_Christian Theology by Milton Valentine, D.D., LL.D Copyright 1906, Lutheran Publication Society Printed Philadelphia, PA. by The United Lutheran Publication House_ Pages 22-41 ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHAPTER II. THE SOURCE OF THEOLOGY. The sources of theology must be adequate at once to account for the origin and to exhibit the content of the faith. They must be authoritatively legitimate for both the substance and the form of the theological teaching. Nothing short of such sources, as the basis of its deter- minations, can give to theology its right character and standing as a scientific exhibition of the truth which belongs to its sphere of investigation. For merely natural theology the sources are justly found in the data of the human consciousness and rea- son in connection with the natural self-revelation of God in creation and history. These supply it with abundant evidence of the existence of God and certify some of His essential attributes, making clear, at the same time, a large realm of moral and religious obli- gation for man. For Christian theology the chief source is found in the Old and New Testament records of the supernatural self-manifestation of God in His redemptive love, work, and teaching. The possession of this addi- tional and unique revelation, of course, does not annul or displace the data from which natural theology derives its invaluable theistic and religious truth. These con- tinue in their own rightful force and validity, for full consideration in theological grounds and verifications. The disposition, sometimes shown, to condemn and exclude from Christian theology the data that have -------------------End of Page 22------------------------- illuminated the way of natural theology into the great fundamental realities of the divine existence and many of the divine prerogatives and attributes and of the religious nature and responsibility of man, is manifestly unjustifiable. These have lost none of their intrinsic legitimacy by reason of the added light, and rightly form auxiliary sources in theological determinations. This is fully endorsed by the Scriptures themselves in the recog- nition they give of the revelatory function of nature as the divine handiwork in showing the divine glory, and of the office of reason for discerning the eternal power and Godhead from the things which are made. (Ps. xix. I; Rom. i.20.) But as the supernatural revelation in redemptory providence and communication, meeting and providing for the distinctively spiritual and moral need of mankind, has flooded the whole religious view with the fullest and completest light, the Scripture records of this legitimately become the principal and decisive source for the verities and formulations of theology. They are the standard of faith and the Christian life. This, at least theoretically, though not always practically followed, was the conception of the leading writers of the early centuries of the Church, maintained essentially down into the middle ages. As the great "formal principle," reasserted in the reformation of the sixteenth century against practical encroachments upon it by exaggerated claims for tradition and ecclesiastical authority, it has ever since been justly accredited as the fundamental rule in the method and procedures of Christian theology. There is no adequate reason for surrender of this princi- ple. Whatever may be the outcome of the agitation and ferment brought about by the evolutionary theory of the origin of the world and man and the allied work of --------------End of Page 23--------------------------------- literary and historical criticism upon the Biblical records, no conclusions have yet been established that remove the Scriptures from the position to which the Church has accredited them, as the infallible rule for faith and life and the norm of Christian theology. Whatever weight may be given to knowledge from other sources, from tra- dition, philosophy, or the physical sciences, such knowl- edge must be but auxiliary and rank below the grade of ruling doctrinal authority. Revelation covers the essential content of the faith. Even the "Christian con- sciousness," which is conceded to be a proper and even necessary helping factor in understanding and defining theological doctrines, must, if it is to be reliable, be itself a product of the Scriptures, out of an illuminat- ing experience of their truth. Its office is subsidiary. This formal principle of theology either assumes or carries in its import a number of related truths: (I) It assumes that these sacred Scriptures are, indeed, the word of God, a divinely supplied record of a revelation of Himself, and of the things necessary to be known, believed, and fulfilled for the realization of our true life and destiny. Their authority is grounded in this, and it is only as they are adequately and fully authen- ticated in this character that they attain and hold the right of umpire. The certifying proofs, to which the reason and judgment of the most intellectual and criti- cal nations of history have bowed and which have been confirmed by the experience-testing of centuries of Chris- tendom, will be outlined a little further on in our exami- nation. (2) It assumes also that these Scriptures have been given under such divine adaptations that, while they are authoritative, they are understandable under the Holy Spirit and an adequate guide in all spiritual truth need- ---------------End of Page 24------------------------------- ful for salvation. The main facts in this relation will appear in the consideration of their inspiration. (3) In its import the principle involves a repudiation and exclusion of any supposed right or authority of the Church to _enact_ extra-biblical doctrines or articles of faith for the consciences of men. (4) It excludes, too, a limitation of the right of interpretation by any supposed exclusive authority conferred upon an ecclesiastical hier- archy or ruling official, in derogation of personal inter- pretation, liberty, and responsibility in matters revealed to faith. And (5) it disowns the right of _tradition_ or extra-biblical ecclesiastical information, to impose articles of faith or practice for which clear warrant of the Scriptures cannot be given. In asserting tradition as an authority co-equal with the Scriptures as a source of saving truth and moral discipline, the Council of Trent has defined the position of the Roman Church in con- tradiction to this formal principle of Protestant theology. The vindication of the principle will be made to appear in the conclusions to which the evidences of Christianity and a summary of the doctrine concerning the Scrip- tures necessarily leads us. But this rule of Biblical supremacy calls up at this point the whole question of the province of reason and its work in the determinations of Christian theology. This has been one of the battle-questions of modern and recent times. It has been brought on and continued by the intellectual activity and progress of the age. Through the brilliant achievements of the human mind in the domain of science, discovery, invention, and sub- jugation of nature to obedient service, and its magnificent creations and ranges of metaphysical and philosophical speculation, a spirit of intellectual confidence and self- ---------------End of Page 25-------------------------------- sufficiency has been begotten and grown strong. Even when and where it has taken the position of religious agnosticism, a conclusion of almost blank nescience as to theistic and spiritual verities, it has, nevertheless, assumed a temper of dogmatic positiveness as to the certainty of its own knowledge and the competence of reason to settle both physical and moral truth. Its very negations are assertive. Humility of mind has largely disappeared under the pride of scientific advance, which is supposed to have furnished new view-point and such illumination over the whole domain of knowledge as to give to the human reason alone an imperial supremacy in the realm of knowable reality. A sign of this appears in the strong disposition to discard from the conception of the cosmic system everything that the scientific understanding cannot bring under its classifica- tion in the uniformities of natural law, and to believe in the existence of nothing which formal logic cannot reduce under the category of such uniformities. It is betokened, too, by the pressure for the elimination of the term "supernatural" as properly expressive of a dis- tinctive characteristic in the content of the Chris- tian revelation. It is well, indeed, to rejoice in and honor the intellectual triumphs of our age. They have lifted us above some of the faultiness and mistakes of earlier science and philosophy. They have enriched life and thought with much that is valuable. But it would be premature to assume that all present scientific speculations and theories will stand the siftings of still advancing knowledge and speculation. The tendency, however, to enlarge the authority and sphere of reason in matters of religious faith is unquestionable in the spirit of the times. At the very best, our times are --------------------End of Page 26-------------------- not marked by evidences of an anxious sense of need of divine instruction and help for spiritual guidance and destiny, or of dependence on supernatural communi- cation and direction. Unquestionably strong rational- istic tendencies are widely prevalent and urgent. This question, therefore, of the true relations of reason with respect to the substance and form of the Christian faith must here be settled for ourselves, if we are to move consistently through the whole long range of theological examination and maintain firm footing amidst the strenu- ous influences of our times. We propose no lengthened discussion of the subject. It will be enough to summarize the conclusions to which, we believe, just views and discriminations must bring us: 1. Reason, as the whole human faculty of knowledge through perception, intuition, and the logical processes, and revelation, as the disclosure of truth through the Scriptures, cannot be viewed as contradictory of each other, but as necessarily in agreement. The one may speak where the other is silent. The one may transcend the other and bring higher or broader realms or realities into view. But there can be no real and positive con- flict. On this conclusion we are compelled to stand, because, _ex hypothesi_, both reason and revelation are from the same divine Author. And this Author is both the Absolute Reason and the unchangeable, ever-self- consistent Truth. This may seem here simply an assumption; but it is an assumption warranted, on the one hand, by the proper and sufficient evidence that the revelation is, indeed, of God, and, on the other, by the whole body of truth for the theistic origin of the world and of the human reason as a divine gift. When, therefore, this claim of revelation as of God is -----------------End of Page 27------------------------ once verified and He is identified as the Creator of the human mind, if there appears a seeming conflict in their representations either one or the other has been misread. Such misreading may easily occur, as the history of rational judgments and of Biblical exegesis abundantly shows. And the principle is indubitably cor- rect, as fully conceded by the soberest decisions of phi- losophy itself, that an article or point of faith taught by revelation, is not in contradiction of reason by being _above_ it, _i.e._, by being either naturally undiscoverable or a mystery when revealed.[1] Even within the natural sphere alone there are manifold realities beyond either discovery or solution by reason. Science, as truly as revelation, has to face the fact of mystery. [2] The essential harmony between reason and revelation is but another expression of the harmony of God with Himself. The offices of reason in this relation are justly in- dicated as (a) To judge and decide upon the claims of a given revelation to be of divine origin and authority. A religion which transcends the data of simply natural theology can have no authority for its higher teachings until it secures reason's favorable verdict upon its divine credentials. Faith becomes but an unwarranted supersti- tion if it accepts an offered revelation which is without fully adequate grounds for such acceptance. The reve- lation must come with full proof that it is of God. Its claims must be sustained in the court of reason, sitting in most sober, searching, and conscientious examination. Until its divine credentials are thus ----------------------------------------------------------- [1] Isa. lv. 9. [2] For illustrative instances, see Francis How Johnson's "What is Reality?" p. 92, seq. Also Wright's "Scientific Aspects of Christian Evidences," p. 28, seq. -----------------------End of Page 28-------------------------- adjudged sufficient it can acquire no legitimate standing as arbiter. When so authenticated its position of suprem- ecy has come through the reason itself. This is the first thing in the high and responsible office of the human reason. It opens the gates of truly warranted and intelligent faith in God's redemptive truth and grace--than which it can have no higher or more sacred function. Of all men it should be farthest from the Christian theologian to vilify the human reason, since God has called it to such an office,--to test and pass upon the signs, marks, and evidences of the great self-manifestation in which He has presented Himself for human confidence, obedience, and salvation.[1] But reason assumes an unwarranted role when it undertakes to pronounce against the _possibility_ of a supernatural revelation or against a possible _proof_ of any. The import of such undertaking amounts, in the first case, to the absurdity of claiming that the finite human mind can have an omniscient view of the possibilities of being and event; and in the second place, demands a standard or grade of proof above that which reason itself, in all other relations and affirmations, has evermore adjudged to be fully adequate to accredit the certainty of historical or other phenomenal reality. In such demands it puts itself in conflict with its own canons of certitude, and becomes the abuse of reason, known as "rationalism." (b) The Sacred Scriptures, as the records of God's redemp- tory self-revelation, being thus certified as from Him the reason properly takes the position of a _pupil_, bowing to their authority in the sphere in which they teach. In this, however, the office of reason continues to be a high and responsible one, because it is the office of cor- ------------------------------------------------------------ [1] Matt. xi. 2-6; John v. 36; x. 25, 37, 38; xv. 24. -------------End of Page 29----------------------------------- rectly understanding their divine communications, of intelligently and accurately reading God's thoughts after Him and making them our own. While for all that is essential for a saving faith and a Christian life, the Scriptures are readily comprehended by the sincere understanding, yet in their immense ranges and reaches into spiritual truth and principles they present problems whose right explanation calls for the best powers of the human mind. As they are a record of great provi- dential movement in history, advancing from the earliest times through centuries of divine manifestations and guidance, ordinances and administrations, in the Old Testament, to the consummation in the coming, teach- ing, institutes, sufferings, death, resurrection, and ascen- sion of Jesus Christ, and the establishment of the Church through the appointed ministry of the apostles; covering advancing revelatory communications from the beginning to the completion in the New Testament--all connected with an almost endless diversity of local cir- cumstances, social conditions, personal character, politi- cal institutions, and national changes and contacts, with their complex influence and significance--evidently even the reason's function of theological interpretation covers an almost measureless field of difficult work, for which the most discriminating intellect, the purest heart, and the most faithful conscience are none too great an equip- ment. It necessarily requires an ample apparatus of knowledge, historical, linguistic, archaeological. Alas, how often the office of interpretation has failed to reach the exact truth or has delivered error because of the lack of comprehensive information, clear spiritual dis- cernment, or training in logical discrimination and con- clusion. How often has it been used to pervert the -------------End of Page 30------------------------------- divine meaning and darken the truth out of sight by clouds of mystification. The history of exegesis is full of sad evidence how mental peculiarities, educational warpings, philosophical prepossessions, or other disturb- ing forces may interfere with the correctness and reli- ability of Biblical interpretation. Both the fallibility of reason and the sacred importance of its office are strik- ingly illustrated in this history. The theological exegete must possess not only a sincere and reverent spirit, seek- ing simply the divine teaching, but also a clean, mirror- like mind for reception and reflection of the pure revealed truth. But the reason transcends its office when it turns critic of that which it recognizes as the real sense or doctrine of a revelation which it accepts as such. While it may justly urge the criticized teaching in connection with the earlier question of the divine character of the offered revelation, it cannot, after ac- crediting its authority, shape or modify the doctrine or system of doctrine otherwise than taught, simply because of its own conceptions of what ought to be true. To do this is to transgress the right use of reason in the exegetical office, and to hand over this office to the abuse of reason which again justly bears the reproach of "rationalism." (c) To the reason belongs also the office of _vindicating_ the doctrines of religion and theology. This it can do by tracing how they separately and together meet the deep needs of man's moral and spirit- ual nature; how they integrate themselves into a com- plete unity in harmony with the total constitution and order of the world; how they affect human life, per- sonal, social, and national, in exaltations and fruitage of highest human virtue and divine benediction, and thus bear witness to themselves as a true and neces- ----------------End of Page 31------------------------- sary part of God's provision for human welfare and happiness. 2. Through this conception of the relation between reason and faith we are prepared to mark the relation sustained to theology by the two great divisions of reason's activities, viz.: Natural Science and Phi- losophy. (a) _By Natural Science_. Science, being but the knowledge of nature as attained and certified by our faculties of observation and systemization, must, of course, occupy a relation to theology much akin to that of reason itself. Its material is as broad and varied as the whole observable product of God's creative work. It studies substances, forces, and movement. It inves- tigates the phenomena in inorganic, organic, and psychic nature. It rises above the earth and examines the measureless wonders of the astronomic universe. It compares, judged, classifies, and finds the laws of sequence and uniformity, and through these laws fore- casts the coming of what as yet is not. It specializes its work in many particular sciences, but in its final effort it seeks to unite the results of all its investiga- tions into a consistent conception of the full cosmic universe. It is manifest that science is thus a pro- gressive and changing knowledge. Its work is largely experimental and tentative, adding continuously to the amount of real, true "knowledge," often compelling the repudiation of notions or theories which were counted such before. Judged by the experience of the past, at every state of its advance it has much still to learn as well as much to unlearn. By the very root- conception of the term, _i. e., scientia_, that which is _known_, its true, actual content is always lagging much ---------------End of Page 32---------------------------- behind its pretentions or that which is set forth. By no means is it all science which even leading scientists believe and present, as the continual funerals of both new and old "scientific" formulations and theories fully attest. Many of the monuments of science are grave- stones. The stones, however, are memorials of truth's progress.[1] Beyond all doubt science, despite its limita- tions, as a successful interpreter of the works of God gives helpful light for understanding His word and the right determinations of Biblical theology. It has indeed but little in aid of Christian "_soteriology_;" for nature, though conscious of its need, has no message of salva- tion. But by the clearness and certainty which science sheds through natural theology and the wider and more accurate reading it furnishes of God's thoughts and ways in His works, it becomes auxiliary for correct adjustment to and in the total theological view, of the completing truths of the Scripture revelation. Just as truly, on the other hand, is science itself an immense gainer from the presence of revelation. For it is only when revelation has furnished the ultimate and full _intention_ of the world's order and system, in their moral and spiritual significance for man's welfare and destiny, that the structure and adaptations of nature appear in adequate explanatory light. According to both the Scriptures and science, the construction-movement of the earth looked to _man_; and can be fully understood and appreciated only in the light of the teleology of his wel- fare and destiny. Morning light for the true vision of -------------------------------------------------------- [1] "Is not science itself a continual process of correcting errors, of modifying generalizations, to include newly-observed exceptions, and so of constant approximation toward the ideal of absolute truth?" Ladd, "Philosophy of Religion," Vol. I., p. 41. ----------------------End of Page 33---------------------------- nature comes only when revelation shines across the horizon. This helpfulness of theology is verified not simply by the indubitable fact that the grandest sci- entific activity and achievement belong almost entirely to nations or peoples to which revelation has given the quickened and clarified intellect and life of Christian civilization--the Christian peoples leading all others in science--but also by the concurrent fact that its service has been best for stable and beneficent results in propor- tion as it has worked along the lines of revelation's fundamental cosmic and moral teachings. The normal relation between science and theology is, therefore, that of mutual helpfulness. They should stand in friendly attitude, while maintaining inde- pendent investigation in their distinct spheres of truth. Strife can never come in the truths themselves. This can arise only through erroneous interpretations or speculative theorizing on one side or the other or both, and then asserting for such unwarranted _theories_ an authority which belongs only to "known" truth. Hypotheses are not science, nor unrevealed dogmas theology. As science is the knowledge of nature, of the realities discoverable in the uniformities of natural existence and law, it can neither furnish articles of faith in the higher range of supernatural redemption and grace nor disproof of the existence of such a sphere, when the credentials of this, of proper and rational kind, are in fully adequate evidence. On the one side, theology has no right to deny the invincibly known realities and truths of nature. On the other, science has no right to affirm the nonexistence of a higher sphere of divine love and verities, or a supernatural adminstra- tion of redemptive grace for the life and destiny of -----------------End of Page 34------------------------ mankind, simply in the ground that these verities are not discoverable or testable by the scientific apparatus applicable alone to the natural sphere. We must even go further and say that science distinctly points to the religious sphere. Not only is its apparatus incompetent for disproof, but one, at least, of its fundamental postu- lates--namely, the principle of ends or "final cause," by which it guides its own movement in intelligent appreciation of its conclusions-must, if allowed just force, recognize the total teleology of the natural sys- tem as looking to these same human interests which the supernatural system makes supreme in the purpose of the world. Science, as truly as theology or phi- losophy, makes man's being and welfare the grand aim and goal of what it calls the cosmic evolution. It thus concedes the lofty significance and unique position of man, whose highest endowments and interests connect him with the moral and spiritual sphere. When men take naturalistic science, either as a negation of "religion," or as itself the sufficient religion, they absurdly assume that man has no interests beyond those of physical existence. And he who, on the other hand, recognizes man's relation to a higher sphere of spiritual being and interests, and yet puts these spiritual interests in complete isolation from the physical or phenomenal world, which is the sphere of science, irrationally disrupts the unity and interrelations of the cosmic system, the unity, harmony, and interdependence of which is part of the fundamental spiritual postulate.[1] The --------------------------------------------------------------- [1] This is the Ritschlian error of separation of religious _faith_ from all question of the objective reality of its content, or of verification of the historical facts or truths of revelation on which theology has been wont to ground the faith. It breaks the relation of belief from its ----------------End of Page 35---------------------------------- notion that the knowledge of the one sphere of reality and interests can stand apart from and shed no light upon the other sphere of reality and interests, violates the rational demand which compels us to hold all truth as self-consistent, with all its parts in mutually interpret- ing and supporting harmony. (b) _By Philosophy_ a similar relation is sustained. As distinguished from science, philosophy is offered expla- nation of _the reason of things_, in the realms of both mind and matter, of either parts or the whole of the universe. It goes beyond the scientific systemization of the phenomena of nature in their relations of sequence and dependence, and seeks to find and exhibit the _thought-relations_ in which nature lives and moves, the _ideal_ in which the actual world-constitution finds its elucidation. The very idea of philosophy rests upon the assumption that the universe is a rationally ordered whole, a divine thought made actual. Hence rational thinking is fairly held to be capable of reading this thought embodied in the constitution of nature and life, tracing out the truth and significance of things. Phi- losophy endeavors to present not the phenomenal, but the _rational_ reality of the world. Its sphere, therefore, lies closer to the realm of theology than does that of science. Indeed, it has much in common with it. It ought, therefore, to be a true and helpful ally to theology, as theology, if allowed, may, in turn, illuminate the prob- lems of philosophy. Philosophic explanations, how- --------------------------------------------------------- basis in the actualities of the life and work of Christ. "Faith," as a faculty of worth-judgments or a direct sense of value, is detached from the necessity of depending on the historicity of the Biblical records, and becomes its own warrant for moral and spiritual confidence and saving direction in life and destiny. ------------------End of Page 36------------------------------ ever, greatly differ, owing to the different standpoints from which nature is viewed or the use of different principles of interpretation. We have many philoso- phies, some more and some less true to the real thought- relations which the creational action has fixed in the physical, mental, and moral existence and order of the world. There has always been a strong affinity between theology and philosophy, a tendency to unite their lines of thought and explanation. Philosophy tends to become theological, theology philosophical. Ever since the days when Plato's philosophy reached up into the high realm of theistic and spiritual verities, and Christianity, in turn, employed his thinking in support, and, in some degree, in elucidation of its divine truths, this tendency has been evident. The history of doctrine in the early Church shows abundantly, and sometimes only too strongly, a moulding and coloring influence on theology from its contacts with encompassing philosophic speculation. To say nothing about the gnostic and other heresies which broke the peace of the Church, the Alexandrian type of theology, so influential in Greek Christianity, is a perpetual historic reminder of this moulding force. In every century since, we find systems of theology shaped in greater or less degree by prevalent philosophies; and at the same time some philosophies determined in large measure by believing submission to the dogmas of the Church. Every prominent system of modern philosophy has made itself felt in theology-- sometimes sending waves of influence over large spaces of the theological realm.[1] ------------------------------------------------------- [1] See Fairbairn, "The Place of Christ in Modern Theology," Book I., pp. 25-296. --------------------End of Page 37---------------------- As theology and philosophy both seek truth as to the divine thought in, through, and for nature and life, they certainly ought to stand in mutually helpful relations to each other. To a large measure they have done so. It would be difficult to estimate the full help which theo- logy has received from this source. It has found in its corroborating testimony for many of its leading truths. For such as lie within the range of reason's comprehen- sion it has received the confirmatory validation of the intellectual and moral judgment. The very understand- ing of them becomes endorsement and assured faith. When they have been truths of pure revelation, inca- pable of discovery or proof by the human reason alone, the clear showings of philosophy have nevertheless availed for vindicating their credibility by exhibiting their coherence with all other certified truths in self- consistent unity. They have kept invincibly evident the principle that transcendence of reason does not nec- cessarily mean contradiction of reason. The sphere of the possible and true may extend both above and below the reach of human explanations. Predominantly the philosophy of Christendom has been a friendly and ser- viceable ally of Christian doctrine. Without being itself the furnishing source of this doctrine, it has given it in- tegration in the best intellectual cosmic systemization. On the other hand, philosophy, constructing systems in perfect freedom on many and diverse presuppositions, assuming very different and even entirely opposite princi- ples, has often not only brought perverting and weaken- ing elements into theology, but arrayed itself in contra- diction and strife. The difference of philosophies, the variance of system with system, has been one of the most patent facts in the history of thought. While some have, ---------------End of Page 38---------------------------- to greater or less degree, set the truth of being under genu- ine illumination, others have misconceived it and put a false face on the phenomena of existence and the mean- ing of life. They have been in incessant war with each other and changing with the passing generations, as one speculative genius after another has shifted the view-point or amended the conclusions. From this contrariety and shifting of philosophical teaching, perversion must in- evitably come to theology, as it often has come, by a too easy and close alliance with it. Ceaseless vigilance is necessary against false and changing systems. The philosophic _form_ of theology, or the philosophic contri- bution to it, has always constituted its _variable_ quan- tity. There are two forms of philosophy with which theol- ogy can have no alliance whatever, as they are absolutely antagonistic to it. One is monistic _materialism_, which denies the existence of spirit and leaves no place for moral freedom. A view of the world and man which resolves all the cosmic processes into mere atomic evolu- tion and the human mind into molecular brain interac- tions exhibiting "mentality," allows no place for either moral or religious responsibility. The spiritual realm is cancelled. The other is _pure idealism_, standing on the extreme opposite to materialism, and discrediting the existence of matter and a substantial outer world. This dissolves the realm amid which the human spirit is to exercise its life and powers, reacting in love and duty on physical conditions. It assigns to the spirit a creative omnipotence for the production of the whole world in which it lives and moves as itself "lord of all," thus denying Christianity by a virtual deifying of self as cos- mic creator. "A God without a real world is not the -------------End of Page 39------------------------------- God of theology; a spirit without the flesh to subjugate is not the Christian spirit." _No_ monistic philosophy, recognizing only one kind of essence in the universe-- whether it find the ground and sum of being in matter or resolve all into an endless evolution of absolute spirit --can ever be harmonized with the teaching and prin- ciples of the Scriptures. These everywhere presuppose a dualism of God and the world, spirit and the flesh, in actual and ceaseless relations. There are two other forms almost as absolutely un- theological--_deism_ and _pantheism_. _Deism_, in its false emphasis on the transcendence of God, separates Him so thoroughly from the world as to exclude revelation from Him or fellowship with Him. It not only pushes God away off into incommunicable heights, but seats indiffer- ence and heartlessness instead of active love upon the throne. Though it holds to the existence of God, He is not the God of redemptive goodness and saving help. Its theology, if it can construct one, is not the theology of the Christian Scriptures. _Pantheism_, by identifying or confounding God with the universe, making God the sum total of being, the all (to pan), an eternal essence evolving by interior necessity through all the forms of existence and phenomena--all modes and forms of nature being but forms and modes of God and parts of God--at once overthrows all freedom and respon- sibility by denying the true personality of both God and man. This pantheistic philosophy, reducing man into an ephemeral phenomenon of cosmic evolution, a mo- mentary wave of intelligent self-consciousness on the upper surface of earthly existence, and shearing the Absolute Being, though still spelled with capitals, of every attribute of knowledge, wisdom, holiness, love, and -------------------End of Page 40------------------------- redeeming goodness presents neither the Godhead nor the manhood gloriously mirrored to view in the pages of revelation, and obliterates all the conditions of religious worship, love, and hope. ------------------End of Page 41--------------------------- This text was converted to ascii format for Project Wittenberg by William Alan Larson and is in the public domain. You may freely distribute, copy or print this text. Please direct any comments or suggestions to: Rev. Robert E. Smith of the Walther Library at Concordia Theological Seminary. E-mail: smithre@mail.ctsfw.edu Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA Phone: (260) 452-2123 Fax: (260) 452-2126