The Greeley tribune., 1910-03-24

|pprsuUal tous rs Nh'' '''" ~
manly used and understood, ~
does the orthodox definition - q
't.iuod i'm the Westminster On
siop Of Faith. This definition e.
staptially accepted by all churoi
:, calling themselves Evangelicop.
4 0uote il almost in full; 4
"There is one living and tru(G
who is Infinite in being and ri
tion. most pure spirit. invdl'
!, without body. parts, or passion .
mutahle. immense. eternal. Go
prehensible, almighty. most Ei
most holy. most free. most abd)u
most loving. gracious, long suff(Rif
abundant in goodness and truth Il
giving iniQuity. transgression a
sin God hath alleli
glory. goodness, blessedness iu q
OF himself. and is alone In and ~
himself all-sufficient.
lis the alone fountain OF all beiu ],
whom. through whom. and to I D.
are all things His 10
ledge is Infinite. infallible. and he
pendent upon the creature,
nothing is to him contingent o1 u
certain. 4
Words could not define . Dc
Iimpersonal God. If we accept "
at their ordinary meaning. v
give to the words quoted fromktl
Confession of Faith their ordi1al
and rational meaning. We could b
imagine a better definition OF anti
personal God. May I not fairly ~
honestly ask How can we think
n God who is infinite" as BIZ
composed of flesh, blood and bobe
with all the intirmities and lint.
tions pertaining thereto? How ka
we thus think of God wh>
Spirit" How can We thus II Dn
of a God who is "eternal?" %
can we thus think of a God whH
Almighty" How can We ~
think OF God who is without "b(o
parts or passions?" submit thes
questions in no spirit OF captib
criticism. but by way of sincere D.
earnest inquiry.
The Methodist Episcopal chutr
adopts substantially the Westutji
ster definition. but leaves out p
word passions; thus describoI
God as being without body tC
parts. And yet our orthodox mi
is,arfaI .r{apis irrIuJiny fhooo !.
the Methodist church opp4s
Christian Science largely upon y
ground that. as they claim,s
teaches that God is not person.,
not for Christian Scientists. to =,
plain how a God who is "infinito
who is Spirit" who is "eterns
who is without body, parts u
passions, can be a person In
ordinary sense OF the term, ot
merely big man." as he is so CD
monty understood to be. Il
The definition above quoted
found In the Westminster Confess
l of Faith OF the PresbytsstaA shu1l
Of the United States; and. as J bav
said, has been substantially ldopte,
by all the orthodox Christian chuE
ches. 1t does not appear in what l
called the Shorter Catechism. TIL
book from which I quote bears tn
date of 1906. SO that it stands a
authority now.
l do not hesitate to say that IN
Christian Science definition of Co
is even more personal, in the correc
sense OF the term, than is that OF tn
orthodox churches as set forth /
their creeds or articles OF faith /
evidence OF this | quote briefly fror
the Christian Science text bool
(The lecturer here read from page
1l6 and $50 of Science and Health
The assertion OF Gods presenc
and power runs through the ol
Testament. How could words e,
press a more impersonal Beini
viewed from the standpoint of mer
anthropomorphism than the follow
ing from the one hundred and min.
teenth Psalm: Whittier shall | g
from Thy Spirit? or whittier shall
fee from Thy presence? If | aseen
up into heaven. Thou art there; II
make my bed in hell, behold. Tho
art there. II take the wings OF III
morning, and dwell In the utermo,
parts OF the sea; even there sba
Thy hand lead me and Thy r,r,
, hand shall hold me-"
Jesus plain words are OF than
i selves sufficient to settle any ope
tion as to Gods anthropomorphIsn
He distinctly declares God To ,
t spirit. tlt is wrongly TRANSLATED
: the old version as "a spirit, an
: adds that those who worship ui
must worship Him in spirit and
truth. While John, the beloved 4,
fciple, as distinctly says. "Goa
!. love"
In further rorroooratiou Of =,
true conception of God and His 40,
er and presence in His univers. ar
IN His world, | desire to call att