(Concluded from page 325)
Ponder it, I beg of you, and see how you stand in relation to it all. The guilt of the murder of the Son of God lies upon the world still. True, He laid down His life (John 10:17, 18)—witness the loud, not feeble, cry just before He expired—yet the guilt of putting Him to death is man's. The Jews and Gentiles who joined in nailing Christ to the cross but express what man in his sin thinks of Him. Is it not so? Yet He was the expression (and on the cross pre-eminently) of God's love to man who has rebelled against Him. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). Alas! men would rather perish everlastingly than bow to the blessed Son of God, who now sits at God's right hand ready to receive and pardon all who come to Him. True, the day is coming when He will sit as Judge and Executor of God's righteous judgment on this habitable world (Acts 17:31); but it is not so as yet. Now He waits to save and bless. Will you not then bow to Him here? He died for you, and is He not worthy that you should fall at His feet in repentance and own Him Lord? God has decreed (Isa. 45:23; Phil. 2:10) that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow (heavenly, earthly, infernal); but how infinite the blessing for the one who now bows to Him believingly and follows His footsteps in this scene where He is rejected. “If we endure [with him], we shall also reign with him” (2 Tim. 2:12).
I have examined these passages as test cases—touchstones for the reliability of the author's reasoning. I should much like to go into others, as, for instance, those relating to the resurrection, but I refrain, as my time is limited, and I think the cases taken up should suffice for the present purpose. I may say here that should you wish to go further into other points in the spirit of inquiry (not of controversy) I should be happy to assist you as I may be able.
Before passing on to notice one or two of the author's general statements of principle, I would say that I am including with this letter a little work (by one far better able to deal with the matter than I am) entitled, The Lord's Prophecy on Olivet. This in connection with our author's statement on p. 118 (based partly on a false conception of the meaning of the word “generation") that the Lord's predictions have been “refuted.” I do not therefore myself enter into it here except to point out, as I have already done in conversation, that the word “generation” (see Psa. 12:7; Prov. 30:11-14) has a moral significance, apart from the sense in which it is generally used now.
Now as to some of the author's statements regarding the principles which have guided him to his conclusions. I do not enter into all the details of his reasonings; it will be more to the point to look at the bases on which they rest.
First then, it seems to me to be contrary to reason to build such a structure as the author does on pages 109 to 111 on the statement of one man —Papias—who foolishly preferred oral tradition to written documents, simply because of the antiquity of the statement. Supposing Papias to have been an untrustworthy witness, the whole argument collapses. The evidence for the antiquity, genuineness and authenticity of the Scriptures is far too strong to be overthrown by such a statement as that of Papias. In this connection I would recommend to your notice a work by Isaac Taylor, The Transmission of Ancient Books, setting this out in detail. If this be settled, the evidence of the Scriptures themselves is surely to be listened to rather than that of Papias.
Next, as to the argument with which pages 111 to 115 are largely occupied, and the conclusions reached on p. 115 that “of different biographies of the same person, that which contains the fewest miraculous legends (!) is almost certain to be the earliest and most authentic"; and consequently that the “minimum of miracle” is one of the main principles by which to test the relative value of the Gospels.
It all comes of shutting God out of the question. To one who believes in a living God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, miracles are no difficulty. How unreasonable to talk about the “minimum of miracle” when God is in question! If I acknowledge that there is One whose power upholds the universe, why should I doubt that He has been pleased to give special manifestations of His power, for special reasons, in raising the dead, healing the sick, or casting out demons? True, faith is needed; but thank God I am not called to have faith in what is unworthy of my trust, but in that of which God has been pleased to give me the surest proof. Besides, the author seems to me to refute his own argument, for the Gospel by Mark abounds with miracles, while the Gospel by John has very few; yet Mark is considered “the most authentic record.” Why? This denial of God in any real sense very simply accounts for the author's utter inability to understand that which should be plain to the youngest believer in Christ. It blinds him to the wondrous moral beauty and perfection of scripture, and leads him to make unreasonable statements which he would not have made had he believed in God.
This leads me to notice the statements, on p. 94 and elsewhere, that God is “unknowable.” I ask, is that a reasonable statement? A supreme Being, infinite in power and wisdom, unable to make Himself known! If the author had spoken, like the Athenians (Acts 17:23) of the Unknown God, I should have understood him better, but to deny that God can be known seems to me exceeding presumption.
Thank God, Christianity is infinitely beyond Agnosticism. The Christian knows God, the God who has revealed Himself in Christ, full of grace and truth (John 1:14). The Christian is given by the Holy Spirit an inward conscious knowledge of, and joy in, the God whom he has first come to know by reception of the testimony of Holy Scripture. It is easy to assume that persons who possess this blessed knowledge are only self-deceived. I can only point to the fact. The epistles of Paul, of Peter, and of John are full of that quiet confidence that knows no uncertainty, confidence that I am assured comes of nothing but belief of the truth. What right has anyone to say that these men were either deceivers or else poor foolish persons who deluded themselves into this state? The whole tenor of their writings gives the lie to such statements. Once establish that what they speak of is true, and everything is beautifully consistent. There is no effort, no exaggeration, no needless coloring, but all is majestic in its simplicity and straightforwardness, worthy of the God who inspired them to write.
This divine certainty, this “love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost” (Rom. 5:5), is what has enabled the martyrs from Stephen downwards to calmly face torture and death, and pray for their enemies in the midst of it. You may reason about it as you will, but can you produce anything like it as the fruit of Agnosticism, that seems almost to glory in not knowing? The glory of Christianity is that “we know” (1 John 5:20). And, just for a moment to return to our author's chapter 9, it is this wondrous confidence and strength, through the indwelling Holy Spirit sent down at Pentecost as the fruit of redemption, which explains the extraordinary change in the disciples which the author observes (p. 128) is recorded in the Acts; when those who were so feeble and trembling before boldly announce the name of Jesus at Jerusalem, and charge upon the Jews the sin of putting that One to death (Acts 2:36; 3:13; 4:10-12). That of which the Acts is a record is something far different from “a phase of religious controversies and metaphysical speculations"; it is the acting of a living, mighty power working in the hearts and consciences of men. Bitter enmity indeed was aroused in the hearts of those who refused the testimony, but wonderful results were produced in those who believed (Acts 2:44, etc.). Where is there another power that could so transform men? And observe, that same power is at work today. I could give you particulars of many cases of persons who have been completely turned round, and whose whole lives have been changed as the result of this same working of the Spirit of God producing in their souls repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ. The case of the apostle Paul is but a sample—a striking one it is true—of what God has been doing ever since. It is not at all a question of mere assent to certain dogmas or creeds, but of a real inward change, resulting in living faith in, and love to, Christ, where before there was the opposite. No man is a Christian merely because he has been brought up to believe certain things, but he is one who has been brought to own himself a sinner and has turned to the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior, finding in Him the blessed answer to every need of the soul. Agnosticism is a barren wilderness to the hungry and thirsty soul.
As an instance of this “conversion,” I would like to bring to your notice the well-known case of William Hone, who carried his opposition to Christ and the Bible so far that he was thrice prosecuted for blasphemy (see brief notice in the Harmsworth Encyclopædia). Well, this man was “converted” in his closing years, partly, I understand, through the instrumentality of a little child, and here are some lines written by him afterward:-
“The proudest heart that ever beat
Hath been subdued in me;
The wildest will that ever rose
To scorn Thy word or aid Thy foes,
Is quelled, my God, by Thee!
Thy will, and not my will, be done;
My heart be ever Thine!
Confessing Thee, the mighty ‘Word,'
I hail Thee, Christ, my God, my Lord,
And make Thy name my sign.”
Was not that a change? I should thank God from the bottom of my heart if a fresh facing of the question on your part resulted in a similar change in your case. Harden not your heart against Him, I beseech you.
I add the testimony of another—a Christian man of great learning—taken from a letter— “The more I look into infidelity, the more firmly, by grace, I am attached to the simple truth: the more I love it in its simplicity, the more I value this revelation, as revelation, and the goodness of God which has given it to us. But I value yet more than any means of receiving the truth, the Precious Savior of whom it speaks, and that in all its simplicity. Receiving Him as a little child, the more I desire to be a little child, and I see more and more that that is what we ought to be when God speaks. It is my joy to be a little child, and to hear Him speak. I may add, that the perfection of the word, its divinity, are ever more opened to my heart and understanding.”
To this, as far as my little experience enables me, I can add my “Amen.” Difficulties indeed arise, but one by one they are cleared, and I see that they have been the result of my own ignorance, not of mistake in God's word.
And now my task is almost done. The scientific part of the book I do not enter on. You have already a little book on the creation which deals with some of the questions at issue. I have no quarrel with scientific facts, but I do ask this: If I cannot trust an author to give me the right conclusions from the Gospel evidence, how can I trust him to do so from scientific evidence?
Here I close. I cherish the hope that enough has been set down to show that Christianity (that is, vital Christianity, not mere outward profession) is far different from what you have judged it to be. I shall be indeed thankful if it lead you to look afresh into that Book which you have long looked upon as worthless, to find it what millions before you have found it—a priceless treasure, because it reveals God to us, and lays bare to the believing soul those blessed yet solemn realities which to Samuel Laing were “behind the veil.”
I remain,
Faithfully yours for Christ's sake,
F. T. T.
Courtesy of BibleTruthPublishers.com. Most likely this text has not been proofread. Any suggestions for spelling or punctuation corrections would be warmly received. Please email them to: BTPmail@bibletruthpublishers.com.