The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1896-01-18
REV. MR.. TORREY AT THE BIBLE
INSTITUTE.

on 1.-THE Doctrine of God" They
are interesting, and very good in the
main; and manifest a large acquaint-
ance with the Bible; but are faulty on
some points, as was of course to be
expected. The effort seems to be TO
retain the form of the old dogmas,
but to explain them away as far as
possible. Take for instance the old
puzzle of the Trinity. We affirm, of
course, the unity of God-be is one
God; but because plural language is
used in the Old Testament to desig-
nate and describe "Elohim,' he in
fers there are different persons in this
one God. AS though kings, using
the word "we" to designate them
selves, meant to affirm that each in
dividual consisted of more than one
person. But in answering the ques-
ton how God can be one and three at
the same time, he frankly confesses
that he does not know; and that he
cannot be one and three in the same
sense, at the same time.
He refers to chapter l, of john IA
The meaning is plain, but he infers
from it the doctrine of the Trinity. Gin
the beginning was the word"-logos.
"And the word was with God and was
God,and by it all things were made. "
This is simply what we are told in
the first chapter of Genesis. The
evangelist was simply quoting Scrip
ture. God said, ''Let there be light, let
there be armament, let the waters
be gathered together, let the earth
bring forth, let there be lights in
heaven" etc., and it was so. He
created all things by his word. What
does this word stand for? Not a
simple vocalization. 1t meant the
creative energy of God when used by
Moses. 1t meant the same thing
when used by John. In the beginning,
of which Moses wrote, was this divine
energy manifested, in the creation of
the world, instituting life, which was
the light of the world. This same
divine energy, symbolized by the
logos, or word of God, as it was by
Moses, was made flesh or manifested
in Christ. This was what John meant;
and it is astounding that men of
sense can read into his plain and
simple language, of which the mean
ing is so obvious, such metaphysi-
cal monstrosity as the dogma of the
Trinity. But if the dogma cannot be
proved by this language, it certainly
cannot be proved from the Bible.
Mr.. Torrey cannot understand in
what sense Christ and God are one.
Strangel Apparently he never read,
as he carefully abstains from quot
ing, John K: 1916. In preaching
to the Jews, Christ said: 81 and my
Father are one" They pretended to
understand him as Trinitarians do
now, and were about to stone him for
blasphemy, for making himself God.
He referred them to their own Scrip
tures-those were called gods to
whom the word of God came. Then
he explained that he had only called
himself the Son of God. According
to Scripture usage he might call him
self God, or one with the Father, be-
cause he spoke the word of God
was a prophet. That doesn't come
very near the doctrine of the Trinity.
Again: Apparently he never read
John xvii: 11-23. The great Master
prayed, when his hour was come, for
those who loved him, and those who
should love him, that they might be
zone, as we are,"-he and his Father
shat they all may be one; as thou,
Father, art in me, and in thee, that
they also may be one in US. That
they may be one, even as we are one.
| in them and thou in me, that they
may be made perfect in one." He
certainly did not propose to take all
believers into the Trinity, or God
head, and have polytheistic instead
of a triune God. He would simply
have them one in spirit; one in faith
and love with him, as he was with
God. 1t seems to me it is not so
hard to understand in what sense
Christ and the Father are one, as Mr..
Torrey seems to think it is. They
were of the same mind and heart and
spirit-the spirit of love-as all true
believers are. That is manifestly
what the Saviour meant by the words
of his prayer. The doctrines of the
gospel are plain, simple truths, not
metaphysical puzzles.
In England, at least in the English
church, the doctrine of the Trinity
seems to be regarded as of first i'm
portance-more insisted upon than
even the doctrine of endless hell tor
ments, which is not mentioned in the