Theology Run Wild by Editor

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Mar 29, 1883

Theology Run Wild.

By Editor

A WRITER in a paper "east of the Rockies," which paper claims to be "a religious journal;" gives his opinion thus on the subject of the necessity and the relations of baptism:—

"I understand that we are called to a repentance for Adam's sin, as well as for the violations of moral laws we have committed, as we are baptized for the dead, in and with Christ, thus putting off the sin of Adam (mortality), in hope of eternal life in Christ. Then we are not called to repentance and baptism for the remission of sins in the flesh, although we may never have committed sin, as was the case with Christ? 'Shall we sin that grace may abound? God forb'd,' says Paul. If each person has only to repent and be baptized for the sins he has committed, then they who have not committed sin, have nothing to repent of, or be baptized for. As all are expressly commanded to repent and be baptized, then we must all sin, or act a false part; such sinning we already see is not allowed."

It is doubtless true that there are a great many Christians who occupy the ground upon which we stand, never having had any compunctions of conscience for Adam's sin, never felt called upon to repent because Adam sinned (though we have often regretted it), and were not baptized on account of Adam's sin. All in a remarkable dilemma, according to this writer, as they may have been baptized to no purpose! However, we think that class of persons "who have not committed sin," is so very small that none need to trouble themselves to find a method of relief from the dilemma.

In a paper of still greater pretensions, and from a writer somewhat better known, we copy the following:—

"If none are able to pluck Christ's sheep out of his hands, will his sheep be able to do it? Jesus said to the Father, 'Thine they were, and thou gavest them me.' Can sheep get out of their hands and turn themselves into goats? 'Yes,' says one, 'if they want to make the change, they can.' But will they make the effort? Will they want to get away from the Shepherd and the flock? Is it in the nature of a sheep to changed into a goat? Sheep may be scattered and lost, but they don't turn into goats."

We answer, No; it is not in the nature of a sheep to be changed into a goat. Nor is it in the nature of a goat to be changed into a sheep; nor is it in the nature of the root of a pippin tree to send its sap through a crab-apple graft so that the crab tree graft shall bear pippins. But Paul says that grafting in the gospel of Christ is "contrary to nature;" the good root gives its quality to the graft, so that the branch which is wild by nature bears good fruit—the same as the stock.

If all are by nature the "children of wrath," as Paul says they are, then all in their natural state may be represented by the term goats. If ever they shall be sheep—followers of Christ—they must be changed into sheep, unnatural as the process may appear. And to change back to goats again would be a change neither greater nor more unnatural than that.

We consider it the height of folly to take the figures of the gospel and try to find an analogy in all points to the things represented. If Christ represents his people by the term sheep, it is not necessary that they must the nature of sheep be like sheep in every respect. It is not in the nature of a rock to possess the power of locomotion. Now because Christ is called a rock are we to judge that he is inert? We do not wonder that infidels consider the gospel "foolishness" when it is so grossly misrepresented by its professed advocates.