Outlines of Christian theology

Contents

CHAPTER PAGB

I. Theology and Religion, 1

II. Sources of Theological Tkuth, . . . . 11

Preface

The object sought in the pages following is to present in brief outline the leading topics in a course of theological study. It is substantially that which the writer has pursued with his classes successively during the last eighteen or twenty years. The ultimate authority, as also the source of material, is that of inspired Scripture. For full statement and investigation of many of the subjects discussed, his pupils will recognize the text-book used — Knapp's " Theology" — ■ as also others referred to — those of Dr. Hodge, of Hill, of Dorner, of Martensen, of Lindsay Alexander, and of Yon Oosterzee. To these may be added, of more recent date, those of Dr. Buel, of Dr. Sliedd, of Dr. Strong, and of Dr. Hodge, the younger. To the earnest student there is, in these works and others easily accessible, abundant material for full and thorough investigation of every issue and to^^ic in Christian theology.

But while thus with the advanced student, the object here is to take hold of and to help the beginner, to indicate the substance and natural order of the problems with which he is called to deal, as also their grounds of evidence and verification. At the same time it is to be noted that the interest in these topics is not confined

Vi PREFACE.

to this class — the theological student or candidate for the ministry. It extends to a much larger class — intelligent Christian readers, theologians to a certain degree of all classes. These have their rational interest in all the topics here presented. As mere technicalities, so far as possible, have been avoided, the objection in this respect to the ordinary reader has been removed. In all cases, moreover, of quotations of the original Greek and Hebrew, the English equivalent is annexed, so as to avoid all difficulty and obscurity. With the earnest prayer that it may do its work in the service of Him to whom it is offered, it is commended to its readers.

Outlines of Christian Theology.

Chapter I

Theology, wherein a science. — Its sources of material, natural and revealed, and some of its forms of investigation and exhibition. — How religion different. — Some of the modes in which in the New Testament it is described. — What the science of religion. — Relation of theological and religious to other sciences.— Their apparent conflicts and how originating. — Wherein the philosophy of these different from their science.

Theology, in its name, claims to be a science. At one time, it was the almost only acknowledged science. If we bear in mind what is meant by this word, we shall see the x^ropriety here of its application. Science is knowledge certified, as to its material ; this material finding its systemization, and unifying jirincijDle or principles, in certain laws or modes of sequence, invariably operative. The positivist and the agnostic deny that there is any such knowledge as to God, either in the world or in specific revelation. But to the theist such position is irrational. If there be an Author of nature, caiDable of originating and sustaining nature, He will be caj^able also of making Himself iTianifest. Theology has to do with the nature and extent of such manifestation. It first asks, What do we lind in this world of nature ? Is nature a chaos or a cosmos ? Do we lind in this world of inorganic and organic being, relations, and connections, and dependencies ? Do we find the presence and operation of law ; relations of j^arts of the cosmos to each other, as to our capacity of comprehension ? How do these make known their Author ? Inductive processes properly come in here ; are strictly scientific ; as thus scientific, are iM'operly theological.

So, too, with theology, science of God with additional material : the truths of natural manifestation, (pavspooffi?, added to and made clearer in aTrouaXvifn?, those of specific revelation. Given or accepting the fact of Divine AuthorshixD of nature, no objection can be urged against the assertion of such revelation ; and there are many features, in the manifestation of nature, that seem both to promise and demand it. The question, however, is one of fact ; to be decided in view of the character of the evidence. The work of the theologian is to examine this evidence and the material which it brings to his knowledge ; to find out what this manifestation of nature and what this word of revelation mean ; and, through them, the character and will of their Divine Author.

This, of course, involves interpretation, arrangement, recognition of controlling and subordinate principles, distinction of facts and laws, laws from higher regulative X)rinciples, systemization, unification. As with all other sciences, this is the task of theology, the science of God.

As to the aspects under which this material may be investigated and studied, we may briefly indicate them. Biblical theology, for instance — a new term, or at least an old term with a new significance — is that which is arranged in the order of historical progress ; truth about God, manifesting Himself, in the primaeval, in the patriarchal, the Mosaic, the prophetic, the New Testament revelations. Systematic theology has in view the unification of all this material ; to find in it not only jirogress and development, but a combined whole — a whole, in each one of its parts, as in their organic unity, manifesting the character and purpose of their Divine Author. This includes not only the clear statement of these truths, but their relations of connection and dei)endence. Historical theology, again, has in view the progress of thought and discussion, through which such statements have reached their present form, and been agreed upon ; p>olemic, the statement of this truth, as related to errors of professed believers ; apologetic, as related to difficulties made by unbelievers ; and, last of all, practical theology, the effort to find practical application in these truths to the heart and life, whether in their systematic or unsystematic form. In all we are dealing with the same material : the truth of God, truth about God ; the science, not the perfect, but the real knowledge of God, as He is, and as He stands revealed and related to His creatures.

In this respe(5t, there is a difference with religion. " Religio," from o'elego, " scrupulous service to God," with Cicero; or "religio," from religo, "binding us to Grod," with Lactantius ; or, in monastic idea, relictus, from relinquo, " leaving the world," is not so much a science as a practice. As with all forms of practice, religion may liave its science ; but this is not its essential nature. It is a knowing ; but, in such knowing, also feeling and doing. As man, in his rational nature, is related to God, seeks after Him, that he may find Him, so the truths of theology teach him to exercise his capacity aright. In such exercise is religion : the subjective appropriation, in the mind and heart, and the working out in the life, of divinely given truth. This word religion, in ordinary usage, has more than one meaning, and we need distinguish them. A man's religion, for instance, or that of a community, is that of his accepted system of belief — in this sense really the equivalent of his theology. So again, it may, and does sometimes mean, the outward form, the ritual and worship, of such individual or community — their ecclesiastical system. These inay be accompaniments. But there must be somethingelse : the knowing, and feeling, and doing, as to God, and as obeying the will of God.

The degrees in which these terms are aT)plicable, in the diverse conditions of men, are varied and manifold. And yet, with all, the lowest as the highest, we find the essential elements : truth as to God, theology ; the spiritual nature of man, feeling after, and using such truth, religion. Whatever else may be said of human nature, it is religious ! ' ' There is no trouble," Dr. Sj)arrow used to say, "about men having religion of some kind or other ; the trouble is to get them to have the right kind of religion." Sucli religious nature, in its working, endeavors to have a theology. Wardlaw alludes to the definitions " religion, theology subjectified ; theology, religion objectified. " While not fully exhaustive, it exhibits their main characteristics.

The New Testament names of religion have their significance, cpo^o^ rov Qsov, " the fear of Jehovah," of the Old Testament, is the fear of reverence, dreading the Divine disapproval, dreading the course leading to it ; ffocpia, the " wisdom" of the Old Testament, which finds the doing of God's will and service not only the way of right, but that of wisdom and welfare ; 6ou- Xeia, the service of submissive obedience, which finds in the Divine law its rule of affection, as of action ; karpsia, the service not only of unreserved obedience, but of grateful adoration ; svXafisla, the careful service, which finds in small as in great things exercise of the sj)irit of devotion ; Opj/ffKeia, such service findingoutward expression, especially as it brings us in contact with the needs of our fellow-creatures ; svGsfSaia, having the inward spirit, which gives value and character to everything else ; and, last of all, odoz, " the way," and ttkjti^, " the faith," in which all these forms of action are quickened in the truths of the revelation of Jesus Christ.

But, as already intimated, while religion, in its essential nature, is a service, not a science, there is or may be a science of religion. In it, for instance, there are diversities of facts and manifestations, controlling laws and operations, a unifying principle with which thej' are all connected. The science of religion deals with these : the religious nature, the fact that man has such a nature, that he is consciously and manifestly related to a Higher Being, the object of his thoughts, his fears, his hopes, his aspirations. To trace out the w^orkings of this nature, the operation of its principles, as exhibited in the individual, in the different religions of the world, and as modified by different conceptions of Deity— the occasions of any such system finding origin — its reactive influence upon its votaries— all this becomes the task of the scientist of religion. Religions may thus be classified. Some may be manifested as local, and incapable of expansion from their original centre ; others, of wider range, but still limited to certain conditions of climate, social or moral advancement ; others still wider, but, in their general result, morally and socially deteriorative —one claiming to be a world religion, actually controlling the highest form of moral and social civilization, and ])eneficial in its influence, as coming in contact with and displacing others. Evidently, in dealing with the material thus indicated, and the questions suggested, we are in the domain of science.

And this brings up an issue, at the present moment, of special interest, in connection with this subject :

the relation, as it is usually put, of theology, as of religion, to science ; more properly, the relation of theological and religious to j)hysical, chemical, biological, mental, or moral science. That relation, ideally, is one of perfect harmony, touching at times, and at different points, the same material ; but in these different relations, parts of the same material, of one great whole. If we could have a perfect theology, many of the existing difficulties and conflicts would disappear. But not entirely. To secure that there must not only be a perfect theology, but a perfect geology, or chemistry, or biology, or whatever the science with which such conflict has been waged. As they are all actually imperfect, they are all liable to come in such conflict.

Such conflict, from the non-theological side, has usually come from one of two sources : so-called scientific results unverified ; so-called scientific results of what really belongs, not to science, but to philosophy. From the theological side, such conflict comes sometimes from the misapplication of theological truth to matters with which it has no concern ; sometimes, and much more frequently, from adherence to accepted scientific conclusions of an earlier period. While there is always the liability, in any new, real, or supposed revelation of science, of the theological shout of warning or of contradiction, there is no less certain, and usually first, in point of time, the infidel scientific shout, that in this new discovery theology and religion are hopelessly exploded. Of course there are many theologians, and many physical and other scientists, who keep clear of everything of this character ; who know enough of their own and other departments of knowledge to be above such course. But here it is that most of them origii^ate. Some forty or fifty years :igo leading chemical explorers attempted to abolish the word and the idea of vitality. Now, its existence is not only admitted, but the effort and anticij^ation is to evolve it out of inorganic matter. So, again, and more recently, biologists found species and variations so fixed and limited in their caj)acity of transition, that the variations of the human race, as to origin, were found impossible in any one of them. And, still more recently, this capacity of variation has become so expanded that it includes, not only all the varieties of the human race, but many, if not all, of the lower orders of creation. Theologians, in the mean time, adhered to the idea of life as a reality ; to the origin of the race, in the divinely created man ; to the creation of that man, in the Divine image of rationality, and moral and spiritual being. How far are these assertions of theology adjustable to those affirmed by science is the future problem, alike of the theological as of the physical and biological scientist. Such adjustment can only be anticij)ated, as the rightful claims of both are fully acknowledged and accepted.

A living writer in one of our popular science monthlies has endeavored to show the opposition of theologians to the progress of science. When he gets through, as he does not seem to have quite finished, he will find quite as abundant material, used in the same way, to demonstrate the opposition of scientists to such progress. The average scientist, as the average theologian, is familiar with the science imbibed in his youth, or boyhood, as infallible and unchangeable ; and each alike, on the scientific grounds thus accepted, opposes the scientific novelty. There is scarcely an instance of any great scientific discovery which would not afford an illustration. ,

And here, it may be asked, is there not also a iDhilosophy of religion and of theology, as of everything else ? There is, of course ; but it is very different from their science. Science, as we have seen, has to do with phenomena, facts, laws, unifying principles ; or, as the schoolmen would have said, with " quiddities, " the quid^ the quod^ and the quomodo. Philosophy has to do with them in the quo, with the cur and queer e. Philosophy has been called the science of first principles. If by this be meant the principles to be assumed, in all science and scientific investigation, it may be admitted. But, evidently, we have gotten away from the ordinary conception of a science. The philosophy of a thing is its rationale, its immediate or ultimate cause. If, therefore, a science, it is the sci> ence of causes ; that in which the phenomena and their laws alike find explanation. This ultimate Cause is the Divine Source and Origin of things ; its first principles, what may be called secondary causes. With these, supposed or real, science begins. In view of them, it ventures or reaches certain conclusions ; in gome cases correctly, in others incorrectly.

We may, therefore, briefly sum uj) the result of our discussion by saying that theology is occupied with and exhibits the material of truth about Grod, and His relations to the world and to men, certified, systematized, unified ; that religion is the knowing, feeling, and doing, as the effect of these truths, subjectively approi)riated ; and more or less wrought into the life. The philosophy of these is the divinely given religious nature, as related to its Divine Author, to the divinely given provision in Him, for that nature — to its full development and expansion of capacity, as of blessedness.

Professor Cooke's " Credentials of Science the Warrant of Faith."

Dawson's " Origin of the World According to Revelation and Science. ' '

Kiunis's " Harmony of Bible with Science ;" Reusch's " Nature and the Bible."

Harris's " Philosophical Basis of Theism."

Duke of Argyle's " Unity of Nature" and " Reign of Law."

Calderwood's " Relations of Science and Religion."

" Christianity and Science," Professor Peabody.

Chapter II. Sources Of Theological Truth

The two extremes of upon this subject of the naturalist and the purely supernaturalist, and the contrasted teaching of Scripture. — Relations of natural theology and revelation. — Revelation rests upon specific evidence. — Place here of natural presuppositions. — How revelation related to natural capacity.

Theology implies a known God. How is He known ? In what manner has He actually made Himself known ? How does He still bring Himself to human knowledge ? Two extreme answers to this question have been given. One finds such knowledge given in the manifestations of nature and as entirely confined to these. The other finds it in special revelation ; and all religious truth, in human conviction, of course, in many cases, with perversions and distortions, coming through primaeval revelation. The first is that of deistic naturalism, with its a pr'wr'i postulate of the impossibility of the miraculous or supernatural. The second is the extreme of the devout believer, jealous of any authority, or of any claim of Divine truth, in anything except the divinely revealed word. The first implies the absurdity that He who created man capable of communicating and of receiving communications by spoken and written words, is Himself wanting in the capacity which He conferred upon His creatures. The second, that He who created and fills the world with His wisdom, and goodness, and power, is nowhere, in that world, to be found.

In each of these extremes is a truth, if not distorted, at least one-sided. Taking the dictate of Scri])- ture, we find both of these, as sources of truth about God, clearly recognized. Scripture, in its very existence and nature, involves the claim that G-od, "in different manners and different degrees," makes Himself known, through His selected human agents, in His authoritatively sf)oken and written word. No less does Scripture affirm and imply that He who thus extraordinarily reveals Himself does it, also, ordinarily, in His works — in the orderly arrangement of natural i)henomena and their operations, the cosmos external ; in the inner phenomena of human consciousness, knoAving, feeling, willing, self-approving, and self-condemning, the inner cosmos of rational and moral experience. The nineteenth Psalm, for instance, implies and affirms both of these sources. The first six verses tell of the manifestations of God in the external Avorld. The remaining eight tell of the revelation of His law. Law, torah, here, is the equivalent not only of revealed statute, but of revealed doing and character. So, in the first chapter of the Ejnstle to the Romans, the manifestation of God, in His created works, and the human obligation arising therefrom, is clearly asserted. In the second chapter of this same epistle, the obedience of the heathen to the law in theii'

heart implies the same fact, tlie capacity of knowing this law, as also its Divine Author. The " unknown God" at Athens (Acts 17:22-31), it is implied, is known enough to be worshipped. Further, that in His real character, He ought to have been better known and differently worshipped. So too with the remonstrance of Paul and Barnabas to the Lycaonians (Acts 14 : 17). In these last cases, knowledge, capacity of knowledge, and accountability for its exercise are clearly implied. At the same time, knowledge additional is spoken of as imparted.

The first of these gives us natural theology, the second that of Scripture. The first related to the second, as part to the whole ; as also illustrative and confirmative. Revelation includes natural theology plus its own peculiar material. This fact of revelation rests upon specific evidence. A priori presumptions may anticipate, but cannot prove it. At the same time, these presumptions have their value. They anticipate difficulties, and predispose to a certain conclusion. Some of these may be briefly considered.

First of all, specific revelation seems to be a necessity to the majority of the race ; as reaching, in its intelligibility, all classes, all orders of mind and capacity. Supposing a perfect theology, in the philosophy of Plato ; to how many could it be imxmrted 'I Revelation is the via hremssima of Divine wisdom, in its communications, to human ignorance and incai)acity. It is for all. And it is in a form and manner to reach all.

Further, it meets another necessity of human nature, in the fact of its authoritative character. This is a want of the cultivated and philosophical, as well as the weak and ignorant. Has God spoken ? The distinct affirmative to this is as much needed by Newton or Kepler as by the humblest peasant or the little child.

Still further, such necessity may be seen, in the material of revelation, as supplementary to that of nature. Natural theology raises questions and encounters problems that it cannot solve. It cannot help asking, but cannot answer. " You may even give over," says one heathen ^philosopher, " all hopes of amending men's manners for the future, unless God be pleased to send some other person to instruct us." " Which of these oj)inions is true, some God must tell us," is the language of another. The material of revelation proves its necessity.

Last of all, revelation, in the light of experience, seems a necessity to the highest and purest form of civilization. Revealed religion rules and blesses the world ; its power and influences point to its Divine origin.

Revelation" as Related to Human Capacity. — Connected with this topic, the sources of material of Divine truth, are two others, as specially related to such ti'uth contained in Scripture, One of these is the question of interpretation ; the other is that of the relation of reason, or human capacity, to the substance of Divine revelation. As to the first, it may be said that whatever diversities, in the past, as to allegorical, mystical, symbolical, or spiritual interpretation, it is now an almost universally admitted principle that, as the revelations of law, of duty, of the Divine dealings and character, are given in human language, and in the forms of expression prevalent among their recipients, so, by the ordinary laws of language, their meaning must be ascertained. All other things being equal, the student who is best able to reproduce the conditions, objective and subjective, of those to whom the revelations were given, will be most successful in getting their meaning. If the language and its connection indicate literality, it must, then, be literally interpreted ; if figurative, symbolical, or allegorical, then by the principles of each resj)ectively. An undevout scholar, indeed, may in such case, and carrying out these principles, fail in getting the life and heart of that with which he is dealing ; as may one of an opposite character, although comparatively ignorant, fully appreciate them. This, however, does not affect the general xirinciple. The desideratum is both of these qualifications : the scholarship pervaded and quickened by a spirit of genuine earnestness and devotion.

The more difficult and contested question is the relation of reason, or human capacity, to these truths, when clearly and m.anifestly revealed. The word reason, it is here to be noted, in ordinary usage, flits often without any recognition of the fact, either by speaker or hearer, from one to the other of four distiiict significations. Sometimes, for instance, it means tlie rationally intuitive power of cognizing necessary truth, the, vov; ; sometimes the argumentative capacity, the analytic and synthetic power, the Xoyiffjuo? ; sometimes the capacity of appreciating or understanding, the diavoia ; and, then, inchiding all these, it means the whole mental capacity. The two main points of issue are, first, the power of reason or human capacity to receive truths incomprehensible ; secondly, the capacity of reason or the necessary intuitive power, to receive what is really contradictory to its principles. To state the first clearly and distinctly is to answer it. Human capacity, or reason, in this sense, is constantly in the actual reception and usage of natural truths that are incomi^rehensible. Omnia exeunt in mysterinm. Human language and expressions are full of incomprehensibles, from the infinitudes of space and duration to the infinitesimals of the atom and the molecule. If so in nature, then also in revelation. The distinction of apprehending and comprehending properly comes in here. We apprehend and discriminate, and find relations among things, in certain respects incomprehensible. If such incomprehensible fact come to us in revelation, we must accept it as we do with those that come to us in nature.

The second of these questions has given more difficulty— the relation of intuitive reason, not to incomprehensibles, but to contradictions, truths, or asserted truths in conflict Avith the principles of the rational nature, the intellectual or moral rational. In a genufne revefation and a really enliglitened reason, such conflict is, of course, impossible. A contradictory is selfdestructive. The assertion of a whole greater than the sum of its parts ; of a circular triangle ; of crossingparallel lines ; of a malignant benevolence ; or of filthy purity, are all of this class. Reason not only cannot construe, it cannot receive them as objects of contemplation, must reject them. If anything apparently of this character were found in a professed revelation, it would have to be rejected either as vitiating the whole, or as a human interpolation, or as misunderstood. The unbelieving effort has been to bring some of the material of the Old Testament, especially of its legislation, under this category. Some cases, doubtless, of these are difficulties and incomprehensibilities ; and the effort must be to find out their explanation ; to avoid the issue of rational and moral contradiction.

To sum up this i)oint, we may say the relation of reason, of human capacity to revelation, is to ascertain and verify the fact of such revelation ; to find out its meaning ; the different ways in which that meaning is exhibited. When such meaning brings to view hitherto undiscernible truths, they must be reverently accepted upon the authority of their Divine Author. His revelations cannot be subjected to natural and finite limitations. In cases of apparent conflict with rational principles, intellectual or moral, as both of these proceed from Him, that conflict is only aj)parent. Patient and reverential investigation, and suspense as to liasty judgment, will, in due time, remove the apparent difficulty.

Robson's " The Bible ; its Revelsition, Inspiration, and Evidence," Briggs's " The Bible, the Church, and Reason." Andrew's " God's Revelation of Himsi-lf to Man." Bruce's " Cliief End of Revelation." Ollsen's " Revelation, Universal and Special."

Chapter III. Canon Of Scripture : That Of Old Testament

Meaning of the word. — Collection of sacred books recognized by Christ and His Apostles. — Language of Josephus, of Philo, Son of Sirach, and the Talmud. — How Canon probably formed. — Allusions to it in early Christian writers.

The acceptance of the idea of a record of revelation immediately raises the question, What is this record ; what its bounds and limitations ? Revelation might be oral, and only for the individual and his contemporaries. It might involve a divinely insi^iring influence upon the recipient, and yet be only for immediate and present purposes. Again, it might be for all time and for all men ; revealed to inspired men, and placed in permanent, written form, for all coming generations. By this last we describe the canon of Scripture, the list of divinely revealed books, given through inspired men.

This word canon, it is to be borne in mind, has other significations. It meant, in earlier usage, the canon or list of articles of faith to be accepted — in other words, a creed. So, too, it was used to designate the list of books, inspired and uninsioired alike, to be read in the churches. Again, and in more modern usage, it almost exclusively means the list of the inspired books of Scripture. In tlie second of these, the canon of the Church of England includes some of the aj^ocryphal books. In the third sense, the canon of this Church is that of the divinely inspired books of the Old and New Testaments. For our purpose, we put aside all other meanings, and confine ourselves to the last, the inspired, authoritative books of Holy Scripture. How does it appear that such a collection was made ? On what grounds is it now accepted ? We naturally begin with the canon of the Old Testament.

Taking New Testament times as our point of departure, we find clear indication of the existence of such collection in the language of our Lord and that of the apostles. " Scripture," " the Scriptures," " the law," " the law and the proi^liets," " the law, the prophets, and the Psalms," are some of its modes of designation. With these, at times, is mention of particular writers — Moses, David, Isaiah — ^as familiar alike to speaker and hearers, and as of supreme Divine authority.