Father, we thank you that we can come and ask for you to be with us and teach us, help us in our understanding. We thank you for your love and faithfulness to us, which is sure every day, and we thank you. We can trust you to be with us now in Jesus' name, Amen. We started last time looking at the basic Bible studies, and I made three introductory comments, your remember, which Shaper makes in the introduction to these studies. The first was his confidence in the system of teaching in the Bible, that the Bible is unity. The second was that he had confidence that that system of biblical teaching answers the questions of our generation, and the third was his sense of the need for prayer, both for the believer and the unbeliever, as they approached these studies. We then turned to look at emphasis within the lessons themselves, and we started off with some points I wish to make about what he has to say about the person of God. And the first point then, we spent most of our time on that, is that God is truly personal and what that means. And you remember I drew this illustration on the board, which he would draw again and again, that God is both infinite and personal, whereas we as human beings are finite, at that point we're very distinct from God, but we are persons like God because we are made in his image. And the break comes at that point between humans and animals, plants and machines, the rest of the created order. We are persons like God, the rest of the created reality is not, and this makes communication possible with God and all of these other things, personal fellowship with him. We spend much of our time discussing a point Dr. Schaefer made about the Trinity, that there is true personality within the Trinity. He would often say personality on the high order of Trinity, it was an expression he would use over and over again. And I would recommend to you all, that tape before the beginning, before the beginning, which is a tape on the Trinity, before the creation of the world, that tape we have in our library. Now, the second point that I think I had just begun to make was that God is sovereign over creation and over history and over our salvation. That God creates not because he has to, but because he chooses to, and that he saves us, not because he has to, but because he chooses to. We just read one short passage on each of these. God created all things of his own free will. He did not have to create. Schaefer's point is there is not some sort of necessity back behind God, which is making God do things. It's the same with our salvation. This is from the study on God's grace. One of the studies on God's grace, and he says this, as far as God's Holiness and Justice are concerned, he owes us nothing but judgment. He has made us, and we have sinned. We are told by this verse, it's Roman 623, that in spite of this, because of his love, God has provided us with a way of approach to him. It is not because God owes it to us. It is a gift based on his love. Again, the point he's making there is that God is not dependent on something outside himself, not to do things by something outside himself, that he is sovereign over us. He saves because he wants to, not because he has to. That's important because people often speak that way, as if some have God had to do something about the situation. The only thing which constrains God is his own character, to which he is always faithful. God is constrained by his love, by his justice, by his mercy, by his Holiness, but not by anything outside himself. And he would keep emphasizing, too, that God is sovereign over history. There is no chance back of God was an expression that he would use over and over again. That what happens in this world happens under the hand of God. That God is not surprised, that was another expression he would use. God is not surprised by what happens to us by anything that happens in history. That's a second major point here. God's sovereignty over creation, and as always, he relates that to various apologetic points. They're not simply a doctrine and abstract, but something which has an implication into this life and into the way one will answer the questions of the non-Christian. We're not living in a chance universe. We are living in a universe where God is in control. God will not be surprised, our salvation in the future is certain. Neither the devil nor human beings will come up with anything which will prevent God, taken by surprise, stop him from bringing history to the resolution he has in mind for it. Christ will certainly come back. It's a very practical point actually. You can really have confidence in God because he's sovereign. If he isn't, well nobody knows what's going to happen in the future. Absolutely nobody. We can't be sure we'll be saved personally, or the Christ will return to consummate his rule and establish his kingdom in fullness. There is no chance behind God. And he kept stressing this because in so much secular thinking in our society, life is ruled by chance. Life is ruled by chance. There is no absolute sureity about the future. Everything is up for grabs. Where is history going? We don't know. Will our planet be destroyed by the nuclear winter, by a nuclear war, by a meteorite hitting it? People have no idea. But the Christian knows because God is sovereign over history. That's the second point here. The third is a strong emphasis on creation X-neilo, that God created the universe out of nothing. On page 15 of the American edition of the study, it's in the second last non-creation. He makes this point several times. Before God created, he dwelt alone. God created out of nothing. He created by fiat. He spoke and it was. Fiat simply means let there be light, etc. God spoke and it was. Now this again was a very important point to him in answering modern people who have to believe in some form or another that matter has existed eternally even the notion of the big bang requires the existence of matter before the bang. That matter was condensed into an infinitely tightly packed ball and then exploded to create the universe to form. Well, it created the inappropriate word because that requires a person but to bring into being the universe as we know it. But if you deny the existence of God, you have in the end to come up with the eternal existence of something else. And matter is so clearly contingent, it is so clearly dependent for its existence. As scripture says that God upholds the universe by the word of its power, that this creates tremendous problems, the notion of matter in some eternal form. Shaper used to say, and you'll see this when you read he is down, he is not silent or listen to his tapes, possible answers to the basic philosophical questions and those tapes and that book covered the same grand. He used to say that theoretically somebody could put forward the idea that originally there was what he called nothing, nothing. And then something happened that matter really never there was a point where there was nothing at all. And then matter came into existence. And he said that is theoretically possible, I suppose, but it's difficult to imagine anybody holding such an idea because it's so clearly seems to suggest bringing a rabbit out of a hat where there was no rabbit before, like a magician. Except that of course the magician always has a rabbit hidden under the hat. But in fact, somebody has started putting this idea forward because there are some very clear problems from the point of view of physics. Physics as well as philosophy in the notion of the eternal existence matter, and the idea now has been put forward that originally there was nothing, absolutely nothing. And out of that nothing, something came. I'll try and get you an article on that because there was an interesting one I found on the subject. That's a third point here. His insistence on creation, Exneelo, the fourth was to make a very careful distinction between the God revealed in Scripture and the God of pantheism. He doesn't refer to pantheism directly in the studies, but let me read a little bit where this is the point that he's making. He's speaking about God's creation of the heavenly beings of the angels and the heavenly hosts. And he says this, they are not an extension of himself nor a part of himself. He created them. His point is that everything God has created is distinct from him, separate from him in the sense now of having a separate existence. Right, it's an existence which is dependent upon God, yes. God upholds the universe by the word of his power, or Paul saying in Colossians 1 in Christ, all things consist, all things hold together. The universe would not hold together if God did not uphold it by his powerful word, but he is the source of its life, not just originally, but in an ongoing sense. The point shape is making this, that even though God created everything and upholds it in its being, it is distinct from him. What he's wanting to do here by saying this is to make it very clear that the biblical teaching is quite distinct from any form of pantheism, from any suggestion that somehow this universe or human beings or angels are somehow an extension of God, a kind of part of God. If you read anything by people in the New Age, that idea, that pantheistic idea, that God and people and God in the universe are all twined up together as in Hinduism, that idea is fundamental, that ultimately God is not distinct from his creation. Shafi makes this point because he wants to show the radically different nature of Christianity from any kind of pantheistic religion. Let me ask you, why do you think that's important? That's certainly one of the consequences of pantheism. It will suggest that God has no definition that we can't say God is like this and not like that because everything is somehow related to God, that is true. It then becomes impossible to say, well, this is the true God and this is the false God because every person, if every person is somehow part of God and extension of God, if everything exists is somehow part of an extension of God, then we have to say that everybody's God is equally valid. So you'll certainly have to say that. It's one of the difficult things if you ever discuss with anybody who's in the New Age movement, getting them to define just exactly what they mean and they will try to embrace you and say, well, we believe those things too, all paths to God, all paths lead to God. We have different ways of expressing this, but God is beyond definition. So Christianity will be, or at least the attempt will be made to embrace Christianity in almost any form of pantheism. But what else, what other problems can you see here? There's no kind of sense, can you? No, that's exactly right. Now, if God and the universe are one, or if the universe or human beings in some sense, or the heavenly hosts are in some sense an extension of God, then we have to say that everything which exists manifests God to us, both good and evil manifests God to us. God will be both, and you see this in Hinduism, very clearly, God is presented as both light and darkness as life and death, as cruelty and compassion, both are somehow a manifestation of God. One of the things you'll find in New Age teaching at the moment is the insistence on God being on, or the criticism of Christianity for being too defining, for restricting only a part of reality to being divine. We will say Christians have made God rational and masculine, etc, but God is emotional and God is feminine and God is everything, and we need to restore the balance here, because everything is expressive of God equally. Everything becomes equally expressive of God, but you're absolutely right. It isn't really possible to talk about sin or any kind of moral distinction if everything is an extension of God. It's also not possible to talk about real uniqueness of the human person and the significance of human beings if we are an extension of God. If everything I do is just a dream of God, which is how someone in the New Age might put it, that in my consciousness, God's thoughts are being manifested, one's ended up denying any distinctness or uniqueness of God. What significance do I have as a person? You may remember the song by the Beatles, I am you and you are me. Remember that song? That was after they had been to India and they were sitting at the feet of one of these gurus. When I was in India two years ago, we went to Rishikesh and there's a huge temple there, the biggest temple there was built with money given by the Beatles after their trip to India. But they were trying to express some of those ideas and some of those songs. You listen to some of the songs in Sergeant Pepper and some of the later records and you'll see these ideas coming across. Another consequence is if I say that I am an extension of God, what I can justify anything at all, anything I do, I can say has divine authority. So in some ways it destroys the significance of the individual. I'm just a dream of God. In other ways it enables the individual to assume tremendous authority by saying what I think, what I say, what I do is God's work. Let me give you a very practical illustration of this. Some of you were a member Charles Manson and his trial for the appalling murder of Sharon Tate, the wife of the filmmaker, Roman Polanski. She was pregnant at the time, the murder of her and some other people in their home. Charles Manson had some of his disciples do this, but he claimed to be the voice of God and he wasn't coming from the perspective of somebody who was mad in the sense of deluded, but somebody who believed that he was an extension of God in this pantheistic sense. And he claimed to have divine authority in what he did and he certainly had tremendous power over his followers because a girl who was one of his followers actually came into our branch of the Bremen was converted there. And there was another one who went to Switzerland and was converted there, but it was just amazing talking to these people just how deeply rooted this idea was in them that everything he said must be right because we were all an extension of God and somehow they thought that he was more God than they were. That's the way these things go, but the guru becomes the voice of God, the one in whom God's voice is speaking particularly powerfully. Does anyone have any questions here as we go along? That's a very good question. How can someone, let's say, who is a moral pantheist? Speak to somebody like Manson and say what you're saying is wrong? Well, I think it's very difficult. There's a very fine book dealing with this issue by his name is Zener. I think that's how you spell it. It's called mysticism, sacred and profane. And he makes the point that you can't really say to somebody who does terrible evil in the name of God that you are wrong. Now, in the Bhagavad Gita, which is one of Hinduism's most holy books, there is a very interesting discussion of this point. It's discussion between Lord Krishna and our Yuna about whether we as human beings should be involved in the battle for good against evil, really the context of the discussion. And the answer given is yes, you must be because that is so basic to our humanity, to our life as human beings. But the answer is also given. Do it as if you weren't doing it. And I would do it with a kind of detachment because in the end, it doesn't matter. And you see right there in that discussion, a real tension at the very heart of Hinduism of any form of pantheism because people are indeed made in the image of God and have God's law written on their hearts. They recognize that there really is a difference between good and evil. And this is true for the pantheist just as much as anybody else, whether he acknowledges the personal God who is a holy and righteous and just God or not. In fact, he's made by him. He has his law written on his heart and he knows that good is good and evil is evil and that good is right to do. And yet there is this acknowledgement at the same time that even though we do this, we recognize that in the end, it will have no meaning that in the end it really doesn't matter because ultimately there is no distinction because the face of God is both good and evil. You know, it's Carly with skulls around the neck as well as the giver of life. It becomes it becomes tied up with the worship of every force that is in nature. And you find this in paganism in its most obvious forms where if you're going to worship nature and if you've said God is everything or God, everything is an extension of God. And you have to end up worshiping death as well as life and darkness as well as light. And I remember when I went to visit Vichal in India, the day I arrived there was an article in a paper about a child being sacrificed at the building of a dam. It's just like if you read about Manassan, the Old Testament offering his children to Moloch or at the building of the city of Jericho or whatever, where he built its fortifications. And Vichal said to me, in fact, even though this isn't commonly reported that this happens every time there is a major road building project or a dam building project, or a bridge building project that a child is sacrificed. And we have some friends who are working in Nepal at the moment and they are in a remote village where the men in their actual village actually went and prayed, they went up on to the top of the mountain, they prayed that the Lord of darkness would come and rule their village. And you say, well, why? Why not? What are you going to say? And this is really the point that Shaikh is making here. We, the scripture sees God as radically distinct from his creation. We look at the creation and we cannot identify it with the nature of God. So I see death and destruction and I can't say this is the hand of God. This is not an expression of God. Certainly God has revealed his creation, his power and his divine nature of revealed in creation, but they are not part of, he creation is not part of him. And it is very, very important to be able to say that. Okay, so this is our fourth point here, the distinction from pantheism. Later on when you read more of his books, you will see him there using, over and over again he will use, I guess it's part of the painting on the Sistine Chapel Sealing by Michelangelo where you have the creation of Adam by God and Shaikh who makes the point that their fingers are not touching each other. God has created Adam and Adam is distinct from, he's separate from him, he's not bound up with him in some sense as an extension of God but he has his own significant, separate life. That brings us to a second area of points that he makes here and that is concerning human beings, concerning human beings and our life. The first point I want to make here is his stress on human beings as made in the image of God, which became obviously a very fundamental and central part of his apologetic and I just read a bit from here from his study on God and man. It's page 19 in this book. Man was made in God's image, this is man's glory and it is this which sets him off from other creatures. What does it mean that man is made in God's image? Well among other things it certainly means this man is moral, this means he can make moral choices, also man is rational, this means that he can think. It also means that man is creative, we find that everywhere, man make works of art, it is also the reason why man loves and one could add dominion. Man's dominion over nature, over creation, which Genesis 1 spells out. But this is the first point, he makes about human beings that we are unique, we are distinct from the rest of creation, again coming back to our little illustration there because we are personal like God. We are made to think like God, we are made to love like God, we are made to reflect God's holy character, distinguished to distinguish between good and evil, we are made to be creative. And clearly this became a central part of his apologetic, again let me ask you a question. What is the importance of this to a Christian's apologetic, Rob? Right. Yeah, it gives us individual significance, it enables us to be able to say that all those things which we experience as a fundamental part of our humanity that we love people rather than just having biological urges, that we do distinguish between good and evil and recognize good as good, that we think that we are rational. We can reflect upon a situation which faces us and decide what course of action we are going to take on our reflection. We may just think for thinking sake, just sit back and reflect that we use a language, we communicate not just with signs and sounds but we use language with its tremendous possibility of self-revelation, self-disclosure of communication. And of ordering nature, of ordering creation, that we are made to choose, to have significance, to be responsible for what we do, that we are creative, we are made to reflect the creativity of God, he created the universe out of nothing. His artistic imagination is beyond our wildest dreams but he has made us to be like him to create also. We can't create universes out of nothing except in our imagination, we create by using the bits and pieces of God's creation and putting them together in new ways. But we are created to be like God and all these things which are so much a fundamental part of our every moment experience of human life have their foundation in something solid that is that we have been made by God who is himself personal, we are made like him. One of the great problems in the thinking of 20th century people is that there is no basis to affirm the significance of human beings. There is no basis to affirm love, there is no basis to affirm morality, there is no basis for affirming individual significance. There is no basis for affirming the value of language because if man is seen as just a product of time and chance but we have just come from the machine, if in fact we are related downwards only to the atom, then all that we think of as human love, morals, etc. have to be seen to be simply an illusion, they have no reality, they have no foundation in the universe. If you have read any theater of the absurd at all or seen any films presenting a kind of absurdist position, you will realize that that is the problem they are struggling with. I don't know who ever saw the film blow up. Some of you have seen it, let me encourage you all to see it. I think you will find it used in several of the books as you read them in the film blow up. It was advertised with big posters saying love without meaning, the murder without guilt, love without meaning, murder without guilt. It was on posters everywhere. And the maker of that film knew very well what he was saying that in a universe in which there is no God where we have just come about by chance there is no meaning to love. We cannot speak about murder and call it and say that it produces real guilt that it is really wrong. Again, if you saw and you heard me talk about this in that which contemporary culture last semester, but if you saw Woody Allen's crimes and misdemeanors, he is dealing with the same issue, particularly in the area of morality. Remember the major event in that film is a murder. And then the whole of the film is about whether murder really is wrong, whether there is any justice in the universe, whether there is any objective true guilt. There is actually several discussions about it in the film. And the man who commits the murder doesn't get caught. His life goes on successfully. And you can see the tremendous tension in Woody Allen as he wrestles with the issue. If there isn't a God, and I mean Woody Allen puts it bluntly that way if there isn't God, then murder doesn't incur guilt. It's just something you do. It might as right would be another way to express it. But love and morals and everything else get ruled out. That's the point the Schaeffer is making here. Those things which demonstrate the difference in man actually have their root in the fact that we are made by the personal God in his image. Do any of you have any questions here? Yeah, and we're going to keep coming back to this point because it's made so frequently in Schaeffer's writing. Has anybody seen any other films recently which deal with this issue films or plays or anything like that dreadful film? Yeah. Why don't you expand on that a bit? Mosquito Coast. That's a very good illustration. It wasn't a very good film actually. It wasn't anywhere nearer as good a film as Woody Allen's films. But it does deal with some very difficult issues along the way. And it certainly wrestles with that issue of whether the individual's life has any significance and whether the choices we make really have any significance at all. And if you I would encourage you when you watch movies and when you read books to start noticing what they're really saying, to start noticing what they're really saying. If I know there's just been a revival recently of Samuel Beckett's play waiting for Godo but the real one of the major themes of that play is really that human life has no meaning at all. But there is nothing we can hope for. These people in this play have these longings, these hopes, these human hopes. But there is nothing objective in the universe which is going to give those hopes a peg to hang on to. They are simply a kind of illusion. The hopes enable them to keep on waiting but there is no certainty whatsoever that there's anything objective there in relationship to their waiting. I think if you go to some of the most modern exhibitions you will find that there is actually nothing objective to relate to at all. You ask what is this painting or what is this sculpture and the artist would respond that's up to you. That is up to you and he is saying in the clearest possible way there is no communication between people because there is nothing which objectively can be known. Every person is an island to themselves. There is nothing which we can really say to one another. Can you think of some examples? There are several different issues. One is the issue of whether there is real communication between people, whether there is any real foundation for those things which we regard as human. Another is the issue of what authority is there and I think much of that music is dealing with that issue and the authority in the end is simply the individual. Whatever I feel is right because I feel it. It is as simple as that. That is our first point there. Then we will have any other questions before we go along. I would say on this point we will be coming back to it later in class but as we try to think about Schaeffer's work his emphasis here on the importance of the image of God is one of the major themes of all of his apologetic work because so many people in our generation are really lost as human beings. It is not just that they are harrassed and helpless like Schaeffer without a shepherd which they most certainly are and therefore we should have compassion on them but they are harrassed and helpless because they don't even know who they are. They have lost any solid mooring for knowing what it is to be a human person and whether they can indeed give any meaning to their human existence at all. Again Woody Allen is one of the best expanders of this position if you see his film Sleeper for example. When he says in that film the only thing he believes in is sex and death because there is nothing else to believe in at all. In fact those are two of the constant themes of all of his films. Sex and death because there is nothing else which is certain to him but those two things. Well he very carefully says sex instead of love because he understands that while he experiences love and that is very evident in all of his films because his films are all about his relationships with women and many of them reflect his own life. What is the film he made about his breakup with Diane Keaton after they have broken up? His films are autobiographical and he is always longing for love and desperately needing it because he senses so acutely the aloneness of people and therefore their desperate need for human relationships. That becomes very cute if you don't believe in God and have a secure relationship with him you are totally dependent on relationships with other people to give you some kind of meaning. So he realizes that very powerfully and so he is always longing for love and looking for love and the films are about his relationships with different people and the love that they give him and very often the disappointment but he knows all the way why he is doing that but he hasn't got any solid foundation for love itself. So that's why he says when he is actually asked the question directly well don't you believe in God don't believe in this don't believe in that. He says no I believe in sex and death because he knows that well there is the reality of a sexual relationship even if I can't really find a basis for talking about love for real commitment between people. Which seems such an everlasting thing sex does take place though he then makes a joke about even that and says perhaps I believe in death more strongly because after sex you feel nauseous and as far as I know you don't have to death. So he is always taking a little making jokes at himself at everything that he says and that's the only thing that makes this film is bearable because at the same time is setting out the human dilemmas so acutely and so painfully he makes it very funny at the same time that enables you to watch them without just being completely destroyed by them.