REPLY TO AN ATTACK IN DR. STRONG'S " SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY."
A Correspondent called the writer's attention to some statements made against so-called "Plymouth Brethren" and their views, by Dr. A. H. Strong, the well known Baptist theologian, in his "Systematic Theology," 7th ed., pp. 498, 9. Though averse to controversy, and seeing little to be gained by what might look like self-vindication, it seems there is enough in question to demand an examination of the Doctor's remarks, with positive denial and refutation of some of them.
First, let me say, that I rejoice in the orthodoxy, as it is commonly understood, of the learned author and preacher, whose work is referred to. It is a pleasure to note his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, his apparent loyalty to Holy Scripture, and evident zeal for the gospel. As to the teachings he attempts to expose as unscriptural and heretical, it is charitable to believe he has not familiarized himself with them enough to know what these "brethren" really hold. I take it for granted he has been too ready to credit the statements of heated controversialists like the late Dr. Reid, from whom he quotes, in place of seriously examining the writings of the brethren criticized-an unwise course for any one to take in determining the exact views of any people, and especially unwise in one whose ipse dixit many lesser lights readily accept as authority.
Let us take up the quotations from Dr. Reid first, though these come last in Dr. Strong's summing-up of the case against "Plymouth Brethrenism." He writes:"Dr. Wm. Reid, in Plymouth Brethrenism Unveiled* 79-143, attributes to the sect the following church principles:*Dr. Wm. Reid was fully answered at the time by another "Wm. Reid, in "Accusers of the Brethren," now out of print, though occasionally to be found in Tract Depots.*
"(1) The Church did not exist before Pentecost;
(2) the visible and invisible Church identical; (3) the one assembly of God; (4) the presidency of the Holy Spirit; (5) rejection of a one-man and man-made ministry ; (6) the Church is without government.
Also the following heresies:
"(1) Christ's heavenly humanity; (2) denial of Christ's righteousness as being obedience to law;
(3) denial that Christ's righteousness is imputed;
(4) justification in the risen Christ ; (5) Christ's non-atoning sufferings; (6) denial of moral law as rule of life; (7) the Lord's day is not the Sabbath; (8) perfectionism; (9) secret rapture of the saints- caught up to be with Christ. To these we may add:(10) pre-millennial advent of Christ."
Taking these up categorically as given, we beg the reader to lay aside prejudice and examine each statement in the light of Holy Scripture. "To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isa. 8:20).
The "Brethren" are said to hold and teach:(i) that the Church did not exist before Pentecost. Can Dr. Strong, or anyone else, prove that it did ? Is the congregation of Israel to be confounded with "the Church of the firstborn written in heaven?" Was "the Church in the wilderness," mentioned by Stephen (Acts 7:38), the same as that of which the Lord Jesus spoke of as a future thing, when He said, "Upon this Rock I will build ray Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it ?" Mark well, not "I have built," nor, "lam building," but, " I will build "-future tense. Does Dr. Strong see nothing of the great truth of the formation of believing Jews and Gentiles into "one body" (Eph. 2 :14-16)-the Church of the new dispensation ? One can hardly believe that any well-instructed teacher of our day could be in ignorance as to this. Not only "brethren," but so many well-known teachers in evangelical denominations have taught, both orally and in writing, along these lines for so many years that it seems unbelievable that Dr. Strong could be ignorant of the distinct calling of the Church, the body of Christ, as distinguished from both the congregation of Israel and the saved of the nations in past dispensations. "Brethren" make no apology for the teaching here ascribed to them. They do not believe the Church existed before Pentecost. They emphatically believe the Church was formed on that day by the Spirit's baptism, uniting saints on earth into one body (i Cor. 12 :13), and to their glorified Head in heaven. Without this there could be no Church in the full New Testament sense.
(2) The visible and invisible Church identical. At this "Brethren" demur. Where, in all their writings, is such teaching found ? Every well instructed man among them distinguishes carefully between the Church, according to the mind of God, and the Church in its present outward aspect; or, between the Church as the "Body of Christ," including every saved soul in the present dispensation, and excluding all false professors, and the Church as the "House of God," largely committed to man, in which saved and unsaved are sadly mixed together. "Brethren" do not find the terms "visible church" or "invisible church" in the Bible, and consequently seldom use them. They know well what Christians mean when they do use them; only "Brethren" believe the visible Church would be everywhere visible but for human failure. They do not believe that this failure excuses them from responsibility to "depart from iniquity," and to "follow righteousness, faith, love, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart" (2 Tim. 2:19, 22), for they have learned from Scripture that separation from evil is ever the path of faithfulness to God.
(3) The one assembly of God.-What fault can anyone find with so eminently scriptural an expression ? It is well-known that "church" and " assembly" are but different translations of the Greek word ecclesia, "a called out company." Would the Doctor object to the doctrine of "the one Church of God " ? If not, why object to the other expression which means the same thing ? "There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling" (Eph. 4:4); does not that passage teach that there is but one assembly of God ? " For His body's sake, which is the Church," or "the assembly," says Scripture (Col. i:24)-how many bodies has, Christ ? "One," Scripture answers. And what is that body ? It replies, "the assembly." What is its full name? Paul tells us, when he says, "I persecuted the Church (assembly) of God;" and again, "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God" (i Cor. 10:32). And, be it observed, as "Brethren" believe in the one assembly of God, when thinking of the body of Christ as a whole, so they believe in assemblies of God when speaking of local companies of believers gathered by the Spirit to the name of Christ. Such assemblies should consist of saved persons only, though evil men may slip in unawares.
(4) The presidency of the Holy Spirit.-Can it be possible that any spiritually-minded Christian objects to this ? Do Christians in the systems not believe in the presidency of the Holy Spirit ? Again and again we have heard ministers pray that the Holy Spirit might take charge of the meeting. Did they not mean this ? Were these only deceptive words – not meant as spoken? Granted, that if they are bound to carry out their own programs, people can get on better without the Holy Spirit than with Him; still, we have supposed it was at least an article of faith that He was on earth to preside in the assemblies of saints. Does Dr. Strong know anyone better fitted to preside than He, the third Person of the eternal Trinity? Yes, "Brethren" do believe in and insist on "the presidency of the Holy Spirit," much as they may sometimes fail in recognizing Him practically. To fail, while seeking to walk in the truth, is surely less serious than to substitute human expediency for the revealed will of God.
(5) Rejection of a one-man and man made ministry. -If we mistake not, it was once the boast of Baptists that they too rejected these.. Do they now endorse what they once repudiated ? The term "a Baptist clergyman," is, we believe, of very late origin. The older was "a Baptist minister," a far better one, to our mind. And "Brethren" believe in the ministry given by the Spirit, and desire to reject all other. They have no clergymen, but in God's grace, many ministers, who labor in word and doctrine. They reject a one-man ministry as well as an any-man ministry; while they thankfully accept ministry, from one or several, if it manifestly accords with the revealed word of God. A man-made ministry they positively refuse. Nor would intelligent men among them designate gifted and godly Baptist ministers as man-made, simply because humanly ordained. With "Brethren" ordination adds nothing to the God-given ministry. A man may be a God-made and God-given minister, though he has received ordination and wears a surplice, but "Brethren" believe his ministry would be just as profitable, and more becoming, if he dressed like other Christians, and had not gone through the form of ordination. Real ministers are men called of God, gifted by Christ, and sent forth by the Holy Spirit. "Brethren" rejoice in all such.
(6) The Church is without government.-What an astonishing declaration! Some have charged "Brethren" with being all government! The fact is "Brethren" believe all needed directions for the government of the Church are embodied in the word of God. And in the Church there are "helps, governments," "elders who rule well," etc., who are responsible to seek to guide the saints in ways according to Christ. Because they reject the artificial organization of the day is no reason to argue that "Brethren" are an unorganized mob. Where the Word is bowed to there will be godly order and scriptural discipline, and this they seek to practice.* *May I suggest that the honest reader, desiring help, consult "The Church and its Order according to Scripture," by S. Ridout, 25 cent., and "Simple Papers on the Church of God," by C. E. Stuart, 30 cent same publishers. In these he-will find -what "Brethren" themselves teach as to government in the Church.*
Now that we have disposed of the "Church principles," let us have a look at the "Heresies." It is an un-brotherly thing to charge people with being heretics who are "of like precious faith;" and it would seem that here, as above, the Doctor has been exceedingly rash, and has passed on secondhand information without investigation.
(1) "Brethren" are said to teach the heresy of Christ's heavenly humanity. Like some Baptists, "Brethren" have not always been as careful as they might in using terms liable to misconception. The expression, "heavenly humanity," has been used by some, though not endorsed by "Brethren." But what was meant thereby ? Simply that Christ's humanity was sinless and holy; heavenly in origin, because brought into existence, not by natural generation, but by the direct operation of the Holy Spirit who prepared that body in the womb of the virgin. Is not this orthodox and scriptural? "The Second Man is the Lord from heaven," in contrast to the first man, who was "of the earth, earthy." (See i Cor. 15 :47-49.) Christ partook of true humanity, apart from sin, but it was not humanity after an earthly order, for He had no human father – whatever modern theology may say-but was virgin-born. Is there any heresy in this?
(2) Denial of Christ's righteousness as being obedience to law.-The question is too large a one to go into at any length here, but one need only say that Christ certainly became in all things obedient to the law of God as a man on earth; nay, He "magnified the law, and made it honorable." But we suspect that this is not at all what Wm. Reid meant in the past, nor what Dr. Strong means now. When they write of "Christ's righteousness," they probably mean " God's righteousness," and we must frankly state "Brethren" do not believe that God's righteousness, or "the righteousness of God" (Rom. 3:21, 22), means obedience to the law. It is God's consistency with Himself, His ways with men in accordance with the holiness of His nature. When divine righteousness demanded the punishment of sin, Christ, the righteous One, became the propitiation for our sins, and thus righteousness is now on the believing sinner's side; it demands the justification and not the condemnation of all who trust in Christ. God is just and the justifier of all who believe in Jesus. This is divine righteousness.
(3) Denial that Christ's righteousness is imputed. This links up with what has just been touched on. Nowhere does Scripture say Christ's righteousness is imputed. Scripture is clear-"God imputeth righteousness." To whom? To all who believe. Such are "made the righteousness of God in Christ;" as saved and justified from all things, they display, they are the proof of, God's righteousness in dealing thus with them:since Christ has taken their place, they are righteously given His place. God is righteous in reckoning them righteous, because full atonement has been made for their transgressions; and freely imputes righteousness instead of guilt to all who believe in His Son. It is not that Christ wrought out a righteousness to cover us as a. cloak, but that His death has met every claim that was against us, and God imputes righteousness apart from any works on our part; even as it is written of Abraham:"Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for [as] righteousness "(Rom. 4:3). (4) Justification in the risen Christ.-This expression is objected to even by some "Brethren," but to our mind it well sets forth the truth of Scripture. When Christ died, He took my place, and died in my stead. I have therefore died with Him. But He is risen; and I am in Christ, having received life through His name. In Him, I am beyond the reach of condemnation. Therefore I am justified. So I am "justified in the risen Christ." If Christ be not raised, my faith is vain and I am yet in my sins. But Christ has been " delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification;" and "there is therefore no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus." Christ is risen for our justification. All that are "in Christ" are uncondemned. They are in Him as risen; therefore they are justified in the risen Christ. Is there anything illogical or unscriptural about that? Why then call it heresy ? Theological hair-splitters may quibble over it as they will, but simple Christians will believe it and rejoice. H. A. I.
(To be concluded in next number.)