mullins religionch10

7/29/2019 Mullins ReligionCh10

1/11

Chapter 10. Creation

1. Definition

BY creation is meant all that exists which is not God. This includes nature and

man and all other forms of being other than God himself. The problem of

creation is one of the most difficult of all those with which the unaided reason

of man deals. Modern physical science has given it acute form in its doctrine

of the transformation of energy. Everything in physical nature is the

transformed result of something prior in the causal series. The outcome is an

endless regress of physical causes. Through it we never rise to a spiritual

cause.

At this point is seen clearly the contrast (though not contradiction) between the

method of physical science and that of religion and theology. In the former

causation is expressed in terms of matter and energy; in the latter, in terms of

spirit, freedom, and personality. The difference between physical and free

causation must be held clearly in mind.

The Christian doctrine of creation, then, is not dependent on the conclusions ofphysical science as these may relate to the origin of the universe. It begins

rather with the new spiritual creation of God in Christ in the redemptive

experience of Christians, and finds it easy to accept the Scripture teaching that

God created all things. In our religious experience we know ourselves as

dependent on God. We know our new life in Christ to be derived from him.

We know him as spiritual Creator and ourselves as new creatures in Christ.

We know physical nature as adapted to promote our spiritual life under Gods

guidance. We see in nature the evidence of progress toward a goal and end. Inman we see the crown of nature. In Christ and his kingdom we see the spiritual

end of God in creation. From these things we infer that the universe is

dependent on God; that he brought it into being and preserves it for his own

spiritual and holy purpose. In other words, the Christian does not pursue the

physical series of causes and effects, nor the philosophical series of logical

concepts, to prove that God created the universe. He rather pursues the

personal and spiritual series given in the religious experience of men.

The latter, however, finds strong confirmation in the scientific and rational

processes. Science confirms the view especially if we consider the

development hypothesis. Its distinctive mark is progress from lower to higher

forms. This progress implies purpose. At the beginning, the middle, and the

end this purpose implies a divine Creator of the world. At the beginning,


2/11

because the downward steps into the past carry us to a beginning in time for

the first and lowest stage of the process. Physical science expressly precludes a

self-originated beginning of all things. Hence a Creator is needed. The middle

of the process calls for a guide and Creator since the material of the universe is

used at every stage for an end above and beyond present attainment. It is thus

dependent on a beginning through an intelligent Creator. The end impliescreation, because beginnings can only be understood in the light of endings.

The outcome reveals the hidden purpose of the origin. If a spiritual kingdom of

free persons living together in eternal bonds of righteous love is the goal to

which the entire movement leads up, then that kingdom was the primary

purpose of the whole. The complete dependence of the spiritual kingdom on

the grace of God in Christ carries us back, therefore, to his creative act as the

source and origin of all things.The logical and philosophical process also confirms the view. The reason calls

for an uncaused cause of all things, which nature never yields. The human will

suggests the only solution. The will of man is in a relative sense an originating

cause, and from it we infer a spiritual first cause who brought the universe into

being.

We may sum up the Christian doctrine of creation, then, in the following

statements:

First, the universe, while distinct from God, originated in his act and is

dependent upon him.

Secondly, in creating the universe God acted freely and not under

necessity or compulsion.

Thirdly, in creating the universe God had in view a moral and spiritual

end.

Fourthly, the end of God was the communication of his own life and

blessedness to created beings.

His supreme desire was to make vast spaces for the habitation of sentient and

intelligent beings; to people these spaces with such beings, and to fill them

with the life and holiness, the blessedness and peace of his own nature. His end

was to produce a kingdom in which his own image should be reflected, in

which his own glory should appear. Fifthly, the end thus defined was an end

begun, carried forward, and to be completed in Jesus Christ. (See Col. 1:15-17;

Eph. 1: 3-5; Rom. 8:21.)
http://kjv_nt.pdf/http://kjv_nt.pdf/http://kjv_nt.pdf/http://kjv_nt.pdf/http://kjv_nt.pdf/http://kjv_nt.pdf/


3/11

2. Opposing Views

Several theories have been proposed as against the view that God called the

universe into being by his creative act.

1. A brief reference may be made to the theory that matter alone is eternal andthat all forms of mental and spiritual life are derived from matter. This ismaterialism and is rapidly passing away as a philosophic theory. It ignores all

the most significant elements of being, mind and will and conscience in man. It

has failed in every attempt to show that mind is derived from matter. It takes

the lowest form of existence and supposes that the highest are derived

therefrom It is directly contrary to all moral progress and religious and

spiritual aspirations among men.

2. The second to be noticed is dualism. It holds that there are two eternal andself-existent principles, God and matter. God did not create matter, but used it

for his ends. This theory arises out of the difficulty of conceiving how God

could bring matter into existence. There are several serious objections to it.

One is that it is a self-contradictory view. Two absolute or eternal existences

cannot be held together satisfactorily in our thought. The mind carries in itself

a fundamental demand for ultimate unity. Another objection is that the view

does not explain how God ever comes into relations with the eternally existentmatter. If it existed eternally apart from him, how did he ever come to possess

power over it? A third objection is that matter in all the forms known to us, is

stamped with the marks of intelligence. Idealism has emphasized this fact. We

know of no form of matter which could form a basis for belief in any origin

other than in the will of an intelligent creator. A fourth objection is that

dualism increases rather than decreases the difficulties of the mind in trying to

conceive of creation. It multiplies problems. If it is difficult to think of God as

self-existent, how much more difficult to think of a self-existent matter withoutintelligence or will? The mind inevitably gravitates to the view that the highest

thing we know, intelligent and free personality, is the only sufficient clue to

the origin of all things.

3. A third theory is that the universe is an emanation from God. In its olderform, as held by the Gnostics in the early Christian centuries, we need not

consider it. In its more recent forms, it is either pantheistic as with Spinoza, or

idealistic as held by Hegel and some of his successors. Spinoza conceived Godas the one eternal substance, and extension and thought as its attributes. Hegel

conceived him as an absolute being of whom all finite appearances are merely

phases. A logical process is the immanent principle of development. Both the

Spinozan and Hegelian views are monistic. God and the universe are one.


4/11

The objections to the view in either form are very serious. It takes away

freedom from God, because the universe is conceived as the necessary

unfolding of a principle in the divine nature. It ignores the radical differences

between matter and spirit and fails to harmonize them. It makes God the author

of evil, because evil remains an essential phase of the process of development.

It destroys human freedom, personality, and immortality, because man ismerely a passing phase of a logical process which will be transcended in the

course of time. In short, necessity rules at every stage of the process and the

whole moral and personal realm collapses. All this is in direct conflict with the

deliverances of our own moral consciousness and of our Christian experience.

4. A fourth theory of the origin of the universe is that it is the eternal creationof God. The difficulty of explaining why God should have remained idle

through an eternity before beginning to create has led to the view. But theobjections are greater than the supposed advantages. It tends toward the

necessitarian conception whereby God is supposed not to create freely, but by

necessity; or else it tends to the theory of the eternity of matter. It is

impossible, indeed, to conceive in a satisfying manner the relations between

time and eternity. But this theory does not succeed in doing so better than

others. We cannot lift the universe out of time because we know it only as

subject to temporal conditions. We cannot conceive it as independent because,

in all the phases in which we know it, it is dependent. It is best to interpret it in

view of the data of our own experience of it and not in an abstract way to meet

hypothetical difficulties. As Gods free act, with a moral end in view, we can

think of the creation of the universe in a manner satisfactory to faith, since in

our own experience of him we know ourselves as his new creation, dependent

upon his gracious and free action in Christ.

3. The Creation Of Man

We cannot understand creation except by viewing it as a whole. Man is its

crown and goal. Looking forward from the last stage prior to man we should

expect man to appear. Looking backward from man we can best explain the

earlier stages. Science and Scripture agree remarkably in placing man at the

end of the series of gradations in nature. All the lower stages precede man in

the account of Genesis. According to science, man sums up all the past in

himself and then goes far beyond all lower stages. Man was not, therefore, anafterthought, but a forethought of God. In man creation attains a moral and

spiritual level. We thus infer that the lower stages were designed to serve the

ends of the higher.

In view of the above we are warranted in making the following assertions

about man


5/11

1. He consists of a physical and spiritual part, body and soul. As to thephysical, he possesses a body in many respects like the bodies of the lower

animals. Some Christian evolutionists interpret the Genesis account of the

creation of man as implying that the human body was derived from the lower

animals, while the soul was Gods direct creation. In Gen. 2: 7 we read, And

Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his

nostrils the breath of life. Here was the use of a means in creating the body,

and an immediate and direct act in creating the soul.

Two or three remarks may be made as to this matter. The first is that for the

Christian religion the vital point is that man is Gods creation. He is not the

product of material elements. This is placed beyond all doubt by the Genesis

account. The second remark is that there are at least two difficulties in

supposing an animal origin for mans body. One is the wide chasm betweenthe human brain and that of the highest animals below man. Certainly no

known skull of these animals can accommodate the human brain. The other

difficulty is in the necessary relation between the brain formation and the

indwelling mind. The relation is most intimate in human development from

infancy to manhood. It seems most natural to think it has always been so. To

take an animal brain and put into it a human mind seems to be an impossible

proceeding. The later phase of the evolutionary hypothesis known as the

mutation theory is more favorable to the idea of an animal origin for the human

body. It teaches that progress is made by sudden and unexpected advances in

living organisms. The causes are not known. This would accord with the view

of theistic evolution more closely than the older conception of progress by

infinitesimal stages of growth. But in any case the chief point is Gods agency

in the ongoing of the world. It is doubtful whether even the mutation theory

can account for the wide chasm between the animal and the human skull. The

third remark is that we should not raise a false issue here. Theology can wellafford to let the science of biology work out its own problems as to origins.

Mutual respect and patience will bring harmony in due time. There are serious

enough difficulties for the intellect on any view. Meantime, two truths are to

be held tenaciously. One is that man was made a spiritual being in Gods

image and not as the product of matter. The other is that when we fully

understand them and correctly interpret them, the Scriptures and natural

science will not bear discordant witness.

2. Now a striking peculiarity of man is that he is the connecting link betweenthe physical and the spiritual universe. His body is the connecting link between

man and the physical universe, just as his soul is the connecting link with the

spiritual universe. Man is body and soul.
http://kjv_ot.pdf/http://kjv_ot.pdf/


6/11

3. The spiritual nature of man is sometimes referred to in the Scriptures as bothsoul. and spirit (1Th. 5:23). But a survey of all the biblical teachings

shows that the writers were using popular rather than scientific language, and

that soul and spirit were the aspects of the one undivided spiritual life of man

rather than a scientific distinction of parts. Many passages refer to the spirit

only. (1Co. 5: 5; 6:17; 7:34; Gal. 6:18.) The words employed in the Old

Testament in reference to man are soul (nephesh),spirit (ruach),and flesh

(basar).The words in the New Testament correspond. They are soul (psuche),

spirit (pneunia),and flesh (sarx).Mans nature then is twofold. He is spirit and

he is body. Both are necessary to him as man. As mere physical organism he is

not man. As disembodied spirit he is not fully man. He is man only in the unity

of a personal life combining both body and soul. Soul then means usually the

individual person as in the soul that sinneth (Eze. 18: 4). Spirit means theprinciple of life as contrasted with body. Body means the physical organism.

4. The biblical account makes it entirely clear that man was created by God inthe divine image. It is also clear that the divine image in man relates to his

spiritual rather than to his physical nature. God is not physical. God is Spirit.

In what respects then does man bear the divine image? These may be summed

up in the following statements

(1) Man resembles God in his possession of a rational nature. Mans capacity

in this regard is the source of all scientific knowledge. He reads the meaning of

nature and discovers that it is stamped with the marks of reason. Man

understands God by reason of the marks of intelligence in the world about him.

Reason in man answers to reason in God.

(2) Man is like God in that he has a moral nature. He knows good and evil. The

moral law, ethical ideals and systems, are all based on the moral nature of God.In man that moral image is reproduced. Conscience is in a real sense Gods

voice in man. It is the sure index to mans moral constitution. It is not uniform

in its action in mankind, but it is universal and persistent.

(3) Man resembles God also in the possession of an emotional nature. He is

capable of feeling. His highest feeling is righteous love. This is derived from

the same quality in God himself.

(4) Man is made in Gods image also in his possession of will. Here we comeupon a wonderful endowment of man. Will is totally distinct from all forms of

physical causation as known to us. Some have even gone so far as to call it a

supernatural power. In any event it belongs to an order above the physical. It

cannot be explained by the law of the conservation of energy. It is in a true

sense an originating cause.
http://kjv_nt.pdf/http://kjv_nt.pdf/http://kjv_nt.pdf/http://kjv_ot.pdf/http://kjv_ot.pdf/http://kjv_nt.pdf/http://kjv_nt.pdf/http://kjv_nt.pdf/


7/11

(5) Again, man is made in Gods image as a free being. Freedom means self-

determination. Man is not a being whose actions are all predetermined for him

by external forces. Nor is he in a state of indetermination, as uninfluenced by

motives derived from the past, or from without. Freedom in man does not

imply exemption from the operation of influences, motives, heredity,

environment. It means rather that man is not under compulsion. His actions arein the last resort determined from within. He is self-determined in what he

does. Some hold that freedom in man means ability to transcend himself and

act contrary to his character. The will is thus regarded not as an expression of

what man is in his essential character. It is free in the sense of being capable of

choices unrelated to past choices, acquired traits, and hereditary tendencies.

This is an untenable view of freedom. It makes of the will a mere external

attachment to mans nature rather than an expression thereof. Freedomexcludes compulsion from without. It also excludes mere caprice and

arbitrariness. Freedom is self-determination. The acts of a free being are his

own acts. The mere capacity for choosing between good and evil is not the

most important aspect of mans freedom. It is one phase of it only. But if he

were confirmed in holiness with no temptation to sin, he would still be free.

God is self-determined to holiness, yet he is free. Our moral consciousness and

our religious consciousness, especially as conditioned by our experience of

God in Christ through our own free choice, are indelible marks of our freedom.They are at the same time tokens of the divine image in man. The above traits

in man are not to be regarded as altogether distinct from each other. They are

all merely aspects or functions of mans unified personal life. They are

mutually interdependent. They are elements in the organic unity of his

personality.

(6) Again, the divine image in man appears in his original freedom from sin

and inclination to righteousness. We should not here confound perfection inthe sense of character achieved through long periods of trial and conflict with

the sinlessness of mans original nature. Even Christ was made perfect through

sufferings. (Heb. 2:10.) The perfection of the first Adam at the outset could not

have been that of the second Adam at the close of his earthly life. The

cumulative growth of knowledge, along with moral and spiritual power, is due

to a life lived under the conditions of time. Complete development in all

spiritual qualities could only come gradually. But man was created without sin,

and as thus endowed he was capable of sin and a fall.

(7) Another mark of the divine image in man was the dominion over the lower

orders of creation, given him by the Creator. Have dominion over the earth

and subdue it was Gods command to him. All human progress is but the

fulfilment, in one way or another, of this ideal.
http://kjv_nt.pdf/http://kjv_nt.pdf/


8/11

(8) Immortality is a further mark of the divine image in man. The spirit of man

survives bodily death in an endless existence. The facts regarding the future

life are incapable of proof which will leave no possibility of doubt. This is

because they lie beyond the range of present experience. But the natural reason

of man and his religious experience combine in a remarkable way to establish

belief in immortality. We give the chief arguments in brief outline.

We note first those drawn from the natural reason:

a. First of all, immortality is a necessary inference from a progressive creation.

Nature reaches an anticlimax in man if he ceases to exist at death. The

movement toward an end is thus defeated.

b. Again, the belief in immortality in some form is practically universal among

men. It is a part of the general religious life of mankind. It is like the universalbelief in God. This suggests an analogy with the life of the physical organism.

It is maintained by means of the correspondence between internal and external

relations. The universe responds to the call of its creatures. The fact

corresponds to the craving, as the structure of the eye implies the existence of

light.

c. Again, modern physiological psychology favors belief in immortality in that

it proves clearly a parallelism between mental and physical states, but not acausal connection. Brain states are parallel with mind states, but the brain does

not produce thought.

d. Once more, the phenomenon of death suggests immortality. The body as we

know it is contrasted in all points with mind as we know it. Bodily decay,

therefore, suggests an undecaying spirit. Certain forms of modern idealism

have insisted that mental phenomena are simply phases of eternal being, and

that by its very nature thought is lifted above the physical and placed in theeternal order. In any event the marked and radical contrasts between matter

and spirit remain.

e.Immortality is also urged on the ground of the inequalities and wrongs of the

present life. We are all subject to conditions in which men fail to find exact

justice. The innocent frequently suffer. The guilty often escape. A future life

would provide opportunity for correcting these conditions.

f.Closely connected with the preceding is the further fact that we are

conscious of powers greater than our present opportunities. Man is capable of

indefinite, indeed possibly infinite, growth. He beats against the bars of present

limitations and longs for a wider range of activities. Immortality is a natural

inference from this fact.


9/11

We note next the biblical teachings:

a. The Old Testament in its earlier stages has no very clear deliverances on the

immortality of the soul. Existence after death in Sheol, or the realm of the

dead, in a conscious state, is the view underlying the Old Testament belief. In

some of the psalms and later prophets strong assertion of immortality are found(2Sa. 22: 6; Num. 16:30;Psalm 16; 17; 49; 73; Job. 14:13 ff.; 16:18; 17: 9;

19:25f.)

b. In the New Testament the doctrine finds abundant warrant. The resurrection

of Jesus is the historical fact of greatest significance. But the entire teaching of

Jesus implies the eternal destiny of man. The gospel rests on the infinite worth

of individual men. Human personality is the supreme value for God. To

redeem it was the end of Christs mission. Only as immortal was it worthy ofsuch an end.

c. In strict agreement with Christs revelation is our own religious experience

of God in Christ. Through him we are reconciled to God and enter into

relations of spiritual fellowship with him. The form which this fellowship takes

is that of Fatherhood and sonship. We have the Spirit of adoption whereby we

cry, Abba, Father. The worth of man in Gods sight is thus the eternal worth of

a son. The power by which we realize this fellowship and sonship is the HolySpirit who raised Jesus from the dead. The measure of the energy working in

us is the measure of the power which raised Christ from the grave. (Eph. 1:20.)

The Christian thus finds the complete and satisfying answer to the natural

craving for and universal belief in immortality. The value which natural

religion teaches and natural reason infers is met by the reality which

Christianity creates. Immortal life has already begun in the soul when God

reveals Christ in us. One of Pauls favorite forms of teaching is that the present

life of believers is a resurrection life. (Col. 2:20; 3: 4.)

4. The Origin Of Souls

One question regarding man relates to the origin of the in individual soul.

Several views have been advanced on the subject. The whole question is more

or less speculative, but a few paragraphs may be devoted to it. We note three

theories:

The First is the theory of preexistence. Souls have existed in a previous state.

The soul enters the human body at some point in the early stages of the

development of the body. Some have urged the view to account for the coming

of sin into the world. It is supposed that the sin was committed in a previous

state of existence.
http://kjv_ot.pdf/http://kjv_ot.pdf/http://kjv_ot.pdf/http://kjv_nt.pdf/http://kjv_nt.pdf/http://kjv_nt.pdf/http://kjv_nt.pdf/http://kjv_ot.pdf/http://kjv_ot.pdf/http://kjv_ot.pdf/http://kjv_ot.pdf/


10/11

The idea, however, is foreign to Christianity, and has no warrant other than the

speculation out of which it arises. It offers no solution of the problem of sin. It

simply transfers it from the present to the past. It does not solve the problem

any better than other theories.

The Second theory is that each soul is an immediate creation of God. It entersthe body at an early stage in the development of the body. The body itself is of

course produced by natural generation. The chief object sought by advocates

of this theory is to preserve the spiritual character of the soul. It is supposed

that if souls are propagated, it implies that they are material.

There are several objections to the view. The biblical teaching does not support

it. According to it, Gods usual method since the first creation is mediate rather

than immediate creation. God rested from his creative labors on the seventhday. The new spiritual creation in Christ partakes of the quality of the original

creation in some respects, but it is not identical in kind with it. The new

creation in Christ arises out of mans need because of sin. The origin of

Christs human nature is exceptional for similar reasons.

Apart from the biblical, there are two other serious objections to the doctrine

of immediate creation of souls. One is that men often resemble their ancestors

in spirit as well as body. If heredity explains similar bodily traits, it moresatisfactorily accounts also for the spiritual resemblances. The other objection

is that the theory of immediate creation fails to account for the tendency to sin

in all men. Sin inheres primarily in the spirit, not the body. We cannot accept

the view that God directly creates the soul with sinful tendencies.

The Third theory is known as traducianism. It holds that spirit and body are

produced by natural generation. It is the view which best satisfies the reason

and explains the facts. The universal tendency to sin is thus accounted for. The

transmission of traits of character from parent to child is explained. The view

best explains also the unity of the race. Men are bound together in a common

life in spirit as well as body. The view also accords with Gods usual method.

His present method of working is in general through the law and processes of

nature. He is as truly present as on the immediate creation theory. God

indwells in all the processes of nature. Life is his gift. But it is his gift through

natural generation.

The objection that this view makes the soul material does not hold. Gods

presence in the process of generation is the guaranty against this. The relation

of spirit to body is a profound mystery in the nature of every individual. We

can only accept the obvious fact that the two coexist in closest connection in

each of us. We cannot explain it. The transmission of both elements of our


11/11

nature from parent to child is simply a particular phase of the general problem

of the relation between spirit and body.

In the absence of direct Scripture teaching on this subject we are without

means of setting forth more than a probable conclusion. Theoretical proofs one

way or the other are more or less precarious. We must maintain under anyview mans spirituality and immortality. If we do this no great consequences

can be involved in the theories formed with a view to satisfying the reason.

mullins religionch10

Documents