 |  |
never actually troubled to read these articles.
Quoting from the opening article in
Volume XVI, page 33, we read:--
"Perhaps no one book in the whole of the Scriptures may be considered to have a
claim upon all who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, more than the Epistle to the Romans.
Where all exhibit the hall-mark of inspiration comparisons are odious, but inasmuch as a
building needs foundations as well as top stones, so we may speak of the epistle to the
Romans as essentially fundamental in character . . . . . To those who are vitally concerned
with the teaching of Ephesians, Rom. 5: 12 - 8: 39 is of supreme importance, for
Eph. 2: 1 proceeds upon the assumption that Rom. 6: is practical truth. Philippians,
too, does not teach but assumes knowledge of justification by faith (Phil. 3: 9)."
Are these the words of a "wrecker"? If not, what are the words of this critic? Are
they words of truth and soberness? The opening page of Roman Stones for the Ephesian
Temple contains this paragraph:--
"May we ask the reader to consider the intimate connection that exists between
Romans and Ephesians, so far as doctrine is concerned, even though the dispensational
teaching of these same epistles is sundered as far apart as the heavens are above the
earth."
Let the reader observe that we definitely teach that the Ephesian dispensational
structure is built upon the Roman doctrinal foundation. The only parts of Romans that
we set aside are such features as the priority of the Jew--"the Jew first", the teaching of
"the olive tree" and similar matters of dispensational significance. Would the reader
believe that the self-same critic who accuses us of "wrecking" Romans, on the testimony
of his own writings completely sets aside some of the principles pertaining to the Romans
period?
Commenting upon Eph. 4: he says:--
"The saints among the nations (were brought) from the position of proselytes of
Judaism to a place entirely independent of Israel."
"Entirely independent of Israel"--yet when we teach the same thing in connection
with Eph. 2: and the creation of the new man, this critic tells us that:--
"Eph. 2: 12 distinctly states that the members of the `one body' of the mystery, in the
era when the Corinthians was written, were `guests of the promised covenants'. This
word `covenants' definitely links Corinthians and Ephesians, instead of putting an
impassable barrier between them. Those to whom Ephesians was written had been guests
of a covenant."
We, who are accused of wrecking Romans, teach that Ephesians is built upon the
doctrinal foundation of Romans, whilst he, the critic, distinctly states:--
"We should not build upon all the doctrines of that transitional era, but only such as
accord with the present grace. In Romans, `To the Jew first' (Rom. 2: 10) is now
obsolete."