God nabij en God ver weg − Stephen Charnock (1628–1680) over de eigenschappern van God. Dit artikel evalueert de wijze waarop de Puriteinse theoloog en pastor Stephen Charnock in zijn boek Discourses upon the Existence and Attributes of God de eigenschappen van God bespreekt. Enerzijds is het boek een helder getuigenis van de grootheid van God, ‘de God van verre’, waardoor we geholpen worden om aardse voorstellingen van Gods majesteit te overwinnen. Tegelijkertijd geeft dit boek bijzondere aandacht aan de betekenis van de bevindelijke kennis van Gods eigenschappen, zoals zijn almacht, heiligheid, goedheid enzovoorts, in het leven van het geloof. Op deze wijze zet Charnock zich in om ‘de God van nabij’ te verkondigen. De belangrijkste vraag die dit artikel wil beantwoorden is in hoeverre Charnock erin slaagt een brug te slaan tussen deze beide benaderingen.

(Jr 23:23, NIV). This reminds us of Lord’s Day 46 of the Heidelberg Catechism that raises a question regarding the onset of the Lord’s Prayer:

Why is it here added ‘Which art in heaven?’ Answer: ‘Lest we should not form any earthly conceptions of God’s heavenly majesty, and that we may expect from his almighty power all things necessary for soul and body’.

As a matter of fact, we see instances of earthly conceptions of God in several contemporary theological and philosophical approaches, for instance where God is depicted as weak and needy instead of sovereign and powerful (e.g. ‘the fellow-sufferer who understands’, A.N. Whitehead). When suffering is placed at the heart of God, as Jürgen Moltmann does in his Theologia Crucis, there is the real danger that we end up with a God who is as helpless as we are in the face of suffering and evil, and whose freedom and transcendence is seriously compromised (cf. Marmion & Van Nieuwenhove 2011:174).

This article aims to show how a renewed acquaintance with the work of a representative classical reformed theologian, to wit the Puritan pastor Stephen Charnock (1628−1680), will help us overcome our tendency to entertain earthly conceptions regarding God’s majesty. We may view Charnock’s book Discourses upon the existence and attributes of God (posthumously published in 1682 and a primary source for this article) as a long doxology (cf. Beeke & Jones 2012; Trueman 2008). Stephen Charnock died before he could finish his treatises on God’s attributes for his nonconformist congregation in Crosby Hall, England. The book was widely appreciated.¹ His considerations are largely in concordance with established views of Reformed Orthodoxy on the highly significant topic of the doctrine of God (Muller 2003; Beck 2007; Te Velde 2010). At the same time, Charnock’s contribution is remarkable as he excels in succinct and clear formulations, showing an impressive way how the glorious attributes of God bear a comfortable respect to believers. His discourses are really addressed to the hearts of his readers (Symington 1979) and make clear how the divine attributes are great motives to provoke men to the exercise of faith, love, hope, fear and humility (Veel & Adams 1979).

Charnock makes it clear from the outset that he intends to proclaim the unique highness and holiness of God. In his view, God is first and foremost ‘the God far away’. It would be of great value if this approach were to be reintroduced in a refreshing manner to contemporary theological debates. However, in order to sidestep one-sidedness, this article investigates to what extent Charnock shows himself capable of relating God, as the ‘perfect Being’, to human beings in a salvific way. Is the God he speaks of also the ‘God nearby’, known by his children as a heavenly, caring Father?

It is not the intention to summarise Charnock’s theological description of several attributes of God at length, but just to call attention to his impressive testimony of the greatness of God. Secondly, this article will shed some light on the way he reaps the pastoral fruits of his discourses to enrich the believers’ experiential knowledge of God. As was usual in his spiritual environment, Charnock concludes his discourses (a type of sermon) with several practical applications or ‘uses’ (instruction, exhortation, consolation, etc.) in order to relate doctrine to life. Especially in the ‘uses of consolation’, he sincerely strives to maintain the paradox of the transcendent and immanent − the far and near God. Does he succeed in this endeavour, affording us a clear view of the merciful nearness of the heavenly Father?

Whatsoever God is, he is infinitely so: he is infinite Wisdom, infinite Goodness, infinite Knowledge, infinite Power, infinite Spirit; infinitely distant from the weakness of creatures, infinitely mounted above the excellencies of creatures. (p. 200)

As the most perfect Being, ‘God, as immutable, is opposed to all creatures as perishing and changeable […] Mutability is absolutely inconsistent with simplicity, whether the change comes from an internal or external principle’, Charnock (1682, vol. 1:187, 317).

God always acts according to the holiness of his essence and can no more alter in his attitude regarding good and evil than he could alter his essence. God is necessarily immutable and fully free at the same time. Nothing and nobody compelled him to decide or to create. It was nevertheless, his establishment to do so. In the same way, it was certain that Adam would fall, whilst Adam did so totally voluntarily.⁴ This creates an indissoluble paradox to our understanding. It is impossible for us as creatures to fully comprehend the ways of the glorious God.

We need to know the difference between the might or power of God and his dominion. God has not only the might, but also the right to do what he wants to do. His strength is the executive power belonging to his dominion. All the other attributes of God refer to this perfection of dominion.

As his power is the strength of them, his holiness is the beauty of them. As all would be weak, without almightiness to back them, so all would be uncomely without holiness to adorn them […] Without it, his patience would be an indulgence to sin, his mercy a fondness, his wrath a madness, his power a tyranny, his wisdom an unworthy subtlety. (pp. 113–114)

The holiness of God is a perfect and unpolluted freedom from all evil. He has a delight and complacency in everything agreeable to his will. He also has an abhorrence of everything contrary thereunto, Charnock (1682, vol. 2:114, 115).

The goodness of God is not the same as the mercy of God. The goodness of God goes together with his mercy, which extends itself to men in misery and distress. God is good in essence ([per essentiam; simplicitas] Dei II:221). Goodness is not an endowed quality in him − it is his nature. He is not God first, followed by goodness. His essence is formally and equally God and good. God is the prime and chief goodness. All good must be referred to him, as he is the final cause of good. This goodness is communicative, Charnock (1682, vol. 2:223). As the highest goodness, he is a communicative goodness. God is necessarily good, Charnock (1682, vol. 2:224). His goodness is as inseparable from him as his holiness. He can no more act contrary to his goodness in any of his actions than he can ‘un-God’ himself. He is also freely good, Charnock (1682, vol. 2:226). He is not so necessarily communicative of his goodness as the sun of its light, or a tree of its cooling shade. He is an understanding agent, and he has a sovereign right to choose his own subjects. His own happiness cannot more be diminished than it can be increased. The display of this goodness was the motive and end of all his works of creation and providence, Charnock (1682, vol. 2:228).

God manifests his goodness in creation, redemption and providence, Charnock (1682, vol. 2:244). The creation proceeds from goodness. Being is much more excellent than nothingness. God’s goodness appears in the laws he has given to man in the covenant he has made with him, Charnock (1682, vol. 2:252). It was God’s sheer goodness to reward the obedience of man with eternal happiness, Charnock (1682, vol. 2:257).

Goodness was also the source of redemption, Charnock (1682, vol. 2:258). He was under no obligation to pity our misery and to repair our ruins. It was a distinct goodness of the whole Trinity, Charnock (1682, vol. 2:260). The height of this goodness in redemption exceeds that in creation, with regard to the difficulty in effecting it and with regard to its cost, Charnock (1682, vol. 2:261). In God’s giving of Christ to be our Redeemer, he gave the highest gift that divine goodness could bestow, Charnock (1682, vol. 2:266). Never did God go further in any of his excellent perfections than this. Although he could create millions of worlds for us, he cannot give a greater Son to us. This goodness also appears in the higher advancement of our nature after it had so highly offended God. By creation, we had an affinity with animals in our bodies, with angels in our spirits and with God in his image, but not with God in our nature until the incarnation of the Redeemer, Charnock (1682, vol. 2:273). Our earthly nature is joined to a heavenly Person. There are fuller streams of grace through Christ than flowed to Adam, or that could flow from Adam, Charnock (1682, vol. 2:291).

Since God is eternal, he hath as much power as will to be as good as his word. His promises are established upon his eternity; and his perfection is a main ground of trust. (p. 300)

The eternal God affords eternal joy, Charnock (1682, vol. 1):

The fullness of joy will be always present; without past to be thought of with regret for being gone; without future to be expected with tormenting desires. When we enjoy God, we enjoy him in his eternity without any flux [...] Time is fluid, but eternity is stable; and after many ages, the joys will be as savory and satisfying as if they had been but that moment first tasted by our hungry appetites. (p. 298)

The church is encouraged by God’s immutability in the midst of her oppressions, Charnock (1682, vol. 1):

Yet the church should continue in its stability, because it stands not upon the changeableness of creatures, but it is built upon the immutable rock of the truth of God, which is as little subject to change as his essence. (pp. 310–311)

The immutability of a good God is the basis and strength of all his promises. The covenant stands unchangeable. He will not revoke the covenant, and will never blot the names of his elect out of the book of life. ‘What comfort could it be to pray to a God, that like the chameleon changed colors every day, every moment?’ Charnock (1682, vol. 1:348).

Also, God’s omnipresence is a great comfort to believers. He is everywhere to his people − not only by a necessary perfection of his nature, but by an immense diffusion of his goodness. He is with his people as light in darkness, as a fountain in a garden, as manna in the ark. The omnipresence of God is a comfort in all violent temptations and sharp afflictions. It is a comfort in all duties of worship. God is present to observe and to accept our petitions, and answer our suits. He is as genuinely present with us as if he were visible to us, Charnock (1682, vol. 1):

He is in the same room with us, as near to us as our souls to our bodies, not a word but he hears, not a motion but he sees, not a breath but he perceives; he is through all, he is in all. (p. 401)

The comfort of God‘s omniscience is that he knows all the clandestine contrivances of men against the church. On the other hand, our sincerity cannot be unknown to his infinite understanding, Charnock (1682, vol. 1):

As he understands better than we what we have committed, so he understands better than we what our Saviour hath merited; and his eye directs his hand in the blotting of our guilt, and applying the remedy. (p. 491)

What joy can he be missing who finds himself folded in the arms of omnipotence? A comfort in all afflictions and distresses, and in all strong and stirring corruptions and mighty temptations − knowing that all promises shall be effectuated. From this infiniteness of power in God, we have ground of assurance for perseverance. ‘Our keeping is not in our weak hands, but in the hands of Him who is mighty to save. That power of God keeps us which intends our salvation’, Charnock (1682, vol. 2:100):

It is a great comfort that the lowest distresses of the church are a fit scene for the discovery of this attribute, and that the glory of God’s omnipotence, and the church’s security, are so straitly linked together. Charnock (1682, vol. 2:101-102)

God’s sovereignty and dominion is a strong encouragement for prayer. Comfort in affliction, in adversity directed at the church and in times of public commotion may be found in it. Who can repeal the act of the chief Governor?

The holiness of God appears in our restoration. It appears, for example in the actual regeneration of the redeemed souls and in completing this to full perfection. His holiness is radiated in our purity, Charnock (1682, vol. 2):

As he sent Jesus Christ to satisfy his justice for the expiation of the guilt of sin, so he sends the Holy Ghost for the cleansing of the filth of sin, and overmastering the power of it: Himself is the fountain, the Son is the pattern, and the Holy Ghost the immediate imprinter of this stamp of holiness upon the creature. (p. 139)

The goodness of God renders him amiable, more so than any other attribute, Charnock (1682, vol. 2:330). This renders God a fitting object of trust and confidence, Charnock (1682, vol. 2:335). A confidence in him gives him the glory of his goodness. His goodness makes him more ready to forgive than our necessities make us desirous to enjoy. If he is a fountain and sea of goodness, he cannot be weary of doing good, no more than a fountain or sea can be weary of flowing. It is a part of his goodness not to be weary of showing it. What can we fear from the conduct of infinite Goodness? It is a basis for assurance and happiness, and also for comfort in the midst of public dangers, Charnock (1682, vol. 2:344).

This goodness is also manifested in his dominion in the care he extends to all creatures; in preserving all things; in taking care of wicked individuals; in the preservation of human society; in the encouragement of any form of moral goodness in the world; in providing a Scripture as a rule to guide us and continuing it in the world; in conversions of men; in answering prayers; in bearing with the infirmities of his people; and accepting imperfect obedience in afflictions, persecutions and temptations, Charnock (1682, vol. 2:449f.).

God’s patience is a basis for trusting his promises and it is a comfort in infirmities, Charnock (1682, vol. 2:516). We are called to imitate God’s patience in our dealings with others. As his slowness to anger argues the greatness of his power over himself, such unwillingness to vengeance is a sign of a power over ourselves, which is nobler than ruling over others, Charnock (1682, vol. 2:524).

However, any denial of the reality of God’s emotions makes it − this article contends − impossible to ascribe weight to the reliability of God’s revelation. All ‘God-talk’ has a metaphorical character. This, however, does not water down the reliability of the biblical language concerning God.⁶ God’s essential properties are the same from eternity until eternity, but experientially they become astonishingly new in the daily and practical interaction with his people. God is always timely in his immutability. Scripture provides a clear testimony of a God having passions.⁷ God is acquainted with joy, anger, jealousy, repentance and even hatred. His nostrils become red from his anger and his bowels rustle in compassion for his people (cf. Is 63:15). The New Testament shows how this personal and passionate God is the One who − in compassion and love − has taken effective steps in Jesus Christ to reverse the misery of men (Reymond 1998):

Everywhere He is portrayed as One who can and does enter into deep, authentic interpersonal relations of love with his creatures, and as a God who truly cares for his creatures and their happiness. (p. 178)

However, any denial of the reality of God’s emotions makes it − this article contends − impossible to ascribe weight to the reliability of God’s revelation. All ‘God-talk’ has a metaphorical character. This, however, does not water down the reliability of the biblical language concerning God.⁶ God’s essential properties are the same from eternity until eternity, but experientially they become astonishingly new in the daily and practical interaction with his people. God is always timely in his immutability. Scripture provides a clear testimony of a God having passions.⁷ God is acquainted with joy, anger, jealousy, repentance and even hatred. His nostrils become red from his anger and his bowels rustle in compassion for his people (cf. Is 63:15). The New Testament shows how this personal and passionate God is the One who − in compassion and love − has taken effective steps in Jesus Christ to reverse the misery of men (Reymond 1998):

Everywhere He is portrayed as One who can and does enter into deep, authentic interpersonal relations of love with his creatures, and as a God who truly cares for his creatures and their happiness. (p. 178)

These considerations evoke many critical questions. Can we speak about sin as a link in the chain of God’s decrees? Should we not leave these kinds of ‘answers’ and ‘explanations’ out when we are confronted with the mysterium iniquitatis [the riddle of sin and injustice]? Is the way Charnock speaks about God’s providence not too far-reaching and, in a sense, naive? Such an approach could easily lead to the justification of structural iniquity. We notice this when Charnock, affirming that all God’s laws are suited to the true satisfaction of man and the good of human society, contends that poverty has a certain positive aspect. Some people are rich and some poor. The rich have as much need of the poor as the poor have of the rich: if the poor depend upon the rich for their livelihood, the rich depend upon the poor for their conveniences, Charnock (1682, vol. 1):

If all were rich, there would be no objects for the exercise of a noble part of charity; if all were poor, there we no matter for the exercise of it. Thus the Divine wisdom planted various inclinations and diversified the conditions of men for the public advantages of the world. (p. 532)

These words can be misused to foster a conservatism that impedes any societal criticism and renewal.

The providence of God or the absolute predestination is described here in such an abstract manner that too little room is left for the difficult questions and puzzling paradoxes that will always accompany a theologia viatorum [a theology of people who are living by faith and not by observing] (cf. Schwarzwäller 1970).

These are beautiful passages indeed and they abound in Charnock’s work. Nevertheless, theological criticism is in place and even necessary. Concerns may concentrate on the disproportionate stress that Charnock places on the attributes of God’s transcendence, which results in the underestimation of the attributes of God’s immanence or condescension. Charnock chooses to explain everything by appealing to God’s sovereignty. Why not respect the mysterium iniquitatis instead of justifying evil and sin as a means to glorify God? It is sometimes difficult to recognise the Father of Jesus Christ in such considerations. The orthodox reformed discourses on God, as exemplified by Charnock, therefore need to be completed and corrected by an approach from the opposite direction − visually starting with the attributes of God’s immanence and viewing the attributes of God’s transcendence in the light of the former (cf. Van den Brink & Van der Kooi 2012:126f.). Nevertheless, the theological contribution of Charnock must be welcomed as relevant and valuable to the ongoing debate concerning ‘God-talk’. By his stress on God’s transcendence, he helps us to give testimony to the God who is both a God far away and a God nearby − our Father in heaven.

Beeke, J.R. & Jones, M., 2012, ‘Stephen Charnock on the attributes of God’, in J.R. Beeke & M. Jones (eds.), A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for life, pp. 59–84, Reformation Heritage Books, Grand Rapids.

Braaten, C.E. (ed.), 1989, Our naming of God: Problems and prospects of God-talk today, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

Charnock, S., 1682, Discourses upon the existence and attributes of God, vols. 1 & 2, Baker Bookhouse, Grand Rapids.

Huijgen, A., 2011, Divine accommodation in John Calvin’s theology: Analysis and assessment, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen.

Köhler, L., 1953, Theologie des Alten Testaments, J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen.

Marmion, D. & Van Nieuwenhove, R., 2011, An introduction to the Trinity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Muller, R.A., 2003, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The divine essence and attributes, vol. 3, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

Reymond, R.L., 1998, A new systematic theology of the Christian faith, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville.

Schwarzwäller, K., 1970, Das Gotteslob der angefochtenen Gemeinde: Dogmatische Grundlegung der Prädestinationslehre, Neukirchener Verlag, Neukirchen.

Symington, W.M., 1979, ‘Life and character of Charnock’, Discourses 1, 6–18, 15.

Te Velde, D., 2010, Paths beyond tracing out: The connection of method and content in the doctrine of God: Examined in Reformed Orthodoxy, Karl Barth and the Utrecht School, Eburon, Delft.

Theron, P., 2013, ‘Accommodation and incarnation: A favourite concept of Calvin in the theology of Oepke Noordmans’, in H. van den Belt (ed.), Restoration through redemption. John Calvin revisited, pp. 199–214, Brill, Leiden. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/9789004244672_014

Trueman, C., 2008, ‘Reason and rhetoric: Stephen Charnock on the existence of God’, in M.W.F. Stone (ed.), Reason, faith and history: Philosophical essays for Paul Helm, pp. 29–46, Ashgate, Aldershot.

Van den Brink, G. & Van der Kooi, C., 2012, Christelijke Dogmatiek − Een inleiding, Boekencentrum, Zoetermeer.

Veel, E. & Adams, R., 1979, ‘To the reader’, Discourses I, 19–22, 22.

Westminster Confession of Faith 2.1.

2.Cf. Westminster Confession of Faith 2.1.

3.Charnock (1682, vol. 1:339): ‘So the name Creator and Lord belongs to God from eternity, because he could create and rule, though he did not create and rule […] so that suppose any new relation be added, yet there is nothing happened to the nature of God which may infer any change.’

4.Charnock (1682, vol. 1:450): ‘Adam was not determined by any inward necessity to fall, nor any man by any inward necessity to commit this or that particular sin; but God foresaw that he would fall, and fall freely.’

5.Cf. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary s.v. ‘passion’, definition 4a. There is nothing in God that subjects him to, or renders him liable to be acted on, by what is external or foreign to his true nature.

6.Religious propositions regarding God have the intention to refer to an external reality, which is not to identify with the believers themselves. They contend cognitive claims and pretend to be ontologically right.

7.See Köhler (1953:4): ´In grosser Ausführlichkeit liegt unbekümmert und selbst drastisch die menschenartige Anschauung von Gott auf allen Blättern des AT hingebreitet.’