Basic HTML Version
164
sufficient objective inducement to it to do, of its own native, free activity, just the thing called
for by God’s plan. Thus the act is man’s alone, though its occurrence is efficaciously secured by
God. And the sin is man’s only. God’s concern in it is holy, first, because all His personal agency
in arranging to secure its occurrence was holy; and second, His ends or purposes are holy. God
does not will the sin of the act, for the sake of its sinfulness; but only wills the result to which
the act is a means, and that result is always worthy of His holiness.”[Syst. and Polemic Theol., p.
288.] The vast majority of Reformed theologians, however, maintain the concursus in question,
and seek the solution of the difficulty by distinguishing between the materia and the forma of
the sinful act, and by ascribing the latter exclusively to man. The divine concursus energizes
man and determines him efficaciously to the specific act, but it is man who gives the act its
formal quality, and who is therefore responsible for its sinful character. Neither one of these
solutions can be said to give entire satisfaction, so that the problem of God’s relation to sin
remains a mystery.
D. Government.
1. NATURE OF THE DIVINE GOVERNMENT.
The divine government may be defined as that
continued activity of God whereby He rules all things teleologically so as to secure the
accomplishment of the divine purpose. This government is not simply a part of divine
providence but, just as preservation and concurrence, the whole of it, but now considered from
the point of view of the end to which God is guiding all things in creation, namely, to the glory
of His name.
a. It is the government of God as King of the universe.
In the present day many regard the idea
of God as King to be an antiquated Old Testament notion, and would substitute for it the New
Testament idea of God as Father. The idea of divine sovereignty must make place for that of
divine love. This is thought to be in harmony with the progressive idea of God in Scripture. But
it is a mistake to think that divine revelation, as it rises to ever higher levels, intends to wean us
gradually from the idea of God as King, and to substitute for it the idea of God as Father. This is
already contradicted by the prominence of the idea of the Kingdom of God in the teachings of
Jesus. And if it be said that this involves merely the idea of a special and limited kingship of God,
it may be replied that the idea of the Fatherhood of God in the Gospels is subject to the same
restrictions and limitations. Jesus does not teach a universal Fatherhood of God. Moreover, the
New Testament also teaches the universal kingship of God in such passages as Matt. 11:25; Acts
17:24; I Tim. 1:17; 6:15; Rev. 1:6; 19:6. He is both King and Father, and is the source of all
authority in heaven and on earth, the King of kings and the Lord of lords.
b. It is a government adapted to the nature of the creatures which He governs.
In the physical
world He has established the laws of nature, and it is by means of these laws that He