Before proceeding in the matter of this charge, allow me three observations. 1. It is possible to teach error by denying the truth—to take away sound doctrine positively, by a series of detail in the negative, ex gr.: Certain texts of Scripture, say twenty in number, have been depended on to prove the doctrine of the Trinity. I wish to reject that doctrine and yet do not feel it to be prudent to do it openly. It may be done more successfully and safely by denying in the detail, that it is taught in any of these passages. I put a gloss upon the passage which contains a history of Christ’s baptism, and conclude, by saying, whatever may be the truth or falsehood of the doctrine of the Trinity, it is not taught here. I take up the words used at baptism, “in the name of the Father, &c.” and gloss over and conclude, that doctrine has no foundation here. And so throughout the whole. Have I not really denied the doctrine of the Trinity! And yet I have not in any one instance said “It is not true—it is not taught in the Bible.” Is there a more effectual mode of attacking truth than this partizan war; this slow method of insulated assault?
But then it will be said in reply, “I have only removed certain texts which have been usually supposed to prove the doctrine of the sinners inability,” there are yet scores of others left. Very true, but the same process may take away the rest. Now my position is, that when a writer displays a disposition to take away the Scripture props from any doctrine, it is evident he dislikes the doctrine itself.
George Junkin in The Vindication, containing a History of the Trial of the Rev. Albert Barnes, George Junkin, Philadelphia, PA: W. S. Martin, 1836, pages 41-42.
No comments:
Post a Comment