Part 2: Biblical Theism

By Lewis Sperry Chafer

[Author’s Note: Continuing the series of articles within the general theme of Theism, this discussion of the attributes of God, which is a division of Biblical Theism, must, because of its length, be divided—the second half to appear in the next issue of Bibliotheca Sacra.]

Introduction

The progress in the pursuance of the systematic development of theological truths thus far attained is to be observed in that, under Bibliology, the Bible has been proved to be the Word of God written, and, under Naturalistic Theism, the conclusive evidence as to the existence of God which reason affords has been presented. These are cardinal aspects of theological verity and on the ground of these established realities Biblical Theism may be approached. It is asserted again that Systematic Theology draws its material both from reason and revelation. It is also asserted that the Bible, being the Word of God written, its declarations are, so far as further discussions in this work on theology are concerned, to be accepted as final. There may be problems of interpretation, but no problem of trustworthiness will be considered. Similarly, the fact of the existence of God, as established by reason, is in no way open to further question.

A spiritual mind, awake to the value of an inerrant revelation, will naturally and properly respond more fully to the truth which revelation delivers and be but little moved by the results of reason. Nevertheless, the evidence drawn from reason is mighty within its own sphere and assuring, in that when revelation and reason are rightly appraised they are not only agreeable but are supplementary. Truth must always agree with itself regardless of the various angles by which it may be approached or the fields in which it is found. Should reason offer conclusions which are disagreeable to revelation, it must be inferred that reason is wrong since it has no infallible guide apart from revelation.

At no point does the devout soul feel its limitations more than when confronted with the responsibility of a due apprehension of the Person of God. Fallen man is incapable, apart from divine illumination, of comprehending the Sovereign Creator, or the limited, dependent creature in the proportionate importance of each; and the saved receive such knowledge of God as they experience only through the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit. Moses possessed the heritage of truth which belonged to the chosen people and was educated in all that constituted the wisdom of Egypt, yet when standing before the burning bush he must be told to remove his shoes from off his feet.

Biblical Theism is not, as Naturalistic Theism, limited to the processes of human reason and to the bare facts concerning the existence of God; it is an unfolding of the details of the marvelous truth concerning God in explicit terms written by divine inspiration and preserved forever. The student must face his individual responsibility in attaining, by prayer and meditation and by the illuminating power of the Spirit, to right thoughts and worthy conceptions of God.

Revealed truth concerning the Divine being may be classified into that which is abstract, or that which is within Himself-His Person, His attributes, His decrees, and His Names-; and that which is concrete, or His manifestation of Himself in three Persons. The abstract features of truth relative to God are grounded in the fact that God is a Unity or Essence. The concrete features of truth relative to God are grounded in the fact that God subsists in a trinity of Persons, which body of truth is termed Trinitarianism. Concerning the abstract truth relative to God, the following may be observed:

I. The Personality of God

God declares in unerring Scripture that man, quite unlike other mundane things, is created in His own image and likeness. It is written: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him” (Gen 1:26, 27). It therefore follows that there is a similarity to be traced between God and man. After this manner of comparison, the Scriptures proceed in the presentation of the nature and character of God. He is a Person with those faculties and constituent elements which belong to personality. These faculties and elements in God are perfect to an infinite degree, but in their nature they sustain an extraordinary resemblance to those imperfect faculties and elements which belong to man. In opposition to this Biblical conception of God, Archbishop King asserts: “Because we do not know what His faculties are in themselves, we give them the names of those powers that we find would be necessary to us in order to produce such effects, and call them wisdom, understanding, and foreknowledge; yet at the same time we cannot but be sensible that they are of a nature altogether different from ours, and that we have no direct and proper notion or conception of them.”[1]

Objection must be entered against this representation. It is true that but little can be known of all that God is, but it is not true that God is so different from man that no proper conception of God is possible. In the matter of faculties and properties there is resemblance, and in mental and moral attributes there is a correspondence in the nature of them though they are incomparable as to the degree of perfection. Volition, love, truth, faithfulness, holiness, justice are realities which belong to both God and man, and though the degree which they represent may be separated immeasurably, the nature of these characteristics is the same in each sphere.

Again, the above objection, like many in various fields of truth, fails to recognize the finality of the divine averment that man is made in the “image” and “likeness” of God. The possibility of a distinction between the meanings of these two terms—image and likeness—, as used in the Scriptures, need not be discussed at this juncture. The point at issue is that God with no common emphasis asserts that there is a correspondence between Himself and man. Upon the principle which this affirmation publishes, man is justified in tracing the divine characteristics from the pattern, though incomplete, which his own being supplies.

It is not asserted that man’s corporal nature is involved in this comparison since it is predicated of God that He is Spirit (John 4:24). It therefore follows that the tracing of this similitude is to be restricted to the immaterial part of man. Anthropomorphisms are set up when the characteristics of God are stated in terms of human elements. These often extend to the human body and its various properties. With reference to God it is declared: “The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms” (Deut 33:27); “My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand” (John 10:29); “Thus gaith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool” (Isa 66:1); “The eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him” (2 Chron 16:9); “Behold the LORD’S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear” (Isa 59:1); “For the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it” (Isa 58:14). Thus reference is made also to the “face” of God (Exod 33:11, 20), and his “nostrils” (2 Sam 22:9, 16). Such anthropomorphisms as these are unnumbered in the Bible, and it is to be noted that where physical members are thus ascribed to God, it is not a direct assertion that God possesses these members, or a corporal body with its parts; but that He is capable of doing precisely those things which are the functions of the physical part of man. “He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see? (Ps 94:9).

Dr. W. H. Griffith-Thomas writes: “Objection is sometimes raised to the Biblical conception of God as anthropomorphic, but the objection is not sound because we must use human language, and the conceptions of man and personality are the highest possible to us. It is obviously better to use anthropomorphic expressions than zoo-morphic or cosmo-morphic, and when we attribute to God emotions and sensibilities we mean to free Him from all the imperfections attaching to the human conceptions of these elements. In revealing Himself God has to descend to our capacities, and use language which can be understood.”[2] Is it not a most vital purpose in the Incarnation that God may be revealed to men in the terms of human personality such as they are able to grasp?

Dr. R. Watson in his “Institutes” states: “When it is said God is a Spirit we have no reason to conclude that a distant analogy, such a one as springs out of mere relation, is intended. The nature of God and the nature of man are not the same, but they are similar because they bear many attributes in common, though, on the part of Divine nature, in a degree of perfection infinitely exceeding” (Chapter IV). Dr. Chalmers comments: “The mind of man is a creation, and therefore indicates by its characteristics the character of Him to the fiat and forthcoming of whose will it owes its existence.”[3] And after the same manner Robert Hall asserts: “The body has a tendency to separate us from God by the dissimilarity of its nature; the soul, on the contrary, unites us again to him, by means of those principles and faculties which, though infinitely inferior, are of a character congenial to his Own. The body is the production of God; the soul is his image” (Sermon on Spirituality of the Divine Nature). Theodorus Mopsustenus offers this vivid illustration: “When God created man, his last and best work, this was as if a king having built a city, and adorned it with many various works, after he had perfected all, should command a very great and beautiful image of himself to be set up in the midst of the city, to show who was the builder of it.”[4] Discoursing to the same end, Dr. J. J. Van Oosterzee writes: “Of God man can speak only in a human manner; and, if our nature is truly related to that of God, how can we conceive of Him without the admixture of a single trait derived from ourselves? This is the deep significance of Jacobi’s words: ‘In creating man God theomorphosised; therefore man necessarily anthropomorphosises.’ ‘God condescends to us, in order that we may rise to Him.’ Anthropomorphism and Anthropopathism is therefore by no means the antipode, but rather the imperfect approximating expression of eternal truth; and in the interpretation, also, of Holy Scripture, our part is simply to trace out, as far as possible, the truth underlying such expressions. In doing so we must take care that we explain the anthropomorphic conceptions by the more purely spiritual ones, not the converse, and that we are guarded by a certain spiritual tact against ‘thinking after an earthly manner’ of the supreme majesty of God. Thus regarded and explained, even the anthropopathic expressions of Scripture become the means of a better knowledge of God; a sublime accommodation to human wants and weaknesses, sanctified for the eye of faith, since God’s own Son has appeared as man on earth. Anthropomorphism belongs thus also to the necessary form of the revelations of God; and let him who takes offense at the husk see that he does not lose the kernel, to retain-a merely apathetic God.”[5]

It is equally certain that the weakness and sin of man cannot be predicated to God, and, similarly, there are characteristics in God which could not be expressed in the terms of human life. But man’s mental and moral properties do serve to demonstrate the significant and momentous fact that the attributes which are the same in nature, if not in their degree of perfection, are resident in both God and man. To the devout student there is left no latitude for rationalistic speculation as to whether there is a norm or pattern extant of the Person of God. By unmistakable terms God has affirmed that man is by creation’s design set forth as an exhibit of certain elements which are in God—a tangible disclosure to the extent that man is made in the image and likeness of God. The true impression as to the Person of God is not gained in the line of Pantheistic reasoning, which reasoning recognizes no distinct powers or qualities in God; nor is it gained in the line of the superficial notion that God is no more than the sum of His capacities and therefore divisible into as many parts as may correspond to the number of His attributes. God is a Person, and no less so because of the fact that He is immaterial and infinite. His capacities flow out of what He is, but His competency is not the measure or equivalent of Himself. There is always a danger that the human conception of God will pause and be satisfied with the apprehension of the divine performance, and not go on to behold the more consequential features of His divine Person. Sir Isaac Newton has expressed it thus: “It is not eternity and infinitude, but the eternal and infinite Being.” It is not enough to discern the works of God or His characteristics, the heart must come to know God as a Person.

Voltaire stated: “God made man in his own image, and man has returned the compliment.” The fallacy of this arresting sentence is that man is accredited with having created God in the same sense in which God has created man. Only by an argumentum a posteriori does man reason from his own capacities as a person to the Person of his Creator. This argument is in no way to be construed as a making of God on the part of man; it is merely a drawing of conclusions from what God has made. Human reason reflects divine reason and, regardless of the disparity as to degree, it is to be concluded on divine authority that reason in God is of the same nature as reason in man; that sensibility in God is of the same nature as sensibility in man; and that volition and love in God are the same nature as volition and love in man. If in his investigation into the works of God man should discover that the essential, motivating parts of his own being are not in their nature corresponding to the essential motivating parts of the divine Being, and therefore subject to the same principles and laws which invariably govern all personality, then all human knowledge is dissolved into the mists of illusion, if not delusion.

The usual conception is that the primary reality is matter, or the force of things tangible, and that the things of the spirit are phantasmic and unreal. Biblical Theism, on the other hand, contemplates the Person of God as the primary reality and all else—even man—as a medium of the divine revelation and expression of divine achievement. The first four words of the Bible are decisive and empirical—“In the beginning God.” If the Creator of all things shall say of one specific fragment of His creation, “I have made this an image and likeness of myself,” it becomes His creatures to accept this declaration as true and to act upon it. Such acceptance not only gives God the primary position in His universe, but recognizes that He is a Person with all that term implies.

It is therefore to be concluded that the personality of God is to be studied in the light of man’s own being and consciousness. This procedure is according to an essential principle of science, namely, that things which manifest the same qualities are the same in fact. Nothing is clearer than that personality is a unity. It gathers all its past into itself by the faculty of memory, its present by its immediate consciousness, and its future by its method of planning and by the faculty of anticipation. Apart from the recognition of this unity of all parts into one personality there could be no analysis of human life or any science of psychology. Animal life, into which man can penetrate only to a limited degree, owing to his inability to place the animal consciousness in the light of his own, presents no evidence of rational intelligence, freedom of choice, or purpose in worthy ends which belong to personality.

Those elements which combine to form personality are: intellect, sensibility, and will; but all of these acting together require a freedom both of external action and of choice of ends toward which action is directed. Intellect must direct, sensibility must desire, and will must determine in the direction of rational ends. There can be no personality, either human, angelic, or divine, apart from this complex of essentials. As the elements of personality which are in God are discovered, there are variations to be expected from the norm which human personality supplies; but no departure will be found from the fact that these fundamental elements are present. Apart from these there could be no personality. By the Cosmological Argument it has been seen that there is a Creator possessed of self-determining will. By the Teleological Argument it has been seen that there is a Creator possessed with mental powers which design and determine means to an end. And by the Anthropological Argument it has been seen that there is a Creator possessed of sensibility. To this the Scriptures bear plentiful testimony. This witness of the Bible is that man, angels, and God are all possessed with those essential elements which together constitute personality. Of God it is declared that He is intelligent or omniscient: “Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite” (Ps 147:5); “Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15:18); “Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight; but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do” (Heb 4:13). In like manner, it is declared of God that He possesses sensibility. He loves righteousness and hates iniquity. He is of tender compassion. His infinite love has moved Him to the supreme sacrifice by which redemption is provided for fallen man. “God is love” (1 John 4:16). And finally, the element of will is seen to be present in God: “But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased” (Ps 115:3); “My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure” (Isa 46:10); “And he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand or say unto him, What doest thou?” (Dan 4:35).

Bearing on the fact of the Personality of God, Dr. John Miley states: “If God is not a personal being, the result must be either atheism or pantheism. It matters little which. The dark and deadly implications are much the same. There is no God with self-consciousness or the power of rational and moral self-determination, no personal divine agency in the universe. A blind necessitated force is the original of all. The existence of the world and the heavens is without reason or end. There is no reason for the existence of man, no rational or moral rule over him. The universal sense of moral obligation and responsibility must be pronounced a delusion. There should be an end of worship, for there is wanting a truly worshipful being. All that remains is the dark picture of a universe without divine teleology or providence.”[6]

Under that aspect of Biblical Theism now being considered, the conception of God as of one essence is alone in view. In later developments of this theme there will be due attention given to the fact that God subsists in three Persons, and that personality must be ascribed to each in the full measure of divine perfection. God has ever sought to reveal Himself to man, not as an influence or blind force, but as a living Person with whom man may hold communion. The invitation to such communion presupposes and necessitates a likeness of nature between those who participate. “And truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3). The Father and Son reveal each other as Persons (Matt 11:27), and the Father and Son send the Spirit whose mission is clearly that of a person (John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:7–11). The foundational truth of all Scripture is the fact that God is one God who subsists in three Persons.

II. The Attributes of God

Though wholly inadequate, man’s conception of God is measured by those characteristics which he attributes to God. The Bible presents a revelation which, though limited by the restrictions that language must ever impose, is of a Person, and this revelation attributes to Him those exalted qualities which are His. These qualities thus attributed are properly styled attributes. To declare His person and the sum-total of His attributes, would constitute a final definition of God which man might never hope to form.

To the question, Can God be defined?, some writers have returned a negative answer, and this in recognition of the fact that no definition can completely exhaust the idea in question-especially when that idea is characterized by infinity. However, a definition of a thing is not required to represent a cognition of all its parts. Enough will have been said if so many of its elements are named as shall distinguish it from all other things. According to this more reasonable estimation as to a worthy definition, God can be defined. A distinction is evident at once between the definition which rationalistic philosophers advance who, disregarding revelation, attempt to define God within the limited field which reason supplies, and the definition formulated by men who acknowledge the authoritative message which the Bible presents. The rationalistic philosophers have defined God as “A self-existing being, in whom the ground of the reality of the world is found.” Or, again, “God is a being who has the ground of his existence in himself.” To this some add that God is independent, infinite, necessary as to His existence, and eternal. Those forms of definition are drawn from the argumentum a posterioi, and those who offer these elucidations, do so almost wholly from reason apart from revelation. One philosophical definition of God which has met with general approval is, “God is the most perfect being, and is the cause of all other beings.” The intent of this definition is to state that God is the Supreme Being, exalted over all, to whom none can be compared. This definition is seriously lacking in that there is no reference in it to things moral. Kant objected to this conception on the ground of this defect and added that God is free in Himself and pure moral will.

Turning to the Scriptures, it will be observed immediately that God is not specifically defined in any one assertion, but His existence and attributes are assumed and do appear only as the text in various places and in manifold terms sets forth what He is and what He does. A true Biblical definition of God will be secured only as an induction of all the Scripture is secured (cf. Gen 1:1; Job 11:7–9; 36:26; 37:5, 23; Ps 77:19; 92:5; 97:2; 145:3; 147:5; Prov 25:2; Isa 40:28; Jer 10:10–16; Matt 11:27; Rom 11:33, 34, etc.).

It is true, as previously observed, that God, of necessity, is disclosed-even in the Bible-in the expressions which belong to human life and experience. He is presented in anthropomorphic and anthropopathic terms. As is to be anticipated, when the finite mind enters upon the contemplation of the infinite, the knowledge gained is, at best, but partial, and, related to this, there are two distinct and almost paradoxical lines of truth equally sustained by the Scriptures. (1) David, alluding to the divine understanding, said: “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it” (Ps 139:6). And the Apostle, writing of the glory of God, declares: “Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting” (1 Tim 6:16). So, also, he refers to “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15), and to “the King eternal, immortal, invisible” (1 Tim 1:17). Yet (2) He is revealed in Christ. John states: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). And “No man, hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” (John 1:18). Yet, even though God is thus exalted to an incomparable degree of excellence, men are told to be holy and perfect as God is holy and perfect (Matt 5:48; 1 Pet 1:16).

With reference to a definition of God, it is probable that nothing more comprehensive or Biblical has been formed than that incorporated in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which thesis has the notable superiority of being the combined work of many devout and scholarly men rather than the work of any one man. This Confession declares:

“I. There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most just and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.

“II. God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them: he is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, and upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience, he is pleased to require of them.”[7]

The attributes of God present a theme so vast and complex and so beyond the range of finite faculties that any attempt to classify them must be only approximate as to accuracy or completeness. So, also, the attributes are so interrelated and interdependent that the exact placing of some of them is difficult if not wholly impossible. It is evident that no feature of Systematic Theology has occasioned more confusion and disagreement among theologians than has the attempt to order the category of the divine attributes. In general, theologians have separated these attributes into divisions under varying terminology. One group of attributes represents, it is claimed, those characteristics which are said to be within God and not found elsewhere in creation; the other group represents those characteristics in God which, to a limited degree, are found in angels and human spirits, or which reach out objectively from God to other beings. Some of these two-fold divisions are: Incommunicable and communicable; natural and moral; immanent or intransitive and emanent or transitive; passive and active; absolute and relative; negative and positive. Obviously there are shades of distinctions implied in these various designations. It is intended under the term incommunicable to represent those attributes which admit of no extension or degrees and belong only to God. Among these self-existence, simplicity, infinity, eternity, and immutability are named. The so-called communicable attributes, which, to a limited degree, are found in created beings, are wisdom, benevolence, holiness, justice, compassion, and truth, etc. The natural attributes are supposed to indicate that which is constitutional in God, while the moral attributes are those which function by virtue of the divine will. The immanent or intransitive attributes are those within God’s own Being, while the emanent or transitive reach out from God and produce certain effects. The absolute attributes are said to concern God’s relation to Himself, while the relative attributes concern His relation to others. The negative attributes, it is claimed, are those which are free from finite limitations, while the positive attributes are those which to a limited degree, belong to the creature. Much misunderstanding has been involved when this latter distinction has been proposed. It has been implied that since the term negative in this instance suggests something that is not in God, these attributes might refer to some divine limitation. On the contrary, the term denotes something that is in the creature which is not in God. Of God it may be predicated that He is incorporal while man is corporal; He is immutable while man is mutable; He is independent while man is dependent, etc. The so-called negative attributes are sometimes classed under four general heads, namely, self-existence, immensity, eternity, and plenitude.

An attribute is a property which is intrinsic to its subject. It is that by which it is distinguished or identified. The term has two widely different applications, which fact is evidenced by the two-fold classifications already named. It seems certain that some qualities which are not specifically attributes of God have been included by some writers under this designation. A body has its distinctive properties, the mind has its properties, and in like manner, there are specific attributes which may be predicated of God. The body is more than the sum-total of all its properties, which is equally true of the mind; and God is more than the sum of all His attributes. However, in each case these peculiar definitives retain an intrinsic value in the sense that the body, the mind, or God Himself cannot be conceived apart from the qualities attributed to them. By abstract thinking, God may be conceived apart from His attributes; but it remains true that He is known by His attributes and apart from them. He would not appear to be what He is. On the other hand, while any true conception of God must include His attributes it is required that the attributes themselves must be treated as abstract ideas.

In their search for accurate, discriminating designations, theologians have exhausted the whole range of terminology which language affords. In each grouping, some vital truth serves as its basis. The difficulty is that, owing to the inexhaustible and individual character of each fact concerning God, the basic truth in which the classification is made to rest proves to be insufficient to some degree.

Enough has been presented on the various classifications of the attributes of God as men have arranged them. The plan of this thesis is to present the attributes somewhat in their independent and individual nature, attempting only to distinguish between those revealed facts concerning God which constitute His essential Being and those facts concerning Him which characterize His essential Being. Wholly satisfactory terms, by which this distinction and division within the facts concerning God, are not to be found. God is the subject, while His attributes are those facts which may be predicated of Him; but predicates are not the subject. The ocean and sky are blue. The color blue thus is seen to be a predicate of ocean and sky, but the color blue is neither ocean nor sky. If this distinction be kept in mind, it matters little whether the terms attribute, predicate, or definitive are extended to represent all the facts concerning God-those which constitute His being along with those which characterize Him. It should be observed, also, that though the emphasis must of necessity fall upon the constitutional facts of His Being, there is no detraction intended from the immanence and the characterizing facts. The whole of the divine essence is in each attribute and the attribute belongs to the whole essence. The attributes belong eternally to the essence. The essence has not first existed apart from the attributes. The consideration of the facts related to God will now proceed after the following order:

1. Personality

Attention has been given previously to the reality of the personality of God; but a reversion to this subject is made since it forms the logical starting point for investigation into certain essential actualities concerning God. Some writers have included personality as one of the characterizing attributes of God, whereas it is evidently to be classed as a constitutional attribute. It is itself the very essence of God’s being, and that above all else which constitutes Him the Subject to whom characterizing attributes may be predicated.

As before stated, personality has its component parts, namely, intellect, sensibility, and will. Each of these, it has been demonstrated, is present in God to an infinite degree, and, since these qualities belong to the personality of God, they are not, in their primary usage, to be classed as characterizing attributes.

a. Omniscience.

Intellect in man has its corresponding feature in God, but when predicated of God it is properly termed Omniscience. Obviously, a vast difference exists between the two. Intellect in man is hardly more than the capacity or readiness to acquire knowledge, which knowledge, when acquired, as compared with omniscience, is even less than elementary, while the understanding of God is all-inclusive and infinite. There are two patent measurements of the divine knowledge: (1) Omniscience, which includes all things concerning Himself and all His works; and (2) Foreknowledge, which may be restricted to things specifically foreordained. Investigation into the relation which obtains between Foreknowledge and Foreordination is reserved for its logical place in Soteriology.

The finite mind cannot grasp the complete truth concerning omniscience any more than it can grasp divine omnipotence, omnipresence, or divine love. Whatever omniscience is, only omniscience can know in the absolute cognition of it. Nevertheless, some portions of this marvelous divine reality may be comprehended, and what cannot be known may be received by faith in God’s Word.

The omniscience of God comprehends all things-things past, things present, and things future, and the possible as well as the actual. As set forth in the Bible, the works of God are, as to their time relations, declared to be of the past, of the present, and of the future. By divine arrangement, events do follow in sequence or chronological order. Yet, to God, the things of the past are as real as though now present and the things of the future are as real as though past. He it is who “calleth those things which be not as though they were” (Rom 4:17; cf. Isa 46:10). Perfectly known unto Him, as though they were now in process, are all His works from the foundation of the world (Acts 15:18). A man standing on the street is able to see at a given time only the smallest section of a passing procession, and thus man observes the works of God. But as one looking down from a great elevation (Ps 33:13) sees all the procession at one glance, so God sees all His program of events in their unified whole. From the beginning He knows the end, and from the end He knows the beginning. Omniscience brings everything—past, present, and future—with equal reality before the mind of God. Strictly speaking, the distinction of foreknowledge in God is a human conception; for divine knowledge is simultaneous as opposed to succession. It is complete and certain as compared to incomplete and uncertain. It is intuitive and not discursive; yet in this perfection of simultaneous, complete, and intuitive knowledge all future events, both possible and real, are cognized by Him. Charnock declares: “The knowledge of one thing is not, in God, before another; one act of knowledge doth not beget another. In regard to the objects themselves, one thing is before another; one year before another; one generation of men before another; one is the cause, and the other is the effect; in the creature’s mind there is such a succession, and God knows there will be such a succession; but there is no such order in God’s knowledge; for he knows all these successions by one glance, without any succession of knowledge in himself.”[8]

That God knows all things future which are merely possible and never become actual is disclosed in the Word of God. Every warning from God is a declaration of danger and evil which He knows will follow a wrong choice. Jonah’s preaching to the people of Ninevah was concerning a sure destruction which was averted only by the deepest repentance. Christ said, “Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which are exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell; for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day” (Matt 11:21–23; cf. 1 Sam 23:5–14; 2 Kings 13:19; Jer 38:17–20).

The omniscience of God may be studied both in its archetypal and present aspects. His archetypical omniscience relates to that in God which first planned and designed the universe before it was brought into being, or made actual by omnipotent creative power. The archetypes of the universe existed from all eternity in the mind of God, and creation was but the exercise of omnipotence by which reality was given to that which omniscience had conceived. Thus, and thus only, arose the order and system which now exists with its perfection of arrangement, its realized purpose, and its stability. Such engendering on the part of God was not a mere organization or application of existing elements, but was the creation of materials suitable to the end in view. This arising of all creation with its laws, its congruity, its adaptation, and its varied and self-perpetuating forms of life—including man made in the divine image—, is a manifestation of archetypal omniscience which staggers all human apprehension. According to archetypal conceptions, man’s intuitive genius constructs various mechanisms and is able to anticipate precisely what the results of vast combinations of parts and forces will be, and before any portions are assembled or constructed. Thus it was concerning God, with the additional feature that in divine creation even material itself was created for His incomparable ends.

Though it be true that by archetypal omniscience God discerned the nature of the elements required in the realization of His ends and the precise results of the combination of those elements, any suggestion must be repelled which would intimate that there is in nature any independent power of action. God is the ever-present and all-pervading energy, guiding and directing everything. Not only is it declared of Christ that He created all things visible and invisible, but it is asserted that by Him all things subsist, or hold together (Col 1:16, 17). He is said to uphold “all things by the word of his power” (Heb 1:3). Nor is this universe so bounded by laws and forces of nature as to exclude special divine interposition and interruptions. These interventions constitute no exception to the exactness of divine prescience, or foreknowledge. They are a part of the archetypal omniscience of God and are both foreseen and designed by Him from all eternity.

With the same omniscience or prescience God foreknows the actions of all moral agents. A discussion ensues at this point which has divided theologians into opposing camps; one group asserting that divine prescience is incompatible with free moral action, and the other asserting its comparability with free moral action. By their assumptions, one side has been encouraged to deny God’s complete foreknowledge; while the other side has been by the force of its own logic encouraged to deny man’s freedom. It is evident that both positions cannot be wholly true. One or the other or both must be wrong. In the minds of a larger number of theologians no conflict between divine prescience and human freedom exists. Divine prescience of itself implies no element of necessity or determination, though it does imply certainty. A formidable problem does arise concerning the relation between the doctrine of God’s decrees and human freedom, which problem must be considered in its proper place.

Metaphysicians may succeed in confusing a person’s understanding, but they cannot dispose of that inherent consciousness which every person experiences, and which asserts his own freedom to act as he may choose. Doubtless this freedom is circumscribed by larger and unrecognized forces; but, within the range of human self-cognizance, freedom to act is untrammeled. On the one hand, revelation presents God as foreknowing all things including the actions of human agents, and apart from such knowledge God would be ignorant and to that degree imperfect. On the other hand, revelation appeals to the wills of men with the evident assumption that man is capable of a free choice-“whosoever will may come.”

The Biblical teaching, as well as the rational belief that no incongruity exists between divine prescience and free moral action or contingency, is opposed in early times by Aristotle and later by Dr. Adam Clark and Chevalier Ramsay. Dr. Clark states: “God has ordained something as absolutely certain. He has ordained other things as contingent. These he knows as contingent.” Dr. Clark, in defence of his belief, asserts: “As omnipotence implies the power to do all things, so omniscience implied the ability to know all things, but not the obligation to know all things...God, though possessed of omnipotence, does not evidently exert it to its utmost extent—does not do all he might do—so, though he could know all things, yet that he chooses to be ignorant of some things, because he does not see it proper to know everything he might know.”[9] Chevalier Ramsay writes: “It is a matter of choice in God, to think of finite ideas.”

Aside from the implication which these objections present, namely, that God fears to know the results of free moral action, they introduce a fallacy which is untenable. It is true that omnipotence is of such a nature that it does not commit God to the actual doing of all He is able to do; omnipotence being only the ability to act with unlimited power. In contradistinction to this, omniscience is not the mere ability to acquire knowledge, but is the actual possession of knowledge. Dr. Clark proposes to make God omniscible but not omniscient. If this supposed parallel between omnipotence and omniscience were true, omnipotence would consist in an infinite act as omniscience consists in the actual comprehending of all things. Dr. Richard Watson says of these theories: “The notion that God’s choosing to know some things, and not to know others, supposes a reason why he refuses to know any class of things or events, which reason, it would seem, can only arise out of their nature and circumstances, and therefore supposes at least a partial knowledge of them, from which the reason for not choosing to know them arises. The doctrine is therefore somewhat contradictory. But it is fatal to this opinion, that it does not at all meet the difficulty arising out of the congruity of Divine prescience, and the free actions of man; since some contingent actions, for which men have been made accountable, we are sure have been foreknown by God, because by his Spirit in the prophets they were foretold; and if the freedom of man can in these cases be reconciled to the prescience of God, there is no greater difficulty in any other case which can possibly oceur.”[10]

If God be ignorant of the future actions of free agents, there could be no assured divine control of human destiny as pledged in every unconditional covenant God has made, and is guaranteed in every prophecy of the Scriptures. If God does not know the future actions of free agents, then He is ever coming to know things He did not know before and must be changing His plans and purposes constantly. Of that plight Jonathan Edwards writes: “In such a situation, God must have little else to do but to mend broken links as well as he can, and be rectifying his disjointed frame and disordered movements in the best manner the case will allow. The supreme Lord of all things must needs be under great and miserable disadvantages in governing the world which he has made and has care of, through his being utterly unable to find out things of chief importance which hereafter shall befall his system, which, if he did but know, he could make seasonable provision for.”

If the question be asked as to whether the moral agent has freedom to act otherwise than as God foresees he will act, it may be replied that the human will because of its inherent freedom of choice is capable of electing the opposite course to that divinely foreknown; but he will not do so. If he did so, that would be the thing which God foreknew. The divine foreknowledge does not coerce, it merely knows what the human choice will be. The Socinians asserted that until the human choice was made, it is not a subject of knowledge and therefore even God could not know what the choice would be; but this is to confound human ignorance with divine omniscience. What God foreknows is certain, not because He foreknows it, but because of the fact that He has decreed it. The men who crucified Christ did precisely what a thousand years before had been predicted and therefore determined they would do, even saying, “He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him; let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him” (Ps 22:8; cf. Matt 27:43). And as predicted, they parted his garments among them and cast lots for his vesture. “These things [because it was so prophesied] the soldiers did” (John 19:24). Within their own experience, these men said and did precisely what they freely chose to do; yet they said and did only what had been divinely determined and hence divinely foreknown (Acts 2:23).

The challenge that if God foreknew everything and therefore foreknew sin and could have avoided it should be expanded to include the fact that God knows that men continue in sin, and that new generations of sinners are being born. Similarly, this challenge should consider the fact that the perfect foreknowledge of God was aware of the fact that sin would call for the greatest sacrifice even God could make-the death of His Son. In spite of the sinfulness of sin and the sacrifice it required, God was not overtaken by unforeseen calamity and failure. His purposes are being executed and will be seen in the end to have been holy, just, and good. Much that enters into this stupendous problem is beyond the range of human understanding, but not outside the divine jurisdiction which is ever compatible with infinite holiness.

A far deeper problem exists than that of the reconciliation of divine foreknowledge with the freedom of moral creatures, namely, the very freedom of God Himself if, indeed, His conception be eternally complete within His eternal prescience. Evidently, there is no problem before God as to a choice between two lines of action, for omniscience directs to that which is right, and that which is right has been discerned and determined from all eternity. What any intelligent being knows is so closely related to what he purposes and does that it is somewhat difficult to isolate issues which are restricted to knowledge alone. The holy character of God cannot change. He possesses no freedom which involves a contradiction to His holy character. When confronted with sinful man, His displeasure is expressed and His sure judgments are in view; but when the wicked turn to Him and avail themselves of His grace, His mercy is boundless and His judgments are abandoned. In such a case, holiness is unchanged. Though in the one instance it repels and in the other it favors, it is the same holiness throughout. There is no change in God, but there is adjustment to the changes which are in man.

The practical appeal of omniscience is manifold. By the divine arrangement in creation, men are ever within the observation of God. Man can no more escape from God than he can escape from himself. The Mohammedan’s proverb, “Wherever there are two persons present, God makes a third,” might as well embody the truth that wherever there is one person, God makes a second. The Scripture, “Thou God seest me,” announces the fact that none ever escapes His observation. What fatuity is manifest when it is supposed that any sin is secret, and only because it is hidden to men. The Psalmist speaks of “Our secret sins in the light of thy countenance” (Ps 90:8; cf. Job 42:2; Isa 29:15; Jer 23:24; Heb 4:13). How rich with wisdom is the word of Seneca, “We ought always to so conduct ourselves as if we lived in public; we ought to think as if someone could see what is passing in our inmost breast; and there is one who does thus behold us. Of what avail is it, then, that any deed is concealed from man? Nothing can be hidden from God. He is present with our very souls, and penetrates our inmost thoughts, and, indeed, is never absent from us.”[11] Truly, man’s position before God is to “stand in awe, and sin not” (Ps 4:4).

The omniscience of God guarantees that all future judgments will be according to truth; nothing will be overlooked or falsely valued. Of this Dr. William Cooke writes: “If the transgressor’s eyes could but be opened to the reality of his position, what horror would seize him! A sight more dreadful than Sinai in a blaze-more terrific than the handwriting on the wall of Belshazzar’s palace—a sight more awful than the drama of the world’s conflagration would burst upon his vision—he would behold himself enveloped with the presence and attributes of the eternal God, his Maker and his Judge.”[12] “Though they dig into hell, thence shall mine hand take them; though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down. And though they hide themselves in the top of Carmel, I will search and take them out thence; and though they be hid from my sight in the bottom of the sea, thence will I command the serpent, and he shall bite them. And though they go into captavity before their enemies, thence will I command the sword, and it shall slay them: and I will set mine eyes upon them for evil, and not for good” (Amos 9:2–4).

The omniscience of God is fraught with great encouragement and comfort to those who are in right relations to Him. Every sincere effort, thought fruitless; every suffering through misunderstanding; every trial may be endured in the light of the truth that God sees and knows perfectly. The Old Testament closes with words of great significance: “Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another; and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name. And they shall be mine, saith the LORD of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him” (Mal 3:16, 17).

Closely akin to divine omniscience, though superior to it, is divine wisdom. This, as an attribute of God, implies correct judgment and the right use of knowledge. Indeed, knowledge is the material out of which wisdom builds its structure. God is no less perfect in wisdom than in any other of His attributes. In fact, His wisdom so far transcends that of all other beings that the Scriptures declare Him to be “the only wise God” (Jude 1:25; cf. 1 Tim 1:17). His wisdom is displayed in the vast, complex, yet perfectly organized universe; in the fact that every purpose of God is the best that infinity can devise; in the perfection of His ways by which all things are by Him achieved. No part of God’s works are lacking in their manifestation of His perfect wisdom. However, in no place has divine wisdom been so displayed as in the plan of redemption. Here God is seen to have solved His greatest of all problems, namely, as to how He could be just and at the same time be the justifier of sinners. Reference is made to the solution of this problem in 1 Corinthians 1:22–25: “For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.”

Abundant testimony is borne by the Bible both to the knowledge and wisdom of God: “For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him. Herein thou hast done foolishly; therefore from henceforth thou shalt have wars” (2 Chron 16:9); “But he knoweth the way that I take; when he hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold” (Job 23:10); “O LORD, how great are thy works! and thy thoughts are very deep” (Ps 92:5); “O LORD how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all; the earth is full of thy riches” (Ps 104:24); “To him that by wisdom made the heavens: for his mercy endureth for ever” (Ps 136:5); “O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but lo, O LORD thou knowest it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, it is high, I cannot attain unto it. 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 hell, 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. If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day; the darkness and the light are both alike to thee” (Ps 139:1–12); “For the LORD taketh pleasure in his people; he will beautify the meek with salvation. Let the saints he joyful in glory; let them sing aloud upon their beds” (Ps 149:4, 5); “The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens” (Prov 3:19); “Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare; before they spring forth I tell you of them” (Isa 42:9); “For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have never called thee by thy name; I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me” (Isa 45:4); “For I know their works and their thoughts; it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory” (Isa 66:18); “He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding” (Jer 51:15); “And the Spirit of the LORD fell upon me, and said unto me, Speak; Thus saith the LORD; Thus have ye said, O house of Israel; for I know the things that come into your mind, every one of them” (Ezek 11:5); “That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly”; “Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him”; ”(For after all these things do the Gentile seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things” (Matt 6:4, 8, 32); “Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence” (Eph 1:8); “To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God” (Eph 3:10); “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” (Rom 11:33).

Dallas, Texas

Notes

1. Sermon on Divine Predestination and Foreknowledge.
2. The Principles of Theology, p. 15.
3. Natural Theology, Vol. I, p. 306.
4. Ap Petar., t.iii., lib. ii.
5. Christian Dogmatics, Vol. I, p. 255.
6. Systematic Theology, Vol. I, p. 173.
7. Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. II, Secs. I and II.
8. God’s Knowledge.
9. Comment on Acts ii.
10. Theological Institutes, Vol. I, p. 376.
11. Seneca, Epist. 83.
12. The Deity, p. 301.