Your Weekly Machen Fix: Attack on Princeton Seminary, Continued

Originally published in 1927.

No doubt such a program is full of perils.  Might it not be safer for our future ministers to close their ears to all modern voices and remain in ignorance of the objections that the gospel faces in the modern world?  We reply that of course it might be safer.  It is safer to be a good soldier in comfortable barracks than it is on the field of battle.  But the great battles are not won in that way.

Thus we encourage our students to be fearless in their examination of the basis of the faith.  Let no one say that such a program is unduly negative – that it involves too much examination of opposing views, and too little positive presentation of the gospel that we believe.  Nobly do the graduates of Princeton Seminary refute any such accusation.  What is it that the Church values in Princeton Seminary?  Is it not the positiveness and definiteness fo the gospel message that our graduates proclaim; is it not that our former students, amid the vagueness of much modern religious teaching, know so clearly where they stand?  No, the teaching of Princeton Seminary is not negeative, but positive; all our examination of objections to the gospel is employed only as a means to lead men to a clearer understanding of what the gospel is and to a clearer and more triumphant conviction of its truth.

But the attainment of such conviction leads, for many men, through the pathway of intellectual struggle and perplexity of soul  Some of us have been through such struggle ourselves; some of us have known the blankness of doubt, the deadly discouragement, the perplexity of indecision, the vacillation between “faith diversified by doubt,” and “doubt diversified by faith.”  If such has been our experience, we think with gratitude of the teachers who helped us in our need; and we in turn try with all our might to help those who are in the struggle now.  Nothing can be done, we know, by trying to tyrannize over men’s minds; all that we can do is to present the facts as we see them, to hold out a sympathizing hand to our younger brethren, and to commit them to God in prayer.

We cannot, indeed, seek to win men by false hopes; and we cannot encourage them to think that if they decide to stand for Christ they will have the favor of the modern world or necessarily of the modern Church.  On the contrary, if we read the signs of the times aright, both in the Church and in the State, there may soon come a period of genuine persecution for the children of God.

“If I find Him, if I follow,

What His guerdon here?

Many a sorrow, many a labor,

Many a tear.”

Such, we are inclined to think, will be the  lot of those who stand against the whole current of the age.  It is not an easy thing to oppose a world in arms; nor is it an easy thing to oppose an increasingly hostile church.  But when one does so, with full conviction, what a blessed, inward peace!

Such is the peace to which many of our students have attained.  Small has been our part in such a result; it has been the work of God.  But by the blessing of God’s Spirit, through the use of whatever means, there has been emanating from Princeton during the last few years a current of warm Christian life that has refreshed those hwom it has touched.  It has found a noble expression in the new League of Evangelical Students; but it has found an even nobler expression in the experience of individual men.  Conviction has issued here truly into Christian life.

What shall be done with this type of warm and vital Christiantity that has been issuing from Princeton?  It may come squarely into conflict, at some points, with the present leadership of the church.  But because the fervent piety of our recent graduates of Princeton Seminary may be opposed at some points to the ecclesiastical machinery, it does not follow that that ecclesiastical machinery should be allowed to crush it out.  Long has been the conflict, during nineteen centuries, between ecclesiastical authority and the free and mysterious operation of the Spirit of God.  But under our Presbyterian institutions the tyrannical practices to which ecclesiastical authority has elsewhere resorted are an anomaly and a shame.  And so we have some hope that the present tyrannical proposal about Princeton Seminary may yet be rejected and that Princeton may yet be saved.

Your Weekly Machen Fix: Attack on Princeton Seminary, Continued

The following excerpt was originally published in 1927.  This piece should quell any notion of Machen being a Fundamentalist.

We have seen that Princeton Seminary stands in the first place for the complete truthfulness of the Scriptures as the Word of God, and in the second place for the Westminster Standards as containing the system of doctrine that the Scriptures teach.  In the third place, Princeton Seminary holds that both these things – the full truthfulness of Holy Scripture and the system of doctrine that our Standards set forth – need, and are capable of, intellectual defence. 

Hence we cannot agree with those who think that a theological seminary ought to devote less time to the defence of Christianity and more time to the propagation of it.  Certainly it is a grievous sin to propagate what is incapable of defence.  The basic question about any message that may be propagated is the question whether it is true; and that question has been raised with regard to the Christian message in such insistent fashion in the modern world that the challenge must above all things be squarely and honestly met.

In meeting the challenge, we are fully conscious of the magnitude of our task.  We cannot agree at all with those who despise the adversaries in this great debate, who think that the “critics” are to be disposed of with a few general words of adjectival abuse.  For our part, we have profound admiration for the great masters of modern criticism; we are fully conscious of their intellectual greatness; we respect them to the full.  Who would not admire the imposing reconstructions proposed by a Baur or by a Bousset, or the massive learning of a Schürer, or the brilliancy and versatility of a Harnack, or the incisiveness of radicals like Wrede in Germany or our own American Dr. McGiffert?  Certainly we respect such scholars, opponents though they are of all that we hold most dear.  Some of them may have respected us in turn; but whether they respect us or not, we shall continue respecting them.  They are wrong, we think; all their learning is devoted to the impossible task of reconstructing on naturalistic principles what was really an act of God.  But though they are wrong, they are wrong in a grand and imposing way; and they cannot be refuted either by a railing accusation or by a few pious words.

So we try to divest our students of the notion that there is any royal road to sacred learning; we try to divest them of the notion that they can lead the modern Church without a knowledge of the original languages of Scripture and without the other tools of research.  Above all we try to give them a sense of the magnitude of the modern debate.  We try, indeed, to lead them to faith; but we do not try to lead them by encouraging them to ignore the facts.  On the contrary, we believe that Christian faith flourishes not in the darkness but in the light, and that a man’s Christian conviction is only strengthened when he has examined both sides.  We do, indeed, encourage men to come to Princeton Seminary.  For them to do so, we think, is only fair.  Historic Christianity deserves, we maintain, at least a hearing before it is finally given up; it is not fair to hear only what can be said against it without obtaining any orderly acquaintance with what it is; and to learn what is is men should listen not to its opponents but to those who believe it with all their minds and hearts.  So we do invite men to Princeton.  But after they have studied at Princeton, indeed even while they are studying here, the more they acquaint themselves with what opposing teachers say, the better it seems to us to be.  We encourage our graduates, if they can, to listen to the great foreign masters of naturalistic criticism; we desire them to hear all that can be said against the gospel that we believe.

American Cheese – Exported

I recently attended an English-speaking Evangelical church while on vacation in Mexico (the location is withheld to protect the guilty).  It was the only Protestant church that I could find.  I would have gladly attended a Spanish-speaking Reformation church: Presbyterian, Reformed, Lutheran, even old-school Anglican.  A good liturgy overcomes language barriers.  Unfortunately, in this Mexican town it’s either Catholic or ex-patriot American schmaltz.

The service began with some high-energy praise choruses.  As soon as the first note was struck, people were bopping around with plastic smiles on their faces and hands in the air.  I am absolutely certain that these people are more spiritual and pious than I am.  There is no doubt about that.  It is just impossible for me to break into a shiny happy people-type  feeling at the drop of a hat.  Early on Sunday morning I am not ready to pretend that I’m at a Wham! concert circa 1985.  The music at this church was closer to “Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go” than it was to anything in the Psalter. 

Of course there was the stereotypical praise band led by a forty-something Carly Simon wannabe.  Behind her was the middle-aged but still trying hard to be cool guy.  Three teenage girls, a drummer, and a keyboardist rounded out the group.  Praise bands remind me of softball-guy – people living out their unfulfilled dreams at the expense of others.  Softball-guy has a longsuffering girlfriend/wife who follows him to every game and listens to how his high school coach and/or injury cost him a shot at the bigtime.  Praise bands have  longsuffering churches that are trying to worship in spite of mediocre musicians imagining that they’re playing Red Rocks while singing 46 verses of each identical Jesus is my Boyfriend song interspersed with “Ohhhh” and “Ahhhh” in between the actual words, all with hands raised.  I’ll take the Psalter and an out of tune piano over this stuff any day.

After the mini-concert, the pastor and his wife got up and excitedly asked the church, “How was your week?”  His response was, and the quotation marks that follow are not just for show, this is what he actually said, “We had a wing-ding of a week!”  (I assume that this is how one spells wing-ding).  This guy makes Ned Flanders look morose.  He then went on to mention that the church was “going to war” for a member who is diagnosed with cancer and that they were claiming healing for this poor woman.  He knows that God will remove the cancer.  Well, what if God doesn’t remove the cancer?  Whose fault is that?  Is it God’s fault or is it this poor woman’s fault?  Why not just ask God to comfort this woman and remind her of her hope in Christ, no matter what the outcome?

The sermon was based on Rick Warren’s, Purpose Driven Life, with the outline taken directly from the book.  It was straight law.  The entire message was DO MORE!  “What are you doing for God and the church?  Well, do more!  There is always more to do!”  There was no mention of the gospel, that Christ has died for our sins and reconciles us to a holy God.  There was no mention of what Christ has done for us, just what we can do for others. 

The pastor is modeling this doing by leading a mission trip to Cambodia.  This intrigued me.  Why is a pastor in Mexico, where people live in poverty literally within two blocks of the church, going all the way to Cambodia to do mercy ministry?  I wanted to stand up and shout, “What is wrong with the people outside your door that you must go to Cambodia instead of helping those down the street!”  This is the problem with the do more mindset.  It is not doing enough to stay in your neighborhood and help those in need.  You must travel to the other side of the world to do more there.  There are always bigger and more desperate places where one can do more.  Sure, Mexico has poverty but Cambodia is really in need.  That is a place where we can really DO MORE! 

It saddens me that American Evangelicalism has transported its shallowness to other parts of the world.  The point of this post is not to criticize this church.  These people are probably doing the best that they can with what they know.  As I said, I guarantee that they are more pious and spiritual than I am.  The problem is that they have not been exposed to a better way (the title of a very good book).  What the people of Mexico, and everywhere else, need is not a happy-clappy pretend that everything is fine even though I have cancer fun-fest.  They need the gospel.  They need to know that Christ died for their sins and that they are forgiven, even when they feel awful.  They need to know that their hearts can find rest in the Savior, even though their lives are falling apart.   They need to be reminded of the promises of God, even when it seems like He is far away.  I would prefer to see that exported, instead of just more American cheese.

Turretin: The Simplicity of God, Continued

The following is an excerpt from the Institutes of Elenctic Theology, III. vii. 8-10.

Seventh Question: The Simplicity of God Is God most simple and free from all composition?  We affirm against Socinus and Vorstius.

VIII.  Composition is in that in which there is more than one real entity, but not where there is only more than one mode because modes only modify and characterize, but do not compose the essence.  But in divine things there are one essence and three hypostases (which are modes distinguishing indeed the persons from each other, but not composing because they are not real entities concurring to the composition of some fourth thing, since they have one common essence; but they are only modifications according to which the essence is conceived to subsist in three persons).

IX.  Simplicity and triplicity are so mutually opposed that they cannot subsist at the same time (but not simplicity and Trinity because they are said in different respects): simplicity in respect to essence, but Trinity in respect to persons.  In this sense, nothing hinders God (who is one in essence) from being three persons.

X.  The decrees of God can be regarded in two ways: either subjectively (if it is right so to speak, i.e., on the part of the internal act in itself and absolutely); or objectively, extrinsically and relatively with respect to creatures (respectively).  In the former manner, they do not differ from God himself and are no other than God himself decreeing.  But in the latter, they do differ because they may be conceived as many and various (not as to the thing, since God has decreed all things by one single and most simple act, but as to the objects), even as the knowledge of God is conversant with innumberable objects without detriment to his unity.

Turretin: The Simplicity of God, Continued

The following is an excerpt from the Institutes of Elenctic Theology, III. vii. vi-vii.

Seventh Question: The Simplicity of God

Is God most simple and free from all composition? We affirm against Socinus and Vorstius.

VI.  But as God rejects all composition in himself, so his simplicity hinders him also from being compounded with any created things so as to hold the relation of some part either of matter or form (against the opinion of the Platonists who supposed God to be the soul of the world; and of the Manicheans who held that all creatures were propagated from the essence of God).  This is so both because he is altogether diverse from creatures, and because he is immutable and incorruptible (he cannot coalesce in one with any mutable and corruptible created thing).  For all composition infers mutation by which a thing becomes part of a whole, which it was not before.

VII.  If all things are said to be of God (Rom. 11:36), this must be understood not hylikos (”belong to matter”) and materially, but demiourgikos (”formatively”) and efficiently.  We are called the race and offspring of God (Acts 17:28), not by a participation of the same essence, but by similarity of likeness; efficiently not essentially, as also he is called the “Father of spirits” (Heb. 12:9) with reference to creation, not to composition.  The Son of God is God-man (theanthropos) not by composition properly so-called, but by hypostatical union (by which the Word [logos] indeed assumed human nature in one hypostasis, but was not compounded with it as part with part; but stood to it in the relation of perfecter and sustainer to make perfect and sustain an essential adjunct, so that the human nature indeed did thence receive perfection, but nothing was added by it to the divine nature).

Your Weekly Machen Fix: Attack on Princeton Seminary, Continued

The following excerpt was originally published in 1927.

But what is it that the Bible contains?  That question brings us to our second point.  We have just said that Princeton Seminary stands for the full truthfulness of the Bible.  In the second place, it stands for the Reformed or Calvinistic faith as being the system of doctrine that the Bible contains.

The Bible, let it be noted, contains, on our view (which is also the view expressed in the ordination pledge of ministers and elders in our Church), not merely this doctrine or that, but a system of doctrine.  A system differs from a mere agglomeration in the inter-relation and mutual necessity of its parts.  And so we cannot agree with those who isolate one part of the system from the other parts as being alone necessary as a basis for Christian work.  Very profoundly, for example, do we differ from those who omit the doctrines of grace – the Bible teaching about sin, the Bible answer to the question, “What shall I do to be saved?” – from the things that they regard essential as a basis for co-operation among various ecclesiastical bodies at home or on the mission field. 

As over against such a reduced Christianity, we at Princeton stand for the full, glorious gospel of divine grace that God has given us in His Word and that is summarized in the Confession of Faith of our Church.  We cannot agree with those who say that although they are members of the Presbyterian Church, they “have not the slightest zeal to have the Presbyterian Church extended through the length and breadth of the world.”  As for us, we hold the faith of the Presbyterian Church, the great Reformed Faith that is set forth in the Westminster Confession, to be true; and holding it to be true we hold that it is intended for the whole world.

But it would be the greatest mistake to think that the issue with regard to Princeton Seminary stops there; it would be the greatest mistake to suppose that the difference concerns merely the question whether we are to stand for the full heritage of our Reformed Faith or are to content ourselves (in the statement of what is essential) with some lesser creed.  No, the difference cuts even deeper than that.  It concerns not merly the question as to the content of the doctrine that we are to set forth, but rather the attitude that is to be assumed with regard to all doctrine as such.  It concerns not merely the question whether we are to teach this or that, but the question whether what we teach we are to teach with our whole hearts and in clear-cut oppostion to the present drift of the times.

The policy of President Stevenson with regard to Princeton Seminary has sometimes been represented as an “inclusive” policy.  There is certainly an element of truth in such a representation.  Never has Dr. Stevenson given any clear indication, by the policy that he has followed at President of the Seminary, that he recognizes the profound line of cleavage that separates the two opposite tendencies within the Presbyterian church, and the necessity that if Princeton Seminary is to be true to its great heritage and true to the moral obligations involved in the distinctive basis upon which it has alway appealed for support, it must, in this great contention, definitely and unequivocally take sides.  Such recognition, which we seek in vain in President Stevenson, would not necessarily prejudge the question whether both tendencies should be tolerated within the Presbyterian Church; but it would certainly mean at least that Princeton has the right and indeed the very solemn obligation of maintaining a distinctive position within the larger unity of the Church.  It is true, then, that Dr. Stevenson’s policy is in a very important sense an inclusive policy, and that such an inclusive policy is contrary to the obligations which, on account of its entire history, Princeton Seminary has very solemnly assumed.

But although in one sense the policy with which we disgree is an inclusive policy, in another sense it is not inclusive at all.  Formally it is inclusive, but in its deeper meaning and in its practical applications it is very exclusive indeed.  No one who has observed with the slightest care the policy of the President can think that if that policy prevails any man who is consistently conservative or evangelical in the ecclesiastical issue of the day will have the slightest chance of being elected to a chair in Princeton Seminary.  The only men who will be tolerated in the Faculty will be men who hold a complacent view of the state of the Church, who conceal from themselves and from others the real state of religious opinion in the world, and who consent to conform to the opinions of the party dominant for the moment in the councils of the Church.  The Seminary under the new policy will be inclusive of those who obscure the great isssue of the day; but it will be exclusive of those who have determine to warn the Church of her danger and to contend earnestly for the faith.

If that policy becomes dominant in Princeton Seminary, then the Princeton position has very definitely been given up.  And if the change is wrought by ecclesiastical action, then all the high-sounding words which have recently been uttered about peace and tolerance will be mocked.  In that case, there will be liberty in the Presbyterian Church for Modernists, but none for conservatives; and those who hold the conservative view will have to go elsewhere for the maintencace of those convictions that are dearer to them than life itself.

Turretin: The Simplicity of God, Continued

The following is an excerpt from the Institutes of Elenctic Theology, III. VII. V.

Seventh Question: The Simplicity of God

Is God most simple and free from all composition? We affirm against Socinus and Vorstius.

From the removal of all species of composition (such as physical – of matter and form, since he is incorporeal); or of quantitative parts (which do not apply to God); or of subject and accident (because no accident can make the most perfect still more perfect); and logical (of kind and difference because God is above every genus, nor is his a common nature capable of being restricted by difference); metaphysical act and power (since he is a pure act and incapable of change properly so called, to whom nothing new can happen or be received by him); of essence and existence (as in created things in which the nature of existence differs from that of essence, since their essence can be conceived without existence; nor does existence enter into their definition because they can be and not be, and existence with respect to them is something contingent, not necessary.  For in God essence cannot be conceived without existence, and it is repugnant to conceive of God as not existing; hence philosophers call him a being by essence (i.e., which exists in virtue of its own essence) and of the nature of whose essence it is that he always exists.  For this reason, God calls himself Jehovah to signify that being belongs to him in a far different manner than to all created things, not participatively and contingently, but necessarily, properly and independently.  Finally, his simplicity is proved from nature and subsistence; for person and essence are not related as real component extremes from which a tertium quid may arise (as in human things from the nature of man and the subsistence of Peter arises that person whom we call Peter); otherwise not a Trinity but a certain quaternity would be conceived of in God; nor do modes (such as subsistences)compose, they only modify.

Turretin: The Simplicity of God, Continued

The following is an excerpt from the Institutes of Elenctic Theology, III. VII. II-IV

Seventh Question: The Simplicity of God

Is God most simple and free from all composition?  We affirm against Socinus and Vorstius.

 II.  Simple is used in two sense: either absolutely and simply; or relatively and comparatively.  Absolutely is such as in every kind of being excludes composition; comparatively is such as excludes it only with respect to some.  Heaven and the elements are called simple bodies with respect to mixed, but do not exclude composition from theri matter and form and quantitative parts.  Angels and souls are simple with respect to bodies, but not absolutely such because they always involve a composition.  Here we speak of absolute and not of comparative simplicity.

III.  The simplicity of God considered not morally, but physically, is his incommunicable attribute by which the divine nature is conceived by us not only as free from all composition and division, but also as incapable of composition and divisibility.

IV.  This is proved to be a property of God: (1) from his independence, because composition is of the formal reason of a being originated and dependent (since nothing can be composed by itself, but whatever is composed must necessarily be composed by another; now God is the first and independent being, recognizing no other prior to himself); (2) from his unity, because he who is absolutely one, is also absolutely simple and therefore can neither be divided nor composed; (3) from his perfection, because composition implies imperfection inasmuch as it supposes passive power, dependency and mutability; (4) from his activity, because God is a most pure act having no passive admixture and therefore rejecting all composition (because in God there is nothing which needs to be made perfect or can receive perfection from any other, but he is whatever can be and cannot be other than what he is).  Whence he is usually described not only by concrete but also by abstract names – life, light, truth, etc.

Turretin: The Simplicity of God

The following is an excerpt from the Institutes of Elenctic Theology, III. VII. I.

Seventh Question: The Simplicity of God

Is God most simple and free from all composition?  We affirm against Socinus and Vorstius.

I.  The Socininas agitate this controversy with us since they deny that simplicty can be attributed to God according to the Scriptures and think it should be expunged from the number of the divine attributes for no other purpose than to weaken more easily the mystery of the Trinity by establishing the composition of the divine essence (The Racovian Catechism 3.1).  Vorstius retained this error (with various others also) and introduced it into his Tractatus theologicus de Deo (1610) and in the notes to “Disputatione III: De Natura Dei.”  With these the Remonstrants also agree.  In their Apology, they deny that the simplicity of God is necessary to be believed or that anything occurs in Scripture relative to it, but that the whole doctrine is metaphysical whether you consider the word or the thing.  But the orthodox have constantly taught that the essence of God is perfectly simple and free from all composition.

Your Weekly Machen Fix: The Attack Upon Princeton Seminary – Continued

The following is an excerpt from a pamphlet entitled, “The Attack Upon Princeton Seminary: A Plea for Fair Play,” published in 1927.

In the first place, we stand for the complete truthfulness of the Bible as the Word of God.  It is often said that the Bible is infallible in the inner, religious sphere, but fallible like other books when it comes to deal with external history.  We reject any such distinction.  Our religion is no bottonless mysticism, but it is the Christian religion; and the Christian religion is founded squarely upon events, like the death and resurrection of our Lord, that took place in the external world.  Unless the Bible can give us knowledge of those basic events, it can be no infallible guide for our souls.

Thus we hold that the Bible is not partly true and patly false, but true throughout.  In saying that, we are well aware of the favor that we are sacrificing.  There are many who would be inclined to treat with respect what we say about many things – what we say, for example, even in defence of the virgin birth and bodily resurrection of our Lord – but who regard us as having placed ourselves beyond the pale of serious consideration when we hold that the Bible is true from beginning to end.  It would be convenient, therfore, for us to keep in the background what we believe about this point, and thus to retain a larger measure of favor from the modern Church.  Much could be said, from the point of view of policy, in favor of such an attitude.  But it is an attitude which we can never adopt.  There is to our mind no profession more despicable than the profession of teaching when one thing is said in the classroom and another thing to the Church at large.  And so we say plainly, to the ruin, in many quarters, of our reputation, but with the approval of our consciences, that we hold the Bible to be free from the errors that mar other books, to be the blessed, holy, infallible Word of God.

We do not, indeed, begin with that conviction in our defence of the Christian religion; and so we can find common ground for discussion with many whose view of the Bible is very different from ours.  When, for example, we argue in favor of our belief in a personal God, we do not base our argument at all upon the infallibility of the Bible; what we say in that sphere, therefore, may commend itself to many whose view of the Bible is very unfavorable indeed.  Or when we defend our belief in the resurrection of our Lord, again our argument is independent of the question whether the Bible is infallible or not.  Even prior to any belief in the infallibility of Scripture, a scientific treatment of the sources of information will, we think, lead the historian to hold that Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead on the third day.  There are many Christian who can go with us that far, and yet cannot accept our view of the Bible; and we rejoice in the measure of their agreement with us.  Our view of the Bible is not the beginning, we think, but it is rather the end, of any orderly defence of the Christian religion.  First the general truth of the Bible in its great outlines as an historical book, and the supernatural origin of the revelation that it contains, then the full truthfulness of the Bible as the Word of God – that is the order of our apologetic.

Nevertheless, although we do not begin with the doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture, we do come to it in the end; and when we have come to it, we build upon it our orderly exposition of the Chritian faith.  As apologists, in other words, we end with the infallibility of Scripture, but as systematic theologian we begin with it.  Systematic theology, we think, logically begins at the point where apologetics has left off.  Apologetics establishes the truthfulness of the Bible, and then systematic theology proceeds to set forth the teaching that the Bible contains.