SIR ROBERT ANDERSON
Secret Service
Theologian
THE SILENCE OF GOD
APPENDIX TWO
NOTE VIII. (page 131). How deep-seated and venerable is the
popular belief that all misdeeds of a certain gravity are due to Satanic
influence. But this belief suggests a difficulty which has perplexed and
distressed many a thoughtful Christian. Multitudes innumerable thus transgress.
Nor are they to be found only in the squalid dwellings of our city slums, but
in the abodes of wealth and culture; not only in our great unlovely towns, but
in every village and hamlet in the land. Nor are these shores in any special
sense the domain of Satan On the contrary, if vice and crime are signs of his
presence and power, other countries must claim more of his activity than our
own. And when we turn to the darker scenes of heathenism, the appalling tale of
hideous vice and cruelty gives proof that, there, the devil must be still more
busy than in Christendom. But if the majority of the many thousands of millions
of mankind are thus under his personal influence, he must be acquainted with
the life and circumstances of each individual. Are we, then, to conclude that
he is practically omnipresent and omniscient? Are we to ascribe to him these
attributes of Deity?
As regards the unseen world, any belief which does not
rest upon revelation is essentially superstitious: what, then, is the testimony
of Scripture on this subject? The first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans
treats of the condition of the heathen with a definiteness which leaves nothing
to be desired. To this passage, then, let us appeal, and by it let the popular
belief be tested. Here are the words :-
"Knowing God, they glorified Him
not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their
senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became
fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an
image of corruptible man, and of birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping
things. Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto
uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonoured among themselves: for that
they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the
creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. For this cause God
gave them up unto vile passions. . . . And even as they refused to have God in
their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things
which are not fitting" (Rom. i. 25-28, R.V.).
If Satan were immediately
responsible for the baser immoralities of men, it is inconceivable that such a
passage would contain no allusion to the fact; but allusion there is none. The
words are clear and simple-" God gave them up"; and human nature in its
alienation from God accounts for their depravity. Nor will it avail to plead
that it is only pagan depravity which is here in question. If no devil is
needed to account for the abominations of the heathen world, why appeal to the
supernatural to explain the vices and crimes of Christendom? To do so is as
unphilosophical as it is unscriptural.
And why should Satan tempt men in
this way? His doing so would be intelligible if his power over them depended on
their leading vicious lives. But Scripture vetoes this suggestion. Some who own
his sway are slaves of vice, but others are religious zealots of blameless
character; and our Lord expressly declares that it is the zealots who are
farthest from the kingdom.'
The whole passage from ver. 18 claims careful
study. Science explains the condition of civilised man by evolution-although
the only Law it can point to is degeneracy: the rest is all mere theory-
Revelation explains the state of the world generally by the fact that, having
originally the knowledge of God, they wilfully lost it, and so God left them to
the darkness of their own deliberate choice.
Not that immorality is any
passport to heaven, any recommendation to Divine favour. On the contrary, it is
a highway to "the City of Destruction"; but it is for this very reason that it
brings a man within reach of hope, for in "the City of Destruction" it is that
the Saviour is seeking the lost. The devotee of blameless life, who thanks God
that he is not as other men, is entirely on the devil's side; whereas, were he
tempted to open sin, he might be brought to his knees to pray that other prayer
which would bring all heaven to his help.
How it would simplify matters if
morality were a distinctive badge of the regenerate, and immorality
characterised the rest! But vice is not the hall-mark of the devil's handiwork.
"A form of religion' is one of his "devices." Among the most dangerous enemies
of Christ and Christianity, are men who live pure and upright lives, and who
preach righteousness. "And no marvel; for even Satan fashioneth himself into an
angel of light:
It is no great thing therefore if his ministers also
fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness." And if "the very elect" are
deceived by the fraud, it is mainly because they are blinded by this error of
the Satan myth.
It is not, I again repeat, in the domain of morals that the
devil's influence is distinctively declared, but in the spiritual sphere. Our
race has not sprung from Adam in Eden innocence, but from Adam the fallen and
sinful outcast. Human nature is thus poisoned at its very source by ignorance
and distrust of God. It is a fallen nature. And Satan it was who thus debased
it. What wonder, then, that he is able to influence the main currents of human
thought and action in regard to things Divine? What wonder that he can control
the religion of the race!
All this may excite the contempt of the agnostic,
but we challenge him to offer some other explanation of the well ascertained
facts. The evolutionist pretends to account for the condition of the lower
strata of humanity; but how can he explain the phenomena of the religion of
Christendom? In spite of all the advantages which civilisation affords, men
have bartered the sublime truths of Christianity for the superstitions of
old-world paganism. Such figments as baptismal regeneration and the possession
of mystic powers by a priestly caste are wholly repugnant to Christianity, and
Judaism, even in its apostasy, was free from them; and yet they have been
adopted as an integral part of the Christian religion. This one fact is proof
that, so far at least as the origin of man is concerned, evolution is false and
the story of the Eden fall is true.
But this kind of Satanic influence
involves no knowledge of the inner experience of each life, no possession of
Divine attributes. It implies no special action directed simultaneously against
millions of individuals scattered over all the globe. That the devil does deal
with individuals we know, but Scripture indicates that such cases are
exceptional. The warning to the Twelve, that Satan desired to have them, though
intended for all, was specially for Peter. It is but natural that he should
seek to drag down those who stand out as champions of the truth. Nor can even
the lowliest disciple be sure of immunity from his attacks. He "walketh about,"
we read, "as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour." And a prowling lion
may seize even the very weakest for his prey. This may explain conflicts which
sometimes try the faith even of the humblest Christian. The old classification
of "the world, the flesh, and the devil" is a right one. And "our wrestling is
not against flesh and blood." In the "flesh" sphere our safety is in flight.
But flight from Satan is impossible. "Flee youthful lusts ;" but "Resist the
devil, and he will flee from you." Such is the distinction clearly marked in
Scripture. The baser "lusts of the flesh" are entirely under a man's control,
unless indeed he is enervated by vicious indulgence; but with the strongest and
holiest of men "the whole armour of God" is the only sure defence against the
attacks of Satan.'
Of the devil's aim and methods I have already spoken. No
one, I repeat, may assert that he might not use the basest means to ensnare a
minister of Christ, and thus mar his testimony and destroy his usefulness. But
it cannot be asserted too often or too plainly that his normal effort is not to
tempt to the commission of sins such as lead to contrition, and teach us how
weak we are; but, by drawing us away to mere human morality, or religion, or
philosophy, to deaden or destroy our sense of dependence upon God. For sin may
humble a Christian; but human philosophy and religion can only foster his
self-esteem. And pride is "the snare of the devil" ; not humility.
That
there are "unclean spirits" we know. And certain abnormal phases of depravity
may be due possibly, even in our own day, to demoniacal possession; but this is
wholly distinct from Satanic temptations. And demons even are not all
"unclean." The warned-against "teachings of demons" in "later times" are not
incitements to vice, but to a more exacting morality and a spirituality more
transcendental than even Christianity enjoins. Marriage itself is repulsive to
this fastidious cult, and certain kinds of food, "which God created to be
received with thanksgiving," it absolutely rejects.' The flagrant immoralities
of some of the Corinthian converts drew from the apostle no suggestion of
Satanic agency, save indeed as a possible means towards the restoration of
those who had sinned. The warning, "Lest Satan should get an advantage of us,"
was given when their zeal to clear themselves betrayed them into resentment
against the offenders. And it was the advent of false teachers "preaching
another Jesus" which evoked the further warning against the Serpent's
"subtilty," lest their minds should be "corrupted from the simplicity that is
in Christ." So again, when persecution prevailed in the Thessalonian church, he
was solicitous "to know their faith," fearing "lest the Tempter should tempt
them," and their confidence in God should fail.
There is one passage of
Scripture which some seem to think refutes what has been here maintained. As a
matter of fact it may be appealed to in support of it. The following are the
opening words of the second chapter of Ephesians :-.-
"And you did He
quicken, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins, wherein aforetime
ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the
power of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience;
among whom we also all once lived in the lusts of our flesh, doing the desires
of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the
rest" (Eph. ii. 1-3, R.V.).
Those who read this passage in the light of the
Satan myth entirely lose its special teaching. The life of every unregenerate
man, whether marked by the grossest vice or by high morality, by utter atheism
or by intense religious zeal, is "according to the spirit that worketh in the
sons of disobedience." The life of Saul the persecutor had been as pure and
blameless as was the life of Paul the apostle of the Lord. And yet he here
brackets himself with the Ephesian converts. Hence the emphatic "all" of the
third verse. All alike had walked "according to the prince of the power of the
air," and therefore "according to the course of this world," for Satan is this
world's prince and god.' So far from implying that their "trespasses and sins"
had been due to supernatural incitement, the apostle expressly declares they
had been altogether natural and human. The Gentile sensualists were but "doing
the desires of the flesh"; the Jewish zealot "the desires of the mind." For the
terms immorality and sin are not convertible. The one refers to an arbitrary
human standard of right; the other to a standard altogether Divine. As already
indicated, the essence of sin is lawlessness. Man was endowed by his Creator
with a will absolutely free. But, though all blessing depended on his keeping
it in subjection, he asserted it in opposition to the Divine will. And as the
result "the carnal (or natural) mind is enmity against God; for (as the apostle
adds) it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Our fallen
nature has thus become subject to its own law of gravitation; and it would be
as unreasonable to expect a man to achieve the physical feat of mounting upward
towards the sky, as to suppose that, apart from Divine grace, the life of an
unregenerate sinner could turn Godward. In the one case as in the other, a
miracle alone could account for the phenomenon. And such a miracle both the
apostle himself and the Ephesian converts had experienced. Hence the added
words :- "But God, being rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved
us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, quickened us together with
Christ." ' No miracle, indeed, is needed to enable men to lead moral and
religious lives. Here the words of Enid's song are true :- "For man is man, and
master of his fate."
It is in the spiritual sphere that, by the law of his
nature, he ever gravitates downward, and falls away from God.
Finally, I
would again remark that the Christian who turns to prophecy with a mind
unbiased by traditional views about Satan will find new meaning in the
predictions relating to the "latter days." Delegated authority was all the
devil claimed in the Temptation, as appears from the very words he used. To
him, he declared, had been "delivered" the kingdoms of the world, with all the
power and the glory of them. But the power and the glory the Christian has been
taught to ascribe to God alone. In his last great effort, therefore, Satan
incarnate will claim to be Divine. And the lie, we are told, will be accredited
by "all power and signs and lying wonders." God's "millennium" will be
anticipated and travestied by the reign of the Man of Sin. And the fact that
the devil will yield to him "his throne and great authority"' has led to the
assumption that his rule will be marked by Saturnalian orgies of violence and
lust. But how, then, can we explain the words of Christ, that the world will
hail him as the true Messiah, and that, if such a thing were possible, the very
elect would be deceived by the imposture? If read with a right appreciation of
the Satan of Scripture, these words of our Divine Lord are a most solemn
warning to the believer, even for the days we live in; but read in the false
light of the Satan myth, they remain an insoluble enigma.
According to
English law "the Lord's day "-as Sunday is designated in the old statutes- is a
day on which no judge or magistrate may sit, and no jury may be empanelled. The
criminal may be taken red-handed, but all that the law can do is to hold him in
ward until the day of grace has run its course, and a competent tribunal may
adjudicate upon his crime. If our law went further in the same direction, and
the functions of the constable also were suspended, it would afford an apter
illustration of the great truth that is here in question. But to make the
parable complete, we must go even further still, and suppose not only that the
criminal enjoys for the moment freedom even from arrest, but that there is an
amnesty in force by which he may secure absolute immunity from all the
consequences of his crime.
But to hold such language is to speak in an
unknown tongue; and to turn to the words of Scripture in support of it is to
risk losing men's attention altogether. The mystery of the gospel is that God
can justify a sinner, and yet be just. He justifies the ungodly. "To him that
worketh not, but believeth in Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is
counted for righteousness" (Rom. iv. 5). Here is another kindred statement:
"The grace of God hath appeared salvation-bringing to all men." And the passage
proceeds: "For we also were aforetime foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving
divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, hating one
another. But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and His love-toward-man,
appeared, not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but
according to His mercy He saved us" (Tit ii 1-14, and iii. 3-5). Or if any
would wish to have words spoken by the lips of our blessed Lord Himself, they
will be found in many a passage of the Gospels. Here, for example, is His
testimony to Nicodemus: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have
everlasting life."
Are we not justified, then, in saying that forgiveness
and eternal life are brought within reach of all; that heaven is made as free
to sinful men as infinite love and grace can make it? If words have any
meaning, this, and nothing less than this, is the truth. But how is this gospel
treated? In the minds of the religious it excites the utmost indignation. They
no longer burn men at the stake for proclaiming it, as in darker days they used
to do, but though their anger shows itself in gentler ways it is just as real.
And upon common men it makes no impression whatever. A man once stood on London
Bridge, for a wager, offering real sovereigns for a shilling each. The notice
he displayed was plainly worded, and it was read by hundreds of the passers-by.
But by all it was read incredulously, and therefore with indifference. He won
his wager: not a single coin was taken from him! And for the same reason "the
gospel of the grace of God" is ignored. It will be thus ignored by hundreds who
will read these pages. Men are possessed by the belief that eternal life can be
attained only upon impracticable conditions, and so their attitude towards the
whole matter is one of apathy. But apathy gives place to anger if any one dares
to speak of eternal judgment and a hell for the impenitent No blasphemy can be
too daring to hurl at a God who would not bring a sinner to heaven in the way
that a constable brings a drunken prisoner to the lock-up without his will, or,
if needs be, against his will!
But man, made in the image of God, is
endowed with a will, and to that will the Divine appeal is addressed. "Ye will
not come to Me that ye might have life" was the Lord's yearning intreaty to
those who listened to His words, but refused to give heed to them. "Whosoever
will, let him take the water of life freely." God's own heaven is the home to
which He is calling sinful men. Hell has been prepared, not for such, but for
the devil and his angels. But if men refuse Christ and take sides with Satan,
they must reap what they sow.
"Of what value, then, is prayer?" some one
will ask, and "What place is there for it?" It is with extreme diffidence that
I venture to give expression to thoughts on this subject which have long taken
possession of my own mind. And I do so only because it may possibly bring
relief to many who are sorely distressed at the seeming failure of the prayer
-promises of the Gospels. Words could not be plainer than those in which our
Lord impressed on His disciples that Almighty power was absolutely at their
disposal, if only they had faith. When they wondered that the fig-tree withered
at His word, He told them that they too could command this, or even the moving
of a mountain. And He added," And all things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer,
believing, ye shall receive" (Matt. xxL 20-22). How many there are who in
intensest earnestness have claimed such promises, and have reaped bitter
disappointment which has staggered their faith! It is easy of course to explain
the failure by reading into the promise conditions of one kind or another,
though the Lord Himself made no conditions whatever. But instead of tampering
thus with His words, let us consider whether the true solution of the
difficulty may not be found in the truth which these pages have endeavoured to
unfold.
And here the striking fact claims attention that while the record
of the Pentecostal dispensation presents us with the practical counterpart of
all such promises, the Epistles, which unfold the doctrine of the present
dispensation, and describe the life which befits that doctrine -the life of
faith - inculcate thoughts about prayer which are essentially different, and
which are entirely In accord with the actual experience of spiritual
Christians. Some perhaps may urge that while the earlier Gospels may thus be
explained, St. John cannot be treated in this way. I can in reply but plead
with the thoughtful reader to consider whether every word addressed to the
apostles is intended to apply to all believers at all times. Take John xiv. 12
as a test of this. Is every believer to be endowed with miraculous powers equal
to or greater than those exercised by the Lord Himself? We are prepared at once
to limit the scope of such words: is it so clear, then, that the words which
immediately follow are of universal application? We have the fact, I repeat,
that both these promises were proved to be true in the Pentecostal
dispensation, and that neither has been proved to be true in the Christian
Church.2 So also of chap. xv. 16, and of xvL 23, &c.
But, it will be
asked, Is not the promise explicitly repeated in St. John's First Epistle (i
John iii. 22 and v. 14, 15)? I think not. It seems to me that the apostles were
in a special sense empowered both to act and to pray in the name of the Lord
Jesus, whereas the Christian should bow in presence of the words, "according to
His will." As Dean Alford here remarks, "If we knew His will thoroughly, and
submitted to it heartily, it would be impossible for us to ask anything, for
the spirit or for the body, which He should not hear and perform. And it is
this ideal state, as always, which the apostle has in view." But the Christian
too commonly makes his own longings, or his supposed interests, and not the
Divine will, the basis of his prayer; he goes on to persuade himself that his
request will be granted; he then regards this "faith" as a pledge that he has
been heard; and finally, when the issue belies his confident hopes, he gives
way to bitterness and unbelief. True faith is always prepared for a refusal.
Some, we read, "through faith," "obtained promises"; but, no less "through
faith," "others were tortured, not accepting deliverance."
Some, perhaps,
may think it a sufficient refutation of all this to appeal to what are called
"striking answers to prayer," such as certain Christians have experienced in
every age. But the appeal refutes itself. They are justly regarded as "striking
answers" precisely because they are exceptional. No one may dare to limit what
God will do for the believer. But to make the experience of some the standard
of faith for all is one of the greatest errors and snares of Christian life. If
these promises are of universal application, the fact that any answer to prayer
should be considered striking in any sense is proof of general apostasy.
A
detailed examination of the passages in the Epistles which refer to this
subject would far exceed the limits of a note. One more may suffice. I allude
to the familiar words of Phil. iv. 6, 7: "In nothing be anxious; but in
everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be
made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding,
shall guard your hearts and your thoughts in Christ Jesus" (R.V.). It is a
solemn thing to make unconditioned demands upon God. To the record of such
prayers may often be added the solemn words: "He gave them their request, but
sent leanness into their soul." Hezekiah prayed in this way. He claimed a
prolongation of his life, and God granted his petition; and the added years
gave him his son Manasseh, and the consequences of Manasseh's sin (that God
"would not pardon ") still rest as a blight and a curse upon that nation! Such
a prayer, I make bold to say, is unfitting to the Christian. How different the
teaching of the Divine Spirit! It may be the life of husband or wife, of parent
or child, that is in the balance: what then shall be the believer's attitude?
To claim it, as Hezekiah did, and chance the awful risks which the answer may
entail? Or "by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving," to leave the request
with God; and having thus left it all with Him, to trust His love and wisdom
with the issue? It was thus the apostle prayed, when he sought relief from that
mysterious hindrance to his ministry; and the denial of his request, instead of
bringing bitterness of soul, only served to teach him more of "the power of
Christ" (2 Cor. xii. 8, 9). Above all it was thus the Master prayed in the
garden of Gethsemane (Matt. xxvi. 39, 42).
The prayer of the Pentecostal
age was like drawing cheques to be paid in coin over the counter. The prayer of
the Christian dispensation -that is, of the life of faith -is to make known our
requests to God, and to be at peace. If the matter were one within the power of
a friend to deal with a friend whose wisdom we could trust and of whose love we
were assured -should we not be content to say, after telling him all, "Now you
know my feelings and my wishes, and I leave the case entirely in your hands."
And this is just what God invites.
The sceptic seldom admits that any
position once held by him is untenable, and a signal exception to this is
deserving of special notice. Not content with making havoc of the Old
Testament, criticism has long been "running amuck" through the New Testament
also. "It has been demonstrated" (says a recent writer) "that the selection of
the books composing it and their separation from the vast mass of spurious
gospels, epistles, and apocalyptic literature was a gradual process, and,
indeed, that the rejection of some books and the acceptance of others was
accidental."' But all this is now exploded by the greatest living authority
upon the subject, Professor Harnack of Berlin. And his testimony is all the
more telling because he gives no sign of repentance as regards his utter
rejection of Christianity. Himself the foremost champion of unorthodoxy, he
freely owns that in this matter the critics are wrong and the orthodox are
right. Here is an extract from the preface to his recent work on "The
Chronology of the oldest Christian Literature" Mr. Andrew D. White's "Warfare
of Science with Theology," vol. ii. p. 388. This writer's appointment to the
American Embassy at Berlin will no doubt call increased attention to his book.
Real forensic skill is apparent in the use he makes of his great erudition;
for, allowing for one important omission, his work is quite encyclopedic. His
indictment of "theology" is overwhelming, and with much of it I am of course in
thorough sympathy. But of Christianity, so far as appears from his treatise, he
knows absolutely nothing. To him our Divine Lord is merely "the Blessed
Founder" of the Christian religion -the Buddha of Christentiom. Indeed he
belongs to that large class of persons who, without offence, may be aptly
described as Christianised Buddhists.
"There was a time-the general public
indeed has not got beyond it-in which the oldest Christian literature,
including the New Testament, was looked upon as a tissue of deceptions and
forgeries. That time is passed. For science it was an episode in which it
learned much, and after which it has much to forget. The results, however, of
the following investigations go in a 'reactionary' direction, beyond what can
be described as the middle position of present-day criticism. The oldest
Literature of the Church in all main points and in most details, from the point
of view of literary criticism, is genuine and trustworthy. In the whole New
Testament there is in all probability only a single writing which can be looked
upon as pseudonymous in the strictest sense of the word- the Second Epistle of
Peter."
This is but one of many proofs that the tide has turned which in
recent years has threatened to undermine the Christian faith. In the scepticism
of the day there is nothing distinctive save that so many of its champions are
men who are publicly pledged and subsidised to teach what they deny. It is only
the unstable and the ignorant who are overwhelmed by a book like that above
cited. Neither the well-instructed nor the spiritual can be thus led to reject
the Bible as a fraud and Christianity as a superstition. They can understand
the difference between a Divine revelation and human comments and commentaries.
To take a single example -they do not regard the Ussher-Lloyd Chronology in the
margin of our English Bible as "equally inspired with the sacred text itself."'
And while refusing to accept open-mouthed the wild conjectures of certain
Egyptologists as to the antiquity of ancient dynasties, they recognise that the
"conjectural periods" between the Deluge and the Kingdom must be largely
extended. If we eliminate the blunders of theologians and "reconcilers" on the
one hand and the theories (as distinguished from the facts) of science on the
other, a ponderous treatise like Mr. A. D. White's would be reduced to very
small proportions. The whole "Mosaic Cosmogony" controversy is ruled out at
once, and many questions which seem of serious moment shrink into the
background or entirely disappear. Moreover, there is in Holy Scripture a
"hidden harmony" unknown to those who ignore the scheme of type and prophecy
which permeates the whole. This study is a sure antidote to scepticism. No
student of prophecy is a sceptic. And as regards the typology of Scripture,
which is the alphabet of the language in which the New Testament is written,
there is not one of the rationalists who has given proof of possessing any
knowledge whatever. Ignorance of the alphabet is a fatal defect in those who
claim to expound the text; and this ignorance, which Hengstenberg deplored in
his day, is still absolute in the case of all without exception who are seeking
to prove that the Bible is but a human book "Truth brings out the hidden
harmony, when unbelief can only, with a dull dogmatism, deny"
Literature | Photos | Links | Home