WK}) N o t a Candid Contest ? Mr. Bryan (in the Presbyterian) Suggests How Liberalist—Fun damentalist Controversy can be Shortened
Then let them apply th eir evolution ary hypothesis to the Bible step by step. We believe in th e m iracles as recorded in th e Old and New Testam ents; let them be candid and declare whether they believe in the m iracles— if not all, in which ones, and why they reject some and accept others. If they ac cept any miracles, let them reconcile th e m iracle w ith evolution and give us a ru le by which we can distinguish one recorded m iracle from another. If they do not believe in miracles, do they believe in th e virgin b irth of Christ, as we do? Some of them brush th is aside by saying th a t th e virgin b irth is not m aterial. The real ques tion is not w hether they regard it as m aterial, b u t w hether they regard the account of it in Matthew and Luke as true. If they reject th e virgin b irth , w hat is th e ir view as to th e b irth of Christ? Which, if any, of th e m iracles of Christ do they believe to have been performed? ■ Do they believe in Christ’s bodily resurrection as recorded in the Gospels, or do they say, as one au tho r (whose book is studied in some of th e theo logical sem inaries) th a t th e disciples believed in the resurrection, bu t th a t it is a mystery why they did. Recently a New York m inister is reported to have denied th e deity of Christ and th e virgin birth, claim ing th a t Jesus was entirely human. No issue can be settled until it is understood. In court, therefore, the first thing th a t is done is to define the issue. Is it fair for our adversaries to hide behind vague statem ents and denounce us as illiberal, w ithout spe cifically defining liberality as they un derstand it? This is a free country.
contest between the De- nders of th e F aith and the ^called L iberals ought to M B entirely fra n k and candid.
Both sides claim to be Christians, and they are .in duty bound to be candid w ith each other. Christ never avoided controversy, bu t his position was always frank ly stated, and he saw to it th a t th e position of th e opposition was also plainly stated. Evolution is th e root of discord, and those who present it as a sub stitu te for God’s Word have upon them th e burden of proof to establish th e ir position. If th e harmony of th e church is disturbed, the evolutionists are th e disturbers. The discussion will be sho rt if the evolutionists will frankly state what p arts of th e Bible they find it neces sary to elim inate in order to make God’s Word harmonize w ith m an’s views— “ th e modern view,” “ the scientific view,” “ advanced though t,” or th e “in telligence of today”— we have all these phrases hurled down a t us constantly from those who not only feel bu t say th a t they are our m ental superiors. We believe in th e Mosaic account of m an’s creation— th a t man was made by separate act and is not a blood relation of any of th e b ru te creation. T h at is th e point of cleavage. The evolution ists declare th a t we are descended from th e lower animals; ought they not to be frank enough to adm it th a t they are, and to name th e animal which they regard as th e ir next of kin? If they are not w illing to identify themselves w ith any living species, they ought to be candid enough to tell us th a t they “ feel” th a t they have b ru te blood in them , although they cannot trace it to any p articu lar branch of the imaginary tree to which they cling.
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker