Publication date
6/1/00
Volume
21
Number
11
The WatchTower
Views From the Watch Tower
The Watchtower Magazines
../literature/watchtower/1900/11/1900-11-1.html
 
 
VOL. 
XXI 
ALLEGHENY, 
PA., 
JUNE 
1, 
1900 
No. 
11 
VIEWS 
FROM 
THE 
WATCH 
TOWER 
WHY 
REV. 
LYMAN 
ABBOTT 
IS 
NOT 
A 
UNIVERSALIST 
all 
men 
righteous; 
otherwise 
he 
would 
not 
be 
.a 
ri~hteou" 
At 
a 
General 
Convention 
of 
Universalists 
one 
session 
was 
God. 
But 
I 
start 
from 
the 
o.ther 
pole. 
I. 
begm 
. 
Wlt~ 
my 
set 
a 
art 
as 
"Interdenominational 
Evening," 
and 
amongst 
OW? 
absolute 
fr~edom. 
I 
rec?gmze 
as 
~ 
fact, 
m 
my 
hfe, 
.m 
my 
th 
p 
k 
Dr 
Lyman 
Abbott 
a 
representative 
Con- 
philosophy 
and 
III 
my 
preachmg, 
that, 
III 
the 
last 
analysIs, 
the 
0, 
er 
spea 
ers 
was 
. 
, 
. 
d 
t' 
f 
. 
. 
h' 
h 
ds 
Father 
may 
per 
re 
ationalist, 
who 
ave 
his 
reasons 
for 
not 
believi?g 
i~ 
unI- 
es 
my 
0 
every 
man 
~s 
I~ 
IS 
own 
an 
. 
. 
. 
- 
~er~al 
salvation. 
sg 
eaking 
as 
a 
liberal 
CongregatiOnahst 
he 
suade, 
mother 
ma.y 
entice, 
m~uences 
may. 
enVIron, 
~od 
hImself 
declared 
that 
modern 
Congregationalism 
does 
not 
accept 
the 
may 
s~rround 
w~th 
all 
possIble 
pe.rs~asiO.ns, 
but 
m 
the 
last 
doctrine 
of 
eternal 
punishment 
as 
preached 
by 
the 
celebrated 
analysIs 
th~ 
destmJ:' 
of. 
every 
man 
IS 
m 
hIS 
own 
hands. 
And 
J 
th 
Ed 
ds 
of 
the 
last 
century. 
what 
he 
wIll 
do 
WIth 
It 
I 
do 
not 
know. 
. 
. 
ana 
an 
war 
. 
, 
. 
as 
fol- 
"Why, 
if 
God 
be 
good, 
has 
he 
made 
a 
world 
III 
which 
We 
make 
quotatiOns 
from 
Dr. 
Abbott 
s 
discourse 
there 
is 
sin? 
Why 
has 
he 
not 
made 
a 
world 
sinless? 
Could 
lows:- 
" 
1 
1 
b 
he 
not? 
Certainly' 
he 
not 
only 
could, 
he 
has. 
The 
birds 
"I 
do 
not 
?elieve 
that 
~ny 
one 
?f 
God 
s 
creatures 
WI 
~ 
are 
sinicss. 
But 
h~ 
could 
not 
make 
a 
world 
in 
which 
are 
~ept. 
by 
God 
I.n 
eternal 
eXIstence 
simply. 
t.hat 
he 
n;a 
y 
go. 
0 
free 
moral 
agents 
able 
to 
choose 
the 
good 
without 
giving 
them 
In 
sm 
an.d. 
mIsery 
for~ver. 
The 
proposit.iOn 
has 
ong 
s~nce 
at 
the 
same 
time 
power 
to 
choose 
the 
evil. 
Power 
to 
cho?se 
become 
spIrItually 
unthmkable 
to 
me. 
I 
mIght 
perha~s 
beh~v~ 
the 
one 
is 
powpr 
to 
choose 
the 
other; 
and 
a 
world 
in 
WhICh 
that 
a 
soul 
could 
suffer 
eternally;. 
but 
I 
can 
J.lot 
b~lIeve 
t 
a 
there 
are 
some 
men 
who 
choose 
shame, 
dishonor, 
sin 
and 
any 
being 
that 
God 
ever 
made 
wIll 
be 
kept 
m 
eXIstence 
by 
death 
is 
a 
better 
world 
I 
dare 
to 
say 
than 
a 
world 
made 
of 
God 
that 
he 
may 
go 
on 
in 
s~n 
eternally.. 
machines 
that 
could 
choose 
neither 
the 
good 
nor 
the 
evil." 
"What 
was 
the 
old 
doctrme 
of 
eter~al 
pumsh~ent? 
The 
We 
fully 
concur 
with 
the 
foregoing, 
reminding 
our 
readers 
Savoy 
Confessi?n, 
up 
to 
~bout 
the 
middle 
of 
this. 
cent~ry, 
nevertheless 
of 
the 
necessity 
for 
remembering 
the 
two 
opposi.te 
was 
the 
r~cogmzed. 
e~pressiOn 
of 
orthodox 
Cong~egat~on~hsm. 
views 
of 
free 
agency 
which 
may 
prope~ly 
be 
taken 
from 
dif­ 
Not 
that 
it 
was 
bmdmg 
on 
orthodox 
CongregatiOnahst~, 
but 
ferent 
standpoints 
as 
shown 
in 
our 
issue 
of 
Dec. 
1, 
1899, 
it 
was 
the 
only 
historic 
creed 
they 
pos~essed. 
Except. 
m 
the 
page 
264. 
' 
matter 
of 
polity, 
and 
on~ 
?r 
two 
mm~r 
matters; 
it 
was 
But 
two 
queries 
naturally 
arise: 
identical 
with 
the 
West~mister 
ConfeSSiOn 
of 
Faith; 
and 
(l) 
How 
does 
Dr. 
Abbott 
harmonize 
his 
two 
pr?positions, 
this 
was 
the 
substance 
of. 
itS 
stateme~t: 
It 
dec~ared 
that 
our 
(a) 
that 
the 
decision 
respecting 
his 
harmony 
or 
disharmony 
first 
parents 
fell 
by 
eatm~ 
the 
fo.rbidd~n 
frmt! 
that, 
they 
with 
God 
lies 
with 
man 
himself, 
individually; 
(b) 
that 
God 
being 
the 
root 
of 
all 
mankmd, 
theIr 
gUilt 
was 
Imputed 
a~d 
has 
made 
no 
provision 
for 
the 
eternal 
torture 
of 
any? 
The 
their 
sinful 
and 
corrupted 
nature, 
was 
co?ve.yed 
to 
a~l 
theIr 
logical 
mind 
will 
surely 
inquire, 
What 
then 
will 
become 
of 
postenty; 
that 
as 
a 
result 
we 
are 
utterly 
mdlsposed, 
disabled, 
the 
wicked 
who 
are 
unwilling 
to 
be 
saved 
on 
divine 
terms 
and 
and 
made 
opposite 
to 
all 
good;' 
that 
from 
the 
race 
thus 
lost 
hence 
unfit 
for 
the 
rewards 
of 
eternal 
bliss, 
if 
the 
time 
is 
to 
and 
ruined 
in 
the 
Fall, 
'by 
the 
decree 
of 
God, 
for 
the 
~an- 
come 
when 
"every 
creature 
that 
is 
in 
heaven 
and 
on 
earth 
ifestation 
of 
His 
glory, 
some 
men 
and 
ange.ls 
are 
predestIJ.led 
and 
under 
the 
earth 
and 
such 
as 
are 
in 
the 
sea 
shall 
give 
unto 
everlasting 
life, 
and 
others 
are 
foreordamed 
to 
everlastmg 
praise 
and 
glory 
to 
the 
God 
of 
their 
salvation"? 
death;' 
that 
those. 
not 
effe?tually 
called, 
Go~ 
was 
pleased, 
Is 
it 
possible 
that 
so 
fine 
a 
logician. 
as 
Dr. 
Abbott 
has 
'for 
the 
glory 
of 
hiS 
sovereign 
power 
over 
HiS 
creatures, 
~o 
overlooked 
the 
10O'ic 
of 
his 
own 
expresSiOns? 
Oh 
no! 
\Ve 
pass 
by, 
and 
to. 
ordain 
t~lem 
to. 
dish~nor. 
an~ 
wrath 
for 
theIr 
answer, 
The 
conn~cting 
link 
in 
the 
Doctor's 
lo~ic 
is 
clear 
t:o 
sin, 
to 
the 
praise 
of 
hiS 
gloriOUS 
Justice; 
a~d 
. 
that 
those 
his 
own 
mind, 
but 
he 
does 
not 
care 
to 
make 
it 
very 
public 
'not 
elected, 
altho 
they 
may 
be 
called 
by 
t~e 
milllstry 
of 
.t?e 
because 
it 
is 
not 
very 
popular 
yet-the 
same 
is 
true 
of 
many 
'Word, 
and 
may 
have 
some 
common 
operations 
of 
the 
Spint, 
others 
of 
the 
ablest 
ministers 
in 
all 
denominations. 
The 
yet 
they 
never 
truly 
come 
to 
Christ, 
and 
therefore 
cannot 
be 
connecting 
link 
of 
his 
logic 
will 
be 
see~ 
at 
once 
.when 
. 
i~ 
is 
saved.' 
stated 
-he 
believes 
in 
the 
utter 
destructwn 
of 
the 
lllcorngibly 
"Specifically, 
and 
clame 
by 
clause, 
I 
disown 
that 
state- 
wicked 
as 
we 
do 
and 
as 
we 
teach 
publicly. 
ment 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
This 
doctriJ.le 
is 
inconsistent 
with 
t~e 
character 
But 
public 
t~achers 
who 
keep 
silence 
on 
this 
subject 
and 
of 
a 
righteous 
God. 
I 
might 
fear 
such 
a 
God; 
I 
might 
tremble 
put 
their 
light 
under 
a 
bushel, 
do 
so 
at 
a 
great 
cost-the 
before 
such 
a 
God; 
I 
might, 
because 
I 
was 
a 
coward, 
ob~y 
cost 
of 
further 
guidance 
of 
the 
Lord 
into 
the 
"all 
truth" 
Buch 
a 
God; 
but 
I 
cOl~ld 
not 
reverence 
~uch. 
a 
God. 
I.t 
IS 
promised. 
Oh, 
how 
many 
ministel 
s 
in 
seeking 
to 
avoid 
the 
inconsistent 
with. 
the 
faith 
tha.t 
Jesus 
Chnst 
IS 
God 
mamfest 
senseless 
charge, 
"Annihilationist," 
have 
suffered 
God's 
char­ 
in 
the 
flesh, 
for 
!t 
was 
not 
HIS 
nature 
t~ 
P?SS 
an.y 
by 
or. 
to 
acter 
to 
be 
blasphemed 
and 
his 
people 
to 
be 
deluded 
by 
~he 
ordain 
any 
to 
dishonor 
and 
wrath. 
It 
is 
mconsistent 
~ith 
doctrine 
of 
an 
eternal 
torment 
of 
the 
unsaintly;-preferrmg 
the 
Scr!ptu.re; 
in.co~lsist~nt 
with 
the 
parable. 
of 
tl:e 
prodi~al 
numbers 
and 
popularity 
and 
honor 
among 
men 
and 
the 
financial 
Bon, 
which 
is 
Chnet 
s 
epitome 
of 
the 
Gospel; 
lllconsistent 
With 
emoluments 
of 
these 
rather 
than 
the 
truth! 
Alas! 
they 
seek 
the 
declaration 
of 
Paul 
that 
'every 
knee 
should 
bow 
and 
every 
to 
be 
wise 
and 
prudent 
according 
to 
this 
world's 
standards, 
tongue 
confess 
Jesns 
Christ 
to 
be 
the 
Lord, 
to 
the 
glory 
of 
entirely 
overlookinO' 
the 
fact 
that 
the 
Lord 
declares 
he 
will 
not 
God 
the 
Father'; 
inconsistent 
with 
the 
vpry 
chapters 
of 
Rom~ns 
reveal 
his 
secrets 
to 
such. 
Our 
Lord 
pointed 
this 
out, 
saying, 
on 
\\ 
hich 
it 
is 
supposed 
to 
be 
founded, 
for 
.they 
close 
With 
"I 
thank 
thee, 
Father, 
Lord 
of 
heaven 
and 
earth. 
because 
the 
declaration 
that 
'God 
hath, 
c.onclu~ed 
all 
t~t 
unbeltef, 
th~t 
thou 
hast 
hidden 
these 
things 
fr01n 
the 
wise 
and 
prudent 
and 
he 
might 
haL'e 
mercy 
upon 
aU 
j 
mCOll9istent 
With 
the 
splendid 
hast 
revealed 
them 
unto 
babes"-who 
will 
utter 
the 
truth 
picture 
John 
paints, 
of 
the 
time 
when 
every 
creature 
that 
is 
regardless 
of 
conseqnences.-Matt. 
11: 
25. 
!n 
heaven 
and 
on 
e~rth 
an~ 
under 
the 
earth, 
and 
such 
as 
a:e 
(2) 
Some 
one 
will 
say 
then, 
If 
Dr. 
Abbott 
bel~cves 
thus 
III 
the 
sea, 
shall 
give 
praise 
and 
glory 
to 
the 
God 
of 
theu 
in 
the 
final 
reign 
of 
riO'hteousness 
and 
the 
de"tructiOn 
of 
the 
salvation." 
incorrigibly 
wicked, 
is 
lie 
not 
very 
close 
to 
the 
truth 
and 
a 
These 
noble 
words 
and 
logical 
arguments 
surely 
appeal 
very 
hopeful 
subject? 
to 
all 
God-loving 
and 
God-honoring 
hearts 
and 
heads; 
and 
We 
answer, 
No. 
At 
one 
time, 
so 
far 
as 
we 
might 
judge 
we 
are 
glad 
so 
to 
think: 
it 
is 
a 
sign 
of 
heart 
enlargement 
of 
any 
man's 
heart 
by 
his 
writings, 
Dr. 
Abbott 
was 
very 
which 
should 
be 
admired, 
even 
tho 
the 
speaker 
(like 
other 
close 
to 
the 
truth-a 
believer 
not 
only 
as 
above 
but 
also 
great 
men 
of 
our 
times) 
has 
swerved 
far 
from 
the 
Bible 
in 
the 
Atonement 
and 
in 
the 
spcond 
coming 
of 
him 
who 
made 
under 
the 
influence 
of 
Evolution 
and 
Higher 
Criticism, 
and 
is 
the 
atonement 
with 
hi'S 
own 
precious 
blood. 
But 
the 
Doctor 
no 
Ion 
O'er 
trusting 
in 
the 
great 
sacrifice 
for 
sins 
"finished" 
at 
seems 
to 
have 
permitted 
himself 
to 
become 
one 
of 
the 
"wise 
Calvar~ 
for 
salvation. 
But 
Dr. 
Abbott 
said 
some 
more 
good 
and 
prudent" 
who 
prefer 
honor 
one 
of 
another 
rather 
than 
things'in 
that 
discourse. 
In 
telling 
his 
Universalist 
audience 
that 
which 
cometh 
from 
God 
only. 
(John 
5:44) 
At 
any 
rate, 
why 
he 
does 
not 
believe 
in 
universal 
salyation, 
he 
.displayed 
instead 
of 
coming 
out 
more 
and 
more 
boldly 
for 
the 
t~uth 
excellent 
logic. 
In 
reasoning 
that 
"the 
ultimate 
fact 
m 
human 
on 
these 
unpopular 
subjects, 
he 
seems 
to 
have 
put 
tlle 
lIght 
life 
is 
the 
freedom 
of 
the 
human 
will," 
he 
said:- 
he 
had 
under 
a 
bushel 
until 
it 
has 
gone 
out. 
For 
according 
"I 
know 
that 
I 
can 
choose 
the 
good, 
and 
therefore 
I 
can 
to 
Dr. 
Abbott's 
present 
tea~hin~s 
he 
un~ou~tedly 
is 
now. 
an 
choose 
the 
evil. 
What 
I 
find 
true 
in 
myself 
I 
believe 
to 
be 
Evolutionist 
with 
all 
that 
implIes 
of 
rejection. 
of 
the 
Bible 
true 
in 
every 
other 
man; 
he 
can 
choose 
the 
good, 
and 
~herefore 
doctrine 
of 
a 
fall 
by 
our 
fi~st 
parents. 
(and. 
we 
m 
t.hem) 
from 
he 
can 
choose 
the 
evil. 
And 
while 
I 
wistfully 
deSire-yea, 
perfection 
and 
harmony 
Wit~ 
God-mto 
sm 
and 
itS 
IJ.len~al, 
and 
sometimes 
devoutly 
hope-that 
when 
the 
great 
drama 
moral 
and 
physical 
degeneratiOn 
and 
death. 
And 
t~e 
reJecti~n 
of 
life 
here 
and 
hereafter 
is 
ended, 
all 
God's 
creatures 
will 
of 
this 
implies 
a 
rejection 
of 
the 
Atonement; 
for 
If 
man 
did 
have 
chosen 
the 
good-I 
do 
not 
know. 
If 
I 
were 
a 
Calvinist, 
not 
fall 
he 
needed 
no 
redemption 
fr0!U 
the 
fall-:-no 
~edeemer. 
I 
should 
be 
a 
Universalist. 
If 
I 
believed 
that 
God 
could 
And 
if 
the 
"ransom 
for 
all" 
(I 
Tim. 
2: 
6) 
IS 
demed, 
then 
make 
all 
men 
righteous, 
I 
should 
be 
sure 
that 
he 
would 
make 
logically 
"times 
of 
restitution" 
to 
a 
former 
estate 
(Acts 
[2639] 
063-164) 
Vou. XXI ALLEGHENY, PA., JUNE 1, 1900 No. 11 VIEWS FROM THE WATCH TOWER WHY BEV. LYMAN ABBOTT IS NOT A UNIVERSALIST At a General Convention of Universalists one session was set apart as “Interdenominational Evening,” and amongst other speakers was Dr. Lyman Abbott, a representative Congregationalist, who gave his reasons for not believing in universal salvation. Speaking as a liberal Congregationalist he declared that modern Congregationalism does not accept the doctrine of eternal punishment as preached by the celebrated Jonathan Edwards of the last century. We make quotations from Dr. Abbott’s discourse as follows :-— “J do not believe that any one of God’s creatures will be kept by God in eternal existence simply that he may go on in sin and misery forever. The proposition has long since become spiritually unthinkable to me. I might perhaps believe that a soul could suffer eternally; but I can not believe that any being that God ever made will be kept in existence by God that he may go on in sin eternally. “What was the old doctrine of eternal punishment? The Savoy Confession, up to about the middle of this century, was the recognized expression of orthodox Congregationalism. Not that it was binding on orthodox Congregationalists; but it was the only historic creed they possessed. Except in the matter of polity, and one or two minor matters, it was identical with the Westminister Confession of Faith; and this was the substance of its statement: It declared that our first parents fell by eating the forbidden fruit; that, they being the root of all mankind, their guilt was imputed and their sinful and corrupted nature was conveyed to all their posterity; that as a result we are ‘utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good;’ that from the race thus lost and ruined in the Fall, ‘by the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life, and others are foreordained to everlasting death;’ that those not effectually called, God was pleased, ‘for the glory of his sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice;’ and that those ‘not elected, altho they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved.’ “Specifically, and clause by clause, I disown that statement..... This doctrine is inconsistent with the character of a righteous God. I might fear such a God; I might tremble before such a God; I might, because I was a coward, obey such a God; but I could not reverence such a God. It is inconsistent with the faith that Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh, for it was not His nature to pass any by or to ordain any to dishonor and wrath. It is inconsistent with the Scripture; inconsistent with the parable of the prodigal son, which is Christ’s epitome of the Gospel; inconsistent with the declaration of Paul that ‘every knee should bow and every tongue confess Jesus Christ to be the Lord, to the glory of God the Father’; inconsistent with the very chapters of Romans on which it is supposed to be founded, for they close with the declaration that ‘God hath concluded all in unbeltef, that he might have mercy upon all,’ inconsistent with the splendid picture John paints, of the time when every creature that is in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, shall give praise and glory to the God of their salvation.” These noble words and logical arguments surely appeal to all God-loving and God-honoring hearts and heads; and we are glad so to think: it is a sign of heart enlargement which should be admired, even tho the speaker (like other great men of our times) has swerved far from the Bible under the influence of Evolution and Higher Criticism, and is no longer trusting in the great sacrifice for sins “finished” at Calvary for salvation. But Dr. Abbott said some more good things in that discourse. In telling his Universalist audience why he does not believe in universal salvation, he displayed excellent logic. In reasoning that “the ultimate fact in human life is the freedom of the human will,” he said:— “T know that I can choose the good, and therefore I can choose the evil. What I find true in myself I believe to be true in every other man; he can choose the good, and therefore he can choose the evil. And while I wistfully desire—yea, and sometimes devoutly hope—that when the great drama of life here and hereafter is ended, all God’s creatures will have chosen the good—I do not know. If I were a Calvinist, I should be a Universalist. If I believed that God could make all men righteous, I should be sure that he would make [2639] all men righteous; otherwise he would not be a righteous God. But I start from the other pole. I begin with my own absolute freedom. I recognize as a fact, in my life, in my philosophy and in my preaching, that, in the last analysis, the destiny of every man is in his own hands. Father may persuade, mother may entice, influences may environ, God himself may surround with all possible persuasions, but in the last analysis the destiny of every man is in his own hands. And what he will do with it I do not know. “Why, if God be good, has he made a world in which there is sin? Why has he not made a world sinless? Could he not? Certainly; he not only could, he has. The birds are sinless. But he could not make a world in which are free moral agents able to choose the good without giving them at the same time power to choose the evil. Power to choose the one is power to choose the other; and a world in which there are some men who choose shame, dishonor, sin and death, is a better world, I dare to say, than a world made of machines that could choose neither the good nor the evil.” We fully concur with the foregoing, reminding our readers nevertheless of the necessity for remembering the two opposite views of free agency which may properly be taken from different standpoints, as shown in our issue of Dec. 1, 1899, page 264, But two queries naturally arise: (1) How does Dr. Abbott harmonize his two propositions, fa) that the decision respecting his harmony or disharmony with God lies with man himself, individually; (6) that God has made no provision for the eternal torture of any? The logical mind will surely inquire, What then will become of the wicked who are unwilling to be saved on divine terms and hence unfit for the rewards of eternal bliss, if the time is to come when “every creature that is in heaven and on earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea shall give praise and glory to the God of their salvation”? Is it possible that so fine a logician as Dr. Abbott has overlooked the logic of his own expressions? Oh no! We answer, The connecting link in the Doctor’s logic is clear to his own mind, but he does not care to make it very public because it is not very popular yet—the same is true of many others of the ablest ministers in all denominations. The connecting link of his logic will be seen at once when it is stated,—he believes in the utter destruction of the incorrigibly wicked, as we do, and as we teach publicly. But public teachers who keep silence on this subject and put their light under a bushel, do so at a great cost—the cost of further guidance of the Lord into the “all truth” promised. Oh, how many ministers in seeking to avoid the senseless charge, “Annihilationist,” have suffered God’s character to be blasphemed and his people to be deluded by the doctrine of an eternal torment of the unsaintly ;—preferring numbers and popularity and honor among men and the financial emoluments of these rather than the truth! Alas! they seek to be wise and prudent according to this world’s standards, entirely overlooking the fact that the Lord declares he will not reveal his secrets to such. Our Lord pointed this out, saying, “JT thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent and hast revealed them unto babes’—who will utter the truth regardless of consequences.—Matt. 11:25. (2) Some one wili say then, If Dr. Abbott believes thus in the final reign of righteousness and the destruction of the incorrigibly wicked, is he not very close to the truth and a very hopeful subject? We answer, No. At one time, so far as we might judge of any man’s heart by his writings, Dr. Abbott was very close to the truth—a believer not only as above but also in the Atonement and in the second coming of him who made the atonement with his own precious blood. But the Doctor seems to have permitted himself to become one of the “wise and prudent” who prefer honor one of another rather than that which cometh from God only. (John 5:44) At any rate, instead of coming out more and more boldly for the truth on these unpopular subjects, he seems to have put the light he had under a bushel until it has gone out. For according to Dr. Abbott’s present teachings he undoubtedly is now an Evolutionist with all that implies of rejection of the Bible doctrine of a fall by our first parents (and we in them) from perfection and harmony with God—into sin and its mental, moral and physical degeneration and death. And the rejection of this implies a rejection of the Atonement; for if man did not fall he needed no redemption from the fall—no Redeemer. And if the “ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:6) is denied, then logically “times of restitution” to a former estate (Acts (163-164)

This website uses cookies to improve the website and your experience. By continuing to browse this website, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. If you require further information or do not wish to accept cookies when using this website, please visit our Privacy Policy    Terms of Use    .