BOOK REVIEW
Systematic Theology
Author
Louis Berkhof
About the
Author
Louis Berkhof
(1873 – 1957) was a Reformed systematic theologian whose written works have
been influential in seminaries and Bible colleges in the United States and Canada Netherlands
and moved with his family to Grand
Rapids , Michigan
In 1900, he
graduated from Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids
after which he was appointed pastor of the First Christian Reformed Church in Allendale Charter Township , Michigan Grand Rapids to pastor Oakdale Park Church
Berkhof wrote
twenty-two books during his career. His main works are his Systematic Theology
(1932, revised 1938) which was supplemented with an Introductory Volume to
Systematic Theology (1932, which is included in the 1996 Eerdman's edition of
Systematic Theology) and a separate volume entitled History of Christian
Doctrines (1937). He wrote a more concise version of his Systematic Theology
for high school and college students entitled Manual of Christian Doctrine, and
later wrote the even more concise Summary of Christian Doctrine. He also
delivered Princeton Theological Seminary's Stone Lectures in 1951. These were
published as The Kingdom of God. In addition to this, he worked on many papers
for the Christian Reformed Church as well as collections of sermons.
Berkhof was not
known for being original or speculative but for being very good at organizing
and explaining basic theological ideas following in the tradition of John
Calvin, Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck. Theologian Wayne Grudem has called
Berkhof's Systematic Theology "a great treasure-house of information and
analysis... probably the most useful one-volume systematic theology available
from any theological perspective." Berkhof's writings continue to serve as
systematic presentations of Reformed theology. They are organized for use in
seminaries and religious education as well as individual reference, though his
systematic works are demanding reads.
Reasoning Behind the Book
Professor Berkhof died in 1957 at the age of 83 and left behind him a great
testimony and a legacy of some 22 books. He writes Systematic Theology “in view
of the widespread doctrinal indifference of the present day, of the resulting
superficiality and confusion in the minds of many professing Christians, of the
insidious errors that are zealously propagated even from the pulpits, and of
the alarming increase of all kinds of sects.”
Contents of the Book
It is a book that, in its fullness, consists of 738 pages. As well as this there
is a bibliography and a Textual Index to help the readers as many use it as
more a reference book than a book to be read from cover to cover. The book is
split into 6 different parts. They are as follows:
Part 1 – The Doctrine of God
Part 2 – The Doctrine of Man in Relation to God
Part 3 – The Doctrine of The Person and Work of Christ
Part 4 – The Doctrine of The Application of the Work of Redemption
Part 5 – The Doctrine of The Church and the Means of Grace
Part 6 – The Doctrine of the Last Things
These parts contain within them the fundamentals of Christian doctrine and
theological views. As can be seen by the six parts it is well organised as a
reference book. If you want to see the orthodox teaching on any doctrine from
Baptism, Eschatology or The Holy Trinity. It is used by many people from
preachers to theological students as it gives one of if not the best outline of
Systematic Theology possible. It provides an order and rational thought to
Christian beliefs. Systematic Theology may also be known as dogmatics and
therefore this work of Louis Berkhof could be known as his Dogmata.
It is a very beneficial book which can now be found as a free e-book but a
paperback copy is very beneficial when studying, especially if you find it hard
to read for long periods of time on screens. It would be most beneficial to buy
this book and is highly recommended by many including myself, especially if you
want to further your knowledge on Christian theology.
SUMMARY
THE DOCTRINE OF GOD
WORKS on dogmatic or
systematic theology generally begin with the doctrine of God. The prevailing
opinion has always recognized this as the most logical procedure and still
points in the same direction. In many instances even they whose fundamental principles
would seem to require another arrangement, continue the traditional practice.
There are good reasons for starting with the doctrine of God, if we proceed on the
assumption that theology is the systematized knowledge of God, of whom, through
whom, and unto whom, are all things. Instead of being surprised that Dogmatics
should begin with the doctrine of God, we might well expect it to be a study of
God throughout in all its ramifications, from the beginning to the end.
As a matter of fact, that is exactly what it is intended to be, though only the
first locus deals with God directly, while the succeeding ones treat of Him
more indirectly. We start the study of theology with two presuppositions,
namely (1) that God exists, and (2) that He has revealed Himself in His divine
Word. And for that reason it is not impossible for us to start with the study
of God. We can turn to His revelation, in order to learn what He has revealed
concerning Himself and concerning His relation to His creatures.
For us the existence of God is the great presupposition of theology.
There is no sense in speaking of the knowledge of God, unless it may be assumed
that God exists. The presupposition of Christian theology is of a very definite
type. The assumption is not merely that there is something, some idea or ideal,
some power or purposeful tendency, to which the name of God may be applied, but
that there is a self-existent, self-conscious, personal Being, which is the
origin of all things, and which transcends the entire creation, but is at the
same time immanent in every part of it. The question may be raised, whether
this is a reasonable assumption, and this question may be answered in the
affirmative. This does not mean, however, that the existence of God is capable
of a logical demonstration that leaves no room whatever for doubt; but it does
mean that, while the truth of God’s existence is accepted by faith, this faith
is based on reliable information. While Reformed theology regards the existence
of God as an entirely reasonable assumption, it does not claim the ability to
demonstrate this by rational argumentation. Dr. Kuyper speaks as follows of the
attempt to do this: “The attempt to prove God’s existence is either useless or
unsuccessful. It is useless if the searcher believes that God is a rewarder of
those who seek Him. And it is unsuccessful if it is an attempt to force a
person who does not have this pistis by means of argumentation to an acknowledgment
in a logical sense.”
The Christian accepts the truth of the existence of God by faith. But
this faith is not a blind faith, but a faith that is based on evidence, and the
evidence is found primarily in Scripture as the inspired Word of God, and
secondarily in God’s revelation in nature. Scripture proof on this point does
not come to us in the form of an explicit declaration, and much less in the
form of a logical argument. In that sense the Bible does not prove the
existence of God. The closest it comes to a declaration is perhaps in Heb. 11:6
. . . “for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a
rewarder of them that seek after Him.” It presupposes the existence of God in
its very opening statement, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the
earth.”
The Know-ability of God
The Christian Church confesses on the one hand that God is the
Incomprehensible One, but also on the other hand, that He can be known and that
knowledge of Him is an absolute requisite unto salvation. It recognizes the
force of Zophar’s question, “Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou
find out the Almighty unto perfection?” Job 11:7. And it feels that it has no
answer to the question of Isaiah, “To whom then will ye liken God? or what
likeness will ye compare unto Him?” Isa. 40:18. But at the same time it is also
mindful of Jesus’ statement, “And this is life eternal, that they should know Thee,
the only true God, and Him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ,” John 17:3.
It rejoices in the fact that “the Son of God is come, and hath given us an
understanding, that we know Him that is true, and we are in Him that is true,
even in His Son Jesus Christ.” I John 5:20. The two ideas reflected in these
passages were always held side by side in the Christian Church. The early
Church Fathers spoke of the invisible God as an unbegotten, nameless, eternal,
incomprehensible, unchangeable Being. They had advanced very little beyond the
old Greek idea that the Divine Being is absolute attributeless existence. At
the same time they also confessed that God revealed Himself in the Logos, and
can therefore be known unto salvation.
Relation of the Being and
Attributes of God
Some dogmaticians devote a separate chapter or chapters to the Being of
God, before taking up the discussion of His attributes. This is done, for
instance, in the works of Mastricht, Ebrard, Kuyper, and Shedd. Others prefer
to consider the Being of God in connection with His attributes in view of the
fact that it is in these that He has revealed Himself. This is the more common
method, which is followed in the Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, and in
the works of Turretin, à Marck, Brakel, Bavinck, Hodge, and Honig. This
difference of treatment is not indicative of any serious fundamental
disagreement between them. They are all agreed that the attributes are not mere
names to which no reality corresponds, nor separate parts of a composite God,
but essential qualities in which the Being of God is revealed and with which it
can be identified. The only difference would seem to be that some seek to
distinguish between the Being and the attributes of God more than others do.
It is quite evident that the Being of God does not admit of any
scientific definition. In order to give a logical definition of God, we would
have to begin by going in search of some higher concept, under which God could be
co-ordinated with other concepts; and would then have to point out the
characteristics that would be applicable to God only. The Bible never operates
with an abstract concept of God, but always describes Him as the Living God,
who enters into various relations with His creatures, relations which are
indicative of several different attributes.
The Names of God
While the Bible records several names of God, it also speaks of the
name of God in the singular as, for instance in the following statements:
“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain,” Ex. 20:7; “How
excellent is thy name in all the earth,” Ps. 8:1; “As is thy name, O God, so is
thy praise,” Ps. 48:10; “His name is great in Israel,” Ps. 76:2; “The name of
Jehovah is a strong tower; the righteous runneth into it and is safe,” Prov.
18:10. In such cases “the name” stands for the whole manifestation of God in
His relation to His people, or simply for the person, so that it becomes
synonymous with God. The names of God constitute a difficulty for human
thought. God is the Incomprehensible One, infinitely exalted above all
that is temporal; but in His names He descends to all that is finite and
becomes like unto man. On the one hand we cannot name Him, and on the other
hand He has many names.
The Attributes of God
The name “attributes” is not ideal, since it conveys the notion of
adding or assigning something to one, and is therefore apt to create the
impression that something is added to the divine Being. Undoubtedly the term
“properties” is better, as pointing to something that is proper to God and to
God only. Naturally, in so far as some of the attributes are communicable, the
absolute character of the proprium is weakened, for to that extent some of the
attributes are not proper to God in the absolute sense of the word. But even
this term contains the suggestion of a distinction between the essence or nature
of God and that which is proper to it. On the whole it is preferable to speak
of the “perfections” or “virtues” of God, with the distinct understanding,
however, that in this case the term “virtues” is not used in a purely ethical
sense. For the appropriation and understanding of this revealed knowledge it
is, of course, of the greatest importance that man is created in the image of
God, and therefore finds helpful analogies in his own life. In distinction from
the a priori method of the Scholastics, who deduced the attributes from
the idea of a perfect Being, this method may be called a posteriori,
since it takes its starting point, not in an abstract perfect Being, but in the
fullness of the divine self-revelation, and in the light of this seeks to know
the Divine Being.
The Holy Trinity
The doctrine of the Trinity has always bristled with difficulties, and
therefore it is no wonder that the Church in its attempt to formulate it was
repeatedly tempted to rationalize it and to give a construction of it which
failed to do justice to the Scriptural data. The Jews of Jesus’ days strongly
emphasized the unity of God, and this emphasis was carried over into the
Christian Church. The result was that some ruled out the personal distinctions
in the Godhead altogether, and that others failed to do full justice to the
essential deity of the second and third persons of the Holy Trinity. Tertullian
was the first to use the term “Trinity” and to formulate the doctrine, but his
formulation was deficient, since it involved an unwarranted subordination of
the Son to the Father. Origen went even farther in this direction by teaching
explicitly that the Son is subordinate to the Father in respect to essence,
and that the Holy Spirit is subordinate even to the Son. He detracted from the
essential deity of these two persons in the Godhead, and furnished a
steppingstone to the Arians, who denied the deity of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit by representing the Son as the first creature of the Father, and the
Holy Spirit as the first creature of the Son.
Thus the consubstantiality of the Son and the Holy Spirit with the
Father was sacrificed, in order to preserve the unity of God; and the three
persons of the Godhead were made to differ in rank. The Arians still retained a
semblance of the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead, but this was
sacrificed entirely by Monarchianism, partly in the interest of the unity of
God and partly to maintain the deity of the Son. Dynamic Monarchianism saw in
Jesus but a man and in the Holy Spirit a divine influence, while Modalistic Monarchianism
regarded the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, merely as three modes of manifestation
successively assumed by the Godhead. On the other hand there were also some who
lost sight of the unity of God to such an extent that they landed in Tritheism.
Some of the later Monophysites, such as John Ascunages and John Philoponus,
fell into this error.
During the Middle Ages the Nominalist, Roscelinus, was accused of the
same error. The Church began to formulate its doctrine of the Trinity in the
fourth century. The Council of Nicea declared the Son to be co-essential with
the Father (325 A.D.), while the Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) asserted
the deity of the Holy Spirit, though not with the same precision. As to the
interrelation of the three it was officially professed that the Son is
generated by the Father, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and
the Son. In the East the doctrine of the Trinity found its fullest statement in
the work of John of Damascus, and in the West, in Augustine’s great work De
Trinitate. The former still retains an element of subordination, which is
entirely eliminated by the latter.
The word “Trinity” is not quite as expressive as the Holland word “Drieeenheid,” for it may simply
denote the state of being three, without any implication as to the unity of the
three. It is generally understood, however, that, as a technical term in
theology, it includes that idea. It goes without saying that, when we speak of
the Trinity of God, we refer to a trinity in unity, and to a unity that is
trinal. The doctrine of the Trinity can best be discussed briefly in connection
with various propositions, which constitute an epitome of the faith of the
Church on this point.
There is in the Divine Being but one indivisible essence (ousia,
essentia). God is one in His essential being or constitutional nature. Some of
the early Church Fathers used the term “substantia” as synonymous with
“essentia,” but later writers avoided this use of it in view of the fact that
in the Latin Church “substantia” was used as a rendering of “hupostasis”
as well as of “ousia”, and was therefore ambiguous. At present the two terms
“substance” and “essence” are often used interchangeably. There is no objection
to this, provided we bear in mind that they have slightly different
connotations. Shedd distinguishes them as follows: “Essence is from esse,
to be, and denotes energetic being. Substance is from substare, and
denotes the latent possibility of being. . . . The term essence describes God
as a sum-total of infinite perfections; the term substance describes Him as the
underlying ground of infinite activities. The first is, comparatively, an
active word; the last, a passive. The first is, comparatively, a spiritual, the
last a material term. We speak of material substance rather than of material
essence.” Since the unity of God was already discussed in the preceding, it is
not necessary to dwell on it in detail in the present connection. This
proposition respecting the unity of God is based on such passages as Deut. 6:4;
Jas. 2:19, on the self-existence and immutability of God, and on the fact that
He is identified with His perfections as when He is called life, light, truth,
righteousness, and so on.
THE WORKS OF GOD
Reformed theology stresses the sovereignty of God in virtue of which He
has sovereignty determined from all eternity whatsoever will come to pass, and
works His sovereign will in His entire creation, both natural and spiritual,
according to His predetermined plan. It is in full agreement with Paul when he
says that God “worketh all things after the counsel of His will,” Eph. 1:11.
For that reason it is but natural that, in passing from the discussion of the
Being of God to that of the works of God, it should begin with a study of the
divine decrees. This is the only proper theological method. A theological
discussion of the works of God should take its starting point in God, both in the
work of creation and in that of redemption or recreation. It is only as issuing
from, and as related to, God that the works of God come into consideration as a
part of theology.
Predestination
In passing from the discussion of the divine decree to that of
predestination, we are still dealing with the same subject, but are passing
from the general to the particular. The word “predestination” is not always
used in the same sense. Sometimes it is employed simply as a synonym of the
generic word “decree.” In other cases it serves to designate the purpose of God
respecting all His moral creatures. Most frequently, however, it denotes “the
counsel of God concerning fallen men, including the sovereign election of some
and the righteous reprobation of the rest. In the present discussion it is used
primarily in the last sense, though not altogether to the exclusion of the
second meaning.
Predestination does not form an important subject of discussion in
history until the time of Augustine. Earlier Church Fathers allude to it, but
do not as yet seem to have a very clear conception of it. On the whole they
regard it as the prescience of God with reference to human deeds, on the basis
of which He determines their future destiny. Hence it was possible for Pelagius
to appeal to some of those early Fathers. “According to Pelagius,” says
Wiggers, “foreordination to salvation or to damnation, is founded on prescience.
Consequently he did not admit an ‘absolute predestination,’ but in every respect
a ‘conditional predestination’.”46 At first, Augustine himself was inclined to
this view, but deeper reflection on the sovereign character of the good
pleasure of God led him to see that predestination was in no way dependent on
God’s foreknowledge of human actions, but was rather the basis of the divine
foreknowledge. His representation of reprobation is not as unambiguous as it
might be. Some of his statements are to the effect that in predestination God
foreknows what He will Himself do, while He is also able to foreknow what He
will not do, as all sins; and speak of the elect as subjects of predestination,
and of the reprobate as subjects of the divine foreknowledge.
In other passages, however, he also speaks of the reprobate as subjects
of predestination, so that there can be no doubt about it that he taught a
double predestination. However, he recognized their difference, consisting in
this that God did not predestinate unto damnation and the means unto it in the
same way as He did to salvation, and that predestination unto life is purely
sovereign, while predestination unto eternal death is also judicial and takes
account of man’s sin.
The word yada’ may simply mean “to know” or “to take cognizance”
of someone or something, but may also be used in the more pregnant sense of
“taking knowledge of one with loving care,” or “making one the object of loving
care or elective love.” In this sense it serves the idea of election, Gen.
18:19; Amos 3:2; Hos. 13:5. The meaning of the words proginoskein and
prognosis in the New Testament is not determined by their usage in the
classics, but by the special meaning of yada’. They do not denote simple
intellectual foresight or prescience, the mere taking knowledge of something beforehand,
but rather a selective knowledge which regards one with favor and makes one an
object of love, and thus approaches the idea of foreordination, Acts 2:23
(comp.4:28); Rom. 8:29; 11:2; I Peter 1:2. These passages simply lose their
meaning, if the words be taken in the sense of simply taking knowledge of one
in advance, for God foreknows all men in that sense. Even Arminians feel
constrained to give the words a more determinative meaning, namely, to foreknow
one with absolute assurance in a certain state or condition. This includes the
absolute certainty of that future state, and for that very reason comes very
close to the idea of predestination. And not only these words, but even the
simple ginoskein has such a specific meaning in some cases, I Cor. 8:3;
Gal. 4:9; II Tim. 2:19.
The decree of predestination is undoubtedly in all its parts the concurrent
act of the three persons in the Trinity, who are one in their counsel and will.
But in the economy of salvation, as it is revealed in Scripture, the sovereign
act of predestination is more particularly attributed to the Father, John
17:6,9; Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:4; I Pet. 1:2. In distinction from the decree of God
in general, predestination has reference to God’s rational creatures only. Most
frequently it refers to fallen men. Yet it is also employed in a wider sense,
and we use it in the more inclusive sense here, in order to embrace all the
objects of predestination. It includes all God’s rational creatures, that is:
a. All men, both good and evil. These are included not merely as
groups, but as individuals, Acts 4:28; Rom. 8:29,30; 9:11-13; Eph. 1:5,11.
b. The angels, both good and evil. The Bible speaks not only of
holy angels, Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26, and of wicked angels, which kept not their
first estate, II Pet. 2:4; Jude 6; but also makes explicit mention of elect
angels, I Tim. 5:21, thereby implying that there were also non-elect angels.
The question naturally arises, how are we to conceive of the predestination of
angels? Predestination includes two parts, namely, election and reprobation,
the predetermination of both the good and the wicked to their final end, and to
certain proximate ends which are instrumental in the realization of their final
destiny.
Creation in General
The discussion of the decrees naturally leads on to the consideration of
their execution, and this begins with the work of creation. This is not only
first in order of time, but is also a logical prius. It is the beginning and
basis of all divine revelation, and consequently also the foundation of all
ethical and religious life. The doctrine of creation is not set forth in
Scripture as a philosophical solution of the problem of the world, but in its
ethical and religious significance, as a revelation of the relation of man to
his God. It stresses the fact that God is the origin of all things, and that
all things belong to Him and are subject to Him. The knowledge of it is derived
from Scripture only and is accepted by faith (Heb. 11:3), though Roman
Catholics maintain that it can also be gathered from nature.
While Greek philosophy sought the explanation of the world in a dualism,
which involves the eternity of matter, or in a process of emanation, which
makes the world the outward manifestation of God, the Christian Church from the
very beginning taught the doctrine of creation ex nihilo and as a free
act of God. This doctrine was accepted with singular unanimity from the
start. It is found in Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of
Alexandria, Origen, and others. Theophilus was the first Church Father to stress
the fact that the days of creation were literal days. This seems to have been
the view of Irenaeus and Tertullian as well, and was in all probability the
common view in the Church. Clement and Origen thought of creation as having
been accomplished in a single indivisible moment, and conceived of its
description as the work of several days merely as a literary device to describe
the origin of things in the order of their worth or of their logical
connection. The idea of an eternal creation, as taught by Origen, was commonly
rejected.
At the same time some of the Church Fathers expressed the idea that God
was always Creator, though the created universe began in time. During the trinitarian
controversy some of them emphasized the fact that, in distinction from the generation
of the Son, which was a necessary act of the Father, the creation of the
world was a free act of the triune God. Augustine dealt with the work of
creation more in detail than others did. He argues that creation was eternally
in the will of God, and therefore brought no change in Him. There was no time
before creation, since the world was brought into being with time rather
than in time. The question what God did in the many ages before creation
is based on a misconception of eternity. While the Church in general still
seems to have held that the world was created in six ordinary days, Augustine
suggested a somewhat different view. He strongly defended the doctrine of creatio
ex nihilo, but distinguished two moments of creation: the production of
matter and spirits out of nothing, and the organization of the material
universe. He found it difficult to say what kind of days the days of Genesis
were, but was evidently inclined to think that God created all things in a
moment of time, and that the thought of days was simply introduced to aid
the finite intelligence.
The Scriptural proof for the doctrine of creation is not found in a
single and limited portion of the Bible, but is found in every part of the Word
of God. It does not consist of a few scattered passages of doubtful
interpretation, but of a large number of clear and unequivocal statements,
which speak of the creation of the world as a historical fact. We have first of
all the extended narrative of creation found in the first two chapters of Genesis,
which will be discussed in detail when the creation of the material universe is
considered. These chapters certainly appear to the unbiased reader as a
historical narrative, and as the record of a historical fact. And the many
cross-references scattered throughout the Bible do not regard them in any other
light. They all refer to creation as a fact of history.
Creation of the Spiritual
World
THE DOCTRINE OF THE ANGELS IN HISTORY
There are clear evidences of belief in the existence of angels from the
very beginning of the Christian era. Some of them were regarded as good, and
others as evil. The former were held in high esteem as personal beings of a
lofty order, endowed with moral freedom, engaged in the joyful service of God,
and employed by God to minister to the welfare of men. According to some of the
early Church Fathers they had fine ethereal bodies. The general conviction was
that all angels were created good, but that some abused their freedom and fell
away from God. Satan, who was originally an angel of eminent rank, was regarded
as their head. The cause of his fall was found in pride and sinful ambition,
while the fall of his subordinates was ascribed to their lusting after the
daughters of men. This view was based on what was then the common interpretation
of Gen. 6:2.
Alongside of the general idea that the good angels ministered to the
needs and welfare of believers, the specific notion of guardian angels for individual
churches and individual men was cherished by some. Calamities of various kinds,
such as sicknesses, accidents, and losses, were frequently ascribed to the
baneful influence of evil spirits. The idea of a hierarchy of angels already
made its appearance (Clement of Alexandria), but it was not considered proper
to worship any of the angels.
Up to the present time Roman Catholics generally regarded the angels as
pure spirits, while some Protestants, such as Emmons, Ebrard, Kurtz, Delitzsch,
and others, still ascribe to them some special kind of bodies. But even the
great majority of the latter take the opposite view. Swedenborg holds that all
angels were originally men and exist in bodily form. Their position in the
angelic world depends on their life in this world. Eighteenth century
Rationalism boldly denied the existence of angels and explained what the Bible
teaches about them as a species of accommodation. Some modern liberal theologians
consider it worthwhile to retain the fundamental idea expressed in the doctrine
of the angels. They find in it a symbolic representation of the protecting care
and helpfulness of God.
All religions recognize the existence of a spiritual world. Their
mythologies speak of gods, half-gods, spirits, demons, genii, heroes, and so
on. It was especially among the Persians that the doctrine of the angels was
developed, and many critical scholars assert that the Jews derived their
angelology from the Persians. But this is an unproved and, to say the least,
very doubtful theory. It certainly cannot be harmonized with the Word of God,
in which angels appear from the very beginning. Moreover, some great scholars, who
made special study of the subject, came to the conclusion that the Persian angelology
was derived from that current among the Hebrews. The Christian Church has
always believed in the existence of angels, but in modern liberal theology this
belief has been discarded, though it still regards the angel-idea as useful,
since it imprints upon us “the living power of God in the history of
redemption, His providential specialissima for His people, especially
for the ‘little ones.’
Christian theism is opposed to both a deistic separation of God from the
world and a pantheistic confusion of God with the world. Hence the doctrine of
creation is immediately followed by that of providence, in which the Scriptural
view of God’s relation to the world is clearly defined. While the term
“providence” is not found in Scripture, the doctrine of providence is
nevertheless eminently Scriptural. The word is derived from the Latin providentia,
which corresponds to the Greek pronoia. These words mean primarily
prescience or foresight, but gradually acquired other meanings. Foresight is
associated, on the one hand, with plans for the future, and on the other hand,
with the actual realization of these plans. Thus the word “providence” has come
to signify the provision which God makes for the ends of His government, and
the preservation and government of all His creatures. This is the sense in
which it is now generally used in theology, but it is not the only sense in
which theologians have employed it.
Turretin defines the term in its widest sense as denoting (1) foreknowledge,
(2) foreordination, and (3) the efficacious administration of the things decreed.
In general usage, however, it is now generally restricted to the last sense. Providence
may be defined as that continued exercise of the divine energy whereby the
Creator preserves all His creatures, is operative in all that comes to pass in
the world, and directs all things to their appointed end. This definition
indicates that there are three elements in providence, namely, preservation (conservatio,
sustentatio), concurrence or cooperation (concursus, co-operatio),
and government (gubernatio) Calvin, the Heidelberg Catechism, and some
of the more recent dogmaticians (Dabney, the Hodges, Dick, Shedd, McPherson)
speak of only two elements, namely, preservation and government.
THE DOCTRINE OF MAN IN
RELATION TO GOD
The transition from Theology to Anthropology, that is, from the study of
God to the study of man, is a natural one. Man is not only the crown of
creation, but also the object of God’s special care. And God’s revelation in
Scripture is a revelation that is not only given to man, but also a revelation in
which man is vitally concerned. It is not a revelation of God in the abstract,
but a revelation of God in relation to His creatures, and particularly in
relation to man. It is a record of God’s dealings with the human race, and
especially a revelation of the redemption which God has prepared for, and for which
He seeks to prepare, man. This accounts for the fact that man occupies a place
of central importance in Scripture, and that the knowledge of man in relation
to God is essential to its proper understanding.
Scripture offers us a twofold account of the creation of man, the one in
Gen. 1:26,27, and the other in Gen. 2:7,21-23. Higher criticism is of the
opinion that the writer of Genesis pieced together two creation narratives, the
first found in Gen. 1:1—2:3, and the second in Gen. 2:4-25; and that these two
are independent and contradictory. Laidlaw in his work on The Bible Doctrine
of Man1 is willing to admit that the author of Genesis made use of two
sources, but refuses to find here two different accounts of creation. He very
properly denies that in the second chapter we have “a different account of
creation, for the plain reason that it takes no account of the creation at
large.” In fact, the introductory words of the narrative beginning with Gen.
2:4, “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were
created,” seen in the light of the repeated use of the words “these are the
generations” in the book of Genesis, point to the fact that we have something
quite different here. The expression invariably points, not to the origin or
beginning of those named, but to their family history.
The first narrative contains the account of the creation of all things
in the order in which it occurred, while the second groups things in their
relation to man, without implying anything respecting the chronological order
of man’s appearance in the creative work of God, and clearly indicates that
everything preceding it served to prepare a fit habitation for man as the king
of creation. It shows us how man was situated in God’s creation, surrounded by
the vegetable and animal world, and how he began his history. According to
Scripture man was created in the image of God, and is therefore Godrelated. Traces
of this truth are found even in Gentile literature. Paul pointed out to the Athenians
that some of their own poets have spoken of man as the offspring of God, Acts
17:28.
The discussion of the original state of man, the status integritatis,
would not be complete without considering the mutual relationship between God
and man, and especially the origin and nature of the religious life of man.
That life was rooted in a covenant, just as the Christian life is today, and
that covenant is variously known as the covenant of nature, the covenant of life,
the Edenic covenant, and the covenant of works. The first name, which was
rather common at first, was gradually abandoned, since it was apt to give the
impression that this covenant was simply a part of the natural relationship in
which man stood to God. The second and third names are not sufficiently
specific, since both of them might also be applied to the covenant of grace, which
is certainly a covenant of life, and also originated in Eden, Gen. 3:15. Consequently
the name “Covenant of Works” deserves preference.
MAN IN THE STATE OF SIN
Sin is one of the saddest but also one of the most common phenomena of
human life. It is a part of the common experience of mankind, and therefore
forces itself upon the attention of all those who do not deliberately close
their eyes to the realities of human life. Some may for a time dream of the
essential goodness of man and speak indulgently of those separate words and
actions that do not measure up to the ethical standards of good society as mere
foibles and weaknesses, for which man is not responsible, and which readily
yield to corrective measures; but as time goes on, and all measures of external
reform fail, and the suppression of one evil merely serves to release another,
such persons are inevitably disillusioned. They become conscious of the fact
that they have merely been fighting the symptoms of some deep-seated malady, and
that they are confronted, not merely with the problem of sins, that is, of
separate sinful deeds, but with the much greater and deeper problem of sin. of
an evil that is inherent in human nature.
THE PROBLEM of the origin of the evil that is in the world has always
been considered as one of the profoundest problems of philosophy and theology.
It is a problem that naturally forces itself upon the attention of man, since
the power of evil is both great and universal, is an ever present blight on
life in all its manifestations, and is a matter of daily experience in the life
of every man. Philosophers were constrained to face the problem and to seek an
answer to the question as to the origin of all the evil, and particularly of
the moral evil, that is in the world. To some it seemed to be so much a part of
life itself that they sought the solution for it in the natural constitution of
things. Others, however, were convinced that it had a voluntary origin, that
is, that it originated in the free choice of man, either in the present or in
some previous existence. These are much closer to the truth as it is revealed
in the Word of God. In Scripture the moral evil that is in the world stands out
clearly as sin, that is, as transgression of the law of God. Man ever appears
in it as a transgressor by nature, and the question naturally arises.
MAN IN THE COVENANT OF GRACE
The covenant idea developed in history before God made any formal use of
the concept in the revelation of redemption. Covenants among men had been made
long before God established His covenant with Noah and with Abraham, and this
prepared men to understand the significance of a covenant in a world divided by
sin, and helped them to understand the divine revelation, when it presented
man’s relation to God as a covenant relation. This does not mean, however, that
the covenant idea originated with man and was then borrowed by God as an appropriate
form for the description of the mutual relationship between Himself and man.
Quite the opposite is true; the archetype of all covenant life is found in the
trinitarian being of God, and what is seen among men is but a faint copy
(ectype) of this. God so ordered the life of man that the covenant idea should
develop there as one of the pillars of social life, and after it had so
developed, He formally introduced it as an expression of the existing relation
between Himself and man. The covenant relationship between God and man existed
from the very beginning, and therefore long before the formal establishment of
the covenant with Abraham.
The doctrine of this eternal counsel rests on the following Scriptural
basis:
1. Scripture clearly points to the fact that the plan of redemption was
included in the eternal decree or counsel of God, Eph. 1:4 ff.; 3:11; II Thess.
2:13; II Tim. 1:9; Jas. 2:5; I Pet. 1:2, etc. Now we find that in the economy
of redemption there is, in a sense, a division of labor: the Father is the
originator, the Son the executor, and the Holy Spirit the applier. This can
only be the result of a voluntary agreement among the persons of the Trinity,
so that their internal relations assume the form of a covenant life. In fact,
it is exactly in the trinitarian life that we find the archetype of the
historical covenants, a covenant in the proper and fullest sense of the word,
the parties meeting on a footing of equality, a true suntheke.
2. There are passages of Scripture which not only point to the fact that
the plan of God for the salvation of sinners was eternal, Eph. 1:4; 3:9,11, but
also indicate that it was of the nature of a covenant. Christ speaks of
promises made to Him before his advent, and repeatedly refers to a commission
which He had received from the Father, John 5:30,43; 6:38-40; 17:4-12. And in
Rom. 5:12-21 and I Cor. 15:22 He is clearly regarded as a representative head,
that is, as the head of a covenant.
3. Wherever we have the essential elements of a covenant, namely, contracting
parties, a promise or promises, and a condition, there we have a covenant. In
Ps. 2:7-9 the parties are mentioned and a promise is indicated. The Messianic
character of this passage is guaranteed by Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5. Again, in
Ps. 40:7-9, also attested as Messianic by the New Testament (Heb. 10:5-7), the
Messiah expresses His readiness to do the Father’s will in becoming a sacrifice
for sin. Christ repeatedly speaks of a task which the Father has entrusted to
Him, John 6:38,39; 10:18; 17:4. The statement in Luke 22:29 is particularly
significant: “I appoint unto you a kingdom, even as my Father appointed unto
me.” The verb used here is diatithemi, the word from which diatheke is
derived, which means to appoint by will, testament or covenant.
The position of Christ in the covenant of redemption is twofold. In the
first place He is Surety (Gr. egguos), a word that is used only in Heb. 7:22.
The derivation of this word is uncertain, and therefore cannot aid us in
establishing its meaning. But the meaning is not doubtful. A surety is one who
engages to become responsible for it that the legal obligations of another will
be met. In the covenant of redemption Christ undertook to atone for the sins of
His people by bearing the necessary punishment, and to meet the demands of the
law for them. And by taking the place of delinquent man He became the last
Adam, and is as such also the Head of the covenant, the Representative of all
those whom the Father has given Him. In the covenant of redemption, then,
Christ is both Surety and Head. He took upon Himself the responsibilities of
His people. He is also their Surety in the covenant of grace, which develops
out of the covenant of redemption.
THE PERSON and THE WORK OF
CHRIST
THERE is a very close connection between the doctrine of man and the
doctrine of Christ. The former deals with man, created in the image of God and
endowed with true knowledge, righteousness and holiness, but through wilful
transgression of the law of God despoiled of his true humanity and transformed
into a sinner. It points to man as a highly privileged creature of God, still
bearing some of the traces of his original glory, but yet as a creature that
has lost its birthright, its true freedom, and its original righteousness and holiness.
This means that it directs attention, not merely, nor even primarily, to the
creatureliness, but to the sinfulness of man. It emphasizes the ethical distance
between God and man, the distance resulting from the fall of man, which neither
man nor angels can bridge; and is as such virtually a cry for divine help. Christology
is in part the answer to that cry. It acquaints us with the objective work of God
in Christ to bridge the chasm, and to remove the distance. It shows us God
coming to man, to remove the barriers between God and man by meeting the
conditions of the law in Christ, and to restore man to His blessed communion.
About the beginning of the nineteenth century a great change took place
in the study of the person of Christ. Up to that time the point of departure
had been prevailingly theological, and the resulting Christology was theocentric;
but during the last part of the eighteenth century there was a growing conviction
that better results could be attained by starting closer at home, namely, with the
study of the historical Jesus. Thus the so-called “second Christological
period” was ushered in. The new point of view was anthropological, and the
result was anthropocentric. It proved to be destructive of the faith of the
Church. A far-reaching and pernicious distinction was made between the
historical Jesus, delineated by the writers of the Gospels, and the theological
Christ, who was the fruit of the fertile imagination of theological thinkers,
and whose image is now reflected in the creeds of the Church. The supernatural
Christ made way for a human Jesus; and the doctrine of the two natures, for the
doctrine of a divine man.
If Jesus is the personal, Christ is the official, name of the Messiah.
It is the equivalent of the Old Testament Mashiach (from mashach, to
anoint), and thus means “the anointed one.” Kings and priests were regularly
anointed during the old dispensation, Ex. 29:7; Lev. 4:3; Judg. 9:8; I Sam.
9:16; 10:1; II Sam. 19:10. The King was called “the anointed of Jehovah,” I Sam.
24:10. Only a single instance of the anointing of a prophet is recorded, I
Kings 19:16, but there are probably references to it in Ps. 105:15 and Isa.
61:1. The oil used in anointing these officers symbolized the Spirit of God,
Isa. 61:1; Zech. 4:1-6, and the anointing represented the transfer of the
Spirit to the consecrated person, I Sam. 10:1,6,10; 16:13,14. The anointing was
a visible sign of (a) an appointment to office; (b) the establishment of a
sacred relationship and the consequent sacrosanctness of the person anointed, I
Sam. 24:6; 26:9; II Sam. 1:14; and (c) a communication of the Spirit to the
anointed one, I Sam. 16:13, cf. also II Cor. 1:21,22. The Old Testament refers
to the anointing of the Lord in Ps. 2:2; 45:7, and the New Testament, in Acts
4:27 and 10:38.
It has become customary to speak of three offices in connection with the
work of Christ, namely the prophetic, the priestly, and the kingly office.
While some of the early Church Fathers already speak of the different offices
of Christ, Calvin was the first to recognize the importance of distinguishing
the three offices of the Mediator and to call attention to it in a separate
chapter of his Institutes.
Soteriology
SOTERIOLOGY deals with the communication of the blessings of salvation
to the sinner and his restoration to divine favor and to a life in intimate
communion with God. It presupposes knowledge of God as the all-sufficient
source of the life, the strength, and the happiness of mankind, and of man’s
utter dependence on Him for the present and the future. Since it deals with
restoration, redemption, and renewal, it can only be understood properly in the
light of the original condition of man as created in the image of God, and of
the subsequent disturbance of the proper relationship between man and his God
by the entrance of sin into the world. Moreover, since it treats of the
salvation of the sinner wholly as a work of God, known to Him from all
eternity, it naturally carries our thoughts back to the eternal counsel of
peace and the covenant of grace, in which provision was made for the redemption
of fallen men. It proceeds on the assumption of the completed work of Christ as
the Mediator of redemption.
There is the closest possible connection between Christology and
Soteriology. Some, as, for instance, Hodge, treat of both under the common
heading “Soteriology.” Christology then becomes objective, as distinguished
from subjective, Soteriology. In defining the contents of Soteriology, it is
better to say that it deals with the application of the work of redemption than
to say that it treats of the appropriation of salvation.
THE CHURCH AND MEANS OF GRACE
The doctrine of the application of the merits of Christ naturally leads
on to the doctrine of the Church, for the Church consists of those who are
partakers of Christ and of the blessings of salvation that are in Him. The
Reformed conception is that Christ, by the operation of the Holy Spirit, unites
men with Himself, endows them with true faith, and thus constitutes the Church
as His body, the communio fidelium or sanctorum. In Roman
Catholic theology, however, the discussion of the Church takes precedence over everything
else, preceding even the discussion of the doctrine of God and of divine revelation.
The Church, it is said, has been instrumental in producing the Bible and therefore
takes precedence over it; it is moreover the dispenser of all supernatural graces.
It is not Christ that leads us to the Church, but the Church that leads us to Christ.
All the emphasis falls, not on the invisible Church as the communio fidelium,
but on the visible Church as the mater fidelium. The Reformation broke
with this Roman Catholic view of the Church and centered attention once more on
the Church as a spiritual organism. It emphasized the fact that there is no
Church apart from the redemptive work of Christ and from the renewing
operations of the Holy Spirit; and that, therefore, the discussion of these
logically precedes the consideration of the doctrine of the Church.
Jesus Christ not only founded the Church, but also endowed it with the
necessary power or authority. He is the Head of the Church, not only in an
organic, but also in an administrative sense, that is, He is not only the Head
of the body, but also the King of the spiritual commonwealth. It is in His
capacity as King of the Church that He has clothed her with power or authority.
He Himself spoke of the Church as founded so firmly upon a rock that the gates
of hell cannot prevail against her, Matt. 16:18; and on the same occasion — the
very first on which He made mention of the Church — He also promised to endow
her with power, when He said unto Peter: “I will give unto thee the keys of the
Kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,” Matt.
16:19. It is quite evident that the terms ‘Church’ and ‘Kingdom of Heaven
THE MEANS OF GRACE
Fallen man receives all the blessings of salvation out of the eternal
fountain of the grace of God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ and
through the operation of the Holy Spirit. While the Spirit can and does in some
respects operate immediately on the soul of the sinner, He has seen fit to bind
Himself largely to the use of certain means in the communication of divine
grace. The term “means of grace” is not found in the Bible, but is nevertheless
a proper designation of the means that are indicated in the Bible. At the same
time the term is not very definite and may have a far more comprehensive meaning
than it ordinarily has in theology. The Church may be represented as the great means
of grace which Christ, working through the Holy Spirit, uses for the gathering
of the elect, the edification of the saints, and the building up of His
spiritual body. He qualifies her for this great task by endowing her with all
kinds of spiritual gifts, and by the institution of the offices for the
administration of the Word and the sacraments, which are all means to lead the
elect to their eternal destiny. But the term may have an even wider scope. The
whole providential guidance of the saints, through prosperity and adversity,
often becomes a means by which the Holy Spirit leads the elect to Christ or to
an ever closer communion with Him. It is even possible to include in the means
of grace all that is required of men for the reception and the continued
enjoyment of the blessings of the covenant, such as faith, conversion,
spiritual warfare, and prayer. It is neither customary nor desirable, however,
to include all this under the term “means of grace.” The Church is not a means
of grace alongside of the Word and the sacraments, because her power in
promoting the work of the grace of God consists only in the administration of these.
She is not instrumental in communicating grace, except by means of the Word and
of the sacraments. Moreover, faith, conversion, and prayer, are first of all
fruits of the grace of God, though they may in turn become instrumental in strengthening
the spiritual life. They are not objective ordinances, but subjective conditions
for the possession and enjoyment of the blessings of the covenant.
The Sacraments
In distinction from the Roman Catholic Church, the Churches of the
Reformation emphasize the priority of the Word of God. While the former
proceeds on the assumption that the sacraments contain all that is necessary
for the salvation of sinners, need no interpretation, and therefore render the
Word quite superfluous as a means of grace, the latter regard the Word as
absolutely essential, and merely raise the question, why the sacraments should
be added to it. Some of the Lutherans claim that a specific grace, differing
from that which is wrought by the Word, is conveyed by the sacraments. This is
all but universally denied by the Reformed, a few Scottish theologians and Dr. Kuyper
forming exceptions to the rule. They point to the fact that God has so created man
that he obtains knowledge particularly through the avenues of the senses of
sight and hearing. The Word is adapted to the ear, and the sacraments to the
eye. And since the eye is more sensuous than the ear, it may be said that God,
by adding the sacraments to the Word, comes to the aid of sinful man. The truth
addressed to the ear in the Word, is symbolically represented to the eye in the
sacraments. It should be borne in mind, however, that, while the Word can exist
and is also complete without the sacraments, the sacraments are never complete
without the Word. There are points of similarity and points of difference
between the Word and the sacraments.
1. POINTS OF SIMILARITY. They agree: (a) in author, since God instituted
both as means of grace; (b) in contents, for Christ is the central content of
the one as well as of the other; and (c) in the manner in which the contents
are appropriated, namely, by faith. This is the only way in which the sinner
can become a participant of the grace that is offered in the Word and in the
sacraments.
2. POINTS OF DIFFERENCE. They differ: (a) in their necessity, the Word
being indispensable, while the sacraments are not; (b) in their purpose, since
the Word is intended to engender and to strengthen faith, while the
sacraments serve only to strengthen it; and (c) in their extension, since the
Word goes out into all the world, while the sacraments are administered only to
those who are in the Church.
ESCHATOLOGY: THE DOCTRINE OF
LAST THINGS
A doctrine of the last things is not something that is peculiar to the
Christian religion. Wherever people have seriously reflected on human life,
whether in the individual or in the race, they have not merely asked, whence
did it spring, and how did it come to be what it is, but also, whither is it bound?
They raised the question, What is the end or final destiny of the individual;
and what is the goal towards which the human race is moving? Does man perish at
death, or does he enter upon another state of existence, either of bliss or of
woe? Will the generations of men come and go in endless succession and finally
sink into oblivion, or is the race of the children of men and the whole
creation moving on to some divine telos, an end designed for it by God.
And if the human race is moving on to some final, some ideal, condition
perhaps, will the generations that have come and gone participate in this in
any way, and if so, how; or did they merely serve as a thoroughfare leading up
to the grand climax? Naturally, only those who believe that, as the history of
the world had a beginning, it will also have an end, can speak of a
consummation and have a doctrine of eschatology.
Speaking generally, it may be said that Christianity never forgot the
glorious predictions respecting its future and the future of the individual
Christian. Neither the individual Christian nor the Church could avoid thinking
about these and finding comfort in them. Sometimes, however, the Church, borne
down with the cares of life, or entangled in its pleasures, thought little of
the future. Moreover, it happened repeatedly that at one time it would think more
of this, and at another time, more of that particular element of its future
hope. In days of defection the Christian hope sometimes grew dim and uncertain,
but it never died out altogether. At the same time it must be said that there
has never been a period in the history of the Christian Church, in which eschatology
was the center of Christian thought. The other loci of Dogmatics have each had
their time of special development, but this cannot be said of eschatology.
Three periods can be distinguished in the history of eschatological thought.
While the prophets do not clearly distinguish a twofold coming of
Christ, the Lord Himself and the apostles make it abundantly clear that the
first coming will be followed by a second. Jesus referred to His return more
than once towards the end of His public ministry, Matt. 24:30; 25:19,31; 26:64;
John 14:3. At the time of His ascension angels pointed to His future return,
Acts 1:11. Moreover, the apostles speak of it in numerous passages, Acts
3:20,21; Phil. 3:20; I Thess. 4:15,16; II Thess. 1:7,10; Tit. 2:13; Heb. 9:28. Several
terms are used to denote this great event, of which the following are the most important:
(1) apocalupsis (unveiling), which points to the removal of that which
now obstructs our vision of Christ, I Cor. 1:7; II Thess. 1:7; I Pet. 1:7,13;
4:13; (2) epiphaneia (appearance, manifestation), a term referring to
Christ’s coming forth out of a hidden background with the rich blessings of
salvation, II Thess. 2:8; I Tim. 6:14; II Tim. 4:1,8; Tit. 2:13; and (3) parousia
(lit. presence), which points to the coming that precedes the presence or
results in the presence, Matt. 24:3,27,37; I Cor. 15:23; I Thess. 2:19; 3:13;
4:15; 5:23; II Thess. 2:1-9; Jas. 5:7,8; II Pet. 1:16; 3:4,12; I John 2:28.
In the days of Jesus there was a difference of opinion among the Jews
respecting the resurrection. While the Pharisees believed in it, the Sadducees
did not, Matt. 22:23; Acts 23:8. When Paul spoke of it at Athens , he met with mockery, Acts 17:32. Some
of the Corinthians denied it, I Cor. 15, and Hymenæus and Phyletus, regarding
it as something purely spiritual, asserted that it was already a matter of
history, II Tim. 2:18. Celsus, one of the earliest opponents of Christianity,
made especially this doctrine the butt of ridicule; and the Gnostics, who
regarded matter as inherently evil, naturally rejected it. Origen defended the
doctrine over against the Gnostics and Celsus, but yet did not believe that the
very body which was deposited in the grave would be raised up. He described the
body of the resurrection as a new, refined, and spiritualized body. While some
of the early Christian Fathers shared his view, the majority of them stressed
the identity of the present body and the body of the resurrection. The Church
already in the Apostolic Confession expressed its belief in the resurrection of
the flesh.
The final state of believers will be preceded by the passing of the
present world and the appearance of a new creation. Matt. 19:28 speaks of “the regeneration,”
and Acts 3:21, of “the restoration of all things.” In Heb. 12:27 we read: “And
this word, Yet once more signifieth the removing of those things that are
shaken (heaven and earth), as of things that are made, that those things which
are not shaken (the kingdom
of God
The question is often raised, whether this will be an entirely new creation,
or a renewal of the present creation. Lutheran theologians strongly favor the
former position with an appeal to II Pet. 3:7-13; Rev. 20:11; and 21:1; while
Reformed theologians prefer the latter idea, and find support for it in Ps.
102:26,27; (Heb. 1:10-12); and Heb. 12:26-28.
Jamshed Gill
No comments:
Post a Comment