The Great Doctrines of the Bible Part 1

The Great Doctrines of the Bible.

by Rev. William Evans.

FOREWORD.

The demand for this book has come from the students in the cla.s.s room who have listened to these lectures on the Great Doctrines of the Bible, and have desired and requested that they be put into permanent form for the purpose of further study and reference. This volume is prepared, therefore, primarily, but not exclusively, for the student, and with his needs in mind.

The doctrines herein treated are dealt with from the standpoint of Biblical rather than Dogmatic theology. This is evident from the plan which is followed in the work, namely, to gather together all the Scripture pa.s.sages dealing with the subject under consideration, and from them choose a required number that may be called representative; then seek to understand the meaning of these references by the study of the text itself as well as its context and parallel pa.s.sages; and finally, from the selected proof-texts, formulate the doctrinal teaching, and place such results under appropriate headings.

The doctrines of G.o.d, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are more fully dealt with than the doctrines which follow. This is especially true of the doctrine of G.o.d. The reason for this is to set forth the method pursued in these studies, and to give a pattern for the study of the doctrines to follow.

It is intended that the doctrines of this book should be studied side by side with the open Bible. It is for this reason that many of the Scripture references are indicated by chapter and verse only. There must be constant reference to the Scriptures themselves.

This volume is in such form as to be of great service in the instruction given in Bible cla.s.ses. There is probably no greater need in the Christian church today than that its membership should be made acquainted with the fundamental facts and doctrines of the Christian faith. The Christian layman, therefore, who desires a deeper knowledge of the doctrines of the Christian faith may find all the help he needs in this book. It is hoped that while it is prepared for the student, it is nevertheless not too deep for the average layman.

The special indebtedness of the writer is hereby expressed to the following works: "What the Bible Teaches," by R. A. Torrey, D. D.

To this work the writer owes much with regard to the method and plan of this book. "Systematic Theology," by A. H. Strong, D. D., has provided some rich expositions of the sacred text. "Christian Doctrine," by Dr. F. L. Patton, has been found very helpful, especially in connection with the subject of the "Proofs for the Existence of G.o.d." Further recognition of indebtedness is also due to the following: "The Problem of the Old Testament," and "The Christian View of G.o.d and the World," by Dr. James Orr; "Studies in Christian Doctrine," by George Knapp; "Jesus and the Gospel,"

and "The Death of Christ," by Prof. James Denny; "The Person and Work of Jesus," by Nathan E. Wood, D. D.

There are doubtless others to whom credit is due of whom the author is not at this time conscious, for, after all, we are "part of all that we have seen, and met, and read." To those unknown authors, therefore, our indebtedness is hereby acknowledged.

_Chicago._ WILLIAM EVANS.

THE DOCTRINE OF G.o.d

I. HIS EXISTENCE.

1. TAKEN FOR GRANTED BY THE SCRIPTURE WRITERS:

It does not seem to have occurred to any of the writers of either the Old or the New Testaments to attempt to prove or to argue for the existence of G.o.d. Everywhere and at all times it is a fact taken for granted. "A G.o.d capable of proof would be no G.o.d at all"

(Jacobi). He is the self-existent One (Exod. 3:14) and the Source of all life (John 5:26).

The sublime opening of the Scriptures announces the fact of G.o.d and His existence: "In the beginning G.o.d" (Gen. 1:1). Nor is the rise or dawn of the idea of G.o.d in the mind of man depicted. Psa. 14:1: "The fool hath said in his heart. There is no G.o.d," indicates not a disbelief in the existence, but rather in the active interest of G.o.d in the affairs of men--He seemed to hide Himself from the affairs of men (See Job 22:12-14).

The Scriptures further recognize that men not only know of the existence of G.o.d, but have also a certain circle of ideas as to who and what He is (Rom. 1:18-19).

No one but a "fool" will deny the fact of G.o.d. "What! no G.o.d? A watch, and no key for it? A watch with a main-spring broken, and no jeweler to fix it? A watch, and no repair shop? A time-card and a train, and n.o.body to run it? A star lit, and n.o.body to pour oil in to keep the wick burning? A garden, and no gardener? Flowers, and no florist? Conditions, and no conditioner?" He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh at such absurd atheism.

2. THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF G.o.d.

[Footnote: A fuller and complete presentation of these arguments for the Existence of G.o.d may be found in the works of Dr. Augustus H. Strong and Dr. Francis L. Patten, to whom the author is here indebted.]

These arguments may not prove conclusively that G.o.d is, but they do show that in order to the existence of any knowledge, thought, reason, conscience in man, we must a.s.sume that G.o.d is (Strong).

It is said of the beautiful, "It may be shown, but not proved." So we say of the existence of G.o.d. These arguments are probable, not demonstrative. For this reason they supplement each other, and const.i.tute a series of evidences which is c.u.mulative in its nature.

Though taken singly, none of them can be considered absolutely decisive, they together furnish a corroboration of our primitive conviction of G.o.d's existence, which is of great practical value, and is in itself sufficient to bind the moral actions of men. A bundle of rods may not be broken even though each one separately may; the strength of the bundle is the strength of the whole. If in practical affairs we were to hesitate to act until we have absolute and demonstrable certainty, we should never begin to move at all.

Instead of doubting everything that can be doubted, let us rather doubt nothing until we are compelled to doubt.

Dr. Orr, of Glasgow, says: What we mean by the proof of G.o.d's existence is simply that there are necessary acts of thought by which we rise from the finite to the infinite, from the caused to the uncaused, from the contingent to the necessary, from the reason involved in the structure of the universe to a universal and eternal reason, which is the ground of all, from morality in conscience to a moral Lawgiver and Judge. In this connection the theoretical proofs const.i.tute an inseparable unity--'const.i.tute together,'

as Dr. Stirling declares, "but the undulations of a single wave, which wave is but a natural rise and ascent to G.o.d, on the part of man's own thought, with man's own experience and consciousness as the object before him."

Religion was not produced by proofs of G.o.d's existence, and will not be destroyed by its insufficiency to some minds. Religion existed before argument; in fact, it is the preciousness of religion that leads to the seeking for all possible confirmations of the reality of G.o.d.

a) Universality of Belief in the Existence of G.o.d.

(1) The fact stated and proven:

Man everywhere believes in the existence of a supreme Being or Beings to whom he is morally responsible and to whom propitiation needs to be made.

Such belief may be crudely, even grotesquely stated and manifested, but the reality of the fact is no more invalidated by such crudeness than the existence of a father is invalidated by the crude attempts of a child to draw a picture of its father.

It has been claimed by some that there are or were tribes in inland Africa that possessed no idea or conception of G.o.d. Moffat, Livingstone's father-in-law, made such a claim, but Livingstone, after a thorough study of the customs and languages of such tribes, conclusively showed that Moffat was wrong.

Nor should the existence of such few tribes, even if granted, violate the fact we are here considering, any more than the existence of some few men who are blind, lame, deaf, and dumb would make untrue the statement and fact that man is a seeing, hearing, speaking, and walking creature. The fact that some nations do not have the multiplication table does no violence to arithmetic.

Concerning so-called atheists in Christian lands: it may be questioned if there are really any such beings. Hume, known as a famous sceptic, is reported to have said to Ferguson, as together they looked up into the starry sky: "Adam, there is a G.o.d." Voltaire, the atheist, prayed to G.o.d in a thunderstorm. Ingersoll, when charged with being an atheist, indignantly refuted the charge, saying: "I am not an atheist; I do not say that there is no G.o.d; I am an agnostic; I do not know that there is a G.o.d." "I thank G.o.d that I am an atheist," were the opening words of an argument to disprove the existence of G.o.d. A new convert to atheism was once heard to say to a coterie of unbelievers: "I have gotten rid of the idea of a supreme Being, and I thank G.o.d for it."

(2) Whence comes this universal belief in the existence of G.o.d?

aa) _Not from outside sources_, such as reason, tradition, or even the Scriptures.

_Not from reason or argument_, for many who believe in G.o.d have not given any time to reasoning and arguing the question; some, indeed, intellectually, could not. Others who have great powers of intellect, and who have reasoned and argued on the subject are professed disbelievers in G.o.d. Belief in G.o.d is not the result of logical arguments, else the Bible would have given us proofs.

_Nor did this universal belief come from tradition_, for "Tradition," says Dr. Patton, "can perpetuate only what has been originated."

_Nor can it be said that this belief came from the Scriptures even_, for, as has been well said, unless a man had a knowledge of the G.o.d from whom the Scriptures came, the Revelation itself could have no authority for him. The very idea of Scripture as a Revelation, presupposes belief in a G.o.d who can make it.--_Newman Smith_. Revelation must a.s.sume the existence of G.o.d.

bb) _This universal belief comes from within man._

All the evidence points to the conclusive fact that this universal faith in the existence of G.o.d is innate in man, and comes from rational intuition.

(3) The weight and force of this argument.

The fact that all men everywhere believe in the existence of a supreme Being or beings to whom they are morally responsible, is a strong argument in favor of its truth. So universal an effect must have a cause as universal, otherwise we have an effect without any a.s.signable cause. Certain is it that this argument makes the burden of proof to rest upon those who deny the existence of G.o.d.

b) The Argument from Cause: Cosmological.

When we see a thing we naturally ask for the cause of that thing.

We see this world in which we live, and ask how it came to be. Is it self-originating, or is the cause of its being outside of itself?

Is its cause finite or infinite?

That it could not come into being of itself seems obvious; no more than nails, brick, mortar, wood, paints, colors, form into a house or building of themselves; no more than the type composing a book came into order of itself. When Liebig was asked if he believed that the gra.s.s and flowers which he saw around him grew by mere chemical forces, he replied: "No; no more than I could believe that the books on botany describing them could grow by mere chemical forces." No theory of an "eternal series" can account for this created universe. No matter how long a chain you may have, you must have a staple somewhere from which it depends. An endless perpendicular chain is an impossibility. "Every house is builded by some man," says the Bible; so this world in which we live was built by a designing mind of infinite power and wisdom.

So is it when we consider man. Man exists; but he owes his existence to some cause. Is this cause within or without himself, finite or infinite? Trace our origin back, if you will, to our first parent, Adam; then you must ask, How did he come into being? The doctrine of the eternity of man cannot be supported. Fossil remains extend back but 6,000 years. Man is an effect; he has not always existed.