p. 3 | Blasting at the Gospel by C. M. S.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jan 27, 1910

Blasting at the Gospel

By C. M. S.

Astonishing as were the statements brought out in the article of last week under this title, as showing the direct antagonism between modern theologians and the Bible—modern philosophy and God’s purpose and gospel—we did not exhaust, by any means, the antiscriptural utterances of the one article from which we quoted. The quotations given showed a direct attack upon the Bible, upon the principles of the gospel, and upon the deity of Jesus and the fact and necessity of his sacrifice for man. His miracles were discounted, and the power by which he wrought his works was virtually attributed to the one now deceiving the world through spiritualistic and mesmeric demonstrations. We do not wish to weary our readers with a setting forth of the claims of these teachers; but we do wish to show the connection between the results of such teachings and the work of the adversary of souls. We wish to show that there is a direct connection between such teachings and the agencies that are at work to advance the interests of the kingdom of darkness.

From the day when discord arose in heaven, the author of that discord has sought to disparage the Son of God and cast discredit upon his position and work. Evolution and the Higher Criticism carry on that work by seeking to take creation out of the hands of Christ and bring it about through an interminable process of autogeneration; when they

have worked that out, they seek to disparage Christ and his work still further by teaching that men are unfallen beings, needing no Saviour, and that Christ’s only accomplishment in our behalf was the teaching of great moral truths and the living of a life that is an inspiration to others.

For centuries the larger portion of the Christian church has believed in the inherent immortality of man. If that proposition were true, there was of course no need that One should come from heaven to “bring life and immortality to light;” no need of One coming that his body might be broken and his blood be shed for man. But generally speaking, those holding to the view of man’s natural immortality have also, though inconsistently, held to a belief in the necessity and sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of man from the death penalty. Of course it was an illogical thing to do. Both ideas can not be true. Either we have immortality inherently, or we obtain it as the gift of God, through Christ. Either we are fallen beings, forfeiting, through the fall, our right to life everlasting, and have that life purchased for us through the sacrifice of Christ, or else we are unfallen, we have immortality and are bound to live eternally without any regard to what Christ has done. We can not hold to both propositions at the same time. We are either mortal or immortal. If mortal, that means we are subject to death; if immortal, beyond its reach.

The idea of the inherent immortality of man brought in the idea of the eternal torment of the wicked. The immortal wicked must be separated from the immortal righteous; and Christ was given credit for making a way whereby men might gain immortal joys and escape immortal miseries. But modern theologians have flung aside the truly unscriptural doctrine of endless torment. On such a hypothesis, they have left Christ a Redeemer with nothing to redeem, a Saviour with nobody to save and nothing to save him from.

To give the position of modern theology upon this phase of the question, I quote again from Dr. Abbott’s article, previously cited:—

If I thought, as many seem to think, that death is the extinction of life, and resurrection is a new creation of life, resurrection would indeed seem to me incredible. But death is not extinction of life, and resurrection is not a new creation of life. Death is simply the dropping off of the body from the spirit; resurrection is simply the upspringing of the spirit from the body. There was nothing extraordinary in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Every death is a resurrection. . . . The return of the spirit of Jesus Christ to reanimate his body does not seem to me an incredible event. That the spirit has often returned to the body and reanimated it is the testimony of history and of science. Every resuscitation of a person pronounced dead by the onlookers is such a return of the spirit to the body which it has apparently left.

To take such a position is to deny the possibility of the Almighty doing what he has plainly declared he will do. It plainly contradicts John 3:16, that great epitome of the gospel: “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.” To “perish” certainly means extinction of life; and without the gift of Christ and man’s acceptance of him as the Saviour, extinction of life is certain. The teaching of Dr. Abbott and the school of theology to which he belongs casts aside the divine plan and substitutes a human plan; it repudiates divine help in the attainment of eternal life, and teaches the present possession of the very thing which Christ gave his life to bestow upon us. It gives such an interpretation to the resurrection as makes it meaningless and worthless, and makes the death of every human being equally important with the resurrection of Jesus Christ. What can human ingenuity invent beyond that to belittle and discredit Christ in his sacrifice and work on behalf of man? It would strip him of all credit and all glory in connection with the redemption of man as completely and as truly as he stripped himself of his glory and dignity when he left the courts of heaven to enter upon redemption’s task.

Says the theologian: “Death is not the extinction of life.” Such a statement, if true, would make Jesus a deceiver rather than the only thing they allow him to be,—a great teacher,—because he declared of his mission, “I came that they may have life.” Imagine Jesus teaching men, “I came that they may have what they have already”! Again he said: “Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.” Interpreted according to the teachings of modern theologians, we must understand that to mean: “Ye will not come unto me that ye might have what ye have already.” But did Jesus come from heaven to earth to bear what he bore that he might put himself in such a ridiculous attitude? He believed that men were in danger of perishing unless he came and did the work which the Father sent him to do. He believed that men needed to accept him and believe in his mission in order to have eternal life. The modern school of theology does not believe that. Whom shall we believe? Who was in the best position to know?

The century-old belief in the immortality of the soul robbed Christ of his title of life-giver, so far as those who believed it are concerned; but they gave him credit for saving believers from an ever-burning hell. Later theologians eliminated the ever-burning hell and eternal torment, but they left Christ the honored position of a great moral teacher; modern theologians virtually take from him that title by setting forth doctrines which, if true, would make his entire work on earth unnecessary and his teachings ridiculous contradictions of fact. There has been a determined and deliberate progress, step by step, in this work of dishonoring Christ, until it seems now to have come to the full. What further indignity can man invent? To be sure it is not done with avowed purpose to discredit him. But avowals are unnecessary where results are so apparent. God said, “Ye shall surely die.” Satan said, “Ye shall not surely die: . . . ye shall be as gods.” The modern theologian declares there is no death, and that man has what the Bible declares only God has—immortality. He therefore asserts what Satan asserted: “Ye shall not surely die: . . . ye shall be as gods.” Whose work does such teaching advance, God’s or the adversary’s? Is it consistent to pose as a Christian while reiterating the declarations of the one who tempted Eve?

C. M. S.