DR. TUDOR JONES AND HIS LETTERS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 302, 15 September 1908, Page 4

DR. TUDOR JONES AND HIS LETTERS.

Sir,—For tho third time I now draw the attention of your readers to the fact' thai I)r. Tudor Jones will not face tlio issue'wliicl lie himself has raised. Tlio ono qucstioi before us is whether tlio expiatory doctrine of the Atonement, which is under discussioi in the Presbyterian Church ol' New Zealand is n living question in the Homeland, 01 whether Dr. Jones was correct when he saic that this theory is dead in every scat o: learning in tlio Old World. In my lasi letter 1 gave quotations from tlio works o: six of the leading-college principals and pro fossors in Britain that provo conclusive),! that Dr. Jones's statement is wholly con trary to fact, and gave also tlio flames o other leading theological professors holding the same views. As Dr. Jones doos no; attempt to meet these quotations, tho leas l we could expect from him would be a franl apology for his utterly incorrect and mis leading statement. But instead of taking that straightforward course, Dr. Jones, ii his letter in your issue of to-day ; again seek; to evade tho issue which he lumself raiscc by filling almost a column on tho views o: Drs. Forsyth-, and Garvie 011 questions in ne way related to the doctrine of tho Atone mcnt. 111 _ a previous letter ho sought t< evade the issuo by discussing questions 0: higher criticism. Now all this is simply a not very honest attempt to evade the one question under discussion. It is more thai timo that Dr. Jones was seeking, to rheei fairly tho evidence that I have given thai his statement about the Atonement is en tiroly wrong, or else frankly to acknowledge his blunder and apologise for it. Continued attempts to evade tho issue can only affccl •his own reputation. I now draw tho attention of your reader; to tho fact that the very book from whicl Dr. Jones quotes—Dr. Garvio's "Studies if tho Inner Life of Christ"—proves that mj statements arc entirely correct. This ii abundantly proved in the chapter on "Tin Desolation of tho Cross." On page '422 Dr Garvio says: "But the writer feels constrained to add that his own conviction is over deepening that God's holy lovo requirec' for its own satisfaction that in tho very aci of Divine forgiveness through tho Cross the ultimate consequence of sin as expressive oi God's judgment (the judgment of holy lovo] should bo mado manifest." And on page 425 ho says: "For Christ, . as for the Apostles, tho propitiation, expiation, atonement was no permanent, universal process; it was a solitary, single act of the Incarnatc Son of God on the Cross of Calvary. The working out of tho salvation (ills the centuries; tlio salvation itself as accomplished in tho sacrifice of Christ is, according to His own witness in dying, finished." Here, in tho very book from which Dr. Jones quotes, Dr. Garvio teaches the sacrificial and. expiatory nature of our Lord's death in the most omphatic manner. His own authorities prove that his statements about tho Atonement are utterly wrong. And Dr. Jones is equally unfortunate in his reference to Principal Forsyth. In my last letter I quoted from Dr. Forsyth's paper in the volumo 011 "Tho Atonement in Modern Religious Thought," which is, from first to last, a strong defence of tho expiatory doctrine of tho Atonement. In his little book on "Tho Holy Father," he prcaclics that truth with passion. And 110 preaches tho samo truth in his volumo 011 "Positive Preaching and the Modern Mind." And in the "British Cocgregationalist" for Juno 18 Principals Forsyth and Garvio publish an article on "Our Unwritten Belief as Progressive Evangelical Churches." In it they say: "Wo believe that tlio solid body of thought and feeling in Congregationalism holds, as it has always held, to tho evangelical position and the doctrine of gracc, as of the essence of a church." Your readers will thus observe that the very leaders of British thought to whom Dr. Jones appeals preach the evangelical doctrine of tho Atonewith warm enthusiasm. All this shows

;hat instead of this question being dead, ns Dr. Jones lias boon telling the people of Welington, it is 0110 of the most. living questions in Britain to-day. Only recently Dr. Forsyth took it as the subject of his ad:lrcss at. a great meeting of Congregationilists. And I challenge Dr. Jones to name * single leading Presbyterian theologian in Britain who denies it. Nor is the teaching of this doctrine confined to conservative quarters. If Dr. Jones ivill turn to the July number of the "Hibbert Journal," he will find oil pages 922-923 n defence of the expiatory doctrine of the Atonement by Professor Mackintosh, of New College, Edinburgh, in a review of a book by Dr. Drummond. A doctrine that is taught in the pages of the "Hibbert Journal" must bo recognised as living enough. I. ask again if it is not more than time for Dr. Jones to apologise frankly for his incorrect and misleading statement. He will not mako his position better by raising other irrelevant issues and talking big about Germany, etc. Your readers are intelligent enough to see through that sort of thing.— I am, etc., ISAAC JOLLY. Palmerston North, September 11, 1908.