Books: To Infidelity and Back
H >>
Henry F. Lutz >> To Infidelity and Back
Pages:
1 | 2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12
But how did I discover the fallacy of rationalism? and how was I
delivered from its mighty clutches by which it had dragged me from
one pitfall to another so ruthlessly? My deliverance came from a
source where you would perhaps least expect it. It was through the
study of John Stuart Mill's "System of Logic." In it I learned "that
inconceivability is not a criterion of impossibility," as rationalism
claims. On the other hand, that we know things to be true that are
just as inconceivable as that there can be two mountains without a
valley between.
Let me introduce a few of these contradictions or inconceivabilities.
Before you can reach your mouth with your hand, you must go over half
the distance, then half of the rest, then half of the rest, and so on
_ad infinitum._ But you cannot make the infinite number of divisions,
and therefore you cannot reach your lips. Again, you cannot conceive
of extension of space or time without a limit, nor can you conceive
of a limit to space or time. Here conceivability contradicts itself.
Furthermore, you cannot conceive of existence without a cause, nor of
a cause without existence. To the statement of the believer that, "as
the wonderful mechanism of the watch presumes a designer, so the
infinitely more wonderful mechanism of the universe presumes God, the
infinite designer," Ingersoll replied that this is simply to jump
over the difficulty by an infinite assumption. Ingersoll, on the
other hand, claimed that the material universe has always existed;
apparently unaware that he thus was guilty of the same fallacy of
which he accused others, by _assuming_ infinite existence without a
cause. The difference is that the believer's assumption gives us a
personal God, a kind, loving heavenly Father who provides for the
eternal bliss and welfare of his children, while Ingersoll's
assumption gives death and darkness and despair.
An object thrown from one point to another is always at some point,
therefore it has no time to move from one point to another. And yet
we know that it does move, even though we cannot conceive how it can
do so. Again, suppose that the hour-hand of your clock is at eleven
and the minute-hand at twelve. Now, you cannot conceive how the
minute-hand can overtake the hour-hand, although you know by
observation that it does overtake it. For by the time the minute-hand
gets to eleven, the hour-hand has passed on to twelve, and by the
time the minute-hand has reached twelve, the hour-hand has passed
beyond it. Every time the minute-hand comes to where the hour-hand
now is, the hour-hand has passed beyond. The distance becomes less
and less, but theoretically, or in conceivability, the one can never
overtake the other.
Through this line of reasoning I learned, clearly and once for all,
that _inconceivability is not a proof of impossibility;_ but, on the
other hand, that we know many things to be true that are not
conceivable to the finite mind, and therefore we must follow truth
learned by experience and observation, irrespective of rationalism.
In this way the mighty fetters of rationalism that held me in bondage
were cut and I was set free to search for the truth as it is in Jesus
Christ. I learned the limitations of the finite intellect and the
truth of God's word when he says: "For my thoughts are not your
thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the
heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your
ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." "Hath not God made foolish
the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the
world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of
preaching to save them that believe."
After the empirical school of philosophy had taught me that we must
follow inductions based on experience and observation rather than
rationalism or conceivability, I began to value Paul's admonition,
"Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good." If inductive
philosophers have often been opposed to religion and the Bible, it is
because they have not carried their inductions far enough to cover
the entire world of facts. It is admitted by all historians and
observers that prayer and faith and religious convictions have been
among the mightiest forces at work in the world, and any system of
reasoning that does not take these facts into consideration is
neither philosophical nor scientific.
To illustrate what is meant by saying that we must follow experience
rather than conceivability, let us suppose that you are suffering
from a malignant disease and you hear of a medicine that has cured
this disease whenever it has been tried, and you know of nothing else
that will cure it. Would it not be foolish for you to refuse to use
the medicine because you cannot conceive how it produces the cure? It
might be discovered later that it was not the medicine, but your
belief in its curative qualities, that produced the result. But this
would not affect your common-sense duty in the matter. If certain
desirable results follow the doing of a certain thing, we are bound
to do that thing until we know how to get the good results without
doing it.
This reveals the folly and inhumanity of the conduct of some infidels
towards religious people. When I was minister of a church in Ohio, I
was visited by a noted infidel. After he went on in a tirade against
preachers and Christians, I asked him if he was not an unhappy man.
At first he denied it; but I called his attention to some of his
utterances, and he soon admitted that he was a very unhappy man. But
he said he was unhappy because he knew too much, and claimed that
Christians were so happy because they were ignorant and deluded. He
claimed to be a great lover of humanity, and although, according to
his profession, he had no God or conscience or judgment to require it
of him, he spent his time in spreading the knowledge and wisdom which
made people unhappy by destroying that which he admitted gave people
great joy and peace and happiness. Suppose a man should come to town
who is as lean as a skeleton and is slowly dying because he is not
getting enough nourishment out of the food he eats, and should begin
to lecture well-nourished and healthy people for eating the food they
are eating. Would we not put him down as a fool? Well, if he would
add the claim that we are well fed because we are ignorant and
deluded, while he is suffering and dying because he knows too much on
the food question, he would be on a par with many of our infidelic
friends.
It is said that Beecher and Ingersoll were both present at a banquet
in New York City. Ingersoll brought a railing accusation against
Christianity. Everybody expected Beecher to reply, but he held his
peace until later in the evening, when it became his turn to speak.
When Beecher arose he said: "When I came to this hall to-night I saw
an old, crippled woman wending her way across the crowded street on
crutches. When she had reached about midway, a burly ruffian came
along and knocked the crutches out from under her, and she fell
splash into the mud." Turning to Ingersoll, he said, "What do you
think of that, Colonel?" "The villain!" replied Ingersoll. Beecher,
pointing to Ingersoll, said: "Thou art the man! Suffering, heart-
broken, dying humanity is wending its way through this world of
sorrow and turmoil on the crutches of Christianity. You, sir, come
along and knock them out from under them, but offer nothing in their
place." It was a crushing blow to Ingersoll and his gospel of
despair.
We do not understand how spirit and matter can be inter-related, and
we can not conceive that our willing it can move our arm; but this
does not deter us from moving, because we know through experience
that we can move. We do not understand the philosophy of digestion,
and we cannot conceive how bread and butter can have any relation to
thought and life; but we know by experience that they do, and we go
on eating and living. We cannot conceive how the same grass produces
lamb, pork and beef; but we keep on raising stock just the same,
because we are guided by facts learned by experience and observation
rather than by conceivability. We do reach our mouth, the minute-hand
does overtake the hour-hand, objects do move in space, etc.,
rationalism and inconceivability to the contrary notwithstanding.
Man is a religious being, and we know by experience that religion
gives him joy and brings him good. If we had no revealed religion,
science and duty would compel us to develop a religious system out of
our religious experiences. This is what has actually been done by the
different peoples of the earth who know not the revelation of God in
the Bible. The secret of the hold that even a false religion has upon
people is the fact that it does them good and gives them happiness by
exercising the pious emotions of their being, even though it may
bring them harm in other ways. Even a religion based on human
experience is better than none; for it is better to feed the
religious nature on husks than to starve it out altogether. To this
agree the words of Paul when he says that God "made of one blood all
nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth... that they
should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find
him." But while man, unaided by direct revelation, can grope in the
dark and feel after God, and can invent systems of religion based on
experience that are better than none, any man that accepts facts and
testimony will soon discover that God has not thus left us in the
dark oil religious matters, but has "appointed a day in which he will
judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he has ordained,
whereof he has given assurance unto all men, in that he has raised
him from the dead."
It is said that a lawyer and a noted preacher, who was a lecturer,
happened to meet at a hotel breakfast-table. The lawyer suspected
that his companion was a preacher, and, as he was an infidel, he
thought he had a good opportunity to give a thrust at the Bible.
"Excuse me," said the lawyer, "I take it from your appearance that
you are a preacher."
"Yes, sir," said the preacher.
"Well, now," said the lawyer, "don't you find a great many
contradictions and difficulties you cannot understand in the Bible?"
"Yes, sir," replied the preacher.
"How, then," said the lawyer, "can you continue to believe in it?"
"Why," said the preacher, "do you see what I am doing with the bones
of this fish? I lay them aside and enjoy the good of the fish. So
with the Bible. I lay aside the things I cannot understand, and feast
upon the rich spiritual food it contains, willing to wait until all
mysteries shall be removed hereafter."
If the finite mind could understand everything contained in the
Bible, it would become worthless as a revelation, for the finite mind
could produce it. But since it reveals the infinite mind, we must
expect it to contain things that the finite mind cannot understand.
We can understand the evidence that it is from God and for our good,
and it is reasonable that we should accept its great truths by faith,
although we may not now be able to see how all the truths it reveals
are consistent with each other. "Let us hear the conclusion of the
whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the
whole duty of man."
As has often been said, no one can do better than to live the pure,
clean, benevolent life that Jesus inculcated and incarnated. If you
imitate him in goodness and good deeds, you are pursuing the best
possible course, even if the Bible is not true. If, on the other
hand, the Bible is true, and you do not live for Christ, you are
doomed for ever and ever.
Having been delivered from the bondage of rationalism, I found my way
back to Christ with comparative ease. If experience and facts are our
ultimate guides, then we must trust the testimony of history. With
the help of the _Bi-Millennial Telescope on the opposite page_, and
limitless similar testimony, we can trace the existence of the Bible
clear to the days of the Apostles. None ever had better means of
knowing the facts they bore witness to than the Apostles, and none
ever gave stronger proof that they sincerely told the truth as they
knew it. The Gospels being genuine and reliable, the life and words
and miracles of Jesus they narrate, give sufficient proof of the
divinity of Christ to satisfy every reasonable demand of the
intellect. This is especially true concerning the resurrection of
Christ, on which the proof of Christianity hinges. "He showed himself
alive after his passion by many infallible proofs." And if he arose
from the dead, he was demonstrated by it to be the Son of God. And if
he is the Son of God, then the Bible is the Word of God, for he has
endorsed it all. Thus there were restored to me Christ, God and his
Word of truth. The thing that robbed me of these was rationalism, but
it had been proven false and therefore was ruled out of court.
Unitarians used to tell me that Christ was the Son of God, but we all
are sons of God. I now saw that Christ was _the_ Son of God in the
special and peculiar sense in which he claimed, or he was a fool.
When he was on trial he was asked upon oath whether he was the Son of
God or not, and he answered "Yes" when it cost his life to do so. If
he meant that he was the son of God in the same sense in which we
are, all he would have had to do was to explain and he could have
saved his life.
The proof that Christianity is from God as revealed in its effect
upon the life of individuals, communities and nations, is so apparent
and has been pointed out so often that I will give it but a passing
notice. "If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the
teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself," was
Christ's challenge, and millions have verified it in their own
religious experience. Nearly all the voluntary educational and
philanthropic institutions of the world are supported by Christian
people, and the nations of the earth are prosperous, enlightened and
influential in the exact proportion as their people are intelligent
and consecrated followers of the lowly Nazarene.
It was thus that I found my way back to Christ as my Lord and
Saviour, and I never before fully appreciated the words of Jesus,
"Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give
you rest." The truth dawned upon me gradually, but with irresistible
force. How often have we been perplexed and in doubt on some great
question of truth or duty until finally the solution came to us as if
by magic. Through what the psychologists call subconscious
cerebration our mind has been working at the great problem even when
our conscious attention was given to other matters. I have had a
number of such experiences before and since, and, had I not examined
them critically, I might easily have been led to believe they were
direct revelations from heaven.
For many months the great question had been occupying my mind by day
and by night. Finally the solution came as clear as a revelation from
God. It wakened me in the still of the night and ravished my soul
with peace and joy unspeakable. I arose and took a walk into the
country to a mountain spring and back. I shall never forget that
night, and the ecstatic joy it brought to me. My religious nature had
been outraged so long that when it was set free it returned to its
Lord with a violent bound. The fittest words I could find to express
my feelings are in the 103d Psalm: "Bless the Lord, O my soul; and
all that is within me, bless his holy name."
The question as to what church I should join, or what religious body
I should affiliate with, now confronted me and demanded solution. As
I already intimated, I was perplexed, and partly led to doubt and
confusion by the many different religious bodies, all claiming to be
right. One of my objects in entering this school was to make a
thorough study of the different religious bodies and their doctrines.
One incident that helped me in the solution of this problem was an
occurrence in our New Testament Greek class. The professor declared
that all Greek scholars of note are agreed that the proper meaning of
the word "baptism" in the New Testament is _to immerse_. As I was
raised in a pedobaptist church, this declaration was a great surprise
to me, but I looked up the authorities and found that the professor
had stated the facts correctly.
We had a class that made a study of the character, government and
teaching of the different religious bodies. In this study I was
especially impressed with the polity and teaching of the people
designated as "Disciples of Christ," or "Christians." I procured
their literature and made a thorough study of their position. I
naturally found myself in harmony with their teaching. I had myself
come to see the folly of enforcing upon all believers the speculative
theology of the creeds, and the weakness and waste that result from a
divided church. My experience revealed to me the relative value of
human wisdom and God's wisdom as found in his Book. The thought of
preaching Christ rather than theology, and of restoring the apostolic
church in its teachings, ordinances and practices, came to me as a
godsend in my condition of mind. I was, however, very slow to act in
this matter, as I had been deceived before and it was my desire not
to make a mistake again. After a year's consideration and
considerable correspondence with one of their preachers, I finally
united with the Christian Church at New Castle, Pa. I have been
preaching the plea for Christian union on the primitive gospel ever
since, and the longer I preach it the more I see its beauty and
power.
Having been delivered, through the goodness of God, from this
blinding cloud of rationalism, let us take a backward look at it and
its chief product--Unitarianism--and let us see what lesson God would
teach us through it. Unitarianism, as a church movement, started near
the beginning of the last century. It enlisted many of the best
hearts, brains and purses of this country. It had Harvard University
back of it. It numbered among its followers most of the great poets,
historians and prose writers of our country. It has flooded the
country with free literature, and has furnished to thousands of
ministers its standard works without money and without price. No
movement ever seemed to have such mighty agencies back of it to
insure its rapid spread. And yet, after a century of effort, what do
we see as the result? Only a few hundred churches, most of which are
numerically weak and enlist only a certain class of people.
My conviction of the depressing, devitalizing and disintegrating
effect of Unitarianism has been intensified through my recent
experience in evangelistic work in New England. The rationalistic
liberalism of Unitarianism has largely permeated New England
Protestantism. It was not an accident that it was in New England,
where, to a large body of clergymen, a speaker declared, with
applause, that "Protestantism is decaying and will soon be displaced
by a new form of Catholicism." Here Protestantism is indeed decaying
through its contact with Unitarian teaching, and is already largely
displaced by old Catholicism and new Christian Science and other
antichristian delusions. Nowhere else did I ever see Protestant
churches so saturated with worldly pleasures and so indifferent about
the salvation of souls. It was here I had the humiliating experience
of sitting in a union Thanksgiving service where the preacher called
the Pilgrim Fathers _religious fanatics_, and spoke of words writers
of the Pentateuch put into the mouth of Moses to give them influence
with the people. Yet I never saw a sign of disapproval in the
audience or heard a word of criticism. It is true he was a
Universalist preacher, but that makes it all the worse. To think that
Protestantism has so degenerated in a New England city that a
preacher who does not believe in the divinity of Christ nor in the
inspiration of the Bible should be appointed to represent it on such
an occasion. It is enough to make the Pilgrim Fathers turn in their
graves and groan for pain. Had present-day Protestantism of New
England a fraction of the moral and spiritual earnestness that the
Pilgrim Fathers possessed, it might have been spared the abject
humility of sprawling in weakness before the same vaunting religious
intolerance of Catholicism that through cruel and bloody persecution
drove the Pilgrim Fathers to "the bleak New England shore" for safety
and religious liberty.
When a prominent Catholic recently aped the Protestant clergymen by
declaring that Protestantism is decaying, the preacher at Tremont
Temple called it a "damnable lie." This is a hopeful sign, and
indicates that the sick man is not dead yet. It shows that at least
some think it is not true, or wish it not true; and if enough
get a strong desire that it shall not be true, it will not be true.
When we renounce rationalism and its products it will not be true.
At a meeting of one of the leading ministerial associations of New
England, at which the writer was present, the speaker of the day
declared that the church has been claiming too much for itself. The
contents of the speech indicated that he had reference to its claim
of supernatural power to transform the sinner. He also said he had
given up the effort to reconcile the first chapters of the Bible with
science. The significance is in the fact that some Protestants
acquiesce in such teaching, and that they are in harmony with the
doctrines of Unitarianism.
Although its advocates must admit that Unitarianism is a monumental
failure in organizing churches, it is their boast that it has
powerfully affected other religious bodies. This fact we admit; but
as the effect is devitalizing, disorganizing and ultimately
demoralizing, we consider the result the crowning shame rather than
the crowning glory of Unitarianism.
That the liberal theology resulting from rationalism and championed
in this country by Unitarianism is merely negative and destructive,
is evidenced on every hand. Dr. Pearson, in the _Missionary Review_,
has recently pointed out its fatal effects in the mission fields, and
still more recently it has been compelled to confess its own defeat
in Germany, where it originated and where it has found its chief
support. The evidence of this is found in the _Literary Digest_ of
Feb. 25, 1911, where we find the following:
That "liberal" theology has made an almost utter failure in Germany
is asserted by one of its leading spokesmen in a liberal religious
organ. It consists too much of mere negation, he thinks, and has no
strong faith in anything. The masses have rejected it, and the
educated have accepted it only in small numbers. Practically it is a
failure, and he demands a reconstruction along new lines, with new
ideals and new methods. This courageous liberal is Rev. Dr.
Rittelmeyer, of Nuremberg, and he writes in the _Christliche Welt_
(Tubingen). Here are the main points of his argument:
"Let us ask honestly what results modern theology has attained
practically. As far as the great masses of workingmen are concerned,
practically nothing has been gained. They either do not understand it
or they distrust it. All the public discussions and popularization of
modern critical views have not found any echo or sympathy among the
ranks of the laboring people.
"And how about the educated classes? It has long since been the boast
and hobby of advanced theology that it, and it alone, will satisfy
the religious longings of the educated man who has broken with the
traditional dogma and doctrines of orthodox Christianity. But what
are the actual facts in the case? It is a fact that there are a
considerable number among the educated who thankfully confess that
they can accept Christianity only in the form in which it is taught
by the advanced theologian. But how exceedingly small this number is!
A periodical like the _Christliche Welt_, the only paper of its kind,
has not been able to secure more than five thousand subscribers,
although its contributors are the most brilliant in the land of
scholars and thinkers; while periodicals that are exponents of the
older views are read by tens and even hundreds of thousands. There
are whole classes of society among the educated who are antagonistic
to liberal tendencies in religion. Among these are the officers in
the army and the navy, practitioners of the technical arts and of
engineering, and almost to a man the whole world of business. It is
foolish to close our eyes to these facts."
What is the matter? asks this writer. What is the weakness of liberal
and advanced theological thought? These are some of the answers:
"One trouble is that modern theology has entirely grown out of
criticism. Its weakness is intellectualism; it is a negative
movement. We can understand the cry of the orthodox, that advanced
theology is eliminating one thing after the other from our religious
thought, and then asks, What is left? True, we answer, God is left.
But is it not the case that the modern God-Father faith is generally
a very weak and attenuated faith in a Providence, and nothing more?
And on this subject, too, we quarrel among ourselves, whether a God-
Father troubles himself about little things only or about great
things too, such as the forgiveness of sins. We do the same thing
with Jesus. We speak of him as of a unique personality, as the
highest revelation of the Father, and the like, but always connected
with a certain skeptical undercurrent of thought; but we do not
appreciate him in his deepest soul and in the great motives of his
life. He is not for modern theology what he is for orthodoxy, the
Saviour of the world and the Redeemer of mankind."
Pages:
1 | 2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12