James Denney

The demand that the Atonement shall be exhibited in vital relation to a new life in which sin is overcome... read more

The demand that the Atonement shall be exhibited in vital relation to a new life in which sin is overcome... is entirely legitimate, and it touches a weak point in the traditional Protestant doctrine. Dr. (Thomas) Chalmers tells us that he was brought up -- such was the effect of the current orthodoxy upon him -- in a certain distrust of good works. Some were certainly wanted, but not as being themselves salvation, only, as he puts it, as tokens of justification. It was a distinct stage in his religious progress when he realized that true justification sanctifies, and that the soul can and ought to abandon itself spontaneously and joyfully to do the good that it delights in. The modern mind assumes what Dr. Chalmers painfully discovered. An atonement that does not regenerate, it truly holds, is not an atonement in which men can be asked to believe.

The intelligence which has learned to be a law to itself, criticising, rejecting, appropriating, assimilating, cannot deny its nature and read more

The intelligence which has learned to be a law to itself, criticising, rejecting, appropriating, assimilating, cannot deny its nature and suspend its functions when it opens the New Testament. It cannot make itself the slave of men, not even though the men are Peter and Paul and John; no, not even though it were the Son of Man Himself. It resents dictation, not willfully nor wantonly, but because it must; and it resents it all the more when it claims to be inspired. If, therefore, the Atonement can only be received by those who are prepared from the threshold to acknowledge the inspiration and the consequent authority of Scripture, it can never be received by modern men at all.

There is that in the Gospel with which no one is allowed to argue. All we can do is believe read more

There is that in the Gospel with which no one is allowed to argue. All we can do is believe or disbelieve; to give it in our life the place of the final reality to which everything else must give way, or to refuse it that place. Many people ... would like to talk the Word of God over. It raises in their minds various questions they would willingly discuss. It has aspects of interest and of difficulty which call for consideration; and so on. Perhaps there are some that confusedly shield themselves against the responsibilities of faith and unbelief by such thoughts. All that such thoughts prove, however, is that those who cherish them have never yet realized that what we are dealing with in the Gospel is GOD. When God speaks in Christ, He reveals His gracious will without qualification. And without qualification, we have to believe in it, or refuse to believe, and so decide the controversy between ourselves and Him. God has not come into the world in Christ ... to be talked about, but to become the supreme reality on the life of men, or to be excluded from that place.

If there had anywhere appeared in space Another place of refuge where to flee, Our hearts had read more

If there had anywhere appeared in space Another place of refuge where to flee, Our hearts had taken refuge from that place, And not with Thee. For we against creation's bars had beat Like prisoned eagles, through great worlds had sought Though but a foot of ground to plant our feet, Where Thou wert not. And only when we found in earth and air, In heaven or hell, that such might nowhere be That we could not flee from Thee anywhere, We fled to Thee. ... Richard Chevenix Trench April 8, 2000 Commemoration of William Augustus Muhlenberg of New York, Priest, 1877 It is the recognition of this divine necessity -- not to forgive, but to forgive in a way which shows that God is irreconcilable to evil, and can never treat it as other or less than it is -- it is the recognition of this divine necessity, or the failure to recognise it, which ultimately divides interpreters of Christianity into evangelical and non-evangelical, those who are true to the New Testament and those who cannot digest it.

Even in a day of overdone distinctions, one might point out that interpretations are not properly to be classified as read more

Even in a day of overdone distinctions, one might point out that interpretations are not properly to be classified as historical or dogmatic, but as true or false. If they are false, it does not matter whether they be called dogmatic or historical; and if they are true, they may quite well be both.