1998 Issue 3 - The Contribution of the Southern Presbyterian Theologians to the Doctrine of Adoption...

7/27/2019 1998 Issue 3 - The Contribution of the Southern Presbyterian Theologians to the Doctrine of Adoption - Counsel of

1/7

brief fragments which were left

to

us

from his mighty pen, makes but an

incidental reference

to

it,''' pg. 17.

He also calls our attention

to

the

fact that of the great creeds of

Christendom only the Westminster

Standards have a chapter on the

subject

of

adoption. While a couple

of the creeds, The Heidelberg

Catechism and The Thirty-Nine

Articles incidentally refer to

believers

as the children of God, only in the

Westtninster, he said, do we have

the grace of adoption formally set

forth as one of the benefits of

Christ's mediation, co-ordinate with

justification and sanctification, and a

particular account of

the privileges

Grace is heaped upon grace,

and mercy banked upon mercy, and

love is laid over upon love with

more than ten-fold thickness,

when

the

sinner

is reclaimed and

transplanted in the bosom

of

the

Father, made

an

inmate in the

eternal

and

fadeless home

of

God,

and appointed an heir to all that

glory which is incorruptible,

undefiled

and

fades not away. These

are the words

of

RA. Webb,

Southern Presbyterian Theologian of

the late 19th and early 20th

centuries, celebrating the glOriOUS

doctrine

of

adoption. While the

doctrine

of

adoption had been

included as a distinct doctrine in the

WestminSter Standards, it was

Southern Presbyterians, John L.

Girardeau

and

R.A.

Webb, who

developed the doctrine of

The Contribution

of

the

Southern Presbyterian

TheolQgians to the Doctrine

doption

as a separate and

distinct locus in systematic

debate over this subject. His

rationale is worth repeating: The

doctrinal truths of SCripture are fixed

and unalterable. In themselves

considered, they are, like their

divine Author. perfect, and

therefore, unsusceptible of change.

There can

be

no

human

development of their intrinsic

nature.

But the knowledge of these

unchanging truths by the imperfect

mind of man is capable of

development. It may be more

or

less

perfect. The subjective apprehension

of objective ttuth may be increased

in intensity, in scope and in

adequacy. It is needless to observe

that its growth, in the history

of

the

church, has largely

depended upon the challenge

of acknowledged truth by

errorists, by the conflict of

theology.

of

doption

Wa

eRo

ers

theological views, and

by

the

thorough-going discussion

Although the Westminster

Divines

had

included the doctrine

of

adoption as a separate and distinct

head

historically the systematic

theologians either had not addressed

the subject or did so only briefly,

and usually they had addressed it

only as a subset

of

the doctrine of

justification.

Webb

points out

in

his

book on The

ReformedDoctrine of

Adoption that Calvin made

no

allusion to adoption. Francis

Turretin, author of

Institutes

of

Elenctic

Theology in the 17th

Century, identified adoption with

the

second element of justification

and sinks it well-nigh out of sight in

his discussions of this great topic of

soteriology. With Turretin, he

points

out

that our own princely

theolOgian, Dr. R.L. Dabney

agrees ...The voluminous work of

Dr. Charles Hodge is entirely silent

on

the subject, while Dr. AA. Hodge

devotes to the subject a brief

chapter,

in

which he discusses

chiefly the ordo salutis of the

Reformed Theology. He continues,

pointing out that Breckenridge and

Shedd have nothing to say on this

topic, while Thornwell, another

'princely' Southern Theologian, 'in

and blesSings which flow from it,

pg.18.

t

remained for two Southern

Presbyterian theologians, Girardeau

and Webb, his protege and son-in

law, to develop the doctrine of

adoption as a separate locus in

systematic theology. Dr. Morton

Smith notes that the Southern

Presbyterian Theologians were not

only committed to the Bible as the

inspired word

of

God,

but

to a

thorough-going and.enthusiastic

Calvinism, regarded

as

a part of the

gospel that was to

be

preached to the

people: Reformed

Theology

in

America (Edited by David Wells, pg.

200). The Westtninster Standards

were the best expression of

Calvinism. Most likely, it was their

familiarity with and practical,

pastoral, and pUlpit use ofthe

Westtninster Standards that alerted

them to this gap in the systematic

theologies concerning the doctrine of

adoption.

Girardeau stated that the lack of

interest and exposition of the

doctrine of adoption might be

attributed to the lack

of

theological

52

THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon JunelJnly 998

which has for these reasons

been necessitated. In this way the

churches knowledge

of

the doctrines

of the Trinity, of sin, and

justification, has been cleared

up

matured, and crystallized. To the

precisely formulated statements of

these ttuths it is not to be expected

that much that is either novel or

important will be added.

The sarrie however

is

not

true

of

the doctrine of adoption. It has not

been made the subject of

much

controversy, nor has it received the

didactic exposition which has been

devoted to most of the other topics

included

in

the theology of

redemption. Its importance has been

to

a large .extent overlooked, its place

in a distinct and independent

treattnent of the covenant of grace

has been refused, while leading

t h e o l o g i n ~ have differed in regard

even to its nature and office, Pp.

428-9, (Discussions

of

Theological

Questions, Sprinkle Pub.).

Dr. Webb advanced the study

of

the

doctrineof

adoption. Webb was

born to Robert and Elizabeth Eaton

Webb in Oxford,

MS.

'on September

20, 1856.

His

father

served as


2/7

Ruling Elder

in the

Presbyterian

church

and his children

were

from infancy

brought up according

to

the strict

methods

of

the

Presbyterian

church

of

their day.

In 1871

his family moved

to Nashville, TN. Following

graduation from the noted

preparatory school of the Webb

brothers,(his cousins), Webb entered

the Southwestern Presbyterian

University at Clarksville, TN. There

hearing Dr. Girardeau, that prince of

pulpiteers,

preach, he was drawn to

Columbia Theological Seminary in

Columbia S.c. where Girardeau was

professor of theology. Completing

his theological education, in 1883 he

was ordained by the Presbytery of

Bethel, in South Carolina, where, I

might add, in. 1972, I also was

ordained to the Gospel ministry in

the Southern Presbyterian Church

(PCUS). After pastoring churches in

North and South Carolina, in 1892

he was called to the Chair of

Systematic Theology in the

Southwestern Presbyterian

University where he succeeded the

father of President Woodrow

Wilson, Dr. Josepb Wilson. After 16

years there, he accepted the Chair

of

Systematic Theology at the

Presbyterian Seminary of Kentucky

(Louisville Seminary) in

1908

There he taught until his death on

May

23,1919.

After his death some of his notes

were collected and published in four

volumes. Thelast volume was The

Reformed Doctrine ofAdoption,

published in 1947 by Eerdmans

Pub. Co. Rev.

John

R. Richardson

wrote in the preface, This monograph

on Adoption is unique. So f r as my

knowledge of

theological

literature goes

there.is

nothing

in

existence

comparable

to these lectures. Thcy constitute an

invaluable contribution to Reformed

Theology pg.

11.

Unfortunately this

work is,

to

my knowledge, out of

print today.

It was these Southern

Presbyterian Theologians and the

Columbia (S.c.) Seminary school of

thought in particular, which is

recognized

as

being instrumental

in

developing and advancing the

doctrine of adoption as a separate

and distinct locus of

theology.

While we have not gone

on

an all

out bibliographical search on the

subject of adoption,

to

this day,

to

my knowledge, no other single book

has been solely devoted

to

this

particular theme. Dabney s

Systematic

Theology

refers his readers

on this subject to Francis Turretin, .

whose lenctic

Theology

is now back

in print john Owen, and Dick,

whom we take to be the Rev. John

Dick, a former minister and

professor of theology in Scotland,

whose Lectures

On

Theology which

were printed in 1836 included a

chapter on adoption. Southern

Presbyterian Theologian and

preacher,

B.M.

Palmer preached a

sermon on adoption entitled,

Adoption Conferred By Christ, based

onJohn 1:12, (Printed in

The

Sermons

ofB.M. Palmer).

Due to the number of expositions

on the Westminster Standards in this

century, the doctrine

of

adoption has

perhaps received wider notoriety

in

Reformed and Presbyterian churches

which teach or preach through the

Standards.

John Murray, following

the Reformed

Ordo Salutis

included a

chapter on adoption in his

Redemption

Accomplished

and

Applied.

Murray expresses the same attitude

toward the doctrine of adoption as

the Southern Presbyterian

Theologians. Adoption,

he

wrote, is

distinct act

carrying

with it its

own

peculiar

privileges,

pg. 132.

We

are

also gratified to see

that].

I Packer in

his

Concise

Theology includes a

chapter on adoption and an insert on

adoption based on Packers book is

included in the Geneva Study Bible as

well.

Today we are in danger of

neglecting a far more Significant

doctrine, the doctrine John Calvin

called cor ecclesia, the heart of the

church, IE., the Reformed doctrine

of predestination. The late minister

in the CRC and RCA R.B. KUiper,

author of The Glorious Body of

Christ,

sounded an alarm concerning the

decline

of

Calvinism in Reformed

churches as early as 1926.

In

his

book, As

To Being Reformed,

published that year,

he

wrote

that

he

had become impressed by two

things: THE IMMANENT PERIL IN

WHICH WE AMERICAN

CALVINISTS ARE OF LOSING OUR

PRECIOUS REFORMED HERITAGE

AND THE SUPREME IMPORTANCE

OF HOLDING IT FAST. He wrote,

There are Reformed churches' which

do

not

hesitate

to receive into

their

fellowship such

Christians

as

have

little

or

no knowledge

of

Reformed doctrines,

to say nothing of positive Reformed

convictions It has come about that the

things in which

our

fathers me nt us to

differ from

other

denominations have

sunk

almost out

ofSight, and that one

can only say

that our ministers

are

orthodox,

in

large

and

general way,

on the

great doctrines common to all

orthodox

churches, pp. 35, 37. If

those Southern Presbyterian

Theologians were concerned

that

the

doctrine of

adoption

was not

receiving

due

appreciation, I have no

doubt as

to

what

would

they

think

. of the theological state of the

Presbyterian church today. I doubt

they would even recognize many of

the churches as Reformed.

Girardeau s chapter on adoption

in his Discussions of Theological

Questions,

almost a hundred pages

in

length,

is

divided into two almost

equal parts, first, a consideration

of

whether

man

in any sense can be

considered a son of God by creation,

and second, the doctrine of adoption

in the scheme of redemption.

In the first section, Girardeau

notes that Dr. Candlish, a Mr.

Wright, and even Dr. Thornwell

maintain that man is not a son of

God by creation but only a subject, a

servant. Whether or

not

Adam

would be elevated to a relation of

sonshi p depended upon Adam s

fidelity during the trial aSSigned to

him. Adam was,

in

their view, only

potentially a son of God.

Girardeau takes exception to this

position. He wrote, Until recent

times the consensus of

June{July 998

THE

COUNSEL

of

halcedon

53


3/7

commentators and theologians has

with but

few exceptions, been in

favor of the doctrine that mari was

by nature in som sense a son of

God. This of course does

not

settle

the question,

but

it creates a

presumption which can

be

rebutted

only

by

considerations

ofthe

most

convincing character. To

my

mind,

this presumpt ion has

not

been

rebutted

by

the ingeriious arguments

which have been adduced to the

contrary. t seems

to

me clear that

the

genealogical table in Luke. affirms

Adam s filial relation to God

in

some

real sense; that the parable of the

prodigal son proceeds

upon

the

assumption

that man was a son of

God,

and not

merely a servant,

before his apostasy; and that Paul s

argument at

Mars Hill

in

which he

alleged

the

testimony of Aratus and

Cleanthes to the fact of mans filial

relation to God is dealt with

violently when it is treated as simply

an

argumentum ad hominem ... .It

would seem that the condition to

which we

are restored by

regeneration or n w creation is on

which man had, in a certain degree,

previously held, and which

he had

lost, pg. 430-3l.

Giradeau at the conclusion

of

this

first half addresses the question, -

Does

the

sinner in his unregenerate

estate sustain,

in

any sense, a filial

relation to God? Legally,

he

wrote,

he

does not . His sin has disinherited

him

.. spiritually he does not.

He

has

lost his

holy

nature ... He has

abandoned

his Fathers house .. and

has become a child of disobedience,

a child of

the

devil, a child of wrath.

Is, then anything left of the filial

relation? s God in any sense, the

Father of

unregenerate sinners? The

fact of creation cannot be changed

by mans apostasy. The relation

springing from creation simply is

unaltered. The natural image or God

Originally stamped upon mans soul

is not like the moral image, entirely

obliterated. There is still some

natural analogy between

man and

his maker -

an

analogy which

grounded Paul s argument on Mars

Hill to show the hideous absurdity of

idolatry, pg. 472. This is

not

to be

confused, however, with the liberal

view of the universal Fatherhood of

God

and

the Brotherhood of Man

which Webb addressed

at

length, as

we shall see.

The second half of Girardeau s

study treats the subject of adoption

from the perspective of redemption.

Here Girardeau expresses his

disappointment with Turretin, who,

as we

noted earlier; had been

followed by Charles Hodge and

R.

L.

Dabney, in regarding the docttine of

adoption only as a constituent

element of justification. Rather, he

states and defends the idea that

adoption has a distinctive and

peculiar Value of its own. He

compares regeneration and

justification to adoption

td

demonstrate that adoption should

not

be

regarded simply as a subset of

justification but is distinguishable

from the benefits of both

regeneration and justification. He

wrote that regeneration is not

conditioned

upon

faith since faith is

the result of regeneration.

Paul tells

the Galatians, however, that they are

children of God by faith

in

Christ

Jesus.

The

conclusion is that there

is

another

sense in

which

weare

-the

children

of

God other than hy

regeneration.

We are the

adopted

children

of

God by

faith in Christ

Jesus.

While

faith

does not condition

regeneration

it does condition

adoption; just

as while

faith does not

condition regeneration

it certainly

does

justification pg. 474.

Regeneration

he states, makes us Gods

children;

adoption

recognizes and treats

us as

his

children

legally

admits

us ihto

the

family of

God

and

invests

us with

all

the

rights

privileges and

immunities

of

his

children

pg. 475.

Girardeau also argued that

adoption is nOt to be confounded

with justification.

In

justification the

relation specifically regarded is that of

suhject or servant; in adoption it is that

of a

child pg. 479. Both justification

and adoption presuppose

regeneration hut justification legally

and formally introduces the

regenerated

54 THE COUNSEL

of

Chalcedon nuneauly 1998

sinner into the society

of a

righteous

universe as

a

community or polity;

adoption legally and

formally

introduces the regenerated sinner into

the

society

of

Gods

family. Justification

confers upon him the

rights

of a

righteous

man; adoption

the rights

of a

child pg. 479.

John

Murray takes the same

position: It is particularly important

to remember that it (adoption) is not

the same as justification or

regeneration. Too frequently it has

been regarded as simply an aspect of

justification or as another way of

stating the privilege conferred by

regen-eration. It is much more than

either or

both

of these acts f grace.

Justification means

our

acceptance with God as.righteous

and

the bestowal

ofthe

title to

everlasting life. Regeneration is the

renewing of our hearts after the

image of God. But these blessings in

themselves, however precious they

are, do not indicate what is

conferred by the act of adoption.

By

adoption the redeemed become sons

and daughters of the Lord God

Almighty; they are introduced into

and given the privileges of Gods

family. Neither j)1stification nor

regeneration expresses precisely that,

Redemption

Accomplished and

Applied

pg.132.

Webb s treatment of adoption,

almost twice as long as Girardeau s

(188 pages),;s athoro)1gh. spiritual,

devotional, and docttinal exposition

of the subject. No doubthe stood

on his father-in-laws shoulders in

advancing the doctrine of adoption.

The first chapter

of

his book, The

Reformed

Doctrine

of Adoption.

logically states and defends the

importarice of the doctrine

of

adoption. Like Girardeau, he noted

that the doctrine

of adoption

has

heen handled with

a

meagerness

entirely

out

of

proportion to

its

intrinsic

importance which allows

it

only a

parenthetical

place in the system of

evangelical truth pg. 17.

Webb sets out in the first chapter

to prove the importance of the

doctrine of adoption as a distinct


4/7

and separate locus in theology on

the basis

of

(1) Its biblicalness, (2)

Its preciousness,

(3)

Its services to

the system of Christian faith, and (4)

Its polemical value

as

a protection

against the fallacious conclusions

and implications of a sentimental

theology.

As

you read the following from

Webb's first chapter you will find

yourself rejoicing in the glorious and

comforting doctrine of adoption,

convicted of having had an

inadequate view of your sonship in

Christ, being reminded that

as

Christians we are sons in the

kingdom and family of God.

You

will also see how sentimental

thinking in theology easily and

quickly turns to heresy. In his day,

Webb battled the newly appearing

doctrine of the Universal Fatherhood

of God and the universal brotherhood of

man. While we have perhaps been

thoroughly and sufficiently warned

against this

view

in our day, we

are

nevertheless still subject today to

falling into sentimental theology,

sentimental theology

in

terms of the

universal atonement ,

for

example.

We trust that you will finish reading

this article. We have saved the best

til last

The following is from

The

Reformed

Doctrine of Adoption

by

R A

Webb, Chapter

I The

Importance ofAdoption.

As

an

introduction to the following section

he wrote,

There

are reasons founded

upon truth and

fact

which

not

only

warrant but fairly

demand

that

adoption

shall be

signalized and

developed

as distinctive and

precious

article

of the Christian

faith: Here is

what he wrote:

1. Adoption

is

a Biblical

term

and

connotes a Biblical idea. The

Spirit was not trifling when He

inspired its use

as

one

of

the verbal

symbols through which He would

communicate the mind of God to

man. The apostle defines

it as

the

very goal of

the

gracious purpose

of

God concerning sinners: haVing

predestinated us unto the adoption

of children by Jesus Christ, (Eph.

1:5). He tells us that it was the very

blessing which God aimed to secure

when, in the fullness of time, he sent

forth His Son into the world: to

redeem them that were

under

the

law, that we might receive the

adoptions of sons (Gal. 4:5).

As

the

lsraelites were chosen from among

all the nations of the earth, and

adopted into the family

of

God as

the highest distinction and privilege

which could be conferred upon

them, so to the true and spiritual

Israel pertaineth the adoption and

the glory, and the covenants, and the

giving of

the law, and the service,

and the promises (Rom. 9:4) and the

SCriptures represent the whole

created universe as

groaning and

travailing in pain, agonizing in

expectation of some impending

event, to wit, the manifestation of

the sons of God: through the Spirit

of adoption (Rom. 8:14-23).

A

doctrine, then which stands so

intimately and fundamentally related

to predestination, to the atonement,

to spiritual life, and to the

consummation

and

perfection of the

entire univers e. possesses a,Biblical

importance, which renders it

improper for theology to overlook it

altogether, or to depress it to a

subordinate and parenthetical place

in the scheme of saving truth. There

is a sense

in

which it is to be the

crown and glory of the entire

redemptive process. The admission

of sinful men, through the grace of

adoption, into the family of God,

with all the rights and privileges

of

sons

in

His house, is,

in

a lofty

sense, the culmination and climax of

the blessings of redemption.

2.

The intrinsic

preciousness

of

the paternal relation of God

to

His

people and their corresponding

filial relation

to

Him, creates a

very high claim for adoption. The

Bible does reveal God

as

the Father

of His people, and proclaims

Christians to be the children of God;

and this article in the evangelical

system has ever been pointed to as

one

of

the mos t attractive and

inspiring features

of

the Gospel. The

conception

of

God as Father is the

most charming and transporting

thought

which

ever enters

into

the

bosom of man;

and the

correlative

conception

of

himself

as the son of

God is the most

soothing

and

satisfying thought which a sinner

ever finds himself indulging

concerning himself. Philip said to

our Lord, Show

us

the Father, and

it

sufficeth us (John 14:8). It

would

satisfy Philip, it would satisfy any

man,

if

he could grasp

in

consciousness and realize in

experience that God was his Father.

When we approach

Him

in

the

intensity

of

worship, we

gather

up

all the sweetness involved

in

fatherhood, and all the tenderness

wrapped in sonship; when

calamities overcome us and troubles

come

in

like a flood, we lift

up

our

cry and stretch

out our

arms to God

s a compassionate Father; wh n the

angel of death climbs

in at

the

window of

our homes, and bears

away the object

of our

love,

we

find

our dearest solace

in

reflecting

upon

the fatherly heart of God; when we

look across the swelling flood,

it

is

our Fathers house on the

light-covered hills beyond the stars

which cheers

us

amid the crumbling

of the earthly tabernacle.

The paternity of God, the filiation

of believers, the fraternity

of

all the

saints, the household of faith, the

family of God

in

heaven and earth,

make a circle

of

domestic ideas,

which the Christian values above all

the gold

of

Egypt, above all the gold

of the world. But

it

is by the grace

of

adoption that any

sinner

comes into

all this glOrious heritage

of

paternal

affection

and

filial privilege.

To

bring

back a man as a disobedient subject,

and reinstate him in heavenly

citizenship, and confer upon

him

the

immunities

and

duties of a servant

and let

him

take his place as a

ministering spirit about the burning

throne

of

God - this would be an

exhibi tion

0

f grace, and mercy is

banked upon mercy, and love is laid

over upon love with

more than

a

ten-fold thickness,

when

the sinner

n n ~ n l y 1998 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon

55


5/7

is reclaimed, and transplanted in the

bosom of

the heavenly Father, made

an

inmate

in

the eternal and fadeless

home of God,

and

appointed an heir

to all that glory which is

incorruptible, undefiled and that

fades not away. One

would

seem

compelled to say as matter of

course

adoption

ought

to

be singled out and

given

conspicuous

consideration in any

system ofevangelical

truth.

3.

Adoption deserves

to

be

magnified because of

the

distinctive office which

it

performs

in the scheme

of

saving

grace. Man began his career as, at

once, the subject and the son of

God; as a member

of

the divine

kingdom

on the

one hand

and as a

member of the divine household on

the

other. At the beginning God

stood

related to his

human

creature

as.

his Lord and Ruler as his Father

and Friend.

In

both relations man

was

put

upon probation: his

standing

in Gods paternal regard was

tested at

the

same time and in the

same manner in which his standing

in

Gods magisterial favor was

put

upon trial. In both relations he

sinned and

fell,

at

the same time: at

once he lost his standing in Gods .

rectorial regard as a citizen.ofhis

kingdom,

and

his

standing in Gods

paternal affection as a

son

in his

house. After the rall, the sinners

status is precisely that of a

proscribed and outlawed citizen of

the kingdom,

and

a banished and

disinherited son of the house of God.

Today he is under the scowl

of

God

as a righteous judge and under the

frown

of

God as a benevolent Father.

The superlative desideratum for hito

is restoration in

both

relations:

res toration

to

is _position in

the

kingdom

of

God as a legal citizen

with all the rights and privileges

of

citizenship. and restorati.on to the

fatherly bosom

of

god with all the

rights

and

privileges

of

sonship in

his house and home. The

momentous

practical question which

confronts him is, How can lost

citizenship

be

recovered on the one

hand and how can lost sonship be

regained on the other hand? To this

double question the Gospel

speCifically speaks, and makes the

answer which everlastingly and

gloriously solves this double

problem. It points

to

jUstification as

that act of grace, which terminating

upon the condemned and outcast

citizen, reinstates him in the favor of

God

as

a Lord and Master, and

to

adoption as that parallel act of grace

which, terminating

upon

the

expelled and discarded son, restores

him

to

the fatherly bosom of God as

his Father and Friend. It is the office

of the evangelical grace of

justification to restore

to

the sinner .

the lost citizenship, and

it

is the

office

of

adoption to give back to the

sinner his lost sonship. Jl)stification

is that act of grace whereby we sinful

subjects

of

Gods government are

received into the number of, and

given a right and title to, all the

privileges of the kingdom of God.

Adoption is that act of grace,

whereby we fallen sinners are

received into the number of , and are

given all the rights and privileges of

the sons of God. The one terminates

upon the servile relation; the other

terminates

upon

the filial relation.

The one restores citizenship; the

other, sonship.

In

the fall the sinner not only lost

the rights and the footing of a child,

but he lost also the heart and the ,

spir it of a child. That is, he lost at

once his filial position and his filial

nature. He now stands in need of

some scheme for regaining both - his

filial status and his filial spirit.

Regeneration is that act of saving

grace which at least incipiently

reimparts to him his lost filial

disposition, while adoption is that

act of grace which restores to him

his filial standing. By the one, he is

given the heart of a child,

by

the

other, he is given the rights of a

child. Both are unspeakably

important - to have sonship as a law

right and prerogative on the one

hand, and to have an appropriate

filial disposition to correspond

to

the

legal filial status.

So while adoption coincictes with

6

THE OUNSEL of Chalcedon Juntauly 1998

justifica\ion at one point and with

regeneration at another, because the

scheme of grace however n l y z e ~ in

thought, is in strict reality one and

indivisible, it is eminently helpful in

the comprehension of the scheme of

salvation to treat adoption as a ,

separate article of the Christian faith.

The items of redemption

fall

apart into two classes - those Which

are external, and those which are

intewal, that is, those things which

being done for sinners affect their .

legal standing before God, and those

things which being done in them,

affect their subjective and internal

moral natwes. There

aR

two

changes which grace makes in the

sinner s. relation to God - .the one

change is .effected

by

justification

and,the other by adoption, the one

Gustifieation) confirming him as a

member of the kingdom of God, and

the other (adoption) confirming him

as a member of the faE;lilyof God.

And there are likewise and

correspondingly two changes in his

nature. .- the one effected

by

regeneration and the other by

sanctification; the one initiatory of a

new and holy life, and the other

(sanctification) gradually developing

what is begun in regeneration into a

completeness which has nothing

short of the character

.of

God

as.

its

model and goal. In 5criptwe these

objective elements ofredeml?tion are

symbolized by blood, and t :lese

subjective factors are symboljzed by

water. TheolOgical science has long

ago

vindicated the distinction ,

between regeneration and

sanctification; it would be conducive

to clearness if the distinction

between justification and adoption

could be as distinctly recognized.

4. The doctrine of

adoption

is

important for its polemical value

as a protection against the

fallacious conclusions and

implications of the sentimental

theology. While I thus complain at

theology s comparative neglect of the

great doctrine of adoption, I am

not.

unmindful of the fact

~ h t a,

class of

religious writers and preachers has


6/7

arisen today, which has made itself

popular and prominent by laying

down the universal

Fatherhood of

God and its correlative the universal

childhood

of sinners and its implicate,

the universal

brotherhood

of

man

and

its remoter inference, the solidarity

of the human race, as the theological

discoveries of the present age, and as

the fundamental principles upon

which it rests its most important

te chings nd conclusions in

religion. These phrases are all of

comparatively recent origin: You

never encounter them in the older

books on our library shelves. But in

the present day you hear them

aboundingly in pulpit and pew, in

the forum and on the rostrum,

encounter them

in

counting house

and on the street, by the domestic

fireside and on the academic

campus, and you read them in the

religious literature which is pouring

from the press. Everywhere these

ideas are passing current, and radical

conclusions are being drawn from

them with perfect cocksureness.

They have become the genetic

principles of a reconstruction which

goes under the name of the New

Theology. God is held to be the

natural Father of

all

men, and all

men

are held

to

be the native

children of God.

All

redemptional

and providential actions are assumed

to take their rise in God's fatherly

heart, and

to

have all their

development from the divine

paternity. In making atonement by

the death of His Son, and in giving it

an application by His Spirit, God

is

assumed

to

be actuated by those

motives which are normally and

naturally responsive to a father's

concern for his children. The whole

Gospel is construed as but a scheme

for the reconciling of a Father to His

estranged children.

All

the ideas of

salvation are cast into the language

and figures of the domestic fireside.

The filial relation is made to

supersede the servile. This view is

not restricted to devotional and

homiletical literature, but finds

expression in those with scientific

exactitude. By way of illustrating and

emphasizing some of the deleterious

influences of the doctrine of God's

natural Fatherhood of the race

as

distinguished from the evangelical

doctrine of adoption, let us indicate

some of the more radical and

reconstructive uses which the New

Theology makes of this postulate.

(1) We are told by some that

the fatherly .. natural hunger for

hnman children

in

the heart of

God, moved Him

to

bring

our

race

into

being. The Deity is, therefore,

the natural Father of men, and men

are the natural children of the Deity:

an immanent paternal yearning for

human offspring is the central cause

of the very creation of a human race.

Principal A

M

Fairbairn states it

in

this way: Man

is

God's son not

simply because God's creature but

because of the God whose creature

he is. Fatherhood did not come

through creation, but rather creation

came because of Fatherhood. The

last word of revelation, we are told,

is not that God is a moral sovereign,

but that He is a sovereign Father.

(Curtis). The whole influence of the

re soning nd exposition

is

to

magnify his paternal relation on the

other. The very genesis of the race is

traced to a paternal instinct in the

bosom of the heavenly Father, and

all subsequent dealings with the race

must be construed in consistency

with this fundamental and

principiant relation.

(2) This school of thinkers, in

the next

place, use the premise of

the natural and

urtiversal

Fatherhood of God as a foundation

for

the

doctrine that the divine

government s p tern listic

n ts

nature and from this postulate

they

draw

out

and

apply

aU

the

most

extreme

and

violent imports

of

an

exaggerated paternalism,

and

use

them to

define God's dealings

with the race. We are told that

God's administration over this world

is not strictly a moral government,

but a paternal discipline. The human

being is called upon to think ofGod

not as an almighty King upon the

throne of this vast universe, but

as

a

heavenly Father dealing with men

according to the principles and

suggestions of a fatherly heart and a

paternal concern. He s taught to

think

of

himself not so much as a

subject

of

moral law and

government, as a son n

his

Father s

house with all the rights and

privileges and immunities which a

son naturally enjoys in having

dealings with his father. The

distinction between moral

government on the one hand and

moral disdpline on the other is

profound and fundamental and a

theology whidl ignores this

distinction, or which merges the one

in the other

is

radically defective in

its very concept of the nature of the

relations between man and God.

t

s vital to theology and the Gospel

t see, appredate

u

nd

preserve

this fundamental distinction.

(3) This

doctrine

of

paternalism in the third place,

has

a hurtful

bearing

upon the

doctrine of sin. If God be only a

Father, and man only His Son, then

offences against God are filial

disobedience merely, and are to be

dealt with as such. Crimes

committed g inst sovereign st te

have moral turpitude very different

in ch r cter from those offences

which are committed against a

father's authority in his house.

t

is

one thing to fall under the

displeasure of a law-court, and quite

another and different thing to fall

under the disfavor of a parent. f all

sins could be reduced to the

category of filial offenses their nature

and their treatment would be

seriously affected. t is therefore

highly important that the judicial

prerogatives of the Deity be

maintained as contrasted

with

his

parental rights.

(4) This doctrine of

paternalism in the fourth place,

seriously affects all our views

of

human

suffering There

are

two

sorts

of

human suffering-

punitive and disciplinary. The one

is punishment strictly speaking, and

the other is chastisement. The one is

JuneIJuly

1998

t

THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon

t

57


7/7

imposed by a judge, and the other

by a father. One is intended to

satisfy justice, the other is, intended

to satisfy love. It is the purpose of

the one to make the subject of

government ache because he

deserves to suffer, it is the purpose

of

the

other

to correct and make

better the child

upon

whom

it

is

inflicted. f God be only a Father,

then there is

no

suffering in time or

eternity

which

is

not

remedial and

corrective

n its

nature We can

easily see

how

the theory reduces all

the divine dispensations to the

category

of

remedial and beneficient

chastisements, which must come to

their en as soon as ref miation is

effected. Hence, under paternal

diScipline there could

not

lOgically

be any

such

thing as eternal

punishment, and it is the avowed

contention ofthe school to thus

eliminate this awful tenet.

5) Then

this

doctrine

of

divine

paternalism, in the fifth place,

does away

with

the

necessity of

the

atonement. No father is

compelled, by the very nature of the

problem which

he

has to solve,

to

exact a strict penal satisfaction before

he

can

fold his disobedient child to

his bosom. A father can forgive

without atonement: it lies within his

prerogatives as the head of his

~

family to act according to his sense

of love for all his children. f he sees

fit to pardon the offences of his

children, it is the concern of no one

but

himself. So the new theology

employs this tenet of the universal

Fatherhood of God so as to

reconStruct the whole doctrine of the

atonement.

We

are told that the

death

of

Christ could

not

have been

to placate a Father towards His

children, but

it

was for the purpose

of placating children towards their

Father. Jesus did not die, in the

thought of this school, to procure

God's fatherly love for sinful men,

but

to reveal that love

to

men, and

thereby melt them into

reconciliation With their heavenly

Parent.

6) Conversion, then, we are

told,

is not the return of

a

proscribed

and outlawed

sinner to

his Maker and Judge, with an

atonement in

his

hand which

satisfies all the claims of broken

law,

but

it

is the return of

a

prodigal son to the bosom of his

Father, to be received

by

a Parent

whose

spirit

has long

been

breaking

with

desire for the

home-coming

of

His

foolish and

wayward child. Regeneration is not

the change in the governing

disposition of Man's moral and

upset nature,

but it

is simply the

result of sweet appeals of the Gospel

to the filial instincts in the bosom of

God's child. God is not strict to

mark iniquity, but a kind and

indulgent Father, eager

to

overlook

the foibles and besetting sins of His

human progeny.

(7) Going over to eschatology.

The

paternalists tell us that Gods

fatherly

nature

binds Him to an

eternal concern

in

the welfare of

His

human

children. It was His

fatherly heart which brought them

into being; it was His fatherly heart

which provided atonement by the

death of His Son;

it

was His fatherly

heart which sent His Spirit into the

world;

it

was His fatherly heart

which built for them a glorious

home and house in heaven; and that

this fatherly concern should cease at

the death of any of His human

children is simply preposterous. If

God be a Father, and man His

natural son, His interest

in

the

salvation of the race cannot be

restricted to this life; He must follow

them every one beyond the grave.

The opportunities of refonnation

and return

must

remain open

as

long

as there is one of His children

unreconciled to Him His diScipline

of them must continue throughout

the eternities until they are every one

brought into His arms.

Hence

paternalism lOgically implies the

doctrine of continued probation after

death; and more, the eternal

probation of all men until all are

ultimately saved. The divine

happiness is contingent upon this

result. No father could be fully

58 I THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon I June{July 1998

blessed as long as one of his precious

children was estranged, from him,

and in distress. Hence the Deity, just

because He is the Father of men,

, must eventually save all men, else He

will be bereaved and miserable to

the extent that any of them are lost.

According to the paternalists there

cannot be any finally lost human

beings: the very idea would make

God an inconsolable mourner at the

gates of hell. No Father could send

His children to hell.

When we consider that adoption

is a Biblical doctrine, when we

reflect upon tHe preciousness of the

filial rehition; when we recall the

distinctive office of adoption

in

an

, evangelical scheme of salvation; and

when we remind ourselves

of

how

radically reconstructive is the

doctrine of the natural paternity of

Deity; it becomes very obvious that

the evangelical doctrine of adoption

ought to be taken up by theology,

and expounded for the sake of

gospel truth, for the sake of the

comfort which

it

is capable

of

giving

to

the saints of God, for the sake of

the gospel scheme of theology, and

for the purpose of safeguarding

against fallacious and hurtful

inferences. These thoughts make it

loom

as

the department of

evangeli,cal truth which today needs

clearing most of all. The

truth

about

the paternal relation of God is

involved.

- I have argued the importance

of the evangelical doctrine of

adoption, 1) from its Biblicalness,

(2) from its preciousness, (3)

from its services

to the

system

of Christian faith, and (4)

, frbm its polemical value as a

protection against the fallacious

conclusions and implications of the

sentimental theology. These all

conspire to fonn a warrant, and to

create a demand for the clear

explication of this great tenet of the

Christian Faith. n

1998 Issue 3 - The Contribution of the Southern Presbyterian Theologians to the Doctrine of Adoption...

Documents

Transcript of 1998 Issue 3 - The Contribution of the Southern Presbyterian Theologians to the Doctrine of Adoption...