|
 Few
if any of our readers will ever read G. Ernest Wright’s “God
Who Acts” — and I do not recommend this book. But its theme
is interesting. The writer deplores the concept of the Bible as
a text for systematic theology; or for “spiritual values.”
He says the latter makes Christianity little more than
competition for pagan religions. He says “Biblical theology is
first and foremost a theology of recital” — and seems to
want to say that the Bible is a history of God’s activity —
that it records what really happened. (Amazing, isn’t
it?)
But
he doesn’t say that at all. By such revolutionary ideas one
must acknowledge 0. T. miracles and the resurrected Nazarene; so
Dr. Wright says the Bible simply records the people’s
explanation of great periods of their history (as, the escape
from Egypt) in terms of “acts of God” — and their theology
became a “recital” of these happenings and explanations.
“At
the center of Israelite faith lay the great proclamation that
the God of the fathers had heard the cry of a weak, oppressed
people in Egypt. ...As slaves for whom the justice of the world
made no provision, they were delivered by a most extraordinary
exhibition of Divine grace. This was a sign, a wonder, not to be
explained by fortune or irrational chance, but solely by the assumption
(my emph., rt) of a personal Power greater than all the powers
of this world... Israel’s doctrine of God, therefore, was not
derived from systematic or speculative thought, but rather in
the first instance from the attempt to explain the events which
led to the establishment of the nation.” (P. 44)
|
|
Dr.
Wright puts “the faith of the early church” on exactly the
same basis. Christ’s coming was a historical event which was
(by their assumption, remember; rt) the climax of God’s
working since creation. The “gospels” are “confessional
recitals of historical events and traditions together with
inferences (emph. mine, rt) derived from the events and seen as
an integral part of them” (Pp. 56, 68.) “The Bible thus is
not primarily the Word of God, but the record of the (so-called,
rt) Acts of God, together with the human response thereto.”
(P. 107, my emph.) (My injections are in lieu of more lengthy
quotes; rt.)
My
purpose in reprinting such modernistic rubbish is to awaken you
to a type of atheism that long ago invaded denominationalism and
is filtering through to “our” intellectuals. To them, “faith”
is make believe, suited to “worship” or solving emotional
problems or “religious yearnings,” but does not demand
actual acceptance of verbal inspiration of the Bible. Dr. Wright
is apparently backing away from 19th. century modernism and
considers himself a conservative Presbyterian, but true Bible
believers need no sop from his kind.
My
generation may die without being much affected by such matters.
But what college Ph.D.s teach today, our grandchildren learn
tomorrow; as they grow up in a climate of total unbelief or
rationalistic explanations for Bible faith. We must recognize
and give thought to these problems.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
