|
BY THE AUTHOR
Dr. W. Robert Cook, ThD.
When we speak of
knowing God, it must be understood with
reference to man's limited powers of comprehension. God, as
he really is, is far beyond man's imagination, let along his
understanding. God has revealed only so much of himself
as our minds can conceive and the weakness of our nature can bear.
John Milton (1608-1674)
The most fundamental and comprehensive truth determinative of the meaning of all reality, not only in theology but in the entire universe is "God is." This is what Moses affirms in Genesis 1:1 when he writes, "In the beginning God..." and it is what God says of himself in Exodus 3:14, "I am." The preceding chapters, in one way or another, have all been designed to affirm that the God who is may also be known even though, because of who he is, he is in the final analysis incomprehensible.
By its doctrine of God's incomprehensibility…Christian theology affirms that the divine infinity precludes the possibility of exhaustive human knowledge about God. But it neither implies that God himself is intrinsically unknowable nor that man cannot have cognitive knowledge or use intelligent language about him. [1]
In fact, we have asserted not merely that he may be known but that he has made himself known through self-disclosure, especially in the written scriptures and in the Lord Jesus Christ. I reject the view of some that all talk about God is meaningless; and, we deny that the only valid religious experience arises from some mysterious, ill-defined inner something described as an existential encounter, because both of these approaches reject the cognitive significance of propositional statements about God. With Henry we hold that
The historic Christian view is that divine revelation takes the form of propositionally given truths set down in the linguistic form of inspired verbs. The locus of the meaning and truth of Christian language is to be found, not in the empirical correlates of words, nor in an inner existential response to which words are said to point, but in the Bible as an inspired literary deposit of divinely revealed truths. By the Word of God, the Judeo-Christian prophets and apostles mean not some strange solitary sound or commanding linguistic unit, nor even a sequence of exotic hieroglyphics written in the sky; they mean, rather, logically formed sentences which the inspired writers identify as the very utterances of man's supernatural Creator and
Lord. [2]All of this discussion has assumed that God does exist. This is also the assumption and assertion of the Bible and of historic Christianity. Only the fool denies the existence of God (Ps. 14:1; 53:1). Christian theism according to Chafer, "concerns the existence and character of God as an extra-mundane Being, the Creator, Preserver and Governor of the universe." [3] It has to do with belief in the existence of one God, transcendent, yet immanent in the universe. Being transcendent God exists as other than and above the sphere of time and space. Being immanent he is present within the world and its processes. The uniqueness of biblical Christianity lies in this harmonious balance of these two truths. In answering the question, Does God exist? not all have given the same answer. The following are some of the denials, theoretical or practical, of the existence of the true God, the biblical God of reality.
I. Anti-theistic Theories
A. Atheism
Atheism is the denial of the existence of God or, more particularly as the term is used here, the denial of the existence of the God of scripture. The most frequently manifested form of this philosophy could be called practical atheism. This simply refers to the attitude of godless persons who live as though there were no God (Ps. 10:4b; 14:1; Eph. 2:12). Theoretical atheism is the belief which is held by the more intellectual type of person who bases his denial of God upon a process of reasoning. This is often rooted in a scientific or philosophical system especially monistic materialism. No form of atheism is personally satisfying and all forms are contrary to the normal witness of man's nature and of history as well as being contrary to scripture. The basic weakness of atheism is that the one who makes this claim presupposes omniscience to establish such a universal negative.
B. Agnosticism
The belief that true knowledge is impossible, being relative and therefore uncertain, is called agnosticism. Therefore, the agnostic claims that no decision regarding God's existence can be made. Agnosticism may manifest itself in a variety of ways. In science it is known as Positivism. This system of thinking was fathered by August Comte. This is the view that man can only know that which is phenomenal, that is observed and verifiable facts alone are true. Since the idea of God cannot be scientifically demonstrated or examined it is therefore unprovable. In philosophy and theology agnosticism may be manifest as pragmatism. This system of thought rejects special revelation and the competence of the human intellect to fathom
ultimate reality. Since suspended judgment regarding a matter is often difficult if not impossible, this viewpoint would say that we should accept whatever view yields the best results.C. Deism
The deist removes God from the world, denying his immanence and emphasizing his transcendence. He impersonalizes God, although often claims to believe in a personal God, viewing him merely as a power. According to this viewpoint God has built into the universe certain laws which govern it. The deist rejects the concepts of providence, miracle, and special revelation. This leaves him with a purely natural religion.
At the extreme opposite end of the philosophical continuum from the deist is the pantheist. He identifies God with his creation. Pantheism merges the natural and the supernatural into one substance. It manifests itself in several forms but basically all forms deny the transcendence of God. Since, according to this viewpoint, God is not personal he has no intelligence or will. [4]
E. Polytheism
It probably began with the early departure of man from an original monotheism in the direction of nature worship. This, in turn, led to the personification of the elements and thus to the worship of many gods. It is of no small significance that the Bible associates idol worship, which is an outgrowth of polytheism, with demon worship.
F. Dualism
This theory assumes that there are two distinct and irreducible forms of reality in the universe. In the area of religion these are good and evil or God and Satan. These two principles or beings are in constant competition on a more or less equal basis often with the idea of a gradual and growing success of God for the good. This means that God is finite. Christian theism does not believe that God and Satan are co-eternal but that Satan is a creature of God and thus ultimately subject to him. The refutation of these viewpoints lies in the statement of a truly biblical theology. The
remainder of this section, indeed of this entire work on systematic theology, will hopefully provide such a statement.
II. Rational Proofs for the Existence of God
The often advanced proofs for the existence of God are attempts to provide a philosophical basis for believing in God. They were developed (exclusive of the ontological argument) by Thomas Aquinas as support for his natural theology which held that man could come to a knowledge of God on the basis of reason alone (apart from special revelation). These arguments have been stated and re-stated by many fine theologians down to this day although serious questions have been raised against them.
A. Cosmological Argument
This is the argument related to the world and is said to provide evidence for God's existence as first cause. Every new thing or change must have a cause. Since the universe as a whole and in all its parts is a system of change it must have a cause exterior to itself which ultimately must be uncaused. The constitution of the world then embodies the need for a prime cause.
B. Teleological Argument
This is the argument related to design or purpose. It is said to provide evidence for God's existence which is afforded by the presence of order and adaptation in the universe. Order and design suggest intelligence and such intelligence as this suggests will. Intelligence and will together constitute personality. Since we see design, order, and purpose in the universe there must be some person behind this. There must be an intellect which is responsible.
C. Anthropological Argument
This is the argument related to man and is sometimes referred to as the “moral argument.” It is said to give evidence for God’s existence which is afforded by moral consciousness and by the history of mankind. Man's constitution seems to suggest that there would be some higher being to satisfy his intellect and emotions. His moral nature, that is, that phase of the action of his will and conscience for God, suggest the need of a higher being who has set the standards of right and wrong.
How can the most depraved being have some idea of right and wrong? Conscience implies responsibility in moral authority and thus in moral character. Man’s religious desires suggest the existence of one to worship. Universally man worships something greater than, or, at least what he holes to be greater than, himself.
These first three arguments are usually called the a posteriori arguments. These are arguments which ascend from facts of experience to causes or principles. The fourth argument which follows is called the a priori argument. That is, it is an argument which proceeds from the necessary ideas of reason to the consequences necessarily deduced from them.
D. Ontological Argument
This is the argument related to the essential qualities of being. It has been set forth in at least two ways. Anselm of Canterbury developed it as follows: major premise--man has the idea of an infinitely perfect being; minor premise—existence is a necessary part of perfection; conclusion—the perfect being exists, otherwise the infinitely perfect as we conceive it would lack an essential element of perfection. Des Cartes developed the argument from a somewhat different standpoint. He held that man has the idea of a perfect being. This idea could not come from a finite being. Therefore, the perfect being must exist somewhere.
These “proofs” have come in for much criticism as an adequate defense of biblical theism, because of the limitations inherent within them, from philosopher and theologian alike. [5] If the "proofs" are offered to defend a natural theology based on natural revelation (reason) alone the criticism is well-taken.
All Christian apologetics, however, do not argue in quite that way. Howe, for example, prefaces his discussion of the arguments for theism with a careful consideration of Romans 1:19-20. He suggests that the passage teaches that “... the biblical basis for the truth about the innate idea of God” is “inside the thinking process of every human being." [6] He goes on to point cut that "the reasons or arguments for the existence of God when presented carefully in this light, thus flow vitally and ultimately from the realm of truth, not error.” [7]
William G. T. Shedd argues similarly that “they assist the development of the idea of God, and contain a scientific analysis of man's natural consciousness of the deity. These arguments all derive their force from the innate idea, and the constitutional structure of man." [8] In his treatment Howe not only states the traditional arguments but gives succinct responses to the major objections lodged against them by non-theist and theist alike. [9]
When used properly, with a recognition of their limitations, these arguments may well have apologetic value. But, for whatever value they have, it should be noted they have one common weakness. Without the clear light of biblical revelation to supplement them, the God whom they identify is nameless and faceless, and although immensely greater in the final analysis, only finitely greater than the author of the arguments. Further, in pointing out that for those reasons God in all probability exists, room is left for the possibility of the opposite.A good balance is suggested by Howe when he states:
Scripture clearly sets the limits on the evidence deposited in creation concerning the being of God. The truth stands, as Romans 1:20 states, in the undeniable evidence for God's eternal power and divine nature. Furthermore, Scripture itself is the clear and authoritative interpretation of what evidence is open to reason here. The place of theistic argumentation is to function squarely within this scriptural pattern of Romans 1:20, and not to step beyond this circumscribed area. [10]
III. The Witness of Intuition
By the witness of intuition we mean a witness in man related to the fact that he is imago dei rather than to naturally innate ideas which he may possess. It is not meant that the idea of God is self-originated. It is not acquired by reasoning processes of the human will although it may be grasped by the human reason.
This witness is universal in the testimony of scripture and history (Rom. 1:19-21; 2:14-16). It is also necessary; that is, man cannot deny the existence of God without doing violence to the laws of his nature as a creature of God. This knowledge of God is acquired spontaneously and necessarily because man was created in the image of God and thus has a religious sense (albeit a twisted, blurred and inaccurate one due to the Fall).
IV. The Biblical Witness
The existence of God is assumed by scripture. There is no formal attempt made to prove it. This is immediately apparent in the very verse of scripture where the Creator is presupposed to have been in existence prior to his creation. Hebrews 11:6, “And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seed him," is perhaps the closest that the scriptures come to an express declaration regarding the existence of God.
In commenting on this passage Hughes states:Throughout the whole of Scripture the existence of God is never a matter of doubt or debate. Such reasonings as are found (for example, Ps. 19:1 ff; Rom. 1:19 ff.) always start from assurance, never from uncertainty. God is not a metaphysical concept for questioning and discussion. He is the
supreme reality, and the foundation and source of all created being. [11]Furthermore, there is no speculation in the scriptures as to how this knowledge arose in men's minds. This follows from the fact that what mankind knows of God is known through divine disclosure rather than human discovery.
V. A Definition of God
Since we are talking here of the Infinite One even the heading of this section may seem presumptuous and offensive. By his very nature God cannot be defined in the usual sense of the term. Nonetheless, since we have affirmed that God does exist and may be known we are faced with the question, who is he?
(Note: Whether it is chauvinistic to refer to God with the masculine pronoun is matter of heated theological debate today. The unfortunate thing is that most of the discussion involves more heat than light and often misses the biblical sense altogether. Scripture does not present the God of reality as being of one sex or the other. He is not viewed as either a male or female deity in contrast to the various gods and goddesses of the heathen.As Henry observes, “When Scripture speaks of God as 'he' the pronoun is primarily personal (generic) rather than masculine (specific); it emphasizes God's personality—and, in turn, that of the Father, Son and Spirit as Trinitarian distinctions—in contrast to impersonal entities." [12]
As far as imagery is concerned, the Bible employs both masculine and feminine figures in an effort to adequately portray the fullness of the divine being and activity. The use of masculine gender distinctions do predominate throughout scripture, however, and should be acknowledged as a matter of fact. Most of the roles he fills are best described in such terms: Father, Lord, Judge, King, etc. We need make no apology for referring to God as “he” since this is the predominant biblical pattern and is not a merely cultural phenomenon. Theologians on occasion may be chauvinistic, regretfully, but biblical revelation never is.)
In an attempt to answer the question, ‘who is God?’, three lines of answer are forthcoming from the scriptures. One, which we will deal with here, arises from truth about himself that God discloses through the way he has named himself. The other, to be treated in the following chapter, comes from a consideration of the perfections (attributes) of God as let forth in the Bible.
A. Major Old Testament Designations
Following there are listed the name of God (Yahweh) together with the three primary designations found in the Old Testament. The one divine name is made known in a series of divine self-manifestations, and the variety of names through which God identifies himself give an enlarging revelation of God's nature. [13]
Note carefully that this is terminology given or used by God concerning himself. Rather than being inventions of men seemed fitting of the God whom they worship, they are self-revelations. As such they tell us something about God's many-faceted nature and character. In fact, on occasion in scripture God’s name is used as a summary way to refer to his entire nature or to some perfection of God that is expressive of his nature. [14]
Naming is the way one expresses what something really is in Scripture. That is, names may be given to interpret a person or thing. For example, in naming the animals Adam was telling what they really were; in re-naming Abram as Abraham God was showing something of Abraham's place in the history of redemption; in naming Jesus through the angel God the Father was indicating that he was to be the savior.
Also, naming is an expression of power and authority over the thing or person named. For example, in naming the animals Adam was indicating his mastery over them. In this connection it is most significant that God names himself. None can be his master (as was often the case in pagan religion where to know the name of god was to control him).
The significance of the “name" of God can only be appreciated against the background of a comparison of cultures. Allen helps us to grasp the significance of "name" in Hebrew culture as follows:
In our own culture all names have their meanings, but because of the many languages from which our name-stock is taken, the meanings usually have to be searched out in books designed for expectant parents. It is not the meaning that is paramount, however, in our culture. Rather, usually we give our children names that "sound nice," or that honor a relative or friend….
It is in our fuzziness concerning the meaning of names that we are reminded of our great cultural distance from the Old Testament world. For in the world of Abraham, David, and Isaiah, names were common nouns and verbs from the living language and their meanings were transparent. The meaning of a name was in fact the reason for that name being used. L. Kohler has explained that “it is the prevailing view among the Hebrews that names have meaning; they ‘speak’.” [15] More fully, P. van Imschoot [16] wrote, "In the eyes of the ancients the name was, not a simple label distinguishing one individual from his kinsman. It is an integrating part, of the person; what has no name is, so to speak, non-existent. ... Moreover, the name is supposed to correspond to the essence of the object, and consequently reveals it." [17]
The discussion will be limited to Old Testament terms since the New Testament designations provide no advance over the revelation given in the Old Testament.
1. Yahweh
This term is translated by “LORD" in the Authorized Version, The New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, and the Revised Standard Version. This name is used only of the true God in the Bible (over 6100 times). It is God's proper name par excellence (Exod. 15:2-3; Ps. 13:18; Hosea 12:5; Isa. 42:8; Amos 4:13, 5:8, 5:27). Because of a misinterpretation of Leviticus 24:16 (understanding “blasphemes” as “speaks") the Jews of old would not pronounce this word. When the scribes wrote it they destroyed the pen they used. Consequently, the name whereby God intended himself to be known became lost or "hidden" to his own chosen people. (Even today the pious Jew substitutes "Adonai," “the Name," “Heaven" or some other term for the tetragrammaton.) This is especially tragic in light of the obvious intent of God as he answered Moses' question in Exodus 3:13. It is his design that he be known through his name (Exod. 3:14-15). As von Rad notes, God did not intend his name to become
… a "mystery," to which only the initiated could have access. On the contrary, each and every Israelite was at liberty to avail himself of it, and once he had become fully aware of the distinctiveness of her worship, Israel did not hide this name of God from the Gentiles in fear but rather felt herself in duty bound to make it known to them (Isa. 4; Ps. 1-3). [18]
The meaning of the term is disputed by Hebrew scholars. While all agree that it is derived from the verb "to be," there are a variety of opinions as to exactly how. A recent, but minority view holds that it is a noun rather than a verb. Thus it means "being" or "existence" and refers to God as "The Existent One." [19]
The most commonly held views that Yahweh is a qal form meaning "He is." It represents Moses' statement to the people regarding God's self-revelation, "I am that I am”. Following this line of interpretation the term carries the idea of eternity, absoluteness and self-existence (Exod. 3:13-15; cf. John 8:58). Some understand a future sense and translate "He will be" following the corresponding "I will be that I will be." If this be the proper sense it conveys the thought of the ever faithful God.
The former concept places emphasis upon an ontological truth while the latter lees it as a dynamic truth. In the one case the nature of God is revealed by the name, while in the other his relationship to his people is underscored. Ultimately the two cannot be separated since the latter is predicated upon the former. [20]
Allen’s comments on Exodus 3:14-15 will underscore the importance of the truth being set forth by Yahweh as he responds to Moses' question about his name.
In the words I AM... God asserts in 'the strongest means possible in human language his absolute being. He exists dependent upon nothing or no one excepting his own will. "I AM!" No one can say those words in the sense of Exodus 3: 14 excepting God himself. The creator of the universe is the only personality who does not depend upon the universe for his existence.
We must insist, however, that the words I AM refer not to static being but to active existence. All of the biblical descriptions of the glory of God are dynamic in nature. Never is God immobile, passive, static--rather he is charged with his own life, power, and dynamic. When God says of himself, "I AM," he speaks of his active existence, pulsing with power and throbbing with life. [21]
He continues his presentation with comments on verse fifteen which serve to heighten our understanding of the unfolding truth.
First, we may make an observation concerning the relationship of the two terms, "I AM" (v. 14) and "Yahweh" (v. 15). While these seem to be remote from each other, they are really closely related. Both terms are forms of the Hebrew verb "to be." The English translation of the Hebrew word in verse 14 ('ehyeh) as l AM," reflects the fact that this verb is a first person form of the root. The word "Yahweh" is merely a transliteration of the third person of the same verb. Hence, Yahweh means “HE IS.” Whereas in Exodus 3:14 God says of himself, “I AM,” when we speak of him we do not say “I AM,” but rather “HE IS.” It is for that reason that the third person form of the verb, namely Yahweh, has come down through history as the Name of God, as stated clearly in verse 15.
Second, we may now develop a bit further the meaning of Yahweh from that given above. Whereas the words "I AM/HE IS" are appropriate renderings of the respective Hebrew verbs in those two verses, they are not the only rendering possible. Equally possible is the future tense: “I WILL BE/HE WILL BE." In fact, this is precisely the translation given of the Hebrew word ’ehweh in verse 12, "Certainly I will be with you." The close association of the content of verse 12 to verses 14-15 must have some influence. The terms "I AM/Yahweh" speak not only of God's absolute existence, as noted above, but also of his relatedness to his own people. Many Old Testament scholars like to speak of "Yahweh" as the "covenant name" of God. They are correct. In this name he relates himself to his people forever…. Hence his existence, in a dynamic and powerful expression, is related to our good! ...
Is there any wonder, then, that the name of God is the most blessed vocable of human speech? ... God says of his name Yahweh that this is his name forever, and that this is his memorial designation for all generations. By his name he posits his being. Further, by his name he declared he will continue to exist for our good. In this one word we have blended together in perfect unity God's transcendence and his relatedness to his people. [22]
Finally, a more recent and less widely held view is that Yahweh is a hiphil (causative) form properly translated “he who causes to be." The basis for this approach is found in Exodus 6:2-8 where God is seen as the cause of Israel's formation into a national entity. Verse three particularly creates a tension with the statement, "I appeared to Abraham... as El Shaddai, but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known...." It is certainly difficult to take Yahweh simply as "He is" here. But, if he is saying "... by my name 'Creator of the nation' I was not fully experienced...," it does make good sense. Likewise, if the term is seen as a qal with future force, that is if the emphasis is upon the faithful, covenant-keeping One, it makes perfectly Good sense in this context (see verses 4 and 5). [23]
If we accept the latter suggestion then there is agreement between Exodus 6 and Exodus 3 which seems clearly to be a qal. If the hiphil is held to be preferable in chapter 6, acknowledging that chapter 3 is a qal, it may suffice to say that the name of God is fittingly complex and, hence, the need for both qal and hiphil.
Taking the overall evidence, it would seem preferable to understand Yahweh as a qal with perhaps a designed ambiguity as to whether it is imperfect or future. Thus, the name sets forth our God as the self-existent One who keeps-covenant with and manifests grace toward his chosen.
2. Elohim (El; Eloah)
For many years the documentary hypothesis of the origins of the Pentateuch has reigned supreme (despite the fact that it has often been answered by evangelicals. [24] Even the critics themselves have recognized its bankruptcy as noted in the following words of H. H. Rowley: “That it is widely rejected in whole or in part is doubtless true, but there is no view to put in its place that would not be more widely and emphatically rejected.... The Graf-Wellhausen view is only a working hypothesis, which can be abandoned with alacrity when a more satisfying view is found, but which cannot with profit be abandoned until then.” [25] This viewpoint has been appealed to as support for the idea that. Yahweh and Elohim are two separate gods. In light of the disrepair of the documentary hypothesis the basis for such a notion is discredited, too. Furthermore, as Henry notes,
Nothing seems farther from the intention of the Old Testament writers than the notion of documentary critics that the names ELOHIM and JEHOVAH are not interchangeable, as if they did not designate one and the same deity.... the monotheistic emphasis overshadows the whole of Israel's transcendent spiritual relationships; the several names of the God of the Bible appear everywhere as names of the one God. [26]
This word is translated by the English word "God" in the major translations. Its New Testament equivalent is the Greek word theos. It is used both of heathen deities (e.g., Gen. 35:1, 2, 4) and of the true God in the Old Testament (2570 times).
It often occurs as El (e.g., Ps. 19:1), especially in combining forms (e.g., El Elyon, Gen. 14:18, 19, 20, 22; Num. 24:16; El Shaddai, Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; Exod. 6:3; El Bethel, Gen. 31:13; El Roi, Gen. 16:13; El Elohe-Israel, Gen. 33:20; El Olam, Gen. 21:33). (Some feel, however, that El and Elohim are not from the same root. Gerhardus Vos holds that El is from a root meaning "to be strong '; hence, as a name it would mean “the strong one." [27]Elohim is held to be from a root meaning “fear” or “dread” and thus as a name it would mean “the one to whom one comes in fear or dread.”) El is probably the oldest Semitic form for God, being found in the earliest lists of names of men (Gen. 4:18; 25:13), but it should be noted that Elohim introduces the true God in scripture (Gen. 1:1).
Elohim is probably best understood as being from the root meaning “the strong one.” It is a plural word which renders it intensive and indicates fullness of strength or power. Hebrew grammarians some times refer to this as a plural of majesty. As the intensive form of the generic El it thus conveys the idea of genuine deity.
The term seems to be used of God as he is presented as the God of creation and power.
3. Adonai
This term is translated by the English word “Lord" in the major translations (450 times). Its New Testament equivalent is the Greek word kurios. This is another intensive plural form (from edon) and hence means "my great lord." It is used in the Old Testament both of deity and of man. When used of men it is the equivalent of our modern day "sir”. When used of deity it means "Master" or “Almighty Ruler" suggesting a servant-master or ruler-subject relationship and emphasizes man's dependence on God (Gen. 15:2; Ps. 2:4; Isa. 7:7; Mal. 1:6).
4. Sheddai
While this term is less frequently used than any of the above, because of such passages as Genesis 17:1 and Exodus 6:3 it is important. To date there is little agreement among scholars as to its meaning. Various possibilities suggested are "he who is sufficient,” “the One who deals with great power,” “the nourishing (sustaining) One,” “the exalted and lofty One,” "the omnipotent One." Most English translations give the meaning "almighty" thus following the last named suggestion (after the LXX) while weight of contemporary conservative scholarship seems to point in the direction of “he who is lofty like a mountain."
While there is at least general consensus on many aspects of the designations of God, it may well be asked, why is there so much question surrounding the final meaning of these names? As suggested above, the answer may lie, in part at least, in purposeful ambiguity. Can it be that
because God is ultimately ineffable there is both mystery and inscrutability attached to his name(s)? No one term, and not even many terms, can adequately capture and express the infinite nature of God.B. A Theological Statement
In the final analysis God cannot be defined. A description of a partial nature may be given of the known characteristics of God but this leaves his essential being unexplained. The following statement, inadequate as it is, is offered at least as a working definition: God is a self-existent, self-conscious personal being, who is the origin of all things, and who transcends the whole creation while being immanent in it. Regarding this
definition four observations should be made: 1) such a statement is a reasonable assumption; 2) it is not capable of logical demonstration; 3) it must be ultimately accepted by faith; and 4) such faith is based on reliable information as contained in the scriptures.One of the most comprehensive statements regarding God made in the history of the church is found in the Westminster Confession of Faith. It reads as follows:
There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts or passions: immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute: working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, longsuffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin: the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin and who will by no means clear the guilty.
God hath all life, glory, Goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself: and is alone in and unto Himself all sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleaseth. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.
The only potentially problematic part of the confession is its statement that God is “without…passions” (implying to some minds that he is without feelings, without compassion). Impassibility in God is only a problem if it is taken out of the larger context of the Confession which speaks of him as “most loving, etc”. Subsequent statements make it clear that what is meant is that God is not subject to whimsical change. J. I. Packer sees another side to this truth when he comments as follows:
God is impassible. This means that no one can inflict suffering, pain, or any sort of distress upon him. Insofar as God enters into experience of that kind, it is by empathy for his creatures and according to his own deliberate decision, not as his creatures’ victim. The words “of that kind” are important, for this impassibility has never been taken by the main Christian tradition to mean that God is a stranger to joy and delight; it has, rather, been construed as an assertion of the permanence of God’s joy, which no pain clouds. [28]
This chapter introduces the question, Does God exist and can he be known? In answer the antithesis between Job 11:7; Isaiah 40:18 and John 17:3; 1 John 5:20 should be noted. God is and is incomprehensible yet knowable but only by special revelation. He can be known but by self-revelation only
and that in a limited way. God is known only as he makes himself known.
References:
| 1 | C. F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, III, 427 |
| 2 | Ibid. p. 453 |
| 3 | L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, I, 136 |
| 4 | For an extensive refutation of pantheism see H. C. Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, Revised, pp. 36 ff. |
| 5 | See e.g., Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, I, 160-163, and Carl F. H. Henry, God Revelation and Authority, II, 104-123 |
| 6 | Frederic R. Howe, Challenge and Response, p. 80 |
| 7 | Ibid., p. 81 |
| 8 | Dogmatic Theology, I, 210 |
| 9 | Howe, op. cit., pp. 88-101 |
| 10 | Ibid., p. 85 |
| 11 | Philip E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrew's, p. 462 |
| 12 | Henry, Op. cit., V, 159 |
| 13 | Ibid., II, 175 |
| 14 | See Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, p. 83 |
| 15 | Ludwig Kohler, Hebrew Man, translated by Peter R. Ackroyd, p. 55 |
| 16 | Paul van Imschoot, Theology of the Old Testament, I. God, trans. by Kathryn Sullivan and Fidelis Buck, p. 35 |
| 17 | Ronald Barclay Allen, “What is in A Name", God: What is He Like? compiled by William F. Kerr, pp. 108-9 |
| 18 | Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I, 185 |
| 19 | See R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 400-401 |
| 20 | See J. Barton Payne, The Theology of the Older Testament, p. 147, G. Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I, 10-11; W. E. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 189-90 |
| 21 | Allen, Op. cit.., pp. 122-23 |
| 22 | Ibid., pp. 123-25). |
| 23 | See W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age To Christianity: Monotheism and the Historic Process, pp. 759-60 |
| 24 | See e.g., Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, pp. 84 ff |
| 25 | H. H. Rowley, The Growth of the Old Testament, p. 46 |
| 26 | Henry, Op. cit., II, 182 |
| 27 | Gerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, pp. 77 |
| 28 | J. I. Packer, Christian Faith and Practice in the Modern World, Mark Noll and David Wells, eds., pp. 34-35; see also the more extended statement on pp. 44-45. Also note, Walter Kaiser, A Biblical Approach to Personal Suffering, pp. 59-62. |
|
Copyright © 2007 by
AncientPath Network
and the authors. All rights reserved. |
052107
