Your ShelfYour Projects

Which Is Evangelical?

5%

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Nov 12, 1885

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 11, No. 43.

Read the full edition

Which Is Evangelical?

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

THE following is a portion of an editorial note in the Pacific of June 10:—
“The election of the Rev. Edward White to the chairmanship of the Congregational Union of England and Wales is sure to be noted as indicating the tendencies of belief among the Independents there. Mr. White is by far the most pronounced and prominent advocate of the doctrine of ‘eternal life only in Christ.’ Of course, he was not elected because of his advocacy of that tenet. He is a man of great energy and ability, and has done yeoman service for the Free Churches of England. He is also a thoroughly evangelical minister, if we except this particular divergence.”
An “evangelical minister,” according to Webster, is one who is “earnest for the truth taught in the gospel; fervent and devout; strict in interpreting Christian doctrine;” and the Pacific says that one who believes that we have “eternal life only in Christ,” is not, in that particular, evangelical. Let us see whether Mr. White or the Pacific is evangelical on the immortality question. The New Testament must, of course, decide the matter.
To start with, we take that most wonderful of texts, John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” What do we learn from this verse?
1. That God’s love for the world was so great as to cause him to send his Son for their rescue. We can judge something of God’s love for his Son, when we remember that Christ was the brightness of the Father’s glory, “and the express image of his person;” that he was “heir of all things,” the one by whom the worlds were made (Heb. 1:2, 3); and that “in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” Col. 2:9. God is infinite in all his attributes, and therefore his love for his Son was infinite. And since he gave his Son for the world, we know how great was his love for the world. It was infinite.
2. The worth of the sacrifice shows the extent of the need. God would not lightly give his Son to suffer and die; it must be that without that gift there was no possibility for man to be rescued from his condition, and to receive that which was offered to him.
3. We are plainly told that this wonderful sacrifice was made in order that those who would believe in Christ might not perish, but that they might have everlasting life. Man can believe in Christ and have everlasting life, or he can disbelieve and perish. There is no other alternative. The choice is not between happiness and misery, but between life and death. With eternal life in the presence of God, happiness must necessarily be associated, but it is secondary. Eternal life is what Christ says we get by believing on him. To deny that we get eternal life only through Christ, is to deny the words of Christ. Mr. White accepts the words of Christ; the Pacific says, Not so. Which is evangelical?
Let us imagine that Nicodemus held to the doctrine of inherent immortality, as advocated by the Pacific and many others. Then when Christ said,“God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,” Nicodemus would have retorted, “Well, he needn’t have gone to all that trouble, for we shall have eternal life any way. If that’s what you came for, you came to no purpose.” Do you say that such language would be insulting? We admit it, but how many are saying the same thing to-day!
The doctrine of “eternal life only in Christ” is not evangelical, says the Pacific. Then the author of the gospel must be declared unevangelical; for he says, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life.” John 3:36. Is not this eternal life only in Christ?
Other texts are simply a repetition of the statement already made. Says Christ, “I am come that they might have life.” John 10:10. Says the Pacific, “You are too late; we have it already.”
Again the Saviour said to the unbelieving Jews: “Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.” John 5:40. We can imagine the pitiful tone in which he spoke these words, and the sorrow of his heart, as “he came unto his own, and his own received him not.” And then to think that he knew all that his coming implied,—the agony in the garden, the brutal insults and cruel scourging in the judgment hall, and the shameful death on the cross. What for? “That they might have life.” Was Christ deceived? Was his anxious solicitude for man all a mistake? and was his sacrifice a useless waste of life? Evidently so, if men could have life outside of Christ. But he was not deceived; none so well as he could know man’s terrible need, and the eternal destruction that must follow if the sacrifice were not made. Then how terribly deceived must those be who, in response to Christ’s pathetic appeal, virtually say, “We don’t need to come to you that we might have life; we can get it without your assistance.” Fatal delusion! What an insult to the Son of God!
Once more. Said Christ, in that wonderful prayer which was not for the apostles alone, but for them who should believe through their word: “Father, . . . glorify thy Son, . . . as thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” John 17:1-3. Would the Pacific say that Christ was “thoroughly evangelical, if we except this particular divergence”?
Perhaps the Pacific has another standard of evangelicism. But for “this particular divergence,” Mr. White would be “a thoroughly evangelical minister.” Divergence from what? Not from the New Testament and the teaching of Christ, as we have clearly seen. What then? Ah, now we have it. The Rev. Edward White is a Congregationalist, and in general holds to the doctrines which the Congregationalist body holds in common with the great mass of professed Christians. But this same mass of professed Christians does not accept the doctrine of “eternal life only in Christ,” and it is in “this particular divergence” that Mr. White is unevangelical. If it were not for that, he would be “thoroughly evangelical.” Then it is evident that, according to the Pacific, popular belief, and not the New Testament, is the standard of evangelical principles. Popularity seems to be the accepted standard; but in spite of the great number on the popular side, we can’t help believing that the Bible is true, and that Jesus meant what he said.
What is the record? “And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.” 1 John 5:11, 12. Is not this “eternal life only in Christ”? It certainly is, and it is evangelical doctrine, too.
“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom. 6:23. “No, no,” says the Pacific, “Paul is mistaken; eternal life doesn’t come ‘through Jesus Christ our Lord;’ or, even if it does sometimes come through him, we can get it without him just as well.” Again we ask, Which is evangelical?
Sometimes people say, “Well, it is of no practical importance what you believe concerning the immortality of the soul.” We think that the intelligent reader can see that it is of a great deal of importance. It is a question of whether we shall give Christ the honor that is his due, or whether we shall withhold from him all his honor. One of his titles is “our life.” See Col. 3:4. Nowhere in the Bible can we find that he came for any other purpose than to give life to those who would believe on him. His sole object in coming to earth to suffer and die, was to give life. And now if we say that Christ did not bring “life and immortality to light through the gospel,” but that Socrates or Plato brought it to light, then we exalt a heathen philosopher above Christ, and rob the Lord of glory of his crown. The work of Spiritualism to-day is to convince men that they have life in themselves, instead of in Christ; and thousands who profess to be evangelical, and to abhor Spiritualism, are doing their best to help along that delusion of Satan. And this popular doctrine, which is so flattering to the pride of the human heart, that man is not dependent for eternal life on any source outside of himself, is that which will eventually sweep millions of professed lovers of the Lord into the ranks of those who openly blaspheme his name.
Reader, where do you stand? Do you profess to love the Lord Jesus Christ? Then do not any longer refuse to acknowledge that which will constitute his crown of glory and rejoicing. “My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.” 1 John 3:18.
E. J. W.