before the Baptist World Congress in London, 1905 ? ?We had in America some years ago a steam engine all whose working parts were made of glass. The steam came from without but being hot enough to move machinery. This steam was itself invisible and there was presented the curious spectacle of an engine, transparent, moving and doing important work, while yet no cause for this activity was perceptible. So the church, humanity and the universe are all in constant and progressive movement but the Christ who moves them is invisible. Faith comes to believe where it cannot see. It joins itself to this invisible Christ and knows him as its very life.?

(b) A merely moral union, or union of love and sympathy, like that between teacher and scholar, friend and friend, as held by Socinians and Arminians.

There is a moral union between different souls: <091301>1 Samuel 13:1 ? ?the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.? The Vulgate here has: ?Anima Jonathe agglutinata Davidi.? Aristotle calls friends, ?one soul.? So in a higher sense, in <440432> Acts 4:32, the early believers are said to have been ?of one heart and soul.? But in <431721>John 17:21, 26, Christ?s union with his people is distinguished from any mere union of love and sympathy: ?that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also maybe in us; ...that the love wherewith thou lovedst me may be in them, and I in them.? Jesus? aim, in the whole of his last discourse, is to show that no mere union of love and sympathy will be sufficient: ?apart from me,? he says, ?ye can do nothing? ( <431505>John 15:5). That his disciples may be vitally joined to himself, is therefore the subject of his last prayer.

Dorner says well, that Arminianism (and with this doctrine Roman Catholics and the advocates of New School views substantially agree) makes human a mere tangent to the circle of the divine nature. It has no idea of the inter-penetration of the one by the other. But the Lutheran Formula of Concord says much more correctly: ?Damnamus sententiam quod non Deus ipse, sed dona Dei duntaxat, in credentibus habitent.?

Ritschl presents to us a historical Christ and Pfleiderer presents to us an ideal Christ, but neither one gives us the living Christ who is the present spiritual life of the believer. Wendt, in his Teaching of Jesus, 2:310, comes equally far short of a serious interpretation of our Lord?s promise, when he says: ?This union to his person, as to its contents, is nothing else than adherence to the message of the kingdom of God brought by him.? It is not enough for me to be merely in touch with Christ. He must come to

<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment