The Great Doctrines of the Bible, Rev. William Evans [mind reading books .txt] 📗

man’s conscience evidence sufficient to prove the truth of these claims, the man who then refused to yield to Christ’s claims was guilty of resisting, insulting, and that amounts to blaspheming the testimony of the whole Godhead, of which the Spirit is the executive.

2. OFFENCES COMMITTED BY THE BELIEVER.

a) Grieving the Spirit.

Eph. 4:30, 31; Isa. 63:10 (R. V.). To grieve means to make sad or sorrowful. It is the word used to describe the experience of Christ in Gethsemane; and so the sorrow of Gethsemane may be endured by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the most sensitive person of the Godhead. He is called the “Mother—heart” of God. The context of this passage (v.31) tells us how the Spirit may be grieved: by “foolish talking and jesting.” Whenever the believer allows any of the things mentioned in this verse (and those stated also in Gal. 5:17-19) to find place in his heart and expression in his words and life; when these things abide in his heart and actively manifest themselves, then the Spirit is sad and grieved. Indeed to refuse any part of our moral nature to the full sway of the Spirit is to grieve Him. If we continue to grieve the Spirit, then the grief turns into vexation (Isa. 63:10).

b) Lying to the Holy Spirit.

Acts 5:3, 4. The sin of lying to the Spirit is very prominent when consecration is most popular. We stand up and say, “I surrender all” when in our hearts we know that we have not surrendered all. Yet, like Ananias, we like to have others believe that we have consecrated our all. We do not wish to be one whit behind others in our profession. Bead carefully in this connection the story of Achan (Joshua 7), and that of Gehazi (2 Kings 5:20-27).

c) Quenching the Spirit.

1 Thess. 5:19-“Quench not the Spirit.” The thought of quenching the Spirit seems to be used in connection with fire: “Smoking flax shall he not quench” (Matt. 12:20); “Quench the fiery darts” (Eph. 6:16). It is therefore related more to the thought of service than to that of life. The context of 1 Thess. 5:19 shows this. The manifestation of the Spirit in prophesying was not to be quenched. The Holy Spirit is seen as coming down upon this gathered assembly for praise, prayer, and testimony. This manifestation of the Spirit must not be quenched. Thus we may quench the Spirit not only in our hearts, but also in the hearts of others. How? By disloyalty to the voice and call of the Spirit; by disobedience to His voice whether it be to testify, praise, to do any bit of service for God, or to refuse to go where He sends us to labor—the foreign field, for example. Let us be careful also lest in criticizing the manifestation of the Spirit in the testimony of some believer, or the sermon of some preacher, we be found guilty of quenching the Spirit. Let us see to it that the gift of the Holy Ghost for service be not lost by any unfaithfulness, or by the cultivation of a critical spirit on our part, so that the fire in our hearts dies out and nothing but ashes remain—ashes, a sign that fire was once there, but has been extinguished.

From what has been said the following may be summarily stated:

Resisting has to do with the regenerating work of the Spirit;

Grieving has to do with the indwelling Holy Spirit;

Quenching has to do with the enduement of the Spirit for service.

THE DOCTRINE OF MAN

I. THE CREATION AND ORIGINAL CONDITION OF MAN.

1. IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF GOD. 2. PHYSICAL—MENTAL—MORAL—SPIRITUAL.

II. THE FALL OF MAN.

1. THE SCRIPTURAL ACCOUNT. 2. VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS. 3. THE NATURE OF THE FALL. 4. THE RESULTS OF THE FALL.

a) On Adam, and Eve. b) On the Race. (1) Various Theories. (2) Scriptural Declarations.

 

THE DOCTRINE OF MAN.

I. THE CREATION AND ORIGINAL CONDITION OF MAN.

1. MAN MADE IN THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF GOD.

Gen. 1:26—“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” 9:6—“For in the image of God made he man.” What is meant by the terms image and likeness? Image means the shadow or outline of a figure, while likeness denotes the resemblance of that shadow to the figure. The two words, however, are practically synonymous. That man was made in the image and likeness of God is fundamental in all God’s dealings with man (1 Cor. 11:7; Eph. 4:21-24; Col. 3:10; James 3:9). We may express the language as follows: Let us make man in our image to be our likeness.

a) The Image of God Does Not Denote Physical Likeness.

God is Spirit; He does not have parts and passions as a man. (See under Doctrine of God; The Spirituality of God, pp. 19, 20). Consequently Mormon and Swedenborgian views of God as a great human are wrong. Deut. 4:15 contradicts such a physical view of God (see p. 19, b, c). Some would infer from Psa. 17:15—“I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness,” that in some remote way, a physical likeness is suggested. The R. V., however, changes somewhat the sense of this verse, and reads: “I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with beholding thy form.” See also Num. 12:8, R. V. It is fair to believe, however, that erectness of posture, intelligence of countenance, and a quick, glancing eye characterized the first man. We should also remember that the manifestations in the Old Testament, and the incarnation must throw some light upon this subject (see p. 20).

b) Nor Are the Expressions “Image” and “Likeness” Exhausted When We Say That They Consisted in Man’s Dominion Over Nature, and the Creation of God in General.

Indeed the supremacy conferred upon man presupposed those spiritual endowments, and was justified by his fitness, through them, to exercise it.

c) Positively, We Learn from Certain Scriptures in What This Image and Likeness Consisted.

Eph. 4:23, 24—“And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness (B. V., holiness of truth).” Col. 3:10—“And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.” It is clear from these passages that the image of God consists in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness; moral, not physical likeness.

d) The Original Man Was Endowed with Intellectual Faculties.

He had sufficient intelligence to give names to the animals as they were presented before him (Gen. 2:19, 20). Adam had not only the power of speech, but the power of reasoning and thought in connection with speech. He could attach words to ideas. This is not the picture, as evolution would have us believe, of an infantile savage slowly groping his way towards articulate speech by imitation of the sounds of animals.

e) The Original Man Possessed Moral and Spiritual Faculties.

Consider the moral test in Genesis 3. Adam had power to resist or to yield to moral evil. Sin was a volitional thing. Christ, the second Adam, endured a similar test (Matt. 4).

From all this it is evident that man’s original state was not one of savagery. Indeed there is abundant evidence to show that man has been degraded from a very much higher stage. Both the Bible and science agree in making man the crowning work of God, and that there will be no higher order of beings here on the earth than man. We must not forget that while man, from one side of his nature, is linked to the animal creation, he is yet supra-natural—a being of a higher order and more splendid nature; he is in the image and likeness of God. Man has developed not from the ape, but away from it. He never was anything but potential man. “No single instance has yet been adduced of the transformation of one animal species into another, either by natural or artificial selection; much less has it been demonstrated that the body of the brute has ever been developed into that of the man. The links that should bind man to the monkey have not been found. Not a single one can be shown. None have been found that stood nearer the monkey than the man of today.”—_Agassiz_.

II. THE FALL OF MAN.

The doctrine of the Fall of Man is not peculiar to Christianity; all religions contain an account of it, and recognize the great and awful fact. Had there been no such account as that found in Genesis 3, there would still have remained the problem of the fall and sin.

Yet, the doctrine of the fall has a relation to Christianity that it does not have to other religions, or religious systems. The moral character of God as seen in the Christian religion far surpasses the delineation of the Supreme Being set forth in any other religion, and thus heightens and intensifies its idea of sin. It is when men consider the very high character of God as set forth in Christianity, and then look at the doctrine of sin, that they find it hard to reconcile the fact that God, being the moral Being He is, should ever allow sin to come into the world. To some minds these two things seem incompatible.

1. THE SCRIPTURAL ACCOUNT OF THE FALL OF MAN.

The third chapter of Genesis gives the fullest account of this awful tragedy in the experience of mankind. Other scriptures: Rom. 5:12-19; I Tim. 2:14; Gen. 6:5; 8:31; Psa. 14; Rom. 3:10-23.

The purpose of the Genesis narrative is not to give an account of the manner in which sin came into the world, but how it found its advent into the human race. Sin was already in the world, as the existence of Satan and the chaotic condition of things in the beginning, strikingly testify.

The reasonableness of the narrative of the fall is seen in view of the condition of man after he had sinned with his condition when he left the hand of the Creator. Compare Gen. 1:26 with 6:5, and Psa. 14. If the fall of man were not narrated in Genesis we should have to postulate some such event to account for the present condition in which we find man. In no part of the Scripture, save in the creation account as found in the first two chapters of Genesis, does man appear perfect and upright. His attitude is that of rebellion against God, of deepening and awful corruption.

2. VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS OF THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL OF MAN.

Some look upon the whole narrative as being an allegory. Adam is the rational part of man; Eve, the sensual; the serpent, external excitements to evil. But the simplicity and artlessness of the narrative militates against this view.

Others, again, designate the narrative as being a myth. It is regarded as a truth invested in poetic form; something made up from the folklore of the times. But why should these few verses be snatched out of the chapter in which they are found and be called mythical, while the remaining verses are indisputably literal?

Then there is the literal interpretation, which takes the account as it reads, in its perfectly natural sense, just as in the case of the other parts of the same chapter. There is no intimation in the account itself that it is not to be regarded as literal history. It certainly is part of a historical book. The geographical locations in connection with the story are historic. The curse upon the man, upon the woman, and upon the ground are certainly literal. It is a fact that death is in the world as the wages