RELIGIOUS BACKBONE by Editor

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Nov 25, 1889

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 15, No. 45.

RELIGIOUS BACKBONE.

By Editor

It is refreshing in these days when one hears so much sentimental gush about so-called "Christian union" on a milk-and-water basis, to know that there are some people who feel under obligations to profess and defend that which they hold to be truth, even at the risk of being considered "narrow." In this line the following from Rev. S. C. Keetch, a contributor to the Herald of Truth, will commend itself to the good sense of the reader:—

"There is a good deal of sentimental nonsense indulged in by many in these days, in the name, and under the guise, of Christian Catholicity. There are not a few who seem to be so extremely anxious to free themselves from all suspicion of being narrow-minded and bigoted, that they go to the extreme of that wishy-washy liberalism which lacks the backbone of pronounced conviction, and which, we believe, cannot be other than enervating to the life of any church or denomination. It is often said that all the denominations are equally good; especially is this statement thought to be true when the reference is to those denominations which are termed evangelical. But is this true? Is it possible for denominations to exist, each being different from all the rest in its principles and practices, and yet equally possessing and practising the truth? It is surely manifest that the denominations cannot be equally good, unless they are equally scriptural in their creeds and polity; and if the Bible is, as we all believe, the word of God, and therefore the truth, and nothing but the truth, this is evidently out of the question. It would not be more absurd to say that a triangle, a square, and a circle are equally round, than it would be to say that all the denominations are equally scriptural, and therefore equally good. If, for example, I am a Baptist, and thoroughly persuaded that the denomination to which I belong is scriptural in refusing to baptize infants, and in teaching that the only true and valid baptism is the immersion of a believer, 'in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,' can I believe that a denomination is equally scriptural that teaches infant baptism as a divinely-appointed ordinance, and teaches that sprinkling or pouring are scriptural forms of baptism, and therefore just as acceptable to God as immersion?—Certainly not. I am compelled to believe that my denomination is right with reference to this ordinance, and all others wrong, who do and teach otherwise. Narrow, do you say? Then common sense is narrow. Bigotry, do you say? Then logic is bigotry. The writer was born a Methodist, christened by a Methodist minister, brought up by Methodist parents, instructed in a Methodist Sunday-school, converted in a Methodist Church, and for two years labored as a Methodist preacher. But when, by a faithful and critical study of the Bible, he found out that Methodism was unscriptural in many important matters, he severed his connection with that denomination, and became a Baptist. Could he have done otherwise?"

And this is just what every man ought to do, just what God requires every soul to do, to exchange error for truth, and to obey truth regardless of consequences. Every man ought to be able to give a reason for the hope that is in him, and if he finds that he has no reason for his faith or practice, or that his reason is unscriptural, his duty is to abandon it for something that is scriptural. It was obedience to this rule which made Mr. Keetch a Baptist, and continued adherence to it would not only still further transform Mr. Keetch, but it would make Baptists, and Sabbath-keeping Baptists at that, out of the honest-hearted everywhere.