Your Weekly Machen Fix: Biblical Examples, Good and Bad

This article was originally published in “The Presbyterian Guardian,” on August 17, 1936.

The Bible contains a wonderful collection of portaits.  How vividly the figures stand out on the  pages of history!  How wonderfully the characters are depicted, and often with a very few strokes!  The Bible seems to be able to tell more of the human heart in a few brief sentences than other books can tell in whole pages of psychological analysis.

It is no wonder that the persons who appear in the Biblical narrative have given their names to various types of character that are often recurrent in human life.  So we speak of one man as being a Judas, another as a Gallio, another as an Elijah, and so on through the whole wonderful gallery of portraits that the Bible contains.

Neglect of this distinction results sometimes in very extraordinary teaching.  Thus I remember hearing a young Modernist preacher some years ago who actually held up Naaman the Syrian as an example to be emulated by the congregation.  “Look how careful Naaman was,” said the preacher in effect, “when he went about the business of getting rid of his leprosy; look what care he took to get a letter of introduction and provide a fine present when he wrought healing at the court of the king of Israel: so we ought to be equally careful in the serious concerns of life.”

Well, I think any child could see that the point of the story of Naaman is the exact opposite of what that preacher got from it; I think that any child could see that the point of the story is that all of Naaman’s careful preparations were of no avail whatever and that what God required him to do instead was to give up his pride and accept his salvation in God’s way and simnply as a gift of God’s grace.

Another Modernist preacher whom I remember hearing held up Isaiah’s idol-maker as an example for us to follow!  He took as his text, it I remember rightly, that great passage where the prophet pours out his scorn upon idolatry by describing the way in which the same tree serves the idolmaker to light a kitchen fire and to be the object of men’s worship:

He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire:

And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god (Isa. 44:16f.).

“This is a interesting text,” said the preacher (so far as I can remember the substance of his words); “it indicates the two necessary parts of our activities in the church.  Notice how in the first place that man described by the prophet took care of the physical needs of man.  He made a fire and roasted roast.  So we in the church ought not to neglect men’s physical needs; we ought to engage in social service and the like.  But then notice also that that man described by the prophet did something else besides making a fire and roasting roast.  ‘With the reside thereof he maketh a god.’  That also was important; that also we ought to take to heart.  We ought not to be so much engrossed in caring for the spiritual needs of man that we neglect the spiritual side of things.  We ought to build the fire and roast the roast.  That is good.  But then we also ought not to neglect what corresponds to the making of the god.  So will both sides of the work of the church come to their rights.”

Perhaps you may say that the man who preached such a sermon as that must have come from the backwoods.  Such ignorance, such an utter lack of appreciation of one of the most magnificent pieces of irony in all literature, could surely, you may say, be found only in some place remote from the centres of modern culture.  But as a matter of fact the man who preached that sermon came from one of our great cities.  I do not remember his name; so please do not ask me to identify him.  But my impression is that he was a graduate of one of our most famoust institutions of learning.

Where you find a complete lack of understanding for the great central message of the Bible coupled with the maintenance of the habit of taking Biblical texts for preaching, you find, even among persons otherwise educated, exegetical monstrosities like that. 

But even where there is no such crass error as those of which I have just spoken, people often go astray in the Biblical characters that they choose as their examples.

For instance, a good many people in our day seem  to think that Gamaliel, the man who advocated a policy of “watchful waiting” with regard to the preaching of the Apostles, is a character to be emulated by Christian men.

I can see no justification for such a view.  I can see no reason to think the Bible holds up Gameliel before us as an example to be emulated.  Gamaliel was a Pharisee, not a believer.  If he had been a believer, something other than a bare tolerance would have been his attitude toward those who were speaking boldly in the name of Jesus.

Beers with Turretin

Institutes of Elenctic Theology, I.viii.xiii-xiv.

XIII.  In matters of faith reason stands not only in the relation of an instrument by which, but also sometimes from a means and argument from which the theologian argues (viz., when from his own treasury he draws arguments for the faith; or contends for principles by showing their credibility to those who do not acknowledge it; or treats from principles by drawing arguments from nature either to prove or confirm theological conclusion).  Hence the same conclusion may be of faith (inasmuch as it is proved from Scripture) and of knowledge (inasmuch as it is demonstrated by reason).  yet we must not from this infer that reason is the principle and rule by which doctrines of faith should be measured.

XIV.  In mixed syllogisms (where one proposition is of faith, another of reason) reason is not the foundation and rule upon which the conclusion rests, but only the means and instrument by whose aid the truth virtually concealed in the other premise is elicited.  Therefore in syllogisms of this kind the middle term is not taken from reason, but from Scripture.  The connection however of the middle with the major extreme when it is denied by the adversary is shown by the principles of reason not to strengthen the truth of the mean, but of the connection.  For example, I deny that the glorified body of Christ is everywhere, having taken from Scripture this mean, that it is a real body.  But the major (that no body is everywhere) is drawn from reason. Hence in such arguements the theological conclusion follows from the mean inferring, and the logical from reason which connects the consequence.  One of the premises which is of faith communicating its force to the conclusion rests (as to the matter of consequent) upon revelation alone; although (as to the form and mode of consequence) it depends upon reason.

Your Weekly Machen Fix: The Christian Reformed Church

Originally published in “The Presbyterian Guardian,” in 1936.

One of the most joyful moments at the recent first General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America was the moment when we received the official greetings of the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church.

From no ecclesiastical body in the whole world could greetings have been more welcome, both because of the deep debt of gratitude that we already owe to the Christian Reformed Church – I need only mention the fact that that church has given to Westminster Seminary R. B. Kuiper, Cornelius Van Til and N. B. Stonehouse – and also because of the noble testimony which that church has carried on in the defense and propagation of the Reformed Faith.  Fraternal greetings coming from such a quarter as that over-balanced by far all the detractions and opposition which have come to us from other sources, and make us feel anew that all the years of struggle through which we have passed were well worth while if now at length we are members of a church that is truly Reformed and that is worthy even in slighest measure to receive the right hand of fellowship from such a truly Reformed church as the Christian Reformed Church unquestionably is.

I am not going to make any attempt just now to review the splendid history of this ecclesiastical body that has just sent us greetings.  I am not competent to do so; and even if I were more competent that I am I doubt whether it would be necessary.  The faithfulness of the Christian Reformed Church is widely known, and any mere general words of appreciation on my part might seem almost like an impertinence.

What I do want to do, however, is just to mention, though in a necessarily desultory way, a few of those things about the life of the Christian Reformed Church which have kept it from falling away into the dominant Modernism and have been the instruments in preserving its truly Christian witness.

1.  Separation for the Sake of Faithfulness

Like the Presbyterian Church of America, the Christian Reformed Church was formed through a separation from compromising associations.  That separation was not schism.  On the contrary it was separation entered into in order that schism might be avoided.  The Christian Reformed Church separated from a certain organization in order that it might not separate, or might not, to say the least, risk separation, from the true Church of Jesus Christ.  Similar was the great separation led by Abraham Kuyper in Holland.  God has very richly blessed such separation as that.  It is separation undertaken not in the interests of schism but in the interest of the true unity and purity of the Church.   

2.  Theological Consistency

The Christian Reformed Church has never been content with being vaguely “evangelical” or “conservative” or “fundamentalist,” but has endeavored to be truly “Reformed.”  That is, it has not been content with some partial or piecemeal presentation of the truth that the Bible contains, but has held firmly to that glorious system of revealed truth which is summarized in the great Reformed confessions of faith.

3.  Indoctrination by the Pastors

In the Christian Reformed Church it is the custom for every pastor to base one sermon each Sunday on the Heidelberg Catechism.  The result is that in the Christian Reformed Church the laity has been soundly and systematically indoctrinated, while in other churches preaching, even when orthodox, has for the most part been desultory and the people have not really been built up in the Faith.

4.  Church Discipline

The Christian Reformed Church has practised church discipline in a way that is seldom seen in most ecclesiastical bodies, and by such church discipline it has preserved its separateness from the world.  I do not mean that it is even now free from danger.  Modernism is knocking at the door of the Christian Reformed Church, as it is knocking at the door of every church no matter how pure.  Pray God that the door may be kept locked to such an enemy as that!  But what I will say without fear of contradiction is that the Christian Reformed Church has hitherto preserved its purity in a really wonderful way. It has not done so by a way of its own choosing.  But it has done so by a way of God’s choosing, and that way is church discipline.

5.  Christian Schools

If you go into a city where there are many people of the Christian Reformed Church, you will see scattered here and there throughout the city certain school buildings which are not public schools and are not parochial schools of the Roman Catholic Church.  These are the “Christian Schools” in which an integral part of the instruction given is instruction in that system of truth that the Bible contains.  These schools are not under ecclesiastical control, but are conducted by assocations of parents.  In an overwhelmingly predominant way, however, they are conducted and supported by the people of the Christian Reformed Church.  Those people pay their taxes like other citizens, but in addition to that part of their taxes which goes to the support of the public schools they give – voluntarily and out of love to God and to the children of His covenant – what is needed for the maintenace of the Christian Schools.  They love God and love their children too much to allow Christian instruction to be tagged one day in seven as a kind of excrescence upon an education fundamentally non-Christian.  They have tried to make the education of their children Christian throughout.  God has wonderfully blessed them in that effort.

Beers with Turretin

From the Institutes of Elenctic Theology, I.viii.x-xii.

X.  There is a difference between deriving a doctrine from nature, and illustrating in a certain manner a doctrine already known; or to seize from nature the opportunity of teaching.  The latter wer recognize in the parables of our Lord, but not the former.  For he did not expressly prove his mysteries by parables, but only illustrated them that under these representations they might be more easily understood.

XI.  There is a difference between the “truth of propositions” and the “truth of conclusions,” as Augustine remarks (CI. 2.32).  The former answers to the axiomatic judgment, the latter to the discursive (dianoetic).  Divine revelation dictates axioms or sentences of faith to us in the Scriptures.  Therefore, when these are beyond our comprehension, we ought simply to believe them on the authority of that infallible master of sentences whose ipse dixit (autos epha) is in all things sufficient.  But right reason apprehends the truth of conclusions, and of itself determines what may be inferred from some other thing.

XII.  To ascertain the reason of a consequence is different from ascertaining the consequent itself.  Often the reason of a consequence is perceived when neither the antecedent is discerned nor the consequent comprehended.  It is only understood that this thing follows from that.  Faith perceives the consequent, but reason the consequence.  To reason belongs the perception of the reason of a consequence, whether it be right and necessary or otherwise.  Nor does it follow from this that faith which perceives the consequent is founded upon reason because reason is not an argument here, but an instrument.  As when faith is said to be by hearing, hearing is not an argument of faith, but an instrument because reason does not put upon the text a sense which was not there, but brings forth by legitimate consequence something which was concealed in it and thus was taught implicitly by it.

Your Weekly Machen Fix: Evangelism

The following article is from “The Presbyterian Guardian,” originally published July 6, 1936.

“Evangelism” means preaching a “gospel,” and before it can begin one must determine what gospel it is that is to be preached. 

That would certainly seem to be obvious enough; indeed one could scarcely imagine anything more competely obvious than that.

But it has been characteristic of the dominant Modernism and indifferentism in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. to ignore obvious things, and so the word “evangelicsm” has in that church been very absurdly – and very sinfully – misused.

“Let us forget our doctrinal differences,” we have been told in one form or another again and again, “and unite on a program of evangelism; in the great work of saving souls, our miserable controversies will be forgotten.”

So we have had “spiritual emphasis” committees with Auburn Affirmationists among their membership, and such spiritual emphasis committees, with those Auburn Affirmationists among their membership, have invited Christian people in the Church to join with them in a program of “evangelism.” 

What is to be said about such evangelism?

Something very simple is to be said about it.  The things that is to be said about it is that it is a sham.

Every good thing has its counterfeits, and evangelism is no exception.  If Satan disguises himself as an angel of light, so also unbelief often decks itself out today in the garb of the Christian evangelist.

True evangelism, as distinguished from coutnerfeit evangelism, preaches only the Christ presented to us in the Bible.  It does not preach the Chirst of the Auburn Affirmationists.  It does not preach a Christ who possibly was and possibly was not born of a virgin, possibly did and possibly did not work miracles, possibly did and possibly did not pay the penalty of our sins on the cross, possibly did and possibly did not rise from the dead in the same body in which He suffered.  But it preaches only the Christ who was conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the virgin Mary, only the Christ who said to the winds and the waves with the sovereign voice of the Maker and Ruler of all nature: “Peace, be still,” only the Christ who died on the Cross as a Sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and reconcile us to God, only the Christ who rose triumphantly from the tomb and showed to his doubting disciple the print of the nails.  True evangelism knows nothing of the “Yes-and-no” Christ of modern unbelief; it knows only the Christ of the Bible, in whom is yea, and in whom was Amen to the glory of God.

What shall be said of us if we preach that other gospel of the Auburn Affirmationists?

Something very simple is to be said.  The preaching of that other gospel is sin.

It is sin if we carry it on in our own words.  It is also sin if we carry it on by sitting with Auburn Affirmationists in “spiritual emphasis” committees and do not protest against the presence of those gentlemen in those committees and do not denounce their deadly error in any report that we bring in.  It is also sin if we carry it on by remaining in a church like the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. which forces us to support programs complacent toward the Auburn Affirmationists and representing in general their point of view.

The Bible makes that perfectly clear.  It says: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”  When it says that, it does not say that preaching that other gospel in some one particular manner is sin, but it says that preaching that other gospel in any manner is sin.  It is sin if we preach it in our own words; it is also sin if we preach it by supporting the program of the Auburn Affirmationists.

When we put such sin behind our backs we can engage in true evangelism which can now be carried on by the Presbyterian Church of America [later to became the Orthodox Presbyterian Church].

That is the glorious thing about the present outlook.  Ah, how we have longed, during all these years, to send out true evangelists with their message of peace!

We have done our best to send them out.  We have tried to help, through the blessing of God, in sending them to foreign lands by means of The Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions.

But there are many fields into which we have not been able to send them.  We have not been able to send them in any very effective way into the great, pagan cities of our own countries.  We have not been able to send them there because those fields are occupied by nominal Christianity, and we have been united with that nominal Christianity in the organization of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.

Now, however, we are free from that association with unbelief.  The shackles have been stricken off, and we are free to enter with true evangelism into those neglected fields.

Why ought we to make use of this new freedom; why ought we to enter into these neglected fields?

The answer is plain.  It is because Modernists, like other men, have immortal souls, and because they, like other men, can be saved by one gospel and one gospel only.  Church membership will not save them, the false message of the Modernist church will not save them; they can be saved only by that gospel upon which the Auburn Affirmation has cast such despite.

Shall we send that gospel to them?  Some of them will not listen.  But there are in these Modernist churches many hungry souls.  They are like sheep without a shepherd.  Shall we tell them about the good shepherd who gave His life for the sheep?

Beers With Turretin

The following is from Institutes of Elenctic Theology, I.viii.viii-ix.

VIII.  Rational worship is used in two sense: either originally, from reason as its origin and principle; or subjectively and organically, in reason as its subject and working by reason as an instrument.  In Rom. 12:1, Paul does not use the reasonable service which he prescribes to believers in the first sense, for this would be to approve of will worship (ethelothreskeisas, which he elsewhere condemns); but in the second, for that which is founded on reason and is exercised by reason.  That is, Paul uses that which is spiritual and inward, not carnal and outward, by antithesis to the Levitical and Old Testament ceremonial service which was carnal in the offering up of beasts; whereas God now no more requires brutes, but rational and spiritual sacrifices, as Peter calls them (1 Pet. 2:5).

IX.  Christ’s teaching may be called rational either as to the kind of doctrine or as to the mode of teaching.  If we take it in the first sense (which is the question here), it is false; yea, he introduced a doctrine opposed and unknonwn to lbind reason (Mt. 16:17).  But the second sense has not pertincence here, since we confess that reason stands in the relation of an instrument.