82
The Fundamentals speak. In like manner they talk with much ingenuity and show of learning about men with whom they have only a far-off acquaintance; and they discuss events in the realm of the Spirit where they have had no personal experience. Thus they both illustrate and prove the truth of the Scripture teaching that “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God.” These critics say that God, not being a man, cannot speak; consequently there is no word of God! Also, God cannot manifest Himself in visible form; therefore all the accounts of such epiphanies are mythical tales! Inspira tion, they tell us, is unthinkable; hence all representations of such acts are diseased imagination! Of prophecy there is none; what purports to be such was written after the events! Miracles are impossible; therefore all the reports of them, as given in the Bible, are mere fictions! Men always seek, thus it is explained, their own advantage and personal glory, and just so it was with those “prophets of Israel.” Such is what they call “impartial science,” “unprejudiced research,” “objective demonstration.” NOTHING NEW IN THESE “NEW” VIEWS Moreover, these critics claim for their peculiar views that they are “new theology,” and the “latest investigation.” But that also is untrue. Even in the times of Christ the famous rabbi Hillel and his disciple Gamaliel substituted for the Mosaic law all manner of “traditions” (Matt. 15:2-9; 23:16-22). Since then other learned rabbis, such as Ben Akiba, Maimonides and others, have engaged in Bible criti cism; not only casting doubts upon the genuineness of various books of the Old Testament, but also denying the miracles and talking learnedly about “myths.” Even eighteen hundred years ago Celsus brought forward the same objections as those now raised by modern criticism; and in his weak and. bungling production, the “Life of Jesus,” David Strauss has in part repeated them. Also there have been other noted
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker