Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, trusted
16,894
edits
HPB-SB-14-112: Difference between revisions
Полный текст по скану
(незначительные правки) |
(Полный текст по скану) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued|A Reply to “A Heathen” from Rev. R. A. Hume.|14-111}} | {{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued|A Reply to “A Heathen” from Rev. R. A. Hume.|14-111}} | ||
.. | <div style="display:flex; align-items:baseline; gap:1em;"> | ||
<div style="flex:1; text-align:center;">The Philosophic Inquirer.</div> | |||
<div>[December 31, 1882.</div> | |||
</div> | |||
{{Style P-Separator custom|width=80%|bottom=2px}} | |||
{{Style P-Separator custom|width=80%|top=0}} | |||
{{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on|14-113}} | (1.) That your correspondent falls into the exceedingly common and easy mistake of not bearing in mind the three very different meanings of the word Christian. | ||
(''a'') A Christian is one who is born in a Christian country or of Christian parents; even though as a child he knows nothing of Christ, and even though as an atheist he avows disbelief in Christ. This generic name is applicable to a large class. (''b'') A Christian is one who professes to believe or is assumed to believe in Christ. This is a smaller, and yet a large class, and includes very many who are not included in the next class. ''E. G.'' though my Christian parents taught me most carefully, and though my conduct was what men would call fairly good, yet I did not truly trust myself to Christ till I was 16 years old. (''c'') A Christian is one who, believing himself a sinner, truly trusts in Christ for salvation, ''i.e.'' one whose inward and outward life is conformed to the doctrines of Christ. This is a smaller class. Now it is manifestly unfair not to notice these distinctions, and to charge upon the latter class the weaknesses of the former classes. | |||
(2.) Some of the alleged inconsistencies of even true Christians which your correspondent mentions are not inconsistencies I believe. ''E. G.'' one of the first which he notices is the giving testimony on oath in courts as an alleged violation of Christ’s teaching. But the spirit of Christ’s teaching is not at all opposed to a solemn asseveration in court that one will tell the truth. Christ was not speaking of courts, but was forbidding profanity and a careless use of God’s name and works, and he taught that men ought habitually so to speak that their fellow men would believe them without their using any kind of adjurations. Even if it were admitted that Christians do disobey Christ in giving witness on oath, this does not prove anything against the truth of Christian doctrines. | |||
(3.) But there are weaknesses and inconsistencies in many true Christians which they themselves deplore. I sorrowfully confess that like many others I manifest too many of these. Christians should not care for money and comfort and honor, as they too often do. Many of them are not as meek, as earnest, as active in efforts for others as they should be. But are these imperfections due to their closely following, or to their ''not'' following Christ? To ask that question is to answer it, and to show that the only fair thing to do is to charge these weaknesses to the individuals themselves, and to their ''lack'' of faith in Christ and of obedience to him; not to him who desires to keep them from thus falling. It is not the excellence of Christians, but of Christ which the missionary preaches. And the faithful Christian preacher is even more severe in his denunciation of the sins of professing Christians than any unbelievers can be. | |||
(4.) But the weaknesses of Christians and even of the very best of Christians, are one of the strongest evidences of the more than human nature of Christ. If for 1800 years from the millions of men and women who, with the example and teachings of Christ before them, have sought to imitate Him, and some of whom have had the highest advantages for living a good life, such as the most careful nurture and separation from debasing influences, not one has even approached the perfectness and power of His life, how can His matchless character be accounted for unless He was in a special sense from heaven? Or if any fancy Him to be only an imaginary character, how is it that a few uncultured men could conceive such an ideal character as all the gifted authors of eighteen centuries, even with this modal before them, have not been to match or even to approach? So if any one imagines His history to be an accumulation of myths for many years, then, simply from the standpoint of probability, and leaving positive historical evidence for later consideration, how came there to be the unity and consistency in His character which is so conspicuous? | |||
III. The other class of questions of your correspondent touch on the alleged weaknesses of Christian doctrines. Time and space allow only a very brief reference to topics on many branches of which libraries have been written. | |||
Like thousands, your correspondent misunderstands the relations of Christ to men’s reason and faith. An illustration will show fairly well what the true relation is. A man who knows that he is sick, wishes to call a doctor. He enquires in various ways the merits of different doctors. After he has satisfied his reason that one of the doctors is the best one to try, he commits himself to that doctor for treatment ''i. e.,'' he trusts him; and if he is not a fool, he does not say “unless I can understand all about your diagnosis and your medicines and your reasons for treating me in this or that way, I shall not accept your help.” Very similar is the true relation of men to Christ. When a man sees that he is constantly making mistakes and finds that his own resolutions do not keep him from doing wrong, and when he has not peace in his soul and does not feel at rest about the future, he should use his reason and consider which among the professed remedies for sin is probably the true one. Among other things he should carefully read the Bible, not as many a man does with a view to pick flaws and to disprove it, but dispassionately to consider whether it is probably true or not. If his reason is satisfied that Christ was wise and true and merciful and powerful, and that he was neither deceiving nor deceived when He said “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden,” &c., &c., then such a man may reasonably and wisely trust himself to Christ and see if He is or is not as good as His word. Christ was constantly giving reasons to men why they should have faith in him, and missionaries do the same. | |||
IV. What then are the evidences which should satisfy the reason of men that Christ is worthy of trust? | |||
(1.) These depend largely on the credibility of the New Testament. Everybody admits that these books have existed since the second century. But some have strenuously striven to show that they were written in the second century and not in the first century. But it is an unquestionable fact that the antiquity of these records has been steadily put farther and farther back even by the school of critics which has sought to diminish their antiquity. I quote from Renan, one of the leaders of the opposition to the supernatural doctrines of Christianity, whose books I find in a friend’s house here. Renan’s Life of Jesus, Trübner and Co. 1865. Introduction, Page 21. “On the whole I admit as authentic the four canonical Gospels. All, in my opinion, date from the first century, and the authors are, generally speaking, those to whom they are attributed.” Renan’s “The Apostles,” Trübner and Co., 1869, Introduction, P. 4. “Dictated for the most part from the year 53 to about 62, the Epistles of St. Paul are replete with information about the first years of Christianity.” So too the opposing German critics admit that at least four of Paul’s Epistles were written before 60 A. D. Now as Christ died about the year 30 A. D., it is clear that it is impossible that in the thirty years which elapsed between His death and the writing of these books, and while the disciples of Christ were living, that any accounts which were essentially different from actual facts, could have been started and become current, and been written down and generally accepted as true. In short, despite the most searching criticism, and even the more firmly because of this criticism and opposition, the New Testament stands as a genuine record of the life of Christ and the origin of the Christian church. | |||
But as a matter of necessity only few persons have the time and qualifications to examine the credibility of Christianity on ''this'' basis. They must examine it on simpler evidences. | |||
(2.) A simpler evidence is the existence and constitution of the Christian Church. The existence of Mohomedanism and of the sects of Kabir and Dâdu, and of other Hindu sects and the peculiar doctrines of these various religions are indisputable proof of the existence of their founders and of the essential character of their teachings. Entirely aside from the question of whether Mahomed did or did not compose the Koran, the rise and spread and character of Mahomedanism is unimpeachable evidence of the existence of Mahomed and of the general tenor of his teachings. The rise and spread of the Christian Church and its leading practices are precisely similar proofs about Christ. | |||
If Christ did not live and die and rise from the dead, how came there to be a Christian Church which despite intense persecution spread over and converted large parts of the Roman empire? How is it that, though to this day the Jews cling most tenaciously to keeping Saturday as the Sabbath and are ever reproaching Christians for observing Sunday as the Sabbath, those Jews who became Christians were so willing to change from Saturday to Sunday? If it was a fancy and not a fact that Christ rose from the dead on Sunday, why should those Christian Jews have made the change, when the only good which they got{{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on|14-113}} | |||