ist or Arminian in the main stream of historical Christianity is unable to deal with the doctrine of the Holy Spirit with the precision and accuracy essential to refute the er rors of the Pentecostal and Holiness groups.” Stanton: “ Just because some Hol iness churches are veering away from the false doctrine of the eradi cation of the sin nature does not mean that evangelicals should re turn the compliment by ‘wondering if there might not be some truth to a second “ crisis experience.” ’ ” T . , varying views on eschatology. As to the suggested need for more tol erance toward divergent eschatolo gies, Unger says: “With signposts ignored, so many find themselves on different roads with varied un answerable difficulties that the only sensible course seems to be to abandon any hope of insistence on details of pre-millennialism, if indeed one does not actually drift into a-millennialism.” The seriousness of an unwar- rantedly broad position on escha tology is emphasized by Stanton: “ If, as suggested, we are to ‘keep eschatology as a matter of open and free discussion,’ may we then de part from our assured conviction concerning the resurrection of the body, the certainty of judgment and the bliss of the eternal state? There are certain areas in eschatology where there is little or no disagree ment among those who accept the Bible as the Word of God. Instead of arguing general concepts or un defined ideas, would it not be better to engage in friendly discussion up on certain well-defined themes rel ative to the time of the return of Christ?” s L , J hift away from so-called ex treme dispensationalism. Unger: “ The present-day growing antipa
thy and hostility toward dispensa tionalism is manifesting itself in a number of dangerous trends. One is an inaccurate terminology ap pearing in an indiscriminate and blanket use of such terms as ‘ex treme dispensationalism’ and ‘ex treme dispensational views.’ Such expressions are often loosely em ployed and wittingly or unwitting ly cast sound and absolutely neces sary scriptural time distinctions in a bad light. This sad practice is ap pealing to ignorance and prejudice instead of sound biblical scholar ship.” Aldrich: “ This raises two ques tions: what is extreme dispensation alism, and who is doing the shift ing? Has there actually been a shifting here, or is it more accurate to say that there is a somewhat ac tive group of writers already op posed to dispensationalism who would like to see such a shift?” Arthur B. Whiting: “ It is an old practice to link the Scofield notes with an extreme dispensationalism, but it is a new approach to assert that the trend today is away from these notes! It is seriously to be questioned if many .who once truly believed in sane and scriptural dis pensationalism have really aban doned their position. Is it fair to interpret such a situation as a gen eral drift away from dispensation alism?” Mason: “ There seems to he a conspiracy abroad to call any kind of dispensationalism ‘extreme dis pensationalism.’ That a dispensa tional approach to the Scriptures is being rejected by many schools is admitted, but far too often the dis pensationalism that is presented to the student unfavorably is not the same position actually taken by competently trained dispensational- ists who are living and breathing in the contemporary scene, but a ‘straw man’ of the professor’s own creation from the writings of some very dead dispensationalists who pioneered in the field before the terminology was hammered out on the anvil of controversy.” Stanton: “We must ask: What is the ‘more historical approach advo
cated by those who desire to for sake the Scofield notes?’ ” Walvoord: “We deplore extremes in dispensationalism, but the tend ency to trace the troubles of evan gelicalism to dispensationalism and to the use of the Scofield Beference Bible is an unwarranted simplifica tion if not totally unwarranted. The world has yet to see a refer ence Bible which has accomplished more to encourage the average Christian in the study of the Word of God than the Scofield Bible.” J k ncreased emphasis on schol arship. Aldrich: “ I have noted a tendency among some to treat the unbelieving and Christ-dishonoring liberal with honeyed deference be cause of so-called scholarship, whereas reference to those courage ous fundamentalists who have de fended the faith is sometimes tinged with tolerant indulgence or sar casm.” Walvoord: “ In cont emporary evangelicalism, there seems to be an overwhelming desire to appear worldly-wise and to assume the role of scientist, philosopher or a special ist in some field which the world regards as reputable. Certainly careful scholarship is worthwhile in any field of knowledge, but human investigation and creative thinking are never substitutes for divine rev elation. The Bible must retain its supreme and authoritative voice in our faith if biblical Christianity is to survive. The fashion of our day is to be kind to our enemies and to attack our fundamentalist friends. Some evangelicals seem to have only critical words for fundamen talists and friendly toleration of lib eral scholarship. Certainly this at titude is not conducive to a strong and healthy evangelicalism.” M ... ’ J L ore definite recognition of social responsibility. Charles C. Ryne: “ Social responsibilities are CONTINUED
JANUARY 1957
25
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker