<< Back |
Chosen no: R-495 a, from: 1883 Year. |
Change lang
| |
Our Contemporaries.
We mean those with whom we have had
recent discussions on the nature of our Redeemer and of the redemption which he
has effected. These contemporaries seem to be puzzled by the six simple
questions recently propounded to them in these columns, and doubtless feel
annoyed because of the weakness of their theories, which will not permit an
answer to them without showing to all their readers their untenable position,
and in fact that their theories make void the plain statements of Scripture
relative to our ransom and purchase with the precious blood of Christ --which
scriptures they quote frequently and thus prevent the lameness of their
theories from appearing too prominent.
These theories, however different in
some respects, are alike in that they ignore the ransom, which we have already
noted as being the coming and fast-growing form of infidelity among Christians,
which Satan seems to be stirring up in these last days. Another paper has
recently been started in defence of this no-ransom theory, called The Millenarian.
This is the third paper in advocacy of this error started within a year and a
half. Our Adversary seems able to supply both talent and money for the
promulgation of such blasting and blighting heresies. But his power shall
continue only for a little season--"He knoweth that he hath but a short
time," for
"He who was slain on Calvary's mountain,
Soon shall reign a thousand years."
Now, since they cannot answer our
questions in a straightforward manner without showing their theories in their
true light, they endeavor to turn the attention of the flock away from the real
issue--the importance of the truth in question--by seeking to enlist sympathy,
as though they were being personally abused. And one throws out the inference
that it is a martyr, and that it is
more difficult to hold its peace than to reply, but says it will answer the
question, on which they have already been deliberating for months--in time.
We answer, that if a man be
suspicioned of any crime and be questioned regarding it, if he is innocent, it
is his duty to state the facts, to answer the questions, that thereby he might clear
himself. And what would be thought of such a one if, instead of answering, he
should claim that he could answer, but thought it more noble and martyr-like to
stand accused, merely claiming that the accusation was untrue, but refusing to
give the evidence and so clear himself by plain answers? We answer, that to the
mind of every right-thinking person he would stand justly condemned as guilty. Who
would crown such a one with a martyr's laurels? But if such a course be
condemned in an individual matter, what shall we say of a periodical which
attempts to be a religious teacher, a feeder of the flock of Christ, who is
accused of mixing poison with the children's meat?
Regarding personal attack, we would
say that we have been no more personal than were our Lord and the Apostles, and
that it would be impossible to so point out the error and danger that all the
flock may be able to recognize it, without plainly mentioning the periodicals
containing those errors. The names of the editors have never been mentioned,
though if it were necessary for the truth's sake, we should not for a moment
hesitate. Our personal solicitude for these is as great as for any of the
flock, though we greatly fear the baneful tendency of their present course and
error on themselves. It is a fearful thing to deceive others, but it generally
begins in self-deception and then progresses in blindness. We believe that all
these errors originate with the great Adversary; therefore we claim that
"We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities,
against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against
spiritual wickedness in high places"--places of influence.
We have mentioned pointedly your
Adversary (the devil) and those whom we believed to be forwarding his cause by
publicly spreading error. His servants ye are to whom ye render service. (Rom. 6:16). Among others we have mentioned Mr. Ingersoll, the
out-spoken denier of the RANSOM, and Mr. Henry Ward Beecher, The Day Star, and The
World's Hope, and The Millenarian, as those who quoted scriptural phrases and
arrayed themselves thus in a "garment of light," while they really
made void the doctrine of the Ransom by their unscriptural theorizing. These
are all public teachers, and the flock of Christ could in no way be guarded
against their wily twisting of Scripture, without mentioning them so as to be
unmistakably understood. The truth, and especially this truth, the Ransom,
never needed more to have the sword of the Spirit unsheathed in its behalf by
every true soldier of the cross than now, and by the grace of God we hope to
fight a good fight until called higher.
And now, relative to their claim
that they will answer these six troublesome, yet simple questions, in time, we
feel that it will be in the interest of truth for us to tell their readers how we
interpret this: It means that when they think their readers have forgotten the points
of the questions and their relationship to each other, then they will take them
up one at a time, and devote a whole article to each little question, weaving
the web of sophistry (false reasoning) around them, so that when they have read
it none will be quite sure just what is meant. Their expressions will be so
carefully guarded that none could find a single quotation which would show
their true position. We thus judge from the past.
We protest. This is not the right
way to deal with any subject, much less a religious one. A child, a babe in
Christ, who had nothing to cover or conceal, nor any theory to sustain, should
be able to answer those questions in one column or less. That the fundamental
character and simplicity of these questions may be remembered, we repeat them
here, at the same time declaring that by the grace of God we will agree to
answer any six questions which they will propound on the fundamental doctrines
of Christianity. And on any more advanced subject we are willing to give A
REASON for the hope that is in us with meekness, in our OWN WORDS.
The questions were as follows:
(1.) Why did Jesus die?
(2.) How does it affect our sins?
(3.) How did he put away sin by the
sacrifice of himself?
(4.) In what way did he give
"himself a ransom [Greek, antilutron--an equivalent price] for all"?
(5.) In what way was he a "propitiation
[satisfaction] for our sins"?
(6.) In what sense were we "bought
with a price"?
The answer to these six simple
questions would promptly decide the matter of our contemporary's faith or lack
of faith in the ransom. It must not forget that it is on trial before its
readers, and it must have little confidence in the intelligence of its readers
to suppose that they will not discern the weakness of its policy. In the light
of facts we can call its dealing nothing but policy--such as is indeed common
among secular papers on political subjects, but which should not be once named
among you as becometh saints.
The few changing expressions of our
contemporary in its recent issues we cannot regard as an indication of reform
on this subject. We could have no confidence in a reform unaccompanied by an
acknowledgment of past errors. The retraction should be as public as the
original statements. This appears to be God's unalterable law. Until it shall
make a full, clear, unequivocal statement of its position, such as the answer
to the questions propounded would involve, we must question whether the
recently changed expressions mean anything more than that it is more guarded as
to its phraseology since our criticism.
We quoted from its teachings in our
last, and now we give some extracts from its very first issue (October, 1882)
as proof that its teachings did deny that the Lord bought them; did deny that
we were bought with a price, even the precious blood of Christ. Under the
heading ATONEMENT it sneers at the doctrine of substitution, claiming that it
places our Father "in the UNGRACIOUS attitude of demanding the full payment
of the sinner's debt before he will forgive." Is this an attempt of our
contemporary to appear more gracious than Jehovah, who says he "will by no
means clear the GUILTY," and who for this very reason "sent his only
begotten Son that he should BE A PROPITIATION [satisfaction] for our
sins," and who "by the grace [favor] of God tasted death for every
man"?
Our contemporary continues to sneer
at what it terms "the gross injustice of transferring the consequences of
sin from the guilty to the innocent, allowing the innocent to suffer instead of
the guilty." We answer that we are thankful that Satan has led us into no theory
which would incline us thus to contradict the word of His testimony who bought
us, who redeemed us, who "died the just FOR the unjust." My soul,
come not thou into their secret who call good evil, and who find it needful to
traduce the Almighty's character for justice in order to prove their theory,
that we were not bought with a PRICE; which they claim has too much of a "commercial
idea" to suit their aesthetic tastes and theories, and who deny and make
light of those precious words:
"Jesus died and paid it all,
All the debt I owe."
Now, hear its own statement of its faith. Our contemporary continues:
"Repentance--complete change of heart and life--and forgiveness are the
Lord's cure for the difficulty [sin]; and when this is accomplished 'the
enmity' [see Eph. 2:16] is surely destroyed and the man
RECONCILED TO GOD." No one can mistake this statement; and what is it? It
is another and a different gospel from what the Apostles delivered. (See Gal. 1:8.) THIS gospel has no need of the death of Jesus as our
ransom from the wages of sin. It
has no place for Rom. 5:18,19: "Therefore, as by the
offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so, by the
righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of
life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the
obedience of one shall many be made righteous." It claims that repentance
is the thing which saves men--that if they repent God will FORGIVE, and it
calls this the Lord's CURE. We call this a man's remedy and theory, and in the
name of Jehovah declare that
"These for sin could not atone;
Christ must ransom, he alone."
This was the "Apostles'
doctrine," viz.; that Jehovah laid upon Him (Jesus) the iniquity of us
all--and "by His stripes we are healed.
Notice again that in the above
statement of its faith, our contemporary says that repentance and forgiveness
destroy the enmity, but note how contrary this is to the teaching of Paul, who
says that the enmity was destroyed by the cross. It declares further that man
is reconciled to God by repentance and forgiveness, but Paul says: "When
we were enemies we were RECONCILED TO GOD by the death of His Son" (Rom. 5:10.)
Truly the justice, rather than the love
of God is manifested by His rewarding sin with death--but the LOVE, the great
love wherewith he loved us, even while we were yet sinners and under proper condemnation
of his just laws, is manifested by the death of his Son to release us from that
just condemnation --opening up a way by which God could still be just yet the
justifier of sinners who believe in Jesus as their ransom. "In this was
manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten
Son into the world, that we might live through him" (1
John 4:9).
The child of God who can feel an
indifference on this most vital point of all the Gospel, this attempt to
ignore, deny, and remove the very foundation upon which the entire temple of
God fitly framed, is builded, shows either that he does not appreciate the
importance of the question, or else that he possesses so little of the spirit
of Christ as not to have the zeal for the Lord's house and work and Word
swallowing up all other considerations and interests. An appreciation of the
value of the death of Christ is all important as a basis of entire
consecration; hence the prominence given it in the Word. It is very important
as a part of the truth without which we cannot be sanctified.
We commend to all a careful study of
chapters VI and VIII, in "Food for Thinking Christians" as a help on
this subject.
In conclusion--we have done our duty
by those of our readers who are also readers of our contemporaries. "He
that hath an ear, let him hear"; and we feel convinced that only such will
hear with proper force and power the Word of the Lord on this topic. We have
dealt with this subject at the greater length because we believe that this,
which now assails those of "this way," is but a ripple of the mighty
wave of unbelief in the cross of Christ which is even now beginning to sweep
over the entire nominal Church. It is clearly described by the Apostles as the
form of error which would be prevalent in the last days of this age. Our hope
has been and is, that by clear, forcible and plain statement, we might help
some to forearm themselves for the conflict--putting on Christ as their helmet,
breastplate and shield.
W.T. R-495 a : page 5 – 1883 r.