Newspaper Page Text
July 31, 1912]
Thoughts on /
-IS THIS UNIVERSALIS* P*
Mr. Editor: I am glad to see that In
\i/ur euriuriai on: "la this Universalism?"
in your issue of July 3rd you are
turning your guns against erroneous
teaching of otner churches on the subject
of infant salvation. How much
better this is than to have our guns
turned against the doctrine of our own
confession on this subject, as has been
so common of late. The truth is that
the position of the ritualistic and Ar,
initin nil 11 '
? ua mis euojecx are utterly
untenable, while the Westminster
Confession of Faith Is the only creed
that holds a scriptural and unpregnable
position on this doctrine; and yet how
many have been eager to abandon our
splendid position and take up the undefendable
position of other churches.
Our Confession teaches simply the
fact and the method of infant salvation,
and the doctrine of no other church
can compare with it.
Take, for instance, the doctrine of
the Methodist Church. They, as well as
we, believe in infant salvation. But
how are infants saved in Infancy? If
logical, according to their system of
doctrine, not a single infant could be
cn voH TTV*? n????Ji? ?- A -* ? *
??... i-x#., otwuiunis to cneir system,
one's salvation depends on the action of
his own will. But the infant does not
voluntarily accept salvation. The infant
that la saved in Infancy must necessarily
have its destiny determined for
it Irrespective of its own choice, by an
unconditional decree of God; and its
ealvatlcn is wrought by an unconditional
application of the grace of Christ to
its soul, through the Immediate and Irresistible
operation of the Holy Spirit,
prior to and apart from tay action of Its
own will. There la no way for Infants to
be saved In Infancy except by the sovereign
election of God and the sovereign
gracious application of salvation to them
without their own choice or co-operation.
The salvation of Infants can not
And a logical place In any system of
theology except In the Calvlnlstlc system,
and the Westminster Confession of
Fhith has given it Its true logical place,
and stated It olearly and scrlpturally.
and it is the only creed that has done
so.
Our Confession shows Its vast superiority
to all other creeds by confining i
itself to teaching the fact and the
method, and leaving the extent of infant
Balvation unmentioned. That is
left to the secret purpose of God. If he
elects all, all are saved: If he electa nnlv
a part then only a part are saved, but
the Confession says nothing at all
about the extent, whether It Is all or
only a part, it simply states how those
whom Gkxl elects to save are saved. The
extent can be known only to God and
those to whom he reveals it: and for the
wisest of reasons he has not revealed it. *
Our "Confession shows Its loyalty to the
Scriptures in leaving this point untouched.
To Introduce an article of
faith stating the extent of Infant sal
vatlon would be to violate the fundamental
principle that the Scripture? and ,
the Scriptures alone are our rule of
faith, which would have very serious
consenuences. When, of all the creeds
of Christendom our Confession has the
only trun and defensible position on
this doctrine, we should glory In it and
not think of abandoning It.
^ Is a noble work, Mr. Editor, that
vou are doing, In Bhowlng the untenable
position of other churches on this subject.
and I hope you will give more of
your snade to showing that the Westminster
Confession holds the only true
and impregnable position on this subject
by confining itself to stating the fact 1
THE PRE8BYTERI
i4any Themes
and the method of infant salvation and
leaving the extent of it to the secret
will of God.
Yours faithfully,
J. W. Lafferty.
Summervil'le, 9. C.
"TEMPERANCE."
So it is translated in our King James
version. It is rendered "self-control" in
the Revised Version. *It really means
"inward power," the control over the
entire man, soul and body, having the
fiPaf A# ? + o ?*
?_? u. 1U> jiunei o.uu exercising its energy
from the central source of a power
within. It should be noted that this
"self-control" or "inward power" Is one
of the nine fruits or products of the
Spirit of God. Whatever may be said
of the power of purpose or personal
resolve, this at least is not the offspring
of man's heroics and is in no part to be
attributed to a man's set purpose. It is
that which has been produced by the
Spirit of God in the man in whom the
Spirit has been guaranteed the right
and authority to make his residence and
produce the fruits of his own power.
i wx> racts snould be noted: 1. This
"self-control"?this power of God's life
operating from within over the entire
man, this sort of temperance," which
indeed is the only real sort, does not
exist In any degree whatever in an unregen?*rate
man. The seed of life that
produces any one of the fruits of God's
Spirit has never been planted in him.
The Author of life has never been permitted
to have the right of culture and
the power of control in that field. Con
sequently whatever is produced there,
however the man may ba"e been restrained
and constrained and hedged
about from without by the Spirit of God,
yet the real soil of the field has never
been, fully conceded to the culture of
God's hand and no product that we find
there is rightly attributed to his efforts
within the man.
2. This fruit of God's Spirit?"temperance,"
"self-control," the energy of "inward
power" is the last mentioned of
the nine various products of God's
Spirit. It Is the last and culminating
product and in some very real sense
lends itself to, takes hold of each of the
other fruits of the Spirit. It, so to
speak, contributes its flavor to each of
them?changing the figure?it attaches
itself to each and all of the others?
unrve. joy, reace, Long-suffering,
Kindness, Goodness, Faith, Meekness,
controlling, stimulating, balancing each
and all till the end is attained In the
perfect man, the exact image of Jesus
Christ our Lord.
Fayetteville, Ark. R. B. W.
LEAVEN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
After reading Rev. H. Waddell Pratt's
challenge of the Interpretation of leaven
In the Earnest Worker, the writer concluded
to ask a little space by way of a
curious corroboration of Mr. Pratt's
idea.
Without discussing the significance
nf niimhorfl tho "DlKio
_. w in vuo u?uic? iuo w i tier
wishes to call attention to the number
thirteen. Rev. E. W. Bullinger, D. D., of
England, haB given a very elaborate discussion
in "Numbers in the Scriptures,"
and your readers, if they care to pursue
the matter, are referred to this book.
TIlMson ?= ?V~ 1 *
tvKu 10 me uumucr in reiKJiifou.
"Twelve years they served Cherdolamer
and In the thirteenth year they rebelled."
Gen. 14:4. "And Iahmael his son
(the son of the bondwoman) was thirteen
years old when he was circumcised."
Geu. 17:25. Though admitted to
the oovenant he was a stranger to It
In his heart and was at last the son
AN OF THE SOUTH
of alienation, of rebellion. Incidentally.
the first verse in Genesis (Hebrew) has
seven words with 28 letters, i. e.. 4x7.
This verse tells of creation. The second
verse, which tells of chaos has 14 words
with 52 letters, or 4x13.
The ancient Hebrews and Greeks represented
numbers by the letters of their
respective alphabets, taking the letters
as they came with one exception. The
Greeks used a sign for six. not the
sixth letter of the alphabeth, but a sign,
called "stigma." So that it is easy to
find the numerical value of words, of
sentences, of the entire Bible, If one is
willing to undertake that stupendous
task. Take the Seth line from Adam to
Japheth and the numerical value has
eight as a factor. According to Dr.
^muiuscii cigni means completeness,
regeneration, resurrection. Take the
Cain line from Adam to Tubal Cain and
13 is a factor when the numerical value
of these names is found. Satan in Hebrew
is 13x28; in Greek It is 13 cubed.
"That old serpent even Satan" is 13x212.
"Tempter" is 13x81. "Sons of God" is
found seven times and the numerical
value is very strangely 153, the number
of great fishes caught after the resurrection
when the net was not broken
and all the fishes were good. But in one
instance it is said that Satan appeared
with the sons of God. Job 2:1. The
numerical value of this expression has
13 for a multiple.
And now the word in question.
Leaven is found thirteen times in the
New Testament, and in only one place
has it ever been interpreted as meaning
anything else than corruption. But
in Matt. 13:33, it Is made to mean
Grace. If this leaven, a rotten offensive
something which has to be burned out
before the substance can be used as
bread, if this means grace what does
the clean, sweet meal in which It is
placed mean?
Forney, Tex. Geo. F. Robertson.
"THE LEAVEN."
A Reply.
There appeared in The Presbyterian
of the South, of July 17th an article
under the above title, signed by H. Waddell
Pratt, Abbeville, S. C., in which an
attempt is made to show that the Earnest
Worker may possibly be In total
error in Its interpretation and application
of the parable of the leaven.
>1 have no taste for newspaper controversies.
I have never taken any part in
them, nor do d propose to enter into one
now. I am unwilling that this article
shall be allowed to pass unchallenged.
Neither will I attempt to present an exhaustive
study of the subject.
Mr. Pratt says, "a majority of us believe
that leaven typifies here, as always
In Scripture, evil." The cormmentators
generally agree with Mr. Pratt that
leaven always typifies evil in the Scriptures;
and I have seen that statement
even in our Sunday school periodicals in
previous years. But that this is not
true may be seen by an examination
of the Scriptures themselves. In Leviticus
23:17 we have these words: "Ye
shall bring out of your habitation two
wave loaves of two tenth deals; they
shall be of fine flour; they shall be
baken with leaven; they are the first
fruits unto the Lord." And also In Leviticus
7:13, "Besides the cakes we
shall offer for his offering leavened
bread with the sacrifice of thanks-giving
of his peace offerings." And again In
Leviticus 2:n-i2 we have these words,
"No meat offering, which ye shall bring
unto the Lord, shall be made with
leaven; for ye shall burn no leaven, nor
any honey. In any offering of the Lord
made by Are. As for the oblation of
the first fruits, ye shall offer them unto
(903) 17
f K A T Vt?a 1 &L. _1 *
kUg uuiu, uui mcy snail not be burnt
on the altar for a sweet savoui."
in this laBt quotation the only discrimination
made against leaven is that
it shall not be burnt, and honey is putIn
the same category.
The first two quotations show as
clearly as It is posibfle for anything to
be stated that leaven was required in a
certain kind of offerings. Therefore the
contention that leaven always typifies
evil in the 9criptures is altogether without
foundation. T Avon T*?v. u
- uuuui, nuciuci II
can be shown that leaven generally
typifies evil. The Jews were allowed to
eat it in their ordinary food just as
they were allowed to eat honey. There
was no ban put upon it as was swine's
flesh. Just why leaven was forbidden In
certain feasts it is not necessary for us
to say.
And even granting that It typifies evil
in some cases or even many cases, that
would not justify the saying that tt always
does so, even if we did not have
these positive contradictions as quoted
above.
Thoro ?rn ? ?
manj luaiances in ttie Old
and New Testaments wherei the
same thing is taken In one case to represent
good and in another to represnt
evil. Wine is frequently said to repreent
the good; in other cases we are
warned against the evils of it. The
Saviour is represented as a lion. The
Devil is represented as going about as a
roaring lion. We are admonished by the
Saviour to he as wise as serpents, and
the Devil is called that old serpent.
Again we are encouraged to imitate the
dishonest steward in making for ourelves
friends of the mammon of unright
cwuDuess. ino ininKing man would be
deceived Into the conclusion that we
are compelled to act like the serpent or
dishonest steward in every particular or
even justified in such a course. The
same is true of nearly all the parables.
We cannot force every analogy of them.
In the parable of the leaven the Saviour
intimates that the kingdom of
heaven is like leaven in its permeating
quality. He does not commit himself
further than that. /
Again Mr. Pratt says, "We think it
ought to be said that a majority of our
ministers reject the intepretation set
forth in the Earnest Worker."
I am unwilling also to allow that
statement to go unchallenged. Without
proof I cannot believe it for a moment.
Surely Mr. Pratt must be mistaken. On
the contrary It is my candid opinion
that a very small minority reject it. I
certainly hope so at any rate. If "evil
doctrine, that which is anti-Christ in
its effect, will permeate the visible
church until it is wholly apostate," as
Mr. Pratt believes, then our work as a
church, has a gloomy outlook indeed.
What encouragement to labor for the
hastening of Christ's coming? The
whole theory reduces itself to a perfect
contradiction.
Furthermore, let us not forget that
the Saviour says "The kingdom of
heaven is like leaven." He does not say
the kingdom of darkness is like leaven,
which this other theorv wn?M
make IS mean. N*>r does he say the
kingdom of heaven is like meal which
has been leavened. Any other interpretation
than that made by the Earnest
Worker is Impossible by any kind of
twist, however much it might be desired.
And why anyone should desire any
other is beyond my conprehension. His
kingdom is destined to prevail because
he is with us always, even to the end
of the world.
Blackstone, Va. R. L. McNair.
One of the evila of wrong-doing H
that the Innocent suffer with the guilty
?an evld that can net be remedied
in this world.