Steadfast and Unmoveable

Abstract of a Sermon Preached on Oct 5, 1997

by Glenn Conjurske

I have been thinking of preaching on this subject for a long time. This afternoon I was out walking on a quiet country road, meditating, and fully intending to preach on this subject tonight, when I realized that for all my meditations on this theme, I had never yet thought the right thoughts on it. So I thought them then and there, and will present them to you tonight. I very seldom do such a thing. Normally I will meditate on a subject for years before I gain any certainty about it, or adopt any decided views on it, for it is not my aim merely to stand for something or anything, but to know the truth, and that is not so easily learned as most folks seem to think. But once in a while a new thought proves to be just what was wanted to make it all plain.

In I Corinthians 15:58 Paul admonishes us, “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord.” This is one of a great number of things which the Scriptures command us to do, without giving us the slightest hint as to how to do it. We are left to wrestle with that ourselves----either to find a hint of it somewhere else in the Bible, or to learn it by experience or observation. How does a man who is unsteady and unstable, wobbling and wavering----how does he become steadfast and unmoveable? Some people seem to be unsteady by nature. They are always moving, always changing----changing doctrines, changing churches, changing standards. How are they to become steadfast and unmoveable? As I was meditating on this this afternoon, the realization came to me that this is a moral matter. It is a moral defect that makes a man unstable, and we gain stability by moral virtues. “A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.” (James 1:8). It is a moral defect to be double-minded. We do not become steadfast by an intellectual process----not by studying doctrine or Scripture----but by the pursuit of moral virtues.

But what does it mean to be steadfast? “Steadfast” is a compound of the words “stead” and “fast,” a noun and an adjective, both of them somewhat archaic. A stead is a place. John Wycliffe usually speaks of a stead where we would speak of a place. In a figurative sense, “Christ died in the room and stead of sinners” is old theological language, meaning he died in their place. We still use the word in this way. If I go in the stead of someone, I go in his place. “Fast” is an adjective. To make something fast is to secure it, to tie it down. The jailer took Paul and Silas, “thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks.” This meaning still survives in our word “fasten.” To fasten something is to make it fast. To be steadfast, then, is to be fastened to one place, and (Paul adds), so securely fastened as to be unmoveable. This is the picture of a man who knows the truth, and stands for it, and will not be moved from it by any consideration whatever.

But it is not knowledge that will make a man so, but virtue. I have known people who were seemingly so solidly established in the truth that I believed nothing could move them. I gloried in their stability. I told others it did not concern me what measures or machinations they used to try to draw these people away, for they would never be moved. And yet I have seen them give it all up, and oppose what they once stood for. How did this come about? Certainly not by their gaining greater knowledge----certainly not by the reception of greater light----for very frankly, their souls at that time were in no condition to receive greater light. I believe I was altogether correct in supposing that no amount of doctrinal reason or persuasion could have moved them, but I overlooked the moral side of the question. I do not believe any outside influence of reason or sophistry or persuasion could have moved them an iota from the truth which they held, but when they failed in moral virtue, they gave it up of their own accord, without any outside influence. No doctrinal considerations could have moved them, but envy and resentment and pride carried them away.

And this, by the way, may be at least in part a reflection of my own failure as a pastor. I believe preachers in general put too much stock in knowledge, and not enough in virtue. As it is easy to gain knowledge, and hard to gain virtue, so also it is easy to impart knowledge, and much more difficult to exercise the soul unto godliness by dealing with the heart and the conscience. It is very common, therefore, for pastors to take the easy path, and merely impart knowledge where they ought to be reproving, rebuking, and exhorting. I know that I have been guilty of this in some degree, and in fact it requires a great deal of courage and determination not to be. But we do not make men either godly or spiritual, much less steadfast and unmoveable, by imparting knowledge. This is not an intellectual matter, but a moral one. It does not consist merely of holding fast to certain doctrines, important as that is, but of steadfastness of purpose, and commitment, and manner of life.

Now then, what are those moral virtues which will make a man steadfast and unmoveable?

I believe the first and most important is a single eye. If to do right is my only purpose, this gives me a stability which nothing else will or can. It is the double-minded man who is unstable in all his ways. Balaam was a double-minded man, with obvious desires to do right, and speak only that which the Lord said to him, but also desiring the rewards which Balak offered him. Such a man never can be steadfast. One day his desire to do right is uppermost, and then he appears solid and decided. “Get you into your land, for the Lord refuseth to give me leave to go with you.” “If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the Lord my God, to do less or more.” Still, his very language betrays his desire to do so, if the Lord would but give him leave. And where such desires are allowed free play, we soon find out a way to gratify them, professing all the while to be adhering to the word of the Lord.

Pilate was another double-minded man. His reason and his conscience admonished him to do nothing against that just man, in whom he could find no fault. Ah, but he wished to please the people. And as usual, the wrong desire prevailed over the right one, and while he washed his hands of the guilt, he delivered up the Lord to the will of the people. It was not lack of knowledge which caused him to waver. He knew that Christ was innocent. It was moral delinquency which made him unstable. It was the lack of a single eye.

There is nothing like a single eye to establish us steadfast and unmoveable in the truth, and in our place, and in our duty. The single eye looks at one thing only, and is unmoved by any ulterior considerations. It aims at one thing, to do right. It would rather be ostracized than compromised. It would rather suffer than slip. It does not concern itself with pleasing its friends, nor its enemies, nor its relatives, nor its wife, nor itself. It does not consult public opinion, nor common custom, nor passing fads, nor smiles, nor frowns, nor threats, nor promises, nor the lust of the flesh, nor the lust of the eyes, nor the pride of life. It goes right on through all, saying “This one thing I do.” It consults only the will of God, be what it will, and cost what it may. This is a single eye, and there is nothing which will make us steadfast and unmoveable like this. While a hundred turn aside, drawn away by one temptation or another, the man with the single eye stands fast. One man wants more friends, another wants more money, another wants more freedom, another wants more influence, and one by one they turn aside from the path of duty, one for comfort, one for ease, one for respectability, one for prosperity, one for success, while the single eye stands fast.

But though the single eye is the greatest factor, it may not be sufficient to make a man steadfast and unmoveable. It must be understood that the path of faith is difficult. Peter doubtless had a single eye when he said, “Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.” (Luke 22:33). He was determined that no ulterior consideration would turn him aside. The spirit was indeed willing----but the flesh was weak.

It is difficult to remain in the path of duty, when we see others, by a little compromise, by a little letting down of the standards, gain the success which we crave ourselves. It is hard to remain in the hard path, when we see others enjoying ease or prosperity elsewhere. It is faith which enables us to remain in the hard place, for faith looks always at the “end of the Lord.” It looks to the recompense of the reward. Its eye is fixed on the “better thing,” which it fully expects to receive further along. Unbelief has no such expectation, or at any rate no assurance of it, and it must therefore look out for itself. This will often involve the abandonment of the difficult path. This you see plainly enough in Lot. He went from one thing to another, while Abraham remained just where he was, steadfast and unmoveable. Lot went from the pilgrim tent to the house in the city, to the cave on the mountain, while Abraham remained just where he was, and just where he belonged, in his pilgrim tent. Lot had none of the stability which Abraham had. Abraham's stability was the fruit of faith. The “faith chapter” tells us, “And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned, but now they desire a better country.” (Heb. 11:15-16).

Abraham's faith was fixed on the “better thing,” in the full expectation that God would give it to him, and therefore he had strength to endure the worse thing for the time being. This is the way of faith. With the full expectation of the blessing to come, it is content to “wait patiently” in the mean time, and suffer hardship and reproach also.

But though Abraham's faith was strong in general, the incident with Hagar indicates some weakness in one particular matter. Yet I believe this episode was properly the fruit of Sarah's unbelief. She is the one who turned aside to this expedient, though Abraham's faith was not strong enough to stand true against the unbelief of his wife, and he therefore acquiesced in her expedient. But the thing which I want you to observe is how changeable this unbelief made Sarah. She will one day give Hagar into her husband's bosom, and another day cast her out of her house. Faith would have stopped her at the threshold of such a course. Faith would have enabled her to go on in the hard path, denied and deprived, and bearing the reproach of it, in the full expectation of the future fulfilment of her desires, and of God's promises. Lacking that faith, she must take the matter into her own hands, and depart from the difficult path in which God had placed her.

We may observe also that the expedients of unbelief often prove ineffectual, and therefore unbelief must proceed from one such expedient to another, while faith remains just where it was, steadfast and unmoveable.

But there is another virtue which will contribute to making us steadfast and unmoveable. This is humility. Pride makes men unstable. The desire to shine in the eyes of men will move a man from one expedient to another, while the humble man remains just where he was. The hankering to be something, or to be somebody, will move a man to give up unpopular doctrines----professing, of course, to have found greater light. It will move him also to concoct novelties, that he might have the glory of being the first to discover this new light. It will move him to set out on difficult missions, that he might be seen and known. As pride moves the worldling to climb great mountains, so it may move the Christian to go to the jungles with a Bible under his arm----only to come back in humiliation a year later. But humiliation is not humility, and it is very likely he will set out on another difficult mission ere long----each time professing that God has called him to it. Humility has no such compulsion to prove itself. To my mind the greatest feat of Moses was not turning the waters of Egypt to blood, nor dividing the Red Sea, nor calling forth water from the rock, but remaining forty years in the back side of the desert. Neither pride nor unbelief could have done so. This was the feat of faith and humility. These two are sisters, and love to walk hand in hand. Faith and humility can abide in the lowly place, the hard place, while pride and unbelief must be always on the move. If one church does not make enough of the proud man, he will be off to another.

I was once naive enough to think that these changeable people were merely climbing the ladder of truth----forced by conscience to change churches, or to change doctrines, as they gained greater light. This may be the case, but usually isn't. I have known people enough who change churches as the old Mormons used to change wives, professing to each new wife that they had never known true love before, but had found it at last. But the new wife would soon enough find herself in the scrap heap with the old ones.

I was out knocking on doors a number of years ago, and came to a house where the woman immediately invited us in, as soon as we told her what we were there for. This was encouraging, as it almost never happens. But I soon learned that she had been a Methodist, been a Mormon, been a Jehovah's Witness----and I made my exit, lest I should have the misfortune to catch her also, though I would gladly have stayed if I had seen any spiritual hunger in her.

But this changing of locations, or churches, or ministries, may not be so harmful as doctrinal change. Why do men change doctrinally? Why do they give up old standards, and embrace novelties? I think pride is one of the main reasons. Spurgeon says of John Bunyan, Prick him anywhere, and you will find his blood Bibline. This is too high an estimate of Bunyan, but I wish to apply Spurgeon's figure in another sphere. You take most of the doctrinal innovators, the progressives and the liberals, and prick them anywhere, and you will find pride to come out at every pore. They are too enamored with their own abilities to walk in the beaten path. They must strike out on their own, and if they can find a doctrine that no one else has ever thought of, this alone will almost constitute proof of its truth, to their minds. But the doctrine doesn't have to be altogether new in order to suit them, so long as it is different----so long as it is a departure from what is commonly held.

Of course it is a plain necessity for every man in the world to change, if he is ever to come to the truth, and it may be necessary to change many times, for we grow up into the truth. We do not attain it by one leap, but by gradual steps. Yet these steps ought to be small ones, and they ought to move us always in the same direction, and certainly ought to carry us to the point where we cease to change. Those who are given to change do not usually proceed after this fashion. They tend rather to swing like a pendulum, which is always in motion except when it is at one extreme or the other. I have known some to condemn me because my standards were too strict, and after the passing of a few years to condemn me again because they were too loose. Then back to the other side, condemning me again because I am too strict. And all this while I have not changed an iota. Their change has not been the fruit of legitimate growth, by small steps in the same direction, but back and forth from one side to the other. We never know where we will find them next. Such folks are of little use to any church or ministry, for we never know how long they will abide with us, and we cannot trust them while they do.

And it is really impossible to trust a man who is always changing. We never know where we might find him tomorrow. I would rather see a man belligerent in error, than always changing. There is some virtue in steadfastness, even if we are not fastened altogether to the right stead. I would rather have a man who holds fast from one decade to the next to all the unscriptural refinements of Lewis Sperry Chafer's dispensationalism, than a so-called “progressive dispensationalist.” The former man may not be just where I want him, but I know where he is. The other fellow is here today, there tomorrow, and who knows where the next day.

And mark, according to the order of our text, this being steadfast and unmoveable is to come first, and to be followed by “always abounding in the work of the Lord.” We are really not fit for the work of the Lord while we are given to change. The sheep are confused and discouraged and scattered by an unstable shepherd. He cannot establish others when he is not established himself. He is not fit to shepherd the flock of God. This would be true even if his instability were due to nothing more serious than a weak understanding, but I hardly suppose this to be the case. The way to become steadfast and unmoveable is by the cultivation of moral virtue, and it is the lack of moral virtue which makes men unstable.

God commands us to be steadfast and unmoveable, and this assumes that we can be. There is no need to be a pendulum or a weather vane. We may be as fixed as the North Star, but we will not attain to this by studying concordances and commentaries, or Greek and Hebrew, nor even by studying the Bible itself. Not that we can ever attain this without studying the Bible. Diligence is as much required as other virtues. Nevertheless, we will never become steadfast and unmoveable by mere study, but by a single eye, by a good conscience, by sincerity, by faith, by humility, and doubtless by a combination of all moral virtues.

Last Month's Challenge Explained and Reiterated

Together With Several Statements from Prominent Men & Societies of Old Times, who Deny the Inerrancy of the King James Version

by Glenn Conjurske

In our review of David Cloud's For Love of the Bible, we offered a challenge to the whole King James Only movement, to produce a single explicit statement, prior to Fuller and Ruckman, ascribing inerrancy to the King James Translation. If anyone, anywhere, can produce such a statement, I will be glad to publish it----for I hope my readers know that my aim is the truth, and not merely to gain a victory for my own position. Not that one such statement, or a hundred of them, would in any way affect my position, for I do not stand upon the testimony of man. Nevertheless, I aim to establish historical fact as well as doctrinal truth, and to that end I would consider it my obligation to publish any explicit statement, before Fuller and Ruckman, which ascribes inerrancy to the King James Translation. It is worthy of notice that David Cloud has failed to produce any such statement, though he has ransacked history in search of testimony in support of the King James Version. It is certainly legitimate to suppose that if Cloud had found any such explicit statement, he would certainly have included it in his book. The absence of any such statement from his pages no doubt argues strongly against its existence. Nevertheless, Cloud does not know everything, any more than I do, and if any such statement anywhere exists, I would be glad to know it, for my own information, and glad to publish it, for the sake of historical truth.

But let it be understood, I am not looking for the statements of those who were entirely ignorant of all the issues. I suppose there have been some folks who assumed that the English Bible came just as it is directly from God, without any knowledge of the fact that it was first written in Greek and Hebrew, passed down to us through a train of thousands of hand-written manuscripts, then translated into English, and then revised numerous times. Such folks might well believe that the English Bible as it stands is inerrant (and who could fault them if they did?), yet I am confident that David Cloud would disallow such testimony as surely as I would----and it is certain that such testimony could have little bearing on the question of preservation. I would be glad to see such testimony, but I would deny that it has any bearing on the issue at hand.

Meanwhile I offer to my readers a few statements from prominent men of God which deny the inerrancy of the King James Version, either explicitly or implicitly. I grant at the outset that it is not easy to find such statements prior to the nineteenth century, but this is not because men believed anything otherwise before that date. I believe two things account for the rarity of such statements in earlier works. First, the Christianity of earlier times was more practical and spiritual, and simply did not occupy itself with such matters. James H. Brookes affirms, “The Roman Catholic, the Greek, and the Protestant communion and the various parties and factions in each of these, may have little or nothing to do with one another, but they all unite with one voice in proclaiming that the sacred Scriptures are the word and work of God.

“It is worthy of notice that they advance no theory about the mode of inspiration, nor is any theory held and maintained, so far as is known, for perhaps seventeen hundred years after the death of Christ. They content themselves with asserting in the strongest terms that we are indebted for the writings called the sacred Scriptures to the Holy Ghost, that the words we there read are the words of God, and hence that in the perusal of them we may be assured of entire exemption from the ignorance, the folly and the mistakes of men.” The older generations were occupied more with practical matters than with intellectual distinctions. Their province was to use the book, rather than to exactly define it.

As theology became more intellectual, such distinctions became more prominent. Not that they were not held before, only that they were not explicitly stated, for there was no occasion for it. This I suppose to be the second reason for the rarity of such statements in earlier times. It was common doctrine that inerrancy and infallibility belonged to the originals, and not to any translation whatsoever, but what occasion was there to state what all believed, and none denied? Modern ignorance, or prejudice, is likely to assume that such statements as that which I have quoted above from James H. Brookes are to be applied to the English version, but it is certain that Brookes would not have so applied it, as the quotation from him which I give below will prove. It was generally unnecessary to state what was assumed and believed by all----for no Protestant held any translation to be without error.

Yet in the providence of God there were some who imputed inerrancy to a translation, and this called forth some early statements denying that claim. Those who imputed inerrancy to a translation were of course the Papists, who imputed infallibility to the Latin translation. In the early controversies between the Papists and the Protestants, therefore, the Protestant doctrine was clearly stated.

William Chillingworth, 1602-1644, Church of England. “Ninthly, your Rhemish and Doway translations are delivered to your proselytes (such, I mean, that are dispensed with, for the reading of them) for the direction of their faith and lives. And the same may be said of your translation of the bible into other national languages, in respect of those that are licensed to read them. This, I presume, you will confess. And, moreover, that these translations came not by inspiration, but were the productions of human industry; and that not angels, but men, were the authors of them. Men, I say, mere men, subject to the same passions, and to the same possibility of erring with our translators.” The doctrine of this is clear and unmistakable. He insists that the Romanist translations “came not by inspiration,” but were the productions of “men, ... mere men,” and so “subject to the same possibility of erring with our translators.” He thus puts the Romanist translations upon exactly the same ground with the Protestant translations, including of course the King James Version, for this was published in 1637. He thus states the common Protestant doctrine that no human translation is directly inspired of God, or without error. This was the doctrine of the Reformation, and most of the early English Protestant versions, including the King James Version, explicitly disclaimed inerrancy or infallibility. This was the common doctrine of all Protestants prior to Fuller and Ruckman, though in the two centuries following Chillingworth it was generally rather assumed than explicitly stated. There was little occasion to state it. Men were not so occupied then as they are now with precise intellectual distinctions. The English version was (very rightly) assumed to be an excellent representation of the original, and adequate for all ordinary purposes, and there was little occasion to affirm (what all believed) that it was not inerrant.

I add, by the way, another pertinent observation from good Mr. Chillingworth, which, if understood, might serve to dispel a little of the mental fog which David Otis Fuller introduced into the ranks of Fundamentalism. Chillingworth says, “For Dr. Covel's commending your translation [the Latin Vulgate], what is it to the business in hand? Or how proves it the perfection, of which it is here contested, any more than St. Augustine's commending the Italian translation argues the perfection of that, or that there was no necessity, that St. Jerome should correct it? Dr. Covel commends your translation, and so does the bishop of Chichester, and so does Dr. James, and so do I; but I commend it for a good translation, not for a perfect.”

L. W. Munhall 1843-1934, Methodist, was quoted last month. We have given similar statements from Burgon, Spurgeon, and others in the past. I do not repeat those here.

Andrew Fuller, 1754-1815, Baptist. “Allowing all due honour to the English translation of the Bible, it must be granted to be a human performance, and, as such, subject to imperfection. Where any passage appears to be mistranslated, it is doubtless proper for those who are well acquainted with the original languages to point it out, and to offer, according to the best of their judgment, the true meaning of the Holy Spirit. Criticisms of this kind, made with modesty and judgment, and not in consequence of a preconceived system, are worthy of encouragement.”

English Baptist Union, 1839. In response to the requirement of the British and Foreign Bible Society, that the King James Version should be made the standard for the foreign translations which it was to print, the Baptist Union says, “Still further, they would ask wherein the virtue consists of introducing the faults of the English Version into new translations. Admitting, that under the circumstances of its production, it is an admirable work, and even better executed in the main than might have been apprehended, no admirers of it have yet been so enthusiastic as to pronounce it immaculate. On all hands it is confessed to betray the marks of human imperfection. The Committee [of the British & Foreign Bible Society] themselves say of it, 'Errors are to be found in it which the humblest scholar could not only point out but correct. Errors too there are which obscure the sense in some important instances.' Why should these errors be propagated? If there be thought to be a necessity for leaving them uncorrected, at least, let them remain where they are. If we must have them at home, let us not send them abroad. What benevolence is there in afflicting the heathen with our calamities? Every Christian would surely say, give them the unadulterated word, whatever you choose in regard to yourselves.”

The reader should note that “enthusiastic” is here used in its old sense of “fanatical.” Observe also that this testimony does not refer merely to the position of the Baptist Union, but to that of the whole church of God, throughout the whole time in which the Authorized Version had existed. It was confessed on all hands to be a human and imperfect work, which none of its admirers had yet been so fanatical as to suppose immaculate. This statement was made in 1839. L. W. Munhall affirmed the same in 1896, as quoted in our last number. The memorial from which the above quotation is taken was unanimously adopted “At a Special Meeting of the Committee of the Baptist Union, held December 17, 1839.”

And here I must insist upon one important fact, namely, that when the old writers speak of the version being immaculate or perfect, they mean precisely “without error.” No one before the present generation ever dreamed of distinguishing between “perfect” and “inerrant,” and those who hide behind this distinction are really grasping at a straw. They would not dare apply such a distinction to the originals.

British & Foreign Bible Society, 1839. The above quotation from the Baptist Union also contains the explicit statement of the British and Foreign Bible Society (from its 1839 Annual Report) that there are errors in the King James Version, and such errors as obscure the sense in important passages. Further down in their memorial, the Baptist memorialists give a fuller quotation from the same place in the same Annual Report of the Bible Society. Some had faulted the Bible Society for circulating Roman Catholic versions on the Continent. The Bible Society's committee defends the practice thus: “No version is perfect----no version is to be found but what contains acknowledged error, and, in a great many instances, error that might be corrected. Your Committee are persuaded that if even the English authorized version were dealt with in the same manner as the Portuguese, an amount of individual mistranslation might be presented, which would, with equal justice, give rise to the question, Can such a version be called the Word of God? Errors are to be found in it, which the humblest scholar could not only point out,” [&c., as above]. Some of this language, in my judgement, is unjustifiably strong, but I do not give it to establish doctrinal truth, but the facts of history. And mark, this is not the language of an opponent of the King James Version, but of a Society which, at that very time, made the King James Version the standard for all foreign translations.

“The Rev. Dr. Brigham,” Senior Secretary of the American Bible Society, 1858. “Nor is the question whether our old English Bible is perfect, in sentiment or taste, in text or accessories. All will admit, that while excellent as a whole, it has some faults in all these respects.” Observe, a fault in sentiment can only mean a faulty sense, due to a faulty translation. He affirms that all admit this.

C. Van Rensselaer, editor, The Presbyterian Magazine, speaking for the American Bible Society, 1858. “The resolutions attribute no infallibility to erring men, whether printers, collators, or revisers of the Holy Scriptures, in this or in past generations; but simply prefer the old edition as it is...to the proposed emendations of the Committee.”

Observe that both of the preceding statements were made while defending the printing of the old version as it was.

C. H. Mackintosh, 1820-1896, Plymouth Brethren. “We heartily and reverently believe in the plenary inspiration of the holy scriptures, given of God in the Hebrew and Greek languages. No doubt errors are found in various versions, copies, and translations. We speak only of the scriptures as given of God.”

James H. Brookes, 1830-1897, Presbyterian. In a little book entitled The Inerrant Bible Brookes says, “If contradictions or falsehoods, errors or mistakes can be found in the Bible it is foolish to claim that the Book is from God. If even one error can be discovered in the original manuscripts, that one error will disprove its supernatural origin. ... Of course it is not claimed that the translations, of which there are hundreds in hundreds of the languages and dialects of earth, are inspired, although as the translators of our common English version well say, 'The very meanest translation of the Bible in English contains the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God. ...' Nor is it claimed that the copies, of which there were thousands made by stylus or pencil for centuries before the art of printing was discovered, were inspired, although the state of the copies has nothing more to do with the inspiration than the stains in the windows have to do with the light of the sun. A bad man may translate the Bible, if he has sufficient knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. A careless or unconverted man may make a copy of the Bible, and it would be absurd to expect a perpetual miracle to guard such men from intentional or unintentional mistakes. But it is the miracle of literature that so few errors have been found even in faulty translations and imperfect copies. The manuscripts have been ransacked and subjected to microscopic examinations, and in not a single instance has a difference of reading been discovered that in the least affects a fundamental doctrine or essential truth.

“The question, however, is not about translations and copies, but about the writings as they came from the hands of the men God selected to communicate His revealed will.”

David Cloud lists Brookes as a supporter of the Authorized Version, but if so it could only have been in the most general sense. He published a trenchant article against the Revised Version in 1894, but he never hesitated to quote from the Revised Version, or to correct the King James Version from the original, where he saw occasion for it, and in the above quotation he explicitly opposes the notion of the inerrancy of any translation.

J. C. Ryle, 1816-1900, Church of England. In contending for the verbal and plenary inspiration of the Bible, he says, “In making this statement I ask the reader not to misunderstand my meaning. I do not forget that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek. The inspiration of every word, for which I contend, is the inspiration of every original Hebrew and Greek word, as the Bible writers first wrote it down. I stand up for nothing more and nothing less than this. I lay no claim to the inspiration of every word in the various versions and translations of God's Word. So far as those translations and versions are faithfully and correctly done, so far they are of equal authority with the original Hebrew and Greek. We have reason to thank God that many of the translations are, in the main, faithful and accurate. At any rate our own English Bible, if not perfect, is so far correct, that in reading it we have a right to believe that we are reading in our own tongue not the word of man, but of God.”

Ryle also explicitly denies the infallible preservation of the text, saying, “No doubt we may have lost a few of the original words. We have no right to expect infallibility in transcribers and copyists, before the invention of printing. But there is not a single doctrine in Scripture which would be affected or altered if all the various readings were allowed, and all the disputed or doubtful words were omitted.”

Observe, Ryle contends for the general accuracy and consequent adequacy of the common English version, in the same paragraph in which he explicitly denies the inspiration or infallibility of its every word. This was the position of all Protestants. In our own day, alas, a great host of men have risen up, none of them worthy to bear Ryle's shoes, who deny both the accuracy and the adequacy of the old version, and hence we have a rash of new ones designed to replace it----and hence, as a reaction against that, the exaltation of the old version to the place of infallibility. But this doctrine is as new as the new versions, or a little newer. Let those who believe this new doctrine, and who suppose it to be an old doctrine, let them now prove it old, by producing a single statement from old times which explicitly attributes inerrancy to the King James translation.

The Round Earth

by Glenn Conjurske

When I was a boy in school, I was taught that it was universally believed in olden times that the world was flat, and that if a man sailed too far, he would fall off the edge. The teachers of such history must have supposed our poor forefathers to have been stupid indeed, being unable to figure out that if the earth were such that a man could sail to the edge of it and fall off, then the waters of the sea must flow off the edge also, the sea cease to exist, and it be impossible to sail at all. Do our modern teachers actually suppose our forefathers to have been so universally stupid? Did no one observe that he might see farther by climbing higher? Did no one know that it was the light of the sun which illuminated the moon, or ever observe the round shadow of the earth pass over the moon during an eclipse? In short, did none of our ancestors think----or do none of our modern teachers? At any rate----so we were taught----Christopher Columbus first discovered that the earth was round, by watching the ships gradually recede below the horizon, and this is assumed to be one step in the upward progress of man, from his original ignorance and stupidity, to his present exalted state of enlightenment.

I would not pretend to deny that certain peoples once believed the world to be flat. The American Indians apparently did so, for one of them relates the following incident: “John Cameron, whose Indian name was Wageezhegome, (Possessor of Day), was taken by Ramsay, who, wicked as he was, taught him to read a little in English, and to a certain extent trained him to habits of civilized life. After the death of Ramsay, J. C. again took to Indian habits, but did not altogether lose his relish for comforts, as he alone amongst the Credit tribe, built himself a comfortable log house on the flats of the Credit, and raised some Indian corn and potatoes. He used to relate his attempt on one occasion to enlighten the Rice Lake Indians by telling them that this world on which we lived was round, and that it went round and round once every day. One of his hearers, with the utmost contempt at such doctrine, said, 'So do the trowsers you have on go round and round. You think you know a great deal because you wear trowsers like a white man.”'

Evidently Christopher Columbus himself once believed the world flat, and the people among whom he lived must have believed so also. But what do such facts prove? Only this: that certain segments of the human race were once sunk in ignorance, some in pagan darkness, and others in papal darkness. It proves nothing whatsoever of the doctrine of the liberals, that the whole race has gradually come up from a universal state of such ignorance. We absolutely deny that the whole race ever believed the world flat, or that its roundness was a new discovery, first made by Christopher Columbus. The fact is, there is plenty of evidence that the ancients knew that the world was round, and that long before Christopher Columbus.

John Wycliffe, a full century before “Columbus sailed the ocean blue,” certainly knew that the earth was round, for he says in one of his sermons, “Joon movede men to mekenesse, and to þenke on þe dai of dome, and seide þat ech valey shal be fild, and ech mounteyn, more or lesse, shal be maad low. Þis shal be at þe dai of dome, whanne þe erþe shal be pleyn and round, as ech meke man þat shal come to hevene shal be þanne fulfiled of blisse, and ech proud man þat shal be dampned shal be maad low by peyne.”

The same in modernized English: “John moved men to meekness, and to think on the day of doom”----the day of judgement, that is----”and said that every valley shall be filled, and every mountain, greater or lesser, shall be made low. This shall be at the day of doom, when the earth shall be plain and round, as every meek man that shall come to heaven shall be then fulfilled of bliss, and every proud man that shall be damned shall be made low by pain.” It is plain that by “plain” he means “Smooth, even; free from roughness or unevenness of surface” (Oxford English Dictionary). With every valley filled, and every mountain levelled, the earth will be smooth and round.

Wycliffe writes elsewhere, “...for o bodi, þat is holi Chirche, drawiþ to Crist, as erþe to þe centre,” ----that is, “for one body, that is holy Church, draweth to Christ, as earth to the center.” From this it plainly appears that Wycliffe not only knew that the earth was round, but perfectly understood the law of gravity also, which our fine teachers in the public schools taught us was discovered by Isaac Newton. Understand, if Wycliffe had thought the world flat, as a plate or saucer, to draw to the center could only mean the absurdity that the force of gravity must work horizontally, drawing to the east, west, north, or south, depending upon where we found ourselves upon the earth. To understand gravity to be a force which draws to the center of the earth necessitates the prior understanding that the earth is a round globe.

Perhaps the dark ages were a good deal darker in Spain or Italy than they were in England, but it seems that Englishmen at any rate knew well enough that the earth was round, both in Wycliffe's day and long before. In Anglo-Saxon times, a thousand years ago, and five centuries before Columbus, the very word which was commonly used to designate the world means round. It is in fact a compound of two words, the first of which means around, and the second round or circle.

That word is “ymbe-hwyrft.” It is compounded of “ymbe” or “ymb” and “hwrift.”

“Ymb” means around, and figuratively about or concerning, like the Greek , the Latin circa, and the English about. So in our sister-tongue, the German um, with its old spelling umb, which is undoubtedly the root of the Anglo-Saxon ymbe. This “ymbe” is used in numerous compounds, such as “ymb-fleogan,” to fly around, “ymb-snidan,” to cut around, or circumcise, etc.

“Hwyrft” is defined in Bosworth's Dictionary of the Anglo-Saxon Language as “A circle, circuit, revolution, orbit.”

And “ymbe-hwyrft” is defined in the same work as “A circuit about, a circumference, circle, rotation, an orbit, orb, the world.”

So Ælfric, one of the first translators of Scripture into English, who died in 1052, says, “Hit is awriten on halgum bocum, `Eorðe and eall hire gefyllednys, and eal YMBHWYRFT and þa ðe on ðam wuniaþ, ealle hit syndon Godes æhta,' and no deofles.” This is thus rendered into modern English by the learned editor, Benjamin Thorpe: “It is written in holy books, 'Earth and all its fullness, and all the GLOBE and those who dwell on it, all are God's possessions,' and not the devil's.”

And “globe” is certainly the proper translation of the Anglo-Saxon “ymbe-hwyrft.” Now it is hard to tell how a language could employ a compound word, both parts of which mean “round,” to designate the world, if the folks who spoke that language had no idea that the world was round. I am no authority on the subject, but I begin to suspect that our forefathers were not so stupid as they have been represented to us, and that the teachers of the present day are not so enlightened as they think.

We are aware, however, that the example I give from Ælfric is a translation from the Latin Vulgate. So far, however, is this from discounting my contention, that it actually adds weight to it, for it is a plain fact that the Latin tongue also uses a word which means round to designate the world. That is the word orbis, which means “a circle, ring, disk, anything round.” Passing strange, it would be, for a people to use such a word to designate the world, if they did not believe the world to be round. This word was commonly used by the Latins to designate the world a thousand years before Christopher Columbus.

The notion that the ancients universally held the world to be flat, and that Columbus was the first to discover otherwise, well suits the doctrine of the liberals, which affirms the gradual ascent of man from his primitive state of ignorance. That doctrine is false, and so is this notion which is used to prop it up. That some, indeed many, of the ancients supposed the world flat we do not doubt, but someone at some time must have understood it to be round, or why would they call it orbis? I am no authority on ancient times. Perhaps some who know more of ancient writers than I will ever have time or inclination to know may find some explicit statements on the subject. Meanwhile I contribute my mite. John Wycliffe certainly knew the world to be round and spherical, as the quotations given above undoubtedly prove.

From the Oxford English Dictionary (vol. X, pg. 585, col. 1, no. 10a) I cull another example, from John Trevisa, dated 1387, or three years after the death of Wycliffe. He says, “The ri3t hond holdynge þe spere, þat is, þe roundenesse and þe liknesse of þe world.” Modernized, “The right hand holding the sphere, that is, the roundness and the likeness of the world.” I can give no context for this, but the sentence itself is explicit enough. The same Trevisa (see the same column in the Oxford English Dictionary) defines a sphere thus: “The Spere is a fygure shape all rounde and is pere to Solid in all partys.” “Pere” (”peer”) he uses in the sense of “equal.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

n Stray Notes on the English Bible n

by the Editor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And

I do not pretend to be very familiar with the “New” Bible versions. The fact is, I do not wish to be very familiar with them. I have never read one of them through, and certainly never intend to. There is no need to read them through. A very cursory examination, at any random place, is usually sufficient to reveal their incompetence, and often their unfaithfulness also. The latter strikes us at the very outset of several of the new versions, in the first paragraph of the book of Genesis. Take up most of the modern versions, and read but the first chapter of the Bible,and we are struck at once by the frequent omission of the word “and.” That the reader may have some idea of the extent of this mutilation, I offer the following table of the first paragraph only of the Bible, not noting every time the Hebrew å is used, but each time that it appears at the beginning of a clause. The dashes in the table stand where the word is omitted in the modern versions.

Now observe that this chart covers but four verses of Genesis. If we were to extend it to cover more ground, the same things would appear on a larger scale.

Observe also the faithfulness of the old versions, in simply representing in the English what is unquestionably present in the Hebrew, and the unfaithfulness of the new versions in omitting it----except for the New American Standard Version, which in some respects is more literal than the others, though hardly more faithful.

I beg the reader to note also that the matter is actually worse than may at first sight appear in the chart. It is only where the å begins a sentence that it may with any show of propriety be dropped, though I have shown all the places where it begins a clause, as there may be some room for individual interpretation as to where we are to begin a new sentence. At any rate the word “and” usually must be retained where it occurs at the head of a clause in the middle of a sentence----though the NIV contrives to drop it even there in one instance----and this is the case with about half of the examples shown above, as may be seen by the absence of a capital letter. Thus the RSV drops the å in only two of the ten occurrences noted, but it drops it in two of five of the places where it might be dropped. So the NKJV drops it in only two of the ten, but drops it in two of six where it was possible to drop it. This is not a very good record.

The reader will note also that the New American Standard and the New King James Versions in some cases alter the word “and” to “then” or “so.” This is a lesser offense than dropping it. In a narrative of this sort the difference between “and” and “then” is but slight. “So,” however, is a larger change, and what necessity was there for either of them? What compels these men to plow up the old familiar ground, and make it strange and unfamiliar? “More accurate” is their usual plea, but it would require a bit of cheek to pretend that here.

They might plead the sanction of William Tyndale, who----following the example of Martin Luther----was a loose and even capricious translator, apparently endeavoring to make the Scriptures intelligible to the spiritually illiterate, and not perceiving that it were better for the first readers to stumble over a few things than for the whole church of God to have a loose and inferior translation till the end of time. He frequently paraphrased, altered grammatical constructions, and dropped small words like “and.” He does so at the beginning of Genesis 1:2. But the subsequent revisions of the English Bible, and particularly the King James Version, proceeded upon sounder principles, and corrected most of those loose renderings, everywhere conforming the English closely to the original. Conservatives cannot help but approve of this course, dictated as it is by an understanding and heartfelt belief in the verbal inspiration of the original. The liberal translators of the present day, however, have reversed all of this, and taken us backward to that mistaken, unwarranted, and certainly unnecessary looseness----and of course have far exceeded Tyndale in it.

It may be said that the word “and” is little and unimportant, and the Hebrew å smaller still. Why then this ado? I answer, these little words are the words of God, and it is our wisdom to let them stand where God put them. I suppose he was wise enough to put them where they belonged. If the first verse of Genesis were found to begin with a å, we should all no doubt feel some inclination to drop it, for what propriety could there be in beginning a narrative with “And in the beginning”? But God was apparently as wise as we are in that matter, and we find no å at the beginning of the book. Evidently God knew where to use it, and where not. I do not believe the modern translators wiser than God, and they really have no right to drop it merely because it is little.

In every sphere, little things are the test of excellence, of character, and of faithfulness. The Bible tells us explicitly, “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.” (Luke 16:10). The man who cheats me of a penny every other time he gives me change is not to be trusted not to cheat me of a dollar, if he thinks I am winking. The man who cheats me of an “and” in the second verse of the Bible, what may he not cheat me of elsewhere?

But understand, I do not believe the modern translators are guilty of conscious or deliberate cheating, but they have a weak and insufficient view of verbal inspiration, which some of them doubtless profess as a doctrine. They are guilty of too little esteem for the divine original, and for the wisdom of God which framed it, and too much esteem for their own wisdom, which they are too quick to set above that of God. All of these propensities they display on the very doorstep of Scripture, by their frequent dropping of the God-inspired å. That this is a little thing I grant, but they manifest the same propensities elsewhere in weightier matters.

But if they did not manifest the same propensities in other matters, still I would object to their doing so here. Some of the defenders of the New King James Version have applauded it for inserting the word “the” where the old version omitted it, and argued forcibly for its insertion on the basis of its presence in the Greek. Why then do they not argue for the insertion of “and,” where it is present in the Hebrew? The fact is, it is often necessary to omit (or insert) the English article, contrary to the Greek, for English and Greek are certainly not equivalent in their use of the article, while the English and the Hebrew certainly are equivalent in their usage of “and” in simple narratives. Little as the word may be, it is yet the word of God, and we have neither right nor reason to drop it.

I venture to adopt a few words by which Canon Cook characterized the apparently unimportant changes in the old Revised Version. These little changes “do not affect the substance of our Lord's teaching or the verity of the narrative, although in some instances the changes are vexatious, and certainly unnecessary.” They are vexatious, of course, only to those who know and love the old version, and we could hardly expect that to enter into the thinking of those who made the new versions, for the new versions were certainly not made for those who knew and loved the old one. When those who have been long familiar with the old version turn to the new ones, they “meet in every page,” as Wordsworth says of the Revised Version, “with small changes which are vexatious, teasing, and irritating; even the more so because they are small.”2 An occasional boulder in the path we might walk around with little inconvenience----as we must do sometimes in the King James Version----but these constant pebbles under our feet hinder, distract, and annoy us at almost every step. Our minds must be continually diverted from what “God said,” or what “God saw,” by the ever-recurring question, What became of “and”?

And these little changes, as Canon Cook says, are certainly unnecessary. Will any man be so bold as to contend that it was necessary repeatedly to drop the Hebrew å in translating the first chapter of Genesis? And if unnecessary, how can it be justified? It is certainly inexcusable in the New King James Version. This book is sold as an “edition of the King James Version,” whereas in reality it has far departed from the spirit and the method of the old version, under the name of which its makers see fit to take shelter. It is frankly difficult to believe these men sincere in advertising this as an edition of the King James Version. This looks too much like a subtle shift by which to sell Bibles to the conservative market. But they are the keepers of their own consciences, and they can doubtless say better than I what their motives are. I will only say that if they sincerely believe this to be an edition of the King James Version, they must be very deficient in understanding.

But necessity out of the question, will any man contend that anything was gained by this repeated dropping of “and”? Ah, that they doubtless will contend, for these men, particularly the makers of the New King James Version, have some very decided notions about what is allowable in “Modern Standard English.” Many of those notions are false, and some of them foolish, but they must impose them upon the English Bible nevertheless. We suppose they must have had some scruple about beginning a sentence with the word “and.” But if this was their worry, it will be seen that only the Berkeley Version consistently acted upon it, in the four verses displayed above. The other versions sometimes drop it, sometimes retain it. This is capricious, and certainly proves that it was not necessary to drop it where they did. Whether we use the introductory “and” in English is a mere matter of style, and it is no business of a translator to impose his own notions of style upon another man's work----much less upon a work which is verbally inspired of God.

Taking Down Walls

by Glenn Conjurske

“Taking down walls” has become the watchword of ecumenicals in our day. Indeed, it seems to have become the passion of some of them, such as the “Promise Keepers,” in which this ecumenical agenda seems to have practically eclipsed the ostensible purpose of organization.

Not to keep my readers long in suspense, I affirm at the outset that this taking down of walls is directly against the Bible. It is the reverse of the ways of God. It is the agenda of those who little regard the ways of God, or who but little understand them. Where in all the Bible does God ever teach us to take down walls?

The Bible does indeed afford us a couple of examples of God taking down walls. In the first place, God took down the walls of Jericho. This was the direct act of God, and so of course right. But God enlisted the co-operation of his people in taking down this wall. “By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days.” It was the power of God, but also the faith of the people, which brought down these walls.

But for what purpose were the walls of Jericho brought down? Obviously for the direct opposite of the reasons which move the “Promise Keepers” and other ecumenicals. God did not bring down the walls of Jericho so that the Jews and the Canaanites might enjoy fellowship together, or effect a union together. All of that was strictly forbidden. The people of God were on one side of that wall, and the children of this world on the other side. There could be no union between them. When the wall was taken down, it was not for fellowship, but for warfare. “And it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city. And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.” (Joshua 6:20-21). Our modern ecumenicals are not very likely to engage in any such activities----and neither ought they to do so, for this is not the day of judgement, but the day of grace. But this scripture at any rate gives them no warrant for taking down walls for the purpose of union or fellowship.

But did God never take down any walls in the day of grace, for the purpose of union, and not of judgement? Indeed he did. “But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, ... for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross.” (Eph. 2:13-16). This would seem to be more to the purpose.

Yet observe, this “middle wall of partition,” which once stood between the Jews and the Gentiles, is broken down only in Christ. It has nothing to do with those who are outside of him. Those who are “in Christ” belong to “one body,” and surely ought to have no walls between them, but what has this to do with the ungodly, whether Catholic, Protestant, or Jew?

To break down the walls between the godly may be the work of the Lord, if it is done in the proper manner, without compromise, and without sacrificing the love of the truth for the love of the brethren. But to break down the walls between the godly and the ungodly is the work of the devil----unless it is done by converting the ungodly. When God broke down the middle wall of partition between the Jews and the Gentiles----between those who were near to God and those who were far off----he did this by taking those who were “far off,” and making them “nigh” by the blood of Christ. The ecumenical process is of another sort, by which those who are nigh to God, or profess to be, depart from his ways in order to join with those who are far off.

God never sanctioned any such taking down of walls. Quite the reverse. A whole book in the Bible is devoted to the building of walls. I refer, of course, to the book of Nehemiah. The real theme of the book of Nehemiah is separation. This is the purpose of the wall. But beyond the obvious symbolical meaning of the wall, the book plainly teaches separation in a more direct manner.

In the second chapter of the book, verses 19 & 20, we read, “But when Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, and Geshem the Arabian, heard it, they laughed us to scorn, and despised us, and said, What is this thing that ye do? Will ye rebel against the king? Then answered I them, and said unto them, The God of heaven, he will prosper us; therefore WE HIS SERVANTS will arise and build, but YE have no portion, nor right, nor memorial, in Jerusalem.” This was plain speaking. This was drawing the lines. And this is precisely the spirit and the language which are entirely absent from the modern ecumenical movements.

Again, in Nehemiah 9:2, “And the seed of Israel separated themselves from all strangers, and stood and confessed their sins, and the iniquities of their fathers.”

Again in Nehemiah 13:3, “Now it came to pass, when they HEARD THE LAW, that they SEPARATED FROM ISRAEL all the mixed multitude.” This is the direct opposite of the agenda of the modern ecumenical organizations, which labor without end to associate and unite the mixed multitude.

Again, “And before this, Eliashib the priest, having the oversight of the chamber of the house of our God, was ALLIED unto Tobiah. ... And I came to Jerusalem, and understood of the EVIL that Eliashib did for Tobiah, in preparing him a chamber in the courts of the house of God. And it GRIEVED ME SORE: therefore I cast forth all the household stuff of Tobiah out of the chamber.” (Neh. 13:4, 7-8).

And once more, “In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab, and their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews' language, but according to the language of each people. And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves. Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? Yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel: nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin. Shall we then hearken unto you to do all this great evil, to transgress against our God in marrying strange wives? And one of the sons of Joiada, the son of Eliashib the high priest, was son in law to Sanballat the Horonite: THEREFORE I CHASED HIM FROM ME. ... Thus CLEANSED I THEM FROM ALL STRANGERS.” (Neh. 13:23-30).

This Nehemiah would doubtless be termed a bigot, a troublemaker, unloving, unChristian, etc., if he were to attend a “Promise Keepers” convention and endeavor to carry out his agenda. But Nehemiah's agenda is God's agenda. It was God who stirred up the spirit of Nehemiah to build the wall. Where did God ever stir up any man to take down any walls, except the walls of Jericho?

But we must delve a little deeper. God does not mix light and darkness. We learn his way in this, as in many other things, from the precious beginning of the precious book of Genesis. “Darkness was upon the face of the deep.” “And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.” This was his first act. His second act was, “And God DIVIDED the light from the darkness.” Whatever theorists may think, the light was not such as to dispel the darkness. The two must be separated. This is God's way, as unchangeable as God himself. So we read in the New Testament, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers, for...what communion hath light with darkness?” (II Cor. 6:14). This text was the watchword of the old Fundamentalism, but it is rarely referred to at all by ecumenicals and Neo-evangelicals, except with a sneer. They have so entrenched themselves behind the scornful sneer that Fundamentalists quote

II Corinthians 6:14 out of context, that the text has ceased to have any meaning at all to them. To quote it at all is to quote it “out of context.” We would be glad to know what such scorners think the verse means in context, but I fear they have not yet troubled themselves about that.

But understand, there are two kinds of ecumenicals. There are liberal ecumenicals, who care not a fig for anything the Bible says. Man is supreme in their creed, and God, if he exists, is made in man's image. He is nothing more than an overgrown bleeding-heart liberal. But there are also evangelical ecumenicals, who profess reverence for the Bible, and submission to it, but who have little of its spirit, and little understanding of its contents. Most of these seem to have yet some sense of the necessity of some form of separation from the world. Yet in spite of that lingering sense of the necessity of separation, which their theological ancestors have bequeathed to them, their actual separation is practically non-existent. How is this?

There are several forms of doctrinal deception which stand in the way of real separation. The first of these mistakenly substitutes separation from sin for separation from sinners. This doctrine is very common among Fundamentalists, and its effect is that there is very little real or scriptural separation, even among those who most pride themselves on their doctrine of separation. Their doctrine calls for “separation” from a few such things as smoking and dancing and playing cards and going to the theater. This is all excellent as far as it goes----and it would be a good deal more excellent if it would condemn the theater in the living room, along with that on the boulevard----but still it falls far short of the Bible doctrine of separation. The Bible doctrine is not mere separation from sins, but also from sinners. Jesus Christ was “holy, harmless, undefiled,” and “separate from sinners.” (Heb. 7:26). Paul commands us, “Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.” These are not sins, but persons. “What part hath he that believeth with an unbeliever? ... Wherefore, come out from among them, and be ye separate.” This is separation from persons.

Other Fundamentalists limit their separation to ecclesiastical matters. They have no understanding of what the world is, and no idea of separation from it. They stand firmly for “ecclesiastical separation,” and will have no unequal yokes with unbelievers in the church, while yet they are thoroughly yoked together with them in every other sphere----in political activities and civic reforms, in labor unions, and in educational committees and programs----some in the public schools, and others in the “home school” movement.

But the greatest deception lies with those who maintain a doctrine of ecclesiastical separation, but so lower the standard of the gospel as to include half the world as believers. Mormons, Roman Catholics, modernists, and cultists are all good Christian brethren, and these mistaken Evangelicals are busy taking down the walls, so as to embrace all of these. Almost all evangelical ecumenical movements are built upon this fatal flaw. We have no objection if the children of God wish to take down the walls which separate true saints of God, but when the truth of the gospel is so diluted as to include the unholy among the saints, the true saints ought to flee that union as they would Babylon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

o Old - Time Revival Scenes o

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Perseverance of Faith

Early in the history of our church, somewhere in the western part of Pennsylvania, there was a small Methodist society formed, who attempted to build a small church; but it was little more than covered when it was wholly abandoned, for the members had either removed, or were dead, or backslidden, except one old sister. The meeting-house was situated in the woods, and no family lived anywhere near. This good old sister, finding herself alone in profession, after all the other members had dropped off, who used to meet in class in this unfinished church, continued to go there every week alone to meet her class, or rather to meet her God and worship him. She had often been seen on her way to this house or returning from it solitary and alone, and many wondered for what purpose she went there. Some intimated that she was a witch, and that she went to this place of solitude for no good purpose. At length two young men agreed they would secrete themselves in the upper part of the building, and find out what she did in this lonely place.

They had not been there long before the old lady entered. She took her seat, and, after a little while, she began to talk and tell the Lord how she felt. She spoke of her trials and of her comforts, of her purpose to serve God all the days of her life, and of her joyful prospects of the future state. She spoke very much as people generally do in class-meeting. She then kneeled down and went to praying. She told the Lord all her trials, and prayed for grace to enable her to do and suffer his will; she prayed that God would awaken the people and convert them, that she might have some to accompany her in her heavenly journey. She prayed mightily to God to revive his work in that place, and again to build up the walls of Zion. And she continued to wrestle in great agony of soul, until the Spirit of God got hold of the young men in their hiding-place, and they began to weep, and down they came, desiring the old lady to pray for them. This she gladly did, and they continued in prayer until the Lord blessed them. They then concluded their meeting, and the young men agreed to meet her there next Sabbath to hold a class-meeting.

When the next Sabbath arrived, the news of this singular affair had spread around, and quite a number attended. The old lady and her two young converts were there. She proceeded to open the meeting as usual, and went on with her class-meeting. On the next Sabbath the little house that had been so long deserted was filled with people, and a way was opened for the gospel to be once more preached in this long deserted place. Soon a revival followed, and a good Methodist society was raised up in the place, and the long deserted house was finished.

----Autobiography of Tobias Spicer. New-York: Lane & Scott, 1852, pp. 233-235.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* CONDENSED WISDOM *

From the Table-Talk of John Newton

[John Newton (1725-1807), a clergyman in the Church of England, is best known as the author of “Amazing Grace.” His table-talk is plain, practical, solid, sensible, spiritual. Much of it is given by Richard Cecil in his Memoirs of John Newton, from which I extract the following. ----editor.]

When a Christian goes into the world, because he sees it is his call, yet, while he feels it also his cross, it will not hurt him.

What some call providential openings are often powerful temptations. The heart, in wandering, cries, “Here is a way opened before me;” but, perhaps, not to be trodden, but rejected.

Many have puzzled themselves about the origin of evil: I observe there is evil, and that there is a way to escape it; and, with this, I begin and end.

The force of what we deliver from the pulpit is often lost by a starched, and what is frequently called a correct style; and, especially, by adding meretricious ornaments.----I called upon a lady who had been robbed, and she gave me a striking account of the fact; but had she put it into heroics, I should neither so well have understood her, nor been so well convinced that she had been robbed.

Candour will always allow much for inexperience. I have been thirty years forming my own views; and, in the course of this time, some of my hills have sunk, and some of my vallies have risen: but, how unreasonable would it be to expect all this should take place in another person; and that, in the course of a year or two!

I would not give a straw for that assurance which sin will not damp. If David had come from his adultery, and had talked of his assurance at that time, I should have despised his speech.

Candour forbids us to estimate a character from its accidental blots. Yet it is thus that David, and others, have been treated.

I shall preach, perhaps, very usefully upon two opposite texts, while kept apart; but, if I attempt nicely to reconcile them, it is ten to one if I do not begin to bungle.

God in his providence is continually bringing about occasions to demonstrate characters.

Apollos met with two candid people in the Church: they neither ran away because he was legal, nor were carried away because he was eloquent.

We are surprised at the fall of a famous professor; but, in the sight of God, the man was gone before: we, only, have now first discovered it. He that despiseth small things, shall fall little and little.

Christ has taken our nature into heaven, to represent us; and has left us on earth, with his nature, to represent him.

Worldly men will be true to their principles; and if we were as true to ours, the visits between the two parties would be short and seldom.

A Christian in the world, is like a man transacting business in the rain. He will not suddenly leave his client, because it rains; but, the moment the business is done, he is gone: as it is said in the Acts, Being let go, they went to their own company.

A Christian in the world, is like a man who has had a long intimacy with one whom at length he finds to have been the murderer of a kind father: the intimacy, after this, will surely be broken.

A man always in society, is one always on the spend: on the other hand, a mere solitary is, at his best, but a candle in an empty room.

Editorial Policies

OP&AL is a testimony, not a forum. Old articles are printed without alteration (except for correction of misprints) unless stated otherwise, and are inserted if the editor judges them profitable for instruction or historical information, without endorsing everything in them. The editor's own position is to be learned from his own writings.