1885 Watch Tower - A2Z.org

editor, we should suppose that they wereof opposite minds, and that by some accident,the writings of the two had gottenmixed. But the mixture is the more deplorable,as it gives evidence of a fiercestruggle between a theory and Scripture,in which the former has the control.Judging from the conflicting argumentsadvanced and tried, our contemporary'splan and policy seems to be:--Any argumentto get rid of the RANSOM--as a"corresponding price."Extreme indeed must be its need ofsupporting argument, when it finds itnecessary to claim as above, that life isimparted instead of extinguished bydeath. The very meaning of the wordsis the reverse. Does this contemporaryendorse Satan's lie in Eden and contradictJehovah? (Gen. 3:3-5). And thencall it: "a sublime truth"--"the grandmystery of the cross of Christ"--"thismystery of life imparted instead of extinguishedby means of death." Wouldit claim that DEATH is a great blessingand that Satan by whom it was introducedand "who has the power of death"(Heb. 2:14) is really the one who impartslife, instead of extinguishing it?If so it should at once claim that Satanis the one by whom all the families of theearth shall be blessed!The new mixture is shown in the leftcolumn; and as we have heretoforeshown the views of the other column tobe unscriptural, we now merely note theexpression above--"What is fully PAIDFOR cannot be accepted as an expressionof the Father's love and grace"--andremark that if our contemporary cannotaccept of the Father's grace and love andgift, in and through the ransom sacrificeof Jesus, we fear it can never accept itat all, for "there is none other name, underheaven, given among men wherebywe must be saved." (Acts 4:12.) Inthis was manifested the love of God, that