Theology beacon dictionary of theology

The Reformers, while valuing naturally de­rived intimations concerning God, made less of it than did, for example, Thomas Aquinas, for they felt more keenly the weakening of the human perceptive powers in the Fall. But both the Lu­theran and the Calvinistic wings of the Reforma­tion took seriously the biblical statements with respect to a degree of theological understanding derivable from a reverent study of nature.

The teaching has met with varying fortunes in more recent times. The Enlightenment, typically of the 18th century, exalted natural theology to a point at which it came to be regarded to be the chief source of religious knowledge. To reason was ascribed the ability to learn all that one needed to know concerning religion. Others in the same period (and down to our own day) held with Immanuel Kant that no knowledge of a per­sonal God could be derived from impersonal na­ture.

In our century natural theology has again met with varying degrees of acceptance. The sci­entific world view has tended to merge "God" with the world. The process theologians see "de­ity" as a phase of the larger totality of the world process. Here the question resolves itself to the identification of the dynamic aspects of nature with "the divine."

The dialectical theology (commonly called neoorthodoxy) raised the question in the second quarter of our century. Karl Barth, eager to estab­lish the uniqueness and adequacy of Scripture, sought to deny utterly the possibility of natural theology. His erstwhile colleague, Emil Brunner, took issue and tried to restate a modified view of maris ability to infer something vital concerning God from nature. This type of approach is gener­ally accepted among evangelical Christians to­day.

See NATURAL LAW, REASON, RATIONALISM, REVELA­TION (NATURAL).

For Further Reading: Baker's DT, 372-73; New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 8:85; Wiley,

CT, 1:51 ff. Harold B. Kuhn

NATURALISM. This term may be defined most simply as a frame of reference which denies the possibility of any reality which transcends mate­rial existence. By definition, naturalism is op­posed to every form of supernaturalism. In a modern world which derives virtually every cat­egory of meaning from natural sciences and technology, all of which operates empirically, naturalism is a pervasive world view.

It does not necessarily follow that such non-material values as beauty, truth, goodness, etc., would be denied by a naturalist or that he would automatically be an atheist. These values and others are for the naturalist a reflection of what religious man terms God. They are a reflection of the highest forms of experience for natural man. It is essential for a consistent naturalist, however, to insist that all reality is temporal and spatial.

See GOD, CREATION, THEISM, MATERIALISM. For Further Reading: Harvey, A Handbook of Theolog­ical Terms; Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, 1:37 ff.

W. Stephen Gunter

NATURE. This term designates the essential char­acter or structure of being. A primary constitu­ent, or the combination of those qualities which together give a thing or a being its true character, is said to be its nature. The Greek word phusis refers to "everything which ... seems to be a given" (Koster, Kittel, 9:253).

Often the word "nature" refers to the sum total of the universe apart from the interference of man. As such, it is frequently personified, almost deified, by those who refuse to acknowledge that it is created and sustained by God. Creationists, in contrast, believe that through nature God gives a limited understanding of himself.

The crucial issues concerning the term "na­ture" are in anthropology and Christology. In Christ we have one Person or Being, existing in two natures, human and divine. In respect to man, the question is whether nature is to be identified with (1) generic manness, or human-ness, with (2) the individual self as an ultimate core of reality which remains unchanged throughout changes in its qualities or states (Moustakes), or (3) the individual traits which characterize the self. The first two are fixed and inalienable. The third is malleable.

Hence, while the being of man, or human na­ture as endemic and essential, remains un­changed, the moral nature of any person may be changed by God's grace. Wesleyans have been optimistic about this possibility. Wesley (Works, 10:367) insists, "You are really changed; you are

The word "nature" is used in an accommo­dated sense by Wesleyans who speak of the sin nature as a propensity to evil, in contrast to acts of sin. This sin nature must be seen as an ac­quirement and not as an integral part of man's being.

Rom. 5:12 is a crucial text on this subject. Scholars generally agree that the use of the arti­cle with the singular noun (he hamartia) intro­duced by Paul at this point in the Epistle means that from here on, the discussion majors on this kind of sin in such a way that the perversity be­ing described can be called a nature. But it is "an inner moral tyranny that is alien to man's true nature" (GMS, 291).

Many attempts have been made by holiness writers to find a word or an expression that would adequately convey the notion of this "in­ner moral tyranny." Wesley (Sermons, 2:454) uses "proneness to evil" and "tendency to self-will." Delbert Rose (The Word and the Doctrine, 127) re­fers to the sin nature as "a principle," "an inher­ited corruption," "a disposition."

While Christians have generally held that this sin nature remains in the justified, believers are exhorted by Wesley (Sermons, 2:391) to press on to the "great salvation" through which God brings full deliverance from "all sin that still re­mains." This deliverance comes at the moment of decisive faith when one believes for entire sancti­fication. Various words and phrases such as "done away with" (Rom. 6:6) and "crucified" (Gal. 5:24) are used by the apostle Paul to ex­press this deliverance.

Man's nature may be so deeply affected by God's grace that its renewal is profound—in place of the tendency to sin is love made perfect.

See MAN, HUMAN NATURE, ORIGINAL SIN, SELF, CAR­NAL MIND.

For Further Reading: Harris and Taylor, "The Dual
Nature of Sin," The Word and the Doctrine, 89-117; GMS,
67-87, 251-302; Rose, "Sin in Believers: As a Principle,"
The Word and the Doctrine, 127-36; Wesley, Sermons,
2:360-97, 442-60. ALDEN AlKENS

NAZARENE. As a designation for Jesus in the Gospels and Acts, this is understood to indicate that He came from Nazareth in Galilee. The one English term represents in fact two alternative Greek adjectives which are used as roughly equivalent. One of these, Nazarenos, is the only form found in Mark, while it occurs twice in Luke but not at all in Matthew or John. The other term, Nazdraios, perhaps better translated into English as "Nazorean," is used exclusively by

Matthew and John, and is found in Luke-Acts some eight times.

This variation in spelling is generally account­ed for by one theory or another regarding the origin of the second term, Nazdraios. Such the­ories are coincidentally bound up with the inter­pretation of Matt. 2:23. There, the question which must be answered concerns the exact lo­cation of Matthew's citation of that which "was spoken by the prophets." Three alternatives have been proposed: (1) that the term is derived from the village name, Nazareth; (2) that it is derived from the OT word rendered Nazirite (specifically, Judg. 13:5, 7; 16:17 read in connection with Isa. 4:3); (3) that it originated from the Hebrew word root that means "branch" (cf. Isa. 11:1) and that may mean "watchman" (cf. Jer. 31:6-7).

R. E. Brown argues convincingly for the posi­tion that these three theories need not be mutu­ally exclusive. On the one hand, to argue for only one view on the basis of strict rules of word deri­vation in the biblical languages is to ignore the reality that biblical etymologies more often are the result of analogical thinking than they are the consequence of consistently followed rules of phonology. And furthermore, a particular term applied to Jesus may have been attractive to the early Christians because of its wealth of possible allusions, rather than by its well-defined lim­itations (Brown, 209).

See CHRIST, CHRISTIAN.

For Further Reading: Albright and Mann, The Anchor

It was necessary therefore for Jesus to follow up His reminder that the second greatest com­mandment was, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Matt. 22:39 and parallels), by re­buking their narrow and exclusive application of the term. This He did, not only by direct com­mand in 5:44-48, but by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Then Jesus turned the tables on the quibbling lawyer by asking: "Which now of these three . . . was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?" (Luke 10:36). The point was so unmistakable that the lawyer could not avoid giving the obvious answer. Fulfilling this second great commandment cannot be done by re­stricting the sphere of obligation but by ex­panding the concept of neighbor to include any person in need of any aid one can give. Es­pecially did Jesus by the parable demolish the barriers of race and class. Loving the neighbor demands neighborly love, which not only feels ("he had compassion"), but acts, daringly, sacri-ficially, and selflessly—and with follow-through. The second great commandment points beyond convention and convenience. It is more than the absence of hate. It is practical and dynamic.

See great commandments, love, agape.

For Further Reading: Baker's DCE; Taylor, Life in the Spirit, 19-28; DeWolf, Responsible Freedom, 60 ff; Mu-elder, Moral Law in Christian Social Ethics; Wirt, The Social Conscience of the Evangelical.

Richard S. Taylor

NEOEVANGELICALISM. Evangelicalism reached a high point in the mid 19th century when it dominated American religion. After the Civil War, conflict between evangelicalism and liber­alism led to decline and separation. By 1910 the theological battle had resulted in the funda­mentalist movement, which insisted on belief in certain basic doctrines as a minimum for a Chris­tian. These doctrines primarily were the virgin birth of Christ, His deity, His substitutionary atonement and bodily resurrection, His second coming, and the authority and inerrancy of the Bible (NIDCC, 396). This movement reached its peak in the 1920s.

After 1940 there came a resurgence of evan­gelical activity both intellectual and evangelistic, often called neoevangelicalism. Among many similar developments which could be cited, the founding of Fuller Theological Seminary, the

Graham campaigns, and the launching of the pe­riodical Christianity Today were especially influ­ential. Neoevangelicalism agreed with the doctrines of the fundamentalists and the historic church confessions, but disagreed on matters of emphasis and strategy. The movement won an intellectual respectability with writers such as E. J. Carnell and Carl Henry (William Hordern, A Layman's Guide to Protestant Theology, 55; Ber­nard Ramm, Handbook of Contemporary Theology, 88). Also in the 1940s arose the National Associ­ation of Evangelicals.

In the 1960s the new evangelicalism took on a new mood that increased emphasis on the spiri­tual mission of the church. This "resurgence of evangelicalism" flowered in the 1970s by Inter-varsity Missionary Conference (Urbana), Cam­pus Crusade for Christ, Key 73, church growth emphasis, new publications, evangelical colleges and seminaries, the "This Is Life" movement, and a revitalization of the Christian Holiness Associ­ation and other Wesleyan advances (Donald G. Bloesch, The Evangelical Renaissance, 13-18).

See evangelical.

For Further Reading: Wells and Woodbridge, The
Evangelicals; Baker's DT, 200; Quebedeaux, The Young
Evangelicals: Revolution in Orthodoxy; and Christianity
Today. Leo G. Cox

NEOORTHODOXY. Neoorthodoxy, a term that can be loosely applied to an influential theological movement of this century, is best understood as a reaction to the failure of religious liberalism to provide an adequate answer to the crisis of West­ern society in the early part of the century. World War I had brought into question many of the ma­jor beliefs of religious liberalism: the belief that progress in Western society was bringing the kingdom of God to fruition; the belief in the in­trinsic goodness of man; the overemphasis on the immanence of God; and the reduction of Christianity to experience and ethics. This ques­tioning burst as a bomb in the playground of Eu­rope's theologians with the publication in 1919 of Karl Barth's Commentary on Romans. Barth strongly criticized theological liberalism as being unable to provide adequate answers to the ques­tions he as a pastor in Safenwil, Switzerland, was being asked to answer. The "strange new world of the Bible," where God was God and not "man written large," which Barth sought to explore in his commentary, became known as "new" or "neoorthodoxy." This theological viewpoint, also known as crisis theology or dialectical theology, found varied expression in the writings of men



360

NEOORTHODOXY (cont.)


such as Barth, Emil Brunner, Rudolph Bultmann, Paul Tillich, and Reinhold Niebuhr.

The varied expressions which range from the more "orthodox" Barth and Brunner to the more "neo" Bultmann, Tillich, and Niebuhr, still find some common principles and themes in their theologies. At least three basic principles under-gird their thought. First is the influence of exis­tentialism as espoused by Soren Kierkegaard (though Barth later sought to repudiate his re­liance on S. K.). Second is the dialectic method (i.e., dialectical theology) which is not the progression of the Hegelian dialectic but rather sees religious truth as best expressed in para­doxes. Third is the acceptance of modern critical methods and modern views of science in the in­terpretation of the Bible.

Along with these three principles of inter­pretation, a number of common theological themes are found in neoorthodoxy. God is the Wholly Other, the one whose "infinite qualitative difference" from man makes it impossible for fi­nite man to bridge the infinite gap between them. God transcends man as Creator and Re­deemer, pointing to man's responsibility for his radical sinfulness and his inability to save him­self. The infinite gulf between God and man can only be bridged when God speaks His Word, thereby revealing and disclosing himself to man. The Bible is the witness to this Word of God, though it is not the Word of God itself. This means the Bible is more than just great religious literature, it is inspired, but its inspiration is "hid­den" in the words of men. It is thus historically conditioned and contains human error.

The Word of God is most fully expressed in Jesus Christ, in whom eternity breaks into time, the infinite becomes finite, and God becomes man. Jesus reveals both God's judgment on man's sin and His grace which alone can redeem man. The paradox of judgment-grace as revealed in the Word, Jesus, lays a claim on man, obligating him for responsible decision. Thrust into the knowledge of God's claim, man is faced with a "crisis," a decision which he cannot escape. The crisis, hence "crisis theology," is one of faith, where the "leap of faith," while not resolving, transcends in a divine-human encounter the par­adox of judgment-grace. Man only truly knows himself and God in this divine-human encoun­ter.

The theme of man's knowledge of himself as sinner is important in neoorthodoxy. The ques­tion of how man became a sinner is answered by saying we are all our own "Adam." We all rebel against our finitude and, wanting to be God, we all commit the Fall. Thus, the Fall is important in the explanation of the sinfulness of all mankind but not as a historical event. Concern for its his­torical facticity only leads to conflict with sci­ence, a conflict in which the Bible comes second best (according to neoorthodoxy).

The seriousness with which neoorthodoxy takes the sinfulness of man calls for a concomi­tant seriousness about the Atonement. Jesus, as the Word of God, was more than just a religious genius and martyr. It is in the Cross that victory over sin, death, and evil was realized because "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself" (2 Cor. 5:19).

Man's radical sinfulness taints all his life, in­cluding society. This led neoorthodoxy to state that the structures of society are sinful also and in need of redemption. Therefore they concerned themselves with critiquing politics and unjust so­cial structures, and commenting on controversial social issues, in hopes of bringing a Christian viewpoint to shine on them. But, there is no una­nimity among these theologians on the answers to the perplexing social problems.

Though there is a variance of views on social issues, neoorthodoxy agrees that man's sin­fulness makes it impossible to find more than a poor approximation of the kingdom of God within history. One result of this has been a re­newed interest in the church as the unique bearer of God's purpose and grace within history. The other result is the renewal of interest in escha­tology as the object of ultimate hope. While never being literalists in their view of escha­tology, they did see the kingdom of God as being beyond historical analogy and man's ethical at­tainments. Eschatology is not so much about the end times as about the end of time.

Neoorthodoxy has provided a much-needed corrective for the theological liberalism of the early 20th century, in its emphasis on orthodox doctrines such as the transcendence of God, the sinfulness of man, and the efficacy of the Atone­ment for sins. But there are issues such as the relation of the Word of God to the word of man in Scripture, and the relation of religious symbol­ism to historical fact, along with others, that make neoorthodoxy less than satisfactory for most evangelical scholars.

See orthodoxy, evangelical, neoevangelical­ism, fall (the), liberalism.