The Battle for the Bible by Harold Lindsell — Zondervan $6.95.
Modern religious liberalism has been a complete failure. Professing to appeal to the educated modern mind, it has only succeeded in emptying the Churches and in creating an unparalleled state of ignorance of Christianity in those Countries which once professed this name. The root of the evil, as well as the explanation of the failure of modernism, is its feeble grasp of the authenticity of the Word of God and its false views of the inspiration of Holy Writ. It has been painfully obvious for some time, also, that all is not well in professedly evangelical circles. The almost universal prevalence of various degrees of Arminianism in doctrine, together with a presentation of the gospel which reduces the worship of God to a form of light entertainment, has produced a form of religion in which practical godliness and scriptural witness are at a discount. The reason for this has been the weak views of the inspiration of Scripture which have permeated evangelical ministries through the unfaithfulness of Theological Colleges. This book, which deals with the American scene, demonstrates this very clearly, and we can be sure that the state of affairs in Britain is not any better. Nor does the future look any brighter, for Richard Quebedeaux in his book, The Young Evangelicals, has flatly asserted that wherever young evangelicals are to be found, a trend away from inerrancy (i.e. of the Scriptures) exists. (p. 122)
Dr Harold Lindsell is at present Editor of Christianity Today. He has also held professorships at various Theological Seminaries. He is consequently well informed and his views must be taken seriously. He maintains that the real battle for the Bible in evangelical circles is between those who hold to the whole Bible as infallible and inerrant because it is the inspired Word of God and those who hold the Bible to be infallible only in the sphere of faith and practice, while allowing that there may be errors in the Scriptures on other subjects such as creation, history, etc. This latter view of partial inspiration used to be the modernistic one, but it is now supported by those who use the evangelical name. The danger of such a view may be seen from the comparison of the following two statements:—
- (A) “The Bible is the infallible Word of God, the only true rule for faith and practice.”
- (B) “The Bible is the Word of God, the only infallible rule for faith and practice.”
On the face of it, these two statements appear impressively sound but they do not mean the same thing. The transfer of the word “infallible” means that, while statement (A) attributes infallibility to the whole Word of God, thus making it the only rule for faith and practice, statement (B) means that the Bible is only infallible in what it teaches for faith and practice. It may, and indeed it is alleged, that it does, have errors in other spheres. Small wonder that Dr Lindsell says, “Simply stated, the concern is that Evangelical Christianity is engaged in the greatest battle of its history.” (p.200).
After showing that the inerrancy of Scripture is the doctrine taught by Scripture itself, as well as by the Church down through the ages, Dr Lindsell goes on to show how Church organisations, which once held this view, are now departing from it to the great loss of those concerned. He deals with the situation in the Lutheran Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Theological Seminary of the Evangelical Covenant Church of America, the Evangelical Theological Society, the American Scientific Affiliation, the Wenhem Conference of Evangelicals (on Scripture), and the Free University of Amsterdam. He then goes on to show the sad effects which arose in particular cases, when the proper doctrine of Biblical inerrancy was abandoned. A further chapter is added on the usual alleged discrepancies supposed to be found in the Bible, and he reaches this conclusion, “I do not doubt that if evangelicals, in concert with one another, would stand firm and tall for biblical inerrancy and the cardinal doctrines of the Christian Faith, a new day would dawn and the blessing of God would follow.”
Dr Lindsell deals very fully with the case of Fuller Theological Seminary. He, himself, was one of the original Faculty members and therefore knows what took place. The Seminary was brought into being through the efforts of Charles E. Fuller of the “Old Fashioned Revival Hour” broadcasts. One of its chief purposes was that it would be an apologetic institution, the curriculum of which would provide the finest theological defence of Biblical Infallibility. The son of the founder, Daniel Paynter Fuller, attended Princeton Theological Seminary which was, by this time, modernistic in its views. After taking further degrees he went to Basel, Switzerland, to work for another doctorate under men like Karl Barth. When he returned home, he was appointed Dean of the Faculty at Fuller and it soon transpired that he no longer held the biblical view of inerrancy. This should be a warning to young men against going to unsound theological seminaries where unscriptural views are held and taught. Daniel Fuller’s appointment was soon followed by others of similar views and by 1962 “there could be no doubt that a number of the members of the Faculty and the Board did not believe in an inerrant Scripture.” This led to the eventual resignation of the members of the Faculty who adhered to the original purpose for which the Seminary was formed. Soon the new view was incorporated in a new statement on Scripture, which eliminated its complete infallibility and substituted the partial view already indicated, “the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” Some of Daniel Fuller’s colleagues, such as Professor George E. Ladd, President Hubbard and Dr Pak King Jewett — names well known in American evangelical circles — are all in the same category in their views of the inerrancy of Scripture. By such means, a Theological Seminary founded for the express purpose of defending this aspect of the Bible is now engaged in denying the very doctrine it was specially set up to teach. This pattern is followed in the case of the other organisations referred to by Dr Lindsell. It makes a sad and sorry tale, and words cannot be found to express adequately the contempt every honest mind feels for men who join a Church or a religious organisation professing to agree with its aims yet secretly working to change these very aims. “All things are naked and opened to the eyes of Him with Whom we have to do,” and He will deal with all such hypocrites in His own time.
Dr Lindsell has performed a useful service in writing this book. He is obviously alarmed at the state of affairs, and this imparts a vigour to his writing which is in vivid contrast to the usual pallid presentation of evangelicals who think that their scholarly reputation would be tarnished by making statements in any way decisive. Nor is he afraid to mention well-known names. Of Professor F. F. Bruce, he says, “Apparently F. F. Bruce thinks that for one to hold to biblical inerrancy is to display a ‘Malignot Line’ mentality.” (p. 171). It is all the more regrettable, therefore, that Dr Lindsell makes concessions which should not be allowed to these neo-evangelicals. On page 210 he says, “It is true that a man can be a Christian without believing in inerrancy.” Is this true? We certainly think not. “Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and the divine authority thereof (i.e. the Scriptures) is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.” (West. Conf. Chap. I. Sec. 5). The inward work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration involves the conviction that the Scriptures are the Word of God — the God of truth, for Whom it is impossible to lie. Men may by many means reach a rational conviction that the Scriptures are the Word of God but it is only the effectual application of the Scriptures to the heart by the Holy Spirit that gives the spiritual persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth of God’s Word. This being so, we are entitled to conclude that those who deny this infallibility are strangers to the saving work of the Holy Spirit. They, therefore, cannot be Christians and they should be told so for their own good, as well as a warning to others. “Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of Man be ashamed when He cometh in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.” (Mark 8:38).
D. M., Glasgow
George Whitefield’s Letters. 1734 to 1742. Banner of Truth Trust. 570pp £3.50.
This well-bound book is a facsimile copy of Volume I of a six volume set of George Whitefield’s Works which was first published in 1771. In addition the reprint includes 34 letters omitted from that edition, a 3-page introduction by S. M. Houghton, and also explanatory notes on the letters.
At first sight the publication of over 500 letters of Whitefield’s in an edition which retains the letter ‘s’ printed in the old long form, like an ‘f’, might make one question if the Banner of Truth Trust have made a mistake in issuing this work. However, closer acquaintance with the material makes the reader conscious that it was a worthwhile venture.
For those who have read Whitefield’s Journals or Arnold Dallimore’s Life of Whitefield Vol. I, already issued by the Banner of Truth Trust, this volume of Whitefield’s Letters will be of great interest. His correspondence during those very active years of his ministry — but what years of his ministry were not active? — and years abundantly fruitful, through the Lord’s blessing, in the ingathering of multitudes of souls into the kingdom of Christ, show the inward working of his own soul during those eventful times. Of particular interest to Scottish readers will be his account in the letters of the times of revival at Cambuslang in 1742, and the opposition which he had to face from the Secession Fathers because of his part in those revivals. It is interesting to see the gracious spirit he manifested in the face of these assaults. The Letters, of course, are of more than historical interest. They are deeply devotional and are well worthy of perusal on this account alone.
D.B.M.