While officials of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. attempt to give the impression that very few people are dissatisfied with the prevailing Modernism, (for example, Dr. Vance at the General Assembly belittled the orthodox by locating them on "both sides of the Schuylkill"), the existence of numerous independent churches, scattered throughout the country, testifies to a greater loyalty to Jesus Christ as the only head of the Church, than officialdom would have the public believe.
These independent churches have been formed in protest against the modern paganism dominant in most of the denominations. They stand for the fundamentals of the faith and are, for the most part, gloriously characterized by spiritual life and activity. Without wishing to derogate from the excellency of their intentions and accomplishments, but rather praying that God's richest blessings may fall upon them with mighty power, it is none the less necessary, in the present situation, to evaluate not only the advantages but also the dangers of independency. For there are dangers.
Two dangers are most obvious, one relating to the present condition of these churches' creedal statements, the other relating to the probable future status of those creeds.
First: Since present-day Modernism has not bothered to dispute what some may think the niceties of Christian theology, but has boldly attacked the central doctrines, to wit, the inerrancy of Scripture, the Virgin Birth of Christ, His miracles, His expiatory Atonement, and His bodily resurrection, it is natural that these points should be most strenuously defended by those who acknowledge Jesus as Lord. Now while these five points attacked in the Presbyterian Church by the heretical Auburn Affirmation are central, indispensable, absolutely essential, they do not exhaust divine revelation. The Scriptures contain much more information which, even if it be less popularly central, is equally indispensable. Because doctrines such as total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints, are integral and may or parts of God's revealed will, it is regrettable that the independent churches usually adopt an abbreviated creed. If they wish to defend and propagate Christianity they might as well proclaim the message in its entirety instead of partially, however essential those parts are. The first danger of independency is, therefore, the adoption of a creed which omits important sections of the historic creeds and often includes other material which never commended itself to the great Reformers.
Second: After bitter experiences with corrupt ecclesiastical inquisitions it is a natural reaction to establish churches independent of ecclesiastical control. If this be a temporary device pending the formation of other congregations and their unification into a truly reformed church, it is a practical and necessary expedient. But if, on the other hand, the independency is regarded as a permanent insurance against the inroads of Modernism it is but another example of reliance on human depravity instead of upon the arm of the Lord.
The fact that some courts, civil or ecclesiastical, are corrupt does not lessen the value or necessity of just courts. And while no denomination has entirely escaped the influence of Modernism, it is to be noted and pondered that denominations with abbreviated creeds and without ecclesiastical discipline, instead of remaining relatively pure, have succumbed to infidelity both sooner and to a larger extent.
The conclusion is that neither a long nor a short creed, neither courts nor independency, guarantee purity in doctrine and practice, but that a well-developed creed and a definite system of church courts retard the sinful but natural tendency to degeneration. This retardation is most effective, and that church is most nearly ideal where these elements and functions are conformed to the Word of God.
A new broom
sweeps clean. That it too will wear out is no argument against buying a new
broom.
No comments:
Post a Comment