June 1924
337
T H E K I N G ’S B U S I N E S S
We have calm ly asked some questions because we desire to avoid all polemic, controversial and uncharitable a tti tude toward professed b reth ren and Christian teachers. But, having pu t our candid queries, we cannot forbear to add th a t, to our “ simple faith ” in, and “loyalty to,” , the Word of God, th e position taken by Professor George Adam Smith and his School of Critics is absolutely irreconcilable w ith th e Divine character of the Holy Scriptures. If this philosbphy be tru e, the Bible may be th e best of all books, but it is in no proper Sense God’s Book. Its predictions are not th e Seal of God upon its teachings, serving to accredit them as divine, but th e mere product and proof of a high order of m ental and moral capacity and sagacity, looking a t past events and present developments, and by an induc tion, based upon a broad and comprehensive gathering of facts, form ing safe conclusions as to the probabilities of the future. It may be possible for one who has an inward experience of grace, and who has thu s a personal hold upon Christ as a-Saviour, to en tertain such views and no t lose hold on the Lord Jesus; bu t to one who has not yet found Christ as his Redeemer, and is only feeling afte r if haply he may find Him, it seems to us th a t such teaching must tend to silence all misgivings about the need of salvation and give doubt the full control. It has been well said th a t “ though the moth m iller has no teeth, its offspring h a s :” and we fear th a t if such views are not, in Dr. Smith, destructive of faith, those who have not his Christian experience may find them fatal hindrances to th e acceptance of the Bible as the au tho ritativ e Word of God. There is one additional thought which we desire to ex press. We must carefully distinguish between the doctrine taugh t and the m an teaching it. W ith the personal char acter of Prof. Smith and those who hold such views we are not now concerned. We are simply dealing w ith the type of teaching; and, like Lincoln, “w ith charity toward all and malice toward none,” we candidly state our serious apprehensions, th a t such teaching is u tterly destructive of the faith once delivered to the saints, and against it, how ever small th e m inority which we may find ourselves, we feel constrained from loyalty to Christ and his tru th firmly to protest. The impression solemly but rapidly grows upon many of us th a t there is another “ irrepressible conflict” ahead in the church of God. If the tru e and proper inspiration of the Bible is to be surrendered, then its teaching is no longer infallible, and we have no court of final appeal, in the oracles of God. Inasmuch as the Bible contains Christ’s own express sanction of th e Old Testament, and even of those portions th a t “Modern Critical Scholarship” rejects— what becomes of Christ as an infallible teacher? and what becomes of th e great tru th s He taugh t? If th e sup ern atu ral inspiration of the Word falls, the keystone is ou t of the arch; and every other tru th and fact, held in its place in th e arch by th a t keystone, falls also. It may be well for us all to face th e issue, and determ ine on which side we are to stand in th is conflict whose opposing forces are even now drawn up in b attle array!
Spirit o f C hrist w ith in them w a s g iv in g in tim a tio n , w h en b ea rin g w itn e ss beforehand as to th e su fferin g s for C hrist and th e g lo r ie s a fter th e se: to w hom it w a s rev ea led th a t not to th em selv es but to yo u th ey w ere m in isterin g them . in to w h ich th in g s m essen g ers are c o v etin g to ob tain a n earer v iew .” 5. Is the view here presented indeed “ the Bible’s own account of its in sp iration ?” Does not the Scripture, in the w ritings of P eter and elsewhere, teach th a t prophets neither originated nor were capable, of in terp reting th eir own pre dictions, bu t were borne along on the cu rren t of the Spirit of God, and th a t when they sought diligently to understand th eir own utterances, it was revealed to them th a t they were m inistering not to themselves bu t to afte r genera tions? 6. May we ask why the “very simple view” 'w h ich Dr. Smith dismisses is “ too simple to be tru e, and too simple to be edifying?” Is simplicity a defect in God’s com munications of tru th ? On w hat ground is th is simplicity of view a b arrier to its tru th and its edifying power? 7. W hat is m eant by men “controlling history, under power of the purest convictions” etc. Do men still in the same sense control history? 8. If “ Isaiah prophesied and predicted all h e did from loyalty to two simple tru th s,” “ th a t sin must be punished, and th a t th e people of God m ust be saved ;” and if “this simple faith, acting along w ith a wonderful know ledge of hum an n a tu re and a ceaseless vigilance of affairs, consti tu ted inspiration for Isaiah ” how can we account for cer tain predictions of his— such as th a t in ch. 9:6, 7, where the divine human n atu re of the Messiah is so wonderfully foretold; or th a t in ch. 37: 21-35, where th e exact facts about Sennacherib were foretold, against all probabilities; or th a t in ch. 53, where the paradoxes of Messiah’s career are forecast-—a chapter never explained un til th e events in terp reted it? 9. Upon th is theory of inspiration, what constitutes the unique and au tho ritative claim of th e Bible upon man’s ac ceptance and obedience? Must we not abandon another view, long held by th e Church, as “ too simple to be” either “ tru e ” or “ edifying,” th a t this is the very Word of God, th e final ru le for both faith a n d ’practice? 10. Are we to understand by the “ analogy between the prophet and th e scientific observer,” th a t the prophet has, like the scientist, simply a basis of fixed laws and prin ciples for his predictions, and th a t his forecast of th e fu tu re is of the same n atu re as a w eather forecast—-a strong probability th a t amounts to a v irtu al certainty? 11. We feel tempted fu rth e r to inquire what we are to do w ith so-called predictions, found in the Word of God, which cannot be accounted for upon the philosophy given by Professor Sm ith? For example, in Genesis 9: 24-27, is a prophecy of Noah which briefly outlines the th ree g reat divisions of hum an history— th e Semitic, Ham itic and Ja phetic— and traces them from Noah’s day to our own. The servitude of Canaan, the nomadic character of Shem, and the enlargement of Japheth, are astonishingly portrayed, as all subsequent history proves. Is this a genuine prophecy, or a fraud? 12. There are in the Old Testam ent th ree hundred and th irty -th ree intim ations th a t converge in Jesus of Nazareth, and in Him alone. On the basis of compound probability, the chances of such a m ultitude of details meeting in one person are as one to 84,000,000,000!, Is this whole body of Messianic prediction false? If not, are some prophecies to be accounted for by scientific guesswork, and others by a sup ernatu ral communication? And if this be tru e, must we not have another and more comprehensive definition of “ inspiration under the old covenant?”
Christian Endeavorers! Are You Availing Yourself of the Splendid Prayer-Meeting Helps on Page 358?
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker