Beloved Brother,—We have read, and read again, most of the books you sent us. The modern apostles and their church profess to be the only ark of safety from the coming floods of judgment.
It is strange that any truly converted Christian should be misled by these pretensions.
Where is there a single promise or indication that the Lord would restore, or raise up, new apostles at the end of this dispensation, or rather the end of the church’s history on earth? Not a single text can they quote that refers to the church, or to Christendom. The only ones they attempt to give are such as plainly do not in the least refer to the church, but to the future restoration of Israel. “I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy councilors as at the beginning.” (Isa. 1:26.) All the intellectual reasoning on this is evidently a false application of scripture.
It is absolutely certain there is no scriptural warrant to expect the restoration of apostles. If there is, let it be given. We read of the building “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.” (Eph. 2:20.) But we might as well look for another chief corner stone, as for other restored foundation-apostles.
What have these apostles done? Have they given us a single new truth, or inspired revelation? We cannot find in their books a single truth which is not held by thousands of Christians. We will examine briefly whether we do not find the worst errors of Christendom confirmed by this professedly apostolic teaching.
“Redemption.”—In one tract we have some statements as to redemption; but the idea there attached to the word redemption is restoration; so that the use of the very word is quite different from the scripture use. Where is there a thought of restoration in scripture where the truth of redemption is set forth?
Again, in scripture it is the redemption of persons. “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.” (Eph. 1:7.) With them it is the redemption of human nature: “For man, for Adam’s race, Jesus took part in our nature, and redeemed it.” And, as I have said, with them to redeem means to restore. The uniform teaching of scripture is that believers are redeemed by the blood of Jesus—the one sacrifice of Christ—“the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” “Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.” “By his own blood he entered in once.... having obtained eternal redemption for us.” And mark, this redemption is never applied in scripture to any but believers; “purchase” is, and “propitiation” is. But it is plain that, since redemption is eternal in scripture, it can only apply to those who are saved.
These new apostles tell us “He offered up Himself to God, without spot—a full, perfect, and all-sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.” “But,” they say, “something more was necessary for man’s redemption”.... and this also Jesus effected in His own Person as the Redeemer of man. He cleansed the human heart from defilement, and fixed it upon God. He sanctified the thoughts and affections at their source. He regulated the will, and subjected it to “holy obedience,” &c. “Jesus took part in our nature, and redeemed it.” This is strange teaching, that the sacrifice of Christ is not sufficient, though all-sufficient for man’s redemption. This doctrine was most distinctly taught by them at the first, though more hidden by words now.
The insufficiency of the atoning death of Christ is thus spoken of: “The atonement, upon the popular scheme, is made to consist in suffering, and the amount of the suffering is cried up to infinity. Well, let these preachers.... broker-like, cry up their article—it will not do; it is but the sufferings of a perfectly holy man, treated by man, treated by God and by men as if He were a transgressor.” Thus is the great atoning work of the Son of God despised with scorn, and reconciliation of individual sinners by His precious blood denied. “There is no reconciliation of individuals, but a reconciliation of human nature. It is not thine, it is not mine, it is not Christ’s; but it is the common unity of our being.”
If, then, these teachers tell us the sacrifice of Christ was not enough for our redemption, what do they tell us Christ did to reconcile human nature? It is dreadful to tell what they do say. “Manhood, after the fall, broke out into sins of every name and aggravation, corrupt to the very heart’s core, and from the center of its inmost will sending forth streams black as hell. This is the human nature which every man is clothed upon withal, which the Son of man was clothed upon withal, bristling thick and strong with sin, like the hairs upon the porcupine.”.... “I stand forth, and say, that the teeming fountain of the heart’s vileness was opened on Him; and the Augean stable of human wickedness was given Him to cleanse; and the furious wild beasts of human passions were appointed Him to tame. This is the horrible pit and the miry clay out of which He was brought.”
Christ, by this horrible doctrine, is made to say, “Not I, but sin that tempteth me in my flesh.” This is the root-error of the whole system. Reconciliation of human will, sinful nature, to God by the incarnation, Christ taking that sinful nature in His incarnation, and making it acceptable to God! We could not descend so low as to discuss this abominable doctrine.
We look back to that cross on which redemption’s price was fully paid—that one sacrifice, by which He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified. We do not behold there a man with a sinful nature like our own, and therefore unfit to be the holy, atoning victim—nay, needing a Savior for Himself; but we see there the Holy, Holy, Holy Lamb of God made sin on that cross for us; delivered for our iniquities; bearing our sins in His body on the tree. There God did not reconcile sinful human nature to Himself, but utterly condemned it. “God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh [reconciled it No!] and for sin [or, by a sacrifice for sin] condemned sin in the flesh.” (Rom. 8:3.) He was ever well pleasing to the Father. It was only when bearing our sins on the cross, in darkness, that He for the first time addressed Him as God. Then did He cry, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” It was then, when made sin for us, when forsaken of God—then atonement was made: sin, not reconciled, but forever judged. Jesus says. “It is finished.” Surely God has proved it is enough. He is glorified. Sin is judged. And believing God, who showed His acceptance of the sacrifice by raising Him from the dead, we have peace with God.
Now, who sent these apostles, who, whilst quoting these very scriptures, yet deny and neutralize the value of the blood of Christ, by declaring a something more was necessary for man’s redemption: “and that something more, Christ having a vile, sinful nature like our own, which would quite unfit Him to be the Savior! We ask, Are not these soul-destroying, Christ-dishonoring doctrines? May the Lord make Himself, the truth, more increasingly precious to our souls. In our next we hope to examine their doctrine of regeneration.