Bishop Barnes.

Waiapu Church Gazette, Volume XVII, Issue 7, 1 January 1927, Page 13

Bishop Barnes.

a^^etod'* is : notrpltaeM that

Bishop Bariie&i has linked'as inVje^reement the; Modernist and theiMbderii Evaiigelical/>an6l : adds to anbte on cthe subject;-^- ■ ; •■!• „ i ,-.. ■■-,;. It .is 1 impPsfeible for Christianity to dispense r with : belief • in 1 the root' facts of' Bevelatibnl Christianity without a Creed is something' the world> has never seen> ; and ! Christianity > would not exist unless it based 'its 'teaching upon the ? Word mado : Mesh Who -died for bur redemption arid rose ; again from the dead. It is 'right to' demand that the facts of .science must be faced and that all discovery must be accepted^ " 'iiltelle^tJialHobjection to Modernism is its faith m what areronly provisional conclusions accompanied by ; the rejection of the historical basis of our faith. We^.are glad. to. note that the "Record" by no means agrees with Dr. Barnes that * ' the gulf between . the Modernist and ihe. mb^rn Evangelical.has practically van-ished." It quiti^ properly says that ' i^ is impossible for Christianity to exist without belief in.the root fstcts of Revelation. It; is just tjiose root f^tctis which ; Dr. Barnes eitnei' rejects or dismisses as of- no impbi'tahce, an^l jGathblics have, for this- reason,'; regiardedLDr. Barnes as unfitted to be a Bishop 1 of the Catholic Church;. The. Evangelicals apparently agree, but . are prevented from saying so by their fear of the Catholic revival, which Dr Barnes, with a futility of a Mrs ' Parfington, is eride,aypring to deter. But the Ey angelical is i. growing more arid more fearful of his reiek Jess ally; and even among the Mbderriists, as was evidenced at the Cambridge Conference, there i# a- certain desire not to ! be held responsible 'for the Bishop's wilder assertions.—c Times ' ') .