REPLY TO AN ATTACK IN DR. STRONG'S " SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY."
(Concluded from page 76.)
(5) Christ's non-atoning sufferings.-It is very questionable whether Dr. Strong has any conception of the theme he dismisses so curtly. Are there any Christians who do not believe Christ endured sufferings that were not in themselves atoning ? Do we not rejoice in a Great High Priest who suffered, being tempted ? Is that atoning ? Do we not adore Him for His tender, human sympathies, which could not but cause Him to suffer greatly in a world like this ? Did such sufferings make atonement ? He suffered in the Garden, in view of the Cross. Was that atonement ? If so, why go to the cross at all ?
The subject is too sacred and holy for controversy. Dr. Strong had better study his Bible on the great theme of Christ's sufferings, until he can distinguish clearly between Christ's sorrows as the Servant of God and man on the way to the cross, and His atoning sufferings when our sins were laid upon Him, and He was made sin upon the cross. It will open up a wonderful vein of truth that will stir the heart to worship and move the lips to praise.
(6) Denial of the moral law as the rule of life.- Well, if," Brethren" are heretics because they teach that Christ, not the law of Moses, is the rule of life, they are in excellent company-with many devoted and enlightened Baptist ministers who teach the same. Literature on this subject is abundant.* *C. H. M.'s little booklet, "The Law and the Gospel," 3 cent., is clear and convincing. Any of the "Brethren's" expositions on Romans or Galatians are helpful. List sent on application.* No one need be in the dark as to what is taught on the important subject of "law and grace." "Brethren" teach that "the righteous requirements of the law are fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit." We are not under law (Rom. 6 :14). We are neither saved by law nor under the law as a rule of life; nevertheless, we are not lawless, but "under law (enlawed) to Christ." We stand firmly by the apostle Paul when he declares, "I through the law died unto the law that I might live unto God" (Gal. 2 :19). Is Christ Himself a lower standard than the law given from Sinai ? Or is the latter needed to complete the former? Surely no intelligent believer would so speak. This is not antinomianism, but its very opposite. It is subjection to Christ as Lord of the New Dispensation and Mediator of the New Covenant.
(7) The Lord's day is not the Sabbath.-If it is, let Dr. Strong produce the scripture that says so. The Sabbath was the seventh day. The Lord's day is the first day of the week. The Sabbath was given to an earthly people, and its observance prescribed under severest penalties for disobedience. The Lord's day is kept by a heavenly people, with no legal requirement or penalties attached. The Sabbath was for Israel; the Lord's day for the Church. They that love the Lord gather together on that resurrection day to remember the Lord's death till He come.
(8) Perfectionism.-One is here wholly at a loss to know what is meant. When and where have "Brethren" ever taught the doctrine of perfectionism, save that perfection which all believers have in Christ ? But that Dr. Strong himself evidently believes; so he must mean ' 'perfection in the flesh." This is a doctrine that "Brethren" have ever refused, and constantly confuted. Believing that the sinful nature remains in the believer so long as he is in the body, and is ever ready to act if there be a moment of unwatchfulness, how can they be truthfully charged with holding to perfectionism ? Any who so accuse them, are either wilfully ignorant of their real teaching, or utterly fail to understand its import.* *Having, myself, written a book on this theme, " Holiness, the False and the True," I beg leave to commend it to the inquirer who is anxious for a fuller statement of the subject, 50 cent, same publishers.*
(9) Secret rapture of the saints-caught up to be with Christ.-Yes, if this be heresy, " Brethren " are heretics; for they do indeed teach that at the coming of the Lord to the air all His saints will be caught up to meet Him, and the world left to pass through the great tribulation. But he is a bold man who would dub this "blessed hope" heresy in the face of i Cor. 15:51-56; i Thess. 4:13-18, and kindred passages. And again, be it remarked, "Brethren" are in good company, for Dr. Strong need not go outside his own denomination to find a host of honored servants of Christ who believe as thoroughly as " Brethren" do in the "secret rapture of the saints." But it passes our comprehension how any man, or set of men, with an atom of genuine love for the Lord and His people, can deliberately brand as heretics fellow – believers whose lives are usually fragrant with Christian graces, who stand unflinchingly for the inspiration of the entire Bible, simply because they hold different views on prophecy. Dr. Strong evidently does not believe in the secret rapture of the saints, but in the coming of the Lord in judgment at the end of the world. "Brethren " would not brand him as a heretic for this, though they feel he has lost much by his defective views. The same general remarks apply to the last charge of heresy- gratuitously hurled at " Brethren " by the Doctor himself.
(10) Premillennial advent of Christ. It is true that "Brethren," without any written creed, have learned from Scripture itself that the descent of the Lord from heaven will precede His millennial reign. Together with a goodly fellowship of saints in all the centuries since Christ's first advent, they are waiting for His second coming. Seeing no warrant in Scripture to expect a millennium before He appears, their expectation is for Himself, according to John 14:3, and they find this glad hope is a purifying power, a marvelous incentive to Christian life and service. They deeply regret that the Doctor, with many others, unconsciously says, "My Lord delayeth His coming." Is it because of this that such begin to belabor their fellow-servants and to call them heretics and schismatics ? But whether or no, "the coming of the Lord draweth nigh," and "Blessed are all they that wait for Him."
Having briefly noticed the charges of heresy brought against those whom Dr. Strong calls "Plymouth Brethren," let us now consider some further remarks he has made concerning them and their teaching.
Dr. Strong believes there is evidence in the Bible "of a developed organization in the New Testament Church, of which," he says, "only the germ existed before Christ's death." He first attempts to trace this out by citing the different names used to denote the children of God or Christ's followers, as "disciples" in the Gospels; (and in the Acts, though he overlooks this) then in the Epistles, as "saints," "brethren," "churches." This, he thinks, proves clearly that the Church is not "an exclusively spiritual body, destitute of all formal organization, and bound together only by the mutual relation of each believer to his indwelling Lord."
While his argument is not clear, one can readily admit that his conclusion is correct in measure; for surely the Church is not what he describes, either looked at as the body of Christ, or as expressed by local churches or assemblies. The "one assembly of God" consists of all believers baptized by the Holy Spirit into one body. Of this Dr. Strong seems to know nothing. It is not here a question of being "bound together only by the mutual relation of each believer to his indwelling Lord;" this is not Paul's doctrine of the Church at all, nor is it what "Brethren" maintain. They believe that before Pentecost believers were individually all children of God, were all possessors of eternal life, were all bound for heaven, and waiting for "the promise of the Father;" and on the fulfilment of this promise, something altogether new was formed. The Holy Spirit having come upon them, He baptized the believing Jews and Gentiles into one body. This is the Spirit's unity, and to this body every Christian belongs. There are no unsaved persons in it.
But when believers are gathered locally together, it is evident that some among them may be unreal, and when manifested it calls for discipline. This, as we have seen, is connected with another aspect of the Church-as the "house of God," not as the "body of Christ."
When Dr. Strong attempts to show what "Brethren " hold as to this, his biased mind throws all into confusion. He goes on to say:"The Church, upon this view, as quoted above, so far as outward bonds are concerned, is only an aggregation of isolated units. Those believers who chance to gather at a particular time, constitute the Church of that place or time. This view is held by the Friends and by the Plymouth Brethren. It ignores the tendencies to organization inherent in human nature, confounds the visible with the invisible Church, and is directly opposed to the Scripture's representations of the visible Church as comprehending some who are not believers. Acts 5:1-11-Ananias and Sapphira-shows that the visible Church comprehended some who were not true believers, i Cor. 14:23-'If therefore the whole Church be assembled together, and all speak with tongues, and there come in men unlearned or unbelieving, will they not say that ye are mad ?' Here, if the Church had been an unorganized assembly, the unlearned visitors who came in would have formed a part of it. Phil. 3 :18-' For many walk of whom I told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ"… The Plymouth Brethren dislike church organizations, for fear they will become machines ; they dislike ordained ministers, for fear they will become Bishops; they object to praying to the Holy Ghost, because He was given on Pentecost, ignoring the fact that the Church after Pentecost so prayed." Then Dr. Strong cites Acts 4 :31 as a proof-text! I have quoted at length, that his argument may be connected, but one is pained by the irrelevant use he makes of Scripture to prove the unprovable, and to bolster up what had best be torn down.
The Friends can speak for themselves; but so far as those whom Dr. Strong calls "Plymouth Brethren" are concerned, I say unhesitatingly, that he (either through ignorance or malice-the former, I feel sure) completely misrepresents their teaching.
The Church can never be "an aggregation of isolated units," for all believers are united into one body by the Spirit, as we have seen. Has Dr. Strong never learned this ? Does he know nothing of the great "mystery" which formed the burden of the apostle Paul's ministry ? Has he never read i Cor. 12, or Eph. 3 and 4, or Col. i and 2 ? It would be well for him to consider these scriptures if he honestly desires to know what "Brethren" hold as to the Church. Believers everywhere constitute the Church as the body of Christ. All believers in a given place-whether met together or not-constitute the Church of God in that place. Wherever two or three such are gathered together unto His name, our Lord vouchsafes His presence (Matt. 18:20). What more could be desired? Will formal organization give us anything better than this ? Christ in the midst is enough for every emergency. It is true that "Brethren" care very little about "the tendencies to organization inherent in human nature." There are a great many other things inherent in human nature we seek grace to judge and mortify. But has God not already organized His assembly ? The Church is a divine organization; every member is set in its place there by God Himself. Can man improve on that ?
As we have said, when believers come together locally, unreal ones may be among them. Such may "creep in" and "feast themselves without fear," but they are only in the assembly in its outward aspect-they are not actually in the body of Christ.
As to Ananias and Sapphira, has the learned Doctor inside information not given to others ? Is he absolutely certain they were not true believers ? It is true they sinned grievously, and were judged therefor ; but how many saints before and since may have to confess sin as grave as theirs.
1 Cor. 14 :23 has no bearing on the case, "The whole Church" is assembled together, and an unbeliever comes in afterwards. How can he be said to be a member of the Church ?
"Brethren" are not engaged in building organizations, not because they "dislike" them, or "fear" what they might become, but because they find no scripture for this-only the " inherent tendency in human nature," which they dare not substitute for "thus saith the Lord." They have no humanly-ordained ministers because, though they have read their Bibles well, they have never been able to find a case of a man being ordained to preach or teach. If the passage is in the Book, let it be produced. Men were ordained to serve tables and ordained as elders, but where were they ordained as ministers of the gospel ?
As to Phil. 3 :18, would Dr. Strong include "enemies of the cross of Christ" in his church ? "Brethren" believe such have " neither part nor lot in this matter."
His readers are further told that the "Brethren" would "unite Christendom by its dismemberment, and do away with all sects, and are themselves more narrow and bitter in their hostility to existing sects than any other." Again we find complete misunderstanding as to the aims, methods, and spirit of those whom he criticizes. "Brethren" are not attempting to either unite or dismember Christendom. They know too well that outward unity will never be again displayed until "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto Him." Meantime they simply seek to walk together as brethren, acknowledging the Lordship of Christ and the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church to guide them through the written Word. As so walking, they desire not to judge others who do not see eye to eye with them, but rather to pray for all men, and seek to manifest the compassion of Christ to all His sheep, wherever found.
It must be owned that some may have shown an uncharitable spirit toward fellow-saints remaining in the sects, but this has ever been condemned by the spiritually-minded among them. One whose writings have had a larger place than those of any other in molding and influencing his weaker and less instructed brethren, wrote once, "I do not believe attacks on anything to be our path, but to be for the truth in grace." Such was the spirit of J. N. Darby, and such will ever be the spirit of those who endeavor to follow him as he followed Christ.
With only one more quotation and a few brief comments, this already too lengthy paper must be brought to a close.
Dr. Strong tells his readers that "the tendency to organize is so strong in human nature, that even Plymouth Brethren, when they meet regularly together, fall into an informal, if not a formal, organization:certain teachers and leaders are tacitly recognized as officers of the body; committees and rules are unconsciously used for facilitating business. Even one of their own writers, C. H. M., speaks of ' the natural tendency to associate without God-as in the Shinar association or Babel-confederacy of Gen. ii, which aimed at building up a name upon the earth. The Christian Church is God's appointed association to take the place of all these; hence God confounds the tongues in Gen. ii (judgment); gives tongues in Acts 2 (grace), but one tongue is spoken of in Rev. 7 (glory).' "
To C. H.' M.'s apt remarks we add a hearty "Amen! " and are astonished that the Doctor should quote such words and not see how well they answer his own objection to "Brethren's" position. It is indeed ever the tendency of human nature-even in saved and enlightened people-to confederate, and seek by human organization to accomplish what would be better done in simple obedience to the Word. Undoubtedly "Brethren" also have failed in this very thing. But does failure to act on a right principle invalidate or vitiate the principle itself ? Surely not. To the C. H. M. referred to, a man once said:"Do you know that Dr.–, the — minister, is lecturing against the Brethren ? " To which C. H. M. replied, "Give him my compliments, and tell him I am doing the same in the Brethren's hall. Only he is lecturing against their principles, and I against their practices."
As gathered to the name of Christ, "Brethren" thankfully accept all spiritual ministry, and seek to recognize the gifts given to the Church by the ascended Christ. As they bow to the instruction of Holy Scripture they find no need for human organization nor man-made rules, inasmuch as no eventuality can arise that is not provided for in the Book. They do not claim perfection, however, but mourn over their low estate, desiring grace daily to enter more fully into the mind of Christ, and be sanctified by the truth.
That their fellow-believers and fellow-members of Christ's body may find the same blessing, is their earnest prayer. H. A. Ironside