THE NEW THEOLOGY.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 3763, 30 April 1907, Page 3

THE NEW THEOLOGY.

On Sunday evening last Mr Aitken, of the local Presbyterian Church, dealt with the “New Theology ” proposals. He pointed out that the author of the recent declarations —the Rev. R. J. Campbell of the City Temple, London, and successor to the late Dr Parker possessed wonderful ability as a preacher. Not only was he successful in crowding the City Temple every Sunday, but on Thursdays in his services for business men, the capacity of the huge edifice was taxed to its utmost. The demand of the age, said Mr Aitken, seems to be for sensational preaching, and to this he largely attributed Mr Campbell’s defection. ‘ ‘ Having once overstepped the line, he seemed impelled by some irresistible force to get further and further away from the common standards of belief, till his mind became lost in a labrynth of speculations that dazed and horrified men of devout minds to whom the Gospel’s and the Pauline letters and the epistles of the Saints, were their spiritual meat and drink. The press and irreligious public, hungering for some new sensation, goaded the unfortunate man to still greater defection, until to-day, it is dimcult to define his position or know to what extent of unbelief he has descended.’’ , Mr Aitken then dealt with several points of the so - called “New Theology,’’ among others the following : “ The ‘ New Theology ’ teaches that Christ ■ was a man in the same sense only as we are men. That He was the son of earthly parents, just as we are, and nothing more ! This new exponent of theology says : “I know that Jesus Christ was the son of a human father.’’ The virgin birth is repudiated as an impossibility and repudiated in a manner so dogmatic, that there is no door for argument left open. By what means he is able to say he knows, he makes no attempt to disclose. He probably concludes that as no such miraculous manifestation has come within his own puny personal knowledge, such a thing cannot be. Forgetting that there must have been a time, at least, in the beginning of the human race, when human life by other means than those of natural generation came into existence. If such were the case in one instance, and it must have been, it is quite a believable theory that it could be repeated. It may be that he, or we, cannot understand, humanly speaking, the manner or means of its accomplishment, but that is not to say that because a thing is beyond and superior to human knowledge and understanding, that it cannot be. Were such a system of deduction applied to all the unexplained and inexplainable phenomena of the world and the universe, we would have to deny the existence of both. Let some cunning philosopher explain to us the mysteries of a simple blade of .grass, before we are asked to repu-diate-statements, although incomprehensible, that are yet authenticated by unimpeachable testimony. The author of this “ New Theology ” takes up a position in relation to this, that such a consistent materialist as Huxley never attempted to assume. Huxley said it was probable that Jesus had an earthly father. Campbell declares: “I know he had. ’’ We therefore must set aside this dogma of the new theological luminary, until he has time or opportunity to show the means from whence his knowledge is derived, and until then, accept with spiritual understanding the declaration of scripture. . The preacher dealt with other points, such as the statement of our relationship with Christ. That every person is in himself or herself a potential Christ. That every human being was as powerful as Christ was, pointing out that if such were the case many of the passages of Scripture would become meaningless and absurd. He also dealt with Mr Campbell’s practice of repudiating Scripture, saying ‘ 1 that wherever a declararation of Scripture was contrary to his doctrine, he simply ‘lopps ’ off such Scriptures and repudiates their teaching.” Quoting from the British Weekly, he said; “ On a recent Thursday, amid thunders of applause from a mob in the gallery, he repudiated the authority of St. Paul,” In dealing with Mr Campbell s doctrine of sin, he said : “ This new light declares that ‘ sin is not sin’ ; that, that which we have regarded as penal, and standing between us and offended justice, has in effect no existence whatever.” The preacher quoted from the ist Epistle of John, passages showing the fallacy of this contention. “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. . . . “If we say we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and the truth is not in us.” It was pointed out that if there were no sin, then there was no need for atonement, and all the teaching of Scripture in reference to the sacrifice of Christ was without meaning. In concluding, the preacher enjoined his hearers to be true to the old standards of faith. To believe that the “ Word of God ” contained all that was needed to sustain them through life’s tempestuous scenes, as it contained all necessary directions to lead them to life eternal, in which Christ was revealed as the Saviour of men and the propitiation for sin.