J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937) founded the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1936.
Machen writes:
"The truth is that the
ecclesiastical currency in our day has been sadly debased; Church membership,
as well as Church office, no longer means what it ought to mean. In view of
such a situation, we ought, I think, to have reality at least; instead of
comforting ourselves with columns of church statistics, we ought to face the
facts; we ought to recall this paper currency and get back to a standard of
gold."
And what is this gold standard, Machen? The
following quote from Machen should give us some idea of
what type of gold makes up this standard that he mentions:
"We have been represented sometimes
as though we were requiring an acceptance of the infallibility of Scripture or
of the confession of faith of our Church from those who desire to become Church
members, whereas in point of fact we have been requiring these things only from
candidates for ordination."
Machen's standard is that they do NOT require an
acceptance of the infallibility of Scripture for those desiring to become
Church members. Whoah. Talk about "seeker sensitive." This is
"seeker sensitivity" with a vengeance! Those popular mega-churches
with their "Madison avenue tactics" and juggling clowns have nothing
on the denomination of Machen (OPC). Can a Christian deny the
infallibility of Scripture, and yet ALSO believe that Christ is the
Incarnate God who came to save His people from their sins? Can a
Christian say that at least some of God's word is fallible, while at
the same time say that he believes that the specific promises with regard
to His people's salvation are infallible? Is this another instance of
"blessed inconsistency"? Thus, Machen's ssstandard is "did God
REALLY say?" (Genesis 3:1) Machen's "gold" is fool's gold. For
he that believes, or accepts into fellowship one who denies the infallibility
of Scripture is a fool. This aforementioned fool's gold is the ecclesiastical
currency of Machen and the OPC, which is one of the many denominations
that make up the Great Whore who defiles the earth with her fornications.
"To that end, it should, I think,
be made much harder than it now is to enter the Church: the confession of faith
that is required should be a credible confession;"
Does a "credible confession" come
with the denial of the infallibility of Scripture? Machen answers a
resounding "Yes."
"and if it becomes evident upon
examination that a candidate has no notion of what he is doing, he should be
advised to enter upon a course of instruction before he becomes a member of the
Church. Such a course of instruction, moreover, should be conducted not by
comparatively untrained laymen, but ordinarily by the ministers; the excellent
institution of the catechetical class should be generally revived. Those
churches, like the Lutheran bodies in
After all, however, such inquires into
the state of the souls of men and women and children who desire to enter into
the Church must be regarded as at the best very rough and altogether
provisional. Certainly requirements for Church membership should be
distinguished in the sharpest possible way from requirements for the ministry.
The confusion of these two things in the ecclesiastical discussions of the past
few years has resulted in great injustice to us who are called conservatives in
the Church."
And yet, to Machen, it is not considered a
great injustice to allow into your fellowship those who call God a liar by
denying the infallibility of Scripture. And if one denies that God's word is
infallible, then one denies that God's promise to save His people from their
sins conditioned on the work of Christ alone, is sure and certain.
"We have been represented sometimes
as though we were requiring an acceptance of the infallibility of Scripture or
of the confession of faith of our Church from those who desire to become Church
members, whereas in point of fact we have been requiring these things only from
candidates for ordination. Surely there is a very important distinction
here. Many persons--to take a secular example--can be admitted to an
educational institution as students who yet are not qualified for a position in
the faculty. Similarly many persons can be admitted to Church membership who
yet ought not to be admitted to the ministry; they are qualified to learn, but
not qualified to teach; they should not be allowed to stand forth as the
accredited teachers with the official endorsement of the Church."
Those ministers like Machen, who say that it's
alright to welcome with open arms into the church those who deny the
infallibility of God's word are fit to teach?? No doubt they are fit to
teach--not the truth, but rather lies about the Word of God. Well, it is not a
great thing that the ministers of Satan transform themselves
as ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.
"This analogy, it is true, does not by any means altogether hold: the
Church is not, we think, merely an education institution, but the visible
representative in the world of the body of Christ; and its members are not
merely seekers after God, but those who have already found;"
The "church" of Machen is a Synagogue of
Satan. For true members of the body of Christ do not think it is okay to
consider as Christians those who call God a liar by denying the
infallibility of Scripture. To Machen, those who deny the infallibility of God's
word are among those who have already "found God." But which
"god" do those find, who are taught to believe that God's
testimony regarding His Son is not infallible?
"they are not merely interested in
Christ, but are united to Christ by the regenerating act of the Spirit of God.
Nevertheless, although the analogy does not fully hold, it does hold far enough
to illustrate what we mean. There is a wide margin of difference between
qualifications for Church membership and qualifications for office--especially
the teaching office that we call the ministry.
Many a man, with feeble, struggling
belief, torn by many doubts, may be admitted into the fellowship of the Church
and of the sacraments; it would be heartless to deprive him of the comfort
which such fellowship affords; to such persons the Church freely extends its
nurture to the end that they may be led into ever fuller knowledge and ever
firmer faith."
How does one "firm up" a non-existent
faith? A Christian is led into an ever fuller knowledge, knowledge which at
the first was "God's word is not infallible"; but now is
"God's word is infallible"? If the persons mentioned are reprobate,
this ever fuller knowledge will never acknowledge the truth, and thus will lead
to an ever firmer unbelief. The tolerant Calvinists are a prime example of
this.
"But to admit such persons to the
ministry would be a crime against Christ's little ones, who look to the
ministry for an assured word as to the way by which they shall be saved."
Are those who deny the infallibility of Scripture
looking for an assured word? Or are they looking for someone who will tell them
what their itching ears want to hear? "Peace, peace" when there is no
peace.
Furthermore, the WCF--which the
"ministers" are supposed to subscribe to in full--says that
assurance is not of the essence of faith. Thus "faith" can have
doubts and uncertainties about Christ being the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Of course, this is qualified by those who say that they do not deny the
objective truth of this, but the subjective truth as it relates to their
persons. To put it another way, they are saying that "they are
not doubting Christ's ability to save (objective), they are only doubting their
save-ability (subjective)." A nice sentiment, huh? A nice sentiment
that reveals its ignorance of the righteousness of God, and is thus seeking to
establish its own righteousness (Romans 10:3).
"It is not, however, even such
persons to whom chiefly we have reference when we advocate today a greater care
in admitting men to the ministry. It is not men who are struggling with doubts
and difficulties about the gospel to whose admission we chiefly object, but men
who are perfectly satisfied with another gospel; it is not men of ill-assured
faith, but men of assured unbelief."
What's the difference between "ill-assured
faith" and "assured unbelief"? Ill-assured faith says:
"I know for certain that Christ will save
His elect; yet I am uncertain whether I am one of these elect whom Christ came
to save." And though ill-assured faith is not as blatant and out in
the open as assured unbelief is; yet ill-assured faith is clearly
unbelief.
"Even with regard to Church
membership, as distinguished from the ministry, there is, as we have seen, a
limit beyond which exclusion must certainly be practiced. Not only a desire to
enter the Church should be required but also some knowledge of what entering
the Church means, not only a confession of faith but a reasonably credible
confession. But the point that we are now making is that such requirements
ought clearly to be recognized as provisional; they do not determine a man's
standing before God, but they only determine, with the best judgment that God
has given to feeble and ignorant men, a man's standing in the visible
Church."
What is a "reasonably credible
confession" to Machen I wonder?
So if a seeker says to Machen, "I believe that
Jesus died for everyone without exception", then Machen--who is only
a feeble and ignorant man--will say that said seeker, by virtue of his confession, has
a good standing in the visible Church. But Machen says that one's
reasonably credible confession, does not determine his standing before
God.
"That is one reason why we must
refuse to answer, in any definite and formal way, the question as to the
minimum doctrinal requirements that are necessary in order that a man may
be a Christian."
Minimum doctrinal requirements? How 'bout just the
gospel? Why does Machen refuse to answer the question about how one is to know
who is a Christian?
"There is, however, also another
reason. The other reason is that the very asking of the question often betokens
an unfortunate attitude with regard to Christian truth. For our part we have
not much sympathy with the present widespread desire of finding some greatest
common denominator which shall unite men of different Christian bodies; for
such a greatest common denominator is often found to be very small
indeed."
Well, think how many "professing
Christians" would be united by the common denominator of an empty profession
of belief in the deity of Christ. You would have Calvinists and
Arminians of varying stripes, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox (Greek,
Russian, etc.).
"Some men seem to devote most of
their energies to the task of seeing just how little of Christian truth they
can get along with."
How 'bout, just the gospel Machen? Of course
though, if one believes the gospel, he will necessarily believe other things as
well.
"We, however, regard it as a
perilous business; we prefer, instead of seeing how little of Christian truth
we can get along with, to see just how much of Christian truth we can obtain.
We ought to search the Scriptures reverently and thoughtfully and pray God that
He may lead us into an ever fuller understanding of the truth that can make us
wise unto salvation. There is no virtue whatever in ignorance, but much virtue
in a knowledge of what God has revealed" (Machen, What is faith?,
pp. 156-160).
The following are quotes from Machen's book,
"Christianity and Liberalism." These quotes should be read in view of
what Machen said directly below regarding "Arminian theology":
"Another difference of opinion is
that between the Calvinistic or Reformed Theology and the Arminianism which
appears in the Methodist church. ... A Calvinist is constrained to regard the
Arminian theology as a serious impoverishment of the Scripture doctrine of
divine grace; and equally serious is the view which the Arminian must hold as
to the doctrine of the Reformed Churches. Yet here again, true evangelical
fellowship is possible between those who hold, with regard to some exceedingly
important matters, sharply opposing views" (Christianity and Liberalism,
pp. 51-52).
"Two lines of criticism, then, are
possible with respect to the liberal attempt at reconciling science and
Christianity. Modern liberalism may be criticized (1) on the ground that it is
un-Christian and (2) on the ground that it is unscientific. We shall concern
ourselves here chiefly with the former line of criticism; we shall be interested
in showing that despite the liberal use of traditional phraseology modern
liberalism not only is a different religion from Christianity but belongs in a
totally different class of religions" ( p. 7).
In the scholarly mind (according to the
flesh) of Machen, "modern liberalism" is un-Christian. And
despite it's liberal use of 'traditional phraseology' it belongs
to a 'totally different class of religions' than Christianity. I
assume this means that Machen will not fellowship with these "modern
liberals"--but of course, Machen will fellowship with those who hold to
"the Arminianism which appears in the Methodist church."
"At the outset, we are met with an
objection. 'Teachings,' it is said, 'are unimportant; the exposition of the teachings
of liberalism and the teachings of Christianity, therefore, can arouse no
interest at the present day; creeds are merely the changing expression of a
unitary Christian experience, and provided only they express that experience
they are all equally good. The teachings of liberalism, therefore, might be as
far removed as possible from the teachings of historic Christianity, and yet
the two might be at bottom the same.'
Such is the way in which expression is often given to the modern
hostility to 'doctrine.' But is it really doctrine as such that is objected to,
and not rather one particular doctrine in the interests of another?
Undoubtedly, in many forms of liberalism it is the latter alternative which
fits the case. There are doctrines of modern liberalism, just as tenaciously
and intolerantly upheld as any doctrines that find a place in the historic
creeds. Such for example are the liberal doctrines of the universal fatherhood
of God and the universal brotherhood of man. These doctrines are, as we shall
see, contrary to the doctrines of the Christian religion. But doctrines they
are all the same, and as such they require intellectual defense. In seeming to
object to all theology, the liberal preacher is often merely objecting to one
system of theology in the interests of another. And the desired immunity from
theological controversy has not yet been attained" (pp. 18-19).
Interesting
how similar these "modern liberals" are to the modern Arminians, and
especially to the tolerant Calvinists who would argue like a
"liberal" (and the liberal like a "tolerant Calvinist") in
order to defend their speaking peace to themselves while believing false
doctrine. The TC's like to object with their common, "What? You mean
Christians have to understand everything perfectly from day one?"
"So what you're saying is grace plus doctrine." "Your
adding to the simple message of the gospel." "I thought I only
had to believe in Jesus. You're telling me that I have to believe in Jesus plus
'limited atonement'". Of course, it sure looks like these
TC's understand perfectly well their doctrine that an amorphous
christ is the way, truth, and life; and that knowledge of this amorphous christ
is given as an immediate and inevitable fruit of regeneration (1 John 5:20).
They apparently understand perfectly that the amorphous christ is the
"True One" per 1 John 5:20.
We
tell these TC's that they believed as Arminians, and still do believe as
tolerant Calvinists, in a different Jesus than the ones the Apostles preached:
"For if, indeed, the one coming proclaims another
Jesus, whom we have not proclaimed..." (2 Corinthians 11:4).
The
Arminians and the tolerant Calvinists--and obviously those who would count all
Arminians without exception to be lost and yet held to some form or other of
auto-soterical (i.e., self-salvation) conditionalism--are proclaiming
"another Jesus" whom the Apostles have not proclaimed. And since they
desire to start with a faulty foundation of sand, they reject the mighty
Cornerstone which God hath laid in
The
typical TC's (i.e., tolerant Calvinists) are not in reality, hostile
towards "correct" or "perfect" doctrine or theology as
such. This is not per se their objection. Rather, their objections and
hostilities are directed toward the True Christ. They are simply objecting to
one particular doctrine in the interest of another. They are objecting to the
Biblical doctrine of the Person and Work of Christ in the diabolical interests
of upholding their own doctrine of the person and work of a false christ.
And surely, to hold up the doctrine of a false christ is to hold up the LIE of
salvation conditioned on the sinner (i.e., antichrist, 666, etc.).
Many TC's will
defend their false gospel just as tenaciously, and just as
intolerantly as we do the true Gospel. They also will judged saved and lost,
who is a Christian and who is not just as tenaciously as us--but of course, by
an altogether different standard of judgment.
I'll
end with Machen's last quote which you can think about how it applies to ALL
the various objections that false religionists (specifically the tolerant
Calvinists) put forth:
"In seeming to object to all theology, the liberal preacher is
often merely objecting to one system of theology in the interests of another.
And the desired immunity from theological controversy has not yet been
attained."
Here is Machen confessing that those who malign the
blood of Christ are nevertheless his spiritual brothers:
"Another difference of opinion is
that between the Calvinistic or Reformed Theology and the Arminianism which
appears in the Methodist church. ... A Calvinist is constrained to regard the
Arminian theology as a serious impoverishment of the Scripture doctrine of
divine grace; and equally serious is the view which the Arminian must hold as
to the doctrine of the Reformed Churches. Yet here again, true evangelical
fellowship is possible between those who hold, with regard to some exceedingly
important matters, sharply opposing views" (Christianity and Liberalism,
pp. 51-52).
Machen is calling the children of the devil his
brothers with whom "true evangelical fellowship is possible". But
Machen is not very consistent. How so? Well, Machen is guilty of a
satanic schism since he will be separate from those who in his own
satanic estimate, are his brethren with whom "true evangelical
fellowship is possible." A little inconsistent don't you think?
In the aforecited quote from "Christianity and
Liberalism", Machen exposes himself as one who endorses the committing of
spiritual whoredom with those who despise the propitiating blood of
Christ. God says to separate and come out from among these sons and
daughters of Belial. Machen showed at that time that God was not his Father
since he not only refused to come out from among them, but committed spiritual
fornication with them by having "true evangelical fellowship."
Another instance of J. Machen's
promiscuity is when he said of Billy Sunday that:
"His methods are as different as
could possibly be imagined from ours, but we support him to a man simply
because, in an age of general defection, he is preaching the gospel."
(from Calhoun's
Sunday preached the gospel? Okay, whatever you say
J.
"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
For the sons and daughters of God, who are also the temple of the living
God, there is *no agreement* between the
To reiterate, J. Gresham Machen (the founding father of the OPC)
counts as his brethren those who vilify the blood of Christ, treating it as
something of no value. Machen endorses and encourages the committing
of spiritual whoredom with the sons and daughters of Belial located
within the Methodist/Wesleyan/Arminian Synagogues. But Machen is
also committing schism by separating from his brothers
in Satan, with whom "evangelical fellowship" was deemed
"possible."
In his book Essential Christianity, Dr.
Walter Martin commenting on the doctrine of the Virgin Birth says that "...it is a definite sin to disbelieve or question this teaching,
because it is so closely related to the Incarnation of our Lord Himself. On
this issue Dr. J.G. Machen wisely sums up our thinking" (Walter Martin, Essential Christianity,
p. 51).
"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....1
1. J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of
Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1930), pp. 395-396.
Recall the N.T. Wright (aka Tom
Wright) quote that was posted by James White on his blog? I know Wright is
an Anglican but despite that, he is following his diabolical father J. Gresham
Machen in the things he said regarding his friend who denied the historical
fact of the Resurrection. Wright has written a large book defending his view of
the resurrection. Machen likewise does the same regarding the doctrine of the
Virgin Birth. They both make diabolical distinctions between what is necessary
(or not) for a Christian to believe as a part, and what is necessary for
Christianity to affirm as a whole.
Dr. Martin approvingly quotes Machen from his work The Virgin Birth, which is nearly the
same as the quote from Machen's Christianity and Liberalism where he
said the following:
"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, p. 160).
Quotes from Machen's Christianity and Liberalism.
The following quotes
were taken from Chapter 1: "Introduction."
"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" (p. 1).
"In the sphere of religion,
in particular, the present time is a time of conflict; the great redemptive religion
which has always been known as Christianity is battling against a totally
diverse type of religious belief, which is only the more destructive of the
Christian faith because it makes use of traditional Christian terminology. This
modern non redemptive religion is called "modernism" or
"liberalism" (p. 2).
"...it may appear that what
the liberal theologian has retained after abandoning to the enemy one Christian
doctrine after another is not Christianity at all, but a religion which is so
entirely different from Christianity as to belong in a distinct category"
(pp. 6-7).
"Modern liberalism may be
criticized (1) on the ground that it is un-Christian and (2) on the ground that
it is unscientific. We shall concern ourselves here chiefly with the former
line of criticism; we shall be interested in showing that despite the liberal
use of traditional phraseology modern liberalism not only is a different
religion from Christianity but belongs in a totally different class of
religions" (p. 7).
"In the midst of all the
material achievements of modern life, one may well ask the question whether in
gaining the whole world we have not lost our own soul. Are we forever condemned
to live the sordid life of utilitarianism? Or is there some lost secret which if
rediscovered will restore to mankind something of the glories of the past?
Such a secret the writer of this little book would discover in the
Christian religion. But the Christian religion which is meant is certainly not
the religion of the modern liberal Church, but a message of divine grace,
almost forgotten now, as it was in the middle ages, but destined to burst forth
once more in God's good time, in a new Reformation, and bring light and freedom
to mankind. What that message is can be made clear, as is the case with all
definition, only by way of exclusion, by way of contrast. In setting forth the
current liberalism, now almost dominant in the Church, over against
Christianity, we are animated, therefore, by no merely negative or polemic
purpose; on the contrary, by showing what Christianity is not we hope to be
able to show what Christianity is, in order that men may be led to turn from
the weak and beggarly elements and have recourse again to the grace of
God" (pp. 15-16).
The following quotes
were taken from Chapter 2: "Doctrine."
"At the outset, we are met
with an objection. 'Teachings," it is said, 'are unimportant; the
exposition of the teachings of liberalism and the teachings of Christianity,
therefore, can arouse no interest at the present day; creeds are merely the
changing expression of a unitary Christian experience, and provided only they
express that experience they are all equally good. The teachings of liberalism,
therefore, might be as far removed as possible from the teachings of historic
Christianity, and yet the two might be at bottom the same.'
Such is the way in which expression is often given to the modern
hostility to 'doctrine.' But is it really doctrine as such that is objected to,
and not rather one particular doctrine in the interests of another?
Undoubtedly, in many forms of liberalism it is the latter alternative which
fits the case. There are doctrines of modern liberalism, just as tenaciously
and intolerantly upheld as any doctrines that find a place in the historic creeds.
Such for example are the liberal doctrines of the universal fatherhood of God
and the universal brotherhood of man. These doctrines are, as we shall see,
contrary to the doctrines of the Christian religion. But doctrines they are all
the same, and as such they require intellectual defense. In seeming to object
to all theology, the liberal preacher is often merely objecting to one system
of theology in the interests of another. And the desired immunity from
theological controversy has not yet been attained" pp. 18-19).
"Paul certainly was not
indifferent to doctrine; on the contrary, doctrine was the very basis of his
life. His devotion to doctrine did not, it is true, make him incapable of a
magnificent tolerance. One notable example of such tolerance is to be found
during his imprisonment at
But the tolerance of Paul was not indiscriminate. He displayed no
tolerance, for example, in
"But what was the difference between the teaching of Paul and
the teaching of the Judaizers? What was it that gave rise to the stupendous polemic
of the Epistle to the Galatians? To the modern Church the difference would have
seemed to be a mere theological subtlety. About many things the Judaizers were
in perfect agreement with Paul. The Judaizers believed that Jesus was the
Messiah; there is not a shadow of evidence that they objected to Paul's lofty
view of the person of Christ. Without the slightest doubt, they believed that
Jesus had really risen from the dead. They believed, moreover, that faith in
Christ was necessary to salvation. But the trouble was, they believed that
something else was also necessary; they believed that what Christ had done
needed to be pieced out by the believer's own effort to keep the Law. From the
modern point of view the difference would have seemed to be very slight. ...The
difference would seem to modern "practical" Christians to be a highly
subtle and intangible matter, hardly worthy of consideration at all in view of
the large measure of agreement in the practical realm. What a splendid cleaning
up of the Gentile cities it would have been if the Judaizers had succeeded in
extending to those cities the observance of the Mosaic law, even including the
unfortunate ceremonial observances! Surely Paul ought to have made common cause
with teachers who were so nearly in agreement with him; surely he ought to have
applied to them the great principle of Christian unity.
As a matter of fact, however, Paul did nothing of the kind; and
only because he (and others) did nothing of the kind does the Christian Church
exist today. Paul saw very clearly that the differences between the Judaizers
and himself was the differences between two entirely distinct types of
religion; it was the differences between a religion of merit and a religion of
grace. If Christ provides only a part of our salvation, leaving us to provide
the rest, then we are still hopeless under the load of sin" (pp. 23-24).
"May we not--the modern liberal will say-- may we not now
return to that simple trust of the disciples? May we not cease to ask how Jesus
saves; may we not simply leave the way to Him? What need is there, then, of
defining 'effectual calling,' what need of enumerating 'justification, adoption
and sanctification and the several benefits which in this life do either
accompany or flow from them'? What need even of rehearsing the steps in the
saving work of Christ as they were rehearsed by the Jerusalem Church; what need
of saying that 'Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he
was buried, that he has been raised on the third day according to the
Scriptures'? Should not our trust be in a Person rather than in a message; in
Jesus, rather than in what Jesus did; in Jesus' character rather than in Jesus'
death?" (p. 39).
"And in the New Testament we find guidance full and
free--guidance so complete as to remove all doubt, yet so simple that a child
can understand. Contact with Jesus according to the New Testament is
established by what Jesus does, not for others, but for us. The account of what
Jesus did for others is indeed necessary. By reading how He went about doing
good, how He healed the sick and raised the dead and forgave sins, we learn
that He is a Person who is worthy of trust. But such knowledge is to the
Christian man not an end in itself, but a means to an end. It is not enough to
know that Jesus is a Person worthy of trust; it is also necessary to know that
He is willing to have us trust Him. It is not enough that He saved others; we
need to know also that He has saved us.
That knowledge is given in the story of the Cross. For us Jesus
does not merely place His fingers in the ears and say, 'Be opened''; for us He
does not merely say 'Arise and walk.' For us He has done a greater thing--for
us He died. Our dreadful guilt, the condemnation of God's law--it was wiped out
by an act of grace. That is the message which brings Jesus near to us, and
makes Him not merely the Savior of the men of Galilee long ago, but the Savior
of you and me" (pp. 43-44).
"In rejecting doctrine, the liberal preacher is rejecting the
simple words of Paul 'Who loved me and gave Himself for me,' just as much as
the homoousion of the Nicene Creed" (p. 46).
"In the second place, we do not mean, in insisting upon the
doctrinal basis of Christianity, that all points of doctrine are equally
important. It is perfectly possible for Christian fellowship to be maintained
despite differences of opinion" (p. 48).
"Another difference of opinion which can subsist in the midst
of Christian fellowship is the difference of opinion about the mode of efficacy
of the sacraments. That difference is indeed serious, and to deny its
seriousness is a far greater error than to take the wrong side in the
controversy itself. It is often said that the divided condition of Christendom
is an evil, and so it is. But the evil consists in the existence of the errors
which cause the divisions and not at all in the recognition of those errors
when once they exist" (p. 50).
"Another difference of opinion is that between the Calvinistic
or Reformed theology and the Arminianism which appears in the
Far more serious still is the division between the Church of Rome
and evangelical Protestantism in all its forms. Yet how great is the common
heritage which unites the Roman Catholic Church, with its maintenance of the
authority of Holy Scripture and with its acceptance of the great early creeds,
to devout Protestants today! We would not indeed obscure the difference which
divides us from
That does not mean that conservatives and liberals must live in
personal animosity. It does not involve any lack of sympathy on our part for
those who have felt obliged by the current of the times to relinquish their
confidence in the strange message of the Cross. Many ties--ties of blood, of
citizenship, of ethical aims, of humanitarian endeavor--unite us to those who
have abandoned the gospel. We trust that those ties may never be weakened, and
that ultimately they may serve some purpose in the propagation of the Christian
faith. But Christian service consists primarily in the propagation of a
message, and specifically Christian fellowship exists only between those to
whom the message has become the very basis of all life" (pp. 51-52).
"Christianity is based, then, upon an account of something
that happened, and the Christian worker is primarily a witness. But if so, it
is rather important that the Christian worker should tell the truth. When a man
takes his seat upon the witness stand, it makes little difference what the cut
of his coat is, or whether his sentences are nicely turned. The important thing
is that he tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If we
are to be truly Christians, then, it does make a vast difference what our
teachings are, and it is by no means aside from the point to set forth the
teachings of Christianity in contrast with the teachings of the chief modern
rival of Christianity.
The chief modern rival of Christianity is 'liberalism.' An
examination of the teachings of liberalism in comparison with those of
Christianity will show that at every point the two movements are in direct
opposition. That examination will now be undertaken, though merely in a summary
and cursory way" (p. 53).
The following quotes were taken from Chapter 3: "God and
"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. But at this point we are met with a particularly insistent
form of that objection to doctrinal matters which has already been considered.
It is unnecessary, we are told, to have a "conception" of God;
theology, or the knowledge of God, it is said, is the death of religion; we
should not seek to know God, but should merely feel His presence.
With regard to this objection, it ought to be observed that if
religion consists merely in feeling the presence of God, it is devoid of any
moral quality whatever. Pure feeling, if there be such a thing, is non-moral.
What makes affection for a human friend, for example, such an ennobling thing
is the knowledge which we possess of the character of our friend. Human
affection, apparently so simple, is really just bristling with dogma. It
depends upon a host of observations treasured up in the mind with regard to the
character of our friends. But if human affection is thus really dependent upon
knowledge, why should it be otherwise with that supreme personal relationship
which is at the basis of religion? Why should we be indignant about slanders
directed against a human friend, while at the same time we are patient about
the basest slanders directed against our God? Certainly it does make the
greatest possible difference what we think about God; the knowledge of God is
the very basis of religion" (pp. 54-55).
"Thus the Gospel story of the Incarnation, according to modern
liberalism, is sometimes thought of as a symbol of the general truth that man
at his best is one with God.
It is strange how such a representation can be regarded as anything
new, for as a matter of fact, pantheism is a very ancient phenomenon. It has
always been with us, to blight the religious life of man. And modern liberalism,
even when it is not consistently pantheistic, is at any rate pantheizing. It
tends everywhere to break down the separateness between God and the world, and
the sharp personal distinction between God and man. Even the sin of man on this
view ought logically to be regarded as part of the life of God. Very different
is the living and holy God of the Bible and of Christian faith.
Christianity differs from liberalism, then, in the first place, in
its conception of God. But it also differs in its conception of man" (p.
63).
"Modern liberalism has lost all sense of the gulf that
separates the creature from the Creator; its doctrine of man follows naturally
from its doctrine of God. But it is not only the creature limitations of
mankind which are denied. Even more important is another difference. According
to the Bible, man is a sinner under the just condemnation of God; according to
modern liberalism, there is really no such thing as sin. At the very root of
the modern liberal movement is the loss of the consciousness of sin" (p.
64).
The following quotes were taken from Chapter 4: "The
Bible."
"Modern liberalism, it has been observed so far, has lost
sight of the two great presuppositions of the Christian message--the living
God, and the fact of sin. The liberal doctrine of God and the liberal doctrine
of man are both diametrically opposite to the Christian view. But the
divergence concerns not only the presuppositions of the message, but also the
message itself" (p. 69).
"This doctrine of "plenary inspiration" has been
made the subject of persistent misrepresentation. Its opponents speak of it as
though it involved a mechanical theory of the activity of the Holy Spirit. The
Spirit, it is said, is represented in this doctrine as dictating the Bible to
writers who were really little more than stenographers. But of course all such
caricatures are without basis in fact, and it is rather surprising that
intelligent men should be so blinded by prejudice about this matter as not even
to examine for themselves the perfectly accessible treatises in which the
doctrine of plenary inspiration is set forth. It is usually considered good
practice to examine a thing for one's self before echoing the vulgar ridicule
of it. But in connection with the Bible, such scholarly restraints are somehow
regarded as out of place. It is so much easier to content one's self with a few
opprobrious adjectives such as "mechanical," or the like. Why engage
in serious criticism when the people prefer ridicule? Why attack a real opponent
when it is easier to knock down a man of straw?" (p. 73)
"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" (p. 75).
The following quotes were taken
from Chapter 5: "Christ."
"Three points of difference
between liberalism and Christianity have been noticed so far. The two religions
are different with regard to the presuppositions of the Christian message, the
view of God and the view of man; and they are also different with regard to
their estimate of the Book in which the message is contained. It is not
surprising, then, that they differ fundamentally with regard to the message
itself. But before the message is considered, we must consider the Person upon
whom the message is based. The Person is Jesus. And in their attitude toward
Jesus, liberalism and Christianity are sharply opposed" (p. 80).
"The modern liberal
preacher reverences Jesus; he has the name of Jesus forever on his lips; he speaks
of Jesus as the supreme revelation of God; he enters, or tries to enter, into
the religious life of Jesus. But he does not stand in a religious relation to
Jesus. Jesus for him is an example for faith, not the object of faith. The
modern liberal tries to have faith in God like the faith which he supposes
Jesus had in God; but he does not have faith in Jesus" (p. 85).
"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? The impression is thus
produced upon the plain man that the preacher is accepting the main outlines of
the New Testament account of Jesus, but merely has difficulties with this
particular element in the account. But such an impression is radically false.
It is true that some men have denied the Virgin Birth and yet have accepted the
New Testament account of Jesus as a supernatural Person. But such men are
exceedingly few and far between" (p. 108).
"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" (pp. 109-110).
"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" (pp.
110-111).
"In another way also,
liberalism within the "evangelical" churches is inferior to
Unitarianism. It is inferior to Unitarianism in the matter of honesty. In order
to maintain themselves in the evangelical churches and quiet the fears of their
conservative associates, the liberals resort constantly to a double use of
language. A young man, for example, has received disquieting reports of the
unorthodoxy of a prominent preacher. Interrogating the preacher as to his
belief, he receives a reassuring reply. "You may tell everyone," says
the liberal preacher in effect, "that I believe that Jesus is God."
The inquirer goes away much impressed.
It may well be doubted, however, whether the assertion, "I
believe that Jesus is God," or the like, on the lips of liberal preachers,
is strictly truthful. The liberal preacher attaches indeed a real meaning to
the words, and that meaning is very dear to his heart. He really does believe
that "Jesus is God." But the trouble is that he attaches to the words
a different meaning from that which is attached to them by the simple-minded
person to whom he is speaking. He offends, therefore, against the fundamental
principle of truthfulness in language. According to that fundamental principle,
language is truthful, not when the meaning attached to the words by the
speaker, but when the meaning intended to be produced in the mind of the
particular person addressed, is in accordance with the facts. Thus the
truthfulness of the assertion, "I believe that Jesus is God," depends
upon the audience that is addressed. If the audience is composed of
theologically trained persons, who will attach the same meaning to the word
"God" as that which the speaker attaches to it, then the language is
truthful. But if the audience is composed of old-fashioned Christians, who have
never attached anything but the old meaning to the word "God" (the
meaning which appears in the first verse of Genesis), then the language is
untruthful" (pp. 111-112).
"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"?" (pp. 112)
"The entire Christian attitude toward Jesus as it is found
throughout the New Testament presupposes clearly, then, the deity of our
Lord" (p. 113).
"According to the New
Testament the divine and human natures were clearly distinct; the divine nature
was pure divinity, and the human nature was pure humanity; Jesus was God and
man in two distinct natures. The Nestorians, on the other hand, so
emphasized the distinctness of divine and human in Jesus as to suppose that
there were in Jesus two separate persons. But such a Gnosticizing view is
plainly contrary to the record; the New Testament plainly teaches the unity of
the Person of our Lord.
By elimination of these errors the Church arrived at the New
Testament doctrine of two natures in one Person; the Jesus of the New Testament
is "God and man, in two distinct natures, and one Person forever."
That doctrine is sometimes regarded as speculative. But nothing could be
further from the fact. Whether the doctrine of the two natures is true or
false, it was certainly produced not by speculation, but by an attempt to
summarize, succinctly and exactly, the Scriptural teaching.
This doctrine is of course rejected by modern liberalism. And it is
rejected in a very simple way--by the elimination of the whole higher nature of
our Lord. But such radicalism is not a bit more successful than the heresies of
the past" (p. 115).
"The Jesus of the New
Testament has at least one advantage over the Jesus of modern
reconstruction--He is real. He is not a manufactured figure suitable as a point
of support for ethical maxims, but a genuine Person whom a man can love. Men
have loved Him through all the Christian centuries. And the strange thing is
that despite all the efforts to remove Him from the pages of history, there are
those who love Him still" (p. 116).
The following quotes
were taken from Chapter 6: "Salvation."
"It has been observed thus far that liberalism differs from
Christianity with regard to the presuppositions of the gospel (the view of God
and the view of man), with regard to the Book in which the gospel is contained,
and with regard to the Person whose work the gospel sets forth. It is not
surprising then that it differs from Christianity in its account of the gospel
itself; it is not surprising that it presents an entirely different account of
the way of salvation. Liberalism finds salvation (so far as it is willing to
speak at all of "salvation") in man; Christianity finds it in an act
of God" (p. 117).
"...He took upon Himself
the dreadful guilt of our sins and bore it instead of us on the cross. Such is
the Christian conception of the Cross of Christ. It is ridiculed as being a
"subtle theory of the atonement." In reality, it is the plain
teaching of the word of God; we know absolutely nothing about an atonement that
is not a vicarious atonement, for that is the only atonement of which the New
Testament speaks. And this Bible doctrine is not intricate or subtle. On the
contrary, though it involves mysteries, it is itself so simple that a child can
understand it. "We deserved eternal death, but the Lord Jesus, because He
loved us, died instead of us on the cross"--surely there is nothing so
very intricate about that. It is not the Bible doctrine of the atonement which
is difficult to understand--what are really incomprehensible are the elaborate
modern efforts to get rid of the Bible doctrine in the interests of human
pride" (pp. 117-118).
"Modern liberal preachers
do indeed sometimes speak of the "atonement." But they speak of it
just as seldom as they possibly can, and one can see plainly that their hearts
are elsewhere than at the foot of the Cross. Indeed, at this point, as at many
others, one has the feeling that traditional language is being strained to
become the expression of totally alien ideas" (p.118).
"Upon the Christian doctrine of the Cross, modern liberals are
never weary of pouring out the vials of their hatred and their scorn. Even at
this point, it is true, the hope of avoiding offence is not always abandoned;
the words "vicarious atonement" and the like--of course in a sense
totally at variance from their Christian meaning--are still sometimes used. But
despite such occasional employment of traditional language the liberal
preachers reveal only too clearly what is in their minds...Against the doctrine
of the Cross they use every weapon of caricature and vilification. Thus they
pour out their scorn upon a thing so holy and so precious that in the presence
of it the Christian heart melts in gratitude too deep for words. It never seems
to occur to modern liberals that in deriding the Christian doctrine of the
Cross, they are trampling upon human hearts. But the modern liberal attacks
upon the Christian doctrine of the Cross may at least serve the purpose of
showing what that doctrine is, and from this point of view they may be examined
briefly now." (p. 120)
"In the second place, the Christian doctrine of salvation
through the death of Christ is criticized on the ground that it is narrow. It
binds salvation to the name of Jesus, and there are many men in the world who
have never in any effective way heard of the name of Jesus. What is really
needed, we are told, is a salvation which will save all men everywhere, whether
they have heard of Jesus or not, and whatever may be the type of life to which
they have been reared. Not a new creed, it is said, will meet the universal
need of the world, but some means of making effective in right living whatever
creed men may chance to have" (p. 122).
"Salvation, in other words, was not merely through Christ, but
it was only through Christ. In that little word "only" lay all the
offence. Without that word there would have been no persecutions; the cultured
men of the day would probably have been willing to give Jesus a place, and an
honorable place, among the saviors of mankind. Without its exclusiveness, the
Christian message would have seemed perfectly inoffensive to the men of that
day. So modern liberalism, placing Jesus alongside other benefactors of
mankind, is perfectly inoffensive in the modern world. All men speak well of
it. It is entirely inoffensive. But it is also entirely futile. The offence of
the Cross is done away, but so is the glory and the power" (pp. 123-124).
"But modern liberalism has still more specific objections to
the Christian doctrine of the Cross. How can one person, it is asked, suffer
for the sins of another? The thing, we are told, is absurd. Guilt, it is said,
is personal; if I allow another man to suffer for my fault, my guilt is not
thereby one whit diminished.
An answer to this objection is sometimes found in the plain
instances in ordinary human life where one person does suffer for another
person's sin. In the war, for example, many men died freely for the welfare of
others. Here, it is said, we have something analogous to the sacrifice of
Christ.
It must be confessed, however, that the analogy is very faint; for
it does not touch the specific point at issue. The death of a volunteer soldier
in the war was like the death of Christ in that it was a supreme example of
self-sacrifice. But the thing to be accomplished by the self-sacrifice was
entirely different from the thing which was accomplished on Calvary. The death
of those who sacrificed themselves in the war brought peace and protection to
the loved ones at home, but it could never avail to wipe out the guilt of
sin" (p. 125).
"The Christian doctrine of the atonement, therefore, is
altogether rooted in the Christian doctrine of the deity of Christ. The reality
of an atonement for sin depends altogether upon the New Testament presentation
of the Person of Christ" (p. 126).
"Thus the objection to the vicarious sacrifice of Christ
disappears altogether before the tremendous Christian sense of the majesty of
Jesus' Person. It is perfectly true that the Christ of modern naturalistic
reconstruction never could have suffered for the sins of others; but it is very
different in the case of the Lord of Glory. And if the notion of vicarious
atonement be so absurd as modern opposition would lead us to believe, what
shall be said of the Christian experience that has been based upon it? The
modern liberal Church is fond of appealing to experience. But where shall true
Christian experience be found if not in the blessed peace which comes from
Calvary?" (p. 128)
"A cardinal doctrine of modern liberalism is that the world's
evil may be overcome by the world's good; no help is thought to be needed from
outside the world" (p. 136).
"At the center of
Christianity is the doctrine of "justification by faith." In exalting
faith, we are not immediately putting ourselves in contradiction to modern
thought. Indeed faith is being exalted very high by men of the most modern
type. But what kind of faith? There emerges the difference of opinion.
Faith is being exalted so high
today that men are being satisfied with any kind of faith, just so it is faith.
It makes no difference what is believed, we are told, just so the blessed
attitude of faith is there. The undogmatic faith, it is said, is better than
the dogmatic, because it is purer faith--faith less weakened by the alloy of
knowledge" (p. 141).
"But the disturbing thing is that
all faith has an object. The scientific observer may not think that it is the
object that does the work; from his vantage point he may see clearly that it is
really the faith, considered simply as a psychological phenomenon, that is the
important thing, and that any other object would have answered as well. But the
one who does the believing is always convinced just exactly that it is not the
faith, but the object of the faith, which is helping him. The moment he becomes
convinced that it is merely the faith that is helping him, the faith
disappears; for faith always involves a conviction of the objective truth or
trustworthiness of the object. If the object is not really trustworthy then the
faith is a false faith. It is perfectly true that such a false faith will often
help a man. Things that are false will accomplish a great many useful things in
the world. If I take a counterfeit coin and buy a dinner with it, the dinner is
every bit as good as if the coin were a product of the mint. And what a very
useful thing a dinner is! But just as I am on my way downtown to buy a dinner
for a poor man, an expert tells me that my coin is a counterfeit. The
miserable, heartless theorizer! While he is going into uninteresting, learned
details about the primitive history of that coin, a poor man is dying for want
of bread. So it is with faith. Faith is so very useful, they tell us, that we
must not scrutinize its basis in truth. But, the great trouble is, such an
avoidance of scrutiny itself involves the destruction of faith. For faith is
essentially dogmatic" (p. 142).
"Such counterfeits should be removed, not out of a love of
destruction, but in order to leave room for the pure gold, the existence of
which is implied in the presence of the counterfeits. Faith is often based upon
error, but there would be no faith at all unless it were sometimes based upon
truth. But if Christian faith is based upon truth, then it is not the faith
which saves the Christian but the object of the faith. And the object of the
faith is Christ. Faith, then, according to the Christian view means simply
receiving a gift. To have faith in Christ means to cease trying to win God's
favor by one's own character; the man who believes in Christ simply accepts the
sacrifice which Christ offered on Calvary. The result of such faith is a new
life and all good works; but the salvation itself is an absolutely free gift of
God" (p. 143).
"According to modern liberalism, faith is essentially the same
as "making Christ Master" in one's life; at least it is by making
Christ Master in the life that the welfare of men is sought. But that simply
means that salvation is thought to be obtained by our own obedience to the
commands of Christ. Such teaching is just a sublimated form of legalism. Not
the sacrifice of Christ, on this view, but our own obedience to God's law, is
the ground of hope.
In this way the whole achievement of the Reformation has been given
up, and there has been a return to the religion of the Middle Ages" (p.
143).
"The grace of God is rejected by modern liberalism. And the
result is slavery--the slavery of the law, the wretched bondage by which man
undertakes the impossible task of establishing his own righteousness as a
ground of acceptance with God. It may seem strange at first sight that
"liberalism," of which the very name means freedom, should in reality
be wretched slavery. But the phenomenon is not really so strange. Emancipation
from the blessed will of God always involves bondage to some worse taskmaster.
Thus it may be said of the modern liberal Church, as of the
Jerusalem of Paul's day, that "she is in bondage with her children."
God grant that she may turn again to the liberty of the gospel of Christ!"
(p. 144)
"Religion is being regarded more and more as a mere means to a
higher end. The change can be detected with especial clearness in the way in
which missionaries commend their cause. Fifty years ago, missionaries made
their appeal in the light of eternity. "Millions of men," they were
accustomed to say, "are going down to eternal destruction; Jesus is a
Savior sufficient for all; send us out therefore with the message of salvation
while yet there is time." Some missionaries, thank God, still speak in
that way. But very many missionaries make quite a different appeal. "We
are missionaries to India," they say. "Now India is in ferment;
Bolshevism is creeping in; send us out to India that the menace may be
checked." Or else they say: "We are missionaries to Japan; Japan will
be dominated by militarism unless the principles of Jesus have sway; send us
out therefore to prevent the calamity of war" (pp. 150-151).
The following quotes
were taken from Chapter 7: "The Church.”
"And the Church invisible, the true company of the redeemed,
finds expression in the companies of Christians who constitute the visible
Church to-day. But what is the trouble with the visible Church? What is the
reason for its obvious weakness? There are perhaps many causes of weakness. But
one cause is perfectly plain--the Church of today has been unfaithful to her
Lord by admitting great companies of non-Christian persons, not only into her
membership, but into her teaching agencies. It is indeed inevitable that some
persons who are not truly Christian shall find their way into the visible
Church; fallible men cannot discern the heart, and many a profession of faith
which seems to be genuine may really be false. But it is not this kind of error
to which we now refer. What is now meant is not the admission of individuals
whose confessions of faith may not be sincere, but the admission of great
companies of persons who have never made any really adequate confession of
faith at all and whose entire attitude toward the gospel is the very reverse of
the Christian attitude. Such persons, moreover, have been admitted not merely
to the membership, but to the ministry of the Church, and to an increasing
extent have been allowed to dominate its councils and determine its teaching.
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. And that being the case, it is
highly undesirable that liberalism and Christianity should continue to be
propagated within the bounds of the same organization. A separation between the
two parties in the Church is the crying need of the hour.
Many indeed are seeking to avoid the separation. Why, they say, may
not brethren dwell together in unity? The Church, we are told, has room both
for liberals and for conservatives. The conservatives may be allowed to remain
if they will keep trifling matters in the background and attend chiefly to
"the weightier matters of the law." And among the things thus
designated as "trifling" is found the Cross of Christ, as a really
vicarious atonement for sin" (pp. 159-160). [emphasis mine--CD]
"It is required of all officers in the Presbyterian Church,
including the ministers, that at their ordination they make answer
"plainly" to a series of questions which begins with the two
following:
"Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments
to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice?"
"Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of
this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy
Scriptures?"
If these "constitutional questions" do not fix clearly
the creedal basis of the Presbyterian Church, it is difficult to see how any
human language could possibly do so. Yet immediately after making such a solemn
declaration, immediately after declaring that the Westminster Confession
contains the system of doctrine taught in infallible Scriptures, many ministers
of the Presbyterian Church will proceed to decry that same Confession and that
doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture to which they have just solemnly
subscribed!
We are not now speaking of the membership of the Church, but of the
ministry, and we are not speaking of the man who is troubled by grave doubts
and wonders whether with his doubts he can honestly continue his membership in
the Church. For great hosts of such troubled souls the Church offers
bountifully its fellowship and its aid; it would be a crime to cast them out.
There are many men of little faith in our troublous times. It is not of them
that we speak. God grant that they may obtain comfort and help through the
ministrations of the Church!
But we are speaking of men very different from these men of little
faith--from these men who are troubled by doubts and are seeking earnestly for
the truth. The men whom we mean are seeking not membership in the Church, but a
place in the ministry, and they desire not to learn but to teach. They are not
men who say, "I believe, help mine unbelief," but men who are proud
in the possession of the knowledge of this world, and seek a place in the
ministry that they may teach what is directly contrary to the Confession of
Faith to which they subscribe" (pp. 163-164).
"If there ought to be a separation between the liberals and
the conservatives in the Church, why should not the conservatives be the ones
to withdraw? Certainly it may come to that. If the liberal party really obtains
full control of the councils of the Church, then no evangelical Christian can
continue to support the Church's work. If a man believes that salvation from
sin comes only through the atoning death of Jesus, then he cannot honestly
support by his gifts and by his presence a propaganda which is intended to
produce an exactly opposite impression. To do so would mean the most terrible
blood-guiltiness which it is possible to conceive. If the liberal party,
therefore, really obtains control of the Church, evangelical Christians must be
prepared to withdraw no matter what it costs. Our Lord has died for us, and
surely we must not deny Him for favor of men" (p. 166).
"An evangelical church is composed of a number of persons who
have come to agreement in a certain message about Christ and who desire to
unite in the propagation of that message, as it is set forth in their creed on
the basis of the Bible" (p.168).
"The separation of naturalistic liberalism from the
evangelical churches would no doubt greatly diminish the size of the churches.
But Gideon's three hundred were more powerful than the thirty-two thousand with
which the march against the Midianites began.
Certainly the present situation is fraught with deadly weakness.
Christian men have been redeemed from sin, without merit of their own, by the sacrifice
of Christ. But every man who has been truly redeemed from sin longs to carry to
others the same blessed gospel through which he himself has been saved"
(p. 170).
"The propagation of the gospel is clearly the joy as well as
the duty of every Christian man. But how shall the gospel be propagated? The
natural answer is that it shall be propagated through the agencies of the
Church--boards of missions and the like. An obvious duty, therefore, rests upon
the Christian man of contributing to the agencies of the Church. But at this
point the perplexity arises. The Christian man discovers to his consternation
that the agencies of the Church are propagating not only the gospel as found in
the Bible and in the historic creeds, but also a type of religious teaching
which is at every conceivable point the diametrical opposite of the gospel. The
question naturally arises whether there is any reason for contributing to such
agencies at all. Of every dollar contributed to them, perhaps half goes to the
support of true missionaries of the Cross, while the other half goes to the
support of those who are persuading men that the message of the Cross is
unnecessary or wrong. If part of our gifts is to be used to neutralize the
other part, is not contribution to mission boards altogether absurd? The
question may at least very naturally be raised. It should not indeed be
answered hastily in a way hostile to contribution to mission boards. Perhaps it
is better that the gospel should be both preached and combated by the same
agencies than that it should not be preached at all" (pp. 170-171).
"The plain fact is that liberalism, whether it be true or
false, is no mere "heresy"--no mere divergence at isolated points
from Christian teaching. On the contrary it proceeds from a totally different
root, and it constitutes, in essentials, a unitary system of its own. That does
not mean that all liberals hold all parts of the system, or that Christians who
have been affected by liberal teaching at one point have been affected at all points.
There is sometimes a salutary lack of logic which prevents the whole of a man's
faith being destroyed when he has given up a part. But the true way in which to
examine a spiritual movement is in its logical relations; logic is the great
dynamic, and the logical implications of any way of thinking are sooner or
later certain to be worked out. And taken as a whole, even as it actually
exists today, naturalistic liberalism is a fairly unitary phenomenon; it is
tending more and more to eliminate from itself illogical remnants of Christian
belief. It differs from Christianity in its view of God, of man, of the seat of
authority and of the way of salvation. And it differs from Christianity not
only in theology but in the whole of life. It is indeed sometimes said that
there can be communion in feeling where communion in thinking is gone, a
communion of the heart as distinguished from a communion of the head. But with
respect to the present controversy, such a distinction certainly does not
apply. On the contrary, in reading the books and listening to the sermons of
recent liberal teachers--so untroubled by the problem of sin, so devoid of all
sympathy for guilty humanity, so prone to abuse and ridicule the things dearest
to the heart of every Christian man--one can only confess that if liberalism is
to return into the Christian communion there must be a change of heart fully as
much as a change of mind. God grant that such a change of heart may come! But
meanwhile the present situation must not be ignored but faced.
Christianity is being attacked from within by a movement which is
anti-Christian to the core" (pp. 172-173).
"As a matter of fact, not less time, but more time, should be
devoted to the defense of the gospel. Indeed, truth cannot be stated clearly at
all without being set over against error. Thus a large part of the New
Testament is polemic; the enunciation of evangelical truth was occasioned by
the errors which had arisen in the churches" (p. 174).
"There have been previous great crises in the history of the
Church, crises almost comparable to this. One appeared in the second century,
when the very life of Christendom was threatened by the Gnostics. Another came
in the Middle Ages when the gospel of God's grace seemed forgotten. In such
times of crisis, God has always saved the Church. But He has always saved it
not by theological pacifists, but by sturdy contenders for the truth" (p.
174).
"In the second place, Christian officers in the Church should
perform their duty in deciding upon the qualifications of candidates for the
ministry. The question "For Christ or against him?" constantly arises
in the examination of candidates for ordination. Attempts are often made to
obscure the issue. It is often said: "The candidate will no doubt move in
the direction of the truth; let him now be sent out to learn as well as to
preach." And so another opponent of the gospel enters the councils of the
Church, and another false prophet goes forth to encourage sinners to come
before the judgment seat of God clad in the miserable rags of their own
righteousness. Such action is not really "kind" to the candidate
himself. It is never kind to encourage a man to enter into a life of
dishonesty. The fact often seems to be forgotten that the evangelical Churches
are purely voluntary organizations; no one is required to enter into their
service. If a man cannot accept the belief of such churches, there are other
ecclesiastical bodies in which he can find a place. The belief of the
Presbyterian Church, for example, is plainly set forth in the Confession of
Faith, and the Church will never afford any warmth of communion or engage with
any real vigor in her work until her ministers are in whole-hearted agreement
with that belief. It is strange how in the interests of an utterly false
kindness to men, Christians are sometimes willing to relinquish their loyalty
to the crucified Lord" (pp. 174-175).
"In the third place, Christian officers in the Church should
show their loyalty to Christ in their capacity as members of the individual congregations.
The issue often arises in connection with the choice of a pastor. Such and such
a man, it is said, is a brilliant preacher. But what is the content of his
preaching? Is his preaching full of the gospel of Christ? The answer is often
evasive" (p. 175).
"In the fourth place--the most important thing of all--there
must be a renewal of Christian education. The rejection of Christianity is due
to various causes. But a very potent cause is simple ignorance. In countless
cases, Christianity is rejected simply because men have not the slightest
notion of what Christianity is. An outstanding fact of recent Church history is
the appalling growth of ignorance in the Church. Various causes, no doubt, can
be assigned for this lamentable development. The development is due partly to
the general decline of education--at least so far as literature and history are
concerned. ...But something more than the general decline in education is
needed to account for the special growth of ignorance in the Church. The growth
of ignorance in the Church is the logical and inevitable result of the false
notion that Christianity is a life and not also a doctrine; if Christianity is
not a doctrine then of course teaching is not necessary to Christianity. But
whatever be the causes for the growth of ignorance in the Church, the evil must
be remedied. It must be remedied primarily by the renewal of Christian
education in the family, but also by the use of whatever other educational
agencies the Church can find. Christian education is the chief business of the
hour for every earnest Christian man. Christianity cannot subsist unless men
know what Christianity is; and the fair and logical thing is to learn what
Christianity is, not from its opponents, but from those who themselves are
Christians" (pp. 176-177).
"A terrible crisis unquestionably has arisen in the
Church. In the ministry of evangelical churches are to be found hosts of those
who reject the gospel of Christ. By the equivocal use of traditional phrases,
by the representation of differences of opinion as though they were only
differences about the interpretation of the Bible, entrance into the Church was
secured for those who are hostile to the very foundations of the faith"
(p. 177).
"The Church, it is now apparently supposed, has almost been
educated up to the point where the shackles of the Bible can openly be cast
away and the doctrine of the Cross of Christ can be relegated to the limbo of
discarded subtleties" (p. 178).
"If the Word of God be heeded, the Christian battle will be
fought both with love and with faithfulness. Party passions and personal
animosities will be put away, but on the other hand, even angels from heaven
will be rejected if they preach a gospel different from the blessed gospel of
the Cross. Every man must decide upon which side he will stand. God grant that
we may decide aright!" (p. 178)
"We have today the entrance of paganism into the Church in the
name of Christianity. But in the second century a similar battle was fought and
won. From another point of view, modern liberalism is like the legalism of the
middle ages, with its dependence upon the merit of man. And another Reformation
in God's good time will come" (p. 178).
"There are congregations, even in the present age of conflict,
that are really gathered around the table of the crucified Lord; there are
pastors that are pastors indeed. But such congregations, in many cities, are
difficult to find" (p. 179).