THE
K I N G ’ S B Ï Ï S I N B S I
277
May 1924
Is It Fundamental?
Rev. John G. Reid, Yakima, Washington “ The battle is formed” says the author of this ringing challenge, in his letter submitting it for publication, “ and the old call sounds throughout the camp ‘WHO IS ON THE LORD’S SIDE?’ God give us patience, courage and great wisdom— the wisdom from above (James 3 :17), promised in James 1:7 and Luke 21:15, and exemplified in Acts 6:10. Let us pray for these mistaken teachers that ‘Peradventure God may give them repentance (a change of mind) to the acknowledging (re cognition) of the truth, that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil’ ’’ (2 Tim. 2:24, 26).
Spirit shall come upon thee; and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee wherefore also that which shall be born of thee1 shall be called holy—■thei’Son of God” was a sufficient answer to .Mary’s perplexed “ How shall this be?” But, "this is a biological mir acle!” Of course it is! But necessary if He was to be any mpre than any other son of A d am . This, however, “ the
) making the Vir- Birth a fundamen- of our Christian pÿ is a c a u t i o n
broadcasted from a prominent Presbyterian source, and this in the face of the official re-affirma tion by the General Assembly that “ It is an essential doctrine of the Word of God and (therefore) o f o u r standards that o u r L o r d Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary.”
The Continent deprecates “ stressing the Virgin Birth above the Incarnation.” Bishop William Lawrence says: , “ I am convinced that there is no essential connection be tween belief in the Virgin Birth and belief in the' Incarna tion.” In this Bishop Gore also concurs. A prominent Presbyterian clergyman also says: “ The Incarnation'is the fundamental idea; not the method of the Incarnation.” But wherewith hath the God of this age blinded the minds of these good brethren? The Virgin Birth IS the Incarnation! Not only is this inextricably imbedded in the record, to impugn which is 1.6 repudiate every other statement of fact in the life of our Lord recorded by Matthew or Luke,g-but, There is-^-there can be— no “ incarnation” apart from that, or some similar “ biological miracle.” An “ indwell ing” there might be: a “ possession”-—a supreme domina tion,— as when apostles and prophets were “ filled with the Holy Spirit.” When it is written (Luke 4:1) that “ Jesus was full o f the Holy Spirit,” that was not “ The Incarna tion.” These brethren will not claim that it was. The poor victims of demoniac possession were dominated and controlled by th e '“ unclean spirits” which possessed them and misused their faculties and tongues. But no one has suggested that they were “ incarnations” of the demons. In all the thought of the church, “ incarnation” follows its etymology, and paraphrases John 1:14 “ The Word became flesh.” We do not presume to say that this, was thé only method by which he could have “ become flesh.” This we do not— cannot-—know. With this we are not concerned. The record is that the Logos, the Eternal Son of God, was in carnated; and that the method of His incarnation was by being born of a virgin. Were Jesus the child of Mary by ordinary generation—- (though in the face of her own and Joseph’s explicit state ments, we shudder to express the hypothesis)-—even though in lawful wedlock, and so freed from the stigma of illegitimacy, He would be in no sense “ God incarnated.” Indwelt, possessed, dominated to the maximum conceivable degree by Deity, in any form in which this may be ex pressed, He might be; but still, only a man; and in such case the Jews were right in saying that He “ blasphemed” when He, being a man, “ made himself God” (John 10:33) or saying that God was His own father, (patera idion) He made himself equal with God (John 5:18). “ Incarnation” is such a vital union of the Divine and human natures as is possible to our understanding only as exemplified in the union of paternal and maternal natures in the one person, imperfect though that parallel be. There-1 fore the reply of the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:35) “ The Holy
modern mind cannot accept!” , Of course not, for the fun damental tenet of “ modern thought” is the denial of the supernatural at every point possible. Anything which in volves the supernatural, the modern mind cannot—will not -—accept. The1resurrection of Lazarus was’ also “ a biological mir acle.” Shall we therefore deny that it occurred? Some of these “ Liberals” are consistent enough to do so, repudi ating the record because it cannot be explained on a natur alistic basis. ' Albeit that “ it is an essential doctrine of the Word of God as the supreme standard of our faith, that the Lord Jesus Christ showed His power and love by working mighty miracles,” will these brethren caution the readers and stu dents of the New Testament regarding the genuineness and historicity of the raising of Lazarus? How about the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Himself? This, likewise, is “ a biological miracle” which modern thought cannot— and does not— accept, which it openly questions and denies, Thus, at both ends they question and would destroy the fundamental doctrine of the essential Deity of our Lord, “ who was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God by resurrection from the dead,” (Rom. 1:3, 4 ); and if this is done the whole fabric of Scriptural soteriology, crumbles in irremediable ruin! As Dr. James Orr so fully shows in his book “ The Virgin Birth of our Lord” all the foundations of our faith go when that falls! Yet one has been bold enough to say, and that in a Pres byterian pulpit, too,— paraphrasing the utterances of these brethren to which exception is herein taken,-—that this, with other truths assailed, is only of “ the tiddly-winks and pecadillos of faith,” which, “ after all matter so little” !! “ Avoid making the Virgin Birth a fundamental of our Christian faith,” indeed! It is THE fundamental of our Christian faith. To change the figure, it is the indispens able key-stone of Scriptural Christology,— and— that with which we are much more concerned— soteriology. CAN HARDLY WAIT TILL IT COMES A Virginia subscriber writes: “ I have just received an other copy of The King’s Business and must say that I am more than pleased with it. I am surely glad for a maga zine that stands so firm upon the fundamental teaching of the Scripture, and so fearlessly fights the destructive here sies. It means so much to me. I can hardly wait until a new copy reaches me. Praying that God may direct you so that you may wisely and successfully cope with the adver saries of the truth.” —L. S. Y.
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker