p. 74 | MODERN INFIDELITY by C. W. Thornton

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, Cal. · Feb 17, 1881

MODERN INFIDELITY.

By C. W. Thornton

BY REV. C. W. THORNTON, A. M.

EVER since the contradiction of the word of God, as reported by Eve, when Satan said, "Ye shall not surely die," there has been more or less infidelity in the world. This infidelity has assumed different forms, and prevailed in different degrees throughout the centuries. At the present time it has assumed a milder form than that which prevailed a century or two ago. It is no less dangerous, however, than formerly. Its mild features make it all the more deceptive. The mind that is inclined towards skepticism, is deceived by its semi-orthodox, and its so-called scientific basis. The church has but little to fear to-day from asserted atheism. While there is a good deal of practical atheism extant, there is but comparatively little that is theoretical and avowed. The present is too intelligent an age for that. As men become acquainted with science, history, and their own natures, there are but few who openly and professedly stand up as the advocates of this aspect of infidelity.

[Here the writer goes on to notice at some length a few of the various phases of infidelity, such as Pantheism, and Naturalism or Rationalism, etc., and concludes as follows:—]

A more common phase of modern infidelity is that of Indifferentism. It denies man's responsibility. It acknowledges "the Divine existence, personality, providential government, and the redemption of the Bible, but there is a general lack of fidelity to these doctrines." They are but loosely interpreted, and but formally received. Whatever may be the dispositions of men, this phase of infidelity would represent them as in no sense responsible. It thinks so little of Revelation that it never bothers itself about a careful and studied interpretation of the same. It stops not to consider that responsibility is a matter of consciousness. It dare not consult man's feelings upon the subject. While the advocates of this doctrine may be advocates of morality, they really remove all restraints to vice. Whenever man gets the idea that he is not responsible for his dispositions, and therefore his actions, he is prepared to do anything. It is a surprising, and no less a sad fact, to find a man of Mr. Emerson's intelligence advocating such principles. While speaking of Napoleon, giving a statement of his egotism, vices, and excesses, he concludes by saying, "It was not his fault," implying that he was not to blame for the tendencies in his disposition which led to such results. Such a doctrine removes the idea of moral government. Wherever it touches it leaves a moral taint, and finally results in fatalism.

Formalism is a phase of infidelity that has prevailed more or less in all ages, and is a common one of the present time. It is not essentially opposed to Christianity in theory, but is decidedly so in practice. It has "the form of godliness, but denies the power thereof." It takes the mere externalities of religion, and rests upon them. It is a mean between two extremes. Man's spiritual nature prompts him to a worship of some kind. His carnal nature rebels against a genuine spiritual religion. The two combined lead to a religion of forms. The Jews rejected Christ, partially at least, for these reasons. Roman Catholicism is well adapted to this class of religionists. Formalism utterly disparages anything like religious experience. It could not stand that test. The devil is cunning, and never allows this precious vessel of his to touch the delightful shores of a genuine Christian experience, lest he should lose his passengers. Yet it sails close enough to give the appearance of safety. It does not and can not satisfy the deep wants of our natures. It is superficial, deceptive, and opposed to our highest spiritual interests.

Another dangerous phase of infidelity is found in modern Liberalism. It has many of the bad features of the phases already mentioned, besides many peculiar to itself. There is room enough in the liberalistic creed for almost anything except real genuine heart-purity and spiritual power. It does away with, or at least so disparages the fact of divine interposition as to exclude the sustaining power of divine grace and the regenerating power of the Holy Ghost. It is here we find not only theoretical but practical Unitarianism. While Christ is reverenced and admired, he is stripped of his glory and undeified. It has but a narrow and superficial appreciation of the atonement. Failing to see God with all his attributes in Christ, it fails to see the enormity of sin, and the greatness of the price paid for man's redemption. It is in this liberalistic school that we find Mr. Fox-ton, late of Oxford, who ventures to say, "In the teachings of Christ himself there is not the slightest allusion to the modern evangelical notion of an atonement;" also a Mr. Newman, who claims that "the atonement may be dropped out of Pauline religion without affecting its quality." Seeing the self-denial requisite for real godliness, it stigmatizes it as narrow and opposed to the highest interests of human liberty. Looking at its own excesses and empty pleasures, it represents orthodoxy as gloomy and unreasonable. It is loud in its praises of the "dignity of man," and bold in its assertions of the "fatherhood of God," while it fails to accept the Bible statements that "the carnal mind is enmity against God," and that God is not only a Father, but also a righteous Judge. It does not recognize the Bible as strictly a God-given book, but merely as a collection of interesting and profitable statements concerning God and the Christian religion. Of all the phases of modern infidelity, this is perhaps the most dangerous, since it is the most prevalent. It takes away the substance and leaves but the shadow. It is the world's chaff without a kernel of Heaven's blessing. Such a belief cannot do otherwise than result in the overthrow of vital piety, and that "holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord."—Golden Censer.