FACTS OF FAITH By Christian Edwardson
****History***
Chapter 3
Rome Undermines the Protestant Foundations
(26) The second, and
more effective, weapon Rome used against the Reformation was "higher
criticism," in an effort to undermine the very foundation of
Protestantism.
The strongest appeal of the Roman Catholic Church lies in its
claim to "apostolic succession," that is, that its popes descended in
direct line from the apostles. Protestants, originating in the sixteenth
century, have no such appeal. Their strong argument lies in their exact
conformity with the Bible in faith and morals. "The Bible, and the Bible
only" is their battle cry. The Bible reveals man's utter inability to
attain justification by his own works, and offers it as a "free
gift," obtained by faith in the merits of Jesus Christ alone. The Bible
presents good works only as the natural fruit of genuine faith. On this
foundation was Protestantism built. Before going further we shall let Catholics
and Protestants state their foundations.
CATHOLIC
FOUNDATION
"Like two sacred rivers flowing from paradise, the Bible
and divine Tradition contain the Word of God, the precious gems of revealed
truths. Though these two divine streams are in themselves, on account of their
divine origin, of equal sacredness, and are both full of revealed truths,
still, of the two, Tradition is to us more clear and safe." - "Catholic Belief," Joseph Faa di
Bruno, D.D., p. 33. New York: Benziger Brothers., 1912.
"But since Divine revelation is contained in the written
books and the unwritten traditions (Vatican Council, I, II), the Bible and
Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith; since, however, these are only
silent witnesses,...we must look for some proximate rule which shall be animate
or living....The Bible could not be left to interpret itself." Therefore
Catholics declare the "Church to be its acknowledged interpreter."
And under the heading: "The Catholic Doctrine Touching the Church as the
Rule of Faith," we read: "Now the teaching Church is the Apostolic
body continuing to the end of time." But of the teachers of this body,
they say: "Unless they be united with the Vicar of Christ [the Pope], it
is futile to appeal to the episcopate in general as the rule of faith."
They then sum up their rule of faith thus: "'Hence we must stand rather by
the decisions which the pope judicially pronounces than by the opinions of men,
however learned they may be in Holy Scripture.'" - "Catholic Encyclopedia," Vol. V, pp. 766-768, art.
"Faith, Rule of." The teaching Church, with the pope at its head, is
therefore the Catholic "rule of faith."
(27) Thus we see that
the Roman Catholic Church places tradition above the Bible as more safe, and
substitutes the pope for the Holy Spirit as the guide. Christ promised His
followers: "Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide
you into all truth." "He shall teach you all things, and bring all
things to your remembrance." John 16:13; 14:23. That these promises are
not confined to the leaders of the church, is made plain by John, who applies
them to all Christians: "But the anointing which ye have received of Him
abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same
anointing teacheth you of all things,...ye shall abide in Him." 1 John
2:27. In answer to these Scriptures the Catholic writers say:
"Nor can it be said that being a divinely inspired book,
its prime Author, the Holy Ghost, will guide the reader to the right
meaning." - "Things Catholics Are
Asked About," M. J. Scott, S. J., p. 119. New York: 1927.
PROTESTANT
FOUNDATION
Protestants have announced as their rule of faith: "The
Bible, and the Bible only," with the Holy Spirit as its sole Interpreter.
William Chillingworth, M. A., says:
"The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of
Protestants!...I for my part, after a long and (as I verily believe and hope)
impartial search of 'the true way to eternal happiness,' do profess plainly
that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot but upon this rock only. I
see plainly and with my own eyes, that there are popes against popes, councils
against councils, some fathers against others, the same fathers against
themselves, a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of
another age, the church of one age against the church of another age....In a
word, there is no sufficient certainty but of Scripture only for any
considering man to build upon." - The
Religion of Protestants," William Chillingworth, M. A., p. 463.
London: 1866.
(28) "'The Bible,
I say, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants!' Nor is it of any
account in the estimation of the genuine Protestant, how early a doctrine originated, if it is not found in the
Bible....
"He who receives a single doctrine upon the mere
authority of tradition, let him be called by what name he will, by so doing,
steps down from the Protestant rock, passes over the line which separates
Protestantism from Popery, and can give no valid reason why he should not
receive all the earlier doctrines and ceremonies of Romanism, upon the same
authority." - "History of
Romanism," John Dowling, D. D., pp. 67, 68. New York: 1871.
This childlike faith in the Bible as God's infallible word
carried the Reformers above all opposition, and swept over Europe with an
irresistible force which threatened to engulf the old, decaying structure of
the Roman church. This unabated force could be broken only by robbing
Protestants of their implicit faith in the Bible. They would then lose their
power as surely did Samson, when he was shorn of his locks. (Judges 16:19, 20.)
ROME
UNDERMINING PROTESTANT FOUNDATIONS
Richard Simon, a Roman Catholic priest, called the
"Father of Higher Criticism," in 1678 wrote "A Critical History
of the Old Testament" in three books, laying down the rules for a more
exact translation. He advanced the new theory that only the ordinances and
commands of the books of Moses were written by him, while the historical parts
were the product of various other writers. Simon's declared purpose was to show
that the Protestants had no assured principle for their religion. (See edition
of 1782.) "This work led to a very extended controversy and the first
edition was suppressed." (Catalogue of R. D. Dickinson, 1935, No. 462, p.
10, book No. 167.) So vigorous was the opposition of the learned, that his
theory lay dormant for seventy-five years. The Catholic
Encyclopedia says:
(29) "A French
priest, Richard Simon (1638-1712), was the first who subjected the general
questions concerning the Bible to a treatment which was at once comprehensive
in scope and scientific in method. Simon is the forerunner of modern Biblical
criticism....A reaction against the rigid view of the Bible [was one of] the
factors which produced Simon's first great work, the 'Histoire critique du Vieux Testament' ['Critical History of the
Old Testament'] which was published in 1678....It entitles him to be called the
father of Biblical criticism." - Vol. IV, p. 492.
"In 1753 Jean Astruc, a French Catholic physician of
considerable note, published a little book, 'Conjectures
sur les memoires originaux dont il parait que Moyse s'est servi pour composer
le livre de la Genese (Conjectures on the original records from which it
appears that Moses composed the book of Genesis)." - Id., same page. (See
also New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of
Religious Knowledge, Vol. I, p. 336, art, "Jean Astruc.")
His book is rightly named, for in it he conjectured that the book of Genesis must have
been written by two different authors, because the Creator is there called
"God" ("Elohim") is some places, and "Lord"
("Jehovah") in other places. Such a line of reasoning would be as
inconsistent as to claim that Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, for instance,
must have been written by two different apostles, because our Saviour is there
called "Jesus" in some places, and "Christ" in others. But
what about the places where He is called "Jesus Christ"? And so in
Genesis. Who wrote the five passages where He is called "Lord God"
("Jehovah Elohim")? In 1792, Dr. Alexander Geddes, a Roman Catholic
priest of Scottish origin, carried this "fragmentary hypothesis"
still further. Absurd as this theory was, the Protestants fell into the trap
set for them, and Germany, the seat of the Reformation, became the seat of this
destructive "higher criticism." Today this inconsistent criticism of
the Bible has invaded the seminaries, colleges, and universities of practically
all Protestant denominations, and few ministers are free from its blighting
influence. Edwin Cone Bissell, Professor in McCormick Theological Seminary,
Chicago, carried out this "fragmentary" theory in his book, "Genesis Printed in Colors, Showing the Original
Sources from Which It Is Supposed to Have Been Compiled" (Hartford,
1892), displaying the seven colors of the rainbow in shorter or longer
fragments, each representing a different author or editor.
(30) Harold Bolce spent
two years investigating American colleges from Maine to California, and wrote
his astounding findings in the Cosmopolitan
Magazine, May to August, 1909. Here are a few expressions culled from
his report:
"In hundreds of classrooms it is being taught daily that
the Decalogue is no more sacred than a syllabus; that the home as an
institution is doomed; that there are no absolute evils; that immorality is
simply an act in contravention of society's accepted standards;...and that the daring who defy the code [the
moral law] do not offend any Deity, but simply
arouse the venom of the majority - the majority that has not yet grasped
the new idea;...and that the highest ethical life consists at all times in the
breaking of rules which have grown too narrow for the actual case....
"There can be and are
holier alliances without the marriage bond than within it....Anything tolerated
by the world in general is right....The notion,...that there is anything
fundamentally correct implies the existence of a standard outside and above
usage, and no such standard exists." - Pp. 665, 666, 674, 675, 676.
(31) Can anyone wonder
at what Dr. Charles Jefferson declares? He says:
"A theological student at the end of the first year of
his seminary course is the most demoralized individual to be found on this
earth. His early conception of the Bible has been torn down all the way to the
cellar, and he is obliged to build up a new conception from the
foundations." - "Things
Fundamental," pp. 120, 121.
In regard to the inevitable result of teaching the rising
generation such revolutionary ideas, and of undermining completely their moral
standards, and their belief in God, the editor of the Cosmopolitan Magazine says in a note to Mr. Bolce's articles:
"These are some of the revolutionary and sensational
teachings submitted with academic warrant to the minds of hundreds of thousands
of students in the United States. It is time that the public realized what is
being taught to the youth of this country. 'The social question of to-day,'
said Disraeli, 'is only a zephyr which rustles the leaves, but will soon become
a hurricane.' It is a dull ear that cannot hear the mutterings of the coming
storm." - "Cosmopolitan
Magazine," May, 1909, p. 665.
The Bible declares: "They have sown the wind, and they
shall reap the whirlwind." "There is not truth, nor mercy, nor
knowledge of God in the land. By swearing, and lying, and killing, and
stealing, and committing adultery, they break
out, and blood toucheth blood." Hosea 8:7; 4:1, 2. (Compare 2
Timothy 3:1-5.) Yes, the saying is true, that "whatsoever a man soweth,
that shall he also reap." Galatians 6:7.
The Christian Register for
June 18, 1891, page 389, commenting favorably on the work of higher criticism,
says:
"Thomas Paine, though stigmatized and set aside as an
infidel, finds reincarnation in the modern scientific Biblical critic....He
lived too far in advance of his age. The spirit of modern scientific criticism
had not yet come....And now it is interesting to find that, in a different
spirit and with different tools, and bound by certain traditions,...the
professors in our orthodox seminaries are doing again the work which Paine
did."
(32) As long as these
men domineered over the Old Testament, most of the Christian teachers remained
silent. But the work did not stop there. The Lutheran Pastor Storjohan of Oslo,
Norway, says of Wellhausen:
"After they have permitted him to domineer over the Old
Testament for more than twenty-five years, it is not more than reasonable, and
a just punishment, that he in his presumption has now undertaken his war on the
Gospels." - "Bibelen pad Pinebaenk
[The Bible on the Inquisitorial Rack]," p. 7. Christiania, 1907.
In closing let us briefly point out the road which higher
criticism had to travel, after it had taken the first step: When critics had
denied the historicity of the books of Moses (the Pentateuch), they discovered
that the Psalms 33:6, 9; 29:10; 77:20; 103:7; 105:6-45; 106:7-33.) To be
consistent, the Psalms had to be rejected. They also found that the books of
Joshua, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Nehemiah, and the prophets acknowledged
the Pentateuch as the inspired work of Moses (Joshua 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3; 2
Chronicles 35:6; Nehemiah 8:1, 8; Daniel 9:11, 13; Malachi 4:4), so these books
had to be rejected.
But then they found that the New Testament repeatedly
referred to the Old Testament as inspired authority (about eight hundred
twenty-four times), and to their consternation they discovered that Jesus
declared the first five books in the Bible were written by Moses (Mark 12:26;
Luke 24:25, 44, 45), and that He asked: "If ye believe not his [Moses']
writings, how shall ye believe My words?" John 5:46, 47. The critics had
declared that the account of the Flood was only a myth, which no intelligent
person could believe. But Jesus said: "Noe entered into the ark," and
"the Flood came, and took them all away." Matthew 24:38, 39. He even
believed the truthfulness of the account of Jonah's being in the great fish for
three days, and of his preaching in Nineveh afterwards. (Matthew 12:40, 41.)
There was, therefore, no way of reconciling Jesus to higher criticism, so they
rejected Him as the divine Son of God. For if Jesus did not know that those Old
Testament stories were only myths, He was deceived. If He knew this, and yet
taught them, He was a deceiver. In either case He could not be divine, they
reasoned.
(33) "If in the
dawning of the fortieth century, it shall be found that the law and the
prophets are obsolete, the Gospels and Epistles discarded, Moses forgotten, and
Paul and his writings set aside to make room for the inerrant productions of
[higher critics],...if it shall then appear that the hunted prophets who
wandered in sheepskins and goatskins, and were destitute, afflicted, and
tormented, 'of whom the world was not worthy,' have gone down before the
onslaught of the learned and well-salaried professors of modern universities;
if it shall appear that the word of the Lord which they uttered at the loss of
all things and at the peril of life itself has paled its ineffectual fires
before the rising radiance of oracular higher criticism; if it shall then be
learned that God hath chosen the rich in this world, poor in faith, and heirs
of the kingdom - who can tell how welcome this information may prove to those
who suppose that gain is godliness, and that it is easier for a camel to go
through the eye of a needle than for a poor man to enter the kingdom of
heaven?" - "The Anti-Infidel
Library," H. L. Hastings, "More Bricks from the Babel of the
Higher Critics," pp. 172, 173. Boston. Scriptural Tract Repository, 1895.
Some might properly ask how Romanists dared to start higher
criticism. Would not this menace be equally dangerous to their church?
Absolutely not! The Roman church rests on an entirely different foundation. The
Church, and not the Bible, is her authority. She flourishes best where the
Bible is least circulated, as history amply shows. But Protestantism that
rejects the inspiration of the Bible, has abandoned its foundation, and stands
helpless. It is like a ship that has lost its mooring, thrown away its chart
and compass, and is drifting toward - Rome.
To Be
Continued…
No comments:
Post a Comment