Introduction
1. So many texts along this line CONTAIN A MIXTURE OF THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY. This book deals with theology and leaves out the philosophizing.
2. This volume while of satisfactory size, covers much more territory than other books far more bulky. The reason for this is the fact that the author without superfluous words delves immediately into his subject. He acquaints the reader with sufficient Scripture to prove each point.
3. 1 prefer this book because THE AUTHOR IS WHOLLY UNINFLUENCED BY MODERN THEOLOGICAL TRENDS. He believes that if God says something that settles it, hence to him the field of theology is not to be compared to a beach that is constantly being changed by erratic tides and shifting winds.
4. I find this book most satisfactory BECAUSE IT TEACHES THE DOCTRINES THAT HAVE BECOME UNPOPULAR because of the changing times and the doctrinal looseness that characterizes whole denominations of this day. I recall a large and attractive volume published some years ago by a very gifted and popular theologian. The author seemed unwilling to commit himself concerning some of the doctrines that are of a controversial nature. He contented himself with a middle-of-the-road position, seeking to state the various views pro and con, without revealing his own position. You will not find such theological cowardice on the part of the author of this book. Moreover, if you reverence the Scriptures, you will probably end up by agreeing with him, whether you started out to do so or not.
5. One fine thing about this book is the fact that IT IS ADAPTED TO THE NEEDS OF BOTH THE THEOLOGIAN AND THE AVERAGE READER. Many times in talking with a young minister, I have urged that he procure a copy of this book and read it carefully. I knew that if he did it, he would get started out on the right road. When laymen have asked if I could recommend a book that would give them a good grasp of Bible doctrine, I have recommended this book, and I have never had such persons to express disappointment.
6. Through the years I have found this book A VALUABLE REFERENCE WORK. Often in writing articles I have had need to refresh my memory along some doctrinal line. I turned to this volume because I knew that I would in brief compass find the information I sought.
7. This book is not only very suitable for classroom study in college, Bible Institutes and the like, IT WOULD REVOLUTIONIZE THE DOCTRINAL BELIEFS OF THE AVERAGE CHURCH if it were used by the pastor as the basis for a series of doctrinal messages, or for instructional classes in Bible doctrine.
As I have used Brother Simmons’ book through the years I have found myself more nearly in accord with its doctrinal teachings than with any book on systematic theology that I have known. One thing that has enhanced the value of the book to me, is the fact that I have known and appreciated the author for nearly half a century. I am glad that he is planning to reissue the book, and I trust that it will have a wide sale.
Chapter 1 - The Existence of God
John Gill, in his "Body of Divinity," (p. 1) remarks very appropriately: "I shall begin with the Being of God and proof and evidence of it; which is the foundation of all religion; for if there is no God, religion is a vain thing; and it matters not what we believe, nor what we do; since there is no superior Being to whom we are accountable for either faith or practice."
In commenting on the first verse of
Genesis,
I. THE EXISTENCE
OF GOD IS ASSUMED IN THE BIBLE.
The Bible begins by assuming and declaring
the existence of God, without undertaking to prove it. This is a noteworthy
fact. Commenting on this fact,
The author believes this is true, and he
believes there are at least three good reasons for the course adopted by
1.
Hence the purpose of
2. THE EVIDENCES
OF GOD’S EXISTENCE ARE APPARENT AND FORCEFUL.
Thus it was unnecessary, even for the human race as a whole, that a practical discourse should deal with the evidences of God’s existence. But our study is theological as well as practical; hence it is in place for us to note these apparent and forceful evidences.
"Some, because the being of God is a first principle, which is not to be disputed; and because there is one self-evident proposition not to be disproved; have thought that it should not be admitted as a matter of debate; but since such is the malice of Satan as to suggest the contrary to the minds of men; and such the weakness of some good men as to be harassed and distressed with doubts about it at times; it cannot be improper to endeavor to fortify our minds with reasons and arguments against such suggestions" (Gill Body of Divinity, p. 1).
These evidences come to us from—
(1) Inanimate Creation.
A. Matter is not Eternal, and, therefore, must have been Created.
B. Matter must have been Created other than by Natural Processes; hence the Evidence of a Personal Creator.
"Every thoughtful person believes in a series of causes and effects in nature, each effect becoming the cause of some other effect. Now, the acceptance of this as a fact logically compels one to admit that there must be a beginning to any series, that is, there could never have been a first effect if there had not been a first Cause. This First Cause to me is Deity, and because I cannot tell where the First Cause came from is not satisfactory reason for denying that He exists, else I might as well deny the existence of the millionth effect, which, for the sake of argument, might happen to be this world. You see, if I admit one cause as ever having existed, I am bound eventually by induction to arrive at the first cause" (R. A. L., in a tract, "The Reason Why," Loizeaux Brothers, Publishers).
(2) Animate Creation.
A. Living Matter cannot Spring from the Non-Living.
Writing in the London Times,
B. Since Matter is not Eternal Physical Life, which Involves Living Matter, cannot be Eternal.
The fact that matter is not eternal
forbids the supposition that physical life is the result of an infinite series
of begettings. And since, as we have seen, living matter cannot spring from the
non-living, we are forced to accept the fact of a
personal, non-material Creator. That this is a fact that even the theory of
evolution cannot properly eliminate was frankly stated by such a thorough-going
evolutionist as
(3) Order, Design, and Adaptation in the Universe.
We behold marvelous order in the planetary system, where we find "not the disconnected and jarring results of chance," under which there would have been at least "a thousand chances against conveniency and safety for one in their favor;" but instead "we find the system as it exists free from all these dangers and inconveniences," with all "the planets moving in orbits that ensure perfect safety to all and the highest advantages to each." This has been brought about by "the most uniform and the most mathematically exact adjustment of number, weight, and measure in every part, exhibiting the most convincing evidence that the whole is the work of one Omnipotent and All-comprehending Mind" (Morris, Science and the Bible, pp. 309, 312).
The full import of the foregoing can be appreciated only when we take into consideration the mutual attraction of all the planets and their satellites, by which equatorial planes are shifted, north poles are made to wander, axes rotated, orbital speeds altered, and planets are pulled out of the smooth ellipse they would otherwise follow. Our solar system is so arranged that these perturbations are oscillatory or cyclical. "Now all this, as Laplace and Lagrange have demonstrated, is secured by three specific and distinct adjustments, namely, the motions of the planets being in the same direction their orbits being of small eccentricity, and those orbits being slightly inclined to each other" (Morris, Science and the Bible, p. 317). To these may be added three other adjustments, namely, the vastly superior gravitational force of the sun, the great distances between the planets, and the fact that no two planets come into opposition (form a line with the sun on the same side of the sun) at the same places in their orbits each time. "We thus see that the ecliptic is constantly modifying its elliptical shape; that the orbit of the earth oscillates upward and downward; that the north pole steadily turns its long index-finger over a dial that marks 26,000 years; that the earth, accurately poised in space, gently nods and bows to the attraction of sun, moon, and planets. Thus changes are taking place that would ultimately entirely reverse the order of nature. But each of these variations has its bounds beyond which it cannot pass" (Steele, New Descriptive Astronomy, p. 112). "Who can contemplate this proof of the beauty and perfection of the planetary system, and not bow in reverence and adoration before the Omniscient Architect of the heavens, saying, ‘Great and marvelous art thy works, Lord God Almighty; thou art wonderful in counsel and excellent in working’" (Morris, ibid, p. 317).
We see wonderful design in that the earth has been placed just the right distance from the sun to receive, under all the circumstances that prevail, the benign benefit of its life-giving rays and yet not be scorched by its unimaginable heat.
This advantageous distance of the earth from the sun is seen to be exceedingly remarkable when we reflect upon the fact that it is maintained because it is here that the attractive force of gravity is exactly equalized by the antagonistic force of the earth’s centrifugal impulse. The attractive force of gravity between the earth and the sun is dependent upon the sizes and densities (which determine the "masses") of both the earth and the sun, together with the distance between the earth and the sun. The centrifugal force of the earth is dependent upon the earth’s mass, its velocity of movement in revolving around the sun, and its distance from the sun. Change the mass of either the earth or the sun materially, or change the velocity of the earth materially, and the distance of the earth from the sun would be materially altered automatically. "The distance of a planet from the sun, other things being equal, determines the amount of light and heat. If, therefore, the earth with its occupants, as now constituted, were placed much nearer the sun, or much farther from him, the change would be attended with fatal consequences. Were it transferred, for example, to move in the orbit of Mercury, our light and heat would be increased seven-fold, and the dazzling splendor of the sun would extinguish our vision, and the intensity of his beams would speedily dry up all the fluids in our bodies. On the other hand, were the earth driven away to revolve in the distant orbit of Saturn, our light and heat would be only one-ninetieth part of what we now enjoy, and the feeble and scattered rays of the sun would scarcely enable us to distinguish him from a star; nay, ere we could cast about to make such an observation, the immeasurable cold would transform us into a rock of ice. We see, then, that our globe might have moved at a hundred different distances too near the sun, and at a thousand other distances all too far from him, to be a suitable abode for its present inhabitants. But we find it placed in an orbit where the temperature is exactly adapted to the bodily constitution, and the degree of light precisely suits the visual organs, of its living tenants. To whom, then, are we to ascribe this striking coincidence, this happy and universal adaptation? To chance? or to the foresight of the Infinite Mind?" (Morris, Science and the Bible, p. 282).
We observe amazing adaptation in the fitness of the things that have been provided for man. Take the air we breathe as only one of the myriad examples. The atmosphere is composed of approximately twenty-one parts of oxygen and seventy-eight parts of nitrogen. (The other one part is made up of carbon dioxide, hydrogen, argon, helium, neon, krypton, and xenon, mixed with a variable quantity of water-vapor, dust, and organic matter.) These proportions of oxygen and nitrogen are exactly those which are best suited to man’s needs. If the quantity of nitrogen were appreciably increased, all the functions of the human body would be performed with such difficulty and pain as to be brought eventually to a standstill. If the proportion of oxygen were considerably increased, all the processes of life would be accelerated to such a feverish pace that the bodies of all men and animals would soon be burned up. Certain other proportions of these gases would be transformed by heat into deadly poisons. In fact, out of a hundred possible proportions of oxygen and nitrogen, we have the only one perfectly adapted to the needs of both man and beast.
It is not amiss to note further the provisions that have been made for maintaining these proportions, under ordinary circumstances, without noticeable variation. When men and animals breathe they take much of the oxygen out of the air and give back the nitrogen. Furthermore the small amount of oxygen that is exhaled by men and animals is combined with carbon to form carbon dioxide, which is unfit for breathing. Much carbon dioxide is also poured into the air by the processes of combustion and decay. But the balance is maintained. Nitrogen is lighter than air. Consequently, when it is exhaled, it rises; never to return until it is once more mixed with the proper proportion of oxygen. Carbon dioxide is heavier than air, and therefore settles so as to become available for vegetation; which takes out the carbon to sustain its growth and returns most of the oxygen to the air. Also plant leaves, under the influence of sunlight, give off an extra supply of oxygen. Thus, by a nicely adjusted system of compensation, the air we breathe is kept suitable to sustain life. There is no natural explanation of this, since nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere do not enter into a compound but remain free.
All of this evidences an intelligent Creator. It is sufficient to convince all except those who are willfully blind. One might as well believe that it is only by accident that rivers in civilized countries always run by towns and cities as to believe that the universal order, design, and adaptation manifest in the universe are the products of a fortuitous concourse of atoms.
(4) The Human Conscience.
For practical purposes, conscience may he
defined as man’s power or facility of approving or condemning his actions on a
moral basis. The Apostle Paul, one of the greatest scholars of his day,
affirmed that the heathen who had not heard of God or His law showed "the
work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness
therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing
them" (Rom. 2:15).
It cannot be said, therefore, that man has conscience because of the moral teachings he has received. It cannot be doubted that moral instruction sharpens conscience and makes its compunctions more pungent. But the presence of conscience in the untaught heathen shows that moral education does not produce conscience.
Conscience, then, apprises us of the existence of law. The existence of law implies the existence of a lawgiver. Hence the human conscience attests the fact of God’s existence.
(5) The Bible.
The reference here is not to the testimony of the Bible concerning the existence of God. It is illogical to give Bible authority as proof of God’s existence, for Bible authority implies God’s existence. Such a course amounts to begging the question. But the reference is to—
A. The Nature of the Contents of the Bible.
It has been well said that the Bible is such a book that man could not have written it if he would and would not have written it if he could. It reveals truths that man, left to himself, could never have discovered. A fuller discussion of this fact will come in the next chapter. And if man could, why should he write a book that condemns him as a sinful, failing, rebellious creature, deserving the wrath of God? Is it like human nature thus to condemn itself?
B. Fulfilled Prophecy.
The detailed fulfillment of scores of Old Testament prophecies is recorded in the New Testament, which bears the internal evidence of a reliable history. The fulfillment of prophecy evidences a supreme being that inspired the prophecy.
C. The Life of
Accepting the testimony of the gospels as
possessing the credentials of a reliable history, we see in
D. The Resurrection of
The resurrection of
Proof of the resurrection of
They are:
(1) "They must believe that
sixty-four
3. THE FACT OF GOD’S EXISTENCE IS ALMOST UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED
This is given as the third reason that
justifies the course pursued by
Men instinctively feel the existence of God. Why, then, do some deny it? Is it because of lack of evidence? No; it is only that this feeling is not pleasing to them. It disturbs them in their sinful course. Therefore they conjure up arguments to erase the thought of God from their minds. Every atheist and agnostic labors mainly to convince himself. When he presents his arguments to others it is partly through a desire to test them and partly in self defense. It is never through a feeling that his views can be of any help to others.
An atheist is a man who, through love of sin, has tampered with his mind and has brought it into a state of war with his heart, wherein the mind attacks the heart and tries to wrest the feeling of God from it. The heart counterattacks the mind and seeks to compel the mind to retain the thought of God. In this warfare the mind, therefore, is constantly looking for arguments to use as ammunition. As it finds these arguments, it fires them at the heart with the loudest possible report. This is why an atheist likes to expose his thinking. He is at war with himself and it gives him confidence when he hears his guns exploding.
There is much evidence that the mind
of the atheist is never fully victorious over his heart. "The number of
real speculative atheists have been very few, if any; some have boldly asserted
their disbelief of a God; but it is a question whether their hearts and mouths
have agreed; at least they have not been able to maintain their unbelief long
without some doubts and fears" (Gill Body of Divinity, p. 3).
Before passing it is deemed well to note the sources of this almost universal belief in the existence of God. There are two sources of this belief; viz.,
(1) Tradition.
Chronologically, our belief in God comes from tradition. We receive our first ideas of God from our parents. No doubt this has been true of each successive generation from the beginning. But tradition is insufficient to account for the almost universal acceptance of the fact of God’s existence. The fact that only a few ever disavow this acceptance (it is doubtful that any ever fully reject it) shows that there is an inner confirmation of the traditional belief in God’s existence. This points us to the second source of this belief, which is-
(2) Intuition.
Logically, our belief in God comes from intuition. Intuition is the immediate perception of truth without a conscious process of reasoning. A fact or truth so perceived is called an intuition. Intuitions are "first truths," without which all reflective thought would be impossible. Our minds are so constituted as to evolve these "first truths" as soon as proper occasions are presented.
A. Proof that the Almost Universal Belief in God Proceeds Logically from Intuition and not from Reasoning.
(a) The great majority of men have never tried to reason out the fact of God’s existence, and are not capable of such reasoning as would serve to strengthen their belief in God’s existence.
(b) The strength of men’s belief in God’s existence does not exist in proportion to the development of the reasoning faculty, as would be the case if that belief were primarily the result of reasoning.
(c) Reason cannot fully demonstrate the fact of God’s existence. In all our reasoning about God’s existence we must begin with intuitive assumptions that we cannot demonstrate. Thus when men accept the fact of God’s existence, they accept more than strict reason would lead them to accept.
B. The Existence of God as a "First Truth."
(a) Definition. "A first truth is a knowledge which, though developed on occasion of observation and reflection, is not derived from observation and reflection, —a knowledge on the contrary which has such logical priority that it must be assumed or supposed. Such truths are not, therefore, recognized first in order of time; some of them are assented to somewhat late in the mind’s growth; by the great majority of men they are never consciously formulated at all. Yet they constitute the necessary assumptions upon which all other knowledge rests, and the mind has not only the inborn capacity to evolve them so soon as the proper occasions are presented, but the recognition of them is inevitable so soon as the mind begins to give account to itself of its own knowledge (Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 30).
(b) Proof. "The
processes of reflective thought imply that the universe is grounded in, and is
the expression of, reason" (
II. THE EXISTENCE
OF GOD NOT DEMONSTRABLE MATHEMATICALLY, YET MORE CERTAIN THAN ANY CONCLUSION
FROM REASON.
1. GOD’S
EXISTENCE NOT DEMONSTRABLE MATHEMATICALLY
In regard to all the arguments for the
fact of God’s existence
2. GOD’S
EXISTENCE YET MORE CERTAIN THAN ANY CONCLUSION FROM REASON
Let the student read over again the quotations given to show that the existence of God is a "first truth," a truth that is assumed by all in the process of reason. "He who denies God’s existence must tacitly assume that existence in his very argument, by employing logical processes whose validity rests upon the fact of God’s existence" (Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 33). It is an axiomatic truth that that which is the foundation of all reason is more certain than any conclusion from reason. "We cannot prove that God is, but we can show that, in order to the existence of any knowledge, thought, reason, in man, man must assume that God is" (Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 34).
"The most unreasonable people
in the world are those who depend solely upon reason, in the narrow sense"
Strong). "Belief in God is not the conclusion of a demonstration, but the
solution of a problem" (Strong); and that problem is the problem of the
origin of the universe. "The universe, as a great fact, demands a rational
explanation, and . . . the most rational explanation that can possibly be given
is that furnished in the conception of such a Being
(as God). In this conclusion reason rests, and refuses to rest in any
other" (Diman, Theistic Argument). "We arrive at a scientific belief
in the existence of God just as we do at any other possible human truth. We
assume it, as a hypothesis absolutely necessary to account for the phenomena of
the universe; and then evidence from every quarter begins to converge upon it,
until, in the process of time, the common sense of mankind cultivated and
enlightened by ever accumulating knowledge, pronounces upon the validity of the
hypothesis with a voice scarcely less decided and universal than it does in the
case of our highest scientific convictions" (Morell, Philosophic
Fragments). Therefore, we may say; "God is the most certain fact of
objective knowledge" (
III. THE
EXISTENCE OF GOD, THEREFORE, MAY BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED AND BOLDLY PROCLAIMED.
The foregoing facts should make the preacher bold in his proclamation of the fact of God’s existence, fearing not to proclaim it confidently to the worldly-wise. We are on safe ground in proclaiming this truth. No man can successfully gainsay our message.
There are times, perhaps, when the
preacher in the pulpit should discuss the evidences of God’s existence; yet, as
a usual thing, he should assume it and declare it as
Chapter 2 - The Bible, A Revelation From God
By this question we mean: Is the Bible
trustworthy as a record of historical facts? About a century ago critics held
the Bible to be untrustworthy as history. They said the four kings mentioned in
Gen. 14:1 never existed, and that the victory of the kings of the West over the
kings of the East, as described in this chapter, never occurred. They denied
that such a people as the Hittites ever lived. Sargon, mentioned in Isa. 20:1
as king of
II. IS THE BIBLE
GOD’S REVELATION?
We enter now upon the consideration of a further question. An historically correct book might be of human origin. Is this true of the Bible?
1. AN ANTECEDENT
PROBABILITY
Careful thought, apart from the question
of whether the Bible is God’s revelation, will convince any fair-minded
believer in God’s existence that it is highly probable that God has given to
man an explicit and enduring written revelation of the divine will. Man’s
conscience apprises him of the existence of law as has been well said:
"Conscience does not lay down a law; it warns of the existence of a
law" (Diman, Theistic Argument). When man has the consciousness that he
has done wrong, he has indication that he has broken some law. Who else, other
than
If this be true of the law of human conduct, then how much more is it true of the way of salvation? "The light of nature leaves men entirely without the knowledge of the way of saving sinful men . . . angels . . . themselves would not be able to know the way of saving sinful men, or how sinful men can be justified before God; wherefore, in order to know this, they ‘desire to look into it,’ 1 Pet. 1:12" (Gill, Body of Divinity, p. 25).
Furthermore,
2. A REASONABLE
ASSUMPTION
"If the Bible is not what the Christian people of the world think it to be, then we have on our hands the tremendous problem of accounting for its increased and increasing popularity among the great majority of the most enlightened people of the earth and in the face of almost every conceivable opposition" (Jonathan Rigdon, Science and Religion)
"Greater efforts have been made to
destroy the Bible than were ever put forth for the destruction of any other
book. Its foes have persistently attempted to arrest its influence. Criticism
has assailed it and ridicule has derided it. Science and philosophy have been
invoked to discredit it. Astronomy, in its disclosure of heavenly wonders, has
been asked for some facts to disparage it; and geology, in its researches in
the earth, has been importuned to throw suspicion upon it" (
"Steadfast, serene, immovable, the same
Year after year . . .
Burns on for evermore that quenchless flame;
Shines on that inextinguishable light."
—Whitaker
The Bible "rises up today like a phoenix from the fire, with an air of mingled pity and disdain for its foes, as much unharmed by their puny attacks as were Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego by Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace" (Collett, All About The Bible).
It is not likely that any merely human production could have triumphed over such opposition as has been brought against the Bible.
3. PROOFS THAT
THE BIBLE IS GOD’S REVELATION
(1) The Great Differences between the
Bible and the Writings of Men Evidence that it is not a mere Human Production.
"These differences are:—
A. As to its Depth and Reaches of Meaning.
"There are infinite depths and inexhaustible reaches of meaning in the Scripture, which difference it from all other books, and which compel us to believe that its author must be divine" (Strong). We may pick up the productions of men and get about all they have to say at one reading. But not so with the Bible. We can read it over and over and find new and deeper meanings. Our minds are staggered at its depth of meaning.
B. As to its Power, Charm, Attraction, and Perennial Freshness.
The Biblical writers are incomparable in
"their dramatic power, that divine and indefinable charm, that mysterious
and ever-recurring attraction, which we find in them throughout our lives, as
in the scenes of nature, an ever fresh charm. After being delighted and moved
by these incomparable narratives in our early childhood, they revive and affect
our tender emotions even in hoary age. Certainly, there must
be something super-human in the very humanity of these forms, so familiar and
simple" (
C. As to its Incomparable Conciseness.
In the book of Genesis we have a history
that tells of the creation of the earth and of its being made a fit place for
man’s abode. It tells of the making of man, animals, and plants, and the
placing of them on the earth. It tells of man’s apostasy from God, of the first
worship, of the first murder, of the deluge, of the re-peopling of the earth,
of the dispersion of men, of the origin of the present diversity of tongues, of
the founding of the Jewish nation, and of the development and experiences of
that nation for some five hundred years. Yet it is all contained in fifty
remarkably brief chapters. Now compare with this the history written by
(2) The Revelation of Things that Man,
left alone, could never have Discovered gives Evidence of the Superhuman Origin
of the Bible.
A. The Account of Creation.
Where could
Moreover
B. The Doctrine of
"Was anything similar to angels ever conceived of by the imaginations of the people, by their poets, or by their sages? No; they never even show the slightest approach to it. One will perceive, then, how impossible it was, without a constant operation on the part of God, that the Biblical narratives, in treating of such a subject, should not have constantly borne the all too human impression of our narrow conceptions; or that the sacred writers should not have let slip from their pen imprudent touches, in vesting the angels by turns with attributes too divine, or affections too human" (Gaussen).
C. The Omnipresence of God.
Do the following passages represent the conclusion of human philosophy?
"Am I a God at hand, saith
"Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in Sheol behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me" (Ps. 139:7-10).
These passages and others in the Bible teach, not pantheism, nor that God is at different places successively; but that He is everywhere at once and yet separate in being from His creation. Did the unaided intellect of man originate this conception, seeing that even when it has been set down the mind of man can comprehend it only partially?
D. The Problem of Human Redemption.
If there had been submitted to man the problem of how God could be just and the justifier of the ungodly, would man have proposed, as a solution, that God become flesh and suffer in man’s stead?
That the guilty creature should be saved at the expense of the incarnation of the Creator; that life should come to the sons of men through the death of the Son of God; that Heaven should become accessible to earth’s distant population by the blood of a shameful cross—was utterly remote from all finite conceptions. Even when the wonder was made known by the gospel, it excited the contempt of the Jews and Greeks. To the former it was a stumbling-block and offense; to the latter it was foolishness. The Greeks were a highly cultivated people, acute in intellect, profound in philosophy, and subtle in reasoning, but they ridiculed the idea of salvation through one who was crucified. They may well be regarded as representing the possibilities of the human intellect—what it can do; and, so far from claiming the Christian doctrine of redemption as an invention of philosophers, they laughed at it as unworthy of philosophy. The facts of the gospel they rejected as incredible, because they seemed to be in positive conflict with their conceptions of reason" (J. M. Pendleton, Christian Doctrines).
"How could these books have been written by such men, in such surroundings without divine aid? When we consider the subjects discussed, the ideas presented—so hostile not only to their native prejudices, but to the general sentiment then prevalent with the wisest of mankind, —the whole system of principles interwoven everywhere with history and poetry and promise, as well as minute wonders and single excellences of the word—our minds are constrained to acknowledge this as God’s Book, in a high and peculiar sense" (Basil Manly, The Bible Doctrine of Inspiration).
(3) The Marvelous Unity of the Bible
Confirms it as a Divine Revelation.
"Here is a volume made up of sixty-six different books, written in separate sections, by scores of different persons, during a period of fifteen hundred years, —a volume antedating in its earlier records all other books in the world, touching human life and knowledge at hundreds of different points. Yet it avoids any absolute, assignable error in dealing with these innumerable themes. Of what other ancient book can this be said? Of what book even one hundred years old can this be said?" (Manly, The Bible Doctrine of Inspiration).
The Bible contains almost every known form of literature—history, biography, stories, dramas, arguments, poetry, prow, prophecy, parables, pleas, philosophy, law, letters, satires, and songs. It was written in three languages by about forty different authors, who lived on three continents. It was in the process of composition some fifteen or sixteen hundred years. "Among these authors were kings, farmers, mechanics, scientific men, lawyers, generals, fishermen, ministers, and priests, a tax collector, a doctor, some rich, some poor, some city-bred, some country-born—thus touching all the experiences of men" (Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary).
Yet the Bible is in agreement in all of its parts. Critics have imagined contradictions, but the contradictions disappear as mist before the morning sun when they are subjected to the light of intelligent, careful, candid, fair, and sympathetic investigation. The following marks of unity characterize the Bible:
A. It is a Unit in its Design.
The one grand design that runs all through the Bible is the revelation of how man, estranged from God, may find restoration to the favor and fellowship of God.
B. It is a Unit in its Teaching Concerning God.
Every statement in the Bible concerning God is compatible with every other statement. No writer has contradicted any other writer in writing on the stupendous theme of the ineffable, infinite God!
This is true in spite of the efforts of modernists to represent the God of the Old Testament as a God of vengeance and war and the God of the New Testament as a God of love and non-resistance. Modernists willfully ignore the fact that in the Old Testament God dealt with a nation, while in the New Testament God is dealing with individuals. There is not a word in the New Testament that teaches that nations should not resist aggression. Modernists grossly pervert the New Testament when they insist on applying to nations the teachings of Jesus with respect to individual believers.
C. It is a Unit in its Teaching Concerning Man.
Everywhere in the Bible man is shown to be by nature a corrupt, sinful, rebellious, failing creature under the wrath of God and needing redemption.
D. It is a Unit in its Teaching Concerning Salvation.
The way of salvation was not made so clear in the Old Testament as it was in the New Testament. But it can be seen readily that what is clearly revealed in the New Testament was fore- shadowed in the Old Testament. Peter affirmed that Old Testament saints were saved in exactly the same way that New Testament saints are saved. Acts 15:10,11. Read in this connection the fifty-third and fifty-fifth chapters of Isaiah. Also note that Paul makes Abraham a typical example of justification through the faith (Rom. 4) and says that the gospel was preached to Abraham (Gal. 3