INDEPENDENCE IN THE PULPIT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20257, 17 May 1929, Page 14

INDEPENDENCE IN THE PULPIT.

Sir,—"Poor Parson" still claims to be able to reconcile the teaching of evolution with the formula to which he subscribed at his ordination. But I am certain the framers of that ancient formula never dreamt that any minister would claim liberty under it to teach man's animalistic origin. But, alas, the Church cannot now exercise discipline over its ministers, because the rank and file arc evolutionists, and claim liberty to teach that which the formula never intended they should teach! I still maintain that the minister who teaches evolution cannot do so without denying the inspiration and inerrancy of Genesis, to say nothing of flouting the testimony of Jesus Christ. How can. a minister believe in the deity of Christ and at the same time deny His infallibility ? • For to teach evolution is to deny Christ's infallibilitv as a teacher. I will go further and say' that to deny His infallibility is to deny Him as a Saviour, for how could a fallible person be our Saviour? Such ministers do not deserve, and should not have, the support of Christian -people. The time has more than come when wo must take sides.' A. A. Murray, 19, Argyle Street, Heme Bay, May 15-

Sir,—l have every sympathy and , respect for the "Poor Parson " who seems so anxious to defend hispocketbook,. full or empty, but I confess to little for either his logic or his exposition, of. the Scriptures.- Twice he has referred to U.. tor.. iii. 6, the letter killeth, etc., but his use of that Scripture is entirely misleading. The Apostle Paul is contrasting the Old Covenant, the letter, with tl»e New, the spirit. All leading expositors are agreed on this. Bengel remarks "even when Paul wrote these things he was the minister, not of the letter, but of the spirit. ' Whence does "P6or Parson" get the knowledge he possesses that Christ is Saviour and Lord if not from the records which at least many acknowledge to be the Word of God. That record is, or has been, admitted by the Church to be the standard of its faith and practice. Neither "Poor Parson" nor any one else .has any right to interpret the Scriptures m spirit which is contrary to the letter ot the record. Nor will they if they are ,"true ministers of Christ faithful stewards of the mysteries of God.' L Cor., iv.» 1, 2. "Poor Parson" quotes the Churcu of England ordinal service for priests, but only m part. It immediately follows with, '''And are you determined out ot tlie said Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge and to teach nothing (as required of necessity to eternal salvation) but that which you shall bo persuaded mav be concluded ana proved bv Scripture?" This rightly places the Scriptures of Old and New Testament in the seat of authority, as the of God and not merely as containing it. Obviouslv. to sav that the Scriptures contain tho Word of* God is to leave it opep to any to affirm or deny as much as they please, or even to believe only wnat they understand. "Young men," said a professor, addressing some students, n . 9 y e mincl following: the Book/follow Chnst> "'But what does this mean? asks the late Bisbon of Durham,' Dr. Handley Moule. "For Christ holds the Book m His hand, if we follow Ilim we -must follow it." And this some of us are content humbly to endeavour to do, believing, whether we understand all ovnotv that verily it is the Word of the Living Qod. QtURTPS A BBOIHBB.