6
1
6
download/literature/watchtower/1902-22.pdf
../literature/watchtower/1902/22/1902-22-1.html
VOL.
XXIII
ALLEGHENY,
PA.,
NOVEMBER
15,
1902
VIEWS
FROM
THE
WATCH
TOWER
No.
22
of
nature.
But
they
hold
with
equal
firmness
that
God
has
made
man
for
Himself,
and
that
if
He
has
sent
His
Son
to
die
for
them,
the
physical
order
can
not
set
the
rule
for
the
way
of
grace.
If
God
has
relented,
nature
may
relent.
They
believe
that
if
there
is
a
personal
God
miracles
are
possible,
and
revelation,
which
is
a
miracle,
is
also
possible.
They
are
not
dismayed
when
they
are
told
that
the
Gospel
age
was
the
age
when
legendary
stories
and
superstitions
and
miraculous
pretentions
of
the
most
fanciful
and
grotesque
kind
abounded.
Nay,
rather
their
faith
is
firmer,
for
they
take
these
stories
and
compare
them
with
the
Gospel
miracles,
and
they
say,
How
is
it
that
the
stories
of
the
New
Testament
are
lofty
and
tender
and
beautiful
and
significant,
while
the
rest
are
monstrosIties?
.
.
.
.
Granting
the
entrance
of
the
Son
of
God
into
human
history,
granting
the
miracle
of
the
Incarnation
of
the
Supreme,
there
is
little
to
cause
any
difficulty.
With
out
the
Incarnation,
without
the
Resurrection,
we
have
no
form
of
religion
left
to
us
that
will
control
or
serve
or
com-
fort
mankind."
-LIterary
Digest.
It
is
comforting
to
find
some
few
of
God's
servants.
tho
still
in
"Babylon,"
keen
enough
to
discern
the
real
situation,
and
courageous
enough
to
lift
up
voice
and
pen
in
defense
of
his
eause.
Very
evidently,
however,
the
nominal
"Christian
ministry"
has
gone
or
is
rapidly
going
so
far
into
unbelief
of
the
very
fundamentals
of
Christianity
as
to
forfeit
all
claim
to
the
name
Christian,-as
Rev.
Nicoll
suggests.
It
is
not
Ohristwn
frtith
to
acknowledge
that
Jesus
lived
a
noble
life.
superior
to
that
of
other
men,
and
that
his
teachings
were
Ruperior
to
others
of
his
day.
It
is
not
Ohristwm
faith
to
claim
what
the
Bible
denies
respecting
"the
fatherhood
of
God
ann
the
brotherhood
of
man;"
nor
to
proceed
on
this
basis
to
claim
that
Jesus
was
a
son
of
God
in
common
with
all
others
of
our
race,
and
peculiarly
acceptable
in
propor
tion
as
he
was
superior
to
others
of
his
race.
No.
this
is
not
Christianity:
will
not,
and
00
not
Jews,
Mohammedans,
Confucians
Buddhists
and
many
others,
admit
all
this
respeeting
our
Master,-and
some
of
them
more?
Are
these
all
Christians?
And
if
not.
are
those
minis
terg
Christians
who
still
wear
the
livery
of
Christ
in
colleges
ann
pulpits,
for
valuable
considerations,
and
who
are
still
nnner
solemn
vows
to
a
faith
which
they
~ometimes
publicly.
but
more
often
semi-privately,
disavow?
Assuredly
not.
Let
us
get
back
to
that
honesty
of
thought
and
word
which
calls
disbelief
in
the
fundamentals
of
Christianity,
"unbelief,"
i.
e.,
"infidelity."
We
are
told
that
Infidelity
has
disappeared;-
that
Renan,
Paine
and
Ingersoll
have
lost
their
place
and
power
as
op
posers
of
Christianity.
The
very
contrary
is
true:
every
college
and
seminary,
secular
and
theological,
has
become
a
hotbed
of
infidelity,
in
which
the
leaders
in
world-politics,
world-business,
and
world-religion
are
being
taught,
under
the
sanction
of
the
"highest
authorities,"
the
verv
disbelief
in
the
Bible
which
Infidelity
has
all
along
urged.
The
places
of
Renan,
Paine
and
Ingersoll
are
more
than
filleo
by
classi
cal,
scientific
and
theological
doctors
;-blind
leaders
of
the
blino.
Let
no
one
be
confused
by
these
false
sbepherds.
who
are
rapidly
leading
astray
their
ponfidin:r
flocks;
sa~·lll,!.!.
Ppape
and
safety!
All
who
follow
them
will
SOon
find
in
their
hearts
an
aching
void,-a
leanness
of
soul.-a
Christles"npss
which
will
renner
miserable
indeed
all
who
have
once
"tasted
of
the
heavenly
gift
and
been
made
partakers
of
the
holy
spirit."
Christ
and
the
apostles
were
either
right
or
wrong
in
their
teachings
;-their
claims
were
either
true
or
false.
If
false,
everything
built
upon
them
must
logically
fall
with
them;
including-
the
very
name
Christianity,
their
synonym.
If
they
were
true,
all
that
they
taught
stands
together;
and
the
name
Christian
belongs
to
these
doctrines,
and
its
appli
cation
to
other
teachings
is
a
sin;
and
its
appropriation
by
others
is
grand
larceny-robbery.
The
fundamental
teachings
of
Christ
and
his
apostles
(true
Christianity)
are
(l)
The
fall
of
man
into
sin
and
under
its
penalty-death.
(Rom.
5:12,
17-19;
I
Cor.
15:22;
2
Cor.
5:14;
Rom.
6:23).
(2)
The
ransom
of
the
race
from
condemnation
by
virtue
of
the
sacrifice
of
Christ
"finished"
at
Calvary.
(l
Tim.
2:5,
6;
Rom.
5:18;
Jno.
19:30)
(3)
The
salvation,
or
recovery
of
the
race.
or
so
many
of
the
same
as
will
accept
the
grace
of
God
in
Christ
when
brought
to
a
knowledge
of
the
same,
by
It
judgment-trial
and
restitu
t.ion,
called
resurrection.
(Acts
3:19.23;
,Tno.
5'28,
29)
(4)
The
previous
and
preparatory
trial,
testing,
judgment
of
an
"f'led"
class
whose
resurrection
to
"glory,
honor
and
im-
IS
BELIEF
IN
MIRACLES
ESSENTIAL
TO
CHRISTIANITY?
No
question
in
mode
III
religious
thought
is
weightier
than
this
one
which
Professor
Charles
\V.
Pearson's
much-discussed
utterance
has
served
to
bring
once
more
into
prominence.
The
problem,
of
course,
is
far
from
belllg
a
new
one.
In
deed,
it
has
been
noted
in
several
quarters
that
the
Methodist
professor
used
much
the
same
arguments
as
those
embodied
in
HUlllc's
e_c,:ly
on
mlrae!es,
publIshed
a
hundred
and
fifty
J'eal
s
ago.
In
none
of
the
theological
controversies
of
the
past
cpntu
ry
\\
n9
the
conflict
more
earne"t
than
in
this
one
over
mIr:lC!P9,
Hpnan,
Strauss,
and
Huxley
ranging
them
selves
nctively
on
the
one
side,
Bishop
Lightfoot,
Dean
Fnrrar,
nnrl
Mr.
Gladstone
on
the
other.
The
Rev.
Dr.
W.
Robertson
;\ieoll,
who
IH
he~t
known
a~
a
jOUlnahst.
lmt
who
has
also
Gone
considerable
work
in
the
field
of
theology
as
editor
of
the
London
ExpOSitor
and
"The
Exp09itor's
Bible,"
goes
over
til('
ground
again
in
his
new
book,
"The
Church's
One
Foundation."
The
fir9t
few
sentences
of
the
book
show
that
this
"foundation,"
according
to
Dr.
Nicoll,
is
the
miracu
lou9
Chri9t,
and
that,
if
there
be
no
such
Christ,
"Christian
ity
IJJ.s9PS
into
the
mist
and
goes
down
the
wind."
He
de
clal'e9'-
"The
church
cannot
without
disloyalty
and
cowardice,
quarrd
\\
Ith
('riticism
as
such.
It
is
not
held
absolutely
to
any
thpory
of
any
book.
It
asks,
and
it
is
entitled
to
ask,
thp
('ritip:
Do
you
believe
in
the
Incarnation
and
Resur
rection
of
Chn9t?
If
his
reply
is
in
the
affirmative,
his
pro
cess
:'nd
results
are
to
be
examined
earnestly
and
calmly.
If
he
replies
in
tbe
negative,
he
has
missed
the
way,
and
has
put
himself
out9ide
the
church
of
Christ.
If
he
refuses
to
answer,
IllS
silence
has
to
bp
interpreten
.
.
.
.
No
one
argues
against
the
right
of
philosophers
to
affirm
that
goodness
is
evpr~·thing,
that
miracles
are
impossible,
and
that
nothing
in
.Jesus
Christ
has
any
importance
except
his
moral
teach
ing.
But
Christian
believers
in
revelation
are
compelled
to
say
that
these
philosophers
are
not
Christians.
If
they
re
fuse
to
do
so,
they
are
declaring
that
in
their
opinion
these
bPljef9
have
no
supreme
importance.
To
say
this
is
to
incur
the
penalty
of
extinction.
For
Christianity
dip'!
when
It
pa'!sl's
altogether
into
the
philosophic
region.
To
believe
in
the
Incarnation
and
the
Resurrection
is
to
put
these
facts
in
the
foregrounn.
Either
they
are
first
or
they
are
nowhere.
The
man
who
thinks
he
can
hold
them
and
keep
them
in
the
background
deceives
himself.
They
are,
and
they
ever
must
be,
first
of
all.
So,
then,
the
battle
turns
on
their
truth
or
falsehood.
It
does
not
turn
on
the
inerrancy
of
the
Gospel
narratIve.
It
dOPs
not
turn
eyen
on
the
authorship
of
the
ao-pels.
Faith
is
not
a
belief
in
a
book,
but
a
belief
in
a
living
Christ."
Dr.
Nichol
holds
that
here
is
a
discussion
which
every
Christian
believer
mmt
enter
upon
with
the
keenest
zest,
since
"it
is
a
controversy
not
for
theologians
merely,
but
for
pnry
man
who
has
seen
the
face
of
Christ,
and
can
bear
pel
~onal
testimony
to
his
power
and
glory."
He
continues:-
"If
we
a'Bume
at
the
threshold
of
Gospel
study
that
everything
in
the
nature
of
miracle
is
impossible,
then
the
specific
fJuestiom
are
decided
before
the
criticism
begins
to
o;JPrate
in
en
ruest.
The
naturalistic
critics
approach
the
Cll]
istinn
reeorrls
with
an
a
priori
theory,
and
impose
it
upon
thpm.
b\
i"ting
the
hiRtory
into
agreement
with
it,
and
cutting
ont
what
",ITI
not
))('
twi~tp,l.
For
e,ample.
th?
parlipr
natnr
flh"tic
critic,
Paulus,
Eichhorn,
and
the
rest,
insisted
on
giv
iT"!
a
non-miraculous
interpretation.
Strauss
perceived
the
lln~pif'ntific
pha
raeter
of
this
method,
and
set
out
with
thp
I1n
thip',l
hypotlH'9is.
Baur
set
to
work
with
a
belief
in
the
all-9tlfli
r
irnry
of
the
Hpgelian
theory
of
development
through
antag'o'lism.
He
saw
tendency
everywhere
.
.
.
.
Dr.
Abbott
set~
ont
\\
jth
the
fa
reg-one
conclusion
of
the
impossibility
of
mila(']f''!.
l\fattllPw
Arnold
SilyS:
'Our
popular
religion
at
prpspnt
ronrcivrs
the
birth.
ministry.
and
death
of
Christ
as
alto!!,.,thpr
,tepppn
in
prodigy,
brimful
of
miracles,
and
mira
clr,<
do
not
hnppc.n.'''
TIll'
110nhle
with
nll
thpsp
~nr1
similar
critirs.
npp1ares
Dr.
Kiroll.
liee;
in
the
fact
that
they
start
out
with
the
as
snmptI'1n
that
"God
can
not
visit
'and
redeem
his
people"
and
th~t
"Hi9
arm
is
chain€'d
and
can
not
save."
Is
it
not
much
more
rational.
he
ae;ks,
to
take
the
view
that
miracle
is
"thp
fit
accomnaniment
of
a
religion
that
moves
and
satis
fies
tlw
soul
of
men,
and
that
asserts
itself
to
be
derived
di
rpdly
from
aod?"
He
goes
on
to
say:-
"Miracle
1S
part
of
the
accompaniment,
as
well
as
part
of
the
('ontpnt,
of
a
true
revelation,
its
appropriate
conn
tcrsign
Of
COljr~e,
thosp
who
tilke
this
gronnd
do
not
npnv.
but
rather
firmly
assert,
the
steadfast
and
glorious
order
*
*
*
(339-340)
[3106]
Vou. XXIII ALLEGHENY, PA., NOVEMBER 15, 1902 No. 22 VIEWS FROM THE WATCH TOWER IS BELIEF IN MIRACLES ESSENTIAL TO CHRISTIANITY? No question in modein religious thought is weightier than this one which Professor Charles W. Pearson’s much-discussed utterance has served to bring once more into prominence. The problem, of course, is far from being a new one. Indeed, it has been noted in several quarters that the Methodist professor used much the same arguments as those embodied in Hume’s essay on miracles, published a hundred and fifty yearg ago. In none of the theological controversies of the past century was the conflict more earnest than in this one over miracles, Renan, Strauss, and Huxley ranging themselves actively on the one side, Bishop Lightfoot, Dean Farrar, and Mr. Gladstone on the other. The Rev. Dr. W. Robertson Nicoll, who is best known as a journalist, but who has also done considerable work in the field of theology as editor of the London Ewrpositor and “The Expositor’s Bible,” goes over the ground again in his new book, “The Church’s One Foundation.” The first few sentences of the book show that this “foundation,” according to Dr. Nicoll, is the miraculous Christ, and that, if there be no such Christ, “Christianity passes into the mist and goes down the wind.” He deelares*— “The chureh cannot without disloyalty and cowardice, quarrel with criticism ag such. It is not held absolutely to any theory of any book. It asks, and it is entitled to ask, the critic: Do you believe in the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ? If his reply is in the affirmative, his process end results are to be examined earnestly and calmly. If he replies in the negative, he has missed the way, and has put himself outside the church of Christ. If he refuses to answer, hia silence has to be interpreted. ... No one argues against the right of philosophers to affirm that goodness is everything, that miracles are impossible, and that nothing in Jesus Christ has any importance except his moral teaching. But Christian believers in revelation are compelled to say that these philosophers are not Christians. If they refuse to do so, they are declaring that in their opinion these beliefs have no supreme importance. To say this is to incur the penalty of extinction. For Christianity dies when it passes altogether into the philosophic region. To believe in the Incarnation and the Resurrection is to put these facts in the foreground. Either they are first or they are nowhere. The man who thinks he can hold them and keep them in the background deceives himself. They are, and they ever must be, first of all. So, then, the battle turns on their truth or falsehood. It does not turn on the inerrancy of the Gospel narrative. It does not turn even on the authorship of the Gospels. Faith is not a belief in a book, but a belief in a living Christ.” Dr. Nichol holds that here is a discussion which every Christian believer must enter upon with the keenest zest, since ‘it is a controversy not for theologians merely, but for evcry man who has seen the face of Christ, and can bear personal testimony to his power and glory.” He continues:— “If we assume at the threshold of Gospel study that everything in the nature of miracle is impossible, then the specific questions are decided before the criticism begins to operate in earnest. The naturalistic critics approach the Christian records with an a priori theory, and impose it upon them. twisting the history into agreement with it, and cutting ont what can not be twisted. For example, the earlier naturalistie critic, Paulus, Eichhorn, and the rest, insisted on givire a non-miraculous interpretation. Strauss perceived the unseicntifie character of this method, and set out with the nivthien! hypothesis. Baur set to work with a belief in the all-sufficieney of the Hegelian theery of development through antagonism. Ife saw tendency everywhere. ... Dr. Abbott sets ott with the foregone conclusion of the impossibility of miracles. Matthew Arnold says: ‘Our popular religion at present conccives the birth, ministry, and death of Christ as altogether steeped in prodigy, brimful of miracles, and miracles do not heppen.’” The trouhle with all these and similar critics, declares Pr. Nicoll, lies in the fact that they start out with the assumption that “God can not visit and redeem his people” and thet “His arm is chained and can not save.” Is it not much more rational, he asks, to take the view that miracle is “the fit accompaniment of a religion that moves and satisfies the soul of men, and that asserts itself to be derived directly from God?” He goes on to say:— “Miracle is part of the accompaniment, as well as part of the content, of a true revelation, its appropriate countersign Of course, those who take this ground do not denv, but rather firmly assert, the steadfast and glorious order (339-340) of nature. But they hold with equal firmness that God has made man for Himself, and that if He has sent His Son to die for them, the physical order can not set the rule for the way of grace. If God has relented, nature may relent. They believe that if there is a personal God miracles are possible, and revelation, which is a miracle, is also possible. They are not dismayed when they are told that the Gospel age was the age when legendary stories and superstitions and miraculous pretentions of the most fanciful and grotesque kind abounded. Nay, rather their faith is firmer, for they take these stories and compare them with the Gospel miracles, and they say, How is it that the stories of the New Testament are lofty and tender and beautiful and significant, while the rest are monstrosities? . ... Granting the entrance of the Son of God into human history, granting the miracle of the Incarnation of the Supreme, there is little to cause any difficulty. Without the Incarnation, without the Resurrection, we have no form of religion left to us that will control or serve or comfort mankind.” —Interary Digest. * * * It is comforting to find some few of God’s servants, tho still in “Babylon,” keen enough to discern the real situation, and courageous enough to lift up voice and pen in defense of his cause. Very evidently, however, the nominal “Christian ministry” has gone or is rapidly going so far into unbelief of the very fundamentals of Christianity as to forfeit all claim to the name Christian,—as Rev. Nicoll suggests. It is not Christian faith to acknowledge that Jesus lived a noble life, superior to that of other men, and that his teachings were superior to others of his day. It is not Christian faith to claim what the Bible denies respecting “the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man;” nor to proceed on this basis to claim that Jesus was a son of God in common with all others of our race, and peculiarly acceptable in proportion as he was superior to others of his race. No, this is not Christianity: will not, and do not Jews, Mohammedans, Confucians Buddhists and many others,— admit all this respecting our Master,—and some of them more? Are these all Christians? And if not. are those ministers Christians who still wear the livery of Christ in colleges and pulpits, for valuable considerations, and who are still under solemn vows to a faith which they sometimes publicly. but more often semi-privately, disavow? Assuredly not. Let us get back to that honesty of thought and word which calls disbelief in the fundamentals of Christianity, “unbelief,” 7. e., “infidelity.” We are told that Infidelity has disappeared ;— that Renan, Paine and Ingersoll have lost their place and power as opposers of Christianity. The very contrary is true: every college and seminary, secular and theological, has become a hotbed of infidelity, in which the leaders in world-politics, world-business, and world-religion are being taught, under the sanction of the “highest authorities,” the very disbelief in the Bible which Infidelity has all along urged. The places of Renan, Paine and Ingersoll are more than filled by classical, scientific and theological doctors;—blind leaders of the blind. Let no one be confused by these false shepherds, who are rapidly leading astray their confiding flocks; saying, Peace and safety! All who follow them will soon find in their hearts an aching void,—a leanness of sou).—a Christleseness which will render miserable indeed all who have once “tasted of the heavenly gift and been made partakers of the holy spirit.” Christ and the apostles were either right or wrong in their teachings ;—their claims were either true or false. If false, everything built upon them must logically fall with them ;— including the very name Christianity, their synonym. If they were true, all that they taught stands together; and the name Christian belongs to these doctrines, and its application to other teachings is a sin; and its appropriation by others is grand larceny—robbery. The fundamental teachings of Christ and his apostles (true Christianity) are (1) The fall of man into sin and under its penalty—death. (Rom. 5:12, 17-19; 1 Cor. 15:22; 2 Cor. 5:14; Rom. 6:23). (2) The ransom of the race from condemnation by virtue of the sacrifice of Christ “finished” at Calvary. (1 Tim. 2:5, 6; Rom. 5:18; Jno. 19:30) (3) The salvation, or recovery of the race. or so many of the same as will accept the grace of God in Christ when brought to a knowledge of the same, by a judgment-trial and restitution, called resurrection. (Acts 3:19, 23; Jno. 5:28, 29) (4) The previous and preparatory trial, testing, judgment of an “elect”? class whose resurrection to “glory, honor and im [3106]
To enhance your experience on our website, we use cookies and similar technologies. Some cookies are essential for the core functionality of our site and cannot be declined. You can choose to accept or decline additional cookies. We want to assure you that none of this data will be sold or used for marketing purposes. You can adjust your preferences at any time by accessing the Privacy Settings from the footer of the page. For more information, please refer to our
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
.
