bodily resurrection, are historical facts, and certain facts, like that of creation, are also doctrines. With regard to these great facts, we claim that inspiration has given us accounts that are essentially trustworthy, whatever may be their imperfections in detail. To undermine the scientific trustworthiness of the Indian Vedas is to undermine the religion, which they teach. But this only because their scientific doctrine is an essential part of their religious teaching. In the Bible, religion is not dependent upon physical science. The Scriptures aim only to declare the creator-ship and lordship of the personal God. The method of his working may be described pictorially without affecting this substantial truth. The Indian cosmogonies, on the other hand, polytheistic or pantheistic as they are, teach essential untruth, by describing the origin of things as due to a series of senseless transformations without basis of will or wisdom.
So long as the difficulties of Scripture are difficulties of form rather than substance, of its incidental features rather than its main doctrine, we may say of its obscurities as Isocrates said of the work of Heraclitus: ?What I understand of it is so excellent that I can draw conclusions from it concerning what I do not understand.? ?If Bengel finds things in the Bible too hard for his critical faculty, he finds nothing too hard for his believing faculty.? With John Smyth, who died at Amsterdam in 1612, we may say: ?I profess I have changed, and shall be ready still to change, for the better?; and with John Robinson, in his farewell address to the Pilgrim Fathers: ?I am verily persuaded that the Lord hath more truth yet to break forth from his holy word.? See Luthardt, Saving Truths, 205; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 205 sq .; Bap. Rev., April, 1881: art. by O. P. Eaches; Cardinal Newman, in 19th Century, Feb. 1884.
1. Errors in matters of Science.
Upon this objection we remark:
(a) We do not admit the existence of scientific error in the Scripture. What is charged as such is simply truth presented in popular and impressive forms.
The common mind receives a more correct idea of unfamiliar facts when these are narrated in phenomenal language and in summary form than when they are described in the abstract terms and in the exact detail of science.
The Scripture writers unconsciously observe Herbert Spencer?s principle of style: Economy of the reader?s or hearer?s attention, ? the more energy is expended upon the form the less there remains to grapple with the substance (Essays, 1-47). Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 1:130, brings out
Was this article helpful?