A THEOLOGICAL QUESTION.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 14238, 29 December 1911, Page 2

A THEOLOGICAL QUESTION.

T (SPECIAL TO " THE PHESS.") AUCKLAND, December 27. Bishop Crossley was approached by a "Star" reporter with a view to securing some statement from him as to the remarks passed by Bishop Julius concerning "the many in the Church who had very great doubts about the Divinity of Christ and tho false sotting of the Divine truth . from the false amount of what was called 'Jesus worship.'" Bishop Crossly, however, whilo expressing thanks for the opportunity given him of expressing an opinion, stated that he would prefer not to bo put in tho position of appearing to criticise the opinions of a brother Bishop, and he begged to be excused., Tho Rev. R. H. Kndwlos Kempton, of the Tabernacle, _aid that as. he read the message he found himself to be in entire sympathy with the views of Bishop; Julius, for' ho understood- that tho Bishop was contending for the Divinity of Christ. Bishop Julius had said "the Divinity of Christ is- an essental part of the Christian belief," and Mr Kempton went on to say "there has been arid must be progress in theology, but tho Divinity of Christ is ono of its immovable foundations." "I understand," Mr Kempton continued, "that Bishop Julius is referring to the mediating theology with which every Christian Minister is familiar, and also, of course, many among our people. Tho revival of this mediating theology is largely due to the teachings of Ritschl, a Prussian theologian, who was born in Berlin in 1522 and earlier than that to.the teaching, of Schleirmacher and Hegel at the beginning of last century. The views obtaining in. many quarters to-day ore to tho e&ecfc that the difference between Christ and ourselves is in degree and not in kind. In Him the Divine element had the ascendancy and in us it has not. These views have communicated themselves to those who think that Christ's type of goodness is not a human type; that His life affords no example because of His remoteness from us." "But," Mr Kempton contended, "this type is essentially a human typo, for sin is not an inheritant characteristic of human nature; it is an intrusion. History shows that the intermediate views of Christ's person have never been able to survive. The real issue, as Dr. Orr says, is between a truly Divine Christ and pure hnmanitariamsm. Belief in God can only secure itself through belief in Christ." The Rev. Geo. Bond, of Grafton road Methodist Church, said that so far as could be gathered from the telegraphed message, Bishop Julius was perfectly orthodox. Th© whole fabric of Christian belief would fall to the ground when they gave up tho doctrine* of the Divinity of Christ. Mr Bond did not know what hymns wero referred to by Bishop Julius as being a sort of sentimental trash. The classic hymns which were being used by all the Churches, particularly at this festive season of the year, all referred to the incarnation of God in Christ. Tho Rev. Isaac Jolly, M.A., said* "Judging the remarks of Bishop Julius from the Press Association report, I would say they are distinctly unwise.. Of course the doctrine of the Deity of our Lord is an, essential article of the Christian faith, and I presume Bishop Julius means the Deity of our Lord wlien ho says 'the Divinity of Christ is an essential part of the Christian belief, although the word Divinity is sometimes used in an ambigious sense.' , Viewed in that way Bishop Julius's statement will be regarded as a commonplace remark by earnest Christian thinkers. Bishop Julius was also right in warning his hearers of the folly of throwing away a belief that has stood the test of experience and examination as faith in the Deity of our Lord has done, and this warning is certainly needed by many half educated thinkers in New Zealand/ '