Tag Archives: Common Grace

The Wonderful Combat, Sermon 3.3

25 Saturday Jun 2022

Posted by in Lancelot Andrewes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

            There is no blessing apart from God’s Word

Now come we to the special point of Christ’s answer, It is written, Man liues not by bread onely, &c. Deut. 8. 3.

There is no better kind of reasoning, than that, when one grants all that has been said by his adversary, and proves it to make on his part; and upon a new conceit [idea, proposition] avoids all that his adversary said[1]. Here our Savior might confess all that the Devil objected; as that he is the Son of God: and admit the stones were made bread, and that bread were of absolute necessity, and that it were so to be come by (which is untrue,) were we then in good case?[2]

This indeed is the Devil’s position, wherewith he would persuade all those that have animam triticeam[3], (as the Fathers call it) that those external things are necessary to be had: and that if they have enough thereof, they are well enough; as we see it to be the mind of the rich man, Luke 12. 19.[4] This man having a wheaten soul, having corn enough, bad [said to] his soul, “Take rest, and live merrily for many years.” But Christ goes further, and says, “Though the stones be made bread, it will not avail [be useful] except it please GOD (by the blessing of his word) to give virtue [power, effect] and (as it were) life unto the bread, there is no difference between it and a stone.”[5]

It is not the plenty or quality of victuals [food], howsoever some dote upon such external means, as they did, which sacrificed to their net, & burnt incense to their yarn, Hab. 1. 16.[6] because by them their portion was fat, and their meats plenteous. For what says Jobcap. 31. ver. 25. If I reioyced because my substance was great, this had been an iniquity.[7] So that our life is not maintained by bread only, descended out of the mold of the earth [the ground].

The nature of bread & stones are not much unlike, they come both out of one belly: that is to say, the earth. Job 28. 5. 6. and of themselves, the one of them hath no more power than the other unto life: for we know that the Israelites died, even while the flesh of quails was in their mouth, Num. 11. 33[8] & Manna (heavenly fare) being far better than our bread.[9] It is the Devil’s crafty policy, to bury a man’s life under a loaf of bread: and (as it were) to fetter the grace of God to the outward means; whereas they of themselves are of no more efficacy, without the operation and grace of the word, than a hammer and a saw, without a hand able to employ them.[10]

David saith (Psalm. 104. 28.) The eyes of all things waite on God for theyr meate in due season, & thou fillest them:[11] With what? with bread? No, but with thy blessing and goodnesse. Our hearts must be stablished with grace, not with meats [food]. Hebr. cap. 13. verse 9.[12] It is God’s prerogative, that as all things had their beginnings from him, Coloss. cap. 1. vers. 17[13] so hee supporteth and sustains them, Hebr. cap. 1. ver. 3.[14]

This is a further point than all philosophy teachs us. For they having laid down the four elements, bare and simple essences[15], tanquam materiam,[16] by compounding or tempering of them, they bring forth a certain quintessence or balm full of virtue.[17] But Divinity leads us to a quintessence, without which, all the quintessences and balms in the world can do us no good.[18]

To the question that Jeremiah propounds, Is there no balme at Gilead?[19] Is there no Phisitian [physician] there? The answer may be, Mans health is not recovered by balm or phisicke [medicine] only, but by euerie word that proceedeth out of the mouth of GOD[20], if we weigh Christs’ argument aright: for we may see 2. Chron. 16. 12. Asa dyed for all his Phisitians [physicians] that were about him.[21]

So if it be asked, “Are there no horses nor chariots in Gilead? we may answer, warlike victory consists not in warlike furniture [weapons] only, but in remembering the name of our Lord GOD. Psalm. 20. 7. A horse is a vain thing to save, without the power of this word. And so, when a man thrives not or prospers not in his actions; it is not often for want of labor or care: Psalm. 127. 1. tells him, Except the Lord build the house, &c. Augustine advise his auditory [those listening to him], to believe it in time, least (by wofull experience) they find it to be true, when as they shall have such a consumption, that no meat shall doo them any good; or such a dropsy, that no drink shall avail them.[22]

The power and virtue of this word is called, The staffe of bread, Lev. 26. 26. and it is meant of a chief staff, such a one as is set in the midst, to bear up all the tent.[23]

The plainest similitude I can use, to make you understand the force thereof, is this: When we go to phisicke [physician] for any disease, we are bidden [instructed] seethe [wash] such herbs in running water, & then to drink the water; we know it is not the water which helps but the decoction of infusion.[24] So it is not the bread (considered barely in it elf) that nourishs vs, but the virtue and grace of the word infused into it. We are not therefore to stick to the means, like the glutton, Luc. 12. 19[25] but to pray for this blessing.

Notes

Andrews understands this temptation to consist in practical atheism. To be an atheist in practice, even if one still claims to believe in God. This is a very simple thing: It is to believe that food by its own power keeps us alive. To believe that medicine without God’s blessing will heal disease. To believe that effort alone will make rich; or that an army can guarantee the outcome of the battle. In worship it is to believe that communion is magic and works without faith.

He shows how often we trust in the material world without God. In doing this, we are living like those who deny God’s existence. The temptation to Jesus was to act and live as if he could truly live independently of God.

This does not mean that God does not permit food to keep us alive. But that is still a grace of God, even if we do not acknowledge that.

But we are not to do this. We are to specifically pray for blessing. Jesus shows it is not the bread alone which gives life. It is the Word of God which truly gives life.

This section should be a cause for serious reflection and repentance.

[1] The best sort of argument is one in which you can concede everything which your opponent has said and then avoid the trap you opponent has laid.

[2] It is true that Jesus is the Son of God, that can make stones into bread, and that food is a necessity for human life. But even with all that granted, you are still wrong.

[3] A soul of wheat: our life is dependent upon food. Trapp’s Commentary on Psalm 4:7 uses this phrase, which will help understand its use here: These indeed are the precious fruits of the earth, James 5:7 , but they seal not up special favour. A man may have together with them animam triticeam, as that rich fool had. Animas etiam incarnavimus, [Also, we are incarnated/in-fleshed souls] as a Father complaineth. These outward things are got within men, and have stolen away their warmest and liveliest affections from God. Not so in the saints; they must have God, or else they die.”

[4] Luke 12:19 (ESV) ‘And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.”’ It is interesting that Trapp draws these two ideas: a soul of wheat and the rich man together. Trapp is writing after Andrews, so he very likely was aware of these published sermons.

[5] The rich man thought that by having food enough, he had nothing to worry about. But he was wrong. God called him to judgment that very night. Jesus realizes that unless God give blessing to the food, it can’t protect you from anything. The wealthiest men in the world cannot keep off death. All kings will eventually die. Therefore, it is more important to seek after God than it is to get food.

[6] Habakkuk 1:14–16 (ESV)

                  14               You make mankind like the fish of the sea,

like crawling things that have no ruler.

                  15               He brings all of them up with a hook;

he drags them out with his net;

                                    he gathers them in his dragnet;

so he rejoices and is glad.

                  16               Therefore he sacrifices to his net

and makes offerings to his dragnet;

                                    for by them he lives in luxury,

and his food is rich.

[7] Job 31:24–28 (ESV)

                  24               “If I have made gold my trust

or called fine gold my confidence,

                  25               if I have rejoiced because my wealth was abundant

or because my hand had found much,

                  26               if I have looked at the sun when it shone,

or the moon moving in splendor,

                  27               and my heart has been secretly enticed,

and my mouth has kissed my hand,

                  28               this also would be an iniquity to be punished by the judges,

for I would have been false to God above.

[8] The Israelites had complained that God was not providing meat for them to eat. God provided meat.

Numbers 11:31–33 (ESV)

31 Then a wind from the Lord sprang up, and it brought quail from the sea and let them fall beside the camp, about a day’s journey on this side and a day’s journey on the other side, around the camp, and about two cubits above the ground. 32 And the people rose all that day and all night and all the next day, and gathered the quail. Those who gathered least gathered ten homers. And they spread them out for themselves all around the camp. 33 While the meat was yet between their teeth, before it was consumed, the anger of the Lord was kindled against the people, and the Lord struck down the people with a very great plague.

[9] Bread and stones both come out of the earth, but we can eat one and not the other. But without the blessing of God, neither will keep life. For example, when God gave Israel quail (he had given them Manna, and they were discontent with that), they died because it came without God’s blessing. Food alone is not the matter. Although not addressed here, this raises the issue of “common grace.” God does good to all people, even the wicked. That such common grace is abused, is a different issue. But the fact of the grace being common to all, is not a reason to doubt its truth. There is a sort of strange prejudice among some as to believe that the work of God can only be understood if something is unusual (a miracle) rather than common. Yet the very regularity of the universe is a reason to see the good hand of God.

[10] He repeats his argument but this time with a new application. God’s grace cannot be limited to some outward means: bread alone cannot keep one alive; and, God’s grace is what is needed for life, even without the bread. In a related manner, the sacraments are not efficacious just because they are performed. They will not benefit without the Word of God being added thereto. This is an allusion to the argument made by Calvin in the Institutes. First, there is the proposition which he seeks to refute, “What our opponents commonly say is this: a sacrament consists of the word and the outward sign. For we ought to understand the word not as one whispered without meaning and without faith, a mere noise, like a magic incantation, which has the force to consecrate the element. Rather, it should, when preached, make us understand what the visible sign means.” John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 1279. He then explains it is the Word preached which begets faith which is critical, “Far different is the teaching of Augustine concerning the sacramental word: “Let the word be added to the element and it will become a sacrament. For whence comes this great power of water, that in touching the body it should cleanse the heart, unless the word makes it? Not because it is said, but because it is believed. In the word itself the fleeting sound is one thing; the power remaining, another. ‘This is the word of faith which we proclaim,’ says the apostle [Rom. 10:8]. Accordingly, in The Acts of the Apostles: ‘Cleansing their hearts by faith’ [Acts 15:9]. And the apostle Peter: ‘Thus baptism … saves us, not as a removal of filth from the flesh, but as an appeal … for a good conscience …’ [1 Peter 3:21 p.]. ‘This is the word of faith which we proclaim’ [Rom. 10:8], by which doubtless baptism, that it may be able to cleanse, is also consecrated.”You see how the sacrament requires preaching to beget faith.” (Ibid.)

[11] Psalm 104:27–28 (ESV)

                  27               These all look to you,

to give them their food in due season.

                  28               When you give it to them, they gather it up;

when you open your hand, they are filled with good things.

[12] Hebrews 13:9 (ESV)  “Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited those devoted to them.”

[13]Colossians 1:15–17 (ESV) “15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

[14] Hebrews 1:1–3 (ESV) “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.”

[15] The world was ultimate constructed out of four elements, earth, water, air, fire. The objects we experience were thought to be combinations of these four elements.

[16] This would be something like “just matter” in the sense of plain matter.

[17] A proper combination of the elements can produce something which will be useful for health.

[18] The knowledge of God, proper theology, brings us to a knowledge without which no other thing can do us any good.

[19] Jeremiah 8:22 (ESV)

                  22               Is there no balm in Gilead?

Is there no physician there?

                                    Why then has the health of the daughter of my people

not been restored?

[20] By every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Nothing is any use, not even medicine, if God does not bestow his grace.

[21] 2 Chronicles 16:12 (ESV) “In the thirty-ninth year of his reign Asa was diseased in his feet, and his disease became severe. Yet even in his disease he did not seek the Lord, but sought help from physicians.”

[22] Nothing will be successful if the Lord does not bless it. The best army will lose without God’s work. The most diligent work will not succeed without God’s blessing.

[23] At this point, he draws an interesting observation. The Geneva Bible (which he would have used) has the phrase “supply of bread” (ESV) translated as “staff of bread”.  The word “staff” is a literal translation of the Hebrew. Andrews then compares this staff to a tentpole. The context for the passage in Leviticus is the warning of God that if you reject the covenant, God will work against you and will break this “staff of bread.” Since the staff of bread is dependent upon the blessing of God, Andrews draws the two concepts together in his argument.  Such an observation would require serious mediation upon the subject.

[24] A medicine is created by steeping herbs in water. The water alone does not provide benefit, but the herbs diffused into the water.

[25] Luke 12:19 (ESV)  “And I will say to my soul, ‘Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.’”

Abraham Kuyper, Common Grace, 1.26

14 Tuesday Jun 2022

Posted by in Genesis, Glory, Abraham Kuyper

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Chapter 26

This chapter raises two issues, first the serpent. Kuyper takes it that Eve was surprised to hear from the Serpent. This is a disordering of nature: humans speak to and about animals, but speech moves in only one way.  She should have or must have realized this was some alien power. In Genesis 2:15, God instructed Adam to “keep” the Garden.  That would infer that something dangerous was about.

The verb sh-m-r, to keep, does mean (in appropriate places) an action to protect or preserve.  For instance, in 1 Samuel 25:12, David speaks of “guarding” Nabal’s property. As Wenham explains, “Similarly, שׁמר “to guard, to keep” has the simple profane sense of “guard” (4:9; 30:31), but it is even more commonly used in legal texts of observing religious commands and duties (17:9; Lev 18:5) and particularly of the Levitical responsibility for guarding the tabernacle from intruders (Num 1:53; 3:7–8). Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 67.

This leads to the question, “Guard against what?” It does seem odd, at first glance, to see a command to “protect” when all is very good Adam is in Paradise. Thus, Kuyper is correct to see the implied danger in the command “to keep.”  Kuyper thinks she must have known of

When a beast appears disrupting the natural order, he should have been recognized immediately as the danger previously warned against. Kuyper asserts Eve did know this was the alien power.

The second issue addressed in this chapter is the counter-factual: What if they had withstood the test? They would have known God better as their king and law giver. Their sin did open up a world of knowledge to them. It was an actual form of knowledge, because God sought to bar them from the Garden by armed Cheribum.

Adam and Eve were deluded in what they obtained: they did not actually raise to the preeminence of determining right and wrong in an absolute sense; merely in a rebellious manner refusing to accept God’s pronouncement.  This disruption of the proper relationship with God has left us poor humans with a bad conscience.  He refers to that status as a “holy sensation to feel shame.”

We are thus left with shame were there was once honor.  It perhaps useful to note at this place that we are promise “honor” at the return of Christ (1 Peter 1:7) and we destined for “glory”. (Rom. 8:30) Such honor and glory will then replace all shame which we now experience.

Abraham Kuyper, Common Grace 1.25

18 Monday Apr 2022

Posted by in Abraham Kuyper

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

The previous post on Common Grace may be found here.

In the 25th chapter, Kuyper asks what sort of consciousness did Adam possess? What could it possibly mean to Adam to be told of death & life? How could Adam know what was presented him when he met Eve (or Eve, Adam)?

Kuyper argues that Adam and Eve were possessed of a moral clarity which would escape us at this point: The law of God was not merely an appendage to their knowledge, it was the framework of their understanding.

Moreover, the content of their knowledge would be bracketed with their conscious realization that I was not but now I am. 

Having moral capacity and an understanding of existing or not Adam had the capacity to understand the prohibition to not eat from that Tree. It was an arbitrary command, in the sense that it was not immediately apparent from the natural ordering of the world. To not strike Eve when she came to him would be part of the natural moral order: it is good to not hurt this fellow human being.

But what motivation would then exist to refrain from the Tree. It is not a question of natural law, but a question of positive command: why obey this positive command? Or, as Kuyper puts it, will you obey because it is good, or will you obey because God has so commanded it. The goal was that Adam would obey because of fealty to God.

He provides an analogy: If you give one a command and the other demands an explanation, (what is the purpose of this command, what will be the benefit to me and so on), eventually obedience will not be obedience to command but rather is a decision that I think this is a good idea.

The moral development of Adam was thus to be two-fold: first, there was the development of the delight in good and doing good. Second, this development and delight in good was to be because it was given by God. 

The apparent insignificance of the command, this tree and not some other, had in it the point of the commandment: there could be no motivation for the command beyond God’s authority.

The purpose of the command was to test Adam to see if he would obey because he had been so commanded by God.

Kuyper, Common Grace 1.24, Language

04 Saturday Dec 2021

Posted by in Abraham Kuyper

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

The previous post in this series may be found here.

What sort of effect did the tree of “conscience” as Kuyper calls, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Kuyper rules a primarily physical effect because the response of the pair to Adam’s eating was the realization of shame. They were not immediately poisoned by the fruit, but they did immediately have a different understanding of themselves. 

He further notes that it was language which led to their trouble, in that the Serpent tempted them by speaking. 

This raises an interesting question: “what meaning language had for Adam and Eve in paradise.” The way in which the original pair related to language could have been different than the way in which we understand language, because we have more social background and experience for the words we use.

We develop concepts through and with language over the course of time.

For instance, what did “die” mean to someone who had never seen another human being die? And yet, we must not overdo this consideration. The text indicates that God was speaking to Adam and that God understood that Adam would know the meaning of the words.

“In addition, however, the notion that Adam understood language still only imperfectly cannot be reconciled with the rest of the narrative. In the first part of the story, Adam listens more than he speaks, but it is entirely different in the continuation of the narrative. There, with astuteness and nuance Eve argues with Satan, and Satan with her. Then she reasons with Adam.”

Thus, Kuyper concludes, that this capacity to use language effectively must have been something known to Adam and Eve. If they were “wise, holy, and righteous” then they must have had linguistic ability: these aspect require capable thought and thought requires language. 

Kuyper rejects a quasi-evolutionary understanding of language (he calls it a “patchwork”) whereby we point at the same object and make an arbitrary sound which “means” that object. 

Instead, he sees the capacity and use of language as a necessary element in the creation of Adam. The original speech of human beings then later broke into families (particularly after the confusion of language (Gen. 11)). He references the evidence, which had shown remarkable coherence and development of languages. He makes no extended discussion of this point other than saying here is some evidence.

He makes an interesting comparison then to animals which operate by instinct – such as the bee making a honeycomb. But we come to our abilities through development and learning (which would necessitate language). 

Now, if we have the capacity to develop the ability to form and use complex concepts there is no inherent reason that God could not grant to Adam the fully developed capacity at creation (much as Adam was not created an infant who then fared for himself for decades). 

Kuyper, Common Grace 1.23 (the power of choice)

10 Thursday Jun 2021

Posted by in Abraham Kuyper

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Sartre, choosing to look like a philosopher.

“THE BASIS FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT”

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.

Genesis 3:6

Although created good, with wisdom, holiness, righteousness given God, the human beings in the Garden were yet capable of further development. That development was possible in two different directions: development which takes place in accordance with the instruction given by God, or “development” in contravention of that ordinance. Kuyper explains this in terms of development consistent with the “position of image-bearer” or not. 

To think this through, the instruction of God was to lay out the manner in which the humans would work-out their status and obligation to image God in the creation. This is a different matter than the capacity of the humans to act as image bearer. If we think of image bearer as a sort of mirror, the instruction would be as to how to keep the mirror directed toward God as the original (or conversely to turn away). 

A separate issue would be the functionality of the mirror as a mirror (is the mirror cracked, dirty, cleansed, et cetera).

Kuyper speaks of this functionally as a mirror-original relationship (although he does not use the precise word “mirror”): “Anyone called to resemble another’s image should, in order to keep bearing that image, want to turn toward him. By turning away from him the image is lost.” 

I do not think we have (or can) fully realize the profound effect which takes place to a human being when we – as mirrors (those who are to bear a particular image) – turn away from that which we are to re-present. The Paul, in particular, notes that is by gazing upon Christ that we are conformed to his image (2 Cor. 3:18; Col. 3:10) The change which is wrought in us by this work is the renewing of our mind. (Eph. 4:23; Rom. 12:2)

We were created to exhibit this image, but we can only do so in a dependency relationship. We do not have this image as a matter of sovereignty, but as a creature assigned a position. Kuyper notices something extremely interesting here: The image we are to project is one of sovereignty, but we have that image by derivation of another. We are not inherently sovereign, in the sense that we can exercise some sovereignty in an independent manner. We are certainly not autonomous, a law to ourselves. 

And yet we have to misuse our capacity to dependently exhibit that sovereignty: “. In that contradictory notion of a dependent trait of sovereignty lies the whole mystery of our religious moral being: created in the image of God, consequently possessing the moral choice of our will. This moral choice of will as a trait of the image of God, and therefore dependent.”

In thinking through this moral capacity, Kuyper comes to a concept which was made much of by existential philosophers: the determining nature of our choice: “Sartre’s slogan—“existence precedes essence”—may serve to introduce what is most distinctive of existentialism, namely, the idea that no general, non-formal account of what it means to be human can be given, since that meaning is decided in and through existing itself. Existence is “self-making-in-a-situation” (Fackenheim 1961: 37). Webber (2018: 14) puts the point this way: “Classical existentialism is … the theory that existence precedes essence,” that is, “there is no such thing as human nature” in an Aristotelian sense. A “person does not have an inbuilt set of values that they are inherently structured to pursue. Rather, the values that shape a person’s behavior result from the choices they have made” (2018: 4). In contrast to other entities, whose essential properties are fixed by the kind of entities they are, what is essential to a human being—what makes her who she is—is not fixed by her type but by what she makes of herself, who she becomes.”

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Existentialism. 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/

By now means do I see a straight equivalence between Kuyper and Sartre. Rather, I note that they both see an importance in the act of choice (albeit from quite different perspectives and for quite different ends) than is recognized by others: “Everything of God that is reflected in us is so incomparably glorious, but also so fearfully terrible. We make a choice without fully thinking it through and that choice determines our whole existence. And yet, we cannot do otherwise. It must be so.” Sartre would not grant God in the manner voiced by Kuyper, but both would agree that a choice has “terrible” effects. 

Kuyper says that this power is “frightening”. 

Adam created with this “terrible” power of choice could not a creature whose end point was reached at creation. Rather, the placement in the Garden, the receipt of counsel from God, were the bare starting place for his development. It could not have been otherwise when Adam was armed with such an extraordinary moral power: choice.

Kuyper then answers the objection: Why didn’t God just make human beings good – morally perfect without the ability to fall, and in so doing save us the terror of Hell? 

This is the cost of being created in the image of God. Were we created without this power to choose, we have been something else. 

Without this power of choice, we would not be those who preserved. He does not use this analogy, but perhaps it is apt. Imagine to men aged 25 and alive. One man went through a war and lived. The only merely lived. We could not say they were identical. There are aspects of the man who lived through the war which could not exist for the other. They are both alive at 25, but there lives are very different.

And so, God places in the Garden two trees, the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (which Kuyper also calls the Tree of Conscience). The Tree of Life will be in Paradise. The Tree of Conscience will not be seen again; it has done its complete work.

How then does this Tree of Conscience produce an effect upon the soul of Adam? It is merely by eating as if the fruit eaten transversed the body and enter the soul directly. The power in the fruit came from the command of God prohibiting the eating coupled to the choice of eating. The Tree of Life need “merely” keep one alive. But the effect of conscience requires something greater than the bare fruit to achieve its end. 

. 

Kuyper, Common Grace, 1.21

26 Friday Mar 2021

Posted by in Abraham Kuyper, Image of God, imago dei

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

The previous post may be found here.

Chapter 21 continues with the consideration of Adam’s original state and the image of God. The first half of the chapter concerns the question of what is meant by Adam’s original righteousness, holiness, and wisdom. First, Adam was simply created in a right relationship with God: he was thus righteous. Adam did not need to acquire this right standing, he was created in this place.

Since Adam was in a right standing with God, Adam by nature of the arrangement must possess original holiness. If had any sense been unholy, that right relationship could not exist (“Strive for … holiness without which no one will see God.” Heb. 12:14.) Our current holiness is of a different nature in this life, for our holiness is in a mediator. We are counted righteous in Christ. In the case of Adam, he stood in holiness by nature of his having been created without sin. 

This brings Kuyper to Adam’s wisdom. Here Kuyper looks to 1 Corinthians 1:30 where Christ is our righteousness, our holiness, and our wisdom (the final element in  1:30 is redemption, which would be unnecessary for Adam). 

Although not developed, Kuyper’s implicit argument seems to be that if we must received righteousness, holiness, and wisdom from Christ, then the triad must have been present with Adam (and in some manner lost). 

As to wisdom, he emphasizes that we know – we do not merely feel—the truth. When Satan comes to Eve, he comes to her with deceptive reasons. He compares these to pearls on a string which all must be present together: wisdom, righteousness, holiness. 

This leads to the question of the image of God: If these three make up the image of God, then when Adam fell whence the image? But we if make these things the image, then there is man and the image is something added to him (because we are human beings after the fall, even if we lack the original righteousness, holiness, and wisdom). 

The Roman theologian solve this problem by dividing between the image and likeness: Image is the essence of a man; likeness, an addition of righteousness, holiness, and wisdom. The likeness then acted like a bridal upon the image. 

Kuyper does not find that argument persuasive. Rather, he speaks of the essence of Adam as the image of God in that by essence, Adam was able to reflect God. There is also the actual display of those qualities in Adam.

This capacity to reflect is inherent in all that we are as human beings, including in the fact being physical creatures. We are organically body and soul; death is the grotesque sundering of the two. Our body is the means by which the spiritual reality of reflecting God physically displays. 

But our capacities for thought, memory, appreciation of joy and beauty go beyond being a bare animal, “and can be explained only on the basis of the reflection of the things of God in our human being.”

Human beings thus exist for God and God’s glory. From this, Kuyper argues to immorality: Since we exist for God and not ourselves: to display the glory of God, the individual (and not merely the race) must always exist, lest God lose that glory.

He does not argue the point further, but our continued existence after death in an eternal state fulfills that point. Even those who are lost display his glory in God’s patient endurance of their rebellion, in the display of his wrath. And a point made by Bray, God’s love continuing as such even toward the lost in that he refuses to utterly destroy even the Devil.

Kuyper, Common Grace, 1.20

13 Saturday Mar 2021

Posted by in Abraham Kuyper, Anthropology

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

In this chapter, Kuyper considers the issue of original righteousness in Adam when created. To explain man as the image of God, Kuyper uses the language of a mirror (as Lints in Identity and Idolatry). When God created humanity, at the moment of creation, the reflection was there: “In creating man, God makes for himself a mirror in which he wants to see his own image as clearly as the nature of the creaturely makes this possible.” This was not an addition to Adam, but was inherent in Adam.

Here is a critical distinction between the Reformed and Roman positions. The original righteousness of Adam was not a gracious addition to nature.  The importance of this doctrinal distinction was addressed in the previous chapters, here and here. 

Kuyper next contends that the matters of creation can be in a state of maturity: particularly with respect to the formation of Adam. That is, God did not create a baby and then wait 20 years for the baby to be an adult.

Having considered the creation of the body, Kuyper turns to the soul, Adam’s spiritual existence. He makes mention here of the relatively new discipline of psychology as a “soul science” (this volume was originally published in 1902).  He then asks the pointed question, What do we really know about the essence of the soul – beyond what is said in Scripture? We can look at effects, but what is happening there in the soul is a kind of mystery. 

As an aside, it would be difficult to say that we know all that much more than Kuyper. Certainly there have been behavioral observations and untold thousands of college freshman have been duped into disclosing their willingness to lie or their preference for this or that in response to graduate students’ experiments. Yet, what is really happening, what is the essence is still a mystery. 

Thus, as Kuyper says we should be thankful for anything God has told us of ourselves. We know there is a development of sorts. And here he begins to make observations. 

There are elements of our maturation which begin “inside” if you will. There are native abilities, dispositions, and such which mature as the child interacts with his environment and matures. Now Adam’s body was matured, but what of his soul? Was he born with a fully matured soul? To make sense of what we are told of Adam, we must conclude that he a fully matured soul.

This then raises an issue. While I could understand a fully matured body – because the growth of a body comes from the body itself; a fully matured soul is more difficult to understand, because the maturity of the soul comes about through interaction with the environment. Again, Adam must have been fully matured in his intellectual and emotional capacity. 

Then finally what of his religious capacity—and this brings us to the question of original righteousness from a different direction. And here we must contend he was in a state of maturity and holiness. But this is not to say that he was incapable of further growth or maturation. Just as an old scholar can still learn, despite having obtained to righteousness, even so Adam was able to further mature.

And so when we speak of original righteousness, we mean that he not defect of morality nor inclination away from the law of God. He was no double-minded but rather of full accord with his position as a creature before, created for God’s glory, to display God as in a mirror. This is what is meant by “original righteousness.”

“Thus in paradise there was spiritual perfection, though not yet the final consummation, in the three spheres of intellect, morality, and religious life.”

Kuyper, Common Grace.19 (Original Righteousness Continued)

01 Tuesday Dec 2020

Posted by in Abraham Kuyper, Anthropology

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

The previous post in this series may be found here.

Kuyper continues on with the issue of original righteousness in Adam: Was righteousness a supernatural addition to human nature? In this chapter Kuyper examines the issue from a different direction: Whence disordered or rebellious desire in human beings?

He presents the contrast between the Roman Catholic and the Reformed understanding of the question. 

The Roman Catholic view (he cites to Bellarmine) explains it thus: The mater which makes up human nature is inherently subject to this defect. To create a human being is to create a being capable of defecting and such defection is an unavoidable consequence of making human beings from matter:

Bellarmine, the skillful Roman Catholic polemicist, who has argued the case for the Roman Catholic side of this doctrine most thoroughly, returns time and again to the point that the temptation to sin lies in the makeup of our nature. Thus he says among other things, “The desire of the flesh is at present a punishment for sin, but for man in his natural state this condition would undoubtedly have been natural, not as a given positive aspect of his nature, but as a deficiency, yes, even as a certain sickness of his nature, that flowed from the constitution of matter.”

If this is so, then there is something matter which is inherently contrary to God. If God could have created a human without this defect inherent in matter, then God could have/should have done so. That God did not create such a human being argues that God could not make such a being and still use matter. There thus must be something ultimately incorrigible in matter.

So, the “fountain of sin” lies in the very fact that we are human beings: which is a deduction Kuyper makes from Bellarmine’s understanding of human nature. Since this “fountain” bubbles up as its own accord, a sinful desire is not sinful. It only become sinful when the will consents to the desire. There must be a second move to turn a desire for sin into a sinful desire. 

He makes the observation that the Reformed and Roman Catholic positions differ not on the doctrine of the Trinity but on the doctrine of humanity. Our anthropologies differ: this is the place where the two diverge. Sin does not have its origin in something inherent in the physical body and the soul, but rather has its source in the spiritual (not the physical). Satan a pure spirt without body introduced humanity to sin. 

Human beings were created with original righteousness, not as a supernatural addition but as something inherent in humanity – but that this original righteousness exists in our dependence – not independence from God. 

Kuyper then draws out an implication from this fact of dependence: Human beings were not created with humanity as the end, the purpose of humanity. Human beings were created for God and God’s purposes. Human beings were specifically created to glorify God; God creates us for His glory. 

There is another corollary which Kuyper draws: If human beings have some purpose other than God’s glory, if there is some purpose, some end which we should/may achieve other than God’s glory, then God becomes an instrument to help us achieve that end. God becomes a tool in our effort to achieve our glory. 

God created Adam in such a way, with excellency and glory, because such an Adam was needful for God’s aim. God did not need Adam, but it did please God to create Adam and to work through Adam and to so sustain Adam by grace. 

Kuyper, Common Grace 1.17: The Two Trees

18 Friday Sep 2020

Posted by in Abraham Kuyper, Genesis

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

In chapter 17, Kuyper considers the nature of the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. 

He considers at some length the question of the trees being a symbol and the extent to whether they were given to strengthen faith and the nature of faith.

But the point which occupies the majority of this chapter concerns the dichotomy of the two trees: one tree of life, one tree of wisdom. He parallels the two trees to the two aspects of human life, a physical life and an intellectual or spiritual life.

The tree of life – in Paradise – would have stood as a pointer to an eternal life, which we will obtain in the New Earth. But in Paradise, Adam still needed to eat and sustain life. But there is a promise of something more than the maintenance of life.

The tree of knowledge was to provide another sort of good.

He here makes some fascinating observations. The pair in the Garden were expected to desire to eat from the tree to sustain their physical life. But, when it came to knowledge, they were explicitly forbidden to seek such knowledge from natural means. They were to refrain from that tree.

The knowledge which God had for them came first from refraining to take and obeying the command. They were too seek that knowledge not from the tree but from God.

Then, having fallen by their reversal of God’s instruction for the trees, they were faced with the prospect of continual physical life – should they have taken from the Tree of Life. That would have been a catastrophe beyond measure.

Where then does this leave us. Alone in the world, remembering those trees:

Today the extravagant sinner still grasps for all that nature offers him to strengthen his body weakened by sin, so that he can all the more freely indulge his appetite for sin. The urge to do this springs up of its own accord. Sin gives a feeling of weakness, also in relation to the body. And the first thing the sinner does is to seek not the welfare of his wounded soul, but the renewal of strength for his weakened body. And what then was more natural than that fallen man, feeling God’s wrath upon him and threatened in his existence, was in the first place intent on taking from the tree of life and seeking in its fruit the strengthening of his life?

This quotation reminds of how Nietzsche spoke of the “last man,” pathetic and obsessed with health:

The earth is small, and on it hops the last man, who makes everything small. His race is as ineradicable as the flea-beetle; the last man lives longest….

One is clever and knows everything that has ever happened: so there is no end of derision. One still quarrels, but one is soon reconciled—else it might spoil the digestion.

One has one’s little pleasure for the day and one’s little pleasure for the night: but one has a regard for health.

And so the irony of our state: in seeking to be gods, we became small and weak — even the smallest strand of virus, a necklace of amino acids so small as to be incomprehensible may fell us. And we spend are small lives obsessed with health.

Kuyper Common Grace, 1.16

03 Thursday Sep 2020

Posted by in Abraham Kuyper

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Kuyper’s 16th chapter concerns two related concepts: First, he considers the duration of human life and how that has changed since the Fall. Second, he considers the question, What would have happened if Adam had not sinned.

As to the first, he notes that human life has fallen off significantly in duration and vigor since the time of the Patriarchs. A matter unknown to Kuyper is that recent genetics research has demonstrated that human life has in fact degenerated.

The work of John Sanford on this point has been remarkable. He has coined the term “genetic entropy”. In short, as genetic material is duplicated (which is necessary for both our own continued existence and for the continuation of the species) it accumulates errors:

“What is Genetic Entropy?  It is the genetic degeneration of living things.  Genetic entropy is the systematic breakdown of the internal biological information systems that make life alive.  Genetic entropy results from genetic mutations, which are typographical errors in the programming of life (life’s instruction manuals). Mutations systematically erode the information that encodes life’s many essential functions.” 

And thus as we have continued on, rather than becoming stronger, we become weaker as individuals and as a species. That our life expectancy has decayed is simply a matter to be expected.

Lest one think that this is merely cherry picked creationist reading of the evidence I proffer, “That Classic Image Everyone Uses to Illustrate Evolution Is Actually Wrong” published on sciencealert.com, March 8, 2020:

Yet this is one of the most predominant and frustrating misconceptions about evolution. Many successful branches of the tree of life have stayed simple, such as bacteria, or have reduced their complexity, such as parasites. And they are doing very well.

In a recent study published in Nature Ecology and Evolution, we compared the complete genomes of over 100 organisms (mostly animals), to study how the animal kingdom has evolved at the genetic level.

Our results show that the origins of major groups of animals, such as the one comprising humans, are linked not to the addition of new genes but to massive gene losses.

This loss of information results in a degradation of human life. This degradation was not the original plan, but came in as the result of sin. Rom. 5:12.

What then would have happened had Adam not sinned? Perhaps he would not have died, but was the Garden simply the beginning and the end of the story of humans. Kuyper argues for a progress based upon a comparison of the Garden and what God has prepared for humanity in its culmination.

He notes the mutability of humanity and the possibility of sin which exists at the time of creation and Adam’s existence in the Garden. This is apparent from the fact of a test and a fall. This contrasted with the Kingdom to come, where “not only is there no sin, but any entering of sin is utterly inconceivable.“

Along this same axis of comparison, he notes that Paradise could be lost, but the eternal Kingdom will not fail; human nature could be corrupted in the Garden, but it will be established upon a sure foundation in the kingdom to come.

From this we can conclude that Garden, though very good was not the permanent condition.