October 1928
581
T h e
K i n g ' s
B u s i n e s s
factories to the human race in general so that it might at least acquire a little indirect happiness from his un fortunate invention. Thus we see how well-meaning people are uncon sciously 'made Satan’s tools and havoc which was never intended is wrought in hundreds of lives. How much we need to pray that we may be guided and guarded in all our written and spoken words in these days, lest we become the agents o f the powers o f darkness. The Holy Spirit is Science—Says the Professor M ODERN thinkers are laboring enthusiastically to work out mutual relations between science and Christianity. Needless to say, it is Christianity that suf fers by their efforts. Much is being written about the scientific spirit in religion and the religious spirit in sci ence, but usually the scientist devises the kind of a God in which he wants to believe. An excellent example o f such attempts comes out in an article by Professor Fairchild in a recent issue of The Forum. The professor seeks to demonstrate that the Holy Spirit, the Third Person o f the Trinity, is science. Our Lord’s saying: “ The Spirit o f truth which proceedeth from the Father . . . shall testify o f me,” furnishes the suggestion for this idea. The Spirit o f truth, the professor contends, must mean science. He tries the experiment o f putting the word “ sci ence” in the place o f the title “ the Holy Spirit,” or equivalent expressions, where it occurs in sayings of our Lord. He thinks it works out splendidly (fo r the sci entists) although it is frankly admitted that in passages other than our Lord’s sayings, it does not seem to fit. We are asked, therefore, to divest our minds o f all “ tradi tional ideas” and to assume that the Saviour used these expressions in a different sense from that o f the New Testament writers who followed Him. But how shall we meet the fact that those to whom our Lord spoke were quite familiar. with the doctrine o f the Holy Spirit which permeates the Old Testament Scriptures? Is it likely that He used these familiar expressions with entirely new meanings? If He meant something so entirely different from the historical mean ing as Professor Fairchild is inclined to think, He would have experienced great difficulty in presenting His inter pretation to the people of His time. The word “ science” certainly will not work as a substitute for the titles o f the Holy Spirit in any place in 1the Old Testament. The Spirit that came upon Elijah and Isaiah certainly was not science, nor was it science that descended from heaven in the form o f a dove and rested upon the Son of God. The Holy Spirit is everywhere presented in Scripture as a divine Person having individual substance, intelli gence and will. He is a living, thinking, acting being, the Third Person o f the Godhead, the Comforter o f God’s people, the Advocate o f God residing in every true child o f God. He is represented by our Lord as received through union with Himself (Jn. 7 :39 ). Is the professor ready to admit that all who reject Jesus Christ as a per sonal Saviour are without science? The Holy Spirit fills only those who surrender to Christ. Where does that leave most o f the modern scientists? The humblest Bible lover could easily show the professor’s contentions to be absolutely ridiculous. The editor o f The Living Church has said: “ We need to be on our guard against slipping easily from ‘God in me,’ by the alteration o f a single letter, to ‘God IS m e!’ ”
“They Dwelt W i th the Kin g . F o rH i sWo r l f (1 Chron. 4:23) B y R ev . J. M. P ammext Umalpine, Ore. From 'service below t o ' servide’^ ^ i i ^ J ^ A service o f gladness, of joy and ofejfive; ■ From service on earth to service in heaven, This is the reward to God’s childrenygiven. No pen can describe the joy or reward ? For service we render our Saviour and Lord ; Or language set forth the joy and delight; That is theirs, who serve in the mansions o f light. No language o f earth can ever make known, The reward for their labor, whom Jesus will own; When in words o f rich grace, the Christian shall hear, “Ye blest o f my Father, come, dwell with me here.” So we’ll labor as long as He leaves us below, Assured that' at death to heaven we’ll g o ; And renew through the years of eternity long The joy, and the gladness, the service and song. So we banquet on grace, and dwell with the King, Ere the riches o f glory shall cause us to sing Unto Him who hath loved us and caused us to know The joy there is found in service below. That is exactly the .change which Professor Fairchild would like to see made. The deification o f man is attempted first by trying to make all men sons o f God in the same sense as was our Lord, and now it is suggested that the Third Person of the Trinity is science.’ I we. ■ Muddling the Issue B ILL NYE found in reading Webster’s Dictionary that the plot is hard to follow. W e find it more and more difficult to get the viewpoints of some orthodox editors. One editor in reviewing a book by a well-known missionary says : “ We welcome the author’s most clear declaration as to the deity and atonement o f our Lord Jesus Christ. The author, however, will not let us forget that he is a Modernist, for he does not accept verbal and plenary inspiration.” Question No. 1 : Is a man who fully accepts the atone ment and deity o f our Lord a ModernistJ^Question No. 2 : How many o f the saints in heaven’ knew anything about verbal and plenary inspiration before they arrived there? Should we not be a bit careful in classifying men as Modernists even though we ourselves have very positive convictions as to the method of inspiration? On the other hand, some of the Modernists set an equally perplexing problem before us. Here is Dr. Shailer Mathews o f Chicago who, according to press reports, affirms: “Modernists as a class are evangelical Christians. That is, they accept Jesus Christ as the revelation o f a Saviour God.” Is a man to be entitled to be classed as
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs