For Further Reading: Boettner

Second, there is the question whether or not the causality principle excludes the possibility of human freedom. The dilemma is: If every event is determined by antecedent cause(s), then are human choices predetermined or even excluded? If God really exists, then there is a spiritual as well as physical order. Trueblood argues that if humankind is capable of responding to both or­ders at once, then "the mystery of freedom is partly dispelled" (Elton B. Trueblood, Philosophy of Religion, 286).

Third, there is the related issue of moral re­sponsibility. If our actions are determined by an­tecedent causes, are we morally responsible for our actions? We are responsible if we possess in­tellectual, spiritual, and moral capacities which through prevenient grace enable us to respond positively to alternative moral choices based on God's revealed will. Although cause and effect law operates continually, we are not locked ex­clusively into one causal order. The possibility of right choice makes us morally responsible for our actions and their influence.

See freedom, determinism, responsibility.

Those who support celibacy point out that Jesus was not married and emphasize passages in Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7. Jesus said that some people do not marry for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, but that not everyone can accept this way of life (Matt. 19:10-12). Paul noted that unmarried people concern themselves with the Lord's work, trying to please the Lord, but married people concern themselves with worldly matters, trying to please their spouses (1 Cor. 7:32-34).

On the other hand, Philip, Peter, and other apostles were married (Acts 21:9; Matt. 8:14; 1 Cor. 9:5). Furthermore, in two of his Epistles the apostle Paul specified that an appointed cler­gyman must be "the husband of one wife" (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6). That is, the clergy in biblical times were not required to be celibate.

Since the requirement that all clergy be celi­bate is obviously of ecclesiastical, rather than biblical origin, clergy outside the Roman church do not feel bound by it. Celibacy continues to be a topic of debate even in the Roman Catholic church. The Bible presents celibacy as an option to marriage, so celibacy should be based on per­sonal choice, regarded as neither better nor worse than marriage.

See marriage, catholicism (roman).

For Further Reading: "Celibacy," in the New Catholic
Encyclopedia, 3:366-74; Lea, The History of Sacerdotal
Celibacy in the Christian Church; Raguin, Celibacy for Our
Times. RONALD L. KOTESKEY

CEREMONIAL PURIFICATION. See purification,

ceremonial.

CHAIN OF COMMAND. Of recent usage, this term reflects the conviction that Scripture teach­es a hierarchy of authority in which every person is assigned his or her place by divine will. Thus a chain of command is found linking all classes of persons by a progression of headship and sub-



CHANCE—CHARACTER

99

Submission and obedience are the key con­cepts. In point of fact, these significant words do call the believer to a respect for structures of au­thority willed by God for the good of His crea­tures. They call into judgment the individualism of Western society which isolates the person from community support and guidance.

The school of thought which promotes the chain of command does not, however, do justice to the whole of biblical teaching. The tension be­tween the Church as the redeemed community and society as the fallen world is missed. A pro­phetic voice of the Church is unlikely in the implied monolithic, Constantinian view of soci­ety. Moreover, the idea of mutual submission which pervades the NT passages in question is overlooked. This equality-in-submission among believers conditions the specific forms of submis­sion (cf. Eph. 5:21-22). Lastly, any chain of com­mand will be destructive of human worth without a balancing emphasis on a "channel of love"—divine and human; no chain of command with its one-to-one vertical relationships is full community without the "bond of love" that links persons in horizontal relationships.

See authority, institutions of christianity, family

The idea that everything occurs by mere chance is not held by many thinking persons. Such a concept would exclude all purpose and, hence, meaning. The determinist has no use for the word, while the nondeterminist may use it in some limited way to explain the unpredictable aspect of reality. Pure chance undermines the possibility of science and would offer no basis for responsible freedom. Many would agree that "chance seems to be only a term, by which we express our ignorance of the cause of any thing" (Wollaston).

In the Christian world view involving a cre­ating, ruling God, the idea of chance is incom­patible. The confession that "in everything God works for good with those who love him" (Rom. 8:28, rsv) excludes pure chance. Nothing is merely accidental or capricious. Although Chris­tians differ regarding the manner of God's con­trol in history (His sovereignty) and its relation to human freedom or the power of evil, all can agree thet the divine will is active in everything, that divine power undergirds all.

The Scriptures show God at work in and through all events, accomplishing His purposes. This does not answer the question as to how par­ticular events such as natural disasters are to be explained. Yet the Bible does not appeal to chance to explain these incongruities in God's creation. It is evil's entrance into the world (and God's reaction) that determines, in part, the course of history (Genesis 3; Rom. 8:20). History is a stage where the drama of the encounter of divine, human, and demonic wills is played out. Therefore ultimately nothing, not even the acts of nature, take place in the absence of all pur­pose.

See providence, determinism, divine sov­ereignty

For Further Reading: The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2:73 ff; Forster and Marston, God's Strategy in Human History; Pinnock, ed., Grace Unlimited.

George R. Brunk III

CHARACTER. Among the many possible mean­ings of this word, that which is theologically sig­nificant is the meaning of personal moral quality. To say that Barnabas was "a good man" (Acts 11:24) is to say that he was a man of good character—true, pure, stable, and reliable. He was a man of integrity.

But conversely, men may have an evil char­acter, as did Herod. Also, character may be weak or strong, whether good or evil. The strong char­acter normally has qualities of forcefulness and leadership. The weak character is constantly be­ing reshaped by the latest environment.

Within limits, non-Christian persons can de­velop strong moral character, in the sense of be­ing honest and trustworthy. Without their knowledge they are being aided by the pre-venient grace of God. They may also be the product of a Christian background. Moreover,



100

CHARISMATA—CHECKS TO ANTINOMIANISM


high intelligence will perceive the superior hap­piness and well-being accruing to basic decency and honorableness. Yet such good character is not holy. Self-righteousness always falls short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). Paul saw the fu­tility, in the final scale of things, of such sub-Christian goodness (Phil. 3:6-9).

When forgiven and cleansed, Christians have essentially good character as a true quality of heart. But they are still responsible for applying themselves to those disciplines which will make their good character strong (Eph. 4:12-16; 6:10).

See right (righteousness), holiness, grow
(growth), discipline. richard S. taylor

CHARISMATA. See gifts. CHARITY. See love

CHASTEN, CHASTISE. The NT paideuein (noun paideia) which means "to instruct, to train, to in­culcate or to draw out mentally and physically" is used in the Septuagint to translate Hebrew yasar (substantive musar). Those OT terms are most often rendered "chasten" or "chastise." Typically, one may learn in the school of chastisement through habitual evaluation and "reflection," the instruction that comes "in the night" (Ps. 16:7). Or, as in childhood, one learns at the side of his father: "As a man disciplines his son, so the Lord your God disciplines you" (Deut. 8:5, Niv).

So, chastening is discipline and instruction of the sort that is lovingly provided by the benevo­lent parent. Chastening has as its objective the welfare of the person being disciplined; it in no sense is to expiate the guilt of the son or to venti­late the wrath of the father (Prov. 19:18). The biblical concept of chastening/discipline thus is no harbor for child abusers. The destruction of self-worth which accompanies child abuse and child neglect cannot be justified on any biblical injunction to "chastise" the child. To be sure, no discipline is pleasant at the time, no occasion to say, "Praise the Lord, anyway" (Heb. 12:11).

The ultimate purposes of God's discipline are that we may "share in his holiness" (Heb. 12:10, Niv). Discipline in these senses is never offered by God to the heathen or unregenerate person or nation; paideuein is exclusively the discipline of absolute affection and is thoroughly laced with verbal and nonverbal affection and uncondition­al love.

See punishment, discipline, family, fathers.

Spiritual chastity preserves the honor of the church. In 2 Cor. 11:2 Paul reminds the church that it has been betrothed to Christ as "a chaste virgin." He warns that "another gospel" pro­claiming "another Jesus" will corrupt the purity of the church. Here chastity involves a single-minded devotion to Jesus Christ.

Chastity also protects the reputation of the gospel. In Titus 2:5 chastity is enjoined upon "the young women," along with other ethical norms, in order that "the word of God be not blas­phemed." Chastity relates to sex life in this pas­sage but is not restricted to this area. Bound up with the character of believers is the credibility of the Word. Christian women, should they yield to impurity, would cause the gospel to be "ma­ligned" or "discredited" by non-Christians.

Similarly, chastity safeguards the integrity of the ministry. Timothy is charged, "Keep yourself pure" (1 Tim. 5:22, niv, rsv). The context is a warning against the hasty ordination to sacred office of unexamined men. Ordination vouch­safes character, and to ordain a wicked man is to partake of his sins.

While hagnos occurs sparingly, the whole tenor of Scripture makes moral purity imperative.

See holiness, purity, morality.

For Further Reading: ZPEB, 1:784; EBC 10:384-86;
11:380-82, 435-37. W. E. McCUMBER

CHECKS TO ANTINOMIANISM. The Checks to Antinomianism comprise a series of five small books written by John Fletcher during the years 1771-73 to answer charges concerning his own theological position and to put into clear per­spective the Wesleyan doctrine of sanctification.

"Fletcher was one of the few parish clergy who understood Wesley and his work. ... In theology he upheld the Arminian against the Calvinist position, but always with courtesy and fairness" {Britannica, 9:373).

"Fletcher was a mediating theologian who sought a middle way between theological ex­tremes in accordance with his understanding of Scripture. This characteristic makes him signifi­cant for the problem . . . namely, the doctrinal difficulty and necessity of holding in com­plementarity crisis and progress, holiness and



CHERUB, CHERUBIM—CHRIST

101


hope, discipleship and grace" (Knight, The Holi­ness Pilgrimage, 64).

Antinomianism can and does take two ex­tremes which Fletcher attempted to guard against. The first is the devout Christian who de­clares that because salvation is dependent solely upon the grace of God, the life lived does not necessarily need to conform to the level of grace professed. This position has often been described as a "sinning religion." In contrast, Fletcher and Wesley insisted that a life of holiness would flow out of the grace received in the heart.

The other extreme is the humanistic expres­sion of antipathy to all law—anything that inter­feres with personal freedom. This spirit is prevalent today just as it was in the days of the judges when "every man did that which was right in his own eyes" (Judg. 21:25).

See antinomianism, imputed righteousness, im­parted righteousness.

In the OT, bearing children was considered a sign of favor and respect (Gen. 16:4; 29:32; 30:1).

The naming of a child was extremely impor­tant, for it marked some aspect of God's relation to the father, or the family or nation (Gen. 4:1; Isa. 8:1; Matt. 1:21).

Children were to be trained and taught (Deut. 6:1-9; Ps. 78:1-8). Failure at this task resulted in a generation which did not know the Lord (Judg. 2:10). However, many were true to the responsi­bilities, and Paul recognizes the value of faithful teachers in the life of Timothy (2 Tim. 3:15).

Throughout Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, "My son" is a prominent form of address. This is a common pattern by other writers (2 Tim. 1:2; Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:5).

Jesus valued children (Mark 9:36; Matt. 19:14). He illustrated the ideal childhood in His own life in subjection to His parents' control (Luke 2:51-52). Jesus also manifested tenderness of af­fection for children (Matt. 19:14; Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16) and recognized that they had a place in His kingdom. "Becoming as a little child" Jesus asserts is a fundamental condition to receive the kingdom of God. He hallowed the role of a child by adopting His own place in saying My "Father" when He referred to God (Luke 10:21-22; John 14:2; 15:1, 8).

Those who follow peacekeeping and the way of the Lord have been called the children of God (Matt. 5:9). Furthermore, the Holy Spirit wit­nesses to our adoption as sons in the experience of the new birth (Rom. 8:16).

One can also be a child of hell (Matt. 23:15). The difference between children of God and the children of the devil is that children of God do not sin, but practice righteousness and love one another (1 John 3:10).

Paul indicates there is a childish state or condi­tion which must be left when one matures (1 Cor. 13:11).

See adoption, new birth, regeneration, family.

J. Ottis Sayes

In the NT the title Cfirisf occurs a total of 569 times (most frequently by Paul). Jesus' frequent use of "Son of man," designating himself, was apparently designed to hide His true Messianic identity from the masses, and thus evade sus­picion of political aspirations on their part, while conveying His Messiahship to His disciples. Among the many Messianic titles attributed to Christ in the NT are Servant, Lord, High Priest, Son of God, the Word, Prophet, Savior, the Righ­teous One, the Holy One, King, and Judge.