IN a commendatory notice of the above appearing on the paper jacket of the book we are informed that “in these studies of Christian doctrine, based upon the Short Statement of the Church’s Faith commended by the General Assembly of 1935, there will be found, in simple language and with a wide range of illustration, material of interest to every church member, and of special value to ministers, Bible Class leaders and others engaged in giving Christian instruction.” Prof. Riddell in his Preface says it was hoped that the late Prof. H. R. Mackintosh would have undertaken the preparation of the proposed handbook which was to be used along with the Short Statement but this Dr. Mackintosh was unable to accomplish. He, however, indicated how the book might be prepared. Three things he wished to see in it. (1) Full references to Scripture as the basis of Christian doctrine; (2) a large variety of illustrative material which might be used by ministers, etc.; and (3) guidance (if possible by quotation) as to books suitable for further study. These suggestions have guided Prof. Riddell in the preparation of the book under review. Before proceeding further, it may be advisable to give the following quotation: “The Short Statement,” says Prof. Riddell, “as has already been pointed out, makes no claim for acceptance as a standard of doctrine. In it will be found, however, some indication, at least, of what the Church to-day regards as of fundamental importance for its faith.”
At the outset in fairness to Prof. Riddell it is but right, in view of the criticisms that are to be offered, to acknowledge that he has stated many doctrinal and practical points with a clearness and freshness of treatment that are admirable. We turn now to what may be regarded as objectionable features of the book. 1. The Biblical quotations throughout are, with one or two exceptions, taken from Prof. Moffatt’s Translation of the Scriptures. This, in itself, is not a good beginning. Competent Old Testament and New Testament scholars have shown that Dr. Moffatt made use of higher critical principles when making his translation. Apart altogether from this serious aspect of the matter there is also another point against the translation in its unfortunate and unnecessary changing of passages that have come to be regarded as the precious heritage of the Church of Christ. For instance: “Let the children come to me, do not stop them; the realm of God belongs to such as these?” Why were the words of our Authorised Version, so beautiful, and which linger on memory’s ear, displaced by Dr. Moffatt’s common-place phrasing? 2. Another general criticism that may be offered is that throughout the book the doctrine of the Universal Fatherhood of God is accepted without a word of qualification. For a divinity professor to do so clearly indicates that notwithstanding the influence evidently exercised over him by the Theology of Crisis he has accepted the popular teaching which is certainly not the doctrine of the New Testament. 3. Prof. Riddell is an omnivorous reader. He has laid science, philosophy, literature and theology under tribute to provide himself with illustrative material but whether he has acted with discrimination in his choice will be readily seen when we give a list of the names of those he refers to or quotes from. Among the writers of fiction to whom appeal is made are George Eliot, Thomas Hardy, John Buchan, Meredith, Mark Rutherford, etc. In a work setting forth what we are to believe the less reliance on fiction as illustrative material the better. The poets are also laid under tribute—Tennyson, Tagore, Chesterton, W. H. Myers, William Blake, Wm. Morris, Dora Greenwell, Francis Thompson, John Masefield, Spenser, etc. Among these will be recognised the names of men whose utterances came from vagrant hearts and which had an unsettling effect as far as the faith once delivered to the saints was concerned. But it is when we come to the theological and religious writers quoted that one gets an idea of Prof. Riddell’s religious affinities. Quotations or references are given from, or to: Principal Rainy, Prof. A. C. Welch, Principal MacGregor, Prof. John Baillie, Brunner, Barth, Thurneysen, Dr. Moffatt, Principal Denney, Prof. A. B. Davidson, Dr. Carnegie Simpson, J. H. Newman, Dr. Dale, Canon Streeter, Dr. Glover, Dr. Stanley Jones, Prof. H. R. Mackintosh, Prof. Henry Drummond, Prof. Curtis, Horace Bushnell, Dr. W. N. Clarke, Dr. Schweitzer, Dr. Donald Fraser, Dr. Coffin, Dr. Fosdick, Dean Matthews, Borchert, Bishop Aulen, Dr. Micklem, Leslie Weatherhead, Prof. Robertson Smith, Prof. Manson, Dr. Mozley, Alexander Maclaren, Principal R. S. Candlish, Dr. A. B. Bonar, John Wesley, John Bunyan, Luther, John Newton, Samuel Rutherford, Matthew Henry, Robert Murray McCheyne, Dan Crawford, etc. Our purpose in quoting this list is to show how Prof. Riddell has carried out the suggestion of providing “illustrative material which might be used by ministers or Bible Class teachers at their discretion and give guidance (if possible by quotation) as to books suitable for further study.” One need have no hesitation in saying that many of the works written by the above authors will lead their readers far astray if they are foolish enough to accept their guidance. One misses in the above list the names of men whose attainments in theological science gave them an honoured place in the Church of Christ. There is not a reference, as far as we noticed, to such distinguished conservative theologians as Dr. Dick Wilson, Dr. Warfield, Dr. Machen, etc. Prof. Riddell probably had a reason for neglecting these while quoting so largely from the Modernistic school; the reader will be ready to draw his own conclusion.
When we come to Prof. Riddell’s doctrine of Scripture it is here seen how far he is off the lines on this important doctrine. Commenting on the words of the Short Statement—“For the understanding of the Holy Scriptures the Church welcomes every aid provided by linguistic, literary, and historical research”—Prof. Riddell says: “It is a help, for example, to the believer to realise that in the early chapters of the Bible narratives drawn from different sources are intertwined, and may not be expected always to be consistent with one another. It is a real aid to the understanding of the Book of Isaiah to know that it represents the work of more writers than one and comes to us from different periods of the nation’s history. In the New Testament, likewise, investigation into the circumstances of the different Gospels and their relation to one another has enabled us to appreciate their message more fully . . . . From the literary point of view, it is a real strengthening of our faith to understand that the book of Jonah is not a tale of unbelievable adventure but an earnest plea that Israel should realise her missionary responsibility to the world” (pp. 185, 186). We need not quote further; what has been given shows clearly that Prof. Riddell accepts without hesitation the higher critical theory of the composite nature of Genesis and Isaiah and also their theory of the book of Jonah. “We are not,” says Prof. Riddell, “as has been suggested above, to regard the Bible simply as an infallible, inerrant document, nor, on the other hand, are we to treat it as nothing more than a human production like any other book which has survived from the literature of antiquity” (p. 188). A theology based on such a foundation is subject to the unsettling fluctuations that lack the definiteness and finality of the older theology and which leaves one wondering what is really to be believed. Another statement to which exception must be taken is the ascription of peccability to the Lord Jesus—“We believe, not that Jesus could not sin, but that He was able not to sin, and that His sinlessness has to do with our salvation” (p. 258). The doctrine of the impeccability of the Lord Jesus (the non posse peccare, of the theologians), the impossibility of sinning, as opposed to the peccability, (the posse non peccare, of the theologians) the possibility of sinning (the view stated by Prof. Riddell), must be asserted and held at all costs whatever difficulties may confront us with the reality of His true human nature. The doctrine meets us in connection with the Lord’s temptation and some eminent divines, erroneously accepting the view that temptability implies peccability, have not hesitated to attribute peccability to the Lord Jesus. In so doing, however, they do not mean to say that there was a likelihood of His sinning, but only that there was the possibility. The true view, we believe, is that there was an impossibility that He could sin, or, in the language of the theologians that He was impeccable.
While we would not charge Prof. Riddell with supporting the theory of the Larger Hope there is a certain indefiniteness in what he says about the finally impenitent that lacks the definiteness of Scripture. “We may leave—as we must—the future of those,” he says, “who die without faith in His control, confident that He who is for ever righteous and loving will deal with them according to His wisdom, for their highest good and the glory of His holy name” (p. 398). So far so good, but when this is read in the light of what he says in his Life: Here and Hereafter one wonders where Prof. Riddell really stands. In the foregoing he puts the question: “But what of others who may never have known even the name of Christ, or who, knowing Him, have rejected His claims, etc.?” And he answers his own question as follows: “I venture to suggest that the one thing which we may profitably say about this that all lives, hereafter as now, are in the hands of God.
“All souls are thine; and, here or there,
They rest within thy sheltering care;
One providence alike they share.”
They are in the keeping of a God unchanging in His justice and in His love, who, we believe, will not tolerate wrongdoing or allow evil to remain unpunished, and yet has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but desires that he should turn from his way and live (Ezek. xxxiii. 11).” This is too vague and lacks the definiteness of Scripture teaching on this solemn question. It is far from satisfactory.
In reading Prof. Riddell’s book this vagueness which shows itself in other places leaves one with the impression that the religion and theology of What We Believe is characterised more by its fluidity than the solidity of the religion and theology of the Church of Scotland in other and better days. The theological language of the book is like that of the offspring of the mixed marriages between the Jews and the people of Ashdod, Ammon and Moab whose “children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jew’s language, but according to the language of each people” (Nehemiah, xiii. 24). There are other statements in the book which, if space permitted, might be referred to, but from what has been said it will be seen that there are many things in the book which we ought not to believe.
* What We Believe by J. G. Riddell, M.A., Professor of Systematic Theology, University of Glasgow and Trinity College, Glasgow. Edinburgh: Church of Scotland Committee on Publications, 121 George Street.