Quick Return Home Page

        Readers of this paper have doubtless noticed that I frequently use the word orthodox and orthodoxy, and I suppose that all understand the sense in which I use it, viz., to express the generally received faith among all classes of Christians.  For instance endless torment is an orthodox doctrine, i.e. it is held by the great mass of professing Christians throughout the world; so of the Trinity Substitution, Immortality of the soul, etc.:-- these are all so called orthodox  doctrines, being embraced in the faith of the majority of Christendom. This is the sense in which I have used the word. Strictly speaking orthodoxy is a word that applies only to the truth; its etymological meaning is straight doctrine, i.e. true, correct doctrine; in this sense the writer claims to be orthodox.  But the word has come to have a technical sense, with the meaning already explained; in this respect it is like the word evangelical, which appellation a branch of the Christian church has sought to monopolize. The use of the term Orthodox, by those who claim the exclusive right to use it, is really absurd, since as a matter of fact the standard of orthodoxy shifts and changes from generation to generation, from decade to decade, and almost  from year to year. That standard in Protestant churches in the days of Jonathan Edwards, was very different from what it is today even in those denominations that are most conservative and non-progressive.  In these days too,  we have what is called "the new orthodoxy," or "the new departure," which is so widely different from the old orthodoxy as to give rise to this anomalous and paradoxical condition of things, viz. the existence of two orthodoxies, widely different and decidedly opposed, and yet both of them orthodox, i.e. correct, since the new as well as the old orthodoxy is held by prelates and divines high in authority and influence in Protestant churches. Thus does this word, which ought to denote something  fixed and permanent, really signify that most changeable of all terrestrial things, human opinion; and the various branches of the nominal church really make themselves ridiculous in their lofty claims of orthodoxy, and appear hypocritical in their oft-times vehement condemnation of heresy, though at other times, for reasons of expediency, they condone it.  The fact is that no church has a right to set itself up as a fixed standard of religious truth; it is simply impudent presumption to use these terms orthodox and evangelical in the manner in which they are used by certain of the sects, and it shows a sad lack of the spirit of Christ and of that charity that "covereth all things." (I. Cor. XIII. 7, N. V. margin). "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth; yea, he shall be holden up, for God is able to make him stand" (Rom. XIV. 4).
        In former issues of THE SPIRIT OF THE WORD I have not hesitated to refer in very plain terms to the absurdities and monstrosities of the popular theology.  I make no apology for these criticisms; if I could I would make them more emphatic, for to me it appears that the prevalent religious beliefs are to a very great extent horrible caricatures of the truth, contradictory, senseless, and, in some cases, actually blasphemous. I would make no compromise with these dogmas that outrage reason as well as Scripture, that "put darkness for light and light for darkness,"-- but would rather do all I can to root up these noxious plants that our heavenly Father hath not planted. (Matt. XV. 13). In the light of Scripture as well as the actual state of things around us the entire outward, visible, organized church, is plainly a poor, fallen, corrupt institution, like the Jewish body politic in the time of the old prophet; "the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint; from the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it, but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment." There are many in the church who see this wretched condition of affairs and denounce it unsparingly, but still they think that the church may yet be saved, i.e. the organization, saved; to me this seems impossible, disintegration is inevitable; Babylon must come down.  In the Revelation we have a degenerate, fallen church represented by:

(Rev. XVII. 1-6). That representation is today the shameful symbol of the entire body of the organized, nominal Christian Church, Greek, Roman and Protestant. I think that a brief consideration of the meaning of that symbol will fully warrant the above sweeping statement. In Bible symbolical language God's people have always been represented by a woman; thus the children of Israel were represented, and God was their husband, (see e.g. Ezek. 16) ; thus the gospel church is represented as the bride of Christ, (see Eph. V. 22-32).  A beast is the symbol of the world power, (see Dan. VII. 1-7, 17) . Now what would a woman seated on a beast symbolize?  What else could it signify but the church supported by the world? and is not that the exact situation of all Christendom today? There can be no doubt in the mind of any Protestant that, that is the situation with the Greek and Roman churches, and with all other state-church organizations; all such iniquitous and unholy alliances (compare Lev. XVIII. 23) are manifestly well represented, according to Bible symbology; by a woman seated on a beast, the church supported by the world. But does not the same symbol apply with equal force to the great body of Protestantism? Is not the church as a whole, worldly? Does it not use every means, many of them very questionable, many of them not questionable at all, but disgraceful, to obtain the support of the world? Are not the rich courted and flattered, in order to obtain their support, no matter how irreligious they may be, while the poor are snubbed and neglected, though they may be as the salt of the earth for piety and devotion? (Jas. II.1-10) . Could the church maintain its present status of magnificence and luxury,-- cushions, stained glass, gilt, frescos and polished wood, costly music. and a still more costly pulpit orator, with its "church parlor," and "church kitchen" with all the furniture pertaining thereto, I ask, could the church maintain all this, if all outside, worldly help were withdrawn? Is it not true rather that the world is the principle supporter of this outward show and luxury? and furthermore is not the same true of many of the professedly religious operations of the church? Does not the church to a very great extent look to the world for support in these operations? i.e. in missionary work, church building, current expenses, etc., etc.--  and does not the church use every means, such as fairs, festivals, oyster suppers, amateur theatricals, etc. in order to draw the dimes and the dollars out of worldly pockets for the above purposes? and finally is not all this nothing more nor less than the church seeking the support of the world, rightly symbolized by the woman seated on the beast?  The reader must be blind indeed if he cannot see that Christendom as a whole is apostate; that the church as an outward, visible, human institution is a wretched failure, Babylon, the "Mother of harlots" and her daughters.  I say the church as an outward, visible human institution; God has a people in the world as truly as in the days of Elijah the prophet (see 1 Kings XIX. 14, 18), the true "Ecclesia," "the Kingdom of Heaven" in embryo. These are God's "jewels," (Mal. III. 17) scattered throughout the land, some nominally in every branch of the Christian church, some outside of all of them. They have no outward organization, no visible bond of union, but "the unity of the spirit" binds them together in inseparable fellowship," until they shall all come in the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God to the perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of God." (Eph. IV. 7. 3). We may be sure that, whatever human institution may fail, "nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his" (2 Tim. II. 19). But what of this outward visible organization called the Christian Church? I believe that it is beyond repair, and that its ruin is close at hand; see 1-5-105, 106, etc).  "The Judge standeth at the door."  We are living in the last stage of the decadent ,degenerate, apostate church, the Laodicean stage; if I had space in this paper I would examine those seven messages to the typical churches of Asia of Rev. 2 and 3, as they apply to the seven stages through which apostate Christendom has passed during this gospel age: but I must leave the full examination of this subject to some future time. I will however briefly mention the stages. Ephesus represents the church during the apostolic age, the purest and best period of the organized church. Smyrna represents the church during the Pagan persecutions under the Roman emperors. Pergamos (which means exalted, lifted up) represents Christianity exalted to the high position of the religion of the Roman world under Constantine at the close of the 3rd century; this period extends from the beginning of the 4th century for two or three hundred years. Thyatira represents the church of the so-called "dark ages;" Sardis, the church of the Reformation; Philadelphia, the Missionary church, bringing us down to near the beginning of the present century, when all the great missionary and Bible societies had their origin; and the Laodicean stage is the one in which we are now living, which is very near its end and is to close with the coming of Christ, even as that seventh message declares "Behold I stand at the door." Read over the message to the Laodicean church, read it carefully, and see in it a description of the nominal church of Christ in the days in which we live. Read it, and, if you have any spiritual insight at all, you can hardly resist the conviction that this is the Spirit, the real meaning, of this portion of the Word.
        I cannot further follow out this train of thought now, it is not a pleasant subject; denunciation is never agreeable to a soul that is at all imbued with the spirit of Christ; and yet God's watchmen have sometimes this unpleasant task to perform, and then they must do it faithfully, "whether men will hear or whether they will forbear;" (see Jer. XXIII. 28, 29) I will pass on now, however, to notice some of the particular forms of error, most prominent and harmful in the nominal church.
        One chief cause of the church's present condition is that they have wandered away from the plain path of truth into the winding and devious ways of error. "They have rejected the word of the Lord, and what wisdom is there in them?" They "have committed two evils; they have forsaken God, the fountain of living water; and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water." In previous issues I have noticed many of these serious and misleading errors of the nominal church.  I have also noticed some of them in the first article of this issue, and I would again call attention to these errors that exactly reverse the truth, "putting darkness for light and light for darkness;" these may be called: Theological Reversals, and will be released in the next article.

 (Editor's note:  Reflect upon the date of these writings, 1895 to 1896. If the "fundamental church" was so broken in the years as A. P. Adams, and other writers describe, where or how wealthy is the "fundamental church" of today? No matter what position the church holds, God will purge with fire to purify. We can not forget, that all things are of God; He holds the carnal church as well ALL THINGS for His PURPOSE: we would be foolish to judge. End of note).
 

---

Back to Top of Page  Exit to Introduction Menu  Back to Library  List
  Back to A. P. Adams Contents List  Back to Questions/Mistranslations