cramping effect upon growth in grace and knowledge, and acknowledgement of the Truth. If the emphasis is

completely devotional, the necessary doctrinal and expository basis of Scripture is set aside.

We do not intend to comment on the liberal and modernistic attitude to God's Word. Such denies its full

inspiration and we cannot associate ourselves with it. Basically, it rests on unbelief and exalts the mind and intellect

of man above the Sacred Scriptures. We are thankful that archaeology has demonstrated again and again the falsity

of so much destructive criticism which comes from this school of thought. Nor will we enlarge on the neo-

orthodoxy of Karl Barth or the movements that have sprung from it. Though externally some of their ideas sound

fair and attractive, basically their attitude to the Scriptures is that of the modernist, that is, its inspiration and

infallibility are denied. Those who believe in verbal inspiration are charged with holding a mechanical theory of

inspiration and the charge of Bibliolatry is made against them. Those who want, above all things, to be counted

faithful by the Lord and loyal to the truth entrusted, can have no part or lot in such ideas, and must ever keep a

vigilant eye to avoid the deception of the evil one which comes before us today in so many attractive guises.

Having seen that we should approach the Scriptures from the literal standpoint, making allowances for figures of

speech, symbols, and types, and avoiding the allegorical system of spiritualising, which is destructive of true

understanding, we should note that this does not mean spiritual application cannot be made. This can be done safely

only when the primary, basic and literal interpretation of the Bible has been settled. There is only one interpretation

of a passage of Scripture, but there may be a number of applications of that passage; these are secondary to the

interpretation and must be kept so. Roman Catholics find their sacramentalism by allegorical interpretation of the

Old Testament and its ritual. Christian Science, Swedenborgianism, Theosophy and other cults can find their basis

in the Bible only by excessive spiritualising and all this leads to hopeless contradiction. Why? Because first

account has not been given to the literal exposition of Scripture. To rest one's theology on a secondary meaning of

the Bible is not interpretation, but imagination, and human opinion, and in such a procedure the real meaning of

God's Word is bound to be lost.  The only certain way of obtaining a correct understanding is to anchor

interpretation to literal exposition in the sense that we have explained the word `literal'.

Another reason for the importance of this method is that it acts as a check upon the imagination of men; in other

words, it is a principle of control, which enables human opinion and error to be avoided. The failure of the

spiritualising or allegorical method of exposition was made evident in the first centuries, when the early Christians

sought to take a stand against antichristian Gnosticism. The Gnostics claimed to have special knowledge and

revelation, and when they touched the N.T. Scriptures they excessively spiritualised them. Unfortunately, the early

Fathers, men of piety, and sincere as they were, did the same with the Old Testament, and therefore had little

effective answer to such heresy, for the Gnostics had as much right to spiritualise the New Testament as the Fathers

did the Old. What was right for one part of Scripture was surely valid for another. The fact is that with both, the

method of approach was wrong.

We mean by this the total ways, manners, tools and institutions by which a people carry on their existence. What

a word or expression literally means can only be understood by knowing the background of the people who used it.

We are not concerned with what a word means today in the twentieth century, but what it meant in century one,

when it was used. Language is always in a state of flux, losing meanings and gaining others, and so we should be

prepared to take the trouble to go into past history and explore the background of Bible times.