Skip to main content

The Apologetics of A B Bruce

Best remembered for his biblical expositons on the life of Jesus with His first disciples, The Training of the Twelve (1871), described by Dr. W. H. Griffith Thomas as 'one of the great Christian classics of the nineteenth century', his contribution to the field of apologetics should not be entirely forgotten. After sixteen years' service as a parish minister, he worked, from 1875 until his death, as Professor of Apologetics and New Testament Exegesis at the Free Church Divinity Hall, Glasgow (Trinity College). His interest in apologetics arose out of an early experience of wrestling with doubt which produced in him a particular sensitivity to the doubts of others. He was deeply affected by D. F. Strauss's Life of Jesus (English translation, 1846), an anti-supernatural approach which portrayed the gospel history as a collection of myths. Responding to Strauss's radically liberal approach, he placed a heavy emphasis on the historical reliability of the New Testament. His concentration on this issue was so great that other matters of apologetic interest were largely overlooked. A liberal evangelical, his work was received with suspicion in more conservative circles, e.g. the hostile reaction within his own communion to his book. The Kingdom of God (1889). Typical of this conservative criticism was B. B. Warfield's contention that he conceded too much to unbelief. Also disconcerting to conservative critics was the favourable reception of his works of New Testament scholarship, e.g. St. Paul's Conception of Christianity (1894) and The Epistle to the Hebrews: The First Apology (1899), among liberal critics from Germany. Conservative fears about his liberal views were increased with the posthumous publication of his article on 'Jesus' in Encyclopaedia Biblica (1901). The fact that his major work on apologetics - Apologetics or Christianity Defensively Stated (1892) - is nowhere near as well known as his work on the training of the twelve suggests that much, if not all, of his work on apologetics is now regarded as being somewhat dated.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"Praise the Lord!" (Psalm 104:1).

We have come here to praise the Lord. Why do we praise the Lord? "Lord my God, You are very great." God is great in power. His power can impress us, but it will not save us until we are touched by a special power - the power of His love. God is great in holiness. His holiness (Isaiah 6:3) shows us our sin (Isaiah 6:5). It's His love that brings us salvation (Isaiah 6:7). When we see the greatness of His love, we can truly say, "Praise the Lord."

A response to a comment by G. R. Osborne on Berkouwer’s understanding of the doctrine of final perseverance

In his contribution to Clark Pinnock (editor), Grace Unlimited (1975), G. R. Osborne states that Berkouwer, in Faith and Perseverance, pp. 9-10, “speaks of the time less ness of the doctrine of final perseverance, founded on ‘the richness and abidingness of salvation” (p. 188, emphasis mine). This single-sentence comment on Berkouwer’s view hardly gives a fair indication of the type of thinking found in Chapter 1 of Berkouwer’s Faith and Perseverance - “Time li ness and Relevance” (pp. 9-14, emphasis mine). Berkouwer insists that “the living preaching of the Scriptures, which offer no metaphysical and theoretical views about … ‘permanency’ as an independent theme in itself, does nothing to encourage ‘a continuity which is … opposed in any way to the living nature of faith” (p. 13). Berkouwer stresses that “The perseverance of the saints is not primarily a theoretical problem but a confession of faith” (p. 14) and that “The perseverance of the saints is unbreakably connected wi...

Berkouwer's Doctrine Of Scripture

Berkouwer insists that when “the concept of error in the sense of incorrectness is … used on the same level as the concept of erring in the sense of sin and deception … we are quite far removed from the serious manner with which erring is dealt in Scripture … (as) a swerving from the truth and upsetting the faith ( 2 Tim. 2:18 )” (Holy Scripture (HS), p. 181, emphasis and brackets mine). Berkouwer rejects “the formalization of inerrancy” (HS, p. 181, emphasis mine), “a mechanical, inflexible ‘inerrancy’” (HS, p. 265, emphasis mine), “a rationally developed infallibility” (HS, p. 32, emphasis mine). He does, however, seek to interpret positively both infallibility and inerrancy: “the Holy Spirit … does not lead us into error but into the pathways of truth … The Spirit, with this special concern, has not failed and will not fail in this mystery of God-breathed Scripture” (HS, pp. 265-266). When we consider Berkouwer’s criticism of “a theoretical concept of inspiration or infallibi...