Info

ministering orders mentioned in <490411>Ephesians 4:11 ?

?apostles...prophets...evangelists...pastors...teachers.? But the N. T. mark of an apostle is that Christ has appeared to him. Irving?s apostles cannot stand this test. See Luthardt, Errinerungen aus vergangenen Tagen, 237.

(b) It rests upon false fundamental principles such as, that law is identical with the natural order of the universe and as such, is an exhaustive expression of the will and nature of God. Sin is merely a power of moral evil within the soul, instead of also involving an objective guilt and desert of punishment. Penalty is the mere reaction of law against the transgressor instead of being also the revelation of a personal wrath against sin. The evil taint of human nature can be extirpated by suffering its natural consequences, penalty in this way reforming the transgressor.

Dower, Glaubenslehre, 2:463 (Syst. Doct., 3:361, 362) ? ?On Irving?s theory, evil inclinations are not sinful. Sinfulness belongs only to evil acts. The loose connection between the Logos and humanity savors Nestorianism. It is the work of the person to rid himself of something in the humanity, which does not render it really sinful. If Jesus? sinfulness of nature did not render his person sinful, this must be true of us, which is a Pelagian element, revealed also in the denial that for our redemption we need Christ as an atoning sacrifice. It is not necessary to a complete incarnation for Christ to take a sinful nature, unless sin is essential to human nature. In Irving?s view, the death of Christ?s body works the regeneration of his sinful nature. But this is to make sin a merely physical thing, and the body the only part of man needing redemption.? Penalty would thus become a reformer and death a Savior.

Irving held that there are two kinds of sin:1. guiltless sin and 2. guilty sin. Passive depravity is not guilty but it is a part of man?s sensual nature. Without it we would not be human. But the moment this fallen nature expresses itself in action, it becomes guilty. Irving near the close of his life claimed a sort of sinless perfection; for so long as he could keep this sinful nature inactive and be guided by the Holy Spirit, he was free from sin and guilt. Christ took this passive sin that he might be like unto his brethren and that he might be able to suffer.

(c) It contradicts the express and implicit representations of Scripture with regard to Christ?s freedom from all taint of hereditary depravity. It misrepresents his life as a growing consciousness of the underlying corruption of his human nature, which culminated at Gethsemane and Calvary. It denies the truth of his own statements, when it declares that he

<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment