The Presbyterian of the South : [combining the] Southwestern Presbyterian, Central Presbyterian, Southern Presbyterian. [volume], April 02, 1919, Page 3, Image 3

About The Presbyterian of the South : [combining the] Southwestern Presbyterian, Central Presbyterian, Southern Presbyterian. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1909-1931

Image provided by: Library of Virginia; Richmond, VA

                
says : 4 4 Here is absolutely no place for the post
millennial scheme, etc. It is ruled out." Pro
fessor Briggs is quoted as saying: "The idea
of a future millennium before the Advent is
ruled out by the Westminster Standards." By
Dr. Briggs pre-millennialism is called the
scheme of the Arminian Whitby. One of our
Presbyterian ministers, a man greatly admired
and loved, is quoted as calling post-millennial
J ism a heresy judged in the light of the teach
ing of the Confession. Really!
Over against these statements as to the teach
ing of the Confession we may place the opin
ions entertained by the leading theologians of
our Church. The writer has not discovered
one of these theologians, living or dead, whose
writings he has read, who holds and teaches
the pre-millcnnial theory of the Advent. Can
it be said of these men that they are less honest
in their effort to discover the truth than are
those who hold the opposite view? Are they
less able to find the truth than their oppo
nents ?
The writer was a student, a portion of two
years, under Dr. A. A. Hodge, who was re
garded by his students as the foremost teacher
of theology of his time in this country (though
Dr. Hodge, himself, gave the palm to Dr. Dab
ney). Dr. Hodge was not only a profound stu
dent of Scripture, but he was an accredited
'expounder of the Standards of our Church,
having written a widely circulated Commen
tary on the Confession of Faith. In his "Out
lines of Theology," chapter 33, question 7,
he says: "What is the Scripture doctrine con
cerning the Millennium?" Answer:, First
(condensed). "The Scriptures clearly reveal
that the gospel is to exercise an influence over
all branches of the human family more exten
sive and more transforming than it has ever
realized in time past. This end is to be grad
ually attained through the spiritual presence
of Christ in the ordinary dispensation of Prov
idence, and ministrations of His Church." (He
refers to thirteen passages of Scripture to
prove this.)
Second. "The period of this general preva
lency of the gospel will continue a thousand
years, and is hence designated the millen
nium." (To this there is one Scripture quo
tation.)
Third. "The Jews are to be converted to
Christianity either at the commencement or
during the continuance of this period." (Four
quotations.)
Fourth. "At the end of these thousand years, '
and before the coming of Christ, there will
be a comparatively short season of apostacy,
etc." (Three quotations.)
Fifth. "Christ's advent, the general resur
rection and judgment will be simultaneous, and
immediately succeeded by the burning of the
old and the revelation of the new earth and
heavens." Confession of Faith, chapters 32
and 33.
It is the opinion of this writer that neither
the Pre-millennarian nor the Post-millennarian
can appeal to the Confession of Faith in proof
of his theory of the Second Advent. The fram
ers of that wonderful document showed a wise
discretion in leaving it an open question.
Yokena, Miss.
the tithe not obligatory.
By Professor Addison Hogue.
Can this thesis be maintained, when so many
earnest and learned and godly men teach just
the opposite? "Produce your cause; bring
forth your strong reasons" will rightly be said
to one who is apparently in a small minority,
if we are to judge by the articles in our re
ligious papers and by the speeches in our va
rious conventions, Well, here are the reasons.
Judge ye whether they be "strong" or not.
Pro: You admit, I suppose, that the tithe
was obligatory upon God's ancient people, the
Jews? And that their failure to honor Him
with the tithe brought many calamities upon
them ?
Con : Certainly. The Old Testament is full
of it.
Pro : And you likewise admit that our Sav
iour commended the Pharisees for their scru
pulous tithing of the smallest garden herbs
when ho said, "These (things) ought ye to
have done?"
Con: Certainly; it stands so written.
Pro : And we Christians ought to honor .Je
hovah with our substance, and with the first
fruits of all our increase?
Con: Yes, the spirit of that I fully believe
in. More than that, I think it is a great re
proach to the Church that it has not come up
to the tithe even as a minimum. For now we
arc not under law, but under grace, and this
should lead to better results than were ob
tained under the law.
Pro : Good for you. But can you show me any
passage in the New Testament where the tithe
is plainly repealed?
Con: N?; there is no such passage.
Pro: Then, it seems to me, that you have
given your case completely away ; for you have
admitted pretty much all that I could ask for.
Con: It is your turn now to answer ques
tions; and as both of us are sincerely anxious
to know the truth, we will ask that we may
be guided by the Spirit of truth. You know,
of course, the distinction between "positive"
and "moral" precepts or requirements?
Pro: Yes. A "positive" precept is one like
the command to abstain from swine's flesh;
while a "moral" precept is one like the com
mand, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God."
Con: Correct. A "positive" command must
be obeyed in case we owe obedience to the one
who issues the command, even though the thing
itself may be perfectly proper under most cir
cumstances. On the other hand a "moral"
command has its foundation in the eternal dia
tinction between right and wrong. We agree
as to this?
Pro: Yes, so far we go absolutely together.
Con : Did not a gfcat mass of the Jewish
legislation consist of "positive" precepts,
binding only upon the Jews, whom God wished
to keep distinct from the other nations?
Pro: Yes, undoubtedly.
Con: Of all these "positive" requirements
which one was most tenaciously held to by the
Jews?
Pro: Circumcision.
Con : And yet even this was abrogated under
the Christian dispensation, though it required
a special decree of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:
28) to do away with it, and St. Paul had to
attack it almost fiercely and almost savagely
to keep Jewish Christians from imposing it up
on the adherents of the new faith. You admit
this?
Pro: Of course I do; but I hardly see the
bearing of this upon our discussion.
Con: Well, let me take something that yon
wiU see. As the tithe concerns the right use of
money I will bring up another monetary pre
cept that was binding on the Jews. You know
that God forbade His chosen people to charge
interest (not "usury," as in the American Ver
sion. That word was correct three centuries
ago, but is misleading now) if they lent money
to a poor Jew?
Pro: Yes, it is mentioned in various places
in the Old Testament.
Con: Was that prohibition "positive" or ?
"moral!"
Pro: It was clearly "positive," for in Dent.
23, 20 Qod expressly allowed the Jews to
charge interest on money lent to a "foreigner"
(R, V.).
Con : But, of course, the prohibition was still
binding on our Saviour and on all the Jews
of his time, as the Mosaic legislation had not
then been repealed?
Pro: Yes, that is correct.
Con : It follows, then, that even if our Sav
iour had expressly commended people for ob
serving it, this would not alter the fact that it
was "positive" and not "moral?"
Pro: No, this would not have altered its na
ture.
Con: And can you show me any passage in
the New Testament where this prohibition is
plainly repealed?
Pro: No; there is no such pasage; for, of
course, Matt. 25:27 has no bearing here.
Con: Certainly not; the slothful servant
cannot be taken to represent a "poor" Jew, or
any Jew at all, for that matter. Do you hold,
therefore, that it is a sin for one Christian to
charge interest on money lent to a brother
Christian who happens to be poor?
Pro: No; I can't say that I do.
Con : And yet it concerns the right use of
money; and it is emphasized in the Old Testa
ment, and it has never been specifically re
pealed in the New Testament. All this is cor
rect ? V
Pro: Yes; there's no denying that. Now. I
begin to see your drift.
Con : Very naturally. You see, I believe that
the tithe was just as truly a "positive" precept
as circumcision was, and that it fell away with
the great mass of the "law" and did not need to
be specifically abrogated. Circumcision, how
ever, did need a special repeal, because of the
overwhelming importance attached to it by
the Jews.
Pro: I see your point of view, though I do
not agree with it.
Con: Naturally not; for you hold the tithe
to be, if not a "moral" precept, at least one
of universal obligation. But let me ask you
this: Can you think of any moral precept that
is not plainly re-enforced in the New Testa
ment and urged upon Christians as a duty?
Pro: Just at present I cannot; but that is
a rather large question, and I cannot commit
myself to an out-and-out answer.
Con : Nor do I wish you to do so. We are
not trying to catch one another ; and we should
be doing rishonor to our Lord if we indulged in
any quibbles. But at any rate, neither of us
can think just now of any plain "moral" pre
cept that is not clearly taught in the New Tes
tament and taught so clearly that we do not
have to relp mainly upon the Old Testament
to support it?
Pro: I gladly grant you that much, and I
dare say you are right.
Con: I earnestly hope so, for above and be
yond all else we both want to be right. I have
wondered, therefore, why the tithe should be
such a conspicuous exception, and though per
petually binding (as you hold it to be) should
not be said to be so in the New Testament.
Pro: Why, it is endorsed by the apostles.
Is not that enough ?
Con: Who says it is endorsed by the apos
tles?
Pro: Why, I have seen that stated over and
over again on high authority.
Con: So have I. Even our Montreat Com