Chapter II: The Present Controversy--the Cure (2)

Then recognizing that all the scientific references of the Bible, including those relating to origins, are in that class that can not be verified to the experience, he will decide to come to no conclusions concerning them except such as will maintain both the primacy of primary truth and the unity of all the realms of truth. He will do this because it is the only thing he can do and still maintain a truly scientific attitude of mind.

This will mean that he will interpret all the non-experimental statements of the Bible, including the scientific references, in harmony with and in the light of those spiritual and experiential truths which he has already had verified to him through his own personal relations with God through faith in Christ. In other words, he will maintain the primacy of spiritual truth by allowing no interpretation of scientific facts that will cast either denial or doubt on those fundamental doctrines which he now =knows= are true, because they have been =supernaturally verified= to him through the laboratory test of faith.

Take an illustration. Suppose an author on chemistry, who was also a historian, should include in his textbook a history of the science of chemistry. Now if a man puts his statements of chemical laws to an accurate laboratory test and finds them true, he has the presumption established that the history, which cannot be so tested, is also true.

Yes, that illustration breaks down, but only at the point of =human fallibility= and =imperfection=. If that author were omniscient and infallible the illustration would be perfect.

Now apply it to the Word. When a man, through the unfailing laboratory test of honest faith, finds that the statements that can be put to the test of experience are infallible truth, he has not simply the presumption but also the =absolute certainty= established that all its other statements are true, because the infallible and omniscient Author has given it to us as His Word. It comes to us with a "Thus saith the Lord" ringing in our ears from beginning to end, and not with the multiplied repetitions of "We may well suppose" of the scientific guessers.

The man of scientific mind, therefore, will accept all the non-experiential statements of the Bible as infallible truth, including scientific and historical references and prophetic utterances. He will then accord the place of primacy to all understood scientific references of the Bible over all discoveries in the natural realm. He will do this by interpreting the few and fragmentary discoveries of finite and fallible man in the light of the statements that come to us as the Word of an infallible God, concluding that if there is any apparent inharmony, it lies in the partial discoveries or premature conclusions of scientists, rather than in any error of statement in the Bible. In other words, he will interpret science in the light of the Bible, and not the Bible in the light of science. And if at any time a harmonizing of scientific discoveries with the Bible seems impossible, he will withhold final conclusions until he has further scientific light, realizing that when he knows enough science he will then be able to understand the scientific references of the Bible, and the apparent inharmony will vanish. Multiplied illustrations of this are so familiar that it is scarcely necessary to elaborate on it, as many will occur to the reader who is at all familiar with the essential harmony between the Bible and all real scientific knowledge, and with the fact that a multitude of scientific discoveries have been made, only to find that the Bible made reference to them in the most accurate scientific terms many centuries before their discovery.

A conclusion is now possible as to what attitude a man who has faith in an inerrant Bible will be compelled to take toward the theory of evolution. When he sees that the logic of evolution destroys every fundamental Scripture doctrine which he has already had verified to him by the Holy Spirit; when he learns that evolution is not only entirely unproven but even discredited by many competent men of science; and when he turns to the Bible and reads the statement repeated over and again that each species was created to reproduce only "after his kind"; he will be compelled to make a choice between evolution and an inerrant Bible, and, believing the Bible, he will reject evolution.

Then when he recalls that to Eve, Satan advanced an unproven theory which assumed to interpret, but had the effect of denying, the Word of God, and then reflects that the theory of evolution does precisely the same thing, he will become suspicious that the "father of lies" is behind the whole evolutionary propaganda. Other theories that are unproven and discredited fall by their own weight. The persistence of this theory must be accounted for on the ground that it can be used to destroy faith in the infallibility of the Bible.

It is quite true that there are many who say they believe the Bible and accept evolution also. But how those who are mentally sound and capable of logical consistency can accept two mutually exclusive propositions at the same time, it is impossible to understand. We will be compelled to let those who say they accept both the Bible and evolution explain how they do it--if they can! But meantime, if we take pains to make careful inquiry of such people, we shall find that in =every case= where logical and consistent thinking has any meaning whatever, a =choice= has been made between the Bible as an inerrant and infallible Book and the theory of evolution. It is quite possible for a man to hold the "scientific" or "historical" attitude toward the Bible, which makes it a human book marred by many errors, and believe in evolution at the same time; but the man who holds that attitude toward the Bible =does not believe it at all=! No one can accept the theory of evolution and the doctrine of an inerrant Bible at the same time.

And yet the attempt is being very skilfully made by many leaders in the Schools today to camouflage this impossibility. A very recent article by Dr. Shailer Mathews on "Christ and Education" is a typical illustration.

In the midst of the article Dr. Mathews frankly indicates his acceptance of evolution, because of which, he says, "the meaning of religion was enlarged" for him. Then he leaves the impression with the reader that the conclusions of modern science are to be taken without question, and also that our faith in Christ and the Bible are to be brought into harmony with these conclusions. That is, our faith must combine an acceptance of evolution with whatever attitude toward Christ and the Scriptures the evolutionary philosophy makes possible. This puts reason above Revelation and makes the scientific realm primary in its relation to the spiritual. The reader can judge, in the light of our previous thinking, whether this procedure is scientific or not.

Then in speaking of the fact that the educated man as truly as the ignorant man needs the saving power of Christ, he says:

But he must be saved as an educated man and not as an
ignorant man. He cannot be forced to give up what he knows to
be real. If he be told that Christian loyalty involves the
abandonment of the assured results and methods of scientific
investigation, he will refuse such loyalty.

This implied charge is later on in the article made specific when he says that some schools

"are refusing to let their students know the results of
scientific investigation for fear lest such knowledge will
ruin certain theological beliefs for which the schools
stand"--a method he describes as putting a premium upon
ignorance as a prerequisite for faith.

The reader knows as well as the writer that the whole attitude of the Christian Church, and therefore of true Christian education, challenges those words and hurls them back at their author for proof. Both the implied and the direct accusations are utterly without foundation. Indeed, the thing Dr. Mathews charges is the one thing true Christian education does =not= do.

When did the Church ever try to force a man, educated or ignorant, to give up what he knows to be facts in order to become a Christian? When was a man ever asked by Christian schools to choose between the assured results and methods of scientific investigation and loyalty to Christ? When has that institution which, above all others, has fought ignorance and fostered true scientific investigation used a method that put a premium on ignorance as a prerequisite for faith?

It is not =facts= that the Church either fears or refuses to accept, but such an =interpretation= of them by evolutionists and rationalists as to deny the scientific accuracy and therefore the inerrancy of the Word of God. It is altogether beside the truth to intimate that the Church is fostering an education that has to withhold assured scientific facts for fear their knowledge would ruin faith in any theological beliefs whatever "for which the schools stand." It is not the =knowledge= of scientific facts that true Christian schools ever withhold, but such =theories= and =speculations= concerning their meaning as would destroy the schools as Christian institutions if the logic of them were followed to the end. And as for the Church ever abandoning the assured results and methods of scientific investigation, this is precisely the thing the Church is =fighting to maintain= against the efforts of evolutionists and rationalists. It is rather the =Schools= that have been abandoning scientific methods of investigation, thereby reaching "assured results" that invalidate not only the doctrine of an inerrant Bible, but every other fundamental doctrine of the Scriptures. Indeed, this is the very reason why the controversy between the Church and the Schools is now on, and Dr. Mathews' article is typical of the attempts that are being made to make it appear that faith in evolution and the Bible can be combined--an attempt toward which all believers in an infallible Book will always be irreconcilable.

And this irreconcilable attitude is not without reason, but for the perfectly valid reason that the one who accepts evolution as a fact is utterly unscientific. For in the first place he accepts unproven assumptions and rationalistic speculations as demonstrated facts. And, in the next place, he thereby forces human interpretations of scientific facts to contradict the divinely verified doctrines of the Bible, thus thrusting confusion and contradiction between realms of truth which are in perfect harmony. And, still further, he interprets the Bible in the light(?) not simply of science but even of a false science, and thus compels unproven hypotheses to deny the truthfulness of the scientific and historical references of the Bible, thereby forcing into primacy a realm of truth that is not primary. And all of this because he refuses to follow the formula of the spiritual Textbook and put faith above reason and the Bible above science in his approach to truth. How can a man follow such methods and yet imagine that he is scientific?

One more thing remains to be said before this argument is completed. We started out with an unproven, though self-evident premise. Turn back to the very first paragraph in the book and you will find that the falsity of the pantheistic theory was assumed but not proved. Its falsity was assumed on grounds that have come to light as the argument has proceeded, and that might easily be turned to account now as conclusive proofs. For example, to refer to one of them, the self-evident distinction between the realm which contains the Creator and that which contains His creation science proves to be a real divergence in kind by being compelled to cease investigation with scientific apparatus the moment the boundary line of the spiritual realm is reached. And if there is as real a distinction between God and His creation as this indicates, the doctrines of pantheism are impossible.

But the theory of evolution fosters a doctrine of the "immanence of God" which is nothing but a modern form of pantheism. For example, Prof. Josiah Royce, of Harvard, has said:

God is the spirit animating nature, the universal force which
takes the myriad forms, heat, light, gravitation,
electricity, and the like.

And Prof. George B. Foster said:

God is a symbol to designate the universe in its ideal
achieving capacity.

This is pantheism, pure and simple, for God and His created universe are not distinguished from each other. And this blots out the distinction between the natural and the spiritual realms.

Realizing, therefore, that no matter how perfect a course of reasoning may be or how inevitable the conclusions resulting it all falls like a house of cards if the premise is false, it becomes necessary to determine whether pantheism is false or true, in order that we may know whether we started with a valid premise.

Is pantheism true?

One thing we know is true. The Bible clearly and sharply distinguishes between God and His creation. No one who reads the Bible can dissent from that statement. And pantheism absolutely denies that Bible distinction.

It therefore immediately resolves itself into a question as to whether the Bible is true.

This brings us straight back to Christ's formula--"If any man wills to do, he shall know." He who accepts the challenge of this formula will come to know, beyond all possibility of disproof, that neither pantheism, evolution, nor any other doctrine that denies or casts doubt on the infallibility of the Bible is true. He will know it because it is supernaturally verified to him in answer to his faith.

This formula is the divine challenge to every form of unbelief in an inerrant Bible. There never has been an hour since Pentecost when the aggressive hurling of this challenge at defiant and destructive unbelief was more needed. And the whole Christian Church, backed by the Word of God, is hurling this challenge back into the teeth of the whole evolutionary camp today.

Either be fair enough, be scientific enough, be honest enough, challenges the Church, to act upon Christ's formula and gain for yourselves that supernaturally verified knowledge which will make further faith in the evolutionary theory impossible, or else do not assume to pronounce any further on those truths of which you know nothing because you have been unwilling to take the means to find out what they are. Go and join the ranks of the other unbelievers and Bible-rejectors, taking your doubt-born theories with you as a reinforcement to their warfare against the Bible, and then the Church can fight you in the open and drive you to defeat with the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. If you are determined to destroy faith in the inerrancy of the Bible, at least be fair enough to come out from under the cover of "Christian education," and stop assuming to interpret in the light of evolution--a light that is darkness--those sublime doctrines which are at once the foundation and the message of the Church. Get out of the Christian schools, which were founded to strengthen, not to destroy, the faith of young people from Christian homes, and give place to those who believe the Book. Increasing hosts of Christian parents are too heart-broken over the invasion of their own homes by this destroying wolf in sheep's clothing to tolerate this situation much longer. They are asking, in the words of a Chicago newspaper editorial concerning the destructive teachings of Prof. George B. Foster, in the Chicago University Divinity School:

Is there no place to assail Christianity but a divinity
school? Is there no one to write infidel books except the
professors of Christian theology? Is a theological seminary
an appropriate place for a general massacre of Christian
doctrine?

And then the sentiment that follows in the next sentence is shared increasingly by multitudes in the Church in proportion as these destroyers become increasingly aggressive in their work of destruction. The editor continues:

Mr. Mangasarian delivers infidel lectures every Sunday in
Orchestra Hall and no one is shocked, but when the professed
defenders of Christianity jump on it and assassinate it, the
public--even the agnostic public, cannot but despise them.

Either be scientific enough, cry believers to the evolutionists, to accept the challenge of Christ's formula with all its implications, or be honest enough to cease destroying the faith in an inerrant Bible you have sworn to defend but refuse to accept!

The Church is also hurling the challenge of Christ's formula at every other form of aggressive unbelief. No unbeliever, from destructive Higher Critic to agnostic and infidel, has the shadow of a right to make contrary pronouncement on the inerrancy and infallible authority of the Bible, for he has refused to put Christ's word to the test,--his unbelief proves it,--and he is therefore utterly incapacitated for passing any judgment whatever on that Book which unfolds its meaning to faith alone.

And as to the controversy between the Church and the Schools, the evolutionists must quit either evolution or the Christian schools, or the controversy can in no way be cured. For how can faith in an inerrant Bible and unbelief in its inerrancy abide in harmony in the same house? In the very nature of things, two groups who hold such absolutely antagonistic positions must either part company or continue the controversy born of the antagonism. The true Church always has believed, and always will believe, in an inerrant Word of God, and she cannot harbor within her ranks any group of people, no matter by what name they go, who do not take their stand without equivocation on that same ground.

If reason for this intolerance is asked, it will appear in the light of some questions asked by Dr. Joseph Parker. These questions are:

If the Bible is wrong in history, what guarantee is there
that it is right in morals?

If the Bible is not a reliable guide in facts, how do we know
that it is a trustworthy guide in doctrine?

However he may have arrived at his conclusions, it is extremely significant, in the light of these questions, that Dr. E. D. Burton, being willing to admit that the Bible is

not infallible in history or in matters of science,

has also concluded that it is

not wholly consistent and therefore not ultimately and as a
whole inerrant in the field of morals and religion.

What reason more can the Church want to justify her for intolerance of a theory that will do this to a man's faith? Is it not correct reasoning to conclude that if one man suffers such a collapse of faith after accepting evolution, others are likely to suffer the same thing? And when the Church observes this collapse taking place in every quarter, and then discovers that back of it lies the theory of evolution, is she not justified for being intolerant of that thing which is gnawing at the vitals of her faith? What can she say else than that the teachers of evolution, at least in the Christian schools, must either give up evolution and come back to faith in an infallible Bible, or part company with the Church?

It may be that one reason why the evolutionists are so loth to get out of company they do not belong in is because they fear that thereby they may lose their coveted reputation for scholarship. Prof. Howard W. Kellogg, formerly of Occidental College, hints as much when he says:

Science has again and again set aside as untrustworthy the
so-called discoveries of evolution, has compelled the great
German evolutionist, Haeckel, to confess that his drawings of
missing links were from imagination rather than from objects
found, has driven him from his university chair, and has
compelled him to admit that "Most modern investigators of
science have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of
evolution, and particularly of Darwinism, is in error and
cannot be maintained,"--and yet in spite of such admissions
from men recognized as authorities in their respective lines,
the doctrine of evolution appears to rule as absolutely in
the educational world as if it were not a moribund
hypothesis, already discarded by many, and to be discarded by
others when scientific evidence rather than reputation for
scholarship is allowed the deciding voice.

But whatever the actuating motive may be that has kept the evolutionists from giving up their unscholarly and unscientific theory, true believers in the Word long to see them do what Henry Drummond, that brilliant scientist, did before he died. On his deathbed he said to Sir William Dawson, as reported in this country in the writer's hearing by Dr. John Robertson directly from the lips of Dawson:

I am going away back to the Book to believe it and receive it
as I did at the first. I can live no longer on uncertainties.
I am going back to the faith of the Word of God.

When both the Church and the Schools consistently and sincerely take this attitude toward the Bible, the controversy will be ended in the one way in which the Church longs to see it end.

_Printed in the United States of America_

=DIVINE DYNAMITE=

=By J. E. CONANT, D.D.=

A stirring address to the Church, pleading the need, the source, and the operation of power from on High, which she needs above the power of eloquence, of music, of sociability, of organization, and of money.

=A REPRESENTATIVE TESTIMONIAL=

"This order confirms my wire of even date, 'Please mail to-day fifty _Divine Dynamite_,' and best expresses what I think of the book since reading it."

F.D.S., _Davenport, Iowa_

_Art Stock Covers, 20 cents, postpaid_

------

"I have been sending this book around to people who, I thought, ought to read it."--_William Jennings Bryan_.

The Other Side of Evolution

_Its Effects and Fallacy_

=By Alexander Patterson, D.D.=

With an introduction by the late George Frederick Wright, the eminent geologist of Oberlin.

=CONTENTS= page
Preface. Claims and Influence of Evolution vii
Introduction. The Meaning of Evolution xix