Reasoning Against Reason.
By Uriah Smith
PAUL’S words in Rom. 4:18, commendatory of Abraham’s trust, are often rendered, “hoping against hope.” While we accept this we cannot accept the custom, quite too common among theologians, of reasoning against reason. If the following is not an instance of this we know not what to call it. In the Sunday-school Lesson, published in the New York Independent of August 28, on 1 Thess. 4:13–18, are the following words:— “If Jesus rose after he had died, then there is such a thing as life after death. Then the soul survives death. Then we too may live after death. We do not make so much of the resurrection as the early disciples did, simply because we have come to look at the future life as a matter of course, and to imagine that the resurrection of Christ was merely a proof of the resurrection of these mortal bodies. That was not the view of the early disciples. It was a proof of the resurrection of the soul, the spiritual body, that they wanted in those days, when there was no general belief in the immortality of the soul.” “It is hard for us to understand how those converts could have imagined that it was peculiarly unfortunate to die before Christ’s second coming. It was because they imagined, and Paul too, perhaps, that Christ was to come soon, in the lifetime of some of them, and that his coming was physical, not spiritual, and they did not understand the doctrine of the immortality of the soul.” There are some singular statements embodied in the above remarks:— 1. The truth, that in the days of the apostles they did not understand the doctrine of the immortality of the soul; neither was there any general belief in that doctrine. This is contrary to the present general belief, but we think that we have given evidence in the SIGNS OF THE TIMES, especially in the articles on the history of the doctrine of immortality, that there was no such belief general in that age of the world. And a careful reading of the New Testament must convince any one that the apostles knew nothing of the immortality of the soul; or if they knew it they carefully concealed that knowledge from their readers. We are glad that a paper so influential as the Independent has made this fact prominent in this manner. 2. The early Christians more highly prized the doctrine of the resurrection than do Christians of the present day, because they did not understand the immortality of the soul, and, of course, knew of no future life except by a resurrection. Such was exactly the teaching of the apostles. Dr. Clarke says that Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 15:32, contain the legitimate conclusion from the idea that there is no resurrection of the dead. The Doctor, who also says the early Christians thought the resurrection of much more consequence than it is now considered, remarks:—“For if there be no resurrection, then there can be no Judgment,—no future state of rewards and punishments; why, therefore, should we bear crosses and keep ourselves under continual discipline? Let us eat and drink and take all the pleasure we can, for to-morrow we die, and there is an end of us forever.” All of which is true if there be no resurrection; but it is not true if the soul is immortal! For, if there is “a never dying soul to save,” as the hymn-book tells, then there is a reward to Christian effort, even if the dead never rise. Then the Lord does not bring his reward to his saints at his coming; Rev. 22:12; then we do not wait for his appearing to receive a crown of glory; 1 Pet. 5:4; then we shall not be recompensed at the resurrection of the just; Luke 14:14; but at the day of death. This truth stated by the Independent is one for which we have contended for years, namely, that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul obscures the doctrine of the resurrection. Also that the apostles and early Christians highly prized the resurrection of the dead, but did not recognize the immortality of the soul. We would rather be in their company than in the company of modern innovators. We ask for “the old paths,” and inquire for “the good way” taught by the inspired servants of the Lord. 3. If Jesus rose from the dead, then the soul survives death! Now if anybody can show any necessary connection between these two ideas, we shall be glad to consider the method whereby it is shown. The statements of the Independent already considered prove that the apostles and early Christians did not consider the second as a consequent to the first. They knew that Jesus rose from the dead:—they did not know that the soul survives death. If the writers of the Bible did not know it, where have modern theologians learned it? The statement is contrary to all just reasoning. So far from the connection being necessary or true, the Independent itself declares that they highly prized one because they did not understand the other. And yet that paper says the one proves the other. We know not how to account for this inconsistency in a journal so able, except by the well-known truth that the advocacy of error tends to blindness. 4. The appearing of Jesus, after his death, proves the resurrection of the soul! This, in its strangeness, exceeds all the rest. When he appeared he said to his astonished disciples, “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see.” If this proved “the resurrection of the soul,” it was a soul possessed of physical proportions; that had hands and feet; that feasted on broiled fish and honey comb. And what is the nature of a soul which is resurrected from death? It is not an immortal one. Death and resurrection are not predicated of immortal beings. We should decide that the Independent’s idea of an immortal soul is not exactly “orthodox,” but in the present confused state of popular theology we are at a loss to decide what orthodoxy is. 5. The early Christians, and perhaps Paul too, thought the coming of Christ was to be “physical, not spiritual.” Paul no doubt thought so, for he so taught, and when he wrote to his brethren that “the Lord himself shall descend with a shout,” he said it was “by the word of the Lord.” It was “this same Jesus,” and not an intangibility, or a principle, which shall come again. This method of mysticising the Scriptures is what has rendered null all the promises of Jesus' glorious return, and dissipated the glory of the resurrection, and for it substituted a principle of immortality of which the apostles and early Christians were ignorant. Unwittingly the Independent has set forth a sweeping indictment against modern orthodox theology. The inspired apostles, and the churches which enjoyed their instruction, did not have the clear and correct views of the coming of Christ and a future life which the church of the present day enjoys! Had Paul been taught “hermeneutics” under Prof. Stuart, and had the Thessalonians had the advantages to be derived from “International Sunday-school Lessons,” their views would have been different, no doubt, provided they had been willing to turn away from that which came “by the word of the Lord,” unto the words which man's wisdom teaches. We give one more quotation from the Independent which does not need any comment:— “Christ’s second coming will be very glorious. Just what and how and when it will be we do not know. We must not speculate. Christ did not know when on earth. Perhaps we are even now living (who knows?) in the beginning of his glorious coming. There are even now most magnificent evidences of his spiritual presence and sovereignty. The progress of a Christian civilization, the overthrow of false religions, the extension of missions, the suppression of slavery—what are these but shouts, voices, and trumps?” Were not the Independent a paper of staid and sober deportment, we should think it meant to be “hugely facetious” in giving such a list of evidences of the already coming of Christ, and prefacing it with the words—“we must not speculate!” We are determined never to be surprised hereafter. U. S.