Izzy Storm
Curtis Lee Law’s text titled, “The Old and New Theologies: The Bible and Authority” discusses the differences between the old and new theologies that emerged in the 1920s. As a conservative Baptist he despised the new theologians, and began to call those who opposed them; “the fundamentalists”.
“The bible is the record of progressive revelation made by God to man through the religious experience of his people” (152), states Law, by which he means that the old (fundamentalist) view ties current events to those in the New Testament. Everything that happens in the world, including scientific discoveries, are key parts of the final revelation. The collection of spiritual and mental truth is imperative to knowledge, which is the key to redemption. The new theology rejects parts of the New Testament, and emphasizes the importance of mental health (and not spiritual). It undermines scriptural authority by ignoring all truth, which as Law believes, therefore cannot a wholesome Christian make. He continuously discusses the notion of the new theology being pantheistic because it does not recognize the historical validity of Christ. Without this historical knowledge of Jesus, there can be no ties between current events and past ones, which destroy the old theological ideals. Law clearly dissects the different theologies, and shows why he is a staunch believer in the older views.
In my personal opinion, the “new” theology was so worrisome to Law because it did not accept everything as God’s world. It questioned parts of the New Testament that he found to be holy, so it was an immediate attack on his own religious views. His fundamentalist ideals, aka the belief in the whole truth of the scriptures, clashed greatly with the Modernists and their ideologies. The strict fundamentals led to rejection of any newer theories or ideals that could threaten their older ones. Their hatred of new ideals also flowed to new scientific discoveries. These people, overall, were close-minded and terrified of change. Any sort of new idea was a threat to their entire belief system, and instead of adapting to it – they rejected it. Their animosity was filled with intolerance, which does not surprise me. Many people take their religious beliefs to an extreme, and refuse to learn more than they want to. They find something that makes sense and is easy and ignore any thing else that anyone has to say, because they are scared that what they believed might be wrong…or might change with time. If "humility is an organ of knowledge" (153) like Law states, they why does he reject all change and his own ability to accept new and different things.
Curtis Lee Law’s text titled, “The Old and New Theologies: The Bible and Authority” discusses the differences between the old and new theologies that emerged in the 1920s. As a conservative Baptist he despised the new theologians, and began to call those who opposed them; “the fundamentalists”.
“The bible is the record of progressive revelation made by God to man through the religious experience of his people” (152), states Law, by which he means that the old (fundamentalist) view ties current events to those in the New Testament. Everything that happens in the world, including scientific discoveries, are key parts of the final revelation. The collection of spiritual and mental truth is imperative to knowledge, which is the key to redemption. The new theology rejects parts of the New Testament, and emphasizes the importance of mental health (and not spiritual). It undermines scriptural authority by ignoring all truth, which as Law believes, therefore cannot a wholesome Christian make. He continuously discusses the notion of the new theology being pantheistic because it does not recognize the historical validity of Christ. Without this historical knowledge of Jesus, there can be no ties between current events and past ones, which destroy the old theological ideals. Law clearly dissects the different theologies, and shows why he is a staunch believer in the older views.
In my personal opinion, the “new” theology was so worrisome to Law because it did not accept everything as God’s world. It questioned parts of the New Testament that he found to be holy, so it was an immediate attack on his own religious views. His fundamentalist ideals, aka the belief in the whole truth of the scriptures, clashed greatly with the Modernists and their ideologies. The strict fundamentals led to rejection of any newer theories or ideals that could threaten their older ones. Their hatred of new ideals also flowed to new scientific discoveries. These people, overall, were close-minded and terrified of change. Any sort of new idea was a threat to their entire belief system, and instead of adapting to it – they rejected it. Their animosity was filled with intolerance, which does not surprise me. Many people take their religious beliefs to an extreme, and refuse to learn more than they want to. They find something that makes sense and is easy and ignore any thing else that anyone has to say, because they are scared that what they believed might be wrong…or might change with time. If "humility is an organ of knowledge" (153) like Law states, they why does he reject all change and his own ability to accept new and different things.