The fatherhood of God

Introduction

By

Bishop STEPHEN M. MERRILL, D.D., LL.D.

Oooyrleht Entry

CLASS 0^ XXo. No.

COPY B

To My Mother

Whose Anxious and Persistent

Prayers for the Salvation of Her Boy

Led Me in Early Life

To Desire and Seek

To Become a Child of God

And by Whose Sacrifices Largely

[ was Prepared for the Christian Ministry

This My First Book

Is Dedicated

On Her Seventy -fifth

Birthday, April 21, 1904

"It affords me great pleasure to say that 1 have read with much interest the manuscript of the book of Rev. A. Lincoln Shute, B.D., on The Fatherhood of God,

"I regard it as a book prepared with great care, clear in style, full in its treatment, and eminently satisfactory. The book shows profound study of the literature on the subject and an acquaintance with the issues involved, and I am confident that its circulation will do much good in spreading the truth on this most important topic of Christian thought.

"I cordially commend it as worthy of study on the part of our preachers and people." — Henry A. Butts, D,D., LL.D., President of Drew Theological Seminary,

Preface

"The Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man," is a phrase very popular, widely used and much abused. It is employed constantly in whole or in part by very many writers and speakers, who seem to take it for granted that it has a very definite and fully established meaning : namely, that all men are brothers because God is their universal Father. Very few have attempted to formulate an exact doctrine of the subject; and still fewer have done this by a full and fair examination of what the Bible has to say about it.

In 1864 Dr. Robert S. Candlish delivered the Cunningham Lectures before the New College, Edinburgh, on "The Fatherhood of God/* maintaining that the relationship has reference only to those who have been born again, born of God. These lectures form the most satisfactory treatment of the subject that has yet appeared, but contain a fatal defect, due to his system of theology, or at least to his understanding of that system. In 1866 Professor Thomas J. Crawford, D.D., of the University of Edinburgh, published a reply to Dr. Candlish, aiming "to illustrate the Divine Fatherhood, at once in its general reference to all mankind and in its special reference to'^ believers. Besides these, and with the exception of a work by Charles H. H. Wright in 1867, and a more recent little book by John C. Adams, a Universalist, the writer knows of no book on the subject which attempts a full exposition of the teaching of Scripture on the Divine Fatherhood. Many books on other themes, and some on this, contain some Scriptural references to the subject or an exposition of a few relevant or irrelevant passages of the Word, various lines of argument, and much assumption concerning it, but no thorough attempt to set forth and establish the BibHcal doctrine of the Fatherhood.

The importance of such a study is seen in the fact that the notion that God is a universal Father is of such far-reaching influence that the Universalist takes it for his fundamental doctrine, an Oxford theologian and lecturer in American universities makes it "the determinative principle" of theology, and a recent author, in an attempt to disprove Dr. Henry van Dyke's characterization of the present as "An Age of Doubt," proposes that "all theories about God, man, and the universe should be interpreted" in its light. And yet only the first of these attempts to establish his fundamental principle by an examination of both sides of the Scriptural argument on the teaching in question. It would seem to be time that this doctrine should be held up to view in the light of the whole Bible, in order that its own truth or falsity may be determined, that we may be prepared the better to weigh the value of the conclusions drawn from the assumed truth of the premise of the universal Fatherhood as the fundamental, determinative, interpreting principle. It is possible that such a course would lead to the discovery that a most precious truth of our faith is being misinterpreted and misapplied, so that its real value is lost, and that which should be a source of comfort and inspiration is being turned into an instrument of evil.

Since writing the body of this work and the foregoing part of this Preface, two books, very recently published, have come to our attention. The one is The Fatherhood of God in Christian Truth and Life, by J. Scott Lidgett, M.A., Edinburgh. One-third of this large book of over four hundred pages is devoted to a Scripture interpretation of the doctrine, one-third to the doctrine in Church history, and the remainder to the significance of the Divine Fatherhood. This book goes to the press too soon for the writer to make an extended examination of Mr. Lidgett's work. This much, however, is evident, that he makes the same vital mistake made by all advocates of the universal Divine Fatherhood : namely, the failure to discern that the Scriptures ground the Divine family relationship not in creation but in redemption. This defect vitiates much of his Scripture interpretation and leads him also to miss the mark in some parts at least of his historical review. Every argument of fundamental importance in this new work has been anticipated in the following pages, so as to make further comment unnecessary.

The other book, The New and Living Way, by Dr. M. S. Terry, makes reference to this subject only in a footnote closing with this sentence : "So one may say after the manner of Paul in i Timothy 4: 10, that God is the Father oi all men, especially of them that believe/' First Timothy 4: 10 reads, "We have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of them that believe." Every evangelical Christian knows the meaning of Paul's words: namely, that Christ is not actually but potentially the Savior of all men, and that this potential Savior becomes the actual Savior of any particular adult individual only on condition of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. The same thing, as Dr. Terry suggests, is true concerning God's Fatherhood, which is exactly coextensive with the Saviorhood of Christ. This doctrine is developed fully from Scripture in the following study.

The author desires to express his gratitude to Bishop Stephen M. Merrill and President Henry A. Buttz for their kindly encouragement after reading the manuscript. The Bishop has made many valuable suggestions, besides writing the Introduction.

The purpose of the writer has not been to furnish an example of elegant writing as a model for the college class room, though he has aimed persistently at one rhetorical requirement, perspicuity.

This book is the outgrowth of a profound conviction that some one, without further delay, ought to place within reach of the Church universal a full, plain, warm-hearted, logical. Scriptural, and evangelically Christian presentation of the glorious doctrine of the Fatherhood of God. Whether the author has accomplished this, must be left to a friendly Church to judge. He claims only that such was his ideal, prayerful, and painstaking purpose.

Chicago, April 21, 1904.

INTRODUCTION

The subject of this Treatise, always interesting, has assumed special importance in recent years because of the use made of it by a certain class of so-called liberal theologians, as well as by many who do not pretend to be students of the Holy Word. The two phrases — the Fatherhood of God, and the brotherhood of man — have become linked together in such way that one always suggests the other, and each appears to be the complement of the other. The brotherhood of man is supposed to result from the Fatherhood of God. The idea is that inasmuch as God created all men, and created them of one blood, they are all brothers, and all children of a common Father. This is the ordinary thought which underlies the popular use of this language — a thought which is not unnatural, and which is often used without any suspicion of its heretical bearing, or that it has any tendency to lead to unsound or unscriptural conceptions of God, or of His relation to the human race. It does, however, have this tendency, and it is often used purposely by opposers of what is known as orthodoxy, to build up theories or doctrines antagonistic to the faith of all evangelical Churches.

The process of argumentation is short and taking. Assuming that the relation of children is properly predicated of the act of creation, the conclusion is easily reached that all whom God created are His children, and children because He created them, and that they can no more cease to be His children than they can cease to be His creatures. The absurdity of identifying all creatures with the children of God does not appear without a little effort of the mind to distinguish between things that differ.

Introduction IS

The author of this Treatise has discovered the difference, and seen clearly that the foundation of the family relation is redemption and not creation, and forcefully points out that the opposite view is Universalism, whether the holder intends it or not. It is against this false conception and erroneous use of a most precious doctrine that he makes solemn protest in this volume, and the reader will be impressed that he protests with good reason, and with arguments that cannot be gainsaid or turned aside as without weight.

Some months ago the author read an Essay on this subject before the Methodist Ministers' Meeting in Chicago, which awakened considerable interest, and, much to the surprise of the writer of this introductory note, it was severely criticised by preachers who are not supposed to entertain loose notions on the fundamentals of Christianity. This writer took occasion to indorse the Essay, and after the meeting was over felt moved to commend it in conversation with its author, and suggested to him the idea of enlarging it so as to give it to the pubHc in the form of a small volume for general circulation. It is not unlikely that it was in pursuit of this suggestion that our good brother has prepared the work now submitted to the public. Having made this suggestion, and having examined the manuscript before it was passed to the publishers, I do not hesitate to assume a share of responsibility for the appearance of the book. So far as its teaching is concerned, it seems to me that neither a Methodist nor any other orthodox or evangelical minister or layman can dissent with any consistency.

It recognizes the supreme fact that God is the creator of all things, and the additional fact that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, full of grace and truth. It accords to man his high place and dignity in the order of creation, his rightful claim to sonship in the Divine family based on the possession of the moral image of his Maker so long as he retained it, and recognizes his moral freedom to the extent of having power to forfeit by disobedience the Divine likeness and his exalted relationship. Upon the fact of his possessing this pov^er of forfeiture turns issues of momentous import. If he did not possess it, and did not, in fact, forfeit the Divine image and lose his relation to God as a child, there can be no distinct meaning in the allegation that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son, nor any worthy reason for his incarnation or mission in this world as the Redeemer and Savior of men. The whole scheme of Redemption hinges on this great forfeiture by sin. On it also depends the necessity of whatever is included in the Scriptural doctrines of reconciliation, regeneration, and adoption. If there is reality in the processes described by these terms, there is reality in the forfeiture and the recovery. God does not reconcile the unalienated. He does not regenerate those who have never become unregenerate. He does not adopt His own children, those of His own household. If these words have any meaning, they have meaning of most tremendous significance. They mean all that our Author attributes to them, and more than can possibly belong to them if the hypothesis of the universal Fatherhood be true.

The universality of God's love is not set aside by the ground taken in this work. He loved all men, not because they were by creation His children, but His love reached out to them in their alienation while they were not His children, and was so deep that it sought to make them His children by adoption and grace. By denying the power of forfeiture of the filial relation, we deny the richest quality in the love of God, as well as the true significance of redemption, and all that is vital in the processes of gospel salvation.

First of all, God is the Father of our

Lord Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son ; and then He is the Father o£ all that receive His Son, and secure a spiritual union with Him. These are His children not through Adam, but through Jesus Christ. They become children not by being created in Adam, but by being created anew in Jesus Christ; not by being born, but by being born again; not by being born of flesh, but by being born of the Spirit; not by generation, but by regeneration. "As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name, who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." They become God's children by being born of God. This is plain, Scriptural, true, and in harmony with the whole system of redemption.

In these days of rapid and superficial thinking along lines of the greatest importance, when Scriptural terms and phrases are being flippantly used to undermine the foundations of evangelical faith, it is refreshing to find a youngerly minister of progressive spirit and studious habits, grasping the essence of the gospel and applying it courageously in the exposure of popular error. An occasional want in rhetorical dress is not to be accounted serious w^hen found in connection with sound interpretation and logical force vigorously employed in * ^driving away erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's Word." Let the book be read with an eye to the truth it contains, and with a heart open to edification in the deep things of God, and the chief design of the author will be accomplished in the establishment of rational and Scriptural views of the "Fatherhood of God."

Note. — All references in the text to the following works are made by number ; for example, (i : 137) means, Can I Believe in God the Father? — William Newton Clarke. Page 137. A superior figure refers to the column. Scriptural quotations are taken from the Revised Version, American Standard Edition, or what might be called more briefly, the American Standard Version.

A. — Books Teaching the Universal Fatherhood

1. Can I Believe in God the Father? —

William Newton Clarke.

2. The Age of Faith.— Bradford.

3. The Fatherhood of God. — Adams.

4. Universalism. — Nye.

5. The Works of William E. Charming,

D.D.— Edition of 1888.

6. Science and Health. — Mrs. Eddy.

7. The Place of Christ in Modern The-

ology. — Fairbairn.

8. The Influence of Jesus. — Brooks.

9. The Kingdom of God. — Bruce.

10. St. Paul's Conception of Christianity.

— Bruce.

11. New Testament Theology. Vol. I.

— Beyschlag.

12. New Testament Theology. Vol. II.

— Beyschlag.

13. The Teaching of Jesus. Vol. I. —

Wendt.

14. The Teaching of Jesus. Vol. II. —

Wendt.

15. Man and His Divine Father. — ^John

C. C. Clarke,

16. The Theology of an Evolutionist. —

Abbott.

17. The Christian Life. — Bowne.

18. The Fatherhood of God. — Crawford.

(Out of print.)

1 8 J. The Fatherhood of God.— Lidgett.

B. — Books Teaching the Conditional Spiritual Fatherhood

19. Aspects of Christian Experience. —

Merrill.

20. The Son of Man. — Alexander.

21. McClintock and Strong's Cyclopae-

dia. Vol. I.

22. McClintock and Strong's Cyclopae-

dia. Vol. X.

24. Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. I. —

Hastings.

25. Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. II.—

Hastings.

26. Biblical Theology of the New Testa-

ment. Vol. I. — Weiss. 2y. Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Vol. II. — Weiss.

28. A Review of Bowne's ''Christian

Life."— Wilson.

29. The Ministry of the Spirit. — Gordon.

30. The Epistles of John. — Westcott.

31. The Fatherhood of God. — Wright.

(Out of print.)

32. The Fatherhood of God. — Candlish.

(Out of print.)

33. Atonement. — Merrill.

C. — Miscellaneous Works

34. The New Life in Christ. — Beet.

35. The Atonement in Christ. — Miley.

36. A Compendium of Christian The-

ology. Vol. II. — Pope.

37. Systematic Theology. Vol. 11. —

Miley.

PAGE

2. Introduction by Bishop Merrill 13

Occasion and Purpose of This Book

1. A fundamental and cherished doctrine... ZJ

2. Involved with the greatest dangers 38

3. The true view 39

4. Final test of the true doctrine 40

5. The purpose of this book 41

Part I Theories Of The Universal Fatherhood

A. — Described

1. The questions at issue 45

2. A necessity of creation, Ontology, Ethics,

Sociology, Redemption 46

B. — Refuted (a) Unfortunate in its Associations Its genesis, in Christian Science, Mormonism, Unitarianism and Universalism 48

(b) Not Grounded in any such Necessity as Is

Alleged page

2. No ontological necessity 55

3. No ethical necessity 56

4. No sociological necessity 58

5. Not necessary to redemption 59

6. No basis in any necessity 66

(c) Inconsistencies of Orthodox Writers who

Attempt to Defend This Doctrine

1. Man by creation has the nature of a son

of God, and yet he must receive a new

nature 66

2. Sonship is natural, universal, indestruct-

ible, and yet voluntary 67

3. We all are, and yet we must become sons

of God 68

4. We are by natural birth the sons of God,

and yet we must be born of God 71

5. Consistency impossible 71

(d) Reductio ad Absurdum

1. God, the Father of Animals 74

2. God, the Father of the Devil 74

3. God loves the Devil 76

4. Hell inhabited only by children of God. . . 76

5. Intolerable implications of the doctrine. . 76

6. Universalism the only alternative 78

C. — The Major Premise of Universalism

Responsibility of Christian teachers; danger of false doctrine. . « 79

(a) The Only Logical Home of This Doctrine

PAGE

1. Inconsistent with evangelical truth ». 80

2. Tendency to Universalism 80

3. Avowed by Universalists 85

{h) Their Major Premise Admitted, the Logic of Universalists Is both Scriptural and Unanswerable

(i) Sons have the Father's nature 86

(2) If by creation, no need of the new

birth 86

(3) Need only a development inevitable. 87

(4) All under God's parental govern-

ment; not subject to punishment,

but only to discipline 88

( 5 ) Atonement unnecessary 89

(6) "If children, then heirs" 90

2. A conclusion unscriptural, but logical.... 92

(c) Universalism' s Major Premise Repudiated as False

1. The new birth essential to sonship 94

2. The new birth, and hence the sonship, is

conditional 97

3. Only children under a parental govern-

ment c 98

4. Others under God's moral government.. 100

5. These are liable to punishment 104

(i) Animus of the doctrine, to get rid

of punishment 104

PAGE

(2) Punishment, a Scriptural word and

idea 106

(3) Punishment has ends worthy of Di-

vine goodness 108

(4) Punishment necessary to these ends, no

(5) Punishment revealed in Scripture,

the final authority 115

(6) Men liable to punishment 118

6. Forgiveness and the new birth grounded

in the Atonement 118

7. Sonship not by nature, but by grace

through Christ 121

8. Universalism falls 122

(d) A Most Cruel Deception

1. Not "broadness/* but truth is essential... 122

2. Solves no problems 123

3. Leads to an infatuation cruel and decep-

tive 125

4. A doctrine none can afford to hold or

teach 126

D. — Sonship Is Alienable

1. The determining question 128

2. Not a natural or physical relationship 129

4. Based on God's grace and conditioned

by man's freedom 133

6. Filial likeness of nature forfeited 142

7. Examples of forfeited sonship 145

8. Fatherhood and sonship the normal rela-

tion between God and man 146

9. Sin causes an abnormal relationship 146

PART n

THE TEACHING OF SCRIPTURE

A. — The Old Testament _.^^

PAGE

1. Man created in the image of God 152

2. His filial nature lost by sin 153

3. Two classes of men since the Fall 156

4. The Hebrews as a nation called children

of God 158

6. Intimations of individual sonship i6i

7. A Divine family; a fatherly nature in

God 162

8. Prophecies of a gracious personal son-

ship 163

9. Summary of Old Testament teaching.... 164

B. — The Doctrine Taught by Jesus

1. A new conception of God 166

2. Father, the natural name with Jesus i66

3. Provides that all may be children. .. . 167

(a) The Claim that Jesus Teaches the Universal Fatherhood of God

1. By W. N. Clarke, Bruce, Wendt, Bishop

Brooks o 168

2. Proposed Gospel proofs 175

(2) The Lord's Prayer 176

(3) Sermon on the Mount 179

(b) Jesus Makes the Relationship Universally Possible, but Not thereby Actually Universal

PAGE

1. God, both King and Father 187

2. The Christian name for God 189

(i) Not often used with reference to

(2) The name in God's kingdom and

family 190

(3) Kingdom and family co-extensive... 191

3. Jesus perpetuates the twofold classifica-

tion of mankind 192

(1) Unbelievers rebuked for calling God

their Father 193

(2) Not physical origin, but moral and

spiritual likeness 197

(3) Jesus settles it, that some are not

children 198

4. A change of relationship required » . 199

5. God's family graciously open to all 200

(i) By means of the new birth 201

(2) Through faith in Christ 202

6. Privileges of God's children. . . . o 203

C. — The Teaching of the Apostles

(a) View of the Advocates of the Universal Fatherhood

1. Great confusion 204

2. "The offspring of God." Acts 17: 29 205

3. "The Father of spirits." Heb. 12: 9 206

4. "Father of all." Eph. 4:6 207

(b) The Apostles Teach that Man's Sonship in the Divine Family is Conditional,

PAGE

1. The Bible harmonious with itself 2o8

2. Still two classes 210

3. Attempts at reconciliation 211

(i) Ignored, or only a figure of speech.. 212

(2) The method of Universalism 212

4. Sonship by adoption 219

5. Sonship through the new birth 220

6. Likeness of nature by birth 221

7. Sonship by grace 222

8. Ground, condition, result, Witness and

determining factor of sonship 223

9. Sonship, the pledge of the inheritance... 224 (i) Blessings of real sonship 225

(2) Deception of fictitious universal son-

ship 226

(3) A sure basis of hope 228

ID. Sonship conditional and universally possible 229

D. — Fatal to the Doctrine of the Universal Fatherhood, that it Is Not Grounded in Scripture

1. Scripture ignored 230

2. Based on imagination and sentimental-

ism 231

3. Scripture the only basis for a true

doctrine 234

PART m

THE TRUE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD AND THE BROTHERHOOD OF MAN

A. — The Doctrine Stated „^^„

PAGE

1. Fatherhood defined 239

(1) The method a mystery 241

(2) Begetting, not creating 242

(3) Filiation corresponds to nature 243

2. God eternally the Father 244

3. His desire for sons. 244

4. Man originally God's son 245

5. Sonship lost by sin 246

6. Provision for the restoration of sonship.. 246

7. Sonship grounded in the Atonement.... 247 (i) The issue between "Liberalism" and

evangelical Christianity 247

(2) Christ's sonship natural, ours gra-

cious 250

(3) Sonship made real by the new birth. 252

8. Gracious sonship of infants 253

9. Gracious sonship lost by sin 255

10. Sonship restored by adoption and the new

birth 256

11. Witness of the Spirit to sonship 257

12. The privilege of all 257

B. — Correlated with Other Facts

2. Salvation 261

4. Sorrow, prayer, and immortality 266

C. — The Only Basis of a Brotherly Brotherhood AND A True Sociology

PAGE

1. The supreme social need 268

2. No basis in the universal Fatherhood. .. . 268

3. Only basis in the true Fatherhood 270

4. Results of this coming brotherhood 274

D. — Relation of the Fatherhood to Ethics AND Evangelism

2. A sure basis in the true Fatherhood 281

E. — Fatherhood Exalted and Hope Inspired

1. No advantage in the false doctrine 284