J. E. North & H. L.
Williams
[The following was originally published in the British Reformed Journal, Issue No. 14 (April–June 1996) pp. 41–48]
In late 1995 the Banner of Truth Trust
published Spurgeon
versus Hyper-Calvinism, written by Iain H. Murray. This small volume
is essentially an attack on what is perceived as the Hyper-Calvinist threat
(sic) which some fear is lurking in the British Isles today. The author holds
up C.H. Spurgeon as the rallying point against this dreaded heresy (!) and in the
process, Dr. John Gill and William Huntington are illustrative examples of the
Hyper-Calvinist bogeyman. Says Murray: "The keystone of Hyper-Calvinist
thinking is clearly to be found in Gill and especially in his two volumes, The
Cause of God and Truth, published to refute Arminianism"
(p. 128) As an example of what Murray considers to be the truth
in these matters, an excerpt from one of Spurgeon’s sermons is given in some
six pages comprising chapter 11 in the book, and evidently is intended to "put
the cap on it" as it were, with a "thus saith Spurgeon" . . . , and
who would dare contradict the great man? The sermon excerpt is appropriately
entitled "A Crucial Text—C. H. Spurgeon on 1
Timothy 2:3-4,” and is underwritten with a footnote by Murray to the
effect that it "provides an excellent summary of Spurgeon’s thought on one
of the principal issues relating to the Hyper-Calvinist controversy"
(p. 149). The sermon was originally published, we are informed, in the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. 26, pp. 49-52, and it evinces that Spurgeon considered that the gospel
contained in it a testimony that God wants all men without exception to be
saved. This is presented as being the true scriptural gospel over against
"Hyper-Calvinists" who insist that such an assertion is Arminian. Ipso facto, then, following this kind of
presentation, anyone not acquiescing in Spurgeon’s views gets categorized with
the Hyper-Calvinist heresy.
What? Criticise Spurgeon? The temerity of it!
The utter audacity of it! If CHS said it, it must be right mustn’t it? What
here follows will doubtless explode like an incendiary in those quarters where,
in common with all too many on the modern evangelical and neo-Calvinist scene,
great stalwarts of the faith from past ages get trotted out as "final
authorities" on Scripture. Like the Eastern Orthodox, the modern
neo-Calvinists have their "icons" which act in some intermediary way
between them and God, and Spurgeon, much I am sure, to his disgust were he to
know, gets heralded and presented forth with a veneration and hero-worship that
rivals anything seen in Catholicism or the East. They might not pray to
"Saint CHS" as yet, though I have over the years noticed a few busts
of Spurgeon adorning study desks here and there. Not far away, I feel, from the
"images of saints" found in Romanist and Eastern Orthodox Churches. A
few generations more, and maybe they will be
praying to Saint CHS of Newington Butts. But at the moment CHS certainly gets
to be intruded between the believer and his Saviour in an authoritative way,
contrary to the dictates of our Lord in Matthew
23 verses 8-12. Only Christ is to be our "Rabbi," we sit
as His feet, and His alone. Only Christ is to be our Master, and all other men,
preachers, elders, deacons, expositors, whatever, may never take this place.
Therefore we are not prepared to "take it from Mr. Spurgeon," but
like the Bereans, who did not even "take it from St. Paul," (Cf. Acts
17:10-11), we shall search carefully the Scriptures, the very inspired Word
of God, to see "whether those things were so" as Mr. Spurgeon
claimed.
First, the text, that "Crucial Text"
as Mr. Murray calls it:
For this is good and
acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved,
and come unto the knowledge of the truth (I
Timothy 2:3–4).
In expounding this text, CHS purports right at
the beginning of his second paragraph "I do not intend to treat my text
controversially. . ." (p.
149) but then he proceeds to do precisely that, hitting out at what he
evidently regards as the "Hyper" brethren thereafter in several
paragraphs, and couching his polemic in pejorative language. Right at the
start, however, in this second paragraph CHS evinces his view of Scripture as
being, to some extent at least, supra-logical, and beyond human comprehension,
for he says that here in this text "two sides of the building of truth
meet here" and hence he sets the scene for a gambol with
"paradox" theology, (or more accurately, "Contradictionalist"
theology—a kind of neo-Calvinist transcendentalism). "In many a
village," he goes on, "there is a corner where the idle and the
quarrelsome gather together; and theology has such corners." Really? True, Biblical theology, exegeted from God’s precious wholesome Word, has nasty,
disreputable corners like that? Now this is pejorative language Mr. CHS is
using here. It is true that the Scriptures contain many difficult matters
which, as St. Peter says (II
Peter 3:16) "are some things hard to be understood" and which
"they that are unlearned and unstable wrest . . . unto their own
destruction." But it is the calling of the ministers of the Gospel to seek
out the correct interpretations of such matters, and to teach God’s people
these correct explanations, showing them how their explanations agree with the
Word of God. It is pejorative to consider such activity as some dark corner as
it were, where the "idle and quarrelsome gather together." Anyway,
CHS regards this "crucial text" as one such dingy and unwholesome
corner, but strangely he’s there to do a bit of idle quarrelling himself. For
ourselves, we prefer to regard it in more sanctified, Scriptural, and
non-pejorative terms. It is indeed one of those kind of texts St. Peter refers
to, and proper exegetical consideration of its meaning is slandered when it is
regarded in the terms CHS uses here.
CHS follows on now with an atrocious piece of
exegesis. He bends the
Word of God to fit what is evidently his own presuppositions and predilections.
He first throws up the "contradiction" that is superficially apparent
between the text and the divine decrees of election and reprobation, whereon he
insinuates that the text would have to be bent in order to eradicate its
contradiction with the divine decrees. And some do this bending, he says, in the
interests of logical consistency. But he won’t. Evidently he considers that the
truth can be in both sides of a contradiction simultaneously. (At this juncture
methinks I hear the ghost of Karl Barth chuckling away, and saying, in
sepulchral tones "Ha ha! These evangelicals! These Calvinists!").
This is shocking, that CHS should consider that faithfulness to the Word of God
will lead to the inconsistency of logical contradiction, i.e., strictly
speaking, lies.
At the outset, CHS quite uncritically asserts
that "all men" in the text (v. 4) must mean, and can only
mean, "all men without exception."
He then speaks of certain "older Calvinistic friends" (p. 150)
as insisting that this "all men" have said ‘some men.’ "‘All
men,’ say they ‘that is, some of all sorts of men,’ as if He (the Holy Ghost)
had meant that". Accordingly, in line with his predilections, CHS goes on
to assert: "The Holy Ghost by the Apostle has written ‘all men’ and unquestionably [emph. Ed.] he meant all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the ‘alls’
according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I
do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to the truth." CHS
goes on then to adumbrate what he had been reading in "the exposition of a
very able doctor [Dr. Gill?] who explains the text so as to explain it away, he
applies grammatical
gunpowder to
it, and explodes
it by way of expounding it." (Notice the pejoratives I have
emphasized here, which CHS is unable to back up with objective evidence. Ed.)
"I thought," CHS continues, "when I read his exposition that it
would have been a very capital comment upon the text, if it [the text] had read
‘Who will not have
all men to be saved, nor come
to the knowledge of the truth.’"
Love of consistency, CHS now avers, must not
interfere with our faithfulness to Scripture. (p. 151). This begs the
question, "Is Scripture inconsistent then?" CHS is concerned about
this, because he evidently feels the embarrassment between his interpretation
of the text and the rest of Scripture on matters of God’s decretive will with
regards to the non-elect. But he shies away from the destination that this
implication will take him to by seeking refuge in what is clearly
irrationality, though doubtless he would not have called it by that name.
"I am a most unreasonable being" he asserts, even "when I am
most reasonable, and when my judgment is most accurate I dare not trust
it" (!!) (But of course, he trusts his judgment here,
in his interpretation
of this text, nevertheless! And what
is more, de
facto he
expects his hearers and readers to trust in his judgment because he evidently
expects them to swallow what he is saying). "I had rather trust my
God" he goes on. (Cf. pp. 151–153) But that is not the question up
for debate. The question up for debate is the correct meaning of a text of
God’s Word. In that Word, when we know what it means, we trust. It is our
contention that Mr. CHS exegeted this text incorrectly, and we trust the Word no
less than he.
But the venerable CHS now comes to the nub of
it all, in the face of the contradiction which He believes our human reason
cannot resolve, the contradiction between his interpretation of the text and
the decree of reprobation, he tells us that if the Scriptures appear to us to
be contradictory, then we are to "swallow it at once" (!!! p. 153. emph. Ed.). Like some of the Doctor’s nasty medicine, CHS
tells us "In the same way there are some things in the Word of God which
are undoubtedly true which must be swallowed at once by an
effort of faith" (emph. Ed.). (Karl Barth’s ghost is having hysterics now,
and shouting, "but this is what I spent a lifetime trying to teach everybody
. . . Why wouldn't these Calvinists listen?"). And CHS, like Barth, can
then point out to us a plethora of things in Scripture which appear
contradictory, (pp. 152 and 153). At least, they appeared contradictory to
CHS. Personally I'm amazed to discover what a superficial exegete he must have
been in so many areas. He considers, amongst other things, the question:
"If God be infinitely good and powerful, why does not His power carry out
to the full His beneficence?" (p. 152). He intimates that this
question is unanswerable. That a Calvinist should flounder on such matters is
staggering, and begs an array of questions, like: "Has he never fully studied
his Bible?" "Has he never really studied Reformed theology?"
A pity CHS had more regard for his own
predilections than for the careful exegesis of Dr. Gill. Not that we regard Dr.
Gill as an infallible icon, either, but he was much, much more
sure-footed than the much vaunted CHS. But now, what saith the Scripture at
this point? CHS has asserted that the text means that "the Holy Ghost by
the Apostle has written ‘all men,’ and unquestionably he means ‘all men.’"
This is wrong. The Holy Ghost did
not by
the apostle write "all men." He wrote pantas
anthropous. Now the question is what does that original
Greek phrase mean, not what the English translation of it can be construed to
mean. In particular, what does pantas mean?
CHS has assumed that it means "all"
in the sense of "all without exception." As such he betrays a lack of
linguistic understanding, which, sadly, was the sorry lot of most evangelicals
in the Victorian era, when the old principles of Reformation exegesis had
become eclipsed by etymological studies that eventually vitiated the
reliability of concordances, dictionaries, Word Studies, and lexicons. Much of
the lexicographical work of the Victorian era and of the early 20th Century has
been shown to be seriously faulty, riddled with the error of an overriding
philosophy known amongst linguistic scholars as "etymologism." This
very error in fact bolstered the Baptist view of immersionism, and gave it an
air of validity the Word of God never gave it. CHS evidently fell for that, and
fell for a whole plethora of similar errors. The old Reformed exegesis put
heavy emphasis on proper semantic study, and the usage of the analogia
fidei, or the analogy of the faith, whereby difficult or obscure
scriptures were to be interpreted in the light of their contexts, and in the
light of the general scope and tenor of Scripture as a whole. As the Westminster
Confession states: "The
infallible rule of interpretation of any Scripture is the Scripture itself; and
therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any
Scripture, (which is not manifold, but one,) it must be searched and known by
other places that speak more clearly" (Ch. 2 Para. IX). Again, more recently the rising
science of linguistics has rolled back the darkness in this respect, and we see
how the old Reformers had it right, after all. With regard to pantas in
this text, linguistic studies bearing on New Testament Greek indicate that this
word, like most words in most languages, does not have one fixed meaning. It
has a spectrum of meanings, known in linguistic science as a "semantic
range." Within the semantic range of pantas the
lexicographers supply us with a whole set of different meanings, or
"elements." Which element of meaning is active in any given usage of
a word is determined by its context. So first, what is the semantic range of pantas?
For the set pas, (nominative singular
masculine of which pantas is the
accusative masculine plural) we find the following meaning elements listed in
Louw & Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament based on Semantic Domains (United Bible Societies 1st
edit. 1988):
pas a. all
b. any
c. total
d. whole
e. every kind of
Now “a.” above will unparcel to reveal:
A1: All without exception, and, A2: All without distinction. And
“e.” above will unparcel to reveal: E1: Some
of all sorts, and E2: All manner of.
Now which of these meanings did the Holy Ghost
intend us to take as being the correct one to fit I
Tim. 2:4? What do we do? Shall we say, “Oh, I like this one, I’ll
make it this one”? Or, “I feel led to A1, I'm certain that’s what God intended,
I feel the witness within me”? The Arminians insist on A1. So did CHS,
surprise! surprise! On what grounds? CHS gives us none. In this sermon he can
only hold, and rather bombastically at that, to bald insistence on it,
"the Holy ghost by the apostle has written ‘all men.’"
But now, what about the context? And what about
the whole analogia
fidei, by which we are to be guided when interpreting any difficult text
such as this? Well first, the whole scope and tenor of Scripture shout that the
CHS and the Arminian interpretation, A1, will put the text in contradiction to the divine
decrees. Knowing this, the Arminians do their utmost to extract as much
anti-Calvinist mileage out of this text as they possibly can. (Strange, that
CHS and the Arminians are fellow-travellers along the same road, in the same
direction here!) But CHS, and it seems, his "backers" at the Banner
of Truth, are not as canny as the Arminians—they want A1 as well, and
the contradiction it throws up against the divine decrees
and the divine nature of God as revealed elsewhere in Scripture! And this massive
contradiction must, so it seems, in Spurgeon’s words, "be swallowed at
once by an effort of faith." (I can still hear Karl Barth’s ghost laughing
and droning out: "Leap of faith, leap of faith . . . indeed . . . they’ve gone as far as
that!").
But manifestly, meaning elements “e.”, in the
list above, and E1, and E2 will fit beautifully, and eliminate any
contradiction with the rest of Scripture. That is, that God "will have all
manner of men to be saved." In an age like the
1st Century A.D., long before the rise of egalitarian democracies, when society
was heavily stratified socially, and racial prejudices inflamed, it would have
been vitally important to draw attention to the fact that God’s salvation was
not only for one racial group, (the Jews, for instance—and much of the New
Testament addresses precisely that question) or for one class of
Society. Not only peasants, and slaves, but even middle class professionals and
even rulers were to be addressed with the Gospel ("every creature,"
was emphasized, Mark
16:15). It was important to emphasize that "some of all sorts" of
people were to be saved, by the divine decree. And in historical practice, that
is precisely how
it has worked out, not all men without exception, but some of all sorts.
Now, it remains to examine the immediate
context to the verse concerned. Notice how the phrase "all men" is
coupled not only to the phrase "to be saved," but also to the clause:
"to come unto the knowledge of the truth." In fact, in the Greek the
coupling is closer than in the English. So it is God’s will that "all
men" come "unto the knowledge of the truth" as well as that they
be saved. Manifestly, they cannot be saved, without first coming unto the
knowledge of the truth (Cf. Rom.
10:14). And equally manifest is the fact that down through all the Old
Testament period, and through the New Testament period, it has not
been the
will of God that "all men without exception" should come "unto
the knowledge of the truth," but it has manifestly and indubitably been
His will that "all manner of
men," or "all kinds of
men" should so come, and be saved. Some indeed,
as St. John says, "out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and
nation" (Rev.
5:9; Cf. Rev.
11:9). Not all
without exception.
Let the reader judge: What about all the
billions of human beings absolutely excluded from the knowledge of the Gospel,
and therefore salvation, for millennia? The millions of pre-Columbian America,
the vast billions of China, and the East, and the manifold tribes of Africa . .
. all precluded from viewing the Gospel dispensation for most of the history of
the world. Which interpretation of I
Tim. 2:3-4 fits with reality? that of Mr. CHS, or the one of the grand
phalanx of the old Reformed exegetes, like Calvin in his sermons and
commentaries on this text, the very one we have advanced above?
But this is not all. Again looking at the
immediate context of our verse we see in verse one preceding it the phrase
"all men" used by the apostle again. The same Greek words are used as
in verse 4 except for a change in the flexions for case endings. The apostle
exhorts us to pray for "all men"—an impossible task, if "all
without exception” is meant, for we are not allowed to pray for the dead, or
for those who have committed the unpardonable sin (I
John 5:16). The Apostle makes it clear in verse two that by
"all" in verse one he means "all kinds of" men, when he
specifies that prayers should be made even for kings and all those in
authority, that is, for those even of that exalted type of men who in most
instances in those days were enemies that persecuted Christians, but from
amongst whom God was pleased to save some.
We conclude therefore that the Holy Ghost wrote
by the apostle that God willed "all kinds of men" to be saved. The
interpretation is in beautiful harmony with the analogia
fidei, the context and all the sound principles of exegesis, and the
science of linguistics. A threefold cord is not quickly broken (Eccl.
4:12).
But Mr. CHS surprisingly, finds his exegetical
medicine a little difficult to swallow himself. The contradiction it throws in
his face is a bit big "to be swallowed at once." He has an
embarrassing problem now with that word "will" in verse 4 of our
text: "Who will have
all men to be saved . . ." A spoonful of hermeneutic sugar (heaped, not
level) is called for here by Mr. CHS to help with the swallowing of this nasty
medicine, this nasty ‘contradiction’ (sic) in God’s Word. The word
"will" here, he roundly asserts, cannot mean that God "wills it
with the force of a decree or a divine purpose, for if He did, then all men
would be saved" (p. 150). Rather, he says, "does not the text
mean that it is the ‘wish’ of God that (all) men be saved?" So that the passage
should read, he continues, "whose wish it is that all men should be saved
and come to a knowledge of the truth?" (Ibid, p. 151). Notice now, that
Mr. CHS is not saying now: "The Holy Ghost wrote by his apostle ‘Who will have
all men . . . etc.’ and that is what the Holy Ghost meant." No, no, that
sort of approach would do for the "all men" part of this text. But
not for this part! Mr. CHS will hold us to the good old plain English
translation and his construing of it for "all men," but to follow
that principle through consistently in his exegesis would get him in a mess
with "will" in verse 4! What to do then? Well he does the very thing
he criticises the "Hypers" for doing with "all men" right
next door to "will." Mr. CHS it would seem, is nothing if not
inconsistent! As it suits him! And what is staggering is the way he
performs this trick! In looking for an alternative meaning for "will"
he alights on "wish" without in any way undertaking an exegetic,
linguistic or semantic examination of the word concerned. In short he
"plumps" for the meaning that suits him!
So now Mr. CHS can swallow his sugared brew by
changing "will" to "wish." Unfortunately this nasty
‘pharmaceutical’ concoction has drastic side effects that are deleterious right
across our conception of God and His revelation. Mr. CHS has hereby portrayed
for us a God who is able to save all men without exception, and yet . . . and
yet . . . will not put forth His mighty arm and save them—and this, despite
the fact that the prophet tells us that the "Lord’s hand is not shortened
that it cannot save . . ." (Isaiah
59:1) Now manifestly this is a hideous portrayal
of God.
What would we think of a lifeguard on a beach,
who, looking out to sea and seeing someone struggling, drowning, yearns to save
that person, desires that that person be saved, and having all the strength,
skill, and opportunity necessary to effectuate a rescue, yet remains immobile,
and knowing that none else, nor the victim himself can effect deliverance,
nevertheless leaves the victim to drown? And as the person gasps his way to
oblivion, our lifeguard says, "I wish sincerely that
that person be saved." What kind of lifeguard is that? A contemptible one.
And CHS’s portrayal of God here is akin to that lifeguard. CHS immediately sees
the incongruence of his theology here, and spends most of pages 152–154 trying,
vainly, to justify it. He considers the question: "But if he (God) wishes
it to be so, why does he not make it so?" This question he deflects,
"I cannot tell" he says, (p. 152) and "I have never set up
to be an explainer of all difficulties, and I have no desire to do so." (emph. Ed.). But of course, this is where, with Mr. CHS, we now are bidden to
take this incongruity to be true, and it must be "swallowed at once by an
effort of faith, and must not be chewed by perpetual questioning" (p. 153). Or, this text means what Mr. CHS says it means, and we are to swallow
that and not re-examine his exegesis! However it is revealing to peel back the
surface of Mr. Spurgeon’s exegesis here, what lurks underneath will not stand
the light of day. The Greek word underlying the English here is the verb thelo.
Now CHS has done in his interpretation here what he vetoes others for doing
with respect to the "all" of verse 4—he has spotted a semantic
variant. The Greek thelo,
he seems to have discovered, can mean "I wish," as well as "I
will." Opportunist-like, he picks this one up like a ripe plum. It’s just
the semantic variant he needed at this point! Never mind that he has censured
others (like Dr. Gill?) for examining semantic ranges before determining which
meaning element is active in a given usage. Never mind that he won’t allow any
possibility for variant semantics in his interpretation of "all."
"I do not see," he bombastically and baldly asserts (p. 150)
"how it can be applied here (to ‘all’) with due regard to truth." But
on "will" CHS sings a different tune. It suits him.
But it will not do to enter linguistics in such
a cavalier fashion. All the meaning elements of thelo must
be set out, and examined, the context consulted, and the analogia fidei.
Then we must logically and systematically isolate which element of the verb is
active here, not just pull one out like Little Jack Horner pulling out the
plum, the one that happens to suit our predilections. It must be the one that
fits all the threefold considerations adumbrated above. Louw
& Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the
New Testament based on Semantic Domains, again, gives us the semantic
range:
thelo a.
I purpose
b. I am of the opinion
c. I desire (I wish)
d. I enjoy.
Manifestly, “b.” and “d.” would take us into
realms unfitting to the verse in question. “a.” and “c.” remain the only
options. Now of these two the context and
the analogia fidei will have to be the deciding factors—not
personal whim, not personal preference, not personal pietistic "feelings."
If it is “c.” as CHS specifies, in his opportunistic manner, then this leaves
us with a portrayal of God as being someone with frustrated desires, indeed
with frustrated desires that He must cope with eternally, otherwise He would
change. And therefore He would be eternally imperfect. “c.” also flatly
contradicts those manifold Scriptures which assert unequivocally that God is sovereign, and that He accomplishes all His desires. For example:
"My counsel shall stand, and I
will do all my pleasure" (Isaiah
46:10);
"My Word . . . shall not return unto Me
void, but
it shall accomplish that which I please" (Isaiah
55:10-11);
"He is of one mind, and who can turn him?
And what
His soul desireth, even that He doeth" (Job 23:13);
"But our God is in the heavens, He
hath done whatsoever He hath pleased." (Psalm
115:3);
"Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did He in
heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places" (Psalm
135:6);
"He shall see of the travail of His soul, and
be satisfied", (Isaiah
53:11).
Indubitably, therefore, meaning element “c.” [desire] will not fit.
This leaves us with “a.” [purpose], which fits the analogia
fidei, fits the context, in that it harmonizes beautifully with "all
kinds of men", and is arrived at by a rational and honest process of
investigation. A
three-fold cord, again, not quickly broken. (Eccl.
4:12).
It is evident that CHS in this sermon carried
out cavalier exegesis, and parted company with the Word of God, controlled
exegetics, and logic, and, it must be said, consistency of principle. It is
also evident, sadly, that his "backer" in this volume [Iain H. Murray] has effectively de
facto endorsed
what CHS is saying by utilising this excerpt in the manner he has.
I have a deep respect for Iain Murray and all
his life-long labours in publishing good Reformed theology, I give heartfelt
thanks to God for what positive good has been accomplished by the Banner of Truth
over the last forty years. But I cannot "swallow" their view of the gospel, which Mr. Murray has espoused and presented in this small volume. It is
at once, I am personally convinced, unscriptural, illogical, irrational,
contradictory, and deleterious to the Scripture truth. It was deleterious to me
in all the years that I followed it, and to many, many others I know. What is
staggering, is how CHS and by association, Mr. Murray and the Banner of Truth
herewith, ipso facto, admit that their
interpretation of Scripture on this matter does not make sense, and, to use
Spurgeon’s words, it must be "swallowed at once by an
effort of faith." Even more staggering is their strongly implied censure
of those who refuse to "swallow" and would assay to question and
examine the crass hermeneutic procedures that produce things that have to be "swallowed."
It is not for nothing, that the "ghost of
Karl Barth" has poked his nose into this discussion. The "New
Modernism," (as Van Til called it) runs on the logic engine of
contradiction, yet is couched in all the language of Reformed theology, a theology
of the Word. Far wider than just Barth, it is nevertheless all powered by
Hegelian dialecticism, and essentially proclaims faith as being belief in
mutually simultaneous contradictories that are supra-logical to humans, viz.
the Bible is the Word of God, and the Bible is the word of mere man full of
errors and contradictions. All men are simultaneously elect and reprobate.
Effectively, this makes God and His Word speak with a forked tongue. And in
articulating this ‘Barthian’ system, the eminent Scots theologian T. F.
Torrance, in speaking of faith in relation to the Word of God, has virtually
re-articulated Spurgeon’s viewpoint here, thus:
"To suspend
judgment is not to be irrational; rather it is the part of reason which behaves
obediently in terms of its object, in this instance, an objective revelation
which even in the event of revelation remains a mysterion,
and will not yield its secret to analytical and logical investigation".
(T. F. Torrance: Review of Warfield’s The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, in: The Scottish Journal of Theology, vol.
7, 1954, p. 106, cited in Fere: "Language,
Logic, and God," Fontana 1970, p. 131).
Note the "mysterion" here. And
note "an objective revelation which even in the event of revelation
remains a mysterion. . ." Even "revelation" is
still a mystery, before which human analytical thinking is to be suspended,
indeed, is stymied. How chillingly parallel to the words of CHS who, in this
sermon tells us, with respect to the "contradictions" his exegesis
throws up from God’s Word, "Let the difficult doctrines go down whole into
your very soul, by a grand exercise of faith," and that such "must
not be chewed by perpetual questioning" (Murray, p. 153).
All this of course begs the question: "Is
this revelation revelation?"
How can it be "revelation" if all it manifests is
a contradiction that stonewalls rational understanding, i.e., a
"mysterion"? But across this epistemological gap Barthian faith has
to "leap": never mind the contradictions, never mind the
"mysterion." "Believe it" (despite Barth’s protestations
that he did not teach "a leap of faith"), and the kinship to
Spurgeon’s dictum to be "swallowed at once" is immediately evident.
No wonder hosts of erstwhile Calvinist preachers have gone on a one-way
excursion down Hegel Street in the last fifty years. If you can
"swallow" Spurgeon’s kind of exegesis, well it’s easy to go on and
"swallow" Barth, after all, his contradictions are, if more numerous,
each less of a mouthful than this gargantuan dollop CHS bids us ingest "by
an effort of faith."
<><><><><><><><>
If anyone is interested in subscribing to the British Reformed Journal (published quarterly) please click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment