Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse and Neo-EvangelicalismMiles J. Stanford Spiritual Sharing Service (Tri-S-Series) Number 8 of 19 This is Section II CRUSHING COMPROMISE -- In November of 1954 Dr. Barnhouse completely capitulated to his denomination, and especially to his Philadelphia Presbytery. Christians throughout the world were astounded by this seemingly sudden surrender. The Philadelphia Bulletin for November 12, 1954, reported:
It has been observed that there is a downward path in the progress of error. The compromising believer: recognizes it
POINTS TO PONDER -- It is now time for the explanation of the original query: "What I have never been able to understand, and still cannot get over, is the fact of his shameful capitulation to the liberals in the latter part of his ministry. In the light of his doctrinal soundness, and his knowledge of the identification truths, how could he possibly have done such a thing?" A few more facts may help to solve this remorseful riddle.
THE BATTLE INCIPIENT -- Although applying indirectly to Dr. Barnhouse, the Neo-evangelicalism to which he was foster parent is now characterized by "a question of the basic significance, or even the validity, of the doctrine of verbal inspiration, of the Scriptures" (J.C.Whitcomb, Jr.). With gratification we can attest that Dr. Barnhouse never for one moment faltered concerning the basic significance, nor the validity, of the doctrine of verbal inerrancy of the Word. The tragedy is that this cannot be said for thousands of leaders and followers in Neo-evangelicalism, who are evidently not as doctrinally established as he was. Today the movement is in deep trouble on this very issue: Is the Bible wholly inerrant, or does it include error? Something of the drastic present condition of Neo-evangelicalism can be deduced from the fact that over twenty years ago Dr. Harold Lindsell, then associate editor of Christianity Today, wrote:
THE BATTLE FOR THE BIBLE -- The present theological condition of the movement is now so critical that Dr. Lindsell has had to rise up in the midst of his brethren and write a book titled The Battle for the Bible (1976). An admirable and forthright defense and affirmation of the Bible's inerrancy, infallibility, and authority, the book was written for and mainly about Neo-evangelicalism. The first chapter is entitled, "Inerrancy an Evangelical Problem." Consider for a moment: After twenty-five years of Christianity Today's ministry to Neo-evangelicalism, the editor is forced to address a strong defense of the Bible to its constituency! The book became an instant bestseller, both highly acclaimed and heavily defamed--much of the latter coming from those to whom it was primarily written. THE ISSUE -- The crucial problem facing every fundamental believer in the Body of Christ today is that much of Neo-evangelicalism is no longer able to believe that the Bible is without error. It is not only a crucial issue, but it is a very subtle and tricky complexity--one that is bound to have a very deleterious effect upon all of Fundamentalism. There are those in Neo-evangelicalism who claim the Word of God contains discrepancies, contradictions, and even errors, while they at the same time consider the Bible to be an "infallible rule of faith and practice." However, in the first place, can there be true infallibility based upon errancy? In the second place, who is to judge where the errancy stops, and how far the infallibility extends? Finally, just who is to judge God's Word? The Bible is the judge of man; all men. "For all flesh is like grass, and all the glory of man like the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and its flower falleth away. But the word of the Lord endureth forever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Peter 1:24,25). CONTRADICTIONS? -- If the Bible contradicted itself, that would certainly be a discrepancy; in fact, it would be an error. The burden of proof is upon the accuser, be he Neo-evangelical or Neo-orthodox. Let him come forth and answer the challenge of Dr. A.A. Hodge:
THE CAUSE -- In order to accommodate the compromises that have been made in the name of scholarship, science, fellowship, or evangelism, the Neo-evangelicals are left with the shameful alternative of either forsaking Biblical authority or redefining it. To "redefine" in most cases results in forsaking. The underlying cause of this errancy attitude is an attempt to escape the authority of the inerrant, infallible Word of God! When the Neo-evangelical judges the content of the Bible as being essential or non-essential, errant or infallible, then he--not God--is in control! Just one question to consider. Who is in control of him? THE TRUTH -- The very character of our God leaves no question but that the original Scriptures came from His hand and heart in perfect accuracy. Although our Father has not seen fit to provide the originals, He has providentially preserved a sufficient number of manuscripts (4,000 in whole or in part of the New Testament alone), so that by true textual comparison we have the correct reading of the originals in almost every passage where there is any question at all. It was no less a Bible critic than Dean F.W. Farrar who nevertheless said, "The widest learning and acutest ingenuity of scepticism has never pointed one complete and demonstrable error of fact or doctrine in the Old or New Testaments." But it was the Lord Jesus Christ, our Lord and our God, who was and is without sin, who spoke as never man spake, whose every utterance was an expression of divine truth, who is in His own person the Truth, whose name is called the Word of God, who said, 'The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35); no, not even by the most brilliant of the Neo-evangelicals! THE REMEDY -- The Christian--be he Fundamentalist, Plymouth Brother, Neo-evangelical, or whatever--who does not rely, reckon, upon the work of the crucifying Cross to deal with his sin nature, that Christian is in peril of losing his Bible. If the old man is left free to dominate, he is liable to sooner or later rise up and finger the Word of God as errant. Then, let the Cross-less Christian insist upon its infallibility, and it will still prove to be a broken reed to his broken faith. The believer who is abiding above in living union of nature with the one who says the Scripture cannot be broken, to him there is no question. He knows Him as Life, he has and relies upon "the mind of Christ." To him the Bible is God-inspired; to him his present Bible is everything its Author declares it to be, everything to thoroughly and eternally furnish him unto all good works; unto the "good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:10). For the believer, "hid with Christ in God," there can be no quibbling. His present Bible is: inerrant, infallible, and AUTHORITATIVE. Question one aspect, and you lose all; trust all, and you have His Word for it! "ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Timothy 3:16). THE CRUX -- The questioning Neo-evangelical brother is more to be pitied than censored. Think of it, an errant Bible! Where can he turn? What he needs is the Cross in his life to crucify the questioner and thereby cancel the question. The Cross is the crux of the matter. Unless he sees his need and becomes willing to let the Holy Spirit apply the Cross to the unbelieving old man, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord; and they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east; they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it" (Amos 8:11,12). SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM ACCEPTED -- It was in 1956 that Dr. Barnhouse's ecumenical love-stance included cultic compromise. At that time he and Dr. Walter Martin entered into "sweet fellowship" with masters of deceit--the leaders of Seventh-Day Adventism! As a result there appeared an astounding series of articles in Eternity, beginning in September, 1956. While not agreeing with some of their "screwy doctrines," of as he put it, he insisted that "they are as orthodox on the great fundamentals of the Person and work of Christ as anybody in the world could be." (I for one, then, am out of this world!) In these fateful and disquieting disquisitions Dr. Barnhouse went all out in an effort to convince Christians that Seventh-Day Adventists were safe and sound evangelicals and should be accepted into full fellowship. This irresponsible sponsorship brought forth a storm of protest all over the world, with thousands writing in repudiation of the sheep-stealing and doctrinally deviant cult. Dr. Barnhouse was untouched. As a friend of his used to say of him, "He was dogmatic about any subject even when he was totally wrong." SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM ACCEPTS -- The wily Adventists were quick to take advantage of Dr. Barnhouse and his pandoric patronage. As early as October 2, 1956, the Adventist monthly, Signs of the Times, came forth with an editorial entitled, "Adventists Vindicated." "Vindicated" before the vindication was even published! Their statement contained this telling sentence: "As to the effect of Dr. Barnhouse's courageous reappraisal of Seventh-Day Adventism, we are convinced that it will not only create a sensation in evangelical circles, but it will lead thousands to restudy the 'message' which Seventh-Day Adventists feel called to give to the world in these last days." QUESTIONABLE "QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE" -- Just a few months later, early in 1957, the SDA denomination published an official 700-page volume entitled, Seventh-Day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine. The primary purpose of this tome was to convince evangelicals, hand-in-hand with Dr. Barnhouse and Dr. Walter Martin, that theirs was an evangelical body. A "QUESTIONABLE" GIFT! -- Well do I remember the day when two officials from the Illinois Conference of SDA in Brookfield, Illinois, came to my home near Wheaton and presented me with a gift copy of the book. The ink was barely dry! I recall that an interesting "discussion" ensued as to the believer's relationship to the law. At least I thought it was interesting! In quoting from the official gift, we find that it cannot pass the evangelical and biblical test of the impeccability of the Lord Jesus Christ.
However, the Lord Jesus made an opposite claim: "The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me" (John 14:30). It was Dr. C.I. Scofield who declared: "Were the teaching of the Seventh Day Adventists true, we would have a monstrosity--deity inheriting a fallen nature. If this could have been so, there could have been no sinless sacrifice, no hope for sinners, no Savior." HIDDEN HOOK -- What makes this SDA-Barnhouse-Martin triangle especially intolerable is that the cult was spawned, and is maintained, by deceit--deceit cunning enough to "deceive the very elect," such as these two brilliant Neo-evangelical leaders. At the time, the denomination had a membership of one million, most of whom had been lured from other churches. Being parasitic and unable to produce, Seventh-Day Adventism must seduce. ANONYMOUS AND ANOMALOUS -- The cult's method is to hide its identity, and to bait its hook with a modicum of truth. This deceit is designed to draw unsuspecting and unindoctrinated Christians into their errors of enslavement. This sophistry has been extremely successful in its use of the unidentified radio broadcast of "Frank and Ernest" fame. The movement has also gained thousands of members by means of its free correspondence course which gives no clue as to its SDA source until Lesson Twelve. By that time it is usually too late, for the well-hidden hook has been swallowed. A CULT, NOTWITHSTANDING -- Despite the New Testament in general, and the Epistle to the Galatians in particular, Dr. Barnhouse exhorted evangelicals to fellowship with this anti-security, law-enslaving cult whose heretical doctrines include: the sanctuary-investigative-judgment Christ's assumption of a sinful nature Sabbath-keeping Old Testament dietary restrictions partial atonement at Calvary conditional immortality soul sleep annihilation of the lost To sum up, our brother has confronted us with the impossible task of giving credence to a grace-plus-law-plus-Sabbath-keeping Jewish system in Christian dress. In 1962, Dr. Norman Douty put the whole shameful matter in its place with his book, Another Look at Seventh-Day Adventism. It is a masterful refutation of SDA's Questions on Doctrine, leaving no question as to the anti-evangelical character of the cult. PREPOSTEROUS PENTECOSTAL PERCENTAGE -- 1957 also witnessed Dr. Barnhouse and Dr. Martin entering into "close fellowship" with the Pentecostalists. Eternity for April, 1958, reported the visit with the leaders of the Assemblies of God at their headquarters in Springfield, Missouri, stating, "We found total disagreement of two percent of our doctrines, and absolute agreement of 95 to 98 percent." Again, believers were strongly exhorted to enter into fellowship with this anti-security, tongues and healing group. It was at this time that the Pentecostal plague was beginning to break loose and infect the larger denominations. The Barnhouse-Martin open door policy substantially contributed to the present-day charismatic errors that are rending the Body of Christ. Here the promoters of oneness gave their blessing to the most divisive and dangerous element of all! An ex-Pentecostal leader stated, "The denominations that are accepting and tolerating the Neo-pentecostals also exhibit tendencies toward Neo-orthodoxy, Neo-evangelicalism, and Neo-morality." To this day, Dr. Walter Martin frequents the Pentecostal platforms of the country. DYING CREEDS -- 1957 was certainly an ominous year for Dr. Barnhouse and those under his influence. In the September issue of Eternity he wrote, "It must be admitted that the greatest forces for orthodoxy at work in America today are inside the old denominations. Nowhere can more doctrinal orthodoxy be found than among great denominations--Southern Baptist, Missouri Synod Lutheran, the Reformed Church in America, and the Christian Reformed Church, to name a few." DEAD CREEDS -- It is a shame to have to say that this is not only an untrue statement, but an unethical one. There are at least two contrary factors purposely omitted. Dr. Barnhouse knew better than anyone that although all of the old denominations were orthodox in creed, they were heterodox indeed! Heretical Liberalism had wrested control, leaving the erstwhile sound creeds silent and dead. "Thou hast,a name that thou livest, and art dead" (Revelation 3:1)--the very charge that our brother leveled at his own Presbyterian denomination for years, until his surrender of love. In his ambiguous statement he did not include the "old denominations" that were already dead, such as Methodist, American Baptist, Episcopal, and his own Presbyterian. The few he did list were in the process of liberalization, and the Missouri Synod Lutherans have recently undergone a major split due to internal Modernism. As for the "orthodoxy" of the United Methodist denomination, 1975 statistics showed them closing one church, and losing 300 members, per day. And the recent ordination of an admitted lesbian by the Episcopal Church is the most unorthodox and shameful step of all. [If Barnhouse could only see the condition of today's denominations! - Webmaster] TRUE AND LIVING ORTHODOXY -- The other omitted factor is that Dr. Barnhouse knew all too well, and had heralded the fact for years, that the Fundamentalist movement outside the old denominations was far more orthodox and true to Scripture, both in word and in deed, than the Arminian Missouri Synod, the amillennial Southern Baptist Convention, and the Covenant theology Reformed bodies. CONSERVATIVE? -- Following his defensive claim as to the orthodoxy of the "great denominations," Dr. Barnhouse went on to write, "So we are not to hear as much about separation from apostasy as in earlier years, because the movement in the theological world today is definitely toward the conservative position. Outstanding leaders may repudiate fundamentalism, as Carl Henry has so strikingly done in a recent issue of Christianity Today, but at the same time move more solidly into a strong evangelical position which accepts all the fundamental truths." ENTER NEO-ORTHODOXY -- Denominational conditions both then and now make it obvious that our brother could not have been more wrong. At that time Neo-orthodoxy was in the process of wresting control of the great denominations from Liberalism, just as Liberalism had previously taken control from Conservatism. In comparison to Liberalism, Neo-orthodoxy seemed quite conservative; but when correctly compared with Fundamentalism and the Word of God, it was simply the "new modernism." Most of the Liberal denominational colleges and seminaries were converting to Neo-orthodoxy, so that it appeared to the undiscerning that there was a trend toward historic, conservative Christianity. All the more so because Neo-orthodoxy employed much Fundamental terminology, glibly speaking of "revelation," "atonement," and "resurrection." The catch is--and it has caught many--that they do not mean by those terms what the Bible means, what the true Fundamentalist believer means. Despite the fact that Neo-orthodoxy is more realistic than Liberalism, and that it quotes Scripture, it is not a biblical theology for the simple reason that it denies the verbal inspiration of the Word of God! DEADLY INFECTION -- Questioning, and actual denial, of the verbal inspiration of the Word of God is the very problem that is rending Neo-evangelicalism at the present moment. And where did the deadly infection come from? From fraternization with the apostate denominations that spread the pestilence--caught through exposure due to infiltration! In 1956, Dr. Carl Henry, then editor of Christianity Today, wrote, "The impact of Neo-orthodox theology has been felt especially in the area of Biblical authority. I notice a weakening even in some evangelical circles of confidence in the high doctrine of scripture." Instead of warning of this danger, Dr. Barnhouse went so far as to write in the June, 1959, issue of Eternity, "Barth (founder of Neo-orthodoxy) is in the camp of the true believers even though some of his forms of expression differ from traditional statements of theology. Much as we reject what some of Barth's followers have made of him (who made whom? --MJS), he must be considered as a brother in Christ." A brother in Christ who doesn't believe the Bible to be the Word of God! It was at this time that Dr. Norman F. Langford (Secretary of the Board of Christian Education of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.) was being "liberated" by "brother" Barth: "He has shown me that theology can never come to repose in a fixed theology--not even a neo-orthodoxy!--but must ever be moving on with no knowledge of where the journey will lead." Conversely, and biblically, a Fundamentalist observed concerning Neo-orthodoxy, "When Thomas bowed at the feet of the risen Lord Jesus he did not confess, 'You are the event which clarifies the mystery of the divine and gives meaning to the human situation!' He confessed that Jesus was Lord and God." SPEAKING OF CONFESSIONS -- While Dr. Barnhouse was working to turn believers away from sound and separated Fundamentalism, and into the Liberal and Neo-orthodox denominations, a born again pastor who had escaped from both Liberalism and Neo-orthodoxy had the following confession to make in his article, "From Modernism to Conservatism":
Our brother spoke well, and he spoke to us, did he not? For that we can all thank God! |
|
MJStanford
Home | MJS | Hungry Heart Devotional | Testimony | Memorial | Order Books | Email Best viewed in Explorer 6+ or Netscape 6+, 1024x768 screen display, 16 bit color or higher, and JavaScript on 900MB (2,000+ pages of text) Copyright © 1996-2008 withChrist.org Last updated: January 01, 2008 (Materials by Miles J. Stanford are republished here under exclusive permission from the author.)
|