eras WANS vbe acbets ea eA Bese aaey rary Aasng y te asst os “4 ines Sen, eitebecis 5 einata ten ite ets aera Se eg viv Toros tei) “ enn eeetates Sines 2 een Rhea Sette ti dinde ee heme % - . . ‘ eae VDA TE ike preeae weal e soins bapeetretie et aie ¢ a Siri ore *, Syia eeieiess, eR Rae tole si re A. oy 5 ti; A wi: e ee b CONTENDING FOR THE FAITH | LEANDER S. KEYSER, D.D. A Fi CONTENDING FOR THE RAT YD EH Essays in Constructive Criticism and Positive Apologetics BY/ LEANDER S. KEYSER, D.D. PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY IN HAMMA DIVINITY SCHOOL, WITTENBERG COLLEGE, SPRINGFIELD, OHIO AUTHOR OF “‘A SYSTEM OF NATURAL THEISM, “‘A SYSTEM OF GENERAL ETHICS,” “THE RATIONAL TEST,” “ELECTION AND CONVERSION, “IN THE REDEEMER’S FOOTSTEPS, “IN THE APOSTLES’ FOOTSTEPS,” ETC. NEW YORK GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY COPYRIGHT, 1920, BY GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO ALL TRUE EVANGELICAL BELIEVERS WHO STAND FIRMLY AND SINCERELY FOR THE FAITH ONCE FOR ALL DELIVERED UNTO THE SAINTS THIS BOOK IS AFFECTIONATELY INSCRIBED JUST A WORD HERE The author desires to make grateful acknowledgment to the publishers of the following theological magazines for the privilege of reprinting in the present form the various articles that first appeared in their columns: The Lutheran Quarterly, Gettysburg, Pa.; The Lutheran Church Review, Philadelphia, Pa.; The Theological Monthly, Columbus, Ohio; The Biblical Review, New York, Navn L. 8. K. Hamma Divinity School, Wittenberg College, Springfield, Ohio. XV CONTENTS Tue NATURE AND NEED oF APOLOGETICS A Lipperau Critic’s View or BrsiicaL INSPIRATION Tae OLp TESTAMENT RELIGION: REVELATION OR EvoLution? Tar Morat CHARACTER OF THE OLD TESTAMENT JEHOVAH Tur JEHOVAH OF ISRAEL: UNIVERSAL OR NATIONAL? A Recent “History oF THE HEBREWS” THE WAY OF THE CRITICS Tum Boox or Jonaw: Fact or Fiction, LEGEND oR History? Curist’s WITNESS TO THE OLD TESTAMENT . Curist’s AUTHORITY THROUGHOUT THE New TESTA- MENT Tur Brsue A Book or RELIGION—AND More . Some THOUGHTS ON THE INCARNATION Gop AND ImMoRTALITY: WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE To LEUBA Dors Nature MaKe Proeress? A CRITICISM ON EVOLUTION . Scrpntiric THEorres THAT CHALLENGE FalrTH . SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY INDEX . PAGE 104 127 147 170 202 219 233 261 281 309 331 347 CONTENDING FOR THE FAITH f: Pia: cA Pa hock gS, : wen CONTENDING FOR THE FAITH CHAPTER I THE NATURE AND NEED OF APOLOGETICS Tuat the truth should be both promoted and defended is a proposition that the author of this volume firmly be- lieves. He has no sympathy with the lackadaisical and lazy motto which prevails in some quarters: ‘‘Do not con- cern yourself about the truth; the truth will take care of itself!’’ If that were a fact, the whole history of the world, and especially of Christianity, ought to be rewritten. Then all Christian people might as well lay down their arms and be ‘‘at ease in Zion.’’ If the truth will take care of itself, why did Christ come into the world, incarnate the truth in His own person, and advocate and defend it on numerous occasions? If the truth will take care of itself, Peter and Paul and the rest of the apostles and evange- lists did a vast amount of superfluous work, for much of their preaching and writing was devoted to the vindication of the truth. Now they were advocates; anon they were staunch defenders. Dr. E. F. Scott has written a strong and valuable book on ‘‘The Apologetic Element in the New Testament’’ (1907), in which he proves that Christ and His apostles were often on the defensive as well as the aggressive, and 13 14 CONTENDING FOR THE FAITH did not merely let ‘‘the truth take care of itself.’’ Again and again Christ defended His person, His mission and His message against the Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees. Peter’s Pentecost sermon was a defense against the false charge, ‘‘These men are full of new wine,’’ and a powerful argument that Jesus, whom the Jews and Romans had cru- ecified, was the Messiah of the Old Testament and the di- vine Son of God. Why did he not save himself the trou- ble and danger of bearing his testimony by simply reflect- ing that ‘‘the truth will take care of itself’??? The New Testament tells us that Paul often ‘‘reasoned’’ with the Jews in their synagogues. His speech on Mar’s Hill was an acutely relevant apologetic, as was also his classical de- fense before King Agrippa. The inspired writers of the New Testament expressly command Christ’s disciples to use the apologetic method. Read 1 Peter 3:15: ‘‘But sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord: being ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear.’’ Nor is Jude less emphatic (verse 3): ‘‘Beloved, while I was giving all dili- gence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered unto the saints.’’ In the next verse he gives the reason why such defense was necessary ; because ‘‘certain men had crept in privily’’ to destroy the doctrine of ‘‘our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.’? The same reason for defense obtains to-day, and has ever obtained in the history of the Chris- tian religion. There is only one way of propagating our holy faith, and that is by testimony. We Christians cannot and should not use force, but only persuasion and argument. ‘‘Ye are my witnesses,’’ said the Master to His disciples. Sup- pose they had refused to bear witness on the false notion NATURE AND NEED OF APOLOGETICS 15 that ‘‘the truth will take care of itself,’’ what would have become of the religion of Christ? When Jesus gave His great commission to His disciples, ‘‘Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation,’’ He surely meant that the gospel should be proclaimed to gainsayers and opponents as well as to the ignorant and indifferent. Nor can we believe that all the noble army of defenders of the faith from Justin the Martyr, Arnobius and Ire- neus to Luthardt, Orr and Green, have toiled in vain. When we turn to our library shelves, which are filled with the monumental works of the great apologists of the Chris- tian faith, both ancient and modern, we cannot believe that all these scholarly investigations and self-sacrificing labors have gone for naught. Indeed, we are constrained to hold, from our study of church history, that Christianity would long ago have perished from the earth, had not brave, stalwart and competent defenders of the evangelical faith always arisen to stay the onslaughts of assailants. Why should not the Christian apologist, as well as any other teacher of religion, have a divine vocation? The viewpoint of the unbeliever himself is also worth considering. Suppose no Christian scholar would ever en- ter the arena against him, surely he would think that Christians were cowards and knew they could not defend their cause. And would he not have a right to think so? It is both vain and wrong merely to sneer at the unbe- liever or rationalist, or simply to aver that his arguments are not worth answering, or that he is dishonest and con- ceited. That is a cheap and easy way of dealing with doubters, and a lazy way, too; but it never convinces them; rather, it encourages and fortifies them in their skepticism. On the other hand, if the apologist can refute argument with stronger argument, can match scholarship with schol- arship, and thus can vindicate the Christian faith at the bar of reason, he may succeed in convincing even the 16 CONTENDING FOR THE FAITH doubter and in leading him in the way of assurance and truth. If he cannot be won in that way, he surely can never be won by dogmatism, or browbeating, or contemp- tuous silence. Let it be frankly admitted that not all preaching and teaching should be apologetic. In many cases the purely positive method is the better. It depends upon circum- stances as to the proper plan to be pursued. If the preacher has no infidels nor rationalists in his congregation or no people who are troubled with doubt, he should not misspend his time in talking to people who are not pres- ent. Moreover, by saying too much about skepticism or radical criticism, he may even stir doubt in the minds of the innocent and unwary rather than fortify their faith. For the most part, the Christian preacher should simply take the truth of the Christian religion for granted. However, such cases are very different from that of the writer who feels called to defend the faith against the pre- vailing and popular currents of unbelief, and to circulate his books among people who are inoculated with doubt, or distressed with difficulties which they cannot resolve. Surely it is some one’s duty to come to the help and rescue of the people whose faith is being imperiled. If some men do not possess the gift or taste to enter the apologetic field, let them cultivate the gifts they have, and leave the field of argument, defense and vindication to those who feel that they have a divine vocation for such work. Let all evangelical believers encourage and abet one another in their several spheres of labor for Christ. It is merely a sign of narrowness for any one to scoff at every vocation save that to which he devotes himself. A good motto for all preachers and teachers of divine truth is found in 2 Cor. 4:1,2: ‘‘Therefore, seeing we have this ministry, even as. we have obtained mercy, we faint not: but we have re- nounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in crafti- NATURE AND NEED OF APOLOGETICS 14% ness, nor handling the Word of God deceitfully; but, by the manifestation of the truth, commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.’’ We must attend to another objection. Some years ago a correspondent (one who, by the way, was liberalistic in his theology) accused the writer of being unduly nervous about the truth, because, forsooth, we so frequently came to the defense of the orthodox faith. His allegation was that we could not ourself feel secure in our position, or we would not be so ‘‘feverishly’’ anxious to fly to its de- fense. That is, we were like the boy in the graveyard, “‘whistling to keep our courage up.’’ We were using the apologetic method to bolster up our own wavering faith. Well, a suspicious mind, one given to ‘*judging,’’ might read that ulterior motive into the conduct of a defender of the faith. But we most positively disclaim any such nervous anxiety on our own behalf. We are willing to admit, too, that, in God’s all-wise economy and plan, His truth will finally prevail without our efforts. But that is not the point at all. First, the surer we are of the truth for ourselves, the more anxious we should be to win the erring to its standard. We regard it as wicked selfishness, utterly unworthy of a Christian believer, to rest ‘‘at ease in Zion,’’ on the ground that he feels secure in the saving truth of the gospel for himself. Is it not rather true that those who do not feel sure of the truth are the ones who keep silent? Second, though God’s cause will triumph in the end without our efforts, yet how many people may perish along the way if you and I fail to do our duty! That is the mat- ter of paramount importance. God is able to bring good out of evil and make the wrath of man to praise Him— but how about the personal doom of those who do the evil? Yonder is a bright young man who is drifting into doubt through the perusal of some of the modern books of radi- 18 CONTENDING FOR THE FAITH cal Biblical criticism. Are you simply going to let him drift, and lose his faith and perhaps his soul? Would it not be better to show him the errors of the men who are leading him astray, and thus try to reéstablish his faith? If you do save him, who knows but that he may become a flaming proclaimer of that faith which he had almost lost? For our part, we believe in trying to save the skeptical or rationalistic sinner as well as any other kind of a sinner. Perhaps you are best adapted to rescue one class of sin- ners; perhaps another man is best adapted to rescue an- other kind. ‘‘To every man his work.’’ ‘‘To each accord- ing to his several ability.’’ ‘‘But all these worketh one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one severally as He will.’’ No; it is not a question of the final triumph of the truth, which is in God’s hands; it is a question of saving and directing as many people as you can while life and oppor- tunity last. A few words should be said as to the kind of apologetics that the times demand. As the reader peruses this book, he will see that we believe in the positive method. For example, we do not believe in yielding so much to the disin- tegrating Biblical criticism as to endanger the divine au- thority and inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Where we see danger, we have been free and frank to point it out. Our sincere conviction is that the orthodox faith, the faith that accepts the plenary inspiration of the Canonical Scrip- tures, is the faith that can best be vindicated at the bar of reason and that is based upon a sound, assuring and endur- ing religious experience; that it is easier by far to uphold this view by the rational process than to uphold a kind of quasi, half-and-half, pliant, fluid and compromising theol- ogy. We contend that, if half the effort were made by the rationalist to maintain the conservative position that he employs to undermine it, he would be a capable defender instead of a destructive critic. The thing that has amazed NATURE AND NEED OF APOLOGETICS 19 us many a time has been the limping logie of the rational- ist; the ease with which he can accept a theory that lacks even a moderately rational basis. To put it in an epigram, the credulity of rationalism is proverbial. At present we admit that this is bare assertion; we hope to prove the truth of the assertion in the body of this book. We cannot agree with Professor C. W. E. Body, who, in some parts of his valuable work, ‘‘The Permanent Value of the Book of Genesis,’’ maintains that there is no real peril to the faith in the methods and conclusions of the so- called ‘‘mediating’’ Biblical criticism of the Cheyne-Driver school. We are compelled by the strictly logical process to take a firmer position than that. If the Bible has been composed in the way the aforesaid school of critics main- tains, its divine inspiration is certainly invalidated, and confidence in its teaching will surely be lost by those who will insist on pushing the premises to their logical conclu- sion. We think we have proved this in the chapter en- titled, ‘*A Liberal Critic’s View of Biblical Inspiration,’’ the critic referred to being Driver. The reason some of these critics, in spite of their destructively critical meth- ods, still profess to hold to the evangelical faith is that they fail to draw the legitimate inferences from their premises. They stop short at the brink, and fall back on a forced faith, a faith of mere feeling, a naive faith, which is very near akin to credulity. But most people will not stop there; they will push on to the inevitable conclusion. And this is the conclusion: If the Bible is made up of myths and legends where it professes to recite history, and if it contains many irreconcilable contradictions and scientific blunders, as the said critics contend, then surely, surely it cannot be divinely inspired in any sense in which men can confide and upon which they can base their hope of salva- tion. If the critics themselves will not reason logically, many of their readers and disciples will. A faith ‘‘that 20 CONTENDING FOR THE FAITH trembles on the brink’’ is of little value in the stress of our earthly life. Above we have referred to Dr. Body’s excellent work. We hold that he makes some dangerous concessions to the Cheyne-Driver school of critics—concessions, too, that are entirely unnecessary, even on the ground of reason. In his discussion of the Bible and science he also takes a pre- carious position, which is evidenced by the very fact that he so often glides off into glittering generalities, and fails to state definitely and clearly just what he believes. Note his inconsistency. He holds that the first and second chap- ters of Genesis are of great and momentous religious value, and are vitally related to God’s redemptive plan through Jesus Christ. But suppose, after all, that the Genetical narratives of creation are not true, but contain many myth- ological guesses and scientific errors—then, pray, how can they be of real religious value to the man who exercises his logical faculty? However, we are glad to acknowledge that Dr. Body, in the best chapters of his book, points out most effectively the untenable and irrational character of the literary analysis of the Pentateuch by the Driver school. On this account his work is a profitable apologetic. Our conundrum is this: How can he hold that the views of the critical school are so unreasonable and yet do no dis- service to saving faith in the Bible? Surely a view that has no’solid basis in fact and reason must imperil the evan- gelical position with people who draw logical conclusions. But hanpily our author himself, inconsistent as his atti- tude may seem, points out in other places in his book the dangerous character of the critical methods and positions. For example, in his invaluable chapter on ‘‘The Creation and Paradise’’ (though there are some statements in it from which we must dissent), he gives many convincing reasons for the unity of the teaching of Genesis I and II, which the Cheyne-Driver school do their best to make con- NATURE AND NEED OF APOLOGETICS 21 tradictory. Dr. Body proves that they are not discrepant but harmonious and complementary accounts of the proc- ess of creation. Then, in the closing paragraph of this chapter (page 126), he sums up in this way: ‘‘In a word, to recognize the true relation between these accounts is to possess the necessary preparation alike for the deepest revelations of God and the highest conceptions of life. To tear them asunder is to inflict upon mankind serious spir- itual loss. To lessen in any way their influence is to cut at the very root of true progress, either in the knowledge of God or the regeneration of man.’’ In this paragraph Dr. Body has himself pointed out the deadly danger that comes from the critical methods of the school under con- sideration. Whatever inflicts on ‘‘mankind serious spirit- ual loss,’’ and ‘‘cuts at the very root of all true progress either in the knowledge of God or the regeneration of man’’—whatever does that surely must undermine the very foundations of Christian faith. In our author’s excellent chapter on ‘‘The Fall and Its Immediate Results,’’ he ex- presses fine and well-deserved indignation at the irreverent way with which President Harper and Professor Addis treat certain portions of the Biblical narrative (Gen. III), which, to Dr. Body himself, is as holy as a shrine. He should have remembered that Harper and Addis belonged to the so-called ‘‘mediating’’ school of critics, of which Driver was the dean. We do not blame Dr. Body in the least for his display of righteous indignation; but we are constrained to ask whether such treatment of the Genetical narrative as he rebukes so sternly does not imperil faith in the Bible as a divine revelation. Dr. Body shows effec- tually that the Biblical narrative of the Fall constitutes the basis of and reason for the redemptive work of Christ. If that is so, is not the very heart of evangelical and saving faith penetrated by those critics who treat the Fall narra- tive as if it were only a childish myth or a primitive human 22 CONTENDING FOR THE FAITH tradition? No; we must contend that the dissecting eriti- cism which finds crudities, discrepancies, doctrinal and ethical errors in the Bible endangers faith in the Book as a God-given revelation. Those who hold otherwise are try- ing to cling to a very insecure position. Their faith— which they so loudly proclaim—is naive rather than based on sound rational principles. It is pertinent to show how stoutly Dr. Body stands for the Genetical narrative and how firmly he opposes the nul- lifying criticism of the Harper sort. Dr. Harper, in criti- eizing the narrative of the Fall, holds that our first par- ents, by eating of the forbidden fruit, ‘‘gained one super- human attribute, viz., wisdom,’’ and then hints—remem- ber, hints—that God was ‘‘jealous’’ of the wisdom that man had thus acquired. This is more than Dr. Body can tolerate with patience. He breaks out thus: ‘‘ ‘Gained superhuman wisdom’ indeed! Where, we may well ask, save in the lying sophistries of the Tempter, is there a ves- tige of such a conception?’’ Are not the positions of the critics dangerous to faith if they merit such a rebuke? Then our author adds, in commenting on the sentence, ‘*Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil,’’ that this statement, ‘‘when taken, as it should be, in the light of its context, is seen to refer, not to a real advance in wisdom, but to the rending of merciful limi- tations, which shielded the development of man’s knowl- edge; to the premature and illicit acquisition of the knowl- edge of evil by experience, which, like every species of un- lawful knowledge, does not really impart wisdom to the possessor, but rather destroys it. Surely we are entitled to protest against all this as not merely a grossly inaccu- rate, but as an utterly unjustifiable, method of dealing with Holy Scripture. As soon might one expect to hear the Sacred Volume branded as atheistic on account of the well-known utterance of the fool in the Psalter, as to find NATURE AND NEED OF APOLOGETICS 23 the merciful Creator suspected of an unworthy jealousy of the shame of His poor fallen creatures. ’’ This is robust defense of the faith; and, when you con- sider the momentous nature of the facts at issue, the lofty tone of indignation is seen to be justifiable. It proves our contention, namely, that the critical methods of the school in question do imperil the true faith.* So let us not capitu- late to them; reason and facts do not warrant surrender. As if to prove this contention by a concrete example, a notable instance has lately come to the fore. We refer to the publication of ‘‘The Shorter Bible’’ (only the New Testament as yet), translated and arranged by Charles Foster Kent, with the collaboration of a number of other critics of the same class. Dr. Kent is known as one of the most respected of the so-called ‘‘mediating’’ critics. In his introductory note he declares that this work is intended to include ‘‘those parts of the Bible which are of vital in- terest and practical value to the present age.’’ This cer- tainly implies that what he has omitted is not regarded by him as of ‘‘vital interest and practical value.’’ But note some of the things deliberately, purposely omitted from this ‘“expurgated’’ New Testament: 2 Tim. 3:16, 1 Pet. 1:21, 1 Pet, 1:25, Jude 3, Matt. 5:18, 19, and others, all of which teach the inspiration and divine authority of the Holy Seriptures. When such passages are actually eliminated by a critic, dare any one say that his methods do not eviscerate the integrity and inspiration of the Bible? Nearly all the passages teaching the doctrine of the atonement are cut out; so are many of those referring to sin, guilt, natural depravity, false teaching, and our Lord’s second coming. * Although we have ventured to pass some strictures on Dr. Body’s work, yet it is of so much value that we have included it in the “