The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1874-07-09
, Letter from W. R. Evans,
REPLY To RANDOM THOUGHTS.

| REPLY To RANDOM THOUGHTS.
/ To the Editor Of the Standard:
| feel myself happy, friend Macl&ley, that you
have answered my questions with such frank
nes6 and fairness
Your lenient and bold way of replying was
rather unexpected, ,and is in my opinion worthy
of praise
I assure you, my friend, that 1 am honestly
seeking and defending the TRUTH and have
good reasons to believe that you are the same.
1 coincide with you precisely in your man
ner of scriptural Interpretation, viz: 1--WE
must construe the scripture like we cOnstrue
mans character.
This is the true criterion.
Your effort to show that very ridiculous and
absurd notion may be proven from isolated pas
sages in the bible is altogether vain, but do
not propose to estabhsA any eTIdo on any such
passages.
Now TO your answers: In answeringmy first
/ question you state ''That regeneration is a f1ed
| resolution to lead pure life" Then in an
swering my second question you say that regen-
Grafton may be either instantaneous or gradual.
Now it looks to me that these two assertions
! conflict each other. For a fixed resolution ito
be gradual is thing do not understand.
When you make a resolution to do anything,
is not that resolution done instantaneously?
There may be causes at work for long time
preparatory to that resolution, but when the
resolution is fixed it is done by single act of
| the will
Your statement that regeneration may be in
Simultaneous or gradual, is quite loose. Now,
claim that it is the teachings of the Bible
throughout that man is dead in trespasses and
sin, and in order to become a fit subject for
heaven and the kingdom of Christ, he must be
1 made a new creature in Christ Jesus, or born
| again.
Now suppose this second birth is a gradual
work (which claim TO be violation of Ian
guage) and that a man is born for ten years, or
in other words, that his progress in regenera-
ton was at that rate viz ,:one-tenth regenerat-
ed every year. Now suppose that man would
die, say in five years. where would his soul go
Ito heaven or hell? The man half born this
way would certainly be in a precarious condi-
ton.
believe that sanctification, that is, the de-
velopment of Christian graces is gradual.
Now we will proceed to the next question
"Piety is partly the result of education, and
partly the result of physical structure; especial
ly of the BRAIN"
1 believe could write volume in refutation
of this, but hardly think thatI could convince
you. will simple say this, by the way, that
the strongest proofs we have is the proofs of ex-
perience. Your eyes, your ears, your touch,
or your reason may be deceived, but conscience
cannot. If your soul is filled with joy, that is
a fact. If you feel miserable, you are so. The
facts of consciousness are just certain, and as
ascertainable as the facts discovered by our
senses And there is no reason why we should
not pursue the study of religion in the same
way that we gain knowledge of science, viz
by collecting and studying the facts ac-
cumulated by those who have made ex-
| perimentS, and have obtained practical
knowledge of the matter. There is your neigh
Dor, whom you know to be man of undoubted
integrity and truthfuluess. He tells you OF
his chemical experience, and you believe him,
and do not dream that he is hoaxing you. Now
what reasons have you to offer for believing
that he, now in the presence of God, lies to you
when he tells you of the peace he has found in
believing in Jesus.
Your answer to my third question is refuted
by the Bible and the experience of all Chris
tians.
Again, you make the following assertion
''The soul of man is part of Deity" There is
no ambiguity in the language of the sentence
and no fail to the idea expressed.
But do not think MIR. Mackley intended to
say what he did here. I think he will admit
that the Deity is infinite, and that inffnity can
not be made up of parts. am pretty sure that
my old friend does not believe in the antiquated
notion of the pantheistic Hindoo.
If the soul of man is part of the indivisible
cd, then a thousand souls many parts,
and all the souls in the universe would make
up a God. How preposterous!
Can intelligence be compounded, or, like brick
and mortar, piled upon each other? 1t they
could, did the finite intelligences create them
selves Reason shuns the idea. The work is
not the workman. The house is not the builder.
The watch is not the matchmaker, The maker
is always distinct from and superior to the
things made. You and 1, and the universe, are
made Our Maker, then, is distinc: from, and
superiour to us, and we are not part of him.
| Tba Do fIoict n hot how at
sin, because they are God, and God cannot Of
fend against himself; there is no sin-it is all
delusion. And from the American and Eng.
lish pantheistic schools you will hear the bois-
ferrous cry-What is sin? There is no sin. 1t is
all old story.
God forbid that such doctrines be propagated.
could write much more on this point but
space will not allow.
am called to read carefully the second chap
ter of the book of James. 1 have done so with
| mind as open for conviction as possible.
| believe the bible to be unique, and we have
to accept it as a whole reject it as a whole
The criterion of Mr.. Mackley, that we must in
| terpret isolated passages in harmony with the
general tenure, is correct. Now, we will pro-
ceed to explain these passages by that criterion
There is a seeming contradiction between the
writing of st. James and other parts of scrip
lures, especially that of st. Paul. The doctrine
| of st. Paul the subject of Justification is
| stated in such language the following: stBy
the ueeds of the law there shall no flesh be JUS
| titled in bis sight" Rom. 8, 20, ave conclude
that man is justified by faith without the
deeds of the law" Rom. 3. %, "Being justified
by faith," Rom. 2 l. "Knowing that a man is
not justified by the works of the law but by
the faith of Jesus Christi Gal. 2, I6 and 3, IL,
Titus 2, and 6.
But here comes James with statements equal
ly explicit, that man is not justified by faith
only, but that good works come in for an i'm
portant share in the matter.
| Now take for granted that Mr.. Mackley
will admit that both Apostles We're inspired, or
writing under the influence of infallible spirit
therefore there should De no contradiction.
| Now, all that is necessary to reconcile the
| statements of Paul and James is to suppose
| that they contemplated the subject of justifica-
| ton from different stand points, and with ref
erence to different inquiries. Paul looks at it
before man is converted, with reference to
the question how a sinner may be Justified be-
fore God James after man is converted with
| reference TO the question how he may show
that he has the genuine faith which justifes.
Paul affirms that the sinner is justified before
God only by faith in the Lord Jesus, and not by
his own works; James af1irms that it is not
mere speculation or dead faith which justihes,
tsiich as the devils possess) but only faith that
Is productive of good works, In proof of which
he refers to Abraham's faith, which produced
good works as being different to that of the
devils, which only caused them to tremble.
The devils believed, but it was not imputed
unto them for righteousness; but James says
that Abraham believed God, and it was i'm
puted unto him for righteousness
Again, Paul affrms that whatever else n man
has, If he have not faith in the Lord Jesus he
is not justified; on the other hand. James