|
Abstract
Table of Contents
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI
Part VII
Part VIII
Part IX
|
Vol.5: The Virgin Birth and the Incarnation
Part II
THE NATURE OF THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT
Table of Contents
Preface
Introduction
Chapter 1. Some Considerations of
Theology and Genetics
Chapter 2. The Testimony of Tradition
Chapter 3. The Testimony of Scripture
Appendix 1. The Origin
of the Germ Cells
2. The
Importance of the Cytoplasm
Publishing History:
1958: Doorway Paper No. 25, published privately by Arthur C. Custance
1977: Part II in The Virgin Birth and the Incarnation, vol.5, The
Doorway Papers Series, Zondervan Publishing Company.
1997: Arthur Custance Online Library (HTML)
2001 2nd Online Edition (corrections, design revisions)
 pg
1 of 6 
At the
last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.
Proverbs 23:32
PREFACE
SOME TIME AGO
in discussing the subject matter of this paper with a friend,
he said to me -- and to some others subsequently -- "This
terrifies me." I think I understand what he meant. How far
can we enter into the study of mysteries like the Incarnation
and the Virgin Birth without trespassing into that which is far
too sacred? It is well to tread very carefully here, and with
reverence and humility. Yet Scripture has much to say on these
subjects that escapes the casual reader entirely. And God gave
us minds as well as hearts, so surely we should exercise them
both. We should worship, and "wonder" is part of it.
Though
literalism came into disrepute through over-indulgence by some
of its strongest supporters, it is still very wonderful how much
may be discovered by taking the Word of God literally and bringing
to bear upon it the findings of modern science. When the language
of science is quite specific we assume it means what it says.
Why not do the same with Scripture?
So this Paper
and the others which are naturally related to it are committed
to the Lord with a deep sense of unworthiness to speak of such
things, but also with real thankfulness of heart that such things
may be studied so very fruitfully in this way.
May the Lord
help the reader to remember only what is glorifying to Him, and
to forget all else.
pg.2
of 6
INTRODUCTION
THE CHRISTIAN faith
is a system of thought, logically coherent and composed
of a number of contributing elements each of which is essential
to the whole. It is an organic unity, sensitive to the corruption
or distortion of even the least part of it. Although it is convenient
to speak of the "Articles of Faith" as so many Fundamentals,
it is really the system as a whole that is fundamental. It is
a mistake to attach greater importance to some elements, for
this fragments the system and may lead to neglect or denial of
others equally important, thus rendering the structure illogical.
Theology is a system of reasoning,
demanding the most exact obedience to the laws of logic,
including the law of contradiction. But since the Faith has been
broken down into a series of sometimes rather loosely connected
fragments with their relationships either unstated or misunderstood,
the whole system has been looked upon by many thoughtful people
as rather confusing, unreasonable, and arbitrary. It is true
that for teaching purposes it helps to be able to consider the
Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, Vicarious Sacrifice, and so forth,
under separate headings. But when the connecting links are not
made logically clear, the apparently arbitrary character of the
Christian faith is a prime reason why thoughtful people do not
stop to consider it seriously. It is important to note that it
is the absence of the links rather than the presence of the elements
which is the stumbling block. It therefore is most important
to be able to fill in the connecting links which knit these elements
into a single meaningful whole. It is sad to say that while many
people believe the Fundamentals with great conviction, they are
not at all sure how they fit together nor why each is essential
to all the rest.
pg
3 of 6
The
Fundamentals are given by Revelation, but the Links are theologically
created by reason. However, historical events have led many earnest
Christians to suspect the use of reason. As a result the links
have fallen away by default, and for many people only the Fundamentals
remain. Such people strictly have no reason for the faith
that is in them. But as J. Gresham Machen put it: (1)
The true way in which to examine
a spiritual movement is in its logical relations; logic is the
great dynamic and the logical implications of any way of thinking
are sooner or later certain to be worked out.
If we abandon
any one of the basic elements of the evangelical Christian faith
we might as well cease to try to defend the system as a whole,
because it has ceased to be logically coherent. It is quite hopeless
to defend the fact of the Virgin Birth and the Incarnation if
we abandon the record of the Fall of man as given in Genesis
and the Trinity as revealed throughout the Bible. But if we relinquish
the fact of the Virgin Birth, the possibility of Vicarious Sacrifice
must be surrendered. And if we deny the bodily resurrection of
the Lord, we have no proof whatever that His sacrifice was acceptably
vicarious at all.
Whatever else in his theology we
may challenge, Karl Barth was unquestionably right in insisting
that the creation of man in such a form that the Fall of man
took place as it did, was an essential step in the revelation
of God's redeeming love; and that the story of Eden must be viewed
as preparatory to Calvary -- and in this sense conceived after
the Plan of Redemption was formulated. (2) That is to say, in the mind of God the exhibition
of His love at Calvary was the prime element in His decision
to create man at all, and the creation of man in the form in
which it is revealed to have taken place was a necessary, but
dependent, consideration. Calvary preceded Eden, the Plan of
Redemption preceded the Fall of man from God's point of view.
This means that the Crucifixion
was not an emergency measure taken by God to offset an unfortunate
incident in Eden. What happened to the First Adam has everything
to do with what was achieved by the Last Adam. Tampering with
the former makes the
1. Machen, J. Gresham: quoted by J. I. Packer,
Fundamentalism and the Word of God, Inter-Varsity Press,
London, 1958, pp.26, 27.
2. Barth, Karl: this view is elucidated by N. H. Ridderbos
in Is There a Conflict Between Genesis and Natural Science?
(Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1957, p.14), where he says, referring
to Barth's view, "To proceed from creation to original sin,
from original sin to actual sin, and from actual sin to grace
is a wrong method in dogmatics. The true method of a believing
theology is the reverse."
pg.4
of 6
latter meaningless. It
is here that the theological implications of evolution must be
seriously faced by the Christian believer, regardless of the
scientific evidence. This is not only a theological necessity,
but also a logical one. H. G. Wells saw it clearly: (3)
It was only slowly that the
general intelligence of the Western World was awakened to two
disconcerting facts: firstly, that the succession of life in
the geological record did not correspond to the acts of six days
of creation, and secondly, that the record in harmony with the
mass of biological facts, pointed away from the Bible assertions
of a separate creation of each species straight towards a genetic
relation between all forms of life, in which even man was
included! The importance of this last issue to the existing
doctrinal system was manifest. If all the animals and man had
been evolved in this ascendant manner, then there had been no
first parents, no Eden, and no Fall. And if there had been no
Fall, then the entire historical fabric of Christianity, the
story of the first sin and the reason for an atonement, upon
which the current teaching based Christian emotion and morality,
collapses like a house of cards [emphasis mine].
In many respects
the children of this world are wiser in their own generation
than the children of Light -- at least they are frequently far
more logical. But Christian scholars have, of course, made the
same observations on many occasions. James Orr expressed it this
way: (4)
I do not think it can be sufficiently
emphasized that Christian truth forms an organism -- has a unity
and coherence which cannot be arbitrarily disturbed in any of
its parts without the whole undergoing injury. Conversely, the
proof that any doctrine fits in essentially to that organism
-- is an integral part of it -- is one of the strongest evidences
we can have of its correctness.
Notice that
he says "the strongest evidences" -- not proof.
In discussing what is sometimes referred
to as the Medieval Synthesis, John Randall points out that once
the edifice had been built the test of truth was thenceforth
not verification by experiment but facility of inclusion within
the system. (5)
Consequently, when certain scientific knowledge which could not
be reconciled with it was finally established beyond a doubt,
the whole system was challenged and brought into disrepute. But
there is also a converse of all this, as Carl Lindegren observed
recently: (6) "Data
that confirm a well established theory are generally accepted
without critical evaluation. " It is to be feared that the
greatest contemporary challenge to
3. Wells, H. G., Outline of History,
vol.2, Macmillan, New York, 1920, p.419.
4. Orr, James, God's Image in Man, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids,
1948, p.260.
5. Randall, John, The Making of the Modern Mind, Houghton
Mifflin, Boston, 1940, revised edition.
6. Lindegren, Carl C., "The Stability of the Gene,"
Science, July 6, 1956, p.27.
pg.5
of 6
Christian theology, evolution -- or
the Modern Synthesis as Huxley has termed it -- has tended to
display the same inflexibility. Anything which supports it is
apt to get a ready hearing, and anything which contradicts it
tends to be minimized or ignored. This characteristic of all
such comprehensive views is not the fault of the views themselves,
whether Christian or non-Christian, but evidence of a quality
of human thought. For man seeks finality and when he is assured
of it, he develops a peculiar blindness to anything which challenges
it. Such comprehensive views, though they are mental creations,
end up by becoming prisons of the minds which create them. The
Fundamentalist and Evolutionist alike become trapped in their
own systems and equally unable to reconsider their faith unless
aware of this fact.
This is very relevant to what has
been said above about the organic nature of Christian faith,
for there is a tendency here also, having once achieved the synthesis
by establishing the links between the Fundamentals, to insist
upon it as a touchstone of truth, accepting uncritically that
which is concordant with it and rejecting uncritically all that
seems to challenge it, no matter how much evidence there is to
support the challenge. As long as one recognizes this inherent
weakness in every unified scheme of thought, the possibility
will remain, should it become necessary, of modifying the scheme
without destroying the fundamentals of it. Notice that we do
not suggest any modification of the Fundamentals, but only of
the logical system by which they are rendered an organic whole.
These remarks are made because the writer is convinced that no
matter how satisfying a particular system is to oneself, it is
not likely to be the final one by any means, though the truth
of the Fundamentals which it weaves together is most certainly
final.
pg.6
of 6
Copyright © 1988 Evelyn White. All rights
reserved
Previous Chapter Next
Chapter
|
