I read your book review of Paul Elliott's "Christianity and Neo-Liberalism: The Spiritual Crisis in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Beyond" in the latest issue of the Protestant Reformed Theological Journal. I am glad to see how you wrote in your review that J. Gresham Machen refused to condemn some heresies, and thus the heresy of the OPC is his fault in part, which Elliott failed to mention.
Also, it was good to see something that did not venerate Machen like everyone else does -- as if Machen was somehow beyond reproach, or could be judged by a different standard than those less famous and erudite than he. However, having said that, you did not go far enough in your criticisms of Machen. Therefore, I would like to comment on your book review and also tell you about some additional things I found out about J. Gresham Machen, the OPC's spiritual father .
The major quote from Machen that I want to base my comments on is the following:
"The greatest menace to the Christian Church today comes not from the enemies outside, but from the enemies within; it comes from the presence within the Church of a type of faith and practice that is anti-Christian to the core. We are not dealing here with delicate personal questions; we are not presuming to say whether such and such an individual man is a Christian or not. God only can decide such questions; no man can say with assurance whether the attitude of certain individual 'liberals' toward Christ is saving faith or not. But one thing is perfectly plain--whether or no liberals are Christians, it is at any rate perfectly clear that liberalism is not Christianity" (Christianity and Liberalism, pp. 159-160).
==A Review Article
by Herman Hanko
Christianity and Neo-Liberalism: The Spiritual Crisis in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Beyond, by Paul M. Elliott. Unicoi, Tennessee: The Trinity Foundation, 2005. Pp. 479. $19.95 (paper).
Christianity and Neo-Liberalism: The Spiritual Crisis in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Beyond, by Paul M. Elliott. Unicoi, Tennessee: The Trinity Foundation, 2005. Pp. 479. $19.95 (paper).
The author, himself a ruling elder in an Orthodox Presbyterian congregation (OPC), writes with passion and conviction concerning the doctrinal decline in his own denomination. Coming through all he writes is his sorrow that his church, with its rich heritage, is now, unless it repents, a Neo-Liberal congregation. That is indeed a serious charge. The 400+ pages of the book are intended to prove the charge.
The spiritual father of the OPC was J. Gresham Machen, a professor in Princeton Seminary in Princeton, New Jersey, who left the Presbyterian Church in the USA because of liberalism present in the denomination and because of the failure of the denomination to deal with and discipline heretics.==
Machen was stripped of his ordination because of insubordination. He was charged for insubordination because of his refusal to give funds or endorse the giving of funds to the Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions who was supporting such heretics as Pearl Buck. Pearl Buck was a missionary in China who Machen thought was destroying the Church's witness. She said, for example, that if some one existed who could create a person like Christ and portray him for us, "then Christ lived and lives, whether He was once a body and one soul, or whether He is the essence of men's highest dreams."[1]
Sounds like some sort of mystical mush doesn't it? It did seem like Machen did not like mystical mush. For he wrote in his book "Christianity and Liberalism" the following:
"Clear-cut definition of terms in religious matters, bold facing of the logical implications of religious views, is by many persons regarded as an impious proceeding. May it not discourage contribution to mission boards? May it not hinder the progress of consolidation, and produce a poor showing in columns of Church statistics? But with such persons we cannot possibly bring ourselves to agree. Light may seem at times to be an impertinent intruder, but it is always beneficial in the end. The type of religion which rejoices in the pious sound of traditional phrases, regardless of their meanings, or shrinks from 'controversial' matters, will never stand amid the shocks of life". [2]
By reading Machen's quote above, you would think that Machen did not like mystical mush (it seemed like he didn't), but one wonders why he made such a commotion about Pearl Buck destroying the Church's witness when other statements of his clearly imply that NO MATTER how blatantly heretical Pearl Buck's view of Christ was, she may or may not be a true Christian, although her "BuckISM" is certainly not Christianity. So although Machen would have liked to have seen the PCUSA discipline Miss Buck for her heresy, he could not even begin to tell them how to go about such discipline. Machen would not be able to say whether she ought to be disciplined or dealt with as an unbeliever or as a believer.
As you'll see below, and in contradiction to what Machen says in the above quote, Machen himself shrunk from "controversial" matters. He denied clear-cut definition of terms in making unbiblical distinctions between what "Christianity" in general must believe and what a particular "Christian" ought to believe, but not necessarily believes. He also made further unbiblical distinctions by completely separating damnable heresies from the damnable heretics who hold to them. Machen--as he maligns the damnable "liberalISM"--seemingly appears like light which is described as the impertinent intruder. But this "light" of Machen marvellously transforms, and his rotten fruit is shown by not judging a tree according to its fruit but keeping tree and its fruit completely separate from one another.
Machen, in describing liberalISM , frequently used such phrases as "anti-Christian to the core" (Christianity and Liberalism, p. 160) ; and speaking of the liberal attitude towards the Christian doctrine of the cross, Machen wrote:
"Upon the Christian doctrine of the cross, modern liberals are never weary of pouring out the vials of their hatred and scorn" (Christianity and Liberalism, p. 119).
Liberals pour out their vials of hatred and scorn upon the cross of Christ. Are such vile persons who vilify the blood of Christ's cross to be considered false prophets per 1 John 4:1? Saul of Tarsus was of a similar stripe insofar as he breathed out murderous threats and blasphemy towards Christ. Is Saul of Tarsus to be kept separate and distinct from the damnable ISMS he was breathing? The apostle Paul did not think so.
Well, apparently here Machen will be so bold as not only to say that liberalISM is anti-Christian to the core, but also he shows further boldness by singling out the adherents ("modern liberals") of said ISM as scorners and haters of the cross. Thus far, Machen has pointed the finger at liberalism and liberals, BUT will he point the finger at one single modern liberal? With all the noise that Machen makes about this heresy and these heretics, one would think he could point out JUST ONE heretic. But alas, he does not.
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone forth into the world" (1 John 4:1).
Machen tested the spirit of modern liberalism and judged it to be not from God, but he will not judge any particular "prophets" to be not from God, from whence this spirit of liberalism came. And since Machen keeps the false prophets separate from their spirits, he cannot know whether a particular prophet is false and necessarily lost; all he can know is that the supposedly disembodied spirit is false. In judging modern liberalism to be not from God, he spoke of the diametrical opposition between the Christian and the liberal conception of God:
"The Christian gospel consists in an account of how God saved man, and before that gospel can be understood something must be known (1) about God and (2) about man. The doctrine of God and the doctrine of man are the two great presuppositions of the gospel. With regard to these presuppositions, as with regard to the gospel itself, modern liberalism is diametrically opposed to Christianity. It is opposed to Christianity, in the first place, in its conception of God" (Christianity and Liberalism, p. 54).
When speaking of liberals, Machen used many words to describe them that clearly are synonymous with the term "false prophet." But Machen will not judge the false prophets of modern liberalism lost. Apparently some false prophets may or may not be Christians. None but God can tell (as Machen says). Furthermore, just because Machen says that modern liberalism is diametrically opposed to Christianity, it does not mean that he will say (and he does not say) that any modern liberal is diametrically opposed to Christ and therefore lost.
In his book against the liberalism of his day, he had used words and phrases vitriolic enough to cause major offense on the part of the liberals. But if any of the liberals had realized that Machen was just speaking empty words of vanity--that all his billows of bombastic bluster had no backbone--they would have kicked that spineless, barking dog that had no bite (figuratively speaking of course).
In stark contrast to Machen, the Apostle Paul--although some may have called the apostle a dog, they certainly could not have said that he had no bite--did NOT separate the false prophets/preachers/teachers from their respective ISM's, but called down the curse of God on both:
"But even if we, or an angel out of Heaven, should preach a gospel to you beside the gospel we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, and now I say again, If anyone preaches a gospel beside what you received, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8-9).
Machen and all those who like to make distinctions between systems (i.e., "ISM's) and persons (i.e., those who believe the ISM's) must adulterate Galatians 1:8-9 to read thus:
"But even if we, or an angel out of Heaven, should preach a heretical 'ISM', let his 'ISM' be accursed. As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches a gospel 'ISM' beside what you received, let his ISM be accursed. We are not dealing here with delicate personal questions; we are not presuming to say whether such and such an individual man or angel out of heaven, is a Christian or not. God only can decide such questions; no man can say with assurance whether the attitude of certain individual 'false-gospelers' toward Christ is saving faith or not. But one thing is perfectly plain--whether or no 'false-gospelers' are Christians, it is at any rate perfectly clear that the 'false-gospelism' of Galatians 1:8-9 is not Christianity."
== Machen, with a few others, started Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in the late twenties, and the OPC was formed in the early thirties. Elliott is fearful that the OPC is following the same downward slide that was present in the PCUSA and that forced the departure from the denomination of Machen and others. Their motive was to preserve the truth of Scripture and maintain the great heritage of Princeton Seminary and its professors: the Hodges, Archibald Alexander, Samuel Miller, and other great Presbyterian theologians. It appears to Elliott that something of the same history of separation will have to be repeated in the OPC if that great heritage is to be preserved.
For Machen and his followers the climax to apostasy in the PCUSA came with the “Auburn Affirmation.” The “Auburn Affirmation,” signed by almost 2000 ministers and ruling elders, denied fundamental doctrines of the faith of the Westminster Confessions — doctrines such as the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and the propitiatory sacrifice on the cross. When the church in its highest judicatory refused to condemn this statement of belief and to discipline those who had signed it, Machen and his followers were compelled by their conscience to leave the denomination.==
And thus Machen showed himself to be a schismatic, since, although his conscience compelled him to leave the denomination, he did not count any of these 2000 men to be unregenerate agents of Satan (2 Corinthians 11:13-15).
In his work the The Virgin Birth of Christ Machen wrote:
"What then is our conclusion? Is belief in the virgin birth necessary to every man if he is to be a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ? The question is wrongly put when it is put in that way. Who can tell exactly how much knowledge of the facts about Christ is necessary if a man is to have saving faith? None but God can tell. Some knowledge is certainly required, but how much is required we cannot say. 'Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief' said a man in the Gospel who was saved. Though today there are many men of little faith, many who are troubled by the voices that are heard on all sides...What right have we to say that full knowledge and full conviction are necessary before a man can put his trust in the crucified and risen Lord? What right have we to say that no man can be saved before he has come to a full conviction regarding the stupendous miracle narrated in the first chapters of Mathew and Luke?...One thing at least is clear: even if the belief in the virgin birth is not necessary to every Christian, it is necessary to Christianity. And it is necessary to the corporate witness of the Church....Let it never be forgotten that the virgin birth is an integral part of the New Testament witness about Christ, and that that witness is strongest when it is taken as it stands....[3]
Notice in the above quote that Machen clearly implies that one may be counted a true believer in the Lord Jesus in spite of a blatant denial of His virgin birth. Machen, like a bold and brazen-faced harlot, asks what right anyone has to say that full conviction of the virgin birth is necessary before a man can put his trust in the crucified and risen Lord. In other words, Machen has the audacity to say that a true Christian can put his trust in the true Christ even though this so-called "Christian" is trusting in a false christ who was not virgin born. Furthermore, there are not degrees of conviction as Machen would imply; either one believes that Christ was born of a virgin or one does not. It's as simple as that.
Criticizing the liberal preachers of his day, Machen wrote:
"The liberal preacher singles out some one miracle and discusses that as though it were the only point at issue. The miracle which is usually singled out is the Virgin Birth. The liberal preacher insists on the possibility of believing in Christ no matter which view be adopted as to the manner of His entrance into the world. Is not the Person the same no matter how He was born?" (Christianity and Liberalism, p. 108).
Machen shows himself to be of one mind with the liberal preacher since he , too, insists on the possibility of believing in Christ no matter if one has a "full conviction" that Christ was virgin born or not. It is not clear to Machen whether a Christian ought to believe in the Biblical doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ. He only admits that it is clear that Christianity ought to believe it. But why should "Christianity" believe it? If it's not necessarily necessary that all Christians believe it, then why should any have to believe it to be considered a Christian? Machen would have to answer that it's necessary that *at least one person* believe it so that that one person can be the sole "corporate witness of the Church."
Machen agrees with the liberal preacher in the possibility that a person can believe in the true Christ and reject His virgin birth at the same time. The reason that Machen will concede--as his quote from "The Virgin Birth of Christ" showed--to this possibility is that it is not clear to Machen whether belief in the virgin birth is an essential or necessary doctrine for every Christian to believe. It is not clear to Machen whether a Christian has to believe in the virgin birth of Christ before he can put his trust in the crucified and risen Lord. What is clear to Machen however, is that belief in the virgin birth of Christ is necessary to Christianity and the corporate witness of the Church. So what Machen is basically saying is that it's not so much that a given liberal is denying the virgin birth, it's just that the liberal does not have "full knowledge" and "full conviction" of the veracity of God in His testimony concerning His beloved virgin born Son.
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone forth into the world. By this know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. And every spirit which does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not from God; and this is the antichrist which you heard is coming, and now is already in the world. Little children, you are of God and have overcome them, because He in you is greater than he in the world. They are of the world; because of this they speak of the world, and the world hears them" (1 John 4:1-4).
Are those who deny the virgin birth of Christ confessing that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh? Does it really matter how one defines the phrase "in the flesh", as long as they say that Christ entered into this world, "in the flesh"? If Christ is not virgin born, can He still remain the sinless and spotless Lamb of God? What if someone believes that Christ entered into this world in sinful flesh (a necessary implication of denying the virgin birth)? What of it? Or, as the liberal preacher had asked, "Is not the Person the same no matter how He was born?" Or, to speak as Machen would speak:
What then is our conclusion? Is belief that Christ has come into the world in sinless flesh necessary to every man if he is to be a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ? The question is wrongly put when it is put in that way. Who can tell exactly how much knowledge of the facts about Christ is necessary if a man is to have saving faith? None but God can tell. Some knowledge is certainly required (like the knowledge that Christ merely "came in the flesh"), but how much is required we cannot say. Who's to say whether this knowledge necessarily includes the knowledge that the flesh which Christ has come into this world is sinless? "Lord, I believe that you came in the flesh; help thou mine unbelief that you came in the flesh" said a man in the Gospel who was saved. Though today there are many men of little faith, many who are troubled by the voices that are heard on all sides...What right have we to say that full knowledge and full conviction that Christ entered into the world in sinless flesh is necessary before a man can put his trust in the crucified and risen Lord? What right have we to say that no man can be saved before he has come to a full conviction regarding the doctrine that Christ came into the world in sinless flesh?...One thing at least is clear: even if the belief in the sinlessness of Christ is not necessary to every Christian, it is necessary to Christianity. And it is necessary to the corporate witness of the Church.
Further criticizing the liberal preachers, Machen said:
"Shall we accept the Jesus of the New Testament as our Savior, or shall we reject Him with the liberal Church? At this point an objection may be raised. The liberal preacher, it may be said, is often ready to speak of the 'deity' of Christ; he is often ready to say that 'Jesus is God.' The plain man is much impressed. The preacher, he says, believes in the deity of our Lord; obviously then his unorthodoxy must concern only details; and those who object to his presence in the Church are narrow and uncharitable heresy-hunters.
But unfortunately language is valuable only as the expression of thought. The English word 'God' has no particular virtue in itself; it is not more beautiful than other words. Its importance depends altogether upon the meaning which is attached to it. When, therefore, the liberal preacher says that 'Jesus is God,' the significance of the utterance depends altogether upon what is meant by 'God.'
And it has already been observed that when the liberal preacher uses the word 'God,' he means something entirely different from that which the Christian means by the same word. God, at least according to the logical trend of modern liberalism, is not a person separate from the world, but merely the unity that pervades the world. To say, therefore, that Jesus is God means merely that the life of God, which appears in all men, appears with special clearness or richness in Jesus. Such an assertion is diametrically opposed to the Christian belief in the deity of Christ" (Christianity and Liberalism, pp. 109-110).
Machen says that both the liberal preacher and the Christian profess to believe that Jesus is God. But the liberal preacher defines the word "God" entirely different than the Christian. Obviously, this is pantheism dressed in Christian garb. The pantheistic liberals don't want to appear too blatant -- as if their doctrine were even the least bit subtle -- so rather than say they are essentially equal with the Son of God, they will qualify by saying that this "god" appears with special clearness or richness in Jesus.
We know that Machen had all kinds of harsh words for the pantheism contained within modern liberalism, but will he grow a spine and say that these modern pantheizing liberals are lost? We already know.
==The story of the decline of the OPC, says Elliott, is patterned after the apostasy in its parent denomination. Hence Elliott accuses the OPC of Neo-Liberalism, that is, the same liberalism as was evident in the parent church with certain, more modern, characteristics.
Elliott points the finger directly at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) as being the main reason for the apostasy in the OPC. He charges the faculty of the Seminary not only with condoning false doctrine since the mid-seventies, but also with allowing the Seminary to teach an entire generation of ministers the serious errors with which he deals.==
Elliott points the hypocritical finger at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, for although he apparently does not condone the false teaching of the neo-liberals, he tolerates their pernicious errors by making the following diabolical distinctions:
"But on the authority of Scripture, one thing is perfectly plain even now: whether or not some neo-liberals are Christians, neo-liberalism is not Christianity. And those who continue to reject Christianity will be lost" (The Marks of Neo-Liberalism: Part 2, The Trinity Review Oct. '05).
Elliott said he was paraphrasing above regarding the neo-liberals what Machen had said regarding the liberals.
Machen wrote the following about liberals (note the diabolical distinctions Machen makes):
"The greatest menace to the Christian Church today comes not from the enemies outside, but from the enemies within; it comes from the presence within the Church of a type of faith and practice that is anti-Christian to the core. We are not dealing here with delicate personal questions; we are not presuming to say whether such and such an individual man is a Christian or not. God only can decide such questions; no man can say with assurance whether the attitude of certain individual 'liberals' toward Christ is saving faith or not. But one thing is perfectly plain--whether or no liberals are Christians, it is at any rate perfectly clear that liberalism is not Christianity" (Christianity and Liberalism, pp. 159-160).
Now imagine for a moment if you would, if the apostle John spoke in the manner of Elliott and Machen. First, this is how the Apostle does write:
"Who is the liar, except the one denying, saying that Jesus is not the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one denying the Father and the Son. Everyone denying the Son does not have the Father. The one confessing the Son also has the Father" (1 John 2:22-23).
Obviously John is saying that the antichristian one is lost (i.e., they do not have the Father). But if this were Elliott or Machen writing instead of John, they would presumptuously add the following:
"We are not dealing here with delicate personal questions; we are not presuming to say whether such and such an individual antichristian man is a Christian or not. God only can decide such questions; no man can say with assurance whether the attitude of certain individual 'antichristians' toward Christ is saving faith or not. But one thing is perfectly plain--whether or no antichristians are Christians, it is at any rate perfectly clear that antichristianism is not Christianity."
Now unlike Elliott and Machen, the Apostle John does not tip-toe around "delicate personal questions" like an effeminate coward. He says with assurance (and without diabolical distinctions) that the attitude of certain antichristian deniers is an attitude that is indicative of lostness: "Everyone denying the Son does not have the Father."
==The blurb on the back cover reads in part:
Ironically, the principal cause of the decline and fall of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is the false doctrine taught by the faculty of Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, an institution that Machen had founded in 1929 to counter the Modernism of Princeton Seminary. The teaching of Westminster Seminary, uncorrected by its faculty, administration, benefactors, or the churches in which its graduates serve, is the cancer that has infected the whole denomination and spread far beyond it.==
And yet to Elliot and Machen, this antichristian cancer is benign, contrary to what God through the Apostle Paul said:
"But even if we, or an angel out of Heaven, should preach a gospel to you beside the gospel we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, and now I say again, If anyone preaches a gospel beside what you received, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8-9).
Machen, in his pernicious piece and so-called "defense" of The Virgin Birth of Christ,must say -- as if Machen were not saying enough with his promiscuous tolerance of those who deny the virgin birth of Christ -- the following:
"What then is our conclusion? Is belief in the gospel Paul preached necessary to every man if he is to be a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ? The question is wrongly put when it is put in that way. Who can tell exactly how much knowledge of the facts about Christ is necessary if a man is to have saving faith? None but God can tell. Some knowledge is certainly required, but how much is required we cannot say. 'Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief' said a man in the Gospel who was saved. Though today there are many men of little faith, many who are troubled by the voices that are heard on all sides...What right have we to say that full knowledge and full conviction are necessary before a man can put his trust in the crucified and risen Lord? What right have we to say that no man can be saved before he has come to a full convictionof the truth of the gospel that Paul preached to the Galatians? Paul, one thing at least is clear: even if belief in the gospel you preached is not necessary to every Christian, it is necessary to Christianity. And it is necessary to the corporate witness of the Church....Let it never be forgotten that the gospel you preached to the Galatians is an integral part of the New Testament witness about Christ, and that that witness is strongest when it is taken as it stands."
Where does it end? If Machen were consistent, there can be no line! Even the deity of Christ is not immune! Look:
What then is our conclusion? Is belief in the deity of Christ necessary to every man if he is to be a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ? The question is wrongly put when it is put in that way. Who can tell exactly how much knowledge of the facts about Christ is necessary if a man is to have saving faith? None but God can tell. Some knowledge is certainly required, but how much is required we cannot say. 'Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief' said a man in the Gospel who was saved. Though today there are many men of little faith, many who are troubled by the voices that are heard on all sides...What right have we to say that full knowledge and full conviction are necessary before a man can put his trust in the crucified and risen Lord? What right have we to say that no man can be saved before he has come to a full conviction regarding thedeity of Christ?...
One thing at least is clear: even if the belief in the deity of Christ is not necessary to every Christian, it is necessary to Christianity. And it is necessary to the corporate witness of the Church....Let it never be forgotten that the deity of Christ is an integral part of the New Testament witness about Christ, and that that witness is strongest when it is taken as it stands.
And the deity of Christ is in fact not immune! Of course, the doctrine of Christ's deity was already shown to be not immune to the likes of Machen when he articulated the pantheistic view that at least some liberal preachers adhered to (pp. 109-110). And Machen obviously will not judge pantheistic liberals lost.
According to Machen, the liberal conception of the deity of Christ is "the highest thing we know," or the "essence of men's highest dreams" as Pearl Buck had put it. Despite the modern liberal profession of Christ's deity, Machen says that modern liberalism denies the deity of Christ:
"Equally opposed to Christian belief is another meaning that is sometimes attached to the assertion that Jesus is God. The word 'God' is sometimes used to denote simply the supreme object of men's desires, the highest thing that men know. We have given up the notion, it is said, that there is a Maker and Ruler of the universe; such notions belong to 'metaphysics,' and are rejected by the modern man. But the word 'God,' though it can no longer denote the Maker of the universe, is convenient as denoting the object of men's emotions and desires. Of some men, it can be said that their God is mammon--mammon is that for which they labor, and to which their hearts are attached. In a somewhat similar way, the liberal preacher says that Jesus is God. He does not mean at all to say that Jesus is identical in nature with a Maker and Ruler of the universe, of whom an idea could be obtained apart from Jesus. In such a Being he no longer believes. All that he means is that the man Jesus--a man here in the midst of us, and of the same nature as ours--is the highest thing we know. It is obvious that such a way of thinking is far more widely removed from Christian belief than is Unitarianism, at least the earlier forms of Unitarianism. For the early Unitarianism no doubt at least believed in God. The modern liberals, on the other hand, say that Jesus is God not because they think high of Jesus, but because they think desperately low of God....At any rate, the deity of our Lord, in any real sense of the word 'deity,' is of course denied by modern liberalism. According to the modern liberal Church, Jesus differs from the rest of men only in degree and not in kind; He can be divine only if all men are divine. But if the liberal conception of the deity of Christ thus becomes meaningless, what is the Christian conception? What does the Christian man mean when he confesses that 'Jesus is God?'" (Christianity and Liberalism, pp. 110-111, 112).
So, for Machen it DOES NOT END at Christ's deity. For although he will say that modern liberalism denies that Christ is God, he will not say that any of these deity-deniers are necessarily lost. Is it not exceedingly abundantly clear that J. Gresham Machen founder and spiritual father of the OPC was a damnable heretic of the highest order?
There is no need to add to the above with Elliott, as he just repeats the diabolical deeds of his father Machen.
==In support of his contention, Elliott discusses especially three cases that reached the highest governing bodies of the church: the Shepherd Case, the Evolution Case, and the Kinnaird Case. His story of these three cases makes for fascinating but chilling reading. If this happened in the OPC, it can happen in any denomination.==
It can only happen in the whorish synagogues of Satan that are corrupting the earth with their idolatrous blasphemies.
It cannot happen with regard to the true children of God who will never -- and can never -- follow heretical hirelings like Shepherd, Kinnaird, Elliot, and Machen (to name just a few).
"And when he puts forth his own sheep, he goes in front of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice. But they will not follow a stranger, never! But theywill flee from him, because they do not know the voice of the strangers" (John 10:4-5).
==In dealing with the case of Dr. Norman Shepherd, the author follows closely and leans heavily on the work of O. Palmer Robertson’s book, The Current Justification Controversy (Unicoi, TN: Trinity Foundation, 2003). The book was written in 1983, but was not published until 2003. It is a startling exposé of the entire Shepherd case, which began in the late seventies and continued for many years after. The teachings of Norman Shepherd, while he was professor of Systematics in WTS, are summarized by Elliott:
* Justification is by both faith and works.
* Baptism is necessary for salvation, and salvation takes place at baptism.
* Good works are necessary for an individual to maintain his state of justification.
* Justification is not a single judicial act of God at conversion based solely on the imputed righteousness of Christ and received by faith alone, but rather is a process culminating in the evaluation of the individual’s works at the Last Judgment.
* It is possible for a person to lose his justification (128).==
And what does Elliot think of wolf-clothed wolves such as Norman Shepherd? This is what he thinks:
"But on the authority of Scripture, one thing is perfectly plain even now: whether or not some neo-liberals [like Norman Shepherd--CD] are Christians, neo-liberalism is not Christianity. And those [like Norman Shepherd--CD] who continue to reject Christianity will be lost"(The Marks of Neo-Liberalism: Part 2, The Trinity Review Oct. '05).
== Although many objections were brought against these teachings of Shepherd, the OPC was unable to discipline him at any level of the church courts. His supporters were powerful and influential men, both among the faculty of WTS and the church at large. His chief supporters were John Frame, Richard Gaffin, and Cornelius VanTil (130).==
Van Til? No surprise there since he has spoken the following with regard to those who are "happily inconsistent" by denying that salvation is soley by the work of Christ due to their confusion that salvation is at least in part conditioned on the work Christ does within them. So what makes them happily inconsistent in Van Til's villainous eyes? Van Til elaborates:
"If logically carried through, Arminianism is destructive of the very foundation of Christianity. It is not merely on the so called 'five points of Calvinism' that people of the Reformed persuasion are to be distinguished from those who hold to Arminian teaching. The difference goes, in the last analysis, to the foundation of all Christian belief. Happily, however, Arminians are usually inconsistent. They separate the work Christ does within us from the work He has done 'without' us, but they do not separate the facts of Bible history from one another. It does not occur to them to separate the resurrection of Christ from the fact that Adam sinned in paradise. Nor do they separate the Bible itself from the facts of which it speaks. It does not occur to them to think of the Bible otherwise than as the infallible Word of God."
==The story of the political maneuvering that was involved in gaining Shepherd’s exoneration is enough to make anyone concerned for the Headship of Christ in the church to weep.==
I would weep as the Apostle Paul does weep. I would weep for those who are enemies of the cross of Christ, whose glory is in their shame and the shame of Norman Shepherd. Christ said the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church. The gates of hell has certainly prevailed (and that triumphantly) over the OPC. Thus, the OPC is not His Church. And if not His Church, then what is it? A synagogue of Satan of course. But in fact, the OPC was NEVER a true Church in the first place. The OPC was founded by the tolerant heretic, J. Gresham Machen.
Machen also did not believe that all who reject the doctrine of plenary inspiration -- all who believe that the Bible contains many errors -- are necessarily unregenerate:
"It must be admitted that there are many Christians who do not accept the doctrine of plenary inspiration. That doctrine is denied not only by liberal opponents of Christianity, but also by many true Christian men. There are many Christian men in the modern Church who find in the origin of Christianity no mere product of evolution but a real entrance of the creative power of God, who depend for their salvation, not at all upon their own efforts to lead the Christ life, but upon the atoning blood of Christ--there are many men in the modern Church who thus accept the central message of the Bible and yet believe that the message has come to us merely on the authority of trustworthy witnesses unaided in their literary work by any supernatural guidance of the Spirit of God. There are many who believe that the Bible is right at the central point, in its account of the redeeming work of Christ, and yet believe that it contains many errors. Such men are not really liberals, but Christians; because they have accepted as true the message upon which Christianity depends. A great gulf separates them from those who reject the supernatural act of God with which Christianity stands or falls" (Christianity and Liberalism, p. 75).
Some of these liberals whom Machen judges as "true Christian men" blasphemously assert that the Bible is not the Word of God, but the word of "trustworthy witnesses." And thus they accept it not as the word of God, but as the word of men (contra 1 Thessalonians 2:13).
Also, Christianity "stands or falls" on the the doctrine of plenary inspiration, not on any message of Christ's redeeming work contained therein:
"For if you were believing Moses, you would then believe Me; for that one wrote concerning Me.But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My Words?" (John 5:46-47) If the liberals do not believe--and thus call God a liar--that the Bible as a whole is true, then how will they believe that the Bible in its parts are true? They cannot. They have a different standard by which they judge what is true and what is false. They are just like those whom Jesus addresses in John 5:46-47.
==Shepherd was finally forced to resign from the faculty of WTS because of the bad publicity the Seminary was receiving, but his views were never officially condemned. The result was that serious errors were introduced into the churches, for Shepherd’s students filled many OPC pulpits and many pulpits in other denominations.==
Further proof (as if we needed more!) that the OPC is in reality a synagogue of Satan, and who in fact along with WTS were doing the works of their father Machen by condemning the "heresy" but refusing to condemn the heretic.
Elliott reminds us what he learned from his "father" Machen:
"We are not dealing here with delicate personal questions; we are not presuming to say whether such and such a heretic/wolf is a Christian or not. God only can decide such questions; no man can say with assurance whether the attitude of certain individual 'heretics/wolves' toward Christ is saving faith or not. But one thing is perfectly plain--whether or no heretics/wolves are Christians, it is at any rate perfectly clear that heresy/wolfism is not Christianity. And those heretics/wolves who continue to reject Christianity will be lost."
==One element in Elliott’s description of the Shepherd case came as a surprise to me. Elliott claims that Shepherd and his supporters hold to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
In describing the views of Richard Gaffin, who was Shepherd’s most influential defender, Elliott writes:
… Gaffin asserts that baptism, not regeneration apart from works by the power of the Holy Spirit, is the point of transition from death to life (154, 155).
Another case that involved the same heresy was the so-called Kinnaird case. John O. Kinnaird was a ruling elder in an OPC congregation and a man of considerable standing in the denomination. He was charged with heresy by members of his own congregation, a heresy similar to the error of Norman Shepherd. This case also wound its way through the courts of the church. Those who charged Kinnaird with heresy were upheld in their charge by their presbytery, but Richard Gaffin, contrary to church rules, persuaded the presbytery to reconsider, and he succeeded in getting the presbytery to alter its original decision. The case went to the General Assembly, which upheld the final decision of the presbytery. Once again, the OPC was incapable of condemning heretics within the church, and Kinnaird was exonerated.==
But even if Kinnaird wasn't exonerated, so what? Kinnaird's teaching was certainly not more heretically blatant than any Arminian Methodist with whom Machen himself had said that despite sharply opposing views, true evangelical fellowship is possible (Christianity and Liberalism, pp. 51-52).
==In the course of the conflict Shepherd’s original views were somewhat developed and the errors involved in the teaching of justification by faith and works became clearer. These views soon became known as the Federal Vision, and Elliott deals at length with this serious error. By failing to condemn it, the OPC has drifted into what Elliott calls Neo-liberalism.==
Again, to keep beating this dead horse, Elliott describes Neo-liberalism as something that is diametrically opposed to Christianity, something that is completely antithetical in every way. BUT he will not call any particular Neo-liberal lost. If the Apostle Paul was to do what the likes of Elliott and Machen do, he would call down the double-deluge of God on the alleged ark of the 'ISM', with the 'TICS' (hereTICS) safe inside. But obviously, Paul is NOT guilty of such demonic cowardice. For he calls down God's curse on the hereTIC who holds to the damnable ISM (Galatians 1:8-9). Paul makes no distinctions whatsoever between the HERESY and the HERETIC. Elliott and Machen do.
Elliot and Machen would say: "Mr. Neo-liberal/liberal, it's not that you're a HERETIC. It's just that you believe and teach some very HERETICAL things." In stark contrast to this hubris, God through the Apostle Paul says in effect: "Mr. Neo-liberal/liberal, you are HERETICS because you believe and teach HERETICAL things."
==One very striking feature of Elliott’s analysis of both the Shepherd and Kinnaird cases is his failure to point to the fact that Shepherd himself admitted that he was compelled to take the position that he did because of his commitment to a conditional covenant. In other words, the error of justification by faith and works is a necessary consequence of holding to a conditional covenant. The name Federal Vision indicates the relation between justification by faith and works and the covenant, for the word “Federal” refers specifically to “Federal theology” or “Covenant theology.” Why should Elliott have omitted this important aspect of the whole controversy, an aspect of which he was surely aware?==
Good question. I don't know why Elliott omitted that particular aspect. Did you ask him?
==In order to maintain a position that justification is by faith and works, it was necessary to redefine justification. Gaffin, for example, defined justification as a lifelong process and an infusion of righteousness, thus, a work barely distinguishable from sanctification. This view of justification was not new. It was held by the Roman Catholic church for centuries prior to the Reformation and was the view of justification from which Luther had to free himself before he could set forth his doctrine of justification by faith alone.
Kinnaird frequently defined justification as taking place only at the end of time, when all stand before the judgment seat of Christ and are judged for their works. In discussing Kinnaird’s view, Elliott says, In the evidence that the committee had examined, Kinnaird had stated that God’s “not guilty” verdict is based not only on the imputed righteousness of Christ at conversionbut also on His forensic, analytical judgment of the individual’s personal righteousness on the Last Day. This is by definition, justification by faith-plus-works [italics original, 224].… the committee supported Kinnaird’s misinterpretation of Romans 2:13 as saying that personal righteousness through law-keeping is required in order to stand in the Last Judgment (224).==
Yet what would Machen (and Elliot) say about those who hold to Kinnairdism?
"We are not dealing here with delicate personal questions; we are not presuming to say whether such and such an individual Kinnairdite is a Christian or not. God only can decide such questions; no man can say with assurance whether the attitude of certain individual 'Kinnairdites' toward Christ is saving faith or not. But one thing is perfectly plain--whether or no Kinnairdites are Christians, it is at any rate perfectly clear that Kinnairdism is not Christianity."
And of course, Elliott will just mimic Machen.
==There are other causes for the doctrinal decline into neo-Liberalism present in the OPC, according to the author.
One major reason is the replacement of Systematic Theology with Biblical Theology. In his excellent critique of Biblical Theology, the author writes:
… The modern Biblical Theology movement does not take the Bible “as it comes” nor does it adhere faithfully to these five principles [principles just previously listed that are the basis of all biblical interpretation, HH]. As a result, it builds from Scripture an artificial system, actually multiple systems. One of the the principal dangers of the Biblical Theology movement is that it focuses on the study of “theologies” in the plural — a “theology of Moses” — a “theology of David” — of Isaiah — of Matthew — of Paul — of James — and so on. Thus we have, in the writings of Richard Gaffin, N. T. Wright, and the Federal Visionist, studies of the “theology of Paul” in semi-isolation from the rest of Scripture. This is a reflection of religious academia’s embracing the postmodern concept of “truth” as a product of the individual functioning within a “historical community of interpretation.” This leads quite naturally to the false notion that Paul’s “truth” can be different from that of James or Matthew or John, or even Jesus.
A companion danger of the modern Biblical Theology movement is that it relegates the doctrine of the Holy Spirit’s primary and comprehensive authorship of all of Scripture, through His supernatural inspiration of the words themselves, to secondary status. Though proponents of the movement deny it, their handling of Scripture constantly demonstrates that human rather than divine authorship has become their primary focus, and that they primarily view the Biblical writers as functioning within a “historical community of interpretation” (163, 164).
Another consequence of biblical theology has been the assertion that revelation is only event; that is, that God reveals Himself only in the events of sacred history. The interpretation of these events by the biblical writers was the fruit of their own reflection on the events in the light of their times, and we have the same calling today to interpret revelation events in the light of our times (166).
Although the two cases of Shepherd and Kinnaird receive the bulk of attention, Elliott finds a deeper reason for the apostasy in the OPC. That deeper reason is a faulty doctrine of Scripture.==
Yet what did Machen say about those who did not believe in plenary inspiration? (see Christianity and Liberalism, p. 75).
==This faulty doctrine of Scripture came to clear manifestation in connection with the dispute in the OPC over the truth of creation. Some within the OPC were teaching various forms of theistic evolution. Specific cases came before the church’s assemblies. But in every case the church failed to condemn the heresies and those who taught them.
What is of particular interest to us is the fact that a “new” view of Hermeneutics was adopted by the church. It was called a “Hermeneutics of Trust.” This constitutes another kind of Hermeneutics, which can be added to the long list of those views developed by higher critics: Sitz im Leben, Form Criticism, Historical Criticism, Eschatological Hermeneutics — to name but a few. Now we have also Hermeneutics of Trust.
The term first came up in a committee report that was entrusted with the responsibility of advising the church on the creation vs. evolution debate. Concerning this report, the author writes (the emphases are all his):
There was no acknowledgement of the fact that only one interpretation can possibly be right.
Note carefully the principle of Biblical interpretation that this official committee of the OPC has endorsed: Men of the church can all be said to embrace the same “doctrine,” even if they differ radically on the meaning of its words, even if they differ radically on the principles and methods of interpretation used to arrive at the meaning of those words, and even if they arrive at conclusions that are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, no one has the right to say that the position he holds is the truth, to the exclusion of all others. Men holding widely varying views about the meaning of the words of Scripture — as we have seen throughout this book, even diametrically opposing views — can all fit under the same “big tent” as long as they can recite the words of the Confession together.
The OPC Report calls this radical departure from sound principles of interpretation a “hermeneutic of trust” (245).
The result of this “hermeneutic of trust” is that any view of creation is acceptable in the church as faithful to Scripture and the Westminster Confessions.
Now it is obvious that behind such a view of Scripture lies some more fundamental and basic assumptions. I have already mentioned one of them: That is that the revelation of God is in the events of Scripture, but not in the interpretation of those events. The interpretation of those events is conditioned by the man who made them: Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, Malachi, etc. Their interpretation was, in fact, determined in large measure by the time in which they lived, the culture in which they were brought up, the world views current in their day, and the influences that shaped and formed their perspective on all things.
I use the word “perspective” deliberately, because this view of Scripture is called “perspectivalism.” In every age since the Scriptures were penned, many in the church have come to Scripture to study and interpret the “events” recorded in Scripture. But they have come to Scripture with their own perspective, which includes all the elements that conditioned the writers of Scripture to interpret Scripture the way they did. So in every age each interpreter in the church must interpret the events recorded in Scripture from his own “perspective,” determined by his own personality, culture, etc.
In addition to that, each person has a perspective unique to himself. Thus no single individual can possibly have a complete and accurate interpretation of Scripture alone. The truth is gained only through a community of scholars who come with many perspectives and who, as a community, discover truth. However, the truth “discovered” in any given age is only the truth for that time. In future generations, other scholars will have to discover the truth for a new generation. Thus truth is robbed of its objectivity and becomes a relative matter.
An example is found in the very debate over creation and evolution. While the doctrine of creation in six days by the Word of God may have been the “perspective” of the biblical writers, today scholars have to deal with science, which has discovered that the creation is very old. And so the perspective one has as he approaches the “event” of creation is formed by the discoveries of science. And, because not all interpreters of Scripture have a complete understanding of all that is involved, a multitude of perspectives will give truth for our age. Five hundred years from now, that truth, examined from different perspectives, will perhaps have to be altered significantly. ==
Yet what would Machen (and Elliot) say about those who hold to Perspectivism and Evolutionism?
"We are not dealing here with delicate personal questions; we are not presuming to say whether such and such an individual Perspectivist/Evolutionist is a Christian or not. God only can decide such questions; no man can say with assurance whether the attitude of certain individual Perspectivists/Evolutionists toward Christ is saving faith or not. But one thing is perfectly plain--whether or no Perspectivists/Evolutionists are Christians, it is at any rate perfectly clear that Perspectivism/Evolutionism is not Christianity."
==A hermeneutic of trust means, therefore, that within the church all interpreters of Scripture must trust other exegetes. They must trust that each interpreter is genuinely interested in discovering truth, that all have a measure of truth in their own unique perspective — even though one perspective may flatly contradict another, and that through the efforts of all, truth for our time is discovered. In fact, the committee that proposed this approach (though the approach is far older than the OPC, as Elliott points out on pages 245, 246) claims that this new hermeneutic is responsible for the peace that the OPC has enjoyed.
The OPC has experienced doctrinal controversies through its history, and some of them have been serious enough to prompt individuals and churches to leave. But none of them escalated into a confessional crisis. The OPC … has cultivated a community of interpretation that has sustained confessional integrity among its ministerial membership without imposing over-exacting standards of confessional subscription … (247, where Elliott quotes from the report of the committee on evolutionism).
The author quotes the report further where it “credits Westminster Theological Seminary with a vital role in maintaining this artificial unity.”
The most important factor in establishing and maintaining this community of interpretation has been the function of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia as the OPC’s de facto denominational seminary. In training the vast majority of the early ministerial membership of the OPC, Westminster Seminary did not devote excessive attention to the days of creation nor to the Westminster Standards. But what WTS accomplished that averted a creation or confessional crisis was inducting Orthodox Presbyterian ministerial candidates into a culture of interpretation. The effect was to cultivate a hermeneutic of trust within the church, as ministers had confidence in the training of their colleagues, even if they differed in their views. Westminster performed that function ably… (248).
That came from the committee itself. A hermeneutics of trust is a hermeneutics in which Bible interpretation is every man for himself and all have the truth, not matter what they teach.
Elliott lays the blame at the feet of Vern Poythress (formerly professor of Hermeneutics in WTS) and John Frame (formerly professor of Theology in WTS). It is my judgment, although Elliott does not mention this, that Cornelius VanTil must also shoulder part of the blame, if not most of it. His view was a “theology of paradox,” according to which one could hold to contradictory statements (such as “God loves all men and wills to save them” and “God loves only His elect and wills to save them”) and maintain both as truth. Further, VanTil argued, on the basis of knowledge by analogy, that the knowledge that God has in Himself of Himself and His works is essentially different from the knowledge we have of God and His works, because our knowledge is only “analogous” to God’s knowledge. This view of VanTil is the parent that produces the child of a hermeneutic of trust and perspectivalism.
Elliott is correct in his analysis of the sad situation in the OPC. He fails, however, to mention that the controversy over creation vs. evolution is of old standing. Charles Hodge already, while in Princeton, left the door open to a re-interpretation of Genesis 1, and J. Gresham Machen refused to condemn various theories of evolution being taught in the church on the grounds that the matter was not a subject for theology, but only for science. Not only a man, but also a church, reaps what it sows.==
So, Machen will refuse to condemn various theories of evolution being taught in the church on the grounds that the matter was not a subject for theology, but only for "science"; and yet Machen WILL condemn the liberal for giving up the notion that there is a Maker and Ruler of the universe on the grounds that such notions belong to "metaphysics":
"Equally opposed to Christian belief is another meaning that is sometimes attached to the assertion that Jesus is God. The word 'God' is sometimes used to denote simply the supreme object of men's desires, the highest thing that men know. We have given up the notion, it is said, that there is a Maker and Ruler of the universe; such notions belong to 'metaphysics,' and are rejected by the modern man" (Christianity and Liberalism, p. 110).
The notion that there is a Maker and Ruler of the universe belongs to the subject of theology--and not solely to the subject of metaphysics--just as much as the various theories of evolution belong to the subject of theology--and not exclusively to the subject of science. Machen applies a double standard here. If he would condemn the liberal for appealing to "metaphysics", he must also condemn himself for using "science" as an excuse to play the role of an effeminate coward. Not only that, but one wonders why he WILL NOT condemn the liberal for teaching various theories of evolution, but he WILL condemn the liberal for his definition of the word "God." Does Machen think that a true Christian can believe in one of the various theories of evolution and yet still believe in the true God as defined in the Scripture?
==What is so sad about the whole story of the decline of the OPC is that these gross errors were approved by the church, either by official decisions of the highest judicatories, or by the silence of good men. There is no reason to rejoice over the fall of the OPC; there is only cause for weeping. There are many solid and faithful people of God in that denomination. But whatever may be the reason, good men refused to stand up and oppose obvious false doctrine. Now it is too late.==
Too late? Too late for what? You say that the OPC has fallen. Is it therefore a synagogue of Satan? Why should a synagogue of Satan oppose false doctrine? If a synagogue of Satan opposes -- and I mean truly opposes, unlike the "opposition" of Elliott and Machen -- false doctrine then it is divided against itself. Synagogues like the PCUSA (from which Machen schismatically withdrew from) and the OPC, cannot oppose false doctrine. They refuse to call all those who believe the HERESY of universal atonement, as currently lost HERETICS.
And who are these "many solid and faithful people of God" in the OPC? Machen? The founding father of the OPC has been weighed in the balance of God's Word and has been found seriously wanting.
==The interest of Elliott’s book is in large measure the lesson that what happened and is happening in the OPC could happen in any denomination, including our own when good men, either out of cowardice, indifference or ignorance refuse to oppose false doctrine.==
Machen was certainly not one of the "good men." Far from it.
==May God enable us to be faithful and give us courage to defend His truth.==
Is it necessary to every Christian to defend His truth and not the lie of antichrist if he is to be a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ?
Elliott and Machen will not deal with such delicate personal questions.
Notes
1. Ned. B. Stonehouse, J. Gresham Machen: A Biographical Memoir (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1987, originally published in 1954, 17 years after Machen's death), p. 474.
2. J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1992, orig. 1923), p. 1
3. J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1930), pp. 395-396.
Greetings:
I do not have your e-mail address, and so must resort to a "reply" by using your own document.
Thank you for the kind words concerning the review.
I think in your assessment of the review and your appended comments you are forgetting that I was writing a book review, not a critique of Machen's theology. I have read Machen's books and have done considerable reading on the history of the PCUSA and OPC. But these things did not come under my purview.
The view of the "federal vision" people is rooted an [sic] a conditional covenant. A theology of a conditional covenant is devastating to sound federal theology. this Elliott did not mention.
Greetings, Prof Hanko
Dear Professor Hanko,
Thank you for your response. I do realize you were writing a book review and not a comprehensive critique of Machen's theology. However, my comments very much had to do with the book. It was Machen and his heretical theology that formed the OPC and is the reason for its current state. I was just trying to show you the connection. But since you have done considerable reading on the history of the PCUSA and OPC, you must already know that connection.
I agree with you that the view of the "federal vision" people is rooted in a conditional covenant and that this was a major omission on Elliott's part. But do you consider the heresy of a conditional covenant damnable? In other words, do you believe that ALL who hold to a conditional covenant are unregenerate and that a denomination that is founded on the heresy of a conditional covenant is a false denomination? You did not go that far. Do you believe this? Do you believe that the OPC was built on sand?
You also failed to mention the two most important quotes in the entire book -- one from Machen and the corresponding one from Elliot. Machen's was this:
"The greatest menace to the Christian Church today comes not from the enemies outside, but from the enemies within; it comes from the presence within the Church of a type of faith and practice that is anti-Christian to the core. We are not dealing here with delicate personal questions; we are not presuming to say whether such and such an individual man is a Christian or not. God only can decide such questions; no man can say with assurance whether the attitude of certain individual 'liberals' toward Christ is saving faith or not. But one thing is perfectly plain--whether or [not] liberals are Christians, it is at any rate perfectly clear that liberalism is not Christianity."
Elliott's was this:
"But on the authority of Scripture, one thing is perfectly plain even now: whether or not some neo-liberals are Christians, neo-liberalism is not Christianity. And those who continue to reject Christianity will be lost."
These two quotes totally vitiate Elliot's entire thesis. Machen did not believe that all liberals were unregenerate, and Elliott does not believe that all neo-liberals are unregenerate. This was the basis of everything else I wrote. If liberalism and neo-liberalism are not damnable heresies, and if all who hold to them are not unregenerate, then the entire argument falls.
Do you believe that Machen showed himself to be unregenerate when he said that some liberals (who believe in a different view of the way of salvation) could be Christians?
Do you believe that Machen showed himself to be unregenerate when he said that some who deny the virgin birth could be Christians?
Do you believe that Machen showed himself to be unregenerate when he said that some who deny the plenary inspiration of Scripture could be Christians?
Do you believe that Machen showed himself to be unregenerate when he said that some Arminians could be Christians?
Do you believe that Elliott showed himself to be unregenerate when he said that some neo-liberals (those who believe in the "federal vision," which is a different view of the way of salvation) could be Christians?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Chris Duncan
"Dear Mr. Duncan,
I am not now and never have been in the business of judging people’s salvation. That belongs to God who knows the heart as we do not. My calling is not to brand people regenerate or unregenerate, elect or reprobate, converted or unconverted, possessing faith and lacking faith. My calling to try the spirits to see whether they be of God. The Scriptures are in the infallible touchstone by which we must judge.
I agree with Luther when he said that there will be many in heaven who he thought would never be there; and there will be absent from heaven many whom he expected to be there.
Why in the name of all that is holy and right do we have to take over God’s affairs?
Prof"
Dear Professor Hanko,
You wrote:
"Dear Mr. Duncan,
I am not now and never have been in the business of judging people’s salvation. That belongs to God who knows the heart as we do not. My calling is not to brand people regenerate or unregenerate, elect or reprobate, converted or unconverted, possessing faith and lacking faith. My calling to try the spirits to see whether they be of God. The Scriptures are in the infallible touchstone by which we must judge.
I agree with Luther when he said that there will be many in heaven who he thought would never be there; and there will be absent from heaven many whom he expected to be there.
Why in the name of all that is holy and right do we have to take over God’s affairs?"
Do you not know if your son, Ron, is saved? If Professor Engelsma is saved? Do you know for sure if the Pope is unregenerate? If Osama bin Laden was unregenerate when he planned the attack on the World Trade Center based on his devotion to Islam? If Barney Frank (homosexual and homosexual rights advocate) is unregenerate?
Note: I DO brand people like bin Laden as unregenerate just as Paul branded as unregenerate (was Paul "take[ing] over God's affairs?") those for whom he prayed in Romans 10:1. What I do NOT do is brand bin Laden as necessarily reprobate -- he may or may not be. I do not know. What I do know however, is that if Christ died for Osama then God will cause him to believe the gospel before he dies. If Christ died not for Osama, then obviously Osama is a reprobate like unto Pharaoh who has been raised up for the purpose of displaying His power and wrath against sin and unbelief. Surely you know that the Bible makes distinctions between unregeneracy and reprobation. Yet I wonder why you lumped them all together as if there were no differences or distinctions to be made between the two.
In his article "The Sad Case of Bert Zandstra," David Engelsma says this:
"Bert Zandstra is an adulterer, an impenitent adulterer, according to God's Word: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her" (Mark 10:11). So also is his new wife: ..... and whosoever shall marry her (or him) that is divorced committeth adultery" (Matt. 5:32b). No adulterer or adulteress will inherit the kingdom of God (I Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:19-21). The Reformed church that has admitted him and his new wife to the fellowship of the congregation has admitted a man and a woman to the Lord's Table who by their life "declare themselves unbelieving and ungodly," to use the language of Question 82 of the Heidelberg Catechism." [End of quote--CD]
Engelsma has clearly judged Zandstra to be unregenerate. Is Engelsma "in the business of judging people's salvation"? Is he doing what "belongs to God who knows the heart as we do not"? Is he "brand[ing] people ... unregenerate, ... unconverted, ... lacking faith"? Would you tell Engelsma, "Why in the name of all that is holy and right do we have to take over God's affairs?"
You say that your calling is to "try the spirits to see whether they be of God." Do you think it is possible that someone who denies the virgin birth is of God? Or someone who denies the deity of Christ? Or someone who denies the infallibility of Scripture? If none of these aforementioned heretics be "of God" then what, pray tell, are they of? The reason a Christian would "try the spirits to see whether they be of God" is in order to brand certain people as false prophets. And these false prophets who are not of God speak by the spirit of antichrist (see 1 John 4:3). You yourself said that your calling IS to "try the spirits to see whether they be of God." Alright then. Are the liberals of Machen's day -- who denied the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, and the infallibility of Scripture -- of God or are they of antichrist? And if these liberals are of antichrist, then are all who are of antichrist unregenerate?
The Bible speaks of the absolute necessity of branding a particular person as unregenerate or regenerate, believer or unbeliever:
"Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership does righteousness have with lawlessness? And what fellowship does light have with darkness? And what agreement does Christ have with Belial? Or what part does a believer have with an unbeliever? And what agreement does a temple of God have with idols? For you are a temple of the living God, even as God said, I will dwell in them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Because of this, come out from among them and be separated, says the Lord, and do not touch the unclean thing, and I will receive you. And I will be a Father to you, and you will be sons and daughters to Me, says the Lord Almighty" (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).
How can you obey such a command as set forth in the above Scripture if you are not "in the business of judging people's salvation"? How can you possibly "come out from among them" if your calling is not to brand people as unregenerate? You say that your calling is to try the spirits. But how can you possibly try the spirits when you refuse to say whether these spirits are spirits of Christ, or whether they are spirits of Belial? But if you would say that all those who deny the deity of Christ are not of Christ, then would you also say that they are of Belial? And if those who deny the deity of Christ are of Belial, are they necessarily unregenerate?
You said that you agree with Luther's statement. But who is Luther, and who are you to brand people as those whom you think will never be in heaven? Who are these people that you think will "never be there"? By agreeing with Luther you are saying that there are people whom you are presently branding as among the reprobate, but that when you see them in heaven you will realize that back on planet earth you had been a bit presumptuous in so branding.
Now while I am saying that Machen and Elliott are unregenerate (i.e., not of God) based on their antichristian confession that some antichristians could be true Christians, I am not now and never have been saying or implying that Machen or Elliott are among the number of the reprobate. And contrary to yours and Luther's presumptuous judgments, I do not think that Elliott will never be in heaven. I do not presume to say regarding Machen that he will never be in heaven. In other words, unlike you and Luther, I do not presume "to take over God's affairs" by judging a particular person reprobate (of course, you and Luther admit that once you see these "reprobates" in heaven you will find out you were wrong in your judgments while on earth).
Are you not presently employed in the business of judging people's salvation by stating your likemindedness with Luther that there will be many in heaven whom you think will never be there? You say that God knows the heart as we do not. Certainly, as He is omniscient and we are not. But it does not follow from this that we are not to make judgments about the hearts of particular persons. Jesus said that from the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. Jesus talked of judging particular persons to be pigs and dogs. He also said that His people would know by their fruits that particular persons were ravenous wolves. Christ's people are to judge certain people as ravenous wolves. Now, is a ravenous wolf unregenerate? Of course. But is a ravenous wolf necessarily a reprobate? Of course not. Yet by agreeing with Luther you are saying that certain ravenous wolves are expected to be among the reprobate. You said that God knows the heart as we do not. But apparently you and Luther know more than what God has chosen to reveal to His people. You apparently know who the reprobates are--well, at least you thought you knew since some whom you don't expect to be in heaven will actually be there.
You also voiced agreement with Luther in his statement that "there will be absent from heaven many whom he expected to be there." Do you think there is a possibility that Herman Hoeksema would be absent from heaven? Do you think there is a possibility that you will be absent from heaven? You say that you cannot judge hearts, so how can you judge whether or not you are following a false prophet or a true one? How can you judge between a false shepherd and a true shepherd (see John 10:1-5) if you cannot judge hearts? If you cannot judge all sheep-clothed wolves as unregenerate then you must admit that it is possible for you to be deceived, for you will not be able to judge whether you ought to flee or whether you ought to entertain the possibility that this sheep-clothed wolf is just inconsistently espousing doctrines of antichrist.
I do not claim to know more than what God has revealed to me through Scripture, but Scripture gives me so much information (1 John 4:1-3 for instance) about the thoughts and beliefs of unregenerate people that it has rendered speculation unnecessary. From these three verses alone, I already know about their dispositions, their confessed beliefs, and the unregenerate state of their hearts from which these confessed antichristian beliefs flow. God has given me a description of false prophets and their antichristian confession which is a clear indication of their unregenerate state. I know the overflow of their unregenerate hearts by their confession. I do not play God, usurp His authority, or "take over [His] affairs" but I simply repeat and expound on what He has already declared:
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone forth into the world. By this know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. And every spirit which does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not from God; and this is the antichrist which you heard is coming, and now is already in the world" (1 John 4:1-3).
And at the same time, precisely because I do not play God, usurp His authority, or "take over [His] affairs" I dare not keep silent about His revelation. I dare not say that it is not my calling to brand people "regenerate or unregenerate...converted or unconverted...possessing faith [or] lacking faith." I dare not say that it is possible that false prophets could be regenerate. I dare not say that people who confess antichristian doctrines are Christians. I dare not say that it is possible that a true Christian can believe that those who confess antichristian doctrines could be Christians.
Both Machen and Elliott believe that it is possible that a true Christian can confess doctrines of the antichrist. So again I ask you:
Do you believe that Machen showed himself to be unregenerate when he said that some liberals (who believe in a different view of the way of salvation) could be Christians?
Do you believe that Machen showed himself to be unregenerate when he said that some who deny the virgin birth could be Christians?
Do you believe that Machen showed himself to be unregenerate when he said that some who deny the plenary inspiration of Scripture could be Christians?
Do you believe that Machen showed himself to be unregenerate when he said that some Arminians could be Christians?
Do you believe that Elliott showed himself to be unregenerate when he said that some neo-liberals (those who believe in the "federal vision," which is a different view of the way of salvation) could be Christians?
I hope to hear from you again.
Chris Duncan
[Hanko never responded.]
