SelectedWritingsofJ.Gresham

Machan

EditedbyJohnHendryx

TableofContents

HistoryandFaith

MyIdeaofGod

WhatisChristianity?

OntheDoctrineoftheAtonement

TheTriuneGod

FaithandWorks

SinanditsConsequences

TheWitnessofPaultoChrist

TheResurrectionofChrist

TheChristianFaithintheModernWorld

ChristianityandLiberalism

ConstrainingLove

TheMinisterandHisGreekNewTestament

WhatisOrthodoxy?

Copyright

HistoryandFaith

TheImportanceofHistoryforChristianity

ThestudentoftheNewTestamentshouldbeprimarilyanhistorian.Thecentreandcoreofall theBible ishistory.EverythingelsethattheBiblecontains is fitted into an historical framework and leads up to anhistoricalclimax.TheBibleisprimarilyarecordofevents.

TheLiberalResponse

That assertion will not pass unchallenged. The modern Church isimpatientofhistory.History,weare told, is adead thing.Letus forgetthe Amalekites, and fight the enemies that are at our doors. The trueessenceoftheBibleistobefoundineternalideas;historyismerelytheforminwhichthoseideasareexpressed.

They say that it makes no difference whether the history is real orfictitious; in either case, the ideas are the same. ItmakesnodifferencewhetherAbrahamwasanhistoricalpersonageoramyth; ineithercasehis life is an inspiringexampleof faith. ItmakesnodifferencewhetherMoseswas really a mediator between God and Israel; in any case therecord of Sinai embodies the idea of a covenant between God andHispeople. Itmakesnodifferencewhether Jesus really lived and died androseagainasHeisdeclaredtohavedoneintheGospels;inanycasetheGospelpicture,be it idealorbe ithistory, is anencouragement to filialpiety.

In this way, religion has beenmade independent, as is thought, of theuncertainties of historical research. The separation ofChristianity fromhistory has been a great concern of modern theology. It has been aninspiringattempt.Butithasbeenafailure.

TheConservativeReply

Giveuphistoryandyoucanretainsomethings.YoucanretainabeliefinGod. But philosophical theism has never been a powerful force in the

world.Youcanretainaloftyethicalideal.Butbeperfectlyclearaboutonepointyoucanneverretainagospel.

Forgospelmeans‘goodnews’,tidings,informationaboutsomethingthathashappened.Inotherwords,itmeanshistory.Agospelindependentofhistoryissimplyacontradictioninterms.

Weareshutupinthisworldasinabeleagueredcamp.Dismayedbythesternfactsoflife,weareurgedbythemodernpreachertohavecourage.LetustreatGod as our Father; they say, let us continue bravely in thebattleoflife.

Butalas,thefactsaretooplain;thosefactswhicharealwayswithus.Thefact of suffering!How do you know that God is all love and kindness?Nature is full of horrors.Human sufferingmaybeunpleasant, but it isreal,andGodmusthavesomethingtodowithit.

Thefactofdeath!Nomatterhowsatisfyingthejoysofearth,itcannotbedeniedat least that theywill soondepart,andofwhatuseare joys thatlast but for a day? A span of life; and then, for all of us, blank,unfathomedmystery!

Thefactofguilt!Whatifthecondemnationofconscienceshouldbebutthe foretaste of judgment?What if contact with the infinite should becontactwithadreadfulinfinityofholiness?WhatiftheinscrutablecauseofallthingsshouldturnouttobearighteousGod?

The fact of sin! The thraldom of habit! This strange subjection to amysteriouspowerofevil that is leading resistlessly into someunknownabyss!

Tothesefactsthemodernpreacherrespondswithexhortation.Makethebestofthesituation,hesays,lookonthebrightsideoflife.

Very eloquent, my friend! But alas, you cannot change the facts. Themodernpreacheroffersreflection.TheBibleoffersmore.TheBibleoffersnews. Not reflection on the old, but tidings of something new; notsomethingthatcanbededucedorsomethingthatcanbediscovered,but

something that has happened; not philosophy, but history; notexhortation,butagospel.

TheBiblecontainsarecordofsomethingthathashappened,somethingthat puts a new face upon life. What that something is, is told us inMatthew,Mark,LukeandJohn.ItisthelifeanddeathandresurrectionofJesusChrist.Theauthority of theBible should be tested here at thecentralpoint.IstheBiblerightaboutJesus?

TheBibleaccountofJesuscontainsmysteries,buttheessenceofitcanbeputalmostinaword.JesusofNazarethwasnotaproductoftheworld,butaSaviourcomefromoutsidetheworld.

His birth was a mystery. His life was a life of perfect purity, of awfulrighteousness,andofgracious,sovereignpower.Hisdeathwasnomereholymartyrdom,butasacrificeforthesinsoftheworld.Hisresurrectionwasnotanaspiration in theheartsofHisdisciples,butamightyactofGod.

Heisalive,andpresentatthishourtohelpusifwewillturntoHim.Heismorethanoneofthesonsofmen;HeisinmysteriousunionwiththeeternalGod.

ThatistheBibleaccountofJesus.

TheLiberalPosition.

It is opposed today by another account. That account appears inmanyforms,buttheessenceofitissimple.JesusofNazareth,itmaintains,wasthefairest flower of humanity.He lived a life of remarkablepurity andunselfishness.SodeepwasHisfilialpiety,soprofoundHisconsciousnessofamission,thatHecametoregardhimself,notmerelyasaprophet,butastheMessiah.

They maintain that by opposing the hypocrisy of the Jews, or byimprudentobtrusionofHisloftyclaims,Hesufferedmartyrdom.Hediedonthecross.

TheymaintainthatafterHisdeath,Hisfollowerswerediscouraged.ButHiscausewasnotlost;thememoryofHimwastoostrong.Thedisciplessimply could not believe that He had perished. Predisposedpsychologicallyinthisway,theyhadvisionaryexperiences;theythoughttheysawHimThesevisionswerehallucinations.Buttheywerethemeansby which the personality of Jesus retained its power; they were thefoundationoftheChristianChurch.

There,inaword,istheissue.Jesusaproductoftheworld,oraheavenlybeingcomefromwithout?Ateacherandexample,oraSaviour?

ConsideringtheProblem

Theissueissharp;theBibleagainstthemodernpreacher.Hereistherealtest of Bible authority. If the Bible is right here, at the decisive point,probably it is right elsewhere. If it is wrong here, then its authority isgone. The questionmust be faced.What shall we think about Jesus ofNazareth?

Fromthemiddleofthefirstcentury,certaininterestingdocumentshavebeenpreserved.TheyaretheepistlesofPaul.Thegenuinenessof them,thechiefof themat any rate, isnot seriouslydoubted, and they canbedatedwithapproximateaccuracy.Theyform,therefore,afixedstarting-pointincontroversy.

Theseepistleswerewrittenbyaremarkableman.Paulcannotbebrushedlightlyaside.Hewascertainly,tosaytheleast,oneofthemostinfluentialmen that ever lived. His influence was a mighty building. It must bedoubtedthatitwaserectedonthesand.

Inhisletters,Paulhasrevealedtheverydepthsofatremendousreligiousexperience. That experience was founded, not upon a profoundphilosophy or daring speculation, but upon a Palestinian Jewwho hadlivedbutafewyearsbefore.ThatJewwasJesusofNazareth.

Paul had a strange view of Jesus; he separatedHim sharply frommanand placedHim clearly on the side of God. ‘Not byman, but by Jesus

Christ’, he says at the beginning ofGalatians, and he implies the samething on every page of his letters. Jesus Christ, according to Paul, wasman,butHewasalsomore.

That is a very strange fact. Only through familiarity havewe ceased towonderatit.Lookatthethingamomentasthoughforthefirsttime.AJewlives inPalestine, and is executed like a common criminal.AlmostimmediatelyafterHisdeathHeisraisedtodivinedignitybyoneofHiscontemporaries,not by anegligible enthusiast either, but by oneof themost commanding figures in the history of the world. So the thingpresentsitselftothemodernhistorian.Thereisaproblemhere.Howevertheproblemmaybesolved,itcanbeignoredbynoone.

ThemanJesusdeifiedbyPaul;thatisaveryremarkablefact.ThelateH.J.Holtzmann,whomaybe regardedas the typicalexponentofmodernnaturalisticcriticismof theNewTestament,admitted that for the rapiddeificationofJesusasitappearsintheepistlesofPaulhewasabletocitenoparallelinthereligioushistoryoftherace.

The raising of Jesus to superhuman dignity was extraordinarily rapidevenifitwasduetoPaul.ButitwasmostemphaticallynotduetoPaul.ItcanbetracedclearlytotheoriginaldisciplesofJesus.AndthattooonthebasisofthePaulineEpistlesalone.

The epistles show thatwith regard to the person of Christ Paulwas inagreement with those who had been apostles before him. Even theJudaizershadnodisputewithPaul's conceptionof Jesus as aheavenlybeing.Aboutotherthingstherewasdebate;aboutthispointthereisnotatraceofaconflict.

With regard to the supernatural Christ Paul appears everywhere inperfect harmony with all Palestinian Christians. That is a fact ofenormoussignificance.TheheavenlyChristofPaulwasalsotheChristofthosewhohadwalkedandtalkedwithJesusofNazareth.

Thinkofit!ThosemenhadseenJesussubjecttoallthepettylimitationsof human life. Yet suddenly, almost immediately after His shamefuldeath,theybecameconvincedthatHehadrisenfromthetombandthat

Hewasaheavenlybeing.

Thereisanhistoricalproblemhere;formodernnaturalism,weventuretothink,anunsolvedproblem.AmanJesusregardedasaheavenlybeing,notbylatergenerationswhocouldbedeceivedbythenimbusofdistanceandmystery,butactuallybyHisintimatefriends!Astrangehallucinationindeed!Anduponthathallucinationthewholeofthemodernworldwasfounded!

SomuchforPaul.Agooddealcanbelearnedfromhimalone;enoughtogiveuspause.But that isnotall thatweknowaboutJesus; it isonlyabeginning.

TheGospelsenrichourknowledge;theyprovideanextendedpicture.IntheirpictureofJesustheGospelsagreewithPaul.LikePaul,theymakeofJesusasupernaturalperson.NotoneoftheGospels,butallofthem!Theday is pastwhen the divine Christ of John could be confrontedwith ahumanChristofMark.Historicalstudentsofallshadesofopinionhavenow come to see thatMark aswell as John (though it is believed in alesser degree) presents an exalted Christology, Mark as well as JohnrepresentsJesusclearlyasasupernaturalperson.

A supernatural person, according to modern historians, never existed.Thatisthefundamentalprincipleofmodernnaturalism.Theworld,itissaid,mustbeexplainedasanabsolutelyunbrokendevelopment,obeyingfixed laws. The supernatural Christ of the Gospels never existed. HowthenexplaintheGospelpicture?

Youmightexplainitasfiction;theGospelaccountofJesusthroughoutamyth.Thatexplanationhasbeenseriouslyproposed.But it isabsurd; itwillneverconvinceanybodyofgenuinehistorians.

Thematter is at any rate not so simple as that. TheGospels present asupernatural person, but they also present a real person; a very real, averyconcrete,averyinimitableperson.

That is not denied bymodern liberalism. Indeed it cannot possibly bedenied.IftheJesuswhospoketheparables,theJesuswhoopposedthe

Pharisees, the Jesus who ate with publicans and sinners, is not a realperson,livingunderrealconditions,atadefinitepointoftime,thenthereisnowayofdistinguishinghistoryfromsham.

Ontheonehand,then,theJesusoftheGospelsisasupernaturalperson;on the other hand, He is a real person. But according to modernnaturalism, a supernatural person never existed. He is a supernaturalperson;Heisarealperson;andyetasupernaturalpersonisneverreal.

Clearlythereisaproblemhere!Whatisthesolution?

TheArgumentofLiberalism.

Why,saysthemodernhistorian,obviouslytherearetwoelementsintheGospels.Inthefirstplace,thereisgenuinehistoricaltradition.Thathaspreserved the real Jesus. In the second place, there is myth. That hasaddedthesupernaturalattributes.Thedutyofthehistorianistoseparatethe two to discover the genuine human traits of the Galilean prophetbeneath the gaudy colours which have almost hopelessly defaced Hisportrait,todisentanglethehumanJesusfromthetawdryornamentationwhichhasbeenhungaboutHimbynaiveandunintelligentadmirers.

To separate the natural and the supernatural in the Gospel account ofJesus, that has been the task of modern liberalism. But how shall theworkbedone?

Wemustadmitat least that themyth-makingprocessbeganveryearly,saystheliberal.Ithasaffectedeventheveryearliestliterarysourcesthatwe know. But let us not be discouraged. Whenever the mythicalelaborationbegan,itmaynowbereversed.LetussimplygothroughtheGospels and separate the wheat from the tares. Let us separate thenaturalfromthesupernatural,thehumanfromthedivine,thebelievablefrom the unbelievable. When we have thus picked out the workableelements,letuscombinethemintosomesortofpictureof thehistoricalJesus.

Suchisthemethod.Theresultiswhatiscalled‘theliberalJesus’.Ithas

beenasplendideffort.Iknowscarcelyanymorebrilliantchapterinthehistory of thehuman spirit than this ‘quest of thehistorical Jesus.Themodernworldhasput itsvery lifeandsoul into this task. Ithasbeenasplendideffort.Butithasalsobeenafailure.

TheFailureoftheLiberalPosition

In the first place, there is the initial difficulty of separating the naturalfrom the supernatural in theGospelnarrative.The twoare inextricablyintertwined.Someoftheincidents,yousay,areevidentlyhistorical.Theyaresofulloflocalcolour;theycouldneverhavebeeninvented.

Yes,butunfortunatelythemiraculousincidentspossessexactlythesamequalities. Youhelp yourself, then, by admissions. Jesus, you say,was afaith-healer of remarkable power; many of the cures related in theGospelsarereal,thoughtheyarenotreallymiraculous.

Butthatdoesnotcarryyoufar.Faith-healingisoftenatotallyinadequateexplanation of the cures. And those supposed faith-cures are not a bitmore vividly, more concretely, more inimitably related than the mostuncompromisingofthemiracles.

TheattempttoseparatedivineandhumanintheGospelsleadsnaturallyto a radical scepticism. The wheat is rooted up with the tares. If thesupernatural is untrue, then thewholemust go, for the supernatural isinseparablefromtherest.

Thistendencyisnotmerelylogical;itisnotmerelywhatmightnaturallybe; it is actual. Liberal scholars are rejecting more and more of theGospels;othersaredenyingthatthereisanycertainlyhistoricalelementatall.

Suchscepticismisabsurd.Of ityouneedhavenofear; itwillalwaysbecorrected by common sense. The Gospel narrative is too inimitablyconcrete, too absolutely incapable of invention. If elimination of thesupernatural leads logicallytoeliminationof thewhole, that issimplyarefutationofthewholecriticalprocess.ThesupernaturalJesusistheonly

Jesusthatweknow.

Inthesecondplace,supposethis first taskhasbeenaccomplished.It isreallyimpossible,butsupposeithasbeendone.Youhavereconstructedthe historical Jesus; a teacher of righteousness, an inspired prophet, apure worshipper of God. You clothe Him with all the art of modernresearch. You throw upon Him the warm, deceptive, flood-light ofmodernsentimentality.

Butall tonopurpose!TheliberalJesusremainsanimpossiblefigureofthestage.There is a contradictionat thevery centreofHisbeing.Thatcontradiction arises from His Messianic consciousness. This simpleprophet of yours, this humble child of God, thought that He was aheavenly being who was to come on the clouds of heaven and be theinstrument in judging the earth. There is a tremendous contradictionhere.

Afewextremistsridthemselveseasilyofthedifficulty;theysimplydenythatJesuseverthoughtHewastheMessiah.Anheroicmeasure,whichisgenerallyrejected!TheMessianicconsciousnessisrootedfartoodeepinthesourcesevertoberemovedbyacriticalprocess.ThatJesusthoughtHewastheMessiahisnearlyascertainasthatHelivedatall.Thereisatremendousproblemthere.

ItwouldbenoproblemifJesuswereanordinaryfanaticorunbalancedvisionary;HemightthenhavedeceivedHimselfaswellasothers.Butasamatter of factHewas no ordinary fanatic, nomegalomaniac.On thecontrary,Hiscalmnessandunselfishnessandstrengthhaveproducedanindelibleimpression.YetitwassuchanonewhothoughtthatHewastheSonofMantocomeonthecloudsofheaven.

Acontradiction!DonotthinkIamexaggerating.Thedifficultyisfeltbyall. After all has been done, after the miraculous has carefully beeneliminated, there is still, as a recent liberal writer has said, somethingpuzzling,somethingalmostuncanny,aboutJesus.Herefusestobeforcedintothemouldofaharmlessteacher.

Afewmendrawthelogicalconclusion.Jesus,theysay,wasinsane.That

isconsistent.Butitisabsurd.

Suppose,however,thatalltheseobjectionshavebeenovercome.SupposethecriticalsiftingoftheGospeltraditionhasbeenaccomplished,supposetheresulting picture of Jesus is comprehensible; even then thework isonlyhalfdone.

HowdidthishumanJesuscometoberegardedasasuperhumanJesusbyHis intimate friends, and how, upon the foundation of this strangebelief was there reared the edifice of the Christian Church? Let usconsiderthecase.

In the early part of the first century, in one of the petty principalitiessubject toRome, there lived an interestingman.Until the age of thirtyyearsHeledanobscurelifeinaGalileanfamily,thenbeganacourseofreligiousandethical teachingaccompaniedbya remarkableministryofhealing.

AtfirstHispreachingwascrownedwithameasureofsuccess,butsoonthecrowdsdesertedHim,andafterthreeorfouryears,HefellvictiminJerusalem to the jealousy ofHis countrymen and the cowardice of theRomangovernor.Hisfewfaithfuldiscipleswereutterlydisheartened;Hisshamefuldeathwastheendofalltheirhighambitions.

Afterafewdays,however,anastonishingthinghappened.Itisthemostastonishingthing inallhistory.Thosesamedisheartenedmensuddenlydisplayed a surprising activity. They began preaching, with remarkablesuccess,inJerusalem,theverysceneoftheirdisgrace.Inafewyears,thereligionthattheypreachedburstthebandsofJudaism,andplanteditselfinthegreat centresof theGraeco-Romanworld.At firstdespised, thenpersecuted,itovercameallobstacles;inlessthanthreehundredyearsitbecame the dominant religion of the Empire; and it has exerted anincalculableinfluenceuponthemodernworld.

Jesus, Himself, the Founder, had not succeeded in winning anyconsiderable number of permanent adherents; during His lifetime, thegenuinediscipleswere comparatively few. It is afterHis death that theoriginofChristianityasaninfluentialmovementistobeplaced.

Now it seems exceedingly unnatural that Jesus' disciples could thusaccomplish what He had failed to accomplish. They were evidently farinferior to Him in spiritual discernment and in courage; they had notdisplayed the slightest trace of originality; they had been abjectlydependent upon the Master; they had not even succeeded inunderstandingHim.

Furthermore, what little understanding, what little courage they mayhavehadwasdissipatedbyHisdeath.‘Smitetheshepherd,andthesheepshallbescattered’.HowcouldsuchmensucceedwheretheirMasterhadfailed?Howcouldtheyinstitutethemightiestreligiousmovementinthehistoryoftheworld?

Ofcourse,youcanamuseyourselfbysuggestingimpossiblehypotheses.Youmightsuggest,forinstance,thatafterthedeathofJesusHisdisciplessatquietly down and reflected onHis teaching. ‘Do unto others as youwould have others do unto you’.’Love your enemies’.These are prettygoodprinciples;theyareofpermanentvalue.Aretheynotasgoodnow,thedisciplesmighthavesaid,astheywerewhenJesuswasalive?

‘Our Fatherwhich art in heaven’. Is not that a goodway of addressingGod?MaynotGodbeourFathereventhoughJesusisnowdead?

The disciples might conceivably have come to such conclusions. Butcertainly nothing could be more unlikely. These men had not evenunderstoodtheteachingsofJesuswhenHewasalive,notevenundertheimmediateimpactofthattremendouspersonality.Howmuchlesswouldthey understand after He had died, and died in a way that indicatedhopeless failure! What hope could such men have, at such a time, ofinfluencingtheworld?

Furthermore, the hypothesis has not one jot of evidence in its favour.Christianityneverwasthecontinuationoftheworkofadeadteacher.

It is evident, therefore, that in the short interval between the death ofJesus and the first Christian preaching, something had happened.Somethingmust have happened to explain the transformation of thoseweak, discouraged men into the spiritual conquerors of the world.

Whateverthathappeningwas,itisthegreatesteventinhistory.Aneventis measured by its consequences; and that event has transformed theworld.

Yet according to modern naturalism, that event, which caused thefounding of the Christian Church, was a vision, an hallucination. ButaccordingtotheNewTestament,itwastheresurrectionofJesusfromthedead.

The formerhypothesis has beenheld in a variety of forms; it has beenbuttressed by all the learning and all the ingenuity of modernscholarship. But all to no purpose! The visionary hypothesis may bedemanded by a naturalistic philosophy; to the historian it must everremainunsatisfactory.Historyisrelentlesslyplain.ThefoundationoftheChurch is either inexplicable, or else it is to be explained by theresurrectionofJesusChristfromthedead.

But if the resurrection be accepted, then the lofty claims of Jesus aresubstantiated;Jesuswasthennomereman,butGodandman,Godcomeintheflesh.

WehaveexaminedtheliberalreconstructionofJesus.Itbreaksdown,wehaveseen,atleastatthreepoints.

It fails, in the firstplace, in trying toseparatedivineandhuman in theGospelpicture.Suchseparationisimpossible;divineandhumanaretoocloselyinterwoven;rejectthedivine,andyoumustrejectthehumantoo.Todaytheconclusion isbeingdrawn.Wemust reject itall!Jesusneverlived!

Areyoudisturbedbysuchradicalism?Iformypartnotabit.Itistomeratherthemosthopefulsignofthetimes.TheliberalJesusneverexisted,that is all it proves. It provesnothing against thedivineSaviour. Jesuswasdivine,orelsewehavenocertainproofthatHeeverlived.Iamgladtoacceptthealternative.

In the second place, the liberal Jesus, after he has been reconstructed,despite His limitations is a monstrosity. The Messianic consciousness

introducesacontradiction into theverycentreofHisbeing.The liberalJesusisnotthesortofmanwhoevercouldhavethoughtthatHewastheMessiah.

AhumbleteacherwhothoughtHewastheJudgeofalltheearth!Suchanone would have been insane. Today men are drawing the conclusion;Jesus is being investigated seriously by the alienists. But do not bealarmed at their diagnosis. The Jesus they are investigating is not theJesusoftheBible.

TheyareinvestigatingamanwhothoughtHewasMessiahandwasnotMessiah.AgainstonewhothoughtHewasMessiahandwasMessiahtheyhaveobviouslynothingtosay.

Their diagnosismay be accepted. Perhaps the liberal Jesus, if He everexisted,wasinsane.ButthatisnottheJesuswhomwelove.

In the third place, the liberal Jesus is insufficient to account for theOriginof theChristianChurch.Themighty edifice ofChristendomwasnot erected upon a pin-point. Radical thinkers are drawing theconclusion.

Christianity,theysay,wasnotfoundeduponJesusofNazareth.Itaroseinsomeotherway.Itwasasyncretisticreligion.Jesuswasthenameofaheathengod.OritwasasocialmovementthataroseinRomeaboutthemiddleofthefirstcentury.Theseconstructionsneednorefutation,theyare absurd. Hence comes their value. Because they are absurd, theyreduceliberalismtoanabsurdity.

A mild mannered rabbi will not account for the origin of the Church.LiberalismhasleftablankatthebeginningofChristianhistory.Historyabhorsavacuum.Theseabsurdtheoriesarethenecessaryconsequence;theyhavesimplytriedtofillthevoid.

ThemodernsubstitutefortheJesusoftheBiblehasbeentriedandfoundwanting.TheliberalJesus.Whataworldofloftythinking,whatawealthofnoblesentimentwasputintoHisconstruction!Butnowtherearesomeindications that He is about to fall. He is beginning to give place to a

radicalscepticism.

Suchscepticismisabsurd.Jesuslived,ifanyhistoryistrue.Jesus lived.ButwhatJesus?NottheJesusofmodernnaturalism!ButtheJesusoftheBible!InthewondersoftheGospelstory,inthecharacterofJesus,inHismysteriousself-consciousness,intheveryoriginoftheChristianChurch,we discover a problem, which defies the best efforts of the naturalistichistorian.Itpushesusrelentlesslyoffthesafegroundofthephenomenalworld toward the intellectual abyss of supernaturalism. It forces us,despitetheresistanceofthemodernmind,torecogniseaveryactofGod.ItsubstitutesforthesilentGodofphilosophytheGodandFatherofourLord Jesus Christ, who, having spoken at sundry times and in diversmannersuntothefathersbytheprophets,hathintheselastdaysspokenuntousbyHisSon.

TheresurrectionofJesusisafactofhistory;itisgoodnews.Itisaneventthat has put a new face upon life. But how can the acceptance of anhistoricalfactsatisfythelongingofoursouls?

Mustwestakeoursalvationupontheintricaciesofhistoricalresearch?Isthe trained historian the modern priest without whose graciousinterventionnoonecanseeGod?Surelysomemoreimmediatecertitudeisrequired.

Theobjectionwouldbevalidifhistorystoodalone.Buthistorydoesnotstandalone;itisconfirmedbyexperience.Anhistoricalconvictionoftheresurrection of Jesus is not the end of faith, but only the beginning. Iffaithstopsthere,itwillprobablyneverstandthefiresofcriticism.

WearetoldthatJesusrosefromthedead.Themessageissupportedbyasingularweightofevidence.Butitisnotjustamessageremotefromus.Itconcerns not merely the past. If Jesus rose from the dead, as He isdeclaredtohavedone in theGospels, thenHe isstillalive,and ifHe isstillalive,thenHemaystillbefound.HeispresentwithustodaytohelpusifwewillbutturntoHim.

Thehistoricalevidencefortheresurrectionamountedonlytoprobability;probabilityisthebestthathistorycando.Buttheprobabilitywasatleast

sufficient for a trial.We accepted the Eastermessage enough tomaketrial of it. And making trial of it we found that it is true. Christianexperience cannot do without history, but it adds to history thatdirectness, that immediateness, that intimacy of conviction whichdeliversusfromfear."Nowwebelieve,notbecauseofthysaying:forwehave heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed theChrist, theSaviouroftheworld.

TheBible, then, is rightat thecentralpoint; it is right in itsaccountofJesus; it has validated its principal claim. Here, however, a curiousphenomenoncomesintoview.Somemenarestrangelyungrateful.NowthatwehaveJesus,theysay,wecanbeindifferenttotheBible.WehavethepresentChrist;wecarenothingaboutthedeaddocumentsofthepast.

You have Christ? But how, pray, did you get Him? There is but oneanswer; you got Him through the Bible. Without the Bible you wouldneverhaveknownsomuchaswhethertherebeanyChrist.

Yet now that you have Christ you give the Bible up; you are ready toabandon it to its enemies; you are not interested in the findings ofcriticism.Apparently, then,youhaveusedtheBibleasa ladder toscalethedizzyheightofChristianexperience,butnowthatyouaresafeontopyoukicktheladderdown.

Verynatural!Butwhat of thepoor soulswhoare still battlingwith thefloodbeneath?Theyneedtheladdertoo.

Butthefigureismisleading.TheBibleisnotaladder;itisafoundation.It is buttressed, indeed, by experience. If you have the present Christ,thenyouknowthattheBibleaccountistrue.ButiftheBiblewerefalse,your faith would go. You cannot, therefore, be indifferent to Biblecriticism.

Letusnotdeceiveourselves.TheBibleisatthefoundationoftheChurch.Underminethatfoundation,andtheChurchwillfall.Itwillfall,andgreatwillbethefallofit.

TwoconceptionsofChristianityarestrugglingfortheascendencytoday.

The question that we have been discussing is part of a still largerproblem.TheBibleagainstthemodernpreacher!

IsChristianityameanstoanend,oranendinitself,animprovementoftheworld,orthecreationofanewworld?

Is sin a necessary stage in the development of humanity, or a yawningchasmintheverystructureoftheuniverse?

Istheworld'sgoodsufficienttoovercometheworld'sevil,oristhisworldlostinsin?

Is communionwithGod a help toward the betterment of humanity, oritselftheonegreatultimategoalofhumanlife?

IsGodidentifiedwiththeworld,orseparatedfromitbytheinfiniteabyssofsin?

Modern culture is here in conflict with the Bible. The Church is inperplexity.Sheistryingtocompromise.Sheissaying,Peace,peace,whenthereisnopeace.Andrapidlysheislosingherpower.Thetimehascomewhenshemustchoose.Godgrantshemaychoosearight!GodgrantshemaydecidefortheBible!

The Bible is despised. To the Jews a stumbling block, to the Greeksfoolishnes;buttheBibleisright.Godisnotjustanameforthetotalityofthings,butanawful,mysterious,holyPerson.Nota‘presentGod’,inthemodernsense,notaGodwhoiswithusbynecessity,andhasnothingtoofferusbutwhatwehavealready,butaGodwhofromtheheavenofHisawfulholinesshas ofHis own free gracehadpity onour bondage, andsentHisSontodeliverusfromthepresentevilworldandreceiveusintothegloriousfreedomofcommunionwithHimself.

MyIdeaofGod

IFmyideaofGodwerereallymine,ifitwereonewhichIhadevolvedoutofmyowninnerconsciousness,Ishouldattributeverylittle importance

to it myself, and should certainly expect even less importance to beattributedtoitbyothers.IfGodismerelyafactofhumanexperience,iftheologyismerelyabranchofpsychology,thenIformypartshallceasetobeinterestedinthesubjectatall.TheonlyGodaboutwhomIcanfeelconcernedisonewhohasobjectiveexistence,anexistence independentofman.

But if therebesucha reallyand independentlyexistentBeing, it seemsextremely unlikely that there can be any knowledge of Him unless HechoosestorevealHimself:adivineBeingthatcouldbediscoveredapartfrom revelation would be either a mere name for an aspect of man’snature – the feeling of reverence or loyalty or the like – or else, ifpossessingobjectiveexistence,amerepassivethingthatwouldsubmittohuman investigation like the substances that are analyzed in thelaboratory.And in either case itwould seem absurd to apply to such aBeingthenameof“God.”

AreallyexistentGod,then,ifHebemorethanmerelypassive,ifHebealivingGod,canbeknownonlythroughHisrevelationofHimself.Anditisextremelyunlikelythatsuchrevelationshouldhavecometomealone.Ireject, therefore, thewhole subjectivizing tendency in religion that issopopular at the present time - the whole notion that faith is merely an“adventure”of the individualman.On thecontrary, Iamon thesearchforsomerevelationofGodthathascometoothermenaswellastome,andthathascomeintohumanlife,notthroughamereanalysisofhumanstatesofconsciousnessbutdistinctlyfromtheoutside.SuchrevelationIfindintheChristianreligion.

TheideaofGod,therefore,whichIshallhereendeavortosummarize issimplytheChristianidea.Ihaveindeedbeenenabledtomakeitmyown;Iloveitwithallmyheart;butIshouldnotloveitifIthoughtthatithadbeendiscoveredmerely in thedepthsofmyownsoul.On thecontrary,theverythingthatIloveaboutitisthatitcomestomewithanexternalauthoritywhichIholdtobetheauthorityofGodHimself.

At this point, however, there will no doubt be an objection. We havespokenabouttheknowledgeofGod;butinrealitytheknowledgeofGod,it is often said, is unnecessary to our contact with Him, or at least it

occupies merely a secondary place, as the symbolic and necessarilychanging expression of an experience which in itself is ineffable. Suchdepre-. ciation of knowledge in the sphere of religion has been widelyprevalentinthemodernworld,andatnotimehasitbeenmoreprevalentthan now. It underlies the mysticism of Schleiermacher and his manysuccessors; it underlies the Ritschlian rejection of “metaphysics”; itunderliesthepopularexaltationof“abidingexperiences”at theexpenseofthementalcategoriesinwhichtheyaresupposedtobeexpressed;andingeneralitisattherootsoftheentireseparationbetweenreligionandtheology, experience and doctrine, faith and knowledge, which is somarkedacharacteristicofthereligiousteachingofthepresentday.

Inoppositiontothisentiretendency,Iformypartmuststillinsistupontheprimacyoftheintellect.Itmayseemstrangethattheintellectshouldhave to be defended by one who has so slight an experimentalacquaintancewithitasI;butreasoninourdayshasbeendeposedfromherqueenly thronebypragmatismtheusurper,and,wandering inexileasshedoes,cannotbetoocriticalofanyhumblepersonswhorallytoherdefense. And, as amatter of fact, the passionate anti-intellectualism ofthepresentage ishaving itsnatural fruit ina lamentable intellectualaswell asmoraldecline.Such decadence can be checked - I, formy part,believe-onlybyareemphasisupontruthasdistinguishedfrompractice,andinparticularonlybyareturnfromallanti-intellectualmysticismorpositivismtotheknowledgeofGod.

Certainly,unlessourcontactwithGodisbaseduponknowledgeofHimitceasestopossessanymoralqualityatall.Purefeelingisnon-moral;whatmakesmyaffectionforahumanfriend, forexample,suchanennoblingthingistheknowledgewhichIpossessofthecharacterofmyfriend.SoitisalsowithourrelationtoGod:religionismoralandpersonalonlyifitisbasedupontruth.

Ifthen,inorderthattheremaybeamoralandpersonalrelationtoGod,theremustbeknowledgeofHim,howmaythatknowledgebeattained?Ihavenonewwaystosuggest:theonlywaysofknowingGodwhichIcandetectarefoundinnature,inconscience,andintheBible.

Godisrevealed,Ihold,inthefirstplacethroughthethingsthatHehas

made.“TheheavensdeclarethegloryofGod,andthefirmamentshowethHis handiwork.” This revelation of God through nature is commonlycalled-orused tobecommonlycalled- “natural religion.”Andnaturalreligionisbynomeansaltogetherdead.Modernmenofscience, if theybethoughtful,admitthatthereisamysteryinthepresenceofwhichthewisdom of the wisest men is dumb; the trueman of science stands atlength before a curtain that is never lifted, a mystery that rebukes allpride.Butthisrevelationthroughnatureisfarricherthanmanymenofsciencesuppose; inreality itpresentstousnotmerelyablankmystery,but themightyGod.The revelation comes todifferentmen indifferentways.Forexample,whenIviewedthespectacleofthetotaleclipseofthesunatNewHavenonthetwenty-fourthofJanuaryI925,Iwasconfirmedin my theism. Such phenomena make us conscious of the wonderfulmechanismoftheuniverse,asweoughttobeconsciousofiteveryday;atsuchmoments anything likematerialism seems to be but a very pitifulandveryunreasonablething.Iamnoastronomer,butofonethingIwascertain:whenthestrange,slow-movingshadowwasgone,andtheworldwas bathed again in the wholesome light of day, I knew that the sun,despiteitsvastness,wasmadeforuspersonalbeingsandnotweforthesun,andthatitwasmadeforuspersonalbeingsbythelivingGod.

Inthesecondplace,GodisrevealedbyHisvoicewithinus.Iamperfectlywellawarethat thatvoice isnotalwaysheard.Consciencehas fallenonevildays:itisdrownedbyajargonofpsychologicalterms;itissupposedto be rendered unnecessary by an all-embracing network of legislativeenactments.

Thecategoriesofguiltandretributionareinmanyquartersthoughttobeout of date, and scientific sociology is substituted for the distinctionbetweenrightandwrong.ButIformypartamnotfavorably impressedwiththechange;self-interestseemstometobebutafeeblesubstituteforthemoral law,and its feebleness,despitebureaucratic regulationof thedetails of human life and despite scientific study both of individualhuman behavior and of the phenomena of human society, seems to bebecomingevidentinanalarmingmoraldecline.Theragingseaofpassioncannot, I think, be kept back permanently by the flimsy mudembankmentsofutilitarianism;butrecoursemayagainhavetobehadto

thesolidmasonryofthelawofGod.

Inthethirdplace,GodisrevealedintheBible.HeisrevealedintheBiblein awaywhich is entirely distinct from thoseways that have just beenmentioned.TheBibletellsusthingsaboutGodofwhichnoslightesthintisfoundeitherinnatureorinconscience.Ofthosethingsweshallspeakinamoment.

Butfirstitshouldbeobservedthat,inadditiontothatfreshinformation,theBiblealsoconfirmstherevelationwhichhasalreadybeengiven.Theconfirmation is certainly necessary; for the revelation of God both innature and in conscience has been sadly obscured. In comparing thefortiethchapterofIsaiahor the firstverseofGenesisor theteachingofJesus with the feeble and hesitant theism which is the highest thatphilosophyhastooffer,andincomparingtheunaidedvoiceofconsciencewiththefifty-firstPsalmorthesearchinglawpresentedintheSermonontheMount,onefeelsthat intheBibleaveilhasbeenremovedfromtheeyes ofmen. The facts were already there, and also the gift of humanreason for the apprehension of them; but the light of reason somehowwasobscureduntilintheBiblemenwereenabledtoseewhattheyoughttohaveseenbefore.

Thus,inthesethreewaysthereisattained,Ihold,agenuineandobjectiveknowledgeofGod.Certainlythatknowledgedoesnotremovethefeelingof wonder which is dear to the mystic’s heart. Indeed, it ought toaccentuatethatfeelingathousandfold.Thereisnothingintheknowledgeof God which should stifle, but everything which should awaken, the“numinous” quality in religion of which Otto speaks. God has gentlypulledasidethecurtainwhichveilsHisBeingfromthegazeofmen,butthe look thus granted beyond only reveals anew the vastness of theunknown. Ifaman’sknowledgeofGodremoveshis senseofwonder inthe presence of the Eternal, then he has not yet known as he ought toknow.

Yetpartialknowledgeisnotnecessarilyfalse,andtherearecertainthingswhichareknownaboutGod.

Attheverycentreofthosethingsstandsthatwhichismostoftendenied

to-day;theverycentreandcoreofChristianbeliefisfoundintheawfultranscendence of God, the awful separateness between God and theworld.Thatisdeniedbymodernmenintheinterestsofwhatiscalled,bya perversion of a great truth, the “immanence” of God. We will havenothing to do – men say – with the far-off God of historic theology;insteadwewillworshipaGodwhoexistsonly inandwith theworld,aGodwhoselifeisfoundonlyinthatlifewhichpulsatesthroughthelifeofeveryoneofus.Pantheism,inotherwords,issubstitutedfortheism,onthegroundthatitbringsGodnearertoman.

But has it really the desired effect? I, formy part, think not. Far frombringingGodnearertoman,thepantheismofourdayreallypushesHimvery far off; it bringsHimphysicallynear, but at the same timemakesHimspirituallyremote;itconceivesofHimasasortofblindvitalforce,butceasestoregardHimasaPersonwhomamancanlove.DestroythefreepersonalityofGodandthepossibilityoffellowshipwithHimisgone;wecannotloveaGodofwhomweareparts.

Thus, I for my part cling with all my heart to what are called themetaphysical attributes of God – His infinity and omnipotence andcreatorhood.The finiteGodofMr.H.G.Wells seems tome tobebutacuriousproductofamodernmythology;HeistomymindnotGod,butagod;andinthepresenceofallsuchimaginingsIamobligedtoturn,veryhumblybutveryresolutely,towardthedread,stupendousmysteryoftheInfinite,andsaywithAugustine:“ThouhastmadeusforThyself,andourheartisrestlessuntilitfindsitsrestinThee.”

This devotion to the so-called metaphysical attributes of God isunpopularatthepresentday.Therearemanywhotellusthatweoughttoceasetobeinterestedinthequestionhowtheworldwasmade,orwhatwillbeourfatewhenwepassthroughthedarkportalsofdeath.Instead,wearetold,weoughttoworshipaGodwhoisnotpowerfulbutmerelygood. Such is the “ethical theism” of Dr. McGiffert and many others;Jesus, itseems,wasquitewrong in the stress thatHeundoubtedly laidupon the doctrine of heaven and hell and the sovereignty of God. Wemoderns, it seems,can findahigher,disinterestedworship - farhigherthan that of Jesus - in reverence for goodness divested of the vulgartrappingsofpower.

Itsoundsnobleatfirst.Butconsideritforamoment,anditsgloryturnstoashesandleavesusindespair.Whatismeantbyagoodnessthathasnotphysicalpower?Isnot“goodness”initselfthemerestabstraction?Isitnotaltogetherwithoutmeaningexceptasbelongingtoaperson?Anddoesnottheverynotionofapersoninvolvethepowertoact?Goodnessdivorced from power is therefore no goodness at all. The truth is thatovermuchabstractionhasheredestroyedeventhatwhichisintendedtobe conserved. Make God good and not powerful, and both God andgoodnesshavebeendestroyed.

Inthepresenceofallsuchabstractions,theheartofmanturnswithnewlongingtotheLivingandHolyGod,totheGodwhoisrevealedinnature,in the dread voice of conscience, and in the Bible. But as one turns tosuchaGod,thereisnocomfortbutonlydespair;thewholehumanraceisseparatedfromGodbyanawfulabyss.Strangeindeed,tousChristians,seemsthecomplacencyoftheworld;theveryrootofourreligionisfoundintheconsciousnessofsin.

Butat thatpoint,onthebasisofsuchpresuppositions, therecomesthereallydistinctiverevelationthattheBiblecontains.Itisnotarevelationof things that already were true, but the explanation of an act. TheChristianreligionisbasednotmerelyuponpermanenttruthsofreligion,butuponthingsthathappenedinPalestinenineteenhundredyearsago;it is based not merely upon knowledge of what God is, but also on arecord of what God did. Into our sinful world – the Christian holds –therecameinGod’sgoodtimeaDivineRedeemer.

His coming, marked by a stupendous miracle, was a voluntary act ofcondescensionandlove.DuringthedaysofHisflesh,HeproclaimedbyHisword and example the law of God.He proclaimed it in a new andterrible way that of itself could only deepen our despair. But with Hisproclamationof’thelawtherewentHisproclamationofthegospel;withHispronouncementoftheDivinejudgmentuponsintherewentHisofferofHimselfas Saviour.When that offerwas received in faith, therewasnotonlycureofbodilyills,butalsoforgivenessinthepresenceofGod.

Atfirstfaithwasimplicit;mentrustedthemselvestoJesuswithoutfully

knowinghowitwasthatHecouldsave.ButevenwhileHewasonearthHepointedforwardwitheverincreasingclearnesstotheredeemingworkwhichHehadcomeintotheworldtodo.Andat last,onthecross, thatworkwasdone.TheDivineSaviourandLord,forthelovewherewithHeloved us, bore all the guilt of our sins,madewhite and clean the darkpageofouraccount,andreconciledustoGod.Thereisthecentreofourreligion. But how pitiful are my words! I may perhaps make menunderstandwhatwethink,yetIcanneverquitemakethemsympathizewith what we feel. The holy and righteousGod, the dreadful guilt anduncleannessof sin, thewonderofGod’sgrace inthegiftofourSaviourJesusChrist,theentrancethroughChristintotheveryhouseofGod,thenewbirthbythepowerofGod’sSpirit,thecommunionwiththerisenandascendedLordthroughHisHolySpiritpresentintheChristian’sheart–thesearetheconvictionsuponwhichrestourverylives.

If these convictionsare false, theymustbegivenup.But so long aswethinkthemtruewemustactinaccordwiththem,anditismorallywrongtoaskustodootherwise.AtthispointappearstheprofoundlyunethicalcharacterofmostoftheproposalsforChurchunionthatarebeingmadeat the present day. The right way to combat us who call ourselvesevangelical Christians is to combat honestly and openly our centralconvictionsastoGodandsinandredemption,nottoaskustoholdthoseconvictionsandthenactcontrarytothem.Solongaswethinkaswedo,wecannot,ifweloveourfellowmen,allowthem,sofarasourtestimonyisconcerned,toremainsatisfiedwiththecoldnessofwhatweregardasabaselessandfataloptimism.Wemustendeavor,bythepreachingofthelawofGodandofthegospelofHislove,tobringthemintothewarmthandjoyofthehouseholdoffaith.

* First issued as a chapter in the book,My Idea ofGod, published byLittle,BrownandCompany,Boston,1927,andappearingonpages39–50ofthatvolume.

WhatisChristianity

TheQuestion,"WhatisChristianity?"haswithinrecentyearsbecomeoneofthequestionsofpopular interestof theday; ithasactuallyattainedaplace upon the front pages of the newspapers and in the popularmagazines.Tomanypersons,indeed,theraisingofthequestionseemstobeacolossalpieceofimpertinence;theChristianChurch,theyinsist,isagreatorganization carryingonausefulservice tomankind,why shouldwe interfere with its efficiency by asking divisive and embarrassingquestions as to what it Is all for? But with such persons we cannotpossiblybringourselvestoagree.Efficiency,afterall,simplymeansdoingthings;and itdoesseemtobe important toaskwhetherthethingsthatarebeingdonebyourboastedecclesiasticalefficiencyaregoodorbad.Itisnotenoughtoaskwhether theChurch ismovingsmoothly,onemustalsoaskthequestionwhetheritismovingintherightdirection.

Theraisingofthatquestion,inthepasthistoryoftheChurch,hasoftenbeen the precursor of great spiritual advance. It has always, indeed,caused disturbance, as in the great upheaval of the Reformation, butwithoutittherewouldbedeath.SadistheconditionoftheChurchwhen"controversy"isdiscouragedandmenrefusetolookbeneaththesurfaceinordertodiscoverwhat,atbottom,theChurchisintheworldtodo.Letus not be afraid, therefore, of the basic question, the question whatChristianityreallyis.

How shall we obtain the answer to that question? Themethod shouldsurelybequiteplain.IfwearegoingtotellwhatChristianityis,surelywemusttakealookatChristianityasithasactuallyexistedintheworld.Tosay that Christianity is this or that is very different from saying that itought to have been this or that, or that the ideal religion, whatever itsname,wouldbethisorthat.ChristianityisanhistoricalphenomenonliketheStateofPennsylvaniaortheUnitedStatesofAmericaortheKingdomofPrussiaortheRomanEmpire,anditmustbeinvestigatedbyhistoricalmeans.Itmayturnouttobeagoodthingoritmayturnouttobeabadthingthatisanotherquestion—butifwearetotellwhat it is,wemusttakealookatitasithasactuallyexistedintheworld.

Nodoubtwecannottellallthatitisbyanysuchmerelyhistoricalmethodas that, we cannot tell all that it is by looking at it merely from theoutside.Inorderthatwe should tell all that it is,wemustourselvesbeChristians; wemust know Christianity in our own inner lives. But theChristian religion has never been an esoteric type of mysticism, it hasalwayspresenteditselfintheopenair;andtherearesomethingsaboutitwhichshouldappeartofriendandfoealike.

Buthowshallwetakealookatit?Ithasexistedthroughsomenineteencenturiesandinathousanddifferentforms;howcanwepossiblyobtainacommonviewofit,soasto includeinourdefinitionof itwhat it isandexclude from our definition what it is not? To what point in the longhistoryofChristianityshouldweturninordertodiscoverwhat itreallyis?Surelytheanswertothatquestionisperfectlyplain.Ifwearegoingtodetermine what any great movement is, surely we must turn to thebeginnings of the movement. So it is with Christianity. We are notassertingatthispointinourargumentthatthefoundersoftheChristianmovementhadarighttolegislateforallsubsequentgenerations.Thatisamatterforfurtherinvestigation.Butwhatweareassertingnowisthatthefounders of the Christian movement, whoever they were, did have aninalienable right to legislate for all those subsequent generations thatshouldchoosetobearthename"Christian."Conceivablywemaychangetheirprogram;butifwedochangetheirprogram,letususeanewname.Itismisleadingtousetheoldnametodesignateanewthing.Thatisjusta matter of common sense. If, therefore, we are going to tell whatChristianity at bottom is, we must take a look at the beginnings ofChristianity.

Nowthebeginnings ofChristianity constitute a fairly definite historicalphenomenon,aboutwhichthereisacertainmeasureofagreementevenbetweenhistoriansthatarethemselvesChristianandhistoriansthatarenot.ChristianityisagreatmovementthatoriginatedafewdaysafterthedeathofJesusofNazareth.Ifsomeoneshouldsaythatitoriginatedatanearliertime,whenJesusfirstgatheredHisdisciplesaboutHiminGalilee,weshouldnotbeinclinedtoquarrelwithhim;indeed,wemightevensaythatinasenseChristianityoriginatedstillfartherback,inOldTestamenttimes,whenthepromisewasfirstgivenconcerningasalvationtocome.

But ifChristianityexistedbeforethedeathofJesus, it existedonly inapreliminaryform.Soatleastthematterappearstothesecularhistorian,from his superficial and external point of view. Clearly there was astrange new beginning among the disciples of Jesus soon after Jesus'death; and at that time is to be put the beginning of the great worldmovementwhichiscommonlycalledChristianity.

WhatthenwasChristianityat that timewhen itbegan?Wecananswerthequestionwithmore intelligence,perhaps, ifweapproach itwith thefashionable modern answer to it in our mind and ask whether thatanswer is right or wrong. Christianity, according to that fashionablemodernanswer, isa lifeandnotadoctrine, it isa lifeoranexperiencethat has doctrinemerely as its symbolic intellectual expression, so thatwhile the life abides the doctrinemust necessarily change from age toage.

That answer, of course, involves the most bottomless skepticism thatcouldpossiblybe conceived; for if everything thatwe say aboutGodoraboutChristoraboutthefuturelifehasvaluemerelyforthisgeneration,andifsomethingcontradictorytoItmayhaveequalvalueinsomefuturegeneration, then the thing thatwe are saying isnot true evenhere andnow.A thing that is useful nowmay cease to be useful in some futuregeneration,butathingthat is truenowremainstruebeyondtheendoftime. To say, therefore, that doctrine is the necessarily changingexpressionofreligiousexperienceorreligiouslifeissimplytogiveupthesearchfortruthaltogether.

WasChristianity at the beginning in that sense a life as distinguishedfromadoctrine?Atthispointwedesiretobeperfectlyclear.Christianityatthebeginningcertainlywasalife,aboutthattherecanbenomannerofdoubt. The first Christians led lives very different from the lives of thepeopleaboutthem,andeverythingthatdidnotconformtothatpeculiarlyChristiantypeof lifewasrigidlyexcludedfromtheearlyChurch.Letusbeperfectlyplainaboutthat.

ButhowwasthatChristiantypeof lifeproduced?Therewecometothecruxofthewholequestion.Ifonethingiscleartothehistorianitisthatthattypeoflifewasnotproducedmerelybyexhortationormerelybythe

magicofpersonalcontacts;ifonethingiscleartothehistorianitisthatearliestChristianmissionariesdidnotgoaroundtheworldsaying. "Wehavebeenlivingincontactwithawonderfulperson,Jesus;contactwithHimhas changedour lives; andwe call upon you our hearers,withoutasking puzzling questions, without settling the meaning of His death,without asking whether He rose from the dead, simply to submityourselves to the contagion of that wonderful personality." That is,perhaps,whatmanymodernmenmighthaveexpectedthefirstChristianmissionariestosay,buttothehistorianitisclearthatasamatteroffacttheysaidnothingofthekind.

Whattheydidsayissummedupinafewwordsinthefifteenthchapterofthe First Epistle to the Corinthians, where, as is admitted even byhistorians of themost skeptical kind, Paul is giving nothing less that asummaryofwhathe"received" from the very first disciples of Jesus intheprimitiveJerusalemChurch."ChristdiedforoursinsaccordingtotheScriptures-Hewasburied;Heroseagainthethirdday,accordingtotheScriptures" — there we have in brief compass what the first Christianmissionariessaid.

Butwhatisthatutterancethatwehavejustquoted?Isitnotanaccountof facts?"Christdied,Hewasburied,Heroseagain"—that isasettingforthofthingsthathappened;it isnotanexhortationbutarehearsalofevents,apieceofnews.

Thefactsthatarerehearsedarenot,indeed,barefacts,butfactswiththemeaningofthefacts."Christdied"isafact;buttoknowmerelythatfactneverdidgood toanyone; itneverdidanyoneanygood toknow thataJew,whowascalledChrist,diedonacrossinthefirstcenturyofourera.Butitisnotinthatjejune[lifeless]waythatthefactwasrehearsedbytheprimitiveJerusalemChurch; theprimitivemessagewasnotmerely thatChristdied,but thatChristdied forour sins.That tellsnotmerely thatChristdied,butwhyHedied,whatHeaccomplishedwhenHedied,butwhyHedied,whatHeaccomplishedwhenHedied, it givesnotmerelythefactbutthemeaningofthefact.

But when you say "fact with the meaning of the fact" you have said"doctrine."Wehavealreadyarrived,then,attheanswertoourquestion.

Christianity at the beginning, we have discovered, was not a life asdistinguishedfromadoctrineora life thathaddoctrineas itschangingintellectual expression,but— just theotherwayaround— itwas a lifefoundeduponadoctrine.

If that be so, if the Christian religion is founded upon historical facts,then there is something in the Christian message which can neverpossiblychange.Thereisonegoodthingaboutfacts—theystayput.Ifathing really happened, the passage of years can never possiblymake itintoathingthatdidnothappen.IfthebodyofJesusreallyemergedfromthetombonthefirstEastermorning,thennopossibleadvanceofsciencecan change the fact one whit. The advance of sciencemay conceivablyshowthattheallegedfactwasneverafactatall;itmayconceivablyshowthat the earliestChristianswerewrongwhen they said that Christ rosefrom thedead the thirdday.But to say that that statementof factwastrueinthefirstcentury,butthatbecauseoftheadvanceofscienceitisnolongertrue—thatistosaywhatisplainlyabsurd.TheChristianreligionisfoundedsquarelyuponamessagethatsetsforthfacts;ifthatmessageis false, then the religion that is founded on it must of course beabandoned;but if it is true, thentheChristianChurchmuststilldeliverthemessagefaithfullyasitdidonthemorningofthefirstEasterDay.

Forourpart,weadoptthelatteralternative.Butitisamistaketothinkofusmerelyas"conservatives";Itisamistaketothinkofusasthoughwewereholdingdesperatelytosomethingthatisoldmerelybecauseitisoldandwe'reinhospitabletowhatisnew.Asamatteroffact,wearelookingnotmerelytoacontinuanceofconditionsthatnowprevail,buttoaburstofnewpower.TheSpiritofGodwillinGod'sgoodtimeagainenablemento see clear, and when they see clear they will be convinced that theChristianmessageistrue.Welongforthecomingofthattime.NowthattheChristianmessageissogenerallydisbelievedorforgotten,thehumanrace is sinking gradually into bondage; the advance inmaterial things,extraordinarythoughitis,isbeingdearlypurchasedbyawidespreadlossofhumanfreedom.Butwhenthegospel isbrought to lightagain, therewillagainbelifeandlibertyformankind.

ThreeLecturesontheDoctrineofthe

Atonement

PartI:TheDoctrineoftheAtonementPartII:TheActiveObedienceofChristPartIII:TheBibleandtheCross

PartI:TheDoctrineoftheAtonement

THEpriestlyworkofChrist,oratleastthatpartofitinwhichHeofferedHimselfupasasacrificetosatisfydivinejusticeandreconcileustoGod,iscommonlycalledtheatonement,andthedoctrinewhichsetsitforthiscommonlycalled thedoctrine of the atonement.Thatdoctrine is at theveryheartofwhatistaughtintheWordofGod.

Before we present that doctrine, we ought to observe that the term bywhichitisordinarilydesignatedisnotaltogetherfreefromobjection.

When I say that the term ‘atonement’ is open to objection, I am notreferringtothefactthatitoccursonlyonceintheKingJamesVersionoftheNewTestament, and is therefore, so far asNewTestamentusage isconcerned,notacommonBiblicalterm.AgoodmanyothertermswhicharerareintheBibleareneverthelessadmirabletermswhenonecomestosummarise Biblical teaching. As a matter of fact this term is rathercommon in the Old Testament (though it occurs only that once in theNewTestament),butthatfactwouldnotbenecessarytocommenditifitwere satisfactory in other ways. Even if it were not common in eitherTestamentitstillmightbeexactlythetermforustousetodesignatebyonewordwhattheBibleteachesinanumberofwords.

The real objection to it is of an entirely different kind. It is a twofoldobjection.Thewordatonementinthefirstplace,isambiguous,andinthesecondplace,itisnotbroadenough.

Theoneplacewhere thewordoccurs in theKingJamesVersionof theNewTestamentisRomans5:11,wherePaulsays:

Andnotonlyso,butwealsojoyinGodthroughourLordJesusChrist,bywhomwehavenowreceivedtheatonement.

HerethewordisusedtotranslateaGreekwordmeaning‘reconciliation.’This usage seems to be very close to the etymological meaning of theword, for it does seem to be true that the English word ‘atonement’means‘atonement.’Itis,therefore,accordingtoitsderivation,anaturalwordtodesignatethestateofreconciliationbetweentwopartiesformerlyatvariance.

In theOldTestament,on theotherhand,where thewordoccurs in theKingJamesVersionnot once, but forty or fifty times, it has adifferentmeaning; ithasthemeaningof ‘propitiation.’ThuswereadinLeviticus1:4,regardingamanwhobringsabullocktobekilledasaburntoffering:

Andhe shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and itshallbeacceptedforhimtomakeatonementforhim.

Soalso thewordoccurssomeeight times in theKingJamesVersion inthesixteenthchapterofLeviticus,wheretheprovisionsofthelawaresetforth regarding the great day of atonement. Take, for example, thefollowingversesinthatchapter:

AndAaronshallofferhisbullockofthesinoffering,whichisforhimself,andmakeanatonementforhimself,andforhishouse(Lev.16:6).

Thenshallhekillthegoatofthesinofferingthatisforthepeople,andbringhisbloodwithintheveil,anddowiththatbloodashedidwiththebloodofthebullock,andsprinkleituponthemercyseat:

And he shall make atonement for the holy place, because of theuncleannessofthechildrenofIsrael,andbecauseoftheirtransgressionsin all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of thecongregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of theiruncleanness(Lev.16:15f.).

In these passages the meaning of the word is clear. God has beenoffendedbecause of the sins of the peopleor of individuals amongHis

people.Thepriestkillstheanimalwhichisbroughtasasacrifice.Godistherebypropitiated,andthosewhohaveoffendedGodareforgiven.

I am not now asking whether those Old Testament sacrifices broughtforgivenessinthemselves,ormerelyaspropheciesofagreatersacrificetocome;IamnotnowconsideringthesignificantlimitationswhichtheOldTestamentlawattributestotheirefficacy.Weshalltrytodealwiththosematters insomesubsequent talk.All that I amhere interested in is theuseoftheword ‘atonement’ intheEnglishBible.All thatIamsaying isthat that word in the Old Testament clearly conveys the notion ofsomethingthatisdonetosatisfyGodinorderthatthesinsofmenmaybeforgivenandtheircommunionwithGodrestored.

SomewhatakintothisOldTestamentuseoftheword‘atonement’istheuseofitinoureverydayparlancewherereligionisnotatallinview.Thusweoftensaythatsomeoneinhisyouthwasguiltyofagrievousfaultbuthasfully‘atoned’foritormadefull‘atonement’foritbyalongandusefullife.Wemeanbythatthatthepersoninquestionhas—ifwemayuseacolloquial phrase — ‘made up for’ his youthful indiscretion by hissubsequent life of usefulness and rectitude. Mind you, I am not at allsayingthatamancanreally‘makeupfor’or‘atonefor’ayouthfulsinbyasubsequentlifeofusefulnessandrectitude;butIamjustsayingthatthatindicates the way in which the English word is used. In our ordinaryusage the word certainly conveys the idea of something likecompensationforsomewrongthathasbeendone.

ItcertainlyconveysthatnotionalsointhoseOldTestamentpassages.Ofcoursethatisnottheonlynotionthatitconveysinthosepassages.Theretheuseofthewordisverymuchmorespecific.Thecompensationwhichis indicatedby theword isacompensationrendered toGod,and it isacompensation that has become necessary because of an offencecommittedagainstGod.Still,thenotionofcompensationorsatisfactionisclearlyintheword.Godisoffendedbecauseofsin;satisfactionismadetoHiminsomewaybythesacrifice;andsoHisfavourisrestored.

Thus in the English Bible the word ‘atonement’ is used in two ratherdistinctsenses.InitsoneoccurrenceintheNewTestamentitdesignates

theparticularmeansbywhichsuchreconciliation iseffected—namely,thesacrificewhichGodispleasedtoacceptinorderthatmanmayagainbereceivedintofavour.

NowofthesetwousesoftheworditisunquestionablytheOldTestamentusewhichisfollowedwhenwespeakofthe ‘doctrineoftheatonement.’We mean by the word, when we thus use it in theology, not thereconciliationbetweenGodandman,notthe ‘at-onement’betweenGodand man, but specifically the means by which that reconciliation iseffected—namely,thedeathofChristassomethingthatwasnecessaryinorderthatsinfulmanmightbereceivedintocommunionwithGod.

I do not see any great objection to the use of the word in that way—providedonlythatweareperfectlyclearthatweareusingitinthatway.Certainly ithasacquired too firmaplace inChristian theologyandhasgatheredaroundittoomanypreciousassociationsforustothink,now,oftryingtodislodgeit.

However, there is another wordwhichwould in itself have beenmuchbetter,anditisreallyagreatpitythatithasnotcomeintomoregeneraluse in this connection. That is the word ‘satisfaction.’ If we only hadacquiredthehabitofsayingthatChristmadefullsatisfactiontoGodforman that would have conveyed a more adequate account of Christ’spriestlyworkasourRedeemerthantheword‘atonement’canconvey.Itdesignateswhattheword‘atonement’—rightlyunderstood—designates,anditalsodesignatessomethingmore.Weshallseewhatthatsomethingmoreisinasubsequenttalk.

But it is timenow forus toenterdefinitely intoourgreat subject.Menwere estranged from God by sin; Christ as their great high priest hasbrought them back into communion with God. How has He done so?That is thequestionwithwhichwe shallbedealing inanumberof thetalksthatnowfollow.

ThisafternoonallthatIcandoistotrytostatetheScripturedoctrineinbaresummary(orbegintostateit),leavingittosubsequenttalkstoshowhowthatScripturedoctrineisactuallytaughtintheScriptures,todefend

it against objections, and to distinguish it clearly from variousunscripturaltheories.

What then in bare outline does the Bible teach about the ‘atonement’?Whatdoesitteach—touseabetterterm—aboutthesatisfactionwhichChristpresentedtoGodinorderthatsinfulmanmightbereceivedintoGod’sfavour?

IcannotpossiblyanswerthisquestioneveninbaresummaryunlessIcallyour attention to the Biblical doctrine of sin with which we dealt lastwinter. You cannot possibly understand what the Bible says aboutsalvationunlessyouunderstandwhattheBiblesaysaboutthethingfromwhichwearesaved.

IfthenweaskwhatistheBiblicaldoctrineofsin,weobserve,inthefirstplace,thataccordingtotheBibleallmenaresinners.

Well, then, that being so, it becomes important to askwhat this sin iswhichhasaffectedallmankind.Isitjustanexcusableimperfection;isitsomething that can be transcended as a man can transcend theimmaturity of his youthful years? Or, supposing it to be more thanimperfection, supposing it to be something like a definite stain, is it astainthatcaneasilyberemovedaswritingiserasedfromaslate?

TheBibleleavesusinnodoubtastotheanswertothesequestions.Sin,ittellsus,isdisobediencetothelawofGod,andthelawofGodisentirelyirrevocable.

WhyisthelawofGodirrevocable?TheBiblemakesthatplain.Becauseitisrooted in the nature ofGod!God is righteous and that is the reasonwhyHis law is righteous.CanHe then revokeHis laworallow it tobedisregarded?Well,thereisofcoursenoexternalcompulsionuponHimtopreventHimfromdoingthesethings.ThereisnonewhocansaytoHim,‘Whatdoestthou?’InthatsenseHecandoallthings.Butthepointis,HecannotrevokeHislawandstillremainGod.Hecannot,withoutHimselfbecoming unrighteous, make His law either forbid righteousness orcondone unrighteousness. When the law of God says, ‘The soul that

sinneth it shall die,’ that awful penalty of death is, indeed, imposed byGod’s will; but God’s will is determined by God’s nature, and God’snature being unchangeably holy the penalty must run its course. GodwouldbeuntruetoHimself,inotherwords,ifsinwerenotpunished;andthatGodshouldbeuntrue toHimself is themost impossible thing thatcanpossiblybeconceived.

UnderthatmajesticlawofGodmanwasplacedintheestatewhereinhewascreated.Manwasplaced inaprobation,which theologians call thecovenantofworks.Ifheobeyedthe lawduringacertain limitedperiod,hisprobationwastobeover;hewouldbegiveneternal lifewithoutanyfurtherpossibilityofloss.If,ontheotherhand,hedisobeyedthelaw,hewouldhavedeath—physicaldeathandeternaldeathinhell.

Manenteredintothatprobationwitheveryadvantage.Hewascreatedinknowledge, righteousness and holiness. He was created not merelyneutralwithrespecttogoodness;hewascreatedpositivelygood.Yethefell.Hefailedtomakehisgoodnessanassuredandeternalgoodness;hefailed to progress from the goodness of innocency to the confirmedgoodness which would have been the reward for standing the test. Hetransgressed the commandment of God, and so came under the awfulcurseofthelaw.

Under that curse came allmankind. That covenant of works had beenmadewiththefirstman,Adam,notonlyforhimselfbutforhisposterity.He had stood, in that probation, in a representative capacity; he hadstood— to use a better terminology— as the federal head of the race,havingbeenmadethefederalheadoftheracebydivineappointment.Ifhehadsuccessfullymetthetest,allmankinddescendedfromhimwouldhave been born in a state of confirmed righteousness and blessedness,withoutanypossibilityoffallingintosinoroflosingeternallife.Butasamatterof factAdamdidnotsuccessfullymeetthe test.He transgressedthecommandmentofGod,andsincehewasthefederalhead,thedivinelyappointedrepresentativeoftherace,allmankindsinnedinhimandfellwithhiminhisfirsttransgression.

Thus all mankind, descended from Adam by ordinary generation, are

themselvesunderthedreadfulpenaltyofthelawofGod.Theyareunderthatpenaltyatbirth,beforetheyhavedoneanythingeithergoodorbad.Partofthatpenaltyisthewantoftherighteousnesswithwhichmanwascreated,andadreadfulcorruptionwhichiscalledoriginalsin.Proceedingfrom that corruption when men grow to years of discretion comeindividualactsoftransgression.

Canthepenaltyofsinrestinguponallmankindberemitted?Plainlynot,ifGod is to remainGod.Thatpenaltyof sinwasordained in the lawofGod, and the law of God was no mere arbitrary and changeablearrangement but an expression of the nature of God Himself. If thepenalty of sinwere remitted,Godwould become unrighteous, and thatGod will not become unrighteous is the most certain thing that canpossiblybeconceived.

Howthencansinfulmenbesaved?Inonewayonly.OnlyifasubstituteisprovidedwhoshallpayforthemthejustpenaltyofGod’slaw.

The Bible teaches that such a substitute has as a matter of fact beenprovided. The substitute is Jesus Christ. The law’s demands of penaltymust be satisfied. There is no escaping that. But Jesus Christ satisfiedthosedemandsforuswhenHediedinsteadofusonthecross.

Ihaveused theword ‘satisfied’ advisedly. It is very important forus toobservethatwhenJesusdieduponthecrossHemadeafullsatisfactionforoursins;Hepaidthepenaltywhichthelawpronouncesuponoursin,notinpartbutinfull.

In saying that, there are several misunderstandings which need to beguardedagainstinthemostcarefulpossibleway.Onlybydistinguishingthe Scripture doctrine carefully from several distortions of it can weunderstand clearlywhat the Scripture doctrine is. I want to point out,therefore, several things thatwe do notmeanwhenwe say that Christpaidthepenaltyofoursinbydyinginsteadofusonthecross.

In the first place,we do notmean thatwhenChrist took our placeHebecameHimselfasinner.OfcourseHedidnotbecomeasinner.Never

wasHisgloriousrighteousnessandgoodnessmorewonderfullyseenthanwhen He bore the curse of God’s law upon the cross. He was notdeservingofthatcurse.Farfromit!Hewasdeservingofallpraise.

Whatwemean, therefore,whenwesay thatChristboreourguilt isnotthat He became guilty, but that He paid the penalty that we so richlydeserved.

In the second place, we do not mean that Christ’s sufferings were thesameas the sufferings thatwe shouldhave endured ifwehadpaid thepenaltyofourown sins.Obviously theywere not the same. Part of thesufferings that we should have endured would have been the dreadfulsuffering of remorse. Christ did not endure that suffering, for He haddone no wrong. Moreover, our sufferings would have endured to alleternity, whereas Christ’s sufferings on the cross endured but a fewhours.PlainlythenHissufferingswerenotthesameasourswouldhavebeen.

Inthethirdplace,however,anoppositeerrormustalsobewardedoff.IfChrist’ssufferingswerenotthesameasours,itisalsoquiteuntruetosaythatHepaidonlyapartofthepenaltythatwasduetousbecauseofoursin.Sometheologianshavefallenintothaterror.Whenmanincurredthepenaltyof the law, theyhave said,Godwaspleased to take someotherandlesserthing—namely,thesufferingsofChristonthecross—insteadof exacting the full penalty. Thus, according to these theologians, thedemandsof the lawwerenotreally satisfiedby thedeathofChrist,butGodwas simply pleased, in arbitrary fashion, to accept something lessthanfullsatisfaction.

Thatisaveryseriouserrorindeed.Insteadoffallingintoitweshall,ifwearetruetotheScriptures,insistthatChristonthecrosspaidthefullandjustpenaltyforoursin.

The error arose because of a confusion between the payment of a debtandthepaymentofapenalty.Inthecaseofadebtitdoesnotmakeanydifferencewhopays;allthatisessentialisthatthecreditorshallreceivewhat isowedhim.What isessential is that just the same thingshallbe

paidasthatwhichstoodinthebond.

Butinthecaseofthepaymentofapenaltyitdoesmakeadifferencewhopays.The lawdemandedthatweshouldsuffereternaldeathbecauseofoursin.Christpaid thepenaltyof the law inour stead.But forHim tosufferwas not the same as for us to suffer.He isGod, and notmerelyman. Therefore if He had suffered to all eternity as we should havesuffered,thatwouldnothavebeentopaythejustpenaltyofthesin,butitwouldhavebeenanunjust exactionof vastlymore. Inotherwords,wemustgetridofmerelyquantitativenotionsinthinkingofthesufferingsofChrist. What He suffered on the cross was what the law of God trulydemandednotof anypersonbutof suchapersonasHimselfwhenHebecameoursubstituteinpayingthepenaltyofsin.Hedidthereforemakefull andnotmerelypartial satisfaction for theclaimsof the lawagainstus.

Finally,itisveryimportanttoobservethattheBible’steachingaboutthecrossofChristdoesnotmeanthatGodwaitedforsomeoneelsetopaythepenalty of sin before He would forgive the sinner. So unbelieversconstantly represent it, but that representation is radically wrong. No,GodHimselfpaidthepenaltyofsin—GodHimselfinthePersonofGodtheSon,wholovedusandgaveHimselfforus,GodHimselfinthepersonofGod theFatherwho so loved theworld as to giveHis only-begottenSon,GodtheHolySpiritwhoappliestousthebenefitsofChrist’sdeath.God’s the cost and ours the marvellous gain! Who shall measure thedepths of the love of God which was extended to us sinners when theLordJesustookourplaceanddiedinoursteadupontheaccursedtree?

PartII:TheActiveObedienceofChrist

LASTSundayafternoon,inoutliningtheBiblicalteachingabouttheworkofChristinsatisfyingforustheclaimsofGod’slaw,Isaidnothingaboutone very important part of that work. I pointed out that Christ byHisdeathinoursteadonthecrosspaidthejustpenaltyofoursin,butIsaidnothingofanother thing thatHe did for us. I said nothing aboutwhatChristdidforusbyHisactiveobediencetoGod’slaw.Itisveryimportant

that we should fill out that part of the outline before we go one stepfurther.

Suppose Christ had done for us merely what we said last SundayafternoonthatHedid.SupposeHehadmerelypaidthejustpenaltyofthelawthatwasrestinguponusforoursin,andhaddonenothingmorethanthat;wherewouldwethenbe?Well,Ithinkwecansay—ifindeeditislegitimatetoseparateonepartoftheworkofChristeveninthoughtfromtherest—thatifChristhadmerelypaidthepenaltyofsinforusandhaddonenothingmorewe shouldbeatbestback in the situation inwhichAdamfoundhimselfwhenGodplacedhimunderthecovenantofworks.

Thatcovenantofworkswasaprobation.IfAdamkeptthelawofGodfora certain period, hewas to have eternal life. If he disobeyed hewas tohave death.Well, he disobeyed, and the penalty of death was inflicteduponhimandhisposterity.ThenChristbyHisdeathonthecrosspaidthatpenaltyforthosewhomGodhadchosen.

Wellandgood.ButifthatwereallthatChristdidforus,doyounotseethatweshouldbebackinjustthesituationinwhichAdamwasbeforehesinned? The penalty of his sinning would have been removed from usbecauseithadallbeenpaidbyChrist.ButforthefuturetheattainmentofeternallifewouldhavebeendependentuponourperfectobediencetothelawofGod.Weshouldsimplyhavebeenbackintheprobationagain.

Moreover,we should have been back in that probation in a verymuchless hopeful way than that in which Adam was originally placed in it.Everythingwas inAdam’s favourwhenhewasplaced in theprobation.Hehadbeencreated inknowledge, righteousnessandholiness.Hehadbeencreatedpositivelygood.Yetdespiteallthat,hefell.Howmuchmorelikelywouldwebetofall—nay,howcertaintofall—ifallthatChristhaddoneforusweremerelytoremovefromustheguiltofpastsin,leavingitthen to our own efforts to win the rewardwhich God has pronounceduponperfectobedience!

ButIreallymustdeclinetospeculateanyfurtheraboutwhatmighthavebeen if Christ had done something less for us than that whichHe has

actuallydone.Asamatteroffact,HehasnotmerelypaidthepenaltyofAdam’sfirstsin,and thepenaltyof thesinswhichwe individuallyhavecommitted,butalsoHehaspositivelymeritedforuseternallife.Hewas,in other words, our representative both in penalty paying and inprobationkeeping.Hepaid thepenalty of sin for us, andHe stood theprobationforus.

That is the reason why those who have been saved by the Lord JesusChristareinafarmoreblessedconditionthanwasAdambeforehefell.Adambefore he fellwas righteous in the sight ofGod, but hewas stillunder the possibility of becoming unrighteous. Those who have beensavedbytheLordJesusChristnotonlyarerighteousinthesightofGodbut they are beyond the possibility of becoming unrighteous. In theircase, the probation is over. It is not over because they have stood itsuccessfully. It is not over because they have themselves earned thereward of assured blessedness which God promised on condition ofperfectobedience.ButitisoverbecauseChristhasstooditforthem;itisover because Christ has merited for them the reward by His perfectobediencetoGod’slaw.

I thinkIcanmakethematterplain if I imagineadialoguebetweenthelawofGodandasinfulmansavedbygrace.

‘Man,’saysthelawofGod,‘haveyouobeyedmycommands?’

‘No,’saysthesinnersavedbygrace. ‘Ihavedisobeyedthem,notonlyinthepersonofmyrepresentativeAdam inhis first sin,butalso in that Imyselfhavesinnedinthought,wordanddeed.’

‘Well,then,sinner,’saysthelawofGod,‘haveyoupaidthepenaltywhichIpronouncedupondisobedience?’

‘No,’saysthesinner, ‘Ihavenotpaidthepenaltymyself;butChristhaspaid it for me. He was my representative when He died there on thecross.Hence,sofarasthepenaltyisconcerned,Iamclear.’

‘Well,then,sinner,’saysthelawofGod,‘howabouttheconditionswhich

Godhaspronouncedfortheattainmentofassuredblessedness?Haveyoustoodthetest?Haveyoumeritedeternallifebyperfectobedienceduringtheperiodofprobation?’

‘No,’ says thesinner, ‘Ihavenotmeritedeternal lifebymyownperfectobedience.God knows andmy own conscience knows that even after Ibecame a Christian I have sinned in thought, word and deed. Butalthough I have not merited eternal life by any obedience of my own,Christ hasmerited it forme byHis perfect obedience. He was not forHimself subject to the law. No obedience was required of Him forHimself, since He was Lord of all. That obedience, then, which Herenderedtothe lawwhenHewasonearthwasrenderedbyHimasmyrepresentative. I have no righteousness ofmy own, but clad in Christ’sperfectrighteousness, imputed tomeand receivedby faithalone, I cangloryinthefactthatsofarasIamconcernedtheprobationhasbeenkeptandasGodistruethereawaitsmethegloriousrewardwhichChristthusearnedforme.’

Such,put inbald, simple form, is thedialoguebetweeneveryChristianandthelawofGod.HowgloriouslycompleteisthesalvationwroughtforusbyChrist!Christpaidthepenalty,andHemeritedthereward.ThosearethetwogreatthingsthatHehasdoneforus.

TheologiansareaccustomedtodistinguishthosetwopartsofthesavingworkofChristbycallingoneofthemHispassiveobedienceandtheotherof them His active obedience. By His passive obedience — that is, bysuffering in our stead — He paid the penalty for us; by His activeobedience— that is, by doingwhat the law of God required—He hasmeritedforusthereward.

Ilikethatterminologywellenough.Ithinkitdoessetforthaswellascanbedone inhuman language the twoaspectsofChrist’swork.AndyetadangerlurksinitifitleadsustothinkthatoneofthetwopartsofChrist’sworkcanbeseparatedfromtheother.

How shall we distinguish Christ’s active obedience from His passiveobedience? Shallwe say thatHe accomplishedHis active obedience by

HislifeandaccomplishedHispassiveobediencebyHisdeath?No,thatwillnotdoatall.DuringeverymomentofHislifeuponearthChristwasengagedinHispassiveobedience.Itwasall forHimhumiliation,wasitnot?Itwasallsuffering.ItwasallpartofHispaymentofthepenaltyofsin. On the other hand, we cannot say that His death was passiveobedienceandnotactiveobedience.Onthecontrary,HisdeathwasthecrownofHisactiveobedience.ItwasthecrownofthatobediencetothelawofGodbywhichHemeritedeternallifeforthosewhomHecametosave.

Do younot see, then,what the true state of the case is?Christ’s activeobedienceandHispassiveobediencearenot twodivisionsofHiswork,someoftheeventsofHisearthlylifebeingHisactiveobedienceandothereventsofHislifebeingHispassiveobedience;buteveryeventofHislifewasbothactiveobedienceandpassiveobedience.EveryeventofHislifewasapartofHispaymentofthepenaltyofsin,andeveryeventofHislifewasapartofthatgloriouskeepingofthelawofGodbywhichHeearnedforHispeopletherewardofeternallife.ThetwoaspectsofHiswork,inotherwords, are inextricably intertwined.Neitherwas performed apartfrom the other. Together they constitute the wonderful, full salvationwhichwaswroughtforusbyChristourRedeemer.

WecanputitbrieflybysayingthatChristtookourplacewithrespecttothelawofGod.Hepaidforusthelaw’spenalty,andHeobeyedforusthelaw’s commands. He saved us from hell, and He earned for us ourentranceintoheaven.Allthatwehave,then,weoweuntoHim.ThereisnoblessingthatwehaveinthisworldorthenextforwhichweshouldnotgiveChristthanks.

AsIsaythat,Iamfullyconsciousoftheinadequacyofmywords.Ihavetried to summarise the teaching of the Bible about the saving work ofChrist;yethowcoldanddryseemsanymerehumansummary—evenifit were far better than mine — in comparison with the marvellousrichnessandwarmthoftheBibleitself.It istotheBibleitselfthatIamgoingtoaskyoutoturnwithmenextSundayafternoon.HavingtriedtosummarisetheBible’steachinginorderthatwemaytakeeachpartoftheBibleinproperrelationtootherparts,IamgoingtoaskyounextSunday

toturnwithmetothegreattextsthemselves, inorderthatwemaytestoursummary,andeveryhumansummary,bywhatGodHimselfhastoldusinHisWord.Ah,whenwedothat,whatrefreshmentitistooursouls!How infinitely superior is God’s Word to all human attempts tosummarise its teaching!Thoseattemptsarenecessary;we couldnotdowithout them; everyone who is really true to the Bible will engage inthem. But it is the very words of the Bible that touch the heart, andeverythingthatwe—orforthematterofthateventhegreattheologians— say in summary of theBiblemust be compared ever anewwith theBibleitself.

Thisafternoon,however,justinorderthatnextSundaywemaybeginoursearching of the Scriptures in the most intelligent possible way, I amgoing toaskyou toglancewithmeatoneor twoof thedifferentviewsthatmenhaveheldregardingthecrossofChrist.

Ihavealreadysummarisedforyoutheorthodoxview.Accordingtothatview,Christtookourplaceonthecross,payingthepenaltyofamthatwedeserved to pay. That view can be put in very simple language. Wedeservedeternaldeathbecauseof sin;Jesus,becauseHe lovedus, tookourplaceanddied inoursteadon the cross.Call that view repulsive ifyou will. It is indeed repulsive to the natural man. But do not call itdifficulttounderstand.Alittlechildcanunderstandit,andcanreceiveittothesalvationofhissoul.

Rejecting that substitutionary view, many men have advanced otherviews.Manyarethetheoriesof theatonement.YetIdothinkthattheirbewilderingvarietymaybereducedtosomethinglikeorderifweobservethattheyfallintoaveryfewgeneraldivisions.

Most common among them is the theory that Christ’s death upon thecrosshadmerely amoral effect uponman.Man is bynature a child ofGod,saytheadvocatesof thatview.Butunfortunatelyhe isnotmakingfulluseofhishighprivilege.Hehasfallenintoterribledegradation,andhaving fallen into terrible degradation he has become estranged fromGod.HenolongerlivesinthatintimaterelationshipofsonshipwithGodinwhichheoughttolive.

How shall this estrangement between man and God be removed; howshall man be brought back into fellowship with God? Why, say theadvocatesoftheviewofwhichwearenowspeaking,simplybyinducingmantoturnfromhisevilwaysandmakefulluseofhishighprivilegeasachildofGod.ThereiscertainlynobarrieronGod’sside;theonlybarrierliesinman’sfoolishandwickedheart.Onceovercomethatbarrierandallwill bewell. Once touchman’s stony heart so that he will come to seeagainthatGodishisFather,onceleadhimalsotoovercomeanyfearofGodasthoughGodwerenotalwaysmorereadytoforgivethanmanistobeforgiven;andatoncethetruerelationshipbetweenGodandmancanberestoredandmancangoforwardjoyouslytotheuse,inholyliving,ofhishighprivilegeasachildofthelovingheavenlyFather.

Buthowcanman’sheartbetouched,thathemaybeledtoreturntohisFather’shouseand liveasbefitsasonofGod?By thecontemplationofthe cross of Christ, say the advocates of the view that we are nowpresenting.JesusChristwastrulyasonofGod.Indeed,HewasasonofGodinsuchauniquewaythatHemaybecalledinsomesorttheSonofGod.WhenthereforeGodgaveHimtodieuponthecrossandwhenHewillinglygaveHimselftodie,thatwasawonderfulmanifestationofGod’slove for sinning, erring humanity. In the presence of that love alloppositioninman’sheartshouldbebrokendown.HeshouldrecogniseatlastthefactthatGodisindeedhisFather,andrecognisingthat,heshouldmakeuseofhishighprivilegeoflivingthelifethatbefitsachildofGod.

Suchistheso-called‘moral-influencetheory’oftheatonement.Itisheldinathousanddifferentforms,anditisheldbythousandsofpeoplewhohavenottheslightestnotionthattheyareholdingit.

SomeofthosewhohaveheldithavetriedtomaintainwithitsomethinglikearealbeliefinthedeityofChrist.IfChristwasreallytheeternalSonofGod,thenthegiftofHimonthecrossbecomesallthegreaterevidenceoftheloveofGod.Buttheoverwhelmingmajorityofthosewhoholdthemoral-influenceviewoftheatonementhavegivenupallrealbeliefinthedeityofChrist.ThesepersonsholdsimplythatJesusonthecrossgaveusasupremeexampleof self-sacrifice.By thatexampleweare inspired to

do likewise. We are inspired to sacrifice our lives, either in actualmartyrdom in some holy cause or in sacrificial service. Sacrificing thusour lives, we discover that we have thereby attained a higher life thaneverbefore.ThusthecrossofChristhasbeenthepathwaythatleadsustomoralheights.

Readmostofthepopularbooksonreligionofthepresentday,andthentellmewhetheryoudonotthinkthatthatisatbottomwhattheymean.Some of them speak about the cross of Christ. Some of them say thatChrist’ssufferingswereredemptive.ButthetroubleistheyholdthatthecrossofChristisnotmerelyChrist’scrossbutourcross;andthatwhileChrist’ssufferingswereredemptiveoursufferingsareredemptivetoo.Allthey really mean is that Christ on Calvary pointed out a way that wefollow.Hehallowedthepathwayofself-sacrifice.Wefollowinthatpathandthusweobtainahigherlifeforoursouls.

That is the great central and all-pervading vice ofmostmodern booksthatdealwiththecross.TheymakethecrossofChristmerelyanexampleofageneralprinciple of self-sacrifice.And if they talk still of salvation,theytellusthatwearesavedbywalkinginthewayofthecross.Itisthus,accordingtothisview,notChrist’scrossbutourcrossthatsavesus.Theway of the cross leads us toGod. Christmay have a great influence inleadingustowalkinthatwayofthecross,thatwayofself-sacrifice;butitisourwalking in itandnotChrist’swalking in itwhich really savesus.Thuswearesavedbyourownefforts,notbyChrist’sbloodafterall.Itisthesameoldnotionthatsinfulmancansavehimself.ItisthatnotionjustdeckedoutinnewgarmentsandmakinguseofChristianterminology.

Suchisthemoral-influencetheoryoftheatonement.Inadditiontoit,wefindwhat issometimescalledthegovernmental theory.Whatastrange,compromising,tortuousthingthatgovernmentaltheoryis,tobesure!

According to the governmental view, the death of Christ was notnecessary in order that any eternal justice ofGod, rooted in the divinenature,might be satisfied. So far the governmental view goes with theadvocatesofthemoral-influencetheory.But,itholds,thedeathofChristwasnecessary inorder thatgooddisciplinemightbemaintained in the

world. If sinners were allowed to get the notion that sin could goaltogetherunpunished, therewouldbeno adequate deterrent from sin.Beingthusundeterredfromsin,menwouldgoonsinningandtheworldwouldbethrownintoconfusion.Butiftheworldwerethusthrownintomoral confusion thatwouldnotbe for thebest interestsof the greatestnumber. ThereforeGod held up the death of Christ on the cross as anindicationofhowseriousathingsinis,sothatmenmaybedeterredfromsinningandsoorderintheworldmaybepreserved.

Havingthusindicated—sothegovernmentaltheoryruns—howseriousathingsin is,Godproceeded to offer salvation tomenon easier termsthan those on which He had originally offered it. He had originallyoffereditonthebasisofperfectobedience.NowHeoffereditonthebasisoffaith.Hecouldsafelyofferitonthoseeasierterms,andHecouldsafelyremit thepenalty originally pronouncedupon sin, because in the awfulspectacleofthecrossofChristHehadsufficientlyindicatedtomenthatsinisaseriousoffenceandthatifitiscommittedsomethingorotherhastobedoneaboutthematterinorderthatthegoodorderoftheuniversemaybeconserved.

Suchisthegovernmentaltheory.Butdoyounotseethatreallyatbottomit is justa formofthemoral-influencetheory?Likethemoral-influencetheory,itholdsthattheonlyobstacletofellowshipbetweenmanandGodisfoundinman’swill.Likethemoral-influencetheoryitdeniesthatthereisanyeternal justiceofGod,rooted inHisbeing,and itdenies that theeternal justice ofGod demands the punishment of sin. Like themoral-influencetheoryitplaysfastandloosewithGod’sholiness,andlikethemoral-influencetheory,wemayadd, it loses sight of the real depths ofGod’s love.Nomanwho holds the light view of sin that is involved intheseman-madetheorieshastheslightestnotionofwhatitcostwhentheeternalSonofGodtookourplaceupontheaccursedtree.

Peoplesometimessay,indeed,thatitmakeslittledifferencewhattheoryoftheatonementwemayhold.Ah,myfriends,itmakesallthedifferencein the world. When you contemplate the cross of Christ, do you saymerely,withmoderntheorists, ‘Whatanobleexampleofself-sacrifice;IamgoingtoattainfavourwithGodbysacrificingmyselfaswellasHe.’Or

doyousaywiththeBible,‘HelovedmeandgaveHimselfforme;Hetookmyplace;Heboremycurse;HeboughtmewithHisownmostpreciousblood.’ That is the most momentous question that can come to anyhumansoul.IwantyoualltoturnwithmenextSundayafternoontotheWordofGodinorderthatwemayanswerthatquestionaright.

PartIII:TheBibleandtheCross

HAVINGobserved lastweekwhat are the leadingviews thathavebeenheldregardingthecrossofChrist,we turnnow to theBible inorder todiscoverwhichoftheseviewsisright.

DidJesusonthecrossreallytakeourplace,payingthepenaltyofGod’slawwhichjustlyresteduponus?Thatistheorthodoxorsubstitutionaryviewoftheatonement.

Or didHemerely exert a goodmoral influence upon us byHis death,eitherbygivingusanexhibitionoftheloveofGodorbyinspiringustosacrificeourlivesforthewelfareofothersasHesacrificedHimself?Thatistheso-calledmoral-influencetheoryoftheatonement.

OrdidHebyHisdeathmerelyconservethegooddisciplineoftheworldbyshowing that, in the interests of thewelfare of the greatest number,God cannot simply allow His law to be transgressed with completeimpunity?Thatistheso-calledgovernmentaltheoryoftheatonement.

WeshalltrytotestthesethreeviewsofthecrossofChristbycomparingthemwithwhattheBibleactuallysays.Butbeforewedoso,therearetwopreliminaryremarksthatweoughttomake.

Our first remark is that the three views of the atonement really reducethemselvestotwo.Boththemoral-influenceandthegovernmentalviewof the atonement reallymake the work of Christ terminate uponman,rather than upon God. They both proceed on the assumption that, inorder that man shall be forgiven, nothing but man’s repentance isrequired.They both of themdeny, at least by implication, that there is

suchathingasaneternalprincipleofjustice,notbasedmerelyupontheinterests of the creature but rooted in the nature of God— an eternalprinciple of justicedemanding that sin shallbepunished. They both ofthemfavourthenotionthattheethicalattributesofGodmaybesummedupintheoneattribute—benevolence.Theybothofthemtendtodistortthe great Scriptural assertion that ‘God is love’ into the very differentassertionthatGodisnothingbutlove.Theybothofthemtendtofindthesupreme end of the creation in the happiness or well-being of thecreature.TheybothofthemfailutterlytoattaintoanyhighnotionoftheawfulholinessofGod.

Nodoubtthegovernmentaltheorydisguisesthesetendenciesmorethanthemoral-influence theory does. It does show some recognition of themoralchaoswhichwouldresultifmengotthenotionthatthelawofGodcouldbetransgressedwithcompleteimpunity.

But,afterall,eventhegovernmentaltheorydeniesthatthereisanyrealunderlyingnecessity for thepunishmentofsin.Punishment, itholds, ismerely remedial and deterrent. It is intendedmerely to prevent futuresin,not to expiatepast sin.So the tragedyonCalvary, according to theadvocates of the governmental view, was intended by God merely toshocksinnersoutof theircomplacency; itwas intendedmerely toshowwhat terrible effects sin has so that sinners by observing those terribleeffectsmight be led to stop sinning. The governmental view, therefore,like themoral-influence view, has at its centre the notion that amoraleffectexerteduponmanwasthesolepurposeofthecrossofChrist.

Verydifferent is the substitutionaryview.According to that view,not ameremoraleffectuponmanbutthesatisfactionoftheeternaljusticeofGod was the primary end for which Christ died. Hence thesubstitutionary view of the atonement stands sharply over against theothertwo.Theothertwobelonginonecategory;thesubstitutionaryviewbelongsinanentirelydifferentcategory.ThatisthefirstremarkthatwedesiretomakebeforewebegintoconsidertheBiblicalteachingindetail.

Thatremark,however,wouldbedecidedlymisleadingunlesswewentontomakeasecondremark.Oursecondremarkisthatthesubstitutionary

viewoftheatonement,thoughitmakestheworkofChristindyinguponthecrossterminateprimarilyuponGod,yetdoesatthesametimemostemphaticallymakeitterminatealsouponman.WhatadistortionofthesubstitutionaryviewitwouldbetosaythatChrist,whenHedied,didnotdietoproduceamoraleffectuponman!

Of courseHe died to produce amoral effect uponman! IfHe had notdied,manwouldhavecontinuedtoleadalifeofsin;butasitis,thoseforwhom He died cease to lead a life of sin and begin to lead a life ofholiness.Theydonotleadthatlifeofholinessperfectlyinthisworld,buttheywillmostcertainlyleaditintheworldtocome,anditwasinorderthat theymight lead that life of holiness that Christ died for them.NomanforwhomChristdiedcontinuestoliveinsinashelivedbefore.Allwho receive the benefits of the cross of Christ turn from sin untorighteousness.Inholdingthatthatisthecase,thesubstitutionaryviewofthe atonement is quite in accord with the moral-influence theory andwiththegovernmentaltheory.

Well, then, is it correct to say that themoral-influence theory and thegovernmentaltheoryarecorrectasfarastheygoandmerelydifferfromthesubstitutionaryviewinbeinginadequateorincomplete?

No,Idonotthinkthatthatiscorrectatall.Yousee,theheartandcoreofthemoral-influencetheoryandthegovernmental theory is found inthedenialthatChristonthecrosstookourplaceandpaidthejustpenaltyofour sins that we might be right with God. Denying that, the moral-influencetheoryandtheexhibit thenecessityof somedeterrentagainstsinintheinterestsofanorderlyworld,ordidHedieonthecrossinordertopaythepenaltyofoursinandmakeusrightwiththeholyGod?

Whichofthesethreeviewsisright?That isthequestionwhichweshallseektoanswerbyanexaminationoftheWordofGod.

Atthebeginningof theexaminationthere isonefactwhichstaresus intheface. Ithassometimesbeenstrangelyneglected. It is the factof theenormousemphasiswhichtheBiblelaysuponthedeathofChrist.

Haveyoueverstoppedtoconsiderhowstrangethatemphasisis?Inthecase of other great men, it is the birth that is celebrated and not thedeath.Washington’sbirthdayiscelebratedbyagratefulAmericanpeopleonthetwenty-seconddayofFebruary,butwhoremembersonwhatdayoftheyearitwasthatWashingtondied?Whoeverthoughtofmakingthedayofhisdeathintoanationalholiday?

Well, therearesomemenwhosedeathmight indeedbecelebratedbyanational holiday, but they are not good men like George Washington;they are, on thecontrary,menwhose taking offwas a blessing to theirpeople.Itwouldbeasmallcomplimenttothefatherofhiscountryifwecelebratedwith national rejoicing the day when he was taken from us.Insteadof that,we celebratehisbirth.Yet in the caseof Jesus it is thedeath and not the birth that we chiefly commemorate in the Christianchurch.

IdonotmeanthatitiswrongforustocommemoratethebirthofJesus.WehavejustcelebratedChristmas,anditisrightforussotodo.Happyat thisChristmas season throughwhichwehave just passedhave beenthosetowhomithasnotbeenjustatimeofworldlyfestivitybutatimeofcommemoration of the coming of our blessed Saviour into this world.Happy have been those men and women and little children who haveheard,underlyingalltheirChristmasjoys,andhaveheardinsimpleandchildlikefaith,thesweetstorythatistoldusinMatthewandLuke.Happyhave been those celebrants of Christmas to whom the angels havebroughtagain, in the readingof theWordofGod, theirgoodtidings ofgreatjoy.

Yes, I say, thank God for the Christmas season; thank God for thesofteningthatitbringstostonyhearts;thankGodfortherecognitionthatitbringsforthelittlechildrenwhomJesustookintoHisarms;thankGodevenforthestrange,sweetsadness that itbrings tous togetherwith itsjoys,aswe thinkof the lovedoneswhoaregone.Yes, it iswell thatweshould celebrate the Christmas season; and may God ever give us achildlikeheartthatwemaycelebrateitaright.

But after all, my friends, it is not Christmas that is the greatest

anniversary in theChristianchurch. It isnot thebirthofJesus that thechurchchieflycelebrates,butthedeath.

Did you know that long centurieswent by in the history of the churchbeforethereisanyrecordofthecelebrationofChristmas?JesuswasborninthedaysofHerodtheKing—thatis,atsometimebefore4B.C.,whenHeroddied.Nottill centuries laterdowe findevidence that the churchcelebratedanyanniversaryregardedastheanniversaryofHisbirth.

Well,then,ifthatissowithregardtothecommemorationofJesus’birth,how is it with regard to the commemoration of His death? Was thecommemorationof that also so long postponed?Well, listen towhat issaidonthatsubjectbytheApostlePaul.‘Forasoftenasyeeatthisbread,’he says, ‘anddrink this cup, ye do shew theLord’s death till he come.’Thatwaswritten only about twenty-five years after the death of Christand after the founding of the church in Jerusalem.Even in those earlydays thedeathofChristwascommemoratedby the church in themostsolemnservice inwhich it engaged—namely, in the celebration of theLord’sSupper.

Indeed that commemoration of the death of Christ was definitelyprovided for by Jesus Himself. ‘This cup is the New Testament in myblood,’ said Jesus: ‘this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance ofme.’ In thosewords of institution of the Lord’s Supper, Jesus carefullyprovidedthatHischurchshouldcommemorateHisdeath.

ThustheBiblemakesnodefiniteprovisionforthecommemorationofthebirthofJesus,butprovidesinthemostdefiniteandsolemnwayforthecommemorationofHisdeath.

Whatisthereasonforthatcontrast,whichatfirstsightmightseemtobevery strange? I think the answer is fairly clear. The birth of Jesus wasimportant not in itself but because it made possible His death. Jesuscameintothisworld todie, and it is toHisdeath that the sinner turnswhenHe seeks salvation for his soul. Truly the familiar hymn is rightwhenitsaysaboutthecrossofChrist:

AllthelightofsacredstoryGathersrounditsheadsublime.

The whole Bible centres in the story of the death of Christ. The OldTestament looks forward to it; theNew Testament looks back upon it;and the truly Biblical preacher of the gospel says always with Paul: ‘Idetermined to know nothing among you, save Jesus Christ and himcrucified.’

Iaskyou,then,whichofthetheoriesoftheatonementsuitsthissupremeemphasiswhichtheBibleputsuponthecross.

Doesthemoral-influencetheorysuitit?Ithinknot,myfriends.IfJesusdied on the crossmerely to give us a good example of self-sacrifice ormerelytoexhibit,withoutunderlyingnecessity,theloveofGod,thentheBibledoesseemstrangelyoverwrought in theway inwhich it speaksofthedeathofChrist.ThenindeedallthetalkintheBibleaboutthebloodofChristandthebloodof thesacrificialvictimsthatwerepropheciesofHimbecomesjustaboutasdistastefulassomanymodernmenholdittobe.SomeverymuchgreatersignificancemustbeattributedtothedeathofChristthanamerehallowingofsomeuniversallawofself-sacrificeoramerepedagogicexhibitionofGod’s love, ifweare toexplaintheway inwhichtheBiblemakeseverythingtocentreintheeventthattookplaceonCalvary.

Thecaseisnotessentiallydifferentwhenweconsiderthegovernmentaltheory.Itistrue,thegovernmentaltheorydoesseek,asoveragainstthemoral-influence theory, to do justice to the emphasis which the BibleplacesjustonthedeathofChrist.Itregardsthetragichorrorofthecrossnot as merely incidental to the meaning of what Christ did but asessentialtoit.Itregardsthattragichorrorasbeingthethingthatshockssinners out of their complacency and makes them recognise theseriousness of sin.Hence it seeks to showwhy just the death of Christandnotsomeotherexhibitionofself-sacrificinglovewasnecessary.

But,afterall,whatashortwaysuchconsiderationsgotowardsexplaining

theBiblicalemphasisonthecrossofChrist!Thetruthisthatthereisjustonerealexplanationofsuchemphasis.ItisfoundinthefactthatChriston the crossdid somethingabsolutelynecessary ifwe sinnersare tobeforgivenbyarighteousGod.OncerecognisetheenormousbarrierwhichsinsetsupbetweentheoffenderandhisGod,oncerecognisethefactthatthatbarrier isrootednotmerely in thesinner’smindbut in theeternaljusticeofGod,andthenoncerecognisethatthecross,asthefullpaymentof thepenaltyof sin,hasbrokendown thebarrierandmade the sinnerright with God — once recognise these things and then only will youunderstand the strange pre-eminencewhich the Bible attributes to thecrossofChrist.

ThuseventhemereprominenceofthedeathofChristintheBible,tosaynothing of what the Bible says about the death of Christ in detail, is amightyargumentagainstallminimisingtheoriesofthesignificanceofthedeathofChristandamightyargument infavourof theviewthatChristonthecrossreallydiedinourstead,payingthedreadpenaltyofoursin,thatHemightpresentus,savedbygrace,beforethethrone.

In presentingwhat theBible says in detail about the death of Christ, IwanttospeakfirstofallofthosepassageswhereChrist’sdeathuponthecross isrepresentedasa ransom, thenabout thosepassageswhere it isspokenofasasacrifice,thenaboutthosepassageswhere,withouttheuseof either of these representations, its substitutionary or representativecharacterisplainlybroughtout.

The first passage thatwe shall speakof, nextSunday afternoon, is thatgreatpassageinthetenthchapteroftheGospelaccordingtoMarkwhereour Lord says that the Son ofMan came to giveHis life a ransom formany.

On this lastSundayof theoldyear, I justwant to say toyouwhohavebeen listening in on these Sunday afternoons howmuch encouraged IhavebeenbyyourinterestandbyyourChristianfellowship.ItrustthatyouhavehadaveryjoyousChristmasandItrustthatthenewyearwhichissosoontobeginmaybetoyouaveryblessedyearunderthemercyofGod.

TheTriuneGod

TheBibletellsusthereisapersonalGod,CreatorandRuleroftheWorld.God,accordingtotheBible,isnotanothernameforthemightyprocessofnature,andHeisnotsomeonepartoraspectofthatprocess,butHeisafreeandholyperson,whocreatedtheprocessofnaturebythefiatofHiswillandwhoiseternallyindependentoftheuniversethatHehasmade.

Nowweaskmore indetailwhat theBible tellsusaboutGod.Whenweask that, I knowwe shall bemetwith an objection.We are seeking toknowGod.Well,therearemanypeoplewhotellusthatweoughtnottoseektoknowGod.InsteadofseekingtoknowGod,theytellus,weoughtsimplytofeelHim;puttingalltheologyaside,theysay,weoughtjusttosinkourselvesintheboundlessoceanofGod'sbeing.

Suchistheattitudeofthemysticsancientandmodern.Butit isnottheattitude of the Christian. The Christian, unlike themystic, knowsHimwhomHehasbelieved.Whatshallbesaidofareligionthatdepreciatestheology,thatdepreciatestheknowledgeofGod?

AccordingtotheBible,weloveGodbecauseHefirstlovedus;andHehastoldusofHis love inHisholyWord.We loveGod, ifweobeywhat theBibletellsus,becauseGodhasmadeHimselfknowntousandhasthusshownHimselftobeworthyofourlove.

I do notmean to say that theChristian in his communionwithGod isalways rehearsing consciously the things that God has told us aboutHimself. But underlying that sweet and blessed communion of theChristianwithhisGod there isa trueknowledgeofGod.AcommunionwithGodwhichisindependentofthatknowledgeofGodiscommunionwithsomeothergodandnotwiththelivingandtrueGodwhomtheBiblereveals.

Every trueman is resentfulof slandersagainst ahuman friend.ShouldwenotbegrievedtentimesmorebyslandersagainstourGod?Howcanwepossiblylistenwithpolitecomplacency,then,whenmenbreakdown

thedistinctionbetweenGodandman,anddragGoddowntoman’slevel?Howcanwepossiblysay,asinonewayoranotherissooftensaid,thatorthodoxymakeslittledifference?Weshouldnevertalkinanysuchwayabout a human friend. We should never say with regard to a humanfriend that itmakes no difference whether our view of him is right orwrong.How,then,canwesaythatabsurdthingwithregardtoGod?

ThereallyconsistentChristiancanhavenothingwhatevertodowithsuchdoctrinalindifferentism.ThereisnothingsodishonoringtoGod,hewillsay,astobeindifferenttothethingsthatGodhastoldusaboutHimselfinHisholyWord.

What,then,hasGodtoldusaboutHimselfinHisWord?IntheShorterCatechismofthePresbyterianchurches,thereisthefollowinganswertothe question, "What is God?": "God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, andunchangeable, inHisbeing,wisdom,power,holiness, justice,goodness,andtruth."ThatansweriscertainlyinaccordancewiththeBible.IthinkitwillhelpusalittlebittogetstraightinourmindswhattheBiblesaysaboutGod.

Notice that God is here said to be infinite, eternal and unchangeable.What is meant by saying that He is infinite?Well, the word "infinite"means without an end or a limit. Other beings are limited: God isunlimited. I suppose it is easy for us to fall into our ordinary spatialconceptionsintryingtothinkofGod.Wemayimagineourselvespassingfromtheearthtotheremoteststarknowntomodernastronomy—many,many light-years away.Well, when we have got there, we are not oneslightest fraction of an inch nearer to fathoming infinity than we werewhenwestarted.Wemightimagineourselvestravelingtenmilliontimestenmillion times farther still, and stillwe should not be any nearer toinfinity thanwhenwestarted.Wecannotconceivea limit to space,butneithercanweconceiveofinfinitespace.Ourmindfaintsinthepresenceofinfinity.

Butwewerereallywronginusingthosespatialconceptionsinthinkingofinfinity, andparticularlywrongwerewe inusing spatial conceptions inthinkingoftheinfiniteGod.Itmayhelpustothethresholdofthetruthto

say that God pervades the whole vast area of the universe known toscience,andthen infinitelymore; itmayhelpus tothethresholdof thetruth to say thatGod inhabits infinite space: butwhenwe look a littledeeperweseethatspaceitselfbelongstofinitethingsandthatthenotionofinfinitespaceiswithoutmeaning.GodcreatedspacewhenHecreatedfinitethings.HeHimselfisbeyondspace.ThereisnonearandnofartoHim.EverythingtoHimisequallynear.

So it iswhenwe try to thinkofGodaseternal. If theword"infinity" isrelated,bywayofcontrast,tothenotionofspace,sotheword"eternity"isrelatedbywayofcontrast,tothenotionoftime.WhenwesaythatGodiseternal,wemeanthatHehadnobeginningandthatHewillhavenoend. But we really mean more than that. We mean that time has nomeaning for Him, save in connection with the creatures that He hasmade.Hecreated timewhenHecreated finite creatures.HeHimself isbeyondtime.ThereisnopastandnofuturetoHim.TheBibleputsthatinpoeticallanguagewhenitsays:"Forathousandyearsinthysightareasyesterdaywhen it ispast,andasawatch inthenight."WeofcourseareobligedtothinkoftheactionsofGodastakingplaceintime.Weareobliged to think ofHim as doing one thing after another thing;we areobligedtothinkofHimasdoingthistodayandthattomorrow.Wehaveaperfectrightsotothink,andtheBibleamplyconfirmsusinthatright.Tousthereisindeedsuchathingaspastandpresentandfuture,andwhenGoddealswithusHeactsinatrulytemporalseries.ButtoGodHimselfallthingsareequallypresent.Thereisnosuchthingas"before"or"after"toHim.

It is very important to see clearly thatGod is thus infinite, eternal andunchangeable.TheseattributesofGodareoftendenied.Thosewhohavedenied themtoldus thatGod isa finiteGod.WemustnotblameHim,theytellus,ifthingsarenotjustrightintheworld.HeisdoingthebestHecan,theysay;Heistryingtobringorderoutofchaos,butHeisfacedbyarecalcitrantmaterialwhichHedidnotcreateandwhichHecanmoldonlygraduallyandimperfectlytoHiswill.ItisourbusinesstohelpHim,andwhilewemayat firstsightregret thatwehavenot theall-powerfulGodthatweusedtothinkwehad,yetwecancomfortourselveswiththeinspiringthoughtthattheGodthatwedohaveneedsourhelpandindeed

cannotdowithoutit.

WhatshallwesayofsuchafiniteGod?IwilltellyouplainlywhatIthinkweoughttosayaboutHim.HeisnotGodbutagod.Heisaproductofmen'sthoughts.Menhavemademanysuchlittlegods.Ofthemakingofgods,asofthemakingofbooks,thereisnoend.But,asforusChristians,with our Bibles before us, we turn from all such little gods of man'smaking, out towards thedreadmystery of the infinite and eternal, andsay,asAugustinesaid,withaholyfear:"Thouhastmadeusforthyself,andourheartisrestlessuntilitfindsitsrestinthee."

Thedefinition in theShorterCatechism,whichweare taking togiveusouroutlineofwhattheBibletellsusaboutGod,saysnotonlythatGodisinfinite,eternalandunchangeableinHisbeingandinHispowerandinHisholiness,butalsothatHeisinfinite,eternalandunchangeableinHiswisdomandinHisjustice,goodnessandtruth.

Doesthatseemsurprisingtoyou inthe lightofwhatwehave justbeensaying?Well,perhaps itmightseemtobesurprising.Thesequalities—wisdom, justice, goodness and truth — are such startlingly humanqualities.Canweascribethemtothatinfinite,eternalandunchangeableGodofwhomwehavejustbeenspeaking?Ifwedotrytoascribethemtothat God, are we not guilty of a naive anthropomorphism? Are we notguiltyofthechildisherrorofthinkingofGodasthoughHewerejustabigmanupinthesky?Arewenotguiltyofmakingagodinourownimage?

Theansweris:No,wearenotguiltyofthat.IfwethinkofGodashavingsomeattributeswhichwealsopossess,wemayconceivablybedoingitforone or the other of two reasons. In the first place, wemay be doing itbecausewearemakingGodinourownimage.But,inthesecondplace,wemaybedoingitbecauseGodhasmadeusinHisimage.

TheBibletellsusthatthissecondalternativeiscorrect.Godmademaninthe image of God, and that is the reason why God possesses someattributeswhichman also possesses, thoughGodpossesses them to aninfinitelyhigherdegree.

The Bible is not afraid of speaking of God in a startlingly tender andhumansortofway.ItdoessojustinpassageswherethemajestyofGodisset forth. "It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth," says thefortieth chapter of Isaiah, "and the inhabitants thereof are asgrasshoppers." "All nations before Him are as nothing; and they arecountedtoHimlessthannothing,andvanity."Butwhatsaysthatsamefortieth chapter of Isaiah about this same terribleGod?Here iswhat itsays:"Heshall feedhisflocklikeashepherd:Heshallgatherthelambswithhis arm, and carry them inhisbosom, and shall gently lead thosewhoarewithyoung."

How wonderfully the Bible sets forth the tenderness of God! Is thatmerely figurative? Are we wrong in thinking of God in such childlikefashion? Many philosophers say so. They will not think of God as aperson.Oh,no.ThatwouldbedraggingHimdowntoomuchtoourlevel!SotheymakeofHimapaleabstraction.TheBibleseemschildishtotheminthewarm,personalwayinwhichitspeaksofGod.

ArethosephilosophersrightoristheBibleright?ThankGod,theBibleisright. The philosophers despise children who think of God as theirheavenly Father. But the philosophers are wrong and the children areright.DidnotourLordJesussay:"Ithankthee,OFather,Lordofheavenandearth,becausethouhasthidthesethingsfromthewiseandprudent,andhastrevealedthemuntobabes."

No, God is no pale abstraction. He is a person. That simple truth —precious possession of simple souls — is more profound than all thephilosophiesofalltheages.

Butnowwecometoagreatmystery.God,accordingtotheBible,isnotjust one person, butHe is three persons in oneGod. That is the greatmysteryoftheTrinity.

The Trinity is revealed to us only in the Bible. God has revealed somethingstousthroughnatureandthroughconscience.ButtheTrinityisnotamongthem.ThisHehasrevealedtousbysupernaturalrevelationandbysupernaturalrevelationalone.

TheNewTestamentisfoundedthroughoutonthedoctrineoftheTrinity,and the doctrine was really established by the great facts of theincarnationoftheSonofGodandtheworkoftheHolySpirit,evenbeforeitwasenunciatedinwords.

WhattheNewTestamentordinarilydoesistostatepartsofthedoctrine,sothatwhenweputthosepartstogether,andwhenwesummarizethem,we have the great doctrine of the three persons and one God. Forexample, all passages in the New Testament where the deity of JesusChrist is set forth are, when taken in connection with passages settingforththedeityandpersonalityoftheHolySpirit,passagessupportingthedoctrineoftheTrinity.

Butwhatneedstobeobservednowisthatalthoughbyfarthelargerpartof theBiblical teachingabout theTrinity isgiven in that incidentalandpartialway—presupposingthedoctrineratherthanformallyenunciatingit as a whole — yet there are some passages where the doctrine isdefinitely presented by themention, together, of Father, Son andHolySpirit.

The most famous of such passages, I suppose, is found in the greatcommission, given by the risen Lord to His disciples according to thetwenty-eighth chapter of Matthew. "Go ye therefore, and teach allnations,baptizingtheminthenameoftheFather,andoftheSon,andofthe Holy Spirit." There we have a mention of all three persons of theTrinity in themost complete co-ordination and equality— yet all threepersons are plainly not three Gods but one. Here, in this solemncommission by our Lord, the God of all true Christians is foreverdesignatedasatriuneGod.

Wethinkalso,forexample,oftheapostolicbenedictionattheendoftheSecondEpistle to theCorinthians: "The grace of theLord JesusChrist,andtheloveofGod,andthecommunionoftheHolySpirit,bewithyouall." Here the terminology is a little different from that in the greatcommission.PaulspeaksoftheSonas"theLord."Buttheword"Lord"inthePaulineEpistlesisplainlyadesignationofdeity,liketheotherGreek

wordwhichistranslatedintoEnglishbytheword"God."ItistheGreekword used to translate the holy name of God, "Jehovah," in the Greektranslation of the Old Testament which Paul used, and Paul does nothesitate to apply to Christ Old Testament passages which speak ofJehovah.

Thatbringsustosomethingsupremelyimportant intheteachingofthewhole New Testament about the Trinity. It is this — that the NewTestamentwriters,inpresentingGodastriune,areneverforonemomentconsciousofsayinganythingthatcouldbyanypossibilityberegardedascontradictingtheOldTestamentteachingthatthereisbutoneGod.Thatteaching is at the very heart and core of theOldTestament. It is everywhit as much at the heart and core of the New Testament. The NewTestamentisjustasmuchopposedastheOldTestamentistothethoughtthat there aremoreGods than one. Yet theNewTestamentwith equalclearnessteachesthattheFatherisGodandtheSonisGodandtheHolySpirit is God, and that these three are not three aspects of the samepersonbutthreepersonsstandinginatrulypersonalrelationshiptooneanother.Therewehave thegreatdoctrineof the threepersonsbutoneGod.

That doctrine is amystery.No humanmind can fathom it. Yetwhat ablessedmysteryitis!TheChristian’sheartmeltswithinhimingratitudeand joy when he thinks of the divine love and condescension that hasthus lifted the veil and allowed us sinful creatures a look into the verydepthsofthebeingofGod.

Iaskyounowtoconsideronegreatcentralpartofthedoctrine,thedeityofourLordJesusChrist.WhentheBiblesaysthatChristisGod,itdoesnotaskusto forgetasingle thingthat ithassaidabout thestupendousmajestyofGod.No,itasksustoremembereveryoneofthosethingsinorderthatwemayapplythemalltoJesusChrist.

TheBibletellsusinthefirstversethatGodinthebeginningcreatedtheheavenand theearth.Does it askus to forget thatwhen it tellsus thatJesus Christ is God?No, it asks us to remember that. It says of JesusChrist:"Allthingsweremadebyhim;andwithouthimwasnotanything

madethatwasmade."

TheBibletellsusthatGodisinfinite,eternal,andunchangeable.DoesitaskustoforgetthatwhenittellsusthatChristisGod?No,ittellsustorememberthat."IamAlphaandOmega,"saysChrist,"thebeginningandthe end, the first and the last." "Before Abraham was, I am." "In thebeginningwastheWord.""Heisbeforeallthings,andbyhimallthingsconsist."

TheBible tellsus thatGod isholy.Does itaskus to forget thatwhen ittellsusthatChristisGod?LetthewholeNewTestamentgivetheanswer.

The Bible tells us that God ismysterious. Does it ask us to forget thatwhenittellsusthatChristisGod?No,ittellsusthattherearemysteriesin Christ which only God can know. No one knoweth the Son but theFather,saysJesus,asnooneknoweththeFatherbuttheSon.

TheBibletellsusthatGodisthefinaljudge.DoesitaskustoforgetthatwhenittellsusthatJesusisGod?No,JesusHimselfsaidintheSermonontheMountthatHewouldsituponthejudgmentthronetojudgealltheearth.

Everywhereitisthesame.TheBiblefromGenesistoRevelationpresentsastupendousviewofGod,andthenittellsusthatJesusChristisallthatGodis.

FaithandWorks

Becauseofthefundamentalnatureoffaith,asithasbeensetforth,onthebasisoftheNewTestamentteaching, inthelastchapter, it isnaturaltofind that in theNew Testament faith, as the reception of a free gift, isplaced in sharpest contrast with any intrusion of human merit; it isnaturaltofindthatfaithissharplycontrastedwithworks.Thecontrastisreally impliedby theNewTestament throughout, and in one book, theEpistle to the Galatians, it forms the express subject of the argument.Thatbookfromthebeginningtotheendisamightypolemicindefenceofthedoctrineofjustificationbyfaithalone;andassuchithasrightlybeencalled the Magna Charta of Christian liberty. At the beginning of thesixteenthcenturytheworldwaslyingindarkness;butGodthenraisedupamanwhoreadthisEpistlewithhisowneyes,andtheReformationwasborn. So it may be in our own day. Again, the world is sinking intobondage; the liberty of the sons of God is again giving place to thebondage of a religion ofmerit: butGod still lives, andHis Spirit againmaybringthecharterofourlibertytolight.

Meanwhileastrangedarknesscoverstheeyesofmen;themessageofthegreat Epistle, so startlingly clear to the man whose eyes have beenopened,ishiddenbyamassofmisinterpretationasabsurdinitswayasthe mediaeval rubbish of the fourfold sense of Scripture which theReformationbrushedaside.Grammatico-historical interpretation isstillbeing favored in theory,butdespite isbeingdone to it (bypreachers ifnot by scholars) in practice; and the Apostle is being made to sayanythingthatmenwishhimtohavesaid.AnewReformation,wethink,like theReformationof thesixteenthcentury,wouldbemarked,amongotherthings,byareturntoplaincommonsense;andtheApostlewouldbeallowed,despiteourlikesanddislikes,tosaywhathereallymeanttosay.

ButwhatdidtheApostle, intheEpistletotheGalatians,reallymeantosay;againstwhatwashewritinginthatgreatpolemic;andwhatwashesettingupinplaceofthatwhichhewasendeavoringtodestroy?

TheanswerwhichmanymodernwritersaregivingtothisquestionisthattheApostle isarguingmerelyagainstanexternalceremonial religioninthe interests of a religion based on great principles; that he is arguingagainstapiecemealconceptionofmoralitywhichmakesmoralityconsistin a series of disconnected rules, in the interests of a conception thatdrawsouthumanconductnaturallyfromacentralrootinlove;thatheisarguing,inotherwords,againstthe"letterofthelaw"intheinterestsofits"spirit."

Thisinterpretation,wethink,involvesanerrorwhichcutsawaytheveryvitals of the Christian religion. Like other fatal errors, indeed, it doescontainanelementoftruth;inonepassage,atleast,intheEpistletotheGalatians Paul does seem to point to the external character of theceremonial law as being inferior to the higher (or to use modernterminology, more "spiritual") stage to which religion, under the newdispensation,hadcome.Butthatpassageisisolatedmerely,andcertainlydoes not in itself give the key to the meaning of the Epistle. On thecontrary, even in that passage, when it is taken in its context, theinferiorityof theolddispensationas involvingceremonialrequirementsisreallyputmerelyasasignofaninferioritythatisdeeperstill;anditisthatdeeper inferioritywhich theEpistle as awhole is concerned to setforth.Theceremonialcharacterof theOldTestament law,so inferiortotheinwardnessofthenewdispensation,wasintendedbyGodtomarktheinferiority of any dispensation of law as distinguished from adispensationofgrace.

Ofcourseawordofcautionshouldagainat thispointbe injected.Paulnevermeanstosaythattheolddispensationwasmerelyadispensationof law;healwaysadmits,and indeed insistsupon, theelementofgracewhichranthroughitfrombeginningtoend,theelementofgracewhichappearedinthePromise.ButhisopponentsinGalatiahadrejectedthatelement of grace; and their use of the Old Testament law, asdistinguished from its right use as a schoolmaster unto Christ, reallymadeoftheolddispensationadispensationoflawandnothingmore.

Whatthen,accordingtoPaul,wasthereal,underlyinginferiorityofthatdispensation of law; how was it to be contrasted with the newdispensation which Christ had ushered in? It is hard to see how the

answertothisquestioncanreallyberegardedasobscure:theApostlehaspoured forthhisvery soul tomake thematterplain.Most emphaticallythe contrastwas not between a lower law and a higher law; itwas notbetweenanexternal, piecemeal conceptionof the lawanda conceptionwhich reduces it to great underlying principles; but it was a contrastbetweenanykindoflaw,nomatterhowsublimated,providedonly itbeconceivedofasawayofobtainingmerit,andtheabsolutelyfreegraceofGod.

This contrast is entirely missed by the interpretation that prevailspopularly in the Modernist Church: the advocates of "salvation bycharacter" have supposed that the polemic of the Apostle was turnedmerely against certain forgotten ceremonialists of long ago, while inreality it is turned quite as much against them. It is turned, indeed,againstanymanwhoseekstostandinGod'ssightonthebasisofhisownmeritinsteadofonthebasisofthesacrificewhichChristofferedtosatisfydivine justiceuponthecross.Thetruth is that theprevailingModernistinterpretationofGalatians,whichisinsomerespectsapparentlyjusttheinterpretation favored by the Roman Church, makes the Apostle sayalmosttheexactoppositeofwhathemeans.

TheModernistreturntomediaevalismintheinterpretationofGalatiansisno isolated thing,but isonlyoneaspectofamisinterpretationof thewhole Bible; in particular it is closely akin to a misinterpretation of agreatsentenceinoneoftheotherEpistlesofPaul.ThesentencetowhichwereferisfoundinIICorinthiansiii.6:"Theletterkilleth,buttheSpiritgivethlife."

That sentence is perhaps themost frequentlymisused utterance in thewhole Bible. It has indeed in this respect much competition: manyphrasesintheNewTestamentarebeingusedtodaytomeanalmosttheirexactopposite,asforexample,whenthewords,"GodinChrist"andthelike,aremadetobeanexpressionofthevaguepantheismsopopularjustnow,or aswhen the entire gospel of redemption is regardedas ameresymbolofanoptimisticviewofmanagainstwhich thatdoctrinewas inrealityastupendousprotest,oraswhenthedoctrineoftheincarnationisrepresentedas indicatingtheessentialonenessofGodandman!OneisremindedconstantlyatthepresenttimeofthewayinwhichtheGnostics

of the second century used Biblical texts to support their thoroughlyunBiblicalsystems.Thehistoricalmethodofstudy,inAmericaatleast,isvery generally being abandoned; and the New Testament writers arebeingmadetosayalmostanythingthattwentieth-centuryreaderscouldhavewishedthemtosay.

This abandonment of scientific historical method in exegesis, which ismerely one manifestation of the intellectual decadence of our day,appearsatcountlesspointsincontemporaryreligiousliterature;butatnopointdoes it appearwith greater clearness than in connectionwiththegreatutterance inIICorinthianstowhichwehavereferred,Thewords:"Theletterkilleth,buttheSpiritgivethlife,"areconstantlyinterpretedtomeanthatweareperfectlyjustifiedintakingthelawofGodwithagrainof salt; they are held to indicate that Paul was no "literalist," but a"Liberal,"whobelievedthattheOldTestamentwasnottrueindetailandtheOldTestamentlawwasnotvalidindetail,butthatallGodrequiresisthatwe should extract the few great principleswhich theBible teachesand not insist upon the rest. In short, the words are held to involve acontrastbetweentheletterofthelawand"thespiritofthelaw";theyareherdtomeanthatliteralismisdeadly,whileattentiontogreatprincipleskeepsamanintellectuallyandspirituallyalive.

Thus has one of the greatest utterances in the New Testament beenreducedtocomparativetriviality-atrivialitywithakerneloftruthin it,to be sure, but triviality all the same. The triviality, indeed, is merelyrelative;nodoubtitisimportanttoobservethatattentiontothegeneralsenseofabookoralawisfarbetterthansuchareadingofdetailsasthatthecontextinwhichthedetailsarefoundisignored.ButallthatisquiteforeigntothemeaningoftheApostleinthispassage,andis,thoughquitetrue and quite important in its place, trivial in comparison with thetremendousthingthatPaulishereendeavoringtosay.

WhatPaulisreallydoinghereisnotcontrastingtheletterofthelawwiththespiritofthelaw,butcontrastingthelawofGodwiththeSpiritofGod.When he says, "The letter killeth," he is making no contemptuousreferencetoapedanticliteralismwhichshrivelsthesoul;butheissettingforththeterriblemajestyofGod'slaw.Theletter,the"thingwritten,"inthelawofGod,saysPaul,pronouncesadreadsentenceofdeathuponthe

transgressor;but theHolySpiritofGod,asdistinguished fromthe law,giveslife.

The lawofGod,Paulmeans, is,as law,external. It isGod'sholywill towhich we must conform; but it contains in itself no promise of itsfulfilment;itisonethingtohavethelawwritten,andquiteanotherthingtohaveitobeyed.Infact,becauseofthesinfulnessofourhearts,becauseofthepoweroftheflesh,therecognitionofGod'slawonlymakessintakeon thedefinite formof transgression; itonlymakessinmoreexceedingsinful.ThelawofGodwaswrittenontablesofstoneorontherollsoftheOldTestamentbooks,butitwasquiteadifferentthingtogetitwrittenintheheartsandlivesofthepeople.Soitistoday.Thetextisofverywideapplication. The law of God, however it comes to us, is "letter"; it is a"thingwritten."externaltotheheartsandlivesofmen.ItiswrittenintheOldTestament;itiswrittenintheSermonontheMount;itiswritteninJesus' stupendous command of love for God and one's neighbor; it iswritteninwhateverwaywebecomeconsciousofthecommandsofGod.Letnoonesaythatsuchanextensionofthetextinvolvesthatveryanti-historicalmodernizingwhichwehavejustdenounced;onthecontraryitisamplyjustifiedbyPaulhimself."WhentheGentiles,"Paulsays,"whichhave not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these,havingnotthelaw,arealawuntothemselves."1TheOldTestamentlawisjustaclear,authenticpresentationofalawofGodunderwhichallmenstand.

And that law, according to Paul, issues a dreadful sentence of eternaldeath. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die"; not thehearer of the law isjustifiedbutthedoerofit.And,alas,nonearedoers;allhavesinned.ThelawofGodisholyandjustandgood;itisinexorable;andwehavefallenunderitsjustcondemnation.

ThatisatbottomwhatPaulmeansbythewords,"Theletterkilleth."Hedoesnotmeanthatattentiontopedanticdetailsshrivelsanddeadensthesoul. No doubt that is true, at least within certain limits; it is a usefulthought. But it is trivial indeed compared with what Paul means.Somethingfarmoremajestic, farmoreterrible, ismeantby thePaulinephrase. The "letter" that theApostlemeans is the same as the curse ofGod'slawthathespeaksofinGalatians;itisthedreadfulhandwritingof

ordinances thatwas against us; and thedeathwithwhich it kills is theeternaldeathofthosewhoareforeverseparatedfromGod.

Butthatisnotallofthetext."Theletterkilleth,"Paulsays,"buttheSpiritgiveth life."There isnodoubtaboutwhatbemeansby "theSpirit."Hedoes notmean the "spirit of the law" as contrasted with the letter; becertainlydoesnotmeanthelaxinterpretationofGod'scommandswhichisdictatedbyhumanlustorpride;hecertainlydoesnotmeanthespiritofman.NorealstudentofPaul,whateverbehisownreligiousviews,candoubt, I think, but that theApostlemeans theSpirit ofGod.God's lawbrings death because of sin; but God's Spirit, applying to the soul theredemptionofferedbyChrist,bringslife.Thethingthatiswrittenkilleth;buttheHolySpirit, inthenewbirth,or,asPaulsays, thenewcreation,givethlife.

The contrast runs all through theNew Testament.Hopelessness underthelawisdescribed,forexample,intheseventhchapterofRomans."Ohwretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of thisdeath?"2Butthishopelessnessistranscendedbythegospel."ForthelawoftheSpiritoflifeinChristJesushathmademefreefromthelawofsinanddeath."3Thelaw'sjustsentenceofcondemnationwasborneforusbyChrist who suffered in our stead; the handwriting of ordinances whichwas against us - the dreadful "letter" -was nailed to the cross, andwehaveafreshstartinthefullfavorofGod.AndinadditiontothisnewandrightrelationtoGod,theSpiritofGodalsogivesthesinneranewbirthandmakeshimanew creature.TheNewTestament frombeginning toenddealsgloriouslywith thisworkofgrace.Thegivingof lifeofwhichPaulspeaksinthistextisthenewbirth,thenewcreation;itisChristwholiveth in us.Here is the fulfillment of the great prophecy of Jeremiah:"ButthisshallbethecovenantthatIwillmakewiththehouseofIsrael;Afterthosedays,saiththeLord,Iwillputmylawintheirinwardparts,andwrite it in their hearts."4 The law is no longer for the Christian acommand which it is for him by his own strength to obey, but itsrequirements are fulfilled through themightypowerof theHolySpirit.Thereisthegloriousfreedomofthegospel.ThegospeldoesnotabrogateGod'slaw,butitmakesmenloveitwithalltheirhearts.

How is it with us? The law of God stands over us; we have offended

against it in thought,wordanddeed; itsmajestic "letter"pronouncesasentenceofdeathagainstoursin.Shallweobtainaspecioussecuritybyignoring God's law, and by taking refuge in an easier law of our owndevising?Or shall the Lord Jesus, asHe is offered to us in the gospel,wipeoutthesentenceofcondemnationthatwasagainstus,andshalltheHolySpiritwriteGod'slawinourheart,andmakeusdoersofthelawandnothearersonly?Soandonlysowillthegreattextbeappliedtous:"Theletterkilleth,buttheSpiritgivethlife."

Thealternativethatunderliesthisverse,then,andthatbecomesexplicitinGalatiansalso,isnotanalternativebetweenanexternalorceremonialreligionandwhatmenwouldnowcall(byamisuseoftheNewTestamentword)a "spiritual" religion, important though thatalternative no doubtis; but it is an alternative between a religion ofmerit and a religion ofgrace. TheEpistle to theGalatians is directed just asmuch against themodernnotionof"salvationbycharacter"orsalvationby"makingChristMaster"inthelifeorsalvationbyamereattempttoputintopractice"theprinciplesofJesus,"asitisdirectedagainsttheJewishceremonialistsoflong ago: forwhat theApostle is concerned todeny is any intrusionofhumanmerit into thework bywhich salvation is obtained. That work,accordingtotheEpistletotheGalatiansandaccordingtothewholeNewTestament,istheworkofGodandofGodalone.

AtthispointappearsthefullpoignancyofthegreatEpistlewithwhichwehavebeendealing.Paul isnotmerelyarguing thataman is justifiedbyfaith-somuchnodoubthisopponents,theJudaizers,admitted-butheisarguingthatamanisjustifiedbyfaithalone.WhattheJudaizerssaidwasnotthatamanis justifiedbyworks,butthatheisjustifiedbyfaithandworks-exactlythethingthatisbeingtaughtbytheRomanCatholicChurchtoday.Nodoubttheyadmittedthatitwasnecessaryforamantohavefaith inChrist in order to be saved: but theyheld that itwas alsonecessaryforhimtokeepthelawthebesthecould;salvation,accordingtothem,wasnotbyfaithaloneandnotbyworksalonebutbyfaithandworkstogether.Aman'sobediencetothelawofGod,theyheld,wasnotindeed, sufficient for salvation, but it was necessary; and it becamesufficientwhenitwassupplementedbyChrist.

Against this compromising solution of the problem, the Apostle insists

uponasharpalternative:amanmaybesavedbyworks(ifhekeepsthelaw perfectly), or hemay be saved by faith; but he cannot possibly besaved by faith and works together. Christ, according to Paul, will doeverything ornothing; if righteousness is in slightestmeasure obtainedby our obedience to the law, then Christ died in vain; if we trust inslightestmeasureinourowngoodworks,thenwehaveturnedawayfromgraceandChristprofitethusnothing.

To the world, thatmay seem to be a hard saying: but it is not a hardsayingtothemanwhohaseverbeenatthefootoftheCross;it isnotahardsayingtothemanwhohasfirstknownthebondageofthelaw,thewearyeffortatestablishmentofhisownrighteousnessinthepresenceofGod,and thenhascome tounderstand,as inawondrous flashof light,thatChrist has done all, and that theweary bondagewas vain.What agreattheologianistheChristianheart-theChristianheartthathasbeentouchedbyredeeminggrace!ThemanwhohasfelttheburdenofsinrollawayatthesightoftheCross,whohassaidoftheLordJesus,"HelovedmeandgaveHimself forme,"whohassungwithToplady: "Nothing inmyhandI bring, Simply to Thy cross I cling" - thatman knows in hisheartofheartsthattheApostleisright,thattotrustChristonlyforpartisnottotrustHimatall,thatourownrighteousnessisinsufficienteventobridge the smallest gapwhichmight be left open betweenus andGod,thatthereisnohopeunlesswecansafelysaytotheLordJesus,withoutshadow of reservation, without shadow of self-trust: "Thoumust save,andThoualone."

That is the centre of the Christian religion - the absolutely undeservedandsovereigngraceofGod,savingsinfulmenbythegiftofChristuponthecross.Condemnationcomesbymerit;salvationcomesonlybygrace:condemnationisearnedbyman;salvationisgivenbyGod.Thefactofthegrace of God runs through the New Testament like a golden thread;indeed for it theNewTestament exists. It is found in thewordswhichJesus spoke in the days of His flesh, as in the parables of the servantcoming in fromthe fieldandof the laborers in thevineyard; it is foundmore fully set forth after the redeemingworkwasdone, after theLordhad uttered his triumphant "It is finished" upon the cross. EverywherethebasisoftheNewTestamentisthesame-themysterious,incalculable,

wondrous,graceofGod,"Thewagesofsinisdeath;butthegiftofGodiseternallifethroughJesusChristourLord."5

The receptionof thatgift is faith: faithmeansnotdoing somethingbutreceiving something; it means not the earning of a reward but theacceptanceofagift.Amancanneverbesaidtoobtainathingforhimselfifbeobtains itby faith; indeed to say thatheobtains itby faith isonlyanotherwayofsayingthathedoesnotobtainit forhimselfbutpermitsanother to obtain it for him. Faith, in other words, is not active butpassive;andtosaythatwearesavedbyfaithistosaythatwedonotsaveourselvesbutaresavedonlybytheoneinwhomourfaithisreposed;thefaithofmanpresupposesthesovereigngraceofGod.

Even yet, however, we have not sounded the full depths of the NewTestamentteaching;wehavenotyetfullysetforththeplaceinsalvationwhichtheBibleassignstothegraceofGod.Asortofrefuge,inwhatwehavesaidso far,mayseemtohavebeen left for theprideofman.Mandoesnotsavehimself,wehavesaid;Godsaveshim.Butmanacceptsthatsalvationbyfaith;andfaith,thoughanegativeact,seemstobeakindofact:salvationisfreelyofferedbyGod;theofferofitdoesnotdependatalluponman;yetamanmightseemtoobtainasortofmeritbynotresistingthatofferwhenonceitisgivenhimbyGod.

Buteventhislastrefugeofhumanprideissearchedoutanddestroyedbythe teaching of God'sWord; for the Bible represents even faith itself -littlemerit as it could in any case involve - as thework of theSpiritofGod. The Spirit, according to a true summary of the New Testament,worksfaithinusandtherebyunitesustoChristinoureffectualcalling;sovereignandresistlessisGod'sgrace;andourfaithismerelythemeanswhich the Spirit uses to apply to us the benefits of Christ's redeemingwork.

ThemeanswasofGod's choosing,notours; and it isnot forus to say,"WhatdoestThou?"Yetevenwe,weakandignorantthoughweare,cansee,Ithink,whythisparticularmeanswaschosentouniteustoChrist;why faith was chosen instead of love, for example, as the channel bywhichsalvationcouldenterintoourlives.Loveisactive;faithispassive;hencefaithnotlovewaschosen.IftheBiblehadsaidthatwearesavedby

love, theneven thoughour lovewasaltogether thegiftof theSpirit,wemighthave thought that itwasourown,andsowemighthaveclaimedsalvationasourright.Butas it is,notonlywerewesavedbygrace,butbecauseofthepeculiarmeanswhichGodusedtosaveus,weknewthatweweresavedbygrace;itwasoftheverynatureoffaithtomakeusknowthatwewerenotsavingourselves.Evenbeforewecouldloveasweoughttolove,evenbeforewecoulddoanythingorfeelanythingaright,weweresavedby faith;wewere savedbyabandoningall confidence inourownthoughts or feelings or actions and by simply allowing ourselves to besavedbyGod.

In one sense, indeed, we were saved by love; that indeed is an evenprofounderfactthanthatweweresavedbyfaith.Yes,weweresavedbylove, but it was by a greater love than the love in our cold and sinfulhearts;weweresavedbylove,butitwasnotourloveforGodbutGod'sloveforus,God'sloveforusbywhichhegavetheLordJesustodieforusuponthecross."Hereinislove,notthatwelovedGod,butthatHelovedus,andsenthisSontobethepropitiationforoursins."Thatlovealoneisthelovethatsaves.Andthemeansbywhichitsavesisfaith.

Thus the beginning of the Christian life is not an achievement but anexperience; the soul of themanwho is saved is not, at themoment ofsalvation,active,butpassive;salvationistheworkofGodandGodalone.That does not mean that the Christian is unconscious when salvationentershislife;itdoesnotmeanthatheisplacedinatrance,orthathisordinary faculties are in abeyance; on the contrary the great transitionoftenseemstobeaverysimple thing;overpoweringemotionalstress isbynomeansalwayspresent;andfaithisalwaysaconsciousconditionofthe soul. There is, moreover, a volitional aspect of faith, in which itappearstothemanwhobelievestobeinducedbyaconsciouseffortofhiswill,aconsciouseffortofhiswillbywhichheresolvestoceasetryingtosave himself and resolves to accept, instead, the salvation offered byChrist.Thepreacherofthegospeloughttoappeal,wethink,ineverywayinhispower,totheconsciouslifeofthemanwhomheistryingtowin;heought toremove intellectualobjectionsagainst the truthofChristianity,andadducepositivearguments;heought toappeal to theemotions;heoughttoseek,byexhortation, tomovethewill.All thesemeansmaybe

used, and have been used countless times, by the Spirit of God; andcertainly,we have not intended to disparage themby anything thatwehavejustsaid.Butwhatwedomaintainisthatthoughnecessarytheyarenotsufficient;theywillneverbringamantofaithinChristunlessthereiswith them themysterious, regeneratingpowerof the Spirit ofGod.Wearenotpresumingtotreatherethepsychologyoffaith;andcertainlywedonotthinkthatsuchapsychologyoffaithisatallnecessarytothemanwho believes; indeed the less he thinks about his own states ofconsciousnessandthemorebethinksaboutChristthebetteritwilloftenbeforhissoul.Butthismuchatleastcanbesaid:evenconsciousstatescanbeinducedinsupernaturalfashionbytheSpiritofGod,andsuchaconscious state is the faith by which a man first accepts Christ as hisSaviourfromsin.

But if thebeginningof theChristian life is thusnotanachievementbutanexperience,ifamanisnotreallyactive,butpassive,whenbeissaved,iffaithistobeplacedinsharpcontrastwithworks,whatbecomesoftheethicalcharacteroftheChristianreligion,whatbecomesofthestimuluswhich it has always given to human individuality and to the sense ofhumanworth, what becomes of the vigorous activity which, inmarkedcontrastwithsomeoftheothergreatreligionsoftheworld,ithasalwaysencouragedinitsadherents?Suchquestionsareperfectlylegitimate;andtheyshowthatweareveryfarfromhavinggiven,uptothepresentpoint,anyadequateaccountof the relation, in theChristian religion,betweenfaithandworks,orbetweendoctrineandlife.

Thatrelationmustthereforenowbeexamined,thoughstillbriefly,alittlemoreindetail.

Theexaminationmaybestbebegunbyaconsiderationofwhathasbeenregarded by some devout readers of the Bible as a serious difficulty,namely the apparent contradiction between the second chapter ofGalatiansandthesecondchapteroftheEpistleofJames."Amanisnotjustifiedbytheworksofthelaw,butonlythroughfaithinChristJesus,"saysPaul;7"Yeseethenhowthatbyworksamanisjustifiedandnotbyfaith only," says James.8 These two verses in their juxtapositionconstituteanancientBiblicaldifficulty.IntheversefromGalatiansamanissaidtobecomerightwithGodbyfaithaloneapartfromworks;inthe

versefromJamesheissaidtobecomerightwithGodnotbyfaithalonebutbyfaithandworks.Iftheversesaretakenoutoftheirwidercontextandplacedsidebyside,acontradictioncouldscarcelyseemtobemorecomplete.

The Pauline doctrine of justification by faith alone,whichwe have justtreatedatconsiderablelength,is,aswehaveseen,theveryfoundationofChristian liberty. Itmakes our standingwithGod dependent not at alluponwhatwehavedone,butaltogetheruponwhatGodhasdone.Ifoursalvationdependeduponwhatwehaddone,then,accordingtoPaul,weshould still be bondslaves; we should still be endeavoring feverishly tokeepGod'slawsowellthatattheendwemightpossiblywinHisfavor.Itwould be a hopeless endeavor because of the deadly guilt of sin; weshouldbe likedebtorsendeavoring topay,but in theveryeffortgettingdeeperanddeeperintodebt.Butasit is, inaccordancewiththegospel,GodhasgrantedusHisfavorasanabsolutelyfreegift;Hehasbroughtusintoright relation toHimselfnoton thebasisof anymeritofours,butaltogetheronthebasisofthemeritofChrist.Greatistheguiltofoursins;butChristtookitalluponHimselfwhenHediedforusonCalvary.Wedonotneed,then,tomakeourselvesgoodbeforewebecomeGod'schildren;butwe can come toGod just asweare, all ladenwithour sins, andbequite certain that the guilt of sinwill be removed and thatwe shall bereceived.WhenGodlooksuponus,toreceiveusortocastusoff,itisnotusthatHeregardsbutourgreatAdvocate,ChristJesustheLord.

Suchisthegloriouscertaintyofthegospel.ThesalvationoftheChristianis certain because it depends altogether upon God; if it depended inslightest measure upon us, the certainty of it would be gone. Henceappears the vital importance of the great Reformation doctrine ofjustification by faith alone; that doctrine is at the very centre ofChristianity.ItmeansthatacceptancewithGodisnotsomethingthatweearn; it isnotsomethingthat issubjecttothewretcheduncertaintiesofhumanendeavor;butitisafreegiftofGod.ItmayseemstrangethatweshouldbereceivedbytheholyGodasHischildren;butGodhaschosentoreceiveus; ithasbeendoneonHisresponsibilitynotours;Hehasaright to receivewhomHewill intoHispresence; and in themysteryofHisgraceHehaschosentoreceiveus.

That central doctrine of theChristian faith is really presupposed in thewholeNewTestament;butitismadeparticularlyplainintheEpistlesofPaul.ItissuchpassagesastheeighthchapterofRomans,thesecondandthirdchaptersofGalatians,andthefifthchapterofIICorinthians,whichsetforthinplainestfashiontheverycentreofthegospel.

But in theEpistleofJames thereseemsat firstsight tobeadiscordantnoteinthisgreatNewTestamentchorus."Yeseethen,"saysJames,"howthatbyworksamanisjustified,andnotbyfaithonly."IfthatmeansthatamanispronouncedrighteousbeforeGodpartlybecauseofthemeritofhisownworksandonlypartlybecauseofthesacrificeofChristacceptedbyfaith,thenJamesholdsexactlythepositionofthebitteropponentsofPaulwhoarecombatedintheEpistletotheGalatians.Thoseopponents,the "Judaizers" as they are called, held, as we have seen, that faith inChristisnecessarytosalvation(inthattheyagreedwithPaul),buttheyheld that the merit of one's own observance of the law of God is alsonecessary.Amanissaved,notbyfaithaloneandnotbyworksalone,butby faith and works together - that was apparently the formula of theJudaizingopponents of Paul. TheApostle rightly saw that that formulameantareturntobondage.IfChristsavesusonlypartway,andleavesagaptobefilledupbyourowngoodworks,thenwecanneverbecertainthat we are saved. The awakened conscience sees clearly that our ownobediencetoGod'slawisnotthekindofobediencethatisreallyrequired;it isnotthatpurityoftheheartwhichisdemandedbytheteachingandexampleof ourLord.Ourobedience to the law is insufficient to bridgeeventhesmallestgap;weareunprofitableservants,andifweeverenterintoanaccountwithourJudgeweareundone.Christhasdonenothingfor us orHe has done everything; to depend even in smallestmeasureuponourownmeritistheveryessenceofunbelief;wemusttrustChristfor nothing or we must trust Him for all. Such is the teaching of theEpistletotheGalatians.

ButintheEpistleofJamesweseematfirstsighttobeinadifferentcircleof ideas. "Justified by faith alone," says Paul; "Justified not by faithalone,"saysJames.IthasbeenadifficultytomanyreadersoftheBible.But like other apparent contradictions in the Bible, it proves to be acontradictionmerelyofformandnotofcontent;anditservesonlytolead

thedevoutreaderintoadeeperandfullerunderstandingofthetruth.

Thesolutionofthedifficultyappearsinthedefinitionoftheword"faith."TheapparentcontradictionisduesimplytothefactthatwhenJamesinthis chapter says that "faith" alone is insufficient, hemeans a differentthingbytheword"faith"fromthatwhichPaulmeansbyitwhenhesaysthatfaithisall-sufficient.ThekindoffaithwhichJamesispronouncinginsufficient ismade clear in the nineteenth verse of the same chapter:"Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils alsobelieve, and tremble." The kind of faith which James pronouncesinsufficientisthefaithwhichthedevilsalsohave;itisamereintellectualapprehension of the facts about God or Christ, and it involves noacceptanceofthosefactsasagiftofGodtoone'sownsoul.ButitisnotthatkindoffaithwhichPaulmeanswhenhesaysthatamanissavedbyfaith alone. Faith is indeed intellectual; it involves an apprehension ofcertainthingsasfacts;andvainisthemodernefforttodivorcefaithfromknowledge. But although faith is intellectual, it is not only intellectual.Youcannothave faithwithouthavingknowledge;butyouwillnothavefaith ifyouhaveonlyknowledge.Faith is theacceptanceofagiftat thehandsofChrist.Wecannotacceptthegiftwithoutknowingcertainthingsaboutthe gift and about the giver. Butwemight know all those thingsandstillnotacceptthegift.Wemightknowwhatthegiftisandstillnotacceptit.Knowledgeisthusabsolutelynecessarytofaith,butitisnotallthat is necessary. Christ comes offering us that right relation to GodwhichHewroughtforusonthecross.Shallweacceptthegiftorshallwehold it indisdain?Theacceptanceof thegift is called faith, It is a verywonderful thing; it involves a change of the whole nature of man; itinvolves a new hatred of sin and a new hunger and thirst afterrighteousness. Such a wonderful change is not the work of man; faithitself isgivenusbytheSpiritofGod.ChristiansnevermakethemselvesChristians;buttheyaremadeChristiansbyGod.

All that is clear from what has already been said. But it is quiteinconceivable that a man should be given this faith in Christ, that heshouldacceptthisgiftwhichChristoffers,andstillgooncontentedly insin.For theverythingwhichChristoffersus issalvationfromsin-notonlysalvationfromtheguiltofsin,butalsosalvationfromthepowerof

sin.TheveryfirstthingthattheChristiandoes,therefore, istokeepthelawofGod:hekeepsitnolongerasawayofearninghissalvation- forsalvationhasbeengivenhimfreelybyGod-buthekeepsitjoyouslyasacentralpartofsalvationitself.ThefaithofwhichPaulspeaksis,asPaulhimselfsays,afaiththatworksthroughlove;andloveisthefulfillingofthewholelaw.PaulwouldhaveagreedfullywithJamesthatthefaithofwhichJamesspeaksinourpassageisquiteinsufficientforsalvation.ThefaiththatPaulmeanswhenhespeaksof justificationby faithaloneisafaiththatworks.

ButifthefaithregardedinsufficientbyJamesisdifferentfromthefaithcommended by Paul, so also the works commended by James aredifferentfromtheworksregardedinefficaciousbyPaul.Paulisspeakingofworksofthelaw,heisspeakingofworksthatare intendedtoacquiremeritinorderthatGod'sfavormaybeearned;JamesontheotherhandisspeakingofworkslikeAbraham'ssacrificeofIsaacthataretheresultoffaithandshowthatfaithisrealfaith.

The difference, then, between Paul and James is a difference ofterminology,notofmeaning.Thatdifferenceof terminologyshows thatthe Epistle of James was written at a very early time, before thecontroversywiththeJudaizershadarisenandbeforetheterminologyhadbecome fixed. If James had been writing after the terminology hadbecomefixed,whathewouldhavesaidisthatalthoughamanisjustifiedbyfaithaloneandnotatallbyworks,yetonemustbesurethatthefaithisrealfaithandnotamereintellectualassentlikethatofthedemonswhobelieveandtremble.Whatheactuallydoesistosayjustthatindifferentwords. James is not correcting Paul, then; he is not even correcting amisinterpretationofPaul;butheisunconsciouslypreparingforPaul;heispreparingwell fortheclearerandmoregloriousteachingof thegreatEpistles.

TheEpistleofJamesoughttobegivenitsdueplaceinthenurtureoftheChristianlife.IthassometimesbeenregardedastheEpistleofworks.Butthat does not mean that this Epistle ignores the deeper and moremeditativeelementsintheChristianlife.Jamesisnoadvocateofamere"gospel of street-cleaning"; he is no advocate of what is falsely calledtodaya"practical,"asdistinguishedfromadoctrinal,Christianity;he is

not a man who seeks to drown an inward disquiet by a bustlingphilanthropy. On the contrary he is a great believer in the power ofprayer; he exalts faith and denounces doubt; he humbles man andglorifiesGod:"Gotonow,yethatsay,Todayortomorrowwewillgointosuch a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain;whereasyeknownotwhatshallbeonthemorrow.Forwhatisyourlife?It is evena vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanishethaway.Forthatyeoughttosay,IftheLordwill,weshalllive,anddothis,or that."9 Themanwhowrote thesewordswas nomere advocate of a"practical" religion of this world; he was no mere advocate of what iscalledtoday"thesocialgospel";buthewasamanwhoviewedthisworld,asthewholeNewTestamentviewsit,inthelightofeternity.

SothelessonofJamesmaybelearnedwithoutviolencebeingdonetothedeepest things of the Christian faith - certainly without violence beingdonetothegospelwhichPaulproclaims.ItwasascleartoPaulasitwastoJamesthatmenwhohadbeensavedbyfaithcouldnotcontinuetoliveunholy lives. "Be not deceived," says Paul: "neither fornicators, noridolaters,noradulterers...northieves,norcovetous,nordrunkards,norrevilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."10 It isdifficulttoseehowanythingcouldbemuchplainerthanthat.Pauljustasearnestly as James insists upon the ethical or practical character ofChristianity;PaulaswellasJamesinsistsuponpurityandunselfishnessin conduct as an absolutely necessary mark of the Christian life. AChristian,accordingtoPaul(asalsoreallyaccordingtoJames),issavednotbyhimselfbutbyGod;butbe is savedbyGodnot inorder thathemaycontinueinsin,butinorderthathemayconquersinandattainuntoholiness.

IndeedsoearnestisPaulaboutthismatterthatattimesitlooksalmostasthoughhebelievedChristianseveninthislifetobealtogethersinless,asthoughhebelievedthatiftheywerenotsinlesstheywerenotChristiansatall.SuchaninterpretationoftheEpistleswouldindeedbeincorrect;itis contradicted, inparticular,by the loving carewithwhich theApostleexhortedandencouraged thosemembers of his congregationswhohadbeen overtaken in a fault. As a pastor of souls, Paul recognized thepresenceofsineveninthosewhowerewithinthehouseholdoffaith;and

dealt with it not only with severity but also with patience and love.Nevertheless,thefactisprofoundlysignificantthatinthegreatdoctrinalpassages of the Epistles Paul makes very little reference (though suchreference is not altogether absent) to the presence of sin in Christianmen.Howisthatfacttobeexplained?IthinkitistobeexplainedbytheprofoundconvictionoftheApostlethatalthoughsinisactuallyfoundinChristiansitdoesnotbelongthere;itisnevertobeacquiescedinforonesingle moment, but is to be treated as a terrible anomaly that simplyoughtnottobe.

Thus according to Paul the beginning of the new life is followed by abattle - a battle against sin. In that battle, as is not the case with thebeginningof it, theChristiandoes cooperatewithGod;he is helpedbyGod'sSpirit,buthehimself,andnotonlyGod'sSpiritinhim,isactiveinthefight.

At thebeginningof theChristian life there isanactofGodandofGodalone.ItiscalledintheNewTestamentthenewbirthor(asPaulcallsit)thenewcreation.Inthatact,nopartwhateveriscontributedbythemanwhoisbornagain.AndnowonderIAmanwhoisdead-eitherdeadinphysical death or "dead in trespasses and sins" - can do nothingwhatever, at least in the sphere in which he is dead. If he could doanythinginthatsphere,hewouldnotbedead.Suchamanwhoisdeadintrespasses and sins is raised to new life in the new birth or the newcreation.Tothatnewbirth,hehimselfcannotcontributeatall,anymorethanhecontributedtohisphysicalbirth.Butbirthisfollowedbylife;andthoughamanisnotactiveinhisbirthheisactiveinthelifethatfollows.Soitisalsointhespiritualrealm.Wedidnotcontributeatalltoournewbirth;thatwasanactofGodalone.But thatnewbirth is followedbyanew life, and in the new lifewe have been given byHimwho begat usanew the power of action; it is that power of action that is involved inbirth.Thus theChristian life is begun by an act ofGod alone; but it iscontinuedbycooperationbetweenGodandman.Thepossibilityofsuchcooperation is due indeed only to God; it has not been achieved inslightest measure by us; it is the supreme wonder of God's grace. ButoncegivenbyGoditisnotwithdrawn.

ThustheChristianlifeinthisworldisnotpassivebutactive;itconsistsin

amightybattle against sin.Thatbattle is awinningbattle,because themanthatengagesinithasbeenmadealiveinthefirstplacebyGod,andbecausehehasagreatCompaniontohelphimineveryturnofthefight.But,thoughawinningbattle,itisabattleallthesame;anditisnotonlyGod'sbattlebutours.Thefaithofwhichwehavebeenspeakingconsistsnot in doing something but in receiving something; but it is followedeverytimebyalifeinwhichgreatthingsaredone.

This aspect of faith is put in classic fashion by the Apostle Paul in awonderful phrase in theEpistle to theGalatians. "Neither circumcisionavaileth any thing," says Paul, "nor uncircumcision; but faith whichworketh by love."11 In that phrase, "faith which worketh by love," or,moreliterally,"faithworkingthroughlove,"awholeworldofexperienceiscompressedwithinthecompassoffourwords.

Surely that is a text for a practical age; the world may perhaps againbecomeinterestedinfaithif itseesthatfaithisathingthatworks.Andcertainlyourpracticalagecannotafford torejectassistancewherever itcanbefound;forthetruthisthatthispracticalageseemsjustnowtobesignallyfailingtoaccomplishresultsevenonitsownground;itseemstobesignallyfailingto"makethingsgo."

Strangelyenoughthepresentfailureoftheworldtomakethingsgoisduejust to thatemphasisuponefficiencywhichmightseemtomake failureimpossible;itistheparadoxofefficiencythatitcanbeattainedonly`bythosewhodonotmakeittheexpressobjectoftheirdesires.Themodernone-sided emphasis upon the practical has hindered the progress ofhumanity,wethink,inatleasttwoways.

Thefirstwayhasalreadybeentreatedinwhatprecedes.Menaresoeageraboutthework,weobserved,thattheyhaveneglectedaproperchoiceofmeanstoaccomplishit;theythinkthattheycanmakeuseofreligion,asameans to an end, without settling the question of the truth of anyparticular religion; they think that they can make use of faith as abeneficentpsychologicalphenomenonwithoutdeterminingwhether thethingthatisbelievedistrueorfalse.Thewholeeffort,asweobserved,isvain;suchapragmatistuseoffaithreallydestroysthethingthatisbeingused. If therefore thework is to proceed,we cannot in this pragmatist

fashionavoid,butmustfirstfaceandsettle,thequestionofthemeans.

Inthesecondplace,menaresoeagertodayabouttheworkthattheyaresometimes indifferent to the question what particular kind of work itshallbe.Theefficient,energeticmanisoftenbeingadmiredbytheworldatlarge,andparticularlybyhimself,quiteirrespectiveofthecharacterofhisachievements.Itoftenseemstomakelittledifferencewhetheramanengagesintheaccumulationofmaterialwealthorinthequestofpoliticalpower or in the management of schools and hospitals and charities.Whetherheengagesinrobberyorinmissions,heissureofrecognition,providedonlybesucceeds,providedonlyheis"amanwhodoesthings."Buthoweverstimulatingsuchaprizingofworkforitsownsakemaybetothe individual, it is obviously not conducive to any great advance forhumanityasawhole.Ifmylaborisgoingtobeopposedtotheworkofmyneighbor,wemightbothofusenjoyagood,old-fashioned,comfortablerest,sofarasanygeneralprogressisconcerned.Oureffortssimplycanceleach other. Consequently, although a great deal of energy is beingdisplayed in theworld today, one cannot help having the feeling that avast deal of it is being wasted. The truth is that if we are to be trulypracticalmen,wemustfirstbetheorizers.Wemustfirstsettleuponsomeonegreattaskandsomeonegreatforceforitsaccomplishment.

ThePauline textmakesproposals inbothdirections. Itproposesbothataskandaforcetoaccomplishit."Faithworkingitselfoutthroughlove"-loveisthework,faiththemeans.

Itshouldbenoticedinthefirstplacethatthisworkandthismeansareopentoeveryone.InChristJesusneithercircumcisionavailethanythingnoruncircumcision;thereisneitherJewnorGreek,thereisneitherbondnorfree,thereisnomaleandfemale;nothingisrequiredexceptwhatiscommontoallmen.Ifwe liketheworkwecannotsaythat it isbeyondourreach.

Theworkislove,andwhatthatisPaulexplainsinthelastdivisionofthesameEpistle.It isnotamereemotion, it isnotevenamerebenevolentdesire;itisapracticalthing.Wesometimessayofaratherunprincipledanddissipatedman: "He isweak, buthehas agoodheart." Suchmeregood-heartednessisnotChristianlove.Christianloveincludesnotmerely

the wish for the welfare of one's fellow men, not merely even thewillingnesstohelp,butalsothepower.InordertoloveintheChristiansense,amanmustbenotonlybenevolent,butalsostrongandgood;hemustlovehisfellowmenenoughtobuilduphisownstrengthinordertouseitfortheirbenefit.

Suchataskisverydifferentfrommuchoftheworkthatisactuallybeingdoneintheworld.Inthefirstplace,itisaspiritualnotamaterialwork.Itisreallyastonishinghowmanymenarealmostwhollyabsorbedinpurelymaterial things. Verymanymen seem to have no higher conception ofworkthanthatofmakingthedirtfly:thegreatestnationisthoughttobethe nation that has the largest income and the biggest battleships; thegreatest university, even, to be the one that has the finest laboratories.Suchpracticalmaterialismneednotbealtogetherselfish;theproductionof material goods may be desired for others as well as for one's self.Socialismmaybetakenasanexample.Itisnotaltogetherselfish.But-atleast in itsmostconsistent forms - it errs in supposing that theproperdistributionofmaterialwealthwillbeapanacea.Indeed,suchahabitofthoughthasnotbeenaltogetherabsentfromtheChurchitself.Whereverthe notion is cherished that the relief of physical suffering is somehowmoreimportant-morepractical - thanthewelfareof thehumanspirit,therematerialthingsarebeingmadethechiefobjectofpursuit.Andthatis not Christian love. Christian love does not, indeed, neglect men'sphysicalwelfare;itdoesnotgiveamanasermonwhenheneedsbread.Itrelievesdistress; itdelights inaffordingeven the simplestpleasure toachild.But italwaysdoes these thingswith theconsciousnessof theoneinestimablegiftthatithasinreserve.

Inthesecondplace,Christianloveisnotmerelyintellectualoremotional,but also moral. It involves nothing less than the keeping of the wholemoral law. "For all the law is fulfilled in oneword, even in this; Thoushalt love thy neighbor as thyself."12 Christianity may provide asatisfactoryworldview, itmay givemen comfort and happiness, itmaydeprive death of its terrors, it may produce the exaltation of religiousemotion; but it is not Christianity unless it makes men better.Furthermore,loveisapeculiarkindofobservanceofthemorallaw.Itisnotamereperformanceofasetofexternalacts.Thatmaybehypocrisy

orexpediency.Nor is itameredevotiontoduty forduty'ssake.That isadmirableandpraiseworthy,butitisthechildhoodstageofmorality.TheChristianisnolongerundertheschoolmaster;hisperformanceofthelawsprings not from obedience to a stern voice of duty but from anoverpoweringimpulse;helovesthelawoftheLord;hedoesrightbecausehecannothelpit.

In the third place, love involves, I think, a peculiar conception of thecontent of the law. It regardsmorality primarily as unselfishness. Andwhatavastdealofthecultureoftheworld,withallitspompandglitter,isselfishtothecore!Geniusexploitstheplainmen;Christdiedforthem:andHisdisciplesmustfollowinthefootstepsoftheirLord.

In the fourthplace,Christian love isnotmerely love forman; it isalso,andevenprimarily, loveforGod.WehaveobservedthatloveforGodisnot themeansbywhichwearesaved: theNewTestamentdoesnotsay"Thy lovehathsaved thee,"but "Thy faithhathsaved thee"; itdoes notsay,"LovetheLordJesusChrist,andthoushaltbesaved,"but "Believeon the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." But that does notmeanthattheNewTestamentdepreciateslove;itdoesnotmeanthatifamandidlove,andalwayshadloved,GodtheFatherandtheLordJesusChristandhis fellow-men,asheought to love them,hewouldnotbeasavedman;itonlymeansthatbecauseofsinnounregeneratemanwhohas ever lived has actually done that. Love, according to the NewTestament,isnotthemeansofsalvation,butit isthefinestfruitofit;amanissavedbyfaith,notbylove;butheissavedbyfaithinorderthathemaylove.

Such, then, is the work. How may it be accomplished? "Simply byaccomplishing it," says the "practical" man; "no appeal need be madeexcepttothesovereignwill;anytimeamandesirestostophisevilwaysandbegintoserveGodandhisfellow-men,thewayisperfectlyopenforhimtodoit."Yethereistheremarkablething:thewayisalwaysperfectlyopen, and yet theman never enters upon it; he always can, but neverdoes.Someofusfeelthelogicalnecessityofseekingacommoncauseforsuchauniformeffect.Andthecommoncausethatwefindissin.

Of course if there is no such thing as sin, then nothing is needed to

overcome it, and nothing stands in the way of Christian love. Theexistenceofsin,asweobserved,isquitegenerallydeniedinthemodernworld.Itisdeniedinatleasttwoways.Inthefirstplace,mensometimessayineffectthatthereisnosin,butonlyimperfection;whatwecall"sin"isjustoneformofimperfection.Ifso,itmayperhapswellbearguedthatthehumanwillissufficientforhumantasks.Wehaveobviouslymadeatleastsomeprogress,itissaid;wehaveadvancedbeyondthe"stoneage";acontinuationofthesameeffortswillnodoubtbringusstill furtheronourway;andas forperfection - that is as impossible forus in the verynatureofthingsasinfinity.Inthesecondplace,itissaid,thereisnosinbut only sins. It is admitted that moral evil is different in kind fromimperfection,butitisthoughttopossessnounity;everyindividualchoiceisthoughttobeindependentofeveryother;amanisthoughttobefreeevery time tochooseeithergoodorevil;nooneelsecanhelphim, it issaid,andnooneneedhelphim.

Paul's view of sin is opposed to both of these. In the first place, sin,according to Paul, is deadly guilt, and in the second place, it is notinherent merely in the individual acts. It is a mighty power, in thepresenceofwhichmanishelpless."ItisnomoreIthatdoit,butsinthatdwellethinme."13"But,"itmaybeobjected,"whatadangerousformofexpressionthat1stIfitisnomoreIthatdoit,myresponsibilityisgone;howcanIstillfeelguilt?IfIamtobeguilty,thensinmustbeapropertysimplyandsolelyofmyconsciousacts."Yetexperiencecuriouslyreversessuchapriorireasoning;historyteachesthatthemenwhohaveactuallyfeltmostdeeplytheguiltofsinhavebeenjustthemenwhoregardeditasa great force lying far beneath the individual acts. And a closerexaminationrevealsthereason.Ifeachactstandsbyitself,thenawrongchoiceatanyparticulartimeis,comparativelyspeaking,atriflingthing;itmayeasilyberectifiednexttime.Suchaphilosophycanhardlyproduceany great horror and dread of sin. But if sin is regarded as a unitarypower, irreconcilably opposed to what is good, then acts of sin,apparentlytriflinginthemselves,showthatweareunderthedominionofsuchapower;thesinglewrongactioncannolongerberegardedbyitself,but involves assent to a Satanic power, which then leads logically,irresistiblytothedestructionofeveryrightfeeling,ofeverymovementoflove,ofpity,ofsympathy.WhenwecometoseethatwhatPaulcallsthe

flesh is amighty power,which is dragging us resistlessly down into anabyssofevilthathasnobottom,thenwefeelourguiltandmisery,thenwelookaboutforsomethingstrongertohelpusthanourownweakwill.

SuchapowerisfoundbytheApostlePaulinfaith;itisfaith,hesays,thatproduces,orworksitselfoutin,thelifeoflove.ButwhatdoesPaulmeanwhen he says that "faithworks"? Certainly he does notmean what themodern pragmatist skeptic means when be uses the same words;certainly he does not mean that it is merely faith, considered as apsychologicalphenomenonandindependentofthetruthorfalsehoodofitsobject,thatdoesthework.Whathedoesmean14ismadeabundantlyclear in the last sectionof this sameEpistle to theGalatians,where thelifeofloveispresentedinsomedetail,Inthatsectionnothingwhateverissaidaboutfaith;itisnotfaiththatisthererepresentedasproducingthelifeoflovebuttheSpiritofGod;theSpiritisthererepresentedasdoingexactlywhat, in the phrase "faithworking through love," is ascribed tofaith.Theapparentcontradiction leadsuson to the right conceptionoffaith,Truefaith,strictlyspeaking,doesnotdoanything;itdoesnotgive,butreceives.Sowhenonesaysthatwedosomethingbyfaiththatisjustanotherwayofsayingthatwedonothing-atleastthatwedonothingofourselves.Itisoftheverynatureoffaith,strictlyspeaking,todonothing.Sowhenitissaidthatfaithworksthroughlove,thatmeansthatthroughfaith,insteadofdoingsomethingforourselvesweallowsomeoneelsetohelpus.That forcewhichentersour lifeat thebeginningthroughfaith,before we could do anything at all to please God, and which thenstrengthensandsupportsusinthebattlethatithasenabledustobegin,isthepoweroftheSpiritofGod.

Sointhemidstofapracticalworld,theChristianexhibitsapractical lifeoflove-abusylifeofhelpfulness,feedingthehungry,givingdrinktothethirsty, receiving thestrangers,clothing thenaked,visiting thesickandtheprisoners.Andallthataccomplishednotbyhisownunaidedefforts,notevenmerelybyhisownfaith,butbythegreatobjectofhisfaith,theall-powerfulGod.

The Christian preacher, then, comes before the world with a greatalternative.Shallwecontinuetodependuponourownefforts,orshallwereceive by faith the power ofGod? Shallwe content ourselveswith the

materials which this world affords, seeking by endlessly newcombinations toproduceabuilding that shall endure;or shallwebuildwiththematerialsthathavenoflaw?Shallwegivemennewmotives,oraskGodtogivethemanewpower?Shallweimprovetheworld,orprayGodtocreateanewworld?Theformeralternativeshavebeentriedandfoundwanting: thebestofarchitects canproducenoenduringbuildingwhenall thematerials are faulty; goodmotivesarepowerlesswhen theheartisevil.Struggleaswemay,weremainjustapartofthisevilworlduntil,byfaith,wecry:"Notbymight,norbypower,butbyThySpirit.OLordofHosts."

Notes

1. Rom.ii:14.2. Rom.vii:24.3. Rom.viii:2.4. Jer.xxxi:33.5. Rom.vi:23.6. IJohniv:10.7. Gal. ii: 16. It is evident fromthe immediate context that this is the

correcttranslation.8. Jamesii:24.9. Jamesiv:13f.10. ICor.vi:9f.11. Gal.v:6.12. Ga1.v:14.13. Romvii:17.14. CompareChristianityandLiberalism,1923,pp.146ff.

SinanditsConsequences

TheFallofManTheConsequencesoftheFallWhatIsSin?

IsMankindLostinSin?Sin'sWagesandGod'sGift

TheFallofMan

Whatissin?Itisaquestionthatwecannotignore.Fromfalseanswerstoit have comeuntolddisaster tomankind and to thechurch, and in therightanswertoitistobefoundthebeginningofthepathwayofsalvation.

Howshallweobtaintheanswertothatmomentousquestion?IthinkwecanmakeaverygoodbeginningbyjustexaminingtheBiblicalaccountofthewayinwhichsinenteredintotheworld.ThataccountisgivenintheBookofGenesisinaverywonderfulmanner.Thelanguageisverysimple;thestoryistoldalmostinwordsofonesyllable.Yethowprofoundistheinsightwhichitaffordsintothedepthsofthehumansoul!

"And the Lord God," says the Bible, "commanded theman, saying, Ofevery tree of the garden thoumayest freely eat: but of the tree of theknowledgeof goodandevil, thou shaltnot eatof it: for in theday thatthoueatest thereof thou shalt surelydie" (Genesis2:16-17). Ithasbeenobserved thatno reason is said tohavebeengiven toAdam to tellhimwhyheshouldnoteatof that tree,and ithasbeensaid that that fact isperhapssignificant.Eatingofthetreewasnot initselfobviouslywrong;thecommandnottoeatofitwasnotreinforcedbyanyinstinctinman'snature. It appeared therefore all the more clearly as a sheer test ofobedience.WouldmanobeyGod'scommandsknowingsimplythattheywere God's commands, knowing that because He gave them they hadsome quite sufficient reason and were holy and just and good? Howclearly and simply that is brought out in the narrative in the Book ofGenesis!

An equal simplicity and an equal profundity characterize the followingnarrative— thenarrativeof the temptationand the fall.AdamandEvewereinthegarden.Theserpentsaidtothewoman,"Yea,hathGodsaid,Yeshallnoteatofeverytreeofthegarden?"(Genesis3:1)

I thinkwe candetect even there thebeginnings of the temptation.The

womanisaskedtoeyethethingsthatGodhasforbiddenasthoughtheywere desirable things. It is hinted that the commands are hardcommands; it ishinted thatpossibly theymightevenhave involved theprohibitiontoeatofanyofthetreesofthegarden.

Perhaps an attempt is made to cast doubt upon the very fact of thecommand. "Hath God said?" says the tempter. Thewoman is asked toenvisage God's command as a barrier which it would be desirable tosurmount. Is there no loophole? Has God really commanded this andthat?DidHereallymeantoprohibittheeatingofthetreesofthegarden?

The woman's reply states the fact — certainly in the main. God'scommanddidnotprohibit the eatingof all the trees in thegarden,butonlyofonetree."Andthewomansaiduntotheserpent,Wemayeatofthefruitofthetreesofthegarden:butofthefruitofthetreewhichisinthemidstofthegarden,Godhathsaid,Yeshallnoteatofit,neithershallyetouchit,lestyedie"(Genesis3:2-3).

Then at last there comes a direct attack upon the truthfulness of God."Thou shalt surely die," said God: "Ye shall not surely die," said thetempter.At last thebattle isdirectly joined.God, saidthe tempter, haslied, andHe has lied for the purpose of keeping something good fromman."Yeshallnotsurelydie,"saidthetempter:"forGoddothknowthatinthedayyeeatthereof,thenyoureyesshallbeopened,andyeshallbeasGod,knowinggoodandevil"(Genesis3:4-5).

Atthatpointthequestionarisesinourmindswhattheelementoftruthwasinthosewordsofthetempter.Thosewordswerealie,butthetrulydevilishliesarethosethatcontainanelementoftruth,or,rather,theyarethose liesthat twist thetruthsothat theresulting lie looksas though ititselfweretrue.

Certainly itwas true thatbyeating the forbidden fruitAdamattainedaknowledgethathedidnotpossessbefore.Thatseemstobeindicatedinverse22ofthesamechapteroftheBookofGenesis,whereweread:"AndtheLordGodsaid,Behold,themanisbecomeasoneofus,toknowgoodandevil"(Genesis3:22).Yes,itdoesseemtohavebeentruethatwhenhe

ateof theforbiddenfruitmancametoknowsomethingthathehadnotknownbefore.

Hehadnotknownsinbefore;nowheknewit.Hehadknownonlygoodbefore;nowheknewgoodandevil.Butwhatacursethatnewknowledgewas,andwhatanimmenselossofknowledgeaswellaslossofeverythingelsethatnewknowledgebroughtinitstrain!Henowknewgoodandevil;but,alas,heknewgoodnowonlyinmemory,sofarashisownexperiencewas concerned; and the evil that he knew he knew to his eternal loss.Innocence,inotherwords,wasgone.

What would have been the advance which resistance to that firsttemptationwouldhavebroughttoAdamandEve?Itwouldhavemeantthatthepossibilityofsinningwouldhavebeenover.Theprobationwouldsuccessfully have been sustained; man would have entered into ablessednessfromwhichalljeopardywouldhavebeenremoved.

Theadvancewhichasuccessfulresistancetothetemptationwouldhavebroughtwould also have been an advance in knowledge. That treewascalledthetreeoftheknowledgeofgoodandevil.Well,thereisperhapsarealsenseinwhichitwouldhavebeentomanatreeoftheknowledgeofgoodandevilevenifhehadnoteatenofthefruitofit.Ifhehadresistedthetemptationtoeatofthefruitofthattree,hewouldhavecometoknowevilinadditiontotheknowledgethathealreadyhadofgood.Hewouldnot have known it because he had fallen into it in his own life, but hewouldhaveknownitbecauseinhisresistancetoithewouldhaveknownitbecauseinhisresistancetoithewouldhaveputitsharplyincontrastwithgoodandwoulddeliberatelyhaverejectedit.Astateofinnocence,inother words, where good was practiced without any conflict with evil,wouldhavegivenplace toastateofassuredgoodnesswhichevilwouldhavebeenshowntohavenopowertodisturb.

Suchwas theblessed state intowhichGodwas askingman to come. ItwasastatewhichincludedwhatIthinkwecancallaknowledgeofgoodandevil.Certainlyitwasastateinwhichthedifferencebetweengoodandevil would have been clearly discerned. There was a right way and awrongwayofseekingtoattaindiscernment.Therightwaywasthewayof

resistancetoevil;thewrongwaywasthewayofyieldingtoit.

Theancientlieisputintomen'sheartsagainandagainandagainthattheonlywaytoattainastatehigherthaninnocenceistohaveexperienceofsin in order to see what sin is like. Sowing wild oats is thought to berather a good way of transcending childish innocence and of attainingstrongandmaturemanhood.

Doyouknowhowthatliecanbestbeshowntobetheliethatitis?Well,myfriends, I think it isby theexampleofJesusChrist.Doyoudespiseinnocence?Doyouthinkthatitisweakandchildishnottohavepersonalexperienceofevil?Doyouthinkthatifyoudonotobtainsuchexperienceofevilyoumustforeverbeachild?

If you have any such feeling, I just bid you contemplate Jesus ofNazareth. Does He make upon you any impression of immaturity orchildishness?WasHelackinginsomeexperiencethatisnecessarytothehighestmanhood?CanyoupatronizeHimasthoughHewerebutachild,whereasyouwithyourboastedexperienceofevilareafull-grownman?

If that is thewayyou thinkofJesus,evenunbelievers, if theyareatallthoughtful,willcorrectyou.No,Jesusmakesuponallthoughtfulpersonsthe impression of complete maturity and tremendous strength. WithunblinkingeyesHecontemplatestheevilofthehumanheart."Heknewwhatwasinman"(John2:25),saystheGospelaccordingtoJohn.YetHenever had those experiences of sinwhich fools think to be necessary ifinnocenceistobetranscendedandthehighestmanhoodtobeattained.FromHisspotlesspurityandHisall-conqueringstrength,thatancientliethat experienceof evil isnecessary ifman is to attain the highest goodrecoilsnakedandashamed.

ThatwastheliethatthetempterbroughttoAdamandEveinthegardenof Eden.Man was told to seek discernment in Satan's way and not inGod's.Hadmanresistedthe temptationwhatheightsofknowledgeandstrengthwouldhavebeenhis!Butheyielded,andwhatwas the result?Hesoughttoattainknowledge,andlosttheknowledgeofgood;hesoughttoattainpower,andlosthisownsoul;hesoughttobecomeasGod,and

whenGodcametohiminthegardenhehidhimselfinshamefulfear.

It is a sad story indeed. But it is the beginning and not the end of theBible.ThefirstchaptersoftheBibletellusofthesinofman.Theguiltofthatsinhas resteduponevery singleoneofus, its guilt and its terribleresults;but that isnot the lastwordof theBible.TheBible tellsusnotonlyofman'ssin;italsotellsusofsomethinggreaterstill;ittellsusofthegraceoftheoffendedGod.

TheConsequencesoftheFallofMan

Man, as created, was good. God created man in His own image, inknowledge,righteousness, andholiness.Well, then, ifGodcreatedmangood,howcomesitthatallmennowarebad?Howdidsinpassintoallmankind?Whatcausedthisstupendouschangefromgoodtobad?

SincameintotheworldthroughthesinofAdam.Adam'sdescendantsdonotbeginlifesinlessashebeganit.TheybeginittaintedinsomewayorotherwiththesinthatAdamcommitted.IfAdamtransgressed,hewastodie. Death was to be the punishment of disobedience. Well, he didtransgress.Whatthenhappened?WasAdamtheonlyonewhodied?Didhisdescendantsbeginwherehebegan?Didtheyhaveplacedbeforethemall over again that same alternative between death and life that wasplaced before Adam? The Book of Genesis indicates the contrary veryclearly. No, the descendants of Adam already, before they individuallymadeanychoicesatall,hadthatpenaltyofdeathrestinguponthem.

What, then, does that mean? Adam was the divinely appointedrepresentativeof the race. Ifheobeyed thecommandmentsofGod, thewholeraceofhisdescendantswouldhavelife;ifhedisobeyed,thewholerace would have death. I do not see how the narrative in the Book ofGenesis,whenyoutakeitasawhole,canmeananythingelse.

That view of the matter becomes more explicit in certain importantpassagesof theNewTestament. Inthe latterpartof the fifthchapterofRomans, in particular, the Apostle Paul makes it plain. "Through onetrespass," he there says, "the judgment came unto all men to

condemnation" (Romans 5:18). "Through the oneman's disobedience,"hesaysinthenextverse,"themanyweremadesinners."InthesewordsandallthroughthispassagewehavethegreatdoctrinethatwhenAdamsinned he sinned as the representative of the race, so that it is quitecorrecttosaythatallmankindsinnedinhimandfellwithhiminhisfirsttransgression. There is a profound connection between Adam and thewholeraceofhisdescendants.

GodsaidtoAdamthatifhedisobeyedhewoulddie.Whatisthemeaningofthatdeath?Well,itincludesphysicaldeath;thereisnoquestionaboutthat.But,alas, italso includes farmorethanphysicaldeath.It includesspiritualdeath;itincludesthedeathofthesouluntothingsthataregood;itincludesthedeathofthesouluntoGod.ThedreadfulpenaltyofthatsinofAdamwasthatAdamandhisdescendantsbecamedeadintrespassesandsins.AsajustpenaltyofAdam'ssin,Godwithdrewhisfavor,andthesoulsofallmankindbecamespirituallydead.Thesoulthatisspirituallydead,thesoulthat iscorrupt, isguiltynotonlybecauseofAdam'sguiltbutalsobecauseofitsownsin.Itdeserveseternalpunishment.

ThedoctrineofthewrathofGodisnotapopulardoctrine,butthereisnodoctrine that ismoreutterlypervasive in theBible.Pauldevotes to italargepartofthreechaptersoutoftheeightchaptersinhisgreatEpistletothe Romans which he devotes to the exposition of his message ofsalvation,andheisatparticularpainstoshowthatthewrathofGodrestsuponallmenexceptthosewhohavebeensavedbyGod'sgrace.Butthereis nothing peculiar in that great passage in the first three chapters ofRomans. That passage only puts in a comprehensive way what ispresupposedfromGenesistoRevelationandbecomesexplicitinpassagesalmostbeyondnumber.

DoestheteachingofJesusformanyexceptiontotheotherwisepervasivepresentationofthewrathofGodintheBible?Well,youmightthinksoifyou listened only to what modern sentimentality says about Jesus ofNazareth.Themenof theworld,whohaveneverbeenbornagain,whohavenevercomeundertheconvictionofsin,havereconstructedaJesustosuitthemselves,afeeblesentimentalistwhopreachedonlytheloveofGodandhadnothingtosayaboutGod'swrath.Butverydifferentwasthe

realJesus, theJesuswho ispresentedtous inour sourcesofhistoricalinformation.TherealJesuscertainlyproclaimedaGodwho,as theOldTestamentwhich he revered asGod'sWord says, is a "consuming fire"(Deuteronomy 4:24; compareHebrews 12:29). Very terrible was Jesus'own anger as the Gospels describe it, a profound burning indignationagainst sin; and very terrible is the anger of the God whom Heproclaimed as theRuler of heaven and earth.No, you certainly cannotescapefromtheteachingoftheBibleaboutthewrathofGodbyappealingto Jesus of Nazareth. The most terrible even among the Biblicalpresentations of God's wrath are those that are found in our blessedSavior'swords.

Wheredoyoufindthemost terribledescriptionsofhell in thewholeoftheBible? It is Jesus who speaks of the sin that shall not be forgiveneitherinthisworldorthatwhichistocome;itisJesuswhospeaksofthewormthatdiethnotandthefirethat isnotquenched(Mark9:48); it isJesuswhohasgivenusthestoryoftherichmanandLazarusandofthegreatgulfbetweenthem (Luke 16:19-31); it is Jesuswho says that it isprofitableforamantoenterintolifehavingoneeyeratherthanhavingtwoeyestobecastintohellfire(Matthew18:9).ItappearsintheSermonon theMount; it appears of course in the great judgment chapter, thetwenty-fifthofMatthew;itappearsinpassagestoonumeroustomention.It is not somewhere on the circumference of his teaching, but is at theveryheartandcoreofit.

Idonotbelievewealwaysunderstandquiteclearlyenoughhowgreatisthe divergence at this point between the teaching of Jesus and currentpreaching. Men are interested today in this world. They have lost theconsciousnessofsin,andhaving lost theconsciousnessofsintheyhavelostthefearofhell.TheyhavetriedtomakeChristianityareligionofthisworld.TheyhavecometoregardChristianityjustasaprogramforsettingup the conditionsof the kingdomofGodupon this earth, and they aretremendously impatient when anyone looks upon it as a means ofenteringintoheavenandescapinghell.

I have mentioned the Biblical teaching about hell simply because it isnecessary inorder thatyoumayunderstand theBiblical teachingabout

sin.TheawfulnessofthepunishmentofsinshowsasnothingelsecouldwelldohowheinousathingsinreallyisinthesightofGod.

Ihavetriedtopresenttoyouinoutlinesomethinglikethewholepicture—man guiltywith the imputed guilt ofAdam's first sin,man sufferingthereforethedeaththatisthepenaltyofthatsin,notonlyphysicaldeathbut also that spiritual death that consists in the corruption of man'swholenatureandinhistotalinabilitytopleaseGod,manbringingforthoutofhiscorruptheartindividualactsoftransgressionwithoutnumber,man facingeternalpunishment inhell.That is thepicture that runs allthroughtheBible.Mankind,accordingtotheBible, isarace lost insin;andsinisnotjustamisfortune,butissomethingthatcallsforththewhiteheatofthedivineindignation.BeforetheawfuljusticeofGodnouncleanthingcanstand;andmanisunclean,transgressoragainstGod'sholylaw,subjectjustlytoitsawfulpenalty.

As I try to present that picture to you, I think you as well as I areimpressedwiththefactthatthemenofthepresentdayforthemostpartwillhavenoneofit.Theywillnotadmitatallthatmankindislostinsin.IrememberaservicethatIattendedsomeyearsagoinalittlechurchinapretty village. The preacherwas distinctly above the average in cultureandinmoralfervor.Idonotrememberhissermon(exceptthatitwasaglorificationofman); but Ido remember something that he said in hisprayer.HequotedthatversefromJeremiahtotheeffectthattheheartofman is "deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked" (Jeremiah17:9), and then he said in his prayer, as nearly as I can remember hiswords: "O Lord, thou knowest that we no longer accept thisinterpretation, but now think that man does what is right if only heknowstheway."Well,thatwasatleastbeingfrankaboutthematter.Wehaveagoodopinionofourselvesthesedays,andifso,whyshouldwenotlet the Lord in on our secret? Why should we go on quoting with asanctimonious air confessions of sin from the Bible if we really do notbelieveaword of them? I think the prayer of that village preacherwasbad—verybad—butIalsothinkthatperhapsitwasnotsobadperhapsas the prayers of those preachers who have really rejected the centralmessageoftheBiblejustascompletelyashehadandyetconcealthefactby the use of traditional language. At least that prayer raised the issue

clearlybetweentheBiblicalviewofsinandthepaganismofthemoderncreed,"Ibelieveinman."

At thevery foundationofall that theBiblesays is thissad truth—thatmankind is lost in sin.TheBible teaches,wehave observed, that everyman comes into theworld a sinner. It is against that doctrine that thechiefattackhasbeenmade;andIwanttosayafewwordstoyouabouttheattackinorderthattheBibledoctrinewhichisattackedmaybecomethemoreclear.TheattackhascometobeconnectedwiththenameofaBritishmonkwholivedinthelatterpartofthefourthandtheearlypartofthefifthcenturyafterChrist.HisnamewasPelagius.IncontraventionoftheBiblicaldoctrine,Pelagiussaidthateveryman,farfrombeingbornwithacorruptnature,beginslifepracticallywhereAdambeganit,beingperfectlyabletochooseeithergoodorevil.

TheBibleplainlyteachesthatsinfulactionscomefromacorruptnatureofthemanwhocommitsthem,thatindividualwrongchoicescomefromtheunderlyingstateofthepersonwhoengagesinthem.Amanismorallyresponsible forwrongchoicesspringingoutofhisevilnature,andhe isresponsible fortheevilnatureoutofwhichthosewrongchoicesspring.Sin is not just amatterof individual actions. Both the bad actions andalsothebadstatefromwhichthebadactionscomearesin.

IamgoingtoquoteonepassagefromtheteachingofJesusasrecordedintheGospels and then I am going to ask you whether that one passagedoesnot sumup the teaching of thewholeBible on this point. "Eithermakethetreegood,andhisfruitgood:orelsemakethetreecorrupt,andhisfruitcorrupt:forthetreeisknownbyhisfruit.Ogenerationofvipers,howcanye,beingevil,speakgoodthings?foroutoftheabundanceoftheheart themouth speaketh. A goodman out of the good treasure of theheartbringethforthgoodthings:andanevilmanoutoftheeviltreasurebringethforthevilthings."(Matthew12:33-35)Inthelightofthesewordsof Jesus, so simple and so profound, how utterly shallow the wholePelagianviewofsinisseentobe!AccordingtoJesus,evilactionscomefromanevilheart, andboth theactionsand theheart fromwhich theycomearesinful.

That view is the view of the whole Bible. There is in the Bible frombeginningtoendnoshadowofcomfortfortheshallownotionthatsinisamatteronlyofindividualchoicesandthatabadmancan,withoutbeingchanged within, suddenly bring forth good actions. No, the Bibleeverywherefindstherootofevilintheheart,andbytheheartitdoesnotmeanjustthefeelingsbutthewholeinnerlifeofman.Theheartofman,it tells us, is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, andbecause of that, man is a sinner in the sight of God. An evil maninevitablyperformsevilactions; thething isascertainasthatacorrupttreewill bring forth corrupt fruit: but the evilmanperforms those evilactionsbecausehewantstoperformthem;theyarehisownfreepersonalactsandheisresponsiblefortheminthesightofGod.

TheBiblefrombeginningtoendplainlyteachesthatindividualsinscomefromasinfulnature,and that thenatureofallmen is sinful fromtheirbirth. "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my motherconceiveme"—thesewordsoftheFifty-firstPsalmsummarize,inthecryof apenitent sinner, adoctrineof sin that runs through theBible fromGenesis toRevelation. Upon that Biblical view of sin depends also theBiblicalviewofsalvation.DoestheBibleteachthatallChristdidforusistosetusagoodexamplewhichweareperfectlyabletofollowwithoutachangeofourhearts?Themanwhothinkssoisamanwhohasnotcomeeven to the threshold of the great central truth which the Scripturescontain."Yemustbebornagain,"saidJesusChrist(John3:7).There isnohopewhateverforusuntilwearebornagainbyanactthatisnotourown; there isnohope thatwe shall really choose the rightuntilwearemadealivebytheSpiritofthelivingGod.

Nothingthat fallenandunregeneratemencando isreallywell-pleasingtoGod.Manythingsthattheydoareabletopleaseus,withourimperfectstandards,but nothing that theydo is able to pleaseGod; nothing thattheydocanstandinthewhitelightofHisjudgmentthrone.Someoftheiractionsmaybe relativelygood,butnoneof themare reallygood.Allofthemareaffectedbythedeepdepravityofthefallenhumannaturefromwhichtheycome.

That brings us to another aspect of the great Biblical doctrine of

depravity.Itisfoundinthecompleteinabilityoffallenmantolifthimselfoutofhisfallencondition.Fallenman,accordingtotheBible,isunabletocontributethesmallestpartofthegreatchangebywhichheismadetobealivefromthedead.Menwhoaredeadintrespassesandsinsareutterlyunabletohavesavingfaith,justascompletelyunableasadeadmanlyingin a tomb is unable to contribute the slightest bit to his resurrection.Whenaman isbornagain, theHolySpiritworks faith inhim, and theman contributes nothing whatever to that blessed result. After he hasbeen born again, he does cooperatewith the Spirit of God in the dailybattle against sin; afterhehasbeenmadealivebyGod,heproceeds toshowthatheisalivebybringingforthgoodworks:butuntilhe ismadealivehecandonothingthatisreallygood;andtheactoftheSpiritofGodbywhichheismadealiveisaresistlessandsovereignact.

Man,accordingtotheBible,isnotmerelysickintrespassesandsins;heisnotmerelyinaweakenedconditionsothatheneedsdivinehelp:butheis dead in trespasses and sins. He can do absolutely nothing to savehimself, and God saves him by the gracious, sovereign act of the newbirth.TheBibleisatremendouslyuncompromisingbookinthismatterofthesinofmanandthegraceofGod.

TheBiblicaldoctrineofthegraceofGoddoesnotmean,ascaricaturesofitsometimesrepresentitasmeaning,thatamanissavedagainsthiswill.No,itmeansthataman'swillitselfisrenewed.Hisactoffaithishisownact.Heperformsthatactgladly,andissurethatheneverwassofreeaswhen he performs it. Yet he is enabled to perform it simply by thegracious,sovereignactoftheSpiritofGod.

Ah,myfriends,howpreciousisthatdoctrineofthegraceofGod!Itisnotinaccordancewithhumanpride.Itisnotadoctrinethatweshouldeverhave evolved. Butwhen it is revealed inGod'sWord, the hearts of theredeemedcry,Amen.SinnerssavedbygracelovetoascribenotsomebutallofthepraisetoGod.

WhatIsSin?

Wecomenowtoaskwhatsinatbottomis.Widelydifferentanswershave

beengivento thisquestion,andwiththesedifferentanswershavegonedifferent views of the world and of God and of human life. The trueansweristobeobtainedveryclearlyintheBible;butbeforeIpresentthattrue answer to you, I want to speak to you about one or two wronganswers,inorderthatbycontrastwiththemthetrueanswermaybethemoreclearlyunderstood.

Inthefirstplace,manymenhavenotionsofsinwhichreallydeprivesinofallitsdistinctiveness,or,rather,manymensimplydenytheexistenceof anything that can properly be called sin at all. According to a verywidespreadwayof thinking in theunbelief of thepresentday,whatwepopularlycallmorality issimplytheaccumulatedexperienceof theraceastothekindofconductthatleadstoracialpreservationandwell-being.Tribesinwhicheverymansoughthisownpleasurewithoutregardtothewelfare of his neighbors failed, it is said, in the struggle for existence,whereas those tribes that restrained the impulses of theirmembers forthegoodofthewholeprosperedandmultiplied.Byaprocessofnaturalselection, therefore,accordingtothistheory, it camemoreandmore tobetruethatamongtheracesofmankindthosethatcultivatedsolidarityweretheonesthatsurvived.

In the course of time— so the theory runs— the lowly origin of thesesocialrestraintswas altogether lost fromview, and theywere felt to berootedinsomethingdistinctivethatcametobecalledmoralityorvirtue.It isonly inmoderntimesthatwehavegotbehindthescenesandhavediscoveredtheultimateidentitybetweenwhatwecall"morality"andtheself-interest of society. Such is a very widespread theory. According tothattheory"sin"isonlyanothername—andaveryunsatisfactorynametoo—foranti-socialconduct.

WhatshallwesayofthatnotionofsinfromtheChristianpointofview?The answer is surely quite plain. We must reject it very emphatically."Against thee, theeonly,haveIsinned,"says thePsalmist (Psalm51:4).That is at the very heart of the Bible from beginning to end. Sin,according to the Bible, is not just conduct that is contrary to theaccumulatedexperienceoftherace;itisnotjustanti-socialconduct:butitisanoffenceprimarilyagainstGod.

Equallydestructiveofany true ideaof sin is theerrorof thosewhosaythattheendofallhumanconduct is,or(assomeofthemsay)oughttobe,pleasure.Sometimesthepleasurewhichisregardedasthegoaltobesetbeforemenisthepleasureoftheindividual—refinedandthoroughlyrespectable pleasure no doubt, but still pleasure. Such a view hassometimesproducedlivessuperficiallydecent.Butevensuchsuperficialdecencyisnotapttobeverylasting,andthedegradingcharacterof thephilosophyunderlyingitiscertaintomakeitselffeltevenonthesurfacesoonerorlater.Certainlythatphilosophycanneverhaveaplaceforanynotionthatwithanyproprietyatallcouldbecalledatruenotionofsin.

Sometimes, it is true, the pleasure which is made the goal of humanconduct is thought of as the pleasure, or (to use amore high-soundingword)thehappiness,notof the individualbutof therace.According tothat view, altruism— namely, regard for the greatest happiness of thegreatestnumber—isthoughttobethesum-totalofmorality.

Thuswehaveseeninthenewspapersrecentlyagooddealofdiscussionabout"mercy-killing"or"euthanasia".Certainphysicianssayveryfranklythattheythinkhopelessinvalids,whoneverbyanychancecanbeofuseeithertothemselvesortoanyoneelse,oughttobeputpainlesslyoutoftheway.Themodernadvocatesofeuthanasiaarearguing the thingouton an entirely different basis from the basis on which the Christianarguesit.Theyarearguingthequestiononthebasisofwhatisuseful—what produces happiness and avoids pain for the human race. TheChristianarguesitonthebasisofadefinitedivinecommand."Thoushaltnot kill" (Exodus 20:13) settles the matter for the Christian. From theChristianpointof view the physicianwho engages in amercy-killing isjustamurderer.Itmayalsoturnout thathismercy-killing isnotreallymercifulinthelongrun.Butthatisnotthepoint.Therealpointisthatbeitneversomerciful,itismurder,andmurderissin.

TheviewsofsinthatwehaveconsideredsofarareobviouslyopposedtoChristianity.NoChristiancanholdthatmoralityisjusttheaccumulatedself-interestof therace,andthatsin ismerelyconductopposedtosuchself-interest. The Christian obviously must hold that righteousness is

somethingquitedistinctfromhappinessandthatsinissomethingquitedistinctfromfolly.

What,then,issin?Wehavesaidwhatitisnot.Nowweoughttosaywhatitis.FortunatelywedonothavetosearchverylongintheBibletofindthe answer to that question. The Bible gives the answer right at thebeginningintheaccount that itgivesof thevery firstsinofman.Whatwas that first sin of man, according to the Bible? Is not the answerperfectlyclear?Why,itwasdisobediencetoacommandofGod.Godsaid,"Yeshallnoteatofthefruitofthetree";manateofthefruitofthetree:andthatwassin.Therewehaveourdefinitionofsinatlast.

"Sinisanywantofconformityunto,ortransgressionof,thelawofGod."ThosearethewordsoftheShorterCatechism,notoftheBible;buttheyaretruetowhattheBibleteachesfromGenesistoRevelation.ThemostelementarythingaboutsinisthatitisthatwhichiscontrarytoGod'slaw.You cannot believe in the existence of sin unless you believe in theexistence of the law of God. The idea of sin and the idea of law gotogether.

Thatbeingso,IaskyoujusttorunthroughtheBible inyourmindandconsiderhowverypervasiveintheBibleistheBible'steachingaboutthelawofGod.Wehavealreadyobservedhowclear that teaching is in theaccountwhichtheBiblegivesofthefirstsinofman.Godsaid,"Yeshallnot eat of the fruit of the tree". That was God's law; it was a definitecommand.Man disobeyed that command;man didwhatGod told himnottodo:andthatwassin.ButthelawofGodrunsallthroughtheBible.It is not found just in this passage or that, but it is the background ofeverything that theBiblesays regarding the relationsbetweenGodandman.

ConsiderforamomenthowlargeapartoftheOldTestamentisoccupiedwith the law ofGod— the law as it was given throughMoses.Do youthinkthat cameby chance?Not at all. It camebecause the law is trulyfundamentalinwhattheBiblehastosay.AllthroughtheOldTestamentthereisheldupagreatcentral thought—Godthe lawgiver,manowingobedience toHim.How it is, then,with theNewTestament?Does the

New Testament obscure that thought; does the New TestamentdepreciateinanywaythelawofGod?"Thinknot,"saidJesus,"thatIamcometodestroythelaw,ortheprophets:Iamnotcometodestroy,buttofulfill"(Matthew5:17).

Considerforamoment,myfriends,themajestyofthelawofGodastheBiblesetsitforth.Onelawoverall—validforChristians,validfornon-Christians, valid now and valid to all eternity.How grandly that law ispromulgatedamidthethunderingsofSinai!Howmuchmoregrandlystillandmuchmore terribly it is set forth in the teachingofJesus— inHisteachingand inHis example!Withwhat terrorweare fain to say,withPeter,inthepresenceofthatdazzlingpurity:"Departfromme;forIamasinfulman,OLord"(Luke5:8)NowhereintheBible, intheteachingofJesusourSavior,doweescapefromtheawfulmajestyofthelawofGod—written in the constitution of the universe, searching the innermostrecesses of the soul, embracing every idle word and every action andeverysecretthoughtoftheheart,inescapable,all-inclusive,holy,terrible.God the lawgiver,man the subject; God the ruler, man the ruled! Theservice of God is a service that is perfect freedom, a duty that is thehighestofalljoys;yetitisaservicestill.Letusneverforgetthat.Godwasalwaysand is forever thesovereignKing; thewholeuniverse isbeneathHisholylaw.

This law is grounded in the infinite perfection of the being of GodHimself."Beyethereforeperfect,"saidJesus,"evenasyourFatherwhichisinheavenisperfect"(Matthew5:48).Thatisthestandard.Itisaholylaw,asGodHimselfisholy.IfthatbethelawofGod,howawfulathingissin!Notanoffenceagainstsomeruleproceedingfromtemporalauthorityorenforcedbytemporalpenalties,butanoffenceagainsttheinfiniteandeternalGod!

IknowthatsomeofmyhearersregardwhatIhavebeensayingasbeingnomore worthy of consideration than the hobgoblins and bogies withwhich nurses used to frighten naughty children. An outstandingcharacteristicoftheageinwhichweare living isadisbelief inanythingthatcanbecalleda lawofGodandinparticularadisbelief inanythingthatcanproperlybecalledsin.Theplainfactisthatthemenofourday

arelivingforthemostpartinanentirelydifferentworldofthoughtandfeelingandlifefromtheworldinwhichtheChristianlives.Thedifferencedoesnot just concern this detail or that: it concerns the entire basis oflife; itconcerns theentireatmosphere inwhichmen liveandmoveandhave their being.At theheart of everything that theBible says are twogreattruths,whichbelonginseparablytogether—themajestyofthelawofGod,andsinasanoffenceagainstthatlaw.Boththesebasictruthsaredeniedinmodernsociety,andinthedenialofthemisfoundthecentralcharacteristicoftheageinwhichweareliving.

Well,whatsortofageisthat;whatsortofageisthisinwhichthelawofGodisregardedasobsoleteandinwhichthereisnoconsciousnessofsin?I will tell you. It is an age in which the disintegration of society isproceeding on a gigantic scale. Look about you, and what do you see?Everywherethethrowingoffofrestraint,theabandonmentofstandards.

TheconsciousnessofsinaloneleadsmentoturntotheSaviorfromsin,andthe consciousnessof sin comesonlywhenmenarebrought face tofacewith the law ofGod. Butmen have no consciousness of sin today,and what are we going to do? I remember that that problem waspresented very poignantly inmy hearing some time ago by a preacherwho was sadly puzzled. Here we are, said he. We are living in thetwentieth century. We have to take things as we find them; and as amatteroffact,whetherwelikeitornot,ifwetalktotheyoungpeopleofthepresentdayaboutsinandguilttheywillnotknowwhatwearetalkingabout;theywillsimplyturnawayfromusinutterboredom,andtheywillturn from the Christ whom we preach. Is not that really too bad? hecontinued.IsitnotreallytoobadforthemtomisstheblessingthatChristhasforthemifonlytheywouldcometoHim?If,therefore,theywillnotcometoChristinourway,oughtwenottoinvitethemtocomeintheirway? If they will not come to Christ through the consciousness of sininducedby the terror of the lawofGod,maywenot get them to comethroughtheattractionoftheamiableethicsofJesusandtheusefulnessofHisteachinginsolvingtheproblemsofsociety?

I am afraid that in response to such questions we shall just have toanswer,"No."IamafraidweshalljusthavetosaythatbeingaChristian

isamuchmore tragic thing than thesepeople suppose. I amafraidweshalljusthavetotellthemthattheycannotclamberoverthewallintotheChristianway. I amafraidwe shall justhave topoint them to the littlewicketgate,andtellthemtoseektheirSaviorwhileyetHemaybefound,inorderthatHemayrescuethemfromthedayofwrath.

Butisthatnotutterlyhopeless?Isitnotutterlyhopelesstotrytogetthepeople of the twentieth century to take the law of God with anyseriousnessortobetheslightestbitfrightenedabouttheirsins?Ianswer,Certainly it is hopeless. Absolutely hopeless. As hopeless as it is for acameltopassthroughtheeyeofaneedle.But,yousee,thereisOnewhocandohopelessthings.Thatis,theSpiritofthelivingGod.

TheSpiritofGodhasnotlostHispower.InHisowngoodtime,Hewillsend His messengers even to a wicked and adulterous and carelessgeneration.Hewillconvictmenofsin;Hewillbreakdownmen'spride;Hewillmelt theirstonyhearts.ThenHewill leadthemtotheSavioroftheirsouls.

IsMankindLostinSin?

We have spoken of the first sin of man, and we have spoken of thequestion,"Whatissin?"Thequestionnowariseswhatconsequencesthatfirstsinofmanhashadforusandforallmen.Somepeoplethinkithadvery slight consequences— if indeed thesepeople think that there everwasa firstsinofmanatall, in thesense inwhich it isdescribed in thethirdchapterofGenesis.

Irememberthatsomeyearsago,whenIwasdrivinghomeinmycaraftera summer vacation, I stayed over Sunday in a certain city without anyparticular reason except that I do not like to travel on that day. Beingwithout any acquaintance with the city, I dropped into what seemedperhapstobetheleadingchurchinthecentralpartofthetown.

WhatIheardinthatchurchwastypicalofwhatonehearsinagreatmanychurches today. It was the Sunday on which new teachers were beinginducted into office. The pastor preached a sermon appropriate to the

occasion. There are two notions about the teaching of children in theChurch,hesaid.Accordingtoonenotion,thechildrenaretobetoldthattheyaresinnersandneedaSavior.Thatistheoldnotion,hesaid;ithasbeenabandonedinthemodernChurch.Accordingtotheothernotion,hesaid,whichisofcoursethenotionthatwemodernshold,thebusinessofthe teacher is to nurture thetender plant of the religious nature of thechildinorderthatitmaybearfruitinanormalandhealthyreligiouslife.

Was that preacher right, or was what he designated as the old notionright?Are children born good, or are they born bad?Do they need, inorderthattheymaygrowupintoChristianmanhood,merelytheuseoftheresourcesplantedinthematbirth,ordotheyneedanewbirthandadivineSavior?

Thatiscertainlyamomentousquestion.Wemayanswerthequestioninthiswayorinthat,butabouttheimportanceofthequestionIdonotseehowtherecanwellbeanydoubt.Thatpreacher,inthechurchofwhichIhavespoken,recognizedtheimportanceofthequestion.Heansweredthequestionthatheraisedquitewrongly,butatleasthewasrightinlookingthe question fairly in the face. I propose that we should imitate thatpreacher in facing the question fairly, even though our conclusionmayturnouttobedifferentfromhis.Iseachmanthecaptainofhisownsoul,andaprettycapablecaptaintoo,or isallmankindlost insin?DoestheBibleteachthatchildrenarebornintotheworldgood(oratleastevenlybalancedbetweenbadnessandgoodness), ordoes it teach that all saveonechildareborninsin?

WhenweapproachtheBiblewiththatquestioninourminds,onethingisat once perfectly clear. It is that the Bible from Genesis to Revelationteaches that all men (with the one exception of Jesus Christ) are as amatter of fact sinners in the sight of God. In one great passage,particularly, that truth, that allmen are sinners, ismade the subject ofdefinite exposition and proof. That passage is found in Romans 1:18 -3:20.There theApostlePaul, beforehegoeson to set forth the gospel,setsforththeuniversalneedofthegospel.Allhaveneedofthegospel,hesays,becauseallwithoutexceptionaresinners.TheGentilesaresinners.TheyhavedisobeyedGod'slaw,eventhoughtheyhavenotthatlawinthe

particularlyclearforminwhichitwaspresentedtoGod'schosenpeoplethrough Moses. Because they have disobeyed God's law, and as apunishment for their disobedience of it, they have sunk deeper anddeeper into themireof sin.TheJewsalso, saysPaul, are sinners.Theyhave great advantages; they have a special revelation from God; inparticulartheyhaveasupernaturalrevelationofGod's law.Butit isnotthehearingofthelawthatcausesamantoberighteousbutthedoingofit;andtheJews,alas,thoughtheyhaveheardit,havenotdoneit.Theytooaretransgressors.

So all have sinned, according to Paul. He drives that truth home by aseriesofOldTestamentScripturequotationsbeginningwith thewords:"Thereisnonerighteous,no,notone:thereisnonethatunderstandeth,there is none that seeketh afterGod. They are all gone out of theway,theyaretogetherbecomeunprofitable;thereisnonethatdoethgood,no,notone."(Romans3:10-12)

IthinkitishardlytoomuchtosaythatifthisPaulineteachingabouttheuniversal sinfulness ofmankind is untrue, thewhole of the rest of thatgloriousEpistle,theEpistletotheRomans,fallstotheground.ImaginePaulasadmittingthatasinglemeremansincethefalleverwasrighteousin the sight of God, not needing, therefore, redemption through thepreciousbloodofChrist;andyouseeatoncethatsuchaPaulwouldbeatotallydifferentPaulfromtheonewhospeaksineverypageoftheEpistletotheRomansandineveryoneoftheotherPaulineEpistlesthattheNewTestament contains. The light of the gospel, in the teaching of Paul,standsoutalwaysagainstthedarkbackgroundofaraceuniversallylostinsin.

Isthecaseanydifferent intherestoftheBible?Icarenotatthispointwhether you turn to the Old Testament or to the New Testament.Everywherethereisthesameterriblediagnosisoftheillofmankind.

"Two men," said Jesus, "went up into the temple to pray, the one aPharisee,andtheotherapublican.ThePhariseestoodandprayedthuswith himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are,extortioners,unjust, adulterers, or even as thispublican. I fast twice in

theweek, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standingafar off,would not lift up somuch as his eyes unto heaven, but smoteuponhisbreast,saying,Godbemercifultomeasinner."(Luk18:10-13)

Which of these twomen received a blessing fromGodwhenhe prayedthereinthetemple—themanwhothoughthewasanexceptiontoGod'scall to repentance or the one who beat upon his breast and confessedhimselfasinner?Jesustellsusveryplainly.Thepublicanwentdowntohishousejustifiedratherthantheother.Ah,myfriends,howterrible istherebukeofJesusagainandagainandagain for thosewhothink thattheyformexceptionstotheuniversalsinfulnessofmankind!

ArichyoungrulercamerunningtoJesusoneday,andaskedhim,"GoodMaster,whatshallIdothatImayinheriteternallife?"Jesusrepeatedtohim a number of the commandments. Theman said, "All these have Iobserved frommy youth." Jesus said, "One thing thou lackest: go thyway, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor." The youngmanwentawaysorrowful.(Mark10:17-22)Helackedsomething;hewasnotgoodasGodregardsgoodness.Thepointisthateverymanalwayslackssomething.NomancomesuptoGod'sstandard;nomancaninheritthekingdomofGodifhestandsuponhisownobediencetoGod'slaw.

DidyoueverobservewhatincidentcomesjustbeforethisincidentoftherichyoungrulerinallthreeoftheSynopticGospels—inMatthewandinMarkandinLuke?It is the incidentof thebringingof littlechildren toJesus,whenJesussaidtothedisciples,asreportedinMarkandsimilarlyin Luke: "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a littlechild, he shall not enter therein" (Mark 10:15). There is a profoundconnectionbetweenthesetwoincidents,asthere isalsoaconnectionofbothofthemwiththeparableofthePhariseeandthePublicanwhichinLukeimmediatelyprecedes.

Some years ago I heard a sermon on the incident of the Rich YoungRuler.Whatarethesermonsthatweareapttoremember?I thinktheyarethesermonswherethepreacherdoesnotpreachhimselfbutwherehetrulyunfoldsthemeaningofsomegreatpassageoftheWordofGod.

ThesermonofwhichIamnowthinkingisonewhichwaspreachedsometime ago in a Philadelphia church by my colleague, Professor R. B.Kuiper.Hetookthe incidentof theRichYoungRuler togetherwith theincidentofthebringingofthelittlechildrentoJesus,andheshowedhowboth incidents teach the same great lesson — the lesson of the utterhelplessness of man the sinner and the absolute necessity of the freegraceofGod.YoucannotdependforyourentranceintothekingdomofGoduponanythingthatyouhaveoranythingthatyouare.Youmustbeas helpless as a little child. Your reliance cannot be on your owngoodness,foryouhavenone.ItcanonlybeuponthegraceofGod.

Godhastoldusthatwearesinners;HehastoldusinHisownholyWordfrombeginning to end.Wellmay the Apostle John say, in view of thewholeof theBible: "Ifwe say thatwehavenot sinned,wemakehimaliar"(IJohn1:10).Godisnotaliar,myfriends.Thisworldislostinsin.

Sin'sWagesandGod'sGift

"Forthewagesofsinisdeath;butthefreegiftofGodiseternal life inChristJesusourLord"(Rom.6:23).

SometimeagoIheardasermononthistextbyapreacherwhohasnowretired. The sermonwas not one that I agreedwith altogether, but thebeginningofit,Ithought,wasinteresting.Thepreachersaidthatduringtheprecedingsummerhehadmetinachancesortofway,ononeofthesteamersoftheGreatLakes,agentlemanwhoturnedouttobeamanoflargeaffairs,butamanwhohadlittletodowiththechurch.Incidentallythe conversation turned to religiousmatters, and the man of businessgave to the preacher the benefit of a little criticism. The criticism wasperhaps not unworthy of attention. "You preachers," the outsider said,"don'tpreachhellenough."

Usually the criticismwhich is leveled at the church bymenwho knownothingabout it isasvaluelessas ignorantcriticismis inotherspheres.But in this case I am inclined to think that the critic was right. Wepreachers do not preach hell enough, andwe do not say enough aboutsin.Wetalkaboutthegospelandwonderwhypeoplearenotinterestedinwhatwesay.Ofcoursetheyarenotinterested.Nomanisinterestedin

apieceof goodnewsunlesshehas the consciousness of needing it; noman is interested in anoffer of salvationunless he knows that there issomething fromwhichheneeds tobesaved. It isquiteuseless toaskaman to adopt the Christian view of the gospel unless he first has theChristianviewofsin.

But a man will never adopt the Christian view of sin if he considersmerelythesinoftheworldorthesinsofotherpeople.Considerationofthesinsofotherpeopleisthedeadliestofmoralanodynes;itrelievesthepainofconsciencebutitalsodestroysmorallife.Manypersonsgloatoverdenunciationsof that towhich theyarenot tempted;or theyevengloatover denunciations, in the case of other people, of sins which are alsoreally theirs. King David was very severe when the prophet Nathannarratedtohimhissordidtaleofgreed."AstheLordliveth,"saidDavid,"theman thathathdone this thing shall surelydie."ButNathanwas adisconcertingprophet."AndNathansaidtoDavid,Thouarttheman."(IISamuel 12:5, 7)Thatwas forDavid thebeginningof a real senseofhissin.Soitwillalsobewithus.

Ofcourse it seemsquitepreposterous thatweshouldbesinners. Itwaspreposterousalso forKingDavidseatedonhis throne inthemajestyofhis royal robes. It was preposterous, but it was true. So also it ispreposterousforus. Itseemstobeastrangenotionto treatrespectablepeopleassinners.Inthecaseofcollegemen,itseemsparticularlyabsurd.Collegemenlooksopleasant;itseemspreposteroustoconnectthemwiththedreadfulfactofsin.SometimeagoIwasreading,Ithinkinajournalpublished in London, a review of a book that dealt with religiousconditions among university men or young people. The author of thebook spokeof themoral ideals of the youngmenof the present day asbeingsummedupinthenotionofbeingagoodsport.Theyoungmenofthepresentday,itwassaidineffect,maynotusetheoldterminologyofguiltandretribution,buttheydislikethemanwhodoesnotknowhowtoplayfairlyamatchoflawntennisanddoesnotknowhowtotakedefeatlikeagentleman.The remarkof the reviewer, I thought,waseminentlyjust.Surely,hesaid,withregardtothisverycommonlawntennisviewofsin— surely, he said, among university men "there are grimmer factsthanthese."Hewasright,andweknowhewasright.Hewasrightabout

universitymen inEngland;hewas rightabout collegemen inAmerica;and hewas right about the rest of us aswell. There are grimmer factsthanpoor lawntennisandpoorsport, regrettablethoughthatnodoubtis.Thereis,ingeneral,inathousanduglyforms,thegrimfactofsin.

So when I speak of sin I am not talking to you about the sin of otherpeople,butIamtalkingtoyouaboutyoursin,andIamtalkingtomyselfaboutmysin.IamtalkingaboutthatparticularbattlegroundwhereyoucometogripswiththepowerofevilandwhereyoumeetyourGod.

Suppose that on that battle ground we have met defeat. What is theresult?TheanswerofthetextandtheanswerofthewholeBibleisshortandplain."Thewagesofsin,"saystheBible,"isdeath"(Romans6:23).IshallnotpausejustnowtoconsiderindetailwhatPaulmeansby"death"—exceptjusttopointoutthisinterestingfactthatifyouwanttofindthemostterribledescriptionsofthiseternaldeathyouwillfindthemnotinPaul but in Jesus. It is the custom nowadays to appeal from thesupposedlygloomytheologyofPaultothesupposedlysunnyphilosophyofJesus;butthestrangethingsisthatitisJesus,notPaul,whospeaksoftheouterdarknessandtheeverlastingfireandofthesinthatshallnotbeforgiveneitherinthisworldorinthatwhichistocome.Pauliscontentinhis Epistles to treat of the punishment of sin with some reserve — areserveveryimpressiveandveryterrifying,itistrue—butJesusismoreexplicit. Jesusmakes abundantly plain that the offender against God'slaw is facing something far more dreadful, to say the least, thanmereannihilationwouldbe.TheteachingofJesushasat theverycenterof itthe fear ofGodand the fearofhell.Nohuman lawwithout sanction iscomplete;a lawwithoutapenalty isanaltogetherworthless andpitifulthing.AreGod'slawsofthispitifulkind?

Therearesomepeoplewhoseemtothinkthattheyare.ButasamatteroffactGod'slawshaveattachedtothemsanctionscomparedwithwhichallhumanpenaltiesareasnothing.

The fact appears even in the course of this world. There is a deadlyinexorableness about the laws of nature. Offend against the laws ofhealth, and the result follows with a terrible certainty; no excuses will

avail; crying and tears will count nothing; the retribution, howeverdeferred,issure.Inthesphereofthephysicallife,itiscertainlyclearthatthewagesofsinisdeath.Butmanypeoplethinkthatthepaymastercanbecheated, thataftera lifeofsinwecanpresentourselveshopefullyatthecashier'swindowandbepaidinsomedifferentcoinfromthatwhichwehaveearned.Doyoureallyagreewiththem?Doyoureallythinkthatinthisaccountingyoucancheat?Doyoureallythinkthatbycareinthephysical sphere you can avoid the consequences of sin? There issomething within us that tells us that such is not the case; there issomethingwithinus that reveals theabyssoverwhichweare standing,that brushes aside our petty excuses, that reveals in the inner, moralsphere,asinthephysicalrealm,thesameterribleinexorablenessoflaw.Godgrantthatwemaynotdeceiveourselves!Godgrantthatwemaynothopetocheat!Godgrantthatwemaylearnintimethatthewagesofsinisdeath!

There is a definiteness and certainty about wages.Wages are differentfromaspontaneousgift;wages,unlikeagift,arefixed.Amanhasdonehisweek'swork;hepresentshimselfatthepaymaster'sdesk,andispaidoff;thematterisnotdiscussed;theemployeedoesnottrythentostrikeabargain with the cashier. The amount of the payment has beendetermined beforehand, and the payment itself is a purely formal,impersonal affair. So it is, somewhat,with thewages of sin. Thewageshavebeenfixedalready.Idonotmeanthatallsinsarepunishedalike;nodoubtatGod's judgmentseat there isadelicacyofdiscriminationquiteimpossibleunderhumanlaws.AndIdonotmeanthatthepenaltyofsinfollowsmerelybyanaturallawthatisindependentofGod.Buthoweverthelawhasbeenestablished,itis,whenonceestablished,inexorable.Itisquiteuselessforamantoargueaboutthepenaltyofhissin;itisuselessinthephysicalsphereofthelawsofhealth,anditwillbeuselesswhenweappearatlastbeforeHimwhoknowsthesecretsoftheheart.Letusnotdeceiveourselves,myfriends.Themoralconstitutionoftheuniverseisaveryterriblething.Letusnotthinkthatwecantriflewithit.Theworldisgoverned by inexorable law. And that law establishes by an immutabledecreethedreadfulconsequencesofsin.Thewagesofsinisdeath.

Atthatpointsomepreachersstop.Herestopped,forexample,thenoted

preacher whose sermon gave us our text and our subject today. Theterriblenessofsinandtheinexorablenessof law—it iswrit largeinthephysical organism ofman and in thewhole course of nature. It is alsowrit large in theBible.ButtheBible,unlikenature,doesnotstophere."Thewagesofsinisdeath"—itisagreattruth,butitisnottheendofourtext.Thewagesofsin isdeath—that is the law.But theBiblecontainsmorethanthelaw;itcontainsalsothegospel."Thewagesofsinisdeath,butthefreegiftofGodiseternallifeinChristJesusourLord"(Romans6:23).

Thefreegiftiscontrastedwithwages.Yetmenpersistindraggingitdowntothewagelevel;theypersistintryingtomakethegiftofGodaproductofsome law.Theypersist in regardingsalvationasproceedingby somenatural process from faith or from some other quality of men. Theyregard Christianity as founded upon permanent principles of religioninsteadofbeing foundeduponanunexpectedpieceofnews.Whenwillthevaineffortbeabandoned?Salvationisnothing,oritisafreegift;itisnotaprinciplethathasbeendiscoveredbutaneventthathashappened.

ThetroubleisthatweareunwillingtotakeGodatHisword.Wepersistinendeavoring to saveourselves. Ifwehave learned toanydegree thatlessonof the law, ifwehavecometohaveahorrorofsin,wepersist inthinkingthatitdependsuponustogetridofit.Wetrytomakeuseofourownmoralresources in thisstruggle,andwefallyetdeeperanddeeperinto the mire. When shall we take God at His word? When shall wesimplyaccept,infaith,thegiftofsalvationwhichHehasoffered?

It is certainlyworthaccepting. It consists in "eternal life."Weneednotnowask indetailwhat thatmeans.Butcertainly it isasgloriousas the"death"withwhichitiscontrastedisterrible.Itiscertainlyhappinessascontrastedwithwoe,butitisfarmorethanhappiness.Itinvolvesservice,anditinvolvesthepresenceofGod.

The free gift of God is an absolutely unaccountable event in the life ofeverymanwhoacceptsit.Itisnotthenaturalworkingoutofaprinciple,butitisathingthathappens.Butthathappeninginthesoulistheresultofahappening in the sphereof externalhistory.The freegiftofGod is

eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. There we have the centralcharacteristicofourreligion; thecentralcharacteristicofChristianity isthat it is not foundedmerely uponwhat alwayswas true but primarilyupon something that happened — something that took place nearJerusalematadefinite time in theworld'shistory. Inotherwords, it isfounded not merely upon permanent truths of religion, but upon a"gospel,"apieceofnews.

The Christian preacher, be he ever so humble, is entrusted with thatgospel.We could not hope to be listened to if we hadmerely our ownthoughts;therearesomanyothersintheworldwiserandmorelearnedthanwe.Butinatimeofperilinabeleagueredcitythehumblestofday-laborersismoreworthlisteningtothanthegreatestoforators,ifhehasnews.SoitiswiththeChristianpreacherinthisdeadlyperilofthesoul.The wages of sin is death— that is the law. But at the decisive pointChristhastakenthewagesuponHimself—thatisthegospel.InexorableisthemorallawofGod.ButGod'smercyhasused,andtriumphedover,Hislaw.Wedeservedeternaldeath;butChristdiedinsteadofusonthecross. Shallwe accept the gift?The resultwill be a fresh start inGod'sfavorand thenawinningbattleagainst sin."Thewagesof sin isdeath;butthefreegiftofGodiseternallifeinChristJesusourLord."

*TheseessaysareextractedfromDr.Machen'sbooksfromTheChristianViewofMan(1937)andGodTranscendent(1949).

TheWitnessofPaultoChrist

Paul an Apostle, not from men nor through a man, but throughJesusChrist and God the Father who raised Him from the dead,andallthebrethrenwhoarewithme,tothechurchesofGalatia..."(Gal.1:1-2,literaltranslation)

HumanMeritvs.theGraceofGod

The enemy against which Paul is fighting in the Epistle can bereconstructedfairlywellfromtheEpistleitself.Paulwasfightingagainstthedoctrinethatamancanearnapart,at least,ofhis salvationbyhisownobedience toGod's law;hewas fightingagainst thedoctrine thatamanisjustifiednotbyfaithalone,butbyfaithandworks.

That doctrinewas being propagated by certain teacherswho had comeintotheGalatianchurchesfromtheoutside.TheseteachersweremenofJewishrace;andsincetheysoughttoinduceGentilepeopleto"Judaize"-that is, to adopt the Jewishmanner of life - they are commonly called"Judaizers."

The Judaizers agreed with Paul about many things: they agreed inholding that Jesus was the Messiah; they seemed to have no quarrelwhateverwithPaul'sloftydoctrineofthedeityofChrist;theybelievedintheresurrectionofourLordfromthedead.Moreover,theyevenheld,nodoubt, that amanmust believe in the Lord Jesus Christ if he is to besaved.

ButtheirerrorlayinholdingnotonlythatamanmustbelieveintheLordJesusChristifheistobesaved,butthathemustalsodosomethingelsenamely, keep at least a part of the law of God. Salvation according tothoseJudaizers,inotherwords,isattainedpartlybythegraceofGodandpartlybythemeritofman.

TheModernJudaizers

The particular form of merit which they inducedmen to seek was themerit of keeping the law ofMoses, particularly the ceremonial law. Atfirstsight,thatfactmightseemtodestroytheusefulnessoftheEpistleforthe present day; for we of today are in no danger of desiring to keepJewishfastsandfeasts.Butalittleconsiderationwillshowthatthatisnotatallthecase.ThereallyessentialthingabouttheJudaizers'contentionwasnotfoundinthoseparticular"worksofthelaw"thattheyurgedupontheGalatiansasbeingoneofthegroundsofsalvation,butinthefactthatthey urged anyworks in this sense at all. The really serious error intowhichtheyfellwasnotthattheycarriedtheceremoniallawoverintothenewdispensationwhitherGod did not intend it to be carried, but thatthey preached a religion of human merit as over against a religion ofdivinegrace.

SotheerroroftheJudaizersisaverymodernerrorindeed,aswellasaveryancienterror.ItisfoundinthemodernChurchwherevermenseeksalvation by "surrender" instead of by faith, or by their own characterinsteadofbythe imputedrighteousnessofChrist,orby"makingChristmaster in the life" instead of by trusting in His redeeming blood. Inparticular, it is found wherever men say "the real essentials" ofChristianityarelove,justice,mercyandothervirtues,ascontrastedwiththe great doctrines of God'sWord. These are all just different ways ofexaltingthemeritofmanoveragainsttheCrossofChrist,theyareallofthemattacksupontheveryheartandcoreoftheChristianreligion.AndagainstallofthemthemightypolemicofthisEpistletotheGalatiansisturned.

TheAuthorityofPaul

Butitistimetoreturntoourword"not"inthefirstverseoftheEpistle.We have seen that that word is typical of the whole Epistle, since thisletterisapolemicfrombeginningtoend.ButtheparticularreferenceofthewordinthisverseisnotdirectlytothefalsegospeloftheJudaizers,buttotheirpersonalattackuponPaul.TheJudaizershadnotbeenabletogainanentrancefortheirfalseteachingsolongastheauthorityofthegreat Apostle remained beyond dispute. So they had proceeded tounderminethatauthorityasbesttheycould-,theyhadsaidthatPaulwasatbestanapostleofthesecondrank-thathehadnotbeenwithJesusin

Galilee as had Peter and the others of the original Twelve, and thatconsequently whatever authority he possessed had come to him onlythroughthem.

ItisagainstthisattackthatPauluttersthe"not"inthisfirstverse;inthisversehedefendshisapostolicauthority,nothisgospel.Butofcoursethedefense of his apostolic authority was altogether for the sake of hisgospel-, he is not interested in his apostolic prerogatives for their ownsake,butonlyforthesakeof themessagewhichthoseprerogativeshadbeen given him to proclaim. Hence the "not" of this verse is a veryweighty word indeed; it involves, indirectly at least, the whole mightyconflict between pride in human goodness and the allsufficiency of theCrossofChrist.

Withthisunderstanding,letusseehowPauldefendshisauthorityasanapostle of JesusChrist.He is "an apostle," he says, "not frommennorthroughaman."

When he says that he is not an apostle frommen, he denies that thesource of his apostleshipwas found in men. So far, perhaps, even theJudaizersmay have agreedwith him, theymay perhaps have admittedthatultimatelyhisauthoritytopreachcamefromChrist.

But the real point of his defense comes in the following words. "Myapostleshipnotonlydidnotcomefrommen,"hesays-somuchperhapsevenhisopponentsadmitted-"butitdidnotcomeeventhroughaman."Thereiswherethedisputearose.TheJudaizerssaidthatifPaulhadanyauthorityatallitcamethroughthosewhohadbeenapostlesbeforehim,butPaulsaysthatitcametohimdirectlyfromChristwithoutanyhumanintermediaryatall:notonlywasthesourceofhisapostleshipdivine,butalsothechannelthroughwhichitcametohim;theLordJesusChristdidnotuseany intermediary togivehimhiscommissionasanapostle,butappearedtohimdirectlyontheroadtoDamascus.

Paul'sCommissionandOurs

Thusinthewords,"northroughaman,"PaulreferstoaprerogativethatdifferentiateshimsharplyfromordinaryChristians.

EveryhumbleChristiancaninacertainsensegowithPaulintheformerof the twophrases thatwehave justdiscussed.EveryhumbleChristiancansay:"MycommissioncomestomenotfrommenbutfromChrist."Ofcourse, the ordinary Christian cannot say, as Paul could say, that hiscommission is an apostolic commission; for by the term "apostle" isdesignated a high function that has not been continued in the Church.Nevertheless, even the very humblest Christian can say that he has acommissionwhichhascometohimnotfrommenbutfromGod.Thatistrueofapreacher,anditisjustastrueofthesextonwhosweepsoutthechurchandofthetreasurerwhotakescareofthefunds.

ButweordinaryChristians,whetherpreachersor sextonsor treasurers,cannotgowithPaulinthesecondofthetwophrases;wecannotsaythatourcommissiondidnotcometousthroughaman;forasamatteroffactitdidcometousthroughsometrueevangelistwhopreachedthegospeltous,orthroughsomefaithfulpastororteacher,orthroughsomegodlyparent.Christgaveusourcommission,butHeusedhumanemissariesindoingso;wearenoteyewitnessesof therisenChrist.But in thecaseofPaultherewasnosuchhumanemissary;tohimChristappearedontheroadtoDamascusandgavehimdirectlyhishighcommission.

ThereferencetoPaul'sconversionisplaininthewordsthatimmediatelyfollowthosewithwhichwehave justdealt. Iamanapostle," saysPaul,"notfrommennorthroughaman,butthroughJesusChristandGodtheFatherwhoraisedHimfromthedead."ThereferencetotheresurrectionofChristisnot,atthispoint,ameregeneralreferencetosomethingthatwasfundamentalintheChristianfaith,butPaulisthinkingspecificallyofthefact thathisapostleshipcametohimfromtherisenChrist.Iamanapostle," he says, "through Jesus Christ - yes, and through God theFather, since God the Father raised Christ from the dead and isconcernedinallthattherisenChristdoes,includingthatcalltomethatcameontheDamascusroad."

TheContrastBetweenChristandMan

SofarwehaveexplainedthewordsthatPaulusesinthisverse.Butitistobe wondered whether all readers are aware of the stupendousimplications of those words.When Paul says, "Not through aman but

throughJesusChrist,"hasitstruckthereaderthatthatisaverystrangecontrast; does it seem at all strange that the Apostle should set JesusChristsharplyoveragainsthumanityinthisway,asthoughHebelongedinanentirelydifferentcategory,asthoughofaman"and"JesusChrist"weretwoentirelydistinctthings?

If it does not seem strange to us, that is simply because our Christianconviction about Jesus Christ has become so ingrained in us that thewonderof ithasbeen lost fromview.ThankGod that itdoesnot seemstrange to us!But tomostmodernhistorians, bothwithin andwithouttheChurch,itseemsverystrangeindeed.

AContemporaryWitness

Whowas this "JesusChrist" who is separated thus by Paul so sharplyfromordinaryhumanityandisplacedonthesideofGod?Whowasthisperson who is treated thus as a stupendous heavenly being to whomdivinehonorsweretobepaid,alongwiththehonorspaidtotheeternalGod, theMaker of heaven and earth?WasHe amythical personage ofremoteantiquity,aroundwhomthelegendsoftheageswouldhavebeenfreetogrow?

Notatall.HewasaJewishteacher,acontemporaryofPaul,wholivedinPalestine and had died a shameful death only a few years before thisEpistlewas written. He was a person one of whose brothers Paul hadactuallymet(Gal.1:19).ThegenuinenessoftheEpistletotheGalatiansis admitted by all serious historians, whether friends or foes ofChristianity.TheEpistlewasadmittedlywritten, then,byPaul; and thedateofitcanbefixedwithinrathernarrowlimits.ItwaswrittennotlaterthanaboutA.D.55,onlysometwenty-fiveyearsafter thedeathof thisJesusofwhomPaulspeaks.When,therefore,PaulspeaksofJesusChristasinsuchcontrastwithhumanityandasstandingsoclearlyonthesideofGod,heisnotspeakingaboutapersonageofthedimanddistantpast,but about one of his own contemporaries. How shall so strange aphenomenonbeexplained?

TherealChristianwillhavenodifficultyinexplainingit."PaulspeaksofJesusasGod,"hewill say, "because as amatter of fact JesuswasGod,

becauseHewastheeternalSonofGodwhocamevoluntarilytothisearthforour salvation,worked redemption formankind, rose from thedead,andisnowseatedonthethroneofallbeingtobeworshipedandglorifiedbyallwhoareHis."

Buttomostmodernhistorians,whoregardJesusasamereman,thefirstverse of Galatians, together with all the rest that Paul says, presents avery strange problem indeed. How did a mere man, a Jewish teacher,cometoberegardedthusasGod,notbylatergenerationsbutbyoneofHisowncontemporaries?

OneGod,YetChristisGod

ThethingwouldnotbequitesostrangeifPaul,whoatteststhisstrangeviewofJesus,hadbeenamanofpolytheistictrainingandbelief.Hadhe

HISTORICCHRISTIANITY:SelectionsfromtheWritingsofJ.GreshamMachen,Page36

believed inmany gods, the adding of onemore would not be quite sodifficulttounderstand.ButasamatteroffactPaulwasamonotheistofthemonotheists.PharisaicJudaismofthefirstcenturywasnothingifnotmonotheistic;itheldwithheartandsoultothedoctrinethatthereisbutoneGod.Paulsharedthatdoctrine,bothbeforeandafterhisconversion,to the full. How could such amonotheist, such a believer in the awfulseparateness between the one God and the world that He had made,possiblycometoexaltamereman,Jesus,tothegodheadandpaytohimthereverencewhichbelongsonlytoGod?

That Paul does just that is attested not only by our verse but by hisEpistles from beginning to end. He does, indeed, in certain passages,speakofJesusasaman.InRom.5:15,forexample,hecontraststheoneman, Adam, with "the one man, Jesus Christ"; and a similar contrastbetween "the first man" and "the second man" occurs in the fifteenthchapter of 1Corinthians. So also in 1Tim. 1-5,Paul speaks of the "oneMediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." But in thesepassages the careful reader receives somewhat the impression that theApostleregards it as a strange thing,worthyof specialnote, that Jesus

Christshouldbeamanaswellassomethingotherthanman.Atanyrate,these passages do not in the slightest invalidate the fact that in theEpistlesasawhole,asinourverseinGalatians,JesusChristisseparatedsharply fromordinary humanity andplaced clearly on the side ofGod.EverywherePaulstandsinatrulyreligiousrelationshiptoChrist.Christis forhimnotprimarilyanexample for faithbut theobjectof faith;hisreligiondoesnotconsistmerelyinhavingfaithinGodlikethefaithwhichJesushadinGod,butinhavingfaithinJesus.

Thatfactisenoughtogivethethoughtfulhistorianpause.WhowasthisJesuswhocouldbeexaltedtothethroneofGodnotbylatergenerationsbutbyamanofHisowngeneration,onlyafewyearsafterHisshamefuldeath?

Butwehavenotyetmentionedwhatisperhapsthemostsurprisingthingofall.ThesurprisingthingisnotmerelythatPaulholdsthisstupendousviewof Jesus, but that hedoesnot argue about it, that he seems to beunder no necessity whatever of defending it against attack within theChurch. Even the Judaizers, so far as we can see, had no quarrel withPaul'sloftyviewofChrist.Paulsaid:"IamanapostlenotthroughamanbutthroughJesusChrist";theJudaizerssaid:"No,youareanapostlenotthrough Jesus Christ but through a man"; but it never seems to haveoccurred to anyone in the Church to say: "You are an apostle throughJesusChristandthereforeyouareanapostlethroughaman,sinceJesusChristwasamereman."

Certainly, at any rate, whatever may have been the attitude of theJudaizers,itisperfectlyclearthateveniftheydiddifferfromPaulaboutthepersonofChrist,theoriginalapostles-PeterandothersoftheTwelve-gavethemnoslightestcolorofsupportonthispoint.TheJudaizersmaypossibly have appealed to those original apostles on another point -namely, the attitude thatwas to be assumed in the Church toward theMosaiclaw.Eventhatappeal-supposingtheydidmakeit,whichisbynomeansperfectlycertain-

was,asweshallsee,anutterlyunjustifiedappeal.ButwithregardtothepersonofChrist,atanyrate,theydidnotventuretomakeanyappealtotheoriginalapostlesatall.

Here,then,wehavethetrulyamazingthing.NotonlydoesPaulholdtohisstupendousviewofthepersonofChrist,butheassumesthateveryoneagreeswithhimaboutit;inparticular,heassumesthatPeteragreeswithhim, and others of the intimate friends of Jesus. Thosemen had seenJesus subjected to all the petty limitations of human life, as He hadwalkedwiththemontheGalileanhills;andyettheyagreedperfectlywiththeloftyview,whichPaulpresentsinhisEpistles,ofJesusastheSonofthelivingGod.

That factpresents to themodern naturalistic historians,who reject thepictureofJesuswhich theNewTestament contains, a seriousproblem.According to those historians, Jesus was a mere man, and His firstdisciples regarded Him at first as such. That, then, according to thesehistorians, was the original, the "primitive," view of Jesus; Jesuspresented Himself and was first regarded as a mere prophet ofrighteousness,oratmostasapurelyhumanMessiah.Yettheplainfactis-afactwhichnohistoriancandeny-thatifthatwastheoriginalviewofJesusitgaveplacetoatotallydifferentviewnotinsomelatergenerationbut, as attested by the Epistles of Paul, in the very first Christiangeneration, when the intimate friends of Jesus were leaders in theChurch.

Therapidityofthetransitionisverystrange.Butstillmorestrangeistheutterabsenceofanyconflictatthetimewhenthechangewasproduced.The absence of conflict, the absence of any throes of transition, Iseloquently attested by the Epistles of Paul. What we are asked bynaturalistic historians to believe is that the true, the original, the"primitive," view of Jesus as just a great religious teacher, proclaimingthefatherhoodofGodandthebrotherhoodofman,suddenlygaveplace,justafterHisshamefuldeath,toatotallydifferent,atotallyincongruous,view, and that thatmighty transitionwas effectedwithout the slightesttraceofanyconflictintheChurch!

Thatisreallytoomuchtobelieve.No,thematter-of-coursewayinwhichJesus, as the Epistles of Paul attest, was regarded as a supernaturalpersonintheearliestapostolicChurchshowsthattherewassomethinginHispersonfromtheverybeginningthatjustifiedsuchaview.

SuchisthewitnessofPaultoChrist.ItisnotdependentupondetailsintheEpistles,but is involved, rather, in the totalphenomenonwhich theEpistlespresent. It hasnot been invalidated in the slightest bymodernresearch.

TheResurrectionofChrist

Some nineteen hundred years ago, in an obscure corner of the RomanEmpire, there lived one who, even to a casual observer might haveseemedtobearemarkableman.

Uptotheageofaboutthirtyyears.Helivedanobscurelifeinthemidstofan humble family. Then He began a remarkable course of ethical andreligiousteaching,accompaniedbyaministryofhealing.

AtfirstHewasverypopular.GreatcrowdsfollowedHimgladly,andtheintellectualmenofHispeoplewereinterestedinwhatHehadtosay.

ButHisteachingpresentedrevolutionaryfeatures,andHedidnotsatisfythepoliticalexpectationsofthepopulace.

And so, before long, after some three years, He fell a victim to thejealousy of the leaders of His people and the cowardice of the Romangovernor.Hediedthedeathofthecriminalsofthosedays,onthecross.

At His death, the disciples whom He had gathered about Him wereutterlydiscouraged.InHimhadcentredalltheirloftiesthopes.Andnowthat He was taken from them by a shameful death, their hopes wereshattered.

They fled fromHim in cowardly fear in the hour of His need, and anobserver would have said that never was amovementmore hopelesslydead.

These followers of Jesus had evidently been far inferior to Him inspiritualdiscernmentandincourage.Theyhadnotbeenable,evenwhenHewaswiththem,tounderstandtheloftyteachingsoftheirleader.How,

then,couldtheyunderstandHimwhenHewasgone?

The movement depended, one might have said, too much on oneextraordinary man, and when He was taken away, then surely themovementwasdead.

But then the astonishing thing happened. The plain fact,which no onedoubts, is that those sameweak,discouragedmenwhohad just fled inthe hour of their Master's need, and who were altogether hopeless onaccountofHis death, suddenly began in Jerusalem, a very fewdays orweeksafter theirMaster's death,what is certainly themost remarkablespiritualmovementthattheworldhaseverseen.

At first, the movement thus begun remained within the limits of theJewishpeople.ButsoonitbrokethebandsofJudaism,andbegantobeplantedinallthegreatcitiesoftheRomanworld.

Withinthreehundredyears,theEmpireitselfhadbeenconqueredbytheChristianfaith.

Butthismovementwasbeguninthosefewdecisivedaysafterthedeathof Jesus.Whatwas it which caused the striking change in thoseweak,discourageddisciples,whichmade them the spiritual conquerorsof theworld?

Historians of today are perfectly agreed that something must havehappened,somethingdecisive,afterthedeathofJesus,inordertobeginthisnewmovement.

It was not just an ordinary continuation of the influence of Jesus'teaching. Themodern historians are at least agreed that some strikingchange tookplaceafter thedeathofJesus, andbefore thebeginningoftheChristianmissionarymovement.

Theyareagreed,moreover,tosomeextentevenaboutthequestionwhatthe change was. They are agreed in holding that this new ChristianmovementwasbegunbythebeliefofthedisciplesintheresurrectionofJesus.

TheyareagreedinholdingthatinthemindsandheartsofthedisciplestherewasformedtheconvictionthatJesushadrisenfromthedead.

Of course, that was not formerly admitted by every one. It used to bemaintained,intheearlydaysofmodernscepticism,thatthedisciplesofJesusonlypretendedthatHehadrisenfromthedead.

Such hypotheses have long ago been placed in the limbo of discardedtheories.Thedisciples of Jesus, the intimate friends of Jesus, it is nowadmitted,inashorttimeafterHisdeathcametobebelievehonestlythatHehadrisenfromthedead.

Theonlydifferenceofopinioncomeswhenweaskwhatinturnproducedthisbelief.

TheNewTestamentanswertothisquestionisperfectlyplain.AccordingtotheNewTestament,thedisciplesbelievedintheresurrectionofJesusbecauseJesusreally,afterHisdeath,cameoutofthetomb,appearedtothem,andheldextendedintercoursewiththem,sothattheirbeliefintheresurrectionwassimplybasedonfact.

Of course, this explanation is rejected by those modern men who areunwilling to recognise in the origin of Christianity an entrance of thecreative power of God, in distinction from the laws which operate innature.

Andsoanotherexplanationhasbeenproposed.Itisthatthebeliefofthedisciples in the resurrection was produced by certain hallucinations inwhich they thought they saw Jesus, their teacher, and heard perhapswordsofHisringingintheirears.

Anhallucinationisaphenomenonwellknowntostudentsofpathology.Inanhallucination,theopticnerveisaffected,andthepatientthereforedoesactually inonesense ‘see’someoneorsomething.Butthiseffect isproduced,notbyanexternalobject,butbythepathologicalconditionofthesubjecthimself.

That is the view of the ‘appearances’ of the risen Christ which is held

todaybythosewhorejectthemiraculousinconnectionwiththeoriginofChristianity.

Itisalsoheld,itistrue,thatwhatwasdecisiveintheresurrectionfaithoftheearlydiscipleswastheimpressionwhichtheyhadreceivedofJesus'person.

Withoutthatimpression,itissupposed,theycouldneverhavehadthosepathological experiences which they called appearances of the risenChrist,sothatthosepathologicalexperiencesweremerelythenecessaryforminwhichthecontinuedimpressionofJesus'personmadeitselffeltinthelifeofthefirstdisciples.

But after all, on this hypothesis, the resurrection faith of the disciples,upon which the Christian church is founded, was really based upon apathologicalexperienceinwhichthesementhoughttheysawJesus,andheardperhapsawordortwoofHisringingintheirears,whentherewasnothingintheexternalworldtomakethemthinkthattheywere inHispresence.

Formerly, it is true, there were other explanations. It used to be heldsometimesthatthedisciplescametobelieveintheresurrectionbecauseJesus was not really dead.When He was placed in the cool air of thetomb,He revived and cameout, and thedisciples thought thatHehadarisen.

Anoteworthyscholaroftodayissaidtohaverevivedthistheory,becausehe is dissatisfied with the prevailing idea. But the great majority ofscholars today believe that this faith of the disciples was caused byhallucinations,whicharecalled‘appearances’oftherisenLord.

But let us examine the New Testament account of the resurrection ofJesus,andoftherelatedevents.ThisaccountiscontainedparticularlyinsixoftheNewTestamentbooks.

Ofcourse,alltheNewTestamentbookspresupposetheresurrection,andwitness is borne to it in all of them. But there are six of these books,aboveallothers,whichprovidethedetailsoftheResurrection.

ThesearethefourGospels,theBookofActs,andtheFirstEpistleofPaultotheCorinthians.

Accordingtothesesixbooks,iftheirwitnessbeputtogether,JesusdiedonaFriday.Hisbodywasnotallowedtoremainanddecomposeonthecross,butwasburiedthatsameevening.

Hewasplacedinagravechosenbyaleaderofthepeople,amemberoftheSanhedrin.Hisburialwaswitnessedbycertainwomen.

HeremainedinthegraveduringtheSabbath.Butonthemorningofthefirstdayoftheweek,Hearose.

Certainwomenwho came to the grave found it empty, and saw angelswhotoldthemHehadrisenfromthedead.Heappearedtothesewomen.

The grave was visited that same morning by Peter and the beloveddisciple.

In the course of the day Jesus appeared to Peter. In the evening HeappearedtotwounnameddiscipleswhowerewalkingtoEmmaus-,andapparentlylateronthesameeveningHeappearedtoalltheapostlessaveThomas.

Then a week later He appeared again to the apostles, Thomas beingpresent.

ThenHeappearedinGalilee,aswelearnfromMatthew28.

Paulisprobablymentioningthissameappearancewhenhesaysthat‘Heappearedtoabovefivehundredbrethrenatonce’(1Corinthians15:6).

Itwasprobablythen,also,thatHeappearedtothesevendisciplesontheseaofGalilee(John21).

ThenHeappearedinJerusalem,andascendedfromtheMountofOlives.

SometimeinthecourseoftheappearancestherewasonetoJames,Hisownbrother(ICorinthians15:7).LateronHeappearedtoPaul.

Such is theNewTestament account of the resurrection appearances ofourLord.

There are two features of this account to which great prominence hasbeen given in recent discussions. These are, (1) the place, and (2) thecharacter,oftheappearancesofJesus.

According to the New Testament, the place was first Jerusalem, thenGalilee,andthenJerusalemagain.Theappearancestookplace,notonlyinGalileeandinJerusalem,butbothinJerusalemandinGalilee;andthefirstappearancestookplaceinJerusalem.

So much for the place of the appearances. As for the character of theappearances, they were, according to the New Testament, of a plain,physicalkind.

In the New Testament Jesus is represented even as holding tablecompanionshipwithHisdisciplesafterHisresurrection,andasengaginginratherextendedintercoursewiththem.

Thereis,itistrue,somethingmysteriousaboutthisintercourse.Itisnotjust a continuation of the old Galilean relationship. Jesus' body isindependentofconditionsoftimeandspaceinawaythatappearedonlyrarely in His previous ministry. There was a change. But there is alsocontinuity.

ThebodyofJesuscameoutofthetombandappearedtothedisciplesinsuchawaythatamancouldputhisfingerinthemarkofthenailsinHishands.

Intwoparticulars,thisaccountiscontradictedbymodernscholars.

In the firstplace, thecharacterof theappearances, is supposed tohavebeendifferent.ThedisciplesofJesus,it issupposed,sawHimjust foramomentinglory,andperhapsheardawordortworingingintheirears.

Ofcoursethiswasnot,accordingtothemodernnaturalistichistorians,arealseeingandhearing,butanhallucination.

But the point is, that those who regard these appearances ashallucinationsarenotabletotaketheNewTestamentaccountandprovefromitthattheseappearanceswerehallucinationsandwerenotfoundedupontherealpresenceofthebodyofJesus,butareobligedfirsttoreducetheNewTestamentaccounttomanageableproportions.

Thereasonisthattherearelimitstoanhallucination.Nosanemencouldthinkthattheyhadhadextendedcompanionshipwithonewhowasnotreallypresent,orcouldbelievethattheyhadwalkedwithHimandtalkedwithHimafterHisdeath.

You cannot enter upon themodern explanation of thesehappenings asgenuineexperiencesbutatthesametimemerevisions,untilyoumodifytheaccountthatisgivenoftheappearancethemselves.

And if thismodified account be true, theremust be a great deal in theNewTestamentaccountthatislegendary.Youmustadmitthis,ifyouaregoingtoexplaintheseappearancesashallucinations.

So there is a difference concerning the nature of the appearances,accordingtomodernreconstruction,asoveragainsttheNewTestament.

Andthereisadifferencealsoconcerningtheplaceoftheappearances.

According to the customarymodern view of naturalistic historians, thefirstappearancestookplaceinGalilee,andnotinJerusalem.

Butwhatistheimportanceofthatdifferenceofopinion?Itlooksatfirstsight as though it were a mere matter of detail. But in reality it isprofoundlyimportantforthewholemodernreconstruction.

If you are going to explain these experiences as hallucinations, thenecessarypsychological conditionsmusthaveprevailed inorder for thedisciples to have had the experiences. Thereforemodern historians arecarefultoallowtimefortheprofounddiscouragementofthedisciplestobegottenridof;forthedisciplestoreturntoGalilee,andtoliveagaininthesceneswhere theyhad livedwithJesus; tomuseuponHim,andbeready to have these visions of Him. Time must be permitted, and the

placemustbefavourable.

Andthenthereisanotherimportantelement.

Wecomeheretooneofthemostimportantthingsofall;theemptytomb.

If the firstappearanceswere inJerusalem,whydidnot thedisciplesorthe enemies investigate the tomb, and refute this belief of finding thebodyofJesusstillthere?

This argument is thought to be refuted by the Galilean hypothesisregardingthefirstappearances.IfthefirstappearancestookplacenottillweeksafterwardandinGalilee, thismystery is thoughttobeexplained.Therewouldbenoopportunity to investigate the tombuntil itwas toolate; and so the matter could have been allowed to pass, and theresurrectionfaithcouldhavearisen.

Ofcourse, thisexplanation isnotquitesatisfactory,becauseonecannotseehowthediscipleswouldnothavebeenstimulated to investigatethetomb,wheneverandwherevertheappearancestookplace.WehavenotquiteexplainedtheemptytombevenbythisGalileanhypothesis.Butyoucan understand the insistence of the modern writers that the firstappearancestookplaceinGalilee.

So there is a difference between the modern historian and the NewTestamentaccountinthemattersofthemannerandoftheplaceoftheseexperiences.

Weretheyofakindsuchthattheycouldbeexplainedashallucinationsorweretheysuchthattheycouldonlyberegardedasrealappearances?WasthefirstappearancethreedaysafterJesus'death,andnearthetomb,orlateroninGalilee?

LetuscomenowtotheNewTestamentaccount.Thefirstsourcethatweshould consider is the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. It isprobablytheearliestofthesources.Butwhatisstillmoreimportanttheauthorship and date of this particular source of information have beenagreeduponevenbytheopponentsofChristianity.

Sothis isnotonlyasourceof first-ratehistorical importancebut it isasourceofadmittedimportance.Wehavehereafixedstarting-pointinallcontroversy.

Wemustexamine,then,thisdocumentwithsomecare.

Itwasprobablywritten,roughlyspeaking,about55A.D.,abouttwenty-fiveyearsafterthedeathofJesus,aboutaslongafterthedeathofJesusas1924isaftertheSpanishAmericanWar(1898).Thatisnotsuchaverylongperiodoftime.

And of course, there is one vital element in the testimony here, whichdoes not prevail in the case of the Spanish War. Most people haveforgottenmanydetailsoftheSpanish-AmericanWar,becausetheyhavenothadthemcontinuouslyinmind.

But it would not be so in the case now under consideration. Theresurrection of Jesus was the thing which formed the basis of all thethought of the early Christians, and so the memory of it when it wastwenty-five years past was very much fresher than the memory of aneventliketheSpanish-AmericanWaroftwenty-fiveyearsago,whichhaspassedoutofourconsciousness.

Let us turn, then, to I Corinthians 15, and read the first verses."Moreover,brethren,IdeclareuntoyouthegospelwhichIpreacheduntoyou,whichalsoyehavereceived,andwhereinyestand;bywhichalsoyearesaved,ifyekeepinmemorywhatIpreacheduntoyou,unlessyehavebelieved in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I alsoreceived.".

"Firstofall,"or"amongthefirstthings,"maymeanfirstinpointoftime,or first in point of importance. At any rate, this was a part of Paul'sfundamentalpreachinginCorinth,inabouttheyear51or52.

SowegetbackalittlefartherthanthetimewhentheEpistlewaswritten.But these things were evidently also first and fundamental in Paul'spreachinginotherplaces,sothatyouaretakenbackanindefiniteperiodintheministryofPaulforthisevidence.

Butthenyouaretakenbackbythenextwordsfartherstill—"thatwhichIalsoreceived."

There is a common agreement as to the source from which Paul"received"thisinformation;itisprettygenerallyagreedthathereceiveditfromtheJerusalemchurch.

AccordingtotheEpistletotheGalatians,hehadbeeninconferencewithPeterandJamesonlythreeyearsafterhisconversion.ThatwasthetimeforPaultoreceivethistradition.

Historians are usuallywilling to admit that this information is nothingless than the account which the primitive Church, including Peter andJames,gaveoftheeventswhichlayatthefoundationoftheChurch.

So you have here, even in the admission of modern men, a piece ofhistoricalinformationofpricelessvalue.

"ForIdelivereduntoyoufirstofallthatwhichIalsoreceived,howthatChrist died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he wasburied,andthatheroseagainthethirddayaccordingtotheScriptures."

Whydoes Paulmention the burial of Jesus?The impressionwhich thementionoftheburialproducesuponeveryreaderwhocomestoitforthefirsttimeisthatPaulmeanstosaythatthebodyofJesuswaslaidinthetomb.Theburial,inotherwords,impliestheemptytomb.

Andyetagreatmanymodernhistorianssay thatPaul "knows nothing"abouttheemptytomb!Surelysuchanassertionisquitefalse.

Pauldoesnotindeedmentiontheemptytombinsomanywords.Hedoesnotgiveadetaileddescriptionofithere.Butthatdoesnotmeanthatheknewnothingaboutit.

Those towhomhewaswriting believed in it already, and he is simplyreviewingapreviousargument inorder todraw inferences from itwithregardtotheresurrectionofChristians.

To say thatPaul knowsnothing about the empty tomb ignores the fact

that themention of the burial is quitemeaningless unless Paul had inmind the empty tomb. I do not see how any one can get any otherimpression.

Moreover is not that what resurrection means, after all? Modernhistorians say that Paul was interested simply in the continued life ofJesusinanewbodywhichhadnothingtodowiththebodywhichlayinthetomb.Thatisratherstrangeinthisconnection.Paulisarguing,inthispassage, not against men who denied the immortality of the soul, butagainst men who held the Greek view of the immortality of the soulwithoutthebody.

Theviewthattheywereholding,wouldlogicallymakeoftheresurrectionofJesusjustthesimplecontinuanceofHispersonallife.Thereisnopointatall, then, inwhatPaulsaysagainst themunlesshe is referringtotheresurrection from the tomb.Unlesshe is referring to this,he is playingintothehandsofhisopponents.

But many men nowadays have such a strangely unhistorical notion ofwhat"resurrection"meanttotheearlydisciples.Theytalkasthoughtheresurrection faithmeant that thosedisciples simplybelieved that JesuscontinuedtoexistafterHiscrucifixion.

Thisisabsurd.Thosemenbelievedinthecontinuedexistenceafterdeathof every man. There is not the slightest doubt about that. They werethoroughly imbued with this belief. They were not Sadducees. Even inthose first threedaysafterJesus' crucifixion, they stillbelievedthatHewasalive.Ifthatisallthatresurrectionmeant,therewasnothinginittocausejoy.

Conviction of the continued life of Jesus would not make Him anydifferentfromothermen.ButwhatchangedsadnessintojoyandbroughtaboutthefoundingoftheChurchwasthesubstitution,forabeliefinthecontinued existence of Jesus, of a belief in the emergence of His bodyfromthetomb.AndPaul'swordsimplythatasclearasday.

"And thathe roseagain the thirdday."Ofall the important things thatPaulsays, this isperhapsthemost important, fromthepointofviewof

moderndiscussion.Therearefewwords intheNewTestamentthat aremoredisconcertingtomodernnaturalistichistoriansthanthewords,"onthethirdday."

Wehavejustobservedwhatthemodernreconstructionis.Thediscipleswent back to Galilee, it is supposed, and there, some time after thecrucifixion,theycametobelievethatJesuswasalive.

Butifthefirstappearancetookplaceonthethirdday,thisexplanationisnot possible. The modern reconstruction disappears altogether if youbelieve that the firstappearanceswereonthethirdday.IfPaul'swordsare to be taken at their face value, the whole elaborate psychologicalreconstructionoftheconditionsinthedisciples'minds,leadinguptothehallucinationsinGalilee,disappears.

Manymen, it is true, have an answer ready. "Let us not," they say ineffect,"gobeyondwhatPaulactuallysays!Pauldoesnotsaythatthefirstappearanceoccurredon the thirdday,butonly thatChrist roseon thatday.HemighthaverisensometimebeforeHefirstappearedtothem;theresurrection might have occurred on the third day and yet the firstappearancemighthaveoccurredsomeweeksafter,inGalilee."

Butwhy, if nothing inparticularhappenedon the thirdday, and if thefirst appearance occurred some weeks after, did the disciples hit uponjustthethirddayasthedayofthesupposedresurrection?Surelyitwasvery strange for them to suppose that Jesus had really risen aconsiderabletimebeforeHeappearedtothemandhadleftthemallthattimeintheirdespair.Sostrangeasuppositiononthepartofthedisciplessurelyrequiresanexplanation.

Whywasit,ifnothinghappenedonthethirdday,thatthedisciplesevercame to suppose that the resurrectionoccurredon thatdayandnot onsomeotherday?

Oneproposedexplanationisthatthethirddaywashituponasthedayofthe supposed resurrection because Scripture was thought to require it.Paulsays,itwillberemembered,thatJesusrosethethirddayaccordingtotheScriptures.

But where will you find in the Old Testament Scriptures any clearreferencetothethirdday,asthedayoftheresurrectionofChrist?

Nodoubtthereisthe"signofJonah."andthereisalsoHosea6-2.Wearecertainly not denying that these passages (at least the former) are truepropheciesoftheresurrectiononthethirdday.

But could they ever have been understood before the fulfilment hadcome?Thatismorethandoubtful.

Indeed it is not even quite clear whether Paul means the words"according to the Scriptures" to refer to the third day at all, and notmerely to the central fact of the resurrection itself. At any rate theScripture passages never could have suggested the third day to thedisciplesunlesssomethinghadactuallyhappenedonthatdaytoindicatethatChristhadthenrisen.

ButhadnotJesusHimselfpredictedthatHewouldriseonthethirdday,andmightnot thispredictionhavecaused thedisciples tosuppose thatHehad risenon that day even if the first appearancedidnot occur tilllongafterwards?

Thisisanobviouswayoutofthedifficulty,butitiseffectuallyclosedtothemodernnaturalistichistorian.ForitwouldrequireustosupposethatJesus' predictions of His resurrection, recorded in the Gospels, arehistorical.Butthenaturalistichistoriansareusuallyconcernedwithfewthingsmorethanwiththedenialoftheauthenticityofthesepredictions.

According to theordinary "liberal" view, Jesus certainly couldnothavepredictedthatHewouldrisefromthedeadinthemannerrecordedintheGospels.

Soforthe"liberal"historiansthisexplanationof"thethirdday"becomesimpossible.Theexplanationwouldperhapsexplain"thethirdday"inthebeliefofthedisciples,butitwouldalsodestroythewholeaccountofthe"liberalJesus.".

Accordingly it becomes necessary to seek explanations farther afield.

Somehaveappealedtoasupposedbeliefinantiquitytotheeffectthatthesoulofadeadpersonhoveredaroundthebody for threedaysandthendeparted. This belief, it is said, might have seemed to the disciples tomake it necessary to put the supposed resurrection not later than thethirdday.

Buthow fardid thisbeliefprevail inPalestine in the first century?Thequestion is perhaps not capable of satisfactory answer.Moreover, it ishighly dangerous from the point of view of the modern naturalistichistorianstoappealtothisbelief,sinceitwouldshowthatsomeinterestwas taken in the body of Jesus; and yet that is what these modernhistorians aremost concerned to deny. For if interestwas taken in thebody, the old question arises againwhy the tombwasnot investigated.Andthewholevisionhypothesisbreaksdown.

Since these explanations have proved unsatisfactory, some modernscholarshavehadrecoursetoafourthexplanation.Therewasinancienttimes,theysay,apaganbeliefaboutagodwhodiedandroseagain.Onthefirstdaytheworshiperofthegodweretomourn,butonthethirddaytheyweretorejoice,becauseoftheresurrectionofthegod.

Soitisthoughtthatthedisciplesmayhavebeeninfluencedbythispaganbelief.

Butsurelythisisadesperateexpedient.Itisonlyaveryfewstudentsofthehistoryofreligionswhowouldbequitesoboldas tobelieve that inPalestine, in the timeofChrist, therewas anyprevalenceof this paganbeliefwithitsdyingandrisinggod.Indeedtheimportanceandclearnessof this belief have been enormously exaggerated in recent worksparticularlyasregardstherisingofthegodonthethirdday.

ThetruthisthatthethirddayintheprimitiveaccountoftheresurrectionofChristremains,andthatthereisnosatisfactorymeansofexplainingitaway.

Indeedsomenaturalistichistoriansareactuallycomingbacktotheviewthat perhaps we cannot explain this third day away, and that perhapssomething did happen on the third day to produce the faith of the

disciples.

But if this conclusion be reached, then the whole psychologicalreconstructiondisappears,andparticularlythemodernhypothesisabouttheplaceoftheappearances.Somethingmusthavehappenedtoproducethedisciples'belief in the resurrectionnot faroff inGalileebutnear tothetombinJerusalem.

Butifso,therewouldbenotimefortheelaboratepsychologicalprocesswhich is supposed to have produced the visions, and there would beampleopportunityfortheinvestigationofthetomb.

It is therefore a fact of enormous importance that it is just Paul in thepassagewhereheisadmittedlyreproducingthetraditionoftheprimitiveJerusalemChurch,whomentionsthethirdday.

Then,aftermentioningthethirdday,Paulgivesadetailedaccountwhichisnotquitecomplete,oftheresurrectionappearances.Heleavesouttheaccountoftheappearancestothewomen,becauseheismerelygivingtheofficiallistoftheappearancestotheleadersintheJerusalemchurch.

SomuchforthetestimonyofPaul.Thistestimonyissufficientofitselftorefute the modern naturalistic reconstruction. But it is time to glancebrieflyatthetestimonyintheGospels.

If you take the shortestGospel, theGospel according toMark, youwillfind, first, that Mark gives an account of the burial, which is of greatimportance.

Modern historians cannot deny that Jesus was buried, because that isattestedbytheuniversallyacceptedsourceofinformation,ICorinthians15.Mark is here confirmed by the Jerusalem tradition as preserved byPaul.

But theaccountof theburial inMark is followedby the accountof theempty tomb, and the two things are indissolubly connected. If one ishistorical,itisdifficulttorejecttheother.

Modern naturalistic historians are in a divided condition about this

matteroftheemptytomb.Someadmitthatthetombwasempty.Othersdenythatiteverwas.Somesaywhatwehavejustoutlinedthatthetombwas never investigated at all until it was too late, and that then theaccountoftheemptytombgrewupasalegendintheChurch.

Butotherhistoriansareclear-sightedenoughtoseethatyoucannotgetridoftheemptytombinanysuchfashion.

Butifthetombwasempty,whywasitempty?TheNewTestamentsaysthatitwasemptybecausethebodyofJesushadbeenraisedoutofit.Butifthisbenotthecase,thenwhywasthetombempty?

SomesaythattheenemiesofJesustookthebodyaway.Ifso,theyhavedonethegreatestpossibleservicetotheresurrectionfaithwhichtheysomuchhated.

Others have said that the disciples stole the body away to make thepeoplebelievethatJesuswasrisen.Butnooneholdsthatviewnow.

Othershave said thatJosephofArimathea changed theplaceofburial.Thatisdifficulttounderstand,becauseifsuchwerethecase,whyshouldJosephofArimatheahavekeptsilencewhentheresurrectionfaitharose?

Otherexplanations,nodoubt,havebeenproposed.Butitcannotbesaidthatthesehypotheseshavealtogethersatisfiedeventhosehistorianswhohave proposed them. The empty tomb has never been successfullyexplainedaway.

Wemightgoon toconsidersomeof theotheraccounts,but I thinkwehavepointedoutsomeofthemostimportantpartsoftheevidence.Theresurrection was of a bodily kind, and appears in connection with theemptytomb.

It is quite a misrepresentation of the state of affairs when people talkabout"interpreting"theNewTestament inaccordancewiththemodernview of natural law as operating in connection with the origin ofChristianity.What is reallybeingengaged in isnot an interpretationoftheNewTestamentbutacompletecontradictionoftheNewTestamentat

itscentralpoint.

In order to explain the resurrection faith of the disciples as caused byhallucinations, you must first pick and choose in the sources ofinformation,andreconstructastatementofthecaseforwhichyouhaveno historical information. You must first reconstruct this account,different from that which is given in the only sources of information,beforeyoucanevenbegintoexplaintheappearancesashallucinations.

And even then you are really no better off. It is after all quitepreposteroustoexplaintheoriginoftheChristianChurchasbeingduetopathologicalexperiencesofweak-mindedmen.Somightyabuildingwasnotfoundeduponsosmallapin-point.

Sothewitnessof thewholeNewTestamenthasnotbeenputoutof theway. It alone explains the origin of the Church, and the change of thedisciplesfromweakmenintothespiritualconquerorsoftheworld.

Why is it, then, if theevidencebesostrong, thatsomanymodernmenrefuse to accept the New Testament testimony to the resurrection ofChrist?

The answer is perfectly plain. The resurrection, if it be a fact, is astupendousmiracleandagainstthemiraculousorthesupernaturalthereisatremendousoppositioninthemodernmind.

Butistheoppositionwellgrounded?Itwouldperhapsbewell-groundedifthedirectevidencefortheresurrectionstoodabsolutelyalone.Ifitweresimplyaquestionwhetheramanofthefirstcentury,otherwiseunknown,reallyrosefromthedead.Therewouldinthatcasebeastrongburdenofproofagainstthebeliefintheresurrection.

Butasamatteroffactthequestionisnotwhetheranyordinarymanrosefromthedead,butwhetherJesusrosefromthedead.

WeknowsomethingofJesusfromtheGospels,andasthusmadeknownHe is certainly different from all other men. A man who comes intocontact with His tremendous personality will say to himself, "It is

impossiblethatJesuscouldeverhavebeenholden[held]ofdeath.".

Thuswhen the extraordinary testimony to the resurrection faith whichhas been outlined above comes to us, we add to this our tremendousimpressionofJesus'Person,gainedfromthereadingoftheGospels,andweacceptthisstrangebeliefwhichcomestousandfillsuswithjoy,thattheRedeemerreallytriumphedoverdeathandthegraveandsin.

AndifHebeliving,wecometoHimtoday.AndthusfinallyweaddtothedirecthistoricalevidenceourownChristianexperience.IfHebea livingSaviour,wecometoHimforsalvationtoday,andweaddtotheevidencefrom theNewTestamentdocumentsan immediacyof convictionwhichdeliversusfromfear.

TheChristianmanshouldindeedneversay,asmenoftensay,"BecauseofmyexperienceofChristinmysoulIamindependentofthebasicfactsof Christianity; I am independent of the question whether Jesus rosefromthegraveornot."

ButChristian experience, though it cannotmake usChristianswhetherJesus rose or not, still can add to the direct historical evidence aconfirmingwitnessthat,asamatteroffact,Christdidreallyrisefromthedeadonthethirdday,accordingtotheScriptures.

The"witnessof theSpirit" isnot,as it isoftenquite falselyrepresentedtoday, independent of the Bible; on the contrary it is a witness by theHoly Spirit,who is the author of theBible, to the fact that theBible istrue.

TheChristianFaithintheModernWorld

Chapter1-THEPRESENTEMERGENCYANDHOWTOMEETITChapter2-HOWMAYGODBEKNOWN?Chapter3-HASGODSPOKEN?Chapter4-ISTHEBIBLETHEWORDOFGOD?Chapter5-DOWEBELIEVEINVERBALINSPIRATION?Chapter6-SHALLWEDEFENDTHEBIBLE?Chapter7-THEBIBLEVERSUSHUMANAUTHORITYChapter8-LIFEFOUNDEDUPONTRUTHChapter9-GOD,THECREATORChapter10-THETRIUNEGODChapter11-WHATISTHEDEITYOFCHRIST?Chapter12-DOESTHEBIBLETEACHTHEDEITYOFCHRIST?Chapter 13 - THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT AND THE DEITY OFCHRISTChapter14-WHATJESUSSAIDABOUTHIMSELFChapter15-THESUPERNATURALCHRISTChapter16-DIDCHRISTRISEFROMTHEDEAD?Chapter17-THETESTIMONYOFPAULTOCHRISTChapter18-THEHOLYSPIRIT

Chapter1THEPRESENTEMERGENCYANDHOWTOMEETIT

Attheverybeginning,ImayaswelltellyouplainlythatIamnotgoingtotalkaboutthetopicsthatareusuallyregardedasmosttimelyjustnow.Iam not going to talk to you about the gold standard or aboutunemploymentorabouttheNRAorabouttheBrainTrust.Possiblysomeof youmay discover that certain things that I may say have a bearinguponthose topics,but those topicsarenot the topicsaboutwhichIamgoingtotalk.

Instead,IamgoingtotalktoyouaboutGod,andaboutanunseenworld.

May I reasonably expect you to be interested in such very intangible

topicsasthese?

Therearemanypersonswhosay,"No."Weareliving,saythesepersons,in the midst of a serious emergency. One economic system, they say,seemstohavebrokendown,andanotherisnotquitereadytobeputintoitsplace.Everywherearetobefoundunemploymentanddistress,almosteverywhere there are wars or rumors of wars. In the midst of suchdistresses,who,thesepersonssay,couldbesoheartlessastospendhisefforts upon doubtful speculations regarding a life beyond the grave?Timeenoughtodealwiththatotherworldwhenwehavesetthisworldinorder!Letusdealbravely-sotheargumentruns-firstwiththeproblemsthatwecansee;andthen,whenwehavedonethat,wemaypossiblyfindopportunityafterwardstodealwiththeunseenandintangiblethings.

I have much sympathy with persons who speak in that way. I do notmeanthatIagreewiththem.OnthecontraryIdisagreewiththemwithallmysoul.ButIdosaythatIcansympathizewiththem,andI thinkIcanrecognizetheelementoftruthinwhattheysay.

Itiscertainlytruethatcircumstancesdoalteraman'schoiceofthethingstowhichheshall turnhisattention.Ifyouwere livingatLittleAmericaalongwithByrd,Icouldhardlyadviseyoutogointoanygreatextentforlandscape gardening.What is true, moreover, of different positions onthe Earth's surface is true also of different times. There are times ofemergencywhenwork that is needed in ordinary times is no longer inplace.

TheWorldWar,ofcourse,gaveusastockexample.Intimeofwarpeopleturned their attention to thingsverydifferent from the things that theydidatordinarytimes.IfImayusetheveryhumblestofallexamples,theexampleofmyself, Imaysay that in the timeofpeacebefore thewar Itaught Greek; in time of war Imadewhat I am afraidwas theworld'sworst effort at running a small delicatessen store. Other persons didthings that were more useful but were even more remote from theirordinaryoccupations. Itwasa timeof emergency,and things thatwereordinarilyneededwerenolongerinplace.

Iamperfectlyreadytoadmit,moreover,thatalthoughtheWorldWaris

now over the emergency remains with us to the full. Indeed, theemergencyisfarmoreseriousthanwecouldeverhaveimagineditwouldbe.LittledidIthink,forexample,asIwalkedoutthroughthelittletownofSynghemontheScheldtRiverinBelgiumonthemorningofNovember11, 1918, and saw thedead lyingbeside the road andwent out into thepositions across the river so recently occupied by the enemy, and as IgloriedinthestrangepeaceofthatNovembermorningwhenthenoiseofwarthathadsolongseemedtobeaninevitablepartofhumanexistencegaveplacetoastrange,eloquent,unbelievablesilence-littledidIthink,andlittledidmenfarwiserthanI think, thatthepeacethengrantedtohumanitywouldresultaftersixteenyears inacondition like thatwhichfacesustoday.LittledidIthinkthatawarsupposedtomaketheworldsafefordemocracywouldbefollowedbyanerainwhichinItalyandinGermany, aswell as inRussia, democracy and libertywould be openlydespisedandwouldbereplacedbyatyrannyfarmorecrushingandsoul-killinginmanyrespectsthanthecrudertyranniesofthepast.LittledidIthink thateven inAmerica thecivilandreligious libertywhichwasourdearestpossessionandwhichwaswonbyourfathersatsuchcostwouldbethreatenedasitisbeingthreatenedtoday.

No thoughtfulmancanpossibly lookoutupon theworld todaywithoutobserving thatweare in themidstof a tremendous emergency. It doesseemperfectlycleartothoughtfulpeople,whethertheyareChristiansornot,thathumanityisstandingoveranabyss.

Atsuchatime,isitanywonderthatthisworldwithitspressingproblemsshouldseemtomanypersonsquitesufficienttooccupyallourthoughts;isitanywonderthatthepressingproblemsthatarebeforeourveryeyesshouldcrowdoutattentiontoGodandtoanunseenworld?

Personswho adopt that attitudemaywith some plausibility argue thatthemostimportantthingthatyouhavetodoforamanisnotalwaysthefirstthingthatyoumustdoforhim.Ifamanisinthewater,drowning,themostimportantthingtodoforhimistopreachthegospeltohimforthesavingofhissoul.Butthatisnotthefirstthingtodoforhim.Thefirstthingtodoforhimistopullhimoutofthewater.Hecannotevenattendtothegospelforthesavingofhissoulwhenhisearsarefullofsaltwater.The first thing that youhave to do for him - even though it be not the

most important thing - is to pull him out of the water and give himartificial respiration. Then and then only can you preach the gospel tohimforthesavingofhissoul.

Itmightseemtobethesamewaywithhumanityasawhole.Humanityisdrowninginthewater,or,tochangethefigureslightly,issinkinginthemire.Thefirst thingtodomightseemtobe topull itout, inorder thatafterithasbeenpulledoutwemayaskittodealwiththeunseenthings.Let the Church show what it can do with the plain emergency as itactuallyexistsinthisworld-sotheargumentmightrun-andthen,ifitprovesabletodothat,theworldmaythinkitworthlisteningtoifittalksaboutGod.

Plausiblereasoningthisis-plausiblebututterlyuntrue.

Inthefirstplace,theprogramthatthisreasoningproposeswillnotwork.Itproposesthatweshallfirstdealwiththepoliticalandsocialemergency,and then afterwards deal with the unseen things. But what was it thatbroughttheemergencyuponusinthefirstplace?Wasitsomethingintherealmofthatwhichcanbeseen?Notatall.Thephysicalresourcesoftheworld were amply sufficient for the world's needs. No, the thing thatbroughttheemergencyuponuswassomethingintherealmoftheunseenthings.Itwasanevilthatwasfoundwithinthesoulofman.

Thatevilwasnotquitesosimpleaswasatfirstsupposed.Notmanyofus,I think,would now hold that thewarwas due solely to the sins of theKaiserortheGermanmilitarymachine.Theevil,alas,wasconsiderablymorewidespread than that.Butat least it is clear that it laywithin therealmofthoseintangibleandunseenthings.Itlaywithinthesoulofmanand within the sphere of the relations between man and the unseenworld.

Moreover, if it was something within that realm that brought theemergencytousinthefirstplace,itisalsosomethinginthatrealmthatkeeps the emergency with us today. The distress of the world is dueclearlytoanevilthatiswithinthesoulofman.

Hencetheseso-called"practical"menwhowouldneglecttherealmofthe

soulandofthesoul'srelationstoGodinordertodealwiththeeconomicproblemsof thedayarethemost impracticalpeoplethatcouldpossiblybeimagined.Theyalwaysremindmeofamanwhotriestorunagasolineengine that isnotproducingaspark.Youmayhaveyourengine in fineworkingorder; theremaybe a good flowof gasoline; theremay be themostperfectlubrication:butifthereissomethingwrongwiththeignitionsystem your engine will not run. I think I remember trying theexperiment inadvertently sometimes in those heroic days before theinvention of self-starters when a Ford was still a Ford. I cranked myengine until I was very red in the face and until my temper sufferedconsiderable strain. I imagined that I needed an expert capable ofdiscoursingonthemostintricateprinciplesofdynamics.Butdespiteallmy efforts and despite all my search for mechanical learning themiserable engine would not start. Why? Because there was anythingwrongwith theengine?Notat all.HenryFordhaddonehisworkwell.But because I had forgotten to turn on the switch. So it is with thesepracticalmenwhoarenotinterestedinthehumansoulandinGod.Theyarecrankingtheengineofsocietyfuriously; theyareproposingallsortsofradicalchangesinthemachinery.Butthereisonelittlethingthattheyhaveforgotten.Theyhaveforgottentoturnontheswitch.Theengineisnotproducingaspark;anduntilitproducesasparkitwillnotrun.

Thetruthisthatthatanalogyofthedrowningmandoesnotapplytotheevils of society. To pull a drowning man out of the water is a simplephysicaleffort.Buttopullsocietyoutofthemireintowhichithasfallentodayisnotasimplephysicaleffortatall,butisahighlycomplexmatter;andat theveryheartof it is thatmysterious portion of themechanismwhichisknownasthesoulofman.

Itisimpossible,therefore,todealfirstwiththesocialandpoliticalevilsoftheday,andthendealafterwardswiththeunseenthings,forthesimplereason that without dealing with the unseen things you cannot dealsuccessfullywiththosesocialandpoliticalproblemsatall.

At that point I am particularly anxious to avoid misunderstanding ofwhatIamsaying.IcertainlydonotmeanbywhatIhavebeensayingthatreligionistoberegardedmerelyasameanstoahigherend.Icertainlydonot mean that God is to be dragged in merely to help us out in the

troublesthatfaceusatthepresentemergency.IfImeantthatIshouldberejectingthecentralthingsoftheChristianreligionandshouldbesayingsomethingquitecontrarytotheBible.

We ought to be perfectly clear about this point. If you regard religionmerelyasameanstoattainworldlyends,eventhehighestandnoblestofworldlyends - if youregard religion forexample,merelyasameansofmeeting thepresentemergency in thisworld, thenyouhaveneverevenbegun to have even the slightest inkling of what the Christian religionmeans.God,asHeisknowntotheChristian,isnevercontenttobethusamereinstrumentinthehandsofthosewhocarenothingaboutHim.Therelation toGod is theall-important thing. It isnot ameremeans toanend.Everythingelseissecondarytoit.

ButwhatIdomeanis thatGodhassoorderedthecourseof thisworldthatinthiscase-unlikethatcaseofthedrowningman-itisimpossibleto attain the lower end until the higher end has been attained. It isimpossible to deal successfully even with these political and socialproblems until we have come to be right with God. No emergency canpossibly be so pressing as to permit us to postpone attention to theunseenthings.

Indeed,theemergencyoughttohaveexactlytheoppositeeffect;theevilsofthetime,insteadofleadingusawayfromGod,oughttoleadustoHim.There was a time not so very long ago when this world might haveseemed to a superficial observer to be a fairly satisfactory place. Eventhen theevilwas there,but itwascoveredup; theabyssoverwhichwewerestandingwasconcealedbytheamenitiesofmodernlife.WhenIwasa student in Germany in the years 1905-1906, the world might haveseemed to a superficial observer to be getting along fairly well withoutGod.Itwasafine,comfortableworld,thatgodlessEuropeanworldbefore1914.Andas foranotherEuropeanwar, that seemed tobeaboutas farbeyond the bounds of possibility as that the knights should don theirarmor and set their lances again in rest. The international bankers,wesupposed, obviously would prevent an anachronism so absurd. But wehavesincediscoveredourmistake.ThatgodlessEuropeanandAmericanworldprovedtobenotsocomfortableafterall.

Today the world is in a state far more disquieting than that whichprevailedin1918.Europeisarmedtotheteeth.Russiastandsunderthemostsystematicandsoul-crushingtyrannythattheworldhaseverseen.In Germany fiendish wickedness is being practiced in the name ofscience,andinthatcountryaswellasinItalyeventheformofliberty,tosaynothingof the realityof it,hasbeenabandoned.Civil and religiousliberty is being treated openly as though it had beenmerely a passingphase in human life, well enough in its day, but now out of date. InAmerica, the same tendencies are mightily at work. Everywhere thererises before our eyes the specter of a society where security, if it isattained at all, will be attained at the expense of freedom, where thesecuritythatisattainedwillbethesecurityoffedbeastsinastable,andwhereallthehighaspirationsofhumanitywillhavebeencrushedbyanall-powerfulState.

Isthisatimewhenweoughttobecontentedwiththingsastheyare?Isitnotratheratimewhenweoughtseriouslytoaskourselveswhetherthereisnotsomelostsecretwhichmustberegainedifhumanityistobesavedfromtheabyss?

What is trueabouthumanityasawhole isalsotrue,Iventure to think,aboutyou.Theworldiswearyandperplexedtoday.Well,howisitwithyou?Areyoucontentedwithyour livesas theyarenow?I suppose thatmany of you are. But some of you, I know, are discontented, and arelookingforsomethingentirelydifferentfromthatwhichyounowpossess.That is true of rich as well as of poor; it has little to do with yourparticular situation in this world. To such hungry souls I think I havesomethingtosayinthislittleseriesoftalks;andtherearemanyhungrysoulstoday.

Butwhyis it thatIhavesomethingtosaytoyou?Is itbecauseIamanexpertinreligionandbecauseIcandrawupongreatresourcesofwisdomand experience in order to help you to deal with the problems of yourlives? Is it because I am a skillful soul-physicianwho can point you tohiddenresourcesinyourownsoulsuponwhichyouyourselvescanthendraw? I may as well say at once that if that is the program of theseaddresses I cannot expect you to attend to them any more. There aremanypersons in theworld, there aremanypersons speaking "over the

air,"who are farwiser andmore learned and in everywaymore giftedthanI.No, I certainlycannotexpectyou to listen tomebecauseofanywisdomofmine; forIhavenone.IcannotexpectyoutobeparticularlyinterestedinanyopinionsofminethatImaybeboldenoughtopresent.

ThereisjustonereasonwhyImaypossiblyexpectyoutolistentome.ImayexpectyoutolistentomeifIcanbringtoyouamessagefromGod.If I can do that, then the very insignificance of the speaker may in acertainsensebeanaddedinducementtoyoutolistentohim,sinceitmayhelpyoutoforgetthespeakerandattendonlytothemessage.

ItisjustthatthatIamtryingtodo.Iamaskingyoutoturnawayfrommeandmyopinions; Iamaskingyou to turnaway fromyourselfandyouropinionsandyourtroubles;andIamaskingyoutoturninsteadthatyoumaylistentoawordfromGod.

WherecanIfindthatword?Iamgoingtotrytotellyouinthenextoneoftheselittletalks.Notinmyselfandnotinyou,butinanoldBookthathasbeen sealed by the seals of prejudice and unbelief but that will, if it isrediscovered,againset theworldaflameandthatwillshowyou,beyouwise or unwise, rich or poor, the way by which you can come intocommunionwiththelivingGod.

Chapter2HOWMAYGODBEKNOWN?

In the first talk of this little series, I tried to tell you why I think youcannotpostponeattentiontoGodandtoanunseenworld.Itistruethatthis world presents pressing problems, but you can never solve eventhoseproblemsarightunlessyoufirstfacethequestionofyourrelationtoGod. That is the all-important thing, and the distresses of the presenttimeonlyservetopressitstillmoreinsistentlyuponourattention.

But if it is important forus to face thequestionofour relation toGod,howcanGodbeknown tous?Howcanwediscoverwhether there isaGodatall,andthen,ifthereis,whatsortofbeingHeis?

I have something rather simple to say about that question at the verystart.Itissomethingthatseemstometoberatherobvious,andyetitissomethingthatisquitegenerallyignored.Itissimplythis-thatifwearereally toknowanythingaboutGod itwill probablybebecauseGodhaschosentotellittous.

Manypersonsseemtogoonaverydifferentassumption.TheyseemtothinkthatiftheyaretoknowanythingaboutGodtheymustdiscoverGodforthemselves.

That assumption seems tome to be extremelyunlikely. Just supposingforthesakeoftheargumentthatthereisabeingofsuchakindasthatHemaywithanyproprietybecalled "God," itdoesseemantecedentlyveryimprobable that weak and limited creatures of a day, such as we are,shoulddiscoverHimbyourowneffortswithoutanywillonHispart tomakeHimselfknown tous.At least, I thinkwecansay thatagodwhocould be discovered in that way would hardly be worth discovering. AmerepassivesubjectofhumaninvestigationiscertainlynotalivingGodwhocansatisfythelongingofoursouls.

Someyearsago Iwasasked tocontribute toacompositevolumewhichhad as its general title, "My Idea of God" [My idea of God, edited byJosephFortNewton,Litt.D.,D.H.L.,1926].Variouswriterstold,eachofthem, what his own idea of God was. One said, "I think of God so";another said, "I think so."Now I shall not presume to saywhether theessay that I contributed to that volume had any particularmerit at all.Perhaps itwasa ratherpoor effort.But Ido verydeliberatelymaintainthatIwasrightatleastinsayingatthebeginningofitthatifmyideaofGodwere reallymine I shouldattachvery little importance to itmyselfandcouldreasonablyexpectevenlessimportancetobeattributedtoitbyothers.

A divine being that could be discovered bymy efforts, apart fromHisgracious will to reveal Himself tome and to others, would be either amerenameforacertainaspectofman'sownnature,aGodthatwecouldfindwithinus,orelseatbestamerepassivethingthatwouldbesubjecttoinvestigationlikethesubstancesthatareanalyzedinalaboratory.

Ithinkweoughttosticktothatprincipleratherfirmly.IthinkweoughttoberathersurethatwecannotknowGodunlessGodhasbeenpleasedtorevealHimselftous.

How,then,hasGodrevealedHimselftous?

In the firstplace,Hehas revealedHimself by theuniverse thatHe hasmade. How did the world come into being? It is here. That cannot bedenied.Buthowdiditcometobe?

Thequestionforces itselfupontheattentionofevery thinkingman.Wemaytrytoevadeit.Wemayjustsaythatitisunanswerable.Wemaytrytoputitoutofourminds.Butitcontinuestohauntusallthesame,andforagesithashauntedthehumanrace.

I think the universe itself provides the answer to that question. Theanswer is itselfamystery,but it isamystery inwhichwecanrest.Theanswerisaverysimpleanswer.TheansweristhatthisworldcameintobeingbecauseGodmadeit.Itistheworkofaninfiniteandall-wiseandall-powerfulGod.

Thatanswerpressesitselfupondifferentpeopleindifferentways.Ithasbeen defended by philosophers and theologians by way of detailedreasoning.Thatreasoninghasbeendividedlogicallyintowhatarecalledthe "theistic proofs" - indications in the world itself that point to theexistenceofapersonalGod,creatorandruleroftheworld.

IamnotgoingtospeakofthemhereexceptjusttosaythatIthinktheyaregoodproofs, and that theChristianman,whetherhehasadetailedknowledgeofthemornot,oughtnevertodepreciatethemorregardasamatterofnoimportancethedebateaboutthemamongphilosophersandlearnedmen.

ButIamnotgoingtoattemptanyexpositionofthoseproofs.WhatIdowanttodoisjusttopointoutthatthetestimonyofnaturetonature'sGodcomes todifferent people indifferentways. I remember listening sometimeagotoa lecturebyaneminentmanofscience.The lecturertracedthe progress of scientific investigation and pointed out, if I remember

aright, its material benefits. But then he paused to speak of anotherproductofthescientificspirit;thetruescientist,hesaid,isbroughtfacetofaceatlastwiththeultimatemystery,andatthatpointhebecomesareligiousman. There is endless diversity in the world, said he: but theprogressofinvestigationhasrevealedtheelectron;andtheelectrons,saidhe,areallalike-theyaremachine-made-andtheirmarvelouslikenessreveals the existence of amystery intowhichman cannot penetrate; intruly religiousawe themanof science standsat lengthbeforea curtainthatisneverlifted,amysterythatrebukesallpride.

IamnotsayingthatmanofsciencehadatrueknowledgeofGod.Idonotthinkthathehad.Ishouldhaveliked,ifhehadbeenwillingtolistentome, to tell him of the way in which, for little children as well as forlearnedmenofscience,thatdreadfulcurtainofwhichhespokehasbeenpulledgently aside to giveus at least a look into themysteriesbeyond.ButatleasttherewasoneaspectofnaturethatbroughtthatscientisttothethresholdofaknowledgeofGod.

To some men the testimony of nature to nature's God comes by suchpreciseknowledgeofnatureaswaspossessedbythatscientist.Toothersit comes by a reasoned consideration of the implications of nature'sexistence.But to still others it comesbywhatBrowning calls "a sunsettouch."Toonemaninoneway,toanotherinanother.

Tomenaturespeaksclearestinthemajestyandbeautyofthehills.Oneday in thesummerof1932Istoodon thesummitof theMatterhorn intheAlps. Somepeople can stand there and see very little.Depreciatingthe Matterhorn is a recognized part of modern books on mountainclimbing.Thegreatmountain,itissaid,hasbeensadlyspoiled.Why,youcanevenseesardinecansonthoserocksthatsotemptedtheambitionofclimbersinWhymper'sday.Well,IcanonlysaythatwhenIstoodontheMatterhorn I do not remember seeing a single can. Perhaps that waspartlybecauseof theunusualmassesof freshsnowwhichwere thenonthemountain; but I think it was also due to the fact that unlike somepeople I had eyes for something else. I saw the vastness of the Italianplain, which was like a symbol of infinity. I saw the snows of distantmountains.Isawthesweetgreenvalleysfar,farbelow,atmyfeet.Isawthewholegloriousroundofglitteringpeaks,bathedinanunearthlylight.

AndasIseethatgloriousvisionagainbeforemenow,Iamthankfulfromthe bottom of my heart that frommyMother's knee I have known towhomallthatgloryisdue.

ThenIlovethesofterbeautiesofnaturealso.Iwonderwhetheryoulovethemwithme.Someyearsago,intheWhiteMountains,Iwalkedbesideabrook. I have seen, I suppose hundreds of brooks. But somehow Iremember particularly that one. I am not going to tell youwhere it is,becauseifIdidyoumightwritetotheC.C.C.ortheNationalParkServiceaboutitandgetthemtoputascenichighwayalongit,andthenitwouldbeforeverruined.ButwhenIwalkedalongit,itwasuntouched.Icherishthememoryofit.Itwasgentleandsweetandlovelybeyondallwords.Ithink amanmight travel throughall theworld andnever see anythinglovelier than aWhiteMountain brook.Verywonderful is the variety ofnatureinherchangingmoods.

Silence too, the silence of nature, can be a very revealing thing. IrememberonedaywhenIspentapeacefulhalf-hour inthesunlightonthe summit of amountain in the Franconia range. I there experiencedsomethingveryrare.Wouldyoubelieveit,myfriends?Itwasreallysilenton that sunnymountain top.Therewasnot the honk of amotor horn;therewasnojazzmusic;therewasnosoundofahumanvoice;therewasnot even the rustling of the leaves. There was nothing but a strange,broodingsilence.Itwasaprecioustimeindeed.Ishallneverforgetitallmylife.

Pleasedonotmisunderstandme. Iamnotasking thateveryone shouldlovethebeautiesofnatureasIlovethem.Idothink,indeed,thattheloveofnatureoughttobecultivated.AtleastIdonotthinkthatgovernmentoughttogo intothebusinessofcrushingitoutofapeople'ssoulastheUnited States government is doing by some of the artificialities andregularities of itsNational Parks. I think some sweet and delicate littlethings ought to be left untouched.But Iwell understand that there aremany peoplewho do not love the beauties of nature. Are they shut offfromfindingGodrevealedintheworldthatHehasmade?

Indeed,thatisnotso,myfriends;indeed,itisnotso.Themysteryoftheexistence of the world presses itself upon different people in different

ways.Iremember,forexample,atalkthatIheardfromaprofessoratanafternoonconference servicemanyyears ago. I donot know justwhy Ishouldrememberit,butIdorememberit.TheprofessorsaidthathehadhadafriendwhohadcometoabeliefinGod,orhadcomebacktoabeliefinGod,by-whatdoyousuppose?Well,byatripthroughEurope!Ashewentfromcitytocityandobservedtheseethingmultitudes,thethrongsuponthrongsofmenandwomen,somehow,hesaid,theconvictionjustseemedtocomeoverhim:"ThereisaGod,thereisaGod."

Wasthatafoolishfancy?WerethoseexperiencesinmyownlifeofwhichIhavebeenboldenoughtospeakmerelymeaninglessdreams?Orwerethey true testimonies to something marvelous beyond? Were theymomentswhenGodwasgraciouslyrevealingHimselftomethroughthegloryoftheworldthatHehasmade?

I thinkaChristianoughtnot tobeafraid togive the latteranswer.TherevelationofGodthroughnaturehasthestampofapprovalputuponitby the Bible. The Bible clearly teaches that nature reveals the glory ofGod.

InawonderfulpassageinthefirstchapteroftheEpistletotheRomanstheApostlePaulsaysthattheinvisiblethingsofHimfromthecreationoftheworldareclearlyseen,beingunderstoodbythethingsthataremade,even His eternal power and Godhead [ROM 1:20]. Here the Bibleapproves the arguments of thosewho in systematic fashion argue fromtheexistenceoftheworldtotheexistenceofadivineMakeroftheworld.ButtheBiblealsoapprovesthosemoreunreasonedflashesofknowledgein which suddenly we see God's workmanship in the beauty and themajesty of His world. The Heavens declare the glory of God; and thefirmamentshowsHishandiwork,[PSA19:1]saysthePsalmist.AndwhatsaidourLordJesusChrist.EvenSolomoninallhisglory,saidHeoftheliliesofthefield,wasnotarrayedlikeoneofthese[MAT6:20].

All that is true.TherevelationofGodthroughnature isaverypreciousthing. But then a serious question arises. If God has revealed Himselfthroughthe things thatHehasmade,whydosoveryfewmenlistentothe revelation? The plain fact is that very few men arrive by acontemplation of nature at a true belief in a personalGod. Even those

scientists whose religious views are sometimes being incautiouslywelcomedbyChristianpeopleareoftenfounduponcloserexaminationtobelieveonlyinaGodwhoisidenticalwithaspiritualpurposesupposedtoinhereintheworldprocessitselfandarefoundnottobelieveatallinalivingandholyGod,arefoundnottobelieveatall in the trueGodwhocreatedtheHeavensandtheEarth.

Whyisthatso?IfGodhasrevealedHimselfsoplainlythroughtheworldthatHehasmade,whydomennotsee?

Well, when men do not see something, there are two possibleexplanations of the fact. One is that there is nothing there to see. Theotheristhatthemenwhodonotseeareblind.

ItisthislatterexplanationwhichtheBiblegivesofthefailureofmentoknowGod through the things thatHehasmade.TheBible puts it veryplainly in that same passage already quoted from the first chapter ofRomans.Theirfoolishheart,saysPaul,wasdarkened[ROM1:21].Hencetheydidnotsee.Thefaultdidnorlieinnature.Menwerewithoutexcuse,[ROM1:20]Paulsays,whentheydidnotseewhatnaturehadtoshow.Theirmindswere blinded by sin. That is a hard saying, but likemanyotherhardsayingsitistrue.YouwillneverunderstandanythingelsethatImaysayunlessyouunderstandthatweallofus,solongaswestandinourownright,andhavenothadoureyesmysteriouslyopened,are lostandblindinsin.

Chapter3HASGODSPOKEN?

At thebeginningof this little seriesof talks, I tried to tell youwhyyoucannot postpone attention to an unseen world and to God. This worldpresentsverypressingproblemsjustnow,buteventheproblemsofthisworldcannotbesolvedarightifyouneglecttheotherworldandthegreatquestionof your relation toGod.Then Ibegan to tell youhowyoucancome into relationswith that unseenworld; I tried to begin to tell youhowGodmaybeknown.Hemaybeknown,Isaid,throughtheuniversethatHehasmade:theexistenceoftheworldshowsthatthereisaMaker

andRuleroftheworld.

ThatrevelationofGodthroughnature, I said, iswonderfully confirmedby theBible, but it doesnot comeonly from theBible. It is spreadoutbeforemensothatallmightbeexpectedtosee.

ButinthelastofthesetalksIwasnotabletofinish,eveninbareoutline,whatoughttobesaidaboutthatgeneralrevelationofGodwhichisgiventousoutsideoftheBible.IspokeofthewayinwhichGodhasspokentous through themajestyandbeautyof theworld thatHehasmade.Butthereisanotherway,stillapartfromtheBible,inwhichGodhasspokentoHiscreatures.Hehasnotonlyinthewondersoftheworldoutsideofus but also through His voice within. He has planted His laws in ourhearts.Hespeakstoallmenthroughthevoiceofconscience.Hespeaksthroughthemajesticwordswhichallbut themostdegradedmenutter,thewords:"Iought."Hespeaksthroughthemajestyofthemorallaw.Alawimpliesalawgiver.ConsciencetestifiesofGod.

Therearesomepeople,evenpeoplewhoarenotChristians,towhomthatrevelation seems particularly to appeal. Some years ago I rememberhearinganinformallecturebyawell-knownprofessorofphilosophy.Thespeaker toldusabout thepresentstateofphilosophicalopinion.Itwas,he said, overwhelmingly in favor of naturalism - that is, very fewphilosophers believed in any reality beyond and above the universe inwhich we live. He himself, the speaker said, disagreed with thisnaturalism.Hedidbelieveinatranscendentreality.Why?Hebelievedinit, he said, because he observed that certain people sacrifice their owninterestsforthesakeofotherpeopleorforthesakeofduty.Whatcouldpossiblyleadthemtoactsoifthereisnotranscendentprincipleofright?Howcouldtheypossiblyactinawaysocontrarytoallworldlyinterestsunlessthereisarealitybeyondthisworld?

The Bible sets the stamp of its approval upon that revelation of Godthroughconscience,aswehaveseenthatitsetsthestampofitsapprovalupontherevelationthatcomesthroughtheexternalworld.Paulsays,forexample, in thesecondchapterof theEpistle to theRomans:ForwhentheGentiles,whohavenotthelaw,dobynaturethethingscontainedinthelaw,these,havingnotthelaw,arealawuntothemselves:whichshow

theworkofthelawwrittenintheirhearts,theirconsciencealsobearingwitness,andtheirthoughtsthemeanwhileaccusingorelseexcusingoneanother.... [ROM2:14, 15].Here theApostledoes seemclearly to teachthat the voice of conscience, which speaks in the very constitution ofman'snature,isthevoiceofGod.Hedoesnotmeanthatmenreallyobeythatlawasitoughttobeobeyed.Onthecontrary,heisveryclearindeedinteachingthatallhavedisobeyed.Theyhavedisobeyedthe law,butatleastthelawisthere,intheirhearts.Becauseoftheirdisobediencetheyare under the condemnation of the law; the law can therefore of itselfnevergivethemanyhope.Butthatisnotthefaultofthelaw;themorallaw iswritten in theveryconstitutionof theirbeing,and if theydonotheedittheyarewithoutexcuse.

ThusGodthegreatlawgiverisrevealedinthevoiceofconscienceasHeisinthewondersoftheworldwithout.ThesetwomaybegroupedtogetherasconstitutingtherevelationofGodthroughnature,ifnaturebetakentoinclude the nature of man. The philosopher Immanuel Kant is said tohavesummed itupwhenhespokeof the starryheavensaboveand themorallawwithinasbeingthetwothingswhichfilltheheartofmanwithawe.IdonotmeanthatthosetwothingsgavetoImmanuelKantatrueknowledgeofGod:Idonotmeaneventhathehadatruenotionofwhatknowledgeitselfis.ButwhatImeanisthathemadeacorrectsummaryofthosethingswhichapartfromtheBibleoughttogiveusaknowledgeofGod. The wonders of the universe without and themoral law within -thosearethetwogreatelements inGod'srevelationofHimself throughnature.

But He has not only revealed Himself through nature; He has alsorevealed Himself in an entirely different way. That other revelation ofGod, different from His revelation of Himself through nature, is notnaturalbutsupernatural.

When we say "supernatural," we are not speaking about somethingcontrarytonature.Nothingthatiscontrarytonaturecouldpossiblycomefrom God; for God is the author of nature, and He cannot contradictHimself.

Butwhenwesaythatanythingis"supernatural"wearesayingthat it is

"abovenature."

There is a really existing order of nature; the order of nature does notconsistmerelyinourobservationofcertainregularitiesinGod'sworking,butitissomethingthattrulyexists.

ThatdoesnotmeanthatnatureexistsapartfromGod.Onthecontrary,itwouldnotcontinuetoexistforonemomentexceptbyGod'swill.Godisnotisolatedfromtheworld;HedoeseverythingthatnaturedoesandHesayseverythingthatnaturesays.

ButwhatwemeanisthatGodactsandspeaksintwoverydifferentways.InthefirstplaceHeactsandspeaksbymeansoftheworldthatHehasmade;and in thesecondplaceHeactsandspeaksdirectly,without theuseofmeans.

ItwasinthislatterwaythatGodactedwhenHefirstcreatedtheworld,anditwasinthislatterwaythatHeactedwhenHewroughtthemiraclesrecorded in the Bible and when He spoke to men in the supernaturalrevelationwithwhichwearedealingjustnow.

Whywasthissupernaturalrevelationneeded?

Itwasneededfortworeasons.

In the first place, God's revelation ofHimself through nature has beenhiddenfromoureyesbysin.Wesawinthelasttalkhowthatisthecasewith the revelation given by the wonders of the external world. ThosewondersrevealthegloryofGod.Butmenareblindedsothattheydonotsee.That isevenmoreclearlytrueof therevelationofGod throughHisvoicewithin.Haveyouneverexperiencedyourselves,myfriends,thewayinwhichconsciencebecomesblunted?Haveyouneverfirstlookeduponsome foul thing with horror, and then slipped into that thing byinsensible degrees, so that what seemed wrong to you before is nowtreatedasamatterofcourse,untilatsomesadhouryoucometoyourselfandseethatyouarealreadywallowinginthemire?Ahyes,thevoiceofconscience is silenced by a life of sin. We can detect that dreadfulhardeningprocessinourselves,andveryterriblyisitsetforthintheBible

as a punishment for sin. How terrible, too, are the perversions of theconscience among men! It is certainly true that the revelation of Godthroughconsciencehasbeenhiddenfrommen'seyesbysin.

There is need of supernatural revelation, therefore, to show us againthosethingswhichsinhashiddenfromoureyes.

But is that all the supernatural revelation that there is? If it were, weshouldbeofallmenmostmiserable.SupposewehadhadrevealedtoustheterriblemajestyofGod;supposethevoiceofconsciencehadspokentouswithperfectclearness,ofthejusticeofGodandofourdisobedience.Howterriblethatrevelationwouldbe!

No,thankGod.Hehasalso,inHissupernaturalrevelation,toldusotherthings.Hehastoldusagaininsupernaturalfashionthingsthatweoughttohave learnedthroughnature,butthenHehas toldusother thingsofwhichnaturegivesnoslightesthint.Hehastoldus,namely,ofHisgrace.HehastoldusofthewayinwhichsinnerswhohaveoffendedagainstHisholylawanddeservenothingbutHiswrathhavebeenmadeHischildrenatinfinitecostandwillliveasHischildrenforevermore.

Where shall we find that supernatural revelation? I want to say veryplainlythatIthinkallthatwecanknowofitnowisfoundinthepagesofoneBook.

There have, indeed, beenmen in our day who have claimed to be therecipients of supernatural revelation,whohave claimed tobeprophets,whohavesaidastheyhavecomeforward:"ThussaystheLord;Godhasspokendirectlytome,andmyvoicethereforeisthevoiceofGod."

Butthosewhohavesaidthatinourtimesarefalseprophetsoneandall;therealsupernaturalrevelationthatweknowisrecordedinoneblessedbook,theBible.

It is no wonder that that is the case, because there is a marveloussymmetry and completeness in that revelation of God which the Biblerecords.Ishouldlovetospeaktoyouaboutit if thereweretime.Whensincameintotheworld, theBibletellsusthattherewasarevelationof

salvation to come; the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent'shead.Ishouldlovetotellyouoftheunfoldingofthatpromise.IshouldlovetotellyouofAbrahamandofMoses.Ishouldparticularlylovetotellyouofthegreatprophets,becauseintheirwordsweseesoplainlywhatsupernatural revelation is. They spoke of judgment; they spoke of theterrorandthemajestyofGod.Buttheyalsospoke,verytenderly,ofGod'sgrace.Aswhenatsomesolemnsunsethourtherearedarkcloudsabovebut low on the horizon a deep, clear, unearthly light, despair of everyartist'sbrush, so in thegreatprophets there arewarningsof thedayofvengeanceofourGodbutmingledwiththewarningsstrangegleamsofaheavenlytendernessandpeace.ForuntousaChildisborn,untousaSonisgiven:andthegovernmentshallbeuponHisshoulder:andHisnameshall be calledWonderful Counselor, TheMightyGod, The EverlastingFather,ThePrinceofPeace[ISA9:6].Behold,avirginshallconceive,andbearaSon,andshallcallHisnameImmanuel[ISA7:14].

Only,ourfigurewasnotaltogetherright;thosepassagesrevealtousnotasunsetglowbutthegloryofafar-offdawn.Then,aswereadtheBible,weseethedawndrawingnearer.Itislikethatsolemnhourwhenallnatureishushedbefore theappearanceof theday.Shepherdskeptwatchovertheir flocksbynight.Therecameto themaheavenlyword:Untoyou isbornthisdayinthecityofDavidaSavior,WhoisChristtheLord[LUK2:11]. I should love to tell you of that Savior. He spoke as never manspoke.ButIsupposeHiswholelifecanbecalledsupernaturalrevelation.Hewastrueman,butHewasnotonlyman,andHecameintothisworldby a supernatural act of God, and in His death and resurrection Hewroughtasupernaturalwork.Ishouldlovetotellyouofthewayinwhichthrough the apostles supernatural revelation was gloriously continuedafterHissavingworkwasdone.Ishouldlovetotellyouhowbyheedingthe revelation contained in the Epistles of theNew Testament you canhavethatgloriousSaviorasyourSaviortoday.Ishouldlovetotellyouofthe last book of theBible,with its promises of things to come,with itspromisesofthetimewhenweshallseeourSaviorfacetoface.

Yes,thereisawonderfulsymmetryandcompletenessinthesupernaturalrevelationrecordedintheBible.

But one question may trouble us. Have we a true record of that

revelation? The revelation came tomen of long ago.How do we knowthat theaccountwhichwehaveof it is true?Andhowdoweknowthatthose saving acts of God which went with the revelation really didhappen?Therevelation isonething, itmightbesaid,andtherecordoftherevelationisanother.Howdoweknowthattherecordistrue?

I want to talk to you about that question in the next one of theseaddresses.Iwanttotalktoyouaboutinspiration-theinspirationoftheBookinwhichtherevelationisrecorded.Iwanttotalktoyouaboutthequestion just exactly what wemean when we say that the Bible is theWordofGod.

Chapter4ISTHEBIBLETHEWORDOFGOD?

Inthelasttwotalksinthisseries,IhavebeenspeakingtoyouaboutthequestionhowGodmaybeknown.Hemaybeknown,Isaid,onlyasHehas been pleased to revealHimself. ButHe has been pleased to revealHimself in two ways. In the first place, He has been pleased to revealHimself throughnature -by thewondersof theworldandbyHisvoicewithin, thevoiceof' conscience -and, in the secondplace,Hehasbeenpleased to reveal Himself in an entirely different way that we call"supernatural"because it is "abovenature."Wewere talkingabout thatsupernatural revelation in the last talk. In that supernatural revelationGodhasspokentomennotthroughthewondersoftheworldthatHehasmade and not through His voice planted in our hearts, the voice ofconscience,butdirectlyand specially, inawayanalogous to theway inwhichonepersonhereonEarthgivesapieceofinformationtoanother.

Isaidatthecloseofthelittletalkthatallofthat"supernatural"orspecialrevelation thatweknow is containedwithin thepagesof onebook, theBible.WasIrightinsayingthat?

Well, I think that Iwas just about right. Supernatural revelation, alongwiththemiracles,ceasedwhenthe lastof theApostlesofJesusdied. Ifyou want information as to why the miracles ceased, and with themsupernatural revelation, I think you will kind it if you will turn, for

example, to the admirable book by the late B. B. Warfield, entitledCounterfeitMiracles[1918,pp.1-33].

Butwhyshouldwenotobtaininformation,inadditiontothatrecordedintheBible, about supernatural revelation given, indeed, not later, but inBible times?Well, it is perfectly conceivable that wemight do so. It isperfectlyconceivable,forexample,thattheremightturnupinEgyptbitsofpapyrusaffordingtrueinformationaboutwordsofJesusnotcontainedinthefourGospels.Butthebitsofpapyruswhichhaveactuallyturnedupsofarhardlyseemtoprovidesuchinformation.Itis,forexample,onthewhole unlikely that Jesus really spoke the words recorded in one suchfragment: "Lift up the stone, and there you shall find me; cleave thewood, and there I am" [For text and translation, see Hugh G. EvelynWhite,TheSayingsofJesusfromOxyrhynchus,1920,pp.35f.].Onthewhole, speaking broadly, we can certainly say that all the supernaturalrevelation thatwe can be at all certain about, although no doubt othersupernaturalrevelationwasgiveninBibletimes,isrecordedinthepagesofonebook,theBible.

But then the question forces itself upon our attention "How about thatrecord?"WehavesaidthattherecordofsupernaturalrevelationoutsidetheBibleisuncertain,tosaytheverybestforit.ButistherecordintheBibleanybetter?Canwereallydependupontherecord?

Iwanttotrytoanswerthatquestiontoday.IwanttotrytotellyouwhatIthinktherightviewoftheBibleis.

Indoingso,Iamperfectlywellawareofthefactthatintheopinionofagoodmany people I shall be puttingmyworst foot forward. I shall begiving expression to views which put me out of accord with the maintrendofopinionbothoutsidetheChurchandinsideofit.ShouldInotbewiser if I tookthis thingmoregradually, if Iadoptedamoreapologeticlineofapproach,ifIdecided,inthefirstpartofmylittleseriesatleast,toconcealsomewhatthefullunpopularityofmyopinions?

In reply, I just want to say that I do not think that if I adopted thatmethod I shouldbe treatingyouquite fairly.Hereweare, sitting downtogetherquietly.Cannotweatleastbefriends?Cannotweatleasttryto

understandeachother,whetherwecanagreewitheachotherornot?Idonot think that I should be doing my part toward that mutualunderstandingIfIconcealedfromyoutherealbasisofwhatIamgoingtosay.

HenceIamgoingtotellyouatonce,justasbrieflyandasplainlyasIcan,whatIthinkabouttheinspirationoftheBible.

AsIdothatIamafraidIshallhavetorelinquishanyambitionsofbeingbrilliant or sparkling or eloquent.A simple, summarypresentationof alarge subject does not lend itself to the exercise of these qualities. So Imust resist the temptation of exhibitingmy eloquence. That is just toobad!ButIdonotthinkIcanestimatemyselfsacrificeinthisparticulartoo highly. You see, I am greatly assisted in my battle against thetemptation of exhibiting my eloquence by the fact that I have noeloquencetoexhibit.

At any rate, whether because of necessity or because of choice, I amsubordinatingallotherambitionsintheselittletalkstotheoneambitionofbeingplain.Idowanttotrytohelpyoutogetcertainthingsstraight.Theymay seem tobe simple and even elementary, and yet there is thestrangestconfusionaboutthemtoday.Youmaynotagreewithmeaboutthese things,butat least Ihope that ifyouarebroadmindedenoughtolistentomeatallyoumayobtainafairerconceptionaboutwhatcertainmuch abused people - wewho believe in the inspiration of the Bible -really hold. After all, there are a good many people in the world whobelieve,asIdo,thattheBibleistheWordofGod;andyoucannotreallybebroadminded,youcannotreallyhaveanintelligentviewofthestateofhumanityasawhole,ifyoulistenonlytowhatissaidaboutthesepeoplebytheiropponentsandnevertakethetroubletolistentowhattheyhavetosayforthemselves.

Ofcourse,IcannotconcealfromyouthefactthatIhavealsoanotheranda higher purpose in these little talks, I want not only to clear awaymisconceptionsfromyourmindsastowhatwebelieve,butIwanttowinsomeofyoutobelievethesamethingyourselves.IwantnotonlytoshowyouwhataretheviewsofpeoplewhobelievethatthereisaGodandthatHehasspokentomen,butalsototrytoleadsomeofyoutolistentothe

voice of God for yourselves. I know I cannot do that by any merepersuasionsorargumentsofmine.IcandoitonlyifIhavetheblessingofGod.ButifIcanjustbetheinstrument,intheselittletalks,toclearawaythemists and to enable you to see God, above all if I can bring you amessage fromGod'sWordas tohowyoucancome intoGod'spresenceandbecomeHischild-ifIcandothatevenforasingleoneofyou-thentheselittletalkswillhavebeenwellworthwhile.

What, then, shall we think about the Bible? I will tell you very plainlywhat I thinkweought to think. Iwill tell youveryplainlywhat I thinkabout it. Ihold that theBiblicalwriters,afterhavingbeenprepared fortheir task by the providential ordering of their entire lives, received, inadditiontoall that,ablessedandwonderfulandsupernaturalguidanceandimpulsionbytheSpiritofGod,sothattheywerepreservedfromtheerrorsthatappearinotherbooksandthustheresultingbook,theBible,is in all its parts the very Word God, completely true in what it saysregardingmattersoffactandcompletelyauthoritativeinitscommands.

Thatisthedoctrineoffullor"plenary"inspirationofHolyScripture.Itisnot a popular doctrine. It is not in accordancewith thewisdomof thisworld. Aman cannot hold to it seriously (and really act in accordancewithit)andatthesametimeenjoythefavoroftheworldorthefavoroftheecclesiasticalauthoritiesinmanyofthechurchesofthepresentday.Yetitisaveryblesseddoctrineallthesame,andifamanfoundshislifeuponit he can be very joyous and quite undismayed in all the sorrowsandallthebattlesthatmaycomeuponhiminthisworld.

Now I want to talk to you a little about that blessed doctrine of theinspiration of the Bible. It is certainly worth talking about, because itbelongsnot to thesuperstructurebut to the foundation. Ifamanreallyholdstoit,everythingelseforthatmanischanged.

Butcanamanholdtoit?IsitareasonablethingtobelieveintheplenaryinspirationoftheBible?Andifitisareasonablething,howcanweshowthat it is a reasonable thing? I cannot attempt to answer that latterquestionwithany fullness in the restof thepresent little talk.But Idobelieve that some of the objections to the doctrine of the plenaryinspirationoftheBibledisappeartheminuteamanobservesclearlywhat

that doctrine is, and in particular the minute he observes what thatdoctrineisnot.Thestrangestmisconceptionsprevail,evenamongpeoplewho otherwise are educated people, about what we believers in theplenary inspiration of the Bible really hold. Perhaps I can perform aservicebyclearingawayoneortwoofthosemisconceptionsnow.

In the first place, then, let it be said that we believers in the plenaryinspirationof theBibledonothold that theAuthorizedVersionor anyotherformoftheEnglishBibleisinspired.Ibegyourpardonforsayinganythingsoobviousasthat,but,doyouknow,myfriends,itisnecessarytosayit.Therearescarcelyanylimitstotheignorancewhichisattributedto us today by people who have never given themselves the trouble todiscoverwhatourviewreallyis.Letitbesaidthenveryplainlythatwedonot hold that the Authorized Version or any other form of the EnglishBibleisinspired.WearereallyquitewellawareofthefactthattheBiblewas written in Hebrew and in Greek. The Authorized Version is atranslation from the Hebrew and the Greek. It is a marvelously goodtranslation,butit isnotaperfecttranslation.Thereareerrorsinit.Thetranslatorswerenotsupernaturallypreservedfrommakingmistakes.Itisnotinspired.

In thesecondplace,wedonothold thatanyoneof thehundreds,eventhousands,oftheGreekandtheHebrewmanuscriptsoftheBibleisfreefromerror.BeforetheinventionofprintingtheBiblewashandeddownfromgenerationtogenerationbymeansofcopiesmadebyhand.Thosecopieswerewrittenoutlaboriouslybyscribes.Beforeonecopywaswornoutorlostanothercopywouldbemadetotakeitsplace,andsotheBiblewashandeddown.Hundredsofthousands,perhaps-nooneknowshowmany-ofsuchcopiesor"manuscripts"weremade.Several thousandofthem,someofthesecontainofcourseonlypartsoftheBibleoronlypartsofeitherTestament,arenow inexistence [manyarebut fragments andsomeoftheseareverysmall.Howevermany,evenofthefragments,arevery important - aal]. These are just remnants from among the vastnumberthatarelost.NowwebelieversintheinspirationoftheBibledonotbelievethatthescribewhomadeanyoneof thesemanuscripts thatwehavewas inspired.Everyoneof themanuscriptscontainserrors,noone of them is perfect. What we do believe is that the writers of the

Biblicalbooks,asdistinguishedfromscribeswholatercopiedthebooks,wereinspired.OnlytheautographsoftheBiblicalbooks,inotherwords-thebooksas theycamefromthepenof thesacredwriters,andnotanyone of the copies of those autographs which we now possess - wereproduced with that supernatural impulsion and guidance of the HolySpiritwhichwecallinspiration.

At that point an objection to the doctrine of inspiration arises in themindsofmanypeople.Iaminclinedtothinkitisawidespreadobjection,and I am inclined to think it troublesmany thoughtful and intelligentpeople."WhatistheuseoftheinspirationoftheBible,"peoplesay,"ifnoformoftheBiblethatwehaveisinspired?WhyshouldGodhaveworkedastupendousmiracleinordertopreservethewritersoftheBiblicalbooksfromerrorandmaketheautographsoftheirbookscompletelytrueifHeintended then to leave the books thus produced to themere chance oftransmission from generation to generation by very human and oftencarelesscopyists?"

Suchistheobjection.Ihavedeepsympathywiththepeoplewhoraiseitorwhoaretroubledbyit.Itissuchaveryhumanobjection.Weareallofussopronetosay"IfGoddidthis,whydidHenotalsodothat?"WeareallofussoapttodemandofGodjustalittlebitmorethanHehasgivenus.We are all of us so reluctant to say toourselves thatperhapsGod'swayisbest,andthatinnotgivingusallHehasgivenusjustexactlywhatitwasgoodforustohave.

But,humanthoughsuchreasoningis,itisverywrong.Whatweoughttodo as amatter of fact is to takewith thankfulness what God has beenpleased togiveusandnot say thatbecauseHehasnotbeenpleased togiveussomethingelsethereforewhatHehasbeenpleasedtogiveusisofnouse.

Certainly in thiscasewithwhichwearedealingnowwhatHehasbeenpleasedtogiveusisaverygreatdeal,anditisfarmorethansomepeopleseemtothink.Hehasgivenusthesupernaturalinspirationofthewritersof the Biblical books. That is much. But, according to our view of theBible,that isnotall thatHehasgivenus.Hehasalso,accordingtoourview, given us a marvelously accurate, though not a supernaturally

accurate, transmission, from generation to generation, of what thoseinspiredwriterswrote.

Theobjectorsaystome,"Howstrange,accordingtoyourview,theviewof you believers in the plenary inspiration of the Bible, it is that Godshould leave the transmission of a supernaturally inspired book to thechance of transmission by fallible human copyists!" What do I say inreply?Isay:Holdonthere,brother;what is thatyousaid?Didyousaythat according to our view God left the transmission of the Bible tochance?Ifyousaidthatyousaidsomethingthat isquitewrong.That isnotourviewatall.No,Godcertainlydidnot,accordingtoourview,leavethe transmission of the Bible to chance. He did not leave anything tochance;but it isparticularlyplain thatHedidnot leave that tochance.Was it by chance that in the early days the text of theNewTestamentbookswassodiligentlycopiedfromonepieceofpapyrustoanotherthatknowledgeofwhatthesacredwritershadwrittenwasnotlostduringtheperiodwhen that very perishablewritingmaterialwas used?Was it bychance that about the beginning of the fourth century the wonderfullydurable writingmaterial, vellum, or parchment, came into use, so thattwogreatmanuscriptsoftheBiblemadeinthatcenturyareforthemostpart just as clear and easy to read today as if they had been madeyesterday? Was it by chance that one of these manuscripts, the greatCodex Sinaiticus, was so strangely preserved in the monastery of St.CatherineonMountSinaiuntilitwasfoundbyTischendorfin1859?Wasitbychancethataperfectphotographicreproductionofthatmanuscripthasbeenmade,sothatalthoughthemanuscriptitselfwaswellworththehalf-million dollars that the British Museum is said to be paying theSovietgovernmentforit,youcanobtaintoallintentsandpurposesjustasmuchinformationaboutthemanuscriptasifyouhadthemanuscriptitself in your hands, any time you will just come to the library ofWestminster Seminary, for example, and look at the photographicreproduction?IsitbychancethattheevidencefortheoriginaltextoftheBibleissovastlymoreabundantthanforthetextofotherancientbooksinthecaseofwhich,nevertheless,nobodydoubtsbutthatwehaveaverycloseapproximationindeedtowhattheauthorswrote?WasitbychancethattheKingJamesorAuthorizedVersionoftheEnglishBiblewasmadein the most glorious period of the English language and by men so

wonderfullyqualifiedfortheirtask?

No, my friends, these things did not come by chance. God did thesethings.Hedidnotdothembyamiracle.ButitwasjustasmuchGodthatdidthemasitwouldhavebeenifHehaddonethembyamiracle.HedidthembyHisuseof theworldthatHehadmadeandbyHisorderingofthe lives of His creatures. Very wonderfully and very graciously,accordingtoourviewoftheBible,hasGodprovidedforthepreservation,fromgenerationtogeneration,ofHisholyWord.

What is the result for you,my friends? The result is that you can takedownyourAuthorizedVersion fromtheshelf, theversionhallowed, formanyofyou,bymanypreciousassociations,andbeverysurethatitwillgive you good information about thatwhich stood in theautographsofthe Word of God. The study of the manuscripts of the Bible is awonderfullyreassuringthing.TheGreektextof theNewTestament, forexample, fromwhichtheAuthorizedVersionis takenisbasednotuponthe best manuscripts but upon inferior manuscripts. Yet howinfinitesimalisthedifferencebetweenthoseinferiormanuscriptsandthebestmanuscripts-howinfinitesimalincomparisonwithwhattheyhaveincommon!IdonotmeanthatweoughtnottotakecareintheuseoftheBible;Idonotmeanthatweoughtnottotrybyeverymeanswithinourpowertodeterminewhattheexactwordingof theautographswas.IdothinkthatcarefulChristianscholarshipisaveryimportantthing.YetGodhasprovidedverywonderfullyfortheplainmanwhoisnotascholar.Youdo not have to depend for the assurance of your salvation and theorderingofyourChristian livesuponpassageswhereeither theoriginalwordingorthemeaningisdoubtful.GodhasprovidedverywonderfullyforthetransmissionofthetextandforthetranslationintoEnglish.TheBibleisperfectlyplaininthethingsthatarenecessaryforyoursouls.Godwillmakeotherthingsinitclearertoyouastheyearsgoby.Readit,myfriends.ItisGod'sBook,notman'sbook.ItisamessagefromtheKing.Readit,studyit,trustit,livebyit.Otherbookswilldeceiveyou,butnotthisbook.ThisbookistheWordofGod.

Manythingshavebeenleftunsaidthisafternoon.Manythingsareleftatlooseends.Idonotliketoleavethingsat looseendswhenIamtalkingabouttheBible.ThisthemeissomomentousthatIalwayswishwhenI

talkaboutitthatIcouldsayeverythingatonceIamsoafraidofleadingsomebodyastraybytellingjustapartofthetruth.SoIdohopeyouwilllistentomeinthenextoneofthesetalks.Iwanttosaycertainthingsthatsimply must be said. I want to say something more about what theinspirationof theBiblemeans.Does itmeanamechanical treatmentoftheBiblicalwritersassomanypeoplesayitdoes?Inwhatsenseisit,andinwhatsense is itnot, "verbal" inspiration?Iwant to talk toyouaboutthatquestion.IalsowanttotalktoyouaboutthequestionwhetheritisenoughtosaythattheBiblecontainsarecordofsupernaturalrevelationor whether we ought rather to say, that it is as a whole itself asupernaturalrevelationfromGod.

Chapter5DOWEBELIEVEINVERBALINSPIRATION?

In the last talk I was speaking about the inspiration of the Bible. ThewritersoftheBiblicalbooks,Isaid,receivedablessedandwonderfulandsupernatural guidance and impulsionby theSpirit ofGod, so that theywerepreservedfromtheerrorsthatappear inotherbooksandthustheresulting book, the Bible, is in all its parts the very Word of God,completelytrueinwhatitsaysregardingmattersof factandcompletelyauthoritative in its commands. That is the great doctrine of the full or"plenary"inspirationofHolyScripture.

IhadtobreakoffwhatIwassayingtoyouabout thatdoctrine. In fact,almostallthatIhadtimetodowastoclearawaycertainmisconceptions.Nowwegetmoreintotheheartofthesubject.

IthinkIcanhelpyoutogetintotheheartofthesubjectifIjustaskyouto consider withme for aminute or two what I suppose is one of thecommonestifnottheverycommonestoftheobjectionstothedoctrineoffull or "plenary" inspiration. You see, this business of consideringobjections is a good thing in more ways than one. Not only may itpossiblyhelppeoplewhoareactuallytroubledbytheobjections,butalsoitmayenableallofustogetthethingmorenearlystraightinourminds.Therearefewbetterwaysofseeingclearlywhatathingisthanthewayofsettingitoffsharplyincontrastwithwhatitisnot.

Well, what is this common objection to the doctrine of plenaryinspiration?ItisthatthedoctrineofplenaryinspirationrepresentsGodas acting upon the Biblical writers in a mechanical way, a way thatdegradesthosewriterstothepositionofmeremachines.

Peoplewhoraisethisobjectionsometimesaskus:"Doyoubelieveinthe‘verbal'inspirationoftheBible?"Whentheyaskusthat, theythinkthattheyhaveusinadreadfulhole.Ifwesay:"No,wedonotbelieveinverbalinspiration,"theysay:"HowthencanyouholdtoyourconvictionthattheBible is altogether true? If God did not exercise some supernaturalcontrol over thewords, then thewordswill surely contain those errorswhicharefoundinallhumanproductions."If,ontheotherhand,wesay:"Yes,wedobelieveinverbalinspiration"-thentheyholduptheirhandsin horror. "How dreadful, how mechanical!", they say. "If God reallyprovidedinsupernatural fashion that thewords shouldbe thusandso,thenthewritersoftheBiblicalbooksaredegradedtothepositionofmerestenographers; indeed, they are degraded even lower than that, sincestenographersarehumanenoughtoerrandalsotohelp,whereasinthiscasethewordswouldbeproducedwithsuchperfectaccuracyastoshowthat the human instruments in the production of thewordsweremeremachines.WhatbecomesofthemarvelousbeautyandvarietyoftheBiblewhen the writers of it are regarded as having been treated in thisdegradingway?"

Suchistheholeintowhichwearethoughttobeput;or,ifImaychangethefigureratherviolently,sucharethehornsofthedilemmauponwhichwearethoughttobeimpaled.

How can we possibly escape? Well, I think we can escape very easilyindeed. You ask me whether I believe in the verbal inspiration of theBible.Iwillanswerthatquestionveryplainlyandquickly.Yes,IbelieveintheverbalinspirationoftheBible;butIdoinsistthatyouandIshallgetarightnotionofwhattheword"verbal"means.

IcertainlybelieveintheverbalinspirationoftheBible.IquiteagreewithyouwhenyousaythatunlessGodprovidedinsupernaturalfashionthatthewordsoftheBibleshouldbefreefromerrorweshouldhavetogiveupourconceptionoftheBibleasbeing,throughout,asupernaturalbook.

Yes, inspiration certainlyhas todowith thewordsof theBible; in thatsense I certainly do believe in verbal inspiration. But if you mean by"verbal inspiration" the view that inspiration has to do only with thewordsoftheBibleandnotalsowiththesoulsoftheBiblicalwriters,thenIwanttotellyouthatIdonotbelieveinverbalinspirationinthatsense.IfyoumeanbyverbalinspirationtheviewthatGodmovedthehandsoftheBiblicalwritersoverthepageinthewayinwhichhandsaresaidtobemovedoveraouijaboard- insuchawaythat thewritersdidnotknowwhattheyweredoingwhentheywrote-thenIdoholdthatthatkindofverbal inspiration does utterly fail to do justice to what appears in theBibleveryplainlyfromGenesistoRevelation.

ThewritersoftheBibledidknowwhattheyweredoingwhentheywrote.Idonotbelievethattheyalwaysknewallthattheyweredoing.Ibelievethat there are mysterious words of prophecy in the Prophets and thePsalms,forexample,whichhadafarricherandmoregloriousfulfillmentthantheinspiredwritersknewwhentheywrote.YeteveninthecaseofthosemysteriouswordsIdonotthinkthatthesacredwritersweremereautomata. They did not know the fullmeaning ofwhat theywrote, butthey did know part of the meaning, and the full meaning was in nocontradictionwiththepartialmeaningbutwasitsgloriousunfolding.

Ibelieve that theBiblicalwritersusedordinary sourcesof information;they consulted documents, they engaged in research, they listened toeyewitnesses.

I do not, indeed, believe, that they were limited to such sources ofinformation.Theyweresometimes,astheywrote,therecipientsoffreshsupernaturalrevelation-supernaturalrevelationnotpreviouslygiventoothers but given for the first time to them in the verymoment of theirwriting. I believe also that sometimes even when they used ordinarysourcesofinformationorwhentheyconsultedtheirmemorytheiruseofsuchmeansofinformationwentfarbeyondwhatispossible,exceptwithsupernaturalassistance,tothehumanmind.

Inonesense,ofcourse, theiruseofsuchsourcesof informationalwayswentbeyondwhatispossibletothehumanmind.Toerr ishuman,andthese men did not err. They were always protected, in supernatural

fashion,fromtheerrorswhichappearinordinarybooks.

But what I mean is that sometimes that supernatural heightening ofhumanpowersconsistednotonlyintheinvariablepreventionoferrorinmatters where uninspired writers might in any individual case haveavoided error, but also in the prevention of error in matters whereuninspiredwriterscouldnotpossiblyhaveavoidederror.

I am thinking, for example, of the discourses of Jesus reported in theGospel according to John. It is often urged as an objection against theauthenticity of those long discourses that no one who heard thediscoursescouldpossiblyhaverememberedthemsolongafterwardswithanythinglikeaccuracy.Thatobjectionnolongertroublesmeasmuchasitformerlydid.DidnotourLordHimselftelltheApostles,includingthewriterofthisGospel,thatafterHisdeparturetheHolySpiritwouldbringtotheirremembrancewhateverHehadsaidtothem?(JOH14:26).Maywe not suppose that the report by the Beloved Disciple, writer of thisGospel,ofthethingsthatJesushadsaidwhenHewaswiththedisciplesonEarthgoesfarbeyondwhatispossibletotheunaidedhumanmemoryandisdueinparttothatmysteriousandsupernaturalworkoftheHolySpiritofwhichJesusspoke?

But such considerations ought not to obscure the fact that the Biblicalwriters did use ordinary sources of information where they werereportingthingsthathadbeensaidanddoneonthisEarth.Indeed,theyoftenlaygreatstressonthefactthattheyusedsuchordinarysourcesofinformation. The author of that very Gospel about which we have justbeenspeaking,andinwhichwewereinclinedtofindsomethingthatgoesfar beyond what is possible to the unaided humanmemory - even theauthorofthatGospellaysparticularemphasisonthefactthathewasaneyewitnessofthelifeofJesus.Hereportedwhathehadseenandheard.Hedidnottellthesethingsjustbecausetheyhadbeenrevealedtohimatsomelatertimeinsomesupernaturalexperience.No.HewastherewhenJesus said certain things and did certain things. As an eyewitness heinsiststhatheisworthyofbelief.Evenbeforehishearersorhisreadersshouldcometobelieve inanysupernatural inspirationofwhichhewastherecipienttheyoughttobelievehimasmenbelieveacrediblewitnesswhenhetakeshisseatonthewitnessstand.

SotheApostlePaulappeals to thewitnessof the fivehundredbrethrenwhohadseentherisenLord.SotheEvangelistLuketellsintheprologueof his Gospel about the historical researches in which he had beenengaged.Yes, theBiblicalwritersusedordinarysourcesof information,andwhen theywereeyewitnesses theyused their ownmemoryofwhattheyhadseenandheard.

It isvery important indeed to insistupon these facts,because theygivetheBible suchevidential force.Supposeamancomes to the readingofthe Bible without any belief in inspiration. Even then he ought to givecredence to what he reads. It can be shown him even before anyacceptance on his part of the doctrine of plenary inspiration that thewritersweremenwhohadopportunitiesofknowingthefacts, thattheywere honest men, that they knew how to distinguish truth fromfalsehood. If he will only consider these Biblical books with the samefairness as that with which he approaches other sources of historicalinformation, he will accept what they say as being substantially true.Then,onthebasisof thatconvictionthattheyaresubstantiallytrue,hewillgoontoseethatthebooksarenotonlysubstantiallytrue,inthewayin which other good books are true, but that they are altogether truebecauseofthesupernaturalworkoftheSpiritofGod.

WedonotthereforemerelyadmitthattheBiblicalwritersusedordinarysources of historical information.We insist upon it. It is tremendouslyimportantforthewitnesswhichtheBiblerenderstothosewhohavenotyetcometobelieve.

Whatismore,theBiblicalwritersdidnotmerelyuseordinarymeansofobtaininginformation,butalsotheyfollowedtheirownindividualhabitsofstyle.WhenpeoplesaythatthedoctrineofplenaryorfullinspirationoftheBiblefailstodojusticetotheindividualityoftheBiblicalwriters,theysimplyshowthattheydonotknowwhattheyaretalkingabout.Yes,what a wonderful variety there is in the Bible. There is the roughsimplicityofMark, theunconscious,yetsplendideloquenceofPaul, theconscious literary art of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, thematchlessbeautyoftheOldTestamentnarratives,thehighpoetryoftheProphets and the Psalms.Howmuchwe should lose, to be sure, if the

Biblewerewrittenallinonestyle!

WebelieversinthefullinspirationoftheBibledonotmerelyadmitthat.Weinsistuponit.Thedoctrineofplenaryinspirationdoesnotholdthatallpartsof theBiblearealike; itdoesnothold that theyareallequallybeautifulorevenequallyvaluable;but itonlyholds thatallpartsof theBibleareequallytrue,andthateachparthasitsplace.

Thatwonderfulvariety in theBibledidnotcomebychance.ItcamebythegraciousprovidenceofGod.ItwasGodwhosuperintendedthevariededucation of those writers to prepare them the better for their mightytask. It wasGodwhowatched over the prophet Amoswhen hewas "aherdsman and a gatherer of sycamore fruit." It was God who watchedover Paul when he sat at the feet of Gamaliel. When I consider thewonderfulvarietyamongtheBiblicalwriters,andthewonderfulunityofthe Book amid this variety, I am tempted to use a figure of speech todescribewhatisreallybeyondallhumanfigures.Iamtemptedtothinkofthewritersofthesesixty-sixbooksasthoughtheywereagreatorchestra,not composed of poor mechanical strummers but of true musicians,carefullychosen,carefullytrained, individual,different,yetcontributingbytheirverydifferencestotheunityofsomeglorioussymphonyunderagreatDirector'swand.InthatmarvelousharmonyofHolyScriptureeventhe least considered parts of the Bible have their place.None could belackingwithoutoffendingthegreatMusician'sear.

But,yousay, thisdoctrineof inspiration is certainlyagreatparadox. Itholdsthatthesemenwerefree,andyetthateverywordthattheywrotewas absolutely determined by the Spirit of God. How is that possible?HowcouldGoddeterminetheverywordsthatthesemenwroteandyetnotdealwiththemasmeremachines?

Well,myfriend,Iwilltellyouhow.IwilltellyouhowGodcoulddothat.He could do it simply because God is God. There is a delicacy ofdiscriminationinGod'sdealingwithHiscreaturesthat farsurpassesallhumananalogies.WhenGoddealswithmenHedoesnotdealwiththemaswithmachinesoraswithsticksorstones.Hedealswiththemaswithmen.

Butwhatneedstobeemphasizedaboveall is thatwhenGoddealt thuswiththeBiblicalwriters,thoughHedealtwiththemaswithmenandnotaswithmachines,yetHeaccomplishedHisends.Heorderedtheirlivesto fit them for their tasks. But then, in addition to that providentialorderingof their lives, inadditiontothatuseof their individualgiftsofwhichwehavespoken,therewasasupernaturalworkoftheSpiritofGodthatmadetheresultingbooknotman'sbookbutGod'sBook.

That supernaturalwork of the Spirit of God extends to all parts of theBible. People say that theBible is a book of religion andnot a book ofscience, and that where it deals with scientific matters it is not to betrusted.Whentheysaythat,iftheyreallyknowwhattheyaresaying,theyare saying just about themost destructive thing that could possibly beimagined.

Isreligionreallyindependentofscience?Well,"religion"isaverybroadterm.Iwillnotsayjusthowbroadatermitis.Possiblyitisevenbroadenoughtoincludeanattitudeofthehumansoulthatisindependentofallfactswithwhichsciencemaylegitimatelydeal.Iamnotsayingwhethersuch an attitude may or may not be called "religion." I am not muchinterestedinthequestion.WhatIaminterestedinandwhatIamcertainabout is thatwhatevermaybe true of religion in general, theChristianreligionismostemphaticallydependentuponfacts–factsintheexternalworld, factswithwhich"science" inthetruesenseof thewordcertainlyhasarighttodeal.

WhenyousaythattheBibleisatrueguideinreligion,butthatyoudonotcarewhetheritisatrueguidewhenitdealswithhistoryorwithscience,Ishouldjustliketoaskyouonequestion.WhatdoyouthinkoftheBiblewhenittellsyouthatthebodyoftheLordJesuscameoutofthattombonthe firstEastermorningnineteenhundredyearsago?Thateventof theresurrection, if it really happened, is an event in the external world.Accountwould have to be taken of it in any ideally complete scientificdescriptionof the physical universe. It is certainly amatterwithwhichscience,inprinciple,mustdeal.Well,then,isthatoneofthosescientificmatterstowhichtheinspirationoftheBibledoesnotextend,oneofthosescientific matters with regard to which it makes no difference to thedevoutreaderoftheBiblewhethertheBibleistrueorfalse?

Therearemanypeoplewhosayjustthat.Therearemanypeoplewhodonot shrink from that logical consequence of their division betweenreligionandscience.TherearemanypeoplewhosaythattheBiblewouldretainitsfullreligiousvalueevenifscientifichistoryshouldshowthatitiswrongabouttheresurrectionofJesusandthatasamatteroffactJesusneverrosefromthedead.

Isaytherearemanypeoplewhosaythat.ButthepeoplewhosaythatarenotChristians.WeChristiansknowthatwearesinners;andwe look tothe Bible for something farmore than inspiring poetry or soul-stirringexhortationorexpertinstructionintheartofbeingreligious.WelooktotheBibleforfacts.

WhatgooddoesitdotometotellmethatthetypeofreligionpresentedintheBibleisaveryfinetypeofreligionandthatthethingformetodoisjusttostartpracticingthattypeofreligionnow?WhatgooddoesitdototellmethatIhaveafinepatternofreligionintheaccountofJesusintheGospelswhetherthataccountishistoryoraninspiringideal?Whatgooddoes it do to tellme to cultivatemy religious nature in themanner inwhich the religiousnaturewas cultivatedwith such eminent successbyJesusorbyPaulorbyIsaiah?

Iwilltellyou,myfriend.Itdoesmenotonetiniestlittlebitofgood.Youarejustmockingmewhenyoutalktomelikethat.Youareignoringmytrue condition. You are ignoring the fact that in my own right I am asinnerunderthewrathandcurseofGod,andthatinmyownstrengthIam under the awful bondage of sin. What I need first of all is notexhortationbutagospel,notdirectionsforsavingmyselfbutknowledgeof thewayGodhassavedme.Haveyouanygoodnewsforme?That isthequestionthatIaskofyou.Iknowyourexhortationswillnothelpme.Butifanythinghasbeendonetosaveme,willyounottellmethefacts?

TheBibledoestellmethefacts.IttellsmeJesusdiedonthecrosstosaveme;ittellsmeHerosefromthedeadtocompleteHissavingworkandbemy livingLord.Whatdo I saywhen it tellsme that?Do I say: "That ishistoryandnotreligion:Iamnotinterestedinit;itmaybetrueoritmaynotbetrueforallIcare;theBibleisabookofreligionandnotabookof

science or a book of history"? No,my friends, I do not say that. I sayrather:"PraisebetoGodforthatblessedstoryoftheresurrectionandthecross;uponthetruthofitallmyhopedependsfortimeandforeternity;how I rejoice thatGodHimself has toldme inHis holy Book that it istrue!"

Hereisaruleforyou,myfriends:nofacts,nogoodnews;nogoodnews,nohope.TheBibleisquiteuselessunlessitisarecordoffacts.

ThankGod,itisarecordoffacts.TheSpiritofGod,ininfinitemercy,waswith the writers of the Bible not merely when they issued God'scommands,butalsoandjustasfullywhentheywrotetheblessedrecordofwhatGodhaddone.

What a dreadfully erroneous thing it is to say merely that the Biblecontains theWordofGod.No, it is theWordofGod. It is theWordofGodwhenitrecordsthefacts.ItistheWordofGodwhenittellsuswhatwemustdo.

HearitastheWordofGod,myfriends.Itwillprobeverydeepintoyourlife.Itwillreveal thedarksecretsofyoursin.Butthenitwillbringyougoodtidingsofsalvationasnowordofmancando.

Chapter6SHALLWEDEFENDTHEBIBLE?

Inthelastfewtalksinthislittleseries,IhavebeenspeakingtoyouabouttheinspirationoftheBible.IhavebeensayingthattheBibleistheWordof God and that as such it is completely true in matters of fact andcompletelyauthoritativewhenitissuescommands.

Thatiscertainlyagooddealtosay;itiscertainlyalargeclaimformetomakeinbehalfofabookthatmanypeopleregardmerelyasacollectionofHebrewreligiousliterature.

The question ariseswhether the claim is justified,whether theBible isreallyandtrulytheWordofGod.

Ihaveagreatdealofsympathyforthosewhoraisethatquestion,andIdonotthinkthatitisaquestionthatoughttobedodged.Ifyoushouldcomeintotheclasses thatI try toconductatWestminsterSeminary,Idonotbelievethatyouwouldchargemewithdodgingthequestion.IdotryasbestIcan-only,Iwishmybestwerebetter-toshowthestudentshowwecandealwithpeoplewhodonotyetbelieve inthe inspirationof theBible.Wecannothelpthemverymuchifwejustassumethattheyalreadybelieve what we believe. Instead, we ought to try to understand theirpresentpositionandthenleadthemlogically fromonethingtoanotheruntil finallywecanshow them that theBible is, aswebelieve it is, theWordofGod.

WhenIsaythat,IdonotmeanthateveryonewhocomestobelieveintheinspirationoftheBiblepassessuccessivelythroughthoselogicalsteps.IncountlesscasesconvictionastothedivineauthorityoftheBiblecomesinverymuchmoreimmediatefashion.Amanhearssometruepreacherofthe gospel. The preacher speaks on the authority of a book which liesopenthereon thepulpit.As thewordsof thatbookareexpounded, themanwho listens finds that the secretsofhisheartare revealed. It is asthoughacloakhadbeenpulledaway.ThemansuddenlyseeshimselfasGodseeshim.HesuddenlycomestoseethatheisasinnerunderthejustwrathandcurseofGod.Thenfromthesamestrangebooktherecomesawonderful offer of pardon. It comes with a strange kind of sovereignauthority. The preacher, as he expounds the book, seems to be anambassador of the King, amessenger of the living God. Theman whohearsneedsno further reflection,no furtherargument.TheHolySpirithasopened thedoorsofhisheart. "Thatbook is theWordof the livingGod,"hesays;"Godhasfoundmeout,IhaveheardHisvoice,IamHisforever."

Yes, it is in thisway,sometimes,andnotbyelaborateargument, thatamanbecomesconvincedthattheBibleistheWordofGod.

Yetthatdoesnotmeanthatargumentisunnecessary.Eventhatmaninour illustrationmaymeet criticismofhisnew found conviction.PeoplemaytellhimthatthebookwhichhethinkstobetheWordofGodisreallyfull of errors and absurdities.How is he going tomeet such criticism?Well,"thatdepends."Hemaybeable,becauseofhisintellectualgifts,to

meet thecriticismsquarely;hemaybeable tomeet the criticson theirowngroundand toshowthatasamatterof fact theBible isnot fulloferrors and absurdities. Or he may be a simple soul unable to say anymoretothecriticsofhisnew-foundconvictionthanthatwhichwassaidbythatmanintheninthchapterofJohn:OnethingIknow,that,whereasIwasblind,nowIsee[JOH9:25].

Butwhatevermaybepossibletothatconvertedmaninourillustration,itis perfectly clear, when you take the Christian world as a whole, thatconvictionsareheldbybutaprecarious tenure if thosewhohold themcontinue,onprinciple,toignoreobjections.Afterall,truthisessentiallyone.ImaybeconvincedwithmywholesoulthattheBibleistheWordofGod;butifmyneighboradducesconsiderationstoshowthat it isreallyfulloferror,Icannotbeindifferenttothoseconsiderations.Ican,indeed,saytohim:"Yourconsiderationsarewrong,andbecausetheyarewrongIcanwithagoodconscienceholdon tomyconvictions."Or I can say tohim: "What you say is true enough in itself, but it is irrelevant to thequestionwhethertheBibleistheWordofGod."ButIdonotseehowintheworldIcansaytohim:"YourconsiderationsmaybecontrarytomyconvictionthattheBible is theWordofGod,butIamnot interestedinthem; go onholding to them if youwant to do so, but do please agreewithmealsoinholdingthattheBibleistheWordofGod."

No, I cannotpossibly say that.This last attitude is surely quite absurd.Twocontradictorythingscannotbothbetrue.WecannotgoonholdingtotheBibleastheWordofGodandatthesametimeadmitthetruthofconsiderationsthatarecontrarytothatconvictionofours.

I believewith allmy soul, in otherwords, in the necessity of Christianapologetics, the necessity of a reasoned defense of the Christian Faith,andinparticularareasoneddefenseoftheChristianconvictionthattheBibleistheWordofGod.

Some years ago I attended a conference of Christian students. Variousmethods of Christian testimony were being discussed, and particularlythequestionwasbeingdiscussedwhether it isnecessary to engage inareasoneddefenseoftheChristianfaith.Inthecourseofthediscussion,agentlemanwhohadhadconsiderableexperienceinworkamongstudents

aroseandsaid thataccordingtohisexperienceyouneverwinamantoChrist until you quit arguing with him [1PE 3:15 - aal]. Well, do youknow,myfriends,whenhesaid thatIwasnot impressedone tiny littlebit.OfcourseamanneverwaswontoChristmerelybyargument.Thatisperfectlyclear.TheremustbethemysteriousworkoftheSpiritofGodinthe new birth. Without that, all our arguments are quite useless. Butbecauseargumentisinsufficient,itdoesnotfollowthatitisunnecessary.What the Holy Spirit does in the new birth is not to make a man aChristianregardlessoftheevidence,butonthecontrarytoclearawaythemistsfromhiseyesandenablehimtoattendtotheevidence[SeeROM10:13-17-aal].

So I believe in the reasoned defense of the inspiration of the Bible.Sometimes it is immediately useful in bringing a man to Christ. It isgraciouslyusedbytheSpiritofGodtothatend.Butitschiefuseisofasomewhatdifferentkind.Itschiefuse is inenablingChristianpeopletoanswer the legitimate questions, not of vigorous opponents ofChristianity,butofpeoplewhoareseekingthetruthandaretroubledbythehostilevoicesthatareheardoneveryhand.

Sometimes, when I have given a lecture in defense of the truth of theBible,alecture,forexample,whichhasadducedconsiderationstoshowthatChristreallydidrisefromthedeadonthethirdday,somebodyhascome up to me afterwards and has said very kindly something to thefollowingeffect: "We likedyour lectureall right, but the trouble is thatthe peoplewhoneed it are not here;wewho arehere are all Christianpeople,weareallconvincedalreadythattheBibleistrue,sothatwearenottheoneswhoreallyneededtolistentowhatyouhadtosay."

WhenpeoplehavetoldmethatIhavenotbeentoomuchdiscouraged.Itis true, I do wish that those persons who do not agree withmemightoccasionallygivemeahearing.Itdoesseemrathersurprisingthatpeoplewho pride themselves on being so broadminded should take theirinformation about what is called by its opponents "Fundamentalism"fromnewspaperclippingsorfromaccountsof"Fundamentalism"writtenby opponents on the basis of newspaper clippings, instead of readingwhat these so-called "Fundamentalists," these conservatives, theseChristians,havepublishedinseriousbooksovertheirownsignatures,or

instead of listening to what they have to say when they lecture. Butalthough I do wish thatmy opponents in this debate would giveme afairer hearing, yet I am not too much discouraged when they are notpresentatoneofmylectures.Yousee,whatIamtryingtodoinsuchalecture isnot somuch towindirectlypeoplewhoareopponentsof theBibleastogivetoChristianparentswhomaybepresentortoChristianSundaySchoolteachersmaterialsthattheycanuse,notwiththosewhosebacks are up against Christianity, but with the children in their ownhomesorintheirSundaySchoolclasses,thechildrenwholovethemandwant to be Christians as they are Christians, but are troubled by thevoicesagainstChristianitythatareheardoneveryside.

Yes,IcertainlydobelieveinChristianapologetics;Icertainlydobelieveinthenecessityofthereasoneddefenseofthetruthof theBible.Ihavefelt it tobemyduty to engage in itmyself, to the verybest ofmy verylimitedability;butwhatisreallyimportantisthatmanypersonsfar,farablerthanIshouldengageinthisgreatwork.

Certainly neglect of this work will be to the loss of countless precioussouls. Some years ago a kindof anti-intellectualismprevailedwidely intheChurch.Scholarsweredespisedbyevangelists;theologicalseminarieswereregardedeitherasnurseriesofunbelieforelseasplaceswheremenengagedindry-as-dustpursuitsremotefromlivingreality.

Well,many theological seminaries today are nurseries of unbelief; andbecausetheyarenurseriesofunbeliefthechurchesthattheyservehavebecome unbelieving churches too. As go the theological seminaries, sogoesthechurch.Thatiscertainlytrueinthelongrun.LookoutupontheconditionoftheChurchthroughouttheworldtoday,andyouwillseethatitistrue.

Butwhyisitthatsomanytheologicalseminarieshavebecomenurseriesof unbelief and have dragged the churches that they serve down withthem?Itispartlybecauseofthatanti-intellectualisticattitudeofpastorsandevangelists,ofwhichIspokejustnow.Despisingscholarshipastheydid,andleavingitinpossessionoftheenemy,theydiscovertodaythatinthelongruntheycannotgetalongwithoutit.WhenrealrevivalcomesintheChurch,wemaybeperfectlysureofonething.Wemaybeperfectly

surethatwith itandasavitalpartof itwillcomearevivalofChristianlearning.ThatwastrueoftheReformationofthesixteenthcentury,anditwill be true of every reformation or revival that does any more thanmerelyscratchthesurface.

I dowish peoplewould read the twelfth chapter of 1 Corinthiansmoreoften than they seem to do - that chapter where Paul speaks of thediversityofgiftsandofthatoneSpiritwhogivestoeachoneseparatelyasHewills [1CO12:11]. If theydid read thatgreatchaptermorecarefully,theywouldseethatwhatwastrueofthesupernaturalgiftsoftheSpiritinthe apostolic age is also true of the gifts which the Holy Spirit stillgraciously bestows upon the Church. It is still quite true that one giftcannotdowithouttheothers.CertainlyitistruethatevangelismcannotdowithoutChristianscholarship.Idonotliketothinkoftherelationshipbetween Christian scholarship and evangelism as being a balancebetweenthetwothings.Idonotliketosay:"Letushaveevangelism,butnotsomuchevangelismastocrowdoutChristianscholarship."No,thetruestateof thecase is thatyoucanhardlyhaveevangelismunlessyouhaveChristianscholarship;andthemoreChristianscholarshipyouhave,somuchthemoreevangelism.Outofrealtheologicalseminaries,wherethe Bible is expounded and defended, come ministers and evangelistswhoknowwhattheybelieveandwhytheybelieveit;andthepreachingofsuchministersandevangelistsisgraciouslyusedofGodforthesalvationof precious souls. There is no guess work about that. Look about youtoday,andyouwillseethatitissimplyafact.

Well,perhapsyoumaysaythatIhavesaidenoughaboutthenecessityofdefending theBible andoughtnow to goonanddefend it.Obviously Icannotdosotoday,sincemytimeisnearlyup.AlsoIamnotgoingtobeable to do so in any great detail in the following talks of this series,because inthisparticularseriesIamgoingtotalkaboutwhattheBibleteachesratherthanaboutthereasonswhichimpelustobelievethattheBibleistrue.AtsomefuturetimeIshouldparticularly lovetostudytheNew Testament with you, for example, in order to show you howwonderful are the evidences of its truth, and how wonderfully thoseevidencesof truthfulnessconfirmourconviction that thewholeBible isindeedtheWordofGod.

Butevennow,eveninthepresenttalk,Icannotleaveyouwithoutsayingjust a word about the way in which we come to that great convictionabouttheBible.IwantjusttoindicateverybrieflyonegreatargumentfortheinspirationanddivineauthorityofHolyScripture.Mindyou,itisnottheonlyargument;but I am just singling itoutbywayof example thisafternoon.

That argument is found in the testimony of Jesus Christ. In the firstcenturyofoureratherelivedinPalestineamancalledJesusofNazareth.WehavecertainrecordsofHislifeintheNewTestament.Iwantyoutostudy themat least ashistoricaldocuments. If youarenot yet ready totake them as part of the inspiredWord ofGod, as I do, study them atleast,fairly,ashistoricaldocuments.

If you do study them thus fairly, you will be impressed by the picturewhichtheygiveofJesusChrist.Thatpictureisevidentlythepictureofarealperson.Ofthattherecanbenodoubt.Butitisalsothepictureofavery strange person. The Jesus of the Gospels advanced stupendousclaims and substantiated those claims by a sovereign power over theforcesofnature.Heseemed tocommandnatureasnature'sMakerandnature'sGod.Hewasclearlyasupernaturalperson.

Modernmenhavetriedtoseparatethesupernaturalfromthenaturalinthe Gospel picture of Jesus. "We shall just remove these antiquatedsupernatural trappings from thepicture," theyhave said to themselves,"and then we shall have a picture of the real Jesus, a great religiousgenius and nothing more." But the effort to make that separation hasbeena failure.The supernatural element in theGospel picture of Jesushas proved to be an integral part of the whole. It cannot be separatedfrom the rest in that easy, artificialway.TheGospelpictureof Jesus issupernaturalthroughandthrough.

Someradicalsofthepresentdayaredrawingthelogicalconclusion.Sincethe supernatural is inseparable from the rest and since they will notacceptthesupernatural,theyarelettingthewholego.TheyaretellingusthatwecannotknowanythingatallwithanycertaintyaboutJesus.

Suchskepticismispreposterous.Itwillneverholdthefield.Youneednot

beafraidofitatall,myfriends.ThepictureintheGospelsistoovivid.Itis too incapableofhavingbeen invented. It isevidently thepictureofarealperson.

So theage-longbewildermentofunsavedmen in thepresence of Jesusstill goes on. Jesus will not let men go. They will not accept Hisstupendous claims; they will not accept Him as their Savior. But Hecontinuestointrigueandbafflethem.Herefusestobepushedintotheirlittlemolds.TheystandbewilderedinHispresence.

There is only one escape from that bewilderment. It is to accept Jesusafterall.Refusetobelievethatthepictureistrue,andallisbewildermentandconfusion inyourviewof theearliestageof theChurch;accept thepictureastrue,andallisplain.Everythingthenfitsintoitsproperplace.Thekeyhasbeenfoundtosolvethemightyriddle.

ThesupernaturalJesusisthusthekeytoarightunderstandingofearlyChristianhistory.ButHeisalsothekeytofarmorethanthat.MankindstandsinthepresenceofmoreriddlesthantheriddleofNewTestamenttimes.Allaboutusareriddles-theriddleofourexistence,theriddleofthe universe, the riddle of ourmisery and our sin. To all those riddlesJesus,as theNewTestamentpresentsHim,provides thekey.He is thekey not to some things but to everything. Very comprehensive, verywonderfully cumulative, very profound and very compelling is theevidencefortherealityofthesupernaturalChrist.

Butifweareconvincedbythatevidence,wemusttaketheconsequences.If we are convinced that Jesus is what the New Testament saysHe is,then the word of Jesus becomes for us law. We cannot then choosewhether we will believe Him when He speaks. We must believe. Hisauthoritythenmustforusbedecisiveinalldisputes.

OnmanyquestionsourrecordsdonotrecordanydecisionofJesus.ButononequestionHisdecision isplain. It isplain tousnotonlyafterwehavebecomeconvincedthattherecordsofHis lifearedivinely inspiredand therefore altogether without error. It is plain even when we takethoserecordsmerelyasreasonablyaccuratehistory.Ifonethingiscleartothehistorian,itisthatJesusofNazarethheldtothefulltruthfulnessof

theOldTestamentScriptures; it is thatJesusheldthathighviewofthedivineauthorityoftheOldTestamentwhichisheldbydespisedbelieversintheBibletoday.

ThatisadmittedevenbythosewhohavealowopinionofthetruthfulnessoftheGospels.Jesus, theyadmit,heldthatviewoftheBiblewhichwasheldgenerallybytheJewsofHisday.Theyaresorrytoadmitthat."Toobad,"theysay,"thatJesus,whomweadmiresomuch,wasinthisrespectachildofHis time!"Butadmit it, if theyare scholars, theymust.Jesusdidcertainlybelieve that theOldTestamentwas theveryWordofGod,andHecertainlyplacedthatbeliefattheveryheartofHislifeasaman.

But if He thus pointed back to the Old Testament and founded Hishuman life upon it, He also pointed forward to the New. He choseapostles.Heendowedthemwithasupernaturalauthority.Inexerciseofthat authority, they gave the New Testament books to the Church.NomanwhobelieveswhatJesussayscan,ifheisconsistent,helptakingthewholeBibleastheveryWordofGod.

WhenwedotakethewholeBiblethusastheveryWordofGod,wefindrich and manifold confirmation of our decision. We find it in themarvelous unity of Holy Scripture - what the Westminster Confessioncalls"theconsentofalltheparts."Wefinditinthecountlessevidencesoftruthfulnessindetail.Wefinditintheutterdissimilarityofthisbooktoother books.We find it in the sweetness and peace of a life groundedupon what this book tells. Yes, my friends, very rich and varied, yetmarvelouslyconvergent,istheevidencethatbidsustaketheBibleastheWordofGod.

Chapter7THEBIBLEVERSUSHUMANAUTHORITY

IftheBibleisreallytheWordofGod,aswehavesaiditis,thequestionariseswhatitactuallymeansinourlivestotaketheBibleinthatway.

Iwanttotalktoyouforalittlewhileaboutthatquestionnow.

The answer to the question ought not to be so very difficult, howeverdifficultsomeoftheimplicationsoftheanswermayturnouttobe.IfwetaketheBibleastheWordofGod,thentheBiblebecomesourstandardoftruthandoflife.Whenweareaskedwhetherwecansupportanykindofmessageorcanengageinanycourseofconduct,whatwedoissimplyto compare thatmessage or that course of conductwith theBible. If itagreeswiththeBible,wecansupport itor follow it; if itdoesnotagreewiththeBible,wecannotsupportitorfollowitnomatterwhatwemaybetoldbyotherauthoritiestodo.

Ireallythinkitisveryimportantthatthatshouldbeperfectlyclear.Weare living at a time when a very serious difference of opinion hasappearedintheChurch.Thefirstquestionindealingwithanydifferenceofopinionisthequestionwhatstandardofjudgmentistobeappliedtothe question at issue. Unless people can agree about that preliminaryquestionitisnotlikelythattheywillagreeaboutanythingelse.

Suppose I have an engagementwith a businessman inPhiladelphia inthesummertime.Theengagement is foreleveno'clock. I come in fromthecountryandappearat theofficepromptlyateleven.ButwhenIgetthere, I find the man with whom I have the engagement considerablyperturbed."Whatdoyoumean,"hesays,"bykeepingmeandtheseothergentlemenwaiting in thisway?Theengagementwas for eleven o'clock,anditisnowexactlytwelve.Youareexactlyanhourlate."Ithenreplyinkind. "You surprise me," I say; "in fact I should really hesitate tocharacterizetheimproprietyofyourwords.Mywatchsaysexactlyeleveno'clock,andIwouldbackmywatchagainstanycheapofficeclockinthewhole city of Philadelphia." Then, after we have disputed about thematter vigorously for a good while, I discover that Philadelphia is ondaylight saving time. You see, we could not come to any agreementbecause we were applying different standards to the question underdispute.

It is somewhat that way with the difference of opinion in the Church.There, too, thedisputingparties cannot come to anagreementbecausethey are operating with different standards. In one very importantparticular,however,ourillustrationofdaylightsavingtimeandstandardtime does not apply to the situation in the Church. In the case of my

imaginary dispute with that business man, both parties to the disputecouldberight,becauseitdidnotmakeanyparticulardifferencewhichofthe two standards should be applied. It did not make any very greatdifferencewhetherweshouldgoondaylightsavingtimeoronstandardtime, just so we were both of us perfectly clear as to which was beingused.But in the case of the situation in theChurchbothparties to thedisputearelayingclaimtothesamething–namely,truth.Therefore,theycannotbothberight.Inthiscase,thestandardthatissoughtisnotjustsome arbitrary method of dividing up the day, but it is a standard oftruth,andtruthisnotrelativebutabsolute.

However, the illustration does at least show that if two parties to anydispute are to understand each other - to say nothing of coming to anagreement - the first question they must discuss is the question whatstandardistobeused.CertainlythatprincipleappliesinfullestmeasuretothedifferenceofopinionintheChurch.Herewefindperfectlyearnestandsincerepeopledifferingfromeachotherinthesharpestpossibleway.Whatoneholdstobetruetheotherholdstobefalse;whatoneholdstobe wise and beneficent the other holds to be destructive. Discussionbetween thecontendingparties sometimes seemsonly tomakemattersworse; it sometimesseemsonly to lead togreater irritationandgreaterconfusion.Thereason for thisunfortunate stateof affairs - at leastoneimportantreasonforit-isperfectlyplain.Itisfoundinthefactthatthecontending parties do not see clearly that the real ground of theirdifferenceofopinionisthattheyhavetotallydifferentstandardsoftruthandoflife.

I have already saidwhat our standard is. It is the Bible.Whenwe aredecidingwhetherwecansupportanypropagandaorengageinanycourseof conduct, we simply ask whether that propaganda or that course ofconductagreeswiththeBible.

I think I canbest explainwhat itmeans to take theBible thus as one'sstandardoftruthandoflifeifIsetthisstandardoveragainstsomeoftheotherstandardsthatarebeingproposedtoday.

Many persons, for example, are taking human experience as theirstandard. They are saying that theywill adhere to that kind of religion

whichworksthebest,whichshowsitselftobethebestinactualpractice.

IrememberthatsomeyearsagoIpreachedabaccalaureatesermonatacollege.WhenIgotthrough,amemberofthegraduatingclassaskedmewhatIthoughtofacertainreligiousmovement,whichitisentirelyasidefrom our present point for me to name. I intimated that I could notsupportit.Inreplyhetoldmethatheforhispartthoughtitwasthemost"vital"thinginthereligiousworldtoday.ThatyoungmanandIdidnotget very far in our discussion because we were applying differentstandards.Hewas applying the standard of experience; Iwas applyingthestandardoftheBible.

Thatyoungmanfavoredthereligiousmovementthatwewerediscussingbecause itwas"vital."Well, inonesensenoxiousweeds inagardenarevital.Theyoftengrowupmorerapidlythantheflowers.But thecarefulgardener is inclined to pull them up. So also we refuse to makemererapidityofgrowthorenthusiasmofadherentsthecriterionbywhichanyreligiousmovementshallbejudged.Instead,wetesteverymovementbytheBible.IfitagreeswiththeBible,weapproveit;ifitdisagreeswiththeBibleweoppose it,nomatterwhatexternalsuccesses itmayattainandno matter even what apparent graces it may seem to our superficialhuman judgment to induce here and there in its adherents. Thoseapparent graces, we are sure, will, if the movement is contrary to theBible,neverstandthetesttowhichtheywillbesubjectedatthejudgmentseatofGod.GoddoesnotcontradictHisownWord.

Thatsameuseofexperienceasthestandardoftruthandoflifeunderlieswhat I believe has been called somewhere "the great inquiry racket."Therehasariseninrecentyearsaperfectcrazeforquestionnairesonthesubjectofreligion,"openforums,"and"inquiries"ofvariouskinds.Thething has become one of the major nuisances of the day. When onecontemplatestheunscientificcharacterofmanyoftheseenterprisesandtheirbeggingoftherealunderlyingquestions,oneistemptedtodismissthem as being unworthy of consideration.Many of them are not reallyinquiriesatall,butaremerelyagenciescarryingonpropagandathroughtheparticulardeviceofquestionbeggingquestionnaires.Thepeoplewhoconduct themare of course honest. They are trying to get at the truth:but, the trouble is, they are so completely out of sympathy with the

ChristianreligionthatwhentheyformulatetheirquestionnairestheydonotknowhoweventogiveaChristianmantheopportunityofcastinghisvoteorofgivingexpressiontohisconvictions.

But absurdly unscientific and question begging though many of theseinquiriesandquestionnairesare,aseriouspurpose,eventhoughitbeamistakenpurpose,does,Ithink,underliethem.Thepurposeunderlyingthemis,Ithink,thatthroughanexaminationofvarioustypesofreligionwemayarrive,byaprocessofcomparisonandelimination,atthattypeofreligionwhichisbestadaptedtotheageinwhichwearelivingandwhichtherefore is the type of religionwhich it is thoughtwe ought to adopt.Thosewhoengage in these inquiries andquestionnaires, or at any ratemany of thosewho engage in them, aremaking human experience thestandardoftruthandoflife.

That standard is quite different from the standard to which we hold.Thesepersonsareadvocatinga"managedcurrency"inreligion,whereasweareonthegoldstandard.Ourstandardisnotaflexiblestandard.Farfromholdingthatwhat is truetodaybecomesfalsetomorrowaccordingto the shifting needs of human life,we find our standardboth of truthandofconductintheBible,whichweholdtobenotaproductofhumanexperiencebuttheWordofGod.

So we reject the first alternative view that we are considering in thepresentlittletalk.Werejectexperienceasourstandard.

In the second place, we reject, as our standard, what iswrongly called"the teaching of Jesus" or "the teaching of Christ." At that point I amparticularly anxious not to bemisunderstood. I certainly hold that thereal teachingofJesus is all completely true. I hold that everything thatJesus said in the sphere of fact is true and thatHis commands are allcompletely valid. Butmy point is that thosewhomake the teaching ofJesus their authority, as distinguished from the Bible, are not reallyholding to the teachingof Jesus at all.Wehave seenhowclearly JesustestifiedtotheauthorityoftheBible.Howthen,ifyourejecttheauthorityoftheBible,canyoupossiblyclaimtobetruetoJesus'teaching?

What is the underlying notion of those who make what they call the

teaching of Jesus their authority, instead of theBible? I amafraid thatquestionisnothardtoanswer.ItisthenotionthatJesuswasprimarilyateacher,thatwehonorHimbecausebyHiswordandbyHisexampleHetaught us how to practice the same type of religion as that which Hepracticed. Jesus, according to this way of thinking, was the founder ofChristianitybecauseHewasthefirstChristian.OthermenhonorBuddhaorConfuciusas thegreat teacherandexample;we, say themenof thiswayof thinking, areChristiansbecausewe take Jesus, as distinguishedfromBuddhaorConfucius,asourteacherandexample.

That notion is of course radically contrary to the Bible, but it is alsoradicallycontrarytotherealJesus'ownteaching.Jesus,accordingtotheBible and according to His own teaching, came, as has well beenobserved,notprimarilytosaysomething,buttodosomething.Hecamenot just toteachustruegeneralprinciplesofreligionandethics,but toredeemusfromsinbyHisdeathuponthecross.

Histeachingisindeedveryprecious.Howwonderfullypreciousitis,myfriends!Butitspreciousnessisaltogetherlostwhenit isseparatedfromtherestoftheBible.Wemisstheveryheartandcoreandsubstanceofitif we take it out of its organic connection with that grand sweep ofsupernatural revelation that runs through the Bible from Genesis toRevelation, and if we separate it from that mighty saving work whichculminatedintheCrossandresurrectionofChrist.

Thus we reject this notion that the teaching of Jesus as distinguishedfromtheBibleistheseatofauthority.ItisprofoundlydishonoringtotheteachingofJesusitself.ItdegradesJesustothelevelofamerereligiousteacher,thefounderofoneoftheworld'sreligions.

I am inclined to think thatmost of thosewhobegin by saying that theteachingofJesus is theirauthorityare, if they reflectabout thematter,obligedtomodifytheirposition.Jesusobviouslysaidmanythingswhichtheydonotregardastrue.ButifJesussaidmanythingsthatareuntrue,howcanHisteachingbeauthoritative?

Well, a greatmany of thesemen respond,withmore or less clearness,thatitisnottheteachingofJesusassuch-or,astheywouldputit,not

the "letter"ofHis teaching -but theunderlying "spirit"ofHis teachingwhichtheyregardasauthoritative.

ThatbringsustothethirdofthealternativestotheauthorityoftheBiblewhichwearenowpassingunderreview.Itisthealternativeofthosewhosaythattheirauthorityis"thespiritofJesus."

Of course when they use the phrase "the spirit of Jesus," they do notmeanatallwhat theBiblemeansby it.TheBiblemeansby it theHolySpirit, theThirdPersonof theblessedTrinity.They,ontheotherhand,spell the word "spirit" with a small letter, not with a capital, and theymeanby"thespiritofJesus"simplytheinnertemperorqualityofJesus'life. We are Christians, according to the advocates of this view, notbecause of any particular thing that Jesus did over nineteen hundredyears ago, not evenbecauseweobey anyparticular commands thatHeuttered,butbecausewehavecaughttheinnerspiritortemperofHislife.The spirit of His life has been handed down from generation togeneration. It is a kind of contagion. One who has caught that spiritpassesitontoanother.TocatchthatspiritamandoesnotneedtohaveanyparticularviewaboutJesus; indeedhedoesnotevenneed toknowthat Jesus ever lived: all that he needs to do is to take into his life thepeculiar spirit of Jesus' life no matter how it is mediated to him, nomatter fromwhatparticularChristianhereceives it,nomatterwhetherheknowsthatitisthespiritofJesusorhaseverheardofJesusatall.So,we are told in accordance with this view, that if a missionary is notpermittedtoproclaimChristbyhiswordshemayatleastproclaimHimby his life; he may be a true missionary merely by "living Christ" asdistinguishedfrompreachingChrist; thosewho come into contactwithhimcancatchfromhim"thespiritofJesus"or"thespiritofChrist"evenif he is not allowed to tell them anything about the Cross of Christ orabout the God in whom Jesus believed. And if people, through suchmissionaries,havecaughtthespiritofJesus,whatmorecouldpossiblybedesired?

Such,carriedtoitslogicalconclusion,istheviewwhichmakes"thespiritofJesus,"indistinctionfromtheBible,thetestoftruthandoflife.

WhatiswrongwithitfromtheChristianpointofview?Manythings,no

doubt.Butattheheartofwhatiswrongwithitisthis-thatignoresthefactofsin.Allthatweneed,saytheadvocatesofit,istocatchthespiritofJesus.IfwecatchthespiritofJesus,wecanlivethelifethatJesuslivedand thenallwill bewell.Very different iswhat the realChristian says.TherealChristianknowsthatunlikeJesusheisofhimselfundertheguiltandpowerofsin,subjecttothejustwrathofGod,unabletodoanygood,withouthopesaveasJesushasredeemedhimbyHispreciousblood.Canwe catch the spirit of Jesus in themanner that is so glibly regarded aspossiblebythosewhohaveneverbeenconvictedofsin?Ah,no.Weknowonlytoowell thatweweredeadintrespassesandsins,andthatonlyaswehavebeenmadealivebythemysteriousactoftheSpiritofGodcanweevenbegintobetruefollowersoftheholyJesus.

These two things are poles apart. I do nor think that there can be anyclearnessinourthinkingsolongasweconfusetheoneofthemwiththeother.ThemanwhothinksthatallweneedistocatchthespiritofJesusandthatwecancatchthatspiritwithoutknowingwhatJesusdidforusonthecrossandwithoutthesupernaturalactoftheSpiritofGodinthenew birth - that man takes Jesus as just a teacher and example. AChristian man, on the other hand, takes Jesus primarily as a Savior.WhereisHepresentedtousasourSavior?Theansweris,"InthewholeBible";andthatisthereasonwhytheBibleistoussuchaverypreciousbook.

I have not time to speak at any length of other thingswhich are beingproposedassubstitutesfortheauthorityoftheBible.ButbeforeIleaveyouIdowanttosayjustawordortwoaboutoneofthese.Itistheviewthat takes as the test of truth and of life the pronouncements andregulationsoftheChurch.

ThosewhoholdtothisviewastotheseatofauthoritydonotusuallydenytheauthorityoftheBibleinsomanywords.Whattheydoistosay-byimplicationifnot inwords- thattheBible is interpretedauthoritativelybythe"livingChurch.""WhenamanbecomesaministeroramemberofaChurch,"theysayineffect,"itishisdutytosupporttheprogramofthatchurch.HemaythinkthatitiscontrarytotheBible;butnevermind,itisnot his business in this particularmatter to think; hemust submit hisjudgmenttothejudgmentofthecouncilsofhischurch;hemustletthem

interprettheBibleforhimandmustmakethemessagethathesupportsconformtotheirshiftingvotes."

Insharpdistinctionfromthatview,wemaketheBible,andtheBibleonlythe testof truthandof life.There isno livingauthority to interpret theBibleforus.Wemustreaditeveryoneforhimself,andmustaskGodtohelpusasweread.AchurchthatcommandsustosupportanyprogramontheauthorityofthedecisionsoftheChurchisusurpingintheinterestsoffalliblemenanauthoritythatbelongsonlytoGod.

Butisitnotadangerousthingtorejectotherauthorities inthis fashionandsubmitourselvesunreservedlytotheauthorityofthisoneBook?Yes,itisaverydangerousthing.Itputsussharplyinconflictwiththewholecurrentoftheage.Butif it isadangerousthing it isalsoaveryblessedthing.ItisaveryblessedthingtoheartheWordofthelivingGod.

It is also a very blessed thing to proclaim that Word to others. EveryChristianhasthedutyandtheinestimableprivilegeofproclaimingit toothers.Butthatdutyandthatprivilegebelongparticularlytoministers.

Whatdoyouministersdo-ifanyofyouareattendingtomenow-whenyouenterintoyourpulpitsonSundaymornings?Doyoutellthepeopleabout your religious experiences; do you give them the benefit of yourexpertadvice;doyouexpresstothemyourviewsonthegreatquestionsoftheday;doyoumakeyourselvesthepromotionagentsofsomehumanorganization? If these things are what you do, youmay have very richrewards, but there is one thing that you will miss. You may be greatorators,butneverwillyoubeministersofJesusChrist.Youmayproclaimman'swordwithmarvelous eloquence, but never can you proclaim theWordofGod.

Oh,mayGodsendusministersofanotherkind!Godgrantthatyou,mybrothers,maybeministersofanotherkind!MayGodsendusministerswhocomeforth intotheirpulpits fromasecretplaceofmeditationandprayer,whoareservantsofChristandnotservantsofmen,whobetheyeversohumbleareambassadorsoftheKing,who,astheystandbehindtheopenBibleandexpounditsblessedwords,cantrulyandhonestlysay,withMicaiahthesonofImlah:AstheLordlives,whattheLordsaysunto

me,thatwillIspeak[1KI22:14].

Chapter8LIFEFOUNDEDUPONTRUTH

HavingconsideredwithyouthequestionwhatkindofbooktheBibleis,Ithinkitisnowhightimethatweshouldopenupthatbooktogetherandfind out what is in it.We have shown that the Bible is worth reading,because it is theWord of God.Well, if it is worth reading, let us nowbegintoreaditandseewhetherwecandiscoverwhatitcontains.WhatdoestheBibleteach?

IhadinmymindaverygoodanswertothatquestionwhenIwassoveryyoungastohaveverylittleelseinmymind.ItistheanswertothethirdquestionintheShorterCatechism,anditseemstometobeaverygoodthing. There are one hundred and six other good things in thatCatechism.Thosearetheanswerstotheothersof theonehundredandsevenquestions.IshouldcertainlynotgoquitesofarastosaywhatsomePresbyterian is accused of having said - that the Shorter Catechism ismore important than the Bible because the Shorter Catechism is "theBibleboileddown"-butallthesameIamaconvincedPresbyteriantoo,and I do maintain that the Shorter Catechism, with its marvelouscomprehensiveness and its faithfulness to Scripture, with its solemnityandits tenderness, is thetruestandnoblestsummaryofwhat theBibleteachesthatIhaveeverseen.

ThethirdquestionintheShorterCatechismisthequestioninwhichIaminterested just now: "What do the Scriptures principally teach?" Theanswer is: "The Scriptures principally teach, what man is to believeconcerningGod,andwhatdutyGodrequiresofman."

ThethingthatIwantyoutonoticeaboutthisansweristhatitmakestheScriptures principally teach, first, what man is to believe and, second,whatman is to do. It puts truthbefore conduct, doctrine before life. Itmakes truth the foundation of conduct and doctrine the foundation oflife.

Todaytheorderiscommonlyreversed.Lifecomesfirst,wearetold,anddoctrine comes afterwards. Religion is first an experience and onlysecondarily a doctrine. Doctrine is merely an expression of religiousexperience,andalthoughtheexperienceremainsessentiallythesameitsdoctrinalexpressionmustchangeas thegenerationspass.So, it issaid,wevalue thegreatcreedsof theChurchnotatallbecauseweregardastrue, in the plainman's sense of the word "true," the things that theycontain,butbecausetheyexpressedinthelanguageofabygonedayanexperiencewhichwe can still share. So it is also,we are told,with theBible.Itisagreatmistake,wearetold,totakewhattheBiblesaysaboutJesusasbeingtrueintheordinarysenseoftheword"true";butitisastillgreatermistake tomiss the experience which underlies what the Biblesays.ThuswhentheBiblesaysthatJesuswasbornofavirgin,wedonot,of course, it is said, believe that any physical miracle took place inconnectionwiththebirthofJesusnineteenhundredyearsago.Butwedothinkthatthemenofthatdayweregivingexpressiontosomethingverypreciouswhentheysaidthat,andweoughtnottomissthatverypreciousthing.Thusalso, it issaid,whenpeopleof longagosaid thatJesuswasGod,theywereofcoursemeaningbythatexpressionsomethingthatwedonotatallaccept.Theymeantthataheavenlypersonwhohadexistedfromall eternity came into thisworldbyavoluntaryactwhenJesusofNazarethwasborn.Wedonotatallbelievethat,saythepersonswhoseviews we are now summarizing; on the contrary, we believe that theperson Jesus never existed before he was born in that Jewish family.Well, then, shall we just reject what those persons said when theydeclared Jesus to be God? Not at all, it is said. They were giving trueexpression, it is said, in the languageof their day, to something that isjust as precious to us as it was to them. They could not possibly giveexpressiontoitinanyotherlanguage.Iftheyhadtriedtogiveexpressionto it in our language, that would for them have been utterly false andfutile. Do we then still believe in the deity of Christ? Oh, yes - as theexpressionof a great experience. That experience is the really essentialthing,butthe intellectualexpressionof itmustnecessarilychange fromagetoage.

Such is theattitude that isdominant in thereligiousworldofourday-religion as an experience and doctrine as just the necessarily changing

expression of the experience; life first and creed as just the changingexpressionof it.Thoseare theshibboleths thatdesignate theprevailingattitude.

Whatshallwe thinkof thatattitude?Well, in the firstplace, I thinkweought to face clearly the fact that it is anattitudeof themost completeunbeliefthatcouldpossiblybeimagined.Itdeniesnotthistruthorthatbut truth itself. It denies that there is any possibility of attaining to atruthwhichwillalwaysbetrue.Thereistruth,itholdsforthisgenerationand truth for that generation, but no truth for all generations; there istruthforthisraceandtruthforthatrace,butnotruthforallraces.

I remember some years ago that I read a paper at a conference oftheologicalprofessorson thesubjectof "revelation." I readapaperandthenanotherprofessorreadapaper,andthenstillotherprofessorsmaderemarks about the papers. One of those latter professors said thatalthoughhedisagreedwithmecompletely,andagreedmuchmorewithmy opponent, yet he was bound to say he thought that so far as thedefinition of terms was concerned I was a good deal nearer than myopponenttothehistoricmeaningoftheterm"revelation."Ithoughtthatwas very encouraging. But then he went on to say that even I did notmeanthesamethingbythattermaspeopleusedtomeanbyit.Thenhedeveloped,withmoreorlessclearness,theviewthatingeneralwordsareboundtochangetheirmeaningsothatwenevermeanbythewordsthatweusewhatpastgenerationsmeantbythem.

Atanyrate,whetherthatwaswhatthatparticularprofessorsaidornot,Ithinkitdoesrepresentwhatagoodmanypeoplearesaying.Agoodmanypeopleseemto thinkthateverygeneration lives ina sortof intellectualwater tight compartment,withoutmuch chance of converse with othergenerations.Everygenerationhas itsownthought formsandcannotbyanychanceusethethoughtformsofanyothergeneration.DoyouknowwhatIthinkofthisnotion?Ithinkitcomesverynearbeingnonsense.Ifitwere true, thenbooksproduced inpast generationsought tobepuregibberishtous.

TakeanybookofAristotle,forexample.Aristotlelivedsomethreeandahalf centuries before Christ. That book of Aristotle is composed of

thousands of words. When Aristotle wrote the book it made sense,becausethewriterknewthemeaningofeveryoneofthosethousandsofwords.Knowingthemeaningofthosewords,hecouldfit themtogethersothattheresultingbookwouldmakesense.Butthen,accordingtothetheorywithwhichwearenowdealing,themeaningofeveryoneofthosewordsbegantowobble,andhasbeenwobblingfortwenty-twocenturies.Ofcoursethewordswouldnotallwobbletojustexactlythesameextentandinexactlythesamedirection.Thatwouldbeachancetooremotetobeconsidered.Theprobabilitiesagainstitwouldbetenbillionormoretoone.Verywell,then.Whatwillinevitablybetheresult?Theresult,aftertwenty-two centuries of wobbling, will be that all those thousands ofwordswillbecompletelyoutofalignmentandtheresultingbookwillbeameaninglessjumble.

Yes,thatwillbetheinevitableresultifthatprofessorialtheoryastotheinevitableshiftinthemeaningsofwordsiscorrect.Butthetroubleisthatthatinevitableresultisnottheactualresult.Asamatteroffact,thatbookofAristotleisjustasperfectlyclearandlogicaltodayasiteverwas.Whatdoesthatshow?Itshowsthatthetheorythatwehavebeendealingwithis untrue. It shows that as amatter of fact words do not change theirmeaninginthatkaleidoscopicway.Itshowsthatthere isan intellectualgoldstandardwhichenablesustocarryoncommerceperfectlywellwiththemenofpastgenerations.

What is true of different ages in the history ofmankind is also true ofdifferentracescoexistingtoday.PeoplesaythatWesterncreedsoughtnottobeforcedupontheOrientalmind.TheOrientalmind,theysay,oughtto be allowed to go its own way and give its own expressions to theChristian faith. Well, I have examined one or two of those supposedexpressionsoftheOrientalmind,andIamboundtosaythattheylooktome uncommonly like the expressions of themind of the South Side ofChicago.Buthowabout it?Oughtwe togiveourWesterncreeds to theOrientalmind?Ishalljustpassoverthequestionwhetherthoseso-calledWesterncreedsarereallyWestern.Letuscallthem"Westerncreeds"inquotationmarksandforthesakeoftheargument.OughtthoseWesterncreedstobegiventotheOrientalmind?Whatisouranswer?

Theanswer is: "Certainly."Of course thoseWestern creedsought tobe

given to the Oriental mind. But that ought to be done only on onecondition-thatthoseWesterncreedsaretrue.Iftheyarenottrue,theyoughtnottobegiventotheOrientalmindortoanyotherkindofmind;butiftheyaretrue,theyarejustastrueinChinaastheyareintheUnitedStates.

ThetruthisthatalthoughIamthoughtbysomeofmyfriendstobeverygullible, believingas Ido that theBible is true and thatmiracles reallyhappened,therearesomethingsaboutwhichIamaconfirmedskeptic.Frankly,IdonotbelieveintheseparateexistenceofanOrientalmindoranOccidentalmindoranancientmindoramedievalmindoramodernmind.Idobelieveindeedthatdifferentracesofmankindhavedifferentaptitudes or talents. It is perhaps true that French writers have thespecialgiftofclearness,whileGermansarecharacterizedbyapowerofmetaphysical speculation andby a certain solidity and thoroughness oflearning. It must be admitted, indeed, that some German writers areadmirablyclearandsomeFrenchwriters,ontheotherhand,areawfullymuddled.Butstill Isuppose it is true toaveryconsiderableextent thatclearnessisespeciallyaFrenchvirtueofstyle.Ihaveagreatrespectalsofor the intellectual gifts of Oriental peoples. I have no doubt but thatthosepeoplesarecontributingsomethingveryvaluable,andaregoingtocontribute something still more valuable, to the intellectual life of theworld.

Butthereallyimportantthingisthatunderallfluctuationsbetweenthisage and that age, between this nation and that nation, there is a goldstandardof truth.Wemaymisunderstandancientwriters,butourveryrecognitionofthepossibilityofmisunderstandingthemshowsthatthereis also a possibility of understanding them. I may have difficulty inunderstandingthementalprocessesoftheChineseandtheJapanese,astheyhavedifficultyinunderstandingmine;buttheveryfactthatwecanboth detect that difficulty affords hope that the difficulty may beovercome,sincethefactthatwecandetectthatdifficultyshowsthatthereisacommonintellectualgrounduponwhichwecanstand.

I think, therefore, that we can safely resist the bottomless skepticismwhichholdsthatallthatremainsconstantfromgenerationtogenerationis an experience that must clothe itself in ever changing intellectual

forms.I thinkthatwemaysafelyresist theskepticismwhichholdsthatthe convictions of one generation can never by any chance be theconvictionsofanother.

Butareconvictionsimportant?Manypeoplesaythattheyarenot.Itdoesnotmakemuchdifference,theysay,whatamanbelieves;lifeisthethingthatcounts.Butmerelysayingathingoftendoesnotmakethethingtrue.As amatter of fact it doesmake a tremendous difference what a manbelieves.

AmodernFrenchnovelistwrotein1889averyinterestingbooktoshowthatthatisthecase.Ihavejustbeenrereadingit,andIfinditalmostasimpressive as I found itwhen I read it the first time.ThenovelistwhowroteitishardlytobeputinthefirstrankofFrenchwriters.Butthisonebookofhisiscertainlyworthreading.SomeyearsagoIwastalkingaboutittoaFrenchlecturerandcriticwhowasinclinedtobeverysevereuponthiswriter.ButthenIsaidthatIhadreadonebookofthiswriterandthatitseemedtomypoorjudgmenttobeamasterpiece."Yes,"saidthecriticwithwhomIwastalking;"thatparticularbookofthiswriterisindeedamasterpiece."ThebookthatIamreferringtoisthenovelbyPaulBourgetentitledLeDisciple,"TheDisciple."Itdescribes,withadelicacyoftouchin which French writers excel, the simple and austere life of a notedphilosopherandpsychologist.Hewasengrossedaltogetherinthethingsofthemind.Hislodgingwasupfourflightsofstairs.Hisdailyexistencewasaninvariableroutine.Coffeeatsixo'clock,lunchorbreakfastatten,walk until noon, work again until four, visits of scholars and studentsthreetimesaweekfromfourtosix,dinneratsix,shortwalk,work,bedpromptly at ten.An inoffensive, scholarlyman if there everwas one, amanwho,inthewordsofhiscaretaker,"wouldn'thurtafly."

But one day this peaceful routine was strangely broken into. Thephilosopherwassummonedtoacriminal inquest.Aformerpupilofhiswas accused of murder. He had been a brilliant young man, who hadclimbed those four flights of stairs full of enthusiasm for what heregarded as liberating doctrines.He had drunk in those doctrines onlytoowell. In theprisonhewroteanaccountofhis life for theeyeofhisreveredmaster.Inittheabstractbecomesconcrete.Theterriblestoryistoldofthewayinwhichthosesupposedlyliberatingdoctrinesworkoutin

actualpractice.

Itisratheratremendouslittlebook-thatstudyof"TheDisciple"byPaulBourget.

Butthesametragedyasthatwhichissopowerfullydepictedinthatlittlebook isappearingonagigantic scale in thewholehistory of our times.Fifty or even twenty-five years ago, certain views aboutGod and aboutthe Bible might have seemed to a superficial observer to be perfectlyrespectable and perfectly innocent - as harmless and as remote fromanythingliketragedyasBourget'sphilosopheruphisfourflightsofstairs.It was such a sweet, pleasant thing - that older Modernism, or"Liberalism," as itwas euphemistically called.But today it is having itsperfectwork.It isdestroyingcivilandreligious liberty; it isdefiling thesweetnessand gentleness of theChristian home; it is causing contractspublicandprivatetobeexplainedaway,untilthemanorthenationthatswearstohisownhurtandchangesnotisregardedasacuriousrelicofthepast.Doyoulookwithcomplacencyuponthisworldwherepurityandhonestyandlibertyareregardedasoutofdate?Doyouthinkitisgoingtobeapleasantworldtolivein?Ifyoudo,youareblind.Youhavetobeprettyblindnottoseethatmankindistodaystandingoveranabyss.

Donotbedeceived,myfriends.Thisnotionthatitdoesnotmakemuchdifferencewhatamanbelieves,thisnotionthatdoctrine isunimportantandthatlifecomesfirst,isoneofthemostdevilisherrorsthataretobefound in the whole of Satan's arsenal. How many human lives it haswrecked,howmanymothers'heartsithasbroken!ThatFrenchnovelistisentirelyright.OutofthePandoraboxofhighlyrespectablephilosophycomemurders,adulteries,liesandeveryevilthing.

Well,Ihavebeentalkingaboutvariousthings.ItmightlookasthoughIhadforgottenallaboutthethingIstartedouttotalkabout.ItmightlookasthoughIhadforgottenallabouttheBible.But indeedthat isnotthecase. I have been talking about these other things, I have been talkingaboutthesnarlintowhichmenhavecome,onlyinorderthatatthelastImayleadyoutotheplacewherethatsnarlmaybestraightenedout.Whatdoes theBiblesayabout thequestionthatwehavebeendiscussing thisafternoon?WhatdoestheBiblesayaboutthequestionwhetherdoctrine

is merely the changing expression of life or whether - the other wayaround-lifeisfoundedupondoctrine?

YoudonothavetoreadveryfarintheBibleinordertogettheanswer.Theanswer is given toyou in the first verse.Does theBiblebeginwithexhortation; does it begin with a program of life? No, it begins with adoctrine.InthebeginningGodcreatedtheHeavensandtheEarth[GEN1:1].ThatisthefoundationdoctrineuponwhicheverythingelsethattheBiblesaysisbased.

TheBibledoespresentawayof life; it tellsmen theway inwhich theyought to live.But alwayswhen it does so it grounds thatway of life intruth.

RunthroughtheBibleinyourminds,myfriends,andseewhetherIamnotright.

IntheOldTestamentawonderfulprogramoflifeispresented.Itiscalledthe Ten Commandments. But do the Ten Commandments begin withcommandments?Notatall.Theybeginwithdoctrine.IamtheLordyourGod,WhohavebroughtyououtofthelandofEgypt,outofthehouseofbondage[EXO20:2].ThatistheprefacetotheTenCommandments.Itisnotacommandment.It isnotaprogram.It isadoctrine.Onlybecausethat doctrine is true - only because the one speaking in thecommandments is the Lord God - have the commandments anyauthority.

TheOldTestamentcontainsanotherwonderfulpresentationof thewayinwhichmenshouldlive.LiketheTenCommandmentsitwasquotedbyJesus.Itreads:YoushalllovetheLordyourGodwithallyourheart,andwithallyoursoul,andwithallyourmight[DEU6:5].Thatisawonderfulcommandment indeed - that commandment of love. But does it beginwithacommandment?Notatall.Itbeginswithadoctrine.Itisgroundeduponadoctrine.Hear,O Israel, says thepassage inDeuteronomy:TheLordourGodisoneLord,andyoushalllovetheLordyourGodwithallyourheart,andwithallyoursoul,andwithallyourmight[DEU6:4,5].Onlybecausethatdoctrine is truehas thecommandmentanymeaning.Only because there is one God only and only because that one God is

JehovahareGod'speoplecommandedtolovethatoneGodwithalltheirheartandsoulandmight.

TurnthentotheNewTestament.TheNewTestamenttellsushowJesuscame.DidHecomeinthemodernfashiontellingpeoplethatitmadenodifferencewhattheybelievedandthatthethingforthemtodowasjusttolivethelifefirstandthenafterwardsgivedoctrinalexpressiontothelife?

Well, He did come presenting to them a life that they should live."Repent," He said, when He came forward in His public ministry inGalilee. But is that all thatHe said? DidHe just say: "Repent, repent,repent,repent,repent"?Notatall.Hesaid:Repent:fortheKingdomofHeavenisathand[MAT3:2].TheKingdomofHeavenisathandisnotacommand or a program. It is a doctrine; and upon that doctrine thecommandofJesustorepentisbased.

Jesussatonedaybythewell,andtalkedtoasinfulwoman.InthecourseoftheconversationHelaidHisfingeruponthesorespotinthatwoman'slife.Youhavehadfivehusbands,Hesaid;andhewhomyounowhaveisnot your husband [JOH 4:18]. Then, apparently to evade thedisconcertingquestionofthesininherownlife,thewomanaskedJesusa theological question about the right place inwhich toworshipGod -whetheronMountGerizimorinJerusalem.WhatdidJesusdowiththatwoman'stheologicalquestion?DidHebrushitasideafterthemannerofcertainmodernreligiousworkers?DidHesay:"Youareevadingtherealquestion;wewill takeupyour theologicalquestionafterwards,butnowletuscomebacktothequestionofthesininyourownlife."No,Hedidnothingofthekind.Heansweredthatwoman'stheologicalquestionwiththeutmostfullnessasthoughthewoman'ssouldependedonhergettingthe right answer. Not Gerizim, He said, but Jerusalem is the place inwhichtoworshipGod,butthetimeiscomingwhentheworshipofGodwill be bound to no set places. And then, in response to that sinful,unconvertedwoman'squestionJesusengagedinsomeoftheprofoundesttheologicalteachinginthewholeoftheBible.ApparentlyJesusregardedarightdoctrineofGodnotassomethingthatcomesalongaftersalvationbutassomethingnecessarytosalvation.

At the beginning of the Book of Acts Jesus is said to have told His

disciplestobewitnessesuntoHim.OnthedayofPentecost,a fewdayslater,Peterarosetoobeythatcommand.Hepreachedthatgreatsermonwhich is found in the second chapter of Acts.What did he say in thatsermon?Hehadnothadsomeadvantageswhichmenhavetoday.Hehadnothadtheinestimableadvantageofmodern"religiouseducation."Ifhehadhad,nodoubthewouldhavetoldthepeoplethatitdidnotmakeanydifferencewhat doctrine they held about Jesus or about anything else,andthatlifewastheonlythingthatmattered.ButpoorPeter!Hehadnothad the advantage of modern religious education. He had to contenthimselfwith another advantage - he had just been filledwith theHolySpirit.Theresultisthathissermonisdoctrinalthroughandthrough.Hejust gave them the facts about Jesus. Not a bit of exhortation, nothingabout a program. Just facts, facts, facts, doctrine, doctrine, doctrine.Whatwastheresult?Theywereprickedintheirhearts[ACT2:37].ThenPetertoldthemwhattodo.Threethousandweresaved.

SoitiseverywhereintheBible,myfriends.Firstdoctrine,thenlife.TheBible from Genesis to Revelation gives not a bit of comfort to theskeptical notion that doctrine is the mere changing and symbolicexpression of Christian experience. The Bible founds living everywheresquarelyupontruth.Godgrantthatyoumayallreceivethattruthforthesaving of your souls, and that having been saved you may live trueChristian lives upon this Earth and then live in God's presence forevermore!

Chapter9GOD,THECREATOR

WehaveseenthattheBibleisdoctrinalthroughandthrough.Itgivesnotthe slightest bit of comfort to the skeptical notion, so much in voguetoday, that doctrine is merely the necessarily changing form in whichChristian experience expresses itself. The Bible, unlike this skepticism,groundslifesquarelyintruth.Christianity,accordingtotheBible,isnotalifeasdistinguishedfromadoctrineanditisnotalifethathasdoctrineas its changing expression, but - just theotherway around - it is a lifefoundeduponadoctrine.

That doctrine upon which the Bible grounds life is not one isolateddoctrine, and it is not amere series of doctrines, but it is a system ofdoctrine. If theBiblecontainedanumberofdivergentsystems, itcouldnot possibly be theWord ofGod, because it couldnot possibly be truethroughout. The ordination pledge towhich allministers and elders inthePresbyterianChurchintheU.S.A.havesubscribedisquiterightinspeakingofthesystemofdoctrinetaughtintheHolyScriptures.

Ithinkgreatstressoughttobelaiduponthatfact.Agreatdealofharmisdonewhen people take one part of the teaching of the Bible out of itsconnectionwiththerest,orwhentheyleavegapsintheirpresentationofwhattheBibleteaches.ItisveryimportanttoseethattheBibledoesfarmore than present isolated truths. It is very important to see that itpresentsasystemof truth,and it is very important toview that systemnotinpartbutasawhole.

Aswestudythatsystemheretogether,letusrememberaboveallthingsthat it isnota systemwhichmanhasdevised,buta systemwhichGodhasrevealed-revealedgraciouslyinHisholyWord.

WhereshallwebegininourstudyofthatgreatsystemofrevealedtruththattheBiblecontains?IthinkweoughttobeginwheretheBiblebegins.IthinkweoughttobeginwithaconsiderationofwhattheBibleteachesaboutGodastheCreatorandRuleroftheworld.

Therearemanytodaywhoinsistthatweoughttobeginatanotherplace.Therearemanywhotellusthatweoughttobeginwithaconsiderationofthe human life of Jesus. In fact these people often tell us that that iswhereweoughtnotonlytobeginbutalsotoend.Theyaretellingusthatthatisallwereallyneedtoknow.

AllthatweneedtoknowaboutGod,theytellus,isthatGodislikeJesus.Wedonotneedtoknowhowtheuniversecameintobeing,theytellus,orwhetherthereisaGodwhogovernsitinitscourse.Thesethingsbelongtometaphysics,theysay,nottoreligion.Wearenotinterested,theysay,in the question whether God is powerful, but are only interested inconceivingofHimasgood.

Such is theviewof thosewhousethephrase"theChristlikeGod."Thatphrase,asitiscommonlyused,gratesuponChristianears.Itgratesuponthe earsof thosewhobelievenot thatGod is like Jesus, but that JesusHimselfisGod.

But what is wrong with that view? Aside from the terminology that isusedtosetitforth,whatiswrongwiththeviewitself?Whatiswrongwiththis notion that all that we know about God is that He possesses themoralexcellenciesthatarefoundinthemanJesus?

Two things at least are wrong with it. In the first place, it is terriblydegrading to Jesus. Thatmay seem strange at first sight. Itmay seemstrange that a viewwhichholds that allweneed to knowaboutGod isthatGodislikeJesusshouldbederogatorytoJesus,butalittlereflectionwillshowthatitisderogatorytoJesusintheextreme.

ItisderogatorytoJesusbecauseitdoesdespitetothedeepestthings inJesus'teachingandexample.AttheveryheartofthelifeofJesuswasjustthatviewofGodwhichisbeingsocontemptuouslyrejectedbythosewhosaythatthemorallifeofthemanJesustellsusallthatweneedtoknowaboutGod.

JesuscertainlybelievedthatGodistheCreatorandRuleroftheuniverse,andthatbeliefbelongedtothefoundationofeverythingthatHebelieved.Notasparrow,HesaidtoHisdisciples,shallfallonthegroundwithoutyourFather[MAT10:29].ItisGod,accordingtoJesus,whoclothesthelilies of the field, and it is Godwhomakes the sun to rise on just andunjust.TherecanbenodoubtwhateverbutthatJesusheldjustthatviewofGodwhichthepersonsofwhomwehavebeenspeakingrejectasbeingmeremetaphysics.HeputattheveryfoundationofHisteachingandHislifethatdivinelyrevealedmetaphysicwhichisfoundinthefirstverseofGenesis.EverythingthatHedid,witheverythingthatHesaid,wasbaseduponthegreattruth:InthebeginningGodcreatedtheHeavensandtheEarth[GEN1:1].God,accordingtoJesus,istheCreatorandtheabsoluteRulerof theuniverse,bringingall thingstopass inaccordancewiththecounselofHiswill.Youmaynot like thatviewofGod,but if youareahistorianwhoseesthingsastheyareyouwillbeobligedtorecognizethefactthatitwascertainlytheviewheldbyJesusofNazareth.

Moreover, Jesus certainly held thatmen had a true knowledge of Godbefore He appeared upon the Earth. He held that they had that trueknowledgeofGodfromtheOldTestament.WehavealreadyobservedinprevioustalksinthislittleseriesthatJesusregardedtheOldTestamentas theveryWordofGodandthatHeput thatconvictionabout theOldTestament at the very heart both ofHis teaching and ofHis life.How,then, if you reject that conviction, can you possibly think that you aredoinghonortoJesus?IfyouholdthattherevelationofGodcontainedintheOldTestament isvaluelessand thatall thatweneed toknowaboutGodisfoundinthemoralcharacterofthemanJesusofNazareth,whatwill youdowith the fact that theJesus towhomyou appeal put at theverybasisof thatmoral characterwhichyousomuchadmireaviewoftheOldTestamentandaviewofGodwhichyoucontemptuouslyreject?

Jesusdid,indeed,presentHimselfasrevealingGodandasbeinginHisverypersontherevelationofGod.HewhohasseenMe,Hesaid,hasseentheFather;andhowsayyouthen,ShowustheFather[JOH14:9]?ButthatcertainlydoesnotmeanthatthediscipleswhowerewithourLordonEarth were told by our Lord suddenly to regard as of no value theknowledge of God which they already had. The key to what our LordmeantwhenHesaid,HewhohasseenMehasseen theFather is tobefound,Iaminclinedtothink,inthewordsinJohn1:18:NomanhasseenGodatanytime;Godonlybegotten,WhoisinthebosomoftheFather,HehasdeclaredHim.Devout readersof theOldTestamenthadknownGod,buttheyhadnotseenHim,sinceGodisinvisible.ButnowtheoneWho isbothGodandonlybegotten, theeternalSon,hasbecome flesh,andbecauseHehasbecomefleshcanactuallybeseenwithmen'seyes.AmanwhoseesHimseestheFather,sinceHeisHimselfoneinsubstancewiththeFather.Thus,inChrist,thelongingofmenactuallytoseeGodissatisfied.

Atanyrate,whatisperfectlyclearisthateverywhereJesuspresupposedtheknowledgeofGodwhichHisdiscipleshad fromtheOldTestament.He just assumes that His disciples have that knowledge, and then,buildingupon thatknowledgeHe leads themon intoa fuller andmoregloriousknowledgethroughHisintercoursewiththemuponEarth.

Tohold, then, that all thatweneed toknowaboutGod is found in the

moral character of the man Jesus of Nazareth, and that we can beindifferent to the questionwhetherGod is theMaker andRuler of theworld, is to treat JesusHimself with contempt, since itmeans thatwerejectwhatHeHimselfputattheveryfoundationofHislifeandofHisteaching.

ButthatviewisnotonlyderogatorytoJesus.ItisalsoderogatorytoGod.Whata lowviewofGodit is tobesurewhenmensaythattheyarenotinterested in the question whether He is powerful, whether He is theCreator or Ruler of the world, but are only interested in the questionwhetherHeisgood!

Is that view ofGod really right? [The treatment of this question in thefollowing paragraphs is similar to that in the book by the samewriter,WhatIsFaith?1925,pp.60f.].Hasallourtrust inthe infinitepowerofourGodbeenwrongwheninthemidstofstormsandtrialsandahostofenemieswehavequotedthewordsofScripture:IfGodbeforus,whocanbeagainstus[ROM8:31]?WasIsaiahwrongwhenheturnedhiseyestothestarryHeavensandsaid:Liftupyoureyesonhigh,andbeholdWhohascreatedthesethings,Whobringsouttheirhostbynumber:HecallsthemallbynamesbythegreatnessofHismight,forthatHeisstronginpower; not one fails[ISA 40:26]? Was Jesus wrong when He told HisdisciplestotrustinHimWhoclothestheliliesofthefieldandwhenHesaid:Fearnot,littleflock;foritisyourFather'sgoodpleasuretogiveyoutheKingdom[LUK12:32]?

Tothesequestionsphilosophersmayreturnthisanswerorthat,buttheanswer of the Christian heart is plain. Away with all these paleabstractions, it cries; away with this strange theory that speaks of thegoodnessofGodbutdeprivesHimofHispower!IfGodisgoodonlyandnotpowerful,weareofallmenmostmiserable.WehadtrustedHimsoimplicitly;wehadfeltsosafeinHiseverlastingarms.ButnowyoutellusthatourconfidencewasmisplacedandthatGodreallyhadnopowertosave His children when they call! Shall we believe you? Ah, no, myfriends.NotifweareChristians.OthersmayheedthesevoicesthatbidusloseconfidenceinthepowerofourGod,butasforusChristians,wewillsaystill, though tenmillion times tenmillionuniversesunlooseagainstus all their mighty power, though we stand amid the clash of falling

systemsandcontemplateauniversalruin-wewillsaystillthatitisGod'sworld which He can create and He destroy, and that through Christ'sgracewearesafeforeverinthearmsofourheavenlyFather.

But,people say, even ifGod isnot thusallpowerful, even ifwe cannolongerthinkofHimasthesovereignCreatorandRuleroftheworld,evenifwerelegatethesethingstotherealmofmeremetaphysics,havewenotatleastsomethingleft?Havewenotgoodnessleft?Wedonotknowhowtheworldcameintobeing;wedonotknowwhatwillbeourfatewhenwepassthroughthedarkportalsofdeath.Butcanwenotfindahigherandmoredisinterestedworship - farhigher, itwould seem than thatwhichJesuspracticed-inthereverenceforgoodnessstrippedoftheoldvulgartrappingsofpower?

Itsoundsnobleatfirst.Butconsideritforamomentanditsgloryturnstoashesandleavesusindespair.Whatismeantbyagoodnessthathasno power? Is not goodness a mere abstraction except as it belongs topersons?Asdoesnottheverynotionofapersoninvolvethepowertoact?Goodnessaltogetherdivorcedfrompoweristhereforenogoodnessatall.ThetruthisthatifyoutrytomakeGodgoodonlyandnotpowerful,bothGodandgoodnesshavebeendestroyed.

We insist thenthat inorder toknowGod it isnotsufficienttoexaminethemorallifeofthemanJesusofNazareth.ToregardthatassufficientistododespitetoJesusHimself,anditleavesuswithaGodwhoisnoGodatall.

What then is the viewofGodwhich theBible presents to us,whenwetaketheBibleasweoughttotakeit-asawhole?

Ifyouwill letmeanswer thatquestion inoneword,and if youwillnotforbidmetomakethatonewordaconvenientwordwhichphilosophersuse, Iwill just say that the viewofGodwhich theBiblepresents is theviewwhichphilosopherscall"theism"-thatis,itistheviewwhichholdsthatthereisapersonalGodwhoisCreatorandRuleroftheworld.ThatistheviewwhichJesuspresentswithparticular clearness,and that is theviewwhichtheBiblepresentsasawhole.

Tounderstand justwhat that viewofGod is,we cannotdobetter thancontrastitwithtwootherviewswhichmenhaveoftenheld.

Inthefirstplace,thereistheviewcalleddeism.Accordingtothatview,God created the universe, but then left it alone to run by itself like amachine. That view, affirming the existence of a personal God butdenyingHispresenceintheworldandHisactivegovernanceofit,usedtobeheldwidelybyunbelieversofpastgenerations;buttodayitisdead.Idonotknowwhetherthereareanyrealdeistsatthepresenttime.

A seconderror is,however, verymuchalive; in fact, indifferent forms,and with greater or less modification, it is the view underlying theModernism that is stifling the life of such large portions of the Churchtoday. That is the ancient error called "pantheism." It is held in verymanydifferent forms,andwithmanydegreesofconsistency.Accordingtothestrictmeaningoftheterm,itistheviewthat"allisGod,"theviewthatsimplyidentifiesGodwiththetotalityofexistingthings.

Isupposethefirstimpulseoftheordinaryman,untrainedinphilosophy,istoregardthatviewasabsurd.ItwasinthatwaythatIregardeditwhenIfirstheardofitwhenIwasatschoolorcollege.Itseemedtomealmostmorepreposterous than the idolatry of the heathenwhobowsdown toidolsofwoodandstone.

But here is the strange thing, my friends - a great many people whoregard pantheism as wrong if themeaning of the term is explained tothem are practically pantheists themselves. They are not aware of thefact,buttheyarepantheistsallthesame[ThetreatmentofthissubjectinthefollowingthreeparagraphsissimilartothatinWhatIsFaith?pp.70f.].

We find ourselves in the midst of the mighty process of nature. Itmanifests itself in the wonders of the starry Heavens and the equalwonders that the interior of the atom now reveals. It is seen in therevolving seasons and also in the achievements of the humanmind.Inthepresenceof thatmightyprocessofnature,we stand in awe;we areimpressed with our own littleness; we understand that we are butinfinitesimalpartsofamightywhole.Andtothatmightywhole, tothat

stupendous world process, whose vastness we moderns have come tounderstandasneverbefore,thepantheistappliesthedreadnameofGod.GodisthusnolongerthoughtofasanartificerapartfromHismachine;He is thought of rather as the universe itself, conceived of not in itsindividualmanifestationsbutasamightywhole.

Suchispantheisminthestrictsenseoftheword.Wecanwellunderstandtheappealwhichsuchaviewhasformanyminds.Ithasstimulatedsomeofthemostbrilliantthinkingandinspiredsomeofthegrandestpoetryoftherace.

Butitcontainsnocomfortwhateverforoppressedandburdenedsouls.IfGodbemerelyanothernameforthetotalityofthings,thenifwepossessHimwehavenothingthatwedidnothavebefore.Thereisforusnownomore appeal fromnature to nature'sGod.We arenownothingbut theplaythingsofblindforce.

Feeling,perhaps,thedefectsofthestarkpantheismwhichidentifiesGodwith all that exists, somemenhave sought for a "higher pantheism" ofvarious kinds. No, they say to themselves, God is not simply anothernamefortheuniverseasawhole,but is tobe identifiedratherwiththespiritualpurposethatrunsthroughtheuniverse.Someofthemhavesaidthat God is the soul of the universe. As the human body has a humansoul, so the universe has a soul, they say, and that soul is to be called"God."

Twoprofounddefectsarefoundinalltheseformsofpantheism,highandmiddlingand low. In the firstplace, theygiveusaGodwho is in somekindofnecessaryconnectionwiththeworld.NotonlydoestheworldnotexistapartfromGod,theytellus,butGoddoesnotexistapartfromtheworld. What becomes, then, of the holiness or separateness of God?Clothesuchaviewwithallthebeautyoflanguagewithwhichithasbeencelebratedbypoetsandphilosophers, and still it givesus aGodwho ismerelyafunctionoranaspectoftheworld.SuchaGodcanneverbringusintocontactwiththatdreadandmysteriousrealmofthebeyondintowhichoursoulslongtoenter.

In the second place, pantheism high or low can never really give us a

personal God. A God of which we are parts can never be a God withwhomwecanhavecommunion.Wecannever stand in thepresence ofsuchaGodasonepersonstandsinthepresenceofanother.Wecanneversay"You"tosuchaGod,andsuchaGodcanneversay"You"tous.Wecan never love such a God, and such a God can never love us. Anabstractioncanneitherlovenorbeloved.Nevercouldwesaytoa"worldprocess" or to a "spiritualmeaning" or to a principle of goodness:OurFatherWhoisinHeaven[MAT6:9].

How gloriously are those two defects of pantheism avoided in theteachingofHolyScripture!

Theformerofthetwodefectsiscertainlyavoided.Whatisitthatstandsout sharply in the Bible from beginning to end? Is it not the awfulholinessorseparatenessofGod,theawfuldistinctionbetweenthefiniteandtheinfinite,betweenthecreatureandtheCreator?

TheBibledoesindeedteachusthatGodisimmanentintheworld.HeisnotaGodafaroff.HeisnotaGodwhostandsalooffromtheuniverseasanartificerstandsalooffromhismachine.ThedevoutreaderoftheBiblecan say with Tennyson: "Closer is He than breathing, and nearer thanhandsandfeet."

But ifGod is thus immanent in theworld,He isalso transcendent.TheworldisdependentuponHim,butHeisnotdependentupontheworld.Hehassetboundstotheworld,buttheworldhassetnoboundstoHim.ItistheworkofHishands,butHeisfrometernity.Beforethemountainswerebroughtforth,oreverYouhadformedtheEarthandtheworld,evenfrom everlasting to everlasting, You are God [PSA 90:2]. Running allthroughtheBibleistheawfulseparatenessofGodfromtheworld.ThatiswhattheBiblecallstheholinessofGod.TheBible,unlikethepantheists,presentstousaholyGod.

But the Bible also - and again unlike the pantheists - presents to us apersonalGod.TheGodof theBible isnot just aname for theuniverseitself,norisHeanameforaspiritualpurposesupposedtorunthroughthe universe, or for any impersonal principle of goodness. No,He is aperson.Thatmuch is clearat the start.Weshall speak ina subsequent

talkofthedeepermysteryofthethreepersonsinoneGod.ButatleastitisclearthatGodispersonal.Heisnotaforceoraprincipleoracollectivesomewhat of whichwe are parts. He is a person, to whomwe can say"You,"apersonwhocan, ifHewill,speaktousasamanspeakstoHisfriend,andwhocan,ifHewill,becometousaheavenlyFather.

Butwhat is needed first of all is thatwe shall stand in awe beforeHisthrone.WearelivinginanagewhenmenhaveforgottenGod.Theyhavebecomeengrossedintheirownaffairs.Theyhavebeenpuffedupintheirpride. They have put God out of their thoughts. The result is that ourboastedcivilizationisrushingrapidlytoitsfall.Oh,thatmenwouldturntoGodwhileyetthereistime!

How is it with you, my friends? Have you been walking in your ownpaths?Have you forgottenGod? If so, I bid you read the blessed bookthatwill tellyouhowHemaybe found.IfyouheedHisWordyoumayfirst stand in awebeforeHis throne, and then, by theway thatHehasprovided, youmay come to be at peacewithHim and beHis child forevermore.

Chapter10THETRIUNEGOD

In this little series of talkswe spent some timediscussing the questionwhat kind of book the Bible is; but at last we plunged fairly into thequestionwhat thatbook teaches.Wewere talkingaboutwhat theBibleteachesregardingGod.

Indealingwiththatsubject,wehadnottimetodoanymorethanmakeabeginning.AllthatwehadtimetodowastoobservethattheBibletellsusthereisapersonalGod,CreatorandRuleroftheWorld.God,accordingtotheBible,isnotanothernameforthemightyprocessofnature,andHeisnotsomeonepartoraspectofthatprocess,butHeisafreeandholyperson,whocreatedtheprocessofnaturebythefiatofHiswillandwhoiseternallyindependentoftheuniversethatHehasmade.

Nowweaskmore indetailwhat theBible tellsusaboutGod.Whenwe

ask that, I knowwe shall bemetwith an objection.We are seeking toknowGod.Well,therearemanypeoplewhotellusthatweoughtnottoseek to know God. The knowledge of God, they say, is the death ofreligion.InsteadofseekingtoknowGod,theytellus,weoughtsimplytofeel Him; putting all theology aside, they say, we ought just to sinkourselvesintheboundlessoceanofGod'sbeing[Thefollowingtreatmentof this objection is similar to the treatment by the same writer inChristianityandLiberalism,1923,pp.54f.].

Suchistheattitudeofthemysticsancientandmodern.Butit isnottheattitude of the Christian. The Christian, unlike themystic, knowsHimwhomHehasbelieved.

Whatshallbesaidofareligionthatdepreciatestheology,thatdepreciatestheknowledgeofGod?

One thing that can be said of it is that it hardly possesses any moralqualityatall.Purefeeling, ifsuchathingexists, isnon-moral.Thatcanbe observed in the sphere of human relationships. What makes myaffection for a human friend such an ennobling thing is the knowledgethatIhaveofthecharacterandtheneedsofmyfriend.AmIindifferenttosuchknowledge?AmIindifferenttoanerrorthatseekstocontraveneit? Am I indifferent to base slanders which are directed against myfriend's reputation? Not if I am a friend worthy of the name. Humanaffection,apparentlysosimple,isinrealityjustbristlingwithdoctrine;itdependsuponahost of observations, stored up in themind, regardingtheobjectoftheaffection.

Thatistrue,Ithink,evenwithregardtothosehumanaffectionsthatareoftenthoughtofasinstinctive.Take,forexample,theloveofamotherforachild.Thatloveisnodoubtindependentofexcellenceinthechild;itisimpossible tokillamother's love,nomatterwhatonemaydo.But isamother'sloveindependentofsomeknowledgeofthechild, independentof some knowledge of the child's sufferings and needs, independent ofsomeabilitytoenterintothesoulofthechildinordertosympathizeandunderstand?If it is thus independentofallknowledge, Iaminclinedtothink that it is hardly human affection at all; it has descended to analmostsub-humanlevel.

It is to that sub-human, non-personal level that the mystic seeks todegradeourcommunionwithGod.VerydifferentistheloveofGodastheBiblesets it forth.According to theBible,we loveGodbecauseHe firstlovedus;andHehastoldusofHisloveinHisholyWord.WeloveGod,ifweobeywhattheBibletellsus,becauseGodhasmadeHimselfknowntousandhasthusshownHimselftobeworthyofourlove.

I do notmean to say that theChristian in his communionwithGod isalways rehearsing consciously the things that God has told us aboutHimself.Therearetimes,assomeonehasobserved,whenachildofGod,wearywiththebattleoflife,cansayonly,asheliesdowntorest:"Lord,You know, we are on the same old terms." There are times when theChristiancanbestrangelyconsciousofthepresenceofGod,eventhoughheisnotforthemomentthinkingindetailaboutthethingsthatheknowsregarding God. Certainly the Bible does offer to us an immediatecommunionwithGod,whichislikenootherexperiencewhichamancanpossibly have; and certainly theBible doesmake a distinction betweenknowingGodandmerelyknowingaboutGod.Butunderlyingthatsweetand blessed communion of the Christian with his God there is a trueknowledgeofGod.AcommunionwithGodwhichisindependentofthatknowledgeofGod iscommunionwithsomeothergodandnotwith thelivingandtrueGodwhomtheBiblereveals.

Every trueman is resentfulof slandersagainst ahuman friend.ShouldwenotbegrievedtentimesmorebyslandersagainstourGod?Howcanwepossiblylistenwithpolitecomplacency,then,whenmenbreakdownthedistinctionbetweenGodandman,anddragGoddowntoman'slevel?Howcanwepossiblysay,asinonewayoranotherissooftensaid,thatorthodoxymakeslittledifference.Weshouldnevertalkinanysuchwayabout a human friend. We should never say with regard to a humanfriend that itmakes no difference whether our view of him is right orwrong.How,then,canwesaythatabsurdthingwithregardtoGod?

ThereallyconsistentChristiancanhavenothingwhatevertodowithsuchdoctrinalindifferentism.ThereisnothingsodishonoringtoGod,hewillsay,astobeindifferenttothethingsthatGodhastoldusaboutHimselfinHisholyWord.

What, then, has God told us about Himself in His Word? I certainlycannotnowanswer thatquestionwithany fullness.But therearea fewthingsthatIdowanttosay,andifbysayingthemIcanbehelpfultoyouinyourownreadingoftheBible,thepurposeofthislittleseriesoftalkswillhavebeenattained.

In the Shorter Catechism of the Presbyterian churches, there is thefollowinganswertothequestion,"WhatisGod?":

"God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in His being,wisdom,power,holiness,justice,goodness,andtruth."

ThatansweriscertainlyinaccordancewiththeBible.IthinkitwillhelpusalittlebittogetstraightinourmindswhattheBiblesaysaboutGod.

Notice that God is here said to be infinite, eternal and unchangeable.What is meant by saying that He is infinite?Well, the word "infinite"means without an end or a limit. Other beings are limited: God isunlimited. I suppose it is easy for us to fall into our ordinary spatialconceptionsintryingtothinkofGod.WemayimagineourselvespassingfromtheEarthtotheremoteststarknowntomodernastronomy-many,many light years away.Well, when we have got there, we are not oneslightest fraction of an inch nearer to fathoming infinity than we werewhenwestarted.Wemightimagineourselvestravelingtenmilliontimestenmillion times farther still, and stillwe should not be any nearer toinfinity thanwhenwestarted.Wecannotconceivea limit to space,butneithercanweconceiveofinfinitespace.Ourmindfaintsinthepresenceofinfinity.

Butwewerereallywronginusingthosespatialconceptionsinthinkingofinfinity, andparticularlywrongwerewe inusingspatial conceptions inthinkingoftheinfiniteGod.Itmayhelpustothethresholdofthetruthtosay that God pervades the whole vast area of the universe known toscience,andtheninfinitelymore; itmayhelpus to the thresholdof thetruth to say thatGod inhabits infinite space: butwhenwe look a littledeeperweseethatspaceitselfbelongstofinitethingsandthatthenotionofinfinitespaceiswithoutmeaning.GodcreatedspacewhenHecreatedfinitethings.HeHimselfisbeyondspace.Thereisnonearandnofarto

Him.EverythingtoHimisequallynear.

So it iswhenwe try to thinkofGodaseternal. If theword"infinity" isrelated,bywayofcontrast,tothenotionofspace,sotheword"eternity"isrelatedbywayofcontrasttothenotionoftime.WhenwesaythatGodiseternal,wemeanthatHehadnobeginningandthatHewillhavenoend. But we really mean more than that. We mean that time has nomeaningforHim,saveasithasmeaningtothecreatureswhomHehasmade.Hecreatedtime,whenHecreatedfinitecreatures.HeHimself isbeyondtime.ThereisnopastandnofuturetoHim.TheBibleputsthatinpoeticallanguagewhenitsays:ForathousandyearsinYoursightareasyesterdaywhenitispast,andasawatchinthenight[PSA90:4].WeofcourseareobligedtothinkoftheactionsofGodastakingplaceintime.WeareobligedtothinkofHimasdoingonethingafteranotherthing;weareobliged to thinkofHimasdoing this todayand that tomorrow.Wehaveaperfectrightsotothink,andtheBibleamplyconfirmsusinthatright.Tousthereisindeedsuchathingaspastandpresentandfuture,andwhenGoddealswithusHeactsinatrulytemporalseries.ButtoGodHimselfallthingsareequallypresent.Thereisnosuchthingas"before"or"after"toHim.

It is very important to see clearly thatGod is thus infinite, eternal andunchangeable.TheseattributesofGodareoftendenied.Thosewhohavedenied themtoldus thatGod isa finiteGod.WemustnotblameHim,theytellus,ifthingsarenotjustrightintheworld.HeisdoingthebestHecan,theysay;Heistryingtobringorderoutofchaos,butHeisfacedbyarecalcitrantmaterialwhichHedidnotcreateandwhichHecanmoldonlygraduallyandimperfectlytoHiswill.ItisourbusinesstohelpHim,andwhilewemayat firstsight regret thatwehavenot theallpowerfulGodthatweusedtothinkwehad,yetwecancomfortourselveswiththeinspiringthoughtthattheGodthatwedohaveneedsourhelpandindeedcannotdowithoutit.

WhatshallwesayofsuchafiniteGod?IwilltellyouplainlywhatIthinkweoughttosayaboutHim.HeisnotGodbutagod.Heisaproductofmen'sthoughts.Menhavemademanysuchlittlegods.Ofthemakingofgods,asof themakingofbooks, there isnoend.But,as forChristians,with our Bibles before us, we turn from all such little gods of man's

making,outtowardthedreadmysteryoftheinfiniteandeternal,andsay,asAugustinesaid,withaholyfear:"YouhavemadeusforYourself,andourheartisrestlessuntilitfindsitsrestinYou."

Thedefinition in theShorterCatechism,whichweare taking togiveusouroutlineofwhattheBibletellsusaboutGod,saysnotonlythatGodisinfinite,eternalandunchangeableinHisbeingandinHispowerandinHisholiness,butalsothatHeisinfinite,eternalandunchangeableinHiswisdomandinHisJustice,goodnessandtruth.

Doesthatseemsurprisingtoyou inthe lightofwhatwehave justbeensaying?Well, perhaps itmight seem to be surprising. These qualities -wisdom, justice, goodness and truth - are such startlingly humanqualities.Canweascribethemtothatinfinite,eternalandunchangeableGodofwhomwehavejustbeenspeaking?Ifwedotrytoascribethemtothat God, are we not guilty of a naive anthropomorphism? Are we notguiltyofthechildisherrorofthinkingofGodasthoughHewerejustabigmanupinthesky?Arewenotguiltyofmakingagodinourownimage?

Theansweris:No,wearenotguiltyofthat.IfwethinkofGodashavingsomeattributeswhichwealsopossess,wemayconceivablybedoingitforone or the other of two reasons. In the first place, wemay be doing itbecausewearemakingGodinourownimage.But, inthesecondplace,wemaybedoingitbecauseGodhasmadeusinHisimage.

TheBibletellsusthatthissecondalternativeiscorrect.Godmademaninthe image of God, and that is the reason why God possesses someattributeswhichman also possesses, thoughGodpossesses them to aninfinitelyhigherdegree.

The Bible is not afraid of speaking of God in a startlingly tender andhumansortofway.ItdoessojustinpassageswherethemajestyofGodissetforth.ItisHeWhositsuponthecircleoftheEarth,saysthefortiethchapter of Isaiah, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers [ISA40:22].AllnationsbeforeHimareasnothing; and theyare counted toHimlessthannothing,andvanity[ISA40:17].Butwhatsaysthatsamefortieth chapterof Isaiahabout this same terribleGod?Here iswhat itsays:Heshall feedHis flock likeashepherd:Heshallgather the lambs

withHisarm,andcarrytheminHisbosom,andshallgently leadthosewhoarewithyoung[ISA40:11].

How wonderfully the Bible sets forth the tenderness of God! Is thatmerely figurative? Are we wrong in thinking of God in such childlikefashion? Many philosophers say so. They will not think of God as aperson.Oh,no.ThatwouldbedraggingHimdowntoomuchtoourlevel!SotheymakeofHimapaleabstraction.TheBibleseemschildishtotheminthewarm,personalwayinwhichitspeaksofGod.

ArethosephilosophersrightoristheBibleright?ThankGod,theBibleisright,myfriends.ThephilosophersdespisechildrenwhothinkofGodastheirheavenlyFather.But thephilosophersarewrongand thechildrenare right. Did not our Lord Jesus say: I thank You, O Father, Lord ofHeavenandEarth,becauseYouhavehidthesethingsfromthewiseandprudent,andhaverevealedthemuntobabies[MAT11:25].

No,Godnopaleabstraction.Heisaperson.Thatsimpletruth-preciouspossessionofsimplesouls-ismoreprofoundthanallthephilosophiesofalltheages.

Butnowwecometoagreatmystery.God,accordingtotheBible, isnotjust one person, butHe is three persons in oneGod. That is the greatmysteryoftheTrinity.

TheTrinityisrevealedtousonlyintheBible.WesaidatthebeginningofthislittleseriesoftalksthatGodhasrevealedsomethingstousthroughnatureandthroughconscience.ButtheTrinityisnotamongthem.ThisHe has revealed to us by supernatural revelation and by supernaturalrevelationalone.

We can, it is true, detect something in the doctrine of the Trinity thatserves to render clearer and richer even what nature and consciencereveal. Nature and conscience reveal, in a revelation which, it is true,sinful man seldom receives, a personal and holy God, Creator of theworld.Buthowcanapersonalandholybeingexist entirelyalone?Thething is difficult for us to understand. That difficulty is wonderfullyovercomeby thedoctrineof theTrinity,which tellsus thatevenbefore

GodhadcreatedtheworldtherewasapersonalinterrelationwithintheGodhead.

But we ought to be exceedingly cautious about such considerations.Though God is a person, He is a person very different from us finitepersons,andIamnotsurethatwecouldeverhavesaid,onthebasisofanygeneral revelation innatureandconscience, thatan infinitepersoncould not have existed entirely alone. Let us put such considerations,then,aside.Whenweareengaging in themweareventuringuponholyground, where we can walk at best with but trembling and haltingfootsteps.Thethingthatisperfectlyclearisthatweshouldnothavehadany real knowledge of the holy mystery of the Trinity had not thatmysterybeenrevealedtousinthewrittenWordofGod.

WithintheWordofGod,itisintheNewTestamentthatthedoctrineoftheTrinityistaught.TherearehintsofitintheOldTestament,buttheyare only hints, and it was left to the New Testament for this preciousdoctrinetobeclearlyrevealed.

IntheNewTestament,thedoctrineistaughtwiththeutmostclearness;and, as has well been pointed out byDr. B. B.Warfield, in a splendidarticleon theTrinity [B.B.Warfield,Article, "Trinity," in InternationalStandardBibleEncyclopedia,nowreprintedinhiscollectedworks,inthevolumeBiblicalDoctrines,1929,pp.143-147.Thepresentwriterismuchindebted to that article for the treatment of this whole subject] , thedoctrineispresupposedevenmorethanitisexpresslytaught.Thatis,theNewTestamentisfoundedthroughoutonthedoctrineoftheTrinity,andthedoctrinewasreallyestablishedbythegreatfactsoftheincarnationofthe Son of God and the work of the Holy Spirit even before it wasenunciatedinwords.

Only the smallest part of the teaching of theNewTestament about theTrinityisfoundinpassageswherethedoctrineisstatedasawhole.WhattheNewTestament ordinarily does is to state parts of the doctrine, sothatwhenweputthosepartstogether,andwhenwesummarizethem,wehavethegreatdoctrineofthethreepersonsandoneGod.

Forexample,allpassagesintheNewTestamentwherethedeityofJesus

Christ is set forth are, when taken in connectionwith passages settingforththedeityandpersonalityoftheHolySpirit,passagessupportingthedoctrineoftheTrinity.Inthenexttalk,Ihopetodealwithsomeofthosepassages.

Butwhatneedstobeobservednowisthatalthoughbyfarthelargerpartof theBiblical teachingabout theTrinity isgiven in that incidentalandpartialway-presupposingthedoctrineratherthanformallyenunciatingitasawhole-yettherearesomepassageswherethedoctrineisdefinitelypresentedbythemention,together,ofFather,SonandHolySpirit.

The most famous of such passages, I suppose, is found in the GreatCommission, given by the risen Lord to His disciples according to thetwenty-eighthchapterofMatthew.Gotherefore,anddiscipleallnations,baptizingtheminthenameoftheFather,andoftheSon,andoftheHolySpirit[MAT28:19].TherewehaveamentionofallthreepersonsoftheTrinity in the most complete coordination and equality - yet all threepersons are plainly not three Gods but one. Here, in this solemnCommission by our Lord, the God of all true Christians is foreverdesignatedasatriuneGod.

Wethinkalso,forexample,oftheapostolicbenedictionattheendoftheSecondEpistletotheCorinthians;ThegraceoftheLordJesusChrist,andthe loveofGod,and thecommunionof theHolySpirit,bewithyouall[2CO 13:14]. Here the terminology is a little different from that in theGreatCommission.PaulspeaksoftheSonastheLord.ButthewordLordin the Pauline Epistles is plainly a designation of deity, like the otherGreekwordwhich is translated intoEnglish by thewordGod. It is theGreek word used to translate the holy name of God, Jehovah, in theGreektranslationof theOldTestamentwhichPaulused,andPauldoesnot hesitate to apply to Christ Old Testament passages which speak ofJehovah.

Thatbringsustosomethingsupremelyimportantintheteachingof thewhole New Testament about the Trinity. It is this - that the NewTestamentwriters,inpresentingGodastriune,areneverforonemomentconsciousofsayinganythingthatcouldbyanypossibilityberegardedascontradictingtheOldTestamentteachingthatthereisbutoneGod.That

teaching is at the veryheart and core of theOldTestament. It is everywhit as much at the heart and core of the New Testament. The NewTestamentisjustasmuchopposedastheOldTestamentistothethoughtthat there aremoreGods than one. Yet theNewTestamentwith equalclearnessteachesthattheFatherisGodandtheSonisGodandtheHolySpirit is God, and that these three are not three aspects of the samepersonbutthreepersonsstandinginatrulypersonalrelationshiptooneanother.Therewehave thegreatdoctrineof the threepersonsbutoneGod.

That doctrine is amystery.No humanmind can fathom it. Yetwhat ablessedmysteryitis!TheChristian'sheartmeltswithinhimingratitudeand joy when he thinks of the divine love and condescension that hasthus lifted the veil and allowed us sinful creatures a look into the verydepthsofthebeingofGod.

Chapter11WHATISTHEDEITYOFCHRIST?

We have been talking about the greatmystery of the Trinity.We haveseen that according to theBible there is but oneGodbut that that oneGodisinthreepersons,theFather,theSonandtheHolySpirit.Therearesome places in the New Testament where all three persons of theGodheadarementionedinthesameverse.Butmuchthemoreimportantor extensive part of the Biblical proof of the doctrine of the Trinity isfound in those passages where parts of the great doctrine are somentioned as that when they are put together the completed doctrineinevitablyappears. Iwant tobegin to talk toyou todayaboutonegreatcentralpartof thedoctrine. Iwant to talk toyouabout thedeityofourLordJesusChrist.

ButbeforeIcansayasinglewordtoyouaboutthedeityofChrist,Imusttellyouwhatthatterm"thedeityofChrist"means,orratherImustmakeperfectlycleartoyouwhatitdoesnotmean.Imustmakeperfectlycleartoyouthefactthattheterm"deityofChrist"andtheassertion"JesusisGod"areoftensoemployedtodayastomeansomethingquitecontrarytotheBibleandtotheChristianfaith.

Doyounotsee,myfriends,thatwhenamansayshebelievesinthedeityofChrist,orwhenhesayshebelievesthatJesusisGod,thesignificanceof such assertions depends altogether upon the questionwhat themanwhomakesthemmeansbytheterm"deity"ortheterm"God."

Ifamanhasalowviewofdeity,then,whenhesaysthathebelievesinthedeityofChrist,thatmeansthathehasalowviewofChrist;andifhehasalowviewofGod; then,whenhesays thathebelieves thatJesus isGod,thatmeansthathehasalowviewofJesus.

Buthereiswheretheconfusioncomesin.AChristianman,hearingsomeunbelieversaythathebelievesinthedeityofChristorbelievesthatJesusisGod,attributes to thatunbeliever theChristiandefinitionof theterm"deity"ortheterm"God."Hesimplyassumesthattheterm"deity"orthe

term "God" means what Christians have always taken those terms asmeaning.That is,heassumes that those terms refer toapersonalGod,CreatorandRuleroftheworld,separatebyamightygulffromall finitethings.The consequence is thathe is verymuch impressedwhen thosetermsareusedaboutJesusbyamanwhootherwiseseemedtobeveryfarfrom theChristian faith. "Didyounothear thatmansay,"heexclaims,"thathebelieves in thedeityofChrist;did younothearhimcall Jesus‘God'?Well, if he believes in the deity of Christ, if he is willing to callJesus‘God,'hecannotbesoverywrong.Hemaybeunorthodoxinsomeparticulars,butsurelytherootofthemattermustbeinhim."

When I hear Christian people talking in that fashion about one of thenotedunbelieversof theday, IhavethesadfeelingthatthoseChristianpeopleare,ifImayuseplainlanguage,beingdeceived.

Iamnotabitashamedoflayingstressuponthispoint,becauseIthinkitis amatter of profound importance. If I were sure I could get it reallystraightinyourmindsIshouldthinkitworthwhiletodevotenotmerelyapartofonelecturetoit,butawholeseriesoflectures.ThemoreIlookout upon the condition of the Church, the more I am convinced thatuntoldharmisbeingdonebythisdoubleuseof theterm"deity"andoftheterm"God."Thewillingnessofunbelievers touse the terms in theirsense coupled with the proneness of Christians to understand them intheirs,iscausingthegreatissueintheChurchbetweenChristianityandunbelieftobeobscured.Whatistheresult?TheresultisthattheChurchis being undermined from within. Christian people are being lulled tosleepbythisuseoforthodoxterminology.Unbelieversarequietlygainingcontrol.TheyoungpeopleoftheChurcharebeingtrainedupinunbelief.Precioussoulsarebeingdestroyed.

Whatoughtwetodoinsuchasituation?Iwilltellyouwhatweoughttodo,my friends.We ought to seek light, and we ought to pray God forlight.We ought to prayGod that peoplemay cease to be satisfiedby aword,butmayinsistonlookingatthemeaningoftheword.

Now theChristianmeaning of the term "deity of Christ" is fairly clear.TheChristianbelievesthatthereisapersonalGod,CreatorandRuleroftheuniverse,aGodwho is infinite, eternal andunchangeable.Sowhen

the Christian says that Jesus Christ is God, or when he says that hebelieves in the deity of Christ, hemeans that that same personwho isknown tohistory as JesusofNazareth existed, beforeHebecameman,from all eternity as infinite, eternal and unchangeableGod, the secondpersonoftheholyTrinity.

Verydifferentistheuseoftheterm"deityofChrist"ortheterm"God,"asitisappliedtoJesusbymanyleadersinthemodernChurch.

YoucantellthattheyareusingtheterminsomesenseentirelydifferentfromtheChristiansensebecauseofthethingsthattheysayaboutJesusindetail,or,evenmore,becauseofthethingsthattheywillnotsay.Theywill not say that Jesuswas born of a virgin. Theywill not say thatHeworked miracles. They will not say that the things that He said werealwaystrue;theywillnotsaythatHediedasoursubstituteonthecross;theywillnotsaythatHerosefromthetombonthethirdday.Yet, theysay,HewasGod.

WhentheysayHewasGod,aretheysayingsomethingorthodox?Isthatorthodox assertion of theirs to be put to their credit over against theunorthodoxassertionsthattheyhavemade?

Weanswer: "No, a thousand timesno!"When thesemen say that theybelieveinthedeityofChristorthattheybelieveJesusisGod,thatisnotthe most orthodox but the least orthodox thing that they say. It is anorthodoxandablessedthingtosaythattheJesusoftheBibleisGod;buttosaythatthispoordeludedenthusiastofmodernreconstructionisGodishorribleblasphemy.HowlowthesemenmustthinkofGodiftheycanuseHisnameinthatway!

But inwhatsensedo thesemenuse the term"God"or theterm"deity"whentheyapplyittothepurelyhumanJesus-theirpurelyhumanJesuswhomtheyhavereconstructedaftertheirrejectionoftheNewTestamentaccount?

SometimestheymeanbycallingJesusGodmerelythattheytrytoenterinto the same religious experience as the religious experience of thosewho inpast generations called JesusGod. In the creedsof theChurch,

theysay,JesusiscalledGod.Wedonotbelieve,theysay,thatHeisGodinthesenseinwhichtheauthorsofthosecreedsbelievedit.Shallwethencease to use the creeds? Not at all, they say.When the authors of thecreedscalledJesusGod,theywereexpressinginthelanguageoftheirdayaverypreciousexperiencewhichwealsocanshare.So,theysay,wecanusethecreedsstill.Wedonot,ofcourse,takethemliterally.Butwecanusethemasexpressionsof thehistoric faithof theChurch.Wecanstillhold to the underlying spiritual meaning of the doctrines that theycontain-includingthedoctrineofthedeityofChrist.

SuchrepetitionsofthecreedsandsuchprofessionsofbeliefinthedeityofChristaredoinguntoldharmintheChurchtoday.Nodoubttheyarecomforting to themenwho practice them. I have sympathywith thosemen. To those men this use of traditional terminology seems like thestained glass in an old cathedral. It puts everything in a sort of dimreligiouslight;itseemstoimpartasolemnglowofsanctitytowhatwouldappeartobebaldunbeliefifitwereviewedinthecruellightofday.

ButthetroubleisthatordinarypeopleintheChurcharebeingdeceived.They hear aman repeating the creeds.He seems to be repeating themwiththeutmostfervor.HeisparticularlyferventinexpressinghisbeliefinthedeityofChrist.TheysimplyassumethathemeansbythedeityofChristwhatpeoplehavealwaysmeantby it.SotheytoleratehimintheChurchandputhiminapositionofauthority.Timegoeson.Manysuchmen are put into positions of greater and greater authority. Theyundermine the faith of the Church, partly by their words, but moreparticularly by their silence. A deadly vagueness gradually affects theChurch's witness. The young people of the Church are not soundlyindoctrinated.Peopledonotknowwhatiswrong,buttheChurchlosesitspower.Finally, themaskis thrownoff.Thepeoplewhoreallybelieve inthe Bible and in the creed of the Church andwho are dead in earnestabout that belief are treated as troublemakers. TheChurch sinks downintoamergerwiththeworld.

ThathasbeentheprocessinmanyChurchesofourday.Butit isnotinthatwaythatwebelieveinthedeityofChrist.WhenwesaywebelieveinthedeityofChrist,whenwerepeatthegreatcreeds,wearenotjustusingaformofwordsthatmeantsomethingtosomebodyoflongago.No,we

aresayingsomethingthatwedohonestlyholdourselves tobe true.Wearenotjustgivingexpressiontothehistoric faithof theChurch,butwearegivingexpressiontoourfaith.WearesayingthatthehistoricfaithoftheChurchiswhatweourselvesbelieve.

But aside from a merely traditional use of ancient terms, what is theactualmeaningattributed to the terms "deity"and "God"by thosewhohave given up themeaning that is found in the Bible and in the greatcreedsoftheChurch?Whatdomodernunbelieversmeanbyspeakingofthe"deityofChrist"andwhatdotheymeanbycallingJesus"God"?

I think a twofold answer will have to be given to that question.Unbelievers who use the term "deity of Christ" and the term "God" asapplied to Jesusmean usually one or the other of two things by thoseterms.

In the first place, someof themuse the terms inwhatmaybe called apantheizingsense.Thatis,theyarewillingtocallJesusGodbecausetheyholdthatallofusareGod.TheyputonlyadifferenceofdegreeandnotadifferenceofkindbetweenJesus'deityandours.God,theysay, isnotafar off God. His life pulsates through the life of all the world. He hasalways been incarnatingHimself inmen and women. At one point Heincarnated Himself with particular fullness - namely, in Jesus ofNazareth. But that incarnation was not different in kind from theincarnationinothermen.Itwasdifferentindegreebutnotinkind.WhatisrevealedbytheappearanceofsuchamanasJesusontheEarthisthatGodandmanareessentiallyone.

ItisneedlesstosaythatthatviewofthedeityofChristisjustaboutthediametrical opposite of the Christian view, which the Bible teaches.AccordingtotheBible,whatisrevealedbytheappearanceofJesusupontheEarthisnotthatGodandmanareone,butratherthatGodandmanare not one. God is God and man is man. There can be no confusionbetweenthetwo.Moreover,manisseparatefromGodbytheawfulabyssofsin.Hence-justbecauseofthatseparationbetweenGodandman-theeternalSonofGod,SecondPersonoftheholyTrinity,tookuponHimselfournature,byanact thatwasdonenotmany timesbutonceandonceonlyandsobecauseof thatoneact"was,andcontinues tobeGod,and

man,intwodistinctnatures,andoneperson,forever."

I amnot going to try to speak todayof the relationbetween the divinenatureandthehumannature inthepersonofChrist.Thatbelongs toalatertalkinthisseries,orrathertoatalkinsomesubsequentseries.Butwhat Iwantnow todo is simply to say that thewords, "Jesus isGod,"havenorealmeaning,certainlynoBiblicalorChristianmeaning,unlesstheygowiththesupplementarybeliefthatwemostemphaticallyarenotGod.

Inthesecondplace,otherunbelieversusetheterms"deityofChrist"orthe term "God" as applied to Jesus in what may be called an anti-metaphysicalorpositivisticsense.Itrustyouhavesomespiritleftinyouwhen I use words as long as those. I do not expect all of you tounderstand that word "positivistic" right at the start, but I do hope tomake you understand the thing that I mean by that word. I mean todesignatebyittheviewofpeoplewhoregardthehumanlifeofthemanJesusas theonlyGod that theyknow.Peopleused tobelieve, they say,thatthere isapersonalGod,CreatorandRulerof theworld.Butwenolongerbelievethat-atleastwearequiteuncertainaboutit.Itbelongstotherealmofmetaphysics,whichisaverydoubtfulrealm.Theonlythingsthatwe can be really certain about are the things that we can see andhear,thethingsthatarefoundhereinthisworldinwhichwelive.SoifwearetohaveaGod,amodernGod,wemustfindHimhereinthemidstofus-hereinthisplainlyvisiblerealm.

NowwewanttofindaGod,saythemenofthiswayofthinking.PeoplewhousedtobelieveinthatoldmetaphysicalGod,MakerandRuleroftheuniverse, had something that we are in danger of losing. They hadreligion. They had a Beingwho could call forth ennobling emotions ofreverenceandawe.Weneedthoseemotions.Weneedsomethingtocallthemforth.Weneedsomethingtoworship.

Whereshallwefindsomethingtocallforththeseemotions?Whereshallwefindsomethingtoworship?WhereshallwefindanadequateobjectofreligiousdevotiontotaketheplaceofthatpersonalCreatorinwhomwenolongerbelieve?Wemustfindithereuponthisearth,saythesepeopleofwhomwearenowspeaking.Wherethenshallwefindit?

Why,wefindit,theysay,inthelifeofacertainmannamedJesus.HewasnotofcoursetheCreatoroftheworld.Hewasamanliketherestofmen.ButHismoral lifecancall forththesamereverenceaspastgenerationsused to give to the supposed Creator of the world. So althoughmetaphysics is gone religion remains.Men used to have the ennoblingemotionofreverenceastheyturnedtothestarryHeavensandsaid:TheHeavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows hishandiwork [PSA 19:1]. We no longer believe all that. But we canexperiencethosesameennoblingemotionsbycontemplatingthehumanlifeofthemanJesus.

Suchisaverycommonviewofwhatmencall"thedeityofChrist."Whatshall we say about that view? What shall we say about that way ofworshippingJesus?IwilltellyouwhatIthinkweoughttosayaboutit.Ithinkweoughttosayaboutitthatitisaterriblesin.

Pleasedonotmisunderstandme.ItisnotasintoworshipJesus.Onthecontrary, it is the highest and noblest privilege and duty ever given toman.ItisnotasintoworshiptherealJesus.ItisnotasintoworshiptheJesuswhoisGodandman.ButitisasintomanufactureaJesuswhowasmanonlyandnotGod,andthenafteryouhavemanufacturedthatpurelyhumanJesustobowdownandworshipHim.

DoyounotseewhatthatkindofworshipofthemorallifeofasupposedlypurelyhumanJesus,aJesuswhoisregardedmerelyastheidealman-doyou not see what that worship of such a purely human Jesus reallymeans? It means that the man who engages in it has committed theancientand terrible sinofworshippinghumanity. Itmeans thathehasworshippedandservedthecreatureratherthantheCreator,andthatisasinindeed.

TheupshotofwhatIhavebeensayingisthis-thatwhenmentodaysaythatChristisGodtheyoftendosonotbecausetheythinkhighofChristbutbecausetheythinkdesperatelylowofGod.

ThatisnotatallthewayinwhichtheBiblesaysthatChristisGod.Whenthe Bible says that Christ is God, it does not do that by dragging Goddown.Itdoesnotaskustoforgetasinglethingthatithassaidaboutthe

stupendousmajestyofGod.No,itasksustoremembereveryoneofthosethingsinorderthatwemayapplythemalltoJesusChrist.

TheBibletellsusinthefirstversethatGodinthebeginningcreatedtheHeavenandtheEarth.Doesitaskustoforgetthatwhenit tellsusthatJesus Christ is God?No, it asks us to remember that. It says of JesusChrist:AllthingsweremadebyHimandwithoutHimwasnotanythingmadethatwasmade[JOH1:3].

TheBibletellsusthatGodisinfinite,eternal,andunchangeable.DoesitaskustoforgetthatwhenittellsusthatChrist isGod?Noit tellsustoremember that. I amAlphaandOmega, saysChrist, thebeginningandthe end, the first and the last [REV 22:13]. Before Abrahamwas, I am[JOH8:58].InthebeginningwastheWord[JOH1:1] .He isbeforeallthings,andbyHimallthingsconsist[COL1:17].

TheBible tellsus thatGod isholy.Does itaskus to forget thatwhen ittellsusthatChristisGod?LetthewholeNewTestamentgivetheanswer.

The Bible tells us that God ismysterious. Does it ask us to forget thatwhenittellsusthatChristisGod?No,ittellsusthattherearemysteriesinChristwhichonlyGodcanknow.NooneknowstheSonbuttheFather,saysJesus,asnooneknowstheFatherbuttheSon.

TheBibletellsusthatGodisthefinaljudge.DoesitaskustoforgetthatwhenittellsusthatJesusisGod?No,JesusHimselfsaid,intheSermonontheMount; thatHewouldsituponthe judgment throne to judgealltheearth.

Everywhere it is the same, my friends. The Bible from Genesis toRevelationpresents a stupendous viewofGod, and then it tellsus thatJesusChristisallthatGodis.

What interest has the Christianman in all that?What interest has theChristianmaninknowingthatJesusChristisveryGod,whatinterestinknowing that it was through Him that the worlds were made, whatinterestinknowingthatHepervadestheremotestbounds,whatinterestinknowingthatHeisinfiniteinknowledgeandinpower?

Nointerest,saymodernunbelievers;thesethingsaremeremetaphysics.

Every interest, say Christians; these things are the very breath of ourlives.

We have trusted in Jesus. But how far can we trust Him? Just in thistransitory life?Just in this littlespeck thatwecall theEarth? Ifwecantrust Him only thus far we are of all men most miserable. We aresurroundedbystupendousforces;wearesurroundedbytheimmensityoftheunknown.Afterourlittlespanoflifethereisashelvingbrinkwiththeinfinite beyond. And still we are subject to fear - not only fear ofdestructionbutamoredreadfulfearofmeetingwiththeinfiniteandholyGod.

So we should be if we had but a human Christ. But now is Christ ourSavior, the One Who says, Your sins are forgiven you [LUK 5:20],revealedasveryGod.Andwebelieve.Suchafaithisamysterytouswhopossess it; it seems folly to those who have it not. But if possessed itdelivers us forever from fear. The world to us is all unknown, it isengulfed in an ocean of infinity. But it contains no mysteries to ourSavior. He is on the throne. He pervades the remotest bounds. Heinhabitsinfinity.WithsuchaSaviorwearesafe.

Chapter12DOESTHEBIBLETEACHTHEDEITYOFCHRIST?

In the last talk Ibegan to speakabout thedeityofChrist.But I had topoint out the disconcerting fact that in contemporary parlance[discussion]theterm"deityofChrist"andtheterm"God"asappliedtoJesusmeanpracticallynothing.Theyareusedinsomanydifferentsensesthattheuseofthesetermshasinitself lostallsignificance.UnbelieverswhohaveaverylowviewofJesusindeedareperfectlywillingtosaythatJesusisGod.TheyarewillingtosaythatJesusisGodnotbecausetheyhaveahighviewofJesusbutbecausetheyhavealowviewofGod.

It is a relief to turn from such intellectual quagmires, where words nolongermeanwhattheysay,totheBible.Inmodernparlance[discussion],

with itsboundlessdegradationof formerly lofty terms, there isnosolidfooting;butitisnotsointheBible.TheBibledefinesitstermswiththeutmostclearness,andthereforewhentheBiblesaysthatJesusisGod,wereadersoftheBibleknowexactlywherewestand.

Justnow,therefore,wehaveamuchpleasantertaskthanthatwhichwehad in the last talk.Wearegoing to try tobegin toset forth inpositivefashionalittlebitatleastofwhattheBiblesaysaboutthedeityofChrist.

IfweweregoingtodosowithanycompletenessweshouldhavetobeginwiththeOldTestament.It istrue,theOldTestamentdoesnotset forththedoctrineofthedeityofChristwithanyfullness.Idonotsupposethateither the prophets or their hearers knew in any clear fashion that thecomingMessiahwastobeoneofthepersonsintheGodhead.YettherearewonderfulintimationsofthedoctrineofthedeityofChristevenintheOld Testament. The outstanding fact is that the hope of a comingMessiah, as it appears with increasing clearness in the Old Testamentbooks,goesfarbeyondanymereexpectationofanearthlykingofDavid'sline. The Messiah, according to the Old Testament, is clearly to be asupernatural person, and He is clearly possessed of attributes that aretrulydivine.

IthasoftenbeenobservedthatbeforethetimeofChrist,thereweretwotypes ofMessianic expectation among the Jews.According to one type,theMessiahwastobeakingofDavid's line;accordingtotheother,Hewastobeaheavenlybeingsuddenlyappearinginthecloudsofheaventojudgetheworld.

Both of these types of later Jewish expectation are rooted in the OldTestament.TheOldTestamentrepresentstheMessiahbothasakingofDavid'slineandalsoasasupernaturalpersontoappearwiththecloudsofheaven.Theformerofthesetworepresentationsappears,forexample,intheseventhchapterof2Samuel,whereaneverendinglineofkingstobedescendedfromDavid ispromised;anditappearsevenmoreclearlyinthepassageswherethecomingofonesupremekingofDavid'slineispromised.Thelatterofthetworepresentationsappears,forexample, intheseventhchapterofDaniel,whereamysteriouspersonlikeuntoaSonofMan[DAN7:13]isseen,intheprophet'svision,inthepresenceofthe

Ancient of Days [DAN 7:9] - a mysterious person to whom is given auniversalandeverlastingdominion.

ThesetwotypesofMessianicexpectationintheOldTestamentarebynomeanssharplydistinguishedfromoneanother.WhenweexaminecloselytheexpectedkingofDavid'sline,wefindthatHeistobefarmorethanan ordinary Earthly king; we find that He has distinctly supernaturalattributes:and,ontheotherhand,thesupernaturalfigureoftheseventhchapterofDanielisbynomeansseparatefromIsraelbutappearsastherepresentativeoftheOldTestamentpeopleofGod.

This possession of both divine and human attributes by the MessiahappearswithparticularclearnessintheninthchapterofIsaiah.Therethecoming deliverer is spoken of as one who shall sit upon the throne ofDavid.Yethis kingdom is tobe everlasting, andHeHimself is actuallycalledTheMightyGod,TheEverlastingFather,ThePrinceofPeace[ISA9:6].TherewehavethedeityofthecomingMessiahpresentedintheOldTestamentinsomanywords.

Now theglorious thing is that in theNewTestamentwe find these twotypes of Old Testament promise about the Messiah united, in thefulfillment,inthesamePerson.HowisitthatonePersoncanontheonehandbeaman,akingofDavid'sline,andatthesametimebetheMightyGod?Thequestion isnot fully answered in theOldTestament.But theNewTestamentanswersitmostwonderfullyinthegreatcentraldoctrineof the two natures in the one person of our Lord. Yes, the comingdelivererwas indeed tobebothMightyGodandakingofDavid's line,becausetheMightyGodinstrangecondescensionandlovebecamemanfor our sakes "and so was, and continues to be God, andman, in twodistinctnatures,andonepersonforever."

ButwearenotnowspeakingabouttherelationbetweenthedivinenatureandthehumannatureinChrist.WhatwearenowinterestedinsayingisthattheOldTestamentdoesteachthedeityofthecomingMessiah.Here,asatsomanyotherpoints, there isawonderfulcontinuitybetweentheOldTestamentandtheNew.

That continuity is fully recognized by the New Testament. The New

Testament does not present the doctrine of the Trinity, including thedoctrineof thedeityofChrist,as though itmeant the introductionof anewideaofGod.Onthecontrary, itpresents itasbeinga revelationofthe same God as the God who had revealed Himself to Israel in OldTestamenttimes.ThatisfinelybroughtoutinthearticleontheTrinitybyB. B. Warfield, to which we have already referred [Warfield, BiblicalDoctrines, 1929, pp. 142 f.]. The Jehovah of the Old Testament ispresentedintheNewTestamentasbeingatrueGod;butHeisthesameGodthroughoutboththeOldTestamentandtheNew.

Hence it is only what is to be expected when we find that the NewTestament applies to Christ Old Testament passages where the God ofIsraeliscalledbyHisholiestandmostpreciousname,"Jehovah."CouldtherebeanyclearertestimonytothefulldeityofJesusChrist?

Dr.Warfield rightly calls attention also to thematter-of-course way inwhich this identity of the triune God of the New Testament with thecovenantGod of Israel appears in theNewTestament books. TheNewTestament writers are apparently not conscious of saying anythingrevolutionary.TheyassumethedoctrineofthedeityofChristmorethanthey expressly teach it.Why do they assume it?Dr.Warfield gives theanswer [Warfield,op. cit.,pp. 143-147] .Theyassume it because it hadalreadybeenestablishedby the factof thecomingof theSonofGod inthe flesh. The doctrine was established by the fact of the incarnationbefore it was set forth inwords.When the eternal Son of God becameman inorder to redeemsinnerson thecross,andwhen theHolySpiritwas sent to apply that redeemingworkof theSonofGod to thosewhoshould be saved, then the doctrine of the Trinity was made known tomen. The Church from the very beginning was founded upon thatdoctrine; itwas the factual revelationof thatdoctrineby the comingofthe Son and the coming of the Spirit that ushered in the newdispensation.

However,althoughitwasthefactualrevelationofthedoctrinewhichinatruesensecamefirst,yetthedoctrineistaughtalsoinwords,andtaughtintheplainestpossibleway.Insettingforththewayinwhichitistaught,one great difficulty is the difficulty of selection. The whole NewTestamentteachesthedeityofChrist,andthatiswhatmakesithardfor

ustodecidewhatindividualpassagesweshallmention.Wherethestoreissoveryrich,itishardtomakeaselectionfromit.

LetusbeginwiththepointoftimeatwhichtheNewTestamentnarrativebegins. Let us begin with the annunciation of the birth of John theBaptist,asitisrecordedinthefirstchapterofLuke.Theangelpromisesto Zacharias that he will have a son, who will, in accordance with theprophecy inMalachi, go before the Lord tomake readyHis people forHim [LUK 1:16f] . There is hereno clear reference to theMessiah as adistinctperson.ThepromisedsonofZacharias is togobeforeJehovah,or,intheGreekform,"theLord";butitisnotsaidthatheistogobeforethe Messiah. Yet there is no doubt but that the author of the Gospelaccording to Luke, when he quotes the angel's words, identifies thatcomingofJehovahwithwhichtheMalachiprophecydealsandtowhichtheangelalludeswiththecomingofJesusChrist.ThecomingofJehovahis the comingofChrist.There is alsonodoubtbut that inmaking thatidentification the author of this gospel is in accordancewith thewholeNew Testament and in accordance with the real meaning of what theangel said. We have here just one instance of that stupendous fact ofwhichwehavealreadyspoken-thefactthattheNewTestamentwritersapplytoJesusthingsthattheOldTestamentsaysofJehovah.ThewholeNew Testament is based upon the thought that there is some strangeessentialunitybetweenJesusChristandthecovenantGodofIsrael.

Then we have the annunciation of the angel to the virgin Mary [LUK1:30-38].TheannunciationispartlyinOldTestamentterms.Mary'ssonistositonthethroneofDavid;andwhenitissaidthatofHiskingdomthere is to be no end, that also does not go beyond what the OldTestamenthadpromisedabouttheMessiah.Butthenagreatmysteryisrevealed.Thepromisedchild isnot tohaveahumanfatherbyordinarygeneration, but is to be conceived by theHoly Spirit in thewomb of avirginmother.Eventhat-atleastthepartofitthatsetsforththefactthatthemotheristobeavirgin-isfoundinOldTestamentprophecy[inISA7:14]-butthatprophecyhadnotbeenunderstoodamongtheJews.Now,just before the fulfillment, the prophecy is repeated in fuller andmoreglorious terms. The conception of this child in the womb of the virginMaryistobeamiraclewroughtbytheimmediatepoweroftheSpiritof

God. That miracle is one of the things that will show the child to berightlycalled"holy"and"SonofGod."

Evidentlytheterm"SonofGod"ishereusedinsomeveryloftysense.Itdoes not designate the promised child merely as the Messiah, thoughsometimes theMessiahwas called "Son of God." Evidently the term isusedhereinsomeuniqueandstupendoussense.

Attwelveyearsofage,thechildJesuswasfoundintheTemple.JosephandMaryhadsoughtHimsorrowing,andatlasttheyfoundHimamongthedoctors,hearingthemandaskingthemquestions.Son,theysaid,whyhaveYouthusdealtwithus?behold,yourfatherandIhavesoughtYousorrowing.Thencamethestrangeanswerof theboyJesus:DoYounotknow that Imust be aboutMy Father's business [LUK 2:48 f.]?WhenMary spoke of the father of that twelve-year-old boy, she meant hishumanfather,theonewhostoodtohiminarelationmorelikethatofafatherthandidanyotherhumanbeing.WhentheboyJesusspokeofHisFatherinreply,HemeantGod.NoticethatHedidnotsay"OurFather"whenHespokeofGod.No,Hesaid"MyFather."HewasSonofGodinasenseentirelydifferentfromthatwhichwouldapplytoanyotherpersonwhoeverliveduponthisEarth.

ThatbringsustooneofthestrangestthingsaboutthewayinwhichJesusall through the Gospels speaks of God. This strange thing appears notonly in theGospelaccording toJohn,whichmodernunbelief rejects soradicallyasuntrue,butalsointheSynopticGospels.ThestrangethingisthatJesusaccordingtoallfouroftheGospelsneverspeaksofGodas"ourFather,"classingHimselfwithHisdisciples in thatword"our."Hesays"MyFather"andHesaystoHisdisciples"YourFather,"butneverdoesHe say "Our Father" classing Himself with His disciples in that filialrelationship to God. The Lord's prayer begins with those words "OurFather,"butJesuscertainlydidnotpray thatprayerwithHisdisciples,becausethatprayercontainsaconfessionofsin,andJesusneverhadanysintoconfess.ItwasaprayerthatHetaughtHisdisciples,notaprayerthat He prayed Himself. The significant fact remains, therefore. JesusneverappearsintheGospelsassaying"OurFather"toGodtogetherwithHisdisciples.GodwasHisFather,andGodwastheirFather;butHewasHisFatherinanentirelydifferentsensefromthesenseinwhichHewas

theirFather.JesuswasSonofGodinanentirelyuniqueway.

At the beginning of the Gospel according to Mark, with the parallelpassagesinMatthewandLuke,wearetoldaboutthebeginningofJesus'public ministry. That event was marked by a miracle. The SpiritdescendeduponJesus,andtherewasavoicefromheaventhatsaid:YouareMybelovedSon, inYouIamwellpleased[MAR1:11]. It ispossiblethatthegoodpleasureofGodwhichisherespokenofisthedefiniteactofapprovalaccomplishedatthemomentwhenJesuswassentforthintoHispublic ministry. Yet, even so, that divine act of approval is evidentlyregarded as rooted in a unique relationship in which the Person thusapprovedhadalwaysstoodtowardGod.JesusdidnotbecomeSonofGodbecauseHehaddivineapproval,butHehadthatdivineapprovalbecauseHehadalwaysbeenSonofGod.

For a further discussion of that question and similar questions I mayreferyouincidentallytothelearnedandmostilluminatingbookonTheSelf-DisclosureofJesusbyGeerhardusVos[Vos,TheSelf-DisclosureofJesus(1926),especiallypp.185-188].

AtanyrateJesusnowcomesforwardinHispublicministry.InwhatlightdoesHepresentHimselfinthatpublicministry?

Hereonegreatcentralfactstaresusintheface.Ithinkitwouldhardlybepossible to lay toomuch stress upon it. It is this - that Jesus does notpresentHimselfmerelyasanexample for faithbutpresentsHimself astheobjectoffaith.ThatfactappearsnotmerelyintheGospelaccordingto John, which unbelievers reject as altogether unhistorical; but itappearsalsointhethreeSynopticGospels,andintheSynopticGospelsitappears even in those parts which are supposed by modern criticism,rightly or wrongly, to come from the earliest sources underlying theGospels.Youcannotgetaway from it anywhere in theGospels. It is allpervasive. That fact has been demonstrated in particularly convincingfashion by James Denney in his book Jesus and the Gospel. I do notcommend that book to you in general. In some respects it is a sadlymistaken book. But it does show in a singularly convincing way thateverywhere in theNewTestament, including theSynopticGospels, andincluding the sources supposed rightly or wrongly to underlie the

SynopticGospels, Jesus is represented not as amere example for faithbutastheobjectoffaith.

Whatdowemeanbysayingthat?WhatdowemeanbysayingthatJesusis presented not primarily as an example for faith but as the object offaith?Wemeansomethingverysimpleandatthesametimesomethingvery stupendous. We mean that Jesus did not come forward merelysaying: "Look at Me; I am practicing the true religion, and I bid youpracticethesamereligionasthatwhichIampracticing."WemeanthatHedidnotcomeforwardmerelysaying:"LookatMe;IhavefaithinGod,andIbidyouhavefaithinGodlikeMyfaithinGod."WemeanthatHedidnot come forwardmerely saying: "Look atMe; I regardGodasMyFather,andIbidyoutoregardGodasyourFathertoointhesamesenseasthatinwhichIregardHimasMyFather."

It is so thatmodernunbelievers representJesus.TheyregardHimasaguideoutintoalargertypeofreligiouslife.TheyregardHimasbeingthefounder ofChristianity becauseHewas the first Christian. They regardChristianity as consisting in imitation of the religious life of Jesus. Sothey love to speak of "the religion of Jesus"; they love to speak of thegospel of Jesus in distinction from a gospel about Jesus. Thus theydegradeJesustothepositionofamereteacherandexample.TheyturnawayfromthegospelthathasHimasitssubstancetoagospelwhichwasmerelythegospelthatHepreached.

Whentheydothat,itisevidentthattheyareturningawayfromwhathasbeenknownasChristianityforthepastnineteenhundredyears.ButtheyarealsoturningawayfromJesusHimselfasHeispresentedtousinallthe sources of historical information that we know anything about.According to all the four Gospels, and according to all the supposedsources which modern criticism has tried to detect back of the fourGospels,JesusputHimselfintoHisgospel;thegospelofJesuswasalsoagospel aboutJesus; the gospel thatHepreachedwas also a gospel thatofferedHimasSavior.Hedidnotsaymerely:"HavefaithinGodlikethefaiththatIhaveinGod,"butHesaid:"HavefaithinMe."

ThatappearsofcoursewiththeutmostclearnessintheGospelaccordingtoJohn.ButitalsoappearsintheSynopticGospels.Therewas, indeed,

according to the Synoptic Gospels, a period in the public ministry ofJesus when He did not ordinarily make His own person the expresssubject of systematic discourse. But if you look a little deeper, you seethateverywhereJesuswasofferingHimselfastheSaviorofmenandwasaskingthemtohavefaithinHim.

That appears, for example, in His miracles of healing. Your faith hassavedyou,Hesays;goinpeace[LUK7:50].Well,faithinwhom?Perhapswemight be tempted to saymerely, "Faith inGod like the faithwhichJesushad inGod."But Ibid you read thenarrativeswith careandaskyourselveswhetherthatinterpretationreallydoesjusticetothem.Ithinkyouwillfindthatitdoesnot.No,JesuswaspresentingHimselfwhenHeworked those miracles as one in whom He was bidding men haveconfidence.NodoubtHewasbidding themhaveconfidence inGod theFather.Butthepoint is thatthatconfidence inGodtheFatherwasalsoconfidence inHim.The faith thatsavedthosepeoplewas faith inJesusChrist.

Hewassavingthosepeoplefrombodilyills,butHewasalsosavingtheirsoulsfromsin.Thatbecomesexplicitinthehealingoftheparalyticborneof four, where Jesus says not only Arise and walk but your sins areforgivenyou[LUK2:5,9].Butitisreallyimpliedinthecaseswhereitisnotexpressed.JesusaccordingtoalltheGospelssavesmenfromsin,andthemeanswhichHeusestosavethemfromsinisthefaithwhichHebidsthemhaveinHimtheSavior.

ThusJesus,accordingtoalltheGospels,presentsHimselfastheobjectofa truly religious faith.Well,who is the object of a truly religious faith?Theanswerisverysimple.HeisGod.Thewayinwhich,inalltheGospelsand even in the sources supposed, rightly or wrongly, to underlie theGospels, Jesus presentsHimself as the object of faith is a tremendoustestimony by JesusHimself toHis own deity. That testimony does notappear merely in individual passages. It is a kind of atmosphere thatpervades thewhole picture, or, to change the figure, a foundation thatsustainsthewholebuilding.Ifyouignoreit,thewholeaccountwhichtheBiblegivesofJesusbecomesahopelesspuzzle.

Inthenexttalk,IwanttocontinuetodealwiththedeityofChrist.Today

I\ have been able to do no more than make a beginning in thepresentationofthatgreatsubject.Iwonderwhatyouthinkaboutit.Whatdo you think of Jesus Christ? Do you think of Him, with modernunbelievers,merelyas the initiatorofahigher typeof religious life, thediscovererofcertainpermanent factsabout theFatherhoodofGodandthebrotherhoodofman?OrdoyouthinkofHim,asChristiansdo,astheLordofGlory,theeternalSonofGodbecomemantosaveyoufromyoursins? Or, finally, are you undecided with regard to Him? Are youundecidedwhichofthesetwoviewsyouwillhold?Doyoubelongtothatgreatarmyofpersonswhostandoutsidethehouseholdoffaithandlooklonginglyatthewarmthandjoywithin?Areyouhinderedfromenteringinbygloomydoubts?Ifyoubelongtothatthirdclass,weprayGodthatyoumaybe led to say at least: Lord, I believe; helpmyunbelief [MAR9:24].Ifyoudosaythat,theLordwillhelpyourunbelief,asHehelpedthe man who said that so long ago, and will bring you into the clearshiningoffaith.

Chapter13THESERMONONTHEMOUNTANDTHEDEITYOFCHRIST

Wearenowinthemidstofourdiscussionofthegreattheme,thedeityofJesusChrist.Was Jesus amereman, a leader into a higher and bettertype of religious experience, orwasHe the eternal Son ofGod becomemantosaveusfromtheguileandpowerofsin?

We have already begun to point out what the Bible says about thisquestion.Inparticular,wehavepointedoutthatallfouroftheGospels,and even the sources supposed, rightly or wrongly, to underlie theGospels, represent Jesus not merely as an example of faith but as theobjectoffaith-thatis,theyrepresentJesusnotassayingmerely,"HavefaithinGodlikethefaithwhichIhaveinGod,"butassaying,"HavefaithinMe."ButthatmeansthatthefourGospelsteachthedeityofChristandrepresentJesusHimselfasteachingit.TheobjectofatrulyreligiousfaithisnoneotherthanGod.

Iwantnowtoshowyouhowextraordinarilypervasive in theGospels isthe lofty view of Jesus Christ which necessarily goes with His offer of

Himselfastheobjectoffaith.PeopletrytoescapefromthatloftyviewofChrist.TheyliketoregardJesusjustasateacherandexample;theysaythat this whole notion about His deity is an unfortunate metaphysicalnotion that has nothing to dowith vital religion. Let us get away frommetaphysics and theology, they say, and, instead, just get up and obeyJesus'commands;ifweobeyHiscommandswearehonoringHimmorethan we could honor Him by any amount of intellectual convictionsregardingHisdeity.

Well,myfriend,Iwillsaytoamanofthiswayofthinking,wherewillyouturnintheGospelstogetawayfromaloftyviewofthepersonofChrist;wherewillyou turn to findaJesuswhosimplygavemendirections fortheorderingoftheirlivesanddidnotdemandthattheyshouldhaveanyparticularviewaboutHim?HereisaNewTestament,myfriend;willyoujustopenitanywhereyoulikeinordertoproveyourpoint.

I suppose that if I should say that to one of the advocates of this non-doctrinal Christianity, he would, be most apt to turn, among all thepassages in the New Testament, to the Sermon on the Mount [MATchapters 5-7]. In the Sermon on theMount, it is often said,we have aprogram forChristian living that isquite independentof theniceties oforthodoxtheology,andifweshouldjustbewillingtolivethatkindoflifeitwouldbeagreatdealbetterthandisputingabouttheologicalquestionsor even being too anxious to get a completely orthodox notion aboutJesusHimself.

Well,myfriend,youhaveturnedtotheSermonontheMount.Ididnotchoose it. You chose it. It is your favorite passage. You cannot objecttherefore if we examine it a little for ourselves to see whether it reallyteaches that kind of non-doctrinal religion that you so enthusiasticallyadvocate.Inparticular,youcannotobjectifweexamineittoseewhetheritisreallysilentaboutthosestupendousclaimsofJesuswhichsotroubleyouinotherpartsoftheNewTestament.

All right, then; we are going to put preconceived opinions aside andexaminetheSermonontheMountforourselves.

Whathappenstouswhenwedothat?Iwilltellyouveryplainly.Wefind

that the Sermon on the Mount teaches and presupposes that samestupendous view of Jesus Christ which underlies all the rest of theGospels.

TheSermonontheMountmightseemtobegininawayunfavorabletothat view and favorable to the advocate of a non-doctrinal Christianitywho is not interested in the question what sort of person Jesus is. ItbeginswiththeBeatitudes,andtheBeatitudesmightseematfirstsighttobeindependentofanyparticularviewregardingtheonewhospokethem.Blessedarethepoorinspirit:fortheirsistheKingdomofHeaven[MAT5:3] - does not that remain true whatever we think of the person whoutteredit?

Well,Iamnotsureevenaboutthat.Iamnotsurebutthat inallof theBeatitudes we detect a strange note of authority which would beoverwroughtandpathological inanyotherpersonthantheJesusof theBible.WhoisthiswhotellswithsuchextraordinaryassurancewhatsortofpersonswillbeintheKingdomofGod?WhoisthisWhoannouncestomenrewardsthatonlyGodcangive?

Butletthatpassforthemoment.ThethingthatisclearisthatJesusdoesnot finish the Beatitudes before He comes to speak in the moststupendouswayaboutHimself.What is the lastof theBeatitudes? Is itmerelyablessingpronounceduponpeoplewhopossessacertainqualityofsoul?Notatall.Itisablessingpronounceduponpeoplewhostandinacertain relation to Jesus Himself. Here is what it is: Blessed are you,whenmenshallrevileyou,andpersecuteyou,andshallsayallmannerofevilagainstyoufalsely,forMysake[MAT5:11].NoticethosewordsforMysake.TheycontainatremendousclaimonthepartofJesus.MenaretobewillingtobearHisname,andiftheyarenotashamedtobearHisname they are to stand in the final judgment. Imagine anymere mansayingthat!ImagineanyoneotherthanJesussaying:"BlessedareyouifyousufferonaccountofMe."WehaveherethewordsofthesameJesusaswastheOnewhosaid:IfanymancometoMe,andhatenothisfather,andmother, andwife, and children, andbrothers, and sisters, yes, andhisownlifealso,hecannotbeMydisciple[LUK14:26],thesameJesusastheOnewhosaid:WhoeverthereforeshallbeashamedofMeandofMywordsinthisadulterousandsinfulgeneration;ofhimalsoshalltheSon

ofManbeashamed,whenHecomes in thegloryofhisFatherwith theholy angels [MAR 8:38].Who can claim such an exclusive devotion asthat - a devotion which shall take precedence of even the holiest ofEarthlyties,adevotionuponwhichaman'seternaldestinydepends?Godcan,butcananymereman?

ThencomesthatgreatsectionoftheSermonontheMountwhereJesusdeclaresHimselftohavecomenottodestroythelawortheprophetsbuttofulfill.Youhaveheardthatitwassaidtothemenofoldtime,Hesays,and then makes several quotations. Those quotations contain in partsentences found in the Old Testament. Over against those quotations,Jesus in every case puts something ofHis own:Youhaveheard that itwassaid...butIsayuntoyou[MAT5:21,22].NodoubtitmaybeheldthatJesusinnoneoftheseinstancesissettingwhatHesaysoveragainstwhattheOldTestamentsays,butineveryinstanceismerelysettingwhatHesaysoveragainstwhattheJewishteachershadwronglyheldthattheOld Testament said. But even then the fact remains that whatHe setsforthagainst thewrong interpretationof theOldTestamentpassages isnotjustarightinterpretationbutsomethingwonderfullyfreshandnew.PlainlyJesusputsHisownsayingshereonalevelwiththeOldTestamentpronouncementswhichHecertainlyregardedastheveryWordofGod.

I ask you to consider for a moment that authority with which Jesusspeaks,thatauthoritywhichcausesHimtoputHisownpronouncementsfully on a level with the Old Testament pronouncements. What is thenatureofthatauthoritywhichJesushereclaims?

Well,prophetsclaimedauthority.Theyaskedthatpeopleshouldreceivewhat they said as a message from God.Was then the authority whichJesus is here claiming merely the authority of a prophet? No, mostemphatically it was notmerely that. The prophets spokewith a divineauthority.Butitwasadelegatedauthority,anditwasdelegatedtothemin a temporary way. There were times when the prophets becamespokesmenofGod,buttheywerespokesmenofGodmerelybecausetheybecame for themoment channels for theHoly Spirit. Theywere not ingeneral infallible. They had no authority which was granted them as apermanent possession to be used as they saw fit. When they cameforwardasprophetstheywerecarefultogiveallhonortoGod.

Thus the characteristic way in which the prophets introduced theirutteranceswaswiththewords,ThussaystheLord[ISA54:1,et.al.].Bythat theymeant to say: "Iamnot saying thisasmyownword,but it isGodwhoissayingit;IammerelythemouthpieceofGod."

Now unquestionably Jesus was a prophet. Undoubtedly the catechismthat I learned in childhood was right when it told me that He was aprophetaswellasaPriestandaKing.

But although Jesus was a prophet, He was also vastly more than aprophet.SoHedoesnotintroducetheseutterancesofHisintheSermonon the Mount in the way in which the utterances of a prophet areintroduced.Hedoesnotsay,ThussaystheLord.No,Hesays,Isay.HecomesforwardwithHisownauthority,andthatauthorityHeplacesfullyonalevelwiththeauthorityofGodasitwasfoundexpressedintheOldTestament.

IamnotforgettingtheplacesintheGospelswherethedependenceofthemanJesusuponGod isset forth.ThosepassagesarefoundparticularlyjustintheGospelaccordingtoJohn-justinthatGospelwherethedeityofChristissetforth,Iwillnotsaymoreclearly(sinceitissetforthwiththe utmost clearness in all the Gospels), butmore expressly and fully,thanintheotherGospels.JesusaccordingtotheGospelofJohndidwhatHesawGoddoing,andHesaidwhatGodtoldHimtosay.Allthesame,despite this subordinationof themanJesus toGod,Hisauthoritywentfarbeyondtheauthorityofaprophet.ItwasanauthoritywhichwasHisownpersonalright,asbelongingtotheonewhowasnotmerelymanbutGod.Youcansearchallthroughthewordsof theprophetsandnot findanything intheremotestdegreeresemblingthatstupendousIsayuntoyouoftheSermonontheMount.

ThenIbidyoureadontotheendofthatSermonontheMount.Noteveryone, says Jesus, who says unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into theKingdomofHeaven; but hewho does thewill ofMy FatherWho is inHeaven[MAT7:21].Thatisoneofthefavoritetextsofunbelievers.IfthewholeSermonontheMountistheirfavoritepassage,thisperhaps,withintheSermonontheMount,mayberegardedastheirfavoritetext.

Itisafavoritetextwithunbelieversnotbecauseofitsrealmeaning,butbecauseofthemeaningwhichtheywronglyattributetoit.Theytakeitasmeaningthatifamaniswhattheworldcallsagoodmoralmanthenhewillenter into theKingdomofGodnomatterwhatHisattitude towardJesusmaybe.Butofcoursethatisnotwhatthetextsays.ThetextdoesnorsaythatifamandoesthewillofGodhewillenterintotheKingdomofGodwhetherHesaysLord,LordtoJesusornot.Itdoesnotsaythatany man who does not say Lord, Lord to Jesus will enter into theKingdom.ButwhatitdoessayisthatevenamongthosewhodosayLord,Lord toJesus thereare somewhowillnot enter in.Thoseare theoneswhosayLord,Lordonlywiththeirlipsandnotwiththeirhearts,andwhoshowthattheyhavenotsaiditwiththeirheartsbecausetheydonotsayitwiththeirlives.

However,thoughforbadreasons,itisapopulartextamongunbelievers.Theyoughtthentobewillingtoexaminecarefullywhatitsays,andwealloughttoexamineitwiththem.

Whenwedoexamineit,wediscoverthatitinvolvesthemoststupendousclaimonthepartofJesus.Foronething, itprovidesan instanceof thestrangewayinwhichJesusspeaksofGodasbeingHisownFather.NoteveryonewhosaysuntoMe,Lord,Lord,shallenterintotheKingdomofHeaven,Hesays,buthewhodoesthewillofMyFatherWhoisinHeaven[MAT7:21].MyFather,saysJesus,not"ourFather"or"theFather."Wespoke of that in the talk just preceding this one. We noticed how itappeared in theanswerof the twelveyearoldJesus in theTemple,andhowitrunsallthroughtheGospels.Well,hereitis,intheSermonontheMount.Youcannotgetawayfromit.Wedonotparticularlynotice itaswereadthisverse,becausewehavebecomesousedtoit.Butthatdoesnot destroy its tremendous significance. Indeed, it vastly increases it.Everywhere Jesus thinks of Himself as being the Son of God in someentirelyuniquesense.

But now let us look at what this verse itself says. We must take it inconnectionwiththefollowingtwoverses.Thoseversesalsoarefavoriteswiththeunbelieversofourday.Theyreadasfollows:

Manywillsaytome inthatday,Lord,Lord,havewenotprophesiedin

Yourname?andinYournamehavecastoutdemons?andinYournamedonemanywonderfulworks?AndthenwillIprofessuntothem,Ineverknewyou:departfromMe,youwhoworkiniquity[MAT7:22,23].

Unbelievers, I suppose, interpret those words as disparaging miracles,andasdisparagingtheactiveprofessionofreligion.Theyinterpretthemasteachingthatifamanleadswhattheworldcallsamoral lifehedoesnotneedtoacceptanycreedormakeanydefiniteprofessionoffaith.

That interpretation isofcoursequitewrong, in thesamewayas that inwhichthecorrespondinginterpretationof theprecedingverse iswrong.Theseversesdonotsaythatmiracleswereunimportantintheapostolicage (whenmiracles still happened) or that orthodoxywas unimportantthen or is unimportant now. They only say that nothing else mattersunless aman's heart is changed and unless that change of his heart isshown inagood life.Theydonot say thatorthodoxy is unnecessaryorthatmightyworks in theexternalworldareunimportant,but theyonlysaythatorthodoxywithoutrightlivingisasham,andthatrealorthodoxyresultsinobediencetothecommandsofGod.

Butthefactremainsthattheseversesarefavoriteswithunbelievers;theyare favoriteswith thosewho think that itdoesnotmake anydifferencewhatamanthinksaboutGodoraboutChristandthatallthatisneededaccordingtoJesusistolivewhatisordinarilycalledamorallife.

Allright.Letus just lookat theseversessopopularamongunbelievers.Do they really teach that it does not make any difference what amanthinksaboutJesusChrist?Itellyou,myfriends,theexactreverseisthecase. These verses, like all the rest of the New Testament, present astupendous view of Jesus Christ, and like other sayings of Jesus theypresentastupendousclaimmadebyJesusHimself.

Whatisthescenetowhichwearetransplantedintheseverses?Isitsomesceneinthecourseofordinaryhistoryorsomesceneofmerely localortemporarysignificance?No,itisnothingofthekind.Itisthetremendoussceneofthelast judgment,thecourtfromwhichthere isnoappeal, thefinaldecisionthatdeterminestheeternaldestiniesofmen.

In other words, it is the judgment seat of God.Well, who is it that isrepresentedhereassittingonthejudgmentseatofGod;whoisitthatisrepresented here in this supposedly pleasant, purely ethical, practical,ultramodern, non-theological Sermon on the Mount, and by thissupposedlysimpleteacherofrighteousnesswhokeptHisownpersonoutofHismessageandwascarefulnottoadvanceanyloftyclaims-whoisitWhoisrepresentedhereinthissupposedlypurelyethicaldiscourseandby thishumbleJesusassittingonedayupon the judgment seatofGodandasdeterminingtheeternaldestiniesofalltheworld?Therecanbenodoubtwhateverabouttheanswertothatquestion.TheonerepresentedhereassittingonthejudgmentseatofGodisJesusHimself.

Wemaynotliketheanswertothatquestion,buttheanswerisasplainasplaincanbe.ManywillsaytoMe,Jesussays,inthatday,Lord,Lord...andthenwillIprofessuntothem,Ineverknewyou:departfromMe,youwhoworkiniquity.Whois that"I,"andwho is that"Me"?Is itGodtheFather?No,itisJesus;itistheOneWhospeaksthesewords.UponJesus'decisiondependsthefateofallmen.Andwhat is that fate?What is themeaning of thatDepartwhich is Jesus' sentence upon thosewhoworkiniquity?Aboutthisquestionalsotherecanbenodoubt.TheSermononthe Mount itself gives the answer: And if your right eye cause you tostumble,pluckitout,andcastitfromyou:foritisprofitableforyouthatoneofyourmembersshouldperish,andnotthatyourwholebodyshouldbe cast into Hell" [MAT 5:29]. The answer is given also in the wholeteachingofJesus,anditisimpliedevenintheverseswithwhichwenowhavetodo.No,therecanbenodoubtwhateveraboutwhatJesusmeantby that word Depart; He meant that those upon whom He wouldpronouncethatsentencetodepartwouldbecastintoHell.

ThethoughtofHellaswellasthethoughtofHeavenrunsallthroughtheteaching of Jesus; it gives to His ethical teaching that stupendousearnestness which is its marked characteristic. But how is Hell heredesignated? It is described elsewhere in the Gospels; and never let usforget,whetherwecallthelanguage"figurative"ornot,thatitmeansaneternalandterriblepunishment,apunishmentofwhichthereisnoend.ButhowisHelldesignatedinthisparticularpassage?Theanswermaybesurprisingtosomepeople,but it isperfectlyplain.Hell isdesignatedin

ourpassageasbeingbanishmentfromJesus.

I do just beg you to think of that for a moment, my friends. Jesus ofNazarethcertainlydidbelieve -nogoodhistoriancandeny it - thatHewouldsituponthejudgmentseatofGodattheterriblelastjudgmentday,that His word would be final, and that life in His presence would beHeavenanddeparturefromHimwouldbeHell.

Whathasbecomeoftheweak,sentimental,purelyhuman,purelyethicalJesusofmodernreconstruction;whathasbecomeofyourJesuswhowasasimpleteacherofrighteousnessandadvancednoclaimtobeGod?Haveyou found your purely human Jesus, and have you escaped from thedivine Christ of the creeds, by appealing from the Gospel according toJohntotheSermonontheMount?No, indeed,myfriend.TheJesusoftheBibleiseverywhereexactlythesame.

What will you do with that Jesus? Will you treat Him with a mildapproval?Ah,peopleare sopatronizing in thepresenceofJesus today.Theysaysuchkind,politethingsaboutHim.TheyaregoodenoughtosaythatHisethicswillsolvetheproblemsofsociety;theyaregoodenoughtosaythatHeenunciatedsomemaximsthatarebetterthanJefferson'stenrules and go far beyond Socrates, Confucius and Buddha. They areperfectlyreadytoletHiminfluencesomedepartmentsoftheirlife.TheywillnotreceiveHimastheirSavior;theyarenotinterestedinHisatoningblood:buttheyaresocomplacentinHispresence.

Godgrantthatitmaynotbesowithyou,myfriends!Godgrantthatyoumaynever treat Jesuswith thispolite, patronizing approval!GodgrantthatyoumaynottreatHimasareligiousgeniusorasthefounderofoneof theworld's religions!God grant that, instead, youmay say to Jesus,withdoubtingThomas:MyLordandmyGod[JOH20:28].

Chapter14WHATJESUSSAIDABOUTHIMSELF

WehavediscussedthedeityofChristasitisattestedbyJesusHimselfintheSermonontheMount.Wehaveseenthatintheverypassagetowhich

unbelieversappealinsupportoftheirviewthatJesuskeptHimselfoutofHisgospelandmerelypresentedaprogramoflifetobefollowedfirstbyHim and then by His followers - in that very passage Jesus presentsHimself as possessed of an authority that goes far beyond that of anyprophetandisintruthanauthoritythatbelongsonlytoGod.Atthecloseofourlasttalk,wewerespeakingparticularlyofthepassageneartheendof the Sermon on theMountwhere Jesus presentsHimself as theOneWhoistositatthelastdayonthejudgmentseatofGodanddeterminetheeternaldestiniesofalltheworld.

This is by no means the only passage in the Gospels where Jesus sopresentsHimselfasthefinaljudge.Indeed,itisprobablybecauseofthisthought of Himself as the final judge that He uses one of His favoritetitlestodesignateHimself-namely,thetitletheSonofman[MAR8:29,et.al.].

Our first impulsemight be to say that the title is a designation of thehumanityofJesusasdistinguishedfromHisdeity.HewasbothGodandman, and that,wemay be tempted to say, iswhatHemeantwhenHecalledHimselfSonofmanaswellasSonofGod.

Ifthatviewofthetitlewerecorrect,itwouldcertainlybeaveryloftytitle,anditwouldcertainlynotbeinanycontradictionwiththedeityofChrist.But,asamatteroffact,itisunlikelythatthetitle,theSonofman,onthelipsofJesushas thismeaningatall. It isunlikely that it is intended todesignatethehumanityofourLordasdistinguishedfromHisdeity.Itisonthewholeunlikely that there is any contrast in theGospelsbetweenthetitleSonofmanandthetitleSonofGod.Peoplewhousethesetitlesto designate the two natures of Jesus as both man and God, who callattention, inotherwords, to the fact thatHewasbothSonofmanandSonofGod,areprobablywrongintheir interpretationof thetitle,rightthoughtheyunquestionablyareinholdingthatJesuswasbothGodandman.

Thetruekeytothetitle,Sonofman,onthelipsofourLordisprobablytobe found in the seventh chapter of the Book of Daniel, where one likeuntoaSonofManappearsinthepresenceoftheAncientofDays[DAN7:13]andreceivesaneverlastingdominion.When thisperson is said to

belikeuntoaSonofMan,thatisnotsaidbecauseHeisamanincontrastwithGod.Thecontrastisratherwiththebeasts-lion,bear,leopardandunnamed beast - that represent the world empires preceding theKingdom of theOne like unto a Son ofMan [DAN 7:13, 14]. After thesuccessive appearance of those kingdoms represented by figuresdesignated as being each like the figure of some beast, there arises aKingdom whose ruler appears in the vision as a man. That Kingdomunlikethoseotherkingdomsistobeeverlasting.

This passage in the Book of Daniel had an important influence uponsubsequent Messianic expectations among the Jews. In the so-calledEthiopicBookofEnoch,forexample,-abookwhichofcourseisnot intheBibleanddoesnotatalldeservetobethere-thetitletheSonofManoccurs frequently as the designation of a heavenly personage alreadyexistinginHeavenbutdestinedtoappearingreatglorytobethejudgeofall theworld.Nowwe certainly do notmean for onemoment that ourLordmadeanyuseofthatso-calledBookofEnoch.Butthethingthatislikely is thatthatbookdoesgiveevidenceof theuseamongtheJewsofthegreatpassage in theseventhchapterofDaniel.On thebasisof thatpassage the comingDelivererhadcome tobe called - in certainJewishcircles at least - the Son of Man, and had come to be thought of asdestinedtoappearwiththecloudsofHeavenandbethejudgeofalltheEarth.WhatourLorddidwhenHecalledHimselftheSonofManwastoplacethestampofapprovaluponthisJewishexpectationbecauseitwasreally in accordance with the Old Testament, and then to apply it toHimself.

Itisaltogetherprobable,then,thatthetitletheSonofManonthelipsofJesusisdistinctlyaMessianictitle.ItdoesnotdesignatethehumanityofJesusasdistinguishedfromHisdeity,butitdesignatesHimasbeingthattranscendent,heavenlyPersonwhowastocomeonedaywiththecloudsofHeavenandbethefinaljudgeofalltheworld.

AnotablepassageintheBookofActsconfirmsthisviewofthetitle theSonofMan.InActs7:55f.,itissaid,ofthedyingmartyrStephen:

Buthe,being fullof theHolySpirit, lookedupsteadfastly intoHeaven,andsawthegloryofGod,andJesusstandingontherighthandofGod,

andsaid,"Behold,Iseetheheavensopened,andtheSonofManstandingontherighthandofGod.

Here the reference to the seventh chapter of Daniel is perfectly plain.StephenseesessentiallythesamevisionasthatwhichtheprophetDanielhadseen;heseesthatheavenlyfigure,theSonofMan,appearingingloryinthepresenceofGod.

AsJesususesthetitle,theoriginofthetitleisjustasclearasitisinthewords of the dying Stephen. So, for example, in MAR 8:38 (with theparallelpassages):

Whoever therefore shall be ashamed of Me and of My words in thisadulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son ofMan beashamed,whenHecomesinthegloryofHisFatherwiththeholyangels.

SoalsoinMAR13:26(withtheparallelpassages):

AndthenshalltheyseetheSonofMancominginthecloudswithgreatpowerandglory.

InsuchpassagesthereferencetothegreatsceneintheseventhchapterofDanielisperfectlyclear.

Inotherpassages, it is true, thereference to thatscene isnotsodirect.Jesussometimesusesthetitle,theSonofMan,whereHeisspeakingnotofHisexaltationbutofHishumiliation.SoinMAT8:20,whereitissaidthat theSonofManhasnotwhereto layHishead.Soalso inthegreatpassage,MAR10:45,whereJesussays,regardingHisatoningdeath,thattheSonofMancamenottobeministeredunto,buttominister,andtogiveHislifearansomformany.Butwemayfairlyholdthattheuseofthetitle in these passages intended to contrast the stupendous dignityproperlybelongingtotheSonofMan,thejudgeandrulerofalltheworld,withHispresenthumblelife.TherealpathosofthosepassagesisfoundinthefactthatitwasnotanyordinarymanwhohadnotwheretolayHishead, and that it was not any ordinary man who came not to beministered unto but to minister, but the heavenly Son of Man, thatstupendous figure,whowasnowmorehomeless than the foxesand the

birds!

Here and there, as Jesus uses the title, theremaypossibly be a specialreferencetothehumanityoftheonesodesignated,butsuchpassagesatthemost are rare, and the prevailing significance of the title is that itidentifiesJesuswiththeheavenlyMessiah,thestupendousfigurespokenof in the seventh chapter of Daniel whose Kingdom would be aneverlastingKingdom.

That,Imaysayinpassing,istheprevailingopiniontodayamongscholarsof widely different shades of opinion, both believers and unbelievers.Hereandthereadefenderofanotherviewofthetitleappears,butIthinkitmaybesaid that theprevailingviewamongcarefulscholars iswhat Ihavejustindicated.ForafulldiscussionofthissubjectIwanttoreferyoutoabooktowhichIhavebeenmuchindebted-thelearnedbookofDr.GeerhardusVosonTheSelf-DisclosureofJesus.

What particularly needs to be said, however, is that whatever view betakenoftheoriginandmeaningoftheterm,theSonofMan,itisatanyrate clear thatJesusofNazareth certainlydid claim thatHewouldoneday sit on the judgment seat of God to decide the eternal destinies ofmen.Thatclaimappears,asweobservedveryclearly,intheSermonontheMount. You cannot get away from it even in the supposedly purelyethical parts of Jesus' teaching. It runs all through the Gospels. Everyhistorian,whetherheisaChristianornot,oughttotakeaccountofthisstrangefact-thatacertainJesus,amanwholivedinthefirstcenturyinPalestine,was actually convinced, asHe looked out upon themenwhothrongedaboutHim,thatHewouldonedaysitonthejudgmentseatofGodandbetheirjudgeandthejudgeandrulerofalltheworld.

Whatareyougoing todowith that claimofJesus? If youhold it tobetrue,thenJesusisyourKingandLord.Ifyouholdittobefalse,thenIdonotseehowintheworldyoucangoontakingHimasaworthyexampleforyourlife.

The conviction of Jesus thatHewould at the last judgment decide theeternal destinies of men was joined with the conviction that He coulddeterminethoseeternaldestinieshereandnow.Heclaimedtobeableto

forgive sins. His opponents got the point of that claim; they got it farbetter than certain modern persons who trip along so lightly over thethingsthattheGospelscontain.Whydoesthismanspeakthus?theysaid.Heblasphemes:whocanforgivesinsbutone,evenGod[MAR2:7]?Theywereright.NonecanforgivesinsbutGodonly.JesuswasablasphemerifHewasamereman.Atthatpointtheenemiessawclear.YoumayaccepttheloftyclaimsofJesus.YoumaytakeHimasveryGod.OrelseyoumustrejectHimasamiserable,deludedenthusiast.Thereisreallynomiddleground. Jesus refuses to be pressed into the mold of a mere religiousteacher.

ThuswehaveseenthatJesus'claimofdeityrunsallthroughtheGospels.It does not appear merely in this passage or that, but is reallypresupposedineverywordthatJesusutteredandineverythingthatHedid.

Therewas,itistrue,aperiodinHisministrywhenHedidnotmakeHisownpersonforthemostparttheexpresssubjectofHisteaching.Itwasalways the background of His teaching and His work; without iteverything that He said and did becomes unintelligible. But during alargepartofHisGalileanministry,asdescribedbytheSynopticGospels,HeseemsnotoftentohavesetforththemysteryofHisownpersoninanydetailedway.

ThatlackiswonderfullysuppliedbytheGospelaccordingtoJohn,whichwaswrittenbyamanwhostoodintheinnermostcircleofthedisciplesofourLord.ButwhatIwantyoutoobserveparticularlyisthatthereisnooppositionat thispointbetweentheFourthGospelandtheotherthree.TheChristwhoissogloriouslysetforthintheGospelaccordingtoJohnis exactly the Christ who is everywhere presupposed in the SynopticGospels.FarfrombeinginanycontradictionwiththeSynopticGospels,theGospelaccordingtoJohn,with itsrichreportof theteachingofourLordaboutHisownperson,providesthekeywhichenablesusthebettertounderstandwhatwearetoldinMatthew,MarkandLuke.

Hereandthere,moreover,wehaveintheSynopticGospelsjustthekindof teaching of our Lord about Himself as that which appears so fullyreportedbytheBelovedDiscipleintheGospelaccordingtoJohn.Thatis

notably the case with a famous passage in the eleventh chapter ofMatthew, which has a close parallel in the tenth chapter of Luke. Allthings are delivered unto Me of My Father, says Jesus: and no manknowstheSon,buttheFather;neitherknowsanymantheFather?savetheSon,andhetowhomevertheSonwillrevealHim[MAT11:27].HerewehavenotonlythesubstanceoftheteachingthatappearssofullyintheFourthGospelbuteven the formof it.TheFather, theSon -howoftenthosetermsappearsetoveragainsteachotherintheGospelaccordingtoJohnjustexactlyastheyaresetoveragainsteachotherhere!

Just consider how wonderfully rich is the content of this verse in itsreportoftheteachingofJesusaboutHimself!NomanknowstheFatherbut theSon - that in itself isavery stupendousutterance.ItdesignatesJesusas trulyknowingGod,andas theonlyOneWhoknowsHim.Wethink instinctively, aswe read, of thewords in theGospel according toJohn:NomanhasseenGodatany time;Godonly-begotten,Who is inthe bosom of the Father, He has declared Him [JOH 1:18]. Howwonderful issuchaknowledgeofGod!Thinkof it,myfriends.JesusofNazareth, a man walking upon this Earth, said as He talked to Hiscontemporaries: "No one knows God save me." How is such richknowledgeofGodpossibletoanybutGodHimself?

But that is not all that there is in this saying. No, the saying goes farbeyond that.No one knows the Father but the Son - that iswonderfulenough.But that isnotall.There issomethingstillmorestupendous inthisverse.Itisthis:NooneknowstheSonbuttheFather.

Justthinkwhatthesewordsmean,myfriends.Theymeanthattherearemysteries in theperson, Jesus,whichnonebut the infinite and eternalGodcanknow.Thetwopersons,theFatherandtheSon,arehereputinastrange reciprocal relationship. They are bothmysterious to all others,buttheyareknown,andfullyknown,toeachother.TheSonknowsthedepths of the Father's being, and the Father knows the depths of thebeingoftheSon.Anineffablemutualknowledgeprevailsbetweenthesetwo.

What does that mean? It means what is really implied in the Gospelsfrombeginningtoend.ItmeansthatthatstrangeManwhoisknownto

historyasJesusofNazarethwasnomereman,but infiniteandeternalandunchangeableGod.Inthiswonderfulverse,thetwenty-seventhverseof the eleventh chapter of Matthew, we have in summary and inimplicationthegreatdoctrineofthedeityofourLord,andwhenweputittogetherwithJesus' teachingregarding theHolySpiritwehave the fullwonderfulteachingofScriptureregardingthethreepersonsinoneGod.

I have not time in the present talk to speak to you longer about thatdoctrine;IhavenottimetosetforthfurthertherichnessoftheScripturetestimonytothedeityofourblessedLord.ButthereisonethingthatIdowanttodrivehomeatonce.

Itisthis-thatthismysteriousverseofwhichwehavejustbeenspeakingdoesnotappearassomeexcrescenceintheGospelpictureofJesusbutasan integralpartof thewhole.Whenwecomeupon this "Christological"passageinourreadingoftheGospelofMatthew,thispassagewhichhasbeencalled"theJohanninepassage"becauseitissomuchliketheGospelaccordingtoJohn,dowefeelanythinglikeashock?Dowefeelasthoughweweretransplantedintoanotheratmosphere?DowefeelasthoughweweresuddenlydealingwithanotherChrist?

Itellyou,myfriends,wedonot.No,wearedealingwiththesameChristas the Christ with whomwe have been dealing all through the GospelaccordingtoMatthew;wearedealingwithexactlythesameChristastheChristwhospoke,forexample,theSermonontheMount.Wearedealingwith the same Christ as the Christ who according to all four Gospelsspokewordsofsolemnwarningbutalsowordsofaninfinitetendernessandgrace.

Whatisthecontextofthisversewithwhichwehavebeendealinginthepresenttalk-thisversewhichsetsforthinsuchstupendousfashionthemajestyof thepersonofourLord?Just letmeread it toyoubeforewepart:

IthankYou,OFather,LordofHeavenandEarth,becauseYouhavehidthese things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them untobabies.Evenso,Father:forsoitseemedgoodinYoursight[MAT11:25,26].

Then follow the words of which we have spoken, the words in whichJesus speaksof that ineffable relationbetween theFather and theSon.Then what follows? Does something follow that reveals some latertheology of theChurch, something that fails to show the unmistakable,characteristic, inimitablequalityofJesus'authentic teaching?Judge foryourselves, my friends. Here is what follows upon that stupendoustestimonytothedeityofChrist:

Comeuntome,allthatlaborandareheavyladen,andIwillgiveyourest.TakeMy yoke upon you, and learn ofMe; for I ammeek and lowly inheart:andyoushall findrestuntoyoursouls.ForMyyoke iseasy,andMyburdenislight[MAT11:28-30].

Are those the words of some falsifier who put upon the lips of Jesuswords that Jesus never spoke? Are those the words of some religiousgenius who used the name of Jesus as the medium through which hemightconveyhisteachingtotheworld?

Oh,no,myfriends;noreligiousgeniuseverspokewordslikethese.Thesearewordssuchasnevermanspoke.

How sweet thesewords are on the lips of Jesus!Howabominable theywouldbeonthelipsofanyother!ComeuntoMe,allwholaborandareheavy laden, and I will give you rest - who could speak those wordswithoutmockinganddeceivingthosewhohear?Iwill tellyou.OnlyHeWho said in the same breath:Noman knows the Son, but the Father;neither knows anyman theFather, save the Son.Theplain fact is thatthatgraciousinvitationofJesus-aninvitationsosweetlyrepeatedagainandagainintheGospelsbyHimWhowassenttoseekandtosavethatwhichwaslost-theplainfactisthatthatinvitationisadivineinvitation.TheonewhouttereditwasadeceiverorHewasGod.

Yet, it isobjected, therearesomanywhowillnotaccept the invitation;there are so many learned men who will not believe Jesus when Headvancesthesestupendousclaims.Yes,Iknow.Theyareverymanyandtheyareverylearned.

But didnot JesusHimself say so; didnot JesusHimself say that there

weremany learnedpersonswhowouldvery learnedly rejectHimwhenHeofferedHimselfastheirSaviorandLord?IthankYou,OFather,LordofHeavenandEarth, becauseYouhavehid these things from thewiseandprudent,andhaverevealedthemuntobabies[MAT11:25].

Which are you,my friends?Do youbelong to thewise and prudent, ofwhomourLordspoke?DoyoubelongtothosewhorelyuponthewisdomofthisworldandturnasidefromChrist?Orareyouamongthebabies?WillyoucometoJesusweakandhelpless;willyoucometoHimasaverylittlechild?Areyouwearyandheavyladen?WillyoucometoHimthatHemaygiveyourest?

Chapter15THESUPERNATURALCHRIST

IhavebeentalkingtoyouaboutthedeityofChrist,andhaveshownyouthatJesus'testimonytoHisowndeityisnotfoundmerelyintheGospelaccordingtoJohn.ItisfoundinallfourGospelsanditpervadesallpartsoftheGospels.Evenintheso-calledethicalpartsoftheGospelsliketheSermon on the Mount the stupendous claim of Jesus is reallypresupposed.

Wemustnow,however,noticesomethingelse.WemustnoticethatthisclaimofJesus is everywhere supportedbyHispower toworkmiracles.That is the way in which the Gospels represent the miracles. Theyrepresent themasattestations toshowthatJesusspoke the truthwhenHecameforwardwithHisstupendousclaim.

This Biblical estimate of the miracles has often been reversed in theminds of modern men. The miracles, men tell us, even if they reallyhappened, are at best an obstacle to faith rather than an aid to faith.People used to believe, they tell us, because of themiracles; they nowbelieve,iftheybelieveatall,inspiteofthemiracles.

A curious confusion underlies this way of thinking. In one sense, ofcourseitistruethatthemiraclesareanobstacletofaith.Unquestionablyanarrativethathasnomiraclesinitiseasiertobelievethananarrative

that contains miracles. Of course that is so. Who ever denied it? Aperfectly trivial narrative is easier to believe than one that contains anaccountofextraordinaryhappenings.So ifIshouldtellyouthatwhenIwalkeddownthestreettodayIsawaFordcar,mynarrativewouldhaveat least one advantage over the narratives in the New Testament - itwouldcertainlybefareasiertobelieve.Butthenitwouldalsohaveonedisadvantage.Itwouldbefareasiertobelieve,butthen,yousee,itwouldnotbeworthbelieving.

SoiftheGospelscontainednomiraclestheywouldinonesensebeeasiertobelievethantheyarenow.But,doyounotsee,thethingthatwouldbebelievedwouldbeentirelydifferent fromthe thing that isbelievednowwhenwetaketheGospelsastheystand.IftheJesusoftheGospelswereapurely natural and not a supernatural person, thenwe should have nodifficultyinbelievingthatsuchapersonlivedinthefirstcenturyofourera.Evenskepticswouldhavenodifficulty inbelieving it.Defendersofthe faith would have an easy victory indeed. Everybody would believe.Butthentherewouldbeonedrawback.Itwouldbethis-thatthethingthateverybodywouldbelievewouldnotbeworthbelieving.

Apurelynatural,asdistinguished fromasupernatural,Christwouldbejustateacherandexample.Therehavebeenmanyteachersandexamplesinthehistoryofmankind.Itwouldplacenoparticulardemandsuponourfaithifweweretoldthatthisteacherandexamplewasalittlebetterthananyoftheothers.Butthen,yousee,wearenotlookingforateacherandexample. We are looking for a Savior. And a purely human, a merelynatural, as distinguished from a supernatural, Christ can never be ourSavior.Hewouldmerelybeoneofus.HewouldneedaSaviorforhimselfbefore he could save others; he just as much as we would need asupernaturalSavior.

WehavesuchaSaviorpresentedtousintheGospel,aSaviorwhoisnotmerelymanbutGod.The really difficult thing to believe is that such aSavior really entered into thisworld. It is averyblessed thing,but it iscertainlynotatrivialthing.Itisnotoneofthosetrivialthingsthataresoeasy to believe because they occur every day. It is certainly not a thingthatcanbebelievedwithoutamightyrevolutioninallaman'sthinkingandallaman'slife.

Ifnowyouaskwhether itwouldbeeasier tobelieve that thingwithouttheindividualmiraclesnarratedintheGospelsthanitistobelieveitwiththoseindividualmiracles,weansweremphatically,No.Itwouldbeeasierto believe the story of a mere religious teacher without the miracles.Certainly.Thatgoeswithoutsaying.ButnottobelievethestoryofthelifeuponEarthoftheincarnateSonofGod.ThewholeappearanceofsuchadivinePersonuponEarth is itself a stupendousmiracle.The individualmiracles, with their individual attestation, domake it easier to believethatgreatcentralmiracle.Theyareproofsofit.TheyareexactlywhattheBible represents them as being - true testimonies to the truth of thatstupendousclaimofJesustobeveryGod.

If you examine carefully the views of those who reject the individualmiracles, youwill discover that they do not really hold on to the greatcentralandallpervadingmiracle.Theymayseemtodoso.Theyusetheoldterminology.Theylovetospeakof"incarnation";theylovetospeakofGodashavingbecomeman.Butwhenyoucometolookatthemclosely,you discover that this use of traditional terminology on their part onlyserves to mask from them themselves and from others a profounddifferenceofthought.Theymeanby"incarnation"justabouttheoppositeof what the Biblemeans by it. They do not really mean by it that theeternal Son ofGod, the secondPerson of theTrinity, becameman thisonce,andthisonceonly,"andsowas,andcontinuestobeGod,andman,in two distinct natures, and one person, for ever." No, they meansomethingentirelydifferent.Theyareveryfar indeedfrombelievingonChristforsalvationasHeisofferedtousinthegospel.

Thetruth is thattheBiblepictureofJesuspossessesawonderfulunity.Without the miracles as the Gospels narrate them the unity would besadlydestroyed.Everyoneofthemiracles,withitshistoricalattestation,addsitsquotaofevidencetoourgreatcentralconvictionthatthisJesusisindeedtheSonofGod.

It is interesting to observe theway inwhich themiracles of the life ofChristhavebeentreatedinthehistoryofmodernunbelief.Thecardinalprinciple of unbelief is that the miracles have never happened. What,then, shall be donewith the accounts ofmiracles that are found in the

Gospels?

ThefirstimpulseofaskepticmightbetosaythatsincetheGospelpictureofJesuscontainsmiracles,andsincemiraclesneverhappened,thereforethe whole picture is untrue. But that of course will not do at all. It isperfectly clear thatwehave in theGospels an account of a real personwhoreallylivedinPalestineinthefirstcenturyofourera.Thepictureisentirely too life like ever tohavebeen theproductof invention.That isadmittedbyallexceptafewextremists.Verywell,then.Ifthepictureisthepictureofarealperson,whatshallbedonewiththemiraclesthatitcontains? Those miracles, according to the initial assumption of ourskeptical investigator, never happened; yet they are narrated in anaccountofarealhistoricalperson.Whatshallbedoneaboutit?

Theobviousanswerofunbelieversisthatthemiraclesmustberejectedinordertoleavetherest.Inthisway,itissupposed,weshallbeabletosiftthematerialintheGospelsinordertoarriveatthemodicumoftruththattheycontain.When,itissaid,wehaveremovedfromtheGospelpictureofJesusthesegaudycolorsofthesupernaturalweshallhaveJesusasHeactuallywas.

Well,itsoundseasy.Surelyitmusthavebeenaccomplishedlongbeforenow - the removal of the miracles from the picture of Jesus in theGospels.Manyofthemostbrilliantofmodernmenhavebeenengagedinit during the past hundred years. Surely their effort must have beensuccessful.

Thatiscertainlywhatonemightexpect.Butinthiscaseexpectationsarenotborneoutbythefact.Theplainfactisthatthis"questofthehistoricalJesus," as ithasbeencalled - this effort to take themiraclesoutof theGospels - has proved to be a colossal failure. It is being increasinglyrecognizedasbeingafailureevenbytheskepticalhistoriansthemselves.The supernatural is found to be far more deeply rooted in the GospelaccountofJesusthanwasformerlysupposed.

Atfirst,itseemedtobequiteeasytogetthemiraclesoutoftheGospels.Allwe shallhave todo, said the skeptical historians, is just to take themiraclesoutandleavealltherest.Eventhemiracleincidentsthemselves,

theysaid,canbeacceptedashistorical;only,wemustobservethattheywere not really miraculous. So Luke tells us in the first chapter thatZachariasthefatherofJohntheBaptistwentintotheTempleatthehourofincenseandreceivedanannouncementaboutthebirthofason.Isthatincident historical? Did Zacharias really go into the Temple that day?Certainly,saidthemenofthiswayofthinking,theincidentishistorical;certainly Zacharias went into the Temple. Of course he was slightlymistakenaboutwhathesaw!Hethoughthesawanangelwhenwhathereallysawwasjustthesmokerisingfromthealtar inthatdimreligiouslight. But such mistakes do not cast any general discredit upon thenarrativesinwhichtheystand.

Soalsoall fourof theGospels say thatJesusoneday fed five thousandmen.Isthatincidenthistorical?DidJesusreallyfeedthosefivethousandmen? Certainly the narrative is historical, said the men of the way ofthinkingwithwhichwe are now dealing; certainly Jesus fed those fivethousandmen.WhatHedidwas just to take those five loaves and twofishes and set a good example by distributing them to the peopleimmediatelyaroundHim.Thatledtheotherfortunatepeopleamongthecrowdtodolikewise.Hisgoodexamplewascontagious.Peoplewhowerefortunate enough to have any food distributed it to those around themandsoeverybodywasfed.Thustheincidentisperfectlyhistorical,butitwasnotreallymiraculous.Thewholetroublehascomefromthefactthatreaders of the Gospels have insisted on putting a supernaturalisticinterpretationuponanincidentthatwasreallyquitenatural.

Itisallperfectlyeasyandsimple,isitnot?Hownicelythetaskhasbeenaccomplished-miraclesasneatlyextractedasanappendixisextractedina modern hospital, everything else allowed to remain "as was," thegeneral trustworthiness of the Gospels rescued, Jesus made to keepwithintheboundsofnature's laws!Whatwasallthebotherabout?It isallsoperfectlysimple!

Suchwastheso-called"rationalizing"methodofdealingwiththemiraclenarratives,aspracticedbyPaulusandothersonehundredyearsago. Ithad considerable vogue in its day. But its voguewas of short durationGod raisedupabesom [broom]ofdestruction for it in thepersonof adisconcertingyoungmannamedDavidFriedrichStrauss.

StrausspublishedhisLifeofJesusin1835.Itwasunquestionablyoneofthemost influential books ofmodern times - a very important book tohavebeenwrittenbyayoungmanoftwenty-sevenyearsofage.

IsaidthatStrauss'sbookwasinfluential.Ididnotsaythat its influencewasgood,andasamatteroffactitwasnotgoodbutverybad.StraussdidnotwriteintheinterestsofthetruthoftheGospels;hedidnotwritefromthepoint of viewof a realChristianbeliever.On the contraryhewrotefromthepointofviewofanextremeunbelief.Hisbook remains to thepresentdayperhapsthefullestcompendiumofwhatcanbesaidagainstthetruthfulnessoftheGospelnarratives.

Yet such a book had at least the use, in the providence of God, ofdemolishing the rationalizing method of dealing with the miraclenarratives intheGospels.Inthosenarratives,Strausssaid, themiraclesarethemainthing;theyarethethingforwhichall therestexists.Howabsurd, then, to say that the narratives have grown up out of utterlytrivialeventsuponwhichasupernaturalistic interpretationwaswronglyput!No,saidStrauss,wemustgiveupallattemptsatfindingamodicumofhistoricaltruthinthesenarratives,theyaresimplemyths-thatis,theyarepopularexpressions,innarrativeform,ofcertainreligiousideas,theyaremerelythewayinwhichpopularfancyexpressedthegreatdebtwhichtheearlyChurchowedtoJesus.

At first, Strauss'sbook causedgreat consternation.Hehadnot, indeed,deniedthehistoricalexistenceofJesus,andofcoursehereallyheldthatmuch that isnarratedaboutJesus in theGospels is true.Butsoradicalwashiscriticism,andsocompletelydidhe fail toput together intoanycontinuouspositiveaccountofJesuswhatwasleftafterhiscriticismhaddoneitswork,thatitwasquitenaturalforpeopletofeelthatStrausshadalmostremovedJesusofNazarethfromthepagesofhistory.

Then, however, an attempt was made to repair the damage. I am notreferring to the defense of the Gospels by believing scholars, but I amreferringtotheattemptbymenofStrauss'sownwayofthinking-men,that is,who likeStraussdeniedtheoccurrenceofmiracles - todiscoverandmakeuseofthemodicumoftruththatmightbethoughttoremainin

theGospelsaftercriticismhadbeengivenitsrights.

Possibly,itwassupposed,thatmodicumoftruthmightbediscoveredbywhat is called "source criticism."TheGospels, itwas admitted, containmuchthatisuntrue,butifwecoulddiscovertheearliersourcesusedbythewritersoftheGospelswemightgetmuchnearertothefacts.Well,animposing attemptwasmade in that direction. TheGospel according toJohn was rejected as almost altogether unhistorical, and then the twochiefsourcesofMatthewandLukewereheldtobe(1)Markand(2)alostsource composed chiefly of sayings of Jesus as distinguished fromaccountsofHisdeeds.Thatwasthefamous"two-documenttheory"astothesourcesoftheGospels.

On the basis of that theory a supposedly historical account of a purelyhumanJesuswasconstructed.Peoplebecamequiteenthusiasticaboutit.The troublesome miracles, it was supposed, were all removed; thetheological Christ of the creeds was done away. But, it was said,something better had been rediscovered - a really and purely humanJesus,aJesuswhowasoneofus,aJesuswhostartedwherewestartedandwonthroughtosonshipwithGod,aJesuswhokeptHisownpersonout of His gospel and simply taught - by word and by life - the greatliberatingtruthsFatherhoodofGodandthebrotherhoodofman.

Suchwastheso-called"LiberalJesus."Itwasanimposingreconstructionindeed. It was thought to offer great promise to the human race. Theshackles of dogma, it was supposed, had been removed. A newReformationwouldsoontakeplace.

But alas for human hopes! Nothing has been seen of the newReformation, and the imposing reconstruction of the Liberal Jesus hasfallen to the ground. I think the first thirty-five years of the twentiethcenturymightalmostbecalled,inthesphereofNewTestamentcriticism,theperiodof thedecline and fall of "theLiberal Jesus."That is a greatoutstandingfact.Ithinkthatitisafactthatisgoingtoloomupverylargetofuturehistorianswhenthehistoryoftheperiodinwhichwearelivingcomesfinallytobewritten.

The great trouble is that themiraculous in the Gospels is found to be

muchmorepervasive than itwasat first thought tobe. It runs throughtheGospelsaswenowhavethem.Thatisclear.ButitalsoisfoundtorunthroughthesourcessupposedrightlyorwronglytounderlietheGospels.Allright,then;supposewegoevenbackofthoseearliestwrittensourcesandexaminesupposeddetachedbitsoforal traditionoutofwhich theyare sometimes supposed to have been composed. Alas, we obtain norelief.Thosesupposeddetachedbitsarefoundthemselvestocontaintheobjectionablemiraculouselement.ThereseemstobenoescapefromthesupernaturalChrist.At the very beginningof theChurch - not at somelater timebut at the very beginning - Jesuswas regarded not just as areligiousteacherorjustasaprophetbutasasupernaturalDeliverer.

Thatistheresultatwhichultramoderncriticismhasarrived.It isa farcryfromthecheerful,rationalizingdaysofPaulusonehundredyearsago.It isafarcryfromthetimewhenmenthoughttheycouldexplainawaythismiraclenarrativeandthat,andhaveaperfectlygoodaccountleftofagreatreligiousteacher.

TheoutstandingresultofahundredyearsofefforttoseparatethenaturalfromthesupernaturalintheearlyChristianviewofJesusisthatthethingcannotbedone.Thetwoareinseparable.TheveryearliestearlyChristianaccountofJesusisfoundtobesupernaturalistictothecore.

Verywell,whatshallwedoabout it?TheearliestviewofJesus thatweknow anything about represents Him as a supernatural person. It isfoundtoexhibitaremarkableunanimityatthispoint.Whatshallwedowithit?Thereareonlytwothingstodowithit.Wecantakeitorwecanleaveit.

Modern skeptical historians are saying we must leave it. All ourinformationaboutJesusissupernaturalistic,theyaresaying:thereforeallour informationaboutJesus isuncertain.Wecanneverdisentanglethereal Jesus from thebeliefs ofHis earliest followers.The onlyChristwereallyknowisthesupernaturalChristofJesus'earliestfollowers.WecanneverrediscovertheportraitoftherealJesus.

Are you afraid of skepticism like that? I am not afraid of it a bit. It iseasilyrefutedbyamerereadingoftheGospels.Ibegyoujusttoreadthe

Gospelsforyourselves,myfriends,andthenaskyourselveswhetherthePerson there presented to you is not a living, breathing person. Theextremeskepticismofthedaywillalwaysberefutedbycommonsense.

Thatbeingso,theextremeskepticismofourdayisveryinstructive.Igetgreat comfort from it. Do you not see, my friends? That extremeskepticism of Bultmann and others is the inevitable result of trying toreject the miracles in the Gospels. That extreme skepticism is absurd.What is the conclusion? The conclusion is that the process whichinevitablyledtothatextremeskepticismwaswrongfromthebeginning.WeneveroughttohavetriedtorejectthemiraclesintheGospelsatall.

Iwonderwhenmenaregoingtodrawthisconclusion.Itdoesseemtoliesoverynearathand.Whenwilltheyceasetobeblindtoit?TheGospelspresent tous justoneChrist - the supernaturalChrist.Theydosowithoverwhelmingly self evidencing force. When shall we just accept theirwitness? When shall we just say that God did walk upon this Earth?When shall we just come to that divine Christ and ask Him to be theSaviorofoursouls?

Chapter16DIDCHRISTRISEFROMTHEDEAD?

The subject of this address was similarly, but somewhat more fully,treatedina lectureon"TheResurrection,"publishedinWinonaEchoesfor1924andinTheBibleTo-dayforAprilandMay,1925.

In the last of these talks, I was speaking to you about themiracles ofChrist. But a treatment of themiracleswould be incomplete unless wesingled out for special examination the central or crowning miracle,whichisthemiracleoftheresurrection.

In treating the resurrection, I suggest that we may begin with thingsaboutwhicheverybodyisagreed,inorderthatwemaygoonfromthemtospeakofthingswithregardtowhichChristianpeopledifferfromthosewhoarenotChristians.

Nineteen hundred years ago there lived in an obscure corner of theRomanEmpireonewhowouldhaveseemedtoasuperficialobservertobe a remarkable man. He engaged in a career of religious teachingaccompanied by aministry of healing. At firstHe had the favor of thecrowd,butsinceHewouldnotbethekindofleaderthepeopledemandedHesoonfellvictimtothejealousyoftherulersofHispeopleandtothecowardiceoftheRomangovernor.Hediedthedeathofcriminalsofthatday,onthecross.

AtHisdeath,Hisfollowerswerediscouraged.Theyhadevidentlybeenfarinferior to Him in discernment and in courage, and now what littlecouragetheymayhavehadwasgone.Hisdeathmeantthedestructionofall their hopes. Never, one might have said, was a movement morecompletelydead than themovementwhichhadbeenbegunbyJesusofNazareth.

Then, however, the surprising thing happened. It is a fact of history,whichno realhistoriandenies, that those sameweakdiscouragedmen,thefollowersofJesus,began,withinaveryshorttimeaftertheshamefuldeathoftheirleader,inJerusalem,thesceneoftheircowardlyflight,themostremarkablereligiousmovementthattheworldhaseverknown,themovementcommonlycalledtheChristianChurch.

Atfirst,thatmovementwasobscure.Butitspreadlikewildfire.Inafewdecadesatthemostitwasfirmlyplantedinthechiefcitiesofthecivilizedworld and in Rome itself. After a lapse of less than three centuries itconquered theRomanEmpire. Incalculablehasbeen its influenceuponthewholehistoryoftheworld.

Whatcaused that remarkablechange in those followersofJesus?Whatcaused thoseweak and cowardlymen suddenly to become the spiritualconquerorsoftheworld?

Atthatpointthedifferenceofopinionarises.Yetevenwithregardtothatpoint there is a certain measure of agreement. It is now admitted byhistoriansbothChristianandnon-ChristianthatthosefollowersofJesusbecamethefoundersofwhatiscommonlyknownastheChristianChurchbecause they becamehonestly convinced that Jesuswas risen from the

dead.

Butwhatinturnproducedthatconviction?Whatproducedthebeliefofthe first disciples in the resurrection of Christ? There is where thedifferenceofopinioncomesin.

The New Testament, of course, has a perfectly clear answer to thequestion.Thebeliefofthedisciplesintheresurrection,accordingtotheNew Testament, was due simply to the fact of the resurrection. Thosedisciples came to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead for thesimplereasonthatJesushadrisenfromthedead.Hehadrisenfromthedead; and they had not only seen His tomb empty but had seen HimHimselfaliveafterHisdeathonthecross.

Ifthatexplanationofthebeliefofthefirstdisciplesintheresurrectionberejected,whatshallbeputinitsplace?Theanswertothatquestionwhichis given today by all or practically all unbelievers is that those firstdisciplesofJesusbecameconvincedthatJesushadrisenfromthedeadbecause they experienced certain hallucinations, certain pathologicalexperiencesinwhichtheythoughttheysawJesusbeforetheireyeswhenin reality therewasnothing there. Inahallucination, theopticnerve isreallyaffected;butitisaffectednotbylightrayscomingfromanexternalobject,butbysomepathologicalconditionofthebodilyorganismofthesubjecthimself.Thisistheso-called"visiontheory"regardingtheoriginoftheChristianChurch.IthasheldthefieldamongunbelieversinsideoftheChurchandoutsideoftheChurchsincethedaysofStraussaboutonehundredyearsago.

I think we ought to understand just exactly what that vision theorymeans. It means that the Christian Church is founded upon apathologicalexperienceofcertainpersonsinthefirstcenturyofourera.It means that if there had been a good neurologist for Peter and theotherstoconsultthereneverwouldhavebeenaChristianChurch.

I am perfectly well aware of the fact that advocates of the visionhypothesisrefusetolookatthematterjustexactlyinthatway.Thereallyimportant thing, they say, was not the pathological experience whichthose men had, but it was the impression left upon them by Jesus'

character.Theyneverwouldhaveexperiencedthosehallucinations,theysay,unlesstheirmindsandheartshadbeenfilledwiththethoughtoftheradiantpersonalityofJesus.Itwasbecausetheyweresomuchimpressedwith Him that they came to have those hallucinations. Thus thehallucinations, say the advocates of the vision hypothesis, weremerelythetemporaryformwhichwasnecessaryinthatdayandamongmenofthatkindofeducationinorderthattheinfluenceofJesuscouldcontinuetomake itself felt.We, theysay, canget ridof that form.Weno longerneedtobelievethatJesusrosefromthedeadandappearedtotheeyesofHisdisciples.ButwecanstilllettheinfluenceofJesusbefeltinourlives.InthechangedlivesofmenwhohavebeeninfluencedbyHimJesushasHistruestresurrection.

Sothethingisrepresentedbytheadvocatesofwhatismisleadinglycalleda"spiritualresurrection."Thisrepresentationaltogetherignorestherealcharacter of the first disciples' faith. What those men had from theappearancesoftherisenChristwasnotmerelytheconvictionthatJesuswasstillalive.NO,whattheyhadwastheconvictionthatHehadrisen.ItwasnotmerelythestateofJesusresultantupontheresurrectionwhichwasvaluableforthem,buttheactoftheresurrection.AttheheartoftheirfaithwastheconvictionthatJesushaddonesomethingforthembyHisdeathandresurrection.TheChristianreligioninotherwordsisrootedinanevent.

Ifthatsupposedeventreallytookplace,astheBiblesaysitdid,thentheChristianreligionistrue.Ifitdidnottakeplace,asthedominantvisiontheory holds, then the Christian religion is false, and a Church thatprofessesitismerelyanemptyshell.

But is themessage uponwhich the Christian Church is founded reallytrue?DidChristrisefromthedead?

Iwanttosayjustafewwordstoyouaboutthatsubjectnow.

Twothingsare tobenotedabout theaccountof theappearanceswhichtheNewTestamentcontains.

The first thing concerns the manner of the appearances. The

appearances, according to the New Testament, were of a plain bodilykind. Jesus did not, it is true, simply resume the conditions ofHis lifebeforethecrucifixion.TherewassomethingmysteriousaboutHiscomingand going. YetHe is plainly represented as beingwithHis disciples inbody. They could touchHim.Hepartook of food in their presence.Heheldextendedconversationswiththem.

Thesecondfeatureoftheappearances,astheyaredescribedintheNewTestament, concerns the place of the appearances. The appearances,accordingtotheNewTestament,werebothatJerusalemandinGalilee;andthefirstappearanceswereatJerusalem.

BoththesefeaturesoftheNewTestamentaccountoftheappearancesarerejected by advocates of the vision hypothesis. The former feature isalwaysrejectedbythem,thelatterusually.

Theadvocatesofthevisionhypothesishold,withregardtothemanneroftheappearances, that, contrary to theNewTestament, the appearanceswere only of a momentary kind. The disciples who experienced theappearances did not experience any extended intercourse with Jesus.TheynotonlydidnotreallyhaveanyextendedintercoursewithHim,buttheydidnoteventhinktheyhadanyextendedintercoursewithHim.Allthey even thought they hadwas amomentary sight ofHim in glory orperhapsthesoundofawordortwoofHisringingintheirears.TheNewTestamentisquitewronginsayingtheyeventhoughttheysaworheardanymorethanthat.

Thesecondpointatwhichtheadvocatesofthevisionhypothesis,ormostofthem,rejecttheNewTestamentaccountoftheappearancesconcernsthe place of the appearances. Most of the advocates of the visionhypothesisholdthatthefirstofthe"appearances"-whichtheyofcourseregardashallucinations-tookplaceaconsiderabletime,perhapsweeks,afterthecrucifixion,inGalilee;theNewTestamentsaysthatthefirstoftheappearancestookplaceatJerusalemonthethirddayafterthedeathofJesus.

Atfirstsightitmightlookasthoughthiswereameredifferenceindetail.Butthatisnotso.Asamatteroffactitisadifferenceofaveryimportant

kind.

If the first appearances, the first of these supposed hallucinations inwhich the disciples thought they saw Jesus alive after His death, tookplaceatJerusalemandonthethirddayafterthedeath,thenthequestionarises why the tomb of Jesus was not investigated to see whether thestoryoftheresurrectionwasreallytrue-whyitwasnotinvestigatedbyfoes as well as by friends. If the resurrection was not a fact, then theinvestigation of the tomb of Jesus would refute the story, and thebeginningoftheChristianChurchwouldhavebeenprevented.

If, on theotherhand, the first appearances tookplace inGalileeweeksafterthedeathofJesus,then,itmightbesaid,whenthedisciplesfinallydid return to Jerusalem it would be too late for the tomb to beinvestigated.Thustheso-calledGalileanhypothesisastotheplaceofthefirst appearances might be thought to remove the difficulty which aconsideration of the tomb of Jesus has always placed in the way of adenialofthefactoftheresurrection.

Whatshallbesaidaboutthat?Twothingsaretobesaidaboutit.

Inthefirstplace,eventheGalileanhypothesisdoesnotreallyremovethedifficulty,sinceitdoesseemstrangeevenontheGalileanhypothesisthatthe tomb of Jesus was not investigated, and, in the second place theGalileanhypothesisisnottrue.

Whereshallweturntotestthehypothesisofunbelieversnotonlyonthispoint regarding the place of the appearances but also on the pointregardingthemanneroftheappearances?

Well,wecanofcourseturntotheGospels.Wecanshowthatthelowviewwhich unbelievers hold regarding the Gospels is not justified and thatthese documents are really trustworthy accounts of what the firstdisciplesofJesussaidwithregardtothefoundingoftheChurch.

Butobviouslyitwouldbeagoodthingalsoifwecouldfindsomesourceofinformationwhichisadmittedtobegoodnotonlybybelieversbutalsobyunbelievers.Canwefindsuchasourceofinformation?Canwefinda

source of information with regard to which there is some commonmeetinggroundbetweenourselvesandouropponentsinthisdebate?

Theansweris,Yes.WecanfindsuchasourceofinformationintheFirstEpistletotheCorinthians.ItisgenerallyadmittedbyfoesofourviewaswellasbyfriendsthatthatEpistlewasreallywrittenbytheApostlePaulandthat itwaswrittenataboutAD55,approximatelytwenty-fiveyearsafterthedeathofJesus.ItisalsogenerallyadmittedthatwhenPaulsaysinthisEpistlethathehad"received"theinformationthathegivesinthefifteenthchapterregardingtheresurrectionandappearancesofJesushemeans that he had received it from the early Jerusalem Church -particularly,perhaps,fromPeter,withwhomhetellsusinanotherofhisEpistlesthathespent fifteendaysonly threeyearsafterhisconversion.Whatwehavehere,then,inthefifteenthchapterofthisEpistle,inverseeightandthefollowingverses,isapreciousbitofwhatmodernhistorianscall"primitivetradition."Itisusuallyadmittedbyfriendsandfoesofourview thatwe have here a summary ofwhat the very earliest JerusalemChurchsaidabouttheeventsthatlayatthebeginningofitslife.

Well, then, is this account by the primitive Jerusalem Church of theresurrectionandrelatedeventsfavorabletothecontentionofunbelievers-thecontentionthatatthebeginningtheappearanceswereregardedasindependent of what had become of the body of Jesus? Volumes havebeenwrittenaboutthisquestion.Buttheanswer,ifwemayputitplainlyandbriefly,ismostemphatically,No.Thispassageisnotfavorabletothecontentionofunbelieversatall.

WhatdoesPaulsayexactlywhenhesummarizesthatprecioustraditionoftheearliestJerusalemChurch?Hereiswhathesays:

ForIdelivereduntofirstofallthatwhichIalsoreceived,howthatChristdiedforoursinsaccordingtotheScriptures;andthathewasburied,andthatHeroseagainthethirddayaccordingtotheScriptures[1CO15:3,4].

Iwantyoutonotice thementionof theburialofChrist inthispassage.Whatdoes itmean?Iwill tellyou,andthenI justwantyoutoreadthepassage for yourselves to seewhether youdonotagreewithme.WhenPaulmentionstheburial,hemeansthattheresurrectionofChristabout

whichhe isspeakingisabodilyresurrection.The thing thatwas laid inthe tomb in theburialwas thebody;and the thing thatwas laid in thetombwas the thing that cameout of the tomb in the resurrection. "Hedied, He was buried, He rose." We follow here, as we read, whathappenedtothebodyofJesus.Ifamanwilljustreadthewordswithoutprejudicehewillseethattheyareatthispointasplainasday.

It is quite clear thatPauldoesnotmean, and theJerusalemChurchasquoted by him did not mean, that the body of Jesus remained in thetomb. The bodily resurrection is the only resurrection that the NewTestamentknows.

Infact,whenwecometothinkaboutit,aresurrectionthatisnotabodilyresurrection is a contradiction in terms.Did those first disciples,whenthey began the work of the Christian Church, merely believe in thecontinued personal existence of Jesus?Was that what gave them theirstrange new confidence and power? Such a view is really quite absurd.They had that conviction even in the sad hours immediately after thecrucifixion. They were not Sadducees. They believed in the personalsurvivalofallmenafterdeath;andso theybelieved,even justafter thecrucifixion,inthepersonalsurvivalofJesus.Butthatconvictionleftthemindespair.What changed theirdespair into joywas the substitution, intheirminds,forabeliefinthecontinuedpersonalexistenceofJesus,ofabelief in His resurrection. It is quite absurd, then, to say that the twothings,intheirview,werethesame.Oursourcesofinformationaboutthebeginnings of the Christian Church know nothing whatever of aresurrectionthatisnotabodilyresurrection.

The second thing that Iwant you tonotice in the reportbyPaulof thetraditionof theJerusalemChurch is thementionof the thirdday.Andthat He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, he says.Thereare fewwords in thewholeBible thataremoreuncomfortable tomodern unbelief than those words the third day in the primitiveJerusalemtraditionrecordedherebyPaul.

ThosewordsdemolishthewholeedificeoftheGalileanhypothesisastotheplaceoftheappearances.Theyshowbythetestimonyoftheveryfirstdisciples, that the first appearance did not take place in Galilee weeks

after thecrucifixionbutonthe thirddayandatJerusalem. Iknowthatattempts aremade to evade the plain implications of thesewords. Thefirstappearances, it issaid, tookplaceonlyweeksafterwards,butwhenthey did take place the disciples who experienced them hit upon thenotion that Jesus had risen long before andmerely had not chosen toappeartothemuntilthen.Butwhyintheworlddidtheyhituponjustthethirddayasthedayoftheresurrectionifnothinginparticularhappenedtothemonthatday?Variousanswershavebeengiventothatquestion,but they are vain. No, the mention of the third day in the primitiveJerusalem tradition interposes a mighty barrier against the wholeattempt toexplain theappearancesof the risenChristashallucinationsexperiencedatatimewhenitwouldbetoolatetoinvestigatethetombofJesustoseewhethertheresurrectionhadreallyhappenedornot.

The truth is that the origin of the Church in Jerusalem is explicable ifJesusreallyrosefromthedead,andit isnotexplicableifHedidnotsorise.TheveryexistenceoftheChristianChurchisamightytestimonytotheresurrectionofourLord.

But, itwill be objected, that is all verywell, but the trouble is that thething we are asked to believe is really unbelievable. We are asked tobelieve that adeadman rose from thedead, andwehavenever seen amanwhodidthat.

What is our answer to this objection? It is very simple. You say, myfriend,thatyouhaveneverseenamanwhorosefromthedeadafterhehadbeen laid reallydead in the tomb?Quite right.NeitherhaveI.YouandIhaveneverseenamanwhorose fromthedead.That is true.Butwhatofit?YouandIhaveneverseenamanwhorosefromthedead;butthenyouandIhaveneverseenamanlikeJesus.

Do younot see,my friends?Whatwe are trying to establish is not theresurrectionofanyordinaryman,nottheresurrectionofamanwhoistous amere x or y not the resurrection of aman about whomwe knownothing, but the resurrection of Jesus. There is a tremendouspresumptionagainsttheresurrectionofanyordinaryman,butwhenyoucomereallytoknowJesusasHeispicturedtousintheGospelsyouwillsaythatwhereasitisunlikelythatanyordinarymanshouldrisefromthe

dead, inHiscasethepresumptionisexactlyreversed.It isunlikelythatanyordinarymanshouldrise;butitisunlikelythatthismanshouldnotrise;itmaybesaidofthismanthatitwasimpossiblethatHeshouldbeheldofdeath.

The point is that this thing hangs together.Wehave in theGospels anaccount of a Person who was entirely unique. He was totally differentfromothermeninHismoralpurityandstrength.YetHemadethemoststupendousclaims-claimsthatplaceHimbeyondtheboundsofsanityunlesstheclaimsweretrue.Theclaimsaretrueiftheresurrectionreallyhappened;theyareahopelesspuzzleiftheresurrectiondidnothappen.

DoyouseewhatIamdrivingat,myfriends?TheevidenceofthetruthofChristianity must be taken as a whole. The direct evidence for theresurrectionmustbetakentogetherwiththetotalpictureofJesusintheGospels,andthenthatmustbetakeninconnectionwiththeevidencefortheexistenceofGodandthetremendousneedofmanwhichiscausedbysin.IfyoutaketheBibleasawholeyouhaveagrandconsistentaccountof God, of the world and of human life. If you reject the Bible, andparticularlyifyourejectthefactoftheresurrection,youhaveajumbleofmeaningless and detached bits of information that dance before yourimaginationinawildandriotousrout.

Oh,thatGodwouldopenmen'seyesthattheymightsee,thattheymightdetect the grand sweep and power of His testimony to Himself in HisWord! Oh, that He would take away the terrible blindness of men'sminds!HasHetakenawaytheblindnessofyourminds,myfriends?DoyouknowtherisenChristtodayasyourSaviorandyourLord?IfyoudonotyetknowHim,willyounotbowbeforeHimatthishourandsay,"MyLordandmyGod!"

Chapter17THETESTIMONYOFPAULTOCHRIST

Forafullertreatmentofthissubjectbythesamewriter,seeTheOriginofPaul'sReligion,1921

InourpresentationofthetestimonyoftheNewTestamenttothedeityofChrist,wehavedealt so far onlywith theGospels.Butnow it becomesnecessary to consider also the other New Testament books andparticularlytheEpistlesofPaul.

The reason why the Epistles of Paul are particularly important in thisconnectionisthatwithregardtothemwefindacommonmeetinggroundwiththosewhodenythedeityofChristandareopposedtotheChristianreligion. Practically all serious literary critics today admit that theprincipal ones of the Pauline Epistles were really written by the manwhosenametheybear.

InthecaseofthefourGospelsitisnotsoeasytofindacommonmeetingground with our opponents.We did not indeed altogether give up thehopeoffindingit.WetriedtopointoutthatthereisacertainamountofagreementevenwithregardtotheGospelsbetweenthosewhoarefriendsand those who are foes of Christianity. It is universally admitted, forexample,byserioushistorians,thatthepictureofJesusintheGospelsisa picture of a real, historical person. We tried to point out certainimportant consequences that follow from that admission. But, after all,thecommonmeetinggroundwhichwecanfindwithouropponentsis,sofarastheGospelsareconcerned,notveryextensive.

Inparticular, there isdisagreementwith regard toquestions ofwhat isknownas"literarycriticism."Thereisdisagreement,namely,withregardtotheauthorshipanddateandhistoricalvalueofeachoftheGospels.If,therefore, we begin by assuming that any one of these Gospels waswrittenbythemanwhosenamehasbeenattachedtoitintheopinionofthe Church, we shall be accused at once of begging the question. Thetraditionalviewoftheauthorshipofallfourofthesebooksisdisputedbyouropponentsinthisgreatdebate.

Now,mindyou,Idonot thinkthat it isrightlydisputed.Iamperfectlywillingtodefendthetraditionalviewoftheauthorshipof theGospels.Ithinkitisimmenselyimportanttodefendit.Ithinkitcansuccessfullybedefended. But the point is that it needs to be defended. Rightly orwronglythetraditionalviewoftheauthorshipoftheGospelsisdisputedbymodernskeptics.

About theEpistlesofPaul,on theotherhand, there isnosuchdispute.Even the most skeptical critics - except a few extremists who arealtogetherwithoutinfluenceuponthecurrentofmodernthought-admitthattheprincipalonesofthePaulineEpistleswerereallywrittenbytheApostlePaulandwritteninthefirstgenerationoftheChristianChurch.

That is a very important admission indeed. I think it is very importantthatweshoulduseitinourefforttoleadthemenwhomakeittoaccepttheclaimsofChrist.Yousee,wedonotregardthepeoplewhodifferfromus regarding these great concerns of the soul as our enemies. On thecontrary,welongtohelpthem.Havingknownsomethingofthemiseryofdoubtourselves,welongtohelpothersoutofthatmisery.Hencewedolike,ifwecan,tofindacommonmeetinggroundwithouropponentsinthe debate, in order that wemay lead them on from the things aboutwhichtheyagreewithustoanacceptanceofthethingsaboutwhichtheydisagree.

It is tobewelcomed, therefore, that friendsand foesofChristianityareagreed in holding that the principal ones of the Pauline Epistles werereallywrittenbytheApostlePaul.

Theman,Paul,whowrote thoseEpistleswas a contemporaryofJesus.ThatcanbeshownfromtheacceptedEpistlesthemselves,becausePaulintheEpistletotheGalatianssaysthathehimselfhadmetabrotherofJesusand it isveryclear that thismeeting tookplaceonlya short timeafter Jesus' death. Paul had abundant opportunities to learn the factsaboutJesus.Hespentfifteendays,ashetellsusinGalatians,withPeter,whowasintheinnermostcircleofJesus'friends,andatthesametimehealsosawJames,whowasJesus'brother.Contactwiththesamemenwasalsoestablishedatthelatertimethatisreferredtointhesecondchapterof Galatians, and at that later time John, who, like Peter, belonged toJesus' innermostcircleof friends,wasalsopresent.BarnabasandSilas,who, according to the Book of Acts came from the early JerusalemChurch,were associatedwithPaul through long periods of time on themissionaryjourneys;andwhileitmaybeobjectedthatourknowledgeoftheiroriginalconnectionwiththeJerusalemChurchcomesonlyfromtheBookofActsandnotfromtheuniversallyacceptedEpistlesofPaul,stillthehistoricalbasisofsuchconcretepersonaldetailsintheBookofActs

willbeadmittedprobablybymostcritics.Atanyrateitisperfectlyclear,inviewofalltheconditionsofPaul'slife,thatPaulhadabundantcontactswiththosewhohadknownJesuswhenHewasonEarth.

The testimony of Paul to Jesus becomes, therefore, a matter of thehighest importance to every careful historian who is interested in thebeginningsoftheChristianChurch.ItbecomesveryimportantforustoaskwhatsortofpersonPaulheldJesustobe.

Theanswertothatquestionisverysurprisingtoanyonewhoapproachesthe subject with ordinary analogies in his mind, because it becomesperfectly clear at once thatPaul regardedJesus in a veryextraordinaryway.HeregardedHimasasupernaturalpersonandheregardedhimselfasstandingtoJesusintherelationinwhichamanstandstoGod.

Hedoes,itistrue,speakofJesusasaman.ButwhenhespeaksofHimasamanwemaywellholdthatheregardeditassomethingextraordinary,somethingunexpected,thatHeshouldbeaman.ThereallyoutstandingthinginthewayinwhichPaulspeaksofJesusisthatheseparatesJesusveryclearlyfromordinaryhumanityandplacesHimonthesideofGod.

Soat thebeginningof theEpistletotheGalatians, forexample,hesaysthathe,Paul,isanapostlenotfrommennorthroughamanbutthroughJesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead. Notthrough a man but through Jesus Christ! Man is one thing, Christanother; and Christ, over against man, is placed with God the Father.CouldtherebeanyclearertestimonytothedeityofChrist?

In one place at least Paul applies to Jesus the Greek word which istranslatedbytheEnglishword"God."IamreferringtoROM9:5,whereChrist is spoken of as the one who is over all, God blessed for ever.Attemptshavebeenmade to avoidholding that theword "God" in thispassagereferstoChrist,butitismorethandoubtfulwhetheranyofthoseattempts can be regarded as successful. According to the plainconstructionofthewords,theconstructionwhichinanyothercasewouldberegardedbyeveryreaderasamatterofcourse,PaulherecallsJesus"God."

ItistruethatordinarilyhedoesnotusethatwordinspeakingofChrist.HedoesnotordinarilyapplytoChristthewordwhichistranslated"God"inourEnglishBibles.Butwhatofit?HedoesapplytoChristconstantlyanotherwordwhichcanclearlybeshowntobeaworddesignatingdeity-namely,theword"Lord."Thatwordhad,indeed,itsusesinordinarylife;itdesignatedamasterofslavesandthelike.Butithadalsoawidespreadreligioususe,and-whatisvastlymoreimportant-itisthewordusedintheGreek translationof theOldTestament (whichwas the formof theBiblethatPaulordinarilyemployed)totranslatetheword"Jehovah,"theholiestnameofthecovenantGodofIsrael;andPauldoesnothesitatetoapplytoJesusOldTestamentpassagesthatspeakofJehovah.

Inviewofthisloftysignificanceoftheword"Lord"Dr.B.B.Warfieldissurelyjustifiedwhenhesuggeststhatthetitle"theLord"mayalmostbedesignated as Paul's "Trinitarian name" of Jesus Christ [Warfield, TheLordofGlory, 1907,p.231.] .Paul teaches thedoctrineof theTrinity -only, as Dr. Warfield points out, he uses a somewhat differentterminologyfromthattowhichwehavebecomeaccustomed.Insteadofspeakingof"GodtheFather,GodtheSonandGodtheHolySpirit";Hespeaksof "God," "theLord"and "theSpirit"; buthe teaches exactly thesame doctrine as that which is taught when men use that otherterminology. And His doctrine of the Trinity includes, of course, thedoctrineofthedeityofChrist.

ThedoctrineofthedeityofChristisallpervasiveintheEpistlesofPaul.Itisbynomeansanisolatedthing.Youdonothavetosearchforittofindit.Onthecontrary,youcannotgetawayfromit.OpentheEpistleswhereyouwillandyouwillfindthedeityofChrist.

Take,forexample,thewayinwhichPaulspeaksofChristintheopeningsofalmostallofhisEpistles."Gracetoyouandpeace,"hesays,"fromGodourFatherandtheLordJesusChrist"[SeethearticlebyB.B.Warfield,"God Our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ," in Princeton TheologicalReview,xv,1917,pp.1-20,reprintedinBiblicalDoctrines,1929,pp.215-231.Also inTHEWORKSOFBENJAMINB.WARFIELD, IIBIBLICALDOCTRINES,1981(1929),pp.213-231.(10Vol.set)].Thosewordsoftenmake little impression on our minds. We trip along very lightly overthem.Butwhyisitthattheymakenoimpressiononourminds;whyisit

that we trip along so lightly over them? Simply for the reason that wehavebecomeaccustomedto them.Theydonotstandout inanyway intheEpistlesofPaulbecausetheyaresocompletelyinaccordwithallthatPaulsayselsewhereaboutChrist.Butinthemselvestheyarereallymostextraordinarywords.Imagineitbeingsaidaboutanyothermanwhoeverlived - thegreatestof reformersor theholiest of saints - "Grace to youandpeacefromGodourFatherandMartinLuther,or theApostlePaulhimselforJohntheBelovedDisciple"-andI thinkyouwillseeatoncehow blasphemous such a form of words would be. Why is it notblasphemous, then,whenPaul says "Gracebewithyouandpeace fromGod our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ"? For one reason and onereasononly,myfriends.BecauseJesusChristisGod.BeingGod,andforthatreasononly,Hecanbe linked in thisstupendous fashionwithGodthe Father and can be separated from the whole universe of createdthings.

ThereasonwhywethinknothingofthosestupendouswordsaswecometothematthebeginningsoftheEpistlesisthattheyareinexactaccordwitheverythingthatPaulsaysaboutJesus.ThereasonwhytheydonotstandoutlikemountainpeaksintheEpistlesisnotthattheyarenothighbutthateverythingelsethatPaulsaysaboutChristisequallyhigh.

Then Iwant you tounderstand something else about theway inwhichPaulteachesthedeityofChrist.Itisthis-thatPaul'steachingaboutthedeityofChristisnotfoundmerelyinthispassageorthat.ItisnotfoundmerelyinanynumberofpassageswherePaulascribesdivinehonorandglorytoChrist-nomatterhownumerousyoumayfindthosepassagestobe.No,Paul teaches thedeityofChristby the inmostheartandcoreofhisownreligiouslife.

WhatwasthereligionofPaulreallylike?Weoughttobeabletogettheanswer to that question, because Paul had a remarkable gift of selfrevelation.Someone,Ibelieve,hassaidthatheisthebestknownmanofantiquity.HehasbaredhishearttousinhisEpistles.Heappearstherenotasacoldacademic teacherbutasamanof fleshandblood,andhehasletusknowwhatweretheinmostspringsofhislife.

Evidentlythosespringsofhislifewereinhisreligion.Thereneverwasa

moreintenselyreligiousman.

What then was that religion of Paul - that religion of Paul that is sowonderfullypresentedtousinthoserevealingdocuments,theEpistles?

DidthatreligionofPaulconsistinhavingfaithinGodlikethefaithwhichJesushad inGod?WasJesus forPaul justanexample for faith - justapioneerinthereligiouslife,justonewhoattainedsonshipwithGodandinspiredotherstoattainit?

Well, somepeoplehave tried to lookat the thing in thatway. But theyhave done so only by closing their eyes to what actually stands in thedocuments fromwhich our information is to be derived. If you simplycloseyoureyesandconstructoutofyourowninnerconsciousnesswhatyouthinkPauloughttohavesaid,thenofcourseyoucanmakePaulouttobeanadherentofwhatmencall"thereligionofJesus";youcanmakehimouttobeamanwhosereligionconsistedprimarilyinanimitationofthe religious experience through which Jesus Himself had passed; youcanmakehimout to be amanwhose religion consisted in an effort tohavethesamekindoffaithinGodasthatfaithwhichJesushadinGod.

Butthemomentyouallowyourselftobehamperedintheflightofyourimagination by some knowledge of the facts, the moment you seek toviewPaulnotasyouthinkheoughttohavebeenbutashewas,youwillobservethathisreligiondidnotconsistmerely in theeffort tohavethesame kind of faith in God as the faith which Jesus had, but that itconsistedinhavingfaithinJesus.Jesus,accordingtoPaul,wasnomereexampleforfaith,butwastheobjectoffaith.Hewastheobject,forPaul,ofafaiththatwastrulyreligious.Whatdoesthatmean?Itmeansplainlyonething.ItmeansthatPaulstoodtowardJesusnotjustintherelationinwhichadisciplestandstowardhisteacher,butintherelationinwhichaman stands toward his God. The deity of Christ is the foundation ofPaul'slife.

Inthelightofthisfact,wearenotsurprisedtoreadwhatPaulsaysaboutChristindetail.JesusChrist,accordingtoPaul,existedfromalleternity.HewastheOnethroughwhomtheuniversewasmade.Hecameintothisworldasamannotasothermencomebutbyavoluntaryact-anactof

wonderful condescension and love. His death was not just a noblemartyrdombut an act of cosmic significance. Itmeant the redemption,from the wrath and curse of God, of a great multitude of men of allnations. AfterHis deathHe rose from the dead and is now exalted faraboveallprincipalitiesandpowers.HebelongswithGodtheFatherinacategoryentirelydistinctfromthatofallcreatedthings.

Have you ever stopped just to think how extraordinary that PaulinedoctrineofthedeityofChristwouldseemtoyoutobeifyoucameto itforthefirsttime?HerewasJesus,amanwhohadlivedonlyafewyearsbeforeandhaddiedashamefuldeath.HerewasPaul,acontemporaryofJesus,anassociateofJesus'intimatefriends,yetattributingtoJesusthehighestdivineattributes, andstanding toHimalways in the relation inwhichamanstandstoGod.

Haveyoueverheardofanythinglikethatanywhereelseinthehistoryofthehumanrace?Perhapsyoumightbetemptedtosay,Yes.Perhapsyoumightbetemptedtosaythatthiswasnotthefirsttimeortheonlytimeinthehistoryof theworldwhenonemanhas attributeddeity to another.Therewas thedeificationof theRomanemperors, forexample,and thedeificationoforientalmonarchs.

But do you not see the stupendous difference,my friends? Those whodeified the Roman emperors were polytheists; they believed in manygods.Therewasnothingextraordinary,therefore, intheirbelievingthatonemoregodwastobeaddedtothegreathostofgodswithwhichEarthand Heaven were already peopled. Paul, on the other hand, was amonotheist.Hebelieved that therewasoneGodandoneGodonly, theMakerofHeavenandEarth.HewasaJew,andtheJewswerenothingifnotmonotheists.Bothbefore and after his conversion thebelief in oneGodwas the very breath of his life.With all his soul hehated the verythoughtthatanyothercouldbecalledGodsavethatOne.

Yetitwassuchamonotheistsprungofaraceofmonotheistswhopaidtooneof his contemporaries, Jesus, honors that belong only toGod,whoreposedinHimatrulyreligiousfaith,whoappliedtoHimOldTestamentpassagesthatspokeofJehovahthecovenantGodofIsrael,theonelivingandtrueGod,theGodwhointhebeginningcreatedtheHeavensandthe

Earth.

No, there isnothing like that in thewholehistory ofmankind,nothinglikethatascriptionofdeitytothemanChristJesusbytheApostlePaul.ItisnowonderthatH.J.Holtzmann,ablestrepresentative,perhaps,oftheunbelief of the nineteenth and beginning of he twentieth century,admitted that for the deification of theman Jesus as it appears in theEpistlesofPaulhewasabletocitenoparallelinthereligioushistoryoftherace[H.J.Holtzmann,inProtestantischeMonatshefte,iv,1900,pp.465f.,andinChristlicheWelt,xxiv,1910,column153.].

Itellyou,myfriends,itisonlyignorancethatcantripalonglightlyoverthisamazingphenomenon.Realscholarsareatleastimmenselyintriguedbyit.

ButsofarIhavenotmentionedwhatisthemostsurprisingthingofallaboutit.ThetrulyamazingthingisnotmerelythatPaulbelievedinthedeity of Christ, but that he does not argue about it; the truly amazingthingisthatheseemstotreatitasamatterofcourse.Aboutotherthingstherewasbitterdebate.Therewasdebate,forexample,abouttheplaceofthe Law in the attainment of salvation. About that opponents of Paulappealed toPeter and the original apostles of Jesus against Paul. Evenaboutthat,indeed,theirappealwasafalseappeal.TheoriginalapostleswerereallywithPaulandagainstthoseJudaizers.ButaboutthedeityofChrist theJudaizers evidentlydidnotmakeanyappeal at all.Paul justassumesthateveryoneintheChurch,includinghisopponents,willagreewith his stupendous view of Jesus Christ. Still more clearly does heassume that the original friends of Jesuswill agreewith it. That is thetruly extraordinary thing. The intimate friends of Jesus - think of it -thosewhohadwalkedandtalkedwithHimwhenHewasonEarth,thosewhohadseenHimsubjecttoallthepettylimitationsofhumanlife-theseintimatefriendsofJesusstood,sofaraswecanseefromtheEpistlesofPaul,inthemostcompleteagreementintheirviewofJesuswithonewhoregardedJesusasveryGod.

Whowas this Jesuswhowas exalted to the throne ofGod not by latergenerationsbutbyHisownintimate friends?TheGospelsgivetheonlybelievableanswertothatquestion.TheirpictureofJesusisindependent

ofPaul; it iscertainlynotjustspunoutofwhatthePaulineEpistlessayabout Christ. Yet it presents just the Christ whom the Epistlespresuppose.

Denythetruthfulnessof theGospelpictureofJesus,andyoucanneverexplaintheoriginofthereligionofPaul.Takethepictureasitstands,andall isclear.ThetwogreattestimoniestoChrist- theGospelsandPaul-leadtothesameend.AndatthatendofthetestimonywefindtheSaviorofoursouls.

Chapter18THEHOLYSPIRIT

In bringing this little series of addresses now to a close, I want to saywhatagreatpleasureithasbeentometobecomeacquaintedwithyou.Ourconversationsmight, indeed,seemat firstsight tohavebeen justalittlebitone-sided; inthemIhavedonemostof the talking. Ihopeyouwill not be unkind enough to say that that is the reason why I haveenjoyed the conversations somuch. Iwill confess that I do love to talkaboutthesethemeswithwhichwehavebeendealing;butthen,yousee,Ihave also enjoyed the companionship I have had with you. These arerather trying days to a man who sorrows when a visible Church thatprofesses to believe the Word of God turns from it so often into thepathwaysofunbeliefandsin;andinsuchdaysitisdoublycomfortingtoconversewiththosewhotrulylovetheGospelofChristandbelievethatitaloneisthemessagethatisforevernew.IdorejoicewithallmyheartintheChristianfellowshipwhichwehavehadtogether,andItrustthatGodmay richly bless you, both in joy and in sorrow, andmay byHisHolySpiritcauseyoualwaystobegroundedupontherockofHisholyWord.

One thing is clear,my friends - theWordofGodwill never fail.Many,indeed,haveturnedfromitinourday.Religiouspersecutionisgoingonapace in Russia and in Germany and in Mexico; in those countriesunbelief isblatantandunashamedand isendeavoring tostampout theChristianreligionbyforce.Inourcountrythesametendency,thoughinlessextremeform,isalreadymightilyatwork;andthevisibleChurchisoftenunfaithfultoitsgreattrustandinsomecasesisengagedindriving

outrealChristiantestimonyfromitscommunion.

But this is not the first time of discouragement in the history of theChristianChurch,andsometimesthedarkesthourhasjustprecededthedawn.Soitmaybeinourday.LetusneverforgetthattheSpiritofGod,who inspired the writers of the Bible, is all powerful, and thatHe canmakeevendeadchurchestolive.

Then I want to say a word of farewell also to any of you who havedisagreedwithwhat I have been trying to say. I appreciate your beingbroadmindedenoughtolistentothatwithwhichyoudonotagree;andIdotrustthat,ifIhavenotbeenabletoconvinceyouofthetruthofwhatIhavebeensaying,GodmaysendyouamessengerofHisownchoosingwhoisbetterfittedthanItoproclaimtoyouthattruthwhichIhavesoimperfectlyproclaimed.

Itmustbeadmitted,aswecometothelasttalkofthislittleseries,thatthe title of the series is something of a fraud. It is not an intentionalfraud,tobesure;butstillanunkindpersonmightsaythatitisafraud.Ihave certainly not succeeded in treating The Christian Faith in theModernWorld in any comprehensive way. Indeed I havemade only abarebeginningoftreatingit.IhavespokenoftheBible,fromwhichtheChristianFaith isderived,andIhave spokenof theBiblicaldoctrineofGod.But I havenot treated all the divisions even of that latter topic. Ihave spoken a little of the Trinity, but can only - in the present talk -touchslightlyuponthelastpartofthatgreatsubject;andIhavenotbeenabletospeak,forexample,ofthedecreesofGodatall.

AsfortheotherpartsofthesystemofdoctrinethattheBiblecontains,Ihavenotbeenableeventomakeabeginningoftreatingthem.IhavenotspokenoftheBiblicaldoctrineofmanandofsin;IhavenotspokenoftheBiblicaldoctrineofsalvation.Ihopetobeabletodealwiththosethemesatsomefuturetime.MeanwhileIcanjustbidyouturntoGod'sWordandreaditforyourselves.Doingthat,afterall, isfarmoreworthwhilethanlisteningtoexpositionseventhoughtheywerefarbetterthanmine.MaytheHolySpiritincreasinglyunfoldtoyoutheboundlesstreasuresoftruththattheBiblecontains!

AsIutterthatprayer,Iambroughttothethemethatitwouldbenextinorderformetodealwithinourlittleseriesoftalks.ThatthemewouldbetheteachingoftheBibleconcerningtheHolySpirit.IhavetalkedtoyoujustalittleabouttheFather,andIhavetriedtopresenttoyoujustalittleofwhattheBiblesaysabouttheSon,butsofarIhavenotspokentoyouspecificallyabouttheThirdPersonoftheTrinity,theHolySpirit.Pleasedo not understand by that neglect that I do not think the subject isimportant.

If only I had time Imight naturally treat that subjectmuchmore fullythanitcanbetreatednow.

EvenifIdidhavemoretime,Ishouldnot,indeed,giveasmuchtimetothat subject as I shouldgive, for example, to the subjectof thedeityofChrist.DevoutpersonssometimesseemtothinkthatthereissomethingderogatorytothethirdpersonoftheTrinity,theHolySpirit, inthefactthat theologiansandpreachersdonotdevote somuch timeor space tothedoctrineof theHolySpiritas theydo to thedoctrineof thedeityofChrist.Thesepersonsareapt,Ithink,tobeparticularlysevereontheso-called "Apostles' Creed," for example, because, after it has set forth anumberof factsaboutChrist, theonly thing that it saysabout the thirdpersonoftheTrinityisjustthebareclause,"IbelieveintheHolySpirit."Surelythatextremebrevity,theywillbeinclinedtosay,isderogatorytothe third person of the Trinity,who is equal in power and glory to theFatherandtheSon.

Well,IdonotknowwhetherweoughttobesoveryhardontheApostles'Creedat thispoint.Nodoubt it isdefective - at thispointasat agoodmanyotherpoints.Nodoubt itought to saysomethingmore about theHolySpiritthanjust"IbelieveintheHolySpirit."ButafteralltheworkoftheHolySpiritisespeciallytowitnesstotheSonandtotheFather.So,although the Bible has a great deal to say about the work of the HolySpirit, the plain fact is that it does not devote so much space to thedoctrinethatsetsforththetruthabouttheHolySpiritHimselfasitdoestocertainotherdoctrines.

Sowe,inthislittleseriesoftalks,havealreadysaidagooddealabouttheworkoftheHolySpirit-at leastoneworkof theHolySpirit-whenwe

spokeoftheinspirationoftheBible,andifwedonotsaymoreabouttheHolySpiritHimselfthatmayperhapsbepartiallyexcusedbythefactthatthedoctrineoftheHolySpirit,importantthoughitis,couldbesetforthmorebrieflythan,forexample,thedoctrineoftheSon.

The teachingof theBibleabout theHolySpirit is foundnotonly in theNewTestament,butalso intheOldTestament.Thesecondverseof theBiblespeaksoftheSpiritofGodasactiveatthebeginning.TheSpiritofGod,thatversesays,moveduponthefaceofthewaters[GEN1:2].Wethinkalso,ofcourse,oftheworkoftheSpiritinempoweringtheprophetswhen they came forwardwithamessage fromGod. In someplaces theSpirit appears as the giver of some special qualification; but the Spiritalsoappearsasdeterminingaholy life.TakenotYourHolySpirit fromme,saysthePsalmist[PSA51:11].ThereisatendencyinsomequarterstounderestimatetherichnessoftheOldTestamentteachingregardingtheSpiritofGod.

But it must be admitted that in the Old Testament we have no clearpresentation of the personal distinctness of the Spirit of God.Wemayhave intimations of it, as we have intimations of the doctrine of theTrinity; but for clear teaching regarding it we must turn to the NewTestamentbooks.

In theNewTestamentbooks that clear teaching is certainlypresent.Atfirst sight, indeed, it might not seem to be so abundant as we mightexpectittobe.ThedeityoftheHolySpiritiseverywhereperfectlyplain,but the distinct personality of the Holy Spirit does not seem to lie soclearlyonthesurface.Henceitisnotsurprisingthatindiscussionsofthedoctrine of the Holy Spirit the question that is chiefly discussed isdifferentfromthequestionthatisdiscussedwithregardtoChrist.

With regard to Christ, the distinct personality of the One Who ispresentediseverywhereperfectlyclear,andthereforeargument isquiteunnecessaryaboutthat.ThequestionthatneedsdiscussionaboutChrististhedeityoftheOnespokenof.ChristappearstoasuperficialobservernotasGodbutasaman.Whatneeds tobedone, therefore, is to showthat superficial observer that this man, Jesus Christ, is both God andman.

Butwith regard to theHoly Spirit it is just the otherway around. Thedeityof theHolySpirit iseverywhereperfectlyclear;butwhatseemsatfirst sight paradoxical, what seems to require discussion, is the truepersonalityoftheSpirit.ItisclearwithoutanydiscussionthattheSpiritofGodisGod,butitmightseematfirstsightverystrangethattheSpiritofGodshouldbeadistinctpersonwithintheGodhead.

However-strangethoughthatis-theBiblemakesperfectlyclearthatitis true.Acarefulreadingof theBibleshowsthat the truepersonalityoftheHolySpirit, thoughnotoftenmade the subject of direct exposition,reallyunderliesandgivesmeaningtoeverythingthattheBiblesaysabouttheSpiritofGod.

Foronething,thegreatTrinitarianpassagesintheBiblereallyimplythepersonality of the Spirit. When, for example, our Lord in the "GreatCommission"attheendoftheGospelaccordingtoMatthewcommandstheApostles tomake disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in thenameoftheFather,andof theSon,andof theHolySpirit[MAT28:19,20] , can He possibly mean that although the Father and the Son arepersons, theHolySpirit isamere impersonalaspectof thebeingof theFatheroroftheSon?Theperfectcoordinationofthethree-Father,SonandHolySpirit -wouldseemtomakesuchan interpretationextremelyunnatural.Soitisalsowiththe"ApostolicBenediction"attheendoftheSecondEpistletotheCorinthians:ThegraceoftheLordJesusChrist,andthe loveofGod,and thecommunionof theHolySpirit,bewithyouall[2CO13:14].HerealsotodenythedistinctpersonalityoftheSpiritwouldseemalmostto involvedenyingthedistinctpersonalityof theothertwomembersofPaul'striad;andsincethatwouldofcoursebeoutofaccordwiththeApostle'swholeteaching,itseemsperfectlyclearthatheregardstheHolySpiritasapersonjustasheregardseachoftheothertwo.

But thepassagewhere thepersonalityof theHolySpirit ismostclearlyandgloriously set forth is found in the intimatediscourses of ourLordwith His apostles as those discourses are recorded in the GospelaccordingtoJohn.HereourLordspeaksoftheHolySpirititasanotherComforter[JOH14:16],orrather(bywhatisprobablyabettertranslationof the word) another Advocate. The Holy Spirit, then, is in one senseanother as over against Jesus; indeed Jesus says that His, Jesus',

departure means the Spirit's coming. It is expedient for you that I goaway:forifIgonotaway,theComforterwillnotcomeuntoyou;butifIdepart,Iwillsendhimuntoyou[JOH16:7].Itwouldhardlybepossibleto set forth more clearly than is done in these words the distinctpersonalityof theHolySpirit.He is not just an aspect of thepersonofJesus;indeed,itissaidthatifJesusdepartsHewillcome.

Inanothersense,indeed,evenaccordingtothisverypassage,thecomingoftheSpiritisthecomingofJesus;humananalogiesbreakdowninthepresenceofthemysteryoftheTrinity.OnecannotseparatewhattheSondoesandwhattheFatherdoesfromwhattheSpiritdoesaswouldbethecasewiththreefinitepersons.

But, all the same, it remains true that theHolySpiritdoesappearveryclearly in thispreciouspassage as a trueperson.Heproceeds from theFatherandtheSon,butnotasamereemanationoramereforcebutasapersonWho stands in a truly personal relationship with the two otherpersons in theGodhead.Againandagain in thiswonderfulpassage thepersonalrelationshipbetweenallthreepersonsoftheTrinityissetforth.Inoneverseatleast,ourLordusesthefirstpersonpluralinspeakingofHimselfandGodtheFather.IfamanloveMe,Hesays,hewillkeepMywords: andMyFather will love him, andWewill come unto him, andmakeourabodewithhim [JOH14:23].HereJesusofNazareth, amanwho walked upon this Earth, joins Himself with God the Father in afellowshipinwhichonepersonjoinsHimselfwithanother.Wewillcome,Hesays.Thehumanmind is aghast in thepresenceof that stupendousWe.GodhascertainlyrevealedtouswondrousthingsinHisholyWord.

In this personal fellowship between the Father and the Son, the HolySpirit? Who is to be sent as another Comforter, appears as a thirdmember of the fellowship. He stands in personal relation both to theFatherandtotheSon.AndIwillpraytheFather,saysJesus,andHeshallgiveyouanotherComforter, thatHemayabidewithyou for ever [JOH14:16].HeretheSpiritappearsasbeingsentbytheFatherattheinstanceoftheSon.InanotherplaceHeappearsasbeingsentbytheSon,andyetasproceedingfromtheFather.ButwhentheComforteriscome,WhomIwill send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, WhoproceedsfromtheFather,HeshalltestifyofMe[JOH15:26].Allthrough

this passage the relationship between all three appears as a warmrelationshipoflovebetweenpersons.

In the light of what our Lord here says, all thought of regarding theFather, Son andHoly Spirit as beingmerely threemodes inwhich onePerson works, or merely three aspects in which one Person may beregarded, is seen to be contrary to the very heart of what the Bibleteaches.No.theBibleteachesuscertainlythattherearethreepersonsintheGodhead.

But, in teachingus that, theBibleneverallowsus toforgettheprimarytruth that there is but oneGod. That truth is pressed home in theOldTestament, but it ispressedhome just as insistently in theNew.WhentheNew Testament teaches that Father, Son andHoly Spirit are threepersons,itteacheswithequalinsistencethatthesethreepersonsareoneGod.TheNewTestamentwritersneverseemtobeconsciousthatoneofthese two great truths could by any chance be regarded as incontradictionwiththeother.Theyareneverforonemomentconsciousofany danger lestwhen they present the deity and the personality of theSonandoftheSpirittheymayleadmenawayfromtheunityofGod.SointheGospelofJohnJesussays,IandtheFatherareOne[JOH10:30];yet inthatsameGospelHesays,abouttheFatherandHimself,Wewillcome;and in that sameGospelHe says, Iwill pray theFather, andHeshall give youanotherComforter.OneGod, threepersons, eachpersonGod-sotheBiblepresents,inmajesticharmonywhatGodhasgraciouslyrevealedtousofthemysteriesofHisbeing.

ThethreepersonsoftheGodheadare,asourShorterCatechismputs it,"thesameinsubstance,equalinpowerandglory."Butisthatso?Arethethreepersonsof theGodheadreallythesameinsubstanceandequal inpowerandglory?

Oneoftheearlyheresiessaid,No.TheSonisof likesubstancewiththeFather,saidtheadherentsofthatheresy,butnotofthesamesubstance.But widely removed indeed was that heresy from the teaching of theBible.Iknowthedifferencebetweenthesetwoexpressions-"ofthesamesubstance"and"oflikesubstance"-hasoftenbeenridiculedasbeingthedifferencemerelyofaniota,thesmallestletterintheGreekalphabet.The

Greekwordfor"oflikesubstance"hasaiotainit,andtheGreekwordfor"of thesamesubstance" is thatwordwith the iota leftout.Whatahairsplittingdistinction, then, it is said,was thatdistinctionwhichkept theChurchinturmoilforsomanyyears!Thewholetroublewasoveronetinylittleiota!

Well,my friends, theunbeliefofourdayusesagreatmanyarguments,butIdoubtwhetheranyargumenteverwasusedinanydebatethatwasmuchmorefoolishthanthis.

Isthedifferencebetweenthemeaningsofwordsreallytobemeasuredbythe number or the size of the letterswherein thewords differ? In thatcase the difference between "just" and "unjust" for example, would beveryslight.Justputthelittlesyllable"un"infrontof"just,"andyouget"unjust."Whataveryslightdifferencethatis!SoIsupposeyouarenotatallinterestedinthequestionwhetheramansaysyourdecisionsare"just"orwhetherhesaystheyare"unjust"!Itismerelyadifferenceofthatlittlesyllable!Eventheword"not"isnotaverybigword.SoIsupposeitmakesnodifferencetoyouwhethersomebodysaysyouarealiarorwhetherhesaysyouarenot a liar!Why indulge inhair splittingdistinctions?Whyquarreloversuchalittlewordas"not"?

Well,wedoquarreloversuchlittlewordsandlittle letters.Littlewordsand little letterssometimesmakeavastdealofdifference.So that littleGreekletter,iota,madeawholeworldofdifferenceinthegreatdebatetowhichwehavejustreferred.IfChristissaidtobeonlyoflikesubstancewiththeFather,inthesenseinwhichthatearlyheresymeantit,thenwehave a miserable mythology that breaks down the gulf between thecreature and theCreator, between the finite and the infinite. TheBibledoesnosuchthing.Thereisnosuchthingas"almostGod"accordingtotheBible.Thenextthing lessthanthe infinite,accordingtotheBible isinfinitelyless.

SotheBiblecertainlyteachesthattheSonisofthesamesubstancewiththeFather,andthatHeisequaltotheFatherinpowerandglory.Onlysocan He be very God. And it teaches that also with regard to the HolySpirit.Thethreepersonsof theGodheadareaccordingtotheBible, thesameinsubstanceandequalinpowerandglory.

DoyouknowthattriuneGodasyourGod,myfriends?WepraythatyoumayknowHimso.WepraythattheHolySpiritmayenableyoutobelieveintheSon,andthat,redeemedbyHispreciousblood,youmaystandintheFather'spresenceforevermore.

* The subject of this first talk has been treated by the author in hisarticles,"ChristianityandLiberty,"inForumforMarch,1931,and"TheResponsibility of the Church in Our New Age," in The Annals of theAmericanAcademyofPoliticalandSocialScienceforJanuary,1933.

ChristianityandLiberalism

TableofContents

Introduction

Chapter1:Doctrine

Chapter2:GodandMan

Chapter3:TheBible

Chapter4:Christ

Chapter5:Salvation

Chapter6:TheChurch

Introduction

Thepurposeofthisbookisnottodecidethereligiousissueofthepresentday,butmerelytopresenttheissueassharplyandclearlyaspossible,inorderthatthereadermaybeaidedindecidingitforhimself.Presentinganissuesharplyisindeedbynomeansapopularbusinessatthepresenttime;therearemanywhoprefertofighttheirintellectualbattlesinwhatDr. Francis L. Pattonhas aptly called a "condition of low visibility."[1]Clear-cut definition of terms in religious matters, bold facing of thelogicalimplicationsofreligiousviews,isbymanypersonsregardedasanimpious proceeding. May it not discourage contribution to missionboards?May itnothinder theprogressof consolidation,andproduceapoorshowingincolumnsofChurchstatistics?Butwithsuchpersonswecannotpossiblybringourselves toagree.Lightmayseemat timestobeanimpertinentintruder,butitisalwaysbeneficialintheend.Thetypeofreligion which rejoices in the pious sound of traditional phrases,regardlessoftheirmeanings,orshrinksfrom"controversial"matters,willneverstandamidtheshocksoflife.Inthesphereofreligion,asinotherspheres,thethingsaboutwhichmenareagreedareapttobethethingsthat are leastworth holding; the really important things are the thingsaboutwhichmenwillfight.

In the sphere of religion, in particular, the present time is a time ofconflict; thegreat redemptive religionwhichhasalwaysbeenknownasChristianity is battling against a totally diverse type of religious belief,whichisonlythemoredestructiveoftheChristianfaithbecauseitmakesuse of traditional Christian terminology. This modern non-redemptivereligion is called "modernism" or "liberalism." Both names areunsatisfactory; the latter, in particular, is question-begging. Themovementdesignatedas"liberalism" is regardedas"liberal"onlyby itsfriends; to itsopponents it seems to involveanarrow ignoringofmanyrelevant facts. And indeed the movement is so various in itsmanifestationsthatonemayalmostdespairoffindinganycommonnamewhichwillapplytoallitsforms.Butmanifoldasaretheformsinwhichthe movement appears, the root of the movement is one; the many

varieties ofmodern liberal religion are rooted innaturalism--that is, inthedenialofanyentranceofthecreativepowerofGod(asdistinguishedfrom the ordinary course of nature) in connection with the origin ofChristianity. The word "naturalism" is here used in a sense somewhatdifferentfromitsphilosophicalmeaning.Inthisnon-philosophicalsenseitdescribeswithfairaccuracytherealrootofwhatiscalled,bywhatmayturnouttobeadegradationofanoriginallynobleword,"liberal"religion.

Theriseof thismodernnaturalistic liberalismhasnot comeby chance,buthasbeenoccasionedbyimportantchangeswhichhaverecentlytakenplaceintheconditionsoflife.Thepastonehundredyearshavewitnessedthebeginningofanewerainhumanhistory,whichmayconceivablyberegretted, but certainly cannot be ignored, by the most obstinateconservatism.Thechangeisnotsomethingthatliesbeneaththesurfaceandmightbevisibleonlytothediscerningeye;onthecontraryitforcesitselfupon theattentionof theplainmanat ahundredpoints.Moderninventions and the industrialism that has been built upon them havegivenusinmanyrespectsanewworldtolivein;wecannomoreremoveourselvesfromthatworldthanwecanescapefromtheatmospherethatwebreathe.

But such changes in thematerial conditions of life do not stand alone;theyhave beenproduced bymighty changes in the humanmind, as intheir turn they themselves give rise to further spiritual changes. Theindustrialworldoftodayhasbeenproducednotbyblindforcesofnaturebutbytheconsciousactivityofthehumanspirit;ithasbeenproducedbytheachievementsofscience.Theoutstandingfeatureofrecenthistoryisan enormous widening of human knowledge, which has gone hand inhandwithsuchperfectingoftheinstrumentofinvestigationthatscarcelyanylimitscanbeassignedtofutureprogressinthematerialrealm.

Theapplicationofmodern scientificmethods is almost as broad as theuniverseinwhichwelive.Thoughthemostpalpableachievementsareinthesphereofphysicsandchemistry,thesphereofhumanlifecannotbeisolatedfromtherest,andwiththeothersciencestherehasappeared,forexample, a modern science of history, which, with psychology andsociology and the like, claims, even if it does not deserve, full equalitywith its sister sciences. No department of knowledge can maintain its

isolation from the modern lust of scientific conquest; treaties ofinviolability, thoughhallowedbyall the sanctionsofage-long tradition,arebeingflungruthlesslytothewinds.

Insuchanage,itisobviousthateveryinheritancefromthepastmustbesubjecttosearchingcriticism;andasamatteroffactsomeconvictionsofthehumanracehavecrumbledtopiecesinthetest.Indeed,dependenceofanyinstitutionuponthepastisnowsometimesevenregardedasfurnishingapresumption,notinfavorofit,butagainstit.Somanyconvictionshavehadtobeabandonedthatmenhavesometimescometobelievethatallconvictionsmustgo.

Ifsuchanattitudebejustifiable,thennoinstitutionisfacedbyastrongerhostilepresumptionthantheinstitutionoftheChristianreligion,fornoinstitutionhasbaseditselfmoresquarelyupontheauthorityofabygoneage.Wearenotnowinquiringwhethersuchpolicyiswiseorhistoricallyjustifiable; in any case the fact itself is plain, that Christianity duringmanycenturieshasconsistentlyappealedforthetruthof itsclaims,notmerely and not even primarily to current experience, but to certainancient books the most recent of which was written some nineteenhundred years ago. It is no wonder that that appeal is being criticizedtoday;forthewritersofthebooksinquestionwerenodoubtmenoftheirown age, whose outlook upon the material world, judged by modernstandards, must have been of the crudest and most elementary kind.Inevitablythequestionariseswhethertheopinionsofsuchmencaneverbenormative formenof thepresentday; inotherwords,whetherfirst-century religion can ever stand in company with twentieth-centuryscience.

Howeverthequestionmaybeanswered,itpresentsaseriousproblemtothemodernChurch.Attempts are indeed sometimesmade tomake theanswereasierthanatfirstsightitappearstobe.Religion,itissaid,issoentirely separate from science, that the two, rightly defined, cannotpossiblycomeintoconflict.Thisattemptatseparation,asitishopedthefollowingpagesmayshow,isopentoobjectionsofthemostseriouskind.Butwhatmustnowbeobservedisthateveniftheseparationisjustifiableitcannotbeeffectedwithouteffort;theremovaloftheproblemofreligionandscienceitselfconstitutesaproblem.For,rightlyorwrongly,religion

duringthecenturieshasasamatteroffactconnecteditselfwithahostofconvictions, especially in the sphere of history, which may form thesubjectof scientific investigation; just as scientific investigators, on theother hand, have sometimes attached themselves, again rightly orwrongly, to conclusions which impinge upon the innermost domain ofphilosophyandof religion.For example, if any simpleChristian of onehundredyearsago,orevenof today,wereaskedwhatwouldbecomeofhisreligionifhistoryshouldproveindubitablythatnomancalledJesuseverlivedanddiedinthefirstcenturyofourera,hewouldundoubtedlyanswerthathisreligionwouldfallaway.YettheinvestigationofeventsinthefirstcenturyinJudea,justasmuchasinItalyorinGreece,belongstothe sphere of scientific history. In other words, our simple Christian,whetherrightlyorwrongly,whetherwiselyorunwisely,hasasamatteroffactconnectedhisreligion,inawaythattohimseemsindissoluble,withconvictionsaboutwhichsciencealsohasarighttospeak.If,then,thoseconvictions,ostensibly religious,which belong to the sphere of science,arenot really religious at all, the demonstration of that fact is itself notriflingtask.Eveniftheproblemofscienceandreligionreducesitselftothe problem of disentangling religion from pseudoscientific accretions,the seriousness of the problem is not thereby diminished. From everypoint of view, therefore, the problem in question is the most seriousconcern of the Church. What is the relation between Christianity andmodernculture;mayChristianitybemaintainedinascientificage?

Itisthisproblemwhichmodernliberalismattemptstosolve.Admittingthat scientific objections may arise against the particularities of theChristian religion-- against the Christian doctrines of the person ofChrist,andofredemptionthroughHisdeathandresurrection--theliberaltheologianseekstorescuecertainofthegeneralprinciplesofreligion,ofwhich these particularities are thought to bemere temporary symbols,and these general principles he regards as constituting "the essence ofChristianity."

Itmaywellbequestioned,however,whetherthismethodofdefensewillreallyprove tobe efficacious; for after the apologist has abandonedhisouterdefenses to theenemyandwithdrawn intosome innercitadel,hewill probably discover that the enemypursueshim even there.Modern

materialism, especially in the realm of psychology, is not content withoccupyingthelowerquartersoftheChristiancity,butpushesitswayintoall the higher reaches of life; it is just as much opposed to thephilosophicalidealismoftheliberalpreacherastotheBiblicaldoctrinesthat the liberal preacherhas abandoned in the interests ofpeace.Mereconcessiveness, therefore,willneversucceedinavoidingthe intellectualconflict. In the intellectual battle of the present day there can be no"peacewithoutvictory";onesideortheothermustwin.

Asamatteroffact,however,itmayappearthatthefigurewhichhasjustbeenused is altogethermisleading; itmay appear thatwhat the liberaltheologian has retained after abandoning to the enemy one ChristiandoctrineafteranotherisnotChristianityatall,butareligionwhichissoentirelydifferentfromChristianityastobelonginadistinctcategory.Itmayappear further that the fearsof themodernmanas toChristianitywereentirelyungrounded,andthatinabandoningtheembattledwallsofthe city of God he has fled in needless panic into the open plains of avaguenaturalreligiononlytofallaneasyvictimtotheenemywhoeverliesinambushthere.

Two lines of criticism, then, are possible with respect to the liberalattempt at reconciling science andChristianity.Modern liberalismmaybecriticized(1)onthegroundthatitisunchristianand(2)onthegroundthat it is unscientific.We shall concern ourselves here chiefly with theformerlineofcriticism;weshallbeinterestedinshowingthatdespitetheliberal use of traditional phraseology modern liberalism not only is adifferentreligionfromChristianitybutbelongsinatotallydifferentclassof religions. But in showing that the liberal attempt at rescuingChristianity is falsewearenotshowingthat there isnowayofrescuingChristianityatall;onthecontrary,itmayappearincidentally,eveninthepresent littlebook, that it is not theChristianity of theNewTestamentwhich is in conflict with science, but the supposed Christianity of themodernliberalChurch,andthattherealcityofGod,andthatcityalone,has defenses which are capable of warding of the assaults of modernunbelief.However, our immediate concern iswith theother sideof theproblem; our principal concern just now is to show that the liberalattempt at reconciling Christianity with modern science has really

relinquishedeverythingdistinctiveofChristianity,so thatwhatremainsisinessentialsonlythatsameindefinitetypeofreligiousaspirationwhichwas in theworld before Christianity came upon the scene. In trying toremovefromChristianityeverythingthatcouldpossiblybeobjectedtointhenameofscience,intryingtobribeofftheenemybythoseconcessionswhichtheenemymostdesires, theapologisthasreallyabandonedwhathe started out to defend.Here as inmany other departments of life itappears that the things that are sometimes thought to be hardest todefendarealsothethingsthataremostworthdefending.Inmaintainingthat liberalism in the modern Church represents a return to anunchristian and sub-Christian form of the religious life, we areparticularly anxious not to be misunderstood. "Unchristian" in such aconnectionissometimestakenasatermofopprobrium.Wedonotmeanitatallassuch.SocrateswasnotaChristian,neitherwasGoethe;yetweshare to the full the respectwithwhich theirnamesare regarded.Theytowerimmeasurablyabovethecommonrunofmen;ifhethatisleastintheKingdomofHeavenisgreaterthanthey,heiscertainlygreaternotbyanyinherentsuperiority,butbyvirtueofanundeservedprivilegewhichought to make him humble rather than contemptuous. Suchconsiderations, however, should not be allowed to obscure the vitalimportanceofthequestionatissue.Ifaconditioncouldbeconceivedinwhich all the preaching of the Church should be controlled by theliberalism which in many quarters has already become preponderant,then,webelieve,Christianitywouldatlasthaveperishedfromtheearthandthegospelwouldhavesoundedforthforthelasttime.Ifso,itfollowsthatthe inquirywithwhichwearenowconcerned is immeasurably themost important of all those with which the Church has to deal. Vastlymoreimportantthanallquestionswithregardtomethodsofpreachingistherootquestionastowhatitisthatshallbepreached.Many,nodoubt,will turn in impatience from the inquiry--all those, namely, who havesettledthequestionin,suchawaythattheycannotevenconceiveof itsbeing reopened. Such, for example, are the pietists, of whom there arestillmany. "What," theysay, "is theneedofargument indefenseof theBible? Is it not the Word of God, and does it not carry with it animmediatecertitudeofitstruthwhichcouldonlybeobscuredbydefense?IfsciencecomesintocontradictionwiththeBiblesomuchtheworseforscience!" For these personswe have the highest respect, forwe believe

that theyare right in themainpoint; theyhavearrivedbyadirectandeasy road at a convictionwhich for othermen is attainedonly throughintellectual struggle. But we cannot reasonably expect them to beinterestedinwhatwehavetosay.Anotherclassofuninterestedpersonsismuchmorenumerous.Itconsistsofthosewhohavedefinitelysettledthequestionintheoppositeway.Bythemthislittlebook,ifitevercomesinto their hands, will soon be flung aside as only another attempt atdefenseof apositionalreadyhopelessly lost.Thereare still individuals,theywillsay,whobelievethattheearthisflat;therearealsoindividualswhodefendtheChristianityoftheChurch,miraclesandatonementandall. In either case, it will be said, the phenomenon is interesting as acuriousexampleofarresteddevelopment,butitisnothingmore.

Suchaclosingofthequestion,however,whetheritapproveitselffinallyor no, is in its present form based upon a very imperfect view of thesituation; it is based upon a grossly exaggerated estimate of theachievementsofmodernscience.Scientific investigation,ashasalreadybeenobserved,hascertainlyaccomplishedmuch;ithasinmanyrespectsproducedanewworld.But there isanotheraspectof thepicturewhichshouldnotbeignored.Themodernworldrepresentsinsomerespectsanenormousimprovementovertheworldinwhichourancestorslived;butin other respects it exhibits a lamentable decline. The improvementappearsinthephysicalconditionsoflife,butinthespiritualrealmthereisacorrespondingloss.Thelossisclearest,perhaps,intherealmofart.Despite themighty revolutionwhichhasbeenproduced in the externalconditions of life, no great poet is now living to celebrate the change;humanityhassuddenlybecomedumb.Gone, too,are thegreatpaintersandthegreatmusiciansandthegreatsculptors.Theartthatstillsubsistsislargelyimitative,andwhereitisnotimitativeitisusuallybizarre.Eventheappreciationof thegloriesof thepast is graduallybeing lost,undertheinfluenceofautilitarianeducationthatconcernsitselfonlywiththeproductionofphysicalwell-being.The"OutlineofHistory"ofMr.H.G.Wells,with its contemptuousneglect of all thehigher rangesofhumanlife,isathoroughlymodernbook.

Thisunprecedenteddeclineinliteratureandartisonlyonemanifestationof a more far-reaching phenomenon; it is only one instance of that

narrowing of the range of personality which has been going on in themodern world. The whole development of modern society has tendedmightilytowardthelimitationoftherealmoffreedomfortheindividualman. The tendency ismost clearly seen in socialism; a socialistic statewould mean the reduction to a minimum of the sphere of individualchoice.Laborandrecreation,underasocialisticgovernment,wouldbothbe prescribed, and individual liberty would be gone. But the sametendencyexhibitsitselftodayeveninthosecommunitieswherethenameof socialism ismost abhorred.Whenonce themajorityhasdeterminedthatacertainregimeisbeneficial,thatregimewithoutfurtherhesitationis forcedruthlesslyuponthe individualman.Itneverseemstooccurtomodernlegislatures thatalthough"welfare" isgood, forcedwelfaremaybebad. In otherwords, utilitarianism is being carried out to its logicalconclusions;intheinterestsofphysicalwell-beingthegreatprinciplesoflibertyarebeingthrownruthlesslytothewinds.

Theresult isanunparalleledimpoverishmentofhumanlife.Personalitycanonlybedevelopedintherealmofindividualchoice.Andthatrealm,inthemodernstate,isbeingslowlybutsteadilycontracted.Thetendencyismaking itself felt especially in the sphere of education.The object ofeducation,itisnowassumed,istheproductionofthegreatesthappinessfor the greatest number. But the greatest happiness for the greatestnumber, it is assumed further, can be defined only by the will of themajority. Idiosyncrasies in education, therefore, it is said, must beavoided, and the choice of schools must be taken away from theindividual parent and placed in the hands of the state. The state thenexercises its authority through the instruments that are ready to hand,and at once, therefore, the child is placed under the control ofpsychologicalexperts,themselveswithouttheslightestacquaintancewiththe higher realms of human life, who proceed to prevent any suchacquaintancebeinggainedby thosewho comeunder their care.Sucharesult is being slightly delayed in America by the remnants of Anglo-Saxon individualism, but the signs of the times are all contrary to themaintenance of this halfway position; liberty is certainly held by but aprecarioustenurewhenonceitsunderlyingprincipleshavebeenlost.Foratimeitlookedasthoughtheutilitarianismwhichcameintovogueinthemiddle of the nineteenth century would be a purely academic matter,

withoutinfluenceupondailylife.Butsuchappearanceshaveprovedtobedeceptive.Thedominanttendency,eveninacountrylikeAmerica,whichformerlyprideditselfonitsfreedomfrombureaucraticregulationofthedetails of life, is toward a drab utilitarianism in which all higheraspirationsaretobelost.

Manifestations of such a tendency can easily be seen. In the state ofNebraska, for example, a law is now in force according to which noinstruction in any school in the state, public or private, is to be giventhroughthemediumofa languageotherthanEnglish,andno languageotherthanEnglishistobestudiedevenasalanguageuntilthechildhaspassed an examination before the county superintendent of educationshowing that the eighth grade has been passed.[2] In other words, noforeign language, apparently not even Latin or Greek, is to be studieduntil the child is too old to learn it well. It is in thisway thatmoderncollectivismdealswithakindofstudywhichisabsolutelyessentialtoallgenuinementaladvance.ThemindsofthepeopleofNebraska,andofanyotherstateswheresimilarlawsprevail,[3]aretobekeptbythepowerofthestateinapermanentconditionofarresteddevelopment.

It might seem as though with such laws obscurantism had reached itslowest possible depths. But there are depths lower still. In the state ofOregon,onElectionDay,1922,alawwaspassedbyareferendumvoteinaccordancewithwhichallchildreninthestatearerequiredtoattendthepublic schools.Christianschoolsandprivateschools,at least in theall-importantlowergrades,arethuswipedoutofexistence.Suchlaws,whichif the present temper of the people prevails will probably soon beextended far beyond the bounds of one state,[4] [which will] mean ofcoursetheultimatedestructionofallrealeducation.Whenoneconsiderswhat the public schools of America in many places already are--theirmaterialism, their discouragement of any sustained intellectual effort,their encouragement of the dangerous pseudoscientific fads ofexperimental psychology--one can only be appalled by the thought of acommonwealth in which there is no escape from such a soul-killingsystem.Buttheprincipleofsuchlawsandtheirultimatetendencyarefarworsethantheimmediateresults.[5]Apublicschoolsystem,initself,isindeedofenormousbenefittotherace.Butitisofbenefitonlyifitiskept

healthy at every moment by the absolutely free possibility of thecompetition of private schools. A public school system, if itmeans theprovidingof freeeducation for thosewhodesire it, isanoteworthyandbeneficent achievement of modern times; but when once it becomesmonopolistic it is themostperfect instrumentof tyrannywhichhasyetbeendevised.Freedomof thought in themiddle ageswas combatedbythe Inquisition,but themodernmethod is farmore effective. Place thelivesofchildrenintheirformativeyears,despitetheconvictionsoftheirparents, under the intimate control of experts appointed by the state,force them then to attend schools where the higher aspirations ofhumanity are crushed out, and where the mind is filled with thematerialismoftheday,anditisdifficulttoseehoweventheremnantsofliberty can subsist. Such a tyranny, supported as it is by a perversetechniqueusedastheinstrumentindestroyinghumansouls,iscertainlyfarmoredangerous than the crude tyranniesof thepast,whichdespitetheirweaponsoffireandswordpermittedthoughtatleasttobefree.

The truth is that the materialistic paternalism of the present day, ifallowed to go on unchecked, will rapidly make of America one huge"Main Street," where spiritual adventure will be discouraged anddemocracywillberegardedasconsistinginthereductionofallmankindto theproportionsof thenarrowestand leastgiftedof thecitizens.Godgrant that theremay come a reaction, and that the great principles ofAnglo-Saxon liberty may be rediscovered before it is too late! Butwhateversolutionbefoundfortheeducationalandsocialproblemsofourown country, a lamentable conditionmust be detected in the world atlarge.Itcannotbedeniedthatgreatmenarefewornonexistent,andthattherehasbeenageneralcontractingoftheareaofpersonallife.Materialbettermenthasgonehandinhandwithspiritualdecline.

Such a condition of the world ought to cause the choice betweenmodernism and traditionalism, liberalism and conservatism, to beapproachedwithoutanyoftheprejudicewhichistoooftendisplayed.Inviewofthelamentabledefectsofmodernlife,atypeofreligioncertainlyshould not be commended simply because it ismodern or condemnedsimply because it is old. On the contrary, the condition ofmankind issuch that one may well ask what it is that made the men of past

generationssogreatandthemenofthepresentgenerationsosmall.Inthemidstofall thematerialachievementsofmodern life,onemaywellaskthequestionwhetheringainingthewholeworldwehavenotlostourown soul. Are we forever condemned to live the sordid life ofutilitarianism? Or is there some lost secret which if rediscovered willrestoretomankindsomethingofthegloriesofthepast?

SuchasecretthewriterofthislittlebookwoulddiscoverintheChristianreligion. But the Christian religion which is meant is certainly not thereligion of the modern liberal Church, but a message of divine grace,almostforgottennow,asitwasinthemiddleages,butdestinedtoburstforth oncemore in God's good time, in a new Reformation, and bringlightandfreedomtomankind.Whatthatmessageiscanbemadeclear,as is the case with all definition, only by way of exclusion, by way ofcontrast.Insettingforththecurrentliberalism,nowalmostdominantintheChurch,overagainstChristianity,weareanimated, therefore,bynomerely negative or polemic purpose; on the contrary, by showingwhatChristianity is not we hope to be able to show what Christianity is, inorderthatmenmaybeledtoturnfromtheweakandbeggarlyelementsandhaverecourseagaintothegraceofGod.

Notes

1.FrancisL.Patton,intheintroductiontoWilliamHallockJohnsonTheChristianFaithUnderModernSearchlight,[1916],p.7.

2.SeeLaws,ResolutionsandMemorialspassedbytheLegislatureofthe State ofNebraska at theThirty-Seventh Session, 1919, Chapter249,p.1019.

3.Compare,forexample,LegislativeActsoftheGeneralAssemblyofOhio,Vol.cviii,1919,pp.614f.;andAct,andJointResolutionsoftheGeneralAssemblyofIowa,1919,Chapter198,p.219.

4. In Michigan, a bill similar to the one now passed in Oregonrecently received an enormous vote at a referendum, and anagitationlookingat least inthesamegeneraldirectionissaidtobecontinuing.

5. The evil principle is seen with special clearness in the so-called"LuskLaws"inthestateofNewYork.Oneofthesereferstoteachersin the public schools. The other provides that "No person, firm,corporationorsocietyshallconduct,maintainoroperateanyschool,institute, class or course of instruction in any subjects whateverwithoutmakingapplicationforandbeinggrantedalicensefromtheuniversity of the state of New York to so conduct, maintain oroperatesuchinstitute,school,classorcourse."Itisfurtherprovidedthat"Aschool,institute,classorcourselicensedasprovidedInthissectionshallbesubjecttovisitationbyofficersandemployeesoftheuniversityof the state ofNewYork." SeeLawsof theState ofNewYork, 1921, Vol. III, Chapter 667, pp. 2049-2051. This law is sobroadlyworded that it couldnot possibly be enforced, evenby thewholeGermanarmyinitspre-warefficiencyorbyalltheespionagesystemof theCzar.Theexactmeasureofenforcement is left to thediscretionofofficials,andthecitizensareplacedinconstantdangerof that intolerable interference with private life which realenforcement of the provision about "courses of instruction in anysubjects whatever" would mean. One of the exemptions is inprinciple particularly bad. "Nor shall such licensehe required:' thelaw provides. "By schools now or hereafter established andmaintained by a religious denomination or sect well recognized assuchat thetimethissectiontakeseffect."Onecancertainlyrejoicethat the existing churches are freed, for the time being, from themenace involved in the law. But in principle the limitation of theexemption to the existing churches really runs counter to thefundamental idea Of religious liberty; for it sets up a distinctionbetween established religions and those that are not established.Therewasalwaystoleranceforestablishedreligiousbodies,evenintheRomanEmpire;butreligious libertyconsists inequalrights forreligiousbodies thatarenew.Theotherexemptionsdonotremovein the slightest the oppressive character of the law.Bad as the lawmustbe in its Immediate effects, it is farmorealarming inwhat itrevealsaboutthetemperofthepeople.Apeoplewhichtoleratessuchpreposterouslegislationuponthestatutebooks isapeoplethathaswandered far away from the principles of American liberty. Truepatriotismwillnotconcealthemenace,butwillratherseektorecall

the citizens to those great principles for which our fathers, inAmerica and In England, were willing to bleed and die. There aresome encouraging indications that the Lusk Laws may soon berepealed.Iftheyarerepealed,theywillstillserveasAwarningthatonlybyconstantwatchfulnesscanlibertybepreserved.

Doctrine

Chapter1

Modern liberalism in the Church, whatever judgment may be passedupon it, is at any rate no longer merely an academic matter. It is nolongeramattermerelyof theological seminariesoruniversities.On thecontraryitsattackuponthefundamentalsoftheChristianfaithisbeingcarriedonvigorouslybySunday-School"lesson-helps,"bythepulpit,andbythereligiouspress.Ifsuchanattackbeunjustified,theremedyisnottobe found,assomedevoutpersonshavesuggested, intheabolitionoftheological seminaries, or the abandonment of scientific theology, butratherinamoreearnestsearchaftertruthandamoreloyaldevotiontoitwhenonceitisfound.

Atthetheologicalseminariesanduniversities,however, therootsof thegreat issue are more clearly seen than in the world at large; amongstudents the reassuring employment of traditional phrases is oftenabandoned,andtheadvocatesofanewreligionarenotatpains,astheyareintheChurchatlarge,tomaintainanappearanceofconformitywiththepast.Butsuchfrankness,weareconvinced,oughttobeextendedtothepeopleasawhole.Fewdesiresonthepartofreligiousteachershavebeen more harmfully exaggerated than the desire to "avoid givingoffense."Onlytoooftenthatdesirehascomeperilouslyneardishonesty;thereligiousteacher,inhisheartofhearts,iswellawareoftheradicalismof his views, but is unwilling to relinquish his place in the hallowedatmosphereof theChurchbyspeakinghiswholemind.Againstallsuchpolicy of concealment or palliation, our sympathies are altogetherwiththose men, whether radicals or conservatives, who have a passion forlight.

Whatthen,atbottom,whenthetraditionalphraseshaveallbeenstrippedaway,istherealmeaningofthepresentrevoltagainstthefundamentalsof the Christian faith? What, in brief, are the teachings of modernliberalismasoveragainsttheteachingsofChristianity?

Attheoutset,wearemetwithanobjection."Teachings," it issaid,"areunimportant; the exposition of the teachings of liberalism and theteachingsofChristianity,therefore,canarousenointerestatthepresentday; creeds are merely the changing expression of a unitary Christianexperience, andprovided only they express that experience they are allequally good. The teachings of liberalism, therefore, might be as farremovedaspossible from the teachingsofhistoricChristianity, andyetthetwomightbeatbottomthesame."

Suchisthewayinwhichexpressionisoftengiventothemodernhostilityto"doctrine."Butisitreallydoctrineassuchthatisobjectedto,andnotratheroneparticulardoctrine in the interestsofanother?Undoubtedly,inmanyformsofliberalismitisthelatteralternativewhichfitsthecase.There are doctrines of modern liberalism, just as tenaciously andintolerantly upheld as any doctrines that find a place in the historiccreeds. Such for example are the liberal doctrines of the universalfatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood of man. Thesedoctrinesare,asweshall see,contrary to thedoctrinesof theChristianreligion. But doctrines they are all the same, and as such they requireintellectual defense. In seeming to object to all theology, the liberalpreacher is often merely objecting to one system of theology in theinterests of another. And the desired immunity from theologicalcontroversyhasnotyetbeenattained.

Sometimes,however,themodernobjectiontodoctrineismoreseriouslymeant. And whether the objection be well-founded or not, the realmeaningofitshouldatleastbefaced.

Thatmeaning is perfectly plain. The objection involves an out-and-outskepticism.Ifallcreedsareequallytrue,thensincetheyarecontradictorytooneanother,theyareallequallyfalse,oratleastequallyuncertain.Weare indulging, therefore, in amere jugglingwithwords. To say that allcreeds are equally true, and that they are based upon experience, ismerely to fall back upon that agnosticism which fifty years ago wasregardedasthedeadliestenemyoftheChurch.Theenemyhasnotreallybeenchanged intoa friendmerelybecausehehasbeen receivedwithinthecamp.VerydifferentistheChristianconceptionofacreed.AccordingtotheChristianconception,acreedisnotamereexpressionofChristian

experience,but on the contrary it is a setting forth of those facts uponwhichexperienceisbased.

But, itwillbesaid,Christianity isa life,notadoctrine.Theassertion isoftenmade,andithasanappearanceofgodliness.Butitisradicallyfalse,andtodetectitsfalsityonedoesnotevenneedtobeaChristian.Fortosay that "Christianity is a life" is tomake an assertion in the sphere ofhistory.Theassertiondoesnotlieinthesphereofideals;itisfardifferentfromsayingthatChristianityoughttobealife,orthattheidealreligionisa life. The assertion that Christianity is a life is subject to historicalinvestigation exactly as is the assertion that the Roman Empire underNero was a free democracy. Possibly the Roman Empire under Nerowouldhavebeenbetterifithadbeenafreedemocracy,butthehistoricalquestionissimplywhetherasamatteroffactitwasafreedemocracyorno.Christianityisanhistoricalphenomenon,liketheRomanEmpire,orthe Kingdom of Prussia, or the United States of America. And as anhistoricalphenomenonitmustbe investigatedonthebasisofhistoricalevidence.

Isittrue,then,thatChristianityisnotadoctrinebutalife?Thequestioncanbesettledonlybyanexaminationof thebeginningsofChristianity.Recognition of that fact does not involve any acceptance of Christianbelief; it ismerelyamatterof commonsenseandcommonhonesty.Atthefoundationofthelifeofeverycorporationistheincorporationpaper,inwhichtheobjectsofthecorporationaresetforth.Otherobjectsmaybevastlymoredesirablethanthoseobjects,butifthedirectorsusethenameandtheresourcesofthecorporationtopursuetheotherobjectstheyareacting ultra vires of the corporation. So it is with Christianity. It isperfectlyconceivablethattheoriginatorsoftheChristianmovementhadnorighttolegislateforsubsequentgenerations.Butatanyratetheydidhave an inalienable right to legislate for all generations that shouldchoosetobearthenameof"Christian."ItisconceivablethatChristianitymaynowhavetobeabandoned,andanotherreligionsubstituted for it;butatanyratethequestionwhatChristianityiscanbedeterminedonlybyanexaminationofthebeginningsofChristianity.

The beginnings of Christianity constitute a fairly definite historicalphenomenon. The Christianmovement originated a few days after the

deathofJesusofNazareth.ItisdoubtfulwhetheranythingthatprecededthedeathofJesuscanbecalledChristianity.Atanyrate, ifChristianityexistedbeforethatevent,itwasChristianityonlyinapreliminarystage.ThenameoriginatedafterthedeathofJesus,andthethingitselfwasalsosomethingnew.EvidentlytherewasanimportantnewbeginningamongthedisciplesofJesusinJerusalemafterthecrucifixion.Atthattimeistobeplaced thebeginningof the remarkablemovementwhich spreadoutfrom Jerusalem into the Gentile world--the movement which is calledChristianity.

About the early stages of thismovement definite historical informationhas been preserved in the Epistles of Paul, which are regarded by allserioushistorians as genuineproducts of the firstChristian generation.Thewriterof theEpistleshadbeen indirectcommunicationwiththoseintimate friends of Jesus who had begun the Christian movement inJerusalem, and in the Epistles he makes it abundantly plain what thefundamentalcharacterofthemovementwas.Butifanyonefactisclear,on the basis of this evidence, it is that the Christian movement at itsinceptionwasnotjustawayoflifeinthemodernsense,butawayoflifefoundeduponamessage.Itwasbased,notuponmerefeeling,notuponamereprogramofwork,but upon an account of facts. In otherwords itwasbasedupondoctrine.

Certainly with regard to Paul himself there should be no debate; Paulcertainlywas not indifferent to doctrine; on the contrary, doctrinewastheverybasisofhislife.Hisdevotiontodoctrinedidnot,itistrue,makehim incapable of amagnificent tolerance.Onenotable example of suchtoleranceistobefoundduringhisimprisonmentatRome,asattestedbythe Epistle to the Philippians. Apparently certain Christian teachers atRome had been jealous of Paul's greatness. As long as he had been atlibertytheyhadbeenobligedtotakeasecondaryplace;butnowthathewas in prison, they seized the supremacy. They sought to raise upaffliction for Paul in his bonds; they preached Christ even of envy andstrife.Inshort,therivalpreachersmadeofthepreachingofthegospelameanstothegratificationoflowpersonalambition;itseemstohavebeenaboutasmeanapieceofbusinessas couldwellbe conceived.ButPaulwasnotdisturbed."Whetherinpresence,orintruth,"hesaid,"Christis

preached;andIthereindorejoice,yea,andwillrejoice"(Phil.i.18).Theway in which the preaching was being carried on was wrong, but themessageitselfwastrue;andPaulwasfarmoreinterestedinthecontentofthemessagethaninthemannerofitspresentation.Itisimpossibletoconceiveafinerpieceofbroad-mindedtolerance.

But the tolerance of Paul was not indiscriminate. He displayed notolerance,forexample,inGalatia.There,too,therewererivalpreachers.But Paul had no tolerance for them. "But though we," he said, "or anangelfromheaven,preachanyothergospeluntoyouthanthatwhichwehave preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Gal. i. 8). What is thereasonforthedifferenceintheapostle'sattitudeinthetwocases?WhatisthereasonforthebroadtoleranceinRome,andthefierceanathemasin Galatia? The answer is perfectly plain. In Rome, Paul was tolerant,because there the contentof themessage thatwasbeingproclaimedbytherivalteacherswastrue;inGalatiahewasintolerant,becausetherethecontentof the rivalmessagewas false. Inneither casedidpersonalitieshave anything to do with Paul's attitude. No doubt the motives of theJudaizers inGalatiawere far frompure, and in an incidentalway Pauldoes point out their impurity. But that was not the ground of hisopposition. The Judaizers no doubt weremorally far from perfect, butPaul'soppositiontothemwouldhavebeenexactly thesame if theyhadallbeenangels fromheaven.Hisoppositionwasbased altogetheruponthefalsityoftheirteaching;theyweresubstitutingfortheonetruegospelafalsegospelwhichwasnogospelatall.ItneveroccurredtoPaulthatagospel might be true for one man and not for another; the blight ofpragmatism had never fallen upon his soul. Paul was convinced of theobjectivetruthofthegospelmessage,anddevotiontothattruthwasthegreatpassionofhislife.ChristianityforPaulwasnotonlyalife,butalsoadoctrine,andlogicallythedoctrinecamefirst.[2]

But what was the difference between the teaching of Paul and theteachingoftheJudaizers?Whatwasitthatgaverisetothestupendouspolemic of the Epistle to the Galatians? To the modern Church thedifferencewould have seemed to be amere theological subtlety. Aboutmany things the Judaizers were in perfect agreement with Paul. TheJudaizersbelievedthatJesuswastheMessiah;there isnotashadowof

evidence that they objected toPaul's lofty viewof the person ofChrist.Without the slightest doubt, they believed that Jesus had really risenfrom the dead. They believed, moreover, that faith in Christ wasnecessarytosalvation.Butthetroublewas,theybelievedthatsomethingelsewasalsonecessary;theybelievedthatwhatChristhaddoneneededtobepiecedoutby thebeliever'sowneffort tokeep theLaw.From themodernpointofviewthedifferencewouldhaveseemedtobeveryslight.PaulaswellastheJudaizersbelievedthatthekeepingofthelawofGod,initsdeepest

import, is inseparably connected with faith. The difference concernedonly the logical--not even, perhaps, the temporal--order of three steps.Paulsaidthataman(1)firstbelievesonChrist,(2)thenisjustifiedbeforeGod,(3)thenimmediatelyproceedstokeepGod'slaw.TheJudaizerssaidthataman(1)believesonChristand(2)keepsthelawofGodthebesthecan, and then (3) is justified. The difference would seem to modern"practical"Christianstobeahighlysubtleandintangiblematter,hardlyworthyofconsiderationatallinviewofthelargemeasureofagreementinthepracticalrealm.WhatasplendidcleaningupoftheGentilecitiesitwould have been if the Judaizers had succeeded in extending to thosecities theobservanceof theMosaic law, even including theunfortunateceremonialobservances!SurelyPauloughttohavemadecommoncausewithteacherswhoweresonearlyinagreementwithhim;surelyheoughttohaveappliedtothemthegreatprincipleofChristianunity.

As a matter of fact, however, Paul did nothing of the kind; and onlybecause he (and others) did nothing of the kind does the ChristianChurchexisttoday.PaulsawveryclearlythatthedifferencesbetweentheJudaizers andhimselfwas thedifferencesbetween twoentirely distincttypesofreligion;itwasthedifferencesbetweenareligionofmeritandareligionofgrace.IfChristprovidesonlyapartofoursalvation,leavingustoprovidetherest,thenwearestillhopelessundertheloadofsin.Fornomatterhowsmallthegapwhichmustbebridgedbeforesalvationcanbeattained,theawakenedconscienceseesclearlythatourwretchedattemptatgoodnessisinsufficienteventobridgethatgap.Theguiltysoulentersagain into the hopeless reckoning with God, to determine whether wehave really done our part. And thus we groan again under the old

bondageof the law.Suchanattempt topieceout theworkofChristbyourownmerit,Paulsawclearly,istheveryessenceofunbelief;Christwilldo everything or nothing, and the only hope is to throw ourselvesunreservedlyonHismercyandtrustHimforall.

Paul certainly was right. The differences which divided him from theJudaizerswasnomeretheologicalsubtlety,butconcernedtheveryheartandcoreofthereligionofChrist."JustasIamwithoutoneplea,ButthatThybloodwasshedforme"--thatwaswhatPaulwascontendingfor inGalatia; that hymnwouldnever have beenwritten if the Judaizershadwon. And without the thing which that hymn expresses there is noChristianityatall.

Certainly,then,Paulwasnoadvocateofanundogmaticreligion;hewasinterestedaboveeverythingelseintheobjectiveanduniversaltruthofhismessage. Somuch will probably be admitted by serious historians, nomatterwhattheirownpersonalattitudetowardthereligionofPaulmaybe.Sometimes,indeed,themodernliberalpreacherseekstoproduceanoppositeimpressionbyquotingoutoftheircontextwordsofPaulwhichheinterpretsinawayasfarremovedaspossiblefromtheoriginalsense.The truth is, it is hard to give Paul up. The modern liberal desires toproduceupon themindsof simpleChristians (anduponhisownmind)theimpressionofsomesortofcontinuitybetweenmodernliberalismandthe thought and life of the great Apostle. But such an impression isaltogether misleading. Paul was not interested merely in the ethicalprinciplesofJesus;hewasnotinterestedmerelyingeneralprinciplesofreligionorofethics.Onthecontrary,hewasinterestedintheredeemingwork of Christ and its effect upon us. His primary interest was inChristian doctrine, and Christian doctrine not merely in itspresuppositions but at its center. If Christianity is to be madeindependent of doctrine, then Paulinism must be removed fromChristianityrootandbranch.

Butwhatofthat?Somemenarenotafraidoftheconclusion.IfPaulinismmustberemoved,theysay,wecangetalongwithoutit.Mayitnotturnout that in introducing a doctrinal element into the life of the ChurchPaul was only perverting a primitive Christianity which was asindependent of doctrine as even the modern liberal preacher could

desire?

This suggestion is clearly overruled by the historical evidence. Theproblemcertainlycannotbesolvedinsoeasyaway.ManyattemptshaveindeedbeenmadetoseparatethereligionofPaulsharplyfromthatoftheprimitive Jerusalem Church; many attempts have been made to showthat Paul introduced an entirely new principle into the Christianmovement or even was the founder of a new religion.But all suchattemptshaveresultedinfailure.ThePaulineEpistlesthemselvesattestafundamentalunityofprinciplebetweenPaulandtheoriginalcompanionsofJesus,andthewholeearlyhistoryoftheChurchbecomesunintelligibleexcept on the basis of such unity. Certainly with regard to thefundamentallydoctrinalcharacterofChristianityPaulwasnoinnovator.The fact appears in the whole character of Paul's relationship to theJerusalemChurchasitisattestedbytheEpistles,anditalsoappearswithstartling clearness in thepreciouspassage in 1Cor. xv.3-7,wherePaulsummarizes the tradition which he had received from the primitiveChurch.Whatisitthatformsthecontentofthatprimitiveteaching?IsitageneralprincipleofthefatherlinessofGodorthebrotherlinessofman?Is it a vague admiration for the character of Jesus such as that whichprevails inthemodernChurch?Nothingcouldbe further fromthe fact."Christdiedforoursins,"said theprimitivedisciples, "according to theScriptures;hewasburied;hehasbeenraisedonthethirddayaccordingto the Scriptures." From the beginning, the Christian gospel, as indeedthe name "gospel" or "good news" implies, consisted in an account ofsomething thathadhappened.And fromthebeginning, themeaningofthehappeningwassetforth;andwhenthemeaningofthehappeningwassetforththentherewasChristiandoctrine."Christdied"--thatishistory;"Christdiedforoursins"--that isdoctrine.Withoutthesetwoelements,joinedinanabsolutelyindissolubleunion,thereisnoChristianity.

It is perfectly clear, then, that the first Christian missionaries did notsimply come forward with an exhortation they did not say: "Jesus ofNazareth livedawonderful lifeof filialpiety, andwe call uponyouourhearers to yield yourselves, as we have done, to the spell of that life."Certainly that iswhatmodern historianswould have expected the firstChristianmissionariestosay,butitmustberecognizedthatasamatter

of fact they said nothing of the kind. Conceivably the first disciples ofJesus, after the catastrophe ofHis death,might have engaged in quietmeditationuponHis teaching.Theymighthavesaid to themselves that"OurFatherwhichartinheaven"wasagoodwayofaddressingGodeventhoughtheOnewhohadtaughtthemthatprayerwasdead.TheymighthaveclungtotheethicalprinciplesofJesusandcherishedthevaguehopethattheOnewhoenunciatedsuchprincipleshadsomepersonalexistencebeyondthegrave.Suchredactionsmighthaveseemedverynaturaltothemodern man. But to Peter, James and John they certainly neveroccurred. Jesus had raised in them high hopes; those hopes weredestroyed by the Cross; and reflections on the general principles ofreligion and ethicswerequitepowerless to revive thehopes again.ThedisciplesofJesushadevidentlybeenfarinferiortotheirMasterineverypossibleway; they had not understoodHis lofty spiritual teaching, buteveninthehourofsolemncrisishadquarreledovergreatplaces in theapproachingKingdom.WhathopewastherethatsuchmencouldsucceedwheretheirMasterhad failed?EvenwhenHehadbeenwith them, theyhadbeenpowerless;andnow thatHewas taken from them,what littlepowertheymayhavehadwasgone.[3]

Yetthosesameweak,discouragedmen,withinafewdaysafterthedeathof theirMaster, instituted themost important spiritualmovement thatthe world has ever seen. What had produced the astonishing change?Whathadtransformedtheweakandcowardlydisciplesintothespiritualconquerorsoftheworld?EvidentlyitwasnotthemerememoryofJesus'life, for that was a source of sadness rather than of joy. Evidently thedisciples of Jesus, within the few days between the crucifixion and thebeginningoftheirworkinJerusalem,hadreceivedsomenewequipmentfortheirtask.Whatthatnewequipmentwas,atleasttheoutstandingandexternalelementinit(tosaynothingoftheendowmentwhichChristianmenbelieve tohavebeen received at Pentecost), is perfectly plain. Thegreat weapon with which the disciples of Jesus set out to conquer theworld was not a mere comprehension of eternal principles; it was anhistoricalmessage,anaccountofsomethingthathadrecentlyhappened,itwasthemessage,"Heisrisen."[4]

But themessage of the resurrectionwas not isolated. Itwas connected

withthedeathofJesus,seennowtobenotafailurebutatriumphantactof divine grace; it was connected with the entire appearance of Jesusuponearth.ThecomingofJesuswasunderstoodnowasanactofGodbywhich sinfulmenwere saved.TheprimitiveChurchwas concernednotmerelywithwhatJesushadsaid,butalso,andprimarily,withwhatJesushaddone.Theworldwastoberedeemedthroughtheproclamationofanevent.Andwiththeeventwentthemeaningoftheevent;andthesettingforthoftheeventwiththemeaningoftheeventwasdoctrine.ThesetwoelementsarealwayscombinedintheChristianmessage.Thenarrationofthefactsishistory;thenarrationofthefactswiththemeaningofthefactsis doctrine. "Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead andburied"--thatishistory."HelovedmeandgaveHimselfforme"--that isdoctrine.SuchwastheChristianityoftheprimitiveChurch.

"But,"itmaybesaid,"eveniftheChristianityoftheprimitiveChurchwasdependentupondoctrine,wemay still emancipate ourselves from suchdependence;wemayappealfromtheprimitiveChurchtoJesusHimself.It has already been admitted that if doctrine is to be abandoned Paulmust be abandoned:it may now be admitted that if doctrine is to beabandoned,eventheprimitiveJerusalemChurch,withitsmessageoftheresurrection,mustbeabandoned.ButpossiblywecanstillfindinJesusHimself the simple, non-doctrinal religion that we desire." Such is therealmeaningofthemodernslogan,"BacktoChrist."

Must we really take such a step as that? It would certainly be anextraordinarystep.Agreatreligionderiveditspowerfromthemessageofthe redeeming work of Christ; without that message Jesus and Hisdisciples would soon have been forgotten. The samemessage, with itsimplications,hasbeentheveryheartandsouloftheChristianmovementthroughoutthecenturies.Yetwearenowaskedtobelievethatthethingthat has given Christianity its power all through the centuries was ablunder, that the originators of themovementmisunderstood radicallythemeaningoftheirMaster'slifeandwork,andthatithasbeenlefttousmodernstogetthefirstinklingoftheinitialmistake.Evenifthisviewofthecasewerecorrect,andevenifJesusHimselftaughtareligionlikethatofmodern liberalism, itwould still bedoubtfulwhether sucha religioncould rightly be called Christianity; for the name Christian was first

appliedonlyafterthesupposeddecisivechangehadtakenplace,anditisverydoubtfulwhetheranamewhichthroughnineteencenturieshasbeenso firmly attached to one religion ought now suddenly to be applied toanother. If the first disciples of Jesus really departed so radically fromtheirMaster, thenthebetterterminologywouldprobably leadus tosaysimply that Jesuswas not the founder of Christianity, but of a simple,non-doctrinal religion, long forgotten,butnow rediscoveredbymodernmen.Evenso,thecontrastbetweenliberalismandChristianitywouldstillappear.

Butasamatteroffact,suchastrangestateofaffairsdoesnotprevailatall.ItisnottruethatinbasingChristianityuponaneventthedisciplesofJesus were departing from the teaching of their Master. For certainlyJesusHimself did the same thing. Jesus did not content Himself withenunciatinggeneralprinciplesofreligionandethics;thepictureofJesusasasagesimilartoConfucius,utteringwisemaximsaboutconduct,maysatisfy Mr. H. G.Wells, as he trips along lightly over the problems ofhistory, but it disappears so soonas one engages seriously in historicalresearch."Repent,"saidJesus,"fortheKingdomofHeavenisathand."The gospel which Jesus proclaimed in Galilee consisted in theproclamation of a coming Kingdom. But clearly Jesus regarded thecomingoftheKingdomasanevent,orasaseriesofevents.NodoubtHealso regarded theKingdomas a present reality in the souls ofmen;nodoubtHerepresentedtheKingdominonesenseasalreadypresent.Weshallnotreallysucceedingettingalongwithoutthisaspectofthematterin our interpretation of Jesus' words. But we shall also not get alongwithouttheotheraspect,accordingtowhichthecomingoftheKingdomdepended upon definite and catastrophic events. But if Jesus regardedthecomingoftheKingdomasdependentuponadefiniteevent,thenHisteachingwassimilaratthedecisivepointtothatoftheprimitiveChurch;neither He nor the primitive Church enunciated merely general andpermanentprinciplesofreligion;bothofthem,onthecontrary,madethemessagedependuponsomethingthathappened.Only,intheteachingofJesusthehappeningwasrepresentedasbeingstillinthefuture,whileinthatoftheJerusalemChurchthefirstactofitatleastlayalreadyinthepast.Jesusproclaimedtheeventascoming;thedisciplesproclaimedpartof it at leastasalreadypast;but the important thing is thatbothJesus

and thedisciplesdidproclaimanevent.Jesuswascertainlynotamereenunciatorofpermanenttruths,likethemodernliberalpreacher;onthecontraryHewasconsciousof standingat the turning-pointof theages,whenwhathadneverbeenwasnowtocometobe.

ButJesusannouncednotonlyanevent;Heannouncedalsothemeaningof the event. It is natural, indeed, that the fullmeaning could bemadeclearonlyafter theeventhadtakenplace. IfJesusreallycame, then, toannounce,andtobringabout,anevent,thediscipleswerenotdepartingfromHispurpose, if they set forth themeaningof theeventmorefullythanitcouldbesetforthduringthepreliminaryperiodconstitutedbytheearthly ministry of theirMaster. But Jesus Himself, though by way ofprophecy,didsetforththemeaningofthegreathappeningthatwastobeatthebasisofthenewera.

CertainlyHedidso,andgrandly,ifthewordsattributedtoHiminalloftheGospelsarereallyHis.ButeveniftheFourthGospelberejected,andevenifthemostradicalcriticismbeappliedtotheotherthree,itwillstillbeimpossibletogetridofthiselementinJesus'teaching.Thesignificantwords attributed to Jesus at the Last Supper with regard to Hisapproachingdeath,andtheutteranceofJesusinMk.x.45("TheSonofMancamenottobeministereduntobuttominister,andtogiveHislifearansomformany"),haveindeedbeenthesubjectofvigorousdebate.ItisdifficulttoacceptsuchwordsasauthenticandyetmaintainthemodernviewofJesusatall.Yetitisalsodifficulttogetridofthemonanycriticaltheory.Whatwe are now concernedwith, however, is somethingmoregeneralthantheauthenticityevenofthesepreciouswords.WhatwearenowconcernedtoobserveisthatJesuscertainlydidnotcontentHimselfwith the enunciation of permanent moral principles; He certainly didannounceanapproachingevent;andHecertainlydidnotannouncetheeventwithoutgivingsomeaccountofitsmeaning.ButwhenHegaveanaccount of themeaning of the event, nomatter how brief that accountmay have been, He was overstepping the line that separates anundogmaticreligion,orevenadogmaticreligionthatteachesonlyeternalprinciples,fromonethatisrootedinthesignificanceofdefinitehistoricalfacts;Hewasplacinga great gulf betweenHimself and thephilosophicmodernliberalismwhichtodayincorrectlybearsHisname.

InanotherwayalsotheteachingofJesuswasrootedindoctrine.Itwasrootedindoctrinebecause itdependeduponastupendouspresentationofJesus'ownPerson.Theassertionisoftenmade,indeed,thatJesuskeptHis own Person out of His gospel, and came forward merely as thesupreme prophet of God. That assertion lies at the very root of themodernliberalconceptionofthelifeofChrist.Butcommonasitis,itisradicallyfalse.Anditisinterestingtoobservehowtheliberalhistoriansthemselves,sosoonastheybegintodealseriouslywiththesources,areobligedtoadmitthattherealJesuswasnotallthattheycouldhavelikedJesustobe.AHoustonStewartChamberlain,[5]indeed,canconstructaJesuswhowastheadvocateofapure,"formless,"non-doctrinalreligion;buttrainedhistorians,despitetheirowndesires,areobligedtoadmitthattherewasanelement in therealJesuswhichrefuses tobepressed intoany such mold. There is to the liberal historians, as Heitmuller hassignificantlysaid,"somethingalmostuncanny"aboutJesus.[6]

This"uncanny"elementinJesusisfoundinHisMessianicconsciousness.Thestrangefactisthatthispureteacherofrighteousnessappealedtobymodern liberalism, this classical exponent of the non-doctrinal religionwhichissupposedtounderlieallthehistoricalreligionsastheirreducibletruth remaining after the doctrinal accretions have been removed--thestrange fact is that thissupremerevealerofeternal truthsupposed thatHe was to be the chief actor in a world catastrophe and was to sit injudgment upon thewhole earth. Such is the stupendous form inwhichJesusappliedtoHimselfthecategoryofMessiahship.

It is interesting to observe how modern men have dealt with theMessianic consciousness of Jesus. Some, like Mr. H. G. Wells, havepractically ignored it. Without discussing the question whether it behistoricalornottheyhavepracticallytreateditasthoughitdidnotexist,andhavenotallowedittodisturbthematallintheirconstructionofthesageofNazareth.TheJesusthusreconstructedmaybeusefulasinvestingmodernprogramswiththesanctityofHishallowedname;Mr.Wellsmayfind it edifying to associate Jesus with Confucius in a brotherhood ofbeneficent vagueness. But what ought to be clearly understood is thatsuch a Jesus has nothing to do with history. He is a purely imaginaryfigure,asymbolandnotafact.

Others,moreseriously,haverecognizedtheexistenceoftheproblem,buthavesought toavoid itbydenying thatJesusever thought thatHewastheMessiah,andbysupportingtheirdenial,notbymereassertions,butbyacriticalexaminationofthesources.Suchwastheeffort,forexample,ofW.Wrede,[7]andabrillianteffortitwas.Butithasresultedinfailure.TheMessianicconsciousnessofJesusisnotmerelyrootedinthesourcesconsideredasdocuments,butitliesattheverybasisofthewholeedificeoftheChurch.If,asJ.Weisshaspertinentlysaid,thedisciplesbeforethecrucifixionhadmerelybeentoldthattheKingdomofGodwascoming,ifJesushad reallykept altogether in thebackgroundHisownpart in theKingdom, then why when despair finally gave place to joy did thedisciples not merely say, "Despite Jesus' death, the Kingdom that Heforetoldwill truly come"?Whydid they say rather, "DespiteHisdeath,He is theMessiah"? [8] From no point of view, then, can the fact bedeniedthatJesusdidclaimtobetheMessiah--neitherfromthepointofviewofacceptanceoftheGospelwitnessasawhole,norfromthepointofviewofmodernnaturalism.

AndwhentheGospelaccountofJesusisconsideredclosely,itisfoundtoinvolvetheMessianicconsciousnessthroughout.EventhosepartsoftheGospelswhichhavebeenregardedasmostpurelyethicalarefoundtobebasedaltogetheruponJesus'loftyclaims.TheSermonontheMountisastrikingexample.ItisthefashionnowtoplacetheSermonontheMountincontrastwiththerestoftheNewTestament."Wewillhavenothingtodowith theology,"men say in effect, "wewill have nothing to do withmiracles,withatonement,orwithheavenorwithhell.ForustheGoldenRuleisasufficientguideoflife;inthesimpleprinciplesoftheSermonontheMount we discover a solution of all the problems of society." It isindeed rather strange that men can speak in this way. Certainly it isratherderogatorytoJesustoassertthatneverexceptinonebriefpartofHisrecordedwordsdidHesayanythingthatisworthwhile.ButevenintheSermonontheMountthereisfarmorethansomemensuppose.Mensaythatitcontainsnotheology)inrealityitcontainstheologyofthemoststupendous kind. In particular, it contains the loftiest possiblepresentation of Jesus' own Person. That presentation appears in thestrangenoteofauthoritywhichpervadesthewholediscourse;itappearsintherecurrentwords,"ButIsayuntoyou."JesusplainlyputsHisown

wordsonanequalitywithwhatHecertainlyregardedasthedivinewordsofScripture;HeclaimedtherighttolegislatefortheKingdomofGod.Letitnotbeobjectedthatthisnoteofauthorityinvolvesmerelyapropheticconsciousness in Jesus, amere right to speak in God's name as God'sSpiritmightlead.Forwhatpropheteverspokeinthisway?Theprophetssaid, "Thus saith the Lord," but Jesus said, "I say." We have no mereprophet here, no mere humble exponent of the will of God; but astupendous Person speaking in a manner which for any other personwouldbeabominableandabsurd.ThesamethingappearsinthepassageMatt. vii. 21-23: "Not everyonewho says tome Lord, Lord, shall enterintotheKingdomofHeaven,buthewhodoesthewillofmyFatherwhois inheaven.Manyshallsaytomeinthatday:Lord,Lord,havewenotprophesied in thy name, and in thy name cast out demons, and in thyname done many mighty works? And then I shall confess to them, 'Ineverknewyou;departfromme,yethatworklawlessness."'Thispassageis in some respects a favorite with modern liberal teachers; for it isinterpreted--falsely, it is true, yet plausibly--as meaning that all that aman needs to attain standing with God is an approximately rightperformanceofhisdutiestohisfellowmen,andnotanyassenttoacreedor even any direct relation to Jesus. But have those who quote thepassage 80 triumphantly in this way ever stopped to reflect upon theother side of the picture--upon the stupendous fact that in this samepassagetheeternaldestiniesofmenaremadedependentuponthewordofJesus?JesushererepresentsHimselfasseatedonthejudgment-seatof all the earth, separatingwhomHewill forever from the bliss that isinvolvedinbeingpresentwithHim.CouldanythingbefurtherremovedthansuchaJesusfromthehumbleteacherofrighteousnessappealedtobymodern liberalism?Clearly it is impossible to escape from theology,eveninthechosenprecinctsoftheSermonontheMount.Astupendoustheology,withJesus'ownPersonatthecenterofit,isthepresuppositionofthewholeteaching.

Butmay not that theology still be removed?Maywe not get rid of thebizarre, theological element which has intruded itself even into theSermon on the Mount, and content ourselves merely with the ethicalportionofthediscourse?Thequestion,fromthepointofviewofmodernliberalism,isnatural.Butitmustbeansweredwithanemphaticnegative.

Forthefactisthattheethicofthediscourse,takenbyitself,willnotworkat all. The Golden Rule furnishes an example. "Do unto others as youwould have others do unto you"--is that rule a rule of universalapplication, will it really solve all the problems of society? A littleexperienceshowsthatsuchisnotthecase.Helpadrunkardtogetridofhis evil habit, and you will soon come to distrust the moderninterpretation of the Golden Rule. The trouble is that the drunkard'scompanionsapplytheruleonlytoowell;theydountohimexactlywhattheywouldhavehimdountothem--bybuyinghimadrink.TheGoldenRulebecomesapowerfulobstacle in thewayofmoraladvance.Butthetroubledoesnotlieintheruleitself;itliesinthemoderninterpretationoftherule.TheerrorconsistsinsupposingthattheGoldenRule,withtherestof theSermonontheMount, isaddressedtothewholeworld.Asamatter of fact the whole discourse is expressly addressed to Jesus'disciples;andfromthemthegreatworldoutside isdistinguished in theplainestpossibleway.ThepersonstowhomtheGoldenRuleisaddressedarepersons inwhomagreatchangehasbeenwrought--achangewhichfits themforentrance intotheKingdomofGod.Suchpersonswillhavepuredesires;they,andtheyonly,cansafelydountoothersastheywouldhaveothersdountothem,forthethingsthattheywouldhaveothersdountothemarehighandpure.

Soitiswiththewholeofthediscourse.ThenewlawoftheSermonontheMount, in itself, can only produce despair. Strange indeed is thecomplacencywithwhichmodernmencansaythattheGoldenRuleandthehighethicalprinciplesofJesusareallthattheyneed.Inreality,iftherequirements for entrance into the Kingdom of God are what Jesusdeclaresthemtobe,weareallundone;wehavenotevenattainedtotheexternal righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, and how shall weattain to that righteousness of the heart which Jesus demands ? TheSermon on the Mount, rightly interpreted, then, makes man a seekeraftersomedivinemeansofsalvationbywhichentranceintotheKingdomcanbeobtained.EvenMoseswastoohighforus;butbeforethishigherlawofJesuswhoshallstandwithoutbeingcondemned?TheSermonontheMount, like all the rest of the New Testament, really leads a manstraighttothefootoftheCross.

Even the disciples, towhom the teaching of Jesus was first addressed,knew well that they needed more than guidance in the way that theyshouldgo.ItisonlyasuperficialreadingoftheGospelsthatcanfindinthe relation which the disciples sustained to Jesus a mere relation ofpupiltoMaster.WhenJesussaid,"Comeuntome,allyethat laborandare heavy laden, and I will give you rest," he was speaking not as aphilosopher calling pupils to his school) but as One who was inpossession of rich stores of divine grace. And this much at least thedisciplesknew.Theyknewwell intheirheartofheartsthattheyhadnorighttostandintheKingdom;theyknewthatonlyJesuscouldwinthementrancethere.TheydidnotyetknowfullyhowJesuscouldmakethemchildrenofGod;buttheydidknowthatHecoulddoitandHealone.Andin that trust all the theology of the great Christian creeds was inexpectationcontained.

Atthispoint,anobjectionmayarise.Maywenot--themodernliberalwillsay--maywenotnowreturntothatsimpletrustofthedisciples?Maywenot cease to ask how Jesus saves;maywe not simply leave theway toHim?Whatneedisthere,then,ofdefining"effectualcalling,"whatneedofenumerating"justification,adoptionandsanctificationandtheseveralbenefitswhichinthislifedoeitheraccompanyorflowfromthem"?Whatneed even of rehearsing the steps in the saving work of Christ as theywere rehearsed by the Jerusalem Church; what need of saying that"ChristdiedforoursinsaccordingtotheScriptures,thathewasburied,that he has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures"?Shouldnotour trustbe inaPersonrather than inamessage; in Jesus,rather than inwhat Jesusdid; in Jesus' character rather than in Jesus'death?

Plausible words these are--plausible, and pitifully vain. Can we reallyreturntoGalilee;arewereallyinthesamesituationasthosewhocametoJesuswhenHewasonearth?CanwehearHimsaytous,"Thysinsareforgiventhee"?Theseareseriousquestions,andtheycannotpossiblybeignored. The plain fact is that Jesus of Nazareth died these nineteenhundred years ago. It was possible for the men of Galilee in the firstcentury to trustHim; for to themHeextendedHisaid.For them, life'sproblemwaseasy.Theyneededonlytopushinthroughthecrowdorbe

loweredthroughsomeCapernaumroofandthelongsearchwasover.Butwe are separated by nineteen centuries from the One who alone couldgiveus aid.How canwebridge the gulf of time that separates us fromJesus?

Some persons would bridge the gulf by the mere use of the historicalimagination."Jesus isnotdead,"weare told, "but liveson throughHisrecordedwordsanddeeds;wedonotneedeventobelieve itall;evenapartissufficient;thewonderfulpersonalityofJesusshinesoutclearfromtheGospelstory.Jesus,inotherwords,maystillbeknown;letussimply--withouttheology,withoutcontroversy,withoutinquiryaboutmiracles--abandonourselvestoHisspell,andHewillhealus."

Thereisacertainplausibilityaboutthat.ItmayreadilybeadmittedthatJesuslivesonintheGospelrecord.Inthatnarrativeweseenotmerelyalifelesspicture,butreceivetheimpressionofalivingPerson.Wecanstill,as we read, share the astonishment of those who listened to the newteaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.We can sympathize with thefaithanddevotionofthelittlebandofdiscipleswhowouldnotleaveHimwhen others were offended at the hard saying. We feel a sympatheticthrillofjoyattheblessedreliefwhichwasgiventothosewhowereillinbodyandinmind.WecanappreciatethewonderfulloveandcompassionofHimwhowassenttoseekandtosavethatwhichwaslost.Awonderfulstoryitisindeed--notdead,butpulsatingwithlifeateveryturn.

CertainlytheJesusoftheGospelsisareal,alivingPerson.Butthatisnotthe only question.We are going forward far too fast. Jesus lives in theGospels--so much may freely be admitted--but we of the twentiethcentury,howmaywecomeintovitalrelationtoHim?Hediednineteenhundredyearsago.ThelifewhichHenowlivesintheGospelsissimplytheoldlifelivedoverandoveragain.Andinthatlifewehavenoplace;inthat lifewe are spectators, not actors. The lifewhich Jesus lives in theGospelsisafterallforusbutthespuriouslifeofthestage.WesitsilentintheplayhouseandwatchtheabsorbingGospeldramaofforgivenessandhealing and love and courage and high endeavor; in rapt attention wefollowthefortunesofthosewhocametoJesuslaboringandheavyladenandfoundrest.Foratimeourowntroublesareforgotten.Butsuddenlythecurtainfalls,withtheclosingofthebook,andoutwegoagainintothe

coldhumdrumofourownlives.Gonearethewarmthandgladnessofanideal world, and "in their stead a sense of real things comes doublystrong."WearenolongerlivingoveragainthelivesofPeterandJamesand John. Alas, we are living our own lives once more, with our ownproblemsandourownmiseryandourownsin.AndstillweareseekingourownSavior.

Let us not deceive ourselves. A Jewish teacher of the first century cannever satisfy the longing of our souls. Clothe Him with all the art ofmodernresearch,throwuponHimthewarm,deceptivecalcium-lightofmodernsentimentality;anddespiteitallcommonsensewillcometoitsrightsagain,andforourbriefhourofself-deception--asthoughwehadbeen with Jesus--will wreak upon us the revenge of hopelessdisillusionment.

But, says themodern preacher, are we not, in being satisfied with the"historical"Jesus,thegreatteacherwhoproclaimedtheKingdomofGod,merely restoring the simplicity of the primitive gospel?No,we answer,youarenot,but,temporallyat least,youarenotsoveryfarwrong.Youare really returning to a very primitive stage in the life of the Church.Only,thatstageisnottheGalileanspringtime.ForinGalileemenhadalivingSavior.Therewasone timeandone timeonlywhen thediscipleslived, like you,merely on thememory of Jesus.Whenwas it? Itwas agloomy, desperate time. Itwas the three sad days after the crucifixion.ThenandthenonlydidJesus'disciplesregardHimmerelyasablessedmemory."Wetrusted,"theysaid,"thatithadbeenhewhichshouldhaveredeemed Israel." "We trusted"--but now our trust is gone. Shall weremain,withmodernliberalism,foreverinthegloomofthosesaddays?OrshallwepassoutfromittothewarmthandjoyofPentecost?

Certainlyweshallremainforeverinthegloomifweattendmerelytothecharacter of Jesus and neglect the thing thatHe has done, ifwe try toattend to the Person and neglect the message. We may have joy forsadnessandpowerforweakness;butnotbyeasyhalf-waymeasures,notby avoidance of controversy, not by trying to hold on to Jesus and yetrejectthegospel.Whatwasitthatwithinafewdaystransformedabandofmourners into the spiritual conquerors of theworld? It was not thememory of Jesus' life; itwasnot the inspirationwhich came frompast

contactwithHim.But itwas themessage, "He is risen." Thatmessagealonegave to the disciples a living Savior and it alone can give to us aliving Savior today.We shall never have vital contact with Jesus if weattendtoHispersonandneglectthemessage;foritisthemessagewhichmakesHimours.

But the Christian message contains more than the fact of theresurrection. [9] It is not enough to know that Jesus is alive; it is notenoughtoknowthatawonderfulPersonlivedinthefirstcenturyoftheChristianeraandthatPersonstilllives,somewhereandsomehow,today.Jesus lives,and that iswell;butwhatgood is it tous?Weare like theinhabitantsoffar-offSyriaorPhoeniciainthedaysofHisflesh.ThereisawonderfulPersonwhocanhealeveryillofbodyandmind.But,alas,weare not with Him, and the way is far. How shall we come into Hispresence?HowshallcontactbeestablishedbetweenusandHim?Forthepeople of ancient Galilee contact was established by a touch of Jesus'handorawordfromHislips.Butforustheproblemisnotsoeasy.WecannotfindHimby the lake shoreor in crowdedhouses;we cannotbelowered intoanyroomwhereHesitsamid scribesandPharisees. Ifweemploy only our ownmethods of search, we shall find ourselves on afruitlesspilgrimage.Surelyweneedguidance,ifwearetofindourSavior.

And in theNewTestamentwe find guidance full and free--guidance socomplete as to remove all doubt, yet so simple that a child canunderstand. Contact with Jesus according to the New Testament isestablishedbywhatJesusdoes,notforothers,butforus.TheaccountofwhatJesusdid forothers is indeednecessary.ByreadinghowHewentabout doing good, how He healed the sick and raised the dead andforgavesins,welearnthatHeisaPersonwhoisworthyoftrust.ButsuchknowledgeistotheChristianmannotanendinitself,butameanstoanend.ItisnotenoughtoknowthatJesusisaPersonworthyoftrust;itisalsonecessarytoknowthatHeiswillingtohaveustrustHim.It isnotenoughthatHesavedothers;weneedtoknowalsothatHehassavedus.ThatknowledgeisgiveninthestoryoftheCross.ForusJesusdoesnotmerelyplaceHisfingersintheearsandsay,"Beopened'';forusHedoesnotmerelysay"Ariseandwalk."ForusHehasdoneagreaterthing--forusHe died. Our dreadful guilt, the condemnation of God's law--it was

wipedoutbyanactofgrace.ThatisthemessagewhichbringsJesusneartous,andmakesHimnotmerely theSaviorof themenofGalilee longago,buttheSaviorofyouandme.

Itisvain,then,tospeakofreposingtrustinthePersonwithoutbelievingthemessage.Fortrustinvolvesapersonalrelationbetweentheonewhotrustsandhiminwhomthetrustisreposed.AndinthiscasethepersonalrelationissetupbytheblessedtheologyoftheCross.WithouttheeighthchapterofRomans, themerestoryof theearthly lifeofJesuswouldberemoteanddead;for it isthroughtheeighthchapterofRomans,orthemessage which that chapter contains, that Jesus becomes our Saviortoday.

The truth is that when men speak of trust in Jesus' Person, as beingpossible without acceptance of the message of His death andresurrection,theydonotreallymeantrustatall.Whattheydesignateastrust is really admiration or reverence. They reverence Jesus as thesupremePersonofallhistoryandthesupremerevealerofGod.ButtrustcancomeonlywhenthesupremePersonextendsHissavingpowertous."Hewentaboutdoinggood,""Hespakewordssuchasnevermanspake,""He is the express image ofGod"--that is reverence; "He lovedme andgaveHimselfforme"--thatisfaith.

But thewords "He lovedmeandgaveHimself forme"are inhistoricalform;theyconstituteanaccountof something thathappened.And theyaddtothefactthemeaningofthefact;theycontaininessencethewholeprofoundtheologyof redemption throughthebloodofChrist.Christiandoctrine liesat theveryrootsof faith.Itmustbeadmitted, then,that ifwe are to have a nondoctrinal religion, or a doctrinal religion foundedmerely on general truth, we must give up not only Paul, not only theprimitiveJerusalemChurch,butalsoJesusHimself.Butwhat ismeantbydoctrine?Ithasbeeninterpretedhereasmeaninganypresentationofthe facts which lie at the basis of the Christian religion with the truemeaningofthefacts.Butisthattheonlysenseoftheword?Maythewordnotalsobetakeninanarrowersense?Mayitnotalsomeanasystematicandminuteandone-sidedlyscientificpresentationofthefacts?Andiftheword is taken in this narrower sense,maynot themodernobjection todoctrine involve merely an objection to the excessive subtlety of

controversialtheology,andnotatallanobjectiontotheglowingwordsofthe New Testament, an objection to the sixteenth and seventeenthcenturiesandnotatalltothefirstcentury?Undoubtedlythewordissotaken bymany occupants of the pews when they listen to themodernexaltationof "life"at theexpenseof "doctrine."Thepioushearer laborsunder the impression that he is merely being asked to return to thesimplicityoftheNewTestament,insteadofattendingtothesubtletiesofthe theologians. Since it has never occurred to him to attend to thesubtleties of the theologians, he has that comfortable feeling whichalways comes to the churchgoer when some one else's sins are beingattacked. It is no wonder that the modern invectives against doctrineconstituteapopulartypeofpreaching.Atanyrate,anattackuponCalvinor Turrettin or theWestminster divines does not seem to the modernchurchgoer tobe a verydangerous thing. Inpointof fact, however, theattack upon doctrine is not nearly so innocent a matter as our simplechurchgoer supposes; for the things Objected to in the theology of theChurcharealsoat theveryheartof theNewTestament.Ultimately theattack isnot against the seventeenth century,but against theBible andagainstJesusHimself.

Even if it were an attack not upon the Bible but only upon the greathistoricpresentationsofBiblicalteaching,itwouldstillbeunfortunate.IftheChurchwereledtowipeoutofexistenceallproductsofthethinkingofnineteenChristiancenturiesandstartfresh,theloss,eveniftheBiblewereretained,wouldbeimmense.Whenitisonceadmittedthatabodyof facts lies at thebasisof theChristian religion, theeffortswhichpastgenerationshavemadetowardtheclassificationofthefactswillhavetobe treatedwith respect. Innobranchofsciencewould therebeanyrealadvanceifeverygenerationstartedfreshwithnodependenceuponwhatpastgenerationshaveachieved.Yetintheology,vituperationofthepastseemstobethoughtessentialtoprogress.Anduponwhatbaseslandersthe vituperation is based! After listening tomodern tirades against thegreatcreedsoftheChurch,onereceivesratherashockwhenoneturnstotheWestminsterConfession, forexample,ortothattenderestandmosttheological of books, the "Pilgrim's Progress" of John Bunyan, anddiscoversthatindoingsoonehasturnedfromshallowmodernphrasestoa "deadorthodoxy" that is pulsatingwith life in everyword. In such

orthodoxythereislifeenoughtosetthewholeworldaglowwithChristianlove.

Asamatteroffact,however,inthemodernvituperationof"doctrine,"itis not merely the great theologians or the great creeds that are beingattacked, but the New Testament and our Lord Himself. In rejectingdoctrine,theliberalpreacherisrejectingthesimplewordsofPaul'"WholovedmeandgaveHimself forme," justasmuchas thehomoousionofthe Nicene Creed. For the word "doctrine" is really used not in itsnarrowest, but in its broadest sense. The liberal preacher is reallyrejectingthewholebasisofChristianity,whichisareligionfoundednoton aspirations, but on facts. Here is found the most fundamentaldifferencebetweenliberalismandChristianity--liberalismisaltogetherinthe imperative mood, while Christianity begins with a triumphantindicative;liberalismappealstoman'swill,whileChristianityannounces,first,agraciousactofGod.

In maintaining the doctrinal basis of Christianity, we are particularlyanxiousnottobemisunderstood.Therearecertainthingsthatwedonotmean.

In the firstplace,wedonotmean that ifdoctrine is sound itmakesnodifferenceabout life.On the contrary, itmakesall thedifference in theworld. From the beginning,Christianitywas certainly away of life; thesalvationthatitofferedwasasalvationfromsin,andsalvationfromsinappearednotmerely in ablessedhopebut also in an immediatemoralchange. The early Christians, to the astonishment of their neighbors,lived a strange new kind of life--a life of honesty, of purity and ofunselfishness.And from theChristian community all other typesof lifewereexcluded in thestrictestway.FromthebeginningChristianitywascertainlyalife.

Buthowwasthelifeproduced?Itmightconceivablyhavebeenproducedbyexhortation.Thatmethodhadoftenbeentriedintheancientworld;intheHellenisticagethereweremanywanderingpreacherswhotoldmenhow they ought to live. But such exhortation proved to be powerless.Although the ideals of the Cynic and Stoic preachers were high, thesepreachersneversucceededtransformingsociety.Thestrangethingabout

Christianity was that it adopted an entirely different method. Ittransformedthelivesofmennotbyappealingtothehumanwill,butbytellingastory;notbyexhortation,butbythenarrationofanevent.Itisnowonderthatsuchamethodseemedstrange.Couldanythingbemoreimpractical than the attempt to influence conduct by rehearsing eventsconcerningthedeathofareligiousteacher?ThatiswhatPaulcalled"thefoolishnessofthemessage."Itseemedfoolishtotheancientworld,anditseems foolish to liberalpreachers today.But thestrange thing is that itworks. The effects of it appear even in this world. Where the mosteloquentexhortationfails,thesimplestoryofaneventsucceeds;thelivesofmenaretransformedbyapieceofnews.

It is especially by such transformation of life, today as always, that theChristianmessageiscommendedtotheattentionofmen.Certainly,then,it doesmake an enormousdifferencewhether our lives be right. If ourdoctrinebetrue,andourlivesbewrong,howterribleisoursin!Forthenwe have brought despite upon the truth itself. On the other hand,however,itisalsoverysadwhenmenusethesocialgraceswhichGodhasgiventhem,andthemoralmomentumofagodlyancestry,tocommendamessagewhichisfalse.Nothingintheworldcantaketheplaceoftruth.

Inthesecondplace,wedonotmean,ininsistinguponthedoctrinalbasisof Christianity, that all points of doctrine are equally important. It isperfectly possible for Christian fellowship to be maintained despitedifferencesofopinion.

One such difference of opinion, which has been attaining increasingprominence in recent years, concerns theorder of events in connectionwith theLord's return.A largenumber ofChristianpeoplebelieve thatwhenevilhasreacheditsclimaxintheworld,theLordJesuswillreturnto this earth in bodily presence to bring about a reignof righteousnesswhichwilllastathousandyears,andthatonlyafterthatperiodtheendoftheworldwillcome.Thatbelief,intheopinionofthepresentwriter,isanerror,arrivedatbyafalseinterpretationoftheWordofGod;wedonotthinkthatthepropheciesoftheBiblepermitsodefiniteamapping-outoffutureevents.TheLordwillcomeagain,anditwillbenomere"spiritual"coming in themodernsense--somuch is clear--but that so littlewillbeaccomplishedbythepresentdispensationoftheHolySpiritandsomuch

will be left to be accomplished by the Lord in bodily presence--such aviewwecannotfindtobejustifiedbythewordsofScripture.Whatisourattitude, then, with regard to this debate? Certainly it cannot be anattitude of indifference. The recrudescence of "Chiliasm" or"premillennialism"inthemodernChurchcausesusseriousconcern;itiscoupled,wethink,withafalsemethodofinterpretingScripturewhichinthelongrunwillbeproductiveofharm.Yethowgreatisouragreementwith thosewho hold the premillennial view! They share to the full ourreverence for the authority of the Bible, and differ from us only in theinterpretationoftheBible;theyshareourascriptionofdeitytotheLordJesus,andoursupernaturalisticconceptionbothoftheentranceofJesusinto the world and of the consummation when He shall come again.Certainly,then,fromourpointofview,theirerror,seriousthoughitmaybe,isnotdeadlyerror;andChristianfellowship,withloyaltynotonlytothe Bible but to the great creeds of the Church, can still unite us withthem. It is thereforehighlymisleadingwhenmodern liberals representthepresentissueintheChurch,bothinthemissionfieldandathome,asbeing an issue between premillennialism and the opposite view. It isreallyanissuebetweenChristianity,whetherpremillennialornot,ontheoneside,andanaturalisticnegationofallChristianityontheother.

AnotherdifferenceofopinionwhichcansubsistinthemidstofChristianfellowship is thedifferenceofopinionabout themodeofefficacyof thesacraments.Thatdifferenceisindeedserious,andtodenyitsseriousnessisafargreatererrorthantotakethewrongsideinthecontroversyitself.ItisoftensaidthatthedividedconditionofChristendomisanevil,andsoitis.Buttheevilconsistsintheexistenceoftheerrorswhichcausethedivisionsandnotatallintherecognitionofthoseerrorswhenoncetheyexist.Itwasagreatcalamitywhenatthe"MarburgConference"betweenLutherandtherepresentativesoftheSwissReformation,LutherwroteonthetablewithregardtotheLord'sSupper,"Thisismybody,"andsaidtoZwingliandOecolampadius,"Youhaveanotherspirit."Thatdifferenceofopinion led to the breach between the Lutheran and the Reformedbranches of the Church, and caused Protestantism to losemuch of theground thatmight otherwise have been gained. Itwas a great calamityindeed.Butthecalamitywasdueto the fact thatLuther(aswebelieve)waswrongabouttheLord'sSupper;anditwouldhavebeenafargreater

calamity ifbeingwrongabouttheSupperhehadrepresentedthewholequestionasatriflingaffair.LutherwaswrongabouttheSupper,butnotnearlysowrongashewouldhavebeenif,beingwrong,hehadsaidtohisopponents:"Brethren,thismatterisatrifle;anditmakesreallyverylittledifference what a man thinks about the table of the Lord." Suchindifferentism would have been far more deadly than all the divisionsbetween the branches of the Church. A Luther who would havecompromisedwithregardtotheLord'sSupperneverwouldhavesaidattheDietofWorms, "Here I stand, I cannotdootherwise,Godhelpme,Amen."Indifferentismaboutdoctrinemakesnoheroesofthefaith.

Stillanotherdifferenceofopinionconcerns thenatureandprerogativesoftheChristianministry.AccordingtoAnglicandoctrine,thebishopsareinpossessionofanauthoritywhichhasbeenhandeddown to them,bysuccessive ordination, from the apostles of the Lord, andwithout suchordinationthereisnovalidpriesthood.Otherchurchesdenythisdoctrineof"apostolicsuccession,"andholdadifferentviewoftheministry.Hereagain, thedifference isnotrifle,andwehave littlesympathywiththosewhointhemereinterestsofChurchefficiencytrytoinduceAnglicanstolet down the barrierwhich their principles have led them to erect. Butdespitetheimportanceofthisdifference,itdoesnotdescendtotheveryroots.EventotheconscientiousAnglicanhimself,thoughheregardsthemembers of other bodies as in schism, Christian fellowship withindividualsinthoseotherbodiesisstillpossible;andcertainlythosewhorejecttheAnglicanviewoftheministrycanregardtheAnglicanChurchasagenuineandverynoblememberinthebodyofChrist.

AnotherdifferenceofopinionisthatbetweentheCalvinisticorReformedtheologyandtheArminianismwhichappearsintheMethodistChurch.Itis difficult to see how any onewho has really studied the question canregard that difference as an unimportant matter. On the contrary' ittouchesverycloselysomeoftheprofoundestthingsoftheChristianfaith.ACalvinist is constrained to regard theArminian theology as a seriousimpoverishment of the Scripture doctrine of divine grace, and equallyseriousistheviewwhichtheArminianmustholdastothedoctrineoftheReformed Churches. Yet here again, true evangelical fellowship ispossible between those who hold, with regard to some exceedingly

importantmatters,sharplyopposingviews.

Farmore serious still is the division between the Church of Rome andevangelicalProtestantism inall its forms.Yethowgreat is the commonheritagewhichunitestheRomanCatholicChurch,withitsmaintenanceof the authority of Holy Scripture and with its acceptance of the greatearlycreeds, todevoutProtestantstoday!Wewouldnot indeedobscurethedifferencewhichdividesusfromRome.Thegulfisindeedprofound.But profound as it is, it seems almost trifling compared to the abysswhich stands between us andmanyministers of our own Church. TheChurchofRomemayrepresentaperversionoftheChristianreligion;butnaturalisticliberalismisnotChristianityatall.

Thatdoesnotmeanthatconservativesandliberalsmustliveinpersonalanimosity.Itdoesnotinvolveanylackofsympathyonourpartforthosewho have felt obliged by the current of the times to relinquish theirconfidenceinthestrangemessageoftheCross.Manyties--tiesofblood,of citizenship, of ethical aims, of humanitarian endeavor--unite us tothosewhohaveabandonedthegospel.Wetrustthatthosetiesmayneverbe weakened, and that ultimately theymay serve some purpose in thepropagation of the Christian faith. But Christian service consistsprimarily in the propagation of a message, and specifically Christianfellowship exists only between those towhom themessagehas becometheverybasisofalllife.

ThecharacterofChristianityasfoundeduponamessageissummedupinthewordsoftheeighthverseofthefirstchapterofActs--"YeshallbemywitnessesbothinJerusalem,andinallJudeaandSamaria,anduntotheuttermost part of the earth." It is entirely unnecessary, for the presentpurpose, to argue about the historical value of the Book of Acts or todiscussthequestionwhetherJesusreallyspokethewordsjustquoted.InanycasetheversemustberecognizedasanadequatesummaryofwhatisknownaboutprimitiveChristianity.FromthebeginningChristianitywasa campaign of witnessing. And the witnessing did not concern merelywhatJesuswasdoingwithin the recessesof the individual life.To takethewordsofActsinthatwayistodoviolencetothecontextandtoalltheevidence.Onthecontrary,theEpistlesofPaulandallthesourcesmakeitabundantlyplainthatthetestimonywasprimarilynotto innerspiritual

facts but to what Jesus had done once for all in His death andresurrection.

Christianityisbased,then,uponanaccountofsomethingthathappened,and the Christian worker is primarily a witness. But if so, it is ratherimportant that theChristianworker should tell the truth.When amantakeshisseatuponthewitnessstand,itmakeslittledifferencewhatthecut of his coat is, or whether his sentences are nicely turned. Theimportantthingisthathetellthetruth,thewholetruth,andnothingbutthe truth. If we are to be truly Christians, then, it does make a vastdifferencewhatour teachingsare,and it isbynomeansaside fromthepoint to set forth the teachings of Christianity in contrast with theteachingsofthechiefmodernrivalofChristianity.

ThechiefmodernrivalofChristianityis"liberalism."Anexaminationoftheteachingsof liberalismincomparisonwith thoseofChristianitywillshow that at every point the two movements are in direct opposition.Thatexaminationwillnowbeundertaken,thoughmerelyinasummaryandcursoryway.

Notes

1.SeeTheOriginofPaul'sReligion,1921,p.168.Itisnotmaintainedthatdoctrine forPaul comes temporallybefore life,butonly that itcomeslogicallyfirst.HereistobefoundtheanswertotheobjectionwhichDr.LymanAbbottraisedagainsttheassertioninTheOriginofPaul'sReligion.SeeTheOutlook,vol.132,1922,pp.104f.

2. Some recount of these attempts has been given by the presentwriterinTheOriginofPaul''Religion,1921.

3. Compare "History and Faith," 1915 (reprinted from PrincetonTheologicalReviewforJuly,1915),pp.10f.

4.CompareARapidSurveyof theLiteratureandHistoryofNewTestament Times, published by the Presbyterian Board ofPublicationandSabbathSchoolWork,Student'sTextBook,pp.42f.

5. Mensch und Gott, 1921. Compare the review in PrincetonTheologicalReview,xx,1922pp.327-329.

6.Heitmuller,Jesus,1913,p. 71. SeeTheOriginofPaul'sReligion,1921,p.157.

7.Da'MessiasgeheimnisindenEvangelien,1901.

8. J. Weiss, "Des Problem der Entstehung des Christentums," inArchivfurReligionswissenschaft?xvi.1913,p.466.SeeTheOriginofPaul'sReligion,1921,p.156.

9. For what follows compare A Rapid Survey of the History andLiteratureofNewTestamentTimes,publishedby thePresbyterianBoard of Publication and Sabbath SchoolWork, Teacher'sManual,pp.44f.

GodandMan

Chapter2

Ithasbeenobservedinthe lastchapterthatChristianity isbasedonanaccountof something thathappened in the first centuryofourera.Butbefore that account can be received, certain presuppositions must beaccepted.TheChristiangospelconsists inanaccountofhowGodsavedman, and before that gospel can be understood something must beknown (1) aboutGod and (2) aboutman. The doctrine ofGod and thedoctrine of man are the two great presuppositions of the gospel.Withregard to these presuppositions, as with regard to the gospel itself,modernliberalismisdiametricallyopposedtoChristianity.

It isopposedtoChristianity, in the firstplace, in itsconceptionofGod.But at this point we are met with a particularly insistent form of thatobjection to doctrinalmatterswhich has already been considered. It isunnecessary,wearetold,tohavea"conception"ofGod;theology,ortheknowledgeofGod,itissaid,isthedeathofreligion;weshouldnotseektoknowGod,butshouldmerelyfeelHispresence.

With regard to this objection, it ought to be observed that if religionconsistsmerelyinfeelingthepresenceofGod, it isdevoidofanymoralquality whatever. Pure feeling, if there be such a thing, is non-moral.Whatmakesaffectionforahumanfriend,forexample,suchanennoblingthing is theknowledgewhichwepossessof the characterofourfriend.Human affection, apparently so simple, is really just bristling withdogma.Itdependsuponahostofobservationstreasuredupinthemindwithregardtothecharacterofourfriends.Butifhumanaffectionisthusreallydependentuponknowledge,whyshould itbeotherwisewith thatsupreme personal relationship which is at the basis of religion ? Whyshouldwebeindignantaboutslandersdirectedagainstahumanfriend,whileatthesametimewearepatientaboutthebasestslandersdirectedagainstourGod?Certainly itdoesmakethegreatestpossibledifferencewhat we think about God; the knowledge of God is the very basis of

religion.

How,then,shallGodbeknown;howshallwebecomesoacquaintedwithHim that personal fellowship may become possible? Some liberalpreacherswouldsay thatwebecomeacquaintedwithGodonly throughJesus. That assertion has an appearance of loyalty to our Lord, but inreality it is highly derogatory to Him. For Jesus Himself plainlyrecognizedthevalidityofotherwaysofknowingGod,andtorejectthoseotherwaysistorejectthethingsthatlayattheverycenterofJesus'life.JesusplainlyfoundGod'shandinnature;theliliesofthefieldrevealedtoHimtheweaving ofGod.He foundGod also in themoral law; the lawwritten in the hearts of men was God's law, which revealed Hisrighteousness.FinallyJesusplainlyfoundGodrevealedintheScriptures.HowprofoundwasourLord'suseofthewordsofprophetsandpsalmists!TosaythatsuchrevelationofGodwasinvalid,orisuselesstoustoday,istododespitetothingsthatlayclosesttoJesus'mindandheart.

But,asamatterof fact,whenmensay thatweknowGodonlyasHe isrevealed inJesus, theyaredenyingall realknowledgeofGodwhatever.ForunlesstherebesomeideaofGodindependentofJesus,theascriptionofdeitytoJesushasnomeaning.Tosay,"JesusisGod,"ismeaninglessunlesstheword"God"hasanantecedentmeaningattachedtoit.Andtheattachingofameaningtotheword"God"isaccomplishedbythemeanswhichhavejustbeenmentioned.WearenotforgettingthewordsofJesusintheGospelofJohn,"HethathathseenmehathseentheFather."Butthesewordsdonotmeanthatifamanhadneverknownwhattheword"God"means,hecouldcometoattachanideatothatwordmerelybyhisknowledge of Jesus' character. On the contrary, the disciples to whomJesus was speaking had already a very definite conception of God; aknowledgeoftheonesupremePersonwaspresupposedinallthatJesussaid. But the disciples desired not only a knowledge of God hut alsointimate,personalcontact.AndthatcamethroughtheirintercoursewithJesus. Jesus revealed, in a wonderfully intimate way, the character ofGod,butsuchrevelationobtainedits truesignificanceonlyonthebasisbothoftheOldTestamentheritageandofJesus'ownteaching.Rationaltheism,theknowledgeofoneSupremePerson,MakerandactiveRuleroftheworld,isattheveryrootofChristianity.

But,themodernpreacherwillsay,itisincongruoustoattributetoJesusan acceptance of "rational theism"; Jesus had a practical, not atheoretical,knowledgeofGod.Thereisasenseinwhichthesewordsaretrue.CertainlynopartofJesus'knowledgeofGodwasmerelytheoretical;everythingthatJesusknewaboutGodtouchedHisheartanddeterminedHisactions. In thatsense,Jesus'knowledgeofGodwas"practical."Butunfortunately that is not the sense in which the assertion of modernliberalismismeant.Whatisfrequentlymeantbya"practical"knowledgeofGodinmodernparlanceisnotatheoreticalknowledgeofGodthatisalso practical, but a practical knowledge which is not theoretical --inother words, a knowledge which gives no information about objectivereality, a knowledge which is no knowledge at all. And nothing couldpossibly bemoreunlike the religion of Jesus than that. The relation ofJesus to His heavenly Father was not a relation to a vague andimpersonalgoodness,itwasnotarelationwhichmerelyclotheditselfinsymbolic, personal form. On the contrary, it was a relation to a realPerson,whoseexistencewasjustasdefiniteandjustasmuchasubjectoftheoreticknowledgeastheexistenceoftheliliesofthefieldthatGodhadclothed.TheverybasisofthereligionofJesuswasatriumphantbeliefintherealexistenceofapersonalGod.

And without that belief no type of religion can rightly appeal to Jesustoday. Jesus was a theist, and rational theism is at the basis ofChristianity.Jesusdidnot,indeed,supportHistheismbyargument;Hedid not provide in advance answers to the Kantian attack upon thetheisticproofs.But thatmeansnot thatHewas indifferent to thebeliefwhich is the logical result of those proofs, but that the belief stood sofirm, both toHim and toHis hearers, that inHis teaching it is alwayspresupposed.SotodayitisnotnecessaryforallChristianstoanalyzethelogical basis of their belief in God; the human mind has a wonderfulfacultyforthecondensationofperfectlyvalidarguments,andwhatseemslike an instinctive belief may turn out to be the result of many logicalsteps.Or,rather'itmaybethatthebeliefinapersonalGodistheresultofa primitive revelation, and that the theistic proofs are only the logicalconfirmation ofwhatwas originally arrived at by a differentmeans. Atanyrate,thelogicalconfirmationofthebeliefinGodisavitalconcerntotheChristian;atthispointasatmanyothersreligionandphilosophyare

connectedinthemostintimatepossibleway.Truereligioncanmakenopeacewithafalsephilosophy,anymorethanwithasciencethatisfalselyso-called; a thing cannot possibly be true in religion and false inphilosophyorinscience.Allmethodsofarrivingattruth,iftheybevalidmethods, will arrive at a harmonious result. Certainly the atheistic oragnostic Christianity which sometimes goes under the name of a"practical"religionisnoChristianityatall.AttheveryrootofChristianityisthebeliefintherealexistenceofapersonalGod.

Strangely enough, at the very timewhenmodern liberalism is decryingthe theistic proofs, and taking refuge in a "practical" knowledge whichshall somehow be independent of scientifically or philosophicallyascertainedfacts,theliberalpreacherlovestouseonedesignationofGodwhichisnothingifnottheistic;helovestospeakofGodas"Father."ThetermcertainlyhasthemeritofascribingpersonalitytoGod.Bysomeofthosewhouseit,indeed,itisnotseriouslymeant;bysomeitisemployedbecauseitisuseful,notbecauseitistrue.Butnotallliberalsareabletomakethesubtledistinctionbetweentheoreticjudgmentsandjudgmentsof value; some liberals, though perhaps a decreasing number, are truebelieversinapersonalGod.AndsuchmenareabletothinkofGodtrulyasaFather.

The term presents a very lofty conception of God. It is not indeedexclusivelyChristian;theterm"Father"hasbeenappliedtoGodoutsideof Christianity. It appears, for example, in the widespread belief in an"All- Father," which prevails amongmany races even in companywithpolytheism;itappearshereandthereintheOldTestament,andinpre-ChristianJewishwritingssubsequenttotheOldTestamentperiod.Suchoccurrencesofthetermarebynomeansdevoidofsignificance.TheOldTestament usage, in particular, is a worthy precursor of our Lord'steaching;foralthoughintheOldTestamenttheword"Father"ordinarilydesignatesGod in relationnot to the individual,but to thenationor tothe king, yet the individual Israelite, because of his part in the chosenpeople,felthimselftobeinapeculiarlyintimaterelationtothecovenantGod. But despite this anticipation of the teaching of our Lord, Jesusbroughtsuchanincomparableenrichmentoftheusageoftheterm,thatit is a correct instinct which regards the thought of God as Father as

somethingcharacteristicallyChristian.

Modernmenhavebeen somuch impressedwith this element in Jesus'teachingthattheyhavesometimesbeeninclinedtoregarditastheverysum and substance of our religion.We are not interested, they say, inmany things for which men formerly gave their lives; we are notinterested in the theology of the creeds; we are not interested in thedoctrines of sin and salvation; we are not interested in atonementthrough the blood of Christ: enough for us is the simple truth of thefatherhoodofGodanditscorollary,thebrotherhoodofman.Wemaynotbe very orthodox in the theological sense, they continue, but of courseyouwillrecognizeusasChristiansbecauseweacceptJesus' teachingastotheFatherGod.

Itisverystrangehowintelligentpersonscanspeakinthisway.ItisverystrangehowthosewhoacceptonlytheuniversalfatherhoodofGodasthesumandsubstanceofreligioncanregardthemselvesasChristiansorcanappeal to Jesus of Nazareth. For the plain fact is that this moderndoctrineof theuniversal fatherhoodofGodformednopartwhateverofJesus' teaching.Where is it thatJesusmaybe supposed tohave taughttheuniversalfatherhoodofGod?CertainlyitisnotintheparableoftheProdigal Son. For in the first place, the publicans and sinners whoseacceptancebyJesusformedtheoccasionbothofthePharisees'objectionandofJesus'answertothembymeansoftheparable,werenotanymenanywhere,butweremembersofthechosenpeopleandassuchmightbedesignatedassonsofGod.Inthesecondplace,aparableiscertainlynottobepressed in itsdetails.Soherebecause the joyof the father in theparable is like the joyofGodwhenasinner receives salvationatJesus'hand, it does not follow that the relation which God sustains to stillunrepentantsinnersisthatofaFathertohischildren.Whereelse,then,cantheuniversalfatherhoodofGodbefound?SurelynotintheSermonontheMount; for throughout theSermonontheMount thosewhocancall God Father are distinguished in the most emphatic way from thegreat world of the Gentiles outside. One passage in the discourse hasindeed been urged in support of themodern doctrine: "But I say untoyou,loveyourenemiesandprayforthemthatpersecuteyou;thatyemaybesonsofyourFatherwhoisinheaven;forHemakethHissuntoriseon

evilandgoodandsendethrainonjustandunjust"(Matt.v.44,45).Butthepassagecertainlywillnotbeartheweightwhichishunguponit.Godisindeedrepresentedhereascaringforallmenwhetherevilorgood,butHeiscertainlynotcalledtheFatherofall.IndeeditmightalmostbesaidthatthepointofthepassagedependsonthefactthatHeisnottheFatherofall.HecaresevenforthosewhoarenotHischildrenbutHisenemies;so His children, Jesus' disciples, ought to imitate Him by loving eventhose who are not their brethren but their persecutors. The moderndoctrine of the universal fatherhood of God is not to be found in theteachingofJesus.And it isnot tobe found in theNewTestament.Thewhole New Testament and Jesus Himself do indeed represent God asstanding in a relation to all men, whether Christians or not, which isanalogous to that in which a father stands to his children. He is theAuthorofthebeingofall,andassuchmightwellbecalledtheFatherofall.Hecaresforall,andforthatreasonalsomightbecalledtheFatherofall.Hereandtherethefigureoffatherhoodseemstobeusedtodesignatethis broader relationship which God sustains to all men or even to allcreatedbeings.SoinanisolatedpassageinHebrews,Godisspokenofasthe"Fatherofspirits"(Heb.xii.9).HereperhapsitistherelationofGod,ascreator,tothepersonalbeingswhomHehascreatedwhichisinview.One of the clearest instances of the broader use of the figure offatherhoodisfoundinthespeechofPaulatAthens,Actsxvii.28:"ForwearealsoHisoffspring."HereitisplainlytherelationinwhichGodstandsto allmen,whetherChristians ornot,which is inmind.But thewordsformpartofanhexameterlineandaretakenfromapaganpoet;theyarenot represented as part of the gospel, but merely as belonging to thecommonmeeting-groundwhichPauldiscoveredinspeakingtohispaganhearers. This passage is only typical ofwhat appears,with respect to auniversal fatherhood of God, in the New Testament as a whole.Something analogous to a universal fatherhood ofGod is taught in theNew Testament. Here and there the terminology of fatherhood andsonship is even used to describe this general relationship. But suchinstancesareextremelyrare.Ordinarilytheloftyterm"Father"isusedtodescribe a relationship of a farmore intimate kind, the relationship inwhichGodstandstothecompanyoftheredeemed.

Themoderndoctrineof theuniversal fatherhoodofGod, then,which is

being celebrated as "the essence of Christianity," really belongs at bestonlytothatvaguenaturalreligionwhichformsthepresuppositionwhichtheChristianpreachercanusewhenthegospelistobeproclaimed;andwhen it is regarded as a reassuring, all-sufficient thing, it comes intodirect opposition to the New Testament. The gospel itself refers tosomething entirely different; the really distinctive New TestamentteachingaboutthefatherhoodofGodconcernsonlythosewhohavebeenbroughtintothehouseholdoffaith.

There is nothing narrow about such teaching; for the door of thehouseholdof faith is openwide to all.Thatdoor is the "newand livingway"whichJesusopenedbyHisblood.And ifwereally loveour fellowmen,weshallnotgoabouttheworld,withtheliberalpreacher,tryingtomakemensatisfiedwiththecoldnessofavaguenaturalreligion.Butbythepreachingofthegospelweshallinvitethemintothewarmthandjoyof the house of God. Christianity offers men all that is offered by themodernliberalteachingabouttheuniversalfatherhoodofGod;but it isChristianityonlybecauseitoffersalsoinfinitelymore.

ButtheliberalconceptionofGoddiffersevenmorefundamentallyfromtheChristianviewthaninthedifferentcircleofideasconnectedwiththeterminologyof fatherhood.The truth is that liberalismhas lost sight oftheverycenterandcoreoftheChristianteaching.IntheChristianviewofGodassetforthintheBible,therearemanyelements.ButoneattributeofGodisabsolutelyfundamentalintheBible;oneattributeisabsolutelynecessaryinordertorenderintelligiblealltherest.Thatattributeis theawful transcendence of God. From beginning to end the Bible isconcernedtosetforththeawfulgulfthatseparatesthecreaturefromtheCreator.Itistrue,indeed,thataccordingtotheBibleGodisimmanentinthe world. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without Him. But he isimmanent intheworldnotbecauseHe is identifiedwith theworld,butbecauseHeisthefreeCreatorandUpholderof it.BetweenthecreatureandtheCreatoragreatgulfisfixed.

Inmodernliberalism,ontheotherhand,thissharpdistinctionbetweenGodandtheworldisbrokendown,andthename"God"isappliedtothemightyworldprocess itself.We findourselves in themidst of amightyprocess, which manifests itself in the indefinitely small and in the

indefinitelygreat--inthe infinitesimal lifewhich is revealed through themicroscopeand in thevastmovementsof theheavenlyspheres.To thisworld-process, of which we ourselves form a part, we apply the dreadnameof"God."God,therefore,itissaidineffect,isnotapersondistinctfromourselves;onthecontraryourlifeisapartofHis.ThustheGospelstory of the Incarnation, according tomodern liberalism, is sometimesthought of as a symbol of the general truth thatmanat his best is onewithGod.

Itisstrangehowsucharepresentationcanberegardedasanythingnew,forasamatterof fact,pantheism isaveryancientphenomenon. Ithasalways been with us, to blight the religious life of man. And modernliberalism, even when it is not consistently pantheistic, is at any ratepantheizing.IttendseverywheretobreakdowntheseparatenessbetweenGodandtheworld,andthesharppersonaldistinctionbetweenGodandman.Eventhesinofmanonthisviewoughtlogicallytoberegardedaspart of the life ofGod. Very different is the living and holyGod of theBibleandofChristianfaith.

Christianity differs from liberalism, then, in the first place, in itsconceptionofGod.But it alsodiffers in its conceptionofman.Modernliberalismhas lostall senseof thegulf that separates thecreature fromthe Creator; its doctrine of man follows naturally from its doctrine ofGod. But it is not only the creature limitations of mankind which aredenied. Even more important is another difference. According to theBible,manisasinnerunderthejustcondemnationofGod;accordingtomodernliberalism,thereisreallynosuchthingassin.Attheveryrootofthemodernliberalmovementisthelossoftheconsciousnessofsin.[1]

Theconsciousnessofsinwasformerlythestarting-pointofallpreaching;buttodayitisgone.Characteristicofthemodernage,aboveallelse,isasupreme confidence in human goodness; the religious literature of thedayisredolentofthatconfidence.Getbeneaththeroughexteriorofmen,wearetold,andweshalldiscoverenoughself-sacrificetofounduponitthehopeofsociety;theworld'sevil, itissaid,canbeovercomewiththeworld'sgood;nohelpisneededfromoutsidetheworld.

What has produced this satisfaction with human goodness? What has

become of the consciousness of sin? The consciousness of sin hascertainlybeenlost.Butwhathasremoveditfromtheheartsofmen?

In the first place, the war has perhaps had something to do with thechange.Intimeofwar,ourattentioniscalledsoexclusivelytothesinsofother people that we are sometimes inclined to forget our own sins.Attentiontothesinsofotherpeopleis,indeed,sometimesnecessary.Itisquite right tobe indignantagainstanyoppressionof theweakwhichisbeing carried on by the strong. But such a habit of mind, if madepermanent,ifcarriedoverintothedaysofpeace,hasitsdangers.Itjoinsforceswiththecollectivismofthemodernstatetoobscuretheindividual,personalcharacterofguilt.IfJohnSmithbeatshiswifenowadays,nooneissoold-fashionedas toblameJohnSmith for it.On thecontrary, it issaid,JohnSmithisevidentlythevictimofsomemoreofthatBolshevisticpropaganda;CongressoughttobecalledinextrasessioninordertotakeupthecaseofJohnSmithinanalienandseditionlaw.

Butthelossoftheconsciousnessofsinisfardeeperthanthewar;ithasits roots in amighty spiritualprocesswhichhasbeenactiveduring thepast seventy-five years. Like other great movements, that process hascome silently--so silently that its results have been achieved before theplainmanwasevenawareofwhatwastakingplace.Nevertheless,despiteallsuperficialcontinuity,aremarkablechangehascomeaboutwithinthelastseventy-fiveyears.ThechangeisnothinglessthanthesubstitutionofpaganismforChristianityasthedominantviewoflife.Seventy-fiveyearsago,Westerncivilization,despiteinconsistencies,wasstillpredominantlyChristian;todayitispredominantlypagan.

Inspeakingof"paganism,"wearenotusingatermofreproach.AncientGreece was pagan, but it was glorious, and the modern world has noteven begun to equal its achievements. What, then, is paganism? Theanswerisnotreallydifficult.Paganismisthatviewoflifewhichfindsthehighest goal of human existence in the healthy and harmonious andjoyous development of existing human faculties. Very different is theChristian ideal. Paganism is optimistic with regard to unaided humannature'whereasChristianityisthereligionofthebrokenheart.

InsayingthatChristianityis thereligionof thebrokenheart,wedonot

meanthatChristianityendswiththebrokenheart;wedonotmeanthatthecharacteristicChristianattitudeisacontinualbeatingonthebreastoracontinualcryingof"Woeisme."Nothingcouldbefurtherfromthefact.On the contrary, Christianitymeans that sin is faced once for all, andtheniscast,bythegraceofGod,foreverintothedepthsofthesea.Thetrouble with the paganism of ancient Greece, as with the paganism ofmoderntimes,wasnotinthesuperstructure,whichwasglorious,butinthe foundation, which was rotten. There was always something to becovered up; the enthusiasm of the architect was maintained only byignoring the disturbing fact of sin. In Christianity, on the other hand,nothingneedstobecoveredup.Thefactofsinisfacedsquarelyonceforall, and is dealtwith by the grace of God. But then, after sin has beenremoved by the grace of God, the Christian can proceed to developjoyously every faculty that God has given him. Such is the higherChristian humanism--a humanism founded not upon human pride butupondivinegrace.

But although Christianity does not end with the broken heart, it doesbegin with the broken heart; it begins with the consciousness of sin.Withouttheconsciousnessofsin,thewholeofthegospelwillseemtobeanidletale.Buthowcantheconsciousnessofsinberevived?SomethingnodoubtcanbeaccomplishedbytheproclamationofthelawofGod,forthelawrevealstransgressions.Thewholeofthelaw,moreover,shouldbeproclaimed. It will hardly be wise to adopt the suggestion (recentlyofferedamongmanysuggestionsastothewaysinwhichweshallhavetomodify our message in order to retain the allegiance of the returningsoldiers)thatwemuststoptreatingthelittlesinsasthoughtheywerebigsins.Thatsuggestionmeansapparentlythatwemustnotworrytoomuchaboutthelittlesins,butmustletthemremainunmolested.

Withregardtosuchanexpedient,itmayperhapsbesuggestedthatinthemoralbattlewearefightingagainstaveryresourcefulenemy,whodoesnotreveal thepositionofhisgunsbydesultoryartilleryactionwhenheplansagreatattack.Inthemoralbattle,as intheGreatEuropeanWar,thequietsectorsareusuallythemostdangerous.Itisthroughthe"littlesins" thatSatangainsanentrance intoour lives.Probably, therefore, itwillbeprudent towatchall sectorsof the frontand loseno timeabout

introducingtheunityofcommand.

Butiftheconsciousnessofsinistobeproduced,thelawofGodmustbeproclaimedinthelivesofChristianpeopleaswellasinword.Itisquiteuselessforthepreachertobreatheoutfireandbrimstonefromthepulpit,ifatthesametimetheoccupantsofthepewsgoontakingsinverylightlyandbeingcontentwith themore' standardsof theworld.The rankandfileoftheChurchmustdotheirpartinsoproclaimingthelawofGodbytheirlivesthatthesecretsofmen'sheartsshallberevealed.

Allthesethings,however,areinthemselvesquiteinsufficienttoproducethe consciousness of sin. The more one observes the condition of theChurch,themoreonefeelsobligedtoconfessthattheconvictionofsinisa great mystery' which can be produced only by the Spirit of God.Proclamation of the law, in word and in deed, can prepare for theexperience,but theexperience itself comes fromGod.Whenamanhasthatexperience,whenamancomesundertheconvictionofsin,hiswholeattitudetoward life is transformed;hewondersathis formerblindness,andthemessageofthegospel,whichformerlyseemedtobeanidletale,becomesnowinstinctwithlight.ButitisGodalonewhocanproducethechange.Only,letusnottrytodowithouttheSpiritofGod.

ThefundamentalfaultofthemodernChurchisthatsheisbusilyengagedinanabsolutelyimpossibletask--sheisbusilyengagedincallingtherighteoustorepentance.ModernpreachersaretryingtobringmenintotheChurchwithoutrequiringthemtorelinquishtheirpride;theyaretryingtohelpmenavoidtheconvictionofsin.Thepreachergetsupintothepulpit,openstheBible,andaddressesthecongregationsomewhatasfollows:"Youpeopleareverygood,"hesays;"yourespondtoeveryappealthatlookstowardthewelfareofthecommunity.NowwehaveintheBible--especiallyinthelifeofJesus--somethingsogoodthatwebelieveitisgoodenoughevenforyougoodpeople."Suchismodernpreaching.ItisheardeverySundayinthousandsofpulpits.Butitisentirelyfutile.EvenourLorddidnotcalltherighteoustorepentance,andprobablyweshallbenomoresuccessfulthanHe.

Notes

1. For what follows, see "The Church In the War," in ThePresbyterianforMay29,1919,pp.10f.

TheBible

Chapter3

Modernliberalism, ithasbeenobservedsofar,has lostsightof thetwogreatpresuppositionsof theChristianmessage--the livingGod, and thefactofsin.TheliberaldoctrineofGodandtheliberaldoctrineofmanareboth diametrically opposite to the Christian view. But the divergenceconcerns not only the presuppositions of the message, but also themessageitself.

TheChristianmessagehascometousthroughtheBible.WhatshallwethinkaboutthisBookinwhichthemessageiscontained?

According to the Christian view, the Bible contains an account of arevelationfromGodtoman,whichisfoundnowhereelse.Itistrue,theBible also contains a confirmation and a wonderful enrichment of therevelationswhicharegivenalsobythethingsthatGodhasmadeandbythe conscience ofman. "Theheavensdeclare the glory ofGod; and thefirmament showeth his handiwork"--these words are a confirmation oftherevelationofGodinnature;"allhavesinnedandfallshortofthegloryof God"--these words are a confirmation of what is attested by theconscience. But in addition to such reaffirmations of what mightconceivablybe learned elsewhere--as amatter of fact, becauseofmen'sblindness, even so much is learned elsewhere only in comparativelyobscurefashion--theBiblealsocontainsanaccountofarevelationwhichisabsolutelynew.ThatnewrevelationconcernsthewaybywhichsinfulmancancomeintocommunionwiththelivingGod.

The way was opened, according to the Bible, by an act of God, when,almostnineteenhundredyearsago,outside thewalls of Jerusalem, theeternal Son was offered as a sacrifice for the sins ofmen. To that onegreateventthewholeOldTestamentlooksforward,andinthatoneeventthewholeoftheNewTestamentfindsitscenterandcore.Salvationthen,according to the Bible, is not something that was discovered, but

somethingthathappened.HenceappearstheuniquenessoftheBible.Allthe ideasofChristianitymightbediscoveredinsomeotherreligion,yetthere would be in that other religion no Christianity. For Christianitydepends,notuponacomplexofideas,butuponthenarrationofanevent.Without thatevent, theworld, in theChristianview, is altogetherdark,andhumanityislostundertheguiltofsin.Therecanbenosalvationbythediscoveryofeternaltruth,foreternaltruthbringsnaughtbutdespair,becauseofsin.ButanewfacehasbeenputuponlifebytheblessedthingthatGoddidwhenHeofferedupHisonlybegottenSon.

AnobjectionissometimesofferedagainstthisviewofthecontentsoftheBible.[1]Mustwe,it issaid,dependuponwhathappenedso longago?Does salvation wait upon the examination of musty records? Is thetrained student of Palestinianhistory themodern priestwithoutwhosegracious intervention no one can see God? Canwe not find, instead, asalvationthatisindependentofhistory,asalvationthatdependsonlyonwhatiswithushereandnow?

Theobjection isnotdevoidofweight.But it ignoresoneof theprimaryevidences for the truth of the gospel record. That evidence is found inChristian experience. Salvation does depend uponwhat happened longago,buttheeventoflongagohaseffectsthatcontinueuntiltoday.WearetoldintheNewTestamentthatJesusofferedHimselfasasacrificeforthesinsofthosewhoshouldbelieveonHim.Thatisarecordofapastevent.Butwecanmaketrialof it today,andmakingtrialof itwefindit tobetrue.Weare told in theNewTestament thatonacertainmorning longagoJesusrosefromthedead.Thatagainisarecordofapastevent.Butagainwecanmaketrialofit,andmakingtrialofitwediscoverthatJesusistrulyalivingSaviortoday.

Butat thispointa fatalerror lies inwait. It isoneof the rooterrorsofmodern liberalism.Christian experience,we have just said, is useful asconfirming the gospelmessage. But because it is necessary,manymenhave jumped to the conclusion that it is all that is necessary.Having apresentexperienceofChristintheheart,maywenot,itissaid,holdthatexperiencenomatterwhathistorymaytellusastotheeventsofthefirstEastermorning?Maywenotmakeourselvesaltogether independentoftheresultsofBiblicalcriticism?Nomatterwhatsortofmanhistorymay

tell us Jesus ofNazareth actuallywas, nomatterwhat historymay sayabout the real meaning of His death or about the story of His allegedresurrection,maywenotcontinuetoexperiencethepresenceofChristinoursouls?

The trouble is that the experience thus maintained is not Christianexperience. Religious experience it may be, but Christian experience itcertainly is not. For Christian experience depends absolutely upon anevent.TheChristiansaystohimself:"IhavemeditatedupontheproblemofbecomingrightwithGod,Ihavetriedtoproducearighteousnessthatwill stand inHis sight; butwhen I heard the gospelmessage I learnedthatwhatIhadweaklystriventoaccomplishhadbeenaccomplishedbytheLordJesusChristwhenHediedformeontheCrossandcompletedHisredeemingworkbythegloriousresurrection.Ifthethinghasnotyetbeendone,ifImerelyhaveanideaofitsaccomplishment,thenIamofallmenmostmiserable, for I am still inmy sins.My Christian life, then,dependsaltogetheruponthetruthoftheNewTestamentrecord."

Christian experience is rightly used when it confirms the documentaryevidence. But it can never possibly provide a substitute for thedocumentary evidence. We know that the gospel story is true partlybecause of the early date of the documents in which it appears, theevidenceas to theirauthorship, the internalevidenceof their truth, theimpossibilityofexplainingthemasbeingbasedupondeceptionoruponmyth.Thisevidenceisgloriouslyconfirmedbypresentexperience,whichadds to the documentary evidence that wonderful directness andimmediacy of conviction which delivers us from fear. Christianexperience is rightly usedwhen it helps to convince us that the eventsnarratedintheNewTestamentactuallydidoccur;butitcanneverenableustobeChristianswhethertheeventsoccurredornot.Itisafairflower,and should be prized as a gift of God. But cut it from its root in theblessedBook,anditsoonwithersawayanddies.

Thus the revelation of which an account is contained in the Bibleembraces not only a reaffirmation of eternal truths--itself necessarybecausethetruthshavebeenobscuredbytheblindingeffectofsin--butalsoarevelationwhichsetsforththemeaningofanactofGod.

The contents of theBible, then, are unique.But another fact about theBible is also important. The Bible might contain an account of a truerevelationfromGod,andyettheaccountbefulloferror.BeforethefullauthorityoftheBiblecanbeestablished,therefore,itisnecessarytoaddto the Christian doctrine of revelation the Christian doctrine ofinspiration. The latter doctrine means that the Bible not only is anaccountofimportantthings,butthattheaccountitselfistrue,thewritershavingbeensopreservedfromerror,despiteafullmaintenanceof theirhabitsofthoughtandexpression,thattheresultingBookisthe"infallibleruleoffaithandpractice."

This doctrine of "plenary inspiration" has been made the subject ofpersistent misrepresentation. Its opponents speak of it as though itinvolvedamechanical]theoryoftheactivityoftheHolySpirit.TheSpirit,it issaid, isrepresentedinthisdoctrineasdictatingtheBibletowriterswho were really little more than stenographers. But of course all suchcaricatures are without basis in fact, and it is rather surprising thatintelligentmenshouldbesoblindedbyprejudiceaboutthismatterasnoteventoexamineforthemselvestheperfectlyaccessibletreatisesinwhichthe doctrine of plenary inspiration is set forth. It is usually consideredgoodpracticetoexamineathingforone'sselfbeforeechoingthevulgarridiculeof it.But inconnectionwith theBible,suchscholarlyrestraintsare somehow regarded as out of place. It is somuch easier to contentone'sselfwithafewopprobriousadjectivessuchas"mechanical,"orthelike.Whyengagec:inseriouscriticismwhenthepeoplepreferridicule?Why attack a real opponent when it is easier to knock down aman ofstraw?[2]

Asamatteroffact,thedoctrineofplenaryinspirationdoesnotdenytheindividuality of the Biblical writers; it does not ignore their use ofordinarymeansforacquiringinformation;itdoesnotinvolveanylackofinterestinthehistoricalsituationswhichgaverisetotheBiblicalbooks.WhatitdoesdenyisthepresenceoferrorintheBible.ItsupposesthattheHoly Spirit so informed theminds of the Biblical writers that theywerekeptfromfallingintotheerror"thatmarallotherbooks.TheBiblemight contain an account of a genuine revelation of God, and yet notcontaina trueaccount.Butaccordingto thedoctrineof inspiration, the

accountisasamatteroffactatrueaccount;theBibleisan"infallibleruleoffaithandpractice."

Certainlythatisastupendousclaim,anditisnowonderthatithasbeenattacked.Butthetroubleisthattheattackisnotalwaysfair.Iftheliberalpreacher objected to the doctrine of plenary inspiration on the groundthatasamatteroffactthereareerrorsintheBible,hemightberightandhemightbewrong,butatanyratethediscussionwouldbeconductedonthe proper ground. But too often the preacher desires to avoid thedelicate question of errors in the Bible--a question which might giveoffense to the rank and file--and prefers to speak merely against"mechanical" theories of inspiration, the theory of "dictation," the"superstitioususeoftheBibleasatalisman,"orthelike.Itallsoundstothe plain man as though it were very harmless. Does not the liberalpreachersaythattheBible is"divine"--indeedthat it is themoredivinebecauseitisthemorehuman?Whatcouldbemoreedifyingthanthat?Butofcoursesuchappearancesaredeceptive.ABiblethatisfulloferroriscertainlydivineinthemodernpantheizingsenseof"divine,"accordingtowhichGodisjustanothernameforthecourseoftheworldwithallitsimperfectionsandallitssin.ButtheGodwhomtheChristianworshipsisaGodoftruth.

ItmustbeadmittedthattherearemanyChristianswhodonotacceptthedoctrineofplenaryinspiration.Thatdoctrineisdeniednotonlybyliberalopponents of Christianity, but also bymany true Christianmen. TherearemanyChristianmeninthemodernChurchwhofindintheoriginofChristianity no mere product of evolution but a real entrance of thecreative power of God, who depend for their salvation, not at all upontheir own efforts to lead the Christ life, but upon the atoning blood ofChrist--therearemanymen in themodernChurchwho thusaccept thecentralmessageoftheBibleandyetbelievethatthemessagehascometous merely on the authority of trustworthy witnesses unaided in theirliteraryworkbyanysupernaturalguidanceoftheSpiritofGod.TherearemanywhobelievethattheBibleisrightatthecentralpoint,initsaccountof the redeemingwork of Christ, and yet believe that it containsmanyerrors.Suchmenarenotreallyliberals,butChristians;becausetheyhaveacceptedas true themessageuponwhichChristianity depends.A great

gulf separates them from thosewho reject the supernatural act of GodwithwhichChristianitystandsorfalls.

Itisanotherquestion,however,whetherthemediatingviewoftheBiblewhich is thusmaintained is logically tenable, the troublebeing thatourLordHimselfseemstohaveheldthehighviewoftheBiblewhichisherebeingrejected.Certainlyitisanotherquestion--andaquestionwhichthepresent writer would answer with an emphatic negative--whether thepanic about the Bible, which gives rise to such concessions, is at alljustified by the facts. If the Christian make full use of his Christianprivileges, he finds the seat of authority in the whole Bible, which heregardsasnomerewordofmanbutastheveryWordofGod.

Very different is the view of modern liberalism. The modern liberalrejectsnotonlythedoctrineofplenaryinspiration,butevensuchrespectfortheBibleaswouldbeproperoveragainstanyordinarilytrustworthybook.ButwhatissubstitutedfortheChristianviewoftheBible?Whatistheliberalviewastotheseatofauthorityinreligion?[3]

The impression is sometimes produced that the modern liberalsubstitutes for the authority of the Bible the authority of Christ. Hecannotaccept,hesays,whatheregardsastheperversemoralteachingoftheOldTestamentor thesophisticalargumentsofPaul.ButheregardshimselfasbeingthetrueChristianbecause,rejectingtherestoftheBible,hedependsuponJesusalone.

This impression, however, is utterly false. Themodern liberal does notreallyholdtotheauthorityofJesus.Evenifhedidso,indeed,hewouldstill be impoverishing greatly his knowledge of God and of the way ofsalvation.ThewordsofJesus,spokenduringHisearthlyministry,couldhardlycontainallthatweneedtoknowaboutGodandaboutthewayofsalvation;forthemeaningofJesus'redeemingworkcouldhardlybefullysetforthbeforethatworkwasdone.Itcouldbesetforthindeedbywayofprophecy,andasamatteroffactitwassosetforthbyJesuseveninthedaysofHis flesh.But the full explanationcouldnaturallybegivenonlyaftertheworkwasdone.Andsuchwasactuallythedivinemethod.It isdoingdespite,notonlytotheSpiritofGod,butalsotoJesusHimself,toregardtheteachingoftheHolySpirit,giventhroughtheapostles,asatall

inferiorinauthoritytotheteachingofJesus.

Asamatteroffact,however,themodernliberaldoesnotholdfasteventotheauthorityofJesus.CertainlyhedoesnotacceptthewordsofJesusastheyarerecordedintheGospels.ForamongtherecordedwordsofJesusaretobefoundjustthosethingswhicharemostabhorrenttothemodernliberalChurch, and inHis recordedwordsJesus alsopoints forward tothe fuller revelation which was afterwards to be given through Hisapostles. Evidently, therefore, those words of Jesus which are to beregarded as authoritative by modern liberalism must first be selectedfrom themass of the recordedwords by a critical process. The criticalprocessiscertainlyverydifficult,andthesuspicionoftenarisesthatthecritic is retaining as genuine words of the historical Jesus only thosewordswhichconformtohisownpreconceived ideas.Butevenafter thesiftingprocess has been completed, the liberal scholar is still unable toacceptasauthoritativeallthesayingsofJesus;hemustfinallyadmitthateven the "historical" Jesus as reconstructed by modern historians saidsomethingsthatareuntrue.

So much is usually admitted. But, it is maintained, although noteverythingthatJesussaidistrue,Hiscentral"life-purpose"isstilltoberegardedasregulativefortheChurch.Butwhatthenwasthelife-purposeofJesus?Accordingtotheshortest,andifmoderncriticismbeaccepted'the earliest of the Gospels, the Son ofMan came not to beministeredunto, but tominister, and to givehis life a ransom formany" (Markx.45).Here thevicariousdeath isputas the"life-purpose"ofJesus.Suchan utterance must of course be pushed aside by the modern liberalChurch.Thetruthisthatthelife-purposeofJesusdiscoveredbymodernliberalismisnotthelifepurposeoftherealJesus,butmerelyrepresentsthose elements in the teaching of Jesus--isolated and misinterpreted--whichhappen toagreewith themodernprogram. It isnotJesus, then,whoistherealauthority,butthemodernprinciplebywhichtheselectionwithinJesus' recorded teachinghasbeenmade.Certain isolatedethicalprinciplesof theSermonon theMountare accepted,not at all becausetheyareteachingsofJesus,butbecausetheyagreewithmodernideas.

It is not true at all, then, that modern liberalism is based upon theauthority of Jesus. It is obliged to reject a vast deal that is absolutely

essential in Jesus' example and teaching--notablyHis consciousness ofbeing theheavenlyMessiah.The realauthority, for liberalism, can onlybe"theChristianconsciousness"or"Christianexperience."ButhowshallthefindingsoftheChristianconsciousnessbeestablished?SurelynotbyamajorityvoteoftheorganizedChurch.Suchamethodwouldobviouslydo awaywith all liberty of conscience.The only authority, then, canbeindividualexperience;truthcanonlybethatwhich"helps"theindividualman. Such an authority is obviously no authority at all; for individualexperienceisendlesslydiverse,andwhenoncetruthisregardedonlyasthatwhichworksatanyparticulartime,itceasestobetruth.Theresultisanabysmalskepticism.

TheChristianman,ontheotherhand,findsintheBibletheveryWordofGod. Let it not be said that dependence upon a book is a dead or anartificial thing. The Reformation of the sixteenth century was foundedupontheauthorityoftheBible,yet itsettheworldaflame.Dependenceuponawordofmanwouldbeslavish,butdependenceuponGod'swordis life.Darkandgloomywouldbe theworld, ifwewere left toourowndevicesandhadnoblessedWordofGod.TheBible, to theChristian isnotaburdensomelaw,buttheveryMagnaChartaofChristianliberty.

Itisnowonder,then,thatliberalismistotallydifferentfromChristianity,forthefoundationisdifferent.ChristianityisfoundedupontheBible.ItbasesupontheBiblebothitsthinkinganditslife.Liberalismontheotherhandisfoundedupontheshiftingemotionsofsinfulmen.

Notes

1.ForwhatfollowscompareHistoryandFaith,1915,pp.13-15.

2.ItisnotdeniedthattherearesomepersonsinthemodernChurchwhodoneglectthecontextofBiblequotationsandwhodoignorethehuman characteristics of the Biblical writers. But in an entirelyUnwarrantable manner this defective way of using the Bible isattributed,byinsinuationatleast,tothegreatbodyofthosewhoYeheldtotheinspirationofScripture.

3. For what follows, compare "For Christ or AgainstHim," in The

Presbyterian,forJanuary20,1921,p.9.

Christ

Chapter4

ThreepointsofdifferencebetweenliberalismandChristianityhavebeennoticed so far. The two religions are different with regard to thepresuppositionsoftheChristianmessage,theviewofGodandtheviewofman;andtheyarealsodifferentwithregardtotheirestimateoftheBookinwhich themessage is contained. It is not surprising, then, that theydiffer fundamentally with regard to the message itself. But before themessage is considered, we must consider the Person upon whom themessageisbased.ThePersonisJesus.AndintheirattitudetowardJesus,liberalismandChristianityaresharplyopposed.

The Christian attitude toward Jesus appears in the whole NewTestament. In examining the New Testament witness it has becomecustomary in recent years to begin with the Epistles of Paul. [1] Thiscustom is sometimesbaseduponerror; it is sometimesbasedupon theviewthattheEpistlesofPaulare"primary"sourcesofinformation,whiletheGospelsareconsideredtobeonly"secondary."Asamatteroffact,theGospels, as well as the Epistles, are primary sources of the highestpossible value. But the custom of beginning with Paul is at leastconvenient. Its convenience is due to the large measure of agreementwhich prevails with regard to the Pauline Epistles About the date andauthorship of the Gospels there is debate; but with regard to theauthorship and approximate date of the principal epistles of Paul allserious historians,whetherChristian or non-Christian, are agreed. It isuniversallyadmittedthatthechiefoftheextantepistlesattributedtoPaulwere reallywrittenby amanof the firstChristiangeneration,whowashimselfacontemporaryofJesusandhadcomeintopersonalcontactwithcertain of Jesus' intimate friends.What, then, was the attitude of thisrepresentativeofthefirstChristiangenerationtowardJesusofNazareth?

The answer cannot be at all in doubt. The apostle Paul clearly stoodalways toward Jesus in a truly religious relationship. Jesuswasnot for

Paulmerelyanexampleforfaith;HewasprimarilytheobjectoffaithThereligionofPauldidnotconsistinhavingfaithinGodlikethefaithwhichJesushadinGod;itconsistedratherinhavingfaithinJesus.Anappealto theexampleofJesus isnot indeedabsent from thePaulineEpistles,andcertainlyitwasnotabsentfromPaul'slife.TheexampleofJesuswasfound by Paul, moreover, not merely in the acts of incarnation andatonementbuteven in thedaily life of Jesus inPalestine.Exaggerationwithregardtothismattershouldbeavoided.PlainlyPaulknewfarmoreaboutthelifeofJesusthanintheEpistleshehasseenfittotell;plainlytheEpistles do not begin to contain all the instructionwhich Paul hadgiven to theChurchesat the commencementof theirChristian life.Butevenafterexaggerationshavebeenavoided,thefactissignificantenough.TheplainfactisthatimitationofJesus,importantthoughitwasforPaul,wasswallowedupbysomethingfarmoreimportantstill.Nottheexampleof Jesus, but the redeeming work of Jesus, was the primary thing forPaul.ThereligionofPaulwasnotprimarilyfaithinGodlikeJesus'faith;itwasfaithinJesus;PaulcommittedtoJesuswithoutreservetheeternaldestiniesofhissoul.ThatiswhatwemeanwhenwesaythatPaulstoodinatrulyreligiousrelationtoJesus.

But Paul was not the first to stand in this religious relation to Jesus.Evidently, at this decisive point, he was only continuing an attitudetoward Jesuswhich had already been assumed by thosewho had beenChristiansbeforehim.Paulwasnotindeedledtoassumethatattitudebythe persuasions of the earlier disciples; he was converted by the LordHimself on the road to Damascus. But the faith so induced was inessentials like the faith which had already prevailed among the earlierdisciples. Indeed, an account of the redeeming work of Christ isdesignatedbyPaulassomethingthathehad"received";andthataccounthadevidentlybeenaccompaniedalreadyintheprimitiveChurchbytrustin the Redeemer. Paul was not the first who had faith in Jesus, asdistinguishedfromfaithinGodlikethefaithwhichJesushad;PaulwasnotthefirsttomakeJesustheobjectoffaith.

Somuchwillnodoubtbeadmittedbyall.Butwhowerethepredecessorsof Paul in making Jesus the object of faith? The obvious answer hasalwaysbeenthattheyweretheprimitivedisciplesinJerusalem,andthat

answerreallystandsabundantlyfirm.Astrangeattempthasindeedbeenmadeinrecentyears,byBoussetandHeitmuller, tocastdoubtuponit.WhatPaul"received," ithasbeensuggested,wasreceived,not fromtheprimitiveJerusalemChurch,butfromsuchChristiancommunitiesastheoneatAntioch.ButthisattemptatinterposinganextralinkbetweentheJerusalem Church and Paul has resulted in failure. The Epistles reallyprovide abundant information as to Paul's relations to Jerusalem. Paulwas deeply interested in the Jerusalem Church; in opposition to hisJudaizingopponents,whohadincertainmattersappealedtotheoriginalapostles against him, he emphasizes his agreement with Peter and therest. But even the Judaizers had had no objection to Paul's way ofregardingJesusastheobjectoffaith;aboutthatmatterthereisnotintheEpistlestheleastsuspicionofanydebate.AbouttheplaceoftheMosaiclawintheChristianlifetherewasdiscussion,thoughevenwithregardtothat matter the Judaizers were entirely unjustified in appealing to theoriginal apostles against Paul But with regard to the attitude towardJesustheoriginalapostleshadevidentlygivennoteventheslightestcolorforanappeal to themagainst theteachingofPaul.Evidently inmakingJesustheobjectofreligiousfaith--thethingthatwastheheartandsoulofPaul's religion--Paulwas in no disagreement with those who had beenapostlesbeforehim.Hadtherebeensuchdisagreement,the"righthandof fellowship," which the pillars of the Jerusalem Church gave to Paul(Gal. ii. 9), would have been impossible. The facts are really too plain.The whole of early Christian history is a hopeless riddle unless theJerusalem Church, as well as Paul, made Jesus the object of religiousfaith. Primitive Christianity certainly did not consist in the mereimitationofJesus.

Butwas this"faith inJesus" justifiedby the teachingofJesusHimself?ThequestionhasreallybeenansweredinChapter2.ItwasthereshownthatJesusmostcertainlydidnotkeepHisPersonoutofHisgospel,buton the contrary presented Himself as the Savior of men. Thedemonstration of that fact was the highest merit of the late JamesDenney.Hisworkon"JesusandtheGospel"isfaultyinsomerespects;itis marred by an undue concessiveness toward some modern types ofcriticism. But just because of its concessiveness with regard to manyimportantmatters,itsmainthesisstandsall themorefirm.Denneyhas

shownthatnomatterwhatviewbe takenof thesourcesunderlying theGospels, and no matter what elements in the Gospels be rejected assecondary,stilleventhesupposed"historicalJesus,"asHeisleftafterthecritical process is done, plainly presented Himself, not merely as anexampleforfaith,butastheobjectoffaith.

Itmay be added,moreover, that Jesus did not invite the confidence ofmenbyminimizing the loadwhichHeoffered to bear.Hedidnot say:"TrustmetogiveyouacceptancewithGod,becauseacceptancewithGodis not difficult; God does not regard sin so seriously after all." On thecontraryJesuspresented thewrathofGod inamoreawfulway than itwas afterwards presented by His disciples; it was Jesus--Jesus whommodern liberals represent as a mild-mannered exponent of anundiscriminatinglove--itwasJesuswhospokeoftheouterdarknessandthe everlasting fire, of the sin that shall not be forgiven either in thisworld or in that which is to come. There is nothing in Jesus' teachingabout the character of God which in itself can evoke trust. On thecontrarytheawfulpresentationcangiverise,intheheartsofussinners,only to despair. Trust arises only when we attend to God's way ofsalvation. And that way is found in Jesus. Jesus did not invite theconfidenceofmenbyaminimizingpresentationofwhatwasnecessaryinorderthatsinnersmightstandfaultlessbeforetheawful throneofGod.On the contrary, he invited confidence by the presentation of His ownwondrousPerson.Greatwastheguiltofsin,butJesuswasgreaterstill.God,accordingtoJesus,wasalovingFather;butHewasalovingFather,notofthesinfulworld,butofthosewhomHeHimselfhadbroughtintoHis Kingdom through the Son. The truth is, the witness of the NewTestament, with regard to Jesus as the object of faith, is an absolutelyunitary witness. The thing is rooted far too deep in the records ofprimitive Christianity ever to be removed by any critical process. TheJesus spoken of in the New Testament was no mere teacher ofrighteousness, nomere pioneer in a new type of religious life, butOnewhowasregarded,andregardedHimself,astheSaviorwhommencouldtrust.

But by modern liberalism He is regarded in a totally different way.ChristiansstandinareligiousrelationtoJesus;liberalsdonotstandina

religiousrelationtoJesus--whatdifferencecouldbemoreprofoundthanthat?ThemodernliberalpreacherreverencesJesus;hehasthenameofJesusforeveronhislips;hespeaksofJesusasthesupremerevelationofGod;he enters, or tries to enter, into the religious life of Jesus.Buthedoes not stand in a religious relation to Jesus. Jesus for him is anexampleforfaith,nottheobjectoffaith.Themodernliberaltriestohavefaith inGod like the faithwhichhe supposes Jesushad inGod;buthedoesnothavefaithinJesus.

Accordingtomodernliberalism, inotherwords,Jesuswas theFounderof Christianity because He was the first Christian, and ChristianityconsistsinmaintenanceofthereligiouslifewhichJesusinstituted.

ButwasJesusreallyaChristian?Or,toputthesamequestioninanotherway,areweableoroughtweasChristianstoenterineveryrespectintothe experience of Jesus and make Him in every respect our example?Certaindifficultiesarisewithregardtothisquestion

ThefirstdifficultyappearsintheMessianicconsciousnessofJesus.ThePersonwhomweareaskedtotakeasourexamplethoughtthatHewastheheavenlySonofManwhowastobethefinalJudgeofall theearth.Can we imitate Him there? The trouble is not merely that Jesusundertook a special mission which can never be ours. That difficultymightconceivablybeovercome;wemightstilltakeJesusasourexamplebyadaptingtoourstationinlifethekindofcharacterwhichHedisplayedinHis.Butanotherdifficultyismoreserious.TherealtroubleisthattheloftyclaimofJesus,if,asmodernliberalismisconstrainedtobelieve,theclaimwasunjustified,placesamoral stainuponJesus' character.Whatshall be thought of a human beingwho lapsed so far from the path ofhumility and sanity as tobelieve that the eternal destinies of theworldwerecommittedintoHishands?Thetruth is that ifJesusbemerelyanexample,Heisnotaworthyexample;forHeclaimedtobefarmore.

Againstthisobjectionmodernliberalismhasusuallyadoptedapolicyofpalliation. The Messianic consciousness, it is said, arose late in theexperience of Jesus, and was not really fundamental. What was reallyfundamental, the liberal historians continue, was the consciousness ofsonship toward God--a consciousness which may be shared by every

humbledisciple.TheMessianicconsciousness,onthisview,aroseonlyasanafterthought.Jesuswasconscious,itissaid,ofstandingtowardGodinarelationofuntroubledsonship.ButHediscoveredthatthisrelationwasnotsharedbyothers.Hebecameaware,therefore,ofamissiontobringothers into the place of privilege which He Himself already occupied.ThatmissionmadeHimunique,andtogiveexpressiontoHisuniquenessHe adopted, late in His life and almost against His will, the faultycategoryofMessiahship.

ManyaretheformsinwhichsomesuchpsychologicalreconstructionofthelifeofJesushasbeensetforthinrecentyears.Themodernworldhasdevoted its very best literary efforts to this task. But the efforts haveresulted in failure. In the first place, there is no real evidence that thereconstructed Jesus is historical. The sources know nothing of a JesuswhoadoptedthecategoryofMessiahshiplateinlifeandagainstHiswill.OnthecontrarytheonlyJesusthattheypresentisaJesuswhobasedthewholeofHisministryuponHis stupendous claim. In the secondplace,evenif themodernreconstructionwerehistorical itwouldnotsolvetheproblematall.Theproblemisamoralandpsychologicalproblem.Howcan a human being who lapsed so far from the path of rectitude as tothinkHimself to be the judge of all the earth--how can such a humanbeingberegardedasthesupremeexampleformankind?Itisabsolutelyno answer to the objection to say that Jesus accepted the category ofMessiahshipreluctantlyandlate in life.NomatterwhenHesuccumbedtotemptationtheoutstandingfactisthat,onthisview,Hedidsuccumb;and thatmoral defeat places an indelible stain uponHis character. NodoubtitispossibletomakeexcusesforHim,andmanyexcusesareasamatteroffactmadebytheliberalhistorians.Butwhathasbecomethenof the claim of liberalism to be truly Christian? Can a man for whomexcuseshavetobemadeberegardedasstandingtohismoderncriticsinarelationshipevenremotelyanalogoustothatinwhichtheJesusoftheNewTestamentstandstotheChristianChurch?

ButthereisanotherdifficultyinthewayofregardingJesusassimplythefirst Christian. This second difficulty concerns the attitude of Jesustowardsin.IfJesusisseparatedfromusbyhisMessianicconsciousness,HeisseparatedfromusevenmorefundamentallybytheabsenceinHim

ofasenseofsin.

With respect to the sinlessness of Jesusmodern liberal historians findthemselves in a quandary. To affirm that He was sinless means torelinquish much of that ease of defending liberal religion which theliberal historians are anxious to preserve, and involves hazardousassumptions with regard to the nature of sin. For if sin is merelyimperfection,howcananabsolutenegationofitbeventureduponwithina process of nature which is supposed to be ever changing and everadvancing? The very idea of "sinlessness,"muchmore the reality of it,requires us to conceive of sin as transgression of a fixed lawor a fixedstandard, and involves the conception of an absolute goodness. But tothatconceptionofanabsolutegoodnessthemodernevolutionaryviewoftheworldproperly speakinghasno right..At any rate, if such absolutegoodness is to be allowed to intrude at a definite point in the presentworld-process,weareinvolvedinthatsupernaturalismwhich,aswillbeobserved later, is the very thing that the modern reconstruction ofChristianityismostanxioustoavoid.OnceaffirmthatJesuswassinlessandallothermensinful,andyouhaveenteredintoirreconcilableconflictwith the whole modern point of view. On the other hand, if there arescientificobjections,fromtheliberalpointofview,againstanaffirmationofthesinlessnessofJesus,therearealsoveryobviousreligiousobjectionsagainstanoppositeaffirmationofHissinfulness--difficultiesformodernliberalismaswellasforthetheologyofthehistoricChurch.IfJesuswassinfullikeothermen,thelastremnantofhisuniquenesswouldseemtohave disappeared, and all continuity with the previous development ofChristianitywouldseemtobedestroyed.

In the face of this quandary themodern liberal historian is inclined toavoid rash assertions. He will not be sure that when Jesus taught Hisdisciplestosay,"Forgiveusourdebts,"Hedidnotpraythatprayerwiththem;on theotherhandhewillnotreally face theresults that logicallyfollow from his doubt. In his perplexity, he apt to be content with theassertion that whether Jesus was sinless or not He was at any rateimmeasurably above the rest of us. Whether Jesus was "sinless" is anacademicquestion,weshallprobablybetold,thatconcernsthemysteriesoftheabsolute;whatweneedtodoistobowinsimplereverencebeforea

holinesswhichcomparedwithour impurity isasawhite light inadarkplace.

That such avoidance of the difficulty is unsatisfactory hardly requiresproof; obviously the liberal theologian is trying to obtain the religiousadvantagesofanaffirmationofsinlessnessinJesusatthesametimethathe obtains the supposed scientific advantages of its denial. But just forthemomentwe are not concernedwith the question at all; we are notconcernedtodeterminewhetherasamatteroffactJesuswassinlessorno.WhatweneedtoobservejustnowisthatwhetherJesuswassinfulorsinlessatanyrateintherecordofHislifewhichhasactuallycomeintoourhandsHedisplaysnoconsciousnessofsin.Even if thewords"Whycallestthoumegood?"meantthatJesusdeniedtheattributeofgoodnesstoHimself--whichtheydonot--itwouldstillremaintruethatHeneverinHisrecordedwordsdealsinanyintelligiblewaywithsininHisownlife.In the account of the temptation we are told how He kept sin fromentering, but never how He dealt with it after its entrance had beeneffected. The religious experience of Jesus, as it is recorded in theGospels,inotherwords,givesusnoinformationaboutthewayinwhichsinshallberemoved.

Yet in the Gospels Jesus is represented constantly as dealing with theproblem of sin. He always assumes that other men are sinful; yet HeneverfindssininHimself.AstupendousdifferenceisfoundherebetweenJesus' experience and ours. That differences prevents the religiousexperienceofJesusfromservingasthesolebasisoftheChristianlife.Forclearly ifChristianity isanything it isawayofgettingridofsin.Atanyrate,ifitisnotthatitisuseless;forallmenhavesinned.Andasamatterof fact it was that from the very beginning. Whether the beginning ofChristian preaching be put on the day of Pentecost orwhen Jesus firsttaught in Galilee, in either case one of its first words was "Repent."Throughout thewholeNewTestament theChristianity of the primitiveChurch is represented clearly as a way of getting rid of sin. But ifChristianityisawayofgettingridofsin,thenJesuswasnotaChristian;forJesus,sofaraswecansee,hadnosintogetridof.

WhythendidtheearlyChristianscallthemselvesdisciplesofJesus,whydidtheyconnectthemselveswithHisname?Theanswerisnotdifficult.

They connected themselves with His name not because He was theirexample in theirriddingthemselvesofsin,butbecausetheirmethodofriddingthemselvesofsinwasbymeansofHim.ItwaswhatJesusdidforthem,andnotprimarily theexampleofHisown life,whichmadethemChristians.Suchisthewitnessofallourprimitiverecords.Therecordisfullest, as has already been observed, in the case of the Apostle Paul;clearlyPaulregardedhimselfassavedfromsinbywhatJesusdidforhimonthecross.ButPauldidnotstandalone."Christdiedforoursin`"wasnotsomething that Paul had originated; it was something he had"received." The benefits of that savingwork of Christ, according to theprimitive Church, were to be received by faith; even if the classicformulation of this conviction should prove to be due to Paul, theconviction itself clearly goes back to the very beginning. The primitiveChristiansfelt themselves inneedofsalvation.How,theyasked,shouldtheloadofsinberemoved?Theiranswerisperfectlyplain.TheysimplytrustedJesustoremoveit.Inotherwordstheyhad"faith"inHim.

Hereagainwearebroughtfacetofacewiththesignificantfactwhichwasnoticed at the beginning of this chapter; the early Christians regardedJesusnotmerely as an example for faith but primarily as the object offaith.Christianityfromthebeginningwasameansofgettingridofsinbytrust inJesusofNazareth.But ifJesuswas thus theobjectofChristianfaith,HeHimselfwasnomoreaChristianthanGodisareligiousbeing.Godistheobjectofallreligion,Heisabsolutelynecessarytoallreligion;butHeHimself is the only being in the universewho cannever inHisownnaturebereligious.So it iswithJesusasrelatedtoChristianfaith.Christian faith is trust reposed inHimfor the removalof sin;Hecouldnot repose trust (in the sense with which we are here concerned) inHimself;thereforeHewascertainlynotaChristian.Ifwearelookingfora complete illustration of the Christian life we cannot find it in thereligiousexperienceofJesus.

Thisconclusionneedstobeguardedagainsttwoobjections.

Inthefirstplace,itwillbesaid,arewenotfailingtodojusticetothetruehumanityofJesus,whichisaffirmedbythecreedsoftheChurchaswellas by the modern theologians? When we say that Jesus could notillustrateChristianfaithanymorethanGodcanbereligious,arewenot

denyingtoJesusthatreligiousexperiencewhichisanecessaryelementintruehumanity?MustnotJesus,ifHebetrueman,havebeenmorethantheobjectofreligiousfaith;mustHenothavehadareligionofHisown?Theanswerisnotfartoseek.CertainlyJesushadareligionofHisown;Hisprayerwasrealprayer,Hisfaithwasrealreligiousfaith.HisrelationtoHisheavenlyFatherwasnotmerelythatofachildtoa father; itwasthatof aman tohisGod.CertainlyJesushada religion;without itHishumanitywouldindeedhavebeenbutincomplete.WithoutdoubtJesushad a religion; the fact is of the utmost importance. But it is equallyimportant. To observe that that religion which Jesus had was notChristianity. Christianity is a way of getting rid of sin, and Jesus waswithoutsin.HisreligionwasareligionofParadise,notareligionofsinfulhumanity.Itwasareligiontowhichwemayperhapsinsomesortattaininheaven,whentheprocessofourpurificationiscomplete(thougheventhenthememoryofredemptionwillneverleaveus);butcertainlyitisnotareligionwithwhichwecanbegin.ThereligionofJesuswasareligionofuntroubledsonship;ChristianityisareligionoftheattainmentofsonshipbytheredeemingworkofChrist.

Butifthatbetrue,itmaybeobjected,inthesecondplace,thatJesusisbeingremovedfarfromus,thatonourviewHeisnolongerourBrotherand our Example. The objection is welcome, since it helps us to avoidmisunderstandingsandexaggerations.

CertainlyifourzealforthegreatnessanduniquenessofJesusledussotoseparateHimfromusthatHecouldnolongerbetouchedwiththefeelingof our infirmities, the result would be disastrous; Jesus' comingwouldlosemuchofitssignificance.Butitoughttobeobservedthatlikenessisnot always necessary to nearness. The experience of a father in hispersonalrelationtohissonisquitedifferentfromthatofthesoninhisrelationtohisfather;butjustthatverydifferencebindsfatherandsonallthemore closely together. The father cannot share the specifically filialaffection of the son, and the son cannot share the specifically paternalaffectionofthefather:yetnomererelationshipofbrotherhood,perhaps,couldbequite80close.Fatherhoodandsonshipare complementary toeach other; hence the dissimilarity, but hence also the closeness of thebond. Itmay be somewhat the same in the case of our relationship to

Jesus. IfHewereexactly thesameasourselves, ifHeweremerelyour,Brother, we should not be nearly so close to Him as we are when HestandstousintherelationshipofaSavior.

Nevertheless Jesus as a matter of fact is a Brother to us as well as aSavior--an elder Brother whose steps we may follow. The imitation ofJesushasa fundamentalplace inChristian life; it isperfectlycorrect torepresentHimasoursupremeandonlyperfectexample.

Certainlysofarasthefieldofethicsisconcernedtherecanbenodispute.NomatterwhatviewmaybetakenofHisoriginandHishighernature,Jesuscertainlyledatruehumanlife,andinitHecameintothosevariedhumanrelationshipswhichprovideopportunity formoral achievement.Hislifeofperfectpuritywasledinnocoldaloofnessfromthethrongandpress;Hisunselfishlovewasexercisednotmerelyinmightydeeds,butinactsofkindnesswhichthehumblestofushasthepower,ifonlywehadthewill, to imitate.Moreeffective, too, thanalldetail is the indefinableimpression of thewhole; Jesus is felt to be far greater than any ofHisindividualwordsordeeds.Hiscalmness,unselfishnessandstrengthhavebeenthewonderoftheages;theworldcanneverlosetheinspirationofthatradiantexample.

Jesus is an example,moreover, notmerely for the relations ofman tomanbutalsofortherelationofmantoGod;imitationofHimmayextendandmust extend to the sphere of religion as well as to that of ethics.Indeed religion and ethics in Him were never separated; no singleelementinHislifecanbeunderstoodwithoutreferencetoHisheavenlyFather.Jesuswasthemostreligiousmanwhoeverlived;HedidnothingandsaidnothingandthoughtnothingwithoutthethoughtofGod.IfHisexamplemeans anything at all itmeans that a human life without theconscious presence of God--even though it be a life of humanitarianserviceoutwardlyliketheministryofJesus--isamonstrousperversion.Ifwe would follow truly in Jesus' steps, we must obey the firstcommandmentaswellasthesecondthatislikeuntoit;wemustlovetheLord our Godwith all our heart and soul andmind and strength. ThedifferencebetweenJesusandourselvesservesonly toenforce, certainlynot to invalidate, the lesson. If the One to whom all power was givenneededrefreshmentandstrengtheninginprayer,wemore;iftheOneto

whomthe lilies of the field revealed the glory ofGod yetwent into thesanctuary,surelyweneedsuchassistanceevenmorethanHe;ifthewiseandholyOnecouldsay"Thywillbedone,"surelysubmissionisyetmoreinplaceforuswhosewisdomisasthefoolishnessofchildren.

ThusJesusisthesupremeexampleformen.ButtheJesuswhocanserveasanexampleisnottheJesusofmodernliberalreconstruction,butonlythe Jesus of the New Testament. The Jesus of modern liberalismadvanced stupendous claims which were not founded upon fact--suchconductoughtnevertobemadeanorm.TheJesusofmodernliberalismall throughHisministryemployed languagewhichwasextravagantandabsurd--anditisonlytobehopedthatimitationofHimwillnotleadtoanequalextravaganceinHismoderndisciples.IftheJesusofnaturalisticreconstruction were really taken as an example, disaster would soonfollow.As amatter of fact, however, themodern liberaldoesnot reallytakeashisexampletheJesusoftheliberalhistorians;whathereallydoesinpracticeistomanufactureashisexampleasimpleexponentofanon-doctrinalreligionwhomtheablerhistoriansevenofhisownschoolknownevertohaveexistedexceptintheimaginationofmodernmen.

Very different is the imitation of the real Jesus--the Jesus of the NewTestamentwhoactually lived in the first centuryof our era.That Jesusadvanced lofty claims; butHis claims, instead of being the extravagantdreams of an enthusiast, were sober truth. On His lips, therefore,languagewhichinthereducedJesusofmodernreconstructionwouldbefrenzied or absurd becomes fraught with blessing for mankind. JesusdemandedthatthosewhofollowedHimshouldbewillingtobreakeventheholiestties--Hesaid,"Ifamancomethtomeandhatethnothisfatherandmother. . .hecannotbemydisciple,"and"Letthedeadburytheirdead."Comingfromthemereprophetconstructedbymodernliberalism,thosewordswouldbemonstrous; coming from the real Jesus, they aresublime.Howgreatwasthemissionofmercywhichjustifiedsuchwords!AndhowwonderfulthecondescensionoftheeternalSon!Howmatchlessan example for the children of men! Well might Paul appeal to theexampleoftheincarnateSavior;wellmighthesay,"LetthesamemindbeinyouwhichwasalsoinChristJesus."TheimitationoftherealJesuswillneverleadamanastray.

ButtheexampleofJesusisaperfectexampleonlyifHewasjustifiedinwhat He offered to men. And He offered, not primarily guidance, butsalvation;HepresentedHimselfastheobjectofmen'sfaith.Thatofferisrejectedbymodernliberalism,butitisacceptedbyChristianmen.

Thereisaprofounddifference,then,intheattitudeassumedbymodernliberalismandbyChristianitytowardJesustheLord.LiberalismregardsHimasanExampleandGuide;Christianity,asaSavior:liberalismmakesHimanexampleforfaith;Christianity,theobjectoffaith.

This difference in the attitude toward Jesus depends upon a profounddifferencesastothequestionwhoJesuswas.IfJesuswasonlywhattheliberalhistorianssupposethatHewas,thentrustinHimwouldbeoutofplace;ourattitude towardHimcouldbe thatofpupils to aMaster andnothingmore.ButifHewaswhattheNewTestamentrepresentsHimasbeing, then we can safely commit to Him the eternal destinies of oursouls. What then is the difference between liberalism and ChristianitywithregardtothepersonofourLord?

Theanswermightbedifficulttosetforthindetail.Buttheessentialthingcanbeputalmostinaword--liberalismregardsJesusasthefairestflowerofhumanity;ChristianityregardsHimasasupernaturalPerson.

The conception of Jesus as a supernatural Person runs all through theNew Testament. In the Epistles of Paul, of course, it is quite clear.WithouttheslightestdoubtPaulseparatedJesusfromordinaryhumanityandplacedHimonthesideofGod.ThewordsinGal.i.1,"notfrommennor through aman but through Jesus Christ and God the Father whoraisedHimfromthedead,"areonlytypicalofwhatappearseverywherein the Epistles. The same contrast between Jesus Christ and ordinaryhumanityiseverywherepresupposed.PauldoesindeedcallJesusChristaman.But theway inwhichhespeaksofJesusasamanonlydeepensthe impression which has already been received. Paul speaks of thehumanity of Jesus apparently as though the fact that Jesuswas amanwere something strange, something wonderful. At any rate, the reallyoutstanding fact is that in the Epistles of Paul, Jesus is everywhereseparated from ordinary humanity; the deity of Christ is everywherepresupposed. It is a matter of small consequence whether Paul ever

appliestoJesustheGreekwordwhichistranslated"God"intheEnglishBible;certainly it isverydifficult, inviewofRom. ix.5, todenythathedoes. However that may be, the term "Lord," which is Paul's regulardesignationofJesus,isreallyjustasmuchadesignationofdeityasistheterm"God."ItwasadesignationofdeityeveninthepaganreligionswithwhichPaul'sconvertswerefamiliar;and(whatisfarmoreimportant)intheGreek translationof theOldTestamentwhichwascurrent inPaul'sdayandwasusedbytheApostlehimself,thetermwasusedtotranslatethe "Jahwe"of theHebrew text.AndPauldoesnothesitate toapply toJesus stupendouspassages in theGreekOldTestamentwhere the termLord thus designates the God of Israel. But what is perhaps mostsignificantofall fortheestablishmentofthePaulineteachingaboutthePerson of Christ is that Paul everywhere stands in a religious attitudetoward Jesus. He who is thus the object of religious faith is surely nomereman,butasupernaturalPerson,andindeedaPersonwhowasGod.

Thus Paul regarded Jesus as a supernatural Person. The fact would besurprisingifitstoodalone.PaulwasacontemporaryofJesus.WhatmustthisJesushavebeenthatHeshouldbeliftedthusquicklyabovethelimitsofordinaryhumanityandplaceduponthesideofGod?

Butthereissomethingfarmoresurprisingstill.ThetrulysurprisingthingisthattheviewwhichPaulhadofJesuswasalsotheviewwhichwasheldby Jesus' intimate friends. [2] The fact appears in the PaulineEpistlesthemselves to say nothing of other evidence. Clearly the Epistlespresupposea fundamentalunitybetweenPauland theoriginalapostleswithregardtothePersonofChrist;foriftherehadbeenanycontroversyabout this matter it would certainly have been mentioned. Even theJudaizers,thebitteropponentsofPaul,seemtohavehadnoobjectiontoPaul's conception of Jesus as a supernatural Person. The reallyimpressive thing about Paul's view of Christ is that it is not defended.IndeeditishardlypresentedintheEpistlesinanysystematicway.Yetitis everywhere presupposed. The inference is perfectly plain--Paul'sconceptionofthePersonofChristwasamatterofcourseintheprimitiveChurch.WithregardtothismatterPaulappearsinperfectharmonywithall Palestinian Christians. The men who had walked and talked withJesus and had seenHim subject to the petty limitations of earthly life

agreedwithPaulfullyinregardingHimasasupernaturalPerson,seatedonthethroneofallBeing.

Exactly the same account of Jesus as thatwhich is presupposedby thePauline Epistles appears in the detailed narrative of the Gospels. TheGospels agree with Paul in presenting Jesus as a supernatural Person,and the agreement appearsnot in oneor twoof theGospels, but in allfour.Thedayislongpast,ifthereeverwassuchaday,whentheGospelofJohn,aspresentingadivineJesus,couldbecontrastedwiththeGospelofMark,aspresentingahumanJesus.Onthecontrary,allfourGospelsclearlypresentaPerson lifted farabove the levelofordinaryhumanity;andtheGospelofMark,theshortestandaccordingtomoderncriticismthe earliest of the Gospels, renders particularly prominent Jesus'superhumanworksofpower.InallfourGospelsJesusappearspossessedofasovereignpowerovertheforcesofnature; inall fourGospels,as inthewholeNewTestament,HeappearsclearlyasasupernaturalPerson.[3]

But what is meant by a "supernatural Person"; what is meant by thesupernatural?

The conception of the "supernatural" is closely connected with that of"miracle";amiracleisthesupernaturalmanifestingitselfintheexternalworld. But what is the supernatural? Many definitions have beenproposed.Butonlyonedefinitionisreallycorrect.Asupernaturaleventisonethattakesplacebytheimmediate,asdistinguishedfromthemediate,power of God. The possibility of the supernatural, if supernatural bedefined in this way, presupposes two things--it presupposes (1) theexistence of a personal God, and (2) the existence of a real order ofnature. Without the existence of a personal God, there could be nopurposive entrance of God's power into the order of the world; andwithout the real existence of an order of nature there could be nodistinction betweennatural events and those that are above nature--alleventswouldbe supernatural, or rather theword "supernatural"wouldhave no meaning at all. The distinction between "natural" and"supernatural"doesnotmean,indeed,thatnatureisindependentofGod;it does not mean that while God brings to pass supernatural events,natural events are not brought to pass by Him. On the contrary, the

believerinthesupernaturalregardseverythingthatisdoneasbeingtheworkofGod.Only,hebelievesthatintheeventscallednatural,Godusesmeans,whereasintheeventscalledsupernaturalHeusesnomeans,butputs forthHis creative power. The distinction between the natural andthesupernatural,inotherwords,issimplythedistinctionbetweenGod'sworksofprovidenceandGod'sworkof creation;amiracle is aworkofcreationjustastrulyasthemysteriousactwhichproducedtheworld.

This conception of the supernatural depends absolutely upon a theisticviewofGod.Theismistobedistinguished(1) fromdeismand(2) frompantheism.

Accordingtothedeisticview,Godsettheworldgoinglikeamachineandthenleft it independentofHimself.Suchaviewis inconsistentwiththeactualityofthesupernatural;themiraclesoftheBiblepresupposeaGodwhoisconstantlywatchingoverandguidingthecourseofthisworld.Themiracles of the Bible are not arbitrary intrusions of a Power that iswithout relation to theworld, but are evidently intended toaccomplishresults within the order of nature. Indeed the natural and thesupernaturalareblended, in themiraclesof theBible, inawayentirelyincongruouswiththedeisticconceptionofGod.Inthefeedingofthefivethousand, for example,who shall saywhatpart the five loavesand twofisheshadintheevent;whoshall saywhere thenatural leftoffand thesupernaturalbegan?Yetthatevent, ifany,surelytranscendedtheorderofnature.ThemiraclesoftheBible,then,arenottheworkofaGodwhohas no part in the course of nature; they are the work of a God whothrough His works of providence is "preserving and governing all Hiscreaturesandalltheiractions."

But the conception of the supernatural is inconsistent, not only withdeism, but also with pantheism. Pantheism identifies God with thetotalityofnature. It is inconceivable, then,on thepantheistic view thatanything shouldenter into the courseofnature fromoutside.A similarincongruity with the supernatural appears also in certain forms ofidealism,whichdenyrealexistencetotheforcesofnature.Ifwhatseemsto be connected in nature is really only connected in the divinemind,thenitisdifficulttomakeanydistinctionbetweenthoseoperationsofthedivinemindwhichappearasmiraclesandthosewhichappearasnatural

events.Again,ithasoftenbeensaidthatalleventsareworksofcreation.On this view, it is only a concession to popular phraseology to say thatone body is attracted toward another in accordance with a law ofgravitation;what reallyought tobe said is thatwhen twobodiesare inproximity under certain conditions they come together. Certainphenomenainnature,onthisview,arealwaysfollowedbycertainotherphenomena, and it is really only this regularity of sequence which isindicatedbytheassertionthattheformerphenomena"cause"thelatter;theonlyrealcauseisinallcasesGod.Onthebasisofthisview,therecanbenodistinctionbetweeneventswroughtbytheimmediatepowerofGodandthosethatarenot;foronthisviewalleventsaresowrought.Againstsuch a view, those who accept our definition of miracle will naturallyaccept the commonsensenotionof cause.God is always the first cause,but there are truly second causes; and they are the means which Goduses,intheordinarycourseoftheworld,fortheaccomplishmentofHisends. It is the exclusionof such secondcauseswhichmakesanevent amiracle.

Itissometimessaidthattheactualityofmiracleswoulddestroythebasisofscience.Science,itissaid,isfoundedupontheregularityofsequences;itasumesthatifcertainconditionswithinthecourseofnaturearegiven,certain other conditions will always follow. But if there is to be anyintrusionofeventswhichbytheirverydefinitionare independentofallpreviousconditions,then,it issaid,theregularityofnatureuponwhichscience bases itself is broken up. Miracle, in other words, seems tointroduce an element of arbitrariness and unaccountability into thecourseoftheworld.

The objection ignores what is really fundamental the Christianconceptionofmiracle.AccordingtotheChristianconception,amiracleiswroughtbytheimmediatepowerofGod.Itisnotwroughtbyanarbitraryand fantastic despot, but by the very God to whom the regularity ofnature itself is due--by the God, moreover, whose character is knownthroughtheBible.SuchaGod,wemaybesure,willnotdodespitetothereason that He has given to His creatures; His interposition willintroducenodisorderintotheworldthatHehasmade.Thereisnothingarbitraryaboutamiracle,accordingtotheChristianconception.Itisnot

anuncausedevent,butanevent that iscausedbytheverysourceofalltheorder that is in theworld. It isdependentaltogetherupon the leastarbitraryandthemostfirmlyfixedofallthethingsthatare--namelyuponthecharacterofGod.

The possibility of miracle, then, is indissolubly joined with "theism."Once admit the existence of a personal God, Maker and Ruler of theworld, and no limits, temporal or otherwise, can be set to the creativepower of such aGod.Admit thatGod once created theworld, and youcannotdenythatHemightengage increationagain.But itwillbe said,theactualityofmiraclesisdifferentfromthepossibilityofthem.Itmaybeadmittedthatmiraclesconceivablymightoccur.Buthavetheyactuallyoccurred?

Thisquestionloomsverylargeinthemindsofmodernmen.Theburdenofthequestionseemstorestheavilyevenuponmanywhostillacceptthemiraclesof theNewTestament.Themiraclesusedtoberegardedasanaid to faith, it isoftensaid,butnowtheyareahindrance tofaith; faithusedtocomeonaccountofthemiracles,butnowitcomesindespiteofthem;men used to believe in Jesus because He wroughtmiracles, butnowweaccept themiraclesbecauseonothergroundswehavecome tobelieveinHim.

A strange confusion underlies this common way of speaking. In onesense,certainly,miraclesareahindrancetofaith--butwhoeverthoughtthe contrary? It may certainly be admitted that if the New Testamentnarrativehadnomiraclesinit,itwouldbefareasiertobelieve.Themorecommonplace a story is, the easier it is to accept it as true. Butcommonplace narratives have little value. The New Testament withoutthemiracleswouldbefareasiertobelieve.Butthetroubleis,itwouldnotbe worth believing. Without the miracles the New Testament wouldcontainanaccountofaholyman--notaperfectman,itistrue,forHewasledtomakeloftyclaimstowhichHehadnoright--butamanatleastfarholierthantherestofmen.Butofwhatbenefitwouldsuchaman,andthedeathwhichmarkedHisfailure,betous?TheloftierbetheexamplewhichJesusset,thegreaterbecomesoursorrowatourfailuretoattaintoit;andthegreaterourhopelessnessundertheburdenofsin.ThesageofNazarethmaysatisfy thosewhohavenever faced theproblemofevil in

their own lives; but to talk about an ideal to those who are under thethralldomofsinisacruelmockery.YetifJesuswasmerelyamanliketherestofmen,thenanidealisallthatwehaveinHim.Farmoreisneededbyasinfulworld.Itissmallcomforttobetoldthattherewasgoodnessinthe world, when what we need is goodness triumphant over sin. Butgoodnesstriumphantoversininvolvesanentranceofthecreativepowerof God, and that creative power of God ismanifested by themiracles.Withoutthemiracles,theNewTestamentmightbeeasiertobelieve.Butthe thing that would be believed would be entirely different from thatwhichpresents itself tousnow.Without themiraclesweshouldhaveateacher;withthemiracleswehaveaSavior.

Certainlyit isamistaketoisolatethemiraclesfromtherestoftheNewTestament. It isamistake todiscuss thequestionof the resurrectionofJesusasthoughthatwhichistobeprovedweresimplytheresurrectionofa certainmanof the first century inPalestine.Nodoubt theexistingevidence for such an event, strong as the evidence is, might beinsufficient. The historian would indeed be obliged to say that nonaturalistic explanation of the origin of the Church has yet beendiscovered,and that the evidence for themiracle is exceedingly strong;butmiraclesare,tosaytheleast,extremelyunusualevents,andthereisatremendous hostile presumption against accepting the hypothesis ofmiracleinanygivencase.Butasamatteroffact,thequestioninthiscasedoe. not concern the resurrection of a man about whom we knownothing;itconcernstheresurrectionofJesus.AndJesuswascertainlyavery extraordinary Person. The uniqueness of the character of Jesusremoves the hostile presumption against miracle; it was extremelyimprobablethatanyordinarymanshouldrise fromthedead,butJesuswaslikenoothermanthateverlived.

But theevidence for themiraclesof theNewTestament issupported inyetanotherway;itissupportedbytheexistenceofanadequateoccasion.It has been observed above that amiracle is an event produced by theimmediatepowerofGod,andthatGodisaGodoforder.Theevidenceofamiracleisthereforeenormouslystrengthenedwhenthepurposeofthemiracle can be detected. That does notmean that within a complex ofmiraclesanexactreasonmustbeassignedtoeveryone;itdoesnotmean

thatintheNewTestamentweshouldexpecttoseeexactlywhyamiraclewas wrought in one case and not in another. But it does mean thatacceptance of a complex of miracles is made vastly easier when anadequatereasoncanbedetectedforthecomplexasawhole.

In the caseof theNewTestamentmiracles, suchanadequate reason isnotdifficult to find. It is found in theconquestof sin.According to theChristian view, as set forth in theBible,mankind is under the curse ofGod'sholy law,and thedreadfulpenalty includes thecorruptionofourwhole nature. Actual transgressions proceed from the sinful root, andservetodeepeneveryman'sguiltinthesightofGod.Onthebasisofthatview,soprofound,sotruetotheobservedfactsoflife, it isobviousthatnothingnaturalwillmeetourneed.Naturetransmitsthedreadfultaint;hopeistobesoughtonlyinacreativeactofGod.

And that creative act of God--so mysterious, so contrary to allexpectation, yet so congruous with the character of the God who isrevealedastheGodoflove--isfoundintheredeemingworkofChrist.Noproduct of sinful humanity could have redeemed humanity from thedreadfulguiltor liftedasinfulrace fromthesloughofsin.ButaSaviorhas come from God. There lies the very root of the Christian religion;thereisthereasonwhythesupernaturalistheverygroundandsubstanceoftheChristianfaith.

Buttheacceptanceofthesupernaturaldependsuponaconvictionoftherealityofsin.WithouttheconvictionofsintherecanbenoappreciationoftheuniquenessofJesus;itisonlywhenwecontrastoursinfulnesswithHis holiness thatwe appreciate the gulfwhich separatesHim from therestofthechildrenofmen.AndwithouttheconvictionofsintherecanbenounderstandingoftheoccasionforthesupernaturalactofGod;withoutthe convictionof sin, thegoodnewsof redemption seems tobe an idletale.SofundamentalistheconvictionofsinintheChristianfaiththatitwillnotdotoarriveatitmerelybyaprocessofreasoning;itwillnotdotosay merely: All men (as I have been told) are sinners; I am a man;therefore I suppose I must be a sinner too. That is all the supposedconviction of sin amounts to sometimes. But the true conviction is farmore immediate than that. It depends indeed upon information thatcomesfromwithout;itdependsupontherevelationofthelawofGod;it

dependsupontheawfulveritiessetforthintheBibleastotheuniversalsinfulnessofmankind.But itaddstotherevelation thathascomefromwithout a conviction of the whole mind and heart, a profoundunderstanding of one's own lost condition, an illumination of thedeadened conscience which causes a Copernican revolution in one'sattitude toward the world and toward God. When a man has passedthrough that experience, he wonders at his former blindness. Andespeciallydoeshewonderathis formerattitude toward themiraclesofthe New Testament, and toward the supernatural Person who is thererevealed.Thetrulypenitentmangloriesinthesupernatural,forheknowsthat nothing natural wouldmeet his need; the world has been shakenonceinhisdownfall,andshakenagainitmustbeifheistobesaved.

Yet an acceptance of the presuppositions of miracle does not renderunnecessary the plain testimony to the miracles that have actuallyoccurred. And that testimony is exceedingly strong. [4] The Jesuspresented in the New Testament was clearly an historical Person--somuchisadmittedbyallwhohavereallycometogripswiththehistoricalproblems at all. But just as clearly the Jesus presented in the NewTestament was a supernatural Person. Yet for modern liberalism asupernaturalperson isneverhistorical.Aproblemarises then for thosewhoadopt the liberalpointof view--theJesusof theNewTestament ishistorical,Heissupernatural,andyetwhatissupernatural,ontheliberalhypothesis,canneverbehistorical.TheproblemcouldbesolvedonlybytheseparationofthenaturalfromthesupernaturalintheNewTestamentaccountofJesus,inorderthatwhatissupernaturalmightberejectedandwhatisnaturalmightberetained.Buttheprocessofseparationhasneverbeensuccessfullycarriedout.Manyhavebeentheattempts--themodernliberalChurchhasputitsveryheartandsoulintotheeffort,sothatthereisscarcelyanymorebrilliantchapter in thehistoryof thehumanspiritthanthis"questofthehistoricalJesus"--butalltheattemptshavefailed.ThetroubleisthatthemiraclesarefoundnottobeanexcrescenceintheNewTestamentaccountofJesus,butbelongtotheverywarpandwoof.TheyareintimatelyconnectedwithJesus'loftyclaims;theystandorfallwiththeundoubtedpurityofHischaracter;theyrevealtheverynatureofHismissionintheworld.

Yet miracles are rejected by the modern liberal Church, and with themiracles the entirety of the supernaturalPersonof ourLord.Not somemiracles are rejected, but all. It is amatter of no importancewhateverthat some of the wonderful works of Jesus are accepted by the liberalChurch; itmeansabsolutelynothingwhensomeoftheworksofhealingare regarded as historical. For those works are no longer regarded bymodern liberalism as supernatural, but merely as faith-cures of anextraordinary kind. And it is the presence or absence of the truesupernaturalwhichisthereallyimportantthing.Suchconcessionsastofaith-cures,moreover,carryusatbestbutaveryshortway--disbelieversinthesupernaturalmustsimplyrejectaslegendaryormythicalthegreatmassofthewonderfulworks.

The question, then, does not concern the historicity of this miracle orthat;itconcernsthehistoricityofallmiracles.Thatfactisoftenobscured,and theobscurationof itoften introducesanelementof something likedisingenuousness into the advocacy of the liberal cause. The liberalpreacher singles out some onemiracle and discusses that as though itweretheonlypointat issue.Themiraclewhich isusuallysingledout isthe Virgin Birth. The liberal preacher insists on the possibility ofbelievinginChristnomatterwhichviewbeadoptedastothemannerofHisentranceintotheworld.IsnotthePersonthesamenomatterhowHewasborn?TheimpressionisthusproducedupontheplainmanthatthepreacherisacceptingthemainoutlinesoftheNewTestamentaccountofJesus, but merely has difficulties with this particular element in theaccount. But such an impression is radically false. It is true that somemen have denied the Virgin Birth and yet have accepted the NewTestamentaccountofJesusasasupernaturalPerson.Butsuchmenareexceedinglyfewandfarbetween.Itmightbedifficulttofindasingleoneof any prominence living today, so profoundly and so obviouslycongruousistheVirginBirthwiththewholeNewTestamentpresentationofChrist.TheoverwhelmingmajorityofthosewhorejecttheVirginBirthreject also the whole supernatural content of the New Testament, andmake of the "resurrection" just what the word "resurrection" mostemphaticallydidnotmean--apermanenceoftheinfluenceofJesusoramerespiritualexistenceofJesusbeyondthegrave.Oldwordsmayherebeused,butthethingthattheydesignateisgone.Thedisciplesbelieved

in the continued personal existence of Jesus even during the three saddays after the crucifixion; they were not Sadducees; they believed thatJesuslivedandwouldriseatthelastday.ButwhatenabledthemtobegintheworkoftheChristianChurchwasthattheybelievedthebodyofJesusalready to have been raised from the tomb by the power of God. Thatbeliefinvolvestheacceptanceofthesupernatural;andtheacceptanceofthe supernatural is thus the veryheart and soul of the religion thatweprofess.

Whatever decision ismade, the issue should certainlynot be obscured.The issue does not concern individual miracles, even so important amiracle as the Virgin Birth. It really concerns all miracles. And thequestionconcerningallmiraclesissimplythequestionoftheacceptanceor rejection of the Savior that the New Testament presents. Reject themiraclesandyouhaveinJesusthefairestflowerofhumanitywhomadesuchanimpressionuponHisfollowersthatafterHisdeaththeycouldnotbelieve that He had perished but experienced hallucinations in whichtheythoughttheysawHimrisenfromthedead;acceptthemiracles,andyouhaveaSaviorwhocamevoluntarilyintothisworldforoursalvation,suffered for our sins upon the Cross, rose again from the dead by thepowerofGod,andeverlivestomakeintercessionforus.Thedifferencebetween those two views is the difference between two totally diversereligions. It is high time that this issue shouldbe faced; it is high timethatthemisleadinguseoftraditionalphrasesshouldbeabandonedandmenshouldspeaktheir fullmind.Shallweaccept theJesusof theNewTestamentasourSavior,orshallwerejectHimwiththeliberalChurch?

Atthispointanobjectionmayberaised.Theliberalpreacher,itmaybesaid,isoftenreadytospeakofthe"deity''ofChrist;heisoftenreadytosaythat"JesusisGod."Theplainmanismuchimpressed.Thepreacher,hesays,believesinthedeityofourLord;obviouslythenhisunorthodoxymust concern only details; and thosewho object to his presence in theChurcharenarrowanduncharitableheresy-hunters.

Butunfortunatelylanguageisvaluableonlyastheexpressionofthought.TheEnglishword"God"hasnoparticularvirtue in itself; it isnotmorebeautiful thanotherwords.Its importancedependsaltogetheruponthemeaning which is attached to it. When, therefore, the liberal preacher

says that "Jesus is God," the significance of the utterance dependsaltogetheruponwhatismeantby"God."

Andithasalreadybeenobservedthatwhentheliberalpreacherusestheword"God,"hemeanssomethingentirelydifferent fromthatwhich theChristianmeansbythesameword.God,atleastaccordingtothelogicaltrendofmodernliberalism,isnotapersonseparatefromtheworld,butmerelytheunitythatpervadestheworld.Tosay,therefore,thatJesusisGodmeansmerelythatthelifeofGod,whichappearsinallmen,appearswith special clearness or richness in Jesus. Such an assertion isdiametricallyopposedtotheChristianbeliefinthedeityofChrist.

EquallyopposedtoChristianbeliefisanothermeaningthatissometimesattachedtotheassertionthatJesusisGod.Theword"God"issometimesused todenote simply the supremeobject ofmen's desires, thehighestthingthatmenknow.Wehavegivenupthenotion,itissaid,thatthereisaMakerandRuleroftheuniverse;suchnotionsbelongto"metaphysics,"andarerejectedbythemodernman.Buttheword"God,"thoughitcannolongerdenotetheMakeroftheuniverse,isconvenientasdenotingtheobjectofmen's emotionsanddesires.Of somemen, it canbe said thattheir God is mammon--mammon is that for which they labor, and towhich their hearts are attached. In a somewhat similarway, the liberalpreachersaysthatJesusisGod.HedoesnotmeanatalltosaythatJesusisidenticalinnaturewithaMakerandRuleroftheuniverse,ofwhomanidea could be obtained apart fromJesus. In such aBeingheno longerbelieves.AllthathemeansisthatthemanJesus--amanhereinthemidstofus,andofthesamenatureasours--isthehighestthingweknow.Itisobvious that such a way of thinking is far more widely removed fromChristian belief than is Unitarianism, at least the earlier forms ofUnitarianism. For the early Unitarianism no doubt at least believed inGod.Themodern liberals,on theotherhand,say thatJesus isGodnotbecausetheythinkhighofJesus,butbecausetheythinkdesperatelylowofGod.

In another way also, liberalism within the "evangelical" churches isinferior toUnitarianism. It is inferior toUnitarianism in thematter ofhonesty.Inordertomaintainthemselvesintheevangelicalchurchesandquiet the fears of their conservative associates, the liberals resort

constantly to adoubleuse of language.A youngman, for example, hasreceiveddisquietingreportsoftheunorthodoxyof8prominentpreacher.Interrogatingthepreacherastohisbelief,hereceivesareassuringreply."Youmaytelleveryone,"saystheliberalpreacherineffect,"thatIbelievethatJesusisGod."Theinquirergoesawaymuchimpressed.

Itmaywell bedoubted,however,whether the assertion, "I believe thatJesus is God," or the like, on the lips of liberal preachers, is strictlytruthful. The liberal preacher attaches indeed a real meaning to thewords,andthatmeaningisverydeartohisheart.Hereallydoesbelievethat "Jesus is God." But the trouble is that he attaches to the words adifferent meaning from that which is attached to them by the simple-mindedpersontowhomheisspeaking.Heoffends,therefore,againstthefundamental principle of truthfulness in language. According to thatfundamental principle, language is truthful, not when the meaningattachedtothewordsbythespeaker,butwhenthemeaningintendedtobe produced in the mind of the particular person addressed, is inaccordance with the facts. Thus the truthfulness of the assertion, "IbelievethatJesusisGod,"dependsupontheaudiencethatisaddressed.If the audience is composed of theologically trained persons, who willattach the samemeaning to theword "God" as that which the speakerattaches to it, then the language is truthful. But if the audience iscomposedofold-fashionedChristians,whohaveneverattachedanythingbut theoldmeaning to theword "God" (themeaningwhich appears inthe first verse of Genesis), then the language is untruthful. And in thelattercase,notal]thepiousmotivesintheworldwillmaketheutteranceright. Christian ethics do not abrogate common honesty; no possibledesireofedifyingtheChurchandofavoidingoffensecanexcusealie.

Atanyrate,thedeityofourLord,inanyrealsenseoftheword"deity,"isofcoursedeniedbymodernliberalism.AccordingtothemodernliberalChurch,Jesusdiffersfromtherestofmenonlyindegreeandnotinkind;Hecanbedivineonlyifallmenaredivine.Butiftheliberalconceptionofthe deity of Christ thus becomes meaningless, what is the Christianconception?WhatdoestheChristianmanmeanwhenheconfessesthat"JesusisGod"?

Theanswerhasbeengiveninwhathasalreadybeensaid.Ithasalready

been observed that the New Testament represents Jesus as asupernatural Person.But if Jesus is a supernatural PersonHe is eitherdivineorelseHeisanintermediateBeing,higherindeedthanman,butlowerthanGod.ThelatterviewhasbeenabandonedformanycenturiesintheChristianChurch,andthere isnotmuchlikelihoodthat itwillberevived; Arianism certainly is dead. The thought of Christ as a super-angelic Being, like God but not God, belongs evidently to paganmythology, and not to theBible or to Christian faith. Itwill usually beadmitted,ifthetheisticconceptionoftheseparatenessbetweenmanandGodbeheld,thatChristiseitherGodorelsesimplyman;Heiscertainlynot a Being intermediate between God and man. If, then, He is notmerelyman,butasupernaturalPerson,theconclusionisthatHeisGod.

In the second place, it has already been observed that in the NewTestamentandinalltrueChristianity,Jesusisnomereexampleforfaith,buttheobjectoffaith.AndthefaithofwhichJesusistheobjectisclearlyreligious faith; theChristianman reposes confidence in Jesus in awaythatwouldbeoutofplaceinthecaseofanyotherthanGod.ItisnolesserthingthatiscommittedtoJesus,buttheeternalwelfareofthesoul.TheentireChristianattitudetowardJesusasitisfoundthroughouttheNewTestamentpresupposesclearly,then,thedeityofourLord.

It is in the light of this central presupposition that the individualassertionsoughttobeapproached.Theindividualpassageswhichattestthe deity of Christ are not excrescences in the New Testament, butnaturalfruitsofafundamentalconceptionwhichiseverywherethesame.Those individualpassagesarenotconfinedtoanyonebookorgroupofbooks. In the Pauline Epistles, of course, the passages are particularlyplain; the Christ of the Epistles appears again and again as associatedonlywiththeFatherandwithHisSpirit.IntheGospelofJohn,also,onedoesnothavetoseekverylong;thedeityofChristisalmostthethemeofthebook.ButthetestimonyoftheSynopticGospelsisnotreallydifferentfromthatwhichappearseverywhereelse.ThewayinwhichJesusspeaksofmyFatherandtheSon--forexample,inthefamouspassageinMatt.xi.27(Lk.x.22):"AllthingshavebeendelivereduntomeofmyFather,andnomanknoweth theSonbut theFather,neitherknowethanyman theFathersavetheSonandHetowhomsoevertheSonwillrevealHim"--this

manner of presenting Jesus' relation to the Father, absolutelyfundamental intheSynopticGospels, involvestheassertionof thedeityof our Lord. The Person who so speaks is represented as being inmysteriousunionwiththeeternalGod.

YettheNewTestamentwithequalclearnesspresentsJesusasaman.TheGospel of John, which contains at the beginning the stupendousutterance,"TheWordwasGod,"anddwellsconstantlyuponthedeityoftheLord,alsorepresentsJesusaswearyatthewellandasthirst, inthehour of agony on the Cross. Scarcely in the Synoptic Gospels can onediscover such drastic touches attesting the humanity of our Savior asthosewhichappearagainandagainintheGospelofJohn.Withregardtothe Synoptic Gospels, of course there can be no debate; the SynoptistsclearlypresentaPersonwholivedagenuinehumanlifeandwasHimselftrueman.

Thetruth is, thewitnessof theNewTestament iseverywherethesame;the New Testament everywhere presents One who was both God andman.Anditisinterestingtoobservehowunsuccessfulhavebeenalltheefforts to reject one part of this witness and retain the rest. TheApollinariansrejectedthefullhumanityoftheLord,butindoingsotheyobtained a Person who was very different from the Jesus of the NewTestament.TheJesusoftheNewTestamentwasclearly,inthefullsense,aman. Others seem to have supposed that the divine and the humanweresoblendedinJesusthattherewasproducedanatureneitherpurelydivinenorpurelyhuman,butatertiumquid.Butnothingcouldbemoreremote from the New Testament teaching than that. According to theNewTestament thedivineandhumannatureswereclearlydistinct; thedivine nature was pure divinity, and the human nature was purehumanity; Jesus was God and man in two distinct natures. TheNestorians,ontheotherhand,80emphasizedthedistinctnessofdivineandhumaninJesusastosupposethattherewereinJesustwoseparatepersons.But suchaGnosticizing view is plainly contrary to the record;theNewTestamentplainlyteachestheunityofthePersonofourLord.

ByeliminationoftheseerrorstheChurcharrivedattheNewTestamentdoctrineoftwonaturesinonePerson;theJesusoftheNewTestamentis"God andman, in two distinct natures, and one Person forever." That

doctrine is sometimes regarded as speculative. But nothing could befurtherfromthefact.Whetherthedoctrineofthetwonaturesistrueorfalse,itwascertainlyproducednotbyspeculation,butbyanattempttosummarize,succinctlyandexactly,theScripturalteaching.

Thisdoctrineisofcourserejectedbymodernliberalism.Anditisrejectedinaverysimpleway--bytheeliminationofthewholehighernatureofourLord.Butsuchradicalismisnotabitmoresuccessfulthantheheresiesofthepast.TheJesuswhoissupposedtobeleftaftertheeliminationofthesupernaturalelementisatbestaveryshadowyfigure;fortheeliminationof the supernatural logically involves the elimination of much thatremains,andthehistorianconstantlyapproachestheabsurdviewwhicheffaces Jesus altogether from the pages of history. But even after suchdangershavebeenavoided,evenafterthehistorian,bysettingarbitrarylimits to his process of elimination, has succeeded in reconstructing apurelyhumanJesus, the Jesus thus constructed is found to be entirelyunreal.Hehas amoral contradiction at the very center ofHis being--acontradiction due to His Messianic consciousness. He was pure andhumbleandstrongandsane,yetHesupposed,withoutbasisinfact,thatHewastobethefinalJudgeofalltheearth!TheliberalJesus,despitealltheeffortsofmodernpsychologicalreconstructiontogalvanizeHimintolife, remains a manufactured figure of the stage. Very different is theJesusoftheNewTestamentandofthegreatScripturalcreeds.ThatJesusisindeedmysterious.WhocanfathomthemysteryofHisPerson?Butthemystery is a mystery in which a man can rest. The Jesus of the NewTestament has at least one advantage over the Jesus of modernreconstruction--Heisreal.Heisnotamanufacturedfiguresuitableasapointofsupportforethicalmaxims,butagenuinePersonwhomamancan love.Menhave lovedHim throughall theChristian centuries. Andthestrange thing is thatdespiteall theefforts to removeHim from thepagesofhistory.TherearethosewholoveHimstill.

Notes

1.ThismethodofapproachhasbeenfollowedbythepresentwriterinTheOriginofPaul'sReligion,1921.

2.CompareTheOriginofPaul'sReligion,1921,pp.118-137.

3.Compare"HistoryandFaith,"1915,pp.5f.

4.CompareHistoryandFaith,1915,pp.68.

Salvation

Chapter5

It has been observed thus far that liberalism differs from Christianitywithregardtothepresuppositionsofthegospel(theviewofGodandtheviewofman),withregardtotheBookinwhichthegospel iscontained,andwithregardtothePersonwhoseworkthegospelsetsforth.Itisnotsurprising then that it differs from Christianity in its account of thegospel itself; it is not surprising that it presents an entirely differentaccountofthewayofsalvation.Liberalismfindssalvation(sofarasitiswillingtospeakatallof"salvation")inman;ChristianityfindsitinanactofGod.

Thedifferencewithregard to thewayof salvationconcerns, in the firstplace,thebasisofsalvationintheredeemingworkofChrist.AccordingtoChristianbelief, Jesus is our Savior, not by virtue ofwhatHe said, notevenbyvirtueofwhatHewas,butbywhatHedid.HeisourSavior,notbecauseHehasinspiredustolivethesamekindoflifethatHelived,butbecauseHetookuponHimselfthedreadfulguiltofoursinsandbore itinsteadofusonthecross.SuchistheChristianconceptionoftheCrossofChrist. It is ridiculed as being a "subtle theory of the atonement." Inreality, it is the plain teaching of theword ofGod;weknowabsolutelynothingaboutanatonementthatisnotavicariousatonement,forthatistheonlyatonementofwhich theNewTestamentspeaks.AndthisBibledoctrine is not intricate or subtle. On the contrary, though it involvesmysteries, it is itself so simple that a child can understand it. "Wedeserved eternal death, but the Lord Jesus, because He loved us, diedinsteadofusonthecross"--surelythereisnothingsoveryintricateaboutthat. It is not the Bible doctrine of the atonement which is difficult tounderstand--whatarereallyincomprehensiblearetheelaboratemoderneffortstogetridoftheBibledoctrineintheinterestsofhumanpride.[1]

Modernliberalpreachersdoindeedsometimesspeakofthe"atonement."Buttheyspeakofitjustasseldomastheypossiblycan,andonecansee

plainly that their hearts are elsewhere than at the foot of the Cross.Indeed, at this point, as at many others, one has the feeling thattraditionallanguageisbeingstrainedtobecometheexpressionoftotallyalien ideas. And when the traditional phraseology has been strippedaway,theessenceofthemodernconceptionofthedeathofChrist,thoughthatconceptionappearsinmanyforms,isfairlyplain.TheessenceofitisthatthedeathofChristhadaneffectnotuponGodbutonlyuponman.Sometimes the effect upon man is conceived of in a very simple way,Christ'sdeathbeingregardedmerelyasanexampleofself-sacrificeforustoemulate.Theuniquenessofthisparticularexample,then,canbefoundonlyinthefactthatChristiansentiment,gatheringaroundit,hasmadeita convenient symbol for all self-sacrifice; it puts in concrete formwhatwould otherwise have to be expressed in colder general terms.Sometimes,again,theeffectofChrist'sdeathuponusisconceivedofinsubtlerways; thedeathofChrist, it issaid,showshowmuchGodhatessin--since sin brought even theHolyOne to thedreadfulCross--andwetoo,therefore,oughttohatesin,asGodhatesit,andrepent.Sometimes,stillagain,thedeathofChrististhoughtofasdisplayingtheloveofGod;itexhibitsGod'sownSonasgivenupforusall.Thesemodern"theoriesoftheatonement"arenotalltobeplaceduponthesameplane;thelastofthem,inparticular,maybejoinedwithahighviewofJesus'Person.Buttheyerrinthattheyignorethedreadfulrealityofguilt,andmakeamerepersuasion of the human will all that is needed for salvation. They doindeedallcontainanelementoftruth:itistruethatthedeathofChristisanexampleofself-sacrificewhichmayinspireself-sacrificeinothers;itistruethatthedeathofChristshowshowmuchGodhatessin;itistruethatthedeathofChristdisplaystheloveofGod.AllofthesetruthsarefoundplainlyintheNewTestament.Buttheyareswallowedupinafargreatertruth--that Christ died instead of us to present us faultless before thethrone ofGod.Without that central truth, all the rest is devoid of realmeaning: an exampleof self-sacrifice is useless to thosewhoareunderboththeguiltandthralldomofsin;theknowledgeofGod'shatredofsincaninitselfbringonlydespair;anexhibitionoftheloveofGodisameredisplayunlesstherewassomeunderlyingreasonforthesacrifice.If theCrossistoberestoredtoitsrightfulplaceinChristianlife,weshallhavetopenetrate farbeneath themodern theories toHimwho lovedusandgaveHimselfforus.

UpontheChristiandoctrineoftheCross,modernliberalsareneverwearyofpouringoutthevialsoftheirhatredandtheirscorn.Evenatthispoint,itistrue,thehopeofavoidingoffenseisnotalwaysabandoned;thewords"vicarious atonement" and the like--of course in a sense totally atvariance from their Christian meaning--are still sometimes used. Butdespite such occasional employment of traditional language the liberalpreachersrevealonlytooclearlywhatisintheirminds.Theyspeakwithdisgust of those who believe "that the blood of our Lord, shed in asubstitutionary death, placates an alienated Deity and makes possiblewelcomeforthereturningsinner."[2]AgainstthedoctrineoftheCrosstheyuseeveryweaponofcaricatureandvilification.ThustheypourouttheirscornuponathingsoholyandsopreciousthatinthepresenceofittheChristianheartmeltsingratitudetoodeepforwords.ItneverseemstooccurtomodernliberalsthatinderidingtheChristiandoctrineoftheCross, they are trampling upon human hearts. But the modern liberalattacks upon theChristian doctrine of the Crossmay at least serve thepurposeofshowingwhatthatdoctrineis,andfromthispointofviewtheymaybeexaminedbrieflynow.

Inthefirstplace,then,theChristianwayofsalvationthroughtheCrossofChristiscriticizedbecauseitisdependentuponhistory.Thiscriticismis sometimes evaded; it is sometimes said that as Christians we mayattendtowhatChristdoesnowforeveryChristianratherthantowhatHedidlongagoinPalestine.ButtheevasioninvolvesatotalabandonmentoftheChristianfaith.IfthesavingworkofChristwereconfinedtowhatHedoesnowforeveryChristian,therewouldbenosuchthingasaChristiangospel--an account of an event which put a new face on life.What weshould have left would be simply mysticism, and mysticism is quitedifferentfromChristianity.Itistheconnectionofthepresentexperienceof thebelieverwith an actualhistoric appearanceof Jesus in theworldwhich prevents our religion from being mysticism and causes it to beChristianity. Itmust certainly be admitted, then, that Christianity doesdependuponsomethingthathappened;ourreligionmustbeabandonedaltogetherunlessatadefinitepointinhistoryJesusdiedasapropitiationforthesinsofmen.Christianityiscertainlydependentuponhistory.

But if so, the objection lies very near. Must we really depend for the

welfareofoursoulsuponwhathappenedlongago?Mustwereallywaituntil historians have finished disputing about the value of sources andthe like beforewe can have peacewithGod?Would it not be better tohaveasalvationwhichiswithushereandnow,andwhichdependsonlyuponwhatwecanseeorfeel?

With regard to this objection it should be observed that if religion bemade independent of history there is no such thing as a gospel. For"gospel"means"good news," tidings, information about something thathas happened. A gospel independent of history is a contradiction interms.TheChristiangospelmeans,notapresentationofwhatalwayshasbeen true, but a report of something new-- something that imparts atotally different aspect to the situation of mankind. The situation ofmankindwasdesperatebecauseofsin;butGodhaschangedthesituationbytheatoningdeathofChrist--that isnomere reflectionupon theold,butanaccountof somethingnew.Weare shutup in thisworldas inabeleagueredcamp.Tomaintain our courage, the liberal preacher offersusexhortation.Makethebestofthesituation,hesays,lookonthebrightsideoflife.Butunfortunately,suchexhortationcannotchangethefacts.Inparticular it cannot remove thedreadful factof sin.Verydifferent isthemessage of theChristian evangelist.He offers not reflection on theoldbuttidingsofsomethingnew,notexhortationbutagospel.[3]

It is true that theChristiangospel is anaccount,notof something thathappened yesterday, but of something that happened long ago; but theimportant thing is that it reallyhappened. If it reallyhappened, then itmakes littledifferencewhen ithappened.Nomatterwhen ithappened,whetheryesterdayorinthefirstcentury,itremainsarealgospel,arealpieceofnews.

Thehappeningoflongago,moreover,isinthiscaseconfirmedbypresentexperience.TheChristianmanreceives first theaccountwhich theNewTestamentgivesof theatoningdeathofChrist.Thataccount ishistory.Butiftrueithaseffectsinthepresent,anditcanbetestedbyitseffects.TheChristianmanmakestrialoftheChristianmessage,andmakingtrialofithefindsittobetrue.Experiencedoesnotprovideasubstituteforthedocumentaryevidence,butitdoesconfirmthatevidence.ThewordoftheCross no longer seems to the Christian to be merely a far-off thing,

merely a matter to be disputed about by trained theologians. On thecontrary,itisreceivedintotheChristian'sinmostsoul,andeverydayandhouroftheChristian'slifebringsnewconfirmationofitstruth.

Inthesecondplace,theChristiandoctrineofsalvationthroughthedeathofChristiscriticizedonthegroundthatitisnarrow.ItbindssalvationtothenameofJesus,andtherearemanymenintheworldwhohaveneverinanyeffectivewayheardofthenameofJesus.Whatisreallyneeded,wearetold,isasalvationwhichwillsaveallmeneverywhere,whethertheyhaveheardofJesusornot,andwhatevermaybethetypeoflifetowhichtheyhavebeenreared.Notanewcreed,itissaid,willmeet;theuniversalneed of the world, but somemeans of making effective in right livingwhatevercreedmenmaychancetohave.

This second objection, as well as the first, is sometimes evaded. It issometimes said that although one way of salvation is by means ofacceptance of the gospel theremay be other ways. But this method ofmeeting the objection relinquishes one of the things that are mostobviously characteristic of the Christian message-- namely, itsexclusiveness. What struck the early observers of Christianity mostforcibly was not merely that salvation was offered by means of theChristiangospel,but that all othermeanswere resolutely rejected. TheearlyChristianmissionariesdemandedanabsolutelyexclusivedevotionto Christ. Such exclusiveness ran directly counter to the prevailingsyncretismoftheHellenisticage.Inthatday,manysaviorswereofferedbymanyreligionstotheattentionofmen,butthevariouspaganreligionscouldlivetogetherinperfectharmony;whenamanbecameadevoteeofone god, he did not have to give up the others. But Christianitywouldhave nothing to do with these "courtly polygamies of the soul"; [4] itdemandedanabsolutelyexclusivedevotion;allotherSaviors,itinsisted,must be deserted for the one Lord. Salvation, in other words, was notmerelythroughChrist,butitwasonlythroughChrist.Inthatlittleword"only" lay all the offenseWithout thatword therewould have been nopersecutions; the cultured men of the day would probably have beenwillingtogiveJesusaplace,andanhonorableplace,amongthesaviorsofmankind.Withoutitsexclusiveness,theChristianmessagewouldhaveseemed perfectly inoffensive to the men of that day. So modern

liberalism, placing Jesus alongside other benefactors of mankind, isperfectly inoffensive inthemodernworld.Allmenspeakwellof it. It isentirelyinoffensive.Butitisalsoentirelyfutile.TheoffenseoftheCrossisdoneaway,butsoisthegloryandthepower.

Thus itmust fairlybe admitted thatChristianity does bind salvation tothenameofChrist.ThequestionneednotherebediscussedwhetherthebenefitsofChrist'sdeathareeverappliedtothosewho,thoughtheyhavecome to years of discretion, have not heard or accepted the gospelmessage.CertainlytheNewTestamentholdsoutwith"yardtothismatternoclearhope.AttheverybasisoftheworkoftheapostolicChurchistheconsciousness of a terrible responsibility. The solemessage of life andsalvationhadbeencommittedtomen;thatmessagewasatallhazardstobe proclaimed while yet there was time. The objection as to theexclusiveness of the Christian way of salvation, therefore, cannot beevaded,butmustbemet.

Inanswertotheobjection,itmaybesaidsimplythattheChristianwayofsalvationisnarrowonlyBOlongas theChurchchooses to let it remainnarrow.ThenameofJesusisdiscoveredtobestrangelyadaptedtomenofeveryraceandofeverykindofpreviouseducation.AndtheChurchhasamplemeans,withpromiseofGod'sSpirit,tobringthenameofJesustoall. If, therefore, thisway of salvation is not offered to all, it is not thefaultofthewayofsalvationitself,butthefaultofthosewhofailtousethemeansthatGodhasplacedintheirhands.

But,itmaybesaid,isthatnotastupendousresponsibilitytobeplacedinthehandsofweakandsinfulmen;isitnotmorenaturalthatGodshouldoffersalvationtoallwithoutrequiringthemtoacceptanewmessageandthus to be dependent upon the faithfulness of the messengers? Theanswertothisobjectionisplain.ItiscertainlytruethattheChristianwayof salvation places a stupendous responsibility upon men. But thatresponsibility is like the responsibility which, as ordinary observationshows, God does, as a matter of fact, commit to men. It is like theresponsibility,forexample,oftheparentforthechild.Theparenthasfullpowertomarthesoulaswellasthebodyofthechild.Theresponsibilityisterrible;butitisaresponsibilitywhichunquestionablyexists.SimilaristheresponsibilityoftheChurchformakingthenameofJesusknownto

allmankind.Itisaterribleresponsibility;butitexists,anditisjustliketheotherknowndealingsofGod.

ButmodernliberalismhasstillmorespecificobjectionstotheChristiandoctrineoftheCross.Howcanoneperson,itisasked,sufferforthesinsofanother?Thething,wearetold,isabsurd.Guilt,itissaid,ispersonal;ifIallowanothermantosufferformyfault,myguiltisnottherebyonewhitdiminished.

Ananswertothisobjectionissometimesfoundintheplaininstancesinordinary human lifewhere onepersondoes suffer for another person'ssin. In the war, for example, many men died freely for the welfare ofothers.Here, it is "aid,wehavesomethinganalogous to the sacrifice ofChrist.

Itmustbeconfessed,however,thattheanalogy isveryfaint; for itdoesnottouchthespecificpointat issue.Thedeathofavolunteersoldier inthewarwaslikethedeathofChristinthatitwasasupremeexampleofself-sacrifice.But the thing tobeaccomplishedby the self-sacrificewasentire!',differentfromthethingwhichwasaccomplishedonCalvary.Thedeathof thosewho sacrificed themselves in thewarbroughtpeace andprotectiontothelovedonesathome,butitcouldneveravailtowipeouttheguiltofsin.

The real answer to the objection is to be found not in the similaritybetween thedeathofChrist andother examplesof self-sacrifice, but intheprofounddifference.[5]Whyis it thatmenareno longerwillingtotrustfortheirownsalvationandforthehopeoftheworldtooneactthatwasdonebyoneManof longago?Whyis it thattheyprefertotrusttomillionsof acts of self-sacrificewroughtbymillionsofmenall throughthecenturiesandinourownday?Theanswerisplain.Itisbecausemenhave lost sight of themajesty of Jesus' Person. The, think ofHim as aman like themselves; and if He was a man like themselves, His deathbecomessimplyanexampleofself-sacrifice.Buttherehavebeenmillionsof examples of self-sacrifice. Why then should we pay such exclusiveattentionto this onePalestinian exampleof longago?Menused to saywithreferencetoJesus,"Therewasnoothergoodenoughtopaythepriceof sin."They say sonowno longer.On the contrary, everyman is now

regarded as plenty good enough to pay the price of sin if, whether inpeaceorinwar,hewillonlygobravelyoverthetopinsomenoblecause.

Itisperfectlytruethatnomeremancanpaythepenaltyofanotherman'ssin.But it doesnot follow that Jesus could not do it; for Jesuswas nomeremanbut theeternalSonofGod.Jesus ismasterof the innermostsecretsofthemoralworld.Hehasdonewhatnoneothercouldpossiblydo;Hehasborneoursin.

TheChristiandoctrineoftheatonement,therefore,isaltogetherrootedintheChristiandoctrineofthedeityofChrist.Therealityofanatonementforsindependsaltogetherupon theNewTestamentpresentationof thePersonofChrist.Andeven thehymn"dealingwith theCrosswhichwesinginChurchcanbeplacedinanascendingscaleaccordingastheyarebaseduponalowerorahigherviewofJesus'Person.Attheverybottomofthescaleisthatfamiliarhymn:

Nearer,myGod,tothee,Nearertothee!E'enthoughitbeacrossThatraisethme.

Thatisaperfectlygoodhymn.ItmeansthatourtrialsmaybeadisciplinetobringusnearertoGod.ThethoughtisnotopposedtoChristianity;itisfound in the New Testament. But many persons have the impression,because theword"cross" is found in thehymn, that there is somethingspecificallyChristianabout it, and that it has something todowith thegospel. This impression is entirely false. In reality, the cross that isspokenofisnottheCrossofChrist,butourowncross;theversesimplymeansthatourowncrossesortrialsmaybeameanstobringusnearertoGod.Itisaperfectlygoodthought,butcertainlyitisnotthegospel.Onecanonlybe sorry that thepeopleon theTitanic couldnot findabetterhymn touse in the last solemnhourof their lives.But there is anotherhymninthehymn-book:

InthecrossofChristIglory,Toweringo'erthewrecksoftime;Allthelightofsacredstory

Gathersrounditsheadsublime.

That is certainly better. It is herenot our own crossesbut theCross ofChrist,theactualeventthattookplaceonCalvary,thatisspokenof,andthateventiscelebratedasthecenterofallhistory.CertainlytheChristianman can sing that hymn. But onemisses even there the full Christiansenseof themeaningof theCross; theCross is celebrated,but it isnotunderstood.

Itiswell,therefore,thatthereisanotherhymninourhymnbook:

WhenIsurveythewondrouscrossOnwhichthePrinceofglorydiedMyrichestgainIcountbutloss,Andpourcontemptonallmypride.

There at length are heard the accents of true Christian feeling--"thewondrouscrossonwhichthePrinceofglorydied."WhenwecometoseethatitwasnomeremanwhosufferedonCalvarybuttheLordofGlory,then we shall be willing to say that one drop of the precious blood ofJesusisofmorevalue,forourownsalvationandforthehopeofsociety,than all the rivers of blood that have flowed upon the battlefields ofhistory.

Thus the objection to the vicarious sacrifice of Christ disappearsaltogetherbeforethetremendousChristiansenseofthemajestyofJesus'Person. It is perfectly true that the Christ of modern naturalisticreconstructionnevercouldhavesuffered for thesinsofothers;but it isvery different in the case of the Lord of Glory. And if the notion ofvicariousatonementbesoabsurdasmodernoppositionwouldleadustobelieve,whatshallbesaidoftheChristianexperiencethathasbeenbasedupon it?Themodern liberalChurch is fondof appealing to experience.Butwhereshall trueChristianexperiencebe found ifnot in theblessedpeacewhich comes fromCalvary? That peace comes only when amanrecognizes that all his striving to be right with God, all his feverishendeavor to keep the Law before he can be saved, is unnecessary, andthattheLordJesushaswipedoutthehandwritingthatwasagainsthimbydyinginsteadofhimontheCross.Whocanmeasurethedepthofthe

peaceandjoythatcomesfromthisblessedknowledge?Isita"theoryoftheatonement,"adelusionofman'sfancy?OrisittheverytruthofGod?

Butstillanotherobjectionremainsagainst theChristiandoctrineof theCross. The objection concerns the character of God. What a degradedviewofGoditis,themodernliberalexclaims,whenGodisrepresentedasbeing "alienated" fromman, andaswaiting coldlyuntil a price bepaidbeforeHegrantssalvation!Inreality,wearetold,Godismorewillingtoforgive sin thanwe arewilling to be forgiven; reconciliation, therefore,canhavetodoonlywithman;italldependsuponus;Godwillreceiveusanytimewechoose.

Theobjectiondependsofcourseupontheliberalviewofsin.IfsinissotriflingamatterastheliberalChurchsupposes,thenindeedthecurseofGod's lawcanbe takenvery lightly, andGodcaneasily letby-gonesbebygones

Thisbusinessoflettingbygonesbebygoneshasapleasantsound.Butinrealityitisthemostheartlessthingintheworld.Itwillnotdoatalleveninthecaseofsinscommittedagainstourfellow-men.TosaynothingofsinagainstGod,whatshallbedoneabouttheharmthatwehavewroughttoourneighbor?Sometimes,nodoubt, theharmcanberepaired. Ifwehavedefraudedourneighborofasumofmoney,wecanpaythesumbackwithinterest.Butinthecaseofthemoreseriouswrongssuchrepaymentisusuallyquite impossible.Themore seriouswrongsare those that aredone,nottothebodies,buttothesoulsofmen.Andwhocanthinkwithcomplacencyofwrongsof thatkindwhichhehascommitted?Whocanbeartothink,forexample,oftheharmthathehasdonetothoseyoungerthanhimselfbyabadexample?Andwhatofthosesadwords,spokentothosewelove,thathaveleftscarsnevertobeobliteratedbythehandoftime? In the presence of such memories, we are told by the modernpreacher simply to repent and to let bygones be bygones But what aheartlessthingissuchrepentance!Weescapeintosomehigher,happier,respectablelife.Butwhatofthosewhomwebyourexampleandbyourwordshavehelpedtodragdowntothebrinkofhell?Weforgetthemandletbygonesbebygones!

Such repentance will never wipe out the guilt of sin--not even sin

committedagainstourfellowmen,tosaynothingofsinagainstourGod.Thetrulypenitentmanlongstowipeouttheeffectsofsin,notmerelytoforgetsin.Butwhocanwipeout theeffectsof sin?Othersaresufferingbecauseofourpastsins;andwecanattainnorealpeaceuntilwesufferintheirstead.Welongtogobackintothetangleofourlife,andmakerightthethingsthatarewrong--atleasttosufferwherewehavecausedotherstosuffer.AndsomethinglikethatChristdidforuswhenHediedinsteadofusonthecross;Heatonedforalloursins.

The sorrow for sins committed against one's fellowmen does indeedremainintheChristian'sheart.Andhewill seekbyeverymeans that iswithinhispowertorepairthedamagethathehasdone.Butatonementatleasthasbeenmade--madeastrulyasifthesinnerhimselfhadsufferedwithand for thosewhomhehaswronged.And thesinnerhimself,byamystery of grace, becomes right with God. All sin at bottom is a sinagainstGod. "Against thee, theeonlyhave I sinned" is thecryofa truepenitent.HowterribleisthesinagainstGod!Whocanrecallthewastedmoments and years ? Gone they are, never to return; gone the littleallottedspanoflife;gonethelittledayinwhichamanmustwork.Whocanmeasuretheirrevocableguiltofawastedlife?YetevenforsuchguiltGodhasprovidedafountainofcleansinginthepreciousbloodofChrist.God has clothed us with Christ's righteousness as with a garment; inChristwestandspotlessbeforethejudgmentthrone.

Thustodenythenecessityofatonementistodenytheexistenceofarealmoralorder.And it isstrangehowthosewhoventureuponsuchdenialcanregardthemselvesasdisciplesofJesus;forifonethingisclearintherecordofJesus'lifeitisthatJesusrecognizedthejusticeasdistinguishedfromthelove,ofGod.Godislove,accordingtoJesus,butHeisnotonlylove;Jesusspoke,interriblewords,ofthesinthatshallneverbeforgiveneitherinthisworldorinthatwhichistocome.ClearlyJesusrecognizedtheexistenceofretributivejustice;Jesuswasfarfromacceptingthelightmodernviewofsin.

Butwhat, then, itwillbeobjected,becomesofGod's love?Even if itbeadmitted that justice demands punishment for sin, the modern liberaltheologianwillsay,whatbecomesoftheChristiandoctrinethatjusticeisswallowedupbygrace?IfGodisrepresentedaswaitingforapricetobe

paidbeforesinshallbeforgiven,perhapsHisjusticemayberescued,butwhatbecomesofHislove?

Modernliberalteachersarenevertiredofringingthechangesuponthisobjection.Theyspeakwithhorrorofthedoctrineofan"alienated"oran"angry"God.Inanswer,of course itwouldbeeasy topoint to theNewTestament.TheNewTestament clearly speaks of thewrath ofGod andthewrathofJesusHimself;andall the teachingofJesuspresupposesadivineindignationagainstsin.Withwhatpossibleright,then,canthosewho reject this vital element in Jesus' teaching and example regardthemselvesastruedisciplesofHis?ThetruthisthatthemodernrejectionofthedoctrineofGod'swrathproceedsfromalightviewofsinwhichistotallyatvariancewiththeteachingofthewholeNewTestamentandofJesusHimself.Ifamanhasoncecomeunderatrueconvictionofsin,hewillhavelittledifficultywiththedoctrineoftheCross.

But as a matter of fact the modern objection to the doctrine of theatonementonthegroundthatthatdoctrineiscontrarytotheloveofGod,isbaseduponthemostabysmalmisunderstandingofthedoctrineitself.ThemodernliberalteacherspersistinspeakingofthesacrificeofChristas though it were a sacrificemade by some one other than God. TheyspeakofitasthoughitmeantthatGodwaitscoldlyuntilapriceispaidtoHimbeforeHeforgivessin.Asamatterof fact, itmeansnothingof thekind; the objection ignores thatwhich is absolutely fundamental in theChristian doctrine of the Cross. The fundamental thing is that GodHimself,andnotanother,makesthesacrificeforsin--GodHimselfinthepersonoftheSonwhoassumedournatureanddiedforus,GodHimselfinthePersonoftheFatherwhosparednotHisownSonbutofferedHimupforusall.Salvation isas free forusas theairwebreathe;God's thedreadful cost, ours the gain. "God so loved theworld thatHe gaveHisonly begotten Son." Such love is very different from the complacencyfound in the God of modern preaching; this love is love that did nobcountthecost;itislovethatisloveindeed.

Thisloveandthislovealonebringstruejoytomen.JoyisindeedbeingsoughtbythemodernliberalChurch.Butitisbeingsoughtinwaysthatarefalse.HowmaycommunionwithGodbemadejoyful?Obviously,weare told, by emphasizing the comforting attributes of God--His long-

suffering,Hislove.Letus,itisurged,regardHimnotasamoodyDespot,notasasternlyrighteousJudge,butsimplyasalovingFather.Awaywiththehorrorsof theold theology!Letusworship aGod inwhomwe canrejoice.

Twoquestionsarisewithregardtothismethodofmakingreligionjoyful--inthefirstplace,Doesitwork?andinthesecondplace,Isittrue?

Does itwork? It certainly ought towork.How can anyone be unhappywhen the rulerof theuniverse isdeclared tobe the lovingFatherof allmenwhowillneverpermanentlyinflictpainuponHischildren?Whereisthestingofremorseifallsinwillnecessarilybeforgiven?Yetmenarestrangelyungrateful.Afterthemodernpreacherhasdonehispartwithalldiligence--aftereverythingunpleasanthascarefullybeeneliminatedfromtheconceptionofGod,afterHisunlimitedlovehasbeencelebratedwiththe eloquence that it deserves--the congregation somehow persistentlyrefuses to burst into the old ecstasies of joy. The truth is, the God ofmodern preaching, though He may perhaps be very good, is ratheruninteresting.Nothingissoinsipidasindiscriminategoodhumor.Isthatreally love that costs so little? IfGodwillnecessarily forgive,nomatterwhat we do, why trouble ourselves aboutHim at all? Such a Godmaydeliverus fromthe fearofhell.ButHisheaven, ifHehasany, is fullofsin.

Theotherobjection to themodernencouraging ideaofGod is that it isnottrue.HowdoyouknowthatGodisallloveandkindness?Surelynotthrough nature, for it is full of horrors. Human suffering may beunpleasant,butitisreal,andGodmusthavesomethingtodowithit.Justas surely not through the Bible. For it was from the Bible that the oldtheologians derived that conception of God which you would reject asgloomy."TheLordthyGod,"theBiblesays,"isaconsumingfire."Or isJesusaloneyourauthority?Youarenobetteroff.For itwasJesuswhospokeoftheouterdarknessandtheeverlastingfire,ofthesinthatshallnotbeforgiveneitherinthisageor inthatwhichistocome.Ordoyouappeal,foryourcomfortingideaofGod,toatwentieth-centuryrevelationgrantedimmediatelytoyou?It is tobefearedthatyouwillconvincenoonebutyourself.

Religion cannot bemade joyful simply by looking on the bright side ofGod.Foraone-sidedGodisnotarealGod,andit istherealGodalonewhocansatisfythelongingofoursoul.Godislove,butisHeonlylove?God is love,but is loveGod?Seek joyalone, then, seek joyat any cost,andyouwillnotfindit.Howthenmayitbeattained?

The search for joy in religion seems to have ended in disaster. God isfound to be enveloped in impenetrable mystery, and in awfulrighteousness;manisconfinedintheprisonoftheworld,tryingtomakethebestofhis condition,beautifying theprisonwith tinsel, yetsecretlydissatisfiedwithhisbondage,dissatisfiedwithamerelyrelativegoodnesswhich is no goodness at all, dissatisfiedwith the companionship of hissinful fellows, unable to forget his heavenly destiny and his heavenlyduty, longing for communionwith theHolyOne.There seems tobenohope;Godisseparatefromsinners; there isnoroomfor joy,butonlyacertainfearfullookingforofjudgmentandfieryindignation.

Yet such aGod has at least one advantage over the comfortingGod ofmodernpreaching--Heisalive,Heissovereign,HeisnotboundbyHiscreation or byHis creatures, He can performwonders. CouldHe evensave us if He would? He has saved us--in that message the gospelconsists.Itcouldnothavebeenforetold;stilllesscouldthemannerofithave been foretold. That Birth, that Life, thatDeath--whywas it donejustthusandthenandthere?Itallseemssoverylocal,soveryparticular,soveryunphilosophical, soveryunlikewhatmighthavebeenexpected.Arenotour ownmethods of salvation,men say, better than that? "ArenotAbanaandPharpar,riversofDamascus,betterthanallthewatersofIsrael?"Yetwhat if itwere true? "So, theAll-Greatwere theAll-Lovingtoo"--God's own Son delivered up for us all, freedom from the world,soughtbyphilosophersofalltheages,offerednowfreelytoeverysimplesoul, thingshiddenfromthewiseandprudentrevealeduntobabes, thelong striving over, the impossible accomplished, sin conquered bymysterious grace, communion at length with the holy God, our Fatherwhichartinheaven!

Surelythisandthisaloneisjoy.Butitisajoythatisakintofear.Itisafearful thing to fall into thehandsof the livingGod.Werewenot saferwithaGodofourowndevising--loveandonlylove,aFatherandnothing

else,onebeforewhomwecouldstandinourownmeritwithoutfear?HewhowillmaybesatisfiedwithsuchaGod.Butwe,Godhelpus--sinfulaswe are, we would see Jehovah. Despairing, hoping, trembling, half-doubting and half-believing, trusting all to Jesus, we venture into thepresenceoftheveryGod.AndinHispresencewelive.

The atoning death of Christ, and that alone, has presented sinners asrighteousinGod'ssight;theLordJesushaspaidthefullpenaltyoftheirsins, and clothed them with His perfect righteousness before thejudgmentseatofGod.ButChristhasdoneforChristianseven farmorethanthat.HehasgiventothemnotonlyanewandrightrelationtoGod,butanew life inGod'spresence forevermore.Hehassavedthemfromthepoweraswellas fromtheguiltofsin.TheNewTestamentdoesnotendwiththedeathofChrist;itdoesnotendwiththetriumphantwordsof Jesus on the Cross, "It is finished." The death was followed by theresurrection,andtheresurrectionlikethedeathwasforoursakes.Jesusrosefromthedeadintoanewlifeofgloryandpower,andintothat lifeHebringsthoseforwhomHedied.TheChristian,onthebasisofChrist'sredeemingwork,notonlyhasdieduntosin,butalsolivesuntoGod.

Thuswas completed the redeemingwork ofChrist--thework forwhichHeenteredintotheworld.Theaccountofthatworkis the"gospel," the"goodnews."Itnevercouldhavebeenpredicted,forsindeservesnaughtbuteternaldeath.ButGodtriumphedoversinthroughthegraceofourLordJesusChrist.

But how is the redeeming work of Christ applied to the individualChristianman?TheansweroftheNewTestamentisplain.Accordingtothe New Testament the work of Christ is applied to the individualChristianmanbytheHolySpirit.AndthisworkoftheHolySpiritispartofthecreativeworkofGod.Itisnotaccomplishedbytheordinaryuseofmeans;itisnotaccomplishedmerelybyusingthegoodthatisalreadyinman.Onthecontrary,itissomethingnew.Itisnotaninfluenceuponthelife,butthebeginningofanewlife;itisnotdevelopmentofwhatwehadalready,butanewbirth.AttheverycenterofChristianityarethewords,"Yemustbebornagain."

Thesewordsaredespised today.They involve supernaturalism,and the

modern man is opposed to supernaturalism in the experience of theindividual as much as in the realm of history. A cardinal doctrine ofmodernliberalismisthattheworld'sevilmaybeovercomebytheworld'sgood;nohelpisthoughttobeneededfromoutsidetheworld.

This doctrine is propagated in various ways. It runs all through thepopular literature of our time. It dominates religious literature, and itappears even upon the stage. Some years ago great popularity wasattainedbyaplaywhichtaughtthedoctrineinpowerfulfashion.Theplaybegan with a scene in a London boarding-house. And it was a verydiscouragingscene.Thepersons in thatboardinghousewerenotbyanymeansdesperatecriminals,butonecouldalmosthavewished that theyhad been--they would have been somuchmore interesting. As it was,they were simply sordid, selfish persons, snapping and snarling aboutthings to eat and about creature comforts--the sort of persons aboutwhomone is tempted to say that they have no souls. The scene was apowerfulpictureof thehideousness of the commonplace.Butpresentlythemysteriousstrangerof"thethirdfloorback"entereduponthescene,andallwas changed.Hehadno creed to offer, andno religion.But hesimplyengagedinconversationwitheveryoneinthatboardinghouse,anddiscovered the one good point in every individual life. Somewhere inevery life there was some one good thing--some one true humanaffection, someonenobleambition. Ithad longbeenhiddenbya thickcoating of sordidness and selfishness; its very existence had beenforgotten.Butitwasthere,andwhenitwasbroughttothelightthewholelifewastransformed.Thustheevilthatwasinmanwasovercomebythegoodthatwasalreadythere.

The same thing is taught in more immediately practical ways. Forexample,therearethosewhowouldapplyittotheprisonersinourjails.7he inmates of jails and penitentiaries constitute no doubt unpromisingmaterial.Butitisagreatmistake,itissaid,totellthemthattheyarebad,todiscourage themby insistingupon their sin.On thecontrary,wearetold,whatoughttobedoneistofindthegoodthatisalreadyinthemandbuilduponthat;weoughttoappealtosomelatentsenseofhonorwhichshowsthatevencriminalspossesstheremnantsofourcommonhumannature. Thus again the evil that is in man is to be overcome not by a

foreigngoodbutbyagoodwhichmanhimselfpossesses.

Certainlythereisalargeelementoftruthinthismodernprinciple.ThatelementoftruthisfoundintheBible.TheBibledoescertainlyteachthatthegoodthatisalreadyinmanoughttobefosteredinordertochecktheevil.Whatsoeverthingsaretrueandpureandofgoodreport--weoughttothinkonthose things.Certainly theprincipleofovercoming theworld'sevil by the good already in the world is a great principle. The oldtheologiansrecognizedittothefullintheirdoctrineof"commongrace."There is something in the world even apart from Christianity whichrestrainstheworstmanifestationsofevil.Andthatsomethingoughttobeused.Withouttheuseofit,thisworldcouldnotbelivedinforaday.Theuseof it is certainlyagreatprinciple; itwill certainlyaccomplishman',usefulthings.

Butthereisonethingwhichitwillnotaccomplish.Itwillnotremovethediseaseofsin.Itwillindeedpalliatethesymptomsofthedisease;itwillchange the form of the disease. Sometimes the disease is hidden, andtherearethosewhothinkthatitiscured.Butthenitburstsforthinsomenewway,asin1914,andstartlestheworld.Whatisreallyneededisnotasalvetopalliatethesymptomsofsin,butaremedythatattackstherootofthedisease.

In reality, however, the figure of disease is misleading. The only truefigure--ifindeeditcanbecalledmerelyafigure--istheonewhichisusedintheBible.Manisnotmerelyill,butheisdead,intrespassesandsins,andwhatisreallyneededisanewlife.ThatlifeisgivenbytheHolySpiritin"regeneration"orthenewbirth.

Many are the passages and many are the ways in which the centraldoctrineofthenewbirthistaughtintheWordofGod.OneofthemoststupendouspassagesisGal.ii.20:"IhavebeencrucifiedwithChrist;anditisnolongerIthatlivebutChristlivethinme."Thatpassagewascalledby Bengel the marrow of Christianity. And it was rightly so called. Itrefers to the objective basis of Christianity in the redeeming work ofChrist,anditcontainsalsothesupernaturalismofChristianexperience."It is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me"--these areextraordinarywords. "If you look uponChristians," Paul says in effect,

"youseesomanymanifestationsofthelifeofChrist."Undoubtedlyifthewords of Gal. ii. 20 stood alone they might be taken in a mystical orpantheistic sense; they might be taken to involve the merging of thepersonalityoftheChristianinthepersonalityofChrist.ButPaulhadnoreason to fear such a misinterpretation, for he had fortified himselfagainstitbythewholeofhisteaching.ThenewrelationoftheChristiantoChrist,accordingtoPaul,involvesnolossoftheseparatepersonalityoftheChristian;on the contrary, it is everywhere intensely personal; it isnot a merely mystical relationship to the All or the Absolute, but arelationship of love existing between one person and another. JustbecausePaulhadfortifiedhimselfagainstmisunderstanding,hewasnotafraidofanextremeboldnessoflanguage."ItisnolongerIthatlive,butChristlivethinme"--thesewordsinvolveatremendousconceptionofthebreakthatcomesinaman'slifewhenhebecomesaChristian.Itisalmostasthoughhebecameanewperson--sostupendousisthechange.Thesewordswerenotwrittenbyamanwhobelieved thatChristianitymeansmerelytheentranceofanewmotive intothe life;Paulbelievedwithallhismindandheartinthedoctrineofthenewcreationorthenewbirth.

Thatdoctrinerepresentsoneaspectof thesalvationwhichwaswroughtbyChristandisappliedbyHisSpirit.Butthereisanotheraspectof thesame salvation.Regenerationmeans anew life; but there is also anewrelation inwhich the believer stands towardGod. That new relation isinstituted by "justification"--the act of God by which a sinner ispronouncedrighteousinHissightbecauseoftheatoningdeathofChrist.Itisnotnecessarytoaskwhetherjustificationcomesbeforeregenerationor vice versa; in reality they are two aspects of one salvation.And theybothstandat theverybeginningof theChristian life.TheChristianhasnotmerelythepromiseofanewlife,buthehasalreadyanewlife.AndhehasnotmerelythepromiseofbeingpronouncedrighteousinGod'ssight(though theblessedpronouncementwillbe confirmedon the judgmentday), but he is already pronounced righteous here and now. At thebeginningofeveryChristianlifetherestands,notaprocess,butadefiniteactofGod.

ThatdoesnotmeanthateveryChristiancantellexactlyatwhatmomenthewasjustifiedandbornagain.SomeChristians,indeed,arereallyable

togivedayandhouroftheirconversion.Itisagrievoussintoridiculetheexperienceof suchmen.Sometimes, indeed, theyare inclined to ignorethestepsintheprovidenceofGodwhichpreparedforthegreatchange.Buttheyarerightonthemainpoint.Theyknowthatwhenonsuchandsuchadaytheykneeledinprayertheywerestill intheirsins,andwhenthey rose from their knees they were children of God never to beseparated fromHim. Such experience is a very holy thing. But on theotherhand it isamistake todemand that it shouldbeuniversal.Thereare Christians who can give day and hour of their conversion, but thegreatmajoritydonotknowexactlyatwhatmomenttheyweresaved.Theeffectsoftheactareplain,buttheactitselfwasdoneinthequietnessofGod. Such, very often, is the experience of children brought up byChristianparents.Itisnotnecessarythatallshouldpassthroughagoniesof soul before being saved; there are those to whom faith comespeacefullyandeasilythroughthenurtureofChristianhomes.

Buthoweveritbemanifested,thebeginningoftheChristianlifeisanactofGod.ItisanactofGodandnotanactofman.

Thatdoesnotmean,however,thatinthebeginningoftheChristianlifeGoddealswithusaswithsticksorstones,unabletounderstandwhatisbeingdone.OnthecontraryHedealswithusaswithpersons;salvationhas a place in the conscious life of man; God uses in our salvation aconsciousactofthehumansoul--anactwhichthoughitisitselftheworkofGod'sSpirit,isatthesametimeanactofman.ThatactofmanwhichGod produces and employs in salvation is faith. At the center ofChristianityisthedoctrineof"justificationbyfaith."

In exalting faith, we are not immediately putting ourselves incontradictiontomodernthought.Indeedfaithisbeingexaltedveryhighbymenofthemostmoderntype.Butwhatkindoffaith?Thereemergesthedifferenceofopinion.

Faithisbeingexaltedsohightodaythatmenarebeingsatisfiedwithanykindoffaith,justsoitisfaith.Itmakesnodifferencewhatisbelieved,weare told, just so the blessed attitude of faith is there. The undogmaticfaith,itissaid,isbetterthanthedogmatic,becauseitispurerfaith--faithlessweakenedbythealloyofknowledge.

Now it is perfectly clear that such employment of faith merely as abeneficent state of the soul is bringing some results. Faith in themostabsurdthingssometimesproducesthemostbeneficentandfar-reachingresults. But the disturbing thing is that all faith has an object. Thescientificobservermaynotthinkthatitistheobjectthatdoesthework;from his vantage point he may see clearly that it is really the faith,consideredsimplyasapsychologicalphenomenon,thatistheimportantthing,andthatanyotherobjectwouldhaveansweredaswell.Buttheonewhodoesthebelievingisalwaysconvincedjustexactlythatit isnotthefaith,but theobject of the faith,which ishelpinghim.Themomenthebecomesconvincedthatitismerelythefaiththatishelpinghim,thefaithdisappears;forfaithalwaysinvolvesaconvictionoftheobjectivetruthortrustworthinessoftheobject.Iftheobject isnotreallytrustworthythenthefaithisafalsefaith.Itisperfectlytruethatsuchafalsefaithwilloftenhelp aman. Things that are false will accomplish a great many usefulthingsintheworld.IfItakeacounterfeitcoinandbuyadinnerwithit,thedinneriseverybitasgoodasifthecoinwereaproductofthemint.Andwhat a very useful thing a dinner is! But just as I am onmywaydowntowntobuyadinnerforapoorman,anexperttellsmethatmycoinisacounterfeit.Themiserable,heartlesstheorizer!Whileheisgoingintouninteresting, learneddetailsabout theprimitivehistoryof that coin, apoormanisdyingforwantofbread.So it iswith faith.Faith issoveryuseful,theytellus,thatwemustnotscrutinizeitsbasisintruth.But,thegreat trouble is, such an avoidance of scrutiny itself involves thedestructionoffaith.Forfaithisessentiallydogmatic.Despiteallyoucando,youcannotremovetheelementofintellectualassentfromit.Faithistheopinion that somepersonwill do something for you. If that personreallywilldothatthingforyou,thenthefaithistrue.Ifhewillnotdoit,thenthefaithisfalse.Inthelattercase,notallthebenefitsintheworldwill make the faith true. Though it has transformed the world fromdarkness to light, though ithasproduced thousandsofglorioushealthylives, it remains a pathological phenomenon. It is false, and sooner orlateritissuretobefoundout.

Suchcounterfeitsshouldberemoved,notoutofaloveofdestruction,butinordertoleaveroomforthepuregold,theexistenceofwhichisimpliedin thepresenceof thecounterfeits.Faith isoftenbaseduponerror,but

therewouldbenofaithatallunlessitweresometimesbasedupontruth.But ifChristian faith isbasedupon truth, then it isnot the faithwhichsavestheChristianbuttheobjectofthefaith.Andtheobjectofthefaithis Christ. Faith, then, according to the Christian view means simplyreceivingagift.TohavefaithinChristmeanstoceasetryingtowinGod'sfavor by one's own character; the man who believes in Christ simplyaccepts thesacrificewhichChristofferedonCalvary.Theresultofsuchfaith is a new life and all good works; but the salvation itself is anabsolutelyfreegiftofGod.

Very different is the conception of faith which prevails in the liberalChurch.Accordingtomodernliberalism,faith isessentiallythesameas"makingChristMaster"inone'slife;atleastitisbymakingChristMasterinthelifethatthewelfareofmenissought.Butthatsimplymeansthatsalvation is thought to be obtained by our own obedience to thecommandsofChrist.Suchteachingisjustasublimatedformoflegalism.NotthesacrificeofChrist,onthisview,butourownobediencetoGod'slaw,isthegroundofhope.

InthiswaythewholeachievementoftheReformationhasbeengivenup,and there has been a return to the religion of theMiddle Ages. At thebeginningof the sixteenth century,God raisedup8manwhobegan toread theEpistle to theGalatianswithhis own eyes. The resultwas therediscoveryofthedoctrineofjustificationbyfaith.Uponthatrediscoveryhasbeenbased thewholeofourevangelical freedom.AsexpoundedbyLutherandCalvintheEpistletotheGalatiansbecamethe"MagnaChartaof Christian liberty." But modern liberalism has returned to the oldinterpretationofGalatianswhichwasurgedagainsttheReformers.ThusProfessorBurton's elaborate commentary on the Epistle, despite all itsextremely valuable modern scholarship, is in one respect a medievalbook; ithas returned toananti-Reformationexegesis,bywhichPaul isthoughttobeattackingintheEpistleonlythepiecemealmoralityof thePharisees.Inreality,ofcourse,theobjectofPaul'sattackis thethoughtthat in any way man can earn his acceptance with God. What Paul isprimarily interested in is not spiritual religion over againstceremonialism,butthefreegraceofGodoveragainsthumanmerit.

The grace of God is rejected by modern liberalism. And the result is

slavery--the slavery of the law, the wretched bondage by which manundertakestheimpossibletaskofestablishinghisownrighteousnessasaground of acceptancewithGod. Itmay seem strange at first sight that"liberalism,"ofwhichtheverynamemeansfreedom,shouldinrealitybewretched slavery. But the phenomenon is not really so strange.Emancipation from the blessedwill ofGod always involves bondage tosomeworsetaskmaster.

ThusitmaybesaidofthemodernliberalChurch,asoftheJerusalemofPaul'sday,that"sheisinbondagewithherchildren."GodgrantthatshemayturnagaintothelibertyofthegospelofChrist!

The liberty of the gospel depends upon the gift of God by which theChristianlifeisbegun--agiftwhichinvolvesjustification,ortheremovalof theguiltof sinand theestablishmentofa right relationbetween thebelieverandGod,andregenerationorthenewbirth,whichmakesoftheChristianmananewcreature.

Butthereisoneobviousobjectiontothishighdoctrine,andtheobjectionleadsontoafulleraccountoftheChristianwayofsalvation.Theobviousobjectiontothedoctrineofthenewcreationisthatitdoesnotseemtobeinaccordwiththeobservedfact.AreChristiansreallynewcreatures?Itcertainlydoesnotseemso.Theyaresubjecttothesameoldconditionsoflifetowhichtheyweresubjectbefore;ifyoulookuponthemyoucannotnotice any very obvious change. They have the same weaknesses, and,unfortunately,theyhavesometimesthesamesins.Thenewcreation,ifitbereallynew,doesnotseemtobeveryperfect;Godcanhardlylookuponitandsay,asofthefirstcreation,thatitisallverygood.

Thisisaveryrealobjection.ButPaulmeetsitgloriouslyintheverysameverse,alreadyconsidered,inwhichthedoctrineofthenewcreationissoboldlyproclaimed. "It isno longer I that live,butChrist liveth inme"--thatisthedoctrineofthenewcreation.Butimmediatelytheobjectionistakenup;"ThelifewhichInowliveintheflesh,"Paulcontinues,"I livebythefaithwhichisintheSonofGodwholovedmeandgaveHimselfforme.""ThelifewhichInowliveintheflesh"--thereistheadmission.PauladmitsthattheChristiandoeslivealifeintheflesh,subjecttothesameoldearthlyconditionsandwithacontinuedbattleagainstsin."But,"says

Paul(andheretheobjectionisanswered),"thelifewhichInowliveinthefleshIlivebythefaithwhichisintheSonofGodwholovedmeandgaveHimselfforme."TheChristianlifeislivedbyfaithandnotbysight;thegreatchangehasnotyetcometofull fruition;sinhasnotyetbeenfullyconquered; the beginning of the Christian life is a new birth, not animmediatecreationofthefullgrownman.Butalthoughthenewlifehasnotyetcometofullfruition,theChristianknowsthatthefruitionwillnotfail;heisconfidentthattheGodwhohasbegunagoodworkinhimwillcompleteituntothedayofChrist;heknowsthattheChristwhohaslovedhim and givenHimself for himwill not fail him now, but through theHoly Spirit will build him up unto the perfectman. That is what PaulmeansbylivingtheChristianlifebyfaith.

Thus theChristian life, though itbeginsbyamomentaryactofGod, iscontinued by a process. In other words--to use theological language--justificationandregenerationarefollowedbysanctification.InprincipletheChristian isalready free fromthepresentevilworld,but inpracticefreedom must still be attained. Thus the Christian life is not a life ofidleness,butabattle.

That iswhatPaulmeanswhenhe speaksof faithworking through love(Gal.v.6).Thefaiththathemakesthemeansofsalvationisnotanidlefaith, like the faith which is condemned in the Epistle of James, but afaiththatworks.Theworkthatitperformsislove,andwhatloveisPaulexplains in the last section of theEpistle to theGalatians. Love, in theChristian sense, is not amere emotion, but a very practical and a verycomprehensive thing. It involves nothing less than the keeping of thewholelawofGod."Thewholelawisfulfilledinoneword,Ieveninthis:Thoushaltlovethyneighborasthyself."Yetthepracticalresultsof faithdonotmeanthatfaithlitselfisawork.Itisasignificantthingthatinthatlast l "practical" section of Galatians Paul does not say that l faithproducesthelifeoflove;hesaysthattheSpiritofIGodproducesit.TheSpirit, then, in that section is represented as doing exactlywhat in thepregnantwords,"faithworkingthroughlove," isattributedtofaith.Theapparentcontradictionsimplyleadstothetrueconceptionoffaith.Truefaithdoesnotdoanything.Whenitissaidtodosomething(forexample,whenwesaythatitcanremovemountains),thatisonlybyaverynatural

shortnessofexpression.Faith is theexactoppositeofworks; faithdoesnot give, it receives. SowhenPaul says thatwe do something by faith,thatisjustanotherwayofsayingthatofourselveswedonothing;whenitis said that faithworks through love thatmeans that through faith thenecessarybasisofallChristianworkhasbeenobtainedintheremovalofguiltandthebirthof thenewman,andthat theSpiritofGodhasbeenreceived--theSpiritwhoworkswith and through theChristianman forholy living. The forcewhich enters the Christian life through faith andworksitselfoutthroughloveisthepoweroftheSpiritofGod.

ButtheChristianlifeislivednotonlybyfaith;itisalsolivedinhope.TheChristianisinthemidstofasorebattle.Andasfortheconditionoftheworld at large--nothing but the coldest heartlessness could be satisfiedwith that. It is certainly true that the whole creation groaneth andtravailethinpaintogetheruntilnow.EvenintheChristianlifetherearethingsthatweshouldliketoseeremoved;therearefearswithinaswellasfightingswithout;evenwithintheChristianlifetherearesadevidencesofsin.ButaccordingtothehopewhichChristhasgivenus,therewillbefinalvictory,andthestruggleofthisworldwillbefollowedbythegloriesofheaven.ThathoperunsallthroughtheChristianlife;Christianityi.notengrossedbythistransitoryworld,butmeasuresallthingsbythethoughtofeternity.

Butatthispointanobjectionisfrequentlyraised.The"otherworldliness"ofChristianityisobjectedtoasaformofselfishness.TheChristian,itissaid, doeswhat is right because of the hope of heaven, hut howmuchnobleristhemanwhobecauseofdutywalksboldlyintothedarknessofannihilation!

Theobjectionwouldhavesomeweight ifheavenaccording toChristianbeliefweremereenjoyment.ButasamatteroffactheaveniscommunionwithGodandwithHisChrist.ItcanbesaidreverentlythattheChristianlongsforheavennotonlyforhisownsake,butalsoforthesakeofGod.Ourpresent love is so cold,ourpresent service soweak; andwewouldonedayloveandserveHimasHislovedeserves.Itisperfectlytruethatthe Christian is dissatisfied with the present world, but it is a holydissatisfaction;itisthathungerandthirstafterrighteousnesswhichourSaviorblessed.WeareseparatedfromtheSaviornowbytheveilofsense

andby theeffectsof sin,and it isnotselfish to long toseeHimface toface.Torelinquishsuchlongingisnotunselfishness,butislikethecoldheartlessnessofamanwhocouldpartfromfatherormotherorwifeorchildwithoutapang.ItisnotselfishtolongfortheOnewhomnothavingseenwelove.

SuchistheChristianlife--itisalifeofconflictbutitisalsoalifeofhope.Itviewsthisworldundertheaspectofeternity;thefashionofthisworldpassethaway,andallmuststandbeforethejudgmentseatofChrist.

Very different is the "program" of the modern liberal Church. In thatprogram,heaven has little place, and this world is really all in all. Therejection of the Christian hope is not always definite or conscious;sometimes the liberal preacher tries to maintain a belief in theimmortalityofthesoul.Buttherealbasisofthebeliefinimmortalityhasbeen given up by the rejection of the New Testament account of theresurrectionofChrist.And,practically,theliberalpreacherhasverylittleto say about the other world. This world is really the center of all histhoughts;religionitself,andevenGod,aremademerelyameansforthebettermentofconditionsuponthisearth.

Thus religion has become amere function of the community or of thestate. So it is looked upon by themen of the present day. Even hard-headedbusinessmenandpoliticianshavebecomeconvincedthatreligionisneeded.Butitisthoughttobeneededmerelyasameanstoanend.Wehavetriedtogetalongwithoutreligion,itissaid,buttheexperimentwasafailure,andnowreligionmustbecalledintohelp.

Forexample, there is theproblemof the immigrants;greatpopulationshave found a place in our country; they do not speak our language orknowourcustoms;andwedonotknowwhattodowiththem.Wehaveattacked them by oppressive legislation or proposals of legislation, butsuchmeasureshavenotbeenaltogethereffective.Somehowthesepeopledisplayaperverseattachmentto the languagethat they learnedat theirmother'sknee.Itmaybestrangethatamanshouldlovethelanguagethathe learnedathismother'sknee,but thesepeopledo love it,andweareperplexedinoureffortstoproduceaunifiedAmericanpeople.Soreligionis called in to help; we are inclined to proceed against the immigrants

nowwithaBible inonehandandaclub in theotheroffering themtheblessings of liberty. That is what is sometimes meant by "ChristianAmericanization."

Another puzzling problem is the problem of industrial relations. Self-interesthasherebeenappealed to; employers andemployeeshavehadpointedouttothemtheplaincommercialadvantagesofconciliation.Butalltonopurpose.Classclashesstillagainstclassinthedestructivenessofindustrialwarfare.Andsometimesfalsedoctrineprovidesabasisforfalsepractice; the danger of Bolshevism is ever in the air. Here againrepressivemeasureshavebeentriedwithoutavail;thefreedomofspeechand of the press has been radically curtailed. But repressive legislationseems unable to check themarch of ideas. Perhaps, therefore, in thesemattersalso,religionmustbeinvoked.

Still another problem faces the modern world--the problem ofinternationalpeace.Thisproblemalsoseemedatonetimenearlysolved;self-interest seemed likely to be sufficient; there were many whosupposedthatthebankerswouldpreventanotherEuropeanwar.Butallsuch hopes were cruelly shattered in 1914, and there is not a whit ofevidence that they are better founded now than they were then. Hereagain, therefore,self-interest is insufficient; and religionmustbecalledintohelp.

Suchconsiderationshaveledtoarenewedpublic interest inthesubjectof religion; religion is discovered after all to be a useful thing. But thetrouble is that in being utilized religion is also being degraded anddestroyed.Religionisbeingregardedmoreandmoreasameremeanstoahigherend.[6]Thechangecanbedetectedwithespecialclearness inthe way in which missionaries commend their cause. Fifty years ago,missionariesmadetheirappealinthelightofeternity."Millionsofmen,"they were accustomed to say, "are going down to eternal destruction;JesusisaSaviorsufficientforall;sendusoutthereforewiththemessageofsalvationwhileyetthereistime."Somemissionaries,thankGod,stillspeak in that way. But very many missionaries make quite a differentappeal. "We are missionaries to India," they say. "Now India is inferment;Bolshevismiscreepingin;sendusouttoIndiathatthemenacemaybechecked."Orelsetheysay:"WearemissionariestoJapan;Japan

willbedominatedbymilitarismunlesstheprinciplesofJesushavesway;sendusoutthereforetopreventthecalamityofwar."

Thesamegreatchangeappearsincommunitylife.Anewcommunity,letussay,hasbeenformed.Itpossessesmanythingsthatnaturallybelongtoawell-orderedcommunity;ithasadrug-store,andacountryclub,andschool."Butthereisonething,"itsinhabitantssaytothemselves,"thatisstill lacking; we have no church. But a church is a recognized andnecessary part of every healthy community.Wemust therefore have achurch."Andsoanexpertincommunitychurch-buildingissummonedtotakethenecessarysteps.Thepersonswhospeakinthiswayusuallyhavelittleinterestinreligionforitsownsake;ithasneveroccurredtothemtoenterintothesecretplaceofcommunionwiththeholyGod.Butreligionisthoughttobenecessaryforahealthycommunity;andthereforeforthesakeofthecommunitytheyarewillingtohaveachurch.

Whatevermaybethoughtof thisattitude towardreligion, it isperfectlyplainthattheChristianreligioncannotbe treated inanysuchway.ThemomentitissotreateditceasestobeChristian.Forifonethingisplainitis thatChristianity refuses tobe regarded as ameremeans to a higherend.OurLordmadethatperfectlyclearwhenHesaid:"Ifanymancometome,andhatenothisfatherandmother...hecannotbemydisciple"(Luke xiv. 26).Whatever else those stupendouswordsmaymean, theycertainly mean that the relationship to Christ takes precedence of allotherrelationships,eventheholiestofrelationshipslikethosethatexistbetween husband and wife and parent and child. Those otherrelationshipsexistforthesakeofChristianityandnotChristianityforthesakeof them.Christianitywill indeedaccomplishmanyuseful things inthisworld,butifitisacceptedinordertoaccomplishthoseusefulthingsit is not Christianity. Christianity will combat Bolshevism; but if it isaccepted in order to combat Bolshevism, it is not Christianity:Christianitywillproduceaunifiednation,inaslowbutsatisfactoryway;but if it is accepted in order to produce a unified nation, it is notChristianity: Christianitywill produce a healthy community; but if it isacceptedinordertoproduceahealthycommunity,itisnotChristianity:Christianitywillpromoteinternationalpeace;butifitisacceptedinorderto promote international peace, it is not Christianity. Our Lord said:

"Seekye first theKingdomofGodandHis righteousness, andall thesethingsshallbeaddeduntoyou."ButifyouseekfirsttheKingdomofGodandHisrighteousnessinorderthatallthoseotherthingsmaybeaddeduntoyou,youwillmissboththoseotherthingsandtheKingdomofGodaswell.

But if Christianity be directed toward another world; if it be a way bywhich individuals can escape from the present evil age to some bettercountry, what becomes of "the social gospel"? At this point is detectedone of themost obvious lines of cleavage betweenChristianity and theliberalChurch.Theolderevangelism,says themodern liberalpreacher,sought to rescue individuals, while the newer evangelism seeks totransform the whole organism of society: the old evangelism wasindividual;thenewerevangelismissocial.Thisformulationoftheissueisnot entirely correct, but it contains an element of truth. It is true thathistoricChristianityisinconflictatmanypointswiththecollectivismofthe present day; it does emphasize, against the claims of society, theworthoftheindividualsoul.Itprovidesfortheindividualarefugefromallthefluctuatingcurrentsofhumanopinion,asecretplaceofmeditationwhereamancancomealoneintothepresenceofGod.Itdoesgiveamancourage to stand, if need be, against the world; it resolutely refuses tomakeof the individual ameremeans to anend, amere element in thecompositionofsociety.Itrejectsaltogetheranymeansofsalvationwhichdealswithmen in amass; it brings the individual face to facewithhisGod. In that sense, it is true thatChristianity is individualistic andnotsocial.

ButthoughChristianityisindividualistic,itisnotonlyindividualistic.Itprovidesfullyforthesocialneedsofman.

Inthefirstplace,eventhecommunionoftheindividualmanwithGodisnotreallyindividualistic,butsocial.Amanisnot isolatedwhenhe is incommunionwithGod; he canbe regarded as isolated only by onewhohasforgottentherealexistenceofthesupremePerson.Hereagain,asatmany other places, the line of cleavage between liberalism andChristianityreallyreduces toaprofounddifference in theconceptionofGod. Christianity is earnestly theistic; liberalism is at best buthalfheartedlyso.IfamanoncecomestobelieveinapersonalGod,then

thewowshipofHimwillnotberegardedasselfishisolation,butasthechief end of man. That does not mean that on the Christian view theworshipofGodisevertobecarriedontotheneglectofservicerenderedtoone'sfellowmen"hethatlovethnothisbrotherwhomhehathseen,isnotabletoloveGodwhomhehathnotseen"--butitdoesmeanthattheworship of God has a value of its own. Very different is the prevailingdoctrineofmodern liberalism.AccordingtoChristianbelief,manexistsforthesakeofGod;accordingtotheliberalChurch,inpracticeifnotintheory,Godexistsforthesakeofman.

But the social element in Christianity is found not only in communionbetweenmanandGod,butalso in communionbetweenmanandman.Suchcommunionappearsevenin institutionswhicharenotspecificallyChristian.

Themostimportantofsuchinstitutions,accordingtoChristianteaching,isthefamily.Andthatinstitutionisbeingpushedmoreandmoreintothebackground. It is being pushed into the background by undueencroachmentsofthecommunityandofthestate.Modernlifeistendingmoreandmoretowardthecontractionofthesphereofparentalcontrolandparental influence.The choiceof schools is beingplacedunder thepowerof thestate; the"community" isseizingholdofrecreationandofsocialactivities.Itmaybeaquestionhowfarthesecommunityactivitiesare responsible for the modern breakdown of the home; very possiblytheyareonlytryingtofillavoidwhichevenapartfromthemhadalreadyappeared.Buttheresultatanyrateisplain--thelivesofchildrenarenolongersurroundedby the lovingatmosphereof theChristianhome,butbytheutilitarianismofthestate.ArevivaloftheChristianreligionwouldunquestionablybringareversaloftheprocess;thefamily,asoveragainstallothersocialinstitutions,wouldcometoitsrightsagain.

Butthestate,evenwhenreducedtoitsproperlimits,hasalargeplaceinhuman life, and in the possession of that place it is supported byChristianity. The support,moreover, is independent of the Christian ornon-Christiancharacterofthestate; itwasintheRomanEmpireunderNero that Paul said, "The powers that be are ordained of God."Christianityassumesnonegativeattitude,therefore,towardthestate,butrecognizes,underexistingconditions,thenecessityofgovernment.

The case is similar with respect to those broad aspects of human lifewhich are associated with industrialism The "otherworldliness" ofChristianity involves no withdrawal from the battle of this world; ourLordHimself, withHis stupendousmission, lived in themidst of life'sthrongandpress.Plainly, then, theChristianmanmaynot simplifyhisproblembywithdrawingfromthebusinessoftheworld,butmust learntoapplytheprinciplesofJesuseventothecomplexproblemsofmodernindustrial life.At thispointChristian teaching is in fullaccordwith themodern liberal Church; the evangelical Christian is not true to hisprofessionifheleaveshisChristianitybehindhimonMondaymorning.On the contrary, the whole of life, including business and all of socialrelations,mustbemadeobedient to the lawof love.TheChristianmancertainlyshoulddisplaynolackofinterestin"appliedChristianity."

Only--and here emerges the enormous difference of opinion--theChristianmanbelieves that there canbeno appliedChristianity unlessthere be "aChristianity to apply." [7] That iswhere theChristianmandiffers from the modern liberal. The liberal believes that appliedChristianityisallthereisofChristianity,Christianitybeingmerelyawayoflife;theChristianmanbelievesthatappliedChristianityistheresultofan initialactofGod.Thus there isanenormousdifferencebetween themodern liberal and the Christian man with reference to humaninstitutions like the community and the state, and with reference tohuman efforts at applying tile Golden Rule in industrial relationships.Themodernliberalisoptimisticwithreferencetotheseinstitutions;theChristian man is pessimistic unless the institutions be manned byChristian men. The modern liberal believes that human nature as atpresent constituted can be molded by the principles of Jesus; theChristian man believes that evil can only be held in check and notdestroyedbyhumaninstitutions,andthattheremustbeatransformationof thehumanmaterialsbefore anynewbuilding canbeproduced.Thisdifference is not a mere difference in theory, but makes itself felteverywhereinthepracticalrealm.Itisparticularlyevidentonthemissionfield. The missionary of liberalism seeks to spread the blessings ofChristian civilization (whatever that may be), and is not particularlyinterested in leading individuals to relinquish their pagan beliefs. The

Christianmissionary,ontheotherhand,regardssatisfactionwithamereinfluenceofChristiancivilizationasahindrancerather thanahelp;hischiefbusiness,hebelieves,isthesavingofsouls,andsoulsaresavednotbythemereethicalprinciplesofJesusbutbyHisredemptivework.TheChristianmissionary, inotherwords,andtheChristianworkerathomeas well as abroad, unlike the apostle of liberalism, says to all meneverywhere:"Humangoodnesswillavailnothing for lostsouls;yemustbebornagain."

Notes

1. See "The SecondDeclaration of the Council onOrganic Union,"ThePresbyterian,forMarch17,1921,p.8.

2. Fosdick, Shall the Fundamentalists, Win?, stenographicallyreportedbyMargaretRenton,1922,p.5.

3.CompareHistoryandFaith1915,pp.1-3.

4.Phillimore, in the introduction to his translation of Philostratus,InHonourofApolloniusofTyana,1912,vol.I,p.iii.

5. For what follows, compare "The Church in the War," in ThePresbyterian,forMay291919,pp.10f.

6.Forapenetratingcriticismofthistendency,especiallyasItwouldresultinthecontrolofreligiouseducationbythecommunity,andforaneloquentadvocacyoftheoppositeview,whichmakesChristianityan end in itself, see Harold McA. Robinson, "Democracy andChristianity," in The Christian Educator Vol. No. 1, for October,1920,pp.3-5.

7. Francis Shunk Downs, "Christianity and Today," in PrincetonTheologicalReview,xx,1922p.287.Seealsothewholearticle,ibid.,

TheChurch

Chapter6

It has just been observed that Christianity, as well as liberalism, isinterested in social institutions. But themost important institution hasnot yet been mentioned-- it is the institution of the Church. When,accordingtoChristianbelief,lostsoulsaresaved,thesavedonesbecomeunited in the Christian Church. It is only by a baseless caricature thatChristianmissionariesarerepresentedasthoughtheyhadnointerestineducationorinthemaintenanceofasociallifeinthisworld;itisnottruethattheyareinterestedonlyinsavingindividualsoulsandwhenthesoulsaresavedleavethemtotheirowndevices.OnthecontrarytrueChristiansmusteverywherebeunitedinthebrotherhoodoftheChristianChurch.

VerydifferentisthisChristianconceptionofbrotherhoodfromtheliberaldoctrineofthe"brotherhoodofman."Themodernliberaldoctrineisthatall men everywhere, no matter what their race or creed, are brothers.ThereisasenseinwhichthisdoctrinecanbeacceptedbytheChristian.Therelationinwhichallmenstandtooneanotherisanalogousinsomeimportantrespectstotherelationofbrotherhood.AllmenhavethesameCreatorandthesamenature.TheChristianmancanacceptall that themodern liberal means by the brotherhood of man. But the Christianknows also of a relationship far more intimate than that generalrelationshipofmantomanandit is for thismore intimaterelationshipthathereserves the term"brother."The truebrotherhood,according toChristianteaching,isthebrotherhoodoftheredeemed.

There is nothing narrow about such teaching; for the Christianbrotherhood is open without distinction to all; and the Christian manseekstobringallmenin.Christianservice,itistrue,isnotlimitedtothehouseholdoffaith;allmen,whetherChristiansornot,areourneighbors

iftheybeinneed.Butifwereallyloveourfellowmenweshallneverbecontent with binding up their wounds or pouring on oil and wine orrendering themanysuch lesserservice.Weshall indeeddosuch thingsforthem.ButthemainbusinessofourliveswillbetobringthemtotheSavioroftheirsouls.

Itisuponthisbrotherhoodoftwice-bornsinners,thisbrotherhoodoftheredeemed,thattheChristianfoundsthehopeofsociety.Hefindsnosolidhopeintheimprovementofearthlyconditions,orthemoldingofhumaninstitutionsundertheinfluenceoftheGoldenRule.Thesethingsindeedaretobewelcomed.Theymaysopalliatethesymptomsofsinthattheremay be time to apply the true remedy; they may serve to produceconditions upon the earth favorable to the propagation of the gospelmessage; they are even valuable for their own sake. But in themselvestheirvalue,totheChristian,iscertainlysmall.Asolidbuildingcannotbeconstructedwhenallthematerialsarefaulty;ablessedsocietycannotbeformed out of men who are still under the curse of sin. Humaninstitutionsarereallytobemolded,notbyChristianprinciplesacceptedbytheunsaved,butbyChristianmen;thetruetransformationofsocietywillcomebytheinfluenceofthosewhohavethemselvesbeenredeemed.

Thus Christianity differs from liberalism in the way in which thetransformationofsocietyisconceived.ButaccordingtoChristianbelief,aswellasaccordingtoliberalism,thereisreallytobeatransformationofsociety; it is not true that the Christian evangelist is interested in thesalvationof individualswithout being interested in the salvation of therace.Andevenbeforethesalvationofallsocietyhasbeenachieved,thereis already a society of those who have been saved. That society is theChurch.TheChurchisthehighestChristiananswertothesocialneedsofman.

And the Church invisible, the true company of the redeemed, findsexpression in the companies of Christians who constitute the visibleChurch today.Butwhat is the troublewith thevisibleChurch?What isthereason for itsobviousweakness?Thereareperhapsmanycauses ofweakness.Butonecauseisperfectlyplain--theChurchoftodayhasbeenunfaithful to her Lord by admitting great companies of non-Christianpersons,notonlyintohermembership,butintoherteachingagencies.It

is indeedinevitablethatsomepersonswhoarenot trulyChristianshallfind their way into the visible Church; fallible men cannot discern theheart, andmany a profession of faith which seems to be genuinemayreallybefalse.Butitisnotthiskindoferrortowhichwenowrefer.Whatis nowmeant is not the admission of individuals whose confessions offaithmaynotbesincere,buttheadmissionofgreatcompaniesofpersonswhohavenevermadeany really adequate confessionof faithat all andwhose entire attitude toward the gospel is the very reverse of theChristian attitude. Such persons, moreover, have been admitted notmerelytothemembership,buttotheministryof theChurch,andtoanincreasing extent have been allowed to dominate its councils anddetermine its teaching. The greatest menace to the Christian Churchtodaycomesnotfromtheenemiesoutside,butfromtheenemieswithin;it comes from the presence within the Church of a type of faith andpracticethatisanti-Christiantothecore.

We are not dealing here with delicate personal questions; we are notpresumingtosaywhethersuchandsuchanindividualmanisaChristianor not. God only can decide such questions; no man can say withassurance whether the attitude of certain individual "liberals" towardChristissavingfaithornot.Butonethingisperfectlyplain--whetherornotliberalsareChristians,itisatanyrateperfectlyclearthatliberalismisnot Christianity. And that being the case, it is highly undesirable thatliberalismandChristianityshouldcontinuetobepropagatedwithintheboundsofthesameorganization.AseparationbetweenthetwopartiesintheChurchisthecryingneedofthehour.

Manyindeedareseekingtoavoidtheseparation.Why,theysay,maynotbrethrendwelltogetherinunity?TheChurch,wearetold,hasroombothfor liberals and for conservatives. The conservativesmay be allowed toremain if they will keep triflingmatters in the background and attendchieflyto"theweightiermattersofthelaw."Andamongthethingsthusdesignatedas"trifling"isfoundtheCrossofChrist,asareallyvicariousatonementforsin.

Suchobscurationoftheissueattestsareallyastonishingnarrownessonthepartof the liberalpreacher.Narrownessdoesnotconsist indefinitedevotiontocertainconvictionsorindefiniterejectionofothers.Butthe

narrowmanisthemanwhorejectstheotherman'sconvictionswithoutfirst endeavoring tounderstand them, themanwhomakesno effort tolookatthingsfromtheotherman'spointofview.Forexample,itisnotnarrow to reject theRomanCatholicdoctrine that there isno salvationoutsidetheChurch.ItisnotnarrowtotrytoconvinceRomanCatholicsthat that doctrine is wrong. But it would be very narrow to say to aRomanCatholic:"YoumaygoonholdingyourdoctrineabouttheChurchandIshallholdmine,butletusuniteinourChristianwork,sincedespitesuchtriflingdifferencesweareagreedaboutthemattersthatconcernthewelfareofthesoul."Forofcoursesuchanutterancewouldsimplybegthequestion;theRomanCatholiccouldnotpossiblybothholdhisdoctrineoftheChurch andat the same time reject it, aswould be requiredby theprogramofChurchunityjustsuggested.AProtestantwhowouldspeakinthat way would be narrow, because quite independent of the questionwhether he or theRomanCatholic is right about the Church hewouldshowplainlythathehadnotmadetheslightestefforttounderstandtheRomanCatholicpointofview.

The case is similarwith the liberal program for unity in theChurch. Itcouldneverbeadvocatedbyanyonewhohadmadetheslightestefforttounderstand the point of view of his opponent in the controversy. Theliberal preacher says to the conservative party in the Church: "Let usuniteinthesamecongregation,sinceofcoursedoctrinaldifferencesaretrifles." But it is the very essence of "conservatism" in the Church toregarddoctrinal differences as no trifles but as thematters of suprememoment.Amancannotpossiblybean"evangelical"ora "conservative"(or,ashehimselfwouldsay,simplyaChristian)andregardtheCrossofChristasatrifle.Tosupposethathecanistheextremeofnarrowness.Itisnotnecessarily"narrow"torejectthevicarioussacrificeofourLordasthesolemeansofsalvation.Itmaybeverywrong(andwebelievethatitis),butitisnotnecessarilynarrow.Buttosupposethatamancanholdtothe vicarious sacrifice of Christ and at the same time belittle thatdoctrine, tosupposethatamancanbelieve that theeternalSonofGodreally bore the guilt of men's sins on the Cross and at the same timeregardthatbeliefasa"trifle"withoutbearinguponthewelfareofmen'ssouls--thatisverynarrowandveryabsurd.Weshallreallygetnowhereinthiscontroversyunlesswemakeasincereefforttounderstandtheother

man'spointofview.

But for another reason also the effort to sink doctrinal differences andunitetheChurchonaprogramofChristianserviceisunsatisfactory.Itisunsatisfactory because, in its usual contemporary form, it is dishonest.Whatevermaybe thoughtofChristiandoctrine, itcanhardlybedeniedthathonesty isoneof the"weightiermattersof the law."Yethonesty isbeing relinquished in wholesale fashion by the liberal party in manyecclesiasticalbodiestoday.

Torecognizethatfactonedoesnotneedtotakesidesatallwithregardtothedoctrinalorhistoricalquestions.Supposeitbetruethatdevotiontoacreedisasignofnarrownessorintolerance,supposetheChurchoughttobefoundedupondevotiontotheidealofJesusoruponthedesiretoputHisspiritintooperationintheworld,andnotatalluponaconfessionoffaithwithregardtoHisredeemingwork.Evenifallthisweretrue,evenifa creedal Church were an undesirable thing, it would still remain truethat as a matter of fact many (indeed in spirit really all) evangelicalchurches are creedal churches, and that if aman does not accept theircreedhehasno right to aplace in their teachingministry.The creedalcharacter of the churches is differently expressed in the differentevangelical bodies, but the example of the Presbyterian Church in theUnitedStatesofAmericamayperhapsservetoillustratewhatismeant.Itis required of all officers in the Presbyterian Church, including theministers,thatattheirordinationtheymakeanswer"plainly"toaseriesofquestionswhichbeginswiththetwofollowing:

"DoyoubelievetheScripturesoftheOldandNewTestamentstobetheWordofGod,theonlyinfallibleruleoffaithandpractice?"

"Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of thisChurch, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the HolyScriptures?"

If these "constitutionalquestions"donot fix clearly thecreedalbasisofthe PresbyterianChurch, it is difficult to see how any human languagecould possibly do so. Yet immediately after making such a solemndeclaration,immediatelyafterdeclaringthattheWestminsterConfession

contains the system of doctrine taught in infallible Scriptures, manyministers of the Presbyterian Church will proceed to decry that sameConfessionandthatdoctrineoftheinfallibilityofScripturetowhichtheyhavejustsolemnlysubscribed!

We arenot now speaking of themembership of theChurch, but of theministry, andwearenot speakingof themanwho is troubledbygravedoubts andwonderswhetherwith his doubts he can honestly continuehismembershipintheChurch.ForgreathostsofsuchtroubledsoulstheChurchoffersbountifullyitsfellowshipanditsaid;itwouldbeacrimetocastthemout.Therearemanymenoflittlefaithinourtroubloustimes.Itisnotofthemthatwespeak.GodgrantthattheymayobtaincomfortandhelpthroughtheministrationsoftheChurch!

Butwearespeakingofmenverydifferentfromthesemenoflittlefaith--fromthesemenwhoaretroubledbydoubtsandareseekingearnestlyforthe truth.Themenwhomwemeanare seekingnotmembership in theChurch,but aplace in theministry, and theydesirenot to learnbut toteach.Theyarenotmenwhosay,"Ibelieve,helpmineunbelief,"butmenwhoareproudinthepossessionoftheknowledgeofthisworld,andseekaplaceintheministrythattheymayteachwhatisdirectlycontrarytotheConfession of Faith to which they subscribe. For that course of actionvarious excuses are made--the growth of custom by which theconstitutional questions are supposed to have become a dead letter,variousmentalreservations,various"interpretations"ofthedeclaration(whichofcoursemeanacompletereversalofthemeaning).Butnosuchexcusescanchangetheessentialfact.Whetheritbedesirableornot, theordinationdeclarationispartoftheconstitutionoftheChurch.Ifamancan stand on that platform he may be an officer in the PresbyterianChurch; if he cannot standon it hehasno right to be anofficer in thePresbyterianChurch.Andthecaseisnodoubtessentiallysimilarinotherevangelical Churches. Whether we like it or not, these Churches arefounded upon a creed; they are organized for the propagation of amessage.Ifamandesirestocombatthatmessageinsteadofpropagatingit, he has no right, nomatter how false themessagemay be, to gain avantage ground for combating it by making a declaration of his faithwhich--beitplainlyspoken--isnottrue.

But if such a course of action is wrong, another course of action isperfectlyopentothemanwhodesirestopropagate"liberalChristianity."Finding the existing "evangelical" churches to be bound up to a creedwhichhedoesnot accept,hemayeitherunitehimselfwith someotherexisting body or else found a new body to suit himself. There are ofcoursecertainobviousdisadvantagesinsuchacourse--theabandonmentof church buildings to which one is attached, the break in familytraditions, the injury to sentiment of various kinds. But there is onesupremeadvantagewhich far overbalances all suchdisadvantages. It isthe advantage of honesty. The path of honesty in suchmattersmay beroughand thorny,but it canbe trod.And it has alreadybeen trod--forexample,by theUnitarianChurch.TheUnitarianChurch is franklyandhonestlyjustthekindofchurchthattheliberalpreacherdesires--namely,achurchwithoutanauthoritativeBible,withoutdoctrinalrequirements,andwithoutacreed.

Honesty,despiteallthatcanbesaidanddone,isnotatrifle,butoneofthe weightiermatters of the law. Certainly it has a value of its own, avalue quite independent of consequences. But the consequences ofhonestywould in the case now under discussion not be unsatisfactory;hereaselsewherehonestywouldprobablyprovetobethebestpolicy.Bywithdrawing from the confessional churches--those churches that arefoundeduponacreedderivedfromScripture--theliberalpreacherwouldindeedsacrificetheopportunity,almostwithinhisgrasp,ofsoobtainingcontrol of those confessional churches as to change their fundamentalcharacter.Thesacrificeofthatopportunitywouldmeanthatthehopeofturningtheresourcesoftheevangelicalchurchesintothepropagationofliberalismwouldbegone.Butliberalismwouldcertainlynotsufferintheend.Therewouldat leastbenomoreneedofusingequivocal language,nomoreneedofavoidingoffence.Theliberalpreacherwouldobtainthefull personal respect even of his opponents, and the whole discussionwould be placed on higher ground. All would, be perfectlystraightforwardandaboveboard.Andif liberalismistrue,themereloseofphysicalresourceswouldnotpreventitfrommakingitsway.

At this point a question may arise. If there ought to be a separationbetweentheliberalsandtheconservativesintheChurch,whyshouldnot

theconservativesbetheonestowithdraw?Certainlyitmaycometothat.IftheliberalpartyreallyobtainsfullcontrolofthecouncilsoftheChurch,thennoevangelicalChristiancancontinuetosupporttheChurch'swork.Ifamanbelievesthatsalvationfromsincomesonlythroughtheatoningdeathof Jesus, thenhe cannothonestly support byhis gifts andbyhispresenceapropagandawhichisintendedtoproduceanexactlyoppositeimpression. To do so would mean the most terrible blood-guiltinesswhich it is possible to conceive. If the liberal party, therefore, reallyobtainscontroloftheChurch,evangelicalChristiansmustbepreparedtowithdrawnomatterwhatitcosts.OurLordhasdiedforus,andsurelywemustnotdenyHimfor favorofmen.Butuptothepresenttimesuchasituationhasnotyetappeared; thecreedalbasis still stands firm in theconstitutionsofevangelicalchurches.Andthereisaveryrealreasonwhyitisnotthe"conservatives"whooughttowithdraw.Thereasonisfoundin the trustwhich the churcheshold.That trust includes trust funds ofthemostdefinitekind.Andcontrarytowhatseems tobe theprevailingopinion,weventuretoregardatrustasasacredthing.Thefundsoftheevangelical churches are held under a very definite trust; they arecommittedtothevariousbodiesforthepropagationofthegospelassetforthintheBibleandintheconfessionsoffaith.Todevotethemtoanyother purpose, even though that other purpose should be in itself farmoredesirable,wouldbeaviolationoftrust.

It must be admitted that the present situation is anomalous. Fundsdedicated to thepropagationof thegospelbygodlymenandwomenofprevious generations or given by thoroughly evangelical congregationstodayareinnearlyallthechurchesbeingusedpartlyinthepropagationofwhat is diametrically opposed to the evangelical faith. Certainly thatsituation ought not to continue; it is an offence to every thoughtfullyhonest man whether he be Christian or not. But in remaining in theexisting churches the conservatives are in a fundamentally differentpositionfromtheliberals;fortheconservativesareinagreementwiththeplainconstitutionsof thechurches,while the liberalpartycanmaintainitselfonlybyanequivocalsubscriptiontodeclarationswhichitdoesnotreallybelieve.

Buthowshall soanomalousasituationbebrought toanend?Thebest

way would undoubtedly be the voluntary withdrawal of the liberalministers from those confessional churches whose confessions they donot, in the plain historical sense, accept. And we have not altogetherabandonedhopeofsuchasolution.OurdifferenceswiththeliberalpartyintheChurchare indeedprofound,butwithregard to theobligationofsimple honesty of speech, some agreement might surely be attained.Certainly thewithdrawal of liberalministers from the creedal churcheswould be enormously in the interests of harmony and cooperation.Nothing engenders strife so much as a forced unity, within the sameorganization,ofthosewhodisagreefundamentallyinaim.

Butisnotadvocacyofsuchseparationaflagrantinstanceofintolerance?The objection is often raised. But it ignores altogether the differencebetween involuntary and voluntary organizations. Involuntaryorganizationsoughttobetolerant,butvoluntaryorganizations,sofarasthe fundamental purpose of their existence is concerned, must beintolerantorelseceasetoexist.Thestateisaninvoluntaryorganization;amanisforcedtobeamemberofitwhetherhewillorno.Itisthereforean interference with liberty for the state to prescribe any one type ofopinion or any one type of education for its citizens. But within thestate,individual citizens who desire to unite for some special purposeshouldbepermitted todo so.Especially in the sphere of religion, suchpermissionofindividualstouniteisoneoftherightswhichlieattheveryfoundationofourcivilandreligiousliberty.Thestatedoesnotscrutinizethe rightness or wrongness of the religious purpose for which suchvoluntary religious associations are formed--if it did undertake suchscrutiny all religious liberty would be gone--but it merely protects theright of individuals to unite for any religious purpose which theymaychoose.

Among such voluntary associations are to be found the evangelicalchurches.AnevangelicalchurchiscomposedofanumberofpersonswhohavecometoagreementinacertainmessageaboutChristandwhodesiretouniteinthepropagationofthatmessage,asitissetforthintheircreedonthebasisoftheBible.Nooneisforcedtounitehimselfwiththebodythusformed;andbecauseofthistotalabsenceofcompulsiontherecanbenointerferencewithlibertyinthemaintenanceofanyspecificpurpose--

forexample,thepropagationofamessage--asafundamentalpurposeofthe association. If other persons desire to form a religious associationwith some purpose other than the propagation of a message-- forexample, thepurposeofpromoting in theworld, simplyby exhortationandbytheinspirationoftheexampleofJesus,acertaintypeoflife--theyareatperfect libertytodoso.But foranorganizationwhich is foundedwith the fundamental purpose of propagating amessage to commit itsresources and its name to those who are engaged in combating themessage is not tolerance but simple dishonesty. Yet it is exactly thiscourse of action that is advocated by those who would allow non-doctrinal religion to be taught in the name of doctrinal churches--churchesthatareplainlydoctrinalbothintheirconstitutionsandinthedeclarationswhichtheyrequireofeverycandidateforordination.

The matter may be made plain by an illustration from secular life.SupposeinapoliticalcampaigninAmericatherebeformedaDemocraticclub for the purpose of furthering the cause of the Democratic party.SupposetherearecertainothercitizenswhoareopposedtothetenetsoftheDemocraticclubandinoppositiondesiretosupporttheRepublicanparty. What is the honest way for them to accomplish their purpose?Plainlyit issimplytheformationofaRepublicanclubwhichshallcarryonapropagandainfavorofRepublicanprinciples.Butsuppose,insteadof pursuing this simple course of action, the advocates of Republicanprinciples should conceive the notion of making a declaration ofconformity toDemocratic principles, thus gaining an entrance into theDemocraticclubandfinallyturningitsresourcesintoanantidemocraticpropaganda.Thatplanmightbeingenious.Butwoulditbehonest?Yetitis just exactly such a plan which is adopted by advocates of a non-doctrinal religionwho by subscription to a creed gain an entrance intotheteachingministryofdoctrinalorevangelicalchurches.Letnoonebeoffended by the illustration taken from ordinary life.We are not for amomentsuggestingthattheChurchisnomorethanapoliticalclub.ButthefactthattheChurchismorethanapoliticalclubdoesnotmeanthatinecclesiasticalaffairsthereisanyabrogationofthehomelyprinciplesofhonesty.TheChurchmaypossiblybemorehonest,butcertainlyitoughtnottobelesshonest,thanapoliticalclub.

Certainly the essentially creedal character of evangelical churches isfirmly fixed.Amanmaydisagreewith theWestminsterConfession, forexample, but he can hardly fail to see what it means; at least he canhardly fail tounderstand the "systemofdoctrine"which is taught in it.The Confession, whatever its faults may be, is certainly not lacking indefiniteness. And certainly amanwho solemnly accepts that system ofdoctrine as his own cannot at the same time be an advocate of anondoctrinal religionwhich regardsas a trifling thing thatwhich is theverysumandsubstanceoftheConfessionandtheverycenterandcoreoftheBibleuponwhichit isbased.Similar isthecaseinotherevangelicalchurchesTheProtestantEpiscopalChurch,someofwhosemembers,itistrue,mightresentthedistinctivetitleof"evangelical,"isclearlyfoundeduponacreed,and that creed, including theexultant supernaturalismofthe New Testament and the redemption offered by Christ, is plainlyinvolved in theBook of CommonPrayerwhich every priest in his ownnameandinthenameofthecongregationmustread.

The separation of naturalistic liberalism from the evangelical churcheswouldnodoubtgreatlydiminish the size of the churches.ButGideon'sthree hundred were more powerful than the thirty-two thousand withwhichthemarchagainsttheMidianitesbegan.

Certainlythepresentsituationisfraughtwithdeadlyweakness.Christianmen have been redeemed from sin, withoutmerit of their own, by thesacrificeofChrist.Buteverymanwhohasbeentrulyredeemedfromsinlongstocarrytoothersthesameblessedgospelthroughwhichhehimselfhasbeensaved.ThepropagationofthegospelisclearlythejoyaswellasthedutyofeveryChristianman.Buthowshallthegospelbepropagated?ThenaturalansweristhatitshallbepropagatedthroughtheagenciesoftheChurch--boardsofmissionsandthelike.Anobviousduty,therefore,rests upon the Christian man of contributing to the agencies of theChurch. But at this point the perplexity arises. The Christian mandiscovers to his consternation that the agencies of the Church arepropagatingnotonlythegospelasfoundintheBibleandinthehistoriccreeds,butalsoatypeofreligiousteachingwhichisateveryconceivablepointthediametricaloppositeofthegospel.Thequestionnaturallyariseswhether there is any reason for contributing to such agencies at all.Of

everydollarcontributedtothem,perhapshalfgoestothesupportoftruemissionariesoftheCross,whiletheotherhalfgoestothesupportofthosewhoarepersuadingmenthatthemessageoftheCrossisunnecessaryorwrong.Ifpartofourgiftsistobeusedtoneutralizetheotherpart,isnotcontribution tomissionboards altogether absurd?Thequestionmay atleastverynaturallyberaised.Itshouldnotindeedbeansweredhastilyinawayhostiletocontributiontomissionboards.Perhapsitisbetterthatthegospelshouldbebothpreachedandcombatedbythesameagenciesthan that it should not be preached at all. At any rate, the truemissionariesoftheCross,eventhoughthemissionboardswhichsupportthemshouldturnouttobeverybad,mustnotbeallowedtobeinwant.But thesituation, fromthepointofviewof theevangelicalChristian, isunsatisfactory in the extreme. Many Christians seek to relieve thesituation by "designating" their gifts, instead of allowing them to bedistributedbythemissionagencies.Butatthispointoneencountersthecentralization of power which is going on in the modern Church. Onaccountofthatcentralizationthedesignationofgiftsisoftenfoundtobeillusory. If gifts are devotedby the donors to onemission known to beevangelical, that does not always really increase the resources of thatmission; for the mission boards can simply cut down the proportionassignedtothatmissionfromtheundesignatedfunds,andthefinalresultisexactlythesameasiftherehadbeennodesignationofthegiftatall.

Theexistenceandthenecessityofmissionboardsandthelikeprevents,ingeneral,oneobvioussolutionof thepresentdifficulty in theChurch--the solutionofferedby local autonomyof the congregation. Itmightbesuggestedthateachcongregationshoulddetermineitsownconfessionoffaithoritsownprogramofwork.Theneachcongregationmightseemtobe responsible only for itself, and might seem to be relieved from theodioustaskofjudgingothers.Butthesuggestionisimpracticable.Asidefrom the question whether a purely congregational system of churchgovernmentisdesirableinitself,itisimpossiblewheremissionagenciesare concerned. In the support of such agencies, many congregationsobviously must unite; and the question arises whether evangelicalcongregations can honestly support agencies which are opposed to theevangelicalfaith.

Atany rate, the situation cannotbehelpedby ignoring facts.Theplainfactisthatliberalism,whetheritbetrueorfalse,isnomere"heresy"--nomere divergence at isolated points from Christian teaching. On thecontrary it proceeds from a totally different root, and it constitutes, inessentials, a unitary system of its own. That does not mean that allliberals hold all parts of the system, or that Christians who have beenaffectedbyliberalteachingatonepointhavebeenaffectedatallpoints.Thereissometimesasalutarylackoflogicwhichpreventsthewholeofaman'sfaithbeingdestroyedwhenhehasgivenupapart.Butthetruewayinwhichtoexamineaspiritualmovementisinitslogicalrelations;logicisthegreatdynamic,andthelogicalimplicationsofanywayofthinkingaresoonerorlatercertaintobeworkedout.Andtakenasawhole,evenas it actually exists today, naturalistic liberalism is a fairly unitaryphenomenon; it is tending more and more to eliminate from itselfillogical remnants of Christian belief. It differs from Christianity in itsviewofGod,ofman,oftheseatofauthorityandofthewayofsalvation.Anditdiffers fromChristianitynotonly in theologybut in thewholeoflife.Itisindeedsometimessaidthattherecanbecommunioninfeelingwhere communion in thinking is gone, a communion of the heart asdistinguished from a communion of the head. But with respect to thepresent controversy, suchadistinctioncertainlydoesnotapply.On thecontrary, in reading the books and listening to the sermons of recentliberal teachers--so untroubled by the problem of sin, so devoid of allsympathyforguiltyhumanity,sopronetoabuseandridiculethethingsdearesttotheheartofeveryChristianman--onecanonlyconfessthatifliberalism is to return into the Christian communion there must be achangeofheartfullyasmuchasachangeofmind.Godgrantthatsuchachangeofheartmaycome!Butmeanwhilethepresentsituationmustnotbeignoredbutfaced.

Christianityisbeingattackedfromwithinbyamovementwhichisanti-Christiantothecore.

What is thedutyofChristianmenatsuchat time?What is theduty, inparticular,ofChristianofficersintheChurch?

In the firstplace, they should encourage thosewhoare engaging in theintellectual and spiritual struggle. They should not say, in the sense in

which some laymen say it, that more time should be devoted to thepropagation of Christianity, and less to the defense of Christianity.Certainly there should be propagation of Christianity. Believers shouldcertainlynotcontentthemselveswithwardingoffattacks,butshouldalsounfoldinanorderlyandpositivewaythefullrichesofthegospel.Butfarmore is usually meant by those who call for less defense and morepropagation.Whattheyreallyintendisthediscouragementofthewholeintellectualdefenseof the faith.And theirwords comeasablow in thefaceofthosewhoarefightingthegreatbattle.Asamatteroffact,notlesstime, but more time, should be devoted to the defense of the gospel.Indeed,truthcannotbestatedclearlyatallwithoutbeingsetoveragainsterror.ThusalargepartoftheNewTestamentispolemic;theenunciationofevangelicaltruthwasoccasionedbytheerrorswhichhadariseninthechurches.Soitwillalwaysbe,onaccountofthefundamentallawsofthehumanmind.Moreover, the present crisismust be taken into account.There may have been a day when there could be propagation ofChristianitywithout defense. But such a day at any rate is past. At thepresenttime,whentheopponentsof thegospelarealmost incontrolofourchurches,theslightestavoidanceof thedefenseof thegospel is justsheerunfaithfulnesstotheLord.TherehavebeenpreviousgreatcrisesinthehistoryoftheChurch,crisesalmostcomparabletothis.Oneappearedinthesecondcentury,whentheverylifeofChristendomwasthreatenedby the Gnostics. Another came in theMiddle Ages when the gospel ofGod's grace seemed forgotten. In such times of crisis, God has alwayssavedtheChurch.ButHehasalwayssaveditnotbytheologicalpacifists,butbysturdycontendersforthetruth.

Inthesecondplace,ChristianofficersintheChurchshouldperformtheirduty in decidingupon the qualifications of candidates for theministry.The question "For Christ or against him?" constantly arises in theexamination of candidates for ordination. Attempts are often made toobscuretheissue.Itisoftensaid:"Thecandidatewillnodoubtmoveinthedirectionof thetruth; lethimnowbesentoutto learnaswellastopreach."AndsoanotheropponentofthegospelentersthecouncilsoftheChurch, and another false prophet goes forth to encourage sinners tocomebeforethejudgmentseatofGodcladinthemiserableragsoftheirown righteousness. Such action is not really "kind" to the candidate

himself. It is never kind to encourage a man to enter into a life ofdishonesty. The fact often seems to be forgotten that the evangelicalChurchesarepurelyvoluntaryorganizations;nooneisrequiredtoenterinto their service. If a man cannot accept the belief of such churches,there are other ecclesiastical bodies in which he can find a place. ThebeliefofthePresbyterianChurch,forexample,isplainlysetforthintheConfession of Faith, and the Church will never afford any warmth ofcommunionorengagewithanyrealvigorinherworkuntilherministersareinwhole-heartedagreementwiththatbelief.Itisstrangehowintheinterests of an utterly false kindness tomen, Christians are sometimeswillingtorelinquishtheirloyaltytothecrucifiedLord.

In the third place, Christian officers in the Church should show theirloyalty to Christ in their capacity as members of the individualcongregations.The issueoftenarises in connectionwith the choiceof apastor.Suchandsuchaman,itissaid,isabrilliantpreacher.Butwhatisthecontentofhispreaching?IshispreachingfullofthegospelofChrist?Theanswerisoftenevasive.Thepreacherinquestion,itissaid,isofgoodstandingintheChurch,andhehasneverdeniedthedoctrinesorgrace.Therefore,itisurged,heshouldbecalledtothepastorate.Butshallwebesatisfied with such negative assurances? Shall we be satisfied withpreacherswhomerely"donotdeny"theCrossofChrist?Godgrantthatsuch satisfactionmaybebrokendown!Thepeople areperishingundertheministrationsofthosewho"donotdeny"theCrossofChrist.Surelysomethingmorethanthatisneeded.Godsendusministerswho,insteadofmerely avoiding denial of the Cross shall be on fire with the Cross,whosewholelifeshallbeoneburningsacrificeofgratitudetotheblessedSaviorwholovedthemandgaveHimselfforthem!

In the fourth place--the most important thing of all--there must be arenewal of Christian education. The rejection of Christianity is due tovariouscauses.Butaverypotentcauseissimpleignorance.Incountlesscases,Christianity isrejectedsimplybecausemenhavenottheslightestnotion of what Christianity is. An outstanding fact of recent Churchhistory is the appalling growth of ignorance in the Church. Variouscauses,nodoubt,canbeassignedforthis lamentabledevelopment.Thedevelopmentisduepartlytothegeneraldeclineofeducation--atleastso

farasliteratureandhistoryareconcerned.Theschoolsofthepresentdayarebeing ruinedby theabsurdnotion that education should follow theline of least resistance, and that something can be "drawn out" of themind before anything is put in. They are also being ruined by anexaggeratedemphasisonmethodologyattheexpenseofcontentandonwhat ismateriallyusefulat theexpenseof thehighspiritualheritageofmankind.Theselamentabletendencies,moreover,areindangerofbeingmade permanent through the sinister extension of state control. Butsomething more than the general decline in education is needed toaccountforthespecialgrowthofignoranceintheChurch.Thegrowthofignorance in the Church is the logical and inevitable result of the falsenotionthatChristianityisalifeandnotalsoadoctrine;ifChristianityisnotadoctrinethenofcourseteachingisnotnecessarytoChristianity.ButwhateverbethecausesforthegrowthofignoranceintheChurch,theevilmust be remedied. It must be remedied primarily by the renewal ofChristianeducation in the family,butalsoby theuseofwhateverothereducationalagenciestheChurchcanfind.ChristianeducationisthechiefbusinessofthehourforeveryearnestChristianman.Christianitycannotsubsist unlessmen know what Christianity is; and the fair and logicalthing is to learnwhatChristianity is, not from its opponents, but fromthosewhothemselvesareChristians.Thatmethodofprocedurewouldbetheonlyfairmethodinthecaseofanymovement.Butitisstillmoreinplace in thecaseofamovementsuchasChristianitywhichhas laid thefoundationofallthatweholdmostdear.MenhaveabundantopportunitytodaytolearnwhatcanbesaidagainstChristianity,anditisonlyfairthattheyshouldalsolearnsomethingaboutthethingthatisbeingattacked.

Suchmeasures areneeded today. The present is a timenot for ease orpleasure, but for earnest and prayerful work. A terrible crisisunquestionablyhas arisen in theChurch. In theministry of evangelicalchurchesaretobefoundhostsofthosewhorejectthegospelofChrist.Bythe equivocal use of traditional phrases, by the representation ofdifferences of opinion as though they were only differences about theinterpretation of the Bible, entrance into the Church was secured forthosewhoarehostiletotheveryfoundationsofthefaith.Andnowthereare some indications that the fiction of conformity to the past is to bethrownoff,andtherealmeaningofwhathasbeentakingplace is tobe

allowedtoappear.TheChurch,itisnowapparentlysupposed,hasalmostbeeneducateduptothepointwheretheshacklesoftheBiblecanopenlybecastawayandthedoctrineof theCrossofChristcanberelegatedtothelimboofdiscardedsubtleties.

Yet there is in the Christian life no room for despair. Only, ourhopefulnessshouldnotbefoundedonthesand.Itshouldbefounded,notupon a blind ignorance of the danger, but solely upon the preciouspromises ofGod. Laymen, aswell asministers, should return, in thesetryingdays,withnewearnestness,tothestudyoftheWordofGod.

If theWord ofGod be heeded, theChristian battlewill be fought bothwithloveandwithfaithfulness.Partypassionsandpersonalanimositieswillbeputaway,butontheotherhand,evenangelsfromheavenwillberejected if theypreachagospeldifferent from theblessedgospel of theCross.Everymanmustdecideuponwhichsidehewillstand.Godgrantthatwemaydecidearight!

What the immediate futuremay bring we cannot presume to say. Thefinal result indeed is clear. God has not deserted His Church; He hasbroughtherthroughevendarkerhoursthanthosewhichtryourcouragenow, yet the darkest hour has always come before the dawn.We havetoday the entrance of paganism into the Church in the name ofChristianity. But in the second century a similar battlewas fought andwon.Fromanotherpointofview,modernliberalismis likethe legalismof the middle ages, with its dependence upon the merit of man. AndanotherReformationinGod'sgoodtimewillcome.

Butmeanwhile our souls are tried.We can only try to do our duty inhumility and in sole reliance upon the Savior who bought us withHisblood.Thefuture is inGod'shand,andwedonotknowthemeansthatHewilluseintheaccomplishmentofHiswill.Itmaybethatthepresentevangelical churcheswill face the facts, and regain their integritywhileyetthereistime.Ifthatsolutionistobeadoptedthereisnotimetolose,since the forces opposed to the gospel are now almost in control. It ispossible that the existing churches may be given over altogether tonaturalism,thatmenmaythenseethatthefundamentalneedsofthesoularetobesatisfiednotinsidebutoutsideoftheexistingchurches,andthat

thusnewChristiangroupsmaybeformed.

Butwhatever solution theremay be, one thing is clear. Theremust besomewheregroupsofredeemedmenandwomenwhocangathertogetherhumblyinthenameofChrist,togivethankstoHimforHisunspeakablegift and to worship the Father through Him. Such groups alone cansatisfytheneedsofthesoul.Atthepresenttime,thereisonelongingofthehumanheartwhichisoftenforgotten--itisthedeep,patheticlongingof theChristian for fellowshipwithhis brethren.Onehearsmuch, it istrue, about Christian union and harmony and co-operation. But theunionthatismeantisoftenaunionwiththeworldagainsttheLord,oratbest a forced union of machinery and tyrannical committees. HowdifferentisthetrueunityoftheSpiritinthebondofpeace!Sometimes,itis true, the longing for Christian fellowship is satisfied. There arecongregations,eveninthepresentageofconflict,thatarereallygatheredaroundthetableofthecrucifiedLord;therearepastorsthatarepastorsindeed. But such congregations, in many cities, are difficult to find.Wearywith theconflictsof theworld,onegoes into theChurch to seekrefreshment for the soul. Andwhat does one find?Alas, too often, onefindsonlytheturmoiloftheworld.Thepreachercomesforward,notoutofasecretplaceofmeditationandpower,notwiththeauthorityofGod'sWordpermeatinghismessage,notwithhumanwisdompushedfar intothebackgroundbythegloryoftheCross,butwithhumanopinionsaboutthesocialproblemsof thehouroreasysolutionsof thevastproblemofsin.Suchisthesermon.Andthenperhapstheserviceisclosedbyoneofthosehymnsbreathingout the angrypassions of 1861,which are to befoundinthebackpartofthehymnals.Thusthewarfareoftheworldhasenteredeven into thehouseofGod,And sad indeed is theheart of themanwhohascomeseekingpeace.

Istherenorefugefromstrife?Istherenoplaceofrefreshingwhereamancanprepareforthebattleoflife?Istherenoplacewheretwoorthreecangather in Jesus' name, to forget for the moment all those things thatdividenationfromnationandracefromrace,toforgethumanpride,toforget thepassionsofwar, to forget thepuzzlingproblemsof industrialstrife, and to unite in overflowing gratitude at the foot of the Cross? Iftherebesuchaplace,thenthatisthehouseofGodandthatthegateof

heaven.Andfromunderthethresholdofthathousewillgoforthariverthatwillrevivethewearyworld.

ConstrainingLove

J.GreshamMachen

FortheloveofChristconstrainethus;becausewethusjudge,thatifonediedforall,thenwerealldead:andthathediedforall,thattheywhichliveshouldnothenceforthliveuntothemselves,butuntohimwhichdiedforthem,androseagain.(2Cor.5:14�15)

InthesegreatversesPaulspeaksofloveasaconstrainingforce.Love,hesays, hemsus in. There are certain thingswhich love prevents us fromdoing.

Earlier in the passage, he has spoken of another restraining force—namely, fear. "Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord," he says, "wepersuade men." Since we must all appear before the judgment seat ofChrist,itbehoovesustostandinfearofhim;andtherearemanythingswhich,becauseweshallstandbeforehisjudgmentseat,weareafraidtodo.

ThatmotiveoffearisusedinmanyplacesintheBible.It isusedintheOldTestament.ItisusedintheNewTestament.Itisusedwithparticularinsistence in the teaching of Jesus. I think it is one of the strangest ofmodern aberrations when men say that it is a degrading and sub-ChristianthingtotellmantostandinfearofGod.ManypassagesintheBiblemightbesummarizedbythewords:"ThefearofGodconstrainethus.""TheLoveofChristConstrainethUs"

Inourtext,however,itissomethingotherthanfearthatisthethingthat

issaidtoconstrainusorhemusin.Itislove."TheloveofChrist,"Paulsays,"constrainethus."

WhatthenisheremeantbytheloveofChrist?Ourfirstimpulse,perhaps,might be to say that it is our love of Christ, the lovewhichwe bear toChrist,theloveinourheartsforChristourSavior.Thecomparisonwithverse11mightperhapssuggestthatview.AstherethefearwhichisinourheartswhenwethinkofourstandingbeforethejudgmentseatofChristconstrainsusfromdoingthingsthatwemightotherwisedo,soherethelovewhichisinourheartswhenwethinkofwhatChristhasdoneforusmightseemtobethesecondconstrainingforceofwhichPaulspeaks.

Nowifthatistherightinterpretation,theversetellsussomethingthatiscertainly true. It is certainly true, and eminently in accordance withPaul's teaching elsewhere, that the love ofChristwhichwehave in ourheartsrestrainsus fromdoingthingswhichotherwisewemightdo.Werefrain from doing those things not only because we are afraid to dothem, but also because we love Christ too much to do them. Ah, howpowerfularestrainingforceintheChristian'slifeisthelovehebearstoChrist,hisSavior!ThatloveintheChristian'sheartisarestrainingforceevenmorepowerfulthananyfear.

Asamatteroffact,however,thatisnotPaul'smeaninghere.TheloveofChristwhichheheresaysconstrainsusisnotourloveforChrist,butitisChrist's loveforus.Wearerestrainedfromdoingevil things,Paulsays,bythatunspeakablelovewhichChristmanifestedwhenhediedforusonthecross."BecauseWeHaveThusJudged"

Well, then, if it isChrist's love foruswhich constrainsus, according tothisverse,howdoesChrist'sloveforusproducethatconstrainingeffectinourlives?

Thefollowingwordsgivetheanswer."TheloveofChristconstrainethus,"Paulsays,"becausewethus judge, that ifonedied forall, thenwerealldead."Idonotthinkthatthetranslation"becausewethusjudge,"thoughitappears inboth theAuthorizedand in theRevisedVersion, is strictlyaccurate.Itoughtrathertobe"becausewehavethusjudged."Thegreat

convictionthatChristdiedforallandthatthereforealldiedisnotformedagainandagaininPaul'smindasthoughitwereanewconviction,butithasalreadybeenformed.ItisoneofthebasicconvictionsunderlyingallPaul's Christian life. "The love of Christ constraineth us," Paul says,"becausewe formedtheconviction longago thatChristdied forallandthat therefore all died." Those who have that conviction, as Paul had,alreadyformedintheirmindsarerestrainedeverafterfromdoingcertainthings which otherwise they might do. Since they are convinced thatChrist died for them, they cannot thereafter do the things that aredispleasing to him—to himwho by his death for them showed that heloved them with such a wonderful love. Once they are convinced thatChrist'sdeathwasadeathforthem,theirgratitudetotheonewhodiedhemsthemin,restrainsthemfromevil,moreeffectivelythantheycouldhavebeenrestrainedbyprisonbars.

That much, I think, is certainly in this passage. We have here a truescripturalbasisforthegreathymnofIsaacWatts:

WhenIsurveythewondrouscrossOnwhichthePrinceofglorydied,MyrichestgainIcountbutloss,Andpourcontemptonallmypride.

TheoverpoweringloveofChristforus,manifestedwhenhediedforusonthecross,callsforthourallinresponse.Nothingcanbesoprecioustousthatweshouldnotgiveituptohimwhogavehimselfthereforusonthetree.

But although that isnodoubt taughtor implied in thepassage, a greatdealmoreistaught.Therearegreatdepthsofadditionalmeaninginthepassage, and we must try to explore those depths just a little furtherbeforewesitatthetableoftheLord."ThereforeAllDied"

"The love of Christ constraineth us," Paul says, "because we have thusjudged,thatonediedforall,thereforealldied."Thoseareratherstrangewords, when you come to think of it—"One died for all, therefore alldied." How does the second of these two propositions follow from the

former? Why should we draw from the fact that one died for all theinference that therefore all died? A very different inference mightconceivably be drawn. It might be said with more apparent show ofreason: "One died for all, therefore all did not die; one died for all,thereforeall lived."Whenonemandiesforothers,theusualpurposeofhis dying is that those others may not have to die; he dies that thoseothersmaylive.

Yetherewehaveitsaidthatonediedforallandthenalldied.ApparentlythedeathofChristdidnogoodtothoseforwhomhedied.Apparentlyhedidnotsucceedinrescuingthemfromdeath.Apparentlytheyhadtodieafterall.

It might look at least as though Paul ought to have recognized thecontradiction.Itmight lookas thoughheought tohavesaid:"Onediedforall,neverthelessalldied."Buthedoesnotrecognizethecontradictionat all. He puts the death of Christ not as something that mightconceivably prevent the death of others, but as something that actuallybrought with it the death of others. He says not: "One died for all,neverthelessalldied,"but:"Onediedforall,thereforealldied."

Thethingmightseemstrangetotheunbeliever;itmightseemstrangetothemanwhoshouldcometothispassagewithouthavingreadtherestoftheBibleandinparticulartherestoftheEpistlesofPaul.ButitdoesnotseematallstrangetotheChristian;itdoesnotseematallstrangetotheman who reads it in connection with the great central teaching of theWordofGodregardingtheCrossofChrist.

Christdiedforall,thereforealldied—ofcourse,thatissobecauseChristwastherepresentativeofallwhenhedied.Thedeaththathediedonthecrosswasinitselfthedeathofall.SinceChristwastherepresentativeofall, therefore all may have been said to have died there on the crossoutsidethewallsofJerusalemwhenChristdied.

WemayimagineadialoguebetweenthelawofGodandasinfulman.

"Man,"saysthelawofGod,"haveyouobeyedmycommands?"

"No," says the sinner, "I have transgressed them in thought,word, anddeed."

"Well,then,sinner,"saysthelaw,"haveyoupaidthepenaltywhichIhavepronounceduponthosewhohavedisobeyed?HaveyoudiedinthesensethatImeantwhenIsaid,'Thesoulthatsinnethitshalldie'?"

"Yes," says the sinner, "I have died. That penalty that you pronounceduponmysinhasbeenpaid."

"Whatdoyoumean,"saysthelaw,"bysayingthatyouhavedied?Youdonotlookasthoughyouhaddied.Youlookasthoughyouwereverymuchalive."

"Yes,"saysthesinner,"Ihavedied.Idiedthereonthecrossoutsidethewalls of Jerusalem; for Jesus died there as my representative and mysubstitute.Idiedthere,sofarasthepenaltyofthelawwasconcerned."

"YousayChristisyourrepresentativeandsubstitute,"saysthelaw."ThenIhaveindeednofurtherclaimofpenaltyagainstyou.ThecursewhichIpronouncedagainst your sinhas indeedbeen fulfilled.My threateningsareveryterrible,butIhavenothingtosayagainstthoseforwhomChristdied."

That, my friends, is what Paul means by the tremendous "therefore,"whenhe says: "Onedied forall, thereforealldied."On that "therefore"hangsallourhopefortimeandforeternity.ForWhomDidChristDie?

Butwhatdoeshemeanby"all"?"Onediedforall,"hesays,"thereforealldied."Heseemstolayconsiderableemphasisuponthatword"all."Whatdoeshemeanbyit?

Well, I supposeourChristianbrethren inotherchurches,ourChristianbrethrenwho are opposed to the Reformed faith,might be tempted tomake that word "all" mean, in this passage, "all men"; they might betempted to make it refer to the whole human race. They might betemptedtointerpretthewords"Christdiedforall"tomean"Christdied

forallmeneverywhere,whetherChristianornot."

But if they are tempted tomake itmean that, they ought to resist thetemptation,sincethispassageisreallyaverydangerouspassageforthemtolaystressoninsupportoftheirview.

In the first place, the context is dead against it. It is rather stronglyagainsttheviewthat"Christdiedforallmen."Allthroughthispassage,PaulisspeakingnotoftherelationofChristtoallmen,butoftherelationofChristtothechurch.

Inthesecondplace,theviewthat"Christdiedforall"means"Christdiedforallmen"proves toomuch.The things thatPaul says in thispassageabout those forwhomChristdieddonot fit thosewhomerelyhave thegospelofferedtothem;theyfitonlythosewhoacceptthegospelforthesalvation of their soul. Can it be said of all men, including those whorejectthegospelorhaveneverheardit,thattheydiedwhenChristdiedon the cross; can it be said of them that they no longer live untothemselves but unto theChristwho died for them?Surely these thingscannotbesaidofallmen,andthereforetheword"all"doesnotmean"allmen."

Perhaps,indeed,itwillbesaidthatPaulisspeakingonlyofthepurposeof Christ in dying for allmen, without implying that that purposewasaccomplished.Perhaps,itwillbesaid,hemeansonlythatChristdiedforthem,without at all implyinghowmanyof those forwhomChristdiedactuallyaccomplishedthatpurposebylivinginthatway.

Well—quiteasidefromthedifficultyofsupposingthatGod'spurposeeverfails—Icanonlysaythatifthatmeaningistobeattributedtothepassage,theforceofthepassageis,tosaytheleast,seriouslyimpaired.DidChristupon the cross die merely to make possible my salvation? Did he diemerelyforthegreatmassofhumanityandthenleaveittothedecisionofindividualsinthatmasswhethertheywouldmakeanyuseofwhatChristpurchasedforthematsuchcost?WasI,inthethoughtoftheSonofGodwhenhediedthereonCalvary,merelyoneinthegreatmassofpersonswhomightpossiblyatsomefuturetimeacceptthebenefitsofhisdeath?

I tell you,my friends, if I thought that—if, in otherwords, I became aconsistentArminianinsteadofaCalvinist—Ishouldfeelalmostasthoughthelighthadforevergoneoutofmysoul.No,indeed,myfriends,Christdidnotdie thereonCalvarymerely tomakepossibleour salvation.Hedied tosaveus.Hediednotmerely toprovideageneralbenefit for thehuman race from which we might at some future time draw, as fromsome general fund, what is needed for the salvation of our souls. No,thankGod,hedied thereon the cross forus individually.Hecalledus,when he died for us, by our names. He loved us not as infinitesimalparticlesinthemassofthehumanrace,butheloveduseveryone.

Do you ask how that could be?Do you ask how Christ, when he died,couldhaveinhismindandhearteveryoneofthemillionsofthosewhohadbeensavedundertheolddispensationandwhoweretobesavedinthe long centuries thatwere to come? Iwill tell youhow it couldbe. ItcouldbebecauseChristisGod.BeingGod,heknowsuseveryone,withanintimacythatisfargreaterthantheintimacyofthetenderestmother'slove.

People say that Calvinism is a dour, hard creed. How broad andcomforting, they say, is the doctrine of a universal atonement, thedoctrine thatChristdiedequally forallmen thereupon thecross!Hownarrowandharsh, theysay, is thisCalvinisticdoctrine—oneof the"fivepoints" of Calvinism—this doctrine of the "limited atonement," thisdoctrinethatChristdiedfortheelectofGodinasense inwhichhedidnotdiefortheunsaved!

But do you know, my friends, it is surprising that men say that. It issurprisingthattheyregardthedoctrineofauniversalatonementasbeingacomfortingdoctrine.Inrealityitisaverygloomydoctrineindeed.Ah,ifitwereonlyadoctrineofauniversalsalvation,insteadofadoctrineofauniversal atonement, then it would no doubt be a very comfortingdoctrine;thennodoubtitwouldconformwonderfullywelltowhatweinourpunywisdommighthavethoughtthecourseoftheworldshouldhavebeen.Butauniversalatonementwithoutauniversalsalvation isacold,gloomydoctrineindeed.TosaythatChristdiedforallmenalikeandthatthennotallmenaresaved,tosaythatChristdiedforhumanitysimplyinthemass, and that the choice of thosewho out of thatmass are saved

dependsuponthegreaterreceptivityofsomeascomparedwithothers—that is adoctrine that takes from thegospelmuchof its sweetness andmuchof its joy. From the cold universalismof thatArminian creedweturn ever again with a new thankfulness to the warm and tenderindividualism of our Reformed faith, which we believe to be in accordwith God's holy Word. Thank God we can say, every one, as wecontemplate Christ upon the cross, not just: "He died for the mass ofhumanity,andhowgladIamthatIamamidthatmass,"but:"Helovedmeandgavehimselfforme;mynamewaswrittenfromalleternityuponhisheart,andwhenhehungandsufferedthereonthecross,hethoughtofme,evenme,asoneforwhominhisgracehewaswillingtodie.""ShouldNotHenceforthLiveuntoThemselves"

That is what Paulmeanswhen he says, "One died for all, therefore alldied."ButisthatallthatPaulsays?No,hesayssomethingmore;andwemustconsiderbrieflythatsomethingmore,beforeweturnawayfromthismarvelouspassage.

"Allofusdied,"Paulsays,"sinceitwasasourrepresentativethatChristdied."Butwhatthen?Whatbecomesafterwardsofthosewhohavethusdiedtothecurseofthelaw?Aretheyfreethereaftertoliveastheyplease,becausethepenaltyoftheirsinshasbeenpaid?

Paulgivestheanswerinnouncertainterms."Onediedforall,"hesays,"thereforealldied, that theywhich live shouldnothenceforth liveuntothemselvesbutuntohimwhichdiedforthem,androseagain."

Somepeopleuponthisearth,hesays,havepassedthroughawonderfulthing! They have died. That is, Christ died for them as theirrepresentative.TheyhavediedsofarasconcernsthedeathwhichthelawofGodpronouncesasthepenaltyofsin.TheydiedthereonCalvaryinthepersonofChristtheirSavior.Butwhatofthemnow?Lookatthem,andyoumight think, if you were a very superficial observer, that they arelivingverymuchasbefore.Theyaresubjecttoallthepettylimitationsofhuman life. They arewalking the streets of Corinth or of Philadelphia.Theyaregoingabouttheirdailytasks.Theymightseemtobeverymuchthesame.Ah,but,saysPaul,theyarenotreallythesame;agreatchangehas taken place in them. They are living upon this earth. Yes, that is

granted. They are living in the flesh. Very true. But their lives—theirhumdrum, working lives upon this earth—have now an entirely newdirection.Formerlytheywerelivinguntothemselves;nowtheyarelivinguntoChrist.Whatgreaterchangecouldtherepossiblybethanthat?

Christ had that change definitely in view, Paul says, when he died forthemonthecross.Hedidnotdieforthemonthecrossinorderthattheymightlivewithimpunityinsin.Hedidnotdieforthemonthecrossinorderthat theymightcontinueto live for themselves.Hediedthat theymightliveforhim.

"Onedied forall, thereforealldied;andhedied forall that theywhichliveshouldnothenceforthliveuntothemselves"—letusstopjustthereforamoment tonotice thatat thatpoint thegrandcircle iscomplete.Paulhas got back to the assertion with which he began; only now he hasshowngloriouslyhowitisthatthatassertionistrue.Hebeganbysaying,"The love of Christ constraineth us," and now he has shown how thatconstrainthasbeenbroughtabout. "The loveofChrist constrainethus;becausewehavethusjudged,thatonediedforall,thereforealldied;andthat he died for all, that theywhich live should not henceforth live forthemselves." "Should not henceforth live unto themselves"—that is theconstraint ofwhichPaul startedout to speak.Amanwhomaynot liveuntohimself is indeedunder constraint.All the impulsesof fallenmanleadhim to liveuntohimself.Ahundred selfishpassionsandappetitescrave free course.Yethere are fallenmenwho check the free courseofthoseselfishpassionsandappetites.Whathascausedthemtodoso?Theansweris"Christ's love."Helovedthem.Lovingthem,hediedforthemonthecross.Dyingforthemonthecross,hewipedoutthecurseofthelawagainstthem,thatinthenewlifethattheythenbeganbyhisSpirittolive theymight, by thinking onhis death, be led to liveno longer untothemselves.What awonderful restraining forcewas exerted byChrist'sdying love!Howmany things, freelydoneby themenof theworld, theChristianisrestrainedbyChrist'slovefromdoing!

Yes, it is indeed true that, if we are real Christians, "the love of Christconstraineth us." Paul is not afraid to use a very drastic word in thisconnection. He is not afraid to say: "The love of Christ hems us in,surroundsusoneverysideaswithabarrierorwall."

Thereasonwhyheisnotafraidtosaythatisthatheisgoingtowipetheparadoxout in this very sameverse:he is going to showhis readers atoncethattherestraintofwhichhespeaksisthemostgloriousfreedom;he isgoing tomakeabundantlyplainright in thisverypassage that theChristian life is not a cabined and confined life at all, but a life that ismarvelouslyrightandfree.TheChristianisrestrainedfromdoingcertainthings. True. But he is restrained fromdoing those things not in orderthathemaydonothingatall,but inorder thathemaydoother thingsthat are infinitely more worthwhile. He is restrained from doing evilthings, that hemay do the things that are good; he is restrained fromdoingthingsthatbringdeath,inorderthathemaydothingsthatbelongtoeternallife."ButuntoHimWhichDiedforThem"

What are those good things in the doing ofwhichChristian freedom isshown? Ah, how wonderfully does Paul sum them up in this gloriousverse!Listentothegrandclimaxwithwhichthesentenceends."Theloveof Christ constraineth us," he says, "becausewe have thus judged, thatonediedforall,thereforealldied;andthathediedforallthattheywhichliveshouldnothenceforthliveuntothemselves,butuntohimwhichdiedfor them." "But unto him which died for them"—ah, there is therefutationforeverofthechargebroughtbycarnalmenthattheChristianlifeisanarrowandrestrictedlife,alifehemmedinby"Thoushaltnots,"butwithouthighaspirationsoraworthygoal.No,itisnotanarrowandrestrictedlifeatall.

Whatsweetandlovelythinginhumanlivingmaynotbeincludedinthatonegreatbusinessof livinguntoChrist?Art,yousay?Isthatexcluded?No,indeed.Christmadethebeautyoftheworld,andhemadementhattheymightenjoythatbeautyandcelebrateituntohispraise.Science?Allthewonders of the universe are his.Hemade all, and the trueman ofscience has the privilege of looking just a little way into his gloriousworks. Every high and worthy human pursuit may be ennobled andenlarged by being consecrated unto Christ. But highest of all is theprivilegeofbringingothersoulstohim.Thatprivilegebelongsnotonlytothe wise and learned. It belongs to the humblest Christians. To be theinstrumentinsavingasoulfromdeath—whatmorewonderfuladventure

can there be than that? No, the Christian life is not a narrow andrestrictedlife.Itisalifemostwonderfullyfree.Whatrichharvestfieldsitoffers,whatbroadprospects,whatglitteringmountainheights!

InallthatlifeofhighendeavortheChristianthinksalwaysoftheOnetowhomheowesitall,theOnewhodied.Everdoesherememberthatonedied for all, and that therefore all died. What depth of love in theChristian'sheart iscalledforthbythatstoryof thedying loveofChrist!Whatabarrieritisagainstselfishnessandsin,whatanincentivetobraveand loving deeds! He died for all, and in the true Christian's life thepurposeofhisdying is indeed fulfilled, that theywhich live shouldnothenceforthliveuntothemselves,butuntohimwhichdiedforthem."AndRoseAgain"

Wehave almost finished.Wehave read the passage almost to the end.Butthereisonewordthatwehavesofarnottouched.Itistheverylastword.Sadlyincompletewouldourexpositionbeifwedidnotnownoticethattremendousword.

"The love of Christ constraineth us; becausewe have thus judged, thatone died for all, therefore all died; and that he died for all, that theywhich live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto himwhichdiedforthem,androseagain."

"Androseagain"—thatistheword(it isonewordintheGreek)thatwemustnoticeatlastbeforewesitdowntogetheratthetableofourLord.

How does our thought of the death of Christ restrain us from evil andinspireustogood?Isitmerelylikethethoughtofsomedearonewhohasgone?Isitmerelythethoughtofthatlastsmileonamother'sface;isitmerely like our thought of the last touch of her vanished hand; is itmerely likethememoryof those last lovingwordswhenshebadeusbetrueandgood?

Well,wedothinkofthedeathofourLordinsomesuchwayasthat.Wecommemoratethatdeathtodayinthebrokenbreadandthepoured-outcup. We think of that simple story in the Gospels which tells how hebrokethebreadwithhisdisciples,enduredmockingofwickedmen,was

takenoutsidethewalls,anddiedforthelovethatheboretoussinners.And as we think on that story, our hearts melt within us and we areashamedtooffendagainstsuchlove.Wesaytoourselves,inthewordsofthesweetChristianhymn:

O,dearly,dearlyhasheloved!Andwemustlovehimtoo,Andtrustinhisredeemingblood,Andtryhisworkstodo.

Butisthatall?No,itisnotall,myfriends.Itisnotall,becausethatOnewho there died for us is now alive. He is not dead, but is with us inblessedpresence today.Hedied forall, that theywhich live shouldnotliveuntothemselves,butuntohimwhichdiedforthemandroseagain.Wedomorethancommemoratehisdeathwhenwesitaroundthetablethismorning.We rejoice also inhispresence.Andaswego forth fromthis place, we must live as those who are ever in his sight. Are we intemptation?Let us remember that hewho died for us, andwho by hisdyingloveconstrainsusthatwefallnotintosin,iswithustoday,andisgrievedifwedishonorhiminourlives.Itisnottoamemorymerelythatwe Christians have dedicated ourselves. It is to the service of a livingSavior.Letusrememberalwaysthat"hediedforallthattheywhichliveshouldnothenceforthliveuntothemselvesbutuntohimwhichdiedforthemandroseagain."ThePresbyterianChurchofAmerica

Thismorningwe,alittlebranchofhischurchuniversal,aregatheredforthe first time together around his table. We shall go forth from thisservice into thedeliberationsof thisAssembly and then into the variedworkofthechurch.

Ifwerememberwhatthisservicecommemorates,therearecertainthingswhichweshallbeconstrainedbyChrist'slovenottodo.

Weshallbeconstrained, forexample,nottoweakeninthestandwhichwehavetakenforthesakeofChrist.Howmanymovementshavebegunbravely like thisone,andthenhavebeendeceivedbySatan—havebeendeceived by Satan into belittling controversy, condoning sin and error,

seeking favor from the world or from a worldly church, substituting aworldlyurbanityforChristianlove.MayChrist'sloveindeedconstrainus,thatwemaynotthusfall!

We shall be constrained, in the second place, from seeking unworthilyour own advantage or preferment, and from being jealous of theadvantage or preferment of our brethren. May Christ's love indeedconstrainus,thatwefallnotintofaultssuchasthese!

We shall be constrained, in the third place, from stifling discussion forthesakeofpeaceandfrom(ashasbeensaid)"shelvingimportantissuesinmomentsofsilentprayer."MayChrist'sloveconstrainusfromsuchamisuse of the sacred and blessed privilege of prayer!May Christ's loveprevent us from doing anything to hinder our brethren from givinglegitimateexpressiontotheconvictionsoftheirmindsandhearts!

Weshallbeconstrained,inshort,fromsuccumbingtothemanydangerswhichalwaysbesetamovementsuchasthis.Christ'slovealonewillsaveusfromsuchdangers.

ButChrist's lovewilldomore than restrainus fromevil. Itwill leadusalsointogood.Itwilldomorethanpreventusfromlivinguntoourselves.Itwillalsoleadustoliveuntohim.

What a wonderful, open door God has placed before the PresbyterianChurchofAmerica!Apaganworld,wearyandsick,oftendistrusting itsownmodern gods. A saving gospel strangely entrusted to us unworthymessengers.AdivineBookwithunusedresourcesofgloryandpower.Ah,whatamarvelousopportunity,mybrethren!Whataprivilegetoproclaimnotsomepartialsystemoftruth,butthefull,glorioussystemwhichGodhas revealed in his Word, and which is summarized in the wonderfulstandards of our faith! What a privilege to get those hallowedinstruments,inwhichthattruthissummarized,downfromtheshelfandwritetheminpatientinstruction,bytheblessingoftheHolySpirit,uponthe tablets of the children's hearts! What a privilege to present ourhistoric standards in all their fullness in thepulpit and at the teacher'sdeskandintheChristianhome!Whataprivilegetodothat fortheonereasonthat thosestandardspresent,nota"man-madecreed,"butwhat

GodhastoldusinhisholyWord!Whataprivilegetoproclaimthatsamesystem of divine truth to the unsaved! What a privilege to carry themessage of the Cross, unshackled by compromising associations, to alltheworld!Whataprivilegetosendittoforeignlands!WhataprivilegetoproclaimittothesoulsofpeoplewhositinnominallyChristianchurchesandstarveforlackofthebreadoflife!Oh,yes,whataprivilegeandwhatajoy,mybrethren!Shallwelosethatjoyforanyselfishnessorjealousy;shall we lose it for any of the sins into which every one of us withoutexceptionispronetofall?

Onlyonethingcanpreventusfromlosingit,mybrethren.Onlyonethingcanbestowituponusinallitsfullness.ThatonethingistheloveofJesusChrist our Savior—the love that we celebrate as we sit this morningaround the table of our Lord. That love alone can restrain us from thesins that will, if unchecked, destroy this Church's life—the sins of thepreacher of thismorning, the sins of those towhomhe preaches. Thatalonecansendusforthrejoicingtoliveforhimwhodied.Aswesitnowathistable,andcommemoratehisdyinglove,maytheblessedwordsthatwehavereadtogetherthismorningsinkdeepintoourmindsandheartsandbearfruitinourlives.Mayitnowindeedbetrueofusthat:"TheloveofChristconstrainethus;becausewethusjudge,thatifonediedforall,thenwerealldead:and thathedied forall, that theywhich liveshouldnothenceforth liveuntothemselves,butuntohimwhichdiedforthem,androseagain."

This sermonwaspreachedat thecommunionservice thatpreceded theSecond General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America(renamed theOrthodoxPresbyterianChurch in 1939)onNovember 12,1936.ItappearedinthePresbyterianGuardian,December12,1936.Dr.MachendiedonJanuary1,1937.

TheMinisterandHisGreekTestament

ThewideningbreachbetweentheministerandhisGreekTestamentmaybe traced to two principal causes. The modern minister objects to hisGreekNewTestamentorisindifferenttoit,first,becauseheisbecomingless interested in his Greek, and second, because he is becoming lessinterestedinhisNewTestament.

The former objection is merely one manifestation of the well knowntendency in modern education to reject the "humanities" in favor ofstudies that are more obviously useful, a tendency which is fully aspronounced in the universities as it is in the theological seminaries. Inmany colleges the study of Greek is almost abandoned; there is littlewonder,therefore,thatthegraduatesarenotpreparedtousetheirGreekTestament. Plato and Homer are being neglected as much as Paul. Arefutation of the arguments by which this tendency is justified wouldexceedthelimitsofthepresentarticle.Thismuch,however,maybesaid—therefutationmustrecognizetheopposingprinciplesthatareinvolved.The advocate of the study of Greek and Latin should never attempt toplead his cause merely before the bar of "efficiency." Something, nodoubt,mightbesaideventhere; itmightpossiblybecontendedthatanacquaintance with Greek and Latin is really necessary to acquaintancewiththemothertongue,whichisobviouslysoimportantforgettingoninthe world. But why not go straight to the root of thematter? The realtroublewiththemodernexaltationof"practical"studiesattheexpenseofthehumanitiesisthatitisbaseduponaviciousconceptionofthewholepurpose of education. The modern conception of the purpose ofeducationisthateducationismerelyintendedtoenableamantolive,butnottogivehimthosethingsinlifethatmakelifeworthliving.

In the second place, themodernminister is neglecting his Greek NewTestamentbecauseheisbecominglessinterestedinhisNewTestamentingeneral—lessinterestedinhisBible.TheBibleusedtoberegardedasprovidingtheverysumandsubstanceofpreaching;apreacherwastrueto his calling only as he succeeded in reproducing and applying themessageof theWordofGod.Verydifferent is themodernattitude.TheBible is not discarded, to be sure, but it is treated only as one of thesources, even though it be still the chief source, of the preacher'sinspiration.Moreover, a host of duties other than preaching and other

than interpretation of the Word of God are required of the modernpastor.Hemustorganizeclubsandsocialactivitiesofadozendifferentkinds;hemustassumeaprominentpartinmovementsforcivicreform.Inshort,theministerhasceasedtobeaspecialist.Thechangeappears,forexample,intheattitudeoftheologicalstudents,evenofadevoutandreverenttype.Oneoutstandingdifficultyintheologicaleducationtodayisthat thestudentspersist in regarding themselves,notasspecialists,butaslaymen.CriticalquestionsabouttheBibletheyregardasthepropertyofmenwhoaretrainingthemselvesfortheologicalprofessorshipsorthelike,whiletheordinaryminister,intheirjudgment,maycontenthimselfwith the most superficial layman's acquaintance with the problemsinvolved.TheministeristhusnolongeraspecialistintheBible,buthasbecomemerelyasortofgeneralmanageroftheaffairsofacongregation.

Thebearingof thismodernattitude toward thestudyof theBibleuponthe study of the Greek Testament is sufficiently obvious. If the timeallottedtostrictlybiblicalstudiesmustbediminished,obviouslythemostlaborious part of those studies, the part least productive of immediateresults,will be the first to go.And that part, for students insufficientlyprepared, is the study ofGreek andHebrew. If, on the otherhand, theminister is a specialist—if the one thing that he owes his congregationabove all others is a thorough acquaintance, scientific as well asexperimental,withtheBible—thenthe importanceofGreekrequiresnoelaborate argument. In the first place, almost all the most importantbooks about theNewTestamentpresuppose a knowledgeofGreek: thestudentwhoiswithoutatleastasmatteringofGreekisobligedtouseforthemostpartworks that arewritten, figuratively speaking, inwordsofonesyllable.Inthesecondplace,suchastudentcannotdealwithalltheproblemsat firsthand,but in a thousand importantquestions is at themercyofthejudgmentofothers.Inthethirdplace,ourstudentwithoutGreekcannotacquainthimselfwiththeformaswellasthecontentoftheNewTestamentbooks.TheNewTestament,aswellasallotherliterature,loses something in translation. But why argue the question? Everyscientific student of the New Testament without exception knows thatGreek is really necessary to his work: the real question is only as towhetherourministryshouldbemannedbyscientificstudents.

Thatquestionismerelyonephaseofthemostimportantquestionthatisnow facing the church—the question of Christianity and culture. Themodern world is dominated by a type of thought that is eithercontradictory to Christianity or else out of vital connection withChristianity. This type of thought applied directly to the Bible hasresulted in the naturalistic view of the biblical history—the view thatrejectsthesupernaturalnotmerelyintheOldTestamentnarratives,butalso intheGospelaccountof the lifeofJesus.AccordingtosuchaviewtheBible isvaluablebecause it teachescertain ideasaboutGodandhisrelationstotheworld,becauseitteachesbysymbolsandexample,aswellasbyformalpresentation,certaingreatprinciplesthathavealwaysbeentrue.Accordingtothesupernaturalisticview,ontheotherhand,theBiblecontainsnotmerelyapresentationofsomethingthatwasalwaystrue,butalsoarecordofsomethingthathappened—namely,theredemptiveworkofJesusChrist.Ifthislatterviewbecorrect,thentheBibleisunique;itisnotmerelyoneofthesourcesofthepreacher's inspiration,buttheverysumandsubstanceofwhathehas tosay.But, if so, thenwhateverelsethepreacherneednotknow,hemustknowtheBible;hemustknowitatfirsthand,andbeabletointerpretanddefendit.Especiallywhiledoubtremainsintheworldastothegreatcentralquestion,whomoreproperlythantheministersshouldengageintheworkofresolvingsuchdoubt—byintellectualinstructionevenmorethanbyargument?Theworkcannotbeturned over to a few professors whose work is of interest only tothemselves,butmustbeundertakenenergeticallyby spirituallymindedmenthroughout thechurch.Butobviously thisworkcanbeundertakentobestadvantageonlyby thosewhohavean importantprerequisite forthe study in a knowledge of the original languages uponwhich a largepartofthediscussionisbased.

If,however, it is importantfortheministertousehisGreekTestament,whatistobedoneaboutit?Supposeearlyopportunitieswereneglected,orwhatwasoncerequiredhasbeen lost in thebusyrushofministeriallife.Herewemaycomeforwardboldlywithamessageofhope.TheGreekof the New Testament is by nomeans a difficult language; a very fairknowledgeofitmaybeacquiredbyanyministerofaverageintelligence.And to that end twohomelydirectionsmaybegiven. In the firstplace,theGreekshouldbereadaloud.A languagecannoteasilybe learnedby

theeyealone.Thesoundaswellasthesenseoffamiliarpassagesshouldbe impressed upon the mind, until sound and sense are connectedwithoutthemediumoftranslation.Letthisresultnotbehastened;itwillcomeofitselfifthesimpledirectionbefollowed.Inthesecondplace,theGreek Testament should be read every day without fail, Sabbathsincluded.Tenminutesadayisofvastlymorevaluethanseventyminutesonce a week. If the student keeps a "morning watch," the GreekTestament ought to be given a place in it; at any rate, the GreekTestamentshouldbereaddevotionally.TheGreekTestamentisasacredbook,andshouldbe treatedassuch.If it is treatedso, thereadingof itwillsoonbecomeasourceofjoyandpower.

J. Gresham Machen was a founding minister in the OrthodoxPresbyterian Church. This essay was originally printed in ThePresbyterian(February7,1918).

WhatIsOrthodoxy?

J.GreshamMachen

To the surprise of many, including a number who not too long agoprophesied our denomination's imminent demise, the OrthodoxPresbyterianChurchrecentlyhasexperiencedremarkablepopularity.Itseems the OPC has become "the church of choice" for an increasingcompany of inquiring Presbyterian and Reformed groups andindividuals across the United States. We are amazed and grateful toGodfortheinterestandzealexpressedbythesepeople.

Atthesametime,weneedtoappreciatetheopportunitythat isours.Imention this because we may not be taking full advantage of thisopportunity. For example, for many years the word orthodox in ourname has been thought by some to be a liability to the growth of thedenomination—somuchsothatanumberofcongregationshavechosennottoincludeitintheirnames.

Butasmoreandmorepeopleareseekingusoutspecificallybecauseofour orthodoxy, does it not make sense for us to set our full nameprominently before the public? If we are hesitant,maybe it would behelpfultoknowwhatJ.GreshamMachenthoughtofthewordorthodox.In fact, aswe choose names for our congregations, itmay bewell toconsultDr.Machen.

PresentedhereisDr.Machen'sforcefuleditorialforyourconsideration.It was written before the founding of the OPC and appeared in theNovember 4, 1935, issue of the Presbyterian Guardian (on page 38).Later,itexertedgreatinfluenceontheyoungchurchwhenshechoseherpresentnamein1939.

Whoknows,withsomeoneassignificantasMachenaddinghisthoughtsto thediscussion,youmaydiscover thatourdenomination's fullnamehasmuchmoregoingforitthanyoufirstthought.

—CharlesG.DennisonHistorianfortheOrthodoxPresbyterianChurch

Manyyearsago,inthatancienttimewhenjokesnowhoarywithagehadthe blush of early youth upon their cheeks, when a man first asked,"When is a door not a door?" and when the answer seemed to be amarvelously fresh and brilliant thing—at some happy moment in thatancient time, some brilliant person said: "Orthodoxy means 'my doxy'andheterodoxymeans'theotherman'sdoxy.'"

Theunknownauthorofthatfamousdefinition—unknowntomeatleast—may have thought that he was being very learned. Knowing that theGreekwordheteros,whichformsapartoftheEnglishwordheterodoxy,means"other,"hebuilthisfamousdefinitionaroundthatoneword,andheterodoxybecametohim"theotherman'sdoxy."

Possibly,however,heknewperfectlywellthathewasnotbeinglearned,andmerelydesiredtohavehis little joke.Asamatterof fact, theGreekwordheteros inheterodoxy doesnot justmean "other" in the ordinarysenseofthatword,aswhenwespeakof"one"manand"another"man,butitusuallymeans"other"withanaddedideaof"different."

Soifwearereallygoingto indulge ina littleetymology, ifwearereallygoingtoanalyzethewordsandhaverecoursetotheoriginofthemintheGreek language from which they have come, we shall arrive at a verydifferentresultfromtheresultwhichwasarrivedatbytheauthorofthefacetious definition mentioned above. The word orthos in orthodoxymeans"straight,"andthewordheterosinheterodoxymeans"other"withanimplicationof"different."Accordingly,therealstateofthecaseisthatorthodoxy means "straight doxy" and heterodoxy means "somethingdifferent from straight doxy"; or, in other words, it means "crookeddoxy."[Anddoxymeans"teaching."]

Now I am not inclined to recommend etymology indiscriminately topreachersintheirtreatmentoftheirtexts.Ithasitsuses,butitalsohasits abuses. Very often it leads those who indulge in it very far astrayindeed.Themeaningsofwordschangeinthecourseofcenturies,andsothe actual use of a word often differs widely from what one wouldsupposefromanexaminationoftheoriginalusesofitscomponentparts.Etymologyhasspoiledmanyagoodsermon.

Inthiscase,however,etymologydoesnotleadusastrayatall.Orthodoxydoesmean"straightdoxy"[andthus"straightteaching"],anditisagoodoldwordwhich I thinkwemightwell revive.What term shallwewhostand for the Bible in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. use todesignate our position? Formy part, I cannot say that I like the termFundamentalism. I am not inclined, indeed, to quibble about theseimportantmatters.IfaninquirerasksmewhetherIamaFundamentalistor a Modernist, I do not say, "Neither." Instead, I say: "Well, you areusingterminologythatIdonotlike,butifImayforthemomentuseyourterminology,inorderthatyoumaygetplainlywhatImean,Ijustwanttosay,when you askmewhether I am a Fundamentalist or aModernist,thatIamaFundamentalistfromthewordgo!"

However,itisadifferentmatterwhenwearechoosingterminologythatweshallactuallyuseaboutourselves.Whenwearedoingthat,Ithinkweoughttobejustascarefulaswepossiblycanbe.

The termFundamentalism seems to represent theChristian religion asthoughithadsuddenlybecomean"ism"andneededtobecalledbysome

strangenewname.Icannotseewhythatshouldbedone.Thetermseemsto me to be particularly inadequate as applied to us conservativePresbyterians.Wehaveagreatheritage.Wearestandinginwhatweholdto be the great central current of the Church's life—the great traditionthat comes down through Augustine and Calvin to the WestminsterConfessionofFaith.Thatweholdtobethehighstraightroadoftruthasopposedtovagariesononesideorontheother.Whythenshouldwebesopronetoadoptsomestrangenewterm?

Well,then,ifwedonotaltogetherlikethetermFundamentalism—closethough our fellowship is with those who do like that term—what termshallweactuallychoose?

Conservative does seem to be rather too cold. It is apt to create theimpressionthatweareholdingdesperatelytosomethingthatisold justbecause it is old, and that we are not eager for new and gloriousmanifestationsoftheSpiritofGod.

Evangelical,ontheotherhand,althoughitisafineterm,doesnotquiteseem to designate clearly enough the position of those who holdspecifically to the system of doctrine taught in the WestminsterConfessionofFaith,asdistinguishedfromothersystemswhicharenearenough to the truth in order that theymay be called "evangelical" butwhichyetfallshortofbeingthesystemthatiscontainedinGod'sWord.

Therefore,inviewoftheobjectionsthatfacetheuseofotherterminology,Ithinkwemightdofarworsethanrevivethegoodoldwordorthodoxyasadesignationofourposition.

Orthodoxymeans,aswehaveseen,"straightdoxy"[or"straightteaching,straight doctrine"].Well, how dowe tell whether a thing is straight ornot?Theanswerisplain.Bycomparingitwitharuleorplumbline.OurruleorplumblineistheBible.Athingis"orthodox"ifitisinaccordancewith the Bible. I thinkwemightwell revive theword. Butwhetherwerevive the word or not, we certainly ought to hold to the thing that isdesignatedbytheword.

MONERGISMBOOKS

SeletedWritingsbyJ.GreshamMachen,Copyright©2015

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American CopyrightConventions.Bypaymentoftherequiredfees,youhavebeengrantedthenon-exclusive,non-transferablerighttoaccessandreadthetextofthise-book on-screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted,downloaded,decompiled,reverseengineered,orstoredinorintroducedintoanyinformationstorageandretrievalsystem,inanyformorbyanymeans, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafterinvented,withouttheexpresswrittenpermissionofMonergismBooks.

ePub, .mobi & .pdf Editions October 2015 Requests for informationshouldbe addressed to:MonergismBooks,POBox491,WestLinn,Or97068