The Right to Reject the Theories of Experts
By Editor
In a recent issue the Christian Advocate discusses the controversy between the higher critics and their opponents, especially as represented in the American Bible League. In the course of the discussion the Advocate lays down some principles which are worthy of being emphasized. It says:— Notwithstanding St. Luke is explicit that Christ was born of a virgin, and Matthew is as clear by implication, some experts will say that the silence of the others and of St. Paul justifies the rejection of the virgin birth. Yet literally millions of scholars in the ages past have seen what to them was the strongest proof that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. The non-expert (who sees that the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the vital and unparalleled relation of the atonement to the forgiveness of sins, are undermined by the alleged results of the higher criticism) has the logical, philosophical, and moral right to say within himself and to others, that whether or not he thinks himself competent to overthrow the details of the process, or even to follow it, he will accept no theory which leads to such a conclusion. He has the same right to do this as has the non-expert to decline to believe that any argument can disprove the existence of God,—even though that argument at certain points runs through knowledge and speculations which his limited acquirements do not enable him to follow. And if it be said that this is repudiating the operations of the human intellect and making one's self a slave to an idea, it seems to us sufficient to say, in reply that, so long as experts agree that the manuscripts essentially coincide upon the broad lines of the Christian faith, and that the translation is substantially accurate, it does not require “experts” to teach men whether or not the Gospels declare Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, miraculously born of a virgin, deprived for a time of the full exercise of divine power, but infallibly knowing everything pertaining to the substance of his mission upon the earth. If a conscientious man, expert or non-expert, willing “to follow the truth wherever it leads the way,” can not see these things in the Bible, he ought not to profess to see them; but he who does see them is (by virtue of his belief in the Bible's containing a divine revelation) bound to declare that he finds them there, even if a procession of “experts” of ever-increasing length and arrogance affirm that they are not there, or give “expert” opinions in higher or lower criticism which undermine them. We regard this teaching as sound and helpful, and we would apply it to some of the fundamental doctrines of this message. One has a right to reject the many contradictory claims of the Sunday advocates, even though he can not follow them through all their winding arguments. In the same way the believers in this message have “the logical, philosophical, and moral right” to refuse their assent to the conclusions of some who profess to be in the truth, but to have advanced upon higher ground, when they by fanciful interpretations and combinations of scripture really undermine confidence in the accepted features of the message. And it is not necessary in order to do this that one should be required to answer every detail of the argument, or advance a counter theory concerning subjects with which he is not familiar. Some things are settled, and may be depended upon. We are not following cunningly devised fables.