Twice the writer gave an address on the subject, “Is Church History Repeating Itself?” Acceding to the request of the Editorial Board of the Reformed Fellowship to reproduce that lecture in the form of an article, I do hope that it will help to alert us to current issues and that the Lord will use it to establish us more deeply in the Reformed faith so dear to our hearts—so dear because so true to the Word of God and to the God of the Word.
The group that originally asked the writer to speak on this subject desired a comparison between the happenings in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (in Machen’s day) and the current happenings in the churches represented in the Reformed Fellowship.
I have tried in part to meet this assignment, having time merely to trace the events in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. As I needed the cooperation of my auditors then, so I shall need the cooperation of my readers now by having them answer the questions scattered throughout this article in the light of current conditions in their church life. May we suggest that you study the issue raised with a view to devoting one or two after-recess periods in your society to the answering of the questions?
Differences
We do well, first of all, to remind ourselves of the basic differences found within the body of true believers as well as of the basic differences that exist between Christianity and Liberalism.
Within the body of true believers there are Calvinists and Arminians. Whereas the Calvinists believe in total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints; the Arminians believe in partial depravity, conditional election, universal atonement, resistible grace, and in the possibility of the falling away of the saints. These Arminian views are heretical, but they do not, as such, exclude those Arminians from the Christian family who do believe in the Bible as the infallible Word of God, in the Virgin birth of Jesus, in the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ, in the miracles of our Lord, and in his bodily resurrection. As long as they believe in these last named doctrines, we may not exclude them from the Christian fold.
The views of the Arminians are lop-sided but not fa!al. The views of the real liberals, however, are fatal, are they not? In comparing their views with those of Christianity, we find that whereas Christianity stands for an infallible Bible, a virgin born Jesus, a substitutionary atonement, a Christ who performed miracles, and a bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ; Liberalism stands for a fallible Bible, a Christ not horn of a virgin, a Christ who did not die vicariously for his people, a Christ whose miracles were no miracles, and a Christ whose body still lies “moulding in the grave” as does John Brown’s. To deny such basic teachings of Christianity as the liberals do, is to step outside of the truly Christian fold.
Ecumenism at Expense of Doctrinal Purity
With the above background you may appreciate better what happened in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.
The Rev. J. Galbraith clearly points out that the cleavage that took place in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. in 1903 was one between the Calvinists and the Arminians, but the cleavage that took place in 1924 was one between true Christianity and Liberalism.
Let us trace this a bit. To be able to do this, we express special indebtedness to Dr. J. C. Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism; to the Rev. E. H. Rian’s The Presbyterian Conflict; to the Rev. J. P. Galbraith’s r Why the Orthodox Presbyterian Church; and to Esquire Murray Forst Thompson’s The Auburn Betrayal.
In the early 1800’s a merger took place between The General Association of Connecticut (a Congregational group) and The Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. With this merger the Presbyterians inherited a heresy called Hopkinsianism, involving a denial of the depravity of man and a denial of man’s separation from God because of his relation to Adam. Such men as Dr. A. Barnes and Dr. Lyman Beecher went on trial for this heresy. Did the Assembly pursue this trial by cutting out this impurity in doctrine? No. Why not? Because this view had already so penetrated the church that those holding this view could at times control the Assembly.
My first question is: Does your church clean its temple when an impurity appears instead of waiting until it contaminates the whole?
In 1837 The Old School (the conservatives) had a majority at its Assembly and it got rid of, it abrogated, the Plan of Union of 1801. (The doctrinal errors already manifested related to the atonement, to the guilt of Adam, to election, and to regeneration.)
In 1869 The Old School and The New School united in spite of having great doctrinal differences. Rian calls it one of the tragic events in Presbyterian history. The doctrinal differences came to the fore again and again.
Revision of the Confession
The most important controversy was the one which led to the Revision of the Westminster Confession of Faith in 1903. They modified the Confession by adding a Declaratory Statement dealing with Chapter III and with Chapter X, section 3, of the Confession. The Declaratory Statement interprets John 3:16 and J John 2:2 in such a way as “to obscure the particularism of God’s redemptive love and to universalize the design of Christ’s atoning work” (Rian).
Other chapters were changed while chapters XXXIV on the Holy Spirit and XXXV on the Love of God and Missions were added. Rian points out how “that particularism of the Gospel which is so precious to lovers of the Bible and so offensive to enemies of the cross is studiously avoided” (p. 200). “It is also true,” says Rian, “that the Confession and the Bible do not warrant the teaching that God loves all unto salvation” (p. 21). Then he quotes Dr. N. Stonehouse to have said in discussing this subject, “It is not true, however, that the Westminster Confession of Faith drops the Biblical doctrine of the love of God. At the heart of the Bible, at the heart of Christianity and the Gospel, and so at the heart of Calvinism, is the doctrine of the particular saving love of Cod for His people. This doctrine of redeeming love avoids the one-sided preaching of the love of God, which is so common today, with its consequent passing over the righteousness and holiness of God and the radical sinfulness of man” (p. 21).
My second question is: Are we also one-sidedly stressing the love of God?
Rian comments: “a perusal of the discussions concerning these amendments in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. between 1889 and 1903 will show that the Calvinists were on one side of the debate and those with Arminian and anti-Scriptural tendencies were on the other” (p. 22).
Further Mergers of Calvinism and Arminianism
In 1900 a union of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. and the Cumberland Presbyterian Church took place. There was said to be a strange mixture of Arminianism and Calvinism in the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. This union resulted in a weakening of the testimony of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. to the Bible and to the Confession.
Note here the trend toward church union (toward ecumenism). Note, especially, that this trend is not on the basis of doctrinal agreement. It may be helpful at this point to quote from C. Stanley Lowell’s book The Ecumenical Mirage. Lowell , who is known as himself once having been an enthusiastic ecumenist, writes: “Protestant ecumenism has not been, will not be, and cannot be redemptive of the church. 1l is not an authentic manifestation of the Holy Spirit but merely the cultural drift among nominal Christians who are without real convictions. It is a sickness of our lime, or a symptom of it” (p. 194). In 1918, tllirty-6ve Presbyteries overtured the General Assembly to consider the merger of eighteen Protestant churches into one evangelical church. They say that the preamble to the doctrinal part of this merger was so vague that one could believe what he wanted to. Although this attempt to merge eighteen Protestant churches failed, it showed whither the wind was blowing. Said Rian, to those who were awake to the true situation, the next step in the process of doctrinal defection was no surprise but an expected conclusion.”
My third question is: Is the wind blowing in the direction of this kind of church union among any of our leaders, or in any Classis or group of Classes?
Liberal Preachers Welcomed
What was the next step to which Rian referred above? Let us introduce the next step by quoting Esquire Murray Forst Thompson, who said: “When a church begins to invite ministers of a different theological color into the pulpit, you know something has happened.”
What had the First Presbyterian Church in New York City done? It had invited Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick (Baptist, teacher at Union Theological Seminary) to be their pastor. On May 21, 1922, Dr. Harry E. Fosdick (who recently died at the age of 91) preached a sermon in the First Presbyterian Church in New York, entitled, “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” In it he opposed what he called a “deadline of doctrine which the Fundamentalists were marking around the church.” He said that the Fundamentalists had a perfect right to believe in the Virgin Birth, but that he knew “equally loyal and reverent people” who do not accept that as a historical fact. He also attacked the doctrines of the infallibility of Scripture, of the substitutionary atonement, and of the bodily resurrection. No wonder several Presbyteries overtured the General Assembly to direct the Presbytery of New York to take action requiring that the preaching in the First Presbyterian Church of New York conform to the doctrines of the church.
The Auburn Affirmation
This Assembly met in May, 1923. At this Assembly they reaffirmed the basic teachings of Christianity in what was called “The Evangelical Pronouncement” or ”The Five Points.” This Pronouncement reaffirmed that in order to be a minister in the Presbyterian Chmch in the U.S.A., one must believe in the Infallibility of Cod’s Word, in the Virgin Birth, in the Vicarious Atonement of Jesus Christ, in the Miracles, and in Bodily Hesurrection of Jesus. This reaffirmation of five basic teachings of Christianity was a victory for the Old School. Yes, a victory, but, mark you, on May 5, 1924, the Modernists published what was called “The Auburn Affirmation” and this was signed by 1294 ministers of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. This was a flat negation of “The Evangelical Pronouncement” in that it affirmed that a man to be a minister in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. does not have to believe in the Infallibility of God’s Word, in the Virgin Birth, in substitutionary Atonement, in the Miracles, nor in the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Mind you, it called itself an affirmation designed to safeguard the unity and the liberty of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. Liberals have a way of always talking about love and unity, a love that covers up all apostasy and a unity that ignores all doctrinal differences. Mind you, the Affirmationists contended that their views were not at variance with the Scriptures and the Presbyterian standards, but that the views of those who signed “The Evangelical Pronouncement” were in error! How far can one go and still make bold to assert that he is Scriptural? Certainly such reasoning must be the result of purely humanistic thinking or of what the Rev. J. G. Feenstra of Scheveningen would call “inlegkunde en niet uitlegkunde.” He has so well said “exegesis is geen inlegkunde maar uitlegkunde” (exegesis is not the art of reading into the Scriptures what is not there but of drawing out of the Scriptures what is there). A church or a preacher or a teacher has defected seriously if he twists the Scriptures to fit his own apostate ideas, thus calling error truth and truth error.
The “Machen Controversy”
Here, then, you have the background of what may be called the Machen controversy. Involved in the struggle against the liberal signers of the Auburn Affirmation were Dr. J. C. Machen, Dr. Allen MacRae, Dr. Carl Mc Intire, Esquire Murray Forst Thompson, Dr. Paul Woolley, and others. It was with the apostate teachings of the Auburn A(firmationists and matters related, that Dr. Machen and the other conservatives took issue. Dr. Machen’s book, Christianity anc! Liberalism, clearly high lights the difference between the Christian views of the conservatives and the liberal views of the Affirmationists. It is a brilliant defense of orthodox Christianity. Let us consider how Machen high lights these differences, and observe whether any of these basic differences are fading out among us.
The Infallibility of Scripture
First, liberals deny the infallibility of God’s Word. They say the Bible is inspired but not without error; the Bible is a rule of faith and practice but not without error. May I ask, How can it be a safe rule of faith and practice if it is not without error? If it is not inerrant, it is not of God. If it is not of God, it is not a safe rule of faith and practice.
Liberals believe in inspiration but not in plenary inspiration. Liberals reject plenary inspiration, and they reject the authority of the Bible, leaving the impression that they are substituting the authority of Christ. Machen denies that they accept the authority of Christ. The real authority of Liberals is, he says, the Christian consciousness and Christian experience. Christianity, to the contrary, is based upon the Bible. It bases both its thinking and its life upon the Bible. Liberalism, on the other hand, is founded on the shifting emotions of sinful man.
At this point, it must be noted, Machen makes a statement that may help us to use the word “liberal” accurately.
“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.
“It is another question, however, whether the meditating view of the Bible which is thus maintained is logically tenable, the trouble being that our Lord Himself seems to have held the high view of the Bible which is here being rejected. Certainly it is another question and a question which the present writer would answer with an emphatic negative—whether the panic about the Bible, which gives rise to such concessions, is at all justified by the facts. If the Christian makes full use of his Christian privileges, he finds the scat of authority in the whole Bible, which he regards as no mere word of man but as the very Word of God.” (Christianity and Liberalism, pp. 75–76, Macmillan.)
My fourth question is: Have any in our church questioned the infallibility of God’s Word?
My fifth question is: Have we at all used the Word “liberal” in a wrong sense among us?
My sixth question is: What is the supernatural act of God with which Christianity stands or falls?
The Virgin Birth of Christ
Secondly, liberals deny the necessity of believing in the Virgin Birth. Dr. H. E. Fosdick will admit that the historicity of “the Virgin Birth is believed by many gracious and beautiful souls,” but he believes that “side by side with them in evangelical churches is a group of equally loyal and reverent people who would say that the Virgin Birth is not to be accepted as an historical fact.” (Esq. M. F. Thompson, The Auburn Betrayal, p. 6.)
Christianity, contrariwise, holds that when you speak of the Virgin Birth you deal with a miracle in history, with a supernatural act of God in history, you deal with something that defies proof by observation and reason, that defies scientific demonstration. Dr. Cornelius Van Til puts it well when he says; “The modern theologian, the modern philosopher, the modern scientist makes the universe or reality as a whole his final and ultimate subject of predication….He includes his god and himself within that universe….With Parmenides of old modern man assumes that what man can intelligently say about reality is true, and only that is true.” What does this mean?
This means that since conception of the Holy Spirit and being born of the Virgin Mary defies intelligence, neither can be true. This means that since substitutionary atonement defies intelligence, it is not true. This means that because the miracles of the Bible defy intelligence, they are not true. This means that the bodily resurrection defies intelligence, and therefore is not true.
Dr. Machen states that 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 (108). I submit, people, that if one believes in a Christ not virgin born, one does not believe in the Christ of the Scriptures. One may believe in a Christ who is just the most outstanding human being born of human parents, but such a Christ would not be sinless; he would be conceived and born in sin, and therefore cannot be our Saviour. The Virgin born Jesus came to give his life a ransom for many.
My seventh question is; Do you know of anyone in our circles who denies or is ready to forfeit the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, should he he satisfied that science proves it impossible?
The Vicarious Atonement of Christ
Thirdly, liberals deny the vicarious atonement of Jesus. Machen plainly states that Liberalism finds its salvation in man; Christianity finds it in an act of God. Machen makes a pivotal statement when he says, “According to Christian belief, Jesus is our Saviour, not by virtue of what he said or was, but by virtue of what he did” (p. 117). The Liberal will speak of Jesus having died, but not vicariol1sly. The death of Jesus, they say, had no effect on God but only on man. God didn’t demand the shedding of blood; the wrath of God wasn’t upon us. God stands ready and willing to forgive. We have to be reconciled to God, not he to us. This is a flagrant violation of the truth expressed in Romans 1:18, and in Romans 5:8–10 (see Prof. J. Murray’s comments on these verses in his book on Romans).
Modern liberals speak with horror of the doctrine of an “alienated” or an “angry” God. The N. T. clearly speaks of the wrath of God and of the wrath of Jesus himself. All the teaching of Jesus presupposes a divine indignation against sin. Machen makes clear that the modern rejection of the doctrine of God’s wrath proceeds from a light view of sin which is wholly at variance with the teachings of the whole N.T. and of Jesus himself.
Modernists object, says Machen, to the doctrine of the atonement because it is contrary to the love of God. Machen admits that God is love, but that he is not only love. He reminds his readers that Jesus spoke terrible words in condemnation of sin, as you all know too.
My fellow Christians, a lop-sided emphasis on love is going to give us an unbalanced concept of God. All God’s attributes are infinite. God is just, so just that in order to manifest his saving love, he had to satisfy his justice. The Cross of Christ is the awful proof of this. Listen to Machen: “If God will necessarily forgive, no matter what we do, why trouble ourselves about Him at all? Such a God may deliver us from the fear of hell. But His heaven, if He has any, is full of sin” (p. 133). In John 3:36 we read, “He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” Note, the wrath of God does not abide on his sin, but on the person who does the sinning. We often hear it said that God hates sin but not the sinner.
What is the wrath of God? Prof. Murray defines it very well when he says; “Wrath is the holy revulsion of Cod’s being against that which is the contradiction of his holiness” (p. 35).
Dear readers, the Bible does not say that the love of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, but that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. We won’t come to know what sinners we are, until we gain an adequate concept of the holiness of God.
My eighth question is: Is there among us a tendency to shun the wrath of God in favor of a lop-sided emphasis on love?
My ninth question is; Is our Board of Home Missions (of the C.R.C.) right in advocating the use of the four spiritual laws adopted by Campus Crusade, the first of which is, “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life”?
The Bodily Resurrection of Christ
Fourthly, Modernists deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus. The Auburn Affirmation affirms that Jesus did not necessarily rise bodily from the grave. To say that much, they have to discredit the infallibility of God’s Word that plainly teaches it. The empty tomb observably empty; the angelic pronouncement, “He is risen; he is risen”; the many post resurrection appearances of the Jesus whose wounds proved his body to be the one that hung on the Cross and was buried. What greater proof than these can anyone ask for?
To deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus is clearly to deny what the Bible teaches, what the Apostles’ Creed teaches, what the Westminster Confession teaches.
My tenth question is: Are there any in your circle of church leaders who have denied the bodily resurrection of Jesus or, at least, consider it unimportant?
The Mirades of Christ
Fifthly, Modernists deny the miracles of Jesus. They speak of “mighty works,” not of “miracles.” They fail to see and admit that our Lord’s work “was superior” to nature.
Sending Apollo 8 to the moon was a mighty work, but not a miracle. It was an awesome demonstration of what man can do with the knowledge of the natural laws according to which God normally operates.
Modern science can account for mighty works but not for miracles. Miracles conflict with man’s concept of what Rushdoony calls “controlled causation,” with man’s concept of what Van Til calls a one-circle world.
Says Machen, “The distinction between the natural and the supernatural is simply the distinction between God’s work of providence and God’s work of creation; a miracle is a work of creation just as truly as the mysterious event that produced the world” (pp. 99–100).
Machen further shows how the Deist denies miracles because the God who made the world left it, having nothing more to do with it. This makes miracles impossible. The pantheist denies miracles because if all is God there is no outside power that can influence us. The theist, on the other hand, believes in God as personal, almighty creator, with whom all things are possible. Admit, says Machen, that God created the world and you cannot deny that he might engage in creation again.
In his Introduction to Systematic Theology, Dr. C. Van Til says, “With Parmenides of old modern man assumes that what man can intelligently say about reality is true and only that is true” (p. 168). (By “modern man” Van Til means the modern theologian, the modern philosopher, the modern scientist.) To what conclusions does the modern man come then? To such as these:
a. The Virgin Birth of Jesus defies man’s intelligence and is, therefore, untrue.
b. The miracles of Jesus defy man’s intelligence and are, therefore, untrue. For example, Jesus changing water into wine defies man’s intelligence and is, therefore, untrue. Jesus raising the dead defies man’s intelligence and is, therefore, untrue. Jesus multiplying the loaves and the fishes defies man’s intelligence and is, therefore, untrue.
c. The resurrection of Jesus defies man’s intelligence and is, therefore, untrue.
These happenings are all outside of the realm of what Rushdoony would call “controlled causation” and are, therefore, untrue in the eyes of the liberal. (See Mythology of Science, p. 20.)
Fellow Christians, eliminate miracles, and you eliminate the possibility of salvation, reconciliation, resurrection, heaven.
My eleventh question is: Are there any voices in our churches that want to take the miracle out of creation, that want to take the miracle out of Jesus’ birth and resurrection, that want to reduce the miracles of Jesus to merely “mighty works”?
Poles Apart
You have seen that the signers of the “Evangelical Pronouncement” and those of the “Auburn Affirmation” are poles apart. Yes, the liberals advocate dwelling together in unity—a unity which protects them in their apostasy—a unity they favor only until they are in control. When in control they oust the conservatives that fight the good fight of faith, as the Presbyterians did Dr. Machen and others. “Shall two walk together except they be agreed?” Can Bible believing Christians walk together with those in the apostate Church? Yes, says the liberal, because doctrinal differences are trifles. No, says the conservative because doctrinal differences are important. No, says the conservative because what the liberals call trifles strike at the very heart of the Gospel, as, for example, the vicarious atonement of Jesus Christ.
A further danger is that the liberals don’t even necessarily adhere to the belief in a personal Cod who created heaven and earth. Their concept of unity is not even necessarily centered in a personal God. Says Machen, “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.” For Dr. Henry Nelson Wieman of the Divinity School of the University of Chicago God is not a person but merely the growth of organic unity.
Another factor not to be overlooked is that your church is a creedal church. Dr. Machen very importantly stresses that jf a man does not accept the creeds of a church, he has no right to a place in her teaching ministry.
My twelfth question is: Are there those among our leaders that disagree with our creeds? If so, what would be the part of honor and of honesty?
My thirteenth question is: Are there those among us that want unity at all cost, those who would rather subdue or distort the doctrine than discipline the man guilty of heresy?
My fourteenth question is: Have there been any attempts in the direction of modifying the creeds of the church to pacify any liberalizing element?
Finally, are we at all more concerned about proper procedures than about purity of doctrine? If I were in imminent danger–mark well, if I were in imminent physical danger, and you were near to help, would you want to make sure of proper procedure? Would you say, “Oh, my hands are greasy. I shall spoil her dress. I must wash before I rescue her.” Or, would you forget all about the greasy hands and what they would do to my dress, and rather concentrate on rescuing me ere it be too late? Would the dress be more precious than the life? Likewise, is procedure more precious than the maintenance of purity of doctrine?
Fellow Reformers, may God use us, everyone of us, to call people back to the God of the Word and to the Word of God—that God concerning whom the Psalmist said in Psalm 138: ”For Thou hast magnified Thy Word above all Thy Name.”
Miss Johanna Timmer is a Christian School teacher, now retired, and living in Holland, Michigan.
The group that originally asked the writer to speak on this subject desired a comparison between the happenings in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (in Machen’s day) and the current happenings in the churches represented in the Reformed Fellowship.
I have tried in part to meet this assignment, having time merely to trace the events in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. As I needed the cooperation of my auditors then, so I shall need the cooperation of my readers now by having them answer the questions scattered throughout this article in the light of current conditions in their church life. May we suggest that you study the issue raised with a view to devoting one or two after-recess periods in your society to the answering of the questions?
Differences
We do well, first of all, to remind ourselves of the basic differences found within the body of true believers as well as of the basic differences that exist between Christianity and Liberalism.
Within the body of true believers there are Calvinists and Arminians. Whereas the Calvinists believe in total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints; the Arminians believe in partial depravity, conditional election, universal atonement, resistible grace, and in the possibility of the falling away of the saints. These Arminian views are heretical, but they do not, as such, exclude those Arminians from the Christian family who do believe in the Bible as the infallible Word of God, in the Virgin birth of Jesus, in the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ, in the miracles of our Lord, and in his bodily resurrection. As long as they believe in these last named doctrines, we may not exclude them from the Christian fold.
The views of the Arminians are lop-sided but not fa!al. The views of the real liberals, however, are fatal, are they not? In comparing their views with those of Christianity, we find that whereas Christianity stands for an infallible Bible, a virgin born Jesus, a substitutionary atonement, a Christ who performed miracles, and a bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ; Liberalism stands for a fallible Bible, a Christ not horn of a virgin, a Christ who did not die vicariously for his people, a Christ whose miracles were no miracles, and a Christ whose body still lies “moulding in the grave” as does John Brown’s. To deny such basic teachings of Christianity as the liberals do, is to step outside of the truly Christian fold.
Ecumenism at Expense of Doctrinal Purity
With the above background you may appreciate better what happened in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.
The Rev. J. Galbraith clearly points out that the cleavage that took place in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. in 1903 was one between the Calvinists and the Arminians, but the cleavage that took place in 1924 was one between true Christianity and Liberalism.
Let us trace this a bit. To be able to do this, we express special indebtedness to Dr. J. C. Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism; to the Rev. E. H. Rian’s The Presbyterian Conflict; to the Rev. J. P. Galbraith’s r Why the Orthodox Presbyterian Church; and to Esquire Murray Forst Thompson’s The Auburn Betrayal.
In the early 1800’s a merger took place between The General Association of Connecticut (a Congregational group) and The Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. With this merger the Presbyterians inherited a heresy called Hopkinsianism, involving a denial of the depravity of man and a denial of man’s separation from God because of his relation to Adam. Such men as Dr. A. Barnes and Dr. Lyman Beecher went on trial for this heresy. Did the Assembly pursue this trial by cutting out this impurity in doctrine? No. Why not? Because this view had already so penetrated the church that those holding this view could at times control the Assembly.
My first question is: Does your church clean its temple when an impurity appears instead of waiting until it contaminates the whole?
In 1837 The Old School (the conservatives) had a majority at its Assembly and it got rid of, it abrogated, the Plan of Union of 1801. (The doctrinal errors already manifested related to the atonement, to the guilt of Adam, to election, and to regeneration.)
In 1869 The Old School and The New School united in spite of having great doctrinal differences. Rian calls it one of the tragic events in Presbyterian history. The doctrinal differences came to the fore again and again.
Revision of the Confession
The most important controversy was the one which led to the Revision of the Westminster Confession of Faith in 1903. They modified the Confession by adding a Declaratory Statement dealing with Chapter III and with Chapter X, section 3, of the Confession. The Declaratory Statement interprets John 3:16 and J John 2:2 in such a way as “to obscure the particularism of God’s redemptive love and to universalize the design of Christ’s atoning work” (Rian).
Other chapters were changed while chapters XXXIV on the Holy Spirit and XXXV on the Love of God and Missions were added. Rian points out how “that particularism of the Gospel which is so precious to lovers of the Bible and so offensive to enemies of the cross is studiously avoided” (p. 200). “It is also true,” says Rian, “that the Confession and the Bible do not warrant the teaching that God loves all unto salvation” (p. 21). Then he quotes Dr. N. Stonehouse to have said in discussing this subject, “It is not true, however, that the Westminster Confession of Faith drops the Biblical doctrine of the love of God. At the heart of the Bible, at the heart of Christianity and the Gospel, and so at the heart of Calvinism, is the doctrine of the particular saving love of Cod for His people. This doctrine of redeeming love avoids the one-sided preaching of the love of God, which is so common today, with its consequent passing over the righteousness and holiness of God and the radical sinfulness of man” (p. 21).
My second question is: Are we also one-sidedly stressing the love of God?
Rian comments: “a perusal of the discussions concerning these amendments in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. between 1889 and 1903 will show that the Calvinists were on one side of the debate and those with Arminian and anti-Scriptural tendencies were on the other” (p. 22).
Further Mergers of Calvinism and Arminianism
In 1900 a union of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. and the Cumberland Presbyterian Church took place. There was said to be a strange mixture of Arminianism and Calvinism in the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. This union resulted in a weakening of the testimony of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. to the Bible and to the Confession.
Note here the trend toward church union (toward ecumenism). Note, especially, that this trend is not on the basis of doctrinal agreement. It may be helpful at this point to quote from C. Stanley Lowell’s book The Ecumenical Mirage. Lowell , who is known as himself once having been an enthusiastic ecumenist, writes: “Protestant ecumenism has not been, will not be, and cannot be redemptive of the church. 1l is not an authentic manifestation of the Holy Spirit but merely the cultural drift among nominal Christians who are without real convictions. It is a sickness of our lime, or a symptom of it” (p. 194). In 1918, tllirty-6ve Presbyteries overtured the General Assembly to consider the merger of eighteen Protestant churches into one evangelical church. They say that the preamble to the doctrinal part of this merger was so vague that one could believe what he wanted to. Although this attempt to merge eighteen Protestant churches failed, it showed whither the wind was blowing. Said Rian, to those who were awake to the true situation, the next step in the process of doctrinal defection was no surprise but an expected conclusion.”
My third question is: Is the wind blowing in the direction of this kind of church union among any of our leaders, or in any Classis or group of Classes?
Liberal Preachers Welcomed
What was the next step to which Rian referred above? Let us introduce the next step by quoting Esquire Murray Forst Thompson, who said: “When a church begins to invite ministers of a different theological color into the pulpit, you know something has happened.”
What had the First Presbyterian Church in New York City done? It had invited Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick (Baptist, teacher at Union Theological Seminary) to be their pastor. On May 21, 1922, Dr. Harry E. Fosdick (who recently died at the age of 91) preached a sermon in the First Presbyterian Church in New York, entitled, “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” In it he opposed what he called a “deadline of doctrine which the Fundamentalists were marking around the church.” He said that the Fundamentalists had a perfect right to believe in the Virgin Birth, but that he knew “equally loyal and reverent people” who do not accept that as a historical fact. He also attacked the doctrines of the infallibility of Scripture, of the substitutionary atonement, and of the bodily resurrection. No wonder several Presbyteries overtured the General Assembly to direct the Presbytery of New York to take action requiring that the preaching in the First Presbyterian Church of New York conform to the doctrines of the church.
The Auburn Affirmation
This Assembly met in May, 1923. At this Assembly they reaffirmed the basic teachings of Christianity in what was called “The Evangelical Pronouncement” or ”The Five Points.” This Pronouncement reaffirmed that in order to be a minister in the Presbyterian Chmch in the U.S.A., one must believe in the Infallibility of Cod’s Word, in the Virgin Birth, in the Vicarious Atonement of Jesus Christ, in the Miracles, and in Bodily Hesurrection of Jesus. This reaffirmation of five basic teachings of Christianity was a victory for the Old School. Yes, a victory, but, mark you, on May 5, 1924, the Modernists published what was called “The Auburn Affirmation” and this was signed by 1294 ministers of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. This was a flat negation of “The Evangelical Pronouncement” in that it affirmed that a man to be a minister in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. does not have to believe in the Infallibility of God’s Word, in the Virgin Birth, in substitutionary Atonement, in the Miracles, nor in the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Mind you, it called itself an affirmation designed to safeguard the unity and the liberty of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. Liberals have a way of always talking about love and unity, a love that covers up all apostasy and a unity that ignores all doctrinal differences. Mind you, the Affirmationists contended that their views were not at variance with the Scriptures and the Presbyterian standards, but that the views of those who signed “The Evangelical Pronouncement” were in error! How far can one go and still make bold to assert that he is Scriptural? Certainly such reasoning must be the result of purely humanistic thinking or of what the Rev. J. G. Feenstra of Scheveningen would call “inlegkunde en niet uitlegkunde.” He has so well said “exegesis is geen inlegkunde maar uitlegkunde” (exegesis is not the art of reading into the Scriptures what is not there but of drawing out of the Scriptures what is there). A church or a preacher or a teacher has defected seriously if he twists the Scriptures to fit his own apostate ideas, thus calling error truth and truth error.
The “Machen Controversy”
Here, then, you have the background of what may be called the Machen controversy. Involved in the struggle against the liberal signers of the Auburn Affirmation were Dr. J. C. Machen, Dr. Allen MacRae, Dr. Carl Mc Intire, Esquire Murray Forst Thompson, Dr. Paul Woolley, and others. It was with the apostate teachings of the Auburn A(firmationists and matters related, that Dr. Machen and the other conservatives took issue. Dr. Machen’s book, Christianity anc! Liberalism, clearly high lights the difference between the Christian views of the conservatives and the liberal views of the Affirmationists. It is a brilliant defense of orthodox Christianity. Let us consider how Machen high lights these differences, and observe whether any of these basic differences are fading out among us.
The Infallibility of Scripture
First, liberals deny the infallibility of God’s Word. They say the Bible is inspired but not without error; the Bible is a rule of faith and practice but not without error. May I ask, How can it be a safe rule of faith and practice if it is not without error? If it is not inerrant, it is not of God. If it is not of God, it is not a safe rule of faith and practice.
Liberals believe in inspiration but not in plenary inspiration. Liberals reject plenary inspiration, and they reject the authority of the Bible, leaving the impression that they are substituting the authority of Christ. Machen denies that they accept the authority of Christ. The real authority of Liberals is, he says, the Christian consciousness and Christian experience. Christianity, to the contrary, is based upon the Bible. It bases both its thinking and its life upon the Bible. Liberalism, on the other hand, is founded on the shifting emotions of sinful man.
At this point, it must be noted, Machen makes a statement that may help us to use the word “liberal” accurately.
“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.
“It is another question, however, whether the meditating view of the Bible which is thus maintained is logically tenable, the trouble being that our Lord Himself seems to have held the high view of the Bible which is here being rejected. Certainly it is another question and a question which the present writer would answer with an emphatic negative—whether the panic about the Bible, which gives rise to such concessions, is at all justified by the facts. If the Christian makes full use of his Christian privileges, he finds the scat of authority in the whole Bible, which he regards as no mere word of man but as the very Word of God.” (Christianity and Liberalism, pp. 75–76, Macmillan.)
My fourth question is: Have any in our church questioned the infallibility of God’s Word?
My fifth question is: Have we at all used the Word “liberal” in a wrong sense among us?
My sixth question is: What is the supernatural act of God with which Christianity stands or falls?
The Virgin Birth of Christ
Secondly, liberals deny the necessity of believing in the Virgin Birth. Dr. H. E. Fosdick will admit that the historicity of “the Virgin Birth is believed by many gracious and beautiful souls,” but he believes that “side by side with them in evangelical churches is a group of equally loyal and reverent people who would say that the Virgin Birth is not to be accepted as an historical fact.” (Esq. M. F. Thompson, The Auburn Betrayal, p. 6.)
Christianity, contrariwise, holds that when you speak of the Virgin Birth you deal with a miracle in history, with a supernatural act of God in history, you deal with something that defies proof by observation and reason, that defies scientific demonstration. Dr. Cornelius Van Til puts it well when he says; “The modern theologian, the modern philosopher, the modern scientist makes the universe or reality as a whole his final and ultimate subject of predication….He includes his god and himself within that universe….With Parmenides of old modern man assumes that what man can intelligently say about reality is true, and only that is true.” What does this mean?
This means that since conception of the Holy Spirit and being born of the Virgin Mary defies intelligence, neither can be true. This means that since substitutionary atonement defies intelligence, it is not true. This means that because the miracles of the Bible defy intelligence, they are not true. This means that the bodily resurrection defies intelligence, and therefore is not true.
Dr. Machen states that 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 (108). I submit, people, that if one believes in a Christ not virgin born, one does not believe in the Christ of the Scriptures. One may believe in a Christ who is just the most outstanding human being born of human parents, but such a Christ would not be sinless; he would be conceived and born in sin, and therefore cannot be our Saviour. The Virgin born Jesus came to give his life a ransom for many.
My seventh question is; Do you know of anyone in our circles who denies or is ready to forfeit the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, should he he satisfied that science proves it impossible?
The Vicarious Atonement of Christ
Thirdly, liberals deny the vicarious atonement of Jesus. Machen plainly states that Liberalism finds its salvation in man; Christianity finds it in an act of God. Machen makes a pivotal statement when he says, “According to Christian belief, Jesus is our Saviour, not by virtue of what he said or was, but by virtue of what he did” (p. 117). The Liberal will speak of Jesus having died, but not vicariol1sly. The death of Jesus, they say, had no effect on God but only on man. God didn’t demand the shedding of blood; the wrath of God wasn’t upon us. God stands ready and willing to forgive. We have to be reconciled to God, not he to us. This is a flagrant violation of the truth expressed in Romans 1:18, and in Romans 5:8–10 (see Prof. J. Murray’s comments on these verses in his book on Romans).
Modern liberals speak with horror of the doctrine of an “alienated” or an “angry” God. The N. T. clearly speaks of the wrath of God and of the wrath of Jesus himself. All the teaching of Jesus presupposes a divine indignation against sin. Machen makes clear that the modern rejection of the doctrine of God’s wrath proceeds from a light view of sin which is wholly at variance with the teachings of the whole N.T. and of Jesus himself.
Modernists object, says Machen, to the doctrine of the atonement because it is contrary to the love of God. Machen admits that God is love, but that he is not only love. He reminds his readers that Jesus spoke terrible words in condemnation of sin, as you all know too.
My fellow Christians, a lop-sided emphasis on love is going to give us an unbalanced concept of God. All God’s attributes are infinite. God is just, so just that in order to manifest his saving love, he had to satisfy his justice. The Cross of Christ is the awful proof of this. Listen to Machen: “If God will necessarily forgive, no matter what we do, why trouble ourselves about Him at all? Such a God may deliver us from the fear of hell. But His heaven, if He has any, is full of sin” (p. 133). In John 3:36 we read, “He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” Note, the wrath of God does not abide on his sin, but on the person who does the sinning. We often hear it said that God hates sin but not the sinner.
What is the wrath of God? Prof. Murray defines it very well when he says; “Wrath is the holy revulsion of Cod’s being against that which is the contradiction of his holiness” (p. 35).
Dear readers, the Bible does not say that the love of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, but that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. We won’t come to know what sinners we are, until we gain an adequate concept of the holiness of God.
My eighth question is: Is there among us a tendency to shun the wrath of God in favor of a lop-sided emphasis on love?
My ninth question is; Is our Board of Home Missions (of the C.R.C.) right in advocating the use of the four spiritual laws adopted by Campus Crusade, the first of which is, “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life”?
The Bodily Resurrection of Christ
Fourthly, Modernists deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus. The Auburn Affirmation affirms that Jesus did not necessarily rise bodily from the grave. To say that much, they have to discredit the infallibility of God’s Word that plainly teaches it. The empty tomb observably empty; the angelic pronouncement, “He is risen; he is risen”; the many post resurrection appearances of the Jesus whose wounds proved his body to be the one that hung on the Cross and was buried. What greater proof than these can anyone ask for?
To deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus is clearly to deny what the Bible teaches, what the Apostles’ Creed teaches, what the Westminster Confession teaches.
My tenth question is: Are there any in your circle of church leaders who have denied the bodily resurrection of Jesus or, at least, consider it unimportant?
The Mirades of Christ
Fifthly, Modernists deny the miracles of Jesus. They speak of “mighty works,” not of “miracles.” They fail to see and admit that our Lord’s work “was superior” to nature.
Sending Apollo 8 to the moon was a mighty work, but not a miracle. It was an awesome demonstration of what man can do with the knowledge of the natural laws according to which God normally operates.
Modern science can account for mighty works but not for miracles. Miracles conflict with man’s concept of what Rushdoony calls “controlled causation,” with man’s concept of what Van Til calls a one-circle world.
Says Machen, “The distinction between the natural and the supernatural is simply the distinction between God’s work of providence and God’s work of creation; a miracle is a work of creation just as truly as the mysterious event that produced the world” (pp. 99–100).
Machen further shows how the Deist denies miracles because the God who made the world left it, having nothing more to do with it. This makes miracles impossible. The pantheist denies miracles because if all is God there is no outside power that can influence us. The theist, on the other hand, believes in God as personal, almighty creator, with whom all things are possible. Admit, says Machen, that God created the world and you cannot deny that he might engage in creation again.
In his Introduction to Systematic Theology, Dr. C. Van Til says, “With Parmenides of old modern man assumes that what man can intelligently say about reality is true and only that is true” (p. 168). (By “modern man” Van Til means the modern theologian, the modern philosopher, the modern scientist.) To what conclusions does the modern man come then? To such as these:
a. The Virgin Birth of Jesus defies man’s intelligence and is, therefore, untrue.
b. The miracles of Jesus defy man’s intelligence and are, therefore, untrue. For example, Jesus changing water into wine defies man’s intelligence and is, therefore, untrue. Jesus raising the dead defies man’s intelligence and is, therefore, untrue. Jesus multiplying the loaves and the fishes defies man’s intelligence and is, therefore, untrue.
c. The resurrection of Jesus defies man’s intelligence and is, therefore, untrue.
These happenings are all outside of the realm of what Rushdoony would call “controlled causation” and are, therefore, untrue in the eyes of the liberal. (See Mythology of Science, p. 20.)
Fellow Christians, eliminate miracles, and you eliminate the possibility of salvation, reconciliation, resurrection, heaven.
My eleventh question is: Are there any voices in our churches that want to take the miracle out of creation, that want to take the miracle out of Jesus’ birth and resurrection, that want to reduce the miracles of Jesus to merely “mighty works”?
Poles Apart
You have seen that the signers of the “Evangelical Pronouncement” and those of the “Auburn Affirmation” are poles apart. Yes, the liberals advocate dwelling together in unity—a unity which protects them in their apostasy—a unity they favor only until they are in control. When in control they oust the conservatives that fight the good fight of faith, as the Presbyterians did Dr. Machen and others. “Shall two walk together except they be agreed?” Can Bible believing Christians walk together with those in the apostate Church? Yes, says the liberal, because doctrinal differences are trifles. No, says the conservative because doctrinal differences are important. No, says the conservative because what the liberals call trifles strike at the very heart of the Gospel, as, for example, the vicarious atonement of Jesus Christ.
A further danger is that the liberals don’t even necessarily adhere to the belief in a personal Cod who created heaven and earth. Their concept of unity is not even necessarily centered in a personal God. Says Machen, “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.” For Dr. Henry Nelson Wieman of the Divinity School of the University of Chicago God is not a person but merely the growth of organic unity.
Another factor not to be overlooked is that your church is a creedal church. Dr. Machen very importantly stresses that jf a man does not accept the creeds of a church, he has no right to a place in her teaching ministry.
My twelfth question is: Are there those among our leaders that disagree with our creeds? If so, what would be the part of honor and of honesty?
My thirteenth question is: Are there those among us that want unity at all cost, those who would rather subdue or distort the doctrine than discipline the man guilty of heresy?
My fourteenth question is: Have there been any attempts in the direction of modifying the creeds of the church to pacify any liberalizing element?
Finally, are we at all more concerned about proper procedures than about purity of doctrine? If I were in imminent danger–mark well, if I were in imminent physical danger, and you were near to help, would you want to make sure of proper procedure? Would you say, “Oh, my hands are greasy. I shall spoil her dress. I must wash before I rescue her.” Or, would you forget all about the greasy hands and what they would do to my dress, and rather concentrate on rescuing me ere it be too late? Would the dress be more precious than the life? Likewise, is procedure more precious than the maintenance of purity of doctrine?
Fellow Reformers, may God use us, everyone of us, to call people back to the God of the Word and to the Word of God—that God concerning whom the Psalmist said in Psalm 138: ”For Thou hast magnified Thy Word above all Thy Name.”
Miss Johanna Timmer is a Christian School teacher, now retired, and living in Holland, Michigan.