l" objections h9.'!<:' b",,::r'. urged against it from terrible and staggering things in nature, providence, and life. But reasonable men are not by thesr, kept from believing in gravi- tation or in God; and why, then, should they in believing the Bi,ble claim when, like these, it is established on its own proper evidence'Z" Verbal Inspiration--a Stumbling-Block to Jews, Etc. 819 all the advances of science have not overthrown a single teaching of Christianity or discredited a single statement of Scripture.122) But they are still harping on the charge that the Cyrenius passage con- tains a glaring blunder and that the story of the healing of the blind men at Jericho contains an outright contradiction. In spite of the fact that reputable scientists have agreed that the Ptolemaic theory might be true, they are still filling the land with the cry that only the Copernican theory can be true and that therefore Joshua was weak in science. The least that we can ask of the moderns is the candid confession that many, most, of the counts in their indictment of the Bible have been disproved. When will they issue a mani- festo to that effect? Science is honest. It shows no partiality. The moderns who are pleased to attach greater weight to the stat ements of the secular historian Josephus than to those of the Biblical historian Luke have not the scientific mind. The honest scientist refuses to judge before he has assembled and studied all the facts in the case. Many of the statements of the Bible are ruled out by critics who are bound to confess that many of the circumstances that would shed light on these state- ments are unknown to them. Occasionally even such dishonesty is practised as Lindber g stigmatizes in the words quoted above: "Some who reject the plenary inspiration of the Bible have never attempted to investi- gate any contradiction." A. W. Pink speaks in a similar strain: "There are no real discrepancies. The harmony existing between 122) Edwin Lewis: "Christianity contradicts no known facts. Its falsity can at no point be logically demonstrated." (The Faith We De- clare, p.126.) America (Roman-Catholic) recently wrote: "Between the years 1749 and 1941 the progress of scientific research was phenomenal. Voluminous information was gathered concerning the times of Christ, the contemporaries of Christ; and enemies of the Savior strove to use the fresh knowledge to weaken the historicity of the Gospel-story. Each attempt not merely failed to shake that story but actually ended up by adding additional confirmation to it. Knowledge of the complex forces· of nature experienced an enormous increase during the 1749-1941 period, and foes of the God-man sought to employ this accumulated learning to assail the miracles and other features of the Gospel. Every attack petered out in failure. In this year of 1941, when mankind knows more about the science of history and the laws of nature than it ever knew before, the Gospel-story is still going strong. If such multitudes of big- name leaders of science, of history, of 'liberal theology,' had hurled the con- centrated and persistent attack at any other book that they hurled at the gospels, that book would have been discredited long ago . . . . " (See CONC. THEOL. MTHLY., XII, p . 630.) And that applies not only to the doc- trines and the outstanding facts of the Bible but also to the least details. Of the geographical statements of the Bible "not one has been proved false" (Proe., Western Dist., 1865, p. 31) . "A real contradiction, preclud- ing any solution as unthinkable and impossible, has not yet been dis- covered." (Lehre und Wehre, 1898, p.107.) Etc. 820 Verbal Inspiration - a Stumbling-Block to Jews, Etc. them does not appear on the surface, but often is only discovered by protracted study." (The Divine Inspiration of the BibLe, po 60.) Most discrepancies vanish when honest, thorough scientific investi- gation is applied to them, such as is evidenced, for instance, in the articles: "The Chronology of the Two Covenants" (GaL 3:17 cpo with Ex. 12: 40) and "The Alleged Contradiction between Gen. 1: 24-27 and 2: 19" in CONe. THEOL. MTHLY., XII, p. 606 £1., 652 iI. We are not, of course, speaking of all moderns, but of that class of glib critics who do not find the time for scientific study of the case, but fill their time with denouncing the Bible for its contradictions and mistakes. Again, will an honest scientist undertake to speak with authority in a matter of which he is absolutely ignorant? Here m.'e the Bible-critics \;rho deny the truth of the Creation jn the interest of evolution and consequently charge the Bible with a grave mistake, and this in spite of the fact that "the ultimate nature of matter not only remains unknown, but also unknowable" (Theo- logical Forum, Jan.,1931, p.40). And still they pretend to know all about the origin of matter! (See the entire article: "Creation of Matter.") Recall the statement of the Marquis of Salisbury: What do you know about the origin of life in our day? And do you presUJ-- - L - L - 11 - - - -11 about how life originated in the dim ages of the past? The evolutionary critics of the Bible are not scientists; they are charlatans. And when a preacher tells his congregation that the account of Gen. 1 must be rejected because science has established that evolu- tion produced the plants and the animals and man, he is saying what is not true. A scientist loses caste when he falsifies the record in order to prove his point. But the evolutionary critics of the Bible are operating with manufactured evidence. What is the explanation of these unscientific tactics? The Bible-critics are, as a rule, swayed by prejudice. And such an attitude does violence to another principle of pure science. Science is unprejudiced. Its disciples are not permitted to carry any pre- conceived opinions into their investigations. But our moderns are constantly doing this very thing. Here are those who are so thoroughly convinced of the truth of the assumptions of higher criticIsm, including the hypothesis of evolution, thai they will not listen to any contrary statement, the contrary statements of the Bible. "These presu.ppositions and assumptions are the determin- ing element in the entire movement. . .. Their minds seem to be in abject slavery to their theory. . .. They feel instinctively that to accept the Bible statements would be the ruin of their hypothesis." (See p.350 above.) "Dr. Fosdick," says the Journal of the Am. Luth. Conf. (June, 1939, p. 76), "is also in the grip of the evolution Verbal Inspiration - a Stumbling-Block to Jews, Etc. 821 fixation." T'nese men cannot read the Bible with a scientific, im- partial, objective mind. Here are those who are obsessed with the idea that the finding of a scientist carries more weight than any statement of Scripture, that Scripture must yield to science. In the case of a conflict be- tween a secular writer and a Biblical writer the secular writer is always right. These men are unable to investigate the matter with scientific calm and objectivity. Here are those who have a horror of the supernatural. They have the idee fixe that science has ruled out the miracle. It is im- possible to convince these men of the truth of the Bible teaching on this point. It is useless to argue with "criticism that is inspired by a dogmatic denial of the supernatural" (Bishop Gore's phrase; see The Doctrine of the Infallible Book, p. 28) , with those who dispose of the r eality of the miracles by the "simple denial of them from a-priori philosophical prejudice" (Ph. Schaff's phrase).123) And here are those who hate the Bible. The sole object of their Bible-study is to discredit the Bible. The more items they can add to the black-list, the better pleased they are. Can you be- lieve that B. Bauer, for instance, who finds a contradiction between Luke 7: 2 and Matt. 8: 6 (Luke speaking of the "servant" and Mat- thew, allegedly, of the "son") and has Luke invent the ruler "Lysanias," is not actuated by prejudice, that he is able to treat the Bible fairly? The fact of the matter is that, as long as a man cannot accept the Bible as the Word of God and as the supreme and only authority, he cannot treat the Bible fairly. A man who in these matters is guided, entirely or in part, by his natural mind and reason will be prejudiced against the Bible as God's Word. "There is no such thing as a neutral reason" (The Sovereignty of God, p.16), for "the carnal mind is enmity against God," Rom. 8: 7. The unbelieving critic cannot but take an antagonistic position towards God's Word. And unless the believer is constantly on his guard, his flesh will ever and again influence him in the same direction. There is much prejudice and animosity evident where men discuss the authority and inerrancy of the Bible. A candid discussion is a rare thingJ24) 123) And what can you expect of those whose attitude is thus de- scribed by Dr. Wm. Robinson: "Then, we also have in American uni- versities an unmistakable tendency to deny the supernatural. For a man really to believe the miracles of the New Testament is tantamount to surrendering his academic standing." (See The Sovereignty of God, p. 159.) 124) Here is an extreme case of bigoted prejudice. "Some will then ask, Well, why don't more men believe in the resurrection, especially some of our outstanding scholars? I think the reason they do not believe 822 Verbal Inspiration - a Stumbling-Block to Jews, Etc. Prof. G. L. Raymond declares: "The science of the day trains the mind to be candid and logical; and theology is inclined to be neither." (The Psychology of Inspiration, p. VL) If he is speaking of common science as being candid, we fully agree with him. If he is speaking of the science pretended by the critics of the Bible, he will be hard put to it to make good his claim.125l No. 12: The moderns deal largely in hypotheses. - We have already touched upon this subject. We shall now, partly by way of recapitulation and partly by way of supplement, add a few more remarks. 1) Hypotheses are guesses. The handbooks say: "The hypoth- esis is a tentative theory or supposition provisionally adopted to explain certain facts and to guide in the investigation of others; frequently called a working hypothesis." The hypothesis - unless it be one of the wild kind which has no scientific justification what- ever - serves a good purpose. But all men are agreed that, as long as it remains a hypothesis, it is not an established truth; it remains, in unscientific language, a guess. "Science, as the term is mostly used, is made up largely of learned guesses, but it is seldom that scientists have a concrete thing like the comet to try their guesses on." (Detroit News.) 2) Copernicanism, the various theories with which higher criticism has been and is operating, and the doctrine of evolution are hypotheses. (Weare specifying these theories because the moderns are fully convinced that these teachings have given the death-blow to the plenary inspiration and the inerrancy of the Bible.) All the world knows, the scientists know, and the moderns dare not gainsay it, that they are pure hypotheses. T. H. Huxley designates evolution, for instance, as a hypothesis; he calls it that four times in seven lines of a page in the Encyclopedia Britannica. E. Haeckel says: "It is self-evident that our genealogical history is and ever will be a fabric of hypotheses." (See God and the Cosmos, is because they do not want to believe, that they have determined not to believe. . .. Prof. C. E. M. Joad of the University of London declared as late as 1933 that he will not believe in such an event, no matter what the evidence. These are his own words: 'Even if the evidence were far more impressive than the tatter of inconsistencies, divergencies, and con- tradictions which is in fact available, I should probably still refuse to credit the fact which it purported to establish.' No matter what the evidence is, because of his own convictions regarding what ought to be in the universe, Professor Joad frankly states that he will never believe, 'no matter what the evidence.''' (The SupernaturaLness of Christ. Can We Stm Believe in It? p. 221 f. See CONe. THEOL. MTHLY., XII, p . 235.) 125) And science trains the mind "to be logical." Absolutely. But the moderns do not show that they have been sufficiently trained in this particular technique of science. Other sections of this essay have demonstrated that. Verbal Inspiration-a Stumbling-Block to Jews, Etc. 823 p.30S.) J. A. Thomson: "The hypothesis most in accord with evo- lutionary thinking is that of the occurrence of abiogenesis in the dim and distant past." (Op. cit., p.l0S.) And the moderns, as a rule, unhesitatingly use the same designation. F. Baumgaertel: "The hypotheses which natural science today sets up regarding the origin of the world are indeed hypotheses, but one thing is absolutely sure: Creation did not take place as the Old,Testament describes it." (See W. Moeller, Um die Inspiration der Bibel, p.31.) E. Brunner: "It is a well-grounded hypothesis that a more or less continuous pedigree traces the origin of humanity far back into the animal sphere." (The W ord and the World, p.99.) H. E. Fosdick: "It may be that the evolutionary hypothesis is dangerous to the religious faith of many folk who welcome it today, as some conservatives think, but, for all that, the more facts we know, the better founded does the hypothesis appear." (The Modern Use of the Bible, p . 51.) Well-grounded 126) or not, a hypothesis it is, and a hypothesis it remains, by their own admission. Since the days when Huxley and Fosdick used the term hypothesis, nothing has occurred in the world of science to justify men to speak of evolution as an estab- lished truth. We have not heard of the jubilations which would have been held, we have not seen the bonfires which would have been blazing on the campuses of the universities and the liber al seminaries, if those long-hoped-for facts had been finally dis- covered. The teachings which are relied upon to demolish the Bible are mere guesses; in military slang, duds. 3) The pathetic thing is that the moderns believe in these hypotheses with a heroic faith. They accept them as established truths and as precious truths. In one breath they speak of evolu- tion as a hypothesis and as a fact : "well-grounded hypothesis." H. Spencer and Huxley said: "This hypothesis may be expected to survive and become estabIL<;hed." (See Leh're und Weh1'e, 1913, p.71. ) And when you hear the high-school teacher and the uni- versity professor talk on this subject, when .you hear the liberal preacher base his rejection of Gen . 1 on the assured results of science, on the teaching of evolution, you notice that they are con- vinced that they are living in the day of the fulfilment of Huxley's prophecy. Though no conclusive facts have been adduced, they believe in the fact of evolution. We cannot understand how Dr. Delk could pen the following: "It is true that this theory was once a hypothesis. Every scientific truth was once held as a mere hypothesis. The belief in organic evolution, including the appearance of man, for the overwhelming majority of scientists has passed out of the stage of hypothesis and 126) "It is a well- grounded hypothesis." 824 Verbal Inspiration--a Stumbling-Block to Jews, Etc. become the working theory of science." (See Lehre 'Und Wehre, 1913, p. 149.) More than this; it is certainly a strange psy- chosis that could induce Haeckel to declare that evolution is in- deed a hypothesis, but one that has been elevated to the rank of a fact. The situation has been adequately described by the state- ment: "Dr. Fosdick is in the grip of the evolution fixation." The human mind has the faculty of persuading itself of the truth of a thing which in its sane moments it refuses to accept as proved. "Unable to prove the theory, the scientists decided to declare it a certainty anyway." 127) And it has become a veritable article of faith to them. They feel aggrieved if you presume to doubt it. They claim the right to cherish it and fight for it. A man once told us indignantly: "We let you believe what the Bible teaches; you ought to let us believt ' . science teaches." ... t is a fixation. Science does not teach evulution. It admits that evolution CClll- not be proved. And there is irrefutable proof that man did not descend from the ape or from any other animal or from dead matter. Speaking of the hypothesis of abiogenesis, J. A. Thomson writes: "A we have said, there is no evidence in support of this view." (Opo cit., p.107.) See the quotation above from the Allg. Ev.- L'Uth. Kztg., Feb. 21, 1941. Oswald Spengler writes in Der Unte?'- 127) Statement by America., April 19, 1941. The entire paragraph reads: "The theory of evolution is still only a theory. Despite the world- wide efforts of untold millions of scientists, it has never been proved. Unable to prove the theory, the scientists decided to declare it a cer- tainty anyway, somewhat after the fashion in which printing-press money is declared to be real money when it is not. And thus into the text- books, into the lecture-halls, into the anthropological sessions, stepped the theory disguised as a fact. This modern age, which regards itself as so enlightened, ridicules the theories which passed for facts in former epochs. For example, the Ptolemaic theory, which assumed that the earth was the central body around which the sun and planets revolved is today the butt of countless witticisms. It is quite possible that some future epoch will pour on the theory of evolution the same stream of sarcasm that this age pours on the theory of the Alexandrian astronomer. We may imagine a gathering of scientists three centuries hence and the newspape: ~. _ C .es describing the proceeding:"·" lay as wer . the next paragraph, too: "Dispatch. April 12, 2341 A. D. The American Association of Super Scientists opened their annual convention yester- day. In the afternoon session, Prof. B. A. Stufchert read a scholarly paper entitled: 'The Gullibility, Self-Deception, Stupidity, and Fatuity of For- mer Ages.' Professor Stufchert blasted the unscientific methods of pre- modern eras. 'In the period between 1850 and 1975 A. D., the un- scientific orgy reached its peak,' Professor Stufchert stated. 'In these years, instead of rollowing the facts wherever they led, it became the custom to make the facts fit in with preconceived ideas. For example, consider the now forgotten monkey-descent theory. A world-wide bui1d~up and coIlSfrii·acy f8.~";-ored this ~hC0iY~ dad when ·~h.'i.. jJLuuf for it was not forthcoming, the so-called scientific circles felt, if it wasn't true, it ought to be and taught it anyway. As a consequence, several generations believed they were descended from monkeys and acted ac- cordingly.' " Verbal Inspiration-a Stwnbling-Block to Jews, Etc. 825 gang des Abendlandes, II, p . 35: "Not the slightest trace of a de- velopment of the race towards higher structure has been found. Man has come as the result of a sudden change, of which the whence, how, and why will be an unfathomable mystery. . . . The origin of the earth, the beginning of life, the introduction of ani- mated beings, are mysteries which we must accept as such." The Lutheran Witness, which quotes this and more, comments: "The statements quoted from Spengler, a philosopher whom the entire world acclaims as one of the greatest thinkers of the day, are a blow to the pseudoscientific cock-sureness of the evolutionists." (1924, p.149.) But cock-sure they, as a class, remain. They will not, they cannot give up their faith. It is too precious. What is back of this faith? No doubt, with many it is the misguided scientific conscience. They honestly be- lieve that science has established evolution. But there are also those whose thoughts are motivated by their abhorrence of mir- acles, by the pride which will not submit to God as the Creator and Lord of all, and the resulting antagonism to His Word, the Bible. E. Muehe says: "Dem christglaeubigen, frommen Kopernikus ist es nie etngefallen, an der Wahrheit der biblischen Erzaehlungen zu zweifeln. Aber viele der heutigen Naturforscher sind nicht Nach- folger seines Christenglaubens, sondern Anbeter seiner Wissen- schaft geworden. Wenn das kopernikanische Weltsystem in der Bibel stuende, so wuerden sie es sicherlich nicht annehmen; nun es aber nach ihrer Meinung gegen die Bibel zu sprechen scheint, machen sie es zu ihrem ewigen Evangelium und glauben, der per- soenliche Gott und seine Bibel sei dadurch ueber den Haufen ge- worfen." (Biblische Merkwuerdigkeiten, p.91.) Yes, there are those who accept certain hypotheses as truth because they are de- termined not to accept God's Bible as the truth. E. Haeckel was one of them. He was brazen enough to confess: "Gentlemen, if you refuse to accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, you are thrown back on the miracle of a supernatural creation." (Lehre und Wehre, 1913, p. 359.) A. Harnack had to be told by W. Walther that he took the very same position. (See Lehre und Wehre, 1902, p. 30.) 4) This, too, happens that some men parade these hypotheses without a real acquaintance with them. They will even trot out dead hypotheses against the Bible. W. T. Riviere writes: "In 1920 . . . evolution was popularly understood, even by the learned, to be a scientifically proved doctrine of inevitable progress. This mis- understanding was so general and so serious that I worked out a standard treatment for my young University of Texas freshmen when they returned to Cleburne for the Chr istmas holidays. It was based on student reaction to a certain lecture about evolution which impressed all my freshmen. During a drive in my little coupe it 826 Verbal Inspiration-a Stumbling-Block to Jews, Etc. was easy to start the student into a speech on evolution; and with- out fail the well-taught lecture came point by point from the eager youth." Pastor Riviere goes on to tell how he would take the stu- dent into the manse, open the text-book on evolution, show the student where he and his instructor were mistaken, and adds: "of course I had little concern about apes or about anything more than a gener al awareness of current changes in Darwinian theory; but perhaps it was healthy for young and growing minds to re- member, from this bookish correction, that small-town pastors are bachelors and masters of art who may happen to know some of the faculty's lore, and that a preacher may have the right to speak with authority in his own field." (Op. cit., p. 53 f .) It does happen that some do not know exactly what Darwin's hypothesis was and do not know that this particular h ypothesis is dead. Another case of dealing with counterfeit confederate money.128) 5) These hypotheses, the old abandoned ones and those which are in vogue now, mean nothing to the theologian and to the 128) Science for the Elementary-School Teacher, copyrighted 1940, has this: "Despite the fact that man is similar in some respects to the apes, the popular idea that man is 'descended from a monkey' is not held to be true by biologists. It may be true that in the course of evolu- tionary development both man and the apes had a common a."lcestor, from which both are descended; but the various families of monkeys, apes, and man have been distinct for a long time." (P. 373.) - In read- ing this handbook of elementary science we came across a curious phe- nomenon. It leaves the teacher in the lurch at a critical point. Chap- ter XVIII: "Man Is an Animal," starts out with the statement: "The hmnan species is composed of individuals which have many of the char- acteristics of other animals." The phrase occurs repeatedly: "Like any other animal, man is affected," etc. Surely, being descended from some sort of animal, man is an animal. However, the boys and girls must be told - they know it already - that man greatly differs from the other animals. "Man's intelligence gives him an advantage in the struggle for existence. . .. How has man managed to survive? The answer is obvious. The human species possesses a brain which is of such a nature that it gives man an advantage over all other living things. He is able to reason .. " The thinking processes are complemented by his ability to make his ideas known to his associates through the medium of speech," etc. (P.375.) And the preface states: "One of the most recent species to make its appearance on the earth is modern man, a living being, uniquely endowed with intelligence." The boys and girls will accept that. But now the bright members of the class will ask: Where did man's intelligence come from? Why is reason and speech not found in the apes and cats? How did the human species acquire reason and speech? The handbook suggests no answer to the poor teacher. It can- not, of course, suggest an answer. St. George Mivart says: "The origin of consciousness remains shrouded in inscrutable mystery." (Origin of Human Reason, p. 212.) Discussing the origin of speech, he quotes Romanes to this effect: "Any remark which I have to offer upon this subject must needs be of a wholly speculative, or unverifiable, character. I attach no argumentative importance to any of these hypotheses." See The Testimony of Science for many similar statements. And so the handbook is silent on this question. What shall the teacher do? Should he suggest to the pupils that there is such a thing as Creation ? If he dare not do it, the br ight pupils will think of that anyway. Freedom and the Modern Physical World Picture 827 scientist. The Bible theologian attaches no value to them. Bishop Manning, indeed, declared that "the evolutionary theory has been accepted by all schools of theologians for the last fifty years." (See The Christian Centu1'y, Jan. 26, 1938.) But that statement lacks scientific precision. The Bible theologians - the true theologians - do not dream of accepting this hypothesis. They refuse to let the evolutionary or the Copernican or any other hypothesis correct Scripture. As Dr. Pieper says: "It is unworthy of a Christian to force Holy Scripture, which he knows to be God's Word, into ~ agreement with human opinions (hypotheses), with the so-called Copernican cosmic system and similar hypotheses, or to accept such forced interpretations by others." (Op. cit., I, p. 577.) And Dr. Her- mann Sasse describes the Christian position thus: "The Lutheran Church, today as formerly, has greater respect for the Word of God than for the hypotheses of modern science." (See Allg. Ev.-Luth. Kztg., 1938, p . 82.) However, at present we are not concerned with the reaction of theologians towards the demand to accept these hypotheses as truths. Weare asking just now how much value the scientist attaches to them. The answer is : None, as far as their value as proofs is concerned. As the Watchman-Examiner (June 19, 1941) puts it: "You are not in the absolute realm of science when you are hypothetical. You must go outside its door when you take up a hypothesis, and you can come back in only when you have estab- lished your facts." Facts! From the first chapter on the moderns have been tell- ing us that "the facts" disprove Verbal Inspiration. We ask them to produce these facts - and here they are offering us hypotheses! That is counterfeiting, theological and scientific counterfeiting. (To be continued) TH. ENGELDER Freedom and the Modem Physical World Picture * A discussion of the problem of free will as affected by the new physics cannot claim finality in any sense. The modern world picture is not complete, for one thing, and we are free from agree- ment on the epistemological background of the doctrine of freedom. Yet the problem of the will remains the most fascinating in philosophy, and the possibilities which modern physics offers towards the solution are arresting enough to deserve more than passing notice. Any serious study or the subject unfortunately .. A paper read before the Philosophical Section of the Missouri Academy of Science. Rolla, Mo., April 22, 1938.