01

DIGITAL PUBLICATIONS LIBRARY THEOLOGY
BASIC CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES
by Carl Henry. COPYRIGHT, C 2002, BY DIGITAL PUBLICATIONS,
DALLAS, TEXAS, USA ©2002

BASIC CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES
OSWALD T. ALLIS WILLIAM M. ARNETT G. C. BERKOUWER GEOFFREY W. BROMILEY F.F. BRUCE J. OLIVER BUSWELL, JR. EDWARD JOHN CARNELL HERBERT I CARSON RALPH EARLE FRANK E. GAEBELEIN J. NORVAL GELDENHUYS JOHN H. GERSTNER J. KENNETH GRIDER ANTHONY A. HOEKEMA PHILIP E. HUGHES W. BOYD HUNT FRED H. KLOOSTER HAROLD B. KUHN GEORGE E. LADD ADDISON H. LEITCH CALVIN D. LINTON H. D. MCDONALD JULIUS R. MANTEY OTTO MICHEL SAMUEL J. MIKOLASKI LEON MORRIS J.A. MOTYER J. THEODORE MUELLER WILLIAM A. MUELLER JOHN MURRAY ROGER NICOLE I. EUGENE OSTERHAVEN JAMES I. PACKER BERNARD RAMM WILLIAM CHILDS ROBINSON ROBERT PAUL ROTH ANDREW K. RULE HENRY STOB MERRILL C. TENNEY J. G. S.S. THOMSON CORNELIUS VAN TIL JOHN F. WALVOORD WAYNE E. WARD WALTER W. WESSEL
EDITED BY CARL FH. HENRY DIGITAL PUBLICATIONS
DALLAS. TEXAS, USA
COPYRIGHT, C 2002, BY DIGITAL PUBLICATIONS
DALLAS, TEXAS, USA
ISBN: 0-8010-4033-7
Copyright, C 1962, by Carl F. H. Henry
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 62-18752
Reprinted 1971 by
Baker Book House Company With permission of the original publishers
Holt, Rinehart and Winston
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CONTENTS
Introduction by CARL F. H. HENRY

1. The Knowledge of God: General and Special Revelation- ADDISON H. LEITCH
2. The Knowledge of God: The Saving Acts of God-GEORGE E. LADD
3. The Knowledge of God: The Inspiration of the Bible-PHILIP E. HUGHES
4. The Attributes of God: The Incommunicable Attributes-FRED H. KLOOSTER
5. The Attributes of God: The Communicable Attributes- ANTHONY A. HOEKEMA
6. The Holy Trinity-J. KENNETHGRIDER
7. The Decrees of God -GEOFFREY W. BROMILEY 8. Predestination -WILLIAM CHILDS ROBINSON 9. Creation-HAROLD B. KUHN
8. Angels-BERNARD RAMM
9. Satan and the Demons-G. C. BERKOUWER 12. Providence and Preservation-ANDREW K. RULE 13. Miracles -HENRY STOB
10. The Origin and Nature of Man: Imago Dei-JOHN H. GERSTNER
11. The Covenant of Works -OSWALD T. ALLIS
12. The Origin and Nature of Sin-J. OLIVER BUSWELL, JR. 17. Original Sin, Imputation, and Inability -CORNELIUS VAN TIL 18. The Covenant of Grace-HERBERT M. CARSON
13. The Person of Christ: Incarnation and Virgin Birth-F. F. BRUCE 20. The Person of Christ: The Kenotic Theory -WAYNE E. WARD 21. The Person of Christ: Death, Resurrection, Ascension-RALPH EARLE
14. The Mediatorial Offices of Christ: Prophet, Priest, King-
    SAMUEL J MIKOLASKI
15. The Atonement -LEON MORRIS
16. The Intercessory Work of Christ-ROBERT PAUL ROTH
17. The Work of the Holy Spirit-JOHN F. WALVOORD
18. Common Grace-M. EUGENE OSTERHAVEN
19. Effectual Calling-J. NORVAL GELDENHUYS
20. Regeneration-OTTO MICHEL
21. Repentance and Conversion-JULIUS R. MANTEY
22. Faith-CALVIN D. LINTON
23. The Mystical Union-WILLIAM A. MUELLER
24. Justification by Faith-H. D. MCDONALD
25. Adoption-J., THEODORE MUELLER
26. Sanctification (The Law)-JOHN MURRAY
27. The Preseverance of the Saints-W. BOYD HUNT
28. The Nature of the Church-JAMES I. PACKER
29. The Government of the Church-EDWARD JOHN CARNELL
30. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper-MERRILL C. TENNEY
31. Other Means of Grace-FRANK E. GAEBELEIN
32. Death and the State of the Soul after Death-J.G.S.S. THOMSON
33. The Second Coming: Millennial Views-WILLIAM M.ARNETT
34. The Resurrection of the Dead and Final Judgment -WALTER W.
    WESSEL
35. The Final State: Heaven and Hell-J. A. MOTYER
    A Postscript on Theology -ROGER NICOLE

INTRODUCTION

Theologians and evangelists were looked upon not too long ago either as eccentrics or as quacks. If no novelist caricatured the theologian like Sinclair Lewis libeled the evangelist in Elmer Gantry, it was probably because the theologian could pursue his relationship with God privately But why, after all, should modern man have been overawed by theology. when scholars who claimed some private wire to the supernatural world woefully disagreed over its content and meaning? So penetrating was the impact of secular speculation and religious philosophy, moreover, that some theologians were playing back very little that the actual foes of theology would not endorse.
Then followed what is now familiarly known as the exciting rediscovery of biblical theology. This trend emphasized a new examination of the Scriptures and of their unique testimony to Jesus Christ. The Judeo- Christian tradition rose to new vigor with its singular message of the self- revealing Creator-Redeemer God, who promises salvation to his fallen and sullied image-bearer and fulfills that promise through the atoning work of the God-man.
Modern intellectuals steeped in the secular tenets of the day suddenly realized that in the crisis of the times the Great Tradition enioved fresh relevance. They were now pressed to a sustained reappraisal of the history of thought and to lively involvement in the questions of salvation history and of Scripture’s special import. Suddenly, such long-ignored themes as the inspiration and authority of the Bible, the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ, sin and atonement, Christ’s death and resurrection, end-time and second coming and Kingdom once again were lively and current topics of discussion.
Now it became clear that the modern revolt against theology had not arisen primarily because of rationalized charges of metaphysical quackery and of disagreements among the religionists. The basic issue to emerge was the modern bias against the reality of the supernatural, a bias encouraged by the tenets of secularism, scientism, and naturalistic philosophy. Sharp dissension raged over what means our tormented generation could and should trust to transform society. For scientism, experimental techniques represented the only mediator between yesterday’s and tomorrow’s values Communism looked to political violence and revolution to sweep life and society into the orbit of state absolutism; it became increasingly impatient with its own expectation of dialectical materialism to achieve proletarian objectives automatically and mechanically. Meantime, political democracy sought social change through gradual rather than swift transition, and replaced its former reliance on education with an ever-enlarging confidence in legislation to advance its ends. By its far deeper demand, the Christian message discredited all others; it called fora new race of men. “Ye must be born again!” Without denying God’s providential purpose in the background of scientific control of nature and of political preservation of order, Christianity proclaimed the absolute indispensability of the new birth.
This claim involved many related concepts. It implied a special view of God and His universe, and of man’s place in it. It gave special perspective to the purpose and goal of history, to redemptive revelation and the
message of the Bible. It exposed the tragic destiny of mankind in sin, and spoke of God’s ongoing witness to a lost world through the church, that body of regenerate believers whose head is the slain and risen Christ. Among the most gratifying features of this awakening interest in Bible study and theological reflection is its widening inclusion of the layman and his participation. Historians have noted that in the Protestant Reformation the laity grappled with theological concerns more deeply than did many of the clergy. Our century has served theological skim milk to both churchmen and churchgoers; to the masses outside, non-milk, non- nutritious substitutes. Even in its elementary stages, therefore, a new interest in Bible doctrine is heartening indeed One sure sign of theological renewal will be revived interest in a systematic theology that rests on the fixed norm of biblical authority. At present, only the barest outlines of such a development are discernible on the religious horizon; much of the current theological discussion is still limited and selective.
First published as a series inChristianity Today, and now appearing in book form, the essays in Basic Christian Doctrines have at least the merit of a comprehensive overview. Competent evangelical scholars of interdenominational and international stature have shared the task of preparing these studies. A supplementary essay by Dr. Roger Nicole on the various disciplines of theology has been added to challenge the reader to explore also the larger areas of theological learning.
Publication of these essays in the “Contemporary Evangelical Thought” series makes them all immediately available in permanent form to both the ministry and the laity. Holt, Rinehart and Winston are to be commended for issuing the work in a format matching the companion symposium volumes Contemporary Evangelical Thought (1957) and Revelation and the Bible (1958). My colleague, Dr. Frank Farrell, is due special commendation for careful reading of the original manuscripts and for assistance in editing them for publication.
This present collection of theological table talks with many of the devout scholars of our day is a feast for mind and heart. Here and there, special denominational traditions may shine through. But what the various contributors share in common as committed evangelicals far outweighs their differences. This basic agreement is only proper in a united theological effort that would stimulate renewed and devoted study of those priorities which determine the destiny of our world.
CARL F.H. HENRY

1 THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD: GENERAL AND
SPECIAL REVELATION – ADDISON HLEITCH
Addison H. Leitch, Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Tarkio College.
Tarkio. Missouri, received his general and theological education at Muskingum College(B. A., 1931; D.D., 1947), Pittsburgh-Xenia Theological Seminary (B.D., 1936; Th.M., 1937), Cambridge University, England, and Grove City College (D.D., 1947； Litt. D., 1955). He is the author of Beginnings in Theology, Meet Dr. Luke, and Interpreting Basic Theology.
It is the psalmist who sings “The Heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, their voice is not heard.” Men have known these things for generations. They have gloried in the glory of a God Who manifests Himself in His wondrous works. No speech nor language is spoken; it is not in the words of Greek or Hebrew or German or English; yet every day speaks and every night shows knowledge. The apostle adds in a later day, “the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead; so that they are without excuse.”Psalmist and apostle declare what no man can deny: that there is a God Who can be known through His works, and when we refuse to see Him there we are without excuse.
Such knowledge of God forced on us by the world around us has been recognized and accepted by believers in every generation. In some fashion it is the approach of Plato as he moves level upon level to his supreme Idea, an idea which, according to Plato’s thinking, necessarily has moral qualities which can be defined as an Ideal. In some fashion it is the approach of Aristotle as his system carries us from utter matter to perfect form or from the inanimate world to the high reaches of the Unmoved Mover. More specifically, in the Christian tradition men have discovered in the world around them”proofs”for God, reasons for faith, necessities for believing, and, at least in the direction of their thinking, they have been forced toward some knowledge of God. Arguments for the existence of God and in support of the nature of God are very old ones. They have been subjected to much criticism and therefore to considerable refinement in the history of thought. In spite of such criticism, however, they keep cropping up in one form or another, one argument, or one way of stating the argument, appealing to one generation more than to another; but none of the arguments ever quite disappears. That these arguments keep reviving is probably a reason for their fundamental strength; men feel under some duress to define what they know must be true about God from the evidence of the external world.
FROM EFFECTS TO THEIR CAUSE
Keeping in mind that these arguments say something about God’s attributes as well as giving reasons for His existence, we are justified in using them as supports in natural theology for our knowledge of God. In general, the arguments move under at least four titles: the cosmological, the teleological, the anthropological, and the ontological. These arguments all allow somewhat the same scheme, namely that an effect must have a cause equal to or greater than the effect itself. In the general scheme of things you cannot get something from nothing and, surely, one can observe a great deal of something in the world of nature; the question is, therefore: what is “the source, the support, and the end” of all these things about us? What is the explanation of their existence?
The easiest argument is the cosmological. It argues from the existence of the Cosmos, the universe, what C.S. Lewis calls “the whole show.”Man does not need to be either clever or subtle merely to wonder about the world around him. How can one account for all these things he sees and experiences-the birds, the rocks, the trees, and the stars in their courses? This first argument in “natural”theology finds us unable to escape the belief that back of all this Cosmos there is some thing or some one equal to bringing into existence (by what method we need not argue here)the universe within us. around us. and above us The teleological argument is more reflective regarding the universe. Here. our interest is focused on design and purpose, as we discover the amazing intricacy with which all things are interlocked as if united in some grand mutual interdependency, some basic design. These interlocked designs and purposes point to a designer, some intelligence with creative purpose. There are no isolated data, there is no item so small that it is not somehow interrelated with every possible other thing. Nothing ever “just happens.’ You can never really say of anything that “it doesn’t really matter.”Butler in his Analogy, Paley in his Evidences, and in these latter days F.R.
Tennant in Philosophical Theology found this argument from design almost conclusive for the existence and the nature of god In his master work, Nature, Man and God, William Temple sets himself to examine the world of nature only to discover that nature includes man and that nature and man together point us to God. In some such fashion the anthropological argument grows out of the teleological argument, for nothing points more clearly to intelligence and design than the fact of man himself, man who is able to understand the design and to appreciate the designer. But beyond this is man as person. Man as a person has what we call personality. Will anyone seriously argue that personality can arise from some impersonal source? Will anyone seriously support accidents or material or both as sufficient to account for all the wonders in man? Since man is so creative himself. was the ground of his existence uncreative? Thus the argument runs. We cannot get something from nothing; we have something personal in man; we cannot believe that this personal end product comes from impersonal sources.
The ontological argument points to perfection or more exactly to the idea of perfection which we find inescapable in our ways of thought. To use our thinking about God as an example, how is it possible for us to talk about the perfections of God without some idea of perfection as a point of reference? Yet we are imperfect ourselves; we think imperfectly; we are surrounded by a world of imperfections. Since, once again, we cannot get something from nothing and since assuredly we have ideas of perfection which cannot be accounted for in the immediacies of our surroundings, the conclusion suggests itself that this idea of perfection must come directly from the perfect source, namely, from God Himself.
It would appear from this brief treatment that we have at least four reasons for believing in God. (Some add the moral argument, that is, the inescapable sense of oughtness”common to all men, Kant’s categorical imperative. We believe that the moral argument which we have not here expanded can find a natural place in the anthropological argument. These tell us some very definite things about God’s nature: He is mighty enough to account for the universe itself; He is intelligent enough to satisfy its design; He is personal enough to account for man as person; and He is the ground of all our understanding and perfection. If we add creativity and morality as necessary to man as person, we may presume to have found as necessary a God Who is almighty, intelligent, personal, creative, moral, and perfect. We are not far from the kingdom!

FROM NECESSARY PRESUPPOSITIONS
What has been said thus far usually comes under the heading ofa
posteriori reasoning, that is, reaching our conclusions inductively. There are others who prefer the a priori approach; this is, as a matter of fact, the approach of much of the theology of our day. Knowledge of God with this approach is not so much the result of our thinking as it is the starting place of our thinking. The starting place is always there, described sometimes as a first truth, and it is only in personal intellectual maturity or perhaps in the maturity of the race that man gets around to analyzing the nature of his starting place. Living as we do in an age dominated by scientific method, it is difficult for us to accept the fact that we operate, even in science, even in our “proofs,” from the foundation of various presuppositions. For many, the fact of God is one of the necessary presuppositions.
All of us must accept some first truths about ourselves from the outset. We are alive and awake and sane: such truths about ourselves we cannot prove objectively, but merely accept as starting places. On a deeper level we base our thinking on the assumption that there are certain foundations of truth and reason from which we operate and to which we constantly return. We believe that truth has an interrelatedness in a universe (which is a single organizational principle of truth).
All serious thinking, especially the most objective scientific research, upholds the necessity of absolute honesty in methods and in findings, appealing, therefore, to a moral ground built into the structure of reality. In other directions our words betray us: “It stands to reason”or “That doesn’t make sense.” Thus, we are insisting that our thinking, as well as our experimenting, demands a frame of reference that is sensible.
Moreover, we appeal to one another on the grounds of a common
acceptance of these necessary fundamentals. Notice the presupposition of this paragraph recently published in the “Science”section ofTime magazine where the discussion has to do with the possibility of interplanetary conversations: “But what message would aliens send that could be understood by earthlings? Dr. Drake suggests a familiar series of numbers, such as 1, 2. 3. 4. Professor Purcell believes that a simple on-off signal would be more logical as a starter. After that the messages could progress to Mathematical relationships, which are surely the same in all planetary systems..” [Italics supplied.] Note how normal it is for scientists to assume an underlying rational system.

FROM SPECIAL REVELATION
From this a priori approach it is interesting to note that we are talking again about a reality at the source of things, showing attributes of truth. reason, and morality. We are being pressed to the conclusion again,
namely, that in what is called natural theology there are strong reasons for knowing that there is a God and knowing something of His attributes. But, can a man by searching find out God?” Only is this possible when God is pleased to reveal Himself and to answer finally and authoritatively man’s deepest questions. This is not natural revelation but special revelation. This is the Bible record of God’s mighty acts and His authoritative Word about the revelatory acts and about Himself. This is the climax and fulfillment of God’s Word to us in the Living Word, even Jesus Christ. Natural revelation gives us direction and confidence in our search for God; God’s special revelation gives us final authority and assurance regarding His own nature and His will for man. As Calvin suggests, in the Bible we have the divine spectacles”which bring the truths of natural theology into focus.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
In addition to classic systematic theologies by C. Hodge, A. H. Strong, L. Berkhof, and others, we suggest the following:
R. Flint: Evangelical Theism [an old standard work] J. Gerstner: Reasons for Faith [popular and sound] S.M. Thompson: A Modern Philosophy of Religion H. Heppe: Reformed Dogmatics
K. Barth: Die kirchliche Dogmatik [dialecticall
F.R. Tennant: Philosophical Theology [liberal but surprisingly firm in its objective approach]

2 THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD: THE SAVING ACTS
OF GOD – GEORGE E. LADD
George E. Ladd, Professor of Biblical Theology at Fuller Theological
Seminary, Pasadena, California, received his general and theological education at Gordon College (Th. B., 1933), Gordon Divinity School (B. D., 1941), and Harvard University (Ph.D., 1949). He is the author of Crucial Questions about the Kingdom of God and The Blessed Hope, and is a contributor to The
Biblical Expositor.
The uniqueness and the scandal of the Christian religion rest in the
mediation of revelation through historical events. The Hebrew-Christian faith stands apart from the religions of its environment because it is an historical faith, whereas they were religions rooted in mythology or the cycle of nature. The God of Israel was the God of history, or the Geschichtsgott, as German theologians so vividly put it. The Hebrew- Christian faith did not grow out of lofty philosophical speculation or
profound mystical experiences. It arose out of the historical experiences of Israel, old and new, in which God made Himself known. This fact imparts to the Christian faith a specific content and objectivity which set it apart from others.
At the same time, this very historical character of revelation raises an acute problem for many thinking men. Plato viewed the realm of time and space as one of flux and change. History by definition involves relativity,
particularity, caprice, arbitrariness, whereas revelation must convey the universal, the absolute, the ultimate. History has been called “an abyss in which Christianity has been swallowed up quite against its will.”
REVELATORY HISTORY
How can the Infinite be known in the finite, the Eternal in the temporal, the Absolute in the relativities of history? From a purely human perspective this is impossible, but at precisely this point is found perhaps the greatest miracle in the biblical faith. God is the living God, and He, the eternal, the unchangeable, has communicated knowledge of Himself through the ebb and flow of historical experience.
The problem is well nigh insoluble for the man who takes his world view from modern philosophies rather than from the Bible. Yet there can be no doubt about the bible’s claim for the historical character of revelation. This can be seen in the historical character of the Bible itself. From one point of view, the Bible is not so much a book of religion as a book of history. The Bible is not primarily a collection of the religious ideas of a series of great thinkers. It is not first of all a system of theological concepts, much less of philosophical speculations. Nowhere, for instance, does the Bible try to prove the existence of God; God simply is. His existence is everywhere assumed. Nowhere does the New Testament reflect on the deity of Christ. Christ is God, and yet God is more than Christ. The Father is God; Christ is God; the Holy Spirit is God; and yet God is one, not three. The New Testament does not try to synthesize these diverse elements into a theological whole. This is the legitimate and necessary task of systematic theology.
Neither is the Bible primarily the description of deep mystical experiences of religious geniuses, although it includes profound religious experience. Much of the New Testament is indeed the product of the religious experience of one man: Paul. Yet the focus of Paul’s epistles is not Paul and his experience, but the meaning of Jesus of Nazareth, resurrected and exalted at God’s right hand.
The Bible is first of all the record of the history of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob, of the twelve tribes of Israel and their settlement in Palestine, of the kingdom of David and his successors, of the fall of the divided kingdom, and of the return of the Jews from Babylon. It resumes its history with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, and the establishment and extension of the early Church in the Graeco-Roman world
Yet history is not recorded for its own sake. History is recorded because it embodies the acts of God. The evangelistic preaching of the early church did not attempt to demonstrate the superiority of Christian truth over the teachings of pagan philosophers and religious teachers. It did not rest its claim to recognition in a higher ethic or a deeper religious experience. It consisted of a recital of the acts of God.
The bond which holds the Old and New Testaments inseparably together is the bond of revelatory history. Orthodox theology has traditionally
underevaluated or at least underemphasized the role of the redemptive acts of God in revelation. The classic essay byB.B. Warfield acknowledges the fact of revelation through the instrumentality of historical deeds, but rather completely subordinates revelation in acts to revelation in words.

However, as Carl F.H. Henry has written, “Revelation cannot… be equated simply with the Hebrew-Christian Scriptures; the Bible is a special segment within a larger divine activity of revelation… Special revelation involves unique historical events of divine deliverance climaxed by the incarnation, atonement, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”2
The greatest revelatory act of God in the Old Testament was the deliverance of Israel from bondage in Egypt. This was no ordinary event of history. like the events which befell other nations. It was not an achievement of the Israelites. It was not attributed to the genius and skillful leadership of Moses. It was an act of God. “You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings.”(Exodus 19：4) This deliverance was not merely an act of God: it was an act through which God made Himself known and through which Israel was to know and serve God. “I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage . ， andyou shall know that I am the Lord your God. “(Exodus 6: 6-7)
In the later history of Israel, the Exodus is recited again and again as the redemptive act by which God made Himself known to his people. Hosea appeals to Israel’s historical redemption and subsequent experiences as evidence for the love of God. “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son… I led them with the cords of compassion. with the bands of love. oHosea 11: 1-4)
History also reveals God in wrath and judgment. Hosea goes on
immediately to say that Israel is about to return to captivity because of her sins. Amos interprets Israel’s impending historical destruction with the words: “Therefore thus I will do to you, O Israel; because I will do this to you, prepare to meet your God, O Israel!”(Amos 4： 12) The revelation of God as the judge of His people in historical events is sharply reflected in the designation of Israel’s historical defeat by theAssyrians as the Day of the Lord. m6i Amos 5: 18)
Israel’s history is different from all other history. While God is the Lord of all history, in one series of events God has revealed Himself as He has nowhere else done. German theologians have coined the useful term Heilsgeschichte to designate this stream of revelatory history. In English, we speak of “redemptive history”or “holy history.” To be sure, God was superintending the course of Egypt and Assyria and Babylon and Persia;

but only in the history of Israel had God communicated to men personal knowledge of Himself.
The New Testament does not depart from this sense of holy history. On the contrary, the recital of God’s historical acts is the substance of Christian proclamation. The earliest semblance of acreedal confession is found in 61 Corinthians 15：3ff., and it is a recital of events: Christ died; He was buried; He was raised; He appeared. The New Testament evidence for God’s love does not rest on reflection on the nature of God, but upon recital. God so loved that He gave. John 3: 16) God shows His love for us in that Christ died for us.(Romans 5：8) The revelation of God in the redemptive history of Israel finds its full meaning in the historical event of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.
One aspect of this holy history must be emphasized. Sometimes the revelatory event assumes a character which the modern secular historian calls unhistorical. The God who reveals Himself in redemptive history is both Lord of history and Lord of creation, and He is, therefore, able not only to shape the course of ordinary historical events but to act directly in ways which transcend usual historical experience.
The most vivid illustration of this is the resurrection of Christ. From the point of view of scientific historical criticism. the resurrection cannot be historical,”for it is an event uncaused by any other historical event and it is without analogy. “With this judgment the Bible record agrees. God, and God alone, is the cause of the resurrection. It is, therefore, causally unrelated to all other events. Furthermore, nothing like it has occurred elsewhere. The resurrection of Christ is not the restoration of a dead man to life, but the emergence of a new order of life -resurrection life. If the biblical record is correct, there can be neither “historical”explanation nor analogy of Christ’s resurrection. Therefore, its very offense to scientific historical criticism is a kind of negative support for its supernatural character.
The underlying question is a theological one. Is such an alleged
supernatural event consistent with the character and objectives of the God Who has revealed Himself in holy history? Is history, as such, the measure of all things, or is the living God indeed the Lord of history? The biblical answer to this question is not in doubt. The Lord of history is transcendent over history, yet not aloof from history. He is, therefore, able to bring to pass in time and space events which are genuine events, yet which are “suprahistorical” in their character. This merely means that the revelation of God is not produced by history, but that the Lord of history, Who stands above history, acts within history for the redemption of historical creatures. The redemption of history must come from outside of history: from God himself.
While revelation has occurred in history, revelatory history is notbare history. God did not act in history in such a way that historical events were eloquent in and of themselves. The most vivid illustration of this is the death of Christ. Christ died. This is a simple historical fact which can be satisfactorily established by secular historical disciplines. But Christ died for our sins. Christ died showing forth the love of God. These are not bare historical facts. The cross by itself did not speak of love and forgiveness Proof of this may be found in the experience of those who watched Jesus die. Was any of the witnesses overwhelmed with a sense of the love of God, conscious that he was beholding the awesome spectacle of atonement being made for the sins of men? Did John or Mary or the centurion or the high priest throw himself in choking joy upon the earth before the cross with the cry, “I never knew how much God loved me!’
DEED-WORD REVELATION
The historical events are revelatory only when they are accompanied by the revelatory word. Theologians often speak of deed-revelation and word- revelation. This, however, is not an accurate formulation if it suggests two separate modes of revelation. The fact is that God’s word is His deed, and His deed is His word. We would therefore be more accurate if we spoke of the deed-word revelation.
God’s deed is His word. Ezekiel describes the captivity of Judah with the words, “And all the pick of his troops shall fall by the sword, and the survivors shall be scattered to every wind; and you shall know that I, the Lord, have spoken. ” 2Ezekiel 17: 21) Captivity was itself God’s word of judgment to Israel. The event is a word of God.
Yet the event is always accompanied by spoken words, in this case, the spoken words of the prophet Ezekiel. The event is never left to speak for itself, nor are men left to infer whatever conclusions they can draw from the event. The spoken word always accompanies and explains the revelatory character of the event. Therefore, not the deed by itself, but the deed-word is revelation.
This is equally true in the New Testament. Christ died is the deed; Christ died for our sins is the word of interpretation that makes the act revelatory It was only after the interpretative word was given to the disciples that they came to understand that the death of Christ was revelatory of the love of God.
We must go yet a step further. God’s word not only follows the historical act and gives it a normative interpretation; it often precedes and creates the historical act. The test of whether a prophet speaks the word of the Lord is whether his word comes to pass.(Deuteronomy 18： 22) For when God speaks, something happens. Events occur. “I, the Lord, have spoken; surely this will I do to all this wicked congregation. they shall die. “(oNumbers 14: 35)”I the Lord have spoken; it shall come to pass, I will do it.”(Ezekiel 24： 14)“You shall die in peace. For I have spoken the word, says the Lord. ” Jeremiah 34: 5)
The revelatory word may be both spoken and written. Jeremiah both spoke and wrote down the word of the Lord. Both his spoken and written utterance were “the words of the Lord. “(o Jeremiah 36: 4, 6) It is against this background that the New Testament refers to the Old Testament Scriptures as “the word of God.”( John 10: 35) It is for this reason that the orthodox theologian is justified, nay, required to recognize the Bible as the Word of God.
Revelation has occurred in the unique events of redemptive history. These events were accompanied by the divinely given word of interpretation. The word, both spoken and written, is itself a part of the total event. The Bible is both the record of this redemptive history and the end product of the interpretative word. It is the necessary and normative explanation of the revelatory character of God’s revealing acts, for it is itself included in God’s revelation through the act-word complex which constitutes revelation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
J.G.S.S. Thomson: The Old Testament View of Revelation P. K. Jewett: Emil Brunner’s Concept of Revelation
C.F. H. Henry, ed.: Revelation and the Bible, “Special Revelation as Historical and Personal, “by P.K. Jewett
B. Ramm: Special Revelation and the Word of God

3. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD: THE INSPIRATION
   OF THE BIBLE – PHILIP E HUGHES
   Philip E. Hughes, editor of The Churchman (London), received his general and theological education at the University of Cape Town (B.A.. 1937: M.A.. I939: D. Litt., 1955) and the University of London (B. D., 1947). He is the author of Receive Us Again, The Divine Plan for Jew and Gentile, and Scripture and Myth, among other volumes, and is a contributor to such volumes as Dictionary of Theology and The Biblical Expositor.
   It is only in modern times that leaders within the Christian church have assailed the doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible. Over the centuries, of course. enemies have not been lacking who have assailed it from without: but today it has become fashionable in many church circles to deny the inspiration of the Bible in the classical sense. The Bible is, indeed, now widely regarded as a book of human, not divine, origin-inspired only in the humanistic sense that the Hebrews, who wrote it, had a genius for religion, just as the Greeks had a genius for philosophy and the Romans a genius for government. The evolutionary interpretation of reality, which has so powerfully influenced the thinking of the Western world, assigned the Bible, in its different parts, a place within the supposed gradual development of religion from the crude apprehensions of primitive man in his cave-dwelling to the refined concept of ethical monotheism of our day. This viewpoint inevitably accords the Bible a position of purely relative significance, in radical conflict with the high conception of it as the inspired Word of God addressing a unique revelation of truth to fallen (not rising) man, and therefore absolute in its significance.
   Again, it is characteristic of the so-called neo-orthodox theology of our day, with its emphasis on “encounter, to define the Bible as a word of man which mav. at certain times and under certain circumstances. become the Word of God to me; that is, God may speak or reveal some truth to me through it, so that at that point in my experience it, or some portion of it. functions as a Word of God to me. Correlative with this outlook are the conceptions of the Bible as not in itself the Word of God, but as containing the Word of God, as conveying truth through the “kernel” of myth,
   independently of whether or not the “outer shell” in which the myth is enclosed is historically true, and even as -by a strange quirk of divine providence-conveying truth through error. Conceptions of this kind are marked by a subjectivism which contrasts noticeably with the classical view of the Bible as an objective revelation given by God.
   What, then, are we to believe about the inspiration of the Bible? Three main witnesses have a claim upon our attention: the witness of the Bible to itself, the witness of history, and the witness of God.
   THE WITNESS OF THE BIBLE TO ITSELE
   Some people take exception to the procedure whereby the Bible is allowed to witness to itself. Certainly, the argument”the Bible claims to be the inspired Word of God; therefore it is the inspired Word of God”is not by itself admissible. But it is a commonplace of legal justice that any person standing trial has the right to engage in self-testimony. By itself- that is, in the absence of the independent witness of other persons or of circumstances-that self-testimony may or may not be true. The point is that it may be true, and so it must not be stifled. In the case of the Bible, it bears witness to itself in terms which, if true. are of the most vital consequence for the whole of mankind. Its witness must, therefore, be heard.
   All who read the Old Testament cannot help being struck by the theme which so often and so extensively recurs that it may properly be described as the leading theme, namely, the assertion that it is God, not man, who is speaking. This impression is conveyed by the use of characteristic expressions, such as “Thus saith the Lord…”and “The word of the Lord came unto me, saying…”
   The implication of such expressions is fully corroborated by the witness of the New Testament to the Old. Thus, the Apostle Paul affirms that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God (or, literally, is “God-breathed”): (2 Timothy 3： 16) the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews declares that it was God Who spoke in time past in the prophets; sooHebrews 1: 1) and Peter asserts that the ancient prophets “spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit. “(6l0122 Peter 1: 21) And what could be more significant for the Christian than the attitude of Christ Himself (with which, of course, the attitude of His apostles is fully consonant)? He emphasized not only that He had not come to destroy the law and the prophets but to fulfill them. but also that not one jot or tittle would pass away until all things were accomplished. (Matthew 5： 17) The Scripture was for Him something that could not be broken. John 10: 35)In the temptation in the wilderness, the devil is on each occasion repulsed, without further

argument, by a quotation from the Old Testament, “It stands written… the plain inference being that it is the absolutely authoritative Word of God. (o Matthew 4: 4, 7, 10)It was the Old Testament Scriptures, viewed in their entirety -the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms-which the risen Saviour expounded to His disciples,
emphasizing the necessity that all things written in them concerning Him should be fulfilled. (Luke 24：44) Throughout the New Testament,indeed, the whole of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection is seen in the light of the fulfillment of Holy Scripture, and therefore as a vindication of the Bible as the inspired Word of God.
But, it may be asked. what of the New Testament? It, too. is not without its own self-testimony. If the Old Testament bears witness pre-eminently to the One Who is to come. the New Testament bears witness to the One Who has come. It testifies to Him Who, in his person and action as well as in His teaching, is the Word of God incarnate. The New Testament is the record of the imperishable truth which Christ brought and taught. Christ Himself proclaimed that heaven and earth would pass away, but that His words would not pass away. Matthew 24: 35) Moreover, He promised to His apostles that the Holy Spirit would teach them all things and bring to their remembrance all that He had spoken to them, and would lead them into all truth and reveal to them things that were to come.(John 14：26： 16: 13)This is the very keystone of the New Testament and of the claims which it makes for itself. Accordingly, it is a mark of consistency to find John affirming that the witness of his Gospel is true (John 21: 24) or Peter classifying Paul’s epistles along with “the other scriptures. “(66is2 Peter 3: 15f)
THE WITNESS OF HISTORY
The witness of history to the Bible is the witness of the history of the Christian church. Until modern times, as has already been said, the Bible was always acknowledged by the church to be the inspired Word of God The significance of this fact can hardly be overemphasized. The definition of the canon of Holy Scripture-and especially of the New Testament. since that of the Old was already established in the period that succeeded the age of the apostles, so far from being the result of the assertion of an authority superior to the Bible (as though the books of the Bible became canonical because the church pronounced them to be so), was in fact a recognition of this very principle of the divine inspiration of the Bible. It was a recognition of an authority vested in the biblical books, which is unique and normative precisely because together they constitute the Word of God written. If there was one external factor which played a decisive role in the fixing of the New Testament canon, it was the equating of canonicity with apostolicity. Books which were not of apostolic origin were not admissible as canonical. In other words, the authority vested in the apostles is now vested in their writings, through which they continue to govern the church.
But there was no question of this authority of the apostles being human authority; for, inasmuch as it was derived from Christ, their divine Master, theirs was a divine authority, and their teaching (handed down in their writings) again was not their own, but Christ’s, in accordance with His promise that the Holy Spirit would bring to their remembrance all that He had taught them and would lead them into all truth. In defining the canon of Scripture, therefore, the church, with the instinct of faith, was acknowledging and submitting herself to this authority, which, even more than apostolic, was dominical; for, ultimately, the authority involved is none other than that of the Lord Himself.
Although the unanimous consent of the Fathers is in the main an ecclesiastical fiction, yet there was at least one doctrine in which they were united, namely, that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. It was far from them to claim for their own writings the inspiration which they attributed to Scripture. And the same is to a particular degree true of the Age of the Reformation, when, in the light of the biblical revelation, which then shone forth again after centuries of spiritual darkness, all pretended authorities were exposed as spurious except insofar as they were subject to the supreme authority of the Word of God. Also worthy of notice is the inconsistency of modern liberal authors who, while denying the objectivity of the Bible as the Word of God, nonetheless commonly seek to
authenticate the theology they propound by adducing statements and quotations from the Bible, as though it were in fact objectively authoritative.
Mention may also be made of the history of persecution. Men and women from generation to generation have given proof of the inspiration of the Bible by the radical transformation which the reception of its message has produced in their lives, so much so that they have held the Bible to be more precious than any other possession and have been willing to suffer torture and death rather than deny its truth, by which they have been set free. Attempts also to destroy the Bible, to burn it, to ban it, or in any other way to obliterate it from society, have ever proved futile. Not only does it continue unchallenged year after year as the world’s best seller, but it is beyond doubt the greatest force for good and blessing in every sphere of human society.
The witness of history to the inspiration of the Bible is indeed massive, and it powerfully confirms the witness of the Bible to itself. When, as at the present time, the church is tempted to leave the old paths and to disparage this witness of her history, she should ask herself whether she is not in fact thereby in danger of ceasing to be the church, and bartering her heritage for something that is not of God but of the devil.
THE WITNESS OF GOD
Here we come face to face with that testimony which is absolutely conclusive and inexpungeable. The witness of God is greater than the witness of man. It needs no support, but stands firm by itself. Briefly stated, the position is this: if the Bible is in reality the inspired Word of God, it must as such be self-authenticating; it is in no need of human sanction. God Himself witnesses to the truth of the Bible. As its Author. He also authenticates it to the heart and mind of every believer. It is by the operation of the Holy Spirit that we are brought to faith in Christ, and that saving faith is founded upon the good news proclaimed in the pages of the Bible, and nowhere else. It is by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit that we acknowledge and appropriate the biblical message, and are assured daily and constantly thatall scripture is inspired of God.”
As the witness of the Holy Spirit, this testimony is objective; as an internal witness within the believer, it is subjective. As at the same time both objective and subjective, this witness is completely impregnable. He who experiences it cannot gainsay it. He who gainsays it has not experienced it, and should search his heart as to why this is so.
In all charity and humility we would invite those to whom this internal witness of God, the Holy Spirit, is something strange to consider whether they are not lacking one of the essentials of genuine Christianity and whether, consequently, they are in any proper position to assail the
doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible. We would urge them to pray that God will grant them the witness of the Holy Spirit, to convince and enlighten both heart and intellect.
Finally, let us ever remember that the primary purpose and function of Scripture is to lead us to Christ, that its proper place is within the framework of God’s plan for our redemption. Hence, Paul advised Timothy that the Holy Scriptures were able to make him “wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus”; os2 Timothy 3: 15) Peter reminds his readers that “the word of the Lord abideth for ever,’ adding that “this is the word of the gospel which was preached unto you”; 21 Peter 1: 25) and John, in describing the purpose of what was possibly the last in time of the biblical writings, asserts: “These things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. （ John 20：3）
“The Scripture,” wrote the reformer and martyr William Tyndale, to whom, more than anyone else, we owe the priceless treasure of our English Bible, “is that wherewith God draweth us unto him, and not wherewith we should be led from him. The Scriptures spring out of God, and flow unto Christ, and were given to lead us to Christ. Thou must therefore go along by the Scripture as by a line, until thou come at Christ, which is the way’s end and resting-place.” May God grant us to use this holy book for this holy purpose.
BIBLIOGRAPHY L. Boettner: The Inspiration of the Scriptures J. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, I, vii J. Jewel: A Treatise of the Holy Scriptures
C.F.H. Henry, ed.: Revelation and the Bible J. Orr: Revelation and Inspiration
B.B. Warfield: The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible; and, in particular, the introductory essay by C. Van Til
W. Whitaker: A Treatise of the Holy Scriptures

4. THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD: THE
   INCOMMUNICABLE ATTRIBUTES –
   FRED H. KLOOSTER

Fred H. Klooster, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, Michigan, received his general and theological education at Calvin College (B. A., 1944), Calvin Theological Seminary (B. D., 1947), Westminster Theological Seminary (Th. M., 1948), and the Free University of Amsterdam (Th. D., 1951). He is the author of The Incomprehensibility of God in the Orthodox Presbyterian Conflict, Calvin’s Doctrine of Predestination, and The Significance of Barth’s Theology.
The Westminster Shorter Cathechism beautifully describes God as “Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth”(Question 4). The Belgic Confession of Faith begins similarly: “We all believe with the heart and confess with the mouth that there is one only simple and spiritual Being, which we call God; and that He is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, almighty. perfectly wise, just, good, and the overflowing fountain of all good'” (Article I). Most of these terms are called the attributes or the perfections of God.
The attributes may be defined as those perfections of God which are revealed in Scripture and which are exercised and demonstrated by God in His various works. Reformed and Evangelical theologians have frequently distinguished communicable and incommunicable attributes. The communicable attributes of God are those which find some reflection or analogy in man who was created in God’s image, while the incommunicable attributes of God find little or no analogy in man. The latter – unity, independence, eternity, immensity, and immutability — emphasize the transcendence and exalted character of God.
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS (1)It is important to recognize that all of the attributes, both
communicable and incommunicable. are the attributes of the one only true and living God-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The attributes of God may not be discussed as if they were attributes of deity in general, in order then to move on to consider the triune God as one God among many.

Christianity is rightly monotheistic, and therefore all the attributes are attributes of the only true God of Scripture. The recognition of this uniqueness of the living God has sometimes been discussed under the incommunicable attribute of the unity of God (unitas singularitas). (Cf. Deuteronomy 6：4；1Kings 8：60；1saiah 44：6；Mark 12：28ff.; on Ephesians 4: 6; s1 Timothy 2: 5.)
(2)Since the only true God is the triune God of Scripture, the communicable, as well as the incommunicable, attributes belong equally to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There is therefore no absolute necessity for discussing the attributes prior to the doctrine of the Trinity There is a good reason for doing so, however, since the attributes characterize the divine nature of the triune God. However, the incommunicable attributes of God must not be confused with the incommunicable property” of each divine Person, that is, with generation. filiation, and spiration.
(3)Discussion of the attributes must also acknowledge the incomprehensibility of God. Finite man can never comprehend the infinite God. The believer will not even be able fully to understand all that God has revealed concerning His attributes.
(4)The attributes must be regarded as essential characteristics of the Divine Being. It is not man who attributes these perfections to God, God Himself reveals His attributes to us in Scripture. The attributes are
objective and real. They describe God as He is in Himself. Hence they are also exercised or demonstrated in the works which God performs in
creation, providence, and redemption
Again, these various attributes must not be regarded as so many parts or compartments of God’s being. Each of the attributes describes God as He is, not just as part of His being or simply what He does. Furthermore, there is no scriptural warrant for elevating one attribute, such as love or independence, to pre-eminence and making others mere subdivisions of it. While there is a mutual relationship and interrelationship between the various attributes, there is a divinely revealed difference between the eternity of God and the immutability of God, between the love of God and the holiness of God, for example. These themes are often considered under the attribute of simplicity (unitas simplicitas)

DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC ATTRIBUTES
Attention will now be directed to a brief consideration of specific incommunicable attributes. The unity and simplicity of God have been discussed. We shall now consider the independence, eternity, immensity. and immutability of God. (The source and norm of our assertions here. as everywhere in theology, must be exclusively the inspired andinerrant Word of God.)
(1) Independence (Aseity). Scripture indicates the independence of God in various ways. When Moses was sent to Israel and Pharaoh. it was “I am that I am”(BExodus 3: 14) who sent him, the living God Who has”life in himself.”(John 5：26) God is not”served by men’s hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself giveth to all life, and breath and all things.”(Acts 17：25) He works “all things according to the counsel of his will”(Ephesians 1: 11) and His counsel “standeth fast forever. ” (SPsalm 33: 11) In this light, the independence of God may be defined as that perfection which indicates that God is not dependent upon anything outside of Himself, but that He is self-sufficient in His whole being, in His decrees and in all his works
Although God has the ground of His existence in Himself, He is not self- caused or self-originated, for the eternal God has neither beginning nor end. The independence of God includes more than the idea of God’saseity or self-existence. His independence characterizes not only His existence, but His whole being and His attributes, His decrees and His works of creation, providence, and redemption
The biblical view of God’s independence does not permit one to identify the God of Scripture with the abstract philosophical concept of the Absolute of Spinoza or Hegel. The self-existent, independent God of Scripture is the living God Who is not only exalted above the whole
creation, but is at the same time its creator and sustainer. And in governing the world, God entered into fellowship with man before the fall, and after the fall He established a new fellowship in the covenant of grace. Although God works all things according to the counsel of His will, He sometimes performs His will through immediate and secondary causes. He uses men. for example, in the all-important task of publishing the Gospel
(2)Eternity. The infinity of God is sometimes considered as an absolute perfection which characterizes all God’s attributes as limitless and perfect. In this sense. all the communicable attributes would be characterized by the incommunicable attribute of infinity. It is primarily with reference to time and space, however, that the infinity of God is considered as the eternity and the immensity of God.
Scripture speaks of “the eternal God” Who is our dwelling place Deuteronomy 33: 27) He is”the King eternal,”( SoP1 Timothy 1: 17) existing before the foundation of the world”from everlasting to everlasting,”(Psalm 90: 2)”the Alpha and the Omega.”(os Revelation 1: 8)He “inhabiteth eternity,”(Isaiah 57: 15)His “years shall have no end”; (2Psalm 102: 27) and “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”(2 Peter 3：8)
Eternity may be defined as that perfection of God which expresses His transcendence with respect to time. God has neither beginning nor end. He does not undergo growth, development, maturation. He existed before the world, He dwells even now in eternity, and He will continue as the eternal God even when history has ended.
Although we must acknowledge that God is not subject to the limitations of time, we must also recognize that time is God’s creation and that He is the Lord of history. History is the unfolding of His sovereign counsel. It was in the “fulness of time” that“God sent forth his son.(Galatians 4:4)Time is meaningful for the eternal God, for it was on a Friday that Christ died on the cross and on Sunday morning that He rose from the grave. The risen Christ told His disciples, “Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. “(Matthew 28: 20) The Christian, therefore, confidently confesses: “My times are in thy hand. “(sPsalm 31: 15) (3)Immensity and Omnipresence. God is a God both at hand and afar off so that no one can hide himself in a secret place: “Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith Jehovah.”(Jeremiah 23: 23f) Heaven is His throne and the earth is His footstool.(Isaiah 66： 1) Therefore no one can escape the omnipresent and omniscient God. (Psalm 139)”He is not far from each one of us; for in him we live, and move, and have our being. “(2Acts 17: 27f) In the light of such passages, the immensity of God may be defined as that perfection of God which expresses His transcendence with respect to space. And omnipresence expresses the fact that this transcendent God is yet present everywhere in heaven and earth.
Here again one must seek to grasp the positive implications of this incommunicable attribute. God is spirit; He has no body and hence is not limited by space. Therefore, we are not bound to Jerusalem or any other place in our worship of the true God. (PJohn 4:21ff) On the other hand, it was into this world that God sent His only begotten Son. And Christ, Who now governs the whole cosmos, will come again physically at the end of history to judge the living and dead.
(4) Immutability. God is described in Scripture as “the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation, neither shadow that is cast by turning.” (IPJames 1:17) “For I, Jehovah, change not” (Malachi 3:6) is His own affirmation. And by an oath He has “immutably” witnessed to the immutability of His counsel.Hebrews 6:17)
Immutability is that perfection which designates God’s constancy and unchangeableness in His being, decrees, and works. He remains forever the same true God, faithful to Himself, His decrees, His revelation, and His works. He undergoes no change from within, nor does He undergo change due to anything outside of Himself.
It is necessary to ask whether the immutability of God can be maintained in the face of several scriptural assertions concerning a certain “repentance” of God. For example, with respect to the unfaithfulness of Saul, God told Samuel: “It repented me that I have set up Saul to be king.” (S1 Samuel 15:11) However, there is a specific statement in the same chapter which indicates that God cannot repent. After telling Saul that God was taking the kingdom from him and giving it to another (David), Samuel adds: “And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent.” (1 Samuel 15:28; cf. 29Numbers 23:19) It appears then that God’s “repentance” must be understood in an anthropomorphic sense to describe the depth of His displeasure and grief in relation to the horrible sins of men. At the same time, the faithfulness, constancy, and immutability of God stand out in His taking the kingdom from Saul and giving it to David, for the sake of keeping His faithful covenant.
There are also instances in which the “repentance” of God is related to a condition, either expressed or implied. The general rule in such instances is expressed in Jeremiah 18: “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 if they do what which is evil in my sight, that they obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.” (4Jeremiah 18:8ff) Thus, with respect to Nineveh, Jehovah “saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evild which he said he would do unto them; and he did it not.”(3Jonah 3:10cf. 3:9 4:2) Similar references to God’s “repentance” occur in Amos and Joel.

(B Amos 7: 3; 6; e Joel 2: 13; In these instances also the word”repentance”is used in an anthropomorphic way to express God’s faithful response to the meeting of a condition, either expressed or implied in His promise or threat. Rather than contradict the immutability of God, this repentance”in the total context of Scripture emphasizes that God is faithful and true to His word and promise forever. There is no “holy mutability of God,” as Karl Barth claims. “The Lord hath sworn and will not repent,”(Psalm 110: 4) and His counsel shall stand.”6Isaiah 46:10)
The immutability of God does not mean, however, that God is immobile or inactive. The Christian God is always active, never unemployed or incapacitated. He not only sustains or preserves all that He has created, but He actively governs it in accord with His sovereign and immutable counsel. In all His works, the eternal and sovereign God executes His decree and shows Himself”the same yesterday, and today, yea and forever.”
(SHebrews 13: 8)
CONCLUSION
The incommunicable attributes describe the transcendent greatness of the triune God. He is self-sufficient and all-sufficient, transcendent above time and space and yet present everywhere in heaven and earth; He remains forever the same true God, unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. Since all theology concerns God and His relations with men, one’s entire theological position is reflected in the doctrine of the attributes of God. Therefore, a biblical doctrine of the attributes of God should reflect itself in the whole of one’s theology.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Reformed H. Bavinck: The Doctrine of God
L. Berkhof: Systematic Theology S. Charnock: The Attributes of God A.A. Hodge: Outlines of Theology C. Hodge: Systematic Theology,I W.G.T. Shedd: Dogmatic Theology, I Neo-orthodox
G. Aulén: The Faith of the Christian Church K. Barth: Die kirchliche Dogmatik, II,1 E. Brunner: The Christian Doctrine of God

5. THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD: THE COMMUNICABLE ATTRIBUTES -ANTHONY A. HOEKEMA

Anthony A. Hoekema, Professor of Systematic Theology at Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, Michigan, received his general and theological education at Calvin College (B.A., 1936)， University of Michigan (M.A., 1937), Calvin Theological Seminary (B.D., 1942), and Princeton Theological Seminary (Th.D., 1953).
God’s attributes cannot be separated from His Being. God and His perfections are one. We may not think of love and righteousness as incidental aspects of God’s character; on the contrary, God is with His whole Being love and righteousness, grace and holiness. Because this is so, one attribute cannot be limited by another. We may not say, for example, that God is not infinitely righteous because He is love. Though the attributes are many, God is one. While we distinguish the attributes for purposes of study, we can never separate them This essay will concern itself with the so-called communicable attributes of God. We may define these as attributes to which some analogy is found in man (the incommunicable being those to which no analogy is found in man). It should be remembered, however, that the difference between these two groups of attributes is relative. God possesses all His communicable attributes in an incommunicable way. Whatever we find in man by way of analogy is but a faint reflection of these perfections as found in God The following division of the communicable attributes has been adapted from Berkhof’s Systematic Theology: 1. intellectual attributes: knowledge and wisdom; 2. moral attributes: goodness, love, grace, mercy,longsuffering, veracity (including faithfulness), holiness, righteousness; 3 volitional attributes: the sovereign will of God and the sovereign power of God.
INTELLECTUAL ATTRIBUTES
Under the intellectual attributes, we note first the knowledge of God Scripture tells us that “God is light and in him is no darkness at all.”” (John 1：5) This designation tells us that God knows all things,( John 3: 20) God knows Himself thoroughly and completely. Further, God knows all that exists outside Himself. To this attribute, we give the name of God’s omniscience. It includes the minutest details, even the numbering of the hairs of our heads.
God’s wisdom, though related to His knowledge, is to be distinguished from it. Wisdom means the application of knowledge to the reaching of a goal. God’s wisdom implies that God uses the best possible means to reach the goals He has set for Himself. The Old Testament Psalmist was impressed with the evidence of God’s wisdom in creation: “O Jehovah. how manifold are thy works! In wisdom hast thou made them all.” (Psalm 104：24) Joseph in Egypt saw the wisdom of God revealed in the providential ordering of his life, (saGenesis 50: 20) whereas Paul particularly saw that wisdom displayed in the plan of salvation.11 Corinthians 1: 18, 24)
MORAL ATTRIBUTES
Under the moral attributes, we list first of all the goodness of God. By this we understand “that perfection of God which prompts Him to deal bountifully and kindly with all hiscreatures.”3 This goodness is spoken of in such passages as Psalm 145： 94 and Acts 14： 17. By some theologians, this goodness of God is called His “common grace,” in distinction from His special grace shown only to His elect people. The love of God is very prominent in Scripture, especially in the New Testament. The three persons of the Trinity exist in an eternal fellowship of love,(John 3：35； 17：24) but in and through Christ, God reveals His love to man. In this connection, John 3： 16 comes to mind, as well as many other memorable New Testament passages. All the blessings of salvation are the fruits of God’s love: “Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God. (B>1 John 3: 1)
One of the major questions in the area of the attributes today is: How can we properly relate the love and the righteousness of God? The liberal theology of the nineteenth century virtually cancelled out the righteousness of God. Ritschl, it will be recalled, said that there was no such thing as the wrath of God, and that anyone who thinks so is laboring under a delusion. In contemporary neo-orthodox theology, this old liberalism has supposedly been repudiated. As we examine the doctrine of the attributes, however, noting what neo-orthodox theologians teach particularly about the love and righteousness of God, we shall have occasion to ask ourselves whether the liberal rejection of the wrath of God hasreally been abandoned by these men, or whether it has simply been restated in a different form.
Contemporary theologians describe love as the center and core of God’s revelation. Karl Barth. in fact. divides God’s attributes into “The Perfections of the Divine Loving” and “The Perfections of the Divine Freedom,”insisting that we must not begin with attributes which concern the being or essence of God and then go on to speak of His love, but that we must begin by discussing the love ofGod. 5 When Barth goes on to define God’s love, he includes in its scope all men and all of creation: “God is He who in His Son, Jesus Christ, loves all His children, in His children all men, and in men His whole creation.6 Emil Brunner, like Barth, stresses that love is the very nature of God7 and quotes with approval Luther’s statement that God is “an abyss of eternal love.” Brunner describes this love asagape (love poured out on those who are worthless; love which does not desire to get but to give) in distinction from eros (love of someone because he is worthy of being loved). At this point, Brunner acknowledges his indebtedness to Anders Nygren.”
These men have much to teach us. However, when we note Brunner’s insistence that, for Paul, the righteousness and mercy of God are identical, fio and when we look again at Barth’s definition of love, we begin to
wonder whether both of them do not assume that agape requires God to treat all men alike. Our Lord Jesus Christ, however, clearly taught that there is a wrath of God which is to be revealed against those who reject God and refuse to believe in His Son. Christ speaks of the outer darkness, of the place where the fire is not quenched, of a hell into which one may be cast, and of the disastrous consequences of losing one’s soul.
Associated with God’s love are His grace – God’s love shown to those who have not deserved it, but have rather deserved its opposite-His mercy-God’s love shown to those who are in misery or distress-and His longsuffering-that aspect of God’s love whereby He endures evil men in spite of their disobedience, and seeks to lead them to repentance. By the veracity of God, we mean His truthfulness. God is the source of truth, true in His revelation and true in His promises. In this connection, it is particularly the faithfulness of God which is to be stressed: He keeps his promises, and is ever faithful to His covenant people. (2 Timothy 2：13)

We come next to the holiness of God. The origin of the Hebrew root QADASH (the Hebrew word for holy) is obscure; its basic meaning,however, seems to be that of apartness. Thus, God’s holiness means first of all that He is other than the creature, infinitely exalted above His creation In this sense, the holiness of God is not so much a separate attribute as a qualification of all that God is and does. As an attribute, however, God’s holiness means, negatively, that He is “of purer eyes than to behold evil”(soHabakkuk 1: 13): that He is free from all that is impure and hates all sin. Positively, God’s holiness denotes His moral excellence, the fact that He perfectly embodies all that is pure and good.
When we take up the righteousness of God, we touch upon an attribute which is the object of much contemporary discussion. The basic idea of righteousness is that of becoming conformed to a rule or law. God may therefore be called righteous because He acts in accordance with law, not a law above Him but a law which is within Him, of which He Himself is the author. By God’s rectoral justice, we mean God’s rectitude as the Ruler of the Universe, particularly of His moral creatures. By His distributive justice, we mean His rectitude in the execution of His law. In this connection, we think first of God’s remunerative justice, which distributes rewards not on the basis of merit but solely by grace. Paul speaks of this in saRomans 2: 6 and 7: “Who will render to every man according to his work: to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life.” By retributive justice, we mean God’s infliction of penalties upon those who disobey Him; this justice is an expression of His wrath. Paul speaks of this in verses 8 and 9 of Romans,: “But unto them that are factious, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil. Although it is true that in Scripture the righteousness of God is generally applied to the salvation of sinners (think of what Paul says about justification inRomans 3：21-28)， the Bible teaches unequivocally that there is such a thing as retributive righteousness or the wrath of God.f12
Since this is a matter of crucial importance, let us see what contemporary neo-orthodox theologians teach about the righteousness of God. Barth treats God’s mercy and righteousness together, as “Perfections of the Divine Loving.” Citing both Luther and Anselm, he stresses the identity of God’s righteousness and mercy. 3 For Barth, the great message of the Bible is: “There is no righteousness of God which is not also mercy and no mercy of God which is not also righteousness.”4 In distinction from Ritschl, Barth maintains that there is such a thing as a punitive righteousness in God. 5 In a discussion of the significance of Good Friday. Barth goes on to show that God’s retributive or punitive righteousness is wholly satisfied by the crucifixion of HisSon. 16 While appreciating the profound insights offered here, we look in vain for any suggestion that God’s retributive righteousness is also to be expressed at the last day in the punishment of the lost. In fact, Barth asserts that it is characteristic of heathen but not of scriptural eschatology to put”these two ways”before our eyes: the way of eternal glory and the way of everlasting fire. 17 The conclusion seems inescapable that, for Barth, there will be no final punishment of those who are lost. Barth’s teachings on election, in fact. have led Brunner to designate Barth’s views as “the most thoroughgoing doctrine of universalism that has ever been formulated.”F18
So far as Brunner’s own teachings are concerned, he quotes approvingly Luther’s affirmation that the revelation of God’s wrath is his “strange work,” whereas the revelation of God’s love is His “proper work. “fi9 Like Luther. Brunner holds that the wrath of god reached its climax on the cross, but that here faith sees God’s love behind His”strange work.”2 When, however, we ask about Brunner’s view of retributive justice,culminating in eternal punishment for the lost, we get an equivocal answer. Brunner, while sharply critical ofBarth’s view of election, 2 joins Barth in rejecting double predestination. 22 Brunner firmly rejects universal salvation23 and says that we cannot eliminate a final judgment of wrath from the New Testament. 24 Yet he expresses his doubts about eternal punishment 25 and elsewhere suggests that to die without Christ is equivalent to being annihilated. 20
We see that, in this respect, Brunner is not as radical as Barth. Yet Brunner hesitates about eternal punishment, a doctrine whichNels Ferré decisively rejects.27 As we reflect upon the views of these contemporary theologians, we cannot suppress the following questions: Does God’s retributive righteousness and particularly God’s wrath really come into its own in the views of these men? Or do we have here a repetition of the liberal subordination of the wrath of God to His love? Does not this contemporary treatment of God’s wrath rob the Gospel message of its deepest earnestness? Does it do justice to the teaching of our Lord, Who spoke some of the sternest words about the wrath of God?

VOLITIONAL ATTRIBUTES
Coming finally to the volitional attributes, we distinguish between God’s sovereign will and His sovereign power. By God’s sovereign will, we mean His directing of the events of the universe and of the actions of His creatures in accordance with His plan. Needless to say, this sovereign will is the final cause of all thathappens. 28 To suggest that things may happen which are not under the ultimate direction of god’s will is to detract from His sovereignty and thereby from His majesty.
What do we mean by God’s sovereign power, also called His omnipotence? To say that God can do all things is to open the door to all kinds of foolish questions, such as: Can God sin? Can God make a stone too heavy for Himself to lift? It is better to define omnipotence as that power by virtue of which God can do whatever He wills to accomplish? (0126 Matthew 19:26)
God’s omnipotence must not be so conceived as to leave no room for human decision or to reduce man to the dimensions of a radio-guided missile. Divine omnipotence establishes human freedom and responsibility. It is precisely this fact which makes the sovereignty of God so deeply mysterious that man cannot fathom it.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Standard systematic theologies by H. Bavinck, L. Berkhof, C. Hodge, and W.G.T. Shedd
References to neo-orthodox works found cited above S. Charnock: The Attributes of God