82 who seemed to express the concensus of all the critics, said, "The Dean seems to be very much afraid of the 'mechanical' inspiration, and in his attempts to refute this theory, he embraces, to -a -aeg-";::~-~-;-th~ 'partial' or 'degree' theories of inspiration." Dr . A. C. Gabelein, editor of Our Hope, said of Macinnis, "He indulges in a liberal use of quotations and references to men who apparently do not accept Scripture as the only infallible rule of faith and practice, and faile to use any of the fundamentalists's writings in proposing his theories of inspiration and revelation." He added, "The author's continued use of phr- ases and terms such as 'philosophy, thought and conception,' leaves the reader in the dark as to the exact purpose of the book." The idea of test- ยท ing Peter's philosophy by the standards of modern thinking aroused a general suspicion in the mind of Gabelein, as it did in the minds of many other fundamentlists. One writer summed up the general tenor of the various criticisms of the book in the statement, "Upon careful examination of the contents of the book in question, and reviewing all the arguments pro and con, it becomes evident that here is .an educator, not a theologian; attempting to correlate his education with what he thought was expressed in the Scriptures. One difficulty is that the criticisms are based on theological grounds, while the target of the criticism, the book, was based on academic grounds . " Interestingly, the liberals never became involved in the controversy. They were neither pro nor con on the issues. No doubt they laughed as they stood on the sidelines and observed the "donnybrook" taking place in the camp of the fundamentalists. The Dean's supporters were numerous, although in comparison to his critics, they were in the minority. However, they were equally vociferous in presenting their case. They c~~e from various sources, THE DEAN'S DEFENDERS
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter