8

1

8

download/literature/watchtower/1904-22.pdf

../literature/watchtower/1904/22/1904-22-1.html

NovemsBer 1, 1904 SITTING WITH ABRAHAM, ISAAC AND JACOB IN THE KINGDOM Question.—Who are meant when it is said, “Many shall come from the east and from the west and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of heaven” ?— Matt. 8:11. . Answer.—As already pointed out in the Dawn series. the Gospel church only will constitute the kingdom in its highest and strictest sense; but Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and ail the ancient worthies will be the chief ministers of that kingdom in the world of mankind, and all mankind will be invited to come into harmony with the spiritual kingdom, that God’s will may be done in this, as an earthly class, as it is done in the heavenly class. In this sense of the word, all who shall accept of the terms and conditions of the kingdom will sit down, or be at rest and at peace with God, with Abraham, Tsaae and Jacob and all the faithful of the earthly class. Thus it will be seen that the Lord is pointing to a large class of the world of mankind who will ultimately become citizens of the earthly phase of the kingdom. This same thought is represented in Revelation, where it is intimated that all the worthy will enter into the city—the kingdom—while without will be all the unworthy, who love and serve sin, subjects of the second death. “CHILDREN OF DISOBEDIENCE’’ Question—Who are the “children of disobedience” of Eph, 2:2? ZION’S WATCH TOWER (335-339) Answer.—Since Father Adam was created in God’s likeness, and is designated a son of God, it follows that all of his children, had they remained in harmony with God, would have been sons of God,—earthly sons. But since Adam became disobedient, and all of his children shared in his fall, all of the race of Adam are children of disobedience, children under punishment, under wrath, except those who have “escaped the condemnation that is upon the world,” by acceptance of the divine provision of favor and return to harmony with their Creator. Those who return to harmony with God through the appointed way become children of obedience; those who do not, even though they have not yet had the full opportunity which God designs they ultimately shall have to discern good from evil, and though they may choose the good, are, nevertheless, even now denominated “children of disobedience” and “children of wrath.” DEAD TO THE LAW BY THE BODY OF CHRIST Question—In Romans 7:4 we read: “Ye also are become dead to the Law by the body of Christ that ye should be married to another, ever, to him who is raised from the dead.” What body is meant—the body of Jesus’ flesh or “the church his body”? Answer.—It refers to the flesh of Jesus, whose death cancelled all claims of the Law against a believing Jew—made free to become united to the risen Christ (the Lord of Glory) as new creatures, as his bride. ALLEGHENY, PA., NOVEMBER 15, 1904 Vou. XXV No. 22 “BAPTIST” VIEWS CHANGING TESTIMONY OF AUGUSTUS H. STRONG, D.D., LL.D. Doctor Strong is an authority among Baptists, the President of their principa] theological seminary, located at Rochester, N. Y. His public discourse, delivered at the “General Denominational Meeting” held in Cleveland, Ohio, last May, had the approval of that assembly as indicated by its “request” that the sermon be printed for general use. The changes of doctrinal views to which he calls attention may therefore be regarded by the public as endorsed by Baptists in general. We are by no means opposed to changes of views, believing heartily in the old worldly adage, “A wise man changes Sometimes, but a fool never.” We were glad when our Presbyterian brethren displaced their old creed with a new one, but sorry they prevaricated on the subject by telling the world that they still retain the old creed—merely made a new statement of it. Of course we agree with much that Dr. Strong has to say. Like other men of talent, he is able to state some matters in such terms that even his enemies and doctrinal opponents could not wholly dissent, and to so gloss other matters with sophistry as to mislead the uncritical and confiding of his hearers—whether edueated or illiterate. We regret to note that such tendencies—called “diplomacy” in politics, “shrewdness” in business circles, and “falsehood” in common parlance —are more and more ereeping over all prominent theologians. Their excuse, we presume, would be “necessity.” Christendom is admittedly in a time of creedal upheaval and transformation, and quiet deception of the “old fogies” is considered a virtue, preventing a serious commotion. The hope is that the rising generation will by these deceptive phrases be kept in line until the “old fogies” are all dead, and then it can be pointed out that “our denomination changed its views slightly in your fathers’ days and without their protest, and hence with their indorsement,” and thus the most radical changes would pass unchallenged by the masses. All this is a great mistake—a seriously wrong course, even though pursued with good intentions. It amounts to—“Let us do evil that good may follow: let us continue to dishonor God and practice double-dealing on our too-confiding flocks, that our denominations may maintain their standing, numbers and influence, and that we may preserve our dignity, honor of men and light and remunerative employment.” But let us examine these Baptist changes and note whether or not they mark advances or retrogressions, as viewed from the Biblical standpoint. We begin with their— “OLD AND NEW VIEWS OF SIN’’ “But our fathers did not see, as we do, that man’s relation to Christ antedated the Fall and constituted an underlying and modifying condition of man’s life. Humanity was naturally in Christ, in whom all things were created and in whom they all consist. Even man’s sin did not prevent Christ from still working in him to counteract the evil and to suggest the good. There was an internal, as well as an external, preparation for man’s redemption. In this sense, of a divine principle in man striving against the selfish and godless will, there was a total redemption, over against man’s total depravity; and an original grace, that was even more powerful than original sin. “The great Baptist body has become conscious that total depravity alone is not a sufficient or proper expression of the truth; and the phrase has been outgrown. It has been felt that the old view of sin did not take account of the generous and noble aspirations, the unselfish efforts, the strivings after God, of even unregenerate men. For this reason there has been Jess preaching about sin, and less conviction as to its guilt and condemnation. The good impulses of men outside the Christian pale have been often credited to human nature, when they should have been credited to the indwelling spirit of Christ. I make no dovbt that one of the radical weaknesses of our denomination at this present time is its more superficial view of sin.” Here we find a new error introduced as an antidote for an old one. There is not one word in the Bible about “total depravity.” Baptists, Congregationalists and Presbyterians got this phrase and conception from Calvin. It is an absurdity on its face. The proper, Scriptural thought is this, Man 1s so depraved as to be totally unable to recover humself, so as to regain perfection and divine fellowship. This is the Scriptural proposition—substantiated by all the New Testament writings. Why are all the creeds which contain this “total depravity” feature gaining in disrepute? Because it fixes matters for the heathen and infants—negativing the idea that these could pass into heaven acceptable to God without faith and regeneration. All along, these qualities of faith and regeneration in the parent have been counted as sufficing for his children dying in infaney; but, with the eternal torment idea still latent, modern thinkers with any heart repudiate the thought that all but regenerated believers and their children, the great mass of humanity, are rushing into such an awful eternity at the rate of over 80,000 every twenty-four hours, But note the new error, that it is worse than the former in that it is more subtle,—sophistry less likely to be detected by the average mind. Think of it! ‘TIumanity was naturally om Christ!” Either the learned gentleman is sadly confused on the subject or else he is trying his best to confuse others. If the gentleman meant to say that divine grace planned a universal redemption before the fall occurred and that in due time and in some manner all the race will get a share of that blessed provision, he would be in full accord with us respecting the Scripture teaching. If he meant this we assume that he would have said it. We deny that “humanity was naturally in Christ.” When Adam was perfect he needed not to be in Christ, for being sinless and in the divine image he had relationship with his Creator without a mediator. It was sin and its sentence that made necessary a Mediator and his work of (1) atonement for our [3457]