This section will deal with the development of the Federal College, and particularly with concern over a possible infiltration by theological Liberals, such as appeared to be occurring in America. The establishment of other, more modest, training initiatives is also highlighted in a number of items.

1. The Federal College of the Bible
2. Local Institutes
3. Reaction to Biblical Criticism
4. Biblical Authority

1. THE FEDERAL COLLEGE OF THE BIBLE

A. R. Main, A.C., 1917, p 261.

      The strength of the Restoration movement lies in the fact that it is based upon the Scriptures, and that its advocates are content to "preach the Word." With but few exceptions our preachers have been true to the teachings of the Book, the authority of which is necessary to the progress, and even existence, of the plea we make. Generally, too, our Universities and Colleges have been content to give instruction in perfect harmony with the Scriptures as God's revelation to us, and therefore with the principles which are dear to the great mass of disciples. True, for some years there has been a small section in America which has sought for culture rather than gospel, has been adopting and preaching views out of harmony with the authority of the Bible, and, to the accompaniment of the applause of our denominational friends, has been promulgating doctrines such as we expect to hear from the ministers of some of the surrounding religious bodies. If the influence of this small section were only equal to its pretension and the loudness of its vociferations, the cause we love would be in a perilous state. That the great heart of the brotherhood is sound, and that its platform representatives are faithful to the Christ and the Bible, need not be doubted.

A. R. Main, A.C., 1919, p. 531.

      It is important that more men be found willing to give themselves to the work of the gospel.

      Certain spiritual qualifications are indispensable. No one lacking a sincere love of the Lord Jesus, a love of the church and "the plea," or a spirit of devotion should be encouraged to enter the College. Heart culture must ever be set above head culture. Lack of personal worth and character cannot be made up for by mental power and education. Men of poise and balance are desirable. Particularly we would welcome those of humble disposition, and likely to continue to possess such whatever the degree of culture they may hereafter attain. The greatest enemies of education are those who become easily puffed up; and those who do most damage to religious colleges are they who cannot combine a liberal education with a simple faith in Christ and his Word, and with a humble desire to serve most where the need is greatest. I would like to add to this group of qualifications this, that the prospective student be esteemed in the local church and loved there for his willing service. He who neglects the church meetings, or declines opportunities of usefulness there, is not in some magical way going to be transformed by a College course into a great soul-winner or builder-up of the church of God.

      There are mental qualifications too. Many good men will never make good preachers. The Lord may have intended them to be good farmers, or grocers, or clerks, or wharf-laborers. While we put heart culture first, we must recollect that for a preacher a good head is required. Constant sermon preparation, the great problems seeking a Christian solution, the obvious desirability or necessity of the preacher's being ahead of and not behind the men of the congregation in education and power of thought--these all are arguments in favor both of good natural ability and as good an education as a preacher can possibly acquire.

      Whether a student be young or old, the essential thing is that he must come to prepare and equip himself for the service of God and humanity. Professionalism is a thing to be abhorred. I am glad to testify of practically all who have ever been at Glen Iris that they have had the spirit of love and consecration, and have sought the honor of God above the praise of men, and also that there has been as great an absence of a professional spirit as I think will ever be found in a corresponding number of students in any time or place.

--A. R. Main.      

A. R. Main, A.C., 1920, p. 103.

      So far as our Australasian College of the Bible at Glen Iris is concerned, we wish once again most definitely and categorically to declare of the members of its Board of Management, its teaching staff, and its student body, that they are all avowed believers in the inspiration and authority of the Word of God. No rationalistic view or interpretation of our Lord's miracles, such as Mr. Briney speak of, would be for one moment tolerated at Glen Iris. The editor of this paper happens also to be principal of the college, and he pledges himself to the brotherhood to sanction or tolerate no teaching derogatory to the true divinity of our Lord or the authority of the Scriptures which are given to make wise unto salvation.

A. R. Main, A.C., 1917, p. 176.

      When we write of the kind of training needed by preachers, we have very particularly in mind what is undoubtedly a danger in institutions of learning, viz., that the purely intellectual will be exalted above the moral and spiritual. The spirit of rationalism, the revolt against faith and the exaltation of reason above religion which swept over Europe a century and a half ago, has not yet spent its force, and is responsible for the tendency to exalt purely intellectual studies in College to-day.

      We are in the happy position of knowing that our own College at Glen Iris is wholly free from any tendency to place intellectual knowledge above spiritual culture. Every teacher in our College is a firm believer in the Word of God. Destructive criticism is wholly absent.

2. LOCAL INSTITUTES

A. C., 1914, p. 461.

      The opening of a "Sydney Bible Training Institute" fills a long felt need amongst the Sydney churches. I believe there are a number of the younger brethren who would be at Glen Iris to-day if they had the means. To these the opening of this institute will be a source of joy. The formation of a mission band at the same time will give the students platform experience. I trust this institute will have the membership it deserves.

--Harold B. Robbins,        
Chatswood, N.S.W.      

A.C., 1920, p. 167.

      During the year young men's training classes had been formed, one at Fremantle and one at Perth for the purpose of encouraging and helping young men in preparing for the work of preaching the gospel. There had been an enrollment of 25, and two of the young men had recently left for further training at the College of the Bible, Victoria. Cyril Fortune moved for the appointment of a special committee in order to provide "that more interest may be displayed and more help given to young men whose desire is to proceed to the College of the Bible." The motion was agreed to, and a committee of five was appointed.

3. REACTION TO BIBLICAL CRITICISM

      Main's reaction to biblical criticism in his editorials (we have no way of knowing how he treated the issues in lectures) concentrated on arguing the reliability and authority of the Scriptures, for which he had a profound respect.

A. R. Main, A.C., 1919, p. 619.

      It is desirable that we all give due attention to Bible Reading and to accuracy in Scripture quotation. With all our care, we shall slip occasionally, so we write in no carping spirit. The Christian who has his mind well stored with passages of God's Word has something which with the passing years will be of increasing benefit to himself, and is also able to help others. He may confine enemies and edify saints. Our Lord routed every foe with quotations from God's Word. Christians in their spiritual warfare have to use the Sword of the Spirit. He who waged a carnal warfare with a literal sword to the employment of which he was as unaccustomed as are many Christians to the proper use of the Sword of the Spirit would be a menace to himself, a danger to the lives of his fellow soldiers, and a provoker of mirth to his watchful foes. It has well been said, "If a classical scholar is scrupulously particular to give his extracts from the classics correctly, shall we be less so--quoting from our great God-inspired classic, the Book of books?" All should endeavor to handle aright the Word of God.

A. R. Main, A.C., 1923, pp. 633.

      There are two good rules for the student of the Scriptures. The first is: Read the Bible as you would read any other book. Give it as fair a treatment and employ the same methods of interpretation. The second is: Read the Bible as you would read no other book. Its divine origin, its incomparable teaching, its unique place in literature, should ensure for it greater care, better attention, more diligent study than that accorded to any other book in the world.

A. R. Main, A.C., 1925, p. 353.

      That God has new light to break from out the sacred page is frequently stated. It may steady us to remember this. We have truth, but we have not all the truth. Let us not speak or act as if we had any monopoly of truth or as if there were nothing more for us to learn. The glory of the Bible is that we may ever come to it to find new knowledge and receive new strength. We may give a life-time to its study, never baffled by the thought that truth is eluding us, but coming to an ever increasing appreciation of the meaning and beauty of the revelation of God.

A. R. Main, A.C., 1929, pp. 321-322.

      Reverence for the word of God is greatly to be desired. The Lord has declared that he magnifies his word above all his name. So, if his name is "holy and reverend," if there are numerous warnings against its profanation, "for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain," there is by implication a strong warning against an irreverent use of the word.

      In this article we refer to what to many Christians may appear a fairly innocent treatment of Scripture, but one which for many years we have reprobated. It is the parodying of the word of God.

      The practice we are reprobating is open to many objections. There are ignorant folk who may accept the parody at its face value. We recall one old man who, because of a novel which contained a fancied account of the life of Jesus, accepted the writer's fiction as if it were facts. Some parodists of the Bible may be similarly dealt with by some humble minds. Many more readers, however, will be tempted to deal lightly with both the parody and the original. In this article we are contented to stress the unseemliness of parodying the word of God. If we truly believe in the inspiration of the writers of the Bible, can we regard it as proper to attribute to Christ or an apostle words which he never spoke, or so to parody the style of their writing as to profess to give a biblical value to the thoughts of a modern imitator? The prompting of a true reverence leads us altogether in a different direction.

A. R. Main, A.C., 1938, pp. 673-674.

      It would be absurd to claim that we have the knowledge which will entitle us always to say what did happen. There might be a score of things which could have happened. A little extra information can easily clear up a mystery. We are not bound to choose between alternative statements each of which answers a charge of discrepancy; it suffices if it can be shown that the charge of contradiction is based on erroneous assumption. Such a charge should not be made where it is possible for the two statements to be true. Nearly thirty years of almost daily teaching of the New Testament has deepened the conviction of the writer that the imagination or manufacture of contradictions in the biblical narrative is one of the worst tendencies in the modern treatment of the Word of God. Let us treat the Bible fairly.

4. BIBLICAL AUTHORITY

      Included among the documents in this section is a published correspondence between Main and A.C. Garnett, one of his most brilliant students who later became professor of philosophy at Wisconsin, on the subject of biblical authority. There is also comment on the debate between Liberals and Conservatives.

A. R. Main, A.C., 1925, pp, 735, 738.

      [The following article is a response to an article, "The New and the True", written by A.C. Garnett.]

      This long article is a considerable addendum to what seemed a closing letter announcing that the matter might drop. It reminds us of the traditional postscript of a lady's epistle.

      We with many readers are being impressed with the difference between the view first given that, as we could accept the decisions of scientists in their own field, so we could accept the authority of the Biblical writers within the sphere of religion and morals, and the position now being taken by Bro. Garnett (e. g., that "it may be left as a matter of opinion, just in how far the statements and example of the apostles may be regarded as authoritative.").

Questions answered

      Bro. Garnett's first question is very important. We welcome it for the reason that it gives opportunity for a re-emphasis of some truths for which our leaders in the Restoration Movement have ever stood. The supreme thing with them and us is loyalty to Jesus Christ the Son of God. We ask men to confess him, and declare that we have no other creedal confession. Accordingly our leaders in early days, both wisely and rightly as we believe, were willing to have in fellowship, as helpers and as preachers, men who, accepting Christ thus, differed widely on other points. From the beginning there has not been full agreement on even such things--as the rationale of the atonement, precisely how the Scriptures were inspired, many matters of church polity, doctrine of last things, future destiny, etc. Clearly Peter on Pentecost did not demand a confession of faith or agreement regarding such points from his hearers. Clearly no candidate in apostolic days (when the canon did not exist) was asked to believe in "the historic canon as a whole as divinely authoritative" as a condition of his being regarded as a Christian with all the privileges of membership in the church, including the privilege of proclaiming the gospel. So Bro. Garnett's question is easily answered thus far. We have not written one word to impugn the Christian standing (and therefore the standing so far as "our plea" is concerned) of men who make it a matter of inquiry as to whether all the supposedly canonical books are rightly in the canon. Men were, are and should be accepted as Christians who believe in and obey the Lord Jesus Christ (as did the inquirers at Pentecost), whether or not they have any idea of what the "canon" means or how it arose, whether or not they have even discussed the question of inspiration so as to decide whether or not it involved absolute inerrancy on all points. For ourselves, we have never even met a brother who contended otherwise than we have written in the foregoing. There are devoted men within our brotherhood who do not hold such views regarding the canon and inspiration as most of our people hold. We dare not deny their right to be in our ranks, their standing as Christian preachers, or even their sincere desire to further the plea for Christian union on the basis revealed in the New Testament.

      In reply to a further question, we may say that we believe that the gospels plus the light of Acts and the Epistles freely accepted (even apart from the settlement of the authority of the canon) will enable us to uphold the rightness of our practices.

      We must remark that there is a vast difference between the question of the minimum amount of belief or agreement necessary and that of what it is consistent or right for a Christian to believe, and, more particularly, what it is legitimate for a preacher to teach or for a church to sanction as teaching. We rejoice to think of Bro. Gannett as a devout believer in our Lord, accept gladly his statement that he has been used to help doubters, and welcome most cordially his remark in the above letter that he has no doubt the apostles were inspired men. We accept too his declaration that he now preaches a full gospel as of old. But we think he is very far wrong when he puts the apostolic statements on a lower level of authority than the words of Christ recorded in the gospels, and that it is simply impossible to acquiesce in his view that "it may be left as a matter of opinion, just in how far the statements and example of the apostles may be regarded as authoritative." In our judgment that is both out of harmony with apostolic inspiration and tending to the destruction of "our plea."

      It is notorious that preachers calling themselves Christian to-day are rejecting not only the teaching of Acts and the Epistles, not only the miraculous incidents of the gospels, but many of the words of Christ himself--all because these do not pass some subjective tests of their own. Whether in the case of these extremists or in that of milder men, we cannot assent to apostolic judgments being written down as "matters of opinion."

Do the texts disclaim inspiration?

      Bro. Garnett thinks that certain texts to which he refers support his position. Not one of the texts, it may confidently be stated, is out of harmony with a strict view of inspiration. We note them now, not for Bro. Garnett's sake, but because we do not wish readers to be unsettled. Our brother's inference from the texts is, in our judgment, neither new nor true. (a) Regarding Peter and Cornelius. Peter was led by the Spirit (Acts 2:38,39) to declare God's plan for all he should call. It is true that Peter did not realise the full implication of that message; hence God, when the need came, revealed the truth clearly to him. It would be absurd for any one to claim that full inspiration would only be possible if all truth were delivered at one time. There is no suggestion in Acts that Peter or any other apostle between the first gospel sermon and the conversion of Cornelius had been preaching anything opposed to the reception of Jews and Gentiles on the same terms. But when the occasion came, God definitely revealed

his will regarding Gentiles. What is there against inspiration in that? (b) Both Peter and Paul could not be right in their conduct at Antioch. But there is no warrant for saying that Peter preached a different doctrine from Paul. It was a matter of personal conduct; and, whether the revelation of truth to an apostle were "absolute" or not, we know of no believer in inspiration--full or attenuated--who would hazard a claim that that inspiration so coerced any apostle's personal will that he was beyond possibility of sin (c) Re Paul and women; We freely admit difficulties of exposition. But even if Paul's ruling be allowed to have been intended to be temporary in character and his arguments suited only to a particular situation and modes of thought remote from ours, that would not in itself discount their appropriateness for that situation, or (if that be so) their inspiration. (d) 1 Cor. 7:12 is, when taken in its context, not even apparently out of harmony with full inspiration. The contrast between verses 10 and 12 is not between commands given by Paul as an inspired apostle and by Paul as a private individual. "The real part of the contrast is between a subject on which our Lord himself while on earth gave direct verbal instruction, and another subject on which he now gives commands through his apostle." Christ had given verbal teaching regarding divorce but had not personally spoken of such problems as arose when the conversion of a married person left one of the partners a heathen. Paul speaks of that-subject quite authoritatively: "So ordain I in all the churches" (verse 17). (e) In 1 Cor. 7:40 Paul writes: "I think that I also have the Spirit of God." How does this deny inspiration? Taking the very lowest ground, might we not well ask: If the Apostle Paul thought he had the Spirit of God in his utterance, why should a twentieth century Christian presume to doubt it? The second "I" in the verse is emphatic. "There were men in the church at Corinth with spiritual gifts; and it is probable that their authority, or that of some other Apostle, had been arrayed by misrepresentation against his; so, in order to silence any such plea for disregarding his teaching on the subject, he closes the discussion with the modest but very emphatic reminder that he spoke by inspiration; whether others did or not." There is neither necessity nor good reason for thinking that here Paul doubts his own inspiration.

What can we publish?

      Our correspondent's closing question should be answered. We are always willing to publish helpful, constructive articles on religious subjects. We have never discriminated between what are called conservative and liberal brethren, and do not intend to do so. But the reason for the existence of this paper must be borne in mind. It is intended to be a means of furthering our work, of building up Christians, and of introducing "our plea" to other than our own people. Constructive articles which restate our position are always welcome; a freshness of treatment in a manner which will arrest the attention of people while remaining true to the teaching of the Scriptures is most desirable. But we do not consider that the "Christian" should serve as a debating arena, and so suggest to the world at large, and to our own families in particular, that we are a people marring our plea for Christian union by internal wrangling and opposing doctrines. The amount of space we have given to our brother will forbid his thinking that we have the wish to be exclusive, or that we fear the cogency of his reasoning. It may be desirable for brethren to confer and talk over differences in a friendly way, and we have no objection to their doing so. Nor are we lightly going to raise the cry of heresy or seek to unchristianise anybody.

      It would be quite impossible for us to promise publication of articles of a destructive nature intended or calculated to discredit the authority of Scripture or instill doubts into the minds of our readers. We should regard the doing of this as a breach of trust. The chief point in all our articles regarding "our plea" has been that we all who believe in Christ as Son of God and Saviour, who accept the authority of his commission, should go ahead and preach "Christ and him crucified" to men, tell seekers for salvation what he would have them do to be saved, and then teach the disciples to apply the principles of Christ in every-day life. If all--liberals and conservatives, if such titles are permissible--will do this, we shall gloriously succeed. If, instead, any brethren feel they must tilt at the things we have held dear, if they go outside the scope of our Lord's commission and in preaching what is new to belittle the New Testament writers or seek to unsettle the faith of any, they must expect to be opposed. But none of us need oppose one another if we follow the apostolic example, and putting human philosophy aside whatever may be our opinion of it, preach Christ to men. We urge that we all try to do that, and so put "first things first." Then let us be as forbearing as we can.

--Editor.      

A. R. Main, A.C., 1918, p. 491.

      One of the most familiar of statements in modern apologetics is that the Christ of the New Testament is His own witness. His word is self-evidencing. He who has read the claims of Jesus must either believe Him to be the Son of God, or a man suffering from delusions or hallucinations. But we cannot rest with this alternative. For the claim is not found by itself. It comes to us conjoined with the admittedly incomparable character, the admittedly incomparable ethical teaching, and with the admittedly

incomparable influence. Any man of weak mind or ill-balanced judgment may claim to be divine; no man but One makes and substantiates the claim. Christ and His Word have stood the test of the ages, and will henceforth meet the most exacting test which can be made. Men will re-echo the words of Simon, "To whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life." The highest and noblest evidence of Christian culture is not exhibited in the separation of "the Jesus of history" from "the Christ of theology," but in the adoring cry of the believer, "My Lord and my God." A re-perusal of the Gospel record of the life and teaching of the Lord Jesus is the best corrective of modern rationalism and destructive criticism. The character and the teaching are as much above the reach of modern infidelity as they are beyond the power of first century invention. The New Testament is the best book of Christian evidence and the finest text book of church history.

A. R. Main, A.C., 1923, pp. 697-698.

A new alignment

      The thought has been frequently expressed, and we have on several occasions recorded the wish, that amongst professing Christians the present denominational lines of cleavage were obliterated, and a new line drawn between those who in their hearts believe in the true divinity of the Lord Jesus and the efficacy of his atoning death and accept the inspiration, sufficiency and authority of the Scriptures, and those who do not.

A. R. Main, A.C., 1924, pp. 145.

      The editor of the "Christian" would by most people be regarded as a "conservative." He is not particularly interested in theological labels, though he has no objection to being known as a very strict believer in the Word of God and as an acceptor of those doctrines of the faith which the Modernist is most fond of denying. He presumes that, of his brethren even, more would regard him as too conservative than would declare him to be too liberal.

[NOF 462-468]