86
/-. second, it was not intended as a doctrinal or theological treatise; and, third, the Dean believed and taught the fundamental beliefs of Christianity. Their defense of the book was not too different from others made on the Dean's behalf. They emphasized that the author was a philosopher and not a theologian, that his writing would be characterized by certain "habitual language features," and that its readers be urged to remember that the writer would tend to follow along the lines of any philosophical work and in such cases his language would appear obscure . Interestingly, they closed their Report with an apology for the author's linguistic style, stating, "We would wish there might be more of elucidation and affirmation concerning certain of the Christian doctrines," thus, admitting that the book was woefully weak in this regard. As the controversy increased in intensity, the Board, like the proverbia ostrich, continued to hide its head in the sand, being hesitant to face up to reality . From time to time, they spoke to the issue, always defending the Dean and his book. However, in spite of all their denials of the charges and their attempts to allay the fears of Biol a ' s friends and fundamentalists across the country, the storm increased in intensity until it reached hur- ricane force. As could be expected, Dr . Macinnis mounted his own defense. It focused on his reasons for writing the took, which according to him, was an argument in favor of supernatural reve- lation and inspiration. He argued that he held and preached the fundamental be- liefs of Scripture, and defended himself against the criticisms that "he de- nied supernatural inspiration, and that his emphasis was on Peter's thoughts rather than revelation from God." His arguments seemed plausible to those who did not understand Biblical language; however, to those who did under- stand what the Scriptures teach on inspiration and revelation, his argumnets were woefully weak.
THE CLIMAX TO THE CONTROVERSY
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter