A Motley Faith

"Be ye perfect, even as God is perfect."--JESUS.

DEAR SIR,

I wish to be saved; but surrounded by such a multitude of different faiths as there are in the world, I am at a loss to know what I must do to that end. I thought I knew something about this matter once, having "experienced a hope;" but some of your writings have fallen under my notice, the perusal of which causes me to doubt if I ever knew anything upon the subject as I ought. I am so shaken in mind that I can hardly tell what I believe at present; but some time ago I thought (I will not term it "believed") that there existed in my body a soul capable of living eternally unconnected with body of any sort. I thought that when the separation of the body and undying soul occurred, the soul if pious would be wafted into realms of bliss beyond the skies, and remain there till the last day: I believed, and do still, that Jesus called Christ is the Son of God, and somehow or other the Savior of sinners; but I thought he was to come in person and burn up the earth, and destroy all the impenitently wicked upon it; after which he and the saints would reign over the earth (over whom I cannot say), the place of wolves, lions, tigers, and serpents, whose fierceness had been changed into the harmlessness of sheep, and domestic cattle, I regarded this reign of Christ and his saints as "the Kingdom of God;" and supposed that when their reign commenced, it would be signalized by the reunion of their souls with bodies raised from the dust. I called this good news, glad tidings of great joy; and the preaching of it I considered as the preaching of the gospel. As to the restoration of carnal Jews to Palestine, that was in my eyes pre foolishness, and those who preached it I styled "Judaizers." As to baptism, I believed immersion was the most scriptural form; but by no means essential to salvation: yet to be safe, as I thought, I considered it best to be immersed. You see, then, what was my faith, or creed, and practice. I was very zealous for these things, considered as pious, and delighted to think that the Lord would soon appear. Now what I want to ascertain is, in being immersed upon such a faith, did I believe the gospel and obey it? Your conviction of the matter will much oblige--A SEARCHER AFTER TRUTH.

A Motley Faith Proved to be Vain.

"Your faith is vain, and ye are yet in your sins."--PAUL.

THE question proposed turns upon this for the answer, has God promised the things stated as the subject-matter of our correspondent's faith? If he have, then he has believed and obeyed the gospel; but if he have not, then he has not believed it, and consequently cannot have obeyed it. But has God promised the things stated? Has he promised them to Abraham or to David, the holders of the promises? Or has he promised them to mankind at large through any of the prophets and apostles? Nay, so far from having promised these things, he has promised the very reverse--things in truth utterly subversive of our correspondent's "thoughts."

The scriptures of the prophets, as is admitted by the highest authorities of "the Schools," are silent as death on "the immortality of the soul." They do not teach it. Although believed in Egypt while the Jews were enslaved there, Moses, who was skilled in all their lore, makes not the least allusion to it in any of his books. This being admitted, it follows that it is not taught in the New Testament; for the writers of this volume through one of their company, declare, that they taught none other things than what Moses and the prophets said should be. Hence, being an unscriptural dogma, it is an unscriptural faith that professes it; consequently a "vain faith," and responsible for all the conclusions that flow from it.

If every child of Adam be born of the flesh with immortality in him, as is taught by the pulpit orators, then Paul's doctrine is not true, and is virtually denied. He says, that God will render eternal life to them who seek for immortality by a patient continuance in well-doing: but there is no sense in this--it is nonsense to that mind which responds to the tradition of congenital immortality. But Paul is right: men must "seek for" immortality, because they have it not. If they had it, the apostle would have proved himself but a unskillful workman, to have urged them to "seek for" what they already had in actual possession. He did not teach after this fashion; nor did any man whose eyes were opened by his instrumentality, and who continued in the faith formed in his mind by the apostle's teaching, come out and aver his belief of congenital immortality, disembodied existence, and consequent sky-kingdom glory, therefore, as it was in the beginning, so it is now, and ever will be, that like causes produce like effects. The belief of the truth will produce truthful results, and vice versa. If a man profess with his mouth mere human hypothesis and tradition, it is certain he has not believed the truth with his heart; for out of the fullness of the heart the mouth speaketh. It is with the heart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth that confession is made to salvation. A man may lie, and confess what he does not believe, or believe what he does not confess. But we are not dealing with such. We are supposing that there is no hypocrisy. In such a case, then, we say, that apostolic, or scriptural teaching believed, never prompted the confession of faith in congenital immortality and sky-kingdomism; and that consequently "such a faith, being a belief of untruth, is unjustifying and vain.

To confess faith in congenital immortality, disembodied existence, and sky-kingdomism, (for they all go together) is virtually to deny that "life and incorruptibility were brought to light by Jesus Christ in the gospel;" it is virtually to deny the resurrection of the just, and by consequence, that of Christ; also the kingdom of God in the land promised to the fathers. But one may say, I believe in congenital immortality, disembodied existence, and "gaining kingdoms in the skies;" and I believe also in the resurrection of Jesus and all mankind; and in the kingdom of God in Palestine! Then concerning such a motley faith it may be said, that the incompatibilities of which it is compounded resolve it into an olla podrida--a perfect mess, from which no one certain thing can be extracted, and called "the word of the truth." Such a composite reminds one of the baquet, or magnetic tub, filled with a melody of the most absurd and senseless kind. It is written of God's people, "They shall be all taught of God;" but assuredly no one was ever taught of him who rejoices in his word made void by tradition. A man deceives himself who imagines he believes in the gospel of the kingdom, while at the same time he believes in sky-kingdomism. If a man be scripturally convinced of the former, he rejects the latter of necessity as incongruous and incompatible. The Bible teaches but one system, and that is unique, and subversive of all others. He that is the subject of this teaching feeds on "the unadulterated milk of the word," and has no sympathy with the unenlightened thinkings of the flesh. A man who professes to believe two opposite and nullifying systems is double-minded, and consequently unstable in all his ways. His faith is neither this, nor that; but all things as it happens: an indefinite, intangible, impression. Such a creed is unworthy of the name of "faith," and to be eschewed by all searchers after truth.

There is no such kingdom promised in the Bible as that of Jesus and the Saints reigning over the earth occupied only by animals bereft of their ferocity. To affirm the burning up of all who are not saints at the coming of the Lord, is to deny the solemn and positive asseverations of the Almighty. All nations will not be destroyed at the appearing of Christ. They will continue to occupy their own lands, and to exercise themselves in commerce, manufactures, and all the arts of peace; and of their abundant prosperity they will bear willing tribute to Israel's King, reigning on Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem gloriously. But this is denied by the dogma of "all the wicked will God destroy at the coming of the Lord." A faith, therefore, characterized by this dogma, is not "the full assurance of things hoped for (or promised), the evidence or conviction, of things unseen;" and therefore unjustifying and vain.

The mission of the Lord Jesus is not to destroy the nations, but to destroy their governments and oppressors, and to enlighten, regenerate, and bless them. He that does not see this, does not see the truth concerning the Christ, which is abundantly exhibited in the prophets: therefore to deny this, or to affirm something contrary to it, is to deny the truth concerning Jesus. Of what avail is it to admit that Jesus is the Christ, while we deny or make of none effect the things revealed in the prophets concerning him? To affirm of him what is contrary to Scripture, is to believe in "another Jesus" than he whom Paul preached. That man is not taught of God who does not believe what he has said concerning him in the prophets; and if not taught of him, he is no member of his family or household. It is said of the Christ, and therefore of Jesus whom God hath acknowledged, "he shall govern the nations upon earth;" "he shall break them in pieces as a potter's vessel;" "Yahweh girds him with strength for the battle," "subdues the people under him," and "makes him the head of the nations." "The Lord God shall give him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of David in the ages; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." "He shall sit and rule upon his throne as a priest upon his throne, and bear the glory." "He shall build the temple of the Lord;" "and execute judgment and righteousness in the land." These are things affirmed of Christ, not one of which has received the least accomplishment in Jesus. He is indeed a priest over the house of God, that is, over them "who hold fast the confidence and rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end;" but he is not yet "a priest upon his throne;" if he were, then the saints would be there too, for it is written, "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me on my throne, even as I also overcome, and sit down with my Father upon his throne," that is, in Zion which God hath chosen to place his name there. Now all this is utterly at variance with burning up the world, for in this event, there will be no governing of nations upon earth, and ruling as a priest upon David's throne. I conclude, therefore, that he who believes in world-burning at the coming of the Lord, does not believe the gospel, but in traditions, that make it of none effect.

Without the restoration of the Jews, the gospel-kingdom cannot be. Empty Britain of its inhabitants, and leave only Victoria and the government, and there would be no kingdom; and for the obvious reason, that there would be no nation to rule over, or subjects to govern. Let the Jews, then, remain in their dispersion, and, though Christ and his brethren might be in Jerusalem, there would be no kingdom, as they would be a staff without an army, a government without a people. "The children of the kingdom" are Israel. There are two classes of them--the rulers, and those ruled. Both classes are styled "the children of the kingdom" by Jesus in Matthew; because in the aggregate they are all one nation. Deny the restoration of this nation to the land promised to Abraham and his Seed for an everlasting possession, and you make God a liar, and the gospel a mere invention of designing men.

When the two kingdoms of Israel were broken up by the Assyrians, the people of Seir said, "These two nations and these two countries shall be mine, and we will possess it: though the Lord was there." If what these Idumeans said became a fact, it is clear that Abraham and his Seed would not thenceforth possess it. But Yahweh had sworn to Abraham that he and his Seed should have it for ever, which was virtually denied by the saying of the Idumeans, who, in flattering themselves with the prospective possession of the land, "spoke blasphemies against the mountains of Israel," and in so doing "multiplied their words against God." Therefore he makes the following decree against Seir, saying, "As I live, saith the Lord God, I will make myself known among Israel when I have judged thee. And thou shalt know that I am Yahweh, and that I have heard all thy blasphemies which thou has spoken against the mountains of Israel, saying, they are laid desolate, they are given us to consume. Thus with your mouth ye have boasted against me, and have multiplied your words against me: I have heard them. Therefore, when the whole earth rejoices, I will make thee desolate."(Ezek. 35:10-15)

Now the principle revealed in this portion of the word is, that a party affirming a thing which, if established, would contravene the fulfillment of a promise of God, is, in so saying, speaking against that promise, and multiplying their words against Yahweh. To do this is to injure the reputation of God for veracity; which, to use a Greek word of an English phrase, is to blaspheme Him and His promises. Mount Seir was guilty of this, and is consigned to desolation as a punishment. Is it a greater offence to blaspheme the mountains of Israel than to blaspheme the Nation of Israel; and is it not as much multiplying words against God to say, that their tribes shall be always dispersed, as to say of them and their mountains, "they shall be ours, and will possess them?" I can see no difference at all; for to affirm the non-restoration of Israel to Palestine, is as much a denial of the promises of God, as to say that Idumea (and, consequently, not Abraham and his seed) should possess the land. It may seem a very light thing to this generation to affirm things logically subversive of God's promises; but the scriptures show clearly that no greater offence can be committed against Him, who says, "I HAVE MAGNIFIED MY WORD ABOVE ALL MY NAME." Ruin came upon Mount Seir for this blasphemy, and think ye who practice the same abomination, that God will hold you guiltless? Hear the word of the Lord, ye despisers of Israel, and wise in your own conceits;--"If the ordinances of the sun for a light by day, and of the moon and stars for a light by night, depart from before me, saith Yahweh, the children of Israel shall even cease from being a nation before me in the age: if heaven above can be measured, and the foundation so the earth be searched out from beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith Yahweh." Now, the departing of these ordinances, the measuring of boundless immensity, and the searching out of the foundations of the earth, by men is impossible; it is therefore also impossible that Israel can continue in everlasting exile from the Covenanted Land. "Hear the word of the Lord, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock. For the Lord redeems Jacob, and ransoms him from the hand of the stronger than he: Therefore they shall come and sing in the height of Zion, and shall flow together to the goodness of the Lord, for wheat, and for wine, and for oil, and for the young of the flock, and of the herd: and their soul shall be as a watered garden; and they shall not sorrow any more at all. Then shall the virgin rejoice in the dance, both young men and old together: for I will turn their mourning into joy, and will comfort them, and make them rejoice from their sorrow. And I will satiate the soul of the priests with fatness, and my people shall be satisfied with my goodness, saith Yahweh."(Jer.31:10-14)

I say then, hath God cast away his people, Israel, whom he knew in the days of old? Yea, saith the pious sky-kingdom gospeller! "God forbid," says an apostle; "God hath not cast away his people whom he knew before. If they abide not in unbelief they shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again... when the fullness of the Gentiles is come in." It is clear, then, that the faith of such a gospeller is not in harmony with Paul's. He looked for a restoration of his countrymen to the favor of God, and their land; while the other consigns the whole race to perdition at the burning up of the world! Is such a faith, "the substance of things hoped for, " although it believes in the divine sonship of Jesus, and his history? A faith justifying that repudiates the restoration of the kingdom again to Israel, that denies the reestablishment of David's throne in Zion, and scoffs at the idea of Jesus, the crucified King of the Jews, wielding the scepter of the world from thence! Impossible. It is a faith that gives God the lie, and exposes its possessor to a curse when the Lord appears.

From these premises, then, I conclude, that our correspondent's immersion was not obedience to the gospel. The New Testament baptism administered by the apostles on and after Pentecost, was the obedience to "the faith" prescribed by "the law of faith." That faith is defined by Paul "the hypostasis of things hoped for, the elenchos of things not seen." Hypostasis is a word opposed to phantasia, i.e. mere appearance or phantasy; or, I would say, doubtful supposition, or opinion; and signifies, foundation, substance, a firm persuasion, confident anticipation, or assured expectation. Elenchos is whatever serves to convince; and therefore argument, proof, demonstration, which, laying hold of the heart or mind, becomes conviction. Hence, Paul, in writing to persons having this faith, says, "We desire that every one of you do show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:" and again; "Let us draw near with a true heart in full confession of THE hope. The faith then which justifies, is "the full assurance of things hoped for, the conviction resulting from demonstration of things not seen as yet."

From this apostolic definition of faith it is evident, that opinion, or supposition, is excluded. Hence, a man whose head is filled with a medley of truth and error, of which our correspondent is an example, cannot now have, or ever have had, the faith of the gospel; so that his immersion cannot have been the obedience of the gospel. If there were more of this faith there would be more christians of the right stamp in the world. the great desideratum of our day is faith, or a confident belief of the unadulterated truth working in the heart as a principle of action. This is scarcer than diamonds, and almost as rare as precious stones in the crater of Vesuvius. To apply the word faith to the credence of our day is a prostitution of the term to an unholy thing. The popular mind is ignorant of the "things hoped for, and unseen as yet;" and being ignorant, or doubtfully disputations, or scornfully opposed to them, cannot obviously, whatever the practice, be in the obedience of the things summarily indicated as "the truth." This ignorant, disputations, scornful state of mind, was the mental habitude of many immersed persons, who now reject what they regard as the foolishness of their past convictions; yet they cling to their immersion as a holy thing! As if any act could be a holy religious action which is predicated on a sincere belief of nonsense; for all is nonsense which is not the sense of scripture, no matter how firmly, and sincerely, or by whom, believed.

The "full assurance of hope" presupposes the definiteness of the "things hoped for and unseen." If it were not so, how could Paul with propriety exhort his brethren to "hold fast the confession of the hope?" "The hope" is a phrase that excludes all vagueness, and indicates certainty. "The faith," "the hope," "the word," "the truth," "the gospel," are words which refer to some particular system of things of a cheering character, revealed of God for belief and expectation. "Things hoped for and unseen" are not what individuals may choose to hope for as most agreeable to their views of what ought to be. To assume this would be to reduce "the hope" to a hope; and the certain things that God has promised, to the vague, carnal mind. He that thinks God's thoughts thinks in direct opposition to the thinkings of the flesh. Were it not so, there would be no need for men to be taught of God; for in that event he would have nothing to teach them, which the thinking of the flesh might not elaborate independently of his revelations. The thinking of unenlightened flesh is that man's deadliest foe who regards it. It is the sophistry of sin, and leads him to conclusions contrary to the written word. Contentment with an immersion predicated upon ignorance or unbelief of the unadulterated word is a part of this sophistry. By faith are ye justified in the obedience of the truth; and not by dipping, being ignorant of faithless thereof.

We find then that the faith which justifies comprehends something more than the belief that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." If this were enough, then were the "devils" justified of old; for it is written, "Devils came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ, the Son of God." The devils believed there was one God, and they believed that Jesus was his son, and also the Christ; and we may add on the testimony of James, "they believed and trembled." If then a trembling belief in the personality of Jesus were all-sufficient and justifying, why were not the devils justified? And if this were the great and sole salvation truth, why did Jesus rebuke them, and suffer them not to speak? For Luke says, "they knew that he was the Christ." Again, in the case of Nicodemus and the rulers of Israel. "We know," said he, "that thou art a teacher come from God"--was he, therefore, justified, or qualified to inherit salvation? By no means. Was Jesus content with this recognition of his divine mission? No. He forthwith directed the attention of Nicodemus to the subject matter of his teaching. As if he had said, "You admit that I have come from God, and that consequently my personality is such as I claim for myself, now why do you not believe what I preach about the Kingdom? Verily I say unto you, Except you be born from above you cannot see it, nor enter into it." Jesus was sent to preach himself: he left this for his apostles to do, when they should preach the kingdom in his name.

But as it was in the days of Jesus, so it is even now--Devils believe and tremble. The word is, daimonia, spirits, not "devils" in the Gentile sense, or as if the word were, diaboloi. Spirits such as those whose manifestations originate from phreno-magnetic circles, and speak by mediums in our day. The policies of the Pope and Austrian emperor are styled, pneumata daimonon, or the breathings of knowing spirits, or demons. They are, therefore, demons, or devils, if the reader prefer the word. The term is applicable to all people of like faith and character. These devils, then, believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that he died and rose again for the sins of the world. And where is the God-dishonoring sect, Greek, Latin, or Protestant, that does not believe it? Adulterers, murderers, and thieves believe it,--pious and impious all alike! If this be the faith that justifies, what constitutes the difference between saint and sinner? The wisdom that is from beneath, and therefore earthly, sensual, and devilish, replies that the saint is a penitent believer, that is, sorry for his sins; but the sinner is not. the difference is a matter of repentance, not of faith. The wisdom from above, however, does not teach this. It is the faith that makes the difference between the saint and sinner. The saints believe in the things of the kingdom, and in the personality or name of Jesus, which lead them unto repentance; the sinner believes in the sonship and divine mission of Jesus, but has no faith in the things of the kingdom promised, and is, therefore, "without hope," and a sorrower unto death.

From the whole, then, I conclude that it is good, but insufficient for salvation in the kingdom, to believe that Jesus is a teacher come from God, whose Son and Christ he also is. It is likewise necessary to believe what the great teacher taught; for salvation is promised on condition of believing this. This gospel of the kingdom must be preached among all nations," said he; "he that believes and is baptized shall be saved; he that believes not shall be condemned." Immersion without faith in this is not worth a centime. Of this I am fully assured; and being so, I submit my conviction of the matter as requested by "a Searcher after Truth," to his candid consideration, in hope that he may arrive at a conclusion satisfactory to his own mind, and in harmony with the word of God.

(By Dr. John Thomas)