Nebraska, 1910
"Higher Criticism" O.K'd
Following is the account of a sermon taken from an article on an assembly in Lincoln, Nebraska, August 1910. Some of the details, as to who exactly Bishop Anderson was, his first name, etc., are not given.
"You preachers who have been ranting about higher criticism have got to quit and inform yourself of what higher criticism stands for," was the assertion with which Bishop Anderson startled some of his more orthodox hearers in the sermon of the morning. "Bishop Bashford said on Sunday that he wanted the ministers to cease denouncing the law of evolution," the speaker continued, "and I want to say the same thing to apply to higher criticism. I think it is time for those who have blazed away at higher criticism to stop and find out what higher criticism stands for. It is absolutely foolish for anyone to wax excited or get worried over Biblical scholarship. No one need be alarmed over the investigations being made which are called 'higher criticism.' If there is a preacher here who has been tearing loose in his pulpit on this I wish he would come up here and inform us what it is he has been assailing. Criticism is not unfriendly, it is constructive. It is merely a study of the Bible as a collection of books to ascertain the authorship and the date of writing. I don't want my Bible exempt from the severest intellectual investigation applied to other works. The word of God is not harmed but helped thereby. It stands forever and its value is better discovered when it is subjected to the most exacting tests."
After the assertions made by Bishop Bashford on evolution on Sunday, many who do not believe in the new true religion, severely criticized him. Bishop Anderson also did not escape the contradiction of some or his audience who talked his utterances over after the service this morning.
Recites from Hebrew Poet
The theme of the bishop's sermon was "Books Which God Writes." As a text he recited the rapturous outburst of the Hebrew poet, beginning: "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth His handiwork." He took the psalm, verse by verse, and drew his applications from the individual sentences contained therein. The three books in which God has written His revelation, according to the preacher, are, first, the book of nature; second, the Bible, and third, the book of life and the spiritual consciousness of man.
"When Beethoven began to write music," Bishop Anderson continued, "he found it impossible to express all effects and meanings in the selections he composed for the piano. Later, he composed orchestra music adapted for a large variety of instruments and was able to secure the interpretation desired. So God did not confine himself in His revelation to a written work, but indelibly and unmistakably wrote in the book of nature. In former times it was thought that matter is evil and that the world belonged to the devil. I assert that this is the best possible world God could have made. It is a superb expression of His attributes.
Creator Greatest Artist
"God is not separated from the universe by law. He is law and permeates all the mechanism which we designate by the name, law. Kant said: 'I am amazed at the starry heavens above and the moral law within.' God is a great artist and has created in the universe a masterpiece.
"When Robert Louis Stevenson landed at Samoa, he saw a Scotchman standing on the shore, hat in hand evidently in the act of worship. It was an early hour of morning and the great author was curious but did not wish to disturb the devotions of the man. Later he became intimately acquainted with the man and asked him in regard to the circumstances in which he had first seen him. The Scotchman replied: 'Every morning at sunrise, I go out into he open to see the beautiful universe awake and I feel exalted and worship the magnificence of nature.' God has written a part of his truth in nature.
"Another book of God," said the bishop, "is the Bible. It is necessary to express secret and subtle thought that could not be expressed in the book of nature.
"The third book of God to which I would allude is the book of human life and the testimony of the Most High written in the hearts of men. Men can read this revelation if they make their hearts pure and thereby clarify their spiritual vision.
"Some men who can't run a two by four store," said the speaker, "find fault with the world and would like to instruct the Lord on how to run his business, Earth is crammed with heaven and good things and the gloomy pessimist who cannot discover them is to be pitied."
—Lincoln Evening News, Lincoln, NE, Aug. 10, 1910, p. 8.
Showing posts with label higher. Show all posts
Showing posts with label higher. Show all posts
Friday, June 8, 2007
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Brands Higher Critics of The Bible as Judases
1907
Minister Attacks Biblical World and Professors Are Scored
St. Louis, Nov. 13.— At yesterday's session of the Bible League of North America meeting the conference's 13-inch theological guns were turned upon the Biblical World, one of the official publications of the University of Chicago. The indignation of the conference was aroused by the publication recently of an editorial in this magazine, in which the second advent of Christ was derided and the resurrection of Jesus denied.
The chief address of the day was made by Rev. W. M. McPheeters, D.D., instructor in the Southern Presbyterian Theological seminary at Columbia S.C. His subject was "Has the Influence of Radical Criticism Been Wholly to the Advantage of Religion and the Bible?"
This question the minister answered with an emphatic and indignant negative.
Criticism Kiss of Judas.
"Higher criticism is not the Roman's spear," said he, "which pierced the side of the Lord. It is rather the kiss of Judas, which, under the pretense of friendliness, aims at the destruction of religion. We, the adherents of literal faith in every work of holy writ, are contending today for the altar and the hearthstone.
"Radical criticism, such as that voiced by the University of Chicago proposes a complete change from Christianity to infidelity. It not only presumes to modify, but even, on occasions, rejects the truth taught by Christ, such as his resurrection and second advent.
"There are a few ambitious young men at the university, who, impatient of obscurity and meager pay, think to procure themselves better positions by attracting publicity. This aim they can accomplish best by sensational attacks upon what is holy.
"The editorial says that the expectation of Christ's second coming is based not on the historical but the imaginative portions of the Bible. But the second advent is mentioned in the Acts, a historical book. It is estimated that every twenty-fifth verse of the Old Testament refers to the second coming of the Messiah."
Uses Sarcasm as Weapon.
A paper satirizing the methods of higher criticism, by one of the ministers present, was read at the morning session by Rev. P. V. Genness. The author, by adopting the reasoning as he understood it, of the higher critics, sarcastically proved that the Declaration of Independence was not written until after the civil war.
Rev. Dr. C. J. Scofield, of the First Congregational church, Dallas, Texas, said that the beliefs expressed by the Biblical World, if generally adopted, would work the subversion of all religion.
"These young professors, said he, "have almost reached the point where they consider the Bible not a divine, but merely a human document."
The motto of the Bible League of America is "Back to the Bible." Its purpose is to renew faith in both testaments and to oppose the inroads of higher criticism.
—Fort Wayne Sentinel, Fort Wayne, IN, Nov. 13, 1907, p. 5.
Minister Attacks Biblical World and Professors Are Scored
St. Louis, Nov. 13.— At yesterday's session of the Bible League of North America meeting the conference's 13-inch theological guns were turned upon the Biblical World, one of the official publications of the University of Chicago. The indignation of the conference was aroused by the publication recently of an editorial in this magazine, in which the second advent of Christ was derided and the resurrection of Jesus denied.
The chief address of the day was made by Rev. W. M. McPheeters, D.D., instructor in the Southern Presbyterian Theological seminary at Columbia S.C. His subject was "Has the Influence of Radical Criticism Been Wholly to the Advantage of Religion and the Bible?"
This question the minister answered with an emphatic and indignant negative.
Criticism Kiss of Judas.
"Higher criticism is not the Roman's spear," said he, "which pierced the side of the Lord. It is rather the kiss of Judas, which, under the pretense of friendliness, aims at the destruction of religion. We, the adherents of literal faith in every work of holy writ, are contending today for the altar and the hearthstone.
"Radical criticism, such as that voiced by the University of Chicago proposes a complete change from Christianity to infidelity. It not only presumes to modify, but even, on occasions, rejects the truth taught by Christ, such as his resurrection and second advent.
"There are a few ambitious young men at the university, who, impatient of obscurity and meager pay, think to procure themselves better positions by attracting publicity. This aim they can accomplish best by sensational attacks upon what is holy.
"The editorial says that the expectation of Christ's second coming is based not on the historical but the imaginative portions of the Bible. But the second advent is mentioned in the Acts, a historical book. It is estimated that every twenty-fifth verse of the Old Testament refers to the second coming of the Messiah."
Uses Sarcasm as Weapon.
A paper satirizing the methods of higher criticism, by one of the ministers present, was read at the morning session by Rev. P. V. Genness. The author, by adopting the reasoning as he understood it, of the higher critics, sarcastically proved that the Declaration of Independence was not written until after the civil war.
Rev. Dr. C. J. Scofield, of the First Congregational church, Dallas, Texas, said that the beliefs expressed by the Biblical World, if generally adopted, would work the subversion of all religion.
"These young professors, said he, "have almost reached the point where they consider the Bible not a divine, but merely a human document."
The motto of the Bible League of America is "Back to the Bible." Its purpose is to renew faith in both testaments and to oppose the inroads of higher criticism.
—Fort Wayne Sentinel, Fort Wayne, IN, Nov. 13, 1907, p. 5.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Attitude of the Church Towards Science and The Higher Criticism
1904
By Rev. J. S. BRYAN, Sparta, Georgia
Methodist Church
The time has not been very long since freedom of thought was considered a crime, and every newly discovered truth which contradicted the church's standards of doctrine was condemned as heresy. The church attempted to suppress the spirit of free inquiry with rack sword and fire; but even these violent means proved ineffectual. Men endowed with Godlike faculties will think, and thinking will inevitably lead to new discoveries of truth. The church has been taught a severe lesson of wisdom and toleration by her former mistakes, and she must henceforth assume a different attitude toward men capable of original and independent thought. The church should be the friend and patron of learning, and should heartily encourage and foster the spirit of investigation and discovery.
She need not fear to welcome any new truth or fact from any source. No truth can ever be inconsistent with any other truth. There can be no real conflict between scientific and religious truth. Any discordance is only apparent. Mr. Spurgeon felicitously and correctly stated the harmony between true religion and true science as follows: "We may rest assured that 'true vestiges of creation' will never contradict Genesis, nor will a correct 'Cosmos' be found at variance with the narrative of Moses. He is wisest who reads both the world book and the word book as two volumes of the same work, and feels concerning them, 'My Father wrote them both.' " The extreme conservatism which is willing to remain content with present attainments in science or theology is an effectual barrier to all further progress. The world has outgrown ecclesiastical conservatism and dogmatism. Whatever truth can be demonstrated by experiment or established by sufficient evidence, the church must receive, or she will forfeit the respect and confidence of all persons of liberal intelligence. Traditional opinions and beliefs must be given up if they cannot be defended.
At the beginning of the last century, according to the accepted scriptural chronology, the earth had been created only about six thousand years. The discoveries of geology, then a new science, contradicted the chronology and demanded a much longer period. Thoughtful and candid men, like Dr. Chalmers, reread Genesis in the light of the new science and announced the reconciling fact that the book assigned no date at all to creation. Instead of six thousand, even millions of years might be conceded to the geologist without contradicting the Mosaic cosmogony. The medieval church believed and taught that the Ptolemaic astronomy was founded on the Bible. Bruno was burnt for denying it, and Galileo narrowly escaped the same penalty by a timely recantation. In the two instances mentioned above science has corrected erroneous interpretations, of the scriptures. As Mr. Spurgeon suggests, the world book and the word book should be read as two volumes by the same divine author.
The latest demands on the church for modification of her theological teachings are made by evolution and the higher criticisms. Radical and extravagant theories and speculations on either subject deserve no serious consideration, but every truth, or fact, that comes properly accredited must be acknowledged. As geology necessitated a revision of chronology, so evolution demands a revision of the traditional view of creation. Evolution is not necessarily atheistic. It is not a cause, but a mode of development. Mr. Spencer, its chief expounder, defines it as "a change from definite homogeneity to indefinite heterogeneity," etc. Now, change is an effect produced by some preceding cause. Mr. Spencer, true to his agnosticism, declares that the first cause is unknowable. According to Mr. Spencer's confession, the God of the Bible may be the unknowable cause of his philosophy, and evolution may be His mode of working. The Athenian philosophers ignorantly worshiped an unknown God until Paul declared Him unto them. Evolution is now generally accepted as a fact by leading theologians as well as scientists. Its proofs are drawn from various sources, such as astronomy, geology, embryology. It is constantly repeated before our eyes in the ordinary processes of nature. The oak develops from an acorn, the fowl from an egg, the animal from an ovum.
If evolution be accepted as a fact, what is the result? The church, again enlightened by science, must modify her traditional teaching in regard to creation, instead of separate, distinct, epochal creative acts, she must accept the doctrine of an original creation of matter and a continuous, connected development of all things under this universal law. Evolution, then, becomes the divine method of unfolding the universe. By its acceptance no essential truth or fact of scripture need be sacrificed. Theistic evolution does not set aside a belief in God, nor in an original creation. Neither does it lessen one's admiration of His wisdom and power as manifested in the grandeur and glory of His works. To the mind of the devout evolutionist "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork."
The church cannot assume an attitude of indifference towards the modern criticism of the Bible. For a long time the Bible was held too sacred to be touched by the hand of the literary critic. To deal with it as with other books of ancient literature would have been considered sacrilegious. A fear to submit it to criticism is virtually a confession of doubt as to its ability to stand the test. John Stewart Mill, in his work on "Liberty," says we hold no truth securely until we know the number and strength of the arguments against it and know how to answer them. The Bible, as the basis of Christianity, forms no exception to this rule. The Book invites candid criticism: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
It is but justice to say that generally the critics handle the Book reverently although they handle it fearlessly. The results of their investigations have been surprising and apparently revolutionary. Some of their most important conclusions are sustained by the best scholarship of the age, and their views have gained wide currency among the ministers and the intelligent laymen of all the churches. In many respects, our traditional beliefs have been rudely shaken, if not effectually overthrown, by these learned critics, but nothing essential or substantial has been taken away from us. These scholarly men are investigating questions mainly of authorship, dates, methods of composition, literary characteristics and moral purposes of the several books of the Bible. We should not hesitate to receive gratefully any reliable information which they furnish us on these questions. If there be poetical, legendary, and mythical elements, which we have long been accustomed to regard as prose, as history, and as miracle; if there be errors of science or history; if there be interpolations, inconsistencies and contradictions, as some allege, we desire to know the truth about these things. Let them be pointed out and proved. Let fact be separated from fiction, and truth from error. We should not be blind worshippers of the letter of the Book. It has long withstood the attacks of open enemies, and we should not fear the results of honest criticism by its friends conducted in a spirit of fairness and reverence.
—The Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta, Aug. 7, 1904, p. 8, back section.
By Rev. J. S. BRYAN, Sparta, Georgia
Methodist Church
The time has not been very long since freedom of thought was considered a crime, and every newly discovered truth which contradicted the church's standards of doctrine was condemned as heresy. The church attempted to suppress the spirit of free inquiry with rack sword and fire; but even these violent means proved ineffectual. Men endowed with Godlike faculties will think, and thinking will inevitably lead to new discoveries of truth. The church has been taught a severe lesson of wisdom and toleration by her former mistakes, and she must henceforth assume a different attitude toward men capable of original and independent thought. The church should be the friend and patron of learning, and should heartily encourage and foster the spirit of investigation and discovery.
She need not fear to welcome any new truth or fact from any source. No truth can ever be inconsistent with any other truth. There can be no real conflict between scientific and religious truth. Any discordance is only apparent. Mr. Spurgeon felicitously and correctly stated the harmony between true religion and true science as follows: "We may rest assured that 'true vestiges of creation' will never contradict Genesis, nor will a correct 'Cosmos' be found at variance with the narrative of Moses. He is wisest who reads both the world book and the word book as two volumes of the same work, and feels concerning them, 'My Father wrote them both.' " The extreme conservatism which is willing to remain content with present attainments in science or theology is an effectual barrier to all further progress. The world has outgrown ecclesiastical conservatism and dogmatism. Whatever truth can be demonstrated by experiment or established by sufficient evidence, the church must receive, or she will forfeit the respect and confidence of all persons of liberal intelligence. Traditional opinions and beliefs must be given up if they cannot be defended.
At the beginning of the last century, according to the accepted scriptural chronology, the earth had been created only about six thousand years. The discoveries of geology, then a new science, contradicted the chronology and demanded a much longer period. Thoughtful and candid men, like Dr. Chalmers, reread Genesis in the light of the new science and announced the reconciling fact that the book assigned no date at all to creation. Instead of six thousand, even millions of years might be conceded to the geologist without contradicting the Mosaic cosmogony. The medieval church believed and taught that the Ptolemaic astronomy was founded on the Bible. Bruno was burnt for denying it, and Galileo narrowly escaped the same penalty by a timely recantation. In the two instances mentioned above science has corrected erroneous interpretations, of the scriptures. As Mr. Spurgeon suggests, the world book and the word book should be read as two volumes by the same divine author.
The latest demands on the church for modification of her theological teachings are made by evolution and the higher criticisms. Radical and extravagant theories and speculations on either subject deserve no serious consideration, but every truth, or fact, that comes properly accredited must be acknowledged. As geology necessitated a revision of chronology, so evolution demands a revision of the traditional view of creation. Evolution is not necessarily atheistic. It is not a cause, but a mode of development. Mr. Spencer, its chief expounder, defines it as "a change from definite homogeneity to indefinite heterogeneity," etc. Now, change is an effect produced by some preceding cause. Mr. Spencer, true to his agnosticism, declares that the first cause is unknowable. According to Mr. Spencer's confession, the God of the Bible may be the unknowable cause of his philosophy, and evolution may be His mode of working. The Athenian philosophers ignorantly worshiped an unknown God until Paul declared Him unto them. Evolution is now generally accepted as a fact by leading theologians as well as scientists. Its proofs are drawn from various sources, such as astronomy, geology, embryology. It is constantly repeated before our eyes in the ordinary processes of nature. The oak develops from an acorn, the fowl from an egg, the animal from an ovum.
If evolution be accepted as a fact, what is the result? The church, again enlightened by science, must modify her traditional teaching in regard to creation, instead of separate, distinct, epochal creative acts, she must accept the doctrine of an original creation of matter and a continuous, connected development of all things under this universal law. Evolution, then, becomes the divine method of unfolding the universe. By its acceptance no essential truth or fact of scripture need be sacrificed. Theistic evolution does not set aside a belief in God, nor in an original creation. Neither does it lessen one's admiration of His wisdom and power as manifested in the grandeur and glory of His works. To the mind of the devout evolutionist "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork."
The church cannot assume an attitude of indifference towards the modern criticism of the Bible. For a long time the Bible was held too sacred to be touched by the hand of the literary critic. To deal with it as with other books of ancient literature would have been considered sacrilegious. A fear to submit it to criticism is virtually a confession of doubt as to its ability to stand the test. John Stewart Mill, in his work on "Liberty," says we hold no truth securely until we know the number and strength of the arguments against it and know how to answer them. The Bible, as the basis of Christianity, forms no exception to this rule. The Book invites candid criticism: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
It is but justice to say that generally the critics handle the Book reverently although they handle it fearlessly. The results of their investigations have been surprising and apparently revolutionary. Some of their most important conclusions are sustained by the best scholarship of the age, and their views have gained wide currency among the ministers and the intelligent laymen of all the churches. In many respects, our traditional beliefs have been rudely shaken, if not effectually overthrown, by these learned critics, but nothing essential or substantial has been taken away from us. These scholarly men are investigating questions mainly of authorship, dates, methods of composition, literary characteristics and moral purposes of the several books of the Bible. We should not hesitate to receive gratefully any reliable information which they furnish us on these questions. If there be poetical, legendary, and mythical elements, which we have long been accustomed to regard as prose, as history, and as miracle; if there be errors of science or history; if there be interpolations, inconsistencies and contradictions, as some allege, we desire to know the truth about these things. Let them be pointed out and proved. Let fact be separated from fiction, and truth from error. We should not be blind worshippers of the letter of the Book. It has long withstood the attacks of open enemies, and we should not fear the results of honest criticism by its friends conducted in a spirit of fairness and reverence.
—The Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta, Aug. 7, 1904, p. 8, back section.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
