THE PROBLEM OF EVANGELISM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23689, 22 December 1938, Page 17

THE PROBLEM OF EVANGELISM

TO THE EDITOR Sir— This is how Professor Dickie closes his short note in last Fridays issue of your paper: "Every student of the Bible . . accepts the Bible as a historically-given entity, neither to be shortened nor to be lengthened. These words convey no meaning to me We do not know what he means by the words he uses because Modernists say they put a different construction on the words they use than we do I have read far too much about the pronouncements of Modernists to be impressed or convinced by your correspondent's note. The statement made in Knox Church that the books of Daniel and Revelation should not be in the Bible is well remembered in Dunedin. The words then spoken certainly gave that impression, which has persisted through the years. What about the morality ol the Modernist? "If he did in the commercial world what he does in the religious world he vould be dismissed summarily. If he betrayed his trust in the army or navy he would be shot at sunrise. The moderniser in the pulpit has not been honest enough to put on his true colours and boldly declare himself an unbeliever in the Scriptures, an ally of Unitarianism and Universalism." As some may say that the above statement is too strong, we shall let a Modernist speak for himself: "Rash measures would havt. been ruinous. Accordingly the Modernists clothed their unorthodox ideas in orthodox verbiage, or trusted to letting the time-honoured creed* die from neglect." "Albreci Ritschl. the German theologian, credited as the father of Modernism, defended the principle that it is right and proper, in order to allav the fears of conservatives, to express new theological opinions in the old familiar words. And ever since Ritschl's day, theological counterfeiting or two-facedness has been in fashion amongst his followers." Dr Dinsdale J Young has said that " these men (Modernists) had got not only a new theology, but a new morality. Living on the pay given

them to preach one set of doctrines, they were deliberately advocating the very opposite." James M. Gray, D.D., affirmed that " Modernism is a revolt against the God of Christianity. "Modernism is a revolt against the Bible of Christianity." "It is a revolt against the Christ of .Christianity." H. W. White, D.D., editor of the China Fundamentalist, has declared that " some day we may recognise that Modernism is Bolshevism, and descends to the lowest method? of fighting the Gospel." We close with a statement by Dr J. J. Shields, of Toronto, who has so long and faithfully contended for the faith: " Modernism, when it is finished is sheer lawlessness; it rejects all authority except the authority that resides in the individual himself. Modernism is of the 'old man,' and. the old man, even though he wear the gown and hood of a professor of philosophy, is always an Anarchist; he is not subject to the law of Goa, neither indeed can be. Modernism is a naturalistic religion. It grows put of the pride of the human mind that magnifies men and minimises God; it holds that authority in religion is In man's own consciousness, rather than objectively in the Book as the revelation of God Himself.—l am, etc., Maran-atha.