PrefaceNowthatmySystematicTheologyisagainbeingreprinted,thePrefacecanbe

verybrief.Itisnotnecessarytosaymuchaboutthenatureofthework,sinceithasbeenbeforethepublicformorethanfifteenyearsandhasbeenusedextensively.Ihaveeveryreasontobegratefulforitskindreception,forthefavourabletestimonyofmanyreviewers,andforthefactthatthebookisnowusedasatextbookinmanyTheologicalSeminariesandBibleSchoolsinourcountry,andthatrequestswereevenreceivedfromabroadforpermissiontotranslateitintootherlanguages.TheseareblessingswhichIhadnotanticipated,andforwhichIamdeeplygratefultoGod.ToHimbeallthehonor.AndiftheworkmaycontinuetobeablessinginmanysectionsoftheChurchofJesusChrist,itwillbutincreasemyrecognitionoftheabundantgraceofGod.

L.Berkhof

GrandRapids,Michigan,August1,1949.

PARTONE:THEDOCTRINEOFGOD

THEBEINGOFGOD

I.TheExistenceofGod

A.PLACEOFTHEDOCTRINEOFGODINDOGMATICSWORKSondogmaticorsystematictheologygenerallybeginwiththe

doctrineofGod.Theprevailingopinionhasalwaysrecognizedthisasthemostlogicalprocedureandstillpointsinthesamedirection.Inmanyinstanceseventheywhosefundamentalprincipleswouldseemtorequireanotherarrangement,continuethetraditionalpractice.TherearegoodreasonsforstartingwiththedoctrineofGod,ifweproceedontheassumptionthattheologyisthesystematizedknowledgeofGod,ofwhom,throughwhom,anduntowhom,areallthings.InsteadofbeingsurprisedthatDogmaticsshouldbeginwiththedoctrineofGod,wemightwellexpectittobeastudyofGodthroughoutinallitsramifications,fromthebeginningtotheend.Asamatteroffact,thatisexactlywhatitisintendedtobe,thoughonlythefirstlocusdealswithGoddirectly,whilethesucceedingonestreatofHimmoreindirectly.Westartthestudyoftheologywithtwopresuppositions,namely(1)thatGodexists,and(2)thatHehasrevealedHimselfinHisdivineWord.AndforthatreasonitisnotimpossibleforustostartwiththestudyofGod.WecanturntoHisrevelation,inordertolearnwhatHehasrevealedconcerningHimselfandconcerningHisrelationtoHiscreatures.AttemptshavebeenmadeinthecourseoftimetodistributethematerialofDogmaticsinsuchawayastoexhibitclearlythatitis,notmerelyinonelocus,butinitsentirety,astudyofGod.Thiswasdonebytheapplicationofthetrinitarianmethod,whicharrangesthesubject-matterofDogmaticsunderthethreeheadingsof(1)theFather(2)theSon,and(3)theHolySpirit.Thatmethodwasappliedinsomeoftheearliersystematicworks,wasrestoredtofavorbyHegel,andcanstillbeseeninMartensen’sChristianDogmatics.AsimilarattemptwasmadebyBreckenridge,whenhedividedthesubject-matterofDogmaticsinto(1)TheKnowledgeofGodObjectivelyConsidered,and(2)TheKnowledgeofGodSubjectivelyConsidered.Neitheroneofthesecanbecalledverysuccessful.

Uptothebeginningofthenineteenthcenturythepracticewasallbutgeneral

tobeginthestudyofDogmaticswiththedoctrineofGod;butachangecameaboutundertheinfluenceofSchleiermacher,whosoughttosafeguardthescientificcharacteroftheologybytheintroductionofanewmethod.ThereligiousconsciousnessofmanwassubstitutedfortheWordofGodasthesourceoftheology.FaithinScriptureasanauthoritativerevelationofGodwasdiscredited,andhumaninsightbasedonman’sownemotionalorrationalapprehensionbecamethestandardofreligiousthought.ReligiongraduallytooktheplaceofGodastheobjectoftheology.ManceasedtorecognizetheknowledgeofGodassomethingthatwasgiveninScripture,andbegantopridehimselfonbeingaseekerafterGod.Incourseoftimeitbecamerathercommontospeakofman’sdiscoveringGod,asifmaneverdiscoveredHim;andeverydiscoverythatwasmadeintheprocesswasdignifiedwiththenameof“revelation.”Godcameinattheendofasyllogism,orasthelastlinkinachainofreasoning,orasthecap-stoneofastructureofhumanthought.UndersuchcircumstancesitwasbutnaturalthatsomeshouldregarditasincongruoustobeginDogmaticswiththestudyofGod.Itisrathersurprisingthatsomany,inspiteoftheirsubjectivism,continuedthetraditionalarrangement.

Some,however,sensedtheincongruityandstruckoutinadifferentway.Schleiermacher’sdogmaticworkisdevotedtoastudyandanalysisofthereligiousconsciousnessandofthedoctrinesthereinimplied.HedoesnotdealwiththedoctrineofGodconnectedly,butonlyinfragments,andconcludeshisworkwithadiscussionoftheTrinity.Hisstartingpointisanthropologicalratherthantheological.SomeofthemediatingtheologianswereinfluencedtosuchanextentbySchleiermacherthattheylogicallybegantheirdogmatictreatiseswiththestudyofman.Eveninthepresentdaythisarrangementisoccasionallyfollowed.AstrikingexampleofitisfoundintheworkofO.A.CurtisonTheChristianFaith.ThisbeginswiththedoctrineofmanandconcludeswiththedoctrineofGod.Ritschliantheologymightseemtocallforstillanotherstartingpoint,sinceitfindstheobjectiverevelationofGod,notintheBibleasthedivinelyinspiredWord,butinChristastheFounderoftheKingdomofGod,andconsiderstheideaoftheKingdomasthecentralandall-controllingconceptoftheology.However,Ritschliandogmaticians,suchasHerrmann.Haering,andKaftanfollow,atleastformally,theusualorder.AtthesametimethereareseveraltheologianswhointheirworksbeginthediscussionofdogmaticsproperwiththedoctrineofChristorofHisredemptivework.T.B.StrongdistinguishesbetweentheologyandChristiantheology,definesthelatteras“theexpressionandanalysisoftheIncarnationofJesusChrist,”andmakestheincarnationthe

dominatingconceptthroughouthisManualofTheology.

B.SCRIPTUREPROOFFORTHEEXISTENCEOFGODForustheexistenceofGodisthegreatpresuppositionoftheology.Thereis

nosenseinspeakingoftheknowledgeofGod,unlessitmaybeassumedthatGodexists.ThepresuppositionofChristiantheologyisofaverydefinitetype.Theassumptionisnotmerelythatthereissomething,someideaorideal,somepowerorpurposefultendency,towhichthenameofGodmaybeapplied,butthatthereisaself-existent,self-conscious,personalBeing,whichistheoriginofallthings,andwhichtranscendstheentirecreation,butisatthesametimeimmanentineverypartofit.Thequestionmayberaised,whetherthisisareasonableassumption,andthisquestionmaybeansweredintheaffirmative.Thisdoesnotmean,however,thattheexistenceofGodiscapableofalogicaldemonstrationthatleavesnoroomwhateverfordoubt;butitdoesmeanthat,whilethetruthofGod’sexistenceisacceptedbyfaith,thisfaithisbasedonreliableinformation.WhileReformedtheologyregardstheexistenceofGodasanentirelyreasonableassumption,itdoesnotclaimtheabilitytodemonstratethisbyrationalargumentation.Dr.Kuyperspeaksasfollowsoftheattempttodothis:“TheattempttoproveGod’sexistenceiseitheruselessorunsuccessful.ItisuselessifthesearcherbelievesthatGodisarewarderofthosewhoseekHim.Anditisunsuccessfulifitisanattempttoforceapersonwhodoesnothavethispistisbymeansofargumentationtoanacknowledgmentinalogicalsense.”1

TheChristianacceptsthetruthoftheexistenceofGodbyfaith.Butthisfaithisnotablindfaith,butafaiththatisbasedonevidence,andtheevidenceisfoundprimarilyinScriptureastheinspiredWordofGod,andsecondarilyinGod’srevelationinnature.Scriptureproofonthispointdoesnotcometousintheformofanexplicitdeclaration,andmuchlessintheformofalogicalargument.InthatsensetheBibledoesnotprovetheexistenceofGod.TheclosestitcomestoadeclarationisperhapsinHeb.11:6...“forhethatcomethtoGodmustbelievethatHeis,andthatHeisarewarderofthemthatseekafterHim.”ItpresupposestheexistenceofGodinitsveryopeningstatement,“InthebeginningGodcreatedtheheavensandtheearth.”NotonlydoesitdescribeGodastheCreatorofallthings,butalsoastheUpholderofallHiscreatures,andastheRulerofthedestiniesofindividualsandnations.IttestifiestothefactthatGodworksallthingsaccordingtothecounselofHiswill,andrevealsthegradualrealizationofHisgreatpurposeofredemption.Thepreparationforthis

work,especiallyinthechoiceandguidanceoftheoldcovenantpeopleofIsrael,isclearlyseenintheOldTestament,andtheinitialculminationofitinthePersonandworkofChriststandsoutwithgreatclarityonthepagesoftheNewTestament.GodisseenonalmosteverypageofHolyWritasHerevealsHimselfinwordsandactions.ThisrevelationofGodisthebasisofourfaithintheexistenceofGod,andmakesthisanentirelyreasonablefaith.Itshouldberemarked,however,thatitisonlybyfaiththatweaccepttherevelationofGod,andthatweobtainarealinsightintoitscontents.Jesussaid,“Ifanymanwilldohiswill,heshallknowofthedoctrine,whetheritbeofGod,orwhetherIspeakofmyself,”John7:17.Itisthisintensiveknowledge,resultingfromintimatecommunionwithGod,whichHoseahasinmindwhenhesays,“Andletusknow,letusfollowontoknowtheLord,”Hos.6:3.TheunbelieverhasnorealunderstandingoftheWordofGod.ThewordsofPaulareverymuchtothepointinthisconnection:“Whereisthewise?whereisthescribe?whereisthedisputerofthisage(world)?HathnotGodmadefoolishthewisdomoftheworld?For,seeingthatinthewisdomofGodtheworldthroughitswisdomknewnotGod,itwasGod’sgoodpleasurethroughthefoolishnessofthepreachingtosavethemthatbelieve,”ICor.1:20,21.

C.DENIALOFTHEEXISTENCEOFGODINITSVARIOUSFORMSStudentsofComparativeReligionandmissionariesoftentestifytothefact

thattheideaofGodispracticallyuniversalinthehumanrace.Itisfoundevenamongthemostuncivilizednationsandtribesoftheworld.Thisdoesnotmean,however,thattherearenoindividualswhodenytheexistenceofGodaltogether,noreventhatthereisnotagoodlynumberinChristianlandswhodenytheexistenceofGodasHeisrevealedinScripture,aself-existentandself-consciousPersonofinfiniteperfections,whoworksallthingsaccordingtoapre-determinedplan.Itisthelatterdenialthatwehaveinmindparticularlyhere.Thismayandhasassumedvariousformsinthecourseofhistory.

1.ABSOLUTEDENIALOFTHEEXISTENCEOFGOD.Asstatedabove,thereisstrongevidencefortheuniversalpresenceoftheideaofGodinthehumanmind,evenamongtribeswhichareuncivilizedandhavenotfelttheimpactofspecialrevelation.InviewofthisfactsomegosofarastodenythattherearepeoplewhodenytheexistenceofGod,realatheists;butthisdenialiscontradictedbythefacts.Itiscustomarytodistinguishtwokinds,namely,practicalandtheoreticalatheists.Theformeraresimplygodlesspersons,whointheir

practicallifedonotreckonwithGod,butliveasiftherewerenoGod.Thelatterare,asarule,ofamoreintellectualkind,andbasetheirdenialonaprocessofreasoning.Theyseektoprovebywhatseemtothemconclusiverationalarguments,thatthereisnoGod.InviewofthesemenreligionisimplantedineverymanbyhiscreationintheimageofGod,itissafetoassumethatnooneisbornanatheist.InthelastanalysisatheismresultsfromthepervertedmoralstateofmanandfromhisdesiretoescapefromGod.Itisdeliberatelyblindtoandsuppressesthemostfundamentalinstinctofman,thedeepestneedsofthesoul,thehighestaspirationsofthehumanspirit,andthelongingsofaheartthatgropesaftersomehigherBeing.Thispracticalorintellectualsuppressionoftheoperationofthesemenreligionisofteninvolvesprolongedandpainfulstruggles.

Therecanbenodoubtabouttheexistenceofpracticalatheists,sincebothScriptureandexperiencetestifytoit.Psalm10:4bdeclaresofthewicked,“Allhisthoughtsare,ThereisnoGod.”AccordingtoPs.14:1“Thefoolhathsaidinhisheart,ThereisnoGod.”AndPaulremindstheEphesiansthattheywereformerly“withoutGodintheworld,”Eph.2:12.Experiencealsotestifiesabundantlytotheirpresenceintheworld.Theyarenotnecessarilynotoriouslywickedintheeyesofmen,butmaybelongtotheso-called“decentmenoftheworld,”thoughrespectablyindifferenttospiritualthings.SuchpeopleareoftenquiteconsciousofthefactthattheyareoutofharmonywithGod,dreadtothinkofmeetingHim,andtrytoforgetaboutHim.Theyseemtotakeasecretdelightinparadingtheir-atheismwhentheyhavesmoothsailing,buthavebeenknowntogetdownontheirkneesforprayerwhentheirlifewassuddenlyendangered.AtthepresenttimethousandsofthesepracticalatheistsbelongtotheAmericanAssociationfortheAdvancementofAtheism.

Theoreticalatheistsareofadifferentkind.TheyareusuallyofamoreintellectualtypeandattempttojustifytheassertionthatthereisnoGodbyrationalargumentation.Prof.Flintdistinguishesthreekindsoftheoreticalatheism,namely,(1)dogmaticatheism,whichflatlydeniesthatthereisaDivineBeing;(2)scepticalatheism,whichdoubtstheabilityofthehumanmindtodetermine,whetherornotthereisaGod;and(3)criticalatheism,whichmaintainsthatthereisnovalidprooffortheexistenceofGod.Theseoftengohandinhand,buteventhemostmodestofthemreallypronouncesallbeliefinGodadelusion.2Inthisdivision,itwillbenoticed,agnosticismalsoappearsasasortofatheism,aclassificationwhichmanyagnosticsresent.ButitshouldbeborneinmindthatagnosticismrespectingtheexistenceofGod,whileallowing

thepossibilityofHisreality,leavesuswithoutanobjectofworshipandadorationjustasmuchasdogmaticatheismdoes.Howevertherealatheististhedogmaticatheist,themanwhomakesthepositiveassertionthatthereisnoGod.Suchanassertionmaymeanoneoftwothings:eitherthatherecognizesnogodofanykind,setsupnoidolforhimself,orthathedoesnotrecognizetheGodofScripture.Nowthereareveryfewatheistswhodonotinpracticallifefashionsomesortofgodforthemselves.Thereisafargreaternumberwhotheoreticallysetasideanyandeverygod;andthereisastillgreaternumberthathasbrokenwiththeGodofScripture.Theoreticalatheismisgenerallyrootedinsomescientificorphilosophicaltheory.MaterialisticMonisminitsvariousformsandatheismusuallygohandinhand.AbsolutesubjectiveIdealismmaystillleaveustheideaofGod,butdeniesthatthereisanycorrespondingreality.TothemodernHumanist“God”simplymeans“theSpiritofhumanity,”“theSenseofwholeness,”“theRacialGoal”andotherabstractionsofthatkind.OthertheoriesnotonlyleaveroomforGod,butalsopretendtomaintainHisexistence,butcertainlyexcludetheGodoftheism,asupremepersonalBeing,Creator,Preserver,andRuleroftheuniverse,distinctfromHiscreation,andyeteverywherepresentinit.Pantheismmergesthenaturalandsupernatural,thefiniteandinfinite,intoonesubstance.ItoftenspeaksofGodasthehiddengroundofthephenomenalworld,butdoesnotconceiveofHimaspersonal,andthereforeasendowedwithintelligenceandwill.ItboldlydeclaresthatallisGod,andthusengagesinwhatBrightmancalls“theexpansionofGod,”sothatweget“toomuchofGod,”seeingthatHealsoincludesalltheeviloftheworld.ItexcludestheGodofScripture,andinsofarisclearlyatheistic.Spinozamaybecalled“theGod-intoxicatedman,”buthisGodiscertainlynottheGodwhomChristiansworshipandadore.Surely,therecanbenodoubtaboutthepresenceoftheoreticalatheistsintheworld.WhenDavidHumeexpresseddoubtastotheexistenceofadogmaticatheist,Barond’Holbachreplied,“Mydearsir,youareatthismomentsittingattablewithseventeensuchpersons.”TheywhoareagnosticrespectingtheexistenceofGodmaydiffersomewhatfromthedogmaticatheist,butthey,aswellasthelatter,leaveuswithoutaGod.

2.PRESENTDAYFALSECONCEPTIONSOFGODINVOLVINGADENIALOFTHETRUEGOD.ThereareseveralfalseconceptionsofGodcurrentinourday,whichinvolveadenialofthetheisticconceptionofGod.Abriefindicationofthemostimportantofthesemustsufficeinthisconnection.

a.AnimmanentandimpersonalGod.TheismhasalwaysbelievedinaGod

whoisbothtranscendentandimmanent.DeismremovedGodfromtheworld,andstressedHistranscendenceattheexpenseofHisimmanence.UndertheinfluenceofPantheism,however,thependulumswungintheotherdirection.ItidentifiedGodandtheworld,anddidnotrecognizeaDivineBeing,distinctfrom,andinfinitelyexaltedabove,Hiscreation.ThroughSchleiermacherthetendencytomakeGodcontinuouswiththeworldgainedafootingintheology.HecompletelyignoresthetranscendentGod,andrecognizesonlyaGodthatcanbeknownbyhumanexperienceandmanifestsHimselfinChristianconsciousnessasAbsoluteCausality,towhichafeelingofabsolutedependencecorresponds.TheattributesweascribetoGodareinthisviewmerelysymbolicalexpressionsofthevariousmodesofthisfeelingofdependence,subjectiveideaswithoutanycorrespondingreality.HisearlierandhislaterrepresentationsofGodseemtodiffersomewhat,andinterpretersofSchleiermacherdifferastothewayinwhichhisstatementsmustbeharmonized.Brunnerwouldseemtobequitecorrect,however,whenhesaysthatwithhimtheuniversetakestheplaceofGod,thoughthelatternameisused;andthatheconceivesofGodbothasidenticalwiththeuniverseandastheunitylyingbehindit.ItoftenseemsasifhisdistinctionbetweenGodandtheworldisonlyanidealone,namely,thedistinctionbetweentheworldasaunityandtheworldinitsmanifoldmanifestations.HefrequentlyspeaksofGodasthe“Universum”orthe“Welt-All,”andarguesagainstthepersonalityofGod;though,inconsistently,alsospeakingasifwecouldhavecommunionwithHiminChrist.TheseviewsofSchleiermacher,makingGodcontinuouswiththeworld,largelydominatedthetheologyofthepastcentury,anditisthisviewthatBarthiscombattingwithhisstrongemphasisonGodas“theWhollyOther.”

b.AfiniteandpersonalGod.Theideaofafinitegodorgodsisnotnew,butasoldasPolytheismandHenotheism.TheideafitsinwithPluralism,butnotwithphilosophicalMonismortheologicalMonotheism.TheismhasalwaysregardedGodasanabsolutepersonalBeingofinfiniteperfections.Duringthenineteenthcentury,whenmonisticphilosophywasintheascendant,itbecamerathercommontoidentifytheGodoftheologywiththeAbsoluteofphilosophy.Towardtheendofthecentury,however,theterm“Absolute,”asadesignationofGod,fellintodisfavor,partlybecauseofitsagnosticandpantheisticimplications,andpartlyastheresultoftheoppositiontotheideaofthe“Absolute”inphilosophy,andofthedesiretoexcludeallmetaphysicsfromtheology.BradleyregardedtheGodoftheChristianreligionasapartoftheAbsolute,andJamespleadedforaconceptionofGodthatwasmoreinharmony

withhumanexperiencethantheideaofaninfiniteGod.HeeliminatesfromGodthemetaphysicalattributesofself-existence,infinity,andimmutability,andmakesthemoralattributessupreme.Godhasanenvironment,existsintime,andworksoutahistoryjustlikeourselves.Becauseoftheevilthatisintheworld,Hemustbethoughtofaslimitedinknowledgeorpower,orinboth.TheconditionoftheworldmakesitimpossibletobelieveinagoodGodinfiniteinknowledgeandpower.Theexistenceofalargerpowerwhichisfriendlytomanandwithwhichhecancommunemeetsallthepracticalneedsandexperiencesofreligion.Jamesconceivedofthispoweraspersonal,butwasnotwillingtoexpresshimselfastowhetherhebelievedinonefiniteGodoranumberofthem.BergsonaddedtothisconceptionofJamestheideaofastrugglingandgrowingGod,constantlydrawinguponhisenvironment.OtherswhodefendedtheideaofafiniteGod,thoughindifferentways,areHobhouse,Schiller,JamesWard,Rashdall,andH.G.Wells.

c.Godasthepersonificationofamereabstractidea.Ithasbecomequitethevogueinmodernliberaltheologytoregardthename“God”asameresymbol,standingforsomecosmicprocess,someuniversalwillorpower,orsomeloftyandcomprehensiveideal.Thestatementisrepeatedlymadethat,ifGodoncecreatedmaninHisimage,manisnowreturningthecomplimentbycreatingGodinhis(man’s)image.ItissaidofHarryElmerBarnesthatheoncesaidinoneofhislaboratoryclasses:“Gentlemen,weshallnowproceedtocreateGod.”Thatwasaverybluntexpressionofarathercommonidea.MostofthosewhorejectthetheisticviewofGodstillprofessfaithinGod,butHeisaGodoftheirownimagination.TheformwhichHeassumesatanyparticulartimedepends,accordingtoShailerMathews,onthethoughtpatternsofthatday.Ifinpre-wartimesthecontrollingpatternwasthatofanautocraticsovereign,demandingabsoluteobedience,nowitisthatofademocraticrulereagertoserveallhissubjects.SincethedaysofComtetherehasbeenatendencytopersonifythesocialorderofhumanityasawholeandtoworshipthispersonification.Theso-calledMelioristsorSocialTheologiansrevealatendencytoidentifyGodinsomewaywiththesocialorder.AndtheNewPsychologistsinformusthattheideaofGodisaprojectionofthehumanmind,whichinitsearlystagesisinclinedtomakeimagesofitsexperiencesandtoclothethemwithquasi-personality.LeubaisoftheopinionthatthisillusionofGodhasservedausefulpurpose,butthatthetimeiscomingwhentheideaofGodwillbenomoreneeded.Afewdefinitionswillservetoshowthepresentdaytrend.“Godistheimmanentspiritofthecommunity”(Royce).Heis“thatqualityinhumansociety

whichsupportsandenricheshumanityinitsspiritualquest”(GeraldBirneySmith).“Godisthetotalityofrelationsconstitutingthewholesocialorderofgrowinghumanity”(E.S.Ames).“Theword‘god’isasymboltodesignatetheuniverseinitsidealformingcapacity”(G.B.Foster).“Godisourconception,bornofsocialexperience,ofthepersonality-evolvingandpersonallyresponsiveelementsofourcosmicenvironmentwithwhichweareorganicallyrelated”(ShailerMathews).ItneedhardlybesaidthattheGodsodefinedisnotapersonalGodanddoesnotanswertothedeepestneedsofthehumanheart.

D.THESO-CALLEDRATIONALPROOFSFORTHEEXISTENCEOFGOD.

IncourseoftimecertainrationalargumentsfortheexistenceofGodweredeveloped,andfoundafootholdintheologyespeciallythroughtheinfluenceofWolff.SomeofthesewereinessencealreadysuggestedbyPlatoandAristotle,andotherswereaddedinmoderntimesbystudentsofthePhilosophyofReligion.Onlythemostcommonoftheseargumentscanbementionedhere.

1.THEONTOLOGICALARGUMENT.ThishasbeenpresentedinvariousformsbyAnselm,Descartes,SamuelClarke,andothers.IthasbeenstatedinitsmostperfectformbyAnselm.Hearguesthatmanhastheideaofanabsolutelyperfectbeing;thatexistenceisanattributeofperfection;andthatthereforeanabsolutelyperfectbeingmustexist.Butitisquiteevidentthatwecannotconcludefromabstractthoughttorealexistence.ThefactthatwehaveanideaofGoddoesnotyetproveHisobjectiveexistence.Moreover,thisargumenttacitlyassumes,asalreadyexistinginthehumanmind,theveryknowledgeofGod’sexistencewhichitwouldderivefromlogicaldemonstration.Kantstressedtheuntenablenessofthisargument,butHegelhaileditastheonegreatargumentfortheexistenceofGod.SomemodernIdealistssuggestedthatitmightbetterbecastintoasomewhatdifferentform,whichHockingcalled“thereportofexperience.”Byvirtueofitwecansay,“IhaveanideaofGod,thereforeIhaveanexperienceofGod.”

2.THECOSMOLOGICALARGUMENT.Thishasalsoappearedinseveralforms.Ingeneralitrunsasfollows:Everyexistingthingintheworldmusthaveanadequatecause;andifthisisso,theuniversemustalsohaveanadequatecause,thatisacausewhichisindefinitelygreat.However,theargumentdidnotcarrygeneralconviction.Humecalledthelawofcausationitselfinquestion,andKant

pointedoutthat,ifeveryexistingthinghasanadequatecause,thisalsoappliestoGod,andthatwearethusledtoanendlesschain.Moreover,theargumentdoesnotnecessitatetheassumptionthatthecosmoshadasinglecause,apersonalandabsolutecause,—andthereforefallsshortofprovingtheexistenceofGod.Thisdifficultyledtoaslightlydifferentconstructionoftheargument,as,forinstance,byB.P.Bowne.Thematerialuniverseappearsasaninteractingsystem,andthereforeasaunit,consistingofseveralparts.HencetheremustbeaunitaryAgentthatmediatestheinteractionofthevariouspartsoristhedynamicgroundoftheirbeing.

3.THETELEOLOGICALARGUMENT.Thisisalsoacausalargument,andisreallybutanextensionoftheprecedingone.Itmaybestatedinthefollowingform:Theworldeverywhererevealsintelligence,order,harmony,andpurpose,andthusimpliestheexistenceofanintelligentandpurposefulbeing,adequatetotheproductionofsuchaworld.Kantregardsthisargumentasthebestofthethreewhichwerenamed,butclaimsthatitdoesnotprovetheexistenceofGod,norofaCreator,butonlyofagreatarchitectwhofashionedtheworld.Itissuperiortothecosmologicalargumentinthatitmakesexplicitwhatisnotstatedinthelatter,namely,thattheworldcontainsevidencesofintelligenceandpurpose,andthusleadsontotheexistenceofaconscious,andintelligent,andpurposefulbeing.ThatthisbeingwastheCreatoroftheworlddoesnotnecessarilyfollow.“Theteleologicalevidence,”saysWright,3“merelyindicatestheprobableexistenceofaMindthatis,atleastinconsiderablemeasure,incontroloftheworldprocess,—enoughtoaccountfortheamountofteleologyapparentinit.”Hegeltreatedthisargumentasavalidbutsubordinateone.TheSocialTheologiansofourdayrejectitalongwithalltheotherargumentsassomuchrubbish,buttheNewTheistsretainit.

4.THEMORALARGUMENT.Justastheotherarguments,thistooassumeddifferentforms.Kanttookhisstartingpointinthecategoricalimperative,andfromitinferredtheexistenceofsomeonewho,aslawgiverandjudge,hastheabsoluterighttocommandman.Inhisestimationthisargumentisfarsuperiortoanyoftheothers.ItistheoneonwhichhemainlyreliesinhisattempttoprovetheexistenceofGod.Thismaybeoneofthereasonswhyitismoregenerallyrecognizedthananyother,thoughitisnotalwayscastintothesameform.Somearguefromthedisparityoftenobservedbetweenthemoralconductofmenandtheprosperitywhichtheyenjoyinthepresentlife,andfeelthatthiscallsforanadjustmentinthefuturewhich,inturn,requiresarighteousarbiter.Modern

theologyalsousesitextensively,especiallyintheformthatman’srecognitionofaHighestGoodandhisquestforamoralidealdemandandnecessitatetheexistenceofaGodtogiverealitytothatideal.Whilethisargumentdoespointtotheexistenceofaholyandjustbeing,itdoesnotcompelbeliefinaGod,aCreator,orabeingofinfiniteperfections.

5.THEHISTORICALORETHNOLOGICALARGUMENT.Inthemainthistakesthefollowingform:Amongallthepeoplesandtribesoftheearththereisasenseofthedivine,whichrevealsitselfinanexternalcultus.Sincethephenomenonisuniversal,itmustbelongtotheverynatureofman.Andifthenatureofmannaturallyleadstoreligiousworship,thiscanonlyfinditsexplanationinahigherBeingwhohasconstitutedmanareligiousbeing.Inanswertothisargument,however,itmaybesaidthatthisuniversalphenomenonmayhaveoriginatedinanerrorormisunderstandingofoneoftheearlyprogenitorsofthehumanrace,andthatthereligiouscultusreferredtoappearsstrongestamongprimitiveraces,anddisappearsinthemeasureinwhichtheybecomecivilized.

Inevaluatingtheserationalargumentsitshouldbepointedoutfirstofallthatbelieversdonotneedthem.TheirconvictionrespectingtheexistenceofGoddoesnotdependonthem,butonabelievingacceptanceofGod’sself-revelationinScripture.IfmanyinourdayarewillingtostaketheirfaithintheexistenceofGodonsuchrationalarguments,itistoagreatextentduetothefactthattheyrefusetoacceptthetestimonyoftheWordofGod.Moreover,inusingtheseargumentsinanattempttoconvinceunbelievers,itwillbewelltobearinmindthatnoneofthemcanbesaidtocarryabsoluteconviction.NoonedidmoretodiscreditthemthanKant.Sincehisdaymanyphilosophersandtheologianshavediscardedthemasutterlyworthless,butto-daytheyareoncemoregainingfavorandtheirnumberisincreasing.AndthefactthatinourdaysomanyfindinthemrathersatisfyingindicationsoftheexistenceofGod,wouldseemtoindicatethattheyarenotentirelydevoidofvalue.Theyhavesomevalueforbelieversthemselves,butshouldbecalledtestimoniaratherthanarguments.TheyareimportantasinterpretationsofGod’sgeneralrevelationandasexhibitingthereasonablenessofbeliefinadivineBeing.Moreover,theycanrendersomeserviceinmeetingtheadversary.WhiletheydonotprovetheexistenceofGodbeyondthepossibilityofdoubt,soastocompelassent,theycanbesoconstruedastoestablishastrongprobabilityandtherebysilencemanyunbelievers.

QUESTIONSFORFURTHERSTUDY.Whyismoderntheologyinclinedtogivethe

studyofmanratherthanthestudyofGodprecedenceintheology?DoestheBibleprovetheexistenceofGodordoesitnot?Ifitdoes,howdoesitproveit?Whataccountsforthegeneralsensusdivinitatisinman?Aretherenationsortribesthatareentirelydevoidofit?Canthepositionbemaintainedthattherearenoatheists?ShouldpresentdayHumanistsbeclassedasatheists?WhatobjectionsaretheretotheidentificationofGodwiththeAbsoluteofphilosophy?DoesafiniteGodmeettheneedsoftheChristianlife?IsthedoctrineofafiniteGodlimitedtoPragmatists?WhyisapersonifiedideaofGodapoorsubstituteforthelivingGod?WhatwasKant’scriticismontheargumentsofspeculativereasonfortheexistenceofGod?Howshouldwejudgeofthiscriticism?

LITERATURE:Bavinck,Geref.Dogm.II,pp.52-74;Kuyper,Dict.Dogm.DeDeoI,pp.77-123;Hodge,Syst.Theol.I,pp.202-243;Shedd.Dogm.Theol.I,pp.221-248;Dabney,Syst.andPolem.Theol.,pp.5-26;Macintosh,Theol.asanEmpiricalScience,pp.90-99;Knudson,TheDoctrineofGod,pp.203-241;Beattie,Apologetics,pp.250-444;Brightman,TheProblemofGod,pp.139-165;Wright,AStudent’sPhil.ofRel.,pp.339-390;Edward,ThePhilosophyofRel.,pp.218-305;Beckwith,TheIdeaofGod,pp.64-115;Thomson,TheChristianIdeaofGod,pp.160-189;Robinson,TheGodoftheLiberalChristian,pp.114-149;Galloway,ThePhil.ofRel.,pp.381-394.

II.TheKnowabilityofGod

A.GODINCOMPREHENSIBLEBUTYETKNOWABLETheChristianChurchconfessesontheonehandthatGodisthe

IncomprehensibleOne,butalsoontheotherhand,thatHecanbeknownandthatknowledgeofHimisanabsoluterequisiteuntosalvation.ItrecognizestheforceofZophar’squestion,“CanstthoubysearchingfindoutGod?CanstthoufindouttheAlmightyuntoperfection?”Job11:7.AnditfeelsthatithasnoanswertothequestionofIsaiah,“TowhomthenwillyelikenGod?orwhatlikenesswillyecompareuntoHim?”Isa.40:18.ButatthesametimeitisalsomindfulofJesus’statement,“Andthisislifeeternal,thattheyshouldknow

Thee,theonlytrueGod,andHimwhomthoudidstsend,evenJesusChrist,”John17:3.Itrejoicesinthefactthat“theSonofGodiscome,andhathgivenusanunderstanding,thatweknowHimthatistrue,andweareinHimthatistrue,eveninHisSonJesusChrist.”IJohn5:20.ThetwoideasreflectedinthesepassageswerealwaysheldsidebysideintheChristianChurch.TheearlyChurchFathersspokeoftheinvisibleGodasanunbegotten,nameless,eternal,incomprehensible,unchangeableBeing.TheyhadadvancedverylittlebeyondtheoldGreekideathattheDivineBeingisabsoluteattributelessexistence.AtthesametimetheyalsoconfessedthatGodrevealedHimselfintheLogos,andcanthereforebeknownuntosalvation.InthefourthcenturyEunomius,anArian,arguedfromthesimplicityofGod,thatthereisnothinginGodthatisnotperfectlyknownandcomprehendedbythehumanintellect,buthisviewwasrejectedbyalltherecognizedleadersoftheChurch.TheScholasticsdistinguishedbetweenthequidandthequalisofGod,andmaintainedthatwedonotknowwhatGodisinHisessentialBeing,butcanknowsomethingofHisnature,ofwhatHeistous,asHerevealsHimselfinHisdivineattributes.ThesamegeneralideaswereexpressedbytheReformers,thoughtheydidnotagreewiththeScholasticsastothepossibilityofacquiringrealknowledgeofGod,byunaidedhumanreason,fromgeneralrevelation.LutherspeaksrepeatedlyofGodastheDeusAbsconditus(hiddenGod),indistinctionfromHimastheDeusRevelatus(revealedGod).InsomepassagesheevenspeaksoftherevealedGodasstillahiddenGodinviewofthefactthatwecannotfullyknowHimeventhroughHisspecialrevelation.ToCalvin,GodinthedepthsofHisbeingispastfindingout.“Hisessence,”hesays,“isincomprehensible;sothatHisdivinitywhollyescapesallhumansenses.”TheReformersdonotdenythatmancanlearnsomethingofthenatureofGodfromHiscreation,butmaintainthathecanacquiretrueknowledgeofHimonlyfromspecialrevelation,undertheilluminatinginfluenceoftheHolySpirit.Undertheinfluenceofthepantheizingtheologyofimmanence,inspiredbyHegelandSchleiermacher,achangecameabout.ThetranscendenceofGodissoft-pedaled,ignored,orexplicitlydenied.Godisbroughtdowntotheleveloftheworld,ismadecontinuouswithit,andisthereforeregardedaslessincomprehensible,thoughstillshroudedinmystery.SpecialrevelationinthesenseofadirectcommunicationofGodtomanisdenied.SufficientknowledgeofGodcanbeobtainedwithoutit,sincemancandiscoverGodforhimselfinthedepthsofhisownbeing,inthematerialuniverse,andaboveallinJesusChrist,sincetheseareallbutoutwardmanifestationsoftheimmanentGod.ItisoveragainstthistrendintheologythatBarthnowraises

hisvoiceandpointsoutthatGodisnottobefoundinnature,inhistory,orinhumanexperienceofanykind,butonlyinthespecialrevelationthathasreachedusintheBible.InhisstrongstatementsrespectingthehiddenGodheusesthelanguageofLutherratherthanofCalvin.

ReformedtheologyholdsthatGodcanbeknown,butthatitisimpossibleformantohaveaknowledgeofHimthatisexhaustiveandperfectineveryway.TohavesuchaknowledgeofGodwouldbeequivalenttocomprehendingHim,andthisisentirelyoutofthequestion:“Finitumnonpossitcapereinfinitum.”Furthermore,mancannotgiveadefinitionofGodinthepropersenseoftheword,butonlyapartialdescription.Alogicaldefinitionisimpossible,becauseGodcannotbesubsumedundersomehighergenus.AtthesametimeitismaintainedthatmancanobtainaknowledgeofGodthatisperfectlyadequatefortherealizationofthedivinepurposeinthelifeofman.However,trueknowledgeofGodcanbeacquiredonlyfromthedivineself-revelation,andonlybythemanwhoacceptsthiswithchildlikefaith.Religionnecessarilypresupposessuchaknowledge.ItisthemostsacredrelationbetweenmanandhisGod,arelationinwhichmanisconsciousoftheabsolutegreatnessandmajestyofGodasthesupremeBeing,andofhisownutterinsignificanceandsubjectiontotheHighandHolyOne.Andifthisistrue,itfollowsthatreligionpresupposestheknowledgeofGodinman.IfmanwereleftabsolutelyinthedarkrespectingthebeingofGod,itwouldbeimpossibleforhimtoassumeareligiousattitude.Therecouldbenoreverence,nopiety,nofearofGod,noworshipfulservice.

B.DENIALOFTHEKNOWABILITYOFGODThepossibilityofknowingGodhasbeendeniedonvariousgrounds.This

denialisgenerallybasedonthesupposedlimitsofthehumanfacultyofcognition,thoughithasbeenpresentedinseveraldifferentforms.Thefundamentalpositionisthatthehumanmindisincapableofknowinganythingofthatwhichliesbeyondandbehindnaturalphenomena,andisthereforenecessarilyignorantofsupersensibleanddivinethings.Huxleywasthefirsttoapplytothosewhoassumethisposition,himselfincluded,thename“agnostics.”TheyareentirelyinlinewiththescepticsofformercenturiesandofGreekphilosophy.Asaruleagnosticsdonotliketobebrandedasatheists,sincetheydonotdenyabsolutelythatthereisaGod,butdeclarethattheydonotknowwhetherHeexistsornot,andevenifHeexists,arenotcertainthattheyhaveany

trueknowledgeofHim,andinmanycasesevendenythattheycanhaveanyrealknowledgeofHim.

Humehasbeencalledthefatherofmodernagnosticism.HedidnotdenytheexistenceofGod,butassertedthatwehavenotrueknowledgeofHisattributes.AllourideasofHimare,andcanonlybe,anthropomorphic.WecannotbesurethatthereisanyrealitycorrespondingtotheattributesweascribetoHim.Hisagnosticismresultedfromthegeneralprinciplethatallknowledgeisbasedonexperience.ItwasespeciallyKant,however,whostimulatedagnosticthoughtbyhissearchinginquiryintothelimitsofthehumanunderstandingandreason.Heaffirmedthatthetheoreticalreasonknowsonlyphenomenaandisnecessarilyignorantofthatwhichunderliesthesephenomena,—thethinginitself.Fromthisitfollowed,ofcourse,thatitisimpossibleforustohaveanytheoreticalknowledgeofGod.ButLotzealreadypointedoutthatphenomena,whetherphysicalormental,arealwaysconnectedwithsomesubstancelyingbackofthem,andthatinknowingthephenomenawealsoknowtheunderlyingsubstance,ofwhichtheyaremanifestations.TheScotchphilosopher,SirWilliamHamilton,whilenotinentireagreementwithKant,yetsharedtheintellectualagnosticismofthelatter.Heassertsthatthehumanmindknowsonlythatwhichisconditionedandexistsinvariousrelations,andthat,sincetheAbsoluteandInfiniteisentirelyunrelated,thatisexistsinnorelations,wecanobtainnoknowledgeofit.ButwhilehedeniesthattheInfinitecanbeknownbyus,hedoesnotdenyitsexistence.Sayshe,“Throughfaithweapprehendwhatisbeyondourknowledge.”HisviewsweresharedinsubstancebyMansel,andwerepopularizedbyhim.TohimalsoitseemedutterlyimpossibletoconceiveofaninfiniteBeing,thoughhealsoprofessedfaithinitsexistence.Thereasoningofthesetwomendidnotcarryconviction,sinceitwasfeltthattheAbsoluteorInfinitedoesnotnecessarilyexistoutsideofallrelations,butcanenterintovariousrelations;andthatthefactthatweknowthingsonlyintheirrelationsdoesnotmeanthattheknowledgesoacquiredismerelyarelativeorunrealknowledge.

Comte,thefatherofPositivism,wasalsoagnosticinreligion.Accordingtohimmancanknownothingbutphysicalphenomenaandtheirlaws.Hissensesarethesourcesofalltruethinking,andhecanknownothingexceptthephenomenawhichtheyapprehendandtherelationsinwhichthesestandtoeachother.Mentalphenomenacanbereducedtomaterialphenomena,andinsciencemancannotgetbeyondthese.Eventhephenomenaofimmediateconsciousness

areexcluded,andfurther,everythingthatliesbehindthephenomena.Theologicalspeculationrepresentsthoughtinitsinfancy.NopositiveaffirmationcanbemaderespectingtheexistenceofGod,andthereforeboththeismandatheismstandcondemned.InlaterlifeComtefelttheneedofsomereligionandintroducedtheso-called“religionofHumanity.”EvenmorethanComte,HerbertSpencerisrecognizedasthegreatexponentofmodernscientificagnosticism.HewasinfluencedverymuchbyHamilton’sdoctrineoftherelativityofknowledgeandbyMansel’sconceptionoftheAbsolute,andinthelightoftheseworkedouthisdoctrineoftheUnknowable,whichwashisdesignationofwhatevermaybeabsolute,firstorultimateintheorderoftheuniverse,includingGod.Heproceedsontheassumptionthatthereissomerealitylyingbackofphenomena,butmaintainsthatallreflectiononitlandsusincontradictions.Thisultimaterealityisutterlyinscrutable.WhilewemustaccepttheexistenceofsomeultimatePower,eitherpersonalorimpersonal,wecanformnoconceptionofit.InconsistentlyhedevotesagreatpartofhisFirstPrinciplestothedevelopmentofthepositivecontentoftheUnknowable,asifitwerewellknownindeed.Otheragnostics,whowereinfluencedbyhim,aresuchmenasHuxley,Fiske,andClifford.WemeetwithagnosticismalsorepeatedlyinmodernHumanism.HarryElmerBarnessays:“Tothewriteritseemsquiteobviousthattheagnosticpositionistheonlyonewhichcanbesupportedbyanyscientifically-mindedandcritically-inclinedpersoninthepresentstateofknowledge.”4

Besidestheformsindicatedintheprecedingtheagnosticargumenthasassumedseveralothers,ofwhichthefollowingaresomeofthemostimportant.(1)Manknowsonlybyanalogy.Weknowonlythatwhichbearssomeanalogytoourownnatureorexperience:“Similiasimilibuspercipiuntur.”Butwhileitistruethatwelearnagreatdealbyanalogy,wealsolearnbycontrast.Inmanycasesthedifferencesaretheverythingsthatarrestourattention.TheScholasticsspokeofthevianegationisbywhichtheyinthoughteliminatedfromGodtheimperfectionsofthecreature.Moreover,weshouldnotforgetthatmanismadeintheimageofGod,andthatthereareimportantanalogiesbetweenthedivinenatureandthenatureofman.(2)Manreallyknowsonlywhathecangraspinitsentirety.BrieflystatedthepositionisthatmancannotcomprehendGod,whoisinfinite,cannothaveanexhaustiveknowledgeofHim,andthereforecannotknowHim.Butthispositionproceedsontheunwarrantedassumptionthatpartialknowledgecannotberealknowledge,anassumptionwhichwouldreallyinvalidateallourknowledge,sinceitalwaysfallsfarshortofcompleteness.OurknowledgeofGod,thoughnotexhaustive,mayyetbeveryrealandperfectly

adequateforourpresentneeds.(3)AllpredicatesofGodarenegativeandthereforefurnishnorealknowledge.HamiltonsaysthattheAbsoluteandtheInfinitecanonlybeconceivedasanegationofthethinkable;whichreallymeansthatwecanhavenoconceptionofthematall.ButthoughitistruethatmuchofwhatwepredicatetoGodisnegativeinform,thisdoesnotmeanthatitmaynotatthesametimeconveysomepositiveidea.TheaseityofGodincludesthepositiveideaofhisself-existenceandself-sufficiency.Moreover,suchideasaslove,spirituality,andholiness,arepositive.(4)Allourknowledgeisrelativetotheknowingsubject.Itissaidthatweknowtheobjectsofknowledge,notastheyareobjectively,butonlyastheyarerelatedtooursensesandfaculties.Intheprocessofknowledgewedistortandcolourthem.Inasenseitisperfectlytruethatallourknowledgeissubjectivelyconditioned,buttheimportoftheassertionunderconsiderationseemstobethat,becauseweknowthingsonlythroughthemediationofoursensesandfaculties,wedonotknowthemastheyare.Butthisisnottrue;insofaraswehaveanyrealknowledgeofthings,thatknowledgecorrespondstotheobjectivereality.Thelawsofperceptionandthoughtarenotarbitrary,butcorrespondtothenatureofthings.Withoutsuchcorrespondence,notonlytheknowledgeofGod,butalltrueknowledgewouldbeutterlyimpossible.

SomeareinclinedtolookuponthepositionofBarthasaspeciesofagnosticism.ZerbesaysthatpracticalagnosticismdominatesBarth’sthinkingandrendershimavictimoftheKantianunknowablenessoftheThing-in-Itself,andquoteshimasfollows:“RomansisarevelationoftheunknownGod;Godcomestoman,notmantoGod.EvenaftertherevelationmancannotknowGod,forHeisalwaystheunknownGod.InmanifestingHimselftousHeisfartherawaythaneverbefore.(Rbr.p.53)”.5AtthesametimehefindsBarth’sagnosticism,likethatofHerbertSpencer,inconsistent.Sayshe:“ItwassaidofHerbertSpencerthatheknewagreatdealaboutthe‘Unknowable’;soofBarth,onewondershowhecametoknowsomuchofthe‘UnknownGod’.”6Dickiespeaksinasimilarvein:“InspeakingofatranscendentGod,BarthseemssometimestobespeakingofaGodofWhomwecanneverknowanything.”7Hefinds,however,thatinthisrespecttootherehasbeenachangeofemphasisinBarth.WhileitisperfectlyclearthatBarthdoesnotmeantobeanagnostic,itcannotbedeniedthatsomeofhisstatementscanreadilybeinterpretedashavinganagnosticflavor.HestronglystressesthefactthatGodisthehiddenGod,whocannotbeknownfromnature,history,orexperience,butonlybyHisself-revelationinChrist,whenitmeetswiththeresponseoffaith.Buteveninthis

revelationGodappearsonlyasthehiddenGod.GodrevealsHimselfexactlyasthehiddenGod,andthroughHisrevelationmakesusmoreconsciousofthedistancewhichseparatesHimfrommanthanweeverwerebefore.ThiscaneasilybeinterpretedtomeanthatwelearnbyrevelationmerelythatGodcannotbeknown,sothatafterallwearefacetofacewithanunknownGod.ButinviewofallthatBarthhaswrittenthisisclearlynotwhathewantstosay.Hisassertion,thatinthelightofrevelationweseeGodasthehiddenGod,doesnotexcludetheideathatbyrevelationwealsoacquireagreatdealofusefulknowledgeofGodasHeentersintorelationswithHispeople.WhenHesaysthateveninHisrevelationGodstillremainsforustheunknownGod,hereallymeans,theincomprehensibleGod.TherevealingGodisGodinaction.ByHisrevelationwelearntoknowHiminHisoperations,butacquirenorealknowledgeofHisinnerbeing.ThefollowingpassageinTheDoctrineoftheWordofGod,8isratherilluminating:“Onthisfreedom(freedomofGod)reststheinconceivabilityofGod,theinadequacyofallknowledgeoftherevealedGod.Eventhethree-in-onenessofGodisrevealedtousonlyinGod’soperations.Thereforethethree-in-onenessofGodisalsoinconceivabletous.Hence,too,theinadequacyofallourknowledgeofthethree-in-oneness.Theconceivabilitywithwhichithasappearedtous,primarilyinScripture,secondarilyintheChurchdoctrineoftheTrinity,isacreaturelyconceivability.TotheconceivabilityinwhichGodexistsforHimselfitisnotonlyrelative:itisabsolutelyseparatefromit.Onlyuponthefreegraceofrevelationdoesitdependthattheformerconceivability,initsabsoluteseparationfromitsobject,isvetnotwithouttruth.Inthissensethethree-in-onenessofGod,asweknowitfromtheoperationofGod,istruth.”

C.SELF-REVELATIONTHEPREREQUISITEOFALLKNOWLEDGEOFGOD

1.GODCOMMUNICATESKNOWLEDGEOFHIMSELFTOMAN.KuypercallsattentiontothefactthattheologyastheknowledgeofGoddiffersinanimportantpointfromallotherknowledge.Inthestudyofallothersciencesmanplaceshimselfabovetheobjectofhisinvestigationandactivelyelicitsfromithisknowledgebywhatevermethodmayseemmostappropriate,butintheologyhedoesnotstandabovebutratherundertheobjectofhisknowledge.Inotherwords,mancanknowGodonlyinsofarasthelatteractivelymakesHimselfknown.Godisfirstofallthesubjectcommunicatingknowledgetoman,andcanonlybecomean

objectofstudyformaninsofarasthelatterappropriatesandreflectsontheknowledgeconveyedtohimbyrevelation.WithoutrevelationmanwouldneverhavebeenabletoacquireanyknowledgeofGod.AndevenafterGodhasrevealedHimselfobjectively,itisnothumanreasonthatdiscoversGod,butitisGodwhodisclosesHimselftotheeyeoffaith.However,bytheapplicationofsanctifiedhumanreasontothestudyofGod’sWordmancan.undertheguidanceoftheHolySpirit,gainanever-increasingknowledgeofGod.BarthalsostressesthefactthatmancanknowGodonlywhenGodcomestohiminanactofrevelation.HeassertsthatthereisnowayfrommantoGod,butonlyfromGodtoman,andsaysrepeatedlythatGodisalwaysthesubject,andneveranobject.Revelationisalwayssomethingpurelysubjective,andcanneverturnintosomethingobjectivelikethewrittenWordofScripture,andassuchbecomeanobjectofstudy.ItisgivenonceforallinJesusChrist,andinChristcomestomenintheexistentialmomentoftheirlives.WhilethereareelementsoftruthinwhatBarthsays,hisconstructionofthedoctrineofrevelationisforeigntoReformedtheology.

Thepositionmustbemaintained,however,thattheologywouldbeutterlyimpossiblewithoutaself-revelationofGod.Andwhenwespeakofrevelation,weusetheterminthestrictsenseoftheword.ItisnotsomethinginwhichGodispassive,amere“becomingmanifest,”butsomethinginwhichHeisactivelymakingHimselfknown.Itisnot,asmanymodernswouldhaveit,adeepenedspiritualinsightwhichleadstoanever-increasingdiscoveryofGodonthepartofman;butasupernaturalactofself-communication,apurposefulactonthepartoftheLivingGod.ThereisnothingsurprisinginthefactthatGodcanbeknownonlyif,andinsofaras,HerevealsHimself.Inameasurethisisalsotrueofman.EvenafterPsychologyhasmadearatherexhaustivestudyofman,AlexisCarrellisstillabletowriteaveryconvincingbookonMantheUnknown.“Forwhoamongmen,”saysPaul,“knoweththethingsofaman,savethespiritoftheman,whichisinhim?evensothethingsofGodnoneknoweth,savetheSpiritofGod.”ICor.2:11.TheHolySpiritsearchethallthings,eventhedeepthingsofGod,andrevealsthemuntoman.GodhasmadeHimselfknown.AlongsideofthearchetypalknowledgeofGod,foundinGodHimself,thereisalsoanectypalknowledgeofHim,giventomanbyrevelation.Thelatterisrelatedtotheformerasacopyistotheoriginal,andthereforedoesnotpossessthesamemeasureofclearnessandperfection.AllourknowledgeofGodisderivedfromHisself-revelationinnatureandinScripture.Consequently,ourknowledgeofGodisontheonehandectypalandanalogical,butontheother

handalsotrueandaccurate,sinceitisacopyofthearchetypalknowledgewhichGodhasofHimself.

2.INNATEANDACQUIREDKNOWLEDGEOFGOD(COGNITIOINSITAANDACQUISTA).AdistinctionisusuallymadebetweeninnateandacquiredknowledgeofGod.Thisisnotastrictlylogicaldistinction,becauseinthelastanalysisallhumanknowledgeisacquired.Thedoctrineofinnateideasisphilosophicalratherthantheological.TheseedsofitarealreadyfoundinPlato’sdoctrineofideas,whileitoccursinCicero’sDeNaturaDeoruminamoredevelopedform.InmodernphilosophyitwastaughtfirstofallbyDescartes,whoregardedtheideaofGodasinnate.Hedidnotdeemitnecessarytoconsiderthisasinnateinthesensethatitwasconsciouslypresentinthehumanmindfromthestart,butonlyinthesensethatmanhasanaturaltendencytoformtheideawhenthemindreachesmaturity.Thedoctrinefinallyassumedtheformthattherearecertainideas,ofwhichtheideaofGodisthemostprominent,whichareinbornandarethereforepresentinhumanconsciousnessfrombirth.ItwasinthisformthatLockerightlyattackedthedoctrineofinnateideas,thoughhewenttoanotherextremeinhisphilosophicalempiricism.Reformedtheologyalsorejectedthedoctrineinthatparticularform.Andwhilesomeofitsrepresentativesretainedthename“innateideas,”butgaveitanotherconnotation,otherspreferredtospeakofacognitioDeiinsita(ingraftedorimplantedknowledgeofGod).OntheonehandthiscognitioDeiinsitadoesnotconsistinanyideasorformednotionswhicharepresentinmanatthetimeofhisbirth;butontheotherhanditismorethanamerecapacitywhichenablesmantoknowGod.Itdenotesaknowledgethatnecessarilyresultsfromtheconstitutionofthehumanmind,thatisinbornonlyinthesensethatitisacquiredspontaneously,undertheinfluenceofthesemenreligionisimplantedinmanbyhiscreationintheimageofGod,andthatisnotacquiredbythelaboriousprocessofreasoningandargumentation.Itisaknowledgewhichman,constitutedasheis,acquiresofnecessity,andassuchisdistinguishedfromallknowledgethatisconditionedbythewillofman.Acquiredknowledge,ontheotherhand,isobtainedbythestudyofGod’srevelation.Itdoesnotarisespontaneouslyinthehumanmind,butresultsfromtheconsciousandsustainedpursuitofknowledge.Itcanbeacquiredonlybythewearisomeprocessofperceptionandreflection,reasoningandargumentation.UndertheinfluenceoftheHegelianIdealismandofthemodernviewofevolutiontheinnateknowledgeofGodhasbeenover-emphasized;Barthontheotherhanddeniestheexistenceofanysuchknowledge.

3.GENERALANDSPECIALREVELATION.TheBibletestifiestoatwofoldrevelationofGod:arevelationinnatureroundaboutus,inhumanconsciousness,andintheprovidentialgovernmentoftheworld;andarevelationembodiedintheBibleastheWordofGod.Ittestifiestotheformerinsuchpassagesasthefollowing:“TheheavensdeclarethegloryofGod;andthefirmanentshowethHishandiwork.Dayuntodayutterethspeech,andnightuntonightshowethknowledge,”Ps.19:1,2.“AndyetHeleftnotHimselfwithoutwitness,inthatHedidgoodandgaveyoufromheavenrainsandfruitfulseasons,fillingyourheartswithfoodandgladness,”Acts14:17.“BecausethatwhichisknownofGodismanifestinthem;forGodmanifestedituntothem.FortheinvisiblethingsofHimsincethecreationoftheworldareclearlyseen,beingperceivedthroughthethingsthataremade,evenHiseverlastingpoweranddivinity,”Rom.1:19,20.OfthelatteritgivesabundantevidenceinboththeOldandtheNewTestament.“YetJehovahtestifieduntoIsrael,anduntoJudah,byeveryprophet,andeveryseer,saying,Turnyefromyourevilways,andkeepmycommandmentsandmystatutes,accordingtoallthelawwhichIcommandedyourfathers,andwhichIsenttoyoubymyservantstheprophets,”IKings17:13.“HehathmadeknownHiswaysuntoMoses,HisdoingsuntothechildrenofIsrael,”Ps.103:7.“NomanhathseenGodatanytime;theonlybegottenSon,whoisinthebosomoftheFather,HehathdeclaredHim,”John1:18.“God,havingofoldtimespokenuntothefathersintheprophetsbydiversportionsandindiversmanners,hathattheendofthesedaysspokentousinHisSon,”Heb.1:1,2.

Onthebasisofthesescripturaldataitbecamecustomarytospeakofnaturalandsupernaturalrevelation.Thedistinctionthusappliedtotheideaofrevelationisprimarilyadistinctionbasedonthemannerinwhichitiscommunicatedtoman;butinthecourseofhistoryithasalsobeenbasedinpartonthenatureofitssubject-matter.Themodeofrevelationisnaturalwhenitiscommunicatedthroughnature,thatis,throughthevisiblecreationwithitsordinarylawsandpowers.Itissupernaturalwhenitiscommunicatedtomaninahigher,supernaturalmanner,aswhenGodspeakstohim,eitherdirectly,orthroughsupernaturallyendowedmessengers.Thesubstanceofrevelationwasregardedasnatural,ifitcouldbeacquiredbyhumanreasonfromthestudyofnature;andwasconsideredtobesupernaturalwhenitcouldnotbeknownfromnature,norbyunaidedhumanreason.HenceitbecamequitecommonintheMiddleAgestocontrastreasonandrevelation.InProtestanttheologynaturalrevelationwasoftencalledarevelatiorealis,andsupernaturalrevelationarevelatioverbalis,

becausetheformerisembodiedinthings,andthelatterinwords.Incourseoftime,however,thedistinctionbetweennaturalandsupernaturalrevelationwasfoundtoberatherambiguous,sinceallrevelationissupernaturalinoriginand,asarevelationofGod,alsoincontent.EwaldinhisworkonRevelation:itsNatureandRecord9speaksoftherevelationinnatureasimmediaterevelation,andoftherevelationinScripture,whichheregardsastheonlyonedeservingthename“revelation”inthefullestsense,asmediaterevelation.Amorecommondistinction,however,whichgraduallygainedcurrency,isthatofgeneralandspecialrevelation.Dr.Warfielddistinguishesthetwoasfollows:“Theoneisaddressedgenerallytoallintelligentcreatures,andisthereforeaccessibletoallmen;theotherisaddressedtoaspecialclassofsinners,towhomGodwouldmakeknownHissalvation.TheonehasinviewtomeetandsupplythenaturalneedofcreaturesforknowledgeoftheirGod;theothertorescuebrokenanddeformedsinnersfromtheirsinanditsconsequences.”10Generalrevelationisrootedincreation,isaddressedtomanasman,andmoreparticularlytohumanreason,andfindsitspurposeintherealizationoftheendofhiscreation,toknowGodandthusenjoycommunionwithHim.SpecialrevelationisrootedintheredemptiveplanofGod,isaddressedtomanassinner,canbeproperlyunderstoodandappropriatedonlybyfaith,andservesthepurposeofsecuringtheendforwhichmanwascreatedinspiteofthedisturbancewroughtbysin.Inviewoftheeternalplanofredemptionitshouldbesaidthatthisspecialrevelationdidnotcomeinasanafter-thought,butwasinthemindofGodfromtheverybeginning.

Therewasconsiderabledifferenceofopinionrespectingtherelationofthesetwotoeachother.AccordingtoScholasticismnaturalrevelationprovidedthenecessarydatafortheconstructionofascientificnaturaltheologybyhumanreason.ButwhileitenabledmantoattaintoascientificknowledgeofGodastheultimatecauseofallthings,itdidnotprovidefortheknowledgeofthemysteries,suchastheTrinity,theincarnation,andredemption.Thisknowledgeissuppliedbyspecialrevelation.Itisaknowledgethatisnotrationallydemonstrablebutmustbeacceptedbyfaith.SomeoftheearlierScholasticswereguidedbytheslogan“Credoutintelligam,”and,afteracceptingthetruthsofspecialrevelationbyfaith,considereditnecessarytoraisefaithtounderstandingbyarationaldemonstrationofthosetruths,oratleasttoprovetheirrationality.ThomasAquinas,however,consideredthisimpossible,exceptinsofarasspecialrevelationcontainedtruthswhichalsoformedapartofnaturalrevelation.Inhisopinionthemysteries,whichformedtherealcontentsofsupernatural

revelation,didnotadmitofanylogicaldemonstration.Heheld,however,thattherecouldbenoconflictbetweenthetruthsofnaturalandthoseofsupernaturalrevelation.Ifthereappearstobeaconflict,thereissomethingwrongwithone’sphilosophy.Thefactremains,however,thatherecognized,besidesthestructurerearedbyfaithonthebasisofsupernaturalrevelation,asystemofscientifictheologyonthefoundationofnaturalrevelation.Intheformeroneassentstosomethingbecauseitisrevealed,inthelatterbecauseitisperceivedastrueinthelightofnaturalreason.Thelogicaldemonstration,whichisoutofthequestionintheone,isthenaturalmethodofproofintheother.

TheReformersrejectedthedualismoftheScholasticsandaimedatasynthesisofGod’stwofoldrevelation.Theydidnotbelieveintheabilityofhumanreasontoconstructascientificsystemoftheologyonthebasisofnaturalrevelationpureandsimple.Theirviewofthemattermayberepresentedasfollows:Asaresultoftheentranceofsinintotheworld,thehandwritingofGodinnatureisgreatlyobscured,andisinsomeofthemostimportantmattersratherdimandillegible.Moreover,manisstrickenwithspiritualblindness,andisthusdeprivedoftheabilitytoreadarightwhatGodhadoriginallyplainlywrittenintheworksofcreation.InordertoremedythematterandtopreventthefrustrationofHispurpose,Goddidtwothings.InHissupernaturalrevelationHerepublishedthetruthsofnaturalrevelation,clearedthemofmisconception,interpretedthemwithaviewtothepresentneedsofman,andthusincorporatedtheminHissupernaturalrevelationofredemption.AndinadditiontothatHeprovidedacureforthespiritualblindnessofmanintheworkofregenerationandsanctification,includingspiritualillumination,andthusenabledmanoncemoretoobtaintrueknowledgeofGod,theknowledgethatcarrieswithittheassuranceofeternallife.

WhenthechillwindsofRationalismsweptoverEurope,naturalrevelationwasexaltedattheexpenseofsupernaturalrevelation.Manbecameintoxicatedwithasenseofhisownabilityandgoodness,refusedtolistenandsubmittothevoiceofauthoritythatspoketohiminScripture,andreposedcompletetrustintheabilityofhumanreasontoleadhimoutofthelabyrinthofignoranceanderrorintotheclearatmosphereoftrueknowledge.Somewhomaintainedthatnaturalrevelationwasquitesufficienttoteachmenallnecessarytruths,stilladmittedthattheymightlearnthemsoonerwiththeaidofsupernaturalrevelation.Othersdeniedthattheauthorityofsupernaturalrevelationwascomplete,untilitscontentshadbeendemonstratedbyreason.AndfinallyDeism

insomeofitsformsdenied,notonlythenecessity,butalsothepossibilityandrealityofsupernaturalrevelation.InSchleiermachertheemphasisshiftsfromtheobjectivetothesubjective,fromrevelationtoreligion,andthatwithoutanydistinctionbetweennaturalandrevealedreligion.Theterm“revelation”isstillretained,butisreservedasadesignationofthedeeperspiritualinsightofman,aninsightwhichdoesnotcometohim,however,withouthisowndiligentsearch.Whatiscalledrevelationfromonepointofview,maybecalledhumandiscoveryfromanother.Thisviewhasbecomequitecharacteristicofmoderntheology.SaysKnudson:“Butthisdistinctionbetweennaturalandrevealedtheologyhasnowlargelyfallenintodisuse.Thepresenttendencyistodrawnosharplineofdistinctionbetweenrevelationandthenaturalreason,buttolookuponthehighestinsightsofreasonasthemselvesdivinerevelations.Inanycasethereisnofixedbodyofrevealedtruth,acceptedonauthority,thatstandsopposedtothetruthsofreason.Alltruthto-dayrestsonitspowerofappealtothehumanmind.”11

ItisthisviewofrevelationthatisdenouncedinthestrongesttermsbyBarth.Heisparticularlyinterestedinthesubjectofrevelation,andwantstoleadtheChurchbackfromthesubjectivetotheobjective,fromreligiontorevelation.Intheformerheseesprimarilyman’seffortstofindGod,andinthelatter“God’ssearchforman”inJesusChrist.Barthdoesnotrecognizeanyrevelationinnature.Revelationneverexistsonanyhorizontalline,butalwayscomesdownperpendicularlyfromabove.RevelationisalwaysGodinaction,Godspeaking,bringingsomethingentirelynewtoman,somethingofwhichhecouldhavenopreviousknowledge,andwhichbecomesarealrevelationonlyforhimwhoacceptstheobjectofrevelationbyaGod-givenfaith.JesusChrististherevelationofGod,andonlyhewhoknowsJesusChristknowsanythingaboutrevelationatall.Revelationisanactofgrace,bywhichmanbecomesconsciousofhissinfulcondition,butalsoofGod’sfree,unmerited,andforgivingcondescensioninJesusChrist.Barthevencallsitthereconciliation.SinceGodisalwayssovereignandfreeinHisrevelation,itcanneverassumeafactuallypresent,objectiveformwithdefinitelimitations,towhichmancanturnatanytimeforinstruction.HenceitisamistaketoregardtheBibleasGod’srevelationinanyotherthanasecondarysense.Itisawitnessto,andatokenof,God’srevelation.Thesamemaybesaid,thoughinasubordinatesense,ofthepreachingofthegospel.ButthroughwhatevermediationthewordofGodmaycometomanintheexistentialmomentofhislife,itisalwaysrecognizedbymanasaworddirectlyspokentohim,andcomingperpendicularlyfromabove.This

recognitioniseffectedbyaspecialoperationoftheHolySpirit,bywhatmaybecalledanindividualtestimoniumSpiritusSancti.TherevelationofGodwasgivenonceforallinJesusChrist:notinHishistoricalappearance,butinthesuperhistoricalinwhichthepowersoftheeternalworldbecomeevident,suchasHisincarnationandHisdeathandresurrection.AndifHisrevelationisalsocontinuous—asitis—,itissuchonlyinthesensethatGodcontinuestospeaktoindividualsinners,intheexistentialmomentoftheirlives,throughtherevelationinChrist,mediatedbytheBibleandbypreaching.Thusweareleftwithmereflashesofrevelationcomingtoindividuals,ofwhichonlythoseindividualshaveabsoluteassurance;andfalliblewitnessesto,ortokensof,therevelationinJesusChrist,—aratherprecariousfoundationfortheology.ItisnowonderthatBarthisindoubtastothepossibilityofconstructingadoctrineofGod.MankindisnotinpossessionofanyinfalliblerevelationofGod,andofHisuniquerevelationinChristanditsextensioninthespecialrevelationsthatcometocertainmenithasknowledgeonlythroughthetestimonyoffalliblewitnesses.

QUESTIONSFORFURTHERSTUDY:InwhatsensecanwespeakofthehiddenorunknownGodinspiteofthefactthatHehasrevealedHimself?HowdidtheScholasticsandtheReformersdifferonthispoint?Whatisthepositionofmoderntheology?Whyisrevelationessentialtoreligion?Howdoesagnosticismdiffertheoreticallyfromatheism?Istheonemorefavorabletoreligionthantheother?HowdidKantpromoteagnosticism?WhatwasSirWilliamHamilton’sdoctrineoftherelativityofknowledge?WhatformdidagnosticismtakeinPositivism?Whatotherformsdidittake?WhydosomespeakofBarthasanagnostic?Howshouldthischargebemet?Is“revelation”anactiveorapassiveconcept?Istheologypossiblewithoutrevelation?Ifnot,whynot?Canthedoctrineofinnateideasbedefended?Whatismeantby“cognitioDeiinsita?”Howdonaturalandsupernaturalrevelationdiffer?Isthedistinctionbetweengeneralandspecialrevelationanexactparalleloftheprecedingone?Whatdifferentviewswereheldastotherelationbetweenthetwo?Howdoesrevelationdifferfromhumandiscovery?DoesBarthbelieveingeneralrevelation?Howdoesheconceiveofspecialrevelation?

LITERATURE:Bavinck,Geref.Dogm.II,pp.1:74;Kuyper,Dict.Dogm.,DeDeoI,pp.1-76;Hodge,Syst.Theol.I,pp.191-240;335-365;Shedd,Dogm.Theol.I,pp.195-220;Thornwell,CollectedWorksI,pp.74-142;Dorner,SystemofChr.Doct.,I,pp.79-159;Adeney,TheChristianConceptionofGod,pp.19-57;Steenstra,TheBeingofGodasUnityandTrinity,pp.1-25;Hendry,Godthe

Creator;Gilson,ReasonandRevelationintheMiddleAges;BaillieandMartin,Revelation(aSymposiumofAulen,Barth,Bulgakoff,D’Arcy,Eliot,Horton,andTemple;Warfield,RevelationandInspiration,pp.3-48;Orr,RevelationandInspiration,pp.1-66;Camfield,RevelationandtheHolySpirit,pp.11-127;Dickie,RevelationandResponse,Warfield,CalvinandCalvinism(Calvin’sDoctrineoftheKnowledgeofGod).

III.RelationoftheBeingandAttributesofGodSomedogmaticiansdevoteaseparatechapterorchapterstotheBeingof

God,beforetakingupthediscussionofHisattributes.Thisisdone,forinstance,intheworksofMastricht,Ebrard,Kuyper,andShedd.OthersprefertoconsidertheBeingofGodinconnectionwithHisattributesinviewofthefactthatitisinthesethatHehasrevealedHimself.Thisisthemorecommonmethod,whichisfollowedintheSynopsisPuriorisTheologiae,andintheworksofTurretin,àMarck,Brakel,Bavinck,Hodge,andHonig.Thisdifferenceoftreatmentisnotindicativeofanyseriousfundamentaldisagreementbetweenthem.Theyareallagreedthattheattributesarenotmerenamestowhichnorealitycorresponds,norseparatepartsofacompositeGod,butessentialqualitiesinwhichtheBeingofGodisrevealedandwithwhichitcanbeidentified.TheonlydifferencewouldseemtobethatsomeseektodistinguishbetweentheBeingandtheattributesofGodmorethanothersdo.

A.THEBEINGOFGODItisquiteevidentthattheBeingofGoddoesnotadmitofanyscientific

definition.InordertogivealogicaldefinitionofGod,wewouldhavetobeginbygoinginsearchofsomehigherconcept,underwhichGodcouldbeco-ordinatedwithotherconcepts;andwouldthenhavetopointoutthecharacteristicsthatwouldbeapplicabletoGodonly.Suchagenetic-syntheticdefinitioncannotbegivenofGod,sinceGodisnotoneofseveralspeciesofgods,whichcanbesubsumedunderasinglegenus.Atmostonlyananalytical-descriptivedefinitionispossible.Thismerelynamesthecharacteristicsofapersonorthing,butleavestheessentialbeingunexplained.Andevensuchadefinitioncannotbecompletebutonlypartial,becauseitisimpossibletogiveanexhaustivepositive(asopposedtonegative)descriptionofGod.ItwouldconsistinanenumerationofalltheknownattributesofGod,andthesearetoagreatextentnegativeincharacter.

TheBibleneveroperateswithanabstractconceptofGod,butalwaysdescribesHimastheLivingGod,whoentersintovariousrelationswithHiscreatures,relationswhichareindicativeofseveraldifferentattributes.InKuyper’sDictatenDogmatiek12wearetoldthatGod,personifiedasWisdom,speaksofHisessenceinProv.8:14,whenHeascribestoHimselftushiyyach,aHebrewwordrendered“wezen”intheHollandtranslation.Butthisrenderingisverydoubtful,andtheEnglishrendering“counsel”deservespreference.IthasalsobeenpointedoutthattheBiblespeaksofthenatureofGodinIIPet.1:4,butthiscanhardlyrefertotheessentialBeingofGod,forwearenotmadepartakersofthedivineessence.AnindicationoftheveryessenceofGodhasbeenfoundinthenameJehovah,asinterpretedbyGodHimself,“IamthatIam.”OnthebasisofthispassagetheessenceofGodwasfoundinbeingitself,abstractbeing.Andthishasbeeninterpretedtomeanself-existenceorself-containedpermanenceorabsoluteindependence.AnotherpassageisrepeatedlyquotedascontaininganindicationoftheessenceofGod,andastheclosestapproachtoadefinitionthatisfoundintheBible,namely,John4:24,“GodisSpirit:andtheythatworshipHimmustworshipinspiritandtruth.”ThisstatementofChristisclearlyindicativeofthespiritualityofGod.ThetwoideasderivedfromthesepassagesoccurrepeatedlyintheologyasdesignationsoftheveryBeingofGod.OnthewholeitmaybesaidthatScripturedoesnotexaltoneattributeofGodattheexpenseoftheothers,butrepresentsthemasexistinginperfectharmonyintheDivineBeing.Itmaybetruethatnowone,andthenanotherattributeisstressed,butScriptureclearlyintendstogivedueemphasistoeveryoneofthem.TheBeingofGodischaracterizedbyadepth,afullness,avariety,andagloryfarbeyondourcomprehension,andtheBiblerepresentsitasagloriousharmoniouswhole,withoutanyinherentcontradictions.AndthisfullnessoflifefindsexpressioninnootherwaythanintheperfectionsofGod.

SomeoftheearlyChurchFatherswereclearlyundertheinfluenceofGreekphilosophyintheirdoctrineofGodand,asSeebergexpressesit,didnotadvance“beyondthemereabstractconceptionthattheDivineBeingisabsoluteattributelessExistence.”ForsometimetheologianswererathergenerallyinclinedtoemphasizethetranscendenceofGod,andtoassumetheimpossibilityofanyadequateknowledgeordefinitionofthedivineessence.DuringthetrinitariancontroversythedistinctionbetweentheoneessenceandthethreepersonsintheGodheadwasstronglyemphasized,buttheessencewasgenerallyfelttobebeyondhumancomprehension.GregoryofNazianze,however,venturestosay:“Sofaraswecandiscern,hoonandhotheosaresomehow

morethanothertermsthenamesofthe(divine)essence,andofthesehoonisthepreferable.”Heregardsthisasadescriptionofabsolutebeing.Augustine’sconceptionoftheessenceofGodwascloselyakintothatofGregory.IntheMiddleAgestootherewasatendency,eithertodenythatmanhasanyknowledgeoftheessenceofGod,ortoreducesuchknowledgetoaminimum.InsomecasesoneattributewassingledoutasmostexpressiveoftheessenceofGod.ThusThomasAquinasspokeofHisaseityorself-existence,andDunsScotus,ofHisinfinity.ItbecamequitecommonalsotospeakofGodasactuspurusinviewofHissimplicity.TheReformersandtheirsuccessorsalsospokeoftheessenceofGodasincomprehensible,buttheydidnotexcludeallknowledgeofit,thoughLutherusedverystronglanguageonthispoint.Theystressedtheunity,simplicity,andspiritualityofGod.ThewordsoftheBelgicConfessionarequitecharacteristic:“Weallbelievewiththeheart,andconfesswiththemouth,thatthereisoneonlysimpleandspiritualBeing,whichwecallGod.”13LateronphilosophersandtheologiansfoundtheessenceofGodinabstractbeing,inuniversalsubstance,inpurethought,inabsolutecausality,inlove,inpersonality,andinmajesticholinessorthenuminous.

B.THEPOSSIBILITYOFKNOWINGTHEBEINGOFGODFromtheprecedingitalreadyappearsthatthequestionastothepossibilityof

knowingGodinHisessentialBeingengagedthebestmindsoftheChurchfromtheearliestcenturies.AndtheconsensusofopinionintheearlyChurch,duringtheMiddleAges,andatthetimeoftheReformation,wasthatGodinHisinmostBeingistheIncomprehensibleOne.AndinsomecasesthelanguageusedissostrongthatitseeminglyallowsofnoknowledgeoftheBeingofGodwhatsoever.Atthesametimetheywhouseit,atleastinsomecases,seemtohaveconsiderableknowledgeoftheBeingofGod.Misunderstandingcaneasilyresultfromafailuretounderstandtheexactquestionunderconsideration,andfromneglectingtodiscriminatebetween“knowing”and“comprehending.”TheScholasticsspokeofthreequestionstowhichallthespeculationsrespectingtheDivineBeingcouldbereduced,namely:AnsitDeus?QuidsitDeus?andQualissitDeus?ThefirstquestionconcernstheexistenceofGod,thesecond,Hisnatureoressence,andthethird,Hisattributes.Inthisparagraphitisparticularlythesecondquestionthatcallsforattention.Thequestionthenis,WhatisGod?WhatisthenatureofHisinnerconstitution?WhatmakesHimtobewhatHeis?Inordertoanswerthatquestionadequately,wewouldhavetobeableto

comprehendGodandtoofferasatisfactoryexplanationofHisDivineBeing,andthisisutterlyimpossible.ThefinitecannotcomprehendtheInfinite.ThequestionofZophar,“CanstthoubysearchingfindoutGod?CanstthoufindouttheAlmightyuntoperfection?”(Job11:7)hastheforceofastrongnegative.Andifweconsiderthesecondquestionentirelyapartfromthethird,ournegativeanswerbecomesevenmoreinclusive.ApartfromtherevelationofGodinHisattributes,wehavenoknowledgeoftheBeingofGodwhatsoever.ButinsofarasGodrevealsHimselfinHisattributes,wealsohavesomeknowledgeofHisDivineBeing,thoughevensoourknowledgeissubjecttohumanlimitations.

LutherusessomeverystrongexpressionsrespectingourinabilitytoknowsomethingoftheBeingoressenceofGod.OntheonehandhedistinguishesbetweentheDeusabsconditus(hiddenGod)andtheDeusrevelatus(revealedGod);butontheotherhandhealsoassertsthatinknowingtheDeusrevelatus,weonlyknowHiminhishiddenness.BythishemeansthateveninHisrevelationGodhasnotmanifestedHimselfentirelyasHeisessentially,butastoHisessencestillremainsshroudedinimpenetrabledarkness.WeknowGodonlyinsofarasHeentersintorelationswithus.CalvintoospeaksoftheDivineessenceasincomprehensible.HeholdsthatGodinthedepthsofHisBeingispastfindingout.SpeakingoftheknowledgeofthequidandofthequalisofGod,hesaysthatitisratheruselesstospeculateabouttheformer,whileourpracticalinterestliesinthelatter.Sayshe:“TheyaremerelytoyingwithfrigidspeculationswhosemindissetonthequestionofwhatGodis(quidsitDeus),whenwhatitreallyconcernsustoknowisratherwhatkindofapersonHeis(qualissit)andwhatisappropriatetoHisnature.”14WhilehefeelsthatGodcannotbeknowntoperfection,hedoesnotdenythatwecanknowsomethingofHisBeingornature.Butthisknowledgecannotbeobtainedbyapriorimethods,butonlyinanaposteriorimannerthroughtheattributes,whichheregardsasrealdeterminationsofthenatureofGod.TheyconveytousatleastsomeknowledgeofwhatGodis,butespeciallyofwhatHeisinrelationtous.

IndealingwithourknowledgeoftheBeingofGodwemustcertainlyavoidthepositionofCousin,ratherrareinthehistoryofphilosophy,thatGodeveninthedepthsofHisBeingisnotatallincomprehensiblebutessentiallyintelligible;butwemustalsosteerclearoftheagnosticismofHamiltonandMansel,accordingtowhichwecanhavenoknowledgewhatsoeveroftheBeingofGod.WecannotcomprehendGod,cannothaveanabsoluteandexhaustiveknowledge

ofHim,butwecanundoubtedlyhavearelativeorpartialknowledgeoftheDivineBeing.ItisperfectlytruethatthisknowledgeofGodispossibleonly,becauseHehasplacedHimselfincertainrelationstoHismoralcreaturesandhasrevealedHimselftothem,andthateventhisknowledgeishumanlyconditioned;butitisneverthelessrealandtrueknowledge,andisatleastapartialknowledgeoftheabsolutenatureofGod.Thereisadifferencebetweenanabsoluteknowledge,andarelativeorpartialknowledgeofanabsolutebeing.ItwillnotdoatalltosaythatmanknowsonlytherelationsinwhichGodstandstoHiscreatures.ItwouldnotevenbepossibletohaveaproperconceptionoftheserelationswithoutknowingsomethingofbothGodandman.TosaythatwecanknownothingoftheBeingofGod,butcanknowonlyrelations,isequivalenttosayingthatwecannotknowHimatallandcannotmakeHimtheobjectofourreligion.Dr.Orrsays:“WemaynotknowGodinthedepthsofHisabsolutebeing.ButwecanatleastknowHiminsofarasHerevealsHimselfinHisrelationtous.Thequestion,therefore,isnotastothepossibilityofaknowledgeofGodintheunfathomablenessofHisbeing,butis:CanweknowGodasHeentersintorelationswiththeworldandwithourselves?GodhasenteredintorelationswithusinHisrevelationsofHimself,andsupremelyinJesusChrist;andweChristianshumblyclaimthatthroughthisSelf-revelationwedoknowGodtobethetrueGod,andhaverealacquaintancewithHischaracterandwill.NeitherisitcorrecttosaythatthisknowledgewhichwehaveofGodisonlyarelativeknowledge.ItisinpartaknowledgeoftheabsolutenatureofGodaswell.”15ThelaststatementsareprobablyintendedtowardofftheideathatallourknowledgeofGodismerelyrelativetothehumanmind,sothatwehavenoassurancethatitcorrespondswiththerealityasitexistsinGod.

C.THEBEINGOFGODREVEALEDINHISATTRIBUTESFromthesimplicityofGoditfollowsthatGodandHisattributesareone.The

attributescannotbeconsideredassomanypartsthatenterintothecompositionofGod,forGodisnot,likemen,composedofdifferentparts.NeithercantheyberegardedassomethingaddedtotheBeingofGod,thoughthename,derivedfromadandtribuere,mightseemtopointinthatdirection,fornoadditionwasevermadetotheBeingofGod,whoiseternallyperfect.ItiscommonlysaidintheologythatGod’sattributesareGodHimself,asHehasrevealedHimselftous.TheScholasticsstressedthefactthatGodisallthatHehas.Hehaslife,light,wisdom,love,righteousness,anditmaybesaidonthebasisofScripturethatHe

islife,light,wisdom,love,andrighteousness.ItwasfurtherassertedbytheScholasticsthatthewholeessenceofGodisidenticalwitheachoneoftheattributes,sothatGod’sknowingisGod,God’swillingisGod,andsoon.Someofthemevenwentsofarastosaythateachattributeisidenticalwitheveryotherattribute,andthattherearenologicaldistinctionsinGod.Thisisaverydangerousextreme.WhileitmaybesaidthatthereisaninterpenetrationoftheattributesinGod,andthattheyformaharmoniouswhole,wearemovinginthedirectionofPantheism,whenweruleoutalldistinctionsinGod,andsaythatHisself-existenceisHisinfinity,HisknowingisHiswilling,HisloveisHisrighteousness,andviceversa.ItwascharacteristicoftheNominaliststhattheyobliteratedallrealdistinctionsinGod.TheywereafraidthatbyassumingrealdistinctionsinHim,correspondingtotheattributesascribedtoGod,theywouldendangertheunityandsimplicityofGod,andwerethereforemotivatedbyalaudablepurpose.AccordingtothemtheperfectionsoftheDivineBeingexistonlyinourthoughts,withoutanycorrespondingrealityintheDivineBeing.TheRealists,ontheotherhand,assertedtherealityofthedivineperfections.TheyrealizedthatthetheoryoftheNominalists,consistentlycarriedout,wouldleadinthedirectionofapantheisticdenialofapersonalGod,andthereforeconsidereditoftheutmostimportancetomaintaintheobjectiverealityoftheattributesinGod.AtthesametimetheysoughttosafeguardtheunityandsimplicityofGodbymaintainingthatthewholeessenceisineachattribute:GodisAllinall,Allineach.ThomasAquinashadthesamepurposeinmind,whenheassertedthattheattributesdonotrevealwhatGodisinHimself,inthedepthsofHisBeing,butonlywhatHeisinrelationtoHiscreatures.

Naturally,weshouldguardagainstseparatingthedivineessenceandthedivineattributesorperfections,andalsoagainstafalseconceptionoftherelationinwhichtheystandtoeachother.TheattributesarerealdeterminationsoftheDivineBeingor,inotherwords,qualitiesthatinhereintheBeingofGod.Sheddspeaksofthemas“ananalyticalandcloserdescriptionoftheessence.”16Inasensetheyareidentical,sothatitcanbesaidthatGod’sperfectionsareGodHimselfasHehasrevealedHimselftous.ItispossibletogoevenfartherandsaywithShedd,“Thewholeessenceisineachattribute,andtheattributeintheessence.”17Andbecauseofthecloserelationinwhichthetwostandtoeachother,itcanbesaidthatknowledgeoftheattributescarrieswithitknowledgeoftheDivineEssence.ItwouldbeamistaketoconceiveoftheessenceofGodasexistingbyitselfandpriortotheattributes,andoftheattributesasadditiveandaccidentalcharacteristicsoftheDivineBeing.Theyareessentialqualitiesof

God,whichinhereinHisveryBeingandareco-existentwithit.ThesequalitiescannotbealteredwithoutalteringtheessentialBeingofGod.Andsincetheyareessentialqualities,eachoneofthemrevealstoussomeaspectoftheBeingofGod.

QUESTIONSFORFURTHERSTUDY:Howcanwedistinguishbetweenthebeing,thenature,andtheessenceofGod?HowdothephilosophicalviewsoftheessentialBeingofGodgenerallydifferfromthetheologicalviews?HowaboutthetendencytofindtheessenceofGodintheabsolute,inlove,orinpersonality?WhatdoesOttomeanwhenhecharacterizesitas“theHoly”or“theNuminous”?WhyisitimpossibleformantocomprehendGod?Hassininanywayaffectedman’sabilitytoknowGod?IsthereanydifferencebetweenLuther’sandBarth’sconceptionofthe“hiddenGod”?DoesCalvindifferfromthemonthispoint?DidLuthersharetheNominalistviewsofOccam,bywhomhewasinfluencedinotherrespects?HowdidtheReformers,indistinctionfromtheScholastics,considertheproblemoftheexistenceofGod?CouldwehaveanyknowledgeofGod,ifHewerepureattributelessbeing?Whaterroneousviewsoftheattributesshouldbeavoided?Whatistheproperview?

LITERATURE:Bavinck,Geref.Dogm.I,pp.91-113,;Kuyper,Dict.Dogm.,DeDeoI,pp.124-158;Hodge,Syst.Theol.I,pp.335-374;Shedd,Dogm.Theol.I,pp.152-194;Thornwell,CollectedWorks,I,pp.104-172;Dorner,Syst.ofChr.Doct.I,pp.187-212;Orr,Chr.ViewofGodandtheWorld,pp.75-93;Otten,ManualoftheHist.ofDogmasI,pp.254-260;Clarke,TheChr.Doct.ofGod,pp.56-70;Steenstra,TheBeingofGodasUnityandTrinity,pp.1-88;Thomson,TheChristianIdeaofGod,pp.117-159;Hendry,GodtheCreator(fromtheBarthianstandpoint);Warfield,CalvinandCalvinism,pp.131-185(Calvin’sDoctrineofGod).

IV.TheNamesofGod

A.THENAMESOFGODINGENERALWhiletheBiblerecordsseveralnamesofGod,italsospeaksofthenameof

Godinthesingularas,forinstanceinthefollowingstatements:“ThoushaltnottakethenameoftheLordthyGodinvain,”Ex.20:7;“Howexcellentisthy

nameinalltheearth,”Ps.8:1;“Asisthyname,OGod,soisthypraise,”Ps.48:10;“HisnameisgreatinIsrael,”Ps.76:2;“ThenameofJehovahisastrongtower;therighteousrunnethintoitandissafe,”Prov.18:10.Insuchcases“thename”standsforthewholemanifestationofGodinHisrelationtoHispeople,orsimplyfortheperson,sothatitbecomessynonymouswithGod.Thisusageisduetothefactthatinorientalthoughtanamewasneverregardedasamerevocable,butasanexpressionofthenatureofthethingdesignated.Toknowthenameofapersonwastohavepoweroverhim,andthenamesofthevariousgodswereusedinincantationstoexercisepoweroverthem.Inthemostgeneralsenseoftheword,then,thenameofGodisHisself-revelation.ItisadesignationofHim,notasHeexistsinthedepthsofHisdivineBeing,butasHerevealsHimselfespeciallyinHisrelationstoman.ForustheonegeneralnameofGodissplitupintomanynames,expressiveofthemany-sidedBeingofGod.ItisonlybecauseGodhasrevealedHimselfinHisname(nomeneditum),thatwecannowdesignateHimbythatnameinvariousforms(nominaindita).ThenamesofGodarenotofhumaninvention,butofdivineorigin,thoughtheyareallborrowedfromhumanlanguage,andderivedfromhumanandearthlyrelations.TheyareanthropomorphicandmarkacondescendingapproachofGodtoman.

ThenamesofGodconstituteadifficultyforhumanthought.GodistheIncomprehensibleOne,infinitelyexaltedaboveallthatistemporal;butinHisnamesHedescendstoallthatisfiniteandbecomeslikeuntoman.OntheonehandwecannotnameHim,andontheotherhandHehasmanynames.Howcanthisbeexplained?OnwhatgroundsarethesenamesappliedtotheinfiniteandincomprehensibleGod?Itshouldbeborneinmindthattheyarenotofman’sinvention,anddonottestifytohisinsightintotheveryBeingofGod.TheyaregivenbyGodHimselfwiththeassurancethattheycontaininameasurearevelationoftheDivineBeing.ThiswasmadepossiblebythefactthattheworldandallitsrelationsisandwasmeanttobearevelationofGod.BecausetheIncomprehensibleOnerevealedHimselfinHiscreatures,itispossibleformantonameHimafterthefashionofacreature.InordertomakeHimselfknowntoman,Godhadtocondescendtothelevelofman,toaccommodateHimselftothelimitedandfinitehumanconsciousness,andtospeakinhumanlanguage.IfthenamingofGodwithanthropomorphicnamesinvolvesalimitationofGod,assomesay,thenthismustbetruetoanevengreaterdegreeoftherevelationofGodincreation.Thentheworlddoesnotreveal,butratherconceals,God;thenmanisnotrelatedtoGod,butsimplyformsanantithesistoHim;andthenwe

areshutuptoahopelessagnosticism.

FromwhatwassaidaboutthenameofGodingeneralitfollowsthatwecanincludeunderthenamesofGodnotonlytheappellativesbywhichHeisindicatedasanindependentpersonalBeingandbywhichHeisaddressed,butalsotheattributesofGod;andthennotmerelytheattributesoftheDivineBeingingeneral,butalsothosethatqualifytheseparatePersonsoftheTrinity.Dr.BavinckbaseshisdivisionofthenamesofGodonthatbroadconceptionofthem,anddistinguishesbetweennominapropria(propernames),nominaessentialia(essentialnames,orattributes),andnominapersonalia(personalnames,asFather,Son,andHolySpirit).Inthepresentchapterwelimitourselvestothediscussionofthefirstclass.

B.THEOLDTESTAMENTNAMESANDTHEIRMEANING1.’EL,’ELOHIM,and’ELYON.ThemostsimplenamebywhichGodis

designatedintheOldTestament,isthename’El,whichispossiblyderivedfrom’ul,eitherinthesenseofbeingfirst,beinglord,orinthatofbeingstrongandmighty.Thename’Elohim(sing.’Eloah)isprobablyderivedfromthesameroot,orfrom’alah,tobesmittenwithfear;andthereforepointstoGodasthestrongandmightyOne,orastheobjectoffear.Thenameseldomoccursinthesingular,exceptinpoetry.Thepluralistoberegardedasintensive,andthereforeservestoindicateafulnessofpower.Thename’Elyonisderivedfrom’alah,togoup,tobeelevated,anddesignatesGodasthehighandexaltedOne,Gen.14:19,20;Num.24:16;Isa.14:14.Itisfoundespeciallyinpoetry.Thesenamesarenotyetnominapropriainthestrictsenseoftheword,fortheyarealsousedofidols,Ps.95:3;96:5,ofmen,Gen.33:10;Ex.7:1,andofrulers,Judg.5:8;Ex.21:6;22:8-10;Ps.82:1.

2.’ADONAI.Thisnameisrelatedinmeaningtotheprecedingones.Itisderivedfromeitherdun(din)or’adan,bothofwhichmeantojudge,torule,andthuspointstoGodasthealmightyRuler,towhomeverythingissubject,andtowhommanisrelatedasaservant.InearliertimesitwastheusualnamebywhichthepeopleofIsraeladdressedGod.LateronitwaslargelysupplantedbythenameJehovah(Yahweh).AllthenamessofarmentioneddescribeGodasthehighandexaltedOne,thetranscendentGod.ThefollowingnamespointtothefactthatthisexaltedBeingcondescendedtoenterintorelationswithHiscreatures.

3.SHADDAIand’EL-SHADDAI.ThenameShaddaiisderivedfromshadad,tobepowerful,andpointstoGodaspossessingallpowerinheavenandonearth.Others,however,deriveitfromshad,lord.Itdiffersinanimportantpointfrom’Elohim,theGodofcreationandnature,inthatitcontemplatesGodassubjectingallthepowersofnatureandmakingthemsubservienttotheworkofdivinegrace.WhileitstressesthegreatnessofGod,itdoesnotrepresentHimasanobjectoffearandterror,butasasourceofblessingandcomfort.ItisthenamewithwhichGodappeareduntoAbraham,thefatherofthefaithful,Ex.6:2.

4.YAHWEHandYAHWEHTSEBHAOTH.ItisespeciallyinthenameYahweh,whichgraduallysupplantedearliernames,thatGodrevealsHimselfastheGodofgrace.IthasalwaysbeenregardedasthemostsacredandthemostdistinctivenameofGod,theincommunicablename.TheJewshadasuperstitiousdreadofusingit,sincetheyreadLev.24:16asfollows:“HethatnameththenameofYahwehshallsurelybeputtodeath.”AndthereforeinreadingtheScripturestheysubstitutedforiteither’Adonaior’Elohim;andtheMassoretes,whileleavingtheconsonantsintact,attachedtothemthevowelsofoneofthesenames,usuallythoseof’Adonai.Therealderivationofthenameanditsoriginalpronunciationandmeaningaremoreorlesslostinobscurity.ThePentateuchconnectsthenamewiththeHebrewverbhayah,tobe,Ex.3:13,14.Onthestrengthofthatpassagewemayassumethatthenameisinallprobabilityderivedfromanarchaicformofthatverb,namely,hawah.Asfarastheformisconcerned,itmayberegardedasathirdpersonimperfectqalorhiphil.Mostlikely,however,itistheformer.ThemeaningisexplainedinEx.3:14,whichisrendered“IamthatIam,”or“IshallbewhatIshallbe.”Thusinterpreted,thenamepointstotheunchangeablenessofGod.YetitisnotsomuchtheunchangeablenessofHisessentialBeingthatisinview,astheunchangeablenessofHisrelationtoHispeople.ThenamecontainstheassurancethatGodwillbeforthepeopleofMoses’daywhatHewasfortheirfathers,Abraham,Isaac,andJacob.ItstressesthecovenantfaithfulnessofGod,isHispropernameparexcellence,Ex.15:3;Ps.83:19;Hos.12:6;Isa.42:8,andisthereforeusedofnoonebutIsrael’sGod.Theexclusivecharacterofthenameappearsfromthefactthatitneveroccursinthepluralorwithasuffix.Abbreviatedformsofit,foundespeciallyincompositenames,areYahandYahu.

ThenameYahwehisoftenstrengthenedbytheadditionoftsebhaoth.OrigenandJeromeregardthisasanapposition,becauseYahwehdoesnotadmitofaconstructstate.Butthisinterpretationisnotsufficientlywarrantedandhardly

yieldsanintelligiblesense.Itisratherhardtodeterminetowhatthewordtsebhaothrefers.Thereareespeciallythreeopinions:

a.ThearmiesofIsrael.Butthecorrectnessofthisviewmaywellbedoubted.Mostofthepassagesquotedtosupportthisideadonotprovethepoint;onlythreeofthemcontainasemblanceofproof,namely,ISam.4:4;17:45;IISam.6:2,whileoneofthem,IIKings19:31,isratherunfavorabletothisview.WhilethepluraltsebhaothisusedforthehostsofthepeopleofIsrael,thearmyisregularlyindicatedbythesingular.Thismilitatesagainstthenotion,inherentinthisview,thatinthenameunderconsiderationthetermreferstothearmyofIsrael.Moreover,itisclearthatintheProphetsatleastthename“Jehovahofhosts”doesnotrefertoJehovahastheGodofwar.Andifthemeaningofthenamechanged,whatcausedthechange?

b.Thestars.ButinspeakingofthehostofheavenScripturealwaysusesthesingular,andnevertheplural.Moreover,whilethestarsarecalledthehostofheaven,theyareneverdesignatedthehostofGod.

c.Theangels.Thisinterpretationdeservespreference.ThenameYahwehtsebhaothisoftenfoundinconnectionsinwhichangelsarementioned:ISam.4:4;IISam.6:2;Isa.37:16;Hos.12:4,5,Ps.80:1,4f.;Ps.89;6-8.TheangelsarerepeatedlyrepresentedasahostthatsurroundsthethroneofGod,Gen.28:12;32:2;Jos.5:14;IKings22:19;Ps.68:17;103:21;148:2;Isa.6:2.Itistruethatinthiscasealsothesingularisgenerallyused,butthisisnoseriousobjection,sincetheBiblealsoindicatesthattherewereseveraldivisionsofangels,Gen.32:2;Deut.33:2;Ps.68:17.Moreover,thisinterpretationisinharmonywiththemeaningofthename,whichhasnomartialflavor,butisexpressiveofthegloryofGodasKing,Deut.33:2;IKings22:19;Ps.24:10;Isa.6:3;24:23;Zech.14:16.Jehovahofhosts,then,isGodastheKingofglory,whoissurroundedbyangelichosts,whorulesheavenandearthintheinterestofHispeople,andwhoreceivesgloryfromallHiscreatures.

C.THENEWTESTAMENTNAMESANDTHEIRINTERPRETATION1.THEOS.TheNewTestamenthastheGreekequivalentsoftheOldTestament

names.For’El,’Elohim,and’ElyonithasTheos,whichisthemostcommonnameappliedtoGod.Like’Elohim,itmaybyaccommodationbeusedofheathengods,thoughstrictlyspeakingitexpressesessentialdeity.‘ElyonisrenderedHupsistosTheos,Mark5:7;Luke1:32,35,75;Acts7:48;16:17;Heb.

7:1.ThenamesShaddaiand’El-ShaddaiarerenderedPantokratorandTheosPantokrator,IICor.6:18;Rev.1:8;4:8;11:17;15:3;16:7,14.Moregenerally,however,Theosisfoundwithagenitiveofpossession,suchasmou,sou,hemon,humon,becauseinChristGodmayberegardedastheGodofallandofeachoneofHischildren.ThenationalideaoftheOldTestamenthasmadeplacefortheindividualinreligion.

2.KURIOS.ThenameYahwehisexplicatedafewtimesbyvariationsofadescriptivekind,suchas“theAlphaandtheOmega,”“whoisandwhowasandwhoistocome,”“thebeginningandtheend,”“thefirstandthelast,”Rev.1:4,8,17;2:8;21:6;22:13.Fortherest,howevertheNewTestamentfollowstheSeptuagint,whichsubstituted’Adonaiforit,andrenderedthisbyKurios,derivedfromkuros,power.ThisnamedoesnothaveexactlythesameconnotationasYahweh,butdesignatesGodastheMightyOne,theLord,thePossessor,theRulerwhohaslegalpowerandauthority.ItisusednotonlyofGod,butalsoofChrist.

3.PATER.ItisoftensaidthattheNewTestamentintroducedanewnameofGod,namely,Pater(Father).Butthisishardlycorrect.ThenameFatherisusedoftheGodheadeveninheathenreligions.ItisusedrepeatedlyintheOldTestamenttodesignatetherelationofGodtoIsrael,Deut.32:6;Ps.103:13;Isa.63:16;64:8;Jer.3:4,19;31:9;Mal.1:6;2:10,whileIsraeliscalledthesonofGod,Ex.4:22;Deut.14:1;32:19;Isa.1:2;Jer.31:20;Hos.1:10;11:1.InsuchcasesthenameisexpressiveofthespecialtheocraticrelationinwhichGodstandstoIsrael.InthegeneralsenseoforiginatororcreatoritisusedinthefollowingNewTestamentpassages:ICor.8:6;Eph.3:15;Heb.12:9;James1:18.InallotherplacesitservestoexpresseitherthespecialrelationinwhichthefirstPersonoftheTrinitystandstoChrist,astheSonofGodeitherinametaphysicaloramediatorialsense,ortheethicalrelationinwhichGodstandstoallbelieversasHisspiritualchildren.

V.TheAttributesofGodinGeneral

A.EVALUATIONOFTHETERMSUSEDThename“attributes”isnotideal,sinceitconveysthenotionofaddingor

assigningsomethingtoone,andisthereforeapttocreatetheimpressionthatsomethingisaddedtothedivineBeing.Undoubtedlytheterm“properties”isbetter,aspointingtosomethingthatispropertoGodandtoGodonly.Naturally,insofarassomeoftheattributesarecommunicable,theabsolutecharacterofthepropriumisweakened,fortothatextentsomeoftheattributesarenotpropertoGodintheabsolutesenseoftheword.ButeventhistermcontainsthesuggestionofadistinctionbetweentheessenceornatureofGodandthatwhichispropertoit.Onthewholeitispreferabletospeakofthe“perfections”or“virtues”ofGod,withthedistinctunderstanding,however,thatinthiscasetheterm“virtues”isnotusedinapurelyethicalsense.Bysodoingwe(a)followtheusageoftheBible,whichusesthetermarete,renderedvirtuesorexcellencies,inIPet.2:9;and(b)avoidthesuggestionthatsomethingisaddedtotheBeingofGod.HisvirtuesarenotaddedtoHisBeing,butHisBeingisthepleromaofHisvirtuesandrevealsitselfinthem.TheymaybedefinedastheperfectionswhicharepredicatedoftheDivineBeinginScripture,orarevisiblyexercisedbyHiminHisworksofcreation,providence,andredemption.Ifwestillcontinuetousethename“attributes,”itisbecauseitiscommonlyusedandwiththedistinctunderstandingthatthenotionofsomethingaddedtotheBeingofGodmustberigidlyexcluded.

B.METHODOFDETERMININGTHEATTRIBUTESOFGODTheScholasticsintheirattempttoconstructasystemofnaturaltheology

positedthreewaysinwhichtodeterminetheattributesofGod,whichtheydesignatedastheviacausalitatis,vianegationis,andviaeminentiae.BythewayofcausalitywerisefromtheeffectswhichweseeintheworldroundaboutustotheideaofafirstCause,fromthecontemplationofcreation,totheideaofanalmightyCreator,andfromtheobservationofthemoralgovernmentoftheworld,totheideaofapowerfulandwiseRuler.BywayofnegationweremovefromourideaofGodalltheimperfectionsseeninHiscreatures,asinconsistentwiththeideaofaPerfectBeing,andascribetoHimtheoppositeperfection.InrelianceonthatprinciplewespeakofGodasindependent,infinite,incorporeal,immense,immortal,andincomprehensible.Andfinally,bywayofeminenceweascribetoGodinthemosteminentmannertherelativeperfectionswhichwediscoverinman,accordingtotheprinciplethatwhatexistsinaneffect,pre-existsinitscause,andeveninthemostabsolutesenseinGodasthemostperfectBeing.Thismethodmayappealtosome,becauseitproceedsfromthe

knowntotheunknown,butisnotthepropermethodofdogmatictheology.Ittakesitsstartingpointinman,andconcludesfromwhatitfindsinmantowhatisfoundinGod.AndinsofarasitdoesthisitmakesmanthemeasureofGod.Thisiscertainlynotatheologicalmethodofprocedure.Moreover,itbasesitsknowledgeofGodonhumanconclusionsratherthanontheself-revelationofGodinHisdivineWord.AndyetthisistheonlyadequatesourceoftheknowledgeofGod.Whilethatmethodmightbefollowedinaso-callednaturaltheology,itdoesnotfitinatheologyofrevelation.

Thesamemaybesaidofthemethodssuggestedbymodernrepresentativesofexperimentaltheology.AtypicalexampleofthismaybefoundinMacintosh’sTheologyasanEmpiricalScience.18Healsospeaksofthreemethodsofprocedure.WemaybeginwithourintuitionsoftherealityofGod,thoseunreasonedcertitudeswhicharefirmlyrootedinimmediateexperience.OneoftheseisthattheObjectofourreligiousdependenceisabsolutelysufficientforourimperativeneeds.EspeciallymaydeductionsbedrawnfromthelifeofJesusandthe“Christlike”everywhere.Wemayalsotakeourstartingpoint,notinman’scertainties,butinhisneeds.ThepracticallynecessarypostulateisthatGodisabsolutelysufficientandabsolutelydependablewithreferencetothereligiousneedsofman.OnthatbasismancanbuilduphisdoctrineoftheattributesofGod.And,finally,itisalsopossibletofollowamorepragmaticmethod,whichrestsontheprinciplethatwecanlearntoacertainextentwhatthingsandpersonsare,beyondwhattheyareimmediatelyperceivedtobe,byobservingwhattheydo.Macintoshfindsitnecessarytomakeuseofallthreemethods.

RitschlwantsustostartwiththeideathatGodislove,andwouldhaveusaskwhatisinvolvedinthismostcharacteristicthoughtofGod.Sinceloveispersonal,itimpliesthepersonalityofGod,andthusaffordsusaprinciplefortheinterpretationoftheworldandofthelifeofman.ThethoughtthatGodislovealsocarrieswithittheconvictionthatHecanachieveHispurposeoflove,thatis,thatHiswillissupremelyeffectiveintheworld.ThisyieldstheideaofanalmightyCreator.AndbyvirtueofthisbasicthoughtwealsoaffirmGod’seternity,since,incontrollingallthingsfortherealizationofHisKingdom,Heseestheendfromthebeginning.InasomewhatsimilarveinDr.W.A.Brownsays:“WegainourknowledgeoftheattributesbyanalyzingtheideaofGodwhichwealreadywonfromtherevelationinChrist;andwearrangetheminsuchawayastobringthedistinctivefeaturesofthatideatoclearest

expression.”19

AllthesemethodstaketheirstartingpointinhumanexperienceratherthanintheWordofGod.Theydeliberatelyignoretheclearself-revelationofGodinScriptureandexalttheideaofthehumandiscoveryofGod.TheywhorelyonsuchmethodshaveanexaggeratedideaoftheirownabilitytofindoutGodandtodeterminethenatureofGodinductivelybyapproved“scientificmethods.”AtthesametimetheyclosetheireyestotheonlyavenuethroughwhichtheymightobtainrealknowledgeofGod,thatis,Hisspecialrevelation,apparentlyobliviousofthefactthatonlytheSpiritofGodcansearchandrevealthedeepthingsofGodandrevealthemuntous.TheirverymethodcompelsthemtodragGoddownto