How C. S. Lewis Put the Ontological Argument for God in Narnia

By Gavin Ortlund 1/25/2017

     One of my favorite passages in all of literature is Puddleglum’s response to the Lady of the Green Kirtle in The Silver Chair. The Lady (an evil sorceress) has several characters trapped underground, and with the help of a little magic is trying to convince them that Narnia and Aslan and the rest of the “Overland” do not actually exist. The characters are on the verge of giving in when Puddleglum stomps on the magic fire in these words:

     “One word, Ma’am,” he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. “One word. All you’ve been saying is quite right, I shouldn’t wonder. I’m a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won’t deny any of what you said. But there’s one more thing to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things—trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a play world which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we’re leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that’s a small loss if the world’s as dull a place as you say.”

     Some regard this passage as a sort of inversion of Plato’s famous allegory of the cave, but until recently I’d never thought about it as an application of the ontological argument, or a Platonic worldview more generally. Then recently I came across this statement by Lewis himself in an October 1963 letter to Nancy Warner. Warner had mentioned that her son referenced the presence of an “ontological argument” in The Silver Chair, and Lewis replied:

     Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is a husband, father, minister, and visiting scholar at Reasons to Believe, and author of several forthcoming books, including Ascending Toward the Beatific Vision: Heaven as the Climax of Anselm’s Proslogion (Brill). Gavin blogs regularly at Soliloquium. You can follow him on Twitter.

How Not to Help a Sufferer

By Gavin Ortlund 2/18/2017

     Of all the Bible’s many colorful characters, none is quite so exasperating as Job’s friends. Herod might chop off your head, and Judas might stab you in the back, but Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar will hurt you with Bible verses.

     Job’s actual losses take two brief chapters to recount (Job 1–2), but the tortuous dialogue that follows drones on for 35 chapters (Job 3–37). I wonder which agonized Job more: his initial suffering or the extended indictment that followed?

     The problem with Job’s comforters isn’t that they’re heretics. Much of what they say is true. The problem is the moralistic worldview that governs their engagement with Job, and compels them to reason backward from suffering to sin.

     Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is a husband, father, minister, and visiting scholar at Reasons to Believe, and author of several forthcoming books, including Ascending Toward the Beatific Vision: Heaven as the Climax of Anselm’s Proslogion (Brill). Gavin blogs regularly at Soliloquium. You can follow him on Twitter.

The Problem of Evil Is a Problem for Everyone

By Gavin Ortlund 1/13/2017

     If God is all-good and all-powerful, why is there so much evil and suffering in the world?

     This question, the age-old “problem of evil,” is probably the greatest argument of all time against the existence of God. And the question has both a “global” and a “local” presence—it’s a logical dilemma puzzled over by philosophers, and an emotional struggle every sufferer will face. It’s both academic and everyday.

     When we are with someone who is suffering, it’s often best to avoid words altogether and stick with tears, silence, and prayers. In my pastoral role I often have the privilege of sitting with people in deep grief. In those moments, it usually does more harm than good to offer encouragements, or even interpretations. The best thing is simply to sit with them in the darkness. As my brother Dane puts it, “That Romans 8:28 comes before Romans 12:15 in the canon doesn’t mean it should in our counseling and friendships.”

     Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is a husband, father, minister, and visiting scholar at Reasons to Believe, and author of several forthcoming books, including Ascending Toward the Beatific Vision: Heaven as the Climax of Anselm’s Proslogion (Brill). Gavin blogs regularly at Soliloquium. You can follow him on Twitter.

3 Ways to Respond When Slandered

By Gavin Ortlund 10/21/2016

     Slander is a serious sin. Like its cousin gossip, slander is incredibly destructive. It “lies in wait for blood” (Prov. 12:6), “destroys neighbors” (Prov. 11:9), and “separates close friends” (Prov. 16:28). But while both gossip and slander involve destructive speech, slander adds the additional element of dishonesty.

     Gossip spreads the fire, but slander sparks it.

     It’s acutely painful to be slandered, and pastors and ministry leaders are particularly easy targets. Precisely because it’s such a serious sin, we must be especially careful to guard our hearts when it happens to us. One of the easiest ways to be led into sin is when we’re sinned against.

     Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is a husband, father, minister, and visiting scholar at Reasons to Believe, and author of several forthcoming books, including Ascending Toward the Beatific Vision: Heaven as the Climax of Anselm’s Proslogion (Brill). Gavin blogs regularly at Soliloquium. You can follow him on Twitter.

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 34

15 The eyes of the LORD are toward the righteous
and his ears toward their cry.
16 The face of the LORD is against those who do evil,
to cut off the memory of them from the earth.
17 When the righteous cry for help, the LORD hears
and delivers them out of all their troubles.
18 The LORD is near to the brokenhearted
and saves the crushed in spirit.

19 Many are the afflictions of the righteous,
but the LORD delivers him out of them all.
20 He keeps all his bones;
not one of them is broken.
21 Affliction will slay the wicked,
and those who hate the righteous will be condemned.
22 The LORD redeems the life of his servants;
none of those who take refuge in him will be condemned.

Talk to God About Your Anxiety

By Jon Bloom 11/11/2016

     Anxiety is a species of fear. It’s the paralyzing fear of “what if.” It’s the fear that something we dread might possibly come true.

     There’s only one solution to anxiety: the assurance everything is going to be okay.

     But the world gives us no such assurances. We find ourselves surrounded by myriad real dangers resulting in an endless list of “what if.” It’s no wonder human beings are so afflicted with anxiety. And our anxieties only increase our misery by adding countless imagined dangers to the very real ones in front of us.

     Antidote to Anxiety | But God. God the Son stepped into this dangerous, demonic world, where even man’s greatest efforts to ensure safety are ultimately and decidedly defeated by death. And when he did, he made the most audacious claim ever uttered by human lips: for every person who believes in him, everything is going to be ultimately, gloriously, eternally, inexpressibly, wonderfully okay (John 3:16; 11:25–26). Then to demonstrate the reality of his claim, and therefore its trustworthiness, he decidedly defeated death and announced “all authority in heaven and on earth” had been given to him (Matthew 28:18).

(Jn 3:16) 16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. ESV

(Jn 11:25–26) 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” ESV

(Mt 28:18) 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ESV

     With this authority, he says to everyone who believes in him, “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life” (Luke 12:22). Jesus — and all the promises that are now Yes in him (2 Corinthians 1:20) — is the antidote to anxiety. What he accomplishes for us and promises to us is the ultimate triumph over all that terrifies us. He does not promise us escape from misery in this world. He promises that he will redeem every misery (Romans 8:28), and that in him we will overcome the worst the world can do to us (John 16:33; Romans 8:35–39).

Click here to go to source

     Jon Bloom serves as author, board chair, and co-founder of Desiring God. He and his wife live in the Twin Cities with their five children.

By Gleason Archer Jr.

Leviticus and Numbers (cont)

     5. The religious year is dominated by the sacred number seven (symbolizing the perfect work of God). Hence (a) every seventh day is a holy sabbath; (b) every seventh year is a Sabbath year of rest for the crop-bearing land; (c) after seven sevens of years the fiftieth year is to be hallowed as a jubilee, in which all mortgaged lands are to be returned to the original family; (d) Passover is held at the end of the second heptad of Abib, on the evening of the fourteenth; (e) the Feast of Unleavened Bread is celebrated for the next seven days; (f) the Feast of Pentecost is celebrated after seven sevens of days following the offering of the wave-sheaf (hence on the “fiftieth” day); (g) the seventh month, Tishri, is especially sanctified by three holy observances: the Feast of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles; (h) the Feast of Tabernacles is celebrated seven days (fifteenth to twenty-second of Tishri), plus an eighth day for the final convocation.

     With the discovery of other ancient law codes, such as the Code of Hammurabi, the fragments of the Sumerian laws of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (about 1875 B.C., according to Kramer in ANET, p. 159), those of Bilalama, king of Eshnunna (about 1940 B.C., according to ANET, pp. 161, 217), it becomes increasingly apparent that some of the so-called P laws were strikingly similar to provisions enacted in the early second millennium, well before the age of Moses. Driver tried to salvage a post-exilic date for P by assigning these resemblances exclusively to H (for most of them are found in  Lev. 17–26 ), and suggesting that  Ezekiel included some very ancient materials in compiling his “holiness code.” This, of course, tends to undermine the whole basis for dating H in the time of  Ezekiel.

     With the recent publication of legal documents from the north Canaanite city of Ugarit, still further resemblances have been coming to light, even in the matter of technical terminology. J. J. Rabinowitz has noted in Ugaritic conveyances of land (written in Akkadian) the formula ṣamid adi dariti (“joined in perpetuity”), and he remarks that it strikingly parallels the technical Hebrew expression in  Lev. 25:23, 30, liṣemɩ̂tût (“in perpetuity”). The words in question are cognate in the two languages, or else the Hebrew has borrowed an ancient Akkadian term. Rabinowitz remarks: “I do not profess to know what precisely is the significance of the above parallelism. It does seem to me, however, that it speaks volumes against those who would assign a late date to the sections of  Leviticus relating to the year of jubilee (e.g., Pfeiffer, IOT, p. 240).” (The discovery of characteristic P terms for sacrifice in the fifteenth-century Ugaritic tablets has already been discussed in chap. 13, pp. 175–176.)

A Survey of Old Testament Introduction

You Can Learn from Medieval Christians

By Gavin Ortlund 10/21/2016

     Modern evangelical Christians aren’t known for valuing the medieval church. To tell the truth, we aren’t really known for valuing church history at all. But when we do engage church history, it tends to be our more recent (Protestant) history, with only occasional forays into the Church Fathers. A lot of evangelicals are talking about Jonathan Edwards, but you have to look around a bit to find evangelicals engaging Thomas Aquinas.

     For Chris Armstrong, faculty member at Wheaton College and founding director of Opus: The Art of Work, “The chasm between us and our medieval forebears in the faith has less to do with any intrinsic oddness of the Christians of that time and more with certain philosophical and cultural presuppositions of our own” (3). His new book, Medieval Wisdom for Modern Christians: Finding Authentic Faith in a Forgotten Age with C. S. Lewis, seeks not only to deepen our appreciation of the medieval church, but also to use medieval Christianity to redress various perceived problems and weaknesses with the modern church. To this end, he uses C. S. Lewis (someone already respected among evangelicals) as an entryway into the world of medieval Christianity.

     Armstrong explores the medieval view of tradition, medieval theology and ethics, the medieval invention of the hospital, the medieval view of the heart and affections, and the medieval view of natural theology and the incarnation. Along the way, he deconstructs many popular misconceptions about the medieval world, such as the idea that all people believed the earth was flat (77) or that all sickness was caused by demons (127). He shows how much we can learn from medieval Christians, for example, in their courageous care for the sick during plagues (124), their devotional writing (170–84), their ascetic practices (214–30), their art (154–55), and their holistic approach to spiritual growth (224–33).

     Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is a husband, father, minister, and visiting scholar at Reasons to Believe, and author of several forthcoming books, including Ascending Toward the Beatific Vision: Heaven as the Climax of Anselm’s Proslogion (Brill). Gavin blogs regularly at Soliloquium. You can follow him on Twitter.

1 Samuel 3

By Don Carson 8/13/2018

     The LORD does not call all his prophets in the same way, or at the same time of life. Amos was called when he was a shepherd in Tekoa. Elisha was called by Elijah to serve an apprenticeship. But Samuel was called even from before conception.

     Samuel’s conscious experience of the call of God (1 Sam. 3) occurred when he was still quite a young lad — not, surely, a tiny tot, as some of our more romantic pictures have portrayed it, for he knew enough to be able to understand what the Lord said to him, to be troubled by it and to hesitate before repeating it to Eli. But he was not very old, still a “boy” (1 Sam. 3:1).

     The story is so well known it scarcely needs repeating. But some observations may focus matters a little.

     (1) The voice that comes to Samuel is a real voice, speaking Hebrew, a real language. This is not some merely subjective “feel” of being called. Real calls, real visions, real revelations take place in the Bible; but in the days of Samuel they were “rare” (1 Sam. 3:1). Certainly up to this point Samuel had never had such an experience; he “did not yet know the LORD: The word of the LORD had not yet been revealed to him” (1 Sam. 3:7).

     (2) Eli is a sad figure. In his own life, he is a person of integrity — even though he is a disaster with his family. His long experience enables him, on the Lord’s third calling of Samuel, to guess what is going on, and to guide young Samuel in an appropriate response: “Speak, LORD, for your servant is listening” (1 Sam. 3:9).

     (3) The substance of the revelation given to Samuel on this occasion concerns a coming setback so startling that it “will make the ears of everyone who hears of it tingle” (1 Sam. 3:11). Included in this tragedy will be the destruction of Eli’s family, in line with what the Lord had previously told Eli: God would judge Eli’s family forever “because of the sin he (Eli) knew about; his sons made themselves contemptible, and he failed to restrain then” (1 Sam. 3:13). Such neglect is always wicked, of course, but it is especially wicked in religious leaders who promote their sons to positions where they use their power to abuse people and treat God himself with contempt (1 Sam. 2:12-25).

     (4) When Eli manages to get Samuel to tell him all the Lord said, his own response, while preserving a show of trust, betrays his irresponsibility. “He is the LORD; let him do what is good in his eyes” (1 Sam. 3:18). Why does he not immediately repent, take decisive action against his sons, exercise the discipline that was within his priestly right, and ask the Lord for mercy?

Click here to go to source

Don Carson is research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, and co-founder (with Tim Keller) of The Gospel Coalition. He has authored numerous books, and recently edited The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures (Eerdmans, 2016).

The Coming Prince

By Sir Robert Anderson 1841-1918

Chapter 6 The Prophetic Year

[1] Smith's Bib. Dict., III., 1726, "Week." Greek and Latin philosophers too have known of 'weeks of years. '" — PUSEY, Daniel, p. 167.

[2] Encyc. Brit. (6th ed.), title "Chronology." See also Smith's Bib. Dict., title "Chronology," p. 314.

[3] Astronomy of the Ancients, chap. 1 and 7. Are not the hundred and eighty days of the great feast of Xerxes intended to be equivalent to six months? (Esther 1:4.)

[4] Haggai. 2:10, 15-19. The books of Haggai and Zechariah give in full the prophetic utterances which the narrative of Ezra (4:24; 5:1-5) mentions as the sanction and incentive under which the Jews returned to the work of setting up their temple.

[5] The ninth year of Zedekiah. See App. 1. post.

[6] The second year of Darius Hystaspes.

[7] The date of the Paschal new moon, by which the Jewish year is regulated, was the evening of the 14th March in B. C. 589, and about noon on 1st April B. C. 520. According to the phases the 1st Nisan in the former year was probably the 15th or 16th March, and in the latter the 1st or 2nd April.

[8] The temple was dedicated in the eleventh year of Solomon, and the second temple was founded in B. C. 520. The intervening period reckoned exclusively was 483 years = 490 lunisolar years of 360 days. It is noteworthy that the interval between the dedication of Solomon's temple and the dedication of the second temple (B. C. 515) was 490 years. A like period had elapsed between the entrance into Canaan and the foundation of the kingdom under Saul. These cycles of 70, and multiples of 70, in Hebrew history are striking and interesting. See App. 1.

[9] Though it is signally confirmed by the undoubted fact that the Jewish Sabbatical year was conterminous, not with the solar, but with the ecclesiastical year.

The Continual Burnt Offering

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

March 27

Psalm 1:1 Blessed   ( see below) is the man
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
2  but his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.

Jeremiah 15:6  You have rejected me, declares the LORD;
you keep going backward,
so I have stretched out my hand against you and destroyed you—
I am weary of relenting.

Jeremiah 17:7  “Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD,
whose trust is the LORD.
8  He is like a tree planted by water,
that sends out its roots by the stream,
and does not fear when heat comes,
for its leaves remain green,
and is not anxious in the year of drought,
for it does not cease to bear fruit.”   ESV

O Lord, when we the path retrace,
Which Thou on earth hast trod,
To man Thy wondrous love and grace,
Thy faithfulness to God.

We wonder at Thy lowly mind,
And fain would like Thee be,
And all our rest and pleasure find
In learning, Lord, of Thee.
--- J. G. Deck

Blessed

Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the man
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
2  but his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.

Psalm 2:12  Kiss the Son,
lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
for his wrath is quickly kindled.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.


Psalm 32:1  Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven,
whose sin is covered.
2  Blessed is the man against whom the LORD counts no iniquity,
and in whose spirit there is no deceit.


Psalm 34:8  Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good!
Blessed is the man who takes refuge in him!


Psalm 84:12  O LORD of hosts,
blessed is the one who trusts in you!


Psalm 106:3  Blessed are they who observe justice,
who do righteousness at all times!


Psalm 112:1  Praise the LORD!
Blessed is the man who fears the LORD,
who greatly delights in his commandments!


Psalm 115:12  The LORD has remembered us; he will bless us;
he will bless the house of Israel;
he will bless the house of Aaron;
13  he will bless those who fear the LORD,
both the small and the great.

14  May the LORD give you increase,
you and your children!
15  May you be blessed by the LORD,
who made heaven and earth!


Psalm 119:1  Blessed are those whose way is blameless,
who walk in the law of the LORD!
2  Blessed are those who keep his testimonies,
who seek him with their whole heart,


Psalm 144:15  Blessed are the people to whom such blessings fall!
Blessed are the people whose God is the LORD!


Psalm 146:5  Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob,
whose hope is in the LORD his God,

Deuteronomy 33:29  Happy are you, O Israel! Who is like you,
a people saved by the LORD,
the shield of your help,
and the sword of your triumph!
Your enemies shall come fawning to you,
and you shall tread upon their backs.”


Jeremiah 17:7  “Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD,
whose trust is the LORD.

Blessed | Scripture
Rick Adams | Lean-into-God

By James Orr 1907

III. HUMAN CONDITIONING OF PROPHECY—CANONS OF INTERPRETATION

Prophecy, if it has its origin in God, has, nevertheless, its human side. It comes to us through the mind, faculties, speech, of particular individuals, living at a particular time, and variously conditioned by a particular experience. Keeping this human or psychological side of prophecy in view, we can readily explain a difference which the attentive reader must observe between predictions of events belonging to the prophet’s immediate future, — not giving this phrase too restricted a sense, — and predictions that stretch beyond this limit, and relate to events yet remote and indefinable. Predictions of the former class might be, and often were, quite definite and precise. Thus  Isaiah predicted the destruction of Sennacherib’s army; announced to Hezekiah that God had added to his life fifteen years.  Jeremiah predicted the capture of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, the fates of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, the seventy years’ captivity. But it is different as the event recedes into the future, loses its point of connection with the historic present, above all, belongs to an order of things, higher and more spiritual, for which the existing conditions offer no sufficient analogy. Vision of the future is not magically effected; the future is presented as an evolution from the historically existing; and, where that connection fails, prediction must necessarily take on a more general and ideal character. While, therefore, prediction of the immediate future is relatively definite, the vision of events more remote — especially of those belonging to the consummation of God’s kingdom — becomes more general in form, and greater freedom is allowed in shaping it in symbol and metaphor. The idea becomes the main thing; the particular form of the idea — the clothing of imagery or detail it receives — is less essential. There is even here, no doubt, great difference of degree. Under the guidance of the divine Spirit, prophecy is sometimes quite startling in the individuality and definiteness of its prediction of even remote events. The general principle, however, is undeniably as we have stated it, and from it three things follow which are of great importance as canons in the right interpretation of prophecy of the future.

1. It follows from what has been said that, in the prediction of distant events to which existing conditions no longer apply, there is no alternative but that these should be presented in the forms of the present. This is a principle which runs through all prophecy where the future state of the kingdom of God is concerned. It would have served no end, and is, under ordinary conditions, psychologically inconceivable, that the prophet should have been lifted out of all the forms of his existing consciousness, and transported into conditions utterly strange and inapprehensible by him. Such a revelation would, in any case, have been incommunicable to others. We have, in the earthly condition, the same difficulty in picturing to ourselves the conditions of a heavenly state. But, just as supersensible realities cannot be conceived or spoken of by us except under forms of symbol or figure drawn from earthly relations, so prophecy of the future, or of a better dispensation, must necessarily picture that future, or those new conditions, in forms drawn from the present. The kingdom of God, e.g., in the Messianic age, is still figured as a theocracy with Jerusalem as a centre; the nations come up to it to worship; the enemies of the kingdom of God are figured under the old names — Egypt, Babylon, Edom, etc.; the converted nations are these same powers. How far the prophet himself was able to distinguish the symbol from the idea is a secondary question. In some cases, at least, the idea is clearly seen breaking through the symbol, and transcending it.

2. A second principle of interpretation relates to the element of time in prophecy. Here the fact to be remembered is, that the one thing immovably certain to the prophet — that with which he starts — is not the way by which the goal of the kingdom of God is to be reached, but the goal itself. Whatever might betide in the interval, there is no dubiety about that; God’s purpose shall be fulfilled, His kingdom shall triumph, righteousness shall be supreme, and shall fill the earth. Whatever opposes itself to God’s kingdom and resists it shall be shattered. However proud and powerful wickedness may be, there is “a day of Jehovah” coming — a judgment-day, when God’s righteousness shall be vindicated. On the other hand, the steps by which this consummation is to be reached are only gradually unfolded, as the course of providence prepares the way for the discovery of them. Hence arises the feature so common in prophecy, that the consummation, or some phase of it, is the immediate background of the series of events in which the prophet is himself involved: of the Assyrian invasion, of the return from exile, of the Maccabæan deliverance, of the destruction of Jerusalem. That is the one event which in prophetic perspective is always near; for which all events are preparing; to which they are hastening on. Hence the fact that in prophetic vision extending into the distant future so little place is given the element of time. There are exceptions to this rule — sometimes time - measures, as Jeremiah’s seventy years, or Daniel’s seventy weeks, are very definite. But ordinarily time is a quite secondary element. Events are grasped in their ideal relations, in their implication with one another as conducing to the final result, and not in their empirical succession. Prophecy is not, as Butler described it, history written beforehand, but the seizing of the inner meaning and the greater stadia of things, and the presenting of future developments in such graphic and pictorial forms as will best impress the imagination and move the heart.

3. The third principle is that there is a conditional element in prophecy. Expressed or implied, this element is ever present, and ought not to be overlooked in the interpretation of prophecy. The most explicit utterance of this principle is found in  Jeremiah: “At what instant I [Jehovah] shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy it; if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if it do evil in my sight that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good wherewith I said that I would benefit them.” This obviously has an important bearing on the time and manner of fulfilment. Often, as in the case of Jonah’s preaching to Nineveh, the object of the prophecy is to avert fulfilment. A striking instance is given in the Book of  Jeremiah itself of how fulfilment of Micah’s prophecy against Jerusalem was delayed because of Hezekiah’s repentance. Jesus, too, said of Jerusalem:  “How often would I have gathered thy children together … and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.”  Human repentance may thus avert predicted judgment; human intercession may delay or modify it; human fidelity will hasten, as, on the other hand, human unfaithfulness will retard, accomplishment of promise.  The glowing predictions of the prophets as to what God would do for Israel — even those which were never literally fulfilled — were not illusions. They held up truly what God was wishful to do for Israel, and would have done, had the conditions, on their part, been present. It does not follow that a day of fulfilment will not come, but when it arrives, it will be under new conditions, and in a new form. In a deeply important sense the same applies to the New Testament hope of the Lord’s Coming. There is a human conditioning even here. When the Church prays, “Thy kingdom come,” it implicitly acknowledges that it has a certain responsibility for the hastening or retarding of that coming. Had the Church been more faithful — or were it more faithful now — the consummation would be nearer; we might not still have been asking, “Where is the promise of His Coming?”

PART III | THE PROGRESSIVENESS OF REVELATION—MORAL DIFFICULTIES

It would be unfitting to close this discussion of the problems of the Old Testament without a glance at the question of the progressiveness of revelation, in its bearings on those “moral difficulties” which are a chief stumbling-block to many in considering the claims of the revelation. That revelation is progressive — has its less developed and more developed stages — has been assumed throughout, and is generally admitted. But the precise mode of application of this principle of progressiveness to the solution of the ethical difficulties is not always clearly apprehended, and needs careful statement.

The Problem of the Old Testament

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     5. But as Osiander has introduced a kind of monstrosity termed essential righteousness, by which, although he designed not to abolish free righteousness, he involves it in darkness, and by that darkness deprives pious minds of a serious sense of divine grace [405] ; before I pass to other matters, it may be proper to refute this delirious dream. And, first, the whole speculation is mere empty curiosity. He indeed, heaps together many passages of scripture showing that Christ is one with us, and we likewise one with him, a point which needs no proof; but he entangles himself by not attending to the bond of this unity. The explanation of all difficulties is easy to us, who hold that we are united to Christ by the secret agency of his Spirit, but he had formed some idea akin to that of the Manichees, desiring to transfuse the divine essence into men. [406] Hence his other notion, that Adam was formed in the image of God, because even before the fall Christ was destined to be the model of human nature. But as I study brevity, I will confine myself to the matter in hand. He says, that we are one with Christ. This we admit, but still we deny that the essence of Christ is confounded with ours. Then we say that he absurdly endeavors to support his delusions by means of this principle: that Christ is our righteousness, because he is the eternal God, the fountain of righteousness, the very righteousness of God. My readers will pardon me for now only touching on matters which method requires me to defer to another place. But although he pretends that, by the term essential righteousness, he merely means to oppose the sentiment that we are reputed righteous on account of Christ, he however clearly shows, that not contented with that righteousness, which was procured for us by the obedience and sacrificial death of Christ, he maintains that we are substantially righteous in God by an infused essence as well as quality. For this is the reason why he so vehemently contends that not only Christ but the Father and the Spirit dwell in us. The fact I admit to be true, but still I maintain it is wrested by him. He ought to have attended to the mode of dwelling--viz. that the Father and the Spirit are in Christ; and as in him the fulness of the Godhead dwells, so in him we possess God entire. Hence, whatever he says separately concerning the Father and the Spirit, has no other tendency than to lead away the simple from Christ. Then he introduces a substantial mixture, by which God, transfusing himself into us, makes us as it were a part of himself. Our being made one with Christ by the agency of the Spirit, he being the head and we the members, he regards as almost nothing unless his essence is mingled with us. But, as I have said, in the case of the Father and the Spirit, he more clearly betrays his views--namely, that we are not justified by the mere grace of the Mediator, and that righteousness is not simply or entirely offered to us in his person, but that we are made partakers of divine righteousness when God is essentially united to us.

6. Had he only said, that Christ by justifying us becomes ours by an essential union, and that he is our head not only in so far as he is man, but that as the essence of the divine nature is diffused into us, he might indulge his dreams with less harm, and, perhaps, it were less necessary to contest the matter with him; but since this principle is like a cuttle-fish, which, by the ejection of dark and inky blood, conceals its many tails, [407] if we would not knowingly and willingly allow ourselves to be robbed of that righteousness which alone gives us full assurance of our salvation, we must strenuously resist. For, in the whole of this discussion, the noun righteousness and the verb to justify, are extended by Osiander to two parts; to be justified being not only to be reconciled to God by a free pardon, but also to be made just; and righteousness being not a free imputation, but the holiness and integrity which the divine essence dwelling in us inspires. And he vehemently asserts (see sec. 8) that Christ is himself our righteousness, not in so far as he, by expiating sins, appeased the Father, but because he is the eternal God and life. To prove the first point--viz. that God justifies not only by pardoning but by regenerating, he asks, whether he leaves those whom he justifies as they were by nature, making no change upon their vices? The answer is very easy: as Christ cannot be divided into parts, so the two things, justification and sanctification, which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable. Whomsoever, therefore, God receives into his favor, he presents with the Spirit of adoption, whose agency forms them anew into his image. But if the brightness of the sun cannot be separated from its heat, are we therefore to say, that the earth is warmed by light and illumined by heat? Nothing can be more apposite to the matter in hand than this simile. The sun by its heat quickens and fertilizes the earth; by its rays enlightens and illumines it. Here is a mutual and undivided connection, and yet reason itself prohibits us from transferring the peculiar properties of the one to the other. In the confusion of a twofold grace, which Osiander obtrudes upon us, there is a similar absurdity. Because those whom God freely regards as righteous, he in fact renews to the cultivation of righteousness, Osiander confounds that free acceptance with this gift of regeneration, and contends that they are one and the same. But Scriptures while combining both, classes them separately, that it may the better display the manifold grace of God. Nor is Paul's statement superfluous, that Christ is made unto us "righteousness and sanctification," (1 Cor. 1:30). And whenever he argues from the salvation procured for us, from the paternal love of God and the grace of Christ, that we are called to purity and holiness, he plainly intimates, that to be justified is something else than to be made new creatures. Osiander on coming to Scripture corrupts every passage which he quotes. Thus when Paul says, "to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness," he expounds justifying as making just. With the same rashness he perverts the whole of the fourth chapter to the Romans. He hesitates not to give a similar gloss to the passage which I lately quoted, "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth." Here it is plain that guilt and acquittal simply are considered, and that the Apostle's meaning depends on the antithesis. Therefore his futility is detected both in his argument and his quotations for support from Scripture. He is not a whit sounder in discussing the term righteousness, when it is said, that faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness after he had embraced Christ (who is the righteousness of Gad and God himself) and was distinguished by excellent virtues. Hence it appears that two things which are perfect are viciously converted by him into one which is corrupt. For the righteousness which is there mentioned pertains not to the whole course of life; or rather, the Spirit testifies, that though Abraham greatly excelled in virtue, and by long perseverance in it had made so much progress, the only way in which he pleased God was by receiving the grace which was offered by the promise, in faith. From this it follows, that, as Paul justly maintains, there is no room for works in justification.

7. When he objects that the power of justifying exists not in faith, considered in itself, but only as receiving Christ, I willingly admit it. For did faith justify of itself, or (as it is expressed) by its own intrinsic virtue, as it is always weak and imperfect, its efficacy would be partial, and thus our righteousness being maimed would give us only a portion of salvation. We indeed imagine nothing of the kind, but say, that, properly speaking, God alone justifies. The same thing we likewise transfer to Christ, because he was given to us for righteousness; while we compare faith to a kind of vessel, because we are incapable of receiving Christ, unless we are emptied and come with open mouth to receive his grace. Hence it follows, that we do not withdraw the power of justifying from Christ, when we hold that, previous to his righteousness, he himself is received by faith. Still, however, I admit not the tortuous figure of the sophist, that faith is Christ; as if a vessel of clay were a treasure, because gold is deposited in it. [408] And yet this is no reason why faith, though in itself of no dignity or value, should not justify us by giving Christ; Just as such a vessel filled with coin may give wealth. I say, therefore, that faith, which is only the instrument for receiving justification, is ignorantly confounded with Christ, who is the material cause, as well as the author and minister of this great blessing. This disposes of the difficulty--viz. how the term faith is to be understood when treating of justification.

8. Osiander goes still farther in regard to the mode of receiving Christ, holding, that by the ministry of the external word the internal word is received; that he may thus lead us away from the priesthood of Christ, and his office of Mediator, to his eternal divinity. [409] We, indeed, do not divide Christ, but hold that he who, reconciling us to God in his flesh, bestowed righteousness upon us, is the eternal Word of God; and that he could not perform the office of Mediator, nor acquire righteousness for us, if he were not the eternal God. Osiander will have it, that as Christ is God and man, he was made our righteousness in respect not of his human but of his divine nature. But if this is a peculiar property of the Godhead, it will not be peculiar to Christ, but common to him with the Father and the Spirit, since their righteousness is one and the same. Thus it would be incongruous to say, that that which existed naturally from eternity was made ours. But granting that God was made unto us righteousness, what are we to make of Paul's interposed statement, that he was so made by God? This certainly is peculiar to the office of mediator, for although he contains in himself the divine nature, yet he receives his own proper title, that he may be distinguished from the Father and the Spirit. But he makes a ridiculous boast of a single passage of Jeremiah, in which it is said, that Jehovah will be our righteousness (Jer. 23:6; 33:16). But all he can extract from this is, that Christ, who is our righteousness, was God manifest in the flesh. We have elsewhere quoted from Paul's discourse, that God purchased the Church with his own blood (Acts 20:28). Were any one to infer from this that the blood by which sins were expiated was divine, and of a divine nature, who could endure so foul a heresy? But Osiander, thinking that he has gained the whole cause by this childish cavil, swells, exults, and stuffs whole pages with his bombast, whereas the solution is simple and obvious--viz. that Jehovah, when made of the seed of David, was indeed to be the righteousness of believers, but in what sense Isaiah declares, "By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many," (Isa. 53:11). Let us observe that it is the Father who speaks. He attributes the office of justifying to the Son, and adds the reason,--because he is "righteous." He places the method, or medium (as it is called), in the doctrine by which Christ is known. For the word () is more properly to be understood in a passive sense. Hence I infer, first, that Christ was made righteousness when he assumed the form of a servant; secondly, that he justified us by his obedience to the Father; and, accordingly that he does not perform this for us in respect of his divine nature, but according to the nature of the dispensation laid upon him. For though God alone is the fountain of righteousness, and the only way in which we are righteous is by participation with him, yet, as by our unhappy revolt we are alienated from his righteousness, it is necessary to descend to this lower remedy, that Christ may justify us by the power of his death and resurrection.

9. If he objects that this work by its excellence transcends human, and therefore can only be ascribed to the divine nature; I concede the former point, but maintain, that on the latter he is ignorantly deluded. For although Christ could neither purify our souls by his own blood, nor appease the Father by his sacrifice, nor acquit us from the charge of guilt, nor, in short, perform the office of priest, unless he had been very God, because no human ability was equal to such a burden, it is however certain, that he performed all these things in his human nature. If it is asked, in what way we are justified? Paul answers, by the obedience of Christ. Did he obey in any other way than by assuming the form of a servant? We infer, therefore, that righteousness was manifested to us in his flesh. In like manner, in another passage (which I greatly wonder that Osiander does not blush repeatedly to quote), he places the fountain of righteousness entirely in the incarnation of Christ, "He has made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him," (2 Cor. 5:21). Osiander in turgid sentences lays hold of the expression, righteousness of God, and shouts victory! as if he had proved it to be his own phantom of essential righteousness, [410] though the words have a very different meaning--viz. that we are justified through the expiation made by Christ. That the righteousness of God is used for the righteousness which is approved by God, should be known to mere tyros, as in John, the praise of God is contrasted with the praise of men [411] (John 12:43). I know that by the righteousness of God is sometimes meant that of which God is the author, and which he bestows upon us; but that here the only thing meant is, that being supported by the expiation of Christ, we are able to stand at the tribunal of God, sound readers perceive without any observation of mine. The word is not of so much importance, provided Osiander agrees with us in this, that we are justified by Christ in respect he was made an expiatory victim for us. This he could not be in his divine nature. For which reason also, when Christ would seal the righteousness and salvation which he brought to us, he holds forth the sure pledge of it in his flesh. He indeed calls himself "living bread," but, in explanation of the mode, adds, "my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed," (John 6:55). The same doctrine is clearly seen in the sacraments; which, though they direct our faith to the whole, not to a part of Christ, yet, at the same time, declare that the materials of righteousness and salvation reside in his flesh; not that the mere man of himself justifies or quickens, but that God was pleased, by means of a Mediator, to manifest his own hidden and incomprehensible nature. Hence I often repeat, that Christ has been in a manner set before us as a fountain, whence we may draw what would otherwise lie without use in that deep and hidden abyss which streams forth to us in the person of the Mediator. [412] In this way, and in this meaning, I deny not that Christ, as he is God and man, justifies us; that this work is common also to the Father and the Holy Spirit; in fine, that the righteousness of which God makes us partakers is the eternal righteousness of the eternal God, provided effect is given to the clear and valid reasons to which I have adverted.

10. Moreover, lest by his cavils he deceive the unwary, I acknowledge that we are devoid of this incomparable gift until Christ become ours. Therefore, to that union of the head and members, the residence of Christ in our hearts, in fine, the mystical union, we assign the highest rank, Christ when he becomes ours making us partners with him in the gifts with which he was endued. Hence we do not view him as at a distance and without us, but as we have put him on, and been ingrafted into his body, he deigns to make us one with himself, and, therefore, we glory in having a fellowship of righteousness with him. This disposes of Osiander's calumny, that we regard faith as righteousness; as if we were robbing Christ of his rights when we say, that, destitute in ourselves, we draw near to him by faith, to make way for his grace, that he alone may fill us. But Osiander, spurning this spiritual union, insists on a gross mixture of Christ with believers; and, accordingly, to excite prejudice, gives the name of Zuinglians [413] to all who subscribe not to his fanatical heresy of essential righteousness, because they do not hold that, in the supper, Christ is eaten substantially. For my part, I count it the highest honor to be thus assailed by a haughty man, devoted to his own impostures; though he assails not me only, but writers of known reputation throughout the world, and whom it became him modestly to venerate. This, however, does not concern me, as I plead not my own cause, and plead the more sincerely that I am free from every sinister feeling. In insisting so vehemently on essential righteousness, and an essential inhabitation of Christ within us, his meaning is, first, that God by a gross mixture [414] transfuses himself into us, as he pretends that there is a carnal eating in the supper; And, secondly that by instilling his own righteousness into us, he makes us really righteous with himself since, according to him, this righteousness is as well God himself as the probity, or holiness, or integrity of God. I will not spend much time in disposing of the passages of Scripture which he adduces, and which, though used in reference to the heavenly life, he wrests to our present state. Peter says, that through the knowledge of Christ "are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises, that by them ye might be partakers of the divine nature," (2 Pet. 1:4); [415] as if we now were what the gospel promises we shall be at the final advent of Christ; nay, John reminds us, that "when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2). I only wished to give my readers a slender specimen of Osiander, it being my intention to decline the discussion of his frivolities, not because there is any difficulty in disposing of them, but because I am unwilling to annoy the reader with superfluous labour.

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion