King's Business - 1915-04



court; but as for the decent and re­ spectable, the church-going and virtu­ ous, they are not guilty; nor have they fallen and come short of the glory of God.” There is nothing that Culture hates so much as the assertion of the uni­ versality of sin. And it hates it be­ cause the very concept of sin, accord­ ing to the Scriptural ideal, militates so bluntly against the evolution phil­ osophy. It undermines it. It evacu­ ates it of meaning. The two are con­ trary the one to the other. If the one is true the other must be false. IGNORE THE CHRIST. Now, very closely connected with this development is the practical dis­ appearance from the theory of mod­ ernism of the Biblical idea of the need and the fact of Salvation. It is the rational corollary of the natural de­ velopment of man. The later gospel is practically that of a self-salvation and the unnecessary Christ. The in­ dividual is to save himself; a salva­ tion by culture and civilization and character-building, with Divine grace thrown in as a kind of sleeping part­ ner. As to the Synergism of Phil. 2 :12, 13—“Work out your own salva­ tion —for it is God which worketh in you both to do and to will ”—it is ap­ parently unconsidered. And the lat­ est of all gospels, the so-called Hu­ manistic Scheme of Redemption, is that the individual is to look to so­ ciety for salvation; or, as one of its foremost advocates has put it, (in fact, it is the concrete creed of anti- Christian Socialism) “The help we once expected from invisible and in­ corporeal agencies (that is, of course, from God and Christ and the Bible and angels and invisible spiritual in­ fluences) we are now demanding from man. Society is to save the man.” It is, bluntly speaking, salvation by environment. Culture is apparently

man as a sinner, not so much on account of what he does, but on ac­ count of what he is, is in these days a hard saying, and who can hear it. Humanity wants to be applauded, and Sunday after Sunday in a thousand pulpits to receive bouquets for its achievements, its progress, its nobil­ ity, its generosity. In fact, nothing seems to excite the anger of modern­ ism so much as the frank statement of the actuality of original sin, and the intrinsic guiltiness of sinful man. When it hears, it springs up like a man in wrath, and decries it, denies it, fumes at it. For the modernist estimate of sin is essentially anti- Christian and anti-Scriptural. Sometimes it is as frankly out­ spoken as Sir Oliver Lodge, who de­ clares that as a matter of fact the higher man of to-day is not worrying about his sins at all, still less about their punishment, (Man and the Uni­ verse, p. 220) and roundly denies the existence of original sin. But wheth­ er as frank as this representative voice, it is certain that modernism would repudiate with strong repudia­ tion the teaching of the Bible on the subject that Sin is the corruption of our universal nature; that it deserves God’s wrath; for “anything that sug­ gests an angry God . . . is rejected as falling below the best secular mor­ ality of today” — (Foundations, p. 278). The modern philosophic spirit is found in the evolution of an age- type, a myriad fine specimens of man­ hood and womanhood, irreproachable in character, kind-hearted and chari­ table, but without consciousness of the guilt and death of sin, might be found who say: r “This is our Creed. We believe that there is none under sin; there is none unrighteous, no not one. We know that whatsoever the law saith, it saith to those who flagrantly and openly transgress the law, to the in­ mate of the prison and the police

Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker