t:l',

"

"~, 0"

s·

One Dollar a Year

t 1? Febr~~~! .~.~ ,~937

l:Ia1!ilitiftNED B. STONEHOUSE,

Editor

Published semi-monthly byTHE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN PUBLISHING COMPANY

1212 Commonwealth Building. Philadelphia. Pa.

THOMAS R. BIRCH,

Managing Editor

'j

f

,

.'

, ,..

"

r"

GODLINESS AND ,CHRISTIAN LIBERTY

Q UE ST IONS like those as to the propriety of aChristian's use of tobacco or of wine have often

been raised by Christians in America, and, as only a littleknowledge of church history shows, the answers havebeen far from unanimous. Notably in the tradition ofMethodism the answers have been in the negative whilePresbyterians have generally recognized that such prac­tices are permissible. Among Presbyterians, even wherethere has been a strong inclination, for one reason oranother, to the practice of total abstinence, commonlythere has been a free recognition of the rights of otherChristians to follow the dictates of their own consciencesin matters where the Bible has not pronounced judg­ment.

In recent months our attention has been attracted to anumber of utterances, both public and private, which,appealing for "the separated life," seem to advocate thehistoric position of Methodism rather than that of Pres­byterianism. One may recognize in these statements, andbe enthusiastically thankful for, a zeal for holiness andgodly living. If there is one matter on which we ought tobe agreed, it is that there shall be an earnest concern forpurity of life as well as of doctrine. No one can exagger­ate the importance of adorning our confession of Christwith a life which shall not dishonor Him. Moreover,there is cause for rejoicing in the evidence of a recogni­tion of the fact that the Scriptures are a rule of life aswell as of faith, and that, consequently, no one mayprofess to love the Word who does not love its preceptsand warnings as well as its promises and manifestationsof grace. Nevertheless, it is our conviction that in somevery important particulars the plea for a "separated life"errs seriously in its understanding and application of theWord of God. The purpose of this editorial is not to

discuss or criticize anyone of the utterances which havebeen referred to, nor to review them as a whole, but onlyto set forth some of the principles of the Bible which, inour opinion, seem to be widely neglected or misunder­stood.

OUR STANDARD OF APPEALThe only standard of our judgment in these matters

must be the Holy Scriptures. Not by ~ay of appeal totradition, whether to Pietism or Methodism, nor to theparticular characteristics of any temporary situation, butonly by appeal to the unchanging truth of God's Wordcan one hope to arrive at the correct view. As Protes­tants we have gloried in the liberty from the doctrinesand commandments of men which is grounded in recog­nition of and obedience to the unique authority of theBible. At the very heart of the Reformation of thesixteenth century, as of every true reformation, therehas been the recognition of the supreme authority ofthe Bible:

The Supreme Judge, by whom all controversies of re­ligion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils,opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and privatespirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we areto rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in theScripture (Confession of Faith, I: 10).

On some matters the Bible is very plain. Noone canhave any doubts as to the terrible implications of thefollowing characteristic statement of the Bible:

Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, noradulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves withmen, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers,nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God (I Cor.6: 9f.).Other judgments, or positive calls to duty, while notexpressed in a "Thus saith the Lord," may be deduced"by good and necessary consequence" from the Scrip­tures, and we insist that such principles of conduct are

The Presbyteria,n Guardian ts published twice a month by The Presbrterlan Guardian Publishing Company. at the following rates. payable in advance. for either old or newsubscribers in any part of the world. postage prepaid: $1.00 per year: five or more copies. either to separate addresses or in a package to one address. SOc each per year;Introductory rate. for new subscribers only: Two and 8 half months for 25c; 10e per copy. Address all editorial correspondence to: The Rev. Ned B. StonOhouse. Th.D. NoresI>OlIslbUlty Is ...sumed for unsolicited manuscripts. EdItorial and Business omces: 1212 Commonwealth Building, Philadelphia, Penna.

202 THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN

absolutely binding. Where the will of God is "clearlypropounded and opened in some place of Scripture orother," the Christian's only choice and the way of trueliberty is to obey. There can be no doubt that sinful prac­tices engaged in under pretence of Christian liberty arean abomination in the sight of God. (See Confession ofFa.ith, I: 6 and 7; XX: 2 and 3.)

CHRISTIAN LIBERTYOn the other hand, if God alone is Lord of the con­

science, it is a matter of grave consequence for anyoneto judge a brother in a matter where the Scriptures giveliberty either expressly or through silence. Paul warnsthe Christians in Corinth against going beyond the thingsthat are written (I Cor. 4: 6). Where God has notspoken, it is utter presumption for one Christian to legis­late for another. Accordingly, in recognition of an areaof liberty in matters which the Bible does not determine,Reformed teachers of ethics have historically recognizedcertain practices as belonging to the adiaphora, that is,the things which are not sinful in themselves. If a thingis not sinful in itself, it is a grievous fault for a Christianto insist that his own course of action in this particularis the only proper course of action or that it represents ahigher kind of morality. While the Scriptures do recog­nize various degrees of sanctification, they give no sup­port to the notion, which has been particularly influentialin Roman Catholicism, that above the ordinary moralitythere is a higher "religiousness" or "perfection" whichonly a few can be expected to attain.

WORLDLINESSIn illustration of our thesis, the matter of worldliness

may be considered. The Bible condemns worldliness inno uncertain terms, and sets over against it the claims ofgodliness.

I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God,to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptableto God, which is your spiritual service. And be not fash­ioned according to this world; but be ye transformed by therenewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is thegood and acceptable and perfect will of God (Romans12: If.).

But is it possible for one Christian, or for any group ofChristians, to sum up under three or four heads the prac­tices which a Christian must refrain from in order toshow that he is living a separated life? In view of thecomplex nature of our relations to the world, is not greatcaution demanded lest we set up our own practices as thewill of God for others?

World-flight, monasticism, asceticism do not provideescape from worldliness. Paul demands that God's giftsbe received with gratitude, and shows his impatiencewith the ascetics who came with their human ordinances:"Touch not, taste not, handle not !" (d. Col. 2: 20ff. :I Tim. 4: 1-5). We are in the world, and obviously must

have much in common with the life of the world. We de­pend on the world's newspapers and radios; we read theworld's books and hear the world's music. At this pointwe would not be understood as defending the sanctityof worldly institutions. Rather our thought is that themultiplicity of our contacts with the world constantlypresents the challenge of walking circumspectly and withfear and trembling lest we who are properly not of theworld, and have been delivered from this present evilworld, should fail in our spiritual service. Our principalobjection to "the separated life," defined as the refrain­ing from three or four worldly practices, is not that itsets too high a goal but that it falls far short of the Bibli­cal conception of godliness as a complete devotion to theservice of God, which is set forth, for example, in theverses which have been quoted from Paul's Epistle to theRomans.

THE USE OF WINEWith regard to the use of wine, it appears to us that

many Christians of our day have not read their Biblesaright. The Bible is severe in its condemnation of excess.No drunkard shall inherit the kingdom of God. Veryevidently the Bible was written in a time when men werewont to go to excess as well as today. Consequently wedo well to observe closely what the Bible teaches as toman's duty in the presence of excess. The importantthing to note in this connection is that the Bible nowhereteaches us to refrain from the use of wine. Its warningsare exclusively against excess. Paul tells the Ephesiansnot to be drunk with wine (5: 18), but does not evenhint that the way to avoid excess is the way of totalabstinence. Our Lord certainly knew of the excess of Hisday. Indeed He was charged with excess himself.

John the Baptist is come eating no bread nor dt."inkingwine; and ye say, he hath a demon. The Son of Man IS comeeating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man,and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!(Luke 7: 33f.).

And our Lord turned large quantities of water into wineat the wedding in Cana of Galilee. Consequently, it is aserious reflection on our Lord to hold that moderatedrinking inevitably leads men .into a life of drunkenness,as Dr. Buswell seems to do in his recent book on TheChristian Life, p. 88. Is it not enough that a disciple be ashis teacher, and a servant as his Lord?

Appeal is sometimes made to the order of the Nazi­rite (Numbers 6) and to the approval of the Rechabites(Jer. 35) as evidence of a divine disapproval of the useof wine. Indeed, in the work which has just been cited weread that these instances of abstinence "are evidentlyintended to prepare for a fuller teaching on the subject"(p. 85). In view of the complete absence of such "fullerteaching" in the Bible, and the clear teaching and ex­ample of our Lord, are we to suppose that this fuller

~.

-

THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN 203

_II

...

teaching is something beyond the teaching of our Lordand that of the rest of the Bible? Moreover, the appeal tothese specific instances of abstinence as representing ahigher standard of conduct is only as plausible as the con­clusion that the Nazirite vow not to use a razor and theRechabite practice ofnot building houses present higherideals of morality.

Let no one conclude that we hold a brief for the mod­ern liquor traffic, or that we have a light view of drunken­ness. Nor are we concerned to encourage anyone todrink wine to vindicate his Christian liberty. Nor are wearguing against abstinence, if anyone prefers abstinence.It is quite possible too that some individuals may haveto abstain entirely if they are easily led to excess. Ourtimes certainly call for serious warning, as the Bibleseriously warns, against the perils of drinking. On theother hand, we cannot express too emphatically our deepconcern to oppose the judgment that it is a sin underevery condition today for Christians to drink wine mod­erately. As we are zealous to guard the honor of ourLord, we cannot fail to oppose any judgment of the useof wine which would make our Saviour responsible forleading men into a life of sin.

THE USE OF LIBERTYThe Bible condemns intemperance, therefore, but

clearly allows a use of things which are not sinful inthemselves. But of course the last word has not been saidwhen this phase of Christian liberty has been set forth.The question that remains to be discussed is the questionof the significance of Paul's teaching concerning expedi­ency and the need of edification. We are keenly aware ofthe great significance of passages like Romans 14 andI Corinthians 8 and 10. In these chapters the principle isclearly laid down that we must always walk in love witha view to edification, not wounding the conscience of aweaker brother, and so causing him to stumble, throughan inexpedient use of our rights.

In various ways, however, this principle is often mis­understood in part or misapplied. For example, there isoften confusion as to what Paul means by causing abrother to stumble. We have heard men call upon aChristian to restrict his use of liberty in a particular waymerely on the ground that they were offended by theirbrother's conduct. This interpretation of Paul can resultonly in the exaltation of selfishness and pride. By givingoffense or causing to stumble the Bible does not mean tocharacterize an action which happens to displease an­other, but rather such an action as shall directly be theoccasion of a brother's fall into sin. That clearly is Jesus'meaning when He taught that no price is too great topay-not even an eye or a hand-i f eternal issues areat stake (Matt. 5: 29f.; 18: 6f.). In the foregroundtherefore is a concern for the salvation of souls. Denying

emphatically that he was a menpleaser, Paul never­theless teaches that he subordinated his own personalinterests that men might be saved (Gal. 1: 10;I Cor. 10: 33).

THE WEAKER BROTHERFurther, greater attention needs to be given than often

appears to be the case to the kind of person Paul has inview when he speaks of a weaker brother. In neither ofthese great passages from Romans and I Corinthians isPaul dealing directly with the question of excess in thematter of eating and drinking. Rather he is dealing withthe situations which developed in the early Christiancommunities in connection with the use of "unclean"food and "things offered to idols." Through faith inChrist the believer has been delivered from the bondageof the ceremonial law and from the powerless and beg­garly elements of heathenism (d. Gal. 4: 8-11). Butthere were babes in Christ who had not come to a trueknowledge of the liberty which belonged to them inChrist, and they were in danger of looking upon the eat­ing of certainfoods as involving disobedience to the OldTestament or as a compromise with heathen idolatry, Sowhen they saw other Christians exercising their liberties,they might be induced to "defile their conscience" and sofall into sin. Their consciences are described as "weak,"that is, as uninformed as to the liberty in Christ (I Cor.8: 7). Obviously Paul is not commending a weakerbrother for his weakness. No one dare therefore makehis own weakness the basis for the judgment of another.Nevertheless, the strong must consider the weak who arein danger of falling,

In dealing with weaker brethren Paul does not in everyinstance call upon Christians to sacrifice their liberty. Tothe Galatians he wrote that they should stand fast in theliberty with which Christ had set them free, and thiswhole epistle is concerned to show that to have yielded tothe Judaizing Christians in their demands that all Chris­tians be circumcized would have resulted in the destruc­tion of true Christianity. Clearly there are times when itwould be a sin not to exercise one's rights. In this situa­tion at least it was expedient and edifying not to yieldfor a moment.

But Paul, on the other hand, does clearly teach that aChristian in certain circumstances must be ready to re­frain from the use of his rights if that use imperils thesalvation of his brother, and that in these circumstancesthe precise course of action adopted must be the coursethat will result in the edification of the brother. Sinceexpediency can be appealed to only with respect tomatters with regard to which the Bible permits liberty ofchoice, there can be no law of expediency. That is to say,no general rule can be established as to what love forone's brother may determin~ as wise and edifying. In theabsence of a divine commandment, the responsibility for

204 THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN

the use which a Christian makes of his rights belongs notto the church nor to any other person but only to himself.Otherwise, love for one's neighbor loses its essentialcharacter through the introduction of the element ofcompulsion.

The burden of our plea then is not for an indiscrimi­nate assertion of one's rights nor for anyone particularcourse of action rather than another. Let love prevail!Through the power of the Holy Spirit and in the lightof the Word love will dictate what use shall be made of

one's liberty. Oftentimes, the situation will demand thatwe refrain from the exercise of our rights. At othertimes, it may call for immediate instruction of our brotherin the truth in order that his conscience may be informedand strengthened. In every instance we must keep beforeus the goal of the salvation and the edification of men'ssouls through our testimony to Christ. And let us takecare that our testimony to Christ be to the Christ of theBible. Jesus said, "Blessed is he, whosover shall find nooccasion of stumbling in me" (Luke 7: 23).

Karl Barth on CreationBy the REV. CORNELIUS VAN TIL, Ph.D.

Dr. Van Til

WE have seen ina previous issue

of THE PRESBYTERIAN

GUARDIAN (Jan. 9,1937), that thoughKarl Barth calls menback to the Word ofGod, he does not callmen back to the Bible

as Protestants are wont to think of theBible. In the present article we shallsee that Barth cannot believe in theBible as the completed revelation ofGod because he cannot fully believethe doctrine of creation.

The story has frequently been toldhow the philosophy of Hegel and thetheology of Schleierrnacher has largelycontrolled the modern church. Thesovereign God of the Reformers waseclipsed by a God who is necessarilyinstead of freely related to the uni­verse. God was well-nigh identifiedwith ideal principles in the universe.The immanence of God within theuniverse was stressed at the expenseof His transcendence above the uni­verse.

Now Barth launched a fearless at­tack on this immanentistic theologywhich we usually speak of" as Modern­ism. He set fire to the whole 'structureof modern theology. He called uponmen to return to the transcendent God,to the sovereign Lord, to God as the"absolutely Other." He called uponmen to forget their pride, to cast awaytheir schemes of interpretation, and tofall prostrate before the face of the"Lord of life and death."

Shall we not rejoice in this work ofBarth? We certainly shall. We do notseek to save even the least bit of thehouse of Modernism. Yet we are once

more afraid that Barth thinks he can­not burn down the house of Modern­ism unless he also burns down thehouse of orthodoxy.The Importance of theCreation Doctrine

It requires little argument to showthat without such a doctrine as cre­ation the house of Protestant theologyfalls to the ground. Man is dependentupon and responsible to God just be­cause God has created all things andby His providence controls all things.If there is any ultimate power or prin­ciple beside God, man's final responsi­bility is no longer to God alone. Ifthere is any ultimate power or prin­ciple beside God, the definition of sincan no longer be "any want of con­formity unto, or transgression of, thelaw of God." If there is any ultimatepower or principle beside God, Christcannot execute His office as a prophetbecause in that case He does not knowall things; He cannot execute Hisoffice of a priest because, even if Hereconciled us to God, there would beother powers to be reconciled; and Hecannot perform His office of a Kingbecause He does not control all things.In short, historic Christianity falls tothe ground without the doctrine ofcreation.What Barth Says About Creation

Yet Barth virtually rejects the Bib­lical doctrine of creation. In sayingthis we are aware of the fact that itis quite possible to quote Barth to theeffect that he believes in creation. Ifwe should go to Barth, notebook inhand, and ask him whether he believesin creation he might say, "CertainlyI do." He could quote from one of hislatest books saying: "Again heaven

and earth are not God's work in thesense that God created them accordingto some ideas in themselves given andtrue, or out of some material alreadyexisting, or by means of some instru­ment apt in itself for that purpose.Creation in the Bible sense means:Creation solely on the basis of God'sown wisdom. It means, creatio exnihilo (Rom. 4: 17)." Or again: "Theworld having once been created byGod (apart from sin!) cannot obvi­ously cease to be determined by thisdecisive act" (Credo, pp. 32, 33).Limitations on the Doctrine ofCreation

Now these quotations would seem toindicate plainly that Barth is thor­oughly Biblical; as far as the creationdoctrine is concerned. How then darewe say that Barth has virtually re­jected the Biblical doctrine of cre­ation? The answer is that we arecompelled to do so because Barth, bycertain qualifications that he makes,in effect takes back everything that wehave just heard him say. "But," saysBarth, "the doctrine of Creation hasits definite limits which have got to beknown if that doctrine is to be rightlyunderstood" (Credo, p. 35). A littlefurther he adds: "There are definiteand necessary questions of faith whichare not to be answered from the doc­trine of creation, or at least not un­equivocally and completely" (Credo,p. 36). These "questions of faith" in­clude "the possibility of" sin, evil anddeath. Barth concludes this section bysaying: "In order to keep true to thefacts, Dogmatics lias here, as in otherplaces, to be logically inconsequent.Therefore in spite of the omnipotenceof God-or rather on the score of the

THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN 205

rightly understood omnipotence ofGod, Dogmatics must not at this placecarry the Creation-thought right to theend of the line. It must rather explainthese possibilities as being such thatwe have indeed to reckon most defi­nitely with their reality, but are unablebetter to describe their real nature andcharacter than by forbearing to askfor their raison d'etre either in the willof God the Creator or even with Mar­cion and the Manicheans in the will ofa wicked Anti-God. These possibilitiesare to be taken seriously as themysterium iniquitatis" (Credo, p. 37).To this we must add Barth's words:"Projecting our thought 'consequently'along the line of the creation dogma,we should have in one way or anotherto deny the Incarnation, Miracle,prayer, the'Church" (Credo, p. 38).The SiC)nificance of TheseLimitations

From these quotations it appearsthat Barth, in order to' protect Godfrom being the author of sin, thinks itnecessary to limit the creation doc­trine. He says not merely that we, ashuman beings, cannot understand howa creature of God, wholly dependentupon God, can become a sinner, with­out God being involved in sin, but hesays definitely that the idea of sin isin reality inconsistent with the idea ofcreation. So too he does not hesitateto say that the Incarnation is incon­sistent with the idea of creation. Or­thodox theology says that a creaturebecame a sinner, without God becom­ing involved in sin. Barth says, ineffect, that this is not possible andtherefore we must hold that there isan original evil independent of God.The Paradox-concept

At this point some one may objectby saying that though Barth considers"creation" and "incarnation" incon­sistent with one another, he can anddoes believe both because he thinks itquite possible to believe the incon­sistent as the "paradoxical." But thisescape, granted it were an escape, isnot open to Barth since he himself sayswe must limit the creation doctrine inorder to believe in the Incarnation.Often enough Barth says you can bothhave your cake and eat it, but at thispoint he says you cannot have yourcake and eat it. If you wish to believein the Incarnation, says Barth, youmust limit your creation doctrine. Weare compelled to affirm therefore thatBarth has virtually rejected the doc­trine of creation.

Other Emphases in BarthThis interpretation of Barth is in

accord with the fact that Barth con­stantly connects the "Lordship" ofGod with redemption. ApparentlyBarth thinks that God was not "Lord"of man by virtue of creation.

In accord with this interpretation,too, is Barth's constant insistence, par-

The MachenMemori,al

Fund

O N TUESDAY, February16th, the Machen Me­

morial Fund Committee set asits goal the sum of at leastone million dollars, to be usedto provide funds for buildingsand endowment for Westmin­ster Theological Seminary.

The committee elected thefollowing officers: Chalrmen,the Rev. Edwin H. Ria", Presi­dent of the Board of Trusteesof Westminster Seminary; andSecretary, the Rev. A. K.Davison, Pastor of the Cove­nant Presbyterian Church,Vineland, N. J., and alumnusof the class of 193 I. Thechairman was given power toappoint a sub-committee ofthree to five members, ofwhich he himself should beone, to prepare plans for rais­ing this fund and to report tothe committee at its nextmeeting on Monday, March8th.

The faculty, the Board ofTrustees, the alumni, the stu­dent body and the friends ofthe seminary are representedon the Machen MemorialFund Committee.

Said Mr. Rian: "TheMachen Memorial Committeeis appealing to everyone whobelieves in the Bible as theWord of God to help toestablish an enduring memo­rial to Dr. Machen and to thegospel which he preached. de­fended and loved."

ticularly in Romans, that the world assuch is inherently evil. Barth refusesto take the Genesis account of an orig­inally perfect creation and of the fallof man as being simple narration offact (Credo, p. 190). Orthodox the­ology holds that man as such, and thewhole of the universe as such, wasoriginally made perfect but that sinentered as the willful disobedience ofman. In opposition to this Barth holdsthat no one historical event can be ofbasic importance for all following his­torical events, and therefore, in .effect,denies the fall. For the fall he substi­tutes some original "mystery o~

iniquity." .. 'It will readily be seen now wtrY

Barth cannot accept the Protestantdoctrine of Scripture. According tohis philosophy man was not originallycreated perfect. Man and the universethat surrounds him are, for Barth, in­herently evil. Accordingly, even GodHimself, through the inspiration ofthe Holy Spirit, could not use thehuman mind as a medium for the ex­pression of His truth. The "humanfactor" in the Bible must always andof necessity indicate error and sin.There could never be a completedrevelation of God to man.

And this leads us in conclusion toobserve that with all of Barth's bestintentions to call men back to thesovereign God of the Reformers hehas in reality no "sovereign" God tooffer us. Barth's "sovereign" God isseverely limited by an original some­thing that exists independently ofHim, and works independently of Him.Barth frequently appeals to the Re­formers and to such Reformation doc­uments as the Heidelberg Catechism.But Barth could not preach, for ex­ample, on the first question of theLord's day of that catechism withouttwisting it completely out of its naturaland historical meaning. If his Sermonsdo not flagrantly depart from the Re­formed Faith, it is because, by a happyinconsistency, they do not reflect andapply. Barth's theological principlesfully. Only Reformed theology, basedupon the doctrine of a really sovereignGod, creator of heaven and earth,whose decrees include "whatsoevercomes to pass," can bring men to areal Entscheidung (decision). AgainstBarth, as against modern theologywhich he seeks to oppose, we mustonce more raise the banner of asovereign God and of His completerevelation in Scripture.

------------------------~

206 THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN

Dr. Buswell's PremillennialismA Review by JOHN MURRAY

\.,

If'

Mr. Murray

UNFULFILLED PROPHECIES by J. OliverBuswell, Jr" D.D., President, WheatonCollege, Wheaton, Ill., Zondervan Pub­lishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.95 pages.

TH I S is the last of aseries of five vol­

umes on the generaltheme, "The Lamb ofGod." As the title sug­gests, the theme of thisvolume in the series iseschatology. Dr. Bus­well's thesis is, how­

ever, largely devoted to the establish­ment of the premillennial advent ofour Lord, in other words, the millen­nial reign of Christ over this earthafter His second advent. The volumeis therefore to a large extent polemic,and being polemic is to a very consid­erable extent taken up with the refu­tation, as Dr. Buswell conceives it, ofboth the postmillennial and amillennialviews of our Lord's return. In a vol­ume of this size, accordingly, he couldnot fairly be blamed for the omissionof certain topics on which issues mightnot, at least directly, be joined.

As a polemic in favor of the pre­millennial view there are some thingsthat are to be said by way of com­mendation. Many of the fantasies fre­quently associated with presentationsof premillennialism are conspicuous bytheir absence. Furthermore, to Dr.Buswell belongs the credit of recog­nizing that belief in and the hope ofthe personal visible return of our Lordis not the peculiar property of pre­millenarians. Too often premillenarianwriters give the impression that beliefin the blessed hope and the appearingof the glory of the great God and ourSaviour Jesus Christ is to be identifiedwith the premillenarian constructionof the blessed hope. They havesome­times in their statistics included intheir lists of premillenarian advocatesthose who were not premillenarian atall .but who, nevertheless, in trulyChristian fashion thrust the hope ofour Lord's coming into the foregroundof their teaching. Dr. Buswell is toowell-informed to fall into such mis­representation.

Again on some details of particularexegesis it is gratifying to find him

much more careful and less dogmaticthan many others who believe in themillennial reign. For example, in hisinterpretation of the parable of theleaven, though he himself ratherstrenuously argues that the evidencewarrants us in regarding leaven hereas the symbol of evil, nevertheless heis at least willing to "admit that weare on debatable ground" (p. 25). Inhis interpretation of the scope of thereference in the phrase "all in Christshall be made alive" in I Cor. 15: 22,he feels the force of the argument forthe restricted usage, that is to say thatthe resurrection referred to here isthat of the righteous. We are alsogratified to find that he takes Rev. 21as a vision in symbolic terms of theconsummate state-the new heavensand the new earth. Several other de­tails might be mentioned. But thesefew will serve to illustrate.

After all that we might sincerely sayby way of commendation the distress­ing fact remains that our review willvery largely have to be adversely crit­ical. In general Dr. Buswell's polemicis for premillennialism; ours must beagainst it. But our criticism in thisparticular case is forced to take on apeculiar form. We have in mind someof the methods by which Dr. Buswelltries to advance and establish histhesis.

Misrepresentations ofOpponents

Dr. Buswell says in his preface that"when one attempts to disagree withsuch distinguished scholars as War­field and Vos, one must realize that heis on dangerous ground." To Dr. Bus­well must be conceded the right tocriticize any other man but we wishthat in using this right he had followedhis own warning. The first virtue of acontroversialist is to be fair to hisopponent. Dr. Buswellgrossly misrep­resents both Dr. Warfield and Dr. Vosbut particularly the latter.

On pp. 52f. he quotes from Dr. Vos'Pauline Eschatology, which reads:"Of Jesus Himself it is said that Hewas 'raised' ('waked') implying thesame relationship of activity on God'spart. The creative aspect of the actstanding in the foreground, this is

what we should naturally expect. No­where is it said of Jesus that He con­tributed towards His own resurrec­tion." And then in answer to Dr. Vos,Dr. Buswell proceeds to say, "And yetour Lord said, '... I have power tolay [my life] down, and I have powerto take it again.' "

Now this represents Dr. Vos as say­ing something directly in conflict witha word of our Lord, and that wouldsurely be calculated drastically to prej­udice Dr. Vos' reputation as a Biblebeliever and therefore by direct im­plication his reputation as an exponentof Biblical eschatology.

But what has Dr. Buswell done? Hehas wrenched part of Dr. Vos' foot­note on pages I46ff. out of its contextand makes Dr. Vos appear to saysomething he never said at all. WhatDr. Vos is doing in that footnote is tomake "a few linguistic remarks on thePauline usage of speech concerning theresurrection" (italics ours). In otherwords, he is discussing Paul's usagewith respect to the two Greek wordsanistanai and egeirein as applied tothe resurrection of Christ. Dr. Vas nomore than the Apostle Paul even sug­gests any denial of the other truth ex­pressed by our Lord (John 10: 17, 18)and quoted by Dr. Buswell.

Then Dr. Buswell proceeds to attrib­ute to Dr. Vos sentiment that is almostArian in its flavor. "Sentiment whichis almost Arian in its flavor is alsofound in this same work on pages 73,74,79, and 237" (p. 53). This may ap­pear a very effective way of showingthe unreliability of his opponent. Butlet us see what the facts are.

As we turn to page 237 in the workof Dr. Vos cited we find that the wholeof this page is devoted to an expositionof the premillennial construction ofI Cor. 15: 23, 24. If this page then con­tains sentiment that is almost Arian inits flavor, it is the view that Dr. Bus­well himself espouses that must beArian in its flavor. We wish we hadspace in which to quote the wholepage in order to show the completefalsity of the allegation.

The only part of page 79 to whichDr. Buswell can possibly be referringis that which occurs at the bottom ofthe page with reference to "the day of

THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN 207

the Lord" in the Pauline Epistles. Itis a rendering, Dr. Vos observes, ofthe Old Testament phrase, "the day ofJehovah." He concludes that there isdoubt in some passages whether "theLord" in the phrase be meant as theGreek translation of Jehovah or sig­nifies the Lord Jesus. Of course, wherethe name "Jesus" stands in appositionor the pronoun "our" is appendeddoubt is eliminated. When Dr. Vossays there is doubt in connection withsome passages he is not in the leastsuggesting that the attributes of Deityare not to be predicated of our Lord.It is simply a question of personal des­ignation.

It is common knowledge to everystudent of Paul that the name "God"is sometimes used absolutely to desig­nate the Godhead, sometimes it is usedas the personal name of the Father indistinction from the Son and the HolySpirit, and the title "Lord" is oftenused as the personal name of Jesus thesecond person. This usage of Paul inno way detracts from the essentialDeity of the second person of theTrinity.

It is just a very similar observationthat Dr. Vos is making here in con­nection with the title "Lord." It is aquestion whether in the phrase, "theday of the Lord," the title "Lord" is apersonal designation of the personJesus or whether the title "Lord" isused more absolutely to designate whatwe call "the Godhead." Arian flavor issimply out of the question.

We come finally to pages 73 and 74on which sentiment "almost Arian inits flavor" is again alleged to be found.In this very passage Dr. Vos alludesto "the attribution of the Kyrios-titleto Jesus," and anyone aware of Dr.Vos' masterly contributions to Chris­tology, especially his opus magnum,The Self-Disclosure of Jesus, knowswhat significance, for Dr. Vos as forall orthodox interperters, this attribu­tion bears. What Dr. Vos (on pp. 73f.)is doing is to show that the whole com­plex of ideas associated with the com­ing of Jehovah-God in the Old Testa­ment is in the teaching of Jesus andparticularly of Paul predicated of thecoming of Jesus. Dr. Vos indeed is notdealing here directly with the estab­lishment of the Deity of Jesus, but heis nevertheless in thoroughly charac­teristic fashion drawing to our atten­tion one of the most momentous piecesof evidence that to the mind of Paul,saturated as it was with the Old Testa-

ment concept of the coming of J e­hovah, all the prerogatives and attrib­utes of Jehovah are recognized aspresent in Jesus. We think that a littlecareful reading of Dr. Vos at thispoint and some appreciation of theprinciple of progressive revelation thatunderlies his treatment of BiblicalTheology as well as of the momentousfacts with which he is dealing willshow that, so far from the sentimentbeing almost Arian, the whole drive ofthe argument just as of the evidence isin the totally opposite direction.

So we see what becomes of Dr. Bus­well's allegation that "Vos' amillen­arianism appears confused because ofhis failure to recognize that our LordJesus Christ as the Messiah is 'God inthe flesh' and may be addressed interms of deity" (p. 51). Dr. Buswellis guilty of pitiable distortion and mis­representation of a scholar who hasdone more than perhaps any other nowliving in the defense of the essentialDeity of our Lord, and that upon thebasis of the most exact and penetrat­ing exegesis and apologetic. We do notaccuse Dr. Buswell of deliberate dis­tortion. He has, however, shown him­self seriously incompetent to deal care­fully and fairly with his opponent.

On page 52 Dr. Buswell quotes fromDr. Vos' Pauline Eschatology (p.

. 230) with the purpose of showing thatDr. Vos suggests that the idea of amillennial kingdom is the result of "acompromise between two heterogene­ous eschatological ideas." Here Dr.Vos is again wrested from his context.What he (Dr. Vos) says is that "it hasbeen suggested by recent writers" thatthe conception of a provisional Messi­anic Kingdom "should be looked uponas a compromise between two hetero­geneous eschatological ideals." Andbesides Dr. Vos in the context is deal­ing with apocryphal literature, not withthe Old Testament or with the New.However much of heterogeneouseschatological ideal might be found inapocryphal literature Dr. Vos does notargue that there is inconsistency orcontradiction in canonical prophetism.There is indeed diversity, but that di­versity is in reality, especially whenthe light of New Testament event andinterpretation shines upon it, a mar­vellous harmony. The quotation givenby Dr. Buswell on pages 5If. fromPauline Eschatology (p. 232) ispart of an argument by Dr. Vos in de­fense of premillennialism against the

allegation ofBousset that Chiliasm isderived from pagan sources.

The Final State and SequenceUnder the caption "The Final State

not Timeless" (p. 48-51) he accusesDr. Vos of inconsistency and aversthat "it is only when arguing againstthe doctrine of the millennium that Vosis inconsistent with his view of 'vistasof realization within the final state.'''Weare at a loss to know what Dr.Buswell includes within the "FinalState," whether it includes for him themillennium or whether it begins withthe final judgment and consummation.But in any case he accuses the amillen­nialist of being likely to hold the viewthat the final state must be timelesswithout sequence. What amillennialist,we ask, holds that the final state willbe without sequence? Dr. Vos, in thevery quotations he (Dr. Buswell) hasgiven, makes it abundantly clear that"Paul clearly ... projects the idea ofperceptible duration into the life be­yond," * and that the word hope "be­comes suggestive of still ulterior vistasof realization within the final state"( d. p. 49). There is no incompatibilitybetween this and Dr. Vos' insistence,on the other hand, on the basis of ex­act exegesis of Paul that the parousiaof Christ is coincident with the endand with the realization of what, interms of I Cor. 15: 50, is the eschato­logical Kingdom of God. What Dr.Vos is denying is the possibility of in­truding a temporal millennium provi­sional and preparatory to the finalstate subsequent to the second comingof Christ. He does not make this denialat all on the basis that there is to be nosuccession or that there are to be novistas of realization subsequent to theLord's advent, 'but on the basis that thesecond coming and the complex ofevents which accompanies it introduceus to the consummate state, a state theterms of which a provisional Kingdomcannot satisfy. What Dr. Vos is em­phasizing is the properly eschatologicalcharacter of the advent-complex ofevents. There will be no later eschato­logical finale, an eschatological finalesuch as the prernillenarian must, in the

*Dr. Vos is, however, very careful toremind us at this point of the distinctionthat would have to be drawn betweentimein the terrestrial form, inseparably con­nected as it is with the great astral move­ments, and the perceptible duration thatmay be projected into the life beyond (cf.pp. 290f.).

208 THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN

nature of the case, introduce after themillennium. Dr. Buswell appears tohave failed to get the point of theamillenarian (and for that matter ofthe postmillenarian) in this debate.May we repeat that no amillenarianwe know nor Dr. Vos in particularsuspends an attack upon the premille­narianon the ground that the final statemust be a state of abstraction withoutsequence. What the amillenarian incommon with the postmillenarianaffirms is that it is impossible to inter­ject into "the age to come" any escha­tological crisis such as the premille­narian postulates after the millennium.This the amillenarian affirms on thebasis of the consummatory characterof the second advent and of the com­plex of events bound up and concomi­tant with it, as well as on the basis ofthe finality and consummateness of"the age to come."

Under this same caption Dr. Bus­well tries very summarily to dismissDr. Warfield's cogent argument (Bib­lical Doctrines, pp. 621ff.) that theterm "'the end' is a perfectly definiteone with a set and distinct meaning... the standing designation of the'end of the ages' or the 'end of theworld.' " Dr. Buswell says in reply that"a simple concordance study of thewords 'the end' in their eschatologicaluse in the New Testament would showthe fallacy of this assumption. See forexample Heb. 1: 2; 9: 26; I Cor. 10:11." (p. 50, footnote.)

Now what Dr. Warfield is dealingwith is not the words that may betranslated by our English word "theend" in our English version, but withthe term "the end" (Greek to telos) inits eschatological use. Apparently Dr.Buswell was using his English con­cordance and so fell into the unschol­arly error of thinking that a citation ofpassages in which the word "end" or"ends" occurs in English constitutes arefutation of Dr. Warfield's conten­tion. The fact is that none of the pas­sages cited by Dr. Buswell is relevantto the question. No! Dr. Warfield isdealing simply with the eschatologicaluse of the Greek word to telos-singu­lar in number and absolute in con­struction-not at all with the expres­sions used in the passages cited byDr. Buswell. In none of these passagescited by him does the phrase in ques­tion (Greek to telos) occur. We stillthink Dr. Warfield has argued with"the stringency of a syllogism." Dr.Buswell has not answered the argu-

merit. He has simply created the im­pression on the minds of the unin­formed that he has very summarilydemolished Warfield's contention. Theimpression is, however, entirely con­trary to fact.

Dr. Buswell appears to be seriouslymistaken as to what supernaturalisticpostmillenarians believe as to the na­ture of the second coming of Christ.On page 43 he very distinctly createsthe impression that only the premille­narians and amillenarians believe inthe "cataclysmic catastrophic nature"of our Lord's return. This is not fair tothe postmillenarian. What he quoteswith approval from Dr. Machen'sbook, "What is Faith," Dr. Warfieldand all supernaturalistic postmille­narians would wholeheartedly endorse.Every such postmillenarian as well asamillenarian believes that at Christ'sreturn II Pet. 3: 10-12, for example,will be fulfilled, and surely that iscataclysmic and catastrophic.

Dr. Buswell's ExegesisWe have space left for only one

example of the exegesis by which Dr.Buswell supports his chiliastic scheme.It is his treatment of I Cor. 15: 23, 24.As mentioned already he feels theforce of the argument that the "all inChrist" of verse 22 can refer only tobelievers. He himself indeed feels thatPaul here referred to the total resur­rection of all who have died. Never­theless he concludes by saying:"Whichever interpretation of I Cor.15: 22 the reader may feel led to adopt,the fact is very plain that Paul is re­ferring to the future resurrection ofsome or of all who have died becauseof Adam's sin" (p. 67). But he pro­ceeds with his discussion on the basisof three orders of resurrection. Wewonder how he can do this if uncer­tainty remains as to the scope of thephrase, "all in Christ shall be madealive." The third order of the resur­rection must surely on his own schemebe the resurrection of the wicked afterthe millennium. How can he have thisthird order of resurrection unless he issure that those affected by that resur­rection are included in the "all" men­tioned in the second part of verse 22?The premillenarian who insists thatthe "all in Christ" is all-embracive is,we think, much more consistent herethan is Dr. Buswell.

He does not appear to have graspedthe force of the arguments of both Dr.Warfield and Dr. Vos in his treatment

of the whole passage in I Cor. 15.Their central argument in the refuta­tion of the chiliastic exegesis is that inI Cor. 15: 23-28 the subjugation of thelast enemy death is coincident with orimmediately prior to "the end," whenChrist shall deliver over the Kingdomto God. Then again in I Cor. 15: 50-58this same victory over death, when thesaying that is written "Death is swal­lowed up in victory" shall have beenfulfilled, is coincident with the resur­rection of the just. If, therefore, inthe one passage the subjugation of thelast enemy, death, is coincident with"the end" and in the other coincidentwith the resurrection of the just, "theend" and the resurrection of the justmust also be coincident. This surelyfollows on the principle that twothings coincident with the same thingmust be coincident with one another.In this way "the coming of the Lord"and "the end" are brought into theclosest conjunction with one another,and it becomes impossible to intrudea millennium between "the coming ofthe Lord" and "the end." The reign ofChrist spoken of then in I Cor. 15: 24­26 must cover the period prior to thesecond advent, and must therefore beconceived of as having begun with theresurrection and exaltation of Christ.Dr. Vos appeals to passages like Col.2: 15; Rom. 8: 38, 39; Phil. 2: 9-11 asdemonstrating that Christ is now as aresult of His resurrection and exalta­tion invested with the Lordship anddominion that thoroughly satisfies theterms of the reign spoken of in I Cor.15: 24-26.

Dr. Buswell's answer to the lastmentioned interpretation of Dr. Vos isquite inconsequential. He says that thevictories spoken of in Colossians andRomans are victories already accom­plished, whereas the victories spokenof in I Cor. 15: 25, 26 are still in thefuture. They cannot therefore, he says,be the same. But the assumption thatthe victories spoken of in I Cor. 15:25, 26 are all in the future is purelygratuitous. Some of them, of course,are. One at least is-the victory overdeath. But that Paul has only futuresubjugations in view in that passage isnot so certain. What he says is thatChrist must reign till he hath put allenemies under His feet; till He willhave put down all rule and all author­ity and power. And again can we becertain that in Rom. 8: 38, 39 there isno reference to victories that Christ iseven yet to secure for His people, the

THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN 209

Hitherto the Lord Hath HelpedA Meditation on the Ninth Psalm

By the REV. DAVID FREEMAN,-

guarantee and pledge of which is en­closed in the victory already securedin His resurrection?

But suppose we allow that the vic­tories in Colossians and Romans arevictories already accomplished andalso that the victories of I Cor. 15: 25,26 are still in the future, this in noway interferes with the main point ofDr. Vos' argument. He appeals tothese passages in Colossians, Romansand Philippians (he might, we think,have cited others also) to show thatChrist is represented as reigning now,and the reign that he exercises now invirtue of victories already secured, areign to be consummated in the sub­jugation of all rule and authority andpower at his parousia (advent), satis­fies all the requirements of the reignof Christ spoken of in the Corinthianspassage. Yea, more! In view of theclose conjunction and concatenation ofthe victory over death and the parousiait is the only reign that can satisfy. InDr. Vos' words, "The last enemy thatis brought to nought is death. The con­quering of the other enemies, and con­sequently the reign of Christ consist­ing in this, precedes the conquest ofdeath. Now Paul makes the conquestof death coincide with the parousiaand the resurrection of believers. Ac­cording to vss. 50-58, when the deadare raised incorruptible, and the livingare changed (i.e., according to vs. 23at the parousia), Death is swallowedup in victory. And still further, apartfrom this specific argument, a moregeneral argument can be built on vss.50-58, because it is there implied thatthe resurrection of the righteous andthe very last 'end' fall together. Theapostle here speaks throughout interms of absolute consummation"(Vos, Pauline Eschatology, p. 245).

Dr. Buswell's eschatological positionis much saner and therefore more de­fensible than that of many premille­narians. We are sorry to say, however,that the little book by which he has setit forth is exceedingly disappointing.It is characterized by gross unfairnessand misrepresentation, and his exegeti­cal argumentation is frequently veryinconsequential. Looseness and care­lessness are, we fear, the rule ratherthan the exception.

We should have hoped thatwe mightbe able to recommend this booklet as afair and reasonably scholarly presen­tation of the premillennial view. Wedo not have the happiness to be ableto do so.

GOD'S goodnessand deliverance

in the past furnishesoccasion for praisingHim. With what as­surance do they cometo the throne of grace,who rejoice in what

·Mr. Freeman He has done for them!And what child of God is there whocannot say, "Hitherto hath the Lordhelped me"? They are indeed as deadwho do not praise God.

There are many for whom God hasworked bountifully. They are ashamednot to acknowledge God, but it is notlong before they are singing their ownpraise and personal triumph. Yea, theymay be seeming to praise God, sinceHis name is upon their lips, but if theyrob God of a portion of it, they areonly pretending to give it to Him.How easy it is to extol our own poli­cies and ways with the name of theLord Most High! Do men not knowthat with their sacrilegious arrogancethey are defacing God's glory?

Sincere praise looks for its all inGod's grace. It will rejoice only inwhat God does. It knows that there isno such thing as chance with the Lord.All things are before His presence,and because He is pleased to intervenein our behalf we are victorious.

God a DefenderThe Lord is a mighty Vindicator of

those who love His cause and ways.His judgments are not partial, but Hehas pledged Himself to execute judg­ment upon all those who oppose therighteous. God, without waiting, takesthe side of those who hold steadfastlyto His Word. Let this be a warningto all who are given to misrepresenta­tion and falsehood. God is set againstall such. If they take God to be theirally, they should know that He helpsonly those who fight under His stand­ard. A good cause only will He defend.

His Arm Not ShortWhen all is black before us and only

destruction seems to be ahead, thenare the faithful to look up to the throneof grace. But suppose the Lord doesnot let us see His hand in our distress.Then are the godly to take hold, with

the hand of faith, of God's revealedwill and purpose as it concerns them.He will not be lacking regarding Hispromises to them. God rules in right­eousness and cannot deny Himself.

Are you tempted to forsake God,when Heaven is silent? Be assured thatGod is only waiting His own time toshow Himself strong in your behalf.With God a thousand years is as oneday. He is never behind in helpingHis children, but only permits us toknow grief that we may the morereadily acknowledge His help. Godoften purposely puts us into the posi­tion of making our crying unto Himseem vain. But in the end it will beHis delight to show how precious therighteous are to Him by a mighty de­liverance. Only let us not measureGod's help by our own understanding,for then are we hopeless and miserablecreatures.

What more can a believer desirethan God's fatherly favor? Of this heis amply assured in His Word. Can itbe grievous for a child of so graciousa Father to be counted as poor andneedy in the eyes of the world? Hashe not, by his profession of Golt, re­nounced the world and its hiddenthings of darkness, and taken God forhis sole portion?

"Only Trust Him Now"Yea, God is not far off from those

who call upon Him. He is the moreready to help when affliction is at itsheight. And He does help, as all ofGod's children witness in every age.Having come through our distresseswith patience, He has taught us themore to trust His grace. Who are thehumble in God's sight, but those who,through many trials and afflictions,bear patiently the cross laid uponthem? These know nought of pre­sumption.

All men should thus trust God andadore their Maker who has revealedHimself in His beloved Son. But theydo not choose to retain Him in theirknowledge. Because they do not knowHim as their Saviour, they do notconfide in Him.

Men may forsake Him; He neverwill forsake those who love their LordJesus Christ in sincerity.

210 THE PRES.BYTERIAN GUARDIAN

The Sunday School LessonsBy the REV. LESLIE W. SLOAT

Mr. Sloat

March 7th. Life Here and Here­after Through Christ. John14:1-15.

I ET not your heart.. be troubled. Yebelieve in God. Be­lieve in me also.

In this discourse inthe upper room, Jesusmore plainly revealsHis true nature thanHe has ever done be­

fore. In the opening verse, probablyspoken after a brief silence followingHis statement about Peter, Jesusstates the meaning of His being"Son of God." The disciples are toput their trust in Him in exactly thesame fashion as they trust in God.Since God is one, and there is nonewho can claim equality with Him,Jesus here asserts His ownparticipa­tion in the Godhead in the plainest ofterms. They are to look upon Him asthey look upon God. Whatever mayhappen in the near future,their faithis to rest in Him personally. Only insuch a recognition of His true nature,and in such a faith, would they beable to endure the period of Hisdeath, and more definitely the periodafter He would be taken from them.He was in all things equal to God.Their hearts need not be troubled.

In the house of my Father are manyabiding places. If it were not so, Iwould have told you, for I go to pre­pare a place for you.

Having raised their thoughts to aconsideration of His true deity, Jesusnow proceeds to a contemplation ofthe future heavenly home. The Father'shouse refers to Heaven in general. Weare not to think of localities but ofconditions. When one is with God inthe fullest sense, one is in the Father'shouse. This is the condition of be­lievers after death, though the prin­ciple is already true even before death.The significant thing is the very multi­plicity of places. There will be plentyof room there for us. There was noroom at the inn for Him, when Hecame here. But though there are manyplaces, there is only one place foreach of us. Heaven will be no meremass of individuals, but a condition

of perfect order, each in his ownplace, fitted and prepared for him. Thetask of ordering the arrangements ofheaven, and preparing the place forthose who shall come, belongs to Jesus.His participation in the Godhead isthe necessary condition of His doingthis. Notice how Jesus passes over thequestion of His approaching death,and looks beyond to the end of thesethings. He is simply going back to theFather's home,-where He naturallybelongs.

And if I go and prepare a place foryou, I come again and will receive youunto myself, that where I am, thereyou may be also.

After preparing a place for Hisown, Jesus will see to it that they ar~

rive at the appointed "mansion."Notice that Jesus centers everythingin Himself. He goes, He prepares theplace, He receives unto Himself, andthe goal is that they may be whereHe is. And as Jesus looked beyondthe experiences on this earth to Hishome, so His disciples were to lookbeyond the tribulations that would af­fect them, to that haven beyond thestars. His going there was the guaran­tee of their safe arrival. Their heartsneed not be troubled. His coming toreceive them, as mentioned here, re­fers as well to the death of the be­liever, as to the yet future secondadvent. Both are in view.

And where I go, ye know the way.Thomas saith to Him, We know notwhither thou goest, and how can weknow the way?

Jesus emphasizes the way to thegoal. Thomas desires informationabout the goal itself. Normally humanbeings have to know where they aregoing, in order to know the way to getthere.

I am the Way, and the Truth, andthe Life. No one cometh to the Fatherexcept through me.

Of all persons who have ever walkedthis earth, Jesus alone could constantlyspeak of Himself, and be justified.And the frequency with which Hedoes so, indicates that the religionJesus gave to His disciples was fromthe very beginning a religion aboutHimself. The person of Jesus consti-

tutes the heart of the Christian faith,according to Jesus Himself. The pres­ent verse abundantly illustrates this,as does this entire section.

In Jesus Christ the Divine Son ofGod dwelt among men in a full humannature. Only so could men, who arehuman beings, see and know the Sonof God. His assumed humanity wastherefore the visible manifestation, inas far as there could be a visible mani­festation, of His real divine nature.This human nature-this flesh-wasthus the means to the divine. In thedeath He experienced, salvation wasobtained for us. Jesus thereby becamethe "way" into the presence of theFather. All persons approach God onlythrough that sacrifice. Likewise, asHis human nature set forth the divinePerson in visible form, He was theTruth. And further, as it is onlythrough our union with Him that wereceive that Life which enables us toexperience the fellowship with God,He is the Life. And, finally, since thePersons of the Trinity are the samein substance, and equal in power andglory, through the Son we come to theFather. And there is no other way tothe Father than this.

If ye had known me, ye would haveknown my Father also. From hence­forth ye do know Him, and have seenHim.

A true knowledge of the Son of Godmanifest in human form carries withit a knowledge of His divine natureand a knowledge of the very Godheaditself. The Persons of the Trinity arenot to be thought of as so separatedthat one can be known apart from theothers. The Trinity exists in unity.On the basis of the clearer revelationthat Jesus is now giving, the disciplesare henceforth to understand this, andin Jesus they are to see the Father.

He that hath seen me hath seen theFather.

Philip's request for an appearanceof God is met by a rebuke based onthe very thing of which we have beenspeaking. In such a real sense are theFather and the Son one that the seeingof Jesus is the seeing of the Father.Proof of this, if the mere statementof it from this Man is not enough, isprovided by the works He has done.If for no other reason, at least on thebasis of the works let us believe in theSon.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, hethat believeth on me, he also shall dothe works that I do, and greater works

I•I

IIiI)

I

THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN 211

than these shall he do, because I go tothe Father.

As the Father and the Son are oneso, through faith, the individual be­comes one with the Son. As evidenceof this there is manifest in and throughthat believer the power of God indoing those things which the Son did.But, as many believers constitute amuch larger "body" of the Son of Godthan our Lord Himself possessed, sothe extent and field of workings ofthe believers are that much greaterthan the field and work of the Sonwhile He was here. These greaterworks are not material, as miracles,but spiritual; in releasing the dyna­mite of the gospel over all the world.But once again these works arewrought out really by the power ofthe Son, in whose name alone we canask anything of God. And being doneby the Son, they are to the glory of theFather who is in the Son, which is theend of all creation.

So, throughout this whole passage,Jesus is showing His disciples what itmeans that He is Son of God, and onthe basis of that arousing their faithin Him for time and eternity.

March 14th. Jesus Praying forthe Disciples. John 16:5-7:17:14-26.

BUT now I go to Him who sentme, and none of you asks me,

Where are you going? But becauseI have spoken these things to you,grief has filled your heart. But Itell you the truth, it is better for youthat I go away, for if I go not, theComforter will not come to you; butif I go, I will send Him to you.

Jesus has just told the disciples ofthe trials which will face them afterHis departure. It was not a pleasantpicture - persecutions, hatred, evendeath at the hands of those who thinkto do God service. Thus it has fre­quently been true that the worst perse­cution of believers has been carriedon by those who claimed to be servingGod. This outlook naturally causedsorrow to the disciples. But Jesusurges them to look beyond these thingsto the future. They are to think ofHim as He will be in glory, overrulingthe world to the accomplishment ofHis purposes. They are to think of theglorious fact that they will share thisblessedness with Him. They are tothink of the glorious fact that Hisgoing away will mean the coming of

the "Paraclete," or Advocate, the Onewho is called alongside to comfort,strengthen, and defend - the HolySpirit of whom mention has alreadybeen made. The disciples are to lifttheir eyes up to things above, notfearing the wrath of man or the wilesof Satan, but living in straightforwardloyalty to their Saviour and Lord.

17 :14-26. This passage forms theconcluding part of the so-called "highpriestly prayer" of our Lord. In itJesus intercedes for the disciples, andfor all who shall believe on Him. Itmight almost be called "a study inprepositional phrases," for certainbrief phrases, identical as to wordingbut differing in meaning according tothe context, are frequently repeated.

I have given them thy word, and theworld hated them, because they arenot of the world, as I am not of theworld (14).

It is the Word of God which revealsthe relationship of men to the world.Those who abide in the Word areseparated from the world. And asmen abide in the Word, they arehated of the world, for the worldis at enmity with God and allthat comes from God. For our salva­tion Christ gave Himself. For oursanctification He gave the Word. Therelation of the believer, who accordingto his spiritual nature has been be­gotten of God, is the same in respectof the world as that of Christ, whowas likewise the only begotten of God,but with human nature.

I ask not that thou wouldest takethem out of the world, but that thoushalt keep them from the evil (One)(15).

Here we have a description of thetrue separation of the Christian. Heis not separated from the world withrespect to space, but with respect tomoral relationship. As a ship he sailsupon the sea of the world, doing hisbusiness in that medium which is hispresent dwelling place, but so controll­ing himself that the sea which is theworld does not get into him, whichwould make shipwreck of his life.

Sanctify them with thy truth. ThyWord is truth (17).

Here Jesus establishes the standardwhich governs' the separated life.Sanctification is by the truth, which isthe Word of God. To say that theWord of God is not a sufficient stand­ard, to set up other standards of holi­ness than those it gives, is to establishman rather than God as the rule of

life. Likewise to fail to go the wholeway with the Word is to repudiate theWord that has been given. Here theReformed Faith holds absolutely tothe teaching of our Lord, in its declar­ation that the Scriptures are the Wordof God, the only infallible rule of faithand practice. Here is the standard ofconduct. Of some things it speaks inparticular. Of some things it speaksonly by inference or through the estab­lishment of principle. But God willsanctify His people not according towhat they think is right, but accordingto what He has determined to be right.It is this for which our Lord prays.

And on behalf of them I sanctifymyself, that they also may be sanctifiedby truth (19).

The high priest must himself besanctified and cleansed before he canmake offering for the sin of the people.The Lord Jesus had no sin from whichHe needed to be cleansed, so that Hiswhole life of righteousness was a prep­aration for the offering of the onesacrifice for the sins of many. Hereagain is an exceeding great principle.Too often ministers, Sunday Schoolteachers, and others are careless abouttheir own conduct while claiming tobe interested in the conduct of theirpeople. Thus ministers stay in apos­tate churches or denominations be­cause they fear what would happen totheir churches if they left. Far betterthat they look to their own sanctifica­tion according to His Word, and letthe care of their congregations restin His hand. God will honor the con­gregation of whom the minister seeksfirst to honor Him. Christ said, Fortheir sakes I sanctify myself.

And not for these only do I ask, butalso concerning those who shall be­lieve on me through their word, thatall may be one. . . .

Now Jesus lifts His eyes to thewider realms of the Church that is tobe, the entire group of those who areto believe. And His prayer is for ab­solute and essential unity among truebelievers. He is not urging unity be­tween believers and the world, nor isHe urging any organizational unity,but He is urging the higher unity ofthe faithful in spiritual fellowship.That unity of believers is comparableto the unity which exists between theFather and the Son-two Persons, yetof the same substance and equal inpower and glory. So the believers allhaving been begotten of God, aremembers of the one family of His,

212 THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN

members of the Body of Christ. Theoutward evidence of this union will belove one to another. By this shall allmen know that believers are disciplesof Christ and children of God.

Father, that which thou hast givenme,-I will that where I am they alsomay be with me, in order that they maybehold my glory, which thou gavestme because thou didst love me beforethe foundation of the world (24).

Finally Jesus pierces the future, andexpresses to the Father His will forthe believers with respect to their ul­timate glorification. But this He de­scribes from the point of view of their

looking upon His own eternal glory.In that time we shall be like Him, forwe shall see Him as He is. That whichthe Son possesses, and that which Heasks, are based upon the Father's lovefor Him, an eternal love apart fromthe existence of the world.

25-26. The closing part of the prayerillustrates the perfect harmony be­tween the Father and the Son-a fel­lowship of knowledge which the worlddid not understand. This knowledge,imparted to and received by the dis­ciples, will result in the love of Goddwelling in them, and through thatChrist Himself.

cattle, and herb for the service of man;that he may bring forth food out of theearth" (Psafm 104: 14).

See also Matthew 6: 30; 10: 29; Job 37:6-13; Chapters 38-41; Psalm 135: 5-7;Psalm 147: 8-18; and Job 9: 5,6.

God's control, according to the Bible',extends over the animal creation. InHis hand is the soul or life of ey,eryliving thing (Job 12:20).

"Behold the fowls of the air: for theysow not, neither do they reap, nor gatherinto barns; yet your heavenly Fatherfeedeth them" (Matthew 6: 26).

See also Acts 17: 25; Psalm 104: 21-29;Psalm 147: 9; and Matthew 10: 29.

The Scriptures further teach thatGod controls nations.

.J

l,i;,J

1~

MATTERS FOR STUDY AND DISCUSSION

I. What attitude toward God shouldbe induced by the doctrine of provi­dence rShould it make us humble, rev­erent and devoted to Him? What in­fluence should it have on us in our joysand sorrows, in all 'our difficulties?

2. Give examples of God's control ofhistory, sacred and profane. Do pre­dictive prophecy and its fulfilment in­dicate anything about God's govern­ment?

3· Assign to various members of theYoung People's Society periods ofBiblical and profane history for theirstudy in connection with the doctrineof providence.

4· Does the fact that many do notrecognize God's rule of the world in­dicate that He does not rule? Is itbeneficial to recognize His rule?

5· Could a "limited God" performthe works of providence that the Bible

"He ruleth by his power forever; hiseyes behold the nations; let not the rebel­lious exalt themselves" (Psalm 66: 7).

"He changeth the times and the seasons;he rernoveth kings and setteth up kings"(Daniel 2: 21).

"The Most High ruleth in the kingdomof men and giveth it to whomsoever hewill" (Daniel 4: 25).

See also Isaiah 10: 5-7, 12-15; Daniel 4:35; Job 12: 23; I Chronicles 16: 31;Psalm 47: 7.

The Bible also makes it clear thatGod controls history. It would be prof­itable for us to make a brief review ofBiblical history to note God's govern­ment. See Acts 17: 26; Romans 9;13: 1.

God, so His Word tells us, controlseven that which might seem to be sub­ject to "chance." "The lot is cast inthe lap; but the whole disposing there­of is of the Lord" (Proverbs 16:33).

with all their hosts, the earth, and allthings that are therein, the seas, and allthat is therein, and thou preservest themall" (Nehemiah 9: 6).

"Who being the brightness of his glory,and the express image of his person, andupholding all things by the word of hispower" (Hebrews 1: 3).

"By him all things consist" (Colossians1: 17).

See also Psalm 36: 6; 63: 8; 66: 8, 9;and 104; Isaiah 40:26; Acts 17:28; andRomans 11: 36.

GovernmentGod governs as well as preserves

that which He has created. Having awise and holy purpose in His creation,He directs and rules all things that Hispurpose may be achieved. That Godgoverns all things might be inferredfrom the fact that He is the living andtrue God, infinite in all His attributes.He could not, because of the perfectionof His being, permit His creation toescape His control and attain somelesser end than that He had wiselyplanned. Indications of His intelligentcontrol can be found in the universein history, and in the lives of men. '

The Bible indisputably teaches thefact of God's universal government. Itreveals God to be the absolute rulerover nature, on whose will what wecall the "laws of nature" are de­pendent.

God "left not himself without witnessin that he did good, and gave us rain fro~heaven, and fruitful seasons filling ourhearts with food and gladness' (Acts14: 17).

He "maketh his SUn to rise on the eviland on the good, and sendeth rain on thejU~,t and on the unjust" (Matthew 5: 45).

He causeth the grass to grow for the

Studies in the Shorter CatechismBy the REV. JOHN H. SKILTON

LESSON 20

God's Works of ProvidenceQUESTION 11. What are God's works

of providence?ANSWER. God's works of providence

are, his most holy, wise, and power­ful preserving and governing all hiscreatures, and all their actions.

GOD executes His decrees not onlyin His work of creation, but also

in His works of providence, whereby,as the Westminster Confession ofFaith tells us, He "doth uphold, direct,dispose, and govern all creatures, ac­tions, and things, from the greatestevent to the least" (Chapter 5, sec­tion 1). God's works of providencemay conveniently be regarded, as theShorter Catechism makes clear, as (1)preserving and (2) governing.

PreservationThat which God has created can no

more endure without Him than it couldhave come into being without Him.The universe would pass away if Goddid not uphold it by the word of Hispower. He neither withdraws Himselffrom the creation nor does He con­stantly create all things anew-viewsthat some have held-but He preservesall things in their being and with theirendowed properties and powers by Hisunceasing exercise of His always pres­ent power.

Some verses bearing on preservationare the following:

"Thou, even thou art Lord alone; thouhast made heaven, the heaven of heavens,

THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN 213

attributes to the living and true GodtWhy notr

6. Distinguish between preservationand government.

7. Distinguish between creation andprovidence.

8. Is there any relationship betweenthe decrees of God and His works ofcreation and prouidencet'

9. Explain several verses bearing onthe doctrine of the preservation of allthings.

IO. In what ways does God manifestHis glory in His preservation and gov­ernment of nature f

LESSON 21God's Government of His

CreaturesQUESTION 11. What are God's works

of providence!ANSWER. God's works of providence

are, his most holy, wise, and power­ful preserving and governing all hiscreatures, and all their actions.

W E HAVE seen in Lesson 20 thatGod's works of providence con­

sist in (1) His upholding or preserv­ing and (2) His governing all crea­tures, actions, and things. We con­sidered some of the Scripture state­ments bearing on God's control ofnature and nations. We are now todeal with some of the Biblical evidencethat God controls not only nations, butalso individuals and their actions.

IndividualsThe conditions of our birth, life, and

death are all arranged by God.

"The Lord killeth and maketh alive: Hebringeth down to the grave, and bringethup. The Lord maketh poor and makethrich, He bringeth low and Iifteth up. Heraiseth up the poor out of the dunghill, toset them among princes, and to make theminherit the throne of glory: for the pillarsof the earth are the Lord's, and he hath setthe world upon them." (I Samuel 2: 6-8.)

"I am the Lord, and there is none else;there is no God besides me: I girded thee,though thou hast not known me." (Isaiah45: 5.)

See also Proverbs 16: 9; Psalm 75: 6, 7;31: 15; Acts 17: 26; James 4: 13-15; andLuke 1: 53.

Free Actions ControlledGod's control extends to the free ac­

tions of men.

"The preparations of the heart in manand the answer of the tongue is from theLord" (Proverbs 16: 1).

"Blessed be the Lord God of our fathers,which hath put such a thing as this in the

king's heart, to beautify the house of theLord" (Ezra 7:27).

"For it is God that worketh in you bothto will and to do of his good pleasure"(Philippians 2: 13).

See also Psalm 119: 36; Proverbs 20:24; 21: 1; Jeremiah 10: 23; Philippians 4 :13; II Corinthians 12: 9, 10; Ephesians 2:10; and Galatians 5 : 22-25.

EvilActions GovernedEven the evil acts of men are gov­

erned by God. Although Saul is de­clared to have taken his own lite, theLord is said to have put him to death(I Chronicles 10: 4-14). Consider alsothe hardening of the hearts of Pha­raoh and the Egyptians (Exodus 7:13; 14: 17; and I Sam. 6: 6).

In Revelation 17: 17 we read that "Godhath put in their hearts to fulfil his will,and to agree, and give their kingdom untothe beast, until the words of God shall befulfilled."

See also II Thessalonians 2: 11; andIsaiah 66: 4.

God sets limits to the evil of men:

"Surely the wrath of man shall praisethee: the remainder of wrath shalt thourestrain" (Psalm 76: 10).

See also II Kings 19: 38; and Isaiah10: 15.

God can cause good to come fromevil deeds, such as in the case of thesinful actions of Joseph's brethren(Gen. 50: 20) and the crucifixion ofChrist (Acts 2: 23; 3: 13, 18; and 4:27,28).

In no way is God responsible for thesins of men. Note the clear statementof the Westminster Confession ofFaith on this point:

"The almighty power, unsearchable wis­dom, and infinite gdbdness of God, so farmanifest themselves in his providence, thatit extendeth itself even to the first fall, andall other sins of angels and men, and thatnot by a bare permission, but such as hathjoined with it a most wise and powerfulbounding, and otherwise ordering and gov­erning of them, in a manifold dispensation,to his own holy ends; yet so, as the sinful­ness thereof proceedeth only from thecreature, and not from God; who beingmost holy and righteous, neither is nor canbe the author or approver of sin" (Chap­terS Section 4).

"F'or all that is in the world, the lust ofthe flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and thepride of life, is not of the Father, but is ofthe world" (I John 2: 16).

See also Psalm 50: 21; James 1: 13, 14;and Jeremiah 7: 9.

Providence or ChaosAs we indicated at the beginning of

our study of God's government, if Goddid not control all things, including theevil actions of men, grave disorderwould prevail. He could not be said torule His creation; His knowledge of

outcomes would be limited; His planwould not be all-embracing; His wis­dom, veracity, justice, and goodnesscould be properly disputed; and Hewould by no means be what He trulyis. He would not be God.

It is apparent that we cannot agreewith those who hold that God haswithdrawn Himself from His creationand permits the universe to governitself; but we must be careful not to goto the other extremes of supposingthat men have no intelligence and willof their own, that there are no secondcauses, and no responsible agents inthe universe, that God, the first cause,is the only cause. The Christian willbelieve that natural law and secondcauses do exist, but that they are notindependent of God. There must be, hewill hold, a "preceding, simultaneous,and immediate concurrence of God'spower in the power of nature." Man,although dependent on God and pre­served and governed by Him, is never­theless a free and responsible agent.That his nature is evil and that he willsiniquity place guilt solely on himself.Difficult and mysterious these truthsmay be to us : but we cannot deny themwithout logically casting ourselves atthe feet of chaos. We know that thesetruths are reconcilable and have beeneternally in harmony in God.

MiraclesThe Christian will recognize the

fact that, as the Westminster Confes­sion of Faith says, God "in ordinaryprovidence maketh use of means, yet isfree to work without, above, or againstthem at pleasure." He is no slave to"natural law," but law is dependent onHis will. See Hosea 1 : 7; Romans 4:20, 21; Daniel 3: 27; John 11: 43-45 ;and Romans 1 : 4.

One who has accepted the Biblicalteaching about providence will not hes­itate to accept the Biblical teachingconcerning miracles.

The Excellency of GodGod's works of providence reflect

the excellency of His being. TheShorter Catechism terms them holy,wise, and powerful.

"The works of the Lord are great,sought out of all them that have pleasuretherein. -

"His work is honourable and glorious:and his righteousness endureth for ever ...

"The works of his hands are verity andjudgment: all his commandments are sure.

"They stand fast for ever and ever, andare done in truth and uprightness.

214 THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN

Several PremiIlennialist Members Raise Protests

PREMILLENNIALISM ADOPTED CONSTITUTIONALLY BYPHILADELPHIA FUNDAMENTALIST GROUP

"He sent redemption unto his people; hehath commanded his covenant for ever:holy and reverend is his name" (Psalm111: 2-9).

See also DanielS: 18; and Revelation15: 3, 4.

Such praise as we must give God be­cause of the excellency of His eternalpurpose we must give Him also be­cause of the excellency of His workingout of that purpose. Compare Ephe­sians 1: 11; Isaiah 28: 29; and Acts15: 18.

God's supreme end in His decreesand in His works of creation is like­wise the supreme end of His provi­dence - the highest end - His ownglory.

"For of him; and through him, and tohim, are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen" (Romans 11: 36).

See also Romans 9: 17.

MATTERS FOR STUDY AND DISCUSSION

I. Does God know even the smallestthings and control them?

2. Can you give instances of God'sordering the circumstances of yourlife?

3. Make a study of the prayers of theBible. Do they indicate and even statethe doctrine of God's government?

4. Can you find any instances inScripture of God's being said to "turnthe hearts of the heathen to hate hispeople" to send men "strong delusionthat they may believe a lie," to stir"the nations to war?" How do you ex­plain these passages? Do they makeGod responsible for sin? Do they indi­cate that He controls sinful men?

5. Can you cite instances from his­tory or from your own experience ofGod's causing good to come from evildeeds?

6. What do you understand RomansII: 7-8 to mean!

7. In what way does God control sin­ful actions!

8. Does God take special care of Hispeople?

9. How may God's providence besaid to be wise? powerful? holy?

10. Assign the sections of Chapter 5of the Westminster Confession ofFaith to members of the Young Peo­ple's Society to be reported on at themeeting.

I I. Compare the estate of believersand unbelievers under God's provi­dence.

12. Does the doctrine of providencein any way excuse our sins?

13. Ask some one to give an exposi­tion of the 73rd Psalm.

14. Why do believers have affiic­tionst Consult the Scriptures.

IS. Does the fact that evildoerssometimes seem to prosper and thatthe righteous app~ar at times to sufferindicate that God's providence is un­just?

16. What is the relationship betweenmiracles and "natural law"?

17. Is God subject to nature? Shouldit be hard for a Christian to believe inmiracles?

18. Does the occurrence of miraclesin any way indicate that the Creationwas not "very good"?

M E ETING in LuLu Temple onThursday, February 4th, the or­

ganization known as the PhiladelphiaFundamentalists adopted the followingamendment to its constitution: "Webelieve in 'that blessed hope,' the per­sonal, premillennial and imminent re­turn of our Lord and Saviour JesusChrist."

A number of members of the associ­ation raised vigorous objection to con­stitutional inclusion of what is popu­larly known as Premillennialism. Twomembers who spoke strongly againstthe amendment were the Rev. PaulWoolley of Westminster TheologicalSeminary, and Mr. James C. Curnow,a student in the seminary. Both holdwhat is commonly known as the pre­millennial view.

Mr. Woolley pointed out that thebasis of fellowship upon which thePhiladelphia Fundamentalists had beenfounded was a common loyalty to thefull inspiration and trustworthiness ofthe Bible. All Christian believers whoaccept the Bible as trustworthy andhold the cardinal evangelical teachingsshould, he said, be welcome as mem­bers of the "Fundamentalists." Thegenius of the opposition to modernismis the opposition to the view that theBible is not throughout a divine book,and is not in all its parts completelyaccurate and trustworthy. It is on thispoint that the dividing line betweenfundamentalists and modernists shouldbe drawn.

Mr. Woolley indicated that in hisopinion the adoption of this amend­ment would change the primary pur-

19. Can we devise any comfort andfeeling of security from the doctrineof providence!

20. In the light of the doctrine ofprovidence what must we say concern­ing "chance," "luck," "fortune,""fate" ?

21. What light does the doctrine ofprovidence throw on the wisdom andgoodness of God?

22. Study Deuteronomy 33: 26-29.Does it have any bearing on the doc­trine of providence?

23. Select hymns expressing truthsinvolved in the doctrine of providence.

pose and testimony of the organiza­tion as it had existed hitherto and hehoped that the Philadelphia Funda­mentalists would remain true to theiroriginal purpose.

Mr. Curnow asked the president, theRev. Merril T. MacPherson, whetheror not the inclusion of the amendmentwould exclude from fellowship allwho were not premillennialists. Wheninformed that it would, he presentedcogent arguments against the passageof the amendment. He pointed out thatthe millennial question was in no sensea "fundamental," and that there wereother doctrinal differences of a farmore serious nature. He attempted toargue that, before legislating on themillennial question, the group shouldattack such heresies as Arminianism,but with the mention of the word,"Arminianism," he was stopped byMr. MacPherson, who claimed that hewas wandering afield from the ques­tion. Mr. Curnow apologized.

Toward the end of the discussionone member arose and passionatelydemanded, "Whom are we trying toplease, God or man?" He insisted themembers should pass the amendmentand thereby please God. Mr. Curnowpromptly pointed out that there wereonly two Biblical reasons for refusingfellowship - proven and unconfessedimmorality or heresy - and that inhis estimation they were contemplat­ing passing the amendment only toplease themselves, certainly not toplease their Lord and Saviour.

The amendment was passed by asweeping majority.

iII

\f,

)

THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN 215

RELIGIOUS CENSORSHIP BILLTO BE INTRODUCED IN SENATE

BY WASHINGTON RADICALSAnother Capital 'FoundationAttempts Rigid Censorship

of All Radio Broadcasts

BAKER RALLIES CLERGYMEN

COMME NT AT ORS in the nation'scapital, according to a Washington

correspondent, are gasping with amaze­ment over a proposal slated for earlyintroduction in the Senate to set upa censorship of all the religious liter­ature that ministers deposit in themails. This scheme to gag the re­ligious press is so shocking that keenobservers, accustomed as they are towitnessing radical stratagems, arewondering if the well-laid plot reallywill be carried through. Authorita­tive sources affirm that the bill hasbeen prepared by lawyers outside ofWashington, and is now practicallyready to be dropped in the legislativehopper. The sponsors of the bill arereported ready to make a real fightfor its passage, and a number of sena­torial OK's are said to be alreadyassured.

Some experts believe that this cen­sorship of religious literature in themails is the first step toward the regi­mentation of religious worship in ac­cord with the Fascist plan. Othersbelieve it is intended as a step towardcomplete suppression and tyrannyin accord with the plans of world­wide atheist-communist coalitions.

From another source comes thethreat of another gag on freedom ofreligious expression, this time throughcensorship of radio broadcasts.

The self-styled "Bible Foundation,"with offices in the Nation's capital, hasset itself up as the supreme arbiterof what should and what should notbe broadcast, as far as religious pro­grams are concerned. A recent formletter signed by the Chairman of theBroadcasting Council declares: "TheBible Foundation is strongly opposedto the broadcasting of any allegedreligious program by any broadcastingstation unless the script of the pro­gram has been written, or carefullyscrutinized and edited by a committeeof ecclesiastics or educators."

The Bible Foundation's aim is, ap­parently, to obtain the consent of everybroadcasting station in the country tothis un-Christian, un-American tyr­anny by its Broadcasting Council offifty hand-picked members. The namesof the active members and trustees ofthe foundation are jealously guarded,so that it is impossible to discoverwhat ecclesiastical or national bigwigsare behind the movement.

Most Christians agree that anyagency that would stifle the free andunimpeded proclamation of the gospelunder the guise of piety is dan­gerous, and the piety, if such it be, isseriously misguided.

Perhaps some foreknowledge ofthese two threats inspired the Hon.Newton D. Baker, General Chairmanof the National Conference ofJews and Christians, to circulateamong 100,000 Protestant, Catholicand Jewish clergymen, a pronounce­ment reaffirming what the Constitu­tion calls the unalienable rig-hts oflife, liberty and the pursuit of happi­ness. The pronouncement, which in­vites the signatures of all clergymenof the three faiths in America, de­clares significantly that "civil libertiesand religious rights that derive fromthis truth are today being assailed."

The pronouncement goes on to saythat "We of the Protestant, Catholicand Jewish faiths, therefore, believ­ing that these liberties and rights arebased upon the principles of religionand are dependent for their perpetua­tion upon the cultivation of thoseprinciples, affirm our loyalty to thesefundamentals of all just government,and express our confidence in the tra­ditions of American life that havechampioned and applied them.

"In America we have and mustmaintain a land wherein people ofdifferent religious convictions andcontrasting cultural traditions maylive together in amity and mutualrespect. The nation can rely upon themobilized spiritual forces of Cath­olics, Protestants and Jews to supportand defend this truly Americanideal."

So ends the pronouncement. AndNewton D. Baker is on the inside inWashington's affairs. Perhaps this isthe firing of the first answering gunin the battle soon to be waged be­tween civil and religious liberty andthe united forces of despotism.

BENNET TRIAL REFERRED TOGENERAL ASSEMBLY AFTER

STORMY SESSION IN NEW YORK

TH E trial of James E. Bennet, Esq.,New York lawyer and elder in the

Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.,reached an abrupt impasse on Febru­ary 2nd when Mr. Bennet walked outof his trial after filing formal objec­tion that the General Assembly hadattempted a gross usurpation of power.At first the special judicial commis­sion, appointed by the Synod of NewYork to try the case, was inclined toattempt, by further citation, to preparefor conduct of the trial in Mr. Ben­net's absence. When noisy o~osition

greeted this proposal the commissionwent into executive session for almostan hour. Announcement was thenmade by the moderator, Dr. George A.Crapullo, that the commission had de­cided "to refer the case back to theGeneral Assembly, which meets inColumbus in May, for trial and ulti­mate decision."

With a kind of New Deal asperitythe moderator at one point stated,"You may as well stop all this refer­ence to the General Assembly. Anydeliverance that they made is not re­viewable by us." Whereupon Mr. Ben­net replied, "Inasmuch as the com­mission have sustained the positionthat when the General Assemblymakes a direction no commission canhold anything to the opposite side, itdoes not seem to us that our physicalpresence here is of any particularbenefit, and therefore we withdraw."

A beautiful confession of bewilder­ment was put in the form of a motionby one member of the commission. "Imove," he said, "that the matter of theprosecution of the charges against Mr.James E. Bennet, as amended, be re­ferred to the General Assembly fortrial and ultimate decision on theground that the present status of theproceedings presents new, important,and difficult questions, namely: Thedeclaration by the defendant of thewithdrawal of his waiver of the serv­ice of citation and special appearance(no citation having been served uponhim as a preliminary to the exerciseof jurisdiction over said defendant) ;that upon denial of motions made bythe defendant, said defendant and hiscounsel withdrew from the session of

216 THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN

the comrmssion ; that the atmospheresurrounding the sessions of the com­mission was such as to be prejudicialto the orderly process of trial; that thecommission are convinced that the bestinterests of the church require a re­moval of the matter to the GeneralAssembly; further, that the .membersof the commission are divided on thepropriety of trying the defendant inhis absence in a manner so affectingthe whole church; and finally, that themembers of the commission are uncer­tain how to proceed under the presentcircumstances."

And in a dense fog the three-dayattempt at a trial ended abruptly.

CORRECTIONS IN MINUTES OFSECOND GENERAL ASSEMBLYCost of Publication Not Yet

Entirely Defrayed

TH E Rev. Leslie W. Sloat, Clerkof the Second General Assembly

of The Presbyterian Church ofAmerica, has reported the followingerrata in the printing of the Minutesof the Assembly: On Page 17, in theparagraph beginning, "The followingamendment was moved and seconded..." a comma should be placed afterthe word, "reading," followed byquotation marks enclosing the balanceof the paragraph. Also on Page 17,in the third paragraph below the pre­vious correction, and the second lineof the paragraph, the word, "not,"should be changed to the word "now,"so that this portion of the sentencebegins, "We do now adopt the 1934form of the Westminster Confessionof Faith and Catechisms."

Mr. Sloat, as treasurer of the com­mittee of the General Assembly forthe publication of the Minutes, hasannounced that the cost of printingand distributing the Minutes has notyet been completely met. In orderthat the funds of the Committee onHome Missions and Church Exten­sion need not be used to make upthe deficit, he requests that individ­uals and churches, willing to help inthis matter, send their contributionsto him at Kensington, Maryland, assoon as possible. The total cost ofprinting and mailing will be approxi­mately $160, of which about $100 hasalready been subscribed. A limited

number of additional copies are avail- .able at the offices of the Home Mis­sions Committee. The charge is 25ceach, postpaid.

THE REV. R. B. KUIPERRECEIVED AT MEETING OFPHILADELPHIA PRESBYTERY

AT THE regular meeting of thePresbytery of Philadelphia on

Tuesday, February 9th, the Rev. Pro­fessor R. B. Kuiper of WestminsterTheological Seminary was receivedas a minister of The PresbyterianChurch of America. Professor Kuiperwas formerly a minister of the Chris­tian Reformed Church, and hisreception into the Presbytery ofPhiladelphia was the cause of heartythanksgiving on the part of manymembers of that body.

At the same meeting the followingstudents of Westminster Seminarywere taken under care of presbytery:William C. Floge, Leland C. Jorgen­sen, and Harvey K McArthur. Acall from the Bethany PresbyterianChurch of Nottingham (Penna.) tothe Rev. Peter DeRuiter was placedin the hands of Mr. DeRuiter. TheRev. Robert Moody Holmes, who hasrecently been placed in charge of thework in Rochester, New York, wasdismissed to the Presbytery of NewYork and New England, and hispastoral relation with the GethsemaneChurch of Philadelphia was dissolved.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Godliness and Christian Liberty 201

AN EDITORIAL

Karl Barth on Creation 204

Cornelius Van Til

Dr. Buswell's Premillennialism 206

A Review by John Murray

Hitherto the Lord Hath Helped 209

David Freeman

The Sunday School Lessons 210

Leslie' W. Sloat

Studies in the Shorter Catechism .... 212

John H. Skilton

A SURVEY OF NEWS ,. 214

IOWA CHURCH TO WAGEBATTLE FOR PROPERTY

TH E Princeton Presbyterian Churchof Princeton, Iowa, which with­

drew from the Presbyterian Church inthe U.S.A. last July, now faces a seri­ous possibility of losing its propertythrough court action of the Presbyteryof Iowa City. Since the church build­ing was originally the result of thesacrificial giving of the members, andsince the cost of replacing it would beat least $10,000, the congregation isplanning to wage a vigorous fight toretain it. The General Assembly of thePresbyterian Church in the U.S.A.,however, is reported to have giventhe local presbytery $2,000 for ex­penses incurred in ousting this littleband of true Christians.

The pastor of the church, the Rev.V. V. Wortman, has appealed for con­tributions to enable the church success­fully to combat the actions of the pres­bytery. Although the members havegiven generously in a valiant effort tosave the property, additional help isneeded.

NEW CHURCH TO BE FORMEDFOR PHILADELPHIA NEGROES

A PRESBYTERIAN rally for thecolored people of Philadelphia

will be held on Friday, March. 5th, at8.30 P.M., in King's Hall, 509 North41st Street. The speaker of the eve­ning will be the Rev. Charles J. Wood­bridge, whose subject will be, "TheEverlasting Gospel." Special musicwill be furnished by the WestminsterSeminary Quartet.

This rally is being held for thepurpose of establishing a particularchurch of The Presbyterian Church ofAmerica among the large negro popu­lation of this district of West Philadel­phia. The work has been begun underthe auspices of the Committee on HomeMissions and Church Extension of thePresbytery of Philadelphia, and West­minster Seminary students LawrenceEyres and Robert Brown are incharge.

Sunday services will be held inKing's Hall beginning March 7th, at11 A.M.

if,

1

)j