# How Scotland (and the United States) Lost Their Bible



## Backwoods Presbyterian

This is a really penetrating and long article by Iain Murray on how liberal scholarship killed the church by neutering its Word. 

Every time he says the word "Scotland" you can insert the words "United States" and they are as equally true. Those of us who attended liberal seminaries were able to see this rot happen in real time as previously evangelical students were turned into practical atheists by Higher Criticism and spiritual doubt. 

https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2015/how-scotland-lost-its-hold-of-the-bible/


----------



## earl40

Looking forward to reading this, thank you. I wonder if this problem is associated with seminaries not having any accountability?


----------



## iainduguid

earl40 said:


> Looking forward to reading this, thank you. I wonder if this problem is associated with seminaries not having any accountability?



Iain Murray's piece is very perceptive, and makes clear the way in which heterodoxy entered a confessional denomination through evangelical men who taught in their seminaries. The short answer to earl's question (amply illustrated by Princeton's history) is that seminaries under denominational control tend to be more of a problem than a solution. The Free Church expressly set up its own colleges, but then was unwilling or unable to enforce orthodoxy in its professors. An independent seminary is no guarantee of orthodoxy, but may actually be more accountable to its constituency, since if it goes liberal there is no reason or obligation for conservative students to go there. That was Machen's view at any rate, which is why he set up Westminster (where I teach) as an independent school.

The tendency is for us to want a magic bullet to keep our denominations orthodox rather than Murray's more accurate prescription of watching and praying. Pray for the professors at the seminaries you support; pray for students in seminary, and those preparing in grad school for academic work. Machen studied with liberal professors in Germany and it convinced him that liberalism is a different religion from Christianity. He was all the more powerful a witness because of his first hand experience. I am also intensely grateful for the opportunity I had to study at Cambridge, but I was and am very mindful of the spiritual dangers of such academic study. It is not to be lightly undertaken, or without a strong spiritual support network.

The other helpful part of Murray's fine piece is the lesson that the questions that we are facing today regarding the Bible's reliability are by no means new. We are regularly told that post-modern people have new questions and insights that previous generations lacked, but it turns out that many of them are exactly the same as the "new" questions and insights of 150 years ago.


----------



## JimmyH

iainduguid said:


> The other helpful part of Murray's fine piece is the lesson that the questions that we are facing today regarding the Bible's reliability are by no means new. We are regularly told that post-modern people have new questions and insights that previous generations lacked, but it turns out that many of them are exactly the same as the "new" questions and insights of 150 years ago.



This mornings reading in the M'Cheyne one year Bible reading plan was Acts 23:8 we read that there was a controversy even then on what the Scriptures reveal. I'm in the 1st chapter of D.A. Carson's 'The Gagging Of God', about pluralism's encroachment on society in the West. Very discouraging reading, but revealing if the wide gate and broad way are considered.


----------



## MW

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> This is a really penetrating and long article by Iain Murray on how liberal scholarship killed the church by neutering its Word.



Not surprisingly, it is well written and vivid in presentation. R. A. Finlayson's article, "How Liberal Theology Infected Scotland," touches on similar themes.

Liberalism infected the church and weakened her witness, to be sure; whether it is to blame for the triumph of secularism is another question. The back half of the nineteenth century was consumed with progress and education. Liberalism was part of the current of the time. The church's influence over society was waning and progressives felt the need to broaden the Christian faith to follow suit. This is intimated in the quotation from John Macleod which refers to "the changed spirit of the age." Liberals went with the flow; they didn't create the flow.

With regard to the Free Church, a few points might be made. First, the Free Church of Scotland was not formed by ministers who "separated from the Church of Scotland." They separated from the establishment and continued the Church of Scotland Free. Secondly, the Free Church contained an element of broadness from the first. The ingredients of "progressivism" were present in the evangelical movement itself. Like a boat with its sails up, it just required a different wind to take it in another direction. Thirdly, the College Controversy showed a zeal for ministerial education at the expense of quality. Too many theological halls were opened. These required teachers, and teachers were found who did not necessarily share the sympathies of the original New College faculty. Fourth, even if the Free Church had have properly dealt with the liberal professors, the union of 1900 would likely have taken place, and this union aimed to create a broader church with a broader message to a broader society. The liberal professors were more a symptom of the disease.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Thanks for posting this article. It is really good. I can't help think about my own denomination and the allure of being "missional". I really enjoy The Mortification of Spin. Yesterday's episode focused on preaching the whole counsel of God and how many of the urban hipsters aren't so much teaching error as they are refusing to teach with clarity what the whole Scriptures teach. It's not always easy to put my finger as to why I'm allergic to many of these approaches to ministry and I don't want to simply lead with being grumpy or simply saying "that's not the way it's been done in the past". These kinds of things help me to articulate the subtlety of the Enemy. I recall, years ago, feeling the damage and pain that a woman caused by gossiping in a Church (about me) and she was doing so for her own "Godly reasons". In other words, she was an enemy of the Gospel but yet convinced she was being used of God and it scared me to think how self-deceived we're prone to be. Likewise, it is remarkable to see history repeating itself in the "conservative" Churches as we just take liberalism and call it something else because we're being "missional".


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I've heard wiser and more experienced minds than mine talk about the PCA having a lot of comparisons to the Free Church, and that is one thing I often hear about, that both Rich and Matthew mention. The PCA never really "purged" the PCUS out of itself (not sure how they could have) and the diversity and shear number of seminaries ensures a lack of unity in doctrine and practice.


----------



## earl40

Semper Fidelis said:


> Thanks for posting this article. It is really good. I can't help think about my own denomination and the allure of being "missional".



When our Pastors realize the "mission" they are tasked with, feeding the sheep in their fold, they will take care of that fold they are charged with instead of running off to far and away Africa. I also have seen within our denomination a tendency to not read some scripture much less preach on those verses that may offend many within the congregation because the "less mature" will flee (I say this with humility to which the pastor will know who they are). Of course our pastors should not want them to leave, but the Lord does allow the goats to run for the hills to show they are not with us. When His Word is read and preached in a faithful manner the flock will be have many more sheep than goats.


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> Likewise, it is remarkable to see history repeating itself in the "conservative" Churches as we just take liberalism and call it something else because we're being "missional".



It is probably also the case that most today would think they are "beyond" liberalism and don't realise the philosophical and cultural pressures are still at work wherever biblical authority is maintained.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

iainduguid said:


> The short answer to earl's question (amply illustrated by Princeton's history) is that seminaries under denominational control tend to be more of a problem than a solution.



Not quite. By 1910, all the leading Presbyterian seminaries had liberalized except for Princeton, which began that process in 1914 when J. Ross Stevenson came as president, and completed it when, as a result of issues arising connected to the 1925 PCUSA GA Commission, Princeton was reorganized in 1929 so that Auburn Affirmationists and other liberals came to have sway in its institutional governance. 

One thinks, for instance, of Auburn, Union of VA, Western, Columbia, Lane, and McCormick, and sees that these seminaries liberalized (in widely varying degrees, to be sure) and brought such influence into the church. In other words, in American Presbyterianism, in almost all cases but Princeton, the seminaries liberalized and provided a liberalized ministry for the church. Princeton is essentially the exception to the rule in the PCUSA of the church corrupting the seminary instead of the reverse.

Now I agree with you, Iain, that being under the church is not a sufficient condition for the seminary to maintain faithfulness. I don't even think that it's a necessary condition, as constituencies can hold their institutions faithful and I think that it's desirable for Reformed and Presbyterian ecumenicity, which is the need of the hour, for all those who are soundly confessional to agree in such a venture across denominational boundaries. 

More could be said about all this but I thought that it might be helpful to offer these historical observations. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Craig.Scott

Very good article. Though, I would say he misses out two key elements to the Scottish situation. 

1) Higher Critical Text Books

men such as Chalmers and Smeaton issued these higher critic text books to students. They thought that Reformed academic studies should be able to compete with the very best in scholarship, and so issued German texts to their students. As men came through the Free Church they were not merely exposed, but encouraged to read German liberalism. Chalmers and Smeaton of course would have held to plenary verbal inspiration, but this is a hostical fact that helps understand why the FC went they way it did.

2) church unity

during the 1870's and beyond there was a constant fight for church unions. As denominations such as the Original Seceeders and other entered talks, the FC permitted men who took exceptions to the WCF and lost 100% strict subscription, hence the later Declaratory act. This enthusiasm for church Union played a major role in the fight over higher criticism. 




Craig


----------



## TheOldCourse

Great article, but I puzzle a bit over how he harps on the point of the language of the Bible "containing" the Word of God being an intentionally ambivalent usage designed to open the door to latitudinarianism. That's almost the exact wording of the WSC which he actually quotes at one point, surely he doesn't think that language is ambivalent? 

While precise language is important, in this case the changes in language happened after the church had already lost the courage and commitment to enforce its standards. Language by itself is no safeguard for orthodoxy and neglecting church, especially ministerial, discipline seems to be the first sign of declension illustrated here.


----------



## jwithnell

This is the primary point:


> J. C. Ryle protested against the introduction of the ambiguous use of the word, saying, ‘I hold that the Scripture not only contains the Word of God, but is the Word of God.’31 At the same period, a Free Church promoter of the New Apologetic spoke in the language to which Ryle objected when he said: ‘The Bible contains the Word of God; it records a revelation which came from him; its inspiration is the highest of all literature.’32 This sounds like praise of the Bible, but the writer was by no means asserting the trustworthiness of all Scripture. His teaching showed that his words were an evasion.


 The WCF used contain to mean that the scriptures hold all of God's word to us. Popes feelings, etc. can't add to it. 19th century and later theologians used the word contain to mean you could assert certain places in Scripture are God's word, but not others. (The condemnation of homosexuals, for example, can't be the word of our enlightened, evolved God who is loving.) Who decides? Man.


----------



## TheOldCourse

Yeah I understand that they were using the language in different ways, but it seemed like there was an objection to the words _per se_ as was illustrated in the New Hebrides illustration. It's a perfectly Confessional and biblical way of speaking, it just needs to be enforced in the church's courts. It's a quibble anyways, but my point is that the doctrine ceased to be insisted upon by the church long before the language was made more "inclusive".


----------



## MW

The Larger makes the precise and exhaustive identification of Scripture as the Word of God. The Shorter is speaking of the "rule," and so it uses the word "contains" on the understanding that Scripture also contains the words and actions of devils and wicked men, which are no rule to us.


----------



## jwithnell

There's a long history to the use of "contains" as a way of eroding the authority of scripture, particularly as it came to full bloom in the hands of the neo-orthodox. This is no quibble -- perhaps more so here in the states, this distinction is part of what decimated the teaching on the authority of God's word.

Thank's Rev. Winter for the clarification regarding the rightful use of the term in the WCF.


----------



## DMcFadden

Professor Duguid is probably right, couching his words in terms of tendencies, when he writes:


> The short answer to earl's question (amply illustrated by Princeton's history) is that seminaries under denominational control tend to be more of a problem than a solution.



However, my alma mater was an independent seminary attached to the then post-war "(neo)evangelicalism" becoming popular and giving rise to the parachurch movement, Christianity Today, and the rest of broad American evangelicalism. It has been a case study in doctrinal drift, surrendering inerrancy within two decades of its founding, championing and promoting voices such as McLaren and Bell, and accommodating all manner of heterodox notions. On the other hand, my current denomination has two official seminaries that eschew higher criticism and hold stubbornly to inerrancy. I would also note that the work Al Mohler has done among the SBC at Southern shows what is possible from within the bastion of a denominational seminary.


----------



## TheOldCourse

MW said:


> The Larger makes the precise and exhaustive identification of Scripture as the Word of God. The Shorter is speaking of the "rule," and so it uses the word "contains" on the understanding that Scripture also contains the words and actions of devils and wicked men, which are no rule to us.



While certainly the question of WSC 2 is about the rule, the antecedent of the "which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments" clause is "The Word of God" rather than the rule. Isn't it better to understand the statement as equivalent to WLC 3, especially as parallel portions of the catechisms with WLC 3 also using "rule" language in describing the Word of God?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

MW said:


> it uses the word "contains" on the understanding that Scripture also contains the words and actions of devils and wicked men, which are _no rule to us_.


 **Emphasis Mine**

With respect I find this inaccurate. Although the Shorter uses "contained", it is not the only one that uses rule as what the Scripture is to us. The Larger uses "rule" in the same context when applying the word "Scriptures". 



> The _Holy Scriptures_ of the Old and New Testament are the _Word of God_, the only _rule of faith and obedience_.



Therefore, the Scriptures are the rule, no matter what's written. The implicit or explicit idea of the text must be drawn out for the rule of faith and practice.


----------



## MW

Chris and Andrew, "the Word of God" was used in two ways in Puritan theology. These two ways are brought out in the two Catechisms. For the Puritans the rule of faith and life was regarded as the word of God in a derivative sense. Hence the word preached is the word of God. The word is not tied to the bare letter of Scripture. Consider what William Gouge wrote:



> This word is properly and truly the right sense and meaning of the Scripture; for except that be found out, in many words there may seem to be matter of falsehood (as that the Son knoweth not the day of judgment), of heresy (as that the Father is greater than the Son), and contradiction, as betwixt that which Christ said (my Father is greater than I), and that which the apostle said (that Christ Jesus thought it no robbery to be equal with God). The letter of Scripture may be alleged, and yet the word of God missed, as by all heretics. And a man may swerve from the letter, and yet allege the true word of God, as the Evangelists and Apostles did many times. Compare Mic. 5:2 with Mat. 2:6, Ps. 40:6 with Heb. 10:5.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

MW said:


> Chris and Andrew, "the Word of God" was used in two ways in Puritan theology. These two ways are brought out in the two Catechisms. For the Puritans the rule of faith and life was regarded as the word of God in a derivative sense. Hence the word preached is the word of God. The word is not tied to the bare letter of Scripture. Consider what William Gouge wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This word is properly and truly the right sense and meaning of the Scripture; for except that be found out, in many words there may seem to be matter of falsehood (as that the Son knoweth not the day of judgment), of heresy (as that the Father is greater than the Son), and contradiction, as betwixt that which Christ said (my Father is greater than I), and that which the apostle said (that Christ Jesus thought it no robbery to be equal with God). The letter of Scripture may be alleged, and yet the word of God missed, as by all heretics. And a man may swerve from the letter, and yet allege the true word of God, as the Evangelists and Apostles did many times. Compare Mic. 5:2 with Mat. 2:6, Ps. 40:6 with Heb. 10:5.
Click to expand...


Rev. Winzer,

I agree. However, the "word" preached is not different from the "word" written. I do not think Gouge (even here) would suggest such a thing as well. This would give way to prophetic sayings with no proof. 

What I am cautioning against is this idea of the Word of God being "contained" in scripture but the actual words that we have now are NOT. This is doubt, mistrust, and calling God a liar (For the record, I am not suggesting you are saying this). I have experienced graduates from Westminster East who have said this (granted they are the extreme minority). This is heretical and should be wiped off the face of the earth.


----------



## MW

Andrew P.C. said:


> What I am cautioning against is this idea of the Word of God being "contained" in scripture but the actual words that we have now are NOT.



In my earlier post I indicated that Scripture is precisely and exhaustively identified as the Word of God in the Larger Catechism. There is no need to make the divines repeat the same things when they use different words and concepts. We should seek to understand them in their historical context.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

MW said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I am cautioning against is this idea of the Word of God being "contained" in scripture but the actual words that we have now are NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my earlier post I indicated that Scripture is precisely and exhaustively identified as the Word of God in the Larger Catechism. There is no need to make the divines repeat the same things when they use different words and concepts. We should seek to understand them in their historical context.
Click to expand...


And I agree. 

My disagreement isn't with the historical context of the Larger and Shorter. My disagreement is with your statement.



> it uses the word "contains" on the understanding that Scripture also contains the words and actions of devils and wicked men, which are no rule to us.



Although there are words and actions of demons and wicked men within scripture, " _All Scripture_ is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

It seems to me that Paul's idea of "All Scripture" being for faith and practice applies to ALL of scripture.


----------



## MW

Andrew P.C. said:


> It seems to me that Paul's idea of "All Scripture" being for faith and practice applies to ALL of scripture.



I agree; but, as answer 3 of the Catechism states, this is what Scripture "principally" teaches. This is understood in the words of the apostle in Second Timothy 3:16. The fact that Scripture is profitable in various ways means that it must be properly interpreted according to its own system of thought in order to come to its principal teachings.


----------



## TheOldCourse

MW said:


> Chris and Andrew, "the Word of God" was used in two ways in Puritan theology. These two ways are brought out in the two Catechisms. For the Puritans the rule of faith and life was regarded as the word of God in a derivative sense. Hence the word preached is the word of God. The word is not tied to the bare letter of Scripture. Consider what William Gouge wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This word is properly and truly the right sense and meaning of the Scripture; for except that be found out, in many words there may seem to be matter of falsehood (as that the Son knoweth not the day of judgment), of heresy (as that the Father is greater than the Son), and contradiction, as betwixt that which Christ said (my Father is greater than I), and that which the apostle said (that Christ Jesus thought it no robbery to be equal with God). The letter of Scripture may be alleged, and yet the word of God missed, as by all heretics. And a man may swerve from the letter, and yet allege the true word of God, as the Evangelists and Apostles did many times. Compare Mic. 5:2 with Mat. 2:6, Ps. 40:6 with Heb. 10:5.
Click to expand...


I understand the distinction in that sense, but I am not able to see how the WLC is taking a different tack than the WSC here: 



> WLC 3. What is the Word of God?
> 
> A. The holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the Word of God,[5] the only rule of faith and obedience.[6]





> WSC Q. 2. What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him?
> A. The Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments,[3] is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.



Both seem to be speaking in the context of the Word of God as a rule of faith and life, no?


----------



## MW

TheOldCourse said:


> Both seem to be speaking in the context of the Word of God as a rule of faith and life, no?



No. The LC asks, WHAT is the word of God? and the following question leads to the arguments to establish the identity of Scripture as the Word of God. The SC asks WHAT rule hath God given? Two different things are asked and answered.


----------

