WE return again this month to Professor David Smith, and his “Correspondence” column in the British Weekly, and we make no apology for the recurrence. In his column of 15th February he gives expression to his matured ideas on the future state of “those who have died in battle with no profession of faith in Christ,” many of them having “lived in open sin,” and these ideas are so delusive and dangerous at the present moment that we feel bound to write something with a view to refute them. In fact, as we shall see, his inferences from certain passages of Scriptures—notably, the Apostle Peter’s address to Cornelius and his household—are so illogical and unwarrantable that they entirely discredit him as a reliable, or even fair interpreter of God’s Word. It is impossible for us, as a matter of space, to give the whole article, but we shall endeavour to supply the gist of it, with, at least, one large quotation.
Professor Smith states, to begin with, as is his custom, the enquiry to which he replies. In the present case, a gentleman asks for his opinion upon the statement of a preacher who is esteemed orthodox and evangelical, but who gave almost distinct support to the belief in a future state of purification of the souls of those who have died in battle with no profession of faith in Christ, even those who have lived in open sin. Professor Smith in his answer practically dismisses without remark the idea of future purification. Wrong as this notion is, it is apparently not pleasing enough to the natural feelings to suit his taste. He passes on to notice “three distinct judgments” that had been given by his correspondents hitherto on the subject of the future state of such men, and then he states what he “considers a better way than any,” as shown by the New Testament. The first judgment is that of some, whom he informs us are “happily few,” who, “recognising repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as necessary conditions of salvation, denounce eternal perdition, where, according to their blind and narrow notion, these are lacking.” The second is the opinion of those “who resort to a vague hope in the mercy of God,” while the third belongs to another class “who find relief in the idea of a ‘second chance’ hereafter.” It is to be feared that Professor Smith indirectly condemns no less authorities than Christ and His Apostles, when he scorches the “few” he has met with who have held and given expression to the first judgment.
But, let us now consider the “better way than any,” according to Professor Smith. This he bases, first, on Acts iv. 12 (according to the Revised Version, which does not much differ from the Authorised):—”In none other is there salvation: for neither is there in any other name under heaven that is given among men, wherein we must be saved.” He points out that “the heathen lacked that door of hope,” and that the Apostle Peter, at this stage of his knowledge, “with his Jewish limitations, would have left them to their doom,” but he goes on to assert that the Apostle made a discovery which altered his view. It was the case of Cornelius. Here we quote at some length:—”By and by, however, he made a glad discovery through God’s dealings with Cornelius, a heathen soldier, and he cried (Acts x. 34): ‘Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him.’ This is not a contradiction of his previous affirmation. It stands true that salvation is in Christ alone, and there is no such thing as ‘uncovenanted mercy’; but Christ’s Infinite Sacrifice was offered for the whole world, for sinners of every age and every clime. And—here is the Apostle’s discovery—the yearning of a dark soul is, in the sight of God who ‘sees with larger, other eyes than ours,’ faith in the unknown Saviour. And will this dispensation of grace avail for the heathen who never heard the Saviour’s blessed Name, and be denied to those who were born and nurtured in ignorance and sin, or to those, hardly less unfortunate, who have seen Christianity only in the unlovely and repellent disguises which masquerade as superlative piety?”
Now, we maintain most definitely that Professor Smith has not the slightest ground from the Apostle’s address to Cornelius and his household for the inferences he draws. He is illogical and misleading throughout. In the first place, Professor Smith is seeking a door of hope for those who have lived in sin, “lads of evil speech and behaviour who are stricken on the battlefield,” and he calls attention to the case of Cornelius, whom the Apostle plainly describes as one of those who feared God and wrought righteousness. The two cases are entirely distinct from one another, and the case of Cornelius affords not the slightest hope for those who have lived and died in unrighteousness. Secondly, let it be observed that Cornelius was not a heathen. He may have been such—he probably was at one time—but he is described at this particular point by the inspired writer as “a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people and prayed to God alway” (Acts x. 2). Does the inspired Luke refer to any heathen deity? Manifestly not. Cornelius worshipped the same God as the Apostle Peter worshipped. It was the same Divine Being who appeared to both, and brought both together, namely, Jehovah, the God of Israel, the one living and true God. Cornelius was a Roman by birth, but he had become at some time or other a proselyte of the Jewish faith, and was to every appearance a regenerate man before he met with Peter. What then, it may be asked, is the force of the words, “in every nation he that feareth him . . . is accepted with him?” It is plainly this:—Nationality makes no difference. If a man fears the true God, whether he be Roman, Greek, Gaul, or Spaniard, he is accepted with Him. The words are not to be understood as positively asserting that in every nation such men were to be found, though it was possible that they might be found in many nations, for the Jews had gone to many parts of the earth before that time, carrying the true faith concerning God with them. Let it be clearly understood then, that the Apostle is not referring to “heathen” in the passage under view, but to those who were enlightened in the knowledge of the God of Israel through the Old Testament revelation. This was precisely the position of Cornelius. He was an Old Testament believer living on into the New Testament dispensation, and what he needed was to have Jesus Christ preached to him with the Holy Ghost, so that he might possess a personal and experimental confidence that He was the true Messiah, the Son of God, and the Saviour of the world. And this blessed enlightenment Cornelius got, not after, but before he entered eternity.
One wonders where Professor Smith got his strange theology that “the yearnings of a dark soul is, in the sight of God, . . . faith in the unseen Saviour.” This is truly the calling of darkness light, to which a woe is attached. We cannot enter fully into Professor Smith’s erroneous theory of a universal atonement, but we would remind him that He who was born in Bethlehem was called Jesus because He should “save his people from their sins.” An atonement that does not become efficacious in the actual cleansing of sinners does not save. The Lord Jesus saves His people, not in their sins, but from their sins. It appears to us that Professor Smith proclaims a doctrine of salvation in sin that is fitted to do incalculable harm to men’s souls at the present time.
In his concluding remarks, he makes reference to the lads in the trenches, and states that the contents of their frequent letters to him recall the two Scriptures: “Everyone that loveth is born of God” (1 John iv. 7), and “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John xv. 13). Can anyone think that the Apostle means simply natural affection to friends when he writes of “everyone that loveth?” Does such affection need a new birth to produce it, or evidence a new birth where it is? Surely the man is completely in the mist of delusion who thinks so. The Apostle is plainly writing of a divine love to God and Christ and righteousness, begotten by the Holy Ghost. The text as to the “greater love hath no man” refers to love’s outward expression, and not to its inward character. Everything depends on the character of the love we possess. If we have nothing more than natural love, that will not carry us to heaven. “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema-maranatha.”
Professor Smith’s final sentences are the following:—”And when I am told that this is the Moslem creed, ‘Die in battle and sup in Paradise,’ I marvel at the ineffable fatuity. It is not the dying in battle that avails; it is the Infinite Sacrifice. Our need in these days is a braver recognition of the love in Jesus Christ our Lord, and a larger and more scriptural definition of faith.” He tries to evade the very appropriate charge that his theory of salvation is just a new edition of the Mohammedan creed, by an exclamation about “ineffable fatuity” (inexpressible stupid folly) and by the assertion that “it is not the dying in battle that avails,” but “the Infinite Sacrifice.” Let not Professor Smith be too triumphant. The stupidity and folly are his own. Where in Scripture, to which he appeals for a larger definition of faith, do we find it declared that the Infinite Sacrifice avails any one for eternity, where it does not take practical effect in “the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost?” Did not the Lord Jesus Christ Himself say expressly (John iii. 3), “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God?” And again: “If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.” Professor Smith’s views of Christ’s love and sacrifice are entirely contrary to Scripture. They would make Christ “the minister of sin”—saving sinful men apart from any change of nature or state. We do not say but the Lord may, in His sovereign mercy, make a saving change upon some in the battle-field at their latest breath, but to suppose that any who die impenitent are saved is “fatuity” indeed. Such, however, is the deplorable fatuity of Professor Smith. Upon his theory it is impossible to see how any at all can be finally lost. How contrary such a scheme of universal salvation is to God’s Word, and how injurious to the moral and spiritual welfare of sinful men, we need not attempt to express.
ONE of the old divines, in his pastoral admonitions to his people, exhorts them “not to look for that in the law which can only be found in the Gospel—not to look for that in themselves which is only to be found in Christ—not to look for that in the creature which is only to be found in the Creator—and not to look for that on earth which is only to be found in heaven.”