August 1924
T H E K I N G ’ S B U S I N E S S
479
C o n t r i b u t e d A r t i c l e s
Dasg5g5g5H5H5H5BS;5B5E5g5H5g5Z5B5;5g5B5g5g5g5;5gsmg5mm gw s?q?gq?q?q?TOffm ?ffq?m ?CTq?^?q?q?q?TOq?q?q?gTOTOg^OT?^g g f f ^ g g ™ g |y i
Believers and Doubters Dr. Clarence Edward Macartney
We are indebted to The Ladies’ Home Journal for permission to print the following abridgement of Dr. Macartney’s splendid article in the May number of their magazine. It is of especial interest at this time, defining as it does, in clear and unmistakable terms the conflict between the Modernists and the Fundamentalists in the Church.
T. MATTHEW tells us in the last chapter of his Gospel that when the risen Jesus appeared to the eleven apostles and other of His disciples o» the mountain in Galilee, His disciples worshipped Him, “ but some doubted.” Doubt as to Jesus Christ, the facts of His life and the great doctrines which the apostles taught in His name, is not a new thing; it is as old as Christianity itself. The history of the church is the history of a long, unceasing conflict between faith and doubt, belief and unbelief. When the man on the street or in the pew wants to know about the controversy in the Church, and what the popular names and epithets, such as “Modernists” and “ Funda mentalists,” “Rationalists” and “ Evangelicals,” mean, this is the explanation: It is only another battle in that long and truceless war between belief and doubt. But what makes the present battle so acute, however, is the great number of doubters who today hold membership in our churches and preach from our pulpits. For example,— one of the most-followed-after preachers of the day likens a defense of such doctrines as, the Inspira tion of the Bible, the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Resurrection, and the Second Coming of Christ, to the tith ing of “mint, anise and cummin.” There is no disposition to curtail the liberty of men to preach what they believe or compel them to preach what they do not believe; but there is a just and indignant protest against men who do not believe the doctrines of their churches, remaining in those churches and thus violating and destroying that religious fellowship which is the sacred right of those who think alike in matters religious. None of the various names employed describe adequately the contending parties. “ Modernist” and “ Fundamental ist will not be heard of ten years hence; but the issue will remain. The word “ Liberal” is grossly misapplied to the doubters in the church. The true “Liberal” is the “ Con servative” who believes that, as the angel announced to the Virgin, “with God nothing shall be impossible.” But whatever names are employed, it is now perfectly clear that there exists a great and serious difference of opinion among those who call and profess themselves Christians. That this difference is so great and irrecon cilable as to constitute two different religions, it will now be my effort to prove. (1) The Kank of Jesus Christ It was St. Paul who called Jesus Christ by the • name of Lord, and who exhausted language in his efforts to acclaim the exalted rank of Christ, and who called Him “ God over all, blessed forever.” Nor was the view that our opinion as to the rank of Christ is of little importance, held by Christ Himself, for at the crisis of His earthly ministry He took His disciples
apart into a desert place and said to them: ‘Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?’ When various answers had been given, Peter exclaimed: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God!’ It was that account of Himself which Jesus received, and which He declared was given to Peter by the inspiration of God. (2) The Incarnation One of the best New Testament definitions of Christianity is that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. This states the fact and purpose of the Incarnation. Christ, the .eternal Son of God, became man to save man from sin and reconcile him to God. The Modernist speaks much of the Incarnation, but when you ask him about the Virgin Birth, he either denies it or refuses to affirm it (the new and polite way of denying a doctrine), or else says he believes it but does not count it important. Thus, he either denies the fact of divine revela tion as to the manner of our Lord’s coming into the world, or he questions the wisdom of divine revelation in recording for us the fact that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. (3) The Miracles It is a question of whether we can trust the Gospels; whether we have a true history of Christ; whether Christ, who claimed to work miracles, is morally worthy of our worship and fame; yes, whether we have a Christ at all. The Christ of the New Testament worked miracles. Of a Christ who worked no miracles there is not the slightest clewi either in.* the Bible or out of it. The evangelical prefers to believe in a Christ who worked miracles and who existed, rather than in a Christ who worked no miracles, and who never existed. (4) The Death of Christ By the “death of Christ” I mean the great Christian doc trine of the Atonement. The Cross on Calvary separates all who call themselves Christians into two groups. Above all the great doctrines of Christianity, this is the doctrine which separates men into irreconcilable groups. The Gos pels of Matthew, of Mark, of Luke, of John, are devoted to a recital of the death of Christ. St. Paul declares that the fact which he delivered ‘first of all’— preeminent above all other facts, was that ‘Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.’ What did he mean when he said that Christ died for our sins? This is the one great theme to which the mind of Paul devotes itself in his writings which, it must be remem bered, comprise the larger portion of the New Testament. St. Paul’s teaching is summed up in such phrases as these: ‘Christ died, the just for the unjust;’ ‘who was delivered for our offenses;’ ‘being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through H im ;’ ‘who gave Him self a ransom for a ll;’ ‘that he might reconcile both unto
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker