June 1924
T H E K I N G ’S B U S I N E S S
349
Hell; and yet, w ith our taxes we are paying the salaries of teachers to teach th is to our children and send them into outer darkness for eternity. But no one believes th a t Jesus is the Christ who believes th a t He died for only his first two, or first three, or first four sins. Where can you draw the line? Only where God’s Word draws it.^—“Our Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave H imself for us th a t He m ight redeem us from ALL INIQUITY.” Then th e one who accepts the Saviour as the one who ransom s him , redeems him, from only a p art of his sins, will die in his sins as surely as the evolutionist; for you cannot ta k e one p art and reject the other part. Let the one who warps God’s Word and slanders His only way of salvation by saying th a t the doctrine of Christ re deem ing him from all iniquity means a license to continue in sin, a prem ium on crime, answer for it in hell. The one who believes th a t Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and th a t means a new sp iritual n atu re th a t hates sin and loves holiness; and th a t from love to Christ for re deeming him from all iniquity, and not from fear of hell, the believer will live a holy life and serve God. I could fill volumes telling of the vilest men and women who ever lived in Amerioa whom I have, under God, led to believe th a t Jesus is the Christ, and who immediately, and not by “slight, numerous variation s” tu rned and lived noble, pure, sacrificing lives. I challenge th e evolutionists, and the “ salvation-by-character” infidels to explain these cases. God’s Word explains them ,— Jesus is th e Christ. On th a t tru st tu rn s the etern al destiny of every responsible hum an being. EFFECT OF RELIGIOUS LIBERALISM UPON THE HOME AND PEOPLE A U nitarian w riter said: “ It is still a good home to be born into, th is home of th e liberal faith, good in many respects: b u t so far as th e responsibility for the religious ness of th e children is concerned, th e paren ts have ab dicated. Some one says th a t in th e modern home the daily bath has taken th e place of th e m orning prayer. It is bet te r for hygiene; is it b etter for holiness? F o r ch aracter?” The modern liberal paren t seems to reply, Cleanliness comes before godliness and will suffice. This sunset of religious ness is by no means confined to U nitarian homes nor to those of liberal orthodoxy. But it is probably most marked in homes of the liberal faith', and doubtless liberalism has much to do w ith it.” (The Christian R eg ister). Destructive criticism causes men to lose all sense of fair ness, honest discrim ination and ability to consider m atters in an unbiased manner. F o r instance Dr. Gerald Birney Smith of Chicago University says: “F o r th e man of sci entific spirit, criticism (even if it be of th e most radically negative ch aracter) is never destructive.” (Social Idealism and Changing Theology, P. 187). According to his state ment, th e re is no such th ing as destructive criticism . These radical critics are not doing destructive work bu t construc tive, according to th e ir way of reasoning. Some Iiberalists adm it th a t modern higher criticism is destructive to th e value of the Bible. W ellhausen, fore most radical critic of the Old Testam ent, in answering a question pu t to him as to w hether, if his views were ac cepted, th e Bible would retain its place of au tho rity in the
was the bastard illegitim ate son of a fallen woman. No wonder th a t P resident David S tarr Jo rdan of Leland Stan ford University has recently come out in public p rin t and said th a t evolution does not conflict w ith religion; it does not conflict w ith HIS religion; for he believes th a t Jesus had both a human fath e r and mother, and th a t he was therefore th e bastard illegitim ate son of a young Jewish fallen woman; hence, he does not believe th a t Christ “ gave H imself for us th a t He m ight redeem us from our iniquity.” And Jesus said,—Oh, hear it, evolutionist, for you will have to face it when you stand before Him w ith “ the kings of the earth, and th e g reat men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and th e m ighty men, and every bondman and every freem an,” and say to th e mountains and rocks, “ F all on us and hide us from the face of H im th a t sitteth on th e throne, and from th e w rath of the lamb; for the g reat day of his w rath is come; and who shall be able to sta n d ?” (Rev. 6:15-17), h ear it and bow to Him, while th ere is tim e: “Had ye believed Moses, ye would have be liever me; fo r he w rote of me. But, if ye believe n o t hi» w ritings, HOW SHAM, YE BELIEVE MY WORDS?” (John 5:46, 47). You can take it or leave it, bu t Jesus says th a t no evolu tion ist goes to Heaven; and His words are going to stand when th is world, d runk w ith its sin and pride of h eart, to gether w ith th e quill-drivers for the big magazines and Sun day daily papers, and the proud, half-baked college pro fessor-scientists who all branded the Saviour as the bastard illegitim ate son of a fallen woman, reel and topple into H HE late Dr. W illiam Newton Clarke, well known New Theology leader said: “ The au tho rity of the Scriptures is th e au tho rity of the tru th . If Christianity were not historically tru e, no di vine aid in th e composition of its Scriptures could make it tru e .” (An Outline of Christian Theology, pp. 45, 38). Those who reject th e Bible A uthority and attem p t to sub stitu te for it w hat they call the “ au tho rity of tru th ,” ignore the fact th a t th e g reatest tru th s we have are de pendent on the au tho rity of God’s holy Scriptures and can not be verified in any other way. Denying the au tho rity of th e Scriptures compels one to adopt agnosticism in re gard to Bible tru th s. Christianity is based on certain historical facts, such as Christ’s virgin birth, atonem ent, resurrection etc. To be lieve these facts and a t the same time deny the au tho rity of the Scriptures is impossible. The Scriptures, Christ and Christianity, are indissolubly bound together. They stand or fall together. The critics tell us th a t the Bible is a huge m istake and u tterly unreliable. They have th e au dacity to say th a t the question of the inspiration and au tho rity of Scripture is of little importance. This is modern religious liberalism pure and simple,—-mostly simple. If modern religious liberalism is correct th e Bible is a pious fraud. Yet iiberalists are wondering why people of liberalistic persuasion have discontinued daily Bible read ing. Where th e ir own views prevail, is it not asking too much of people to relish th e reading of Biblical falsehoods and pious fraud?
Is the Bible a Pious Fraud? P asto r A. Reily Copeland, Tabernacle B ap tist Church—Waco, Texas
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker