Skip to main content

The Apologetics of James McCosh (1811-1894)

After sixteen years' service as a parish minister at Arbroath and Brechin, he moved from his native Scotland when, in 1851, he was appointed to the Chair of Logic at Queen's University, Belfast. This appointment came as a result of his growing reputation as a natural theologian, achieved as a result of the publication of his book, The Method of Divine Government, Physical and Moral, in 1850. He moved to the U. S. A. in 1868 when he was appointed by Princeton College to the dual position of the Chair of Philosophy and the President of the College. In 1888, he resigned from the Presidency, continuing in the Chair of Philosophy until his death. He was an enthusiastic supporter of the Scottish Common Sense Philosophy - 'the principles of common sense' - propounded by Thomas Reid (1710-96) in opposition to the scepticism of David Hume (1711-86). Though lacking in originality, his vigorous writings on the Scottish Common Sense Philosophy, e.g. Intuitions of the Mind (1860), The Scottish Philosophy (1874), have exerted a significant influence on the theological development of 'old Princeton and Westminster', Different conclusions have been reached concerning the extent to which old Princeton and Westminster theology is built on Scottish Common Sense Philosophy. Vander Stelt - Philosophy and Scripture (1978) - draws a close connection between the two while Calhoun - The Majestic Testimony (1996) - does not. In his defence of theistic evolution, e.g. The Typical Forms and Special Ends of Creation (1855) and The Supernatural in Relation to the Natural (1862), he adopted a view which was extremely uncommon among orthodox evangelicals of his day. Those who share his outlook will regard his work as apologetically significant. He also engaged in the kind of apologetics which argues for the Christian faith by challenging the validity of alternative philosophies. In these controversial writings, e.g. An Examination of Mr. J. S. Mill's Philosophy (1866) and Christianity and Positivism (1871), he often advanced rather superficial criticisms which were based on a failure to achieve an adequate understanding of the views he attacked.
Bibliography
David B. Calhoun, Princeton Seminary: The Majestic Testimony (1869-1929), (Edinburgh, 1996)
J. C. Vander Stelt, Philosophy and Scripture: A Study in Old Princeton and Westminster Theology, (Marlton, New Jersey, 1978)

Popular posts from this blog

Lord, help us to love You ...

Lord, help us to love You – and help us to love one another. How can we say that we love You if we are not learning to love one another? How can we learn to love one another if we are not opening our hearts to the greatest love of all – Your love for us. Fill us with Your love. Change us by Your love. May our whole life shine with the glory of Your love.

God continues to carry forward His great purpose of salvation.

Genesis 16:1-16
We move from salvation and the assurance of salvation to Satan and the activity of Satan. Sarai came with temptation - "Why don't you sleep with my slave? Maybe I can build a family through her." Abram gave in to temptation -"Abram agreed with Sarai (Genesis 16:2). The evil influence of Sarai continued: "Sarai mistreated Hagar so much that she ran away" (Genesis 16:6). When we read of Satan and his activity, we must not imagine, for a moment, that Satan wins the victory over the Lord and His purpose of salvation. This becomes clear as the story develops. The Lord's purpose will not be thwarted by the activity of Satan. The "Almighty Lord" will be victorious. This chapter ends with the birth of Ishmael. It is not a high- point in the purpose of God. It is a sign that Satan is trying to overthrow God and His gracious purpose. This leads to a 13-year gap in God's speaking to Abraham (Genesis 16:16-17:1), but that…

Isaac and Jesus

Genesis 22:1-24
Abraham was prepared to sacrifice Isaac - "You did not refuse to give Me your son, your only son" (Genesis 22:12). God did give His only Son for us - "God did not spare His only Son but handed Him over to death for us all" (Romans 8:32). While there may be comparisons made between the sacrifice of Isaac and the sacrifice of Jesus, we must emphasize the great difference - the sacrifice of Isaac did not happen, the sacrifice of Jesus did. For Isaac, there was a way out. For Jesus, there was no other way. Abraham's faith was proved genuine without the sacrifice of Isaac. Our faith only becomes a reality through the sacrifice of Christ (Galatians 2:20-21; Galatians 3:13-14).