The title is suggested by Saint Paul's phrase (Ephesians 1.4) “according as he hath chosen us in him,” that is in Christ. The object of this essay is to point out the meagre use made of the phrase and of the idea it conveys by the classic doctrine of Predestination, and to show the deplorable consequences that follow.

I. Calvin

It would of course be absurd to suggest that Calvin totally neglects the thought that Predestination is in Christ. Rather this is a presupposition in all he has to say about it, at least in this sense, that, challenged whether he held Predestination to be in Christ, he would unhesitatingly have affirmed that it was. But it is the fate of many presuppositions to fall into the background, if not into forgetfulness, and to exercise less influence than they should do. It is the view of the present writer that the Calvinist theology failed to draw fully upon the implications of the presupposition that Predestination is in Christ.

Two questions are well asked at this point: What is the relation of those elected to Christ? and: What is Christ's part in their election?

(i) Here the text which has already been quoted is cited by Calvin: We are in Christo electi, and we are in Christo adoptati (Inst.3.22.1). And in 3.22.2, the elect are said to be again “chosen in Christ.”

At first sight the above title may suggest a gross presumption. For surely what is true is true, and there is an end of it. How can there be such a thing as an “understanding of truth,” let alone a Christian understanding of truth? And yet there have been such things as “theories of truth,” attempts to analyse the notion, ending perhaps as analysis so often does in the paradox of tautology, “truth is truth,” yet useful and illuminating as far as they go. But if we grant that truth-theory forms an admissible chapter in the philosophy of logic, can we talk of such a thing as a Christian understanding of truth? After all truth remains truth. And if we speak of an understanding of truth, and then predicate Christian of it, are we using the word understanding in such a way that theory is substitutable for it? There is a suggestion in the word understanding of a certain condescension towards what is understood, a pigeon-holing, as if we would like to say: “Yes, now we have got truth nicely docketed.” Whereas perhaps a “theory of truth” does no more than help us to dissolve some puzzle or puzzles connected with the notion.

So any attempt to defend the concept of a Christian understanding of truth must begin by some account of the sort of jobs truth-theories have tried to do, and then explain the kind of connection that obtains between such theories and what we call an “ understanding of truth.”

There is an old custom which is to be observed in all proper churches: at the beginning of public worship the Bible is solemnly carried in and laid upon the pulpit—and then the minister follows. This is the right order of precedence; for the minister, as his name indicates, is but the servant, minister verbi divini; and it is fitting that the servant should follow the master. Further, to make his servitude more evident, the minister wears a livery. It is true, he may be a master of his servile craft, he may be called a doctor, and he may take it upon himself to wear the appropriate badges of proficiency. But his position remains essentially that of a servant whose office it is to attend upon his master, to make way for him, to do his behests.

This little bit of familiar ceremony enshrines essential truth, and it may well form the starting-point of our consideration of the scope and function of the ministry of the Word of God.

When the atomic bomb was dropped at Bikini Atoll in operation Grossroads, water on the surface of the sea rushed out from the centre of the waterspout at a speed greater than sound. Many of us will find this an apt symbol of a world that seems to be rushing headlong to disaster because men are in danger of putting the creative energies of the Lord God to evil uses; physical energy in such weapons; biological energy in the depersonalising of women and workers and citizens; and what we can only call spiritual energy in the fields of culture and political societies. The question is how we are to be enabled to reverse this process; and here the doctrine of the Spirit as holy, transcendent power ought to be relevant. It has been rightly suggested that this may be indeed “the back of the whole contribution of Christian thought to the cultural problem of our time. ” One outstanding difficulty in the way of an apologetic statement of our faith is the bias provoked at least among some sections by the scientific outlook. Indeed F. W. Dillistone goes so far as to write (The Holy Spirit in the Life of to-day p. 105) the scientist “is tireless in his search for ‘truth, ’ but again it is ‘truth’ which is contained within his own system. He insists, in other words, that ‘truth’ which cannot be apprehended by scientific methods has no real claim to the name but belongs to the realm of phantasy or wishful thinking.

There is no one word for grace in the Old Testament as there is in the New, nor are the precise lineaments of the New Testament thought manifest, but the substance of the doctrine is there. In fact there is no language that expresses so profoundly and so tenderly the unaccountable love of God as the Hebrew of the Old Testament. This is not thought of abstractly but in intensely personal terms as the active love of One who is essentially the living and loving God of Israel. The dominant thought throughout is the amazing choice of Israel by God as grounded only in His free and unlimited love and as creating a community in fellowship with God who bestows Himself upon them as Father and Saviour for ever.

We can trace a revival of theology in the Reformed Churches in the last quarter of a century. The new theological interest merits being called a revival of theology, for there has been a fresh and more thorough attention given to certain realities, either ignored or treated with scant notice for a considerable time previously.

First among such realities now receiving more of the attention which their relevance and authority deserve, is the Bible, the record of the Word of God. There is an invigorating and convincing quality about theology which is Biblical throughout, being based on the witness of the Scriptures as a whole. The valuable results of careful Biblical scholarship had had an adverse effect on theology in so far as theologians had completely separated the Old Testament from the New in their treatment of Biblical doctrine, or in expanding Christian doctrine, had spoken of the theological teaching of the Synoptic Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, the Johannine writings, and so on, as if there were no such thing as one common New Testament witness. It is being seen anew that the Holy Scriptures contain a complete history of God's saving action. The presence of the complete Bible open at the heart of the Church, recalls each succeeding Christian generation to that one history of God's saving action, to which the Church is the living witness. The New Testament is one, for its Lord is one, and Christian theology must stand four-square on the foundation of its whole teaching.

Every modern estimate of the religious situation in our country has laid stress on the drift from religion which is increasingly apparent and ever more serious in its effects. Not only is there widespread indifference to the claims of Christianity, but the separation between those within the Churches and those outside grows more decisive and complete. In habit and outlook, in conduct and ways of life, the contrast between Christian and non-Christian standards becomes more and more clearly marked.

Every diagnosis of this situation and every prescription for its remedy raises the question of words and their use. Even if we do not agree that the drift from religion is due to outworn theological terminology or to meaningless pulpit jargon alone, we must recognise that misunderstanding and indifference are often increased by the strangeness of the Christian vocabulary in the ears of the modern man. “ We feel bound to make some attempt to translate certain theological statements of the Eternal Gospel into language such as present-day hearers might themselves employ to express spiritual needs of which they are acutely conscious.” In making this statement the authors of Towards the Conversion of England, (p. 24) quote from the Archbishops' Report on Training for the Ministry, (para. 107): “Full attention should be given to training ordinands in the power of translating the technical language of theology into terms understood by ordinary people.”

FOR a considerable time the services of most missionaries of the larger British Societies have been engaged in institutional and administrative work, and comparatively few of them have had wide experience as evangelists among simple people. The work of direct contact with non-Christians has either been left to indigenous evangelists who tend not to be able to stand far enough back from their work to give a reasoned account of it, or to the missionaries of small pioneer Societies, a majority of whom, though admirable and successful evangelists, lack deep theological knowledge, and are not able to establish a rationale of the work which they themselves have been carrying out. The situation is very different with continental Societies. It has been known for some time that a number of very able and theologically well-trained Dutch and German missionaries have been serving as evangelists among some of the most primitive peoples in the world, and that their results have been such as to raise many important questions of method, which are of interest to all those concerned with the Christian missionary enterprise. Unfortunately, almost all their works have been written in Dutch or German, and are therefore much less widely accessible in the Christian world than could be desired.

The book under review is a very good specimen of the type of missionary study produced by these continental scholars.