PRESBYTERIAN MODERNISM

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21334, 29 November 1934, Page 7

PRESBYTERIAN MODERNISM

■jo TUB T.lirl'')H 01' 'I UK I'KF.SS. cw—l was glad to see in "The press" a letter by Mr S. J. Webb on Presbyterian modernism. One is [liaak'ful thai someone has the cour,«c to stand with the Presbyterian champion of fhe faith, the Rev.. P. B. fraser. who in his defence of the p.iblc has to fight almost a lone hand. ]n the churches there must be many , nC n who sfill believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. that the claim il makes for itself is a rightful, claim, y'- 1 ,n iisseinblies and synods U, c je in'cn hear its truth and authority (loii'oted and make no protest. To make a protest of course means sacrilice. The time has come when so many ministers disbelieve so much of the Scriptures that for a fellow minister to differ from them means that. he lay 3 himself open to their ridicule a ,id dislike and opposition. We know what Paul suffered because he stood for the truth against the theologians of his day. Yet he "counted it a.ll joy" to suffer for the Ford and Saviour. To-day Paul is honoured in every part of the world, while his persecutors arc forgotten. Mr Fraser follows j„ his footsteps. Krom a worldly point of view lie has lost tremendously because of the stand he has taken. It j S a lonely stand, and as Paul could sgy, "No man stood with me," so can jlr'Ffascr. The one thing he says and holds to is that the whole Bible js the inspired word of God. For that most people think he should be honoured, but. not so the modern ministers, who now say the Bible is only a very ordinary book, not inspired, old fashioned, ignorant, and not true in many of its statements. The spokesman for the Presbyterian modernists. Professor Dickie*, said two weeks ago ir. his address to the assembly that "no one who has followed the course of modern Biblical research with any degree of intelligence can conceive it possible that the precritical views of a century ago will ever be rehabilitated. What is known as fundamentalism is still held by isolated scholars of eminence. But thev make no new converts smong educated persons." Those are sleeping statement--, and are not proved simply because Professor Dickie uttered them. Ho practically that 100 vears ago the Bible was believed bv nil men. but. that since the critics began pulling it to p"''"only the ignorant believe in it. That is of course untrue, but it is easy to make such statements in ;vn assembly oMninistors like minded with hunsall. There «u'c so few champions ol '.lie Bible that he probably did not think a few conlcmptiblcs would write Jo the papers in opposition to bun. To mc it is an amazing tiling that fundamentalist ministers have not taken up the cudgels long ago. We arc told to contend for the faith, but in NewZealand I know of no one who faithfully contends as does Mr Fraser. fhe men of past generations who left endowments to the different denominations were all without exception fundamentalists. Their money was lett for a -pecific purpose, the preaching and teaching of the Bible as the inspired word of God. The guardians of all this trust money are the members of synods and assemblies, but the very great majority ol these members have departed from Ihc faith or the donors, and are preaching and teaching' that the is not the inspired word of God. Thev have every right to opinions hut have they every right to retain such money for their own support ;,nd to teaching doctrines which are the exact opposite oT th-.: doetriias V.cld by the givers of tb'> monev'.' II their congregations app )■■•■-. of their iMching.i and support them, ihaf is a different matter; but are llv dead being treated fairly? Let us remember that the men who control the moncv are those who have departed from'the faith. Let us also remember that a great deal of it is used for their own benefit, in the form of salaries.

There is another point. If the Bible h as untrue as most modern minister' sav if is. whv do Ihev have nnyihi -,g to" cio with it? If Jesus Christ w.i" only an ignorant Jewish peasant, as many of them say He was. then He was an imoostor and a liar, and should be treated as such. Whv then does the modern minister hold Him up to us as an example? If Christ was not what He claimed to be. He was nothing but a fraud. The mode--m.ts-ere r,ot logical. They should fake ]fim entirely or reject Him omirclv. We who believe in Him with nM cur hearts worship Him as Cod .-met Saviour and Lord and Master. May I end with two conversations with two modernist ministers, one a Scotsman. ?n M.A.. and one an /•moricam' To the Scotsman I «aid. "If ve.il believe the Bible is as full of e-ror as you say it is. you should sfand un in the pulpit and say so openly." "Oh. no."" he replied, "we have a kinder method, we tell the peonle the findings of modern scholarship and leave them te draw their own conelu: i.'ns." On thp same principle it is kinder to poison a person slowly than to dispatch him with one dose! Another time I said. "If you are going to cut out of Ihe Bible things von don't like, so am I, and then where will we be.'" Bis answer was worthy of a modernist scholar! "The common sense of mankind is the final court of appeal!" It is a court of nporal i!r.u none of us would care to anneal to in a matter of vital interest, since it docs riot exist!

I met Ihe American at a ii'mirth of July celebration. He was a D.D. and head of a church school for boys. 1 risked to "what school of ihoughl he belonged." He said lie was a m.odoi n liberal T asked, "How > men dors mat mean vou disbelieve of the Bible?" "Well. I don't know." "Do >'ou believe in inspiratiein?" "No." "In Genesis?" "No." "In the fall?" "No." "In Jonah and Daniel?" "No." Not being American I hesitated to niK>?tion him further, and end?rl by risking. "Do many believe as you do?" ''Well. I guess "modern liberals believe much the same all the world over." I too "guess they do." They are jusl a bundle of negatives. They have neither comfort nr.v assurance to offer to anxious soids. On the of her band fundamentalists have a gospel 1 o preach, full of love and joy and confidence. They ofTer wi'h assurance eternal salvation to all who will simply accept it. Trusting m ' md and Ilio Bible they seek to get. the weary and hcavv laden 1o trust mem 100. knowing if will mean to Hi mi pevce J-.ncl rest.--Yours, etc., ANGMCAN. . November 2fl, IQ'.'A. in tiif. Ei.MTi'i: "K Tiir. rn-'.s:;. Sir,--It seems to me a great pity that men like Mr S. J. Webb should Charge Dr. Dickie with denying the doctrines of the Virgin Birth. Deity of Christ, Bodily Resurrection, etc., without taking- the trouble to support their charge with definite statements of such denial made by the professor himself. Perhaps it is that no such statements can be found in Dr. Dickie's published pronouncements. Here are a few of his affirmations, sufficient surely to satisfy the ultraorthodox. All are taken from "The Organism of Cliri'-tian Trt.'h." "Christ unites in Himself absolute revelation and ideal humanity, and since His functions arc thus divine. He must. Himself be regarded as divine For Reasons already given, I cannot aflirm

that no one can be a Christian who cannot accept the Virgin Birth. But certainly no one ever becomes a better Christian by denying it. For mv own part, I accept it wholeheartedly upon what I regard as good and sufficient grounds: Its inherent appropriateness in view of our Cord's unique relation both to God and to man, the nature and early date of the historical attestation, and the fact that difficulties regarding it have never Prison in the sphere of Christian faith, but only when believers have endeavoured in relate their faith 1o knowledge and opinion belonging to the extra-Christian sphere. 'The Church was founded upon faith in the Risen Lord, and by this faith if has always lived. To deny llv Rosurroct on is to deny historical Christianity itself. As regards the mode of fh'e' Resurrection, T consider that the simplest and most natural view is that of the general Christian tradition as found, t g.. in our Confession of Faith 'Chap. VIII., Roc. IV.), viz.. that 'On the th.rcl day He arose from the dead with the same body in which He suffered.' and I accept that view unhesitatingly as mv own personal con-viction."--Yours, etc.. A. -Sir.IIVfONDS. November L'R, I!\>-1. 'ill 'Mil'. KIMTo;; OF 'HiF, IM'KSS. Sir. -Kindly allow me a reply to the Rev. Fred. Robertson. I fear that any analysis by him of my letter would prove unfavourable. Perhaps he is more favourably related to the "higher branches" of modernism than 1 ever wish to be. The address of Dr. Dickie was in no way obscure, and his sympathy for Dr. Angus, contrasting with his treatment of the Rev. P. B. Fraser. calls for rebuke. My le.tcr was an attempt to befriend the Rev. P. B. Fraser. I was also led to express concern for the unquestionably faithless attitude existing to the Irue, unchanging faith in Christ Jesus as the world's Saviour. With the Bible alone as text-book I should be pleased to meet Mr F. Robertson or any other modern "bogey man" in debate. My attack on Principal Dickie, D.D.. Moderator of the Presbyterian Church, and what he represents may be of deeper importance than Mr F. Robertson's attack on inc.—-Yours, etc., j S. J. WKBie, November "".. 1 !)".■!. .Sir, i can testify to the truth of your first correspondent's letter about modernism in the Presbyterian Church versus the Rev. J. M. Fraser. I wrote to the "Cut fool'." some weeks ago regard,ng Dr. Dickie's views on leading Biblical facts; also I asked the editor to publish my letter as 1 agreed absolutely witii Mr Fraser. As 1 ex- ! peeled. I received a reply from the editor saying that. I- was uu-Christiau- | like in attacking Dr. Dickie, as he 1 could not reply through the "Out- ■ look"; aiso saying that Mr Fraser ,' could bring the matter before the i board in the proper mania r; uUu thai i ha ilvlr Fraser* knew that very well. j It cioes not look like it. in the face of ;whal happened at the assembly, when ; lie tried to speak. ! As an Anglican, it does not cone ru i me. apart from my firm belief in (he j whole Bibie as Cod's inspired Wor'i, I written through human beings like I ourselves, but inspired by God HimIself No wonder the churches are | empty! Methodists also have adnphd I modernism largely, with the same rei suit. The Anglican napors will not publish any lath is citlu r which crh:- ! rise their clergy's teaching, or Hm I prevalent extreme ritualism. Tiny i say. "We cannot, publish such letters ! a.s it causes controversy.'" Same re-ult |- half empty churches. V/hcu there i-; ! nothing to hide discission should he i welcome, 'out it is jusl the reverse. ! Will they never u.ie commonsense with ; the people'.'--Yours, etc., j ANTI-.MODF.RN. I November -!>. Rial.