“THE PARTING OF THE WAYS.”
It has been evident to thoughtful minds for some years that the great “orthodox” denominations, the Protestant churches, had come to the parting of the ways. They are not standing at a dual division of the road, but at a four corners, and their ranks are rapidly, tho not always consciously nor manifestly, dividing into the great highways which lead out from the center. When these great denominations were launched they had at least a few beliefs in common: they believed the Bible to be the word of God, the authority in matters of faith; they believed Christ was a vicarious sacrifice, that He “died for our sins;” that He was miraculously conceived and born of a virgin; that He truly died and rose again; that the Gospels are inspired narratives of the life, the teachings, the works, the character of Jesus. But the miners and sappers of “higher criticism” have been at work. They began with the Old Testament, with the books of Moses. They have assumed in their own wisdom certain premises, and on these uncertain premises the conclusions are logical, tho not true. Their conclusions have been received as Gospel truth by thousands of ministers and teachers. Evolutionists and geologists, also building on assumption, have mightily assisted the higher critics in the destruction of Christian faith. It matters not to these critics that archeology has demonstrated the falsity of many of these higher critical conclusions, they cling to the tattered remains, and still make balls of the thrums of their web by which to pelt the rock of the word. Listening only to the higher critics and their disciples, the great mass of professed Protestant Christendom is leavened with the corrupting thing. Logically, the strongest attacks are now upon the very bastions and bulwarks of New Testament truth. Now and then this is revealed in some heresy trial like that of Dr. Crapsey. More frequently it is manifest in so broad a way as utterly to preclude heresy trials. There are few seemingly left to hunt the heretics, or try them after they are caught. An instance of this is an article in the Independent, of January 10, entitled, “Confessions of an Undistinguished Heretic,” which the editor calls “highly significant and timely.” He tells us that it is from an “ordained clergyman of a large and orthodox denomination, a church which has expelled ministers for smaller heresies than are confessed in the article. He has been the pastor of important churches in progressive cities, and is still in active service.” The writer of this article plainly declares “that the Bible is no longer for me an infallible book, even for substance of doctrine. I have discarded definitely all doctrines of inspiration.” “I do not believe in devils, big or little, many or one. I can not credit the resurrection of Lazarus.” He does not believe in “the virgin birth of Jesus, nor in the physical resurrection,” nor in “imputed righteousness,” nor that the law is immutable; but he is “not shouting out every Sunday” that he does not believe them. All there is in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke in addition to that of Mark are but embellishments of the men, “possibly true,” but not reliable, and to be carefully examined. All these negative things he has been believing for years, some of them he wrote down and hid in his drawer years ago, from which he now and then takes them5“to refresh his soul, allowing occasionally a delicate effluence from them to steal over a page or two of the next Sunday’s sermon;” and we are told that if this is done wisely, after a while one “may avow them as violently as he pleases,” and the congregation “will sit peaceably under his doctrine, and sing the last hymn lustily in satisfaction that they have heard once more truth they have always believed.” These heresies he subtly teaches, but not to “endamage” his work, hoping that soon these things will be generally tolerated, and that his soul may be delivered to declare his “opinions of the atonement.” There were replies to this galore. Some of these were printed in the Independent of Feb. 7, 1907. Some of them condemned his opinions. Most of them condemned his cowardice. Some of them declared themselves to be in sympathy with him. “A veteran theological professor” declares that “very many sermons of the day reveal a similar ‘delicate effluence’ to those of the undistinguished heretic,” and he calls “confessions” “a very interesting expression of a mind moving somewhere in this current trend of modern skepticism.” Another writer declares the confessions to be “an expression of a condition that is becoming general;” that “there are many ministers who believe as the writer of the article in question does,” and that “the people are finding out these things anyway.” Of course they are. They are constantly taught them in a subtle way, and are too ignorant of the Bible to refute them. And Dr. Crapsey declares that “I have reason to know that his attitude is that of a large and increasing number of ministers in the various churches—Protestant and Catholic.” And the many letters which have been sent thru the Independent to the writer of the article convinces him of the truth of what Dr. Crapsey says. There are many who hold to the same conclusions who will not confess their belief. It is not alone the influence of the teaching of the geologists and evolutionists and higher critics which is leading men to the rejection of the Scriptures; but their own refusal, for various reasons, to follow the light of Scripture in clearly revealed duty is stultifying and hardening conscience. Some of these reasons are moral cowardice and unpopularity. They have believed the Scripture, but they fear to face the so-called scholarship of the world in avowing their belief. The Scripture demands certain duty; but to do that duty would separate them from the great mass, and leave them with the unpopular few. Faith is fostered by living it. Conscience is kept clean and clear by following its convictions. The truth of God’s word is demonstrated in the doing of it. John 7:17. But refusing to follow light and duty throws the soul into darkness; and then to justify conduct, doubt is thrown upon the Scriptures which condemn the conduct of unbelief. This is emphatically true of the great and important Sabbath question to-day. It is not a mere day which is involved; it is the integrity of the Scriptures; it is the immutability and inviolability of the law of God; it is the example of Jesus Christ; it is also some of the strongest declarations of needless creeds. Rather than turn to the memorial of God’s creative power, take their foot from His Sabbath day, and call it holy, a delight, honorable (Isa. 58: 13), men are rejecting the Scriptures which teach and emphasize from Genesis to Revelation what that Sabbath stands for—the almighty power of God in creation, redemption, and regeneration—and are leaving the Creator for the husks of evolution, tradition, or some vagary of human conception. The great Protestant churches stand at the four corners of decision. Shall it be blank infidelity? or the tradition of Romanism? or the vagaries of an unguided and misguided conscience in a thousand isms? or shall it be the plain, old-fashioned belief in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, all-sufficient, unfettered by creed or council, shining brighter and brighter to the perfect day?