Beacon dictionary of theology

STANDING AND STATE. In general "standing" and "state" may be distinguished as follows: "state" is one's real moral and spiritual condition; "standing" is one's relationship of acceptance or rejection, or position in the mind of others. With the Christian, a good state is dependent on the work of Christ in him; a good standing (with God) is dependent on being justified through faith in the work of Christ for him.

The so-called "standing and state" theory implies that one's standing and state do not need to match; that one may have a good standing with God without a righteous state. This theory has its roots in the post-Reformation conception of justification as developed in the theological streams originating in the thought of Martin Luther and John Calvin. To Luther, justification was not a change in the nature or character (state) of man, nor was it an overcoming in him of sin; it was a change in his relation to divine justice. Through justification the righteousness of Christ was imputed to man as his own righteousness. The expression of this concept is similar in Calvinism. Man's sin is removed by imputation to Christ.

Thus, the "standing and state theory" joins "hand in hand with the doctrine of imputed righteousness" (Taylor, A Right Conception of Sin, 40). The practical consequence of this doctrine is to remove anxiety for sinful acts or deep concern for one's sinful state. Believers are reckoned as righteous or holy by their "standing" in Christ. God does not take notice of their actual "state" because "he sees them only through Christ" (Wiley, CT 2:459). The believer's sin is not actually removed as in a change of "state" but remains in the believer to be covered over by Christ's imputed holiness. Thus "holiness and righteousness are only imputed, never imparted" (Wiley). The responsibility of the believer, according to this theory, is to recognize what has already been accomplished in Christ.

Proponents of this view note 1 Cor. 1:2-9 as a reference to "standing" and v. 11 and 3:1-4 as a reference to "state" (Chafer, Systematic Theology, 7:293). That the Corinthians illustrate the possibility of a temporary partial disparity between standing and state is obvious; but it must be denied that this disparity is normative, or that its continuance will have no ultimate fatal effect on the standing.

The concept of changing one's standing by the imputation of Christ's righteousness without a corresponding change in one's state or moral nature is essentially to deny the possibility and necessity of personal holiness. John Wesley expressed concern about the doctrine of imputed holiness in his sermon "A Blow at the Root." Wesley comments as follows: "Wherever this doctrine is cordially received, it leaves open no place for holiness. It demolishes it from top to bottom, it destroys both root and branch. It effectually tears up all desire of it, all endeavor after it" (Works, 10:366).

The concepts of standing and state are sometimes advanced under the rubric of "declarative grace" (standing), and "operative grace" (state). God's declarative grace in justification is followed by operative grace in sanctification; but according to some interpreters, the fixedness of the declarative grace is unrelated to the success or failure of operative grace.

See IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS, IMPARTED RIGHTEOUSNESS, GRACE, HOLINESS, ETERNAL SECURITY OBEDIENCE, PERSEVERANCE.

For Further Reading: Chafer, Systematic Theology,

7:295; Taylor, A Right Conception of Sin, 26-42; Wesley,
Works, 10:364-69. LARRY FINE

STATE, THE. That the state is ordained of God is clear from the general testimony of the biblical record and is made explicit by Paul in Rom. 13:1, as it was implicit in Christ's teaching (Mark 12:17). However, H. Orton Wiley correctly suggests that "the sovereignty of the civil authority lies in the state itself, and not in any king or ruler whatsoever. This is established by the fact that the state exists before all rulers, and by the additional fact, that rulers are at the most, but its instruments" (CT 3:96). Thus the state, and not wicked Nero, was ordained of God when Paul wrote Romans 13. Without the state, whatever form it may take, society would destroy itself in anarchy.

Two conflicting views of state exist. One holds that the state was instituted by God after and because of the Fall, and without the entry of sin the state would have been unnecessary. However, the other view, known as the naturalistic, regards

the state as based upon the law of God operative over Adam before the Fall, both permissively and prohibitively. When Adam sinned, he violated the law of God's previously existing governmental law. This view sees the state as inherent in the very nature of man and society by reason of the fact that man bears God's personal image, marred and perverted by the Fall, but never annihilated.

Further, in support of this view is the fact that the family which was instituted before the Fall was organizationally constituted with Adam as its head. The family is the basic God-ordained unit of society, upon which every form of the state ultimately rests. In the biblical view the entire human race is the God-ordained "extended family" from creation (Acts 17:26).

While certain fundamental principles are laid down by Christ and Paul, no political theory as such is given. Though recognizing and approving the state in His famous command in Mark 12:17, Christ makes only occasional and incidental references to the state or political orders. H. D. A. Major states that "Jesus lays down the fundamental principles which must guide His disciples in the future crises in which human authority and divine authority make conflicting claims" (The Mission and Message of Jesus, 148).

Paul sees the purpose and function of the state as limited to the maintenance of order, the execution of justice, the prevention and punishment of crime, the promotion of peace, and the general advancement of the welfare of its citizens. The state in the biblical view is always subservient to God's sovereignty (Acts 5:29; cf. 4:19).

See CITIZENSHIP, CITY, CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, CIVIL RELIGION, CIVIL RIGHTS.

For Further Reading: ZPEB, 2:790-98; IDB, E-J:457-62; Baker's DT, 501-2; Wiley, CT, 3:96-98.

Charles W. Carter

STEWARDSHIP. Stewardship is an open acknowledgment that man is a creature who is the chief object of divine beneficence, both in creation and through redemption. From the beginning, man received dominion over God's creation both as a gift and a task, and thereby a close personal relationship was established between God and man. Man was given a wide range of freedom, but not without guidance of law. Man from the outset was amenable and responsible. In its historic meaning, stewardship is always personal.

"Stewardship" is the English word used to translate the NT word oikonomia. The Greek word is a compound of oikos, meaning "house," and nomos, meaning "law." It thus refers to the management of a house or household affairs.

Through Jesus himself we discover what God the Father is like and learn His benevolent attitude toward all mankind. The apostle Paul, however, seems to be our special teacher in the NT concerning the practical theology of stewardship. The real issues of stewardship do not come before us clearly until we learn the message of redemption in the gift of God's own Son, our Savior. Paul summarizes this truth in a word picture which makes the entire universe as a landscape: "Through him [Jesus] God chose to reconcile the whole universe to himself, making peace through the shedding of his blood upon the cross—to reconcile all things, whether on earth or in heaven, through him alone" (Col. 1:20, neb).

When Jesus came as Redeemer, He came as a man, "born of a woman." He appeared on the arena of man's defeat to provide for man's salvation. In what could be the most daring venture of redemption, Jesus committed to His disciples (on the eve of His departure) the agency of redemption. To be sure, the superintendency and power were afforded by the personal indwelling Holy Spirit. On the issue of transfer of power Jesus said, "As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you" (John 20:21). This becomes the assignment of each succeeding generation of Christians.

Paul was careful to ground his gospel message and mission on God himself. He witnessed with clarity to one of the young churches he founded, "But just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please men, but to please God who tests our hearts" (1 Thess. 2:4, rsv).

But God requires stewardship of all men, everywhere, no exceptions. "God is Lord, but he is not a landlord who can be cheated, cajoled, and treated shabbily" (Kantonen, Stewardship 73, 51). Jesus himself told the parable of the talents. The man who begged off had been given but one talent for investment and service. He buried his talent and then returned it without increase on the day of reckoning. He moaned, "Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed" (Matt. 25:24). The man said he was afraid and therefore hid his talent in the earth. His lord, however, identified the trusted man as, "You lazy rascal!" (neb). John Wesley in his Notes on the passage addresses an apostrophe to the faithless servant: "No. Thou knowest Him not. He never knew God who thinks Him a hard master."

STIGMATA—STOICISM

503

The basic issues of stewardship cover every area of our lives—not the religious only. The familiar trilogy is simple and far reaching: (1) Time; (2) Talent; (3) Treasure. Someone observed (tongue in cheek?), "The Terrible Trilogy." We would agree, but amend to read, "terribly" important and practical. Stewardship affords an edge to the Christian's witness and bears fruit both here and hereafter. It was Augustine who concluded: "The reward of God is God himself."

See tithe (the), service, consecrate (consecration), money, rewards, integrity

For Further Reading: Kantonen, A Theology for Chris-
tian Stewardship: Stewardship 73; Young, Giving and Liv-
ing. Samuel Young

STIGMATA. In Christian history, the bodily marks of Christ's wounds upon the hands, feet, side, head, or back of certain persons. Sometimes bleeding occurred. The term can refer to the pain only, without the wounds. Several hundred cases have been catalogued. The earliest well-known instance was that of Francis of Assisi. In 1224 his friends reported seeing the stigmata on his hands, feet, and side. Some modern examples have been attested by medical examination.

Stigmata were associated with the medieval stress upon participation in and indentification with Christ's sufferings. When spontaneous rather than deliberate, the wounds appeared during an emotional state of ecstasy or in connection with some mystical revelation.

Among Catholics, popular opinion ascribed stigmata to divine miracle, but officially the church has refrained from this view. There seems to be no reason not to attribute the phenomena themselves to natural but abnormal organic functions, given the conditions of intensive mental absorption, hysteria, and suggestibility. Similar phenomena have been observed outside the sphere of Christian faith.

See mysticism.

For Further Reading: N1DCC; The New Catholic Ency-
clopedia; ERE. Arnold E. Airhart

STOICISM. Stoicism was an ancient philosophical perspective launched by Zeno of Citium, who began teaching in Athens 300 B.C. He lectured on the Painted Porch (Stoa Poikele), which gave the word Stoic to his school.

Following Zeno, many Hellenistic thinkers expanded his teachings into a rather comprehensive world view. Roman philosophers such as Cicero (106-43 B.C.), Seneca (4 B.C.-a.d. 65), Epic-tetus (60-138 a.d.), and Marcus Aurelius (121-80 a.d.) absorbed and articulated Stoic philosophy.

In Greco-Roman society, Stoics advocated a metaphysical monism. Some thought only matter to be real; others advocated pantheism; all believed reality is one. Thus Stoics said much about Nature, a vast, organic, purposeful system of which men and women and other creatures are but parts. Those with religious sensitivity (and many were deeply religious) thought God was the thoroughly immanent "rational spirit" who structures and guides all things and is inseparable from them.

In ethics, Stoics admonished people to live wisely and righteously. They sensed an orderliness and benevolence in Nature and thought human beings should follow her instruction and example. The "natural law" could be discerned and followed. Virtues such as prudence, courage, justice, and temperance make one good. Stoics frequently warned against the deceptive allure of riches and pleasures, teaching that simplicity and moderation, and indifference to pleasure or pain, help one live the good life.

Much about Stoicism attracted Christians in the Early Church. The Stoic ethic, based upon the natural law, fused easily with the Scripture's call for righteous living. Early thinkers such as Tertullian clearly used Stoic ideas as a framework for Christian theology. In political philosophy, the "idea of human rights," says L. Harold De-Wolf, "or 'the rights of man' has come down to us from Stoics through the long tradition of natural law" (Responsible Freedom, 313).

Stoicism further refers to a general attitude toward life. Those who "keep a stiff upper lip," those who believe in rigid self-discipline, those who resign themselves to "fate" mediated through natural events, all reflect a stoical approach to life. While not conscious of historic Stoicism, such people nevertheless live according to some of its tenets.

Much that is true in Stoicism can be ascribed to the Holy Spirit, "the only fountain of truth" (Calvin). Yet while a philosophy of life, it is not a way of salvation. For that men must turn from noble resignation to simple trusting, in the Christ whose cross was foolishness to the Greeks and an offense to the Jews (1 Cor. 1:23); but to those who believe, the true "wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption" (v. 30, niv).

See virtue, seven cardinal virtues, character, suffer (suffering), pleasure, ethics, christian ethics, sowing and reaping.

For Further Reading: Copleston, A History of Philosophy; Zeller, The Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics; Epictetus, The Discourses of Epictetus; Aurelius, The Meditations of


504

SUBLAPSARIANISM—SUFFER, SUFFERING

Marcus Aurelius; Cave, The Christian Way, 107-17; De-Wolf, Responsible Freedom, 21, 122-24, 313.

Gerard Reed

SUBLAPSARIANISM. See infralapsarianism.
SUBMISSION. See obedience

SUBSTANCE, SUBSTANTIVE. The English word substance comes from the Latin sub, "under," and sto or stans, "to stand." It is thus that which stands under, or behind, mere appearance (the phenomenal). In Greek the word is expressed by ousia which means that which truly is: essence or reality. A long line of thinkers, including such giants as Philoponus of Alexandria, John Scotus, Descartes, Aquinas, Locke, Kant, and Berkeley, have struggled with the concept of substance since Aristotle wrote his Categories and his Meta-physics. Conclusions expressed by these writers as to what is basic in the universe vary from a fundamental natural entity to a mere mental thought more hypothetical in nature than factual.

In the face of all practical and observational evidence that change prevails in.life, Aristotle declared that there must be some "ground" that is inalterable, and that ground he called substance. Personalistic philosophies have found this changeless substance in personhood. At least a convincing demonstration, close at hand, of an essence which survives change is individual identity or personal being, which remains the same through continuous earthly change in appearance, personality, external relations, and even character. The ego or self which is the identifying essence of a particular child is the same self which identifies the old man or old woman as the same person.

In the absolute sense, substance can be ascribed only to God, for according to Christian theology only God is absolute being, underived, uncreated, unconditioned, and essentially unchanging (cf. Mai. 3:6; Exod. 3:6; Heb. 13:8). As such God is the Ground of all lesser or secondary substances.

The term substance was also made the key in Early Church history to the doctrine of the Trinity. The formula was tres personae, una substantia, "three persons, one substance." The three Persons shared the same nature or essence; the Godhead was one. Thus the substance of God comprised the unity and at the same time was the ground of the threeness.

Confusion arises from the fact that in practical usage substance has gone full circle, from the immaterial reality of the Greek philosophers to concrete, material reality. Cotton, wood, gold, et cetera, may be the substance of an object, determining its qualities though not altogether its form. An understanding of the nature of sin is befogged by this confusion. Sin as a nature is neither an immaterial entity in itself (the Greek concept of substance) nor a lumpish, materialistic entity.

In respect to the Greek concept, sin is the perversion of being, not being itself. All true being apart from God is derived from or created by God and as such essentially good. But one form of true, and essentially good, being is a free moral agent, either angelic or human. Such an agent has the power to pervert God's gifts to selfish ends; even to pervert his own nature to sinfulness of inclination. But this is a condition, not an entity.

But in respect to the popular meaning of substance, sin is not a physical thing. Wood says: "It is a confusion of categories to think that Wesley believed that sin was a physical-like substance which was extracted through the circumcision of the heart. ... Wesley was simply using the metaphorical language of Paul when he described in a concrete-functional way that the being of sin was cleansed in entire sanctification" (Pentecostal Grace, 168). Sin can be said to be substantive only in the sense that it (whether actual or original) is a real factor in human life rather than imaginary.

See being, ontology, realism, sin, relational theology.

For Further Reading: O'Connor, "Substance and Attributes," Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 8:36-40; Wood, Pentecostal Grace, 161-68. floyd J, perkins

SUBSTITUTION. See vicarious.

SUFFER, SUFFERING. All theology recognizes that people undergo experiences (pathos) which distress, afflict, injure, chasten, and bring on pain and death. Suffering may be physical, mental, or spiritual. The Bible relates this fact of human suffering to the Fall, to man's sin against God (Gen. 3:14-19; Rom. 8:18-25).

The burden of suffering has often fallen upon God's people (Exod. 1:11; Ps. 90:9-10). This occasions several problems, since God's people believe that He is in charge of all human life. It is relatively easy to conclude that sin will result in suffering. But why do the righteous suffer? Why does God permit His people to undergo afflictions?

SUICIDE

505

One problem—that of the origin of pain and suffering—is expressed in the ancient dilemma: either God is good but powerless to prevent suffering and evil, or He is all-powerful but malevolent—not wishing to rid the world of it. Christian theodicy has wrestled with this problem from early times.

While naturalism has often used this dilemma as a justification for its agnosticism, the Bible does suggest that God controls and regulates suffering (Job 1:12). He has a plan and purpose in life for every person. That plan may include prosperity for the wicked and suffering for the righteous.

Since God chose a cross, a means of suffering, by which to redeem mankind, it may well be that He will permit the righteous to suffer for redemptive reasons. This is the meaning of "taking up the cross" for Christians (Matt. 16:24).

The plan and purposes of God includes several explanations of why people suffer. Some suffering is caused by Satan and his cohorts—but Satan is limited by God's sovereign will (Job 1:12; 2:6). Some suffering is disciplinary; God uses afflictions to educate those who will learn (Job 35:11; 36:10 ff). Some suffering can only be resolved in the mystery of the Infinite. God, who knows all, does not explain to people all of His workings (Job 38—39; John 9:4).

Another problem is the nature of sin and suffering. While idealisms and non-Christian religions deny the real nature of suffering, equating it with man's finiteness, Christian theology sometimes relates suffering to sin. Suffering is real because man lives in rebellion against God. Man creates many suffering situations because he refuses to take God's way of life. Although not all suffering is caused by sin (John 9:1-4), Christian theology always takes seriously the doctrine of divine punishment upon sin (Lev. 26:14 ff; Ezek. 18:4). Some suffering is a punishment for sin.

The greatest problem faced by a theology of suffering is its elimination. Here non-Christian philosophies have no real solution, while the Bible offers the plan of a Redeemer God who has wrestled with the problem of sin and finally eliminates all suffering for those who trust Him (Rev. 21:4).

The Christian gospel reveals a God who knows the fact and the meaning of suffering. The Cross of Calvary is the sublime and majestic picture of a Redeemer who bears our griefs and carries our sorrows (Isa. 53:4), in order to reconcile people to God. The fact of human suffering can be borne by the hope of its ultimate banishment (1 Cor. 15:25-26). God's plan for the banishment of suffering and sin centers in the triumphal return of the Son of God to defeat the powers of sin and Satan and restore God's creation to its created harmony (Rev. 22:1-4).

See EVIL, PROVIDENCE, CHANCE.

For Further Reading: Hopkins, The Mystery of Suffering Lewis, The Problem of Pain; Jones, Christ and Human Suffering Lewis, The Creator and the Adversary; Weatherhead, Why Do Men Suffer? Hick, God and Evil.

Bert H, Hall

SUICIDE. Suicide is death which is voluntarily self-inflicted. Factors contributing to suicide are anxiety, envy, suffering, and depression. Alienation and guilt are emotions frequently mentioned with hopelessness and doubt (Farberow and Shneidman, The Cry for Help, 290-302). Suicide occurs when there appears to be no available path that will lead to a tolerable existence. Demonic suggestion and oppression doubtless are significant factors in some cases. Secular students of suicide would of course take no account of this possibility.

Some religions (Hinduism and Buddhism) condone suicide as a cog in the wheels of Karma and reincarnation. A depressed predestinarian may justify his actions and lay his misfortune at the feet of Providence. Stoics and Epicureans see suicide as an honorable exit out of life.

In the OT five cases of suicide are recorded: Samson (Judg. 16:30); King Saul and his armor bearer (1 Sam. 31:1-6); Zimri, another king of Israel (1 Kings 16:15-19); and Ahithophel, advisor to Absalom (2 Sam. 17:23). In the NT there is the single case of Judas, who also died by hanging after he failed to right the wrong in betraying Jesus (Matt. 27:3-5; Acts 1:18). The cases cited have behind them stories of greed, hate, and loss of faith in God (revenge in the case of Samson).

The Bible has no direct injunction against suicide. The word is not even mentioned in Scripture. However, the sixth commandment would imply its prohibition, and both Judaism and Christianity have opposed the practice. From Deut. 20:1, 6-9, the rabbis and fathers have argued that it is unlawful for anyone to take his own life. The act shows lack of faith in God and betrays an absence of a proper sense of responsibility and stewardship, both toward God and toward others.

Judgment upon the suicide must be left entirely with God. He alone sees the motivation and intentions. He alone sees the degree of sanity possessed at the time of the action, therefore the moral responsibility.


506

SUNDAY—SUPERNATURAL, SUPERNATURALISM

See man, divine image, stewardship, life, pastoral counseling.