Genesis 3 - Introduction

PART ELEVEN:
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

1. The Problem of Evil. Genetically, evil is of two kinds: moral evil (sin), and physical or natural evil (suffering). The over-all problem is well stated by Brightman as follows: There is no dialectic of evil corresponding to the dialectic of good, for good is inherently rational and evil inherently nonrational. Good is a principle of totality, of coherence, of meaning. Evil is a principle of fragmentariness, of incoherence, of mockery. Hence there is no immanent logic in evil; evil is the Satan that laughs at logic. Yet there is logic in thought about evil, and many more or less logical solutions of evil have been proposed.[1] (Of course, for the unbelieving pessimist, to whom the totality of being is the product of sheer chance, and life meaningless, the problem of evil does not exist. Nor does it exist for the crass materialist who rejects morality in toto and substitutes expediency for it.) However, it should be noted here, at the outset, that in any study of the problem of evil, the problem of good cannot be avoided: in fact the problem is a compound onethe problem of good and evil. We list here some of the more significant proposals which human philosophy (speculation) has put forward in the course of time, as solutions of the problem.

[1] Edgar Sheffield Brightman, A Philosophy of Religion, p. 259. (Prentice-Hall, New York, 1940).

(1) The proposal that suffering is a Divine infliction of punishment on a person directly for a specific sin or course of sin indulged by him, He must not have been living right. Why did God take our baby from us? (a) The simple truth is that God does not directly take anyone: the God of the Bible is not a murderer. It is the Devil who is the murderer: the Devil murdered the whole human race when he seduced the Man and the Woman into sin (Genesis 3:17-19, John 8:44, Hebrews 2:14-15). To be sure, in an over-all sense, death is in the world because sin is in the world (Romans 3:23; Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:20-26; James 1:13-15). But this does not mean that suffering is a calamity directly inflicted on a person as punishment for his own personal sins. (b) This crude theory is flatly contradicted by the discourses which go to make up the Old Testament book of Job. Job's comforters, it will be recalled, tried in vain to convince him that his calamities were Divine inflictions for some great sin he had committed. Job steadfastly refused to give any credence to their platitudes. The conclusion of the whole matter was the pronouncement of God Himself that the mystery of good and evil, in its deepest significance, is beyond human understanding (chs. 38-41, Genesis 42:1-6). (c) This old wives-' fable (1 Timothy 4:7) is just as flatly repudiated by Jesus Himself and by the tenor of New Testament teaching as a whole (Matthew 5:45; Matthew 13:24-30; Luke 13:1-5; John 9:1-12; John 9:30-34). (d) This proposed solution accounts only for suffering, and not for the greater evil, sin (James 1:12-18; 1 John 3:4; Romans 8:18-23; Ezekiel 18:19-20). (e) The notion is not in accord with human experience of observed events in nature. St. Louis was hit by a devastating tornado in 1927. From many St. Louis pulpits the following Lord's Day congregations had to listen to pious fulminations to the effect that God had sent the tornado on the city as a punishment for its wickedness. But was St. Louis any more wicked than New York, or Chicago, or Los Angeles, or any other big city? Why, then, should St. Louis have been singled out for such a catastrophic punishment? One is reminded of the well-known couplet:

If it's true God spanked the town for being over-frisky, Why did He burn the churches down and save Hotaling's whiskey?

(f) A final objection to this theory is that it is an insult to God, in its implicit assumption that the wholesale destruction of innocent children which always accompanies such catastrophes is to be a part of the Divine judgment.

(g) Ten young men set out across No Man's Land in World War I, Only two returned: it is likely that the mother of each said, I thank God for saving my boy. But what did the mothers of the other eight say? (h) There is no Scripture evidence to the effect that Christians will be shielded from physical evils just because they are Christians. Indeed, the evidence is all to the contrary. In this world ye have tribulation, said Jesus (John 16:33; Matthew 5:45; Matthew 13:24-30; Romans 8:35-39). (i) But, someone may be asking: Why does God allow the wicked to prosper and the righteous to suffer? One of the older Catechisms gives the best answer, perhaps, to this difficult question, as follows: For two reasons: because the righteous can be confirmed in true holiness only by trials and sufferings; because God will not allow even the little good which the wicked may do, to go unrewarded; and therefore, as He cannot reward it in the next world, He takes this means of allowing it to be rewarded in this world.[2]

[2] Deharbe's Catechism, trans. from the German by Fander, p. 94. (Catholic Publication Society, New York, 1876).

(2) The proposal that all evil is illusory. The Absolutists who define the Absolute as the All-embracingPlotinus, Spinoza, Hegel, et almust either concede that God embraces evil as well as good, or deny that evil actually exists. Invariably they drift into the latter position. But is it true? Certainly it is belied by press reports from over all the world, with their mass of sordid news about wars and rumors of wars, riots, sex orgies, murders, horrible cruelties, and crimes of every kind. Truly, violence abounds over all the earth today. Moreover, an illusion cannot be an illusion of nothing; hence, those who adopt this hypothesis must explain how the illusion originated. We are prone to forget that a figure must be a figure of something, a symbol a symbol of something, an appearance an appearance of something, a proposition a proposition of something, etc. It is just as difficult to account for an illusion of mortal mind as it is to account for sin and suffering. An even more serious objection to this theory is that, as Trueblood puts it, it would cut the nerve of moral effort if It were taken seriously. He adds: If all evil, whether moral, natural, or intellectual, is truly illusory, we are foolish indeed to fight it; it would be far preferable to forget it.[3] Dr. L. P. Jacks asks the question, How shall we think of evil? and answers it by saying, We shall think ill of it. But how can we think ill of it if it does not exist? For my own part, he goes on to say, I would rather live in a world which contained real evils which all men recognize than in another where all men were such imbeciles as to believe in the existence of evil which has no existence at all.[4] Trueblood rightly declares that it is hard to think of God in moral terms if there is no genuine evil to fight. Whittaker Chambers, in the final chapter of his great book, Witness, in which he tells what he wants for his son as the latter becomes a man, makes this final impressive statement: I want him to understand that evil is not something that can be condescended to, waived aside or smiled away, for it is not merely an uninvited guest, but lies coiled in foro interno at home with good within ourselves. Evil can only be fought.[5] Plato wrote of evil as the wild beast that is in the soul. The notion that evil is illusory cuts the nerve, not only of individual moral effort, but of social progress as well: it is difficult, if not impossible, to generate zeal with respect to that which does not really exist.

[3] D. Elton Trueblood, Philosophy of Religion, p. 237. (Harper, New York, 1957).

[4] L. P. Jacks, Religious Foundations, edited by Rufus M. Jones, p. 105. (Macmillan, New York, 1923).

[5] Whittaker Chambers, Witness, pp. 797, 798. (Random House, New York, 1952).

(3) The proposal that evil is incomplete good. Advocates of this notion hold that the true is the whole, which alone is truly the good and the true and the beautiful. For example, many patches of color within a painting are ugly, but the entire painting is beautiful, or, ditch-digging might seem worthless until its contribution to civilization is perceived. Our weakness as human beings is that of finitude; as Spinoza would have it, in this world we are compelled to look at things sub specie temporis; if only we could view the whole sub specie aeternitatis, we could see that this whole is a plenum in which everything is rigidly necessitated; hence, that what we call evil is in reality only incomplete or unrealized good, Buthow can we reasonably derive the goodness of the whole (the complete) from our awareness of the incompleteness of things? In fact, is it not just as correct to say that in some cases good is incomplete evil, as to say, in others, that evil is incomplete good? The mystery of evil is, in some way, inscrutable to us, tied up with the mystery of wholeness (holiness) or perfection: this we do not deny. But proposed palliative pronouncements do not give any proportionate explanation of the mass of evil in the world and the gross viciousness which attends it. Sin and suffering are not to be explained away with fastidious folderol, no matter how apparently sophisticated it may be. This view tends in the main toward Pollyana-ism: to become so saturated with mere mental mush as to be irreconcilable with the observed facts of the world around us. (Cf. Genesis 3:14-19,where we are told explicitly that nature is not perfect, but is, for the time being at least, under the curse of sin: cf. Romans 8:18-25.) The Bible is the most realistic book ever given to the world.

(4) The proposal that evil is needed as a contrast to the good. From the beginning, the human mind has been impressed with, and intrigued by, the play of opposites discovered by experience. The ancient Pythagoreans constructed a Table of Opposites, and Socrates is made to argue for immortality on the ground that, as opposites tend to pass into each other, so what we call death is likely to be but a passing over into new life. (See the Phaedo of Plato.) A monotonous worlda world without all these contrasts(it is said) would be too boring to be endured. Good is in constant danger of being lost in its conflict with evil; this fact alone teaches us to appreciate its value. As Henry van Dyke has put it, in quite simple terms:

If all the skies were sunshine,

Our faces would be fain

To feel once more upon them

The cooling spash of rain.

If all the world were music,

Our hearts would often long

For one sweet strain of silence

To break the endless song.

If life were always merry,

Our souls would seek relief

And rest from weary laughter

In the quiet arms of grief.

This theory of contrast, it would seem, is not wholly false: the contrasts of experience surely do often stimulate the good. Still and all, this theory, like those stated above, fails to account for the great body of evil in the world and for the gross inhumanities associated with it.

(5) The proposal that suffering has a necessary disciplinary function. This view is supported both by experience and by Scripture. Suffering disciplines us, strips us of false pride, teaches us that we are but pilgrims on this earth, weary pilgrims who are sadly in need of a Refuge and Strength. Suffering burns up the superficial ambitions and pride of life, and turns us out as pure gold tested by fire. Without suffering we should soon be swallowed up by our own conceits; without suffering we could never understand God's love or be prepared for Heaven. If, as Scripture states, it was necessary for the Author of our salvation to be made perfect through suffering (Hebrews 2:10), how can His saints hope to be perfected short of the same discipline? True it is that to the already rebellious sinner, suffering may become a goad to increased rebelliousness (which usually takes the form of an orgy of self-pity); on the other hand, the true believer uses suffering as a means of strengthening his moral fiber and deepening his faith in God. Adversity does not create good or evil in the heart, but is a potent force in bringing into the open the good and evil attitudes that are already there, It is also true, however, that suffering has brought many a hard-hearted worldly sinner to his knees in repentance, The principle of vicarious suffering and sacrifice (the innocent for the guilty) is the fundamental principle, not only of man's redemption, but also of his moral, social and spiritual progress in this present world. Freedom will work only if we make it work; democracy will work only if we make it work; and all too frequently the preservation of democracy and freedom will demand the shedding of innocent blood. The principle that without the shedding of blood there is no remission (Hebrews 9:22)and no moral and spiritual progressruns throughout every aspect of man's life on earth. As Elizabeth Barrett Browning has stated this eternal truth so clearly:

There is no God,-' the foolish saith,

But none, There is no sorrow,-'

And nature oft the cry of faith

In bitter need will borrow.

Eyes which the preacher could not school

By wayside graves are raised,

And lips cry, -God, be merciful,-'

That ne-'er said, -God be praised.-'

(For the disciplinary function of suffering, cf. Job 5:6-7; Job 5:17-20; Psalms 119:67; Psalms 119:71; Proverbs 3:11-12; Romans 8:18; Romans 8:35-39; 2 Corinthians 4:7-18; 2 Corinthians 12:9-10; Hebrews 12:5-13; James 1:12; 1 Peter 4:12-14; Revelation 3:19.)

So much for human speculative attempts to fathom the profound mystery of sin and suffering. It is quite evident that these various proposals fall far short of giving any adequate clues to this mystery; hence, we are compelled to turn elsewhere in our quest for the solution of it. To what source, then, shall we turn? Obviously, to revelation, to the Bible. God alone can give us the answer we seekan answer that must be accepted, to some extent, by faith. All human thinking is evidence of the fact that the heart of the problem lies beyond the scope of sheer human intellection; that, as with most ultimates, reason must be supplemented by faith. After all, knowledge is all that we believe on the basis of sound evidence and logical thinking, plus trustworthy Divine revelation (Romans 10:17; 1 Corinthians 2:9-15; Ephesians 1:6-12; Ephesians 3:1-12). Then what does the Bible teach us?

The Bible teaches clearly that sin originated in the free choice of a personal being to challenge the sovereignty of God. (After all is not any sin committed by any person just such a challenge?) And certainly this teaching is confirmed uniformly by our human experience. Sin must have originated in the free choice of some personal being to assert his own will above the will of God. Human experience is bound to testify that impersonal (subhuman) entities are incapable of free choice; hence that they are neither normal nor immoral per se, but amoral. Only persons are moral beings. Whoever the first sinner was, therefore, he was the first anarchist, and anarchy is the first earmark of godlessness. The Bible teaches, moreover, that this present life is but the battle-ground on which the forces of good and the forces of evil are engaged in mortal combat for possession of the souls of men (Ephesians 2:1-3; Ephesians 3:10-12; Ephesians 6:11-12; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 1 Peter 5:8-9). This,. too, is unquestionably in accord with human experience. Furthermore, Scripture teaches that physical evil is, in a general sense, the penalty that follows upon the indulgence of moral evil (Genesis 3:16-19; Romans 5:12-14; Romans 8:18-23). (For the first statement of the law of heredity in literature, see Exodus 20:5-6. This passage has reference to the consequences of sin. In Ezekiel 18:19-20, the reference is to the guilt of sin.) Suffering and death serve to put man in proper perspective to himself; they are proofs that he is a creature utterly dependent on God's providence for his very continuance in existence.

Who, then, was this personal being who committed the first violation of God's law. Is man alone to be held responsible for the introduction of moral and physical evil into our world? I cannot convince myself that such is the casethat man can be made to bear the whole burden of responsibility for sin and suffering. In the name of eternal Justicethat Justice which is said to be the foundation of God's throne (Psalms 89:14)something further, something or someone above and beyond man must be involved in this mystery with its many complex ramifications, Principal William Robinson of Overdale College, quotes Canon Wheeler Robinson on this problem as follows: For anything we know to the contrary, there may be other spiritual influences from beyond the human sphere, such influences as were recognized crudely enough in the ancient belief in demons and in Satan. We cannot rule out the possibility of such extra-human influences. Principal Robinson himself adds: All I am concerned to point out at the moment is that the question of believing in the actuality of the Devil is not a question of being -advanced-' or -antiquated-' in one's views. It is a much deeper question than this. It is not a question of Biblical literalism, but of seeing what the Bible is -driving at.-' It is a question of being able to account for the evil in the worldboth physical and moral evilwhile at the same time preserving belief in the goodness, integrity, and all-sufficiency of God, Most, if not all, moral evils can be accounted for on the assumption that man has free will and that his will is in rebellion against the will of God. Much physical evil can be accounted for as a by-product of the life process, but not all. Writers like Dr. Tennant think of physical evil as -necessarily incidental.-' But if it is both necessary and incidental, how is it possible to relieve God from responsibility for it? Either we must assume a -fall-' of some kind in a sphere beyond the human, or God must be the author of evil. Strictly monotheistic religions have no other course open to them than to assume either (1) that evil is in the will of God, or (2) that there has been a primal rebellion of some created will or wills against the will of God. Is there any third alternative? This writer goes on to say that there have not been wanting teachers from Origen (at the beginning of the third century) down to our own day who have realized that something further is necessary, even in the matter of emphasis, if we are to account for physical as well as moral evil. The sin of man cannot be made to bear the whole burden. They have claimed that if we allow for the existence of discarnate spirits and for the fact of a collateral or of a primary -fall-' in such a realm, this explains better than any other existing theory the wide diffusion of evil in a universe which, as Christians, we believe to have been created by an all-powerful, all-wise, and all-loving God. Admitting that vagueness and indefiniteness of outline must necessarily be accepted, and that there are many gaps in our knowledge which condition this vagueness, such a view certainly does help to explain evil present at subhuman levels as well as throw light on the practical question of temptation in man, and on certain New Testament passages which insist that the redemption of God extends to the whole cosmos and is not concerned merely with man (see Acts 3:21, Romans 8:21, 2 Peter 3:13).[6]

[6] Wm. Robinson, The Devil and God, pp. 70-72. (Abindgon-Cokesbury, New York and Nashville, 1945).

That evil did have its first beginning in the fall of Lucifer, an angel of superior attainments, is the teaching of the Bible. (Cf. John 8:44, 1 Timothy 3:6, Luke 10:17-18, 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6, Matthew 25:41, 1 Corinthians 6:3, Revelation 20:10.)

Nor does this doctrine necessarily impugn either God's omnipotence or His goodness. For what does Omnipotence mean? It means that God has the power to do the intrinsically possible, but not the intrinsically impossible (e.g., it is impossible for God to lie, and yet be our God); the intrinsically impossible would be that which is not consistent with His character, intelligence or will, God is self-limited only; never can He be limited by means and ends determined by any source external to Himself, His goodness is clearly seen in the Supreme Sacrifice of Love which He made for the redemption of His Creation (John 3:16-17; Romans 3:23-24; Romans 8:32; Ephesians 2:4-10; Hebrews 2:9-18; Hebrews 12:1-2).

Note the following pertinent statements: That evil exists is true, but is it necessarily evil that it does exist? A world free of evil would have to be a world which contained nothing capable of evil. The theistic solution of the problem of evil, as against those who see the very possibility of evil as something itself evil, can be summed up in this: Not even God can love a puppet. It goes without saying that no puppet, however complicated may be the motions through which it is put, can love,[7]

[7] Samuel M. Thompson, A Modern Philosophy of Religion, pp. 507-508. (Regnery, Chicago, 1955).

* * * *

The conclusion of the whole matter is well stated by W. Robertson-Smith as follows: To reconcile the forgiving goodness of God with His absolute justice, is one of the highest problems of spiritual religion, which in Christianity is solved by the doctrine of the Atonement.[8] To which, in all truth, it should be added that it is resolved nowhere else, in no other system, in no other cult, in no other religion, than in the Christian religionin the fact of the vicarious Sacrifice of the Lamb of God for the sin of the world (John 1:29, 1 Corinthians 15:3): the Act in which God did for man what man could not do for himself, to overcome the ravages of sin and suffering (Romans 3:21-26, 2 Corinthians 5:17-21), and to vindicate His own designs and sustain the majesty of His law (Romans 2:5).

[8] W. Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites: Fundamental Institutions, p. 62. (Appleton, New York, 1889).

Although there is mystery here still, nevertheless we can fathom it to an appreciable extent: undoubtedly the residue of the mystery will be fully revealed when we shall see God face to face and know fully even as also we shall be fully known (1 John 3:1-2, 1 Corinthians 13:12). Genuine faith, as in Job's case, is willing to await the revelation of the righteous judgment of God (Romans 2:5-6).

2. The Doctrine of Angels. Strong: As ministers of divine providence, there is a class of finite beings, greater in intelligence and power than man in his present state, some of whom positively serve God's purpose by holiness and voluntary execution of his will, some negatively by giving examples to the universe of defeated and punished rebellion, and by illustrating God's distinguishing grace in man's salvation.[9] Biblical teaching regarding angels, their origin, nature, attributes, and works, may be summarized as follows: (1) They are created beings (Colossians 1:16, Psalms 148:1-6). (2) They are personal beings, i.e., possessing intelligence, feeling, and will (2 Samuel 14:20, Luke 2:8-15, 2 Timothy 2:26, 1 Peter 5:8, Revelation 7:11-12; Revelation 12:12). Certainly they are not just good and evil thoughts. (3) They are a special order (kind) of celestial (ethereal) beings, incorporeal in any physical sense of the term, yet not entirely bodiless: that is, they share the ethereal luminous substance of all creatures of the heavenly world. Celestial beings cannot in the very nature of the case have the characteristics of our physical organization. It is for this reason we must lay aside our earthly bodies, and our blood which is the seat of physical or animal life, and put on spiritual (etheral) bodies adapted to our environment in the next world, before we can be fully conformed to the image of God's Son (Romans 8:29; Leviticus 17:11; 1 Corinthians 15:44; 1 Corinthians 15:49-50; 2 Corinthians 5:1-8). (The reference in these last two Scriptures is to the saints, not to the unconverted.) Hence, not having physical bodies, angels are unlimited by any sense of time or space, and know nothing of age, growth, or death (Hebrews 1:14, Luke 20:36); hence they are also without sex distinctions (Matthew 22:23-30, 1 Corinthians 15:50). It is obvious that pictorial representations which have come down to us from medieval art, in which they are represented as feminine creatures with wings, are wholly without scriptural warrant, Angels are referred to in the Bible in the masculine; moreover, ethereal beings have no need for wings. This means, of course, that angels constitute a company, and not a race; and that in all probability each was created separately and that each apostate angel fell by his own act. Again, the assumption that angels are creatures of the human imagination, corresponding to the demigods of the ancient mythologies, is absurd. Demigods were usually thought of as the offspring resulting from sensualistic relations between all sorts of imaginary creatures: the gods themselves were represented as consorting with humans, and even with brutes, and fantastic creatures of every kind were supposed to have inhabited the earth as a consequence of such illicit relations. (The tragedies of Euripides point up these facts more vividly, perhaps, than any of the other works of Greek literature. The Homeric epics also give us graphic pictures of the frailties of the gods: they are even represented as actually engaging in the battle before Troy and suffering the wounds of battle, in the manner of ordinary soldiers. Plato, it will be recalled, objected strenuously to these tales of the frailties and immoralities of the gods: The Divine, he insisted, must never be thought of as the author of evil.) It is silly to think that the Bible writers, surrounded as they were by sensualistic and idolatrous pagan neighbors, could have imagined an order of beings purely ethereal in nature and benevolent in their ministry, as angels are represented to be in Scripture. We therefore accept the teaching of the Bible about angels and their nature and work, as divine revelation.

[9] Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology, One-Volume Edition, p. 443. (Judson Press, Philadelphia, 1907).

(4) They are a class of beings older than man and distinct from man. They are not spirits or souls of the righteous dead. In Hebrews 12:22-23, innumerable hosts of angels are clearly distinguished from the general assembly and church of the firstborn and from the spirits of just men made perfect, that is, the righteous dead in their fully redeemed state, clothed in glory and honor and immortality. (Cf. also Hebrews 2:16, 1 Corinthians 6:3, Matthew 18:10, Acts 12:15, Luke 1:19, etc.) The mention of the serpent in Genesis 3:1 implies the fall of Satan before the fall of man. In Genesis 2:1, all the host of them which God had created is generally taken to include the angels. Man was evidently the crowning achievement of God's creativity, created after the angelic host had been created. Angels are to be thought of as sharing in some incomprehensible way, the timelessness of the heavenly realm, as distinct from the temporality of our natural world.

(5) They possess superhuman intelligence and power (Psalms 103:20, 2 Peter 2:11, Jude 1:9, 2 Thessalonians 1:7). (6) Their intelligence and power, although superhuman, is not supernatural (infinite) (Job 2:6, Matthew 24:36, 1 Peter 1:12, Revelation 20:1-3; Revelation 20:7-10). God alone is infinite, eternal, omniscient, timeless, without beginning or end. (7) In number they are a great multitude (Daniel 7:10, Hebrews 12:22, Revelation 5:11). (8) They seem to have organization, with various ranks and endowments (1 Kings 22:19; Matthew 26:53; Ephesians 2:2; Ephesians 3:10; 1 Thessalonians 4:16; Colossians 1:16; Jude 1:9). (9) Their work is to act as ministers of God's providence in the world of nature and of men (Daniel 12:1; Luke 15:10; 1 Timothy 5:21; Matthew 4:11; Hebrews 1:14; Matthew 13:39; Matthew 18:10; Matthew 25:31; Mark 8:38; 2 Thessalonians 1:7; 1 Peter 1:10-12, etc.).

(10) The angels were created innocent (Genesis 1:31, Jude 1:6). (11) Many of them preserved their original innocence, and by unbroken obedience to God, attained holiness (Mark 8:38, Psalms 89:7, 1 Timothy 5:21). (12) But others fell from their original state of innocence and of fellowship with God (Job 4:18, 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6, 1 John 3:8, Matthew 25:41, Revelation 12:7-12). (13) The angels who fell from their original state of innocence are wholly confirmed in evil, that is, totally depraved (Matthew 6:13, John 8:44, Matthew 25:41, 1 John 5:18-19, 2 Peter 2:4, Revelation 20:1-3, etc.). The evil angels rebelled purely of their own volition and hence for them there is no plan, no hope, of salvation, Man disobeyed as a consequence of yielding to temptation (seduction) from without, and for him, therefore, God could consistently plan and execute the Scheme of Redemption. (14) The leader of this pre-mundane rebellion was an angel of superior attainments, by the name of Lucifer, probably an archangel, who deliberately chose to assert his will above the sovereignty of God, and who, through the specious plea of unlimited personal liberty, persuaded some of his kind to embark on a course of open warfare against God and all Good (Isaiah 14:12-14, Ezekiel 28:13-17, Luke 10:18, John 8:44, Revelation 12:7-10, etc.).

3. The Mystery of Lawlessness (1 John 3:4; 1 John 5:17; Romans 4:15; Romans 7:8; 2 Thessalonians 2:7). The Mystery of Lawlessness is the Mystery of Sin. Only a person who is utterly spiritually blind will deny that sin is a fact of our world. All great Bible themesredemption, atonement, justification, remission, salvation, pardon, forgiveness, adoption, reconciliation, regeneration, sanctification, immortalizationall these have significance only in relation to the fact of sin. Make no mistake about itsin is a fact. Sin is not just irrationality as the depth psychologists would have it; it is not just immaturity or just missing the mark, as academic pundits would have itnot by any means! Sin is depravity, it has always been, is now, and will always be, open rebellion against God. Sin is the offspring of human presumption and oftentimes is wilfully cultivated, that is, sinners are sinners in most cases because they choose to walk after their own lusts (2 Peter 3:3). Those who would explain away sin as illusion of mortal mind, I would remind that the illusion, and the origin of it, remain to be accounted for. Sin proceeds from the interior life of man, from vincible ignorance, a perverted will, or a seared conscience (1 Timothy 4:2); and the essential principle of sin is selfishness:there never was a sin committed that was not the choice of self above God, of man's righteousness (his own way of doing things) above God's righteousness (God's way of doing things). (Cf. Matthew 3:15; Matthew 6:33; Romans 1:16-17; Romans 9:30; Romans 10:3; John 4:34.) To do things according to God's way is to obey the moral law; to do things contrary to God's way is to flout the moral lawthis is lawlessness. A lawless world is a Godless world, and vice versa.

The mystery of lawlessness is commonly designated the problem of evil, both moral and physical. Apparently all forms of evil descend upon human beings from one or more of three sources: (a) from what a person does to himself, (b) from what others do to him, and (c) from the physical framework in which he is destined to live in this present life. There is no doubt that a measure of impenetrable mystery attaches to this problem, the problem especially of the origin of sin and suffering and of the persistence of the tremendous volume of sin and suffering in our world. Cf. Job 11:7, Job 38-41, also Isaiah 55:8-9, Romans 11:33-36: these passages clearly teach us that there are aspects of the mystery which lie beyond the pale of human understanding (Deuteronomy 29:29). Hence, we must accept what God has revealed to us through His Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-16) concerning this mystery and its relevance to human life and destiny. For if God has not revealed what we need to know, we simply have no solution for the deeper aspects of this problem. But God has revealed to us all that we need to know, for our own good, and this revelation is clearly set forth in Scripture, embracing the following particulars:

(1). Sin had its beginning in the free choice of a person, uninfluenced from without, to rebel against the sovereignty of God. This author will defend the thesis anywhere, at any time, that sin could not have originated in any other way than in a personal choice to disobey the moral law, just as crime originates only in the free choice of a person to disobey the civil law. As far as our knowledge goes, only persons are capable of making such a choice: indeed, the powers of self-consciousness and self-determination are the powers which constitute a person to be a person, Subhuman entities (rocks, plants, trees, fishes, birds, insects, beasts of the field)all these are without the potentiality of being either moral or immoral: literally, they are amoral. (We do not haul animals into court and charge them with crimes.) Only persons are moral beings; therefore, only persons are responsible for their deeds (Romans 3:20; Romans 4:15; Romans 5:13; Romans 5:20; Romans 7:7;Acts 17:30-31; Matthew 24:31-51; 1 Corinthians 3:13; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Galatians 6:7;Hebrews 2:2-3; 2 Peter 2:4; Revelation 20:11-15; Revelation 22:12). Hence, in attributing the origin of sin to a person, Scripture teaching is in harmony with human experience and common sense.

(2). Personal beings are of three kinds (as affirmed in Scripture), namely, divine, angelic, and human. (a) The divine Persons who make up the totality of the Godhead are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:16-17; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; 1 Peter 1:2). In the dim light of the Old Testament revelation these Three were known as God, the Word of God, and the Spirit of God (Genesis 1:1-3; Psalms 33:6; Psalms 33:9; Revelation 19:13; John 1:1-14; 1 John 1:1; 1 John 5:7). (b) Angels, as we have noted, are represented in Scripture to be a special order of celestial (ethereal) personal beings, superhuman in intelligence and power, who serve as the ministers of God's providence, (c) The human being is described in Scripture (Genesis 2:7) as a body-spirit unity, a person, a living soul. He is set apart as a species (as person and personality) by his thought processes. These are matters of human common sense and experience. Sin, of course, is not to be attributed to the Godhead who is altogether holy (John 17:11; John 17:25; Hebrews 4:15; Revelation 15:4). Therefore sin must have originated among the angels or among men.

(3). According to the Bible, sin originated in the premundane rebellion of the archangel Lucifer, who sought to break away from the sovereignty of God and to set up a rival throne somewhere beyond our universe. (a) The Scriptures intimate that Lucifer, prior to his fall, was an angel of superior rank and endowment: the name Lucifer itself means the shining one, and in the Revised Version is rendered Day-star. Cf. Isaiah 14:12-15. Hebrew prophecy runs in parallels: hence in this Scripture the fate of the king of Babylon evidently is described as analogous to the fall of Lucifer. Cf. also Ezekiel 28:13-14. Here the prophetic parallel is between Lucifer and the king of Tyre. Anointed cherub is a phrase designating an angel of high official rank, undoubtedly an archangel. The descriptive language which appears in these passages simply cannot be applied to any human being, except by analogy, and that only in a limited sense. (2) 1 Timothy 3:6, John 8:44. Cf. these passages with Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:13-14. These statements could hardly have been made with reference to earthly monarchs. It seems evident that orthodox Christian scholarship is right in interpreting them as alluding to the rebellion and fall of Lucifer. It seems, too, that the archangel's fall was caused by pride, jealousy and false ambition; and that his appeal to his fellow creatures was the specious plea of personal liberty, that is, for complete freedom from the binding force of any kind of lawa plea which has damned more souls than any other single lie. (Liberty, it must be remembered, is not license.) It is quite possible that he influenced other angels with false charges and lying accusations against God, as, for example, that the Creator was a tyrant who imposed His will on free creatures, etc., and that he exhorted them to follow him in breaking away from all Divine restraint and in setting up a rival government somewhere in the heavens. It would seem that up to this time God had never revealed His love to His angelic host; that they probably were aware only of His power. Hence some of the angels were prompted to heed Satan's lies and to follow him into open rebellion; by far the greater number, however, remained loyal to the Divine government. As Milligan writes: How pride got possession of Satan's heart it may be difficult for us to conceive, But it seems probable, from the statement of Paul in First Timothy (1 Timothy 3:6), that it was in some way owing to his elevation above those around him. He may once have been the archangel, superior even to Michael. But in an evil hour his eye was turned from the Creator to himself as the highest, the most gifted, and the most influential of all the creatures of God. His heart swelled with pride; ambition took possession of his soul; and rebellion was then seen in heaven. But justice and judgment are the dwelling-place of God's throne, Psalms 89:14. He reigns in the midst of the most perfect righteousness, and no sin can be tolerated for a moment in His presence. And hence He had but to speak the word, and Satan, with his rebel host that kept not their first estate, was instantly cast out of heaven and bound in -eternal chains under darkness to the judgment of the Great Day,-' Jude 1:6.[10] (Cf. 2 Peter 2:4, Matthew 25:41, Luke 10:18, 1 Corinthians 6:3.)

[10] Robert Milligan, Scheme of Redemption, Revised Edition, pp. 44-45, fn. (Christian Publishing Company, St. Louis).

(4). Apparently Satan and his rebel host, having attempted a direct encounter with those of their kind who remained loyal to God, were cast out of Heaven, to become wanderers to and fro in the earth (Job 1:7). Cf. Ezekiel 28:16, Isaiah 14:15, 2 Peter 2:4, especially the words of Jesus, in Luke 10:18 (the Logos was present, of Course, when this incident occurred; hence, as Jesus, He was recognized by these evil spirits: cf. John 17:5; James 2:19; Matthew 8:29; Mark 1:24; Mark 5:7; Luke 4:34; Acts 19:15). (This is a notable instance in which the truth about a given subject cannot be obtained in its fulness short of taking into consideration the teaching of the Bible as a whole.) The rebellion of these wicked angels was inexcusable from any and every point of view. Eternal Justice forbade any plan of salvation for them. Prior to their rebellion they had been in close personal fellowship with God; they had known Him as their Creator and Ruler; they had been fully aware of His wisdom and power; they must have known that all being depended on Him for continuance. Besides all this, they sinned purely of their own volition, without having been influenced from any source outside themselves. They were not seduced, as man was. They decided of their own free will to enter upon a course of sin, motivated by their own inordinate ambition. They became in fact the first anarchists. For these reasons, and possibly others unknown to us, their rebellion was inexcusable. Therefore, their moral state, as a result of this complete rejection by their Creator, is one of total depravity. They are kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day (Jude 1:6), committed to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment (2 Peter 2:4). What kind of bonds, and what kind of darkness? Bonds of reprobation, undoubtedly, and the darkness of implacable hatred and despair. Having realized from the time of their fall, that they are irretrievably and eternally lost, they are totally depraved. From the moment of his fall, Lucifer became Satan or the Devil, the chief of evil spirits. The word Satan is from the Hebrew, and means Adversary, Accuser, Enemy, etc. The Devil is an implacable and insatiable enemy of God, man, and all Good.

(5). The last end for these wicked angels, and all their ilk, including all wicked, neglectful, and unforgiven human beings, will be eternal segregation in hell. (1) Someone may ask, Why did not God annihilate these evil angels when they rebelled against Him? Of course, it would be sheer presumption on our part to answer this question dogmatically. There are certain intimations, however, which may give us clues to a partial apprehension of this mystery. Science, for example, teaches that God does not, and reflection leads us to believe that He would not, annihilate that which He has created. One of the first laws of nature is that the total amount of energy (or matter) of the cosmos is constant. Matter changes form, but nothing of the original total stock is lost in the process. Reason would add, it seems to me, that if God does not annihilate matter, He surely will not annihilate spirit. As a matter of fact, were He to annihilate anything that shares personality with Him, either angelic or human, He would be acting inconsistently, that is, in opposition to Himself. But to act thus inconsistently is contrary to His nature as Deity; hence, it seems that the word annihilation is not in the vocabulary of Heaven. Certainly there is every reason to think that at the times of restoration of all things, whereof God spake by the mouth of his holy prophets (Acts 3:21) this earth which we now inhabit will be renovated rather than annihilated (Isaiah 65:17; Isaiah 66:22; 2 Peter 3:1-13).

I am reminded of a story which appears in one of the published books of sermons by W. H. Book, longtime Minister of the great Tabernacle Church of Christ, Columbus, Indiana. Book tells us that he was holding a revival meeting in Hagerstown, Maryland, once upon a time, and, as was the custom in earlier days, prior to the sermon each evening he spent a few minutes answering questions that individuals might see fit to put into a query box at the entrance to the meeting hall. One evening he received a question which read substantially as follows: If God is all-powerful, as you preachers say, and there is so much evil in the world, as you say, and if the devil is the source of this evil, as you also say, then why doesn-'t God kill the devil and put an end to all this sin and misery? Brother Book read the question aloud, carefully, and then answered: I would say that God would not want to kill the devil, because that would leave too many orphans in Hagerstown. To this we would be justified in adding, I think, that if God should kill the Devil, the large part of the earth's population would be orphaned. Despite the apparent flippancy of this answer (to the question equally flippant), the fact remains that it was in harmony with the teaching of Jesus, who, on a certain occasion in answer to the caviling Jews, blistered them with the statement: Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do (John 8:44).

Hell, the penitentiary of the moral universe, was, according to our Lord's own statement, prepared for the devil and his angels; as Chrysostom was wont to say, in the early days of Christianity, Hell was prepared, not for men, but for the devil and his angels, but if men go there, it will be strictly because they cast themselves into it. The eternal segregation of all the wicked, both angels and men, in hell (Gehenna) will follow the Great Judgment. (Note Matthew 8:29to torment us before the time; also Matthew 25:31-46, esp. Matthew 25:41; John 5:28-29; Acts 17:30-31; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10; Revelation 20:11-15, etc.)

(6). The good angels, on the other hand, are rewarded with everlasting happiness (blessedness) and this consists in being with God, seeing Him face to face, serving Him and enjoying Him forever: cf. Matthew 18:10. The good angels are also called the elect angels (1 Timothy 5:21). This does not mean, of course, that their remaining faithful was the result of their election; it means, rather, that their election was the natural consequence of their fidelity. The good angels are the executors of God's judgments (Matthew 13:36-43; Matthew 16:27; Matthew 24:29-31; Matthew 25:31; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10; Jude 1:14), and the ministers of His benevolence toward the redeemed (Hebrews 1:14; Hebrews 12:22; Luke 2:8-15). Accounts of angelic ministrations, both of benevolence and of judgment, occur repeatedly throughout the entire Bible. E.g., Genesis 16:7; Genesis 18:2; Genesis 22:11-18; Genesis 19:1-17; Genesis 28:12; Genesis 32:1; Exodus 3:2; Galatians 3:19; Exodus 14:19; Judges 2:1; Numbers 22:31; Joshua 5:15; Judges 6:11-12; Judges 13:2-21; Judges 2 Sam. 25:16; 1 Kings 19:5; 2 Kings 6:17; Daniel 6:22; Daniel 7:10; Zechariah 2:3; Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38; Luke 1:11-20; Matthew 2:13-20; Matthew 4:11; Matthew 28:2-5; Luke 2:8-15; Acts 1:9-11; Acts 5:19; Acts 8:26; Acts 12:6-9; Acts 10:3; Acts 27:23-24; Revelation 1:1; Revelation 5:2, etc. Many authorities believe that the Angel of Jehovah frequently mentioned in the Old Testament Scriptures was the Logos Himself in pre-incarnate manifestations or theophanies (cf. Micah 5:2, 1 Corinthians 10:1-4).

(7) To summarize: the Bible teaches explicitly as follows: (1) That the source of sin, of the entire burden of sin which the human race has brought on itself (Romans 3:23), is the Devil (1 John 3:8). (2) That the pedigree of sin, therefore, is Satan, lust, sin, and finally death (James 1:13-15). (3) That the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), not only physical death, the separation of the spirit from the body and the consequent dissolution of the physical frame (Genesis 2:16-17; Genesis 3:19; Genesis 5:5, John 19:30; Hebrews 9:27), but also spiritual death, the second death, eternal separation from the Source of Life (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10; Revelation 20:14; Revelation 21:8; Revelation 2:11). Whatever else the word hell may signify in Scripture, it does signify the loss of God and of all Good (Matthew 25:41). Death, in whatever form it may take, is in the world because sin is in the world (Genesis 3:17-19; Romans 5:12; Romans 6:23; Romans 7:14; 1 Corinthians 15:21-26; 1 Corinthians 15:50-57; 2 Corinthians 5:4; Hebrews 9:27, etc.). (4) That the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the Devil (1 John 3:8; 1 John 3:5; Matthew 1:21; John 1:29; Hebrews 2:14-15; Hebrews 9:28; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 1 Corinthians 15:20-26; 1 Corinthians 15:50-57). Redemption in Christ Jesus is complete redemption, that is, redemption in body and soul and spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:23), redemption both from the guilt of sin (Ezekiel 18:19-20) and from the consequences of sin (Exodus 20:5-6). (Cf. Luke 1:68; Romans 2:4-11; Romans 8:18-25; Galatians 3:13; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; Titus 2:14; Hebrews 9:12; Revelation 5:9; Revelation 14:3-4, etc.) As Jesus spoke to the hard-hearted and disbelieving in His own day, so He speaks to the neglectful, disobedient, and wicked of every age, including the present one. Ye are of your father, the devil, etc. (John 8:44), and Ye will not come to me, that ye may have life (John 5:40). There can be only one reason why men keep on living in sin: it is the fact that they will to do so (2 Peter 3:9; Matthew 11:28; John 10:10; John 11:25-26; Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:34).

I quote here the following statements by H. C. Christopher, from his great work, now long out of print: A being that can not err must be infinite in his attributes. Wherever there is finiteness, there is necessarily and unavoidably the possibility and capability of wrong-thinking and wrong-doing. Absolute perfection inheres only in the Infinite. Imperfection inheres in the finite, because they are finite. Here lies the potential origin of sin, the possibility of sinning being inseparable from, and inherent in, finite beings. . Angels knew nothing of the innate and undeveloped powers and sentiments of their nature, and were unconscious of the evil lurking deep below the surface, like the germ in the seed, and awaiting only the necessary influences and excitements to arouse the dormant powers into activity. It may seem strange to talk of influences and exciting causes of developing sin in heaven, among beings of whom all our conceptions embrace the ideas of purity and happiness; yet sin first erupted in heaven.[11]

[11] H. C. Christopher, The Remedial System, p. 32. A great book, but long out of print.

4. The Fact of Sin. It has been said that one might frame an argument of sorts against the Deity of Jesus, against the inspiration of the Scriptures, or against the need for religion, but that it is impossible for anyone to successfully deny the existence of sin. The universality of sin is an ever-present fact. The consciousness of guilt breaks forth in the literature of all peoples. Legalists, statesmen, philosophers, and poets alike testify, with Pascal, that accountable persons are unrighteous, for each one tends to himself, and the bent toward self is the beginning of all disorder. The consequences of sinsickness, suffering, deathare apparent on every hand. We can escape the guilt of sin, through the efficacy of the atoning blood of Christ, but none can avoid its consequences. Sin is here, there, everywhere, and only the morally blind will deny the fact. Nor do we obviate the fact of sin by resorting to such meretricious terms as immaturity, irrationality, missing the mark, etc., to sugar-coat it.

5. The Adversary of Souls (John 8:42-47, Ephesians 6:10-18, 1 Peter 5:8-9). The Bible teaches unequivocally that there is a personal Devil: the doctrine runs throughout Scripture from beginning to end. As the enemy of all Good, Lucifer is presented in Scripture as Satan (Abaddon in Hebrew, Apollyon in Greek) in the Old Testament: (Revelation 9:11; Job 26:6; Job 28:22; Proverbs 15:11; Psalms 88:11); as the Devil, in the New Testament, the chief of the evil spirits (fallen angels, demons, 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6). The word Satan is of Hebrew origin, meaning Adversary, Accuser, Enemy, etc.

That there is a personal Devil is evident from the following Scriptures: (1) The testimony of Jesus (John 8:44; John 12:31; Matthew 13:38-39; Matthew 25:41; Matthew 22:29-30: these statements are too explicit to allow for the notion that in speaking of angels and demons, Jesus was merely accommodating His language to the Jewish traditions of His time); (2) the testimony of the Apostles (1 John 3:8; Revelation 12:9; Revelation 20:2; Revelation 20:7; Revelation 20:10; 1 Peter 5:8; 1 Peter 4:4; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 2 Corinthians 11:14; Ephesians 2:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:9; 1 Timothy 1:20); (3) the epithets by which he is described, e.g., the prince of this world (John 14:30; John 16:11), the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4), the prince of the powers of the air (Ephesians 2:2), the prince of demons (Matthew 12:24), the tempter (Matthew 4:3), the adversary (1 Peter 5:8), the accuser of the saints (Revelation 12:10, Job 1:6-12), the old serpent (Revelation 12:9), the first liar and the first murderer (John 8:44); (4) the terms (similes and metaphors) by which his activities are described, as, e.g., a fowler (Psalms 124:7, 1 Timothy 3:7, 2 Timothy 2:26), a sower of tares (Matthew 13:25; Matthew 13:39), a wolf (John 10:12), a roaring lion (1 Peter 5:8), a serpent (Revelation 12:9; Revelation 20:2), a dragon (Revelation 16:13). These terms all suggest Satan's total depravity, and his diabolical malice and cunning.

The testimony of Scripture that there is a personal Devil is corroborated by human common sense and reason. If there is no personal Devil, then man must be held accountable for all the evil in the world, and such a burden of guilt would be overwhelming. Why is it more absurd that a moral being should have sinned against God in past ages, than that moral beings should sin against Him now, as obviously they do? Belief in a personal devil is far more reasonable than belief in an impersonal spirit of evil: as a matter of fact, impersonal spirit is a contradiction in itself, for spirit essentially is personality. Moreover, in view of the fact that between man and the lowest forms of life there are numberless graduations of being, why is it thought incredible that between God and man there should be ethereal creatures of higher than human intelligence? One of the most ingenious devices the Devil employs in deceiving people is that of selling them the lie that he does not actually exist. Let every intelligent being beware this diabolical and totally destructive lie.

According to Biblical teaching, the history of man is but the facade behind which Satan and his rebel host have sought relentlessly, and with venomous hatred, to defeat God's eternal purpose and plan for His Creation. This unceasing conflict, characterized by diabolical vindictiveness, has continued through several phases as follows:

1. The first phase of a direct frontal attack. It would seem that, on the specious plea that God, in asserting His sovereignty and establishing moral law, was proving Himself to be a tyrant, Satan persuaded some of the angelic host to enlist under his banner. Their objective, apparently, was to break away from all restraint: they were the first anarchists. (Libertinism, the notion that every man should be permitted to do just as he pleases, according to the teaching of Aristippus of Cyrene in ancient timesto follow his natural impulses, according to the more sophisticated version, the credo of Rousseau and his so-called progressive education disciplesthe confusion of liberty with license, is widespread in our time, But lawlessness is godlessness, and vice versa,) Under Satan's persuasion, his rebellious cohorts had the effrontery to undertake a personal encounter with the celestial forces of good. The immediate result was the expulsion of the rebels from their original estate (proper habitation) (Luke 10:18, 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6). Having been unceremoniously cast out of Heaven, Satan became the god of this world, that is, of the kingdom of this world (John 12:31; John 14:30; John 16:11; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 2:2). Butwhy did not God segregate these rebel spirits in hell at the time of their defection? Why does He even to this day allow them to roam the cosmos at will, seeking whom they may devour (Job 1:6-7, 1 Peter 5:8)? Of course, we have no clear answer to this question. It would seem, however, that the Divine plan was to permit these devils to demonstrate their true character, their total depravity, that by so doing they would prove themselves fit only for Hell, and in this manner would vindicate the justice of God before all intelligences, both angelic and human, of the entire cosmos (1 Corinthians 6:3). This may have been the reason why Satan was permitted to appear in the presence of God to accuse the patriarch Job (Job 1:6-12), and why he is permitted to continue in his Satanic role as Accuser of the saints (Revelation 12:10). It might be well to consider also that there is no evidence that our Heavenly Father had, prior to Satan's rebellion, ever made any demonstration of His great love for His creatures (that supreme demonstration, Supreme Sacrifice, awaited the death on the Cross of His Only Begotten Son); that only His eternal power and divinity (Romans 1:20, Isaiah 57:15) had as yet been revealed. At any rate, we have no complete answer for this question (Deuteronomy 29:29), probably because it is not our right, as creatures, to have it, or because we could not comprehend the depth of this mystery, even if some attempt were made to reveal it, because of the inadequacy of human language to communicate the ineffable. Be that as it may, we are told expressly that, although cast out of Heaven and doomed to walk up and down in the earth, the ultimate segregation of these rebel angels will take place at the end of our age (aeon), that is, at the termination of the Reign of Messiah (1 Corinthians 15:20-28, Philippians 2:5-11, Revelation 20:10).

It would be well at this point to take note of the cases of demonology reported in Scripture. That this was something more than insanity is obvious for several reasons, as follows: (a) From such passages as Matthew 4:24, in which divers diseases are clearly distinguished from torments, and those possessed with demons from the epileptic and palsied. (b) From the fact that these evil spirits invariably recognized, and explicitly confessed Jesus for what He wasthe Eternal Logos (Matthew 8:29; Mark 1:24; Mark 3:11; Mark 5:7; Luke 4:34; Acts 19:15; James 2:19). These evil spirits also confessed the presence and work of the Holy Spirit in the personal ministry of the Apostles and their co-laborers: evil cannot remain silent, but must speak out the truth, in the presence of holiness (Acts 13:6-12; Acts 16:16-18; Acts 19:13-19). (c) From the fact that these evil spirits begged to be confined (localized) in physical bodies, even in bodies of swine, to escape some measure of their consuming restlessness (going to and fro in the earth and. walking up and down in it, Job 1:7, 1 Peter 5:8; cf. Matthew 8:28-33, Mark 5:10-19). (d) From the fact that they obeyed immediately when the Lord commanded, or even just willed, them to come out, that is, exorcised them (Matthew 4:24; Matthew 8:32; Mark 1:25-27; Mark 5:10-19; Luke 4:35). Note that the Apostles, through their possession of the baptismal measure of the Holy Spirit's powers and graces (Acts 1:1-8; Acts 2:1-4; Luke 24:45-49; John 20:21-23; Hebrews 2:3-4), also had this power of exorcism (Luke 9:1; Acts 16:18; Acts 19:12), (e) From the fact of their admission that their ultimate destiny would be eternal segregation in Hell with all their ilk, and their begging at least a temporary respite from the infliction of this just penalty for their sins (Matthew 25:41; Matthew 8:29art thou come hither to torment us before the time? Mark 5:7torment me not.). Why should not these evil spirits have recognized Jesus for just who He was? Why should they not have recognized the working of the Spirit's power? Had they not been with Jesus (as the Logos), and with the Spirit, in eternity, prior to the creation of the world? Had they not been cast out of Heaven along with their leader, Satan (Luke 10:18), when they had rebelled against the Divine government? Why, then, should these various Scriptures be interpreted as describing forms of insanity when they clearly indicate diabolism?

2. The second phase: the attack on the generic seed of the Woman. (1). On seeing our first parents living in complete happiness in Eden, Satan, thirsting for revenge, set about to seduce them from their state of innocence, and to marand, if possible, to destroythe image of God in which they had been created. Let us imagine a man who has a neighbor whom he hatesand a hater is always a murderer at heart (1 John 3:15); this man knows he cannot prevail in a personal encounter with this neighbor; but the latter has a faithful old dog, long a protector of the family and a cherished pet; so this would-be murderer proceeds to get revenge by stealing out under cover of darkness and poisoning the animal. In like manner, Satan, who dared not attempt a second frontal encounter with God, made his way stealthily into Eden and exerted his diabolical cunning on Adam and Eve. We all know the sordid story. The Woman yielded to the seductive voice of the tempter, and the Man, apparently out of his love for her, followed her into the transgression (2 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Timothy 2:14). Thus did Satan murder the whole human race: by bringing sin into the world, he brought death, for that all sinned (Romans 5:12-13; Romans 3:23; Romans 6:23; John 8:44; Hebrews 2:14-15; Hebrews 9:27; Genesis 3:19; Genesis 5:5; James 1:13-15). (2). No doubt the Devil gloated over that apparent victory. Imagine his consternation, then, on hearing the Divine pronouncement that the Seed of the Woman should bruise the Old Serpent's head (Genesis 3:14-15; Romans 16:20), that is, ultimately bringing to defeat his nefarious schemes. May we not rightly suppose that Satan did not know what, precisely, the word seed implied here (although he had superhuman knowledge, he did not have omniscience), and may well have interpreted it to designate the genus that descended from the Woman (Genesis 3:20)? Setting out, then, to frustrate what he thought to be the meaning of this mysterious oracle, his first move was to impel the Woman's firstborn, Cain, to clobber his brother Abel to death, in an act of jealous rage; and so the first crime was committed in the very shadow of Eden, and it was the awful crime of fratricide (Genesis 4:1-8). Still and all, the birth and naming of Seth (substitute) must have been understood by the Devil to mean that the battle had just been joined and there would be more to come. (3). His next move was a bold one. By fostering the intermarriage of the pious Sethites (sons of God, that is, as belonging to the Messianic Line) and the irreligious Cainites (daughters of men, Genesis 6:1-4) He brought about a condition of universal wickedness (Genesis 6:5): it always happens that when the good mingles with the bad, on the level of the bad, the whole becomes bad. Imagine Satan's glee on hearing God say, I will destroy man, etc. (Genesis 6:7); and then imagine, if possible, his embittered frustration when he heard God commanding Noah, Make thee an ark of gopher wood (Genesis 6:14). The Flood came, and the race was not destroyed, as Satan had planned, but was rebuilt through righteous Noah and his progeny (Genesis 6:8-10).

3. The third phase: Satan's war on the elect of the Old Covenant) the fleshly seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacobthe Children of Israel (Matthew 8:11-12). (Election is election to responsibilities, not to special privileges, except, of course, only as responsibilities to God are in essence privileges per se for all who love Him: Romans 8:28, Matthew 11:29-30, 1 John 5:3.) (1) It was inevitable that when God called Abraham's fleshly seed to become the temporary custodians of the worship of the living and true God (monotheism), Satan should be stirred again to every conceivable effort to frustrate the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Promise (Genesis 12:1-3; Genesis 17:9-14; Genesis 17:19; Genesis 26:1-5; Genesis 28:13-17; Exodus 2:24; Exodus 6:4; Exodus 19:5-6; Exodus 34:27-28; Leviticus 26:9; Deuteronomy 5:1-5; Deuteronomy 9:9-11; Deuteronomy 26:16-19; Deuteronomy 29:10-13; Judges 2-1; 1 Chronicles 16:13-19; Jeremiah 31:31-34; Neh., ch. 9; Luke 1:72-73; Acts 3:25; Acts 7:51-53; Galatians 3:15-19). Hence, under the very shadow of Sinai, while thunders and lightnings bespoke the presence of God in communion with Moses atop the holy mount, the people down below were incited to cast and set up a golden bull (the symbol of the Cult of Fertility, in which ritual prostitution played a leading role) and worship it in the manner of the Egyptian orgies with which they had once been all too familiar; and three thousand paid the price of their idolatrous folly by death on the spot (Exo., chs. 19, 24, 32; cf. Acts 2:37-42; Acts 7:38-41). (2) Again, because of their oft-repeated acts of rebellion against God and His servant Moses, of the entire adult nation that had crossed the Red Sea only two survived the forty years of wandering in the Wilderness, to cross. the Jordan under Joshua into the Promised Land. These two were men of great faith, Caleb and Joshua (Numbers 13:6; Numbers 13:16; Numbers 13:30; Numbers 14:6; Numbers 14:24; Numbers 14:30; Joshua 14:6-15). All the rest left only their bleaching bones behindmute memorials indeed of their gross unbelief. (3) Later, the Devil stirred up the people to clamor for a king so that they might ape the practices of their idolatrous neighbors. Against the counsel of God through Samuel (1 Sam., ch. 8), the people crowned Saul, who turned out to be a miserable failure. We all know the tragic accounts of the apostasies, cruelties, wars, orgies, etc., of the royal courts both in Samaria and in Jerusalem. Ultimately, in the very face of God's special messengers, the great Prophets, and their counsels of individual righteousness and social justice, and their warnings of the disaster that would befall the nation for ignoring the God of their fathers and His moral law (Jeremiah 18:5-12), the whole nation became corrupt, vessels fit only for destruction. Then it was that Jerusalem was trodden down by the Gentiles (Samaria had already fallen to the Assyrians), first by the Chaldeans and finally by the Romans, and God permitted the inhabitants to be carried off into the Captivity and finally dispersed among all peoples of the then known world (Jer., ch. 52; Isaiah 63:10-19; Neh., ch. 9; Matthew 23:37-38, ch. 24; Mark, ch. 13; Luke 13:34-35; Luke 19:41-44, ch. 21; 1 Peter 1:10-12). (Cf. especially Acts 7:51-53, Acts 2:23; Acts 2:36; Acts 3:14-21; Luke 23:13-25, Matthew 27:20-26; esp. the horribly tragic implicationsin the light of subsequent historyof Matthew 27:25.) (4) Thus Satan's conflict with the Old Covenant elect came to an end in their Captivity and Dispersion, that is to say, apparently in their forfeiture of their Divine election and apparently in the frustration of God's Eternal Purpose. (Cf. Isaiah 46:8-11.) (Review here the gruesome story, as given us by Josephus, of the two-year siege of Jerusalem by the Roman legions under Vespasian and Titus, A.D. 68-70. We are told that the streets of the city were ploughed up, and that literally not one stone of the Temple was left upon another. Cf. the prophetic testimony of Jesus: Matthew 24:1-2, Mark 13:1-2; Luke 19:41-44; Luke 21:5-6.) (5) Apparently Satan's triumph was complete. But only apparently! Because it was now dawning on the Devil's understanding that the oracular utterance respecting the Seed of the Woman was to have its fulfilment in a Person, in the Person to be titled Messiah, Christos, Christ, The Anointed One. The numerous declarations of the Prophets of old that the Coming One should be of the Seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Galatians 3:16), of the tribal lineage of Judah (Genesis 49:10, Numbers 24:17, Psalms 60:7, Revelation 5:5), of the royal lineage of David (Isaiah 11:1-5, Ruth 4:21-22; 2 Samuel 7:12-16; 2 Samuel 23:1-5; Psalms 89:3-4; Psalms 89:34-37; Psalms 132:10-18; Isaiah 9:6-8; Isaiah 11:10; Isaiah 55:3-4; Jeremiah 23:5-6; Amos 9:11; Matthew 1:1; Matthew 9:27; Matthew 21:9; Matthew 22:41-42; Acts 2:25-36; Revelation 5:5); that this Coming One, whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting, should be born of a virgin, in Bethlehem of Judea (Micah 5:2; Isaiah 7:13-14; Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-35); that He should be the great Prophet like unto Moses. (Deuteronomy 18:15-19;, Acts 3:19-26; Acts 7:37); that among His numerous other names He should be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6);that He should come from Edom with crimsoned garments (Isaiah 63:1), and tread the winepress of the judgment of God alone (Isaiah 63:3; Matthew 26:36-46; Matthew 27:46); that He should be the Supreme Sacrifice for the sin of the world (Isaiah 53:1-9, John 1:29, 1 Corinthians 5:7);that He should be raised up from the dead and crowned King of kings and Lord of lords (Psalms 16:10; Psalms 24:7-10; Acts 2:22-32; Acts 13:32-37; 1 Corinthians 15:1-20; 1 Timothy 6:13-16; Revelation 19:11-16); that He should be King-Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek (Genesis 14:17-20; Psalms 110:1-4; Hebrews 6:13-20; Hebrews 7:1-3, etc.). As this Messianic anthem swelled louder and louder, attaining its full crescendo in the life and work of John the Baptizer, the last of the School of the Prophets, Satan began to realize at long last that God planned, when the fulness of the time should come, to invade the kingdom of this world as Incarnate Deity in the Person of The Anointed, and that the destiny of all intelligent creatures of the universe was to be entrusted to the determination of this Coming One, Messiah, Christ. In view of this realization that God's Remedial System was to be entrusted for execution, not to the generic seed, nor to any particular ethnic seed, of the Woman, but to a single Person, the God-Man (Galatians 1:16), the Seed of Woman exclusively (Matthew 1:18-25, Luke 1:26-38, Galatians 4:4), there was but one course for Satan to pursue, and that was to await the appearing of this Redeemer whose defeat he must encompass in some manner or himself suffer eternal segregation in Hell. This was precisely the course that Satan did pursue: hence, the relative silencethe holy hush, one might saythat characterized the interim between the time of Malachi and that of John the Baptizer.

4. The fourth phase: that of the climactic struggle between Satan and Messiah, Christ Jesus. (1) The prophet Isaiah had stated explicitly that God Himself would give a sign (special proof) of Messiah's appearance in the world: this identifying sign was to be that a virgin should conceive and bear a Son who should be named Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 2:11-12; Luke 2:34). Hence, moved by such mysterious portents as the Star in the heavens, the message of the Angelic Choir (Luke 2:8-15), the gathering at the Manger, the Visit of the Magi, etc., Satan's first act was to incite the cruel Herod to put the infant to death. But God sent His angel to warn Joseph and Mary, and they fled into Egypt with the Child, returning to Nazareth only after Herod's death (Matthew 2:1-23). (2) After some years of silence (Luke 2:52), we see Jesus appearing before John the Baptizer and requiring John to baptize Him. Hence, the profound significance of the events which occurred at the Jordan: after Jesus had come up out of the water, not only did the Holy Spirit anoint Him by descending in a dovelike form upon Him, but the Father Himself broke the stillness of centuries for the first time since Sinai to declare vocally, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased (Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11, Luke 3:21-22). By these external acts the Holy Spirit officially anointed (inducted) Jesus into His threefold office of Prophet, Priest, and King (Psalms 2:1-9; Acts 4:26; Acts 10:36-42), and the Heavenly Father officially introduced Him to the world as His Only Begotten Son. This anointing (christ-ing, from chrio, literally, smear, rub on, hence, anoint) by the Spirit and this avouching of His Sonship by the Father left no room for Satan to doubt that this truly was Messiah. (Note also the identifying sign given to the Herald, John, upon whomsoever ye shall see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon Him, etc., John 1:29-34.) These identifications were a direct challenge to the Devil; as if God were saying to him, This is He about whom the prophets testified and whose advent the world has long awaited: this is Messiah, my Only Begotten; therefore, do your worst!

(3) The Devil joined battle at once, but in the Temptation which followed (Matthew 4:1-11), he came out second best. Butdid he give up after this first failure? By no means. Although it was necessary for angels to minister to the well-nigh exhausted Victor, the Devil departed from Him only for a season (Luke 4:13). He returned later in the most powerful temptation of all, in the Garden of Gethsemane. This time it was the temptation to yield to the elemental burden of sheer loneliness (aloneness): to the tragic sense of life itself. ThisUnamuno has called it the supreme example of the agony of Christianityit was necessary for Jesus to experience (Hebrews 4:15). This He did experience in the Garden, and the soul agony was so poignant that great drops of His blood mingled with His sweat, to sanctify the ground under the old olive trees (Matthew 26:36-46, Mark 14:32-43, Luke 22:39-46). However, when Jesus emerged from Gethsemane, He had won the victoryover Himself, that is, over His human nature, and over His arch-enemy. Now He was fully prepared for the Cross. Satan now realized, probably for the first time, that He could never win in a moral conflict with the Source of all good; under great urgency, therefore, he set about preparing the way for the use of his most potent weapon, death (Hebrews 2:14-15), that is, to hasten the murder of the Son of God.

(4) The Tragedy of the Ages is now pushed vehemently to its denouement, as Satan's hatred builds up into diabolical rage. The Lord of glory is betrayed by one of His own disciples (Luke 22:3), and denied by another (Matthew 26:69-75). He is rejected by His own people (John 1:11), and sentenced to death by their ecclesiastical bigots, who then pressure Pilate, the Roman governor, albeit against his better judgment, into ratifying the death penalty (Acts 3:13-15; Acts 7:51-53; Matthew 27:15-26; Mark 14:53-65; Mark 15:6-15; Luke 22:66-71; Luke 23:13-25; John 19:1-16; Acts 2:22-24). One cannot help wondering: Why such vindictiveness toward one whoin the eyes of those who were inflicting such cruelties upon Himwas merely an unlearned Galilean peasant? Think of the treacherous kiss, the scourging, the spitting on Him, the crowning (laceration) with thorns, the humiliation of dying between two common criminals, of having ignorant Roman (pagan) soldiers gamble for the few garments that were His sole material possessions; and finally, the death itself, by crucifixion, the most cruel and ignominious form of death that the inhumanity of man ever invented (the driving of spikes through the living quivering flesh of His hands and His feet)! Could all this have been inspired by any other source than sheer diabolical malice? What had this humble Personage done to evoke such fiendish mental and physical cruelties? Did not the Holy Spirit provide the certain answer to this question through the Apostle Peter: He went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil: for God was with him (Acts 10:38)? It is an unfailing characteristic of Evil that its hatred of the Good assumes diabolical proportions sooner or later, Moreover, is it not ironical that Satan, of course unwittingly, was himself bringing about the literal fulfilment of the prophetic picture of the Suffering Servant of Jehovah (Isa., ch. 53)? Misunderstood, misrepresented, rejected, betrayed, denied, deserted, and seemingly abandoned by the Father Himself, truly this Sacrifice on the Crossthe innocent for the guiltywas treading the winepress alone! Even the Heavenly Father, out of sheer empathy, we are constrained to think, turned His face away momentarily from this awful spectacle on Calvary (Matthew 27:46). Satan and his minions must have howled with fiendish glee, when Jesus, on the Cross, said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit (John 19:30, Luke 23:46), and then bowed His head and gave up the ghost. To Satan, this meant that Messiah was dead, that at long last God's redemptive Plan was forever frustrated.

(5) Imagine, then, Satan's utter consternationimagine how his gloating was turned into cursingon hearing the pronouncement of the angel at the Empty Tomb, He is not here, for he is risen, even as he said (Matthew 28:6-7). Yes, Satan and his rebel host reckoned they had achieved complete victory when Jesus died on the Cross. But they had reckoned without the working of God's almighty Power which he wrought when He raised up Jesus from the dead and set Him at His own right hand in the heavenly places, and crowned Him the Acting Sovereign of the universe (Ephesians 1:15-23; Matthew 28-18; Colossians 1:16-18; Acts 2:22-36; Philippians 2:5-11; 1 Timothy 6:13-16; 1 Corinthians 15:20-28). The Empty Tomb was the final and incontrovertible proof to Satan and his minions that, although physical death was the limit of diabolical power, it was but the occasion for a demonstration of the strength of God's Almighty Arm; that the death and resurrection of Jesustrue Messiahwas but an integral part of the Cosmic Plan of God to bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. and deliver all them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage (Hebrews 2:9-16). It meant that the ultimate end of the Divine Plan is nothing short of the death of death itself (Genesis 3:19, Isaiah 46:8-11, Acts 2:23, Romans 8:22-23, 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, 2 Corinthians 5:1-10). (Note also the teaching of Jesus, Matthew 12:38-40. That is to say, as Jonah came forth from the belly of the big fish in due time, so did our Lord come forth from the bowels of the earth: in a word, the one and only divine sign, vouchsafed all subsequent generations, of the ultimate defeat of Evil and the ultimate triumph of the Good, is the resurrection of the Prince of Life from Joseph's tomb. Christianity is the only faith known to mankind that has in it an empty tombthe Empty Tomb; and this Tomb is empty because death had no dominion over the One whose body occupied it for the brief period of its entombment (Acts 2:22-36). This, Empty Tomb is the crowning glory of Christianity.) It is significant, is it not, that the affirmation of the Resurrection was the fundamental motif of the apostolic testimony (Acts 2:32; Acts 10:40-42; Acts 17:30-31; Acts 26:19-23; Romans 1:4; Romans 10:9-10, etc.)?

5. The fifth and final phase: Satan's last-ditch efforts to bring down to Hell (with the lost of all ages) the spiritual seed of Abraham, God's elect of the New Covenant (Galatians 3:23-29).

(1) The Resurrection of Jesus, the Advent of the Holy Spirit, and the Incorporation of the Church were the events in the development of the Remedial System which made inevitable the ultimate defeat of Satan and his ilk (1 John 3:8, Revelation 20:7-10). Today with all the desperation of a lost spirit engaged in a hopeless cause, he makes war on the Church. Realizing full well that he faces eternal segregation in Hell (Matthew 25:41), he seeks only to drag down the human race, and especially the Church, into the pit with him. Every true saint of God will realize as he presses on toward the final victory of faith (1 John 5:4-5), that

Satan ever watches round him,

Seeks to find the weakest part,

And in moments most unheeded,

Quickly throws his fiery dart.

Ephesians 6:12our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers. against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in heavenly places. God's Eternal Purpose, that which He purposed in Christ Jesus, was that unto the principalities and powers in the heavenly places might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom of God (Ephesians 3:8-12). (2) No doubt all Christians are subject to temptation by these unseen evil personalities who roam our cosmos. No doubt the wicked angels influence us to sinful impulses by the power of suggestion (telepathy) which is inherent in all types of personality, to which we surrender unless we keep ourselves clad in the whole armor of God (Ephesians 6:1-20). By subtle suggestions, no doubt, they seek to entice us into sin, to cause us to injure ourselves in body and spirit, and finally to plunge us into perdition (Psalms 91:3, Luke 8:12, John 13:2, 1 Corinthians 7:5, 2 Corinthians 2:9-11, 1 Timothy 4:1, 2 Timothy 2:26, Ephesians 4:27, James 4:7, 1 John 3:7-8). Note what God promises His saints, however, with respect to the wiles of these evil spirits (1 Corinthians 10:13, 2 Peter 2:9, 1 John 1:8-10). That we may be reminded continually of our Heavenly Father's guidance and protection, Jesus teaches us to pray: and bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (Matthew 6:13). As in the case of Job, diabolical malignity is always circumscribed by the power of the Almighty (Job 1:12; Job 2:6); the devils could not even plunge into a herd of swine without the Savior's permission (Matthew 8:28-34). (3) What means shall the saints employ to resist the wiles of the Devil? The most effective means of resisting temptation are these: knowledge of the Word of God and the ability to use it with discrimination (it is noteworthy that Jesus, both in the Wilderness and in the Garden, relied on the Word and Will of God: Matthew 4:1-11; Matthew 26:34-44; cf. Ephesians 6:16, Hebrews 4:12, Isaiah 49:2, Hosea 6:5); meditation and prayer (Matthew 4:1-2, Luke 22:39-46); the faithful keeping of the Lord's appointments (Acts 2:42, 1 Corinthians 11:23-30, Hebrews 10:23-25).

6. The vindication of God's Absolute Justice (including His Love), impugned by the presumptuous lies of Satan and his cohorts, will be the fundamental objective of the Last Judgment.

What shall be the final outcome of this age-long conflict between the forces of Good and the forces of Evil? The Scripture answer to this question is explicit, positive, and challenging: the outcome will be, through the redemptive work of Christ and the sanctifying activity of the Holy Spirit, nothing short of the complete triumph of God (1 John 3:7-10, 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, Philippians 2:9-11, Revelation 2:7-10). On this matter the Bible leaves us in no doubt whatever. It teaches expressly as follows: (1) There will be a final universal Judgment in which all intelligent beings will stand before the Righteous Judge, to render a final accounting of their stewardship (Matthew 11:20-24; Matthew 12:41-42; Matthew 25:31-46; Acts 17:30-31; Romans 2:16; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Hebrews 9:27-28; Revelation 20:11-15). Both the just and the unjust (the saved and the lost) shall have part in the general resurrection which must, of course, precede the Judgment (John 5:28-29; John 11:24; Acts 24:15; 1 Corinthians 15:22; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10; Revelation 20:13). This Last Judgment is an event to be expected in the future (Acts 24:25, Hebrews 10:27); an event that is to follow physical death (Hebrews 9:27), an event that is to be attended by all humanity (Matthew 12:41-42; Matthew 16:27; Matthew 25:31-32; Acts 17:30-31; 2 Corinthians 5:10), an event for which those who are evil are reserved (2 Peter 2:4-10; Matthew 13:24-30; Matthew 13:36-43). (2) At this Last Judgment, the Judge will be the Lord Jesus Christ. At His first Advent, the Only Begotten came as the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29, Isaiah 53:7, Acts 8:32, 1 Corinthians 5:7, 1 Peter 1:19, Revelation 5:6; Revelation 5:8; Revelation 5:12-13; Revelation 6:1). At His second Advent, He will come as the Judge of the living and the dead (Acts 10:42; Matthew 3:12; Matthew 7:22-23; Matthew 16:27; Matthew 25:31; Luke 22:30; John 5:22-29; Romans 2:16; Romans 14:9-12; 2 Corinthians 5:10). Though God is the Judge of all (Hebrews 12:23), yet His judicial activity is exercised through Christ, both in the present state of things and at the Last Day (John 5:22; Matthew 19:28; Matthew 25:31-46; Matthew 28:18; Acts 17:31; 1 Corinthians 15:20-28; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Philippians 2:7-11; Revelation 3:21). Christ will appear in the Judgment in His threefold capacity. As Prophet, He will reveal the Father to His saints in glory (John 16:25; John 17:24-26); as High Priest, He will present His saints before the Throne as an elect race, a redeemed people, a purchased possession (1 Peter 2:9); as King, He will judge the world in righteousness (Acts 17:31).

(3) The subjects of the Last Judgment will be the entire human race, and the evil angels: all humanity, each person possessed of a body reunited with spirit, the dead having been raised, and the living having been changed (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17; 1 Corinthians 15:51-52; Matthew 25:31-33; Revelation 20:12-13); the evil angels (2 Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6), the good angels appearing only as attendants and ministers of the Righteous Judge (Matthew 13:39-42; Matthew 24:31; Matthew 25:31; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10; 1 Timothy 5:21; 2 Timothy 2:10). (4) The design of the Last Judgment, in the Eternal Purpose and Plan of God, is to be the revelation of the righteous judgment of God. That is, not the ascertainment of the moral character of those appearing for judgment, but the revelation of God's righteousness, justice, and holiness. The notion that God will line all men up in rows and look them over, as in a military inspection, to ascertain their moral standing, is absurd. Our moral standing is known to God fully every moment of our lives (Psalms 139:7-10; Job 26:6; Job 28:10; Proverbs 15:3; Jeremiah 23:23-24; Acts 17:24-28; Hebrews 4:13). Judgment will be, rather, the full and complete revelation of God's righteousness to all intelligent creatures, both angels and men. Thus the saints will be presented in the judgment clad in the fine linen of righteousness (Revelation 19:8-14), their sins having been covered by the atoning blood of Christ, forgiven and forgotten, put away from them forever (Psalms 103:12, Jeremiah 31:34, Hebrews 8:12), that is, clothed in glory and honor and incorruption, the habiliments of eternal redemption (Romans 2:7, Hebrews 9:12). In their manifestation, the ineffable greatness of God's love, mercy, and salvation will be fully disclosed to all His creatures. The lost will be presented in the Judgment as they really are, that is, in all the realism of their neglect, rebelliousness, and iniquity. Even their secret sins will be brought to light and revealed to the whole intelligent creation. For the first time, perhaps, in the presence of Infinite Holiness, they will come to realize the enormity of their sinful lives, and the corresponding awfulness of their loss of God and Heaven; and the result will be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth (of remorse, despair, and possibly rage occasioned by their utter frustration: Matthew 8:12; Matthew 13:42; Matthew 13:50; Matthew 22:13; Matthew 24:51; Matthew 25:30; Luke 13:28; Revelation 6:16-17). This final demonstration will be sufficient to prove to all intelligent creatures that Satan's charges against God have, from the beginning, been false and malicious, proceeding from a totally depraved being. The result will be the complete vindication of God Almighty, which is, in itself, the primary design of the Last Judgment (1 Corinthians 6:2-3). This final demonstration of God's righteousness and of His love, in the salvation of His saints through the Atonement which He Himself provided to sustain the majesty of His law (Romans 3:21-26), will be sufficient of itself to condemn Satan and all his kind.

(5) Following the Great Judgment, both the saved and the lost will enter upon their respective eternal states of being (Matthew 25:34; Matthew 25:41; John 5:29;Revelation 20:11-15; Revelation 21:1-8). As Jesus has so clearly stated, between the two classes there will be a great gulf fixed (Luke 16:26), that is, the verdict will be final (Revelation 22:11, cf. Job 14:1-4). In all likelihood, this judgment will be one of self-examination and self-determination: individual conscience, confronted by absolute Holiness (Perfection: Matthew 5:48, Hebrews 6:1), will send each person to his own proper place, as in the case of Judas (Acts 1:25)the place determined by his own moral effort in this present probationary life. For the redeemed, this final state will be that of Union with God (the Beatific Vision), the union of the human mind with the Mind of God in knowledge and the union of the human will with the Will of God in love (1 Corinthians 13:9-13; 1 John 1:1-4; 1 John 4:7-21). For the lost, the final state will be that of the complete loss of God and all Good (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10), Scripturally designated the second death (Revelation 2:11; Revelation 20:6; Revelation 20:14; Revelation 21:8; cf. Matthew 10:28; Matthew 23:33; Matthew 25:30; Matthew 25:41; Mark 9:43-48; Romans 6:23). (Cf. Matthew 25:46. Note the use of the word eternal here: whatever it means with reference to the timeless state of the redeemed, it means the same with reference to the timeless state of the lost. Eternity in Scripture seems to mean, not stretched-out time, but timelessness: it is impossible for the mind, in man's present state, to grasp the significance of this term.) It should be noted here, finally, that the success of the Divine Cosmic Plan is to be determined, not by the number who are saved, but by the greatness of the salvation that God will ultimately reveal in His saints. Should only one man appear in the Judgment, clothed in glory and honor and incorruption (Romans 2:7), redeemed in spirit and soul and body (Romans 8:23, 1 Thessalonians 5:23), this one example will prove to be so indescribably glorious as to be sufficient to vindicate Divine Justice and Love (Isaiah 46:9-11). (Love is, of course, an essential aspect of justice: otherwise an Atonement would not have been necessary. As a noted preacher once said, A God who is all love would be an unjust God. This points up the fallacyand the follyof the various cults of Universalism.)

7. Diabolism has existed in all ages. (1) This is evident from the divine anathemas on such practices as idolatry (worship of graven images, of the heavenly bodiessun, moon, stars); worship of animals and birds and insects, even of the human reproductive organs (phallic worship); sorcery, divination, augury, necromancy, in fact, all kinds of occultism. (These are overlapping terms, of course: cf. consulting with familiar spirits, that is, through spirit-mediums, fortune-tellers, etc.) (Exodus 20:4-6; Exodus 22:20; Leviticus 19:4; Leviticus 26:1; Deuteronomy 4:15-19; Deuteronomy 4:23-24; Deuteronomy 7:25-26; Deuteronomy 27:15; 2 Chronicles 11:15; Psalms 97:7; Psalms 115:4; Isaiah 42:7; Jeremiah 10:11; 1 Corinthians 8:4; 1 Corinthians 10:14; 1 John 5:21.) (2) The Cult of Fertility which flourished throughout the pagan world in ancient times, included the worship of the Earth-Mother (Terra Mater) the essential feature of which was ritual prostitution (on the theory of imitative magic, namely, that human physical coition enhanced the fertility of the fields); phallic worship, that is veneration of the images of the male reproductive organs (this was practised in Athens in the time of the so-called Enlightenment, that is, the age of Socrates and Plato); and the worship of animals noted for their prolificness, such as the bull, the snake, the he-goat, etc. In the days of the Empire, the Roman Saturnalia was a period of complete public sexual promiscuity. (Cf. Exodus 32:7-8, Leviticus 17:7, and especially Romans 1:18-32.) (3) Note also Biblical references to devil-worship (Deuteronomy 12:31; Deuteronomy 32:17; Psalms 106:37; 2 Kings 17:17; Ezekiel 16:20-22; 1 Corinthians 10:20; Revelation 9:20). (4) Note that as a rule these occult practices incurred the death penalty (by stoning) under the Mosaic Law (Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 19:31; Leviticus 20:6; Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:9-14; Jeremiah 27:9-10). King Saul's downfall was complete when he consorted with the Witch of Endor (1 Samuel 15:23, also ch. 28). (5) In the New Testament these are sins that will damn the soul (Luke 16:27-31; Acts 15:20; Acts 17:29; 1 Corinthians 8:1-6; 1 Corinthians 10:14; 1 Corinthians 10:19-22; Galatians 5:20; 1 John 5:21; Revelation 21:8; Revelation 22:15). (Note the quacks who tried to emulate the methods of the Apostles; Acts 8:9-13; Acts 18:24; Acts 13:6-12; Acts 19:13-20.) These practices were all manifestations of diabolism in Bible times. It is well-known that devil-worship has been a feature of some kinds of so-called spiritualism even in modern times. (Suggestions: Research into the history of the Kabala, and into the history of black magic in the Middle Ages. Read the Pharsalia, Book VI, by the Latin poet Lucan, for a vivid account of these horrible practices in Thessaly; also the tragedy by Euripides, the Bacchae, for a study of orgiastic religion. Look into contemporary voodooism as practised by West Indian Negroes. Hexing belongs in this category: see Hardy's novel, The Return of the Native, for the hexing of Eustacia Vye, who had acquired the reputation in the community of being a witch.)

8. Does diabolism exist in our day?It is difficult to think otherwise, else how could we account for the following: (1) the monstrous inhuman careers of a Hitler, a Goebels, a Stalin, and their ilk; (2) the vicious sex crimes, thrill murders, senseless killings, horrible forms of torture (e.g., flaying a prisoner of war alive and making the skin into a lampshade), the cruelties of concentration camps, racism and attempted genocide, the brain-washing of captives taken in battle, etc.; (3) the prevalence of organized cults devoted exclusively to the spread of atheism. (This is something new in the world: ethnic groupsno matter how primitivehave uniformly recognized, in some way, their dependence on a higher Power or Powers.) (4) The rise of the totalitarian state. This also is new. Absolutisms have always existed: that is, systems in which absolute social and political control is exercised by the monarch, (Matthew 22:30, cf. Acts 23:8). The theory that the doctrine of angels was just a bit of folklore to which Jesus accommodated Himself impugns both His wisdom and His goodness. He spoke so frequently of angels that his contemporaries did suppose Him to be accepting it as a matter of fact that angels do exist. If this belief was just a popular superstition without any foundation in fact, and Jesus knew this to be the case, surely His veracityan essential aspect of His sinlessnesswould have impelled Him to correct it. However, if He did not know any better, did not know that this was nothing but folklore, then His wisdom was deficient and He can be rightly accused of propagating error. But Jesus came to bring Truth, not error (John 14:6; John 8:31-32). Again, if Paul had known that there are no such beings as angels, he could not have been honest in contenting himself with forbidding the Colossians to worship them (Colossians 2:18): he would have been compelled to deny their existence as he denied the existence of heathen gods (1 Corinthians 8:4). As Christopher writes: The Inspired Volume not only assures us that this material world, and the living beings upon it, were created by God; that matter, as also the beings which are formed of it, owe their existence to Him directly; but it also reveals the existence of another order of beings, who inhabit a world invisible to us, who constitute a distinct category of intelligent creatures, and who, as a world, form an integral part of the universe.. The generic name of angel is given to this order of spirit beings.. We conceive of them as beings very high in the scale of creation, possessing powers similar to those of man, but far transcending his in every particular. They are classified in the Christian Scriptures as -Thrones, Dominions, Principalities, and Powers,-' names indicative of rank, glory, and majesty.[12].

[12] Christopher, ibid., p. 29.

2. The doctrine is reasonable. It is entirely reasonable to believe that there is a class of beings between man and God, celestial, ethereal, unlimited by any sense of space or time, in view of the many gradations that are known to exist between man and the lower forms of life. Again, practically all heathen mythologies have their inferior deities and demigods. Mythology has its origin in tradition, and tradition, as a rule, in some original fact. Every counterfeit must have its genuine. Hence the existence of lesser deities in all heathen polytheisms, and the disposition of men everywhere to believe in beings superior to themselves and inferior to the Supreme Being, is a presumptive argument in favor of the existence of angels. Again, the entire Christian world accepts the doctrine of immortality. If there is a spiritual entity in man that lives on after the death of the body, why should it be thought unreasonable that God created spirits without physical bodies? While in Scripture angels appear with bodies, it is evident that these were not physical bodies, inasmuch as they could make themselves visible and then vanish from human sight, and it is in the sense that they do not possess physical bodies that we speak of them as being incorporeal. But this experience does not suggest doubt as to the reality of their bodies: it simply intimates that their bodies are not composed of gross matter (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:47-49). Jesus appeared to the Eleven on several occasions after His resurrection and then vanished from their presence (Mark 16:12-14, Luke 24:13-31; Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-26; John 21:1-14), and though He possessed the same individuality as before His death, it is evident that His body had undergone an important change of texture (Luke 24:39-40). (Indeed on occasion He vanished from human sight even while in His human body: Luke 4:30, John 10:39.) Moreover, the fact that in some cases in the Bible record, angels are represented as appearing in human form is evidence not that they really did have this external form, but, rather, that men of old thought they did. Had they actually possessed physical bodies they could hardly have vanished from human sight as they often did. We must remember that all flesh is not the same flesh, and that there is not only such a thing as a natural body, but that there is also such a thing as a spiritual body (1 Corinthians 15:39-44).

3. Finally, the doctrine of angels is spiritually constructive, in that it helps to build us up in the most holy faith. (1) It affords a barrier against materialism. Materialism, indeed secularism of all kinds, deadens spiritual sensibilities. This present world has a charm which the physical nature of man finds hard to resist. It is easy to put wealth, world honor, pleasure, or business first, and to forget the things that abide, such as faith, hope, love, piety, and spirituality. In the past century our schools have been invaded by a materialistic philosophy which has deadened man's concepts of spiritual realities. We have developed a class of teachers who, like the Sadducees of old, say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit (Acts 23:8). They teach that matter (or energy) is the irreducible of all forms of being, that when the human body returns to the dust personality is annihilated. Man, they say, is simply an aggregate of protons and electrons; hence, that when the body dies everything human dies with it. This teaching has deadened the convictions of the modern ministry and has all but destroyed the evangelistic spirit of both pulpit and pew. It has rendered people, generally, indifferent to divine things. We need to emphasize anew the ideas of soul, spirit, angel, personal devil, personal God, etc. When the church loses sight of the meditative and the spiritual (call it mystical if you wish), the church will die of dry rot. (2) It strengthens our faith in God's protecting care. One of the blessings of adoption enjoyed by the Christian is heavenly protection. Knowing that a host of these ethereal creatures are constantly keeping watch over the heirs of salvation (Hebrews 1:14), he is encouraged to press on toward the goal unto the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus (Philippians 3:14). What was written aforetime with reference to the Son of God, applies equally with reference to all the saints: He will give his angels charge over thee, etc. (Psalms 91:10-12). Jesus tells us expressly that even little children are recipients of angelic care and protection (Matthew 18:10). It is a source of much comfort to the Christian to accept this statement in childlike faith, believing, in the words of John Milton, that

Millions of spiritual creatures walk the earth,
Unseen, both when we wake and when we sleep.

(3) Whole-hearted acceptance of this doctrine will help us in the struggle against sin. It is a constant source of strength to know that these divine messengersministering spiritsare ever near at hand to sustain us if we manifest courage to remain true in the face of severe temptations (Matthew 4:11). Truly, in running the Christian race, we are constantly surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses (Hebrews 12:1-2), unseen and unheard, yet strong in grace and mighty in power! (Cf. Romans 8:37-39, 1 Corinthians 10:13).

REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART ELEVEN

1.

What are the two general kinds of evil?

2.

Criticize the popular notion that suffering is a direct Divine infliction of punishment for a personal sin or course of sin. What truth does the Book of Job contribute to the evaluation of this notion?

3.

Criticize the view that all evil is illusory.

4.

Criticize the view that evil is incomplete good.

5.

Criticize the notion that evil is needed as a contrast to the good.

6.

Discuss the disciplinary character of suffering.

7.

What is the teaching of the Bible with regard to the origin of sin?

8.

Is sin possible of any other form of being than that that of a person? Explain your answer.

9.

Show how ordinary human experience supports the view that sin had to originate in the act of a person.

10.

Who, according to Biblical teaching, was the person who committed the first sin? What was his motive?

11.

How does the Christian doctrine of Atonement reconcile the antinomy between God's omnipotence and His goodness?

12.

Summarize briefly the Biblical teaching about the nature and the work of angels.

13.

What is the significance of the Biblical teaching with respect to good and evil angels?

14.

Explain what is meant by the mystery of lawlessness.

15.

State the pedigree of sin as given in James 1:13-15?

16.

Whom does Jesus explicitly identify as the first liar and the first murderer?

17.

What is the proper distinction between liberty and license?

18.

Who were the first anarchists in our cosmos?

19.

Can anyone consistently deny the existence of sin in the world?

20.

What powers specify the person to be a moral and hence responsible being?

21.

Relate immaturity, irrationality, and depravity. To what extent, would you say, do these terms differ in meaning, if they differ at all?

22.

What do we mean when we say that angels are incorporeal beings? On the other hand, are they bodiless? Explain your answer.

23.

Explain the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 22:23-30 with respect to the nature of angels.

24.

Does the Bible support the notion that angels are glorified spirits of deceased saints? Explain.

25.

What Scriptures may be cited to prove that angels are created beings?

26.

What Scriptures may be cited to show that angels, though superhuman, are limited in intelligence and power?

27.

What does the Bible have to say about their number?

28.

List several incidents in which angels are represented as playing important roles in Scripture.

29.

What does the Bible specifically state to be the work of angels?

30.

What is the essential principle of sin?

31.

What was the first phase of the Satanic rebellion against God? What was the result of it?

32.

Who was Satan originally and what apparently was his office?

33.

In what role does Satan appear in the story of Job?

34.

What do we mean when we say that the evil angels are totally depraved?What Scripture phrases prove this to be true?

35.

What did God permit Satan to do to Job? What restriction did He impose on Satan?

36.

Give reasons for believing that Satan is a person.

37.

What are some of the names given Satan in the Bible? What are some of the terms used to describe his role as the enemy of all good?

38.

Should we hold God responsible for suffering and death? If not, why not?

39.

By what specific term does the Apostle Peter describe Satan's activity in human affairs?

40.

What is the import of the Apostle Paul's designation of Satan as prince of the powers of the air, and the god of this world?

41.

What is the limit of Satan's power?

42.

What shall be the ultimate reward enjoyed by the good angels?

43.

Distinguish between the guilt of sin and the consequences of sin. In what two Scriptures do we find this distinction indicated?

44.

Show that the Biblical doctrine of Hell is entirely reasonable.

45.

What truths are to be derived from the cases of demonology recorded in the Bible?

46.

What was the second phase of Satan's war on God?

47.

Explain why it was possible for God to extend mercy to the first human sinners, but not possible for Him to extend mercy to Satan and his rebels.

48.

What did Satan do to bring about universal wickedness in the age before the Flood?

49.

What was the third phase of Satan's war on God?

50.

In this connection, what was the special significance of the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament?

51.

What was the fourth phase of Satan's war on God?

52.

In relation to this conflict what was the special significance of the scene at the Jordan immediately following Jesus-' baptism?

53.

When did the anointing of Jesus take place and what did it signify?

54.

What was the direct challenge implicit in the Father's avouching of the Sonship of Jesus immediately following the latter's baptism?

55.

In what climactic event did the conflict between Messiah and Satan terminate?

56.

What was the significance of the Resurrection of Christ in relation to Satan's ultimate destiny?

57.

What special significance has the Resurrection in the Christian System as a whole?

58.

How does Jesus relate the Old Testament story of Jonah to the fact of His own resurrection from the dead?

59.

What is the fifth and final phase of Satan's war on God?

60.

By what methods do these evil spirits influence humankind in our day?

61.

What has God promised His saints with respect to the wiles of these evil spirits?

62.

What special means shall the saints employ to resist the wiles of the Devil?

63.

What is to be the final outcome of this Satanic rebellion against God?

64.

State the Biblical doctrine of the Last Judgment. Who will be the Judge at the Last Judgment? What classes will be present for the Judgment?

65.

What shall be the essential character of this Last Judgment? What is the apparent import of the Apostle's declaration that the saints shall judge angels (1 Corinthians 6:3)?

66.

In what sense will the Last Judgment be the vindication of the Justice and Love of God?

67.

What shall be the respective destinies of the saved and the lost following the Judgment?

68.

What is the significance of the word eternal as used by Jesus in Matthew 25:46with reference to the destinies of both the saved and the lost?

69.

What are the evidences that diabolism has existed in all ages?

70.

What are the evidences that diabolism exists in our day?

71.

Give some reasons, aside from Biblical teaching, for accepting the existence and activity of angels as facts.

72.

On what grounds do we say that the doctrine of angels is reasonable?

73.

On what grounds do we affirm the doctrine to be spiritually constructive?

74.

What is meant by heavenly protection and how do angels figure in it?

75.

What does Jesus teach about angels and little children?

76.

What practical values derive from wholehearted acceptance of Biblical teaching about the work of the angels? And Biblical teaching as well concerning the cosmic conflict between the forces of good and the forces of evil?

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL DATA

1)

Edgar Sheffield Brightman, A Philosophy of Religion, p. 259. (Prentice-Hall, New York, 1940).

2)

Deharbe's Catechism, trans. from the German by Fander, p. 94. (Catholic Publication Society, New York, 1876).

3)

D. Elton Trueblood, Philosophy of Religion, p. 237. (Harper, New York, 1957).

4)

L. P. Jacks, Religious Foundations, edited by Rufus M. Jones, p. 105. (Macmillan, New York, 1923).

5)

Whittaker Chambers, Witness, pp. 797, 798. (Random House, New York, 1952).

6)

Wm. Robinson, The Devil and God, pp. 70-72. (Abindgon-Cokesbury, New York and Nashville, 1945).

7)

Samuel M. Thompson, A Modern Philosophy of Religion, pp. 507-508. (Regnery, Chicago, 1955).

8)

W. Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites: Fundamental Institutions, p. 62. (Appleton, New York, 1889).

9)

Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology, One-Volume Edition, p. 443. (Judson Press, Philadelphia, 1907).

10)

Robert Milligan, Scheme of Redemption, Revised Edition, pp. 44-45, fn. (Christian Publishing Company, St. Louis).

11)

H. C. Christopher, The Remedial System, p. 32. A great book, but long out of print.

12)

Christopher, ibid., p. 29.

Samuel M. Thompson (MPR, 507-508): A world free of evil would have to be a world which contained nothing capable of evil. A world without natural evil would be a world without the use of one thing by another for its existence; and this, it seems, would be a world without change. Considering the problem, however, primarily with respect to moral evil, we can imagine this condition fulfilled in two different ways. A world may contain nothing capable of moral evil because there is nothing in it capable of acting on its own initiative. Such a world would contain nothing which had reached the stage where morally responsible action is possible. The beings existing in such a world would be neither morally good nor morally evil; they would be unmoral [amoral]. The other sense in which we may conceive something incapable of moral evil is in the sense that it is perfectly good. A world which contained moral agents all of whom were incapable of doing wrong, or were able to refrain from doing wrong and did so refrain, would be a world free of evil. These are the two alternatives to the contention, which we are here defending, that a world which contains free agents is a world which contains evil but that the existence of such a world is good. It seems quite plain that a world in which free agents are included is in some significant sense a higher existence than one in which free choice would be impossible. The theistic solution of the problem of evil, as against those who see the very possibility of evil as something itself evil, can be summed up in this: Not even God can love a puppet. It goes without saying that no puppet, however complicated may be the motions through which it is put, can love.

(The late Dorothy L. Sayers was an Oxford professor, a brilliant literateur, author of the well-known Lord Peter Wimsey (detective) stories, and withal a profound Christian believer. The following excerpt is taken from the text, Introduction to Religious Philosophy, pp. 11-12, by Geddes MacGregor. Published by Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1959.)

The only letter I ever want to address to average people is one that says: Why don-'t you take the trouble to find out what is Christianity and what isn-'t? Why, when you can bestir yourself to learn technical terms about electricity, won-'t you do as much for theology before you begin to argue?
Why do you never read either the ancient or the modern authorities in the subject, but take your information for the most part from biologists and physicists who have picked it up as inaccurately as yourselves? Why do you accept mildewed old heresies as bold and constructive contributions to modern thought when any handbook on Church History would tell you where they came from?
Why do you complain that the proposition that God is three-in-one is obscure and mystical and yet acquiesce meekly in the physicist's fundamental formula, -2P-PQ equals IH over 2 Pi where I equals the square root of minus 1,-' when you know quite well that the square root of minus 1 is paradoxical and Pi is incalculable?
What makes you suppose that the expression -God ordains-' is narrow and bigoted whereas the expressions -nature provides-' or -science demands-' are objective statements of fact?
You would be ashamed to know as little about internal combustion as you do about beliefs. I admit that you can practise Christianity without knowing much about theology, just as you can drive a car without understanding internal combustion. But if something breaks down in the car, you humbly go to the man who understands the works, whereas if something goes wrong with religion you merely throw the creed away and tell the theologian he is a liar.
Why do you want a letter from me telling you about God? You will never bother to check up on it and find out whether I am giving you a personal opinion or the Church's doctrine. Go away and do some work. Yours very sincerely, Dorothy L. Sayers.

* * * *

Just as the account of creation in Genesis has been able to communicate the majesty of God the Creator within every cosmology from Ptolemy to Einstein precisely because it is not a blow-by-blow account of the origin of the cosmos but a dramatic dialogue transcending all world views, so the apocalyptic setting of the Sermon on the Mount and of the call to discipleship, -Follow me!-' grounds the summons of Jesus in the absolute character of God and of his demands upon us. We may answer No to the summons, but answer we must.

Jaroslav Pelikan, art., Theologian and Thinker (tribute to Dr. Schweitzer), Saturday Review, Sept. 25, 1965.

PART FOURTEEN:
THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL

Every branch of human knowledge has what is called its universe of discourse, in everyday (unflattering, but realistic) language, its gobbledygook. This term, coined by the late Congressman Maury Maverick of Texas after the gobbling of turkeys, is defined in standard dictionaries as inflated, involved, and obscure verbiage characteristic of the pronouncements of officialdom.
Of all the areas of human study, speculative (systematic) theology, it seems, has turned out to be the most prolific of a jargon that appears to reach no bounds. And in the entire gamut of Biblical teaching there is perhaps no area in which this jargon has grown up in such profusion as in connection with the Biblical Narrative of the Fall. In this area especially, a set of closely inter-related dogmas has been developed and embodied in elaborate creeds and confessions (statements) of faith, formulated and imposed on certain denominations of Christendom solely by human authority. These are known as the dogmas of original sin, total depravity, unconditional election and reprobation, miraculous conversion, and final perseverance. These are all of one piece: together they constitute the theological mosaic which goes under the name of Calvinism: however, as a matter of fact, they had their sources in the theology of Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, who died A.D. 430 in North Africa. (It should be explained here that a doctrine is a teaching; that a dogma is a doctrine to be accepted on the ground that it has been proclaimed by recognized ecclesiastical authority.) It should be noted that not one of the terms and phrases listed above is to be found in the Bible. It cannot be emphasized too much that they are all the vintage of human authority and presumption.

1. Original Sin.

This dogma is the basis of the whole Calvinistic system, But what is meant by original sin? The dogma is popularly, but simply and factually stated, in the well-known couplet: In Adam's fall, we sinned all, As clearly stated by Calvin himself (Institutes, II, ii, 5): Therefore all of us who have descended from impure seed, are born infected with the contagion of sin. In fact before we saw the light of this life we were soiled and spotted in God's sight. Or, as set forth in The Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church (Ch. VI, Sections I-IV): I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed it to his own glory. II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation. IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions. V. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated: and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin. VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal and eternal. (Note especially the phrase, both original and actual).

1 John 3:4 (A.V.), Sin is transgression of the law). (A.S.V.), Sin is lawlessness. Now the subject of sin involves two facts of primary importance, namely, guilt and consequences; and carelessness in distinguishing between these two facts has produced the ambiguity which has grown up in the use of the term. For example, traditional theology has insisted on perpetuating the notion that sin is of two kinds, what is called original (universal) sin, and what is called actual (personal or individual) sin. However, the crux of the problem involved here is this: Do these two facts of sin, guilt and consequences, characterize both original and actual sin? That actual personal sin involves both guilt and consequences is hardly open to question, from the Biblical point of view. But does so-called original sin involve both guilt and consequences? Or, is there such a thing as original guilt? Or, stated in plainer terms, Is any person ever born into this world guilty of, and hence accountable for, the sin of any of his forbears, Adam included? That every person does suffer the consequences of the sins of the fathers is a fact of human experience. But does anyone inherit the guilt of the sins of the fathers? Our answer to this question is an unequivocal, No! Such a doctrine is not found in Scripture.

Consider, first, Exodus 20:5-6, I Jehovah thy God am a jealous god, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me, and showing lovingkindness unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments. Obviously, we have here an explicit affirmation of the consequences of sin: this has rightly been called the first statement of the law of heredity to be found in our literature. As the late Dorothy L. Sayers has written (MM, 19-30): Much confusion is caused in human affairs by the use of the same word -law-' to describe two very different things: an arbitrary code of behavior based on a consensus of human opinion, and a statement of unalterable fact about the nature of the universe, The confusion is at its worst when we come to talk about the -moral law-'.. There is a universal moral law, as distinct from a moral code, which consists of certain statements of fact about the nature of man, and by behaving in conformity with which, man enjoys his true freedom. The more closely the moral code agrees with the natural law, the more it makes for freedom in human behavior; the more widely it departs from the natural law, the more it tends to enslave mankind and to produce the catastrophes called -judgments of God.-' The universal moral law (or natural law of humanity) is discoverable, like any other law of nature, by experience. It cannot be promulgated, it can only be ascertained, because it is a question not of opinion but of fact. When it has been ascertained, a moral code can be drawn up to direct human behavior and prevent men, as far as possible, from doing violence to their own nature.. There is a difference between saying: -If you hold your finger in the fire you will get burned,-' and saying, -if you whistle at your work I shall beat you, because the noise gets on my nerves.-' The God of the Christians is too often looked upon as an old gentleman of irritable nerves who beats people for whistling. This is the result of a confusion between arbitrary -law-' and the -laws-' which are statements of fact. Breach of the first is -punished-' by edict; but breach of the second, by judgment. Quoting then the passage from Exodus cited above, this author concludes: Here is a statement of fact, observed by the Jews and noted as such. From its phrasing it might appear an arbitrary expression of personal feeling. But today, we understand more about the mechanism of the universe, and are able to reinterpret the pronouncement by the -laws-' of heredity and environment. Defy the commandments of the natural law, and the race will perish in a few generations; co-operate with them, and the race will flourish for ages to come. That is the fact; whether we like it or not, the universe is made that way. This commandment is interesting because it specifically puts forward the moral law as the basis of the moral code; because God has made the world like this and will not alter it, therefore you must not worship your own fantasies, but pay allegiance to the truth. So much for Scripture teaching concerning the consequences of sin; let us keep in mind, however, that consequences do not constitute guilt.

Hence we find the law of guilt clearly stated elsewhere in Scripture, in Ezekiel 18:19-20, as follows: Yet say ye, Wherefore doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Nothing could be made more explicit than the fact stated in this passage, namely, that the guilt of sin is a personal matter involving personal responsibility. A father may go to a gambling den, and, in a single night, gamble away all his material goods, thus reducing his wife and children to poverty. His family would suffer the consequences of his act, but there is no court in Heaven or on earth that would hold them guilty of it. This is the very thing that Adam did: He gambled away his whole beingspirit and soul and bodyand reduced his posterity to toil, sorrow and death; in a word, he sold himself and them to sin and the Devil. But, even though all his descendants are suffering from the consequences of his act, this is no evidence that they are to be held accountable for what he did. Moreover, it was the mission of Christ to remove whatever guilt may have been incurred by the human race, if any at all, as a result of Adam's transgression: to remove this guilt unconditionally insofar as the innocent and the irresponsible are concerned (Matthew 18:3; Matthew 19:14; Luke 18:16-17), but conditionally (upon obedience to the terms of the Gospel covenant) insofar as the responsible are concerned (John 20:30-31, Acts 2:38, Romans 10:9-10, Galatians 3:27).

Certainly it must be admitted that we inherit a weakened constitution, both physical and moral (a will vitiated by self-assertiveness, as someone has put it) as a consequence of the spread of sin and its effects throughout the human family. This is to say that man is spiritually corrupteddepravedto some extent as a result of the inroads of sin. It seems to be much easier for a person to drift the downward way than to climb the upward: the latter requires persistent effort, the former requires no effort at all. This fact was emphasized by our Lord Himself (Matthew 7:13-14). In a word, the range of man's potential for morality or immorality is nothing short of amazing: he can walk among the stars or wallow in the gutter, depending basically on his own choices. As Aristotle has put it so clearly (Politics I, 2, Jowett translation): ... man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by intelligence and virtue, which he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore, if he have not virtue, he is the most unholy and the most savage of animals, and the most full of lust and gluttony.

Indeed there seems to be an indefinable relation existing between spirit (or mind) and body, between the interior and exterior powers, in man, as a result of which the irascible and concupiscible desiresand in consequence the temptations to sinare stronger in some persons than in others. Brents (GPS, 132): There are differences of mental power manifested by different persons, growing out of a difference in the physical machinery inherited from our parents. This we not only admit, but firmly believe: but these do not affect our position in the least. An engine may run a vast amount of well made and properly applied machinery, and thus exhibit great power, but were we to apply the same engine to heavy, cumbersome, unwieldy, unbalanced machinery, it could do but little, though the same man operated it. So a man who has inherited a fine organization, large and well balanced brain, of fine material, will exhibit much more mental power than one who has inherited an imperfect organization of coarse material. But inherited weakness, whether physical or mental, is not sinno guilt can attach to itand therefore the differences in mental power spoken of cannot prove the doctrine of total depravity; on the contrary, if they prove anything concerning it, they contradict it, for these differences cannot be the result of total depravity, because all who are totally depraved are, in this respect, exactly alike. There is no comparative degree in total depravity. Certainly we all inherit certain propensities from our parents and ancestors, and in this sense the spiritual potential in any person may be raised or lowered. But let it be repeated for the sake of emphasis that inherited weakness is not guilt. Biblical teaching is clear that man is a sinner by virtue of his own yielding to the forces of evil. (Cf. James 1:12-15). (Some wag has punned, with reference to the experience of Adam and Eve, that the fault was not with the apple in the tree but with the pair on the ground. Of course there is no mention of an apple in the Biblical story: that happens to be a Miltonian touch.)

Some would speak of this inherited weakness as derived sinfulness. Others would try to reduce it to immaturity, as, for example, Overstreet in his book, The Mature Mind. The depth psychologists would have us think of it as irrationality having its source in hidden or unconscious motivation. It is interesting to note that Alexander Campbell (CS, ch. 7) affirms the sinfulness and depravity of all men as a consequence of Adam's fall. The stream of humanity is said to be contaminated at its fountain. True, indeed it is; our nature was corrupted by the fall of Adam before it was transmitted to us; and hence that hereditary imbecility to do good, and that proneness to evil, so universally apparent in all human beings. Let no man open his mouth against the transmission of a moral distemper, until he satisfactorily explain the fact, that the special characteristic vices of parents appear in their children as much as the color of their skin, their hair, or the contour of their faces. A disease in the moral constitution of man is as clearly transmissible as any physical taint, if there be any truth in history, biography, or human observation. Again: Condemned to natural death, and greatly fallen and depraved in our whole moral constitution though we certainly are, in consequence of the sin of Adam, still, because of the interposition of the second Adam, none are punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord but those who actually and voluntarily sin against a dispensation of mercy under which they are placed: for this is the -condemnation of the world that light has come into the world, and men choose darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.-' A contemporary writer contributes the following pertinent comment (Rushdoony, in Christian Economics, July 7, 1964): Man's basic and original sin is -to be as God, knowing good and evil.-' -Knowing-' here has the force of determining, establishing, so that man's essential sin is to attempt to play God and to legislate creatively and substantively on the nature of morality in terms of his own godhead. The fact still remains, however, that the notion of inherited guiltwhich is our problem hereis not implied in any of these terms, phrases, or concepts.

The Bible knows no such thing as inherited guilt. Its teaching, from beginning to end, is that the person is guilty before God for his own personal transgressions only. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. Nature is individualistic throughout: we come into the kingdom of nature one by one, and we go out of it one by one. The same is true in regeneration: one must be born again, as an individual, into the kingdom of grace (John 3:1-7). Sin is personal (individual), and salvation is personal, and final judgment is personal. The Scriptures know no such thing as either sin or salvation by proxy or en masse. (Matthew 2:23; Matthew 20:13; Romans 2:6; Romans 14:12; 1 Corinthians 3:13; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Ephesians 6:8; Colossians 3:25; Revelation 2:23; Revelation 20:13; Revelation 22:12).

Incidentally, as a corollary of the dogma of original sin, that of infant damnation has arisen. It has been taught and believed, rather extensively, that an infant is born into this state of sin and guilt inherited from Adam and must be received into the New Covenant through the ceremony of patting a few drops of water on its head or face; that, if the baby should die prior to the administration of this sacrament (which is generally misnamed a baptism), it must surely be regarded as lost, whatever lost may mean in such a case. (This is undoubtedly the most meaningless ceremony to which theology has ever given birth. It is baptismal regeneration pure and simple: whatever efficacy there is in the act must be in the water, because it cannot be in the child's heart: the child does not even know what is going on. In Scripture terms Christian baptism is an immersiona burial and resurrection, Romans 6:1-11, Colossians 2:12and hence infant baptism would be infant immersion, as indeed has been practised by the Greek Orthodox denomination from its beginning.) Romans 5:13sin is not imputed when there is no law. Romans 4:15where there is no law, neither is there transgression. Romans 3:20through the law cometh the knowledge of sin, that is, to all who are capable of such knowledge (cf. Romans 7:7).Surely the babe, and even the young child, has no knowledge of moral right and wrong; it is governed largely by impulse, and its responses are reflexive; it is incapable of faith; and therefore it has no need of baptism for the remission of original sin, no need of salvation from the guilt of sin, but is by virtue of its innocence (or at least by virtue of the Atonement provided once for all at the end of the ages, and provided unconditionally for the innocent and the irresponsible) is prepared for the Spiritual Life of the Hereafter. (Mark 10:14, Matthew 18:3, Luke 18:16, Romans 5:18-19, 1 Corinthians 15:22-23). The only redemption which the infant is in need of, is redemption from the consequences of sin, that is, redemption of the body from physical dissolution in the putting on of immortality (1 Thessalonians 5:23). May we not reasonably suppose that the little one who dies in infancy will experience the actualization of its personality in the celestial environment?

Let us consider, for a moment, some of the Scripture texts which are usually cited to support the dogma of original sin, etc. (1) Psalms 14:1 ff; Psalms 53:1 ff., Romans 3:9-18, etc. In these passages we have the affirmation of the moral corruption of mankind in general, a fact which no sane person would deny. However, there is nothing in these texts that would indicate inherited guilt. On the contrary, the teaching is that men have corrupted themselves by their own evil thoughts and acts. They have all turned aside. They have done abominable works. Their throatsnot Adam'Sare full of cursing and bitterness. Why blame Adam, or indeed his collective progeny, for this corruption in view of the fact that both the Psalmist and the Apostle are referring here to the personal sins of humankind? (2) Psalms 58:3. Again the matter under consideration here is personal sin. The wicked are not said to be born astray, but to go astray. They themselves work wickedness: their poison is like the poison of a serpent. Their poison is not inherited from Adam: it is their own poison. (3) Isaiah 53:6. Note that we have all gone astray, not have been born astray. (4) Ephesians 2:1. Note well: through your trespasses and sins, not through Adam's sin nor the sins of your parents. (5) Ephesians 2:3. Those persons who had become Christians at Ephesus had once livedprior to their conversionin the lusts of the flesh, that is, their own flesh, and hence were by nature children of wrath while in that state of alienation from God (cf. John 3:16-18). Again, the reference is to personal sins, not to any such thing as inherited guilt. (6) Colossians 1:21; Colossians 2:13. Note: alienated and enemies in your evil works, and dead through your trespasses, etc., that is, prior to their conversion to Christ. (7) Job 14:4Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. This is explained by the preceding verse: Dont thou open thine eyes on such a one, And bringest me into judgment with thee? That is, when the period of probation shall have come to an end, the final decree will be (Revelation 22:11): He that is filthy, let him be made filthy still.. and he that is holy, let him be made holy still. That is, then indeed it will be too late: personal destiny having been determined by one's deeds while in the flesh, it will no longer be possible to bring a clean thing out of an unclean. Luke 16:26the gulf will have been fixed for ever. (8) Psalms 51:5Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. It is asserted by some commentators that the fact of congenital depravity is stated here and in such similar passages as Job 14:4, Psalms 58:3, etc. Congenital depravity, however, is not inherited guilt. Whatever this obscure passage may mean, it certainly does not signify the imputation of the mother's sin (guilt) to the child. Suppose a woman were to say, In drunkenness my husband beat me, would that mean that the wife is guilty of her husband's drunkenness? Or, suppose a child were to say, In anger my father whipped me, would that mean that the child is guilty of the father's anger? Not much indication here of inherited guilt, is there? (9) 2 Timothy 3:13If men are born totally depraved, how could they wax worse and worse? (10) Romans 3:23all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God. Note that they have sinned:it is not said that they have been born in sin. If the original corruption of our human character is the cause of all actual transgressions, how came Adam himself to sin? (11) Romans 14:1-12, Matthew 16:27, 2 Corinthians 5:10, Revelation 20:13, etc. These and many other Scriptures of like import clearly teach that each person will be held accountable in the Judgment for his own sins, not for the sin of Adam, nor for the sins of his ancestors. The soul that sinneth, it shall die (Ezekiel 18:20).

The authors of The Jerusalem Bible make a significant admission (19, note d), concerning the divine penalties imposed, as related in the third chapter of Genesis, as follows: These penalties are hereditary; the doctrine of hereditary guilt is not clearly stated until St. Paul draws his comparison between the solidarity of all in Christ the Savior, and the solidarity of all in the sinner, Adam, Romans 5. Butwhy haul the notion of inherited guilt into the content of the fifth chapter of Romans? Certainly Adam's guilt was his own guilt, just as my guilt is my own guilt, just as every man's guilt is his own guilt. There is no reason for assuming from the Apostle's teaching here that anything more is implied than the fact that Adam's posterity all suffer the consequences of his rebellion against God. We have already noted that the penalties pronounced upon the serpent, the Woman, and the Man, respectively, were pronounced upon serpentkind, womankind, and mankind. Certainly the Apostle has in mind here primarily the death and resurrection of the body. His teaching is explicit, however, that whatever mankind lost through the disobedience of the First Adam has been regained fully by virtue of the obedience of the Second Adam. regained unconditionally, let me repeat, insofar as the innocent and the irresponsible are concerned, but regained conditionally (on the obedience of faith) insofar as the morally responsible are concerned. Through the Atonement provided by the Only Begotten, for the burden of the sin of mankind (John 1:29, 1 Peter 2:21-25), through this one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life (Romans 5:18). But the Gift must be personally accepted and appropriated in order to be enjoyed (John 3:16-17; John 5:40; Hebrews 5:9; 1 John 5:10-12). There is not the slightest intimation in this fifth chapter of Romans of any such notion as that of inherited guilt. It is quite reasonable to hold that the Kingdom of Christ (Reign of Messiah, literally) is more inclusive than the Church of Christ, in the fact that the former takes in the innocent and irresponsible, and the elect of prior Dispensations, all of whom, in the very nature of the case, cannot belong to the Church. (Cf. again Matthew 19:13-14, Mark 10:13-16, Luke 18:15-17, etc.).

Consider also, in this connection, the words of the Apostle in 1 Corinthians 15:20-23. Here the reference is again primarily to the destiny of the corporeal part of the human being, which is the subject under consideration throughout this entire chapter. Here we are told that just as physical death is by Divine appointment universal (cf. Hebrews 9:27), so, again by Divine appointment, there will be a universal resurrection and a universal Judgment, the proof of which is made explicit in the bodily resurrection of Christ. (Cf. Romans 1:4; Romans 8:18-25; Romans 10:9-10; Romans 14:10; Acts 17:30-31; John 5:28-29; Matthew 12:39-42; Matthew 25:31-46; 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6; 1 Corinthians 15:35-56; 2 Corinthians 5:1-10; Revelation 20:11-15, etc.).

We repeat, for emphasis: In the very nature of the case, guilt simply cannot be imputed to any personin any court, Divine or humanfor the sin (or crime) of another person. Imputed or inherited guilt is utterly contrary, not only to Scripture teaching, but to human experience as well. It can hardly be doubted that the human will is vitiated in varying degrees by self-assertiveness; however, it is only when it is personally exercised in disobedience to God that guilt is incurred, The soul that sinneth, it shall die.

2. Total Depravity.

As the Creed quoted above has it: As a result of the Fall, our first parents became dead in sin, wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. Again: From this original corruption whereby we [all their posterity] are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions. (Note here the words wholly and utterlythese admit no qualifications. They mean what they say, or they mean nothing at all. Language could not be plainer.) In the Institutes, the doctrine is affirmed just as positively by Calvin himself. The noblest gifts bestowed upon man at his creation were utterly vitiated by the Fall. Such natural powers as reason and will have been so corrupted that no man is capable of understanding anything aright or willing anything that is good. As a result of his depraved nature, the unregenerated person is wholly unable to bring forth any good spiritual fruit. This corrupt will cannot strive after the right (II, ii, 12:271), cannot move toward good, much less apply itself thereto (II, iii, 2, 5; 292, 294). All that proceeds from him is to be imputed to sin (II, i, 9:253). All alleged good works that may have been manifested by human nature simply deceive us with their vain show (II, iii, 4; 294). Though natural endowments, they must, nevertheless, arise from unworthy motives, and consequently have no value in acquiring righteousness (justification).

Now we have already conceded that human character is depraved: it is so much easier for a man to drift downward than to struggle upward. It takes a great measure of moral discernment for a person really to put first things first (Matthew 6:33). Such terms as immaturity, irrationality, missing the mark, etc., are too innocuous, too weak, to describe man's moral state accurately. He is depraved, to be sure, but he is not totally depraved. Were he totally depraved, he would be in the same moral state as that of the Devil and his angels; these original rebels, we are told, are committed to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment (2 Peter 2:4), kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day (Jude 1:6). What kind of bonds? Bonds of total moral and spiritual darkness, bonds of total depravity. These bonds, moreover, are everlasting: for Satan and his rebel host there is no hope: their moral state is such that they are utterly incapable of faith, repentance, hope, love, or anything good.

There is no support in Biblical teaching for this dogma of human total depravity. The tenor of Scripture teaching is entirely to the contrary. (Review here the Scriptures quoted above in refutation of the dogma of original sin.) The Apostle writes, 2 Timothy 3:13But evil men and impostors shall wax worse and worse, etc. If men are totally depraved, how could they possibly wax worse and worse? As a matter of fact, Jesus Himself completely negates this dogma in His Parable of the Sower (which is, in fact, a Parable of the Soils); cf. Luke 8:4-15. Here He describes the various kinds of soil into which the good seed of the Kingdomthe Word of Godfalls: some, He tells us, falls by the wayside only to be trodden under foot or devoured by the birds of the heavens; some falls on rocky ground where it cannot obtain sufficient moisture to put down roots, and hence withers away; and some falls among thorns which grow along with it and choke it to death. Butthanks be to Godsome falls on good ground, and brings forth fruit a hundredfold; and the good ground, He tells us expressly, is an honest and good heart (e.g. Acts 8:27-38; Acts 10:1-8; Acts 10:24-33, etc.) But, according to the Creed, no man has an honest and good heart; on the contrary, all men are wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of mind and body, and hence utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil. It becomes obvious that the creed-makers should revise their theories and bring them into line with the teaching of Christ.

It should be noted here that there can be no degrees in total depravity; it must be total depravityor nothing. This is definitely an either-or proposition. If the Creed is true, then all men are equally depraved because they are totally depraved. But neither Scripture, nor logic, nor human experience supports such a position. Total depravity, we repeat, is characteristic only of the Devil and his angels: in every son of man there is a little spark of celestial fire called conscience, unless he himself stifles it and so commits spiritual suicide.

3. Miraculous Conversion.

But it will be argued by some that these honest and good hearts of which Jesus speaks, necessarily have been made so, have been specifically prepared for the reception of the spiritual seed, by a special operation of Divine grace. Hence, the dogmas of original sin and total depravity are necessarily complemented in Calvinistic theology by that of miraculous conversion, a third integral part of the system. That is to say, man is as dead spiritually as Lazarus was physically, and as a special miracle was necessary to raise Lazarus from the dead, so a special miracle must be wrought in the human heart by the Holy Spirit, to incline it to, and prepare it for, the reception of the Gospel message. Lacking this special extraordinary work of grace, human nature vitiated by the Fall will continue to be indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil. Moreover, evidence of this special manifestation of the Spirit will become known to the sinner in the form of a mystical experience: an overwhelming ecstasy, a sign in the heavens, the appearance of an angel, the singing of a choir invisible, or something of the kind. The utmost that the poor sinner can do, under any and all circumstances, to invoke this Divine interposition (call), is to pray for it; failing to receive it would mean simply that he is doomed to unconditional reprobation, without hope either in this world or in the world to come. As Minister Jack Cottrell states the case so clearly (Christian Standard, January 21, 1967): What does this aspect of total inability mean? It means that man cannot will to turn to God in faith and repentance until the Holy Spirit works in a special way within him, in a way similar to what we would call -being born again.-' Of course, we all agree that no one can believe until the word of the gospel touches his heart (Romans 10:17). But for Calvin it is much more serious than this. For him, no matter how much external preaching and persuasion are present, all men are blind and deaf to it and no one surrenders to God unless God himself singles him out and bends his heart in a new direction (II, iii, 6:297f.).Faith is the special gift of God given only to those whom God himself chooses (III, i, 4; 54lf., III, ii, 35:583). (Ephesians 2:8 is usually cited as a proof text for this view. But what is it in this passage that is said to be the gift of God? Not faith, of course, except possibly, indirectly, in the sense that faith comes only from some form of contact with the Word which God has given us (Romans 10:17). It seems obvious, however, that it is the salvation about which the Apostle is writing here that is said to be, and is, God's free gift (John 3:16, Romans 3:4) to those who meet the terms of admission into the New Covenant, the Covenant of Faith: (Romans 5:1, Hebrews 8:10-12). These considerations lead us directly to the next pillar of Calvin's theology

4. Unconditional Election and Reprobation.

Again, Cottrell states the case so clearly that no one could improve on his presentation: Herein lies the necessity for the predestination of certain individuals to salvation apart from any consideration of their response, All men alike are unable to turn to God, regardless of external circumstances. So if anyone at all is to be saved, God himself must give that one the ability to respond to His call, Who decides which ones are to be given this ability? God alone, from all eternity, and on the basis of reasons known only to himself. (This is the Calvinistic predestination with which most people are familiar.) Thus at appropriate times the Holy Spirit opens the hearts of these chosen ones, and they are then able to turn to God. This does not mean that God merely brings His elect ones to the point where they are free to either accept or reject His offer of salvation. Just as God's choice is sovereign, so is His call irresistible. Those who receive the call invariably come; those who do not receive it are totally unable to come or even to want to do so (II, iii, 10:303f.). All this, moreover, is said expressly in the Creed to have been purposed by Goddirectly or indirectlyto his own glory.
We shall consider subsequently some of the Scripture passages that are usually cited to support this dogma of unconditional election and reprobation. Suffice it to say here, however, that the dogma is certainly derogatory of God. It is difficult to see how God could arbitrarily elect some persons to salvation and others to reprobation unless He is a respecter of persons, and this the Scripture is positive in affirming that He is not (Deuteronomy 10:17, 2 Chronicles 19:7, Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11, Galatians 2:6, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 3:25, 1 Peter 1:17). Moreover, Biblical teaching uniformly asserts, from beginning to end, that God does not coerce the human will or exert pressure to modifymuch less to overpowerman's freedom of choice.

Bible teaching on this subject may best be summarized, it seems to me, as follows: In the first chapter of Genesis, God is introduced to us as the Creator. In the second chapter, man is introduced to us, as he came from the hand of God. In the third chapter, the Devil is introduced to us as the Tempter, the Source of all evil. And so we find man in between God and the Devil; and that is where he has always been, and always will be, in this present world, with the power to choose between the two. There is no doubt, of course, that God has power to save each of us unconditionally if He wishes to do so. But He does not wish, nor does He choose, to do so. On the other hand God can hardly be considered just should he save man in his sins; hence, man must hear, believe, repent and obey, to receive the fulfilment of God's promise to save him. On the other hand, the Devil does not have the power to lead any man into ruin unless the latter allows himself to be led to disobey God. God's power (authority) plus man's obedience of faith will bring about salvation (election), whereas the Devil's power plus man's yielding to it brings about the latter's condemnation (reprobation). (John 3:16-21; 1 John 3:4-12; 1 John 5:10-12, etc.).

An amusing, but very simple and clear explanation of the doctrine of election as it is given in Scripture has been preserved for us by one of our pioneer evangelists. As the story goes, Senator Vance of North Carolina was teasing his old colored servant on the subject of religion: the old man had been urging the Senator to become a Christian. The Senator said, I just don-'t understand this doctrine of election. I don-'t know whether I can become a Christian because I don-'t know whether the Lord has elected me or not. Marse Zeb, answered the old Negro, I can -splain dat question ob -lection. Fust, has yuh -nounced yo'Self as a candidate? No, I suppose I haven-'t, replied the Senator. Yuh see, said the old servant, no man eber gwine be -lected t-' office who doan fust -nounce hisself as a canidate. Now yuh-all -nounce yo'Self as a canidate fo-' de Lawd's kingdom; den de Lawd he votes fo-' yuh, and de debbil he votes agin yuh; and den yuh vote fo-' yo'Self, and yo-' an-' de Lawd make a -jority, and y-'all is -lected. This is the sum and substance of the whole matter. A great campaign is going on all the timea campaign for the souls of men. On one side, the Leader is Christ, the Captain of our salvation (Hebrews 2:10); on the other side, the leader is Satan, the arch-adversary of all mankind (1 Peter 5:8). The election has already been held (Ephesians 1:4, 1 Peter 1:18-21, Revelation 13:8). Christ voted to save you so that you might enjoy the bliss of fellowship with God in the Hereafter (1 John 1:3; 1 John 3:2). The Devil voted to condemn you to Hell, You, like every other accountable human being, therefore, must cast the deciding vote. As the matter stands now, the vote is a tie; and it takes your vote to break the tie. You either elect or condemn yourself. The Gospel of Christ is not a power, nor one of the powers, it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes (Romans 1:16). God has already sent you a Letter (His Word as revealed in the New Testament) telling you what to do to be saved and what to do to keep saved (Acts 2:38, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Why then should you expect Him to send along a telegram, so to speak, to pressure you into doing what He in His letter commands you to do? The Gospel is a universal amnesty proclamation to all mankind (2 Corinthians 5:17-20) offering free pardon to all who will meet the conditions. But we must meet the conditions if we expect ever to enjoy the free Gift (John 3:16-17). (Cf. Acts 4:11-12; Acts 2:38; John 10:27-28; John 5:40; Romans 5:1-2; Romans 8:32; Hebrews 5:9; 1 John 4:9).

Suffice it to say here, in passing, that Divine election is election to certain responsibilities, in the proper discharge of which the corresponding rewards are actualized. Thus to fleshly Israel of old was committed the twofold task of preserving the knowledge of the living and true God (monotheism) and preparing the way for the Messianic fulfilment; and to the Church (spiritual Israel) is committed the twofold responsibility of preserving God's truth and proclaiming it throughout the world (1 Timothy 3:15; Matthew 24:14; Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 24:45-49; Acts 1:8). Moreover, Divine election, as we shall see later, has reference not to individuals as such, but to a class: the elect are the whosoever-wills, the non-elect the whosoever-won-'ts (Revelation 22:17).

5. Foreordination (Predestination), Foreknowledge, and Fixity.

The Greek verb proorizo occurs in six places in the New Testament. The rendering in the various versions is an excellent example of the manner in which translators can foul up the meaning of a single word. This verb in the Greek means literally to fix beforehand, to predetermine, etc. It occurs two times in Romans (Romans 8:29-30), two times in Ephesians (Ephesians 1:5; Ephesians 1:11), once in Acts (Acts 4:28) and once in First Corinthians (1 Corinthians 2:7). In all these passages it should be rendered uniformly as foreordain or as predestinate (predestine). The A.S.V. gives it as foreordain, as it should, in all of them. The King James Version (A.V.) renders the four passages in Romans and Ephesians as predestinate; it then gives Acts 2:48 as determined before, and 1 Corinthians 2:7 as ordained before. Why all this variation? The R.S.V. gives the texts in Romans and Ephesians and the one in Acts as predestine. Then it proceeds to render 1 Corinthians 2:7 as decreed before. Again, why this absurd variation: why not use the same English word in all six passages?

The distinction between the English words, predestinate and foreordain is a matter of etymology. Predestinate comes from the Latin, pro, before, and destino, fix, determine, etc. This word reflects the influence of the Latin Vulgate on the King James translators (who, it will be recalled, Anglicized the Latin baptizo, which was in turn a transliteration of the original Greek baptizo). The A.S.V. is consistent and correct in rendering the word directly from the Greek as foreordain, in all instances. Just why the R.S.V. goes back to the Latin equivalent, predestine, instead of adhering to the Greek original, in the passages in Romans, Ephesians, and Acts, is a mystery to this writer. Moreover, it then compounds the problem by rendering 1 Corinthians 2:7 as decreed before, Why not just use predestinate, predetermine, or preferably, foreordain, and be done with this babel of tongues?

What then is Predestination or Foreordination? Calvin defines the word in his Institutes as the eternal decree of God by which he has determined in himself what he would to become of every individual of mankind. For they all are not created with a similar destiny, but eternal life is foreordained to some, and eternal damnation to others. The doctrine is set forth in the Creed as follows: By the eternal decree of God for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life and others foreordained to everlasting death. These men and angels thus predestinated and foreordained are particularly and unchangeably designed and their number is so certain and definite it can neither be increased or diminished. (See note at the end of this part).

It is recognized, of course, that this older version of the dogma has been modified in recent years, as, for example, in the creedal statement (published in 1939) referred to in preceding pages herein. However, there are many die-hards who still cling to the original version. Perhaps we should consider briefly here the texts most frequently cited to support the old version, such as the following: (1) Romans 9:12-13. Here are two passages from the Old Testament, but blended together by the Apostle. The first is Genesis 25:21-23, the word of Yahweh to Rebekah prior to the birth of Jacob and Esau. We have here a plain prophecy and that it is all it is: two sons are to be born, namely, Jacob and Esau, and they are to become the progenitors of two nations; moreover, the nation to be sired by the elder is to serve the nation to be sired by the younger son. The word of Yahweh has reference here, not to individuals, but to nations. Esau never served Jacob in his entire lifeon the contrary, it was Jacob who gave gifts to Esau at the time of their reconciliation (Gen., ch. 33). The over-all meaning of the passage is that God, as He had both perfect right and reason to do, had selected Jacob, and not Esau, to be the ancestor of Messiah. The statement that the elder shall serve the younger was simply a prophetic announcement that at a future time the Edomites (descendants of Esau) should become servants of the Israelites (descendants of Jacob): the prophecy is clearly fulfilled in 2 Samuel 8:14. The second quotation in Romans 9:13, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated, (from Malachi 1:2-3) was uttered several hundred years after both Jacob and Esau were dead. The statement again refers to the two nations or peoples: it simply points out the fact that the Edomites suffered divine retribution because of their sins. (Genesis 32:3; ch. 36; Numbers 20:14-21; Isaiah 34:5).

(2) Another oft-quoted passage is Romans 9:17-18. On the face of it, this is a poser, but it is not necessarily so. The question involved here is this: How did God demonstrate His power through the instrumentality of Pharaoh? He did it by bringing the stiffnecked ruler and his people down to the very edge of destruction. But how did God harden Pharaoh's heart (Exodus 4:21; Exodus 7:3; Exodus 14:4; Exodus 14:17)? He did it, not by directly willing it, not even by permitting it, as is often stated (because permission implies a certain measure of acquiescence, whereas God abhors evil and does not will it the least bit); He did it negatively, that is, by doing nothing to prevent Pharaoh's hardening of his own heart. Whom he will he hardeneth. How? By not exerting pressure to prevent evil men from becoming hardened in the practice of their own evil ways: obviously, to interfere under such circumstances would be equivalent to ruling the moral universe by coercion.

(3) Romans 9:20-24. Here we have the homely example of the clay in the hands of the potter. The reference is drawn from Jeremiah 18:1-10. The lesson is clear. It sometimes occurs that when the potter is turning a vessel on the wheel, the vessel breaks. What is the cause of the break? Certainly it is not that the potter foreordained (willed) it to do so. Rather, the defect is in the clay; being of inferior quality it becomes marred in the hands of the potter. In such cases, does the potter cast it off as useless? No. The potter, being a thrifty individual, makes it into another kind of vessel, although one of inferior quality. The potter makes a vessel unto dishonor only when he cannot make anything else out of the clay with which he is working. The clay is not poor because the potter foreordained it to be so; it becomes poor only when internal conditions combine to make it so. The lesson is that the divine Potter's reaction toward an individual or a nation is determined, not by His own arbitrary will, but by the good or evil, whichever it may be, that characterizes the individual or national character. The statement in Jeremiah is an affirmation of the Biblical (providential) philosophy of history. (Cf. John 5:40, Matthew 23:37-39).

(4) Acts 13:48. Here the difficulty is with the word ordained, which certainly is not the best translation. Some, including McGarvey, render it disposed; others, pointing up the fact that the verb is in the middle or passive voice, hold that it should be rendered determined themselves or were determined, i.e., by personal decisions; A. T. Robertson translates it appointed. He states expressly: There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an absolutum decretum of personal salvation.. It was saving faith that was exercised by those who were appointed unto eternal life, who were ranged on the side of eternal life, who were thus revealed as the subjects of God's grace by the stand that they took on this day for the Lord (WPNT, III, 200, 201). Obviously the passage emphasizes the fact that in this case it was Gentiles who were determining themselves to eternal life by their acceptance of the Gospel message. (Besides, there is no preposition used here, such as pro, to indicate pre or fore ordain, dispose, or determine. The predetermining took place then and there by those who disposed or appointed themselves unto life eternal.) The same general idea is conveyed in Acts 16:14the Lord opened Lydia's heart, obviously, through the instrumentality of the eternal good news; as a result of her giving heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul (cf. Luke 24:45). Faith comes only by contact withby reading or hearingthe word of Christ (Romans 10:17); the whole missionary and evangelistic enterprise of the church in all ages is predicated on this fact.

(5) Romans 8:28-30. Here we have a clear revelation of one phase of the ultimate design of God's Eternal Purpose, namely, that His elect should ultimately be conformed to the image of His Son, that Hethe Sonmight be the firstborn among many brethren. The very essence of this Eternal Purpose was that in all things Christ should have the pre-eminence (Colossians 1:18, Ephesians 1:10), hence that He should be the firstborn from the dead, and that all whom He should purchase with His own precious blood (-Acts 20:28) should be redeemed in spirit and soul and body (1 Thessalonians 5:23) and so should ultimately wear the form of His own glorified body (John 17:5; Matthew 17:2; Romans 2:7; Romans 8:23; Acts 26:13; 1 Timothy 1:17; 2 Corinthians 5:1-10). Lard (CR, 283-284): When the prothesis was before God, He foresaw that certain persons would, when the opportunity was presented, become His children. These in purpose He accepted. Moreover, He then determined, which was of course an act of predetermination relative to the thing determined, that in the resurrection their bodies should be of the same form as the glorious body of His Son. As He was predetermined to be like them before He went into the grave, so they were predetermined to be like Him after they come out of it. Thus it will be seen that in the prothesis the Father placed before Him, not only the resurrection of Christ, but also the very form He should wear after it. Nor was this all. He there also determined that this form should be the bodily form for all His children. To use this author's terms, nothing is said here of actuals; rather, everything is presented as in prothetic form, i.e., as set or determined beforehand, hence included in God's Eternal Purpose. What then was fore-ordained? The answer is: The class of those who should ultimately be clothed in glory and honor and immortality as distinguished from the class of those who should not (John 5:28-29, Revelation 22:17, Matthew 25:46, Romans 2:4-11). The foreknowledge, foreordination, calling, justification, and final glorification are considered here only as in God's Purpose (Isaiah 46:9-11). Them also he called, that is, in His Eternal Purpose He called them: not that He called them in any special sense or special way, or that He called them, and not others: for this is neither asserted nor implied. But He called them, if before Christ, by the preaching of the prophets and other righteous men; or if under Christ, by the gospel; and just as He called them, He called all, the difference being that they voluntarily accepted, while the others wilfully rejected (ibid., 283). Upon this acceptance, which consisted in the obedience of belief, God justified them, remitted their sins, and henceforward held them as just. Now what took place here prothetically far back in eternity, is precisely what is now actually taking place every day under Christ (ibid., 284). (Cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:14; Romans 1:16; Romans 10:17; 1 Corinthians 4:15, 1 Peter 1:23; John 5:40; John 7:37; John 12:44; 2 Corinthians 5:20; Revelation 2:5; Revelation 3:20; Revelation 22:17). Note the phrase, from the foundation of the world, Matthew 13:35; Matthew 25:34; Luke 11:50; John 17:24; Ephesians 1:4; Hebrews 4:3; 1 Peter 1:18-21; Revelation 13:8; Revelation 17:8). In a word, it was the plan that was foreordained, not the man (as our old time preachers often put it), the class (the whosoever wills), not the individual. As others have noted, the key verbs herecalled, justified, glorifiedare all in the past tense; if actuals were thus intended rather than the potentials envisioned in the Eternal Purpose, the verb glorify would need to be in the future tense, them he shall glorify. Such statements as that found in Philippians 2:3-13, that God works in His saints both to will and to work, for his good pleasure, are express declarations that ultimate redemption is to be actualized only through man's conformity to the Planthe foreordained Gospelwhich God's grace has provided through the Atoning blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:2, Hebrews 9:23-28). To summarize: God foreknew this class as such (yet to be born), the voluntarily obedient, committed to the Spiritual Life, the whosoever wills, His elect; and He foreordained that these should ultimately be conformed to the image of His Son in the Life Everlasting, that is, clothed in glory and honor and incorruption. (Romans 2:7-8; Romans 10:16; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; 1 Peter 1:22; 1 Peter 4:17; Hebrews 5:9; cf. also Matthew 18:3-5; Matthew 19:14; Luke 18:15-17, etc.). The passage, Romans 8:28-30, has no reference whatever to any Divine foreknowledge, fore-ordination, election, calling, justification, sanctification, or glorification of the individual members of this class as individuals. (See esp. 1 Timothy 6:13-16).

(6.) Romans, chs. 9, 10, 11. The same is generally true of this section of the Epistle: it has reference only to the destinies of the progenies of the two children, Jacob and Esau, respectively. JB (281, n.): Paul's theme of justification by faith led him to speak of the righteousness of Abraham, ch. 4. Similarly here the theme of salvation lovingly bestowed by God through the Spirit makes it necessary for him to speak about Israel's case, chs. 9-11, a people which remains unbelieving though it has received the promise of salvation. The subject of these Chapter s, therefore, is not the problem of individual predestination to glory, or even to faith, but of Israel's part in the development of salvation history, the only problem raised by the statements in the O.T. In Genesis 9:11, we are told expressly that God did choose before their birth which of the two sons of Isaac should carry forward the Messianic Line: hence, election in this case was specifically not of works, but of him that calleth. Nevertheless, from the viewpoint of subsequent history, it did turn out to be one of works (works of faith), in the sense that their respective acts proved the one ancestor (Jacob) to be more worthy of God's favor than the other (Esau). Hence, in view of the fact that men are predestined to be free, surely we can not be far wrong in assuming that this superior quality of Jacob's character was foreknown by God from the beginning. Although it may appear at first glance that the choice was an arbitrary one, our human hindsight certainly supports God's foresight in making it. Of course Jacob's character was not anything to brag about, until after his experience at Peniel (Genesis 32:22-32), from which he emerged a changed man with a changed name (Israel), certainly it was of nobler quality than that of Esau, as proved especially by their different attitudes toward such divine rightsand responsibilitiesas those of primogeniture (Exodus 13:11-16, Deuteronomy 21:17). Disregard for positive divine ordinances (such as those of the birthright and the paternal blessing, in patriarchal times) is known in Scripture as profanity (from pro, outside or before, and fanum, temple), and hence is the vilest insult that can be perpetrated against Goda fact which the sophisticated, the respectable, the worldly wise of humankind are often too biased to understand or at least to be willing to admit. This is the charge leveled against Esau: his profanity was such that he blithely and unconcernedly sold his birthright for a bowl of beans (Hebrews 12:16a mess of meat). And this general irreligiousness of the paternal character seems to have passed down to his offspring (Numbers 20:14-21; Judges 11:16-17; 2 Samuel 8:14; Psalms 137:7; Ezekiel 25:12-14; Ezekiel 35:1-15; Amos 9:11-12, Joel 3:19, Obadiah 1:1-20, etc.).

The Apostle now proceeds to expound the relative destinies of Jews and Gentiles under God's providence. The Jews, his own people, he says, were chosen, not to receive salvation above all others, but to prepare the race for the ministry and work of Messiah, intending that when Messiah came they, and Gentiles as well, should receive salvation by accepting and obeying Him. God did no injustice in choosing the Jews at first to assume their designated tasks in preserving knowledge of the living and true God and in preparing the world for Messiah's advent; neither does He now do any injustice in choosing the Gentiles and rejecting the unbelieving Jews; He has always planned to accept those who should receive His Son and obey Him as their Redeemer, whether Jews or Gentiles, and to reject all who would not do so, as foretold repeatedly by the Old Testament prophets. The Jews made the tragic mistake of seeking justification (and hence of forfeiting their election), not by belief in Christ, but by works of the Law, the one way by which it can never be found. They showed that their zeal was not according to knowledge in their seeking to establish their own doctrine of justification, and this caused them to reject the plan which God had provided. No justification is possible to any person except on the ground of belief in Christ and the benefits of His Atonement; and indeed all may enjoy it, whether Jews or Gentiles, on the same conditions (Romans 10:1-15, Acts 2:38, Galatians 3:27-29). This is the substance of the Apostle's teaching here, with all its ramifications. There is not the slightest intimation that election means to the Children of Israel that they were forechosen, individually or collectively, to be saved above all other persons; rather, it was election to responsibilities, namely, those connected with preparing the world for Messiah's advent. No intimation of individual or national predestination to special divine favors is to be found in these Chapter s. Commenting on ch. 11, Romans 11:15, Lard summarizes as follows (CR, 359): But the future reception of the Jews will not consist in restoring them, as Jews, to their former national prosperity, but in receiving them into the divine favor in virtue of their obedience to Christ. Their condition and state will then be precisely the same as the present condition and state of Christian Gentiles. (Butdid not this reception begin on Pentecost, to continue throughout the present Dispensation, on the terms of the New Covenant? [Cf. Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:1-13; Acts 2:37-38; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Romans 3:22-24; Ephesians 2:13-18; Galatians 3:27-29].) (Cf. especially Romans 11:32For God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that he might have mercy on all [cf. Galatians 3:22, Joel 2:28-32, Acts 2:15-21.] Does not all flesh in these texts [cf. Joel 2:28-32, Acts 2:17-21] mean, essentially, without regard to any distinction between Jew and Gentile? Cf. again Ephesians 2:13-17).

Professor Donald Nash has summarized so clearly our problem with respect to ch. 9 of Romans and the doctrine of foreordination that this writer could not improve on it. Five principles should be kept in mind, he says, as follows: (1) If it teaches anything at all about election, it is that those who trust in election shall be lost. (This may sound facetious but it is true. The elect of chapter 9 are the Jews. Paul says they will be lost because they trusted in election of Israel over Esau rather than accepting Christ.) (2) When it speaks of election it is speaking of nations not individualsthe nation of Israel in contrast to the Gentiles. (3) It is dealing with a situation before the gospel when it speaks of the election of the Jews. (4) God chooses individuals and nations to carry out His purposes but not to be saved above others. (5) Election in this chapter deals with temporal matters of the preparation for Christ through Israel, now with the matter of one's eternal salvation in the Christian dispensation (art., Foreordination in the Plan of God, RH, Nov. 16, 1966).

The plain fact is that in these three Chapter s of Romans there is not the slightest reference to any foreordination to personal, eternal salvation of individuals as individuals.

(7) Finally, in this connection, let us consider the classic case of the betrayer, Judas Iscariot, one that has been belabored throughout the centuries. See Matthew 27:1-10; Acts 1:15-26; John 6:70-71; John 13:2; John 17:12. Note Acts 1:25Judas, we are told here, fell away from the apostleship. Thus the question arises: Did Judas fall away as a result of an arbitrary Divine ordination? Was he the one person specifically foreordained (elected) to be the betrayer of Christ? Was his identity as the betrayer, as well as his dastardly act, foreknown from the foundation of the world? Undoubtedly the betrayal was an integral part of the whole Drama of Redemption: how, then, did this particular person and his particular act fit into the Eternal Purpose? To this point the distinguished contemporary philosopher, Maritain, writes (GPE, 95-96):The occurrence of certain good things presupposes some sin, taken collectively and indeterminately. No martyr without some executioner. The Word was made flesh in order to redeem the world by His sacrifice and His immolation, and this presupposes murderers. On the side of the eternal purposes this supreme act of love and obedience, that is, the immolation of Christ according as it is accepted and willed by Him, and the infinite merits with which it is resplendent, and the redemption that it effectsall the good, at once human and divine, of this immolation is willed by God. But He wills all this good without willing in any way, either directly or indirectly, the sin committed by the authors of the death of Jesus. This sin remains absolutely outside the field of divine causationGod is absolutely not the cause of it, even the cause per accidens. God is never under any circumstances the cause of sin (James 1:13-15). How, then, do we account for Judas's defection? (1) In the first place, as Maritain goes on to say, given the contributing circumstances, namely, the distorted notion the Jewish leaders, especially the priests, had of Messiah and His mission, their certain venomous reaction to his utterly revolutionary teaching, including His castigation of their sheer formalism and hypocrisy, and the interrelationship of these factors and the politics the Jewish leaders would be compelled to pursue in dealing with the Roman civil authorities, in a word, the unbearable scandal that Jesus was for the world of the doctors and the public officials, there would be some among them to send Christ to His death, just as in a town where everyone is bilious there will certainly be a fight. That in one manner or in another Jesus would in the end be immolatedthis was certain, inevitable (ibid., 96-97). The story of mankind demonstrates again and again given a complex of certain contributing circumstances, history inevitably repeats itself. (2) Note also the statement of Jesus in John 6:70-71. Does not His statement here intimate that He, knowing the character of Judas, deliberately called him to the apostleship for the purpose of effecting His own Atoning Sacrifice for the sin of the world (Hebrews 12:2, John 1:29)? Certainly Jesus demonstrated repeatedly that He knew the inner thoughts and intents of those whose lives He touched (cf. John 3:1-6; John 4:16-18). (3) Finally, note John 13:2; John 13:27; John 8:44; John 17:12. Do not these statements by our Lord Himself affirm explicitly that the motivation in the case of Judas was of diabolical origin, that is to say, of Satanic suggestion? Surely the Father's open avouching of the Sonship of Jesus following the latter's baptism, and the accompanying identification of Him as Messiah by the Spirit's anointing (John 1:30-34, Acts 10:38), was a direct challenge to the Adversary to do his worst. Satan accepted the challenge, and thereby, we might add, unwittingly sealed his own doom forever. After two failures personally to seduce Jesus into the repudiation of His Atoning Mission (Matthew 4:1-11; Matthew 26:36-46; Luke 4:1-13), the Devil (whose knowledge, though superhuman, is not infinite), concluding that his only chance of thwarting God's purposes was to bring about the murder of the One whom he now recognized to be the real oracular woman's Seed (Genesis 3:15, Galatians 3:16). This he did by selecting the most likely agency to accomplish his designs: that agency was Judas Iscariot. And the character of Judas, as portrayed in the Gospel narratives, certainly points to him as the one most amenable to do the ugly business. (We now know, of course, that Satan's colossal blunder was his failure to take into account the Resurrection: this was the event which sealed his eternal destiny in Hell: Hebrews 2:14-15, 1 Corinthians 15:25-26, Romans 1:4). (4) Incidentally, could not Judas have repented of his sins and enjoyed redemption on the terms of the New Covenant had his character moved him to such a change of heart and life? Evidently the repentance of Judas was a repentance unto death: it was motivated, not by godly sorrow, but by remorse (the sorrow of the world); hence, it was but the ultimate proof of his inner depravity. He had not the slightest notion of Divine mercy and grace; therefore he went out and hung himself (Matthew 27:5, 2 Corinthians 7:10, Luke 15:17-21, Acts 1:16-25). (Divine foreknowledge of the acts of Judas does not necessarily imply Divine foreordination of those acts, as we shall see infra). It was diabolical pressure (Satanic suggestion), plus his own character, and not Divine fore-ordination, which prompted Judas to betray his Master.

Some important questions arise at this point, as follows: (1) In the first place, does the omniscience of God include absolute foreknowledge of all events, personal as well as cosmic? If God knows what our acts will be before we do them, can we truly be said to be free? It is held generally, and has been, throughout the Christian era, that omniscience does embrace total foreknowledge even of human acts. But this writer holds that the concept is debatable, to say the least, Tabernacled within every human being is the Breath of God which giveth to all life, and breath, and all things (Genesis 2:7, Acts 17:25). The Breath of God is a metaphor of the creating and sustaining activity of the Spirit of God. Surely this means that in every person there is an infinitesimal spark of the very being of God; and to the extent that man has, and can exercise, as the personal image of God, the power of choice, he is of a rank above the strictly finite. To this extent man is predestined to be free. Of course Infinity can and does foreknow the consequences of human acts, but whether Omniscience includes foreknowledge of just what a man will choose to do, between or among alternatives, under all circumstances, seems to me to be a moot question. (2) In the second place, granting the probability of Divine foreknowledge of human acts, does this foreknowledge imply fixity, as often claimed in the lingo of systematic theology? Of course not. Suppose I decide to eat a juicy steak to assuage my physical appetite: but suppose that, after due deliberation, I decide, for the sake of my health, not to eat the steak. If I should carry out the first of these actions, God would foreknow what I do; if I should decide to carry out the alternative, again God would foreknow what I do. In the very nature of the case, whichever act I carry out, that is what God would foreknow. In short, my free acts are the events which constitute Divine foreknowledge. Does it not follow, therefore, that the fixity is set by the human act, not by God's foreknowledge of it? It is what I do, that God foreknows. This brings us to the crux of the problem. (3) In the third place, then, does Divine foreknowledge presuppose Divine foreordination? Not necessarily. God may foreknow that I am going to rush out into the street at a certain hour tomorrow and be run over and killed by an automobile driven by a drunk. But does this mean, necessarily, that God has foreordained my act (or even that He ordained it at the moment of its happening) to which probably my own carelessness has contributed? Does it mean, too, that He has foreordained (or that He ordained at the instant of its occurrence) that the driver of the automobile in question should be intoxicated? It strikes me that it would be silly to answer either of these questions in the affirmative. Moreover, for God to intervene and prevent either my act or this driver's drunkenness and accompanying act would be ruling by coercion; and if He should do this for either or both of us, He would be duty bound, so to speak, to do the same for all persons under the same circumstances, and this would be ruling the moral universe by force. Had God chosen to exercise His Sovereignty in this arbitrary manner universally, why did He endow man with the power to think, to deliberate, to weigh alternatives, and finally to choose and act. Maclver (STS., 520): To live is to act; to act is to choose; and to choose is to evaluate. Again I ask: Can choice be made by one who has been created in God's image ever be foreknown, much less foreordained? Akin to this question is another: In the very nature of things, is it possible for God to compel His creatures to love Him? Would such a pressured or coerced response, if possible, ever be love? (Parents know all too well that they cannot compel their own children to love them). And is not the converse true: that it is not possible for God to love a puppet? Foreknowledge does not necessarily presuppose foreordination. Man is predestined to be free. The same argument presented here applies not only to predestinarianism, but to all forms of predeterminism and fatalism as well. Within the limits of his acquaintanceship with alternatives, man does have freedom of choice. In every human act, three factors are involved, These are the forces of heredity, the forces of environment, and the personal reaction. It is the personal reaction that tips the scales toward one alternative above the other. True it is that the stronger motive wins in the end. But why so? Because it is the one which, for personal reasons, appeals to me above all others. That is to say, the I casts the deciding vote. The person is characterized by self-determination: this means that it is the self which determines its own acts.

Let us look briefly for a moment at some of the ideas which have been put forward in explanation of the problems of Divine foreordination and human freedom. (Freedom we define as the power to act or not to act, or to act in one way instead of another, in a given situation. Voluntariness is the actual exercise of this freedom.) (1) Augustine attempted to solve the problem by basing man's freedom to exercise his will on God's foreknowledge that he will exercise it. He writes (De Libero Arbitrio, Bk. III, translated by Burleigh; see KV, 437-441): Our will would not be will unless it were in our power. Because it is in our power, it is free. We have nothing that is free which is not in our power, and if we have something it cannot be nothing. Hence it is not necessary to deny that God has foreknowledge of all things, while at the same time our wills are our own. God has foreknowledge of our will, so that of which He has foreknowledge must come to pass. In other words, we shall exercise our wills in the future, because He has foreknowledge that we shall do so; and there can be no will or voluntary action unless it be in our power. Hence God has also foreknowledge of our power to will. My power is not taken from me by God's foreknowledge. Indeed, I shall be more certainly in possession of my power because He whose foreknowledge is never mistaken, foreknows that I shall have the power.

(2) Thomas Aquinas agrees with Augustine in holding that the man who is guided by his reason is morally and spiritually free. Man, he says, is not governed by instinct as animals are, but is distinguished from them by his power of judgment which is guided by his reason. The reason can determine whether a thing is good or evil and can cause man to act accordingly. The Highest Good (Summum Bonum) is Perfect Happiness: this alone can never be considered evil; and for this reason man wills happiness of necessity. (Of course the Scholastics define Perfect Happiness as ultimate union with God, the union of the righteous mind with the Mind of God in knowledge, and of the righteous will with the Will of God in love. Evil they defined as the privation of good, arising from man's failureor unwillingnessto distinguish between apparent goods and real goods.) Because man's choice is not of the end, but of the means, the choice is not of the Highest Good, but of particular goods; hence, because his choices are in this area, he chooses freely and not of necessity.
(3) William James contends that if God is thought of as providing for possibilities (Bergson called them novelties) within the universe (totality of created being), as well as for actualities, chances may exist which even He does not control. The course of the universe would be fortuitous (hence ambiguous) to a degree, yet the ultimate end would be that which is designed from eternity. This is the doctrine known as telefinalism. God would not necessarily know all the details, but only the possibilities, until at the moment or moments at which they occur. James sees man as a creative power per se in the determination of the flux of things, although God alone determines the consummation (ultimate end). Cf. Isaiah 46:9-11, Acts 3:21.

(4) The German philosopher, Kant, affirmed the existence of facts lying beyond the bounds of the empirical: these are known by what he called the ideas of reasonthe concepts necessary to any comprehensive philosophy of life. The exercise of freedom is determined by the law of reason. The will is a cause that belongs only to rational beings and is free in the sense that it is not determined by external causes, but by the autonomous reason alone. It is not necessary, he tells us, to suppose that the category of cause and effect applies beyond the domain of spatio-temporal events. Therefore, since we are bound to believe that the will is free, in order to give reality to the moral life, we can be consistent in holding that the self belongs to the noumenal realm outside the phenomenal order of space and time. Kant endeavors to show on moral grounds that men must believe that they are free members of a rational and spiritual order, and that, as such, they are also immortal. As a practical necessity, he urges, we must believe in a Being (God) who alone can guarantee the fulfilment of our craving for immortality, and so give substance to the moral life. Such beliefs (acts of faith), are necessary postulates of what he calls the practical reason. (It will be noted that for Kant immortality meant only continuance of existence beyond the grave: this, as we have shown on preceding pages herein, is not the Biblical doctrine of immortality.)

(5) According to John Locke, the fact that events can be predicted from knowledge of their respective causes does not mean that these causes compel the occurrence of the events. It is true, in theory at least, that a human act can be traced to past causes, if the causes are all fully known. But it is equally true that human actions are, as a rule, unpredictable, because it is impossible to identify all the causal factors involved. When man acts voluntarily, he does what he himself has decided to do. Freedom is abridged only by external forces which can constrain him to act contrary to his will. (For example, suppose a robber forces a man to hand over his pocketbook: in such cases the victim does so, but not willingly: hence his freedom of action is constrained, but his freedom of will is not affected.) Man could not be free if his will were determined by anything but his personal desire under the guidance of his judgment. Again, this all boils down to the fact that the I casts the deciding vote.

(6) The tendency today among physicists is to regard the workings of the cosmos as indeed very probable, but not always determinate, As a consequence of the quantum theory and its ramifications, it is fairly well evident that physical laws do hold true, but only statistically. A principle of spontaneity has been found even in the very core of the atom. It is discovered that both the velocity of an elementary particle and its position in space at the same instant cannot be determined: electrons seem to jump from one orbit to another in an unpredictable manner; moreover, because some signal must be transmitted from the particle to the observer, the very act of scrutiny seems to change what is being scrutinized. This is known as the (Heisenberg) Principle of Uncertainty or Indeterminacy. Max Planck, first proponent of the quantum theory, writes (Where Is Science Going? in KV, p. 459): The fact is that there is a point, one single point in the immeasurable world of mind and matter, where science and therefore every causal method of research is inapplicable, not only on practical grounds but also on logical grounds, and will always remain inapplicable. This point is the individual ego. It is a small point in the universal realm of being: but in itself it is a whole world, embracing our emotional life, our will and our thought. This realm of the ego is at once the source of our deepest suffering and at the same time of our highest happiness. Over this realm no outer power of fate can ever have sway, and we lay aside our own control and responsibility over ourselves only with the laying aside of life itself. Sigmund Freud has written in similar vein: Every psychic association will be strictly determined by the attitudes of the mind, which are unknown to us at the moment they operate. (Quoted by Adler, in Synopticon, Vol. II, of the Great Books series, p. 1020). Planck concludes (op. cit., pp. 461-462): Freedom of the will. and its independence of the causal chain is a truth that comes from the immediate dictates of the human consciousness.. Science thus brings us to the threshold of the ego and there leaves us to ourselves. In the conduct of our lives the causal principle is of little help; for by the iron law of logical consistency we are excluded from laying the causal foundations of our own future or foreseeing the future as definitely resulting from the present.. The law of causation is the guiding rule of science, but the Categorical Imperativethat is to say, the dictate of dutyis the guiding rule of life. (Kant's Categorical Imperative: Act in conformity with that maxim, and that maxim only, which you can at the same time will to be a universal law. This, said Kant, is the essence of morality, and from it springs the only true moral motiveobedience to moral law which has no other source than respect for the autonomy of the law itself. This type of action would be the manifestation of the good will, and, says Kant, Nothing in the whole world, or even outside of the world, can possibly be regarded as good without limitation except a good will. His Practical Imperative: So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as a means only.)

(8) The Existentialists, in particular those of an atheistic bent, affirm that man is wholly free and responsible, no matter what internal or external factors may seem to bring about his decision. According to Sartre, in a godless universe (one with no exit) everything is possible: hence, man is precisely what he makes of himself; he is a free and forlorn entity. He cannot put the responsibility for his acts on his passions, nor on circumstances in general, for the simple reason that each person is bound to determine the manner of his reaction and hence is fully responsible for his interpretation of the circumstances involved. We remind man, Sartre writes, that there is no lawmaker other than himself, and that in his forlornness he will decide by himself; because we point out that man will fulfill himself as man, not in turning toward himself, but in seeking outside himself a goal which is just this liberation, just this particular fulfilment (Exst., p. 18). Existentialism of all shades, of course, fairly reeks with pessimism.

(9) Maritain, distinguished contemporary philosopher (referred to, supra), approaches our problem from an entirely different point of view. God, he contends, does not foreseeHe sees; does not foreknow, but knows. God's realm is that of timelessness: this is essentially what eternity is. Hence there is no past, present, or future to God, but only the everlasting Now. (Cf. 2 Corinthians 6:2; also Exodus 3:14the Name of Deity, I AM, HE WHO IS). Maritain writes (EE, 87): God does not foresee things of time, He sees in particular the free options and decisions of the created existent which, in as much as they are free, are absolutely unforeseeable. He sees them at the instant when they take place. Again (GPE, 82): I have said that the divine purposes are infrustably fixed from all eternity from the fact that God, at the eternal Instant to which all the moments of time are present all together, has freely formed such or such purposes for the world rather than an infinity of other possible purposes, or even no purposes at all, for He was free not to create the world. Again (ibid., 79):All of this meansand let us mark this well in our mindsthat God has the entire course of time physically present to His eternal Instant, and that He has it before His eyes in its entirety when He establishes all things from all eternity, Again he writes of the physical presence of all the moments of time to divine eternity, that eternity to which all the instants of the life of a man, the last as well as the first, are present together (ibid., 90, 106). Although it is utterly impossible for the human intellect to grasp the full meaning of this concept, certainly it is a valid one, and one that opens up celestial vistas radiant with possibilities of hope and fruition. I have been convinced for some time that our bootlegging of human notions of time into the realm of God's timelessness has projected into human thought many irrelevant questions, questions that are meaningless insofar as actual human experience is concerned. The tendency to think of eternity as a kind of stretched-out time has been, and still is, a source of great confusion: it seems to me that the Beautific Vision must be essentially illumination from which the time element is removed altogether (Matthew 5:8, 1 Corinthians 13:12, 2 Corinthians 4:18, 1 John 3:2), an illumination, however, which will carry with it the sense of its own everlastingness. Time seems to be of little consequence in God's Cosmic Plan. He is portrayed in Scripture as acting by Divine Fiat: sometimes the decree is actualized at the moment of utterance (as, for example, especially in the miracles wrought by Jesus and the Apostles, cf. Luke 7:2; Matthew 7:29; Matthew 8:26-27; John 11:43; Acts 2:22; Acts 3:6; Hebrews 2:2-4), and at other times actualized gradually (progressively), that is, by means of what we speak of as secondary causes, or laws of nature (cf. Isaiah 28:10, Mark 4:28, Galatians 4:4, Psalms 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8). On the basis of Maritain's view, the prefixes fore and pre have little significance, except perhaps in accommodation to man's present spatiotemporal environment (2 Corinthians 4:16-18).

(10) To summarize; Predestination or Foreordination in Scripture has reference to the essential factors involved in God's Eternal Purpose; that is, as stated already, to the plan rather than to the man, to the class rather than to the individual. We are not surprised, therefore, to note that the Gospel invitations are always clear: they definitely imply that man can come to God by an intelligent response to an intelligent appeala procedure that is designated conversion (Acts 3:19). This process is essentially psychological rather than mystical: first the preaching and hearing (1 Corinthians 1:21, Romans 10:17), then, from the hearing to understanding, to believing, to turning and obeying (Isaiah 6:9-10; Matthew 13:14-15; Acts 28:26-27; John 1:12-13; Acts 2:38; Luke 13:3; Romans 10:9-10; Romans 6:4-6; Matthew 10:32-33; Matthew 28:18-20; Galatians 3:27). Note the Lord's own precious invitation in Matthew 11:28. Note also Revelation 22:17he that will (A.V., whosoever will), let him take the water of life freely. The elect are the whosoever wills; and the non-elect are the whosoever won-'ts. All that ever stands between the sinner and his salvation is his own stubborn will (John 5:20, Matthew 23:37).

One of our pioneer evangelists was invited on occasion to have dinner in a home in which the wife was a strict adherent of the Primitive Baptist faith. Her husband had long been trying to convince her that she was in error on the creedal dogma of election, but had failed. He asked the evangelist to try his hand at it. The evangelist considered it a hopeless task, but decided to make the effort anyway. He went to the house. After the dinner had been prepared, the good woman came to the door and invited her husband and his guest to come to the table. The evangelist went with the husband until he came close enough to see the good things on the table; then he abruptly turned back into the sitting room, saying, I-'m not going to eat. The poor woman did not know what to think. She turned pale. She looked at her husband, he looked at her, and both looked at the preacher. Finally, she asked: What's the matter? The preacher replied: I-'m just not going to eatthat's what's the matter! The woman was very nervous; neither she nor her husband could understand this discourtesy. Why won-'t you eat? asked the woman, I am not going to eat simply because you do not want me, replied the evangelist, She looked aghast. If I had not wanted you as a guest, why would I have prepared this meal? Yes, replied the preacher, but how do I know that you want me? You have not told me that you want me. How do I know that you mean it? Surely, answered the woman, you know it from the fact that I prepared the meal and invited you to be our guest. You mean it, then, and you really want me? Certainly, answered the wife. Then I will eat. After being seated at the table and offering thanks for the food, the evangelist said: Now, sister, if I had not come back to your table, that would have been an insult, would it not? And your feelings would have been hurt very much. Yes, indeed, she replied, and I don-'t understand yet what made you act as you did. My sister, said the evangelist, I was merely acting out your theology, that's all. The Lord has prepared the Marriage Feast. He has given you the invitation to attend and partake of it. All things are ready. He has prepared this Feast at a great sacrifice and He urges you to come to it. Yet your doctrine tells you that you can-'t come until He has told you in some mysterious way that He means it. Why would He have prepared the Feast and invited you through the Gospelall at such terrible costif He did not mean it? The good woman saw the point, made the Good Confession and was baptized into Christ.

God has told us clearly in the New Testament Scriptures what we must do to be received into covenant relationship with Him. Sinner friend, do you require Him to send along a special operation of the Spirit (a telegram, so to speak) to convince you that He means what He says in His Word? God gave His Son, the Son gave His life (John 3:16), and now the Spirit gives you the Word, the Gospel, telling you to believe, repent, confess, and be baptized into Christ. These are the musts by which you can appropriate the Gift: you can come to God only in His way and on His terms. All who reject the Gospel call will die without benefit of Divine promise and hence without hope. Their end is everlasting separation from God and all good. Whosoever will, may come. As the old song has it, that means everybody, that means you. Come now, and come just as you are.

6. Final Perseverance

This is the last of the complex of dogmas that go to make up what is generally known as Calvinistic theology. In popular parlance it is the notion of once in grace, always in grace. It is stated in the Westminster Confession (1939 edition) as follows: Those whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved. The perseverance of the saints depends, not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election. As C. H. Spurgeon has put it: The believer, like a man on shipboard, may fall again and again on the deck, but he will never fall overboard (quoted by Strong, ST, 885). It would be difficult to find a clearer example of the fallacy of the circular argument than we have here. Those who hold this notion will affirm that a truly regenerated person simply cannot fall away, but if it should turn out that someone who has professed regeneration should, later in life, drop out and never come back to the fold, that would be proof that he was never regenerated. This view is the logical corollary of the dogma of unconditional election, which is stated by Strong (ST, 882) as follows: Election of certain individuals to salvation is election to bestow upon them such influences of the Spirit as will lead them not only to accept Christ, but to persevere and be saved. Union with Christ is indissoluble; regeneration is the beginning of a work of new creation, which is declared in justification, and completed in sanctification. All these doctrines are parts of a general scheme, which would come to naught if any single Christian were permitted to fall away. That is to say, the path of the elected is mapped out for them; it can lead nowhere but to Heaven, simply because they have been elected to go to Heaven. (Obviously, the dogma ignores the fact that the saints enjoy election, justification, and sanctification, only as a result of their own co-operation with God, according to His plan and on His terms, in their living the Spiritual Life. 2 Peter 3:18.)

(1) Let us note the Scriptures commonly cited in support of this dogma. (a) John 10:25-30. But if a man is among the sheep, it is because he hears and obeys the Lord's voice and follows Him voluntarily, not because the Lord builds a barbed wire fence around the sheepfold to keep him inside. Growing in grace involves a man's abiding in Christ and in His Word (John 8:31-32; John 14:15; John 15:7; John 15:14; 2 John 1:9).As long as the Christian diligently follows Christ (Romans 12:1-2), no enemy of God or man can snatch him out of the Father's hand. But the person can snatch himself out of God's hands, just as a stubborn old ram (or goat, Matthew 25:31-33) can, and often does, jump over the fence only to be devoured by wolves. (b) John 5:24. This is one of the numerous Scriptures in which hearing means, not just listening, but also believing and obeying. After a man becomes a Christian he must be nourished on spiritual food and drink (John 4:10; John 6:63; 1 Corinthians 3:2; 1 Peter 2:2). Butthink of the names on church membership rolls of persons who neglect, or ignore altogether, the Lord's Supper, stewardship, the stated assembly, soul-winning, everything vital to the Spiritual Life! They are starving themselves, and if they persist in this course, they will eventually commit spiritual suicide. If God were to employ coercive measures (brainwashing?) to restore them, He would, as a matter of consistency, be compelled to do the same in every case; and so again salvation would be made to depend on God's will, and not on man and God working together. This would be contrary to reason and justice. God is not a respecter of persons (Colossians 3:25, 1 Peter 1:17). This dogma, if logically followed, can lead only to the absurdities of Universalism. (c) Row. Genesis 11:28-29 (A.V.) The gifts and calling of God are without repentance (A.S.V., are not repented of). All such matters as pardon, justification, remission, the indwelling Spirit, eternal life, are the giftsthe favorsof God bestowed freely out of the abundance of His grace. Does it mean that these favors are bestowed without repentance and obedience on man's part? Certainly not (Luke 13:3, Acts 17:30); for God to act thus would be His putting a premium on impenitence and rebelliousness! The A.S.V. gives the correct rendering: the favors of God are bestowed on certain conditions (the keys of the kingdom, Matthew 16:19, John 20:22-23), and from these conditions God will not turn (Acts 2:38). God has concluded both Jew and Gentile under sin that He may manifest His grace to all, Jew and Gentile alike, on the same terms: but all alike must comply with the terms (John 15:7): those who fail to do so cannot expect to receive the fulfilment of the Divine promises. (d) 1 Corinthians 10:13. How true these words! The Christian never faces temptation without God's having provided for him the way of escape. Among these helps in resisting temptation are knowledge of the Word (Matthew 4:4; Matthew 4:7; Matthew 4:10; 2 Timothy 2:19; 2 Timothy 3:15-16; Romans 10:8-10); prayer (1 Thessalonians 5:17); personal confession of sins to God from day to day (1 John 1:9). For every Christian there is the temptationand there is the way of escape. Two doors are open before him: in one stands the devil of pride, rage, lust, beckoning with strong appeals; in the other stands the angel of mercy with outstretched arms, Which door will he enter?the answer depends on him; the decision rests with him. (e) 1 Peter 1:4-5. God's saints are guarded through faith unto a salvation to be revealed in the last time. But what is this faith: in its real sense, it is an active, living, everdeepening commitment in spirit and soul and body to the Will of Christ (Romans 12:1-3). This does not mean that God pressures His electby exercising mystical influence upon them from time to timeinto maintaining their vital relationship with Him. Such mystical influences are not necessary, because the Word is always at hand, in their mouths and in their hearts, the Word of the Spirit, which is God's power unto regeneration and sanctification (Romans 10:6-17, Luke 16:27-31, 1 Peter 3:15). Heaven will be populated only with Overcomers (Revelation 2:7; Revelation 2:11; Revelation 2:17; Revelation 2:26; Revelation 3:5; Revelation 3:12; Revelation 3:21). But the allurements of the world, the flesh, and the devil are very powerful, so powerful that oftentimes the very elect permit themselves to be deceived and dragged down into the pit. (f) Romans 8:38-39. This is literally true. There is nothingabsolutely nothingthat can separate us from the Love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord; that is, nothing outside ourselves. But we can separate ourselves from His blessings if we persist in our backsliding: we can commit spiritual suicide. Even though our backsliding grieves His Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:30), absolute Justice demands that we suffer the penalty for our impenitence. The grace of God is indispensable, but it is not irresistible (Acts 7:51). (g) 1 John 3:9; cf. 1 John 1:9-10. Concerning 1 John 3:9, Robertson writes (WPNT, VI, 223): the present active infinitive hamartanein can only mean -and he cannot go on sinning.-' One who has truly been be-gotten of God simply cannot go on sinning habitually: though he may fail at times, and surely does, his disposition is to do the Will of God.

(2) Now let us note the Scriptures which expressly assert, or intimate, the possibility of falling away. 1 Corinthians 10:1-12; Luke 9:62; Luke 8:13note those who receive the word with joy, and for a time believe, but having no root, in time of temptation fall away; Galatians 5:4; 1 Corinthians 9:27; 1 Timothy 1:18-19; 1 Timothy 4:1; Hebrews 6:4-6; Hebrews 10:26-31; Hebrews 12:15; 2 Peter 2:20-22. For the erring Christian, the way back to God is through repentance and prayer (Acts 8:22, 1 John 1:8-10). It is to be noted here that one book of the New Testament tells us what to do to be saved, namely, the books of Acts; but there are twenty-one books telling us what to do to continue and to grow in the Spiritual Life (2 Peter 3:18). Obviously, if we could not fall away, most of the New Testament Canon would be useless.

(3) Note also those Scriptures which either assert or intimate that spiritual life and growth are contingent upon steadfast discipleship throughout one's life. John 8:31; John 15:4-8; 2 Timothy 3:14; Hebrews 2:1, Acts 14:22, 1 Corinthians 15:58, Colossians 1:23, 2 Thessalonians 3:13 -1 Corinthians 16:13; 1 Thessalonians 3:8; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; Titus 1:9; Hebrews 4:14, Hebrews 12:1 -2 Peter 1:10-11, Philippians 3:13-16; Hebrews 6:1; Hebrews 10:23; 2 Timothy 4:6-8, Matthew 10:22, Revelation 2:10 -2 Peter 2:5-7, Galatians 5:22-24. Note that the precious and exceeding great promises of God are only for the Overcomers (2 Pet. 1-4; Revelation 2:7; Revelation 2:11; Revelation 2:17, etc.). Note Philippians 2:12-13, 1 Corinthians 3:9, 2 Corinthians 6:1. Spiritual life and growth are achieved by God and man working together, in God's way. We as Christians work out our own salvation by continuing steadfastly in His Word; and at the same time God works in us and through us in the sense that His Word directs us and His Spirit sanctifies us. God's part is sanctification; man's part is perseverance.

(a) There is not a single Scripture which can be cited to support the theory that it is impossible for a Christian to fall away, (b) To be sure, it is improbable that one who has truly been converted will fall away, but not impossible by any means, Even a professing Christian can commit spiritual suicide. (c) The natural tendency of human beings is to follow the lines of least resistance, especially in the realm of the spiritual. This dogma encourages such an attitude: it promotes spiritual indolence. It causes men to think, If I cannot fall away, why should I exert myself too much in cultivating the Spiritual Life? Why not let the matter rest with God? Let us, rather, instead of waiting for God to do something for us, get busy doing something for God, Let us be up and doing for God, knowing that the night cometh when no man can work (John 9:4, Romans 13:12).

A backwoods preacher once summarized the doctrine of perseverance in three terse sentences: (1) take hold, (2) hold on, and (3) never let go. This truly is perseverance (Matthew 10:22).

Some years ago a small town newspaper printed the story of two boys who were making their way along the street with a small wagon loaded with scraps of fuel they had picked up in the railroad yards. One boy was ahead pullinghis hat pushed back, eyes sparkling, and himself whistling cheerfully. The other was behind pushing, and whining repeatedly because he stubbed his toes or stepped on a rock or some gravel, or griping because the work was too hard. Finally the boy in front turned and rebuked him in these words: Of course there's stones in the road! There's always stones and sticks in the road, and a feller's got to get over -em the best way he can. It don-'t help for you to howl every time you strike -em either. Shut your mouth and keep on pushin-' and we-'ll get there. This rebuke was an eloquent sermon in itself. In any area of life, the crown of victory is reserved only for the Overcomers (2 Timothy 4:6-8).

People fail in this world because they are not firm enough in stick it out. The same is true, unfortunately, of many who make a profession of Christianity: they do not will to continue steadfastly (Acts 2:42, 1 Corinthians 15:58). The longer I live, the more I am convinced that most of us are what we will to be. Not failure, but low aim is crimeand sin.

7. The Divine Problem

Following man's temptation and fall, the problem before the Divine government was twofold: (1) that of satisfying offended and violated Justice (Righteousness). The law of God, the supreme law of all being, had been trampled under foot by rebellious man. The majesty of the law had to be sustained, else God would have been humiliated in the sight of all intelligent beings, and would have been guilty of putting a premium on sin. The father who never holds his children responsible for their violations of parental authority will soon see all kinds of disorder prevailing in his home. The state (civil society) which does not hold its citizens accountable for violations of the civil law will soon find itself in a condition of hopeless anarchy. Law must be sustained, or it ceases to be law. But, in the case of our first parents, it was the Divine law which had to be sustained, not human law; hence, no offering that the earth or its inhabitants could make would suffice to accomplish this end. (2) That of overcoming the rebellion in man's heart. Sin had entered it and separated him from God. No doubt all intelligent creatures thought that man would go the way of the fallen angels. But not so: God loved man too much to allow him to be lost forever, as are the angels who have been reserved in chains of darkness unto the Last Judgment (2 Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6). (Besides, man had been seduced by the Tempter, whereas the angels who left their first estate had been moved to rebellious anarchy solely by their own interior choice.) Yet how could the rebellious creaturethat is, mankind in generalever be won back into reconciliation with God? (2 Corinthians 5:17-21), Punishment would not do it, but would only serve to drive him farther and farther away, There was but one way by which this twofold problem could be resolved, namely) by an offering on the part of Heaven itself, so costly that it would, at the same time, vindicate the majesty of the law violated and fully demonstrate God's immeasurable love for those created in His own image. Hence, great as the problem was, the solution had already been determined in the councils of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As stated heretofore, the ineffable Gift of God was announced first, in purpose, from Adam to Abraham; secondly, in promise, from Abraham to Isaiah, thirdly, in prophecy, from Isaiah to Malachi, and in preparation, from Malachi to Pentecost, A.D. 30; and finally, was actualized in fact by the death, burial and resurrection of God's Only Begotten. The sinner who can look on Calvary and not be touched by a feeling of sorrow for his own sins (2 Corinthians 7:10) must indeed have put himself beyond the possibility of Divine election. (Genesis 3:15; Genesis 12:3; Romans 4:13; Galatians 3:16; Acts 3:25; 1 Peter 1:10-12; Acts 3:18; Acts 26:22-23; Acts 10:43; Matthew 3:2; Luke 24:45-49; John 19:20; Acts 1:1-5; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4; Acts 2:22-36). (Note Robertson Smith, RSFI, 62: To reconcile the forgiving goodness of God with His absolute justice, is one of the highest problems of spiritual religion, which in Christianity is solved by the doctrine of the atonement.)

The Plan by which man is brought back into relationship with God, with accompanying privileges of worship, meditation, prayer, faith, hope, love, obedience, etc., is comprehended in the term religion. The process by which the eternal Word became flesh, that is, took upon Himself the nature of the seed of Abraham (Hebrews 2:14-17, Philippians 2:5-11), is expressed by the word incarnation (Luke 1:35, John 1:14). The process by which Christ vindicated the majesty of the Divine law which had been violated is comprehended in the term atonement (covering, for the sin of the world, John 1:29; Hebrews 9:23-28). The application of this Divine plan to the souls of men, by grace, through faith, includes the processes of remission, justification, sanctification, and glorification, all of which taken together, constitute redemption (Hebrews 9:12). All these processes, moreover, attain fruition in the Life Everlasting, Union with God, The Beatific Vision (1 Corinthians 13:12, 1 John 3:2).

* * * * *

N.B.The two quotes in the third paragraph under section 5 above are from an article by Professor Donald Nash, in The Restoration Herald, December, 1966. The article is captioned, Foreordination In The Plan of God. Professor Nash has been kind enough to inform me that the first excerpt was taken from a compendium of Calvin's Institutes entitled John Calvin on the Christian Faith, appearing as part of the Library of Liberal Arts, Oskar Piest, general editor, and John T. McNeill, editor of this particular work. Published by Bobbs Merrill, Indianapolis, 1957. The latter, in his Introduction, states that his text of Calvin's works in from the seventh edition of John Allen's translation published by the Presbyterian Board of Christian Education. The quotation is on p. 92 of the work cited and is from ch. 21 of the Institutes, entitled Eternal Election, or God's Predestination of Some to Salvation and Others to Destruction.

The quotation from the Creed was taken from the book, What Americans Believe and How They Worship, by J. Paul Williams, p. 208, (in which he cited the Constitution of the Northern Presbyterian Church), published by Harper and Row, 1952. Although Williams concludes that this position is no longer held by the majority of groups historically in the stream of Calvinistic theology, Professor Nash writes that Floyd Hamilton in his commentary on Romans published in 195 8, commenting on these very verses [Romans 8:28-29], seemingly holds very dogmatically to this view and could be said to be representative of others. (Nevertheless, it is my conviction that this problem needs to be reviewed thoroughly, at this point in the present textC.C.C.)

* * * * *

FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING

Human Attitudes Toward Suffering

Human attitudes toward suffering are varied, such as the following especially:
1. Denial, that is, the outright denial of evil in any form. (1) Oriental mysticismsBrahmanism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc.agree in regarding life itself as illusion (maya). (2) Absolutists in philosophythose who define the Absolute as the All-embracingfind themselves impaled on the horns of a dilemma of their own making, namely, (a) they must admit that the Absolute, in the sense in which they use the term, must embrace evil as well as good, or (b) they must resort to the view that all evil is illusion (illusion of mortal mind). As the old limerick goes:

There was once a mind healer named Deal,
Who contended that pain isn-'t real,
But when he sat on a pin
And it punctured his skin,
He said, Faith, I don-'t like what I fancy I feel.

Of all the Absolutist philosophers, the best example is Spinoza, in whose philosophy (ethics geometrically demonstrated) the totality of being is pictured as a completely closed system, God Himself being this totality, in which there is no freedom of will whatsoever. (3) But to treat evil as illusion is simply a proof of blindness to the facts of everyday experience. The idea is utterly unrealistic. Not only so, but it is illogical as well. Even if a person could convince himself that suffering, for example, is all illusion, that would not make it so. Obviously, an illusion must be an illusion of something: an illusion of nothing or nothingness is inconceivable. Moreover, how does this illusion of mortal mind originate? And would not the illusion itself partake of the character of evil, in the sense of imperfection or finitude? All that any thinking person needs to do in our time is to read the daily papers with their horrible accounts of murders, riots, vicious sex crimes, kidnappings, violence and lust of every kind, not to mention embezzlements, thefts, robberies, attempted frauds, etc., to realize that all this is not illusion: it is stark reality. (4) Closely related to the illusionist attitude is the childish, Pollyanna-like outlook, the ultra-optimistic view which is equally unrealistic. As Browning has put it,

God's in His heaven,
All's right with the world.

Anyone knows that this is largely sentimentality. True it is that God's in His Heaven, but surely no intelligent person would question the fact that all is not right with the world. Nothere is evil in the world: there is deceit, treachery, cruelty, suffering, violence, global warfare, etc. But all these things are in the world because man brought them into the world. (5) It has been rightly said that man's troubles arise from one or more of three sources: (a) from what a man does to himself, (b) from what others may do to him, and (c) from the physical framework of this temporal world which now is his habitation. From the processes of the physical world around him man is constantly subject to such catastrophic events as droughts, floods, epidemics, earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, tidal waves, hurricanes, etc. But true Christians do not allow themselves to be lured into self-destroying pessimism by these catastrophes; they accept them, rather, as inherently characteristic of this terrestrial sphere; hence, like the saints of old, they confess they are but pilgrims here, as by faith they journey toward the city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God (Hebrews 11:8-16). (Matthew 6:19-20, 2 Corinthians 4:16-18, Romans 8:24-25).

(2) Escape. That is, the cowardly attitude of getting away from it all, or in the lingo of gangland, taking a run-out powder. (a) Agnosticism is one form of the escapist attitude. As Bob Ingersoll once put it: I do not say that there is no God; I simply say that I do not know. I do not say that there is no future life; I simply say that I do not know. Of course, on the pretense of the impossibility of reaching a solution, or even a partial solution, of life's most persistent problems (what am I? whence came I? and, whither am I bound?), one, theoretically at least, disavows all responsibility for making an effort to find these solutions. It is so much easier to profess agnosticism than to defend atheism. Someone has remarked that an agnostic is a man who wants to be an atheist, but lacks the intestinal fortitude to openly declare his atheism. (b) Since in Oriental cults life is illusion (maya), salvation becomes a matter of escape from this illusion, escape achieved by the rigid suppression of all individuality and individual desire, by ultimate absorption into the ocean of undifferentiated energy (variously known as Brahma, Tao, Unity, The One, etc.). Note the vast difference here between the Eastern and Western views of life. Whereas in the East, life is regarded as illusion, in the West it is held to be man's greatest good, and its highest ends, love and service for God and for our fellow men (Matthew 22:34-40); and salvation is the perfecting of the person's interior life in preparation for ultimate Union (fellowship) with God (Colossians 3:3-4, 1 John 3:2-3). Whereas in the East the destiny of the soul is Nirvana (absorption into Brahma, Tao, The One, etc.), in the West it is final Union with Godnot absorption which is essentially the loss of individuality, but fellowship of redeemed persons with the personal God, the living and true God, actualized by the living of the Spiritual Life (2 Peter 3:18)known Scripturally as the Life Everlasting; or for those who reject God's gift of Redemption, final separation from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might (2 Thessalonians 1:9-10, Matthew 25:31-46). It is difficult to see how these completely opposite views can ever flourish in what is wishfully called in one breath peaceable co-existence, and in the next, cold war. Obviously this is one instance in which East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet (Kipling). (c) Many try to escape frustration or adversity by resort to alcohol (drowning their sorrows in the flowing bowl), or to narcotic drugs, including the latest, LSD, by means of which Satan truly fashions himself into an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14). Many resort to the psychiatrist. Tennessee Williams, for example, in an issue of a well-known magazine not so long ago, was reported as confessing that he suffered great periods of depression. What does he do about them? I now rely mainly on drink and pills, he said. My intake of liquor is about a fifth a dayhalf of a fifth of bourbon and half of a fifth of vodka. To combat insomnia, I take up to four sleeping pills. The dramatist tells us that when he is at home in Manhattan, he treats himself to long periods of adjustments: My analyst helps me, and without him I-'d be sunk. I go to him five times a week. Someone has rightly said that the neurotic builds air castles, the psychotic lives in them, and the psychoanalyst collects the rent. (d) Another form of escape is known as hedonism, which is the undisciplined pursuit of the pleasures of the flesh. Biography abounds with the names of literateurs, and other artists, who have spent their lives violating every moral law in the books, and who manifest no respect for anyone, not even for themselves, For the hedonist, sex is not to be associated with sinit is to be regarded as a kind of fun thing. Among devotees of this persuasion, all kinds of sex perversion are pursued with the avidity that is not to be found even among brutes. The pitiful Oscar Wilde evidently tries to tell us that Dorian Gray, in an attempt to kill his conscience, killed himself, But was not this a fictional treatment of an autobiographical fact? Somerset Maughan's wife had to leave him finally because she could no longer tolerate his homosexuality. The novelist's nephew, Robin Maugham, quotes his uncle as saying: I-'ve been such a fool. My greatest mistake was this: I tried to persuade myself that I was three-quarters moral and that only a quarter of me was queerwhereas really it was the other way round. (See the nephew's Somerset and All the Maughams). Isadora Duncan, the noted dancer, is described as one of the most libertine, hedonistic American expatriates of the early twentieth century. Theodore Dreiser, one of the first protagonists of what is generally called realism in our day, is described as a complex, evil, deceitful, selfish, pathological liar, a woman-obsessed writer, guilty of all the sins (see Swanberg's Dreiser). The inability of the mentally ill to distinguish between fantasy and reality is one of the ghosts who haunt the characters in Albee's play, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and, it is well said, their self-destructive diatribe provides the melodramatic action. The title of this play is derived, obviously, from this same (shall we call it?) tragic frailty which characterized the career of Virginia Woolf herself, who, we are told, suffered from mental illness and intermittent suicide drives, until finally she drowned herself. Albee seems to have patterned much of his literary output along this same quasi-schizophrenic line, of course with heavy emphasis on sex (geared to the tinkling of coins at the box office). (For an excellent statement of the escapist attitude toward life's vicissitudes, the reader is referred to a letter written by a female character, Grace Dexter, to her sister, in a book by the late Lloyd Douglas, entitled Green Light). (e) Finally, the escapist attitude may take the form of outward (assumed) nonchalance, what is called gay imperturbability. (This is expressed perfectly by Peter Alden, one of the leading characters in Santayana's novel, The Last Puritan). This is the who-cares, what-difference-does-it-make response to life. Everything we do is futile; we may as well take the vicissitudes of life lying down; so why kick against the pricks? If trouble doesn-'t come in at the back door and strike one down, it is bound to come in, sooner or later, by the front door, to cause one to be carried away in a hearse. So, why not say with Popeye, I yam what I yam, and let it go at that. Of course nonchalance is just another form of whistling in the dark. No person can go through life always suppressing the basic problems of the meaning of it all: they obtrude themselves repeatedly despite what men may think or say or do: like Banquo's ghost they will not down.

3. Rebellion. For example, the poetry of Walt Whitman, or Swinburne's Glory to man in the highest, for man is the master of things. It is also clearly expressed in Henley's poem, Invictus: I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul. One can almost hear the poet's chest-thumping as he wrote these lines; naturally, he committed suicide. The world owes me a living, shouts the human rebel, and if it does not give me a living (on easy terms, of course), I will become an anarchist, a Communist, a beatnik, a hippie, or a kook, a hater of mankind. I will grow long hair and let my face become concealed behind a dirty beard, and I will go about the streets, barefoot, greasy and unwashed, hurling imprecations at everybody and everything. I will be the demonstrator of all demonstrators, the strictest conformist of all conformists. I insist on being consumed with self-pity on meeting the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune which are hurled at me by that elusive nondescript something called Fate or Destiny. I will project the blame for life's troubles on the hormones, on the Subconscious, on the Unconscious (hidden motives), on an unpleasant childhood, even on the old Adam in me; or I will even curse God and die, as old Job was urged to do. Orgies of self-pity terminate only in personality rot. The history of the race is replete with the names of those rebels who have walked in the way of Cain (Jude 1:11) who himself cried out in the ignorance of despair: My punishment is greater than I can bear (Genesis 4:13). Papa Hemingway is reported to have said to his friend, Hotchner, There won-'t be another spring. If I can-'t exist on my own terms, then existence is impossible. That is how I-'ve lived, and that is how I must live. And so, suffering with cancer, he shuffled off this mortal coil. But who ever did, or ever will, exist on his own terms? Life is not built that way. (For other rebels who have walked in the way of Cain, read especially Eugene O-'Neill's last play, Long Day's Journey Into Night, autobiographical in character; or Mark Twain's bitter diatribe against religion, published posthumously; or Jean-Paul Sartre's play, No Exit). Truly, Good understanding giveth favor, But the way of the transgressor is hard (Proverbs 13:15). This no doubt would be the testimony of all the rebels, from Satan or Prometheus or Mother Eve, to Jean-Paul Sartre of our own time.

4. Pessimism, skepticism, positivism, etc. Skepticism and pessimism usually go together: the notion that the cosmos is meaningless is almost certain to breed the corollary view that human life is simply an exercise in futility. Positivism is but a more sophisticated form of skepticism: it is the view that knowledge is to be obtained only from observable and measurable facts; negatively, it is the denial of the validity of faith. Comte, the founder of Positivism (as a system), who wanted to be remembered as the originator of what he called the religion of humanity, was in and out of mental institutions at various times. Clarence Darrow was reported as making the statement that life is not worth living: it is to be noted, however, that he lived out his own life to its natural end. The arch pessimist (and woman-hater) in the history of philosophy was Arthur Schopenhauer. For him, the world of events (phenomena) was objectified will. This universal will, he affirmed, is simply a blind striving by all living things to keep themselves in existence, but to no purpose whatever except to keep on keeping on. (Incidentally, Schopenhauer was repudiated by his mother in his childhood: the incident serves to illustrate the fact that pessimism is usually the by-product of some emotional trauma). This notion that the world is meaningless, that life is futility, that we are here just because we are here, has persisted throughout all human history, becoming especially pronounced in periods of declining morality and morale. It finds expression in the numerous representations of human life as but a kind of stage play, a good show, a Vanity Fair; as echoed and re-echoed in the ancient book of Ecclesiastes: Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher; vanity of vanities, all is vanity. (However, it should be noted that the Preacher's deep-seated faith asserted itself in a later passage: see Ecclesiastes 1:2; Ecclesiastes 12:7). (Cf. Christian's experience in the town of Vanity Fair on his pilgrimage to the Celestial City, in Bunyan's great allegory, The Pilgrim's Progress; also the title of Thackeray's greatest novel, Vanity Fair). Shakespeare caused the doomed Macbeth to soliloquize in these well-known words:

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death, Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

(Of course, this does not mean necessarily that the foregoing verses expressed Shakespeare's attitude toward life. As a matter of fact, in his various plays he set forth, always in exquisite language, practically all the views of life that men have ever held or ever could hold). James Thomson, a third-rate poet of the nineteenth century, echoed the credo of this Cult of Fertility in these verses:

The world rolls round for ever like a mill;
It grinds out death and life and good and ill;
It has no purpose, heart or mind or will.

(The City of Dreadful Night)

And about a century ago, Matthew Arnold wrote:

Most men eddy about
Here and thereeat and drink,
Chatter and love and hate,
Gather and squander, are raised
Aloft, are hurl-'d in the dust,
Striving blindly, achieving
Nothing; and then they die.

(From Rugby Chapel)

Was it not Voltaire who dubbed the Earth the lunatic asylum of the universe?

This morbid notion of the meaninglessness of life and the very futility of living, has dominated both fiction and drama for the past half-century, and no doubt accounts for the fact that contemporary literature, on the whole, has very little humor in it. Both writers and their writings are ponderously earthy, so deadly serious, so intellectually dense, that there is no climate in which the Comic Spirit can find a habitation. This Cult of Futility originated with Ibsen in the drama, and with Thomas Hardy in the novel. It is either explicit or implicit in the plays of O-'Neill, Arthur Miller, Albee, Tennessee Williams, and other lesser lights, the playwrights who have dominated Broadway in recent decades. (Williams has done about as good a job of out-Freuding Freud as Euripides did twenty-four hundred years ago). Saturated with the same motif are the novels of Dreiser, Maugham, Lewis, Steinbeck, Faulkner, Hemingway, Caldwell, Farrell, James Jones, Salinger, Mailer and others of like outlook: these are the authors who have produced most of the fiction with which the literary markets of the world have been deluged in our day. (It will be recalled that Cronshaw's carpet, in Maugham's Of Human Bondage, is offered as an explicit analogy of the purposelessness of life). I suppose, however, that the last word in pessimism has been spoken by the self-proclaimed atheistic existentialist, Jean-Paul Sartre, in his tragic confession that for him life is only a vacuum with no exit signs. What a terrible world this would be if this view were to prevail universally!

To summarize: The literary lights of the first half of our century are certainly not to be distinguished for even moderately high moral standards. Their works reek with obscenity, pornography, homosexuality, sheer human depravity of every kind and description. We are reminded here of the comment attributed to an English professor in one of our universities that most contemporary literature, including the novel as well as the drama, is either neurotic, erotic, or tommyrotic. One is reminded also of the title of an essay by Lin Yutang, published in Saturday Review not so long ago, Do American Writers Shun Happiness?

5. The Christian accepts the vicissitudes of life as disciplinary. As a matter of fact, the difference between the nominal Christian and the true Christian is brought to light at this point: to the nominal Christian, suffering is a savor from death unto death; to the true Christian it is a savor from life unto life (2 Corinthians 2:16). Like the preaching of the Gospel, some persons are hardened by it, others are moved to the godly sorrow that leads them to repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10). I am reminded of the mother, a professed church member, who lost her daughter. The daughter was a brilliant girl and an accomplished pianist, The mother, in a spirit of rebellion amounting to sheer petulance, closed the daughter's piano, locked it, and never allowed it to be heard in that home from the day of her daughter's death. This woman acted like a spoiled child: she should have had a spanking. This, however, in all likelihood would be the nominal Christian's reaction to suffering: he would, as Job was importuned by his wife to do, renounce God and die; that is, really die, by committing spiritual suicide. Not so the true Christian. He knows that Scripture does not even intimate that the saints shall be spared the adversities of this world simply by virtue of their having espoused the Spiritual Life; hence he does not pray to be relieved of these adversities; rather, he prays for the strength to bear them when they come. He understands that the rains of God fall on the just and the unjust alike, that the wheat and the tares must grow together until the harvest (Matthew 5:45; Matthew 13:24-30). He remembers always those other meaningful words of Jesus: In the world ye have tribulation; but be of good cheer: I have overcome the world (John 16:33). He understands that if it was necessary for the Author of his salvation to be made perfect through sufferings (Hebrews 2:10), he too must accept the disciplinary service of suffering as a necessary means to his attainment of ultimate holiness (2 Corinthians 4:16-18, Hebrews 12:1-13). He utilizes adversity to this very end, and so, in the finality of this temporal life, he achieves the victory of faith that overcomes the world (1 John 5:4, 2 Timothy 4:6-8). Let all Christians, therefore, keep in mind these verses by Ella Wheeler Wilcox, entitled Gethsemane:

Down shadowy lanes, across strange streams,
Bridged over by our broken dreams;
Behind the misty cap of years,
Behind the great salt fount of tears,
The garden lies. Strive as you may,
You cannot miss it in your way.
All paths that have been, or shall be,
Pass somewhere through Gethsemane.
All those who journey, soon or late,
Must pass within the garden's gate,
Must kneel alone in the darkness there,
And battle with some fierce despair.
God pity those who cannot say,
-Not mine, but Thine!-'who only pray,
-Let this cup pass!-'and cannot see
The purpose in Gethsemane.

* * * * *

REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART FOURTEEN

1.

List the dogmas included in theological jargon about the Fall.

2.

Distinguish between a doctrine and a dogma.

3.

State the dogma of original sin.

4.

State the Bible definition of sin, and state where it is found.

5.

In what Scripture do we find the doctrine of the consequences of sin? What is the substance of this doctrine?

6.

In what Scripture do we find the doctrine of the guilt of sin? State the substance of this doctrine.

7.

Does the Bible teach anywhere the notion of inherited guilt)

8.

Explain what is meant by the statement that sin is personal.

9.

Give the substance of Dorothy L, Sayers-' discussion of moral law, emphasizing the distinction between moral law and moral code.

10.

Do consequences ever imply inherited guilt?

11.

Explain what Christ's Atoning Sacrifice accomplished unconditionally, and for whom? And what it accomplished conditionally, and for whom?

12.

Summarize Dr. Brents-' analysis of inherited weakness in man.

13.

Summarize Campbell's statements on human depravity.

14.

What relations do you see between immaturity, irrationality, and depravity?

15.

State Aristotle's analysis of man.

16.

What has always been man's predominant sin?

17.

Is there any such thing intimated in Scripture as sin or salvation by proxy or en masse?

18.

State the theological dogma of infant damnation.

19.

How did so-called infant baptism originate?

20.

Just what is de facto infant baptism?

21.

Show why these doctrines and practices are unscriptural.

22.

State the Scriptures usually cited to support the dogma of original sin, and point out the fallacies in these interpretations.

23.

Explain why guilt can be the result only of a personal and voluntary act.

24.

Is congenital depravity in any sense the same as inherited guilt?

25.

Explain the Apostle's teaching in the fifth chapter of Romans, and in 1 Corinthians 15:20-23, relative to the fall of Adam and the corresponding recovery in Christ.

26.

How is the Kingdom of Christ evidently more inclusive than the Church of Christ?

27.

In what way specifically is sin necessarily incurred?

28.

Explain the Calvinistic dogma of total depravity.

29.

According to Scripture, what creatures only are totally depraved?

30.

List and explain the Scriptures which refute the dogma of the total depravity of man.

31.

What bearing has the Parable of the Soils on this problem?

32.

Explain the dogma of miraculous conversion.

33.

Explain Ephesians 2:8.

34.

Explain the dogma of unconditional election and reprobation.

35.

What is declared in Scripture to be the power of God unto salvation to all who believe?

36.

How, according to Scripture, are persons made believers?

37.

In view of the fact that God has sent us the letter, so to speak, to tell us what to do to be saved, is it reasonable to expect him to follow up with a telegram to convince us that He meant what He has said in the letter?

38.

Give examples to show how Divine election is election to responsibilities.

39.

Distinguish the etymology of the word foreordain from that of the word predestine or predestinate.

40.

Explain Romans 9:12-13, Romans 9:17-18, Romans 9:20-24, Acts 13:48, Romans 8:28-30, in relation to the dogma of unconditional election and reprobation.

41.

Explain the Apostle's teaching in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh Chapter s of Romans with reference to the Scripture doctrine of Divine election.

42.

Explain what is meant by the statement that foreordination and election have reference to the plan and not to the man, to the class and not to the individual. What Plan is indicated here? What class is indicated?

43.

On what ground do we today adjudge the Divine election of Jacob over Esau to have been the right choice?

44.

Discuss thoroughly the doctrine of predestination in relation to Judas-' betrayal of Jesus.

45.

State Maritain's explanation of this problem,

46.

Is it necessarily true that Divine omniscience includes Divine foreknowledge of all events both cosmic and personal? Explain your answer.

47.

If man is predestined to be free, what does Divine foreknowledge include.

48.

Is it necessarily true that Divine foreknowledge presupposes Divine foreordination? Explain your answer.

49.

Give Augustine's explanation of the relation of Divine foreordination to human freedom.

50.

How did Thomas Aquinas deal with this problem?

51.

What was the explanation suggested by William James?

52.

State the views of Kant and of John Locke on the question of human freedom of will.

53.

How does Max Planck, the physicist, deal with this problem?

54.

What does Freud have to say about it?

55.

How do the Existentialists deal with it?

56.

Give Maritain's resolution of the problem in relation to the corollary problem of time.

57.

Show how conversion is presented in Scripture as a psychological process rather than a mystical process.

58.

What is the dogma of final perseverance?

59.

List the Scriptures usually cited to support this dogma, and point out the interpretative fallacy in each case.

60.

Cite the important Scripture passages which assert, or at least intimate, the possibility of falling away.

61.

Cite the Scriptures which either affirm or intimate that spiritual life and growth are contingent on stedfast discipleship.

62.

Explain: The grace of God is indispensable, but is not irresistible.

63.

What was the twofold problem before the Divine government in respect to man's temptation and fall?

64.

Show how the Vicarious Atonement provided by the Son of God was designed to resolve this problem.

65.

Explain what is meant by remission, justification, sanctification, glorification, and redemption.

66.

Explain what is meant by the Beatific Vision.

67.

State and discuss some of the more common human attitudes toward physical evil in its various forms.

68.

What is the over-all motif which seems to permeate the literature of our day and time? Give examples.

69.

Explain what is meant by the Cult of Futility.

70.

What is the attitude of the true Christian toward the fact of physical evil in its various forms?

PART FIFTEEN:
GOD'S ETERNAL PURPOSE

In this section we shall treat as briefly as possible the Biblical doctrine of foreordination, That there is such a doctrine in Scripture is evident from numerous passages, We shall examine the doctrine under the following captions:
1. The God of the Bible is purposeful, that is, His activity in Creation, Providence, and Redemption, is directed toward specific ends (Isaiah 46:8-11, Jeremiah 4:28, 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, Philippians 2:5-11). Hence the profound meaning of the oft-repeated term, the living God, the God whose essence is existence (being) and whose being is activity: in short, He is the God who has only to will a thing to be done and it is done (Psalms 33:6; Psalms 33:9; Psalms 148:5; John 4:24; Matthew 16:16; Luke 7:6-10; Acts 17:24-29; Hebrews 11:3).

2. God's purpose with respect to His Creation is specifically designated His Eternal Purpose, that is, (1) existing -from everlasting to everlasting (Psalms 90:2, Jeremiah 10:10, Isaiah 9:6,John 3:16, Revelation 14:6, etc.), and (2) timeless in its origin and consummation (Exodus 3:14). This Eternal Purpose, we are told, includes the following: to send forth His Only Begotten, in the fulness of the time (Galatians 4:4; John 1:14; John 3:16; John 17:5; John 17:24), to make Atonement (Covering) for the sin of the world (Isaiah 53:4; Isaiah 53:11; John 1:29; 1 Peter 2:21-25; 1 Corinthians 15:3; Hebrews 9:28), to publish the Gospel and to unite Jews and Gentiles in the one Body of Christ (Joel 2:28-32; Acts 2:16-21; Ephesians 2:11-22; Ephesians 3:3-12; Galatians 3:26-29; 1 Corinthians 12:13). The ultimate end of this Divine activity is the conquest of evil in all its forms, the segregation of Satan and his kind in Hell (Matthew 25:41; 2 Peter 2:4; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10; Rev., ch. 20), and the establishment of the saints, all clothed in glory and honor and incorruption (immortality, Romans 2:6-7), in the new heavens and new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness (2 Peter 3:8-13; Rev., chs. 21, 22): that what is mortal may be swallowed up of life (2 Corinthians 5:4). All this is embraced in a single phrase: to sum up all things in Christ (Ephesians 1:9-11, Philippians 2:5-11, 1 Corinthians 15:20-28).

3. This Eternal Purpose is frequently described in Scripture as the Divine mystery. Note the phrases, the mystery of his will (Ephesians 1:9), the mystery of the faith (1 Timothy 3:9), the mystery of Christ (Ephesians 3:4), the mystery of the gospel (Ephesians 6:19). This is said to be the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal (Romans 16:25-27), which hath been hid from ages and generations (Colossians 1:26-27); the mystery which in other generations was not made known unto the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit (Ephesians 3:1-7), which was concealed in the testimony of the prophets of old and, in the fulness of time, was announced by those who preached the Gospel by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven, the mystery which angels have sought to look into from age to age, and from generation to generation (1 Peter 1:10-12, 2 Peter 1:19-21); the mystery which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory (1 Corinthians 2:7), foreordained according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will (Ephesians 1:11). Contrary to a popular notion, the Bible is not a mystery; rather, its content is the revelation of the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal, but now is manifested, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known unto all the nations unto obedience of faith (Romans 16:25-27; Matthew 13:34-35; Matthew 24:14; Matthew 28:18-20; Psalms 78:2).

4. This Divine Mystery, this Eternal Purpose, necessarily includes all that God has foreordained with respect to His moral Creation, both angels and men, as follows:

(1) Man's nature as a spirit-body (or mind-body psychosomatic) unity. Man was predestined, by virtue of his nature, to be free (within certain limits already pointed out). Cf. Genesis 2:7; Genesis 1:26-28; Genesis 2:16-17 (note: thou mayest freely eat, with the sole exception of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil), Psalms 8; Psa. 148:106; Job 32:8; Job 33:4; Psalms 139:14, etc.

(2) The essentials of the Plan of Redemption. Hence, we read that from the foundation of the world: (a) the Son of God, our Passover, was the Lamb slain to make Atonement for sin (John 1:29; John 17:5; John 17:24; Isaiah 53:7; Acts 8:32; 1 Corinthians 5:7; Hebrews 9:13-14; 1 Peter 1:18-20; Revelation 5:6; Revelation 6:1;cf. Exodus 12:43-47, Numbers 9:11-12, Psalms 34:20, John 19:36); (b) the elect of God are chosen in Him (Ephesians 1:4; cf. Romans 8:1, 2 Corinthians 5:17, Galatians 3:26-28); (c) their names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life (Revelation 13:8; Revelation 17:8); (d) His Kingdom is prepared for them, that is, for all who live and die in Christ (Matthew 25:34; Revelation 14:13; Luke 12:32; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Corinthians 15:24; Galatians 5:21, James 2:5). All these matters, including also the breaking down of the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, and the inclusion of both alike, on the terms of the New Covenant, in the Body of Christ (Ephesians 3:3-7; Ephesians 2:11-22; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Acts 10:44-48; Acts 11:15-18; Acts 15:7-11), and the twofold mission of the Church, that of preserving the truth of the Gospel and that of proclaiming it to all people (Ephesians 3:8-12; 1 Timothy 3:14-15; Acts 1:8; Matthew 28:18-20; Matthew 24:14), are included in God's Eternal Purpose and hence determined from before the foundation of the world.

(3) The privilege of adoption into the Household of the Faith (Ephesians 1:5; Galatians 4:3-7; Galatians 6:10; Romans 8:14-17). The Spirit, through the Word, tells us what to do to be saved (Acts 16:31; Acts 2:38; Matthew 10:32-33; Romans 6:3-7; Romans 10:9-10; Galatians 3:27, etc.), and our spirits tell us that we have complied with these conditions (the keys of the kingdom of heaven, Matthew 16:19); hence, God's Spirit and our spirits testify to the same fact, namely, that we are children of God by adoption. Jesus is the Only Be-gotten of God, God's Son by Divine begetting and birth (Luke 1:35; Matthew 16:16; John 3:16; John 20:30-31; Galatians 4:4; 1 John 5:9-12). This privilege of adoption, of becoming heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ, sons and daughters of the Heavenly Father (2 Corinthians 6:17-18), is likewise a fundamental part of God's Eternal Purpose, in order that unto the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (angels, as well as men) might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom of God (Ephesians 3:10-12, cf. Ephesians 6:12).

(4) The ultimate glorification of His saints (the Redeemed). Note again Romans 8:28-30. Here the correlation of the doctrine of God's Eternal Purpose with that of foreordination is clearly set forth. Here we read that (a) all souls whom God foreknew to be of His elect, He foreordainsto what end? To be conformed to the image of His Son, etc.; (b) all whom He so foreordained, them He also called (i.e., in His Eternal Purpose); (c) whom He called, them He also justified (again, in His Eternal Purpose); (d) and whom He justified, them He also glorified (in His Eternal Purpose). To be glorified, according to New Testament teaching, is to be clothed in glory and honor and incorruption (Romans 2:7). Glorification is the ultimate redemption of the body from the consequences of sin, in the putting on of immortality (2 Timothy 1:10; 2 Timothy 2:10; 1 Corinthians 15:39-44; 2 Corinthians 5:4). To be thus immortalized is to be conformed to the image of God's Son, who, as the firstfruits of them that are asleep, the firstborn from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:20; 1 Corinthians 15:23; Acts 26:23; 1 Corinthians 15:45-49; Colossians 1:18; cf. Matthew 17:1-2, John 7:39), was the first to be raised to immortality (1 Timothy 1:17; 1 Timothy 6:13-16; 1 Corinthians 15:20-26). Immortalizationthe redemption of the body from mortality itself (Romans 8:23, 2 Corinthians 5:4)is, in Christian teaching, one of the phases of eternal life (Romans 2:7; Romans 6:23; Romans 8:11; Romans 8:23; Philippians 3:20-21; 1 Corinthians 5:1-10; 1 Corinthians 15:35-58). It should be understood that redemption of the body is promised only to the righteous; the Scriptures give us no information as to the kind of body the lost will inhabit in Hell.

Surely we must conclude from all this Scripture teaching that Redemption (1 Thessalonians 5:23) is the consummating phase of God's Cosmic Plan, i.e., His Eternal Purpose; that Creation will have been fully actualized only when God's elect stand in the Judgment clothed in glory and honor and immortality.

The practical question involved here is this: How does God call those whom He foreknows to be His elect? (Naturally, these are called as individuals; Christian doctrine knows no such thing as salvation either by proxy or en masse.) (a) By a direct operation of the Spirit on the sinner's heart, independent of the Word? Evidently not. Both Scripture and experience confirm the fact that where there is no contact with the Gospel message either by reading it or by hearing it, there is no faith, no conversion, no election (Romans 10:14-17, 1 Corinthians 1:21). (b) By a special mystical operation of the Spirit on the sinner's heart in addition to the Word? Obviously not, for this would mean either that God is a respecter of persons (which He is not), or that He will finally save all humanity (which is equally contrary to Scripture teaching). (Cf. John 5:26-29, Matthew 25:31-46, Romans 2:4-11, Acts 10:34-35, Rev., chs. 20, 21, 22). (c) Hence, we must conclude that God calls men individually through His Word, either as printed (stereotyped), or as proclaimed by faithful men (2 Thessalonians 2:14; 1 Corinthians 1:9; 2 Timothy 1:13; 2 Timothy 2:2; Hebrews 9:15; 1 Peter 2:9; Romans 10:6-17); that the Spirit operates through the Word (or through by-products of the Word, such as hymns, Gospel songs, doctrinal tracts, and especially the exemplary lives of the saints, Matthew 5:16, 2 Corinthians 3:1-3) in the conversion, regeneration, and sanctification of the elect (1 Peter 1:23, 1 Corinthians 4:15, Galatians 4:19). (1 Thessalonians 1:4-5. Here the Apostle refers to the charismata by which the Gospel was confirmed in the apostolic age (Acts 2:22, Romans 1:11, Hebrews 2:4, 1 Corinthians 12:4-11), not to so-called miraculous conversions. In the plan of God. demonstration always accompanies revelation (Exodus 4:1-9, John 11:41-42, Mark 16:20). (d) Romans 1:16. Note that the Gospel is the power, not just a power or one of the powers, of God unto salvation; it is such because the Spirit operates through it (Luke 8:11, 1 Peter 1:22-25); note also that it is God's power unto salvation to just one class: everyone that believeth. To those who believe its facts and obey its commands (1 Corinthians 15:1-4; Romans 2:8; Romans 10:16; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; 1 Peter 3:1; 1 Peter 4:17), it is the power of God unto salvation, but to those who ignore it or reject it, it is the power of God unto eternal condemnation (John 5:40, Ephesians 6:17, Hebrews 4:12). To summarize: the called, justified, sanctified, and glorified souls (in God's Eternal Purpose) make up that company of persons who accept the Gospel call and continue steadfastly in the faith (Romans 12:1-2; 1 Corinthians 15:58; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 2 Peter 3:18; Jude 1:3; Revelation 2:7; Revelation 2:11; Revelation 2:17, etc.): these are God's elect: the whosoever wills (Revelation 22:17, John 5:40, Matthew 23:37).

The prerequisite of ultimate Union with God in knowledge and in love, in the Hereafter, is the Life with the Spirit in the here and now (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20; Romans 5:5; Romans 8:11; Ephesians 1:13-14; Ephesians 4:30; 2 Corinthians 1:22; Revelation 7). The prerequisite of the Spiritual Life here is Union with Christ, and this, in turn is attained through faith, repentance, confession, and baptism into Christ (John 3:16; John 3:5; John 20:30-31; Luke 13:3; Matthew 10:32-33; Acts 2:38; Acts 16:31; Acts 8:36-39; Acts 9:18; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2:12; Galatians 3:27, etc.). We repeat, for the sake of emphasis, that all persons who accept the Gospel call and commit themselves to the life that is hid with Christ in God (Colossians 3:3), are predestined, ordained (disposed) to eternal life (Acts 13:48), foreordained to ultimate glorification, redeemed in spirit and soul and body (1 Thessalonians 5:23), conformed to the image of God's Son (1 John 3:1-2). This class is the company of God's elect. Foreordination of predestination in Scripture refers to the class, not to the individual, to the plan, not to the man. Let us never for get, too, that Divine election is election to responsibilities as well as to benefits and privileges.

5. Finally, We must not omit calling attention to the fact that the processes and laws of the physical world are also foreordained. Why do men suppose that the more law that is discovered as descriptive of the processes going on in the physical realm means the less God. As a matter of fact, the more law presupposes the more God. Law is the expression of the will of the lawgiver: this is true of any kind or code of law. Therefore, the cosmic laws, generally designated the laws of nature, must be the ordinationsand in a sense the foreordinationsof the Will of the Universal Lawgiver. His will is indeed the constitution of the whole Creation, both physical and mortal, that which constitutes it to be what it is. (Psalms 33:6; Psalms 33:9; Psalms 148:1-6; Acts 17:24-28; Acts 14:15; Isaiah 42:5; Hebrews 1:1-3). Science, in its very use of the word law, pays tribute, either wittingly or unwittingly, to the Divine Lawgiver. It must be remembered that science borrowed this word from jurisprudence, not jurisprudence from science.

* * * * *

ADDITIONAL INTERESTING COMMENTS

Human wisdom has never been able to produce anything like a satisfactory account of the origin of evil. In view ofthe fact that sin is transgression of the Divine law, and that only the Divine Lawgiver can give us the facts in the case, the failure of human philosophy to solve the problem is not to be wondered at. (Incidentally, it should be understood that philosophy is of human origin strictly: it is at best but human speculation, which can, and often does, give us interesting clues to the understanding of the mystery of the cosmos and of man's life in it.) This whole problem of evil, which is in fact the problem of good and evil, is not a question of philosophy, but of revelation.

H. C. Christopher, in his book, The Remedial System, one of the most interesting books I have ever read, and which unfortunately has long been out of print, has written of the account of the origin of evil on earth in relation to the pre-mundane rebellion of Satan and his rebel angels, as follows (RS, 45-46): That the treatment of sin through the Remedial System has a bearing on the question of sin among angels; that the management of this great evil through an atonement, is really and truly a complete and satisfactory solution of the problem of sin in the abstractas related to both men and angelsis the almost positive and emphatic declaration of the inspired Apostle, when speaking on this subject. Regarding the Remedial System as having an important connection with, and a bearing, in the purposes of God, on the occurrence of sin among angels, he alludes to the connection which the Atonement has with the Principalities and Powers in the heavens, in the following direct and glowing statement: -To me who am less than the least of all saints is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God who created all things by Jesus Christ: to the intent (Genesis 3:10) that now unto the Principalities and Powers in heavenly places [Colossians 1:16] might be made known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord,-' Ephesians 3:8-11. A logical connection obtaining between the eruption of sin in the heavens, and the Remedial System in this world, and the latter following the former in the order of time, it is fair to presume that the occurrence of sin among angels was the logical cause of the purpose to establish a Remedial System for men, and this the necessary cause of the creation of the world with all that belongs to it, both celestial and terrestrial; for, without man, the Remedial System could have no existence, and without the material and organic worlds man could not exist. There is, therefore, a logical and necessary connection between the occurrence of sin among angels and the creation of the material and organic worlds.

Again, with reference to this connection between the apostasy of angels and the Remedial System, Christopher has written: The reason for this connection has its foundation in the fact that the occurrence of sin and the terrible disaster which it brought on angels, gave rise to a problem the importance, grandeur, and magnitude of which have no parallel in the domain of God, which problem, finding no possible solution among angels, made absolutely necessary the creation of another order of spirit-beings whose nature and condition under sin would allow a Remedial System, and afford the necessary data for the solution of the problem. The nature of this new order of spirit-beings allied them, on one side of their being, to the angels among whom sin had originated, and on the other, to the material and organic worlds of which they were, as to their organism, a part, and out of which arose their peculiar condition under sin. It was essentially necessary that they should be so closely allied to angels as to be virtually the same as to their spirit, in order that every circumstance and condition necessary to the solution might be present, so that the solution, effected through the new order of beings, might be regarded as a true and satisfactory determination of the question as it pertained to angels. It was equally necessary, on the other hand, that the new order of beings should differ from angels in such respect as to permit the necessary conditions to exist, on which should be grounded the possibility of a Remedial System. This difference is found in the peculiarities of their being, which connect them with the material and organic worlds, and constitute them a new order of beings. This difference is seen to exist in the fact that men, after the first pair, are derived beings,that is, by the process of what is called natural generation.

I have included these excerpts from Christopher's book for what they may be worth to the student in his study of the problem of evil. (The book itself came under my observations for just a few weeks almost fifty years ago. I have never succeeded in finding a copy since that time, and I consider myself fortunate to have preserved the excerpts presented aboveC.C.)
To say the least, Christopher's argument is intriguing. We might well ask: If the essential principle of love is sacrifice, as indeed it must be, then just where, when and how could ineffable Divine Love have been demonstrated fully other than in a world of lost sinners? And how could it have been demonstrated more effectively than it was demonstrated by the Supreme Sacrifice of God's Only Begotten, on the Cross of Calvary? (John 3:16-17; John 1:29; John 19:30; John 1 John, ch. 4). It might be suggested, too, that as far as we know from Divine revelation, God had not manifested aught but His everlasting power and divinity (Romans 1:20), prior to the angelic apostasy of Lucifer and his rebel host. All of these matters are, of course, facets of that profound, and indeed at its core unfathomable, mystery of lawlessness, of which the Apostle writes in Second Thessalonians, chapter 2. The Christian must always keep in mind the fact that the secret things belong to God, that only the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever (Deuteronomy 29:29). He understands, therefore, that he must walk by faith, until that ultimate Day of Illumination (of the Beatific Vision) when he shall be privileged to know fully even as also he was fully known (1 Corinthians 13:11-12). Man must never seek to pry too deeply into the mysteries of the Divine Will (Job 11:7; Job 41:1-11; Job 42:1-6; Romans 11:33-36).

This final word from the pen of D. Elton Trueblood (PR, 250) is fitting at this point: If the possibility of goodness involves choice, it also involves the possibility of evil; and, if the possibility is genuine, it will sometimes be realized, Therefore, the conditions of the occurrence of evil are identical with the conditions of the higher aspects of the moral life. It cannot be said that God directly wills sin or evil desire, because it is not necessary that we sin. The sin is our fault, not God'S, though God made us so that we might sin, because otherwise the best in life could not be.. Here we have the abiding Christian paradox of sin. We are to blame for it, but we cannot heal it. God did not cause it, but He can forgive and overcome it. Heresy has come from supposing either (a) the power to cause implies the power to overcome, or (b) the power to overcome implies responsibility for sin's existence, i.e., heresy comes from any denial of the paradox. Trueblood quotes Lancelot Andrewes as saying in his private prayer:

Two things I recognize, O Lord, in myself:
nature, which Thou hast made;
sin, which I have added:
I confess that by sin I have depraved nature;
but call to remembrance, that I am a
wind that passeth away,
and returneth not again;
for of myself I cannot return again from sin.
Take away from me that which I have made;
let that which Thou hast made remain in me.

and then comments pointedly: Perhaps the problem is easier to solve devotionally than philosophically.

* * * * *

FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING

True Morality

We have heard so much in recent months about ethical positivism, ethical relativism, ethical nihilism, situationist ethics, the traditional morality, the new morality, etc., that there is little wonder that confusion in regard to the moral life is world-wide. The thesis of the most radical of these systems is well expressed by Jim Casey, in Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath: There ain-'t no sin, there ain-'t no virtuethere's just stuff people do. We suppose to discuss here the true moralitythe only morality that will properly undergird social order as well as provide for ultimate attainment of the Life Everlasting.

A great many persons believe, and have long believed, that man is now in an unnatural state. Believing that he once enjoyed the personal favor of God and fellowship with Him, and that such favor and communion were lost by transgression, with the attendant consequences of sin, sickness and death over the entire earth, to the loss of those original privileges theologians have applied the term, Fall. It has become fashionable, however, of late, to deny the facts reported by Moses in regard to man's Edenic relation with Yahweh. Again quoting from Christopher (RS, 83): There are some men who, pretending to believe in the Bible as a revelation from God, do yet, indeed, deny many of the most important facts recorded in it.. They deny that man was ever in a state higher, or different from that in which we now find him; and say that the story of the Fall is a myth, and the existence of sin the creature of a superstitious imagination. Hence they do not believe that the actions of men have a sinful character. Crime, with these men, is only an offense against the rights of society or of individuals, not a sin against God. They do not, indeed, deny that the actions of men have a moral character. This they cannot deny. But morality with them has reference only to men, none whatever to God. In denying the existence of sin, they of course deny that the actions of men have a sinful character, however criminal the actions may be. They look upon criminal actions as no more than simple violations of moral laws, which men have wrought out and ordained for the government of men. Indeed there are many, many individuals, and even nations, in our day, who repudiate morality altogether: for morality they substitute expediency. There are many, too, who would eliminate sin from human thought and life by the employment of psychiatric and psycho-analytic devices calculated to remove the sense of guilt. And yet, if press releases are to be relied on, this is an age in which pride, ambition, greed, lust, violence, cruelty, racism, war, and every iniquity known to man, are rampant over the whole earth. Indeed the Biblical description of the state of things in the antediluvian age might well be used to picture our present world: And the earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence (Genesis 6:11; cf. Matthew 24:37-42).

As usual, the error in this kind of thinking (the new morality) lies in the false premise from which it originates, namely, the meaning of morality. Morality is described as conformity to a prescribed rule of conduct, or conformity to the rule of right. Who, then, has prescribed the rule of conduct for man? To whom shall we go for the rule of right? There is but one answer that will stand the test: we must go to God, the Source of perfect wisdom. perfect love, and perfect justice. Every rule of right that mankind has knowledge of has its source in the Will of God. This is precisely what the Apostle means when he says, Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet (Romans 7:7). Morality, therefore, in its highest sense, is conformity to God's prescribed rule of conduct. For many centuries, this rule of conduct existed only in tradition; later, because of the transgressions of the race, it was embodied in negative form in the Mosaic Code, which was especially adapted to the Dispensation in which it was first revealed (Galatians 3:19). Later, with the advent and teaching of Messiah and His Apostles, this rule of right was put in positive form in the perfect law of liberty (James 1:25). Christianity is this perfect law of liberty, the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:2). Christianity came to abrogate and to supersede the law of Moses (John 1:17, Galatians 3:24-25, Colossians 2:14-16, Matthew 5:17-18). (The Christian Systemthe New Testamentincorporates all the moral principles of the Old; hence they are binding on Christians, not because they are in the Old, but because they have been re-enacted in the New. The sole exception is the law of the Sabbath. The Sabbath was a memorial of the deliverance of ancient Israel from Egyptian bondage, and hence has no meaning for Gentiles. All Christian assemblies, from the very beginnings of the Church, are held on the Lord's Day. [Exodus 20:1-17; Deuteronomy 5:12-15; Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; Revelation 1:10; Acts 14:15; Acts 17:24; Ephesians 4:6; 1 John 5:21; Matthew 5:34; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Corinthians 6:18; 1 Corinthians 5:9; Romans 1:26-27; 2 Corinthians 12:20-21; Galatians 5:19-21; Colossians 3:5; 1 Timothy 1:9-10; Ephesians 4:28; Ephesians 4:25; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; Luke 12:15; 1 Corinthians 5:11; Romans 13:1-10; 1 John 2:9; 1 John 3:15; 1 John 4:20. Cf. Matthew 8:5-13, Luke 7:2-10, Mark 15:39, Acts 10 :, Acts 10:1-8, etc.]. Surely these passages prove that a soldier can be a Christian. I find no absolute pacifism in the Bible.) Morality is, therefore, conformity to the rule of conduct prescribed in the teaching of Christ and His Apostles, as given us in the New Testament, and includes all of man's duties to God, to his neighbor, and to himself. He who conforms to the Will of Christ is moral; he who does not is, to the extent that he does not, immoral. Jesus said Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you (Matthew 5:44). He who conforms to this law is moral; he who refuses to do so is immoral. Jesus commands us to be baptized (buried with Him in baptism and raised to walk in newness of life: Matthew 3:15; Matthew 28:19, John 3:3-5, Romans 6:1-11). He who conforms to the Will of Christ in this matter, in obedience to this Divine ordinance, is moral; he who refuses to do so, is immoral. Morality is far more comprehensive than the totality of one's duties to his fellows: it comprehends our attitude toward, and our treatment of, God. (Matthew 22:34-40). A crime is such with respect only to man's (positive) laws; but with respect to the (natural) law of God, it is sin (1 John 3:4). Viewed in this light, it is an indisputable fact that man has fallen: sin and crime exist on every hand, throughout the whole world. What, then, is the distinction between morality and religion? Is there any such distinction, in reality? What is religion, after all, but conformity to the Will of God, the obedience of love for God? What is morality, in the true sense of the term, but conformity to the Will of God, the obedience of love for God? The sum total of Biblical religion is expressed in the word obedience, not the obedience of craven fear, not the obedience that envisions mere status (respectability) as a result, but the obedience that is rendered out of one's pure love for God. (John 14:15; John 15:10). There will be just two classes in the Judgment: those who have done, and those who have not done God's Will as revealed in Christ Jesus (Matthew 7:24-27, Hebrews 5:9,Revelation 22:14).

* * * * *

The Death of Death

1. According to Biblical teaching life and death are the two Supreme Universals. Moreover, where there is life, there is bound to be death. Genesis 3:19; Genesis 5:5, etc.; Romans 3:23; Romans 5:12-13; Romans 6:23; John 8:44; Hebrews 2:14-15; Hebrews 9:27; James 1:13-15, etc. (Read the Phaedo of Plato, for the Socratic argument for survival on the ground of the doctrine of the opposites).

2. Death as man's last and bitterest enemy. (1) All available evidence proves that from the beginning of his existence on earth, man has been haunted by the specter of death, and especially by the fact of the inevitability of death. One cannot live this temporal life without becoming poignantly aware of its brevity (James 4:14; Job 7:7;Psalms 39:4-5; Psalms 102:3; Psalms 144:4), nor can few reach the eventide without becoming sorely grieved by its incompleteness, the sense of more yet to be done which in fact will never be done. The brute lives out its life cycle and dies, apparently without any thought of its origin, nature, or destiny. But man finds it impossible to face the inevitable with sheer unconcern: in his experience, death is the ultimate frustration. Nor does whistling in the dark serve to alleviate this deep-seated tragic sense of life, which is born of the horror of facing death. He may cultivate an outward show of bravado (chest-thumping), when in reality he is internally quaking with fear. Even men of faithGod's saintsfind it difficult to avoid the sense of mystery in which death is enshrouded. (2) Literature, of course, is saturated with evidence of this deep-seated concern about man's destiny. For example, Homer, in the Iliad (Bk. VI) causes Glaukos to say to Diomedes on the field of battle: Even as are the generations of leaves such are those likewise of men; the leaves that be, the wind scattereth on the earth, and the forest buddeth and putteth forth more again, when the season of spring is at hand; so of the generations of men, one putteth forth and another ceaseth (cf. Psalms 103:15-16, 1 Peter 1:24-25). In one of Ellery Queen's mystery stories, Dr. Dodd, a physician, states the case eloquently as follows: I don-'t need watching, Mr. Queen. I-'m to die and it won-'t be a hand that does it. Some things you can-'t do a biopsy on. With all our sulfas and atomic bombs and electronic microscopes and two-hundred-inch telescope lenses we don-'t begin to know the powers that fill the universe. Any more than the amoeba in that glass of water knows what's going on in this room. All we can do is wait and try not to be afraid. I repeat Simpson here (IB, 512, 513) as follows: From the fear of death, man cannot escape. For in the depths of his soul he knows that the structure of relationships which he has erected to protect himself is fundamentally without substance. In the end it will crumble and he will be compelled to face the fact which he has always tried to denythat he is man and not God. Man's disordered relationships and his fear of death are inextricably bound up together, the consequence of his alienation from God. (3) Cassirer writes (EOM, 83-84): In primitive thought death is never regarded as a natural phenomenon that obeys general laws. Its occurrence is not necessary but accidental. It always depends upon individual and fortuitous causes. It is the work of witchcraft or magic or some other personal inimical influence.. The conception that man is mortal, by his nature and essence, seems to be entirely alien to mythical and primitive religious thought. Primitive man's magic was, of course, designed to stave off death, even when it was employed to preserve life. (4) Mythological translations, quasi-resurrections, transfigurations (metamorphoses), etc., as, for example, of Attis, Adonis, Orpheus, Mithras, Osiris, Krishna, Ganymede, Narcissus, etc., offered no promise, not even the slightest ground for hope, of the conquest of death. These were all discrete events, subject to the whims of the polytheistic gods and goddesses, and were usually ritual aspects, wholly without ethical significance, of the Cult of Fertility which flourished throughout the ancient pagan world. There is not the slightest intimation, in any of these fantastic tales, of such ideas as the resurrection and glorification of righteous souls, or the operation of the Holy Spirit in actualizing such ends (cf. Romans 8:11), much less the slightest intimation of the conquest of death itself (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:25-26). To try to equate the Christian doctrine of the Resurrection with these mythological fictions is sheer blasphemy. The primary design of the ancient Cult of Fertility was to enhance the fertility of the soil and so preserve man from death as long as possible. The ancient Cult of the Dead sought to achieve the same ends by necromancy, sorcery, consulting with familiar spirits, augury, witchcraft, divination, diabolism, etc. Many of these practices were geared especially to foretelling the future. But, as someone has rightly said, no one tries to foretell the future who doesn-'t have the frantic hope that somehow he can forestall it. (5) Concepts of survival in ancient pagan literature were never of the kind to engender hope or to lure human beings toward a desirable future life. Hades, Sheol, etc., were dark, dank underworlds in which the shades of departed heroes and heroines roamed about listlessly and hopelessly. (Poetic descriptions of the underworld in ancient writings cause one to envision in imagination the misty swamps and jungles of such an area as, for example, that of the Everglades (especially as seen by television). The Lament of Achilles (Odyssey, Bk. XI) eloquently portrays the hopelessness of such a future state. On greeting Odysseus, Achilles is made to say: How didst thou dare to come down to the house of Hades, where dwell the senseless dead, the phantoms of men outworn? Then, later, the Lament: Do not, O noble Odysseus, speak to me of death: rather would I live on earth as the hireling of another, of a man of low estate, who had not much livelihood, than to have the rule over this whole kingdom of the departed dead. (6) What modern writers call the tragic sense of life has its source largely in the contemplation of the mystery of death. It is this sentiment which underlies present-day Existentialism. For theistic existentialists, life, and especially death, means the confrontation of God; for the atheistic existentialists it means the confrontation of nothingness. For Heidegger, contemplation of death as the absolute end was the source of Angst (anxiety) which per se made this life of great value. For Camus, awareness of death makes us aware of being. This same general motif permeates much of modern literature. Henley who wrote the song of the Stoic had a tragic bout with tuberculosis and committed suicide. Hemingway, with all his bravado, acknowledged he could not accept conquest by death, but admitted his abject surrender to it by committing suicide. As stated heretofore, the works of present-day dramatists, novelists, and often of the poets, express little more than the object pessimism of the Cult of Futility.

3. There is but one Faith in all the world that envisions ultimately the death of death itself: that is the Christian Faith (Acts 6:7; Acts 13:8; Acts 14:22; Galatians 1:23; Jude 1:3; Jude 1:20). (1) Human reaction to the fact of death has always taken two forms, namely, the sense of ultimate frustration, and the elemental dread of facing the unknown (that is, the inexperienced). The Bible itself recognizes this human bondage to the fear (dread) of death (Hebrews 2:14-15). The patriarch Job in days of old uttered the universal cry: If a man die, shall he live again? (John 14:14, cf. all of ch. 14). This question was never answered until it was answered once for all time when the stone was rolled away from the entrance to Joseph's tomb. (2) The Resurrection of Christ is God's pledge of the resurrection and glorification of His elect (Romans 2:7; Romans 8:11), and the indwelling Holy Spirit is the seal of their ultimate inheritance of glory and honor and incorruption, Life Everlasting. (Romans 8:23; Romans 8:28-30; Acts 2:22-36; Acts 10:39-41; 2 Corinthians 1:22; 2 Corinthians 5:5; Ephesians 1:11; Ephesians 1:13-14; Ephesians 4:30; Colossians 1:12; Colossians 3:24; 1 Peter 1:3-5; Romans 1:3-4; Philippians 3:20-21; 1 Corinthians 15; 2 Corinthians 5:1-10; John 5:28-29, etc.). (3) The resurrection of Christ was the outstanding theme of all apostolic preaching. The reasons are obvious: If the Resurrection occurred as an event in space and time, it follows: (a) that there is a God, a living God; (b) that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of the living God (Romans 10:9-10); (c) that the Bible is what it claims to be, God's progressive revelation to mankind of His Plan of Redemption in which He proposes to sum up all things in Christ (Ephesians 1:10); and (d) that all other so-called religions, cults, philosophies, etc., having no empty tomb, are false, and without any Divine authentication whatsoever. Christianity stakes everything on the historicity of the Resurrection. (Matthew 12:39, Luke 11:29). (4) The Bible explicitly declares that God's Eternal Purpose intends nothing short of the ultimate abolition of death altogether (1 Corinthians 15:26), that what is mortal may be swallowed up of life (2 Corinthians 5:4) in the new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness (2 Peter 3:13).

M. M. Davis (RMNC, 140) tells of an incident which occurred while Robert Owen, the British Socialist, visited Alexander Campbell, then President of Bethany College, West Virginia, at the Campbell homestead on the College grounds, to make final arrangements for their debate that was held subsequently at Cincinnati. While at Bethany, the two were strolling together one evening over the farm, when they came to the family burying-ground. Mr. Owen paused and said to Mr. Campbell: -There is one advantage I have over the ChristianI am not afraid to die. Most Christians have fear in death; but if some few items of my business were settled, I should be perfectly willing to die at any moment.-' Mr. Campbell replied: -You say you have no fear in death; have you any hope in death?-' After a solemn pause, Mr. Owen said, -No.-' -Then,-' continued Mr. Campbell, pointing to an ox standing near, -you are on a level with that brute. He has fed till he is satisfied, and stands in the shade whisking off the flies, and has neither fear nor hope in death.-' Mr. Owen, unable to meet this simple, but crushing, reply, only smiled in his confusion, and made no attempt to do it.

The Christian hope is not simply the hope of continuance in existence. It is infinitely more than this. It is the hope of seeing God face to face, the hope of unbroken fellowship with the Heavenly Father in the Life Everlasting. It is the hope that is inspired by, and will be realized through, the victory of faith (1 John 5:4).

In Eden where everything was life, God spoke of death; in the world at large, where everything is death, God speaks of life. In Eden God said, in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die (Genesis 2:17). The Devil said, through the serpent, Ye shall not surely die (Genesis 3:4). All this talk of death in the midst of pulsating life (Genesis 2:16)! Now, when everything around us testifies of death, God says, He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life (John 3:36). In all His recorded teaching, Jesus is represented as saying very little about death. The theme that was repeatedly on His lips was life. (John 14:6; John 1:4; John 11:25-26; John 5:40; John 4:14; John 10:10; John 6:35; John 5:26; John 10:17-18). The Overcomers are those who shall have washed their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life etc. (Revelation 22:14).

* * * * *

REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART FIFTEEN

1.

Cite Scriptures showing that God's activity is purposeful.

2.

Explain what is meant by God's Eternal Purpose, and by the Mystery of His Will.

3.

Is the Bible a mystery, or is it the revelation of the Divine Mystery? Explain.

4.

Show why God's Eternal Purpose necessarily includes all that He foreordains.

5.

List those matters which God foreordains from the foundation of the world.

6.

Explain what is meant by the privilege of adoption.

7.

Explain what is meant by conformity to the image of God's Son, and show how this is related to the Christian doctrine of immortality.

8.

What is the consummating phase of the Eternal Purpose?

9.

According to Scripture, does God call His elect by an operation of the Spirit (a) independent of the Word, (b) in addition to the Word, or (c) through the Word per se as written or proclaimed? Explain your answers.

10.

What was the design of the charismata in the early church?

11.

What is the relation between process and law in the physical world?

12.

Why do we say that the processes and laws of the physical world are Divinely foreordained?

13.

On what grounds do we hold that Creation and Redemption are both phases of God's Cosmic Plan?

14.

Does more law in the physical world mean less God? Explain.

15.

State the substance of Christopher's explanation of the logical connection between the angelic apostasy and God's Remedial System for mankind.

16.

Discuss: How could God's ineffable love been demonstrated more effectively than in a world of lost sinners?

17.

State Trueblood's presentation of the Christian paradox of sin.

18.

State in substance our definition of true morality. How is it related to religion?

19.

Distinguish between a crime and a sin.

20.

According to the teaching of Jesus, what two classes will there be in the Judgment?

21.

What are the two Supreme Universals of human experience?

22.

How has the contemplation of death affected human thought and life generally?

23.

Give examples from literature of the effect of the mystery of death on human thinking.

24.

What, according to Cassirer, was primitive man's attitude toward death?

25.

Show the correlation between the ancient Cult of Fertility and man's attitude toward death.

26.

Show the correlation between the ancient Cult of the Dead and man's attitude toward death.

27.

Show the correlation between the modern Cult of Futility and man's attitude toward death.

28.

What picture has Homer given us of the Underworld?

29.

What is the source of modern pessimism as expressed in the phrase, the tragic sense of life?

30.

Show how this phrase is to be correlated with the cults of present-day Existentialism.

31.

What is the only Faith that envisions ultimately the death of death itself?

32.

What was Job's question in days of old? Where and when was-' this question answered once for all time?

33.

State the full significance of the Resurrection of Christ, and show how it is related to the existence of God, to the Messiahship of Jesus, to the Divine inspiration of Scripture, and to the false religions and cults which human authority tries to substitute for the Christian Faith.

34.

Why was the Resurrection the main theme of the apostolic message?

35.

On what event does Christianity stake everything?

36.

Explain the phrase, that what is mortal may be swallowed up of life.

37.

What does God in His Eternal Purpose design ultimately about death?

38.

What is the true Christian's attitude toward death?

39.

Why, then, do we as Christians often make our funerals so pagan in character?

40.

What is the Christian hope?

41.

Contrast God's main theme in the Garden of Eden with His main theme in the world at large.

42.

What is the outstanding theme in the teaching of Jesus? Cite Scriptures for your answer

43.

What is the significance of this fact for us?

44.

Why is Christianity supremely the religion of joy?

PART SIXTEEN:

EVOLUTIONISM AND THE FALL

The following statements appeared recently in a local church publication: The Fall runs straight across the path of the theory of evolution. If evolution is true, then the Biblical teaching concerning sin and salvation and the ultimate judgment upon man is not. Evolution teaches that man gradually evolves upward; the Bible teaches that man began perfect, sinned, and has devolved downward ever since. One has to take a choice: you can-'t have it both ways. To hold to an evolutionary concept of man's history one has to get rid of the Fall. This doesn-'t mean to interpret the book of Genesis as a book of -myths with spiritual truths.-' It means to get rid of Jesus and His teaching which supports the Fall. It means that the Old Testament prophets have to go, with their pronouncements on the subject. Then you have to throw out the New Testament letters which declare the Fall as a reality and explain how it is overcome through Christ, etc.

These are positive either-or affirmations-'. They precipitate certain very significant questions, such as the following: Is there any possible ground of reconciliation of the evolution hypothesis with the Genesis account of the Fall? Furthermore, is there any real necessity for demanding such a reconciliation as a factor in validating the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3)? That is, are the two subjects genuinely relevant to each other, and, if so, how far does this relevance extend? Is to try to find harmony with respect to every detail involved in both the Biblical and scientific accounts really necessary, or even justifiable? Finally, is it true that man began perfect? Or, did he begin innocent with the potentiality of attaining wholeness or perfection? One thing is sure, namely, that man as we know him historically and experientially, is anything but the epitome of physical, mental, moral or spiritual perfection. No one but a person blinded by his own conceits would even question this fact.

In sharp contrast to the view presented above, Dr. A. H. Strong, who can hardly be accused of heresy with respect to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, has written as follows (ST, 465, 466): The Scriptures, on the one hand, negate the idea that man is the mere product of unreasoning natural forces. They refer his existence to a cause different from mere nature, namely, the creative act of God.. But, on the other hand, the Scriptures do not disclose the method of man's creation. Whether man's physical system is or is not derived, by natural descent from the lower animals, the record of creation does not inform us. As the command, -Let the earth bring forth living creatures-' (Genesis 1:24), does not exclude the idea of mediate creation, so the forming of man of the dust of the ground-' (Genesis 2:7) does not in itself determine whether the creation of man's body was mediate or immediate.. Evolution does not make the idea of a Creator superfluous, because evolution is only the method of God. It is perfectly consistent with a Scriptural doctrine of Creation that man should emerge at the proper time, governed by different laws from the brute creation, yet growing out of the brute, just as the foundation of a house built of stone is perfectly consistent with the wooden structure built upon it. All depends upon the plan. An atheistic and undesigning evolution cannot include man without excluding what Christianity regards as essential to man.. But a theistic evolution can recognize the whole process of man's creation equally the work of nature and the work of God.. Psychology comes to our help in the interpretation of Scripture. The radical differences between man's soul and the principle of intelligence in the lower animals, especially man's possession of self-consciousness, general ideas, the moral sense, and the power of self-determination, show that that which chiefly constitutes him man, could not have been derived, by any natural process of development, from the inferior creatures. We are compelled, then, to believe that God's -breathing into man's nostrils the breath of life-' (Genesis 2:7), though it was a mediate creation as presupposing existing material in the shape of animal forms, was yet an immediate creation in the sense that only a divine reinforcement of the process of life turned the animal into man. In other words, man came not from the brute, but through the brute, and the same immanent God who had previously created the brute created also the man. Again (466): Drummond, in his Ascent of Man, concedes that man passed through a period when he resembled the ape more than any known animal, but at the same time declares that no anthropoid ape could develop into a man. The brute can be defined in terms of man, but man cannot be defined in terms of the brute. It is significant that in insanity the higher endowments of man disappear in an order precisely the reverse of that in which, according to the development theory, they have been acquired. The highest part of man totters first. The last added is first to suffer. Again, quoting J. M. Bronson (466): The theist must accept evolution if he would keep his argument for the existence of God from the unity of design in nature. Unless man is an end, he is an anomaly. The greatest argument for God is the fact that all animate nature is one vast and connected unity. Man has developed not from the ape, but away from the ape. He was never anything but potential man. He did not, as man, come into being until he became a conscious moral agent. To this Strong adds: This conscious moral nature, which we call personality, requires a divine Author, because it surpasses all the powers which can be found in the animal creation. But, is the breathing into man's nostrils of the breath of life to be explained (as in Strong's statement) as a reinforcement of the process of life that turned the animal into a man? What kind of reinforcement? Or, just what did this reinforcement consist of? The word reinforcement, as used here, strikes me as being exceedingly vague. Surely the texts of Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:7 leave us with only one valid interpretation, namely, that the breath of God carried with it a direct impartation from God Himself of those powers which specify man as manhis intellectual, moral and spiritual endowments, in fact the essence of his interior life. Genesis 1:28, if it means anything, surely means that God breathed into him, not just the life principle, but the rational principle as well which is that which constitutes him a conscious moral creature. (Cf. Genesis 6:17; Ecclesiastes 12:7; Job 33:4; Job 32:8; Psalms 139:14; Ecclesiastes 12:7; Acts 17:25).It will be recalled that Lotze, the German philosopher, held that at certain stages of development, God, by direct action, inserted into the creative process new increments of power, namely, the phenomena of energy-matter, life, consciousness, and self-consciousness, respectively, thus accounting for the gaps that still obtain in scientific thought between successively higher levels of being. It will also be recalled, in this connection, that Trueblood (PR, 98-102) contends that what he calls the fact of evolution is a positive proof of our theistic God. He quotes Archbishop Temple as saying, The more completely we include Mind within Nature, the more inexplicable must Nature become except by reference to Mind. Trueblood himself then adds, that if man's life is included in the evolution theory, we cannot escape the conclusion that mind and nature are akin, that mind is not accidental in nature, but a revelation of the nature of nature. The thesis of his argument is that such a unity is a unity of design, one that arises only from effective operation of purpose. (Cf. Isaiah 44:6-8; Isaiah 46:8-11; Psalms 33:6-9; Psalms 148:1-6; Acts 17:23-31).

Let us now examine the facts, as briefly as possible, which have to do with the problem of evolutionism and its bearing on the Genesis narrative of the Fall. (I suggest that the student read again my Genesis, Vol. 1, pp. 559-601). In pursuing this study, we must call attention again to the difference in meaning of the terms, evolution and evolutionism. The former designates only the process itself, the process of continuous progressive change. The latter term designates how the process proceeds, that is, the methodology of it, the factors which are said to have actualized it. Evolutionism is also properly designated the theory of evolution.

So much by way of introduction. We shall now summarize those various aspects of the material to be presented here, as follows:
1. Concerning the evolutionists themselves. (1) Generally speaking, evolutionists are persons who summarily reject any kind of evidence that cannot be supported by empirical observation and measurement: in their own universe of discourse, they are known as Positivists. (2) In the main they are men who are either non-religious or positively anti-religious in attitude. Hence, they reject a priori any notion of what might be called the supernatural. In this respect they belong in the same school as the analytical critics and demythologizers who approach history from the a priori assumption that any event described as a miracle cannot be material for genuine history, no matter how strong the evidence of eyewitnesses in support of it, and hence must be explained (rather, explained away) on a naturalistic basis or rejected outright. David F. Strauss, whose Life of Jesus attained such great popularity in Germany about a century ago, set the fashion in this area of criticism: accepting the historicity of Jesus, he made a vain effort, however, to explain away His miracles in naturalistic terms. The French writer, Renan, fell into the same error: as someone has said, his Life of Jesus rests on the soft pillow of doubt. (3) Of course, evolutionists generally, like scientists of all persuasions, are influenced by the arbitrary assumption that lies at the root of all scientific inquiry, namely, that events which cannot be established empirically (that is, by sense-perception, or by sense-perception implemented by proper mechanical devices such as the microscope and the telescope) cannot be accepted as belonging to true science. Notably, in this connection, many scientists scoff at all research in the field of extrasensory perception and psychokinesis, largely because they regard this kind of research as lying beyond the area of scientific investigation in the true sense of that term. Indeed, many of them manifest completely closed minds to all the conclusions reached by the investigators of the phenomena of the subconscious. Again quoting Dr. Jauncey (SRG, 57):All we can say at the moment is that evolution is generally accepted, possibly because of the lack of any scientific alternative, but with serious misgivings on the adequacy of some aspects of it.

(4) Many evolutionistsindeed, I should say, the great majority of themare fundamentally ignorant of the teaching of the Bible, in particular of its internal unity, and hence of its basic content and design. It is doubtful that they have even a passing acquaintance with the Holy Spirit, or indeed even know that the Holy Spirit is (cf. Acts 19:2). Over-specialization has much to do with this tragic lacuna in the knowledge of men high in secular academic circles. One of our humoristsWill Rogers, if my memory serves me righthas aptly remarked that the most ignorant man in the world is the fellow who is highly specialized in one particular field when he ventures outside the field he is specialized in. Years ago, when the first Henry Ford was in his prime, I would have believed almost anything he had to say about the manufacture and marketing of automobiles. But when he ventured into print on matters of religion and politics, as all such gentlemen are prone to do, I could hardly accept anything he said: his statements demonstrated his colossal ignorance of both subjects. The same is true of the fulminations of Edison, Burbank, Clarence Darrow, John Dewey, and all their kind: yet the authority of a great name often leads thousands of gullible persons into egregious fallacies. I recall, in my days in college, certain professors who went out of their way to poke fun at some of the Bible narratives, but their very statements proved that they knew little or nothing about the subjects they ventured to discuss with all the pontifical solemnity of a self-appointed pundit.

(5) It is notoriously true that evolutionists have been addicted to the use of pompous language and to extravagant, if not actually ridiculous, claims in support of their hypothesis. Recall here, for example, Herbert Spencer's grandiose definition of evolution as continuous change from indefinite, incoherent homogeneity, to definite, coherent heterogeneity of structure and function, through successive differentiations and integrations. One is reminded, too, of Haeckel's Tree of Life in which he presented the course of evolution under the likeness of a great spreading tree, Haeckel himself supplying the multifarious missing links out of his own fantastically fertile imagination. In similar vein, we recall the tendency among historians of our time, as, e.g., the late H. G. Wells in his Outline of History, to introduce actual history with Chapter s on what is obviously prehistory and hence generally conjectural. I can see no justification for this method, especially in view of the fact that the obvious distinction between the character of prehistory and that of history proper is never clearly defined for the reader. One is reminded here also of claims that have been made recently for the antiquity of man, stretching his existence on earth theoretically as far back as 500,000 years. One wonders, if homo sapiens has been around that long, what on earth has he been doing throughout all these millenia. Surely, there is no evidence from archaeology, or from any other source, that he made much progress, either materially or spiritually, apparently beginning to do so only some 10,000 years ago, in what is called the Neolithic Age. As a matter of fact, history proper had its beginning no farther back than about 5,000 B.C.and indubitably history is made by men.

The late William Jennings Bryan who, from the role he played in the notorious monkey trial (a silly term of journalistic coinage, and one that exudes scorn, no doubt designedly) in Tennessee, has been caricatured in scientific publications, in so-called religious periodicals, and even in the daily press, as a kind of nit-wit, was anything but that. (Bryan, unfortunately, allowed himself to be put on the defensive in the Scopes trial, and this is something that one must never do in facing an atheist or an agnostic: the believer has nothing to fear by taking the offensive in such situations. Bryan was, of course, a bit naive in some of his statements, but Darrow was downright ignorant of the teaching of the Bible and displayed his ignorance in the arguments he presented.) This writer personally heard Bryan speak, on several occasions, including his famed public lecture, In the Image of God. In the printed version of this speech, he pointed up some of the extravagant claims of the evolutionists in support of their hypothetical brainchild. Because so few persons in our day and age have any real understanding of Bryan's efforts and of the real circumstances of the Scopes trial, I present here a few paragraphs from this lecture, as follows (IHM, 90-106): Before commenting on the Darwinian hypothesis let me refer you to the language of its author as it applies to man. On page 180 of Descent of Man (Hurst and Company, Edition 1874), Darwin says: -Our most ancient progenitors in the kingdom of the Vertebrata, at which we are able to obtain an obscure glance, apparently consisted of a group of marine animals, resembling the larvae of the existing Ascidians.-' Then he suggests a line of descent leading to the monkey. And he does not even permit us to indulge in a patriotic pride of ancestry; instead of letting us descend from American monkeys, he connects us with the European branch of the monkey family. It will be noted, first, that he begins the summary with the word -apparently,-' which the Standard Dictionary defines: -as judged by appearances, without passing upon its reality.-' His second sentence (following the sentence quoted) turns upon the word -probably,-' which is defined: -as far as the evidence shows, presumably, likely.-' His works are full of words indicating uncertainty. The phrase, -we may well suppose,-' occurs over eight hundred times in his two principal works. (See Herald and Presbyter, November 22, 1914). The eminent scientist is guessing.. If we could divide the human race into two distinct groups we might allow evolutionists to worship brutes as ancestors but they insist on connecting all mankind with the jungle. We have a right to protect our family tree.. Darwin is absurd as well as groundless. He announces two laws, which, in his judgment, explain the development of man from the lowest form of animal life, namely, natural selection and sexual selection. The latter has been abandoned by the modern believers in evolution, but two illustrations from Darwin's Descent of Man, will show his unreliability as a guide to the young. On page 587 of the 1874 edition, he tries to explain man's superior mental strength (a proposition more difficult to defend today than in Darwin's time). His theory is that, -the struggle between the males for the possession of the females-' helped to develop the male mind and that this superior strength was transmitted by males to their male offspring. After having shown, to his own satisfaction, how sexual selection would account for the (supposed) greater strength of the male mind, he turns his attention to another question, namely, how did man become a hairless animal? This he accounts for also by sexual selectionthe females preferred the males with the least hair (page 624).. A comment and a question: First, unless the brute females were very different from females as we know them, they would not have agreed in taste. Some would -probably-' have preferred males with less hair, others, -we may well suppose,-' would have preferred males with more hair. Those with more hair would naturally be the stronger because better able to resist the weather. But, second, how could the males have strengthened their minds by fighting for the females, if, at the same time, the females were breeding the hair off by selecting the males? Or, did the males select for three years and then allow the females to do the selecting during leap year?.

Again: But how does the evolutionist explain the eye when he leaves God out? Here is the only guess that I have seenif you find any others I shall be glad to know of them, as I am collecting the guesses of the evolutionists. The evolutionist guesses that there was a time when eyes were unknownthis is a necessary part of the hypothesis. And since eye is a universal possession among living things the evolutionist guesses that it came into beingnot by design or by act of Godbut just happened, and how did it happen? I will give you the guessa piece of pigment, or, as some say, a freckle appeared upon the skin of an animal that had no eyes. This piece of pigment or freckle converged the rays of the sun upon that spot and when the animal felt the heat on that spot it turned the spot to the sun to get more heat. The increased heat irritated the skinso the evolutionists guess, and a nerve came there, and out of the nerve came the eye! Can you beat it? But this only accounts for one eye: there must have been another piece of pigment or freckle soon afterward and just in the right place in order to give the animal two eyes. And, according to evolutionists, there was a time when animals had no legs, and so the leg came by accident. How? Well, the guess is that a little animal without legs was wiggling along on its belly one day when it discovered a wartit just happened soand it was in the right place to be used to aid it in locomotion; so, it came to depend upon the wart, and use finally developed it into a leg. And then another wart and another leg, at the proper timeby accidentand accidentally in the proper place. Is it not astonishing that any person intelligent enough to teach school would talk such tommyrot to students and look serious while doing so? And yet I read only a few weeks ago, on page 124 of a little book recently issued by a prominent New York minister, the following: -Man has grown up in this universe gradually developing his powers and functions as responses to his environment. If he has eyes, so the biologists assure us, it is because light waves played upon the skin and eyes came out in answer; if he has ears it is because the air waves were there first and the ears came out to hear. Man never yet, according to the evolutionist, developed any power save as a reality called it into being. There would be no fins if there were no water, no wings if there were no air, no legs if there were no land.-' You see I called your attention to only forty per cent of the absurdities; he speaks of eyes, ears, fins, wings and legsfive. I called attention only to eyes and legstwo. The evolutionist guesses himself away from God, but he only makes matters worse. How long did the -light waves-' have to play on the skin before the eyes came out? The evolutionist is very deliberate; he is long on time. He would certainly give the eye thousands of years, if not millions, in which to develop; but how could he be sure that the light waves played all the time in one place or played in the same place generation after generation until the development was complete? And why did the light waves quit playing when two eyes were perfected? Why did they not keep on playing until there were eyes all over the body? Why do they not play today, so that we may see eyes in the process of development? And if the light waves created the eyes, why did they not create them strong enough to bear the light? Why did the light waves make eyes and then make eyelids to keep the light out of the eyes? And so with the ears. They must have gone in -to hear-' instead of out, and wasn-'t it lucky that they happened to go in on opposite sides of the head instead of cater-cornered or at random?.

Again: Last November I was passing through Philadelphia and read in an afternoon paper a report of an address delivered in that city by a college professor employed in extension work. Here is an extract from the paper's account of the speech: -Evidence that early men climbed trees with their feet lies in the way we wear the heels of our shoesmore at the outside. A baby can wiggle its big toe without wiggling its other toesan indication that it once used its big toe in climbing trees.-' What a consolation it must be to mothers to know that the baby is not to be blamed for wiggling the big toe without wiggling the other toes. It cannot help it, poor little thing; it is an inheritance from -the tree man,-' so the evolutionists tell us. And here is another extract: -We often dream of falling. Those who fell out of the trees some fifty thousand years ago and were killed, of course, had no descendants. So those who fell and were not hurt, of course, lived, and so we are never hurt in our dreams of falling.-' Of course, if we were actually descended from the inhabitants of trees, it would seem quite likely that we descended from those who were not killed in falling. But they must have been badly frightened if the impression made upon their feeble minds could have lasted for fifty thousand years and still be vivid enough to scare us. If the Bible said anything so idiotic as these guessers put forth in the name of science, scientists would have a great time ridiculing the sacred pages, but men who scoff at the recorded interpretation of dreams of Joseph and Daniel seem to be able to swallow the amusing interpretations offered by the Pennsylvania professor.

Finally: A few months ago the Sunday School Times quoted a professor in an Illinois University as saying that the great day in history was the day when a water puppy crawled up on the land and, deciding to be a land animal, became man's progenitor. If these scientific speculators can agree upon the day they will probably insist on our abandoning Washington's Birthday, the Fourth of July, and even Christmas, in order to join with the whole world in celebrating -Water Puppy Day.-' Within the last few weeks the papers published a dispatch from Paris to the effect that an -eminent scientist-' announced that he had communicated with the spirit of a dog and learned from the dog that it was happy. Must we believe this, too? We might go and on here with excerpts from Mr. Bryan's lecture couched in similar vein; we feel, however, that the foregoing are sufficient to demonstrate the speculative extravagances to which the rabid evolutionists resort in support of their hypothesisfor evolution is, even down to our day, still a hypothesis.

(6) Evolutionists reject all attempts that are, or could be, made to show correspondence between the Genesis account of the Creation and their own theory. All the prominent originators of the theory of evolutionDarwin, Huxley, Spencer, Haeckel, Wallace, and the restwere firm opponents of the Biblical view of the world and of man. Generally speaking, the same is equally true of our present-day crop as well. To be sure, there are meneminent scholarswho have sought to point up a possible correspondence in broad outlines, under the caption of theistic evolution, between the theory and the teaching of Genesis; still, the foremost advocates of the evolutionary view in our day look with considerable disdainand even contempton all such efforts and those who would even suggest that such harmony exists or is possible. For example, Goldschmidt, the geneticist writes (art., Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist, American Scientist, Vol. 40, January 1952, p. 85): Another type of evolutionary theory hardly deserves to be mentioned in a scientific paper. This is the mystical approach, which hides its insufficient understanding of the facts behind such empty words as creative evolution, emergent evolution, holism, and psycho-Lamarckism.. The biologist does not receive any constructive help from such ideas and is forced to ignore them. (I might interpolate here that the insufficient understanding, of these gentlemen, of Biblical teaching is pitiful; it would be laughable, if it were not so tragic.) G. G. Simpson, the bellwether of the present-day materialistic school, has delivered himself on the subject of theistic views of evolution as follows (Evolutionary Determinism and the Fossil Record, Scientific Monthly, Vol. 71, October 1950, p. 264): The fossil record definitely does not accord with. the concept of orthogenesis or more broadly with overtly or covertly non-materialistic theories like those of Driesch, Bergson, Osborne, Cuenot, du Nuoy, or Vandel. In an important address recently at the Darwinian Centennial Convention and the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at the University of Chicago, Simpson spoke just as positively. Among other things, said he, Evolution is a fully natural process, inherent in the physical properties of the universe, by which life arose in the first place and by which all living things, past or present, have since developed, divergently and progressively.. Life may conceivably be happier for some people in the other worlds of superstition. It is possible that some children are made happy by a belief in Santa Claus, but adults should prefer to live in a world of reality and reason (cf. Simpson, The World Into Which Darwin Led Us, Science, Vol. 131, April 1, 1960, pp. 969,973-974). Julian Huxley was quoted in an Associated Press dispatch, November 27, 1959, as saying this, at the same Convocation: In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created: it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul, as well as brain and body. So did religion. And C. D. Darlington, Professor of Botany at Oxford, sums up the issue from his point of view in this terse statement (The Origin of Darwinism, Scientific American, Vol. 200, May 1959, p. 66):We owe to the Origin of Species the overthrow of the myth of Creation. The paeans that have been sung to Darwin in the past century have been fantastic, to say the least. We would humbly suggest that they be assembled, and together with those offered up in the worship of Marx and Freud, presented to the world in a volume that would aptly be entitled, The Hymnody of Scientism. In the statements quoted above the fact stands out as prima facie evidence that in each case the wish is father to the thought.

2. Concerning evolutionism. (1) The antireligious prejudice of the evolutionists, particularly of those who champion the strictly materialistic version of the theory, prompts them to proclaim vociferously that evolution is a fact. They make no bones about asserting dogmatically that their case is provedagain a case in which the wish is father to the thought. Whether they choose to be known as naturalists, humanists, positivists, materialists, or what not, they are all anti-theistic: in short, they are anti-God, that is, in any sense of the term God that is congenial and helpful to mankind. Obviously, then, in their thinking man is not the image of God, for the simple reason that there is no Deity of which he can be the image; hence, as Chesterton has put it, we must conclude that he is a disease of the dust. In strict truth, however, evolutionism is not a factit is a faith. No one ever witnessed the emergence of a new species. No one on earth knows how such an emergence takes place (if it does). Moreover, the time element claimed by devotees of the hypothesis is so vast as to put it forever beyond all possibility of empirical (eye-witness) verification. The various arguments in support of the theory are matters of inference. Hence the questions arise, is all this necessary inference? Or, how much of it is just conjectural? We are reminded here of Mark Twain's comment: There is something so fascinating about science; one gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such trifling investments of fact. Chesterton's statements about the word evolution are certainly apropos (EM, 23): As a matter of fact it is not a very practical word or a very profitable idea. Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else. It is really far more logical to start by saying, -In the beginning God created heaven and earth,-' even if you only mean, -In the beginning some unthinkable power began some unthinkable process.-' For God is by its nature a name of mystery, and nobody ever supposed that man could imagine how a world was created any more than he could create one. But evolution really is mistaken for explanation. It has the fatal quality of leaving on many minds the impression that they do understand it and everything else; just as many of them live under a sort of illusion that they have read the Origin of Species. In the attitude of the evolutionists that their theory must be accepted as fact chiefly because there is no alternative but creation, they commit the fallacy of begging the question: that is, they assume as fact what actually needs to be proved, when it might turn out after all that evolution is God's method of creation. If decided a priori that the totality of being must be explained naturally, obviously one would be under the necessity of accepting evolutionism whether or not it is validated by the available evidence. Again, Chesterton (EM, 13): An iconoclast may be indignant; an iconoclast may be justly indignant; but an iconoclast is not impartial. And it is stark hypocrisy to pretend that nine-tenths of the higher critics and scientific evolutionists and professors of comparative religion are in the least impartial. Why should they be impartial, what is being impartial, when the whole world is at war about whether one thing is a devouring superstition or a divine hope.. They are not impartial; they never by any chance hold the historical scales even; and above all they are never impartial upon this point of evolution and transition. They suggest everywhere the grey gradations of twilight, because they believe it is the twilight of the gods. I propose to maintain that whether or no it is the twilight of the gods, it is not the daylight of men.

(2) It is most interesting to note here two Scripture affirmations, Hebrews 11:3 and 2 Peter 3:1-7, which have significant bearing on the subject before us. In the former passage, the inspired author tells us that the things we see with the natural eye (ages, as in Hebrews 1:2; cf. time as the Einsteinian fourth dimension) have not been made out of these things which appear to our physical vision (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:16-18). Robertson (WPNT, V, 419): The author denies the eternity of matter, a common theory then and now, and places God before the visible universe as many modern scientists now gladly do (the physicists in particular). Is it not significant that what the inspired writer states here is now generally accepted as fact by the nuclear physicists, namely, that the forms of matter which are amenable to sense-perception are actually constituted of ultimate forms of energy which are totally inaccessible to man's physical senses. Thus far no man has ever seen an atom, much less any of the growing number of elementary particles or forces which go to make up the constituency of the atom. Today, matter in its ultimate form is apprehensible, not by physical sense-perception, but by mathematical calculation; hence, it is to be regarded truly as metaphysical rather than as strictly physical. As Lincoln Barnett writes (UDE, 114): Man's inescapable impasse is that he himself is part of the world he seeks to explore; his body and proud brain are mosaics of the same elemental particles that compose the dark, drifting clouds of interstellar space; he is, in the final analysis, merely an ephemeral conformation of the primordial space-time field. Standing midway between macrocosm and microcosm he finds barriers on every side and can perhaps but marvel, as St. Paul did nineteen hundred years ago, that -the world was created by the word of God so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.-' (I must dissent from the view stated above that man is merely an ephemeral conformation of the primordial space-time field. As a matter of fact, man is the one entity in creation who is not an ephemeral conformation of any kind: even in the total scheme of relativity envisioned today by the physicists, he is the only framework of reference to whom anything else has meaning, and this is by virtue of the fact that he is essentially imperishable spirit, the image of God.)

(3) As for the second Scripture cited above, 2 Peter 3:1-7, the significance is even more startling. Here we are told that in the last days mockers shall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for, from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. We go on to read that these mockers wilfully forget, that there were heavens from of old, and an earth compacted out of water and amidst water, by the word of God, by which means the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished, etc. Is not all this precisely what the majority of evolutionists of our time are saying and doing? How could the picture have been drawn more realistically? And thus do these mockers, our antitheistic evolutionists, fulfill Bible prophecy, although, I am sure, they are blissfully unaware of their prophetic identification. True it is today, as always, that not many wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put to shame them that are wise, etc. (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:20-29).

(4) The excessive devotion of the evolutionists to their brainchild leads them to try to apply the progressive development yardstick to every phase of the cosmic process. They would trace chronologically every physical, astronomical, geological, biological, sociological, even theological, development in the totality of being. Hence we now have books with such titles as Stellar Evolution, From Atoms to Stars, Biography of the Earth, From Molecules to Man, etc., and innumerable published articles of the same general trend of thinking. We have Herbert Spencer's cultural evolution theory, namely, that all cultures have moved forward from savagery through barbarism to civilization. This concept has long been abandoned by anthropologists and sociologists alike. The evolution yardstick was, for a long time, applied to the history of religion: it was held that animism (the belief that everything is ensouled) was the first form of religion; that in time animism gave way generally to polytheism; that polytheism was succeeded by henotheism (a pantheon with a single sovereign deity); and that henotheism developed into monotheism (belief in one true God to the exclusion of all other deities). It is held further that monotheism will ultimately give way to pantheism, a sophisticated religion in which God is identified with nature or with some impersonal creative process in nature, the only system, we are told, which is acceptable to the intelligentsia. It is doubtful that this theory is seriously entertained in our day: there is too much evidence that monotheism has existed along with these other views, somewhere and in some form, from earliest times. Of course, at the outset evolutionism had reference only to biological development, to the origin of species. Implicit in all these theories is the view that all change takes place from the simple to the more and more complex: in logic textbooks this is now designated the genetic fallacy. As stated in one such textbook (ILSM, 389): It is an inexcusable error to identify the temporal order in which events have actually occurred, with the logical order in which elements may be put together to constitute existing institutions. Actual recorded history shows growth in simplicity as in complexity. The fact is that in some areas change is not from the simple to the complex, but just the reversefrom complexity to greater simplicity. This is true, for example, in the field of linguistics especially: the history of language is the story of a continuous process of simplification. The same is true in the area of social organization: all one has to do to realize this fact is to contrast the long tortuous genealogical tables of the most primitive peoples with the tendency today to minimize, even to disregard, genealogical tables altogether (cf. 1 Timothy 1:4, Titus 3:9). Again (ILSM, 390): Science, as well as art and certain social organizations, is sometimes deliberately changed according to some idea or pattern to which previous existence is not relevant.

(5) It has been charged, and that rightly, that evolutionism has, unfortunately, tended to vitiate intellectual integrity throughout the scientific world. Some very interesting statements to this effect appear in the Preface, by W. R. Thompson, F.R.S., Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada, to the most recent Everyman's Library edition of Darwin's Origin of Species. A long-enduring and regrettable effect of the Origin, writes Thompson, was the addiction of biologists to unverifiable speculation, the net result of which was that the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. This, he adds, is already evident in the reckless statements of Haeckel, and in the shifting, devious and histrionic argumentation of T. H. Huxley. Finally, his conclusion: It may be said, and the most orthodox theologians indeed hold, that God controls and guides even the events due to chance; but this proposition the Darwinians emphatically reject, and it is clear that in the Origin evolution is presented as an essentially undirected process. For the majority of readers, therefore, the Origin effectively dissipated the evidence of providential control. It might be said that this was their own fault. Nevertheless, the failure of Darwin and his successors to attempt an equitable assessment of the religious issues at stake indicate a regrettable obtuseness and lack of responsibility. Furthermore, on the purely philosophical plane, the Darwinian doctrine of evolution involves some difficulties which Darwin and Huxley were unable to appreciate. (I might well add that their devoted disciples in our day seem to have closed minds on the same matters). Between the organism that simply lives, the organism that lives and feels, and the organism that lives, feels, and reasons, there are, in the opinion of respectable philosophers, abrupt transitions corresponding to an ascent in the scale of being, and they hold that the agencies of the material world cannot produce transitions of this kind. Again, Biologists still agree on the separation of plants and animals, but the idea that man and animals differ only in degree is now so general among them, that even psychologists no longer attempt to use words like -reason-' or -intelligence-' in an exact sense. This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is an inheritance of biology from the Origin of Species. We are reminded here of the attitude of many scientists toward the conclusions of those men who have been delving into the study of the phenomena of the Subconscious in man. Dr. J. B. Rhine, head of the Department of Parapsychology at Duke University, has some pertinent remarks to make on this subject. Fear, comments Rhine, more than anything else, blocks scientific acceptance. First, there is fear of having to accept as real something that does not harmonize with a physicalistic philosophy. The acceptance of nonphysical action would admit two kinds of reality, and divide the universe. Such a step looks like a throwback to supernaturalism. (The authorof The Reach of the Mindthen goes on to show that it is an error to think that ESP and PK lead to dualism. The very act in which the two systems of mind and body operate upon each other necessarily unifies them to some degree into a single process. No one can conceive of the interaction of two systems, except by supposing that there are properties common to both. Indeed, we can conclude in all safety that the facts do not require one to be a dualistthey do not allow one to be.) Rhine continues: The other fear that retards the scientific acceptance of ESP-PK is a social one: fear of losing caste in one's profession. Many scientists have experimented with ESP and PK in secret. Occasionally we learn of successful and valuable experiments, only to be told that -for professional reasons-' no report will be published. -My family has to eat,-' said one of these experimenters. -My institution would object,-' said another. -Every member of my department would criticize me, and I am in line for the chairmanship.-' Truly scientists can be very human at times! (From condensation of Rhine's book, The Reach of the Mind, in The Reader's Digest, February, 1948).

3. Concerning the Inadequacies of Evolutionism (that is, to explain what it is supposed to explain). Evolutionism, let us remember, is the theory of evolution, frequently designated the evolution hypothesis. In the terminology of science a hypothesis ranks below a theory in validity, and both hypothesis and theory attain the stature of a law only when after a long period of testing their validity is established by apparently incontrovertible evidence. The theory of evolution fails to account adequately for many of the facts of human observation, experience, and general knowledge. Among these are the following: (1) The origin of life: spontaneous generation may be considered a possibility theoretically, but as yet no direct evidence has been brought to light to prove that it ever actually happened. As Spallanzani (1729-1799) explained, Even microbes must have parents, and all the thanks he got for his discovery was ostracism by the medical society of Europe. (2) The life movement itself: the underlying force, or whatever one may call it, that brings about cell segmentation (and growth) plus differentiation as to structure and specialization as to function. Protoplasmic irritability is a grandiose term which reminds us of John Locke's definition of matter as something-I-know-not-what. (3) The transmission of modifications: the process by which a variation in a parent organism becomes embodied in the reproductive cells, the only media (the genes) by which it can be passed on to offspring. Genes are defined as the determiners of heredity; still and all, they are hypothetical in the sense of eluding sense perception. (4) The vast gap between the intelligence potential of man and that of any known animal species extant or extinct. This gap has led many scientists to take the position that man's appearance on the scene must have been a mutation. Man is not just animal: he is animal plus, and it is the plus that specifies him as man. Hence the folly of trying to explain the person as a biological creature exclusively; as Chesterton says (EM, 17): It is exactly when we regard man as an animal that we know he is not an animal. (5) The cause of mutations: the appearance of new forms as wholes as a result of sudden jumps in the process, forms which continue to breed true from the time of their emergence. As a matter of fact, mutations have all the appearance of special creations, what some have called the insertion of new increments of power into the Creative Process. (Cosmic rays have been found to produce mutations in fruit flies). Evolutionism simply could not be validated in any form without mutations. And is it not fortunate that these alleged mutations occurred in a sequence which supports the concept of progressive development of species? And does not this fact in itself presuppose direction of the whole processif it actually occurredby an intelligent Designer? (cf. Isaiah 46:8-11). (6) The origin of sex differences. Evolutionism is unable to give us a satisfactory account of this fact on which the preservation and continuance of all living species is based. (It is interesting to note here that the Genesis Narrative of the Creation is silent regarding the origin of females among subhuman orders, with the sole exception of the implication in Genesis 1:22; it is the human female, Woman, to whom our attention is especially directed in Scripture). (7) The Mendelian laws of heredity. These laws, like all the laws of the sciences, are descriptive. They are not in any sense explanatory of the why of the inter-relationships of the factors involved.

(8) The amazing variety of highly developed special organs which serve the needs of the respective species in which they function, e.g., wings, feathers, fur; eyes, ears and other physical sense organs; tusks, antennae, hooves; fins and gills and electric organs of fishes, poison glands and fangs of snakes; the radar mechanism of bats; migratory sense of birds, etc. These are too numerous and too multifarious even to try to list them all here. They are explained by evolutionists in terms of adaptation to environment: thus the term adaptation has become a kind of linguistic factotum brought in to explain the unexplainable. Think of the innumerable possibilities of variations which may take place retrogressively as well as progressively. So many imponderables (immeasurable factors) are said to be involved, such as so-called natural selection, sexual selection, artificial selection, variable prolificity of species, hereditary processes, mutations, the role of the germ plasm, etc. Regardless of the time element which may be assumed, no one knows the precise how, much less the why, of these mysteries (not even how the phychical takes hold of the physical and moves it, as happens every time a man takes a walk). The fact is that evolutionists embalm all these mysteries in a crust of academic jargon that explains little or nothing in the concrete, arriving at their pontifical pronouncements by inferences that are unverifiable in fact. (After all, the term hypothesis is just a sophisticated term for a fairly respectable guess).

(9) The fact of instinct, of the almost inconceivable manifoldness of instinctive responses, in subhuman orders. E.g., the lifetime journey of salmon, the wonderland of ants, the mating dance of the scorpion, cicadian rhythms (biological clocks), bird migrations, migratory sense of homing pigeons, etc. Some of these are so fantastic as to be almost inconceivable. Indeed instinct has rightly been called the Great Sphinx of Nature. If complexity of instinct were to be made the criterion of the classification of living forms in an ascending order, it is obvious that the lowly Insecta would stand at the head of the list, and that man, poor man, would be somewhere near the bottom.

I recommend especially a book entitled Marvels and Mysteries of Our Animal World (a book put on the market recently by The Reader's Digest Association), also the following statements which appear in a sketch of the content of the book prepared for advertising purposes, to emphasize the subject under consideration here (the specialized organs and instincts of subhuman species): The wonderful zoo of our planet is unique. In all of space there is no other giraffe than ours, no aardvark, and no gliding sea-horse, for nature does not repeat her experiments with life. These wonderful creatures are ours. They belong to the earth and we belong to them. Man moves through this parade of life, specialized in brain and dexteritybut still primitive in many ways. We cannot gnaw down trees or run on one toe. But we can make sense out of seeming chaos. And we can use our eyes to see the beautiful spotted fawn in the glade, the oriole swinging in its basket nest, a thousand spangled butterflies trembling on a tree limb. And, seeing these, we know the miracle of the animals we live with. Here, in this exciting Reader's Digest volume, the miracle comes alive! We learn the methods of the insect magician who invented a baffling tricklight without heat. We get a close-up of that engineering genius, the busy beavera good family man and a peaceful chap; we follow the monarch butterfly on an incredible 2000-mile journey, get an intimate view of the bounder with the built-in pocket, learn why elephants are almost human (and why they-'re not!), look twice at an ostrich (look once, then look out!), and thrill to the story of the friendly sea otter's comeback! Truly, instinct is the Great Sphinx of Nature! Through its magic powers the Divine Intelligence secures the preservation of all species in relation to their respective needs and to human needs in particular.

(10) The role of the artificial in relation to the natural. Simpson (ME, 139, 140): It is still false to conclude that man is nothing but the highest animal, or the most progressive product of organic evolution. He is also a fundamentally new sort of animal, and one in which, although organic evolution continues on its way, a fundamentally new sort of evolution has also appeared. The basis of this new sort of evolution is a new sort of heredity, the inheritance of learning. This sort of heredity appears modestly in other mammals and even lower in the animal kingdom, but in man it has incomparably fuller development and it combines with man's other characteristics unique in degree with a result that cannot be considered unique only in degree but must also be considered unique in kind.. This new evolution peculiar to man operates directly by the inheritance of acquired characters, of knowledge and learned activities which arise in and are continually a part of an organismic-environmental system, that of social organization. We must admit our amazement at this concession by the writer of the most recently produced Bible of the evolutionists. That is to say, generally speaking, artificial selection plus societal selection has taken over the future development of the evolutionary process. Yes, man is unique in kindno doubt of it! If he were not, Simpson would never have written his book entitled The Meaning of Evolution. Moreover, this uniqueness in kind proves our point, namely, that artificial selection is of a different and higher order, and cannot rightly be included in what is generally called natural selection. This certainly leaves the gap between the two kinds to be accounted for, and so destroys the notion of unbroken continuity of the alleged progressive development! But even though mind and its activities are now considered as elements of what is called nature, the fact remains that the artificial, and the so-called societal alleged to be resulting from it, is not the per se natural. Moreover, by definition, and by facts of human experience as well, artificial selection certainly proceeds according to the purposes of directing minds. Indeed, the concept of purposes, designs, ends, is implicit in the very word selection, in whatever form that selection may be hypothesized. Thus mutations (of which man is now frequently said to have been one), resulting in progressively higher (more complex) forms, point unmistakably (as Trueblood, quoted above, insists) to a directing Divine Intelligence.

(11) The general non-fertility of hybrids. This fact, it seems, would militate against the evolution hypothesis. Moreover, subhuman nature, when left to its own resources, seems to deteriorate rather than to advance. Any gardener knows that tomatoes produced by properly cultivated plants are always superior to those which are produced by seed or plant in what is called volunteer fashion. (12) The modus operandi of emergence. The simple truth is that no one knows how a new species emerges or could emerge. As Alfred Russel Wallace once remarked to Darwin: Your theory will account for the survival of an existing species, but it does not account for the arrival of a new species. This statement is as true today as it was when spoken almost one hundred years ago. As a matter of fact, all the theories of the method of evolution taken together still do not bring us any nearer to the solution of the basic problem of emergence. Vociferous and dogmatic affirmations are never substitutes for facts. Moreover, evolution is largely variation, and variation may occur regressively as well as progressively. Evolution may roll out downward as well as upward.

4. Concerning Materialistic Evolutionism. (1) This is the doctrine that all things have evolved by accident or chance (that is, purposelessness). Devotees of this cult simply refuse to acknowledge Efficient Causality of any kind in the origin and preservation of the cosmos, with the possible exception of some form or forms of primal physical energy: they rest their case on the eternity of matter-in-motion. (Obviously this primal impersonal energy is their god.) With disarming simplicity they proceed to describe all phenomena of the cosmos, including those of the life processes and the thought processes, in terms of a fortuitous concourse of atoms (or sub-atomic forces). Materialistic evolution is usually described as mechanistic. The word mechanism, however, has a question-begging aspect. Machines are contrivances, but as far as human experience goes, they are contrivances invented by some intelligent agent to serve some function, to gain some specific end. Moreover, anyone who insists that the cosmos is just a great machine, is simply reading into his understanding of it the properties and powers that he himself sees in a machine. Evolutionists, as a rule, dislike to be called materialists: they prefer to be known as naturalists, that is, essentially, deniers of the supernatural. However, it is obvious from the point of view of human experience itself that the totality of being was never brought into existence by human agency: as a matter of fact, man was the last species to put in appearance. Therefore, nature, whether supernatural or not, is certainly superhuman. Materialistic evolutionists reject theism, the doctrine of a God who is Spirit (personal, John 4:24): the only God who could be responsive to human inclination and need. (2) The Christian cannot, of course, accept materialistic evolutionism, because it directly contradicts the Biblical doctrine of the sovereignty and eternal purpose of God (Isaiah 46:9-11; Acts 15:18; Acts 17:30-31; 1 Corinthians 15:20-28; Ephesians 3:8-12). Nor is there any special reason why any Christian, or any other intelligent person, should accept it. In the first place, any unbiased person can readily see that the phenomena of personality (perception, consciousness, and especially meaning) are not entirely reducible, if reducible at all, to matter-in-motion. In the second place, materialistic evolutionism cannot be harmonized with the fact of cosmic order. This order is clearly evident (a) from the mathematical relations characteristic of the processes of the physical world and the mathematical formulae by which they are amenable to precise description; (b) from the manifold interrelationships of ends and means, as empirically discerned, prevailing throughout the totality of being; (c) from the over-all adaptation of nature to human life and its needs. As stated heretofore, the word cosmos means order; lacking this order, human science would be forever impossible, for the simple reason that science is man's discovery and description of the order which he finds to prevail in the various segments of the natural world. Surely this architectonic order presupposes a Supreme Orderer, a directing Mind and Will. It is inconceivable that sheer chance could have produced the order we see all around us. To adopt this view requires infinitely more faith than is required to accept the Eternal Purpose of the sovereign God.

5. Concerning Theistic Evolutionism. This is the view, stated in simplest terms, that evolution is God's method of creation. Under this view, the important question for us is this: Can theistic evolutionism be harmonized with Biblical teaching, in particular with the Genesis Narratives of the Creation and the Fall? There are many well-informed and sincerely religious persons who hold that theistic evolutionism properly stated (that is, within certain limitations) is not necessarily in conflict with the teaching of Genesis, if the latter is also constructively interpreted. In the exposition of this general view, the student is advised to consider the following matters of importance:

(1) There is a clear correspondence between the Genesis Cosmogony and present-day scientific thought on many points. (See my Genesis, Volume I, Part X, for a list of these harmonies).

(2) It must always be kept in mind that the major aim of the Genesis Cosmogony, and indeed of the whole Bible, is to tell us who made the cosmos, and not how it was made. It was what God said that was so, that is, that was done (Genesis 1:3; Genesis 1:7; Genesis 1:11; Genesis 1:15; Genesis 1:21; Genesis 1:25; Psalms 33:6; Psalms 33:9; Psalms 148:6), but the inspired writer makes no effort whatsoever to inform us as to how it was done. It is clear that the narrative is intended to be a religious, and not a scientific account of the Creation.

(3) There is nothing in the Genesis text that constrains us to accept the ultra-literal view that God spoke all living species into existence at one and the same time. On the contrary, according to the narrative itself, the activity of Creation was extended over six days and a fraction of the seventh. This is true, however we may see fit to interpret the word day.

(4) In the Genesis narrative itself, the teaching is implicitif not actually explicitthat in creating the cosmos and all things in it, God operated through secondary causes (laws of nature) as well as through primary causation (direct action). This is evident from such statements as these: Let the earth put forth grass, etc. (Genesis 3:11), Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, etc. (Genesis 3:20), Let the earth bring forth living creatures, etc. (Genesis 3:24), and even from the earlier decrees with reference to non-living forms of being, Let there be light (Genesis 3:3), Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters (Genesis 3:6), Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear (Genesis 3:9). In Scripture, God is pictured as exercising His power directly in some cases and with immediate results (e.g., Exodus 17:5-7; Leviticus 10:1-2; Numbers 16:31 ff.; 2 Kings 4:2-7; 2 Chronicles 26:16-21; Matthew 8:24-27; Matthew 9:18-26; Matthew 9:12-13; Mark 8:1-10; Luke 17:11-19; Luke 22:50-51; John 2:1-11; John 11:38-44; Acts 3:1-10; Acts 8:6-8; Acts 9:32-42; Acts 13:11; Acts 16:16-18; Acts 19:11-12; Acts 20:9-12; 1 Corinthians 15:51-52; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17), and in other instances as achieving His ends gradually or by what is called progressive development (Galatians 3:8, Hebrews 1:1-3, 1 Peter 1:10-12, Isaiah 28:9-10, Mark 4:26-29, Psalms 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8). Divine action by fiat simply means that God decrees a thing to be done and it is done, but does not necessarily indicate how it is done or how long a time is involved in the doing of it (Psalms 148:1-6). We must never forget that time means nothing to God, that His realm (eternity) is that of timelessness. We always get into difficulties when we drag our concepts of mathematical time into the area of God's timeless activity (2 Corinthians 4:18). We see no reason for rejecting the view that God, whose Will is the constitution of the cosmos and its processes, should operate through the majesty and the sovereign power of His own established decrees. All law presupposes a lawgiver; therefore what we call laws of nature presuppose the Mind and Will of the Divine Lawgiver.

(5) Certainly the weight of all the evidence available, as explained in Volume One of this textbook series, is in support of the view that the days of the Genesis account were not solar days, but aeonic days; that is, indefinite periods of time. Thus it may be conceded that the Genesis narrative of the Creation can be thought of as allowing for all the time the evolutionists may see fit to muster up theoretically in support of their theory.

(6) Evidently Infinity in God has no reference to any kind of magnitude because God is a Spirit (John 4:24); rather, the term designates the inexhaustible Source of Power by which the cosmos was created and is sustained in its processes (Psalms 148:5-6; Psalms 33:6; Psalms 33:9). Hence the problem before us is not one of power, but one of method. What method, then, did the Creator employ? Was Creation a long-drawn-out process of progressive development, or was it a process of actualization in a very brief time-span? But, after all, what significant difference does it make, whether it was the one or the other? Whether the Creation extended over six or seven solar days, or over six or seven aeonic days, the same measure of Creative Power would have been necessary in either case. (See again our conclusion in Volume I, p. 595).

6. Concerning Evolutionism and the Narrative of the Fall.

(1) The first question that comes to our attention here is that of relevance. With respect to the Genesis narratives any human theory of origins, I should say, is to a large extent irrelevant, for various reasons: (a) because Genesis is pre-scientific chronologically, that is, it came into existence before human science had reached any significant stage of development, (b) because the book was composed for moral and spiritual ends only, (c) because the subject-matter is presented in bold outlines only, designed to give us a panoramic picture of the order of the Creation without regard to details, and (d) hence, is not entirely irreconcilable with evolutionism of a kind which allows for the continuous and directed operation of Divine Power by the Divine Mind and Will. The religious truths emphasized in the book are not affected to any great extent by the scientific theory characteristic of any age. Hence, whether the Genesis account of the Creation, or that of the Fall, is scientific or not, is a false issue. The accounts were not designed to be such; as a matter of fact, no account of origins could be written that would always be in harmony with shifting scientific thought. To attack Genesis from the point of view that it must be in harmony with every detail of present-day scientific theory is to manifest either profound ignorance of the whole subject, and of Scripture especially, or probably a perverted will that raises false issues solely to discount the Biblical record. The astonishing fact is that the correspondence between Bible teaching and present-day scientific theory is greater than at any other time in the entire history of human thought. (This affirmation I am willing to defend at any time anywhere.) It would almost seem that the Holy Spirit looked down through the ages and gave us the facts regarding origins that would ultimately come to be in close harmony with direct human experience and with the most advanced secular science. (See again my Genesis, Volume I, Part X.)

(2) No scientific theory, evolutionism included, has ever cast any valid doubt on the facts presented in Genesis in re man, his origin, nature, and destiny, as known by means of human experience itself, such as the following: (a) that as to nature, he is a spirit-body (psychosomatic) unity, a corporeal frame vitalized by the Breath of God (Genesis 2:7); (b) that he has advanced far beyond the brute stage; (c) that he had a beginning as the handiwork of a Creative Process (Intelligence and Will) which antedated him and which had already prepared the natural world and its orders, both non-living and living, for his entrance into it and his sojourn in it (otherwise their existence would have no meaning whatsoever); (d) that, as to his moral state, he is endowed with the power of choice, and hence is inherently capable of both good and evil; (e) that by virtue of this choice, his state is one of moral responsibility; and (f) that he is prone to do evil, to rebel against authority, even to try to play God; (g) that somewhere along the line, and somehow, he acquired a conscience.

(3) Certainly conscience came into being potentially when reason was actualized in the first homo sapiens. (Is not this power of thought the factor that validates the use of the term homo sapiens by the scientists?) Evidently, conscience became actualized when that which is designated the natural moral lawthe law which is promulgated in human nature and in human natural relationshipswas first violated by homo sapiens. (Cf. Psalms 8:3-9, Genesis 2:18-25, Romans 2:14-16). And certainly in the third chapter of Genesis, we have the account of the birth of conscience in man, whatever else may be implicit in this Narrative of the Fall. It will be recalled that Alexander Campbell describes this tragedy as a fall from man's original natural state into his present unnatural state. (Evil was never intended to be a part of man's natural state). Strong (ST, 658): The translation of Enoch and Elijah, and of the saints that remain at Christ's second coming, seems intended to teach that death is not a necessary law of organized being, and to show what would have happened to Adam if he had been obedient. He was created a -natural,-' -earthly-' body, but might have attained a higher being, the -spiritual,-' heavenly, body without the intervention of death. Sin, however, has turned the normal condition of things into the rare exception (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:42-50). Since Christ endured death as the penalty of sin, death to the Christian becomes the gateway through which he enters into full communion with his Lord. That is to say, in Adam the -natural,-' had he continued upright (in unbroken obedience to God), might without deathby the process of transfigurationhave attained the -spiritual-' (cf. Genesis 5:24, 2 Kings 2:11, Daniel 12:3, Matthew 17:1-3, Acts 26:12-15, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17, 1 Corinthians 15:50-55, Romans 2:7, 1 Timothy 6:14-16).

(3) At this point let us heed words of caution from the pen of one of our pioneers, D. R. Dugan (Herm., 47) as follows: Before any man is ready to say that the Bible and science are not agreed, he should know two things: first, he should know all about the Bible; and second, he should know all about science. In the meantime, the best thing he can do will be to learn all he can of either one or both. It is not to be denied that we may know some things, at least approximately, and that so far as facts have been really introduced and tested, we may be governed by them, just to the extent of our absolute knowledge. But no interpreter should trouble himself to make exegesis keep up with scientific hypotheses. Science has no more right to lord it over religion than religion has to lord it over science. He who made the universe made the Bible, and when we come to understand them both, we will be delighted with their beautiful harmony. And it is, therefore, the privilege and duty of every man to push his investigations as far and as fast as he can. Truth (John 8:31-32; John 17:17) may be said to exist in three forms, namely, (a) that which is, by its very nature, forever hidden from man (Deuteronomy 29:29), (b) that which is neither hidden nor revealed, but is embodied in the very structure of the universe, both physical and moral, for man by study and research (science) slowly to spell out through the centuries (Genesis 1:28); and (c) that which is revealed for man's acceptance and ultimate redemption in spirit and soul and body (Ephesians 1:3-14; Ephesians 3:1-12; 1 Corinthians 2:6-16; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; Hebrews 1:1-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12). The Bible has no antagonism toward, no fear of, truth in any form.

(4) With special reference now to the evolution hypothesis in relation to the Narrative of the Fall, (a) I must say, in the first place, that I cannot agree with one statement which occurs above (in the excerpt appearing at the beginning of this Part of our text), namely, that man began perfect. True it is that, as to nature, i.e., as a psychosomatic unity, he (Adam) was perfect, in the strict sense of the term as meaning whole or complete as a person (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:7; cf. what is said of Jesus in Hebrews 1:3); as to character, however, that is, morally speaking, he was created innocent, but with the potentiality of achieving perfection (holiness) by his own voluntary stedfastness in obedience to the Will of God. Indeed, this is the only way of attaining holiness that is possible to any intelligent being (Matthew 5:8; Matthew 5:48; Matthew 7:13-14; Matthew 7:24-27; Romans 2:4-11; Romans 14:17; Hebrews 10:10; Hebrews 12:14; 2 Peter 3:18, etc.). As a consequence of the fall into sin, Adam and his entire posterity (Romans 3:23) must achieve holiness in the same way, but in what may properly be designated the hard way (Ephesians 6:12-18, 2 Peter 2:9-10). (b) It is surely true that the author of this Narrative of the Fall was not concerned with science or with any such problem as that of the correspondence of Biblical teaching and scientific theory. However, the Holy Spirit, as the ultimate Author, could surely have embodied the account in such general terms, such bold outlines, as to make it harmonious with scientific thought, and especially with the science of our own times. This appears to be the case in fact: the sole purpose of the account is religious; hence we have in this Narrative the record of what happens to every human being as he passes from a state of innocence into that of the actual experience of sin in his own life; and this indeed may be all that the Spirit intended to teach us by it. Perhaps He left the how of the matter for human science to spell out as best it can. But the fact remains that the Fall, as pictured in Genesis, was indeed a fall from an original state of innocence into that of the actual experience of sin and the guilt that accompanies that experience. This is about all we can say about it: and in this sense the Fall was real, both in itself and in its tragic consequences. Moreover, the very fact, born of universal experience, that man is in sin, prone to evil of all kinds, simply cannot be denied by any intelligently honest person. It is tragicallyand often gruesomelyapparent in daily newspaper accounts of rape, incest, sex perversions, devil-worship, thrill murders, deceit, treachery, fraud, lawlessness of all kinds, not to mention genocide, strife, war, and violence that fill the earth in our age as in Noah's time (Genesis 6:5; Genesis 6:11-12; Matthew 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27). To deny this, and to deny that this is sin, is to be stupid with the worst kind of stupiditythat of a closed mind. This condition must be accounted for, and the most satisfactory account is that which is given us in the Genesis Narrative of the Fall.

(d) This writer's conviction is that the difference between man and the brute is not one of degree, but one of kind. However Strong's theory of Genesis 2:7 as indicating a divine reinforcement of the process of life which turned the animal into man, is to be explained, whether anthropomorphically (which certainly is not to be ruled out) or by mutation (in some manner biologically), it certainly was of the character of a special creation. Moreover, should Strong's view be the correct one, homo sapiens (for obvious reasons I am using the scientific designation here) is no less homo sapiens, regardless of how he may have arrived on this terrestrial scene. Moreover, he has no known existing ancestors: those humanoidal forms which are supposed to have existed prehistorically are now extinct, hence hypothetically identifiable only by isolated sparse skeletal remains which have been found in different parts of the world. These remains of alleged prehistoric man are too fragmentary to allow for any reliable reconstruction of man's ancestry from the so-called hominidae. Nor do these widely scattered skeletal remains necessarily indicate that there were different centers of the origin of homo sapiens. Again, evolutionists must accept the fact that there had to be a space-time locus at which the transition from hominidae to homo sapiens actually occurred; and that with the appearance of the latter, as stated above, reason also appeared, and along with reason, conscience, which is the voice of practical reason. This means that all humanoidal forms existing prior to this transition were not forms of homo sapiens. The tendency of so many scientists to pontificate about these humanoidal finds makes it necessary for us to put their significance in proper perspective in order that we may not be led astray by exaggerations.

(e) When man actually first became man, regardless of what his ancestry may have been, hypothetically or actually, if there was any such ancestry of course, there was a change of some kind that could be regarded, I suppose, as a transition from innocence to awareness of moral law and the sense of guilt occasioned by violation of that law, and hence could be designated a Fall. Again, it is evident that what is pictured as having occurred in Adam's case is precisely what occurs in the life of every human being on reaching the age of discretion: and perhaps this is the most important lesson which the Divine Author would have us learn from this Narrative, in which He is concerned chiefly, it would seem, with accounting for the observed fact of man's rebelliousness and lawlessness. I have no desire to stretch Scripture out of context, or to indulge fantastic interpretations, to force it into conformity with the science of any age, especially in view of this paramount fact that the design of the Narrative is religious and not scientific. I cannot convince myself that man's depravity is simply a hang-over of his so-called animal heritage: there is too much evidence from human experience that his own self-perverted will has much to do with his fallen state. To summarize: the essence of the Fall was de facto the birth of conscience: had Adam continued in unbroken obedience to God he would never have experienced the chiding of conscience and accompanying sense of guilt. This is about as far as anyone can go, or should go, in attempting to get at the heart of the Genesis Narrative: whether this can be harmonized with evolutionism certainly remains a moot question. But the essential truth is unaffected in any case: that truth is that man is infected with the disease of lawlessness, however he may have caught this infection in the first place. I shall be content, therefore, to accept by faith what the Bible teaches regarding this tragic state which has befallen the whole human race. Human depravity is a fact of experience: how it originated may remain an inscrutable mystery to man in his present state. Hence, in view of the fact that science has no adequate explanation of the mystery, and certainly no adequate remedy to offer to alleviate the condition, let us be content to walk by faith and so to accept the Biblical account and with it the redemption which our Lord has provided for all who will meet the terms of covenant relationship by which, and by which alone, we can appropriate to ourselves the eternal verities of this Unspeakable Gift (John 3:16, 2 Corinthians 9:15, Ephesians 2:8, 2 Peter 1:4).

(f) Perhaps we should consider another possibility at this point, one which would seem at first glance to be far-fetched, but which grows on one, so to speak, as one mulls it over in thought. I put it in the form of a question as follows: Could it be that we have in the story of Adam and Eve the account of a special creation of a Man and a Woman as distinct from the evolutionary origin of the race as hypothesized by present-day biologists? Could Adam and Eve have been created to head up the physical creation, in a separate strain that was designed to produce the Messianic Line and its fulfilment in the Head of the spiritual creation (Romans 5:12-15, 1 Corinthians 15:45-49)? Could this be intimated in the statements occurring in Genesis 6:1-4, with respect to the intermingling of the sons of God with the daughters of men? The idea is intriguing, to say the least.

(g) Finally, science arbitrarily rejects the supernatural and hence has only evolutionism to resort to as a naturalistic explanation of Creation. However, even though the complex of causes-and-effects which go to make up nature may be said to be naturalistic, what would the Efficient Cause of this entire complex be designated? Certainly man did not set the cosmos into operation. Shall we not say, then, that the First Cause, the Cause of all causes-and-effects, even though conceived as operating within the framework of what is called nature, is properly designated supernatural) Or shall we be content with the term superhuman) It is inconceivable that the Efficient Cause of the Totality of Being could be properly designated natural or naturalistic.

In dealing with impressionable high school and college students who have been brainwashed into uncritical devotion to evolutionism, I try to impress upon them, first of all, that in studying this subject we are not dealing with fact, but with theory. I try to impress upon their minds the motivation, the antibiblical, even antireligious, bias which inspires the misplaced zeal manifested by devotees of the theory, pointing up the a priori assumptions, the verbose and extravagant, and even dogmatic, statements, and the play on words, all of which characterizes their methodology of promulgation. I try most of all to show them that the arguments which are marshaled to support the theory are basically inferential, and that grave doubts exist that the inference is logically or empirically necessary inference. I try to show them that my objections to evolutionism, however, are based largely on the unscientific methodology that is used to promote it, and, as a matter of fact, its lack of genuine scientific corroboration; that I object to it even more on this score than on the supposition that it is in conflict with Biblical teaching. I emphasize the fact that the Bible, after all, was written in pre-scientific times, and solely for the purpose of presenting to man the religious truth with respect to his nature, origin and destiny; and the most amazing fact of all, namely, that its teaching, including especially that of the book of Genesis, corresponds in so many particulars to present-day scientific thinking. I urge them to study the pros and cons of the theory critically, and, even though accepting it provisionally, to await further developments in the area of the life sciences, holding to a sharp distinction especially between fact and inference, and under no circumstances to allow it to disturb, much less destroy, their confidence in the Bible or their Christian faith. (See my Genesis, Volume One, for my own general conclusions (pp. 595, 600, 601),for Dr. James Jauncey's comments on the theory of evolution (pp. 473, 573), and for discussions of the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge (pp. 509ff., and pp. 514ff.), respectively.)

* * * * *

REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART SIXTEEN

1.

State the problem of the relation of evolutionism and the Genesis account of the Fall.

2.

Distinguish between materialistic evolution and theistic evolution.

3.

Summarize the material presented in the first paragraph of this Part on the alleged conflict between evolutionism and the Genesis account of the Fall.

4.

Summarize Strong's defense of theistic evolution.

5.

State Trueblood's theory of the significance of evolutionism in relation to the doctrine of God.

6.

Summarize the general attitude of confirmed evolutionists toward the Bible and toward religion in general.

7.

What do we mean when we say that in this attitude the wish is father to the thought?

8.

What is the arbitrary assumption which underlies all scientific research?

9.

How is this problem of the Bible and science affected by over-specialization in the various fields of knowledge?

10.

Show how excessive zeal leads to extravagant assertions in support of evolutionism, as illustrated in the excerpts from Bryan's lecture.

11.

Are confirmed evolutionists willing to accept the views of those who find harmony between evolutionism and the Genesis Narratives?

12.

Why do we affirm that evolutionism is a faith rather than a fact?

13.

Show how the arguments presented to support evolutionism are inferential rather than factual.

14.

How is the teaching of Hebrews 11:3, and that of 2 Peter 3:1-7, related to evolutionism?

15.

Explain what is meant by the genetic fallacy, and show how it is erroneous.

16.

State Thompson's view about the effect of evolutionism on the intellectual integrity of scientists.

17.

What does Dr. Rhine have to say on this point?

18.

List and explain what we call the inadequacies of evolutionism.

19.

Discuss the problems of sex difference, mutations, specialized organs, heredity, instinct, artificial selection, and non-fertility of hybrids, in relation to evolutionism.

20.

Would you say that anyone can explain how a new species can emerge? Explain your answer.

21.

Why do we reject materialistic evolution?

22.

State the facts by which this rejection is substantiated.

23.

List the grounds on which theistic evolutionists defend their view.

24.

Explain what is meant by relevance in dealing with the problem of evolutionism and the Fall.

25.

List the facts presented in Genesis about man which are generally accepted by scientists.

26.

Explain the relation between the appearance of the first homo sapiens and the birth of conscience.

27.

What does the term homo sapiens mean?

28.

Review Campbell's theory of the natural, unnatural, and preternatural states of man.

29.

Show how Strong's view coincides with that of Mr. Campbell.

30.

State Dungan's word of caution about attempting to make Biblical teaching conform to the scientific theories of any age?

31.

Would you say that man could have attained immortality without falling into sin?

32.

If your answer is in the affirmative, howwould you saycould he have done this?

33.

In what sense was man created perfect?

34.

Was he created morally perfect, or only with the potentiality of attaining moral perfection (holiness)? Give reasons for your answer.

35.

What do we mean when we say that he was created innocent?

36.

Would you say that the change from innocence to one of the activity of conscience could be regarded as the Fall? Explain your answer.

37.

State our general conclusions about the relation between the evolution theory and the Genesis Narrative of the Fall.

38.

To what extent, would you say, can they (1) be harmonized, (2) not be harmonized. Explain your answers.

39.

What basic truths about man's moral state does the Author of the Genesis Narrative seek to impress upon us?

40.

Why do we take the position that the difference between man and the brute is not one of degree, but one of kind

41.

What essential change took place when man truly became homo sapiens)

42.

Is it possible to fully explain man's depravity as the hang-over of his so-called animal heritage? If not, why not?

43.

Can it be said unequivocally that the Cause of all causes-and-effects which go to make up the Totality of Being simply cannot be designated natural or naturalistic?

44.

In view of the fact that science has no adequate explanation of man's rebelliousness, what attitude should the sensible person take with regard to it?

45.

What does it mean to walk by faith in this present world?

* * * * *

The following summarization of evolutionism and its status in scientific thinking today appeared in an issue of the El Paso Times not so long ago. It was written (in answer to a reportorial questionnaire) by Dr. Thomas G. Barnes, Director of the Schellenger Research Laboratory, El Paso. With Dr. Barnes-' permission I reproduce it here because I consider it an excellent presentation of the subject.

1. What is the theory of evolution? It is the theory that all plants, animals, and man have descended from very simple types: roses from algae, peacocks from amoeba, etc.
2. Has science shown evolution to be a fact? No. It is only theory. No real scientist can honestly classify it as a fact.
3. Do all scientists subscribe to the theory? No, Many scientists do, but thousands of reputable scientists do not. Over a hundred research scientists, representing various fields of successful scientific accomplishment, have recently joined together to re-evaluate science from the viewpoint of creation as opposed to evolution.
4. Natural selection (survival of the fittest, etc.) is supposed to be the means by which evolution works. Is there any evidence that natural selection has produced evolutionary change in the lifetime of any observer? No.
5. Can the selection process be speeded up artificially? Yes.
6. Can artificial selection produce changes? Yes. Variations are observed, but no true evolution has been observed.
7. What is the difference between variation and evolution? Variation is change within restricted limits. It may include change in size, color, texture, etc. This type of change is common. Evolution, in principle, could cause change without limit. For true evolution to take place, a simple organism would have to change to a more complex organism: fish to land vertebrate, etc. This has never been proved.
8. Have any experiments with artificial selection been carried to their limits. Yes. There have been many such experiments.
9. Give an illustration of such experiments. The process of artificial selection in sugar beets was pursued to its limit in an experiment which began in 1800. Only the seeds from the sweetest beets in each crop were planted for the next crop. By 1878 by this selective process the beets had increased in sugar content from 6%to 17%, but this was the ultimate. No further increase in sugar content was attained even though the experiment was continued 40 years more, Variation had been produced, but no evolution.

10. Does this ultimate limit of variation indicate that there are barriers to true evolution? Yes.
11. Does the fossil record confirm the limits to the variation on each type of plant or animal? The fossil record indicates barriers, not continuous evolution.
12. Can evolution be classified as a law? No. We have already mentioned that it is only theory. Laws have to be consistent with all the evidence. Evolution is not supported by satisfactory evidence.
13. Is evolution consistent with the most accepted physical laws? No. The laws of thermodynamics contradict the theory of evolution. Attempts by evolutionists to show that living matter is not governed by the laws of thermodynamics have not been successful.
14. Is evolution based on the probable or the improbable? On the improbable. The knowledgeable evolutionist admits that it is based on the improbable, but he says that if it is given enough time the improbable will happen. He uses the time element as an excuse for the failure of all experiments to verify without qualification any phase of evolution (as distinguished from variation).

* * * * *

It will be recalled that Spinoza, the Jewish philosopher (1632-1677), set out in his Ethica to deal with the problems of how an immaterial Being (God) could create a material universe, only to explain away the problem at the end, simply by identifying God with the world, nature, the universe, etc. (the totality of being). His system was a rigid pantheism which explained little or nothing in re the basic problem with which he was trying to deal. In like manner, in recent years, the late French priest-scientist-philosopher, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, in his principal works, The Divine Milieu and The Phenomenon of Man, created a stir of some proportions in the academic world by undertaking to explain the modus operandi of evolution (as did Bergson earlier in his work entitled Creative Evolution). Teilhard envisions evolution, through a gradation of forms, from atomic particles up to human beings, in ever increasing complexity of structure, and along with it, the development of consciousness (Bergson uses the term Spirit). The result is a kind of pan-psychism. Man is the focal point in whom all facets of the evolutionary process converge, and in man reflective thought finally emerges. The unique feature of Teilhard's system is his concept that the ultimate reality of this cosmic development is the Incarnate Christ (not the Superman of Nietzsche, nor that of Samuel Butler, nor that of Shaw's Man and Superman or his Back to Methuselah), but the God-Man, who ultimately gathers all things up into Himself and truly becomes all in all. The only universe, says Teilhard, capable of containing the human person is an irrevocably -personalizing-' universe. Again: In one manner or the other, it still remains true that, even in the view of the mere biologist, the human epic resembles nothing so much as a way of the Cross (PM, 290, 311). Like that of Bergson, Teilhard's system was an honest effort to describe the modus operandi of the evolutionary process. However, we are safe in saying that both Bergson and Teilhard have failed to explain how a new species emergesindeed how novelty of any kind enters into the processjust as Spinoza failed to explain how an immaterial God could have created this material world. Obviously, these are mysteries which lie beyond the scope of human comprehension (Job 11:7, Isaiah 55:8-9). Nevertheless Teilhard's presentation is sufficiently intriguing to merit an analysis of it, in its main outlines, for whatever it may be worth to the student. One thing can be said in its favor: it has received little but scorn, and even sneers, from the materialistic evolutionists. The following diagram and explanatory matter will suffice, perhaps, to place the Teilhardian view before readers of the present text.

OMEGA: Creation and Creator Become One
Through Christ
Plerome
Socialization

Homo sapiens

NOOGENESIS
(from nous, reason, mind)

___________________
Hominisation
Threshold of Reflection
Primates
ANTHROPOGENESIS
(from anthropos, man.)

___________________
Mammals, etc.
Animals

(Consciousness)

Plants

Cellular Processes

Monocellulars

Bacteria

BIOGENESIS
(from bios, life)

___________________
Threshold of Life
Minerals
Molecules

Crystals

Atoms
Granules of Energy
COSMOGENESIS
(from cosmos, orderof the non-living world)

___________________
ALPHA
(Read upward, according to what Teilhard calls the Axis of Ascending Complexity and Consciousness)
___________________

EXPLANATORY: Evolution, according to Teilhard, moves along a kind of vertical line which he calls the axis of ascending complexity and consciousness, each cosmic particle (monad) being composed of a within (of psychic or radial energy, also called psychism, which is not amenable to physical sense), and a without (physical or tangential which is measurable): both form an indivisible spirit-matter entity. (Hence this must not be thought of as a dualism.) 1. Period of Cosmogenesis. The more complex the matter becomes, the more consciousness (psyche) it gains. Evolution is simply the continuous intensification of the psychical or radial energy. Cosmogenesis is the process of becoming, on an evolutionary line between a past and a future. The point of departure from the axis is designated ALPHA, or the Alpha Point. Through granulation of energy the first elementary particles took form, and over an unimaginable stretch of time assumed the status of what present-day science calls atomic nuclei, atoms, or molecules (these are simply tools of explanation in physics). The birth of our planet probably occurred about five million years ago. 2. Period of Biogenesis. When the corpuscular number in a particle reached a certain level matter came alive. This vitalisation occurred when matter crossed the threshold of life and marked the beginning of the age of biogenesis. As physical matter became more and more complex, the psychism of the individual monad increased proportionately. 3. Period of Anthropogenesis. At the point when the brain reaches the necessary degree of complexity, the threshold of reflection was crossed and man was born. This power of thought made man a being distinct from all other species. This was not a matter of change of degree, but of a change of nature, resulting from a change of state (PM, 166). The hominisation of the species introduced the age of anthropogenesis. This occurred probably at some point within the last million years. Concerning instinct in animals, Teilhard writes: We realise better in our minds the fact and the reason for the diversity of animal behavior. From the moment we regard evolution as primarily psychical transformation, we see there is not one instinct in nature, but a multitude of forms of instincts each corresponding to a particular solution of the problem of life. The -psychical-' make-up of an insect is not and cannot be that of a vertebrate; nor can the instinct of a squirrel be that of a cat or an elephant: this is in virtue of the position of each on the tree of life (PM, 167). The individual and instantaneous leap from instinct to thought marked the beginning of hominisation, which then advanced by means of the progressive phyletic spiritualisation in human civilisation of all the forces contained in the animal world (PM, 180). As Julian Huxley puts it, in his Introduction: The intensification of mind, the raising of mental potential is regarded as being the necessary consequence of complexification (PM, 11-16). 4. The Period of Noogenesis. (From the Greek noesis, from noein, to perceive, from nous, mind: hence, noesis in English, which, in philosophy, means purely intellectual apprehension.) This phase began as a result of the gradual evolution of mental powers, with the appearance of the first homo sapiens. (There are different races, Teilhard emphasizes, but only one homo sapiens.) Evolution has now reached the stage at which major physical development has lost significance. Science holds that man is unique in nature because of his brain processes, not because his brain is the biggest in capacity but because it is more complex. According to Teilhard, the noosphere (and more generally the world) represents a whole that is not only closed but also centred. Because it contains and engenders consciousness, space-time is necessarily of a convergent nature. Accordingly, its enormous layers, followed in the right direction, must somewhere ahead become involuted to a point which we might call Omega, which fuses and consumes them integrally in itself (PM, 259). At the present time we are in the period of socialisation in which, according to Teilhard, mankind becomes more and more united and integrated. This will come about as a consensus of mankind will gradually replace the growing capacity of the individual intellect because the human brain will cease to grow. This common consciousness will lift humanity to a higher level. Man inevitably continues to socialize: it is his nature to do so; hence all things will converge at one center, Omega, the point where humanity and the universe is bound to converge in the cosmic Christ.

What roles are played by God and Christ in the Teilhardian system? He puts the totality of being in the hands of the omnipresent God. He places man in the Divine Milieu, yet in such a way that man is not depersonalized in spite of ever increasing socialization. On the contrary, it is this personal link which connects each of us to God, who is the center, and the motor, so to speak, of the evolutionary process. We become God's partner in leading the world forward to the Omega point. For some persons, man is the center, the only point of adoration in the totality of being; for others, man is little or nothing in this grandiose universehe is lost in it. Neither position is right. Referring to Paul's sermon on the Areopagus, Teilhard writes (DM, 25): God who has made man in order that he may find himGod whom we try to grasp through the experiment of our livesthis God is as tangible and present as the atmosphere in which we are submerged. He surrounds us from all sides like the world itself. Man cannot escape the Divine Milieu. Each right action brings him into closer communion with Christ. Whatsoever ye do, writes the Apostle, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus (Colossians 3:17). This means we should always act in close fellowship with our Lord. The totality of man's life, even in its most natural aspects, is sanctifiable. From this point of beginning, the Christian life receives its content and direction, how and where to go. How does man enter upon this path? By purifying his intentions and acting according to the Will of God. As man adheres to the creative power of God, he becomes its instrument, or even more, its living extension. Man is thus united with God and in God on this earth in a common love to create. And in spite of the individual's failures and sins the world as a whole will achieve victory over evil, because God is on man's side. Mankind is assured that the universe, all creation, will rejoin the One when all evolution shall have converged in the point Omega. This will be the mysterious Plerome, where Creator and Creation will be one totality, without, however, adding anything essential to God. The active center of the Plerome in which everything is united, the creative Soul in whom everything is consummated, is Jesus Christ. Religion and science are the two conjugated faces or phases of one and the same act of complete knowledgethe only one which can embrace the past and the future of evolution so as to contemplate, measure, and fulfill them (DM, 284, 285). Note well the following concluding statements (PM, 293, 294): Is the Kingdom of God a big family? Yes, in a sense it is. But in another sense it is a prodigious biological operationthat of the Redeeming Incarnation. As early as in St. Paul and St. John, we read that to create, to fulfill and to purify the world is, for God, to unify it by uniting it organically with himself. How does He unify it? By partially immersing himself in things, by becoming -element,-' and then, from this point of vantage in the heart of the matter, assuming the control and leadership of what we now call evolution. Christ, principle of universal vitality because sprung up as man among men, put himself in the position (maintained ever since) to subdue under himself, to purify, to direct, and superanimate the general ascent of consciousness into which he inserted himself. By a perennial act of communion and sublimation, he aggregates to himself the total psychism of the earth. And when he has gathered everything together and transformed everything, he will close in upon himself and his conquests, thereby rejoining, in a final gesture, the divine focus he has never left. Then, as St. Paul tells us, God shall be all in all.. The universe fulfilling itself in a synthesis of centres in perfect conformity with the laws of union. God, the Centre of centres. In that final vision the Christian dogma culminates. (Cf. Ephesians 1:5-12, 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, Colossians 1:9-23, Revelation 1:8; Revelation 1:17-18).

It will thus be seen that Teilhard's God is essentially theistic rather than pantheistic: He is presented as the Eternal Being, in Himself separate from the creation, and as immersing Himself into all created being as the center and motor of the evolutionary process. His portrayal of the Omega Point as the ultimate fusion of Creation and Redemption in the Beatific Vision (Union with God) is hardly a variation from the Apostle Peter's description of the new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness (2 Peter 3:13; cf. Matthew 5:8, 1 Corinthians 13:12, 1 John 3:2, Revelation 21:1-8; Revelation 22:1-5). It strikes this writer that the most obvious weakness in the Teilhardian exposition is his failure to recognize the juridical aspect of the totality of being, and his consequent failure to deal adequately with the fact of evil and its consequences, including the Scripture doctrines of judgment, rewards, and punishments. (See Psalms 89:14, John 5:28-29, Matthew 25:31-46, Romans 2:1-16, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, Acts 17:30-31, Revelation 20:11-15, etc.) This, of course, is a tragic lacuna in all the branches of human knowledge in our day.