findings of modern science. Admitting the mere humanness of the Bible and
seeking the Word of God elsewhere than in its pages are presented as truly
scientific and at the same time truly spiritual. To this we reply: first, this
position overlooks the two kinds of authority in an infallible Bible. There is
what is called historical authority and normative authority (which is discussed
more fully in the Appendix). Historical authority applies to every word of an
inerrant Bible and tells us simply that whatever the Bible says was said or done
was indeed said or done. Such information does not tell us whether what was said
and done ought to have been said or ought to have been done. Only the normative
authority of the inerrant Bible answers that question. For a fuller discussion
of this difference see the Appendix. Its relevance to the point under question
is important. It teaches us that Bible writers themselves may have been laboring
under erroneous impressions without this being normative instruction for us.
Suppose they did think of a three-storied universe, which was the common opinion
in their day, the Bible does not err unless it teaches such as a divine
revelation of truth. In fact, by showing that the writers may have personally
entertained ideas now antiquated it reveals its own historical authenticity
without its normative authenticity suffering.

Second, sometimes the difference between popular and technical or pedantic
language is overlooked. “At sunset, Isaac went out to meditate” (Genesis 24:63)
does not mean that the Bible teaches the Ptolemaic astronomy. It is not
pedantically teaching that the sun rotates about the earth so that there is a
literal “sunset.” This was and is a common way of speaking and does not
necessarily reflect the thinking of those who use such language. Someone has
said that if the Bible were to be scientifically exact it would have read: “when
the rotation of the solar luminary on its axis was such that its rays impinged
horizontally on the retina, Isaac went out to meditate.” We once lived in
“Sunset Hills” and not one adult in the community believed that the sun ever
sets. Likewise the “sun’s standing still” (Joshua 10:12) would be the way things
would appear, not necessarily the way they would be. While we are referring to
this miracle let us add another observation dealing with another criticism. Some
object to the accuracy of this particular miracle arguing that if the sun did
appear stationary for so long a period the whole universe would have been thrown
out of order in one way and another. The objection is puerile. If God is able to
do as much as the narrative relates it would be no more difficult to take care
of all the attendant details! For the Creator any manipulation of the creation
whatsoever would be infinitely easy — but it seems infinitely difficult for some
to see this.

Third, much unnecessary strain is caused by the hasty judgments of the Bible’s
friends and foes alike. We cannot examine at all thoroughly all the problems
growing out of the creation narrative (Genesis 1:1-31 Genesis 2:125 Genesis
3:1-24) for example; but, this general statement is true, we believe: If every
Bible scholar were careful not to read anything out of the Scripture teachings
except what it indubitably teaches and natural scientists were equally careful
to claim nothing as scientifically established but what is indubitably true, the
tensions between science and Scripture would be reduced to a negligible minimum.
For example, the Bible does not teach that God created the world in 4004 B.C. As
Gordon Clark has written: we defend the Inspiration of the Bible, not of
Archbishop Ussher. These are merely a few samples of a few types of objections
to the doctrine of Inerrancy. There are many more types and there are many more
answers. But this would seem to be a sufficient sampling for our purposes. A
select and recommended bibliography may he found appended which will serve for
further and more extensive investigation. In closing we should like to say only
this. In the case of alleged discrepancies it is not our burden to show how
these may be reconciled as we have done above out of the “goodness of our
hearts” and not the exigencies of our situation. We have given a case for the
Inerrancy of the Bible. Unless this case can be shown to be false, then it
carries with it the guarantee that there are no discrepancies. We have, in other
words, if our case is sound, shown that discrepancies are only apparent and must
be reconcilable even if we say not one word about how this reconciliation is to
be shown. It behooves the opponent to prove us wrong by showing his
“discrepancies” to be discrepancies incapable of harmonization. We have every
reason to anticipate that he can succeed in so doing no better in the future
than he has in the past because the Bible, we believe, is the inerrant Word of
God.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 9: 01.08.     OBJECTIONS ARISING FROM AN ALLEGED “DOCETISM”
========================================================================

8º Objections Arising from an Alleged “Docetism” A very modern theological
objection to Inerrancy is an implied “Docetism.” Docetism refers to an early
heresy denying the genuineness of Christ’s humanity. It maintained that Christ
merely appeared (dokein) to be human. Inerrancy does essentially the same thing
to the Bible, it is said, that the docetists did to Christ; namely, deny its
genuine humanness. “To err is human” and to be human is to err. If the Bible has
no error it could not really have been written by men. Thus the human authors of
the Bible, according to Inerrancy, it is charged, only appear to have written
the Bible. In brief, the argument runs thus:

1. Inerrancy teaches that the Bible authors could not err.

2. But humans can err.

3. Therefore, Inerrancy implicitly teaches that the authors of the Bible were
not human.

However, in this neat little syllogism they have neglected to observe a crucial
part of the picture. Perhaps it will be clearest if we insert it where it
belongs in the otherwise consistent syllogism:

1. Inerrancy teaches that the Bible authors could not err.

2. But humans can err (unless the omnipotent God preserves them from error
without destroying their humanity).

3. Therefore Inerrancy implicitly teaches that the authors of the Bible were
human (but we deny merely that their sinful erring tendencies were in operation
during the writing of Holy Scripture).

Some may think that we here deny a principle we have defended above. There, we
said that God could not force the will of man without destroying man as man.
Here we say that God can suspend the operation of human sinfulness without
destroying the humanity of the persons concerned. The difference is this:
freedom is essential to the nature of man but sinfulness is not. Remove freedom
and man ceases to be; remove sinfulness and he does not cease to be a man (in
fact, he is only perfectly human without sin).

Furthermore, there is a rather interesting inconsistency among most of our
critics. While they deny that the Bible writers can be truly human while writing
without error they will not deny that Jesus could be truly human while living
without error or even sin of any kind. This criticism has the value of calling
even greater attention to Inerrancy’s insistence on the genuineness and
indispensable importance of human participation in the writing of Scripture.
While God’s part has been insisted on throughout this and most literature on the
Inspiration of the Bible, this is because it is so often challenged and is of
such infinite importance. Sometimes in this stress on the divine, the human is,
we regret to say, overlooked. Finally, some critics appear who claim that we
deny the human role altogether. This calls forth our reiteration that the Bible
is no less the word of man than it is the Word of God. But it is the word of men
inspired by God. The Bible, then, is the Word of God expressed in the inspired
words of men.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 10: 01.09.     APPENDIX ON CONFESSION OF 1967 (OF UPCUSA)
========================================================================

Appendix on “The Confession of 1967”

(of the United Presbyterian Church in the USA) The one position of the
Westminster Confession of Faith which the Confession of 1967 avowedly and
admittedly changes is that on the Bible. In the “Introductory Comment and
Analysis” the Committee says: “This section is an intended revision of the
Westminster doctrine, which rested primarily on a view of inspiration and
equated the Biblical canon directly with the Word of God. By contrast, the
pre-eminent and primary meaning of the word of God in the Confession of 1967 is
the Word of God incarnate. The function of the Bible is to be the instrument of
the revelation of the Word in the living church. It is not a witness among
others but the witness without parallel, the norm of all other witness. At the
same time questions of antiquated cosmology, diverse cultural influences, and
the like, may be dealt with by careful scholarship uninhibited by the doctrine
of inerrancy which placed the older Reformed theology at odds with advances in
historical and scientific studies” (p. 29; all quotations are from the official
“Blue-book” of the General Assembly, May, 1965). This is flatly contrary to the
promise on page 1 of the “Blue-book”: “The proposal for amending the Confession
does not entail revision or deletion (except for the deletion of the Westminster
Larger Catechism) . . .” Here is an admitted revision following on the heels of
a denial of such a purpose. But still it is to be admired for its candor. We
suppose that it was an unintentional oversight that the committee did not
mention this one acknowledged revision as it did the one acknowledged deletion.
What is far more serious is that the whole mentality of the new Confession is
different from that of the old one. Its intention is probably not revision but
rejection. But candor has not reached the point of admitting that. The lack of
frankness at this point is an advantage as well as disadvantage, however. It
results in an ambiguity which, while it covers the probable intention of the
committee, also permits adherents of the Westminster Confession of Faith to
remain in the church in good conscience. They will be offended by this absence
of the very clarity for which the Westminster Confession of Faith has always
been justly famous. But whatever heresies may lurk in the shadows of vague
language all of them have not yet dared to come to the light. Through the
obfuscations of the new creed the light of truth from the old ones will continue
to shine unabated to the glory of God and the comfort of those who still believe
what they vowed at their ordination.

Let us first examine the preliminary statement (p. 29) before proceeding to the
creedal section on the Bible “. . . Westminster doctrine which rested primarily
on a view of inspiration and equated the Biblical canon directly with the Word
of God We have no serious quarrel with this statement but will elaborate a
little so as to prevent misunderstanding especially by the layman. First,
Westminster is not unique in resting its doctrines on a view of Inspiration.
Virtually all Christian creeds have done this either expressedly or impliedly.
(It is one of the notable weaknesses of the new creed that it does not do so.)
When we say impliedly, we mean that Inspiration is assumed even when there is no
special article on the Bible. Inspiration is a catholic or universal or
ecumenical, if you please, and not an exclusively Presbyterian, doctrine. In
other words, in its eagerness to be modern the new creed would antiquate the
Presbyterian Church by reverting to the time before creeds began. As soon as the
church did begin to speak about the Bible it testified to its Inspiration. Never
before has a church spoken of the Bible without bearing witness to its
Inspiration. So powerful is the pull of the past even on this new creed that it
cannot get entirely free of this tradition as we shall see when we come to
consider its testimony that the Bible is the “normative witness.” Even that word
“normative” did not satisfy the Commissioners to the General Assembly of 1965.

Second, while Westminster “equated the Biblical canon directly with the Word of
God” this does not imply that it admitted of no differences within the Word of
God. Obviously, when the Word of God says, “And Satan said,” that does not mean
that God said what Satan said! It means that God said that Satan said it. This
is quite another thing. To use a distinction that was acknowledged by the
Westminster divines, as well as all other Reformed theologians: the authority of
the Bible is complete but it is of two kinds. The Bible has descriptive and
normative authority (authentia historica and authentia normativa). Descriptive
authority means that everything which the Bible says happened, was spoken, or
was thought — did happen, or was spoken, or was thought. It is authentic history
however bad the event may have been which the history records. All of the Word
of God, according to Westminster, has this descriptive authority or
authenticity. Within this Word of God as authentic record is the Word of God as
normative or authoritative for faith and practice. When God said, as noted
above, that Satan said, we know that Satan so said; but, we are not to believe
and practice as Satan says. But when the Word of God says that God said then we
know both that God so said and that we are so to believe and so to practice.

We must add, also, that although Westminster equated the Biblical canon directly
with the Word of God, as thus explained, this does not deny progress within the
normative revelation of God anymore than affirming that God is the author of the
whole creation is meant to deny that there is a difference between the egg and
the chicken which comes from it.

One further and rather technical detail perhaps ought to be added. Westminster
did not exactly “equate” the Word of God with the “canon.” It identified the
Word of God with the original text of the canonical books. Furthermore, the Word
of God is not quite identified with the canon because the canon is the judgment
of men about the Word of God and not the Word of God itself. As B. B. Warfield,
of old Princeton, who as much as any man since the Westminster standards were
formulated shared their mentality, has written: the canon is not an inspired
collection of books but a collection of inspired books.

“By contrast, the pre-eminent and primary meaning of the word of God in the
Confession of 1967 is the Word of God incarnate.” What have we here? The “word
of God” (that is, the Bible, the fallible word of men which incidentally ought
not from this viewpoint to be called the word of God but the word to God) means
Jesus Christ (“the Word of God incarnate”). We invite any competent and candid
interpreter to make of these words something other than nonsense or blasphemy.
If the words of men which we call the Bible means Jesus Christ then such
statements as we mentioned above (“Satan said”) mean Jesus Christ; the statement
of Paul that “Demas has forsaken us having loved this present world,” means
Jesus Christ; “At sunset Isaac went out to meditate” means Jesus Christ; and the
like. To say that sinful actions, incidental details, trivial data severally
mean Jesus Christ — well, it is far more charitable to say that this is nonsense
rather than blasphemy. But what other construction can fairly be placed on these
words? But someone (charging us with a lack of love when we think we are being
as charitable as it is possible to be) will say: The statement simply means that
the words of the Biblical writers point to Jesus Christ. What words? Some point
away from Christ as truly as others point to him. Reformed theology has shown
how to distinguish them, as we indicated above; but, in the new creed no such
formula is given. We have only the blanket statement: “the pre-eminent and
primary meaning of the word of God . . . is the Word of God incarnate.” But if
we should grant that the words of men in the Bible do in fact point to Christ
(directly and indirectly, by inference and affirmation, by what is not, as cue
to what is) then what is the difference between this and what the Westminster
Confession of Faith teaches? Or, do our new creed writers wish to add slander to
neglect when they write: “By contrast” (to the Westminster Confession of Faith!)
“the pre-eminent and primary meaning of the word of God in the Confession of
1967 is the Word of God incarnate”? Do they suppose for one moment that our
fathers in the faith thought that the Bible as the Word of God had any other
pre-eminent and primary meaning than Jesus Christ? “Ye search the Scriptures for
they bear witness of me” (John 5:39). 1647 believed this as much as 1967 and in
a far more intelligible manner. What it amounts to is this: the new creed is
saying nothing or something; if something, it is a slander of our fathers; if
nothing, it is an insult to us.

“The function of the Bible is to be the instrument of the revelation of the Word
in the living church.” Let us compare this with the classic statement of the
Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. I, Sec. 10: “The Supreme Judge, by which
all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils,
opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be
examined and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy
Spirit speaking in the Scripture.” In the Westminster doctrine the Bible is
indeed the instrument of the revelation of the Word (Christ) in the living
church. But it is a doctrine of the Bible as instrument which we can understand.
The Bible was inspired by God and as such has perpetual authority. The Holy
Spirit of Christ still works by means of it as the permanent expression of his
will by which the church is to be led. Here is a characteristic reaffirmation of
the famous Calvinistic principle: the Word and the Spirit; the Word reveals the
Spirit and the Spirit illumines the Word. The Word will not be properly received
apart from the Spirit and the Spirit does not speak apart from the Word. If our
new creedalists meant this we should rejoice; but, alas, nothing is further from
their doctrines. We must not forget that they have explicitly rejected the
Westminster view of Scripture. What, then, do they mean? This they attempt to
explain first, affirmatively and, second, negatively, in the two sentences which
immediately follow to which we now turn.

“It is not a witness among others but witness without parallel, the norm of all
other witness.” “It” clearly refers to the Bible which is the subject of the
preceding sentence. Thus the new creedalists are saying here that the Bible is
the witness which is the norm of all other witness. Now a “norm” is a standard
by which other of like character are tested. Accordingly, the Bible is the
standard or test by which all other witnesses including, for example, this new
creed, are tested for their truthfulness. The Bible, mind you, is the norm of
all witness to Christ. The Westminster divines could not express it better. In
fact, this is what the Westminster Confession of Faith is expressing. Why then
do the new creedalists take exception to Westminster while expressing the same
doctrine? The fact seems to be that they are not using the normal meaning of
“norm.” Here is an abnormal “norm”; a standard which is not a standard. It is
rather embarrassing to say that men are not using language normally and are not
saying what they took seven years to formulate. That such is the sorry case is,
however, as clear as it is surprising. First, they said, as noted, that their
doctrine is other than Westminster. Second, they expressly repudiated the
historic doctrine of “inspiration.” Third, they call the Bible “the word of God”
in sharp contrast to the “Word of God.” If the Bible is not inspired and is
merely the word of men then either men are perfect or a norm of the Word of God
is not a norm. The imperfection of men is taught not only in the other creeds
left standing in the new program but taught in the “new creed” also (Part I,
Sect. I, B). So we lamentably say that the new creed is one in which a “norm” is
not a “norm” or error is the norm of Truth (the Word of God).

Fourth, the next, the negative, proposition to which we now come explicitly
rejects the Bible as “normative” (in any sense).

“At the same time questions of antiquated cosmology, diverse cultural
influences, and the like, may be dealt with by careful scholarship uninhibited
by the doctrine of inerrancy which placed the older Reformed theology at odds
with advances in historical and scientific studies.”

We are certain that every member of the committee which drew up the new creed
would agree that the above statement means the following: the new creed,
rejecting the doctrine of Inerrancy, leaves its adherents freer to accept
historical and scientific studies which contradict the historical and scientific
statements of the Bible. This is not, in fact, what this inaccurate, pejorative,
disrespectful-to-the-fathers statement actually says; but, since it is
undoubtedly what it intended to say let us address ourselves to the intention
and ignore the unhappy form of expression. The upshot of the matter is this: We
are being told that the scientifically and historically errant word of God is
nonetheless the norm of all witness to the Word of God! The committee shows
wisdom in not seeking to illustrate this.

We turn now to the main treatment of the Bible in the creed itself, Part I,
Section III b. “The Bible.”

“The one sufficient revelation of God is Jesus Christ, the Word of God
incarnate, to whom the Holy Spirit bears witness in many ways. The church has
received the Old and New Testaments as the normative witness to this revelation
and has recognized them as Holy Scriptures.”

We grant that “the one sufficient revelation of God is Jesus Christ” but why do
they not grant that the one sufficient revelation of Jesus Christ is the Bible?
Christ did: “. . . they” (the Scriptures) “bear witness of me” (John 5:39). Paul
did: “The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came
into the world to save sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15; cf. Luke 19:10; Romans 5:8).
What God has joined together (the Word of God incarnate and the Word of God
inscripturated), why does the committee attempt to rend asunder?

“. . . to whom the Holy Spirit bears witness in many ways”: Whatever the word
“norm” may mean when applied to the Bible it is here clear that the Bible is not
unique. It is not the only “revelation” of its kind as the church from the
beginning (the whole church from the very beginning) has confessed. According to
the new confession it is only one among many ways in which the Holy Spirit bears
witness to Christ. To be sure it is the “norm” for others which, however, can
only differ from it in degree, not kind. It is becoming clear that the Bible is
thought of merely as the first and best of all these witnesses. But assuming
this inadequate view for the sake of argument, how do we know that the Bible is
the norm of the rest of the witnesses? Answer: “The church has received” it as
such. The Bible claims its own Inspiration some three thousand tunes hut this
does not prove it. But the church recognizes the Bible as normative; this does
prove it. Rome must be amused to hear such sentiments coming from the children
of Calvin. They may well anticipate that it should not be long before these
seers find the Holy Spirit bearing witness to the Word of God in the papacy as
Romanists have themselves contended for centuries (for critique of this approach
cf. Chapter 4 above).

“The New Testament is the recorded testimony of apostles to the coming of Jesus
Christ and the sending of the Holy Spirit to the church. The Old Testament is
received in the church as Holy Scripture which bears witness to God’s
faithfulness to Israel and points the way for fulfillment of his purpose in the
Jew, Jesus of Nazareth. The Old Testament is indispensable to understanding the
New, and is not itself fully understood without the New.” That the New Testament
is the recorded testimony of apostles to Jesus Christ is, of course, true. It is
also much more than that — it is the recorded testimony of God to the apostles.
The most vital thing for us is not that the apostles testify to God but that God
testifies to or confirms the apostles. There is a vast difference between an
infallible witness to an infallible Christ and a fallible witness to an
infallible Christ. If it is a fallible witness it may (fortunately) be generally
reliable as historical testimony to the major matters, but not absolutely
reliable on all matters.

Here, again, in this paragraph we have the church’s receiving of the Old
Testament and the New Testament as the crucial evidence for its authority — an
utterly Romish view, as already shown. Here, again, also is the selective,
discriminating acceptance of the witness of the Bible. It would seem that the
committee is normative for the Bible rather than the Bible, as such, for the
committee. That is, the Scripture is received as witness to God’s faithfulness
to Israel. But the Scripture also bears witness to God’s rejection of Israel.
That witness, nevertheless, seems not to be accepted by the committee, as the
Bible teaches it. Hosea, for example, is a favorite Old Testament prophet
because of his representation of the longsuffering of Yahweh. But what becomes
of Hosea when he says: “. . . I will no more have pity on the house of Israel,
to forgive them at all” (Hosea 1:6)? Paul is supposedly writing Scripture which
the church can accept when he says (2 Corinthians 5:19): “. . . God was in
Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against
them. . . .” But the same apostle must be uncanonical when he declares (Romans
11:22): “Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those
who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his
kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.” As soon as we express gratitude
for the enunciation of a sound principle, such as the interdependence of the two
Testaments, we must immediately remind ourselves that we are reading something
into this document which it does not intend. It does not mean that the New
Testament is latent in the Old Testament and the Old Testament patent in the New
Testament as this phraseology would normally signify. So to construe it would be
to wrench this text of the new creed out of its context. It may seem charitable
to do so but it would not be true. But if it is not true neither is it
charitable, for charity rejoices in the truth (1 Corinthians 13:6, AV). And the
truth, according to this context, must mean: not that the New Testament is
latent in the Old Testament but that some of the New Testament is latent in some
of the Old Testament. Nor is the Old Testament patent in the New Testament but
some of the Old Testament is patent in some of the New Testament. And that
“some” in each case is that which the church of the new creedalists deigns to
receive.

“God’s word is spoken to his church today where the Scriptures are faithfully
preached and attentively read in dependence on the guidance of the Holy Spirit
and with readiness to receive their truth and direction.”

Surely this is the form of sound words but its meaning is loaded and all in the
wrong direction. Faithfully to read and preach the Bible, according to this
committee, is to distinguish between the errant husk and cleave to the inerrant
but also indefinable Truth. If this seems to be an impossible task an adequate
help is suggested in the Holy Spirit’s guidance. But alas, the Holy Spirit
cannot help us either for we do not know how to recognize his guidance until the
committee tells us. If the Holy Spirit guided us into the understanding of
inspired Scripture as the Westminster Confession of Faith taught us — this we
could understand. Or, if the Spirit led us into an understanding of some
definite part of Scripture —this we could understand. But it is only when the
Spirit guides us into an understanding in accordance with this or some
committee’s understanding that we can rely upon him. Having dispensed with the
Inspiration of the Bible we must now look to the inspiration of a committee. We
are sure that this committee does not think that it is the only inspired
committee. There must be other committees also, alas. If anything is likely to
awaken the church to its real danger it will be the realization that once we
have done away with Holy Scripture — Holy Spirit, in the vacuum thereby created
we must have an infinite series of holy committees!

“The Bible is to be interpreted in the light of its witness to God’s work of
reconciliation in Christ. The words of the Scriptures are the words of men,
conditioned by the language, thought forms, and literary fashions of the places
and times at which they were written. They reflect views of life, history, and
the cosmos which were then current, and the understanding of them requires
literary and historical scholarship. The variety of such views found in the
Bible shows that God has communicated with men in diverse cultural conditions.
This gives the church confidence that he will continue to speak to men in a
changing world and in every form of human culture.” The reader will recognize
that this has been said before and criticized before. There appears to be no
need for repetition. If our earlier words were true then the new creed’s climax
is untrue. The important thing for the reader of this and all doctrines, for
that matter, is to judge righteous judgment (John 7:24). There is an unrighteous
judgment of principles as well as a righteous one, and it may be favorable as
well as unfavorable. Some seem to think that we do an injustice to a statement
only when we draw unfair, incriminating deductions from it. But we also do an
injustice when we draw unfair, exonerating deductions from it. To make a
righteous judgment, as commanded by our Lord, is to avoid all unfair judgments
whether favorable or unfavorable. Because this is the proposed creed of earnest,
serious-minded, hard-working Christian persons who are more likely to be
unrighteous in our judgments by being too lenient than by being too strict. But
we must avoid both if we would render righteous judgments. We must attempt, as
we have here attempted (God being our witness), with malice toward none, free of
any desire to find anyone at fault for a word, to ascertain what is meant by the
proposed “Confession of 1967.” With one member of this present committee we are
personally and fairly intimately acquainted and we bear him witness that he
appears to be one of the most sincere Christians we have ever had the privilege
of knowing. It may be that every other committee member is of such caliber.
Nevertheless, notwithstanding the possible soundness of the persons who composed
it, this creed is anything but sound. We appeal to them, no less than all
others, when we urge them, in the name of the Christ, whom we all profess to
love, to rescind this confession before it becomes an indelible blemish on the
escutcheon of the church.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 11: 01.10.     SELECT AND RECOMMENDED BIBLIOGRAPHY
========================================================================

Biblical Inerrancy by John H Gerstner Select and Recommended Bibliography

* Bruce, Frederick Fyvie. Are the New Testament Documents Reliable? London,
Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1946.

* Engelder, Theodore. Scripture Cannot Be Broken; Six Objections to Verbal
Inspiration Examined in the Light of the Scripture. St. Louis, Concordia
Publishing House, 1944.

* Gaussen, François Samuel Robert Louis. Theopneustia: The Bible, Its Divine
Origin and Inspiration, Deduced from Internal Evidence, and the Testimonies of
Nature, History and Science. Cincinnati, George S. Blanchard, 1859.

* Haley, John W. An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible.
Chicago, W. C. Holmes, 1876.

* Henry, Carl Ferdinand Howard (ed). Revelation and the Bible. Grand Rapids,
Baker Book House, 1958.

* Packer, James Innell. “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God; Some Evangelical
Principles. Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1958.

* Walvoord, John F. (ed.). Inspiration and Interpretation. Grand Rapids, Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1957.

* Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge.* The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible.
Philadelphia, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1948.

* Can I Trust My Bible? Important questions often asked about the Bible, with
some answers by eight evangelical scholars. Chicago, Moody Press, 1963.

* The Infallible Word, a Symposium by the Members of the Faculty of Westminster
Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, The Presbyterian Guardian Publishing Corp.,
1946.

*Warfield is author of other works and articles bearing on our subject. We
recommend his writings as best of all and himself as the ablest Reformed
theologian of the twentieth century.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 12: 02.00. THEOLOGY FOR EVERYMAN
========================================================================

Theology for Everyman By Dr. John H. Gerstner Table of Contents

Everyman Must be a Theologian God’s Providence: A Two-edged Sword Sin Makes No
Racial Distinctions Jesus Christ: The God-Man Atonement: How Jesus Paid It All
Justification by Faith: Twofold Salvation Sanctification: Christianizing the
Christian Assurance: How We Know That We Know Christ The Church: Body of Christ
The Future: Gulf Between Two Worlds The Way: Straight and Narrow

Author

Dr. John H. Gerstner was born in Tampa, Florida, and raised in Pennsylvania. He
earned his Ph.D. from Harvard University. Dr. Gerstner pastored several churches
before accepting a professorship at Pittsburgh-Xenia Theological Seminary, where
he taught church history for over 30 years. He served as a visiting professor at
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, and adjunct
professor at Knox Theological Seminary in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Dr. Gerstner
was also professor-at-large for Ligonier Ministries for many years, and recorded
numerous lectures on audio and video for that organization.

Dr. Gerstner was a stalwart champion of the cause of reformed theology and, in
particular, the teachings of Jonathan Edwards. This book was first published by
Moody Press, Chicago, in 1965..


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 13: 02.01.     CHAPTER I EVERYMAN MUST BE A THEOLOGIAN
========================================================================

CHAPTER I Everyman Must be a Theologian LAYMEN SOMETIMES THINK they need not be
theologians. That, however, is a very great mistake.

They do need to be theologians; at least, they should be amateur theologians. In
fact, that is the one vocation every man is obliged to follow. A layman does not
need to be a plumber, a carpenter, a lawyer, a doctor, a teacher, a laborer, a
housewife. These are all possibilities, not necessities. A layman may be one of
these or the other as he chooses. But he must be a theologian. This is not an
option with him but a requirement.

I. A Theologian Is One Who Knows About God

Why do we say that a layman must be a theologian? Well, let us first of all
realize what a theologian is — that is, an amateur theologian. A theologian is a
person who knows about God. A lay theologian is a person who has a true
knowledge of God which he understands in nontechnical, nonprofessional,
nonacademic terms. However, such a person is truly a theologian. Is it not clear
why a layman must necessarily be a theologian? Is there anyone, layman or
otherwise, who does not need to know God? Does the Scripture not say, “This is
life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ,
whom thou has sent” (John 17:3)? It is, then, no mere option with a layman
whether he will be a theologian or not, whether he will have eternal life or
not; it is no option with him whether he will know God or not. The knowledge of
God is necessary to eternal life. And if eternal life is necessary for every
man, then theology is also necessary for every man.

If a theologian is a person who knows God, then by reverse reasoning a person
who is not a theologian does not know God. There is no shame in a layman‘s being
told that he does not know carpentry, or plumbing, or medicine, or law, or
teaching, or the ways of a housewife; but there surely is the greatest of shame
in a layman‘s being told that he does not know God. Furthermore, there is more
than shame; there is very great danger. The Scripture says that to live apart
from God is death. And just as the text quoted says it is life eternal to know
God and Christ, another passage in the same book says that they who do not
believe in Jesus shall not see life and, furthermore, the wrath of God abides
upon them: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that
believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him”
(John 3:36).

“Well,” the layman may say, “look here, you‘ve slipped in a new term on us. That
last passage talks about faith and not knowledge. It says except a person
‘believe‘ in the Son. It does not say anything there about ‘knowing‘ Jesus.”
That is true, the passage does not use the word “know.” It does speak about
“belief” or “faith” rather than “knowledge” or “reason.” But have you ever
believed in somebody or something about which you knew nothing? Is it possible
to have faith in Christ unless we know who Christ is? Is it not clear,
therefore, that this passage, though it does not state expressly the necessity
of the knowledge of Christ, certainly states it implicitly? So, we say that if a
person does not have a knowledge of God and Christ it is not only a shame but a
peril to his soul, not only in this life but in the eternity which begins at
death.

II. Everyman May Be a Theologian Without Being Saved!

“But,” the layman exclaims, “do you mean to tell me that if I do not have the
knowledge of God I shall perish, and that if I do have the knowledge of God I
will live forever? Do you mean to tell me that if I am a lay theologian all is
well with my soul, whereas if I am not I am doomed forever?” No, we have not
said exactly that. Let me call your attention to what we did actually say, and
then let me add a comment relevant to one of your questions. We did say that
without knowledge of God there is no eternal life, but only eternal death. That
is true. And we did say that if we do not know God and Christ we will perish.
That is true. However, it needs to be brought out now that there is knowledge
and knowledge. The knowledge of which the Scripture speaks so approvingly we may
call “saving knowledge.” But we gather from other passages of Scripture which we
have not yet cited that there is also a false knowledge which, far from being
saving knowledge, is actually damning knowledge. But it seems to me we are now
ready for a closer consideration of this theme. Let me, therefore, lay down this
statement and devote the rest of this chapter to demonstrating it. The statement
is this: A layman may have knowledge of God and not be saved, but he can never
be saved without knowledge of God.

There is much to show that a layman may have theology without having salvation,
For one thing, the Bible says in many places that frequently persons have a
knowledge about God but do not know God. Thus, for example, the Scripture
exhorts us to be not only hearers of the Word but doers also (cf. James 1:22).
This implies that it is possible to hear, or learn, or know, without doing. It
goes on to tell us that only the doing of the Word is profitable, again carrying
the implication that persons may hear the Word and understand it without
actually doing it and therefore without being profitable.

Again, Paul speaks in Romans of those who hold the truth in unrighteousness
(Romans 1:18). That is the same as to say that some persons know God (and indeed
in this very context Paul does speak of knowing God) and yet do not worship Him
nor are they being saved by Him. So, we learn that while their knowledge is
sufficient to condemn them, they are not saved by it. In the parable of the
sower and the seed recorded in Matthew 13:1-58, our Lord tells of differing
responses to the presentation of the gospel. While the wayside soil represents
those persons who seem virtually not to hear what is preached, or not to learn
what they are taught, still the other two types of useless soil represent
persons who do hear and do understand but who nevertheless do not bring forth
fruit. Thus the shallow, rocky soil does represent a person who receives the
Word, as Jesus says. He receives it with gladness and even seems to respond
favorably to it for a while. But when he is beset by difficulties, he repudiates
the knowledge which he does have. So we see in his case an individual who knows
but does not do, who understands the way of salvation but does not attain to
salvation. The thorny soil represents a person who understands and apparently
even very deliberately understands and accepts the message but whose knowledge
is crushed out in the subsequent contest between that message and his lusts,
which are represented by thorns in the soil. But there can be no doubt that he
not only has knowledge but deep and penetrating and not merely superficial
knowledge. Nonetheless, his knowledge is choked out and the man does not obtain
to salvation.

There are many other instances of the possibility of knowing the truth without
being saved. But we will take one, that of the Pharisees, and use it as our
prime exhibit. The layman will immediately say, “Ah, but the Pharisees were
religious teachers and cannot fairly be called laymen.” This we admit. But we
will also go on to insist that our point is certified all the more by the fact
that the Pharisees, as professional theologians, had even greater knowledge than
laymen could be expected to have — and yet the Pharisees perished. Remember, we
are attempting to show that it is possible to have theological knowledge without
being saved. If we can show that one who is regarded as a professional (who has
far more religious knowledge than a layman may be expected to have) may yet
perish, how much more evident is it that any knowledge that a layman can
reasonably be expected to obtain can by no means guarantee his salvation. Jesus
approved of the Pharisees in many ways because they attempted to honor Moses‘
law — and often did — and teach his precepts to the people. However, they came
under Christ‘s withering indictment, “Woe unto you Pharisees, hypocrites,” so
often that we are led to believe that as a class these highly knowledgeable
individuals were not practitioners of their science and therefore were doomed to
condemnation. Jesus said to them, “How can you escape the damnation of hell?”
(Matthew 23:33).

III. Everyman Cannot Be Saved Without Being a Theologian!

If the above is enough to indicate that persons may have divine knowledge
without being saved, let us go on to indicate the still more pertinent truth —
that no one can be saved without the knowledge of divine truth or theology. This
is stated very explicitly in Romans 10:17. Here Paul says, “Faith cometh by
hearing.” That is as much as to affirm that there can be no belief except first
the Word of the gospel is proclaimed. The context of this explicit statement
confirms that implication. It is a missionary context in which Paul is urging
Christians to take the gospel to the world, reminding them that if they do not
do so these people cannot be saved — because faith comes by hearing. In I
Corinthians we read that it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save
men. Again, says Paul, “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the
power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16). And, after commanding the disciples
to teach whatsoever He had taught them, our Lord Jesus commissioned them to make
disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19-20). That is the same as to say that it
is by means of the faithful proclamation of the whole counsel of God that the
world is to be discipled to Jesus Christ. Consider again how our Lord prays in
His farewell discourse, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy Word is truth”
(John 17:17). In this final prayer for those who were not yet of His fold but
who were to come into His fold, our Lord prayed that they might be made holy by
means of the Word of God. Though the Spirit of God was to be given anew as soon
as Christ went to Heaven, even the Holy Spirit was not to sanctify except by
means of the Word of God. So that while the letter of the Word may be devoid of
the Spirit and therefore futile, the Spirit does not work savingly apart from
the Word. The Word is called “the sword of the Spirit” (Ephesians 6:17) Again,
in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 we read, “God hath from the beginning chosen you to
salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” There
we are told very plainly that even the eternal predestination of God is
accomplished by the instrumentality of truth. People are not brought to life
whether they know or do not know. They are not given salvation whether they
believe the truth or not. On the contrary, God chose them to salvation through
“belief of the truth.” The Scripture abounds in so many passages which indicate
this same truth that it seems to be laboring the matter unduly to add any
further discussion of this emphatic point of the Bible. We may safely conclude
that though men may know the truth and not be saved, they cannot be saved except
they know the truth. My dear laymen, laymen must be theologians. No, they need
not be professional theologians. They need not study Greek and Hebrew. They need
not necessarily be able to teach other people. But they must he theologians.
That is, they must know God. They must have sound knowledge about God. They may
not excuse themselves from having clear and correct opinions about the Deity on
the ground that they are not ordained to full-time church work but have been
called to some other service. The duty to be theologians is common to all of us.
The difference at this point between laymen and ministers is a difference not of
kind but of degree. It is an error of Rome which teaches that there is a
difference of kind between priests and people. With the Bible, the Protestant
church teaches that the Bible itself was given not solely to the clergy but to
all the people of God. We of the clergy have greater obligation, not sole
obligation. So far as time permits, and to the degree that your obligations to
this world allow, in that measure must you be familiar with the truth of God.
For that knowledge, God will hold you responsible in the day of judgment. While
you need not read this book or any other particular book except the Book, the
Word of God itself, I hope you will read this book to help you in your study of
the Bible and in your gaining a sound knowledge of God. But I remind you that
while this book may give you some knowledge of God by means of which you may be
saved, this book and no other book (indeed, not even the Bible itself) can save
you. This truth of God must be loved, must be embraced, and must be yielded to
if the person who has saving knowledge is to be saved by it. One theologian has
written that it is not enough to “understand” but you must also “stand under.”
For the truth of God is a Person — a Person who said, “I am the way, the truth,
and the life” (John 14:6). A true theologian, therefore, is a person who knows
The Person. Everyman must be a theologian.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 14: 02.02.     CHAPTER II GOD’S PROVIDENCE: A TWO-EDGED SWORD
========================================================================

CHAPTER II God’s Providence: A Two-edged Sword

ACCORDING TO the Westminster Shorter Catechism, “God’s works of providence are,
his most holy, wise, powerful preserving and governing all his creatures, and
all their actions.” This comprehensive statement says that God’s providence
encompasses all and not merely some of the acts of His creatures. Such a
definition would include big events and trifles as well — good things, but also
evil. Does not Jeremiah teach the same doctrine? “Who is he that saith, and it
cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not?” (Lamentations 3:37). Is Acts
15:18 any different? “Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the
world.” If known to God are all His deeds from the beginning, there is nothing
not known to Him. Nothing escapes His purposes — not a single hair nor a falling
sparrow.

Neither you nor I would be here to discuss providence if Providence had not
brought us here — if God had not done His will in the earth. How conscious we
are of all the little details on which our lives to this point have turned. I do
not know the trifles in your life, but I do know those in my own. Let me mention
one. If a child had dropped a marble one inch more to the left or for some
reason I had put my foot one inch more to the right as I once went down a fire
escape I would not now, probably, be discussing providence at all. Not only in
your life and mine but in the lives of historic public figures the same
significance of detail is apparent. A. H. Strong in his Systematic Theology
reminds us that Muhammad’s life once was suspended by a literal thread. The
prophet, fleeing his enemies, hid in a cave across which a spider quickly spun a
web. When the pursuers saw it, they were convinced that there was no one in the
cave. They went on. Muhammad was spared. His religion today numbers more than
three hundred million adherents. But if trifles are vital parts of divine
providence, what of evil? Evil is often vastly significant. The most important
event which ever occurred was, in one aspect, horribly evil. The crucifixion of
Jesus from the standpoint of the crucifiers was grotesquely wicked. Yet, even
though the killing of Christ was atrocity itself, what event was so vital and
its effects so beneficial as the death of Christ? If God’s providence does not
include evil, it does not include the most important event which has ever taken
place. So we say providence is a two-edged sword. It cuts both ways bringing
(differently, to be sure, but bringing nonetheless) both the good and the evil.
If we deny either, we deny providence. If we deny providence, we deny God. If we
deny the benign, we deny the goodness of God. If we deny the evil, we deny the
severity of God. The Bible denies neither, but affirms each. “Behold therefore
the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee,
goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut
off” (Romans 11:22).

Let us consider then these two aspects of divine providence. But first we
examine what we shall call “negative providence.”

I. Negative Providence

A. Definition

What do we mean by negative providence? Suppose we begin with the comedian Ed
Wynn’s definition based on a slight alteration of some famous lines:

“There is a destiny that shapes our ends rough; Hew them how we may.” This is
negative enough, but is it providence? No, this is Greek fatalism rather than
Christian providence. Why? Because human behavior is disregarded. “Hew them how
we may” — that makes no difference. Compare, for an example of this type of
thinking, the great Greek tragedian Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex. This king, Oedipus,
is destined to kill his father and marry his mother. No matter how innocent of
either he may try to be, he unknowingly and inevitably does both. Though he
consciously strives to avoid these sins, he does them nonetheless and is held
guilty for them. So his mother commits suicide, and he gouges out his eyes and
goes into solitary and hopeless exile. The certainty of the end is present in
this tragic definition of negative providence. It also contains the element of
human activity. In the Wynn satire the man “hews”; in Sophocles’ tragedy Oedipus
does all in his power to avoid fate. Neither actor is a puppet. Each one
striven, though to no avail. But, what is lacking in these two accounts? It is
the connection between the end and the means. There is no connection between end
and means; between destiny and striving. The end comes to pass regardless of
striving; indeed, it comes in spite of striving against it. The destiny shapes
ends rough, hew them how we may — that is, though we hew to the moral line in an
endeavor to make our destiny smooth, it remains rough. Oedipus is essentially a
moral person, generally admired by his family and subjects. But all this means
nothing, for he is destined to commit the accursed crimes of patricide and
incest (and accursed crimes they remain although he intends neither of them).

What a contrast to all this is the negative providence of Scripture! Compare
Acts 2:23 : “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge
of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.” Judas and
others indeed delivered Christ up according to the eternal counsel and
foreknowledge of God, but they did so by “wicked hands.” Their “hands” were not
inactive. They were certainly not opposed to this dread deed. On the contrary,
they willfully chose to do the awful deed, for they were denominated “wicked
hands.” This illustrates the constant Bible teaching about negative providence;
namely, that the doers are always voluntary doers, willing actors, guilty men.

Putting the picture together, this is what we find: Negative providence is the
divine appointment even of wicked and calamitous events but not apart from —
rather, through — the willing though wicked determinations of men.

B. Forms of Negative Providence

1. External

Providence applies to the totality of things. Since we are here concerned only
with the human creature, we note that providence applies to the total person.
The total human person is a composite one. Thomas Aquinas has observed that man,
in possessing a spirit, resembles angels; in possessing a body, he resembles
animals. Furthermore, in addition to man’s having two parts to his personality,
body and spirit, he has two periods — time and eternity. Providence relates both
to the temporal and to the eternal. So we consider first that form of negative
providence which affects the external, bodily, and temporal aspect of the human
personality. Christ referred to temporal providence when He spoke of the hairs
of our head being numbered. Both our temporal lives and our environment are part
of providence. But the tragic as well as the beneficent elements of the external
and temporal are part of providence. For example, Christ said that He must go as
it was written of Him, that He must be killed at Jerusalem and that the Shepherd
will be smitten, and the like. All of these evil events concerning death are
therefore of divine foreordination.

There is a time coming, says the Bible, when God will reveal more fully the
displeasure which He now feels. Meanwhile, it appears to the Psalmist as if God
is slumbering and needs to be aroused. But God is waiting until the “cup of
iniquity” is full. Thus He withheld his judgment upon the Amorites. “But in the
fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites
is not yet full” (Genesis 15:16). But though it might seem that God’s judgments
are delayed, Moses warned the Israelites, “Be sure your sins will find you out”
(Numbers 32:23). He told them in his farewell address, as well as on other
occasions, of the curses which were sure to overtake those who turned away from
Jehovah.

We have impressive illustrations of this negative providence pertaining to the
externals here and now. Consider, for example, the fall of Jerusalem. Christ was
crucified and nothing happened — then. Later, in the lifetime of the same
generation, the city was besieged, civil war, famine, butchery, and
indescribable suffering took place. Mothers devoured their own children as the
wrath of God came upon the city that crucified His Son. Nor are visitations of
wrath only in the form of military woes and desolations. Roger Babson once made
an investigation of bankruptcies in the United States during a certain number of
years. Some of these business collapses were traceable to lack of competence — a
few. The majority were owing to lack of integrity and honesty. The eminent
historian of the American scene, Charles Beard, said that one of the lessons he
learned from his studies was that the mills of the gods grind slowly but they
grind exceeding fine. Still another scholar said in a class that if he were
intimately familiar with the condition of a community he could predict within a
hundred years the date of its downfall. Then he revised that statement claiming
that he could predict the downfall within the space of ten years. Not only do
the scholars recognize the temporal judgments which come on mankind and the
brimstone which is scattered over all the possessions of wicked men but even the
man on the street knows it and sometimes even jokes about it. For example, I
used to go bowling with my church people on Thursday nights. Occasionally I
would bowl the ball in the corner properly and it would move over to center as
it ought and a strike appeared certain. I would start to walk back to the bench.
But alas all the pins would not fall down — the two farthest apart still stood!
My men should have said: “You were robbed, pastor.” “You should have had a
strike, pastor.” “Too bad, pastor.” What they did say was: “You don’t live
right, pastor!”

2. Internal

“Your sins will find you out,” said Moses. However, not all visitation is upon
the bodies of sinners; it comes upon the souls also. God may wait to pour out
wrath upon the external world until the cup of iniquity is full, but apparently
He pours out this invisible cup on the soul as soon as it sins. He may seem to
slumber as He delays external punishment, but not so in the administration of
internal suffering. A person may sin and retribution upon his body not be
forthcoming, but his conscience is immediately afflicted. He may, indeed, get
away with it; he never gets away from it. “The wicked flee when no man
pursueth”; that is, their consciences are alarmed when there is no outward
apprehension. “God is angry with the wicked every day” (Psalms 7:11). That is,
though the wicked prosper outwardly as the green bay tree, he is inwardly
blighted. The wicked is as the surging of the sea (Isaiah 57:20). That is,
however tranquil his situation may appear to be, he has no true peace within.
John Calvin says the sinner sometimes has tranquility because he is too “thick”
to understand the judgment of God against him. But he is not tranquil about his
tranquility. That is, he is disturbed about his peace of mind. There is no rest
for the wicked one even when they are resting because they still vaguely and
apprehensively wonder whether they should rest, whether all is well with their
soul.

II. Positive Providence

A. Definition When considering the definition of negative providence we used Ed
Wynn’s comic parody of the poet. Now, considering positive providence, we
consider the poet himself:

“There is a destiny which shapes our ends Rough hew them though we may.” The
“rough hew” needs explanation. If the poet means “sin as we please,” if he
suggests that a positive providence comes about irrespective of our behavior, if
things are going to work out well although we always behave badly — then he errs
in the opposite direction. Just as there is no destiny that shapes our ends
rough, hew them how we may, neither is there any destiny which shapes our ends
well, hew them how we may. The shaping and the hewing are integrally related.
God shapes as we hew; we hew as God shapes. So, then, the definition of positive
providence is: The divine appointment of good and beneficial events but not
apart from (rather, through) the willing determinations of men.

B. Forms of Positive Providence

1. External

“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to
them who are the called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28). That includes
external and temporal events as well as the internal and eternal. “Wherein ye
greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness
through manifold temptations: That the trial of your faith, being much more
precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be
found unto praise and honor and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter
1:6-7). “We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter,” but nothing “shall be
able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord”
(Romans 8:36, Romans 8:39). “In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of
good cheer; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). “Therefore being justified
by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom also we
have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of
the glory of God. And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing
that tribulation worketh patience” (Romans 5:1-3). So these adversities are
transformed by divine grace and wisdom into blessings. The same event which is
negative providence for the wicked is positive providence for the children of
God. The meek, says Jesus, shall inherit the earth. Righteousness exalts a
nation. The wicked may appear to prosper, but their way perishes while he who
meditates on the law of God day and night shall be like a tree planted by the
rivers of waters (Psalms 1:2).

Honesty may work a temporary temporal disadvantage, but in the long run, even in
this evil world, honesty pays. Crime may be a temporary temporal advantage, but
in the long run, even in this evil world, crime does not pay. They that take the
sword shall perish with the sword while the peacemakers shall be called, even in
this world, “the children of God.”

2. Internal

If there is no rest for the wicked even in this world, there is rest for the
righteous even in this world. They have peace with God, access to grace, hope of
glory. For them to live is Christ and to die is gain only because they will have
still more of Christ. For the Christian it is: all this and Heaven too.

Note how this internal joy transforms even the temporal bodily pain to which
Christians are subject in this life. A former president of Colgate University
was stricken and suffered almost incessantly. His son could not refrain from
saying: “Father, I wish I could bear some of your pain for you.” “Son,” the
sufferer replied, “I do not have a pain to spare.” A woman in a congregation
where this story was told said: “That man must never have had gall bladder
trouble!” Seriously, a Christian has no pain to spare.

What shall it be for you? A positive or negative providence? Do you wish divine
destiny to shape things rough or smooth? In this world and that which is to
come?

Remember that providence is not fatalism. Your hewing is related to God’s
shaping. God’s shaping is related to your hewing.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 15: 02.03.     CHAPTER III SIN MAKES NO RACIAL DISTINCTIONS
========================================================================

CHAPTER III Sin Makes No Racial Distinctions

SPEAKING OF GOD’S PROVIDENCE, we noticed sin incidentally. We now bring it into
focus. One cannot think of God’s holy ways without thinking of our unholy ones.
We cannot think of ourselves without thinking of our sin. Sin is the most
important conviction any man can have. It is a bad theology which thinks man
good. Any good theology must start with man as bad. In the opening verses of
Ephesians 2:1-22, Paul describes unconverted persons by many different
expressions. They are called “dead through trespasses and sins”; they are seen
as walking in the “course of this world,” walking “according to the prince of
the power of the air,” fulfilling “the lusts of the flesh and of the mind,” and
“by nature” they are “children of wrath.” The former terms refer to the
expressions of their character. The last expression, “children of wrath,” is the
root cause of their character. It is because the unconverted or unquickened
person is by nature a child of wrath that he is dead in trespasses and sin and
walks according to the will of the world, the devil, and the flesh. These evil
works reveal him as naturally liable to “wrath” — the wrath of God, His abiding
fury. That is, the unconverted person — whoever he may be — is, by nature,
doomed to destruction, for sin is no respecter of persons. Be he a Gentile, like
those to whom Paul wrote, or a Jew, like Paul himself, he is a child of wrath.
Sin makes no racial distinctions.

I. Sin No Respecter of Persons

All people, in and out of the church, are by nature children of wrath. Paul
begins his description of the unconverted by referring to the Gentiles, the
Ephesians, who were outside the commonwealth of Israel, strangers to the
promises of God, etc. However, before he finishes his description, he includes
Israel as well in the indictment, saying: “Among whom also we [we Israelites
also] had our conversation in the times past in the lusts of our flesh,
fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the
children of wrath, even as others.” Paul thereby teaches that although
Israelites had received circumcision, which was “the seal of righteousness by
faith,” they were not thereby changed in nature. Because they had been engrafted
into the visible church, they were not thereby necessarily engrafted into the
invisible body of Christ. They, just like the Gentiles (“pagans”) whom they
despised as outside the law, needed to be born again. Though they were heirs of
the promises, they still remained by nature children of wrath, even as the
others. It was a Jew — and a Jewish ruler at that (Nicodemus) — to whom Jesus
had said: “Ye must be born again” (John 3:3).

II. Proof That Sin Is No Respecter of Persons A. General Bible Teaching

Note how this teaching of Ephesians is corroborated everywhere in Scripture.
David says in Psalms 51:1-19 : “I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my
mother conceive me.” In Psalms 58:3 we read: “The wicked are estranged from the
womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.” Eliphaz, one of
Job’s three friends, is very emphatic: “What is man, that he should clean? and
he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Behold, he putteth no
trust in his saints: yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight. How much more
abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?” (Job
15:14-16). In Job 14:4 Job asks, “Who can bring a clean thing out of an
unclean?” Job is speaking here expressly of man being born of a woman, as spoken
of in Job 14:1. This is given as a reason for man’s not being clean. That is,
being a human creature, proceeding by ordinary generation, man is naturally
polluted.

B. “Man” Used Synonymously with “Sinner" The Bible sees man so constantly and
universally associated with sin that it virtually uses the term “man” as
synonymous with “sin.” “Cursed is he that trusteth in man,” said the Lord in
Jeremiah 17:5. Christ said to Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan. . . . for thou
savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men” (Matthew
16:23). This plainly signifies that to be carnal and vain — opposite to what is
spiritual and divine — is what properly belongs to men in their present sinful
state. Compare also 1 Corinthians 3:3; 1 Peter 4:2; Job 15:6.

C. Man More Destructive than Animals That man is more wicked and destructive
than even voracious and wild animals is clear from a somber remark of our Lord.
When He sent forth his disciples into the world, to bear witness of Him, He
said: “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: . . . but
beware of men.” It was as if He said, “I send you forth as sheep among wolves.
But why do I say wolves? I send you forth into the wide world of men, that are
far more dangerous than wolves.” Jonathan Edwards was justified in saying:
“There is no one lust in the heart of the devil that is not in the heart of man.
Natural men are in the image of the devil. The image of God is rased out and the
image of the devil is stamped upon them.”1.

One writer tells of a Christian who in prayer cited the words of Jeremiah, “The
heart is deceitful and desperately wicked,” and then continued by saying: “O
Lord, Thou knowest we no longer accept this interpretation.” This amounts to
saying that we no longer accept the Bible’s interpretation of sin. But for us to
reject the verdict of the Word of God about sin is a dreadful act of sin, is it
not? So if we deny the sin which the Bible says is in our hearts, we prove that
it is there, do we not? Perhaps the very best proof of the sin of our hearts is
that we deny the sin of our hearts. In or out of the church, then, the
unconverted person’s liability to eternal destruction is not occasioned by his
environment but by his inherited nature. “We are by nature children of wrath.”
It is not by what we do that we are children of wrath, but by what we are. We do
not become children of wrath by doing evil things, but we do evil things because
we are children of wrath. Of course, doing evil makes us more and more the
children of wrath. As Christ said, the proselytes of the Pharisees became
twofold more the children of Hell than they (Matthew 23:15). Not by environment
are we the children of wrath, but by nature. It is our nature which makes our
environment evil and not our environment which makes our natures evil. This is
the startling thing that the inspired Apostle taught in Ephesians 2:3.

Reinhold Niebuhr, America’s distinguished neo-orthodox theologian, lectured to
the students and faculty of Harvard Divinity School in 1940. He was discussing
original sin and gave this domestic illustration. His son, who was then seven,
had been in a neighborhood brawl. Niebuhr was inclined to finish what the boys
had begun, but the maid interceded. “Professor Niebuhr,” she said, “it is not
your son’s fault. It’s the company he keeps.” The father replied: “It is not the
company he keeps. It is his own little black heart.”

D. Even Infants Are Polluted

What shows the iniquity of man most clearly of all is that infants themselves
are contaminated with sin. Before babies learn how to think or speak or act
responsibly they are by nature children of wrath. The Bible shows this first of
all inferentially. That is, it teaches clearly that the wages of sin is death.
Where there is no sin, there would be no death. If there were no sin, there
would be no suffering. Yet babies both suffer and die. Sometimes they suffer
dreadfully and sometimes they die in agony. “Therefore,” said John Wesley,
“children themselves are not innocent before God. They suffer, therefore they
deserve to suffer.” Or as the Lutheran theologian Sohnius puts it: “Since
infants die, as universal experience teaches, it is evident that they must be
chargeable with sin; for Paul clearly represents sin as the cause of death — of
the death of all men. ‘For the wages of sin is death.’” John Calvin says: “We
are by nature the children of wrath. But God does not condemn the innocent.
Therefore, . . .” And so Calvin argues that God’s calling our natures guiltily
corrupt proves that we are corrupt and, at the same time, responsible for our
native corruption.

Some moderns have jumped to the conclusion that there is no necessary connection
between sin and suffering and death. This they do because our Lord has told us
there is no necessary connection between a particular sin and a particular
suffering. A calamity coming upon a particular person is no proof that the
person is a greater sinner than one on whom that particular calamity did not
come. But Christ nowhere says that suffering is unconnected with sin, or that
there would be death where there was no sin.

Continuing with the sinfulness of infants, we call attention to the divinely
commanded execution of some Midianite children, mentioned in Numbers 31:17.
Moses there commanded the Israelites to slay all of the male children, as Saul
was commanded on a later occasion to slay all the infants of the Amalekites, 1
Samuel 15:3. In Psalms 137:9 we read: “Happy shall he be, that taketh and
dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” Edwards, in his Great Christian
Doctrine of Original Sin, says: “I proceed to take notice of something
remarkable concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, represented in Ezekiel
9:1-11, when command was given [to them that had charge over the city] to
destroy the inhabitants, Ezekiel 9:1-8. And this reason is given for it, that
their iniquity required it, and it was a just recompense of their sin (Ezekiel
9:9-10). God, at the same time, was most particular and exact in his care, that
such as had proved by their behavior, that they were not partakers in the
abominations of the city, should by no means be involved in the slaughter.
Command was given to the angel to go through the city, and set a mark upon their
foreheads, and the destroying angel had a strict charge not to come near any
man, on whom was the mark; yet the infants were not marked nor a word said of
sparing them: on the contrary, infants were expressly mentioned as those that
should be utterly destroyed, without pity (Ezekiel 9:5-6). ‘Go through the city
and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity. Slay utterly old and
young, both maids and little children; but come not near any man upon whom is
the mark.’” Sodom would have been spared by God if there had been ten righteous;
since there must have been ten infants, these could not have been righteous. We
read in Proverbs 22:15 : “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the
rod of correction shall drive it far from him.” Matthew 18:11 says that the Son
of man came “to save that which is lost.” If, therefore, children who die are
saved, as many believe, it is from a lost condition by nature!

E. Inevitability of Punishment Not only do the above passages teach us that any
unconverted person is exposed to wrath but they also teach that it is absolutely
certain to come upon him. The expression “children of wrath” was a Hebrew idiom.
It meant that the person so described was inevitably liable to wrath. It was an
idiomatic way of saying what Paul says more conventionally in Romans 9:1-33.
There he speaks of “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.” In Deuteronomy 25:2
the expression “son of stripes” is used to signify one who is to be beaten. In 2
Samuel 12:5; the expression “son of death” is used of one who is certain to die.
We remember that Christ referred to Judas as the “son of perdition,” the heir of
Hell, the one certain to receive that dread destiny. In Ephesians 2:2 Paul shows
that the unconverted person is already under the “prince of the power of the
air.” Every soul is the habitation of unclean spirits, precisely because by
nature he is a child of wrath. So we have seen from the Ephesians text, from
other statements of Scripture, from biblical references to man as virtually
synonymous with sinner and worse than an animal and more like a devil, from the
lost condition even of babies, and from the inevitability of punishment, that
the unconverted are by nature — not by environment, and without respect to
persons or distinction of race — children of wrath.

III. Application of the Universality of Sin

Let us now apply this doctrine to ourselves. First, let me apply it to myself.
This means that, though I am a minister of the gospel, I am by nature a child of
wrath. Even Paul, the greatest of ministers and apostles, included himself. “We
also,” he said. No privilege or opportunity can blind us to this sober fact.
Indeed, a true minister is one who preaches as a dying man to dying men, telling
them of a Saviour who can save both him and them.

Second, as professing Christians we need to take warning. We have already shown
that we, too, are “by nature children of wrath even as the rest.” Let us not say
to ourselves, “Abraham is our father.” Let us not say we are Presbyterians,
Lutherans, Baptists. Let us not say that we come to church regularly and give
our tithes and teach our class and visit the sick. We are by nature children of
wrath, just like the rest of this perishing world. If we have a hope of
salvation, it must be on some other basis than what we are. By nature we are
lost. Let us not say, “Lord, I thank thee that I am not like other men. I am not
like people who play golf on Sunday afternoons, or people who give less than a
nickel a week to charity, or people who read foul novels and tell dirty
stories.” We are by nature children of wrath just like the rest. There is no
hope for you, no matter what you join or what you do or what you say unless you
acknowledge that you are in yourself reeking with corruption and in a lost
condition by nature, a dwelling place for the devil, an enemy of God, a
hypocrite, and a criminal. What has made the matter worse is that you have
thought well of yourself. You resent having anyone, even God, calling you names
because you consider yourself a decent person, one who dwells among decent
people. But the Bible tells you, you are no saint. You must recognize yourself
to be a sinner by birth and by nature (Luke 18:13-14). Only one who recognizes
that he is a sinner can ever be a saint. Sinners deny that they are sinners —
for the sin of lying is part of their sin. Saints admit that they are sinners by
nature, for as saints they now tell the truth.

Third, those outside the church need to be warned. Professing Christians are
presumably repentant (though by no means necessarily so, as we have previously
seen). Those outside the church are presumably impenitent (though there may be
very rare exceptions). Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God
(Romans 10:17). Generally, those outside the church do not hear the Word of God,
by which faith and salvation comes. That is, they do not hear it unless you tell
them. Unless they hear it, they who — like you — are by nature children of wrath
will most certainly perish under the judgment of God. The wrath of God is upon
them now. His fury burns hot against them. Their life hangs by a thin thread,
and when that thread is broken, they will go to their everlasting home of
suffering. How shall they hear without a preacher? You, as a Christian, are
their preacher. Do not worry only about what will happen to people who never
hear the gospel. Worry about what will happen to you if you never tell them the
gospel. They will perish, but you will be held responsible by God for your
failure to give them the gospel. There is positively no way by which they can
escape the wrath which is to come and that which now is, except through the only
name given under Heaven whereby men may be saved — the name of Jesus. You have
that name. If you truly believe in it and are trusting in Christ’s grace for
your salvation, you will most certainly try, as opportunity affords, to win
some. “Knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men,” said Paul. And, knowing
the love of the Lord, we should persuade men, too. “We thus judge, that if one
died for all, then were all dead: and that he died for all, that they which live
should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and
rose again” (2 Corinthians 5:14-15). The love of Christ constrains men; the
terror of Christ constrains men.

Fourth, nothing less than a change of nature is needed. If we are by nature
children of wrath we can only become children of grace by new birth. When we
read that a very religious man of great influence and reputation came to Jesus
and was told, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see [or enter] the kingdom
of God,” we realize that a radical change is necessary. This religious man had
to be born from above; he had to be born again. He had to be given a new nature.
He had to be born twice. He had to have a radical transformation of soul. The
ruling disposition of his life had to be changed. Until that time, there was no
hope for him. He was by nature a child of wrath just like the rest. He was a
perishing sinner. Every moment that he lived, he was odious to God. Every moment
that he continued his impenitent way, he was storing up wrath against the day of
wrath. Every moment that he lived, he was making the fires of Hell that much
hotter. The time would come when he would wish that he had never lived a happy
moment longer. The time would come when he would wish that he had never been
born. It would be better for that man if he had never been born, or if a
millstone had been tied about his neck and he were cast into the sea. Being a
child of wrath is as dreadful as being a child of glory is wonderful.

1 “Natural Men in a Dreadful Condition,” Works, VIII 10.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 16: 02.04.     CHAPTER IV JESUS CHRIST: THE GOD-MAN
========================================================================

CHAPTER IV Jesus Christ: The God-Man

WE HAD AN INTERESTING PROFESSOR at Harvard University who used to attempt to
introduce Christ to his classes. In attendance, he would have, in addition to
the divinity school men, a number of the regular university students. The latter
were often totally ignorant of Christ. This fact, far from dismaying the
professor, rather pleased him; for from these students he got what he liked to
call “the virgin reaction” to Jesus. The theological students, having been
acquainted with Jesus before, could only afford the philosophy of the second
glance. But Dr. H. J. Cadbury, who himself had studied the texts hundreds of
times, could always learn something from those who would give the fresh response
of the newly introduced. Let us attempt to put ourselves in the position of
these students and try to experience the initial response to Jesus Christ.

I. The Humanity of Christ When we read the accounts of Jesus we instinctively
recognize Him as the perfect man. Matthew describes One whom we see to be the
ideal Jew; Mark, the idea! Roman; John, the ideal Son of God; and Luke, the
universal ideal who is every man’s ideal and God’s as well. Furthermore, every
man who approaches Christ seems to feel the same thing — He is the ideal of that
man. To the artist Christ is the One altogether lovely. To the educator He is
the master teacher. To the philosopher He is the wisdom of God. To the lonely,
He is a brother; to the sorrowful, a comforter; and to the bereaved, the
resurrection and the life. To the sinner, He is the Lamb of God that takes away
the sin of the world.

“No one,” says Watson, “has yet discovered the word Jesus ought to have said,
none suggested the better word he might have said. No action of his has shocked
our moral sense. None has fallen short of the ideal. He is full of surprises,
but they are all the surprises of perfection. You are never amazed one day by
his greatness, the next by his littleness. You are quite amazed that he is
incomparably better than you could have expected. He is tender without being
weak, strong without being coarse, lowly without being servile. He has
conviction without intolerance, enthusiasm without fanaticism, holiness without
Pharisaism, passion without prejudice. This man alone never made a false step,
never struck a jarring note. His life alone moved on those high levels where
local limitations are transcended and the absolute Law of Moral Beauty prevails.
It was life at its Highest.” The virgin reaction of the world to Jesus Christ
is, then, this: He is the ideal, the perfect man; the moral paragon of the race.
I do not wish to gloss over the fact that not absolutely everyone has agreed
with this verdict. I know that George Bernard Shaw spoke of a time in Christ’s
life when, as he said, Christ was not a Christian. I know that some have thought
that Socrates died more nobly than Jesus; that others believe Christ to have
been surpassed. But the overwhelming testimony of the world is to the
perfection, the incomparable perfection, of Jesus of Nazareth. These few
exceptions could be easily shown to rest on fundamental misconceptions of
certain things which Jesus said or did. Moreover, those who do take exception
usually think that some imagined fault is a failure of Christ to be, as G. B.
Shaw said, a Christian! It is evident that they know of no higher standard by
which to test Christ than the standard of Christ Himself.

II. The Deity of Christ But now we find ourselves in an extraordinary situation.
If we admit, as the world does, that Christ is the perfect mail, we must then
admit that He is also God! Why, you ask, if we acknowledge Christ to be the
perfect man, must we then acknowledge Him to be God also? Is there not a great
difference between man and God — even between perfect man and God? Why should
the admission of the one require the admission of the other? Why must the
perfect man be God? For this reason: Because the perfect man says he is God. And
if He is not God, then neither could He be a perfect man. We despise Father
Divine, as a man, for claiming to be God when we know that he is not. If Jesus
Christ is not God, we must despise Him also, for He claims far more clearly than
Father Divine that He is God. We must, therefore, either worship Christ as God,
or despise or pity Him as man.

A. His own Claim to Deity

Just a minute, you say, what proof do we have that Jesus Christ ever claimed
that He actually is God? My answer is that we have overwhelming evidence that He
entertained this high opinion of Himself. This, for example, is what He says of
Himself:

“I and my Father are one” (John 10:30).

“No man cometh to the Father, but by me” (John 14:6).

“He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9).

“Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58).

“I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ,
the Son of God,” the high priest asked. “Thou hast said,” was Christ’s reply
(Matthew 26:63-64).

“Baptize,” He commanded, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19).

“Whom do ye say that I am?” He asked His disciples. “Thou art the Christ, the
Son of the living God,” Peter replied (Matthew 16:16).

“Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto
thee, but my Father which is in heaven,” He said (Matthew 16:17).

Well, you say, is this not a characteristic way for religious teachers to speak?
Do not all of them make grandiose statements? It is true that Bronson Alcott
once said to a friend, “Today I feel that I could say, as Christ did, ‘I and the
Father are one!’” “Yes,” the other replied, “but the difference is this: Christ
got the world to believe Him.” The significant thing is this: not one recognized
religious leader in the history of the world has ever laid claim to being God —
except Jesus. Moses did not. Paul was horrified when people tried to worship
him. Muhammad insisted that he was merely a prophet of Allah. Buddha did not
even believe in the existence of a personal God, and Confucius was skeptical.
Zoroaster was a worshiper, but he was not worshiped. We repeat — of the
recognized religious leaders of all time, Jesus of Nazareth — and Jesus of
Nazareth alone — claimed to be eternal God. Not only did Jesus on various
occasions definitely affirm His deity but it is perhaps more telling still that
He always assumed it. Take, for example, the Sermon on the Mount. This is
regarded as predominantly moral instruction. No heavy theology here, they say.
This is Christ telling us what we are to do; not what we are to believe about
Him. It is true that He does not directly claim to be God in this passage.
Indirectly, however, He says a great deal about Himself and lays impressive
incidental claim to His divinity.

Note these six distinct pointers to His supernatural being in this one sermon on
Christian morality (Matthew 5:1-48; Matthew 6:1-34; Matthew 7:1-29). First, He
says with absolute authority who shall and who shall not inherit the kingdom of
God (the beatitudes). If I, for example, said anything like that, on my own
authority, you would smile pityingly or frown. Second, He said that His
disciples would be hated and suffer persecution for His sake. Suppose that I
said that Martin Luther suffered for my sake, what would you think about me?
Third, “but I say unto you” is a constant refrain through this sermon, by which
Christ assumes His right to speak with the authority of the Word of God on which
He was commenting. Fourth, He says that in the last judgment people will say to
Him, “Lord, Lord”; but “then I will profess unto them, I never knew you: depart
from me, ye that work iniquity.” Fifth, the sermon concludes with the parable of
the two houses, one built on sand and the other on a rock; one to fall and one
to stand. And what is this rock? His teaching. Finally, the people sensed the
supreme dignity of this person who had taught them, for they observed that “he
taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.”

B. Contemporaries Affirm Christ’s Deity

What did Jesus’ contemporaries think of Him? “Behold the man,” said Pilate.
“Truly this was the Son of God,” said the centurion who watched Him die. “Never
man so spake,” the people said. “Behold the Lamb of God,” was the testimony of
John the Baptist, whom all men recognized as a prophet. “My Lord, and my God,”
said doubting Thomas. When Jesus asked His disciples who they thought He was,
Peter, standing near Caesarea Philippi, a city built in honor of Caesar who was
claiming divine honors, and not far from the grotto to Pan, the god of nature
whom many worshiped, said: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
John said of Him, “We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the
Father, full of grace and truth.” And Paul adored Him with a most abundant
variety of expressions as his great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ. For example,
he uses the expression, “unsearchable riches of Christ,” and other expressions
concerning Christ’s riches in his epistles. What does Paul mean by the
“unsearchable riches of Christ”? That is the very point. It is impossible to put
enough meaning into the expression to do justice to the feeling of the Apostle.
Rendell Harris, attempting to translate this expression in Ephesians 3:8; threw
up his hands in despair and cried: “The unexplorable wealth of Christ!”

C. Influence of Christ Implies His Deity

What of the influence of Jesus Christ on the succeeding centuries? Shortly
before His death, He said: “Believe me for the very works’ sake. Verily, verily,
I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also;
and greater works than these shall he do” (John 14:11-12). These were very
ordinary men to whom Christ — admittedly the most extraordinary person ever to
appear in human history — said that they should do greater works than He had
done. A strange prediction that was, and stranger still that it has been
fulfilled. Yet even stranger still is how it has been fulfilled. When Christ
uttered this prophecy, infanticide was a common thing. Quintillian and others
regarded it as a beautiful custom to abandon infants. It was the followers of
Jesus, to whom Jesus had said, “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and
forbid them not,” who put an end to this “beautiful custom.” Clement, Origen,
Tertullian, the fathers of the church, exposed the horror of infanticide. And
the weakest of all creatures, the human infant, became the best protected of
all, as the followers of Jesus continued to much greater lengths the
emancipation of childhood. As James Stalker has written:

Christ converted the home into a church, and parents into His ministers; and it
may be doubted whether He has not by this means won to Himself as many disciples
in the course of the Christian ages as even by the institution of the church
itself.

Murder for pleasure was eradicated by the disciples of Christ. When Jesus
uttered the promise about “greater works,” the Romans regarded gladiatorial
combats as the choicest of amusements. The bloodier the battle of condemned
slaves or captives the rarer the diversion. Telemachus, who leaped into the
arena in an attempt to separate the warriors and succeeded only in having
himself stoned by an enraged mob of spectators who saw in this man only a mad
spoilsport, was, of course, a Christian. He died, but gladiatorial combats were
to die with him, as the church was to do greater works in this area than her
Founder.

Another example is cannibalism. Of all the atrocious deeds of man against man,
the most gruesome is cannibalism. With this practice of degenerate savagery
Christ had no personal contact; yet its abolition is the work of those who, in
His name, have done greater works than He. When a South Pacific islander told a
European mocker of foreign missions that if it had not been for the missionaries
he would not be alive to say that he did not believe in missions, he was true to
the record. It was through missionaries, a number of whom actually became
victims of this hideous practice, that cannibalism has been almost entirely
exterminated. Many a soldier in World War II subsequently told of his amazement
to find himself welcomed rather than devoured in some remote island where he had
been stranded. How glad were such men, who trudged wearily through the jungles
with a fear of what the next clearing would reveal, when they saw Christian
churches and knew that they were safe. These were the experiences which made
missionaries of GI’s and produced the now famous “khaki-colored viewpoint.” They
found the church there, for the disciples were doing greater works than their
Lord.

Time would fail us to mention all the gesta Christi. Suffice it here to repeat
what James Russell Lowell said a century ago, “Show me a place on the face of
the earth ten miles square where a man may provide for his children in decency
and comfort, where infancy is protected, where age is venerated, where womanhood
is honored, and where human life is held in due regard, and I will show you a
place where the gospel of Christ has gone and laid the foundation.”

III. Conclusion

We are fully aware that to attribute Godhood to any man is a colossal
affirmation. It borders on the incredible — the impossible. But when we consider
the impression of Christ’s perfect humanity, the great claims He made for
Himself in the most humble way, the unrestrained adoration and worship of those
who knew Him, the miracles associated with Him whose life was a “blaze of
miracle,” and the constantly recurring miracles of grace which have attended the
heralding of His name throughout the world, we propose (if it is difficult to
believe that a man was also God) that it is impossible to deny Christ’s deity.
It is difficult to believe; it is impossible to doubt. What will you do with
Jesus?

Note: The above was largely taken from the author’s Reasons For Faith, published
by Harper & Row with their permission. This same volume may be consulted to see
how we snow that Christ certifies the Bible as the Word of God. In this present
volume we are, therefore, merely assuming the authority of Scripture and basing
our teaching on it.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 17: 02.05.     CHAPTER V ATONEMENT: HOW JESUS PAID IT ALL
========================================================================

CHAPTER V Atonement: How Jesus Paid It All I. Christ’s Agony

Gethsemane was the place of Christ’s exquisite torment. Here we see the Man of
Sorrows acquainted with grief. Matthew tells us that after the last supper with
His apostles He began to be sorrowful. At the supper He had been full of joy.
Though the supper represented vividly to Him the death He was to accomplish on
the morrow, He was still very happy because He was with His own. His sorrow then
was sublimated in a sense of the joy that should follow. Here feasting with Him
were the very ones for whom He was to die so that they should be able to feast
with him forever. Though the cup was the new testament in His blood, as He told
them, He was comforted in the anticipation of eating and drinking again with
them in the kingdom of Heaven. “With desire,” He had said, “have I desired to
eat this passover with you.” His desire was fulfilled. The sorrow of Christ was
like that of a soldier about to go into battle — a battle which he knows means
suffering and death — who is spending his last night with his family. There is
his dear wife and beloved children for whom he would go out to fight and die. So
on that last evening the divine Soldier was happy because He was in the presence
of those for whom He was soon to die, and surrounded by their love. Christ was
not sorrowful then; His own grief was swallowed up in the joy of being with His
disciples. But when the supper was over and they all went out after singing the
Hallel, the divine Warrior was left with His thoughts about the dread battle
soon to be waged in order that He might save those with whom He had so happily
dined. As a soldier will say farewell to his little children first and then draw
apart for a final farewell with that one who understands and loves him most, his
wife, so Christ separated himself from his family of apostles and called to him
the three who loved and understood Him best of all: Peter, James and John. Then
it was that “he began to be sorrowful, and sore troubled. Then saith he unto
them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: abide ye here, and watch
with me.” (Matthew 26:37 f., ASV) II. The Cause of His Agony

What was the cause of this amazement, sorrow, and great trouble even unto death
which our Lord endured in Gethsemane? It was a taste of the cup He was about to
drink. He always knew that He was to die; He had predicted it many times; He had
set His face as flint to go to Jerusalem where He was to be delivered up. He had
discussed with Moses and Elijah His decease at Jerusalem. It was not a
disclosure that He was to drink a cup of woe that so amazed and burdened Him
that He sweat great drops of blood. It must have been a divinely given
realization of what that cup of suffering was — not just that it was to be, but
what it was to be. He had always known that He was to die and be separated from
God on the cross; now He was made to feel what it was. In the words of Jonathan
Edwards: “The sorrow and distress which his soul then suffered, arose from that
lively, and full, and immediate view which he had then given him of that cup of
wrath; by which God the Father did as it were set the cup down before him, for
him to take it and drink it. Some have inquired, what was the occasion of that
distress and agony, and many speculations there have been about it, but the
account which the Scripture itself gives us is sufficiently full in this matter
and does not leave room for speculation or doubt. The thing that Christ’s mind
was so full of at that time was, without doubt, the same as that which his mouth
was so full of: it was the dread which his feeble nature had of that dreadful
cup, which was vastly more terrible than Nebuchadnezzar’s fiery furnace. He had
then a near view of that furnace of wrath, into which he was to be cast; he was
brought to the mouth of the furnace that he might look into it, and stand and
view its raging flames, and see the glowings of its heat, that he might know
where he was going and what he was about to suffer. This was the thing that
filled his soul with sorrow and darkness, this terrible sight as it were
overwhelmed him. For what was that human nature of Christ to such mighty wrath
as this? It was in itself, without the supports of God, but a feeble worm of the
dust, a thing that was crushed before the moth. None of God’s children ever had
such a cup set before them, as this first being of every creature had.” The
second Adam was undergoing a much greater temptation than the first one. The
probation was the same, however, testing obedience to God. There is, however, no
indication that Adam faced anything comparable to the ordeal of Christ in His
obedience. Adam was to obey God by not eating of the tree. We may assume that
there was something very tempting — even without the solicitation of Satan — in
that tree’s fruit. But certainly that trial could not approach the ordeal of
Christ. He had to be obedient unto death; Adam had to be obedient unto life.
Adam’s obedience would save him from death; Christ’s obedience would deliver Him
to death. Furthermore, Christ could see in advance all the horror of that death
which obedience would cost. Never had there been or could there be a temptation
like that. The preview of impending doom was so terrifying that the mighty Jesus
Himself asked, if it were possible, to escape it. Normally His obedience was
instant and without question. Only the extreme severity of the ordeal can
explain the plea: “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.”
The Son appealed directly to His loving Father to save Him from this hour if it
were by any means possible. Mark tells us that He even first reminded God of His
ability to do all things as He said: “Abba [a term of utmost filial intimacy],
Father, all things are possible unto thee; . . .” To the same effect, Luke
mentions that He said: “Father, if thou be willing, . . .” In John, on an
occasion which appears to be identical with the one we are considering, Jesus
said, “Father, save me from this hour.” The fact that this appeal appears in all
accounts and the poignancy with which it is recorded show clearly how fervently
Christ must have asked about the possibility of escaping the dread hour. It is
not said that God answered His Son’s plea on this occasion. There were other
occasions when God did speak audibly from Heaven so that His Son and those about
could hear Him. On this occasion God seems to have been silent, but the Son knew
the answer. Indeed, I think it was a rhetorical question — a question to which
the answer was already known. It was a cry of desperation, and not an inquiry at
all. Jesus knew that if there had been any conceivable way whereby God could
have redeemed the world other than by the horrible death of His Son, God would
never have resorted to such an expedient. He knew that there never could be any
other name given under Heaven whereby men must be saved. He knew there was none
other good enough to pay the price of sin; none other could open the door and
let us in. Jesus knew that if those dear ones whom He had left were to drink of
the vine again with Him in the kingdom of God, there was but one way — He must
drink of the cup of God’s wrath.

III. Christ’s Self-Surrender to Agony

So, looking directly into the furnace of the coming divine fury into which His
own willing obedience alone could cause Him to be cast, Christ said:
“Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.” He made God’s will His will,
even though He knew fully and terribly what such submission meant. God’s will
was His will. The Father and the Son were one in their redemptive love for the
elect. This is made even more explicit in John’s account, where Christ says:
“Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.
Father, glorify thy name.”

“And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto
Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?” The Saviour was surrendering
Himself to the wrath of God for His people. He had asked His chief disciples
just to stand by — to understand and to appreciate and to comfort. He did not
ask them to do anything else. There was nothing they could do. It was because
they could do nothing that Christ had to do everything for their redemption. But
could they not even stand by? Could they not sorrow that He had to suffer so for
them? Could they not even stay awake for one hour? What a heart-breaking ordeal
to find those for whom He was about to die unable to stay awake for an hour to
comfort Him in His great and terrible vicarious death for them! Yet our Lord,
overwhelmed with the vision He has just had of the fiery torment before Him, to
which He would submit Himself for the elect’s sake, very gently chides His
sleeping disciples. Immediately He turns from His own concerns to their needs.
“Love seeketh not her own,” and so Love Incarnate quickly forgets His anguish
and turns to the disciples’ needs. Affectionately He warns them, not for His
sake but for their own, “Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the
spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” In that remark, grief-stricken
as He was, bitterly disappointed as He must have been, Christ does not fail to
notice and even praise the drowsy disciples for having the right spirit and
meaning well, even though they were so very weak.

IV. Christ’s Source of Strength in Agony

Then the Saviour departs from the apostles a second time and prays again. “O my
Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be
done.” The agony of the first prayer is not over, but a new note is detectable.
Realizing that it was not possible for the cup to pass from Him, and still
agonizing at the thought of its horror, our Lord is now more definitely praying
for the strength to drink the cup of God’s wrath. As man He had shrunk from the
cup; as man He will drink it; as man He looks to the Father for strength. In
John’s account He prays: “Father, glorify thy name.” Luke tells us that an angel
came and ministered unto Him. Having submitted Himself to His sacrifice, He
knows that He needs great strength to endure the cross. As a man, He was not
equal to it. He looks to his heavenly Father, who has willed His death, to
enable Him to perform what has become His own will also. John tells us that on
this occasion God does speak, saying: “I both have glorified it, and will
glorify it.” Possibly in connection with that promise, God sent an angel to
minister to His Son. The Redeemer was following the same pattern of prayer which
He had taught to His disciples. First He had asked that God’s will be done. Then
He asked for his daily bread, that is, His strength for the day. God’s will was
difficult to perform, and only God could enable even the Son of man Himself to
perform it. “Command what thou wilt, and give what thou commandest.” That He
needed superhuman strength desperately is shown in His asking God for the third
time to do His will through Him. All the while the apostles, who needed strength
so much more than the mighty Son, instead of maintaining their vigil during His,
slept. In the sequel, the One who watched and prayed walked quietly to His
horrible death while those who slept were scattered by mere danger. When Christ
gave His cheek to the betrayer’s kiss, He knew that He was putting the cup of
wrath to His lips, the full dregs of which He would not taste until the morrow
when He would cry out, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? . . . My God, my God, why
hast thou forsaken me?”

V. Those For Whom Christ Endured His Agony

This, then, is how Jesus made atonement — how He paid it all. The punishment
which was due to us He voluntarily received. The death which was the wages of
our sin He underwent. The stripes with which we deserved to be beaten fell upon
His willing back. The chastisement which was owing us was borne by Him. The
price we would have paid by endless suffering He paid by an infinite sacrifice.
It should have been I who cried out, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken
me?” It should have been He who said: “I am persuaded that nothing shall
separate me from the love of God.” Because Jesus paid it all, it was He who was
forsaken and we who never shall be. Because He drank the full cup of divine
wrath, we shall never taste it. “There is therefore now no condemnation to them
that are in Christ Jesus.”


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 18: 02.06.     CHAPTER VI JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH: TWOFOLD SALVATION
========================================================================

CHAPTER VI Justification by Faith: Twofold Salvation FROM Romans 1:18-32, Romans
2:1-29, Romans 3:1-20, the Apostle Paul seeks to demonstrate the universal
sinfulness of men. He shows the wrath of God revealed against the heathen
because they would not have God in their thinking. He shows that the nominally
religious people of Israel, by their condemning other persons for sins of which
they were also guilty, were treasuring up “wrath against the day of wrath.” In
the third chapter Paul shows that all have gone astray. “There is none that
doeth good.” With the law or without the law, men have sinned. Every mouth is
stopped. The whole world is shut up under judgment. Then and then only does the
Apostle come back to his theme, saying: “Now the righteousness of God without
[apart from] the law is manifested [revealed], being witnessed by the law and
the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ
unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: for all
have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his
grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to
be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for
the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare,
I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier
of him which believeth in Jesus” (Romans 3:21-26).

Having shown most plainly that no man can be saved by the works of the law, Paul
proceeds to show, just as plainly, that men may be saved by the faith that is in
Christ Jesus. Now that he has shown men why they should not trust in themselves,
he will show them how suitable it is to trust in Christ. Since their own works
only condemn them, he will tell them of One whose works can save them.
Futhermore, he says that this is no novel way of salvation. It is the only way
of salvation in all ages. Abraham was saved this way, and so was David. In the
beginning of chapter four Paul points out that “if Abraham were justified by
works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the
scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.”
In Romans 4:5 he gives us a classic statement of justification by faith alone.
“To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his
faith is counted for righteouness.” Justification is by faith alone without
works.

I. What Justification Is The Westminster Shorter Catechism has well summarized
the abundance of biblical data on this great theme: “Justification is an act of
God’s grace wherein he pardoneth all our sins and accepteth us as righteous in
his sight only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and received by
faith alone.” Justification has a positive and a negative element. It consists
at once in the removal of guilt and the imputation, or granting, of
righteousness. It rescues the sinner as a brand from the burning and at the same
time gives him a title to Heaven. If it failed to do either of these, it would
fail to do anything. For man, as a sinner against God, must have that enormous
guilt somehow removed. But, at the same time, if he had the guilt removed, he
would still be devoid of positive righteousness and with no title to Heaven and
would also be certain to fall again into sin and condemnation. If Christ only
cancelled out guilt, He would merely return the sinner to Adam’s original state
without Adam’s original perfection of nature. There must be the “double cure.”

Rock of Ages, cleft for me, Let me hide myself in Thee; Let the water and the
blood, From Thy riven side which flowed, Be of sin the double cure, Cleanse me
from its guilt and power. This epistle has already shown us that men are guilty
before God. Their sins have incurred the wrath of God (“the wrath of God is
revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who
hold the truth in unrighteousness” — Romans 1:18), and this wrath is further
intensified by every sin that is committed (by your hard and “impenitent heart
treasurest up wrath against the day of wrath and the revelation of the righteous
judgment of God” — Romans 2:5). Later, the same epistle tells us that the “wages
of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). Death refers to eternal death in Hell because it
is set in contrast with eternal life. Had Christ Himself not said the same
thing? “The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to
give his life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28). “This,” He said, “is my body
which is given for you” (Luke 22:19). Had He not said that like “as Moses lifted
up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up”
(John 3:14)? Why should the Son of man be lifted up as a vile serpent, the
symbol of sin, to become sin, and cry out in His desolation, “My God, my God,
why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46) except that, as Paul says, God made
Him who knew no sin to become sin for us “that we might become the righteousness
of God in him” (2 Corinthians 5:21; ASV). Christ Himself did not say so much
about His death. He was making the sacrifice; He left to others the privilege of
explaining it. For two thousand years now the church has been glorying in His
cross and exploring its wondrous meaning. The positive element, the making just
or righteous, is really the central aspect of justification, though it is
commonly less noticed. But, as we have said, if Christ did not procure our
righteousness as well as secure our remission, the latter would have been of no
avail to us, for we would still be outside Paradise and exposed to the
recurrence of sin and ultimate damnation. God could not bestow righteousness on
us, to be sure, without removing our filthy guilt. But, on the other hand, it
would have been no use to remove our guilt if He did not bestow a new
righteousness on us. This is what the first Adam failed to do. He was never
asked to die for the remission of sin, but he was placed on probation to fulfill
the law and secure the perpetual favor of God upon all whom he represented. He
failed in this. The second Adam, the man Christ Jesus, both washed us from our
sins by His blood and clothed us in the white raiment of His righteousness,
justified. In order to do this great thing, Christ had first to be justified
Himself so that in His justification those whom He represented might share. This
He did. He fulfilled the law perfectly, not for Himself alone but for His
people. He was holy and undefiled — a lamb without blemish. He was one who could
say, “The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.” He was the Son
in whom the Father was well pleased, made in all points like as we are, but
without sin. Therefore God vindicated the second Adam, as we read in 1 Peter
3:18 : “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust,
that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but quickened by
the Spirit.” In 1 Timothy 3:16 : “Without controversy great is the mystery of
godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of
angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into
glory.” Here it is seen that the man Christ Jesus was justified by His own
keeping of the law, but in Romans 4:25 we see that this justification was not
for Himself alone but representatively for His people: “Who was delivered up for
our offences, and was raised again for our justification.” So I Timothy tells us
that He was raised again for His own justification and Romans 4:25 that He was
raised again for our justification. In justification, as in all other works of
the Mediator, He does not act as a private person, but as a public one; not for
Himself alone, but for all of His own; not for the Head only but for the members
of the body as well. So that we are quickened, raised up, and made to sit
together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. You are Christ’s, and Christ is
God’s. Again in Romans 8:34 : “Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that
died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who
also maketh intercession for us.” So, being justified, being endowed with a
title to life as well as a reprieve from death, “we have peace with God, . . .
access into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice [triumphantly] in hope of
the glory of God.” That these two elements together constitute justification is
shown in Acts 26:18 : “that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and
inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.” Also John
5:24 : “He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath
everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation.”

II. That Justification Is by Faith in Christ

Why is faith the means of justification? Is it a kind of good work? No, for the
Bible is very plain in teaching that salvation is not by works of any kind. If
it were, we would have whereof to glory. We could not boast that we did this or
that or the other thing, but we could glory in our belief. “Nothing in my hands
I bring,” we could sing, “except my faith.” No other work could avail, only the
work of believing. If faith were a kind of good work, we would be back again at
the old heresy of salvation by works; but now it would be the work of faith.
Romans 4:5 makes it clear that we are not saved by faith as a good work. For
that text says that we are justified while still ungodly in ourselves. God
“justified! the ungodly.” So, at the moment of justification we are still
ungodly. If we are still ungodly then, our faith cannot be a good work. But why
is faith the means of justification? Simply because it is the action of union
with Jesus Christ. Faith is our coming to Him, our trusting Him, our resting in
Him. The moment we are united to Him, we are immediately endowed with all that
He has secured for us. We are immediately justified before we have done a single
good deed, because we are His and He is God’s. Just as a very poor woman is a
very poor woman until the very moment that she marries a wealthy man. But at the
moment that she becomes his wife, she becomes a wealthy woman. It is by means of
her acceptance that she becomes a wealthy woman, but her acceptance does not
make her a wealthy woman; it is her husband’s wealth that makes her so. So faith
does not justify; Christ justifies. But faith is the act of union with Christ.

A. H. Strong uses the analogy of the coupling. The coupling joins a train of
cars to a locomotive. The coupling has no power in itself. It cannot move a
single car an inch. All the power is in the locomotive. But the coupling is the
link by which the power of the locomotive is transmitted to the cars. Faith has
no power in itself; it is not a ground of salvation; it is not a good work. It
is merely that by which all the goodness and grace and glory of Christ comes to
the sinner, III. Justification is by Faith Without Works

How emphatically Romans 4:5 states this central truth of the Bible! “But to him
THAT WORKETH NOT, but BELIEVETH on him that justifieth the UNGODLY, his FAITH is
COUNTED for righteousness.” From this verse we learn that: (a) the justified
person is one that worketh not; (b) he believes rather than does; (c) he is
ungodly when justified rather than godly or one who has something to his credit;
(d) it is his faith, not his deeds, that is the instrument of his justification;
and (e) his justification is counted or reckoned to him rather than awarded him
on the basis of merit. If it were possible to state the gratuitousness of
justification more clearly than this, we doubt if even divine inspiration could
find the words. Five separate expressions in one part of a sentence setting
forth the absolute freeness of salvation leave no room to doubt that the way to
God is wide open. There is nothing standing between the sinner and his God. He
has immediate and unimpeded access to the Savior. There is nothing to hinder. No
sin can hold him back, because God offers justification to the ungodly. Nothing
now stands between the sinner and God but the sinner’s “good works.” Nothing can
keep him from Christ but his delusion that he does not need Him — that he has
good works of his own that can satisfy God. If men will only be convinced that
they have no righteousness that is not as filthy rags; if men will see that
there is none that doeth good, no, not one; if men will see that all are shut up
under sin — then there will be nothing to prevent their everlasting salvation.
All they need is need. All they must have is nothing. All that is required is
acknowledged guilt. Only confess your sins. But, alas, sinners cannot part with
their “virtues.” They have none that are not imaginary, but they are real to
them. So grace becomes unreal. The real grace of God they spurn in order to hold
on to the illusory virtues of their own. Their eyes fixed on a mirage, they will
not drink real water. They die of thirst with water all about them.

Why do men not accept the gospel? How can they refuse the tender overtures of
the gracious Son of God? Why do they even take offense at the cross? Let us
consider an analogy. An etiquette book is a very valuable accessory. It is
useful on many important occasions. A good one costs considerable money. Who
would not be glad to have one, if it were given him? You wouldn’t? Why wouldn’t
you be glad to be given such a book? Because it would imply you needed it! That
is the reason proud sinners do not come to Christ. Their coming would imply they
needed Him. They are too proud and self-righteous in their natural state to
admit that!


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 19: 02.07.     CHAPTER VII SANCTIFICATION: CHRISTIANIZING THE CHRISTIAN
========================================================================

CHAPTER VII Sanctification: Christianizing the Christian

CHRISTIAN PERFECTION is an ideal for which we must all strive. Although there is
a double standard of morality in Romish theology, Protestant Christianity knows
no such distinction. The priesthood of all believers is a well-known Reformation
principle. The perfection of all believers (as a duty) is another cardinal
Protestant principle. Some professed Protestants expect their ministers to be
perfect, while they think of themselves as under a less demanding ideal.
Officers of the church are expected to strive for the ideal, which for the
others is regarded as a mere word.

Officers cannot for a moment allow the people to get away with this double
standard. Not that there is any objection to demanding perfection of ministers —
God does this; but there is an objection to laymen not demanding perfection of
themselves. Still, granting all this, there is peculiar propriety in officers
applying themselves to the pursuit of perfection. The fact that all Christians
are required by God to be perfect does not make that duty less but more binding
on those who are to lead and correct the people in the things of God. After all,
the snuffers in the ancient tabernacle were made of pure gold, as Matthew Henry
observed.

“It appears singular to the reader of St. Paul’s Epistles,” writes W. G. T.
Shedd, “that the apostle in one passage speaks of Christians as perfect, and in
another as imperfect. At one time, he describes them in terms that would lead us
to infer that they are holy as God is holy; and at another, he speaks of them as
full of sin and corruption. In the text, he denominates them ‘the elect of God,
holy and beloved,’ and yet immediately proceeds to exhort them to the possession
and practice of the most common Christian graces — such as humility and
forgiveness. In a preceding paragraph, he tells the Colossians that they ‘are
dead to sin, and their life is hid with Christ in God,’ and then goes on to urge
them to overcome some of the most gross sins in the whole catalogue — ‘mortify,
therefore, your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness,
inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry’
(Colossians 3:3-5).” The Bible teaches these three things concerning perfection:
first, that the Christian in one sense is perfect; second, that in another
sense, he needs to become perfect; and, third, what he is to do about it. These
points will determine our treatment of the theme of Christian santification.

I. The Sense in Which the Christian Is Already Perfect The Bible clearly states
that there is a sense in which the Christian is already holy. Colossians 3:12;
for example, states: “Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved,
bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering.”

Christians are already holy and perfect in two respects: first, they are
actually justified or declared righteous; second, they are sanctified (set apart
as holy) in principle, or potentially righteous. This first form of holiness is
that which is imputed or reckoned to us; namely, the holiness of Christ which
becomes ours through faith. He who knew no sin became sin that we might become
the righteousness of God in Him. Christ took the guilt of our sin, and we
received the merit of His righteousness. We are now clothed in the white
garments of the spotless lamb of God that took away the sin of the world. This
is the righteousness we received when first we believed. “Justification is an
act of God’s free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins and accepteth us as
righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us,
and received by faith alone.” So then in this sense, a person is holy, perfectly
holy, from the moment he first becomes a Christian.

We are already holy in a second respect; that is, we are sanctified in
principle. We have a new living principle within which is certainly destined to
conquer our old and sinful nature. It is so certain that this new principle is
dominant and shall win out over the evil principle which is mortally wounded at
conversion that we Christians are spoken of at times as if we already had won
the victory and were already perfectly holy. This is a common way of speaking.
For example, on Friday I reached a certain stage in the preparation of a paper
on which I was working. I knew that it was then as good as finished. I
considered my work virtually completed. The outcome was a practical certainty.
To be sure, there was a good deal more work to do, more research to complete,
and so on; but fundamentally the back of the job was broken. So I was able to
mow the lawn with peace of mind. As J. W. A. Stewart put it: “When the 21st of
March has come we say the back of winter is broken. There will still be
alternations of frost, but the progress will be towards heat. The coming of
summer is sure; in germ the summer is already here.” So the believer is holy in
the sense that that which is in him is mightier than that which is in the world.
The ultimate triumph of this principle of life in Christ Jesus is certain. The
saint is as good as sanctified. His seed abideth (1 John 3:9). This is present
holiness, which every Christian now possesses and without which no man shall see
the Lord. The holiness of imputed righteousness and principial sanctification
are illustrated in the following simile: “‘The steamship whose machinery is
broken may be brought into port and made fast to the dock. She is safe, but not
sound. Repairs may last a long time. Christ designs to make us both safe and
sound. Justification gives the first — safety; sanctification gives the second —
soundness.’ “ (quoted by A. H. Strong in Systematic Theology, p. 869) II. The
Sense in Which the Christian Is Now Imperfect The saint’s imperfection is no
less apparent than his perfection. It jumps right out from the Scripture. In
Colossians 3:12 we are told that Christians are elect and holy; immediately
after, we are exhorted to put on mercy, humility, and the other elements of a
holy life. In the Lord’s Prayer we are specifically instructed to ask God for
the forgiveness of our debts, or sins. Paul counted himself not to have
attained; he did not consider himself already perfect. The Apostle John, one of
the most saintly men of all time, the beloved of the Lord, said that if any man
said he had no sin he deceived himself and the truth was not in him. A preacher,
commenting on the fact that the Christian who says he has no sin deceives
himself, remarked that he does not deceive anyone but himself. Luther likened
the sanctification of the Christian to the healing of an open sore. The sore is
healing, is potentially healed; but meanwhile it is quite painful and may be
putrid.

III. What the Christian Is to Do in This Situation In this situation the
Christian is called upon to strive for the very perfection which he already
potentially enjoys. That is what a great artist does when he trains to become a
great artist. We know that Enrico Caruso and Fritz Kreisler had music in their
souls at the beginning. Training for them meant making their potential genius
actual. If it had not been there to begin with, no amount of training would have
produced it. But, even though it were there, it would never have come to
expression and reality without training. So the Christian has the gift of
religious genius. It is given to him at his birth as a Christian (regeneration).
He is then called upon to bring it out; the process is called Christian
education (from educare, to lead out). In the Colossians passage, Paul says,
“put on,” or “put forth.” “Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and
beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness,
longsuffering.” That is, “You are holy; therefore put forth these holy acts of
mercy, humility, meekness, and long-suffering.”

“You” put on or put forth these virtues. “You” do this; not God. A certain
modern movement calls upon its adherents to “let go and let God.” But
Christianity does not say, “Let go”; it says, “Put forth.” The Sandemanians were
an obscure little sect which taught the deadliness of all doing and the
necessity for inactivity in order to let God do his work in the soul. But
Christianity says, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it
is God which worketh in you.”

Just how God works and we work is beautifully illustrated by the great Dutch
theologian, Abraham Kuyper:

You can represent this to yourself most vividly when you think of a ship. At the
stern of that ship is a rudder, and attached to this rudder is the tiller, and
this is held by the hand of the helmsman. Should there be no steering when at
sea, this boat moves under the action of the wind and waves, then when the ship
turns the rudder turns, when the rudder turns the tiller turns, and with it the
hand and the arm of the man at the helm moves involuntarily back and forth.

Behold the image of a will-less man.

He is adrift upon the sea of life. As wind and waves drive, so he is driven
along, under influences from without and from within — of circumstances, of his
passion. And as life makes him go, now in this direction, now in that, so he
goes; and so turns the rudder in his inward purpose, and so turns the tiller and
the hand at the helm; i. e., his will. The will-less one! But it is altogether
different when there is steerage in the ship. Then the man at the helm keeps the
course. He knows where he wants to go. And when wind and wave would drive him
out of his course, he works against them. Then his hand grasps the tiller
firmly, he turns it, and therewith the rudder itself, against wind and wave. And
the ship that responds to the helm, cuts through the waves, not as tide and wind
would direct it, but as the helmsman wills.

Such is the man of character, the man with will-perception and will-power, who
does not drift, but steers. But there is still a third point. On the bridge of
the ship, far away from the helm, stands the captain, and he has placed a
helmsman at the tiller. Now the captain on the bridge must know what course the
ship must take. On the bridge he stands much higher, and therefore knows far
better how the ship must point to the right or to the left. And so the helmsman
has but this single duty, namely, that he listen to what the captain on the
bridge commands, and that he carries out those orders.

Applied to the soul, God is this Captain on the bridge, and we are the man at
the helm. And if, with the tiller of the small boat of our soul in hand, we but
will what God wills, and so turn the helm to right or left as God commands, then
no danger need be feared, and presently through wind and wave the little boat
enters safely the desired haven.

If this goes on through the whole of life, we grow accustomed to it; we know at
length by anticipation, whether the Captain on the bridge will command left or
right. Thus, of ourselves we come to know God’s will more and more. And this
knowledge of God brings us nearer to the haven of salvation, — to eternal life.
When God so works in upon our self that at length we will what God wills, the
process is not external but internal. (To Be Near Unto God, The Macmillan Co.,
1925, pp. 200-202.) But to come back to our point. We must put on holiness. It
is not enough to know how it is done. It must be done. It is not enough to know
that it must be done, we must do it. Though I have all knowledge to understand
all mysteries and have not love, it profits me nothing. Dr. A. H. Strong in his
Systematic Theology quotes Dr. Hastings, who told of an occasion when the great
French preacher Bourdaloue was probing the conscience of Louis XIV, applying to
him the words of St. Paul and intending to paraphrase them: “For the good which
I would, I do not, but the evil which I would not, that I do,” “I find two men
in me” — the King interrupted the great preacher with the memorable exclamation:
“Ah, these two men, I know them well!” Bourdaloue answered: “It is already
something to know them, Sire; but it is not enough, — one of the two must
perish.”

But, how do we actually put on these virtues which make for Christian
perfection? How do we put them forth? How do we exhibit them so that men may see
our good works and glorify our Father who is in Heaven? Two things are called
for: meditation and exercise. By meditation we practice the presence of Christ.
If we would run with patience the race that is set before us, we must look to
Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. And if we would look to Jesus we
will search His Word (John 5:39). We are transformed by the renewing of our
minds; by letting the mind be in us which was in Christ Jesus. We know how
association with great and good persons has a profound effect upon us. Gamaliel
Bradford, the celebrated biographer, said that he “lived” with Robert E. Lee for
many years and it made him a better man. He “lived” with Mark Twain for years
and it made him a worse man. When Saint-Gaudens was given the job of making a
statue of Phillips Brooks, he studied the man carefully. The famous sculptor
came to realize that in order to understand Brooks he had to understand Brooks’
Christ. So he read the Gospels, lived with Christ, and at last he gave his life
to Christ. Chalmers spoke of the expulsive power of a new affection; it also has
a propulsive power. “The love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge
that if one died for all, then were all dead: and that he died for all that they
which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died
for them, and rose again” (2 Corinthians 5:14-15). So let us practice the
presence of God. And then exercise! How do we put on virtues? “By taking every
occasion to exercise them . . . Strain day after day upon a particular muscle,
and it will begin to swell and rise above the flesh. You do not create the
muscle by this effort, but you stimulate and strengthen it. . . . There is too
much Christian character lying dormant and latent, because there is so much
neglect of self-culture in the Church.” Church officers and other leaders have a
big job. We never hold a retreat in our church without some officer learning, as
it were, for the first time how really big his job is, and wanting to resign
forthwith. If that happened, there would be literal retreats. But that is not
the purpose of a “retreat”; it is, rather, merely drawing back to see the job
whole so that we may advance to it. You have the gift for your respective
ministries — just exercise it, and you will know you have it. The same applies
to all Christians. Develop some spiritual muscle. You who are holy, grow in
holiness; you who are perfect, be ye perfect as your Father in Heaven is
perfect. Php 3:13-14 : “Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but
this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching
forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize
of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” If the Apostle Paul needed
spiritual exercise, do you, my dear reader, not need it?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 20: 02.08.     CHAPTER VIII ASSURANCE: HOW WE KNOW THAT WE KNOW CHRIST
========================================================================

CHAPTER VIII Assurance: How We Know That We Know Christ

UP TO THIS POINT our interest has been in coming to Christ. We have considered
our lost condition by nature, our need of a Saviour, and Christ’s remarkable
qualifications for that role, and the way by which we are persuaded of it. But
now we address ourselves to the question of how we know that we have truly come
to Christ, or how we know that we truly know Christ. Conceivably a person could
come to Christ without being certain that he is actually united to him.
Presumably, a person could think that he had come to Christ without really doing
so. And presumably a person could truly come to Christ and know it. Now what we
here want to discover is how we know that we know Christ. In previous chapters
we have thought about our sinfulness and how we came to be sinful, and about
Christ, His deity and His mediatorial work. All of these were doctrines which
could be ascertained objectively and were in a sense external to us. Now we are
dealing with something which we can only know by our self-examination. We are to
search into our own souls to see if we have a certain experience. At the same
time we are being objective, in this sense: we are studying the Word of God to
ascertain the evidences for which we must search. While we are considering what
the evidences of a saved condition are, we will be asking ourselves whether we
possess these qualifications. At that point the discussion is both objective and
subjective.

Many indications of a regenerate condition are mentioned in the Scripture. As a
matter of fact, there are too many of them for us to consider in this brief
chapter. We will, therefore, restrict ourselves to one passage which we will use
as a guide in this discussion. We will, however, refer to other passages
incidentally but not primarily. The passage which will serve as a foundation of
our discussion here is Romans 5:1-3. “Therefore being justified by faith, we
have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom also we have access
by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of
God. And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that
tribulation worketh patience.” In this passage the Apostle is giving us the
argument from experience. In the immediately foregoing passage, the fourth
chapter, he has shown the experience of the patriarchs of old, Abraham and
David. Now he turns away from the past to the present and speaks of the
experience of the Roman Christians, saying, “Therefore being justified by faith,
we have . . .”

I. First Indication of Justification: Peace The first fruit of justification,
or, we may say, the first evidence of our being in a justified state, is peace.
Says the Apostle, “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God
through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Before we can consider the peace here mentioned, we must first of all notice a
minor textual matter. The King James and the Revised Standard Version represent
Paul as saying, “we have peace.” However, Paul did not actually write that. He
wrote, rather, “let us have peace.” There is little doubt among the scholars
that he did indeed actually write echômen and not echomen. He very probably used
the subjunctive and not the indicative. Why, then, do they not simply translate
it “let us have” instead of rendering it “we have”? Well, most of the scholars
are frank enough to say that they render it in the indicative because they
believe that is the thrust of Paul’s thought even though he does use a
subjunctive word. That is, most interpreters feel that the argument of Romans is
so logical and so relentless and so obvious that at this particular point Paul
can be making nothing but a declaration. There cannot be anything tentative or
uncertain, hypothetical or hortatory, about it. So, in spite of the language
which the Apostle uses, the translators construe him otherwise because they feel
his thought demands it. We sympathize with these translators and agree with
their general appraisal of Paul’s thought here. Nevertheless, we consider it a
very serious matter to change an inspired author’s word. We prefer, therefore,
to leave the subjunctive just as the Apostle gave it to us.

What is the significance then of the fact that Paul did use the subjunctive and
that he wrote: “let us have peace”? Does it somehow diminish the force of this
passage because he used a subjunctive rather than an indicative? We think not.
As a matter of fact, we are inclined to think that it may, if we understand
properly, show a greater significance and contribute more to the movement of
Paul’s thought than the indicative would.

We mean this: Paul could never tell these Christians, or urge them, or exhort
them, to have peace unless he believed that peace had actually been established
by God through justification. His subjunctive, in other words, presupposes a
prior indicative. That is, Paul is exhorting the Romans here to have peace in
the sense of experiencing peace because peace already has them. That is, peace
already has been established and they therefore have every right and duty to
appropriate it, to enjoy it, to revel in it. So I rather suspect that the
Apostle is far ahead of his translators here. The translators are holding back
at the indicative which Paul has already assumed and moved beyond. The point,
however, as far as we here are concerned is that the subjunctive necessarily
implies the indicative. The exhortation to have peace presupposes that peace has
already been established. That is, a man could never be urged by Paul to
experience a peace which the Apostle did not believe was already effected
between that man and God. We remember that in Romans 1:18 Paul had already said
that “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, . . .” Now if the wrath of God were still burning
against mankind the Apostle would certainly never urge men to have peace.
Nowhere in these early chapters where he is shutting up all under divine
judgment and exposing them to the wrath of God does he, or could he, urge them
to have peace. It is only after the grace of God in Christ and justification by
faith is introduced that Paul urges his readers to have peace with God.

Coming now to the peace of God itself, we notice the first great fruit or mark
of justification here mentioned. This is indication that there is no longer any
estrangement between the holy God and the former sinner who was under His wrath
and judgment. If a person has peace established and is in a position to
experience, feel, and rejoice in this peace, this is a true indication that he
has actually a genuine union with Jesus Christ.

This, however, immediately raises a question. Is it possible that a person could
wrongly think that he was justified and therefore think that he had peace
established between God and him and then actually feel in his heart this peace
to which the Apostle exhorts him? In other words, while a truly justified person
will have this fruit of justification, namely peace, is it still not possible
for people who only think they have justification to feel a peace which flows
from it, which peace is spurious and quite misleading? Is experienced peace a
true indication of a person’s converted state? Putting it in the form of a
question, Can we know that we know Christ because we have the experience of
peace? Obviously, if it is possible to have a spurious feeling of peace, the
feeling can be no sure indication that a person has justification or has Jesus
Christ.

Yes, it is possible to distinguish between true and spurious peace. Peace may be
a feeling, but it rests on some presumed fact which may be logically grasped and
evaluated. If you ask some persons why they feel at peace with God, they will
answer, “Because God never hates or becomes truly angry with anyone.” They
suppose that God need never be feared. So they have a variety of peace. The
doctrine on which it rests is unscriptural and therefore false and ipso facto;
it is spurious. If, however, a person feels peace and knows that it results from
faith that Christ satisfied divine justice for him and converted his soul and
united him to the Saviour, the peace he feels is genuine since it rests on the
truth of God.

II. Second Indication of Justification: Fellowship The second proof of one’s
salvation that the Apostle mentions is a gracious state. “We have access by
faith into this grace wherein we stand.” The grace here mentioned signifies a
condition of fellowship with God. It introduces us to a second level of
Christian experience. It is a distinct advance upon the previously mentioned
peace which we have and may experience with God. There could have been peace
established without any subsequent fellowship. Peace itself signifies merely the
cessation of hostilities. It does not necessarily mean the resumption, or the
introduction, of friendship. It could be an armed truce or a state of
belligerency or a cold war. Peace simply means the absence of hostilities,
expressed hostility. Of course, the peace of God is more than merely an armed
truce. It does signify that there is no remaining hostility, outward or inward,
hot or cold. Nevertheless, the word “peace” itself does not signify anything
more than precisely that. Peace can be established without a condition of
intimacy and love and fellowship obtaining. But this word “grace” signifies
precisely that a condition of fellowship and love does obtain after the peace
has been established. This grace which follows the peace of God could only
follow peace. That is, there is no possibility of anyone having a cordial
relation of friendship and love with the living God until peace is first
established between them. So long as the war was on between the soul and Heaven,
the soul could not suppose that God was his friend and was pleased with him. So
long as the soul was at enmity with God, there could be nothing but a sense of
apprehension, fear, shame, and fleeing rather than boldness, rejoicing, and
loving communion. As we said, peace could be established without communion
necessarily following. But now we are noticing the other side of the coin;
namely, that there could be no communion without this peace.

Indeed, a part of this blessedness of fellowship with God consists in the
realization of the peace which has been established. Just as truly as fear of
God’s wrath and judgment destroys any tranquillity between the soul and God, so
the overcoming of that wrath of God suffuses the soul with a very great joy. Not
only does the soul experience a vast relief, which follows the knowledge that
God is no longer angry, but a positive joy as well in this wonderful knowledge.

Perhaps the most blessed characteristic of this Christian experience of
fellowship with God is its inalienability. It cannot be lost. Paul indicates
this by saying it is the grace “in which we stand.” His word translated “stand”
signifies “stand rooted,” “immovable.” So this fellowship, exquisite as it is in
itself, is also of permanent duration.

All other joys with which we ever have any acquaintance in this life are what we
may call “furlough” pleasures. As a pastor, during the last war, I often visited
families which had been torn apart by the demands of the military forces.
Sometimes I visited these families when the loved husband or son or brother was
home on a furlough. What a joyous occasion it was to have the family circle
completed again, if only for a few days. But I doubt if I ever visited on
occasions like that without seeing a mother or a wife in tears. Why? Because she
usually would be anticipating that in three days or a week the loved one would
be gone again. Even when she was enjoying the company of her husband or her son
the joy was spoiled, to a degree, by the realization that it was soon coming to
an end. Is this not true of all earthly pleasures? Are they not properly called
“furlough” pleasures? They all have a terminal date. Sooner or later they will
come to an end. The awareness of this fleetingness of the most exquisite of our
pleasures diminishes the pleasure itself very greatly. The anticipation of the
termination spoils the present enjoyment. Perhaps, in an ultimate sense, we are
incapable of complete happiness unless we are relieved of the apprehension that
the present phase of that happiness will be lost or diminished. On the other
hand, how wonderfully the knowledge that these pleasures will continue
contributes to the present enjoyment of them. Just as truly as the realization
that a present pleasure is coming to an end tends to spoil the pleasure even
now, so the realization that a present pleasure is never coming to an end tends
to augment the pleasure even now. When I realize that some joy will never come
to an end, that realization in itself is a joy and accentuates the original joy,
just as thinking that a present joy will come to an end is a disturbance and
that disturbance detracts from the present joy itself.

Christian joy, fellowship in the Holy Ghost, is the only kind of pleasure, with
which we are familiar in this world, which is pure, unalloyed, and augmented
pleasure, because it is a grace in which we stand rooted, immovable. This is
what our Lord had in mind when He said that He came that you may have life and
have it abundantly. This is what the Apostle was speaking of when he called
Christians conquerors and more than conquerors through Christ Jesus. This is the
blessedness of those who have and to whom it shall be given which contrasts so
sharply with the misery of those who have not and from whom shall be taken even
that which they have.

III. Third Indication of Justification: Hope The third fruit of justification
which the Apostle mentions here is rejoicing in the hope of the glory of God.
The preceding joy of fellowship with God was augmented, as we have said, by its
promise. In a certain sense, that present joyful fellowship was partly from
anticipation of its continuance. This matter of the future of Christian
experience comes into focus when the Apostle says, “We . . . rejoice in hope of
the glory of God.” Here he is taking a full view of the future and telling us
that the true Christian rejoices in the anticipation of it. Indeed the word
“rejoices” is not quite what Paul actually said. His term would be more
adequately translated as “rejoiced triumphantly.” This is not only a note of
happiness but of exuberant happiness. There is a certain confidence as well as a
delightful anticipation. These are more than great expectations; these are great
certainties for the Christian. After all, Jesus Christ gave himself that we may
have life eternal. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
That is the point of emphasis in the gospel. Not this world but the other world
is the center of interest in the message of the evangel. Secularism has so
permeated Christian thinking in our time that it has foreshortened the gospel
picture. Even many Christians are more absorbed in this world than the other.
However, Christianity and true Christian experience live under the aspect of
eternity, and the Bible ends with these words, “Even so, come, Lord Jesus.” The
Lord’s return is ever “our blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). However glorious the
experience of peace may be, however unspeakable the felicity of the Holy Ghost
may be, even these blessed experiences are as nothing in comparison with what
lies before. The famous evangelist, Moody, used to say, “Some day you will read
in the obituaries that D. L. Moody is dead. Don’t you believe a word of it. I
will have just begun to live.” That is no exaggeration. As some other person has
said, “The most wonderful five minutes in a Christian’s life are the first five
minutes after death.” Jonathan Edwards, in an unpublished manuscript, said
something like this: The blessedness of Heaven is so glorious that when the
saints arrive there they will look back upon their earthly pilgrimage, however
wonderful their life in Christ was then, as a veritable Hell. Just as truly, on
the other hand, will those who perish in Hell look back on the life in this
world, however miserable it may have been, as veritable Heaven [the Christian
answer to those who think that Hell is here and now].

How do we know that we know Christ? If we have the above experiences growing out
of a sound evangelical belief in the gospel, we know Christ and we know that we
know Christ.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 21: 02.09.     CHAPTER IX THE CHURCH: BODY OF CHRIST
========================================================================

CHAPTER IX The Church: Body of Christ

THERE ARE FUNDAMENTALLY two views of the church. There are variations of these
and mixtures of them, but fundamentally only two views. This division runs
through the various denominations or “churches” as we shall see.

I. The Church Defined as Visible The first conception of the church may be
stated as follows: It is that body of persons who (1) profess faith in Christ,
(2) are subordinate to properly appointed officers, and (3) associate with those
of like profession and practice. We must consider these items separately.

First, they profess faith in Christ. This usually signifies more than saying
they believe in someone whom they themselves call Christ. Their profession must
recognize that Christ is a particular historic person who was none other than
God incarnate. This is invariably considered as the minimum profession of
Christianity. Insistence is on the fact that the Christ is no mere man — no mere
reformer — but the very Son of God. Profession of faith in Christ may be all
that is required, but this must be an orthodox profession. Usually Christ, being
regarded as divine, is also recognized as a member of the Trinity. Furthermore,
His divinity is seen as necessary to His work of redemption, the acknowledgement
of which is usually regarded as essential. The person affirms faith in Christ —
as God and Saviour.

Second, those who make this profession do so to certain men called church
officers, who are thought to be appointed by Christ. After all, there must be
someone, it is argued, to determine when men make satisfactory confessions. It
is thought that these officers are indicated in the Bible. The Roman Catholic
church finds the pope to be the recipient of the keys of the kingdom or church,
and he indirectly appoints the necessary subordinates, or the priesthood. The
Anglican church acknowledges no order, except administrative, higher than the
bishop, who is thought to be in succession from Peter, to whom the keys were
given and by whom they were transmitted to the bishopric. Those who defend the
view under consideration are advocates of episcopal order, or government by
bishops. Others, such as Presbyterians, believe that the officers are ministers
(on one level and equal) associated with representatives of the congregation
(elders); and still others, such as Congregationalists, regard the congregation
itself as retaining and not delegating its authority.

Third, persons who profess faith in Christ to these duly appointed officers are
received into the fellowship of like-minded persons. This fellowship constitutes
the church. If a person professed Christ and acknowledged certain officers but
was not recognized by them, he would not be admitted to this fellowship and
therefore would not, in spite of all, be in the church. It is to be understood,
furthermore, that membership in this society is not inalienable. A person may be
excommunicated, that is, he may be cut off from the communion of the church and
no longer be considered a member. This is a very understandable and apparently
sound view of the church. But is it true? Is a person who professes faith in
Christ and is received by officers into a fellowship of like professors truly a
member of the church in the biblical sense of the word? We admit that he may be,
but this does not satisfy advocates of this doctrine who teach that there is no
“maybe” here but only certainty. Such a person, they say, is undoubtedly a
member of the church of Christ with all its benefits and privileges. They will
say that if a person is a member of a certain local church or denomination he is
truly a member of the church of Christ. So long as he is not cut off from the
communion of this body (excommunicated) he is not cut off from Christ. So these
advocates cannot accept our statement that members of their church may be
members of the church of Christ. No, say they, they are members of Christ’s
church. This notion that members of some particular denomination are necessarily
members of Christ’s church or body we cannot grant. We will not deny that a
person who sincerely and truly makes a sound profession of faith in Christ is a
member of His true church, but how do we (or they) know that all who make the
profession sincerely believe it? How can they be sure that they are not
receiving hypocrites? So long as officers cannot search the hearts of professing
believers, they cannot know whether such professors are sincere, true believers
or not; nor can they prevent the admittance of some nominal (in name only)
believers.

Advocates of this view must assume the officers’ ability to know the hearts of
professors. But while they assume this, they do not claim it and cannot admit
that they even assume it. Even the church of Rome claims no such infallibility
for individual priests or bishops who receive persons into their church. So
there is a dilemma here: This view depends on the officers’ ability to know
hearts, but the officers do not even claim such ability. Yet if they do not have
this ability, they cannot be certain that the persons they admit are true
members of the church of Christ.

Perhaps someone will say that we are overdoing the difficulty here. Can we not
be reasonably certain that a person who says he believes in Christ and who is
not living in any open or gross sin is a Christian? Yes, we can be reasonably
sure — that is, we can be sure enough to allow his profession to be made a basis
of admission to this fellowship. But it is unreasonable to say that such a
person could not possibly be a hypocrite. After all, the Bible indicates that
people may say and do many things that are Christian without themselves being
Christian. The rich young ruler, for example, said that he kept the whole law
from his youth up, but he rejected Christ actually, even while respecting and
reverencing Him. Christ said that some would come in the last day and say:
“Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out
devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?” (Matthew 7:22). Christ did
not deny their ascription of Lordship to Him, nor their claim to have
prophesied, cast out devils, and done many mighty works in His name. But He
rejected them nonetheless, saying: “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that
work iniquity” (Matthew 7:23). The Apostle Paul wrote: “Though I speak with the
tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding
brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and
understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so
that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I
bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned,
and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:1-3). So it is
possible for a person to be a great philanthropist and a martyr without having
love (that is, Christ) in his heart, and all he does will therefore profit him
nothing. If it is possible for a person to call Christ Lord, to cast out devils
in His name and die a martyr to His cause without having Christ in his heart,
then certainly no man can judge infallibly about the state of another man’s
soul.

It is not only that men may err in their judgments about others’ profession, but
they do err. Christ tells us that hypocrites are added to the professing members
of His church. This is the teaching of the Parable of the Tares. An enemy plants
the tares; that is, the devil establishes hypocrites in the field (or church) of
Christ. Moreover, the parable could be construed as a warning to faithful church
officers of their inability always to remove these “tares,” or hypocrites, even
when they can detect them: “lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also
the wheat with them” (Matthew 13:29). The separation of true and false believers
will not, according to this and other parables (such as the net and fishes,
Matthew 13:47 f.), take place in this world but at the final judgment and not by
men but by angels. Christ, though He wants us to keep His church as pure as
possible, wants us to know that some inevitable impurity must be accepted and
borne with until the “harvest.”

II. The Church Defined as Invisible

Thus the foregoing definition of the church will not do. The church of Christ is
not simply those who profess Christ, are subordinate to his officers, and
associate with those of like profession. The devil’s children are members of
this company. The enemies of Christ profess to love Him. This is the church of
the anti-Christ as well as of Christ.

What, then, is the church of Christ? Although the foregoing definition is
unsatisfactory, the addition of two words will make it quite satisfactory. Thus:
The church consists of all who sincerely profess faith in Christ, and are
normally subordinate to his officers and associate with those of like
profession. This definition requires that the person’s profession correspond to
his state of heart. Since no officer can tell whether this is so, God alone
knows whether the person is sincere and, therefore, truly a member of the
church. For that reason the true church is called “invisible.” This does not
mean that true Christians are invisible but that their “trueness” or genuineness
is invisible to man. For example, the true faith of the eleven apostles was not
visible any more than the false faith of Judas was visible (until the betrayal
and suicide following Christ’s rejection of him revealed it). So long as a
person makes a sound profession and does not belie it by gross sin, we “presume”
that he has true faith. The Puritans used to say that we exercise a “judgment of
charity.” Only one thing we must avoid — namely, making a judgment of certainty.

Furthermore, we said that the church consists of all who sincerely profess faith
in Christ and are normally subordinate to his officers and in fellowship with
those who make a like profession. Normally, sincere believers in Christ will
join the “visible” church because Christ wills it. He himself attended the
synagogue or church of His own day. The New Testament enjoins the assembling of
ourselves together. Christ gave gifts to the church after His ascension,
according to Ephesians 4:11 f., and these were ministers to build up the church.
Such statements indicate that the establishment of the visible church was His
will, although He forbade any to join except those who deny themselves, take up
their cross, and follow Him. Hypocrites may nonetheless profess to do these
things and be admitted, but that is no excuse for sincere persons not making the
same profession. Christ also commanded His apostles to baptize in His name, thus
receiving professors by a visible act into a visible organization. So converts
to Christ desiring to do the will of Christ will receive baptism and join the
visible church. At least, normally they will do all this. Is it conceivable that
they will not do this? It is not conceivable that they will permanently delay
uniting with the church if they realize that it is the will of Christ that they
do join. But it is conceivable, too, that they may be wrongly instructed in
their duty. Hearing that they should believe and be saved, they may wrongly
conclude that merely exercising and expressing faith is sufficient without
joining any organization. They may not realize that belief in Christ means
belief in all His commands, including the one to join the church. This is not
likely, of course, and a Christian person should not long remain in such a
condition. But since it is a possibility, at least in rare cases, for short
intervals, we must agree with Augustine that there may be lambs outside the fold
(just as there are wolves inside).

III. Biblical Use of Term “Church”

What complicates the matter is that the Bible sometimes uses the word “church”
in the sense of the visible church and sometimes in the sense of the invisible
church. For example, Stephen in his sermon before the Sanhedrin referred to all
Israel in the wilderness as “the church.” “This is he, that was in the church in
the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai, and with
our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us” (Acts 7:38). Now
we know that not only were there some hypocrites in that body called the
“church” but almost all of the members were such. That was the generation of
which God swore in his wrath that they should not enter into his rest (Psalms
95:11). Only the younger generation were spared, but the rest perished in the
wilderness — a symbol of eternal perishing. Yet they were called “the church.”
In the apostolic church itself there were those who were not true believers, as
indicated by the Apostle John in 1 John 2:19 : “They went out from us, but they
were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued
with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not
all of us.” On the other hand, the true church is mentioned, too. Christ said:
“I will build my church; and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it”
(Matthew 16:18). The powers of Hell not only stand against but they often make
conquests of the visible church. It is only the invisible church of which
Christ’s description is true. Another instance is Ephesians 1:22-23 : “And hath
put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to
the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.”
Surely nothing false or evil could be part of the body of Christ, in whom God is
well pleased. In spite of this double usage of the word “church,” in and out of
the Bible, we must remember that the true church, the saved church, the church
in vital union with Christ, is the invisible church.

IV. Other Qualities of the Church In addition to the description already given
of the true, invisible church we find other characteristics mentioned in
Scripture. The invisible church is:

Infallible (it knows its Master’s voice and will not follow a stranger, John
10:5).

Indestructible (nothing shall separate it from “the love of God, which is in
Christ Jesus,” Romans 8:39; no one shall take it out of His hand, John 10:28).

Indivisible (“that they may be one, as we are,” John 17:11; “I am the vine, ye
are the branches,” John 15:5).

Invincible (“the gates [defensive weapons] of hell shall not prevail [or stand]
against it,” Matthew 16:18; “the meek shall inherit the earth,” Psalms 37:11).

Universal (“out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation,”
Revelation 5:9; “the field is the world,” Matthew 13:38; “God so loved the
world,” John 3:16).

Putting everything together, we would have some such definition of the church of
Jesus Christ as this: It is the invisible, infallible, indestructible,
indivisible, invincible, and universal body consisting of all those who truly
believe in and adhere to their Head, the Lord Jesus Christ. In the vast majority
of cases, they are members of the visible church.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 22: 02.10.     CHAPTER X THE FUTURE: GULF BETWEEN TWO WORLDS
========================================================================

CHAPTER X The Future: Gulf Between Two Worlds I. Modern Views of the Future

EDWYN BEVAN (Christianity, p. 224) says that some modern Roman Catholics,
speaking off the record concerning their official doctrine of the endless
punishment of the wicked, “teach that the punishment involves real pain, but
that it is not forever, others that the punishment is really forever, but that
it is not torment as pictured in the old view.” This observation is even truer
of the thinking and teaching of many Protestants. In other words, the tendency
of modern times has been to take punishment out of eternity or eternity out of
punishment.

Quite recently some seem to be trying to take the blessedness out of eternity
also. If Hell is being changed into Heaven, Heaven is being brought down to
Hell. Thus Paul Tillich (“The Meaning of Joy”) finds joy and pain apparently
inseparable. Moreover, for multitudes of thinkers Heaven must be presently, at
least, a very miserable place, or state of mind; for God, say some, suffers
because of the sins of His creatures. Being an infinite being, He must suffer
infinitely and being omniscient He must suffer every moment. If He, who is the
glory of Heaven, is infinitely miserable, it is difficult to believe that
creatures, whose joy is in Him, could avoid being miserable also. The
traditional churches have not changed their creeds, but there can be little
doubt that they have changed their preaching. Walter Lingle, I think it was,
once wrote about “The No-Hell Church” where that doctrine had never been
mentioned for more than twenty years. John Sutherland Bonnell said that it had
been even longer in his Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church. How many “No-Hell”
churches exist, no one has dared to estimate. Hell is so dreadful that the very
thought of it is well-nigh unbearable. At the same time, the conviction is
growing that religion without a Hell is not worth much. It seems that the church
can neither live with the doctrine nor do without it.

If the orthodox have been strangely silent about what they ostensibly believe,
the neo-orthodox have decisively committed themselves to universal salvation. It
is an irony of history that a movement which is often called Neo-Calvinism
should repudiate the doctrine of particularistic election by which historic
Calvinism has been distinguished. In a book recently translated into English
(Christ and Adam) Karl Barth’s implicit universalism is clear. Romans 5:1-11, he
says, only speaks of Jesus Christ and those who believe in him. If we read that
first part of the chapter by itself, we might quite easily come to the
conclusion that for Paul Christ’s manhood is significant only for those who are
united to him in faith. We would then have no right to draw any conclusion about
the relationship between Christ and man as such, from what Paul says about the
‘religious’ relationship between Christ and Christians. We could not then expect
to find in the manhood of Christ the key to the essential nature of man. But in
vv. 12-20 Paul does not limit his context to Christ’s relationship to believers
but gives fundamentally the same account of his relationship to all men. The
context is widened from church history to world history, from Christ’s
relationship to Christians to his relationship to all men. (pp. 87 f.).

It may be useful to contrast the universalism of Neo-orthodoxy with that of the
older Liberalism. According to the latter, men do not deserve to be damned and
therefore they do not really need to be saved. Or, if men do deserve to be
damned, a loving God is morally incapable of damning them. So, after their
measure of suffering in this world, with or without some further temporary
suffering in the next world, all men are “saved.” Neo-orthodoxy has too strong a
note of orthodoxy to entertain such a view. It holds that man is sinful and does
deserve the wrath of God. A reconciliation, however, can divert that wrath. Such
a reconciliation has been made in Christ, and it has saved or justified all men
whom Adam’s sin had damned. Faith is not necessary, according to Barth, to
secure justification but only to experience the fruits of it. All men will
sooner or later come to faith and thereby realize what they have always
possessed but not previously enjoyed.

It has been characteristic of the sects to deny future punishment. Unitarianism
emerged in this country basically as a protest against vindictive justice. It is
true that this was not always in the foreground of the controversy, but it is
probable that it was always in the background. In the debate over depravity and
sacrifice and salvation, the great anxiety and offense was traceable not so much
to these doctrines as to the fact that they led to vindictive and irremediable
punishment. Universalism was explicitly and undoubtedly devoted to an attack on
the particularism of New England doctrine. Most of the major present-day sects
are opposed to future punishment. Some, like Jehovah’s Witnesses, teach
annihilation. The Mormons do not advocate annihilation, but most of their
teaching either minimizes future punishment or says that only a handful of
persons will undergo it. Christian Science, Theosophy, and other pantheistic
groups know of no punishment that is not either ameliorative or illusory.

Although the traditional churches have tended to be silent about endless
punishment while Neo-orthodoxy has gone universalistic and the sects
annihilationist, there appears to be a movement back to a reaffirmation of faith
in this doctrine in our time. Carl F. H. Henry’s statement that Jonathan
Edwards’ God is “angry still” is being recognized by many as true. Marcellus Kik
finds the subject important enough to write a book on Voices from Heaven and
Hell, as has Henry Buis in Doctrine of Eternal Punishment. Meanwhile Billy
Graham and many others preach the doctrine around the world.

Perhaps Dr. Bonnell’s Heaven and Hell is more symptomatic of our time and more
indicative of the general trend. While repudiating what he feels are the
excessive statements of Thomas Aquinas and Jonathan Edwards, there is a genuine
appreciation by Bonnell of what he considers the neglected truth in this
doctrine. While his book does not, in our judgment, do full justice to certain
grim but undeniable realities, it is indicative of a far more candid evaluation
of biblical eschatology than the naive optimism of a decadent Liberalism So much
for the present lay of the theological ground. In this chapter we will restrict
ourselves to a brief discussion of one point; namely, the fixity of the gulf
between the two future worlds. There is an impassable gulf between these two
worlds. If so, this is the death of any hopes of universal salvation.

II. Biblical Teaching About the Future Our thoughts turn immediately to Christ’s
parable of Dives and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) in which this impassability of this
gulf is stressed by Jesus. Describing Dives, the rich man, in Hell, and Lazarus,
the poor beggar, in Heaven, Christ tells us that Dives is so miserable that he
asks Lazarus (whom he sees in “Abraham’s bosom,” another word for Heaven) to wet
the tip of his tongue. But this is impossible because, as Abraham explains in
the words of the parable, “between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so
that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to
us, that would come from thence.”

We recognize that we have here a parable. That is to say, this manifestly is not
an exact description of the other worlds as they were at the time of telling the
parable. For example, the parable has Dives in apparent physical misery, judging
from the fact that he desires to have the tip of his tongue moistened. However,
the Scripture indicates that bodies are not resurrected before the return of
Christ. Rather, the bodies of the dead remain in the grave and nothing
presumably happens to them except decay until they are later raised from the
dead. Whatever the answer to that point may be we may be certain that there is
this impassable gulf between the two future worlds. Jesus may be describing
these future worlds by way of anticipation; that is, He may be describing the
condition of those who are in these worlds in a future time when the final state
of them has been established. Or, He may simply be expressing in more easily
understandable terms of bodily suffering the misery which persons presently in
Hell feel in their souls. But we are citing this passage to show that the Bible
teaches the impassability of this separating gulf between the two future worlds.
And this the parable very clearly — and indeed emphatically — does, even though
it may leave us somewhat uncertain about some details. Regardless of whether
this scene is taken to be utterly metaphorical, whether it is taken to be an
anticipation of the future and final state of the two worlds; or whether it is a
description in bodily terms of the present spiritual anguish of those in the
evil world to come, the one point with which we are concerned remains the same
in all instances; namely, that there is a wall of separation between these two
worlds and it is impossible to go from one world to the other even temporarily.

Again, consider the passage in Revelation 22:11 : “He that is unjust, let him be
unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is
righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy
still.” Here the statement is made that the filthy shall be filthy still. This
tells us plainly that there is to be no change in the evil world which is to
come. We know that in this present world while there is life there is hope. So
long as a man lives and the gospel is extended to him he may believe and be
saved. Now is the day of salvation. But in very dismal contrast to that, the
future world affords no such opportunity. There is no such possibility of a
person entering into life which is everlasting. Just the opposite — if a man
departs this world in sin, he shall remain in sin forever without hope of
change.

Consider Hebrews 9:27 : “It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this
the judgment.” We admit that this passage would allow a probation after this
judgment. That is, the words themselves do not rule out such a possibility.
However, they certainly do not assert such a thing and they do not imply such a
thing. Furthermore, we find in Scripture elsewhere no support for the notion. So
we are constrained to believe that the bluntness and the apparent solemnity and
finality of this stark statement, “It is appointed unto men once to die, but
after this the judgment,” means to rule out later probation. That is the common
sense handling of this verse, and, in the absence of any information which would
modify such a common sense interpretation, it seems that we are shut up to such
a construction.

Now if there is such a judgment which comes immediately at death and fixes the
eternal abodes of those judged, then surely the two groups are eternally
separated from each other, at least as far as inter-communication or
inter-fellowship or transmigration is concerned. One world may be conscious of
another. The heavenly world may be conscious of the hellish world, and that
consciousness may contribute to its blessedness in some manner. Likewise the
hellish world may be conscious of the heavenly world and that consciousness may
contribute to its misery in some manner. But, there is no going back and forth
from one world to the other, nor any fellowship between the two groups of
inhabitants.

III. Source of Modem Errors

There is more Scripture to the same effect, but we think this is sufficient to
indicate the thought of the Bible. Let us say a final word on this subject
concerning the probable reason for persons’ thinking that there is a possibility
of moving or progressing from one world to the other, namely from the world of
Hell to the world of Heaven. As we are acquainted with the history of doctrine,
we suspect that it is not any passage in Scripture which gives people such a
notion; rather it is the feeling that a future trial is necessary at least for
some people. That is, there are some adults who have never heard of the gospel
and therefore have never had the possibility of being converted. Some
theologians forget that these men who have not heard the gospel had no right to
expect that they should hear a gospel; that there was no obligation on God’s
part to present it to them. But, wrongly supposing that all persons do have some
right to a gospel and noticing that some persons have never actually been given
that supposed right, these theologians are constrained to conclude that such a
presentation of the gospel, since it has not taken place in this world, must
take place in the other world. This opens up the possibility of persons in Hell
believing and being saved and thus entering into felicity with the heavenly
creatures and fellowship with God.

While we admit that this is, internally, a logically coherent pattern of
thought, we say first that it is presumptuous to base a doctrinal affirmation, a
dogma, upon something which is merely a very tenuous hypothesis. Second, and far
more serious, however internally consistent this notion may be, it is destroyed
by a false premise. We have reflected on the fact that some theologians assume
that all men are entitled to a hearing of the gospel. This, however, is a
gratuitous and erroneous assumption. God has no obligation to sinful men except
to condemn. He may or may not, as His wisdom dictates, exercise mercy upon them.
But mercy is not something which God must offer anybody. He offered no mercy to
the angels when they sinned. And He says with respect to fallen human creatures:
“I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy” (Romans 9:18). He strongly insists
that mercy is optional with Him and a matter of His sovereign pleasure alone.
Therefore, it is extremely presumptuous for any man to assume that he has a
right to hear the gospel. Since we live in a land of light and hear the gospel,
we should be that much more grateful that we have such an unmerited opportunity.
Furthermore, we should do what is in our power to extend this opportunity to
other persons. However, neither we nor they may be said to have any right to the
good news. Neither we nor they, if we perish in our sins, can justly blame God
for not attempting to rescue us from our sins. We are outlaws; we are violators
of God’s will; we are spurners of the light of nature and natural revelation
which we do have. We are entitled to nothing but Hell. If God leaves us to that
to which we are entitled, who will call Him unjust? So, however
plausible-sounding this thesis of a future probation may be, a careful
examination shows that it must be decisively rejected as erroneous and
presumptuous. And if this notion of a future probation is resting upon this
erroneous and presumptuous foundation, then that which rests on it, namely the
possibility of passing from one world to another, must collapse with its
foundation. But there is another side to this coin. If the finally impenitent
cannot ever pass into glory, on the other hand, true believers cannot ever pass
out of it. The righteous shall be righteous still. So once again the believers’
eyes are on the Lord returning on clouds of glory. “Even so, come, Lord Jesus!”
For when He finally takes His own to Himself they shall know that sin shall
never again separate them from Him; for He has separated sin from them. “. . .
between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass
from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from
thence.” (See also Revelation 21:7.)

Now is the day of salvation. Let us, therefore, in conclusion consider what we
must do now, since there is to be no opportunity to change worlds hereafter.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 23: 02.11.     CHAPTER XI THE WAY: STRAIGHT AND NARROW
========================================================================

CHAPTER XI The Way: Straight and Narrow THE LESSONS ARE OVER. Now comes the
homework. This is the “lab” part of the course. Here is where you learn by
doing, having learned by reading.

Jesus tells us that, in spite o£ the glorious way of divine salvation, not many
will find it. “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad
is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and
few there be that find it” (Matthew 7:13-14). “Then said one unto him, Lord, are
there few that be saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait
gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able”
(Luke 13:23-24). “So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be
called, but few chosen” (Matthew 20:16). Our Lord is not telling us these things
in order to develop a curiously morbid interest in arithmetic. We are not to
attempt a calculation of the number of the saved and of the lost. Rather,
because we have been given advance information that relatively few will be
saved, we are to see to it that we are among these. “Strive to enter in at the
strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be
able,” says Jesus. Because there will be few who enter life, you are not to
despair of entering, but to strive to enter.

Let us, therefore, address ourselves to this top priority matter of finding the
straight and narrow path to life.

I. Recognize the Two Ways

Why has Christ told us that few will be saved? He did this to stress the urgency
of being on the right road. As long as persons suppose that just about everybody
is going to arrive, they will take the matter quite casually. They will not be
concerned about it. They will tend to assume that they are on the right road, of
course, and let things rest there. But when they are told that most people are
on the wrong road and that relatively few are on the right road, it brings every
one of us up short. It makes us ask immediately: How is it with me? Where am I
going? Am I with the majority, calmly walking to perdition? How do I get on the
right road? If there be few that find it, I had better start looking now. The
very first thing one must do is to recognize the simple fact that there are two
different roads and that they lead to two different ends. As long as a person
entertains the sentimental, popular notion that there are innumerable roads all
going to the same place, there is no hope of his getting on the right road. He
must recognize the fact that there are not many roads but only two: a right road
and a wrong one. So far from going to the same destination, one leads to Hell
and one to Heaven. This is a simple matter of fact. The one person who knows
about these matters, Jesus Christ, has spoken on the subject. He came from
Heaven and He has gone to Heaven, and He knows the way that leads where He is,
and He knows the way that leads elsewhere. His word is clear, and His word is
final. It is foolish to dispute it; the thing to do is accept it and act on it.
A young Hindu student studying in this country heard a speaker at an
international group saying that Jesus Christ was the only Saviour of the world.
Afterward he said; “I do not like your idea that there is only one way to Heaven
— your Christian way. I like to think that there are many ways — your way and
mine, the way of the Christians, and the way of the Hindus, and the way of the
Muslims and of all religions. Your way is too narrow. I like room on the road I
travel. I want other people with me, not just my own group.” This all sounded
very broad-minded. It was broad-minded. It was broad-road thinking. It leads to
destruction. Not because the speaker said one thing and he said another; that is
irrelevant. But Christ said one thing, and Hinduism says another. If Christ had
said that men came to God through Hinduism, the young man could be right; but
since Christ said, “No man cometh to the Father but by me” (John 14:6), the
young man is dangerously wrong. He may want a broad road with room for all
faiths. There is such a road indeed, but it does not lead where he wants to go.
He must simply recognize the fact that there are but two roads, and they lead to
different places. Until he learns it, until you learn it, you are on the broad
road that leads to destruction. Jesus Christ ought to know.

II. Get On the Straight and Narrow Road

You will never get on the right road until you recognize that there are only two
roads and that only one of these is the right road. But recognizing this fact is
not getting on the right road. You have to find it and enter it. You need make
no effort whatever to find the broad road. Men are born on that road. They are
born in sin and on the way to destruction. Most of them stay on that road all
their lives and forever. Many of them never even think of getting off while they
still have an opportunity. They like the road until at last, when it is too
late, they see where it leads. But to get on the right road real effort is
required. An act of the will is required once the narrow road is found. No
effort is required to remain on the broad road. To make no effort is the best
way to stay on the broad road. It is the road of no resistance; it is the course
of the evil world that walks according to the prince of the power of the air.
But the narrow road must be found and entered with great difficulty.

Dante’s Inferno tells of Virgil leading Dante to the entrance to Inferno. There
is a sign saying, “Abandon all hope, all ye who enter here.” There is a sign
over the entrance to the Kingdom of God also and it reads: “Abandon all pride,
all ye who enter here.” All who would enter this narrow road must abandon all
pride. They must recognize that they do not deserve to be permitted to enter
this way. They must know that they have forfeited all right to escape the just
damnation of their former evil ways. God is under no obligation whatever to
rescue them from their Hellhound way. He has every right to permit them to go on
to their destruction. The narrow road is a road of free grace, of condescending
mercy. No one ever deserves to find or enter this way. Only God’s grace can show
and open it. They must enter it in abject penitence, with nothing in their
hands, with only a plea of mercy on their lips and in their hearts. “If any
man,” said Christ, “will come after me, let him deny himself.” Let him pull
himself up by the roots. Let him turn away from himself and rely entirely on
Christ. This road is for sinners only. If a man has any righteousness of his
own, an iota of merit or goodness to which he can lay claim, the other road is
for him. That is where the supposedly virtuous make their self-righteous way to
perdition. The road of life is for sinners only — sinners whose hope is built on
nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness. A woman said to the preacher
after listening to a sermon on this subject, “You make me feel so big,” holding
her thumb and index finger about a half inch apart. The minister replied, “Lady,
that is too big.” John Bunyan wrote in his autobiography that he found this road
so narrow that there was room only for body and soul; not for body and soul and
sin.

III. Agonize Along This Road Not only must all who enter here abandon all pride
but once they are on it they must agonize all the way to the end of it. It is a
narrow road, exacting and confining. It is a road of holiness, and no sin is
permitted here. It is for sinners only, to be sure, for those who know that they
have no righteousness of their own and who trust in Christ alone. But they must,
on this road, prove that they really do trust in Christ. And they prove this
only by the striving after holiness. “If ye love,” says the Lord of this road,
“keep my commandments.” Those commandments call for perfect holiness in every
area of human behavior. Nor is there any time when a person takes a rest from
holiness on this road. All the way he must be striving after his Christ who
leads the way.

It is a road which calls for daily self-denial and bearing of one’s cross. This
is where the eye that offends is plucked out and the arm that offends is cut
off. This is where the men of violence overcome every barrier to their progress.
This is where men hunger and thirst after more and more progress along this
road. This is where men beat their bodies and keep them in subjection. This is
where the pilgrim presses ever on and never counts himself to have attained.
Does someone ask: If there is the necessity of “agonizing” and striving in the
way, can it be a gracious way? Will we not be earning rather than receiving? Not
at all! Suppose I were preaching in an auditorium and offered all hearers free
watches on the condition that they would come down the center aisle to get them.
If they came down the side aisles, or through the basement, or by a rear window,
they would not get the watches. Suppose they came down the center aisle — the
watches would be theirs as a gift. They would not earn them by coming down an
aisle! They would only show that they would accept them as a gift! So our
persevering works only show our entire trust in the free gift of God. In spite
of the rigor of this way so sharply in contrast to the ease on the broad road,
this is a happy road. Christ is this road and Christ is the companion of this
road. Those who bear His burden find that the burden is light, and those who are
under His yoke find that His yoke is easy. Those who “lose” their lives discover
that they really “find” them. Those who deny themselves, find themselves. Those
who suffer are very happy. This, in spite of all its hardships and demands is
the glory road.


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/writings-of-john-h-gerstner/
========================================================================