81
f In conclusion, Dr. Trumbull made perhaps one of the most valid and en- lightened analysis of Macinnis' book found in all the letters, reviews, and editorials. He said, "A man writes as he Ehinks, -t.here"fore~-- we must accept the fact that the Dean is modernistic in his theology because of the concepts published in the book. It is permeated with the language of modernism." He continued to criticize the author for not supporting the views of revelation held by fundamentalists. He advised Biola that it could regain its former position only by the removal of Macinnis as Dean, and he urged the Board to take such action. He warned that if such action were not taken, the Sunday School Times and other fundamental publications would cease their public recognition of the School. Dr. James M. Gray, President of Moody Bible Ins~itute, wrote a critical review of the book which was published in the ~1o·ody Monthly. He accused the author of practicing modernism, of mixing modernistic beliefs with Seri~ ptural truths, of blending Christian and non~Biblical philosophy, of not differentiating between Christians and non-Christians, and of including erroneous interpretations which were misleading to Christians. He said, ''He parades original sin in the guise of social heredity," and that Macinnis had "published a work which is a mixture of dis-jointed philosophic deduct.,.. ions and quotations." He continued with the legitimate question, "If these be true, how can the author state that the book is a study of Higher Funda- mentalism?" The one thread which ran throughout the entire warp of the criticisms of the book had to do with the language used. One critic accused the author of "trying to be a modern prophet who is attempting to relate his mvn ideas to salvation.'' There was a concentrated attack upon his mode of expression, which was considered by many fundamentalists as being expressive of modern- ism. Another critic said, "He over-stressed the human element, and under- stressed the divine element in Peter's writing." It was charged also that the use of such terms as "Peter's idea of God," and, "Peter's view of God," wer~ used to express a moderhistic belief of internal experience, against ·the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as held by fundamentalists. One writer
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter