Readers of this paper have
doubtless noticed that I frequently use the word orthodox and orthodoxy,
and I suppose that all understand the sense in which I use it, viz., to
express the generally received faith among all classes of
Christians. For instance endless torment is an orthodox
doctrine, i.e. it is held by the great mass of professing Christians
throughout the world; so of the Trinity, Substitution, Immortality of the
soul, etc: these are all so called orthodox doctrines, being
embraced in the faith of the majority of Christendom. This is the sense in
which I have used the word. Strictly speaking orthodoxy is a word that
applies only to the truth; its etymological meaning is straight
doctrine, i.e. true, correct doctrine; in this sense the writer claims
to be orthodox. But the word has come to have a technical sense,
with the meaning already explained; in this respect it is like the word evangelical,
which appellation a branch of the Christian church has sought to
monopolize. The use of the term Orthodox, by those who claim the exclusive
right to use it, is really absurd, since as a matter of fact the standard
of orthodoxy shifts and changes from generation to generation, from decade
to decade, and almost from year to year. That standard in Protestant
churches in the days of Jonathan Edwards, was very different from what it
is today even in those denominations that are most conservative and
non-progressive. In these days too, we have what is called
"the new orthodoxy," or "the new departure,"
which is so widely different from the old orthodoxy as to give rise to
this anomalous and paradoxical condition of things, viz. the existence of two
orthodoxies, widely different and decidedly opposed, and yet both of them
orthodox, i.e. correct, since the new as well as the old orthodoxy is held
by prelates and divines high in authority and influence in Protestant
churches. Thus does this word, which ought to denote
something fixed and permanent, really signify that most changeable
of all terrestrial things, human opinion; and the various branches of
the nominal church really make themselves ridiculous in their lofty claims
of orthodoxy, and appear hypocritical in their ofttimes vehement
condemnation of heresy, though at other times, for reasons of expediency,
they condone it. The fact is that no church has a right to set
itself up as a fixed standard of religious truth; it is simply impudent
presumption to use these terms orthodox and evangelical in
the manner in which they are used by certain of the sects, and it shows a
sad lack of the spirit of Christ and of that charity that "covereth
all things." (l.Cor. 13:7, N.V.*
margin.) "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own
master he standeth or falleth; yea, he shall be holden up, for God is able
to make him stand" (Rom. 14:4).
In former issues of THE
SPIRIT OF THE WORD I have not hesitated to refer in very plain
terms to the absurdities and monstrosities of the popular theology.
I make no apology for these criticisms; if I could I would make them more
emphatic, for to me it appears that the prevalent religious beliefs are to
a very great extent horrible caricatures of the truth, contradictory,
senseless, and, in some cases, actually blasphemous. I would make no
compromise with these dogmas that outrage reason as well as Scripture,
that "put darkness for light and light for darkness," but
would rather do all I can to root up these noxious plants that our
heavenly Father hath not planted. (Matt. 15:13). In the light of Scripture
as well as the actual state of things around us the entire outward,
visible, organized church, is plainly a poor, fallen, corrupt institution,
like the Jewish body politic in the time of the old prophet, "the
whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint; from the sole of the foot
even unto the head there is no soundness in it, but wounds, and bruises,
and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither
mollified with ointment." There are many in the church who see this
wretched condition of affairs and denounce it unsparingly, but still they
think that the church may yet be saved, i.e. the organization,
saved; to me this seems impossible, disintegration is inevitable; Babylon
must come down. In the Revelation we have a degenerate, fallen
church represented by
A WOMAN SEATED ON A BEAST
(Rev. 17:1-6). That
representation is today the shameful symbol of the entire body of the
organized, nominal Christian Church, Greek, Roman and Protestant. I think
that a brief consideration of the meaning of that symbol will fully
warrant the above sweeping statement. In Bible symbolical language God's
people have always been represented by a woman; thus the children of
Israel were represented, and God was their husband, (see e.g. Ezek. 16) ;
thus the gospel church is represented as the bride of Christ, (see Eph.
5:22-32). A beast is the symbol of the world power, (see Dan.
7:1-7,17) . Now what would a woman seated on a beast
symbolize? What else could it signify but the church supported by
the world? and is not that the exact situation of all Christendom
today? There can be no doubt in the mind of any Protestant that, that is
the situation with the Greek and Roman churches, and with all other
state-church organizations; all such iniquitous and unholy alliances
(compare Lev. 18:23) are manifestly well represented, according to Bible
symbology; by a woman seated on a beast, the church supported by the
world. But does not the same symbol apply with equal force to the great
body of Protestantism? Is not the church as a whole, worldly? Does it not
use every means, many of them very questionable, many of them not
questionable at all, but disgraceful, to obtain the support of the world?
Are not the rich courted and flattered, in order to obtain their support,
no matter how irreligious they may be, while the poor are snubbed and
neglected, though they may be as the salt of the earth for piety and
devotion? (Jas. 2:1-10) . Could the church maintain its present status of
magnificence and luxury, cushions, stained glass, gilt, frescos and
polished wood, costly music. and a still more costly pulpit orator, with
its "church parlor," and "church kitchen" with all the
furniture pertaining thereto, I ask, could the church maintain all this,
if all outside, worldly help were withdrawn? Is it not true rather that
the world is the principle supporter of this outward show and luxury? and
furthermore is not the same true of many of the professedly religious
operations of the church? Does not the church to a very great extent look
to the world for support in these operations? i.e. in missionary work,
church building, current expenses, etc., etc. and does not the church use
every means, such as fairs, festivals, oyster suppers, amateur
theatricals, etc. in order to draw the dimes and the dollars out of
worldly pockets for the above purposes? and finally is not all this
nothing more nor less than the church seeking the support of the world,
rightly symbolized by the woman seated on the beast? The
reader must be blind indeed if he cannot see that Christendom as a whole
is apostate; that the church as an outward, visible, human institution is
a wretched failure, Babylon, the "Mother of harlots" and
her daughters. I say the church as an outward, visible human institution;
God has a people in the world as truly as in the days of Elijah the
prophet (see 1 Ki. 19:14,18) , the true "Ecclesia," "the
Kingdom of Heaven" in embryo. These are God's "jewels,"
(Mal. 3:17) scattered throughout the land, some nominally in every branch
of the Christian church, some outside of all of them. They have no
outward organization, no visible bond of union, but "the unity of the
spirit" binds them together in inseparable fellowship," until
they shall all come in the unity of the faith and the knowledge of
the Son of God to the perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the
fullness of God." (Eph. 4:13). We may be sure that, whatever human
institution may fail, "nevertheless the foundation of God standeth
sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his" (2 Tim.
2:19) . But what of this outward visible organization called the Christian
Church? I believe that it is beyond repair, and that its ruin is close at
hand; see 1-5-105, 106, etc.)
"The Judge standeth at the door." We are living in the
last stage of the decadent ,degenerate, apostate church, the Laodicean
stage; if I had space in this paper I would examine those seven messages
to the typical churches of Asia of Rev. 2 and 3, as they apply to the
seven stages through which apostate Christendom has passed during this
gospel age: but I must leave the full examination of this subject to some
future time. I will however briefly mention the stages. Ephesus represents
the church during the apostolic age, the purest and best period of the
organized church. Smyrna represents the church during the Pagan
persecutions under the Roman emperors. Pergamos (which means exalted,
lifted up) represents Christianity exalted to the high position of the
religion of the Roman world under Constantine at the close of the 3rd
century; this period extends from the beginning of the 4th century for two
or three hundred years. Thyatira represents the church of the so-called
"dark ages;" Sardis, the church of the Reformation;
Philadelphia, the Missionary church, bringing us down to near the
beginning of the present century, when all the great missionary and Bible
societies had their origin; and the Laodicean stage is the one in which we
are now living, which is very near its end and is to close with the coming
of Christ, even as that seventh message declares "Behold I stand at
the door." Read over the message to the Laodicean church, read it
carefully, and see in it a description of the nominal church of Christ
in the days in which we live. Read it, and, if you have any spiritual
insight at all, you can hardly resist the conviction that this is the Spirit,
the real meaning, of this portion of the Word.
I cannot further follow out
this train of thought now, it is not a pleasant subject; denunciation is
never agreeable to a soul that is at all imbued with the spirit of Christ;
and yet God's watchmen have sometimes this unpleasant task to perform, and
then they must do it faithfully, "whether men will hear or whether
they will forbear;" (see Jer. 23:28,29) I will pass on now, however,
to notice some of the particular forms of error, most prominent and
harmful in the nominal church.
One chief cause of the
church's present condition is that they have wandered away from the plain
path of truth into the winding and devious ways of error.
"They have rejected the word of the Lord, and what wisdom is there in
them?" They "have committed two evils; they have forsaken God,
the fountain of living water; and hewed them out cisterns, broken
cisterns, that can hold no water." In previous issues I have noticed
many of these serious and misleading errors of the nominal church. I
have also noticed some of them in the first article of this issue, and I
would again call attention to these errors that exactly reverse the
truth, "putting darkness for light and light for darkness;"
these may be called:
THEOLOGICAL REVERSALS
I will
briefly mention a few more of this same class of errors.
The very foundation principle
upon which the Bible is interpreted by the church is the reverse of the
truth, and this error leads the church in the way of death, and away
from the way of life. We are told that the bible is written in
plain, simple, easy language, and that the correct meaning of a passage is
that which lies upon the surface, the most obvious and apparent sense. For
instance, a celebrated preacher, formerly of Boston, thus enunciates this
error, "the sense which naturally suggests itself in the
exposition of the Scriptures is the sense to be preferred." Now so
far from this being true, the truth I think is just the opposite. The
Bible is written, as the Word incarnate spoke, in "parables and dark
sayings," in types, allegories, shadows and figures, that the truth
might not be seen, except by those to "whom it was given;''
(see Matt. 13:10-16). I know that this statement will sound strange and
erroneous to some, but it is nevertheless the plain, simple truth, capable
of abundant verification from the Bible; in previous issues I have given
many proofs of this point (see e.g. 1-1-2,
4 & 14), and will not give more now, but will simply add that a
knowledge of the "plan of the ages," makes it plain why
God should thus hide the truth, in a book that is yet a revelation
of the truth (see Col. 2:26,27). Wonderful "treasures of wisdom and
knowledge" are hid in the written Word, as in the Word
incarnate, and he alone will find them, who "searches for them
as for hid treasure," (Prov. 2:1-9). The systematic rules by which
God works "first the natural and afterward that which is
spiritual," "every man in his own order," the "first
fruit" and afterward the great ingathering (Rom. 11:16), etc., etc.
These rules, connected with the gradual development of his plan, age after
age, explain why God should give light to some and withhold it from
others. The "first fruit" of course are first to be
attended to and afterwards others of the great human harvest; and so on
until all are gathered together in Christ. (Eph. 1:10; see also 1-2-26
and 30).
Now the great majority of
Christians know nothing of this great principle of Scripture revelation,
and hence they are building upon, and resting in, the letter of the Word
which brings, not life, but death. Hence also the almost innumerable
opinions, sects, and contradictions that divide and disgrace the Christian
world, causing the people to stumble and God's name to be blasphemed.
Words are facile vehicles of thought, easily twisted into almost any
shape, and made to answer almost any end. This is shown in the framing of
laws, when, notwithstanding the utmost care, the legal formula is found to
be capable of several different meanings, giving rise to oceans of talk,
and endless complications, to puzzle judges and to defeat the ends of
justice. Thus is it also with the letter of the Word; it is ofttimes
capable of various meanings, and in the absence of any authoritative
standard of interpretation, one man's opinion is as good as
another's, and hence discord and strife rend the church into many factions
instead of there being "one fold and one
shepherd." For example, a certain skeptical writer refers to this
changeable character of the Bible thus, "Nothing is plainer in the
Bible than that there is nothing plain in the book. There is not a heresy,
theory, dogma, creed, proposition or tenet, however monstrous, however
cruel, however pernicious, however childish, silly and absurd, that may
not be substantiated or refuted, driven home or kicked out of doors, by
reference to that marvelous compilation." Every honest,
thoughtful Christian will admit that there is reason for this sweeping
criticism. There is truth in it too. By handling the Bible as it is
usually handled by the various sectarian leaders, it may be made to prove
or disprove, almost any proportion that man may, possibly imagine or
conceive. The great mistake in all this is that men are disputing about
the letter that kills. The key to the unraveling of all this
tangle, the one talismanic word to bring order out of all this confusion,
is the SPIRIT of the Word, "the spirit that
giveth life." But the spirit of the Word is hid away under the
letter, purposely hid, so that some shall not understand,
hence the ignorance of the great majority. "He that hath ears to hear
let him hear." In studying the Bible we should seek the full truth,
not on the surface, but down deep under the letter, like precious stones
and metal hidden in a mine. I would add right here, since I have been
misunderstood on this point by one correspondent, that I do not mean to
say that the spiritual meaning of Scripture is always something
entirely different from the letter; oftentimes it is so, but not
always by any means. The Spirit of the Word is its real, true, full
meaning, whatever that may be; sometimes that true meaning is
properly expressed by the letter, but in order to get the full
meaning you must take other scripture in connection with it, you must
perhaps refer to Old Testament types or allegories, or prophecies. Bible
truths run into one another, and all are harmonious with one general plan;
we need to study these truths not only to learn what
they signify in themselves, but what are their connections
with other truths, and what their relation to the plan; in this
way, we get somewhere near the full truth. Partial truths, with a
great deal of error mixed in to fill up, are the curse and bane of
modern orthodoxy; the Spirit of the Word saves us from this curse. I
would not have anyone understand that I teach that under every word,
phrase and sentence of Scripture there is hidden away some mystic
sense entirely different from the letter, that we must endeavor to dig
out. I do not say that this is so; neither do I say that it is not so;
for, knowing how wonderfully the letter sometimes hides (as well as
reveals) the true meaning, that meaning being something entirely different
from the letter, I would not dare to put my finger upon any sentence,
phrase or word of Scripture and positively declare, "this has not
a mystic sense." However, what I do say is this, that he who expects
to saunter carelessly through the fields of Bible lore, picking up the
rarest and most valuable gems of truth upon the surface, as one might pick
up pebbles upon the beach, will find a great deal of his building material
wood, hay and stubble, in that day when "Every man's work shall be
made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed
by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it
is." (1 Cor. 3:13).
As this point is important,
and as it lies in the direct line of the purpose of this paper, i.e. to
bring out the Spirit of the Word, and moreover since the prevalent view is
so utterly wrong in this respect, just the opposite of the
truth, I will add a few more thoughts.
We read that "Jesus spake
unto the multitudes in parables, and without a parable spake he not unto
them," (Matt. 13:34), not to make the subject plain, and easy, to be
understood, as I have heard orthodox authorities positively declare, but
in order that the subject should not be plain, and easy to be
understood, (see Matt. 13:10-13; Mark 4:11,12) "And with many
such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able
to hear it; and when they were alone he expounded all things to his
disciples." (Mark 4:33,34). Does it not seem strange that Jesus
should give these explanations when alone with his disciples, and not in
public so that all might have the benefit of them? He spoke to them in
parables that they might not under- stand, and then gave the
explanation in private. Does it not look as though Jesus did not want
them to understand? The simple explanation of all this is that to the
disciples it was "given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of
heaven, but unto them that were without it was not
given." Christ worked according to the great plan first the
promised "Seed" must be perfected, Christ and they that are
Christ's, (Gal. 3:16-29;1 Cor. 15:22,23), then, through that Seed,
"all the families of the earth shall be blessed" "in the
ages to come," but "every man in his own order."
Take Christ's conversation
with the Jews as recorded in John 6. as a further illustration of the same
truth; in that conversation Jesus seems to bewilder and confuse his
hearers by the strange statement he makes. He says, "I am the bread
of life that came down from heaven;'' and "the Jews murmured at him
and said is not this Jesus the Son of Joseph, whose father and mother we
know? How is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?"
Now we should expect that Jesus would explain to them what he meant, but
no, he gives them a still harder nut to crack by telling them, "I am
the living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of
this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that give is my flesh,
which I will give for the life of the world." The Jews therefore
strove among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh
to eat?" Is it any wonder that they did not understand him? Was not
his language calculated to completely baffle the wisest among them? Did
not his statements seem like dark enigmas and riddles? But does he now
explain? No, he still further staggers them by making the bald assertion,
without a particle of explanation, "Verily, verily, I say unto you,
except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood,
ye have no life in you. As the living Father hath sent me and I live by
the Father, so he that eateth, me, even he shall live by me."
It would seem that this statement was too much even for the disciples, and
they began to murmur, and to say, "This is an hard saying; who
can hear it?" Now notice how Jesus helps them, but not a
word of help for the multitude. "When Jesus knew in himself that his
disciples murmured at it; he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
It is the spirit that quikeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, the
words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are LIFE."
(His word is life to us just in proportion as we discern the spirit of
it). Here was a hint to intimate to them that they were not to take his
words in the letter but in the spirit, and yet in this helpful hint there
was a flat contradiction to the statement he had previously made; he had
said before "the bread that I will give is my flesh which I
will give for the Life of the world." Now he says, "the flesh
profiteth nothing;'' if his flesh was to be given for the life of the world,
it would seen as though it would profit a great deal; why then say it
profiteth nothing? A flat contradiction in the letter! Calculated
still further to hide the truth. No wonder, as we read, "From that
time many of his disciples went back and walked no more with
him." Does it not seem strange that Christ should apparently
drive his followers away from him thus, and make no effort to justify his
language or to remove their misapprehension? According to the common
belief such conduct is wholly unaccountable and seems cruelly unjust; if
it were true that people were at that time having their only chance to
obtain eternal life, and that, failing in that chance, they would drop
into an endless hell, if this were true, how can you explain the Saviour's
conduct? It will not help the matter any to say that Jesus knew that it
would do no good to explain, unless we take the ground that none of
Christ's hearers could ever be benefited by an explanation, for this was
Christ's invariable method of public preaching, "without a
parable spake he not unto them." How can we account for his adopting such
a method of discourse? It would seem as though it was a method surely
calculated to defeat the object of his preaching, viz., the enlightenment
of his hearers. Christ speaks in parables, obscure and strange figures,
that his hearers might not understand, lest they should
understand; and then when he knew that they had entirely misapprehended
his meaning he leaves them in their mistake without the slightest effort
to undeceive them. "He that hath ears to hear let him hear," was
the apparently indifferent conclusion to his teaching as though (one might
think) he had little care whether he was understood or not. There is
absolutely no way of accounting for this invariable practice
of Christ on the basis of the orthodox view. What I want the reader to see
is that since this was Christ's uniform method of preaching to the people
it indicates a set purpose: it was something more than a temporary
expedient justified and explained by the requirements of a special
occasion, it was a constant practice, hence it indicates a preciously
arranged plan, and the question, what is that plan? It becomes a
very important and interesting one. (see 1-8-177).
We search the creeds and standards and prevailing religious opinions in
vain for any explanation of this practice of our Lord, or any intimation
of the plan upon which it was based; in fact this practice is utterly
opposed to the common theology and is one of the strongest arguments
against it. Christ preached in such a way that only a few
were "able to receive it." ( Matt. 19:12). His method
exclude the multitude, and culled out a few choice spirits suited to his
purpose; thus it appears that selection or election was
certainly a part of the plan upon which he acted, and hence he says,
"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,"
"to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of
heaven, but to them that are without it is not given,"
"No man can come except the Father draw him," and finally that
most remarkable, and most unaccountable upon any orthodox basis, of all
his utterances in his wonderful prayer recorded in John 17 "I pray not
for the world, but for those that thou has given me." Pray not for
the world! Why not? Christ died for the world; "He tasted death for
every man;" "He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole
world;" why should he not therefore pray for the world? In
this again we see the unmistakable evidence of a plan, a prearranged order
and system, according to which all Christ's actions were regulated. Christ
knew that the mystic body must be made one, the promised
"Seed" must come before the world, "all the families of the
earth," could be blessed (see 1-4-78);
and this is just what he intimates in his prayer. He prays for the unity
and perfection in one of a certain class, "those whom the Father had
given him," in order that the world might ultimately be blessed
through them, "that the world may believe,'' "that the world
may know."
Thus spake the Word incarnate,
"in parables and dark sayings," in strange figure, puzzling
symbol, and apparently impossible metaphor; and thus, if I err not, speaks
the written word, in type, pattern, allegory, prophecy, parable, symbol,
figure, image and shadow, hiding away the most important and the full
truth underneath the letter, so that only he who has a veritable passion
for the truth, and really eats God's words (Jer. 15:16) only such
ones will "understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of
God" (Prov. 2:5); and that one who accepts the church's teaching upon
this point, and expects to find the great truths of life lying in plain
sight upon the surface of God's revelations, will surely be led astray. In
this connection look up, and carefully read and ponder the following
scripture; noticing how God is represented as "a God that hideth
himself" amidst "clouds and darkness," and whose thoughts
and ways are as different from, and as much higher than ours, as the
heavens are different from, and higher than the earth. Psa 36:5-7, Psa.
77:19; Psa. 97; Isa. 8:13-17; Isa. 28:8-18; Isa. 45:15; Isa. 55:8-13; Hos.
14:9.
It remains for me to add a
word in answer to the question, (which very naturally will arise) Why
is the truth thus hidden under type and shadow and figure in God's
revelation? I have already partially answered this question; because God
has a plan, because there is order, system, and a "due season"
to that plan, and to every stage in it; because there are "first
fruits" and later fruits, "first born" and later born, a
"first resurrection" and a second "resurrection," a
"special salvation" (1 Tim. 4:10) and a "common
salvation" (Jude 3), and every man is to be dealt with "in his
own order," i.e. when his turn comes; hence God hides the
truth from some whose turn has not yet come, and reveals it to others whom
He is finishing off (1-1-4
& 1-2-30) for the perfect state.
But furthermore God's ways and methods are a part of our
training and education, and not simply means to reach a certain end;
God makes the means a blessing to us as well as the end; the form
in which the truth comes to us is beneficial and educational as well as
the truth itself; and all tends, not only to the acquirement of so much
truth, but what is more valuable, to the development and perfection of
the spiritual man. (1 Cor. 2:14,15). So it is with mental training,
the education of the schools. The young man that goes through the various
steps of education until he graduates from a university should seek, not
so much to store his mind with just so many items of knowledge, just so
many facts of science, philosophy and literature, memorized from books, if
this is all he gets he has fallen short of nine-tenths of the real value
of an education, but he should seek to train, and develop, and perfect his
mental faculties, so that when he leaves the schools and goes out into the
world to fight for himself, he may be able to continue his research into
truth in every department, through all his future life, without the help
of text book, school or tutor. So in the realm of spiritual truth, God
gives us the truth in such a form so that the studying of it out is
of more value to us in the way of training and spiritual development, than
is the truth itself after we have arrived at it. The object of our
training is not that we may know so many things, but that we may
"come in the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the son of God
unto the perfect MAN." God might have
given us truths so that we could store them away in our minds, just as you
would put so many parcels into a chest; but the mind would not be
developed and trained by such a process any more than the chest
would. Spiritual education is a growth and gradual development into
the "perfect man." We are to go on from the condition of
"babes in Christ" ( 1 Cor. 3:1) unto "full age" (Heb.
5:11-14), "unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of
Christ." Hence the form of the word is such as to promote this
growth; if everything in the Bible was plain and simple like a child's
primer, it would require no effort to receive it, and hence though
we might obtain a certain number of truths yet these would be but very
little spiritual training. An "Order" of men
is now being fitted and trained to be the kings and priests of the
"ages to come," the promised Seed in whom all the
families of the earth are to be blessed, (1-4-77,
78, etc.) the "Sons of God;" for whom the whole
creation wait (Rom. 8:19), and this "Order" must reach the
"perfect man" condition by a gradual growth and development, and
the form of the Word is one of the principal means to effect this
growth and development; to them it is given to know the mysteries
of the kingdom of heaven; but to those who do not belong to this
"Order" it is not given, because they do not need to see these
"deep things of God" yet, but "they shall see"
in the judgment age (1-6-121), when
"the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness." (see
explanation of Isa. 26:8-11, in 1-7-163).
Thus taking God's plan into consideration, the apparently dark,
puzzling and mysterious character of the word is fully accounted for, and
clearly shown to be but another manifestation of that "wisdom and
knowledge of God," the depths of which are unsearchable, and past
finding out. (Rom. 11:33).
In conclusion I will mention
two or three more Theological Reversals. I refer to these but briefly
since each one of them has already been considered in past issues of the
paper. For the sake of having them altogether I will repeat the one just
considered.
1. The common view is that the
great truths of the Bible lie upon the surface and are set forth in plain,
simple language, but the truth is they are hidden away under the Ietter,
in "parables and dark sayings," in "mysteries" and
"hard sayings, in order that they may not be seen and
understood; except by certain ones, at certain times,"
"according to the plan of the ages." ( Eph. 3:11, N.V., margin;
also see Emph. Di.).
2. The Church teaches that
Christ is God and that when he was here on earth he performed his mighty
acts of power in his own strength, when in fact he could do nothing
in his own strength. (John 5:30; I-4-82 & 83).
3. We are also taught in the
popular theology that there is no probation after death for any,
when in fact there is no probation at all for the great majority until
after death. (1-4-73).
4.
According to the prevailing view, the Day of Judgment is to be a time of
awful and almost universal doom, when in fact it is the period of the
world's probation and salvation. (1-6-12).
5. The
nominal church tells us that when Christ comes it will be to "wind up
affairs," and bring the work of redemption to an end, thereby fixing
irrevocably man's eternal destiny; but the truth is that the great work of
man's salvation and regeneration (Matt. 19:28) is to be after the
second coming of Christ, in "the ages to come;" hence Christ
comes not to end that work but to begin it.
There is not space in the
present number to notice more of these Theological Reversals now; but
these are sufficient to indicate the present condition of so-called
Orthodoxy, and to demonstrate scripturally that those who make the
exclusive claim of orthodoxy are very far from holding straight
doctrine, but on the contrary are exceedingly crooked in their
faith, which is in fact the very opposite of the truth.
These errors are part and
parcel of the life and soul of the nominal church; they are the warp and
woof of the entire fabric; they are woven into its creeds and
standards, its preaching, Sunday school instruction, and social meeting
talk, its hymns and songs, into the entire body of its literature, its
rituals and litanies, and they are ingrained into the thought and feeling,
the mind and heart of every one of its members, so that to remove them
would be like drawing out the nerves and tendons of the human body, an
operation that would inevitably result in the body's total destruction.
The church is all wrong in these things; "there is no
soundness in it," hence the only thing that can be done is to tear
down and build over new; and this is just what will be done, and
that very soon; Christ's kingdom; the true church, "the church
of the first born," will be established on the earth, and He that
sits upon the throne shall say, "Behold I make all things new, it
is done." (Rev. 21:5,6).
_______________
*i.e. New Version; refers to The
English Revised Version of 1881-1885 (RSV)
