"Plain" Errors
It portends an evil day for the church of the Lord that there are men claiming to be gospel preachers who would contend for the things set forth in Brother Key's "Plain Speaking." All who study his article carefully will see that, if Roy were right, we should not only fellowship the denominations who have "faith in Jesus Christ," but should forever cease our opposition to the "modernists" described, for example, in brother Clifford's excellent articles. Roy says it is misrepresentation to call the man who says it was Balaam's conscience, not the ass, that spoke to him, a modernist. Such "branding" according to Roy, and other liberals among us, is entirely "unfair," because these men have faith in Christ as God's Son. So let them deny the virgin birth, say Christ told a "pious lie" (literary reference) in ascribing Isaiah to that prophet—Roy says still don't call them "modernists" because my "definitive statement" of modernism doesn't agree with it! There have been others whose "definitive statements" concerning modernism have failed to cover up their own unbelief. Those who frankly espouse modernism and define it so as to include themselves are more to be admired than one who attempts to define it so as to exclude from the definition the whole school of radical negative criticism. Even the denominational "theologians" were fighting this negative criticism as "modernism" for years before Roy was born. Surely his reading should have taught him that much. But no, he says, negative criticism is not modernism, for it does not keep one from believing that Christ is God's Son. Well, after a fashion, maybe not. We will see.
Error No. 1. THAT ONE CAN CONFESS CHRIST AS GOD'S SON AND BECOME A CHRISTIAN WHILE ACTUALLY DISBELIEVING THE VIRGIN BIRTH. To parallel Brunner in his rejection of the virgin birth with the Pentecostians in their alleged "ignorance" of it is simply ridiculous. Brother Key, the virgin birth, was known by Brunner years ago: he still does not believe it. Now find someone like that in the New Testament who was still called a Christian! To say that one can confess that Christ is God's Son while disbelieving the virgin birth is to say that one can confess that he was God's Son while believing that he was not! God's Son, yet an illegitimate child! God's Son, yet wholly natural in birth! May God help Roy away from such blasphemy. The Bible says that Christ was a "child of the Most High" by his birth, but hear brother Key.
Error No. 2. "THE ASSERTION THAT 'CHRIST AS GOD'S SON' AND 'BORN OF A VIRGIN' ARE IDENTICAL IS PURE ASSUMPTION. BASED ON BROTHER HARDEMAN'S INABILITY TO FATHOM THE MYSTERY OF THE INCARNATION APART FROM IT." According to brother Key, the Bible says that Christ was "so born," yet it is "pure assumption" to argue it! The fact that the Bible puts the incarnation and the virgin birth together explains my "inability" to fathom them separately. Why try it? It is not a question of what God could have done, but rather whether one can actually reject what God did, and still be saved. Brother Key says Brunner can, but he says it on his own authority, not on scriptural authority. The real "pure assumption" and purely erroneous one is that one can confess that Christ is God's Son while saying he was an illegitimate child, or that the Bible wholly falsifies concerning his birth. The reason that Brunner is free to take this latter course lies in his acceptance of the "assured results" of the past generation higher criticism. To save Brunner from this is brother Key's next error.
Error No. 3. THAT ONE CAN HAVE SAVING FAITH IN CHRIST WHILE ACCEPTING RADICAL BIBLICAL CRITICISM. Now brother Key admits (1) that Brunner is a radical critic, (2) that Brunner accepts radical Biblical criticism, (3) that he actually said the things quoted from him in the Guardian article, "Are Brunner and Key Modernists?", yet brother Key still thinks Brunner has "faith in Christ as God's Son," and that such faith is definitely "not the acceptance of a series of propositions about Him," but is rather "commitment in trust to Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord." In other words, Brunner, in accepting biblical criticism, (1) denies verbal inspiration, (2) says Jesus lied in ascribing various Old Testament books to their reputed authors, (3) ascribes forgery to the prophets, (4) implies Jesus was an illegitimate child or that the entire New Testament record of his birth is false, (5) implies that the Hebrew religion had evolutionary beginning and development, (6) turns many Old Testament events into myths and fables, (7) attributes ignorance or deliberate falsehood to Christ,—YET IN SPITE OF ALL THIS, IT IS "UNFAIR" TO CALL BRUNNER A MODERNIST! AND BRUNNER, ACCORDING TO BROTHER KEY, STILL HAS PERSONAL FAITH IN CHRIST! Brother, if "words mean what they say," then Brunner's words to the effect that he believes in Christ, when taken with other statements of his, indicate the kind of faith the devils have. (Matt. 8:29) Yes, Brunner admits that Jesus "was that incarnate one," but Brunner is an infidel with respect to the Bible. Deny it who can. Now brother Key, will you affirm that (1) One can have saving faith in Christ while accepting the radical biblical criticisms, or that, (you admit you believe this) (2) Christ dwells in the believer directly, immediately, apart from the word? Remember, this is what our proposition states. I am ready to deny either of the two. Will you deny that (1) the scriptures are verbally inspired, infallible, free from all errors? or (2) One must believe the Bible Record of Christ in order to get to heaven. I will affirm these two, and also, the ones offered previously. For further material concerning the virgin birth see later articles.
Oh yes, concerning the questions I ask one becoming a Christian. I do my very best to see that the one to be baptized is really ready to accept Christ as God's Son, AS THE BIBLE OUTLINES THAT SONSHIP. I wouldn't baptize Brunner knowing what I do of his "faith." Would you, brother Roy? Answer please!
And concerning what gives credence to the virgin birth and to Christ and to "the book," I ask brother Key, why do you believe in Christ? Answer that, then answer, why do you believe the virgin birth? I believe in the Lord because the book convinces me to believe. I believe in the virgin birth for the same reason. Do you, brother Key? Or will you say, I believe in Christ because of a "direct operation?" The Bible still stands as our divine inspired, sourcebook concerning Christ and his kingdom. It causes me to believe, just like the Lord said, "through their word."