T H E K I N G ’S B U S I N E S S
76
two centuries before the b irth of Christ; the first formal action on th e -matter was tak en by a council of rabbis at Jam nia, nearly a century afte r the b irth of Christ (90 A. D .). The New T estam ent capon was practically complete in Christian consciousness by 250 A. D. The first ecclesias tical council which we can be sure passed on th e m a tte r was a t Carthage in 397 A. D. The books of our Bible w ere re ceived as Scripture because, froth the beginning, they func tioned as Scripture. The Bible holds the place th a t it does today, not because of th e action of ecclesiastical-courts, hu t because of what it has w rought in the moral conscious ness and religious experience of the race. This effect of th e Bible upon th e moral and religious ex perience of men is the best proof we could offer th a t it is really a revelation from God. If we acknowledge th a t th ere is a God, a God of tender paternal in terest in His creation, then nothing is more certain th an th a t He should seek to reveal H imself to His people. We have seen th a t the fact of God’s existence creates th e necessity for a revelation. We have seen th a t th e Bible perform s the necessary func tion of such a revelation, then why not accept it as such? This wonderful Book has Come down through th e ages, challenging man’s conscience w ith the nobility of its moral ideals; lifting his soul to the heights of rap tu re w ith the glory of its redemptive hope; drying his falling tears and healing his brok en h ea rt w ith the gentle whisperings of its grace and love; moving him out in loving service to others w ith the beauty of its ideals pf sacrifice; and beck oning him upward toward God and eternal life w ith its crowning offer of divine companionship. Surely, if God is to reveal H imself to man, it must be in ju s t such a book as the Bible. I t has stood every te st and met every demand, and so to it we may confidently cling as the final and tru e revelation from God. front ran k of th e evangelical position are lining up with vowed an confessed Modernists. As a very prom inent Christian w orker in th e city of London rem arked the other day to us, “ I don’t understand it; can you explain it? ” We were bound to confess th a t we could not, and we have since given the m atter fu rth e r consideration, and are convinced th a t Scripturally th ere is not a single w arra n t for these unholy associations. “He Is Such a Nice Man” is so often rem arked about preachers and professors, who are using every possible device to mislead and seduce the Lord’s people from th e orthodox faith. We are rem inded th a t when th e devil dresses himself up in professional or m inisterial garb and assumes th e platitudes of th e pro fessions represented, he makes a profoundly impressive and gracious appearance. If ever th ere wa3 a tim e in the history of th e Church of Christ when “No Compromise” must be th e battle cry in this w arfare for th e faith, surely it is today. Another th ing we have noted in ouf journeyings and our study of the religious press, is the rem arkable w a y 'in which. distinctions are made between churches who stand for the fundam entals of the faith, and th e Sunday Schools th a t are organized under th e ir aegis. Almost invariably a »
sciousness of Christianity gave us th e New Testam ent canon. No ecclesiastical au tho rity or council of religious potentates gave us our Bible or rendered it au thoritative. Prof. E. F. Scott, of the Union Theological Seminary of New York, comments upon th is fact thu s: “ I t would clear away much con fu sion -if we could clearly apprehend the fact th a t the New Testam ent owed its position from the first to its intrinsic excellence. . . We cannot be sufficiently g ratefu l th a t in th e early centuries th ere was no official body of church leaders or theologians who could determ ine, by formal rules, which books should be included and which left out . . . Out of the many miscellaneous w ritings which had come down from th e earlier days a certain number were foupd, a fte r a sifting th a t went on for some genera tions, to have selected themselves. They had proved, in Christian experience, to have an inner vitality, while others, which pretended to have ju st as high a title, did no t make th e same appeal. . . . Men have treasu red it (th e New Tes tam en t) from the earliest days till now because it moves them , because it answers th eir needs and aspirations, be cause it tru ly pulses w ith a divine power,” (“The New Testam ent of Today,” pp. 24-26). These statem ents from a scholar of Professor Scott’s standing and position, a rep re sentative of a liberal school of theological thought, are of more th an ordinary significance. As may be seen by an exam ination of th e context, these statem ents are not made as relu ctan t admissions, bu t as "arguments to support a de fence of the present day value of the New Testament. The au tho ritativ e canon of Scripture was first of all re ceived and framed by the religious consciousness of those to whom God gave it, and ecclesiastical councils simply yielded to the inevitable and adopted what was already in existence. The Old Testam ent canon was already crys tallised in th e religious consciousness of Judaism a t least
. a »
afe
Mo Compromise By Rev A rth u r H. C arter Ed ito r, “The B ible Witness,"’ Hounslow, Middlesex, England.
“ F o r m a n y d e c e i v e r s a r e e n t e r e d in t o t h e w o r ld , w h o c o n f e s s n o t t h a t J e s u s C h r is t i s c om e in t h e f le s h . T h i s i s a d e c e i v e r a n d a n a n t i c h r i s t ................W h o s o e v e r t r a n s g r r e s s e th , a n d a b id e t h n o t in t h e d o c t r in e o f C h r is t , h a t h n o t G od . H e t h a t a b id e th in t h e d o c t r in e o f C h r is t , h e h a t h b o th t h e F a t h e r a n d t h e S o n . I f t h e r e c om e a n y u n t o y o u , a n d b r in g n o t t h i s d o c t r in e , r e c e i v e h im n o t in t o y o u r h o u s e , n e i t h e r b id h im G od s p e e d : F o r h e t h a t b id d e th h im G od s p e e d i s p a r t a k e r o f h i s e v i l d e e d s .” 2 J o h n 7 :1 1 .
OME years ago a g reat stir was occasioned amongst th e Lord’s people in G reat B ritain by the pub lished utterances of the late Archibald G. Brown, th a t prince of preachers, en titled “The Devil’s Mission of Amusement.” If ever a title was justified surely th a t was, for th e warning issued was bu t th e prelude to constant protests th a t have had to be made against the Pverwhelming forces of evil th a t have, w ith b u t very few exceptions, devasted th e churches. . * Today another slogan needs to be sounded against the “Devil’s Mission of Compromise.” It is distressing beyond measure in going about the B rit ish Isles and also cn our recent tou r through th e United States of America and Canada, to note how appallingly rife th e sp irit of compromise is. As we pen these lines, London (E ng land ), is being stirred in many qu arters by a, great so-called revival movement; and while we rejoice over nihny cases of blessing th a t must undoubtedly resu lt from th is g reat effort, wo are perplexed to find th a t men in the
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs