THE KING’S BUSINESS
292
45:7) includes “moral evil,” “sin,” as Mr. G. and his associate insist, and dictionary and concordance are with them in this, God is named as its Author. But the exegete s resources are not exhausted by these au thorities, the context, immediate and gen eral, has a voice, and necessitates dividing “evil” into “two spheres,” “natural and moral,” a distinction that is not one of the "exegencies of theology,” but a demand of common-sense. That “evil” includes the signification “moral evil” (“sin”) by no means proves that this is to be read into Isaiah 45:7. The immediate context does not demand it; the general context (of Scripture) excludes it. Sin is attributable to moral and responsible free agents alone. God is not responsible to any; and the edi tors are right in denying possibility of sin to Him, as, therefore, they are wrong in reading moral evil into the verse in ques tion. To attribute the alleged moral evils to God is to cancel the guilt and nullify creature free agency, it is to obliterate sin, as effectually as does Christian Science. If sinners are to be held accountable God can not be even particeps criminis. The cast of Job, cited by Mr. Knoch, is with us. To Job the evil was “natural,” not “moral,” nor did he so charge God “fool ishly.” To Satan it was moral, done ma liciously. As to God it was permitted, not committed by Him, a fact which the unveil ing of the real agent seems meant to show The existence of sin under an Almighty and Just God is the riddle of the universe. He who grapples with that problem is sure to leave the field “halting upon his thigh.” To cut the knot, since we cannot unravel it, by making God the doer of all, is to con fess defeat. Nor shall we ever bridge the chasm between Sovereign Providence and creature free agency. But to say G od per mits is very wide from saying He commits. With God, indeed, “the end justifies the means,” as “E. A. K.” ' intimates.. B ut NOTHING COULD JUSTIFY CHARGING GUILl TO THE CREATURE FOR THE DOINGS OF H IS CRE ATOR.
G od is blessing me wonderfully but it is always so with Him. He is so kind and loving. I have now been here six weeks and God has been blessing the work greatly. We have a nice little church here and on Sunday evenings we have the churcfi crowded. We have had an averafge attend ance of about 100, which I believe to be very good for a new work. When I first arrived here it was hard to find an out and out Christian. Now we have quite a few who have surrendered to Christ, some backsliders have been reclaim ed and fifteen or sixteen have professed conversion. This place is now in a state of revival. A week ago Sunday three ac cepted Christ, Thursday evening at our mid-week service two accepted Christ and yesterday two others took Christ as their personal Saviour. Many people are under deep conviction of sin and we are expecting God to save many more souls here. I shall open, a new work at McKittrick, a notoriously wicked place, and expect to preach there one night a week. The place consists largely of saloons, pool halls, gambling dens, theaters, red light district, etc., so you see the great need here. In McKittrick no religious work is now in progress except a Catholic church, but I expect to begin services there soon.. Am praying God to bless you every day. I remember the blessed times we had in your classes and shall never forget those times of blessings and prize the notes from your classes very highly.— Reuben W. An derson, Reward, California. Mr. Anderson went out from the Bible Institute in January. His letter tells the story of his acceptance in the service of the Master. T h e editors of “ Unsearchable Riches“ deny Dr. Torrey’s charge (see his editorial in our March number) that Mr. Gelesnoflf makes God the Author of sin. Mr. G. cate gorically repudiates the charge. But one may verbally (sincerely) deny what logically he affirms. If "evil’’ (Isa.
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker