Galatians 1

Galatians 1:6-9

THE OF Galatians 1:6-9 This sermon was prompted by the appearance in Minneapolis of a certain famed evangelist who, after a popular evangelical ministry, turned to the championship of rationalism. It should be known, however, that following the address here referred to, he repented his error and died in the evangelical faith. His decease is a sufficient reason for withholding the name. WHEN one reads this text he may find an explanation of modern opposition to the Apostle Paul. It would seem necessary to discredit that author of Scripture in the presence of the people to whom one proposes the preaching of “another gospel”. And yet, since Paul is in good standing with the majority of people, it may not be inappropriate to take this text for the starting point of this evening’s discourse, on the theme, “Why I have not changed my religion.”The time has passed when battles of blood are fought over the questions of religious faith; even that bitter controversy which descends to offensive personalities is more and more forsaken. Though the faith of men be as wide apart as the poles they may yet discuss the opinions of their opponents with calmness of spirit and kindness of speech. It would not become me tonight to make much of the unfortunate financial methods which have characterized certain meetings in the Twin Cities and their failure to fruit in salvation. Neither remissness in methods, nor partial failure in endeavor prove opinions to be wrong. But they do often account for the adoption of a philosophy of religion which makes less rigid demands for high living than do the Sacred Scriptures.In this discussion it is only fair to assume that modernism spake sincerely in a recent Minneapolis address, and I propose, therefore, to consider what was said on that occasion concerning three fundamental subjects: The Fall of Man; Authority in Religion, and The Method in Salvation.THE FALL OF MAN—UPWARD OR ? This is necessarily the first point at which the modernist takes issue with the Sacred Scriptures. In the three reports now on my desk, including one made by a competent stenographer, the modernist is made to say substantially this, “The fall of man is not a fact in the sense in which it is taught in Christian circles. * * * * Ever since we have known man on the earth he has been progressing mentally and morally. * * * * The ordinary mediaeval dogmas of all the orthodox confessions of faith became in themselves to me immoral and demoralizing, such as the failure of God—the ruin of man, the fantastic unreal scheme of justification, salvation by opinions, and the existence of eternal evil and eternal torment.”In that statement there are three points at least at which the issue is clearly drawn.Mr. M_ denies the Fall; the Sacred Scriptures affirm it. Mr. M_ affirms the improvement of the race; history disputes it. Mr.

M charges orthodoxy with immorality and demoralization; experience disproves it.(1) Mr. M_____ denies the Fall; the Sacred Scriptures affirm it. “The Fall of man is not a fact in the sense in which it is taught in Christian circles,” so Mr.

M_____ asserts.The third chapter of Genesis is devoted to the history of the Fall. The fourth chapter of Genesis records its first effect, in envy, hatred, murder. The sixth chapter of Genesis describes the flood sent to sweep man from the face of the earth because he had become so degenerate. The whole Book of Exodus is devoted to the history of a sinful people. Leviticus is full of symbols set for the remission of sins. And from that time until the work of Redemption is complete in the Apocalypse, the Scriptures everywhere present man as sinful, fallen, tending by nature away from God and consequently in the need of “the grace that is in Christ”.“The inner consciousness” of which Mr.

M_____ made so much, seems to consent to the truth of the Sacred writings. Who can say, “I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin” (Proverbs 20:9)?

Who can dispute the sacred sentence, “There is no man that sinneth not” (1 Kings 8:46)? Who can doubt John’s delivery, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8)? The man who entertains the Evolution theory—that we are always rising to high things—finds it incumbent upon him to explain why it is that the sons of noble fathers are so seldom their equals. Henry van Dyke says, “Man indeed is framed to live and rise by hope; but a hope which begins by denying the facts is a false hope, whose path leads upward—a few steps—to the edge of a precipice of deeper despair. The bridge builders in Rudyard Kipling’s story would have been fools if they had tried to accomplish their work by ignoring the steady downward thrust of gravitation; or shutting their eyes to the destructive rage of the Ganges flood. No less foolish is the man who tries to build a life, or a theory of life, in forgetfulness of the steady downward thrust of human nature, or in the denial to reality, or universality of the evil that is in the world.” When the publican, in the place of prayer, smote upon his breast saying, “God be merciful to me a sinner”, he stood infinitely nearer Divine approval than the man does, who, though sinful, asserts that he is better than his fathers and supposes himself to be acceptable.Mr.

M_____ affirms the improvement of the race; history disputes it. His speech is this, “Ever since we have known man on the earth he has been progressing mentally and morally.” Is that true?

If so why are the laws of Moses still basal in all jurisprudence? Why has not some man, living three thousand years this side of Moses, proved the decalogue obsolete by giving to the world a decidedly better code? If that is true why does Mr. M. have to go back two thousand years to find in Jesus of Nazareth his model man? It is a little humiliating to the Evolution theory to admit that no man has improved upon the Ten Commandments; and no philosopher has bodied forth better things than the Beatitudes. It is slightly subversive of Mr.

M_____’s argument that he still gets his philosophy of high living from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount rather than from the transcendentalism of his present patron saint, Ralph Waldo Emerson.Mr. M_____ charges orthodoxy with immorality and demoralization; experience disproves it.

He says, “The ordinary mediaeval dogmas of all the orthodox confessions of faith became in themselves, to me immoral and demoralizing They did not satisfy my moral nature; they stultified sympathy because of their exclusive character.” That is rather a serious charge to make against orthodoxy. Religion is to be judged by its fruits. If it produces immorality or demoralization it should be rejected. But one swallow doesn’t make a spring; and the statement of one man’s experience may suffice to prove him extremely peculiar. I dare to affirm that if orthodoxy ever produced immorality and demoralization in Mr. M_____ it was because he received it as an intellectual theory and never as a spiritual experience.

That is the way Ananias and Sapphira received the Gospel, and it resulted in their immorality and demoralization. But when Saul, the persecutor, accepted it as a theory, and experienced it as a spiritual fact, it changed him into Paul, whose morals were as peerless as his ministry.

And since Paul’s day the experience of the orthodox faith has continued to accomplish kindred miracles. It changed Martin Luther from a Papist, consenting to the sale of indulgences, into a reformer who proved a firebrand for righteousness. It changed John Newton, the low-lived sailor, into the man of model morality and mighty ministry. It changed Bendigo, the prize-fighter, into the peaceful, yet forceful Christian citizen. It changed Jerry McAuley from the soul of nameless iniquities into the most sanctified spirit of New York City.On his own confession, it once wrought in the breast of Mr. M_____ changing him in one night from a youth of dissolute habits and disgraceful conduct into a man of pure motive, exalted purposes and ennobling plans.

Joseph Parker was right in affirming that all modern miracles, wrought upon the face of society, are traceable to orthodoxy. “The wonders of home and foreign evangelization are wrought by the old doctrines and the men who were prepared to die for them.” Parker said, “I never heard of a new hypothesis founding a missionary society. The men who believe in the vicarious sacrifice of Christ, in Heaven and hell, in verbal inspiration, and in eternal punishment, prove their faith by their works.” We are perfectly willing that Mr.

M_____ or any other living man, should get up a better religion than that recorded in the Book. As Theodore Buyler once said, “When one has produced it we are ready to foreswear the old,” but seeing that a few thousand of these have risen to fade again into night, while the old Book, with its doctrines, has been living on, ever shining brighter, ever increasing the company of its believers, and ever affecting miraculous conquests, we should not be discredited for holding to it until the new has proved the right to live, and its power to more rapidly redeem a sinful world.I confess when I read a statement like this, made by Mr. M_____ on Friday evening last, “I have changed my theology but have kept my religion, and added to it and increased it a hundred thousandfold,” I marvel that not more is heard of him. Peter, holding to the doctrines which M_____ has discarded, made his name immortal by his works of righteousness. A man who has increased upon Peter a hundred thousandfold, ought not only to “turn the world upside down” as the early Apostles did, but be equal to several worlds. Polycarp knew nothing better than the old faith and yet his name is enshrined forever in the memories of men.

A man who has increased upon Polycarp a hundred thousandfold ought to make his influence felt around the globe; and in all the centuries to come. Wyclif was so ignorant that he also held to that which Mr.

M has now discarded, and yet.Wordsworth dares to say of his body which they dug up and burned: “Yea his dry bones to ashes are consumed And flung into the brook that travels near Forth with, that ancient Voice, which Streams can hear, Thus speaks (that Voice which walks upon the wind, Though seldom heard by busy human-kind)— ‘As thou these ashes, little Brook! wilt bear Into the Avon, Avon to the tide Of Severn, Severn to the narrow seas, Into main Ocean they, this deed accurst An emblem yields to friends and enemies How the bold Teacher’s Doctrine, sanctified By truth, shall spread, throughout the world dispersed.’ ” It is a marvel that one who has increased upon all this a hundred thousandfold should not make himself more widely felt, and affect in all his fellows a more rapid rise in righteousness. But perhaps we should be patient; Mr. M_ is a young man yet. FROM WITHOUT OR WITHIN Mr. M_ objects to the orthodox source of authority. He claims to have adopted a “new principle of intellectual, moral and spiritual development.” The principle is this: “truth for authority—instead of authority for truth.” He quotes approvingly David Star Jordan as having said, “There are just two types of religion, and religious character and thinking in the world, and only two. Those types may be divided thus. There is the type of man that has to get his religion from the outside— from a church, a book or a man. We call that orthodoxy—someone to tell us what to think. Then, that one who receives his instruction from within himself and not from outside authority.” Mr. M_____ has adopted the latter as against the former.

He rejoices in having “cast off the bondage of dominion of outside authority, and having adopted wholly the rational suggestions of his own mind.”All right, let us see how this plan will work! Appealing to outside authority I find this sentence in the Book, “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me”. I visit India, and consult the man who has cast himself upon the rational suggestions of his own mind. He repudiates the Book and worships many gods. Does Mr. M_____ favor that?

Turning back to the Book I read, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them”.I visit a Papal church tomorrow and see the people before the figure of Mary, prostrate and at prayer. Does Mr.

M approve of that? Certainly they must be consulting “the rational suggestions of their own mind.” I turn back to the Book and read, “Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain”.I visit brother, the blind pig, and I see an assembled crowd, each one of whom is pouring out a stream of profanity. That must be the “rational suggestion of their own minds”, since it is not according to the statements of Sacred Scripture. Does Mr. M_____ approve that?“Going back to the Book I read, “Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy”. Visiting the flour mills I find a lot of men who are either compelled to work the Sabbath through or lose their positions. This also must be behaving according to the “rational suggestions of somebody’s mind” for it is opposed by the Book. Does Mr.

M_____ approve of that? To the Book I go again and read, “Thou shalt not kill”. Yesterday morning’s paper told of how a woman in Chicago took her poor, sick, blind husband and cast him from the window and he was shattered on the pavement below. That must have been according to the “rational suggestions of her mind,” for it is not according to the Book. Does Mr. M _____ approve of that?I turn to the Book again and read the seventh commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery” and the tenth, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife”, yet I find an indictment against David that he did both and God punished him for having violated the authority of the Book.

Does Mr. M_______ resent the Divine act and insist that David had a right to consult his own inner consciousness and not have his religion determined by any outside authority?Such a theory would produce moral chaos; affect in two generations, mental darkness, and in less than a hundred and twenty years, necessitate a second flood, or the more cleansing work of destructive fire.Concerning this “inner consciousness” Mr.

M_____ asserts that his inner consciousness has changed several times already and is liable to change again. The Catholic people of this city struck quick sand where they proposed to put their great cathedral, and by pile driving, made a firm foundation before a stone was laid in the building of the great church. Mr. M_____’s proposition involves the erection of a new religion upon a foundation more shifting than the sands of the seas, for he himself likened it to the dissolving views of the magic lantern. The moving picture business is all right for an hour’s entertainment, but some of us beg to be excused from linking our eternal interests with the same, or even identifying it with abiding truth.He displaces the Sacred Scriptures by Ralph Waldo Emerson. When asked at the close of his lecture concerning the text-book of his new movement, he replied, “We use the Bible some, but employ Emerson as most people do the Bible.”There is nothing novel about this.

Forty years ago I was a member of an Emerson club and gave one night a week to the study of the same. I found there a man who accepted Emerson instead of the Bible.

It only went to prove his love of transcendentalism above the Truth, and its hold upon him was not sufficient to keep him from sin. Let no man who has made such a change as this seek to identify himself with the great souls of the past who have suffered as “Heretics”. Not a man of them ever surrendered the Book, or departed from its sacred teachings. John Tauler and the Mystics were loyal to the Word; Wyclif and Huss laid down their lives in its defense; Savonarola was its peerless preacher; Latimer, Cranmer and Melancthon loved it unto death. Knox, Calvin and Coligny refused to compromise with any man who dissented from its sacred teaching; while William Brewster and John Wesley lighted continents with the torches of its eternal truths.It may not be comfortable to the flesh to find that God has told us what is right and demanded that we do it; has revealed what is wrong, and insists that we eschew it. But in the past it has been the way of moral progress; and at present those who put the sacred Scriptures aside are without a substitute worthy of suggestion. BY OR SELF- Here again Mr. M preaches “another Gospel”. He affirms that he has discovered “that the way of spiritual unfoldment is through self-reliance.”According to M_____ the atonement is not a necessity. The man who is saved by self-reliance is not saved by a substitute. It obliterates such sentences of Scripture as these,“Without shedding of blood is no remission”. “The Blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin”. “He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed”. But this is no new heresy. Paul found it offensive in his day to preach the atonement; and wrote, “We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness. But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God”. True, or false, it has somehow come to pass that the proclamation of this blessed doctrine of “Christ dying for sinful men” has wrought righteousness. It is such an evidence of the goodness of God that it has begotten repentance in the hearts of those who accept it. When Mr.

M was in this city years ago, preaching the faith he now discards, a man turned to God and made restitution to those he had wronged to the extent of hundreds of dollars, and from that hour he has walked in the midst of this people, known to many of us, and beloved by all as a man of stainless character. We will wait and see whether the profane adopt pure speech, the dishonest make restitution, the lecherous quit their lusts as a result of Friday evening’s sermon; or whether we must go back again and point men to the cross, and move their hearts Godward by the sight of One who came from Heaven to die for sinners from sheer love of them.According to M_______ all men are God’s own and are safe.

According to Christ wicked men are of their father the devil. Here then is a clean conflict between this apostle of a new faith, and the supreme founder of orthodoxy. But Mr. M_______ answers this by saying, “If there be a devil God created him, and so God is his father; and when I get tired of the service of my father I will go live with my grandfather—God.”Creation is not paternity. If I invent a machine tomorrow and start it running perfectly, and next day some foreign substance gets into it and breaks it to pieces and its pieces kill, I am not responsible for the conduct of the broken parts.Again, a man who gets tired of his father is not always welcomed at the grandfather’s house. The grandfather has to be consulted as to whom he will take in.

And He has answered that by saying He will receive none except those who come in the name of His Son Jesus. If Satan was ever His son, he is now disinherited and there is no responsibility with God to look after his degenerate children.

If He does it, it is of grace, and blessed be His holy Name! He has manifested just such grace, and the man who has served his father—the devil—until the devil has occasion at least to be disgusted with his conduct, may still creep home to God, and so great is His heart of love that He will pardon his past, wash his stains in the Blood of Jesus, heal his wounds with His own tender touch, and love into him everlasting life.But that is not this new fad of a faith; it is the old doctrine of the everlasting Book. It is the doctrine that Christ stood in your stead, and in mine, suffered that sin might not go unpunished, making it possible for God the Father, to be just and yet the justifier of them that had rebelled against Him.Mr. M_______’s method of saint-making has never been a success. The rejectors of Jesus have never yet given the world models in morals, men of spiritual might, conquerors against crime. I have read how a poverty stricken sculptor, after having wrought for weeks upon a clay model, found his unfurnished garret growing cold, and realized that before the morning the frost might spoil his ideal.

To save it from freezing he took off his coat and wrapped it about the model, then coiled his body about it that the heat therefrom might also be felt. When the morning dawned, visitors to the garret found the sculptor dead, but the model was preserved.

It is the way that you and I were saved. It was an awful price—this that was paid for us— the price of the life of the Son of God. But it showed how great was the Divine estimate of the soul’s worth. It revealed the Saviour’s unspeakable love. The heart that won’t answer to the call of Him who laid down His life in love of it, is doomed and dead.