Читать книгу The Great Bible Doctrines - William Evans J. - Страница 11

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

These arguments may not prove conclusively that God is, but they do show that in order to the existence of any knowledge, thought, reason, conscience in man, we must assume that God is (Strong). It is said of the beautiful, "It may be shown, but not proved." So we say of the existence of God. These arguments are probable, not demonstrative. For this reason they supplement each other, and constitute a series of evidences which is cumulative in its nature. Though taken singly, none of them can be considered absolutely decisive, they together furnish a corroboration of our primitive conviction of God's existence, which is of great practical value, and is in itself sufficient to bind the moral actions of men. A bundle of rods may not be broken even though each one separately may; the strength of the bundle is the strength of the whole. If in practical affairs we were to hesitate to act until we have absolute and demonstrable certainty, we should never begin to move at all.

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

Dr. Orr, of Glasgow, says: What we mean by the proof of God's existence is simply that there are necessary acts of thought by which we rise from the finite to the infinite, from the caused to the uncaused, from the contingent to the necessary, from the reason involved in the structure of the universe to a universal and eternal reason, which is the ground of all, from morality in conscience to a moral Lawgiver and Judge. In this connection the theoretical proofs constitute an inseparable unity—'constitute together,' as Dr. Stirling declares, "but the undulations of a single wave, which wave is but a natural rise and ascent to God, on the part of man's own thought, with man's own experience and consciousness as the object before him."

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

a) Universality of Belief in the Existence of God.

(1) The fact stated and proven:

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Whence comes this universal belief in the existence of God?

aa) Not from outside sources, such as reason, tradition, or even the Scriptures.

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

Nor did this universal belief come from tradition, for "Tradition," says Dr. Patton, "can perpetuate only what has been originated."

Nor can it be said that this belief came from the Scriptures even, for, as has been well said, unless a man had a knowledge of the God from whom the Scriptures came, the Revelation itself could have no authority for him. The very idea of Scripture as a Revelation, presupposes belief in a God who can make it.—Newman Smith. Revelation must assume the existence of God.

bb) This universal belief comes from within man.

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

(3) The weight and force of this argument.

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

b) The Argument from Cause: Cosmological.

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

We see this world in which we live, and ask how it came to be. Is

it self-originating, or is the cause of its being outside of itself?

Is its cause finite or infinite?

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

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

c) The Argument from Design: Teleological.

A watch proves not only a maker, an artificer, but also a designer; a watch is made for a purpose. This is evident in its structure. A thoughtful, designing mind was back of the watch. So is it with the world in which we live. These "ends" in nature are not to he attributed to "natural results," or "natural selection," results which are produced without intelligence, nor are they "the survival of the fittest," instances in which "accident and fortuity have done the work of mind." No, they are the results of a superintending and originating intelligence and will.

d) The Argument from Being: Ontological.

Man has an idea of an infinite and perfect Being. From whence this idea? From finite and imperfect beings like ourselves? Certainly not. Therefore this idea argues for the existence of an infinite and perfect Being: such a Being must exist, as a person, and not a mere thought.

e) The Moral Argument; Anthropological.

Man has an intellectual and a moral nature, hence his Creator must be an intellectual and moral Being, a Judge, and Lawgiver. Man has an emotional nature; only a Being of goodness, power, love, wisdom and holiness could satisfy such a nature, and these things denote the existence of a personal God.

Conscience in man says: "Thou shalt," and "Thou shalt not," "I ought," and "I ought not." These mandates are not self-imposed. They imply the existence of a Moral Governor to whom we are responsible. Conscience—there it is in the breast of man, an ideal Moses thundering from an invisible Sinai the Law of a holy Judge. Said Cardinal Newman: "Were it not for the voice speaking so clearly in my conscience and my heart, I should be an atheist, or a pantheist, when I looked into the world." Some things are wrong, others right: love is right, hatred is wrong. Nor is a thing right because it pleases, or wrong because it displeases. Where did we get this standard of right and wrong? Morality is obligatory, not optional. Who made is obligatory? Who has a right to command my life? We must believe that there is a God, or believe that the very root of our nature is a lie.

f) The Argument from Congruity.

If we have a key which fits all the wards of the lock, we know that it is the right key. If we have a theory which fits all the facts in the case, we know then that we have the right theory. "Belief in a self-existent, personal God is in harmony with all the facts of our mental and moral nature, as well as with all the phenomena of the natural world. If God exists, a universal belief in his existence is natural enough; the irresistible impulse to ask for a first cause is accounted for; or religious nature has an object; the uniformity of natural law finds an adequate explanation, and human history is vindlcated from the charge of being a vast imposture. Atheism leaves all these matters without an explanation, and makes, not history alone, but our moral and intellectual nature itself, an imposture and a lie."—Patton.

g) The Argument from Scripture.

A great deal of our knowledge rests upon the testimony of others. Now the Bible is competent testimony. If the testimony of travelers is enough to satisfy us as to the habits, customs, and manners of the peoples of the countries they visit, and which we have never seen, why is not the Bible, if it is authentic history, be enough to satisfy us with its evidence as to the existence of God?

Some facts need more evidence than others, we know. This is true of the fact of the existence of God. But the Bible history is sufficient to satisfy every reasonable demand. The history of the Jews, prophecy, is not explainable minus God. If we cannot believe in the existence of God on the testimony of the Bible we might as well burn our books of history. A man cannot deny the truth of the testimony of the Bible unless he says plainly: "No amount of testimony will convince me of the supernatural."

Scripture does not attempt to prove the existence of God; it asserts, assumes, and declares that the knowledge of God is universal, Rom. 1:19–21, 28, 33; 2:15. It asserts that God has wrought this great truth in the very warp and woof of every man's being, so that nowhere is He without this witness. The preacher may, therefore, safely follow the example of the Scripture in assuming that there is a God. Indeed he must unhesitatingly and explicitly assert it as the Scripture does, believing that "His eternal power and divinity" are things that are clearly seen and perceived through the evidences of His handiwork which abound on every hand.

II. THE NATURE OF GOD: (Vs. Agnosticism).

1. THE SPIRITUALITY OF GOD: (Vs. Materialism). "GOD IS SPIRIT."

a) Statement of the Fact, John 4:24: "God is Spirit."

Meaning: The Samaritan woman's question, "Where is God to be found?" etc. On Mt. Zion or Gerizim? Christ's answer: God is not to be confined to any one place (cf. Acts 7:48; 17:25, 1 Kings 8:27). God must be worshipped in spirit as distinguished from place, form, or other sensual limitations (4:21); and in truth as distinguished from false conceptions resulting from imperfect knowledge (4:22).

b) Light on "God is Spirit," from other Scriptures.

Luke 24:39: "A spirit hath not flesh and bones," i.e., has not body, or parts like human beings; incorporeal; not subject to human limitations.

Col. 1:15: "The image of the invisible God."

1 Tim. 1:17 (R. V.): "Now unto the King incorruptible, invisible."

These passages teach that God has nothing of a material or bodily nature. Sight sees only objects of the material world, but God is not of the nature of the material world, hence He cannot be seen with the material eye—at least not now.

c) Light Derived from Cautions Against Representing God by Graven Images:

Deut. 4:15–23; Isa. 40:25; Exod. 20:4. Study these passages carefully and note that the reason why images were forbidden was because no one had ever seen God, and consequently could not picture how He looked, and, further, there was nothing on the earth that could resemble Him.

d) Definition of "God is Spirit" in the Light of All This:

God is invisible, incorporeal, without parts, without body, without passions, and therefore free from all limitations; He is apprehended not by the senses, but by the soul; hence God is above sensuous perceptions. 1 Cor. 2:6–16 intimates that without the teaching of God's Spirit we cannot know God. He is not a material Being. "LaPlace swept the heavens with his telescope, but could not find anywhere a God. He might just as well have swept a kitchen with his broom." Since God is not a material Being, He cannot be apprehended by physical means.

e) Questions and Problems with Reference to the Statement that "God is Spirit."

(1) 'What is meant by statement that man was made "in the image of God"?

Col 3:10; Eph. 4:24 declare that this "image" consists in "righteousness, knowledge, and holiness of truth." By that is meant that the image of God in man consisted in intellectual and moral likeness rather than physical resemblance. Some think that 1 Thess. 5:23 indicates that the "trinity of man"—body, soul, and spirit—constitutes that image and likeness.

(2) What is meant by the anthropomorphic expressions used of God?

For example: God is said to have hands, feet, arms, eyes, ears He sees, feels, hears, walks, etc. Such expressions are to be understood only in the sense of being human expressions used in order to bring the infinite within the comprehension of the finite. How otherwise could we understand God saving by means of human expressions, in figures that we all can understand!

(3) How are such passages as Exod. 24:10 and 33:18–23 in which it is distinctly stated that men saw the God of Israel, to be reconciled with such passages as John 1:18; "No man hath seen God at any time," and Exod. 33:20: "There shall no man see me and live"?

Answer:

aa) Spirit can be manifested in visible form:

John 1:32: "I saw tho Spirit descending from heaven like a dove

(or in the form of a dove)." So throughout the ages the invisible

God has manifested Himself in visible form. (See Judges 6:34: The

Spirit of the Lord clothed Himself with Gideon.)

bb) On this truth is based the doctrine of "The Angel of the Lord"

in the Old Testament: Gen 16:7, 10, 13. Note here how the Angel of the Lord is identified with Jehovah Himself, cf. vv. 10, 13. Also Gen. 22:12—"The angel of the Lord … not withheld from me." In 18:1–16, one of the three angels clearly and definitely identifies himself with Jehovah. Compare chapter 19, where it is seen that only two of the angels have come to Sodom; the other has remained behind. "Who was this one, this remaining angel? Gen.18:17, 20 answers the question; v. 22 reads: "And Abraham stood yet before the Lord. In Exod. 13:21 it is Jehovah, while in 14:19 it is the Angel that went before Israel. Thus was the way prepared for the incarnation, for the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament is undoubtedly the second person of the Trinity. This seems evident from Judges 13:18 compared with Isa. 9:6, in both of which passages, clearly referring to Christ, the name "Wonderful" occurs. Also the omission of the definite article "the" from before the expression "the Angel of the Lord," and the substitution of "an" points to the same truth. This change is made in the Revised Version.

cc) What was it then that the elders of Israel saw when it is said they saw the "God of Israel"?

Certainly it was not God in His real essence, God as He is in Himself, for no man can have that vision and live. John 1:18 is clear on that point: "No man hath seen God at any time." The emphasis in this verse is on the word "God," and may read, "GOD no one has seen at any time." In 5:37 Jesus says: "Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape." From This it seems clear that the "seeing" here, the which has been the privilege of no man, refers to the essence rather than to the person of God, if such a distinction can really be made. This is apparent also from the omission of the definite article before God, as well as from the position of God in the sentence. None but the Son has really seen God as God, as He really is. What, then, did these men see?

Evidently an appearance of God in some form to their outward senses; perhaps the form of a man, seeing mention is made of his "feet." The vision may have been too bright for human eyes to gaze upon fully, but it was a vision of God. Yet it was only a manifestation of God, for, although Moses was conversing with God, he yet said: "If I have found grace in thy sight, show me thy face." Moses had been granted exceeding great and precious privileges in that he had been admitted into close communion with God, more so than any other member of the human race. But still unsatisfied he longed for more; so in v. 18 he asks to see the unveiled glory of God, that very thing which no man in the flesh can ever see and live; but, no, this cannot be. By referring to Exod. 33:18–23 we find God's answer: "Thou canst not see my face … thou shalt see my back parts, but my face shall not be seen." (Num. 12:8 throws light upon the subject, if compared with Exod. 33:11.)

"The secret remained unseen; the longing unsatisfied; and the nearest approach to the beatific vision reached by him with whom God spake face to face, as friend with friend, was to be hidden in the cleft of the rock, to be made aware of an awful shadow, and to hear the voice of the unseen."

2. THE PERSONALITY OF GOD: (Vs. Pantheism).

Pantheism maintains that this universe in its ever changing conditions is but the manifestation of the one ever changing universal substance which is God; thus all, everything is God, and God is everything; God is all, all is God. Thus God is identified with nature and not held to be independent of and separate from it. God is, therefore, a necessary but an unconscious force working in the world.

The Bearing of the Personality of God on the Idea of Religion.

True religion may be defined as the communion between two persons: God and man. religion is a personal relationship between God in heaven, and man on the earth. If God were not a person there could be no communion; if both God and man were one there could be no communion, and, consequently, no religion. An independent personal relationship on both sides is absolutely necessary to communion. Man can have no communion with an influence, a force, an impersonal something; nor can an influence have any moving or affection towards man. It is absolutely necessary to the true definition of religion that both God and man be persons. God is person, not force or influence.

a) Definition of Personality.

Personality exists where there is intelligence, mind, will, reason, individuality, self-consciousness, and self-determination. There must be not mere consciousness—for the beast has that—but self-consciousness. Nor is personality determination—for the beast has this, too, even though this determination be the result of influences from without—but self-determination, the power by which man from an act of his own free will determines his acts from within.

Neither corporeity nor substance, as we understand these words, are necessarily, if at all, involved in personality. There may be true personality without either or both of these.

b) Scripture Teaching on the Personality of God.

(In this connection it will Be well to refer to the Ontological

Argument for the Existence of God, for which see p. 17.)

(1) Exod 3:14;—"I AM THAT I AM."

This name is wonderfully significant. Its central idea is that of existence and personality. The words signify "I AM, I WAS, I SHALL BE," so suggestively corresponding with the New Testament statement concerning God: "Who wast, and art, and art to come."

All the names given to God in the Scripture denote personality.

Here are some of them:

Jehovah—Jireh: The Lord will provide (Gen. 22:13, 14).

Jehovah-Rapha: The Lord that healeth (Exod. 15:26).

Jehovah-Nissi: The Lord our Banner (Exod. 17:8–15).

Jehovah-Shalom: The Lord our Peace (Judges 6:24).

Jehovah-Ra-ah: The Lord my Shepherd (Psa. 23:1).

Jehovah-Tsidkenu: The Lord our Righteousness (Jer. 23:6).

Jehovah-Shammah: The Lord is present (Ezek. 48:35).

Moreover, the personal pronouns ascribed to God prove personality: John 17:3, et al. "To know thee"—we cannot know an influence in the sense in which the word know is here used. Statement: All through the Scriptures names and personal pronouns are ascribed to God which undeniably prove that God is a Person.

(2) A sharp distinction is drawn in the Scriptures between the gods of heathen and the Lord God of Israel (See Jer. 10:10–16).

Note the context: vv. 3–9: Idols are things, not persons; they cannot walk, speak, do good or evil. God is wiser than the men who made these idols; if the idol-makers are persons, much more is God.

See the sharp contrast drawn between dead idols and the living, personal, true and only God: Acts 14:15; 1 Thess. 1:9; Psa. 94:9, 10.

Statement: God is to be clearly distinguished from things which have no life; he is a living Person.

(3) Attributes of personality are ascribed to God in the Scriptures.

God repents (Gen. 6:6}; grieves {Gen 6:6}; is angry {1 Kings 11:9); is jealous (Deut. 6:15); loves (Rev. 3:19); hates (Prov. 6:16).

Statement: God possesses the attributes of personality, and therefore is a Person.

(4) The relation which God bears to the Universe and to Men, as set forth in the Scriptures, can be explained only on the basis that God is a Person.

Deism maintains that God, while the Creator of the world, yet sustains no further relations to it. He made it just as the clock-maker makes a self-winding clock: makes it and then leaves it to run itself without any interference on His part. Such teaching as this finds no sanction in the Bible. What are God's relations to the universe and to men?

aa) He is the Creator of the Universe and Man.

Gen. 1:1, 26; John. 1:1–3. These verses contain vital truths. The universe did not exist from eternity, nor was it made from existing matter. It did not proceed as an emanation from the infinite, but was summoned into being by the decree of God. Science, by disclosing to us the marvellous power and accuracy of natural law, compels us to believe in a superintending intelligence who is infinite. Tyndall said: "I have noticed that it is not during the hours of my clearness and vigor that the doctrine of material atheism commends itself to my mind."

(In this connection the Arguments from Cause and Design, pp. 16 and 17, may be properly considered.)

Statement: The Creation of the Universe and Man proves the Personality of the Creator—God.

bb) God sustains certain relations to the Universe and Man which He has made.

Heb 1:3—"Uphold all things." Col. 1:15–17—"By him all things hold together." Psa. 104:27–30—All creatures wait upon Him for "their meat in due season." Psa. 75:6, 7—"Promotion" among men, the putting down of one man and the setting up of another, is from the hand of God.

What do we learn from these scriptures regarding the relation of

God to this universe, to man, and to all God's creatures?

First. That all things are held together by Him; if not, this old world would go to pieces quickly. The uniformity and accuracy of natural law compels us to believe in a personal God who intelligently guides and governs the universe. Disbelief in this fact would mean utter confusion. Not blind chance, but a personal God is at the helm.

Second. That the physical supplies for all God's creatures are in His hand: He feeds them all. What God gives we gather. If He withholds provision we die.

Third. That God has His hand in history, guiding and shaping the affairs of nations. Victor Hugo said: "Waterloo was God."

Fourth. Consider with what detail God's care is described: The sparrows, the lilies, the hairs of the head, the tears of His children, etc. See how these facts are clearly portrayed in the following scriptures: Matt. 6:28–30; 10:29, 30; Gen. 39:21, with 50:20; Dan. 1:9; Job 1:12.

Statement: The personality of God is shown by His active, interest and participation all things, even the smallest things, in the universe, the experience of man, and in the life of all His creatures.

THE UNITY OF GOD: (Vs. Polytheism).

There are three monotheistic religions in the world: Judaism, Christianity, and Mahommedanism. The second is a development of the first; the third is an outgrowth of both.

The doctrine of the Unity of God is held in contradistinction to Polytheism, which is belief in a multiplicity of gods; Tri-theism, which teaches that there are three Gods—that is, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are, specifically, three distinct Gods; and to Dualism, which teaches that there are two independent divine beings or eternal principles, the one good, and the other evil, as set forth especially in Gnostic systems, such as Parseeism.

a) The Scriptures Assert the Unity of God.

Deut. 6:4—"Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord"; or, "The Lord our God, the Lord is one." Isa. 44:6–8—"First … last … beside me there is no God." Isa. 45:5—"There is none else, there is no God beside me." 1 Tim. 2:5 "There is one God." 1 Cor. 8:4—"There is none other God but one."

That God is one, that there is no other, that He has no equal is the forceful testimony of above fifty passages in the Scriptures. The fundamental duty of life, namely, the devotion of the entire being to the Lord, is based upon the Unity of God: "The Lord … is one … therefore thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart," etc.

No other truth of the Scripture, particularly of the Old Testament, receives more prominence than that of the Unity of God. This truth is clearly pronounced also in the material universe; it is the introduction and conclusion of all scientific researches. Any other representation contradicts both creation and revelation. Its denial is a proper object for the ridicule of every thinking man, and of the disbelief of every orthodox Christian. Let this, then, be our first and necessary conclusion—that Deity, whether creating, inspiring, or otherwise manifesting itself, is one God; one, and no more.—Cerdo.

A multiplication of Gods is a contradiction; there can be but one

God. There can be but one absolutely perfect, supreme, and almighty

Being. Such a Being cannot be multiplied, nor pluralized. There

can be but one ultimate, but one all-inclusive, but one God.

Monotheism, then, not Tri-theism, is the doctrine set forth in the Scriptures. "If the thought that wishes to be orthodox had less tendency to become tri-theistic, the thought that claims to be free would be less Unitarian."—Moberly.

b) The Nature of the Divine Unity.

The doctrine of the Unity of God does not exclude the idea of a plurality of persons in the Godhead. Not that there are three persons in each person of the Godhead, if we use in both cases the term person in one and the same sense. We believe, therefore, that there are three persons in the Godhead, but one God. Anti-trinitarians represent the evangelical church as believing in three Gods, but this is not true; it believes in one God, but three persons in the Godhead.

(1) The Scriptural use of the word "One."

Gen. 2:24—"And they two (husband and wife) shall be one flesh." Gen. 11:6—"The people is one." I Cor. 3:6–8—"He that planteth and he that watereth are one." 12:13—"All baptized into one body." John 17:22, 23—"That they may be one, even as we are one … that they may be made perfect in one."

The word "one" in these scriptures is used in a collective sense; the unity here spoken of is a compound one, like unto that used in such expressions as "a cluster of grapes," or "all the people rose as one man." The unity of the Godhead is not simple but compound. The Hebrew word for "one" (yacheed) in the absolute sense, and which is used in such expressions as "the only one," is never used to express the unity of the Godhead. On the contrary, the Hebrew word "echad," meaning "one" in the sense of a compound unity, as seen in the above quoted scriptures, is the one used always to describe the divine unity.

(2) The Divine Name "God" is a plural word; plural pronouns are used of God.

The Hebrew word for God (Elohim) is used most frequently in the plural form. God often uses plural pronouns in speaking of Himself, e.g., Gen. 1:26—"Let us make man." Isa. 6:8-"Who will go for us?" Gen. 3:22—Behold, man is become as "one of us."

Some would say that the "us" in Gen. 1:26—"Let us make man," refers to God's consultation with the angels with whom He takes counsel before He does anything of importance; but Isa. 40:14—"But of whom took he counsel," shows that such is not the case; and Gen. 1:27 contradicts this idea, for it repeats the statement "in the image of God," not in the image of angels; also that "GOD created man in HIS OWN image, in the image of God (not angels) created he him." The "us" of Gen. 1:26, therefore, is properly understood of plural majesty, as indicating the dignity and majesty of the speaker. The proper translation of this verse should be not "let us make," but "we will make," indicating the language of resolve rather than that of consultation.

4. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY: (Vs. Unitarianism).

The doctrine of the Trinity is, in its last analysis, a deep mystery that cannot be fathomed by the finite mind. That it is taught in the Scripture, however, there can be no reasonable doubt. It is a doctrine to be believed even though it cannot be thoroughly understood.

a) The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament.

This doctrine is not so much declared as intimated in the Old Testament. The burden of the Old Testament message seems to be the unity of God. Yet the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly intimated in a four-fold way:

First: In the plural names of the Deity; e.g., Elohim.

Second: Personal pronouns used of the Deity. Gen. 1:26; 11:7;

Isa.6:8.

Third: The Theophanies, especially the "Angel of the Lord." Gen.16 and 18.

Fourth: The work of the Holy Spirit. Gen. 1:2; Judges 6:34.

b) The Doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament.

The doctrine of the Trinity is clearly taught in the New Testament; it is not merely intimated, as in the Old Testament, but explicitly declared. This is evident from the following:

First: The baptism of Christ: Matt 3:16, 17. Here the Father speaks from heaven; the Son is being baptized in the Jordan; and the Spirit descends in the form of a dove.

Second: In the Baptismal Formula: Matt. 28:19—"Baptizing them in the name (sing.) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Third: The Apostolic Benediction: 2 Cor. 13:14—"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ … love of God. … .communion of the Holy Ghost."

Fourth: Christ Himself teaches it in John 14:16—"I will pray the Father … He will give you another Comforter."

Fifth: The New Testaffignt sets forth:

A Father who is God, Rom. 1:7.

A son who is God, Heb. 1:8.

A Holy Spirit who is God, Acts 5:3, 4.

The whole is summed up in the words of Boardman: The Father is all the fulness of the Godhead invisible, John 1:18; the Son is all the fulness of Godhead manifested, John 1:4–18; the Spirit is all the fulness of the Godhead acting immediately upon the creature, 1 Cor. 2:9, 10.