Part 1: Theology Proper

By Lewis Sperry Chafer

[Author’s Note: This the first of a series of connected articles in the general field of Theology Proper is to be followed by several other sections from the same general division of Systematic Theology, including besides this paper on Naturalistic Theism, Biblical Theism and Trinitarianism.]

Introduction

The term Theology Proper is a somewhat modern designation which represents the logical starting point in the study of Systematic Theology; being, as it is, its primary theme, namely, a scientific investigation into what may be known of the existence, persons, and characteristics of the Triune God—Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Quite apart from the works of the members of the Godhead, Theology Proper is subject to a two-fold division: (1) Theism, which concerns the existence and character of God as an extramundane Being, the Creator, Preserver and Governor of the universe; and (2) Trinitarianism, which is the recognition of the three Persons who comprise the Godhead, with specific reference to their functions and characteristics, and their relationships within the Godhead.

I. Theism

The etymology of the word Theism would give it a wide range of application; but in common usage it has come to mean a belief in God, and incorporates a system of beliefs which constitutes a philosophy, restricted, indeed, somewhat to those findings and conclusions which human reason suggests. Even in its Biblical expression, Theism is not confined to Christianity, though Christianity is a theistic system. The term Theism could with practical value be more largely used and the field of truth which it connotes more clearly defined. I. H. Fichte writes: “It is now time again to install Theism, that inextinguishable and fundamental conviction of humanity, as a science in its true significance; but therewith equally to free it from so many obstructions and veils which long enough have darkened its true light. Theism is neither an hypothesis grubbed out by onesided speculation, as some represent it; nor is it an invention of priestcraft, nor superstitious fear, old ways of representing it which one still unexpectedly meets. It is also not the mere confession of an exclusive school of religion. But it is the ultimate solution of all the world-problems, the unavoidable goal of all investigation, silently effective in that which externally denies it.”[1]

Since all lines of general study of necessity are related to created things, there is no more exalted subject to which the finite mind may address itself than Theism with its contemplation of the Person and character of God. Theism, as also the larger field of Theology Proper, excels all other themes, as Infinity exceeds that which is finite. To quote William Cooke: “There is, indeed, no element of sublimity either actual, existent, or even conceivable in Nature, but what is indefinitely surpassed in the idea of God. The proposition, therefore, that there is a God, has no equal, no competitor; it stands alone in unrivalled and unapproachable grandeur; and if its sublimity does not prove its truth, it renders it at least worthy of inquiry, and imposes a weighty task on the unbeliever; for if it be false, it is not only the sublimest of all errors, but is an error more sublime than truth itself—yea, more ennobling and elevating to the mind than any truths which Nature can present to our contemplation. If this be a paradox, its solution is a task devolving on those who deny the being of God.”[2]

In the Bible, man is ever reminded of the fact of his own limitations and of the knowledge-surpassing perfections of God. Antitheistic agnosticism has taken refuge in the denial of divine cognizability; but there is a true knowledge of God—true as far as it is able to go—which does not fully comprehend its subject. Such incompleteness, indeed, may be predicated of very much if not all of human cognizance. In his defense of antitheistic agnosticism, Hamilton declared: “The last and highest consecration of all true religion must be an altar—ἀγνώστῳθεῷ—to the unknown or unknowable God.” It is probable that this inscription represented the highest level to which the unaided philosopher of Athens had attained (Acts 17:23). However, this conception became only a starting point in the God—revealing discourse of the inspired Apostle. There is an approach at this point to an engaging and closely related discussion as to the dependability of thought itself as bearing on the contemplation of Infinity; but it suffices to indicate that the limitations which antitheistic agnosticism confesses are due to their negative predications concerning God, which result in an utter void quite without substance for rational thinking. The vaguest of all impressions of God is that styled Absolute, which Pantheism and Agnosticism employ. Being without qualities or attributes it is blank in itself and equally blank as a subject of thought. The lowest fetishism has substance beyond this. Over against this professed ignorance is the fact that God has revealed Himself to men, and this revelation is sustained and enforced by the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit. Added to this, also, is the two-fold unveiling in which the Father reveals the Son, and the Son reveals the Father. It is written that the Son said, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son save the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him” (Matt 11:27). By the authority of the Son it is asserted that eternal life is given to the end the Father and the Son might be known (John 17:3). When praying for His executioners, Christ said, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34), and the Apostle, when writing of Christ as the manifestation of the wisdom of God, discloses the precise nature of the ignorance of the executioners of Christ when he wrote: “Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:8). Beyond the mere knowledge of God, which is in the range of Theism and common to multitudes, it is possible to know God in that intimacy of a son to his own father. And what shall be said of those who by the Spirit press on to know the “deep things of God”? How, indeed, may “Abba, Father” be interpreted if God cannot be known? Agnosticism with its professed ignorance may well give heed to the words of Christ: “Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness” (Luke 11:35).

Passing beyond the low level of agnosticism, there are two distinct fields of theistic research—(a) that which is within those facts which obtain in the sphere of creation, or nature, and are subject to human reason; and (b) that which, though incorporating all that is disclosed in nature, is extended to include the limitless, absolute, and all-satisfying revelation set forth in the Scriptures of Truth. The former investigation is rightly designated Naturalistic Theism, and the latter Biblical Theism.

Theology Proper enters every field from which any truth may be gained relative to the existence and character of God, or the mode of His Being. However, in view of the basic two-fold division of the human family into saved and unsaved with their varying, attending abilities to comprehend divine truth there is peculiar advantage in a division of the general subject of Theism into that which is Naturalistic and that which is Biblical. The unsaved, natural man, though unable to receive the things of God, is, nevertheless, everywhere confronted with effects which connote a Cause and with design which connotes a Designer. To such an one, Naturalistic Theism with its restricted appeal to creation and reason is peculiarly adapted. To the devout student who, being saved, is able to receive the “deep things of God,” there is none of the ultimate or consummating satisfaction in Naturalistic Theism that he experiences in Biblical Theism. He should, notwithstanding, neglect no part of the divine revelation. All that belongs to Naturalistic Theism is of vital importance to the theological student in view of the fact that, to a limited degree, God is revealed in His creation (Ps 19:1–6; Rom 1:19, 20), and in view of the fact that unregenerate men, especially the educated, are groping in the sphere of those truths which belong in the circumscribed realm of Naturalistic Theism. To discover, exhibit, and defend, all that reason affirms and that revelation discloses relative to that which may be known concerning God, is a task which Systematic Theology assumes. It is the function of Naturalistic Theism to adduce such arguments and to reach such conclusions as are within the range of reason; while it is the function of Biblical Theism to recognize, classify, and exhibit the truth set forth by revelation. These two fundamental sources of erudition, though wholly dissimilar as to the method they employ and the material they utilize, do, nevertheless, coalesce as the essential parts of the one grand theme-Theology Proper.

In the following discussions the author assumes no originality in the presentation of rational argument or in the discovery of revelation. Much that is presented has been the contention of writers on these subjects from the earliest times. In fact, so general are many of these lines of thought, as found in the vast literature which the present generation inherits, that to quote an original author would be difficult indeed, if not impossible. Since reason is native to man and revelation is largely an acquisition without which the majority of men have had to live and labor, it is proper that the findings of reason should be weighed before those of revelation.

A. Naturalistic Theism

The book of nature is as much God’s book as is the Book of revelation. The universe is His work and therefore must attest His Being, and, as far as it can advance, unfold His ways. The voice of nature and the voice of revelation proceeding from the same source must harmonize; nor can either be slighted with impunity. It is not contended that the book of nature is comparable in extent, exactness, or elucidation, with the Book of revelation. Pious minds, wholly satisfied with the Scriptures of Truth, should not be indifferent to the testimony of nature; nor should the superficial and profane disregard the pleadings of reason. The sincere student of truth will hardly do so. He will not avert his eye from the light of God. As their names denote, philosophy is “the love of wisdom” and science is “the interpretation of nature,” therefore, no worthy philosopher will ignore the Source of all truth and no sincere scientist will shrink from the investigation or right evaluation of the claims of Naturalistic Theism. The proposition that ”there is a God” introduces at once the Cause of all causes, the finality of all philosophy, and the alpha and omega of all science. Consistency dictates that the student who is en rapport with the sequence which he observes between secondary causes and their effects, should not discontinue abruptly his investigation at the point where they are consummated in the discovery of the First Cause-even God. If the facts and forces of nature are engaging to the serious mind, how much more engaging should be the Person and power of the God who created nature! And how much is added to the importance of this investigation into the proposition ”there is a God” when the moral and saving values are included! It was Pilate’s error hurriedly to inquire “what is truth?” and then as hurriedly to pass on without waiting for the incomparable answer which might have come from the lips of Him who is the embodiment of all truth.

When the evidence that there is a God is being pursued along the highway of reason, the laws of logic and of deduction are as essential as the truth which is involved. Palpable contradictions and absurdities are to be rejected, while every proven fact must be accepted and acted upon with fairness and uprightness. How else may any trustworthy progress be made?

The Naturalistic Theistic arguments, or arguments based on reason, attempt but a limited field of demonstration. The existence, personality, wisdom, and power of God are in view; but no proof from nature or reason can be educed to prove or establish the fact of the love and saving grace of God. All that is related to redemption belongs to revelation, and constitutes an imperative message, which is as much needed by those who believe in a God through nature or reason as it is by those to whom no knowledge of God has come.

I. Naturalistic Theistic Arguments

Arguments in proof of the existence of God which are restricted to the limitations of Naturalistic Theism are subject to a two-fold general classification, namely, the argumentum a posteriori and the argumentum a priori.

An argumentum a posteriori is inductive in its procedure and conforms more naturally to the processes of human reason. This form of argument moves from phenomena back to ground, from particulars back to principle, from consequent back to antecedent, and from effect back to cause. There are three primary a posteriori arguments usually offered in Naturalistic Theism—the Cosmological, the Teleological, and the Anthropological. The a posteriori argument is employed when from the mechanism of a delicate and intricate instrument or work of art the fact of the master mind is inferred with its power to design and form. As the Apostle has declared, “Every house is builded by some man, but he that buildeth all things is God” (Heb 3:4). That is, as the house proves the fact of a builder, so the universe proves the fact of a Creator.

The argumentum a priori is deductive in its procedure since it advances from ground to phenomena, from principle to particulars, from antecedent to consequent, and from cause to effect. This form of reasoning is employed by the astronomer when from the laws which govern the movement of the solar system he determines the time of the return of a comet or of an eclipse; or when the paleontologist determines by the principles of comparative anatomy the size and form of prehistoric animals from some geological fossil. The a priori argument is one which is based on something which has gone before as an assumed reality, an innate belief, or intuitive impression. To postulate as a premise that miracles are impossible with its syllogistic conclusion that there are therefore no miracles, is to advance an a priori assumption and the argument based on that assumption is a priori in character. The Ontological argument is the only argumentum a priori which teachers have advanced in the field of Naturalistic Theism. The Ontological argument is exceedingly difficult, being too refined for the general rank and file of mankind to follow. Indeed great metaphysicians have declared themselves to be unconvinced as to its value as evidence. Over against this, as great or greater metaphysicians have stressed its worth.

The Cosmological argument traces the cosmos back to its Maker. The Teleological argument recognizes the rational ends in creation, while the Anthropological argument differs from the Cosmological and the Teleological in the sphere of its logical principles, tracing from the mind and spirit of man back to the Creator. The Anthropological argument is an extension into a specific realm of the more general features of the Cosmological and Teleological arguments. Though each of these three a posteriori arguments are distinct as to their field of proof, all three are required together to complete the full theistic argument. At best this complete argument, it will be observed, can attempt to prove but a limited body of truth concerning God. But much, indeed, is wrought if by these rationalistic lines of evidence the fact of the existence of God is indicated. To this, Biblical Theism has very much to add as to the Person, attributes, purpose, and ways of God.

These Naturalistic Theistic arguments are now to be weighed separately and in the order already suggested.

1. The Cosmological Argument.

The universe is a phenomenon or an effect which connotes an adequate cause. The Cosmological Argument adduces evidence that God exists and is the First Cause of all things. Four theories have been entertained by philosophers and metaphysicians as to the origin of the material universe: (a) that the constitution of nature is eternal and its forms have existed forever; (b) that matter has existed forever, but its present constitution and form has been subject to self-development, which was the contention of Epicurus, and is the avowed credence of the modern atheist; (c) that matter is eternal, but its present arrangement and order is the work of God, which was the teaching of Plato, Aristotle and many others; (d) that matter is a created thing, being caused to exist from nothing by the engendering power of God, which is the Biblical revelation. The last of these four philosophies is not to be confounded with the impossible notion that the universe has evolved itself out of nothing. Its declaration is that God has by infinite power caused nonexistent matter to exist. It is written: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen 1:1), and, “so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” (Heb 11:3). Leland declares: “Few, if any, of the ancient philosophers acknowledged God to be, in the most proper sense, the Creator of the world. By calling him ‘the Maker of the world,’ they did not mean that he brought it out of nonexistence into being; but only that he built it out of preëxistent materials, and disposed it into a regular form and order.”[3]

The Cosmological Argument depends upon the validity of three contributing truths: (a) that every effect must have a cause; (b) that the effect is dependent upon its cause for its existence; and (c) that nature cannot produce itself. The essential, fundamental character of these contributing truths as well as the conclusive deduction that the universe is caused by the direct creation of a self-existent, intelligent, and eternal Cause will appear as the pursuance of this form of argument advances.

On the meaning of the word cause, a quotation from Dr. Charles Hodge is germane: “The common doctrine on this subject includes the following points: (1) A cause is something. It has real existence. It is not merely a name for a certain relation. It is a real entity, a substance. This is plain because a non entity cannot act. If that which does not exist can be a cause, then nothing can produce something, which is a contradiction. (2) A cause must not only be something real, but it must have power of efficiency. There must be something in its nature to account for the effects which it produces. (3) This efficiency must be adequate; that is, sufficient and appropriate to the effect. That this is a true view as to the nature of a cause is plain.” Dr. Hodge goes on to illustrate these points by human experience. He writes: (1) ”...We are causes. We can produce effects. And all three of the particulars above mentioned are included in our consciousness of ourselves as cause. We are real existence; we have power; we have power adequate to the effects which we produce. (2) We can appeal to the universal consciousness of men. All men attach this meaning to the word cause in their ordinary language. All men assume that every effect has an antecedent to whose efficiency it is due. They never regard mere antecedents, however uniform in the past, or however certain in the future, as constituting a causal relation. The succession of the seasons has been uniform in the past, and we are confident that it will continue uniform in the future; yet no man says that winter is the cause of summer. Every one is conscious that cause expresses an entirely different relation from that of mere antecedence. (3) This view of the nature of causation is included in the universal and necessary belief, that every effect must have a cause. That belief is not that one thing must always go before another thing; but that nothing can occur, that no change can be produced, without the exercise of power or efficiency somewhere; otherwise something could come out of nothing.”[4]

The vital distinction between cause and effect inheres in the very nature of human speech. “The language of every nation is formed on the connection between cause and effect. For in every language there are not only many words directly expressing ideas of this subject, such as cause, efficiency, effect, production, produce, effectuate, create, generate, etc., or words equivalent to these; but every verb in every language, except the intransitive impersonal verbs, and the verbs substantive, involves, of course, causation or efficiency, and refers always to an agent, or cause, in such a manner that without the operation of this cause or agent, the verb could have no meaning. -All mankind, except a few Atheistical and skeptical philosophers, have thus agreed in acknowledging this connection, and they [the skeptics] have acknowledged it as fully as others in their customary language.”[5]

The intuitive credence that every effect must have a cause is the basic principle upon which the Cosmological Argument advances to its certain conclusions. Ex nihilo, nihi fit—out of nothing, nothing can arise—is an axiom which has been recognized by philosophers of all the ages. To assert that anything has caused itself to exist, is to assert that it acted before it existed, which is an absurdity. Nonexistence cannot engender existence. Had there ever been a situation in eternity when there was neither matter nor spirit, no being of any description—intelligent or unintelligent, created or uncreated—, the universe itself a boundless vacuity, thus it must have remained forever. But two basic ideas are possible, namely (a) that the universe with all its organized system and complex forms has existed forever-which theory, though void of any semblance of justification, has been the greatest impediment to the rational belief in a First Cause throughout all generations; and (b) that the universe is both designed and created by God and for worthy ends. The former is the atheist’s contention, while the latter is that of the theist.

Reasoning from the assumed premise that there is no God, the atheist is compelled to predicate of matter that it is eternal and, therefore, self-existent. Matter is composed of innumerable particles which are unrelated or without dependence on each other. Thus to each particle must be attributed the element of eternal self-existence. Added to inert matter must be all chemical forces, nature’s laws, and the principle of life in all its forms. The atheist cannot modify the demands of his philosophy based on the assumed premise that there is no God. Should he retrench by the slightest concession from his claim as to the eternal self-existence of matter or allow it to pass as an hypothesis rather than an infallible certitude, the whole structure of atheism falls. The atheist boasts of his incredulity and slavish bondage to reason; yet if the idea that matter is self-existent and eternal be found to be no more than a conjecture or theory, all is surrendered. In fact, the notion that matter is a self-existent and eternal entity should be capable of demonstration, if true, and be all but an axiomatic proposition. This it is not. The atheistic philosophy rests on an unprovable hypothesis which has been weakened to the point of extinction by the later findings of science. The assertion that the creation of matter is impossible is based on the observation that the creation of matter is impossible to man. But who has ever substantiated the claim that the creation of matter is impossible to the infinite God? The claim that God created all things offers no contradiction, but merely assigns more ability to God than resides in man. Cutworth asserts: “Because it is undeniably certain, concerning ourselves, that all are imperfect beings, that none of these can create any new substance, men are apt to measure all things by their own scantling, and to suppose it universally impossible for any power whatever thus to create. But since it is certain that imperfect beings can themselves produce some things, and new modifications of things corporal, it is surely reasonable to think that an absolutely perfect being can do something more, i.e. create new substances, or give them their whole being. And it may well be thought as easy for God or an omnipotent Being to make a whole world, matter and all, ...as it is for us to create a thought or to move a finger, or for the sun to send out rays, or a candle light, or lastly, for an opaque body to produce an image of itself in a glass of water, or to project a shadow: all these imperfect things being but the energies, rays, images, or shadows of Deity. For a substance to be made out of nothing by God, or a Being infinitely perfect, is not for it to be made out of nothing in the impossible sense, but it comes from him who is all.... But nothing is in itself impossible which does not imply a contradiction: and though it be a contradiction for a thing to be and not to be at the same time, there is surely no contradiction in conceiving an imperfect being, which before was not, afterwards to be.”

As a blind rejection of truth, the atheist’s assertion that matter is self-existent and eternal is equalled by the unproven and absurd impression that nature is capable of self-production, that chance is adequate to account for the universe, or that necessity is the ground on which all things exist. Doubtless, in their determined rejection of God, men have encouraged themselves by turning to these false and God-dishonoring notions. However, the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God as the First Cause of all things stands unlessened in its evidential value.

By the same logic or reasoning which demonstrates that the existing universe cannot produce itself by acting before it existed, so the First Cause is not self-created, but is eternal and therefore self-existent, since He depends on nothing outside Himself, being caused by nothing. The proposal of a sequence of secondary causes, that is, that each cause is the effect of a prior cause, offers no solution of the problem of the origin of things. It is true that the mind may be stultified by the indefinite extension of such a sequence; but reason avers that there is an Original—a First Cause. This idea of the sequence of secondary causes eventuating in a first cause is illustrated by Wallaston: “Suppose a chain hung down out of heaven from an unknown height, and though every link of it gravitated toward the earth, and what it hung upon was not visible, yet it did not descend, but kept its situation; and upon this a question should arise what supported or kept up the chain, would it be sufficient to say that the first or lowest link hung upon the second, or the next above it; the second, or rather the first and the second together, upon the third; and so on ad infinitum? For what holds up the whole? ...And thus it is, in a chain of causes and effects, tending, or (as it were) gravitating towards some end. The last, or lowest, depends, or (as one may say) is suspended, upon the cause above it. This again, if it be not the first cause, is suspended as an effect upon something above it.”6 To this Dr. Paley adds: “A chain composed of an infinite number of links can no more support itself, than a chain composed of a finite number of links. If we increase the number of links from ten to a hundred and from a hundred to a thousand, etc., we make not the smallest approach, we observe not the smallest tendency toward self-support.” There is a First Cause self-existent and eternal, and that First Cause is wise enough to conceive of creation in all its marvel, and powerful enough to bring it into being. The statement of the Cosmological Argument by Lock is thus: “I exist: I did not always exist: whatever begins to exist must have a cause: the cause must be adequate: this adequate cause is unlimited: it must be God.” Similarly, the statement of the argument by Howe is conclusive: (1) “Somewhat hath existed from eternity: hence (2) must be uncaused: hence (3) independent: hence (4) necessary: hence (5) self-active: and hence (6) originally vital, and the source of all life.”

From the foregoing it will be observed that the Cosmological Argument is stressed in proof of various qualities in God, namely, self-existent, eternal, all-wise, powerful, unlimited, self-active, vital, and the source of all life. Though these conclusions are reached quite apart from revelation and by reason alone, the illation is complete. Space cannot be given here to trace the extended argument which precedes each of these conclusions.

2. The Teleological Argument.

The Teleological Argument, being a posteriori, adduces evidence from the presence of order and adaptation in the universe. The term teleology is the compound of τέλος and λόγος and thus signifies the doctrine of Ends or Rational Purpose. The principle which is germane to the Cosmological Argument is not abandoned, but, building upon that principle, the Teleological Argument proceeds to establish, by rational evidence, the intelligence and purpose of God as manifested in the design, function, and consummation of all things. By so much the existence of God is declared. The Teleological Argument hardly could be stated better than it is by the Psalmist: “He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see? he that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know?” (Ps 94:9, 10). The fact of design, which is exhibited in every created thing, exposes the acumen and rational purpose of the Creator. This manifest intent which characterized all of God’s works is illustrated—as nearly as the finite can illustrate the infinite—by the fact of design and purpose which is exhibited in the achievements of men, which achievements, because of this design, display the acumen and rational purpose of men. In this age, which is characterized by mechanical development beyond any other, men are justly impressed with that which human ingenuity and inventiveness have effected. But man really originates nothing, and his most cherished feat of devising is never more than a discovery and utilizing of provisions and forces which were already wrought into the creation which God has effected. When man glories in his discovery of the secrets of nature, it is pertinent to inquire as to who has so created and constituted nature with its unified and systematized marvels; so wonderful, indeed, that no human mind can comprehend its telescopic extent or discern its microscopic perfection. From this array of incomprehensible wonders, man snatches an occasional fraction of something, which fraction at best could be no more than a feeble representation of that whole of which it is a part. It may be concluded, then, that it is the function of the Cosmological Argument to indicate the evident existence and power of the Creator as these attributes are displayed in the cosmos He has made; to the same end, it is the function of the Teleological Argument to indicate the evident existence and all-comprehensive design and reason of the Creator as displayed in the order, construction, and end of all things which enter into the constituted universe.

Probably there is no division of Naturalistic Theism so engaging or so capable of almost endless illustration and expansion as the Teleological Argument. As to the structure or trend of the argument, the following is quoted from Browne: “If, then, knowledge be possible, we must declare that the world-ground proceeds according to thought—laws and principles, that it has established all things in rational relations, and balanced their interaction in quantitative and qualitative proportion, and measured this proportion by number. ‘God geometrizes,’ says Plato. ‘Number is the essence of reality,’ says Pythagoras. And to this agree all the conclusions of scientific thought. The heavens are crystallized mathematics. All the laws of force are numerical. The interchange of energy and chemical combination are equally so. Crystals are solid geometry. Many organic products show similar mathematical laws. Indeed, the claim is often made that science never reaches its final form until it becomes mathematical. But simple existence in space does not imply motion in mathematical relations, or existence in mathematical forms. Space is only the formless ground of form, and is quite compatible with the irregular and amorphous. It is equally compatible with the absence of numerical law. The truly mathematical is the work of the spirit. Hence the wonder that mathematical principles should be so pervasive, that so many forms and processes in the system represent definite mathematical conceptions, and that they should be so accurately weighed and measured by number.

“If the cosmos were a resting existence, we might possibly content ourselves by saying that things exist in such relations once for all, and that their is no going behind this fact. But the cosmos is no such rigid monotony of being; it is rather, a process according to intelligible rules; and in this process the rational order is perpetually maintained or restored. The weighing and measuring continually goes on. In each chemical change just so much of one element is combined with just so much of another. In each change of place the intensities of attraction and repulsion are instantaneously adjusted to correspond. Apart from any question of design, the simple fact of qualitative and quantitative adjustment of all things, according to fixed law, is a fact of the utmost significance. The world-ground works at a multitude of points, or in a multitude of things, throughout the system, and works in each with exact reference to its activities in all the rest. The displacement of an atom by a hair’s-breadth demands a corresponding re-adjustment in every other within the grip of gravitation. But all are in constant movement, and hence re-adjustment is continuous and instantaneous. The single law of gravitation contains a problem of such dizzy vastness that our minds faint in the attempt to grasp it; but when the other laws of force are added the complexity defies all understanding. In addition we might refer to the building processes in organic forms, whereby countless structures are constantly produced or maintained, and always with regard to the typical form in question. But there is no need to dwell upon this point.

“Here, then, is a problem, and we have only the two principles of intelligence and non-intelligence, of self-directing reason and blind necessity, for its solution. The former is adequate, and is not far-fetched and violent. It assimilates the facts to our own experience, and offers the only ground of order of which that experience furnishes any suggestion. If we adopt this view all the facts become luminous and consecuent.

“If we take the other view, then we have to assume a power which produces the intelligible and rational, without being itself intelligent and rational. It works in all things, and in each with exact reference to all, yet without knowing anything of itself or of the rules it follows, or of the order it founds, or of the myriad products compact of seeming purpose which it incessantly produces and maintains. If we ask why it does this, we must answer, Because it must. If we ask how we know that it must, the answer must be, By hypothesis. But this reduces to saying that things are as they are because they must be. That is, the problem is abandoned altogether. The facts are referred to an opaque hypothetical necessity, and this turns out, upon inquiry, to be the problem itself in another form. There is no proper explanation except in theism.”[7]

On the combining for an advantageous end of otherwise disassociated elements with the impelling evidence of design which the result affords, Pierre Janet writes: “When a complex combination of heterogeneous phenomena is found to agree with the possibility of a future act, which was not contained beforehand in any of these phenomena in particular, this agreement can only be comprehended by the human mind by a kind of pre-existence, in an ideal form, of the future act itself, which transforms it from a result into an end-that is to say, into a final cause.”[8]

In elucidation of this phenomenon of the combination of disassociated elements to one advantageous end, Dr. John Miley gives this illustration: “The hull of a ship, masts, sails, anchors, rudder, compass, chart, have no necessary connection, and in relation to their physical causalties are heterogeneous phenomena. The future use of a ship is not contained in any one of them, but is possible through their combination. This combination in the fully equipped ship has no interpretation in our rational intelligence except in the previous existence of its use in human thought and purpose. The use of the ship, therefore, is not the mere result of its existence, but the final cause of its construction.”[9]

The human organism with its relation to the environment in which it functions is a display of design, and therefore denotes both the existence and acumen of the Designer. On this feature of the argument Pierre Janet has written:

“The external physical world and the internal laboratory of the living being are separated from each other by impenetrable veils, and yet they are united to each other by an incredible pre-established harmony. On the outside there is a physical agent called light; within, there is fabricated an optical machine adapted to the light: outside, there is an agent called sound; inside, an acoustic machine adapted to sound: outside, vegetables and animals; inside, stills and alembics adapted to the assimilation of these substances: outside, a medium, solid, liquid, or gaseous; inside, a thousand means of locomotion, adapted to the air, the earth, or the water. Thus, on the one hand, there are the final phenomena called sight, hearing, nutrition, flying, walking, swimming, etc.; on the other, the eyes, the ears, the stomach, the wings, the fins, the motive members of every sort. We see clearly in these examples the two terms of the relation—on the one hand, a system; on the other, the final phenomenon in which it ends. Were there only system and combination, as in crystals, still, as we have seen, there must have been a special cause to explain that system and that combination. But there is more here; there is the agreement of a system with a phenomenon which will only be produced long after and in new conditions,—consequently a correspondence which cannot be fortuitous, and which would necessarily be so if we do not admit that the final and future phenomenon is precisely the bond of the system and the circumstance which, in whatever manner, has predetermined the combination.

“Imagine a blind workman, hidden in a cellar, and destitute of all intelligence, who, merely yielding to the simple need of moving his limbs and his hands, should be found to have forged, without knowing it, a key adapted to the most complicated lock which can possibly be imagined. This is what nature does in the fabrication of the living being.

“Nowhere is this pre-established harmony, to which we have just drawn attention, displayed in a more astonishing manner than between the eye and the light. ‘In the construction of this organ,’ says Trendelenburg, ‘we must either admit that light has triumphed over matter and has fashioned it, or else it is the matter itself which has become the master of the light. This is at least what should result from the law of efficient causes, but neither the one nor the other of these two hypotheses takes place in reality. No ray of light falls within the secret depths of the maternal womb, where the eye is formed. Still less could inert matter, which is nothing without the energy of light, be capable of comprehending it. Yet the light and the eye are made the one for the other, and in the miracle of the eye resides the latent consciousness of the light. The moving cause, with its necessary development, is here employed for a higher service. The end commands the whole, and watches over the execution of the parts; and it is with the aid of the end that the eye becomes the light of the body.’”[10]

The elaboration of the Teleological Argument by William Paley (1743–1805) as set forth in his Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of Deity collected from the Appearances of Nature, has nothing to excel it. In the following brief passage in which he challenges those who suppose the universe to be the result of chance, his clear thinking and exquisite diction is disclosed:

“By what wit would they make a seed? And which way would they inspire it with a seminal form? And they think this whole globe was compacted by the casual (or fatal) coalition of particles of matter, by which magic would they conjure up so many to come together as to make one clod? We vainly hunt with a lingering mind after miracles; if we did not more vainly mean by them nothing else but novelties, we are compassed about with such: and the greatest miracle is, that we see them not. You with whom the daily productions of nature (as you call it) are so cheap, see if you can do the like. Try your skill upon a rose. Yea, but you must have pre-existent matter? But can you ever prove that the Maker of the world had so, or even defend the possibility of uncreated matter? And suppose they had all the free grant of all the matter between the crown of their head and the moon, could they tell what to do with it, or how to manage it, so as to make it yield them one single flower, that they might glory in their own production?”

Again, a quotation from Cicero to the same end but discloses the fact that the naturalistic theistic arguments were in use a century and more before Christ:

“Can anything be done by chance which has all the marks of design? Four dice may by chance turn up four aces; but, do you think that four hundred dice, when thrown by chance, will turn up four hundred aces? Colors, when thrown upon a canvas without design, may have some resemblance to a human face, but do you think they could make a picture as beautiful as the Coan Venus? A hog, in turning up the ground with his nose, may make some thing in the form of a letter A; but do you think a hog could describe on the ground, the Andromache of Ennius? Caneades imagined that, in the stone quarries of Chios, he found in a stone that was split a representation of the head of a little Pan (or sylvan deity). I believe he might find a figure not unlike; but surely not such a one as you would say had been formed by the excellent sculptor like Scopas. The truth is, indeed, that chance never perfectly imitates design.”[11]

An interesting illustration of the influence of the Teleological Argument upon an unnamed skeptic is reported by Dr. William Cooke as follows:

“Some years ago, I had the misfortune to meet with the fallacies of Hume on the subject of causation. His specious sophistries shook the faith of my reason as to the being of a God, but could not overcome the repugnance of my heart to a negation so monstrous, and consequently left that infinite, restless craving for some point of fixed repose, which atheism not only cannot give, but absolutely and madly disaffirms.

“One beautiful evening in May, I was reading, by the light of a setting sun, my favourite Plato. I was seated on the grass, interwoven with golden blooms, immediately on the crystal Colorado of Texas. Dim, in the distant west, arose, with smoky outlines, massy and irregular, the blue cones of an offshoot of the Rocky Mountains.

“I was perusing one of the academician’s most starry dreams. It laid fast hold of my fancy, without exciting my faith. I wept to think it could not be true. At length I came to that startling sentence, ‘God geometrizes,’ ‘Vain reverie!’ I exclaimed, as I cast the volume at my feet. It fell close by a beautiful little flower, that looked fresh and bright, as if it had just fallen from the bosom of a rainbow. I broke it from its silvery stem, and began to examine its structure. Its stamens were five in number; its calyx had five parts; its delicate coral base, five, parting with rays, expanding like the rays of a Texas star. This combination of five in the same blossom appeared to me very singular. I had never thought on such a subject before. The last sentence I had just read in the page of the pupil of Socrates was ringing in my ears-’God geometrizes.’ There was the text, written long centuries ago; and here this little flower, in the remote wilderness of the West, furnished the commentary. There suddenly passed, as it were, before my eyes a faint flash of light—I felt my heart leap in my bosom. The enigma of the universe was opened. Swift as thought, I calculated the chances against the production of those three equations of five in only one flower, by any principle devoid of reason to perceive number. I found that there were one hundred and twenty-five chances against such a supposition. I extended the calculation to two flowers by squaring the sums last mentioned. The chances amounted to the large sum of fifteen thousand six hundred and twenty-five. I cast my eyes around the forest: the old woods were literally alive with those golden blooms, where countless bees were humming, and butterflies sipping honey-dews.

“I will not attempt to describe my feelings. My soul became a tumult of radiant thoughts. I took up my beloved Plato from the grass, where I had tossed him in a fit of despair. Again and again I pressed him to my bosom, with a clasp tender as a mother’s around the neck of her sleeping child. I kissed the book and the blossom, alternately bedewing them both with tears of joy. In my wild enthusiasm I called to the little birds on the green boughs, trilling their cheery farewells to departing day—’Sing on, sunny birds; sing on, sweet minstrels! Lo! ye and I have a God.’”[12]

3. The Anthropological Argument.

The Anthropological Argument follows the same a posteriori order as is followed by the two preceding arguments, but unlike the Cosmological Argument which contemplates the entire cosmos and the Teleological Argument which observes the element of design as manifest in all the universe, the Anthropological Argument is restricted to the field of evidence, as to the existence of God and His qualities, which may be drawn from the constitution of man. There are philosophical and moral features in man’s constitution which may be traced back to find their origin in God, and on that ground this argument has been styled either the Philosophical Argument or the Moral Argument. But since the latitude comprehended in the argument is the whole of man’s being, the all-inclusive designation-Anthropological Argument-is more satisfactory.

On the basis of the principle declared by the Psalmist—“He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see? ...he that teacheth man knowledge, shall he not know?”—the Anthropological Argument indicates that the elements which are recognized as the connate properties of man must be possessed by his Creator. As a ground for proof, the organic constitution of man belongs to the Teleological Argument, but there are specific features in man’s being which supply exceptional proof of the divine finality, and these are properly stated in the Anthropological Argument.

At the opening of his discussison of the Anthropological Argument, Dr. A. A. Hodge states: “The Cosmological Argument led us to an eternal self-existent First Cause. The argument from the order of adaptation discovered in the processes of the universe revealed this great First Cause as possessing intelligence and will; that is, as a personal spirit. The moral or anthropological argument furnishes new data for inference, at once confirming the former conclusions as to the fact of the existence of a personal intelligent First Cause, and at the same time adding to the conception the attributes of holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. The argument from design includes the argument from cause, and the argument from righteousness and benevolence includes both the arguments from cause and from design, and adds to them a new element of its own.”[13]

Man is composed of that which is material and that which is immaterial, and these two constituent parts are unrelated. Matter possesses the attributes of extension, form, inertia, divisibility, and chemical affinity; while the immaterial part of man possesses the attributes of thought, reason, sensibility, consciousness, and spontaneity. Were it possible to account for the origin of the physical part of man by a theory of natural development (which it is not), the immaterial, as to its origin, remains an insoluble problem apart from the recognition of a sufficient cause.

Though in its general organic structure the material part of man is similar to that of the higher forms of animals, it is so refined as to be superior to all features of material creation. The hand of man executes the exalted designs of his mind in all manner of construction and art; his voice answers the demands of an elevated mind for speech; his ear hears and his eye sees into realms of reality beyond and foreign to the beast. The human body is thus a specific proof of a Creator, since it cannot be accounted for otherwise.

The immaterial part of man, which embodies the elements of life, intellect, sensibility, will, conscience, and an inherent belief in God, presents even a more insistent demand for an adequate cause. Life cannot evolve from inert matter, and though the evolutionist claims to trace all that now is, back to an original firemist, or protoplasm, all these forms of life, according to this theory, must have been present in latent form in that original something. Such unproven theories would not be tolerated in any field of investigation other than that wherein the darkness of the natural mind is demonstrated in its inability to receive the things of God. Again, the intelligence of man with its achievements in discovery, invention, science, literature, and art, exacts with relentless requisition an adequate cause. Similarly, and under the same unyielding compulsion both sensibility and will, with their transcendent capacities, demand a worthy cause. And, finally, the conscience as well as the inherent belief in God can be accounted for on no other ground than that man has come forth from One who possesses all these attributes to an infinite degree. A blind force, however exceptional it may be, could never produce a man with intellect, sensibility, will, conscience, and inherent belief in a Creator. The product of a blind force will never betake itself to the pursuit of art and science, and the worship of God.

Accordinq to the evolutionary theory of natural development, the creature is the effect of a natural cause and is molded and fashioned according to forces over which he had no control, yet suddenly this effect arises and exerts authority and power over the very nature that is supposed to have produced him, and bends all natural resources to serve his purpose and will. Is it not pertinent to inquire as to when man became lord over the creation which is supposed to have wrought him? “Can it be conceived,” Janet inquires, “that the agent thus endowed with the power of coordinating nature for ends in himself is a simple result that nature has realized, without proposing to itself an end? Is it not a sort of miracle to admit into the mechanical series of phenomena a link which suddenly should have power to reverse, in some sort, the order of the series, and which, being itself only a consequent resulting from an infinite number of antecedents, should henceforth impose on the series this new and unforeseen law, which makes the consequent the law and rule of the antecedent?”[14]

Writing of the moral aspects of the Anthropological Argument, Dr. Augustus H. Strong states: “The argument is a complex one, and may be divided into three parts. 1. Man’s intellectual and moral nature must have had for its author an intellectual and moral Being. The elements of proof are as follows:—(a) Man, as an intellectual and moral being, has had a beginning upon the planet. (b) Material and unconscious forces do not afford a sufficient cause for man’s reason, conscience, and free will. (c) Man, as an effect, can be referred only to a cause possessing self-consciousness and a moral nature, in other words, personality.... 2. Man’s moral nature proves the existence of a holy Lawgiver and Judge. The elements of proof are:-(a) Conscience recognizes the existence of a moral law which has supreme authority. (b) Known violations of this moral law are followed by feelings of ill-desert and fear of judgment. (c) This moral law, since it is not self-imposed, and these threats of judgment, since they are not self-executing, respectively argue the existence of a holy will that has imposed the law, and a punitive power that will execute the threats of the moral nature. 3. Man’s emotional and voluntary nature proves the existence of a Being who can furnish in himself a satisfying object of human affection and an end which will call forth man’s highest activities and ensure his highest progress. Only a Being of power, holiness, and goodness, and all these infinitely greater than any that we know upon earth, can meet this demand of the human soul. Such a Being must exist. Otherwise, man’s greatest need would be unsupplied, and belief in a lie be more productive of virtue than belief in the truth.”[15]

Summarizing the scope and value of the a posteriori arguments, it may be observed: (a) In the Cosmological Argument the existence of the cosmos, originating in time, constitutes proof of a First Cause who is self-existent and eternal who possesses intelligence, power, and will. (b) In the Teleological Argument the evidence of design extends the proof of the intelligence of the First Cause into details of telescopic grandeur and microscopic perfection far beyond the feeble ability of man to discover or comprehend. And (c) in the Anthropological Argument, while confirming the proofs advanced in the two preceding arguments, an added indication is secured which suggests the elements in the First Cause of intellect, sensibility, and will; and the moral feature of conscience in man declares his Creator to be actuated by holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

4. The Ontological Argument.

“Ontology is the science or systematic discussion of real being; the philosophical theory of realty; the doctrine of categories of universal and necessary characteristics of all existence” (Standard Dictionary). The Ontological Argument in Theism consists in a course of reasoning from God as the Absolute First Cause of all things to the things He has caused—specifically, the inherent idea that God exists. God is recognized as the Creator of the human mind in which this conception of Himself is found. The fact of the existence of God is involved in this congenital idea. As the claim of Idealism is that material things do not exist, being, as asserted, only an impression of the mind, the Ontological Argument is a reversal of Idealism in that it avers that there is reality or substance where the mind recognizes it to exist. According to this argument the existence of God is certified by the fact that the human mind believes that He does exist. It is an argumentum a priori and, as to its value in proof of the existence of God, metaphysicians have always differed. Dr. Shedd occupies in his treatment of this one argument two-thirds of the space given to theistic proofs, while Bishop Foster declares that he had never caught the meaning or force of the argument at all. Anselm (1033?-1109) is given credit for its first enunciation and his statement of it has never benefited by later revisions. The following from the Encyclopaedia Britannica under Anselm is clarifying:

“In the Proslogion, as the author himself tells us, the aim is to prove the existence of God by a single argument. This argument is the celebrated ontological proof. God is that Being than whom none greater can be conceived. Now, if that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists only in the intellect, it would not be the absolute greatest, for we could add to it existence in reality. It follows, then, that the Being than whom nothing greater can be conceived, i.e., God, necessarily has real existence.” Gaunilon, the monk, immediately questioned this argument, stating that we readily form the idea of purely imaginary beings, and reality or actual existence cannot be predicated of these ideas. Anselm’s reply was that the objection was cogent with respect to imperfect or finite beings, because with them actual existence is not the necessary content of the conception; but that the objection could not apply to the most perfect Being since actual existence is the very essential feature of the impression. Gaunilon declared that the idea of a “lost island” does not imply that there is such in reality. To this Anselm replied that if Gaunilon will show that the idea of the “lost island” implies necessary existence, he will find the island for him and guarantee that it will never be lost again.

Dr. Samuel Harris writes: “It is evident therefore that the human mind cannot rid itself of the idea of the absolute. It persists in the implicit consciousness, regulating thought, even when theoretically disclaimed. It is evident that without the assumption, explicit or implicit, that the absolute Being exists, the reason of man cannot solve its necessary problems, nor rest satisfied with any intellectual attainments, nor hold fast to the reality of its knowledge, nor know the continuity, the unity and reality of the universe. The necessary conclusion is that the principle that the absolute Being exists is a primitive and necessary law of thought, a constitutent element of reason, and a necessary postulate in all thinking about being.

“In this exposition of the origin of the absolute Being and our belief of its existence, I have set forth the so-called a priori argument for the existence of God in its true significance. This is an argument from the idea of the absolute or perfect Being to its existence. In order to the conclusiveness of this argument it must be shown both that the idea of the perfect Being is a necessary idea of reason, and that the existence of the Being is necessarily included in the idea; that is, its existence must be as necessary to the reason as the idea of it. This is what has been shown.”[16]

Of the same argument Milton Valentine writes: “The germs of this were involved in Plato’s doctrine of ‘ideas,’ but it is first formulated by Anselm in the eleventh century. From the existence in the human mind of the idea of a ‘most perfect being,’ it is concluded that the most perfect being exists—because real existence is a necessary part of the idea of a most perfect being. Descartes, Bishop Butler, Leibnitz, Cousin, and many other eminent writers have used this method of argument; but, standing alone, it has often been shown to be unsound, in confounding real objective existence with the simple idea of it in the mind.”[17]

Similary, Dr. Charles Hodge states: “If the argument has any validity, it is unimportant. It is only saying that what must be actually is. If the idea of God as it exists in every man’s mind includes that of actual existence, then so far as the idea goes, he who has the one has the other. But the argument does not show how the ideal implies the real.”[18]

On the same argument Dr. Richard Watson writes: “No instance is however I believe on record of an Atheistic conversion having been produced by this process, and it may be ranked among the overzealous attempts of the advocate of truth. It is well intentioned, but unsatisfactory, and so far as on the one hand it has led to a neglect of the more convincing and powerful course of argument drawn from ‘the things which do appear’; and on the other, has encouraged a dependence upon a mode of investigation, to which the human mind is inadequate, which in many instances is an utter mental delusion, and which scarcely two minds will conduct in the same manner; it has probably been mischievous in its effects by inducing a skepticism not arising out of the nature of the case, but from the imperfect and unsatisfactory investigations of the human understanding, pushed beyond the limits of its power.”[19]

Conclusion.

The argumentum a posteriori in its three parts has always been valid and vital. The argumentum a priori has wrought little or nothing but idle speculation. Of this distinction between the usefulness of the two, Dr. John Dick states: “But it is by this argument [a posteriori] that we rise to the knowledge of the uncaused existence of the Author of the universe, and not by abstract speculations on necessity. We should never have known that he exists, but from our own existence and that of other beings around us; and as in this way we ascertain that he does and must exist, it seems absurd to talk of proving his existence a priori. Whatever use may be made of this argument to prove his perfections, it cannot be employed in proof of his being. Dr. Clark himself acknowledges, that ‘the argument a posteriori is by far the most generally useful argument, most easy to be understood, and in some degree suited to all capacities; and, therefore, it ought always to be distinctly insisted on.’”[20]

To the spiritual Christian to whom God’s illuminating, authoritative “Thus saith the Lord” of the Scriptures has come, little will be added by rationalistic Theistic arguments; however, these arguments exist and do contribute to theology that which reason suggests. On this ground these arguments should be pondered by every student of doctrine.

Dallas, Texas

Notes

1. Theistische Weltansicht; Vorwart, S. ix.
2. The Deity, p. 3.
3. Necessity of Revelation.
4. Systematic Theology, Vol. I, p. 209.
5. Dwight’s Theology, Vol. I, p. 5.
6. Religion of Nature Delineated.
7. Browne, Philosophy of Theism, pp. 66-69.
8. Final Causes, p. 85.
9. Systematic Theology, p. 90.
10. Ibid., pp. 42,43.
11. De Divinatione, lib. i. cap. 13—Translator unknown.
12. The Deity, pp. 136-138.
13. Outlines of Theology, p. 41.
14. Final Causes, pp. 149,150.
15. Systematic Theology, pp. 45,46.
16. Self-Revelation of God, pp. 163,164.
17. Christian Theology, p. 189.
18. Systematic Theology, Vol. I, p. 205.
19. Theological Institutes, Vol. I, p. 330.
20. Dick’s Theology. p. 83.