Keeping Our Sacred Trust

KEEPING OUR SACRED TRUST
BIBLICAL AUTHORITY, CREEDAL

ORTHODOXY, AND HERESY
e d ited by
Andrew Sandlin
CHALCEDON FOUNDATION
VALLECITO, CALIFORNIA 95251
Copyright 1999
by
Chalcedon Foundation
Printed on acid-free paper.
A ll rights reserved
N o part o f this book may be

reproduced in any form without
permission in writing from the publisher.
ISBN # - 1-891375-03-2
P rinted in the U nited States o f America
Published by Chalcedon Foundation

P. O. Box 158
Vallecito, C A 95251
CONTENTS
Editor s Introduction...........................................................................1
by Andrew Sandlin
T he W ord o f the Sovereign is the True Battle for the B ible 9

by Andrew Sandlin
T he Catholic Faith and Classical C hristianity............................ 27

by M onte E. W ilson III
T he M odern Assault U pon Classical C h ristian ity ......................41

by M onte E. W ilson III
Protestantism vs. Prim itivism .......................................................... 55

by Andrew Sandlin
M ake Room for D addies.................................................................. 83

by Steve M . Schlissel
Tolerance and Liberty o f C onscience...........................................113

by Brian M . Abshire
Evangelical R eductionism ..............................................................123

by Colonel D oner
T he Fires o f M an and the Fires o f Hell: H ow Should the

Church Deal w ith H eresy ?.....................................................149
by Brian M . Abshire
A ppendix........................................................................................... 161
Sola Scriptura and Christian Orthodoxy
by A ndrew Sandlin
Dedicated to
Rousas John Rushdoony
Warrior for the Faith
1
Editor's Introduction
Heresy's Hard Tim es
by Andrew Sandlin
“I can disagree with the doctrines and dogmas and still celebrate
them. *
Madonna, who had her daughter baptized as a Roman
Catholic, though she herself has rejected the church.1
T he notion o f heresy has fallen on hard times. U ntil a few

decades ago, someone like M adonna, icon o f modern narcissistic
perversion, would have been banned from any orthodox church in
any o f its sectors— th at is, unless she repented o f her sin and
affirmed the Faith. N o individual would have had the temerity to
assert, “I like the church’s rites, but deny the church’s doctrines.”
Hypocrites there were, but their hypocrisy consisted o f a sinful life
that did not m atch an orthodox profession. Today, the hypocrisy
consists o f the attem pt to restructure the church’s confession to
conform to a sinful life. T his was unthinkable until m odern times.
Heresy in days past was serious business. These days, the category
o f heresy has become almost meaningless. Christianity is no longer
about affirming certain beliefs, but about a relationship w ith Jesus,
or, if even that is too dogmatic, feeling good about oneself at church.
Beliefs don’t enter the equation. Therefore, w hat one believes— or
doesn’t believe— has little relevance as far as th e church is
concerned. I f we are to accept the sentim ents o f the m odern
(including the conservative) church, it’s just plain hard to find a
good heretic these days.
Heresy in the Beginning

T he word heresy originally had no pejorative designation— it
simply m eant “party” or “sect.” In the patristic era, however, it soon
came to be identified w ith doctrinal deviations th at tended to
produce groups o f Christians isolated from the true church. Heresy
came to be associated more w ith false doctrine than w ith harmful
disunity— though both traits were almost always present. A t an
early date, the church recognized that Christianity requires sound
2 KEEPING OUR SACRED TRUST
doctrine. T he Sacred Scriptures themselves had taught this (Dt.

6:4; Titus 2:1). Christianity is not foundationally an ethical religion;
it is a doctrinal religion w ith inescapable ethical implications. From
almost the very beginning, Christians recognized that incorrect belief
damns souls. This is why the church historically has been so relentless
in opposing heresy— real or imagined.
Tolerance and Heresy

It is hard for m oderns— including many m odern professed
C h ristian s— suckled on n o tio n s o f “to leran ce” to grasp this
fundamental fact. I f false doctrine damns men eternally, then heresy
is a serious m atter indeed, one not to be trifled with. Since the
eighteenth century especially, there has been a loud clamor in the
church against “dead orthodoxy” (one is rem inded o f G ordon
Clark’s quip, “T here is so little orthodoxy o f any kind today, it
w ould be refresh in g to fin d even som e dead o rth o d o x y ”2).
O pposition to “dead orthodoxy” was the drum beat o f the pietists,3
who observed in the som etim es sterile, acrim onious doctrinal
debates o f the seventeenth century a tendency to abstract doctrine
from everyday life. T hey were anxious that true, heart-felt devotion
to G o d was receding in to th e background. O v er tim e, and
particularly in th e eig h tee n th century, this way o f th in k in g
succumbed to the notion that true C hristianity springs from man’s
imm ediate experience w ith G od, and that doctrine is relatively
unim portant. T his laid the groundwork for the nineteenth-century
liberalism o f Friedrich Schleiermacher.4 For Schleiermacher, true
C hristianity springs from m an’s religious experience. T his means,
am ong other things, th at the notions o f orthodoxy and heresy are
meaningless. T h at which is right and that which is wrong in religion
are m atters o f private experience, not objective truth.
Orthodoxy and Creeds

T h e church has always insisted on orthodoxy, or right belief. In
many ways, orthodoxy is simply antonymous to heresy. I f there is
false doctrine, it is a deviation from true doctrine. True doctrine is
orthodoxy. Its core statem ents are found in the early ecumenical
creeds.5These creeds were ham m ered out w ithin five centuries o f
Jesus C h rist’s earthly m inistry and the apostolic age. T hey were
INTRODUCTION 3
considered to constitute w hat the Sacred Scriptures taught, the

holy tradition handed down from generation to generation— and
in the patristic church, these two were never considered to be in
conflict.6
T he orthodox creeds are some o f the earliest exercises in w hat
we today call systematic theology. As such, their production
required a great deal o f rigorous thinking. In addition, it entailed,
at some points, the use o f sophisticated philosophical language.
Particularly since the nineteenth century, it has become fashionable
to attack this language as evidence th at orthodoxy is not in line
w ith the Biblical Faith. Ironically, this attack comes both from
B ib le -d e n y in g “lib e ra ls ,” an d fro m B ib le -a ffirm in g
“fundamentalists.” Both w ant a simple, uncomplicated, pristine
religion unencum bered by rigorous theological th inking and
statements. T his simplistic approach is always appealing to heretics.
Constantine’s son, Constantius, endorsed arianism (the notion that
C hrist is a created being, not o f the same essence as the Father)
w ith the reasoning, “I do not w ant words used that are not in
Scripture.”7 By contrast, the use o f precise theological language,
John Calvin observed, “tear[s] o ff the mask from the hypocrite.”8
I t forces him to state his position w ith precision; w hen this
happens, his heresy becomes evident. W h ile one o f the great
missteps o f the C hristian church was the attem pt to adopt G reek
categories o f thought,9 the use o f its theological and philosophical
language was essential in erecting and m aintaining C hristian
orthodoxy. W henever w e hear an assault on theological and
philosophical language in stru m en ta l in fo rm u la tin g doctrinal
statements, we can be certain that we are listening either to a heretic,
or to one w ell on the road to heresy.
Heresy Imagined and Real

Today, on the one hand, we hear charges o f heresy over the
slimmest o f secondary or sectarian matters: the gifts o f the H oly
Spirit, the mode o f baptism, forms o f church polity, loyalty to a
particular charismatic pastor or denom ination, and so forth. O n
the other hand, we observe a dogged unwillingness to draw a
theological line in the sand over matters at the core o f Christianity.
A m ong conservatives, orthodoxy has become sectarian, and among
liberals, it has become meaningless. These two phenom ena have

em erged largely as a result o f the abandonm ent o f the early
ecum en ical creeds as sta n d ard s o f orthodoxy. W h e n each
denom ination, church, and individual develops an orthodoxy,
resisting historic orthodoxy as a received standard handed down
to the generations, the new orthodoxy becomes little more than
sectarian wrangling. In liberal churches the repudiation o f the creeds
creates a n o th e r so rt o f new o rth o d o x y — th e o rth o d o x y o f
“tolerance.” T his means that the m ost Satanic beliefs (arianism,
sentimental views o f the atonement, goddess worship, and so forth)
are permissible w ithin the church, b ut historic C hristianity is not.
Heterodoxy becomes the new orthodoxy.
The Defense of the Faith

T he Bible does not teach th at the Faith is merely to be declared
positively. Rather, it teaches th at the Faith m ust be defended at all
costs (Jude 3). O ne hears silly cliches like, “T h e tru th needs no
defense,” or “T h e Bible is a lion; you don’t need to defend it; just
let it loose, and it will defend itself.” These are the simplistic and
sentim ental blatherings o f theological neophytes and ecclesiastical
cowards. T h e Scriptures and the Faith are historic realities; and,
while they will never be vanquished and will instead vanquish all
foes,10 they are susceptible to attack and subversion. T h e calling o f
the faithful is the defense o f the Faith— this is another way o f
saying, a defense o f orthodoxy.
Heresy Hunting
“H eresy h u n tin g ” is loudly decried in m ost sectors o f the
professing church, b u t the fact is, heresies need to be hunted.
Heresies dam n souls; heresies pollute the Faith; heresies destroy
churches; heresies subvert civilizations. To m aintain a “live and let
live” attitude is to miss the fact th at heresies are lethal: the attitude
o f heresies is n o t “live and let live,” b u t rather “die, so that I may
live.” To abandon the concept o f heresy is to relegate C hristianity
to pleasant-sounding nothingness.
Several years ago, as a pastor o f a Reformed congregation in a
M idw est state, I was invited to serve on the steering com mittee
for our county’s day o f prayer, corresponding to the N ational Day
INTRODUCTION 5
o f Prayer. I was less than enthusiastic about this invitation, since

these episodes are notoriously characterized by theological muddle-
headedness and existential pabulum. I was not disappointed. W e
began by inquiring about w hom we should invite to pray. I
immediately suggested we lay out some sort o f theological criterion
for any whom we would invite, m entioning the Apostles’ Creed as
a bare doctrinal statement. O ne o f the ministers also serving on
the committee— it was a woman— responded, “O h, we shouldn’t
do that, because we don’t w ant to exclude anybody w ho’s a true
Christian.”
“Lady,” I replied, “if somebody can’t positively affirm the
Apostles’ Creed, we have no reason to assume he is a Christian.”
T h a t was my last service on the steering committee.
In view o f the ram pant moral decline o f the W estern world,
those who insist on orthodoxy are often m et w ith the apparently
pious argument, “L et’s insist on clean, godly living, not on divisive
doctrine.” It did not occur to the piously bleating sheep that clean,
godly living presupposes a particular doctrine, and that unsound
doctrine leads to godless living. People who deny that Jesus C hrist
is G od o f very G od do not have “theological problems”; they have
sin problems.
W h e n an individual, church, denom ination, or civilization
denies the T rinity; the eternal Son o f G od, Jesus C h rist, as the
G od-m an; the divine inspiration and infallibility o f the Sacred
Scriptures; C h ris t’s virgin b irth , su b stitu tio n ary atonem ent,
bodily resurrection, and Second C om ing; and other doctrines
at the core o f C hristianity, they attack C hristianity.11 T h e m ost
b la tan t hypocrisy o f all is to espouse heterodoxy u n d er the
banner o f Christianity. T h is has been the program o f P rotestant
liberalism for the last century, and it has now en tered the
“evangelical” fold.12
T he present symposium is offered, not in an effort to dialogue
w ith theological deviants, but to issue a trum pet blast recalling the
modern church to “the Faith once [for all] delivered to the saints.”
I t will offend the anti-historical, narcissistic sectarians, for whom
heresy is defined as dissent from their modern fairy tales. It will
anger the latitudinarians, whose agenda o f peace at any price has
sold historic C hristianity into the arms o f its enemies; and it will
enrage the heretics themselves, for we have no compunctions in

issuing anathemas to all those at war w ith the Faith.
W e do not assert that orthodoxy alone saves. W e do, however,
assert that heterodoxy alone damns.
The Contents of This Symposium

T his symposium comprises expanded versions o f the papers
delivered November 5-6, 1999, at the Chalcedon Conference on
Biblical Authority, Creedal Orthodoxy, and Heresy held in Dallas,
Texas. In this work, the first in its series and superseding the Journal
o f Christian Reconstruction, I dem onstrate that the real battle for
the Bible is not over so-called “formal” Biblical authority, but over
“m aterial” Biblical authority: the W ord o f our L ord as King
governing H is subjects, not an abstract word th at scholars reshape
in the greenhouses o f m odern academia to fit their own depraved
speculations.
Two chapters by M onte W ilson follow. In the first, he outlines
Classical Christianity, the basic Faith o f the early undivided church;
he concludes by contrasting today’s m isguided and innovative
C hristianity w ith its classical predecessor. In his second chapter,
he discusses some o f the leading assaults on Classical Christianity
in today’s world, em phasizing the im portance o f worship in the
com m unity o f Faith, the church.
Next, I discuss the great error o f primitivism, distinguishing it
from true historic Protestantism . Primitivism, the idea that the
era closest to the Biblical era is the one we should today reproduce
in the church, wreaks havoc on historic Christianity.
Steve Schlissel draws attention to the fatal ways in w hich
m odern churches underm ine the authority o f the family— and
particularly the father. H e urges his readers to push outward from
the inner principles o f the Reform ation to a truly Reformed view
o f the church w hich respects the wishes o f the C hristian family
and recognizes th at the church exists to serve the covenant, not
vice versa.
Brian Abshire defines heresy and details how it m ust be rooted
out. H is is a trum pet blast against all latitudinarian notions o f the
church, w hich care little or nothing for sound doctrine.
Colonel D o n er’s chapter on evangelical reductionism traces
INTRODUCTION 7
the course o f the apostasy in todays evangelical church, strongly

criticizing democracy, dispensationalism , pietism , revivalism,
fundamentalism, and charismaticism as either precedents or fruits
o f the modern evangelical heresy.
Following Colonel D oners chapter, Brian Abshire observes
that maintaining orthodoxy and excising heresy w ithin the church
does not require the suppression o f liberty. To the contrary, because
o f the solid, objective basis o f Christian orthodoxy, there can be
liberty w ithin the church on im portant, but secondary, issues, as
well as on matters o f little consequence to the Faith.
Finally, I have included as an Appendix my essay “Sola Scriptura
and Christian Orthodoxy.” It explores the relationship between
these two phenomena and argues that, far from independent factors
that m ust constantly be held in tension, they are essential features
o f the Faith working together.
T his symposium is a remarkably balanced statement. It argues
forcefully, on the one hand, for the Bible alone as our final, objective
authority, but contends with equal force on maintaining the historic
orthodoxy in the creeds and confessions as valid— and necessary—
subordinate standards o f the Faith. Similarly, it argues for the
theologically pure church and the requirement to root out genuine
heresy, while it contends equally for liberty w ithin the church on
matters on which orthodoxy does not touch. Likewise, it affirms
the legitimate, subordinate authority o f the church as expressed in
its elders and other leadership w ithout denying the valid authority
o f the Christian family whom the church exists to serve. T his work
thus is com m itted to maintaining a balance between the O ne and
the Many.13 Both the unity o f the Faith and diversity w ithin the
body must be preserved. I t is this crucial balance— and this balance
alone—which preserves both unity and diversity w ithin the church
and the Faith.
Special thanks to Greg U ttinger and Sarah Tuuri for their
valuable editorial suggestions and meticulous proofreading. M y
name appears as editor o f this work, but credit for the bulk o f the
arduous w ork th a t b ro u g h t it to press goes to Susan Burns,
Chalcedon’s capable administrative assistant and managing editor
o f this project. H er unflagging dedication to professionalism and
detail made my job as editor easy indeed.
1 “Perspectives,” Newsweek, May 31, 1999, 25.

2 Gordon H. Clark, In Defense o f Theology (Milford, MI, 1984), 12.
3 Ted. A. Campbell, The Religion o f the Heart (Columbia, 1991), 70-98.
4 Jaroslav Pelikan, Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture (Chicago and
London, 1989), 58-59,172-173.
5 See Philip Schaff, The Creeds o f Christendom (Grand Rapids [1930],
1990).
6 J. N. D. Kelley, Early Christian Doctrines (New York, 1958,1960), 30.
7 Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence o f the Catholic Tradition (100-600)
(Chicago and London, 1971), 210-211.
8 John Calvin, Institutes o f the Christian Religion, trans. John Allen (Grand
Rapids, 1949), Bk. 1, Ch. 13, Sec. 5.
9 Cornelius Van Til, A Christian Theory o f Knowledge (Phillipsburg, NJ,
1969), ch. 4.
10Loraine Boettner, The Millennium (no loc., 1957).
11J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Grand Rapids, 1923).
12Millard Erickson, The Evangelical Left (Grand Rapids, 1997).
13Rousas John Rushdoony, The One and the Many (Fairfax, VA [1971],
1978).
9
The W ord o f the Sovereign is

the True Battle fo r the Bible
by Andrew Sandlin
Rev. Andrew Sandlin is executive director o f Chalcedon and editor-

in -ch ief o f the Chalcedon Report and The Journal o f Christian
Reconstruction. H e holds undergraduate or graduate degrees or
concentrations in English, history, and political science. H is essays
have appeared in numerous scholarly and popular publications,
and he has w ritten or edited several monographs. H e is married
and has five children.
10
The W ord o f the Sovereign is

the True Battle fo r the Bible
by Andrew Sandlin
God could not be sovereign in his disposition o f rational human
beings i f he were not also sovereign in his revelation o f himself to
them. I f God is sovereign in the realm o f being, he is surely also
sovereign in the realm o f knowledge.
Cornelius Van T il1
In th e late 1970s, tw o books ap p eared from d iffe re n t

evangelical publishers setting forth related b u t com peting views
o f the Bible. Because o f the sim ilarity o f titles, the uninform ed
or unwary may have gotten the impression th at the positions they
a rtic u la te d w ere fu n d a m e n ta lly sim ilar. T h e first, B iblical
Authority,2 edited by Fuller Sem inary professor Jack Rogers, was
a collection o f essays by the liberal-evangelical w ing responding
polemically to H arold L indsell’s 1976 controversial blockbuster,
The B attle fo r the B ible? L in d se ll’s b o o k was an expose o f
prom inent evangelicals and o f their institutions like the Southern
Baptist C onvention, the L utheran C hurch-M issouri Synod, and
Fuller Sem inary itself, arguing th a t they had abandoned their
earlier traditional, orthodox view o f the Bible. T hey had, Lindsell
docum ented, gradually adopted a scaled-down version o f Biblical
authority w hich did n o t include the Bible’s total inerrancy. A t
Fuller Seminary, for instance, all o f the early faculty, m en like
G leason A rcher, C arl H enry, E dw ard C arnell, and L indsell
himself, had affirm ed the total inerrancy o f the Bible. T h ey had
been supplanted in the early 60s by faculty w ho denied inerrancy
or were soft on the issue— m en like the new president D avid
H ubbard, N ew T estam ent scholar G eorge Ladd, and the founder
C harles Fuller’s son, D aniel.4
T h e guiding them e o f Jack Rogers’ Biblical Authority was that
the sort o f inerrancy th at Lindsell and others were prom oting had
not been the historic doctrine o f the church and, in any case, was
simply untenable in th at it did not accurately reflect the data o f
the Bible itself.
THE WORD OF THE SOVEREIGN IS THE TRUE BATTLE FOR THE BIBLE 11
As a result o f Lindsell’s revelations and the furor they created,

as well as o f the liberal-evangelical opposition in books like Biblical
Authority, a large fundamentalist-evangelical coalition formed a
new organization, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy.
O ne o f its chief objectives was to im plem ent a ten-year plan to
bolster the fundamentalist-evangelical view o f Biblical inerrancy
and to expose the deficiencies and dangers o f the liberal-evangelical
view. T he title The Foundation o f BiblicalAuthority, edited by James
M ontgom ery Boice,5 was one o f the first books in that series. In
effect, it was a response to Jack Rogers’ Biblical Authority. Its
contributors included R. C. Sproul, Francis Schaeffer, J. I. Packer,
and Jo h n G erstner. T h e contributors countered the liberal-
evangelicals’ claims by asserting that the total inerrancy o f the Bible
is the church’s historic position and, more importantly, w hat the
Bible teaches about itself. As Protestants, m ost o f whom were
Reformed, they claimed to stand squarely w ithin the Reformation
tradition right up to the Princeton theology o f Archibald Alexander,
Charles and A. A. H odge, and Benjamin Warfield. Rogers, Fuller
Seminary, and Company, they charged, were the innovators. There
have been in this century, o f course, blatant attacks on the Sacred
Scripture from w ithin the church. T his century’s m ost famous
Protestant theologian, for example, Karl Barth, declared that the
Biblical writers’
Natural science, conception of the world, and also to a great

extent their morality cannot be binding for us. They told all
sorts of sagas and legends and at least made free use of all kinds
of mythological material. In many things they said—and in some
important propositions—they contradicted each other.6
Yet many attacks on Biblical infallibility have been far more

subtle— though progressively more vocal. Institutions like Fuller
Seminary, created for the purpose o f affirming Biblical infallibility,
have gradually given way to its denial. T his was Lindsell’s main
thesis. It is dem onstrated readily in two contrasting statements by
Fuller N ew T estam ent professor D onald H agner, statem ents
separated by fourteen years. In 1984 H agner cautiously suggested:
“To be an evangelical scholar. . . necessitates an openness to the
possibility o f ‘error’ on the part o f the biblical authors.”7 By 1998,
however, he was unabashedly trum peting, “It is hard to imagine

anything more debilitating to the w ork o f the biblical scholar than
the a priori insistence on inerrancy.”8 All o f this from a leading
professor at an institution that holds the Bible to be “the only
infallible rule o f faith and practice.” For the fundam entalist-
evangelicals, this leaves too m uch wiggle room , for it lim its
infallibility to m atters o f faith and practice— and does not extend
it to the entire contents o f the Bible.
Plainly, the liberal-evangelicals wished to reserve some place
for an au th o ritativ e B ible, b u t th ey differ greatly from the
fundam entalist-ev an g elicals on how th a t au th o rity is to be
understood and expressed.9
Material Biblical Authority

T hough the fundamentalist-evangelicals are much closer to
the truth in their attem pt to uphold total inerrancy, both disputants
generally miss the point that, to use older theological language,
fo rm a l Biblical authority ultim ately cannot be separated from
material Biblical authority. By formal Biblical authority, we mean
how the Bibles authority is structured and understood: how does
the Bible itself conceive its authority, and how do we express it in
a theological system? By material Biblical authority, we mean its
substance, how th a t authority actually operates in our lives, in the
church, in society, and so forth. T h e 70s Battle for the Bible was
almost exclusively an academic dispute carried on by academics.
W estern academia since as early as the medieval era has been heavily
influenced by Hellenic presuppositions.10A m ong other things, this
im plies a highly abstractionist approach to th o u g h t and life.11
T h o u g h t and im agination are abstracted from the concrete world,
from history, from G o d ’s creation. I t is restructured according to
m an’s rationalistic, “scientific” imaginations, and then this thought
is, in turn, imposed on the concrete world, history, and creation.12
Philosophy and Abstraction

H ellenized m en reshape and redesign reality on the drawing
board o f their own depraved imagination. G o d ’s concrete revelation
to m an— in Sacred Scripture, in the Person o f Jesus C hrist, and in
creation— is no longer the foundation o f man’s knowledge. Rather,
it is m ans own autonomous reasoning from which he springs a

new created reality. Philosophically, the w heels for today’s
“postm odernism,”13 the idea that truth and reality are constructed
by individual hum an minds operating w ithin particular social
contexts, were set in m otion by the w ritings o f the greatest
Enlightenm ent philosopher o f all, Immanuel Kant. Kant tried to
elude the pitfalls o f two warring philosophical schools, empiricism
on the one hand, and rationalism on the other. Em piricism ,
espoused by certain Enlightenm ent philosophers like John Locke,
essentially holds that all o f man’s knowledge comes to him by means
o f sense impressions. M an’s m ind is something o f a “tabula rasa (a
blank slate), and sense impressions “w rite” on that slate, furnishing
m an’s knowledge. R ationalists, on the o th er hand, m en like
Descartes and Leibniz, basically held th at all hum ans possess
“innate ideas.” M an’s m ind is not a blank slate, but, in modern
technological terminology, a mental computer equipped w ith pre
installed software. All sense impressions are interpreted in terms
o f the innate ideas. Some philosophers, like Berkeley, w ent so far
as to question or deny the reality o f a direct knowledge o f the
created world, claiming th at “true reality” is in man’s mind, and
this alone is knowable. Objective m atter simply does not exist;
only w hat man perceives really exists.
Immanuel Kant forged a new philosophical synthesis by taking
w h at he considered the best o f each o f these positions and
abandoning the worst. H e held that man’s knowledge indeed derives
from his sense impressions, but that the m ind has certain pre-
established categories by which it arranges this sensory data. In a
dram atic reversal o f how epistem ology had traditionally been
understood, Kant suggested that sense impressions conform to our
minds; our minds do not conform to sense impressions. According
to Kant, the phenom enal w orld is the proper object o f m an’s
knowledge. By “phenom enal,” Kant m eant sensory things as they
are perceived by us, to be interpreted by mental categories. O f the
“n o u m en al” w orld, alternatively, we can achieve no certain
know ledge. By “noum enal,” he m eant things-in-them selves,
u n in te rp re te d d ata, w h ich c a n n o t be th e objects o f m an ’s
knowledge. G od and other eternal realities were noumenal realities
for Kant— in other words, they simply cannot be known as they
are, only as we conceive o f them . M an’s m ind interacts directly

w ith itself, only indirectly w ith the material world, and not at all
w ith eternal realities.14
It is not hard to see how K ant’s views laid the groundwork for
to d a y ’s p o stm o d e rn ism . S ince we c a n n o t know th in g s in
themselves, but only as they are perceived, reality is in some sense a
construction o f the human mind. G od, H is creation, including the
concrete world, and history, are passive, while man’s m ind is active.
A ccording to p o stm o d ern ism , m an’s m ind, to use Van T il’s
language, is creatively constructive, ra th e r th a n receptively
reconstructive.15W hile K ant’s and postm odernism ’s answer to the
question o f knowledge seems like nothing more than a sincere
attem pt to grapple w ith thorny philosophical issues,16 in reality it
is the endeavor to elude the claims o f G od on man. T his is one o f
the chief marks o f hum an autonomy as it is manifested in the world
o f th o u g h t a n d a c a d e m ia . By m ean s o f an a u to n o m o u s
abstractionism, it creates its own reality, thus attem pting to escape
its creaturehood and play G od.
Abstractionism in the Battle for the Bible

This abstractionism is precisely w hat has happened in the Battle
for the Bible, and in m odern believers’ understanding and use o f
the Bible in general. T h e Bible is a book w hose authority is
constructed by the hum an m ind. As in the case o f Kant, it is first
a conscious choice th at soon becomes an unconscious operation.
“Conservative” Christians, to use K ant’s model, read the data o f
the Bible and rearrange it according to pre-established m ental
categories, acting on a view o f Biblical authority th at is little more
than their own invention.17T h e Bible is n o t then the revelation o f
G o d ’s authority, b u t merely the object o f m an’s understanding. In
a powerful description, by contrast, Rushdoony counters w ith the
Bible as G o d ’s “com m and w ord.”18 It comes from a sovereign to a
subject. It makes unquestionable claims on man, not because it
measures up to a particular abstract standard th at m an establishes,
but because it is in fact the W ord o f G od.
O ver the last two centuries, it has been fashionable to deny
the verbal inspiration and oracular revelation o f the Bible, equating
these w ith an cien t su p erstitio n s o f p ro p h ets fu n ctio n in g as
mouthpieces for God. A n “enlightened,” “scientific” age simply

cannot stomach such a “primitive” notion as a book that is a divine
oracle.19 Q uite frankly, however, this is precisely how the Holy
Scripture depicts itself. For instance, in 2 Peter 1:20-21, we read:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any

private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by
the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved
[carried along] by the Holy Ghost.
T he O ld Testament writers were the objects o f the H oly Sprit’s

inspiration. John Calvin com m ents on this text: “[T ]hey [the
Biblical writers] dared not to announce anything o f their own,
and obediently followed the Spirit as their guide, who ruled in
their m outh as in his own sanctuary.”20 T h e Scriptures originated
not by man’s choice or invention, but by the operation o f the H oly
Spirit in the m outh o f the writers. T h e source o f their speech was
the Holy Spirit. This fact comes out even more clearly in statements
like those o f St. Peter in Acts 1:16:
Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled,
which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before
concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
W h en David spoke under inspiration, it was the H oly Spirit

W h o was speaking. In fact, as Nicole asserts, “It is noteworthy
that, in the majority o f the cases where the hum an author is named,
reference is made not to a personal statem ent recorded in Scripture
but to an utterance o f G od, which the w riter was commissioned to
transmit as such.”21To argue that this does not depict a supernatural,
oracular, verbal revelation is to talk nonsense. T he Bible is a divinely
inspired oracle that confronts man w ith the most absolute authority
imaginable.22
N one o f this implies th at dreaded bogeyman, “mechanical
dictation,” the idea that the Biblical writers were G od’s puppets in
some sort o f mechanized revelation.23 Because o f G o d ’s absolute
predestination, H e shaped the minds, personalities, and very lives
o f the Biblical writers so th at w hat they wrote was no less an
expression o f their own thought and experience than it was the
very infallible W ord o f G od.24 O nly a god who is not sovereign

must resort to “mechanical dictation” as a means o f securing verbal
inspiration. Nonetheless, the words o f Sacred Scripture are the
very words o f G od. As the words o f G od, they are message o f a
Sovereign to H is subjects. T h e appropriate response o f subjects to
the words o f their Sovereign is submission and obedience, not
contem plation and dispute.
Inerrancy Affirmed, Authority Denied

U nfortunately, some o f the m ost vocal proponents o f the
h ig h e s t lev el o f fo rm a l, to ta l in e rra n c y em b ra ce su ch a
“dispensational” interpretation o f the Bible th at the latter belies
any real devotion to the Bible’s authority. Charles Ryrie, to take
b ut one example, a leading defender o f Biblical inerrancy,25 is an
even more ardent defender o f a dispensational interpretation which
w ith one interpretive fell swoop wipes out the binding authority
o f the O ld Testam ent.26 Similarly, N orm an Geisler, at the vanguard
o f the evangelical inerrancy m ovement, and a proponent o f the
th o u g h t o f T h o m as A q u in as, argues vigorously against th e
authority o f the Bible in the realm o f civil government. H e much
prefers “natural law”: “Premillennialists, unlike postmillennialists,
do not attem pt to set up a distinctly C hristian [civil] government;
they w ork rather for good government. Premillenarians need not
w ork for C hristian civil laws, only fair ones [Civil] government
is not based on special revelation, such as the Bible. I t is based on
G o d ’s revelation to all m en.”27 As though the Bible is not G o d ’s
revelation to all men! M ore to the present point, the fact that
Geisler affirms the highest form o f inerrancy does not translate
into a high view o f the authority o f the Bible as it relates to the
civil sphere. In the m odern church, a high view o f Biblical inerrancy
often com ports w ith a low view o f Biblical authority. Biblical
infallibility is an abstraction, w ith no real meaning.
By no m eans is the evangelical abstractionism all on the
fundam entalist side. O n the liberal-evangelical side, for example,
stands D aniel Fuller. Fuller holds th at certain parts o f the Bible
are infallible and certain parts are not infallible. T he parts o f the
Bible th at are infallible are those that are “revelational.”T hose that
are not infallible are those that are not revelational.28 W hile all o f
the Bible, generally speaking, is G o d ’s revelation, certain matters

“lie outside the boundary o f the Biblical writers’ intention, and are
therefore irrelevant to the question o f Biblical inerrancy.”29These
are “non-revelational areas o f science and history.”30 Fuller did not,
o f course, derive these sentiments from the Bible itself. No writer
o f the Bible— least o f all Jesus C hrist H im self—gives a hint that
certain aspects o f the Sacred Scripture are revelational and certain
are not. N ot once do we get the slightest iota o f an impression that
the Bible in its totality is anything less or other than the very W ord
o f the Living God.
The Regulative Character of Sacred Scripture

T his assumes, among other things, that our view o f the Bible
is an implication o f our view o f the nature of, and relationship
between, G od and man. W e must not look at the issue o f Biblical
authority in isolation from the implications o f G od as Creator and
man as H is creature. Even well-meaning, conservative theologians
have gone astray in this issue. T hey often seem to assume that
citing particular texts like 1 T im othy 3:16-17 suffices to support
an unassailable view o f Biblical inspiration and infallibility. M uch
closer to the truth is N orm an Shepherd’s comment:
It is not the content of the [Biblical] message that constitutes

the message as authoritative; but rather it is the source, the author
of Scripture, which is the authority[-]imparting factor....The
message may serve to arouse interest but it could not command
obedience. It is God who speaks and faith is faith in God and
his word. H is word is authoritative because it is his
word....Infallibility is not something we ascribe to Scripture
because we can put all of the pieces together but rather because
God is its author.31
I f citing a particular text sufficed, we would need to inquire,

“W h y look at the text in the first place?” I f the Bible is not infallible,
its own claims to infallibility cannot not be trusted.
T hose w ho presume to verify Biblical authority merely by
citing texts apart from a recognition G od’s nature and H is sovereign
relation to m an H is creature fail to grasp th at we verify Biblical
infallibility not from an “inductive” reading o f the Bible, but from
an understanding th at the God Whom the Bible reveals could not

speak in any other way than authoritatively— infallibly. T his was
the view o f the Reformed dogmaticians. O f this view Richard
M uller writes:
Scriptural truth is never allowed to rest upon empirical proof: truth

depends upon divine authorship and can be defined as a “truth of
promise” or as an intentional fidelity or veracity upon the part of
God as author. The infallibility of the text, then, is bound up with
the concept of inspiration and is identified not as a conclusion
drawn by examination of the text, but as one of the gifts given to
the biblical writers in the their [sic] inspiration by the Holy
Ghost.32
In other words, God's Word is an inherently regulative word.

W e do not examine the Bible to discover whether it measures up
to our abstract standard o f infallibility, or even whether it teaches
its own infallibility (though it surely does). I f the G od o f the
Bible is W h o H e claims to be, H e can speak in no other way
than infallibly. T h e recognition th at the H oly G od speaks only
infallibly and th e reco g n itio n th a t the Bible posits its own
infallibility are gifts th a t the Spirit im parts to believing hearts;
the recognition o f each presupposes— and cannot stand w ithout—
the other.33 A little th o u g h t will push us to see th a t this means
the Bible is inherently regulative. A Lutheran theologian expresses
this point quite effectively in contrasting the basic Reformed from
th e basic L u th e ra n p re su p p o sitio n o f and ap p ro ach to the
Scriptures:
I suggest that Calvinism conceives of the Bible in terms of its

regulating character—the rule for the Christian life.... For
Lutheranism the Bible has primarily a declarative function and
only secondarily a regulative function in the Christian life.34
To the Reformed, the W ord can never be merely, nor primarily,

declarative. T h e prim e relationship o f a subject to his Sovereign is
not one o f hearing a declaration, but o f obeying a command. T he
entire Scripture is therefore a law-word, a gracious com m and o f
G od to H is rational creatures. A nd th at w ord can be by its very
nature none other than infallible.
Surrender Under the Guise of Engagement

Refusal to recognize this fact reflects one o f the great ironic
errors o f the evangelical inerrantists. In addition to their academic
abstractionism and interpretive autonomy, in their effort to defend
the Bible against all assailants they succumb to their enemies’
prepositional battlefield and in so doing undercut their own good
intentions. T his is especially acute among those who believe they
m ust defend the Bible’s inerrancy by proving that it conforms to
some external standard— like the law o f contradiction, historical
evidences, archeological discoveries, and the like.35 M any are
convinced that the most effective way o f defending the Bible against
attacks on its credibility by errantists is to propose external evidence
verifying its historical reliability— and, to a remarkable degree,
external evidence has verified the Bible.36 T he problem w ith this
as an apologetic methodology is that it erects an autonomous, extra-
Biblical standard by which the Bible’s credibility is to be judged
and, o f course, that which certifies is vested w ith the greater authority.
T h erefo re, if we fin d it necessary to appeal to th e law o f
contradiction, historical evidence, and archeological discoveries in
order to buttress the W ord o f G od, it is no longer the W ord of
G od which is our ultimate authority, but the thing which verifies
it.37 But what, pray tell, could verify G od’s W ord apart from G od
Himself? N othing whatever, and this is why the Reformed have
historically held to the self-attestation o f Sacred Scripture.38 T he
Bible carries along w ith it its own evidence, and Christians affirm
the authority o f the Bible because G od stamps the truth o f its
authenticity on their minds and hearts. For this reason, for the
sixteenth- and seventeenth-century R eform ed forebears, the
infallibility o f Scripture was a “subsidiary” o f its authority:39 it is
infallible because it is divinely authoritative; it is not divinely
authoritative because it is infallible (a mathematics text may be
formally infallible, but it is certainly not divinely authoritative). If
the Bible is indeed the W ord o f G od, it is necessarily authoritative
and infallible. It can be nothing other than an infallible com m and-
word. W h en one erects external standards as the criteria by which
to verify the Bible’s infallibility, he concedes to man the ultimate
role o f verification, for m an m ust arbitrate w hether the Bible
conforms to those external standards o f the created order. “T he
sinner,” Van T il declares, “seeks a criterion o f truth and knowledge

independent o f the revelation o f G od. T h e sinner wants to test
that w hich presents itself as the revelation o f G od by a standard
not itself taken from this revelation.”40
Ethics, Not Epistemology

M en refuse to accept the authority, inspiration, and in fa llib ilit y
o f the Bible not for intellectual reasons, but for moral reasons.
Romans l:18f. relates that unbelievers defy G od and His revelation,
not because they are unaware o f it, but because they are only too
well aware o f it. T hey suppress the truth in their unrighteousness.
Professed believers, too, in an unbelieving spirit, often deny the
com prehensive a u th o rity o f th e Sacred S crip tu res, n o t for
epistemological reasons, b u t for ethical reasons. In other words,
the problem is not a lack o f understanding, but a lack o f belief.
T heir flaw is rebellion— not ignorance. T h e great misconception
o f the Battle for the Battle is that it is an academic dispute engaged
on academic grounds and academic terms. I t is nothing o f the
kind. It cuts right to m ans heart attitude toward G od. Rebellious,
autonomous m en create sophisticated theories by w hich to justify
their autonomy. E ducation o f itself does n o t create morality:
education only makes sinners clever devils. It merely makes rebels
more sophisticated in their rebellion.
S o m e tim e ago I w as le c tu r in g a t a so m e w h a t la rg e
conservative sem inary on the com prehensive authority o f the
Bible. T h e sentim ents o f a num ber o f the students revealed in
the question and answer period following the lecture indicated
not a hum ble, submissive attitude to the W ord o f G od, b u t rather
a highly abstractionist approach to the Bible, according to w hich
they dism issed large portions o f the O ld T estam ent— and some
o f the New, for th a t m atter— all the w hile loudly affirm ing their
infallibility. T h e problem was n o t epistem ological, b u t ethical.
M en in rebellion against G od, or some aspect o f H is revelation,
devise a rationale by w hich to evade H is claims on their lives. In
the case o f m odern conservatives, these claims often come in the
form o f abstract theories o f Biblical authority. T h e fact th a t these
attacks on m aterial Biblical authority are couched in term s o f
affirm ations o f form al Biblical authority should not delude us
into thinking th at they are anything but w hat they really are:
attacks on Biblical authority.
The Word of the Sovereign

H ear the word o f the LO R D , ye that tremble a t his w ord . . . (Isa
66:5a).
I f it is not the prerogative o f the subject to question the word
o f the Sovereign, and if the Bible is the inscripturated W ord o f
man’s Sovereign, the Triune G od, it follows that the fundamental
statem ent o f Biblical authority is that man is bound to believe and
obey every word o f Sacred Scripture. T his view is declared both
powerfully and succinctly by Jesus C hrist in H is citation o f the
book o f D euteronom y during H is wilderness temptation: “It is
w ritten, M an shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that
proceedeth out o f the m outh o f G od” {Nit. 4:4). It is never man’s
prerogative to suspend a single w ord o f G o d . I t is G o d ’s
prerogative— and H is alone— to declare which o f H is words are
eternally binding and which are administratively lim ited.41 H e has
m ade clear in the book o f H ebrew s th at the O ld T estam ent
sacrificial system is among this latter classification. T h e same is
true o f circumcision as a religious rite {1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 5:6) and
the Jewish festival days {Rom. 14:5). T his essentially reduces to
two classifications o f requirements— those under the rubric o f the
O ld Testam ent sacrificial system, and those specifically designed
to erect a barrier between ethnic Israel and the Gentiles. All other
requirements o f Sacred Scripture remain in force. T his is not a
“hermeneutical theory”; it is the recognition that it is the prerogative
o f the Sovereign and the Sovereign alone to revise the application o f
H is W ord. In the case o f the O ld T estam ent adm inistration
contrasted w ith the N ew Testam ent administration, it is not a case
o f rescission and revision b u t o f fulfillm ent in C h rist. N ew
Testam ent believers, for example, do practice the O ld Testament
sacrificial system as it has been gathered up into Christ Himself. In all
cases, however, the word o f the Sovereign is binding.
A t many points, this W ord cuts across the grain o f modern
man. But to say this is to say far too little. It is to say th at the
problem is w ith modern sinful man. T h e fact is, however, that the
Bible’s authority cuts across any sinful man in any era.
Conclusion
T h e real battle for the Bible is not an academic affair for
scholars, denom inations, and com m ittees. I t is the battle over
w h eth er G o d ’s subjects as H is creatures w ill subm it to H is
authoritative, and, therefore, inspired and infallible revelation in
H is W ord. It is a battle th at even the m ost faithful Christian must
confront every day—w hether he will subm it him self to G od or
not (Rom. 6:12-14). A ny attem pt—w hether in academy, church,
b o a rd ro o m , b e d ro o m , o r s ta te h o u s e — to s u b v e rt th e
comprehensive, binding authority o f the Sovereign is an attack
not only upon the Scripture itself, but upon G o d ’s very character,
since H is law-word is a reflection o f H is character. T h e Sacred
Scriptures are G o d ’s gracious, binding revelation to H is subjects,
and they are not less gracious because they are binding; indeed,
they are gracious precisely because they are binding. G od has not
left man as H is creature to man’s own devices, but has supplied
him a sure and certain W ord whereby all o f his life is to be lived.
1 Cornelius Van Til, “Introduction,” Benjamin Warfield, The Inspiration

and Authority o f the Bible (Phillipsburg, NJ, 1948), 3.
2 Jack Rogers, ed., Biblical Authority (Waco, TX, 1977).
3 Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids, 1976). See
also the sequel, The Bible in the Balance (Grand Rapids, 1979).
4 George M. Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism (Grand Rapids, 1987),
ch. 11 and passim.
5 James Montgomery Boice, ed., The Foundation o f Biblical Authority
(Grand Rapids, 1978).
6 Karl Barth, God Here and Now (New York and Evanston, 1964), 48.
7 D onald A. Hagner, “W h at is D istinctive about ‘Evangelical’
Scholarship?”, TSF Bulletin, January-February, 1984, 6, emphasis in
original.
8 idem., “The New Testament and Criticism: Looking to the Twenty-
first Century,” Theology, News and Notes, June, 1998, 7.
9 A sampling of the books published and articles by both sides include,
first on the fundamentalist-evangelical side, Clark H. Pinnock, A
Defense o f Biblical Infallibility (Nutley, NJ, 1967); idem., Biblical
Revelation (Chicago, 1971); Norman L. Geisler, ed., Inerrancy (Grand
Rapids, 1980); idem., Biblical Errancy (Grand Rapids, 1981); John
D. Hannah, ed., Inerrancy and the Church (Chicago, 1984); Gordon

Lewis and Bruce Demarest, Challenges to Inerrancy (Chicago, 1984);
Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, eds., Earl D. Radmacher and
Robert D. Preus (Grand Rapids, 1984); John Warwick Montgomery,
“W hither Biblical Inerrancy?”, Christianity Today, July 29, 1977, 40,
42; Kenneth Kantzer, “Evangelicals and the Inerrancy Question,”
Christianity Today, April 21, 1978, 16-21; on the liberal-evangelical
side there are G. C. Berkouwer, Holy Scripture (Grand Rapids, 1975);
Jack B. Rogers and D onald K. M cKim , The A uthority and
Interpretation o f the Bible (New York, 1979); Donald K. McKim, ed.,
The Authoritative Word (Grand Rapids, 1983); Stephen T. Davis, The
Debate About the Bible (Philadelphia, 1977); Paul K. Jewett, God,
Creation, and Revelation (Grand Rapids, 1991), 130-147; Clark H.
Pinnock, The Scripture Principle (San Francisco, 1984); idem., ..
This Treasure in Earthen Vessels,’” Sojourners, October, 1980,16-19;
Theology, News and Notes [of Fuller Seminary], Special Issue, 1976;
Daniel P. Fuller, “Benjamin B. Warfield’s View of Faith and History,”
Bulletin o f the Evangelical Theological Society, Spring, 1968, 75-83;
Bernard Ramm, “Misplaced Battle Lines” [Review of Harold
Lindsell’s The Battle for the Bible], Reformed Journal, July-August,
1976, 37-38; James Daane, “The Odds on Inerrancy,” Reformed
Journal, December, 1976,37-38; Richard J. Coleman, “Reconsidering
‘Limited Inerrancy,”’ in ed., Ronald Youngblood, Evangelicals and
Inerrancy (Nashville, 1984), 161-169. Clark Pinnock, it will be noted,
was first on the fundamentalist-evangelical wing, and has since moved
to the liberal-evangelical wing.
10Michael W. Kelly, The Impulse ofPower (Spring Lake Park, MN, 1998),
ch. 5.
n Rousas John Rushdoony, Systematic Theology (Vallecito, CA, 1994),
1:111-117.
12A leading source of this abstractionism in the modern world has been
Karl Marx. See Thomas Sowell, Marxism (New York, 1985), 18.
13Richard Tarnas, The Passion o f the Western M ind (New York, 1991),
395-410.
14For excellent summaries of the leading ideas of the philosophers
mentioned, see Colin Brown, Philosophy and the Christian Faith
(Chicago, 1969).
15Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Phillipsburg, NJ, 1967
edition), 53.
16While the Bible does not teach that man’s mind participates in the
mind of God, it does teach that man can have creaturely but accurate
knowledge of God and His revelation. See Cornelius Van Til, A

Christian Theory o f Knowledge (Phillipsburg, NJ, 1969).
17See also SiegbertW. Becker, The Foolishness of God (Milwaukee, 1982).
18Rushdoony, op. cit., 1:23-26.
19W. Neil, “The Criticism and Theological Use of the Bible, 1700-1950,”
in ed., S. L. Greenslade, The Cambridge History o f the Bible (Cambridge,
England, 1963), 238-293.
20John Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, in Calvins
Commentaries (Grand Rapids, 1993), 22:391.
21Roger Nicole, “New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” in ed.,
Carl F. H. Henry, Revelation and the Bible (Grand Rapids, 1958), 139.
22“When we turn to such passages [teaching the Bible’s divine inspiration]
we find something very interesting. They stress the divine role in the
origin of Scripture. We have seen that orthodox holders of the orthodox
doctrine [of Scripture] are charged with stressing the divine element
instead of the human one. If it is a valid charge against them, it is also
a valid charge against the Bible writers.” This prudent insight is from
the often overlooked but incisive work of Noel Weeks, The Sufficiency
o f Scripture (Edinburgh, 1988), 72.
23Abraham Kuyper, Principles o f Sacred Theology (Grand Rapids [1898],
1980), 413-473.
24Rousas John Rushdoony, By What Standard? (Vallecito, CA [1958],
1995), ch. 10.
25Charles C. Ryrie, What You Should Know About Inerrancy (Chicago,
1981).
2bidem., Dispensationalism Today (Chicago, 1965), 52-54 and passim.
27Norman Geisler, “A Premillennial View of Law and Government,”
Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 142, No. 567 [July-September, 1985], 256-257.
28Daniel P. Fuller, “The Nature of Biblical Inerrancy,” Journal o f the
American Scientific Affiliation, June, 1972, 47-51.
29ibid., 50.
30ibid.
31Norman Shepherd, “The Nature of Biblical Authority,” unpublished
manuscript, 7, 5.
32Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (Grand
Rapids, 1993), 323.
33Bernard Ramm, The Witness o f the Spirit (Grand Rapids, 1959), 65-70.
34Richard E. Muller, “A Lutheran Professor Educated at Westminster
Seminary Looks for Similarities and Dissimilarities,” Concordia
Theological Quarterly, Vol. 61, No. 1-2 [Jan-April, 1997], 85.
35Gordon Clark, A Christian View o f Men and Things (Grand Rapids,
1952), 32-34. Clark’s disciple, Carl F. H. Henry, states, “Evangelical
Christianity insists that scriptural revelation is intelligible and

propositional, and it therefore cannot dispense with an interest in
harmonizing precepts and phenomena. W hatever is logically
contradictory and incapable of reconciliation simply cannot be accepted
as truth. Should the representations of Genesis conflict with scientific
finalities, if there be such, then the creation narrative could not be
regarded as teaching the truth of God. Nor can the inspiration passages
be received as legitimating biblical inerrancy if irrefutable contradictory
evidence exists,” God, Revelation andAuthority (Waco,TX, 1979), 4:174.
In other words, not the Bible itself, but the law of contradiction and
empirical data are the fundamental criteria of valid belief. For a criticism
of this notion and a more reverential view of the Bible, see Cornelius
Van Til, Defense, 44-45, 160. Note also his comment, uThe law o f
contradiction ...as we know it, is but the expression on a created level ofthe
internal coherence o f God's nature. Christians should therefore never
appeal to the law of contradiction as something that, as such, determines
what can and cannot be true,” An Introduction to Systematic Theology
(Phillipsburg, NJ, 1974), 11, emphasis in original.
36See John Gerstner, A Bible Inerrancy Primer (Winona Lake, IN, 1980);
John Warwick Montgomery, “Inductive Inerrancy,” The Suicide o f
Christian Theology (Minneapolis, 1971 edition), 356-358; and R. C.
Sproul, “The Case for Inerrancy: A Methodological Analysis,” in ed.,
John Warwick Montgomery, God’s Inerrant Word (Minneapolis, 1974),
242-261.
37“W hat does a person really say when he objects to the Bible because it
fails such a rationalistic test? He really says that he refuses to consider
the possibility of the Bible being an authority. He refuses because he
already has an authority in a rationalistic source of precision. The conflict
between the two authorities did not lead him to debate which was
right. It led him to reject the Bible in terms of the authority to which
he already clings,” Weeks, op. cit., 36.
38Bernard Ramm, Varieties o f Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, 1962),
163-195.
39Richard A. Muller, op. cit., 319.
40Van Til, Knowledge, 33.
41Rousas John Rushdoony, Institutes o f Biblical Law (no. loc., 1973), 302-
305.
27
The Catholic Faith and

Classical C h ristian ity
by Monte E. Wilson III
Rev. M o n te E. W ilso n , ordained m inister in the Reform ed

Episcopal C hurch, is director o f Global Im pact and editor o f
Classical Christianity, a teaching publication designed to introduce
ecumenical orthodoxy to the evangelical church. H e holds B. A.,
M . R. E., and D. M in. degrees.
28
The C ath o lic Faith and

Classical C h ristia n ity
A truly catholic church thrives not only on a sense o f itspresentglobal
vision, but also on its heritage handed down from the past. It
confesses itsfaith in the God o f Abraham, Isaac, andJacob. I t builds
on the testimony o f theprophets and apostles. It embraces in its living
memory the churchfathers, Augustine, Anselm, Luther, Calvin, and
with them an enormous “cloud ofwitnesses. ”Sinking itsfoundations
securely in this evangelical tradition, it flings its doors open wide to
thepresent realities ofour worldfar and near, and keeps its windows
open to thefuture hope o f a restored creation.
Gordon J. Spykman, Reformational Theology:

A New Paradigmfo r Doing Dogmatics
Gracious Father, we prayfo r the holy Catholic church. F ill it with

all truth, in all truth with allpeace. Where it is corrupt, purify it;
where it is in error, direct it; where in any thing it is amiss, reform
it. Where it is right, strengthen it; where it is in want, providefor
it; where it is divided, reunite it;for the sake o f Jesus Christ. Amen.
The Book of Common Prayer
M ost C hristians today approach the Faith as if Christianity

began w ith “my conversion” or can be reduced to “my favorite
passage o f Scripture.” W e look at the Scriptures and life through
the lens o f a single Biblical truth. W e evaluate life, churches, and
other Christians w ith the narrow and subjective standard o f our
experiences. T h is doom s us to shallowness, error, confusion,
arrogance, divisiveness, immaturity, and isolation from the rest o f
the church.
W h e n we evaluate Christians and churches primarily by our
distinctives— gifts o f the H oly Spirit or the mode o f baptism, etc.—
we run the very real risk o f being divisive. W e must, therefore,
begin w ith the essentials on w hich we are in unity. W e cannot
properly define C hristianity if we start w ith the gifts o f the Spirit
THE CATHOLIC FAITH AND CLASSICAL CHRISTIANITY 29
or w hether drinking alcohol in moderation is permissible. One

cannot properly understand the nature o f church if he begins with
“my needs” and w hether or not the church meets them. O ne must
begin w ith w hat G od says are the essentials, the Big Picture.
I f we begin w ith our theological or experiential hobbyhorse
w ithout understanding a particular doctrine or practice in relation
to the Big Picture— orthodoxy1— we will fall into error. Is this
something— is this doctrine— a point essential to the Faiths I f it is
not a point o f orthodoxy, it m ust be placed further down the scale
o f importance. For example, we handle and stress the doctrine o f
tongues differently from the doctrine o f the Trinity— or at least
we are supposed to!
M ost Christians cannot relate a particular doctrine to the whole
Faith; we don’t even think in terms o f the whole Faith, just in terms
o f our isolated pet doctrines which everyone else must place at the
pinnacle o f the scales o f T ruth or else “be in error.”
O ne aspect o f defining the orthodox Faith (the Big Picture) is
that we must deal w ith the entire record o f G o d ’s revelation in
Scripture. For example, we cannot understand justification by faith
if we simply read Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. W e m ust go back
to Abraham. Forget him, and we fail to fully comprehend the nature
o f G od’s dealings w ith man.
The Nature of the Church

O ne particular place where we m ust broaden our studies is the
nature o f the church. It is not enough to read just the book o f
Acts. W e m ust not forget th at the church, the people o f God,
began w ith G o d ’s calling A braham out o f Ur, not in the mists of
Pentecostal fire.
W here did the apostles go for wisdom concerning the nature
o f the church? T hey w ent to the O ld Testament. H ow did they
develop th eir post-ascension liturgy? T h ey w en t to the O ld
Testament, sifted these principles and practices through the sieve
o f N ew Testam ent revelation, and built the church accordingly.
T he apostles were not a-historical existentialists. They believed
that G od moved through history. H e is the same yesterday, today,
and forever. H e did not say to the Jews, “W orship in this prescribed
manner,” and to the Christians, “D o whatever makes you happy!”
W h en studying Biblical truth, it is not enough simply to check

out one or two passages: all o f Scripture must be considered. A fter
we have a good grasp o f the over-all message concerning a particular
topic, we m ust see to it that this truth is properly related to all
o th e r tru th (this is called system atic theology). W e do not
understand a tru th until we understand it in all o f its parts and see
how it relates to the rest o f Scriptural truth.
M o d ern C h ristian s have difficulty dealing w ith the Big
Picture, keeping a broader perspective, and keeping fir s t things
first. A gain, this can especially be seen in how we approach the
ch u rch . W ith little u n d e rs ta n d in g o f w h a t th e one, holy,
catholic, and apostolic church is to be, we evaluate our local
churches by peripheral concerns, secondary issues. O u r first
questions are about program s, prophecies, and places for our
toddlers rather than: W h a t is necessary? W h a t is required? W h a t
is forbidden?
Have you ever had a friend, whom you knew to be “sound” in
the Faith, join a church whose denom inations doctrinal statements
teach salv atio n by fa ith an d w orks, or one w h ich o rd ain s
homosexuals to the ministry? A stounding, isn’t it? H ow can he do
this? O ften, it is because he has lost sight o f w hat is necessary: the
parameters o f orthodoxy and orthopraxies (right practices). All he
sees is that his favorite doctrines are agreed upon or that his “needs”
are being met. H e may attem pt to justify his decision by saying,
“These people love Jesus . . . the pastor makes me feel loved.”
N othing else m atters— not orthodoxy, not Biblical standards of
holiness.
Tragically, our ideas o f C hristianity and church are far more
shaped by our culture th a n we know. W e are n o t catholic2
Christians: we are A m erican Christians, or M T V Christians.
To reverse this, w hat paradigm do we use? W here do we go?
Classical Christianity
I suggest th at the surest way to successfully enter the third
millennium is to go back to the first millennium. H ere we find a
paradigm th a t will shed light on our plans to reconstruct our
churches. T h e councils, the canons, the development o f the seeds
o f tru th in Scripture all led to a particular approach to worship,
social order, art, etc. All o f this we may call the beginning of
Classical Christianity.
As a m inister, w hen evaluating an aspect o f the C h ristian
life or o f a ce rtain ch u rch p ractice, I ask m yself, “W h a t
happ en ed w hen there was literally one church, before she
divided in A. D . 1054?” I also ask, “W h a t happened before
the Industrial Revolution, w hen m uch o f C hristianity still used
S crip tu res, co n fessio n s, catech ism s, and tra d itio n s sifted
through centuries o f trial and error to order th eir lives and
churches?” (N ow we look to M icro so ft or Japanese moguls.)
W h a t was the message? H ow did they care for the poor and
the widow? W h a t did the m inisters do? H ow did they build
the church, and upon w hat?
Was the church o f the first thousand years perfect? Certainly
it was not. Were there problems? Absolutely. As Rushdoony points
out in his book, Foundations o f Social Order: Studies in the Creeds
and Councils o f the Early Church, neo-P latonism ran ram pant
through the church. Nevertheless, there was a consensus concerning
the Big Picture. There was a fullness o f expression both preached
and lived in the first millennium which modern evangelicals have
failed to come close to attaining. In fact, the last time the world
saw a fairly clear expression o f Classical Christianity was during
the Reformation.
O f course, w h at I was trained to do as a pastor was to look
exclusively to the primitive church o f the book o f Acts. B ut there
is a problem here. T hese people did n o t have tim e to develop all
o f the tru th they had received; there was no tim e to consider all
o f its ramifications. T h ey didn’t have tim e to develop the doctrine
o f the T rinity u ntil about the third century! A fter all, they were
running from lions, tigers, and Rom an soldiers! However, once
C onstantine called the dogs o f w ar o ff the church, there was
tim e to develop the im plications o f w h at was w ritten in the
Scriptures:
• H ow was C hrist both G od and man, yet one Person?

• H ow was G od the Father “G od,” G od the Son “G od,”
and G od the H oly Spirit “G o d ”?
• H ow is the church to worship?
• H ow is she to be led or governed?

• H ow does she relate to civil government?
T h e church w restled w ith these and m any other questions

for centuries. T h e answers can be found in the seven councils
(Nicea, 325; C onstantinople I, 381; Ephesus, 431; Chalcedon,
451; C onstantinople II, 553; C onstantinople III, 680-81; and
Nicea II, 787), the canons w hich prescribe “church polity,” as
well as in the various liturgical expressions. Again, was it all bathed
in the light o f C h rist and H is W ord? N o, there were serious
problems. However, there was a consensus th at held the church
together as one concrete institutional testim ony to the one G od
she served.3
W e today w an t the “sim ple tru th .” W e hate complexity.
A nything that stretches our brains is eschewed. Because o f our
generation s mental laziness and anti-intellectualism, we have ended
up promulgating a gospel that is far from w hat the apostles and the
church preached for century after century. This a-historical approach
to evaluating our churches has skewed how we look at our worship
services, our evangelism, and m ost everything else we do.
The Contrast Between Classical Christianity

and Today's Christianity
L et s compare and contrast the first thousand years with present
practices and ideas:
Elders
Starting w ith Scripture and going through history, we observe
th at the pastor was to guard the deposit o f Faith entrusted to the
church (1 Tim. 1:13). H e was called and trained to teach, pray
(this includes worship and sacraments), and govern. W h a t about
today? T h e pastor m ust be a fund raiser w ith the stage presence o f
Robert Redford and the entrepreneurial instincts o f D onald Trump.
As for stewarding the deposit o f Faith passed down through the
ages, there are very few evangelical leaders who have any qualms
about being innovative and creative— even to the point o f coming
up w ith new doctrines!
Listen to Basil (c. 330-370) as he writes to the people o f

Neocaesare to praise their Bishop Musonius, who had just died:
A man has died who surpassed all his contemporaries in every

human good at once. He was a pillar of his homeland, an
ornament of the churches, a pillar and support of the truth, a
bastion of faith in Christ, the protector of his friends, unyielding
to his enemies, a guardian of the ancestral laws, an enemy of
innovation, manifesting in himself the primitive form of the
church. He fashioned the church that was committed to him
according to the ancient model, as if to a kind of sacred image,
so that those who lived with him seem to have lived with those
who shone like lights two hundred years ago and more. Thus
that man put forth nothing of his own or anything of recent
invention, but, as in the blessing of Moses, he knew how to
bring out from the depths of his heart, namely from the good
treasures there, old store and old things before new ones.4
D o you hear the com m itm ent to the ancient truths, the
tried and proven ways, the desire to be faithful rather than creative?
T h is is the sp irit th a t perm eated the church for close to a
millennium. A ncient truths; tried and proven ways. M ost o f our
leaders today not only are ignorant o f the church’s heritage, they
are willfully and blissfully com m itted to remaining that way. They
not only do not care that they have left the apostolic traditions,
but feel spiritual for having done so. However, it is no small thing
to forsake the traditions which were upheld for century after century
w ithout even the slightest deliberation and reflection. T his is how
the H oly Spirit led the church for century after century. H ow is
this so? W h y was this established? U pon w hat Scriptural mandate
or precedent is it based?
I am not recommending a slavish commitment to traditions.
However, if the church was in agreement about certain doctrines
and practices for hundreds and hundreds o f years, doesn’t humility
require us to spend much time in prayer and study and counsel
before we scamper off in another direction?
W e have lost the sense o f gravitas, or weightiness, required in
our spiritual leaders. W e no longer understand the critical nature
o f the proper man in the proper place w ith the proper gifting and
training doing w hat he was called to do— faithfully stewarding his

charge. A nd w ith the loss o f a proper perspective o f a leaders
responsibilities came great loss to the church.
“Tell me, whence do you think such great troubles are generated
in the Churches? I . . . believe the only source o f them to be the
inconsiderate and random way in which prelates are chosen and
appointed.”5
Worship
W orship was holy, majestic, and reverential. T h e whole person
is to w orship G od as a living sacrifice {Rom. 12:1). T h e church
developed ways in w hich this could be underscored: a worship
w hich focused the five senses on G od, m atching the Biblical
psychology o f the w hole man. A look at the w orship o f the
average evangelical church o f today makes us w onder if we have
any senses w hen it comes to G o d ’s presence and worship. I f we
do, then it is usually only one sense th at we use. Some emphasize
content and substance to the p o in t o f denying th at h eart or spirit
has anything to do w ith authentic w orship. O thers engage their
hearts as well as th eir bodies, b u t sing songs whose lyrics are
more appropriate to a com mercial for Pepsi than the L ord o f
glory. W orship m ust be w orthy o f the L ord and m ust engage the
w hole person.6
Classical worship involved bowing, kneeling, and the raising
o f hands. T here was the beautification o f the sanctuary to rem ind
the worshiper o f G o d ’s beauty, as well as responsive readings and
the chanting o f Psalms. (D id you know th at for hundreds o f years,
there were no pews in the churches? T h e people stood while the
pastor was seated.)
In studying the w orship o f the post-apostolic church, one
particular shock for many is the keeping o f certain times o f days
and weeks for prayer. T here were also special seasons to remind
the church o f her history. W as this som ething foreign to the Bible?
Hardly! L ook at the apostles going up to the temple to pray “at the
hour o f prayer.” H ear Paul tell his audience that he was on the way
back to Jerusalem to celebrate Pentecost {Ac. 20:16).
Such things as hours, weeks, and feasts are difficult for us to
swallow because we associate them w ith Rom an Catholicism, and
because we think that the church was birthed in the mists o f

Pentecostal fire. Nonetheless, as I have already pointed out, what
the apostles did was to take their worship practices from godly
Judaism, filter them through New Testam ent revelation and—
viola— this is how the people o f God are to worship.
For hundreds o f years Christians o f all walks understood the
importance o f the ministry o f the W ord and the sacraments on the
L ord’s Day. N othing was considered more critical to glorifying
G od or to the health o f the Christian. W h a t do we say is the most
critical? W om en s ministry? Sunday school? Counseling? All have
their place, but they must be seen in light o f the Big Picture—
those things that are essential to the nature and mission o f the
church.
Reliance on the Past, But Not Primitivism

Some may ask, “ A re you advocating the liturgy o f the fir s t
m illennium ?” W h ich one? There were many different liturgies in
the East and in the West. M y point is not that we should go back
and imitate some particular ancient liturgy. O u r primary goal is to
discover w hat it was they were after. H ow did they approach church
worship? W h y did they do w hat they did? W e are looking for
consensus concerning the Big Picture, the outw orking o f the
catholic Faith.
Liturgies evolve because our understanding evolves. Liturgies
should not remain static (as w ith the Eastern O rthodox traditions),
because our faith is always seeking to apprehend more. W e also
are not living in the past but in the present. W e should not fail to
ask ourselves, “H ow do we apply this in our time?”
I have no desire to return to some golden age o f the church.
Frankly, I believe such an age is in front o f us. O u r interest in the
past should be birthed out o f two things. First, G od has not called
us to be creative, but to be obedient. Second, w hat we w ant is to
see how the Spirit has instructed the church over her earthly journey.
W herever we see consensus, we are compelled to ask if this is, in
fact, a “T hus saith the L ord.”
It is necessary here to reiterate the prim ary question we must
always ask ourselves: w hat do Scriptures teach? However, it is
intellectual arrogance o f the highest order to ignore w hat the church
has held for hundreds or thousands o f years to be the answers to

this question.
The Massive Influence of Classical Christianity

In obedience to the Great Commission, Classical C hristianity
influenced the world's institutions. T h e church influenced the civil
government, operated orphanages and schools, and cared for the
poor. G overnm ent officials came to the church for counsel— even
for legitim izing their authority. W as this always handled in a
Biblical manner? No. However, our forefathers moved in the right
direction, while we have utterly forgotten the church’s responsibility
to be light and salt.
Very early the church became renowned for its care o f the
poor— its witness for C hrist in w ord and deed. She took seriously
C h rist’s com m and to love her neighbors. John Calvin sums up
this attitude by giving historical illustrations o f how certain leaders
responded to the needs o f those around them:
At first they spent very little on the embellishment of sacred

things; afterward, although the church became gradually richer,
they still kept moderation in this respect. Whatever money was
given to it still remained intact for the poor, should any great
need arise. Thus Cyril, when famine seized the province of
Jerusalem and the distress could not otherwise be relieved, sold
vessels and vestments, and spent the money on poor relief.
Similarly, Acacius, bishop of Amida, when a great multitude of
Persians was well-nigh dying from famine, calling together his
clergy, delivered his famous speech: “Our God needs neither
plates nor cups, for he neither eats nor drinks.” Then he melted
the vessels to obtain both food and the price of ransom for the
pitiable folk.... [W hen the Arians reproached Ambrose for
breaking the sacred vessels to ransom prisoners] he used this
wonderful excuse: “He who sent out the aposdes without gold
also gathered churches without gold. The church has gold not to
keep but to pay out, and to relieve distress ... Will not the Lord
say, ‘W hy have you allowed so many to die of hunger? Surely
you had gold with which to minister sustenance. W hy were so
many prisoners carried off and not ransomed? W hy were so many
killed by the enemy? It were better for you to preserve vessels of
living men than of metals.’7
C h ristia n s w ere co n stan tly ex h o rted to be h o sp itab le,

compassionate witnesses o f C hrist’s redemptive love. T he general
tenor o f sermons for hundreds o f years was, “Live your faith. Care
for the poor. Lay your life down as a witness.” Because so many
heard and obeyed this message, Christianity was able to permeate
society.
W e have not given much attention to the nature and mission
o f the church. Some o f us, in seeking to understand her calling,
looked at “arm y” an d “fam ily,” b u t o u r p ersp ectiv es w ere
m isguided because we d id n ’t see the Big P ictu re first: the
w o rsh ip p in g com m unity, th e cath o lic ch u rch , th e ship o f
orthodoxy.
Concerns about orthodoxy were also not high on our list. For
our generation, doctrine was unim portant. “O rthodox” churches
were dead, so we decided that the culprit was orthodoxy and threw
doctrinal concerns overboard. W e now have a host o f heretical
ministers w ith good character leading armies who are not only
ignorant as to the true nature o f the warfare, but who are also too
soft to fight.
T he serious among us began to say, “T he primitive church.
T h a t’s the ticket.” But, again, the answer needed a qualification.
Yes, we m ust look at w hat we do, who we are, and w hat we preach
and ask, “W h a t does the Bible say?” However, w isdom also
demands that we ask, “W h a t does church history teach us? H ow
has the H oly Spirit guided the church into Truth?” T h en we must
ask, “H ow do we apply all o f this to our culture?”
T h e Bible teaches and church history confirms (both by her
successes and failures!) that at the very least our local churches
must:
• W orship Christ: particularly on the L ord’s Day. T his will

include the W ord read, the W ord taught, the W ord prayed,
and the W ord eaten.
• Equip Christians. “G o and make disciples...” (M t. 28:19-
20).
• Establish Community. Included here are family, church
courts, care for the poor and the widow.
• Seek to win the world to Jesus Christ.
A ct as leaven, salt, and light, seeking to glorify G od in

every area o f life.
Schism
O ne o f the more frequently asked questions I receive is, “Should
we leave churches that are caught up in the errors you have highlightedf“
A nd go where? It has taken me over twenty years o f searching and
studying to come to where I am, and there’s still so far to go. H ow
could I require my pastor and my fellow members to make similar
changes overnight? I am not saying that in some cases it would
not be wise to leave, but even here it would be only after a long
season o f prayer and counsel w ith the leaders o f the local church.
As repugnant as heresy was to the post-apostolic church,
schismatics were seen as equally sinful:
He shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are
destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special
advantage rather than to the unity of the church; and who for
trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut
in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and
so far as in them lies, [positively] destroy it,—men who prate of
peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a
gnat, but swallow a camel. For no reformation of so great
importance can be effected by them, as will compensate for the
mischief arising from their schism.8
W hereas Augustine, and Calvin after him , understood that

the church is always going to be a mixture o f saint and sinner,
w heat and tares, radical reformers refuse to make such allowances.
These schismatics are determ ined to pull up every tare, regardless
o f the w heat th at will be destroyed. T hey usually do this as leaders
o f “church renewal movem ents.” W hile we m ust do everything in
our power to w ork for the purity o f the church, we m ust remain
realistic as to w hat can be done in our lifetime— or on this side o f
eternity. L et us follow the lead o f The Book o f Common Prayer and
pray,
O God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Savior, the
Prince of Peace: Give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great
dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions; take away all hatred

and prejudice, and whatever else may hinder us from godly union
and concord; that, as there is but one Body and one Spirit, one
hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God
and Father of us all, so we may be all of one heart and of one
soul, united in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and
charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify thee;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Orthodoxy is a synonym for historical Biblical Christianity and includes

those beliefs about the nature of God and salvation which if denied
would overturn the Faith. For example, if Jesus was not fully man, He
could not have died as a substitutionary sacrifice for human sinners.
2 A term used since the second century to designate the Christian church
throughout the world. It is opposed to “sectarian,” which refers to those
who have separated from the worldwide church. It is a “mark” of the
church along with “one,” “holy,” and “apostolic.” Donald K. McKim,
Westminster Dictionary o f Theological Terms (Louisville, KY, 1996), 41.
3 The first six councils are the only ones acknowledged by Western and
Eastern churches, including orthodox Protestantism. Protestants do
not recognize the seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicea II, 787) because
of its position on images and icons: the council was for them, we are
against them. The Reformers, who brought Classical Christianity to a
greater and more pure fullness, corrected the errors of this council,
reminding us that the Bible is the final authority in matters of doctrine
and practice.
4 Boniface Ramsey, Beginning To Read The Fathers (New York, 1985),
17, emphasis added.
5 John Chrysostom, “On The Priesthood,” Nicene and PostNicene Fathers,
3:10.
6 cf. Romans 12:1 (the entire body is to be offered to God); 1 Timothy
2:8 (lift up hands in prayer); Ps. 95:6 (bowing and kneeling before
God), 149:3 (praising God with dance and musical instruments).
7 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed., John T. McNeill
(Philadelphia, 1977), Bk. 4, Vol. 2, Sec. 8.
8 Irenaeus “Against Heresies,” Ante-Nicene Fathers, Book IV, Sec. 33.7.
41
The Modem Assault Upon

Classical Christianity
The pursuit o f adaptation brings along, like its shadow, the pursuit
o f success. But what w ill the norm ofsuccess bet Will it be obtained
when everybody w ill have been pleased, when everybody w ill have
understood, and when no astonishment or scandal w ill have been
provoked? Such a success greatly risks being merely the mark o f
ineffectiveness. Nothing strong, nothing new, nothing urgent
penetrates mans mind without crossing resistance. Or would you
think that Christian preaching should no longer be “scandal”and
folly”in the eyes o f the worldf
Beware lest the obsession to save the masses tempt us into seducing
them with vulgar attractions, similar to those used by their temporal
masters. Saint Peter and Saint Paul, arriving in Rome, did not try
tofind some substitutefor the amphitheater to offer thepagan masses.
H enri de Lubac
I t is alm ost em barrassing to adm it th at you attend an evangelical

church. O nce the confession is out, you m ust follow w ith a litany
o f qualifications: I believe th a t the m eans o f grace (baptism , the
L o rd ’s Supper, prayer, the W ord, and fellowship) are infinitely m ore
im portant th an support groups o f any kind. I do n o t believe one
can claim to be a C h ristia n an d deny th e ten ets o f th e four
ecum enical creeds: A postles’, N icene, Chalcedon, and A thanasian.
I do not fall dow n laughing in church and call it worship. I believe
th at saving faith is a repenting faith that leads believers into holiness.
I believe th at democracy in the church is an affront to the H ead o f
the Body, Jesus C hrist. I do not believe th at M cD o n ald ’s is a N ew
Testam ent pattern for building the church (“O ver O ne-M illion
Baptized!”). O n and on it goes. I t has almost come to a point where,
w hen someone asks me if I am a Christian, my reply m ust be an
inquiry: “W h a t do you mean by Christian?”
I love the church. I believe that Jesus Christ died for the church.
I believe that H e will do nothing in the earth outside o f H is Body,
the church. But I also believe that w hat m ost evangelicals are doing
and experiencing on Sunday m orning has very little to do with
w hat G od intended w hen H e established H is church. W h a t we
have today is a machine made by humans that is held together by
electrodes connected to batteries rather than a body o f believers
knit together by the W ord, the H oly Spirit, and covenantal love.
T he institutional evangelical church is a Frankensteinian monster
that devours the faith o f the young, the life o f the authentic, and
the brains o f the serious believer. Its agenda is to be popular rather
than prophetic, mystical rather than holy, successful rather than
obedient, and to entertain rather than to worship. Every time I
look at w hat is passing for Christianity today, I see an image o f the
Cloud o f W itnesses covering their faces in shame.
• W h e n members who can’t even tell you the names o f the

twelve apostles are perm itted to vote on the acceptance or
rejection o f a spiritual leader, the church is in trouble.
• W h e n Christians evaluate their leaders by the standard of

Mr. Rogers rather than that o f the Apostle Paul, something
is seriously wrong.
• W h e n p a s to rs w h o have n ev er even h e a rd o f th e
C halcedonian or A th an asian creeds and w ho do n o t
understand the importance o f the doctrines these creeds
confess are perm itted to serve congregations, something is
out o f whack.
• W h e n people, leaders, and lay people are sacrificed for the

sake o f doing everything possible to pay for buildings and
programs, the church has fallen into idolatry.
• W h e n church members place more value on programs,

nurseries, and getting out o f church by noon rather than on
the quality o f teaching, the frequency o f the L ord’s Supper,
and the church’s com m itm ent to its Lord, that church is in
danger o f having its candlestick removed {Rev. 2:5).
THE MODERN ASSAULT UPON CLASSICAL CHRISTIANITY 43
• W h e n church leaders are not perm itted to hold their

members accountable to the W ord and to the church’s
covenant, we do not have a church: we have a religious
club.
• W hen sentimentalism, melancholy, and frenzy are thought

to be the primary evidences o f G od’s presence, the church
has become mentally ill.
I was reared in the church. M y dad was a Southern Baptist

pastor. Fourteen o f my twenty-seven years o f ministry were spent
as a pastor. I have taught in all sorts o f evangelical churches:
Assemblies o f G od, B aptist (Southern, N orthern, Free-W ill,
Reformed, Independent, etc.), Brethren, Charismatic, Disciples
o f Christ, and Episcopal. M y evaluations are not solely derived
from reading magazines or surveys or from watching television.
T he fundamental basis o f my judgm ent is first-hand experience,
and my experience has led me to believe that American evangelical
church-ville is in shambles. W e have lost our way, lost our first
love, lost our sanity, and lost our reverence for and com m itm ent to
the church as the Body o f Jesus Christ. I believe this can be seen in
our responses to spiritual authority, our so-called “worship services,”
and our utter lack o f com m itm ent to the church.
Spiritual Authority
O ne o f my first memories o f “church” is a Wednesday night
business meeting in a Southern Baptist church where my dad had
just become the pastor. I was nine years old. Apparently, the deacons
were shocked to discover that the man whom they had just hired
believed he was called to lead the church, not to do their bidding.
I remember that the tone o f the meeting became so harsh that
those children less than fourteen years old were dismissed. T his
church— like so many others— was filled w ith people whose m otto
had become, “W e W ill N o t Have T his M an To Rule Over Us.”
W hen the smoke cleared some months later, the church had decided
that they would allow my father to serve as their leader.
D o not misunderstand me. I don’t believe that pastor and elders
are to rule as the Gentiles o f C hrist’s day ruled (M t. 20:25); they
are to serve by leading as representatives o f Christ. T h e pastor is

the one (presumably) called and equipped for the office. However,
in today’s egalitarian culture, the m antra seems to be, “N o one is
going to tell me w hat to do!,” even if that someone is sent by G od
and is speaking by the authority o f Scriptures.
In M atthew chapters 23 and 24, Jesus tells Jerusalem that H e
often wished to care for them but they “would n o t” have H im . It
is significant th at H e told them th at their rejection o f H im was an
act o f their will and was not due to ignorance. As judgm ent for
this rejection, H e left their Temple desolate. Today, Jesus sends
m en to care for H is people, but the people will not have it. T hey
themselves decide who is going to lead, how he is going to lead, in
w hat direction he is going to lead, and for how long he will be
allowed to lead. T hus, the people are actually the leaders. T h e
pastor is their employee, not G o d ’s. H e is a hired hand that they
trot out on Sunday m ornings to “do his job,” and then put back in
his office for the next six days where he can’t bother anybody. You
think I exaggerate? A sk yourself this: H ow many churches do you
know th a t respond to their pastor as a m an sent from G od to
represent Christ?
T he w riter o f Hebrews says th at we are to obey those spiritual
leaders w ho have rule over us (13:17). T h a t is definitely not a verse
many Americans are going to get goose bumps from reading. “Obey?
Rule? W h a t sort o f Papist m um bo-jum bo is this? Certainly no one
can tell us w h at to do or w h a t to believe. W h a t about our
consciences? W h a t about our freedom?” W h a t about . . . G o d ’s
Word?
N o one can lead outside some sort o f accountability structure,
such as a board o f elders, for example. Furtherm ore, no one can
lead outside the dictates o f Scripture. N o one can tell you w hat car
to buy or w hom to marry. N o one can tell you where to live or w hat
u niversity to atten d . G o d ly leaders can, however, h old you
accountable to C hristian orthodoxy. T hey can also require that you
keep the Ten C om m andm ents and that, if you break one o f them ,
you repent for doing so. In brief, they can hold you accountable to
the Bible.
I have often looked at m ega-churches and wondered w hat
would happen if the pastor and leaders o f the church actually began
to lead in ways th at crossed “the will o f the people.” W h a t if

members who had supported pro-abortion legislation were required
to repent or be excommunicated? W h a t if the leaders publicly
warned a person not to listen to or support a favorite televangelist
who is teaching that G od is nine persons or that C hrist’s blood did
not atone for sin? W h a t if they held their members accountable to
their church’s covenant? W h at if the pastor refused to tell stories
on Sunday morning that made the people feel warm and fuzzy
and, instead, gave the people strong, doctrinal messages?
I am not suggesting that all mega-churches have compromised
their faith. N either am I suggesting that people should be held
accountable to doctrines and practices they have never heard
explained from the pulpit. I am merely saying that, given the nature
o f most o f today’s evangelicals, one has to wonder if many o f those
churches would not lose a large percentage o f their membership—
or fire the pastor— if the leaders actually began to lead.
T here are libraries full o f books on spiritual leadership that
present the parameters and restrictions o f the office. “T h e pastor
has to be this, do this, watch out for this, not do this, repent for
ever doing that.” However, I am not aware o f one contemporary
book that explains to the sheep w hat a shepherd is and does, as
well as exactly w hat the sheep’s responsibility is toward the man
who is called and sent by G od.
Popcorn, Peanuts, Sacraments!

W h a t a circus! Take a look at the average evangelical church
and there should be no question as to why the world does not take
us seriously. People falling down laughing, ministers who sound
like ringmasters announcing for Barnum and Bailey, brass bands
playing off key as loudly as they can, hootenannies masquerading
as “praise services,” and church decor that appears as if a nineteenth-
century interior designer for bordellos was given carte blanche to
make the place look as tacky as possible. Alm ost every time I turn
on the television to w atch C h ristian church services, I keep
expecting to hear an usher yelling, as he walks up and down the
aisles, “Popcorn, Peanuts, Sacraments!”
R ather than com ing to give G o d w hat H e dem ands and
deserves, m ost evangelicals come to church to have their emotions
pandered to. W h a t they w ant out o f “worship” is the renewal of

their ego. T hey dem and that the service make them feel better
about them selves. T h e b la tan t narcissism o f it all is sim ply
astounding.
H ow often do we go to church and w atch the leaders do
everything in their power to say, “L ook at me . . . Please take note
o f my great personality, gifts, and talents”? H ow many evangelical
church services begin w ith a leader standing to thank everyone
for coming? “G ood M orning!” he cries out. W h a t’s this all about?
All too often it is about ego, and not ju st the leaders’, but the
people’s as well. W h a t the leader is saying is, “W elcome to my
show! T his is a great m orning because I am on stage . . . and you
will have a good m orning because I am so good at w hat I do.”
A nd why do congregations all across A m erica w ant this sort o f
thing? Because they too wish to feel im portant, loved, welcomed,
and at the center o f the m inister’s attention. T h ey have made
great sacrifices to be here. T h ey could go somewhere else, but
they choose to be here. T h ey deserve some gratitude. H as it not
occurred to these folks th at church is a com m and performance
from the King o f the Universe (see Ps. 47; Heb. 10:25; Rev. 1-
22)} W h y in the w orld would I, as a leader, th an k people for
obeying G od? W h y w ould I thank them for com ing to church, as
if they were in my house, attending my service?
O ne o f the ideas behind a w ritten liturgy in the early church
was to do away w ith the ego. C hurch was not seen as the believer’s
personal prayer closet, but as a gathering o f the Body o f Christ.
T his was not a place where “I ” stepped forward to receive and
experience, b u t where “w e” hum bled ourselves and obeyed. T he
rituals, the robes, and the prayers were all so crafted as to help the
church do all she was com m anded to do w hen she gathered “as the
church” (1 Cor. 11:18). T hese things were also there because they
would help hide personalities and serve to keep believers focused
on C hrist. I am not suggesting that w ithout robes and w ritten
liturgies we cannot properly and appropriately worship G od. I am
saying th at true w orship is rooted in hum ility and that, while
liturgical forms will not create such humility, they can encourage
or discourage it.
Calvin said o f written liturgy:
I highly approve of it that there be a certain form, from which

the ministers be not allowed to vary: That first, some provision
be made to help the simplicity and unskillfulness of some;
secondly, that the consent and harmony of the churches one with
another may appear; and lastly, that the capricious giddiness and
levity of such as affect innovations may be prevented. To which
end I have showed that a Catechism will be very useful. Therefore
there ought to be a stated Catechism, a stated form of prayer,
and administration of the sacraments.1
A nother sign o f sickness: listen to the words o f the songs we

sing in our services. Compare the average choruses sung in most
churches today w ith the Te Deum.2 W h a t is so striking about our
choruses is their juvenile banality. “O h, M onte, your sort o f music
is so complicated, so ‘H igh Church.’W e re just normal folksy people
who wish to love G od in a simple fashion.” Really? I thought the
church was to help the body grow into maturity. Are we to sing the
A B C ’s until we die? Aren’t we consistently to seek to grow in our
capacity to worship H im in an appropriate manner? A nd is it
possible that w hat we really w ant is a domesticated God? Are our
songs and sermons geared to hide various aspects o f G o d ’s nature
so that H e is more approachable, more likable, more modern, and,
thus, easier to control?
I am not suggesting that we use a nineteenth-century standard.
I t am azes me w hen so-called “serious believers” criticize a
charismatic church for its use o f contemporary choruses, as if their
100-year-old hymns are pedigreed by the mere fact o f age. M any
o f those “classics” are as full o f error and pabulum as a Sunday
morning T V preacher’s sermon. W e need hymns and spiritual songs
w ritten today w hich express our faith, vision, and historical
experience o f G od. W e need songs that will evoke joy and praise
and gratitude and reverence and a sense o f G od’s holiness. T he
problem is not choruses, per se, but content and attitude. It would
help if anyone who wished to write for our worship services proved
his knowledge and grasp o f the Psalms!3
W e also m ust craft a worship service that acknowledges that
we humans are more than intellect. W orship must utilize the entire
person: all o f his senses should be engaged in worship. But walk

into the average American church today and what does our worship
tell us about our psychology? W e look and sound like a convention
o f Vulcan-like M r. Spocks.
O f course, when worship is seen as entertainment, we can forget
the leader’s taking any stand to guard th e deposit o f Faith.
O rthodoxy is seen as dull, uninviting, and potentially divisive. I
guess it’s hard to explain or defend orthodoxy w hen you have no
grasp o f it or see it as mere opinion. Read these words o f Paul
Crouch during a “Praise-A -T hon” on Trinity Broadcast Network
(November 10,1987):
There are those who spend a lifetime—we call them apologists—

they spend their whole lives apologizing for the Scripture. They
spend their whole lifetime defending the orthodoxy of the
doctrines of the church, as I said a while ago, what is orthodox
to them is what is in agreement with their opinion of what the
Bible says.
H e w ent on to suggest that, while we argue about orthodoxy,

the world is going straight to hell. Question: can there be a saving
gospel that is not orthodox? W ould Crouch assert that someone
who denied the tenets o f the Apostles’ Creed had a gospel w orth
listening to? D oes this m an even know w hat an apologist is} Are
we surprised th at this gnostic is one o f the nation’s popular T V
preachers?
W h a t would happen if we took away the smoke and mirrors o f
glitz, decibel levels, theatrics, and other such nonsense? W h a t would
people hear? T ry this:
I am a little god. I have His name. I am one with Him. I’m in

covenant relation. I am a little God. (Saith Paul Crouch, “Praise
the Lord,” Trinity Broadcasting Network, July 7,1986.)
C an you say “heretic”? N ow do you see why any m ention o f

“orthodoxy” makes this m an break out into a sweat? D o you think
he is a novelty? G o w atch television on Sunday morning.
D on’t forget the popcorn.
Musical Chairs
I have read that, in the early church, if a believer missed a few
church services, he was considered to have excom m unicated
himself. Accordingly, he would have to go before the elders and
explain his absence. W hile I am not suggesting a return to this
practice, it is quite revealing. H ow many evangelicals take their
church com m itm ents even rem otely as seriously as the early
Christians did? N o t only will we skip church because the weather
is not to our liking, we will leave the church for the smallest (ego-
centered?) o f reasons.
As a pastor, one o f my more frustrating experiences was for
members to come and inform me that they had “heard from G od”
to do something. M ost often, it was to go find another church. I
have come to believe that this phrase “heard from G od” should
most often be translated, “W e are going to do whatever we wish,
and there’s not a thing you can say to the contrary.” However, does
G od tell us to break our commitments and promises? Does the
H oly Spirit move us contrary to our covenants?
A nother translation of, “I have heard from G o d ” is, “I am
angry and offended w ith you, b u t do n o t have the courage to
bring this into the light.” Sometimes this lack o f courage is the
result o f being young in the L ord. O ftentim es, however, it is
cowardice. People fear having their assumptions, evaluations, or
decisions challenged. T h ey do n o t w ant to discover the tru th b u t
are solely com m itted to having their own way.
I am not saying that there aren’t times when it is wise to leave
a particular church. I am saying that there will be reasons for this
decision, and that these reasons should be discussed and prayed
over with the leaders for a period o f time. W h a t if the person leaving
has a legitimate complaint against the pastor? Is the pastor supposed
to be clairvoyant? H ow can he repent if he is left in the dark? W h at
if the complaint is illegitimate? W h a t if the member is running
from some sort o f discipline or needed challenge, but has yet to
face this possibility?
For m ost evangelicals, church is about me: my tastes, my
preferences, my feelings, my gifts, my callings, my theology, my
ego. I f anything goes contrary to my will, I im m ediately open
the Yellow Pages and begin looking for another church. Is this
how we are w ith our blood relatives? “You h u rt my feelings w hen

you disagreed w ith me. I no longer wish to be a m em ber o f your
family.” Is this how a soldier acts? “Sir. I am leaving your platoon
because you are too loud and I don’t like the food.” D oes today’s
evangelical have any concept o f family or army (.Eph. 4 -6 ) and
how these m etaphors should regulate his attitudes and actions
w ith his fellow ch urch m em bers? In looking at th e tens o f
thousands o f believers w ho are constantly changing churches or
not going to church w ith any consistency, I would say there are
very few w ho th in k this way.
O f course, some will im m ediately seek to rem ind me that the
universal church is the family and the army, not simply the local
church. T h a t’s true. However, the local church is the context o f that
truth. T his is where we w ork it out, where we make it happen,
where we learn to walk as family members and fellow soldiers. I f I
say th at I love the entire family o f G od, my actions in the local
church w ill d em o n strate th e accuracy or inaccuracy o f my
profession.
Sadly, many th at are the m ost equipped to help reconstruct the
church and bring true reform ation have become cynics in regard to
the Bride o f Christ. T hey see the circus and just walk off to a church-
less life, som ething the Reformers would have found abhorrent.
Speaking o f those who leave the church, Calvin writes,
Our weakness does not allow us to be dismissed from her

school until we have been pupils all our lives. Furthermore,
away from her bosom one cannot hope for any forgiveness of
sins or any salvation, as Isaiah (Is. 37:32) and Joel (Joel2:32)
testify... it is always disastrous to leave the church.4
Troeltsch said, “T h e prophets predicted th at the lightening

[sic] was ab o u t to fall— and w ere struck dow n by th e same
lightening [sic] w hich felled the people.” W hatever criticisms we
have, whatever judgm ents we make, we should never forget that
we are talking about G o d ’s church. I t is one thing to strike at error
and heretics: it is another to strike C h rist’s Bride. In our zeal for
reform we m ust n o t become perfectionists w ho seek to rip out the
tares and damage the w heat, thus doing as m uch harm to the body
as those we oppose.
Reality
H ow can we find our way home if we do not admit that we are
lost? H ow can we seek forgiveness and healing if we do not confess
our sins? H ow can we grow into maturity if we do not see that we
are so childish? H o w can we w ork tow ard an increasingly
appropriate reflection o f Jesus Christ in the structure, content, and
spirit o f our worship services if we do not face the reality that our
models are so unbiblical and spiritually bankrupt? T he church as
“m y-personal-prayer-closet” has made our local churches self-
centered. T he church as a revival center has left the sheep starving.
T he church as a pep rally has allowed us to confuse raucous noise
with reverent praise. T he church as just one restaurant among many
where we may pick and choose on any given Sunday as to where
we will eat has left us malnourished and impoverished.
M any evangelicals are ignorant as to how the church functioned
for century after century.5 In fact, they are told that the church was
in utter darkness until their denomination was established. They
have no idea how far beneath the “norm” we have fallen. Being
brought up in a stream and told it is the ocean, they do not know
w hat they are missing. They have been given standards o f evaluating
churches which grew out o f Americana— evangelistic techniques
molded by advertising agencies; constitutions drafted around the
thoughts o f H am ilton, Jefferson, and Locke, rather than the mind
o f G od revealed in the Bible; financial practices based on the latest
economic theories driving W all Street; pastoral paradigms dictated
by the will o f the majority; and standards covered w ith proof texts
that are alien to the teachings o f Scripture and how the H oly Spirit
led the church for 1800 years.
T he way back to Biblical norms begins w ith facing reality. We
m ust confess that we have lost our way— that we do not know how
the church is supposed to act. W e m ust adm it that all o f our loud
professions concerning being a “New Testam ent church,” while said
sincerely, are wrong. T h e fruits o f rebellion, anarchy, irreverence,
and disloyalty that permeate evangelical churches are indictments
against our commonly held beliefs, commitments, and assumptions.
G od will shed no fight on the way back home until we confess that
we are walking in darkness.
L et us revisit those periods and epochs o f the church’s brightest
moments. L et us look at those periods o f time w hen the church

established the parameters o f the Faith w ith the ecumenical creeds
and declared and dem onstrated the gospel o f the Lord Jesus C hrist
w ith great power. L et us reflect on those times when she clarified
and developed the implications o f the nature o f G od and H is will
for the earth and w hen she sought to be salt, light, and leaven in all
o f the w orld’s institutions. L et us consider those generations where
the w orld’s hatred for the people o f G od was most intense, as well
as those generations where the church was held in highest esteem,
and then simply ask, “W h y was this?”
W h e n I look back at those periods o f history and see the
church’s depth o f com m itm ent, the purity o f devotion, and the
exaltation o f T ruth, I am humbled. W h en I see the extensive nature
o f the church’s influence in the earth and remember that it grew
w ithout recourse to wealth or the approbation o f the w orld’s ru lin g
elite, I am encouraged. W h e n I consider the unanim ity w ith which
she crafted her liturgies, canons, and message, I am instructed.
T here is a wealth o f resources in our history that we desperately
need to tap into so we can repair the damage done by our present
spiritual bankruptcy. O u r ways have left us spiritually im potent,
intellectually shallow, and psychologically juvenile. W e need to
clear away the rubble created by innovators w ho were given to
success rather than faithfulness, and return to the ways o f our
faithful fathers in the Faith. O nly then will we leave the inheritance
o f a good nam e to our children and grandchildren, whereby they
will be able proudly to confess th at they are Christians, and know
th at G od, as well as the great C loud o f W itnesses, applauds their
faithfulness.
1 Charles Baird, The Presbyterian Liturgies: Historical Sketches (Grand

Rapids, MI, 1957), 23.
2 The Te Deum can be found in the Book of Common Prayer and in
Rushdoony’s The Foundations o f Social Order (Vallecito, CA, 1998), 29-30.
3 To learn more about worship, singing, and liturgy, see Charles Baird,
The Presbyterian Liturgies: Historical Sketches’., Alexander Schmemann,
Introduction to Liturgical Theology', Louis Boyer, Eucharist, Ralph Martin,
Worship in the Early Church', and James Jordan, Theses on Worship: Notes
Toward the Reformation o f Worship.
4 John Calvin, Institutes, Bk. IV, Ch. 1, 4.

5 For more on this subject, see R. J. Rushdoony, The Foundations o fSocial
Order, Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-
600); J.G. Davies, The Early Christian Church: A History of the Its First
Five Centuries; J.B. Lightfoot, TheApostolic Fathers; and Stuart G. Hall,
Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church.
55
Protestantism vs. Prim itivism

by Andrew Sandlin
P rim itiv ism has a lo n g and sto rie d h isto ry .1 W h a t is
primitivism? It is an instrum ent o f cultural contrast and manifests
itself in one o f two basic forms. First, chronological prim itivism is
the idea that the earliest era in a life, family, tribe, organization, or
civilization is always superior to those eras that follow; in other
words, the measure o f linear time is the measure o f degeneration.
C ultural p rim itivism is often related, b u t is n o t identical, to
chronological primitivism. T his is the notion that the simplest,
least complex, or more “natural” state o f life and existence is superior
to the more complex, advanced, and conventional forms o f life
and existence. Chronological and cultural primitivism coincide in
the frequently held conviction that the earliest form o f life and
existence is the simplest and, consequently, superior to the more
recent developm ent o f complex life. “Practical” prim itivism is
instanced in the longing for “the good old days” when life was
more agrarian and agricultural, less fast-paced, and simpler— and
recently developed technology (though, interestingly enough, not
often the technology o f the past) comes in for special criticism.
T he ancient Greeks were among the primitivists who cast their
eyes backward longingly at the earliest ages when, it was supposed,
hum anity lived to g eth er peacefully, eating honey and nuts,
eschewing private property, holding everything in common, sharing
sexual and sensual delights in an earthly bliss, and enjoying harmony
w ith the animals. Cultural primitivism during the Renaissance
posited as the ideal society that o f the noble savage: the American
Indians and the peoples o f interior Africa, the South Sea Islands,
and so fo rth . W h e n explorers actu ally en c o u n te re d th ese
civilizations, however, these notions o f cultural primitivism were
quickly debunked. W h a t they frequently found were inhumane,
warlike tribes bent on rape, pillage, and plunder o f any group but
th e ir ow n— and som etim es including th e ir own. Tw o o th er
classifications o f “primitives” w hich the primitivists hold in high
esteem are children and animals: children, because they supposedly
have not been corrupted by the inherent evils o f modern civilization,
and animals, because they are much closer to “nature” than man
and his civilizational conventions are. In the case o f the “cult o f
the child,” notable in Rousseau,2 primitivists implicitly deny the
doctrine o f original sin. M an is born inherently virtuous and is
corrupted as he grows to manhood.
Theological Primitivism
T o ch ro n o lo g ical and cu ltu ral prim itiv ism we may add
theological primitivism, a synthesis o f the former two as they touch
on relig io n and theology. L ike ch ro n o lo g ical and cu ltu ral
primitivism, it has a long history. W h a t is theological primitivism?
I t is the popular idea th at the purest expression o f Christianity
and o f C hristian doctrine is th at w hich occurs chronologically
closest to the advent o f C hristianity itself, and that progressive
decline has marked Christianity both in its theology and its practice
as history has moved forward. Just as pagan primitivists cast their
eyes backward to a supposed “golden age” w ith w hich the present
age o f d eclen sio n is unfavorably co n trasted , so theological
primitivists look back to the era o f the N ew Testam ent and the
early church as the pure spring o f C hristianity w hich has been
polluted over the course o f tim e. T h e era w hen C hrist and the
apostles and their im m ediate successors walked the earth is held
up as the glorious golden age o f Christianity. T his historical epoch
is superior in at least two senses. First, it is superior experientially:
the practice o f faith was a glorious, enthusiastic, pure, heartfelt
religion inspired by the great redemptive complex o f C h rists birth,
life, d e a th , re su rre c tio n , an d ascension. T h is im m ed iately
supernatural m inistry o f the G od-M an, Jesus C hrist, fueled the
u n d ilu te d religious experience o f Je su s’ disciples an d th e ir
im m ediate successors. Second, theological primitivism holds this
era as doctrinally or dogmatically superior. T h e doctrinal beliefs set
forth in early C hristianity and embraced by the early Christians
are held to be vastly superior to later doctrinal and dogm atic
developments. O f course, the doctrinal repository w hich many
theological primitivists concentrate on is the Sacred Scripture itself.
T h e O ld and N ew Testam ents as the very w ritten W ord o f G od
are the doctrinal touchstones by w hich all beliefs and practices are
to be measured. T heological prim itivists deplore the doctrinal
PROTESTANTISM VS. PRIMITIVISM 57
developments o f the patristic era, most notably the theological

formulations o f the early church councils, the ecumenical creeds.
Theological primitivists often hold that these councils and the
creeds that they hammered out reflect a distinctly Greek mode of
thinking which apostatizes from the pure doctrine o f the Sacred
Scriptures.
Liberal and Conservative

In this opposition to early creedal Christianity, theological
prim itivists can be divided into two separate categories. T h e
“liberal” theological primitivists like H arnack and W erner3 believe
that the corruption o f Christianity began w ith the writing o f the
Bible itself, and even the Epistles o f St. Paul. St. Paul and other
N ew T estam ent w riters, according to this liberal theological
primitivism, transform the simple, inspiring message o f Jesus into
a hardened theological dogma.4 It is asserted that this is the last
thing Jesus would have ever intended. In short, liberal theological
primitivists allege that several N ew Testament writers and the early
church councils refashioned the message o f Christianity from a
simple, existential, hopefiil experience into an airtight theological
formulation, thus squelching the exuberant experience o f original
Christianity.
T h en there are “conservative” theological primitivists. T he
conservative theological primitivists dissent firmly from the liberal
theological primitivists in the latter s view o f the Bible. Conservative
theological prim itivists hold th a t the Bible— all o f it— is the
inspired and infallible W ord o f G od. For these conservative
theological primitivists, the regression does not begin w ithin the
text o f the Bible, or w ithin the era covered by the text o f the Bible,
but in the subsequent, or w hat we call the sub-apostolic patristic,
era. T he Bible is the inspired, infallible W ord o f G od, and the
historical period which it describes constitutes the apex o f Christian
belief and practice.5 T h e early church councils and ecumenical
creeds detract from and dilute the pure W ord o f G od. W hile for
liberal theological primitivists, the great contrast is between the
m inistry and teaching o f Jesus on the one hand, and the Biblical
writers and early church councils on the other, the contrast for
conservative theological primitivists is between the w ritten W ord

o f the G od o f the Bible and all doctrinal developments that follow
it. Thus, many theological primitivists deny the Christian orthodox
view o f the Trinity, holding that it is a dilution o f the pure, Biblical
teaching concerning G od.6 Even those conservative theological
primitivists who embrace Trinitarian doctrine attem pt to deduce
it directly from the text o f the Bible, intentionally avoiding any
recourse to the theological controversies in which the orthodox
view o f the T rinity was defined. I t is a notable irony th at liberal
theological primitivists and conservative theological primitivists
who often oppose each other so intently on other issues should so
strikingly agree in their opposition to creedal Christianity. Perhaps
the greatest irony o f all, though, is the em erging theological
primitivism o f outright sexual perversion:
One way that we [“Christian” homosexuals] justify remaining

within the church is to see it as lapsed—lapsed from its primitive
roots, its egalitarian and communitarian origins before the
Roman Emperor Constantine accommodated, co-opted, and
brought it within the hierarchical ordering of state power.... The
church has simply gone astray from a basis, center, origin in a
common carpenter who welcomed, included, and healed the
broken, outcast, and needy.... We support equal rights for women,
lesbians, gay men, and people of color because that is what Jesus
would do if he were here.7
T his is a consistent conclusion from prim itivist reasoning,

which often skips the notion o f Christianity altogether and reshapes
its own m odern, twisted version o f C hristianity in its own image.
W hile theological primitivism was by no means absent in the
medieval era,8 it came to the fore during the sixteenth century, in
the early stages o f the Protestant Reform ation, b u t particularly in
th e R adical R efo rm a tio n led by th e A n ab a p tists and n o n -
Trinitarians.
Primitivism and the Reformation

T h e im petus behind the Reform ation had certain primitivist
features. As Reventlow observes,9 the tow ering and influential
figure o f E rasm us o f R o tterd am , w ho directly or indirectly
influenced all the leading Reformers, was a Renaissance humanist

obsessed w ith the simplicity, purity, and beauty o f the ancient
world— and in the case o f Christianity, with early Christianity.
Repristinating the purity, freshness, and excitement o f antiquity
after w hat was considered the dull, tortuous philosophy o f late
medieval scholasticism was an obsession o f Renaissance humanism.
It is im portant to recognize that in the expression “Renaissance
hum anism ,” by “humanism” we do not denote the sort o f secular
hum anism p ro m in en t in the m odern W estern w o rld .10 T h e
Renaissance diluted and underm ined Christianity, but it was not
an open, avowed foe o f the Faith, though it is fair to say that it laid
th e g ro u n d w o rk fo r to d a y ’s secular h u m a n ism .11 F or th e
Renaissance, tradition— particularly ecclesiastical tradition—was
essentially a bad thing. T he great Renaissance push was toward an
anti-traditional mode o f life and practice o f Christianity. Certain
elements o f this primitivism were attractive to the early Reformers.
For example, they agreed w ith much o f the humanistic criticism
o f the medieval accretions to the Faith. Purgatory, indulgences,
Mariology, saints’ days and festivals, icons, and other traditionary
elements that had intruded themselves into W estern Christianity
the Reformers considered harmful to pure, undiluted Biblical Faith.
In the tradition o f conservative theological prim itivism , they
attem pted to judge all beliefs and practices by the standard o f G od’s
w ritten revelation, the Bible.
D espite this impulse, it would be inaccurate to label the
Reformers and their heirs conservative theological primitivists. For
one thing, they were all deeply appreciative o f and indebted to the
catholic tradition; by this they denoted ecclesiastical consensus.
T his anti-prim itivist sentim ent was expressed quite clearly by
L uther during the sacramentarian controversy:
This article [of the Faith] moreover ... has been clearly believed
and held from the beginning of the Christian church to this
hour—a testimony of the entire Christian church, which, if we
had nothing besides, should be sufficient for us. For it is
dangerous and terrible to hear or believe anything against the
united testimony, faith and doctrine, of the entire holy Christian
church, as this hath been held now 1,500 years, from the
beginning, unanimously, in all the world. Whoso now doubted
thereon, it is even the same as though he believed in no Christian

church, and he condemneth thus not only the entire holy
Christian church as a damnable heresy, but also Christ
himself....12
Calvin agreed entirely with L uther’s perspective on this point.13

W hile the Reformers did not believe that the church fathers may
formulate authoritative doctrine (only the Bible could do that),
they did hold that to the extent that the church fathers accurately
systematized and summarized Biblical teachings, these should be
followed. It is w ithin this context that the Reformers’ famous Latin
slogan, Sola Scriptura, m ust be understood. I t carried on one stream
o f medieval C hristianity w hich insisted that all doctrine o f the
church m ust arise from the Bible, th at there are not two sources o f
authority for the church and Christianity,14 as the Council o f Trent
later taught.1S M cG rath reveals16 the three views on the relation
between the Bible and church tradition in the sixteenth century.
First, Rome taught that the Bible and church tradition were two
cooperating but separate authorities. Second, the Protestants taught
that there was only one authority, the Bible, but that a holy tradition
flowed from th at authority, and that church tradition should be
accepted if it could be justified by Scripture. T hird, the Anabaptists
denied (in precept b u t n o t practice) any tradition at all. T h e
Reformers’view steered a middle course between the traditionalists
o f Rome, w ho placed the voice o f m an on par w ith the voice o f
G od, and the innovators, who denied the validity o f Christian
orthodoxy: “[T ]h e m agisterial R eform ation was theologically
conservative. It retained m ost traditional doctrines o f the church—
such as the divinity o f C hrist and the doctrine o f the Trinity— on
account o f th e R efo rm ers’ conviction th a t these trad itio n al
interpretations o f Scripture were correct.”17
Far from arguing th at their view represented an innovation in
the history o f the church, the Reformers contended that the late
medieval Rom an Catholic C hurch had broken decisively w ith the
C hristian trad itio n ,18 i.e.y Rom e had deviated from orthodox,
catholic Christianity. It is well to recall that the Reformers were
not “separatists”;19 they are called Reformers precisely because their
objective was to reform the W estern church, not start a new one
and, had the Pope n o t anathem atized the Reform ation and had
the Roman Catholic Church not solidified its opposition to the

Reformation at the Council o f Trent, we have every reason to
assume that the Reformers would have been quite willing to remain
w ithin the Roman Church and purge it o f its grievous errors. By
originally intending to remain w ithin the Roman communion, they
were implicitly giving assent to the fa c t o f historical continuity in the
Christian Faith. T h e church at Rome was once a true church but
had grievously apostatized. It needed to repent and to abandon its
theological and existential sin. This Rome refused to do and, as a
result, the Protestant Reformation created a separate sector o f the
W estern church. T his sector carried on the broad theological
tradition o f W estern Christianity purged o f many o f its evils.
Radical Reformationist Primitivism

T he Reform ation churches were compelled to rethink their
own primitivist impulse w hen confronted by the more consistent
prim itivism o f the so-called Radical Reformers— notably, the
A nabaptists.20T h e Anabaptists usually charged the Reformation
w ith halfway measures: it had begun well, but had not taken to its
conclusion the principle and practice o f reformation. T his would
have required, in the minds o f the Anabaptists, doing away w ith
all theological traditions and restoring the doctrine and practice
o f the primitive church. By this, the Anabaptists did not mean
Biblical Faith as such, since they posited a strong distinction
between the O ld Testam ent and the N ew Testament. Anabaptists,
like almost all conservative theological primitivists, were “N ew
T estam ent C hristians” attem pting to restore “N ew Testam ent
churches.” T h e contrast between the Reformational approach and
the A nabaptist approach on this issue is m ost striking. W hereas
the Reform ation churches wished to retain those elements o f the
Faith in line w ith the Bible s teaching, the A nabaptists w anted to
abandon virtually the entire Faith and attem pt to recreate “N ew
Testam ent C hristianity” from the ground up. T h e Anabaptists
had almost no interest in the historic creeds o f the church or
historical continuity. Im m ediately after C hrist s ascension, in the
A nabaptist historiography, the church began to apostatize; and
the formal acceptance o f C hristianity by C onstantine escalated
the great apostasy o f the church. However, N ew T estam ent
C hristianity was being restored in their own day by themselves,

the Anabaptists. In other words, there was little or no genuine
“N ew T estam en t C h ristian ity ” betw een the tim e o f C h rist’s
ascension and their own rediscovery o f primitive, Biblical Faith.
For th is reason, th e A n ab ap tists generally agreed w ith the
Reform ers’ sharp criticisms o f the Rom an Catholic C hurch, but
turned these very criticisms back on the Reformers by claiming
th at the latter were n o t consistent w ith their own Reformational
premises. For instance, the A nabaptists believed th at the practice
o f infant baptism was merely an ecclesiastical tradition w hich the
W ord o f G od does not perm it. B ut this is only one o f a num ber o f
issues on w hich the A nabaptists claimed that the Reformers were
dangerously inconsistent.
T he Reformers did not respond to the A nabaptist primitivism
by claim ing th at their position was correct because it was the
traditional C hristian position; rather, they held that the traditional
Christian position was correct because it was Biblical. T his, as noted
above by M cG raff, is the Protestant view concerning a traditional
understanding o f the Bible. Protestants opposed transubstantiation,
Mariology, indulgences, and a sacerdotal caste because they were
convinced th at the Bible’s teaching prohibited these things. But
the Reformers endorsed the orthodox Trinity, the two natures o f
Jesus C hrist, original sin, infant baptism, and so forth, because
they believed th at the Bible’s teaching required these things. In
other words, they did not rip up the entire C hristian tradition by
the roots and plant an entirely new form o f religion; rather, they
attem pted to prune away certain poisonous and sickly branches
and nurture a truly Biblical C hristian tradition.21 T his was their
counter to the theological primitivism o f the Anabaptists.
T h e A nabaptists were not the only group th at supported a
conservative theological primitivism. T h e early non-Trinitarians,
and later the C hurch o f C hrist, the M orm ons, and many other
groups did also.22 A lm o st all w ere co m m itted to restoring a
primitive religion shorn o f any sense o f historical continuity. “T he
streams o f Protestantism influenced by deism and rationalism ,”
Davis writes, “tended to appeal directly to the moral teachings o f
Jesus; later developments in church history— especially the great
orthodox creeds— were an ‘obfuscation’ o f the simple religion o f
the Sermon on the M ount. As the English Unitarian Joseph Priestly

saw it, church history was little more than ‘a sordid history of
corruptions/”23This primitivist impulse was especially acute in early
America. As N athan H atch observes:
The first Americans to underscore the right of private judgment

in handling the Scriptures were, oddly enough, ministers who
opposed the evangelical tenets of the First Great Awakening....
[Tjheological liberals became increasingly restive with strict
creedal definitions of Christianity.... Well into the nineteenth
century, rational Christians, many of whom swelled the ranks of
denominations such as the Unitarians and the Universalists,
argued against evangelical orthodoxy by appealing to the Bible....
Charles Beecher defended his rejection of his father Lymans
orthodoxy by renouncing “creed-power” and raising the banner
of “the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible.”24
N or should we presume that these American primitivists had

a low view o f formal Biblical authority. Rather, they combined the
highest view o f the Bible’s infallibility w ith the m ost relentless
attack on Christianity. “Early Am erican U nitarianism through
W illiam Ellery C hanning,” Lovelace notes, “was quite orthodox
in its doctrine o f Scripture, if not in its total system derived from
the Bible. Usually it presented itself as a biblicist reaction against
the m etaphysical th eo ry o f N icaea and C halcedon.”2S T hese
Unitarians pitted Biblical infallibility against historic Christianity—
notably, the doctrines o f the Trinity and the deity o f Jesus Christ.
In other words, their idea was that if we affirm Biblical infallibility
we m ust deny central tenets o f historic Christianity.
T his conservative primitivism manifested itself not only in
aversion to the creeds, but also in an attem pted unconditioned
reading o f the Bible. I t was assumed th at man as an isolated
individual apart from the church and history and his own time
could arrive at a correct understanding o f the Bible. T his was stated
perhaps no more blatantly than by Alexander Campbell, father o f
the so-called “C hurch o f C h rist”:
I have endeavored to read the scriptures as though no one had

read them before m e... and as much on my guard against reading
them to-day, through the medium of my own views yesterday,

or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign
name, authority, or system whatever.26
In other words, not only did he never rely on any other Biblical
interpretations; he also did not even rely on his own interpretations
o f his previous reading o f the text! T his m ust surely constitute the
m ost consistent form o f theological primitivism in the history o f
the church. In any case, conservative theological primitivism in
general has become a dom inant m otif in the modern church. T he
doctrine o f the priesthood o f all believers has been transformed
into the doctrine o f the acceptability o f the heterodoxy o f every
believer— no objective standards o f orthodox belief and practice
can be enforced so long as an individual claims to believe the Bible.
Characteristics of Conservative
D e s p ite v a ria tio n s w ith in it, co n serv ativ e th e o lo g ic a l
primitivism is marked by certain tendencies. First, it teaches that
the historical era described in the Bible is a golden age from which
the church has since seriously apostatized. T his m ust be qualified,
in th at conservative theological primitivists usually see the O ld
Testam ent as an outm oded and inferior revelation n ot designed to
govern the people o f G od today. Rather, the period o f C h rist’s
sojourn on the earth and the apostolic m inistry constitute the
golden age o f C hristianity th at the church in every generation is
called on to reproduce.
Second, this means that almost the entire course o f church
h isto ry since th e N ew T e sta m e n t era is little m ore th a n a
degeneration from the N ew T estam ent golden age (except, o f
course, am ong contem porary primitivists!). T h e history o f the
church is an almost unvarying history o f apostasy.
T hird , not merely the experience and practice o f the church,
but also its doctrine set forth in the N ew Testam ent documents,
are the only theological sources to w hich Christians should have
recourse. It is well to rem em ber th at it is not the Bible itself that
the primitivists consider theologically authoritative, but principally
th e N ew T estam ent d o c u m e n t (in th e case o f conservative
th e o lo g ic a l p rim itiv is ts ). T h e O ld T e sta m e n t c a n n o t be

authoritative as the W ord o f G od, and creeds and confessions
cannot be derivatively authoritative to the extent th a t they
summarize the W ord o f G od. T hus, there are no subordinate
standards o f orthodoxy— and no definition o f heresy either.
Fourth, and consequently, to these primitivists the ecumenical
creeds o f the church and the Reform ation confessions o f the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are m an-m ade statements o f
belief that subvert the authority and meaning o f the Bible. T he
task o f Christians is not to affirm and believe the creeds and
confessions o f the church as accurate summaries o f the Bible, but
to appeal to the Bible ap art from any recourse to h istoric
Christianity in the attem pt to discover its meaning for today.
Fifth, this immediate recourse to the Bible apart from the
creeds and confessions is to be understood individualistically, not
corporately. Almost all conservative theological primitivists deplore
any sort o f church hierarchy—especially theological hierarchy. They
consider the idea that a group o f learned men seventeen hundred
years ago could legislate for Christians w ith respect to the doctrine
o f the Trinity an attack on the individual priesthood o f the believers.
T he Reformers, too, o f course, strongly affirmed the individual
priesthood o f the believer in opposing the sacerdotal caste o f the
Papacy, but the primitivists vest the individual priesthood o f the
believer or “soul-liberty” w ith quite a different meaning. For the
Reformers, it mean that believers w ithin the community o f Faith
could read and understand the Bible in its leading points apart
from announcements and interpretations from a sacerdotal caste—
i.e., the Papacy. For the primitivists, however, the “priesthood o f
all believers” and “soul-liberty” mean that every Christian not only
possesses an innate sense o f the Bible’s meaning, but also that he
need not rely on divinely gifted pastors and teachers in the church—
including those throughout the history o f the church— to arrive at
an understanding o f the Sacred Scriptures; that is, every individual
believer may interpret the Bible as he wishes and cannot be excluded
from Christianity despite any interpretation he develops.
Sixth, it follows that primitivists deny the Christian Faith as a
historic reality. A t best, they hold that throughout the course o f
history, true believers and true churches existed apart from orthodox
Christianity.27 T h e C hristian Faith itself as an objective reality

m anifesting itself in a distinctly identifiable institutional form and
embracing a unified orthodox doctrine has no place in primitivism.
For the primitivists, this would be to concede, for example, that
the Rom an Catholic C hurch is not throughout its entire history
an apostate institution, and may have m anifested a degree o f
genuine Christianity. T his the conservative theological primitivists
hotly dispute. In other words, C hristianity to these primitivists is
a distinctly a-historical or anti-historical phenom enon. T h ey
perceive their role as restoring primitive C hristianity as it is set
forth in the N ew Testam ent.
The Errors of Primitivism

T h e o lo g ic a l p r im itiv is m — w h e th e r o f th e lib e ra l or
conservative variety— is a pollutant to the C hristian Faith and to
Biblical Christianity. O n the surface, it may appear as though its
fervent devotion to “N ew T estam ent C hristianity” honors G od
and the Bible; b u t on closer inspection, we discover that it surely
does not.28 Rather, theological prim itivism (and we are chiefly
co n cern ed here w ith its conservative variety) is u ltim ately
destructive o f the Faith. How?
New Testament Doctrine, Not Narrative, Is

Normative
First, conservative theological primitivism errs in holding up
the Christianity practiced in the N ew Testam ent era as the supreme
paradigm for Biblical Christianity. A little thinking should make
this point abundantly clear. W hile the days w hen our L ord walked
the earth were often m om entous, exciting, and miraculous, they
did not inspire, for the m ost part, Jesus’ followers to the sort o f
experience and obedience w hich the Bible itself requires. D uring
C h rist’s m inistry the disciples often doubted the Lord, just as they
did afte r H is d eath (M k . 16:11, 13-14; L k. 2 4 :1 3 -3 5 ). T h e
experience o f the upper room recorded in Acts 2 resulted in greater
conform ity to H is teaching, b u t m ost o f the churches about which
the N ew T estam ent speaks were anything b u t exemplary. T h e
church at C orinth was abysmally carnal and immature. T h e church
at Colosse was heavily influenced by Judaism and gnosticism. T h e
churches at Galatia were on the verge o f succumbing to the cursed

doctrine o f salvation by m erit or works. T he church at Ephesus
had lost its first love; Pergamos had perm itted false doctrine to be
taught; Thyatira had allowed a woman to seduce the saints (either
theologically or physically); Sardis had becom e “d ead”; and
Laodicea had become “lukewarm.”
W e can learn from this th a t while Biblical doctrine and
instruction are unwaveringly normative for Christianity, the sort o f
C hristianity we often find practiced in the pages o f the N ew
Testament certainly is not. T he notion that Christ’s physical presence
on earth afforded a qualitatively greater spiritual era than any other
is flatly refuted by H is declaration that after His departure His
disciples would perform works greater than His own (Jn. 14:12),
and that it was necessary that H e depart in order for H im to dispatch
H is Spirit to the disciples in an unprecedented way (Jn. 16:7). If
anything, this implies th at a golden age would follow C h rist’s
ascension; C hrist’s earthly sojourn was not that golden age.
But even if this promise were interpreted as limited to the
immediate post-ascension apostolic period, this era can hardly be
held up as a golden age o f primitive Christianity. T h e church
suffered not only from internal factions, but also from false doctrines
and false teachers in her midst. Several churches in the Apocalypse
were warned that they were on the verge o f so deviating from
Biblical obedience that G od would soon judge them severely unless
they repented (Rev. 2 -3 ). T hese are hardly to be held up as
exemplary to churches and Christians o f the post-Biblical era! I t is
the teachings o f the Bible, not the examples, that are normative.
Arrogance
Second, primitivism is dangerously arrogant in its approach
to the Bible and to the Faith. Primitivists claim to w ant nothing
more than to understand and to obey the N ew Testament. T hey
claim th at reliance on the historic creeds and confessions and
teachers o f the church— as well as godly teachers today— detracts
from the authority o f the Bible. T his is by no means true, and
many times— and especially in the case o f primitivists’ resistance
to the teaching o f reverent, orthodox believers— it is flatly wrong.
T his was highlighted in a discussion I had a number o f years ago
w ith a primitivist Christian. W e were discussing the merits o f infant

baptism. H e would quote a particular Bible verse here and there in
support o f his position, and I would quote a statem ent from John
Calvin (I quoted Calvin intentionally, knowing my acquaintance’s
theological primitivism). T his w ent on for five or ten minutes.
Finally, he threw up his hands in despair and said, “T h e difference
between me and you is that my position is based on the Bible, and
yours is based on Calvin. M y position is Biblical, and your position
is just m an-m ade.”
“N o,” I im m ediately responded, “the difference is not that you
rely on the Bible while I rely on Calvin. W e both are attem pting to
rely on the Bible. T h e difference is that I do not believe that I
understand the Bible better than everybody else in the history of
the church.”
For h isto ric , o rth o d o x C h ris tia n s, th e issue is never a
com petition between the w ord o f m an and the W ord o f G od, or
even between the historic creeds and the Sacred Scripture. T he
Bible alone is our objective authority. However, we do not believe
that we are the first ones ever to have read the Bible, and we do
not believe th at we as isolated individuals understand the Bible
b etter th an everybody else has in the past, or b etter than all
Christians do today.
By contrast, theological primitivism is fraught w ith arrogance.
T his arrogance creates a vicious cycle that undermines primitivists’
understanding o f the Scripture: because they refuse to rely on any
historic, orth o d o x in te rp retatio n o f the Bible or on reverent
com m entary on the Bible, they tend to become stultified in their
understanding o f the Bible— confirmed not only in their arrogance,
but also in their ignorance. In other words, their arrogance leads
to ignorance. T h e great irony is th at in claiming deep reverence
for the Bible, they treat the Bible diffidently by refusing to arrive
at a better understanding o f the Bible.
The Christian Faith an Objective

Historical Reality
T h ird , conservative theological primitivists do not recognize
the C hristian F aith as an objective historical reality. T h ey do
recognize the Bible as an objective historical reality, but they do
not recognize that the Christian Faith itself is no less an objective

h istorical reality. “W h e n th a t w hich is revealed o f G o d is
crystallized into a tradition, rigidly held and propagated with purely
hum an energy,” Kennedy writes, “it becomes an impenetrable
barrier to the truth. T h e life o f the Spirit can never be confined
w ithin the framework o f religious tradition. G od is much greater
than m ans thoughts concerning H im , and the plant o f the church
grows best in a soul uncluttered by the petty hedgerows o f man’s
limited understanding.”29 In opposing a twisted view o f tradition
such as the one described in the quote above, conservative
theological primitivists imply or denote that it is possible simply
to live the “life o f the Spirit,” never “confined within the framework
o f religious tradition.” T his is not merely foolish, in that it cuts
one off from historic Christianity; it is also impossible, in that
tradition o f some sort is inescapable, even if it is a dogged
antitraditionalism! All forms o f Christianity invariably manifest
themselves as an objective historical reality o f some sort, and the
Bible itself quite clearly teaches that the Faith as an objective body
o f truth in history is just w hat G od intends.
Jude 3 exhorts us to earnestly contend for the Faith once (for
all) delivered to the saints. Paul instructs T im othy to commit to
faithful men the truths that had been transm itted directly to Paul
and which Paul had transm itted to T im othy (2 Tim. 2:2). Paul
exhorts the Thessalonians to “hold the traditions” which he had
delivered to them (2 Thes. 2:15). T h e idea o f the succession of
godly religion from generation to generation is a teaching o f both
the O ld and the N ew Testaments (D t. 6:20-25; Is. 59:21; 2 Tim.
1:5). T his is the godly tradition in which Christianity is anchored.
Conservative theological prim itivists correctly oppose the
perversion o f Biblical tradition on the part o f Roman Catholicism
and Eastern Orthodoxy. T he Roman Catholic Church correcdy sees
tradition as an objective historical reality, but it claims that this
tradition does not flow out o f the W ord o f G od itself. Rather, it is
an independent source o f revelation, coordinate with the Scripture
itself. In the words o f the Roman Catholic apologist Yves Congar:
[Roman] Catholics believe that this method of communication

[tradition] is the one most essential to the Church, and that it
would suffice if it alone existed.... [T]he basic question is this:

Has Tradition an autonomous value, albeit subordinated to that
of Scripture, or does its entire value come from Scripture which
it interprets? The [Roman] Catholic reply is that Tradition
represents a value in its own right, apart from Scripture, a value
which becomes a norm.30
T h e Eastern O rthodox Church, holds more earnestly to this

perspective. O ne o f its recent apologists states:
The existence and divine origin of the Liturgy or Eucharist,

specifically, of its shape, and of its role in creating, forging the
belief, teaching, and confession of Christian doctrine obviates
the need for the Protestant tenet of Sola Scriptura. It is not
Scripture alone, but Holy Tradition, in its all encompassing
nature, that forms the basis of Christian doctrine.31
B oth the Rom an Catholic and the Eastern O rthodox views

are pollutions and perversions o f the Biblical teaching regarding
tradition. T h e ir fatal error is to erase the unbridgeable chasm
between G od and man, in Van T il’s terms, the Creator-creature
distinction.32 In Rome, the church hierarchy is on a par w ith the
W ord o f G od and the Scriptures; worse yet, in Eastern Orthodoxy,
the church partakes o f the very being o f G od.33 T h e Protestant
view o f tra d itio n as flow ing from th e Scriptures them selves
safeguards the C reator-creature distinction against Rom e and
B y z an tiu m , and safeguards o rth o d o x y ag ain st th e R adical
Reformers.
A prim e contribution o f the P ro testan t Reform ation, in fact,
was to revive the Biblical, p atristic,34 and certain m edieval35
notions o f trad itio n .36 In the Bible, tradition and the Faith itself
are objective realities th a t the Bible generates. Ju st as the words
o f the eternal G o d spoke the universe into existence, so H is words
bring into existence the church and the Faith. T hose words as
they are designed as revelation for m an are recorded in the H oly
Bible. T h e church o f the O ld T estam ent was form ed at the express
com m and o f G o d ’s w ord, ju st as the church o f the N ew Testam ent
was. T h e church is the result o f the Scriptures; the Scriptures are
n o t the result o f the church. N evertheless, the church recognizes
the Scriptures and is the repository (or guardian) o f the Scriptures

{Rom. 3:2). T h e Scriptures create the church which protects the
Scriptures. Properly understood, there is no conflict between
them .
T h e core d o c trin e o f th e B ible, th e very stru ctu re o f
Christianity, flows from the Bible itself. T his is the ecumenical
orthodoxy that was formulated out at the early church councils in
the ecumenical creeds. T his Biblical doctrine and its acceptance
and affirmation by undivided Christianity is the theological core
o f our religion. T his is a large part o f the objective reality o f
Christianity. Protestant church historian Philip Schaff, while far
from correct in some o f his own theological views,37 captured the
significance o f Biblical tradition quite well:
Quite different, however, in the second place, is the case of the

formal dogmatic tradition. This is such as has not for its contents
something different from what is contained in the Bible, but
forms the channel by which these contents are conducted forward
in history; the onward development thus of church doctrine and
church life, as comprehended first dogmatically in the so-called
rules of faith, above all in the Apostles’ Creed, and then in the
ecumenical creeds—the Nicene and Athanasian, apart from all
written statement, through the entire course of church history,
so that everyone, before he wakes even to self-consciousness, is
made involuntarily to feel its power. Tradition in this sense is
absolutely indispensable. By its means we come first to the
contents of the Bible; and from it these draw their life for us,
perpetually fresh and new; in such way that Christ and his
apostles are made present, and speak to us directly, in the Spirit
which breathes in the Bible, and flows through the church as
her life’s blood. This tradition therefore is not a part o f the divine
word separately from that which is written, but the contents of
scripture itselfas apprehended and settled by the church against heresies
past and always new appearing; not an independent source of
revelation, but the onefountain o f the written word, only rolling
itselfforward in the stream o f church consciousness.... This tradition
Protestantism can and must allow without a surrender of its
principle.38
T his is the stream o f Christianity that flows out o f the Bible.

W ith o u t this Christianity, the Faith cannot exist. In the words of

Presbyterian Charles Hodge:
Protestants admit that there has been an uninterrupted tradition

of truth from the protoevangelium to the close of the Apocalypse,
so that there has been a stream of traditionary teaching flowing
through the Christian church from the day of Pentecost to the
present time. This tradition is so far a rule of faith that nothing
contrary to it can be true. Christians do not stand isolated, each
holding his own creed. They constitute one body, having one
common creed. Rejecting that creed, or any of its parts, is the
rejection of the fellowship of Christians, incompatible with the
communion of saints, or membership in the body of Christ. In
other words, Protestants admit that there is a common faith of
the Church, which no man is at liberty to reject and be a
Christian.39
W h en conservative theological primitivism, therefore, dismisses

or denies early ecumenical orthodoxy, it is really opposing the notion
o f Christianity, o f the Faith, as an objective reality. To assume that
merely by handing over the Scriptures to an individual we are thereby
handing over the Faith is naive. T h e Scriptures must be properly
understood. T h e context w ithin which we understand the Scriptures
is the Christian Faith set forth in creedal Christianity.
To bring this closer to home, imagine th at an individual wants
to join a professed Bible-believing C hristian church. Does that
church simply hand him a Bible and say, “Believe anything you
w ant about the Bible; the only requirem ent for membership in
this church is a profession o f faith in C hrist and belief in the Bible”?
N o church does this— at least not logically. T his is why there are
no creedless churches.
Some tim e ago, I publicly debated a C hurch o f C hrist minister.
H e made an impassioned statem ent that C hurch o f C hrist churches
were “the only truly creedless churches left,” and he considered
this a m ark o f their C hristian authenticity. H e spent about ten or
fifteen m inutes explaining why his church was creedless. W h e n it
was my tim e in the debate to rebut him , I imm ediately responded,
“T h a t was an interesting creed we have been listening to for the
last fifteen m inutes.” T h e point seemed to have been lost on him.
A creed is simply a systemization o f Biblical interpretation. It

is a statem ent o f w hat we believe the Bible teaches. In its broadest
sense, every sermon, every textbook on systematic theology, and
every com ment and discussion among Bible-believing Christians
is a creed. Creeds are inescapable.40
T h e alleged creedlessness am ong conservative theological
primitivists is a dangerous illusion because it leads them to assume
that since they believe in the authority o f the Bible (at least o f the
New Testament), all o f their beliefs are accurate. In other words,
the inescapability o f creedlessness seduces them into the naive
assumption that correct belief about the Bible equals correct Biblical
beliefs. T his means one has the attitude o f “I believe the Bible is
the W ord o f G od, and, therefore, I could not be wrong in my
beliefs.” But there is no objective, unconditioned vantage point
from which an understanding o f the Bible is possible that does not
require interpretation. T h e Bible is w ritten revelation and w ritten
documents invite interpretation. T h e Bible is the infallible W ord
o f G o d in hum an language. I t is n o t m erely susceptible o f
interpretation: it demands interpretation. A ny docum ent th at
demands interpretation can be #w interpreted. T he Bible itself
teaches this: Satan misinterprets the Bible (M t. 4:3, 6). T he fact
that the Bible can be (and has been many times) misinterpreted
alerts us that we m ust be careful to interpret the Bible properly.
T he H oly Spirit reveals the truth o f the Bible to Christians, but
not to discrete individuals apart from the entire body o f believers.
T h is fact seems alm ost com pletely lost on conservative
theological prim itivists. T h ey therefore can readily fall into
m isinterpreting the Bible and unlike thoughtful Bible-believers,
they have abandoned any interpretative mechanism by which they
can correct their misinterpretations. N either the ancient Christian
creeds, nor earlier historical commentaries on the Bible, nor modern
reverent commentators, serve as a check on their often fanciful,
not-w ell-thought-out interpretations o f the Bible.
Everything that professes to be a correct interpretation o f the
Bible professes to bear the authority o f the Bible.41 Sacred Scripture
is the authoritative W ord o f G od, b u t it is the Sacred Scripture
rightly interpreted that is the authoritative W ord o f God. Satan’s
quotation, use, and application o f the Bible is not authoritative; it
is just the opposite; it is a perversion o f Biblical interpretation.

T h e same is true o f the Pharisees and Judaizers in the N ew
Testam ent era. T hey misunderstood and m isinterpreted the O ld
T e sta m e n t (M t. 22:29). B iblical in te rp re ta tio n , it m ust be
understood, is not a task that should be lim ited to Biblical scholars
and other literati. Every Christian who reads the Bible is a Biblical
interpreter; but it is prudent to rely on pastors and teachers and
others w ith divinely endowed gifts and understanding who help
us uncover and grasp the m eaning o f the Bible. Some things in the
Bible are hard to understand (2 Pet. 3:16), but the major points
necessary to salvation and a godly life are grasped by those in
submission to the W ord o f G od (Jn. 7:17). T h e Bible is not a
gnostic work, w ritten only for an educated or mystical elite. It is
w ritten in com m on, everyday language so th at people from all
stations o f life can interpret it. Therefore, as Charles H odge asserts,
“w hat all the com petent readers o f a plain book take to be its
meaning, m ust be its m ean in g .. . . [T]he H oly Spirit is promised
to guide the people o f G od into the knowledge o f the truth, and
therefore th at w hich they, under the teachings o f the Spirit, agree
in believing m ust be true.”42
C onserv ativ e th eo lo g ical p rim itiv ism sh o rt-circu its the
in te rp re tiv e process, n o t ta k in g in to acco u n t an o rth o d o x
understanding o f the Bible in history or today; it thus isolates itself
from the tools necessary for a proper understanding o f the Bible.
Consequently, its understanding o f the Bible is often erroneous.
No Mechanism for Theological Development

or the Cultural Mandate
Fourth, conservative theological prim itivism cannot affirm
sound theological developm ent or man’s calling to progressively
exercise dom inion over the earth. Its program is restoration rather
than progress. I t focuses on the past, attem pting to reproduce a
particular era o f the past rather than employing the infallible W ord
o f G od, whose accurate understanding has been developed over
tim e, to reshape the present and the future. N o t that conservative
theological primitivists are not interested in the future at all. In
the left wing, primitivism leads straight into eschatology. As Littell
observes:
Anabaptism was primitivist and eschatological. The norm is the

past, the hope for the future is the restoration of the Early
Church. There is on the one hand an attitude which is
conservative, even reactionary; on the other there is a
revolutionary spirit which can burst the most secure of
ecclesiastical or social forms. The idea of Restitution represents
a studied effort to reverse the verdict of history to shed the
accumulated power and intellectual sophistication which seem
to corrode and obscure the pure and inspired faith of the founders
of the church.43
Conservative theological primitivism wants to cast off all o f

the accumulated wisdom and Biblical interpretation o f the last two
thousand years, denying, in L ittells words, “the verdict o f history,”
and to reinstitute a pure, a-historical form o f Biblical understanding
and Christianity that will usher in a virtually perfect church and
society. In other words, it is “short-cut” or “instant-gratification”
religion.
C o n serv ativ e th e o lo g ic al p rim itiv ists lack alm o st any
appreciation for the diligence, prayer, and controversy necessary
to reach an accurate understanding o f the Bible as expierenced in
the early Trinitarian and Christological controversies, for example.
T hey w ant an immediate, simple, full-fledged understanding o f
the Bible which will lead to an immediate, simple, full-fledged
pure church and society. T hey are guilty, among other things, o f
the fallacy o f simplicity.44 By contrast, the Bible teaches that the
kingdom o f G od advances slowly, almost imperceptibly (Dan. 2:34-
35y 44-45\ M t. 13:31-33). T his gradual advance o f the kingdom
necessarily entails a gradual advance o f knowledge (Eph. 4:13-16).
T h e Bible depicts C hrist s body on earth, the church, as a living,
organic being that grows in obedience, knowledge, and devotion
to her God. Just as individuals are progressively, not immediately,
sanctified,45 so the church— both that on earth at a particular point
in history, and th at throughout the ages— is not im m ediately
sanctified. In o th er w ords, sanctification is progressive. T h is
progress requires greater understanding and knowledge.
As we examine the history o f the church, we detect just such
progress o f knowledge.46 T his is not, o f course, an immediate,
unvarying progress. A t times (for instance, in the medieval era),
Christianity has assimilated all sorts o f heresies and deviations.

Nonetheless, one can detect a clear pattern o f theological progress
in the history o f the church. I f we compare the writings o f Aquinas,
for example, to those o f the patristic fathers, we see that Aquinas
has a much broader, more intensive understanding o f the Bible and
o f Christianity. W h en we compare the Reformers w ith Aquinas, we
find that they outdistance him just as he outdistanced the patristic
fathers. Further, w hen we examine more recent theologians, we
recognize how they have progressed beyond the Reformers. N ot
that the contemporaries are inherently more intelligent or godly than
those who have gone before. Rather, they have been able to move
farther along the path, the first few miles o f which have been created
by their godly predecessors. T his leads us to conclude that in the
next few hundred years we can expect an even greater understanding
o f the Bible and o f the Faith—within, o f course, orthodox categories.
T he Bible is the eternal, unchangeable W ord o f God; but man’s
understanding o f the W ord o f G od is not unchangeable. Just as the
individual Christian is to progress in knowledge as he is gradually
sanctified, so the entire church over its history is to progress in
knowledge as it is gradually sanctified.
T h is w hole id ea is fo reig n to conservative th eo lo g ical
primitivists. T here is no doctrine o f development or development
o f doctrine, only a doctrine o f decline and decline o f doctrine. Their
work is one o f restoration, not progress. As a result, they almost
always tend to be eschatologically apocalyptic— looking for the end
o f the world just around the corner. W hy? Because if they themselves
are the agents o f the restoration o f the golden age, and if that age
does not immediately usher in the perfect church and society to be
followed by the Second Advent, there m ust be another “fall,” in
w hich theology and C hristianity go into a great decline. In other
words, if the end o f the world is not im m inent, primitivists would
have to account for an extensive history w hich follows them — that
is, the future that does not immediately conclude. T hey have no
mechanism for dealing w ith this. Some do attem pt to maintain a
perpetual eschatological apocalypticism, but w hen they do this they
believe their claim th at the end o f history is surely imm inent: the
perpetuation o f their apocalypticism is itself a view o f historical
continuity w hich their apocalypticism cannot logically sustain.
For this reason, they understand noth in g o f the cultural

mandate. M an is called to godly stewardship o f the earth and
culture in terms of the infallible W ord o f God. This does not happen
immediately; it takes many generations to accomplish this. But
conservative theological primitivists cannot account for successive
generations, apart from assigning them all to theological decline
or outright apostasy. Therefore, they have no long-term hope, no
long-term vision. T hey live only for the present, and for the
impending incursion o f the perfect church and society. Theirs is
not a vision o f gradual godly progress, but o f immediate restoration
by means o f revolution, and revolution is exactly w hat some
sixteenth-century theological prim itivists supported— both in
church and society.47
Conclusion
H istoric Protestantism is not primitivist and, in all leading
points, is antithetical to primitivism. It is the only major sector of
the Christian church whose tenets, w hen properly understood and
applied, translate into the right view on the relationship between
the Bible, orthodoxy, tradition, and progress. Eastern Orthodoxy,
Anabaptism, liberalism, and much o f the Radical Reformation
groups are intensely primitivist. Anabaptism, for example, seeks
to restore the primitive Christianity o f the N ew Testam ent era.
Eastern O rthodoxy attem pts to restore the C hristianity o f the
patristic era. Liberalism endeavors to restore the Christianity o f
C hrist H im self—or rather, denies “Christianity” and looks only to
the ethics and teaching o f Jesus. R om an C atholicism is not
primitivist. Its great error is not primitivism, but rather seeing
theological development as governed by the voice o f the church
h ierarchy, m e an in g th e R o m an C a th o lic h ierarch y ,48 and
substituting the voice o f m an in the church for the voice o f G od in
the Bible.
By contrast, historic Protestantism upholds the Bible, and the
Bible alone, as the infallible, objective revelation o f G od to which
man is bound; unlike primitivists, Protestantism acknowledges the
godly tradition that flows out o f the W ord o f G od, a tradition
w ithout w hich C hristianity is impossible. In the Reformed camp
especially, there is a strong elem ent recognizing theological and
dogmatic development over time— w ithin Christian orthodoxy. It

expects, by means o f diligent study and theological controversy,
greater doctrinal understanding as tim e goes on. Finally, the
Reformed faith sees this growth and knowledge as contributing to
the godly man’s calling to exercise dom inion in the earth under
the authority o f Jesus C hrist and according to H is W ord.49T his is
the antithesis o f primitivism. T h e m ost consistent expression o f
Protestantism accents the full-orbed advance o f the kingdom o f
G od, buoyed up by relentless theological progress.
1Arthur O. Lovejoy and George Boas, Primitivism and Related Ideas in

Antiquity (Baltimore and London, 1935); George Boas, “Primitivism,”
in ed., Dictionary o f the History o f Ideas (New York, 1973), 3:577-598.
2Boaz, “Primitivism,” 595.
3Martin Werner, The Formation of Christian Dogma (Boston, 1957).
4Interestingly, this is the view also of the German nihilist philosopher,
Friedrich Nietzsche: “Our age is proud of its historical sense: how was
it able to make itself believe in the nonsensical notion that the crude
miracle-worker and redeemer fable comes at the commencement of
Christianity—and that everything spiritual and symbolic is only a
subsequent development? On the contrary, the history of Christianity—
and that from the very death on the Cross—is the history of
progressively cruder misunderstanding of an original symbolism. W ith
every extension of Christianity over even broader, even cruder masses
in whom the preconditions out of which it was born were more and
more lacking, it became increasingly necessary to vulgarize, to barbarize
Christianity. . . . The fate of Christianity lies in the necessity for its
faith itself to grow as morbid, low and vulgar as the requirements it
was intended to satisfy were morbid, low and vulgar,” emphasis in
original, The Antichrist, section 37 (Penguin Classics edition, 160£).
This is surely theological primitivism with a vengeance.
5George W. Dollar, A History o f Fundamentalism in America (Sarasota,
1983), 4.
6Jaroslav Pelikan, Reformation o f Church and Dogma (1300-1700)
7Gary David Comstock, Gay Theology WithoutApology (Cleveland, 1993),
92.
8The patristic church was not essentially primitivist; it had a healthy
(Protestant-like) view of the transmission of the Faith: “From the second
century on, Christians had assumed that the traditions and teachers of
the church, guided by the Holy Sprit, were faithful to the biblical
message, and that it was safe to equate Church doctrine with Bible
truth,”J. X. Packer, ‘“Sola Scriptura’ in History and Today,” in ed., John
Warwick Montgomery, God's Inerrant Word (Minneapolis, 1974), 45.
9Henning Graf Reventlow, The Authority of the Bible and the Rise of the
Modern World (Philadelphia, 1985), 39-48.
10Alister McGrath, The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation
(Oxford, 1987), 32-38.
“ Michael Kelley, The Impulse ofPower (Minneapolis, 1998), ch. 6.
“ Philip Schaff, The Principle of Protestantism (Philadelphia [1845], 1964),
117.
13ibid.
14Pelikan, 120-121.
15Alister McGrath, Reformation Thought (1993 edition), 144-145.
16ibid., 144-147.
17ibid., 145.
18M. Eugene Osterhaven, The Spirit of the Reformed Tradition (Grand
Rapids, 1971), 40-41.
19Philip Schaff, Modern Christianity, in History of the Christian Church
(Grand Rapids, 1910), 7:13-14.
20Franklin Hamlin Littell, The Anabaptist View of the Church (Boston,
1958 edition), ch. 2 and passim.
21Jaroslav Pelikan, Obedient Rebels (New York and Evanston, 1964).
22 idem.., Reformation o f Church and Dogma (1300-1700) (Chicago and
London, 1984), 321-331.
23 Tohn Jefferson Davis, Foundations o f Evangelical Theology (Grand
Rapids, 1984), 228.
24Nathan O. Hatch, “Sola Scriptura and Novus Ordo Seclorum,” in eds.,
Nathan Hatch and Mark Noll, The Bible In America: Essays in Cultural
History (New York, 1982), 62-63.
25Richard Lovelace, “Inerrancy: Some Historical Perspectives,” in eds.,
Roger R. Nicole and J. Ramsey Michaels, Inerrancy and Common Sense
(Grand Rapids, 1980), 27.
26Cited in Nathan O. Hatch, “The Christian Movement and the Demand
for Theology of the People,” in ed., D. G. Hart, Reckoning With the
Past (Grand Rapids, 1995), 171.
27Ernest Pickering, Biblical Separation (Schaumburg, IL, 1979), ch. 1-3.
28Webber reminds us, “Anyone who defends the canon, subscribes to the
Apostles’ Creed, advocates the Trinity, or adheres to the full humanity
and divinity of Jesus is already more than a New Testament Christian
by virtue of having passed over into the fuller definition given to
orthodoxy by the ancient church. Orthodoxy is a tradition developed

by the early church that stands in apostolic continuity. Nevertheless, as
an extension of the biblical principles, these areas of theological thought
as defined and expanded by the early. Church Fathers represent a
movement beyond that conceived by the New Testament church,”
Robert E. Webber, “An Evangelical and Catholic Methodology,” in
ed., Robert K. Johnston, The Use o f the Bible in Theology: Evangelical
Options (Atlanta, 1985), 157. This sound extrapolation from Biblical
teaching to its theological implications is what the Westminster
Confession terms “good and necessary consequence” (Ch. 1, Sec. 6).
29John W. Kennedy, The Torch o f the Testimony (Goleta, CA, 1965), 9.
30Yves Congar, The Meaning o f Tradition (New York, 1964), 23,151.
31Pedro O. Vega, “Holy Tradition vs. Sola Scriptural The Christian Activist:
AJournal o f Orthodox Opinion, Vol. 10 [Winter-Spring, 1997], 36. This
Eastern Orthodox magazine is edited by Franky Schaeffer, son of the
late evangelical apologist Francis Schaeffer. O f the Eastern Orthodox
view of the sources of theology, Meyendorff states, “Revelation,
therefore, was limited neither to the written documents of Scripture
nor to conciliar definitions [decisions of the ecumenical councils], but
was directly accessible, as a living truth, to a human experience of God’s
presence in His Church,” John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology (New
York, 1974,1979), 9.
32 Cornelius Van Til, The Defense o f the Faith (Phillipsburg, NJ, 1967
edition), 138-139.
33 Clark Carlton, “A Note for Evangelicals Considering Rome,” The
Christian Activist: A Journal o f Orthodox Opinion, Vol. 13 (Winter-
Spring, 1999), 18.
34J. N. D. Kelley, Early Christian Doctrines (New York, 1960 edition),
ch. 2; Charles Augustus Briggs, Theological Symbolics (New York, 1914),
310.
35See note 14.
36 “. . . [A]t least the church during its formative period sought an
authoritative divine norm and separated itfrom its own authority. That
is to say, the problem of Scripture and tradition at that time was solved
in such a way that church tradition itself determined that the divinely
authorized Biblical canon must be superior to tradition,”Gerhard Maier,
The End o f the Historical-Critical Method (St. Louis, 1977), 74-75,
emphasis in original. The church tradition posited that tradition would
itself be subordinate to the Bible.
37For a critical review, see Charles Hodge, “Schaff s Protestantism,” in
ed., The Princeton Theology, 1812-1921 (Phillipsburg, NJ, 1983), 155-
164.
38Schaff, Protestantism, 116-117, emphasis in original.

39Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, 1981), 1:113-114.
40Rousas John Rushdoony, Foundations ofSocial Order (Fairfax, VA [1968],
1978), 1-2.
41Gerhard Ebeling, The Problem ofHistoricity (Philadelphia, 1967), 12-
16.
42Hodge, op. cit., 114.
43Littell, op. cit., 52-53.
44Rushdoony, op. cit., 96-97.
45John Murray, Collected Writings o f John Murray (Edinburgh, 1977), ch.
23.
46Peter Toon, The Development o f Doctrine in the Church (Grand Rapids,
1979).
47Otto Friedrich, The End o f the World (New York, 1986), 143-177.
48Ebeling shrewdly uncovers the supreme irony of Rome: its claim that
it alone holds tenaciously to tradition, while incorporating the most
remarkable antitraditionary innovations in the history of the church:
“The [Roman] church appealed to tradition—and yet did not want to
be hindered in its own progress. The history of dogma and of church
law shows how the Roman church repeatedly had to break through the
fetters which its own tradition had imposed upon it. Nevertheless, it
had to break free in such a way that it did not rob itself of its strongest
weapon, which was precisely the appeal to the tradition.. . . While on
the one hand a sturdy bulwark was erected against innovators, on the
other hand the church itself moved forward toward the boldest
innovation of all. The modernist evolutionary theory of church history
was outdone by the evolutionary theory of church history. When this
evolutionary theory of church history was linked with the declaration
of the infallibility of the pope, a splendid solution was found to the
problem of the relation between revelation and history. The concept of
tradition became totally dominated by the papal concept of the church,
and ultimate authority was shifted from the past to the present,” Ebeling,
Historicity, 54, 57. The Christian tradition itself was undermined by
innovation, though under the guise of fidelity to tradition.
49Andrew Sandlin, The Reign o f the Righteous (Vallecito, CA, 1998).
83
Make Room fo r Daddies
by Steve M. Schlissel
Steve M . Schlissel has been the pastor o f Messiah’s Congregation

in Brooklyn, NY, since 1979. H e studied theology with Dr. Paul
Szto and Dr. G reg L. Bahnsen. Steve and Jeannie were married in
1974. T h ey have five children, 10-21, and raised four foster
children.
84
Make Room fo r Daddies

by Steve M. Schlissel
I t ’s the type o f sentence Rushdoony has become famous for
am ong those who read him carefully: a nearly nonchalant assertion
in the middle o f a paragraph, offhand but on target, huge in its
implications. “The stronger man makes the state, the weaker he makes
him self.^
Bingo! Power is a commodity, subject to the law o f scarcity:
there’s just so much to go around. Find an undue concentration o f
power in one institution and you’ll discover it was obtained at the
expense o f another. H ow im portant it is to strive to keep institutions
operating w ith in th eir G o d -a p p o in te d limits! T h e untow ard
amassing o f power in the state is not innocent. It is power taken
from another to w hom it had been assigned by God.
W h a t is true for the state is every bit as true for the institutional
church. W h e n it takes— or w hen men yield to it— more power
than G od has indicated is proper, th at power has been poached
from a source that is going to find itself weakened. M uch o f the
power exercised by churches today has been siphoned from the
covenant community, particularly the fathers o f Israel. T h e tragic
(and ironic) consequence o f this is that the church, in arrogating
to itself powers that rightly belong to covenant fathers, has actually,
by this theft, itself been made weaker. W eak C hristian men - weak
C hristian church. To correct this imbalance o f power we need to
reconsider the institutional church’s relationship to the covenant
com m unity and the powers G od has granted to each.
Power From Above Grows From Below

T h e authority o f the church, according to G o d ’s W ord, is
ministerial rather than magisterial. W h e n the church honors the
limits o f her authority and uses her power to empower— build up—
covenant fathers, everybody wins. O u r L ord was not ambiguous
about H is will concerning the character o f H is church’s authority.
W h en the ten heard about this [James’ and John’s effort to secure
the #2 6c#3 power positions in the kingdom], they became indignant
w ith the two disciples. Jesus called them together and said, “You
MAKE ROOM FOR DADDIES 85
know that those who are regarded as rulers o f the Gentiles lord it over
them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. N ot so with
you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your
servant, and whoever wants to befirst must be slave o f all. For even the
Son o f M an did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as
a ransomfo r many” {Mr. 10:42-45).
St. Paul’s life and ministry leave no doubt that Christ was not
using mere hyperbole. Paul, possessor o f miraculous power and
apostolic authority, was reluctant to use that authority, preferring to
reason and plead with the churches he founded and nurtured. H e
was slower than frozen molasses to say anything which might appear
to be a raw exercise o f authority. Consider how he approached the
matter o f Onesimus’ manumission: “Therefore, though I might be
very bold in Christ to commandyou w hat isfitting, yetfo r love's sake I
rather appeal to you— being such a one as Paul, the aged, and now also
a prisoner o f Jesus Christ— I appeal to youfor my son Onesimus, whom
I have begotten while in my chains. . . ” {Phil. 8-10).
Equally instructive is St. Paul’s dealings with those misbehaving
and misbelieving Corinthians. H ere was a church that was sinfully
divisive, practicing sectarianism w ith aplomb, and turning schism
into an art form. T hey were proud o f gross sin among them , ill-
informed about marriage, indifferent to any implications o f eating
food offered to idols, chaotic in public worship, and prone to
forsaking a doctrine as cardinal as the resurrection. Yet Paul is clear:
his authority over them was ministerial; his power was given him
for their edification:
Not that we lord it over yourfaith, but we work with you for your
joy, because it is byfaith you standfirm ... For even if I boast somewhat
freely about the authority the Lordgave usfor buildingyou up rather
than pulling you down, I will not be ashamed o f it.... This is why I
write these things when I am absent, that when I come I may not
have to be harsh in my use ofauthority— the authority the Lordgave
me for building you up, not for tearing you down. {2 Cor. 1:24;
10:8,10)
The Roman Road

A variety o f factors, perhaps particularly the post-apostolic
church’s adoption o f the hierarchy-model o f the Roman Em pire,2
led to a very different approach to power from that given to us by

our L o rd and seen in Paul. In fact, the in stitu tio n al church
purloined power not only from the people, but from C hrist Jesus,
too. T h e distortion o f the L ord’s Supper into a sacrificial rite, for
example, required an anointed priesthood rather than an ordained
m inistry. T his priesthood eventually inserted itself between G o d ’s
people and G od at every point.
By the 1500s, ecclesiastically speaking, the people had no power
left. T he church had become the clergy and “religious,” and the laity
was assigned only a supporting and servile role. T he reversal was
complete. Rather than the church being comprised o f G od’s people
for whose benefit servant-leaders were appointed, the people weren’t
even regarded as necessary for divine worship to take place. Religion
had become, core and crux, something someone else did for you.
A ccording to the The Catholic Catechism ,3 while “liturgy is
public worship, its dependence on the C hurch’s hierarchy is so
distinctively Catholic as almost to define its essence. T his is more
than a dependence on regulation or surveillance. It means that the
liturgy is bound up w ith the apostolic hierarchy established by
C hrist in such a way that, except for the hierarchy, there would be
no public w orship as [R om an] C atholicism understands the
liturgy.” T h e hierarchy—ju st so there is no m isunderstanding—
according to The Catholic Encyclopedia “includes all grades or ranks
o f the clergy.”4 I t is the clergy, then, w ho comprise the true and
actual “w orshiping” church.
T h e hierarchy is absolutely distinguished from the laity. A nd
the people have no power in their selection or em powerm ent o f the
hierarchy. For the clergy, according to Rome, do not act as people-
appointed representatives. “T h is touches on the h eart o f the
Catholic faith, w hich does not hold th at all Christians are equally
possessed o f priestly power, [as if] the priest at the altar acts only
in virtue o f an office com m itted to him by the community.”5 It is
the hierarchy w hich makes worship valid, says Rome. Indeed, it is
the clergy alone w ho offer worship, liturgically speaking. The laity
participate in worship only as they identify themselves w ith the priest.
“(I)n w hat sense do all the faithful actively participate in the
Eucharistic liturgy? T h ey do so by uniting themselves in spirit
w ith the priest. . . .”6
See You at the Office

A nd it's n o t ju st w orship th a t is perform ed through the
vicarious instrum entality o f a hum an priesthood. Doctrine, too, is
a m atter Roman Catholics needn’t concern themselves with, for in
their system, doctrine is something someone else can believe fo r
you. Romanism distinguishes “between ‘explicit’ faith (belief which
knows its object) and ‘im plicit’ faith (uncomprehending assent to
whatever it may be the church holds). Only the latter (which is
evidently no more than a vote o f confidence in the teaching church
and may be held w ith a complete ignorance o f Christianity) is
thought to be required o f laymen for salvation.”7
T he astute reader will have observed that the Roman church
explicitly rejects the C hristian view— th at is, the Biblical and
Reformed view— o f office. In the Biblical idea o f Christian office,
it is precisely the case that the minister “acts . . . in virtue o f an
office com m itted to him by the com m unity.” H e occupies a
covenantal office and performs covenantal functions, serving G od
and the congregation o f G od and is accountable to both in his
exercise o f that office. T h e thought that the people participate in
worship by “uniting themselves in spirit with the priest” is a robbery
o f the glory which belongs to C hrist as sole M ediator, as well as a
theft o f the privileges o f access given to the community solely in
virtue o f C hrist’s once for all sacrifice.
T h e C h ristian m inister, th en , is a servant w ho m ust be
possessed o f a certain character and display a covenant competency
enabling him to lead. But he is not appointed to be, himself, the
object o f the community’s attention. Rather, he is a pointer to Christ
and an explainer o f H is W ord. Rome dismisses the servant role of
church leaders assigned to them by G od in His W ord. Collectively,
the elders’ distinctive role in public worship is exactly w hat Rome
rejects: “regulation and surveillance,” or, order and oversight. A
much humbler role for man, to be sure, than that imagined by
Rome, but one w hich results in at least the possibility that C hrist
will receive honor from H is people for H is accomplished work.
T here can be little doubt th at Rom anism interposes itself
betw een G od and H is people in a m agisterial rather th an a
ministerial manner. N ot only does Rome claim that her hierarchy
has exclusive possession o f the commodity o f ecclesiastical power,
she consolidates and secures that power by treating G o d ’s grace as

if it, too, were just another commodity. For Rome, grace is an item
w hich can be leveraged or traded, like silver or rice or pork bellies.
To her m ind, she has been granted all the contracts and options on
grace and has exclusive power to dispense, w ithhold, or w ithdraw
them through her hierarchy.
Who's Free?
I f it is the truth th at makes one free— and C hrist says it is—
and this tru th is confined to one class o f people, only that class can
be free. T h e laity o f the Rom an church are ecclesiastical vassals,
bondslaves whose role in the kingdom is to do and believe w hat
they are told. I f they do this, all will be well, they are assured.
According to Vatican II, “T hey are fully incorporated into the
society o f the C hurch who, possessing the Spirit o f C hrist, accept
her entire system and all the means o f salvation given to her, and
through union w ith her visible structure are joined to C hrist, who
rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops.”8
You’ve got to say this much for them: they’ve got a system.
Unfortunately, it’s all wrong. T h e arrogance o f Rome is astonishing.
I t is not an exaggeration to summarize their view o f power as: All
authority in heaven and on earth has been given to the hierarchy.
Borrowing its scale-of-being ontology from the G reek philosophers
and its hierarchical-pontifical organization from the Caesars,
Rom an Catholicism has m orphed into an abominable entity whose
only hope o f redem ption is found in her continued subscription to
the ecumenical creeds. B ut w hat a lot o f w ork m ust be (un)done
before she is saved!
What's the Point?

O u r point in surveying Rom e’s power grab is to offer it as a
partial explanation o f how C hristianity can become feminized and
lose the participation o f m en in the church’s affairs. In his im portant
book, The Church Im potent: The F em inization o f C hristianity,9
Rom an C atholic author L eon J. Podles surveys w ith sorrow the
declining involvem ent o f m en in C hristian churches (not just
Rom anist). “M en th in k religion, and especially the church, is for
w om en,” he says in his introduction, and echoes the thought in
his concluding chapter: “M en do not go to church. T hey regard

involvement in religion as unmasculine.”
M r. Podles’ nearly 300-page analysis, though valuable, suffers
from being mainly sociological and theological (he’s better at
sociology, though some o f his theological insights are bracing).
H e w o u ld have e n h a n c e d th e value o f his stu d y h ad he
incorporated ecclesiastical considerations, that is, structures of
church power.
For Podles is very aware that the situation he laments as having
overtaken Christianity is simply not an issue in orthodox Judaism.
W hy? H ere, by confining him self to a sociological/theological
analysis o f O ld Testam ent models and themes, Podles misses the
point (almost) entirely. O rthodox Judaism has no crisis o f the
missing male because it more closely follows the ecclesiastical
structures o f the Biblically-approved synagogue system, a system
where the synagogue is a servant o f the covenant community, not
vice-versa.
For orthodox Jews, it is not a priest w ith mystical “powers”
who is needed to constitute a legitimate or acceptable worship
service, but a minyon (quorum) o f at least ten Jewish men. W ithout
covenant men, there simply is no public liturgy. There is no “missing
male crisis” in Judaism because if males were missing, there’d be
no Judaism! W e m ight profitably incorporate a Podles-type analysis
here: men respond to being needed in com m unity affairs, they
respond to the requirement o f being responsible, especially for others.
W h y expect men to show up if they are regarded from the get-go
as unnecessary?
In Romanism, and much o f the rest o f Christendom , covenant
fathers are not required. In Romanism, it’s the clergy who make
up the worshiping church. In m ost other communions, it is mostly
women. In the synagogue—w hich follows the sense o f Scripture
at this point—worship is performed and led by covenant men.
T he covenant com munity as a whole is viewed (quite Biblically)
by Jews as being comprised o f men, along w ith their wives and
children. From their earliest years, orthodox Jewish children are
infused w ith a worldview which, at this point at least, better reflects
the Bible than does any C hristian communion experiencing the
crisis o f the missing men.
Re-formation
T his sort o f covenant thinking was nearly recaptured at the
Reformation. T he Reformation was marvelous in bringing about
a redistribution o f power in accordance w ith G o d ’s prescriptive
will. T hough the Reformers focused principally on regaining for
our Savior w hat had been robbed from H im , a happy by-product
was that the fathers o f the New Israel (the church) found themselves
reinvested w ith much o f the power G od had entrusted to them in
H is W ord. T his happened as victories were won (by G o d ’s grace)
in battles fought on several fronts.
T h e re sto ra tio n o f fath e rly a u th o rity — p a rtic u larly the
authority w hich belonged to the head o f the hom e— occurred as
the sortilege o f priests in performing “transubstantion” was exposed
as a fraud. Power moved from the priesthood toward the people.
It wasn’t enough that Scripture had been rediscovered, however.
T h e truth had to be disseminated. I t has been m entioned so many
times, yet it is no burden to say it again: the printing press made
the Reform ation possible. T h e prodigious production o f sound
C hristian literature, placed into the hands o f the people, especially
the heads o f homes, resulted in benefits w hich have drenched the
W est to this very day.
T he H eidelberg Catechism— arguably the best o f all Reformed
symbols— was p u t to im m ediate and widespread use as a tool for
instructing old and young, both in church and home. It no sooner
“h it the streets” than it was translated, eventually making its way
from G erm an into Latin, D u tch (three versions), classical Greek,
m odern Greek, Hebrew(!), Arabic, Polish, H ungarian, Singalese,
F ren ch , Ita lia n , S p an ish , E n g lish , B o h em ian , P ersian , and
Malayan, and “doubtless,” according to Schaff, “many others.” W h y
so many languages? So that, by means o f this elegant tool, ministers
m ight instruct their flocks and fathers m ight instruct their sons in
the ways and works o f the Lord.
C o n tin u ed reform , our R eform ation forebears knew, was
dependent upon the re-enfranchising o f the C hristian father. T h a t
they knew this is evident from a reading o f the preface to the 1647
edition o f the W estm inster Standards (approved by the General
Assembly o f the C hurch o f Scotland) entitled, “To the Christian
Reader; Especially Heads o f Families, ’’and signed by 44 Presbyterian
luminaries including the T hree Thomases: W atson, M anton, and

Goodwin. It begins:
As we cannot but with grief of soul lament those multitudes of

errors, blasphemies, and all kinds of profaneness, which have
in this last age, like a mighty deluge, overflown this nation; so,
among several other sins which have helped to open the flood
gates of all these impieties, we cannot but esteem the disuse of
family instruction one of the greatest. The two great pillars
upon which the kingdom of Satan is erected, and by which it
is upheld, are ignorance and error; the first step of our
manumission from this spiritual thralldom consists in having
our eyes opened, and being turned from darkness to light, Acts
xxvi. 18.
C hristian fathers are urged to “labour in all wisdom and

spiritual understanding” so as to be equipped to instruct their
households. They are reminded o f the consequences o f ignorance,
even G od’s analysis through Hosea: “M y people are destroyedfo r
lack o f knowledge”{Hos. 4:6). T he providential harvest o f Reformed
literature made ignorance less excusable than ever. “Never did any
age o f the Church enjoy such choice helps as this o f ours.” T he
publication o f the Confession o f Faith and the Catechisms was
designed to make “the way to spiritual knowledge.. .more easy, and
the ignorance o f this age more inexcusable,” for covenant fathers
would have free access to this knowledge.
Lookie Here
Everywhere we look in these introductory pages we find
evidence that the publishers had firmly in m ind the intention to
reach Christian heads o f households: they wanted the fathers o f
Israel to make use o f these m ighty implements to build, extend,
and strengthen the kingdom o f Christ. O n the title page there is
but one Scripture passage. Deuteronom y 6:6, 7 is w ritten out in
full. “
A n d these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine
heart: and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt
talk o f them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by
the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. ”Family
religion was clearly front and center.
Thom as M anton’s Epistle to the ReaderJ0 stays on the same

theme:
Religion was first hatched in families, and there the devil seeks
to crush it; the families of the Patriarchs were all the Churches
God had in the world for the time...Now the devil knoweth
that this is a blow at the root, and a ready way to prevent the
succession of churches: if he can subvert families, other societies
and communities will not long flourish and subsist with any
power and vigour; for there is the stock from whence they are
supplied both for the present and future . . . A family is the
seminary of Church and State.
T he Reformation trium phed wherever this urging was heeded:

“Fathers, take care o f the household under your charge, th at they
be instructed by you in the elements o f the C hristian religion.” T h e
em pow erm ent o f fam ilies allow ed for th e reordering o f th e
churches. T h e ecclesiastical changes o f the Reform ation were a
massive correction o f the distortion seen in R om es structures. T he
right o f the congregation to elect its own rulers and to call its own
ministers was restored. T his was m ost often im plem ented by fam ily
vote, a practice which (happily) can still be found in some Reformed
churches: each household casts one vote through the person o f its
head, usually the father. T h e church was once again seen as being
composed o f families, not clergy.
Representative governm ent, m odeled very m uch after the
decentralized administration o f Israel, became the norm throughout
the Reformed and Presbyterian portions o f Europe. T h e m en were
involved full tilt and the benefits were flowing. O nce again, the
church came to believe th at if a m an desired to be an episkopos, an
overseer, he desired a good thing. M en were encouraged to assume
responsibility and control o f the churches, under the sole headship
o f C hrist and according to H is W ord.
T h e Scripture s requirem ent o f a plurality o f local elders was
revived; thus, the Reformers provided th a t a watchful eye be kept
on man, a sinner. Safeguards against abuse o f power were p u t in
place, including provisions for appeal o f local decisions.
In the sixteenth century, W illiam Tyndale, in a dispute w ith a
clergyman, vowed, “I f G od spare my life, ere many years I will
cause a boy that driveth the plow to know more o f the Scriptures
than thou dost.” G od caused the Reformation to bring a fulfillment
o f that vision, a fulfillment beyond anything Tyndale m ight have
dreamed. T he farmer-theologian became a commonplace wherever
the Reformation took hold, from Europe to N orth America.
Yes, farmers as elders listened attentively to ministers’ sermons,
sitting in judgm ent on their orthodoxy and profitability for the
people. It was a custom in some communions to have the minister
shake the hand o f each elder as he descended from the pulpit: if
any thought the message lacking in soundness or sense, they would
not extend their hand. This was done in front, in the sight o f the
entire congregation. W h a t a far cry from the thralldom o f the laity
under Rome!
A nd as the covenant community, particularly its men, became
stronger in grace and knowledge, the m inistry o f the churches very
nearly burst. Never in history had so much good been done so
widely, so norm ally, by so many. M issio n ary societies were
established and expanded, orphanages were founded, immigrants
were welcomed in C hrist’s Name: the W ord o f G od was poured,
like anointing oil, upon every area o f life.
Rome had told each father that his duty as a prophet was
fulfilled by delivering his children to the church. T he Reformation
taught each father to discharge that office personally by catechizing
his family. Rome had told each father that his duty as a king was
fulfilled by delivering his children to the church. T he Reformation
taught each father to discharge that office by ruling his home in
the fear and knowledge o f the Lord, and exercising his calling
outside the home in the same manner. Rome had told each father
that his duty as a priest was fulfilled by delivering his children to
the church. T h e R eform ation tau g h t th a t every father was a
prophet, a priest, and a king in the sphere assigned to him by
Jehovah.
Something Happened
Now we find ourselves once again in need o f Reformation.
Podles is not the only one to notice th at, w hen it comes to
Christianity, men are missing from action.
W h at happened? For one thing, we have missed center, or rather,
have swung past center. From the extreme o f encountering Christ

through the conjuring o f a priest, we’ve come to believe that H e is
encountered through the conjuring o f emotions. First, H e was only
“up there on the altar.” Now H e’s only “in here, in my heart.”
T h e piety o f Reformational C hristianity devolved, in many
circles, into sentim ental pietism. T h e genuineness o f Christianity
came to be measured by experience, internal experience, and with
that change o f venue came a sign in the window: Real men need
not apply. A ctivity as a measure o f C hristian virtue was superseded
by receptivity. T h a t’s a playing field clearly tilted in favor o f women.
T h e Scriptural imagery o f the church as the Bride o f C hrist
was twisted into an insistence that each individual Christian become
a bride. C o tto n M ather, in the late seventeenth century, said that
“w hile recognizing th a t the m ystical m arriage” spoken o f in
Scripture “first referred to the C hurch, applied it also to each
Christian: ‘O u r Savior does M arry H im self unto the C hurch in
general, B ut H e does also M arry H im self to every Individual
Believer.’” N o he does not. I t ’s the corporateness o f our calling
th at stands at the head o f our covenant peoplehood. Converts are
“added to the church.”
T hom as Shepherd insisted that “‘all church members are . . .
virgins espoused to C hrist.’”11 N o we are not. W e are m en o f G od
w ho belong to H im through C hrist, the C aptain o f our salvation.
Scripture’s figures and images are helpful w hen kept in context
and perspective; b u t w hen they are removed therefrom, all kinds
o f m ischief can ensue.
Slip-Slidin' Away
L e t’s skip the myriad examples o f the syrupy sentim entality
(in hym nody and homiletics) th a t gradually repulsed m en from
the church, and let’s move to the 1990s to hear the Promise Keepers’
founder, Bill M cCartney, attem pt to recapture m en for C hrist by
telling them th at they “were created to be in a love affair w ith
Jesus” and “Scripture tells us the only way to please G od is to be
passionately in love w ith Jesus C hrist.” Podles is right on w hen he
says, “Evangelical Protestantism , despite its efforts to recruit men,
is h am p ered by a tra d itio n th a t n o t only em phasizes verbal
expressions o f em otion, b u t highly feminine em otions at th at.”12
A nd som ething beside em otionalism happened. T h a t is,

something happened again. M an does him self no good by failing
to confront his natural indolence. Look how content Americans
are to have the state take care o f their responsibilities. T he federal
government didn’t grow to its m am m oth proportions through a
violent warfare against its citizens. Rather, we gave away our power
because we didn’t w ant to take care o f our responsibilities. This
tendency to allow others to do the work operates in the ecclesiastical
sphere as well.
G radually, u n til it becam e the default in stin ct in m ost
denominations, the people allowed professional clergy to perform
the religious obligations which belonged to them as fathers, or
families, or local churches. T he kids get dropped off at catechism
class. They get dropped off at school, usually humanistic— but even
when it’s Christian, the oversight which would keep it sound is
left to others who “have the tim e.” M issions is something done
some place else, and those who profess to do it are to be accountable,
not to the church that pays, but to a professional board. T he training
o f ministers is left entirely to the seminary, w ith rigorous ordination
exams now a thing o f the past. A fter all, the seminary “must know
w hat they’re doing.”
Implicit faith dies hard.
Actual Footage
L et me recount real-life instances from ordination exams
conducted by people who regard themselves as being among the
few faithful heirs o f the R eform ation. A candidate, recently
graduated from the seminary co-founded by Cornelius Van Til,
was asked about Van T il’s apologetic. “I have heard o f it, but I
don’t know w hat it is.” A t least that was better than his answer
about the antithesis. That he had never heard of. T h e exam lasted
two hours or so, and despite his having given numerous wrong—
embarrassingly wrong— answers, the church w hich had hoped to
call him pleaded that he be passed anyway.
A nother candidate on another day, a graduate o f the same
institution, different coast, was asked to tell the examiner about
Wycliffe. “H e invented the printing press,” was the reply. Easy
error, I suppose; they were both Europeans. Next question: W h o
was Jerome? N ow Jerome is no m inor figure in church history.

(Neither, for that matter, is Wycliffe!) H is Latin translation o f the
O ld and N ew Testam ents was the standard for centuries. H e is
held in honor by C hristians o f all stripes. T h u s, it was a bit
disheartening w hen the candidate confused him w ith Julian the
A postate, the fourth-century Rom an E m peror who hated and
rejected Christianity. A t last he adm itted that he didn’t know who
Jerom e was. Describe the last scene in the Gospel o f John. “T hey
were in a room .” W h e n told that they weren’t, he w ent blank. H e
was then prodded to the point o f being given th at answer and a
num ber o f other answers, too. W h e n his preaching was reviewed,
his pulpit power was called, in a word, non-existent. H e passed
the ordination exam and will soon be leading C hrist’s people further
into irrelevance and obscurity.
Im agine a physician or an accountant or a beautician being
licensed after getting h alf the answers— or just the m ost im portant
answers— w rong w hen examined. H ow can such incompetence be
tolerated in those who are to be practitioners o f the “Q ueen o f the
Sciences” w hen we w ouldn’t tolerate it in an aspiring mechanic?
T h is could only happen because C h ristian ity has been so
thoroughly redefined as a religion o f “the heart” as to make the
head an impediment! A nd it could only happen in the m idst o f a
people w ho are themselves, for all intents and purposes, Biblically
illiterate.
A nd Biblical illiteracy has overtaken us, in large measure,
because we have returned to the Rom an way o f letting the clergy
“do” our religion for us. Covenant fathers, in ways subtle and not
so subtle, are given the message th at the church is owned by the
clergy or the officers, w hen the officers were given as servants to
prepare G o d ’s people for works o f service. W h e n a minister is absent
in a congregation o f 150 families and not a m an can be found to
bring a message from the Lord, b u t a “reading sermon” m ust be
dusted o ff and trem blingly read by a frightened elder, we’ve come
upon bad times.
Power to the People

In the Bible, the church is the congregation o f the Lord, the
com m unity o f faith, the assembly o f the righteous. Yes, they have
leaders, but leaders have been given for the very purposes sneered
at by Rome: regulation and surveillance. They have not been given
as intermediaries or interlopers, but as helpers. They have not been
given as if there could be no church w ithout them . Paul and
Barnabas had elders ordained in churches that were already extant
(Ac. 14:23). They were elderless, but they were churches'. A nd T itus
was left in Crete to appoint elders in existing churches. Elders
serve the church, bringing order and guarding orthodoxy. They
are servants, not lords.
Thus, churches, like synagogues, must be understood as being
composed o f fathers, along with their wives and children, for whose
sake elders and deacons have been appointed. “To all the saints in
ChristJesus at Philippi, ”writes Paul, “together w ith the overseers and
deacons.” Indeed, to whom are all o f Pauls congregation-bound
letters written? To ministers? To elders? W h a t do the letters say?
• Romans: To all in Rome who are loved by G od and called

to be saints.
• 1 Corinthians: To the church o f G od in C orinth, to those
sanctified in C hrist Jesus and called to be holy, together
w ith all those everywhere who call on the name o f the
Lord Jesus C hrist— their Lord and ours.
• 2 Corinthians: To the church o f G od in C orinth, together
w ith all the saints throughout Achaia.
• Galatians: To the churches in Galatia.
• Ephesians: To the saints in Ephesus, the faithful in C hrist
Jesus.
• Colossians: To the holy and faithful brothers13 in C hrist
at Colosse.
• 1 and 2 Thessalonians: To the church o f the Thessalonians
in G od the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
L e t’s look at a few more letters for good measure.
• James: To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations.

• 1 Peter: To G o d ’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered
th ro u g h o u t P ontus, G alatia, C appadocia, A sia, and
B ith y n ia , w ho have b een cho sen acco rd in g to th e
foreknowledge o f G od the Father, through the sanctifying

w ork o f the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus C h rist and
sprinkling by H is blood.
• 2 Peter: To those who through the righteousness o f our
G o d and S avior Jesus C h rist have received a faith as
precious as ours.
1 John: I w rite to you, little children . . . I write to you,
fathers . . . I w rite to you, young men . . . I write to you,
little children . . . I write to you, fathers . . . I w rite to you,
young men.
• Jude: To those who have been called, who are loved by
G od the Father and kept by Jesus Christ.
• Revelation: To the seven churches in the province o f Asia.
To w hom , then, did the L ord A lm ighty address H is W ord? I f

the W ord o f G od is w ritten directly to the people o f G od, then the
task o f leaders can only be ministerial. T h a t is, if it was G o d s
design th at a clergy class be interposed between H im self and H is
W ord, we w ould expect H is inspired W ord to be addressed to the
mediators. Instead, it is addressed to the people. A nd reformation
occurs only w hen the W ord o f G od is delivered to the people o f
G od. T h e glory o f the teaching office is ministerial; it exists to
help the people to understand and apply the W ord. It is never
magisterial.
T h e Biblical view has largely been displaced by another, one
w hich views th e m inistry as a sort o f P ro testan t priesthood.
W henever such views are espoused and adopted, there is a draining
o f authority from the fathers to the new priests. W itness the
following.
More Actual Footage

In an e-m ail discussion, a sem inarian w rote to a child o f the
covenant, 20 years o f age: “T h e church . . . has more authority over
you than your father.” Really? B ut it got worse w hen this pompous
claim was challenged, for he then explained himself: “T h e fathers
authority is derived from the church, seeing as he is under the
authority o f the elders.”
It was hard to believe I was reading this from a senior at a
“conservative” M idwest Presbyterian seminary. W h en challenged

again, he answered, “I f I have a preference for my sons that is not
a scriptural mandate, my elders have every right to gently persuade
me from it or [to] even go so far as to usurp my fatherly
prerogatives.”
A ccording to this young man, power flows from C hrist to
the church elders, w ho then allot it to fathers. “I f the church is
C h rist’s body and all institutions derive their authority from
C hrist, then . . . well, you see where I am going.”
Lord, protect us from where he is going! T his is a frightening
echo o f Rome’s view: All authority in heaven and on earth has
been given to the hierarchy. T h e only difference is that in this new
Protestant version, the hierarchy may graciously allocate certain
powers to others, if they please. T h e young seminarian believes
that whatever powers are not explicitly citedm Scripture as belonging
to the fathers are reserved to the elders. T his is a doctrine o f
enumeration o f powers which flows in exactly the wrong direction!
According to this aberration, if something is not commanded
or forbidden in Scripture, church officers can authoritatively dictate
to my children that their preferences be followed. To use a trite
example, if I tell my son he m ust wear a green tie to church, the
elders can overrule me and com m and him to wear a red tie because
there is no scriptural mandate to wear green ties. A more serious
example: I f my daughter wants to attend a coed college which I do
not approve of, the officers can void my veto. In effect, this view
teaches that the elders are the true fathers o f the children in the
church, and that individual fathers are permitted, to do the daily
dirty w ork on beh alf o f those true fathers, w ho may overrule
individual fathers in all non-m andated matters.
“I ’m w ith you,” a Presbyterian elder wrote to the seminarian.
“I don’t read m uch in the N ew T estam en t em phasizing the
authority o f the parents or the centrality o f the family, but I do
read about the au th o rity and centrality o f the church.” A nd
whatever authority anyone else may have, in his view, is subordinate
to, not coordinate w ith, the church’s authority. “Parents and state
may derive their authority directly from G od, but they exist fo r
the church” (emphasis his).
Well, there we have it. All authority goes from C hrist directly
to the church, or to others who have been given it only for the sake
o f the church! A nd there is a further danger: the tacit assumption
that “the church” means ordained, officers. But why can’t the church
mean the church, the people o f G od, the covenant community? Does
not Scripture use the term in just this way? Review the destination
o f those epistles once more.
'Fess Up
i f w e m iss th e c o n te x t o f C h r i s t ’s e s ta b lis h in g an d
co m m issio n in g o f H is ch u rch , we m iss a lo t. H e was n o t
establishing a new priesthood to lord it over covenant fathers! H e
was establishing a new synagogue, henceforth to be called the
church.
C h rist, the true Tem ple, was going to found H is church
according to the structure o f the synagogue.14 T h e Jewish leaders
“had decided that anyone who acknowledged thatJesus was the Messiah
would be p u t out o f the synagogue” (Jn. 9:22). T h a t is, confessors
w ould be placed under the ban: herem, excommunication. Jesus,
however, m ade th at very confession the key w hich would open the
d o o r to H is sy n a g o g u e. T h u s , w h e n P e te r m ad e th a t
acknowledgment— “You are the Messiah, the Son o f the living God”
{M t. 16:16)— our L ord declares this to be the foundation upon
w hich H is com m unity will be built.
T h e church, then, from the beginning, is built upon her creeds,
n o t h er officers. I t is the professing Peter, as a type, who is called
the foundation stone. T his is ju st another way o f saying that souls
are joined to C hrist and H is church by faith in H im . Notice how
Jesus sought out the excommunicated blind m an to elicit from
him the good confession: “ Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and
when he had found him , he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son
o f God? H e answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I m ight believe
on him ? AndJesus said unto him , Thou hast both seen him, and it is he
that talketh w ith thee. A n d he said, Lord, I believe. A n d he worshipped
h im ’ (Jn. 9).
The Key to 'The Keys"

T h e “keys” entrusted to Peter (as per M atthew 16) are not
mysterious powers; w hat they are is made clear as Peter employs
them in the Book o f Acts. It is Peter who is present at the “grand

opening” o f the universal kingdom at each o f its major junctures:
Peter preaches to and baptizes Jews in Acts 2; he is the agent (along
with his closest friend, John) through whom the Spirit is conferred
upon half-Jews, the Samaritans, in Acts 8; and he is the vessel
chosen to representatively open the gates o f G od’s household to
non-Jews, i. e., Gentiles, when he preaches to and supervises the
baptism o f the family o f Cornelius.
T he key in each case is the key o f knowledge, the knowledge of
C h ris t, m ade k n o w n th ro u g h d ec larativ e p re a c h in g , th e
proclamation o f the truth as it is in Jesus. T his is as Jesus said in
H is rebuke o f the lawyers: “Woe unto you, lawyers!foryou have taken
away the key o f knowledge: ye enter not in yourselves, and them that
were entering in ye hindered” (Lk. 11:52). T his is not magic power
but truth that has been entrusted to the church. T he church uses
its keys by teaching that is in and from C hrist.15 T h at is why it is
called, by the Spirit through Paul, “the church o f the living God, the
pillar and ground o f the truth. ’’T he church’s officers are appointed
to watch out that the creeds are kept pure for the sake o f the sheep
and the glory o f the Lord.
Move Over
T he “binding and loosing” which Jesus in M atthew 16 said
belonged to Peter, was broadened in M atthew 18 to include the
other apostles. It is a most important concept but is regularly severed
from its background by ecclesiocrats. This was no new idea Jesus
spoke o f It is one constantly referred to by the rabbis and used
abundantly, e.g., in the controversies between Shammai and Hillel.
T he phrase was used most often in reference to what was prohibited
and w hat was perm itted according to the traditions o f the lawyers
and scribes and Pharisees. In M atthew 16, Jesus conferred this
binding/loosing power upon H is apostles.16 T he apostles, then,
were appointed by C hrist to replace the unbelieving teachers o f the
Jewish synagogue; they were appointed to teach the truth in H is
synagogue. T hey were given authority to reveal and dictate to the
church just w hat is perm itted and w hat is prohibited.17
H ad C hrist not entrusted the apostles w ith this very authority,
they could not have given us the norms o f behavior which we find
in the N ew Testam ent. It was by this power that we are told that
Gentiles need not take upon themselves the various ceremonial
obligations w hich had bound Israel, w hether obligations o f diet,
dress, calendar, or pilgrimage. Peter had a hard time adjusting to
these truth s.18 It was given to Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles,
to leave no doubt concerning them .19 A nd these teachings were
given, always and in every case, th at we m ight walk in the fullness
o f the freedom th at is found in Christ. Leaders were appointed in
each church for the same reason.
As the message o f C hrist w ent from place to place, churches,
i.e., synagogues o f C hrist, were founded. “R ight at the outset,”
says Eric W erner, “it should be remembered that it was not the
Temple but the Synagogue w hich set the pattern for the divine
service o f the primitive C hristian community.”20 A nd while “the
tem ple was controlled by the priests, the synagogue was a lay
institution . . . Actual leadership was in the hands o f elders.”21
W h o were these elders? People w ho had special mystical
experiences? People upon whom special powers had been conferred?
No. T hey were “respected heads o f the families in the community.”
It is clear th at this was w hat St. Paul also had in m ind w hen he
gave the list o f qualifications to be used in determ ining w hether
those w ho sought to be servant-leaders in C h rist’s synagogues
should be adm itted to th at office. It was their objective character
and com petence that was o f prim ary concern, not their subjective
sense o f calling. “Someone wants to be an overseer? Fine. H e m ust
be above reproach, not overbearing, m ust be a one-w om an man,
tem perate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
sober, peaceful, n o t a quarreler, not greedy.”
B ut today, w ith our sacerdotal view o f ministry, so long as a
boy is graduated from a seminary and passes w hat is called an
examination, he’s made to preside over a church o f Christ! A nd
people argue th at such a practice is perfectly Reformed. I t is not,
because it is not Biblical.
Merit It
I f we keep in m ind the competency and authority that belonged
to the congregation, i.e., to th e m en o f Israel assem bled as a
w orshiping community, you can see th at anyone who would be
appointed or elected to lead them would be perm itted to do so only

because o f his greater competence, because o f his exemplary life and
proven skills, skills proven especially in his home (“I f anyone does
not know how to manage his own family,” Paul asks, “how can he
take care o f G od s church?”).
In other words, all the fa th ers o f Israel were expected to be
competent leaders. T h e one w ho would lead them , therefore, m ust
be able to dem onstrate greater competence, particularly in the art
and science o f real life— blood-real— day to day C hristian living.
T h e higher the level o f C hristian grace and knowledge am ong
the people, the higher the level to w hich any w ould-be leader
m ust attain.
As far as congregational worship was concerned, “Although
there were some designated officers, there was no one specifically
charged to conduct worship in the synagogue— to read, preach,
and pray. A ll males, even young boys,22 were qualified to participate
in the service.”23 T h e purpose o f covenantal education, typically a
service provided by the synagogue, was to familiarize the sons of
Israel w ith the law as a basis for life and to prepare them to be,
am ong other things, knowledgeable worshipers.
O rdination is not the bestowal o f special powers inaccessible
to the normal father in the church. M inisters lead as a helpful
convention, not as the product o f a command. T he difference is in
his occupation o f an office, not in his person. A nd others m ight fill
that office, if need be. T h e churches existed as churches w ithout
officers, remember! To use an old phrase, they are necessary not
for the being, but for the well-being o f the churches.
Any pious father is qualified, if liturgically competent, to lead
in service as needed. W e install ministers in office because we have
examined them and found them to have m et the requirements o f 1
T im othy 3 and T itus 1, because we recognize in them a living
orthodoxy in w hich we have confidence. T hey are there by merit—
not the m erit attained by persevering through required seminary
courses, but the m erit o f competence to lead their own families
and other men, men who, by G o d ’s appointm ent and grace, are also
prophets, priests, and kings. T here is nothing im proper about
involving several men, ordained or not ordained, in leading worship,
so long as things are done decently, in order, and according to the
sound doctrine we have received from G od in H is W ord. O rdained

men have been entrusted w ith, not exclusivity in leading worship,
but responsibility for “regulation and surveillance.”
Obey Your Leaders

W e love, honor, and respect those who have rule over us in the
church, not because they’ve been given magic power, not because
they stand in a supposed line o f apostolic succession, not because
they’ve been authorized by G od to bypass our authority in the
rearing o f our children, but we “esteem them very highly in love
fo r their work's sake” (1 Thes. 5:13). I f they w ant to stay ministers,
they must prove their w orth in the trenches, have their mettle tested
daily by questions and challenges concerning real life, invest
themselves in the edification o f the lives o f the people under their
charge, especially the men.
W h e n Rome w anted all power in the church, at least she took
it in a manly fashion. In the Reformed churches, the power that
G od has granted to the w orshiping com m unity has simply been
given away; the churches have passively “niced” themselves into
impotence. W h a t we com m only see today is entry into Christian
m inistry as if it were entry into a club: candidates endure the
nuisance o f initiatory rites and they’re in.
W e ’ve d isto rte d th e B iblical m odel for ch u rch , ch urch
governm ent, and church officers. W e have reached this nadir
because we neglected to complete the w ork o f reform ation as it
bears on church structure and polity. W e have not cleansed our
churches o f the gobs o f lingering sacerdotalism. T h e way to this
cleansing lies in thefathers o f Israel reclaiming and being reinvested
w ith the authority w hich C hrist has given to them .
Pass It Around
T he Reformation was like unto the rediscovery o f the law of
G od during Josiah’s reign, and that in two im portant respects. First
was the “W h a t have we here?!” effect (2 Kin. 22). N othing but the
T ruth. T h e W ord o f G od was found, dusted off, and brought to
bear on the hearts, minds, souls, and strength o f G od’s people. As
A ndrew Sandlin points out elsewhere in this volume, it was not as
though there had been no faith, no faithfulness, or no faithful
religious progress in the prior fifteen centuries. M uch to the contrary.

But the people— the masses—were not, as a rule, much involved.
Second, the recovery o f the W ord o f G od in Josiah’s time and
in the Reformers’ time led to recovenanting between G od and His
people, all H is people, not just the clergy:
Then the king called together all the elders ofJudah and Jerusalem.
He went up to the temple o f the LORD with the men ofJudah, the
people o f Jerusalem, thepriests and theprophets— all thepeoplefrom
the least to the greatest. He read in their hearing all the words ofthe
Book of the Covenant, which had been found in the temple of the
LORD. The king stood by thepillar and renewed the covenant in the
presence ofthe LORD— tofollow the LORD and keep his commands,
regulations and decrees with all his heart and all his soul, thus
confirming the words of the covenant written in this book. Then all
the people pledged themselves to the covenant. (2 Kin. 23:1-3)
Similarly, it was not merely the rediscovery o f the truth which

made the Reformation, but the objective truth transmitted to the
people, and that, principally, through faithful ministers and covenant
fathers. W e m ust require o f our ministers a thoroughgoing and
genuine knowledge o f the W ord o f G od, and we should expect to
see in them living examples that the fathers in Israel can follow.
W e must vomit up and away the heretical idea that the Christian
Faith is present wherever there is a certain feeling. A faith that is
no more than a feeling cannot be transm itted from generation to
generation, except by artificial means.
Pass It Down
T he genuine means o f passing the covenant torch must include
clear, sound, orthodox creeds known by the people, and known as
true to Scripture. T h e continuity o f orthodoxy requires creeds: well-
articulated, “this is the way it is” documents o f the Christian Faith,
like the H eidelberg C atechism . You hear m uch talk am ong
evangelicals and Reformed about the need for revival. Humbug!
By revival they usually mean more o f the same junk that got us
into our current mess. T h e only restoration o f the last 500 years
that left a lasting, salutary impact was the restoration o f creedal
Christianity at the Reformation.
T h e Faith is passed on w hen fathers who know these creeds

teach them to th eir children. (Such m en w ould never abide
incompetence in ministers.) “A child gets religion from his m others
milk,” says a Russian proverb, rem inding us o f the influence o f
mothers over their childrens hearts. N o quarrel here. But if that
religion is not assembled, tuned, and brought out onto the pavement
by fathers, the G od-ordained mechanism for the transmission o f
Biblical orthodoxy will be jam m ed.
Covenant fathers have been given a task by God: “Instructing
our sons, we gladly record the praises, the works, the m ight o f the
Lord. For H e has commanded that w hat H e has done be passed in
tradition from fa th er to son.”24 M inisters may assist or supplement
the fathers in this calling, but they cannot replace them . W h en
fathers, as a class, recuse themselves, or are excluded by a rapacious
priestly class from fulfilling their religious, familial calling, the faith
o f the church suffers. T h e Faith becomes a garaged car. I t m ight
indeed have the charm o f a ‘58’ Vette, b u t it won’t be street worthy.
I t becomes ju st another “So w hat?” O rthodox Christianity, like a
fine automobile, was not m eant to be confined to museums, but to
be p u t to use where rubber can m eet road.
W h e n orthodox C hristianity is in the possession o f covenant
fathers w ho know w hat to do w ith it, the Faith prospers. I f fathers
are absent from the church or if their G od-appointed status is
com promised, the Faith itself will undergo change. I t will become
mere sentim ent, then mere habit, and finally ju st prejudice or
superstition.
W h e n churches are structured in such a way th at the clergy
are lords over the faith and practices o f the men, the m en will
simply stay away. T h a t is w hat has happened in Romanism, and
w here R om anism is strongest it has given rise to reactionary
machismo, a desperate and misguided attem pt by men to be the
“real men” they weren’t allowed to be in church. W h a t the church
needs to do is to acknowledge the authority G od has given to fathers,
to nurture and guard th at authority, not usurp it.
How About This?

Toward th at end, the following items are offered not as “laws,”
but as suggestions, or at least things to be considered.
First, as a rule, a mission w ork should not be denoted as a

church unless there are ten male covenant heads. Remember, the
church is made up o f covenant men, along w ith their wives and
children. Typically, the concern today focuses on the “legitimacy”
o f the officers when it should be at least equally concerned about
the presence o f men w hom the officers are serving.
Yes, ten men is the traditional number required to establish a
Jewish synagogue. But it is also the smallest governed civil unit
above the family level in the M osaic administration (Ex. 18:21,
25; D t. 1:15) and the stopping point in Abraham’s prayer for the
deliverance o f a community o f righteous men (Gen. 18:32, 33).
Second, preaching should be self-consciously directed to the
men o f the covenant. Preaching is very powerful. In many contexts
it reproduces its character in the congregation. I f preaching is soft,
round, pretty, and introspective, you’ll have a congregation of
women, though they be o f both sexes. I f it is clear, well-defined,
direct, and objective, you’ll find men drawn to it, and women and
children, too! I t ’s a case o f “W here the Boys Are,” my friends.
Preach to women, have women; preach to men, have men, women,
and children.
T hird, and this may seem a little radical, but ask yourself: If
officers are appointed for “regulation and surveillance,” why
shouldn’t the fathers be perm itted to baptize their own children
while the officers “regulate and survey”? Is there something lacking
in a father’s authority to do this? W e are suggesting here that this
could be done in an assembly o f the covenant people, w ith the
officers present.
W hy not? T his really cuts to the heart o f the matter. W hose
children are they? G o d ’s, yes. But under H im they belong to the
parents, not the minister. T h e church officers may legitimately see
to it that things are done properly and in order, but they have no
special pow er or a u th o rity w hich m akes the b aptism more
efficacious. I t is a covenant event and the father is the proper
covenant figure to welcome the child, in C h rist’s Name and in the
presence o f H is people, into the covenant.
T he fact is that the children o f the church are not directly under
the authority o f the elders. T h a t is exactly the sort o f thinking
which decimates churches. So long as the children reside under
their father’s authority, the church’s approach to those children

m u st always be m ed iated by th e father. W h e n the church
encroaches upon the father’s prerogatives and privileges, it weakens
the father and weakens itself.
Now, I am aware th at the apostles baptized households. But
this corresponded to welcoming people into the covenant. People
outside the covenant are not qualified to formally incorporate others
into the covenant. So the first generation o f families came in
together. But w hen a m an has grown up in the covenant, he is
qualified. Besides, Peter, the only apostle present at the time, simply
commanded th at Cornelius’ household be baptized; the text doesn’t
say he did it personally. W e are told that he was accompanied to
Caesarea by “some o f the brothers.” T h e baptism was done under
his supervision, w hich was fine. Similarly, it is likely th at on the
D ay o f Pentecost, w hen 3,000 were baptized, that the 12 apostles
had “unordained” helpers.
I f baptism replaces circumcision, may we not learn lessons from
its adm inistration? Z ipporah’s circumcision o f her and M oses’ son
was valid. G od was w rathful toward M oses because the boy was
uncircumcised. W h e n Z ipporah perform ed the rite, G od relented.
It was done. So also, A braham circumcised his entire household.
It is very unlikely th at he perform ed at least 31825 circumcisions
by him self in one day {Gen. 17:23). T h e m ost im portant thing is
th at they were circumcised, not w ho perform ed it.
Seder and Supper

W h y shouldn’t fathers adm inister the L o rd ’s Supper to their
own families in the congregation? H ave we not, in the area o f the
sacram ents, retain ed ju s t enough sacerdotalism to m ake the
inquiring m ind ask if there really is as much difference between
ourselves and Rom e as we fancy? Is there som ething that happens
to the baptism al water, or to the bread, or to the wine? Are the
sacraments given some special character by the hands o f a m inister
th at would be m arred by the hands o f a “com mon” Israelite? Surely
we recognize th at the Passover antecedent had fathers acting as
priests o f their families especially during the seder. W h y n o t on
into the new adm inistration? For it is especially at the Supper that
the glorious character o f the N ew Covenant can be revealed, as
fathers lead their respective families in celebration o f the Supper26

under the “regulation and surveillance” o f the elders.
W e have nearly lost the sense that the Supper was designed to
be a communal, not a personal, celebration. In many churches we’ve
replaced the covenantal Supper with a modified mass, a mass minus
the magic. It is still, in too many instances, a “me and Jesus”
celebration. This is a travesty. T he whole point o f the meal is the
strengthening o f the covenanted body. T h at is why Paul rebuked
the Corinthians, because o f their failure to discern the corporate
character o f the meal. Listen to him identify the problem:
Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come
together notfor the better butfor the worse. Forfirst ofall, when you
come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions amongyou,
and in part I believe it. For there must also befactions among you,
that those who are approved may be recognized amongyou. Therefore
when you come together in oneplace, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper.
For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one
is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat
and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those
who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in
this? I do not praise you. (1 Cor. 11:17-22)
T heir divisions and factions made a mockery o f this, the highest

point o f covenant communion. T h e whole design o f the meal is
lost if we do not eat it together! T he Corinthians were treating it
as a private matter, just between the worshiper and God. This elicits
one o f the sternest warnings found in Paul’s letters: “For he that
eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to
himself. Because he eats by himself, thus “not discerning the
Lord's body,” i.e., the church (v. 29).
In order to guard the covenantal-ness o f the meal, then, Paul
commands that every man, every head o f household “check himself
o u t” to m ake sure th a t he and those u n d er his charge are
participating not as individuals but as pa rt ofthe body. “B ut let a man
examine him self and so let him eat o f that bread, and drink o f that
cup.”
T h a t Paul is addressing the covenant m en as “liturgically
com petent” is very clear w hen we consider that his adm onishm ent
is that each man “examine himself,” not that each man be examined
by the elders! T h e elders bring and maintain order by doing as
Paul did: rem inding the men that this is a celebration o f the church,
corporately, not a celebration o f individuals who happen to be in
the same room.
T his is a very im portant point because it is related to the
problem alluded to before: I am not the bride o f Christ: we together
are the bride.
W h a t is w ritten here should not be taken as opposition to the
duty o f taking personal inventory before the Lord. Such inventory-
taking is most necessary for fallen creatures! N or should this be read
as a suggestion that such self-examination never be conducted prior
to the Supper. T he point is only that Paulspoint was: examine yourself
to make sure you are not thinking only o f yourself in this, but of
others who, w ith you, are His. W e discover the reason that this self-
examination was necessary by examining the context, and the context
shows that the problem at Corinth was failure to grasp the covenantal,
not the mystical, character o f the Supper. Paul’s conclusion to the
m atter puts this conclusion beyond controversy: “Wherefore, my
brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry onefo r another. ”
T h e L o rd ’s Supper crisis at C orinth has been used as alleged
evidence in arguing th at clergy are necessary for Christian worship
to be legitimate. B ut properly understood the passage adds zero
support to th at contention. T h e Supper does not need to be in the
hands o f the clergy to be valid. Paul doesn’t even directly address
ministers or elders in the chapter! Rather, he speaks to every man.
T here were more than 5,000 m en (in addition to w om en and
children) in Jerusalem w ho were frequently celebrating the L ord’s
Supper in their respective homes before any officers— beside the
apostles— had been appointed {Ac. 4:4; 5:14; 2:42, 47; 6:1-6).
T h e church is made up o f men, along w ith their wives and
children. Elders are appointed as leaders, not lords. N o men, no
church; not: no ministers, no church. M inisters and elders (one
hopes) make a church better, they don’t make it real. T h e m en in
covenant w ith C hrist do.
Make The Lines Clear

Creedal orthodoxy, in its essential character, is masculine: virile,
firm, and well-defined.27 It is also aggressive. T he church’s massive

accom m odation to heterodoxy today is n o t unrelated to its
feminization, and it is not unrelated to a “Protestant priesthood”
which has usurped paternal prerogatives.
O rthodoxy has declined, along w ith family religion. W hy?
Because baptized men have been led to believe that women and a
professional clergy can “do their religion” for them. They cannot.
T he answer to the crises confronting the church today will
elude us until fathers are reinstated as the central authorities in
Israel. T his is their due; it is not a favor. T he power accorded to
them by G od in H is making them the very church o f G od has for
too long been unduly concentrated in the hands o f a few. Power to
the people. It is high time to make room for daddies.
1 R. J. Rushdoony, Roots o f Reconstruction (Vallecito, CA, 1991), 822.

2 See Michael Kelley, The Impulse o f Power (Minneapolis, 1998).
3 John A. Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism (New York, 1981), 449-
450.
4 Robert C. Broderick, ed., The Catholic Encyclopedia (Nashville, 1987).
5 ibid., 469.
6 ibid.
7 J. I. Packer, Faith, in ed., Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of
Theology (Grand Rapids, 1984).
8 The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Hierarchy.” Emphasis added.
9 Leon J. Podles, The Church Impotent: The Feminization o f Christianity
(Dallas, 1999).
10The bulk of it was actually written by Richard Baxter and edited by
Manton, but these quotes are from Manton.
“ Cited by Podles, 116. See the whole of chapter 7.
12Podles, 117.
13The Bible is addressed to the fathers of Israel, as God’s appointed
covenant heads, along with their wives and children. See Deuteronomy
29:10,11.
14See W. F. Skene’s introduction to Bickell’s The Lord's Supper and the
Passover Ritual (Edinburgh, 1891).
15For a balanced and edifying view of “the keys,” see Heidelberg, Q&A
83-85.
16Those whom Matthew calls “wise men and scribes” in 23:34, Luke
calls “apostles” in 11:49.
17People (M t. 18:18) could be “bound” (placed under the ban) for flagrant,
willful, and persistent rejection of apostolic doctrine and precepts, or
“loosed” (remitted) upon repentance. They could not be “bound” for
beliefs or behavior not addressed by Scripture.
18Acts 10; Galatians 2:llff.
19See especially Ephesians 2; also 1 Timothy 4:1-7; Colossians 2:11;
Philippians 3:3, etc..
20Eric Werner, The Sacred Bridge: The Interdependence o f Liturgy and Music
in Synagogue and Church during the First Millennium (New York, 1959),
2.
21J. Julius Scott, Jr., Customs and Controversies: Intertestamental Jewish
Backgrounds o f the New Testament (Grand Rapids, 1995), 142-143.
2213 and older.
23Scott, 143. Italics added.
24Versification of Psalm 78; #149 in the 1976 Psalter Hymnal o f the
Christian Reformed Church.
25cf. Genesis 14:14.
26Do you suppose more baptized men would attend church if their families
depended upon them to be there? “Daddy, you have to come. W ho is
going to give us the Lord’s Supper?”
27Error’s lines, in contrast, are soft and round. Error first gains entree,
first makes wiggle room for itself, by bending the straight and clear.
“Yea, hath God said?”
113
Tolerance and Liberty

o f Conscience
by Brian M. Abshire
Brian M . Abshire is a magna cum laude graduate o f Bethel College

(finishing a four year degree program in two) w ith a double major
in Biblical Studies and Psychology. H e attended Bethel, Talbot,
International, and Covenant Seminaries earning an M .A . (summa
cum laude) and T h .M . (magna cum laude), both in the areas of
Apologetics. H is doctoral work was in the Sociology o f Religion
at Lancaster and Greenwich Universities concerning the influence
o f Puritan Theology on the D evelopm ent o f American Cultural
Values. Brian is now working on a D octor o f Theology degree
from Greenville Seminary on Presbyterian polity. Over the past
twenty years, Brian has served as a youth pastor, assistant pastor
for young marrieds, Biblical counselor and senior pastor. H e has
traveled from Australia to Zam bia teaching Biblical principles o f
national restoration to members o f parliament. H e is presently in
the pastoral ministry. Brian is 45 years old, has been married for
21 years and has six children, all home-schooled.
114
Tolerance and Liberty

o f Conscience
by Brian M. Abshire
A charge o f heresy is serious, one not to be made lightly. Heresy
is doctrinal error so w rong that a person believing, affirming, and
teaching it is not considered saved. It is im portant not to throw
this charge around lightly. N o t every doctrinal deviation is heresy.
S in ce all m en are im p e rfe c t, all m en have an im p e rfe c t
understanding o f the Scriptures. Since all m en are different, not
all men have the same level o f wisdom or understanding. Some in
the church em brace im perfect doctrines b u t are nevertheless
entitled to be considered w ithin the household o f the Faith. For
exam ple, children and new believers often do n o t possess a
consistent and comprehensive understanding o f the Scriptures and
frequently may affirm something contrary to sound doctrine. Grace,
gentle correction, and exposure to the truth are normally all th at is
needed to clear up these kinds o f errors and bring these babes to a
deeper, richer understanding o f the truth.
B ut there are also doctrinal differences that divide more mature
believers w ho sincerely hold to different doctrinal positions, yet
w ho display all the characteristics o f mature, godly, C hristian life
and practice. T hey are hum ble in their attitude, express genuine
love and com m itm ent to the Sacred Scriptures, have abundant
evidence o f the fruit o f the Spirit and in many other ways appear
to trust in C hrist and C hrist alone for their salvation. Yet, the
doctrinal differences are there. Some err on the issue o f baptism,
others affirm a confused understanding o f “free” will, still others
insist th at certain w ell-recognized psychological phenom ena are
in reality “gifts” o f the Spirit and so speak in “tongues.” Even w ithin
Reformed churches, there are often significant doctrinal differences
between various groups. Some insist th at we may sing only Psalms
in w orship (w ithout any musical accompaniment), while others
believe hymns and choruses are perfectly appropriate. T here are
certain groups who insist that any church not holding to the Solemn
L eag u e an d C o v e n a n t are by n a tu re ap o state, w h ile m any
TOLERANCE AND LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE 115
Presbyterians think this nothing more than an interesting historical

relic from the past.
T he differences are real, and one cannot simply excommunicate
all those who hold to different doctrines unless one wants to be in
the unenviable position o f insisting, “W e are the only true church;
all others are apostate.” Such grandiose claims probably reveal more
about the psychological and emotional problems o f their adherents
than they do about the “purity” o f their doctrine. But the question
is, how do Christians deal with the very real differences that separate
them from others w ithout falling into hopeless subjectivity that
destroys any claim to ultimate truth? T he Bible is G od’s W ord and
it is the final authority in matters o f faith and practice. H ow then do
sincere C h ristian s deal w ith deviations from its teachings?
Furthermore, the historic Reformed Faith, as hammered out in detail
by the great Reformation creeds, is today held by only a handful of
believers in comparison to evangelicalism. Baptists make up the single
largest group o f Protestants in America today, with Pentecostal and
charismatic groups yearly closing the gap. If, in fact, the Reformed
Faith is an accurate and reliable summary o f Bible doctrine, how do
we deal w ith all those in the church o f C hrist whose doctrine
significantly departs from historic orthodoxy?
Sociological Reasons for Doctrinal Diversity

W h ile C hristians m ust begin w ith Scripture in order to
understand the nature o f the world, we ought also to be aware that
there are other factors that affect us. M an is not a blank slate.
Scripture affirms the validity o f the pagan proverb, “bad company
corrupts good morals. . .” (1 Cor. 15:33). In other words, a man
does not arrive at his belief structure in a vacuum. There are cultural
and historical factors that act on him , just as there are spiritual
ones. Furtherm ore, the Scriptures warn repeatedly o f the dangers
that false teachers cause the body o f Christ. M ost Christians arrive
at their understanding o f the Faith from w hat they are taught by
their pastors, w hat they read in books, and w hat is believed by
those around them . I f they have good pastors, read good books,
and are in fellowships where good doctrine is normal, then they
will probably expouse god doctrine. But if the opposite is true,
then generally speaking, their doctrine will reflect this.
It simply is not enough to say that all men should be Bible

scholars and depend on th eir own intelligence, w isdom , and
understanding to arrive at doctrinal truth. G od gives the church
pastors and teachers who have the responsibility to teach H is people.
I f the church did not need teachers, then G od would not have
given them to her. Therefore, if the pastors and teachers do not
teach the truth, then the people o f G od will not receive the truth
and cannot therefore believe the truth. In all fellowships, there will
be some m en w ith greater insight, ability, and perseverance than
others. W h e n these men encounter various errors, they, like the
Bereans, search the Scriptures, discover the tru th and depart from
churches w ith less than correct doctrine. But not always. O ften,
m en rem ain in churches w ith less than optim al doctrine because
o f other factors. T h e m en who leave are the exception, not the
rule. M ost people trust th at their pastor will teach them the truth
and therefore believe w hat they are taught. I f they are taught error,
they will believe error, because they know nothing else. Apollos is
an example o f this dynamic. H e believed the gospel and taught it.
B ut Pricilla and Aquilla had to correct him on some issues. H is
doctrine was good, insofar as it w ent, b u t not perfect. H e needed
someone to teach him in order to improve his doctrine.
Second, in m odern culture, the church suffers from w hat
sociologists call pluralization; i.e., problem s resulting from a
p le th o ra o f o p tio n s. A n y given local co m m u n ity w ill offer
C hristians a wide variety o f churches, worship services, fellowship
opportunities, and doctrinal standards. M any o f these churches
will deliberately tailor their program s, emphases, and so forth
specifically to attract certain kinds o f people. Since we live in an
anti-intellectual age, deeply influenced by pietism , the average
C hristian is not motivated by the search for truth, b u t by a warm,
in tim a te re la tio n s h ip w ith G o d an d a co m fo rta b le social
environm ent. It is only natural for many Christians to seek out
those churches th at make them feel comfortable and provide them
th at experience.
I t can be hypothesized th at certain personality types will flock
to churches com prised o f similar personality types simply because
they feel more “com fortable” there. T his assum ption may seldom
be verbalized, or even recognized, b u t it is a factor nevertheless.
For example, some people are drawn to “traditional” churches;

others may seek out “activist” churches; while still a third will desire
more “emotional” fellowships. Over time, there will be a “sorting”
effect where various personality types join like-minded churches,
thus affecting the very complexion o f the church or denomination.
Is it just an “accident” that Baptists are renowned for being
evangelistically oriented while Presbyterians are known as the
“Frozen Chosen”? Is it just a coincidence that Pentecostals and
charismatics place a great deal o f emphasis on emotionalism? In
other words, it is not necessarily the doctrine that makes the people,
but rather the personalities o f the people that are attracted to certain
kinds o f doctrines. T h e Scriptures w arn th at this would be a
problem, that is, men would gather teachers to themselves who
would tickle their ears (cf. 2 Tim. 4:4). But it does not necessarily
follow that all men everywhere will necessarily choose evil teachers.
C hristians ju st m ig h t choose teachers w ho make them feel
“comfortable,” who emphasize certain doctrines, and ignore others.
T his perspective can be verified empircally by noting that
church membership in America is directly related to social class.
T he higher the socio-economic ladder one climbs, the more one
tends to be drawn to specific denom inational affiliation (e.g.,
Episcopalians are mostly comprised o f the top 2% of the population,
followed by Presbyterians, M ethodists and Baptists, in order.
Charismatics and Pentecostals, in general, tended until recently to
be made up o f the lowest economic classes in American culture).
Hence, doctrinal divisions may have more to do w ith social
class than w ith genuine theological convictions. It is no accident
that the best-educated segments o f society are largely drawn to
churches w ith the best-developed doctrinal systems. Furthermore,
it is significant that the higher ones socio-economic status, the
less appropriate are overt displays o f em otion in the church he
attends. T hus those o f poor or working-class backgrounds are not
only more comfortable, but may actively seek out churches where
emotions, not intellect, are more highly valued. Since emotion and
experience, rather than academics, are valued, such churches are
more likely to adopt, perm it, or even encourage doctrinal error. It
also works the other way. Presbyterian churches were so enthralled
by impeccable academic credentials, that they still insist on their
sem inary professors’ having degrees from prestigious secular

universities, even tho u g h this has led directly to theological
liberalism and apostasy.
T his tendency is a general rule, w ith many notable exceptions.
B ut if this analysis holds up, it does help to explain why there exist
such differences in doctrine between various evangelical Christians
in American culture today. T he plurality o f churches allows believers
o f similar tem peram ent and values to gather together in places
where they feel comfortable, because experience, not doctrine, is
considered the essence o f the C hristian life. T h e pastors and
teachers are never exposed to a more structured and consistently
Biblical doctrine, because it is n o t deem ed necessary to their
ministries. Since one cannot teach w hat one does not know, the
average Christian is seldom given the opportunity or the motivation
to develop a better theological understanding o f the Scriptures.
Toleration
W h e th er we like it or not, approve o f it or not, or accept it or
not, doctrinal differences exist and not all those differences are
heresy, or even necessarily harmful. Romans 14 is clear that there
are some issues th at each individual m ust decide before G od and
th at no one else can judge his conscience for it. In N ew T estam ent
times, w ith a mixed church o f Jews and Gentiles, the m atter o f
food was crucial. Some could not in good conscience eat m eat
sacrificed to idols. O thers could and did. T h e Apostle Paul was
very clear th at no one should judge another on som ething like
this. T hough some knew th at food sacrificed to idols was harmless,
others did not have this same understanding. I f they ate, their
consciences would be defiled, and they would have been in sin.
I t is significant to note th at Paul does not rebuke the “weaker”
brother for n o t having b etter theology. Instead, he warns the
“stronger” brother not to allow som ething as m undane as food to
become a cause o f division. I t w ould appear then th at G od is more
gracious towards us, even in our error, than we often are towards
one another.
T h e Scriptures allow a degree o f tolerance on some issues that
some o f us today would find difficult to accept. Tolerance can, o f
course, becom e an excuse for intellectual laziness or even an
abandonment o f ultimate truth. Perhaps we should consider the

issue o f “tolerance” from an engineering perspective. For an
engineer, “tolerance” has to do with how closely two things have
to fit together to operate acceptably. A n example o f this is the old
C olt 1911 semi-automatic pistol. Developed to counter the drug
induced attacks o f the M oro guerillas in the Philippines, the U.S.
Arm y needed a hard-hitting and reliable side-arm for its officers
(the men had rifles, the officers had only pistols; reports had some
officers shooting guerillas six times w ith their .38 revolvers and
still being killed by them w ith a machete).
T he original 1911 had extremely sloppy tolerances (some old-
timers insist that if you held it up to the sun, you could actually see
daylight through parts o f it). However, the broad tolerances allowed
the 1911 to operate even in the harshest environments. It did not
jam easily. Even in wet, muddy, jungle conditions, it continued to
function reliably. It was not the most accurate handgun in the world,
but it was a reliable one.
Though now superseded by the Beretta, the C olt 1911 is still
a popular handgun and widely used in shooting competitions.
However, to increase accuracy, the tolerances have been significantly
tightened. Special, tighter barrels, bushings, and slides have all
been designed to increase accuracy out to 100 yards. But the push
for accuracy and the tighter tolerances make the gun less inherently
reliable. It jams more easily, requiring barrels to be throated and
polished to feed am munition reliably. It must be cleaned regularly
and lubricated properly. In many respects, a custom built 1911 is
the finest handgun in the world—just don’t get it dirty. A nd all
the work needed is too expensive for the casual shooter.
In many respects, this aspect o f “tolerance” mirrors the problem
facing the church. Yes, increased accuracy is desirable; but it comes
at a cost that at this point in time, in this stage o f the sovereign
work o f G od in history, that the average Christian is not willing or
able to pay. It does appear th at Scripture teaches th at we are
expected to deal w ith an acceptable degree o f “error” (in the
engineering use o f the term) in our brothers.
In the past two thousand years, we have made great strides in
developing a comprehensive understanding o f the Scriptures. There
is no doubt that the high-w ater m ark o f Christian theology was
the Reform ation and the great Reformation creeds. But the reality
is that some o f the brethren (and let us be honest here, at the
p re se n t tim e , most o f th e b re th re n ) no lo n g e r share th a t
understanding. Baptists and M ethodists combined, at the time o f
the A m erican W ar o f Independence made up less than 10% o f the
population. Now, Reformed churches o f all stripes probably make
up far less th a n 10% o f ju s t the C h ristian population. As a
consequence, large segments o f evangelicalism now hold to some
form o f dispensationalism, A rm inianism or other error. N ow any
error is serious and has repercussions for every aspect o f the Faith.
T h e church m ilitant has largely lost the battle for W estern culture
as a direct result o f em bracing these errors.
Yet it is no good saying they ought to know better, because the
reality is, they don't know any better; and it does not look as if they
will learn any better anytime soon. Evangelicals profess their faith
in C hrist, baptize in H is name, build churches to H is glory, and
do the w ork o f the ministry. Even in Reformed churches, surveys
will show that a significant num ber o f their members were brought
to faith in C hrist through various evangelical churches or ministries.
Obviously, from our Reformed perspective, they could do all these
things better if they had better doctrine. But only the worst sort o f
sectarian nonsense w ould deny that G od is at w ork in evangelical
churches to some degree or the other.
H ence, tolerance in this sense is not leveling the playing field
where all doctrines are reduced to the lowest common denominator,
but rather the recognition th at G od in H is grace uses all o f H is
people to bring about H is will, despite error and sin. T here are no
perfect people, no perfect churches, and no C hristian w ith perfect
doctrine. B ut G od uses them , ju st the same. H ence even as we
encourage our errin g b ro th e r to develop a b e tte r and m ore
consistent understanding o f the Scriptures, we ought also be aware
o f the fact th at G od is using him. Furtherm ore, occasionally, there
ju st maybe things that H e is doing through th at brother that H e is
not doing th ro u g h us and we m ig h t actually be able to learn
som ething from him.
Liberty of Conscience
T h e great Reform ation creeds define liberty o f conscience as
freedom from the commandments o f men that are contrary to the

W ord o f God, or beside it (W C F 20:2). God alone has the authority
to bind our conscience and require our faith and obedience.
Furthermore, the W ord o f G od is not absolutely clear on all points
in all places. T he doctrine o f the perspicuity o f Scripture denotes
that all things necessary for G o d ’s glory, man’s salvation, faith, and
life are expressly set forth in Scripture or discovered by good and
necessary consequence (W C F 1:6). Still, the illumination o f the
H oly Spirit is required for men to understand these things. Even
the Apostle Peter says that the Apostle Paul wrote many things
“difficult to understand” (2 Pet. 3:16). N ot all men have the same
measure o f illumination. N ot all men have the same degree of
understanding. N ot all men agree to w hat is a “good and necessary
consequence.”
Christians must realize that not all differences are heresy. There
needs to be grace given to others who may not yet have attained
our degree o f doctrinal accuracy. In this life, they may never achieve
our desired level o f understanding. Brothers may sincerely disagree
w ith each other on certain peripheral issues. A nd G od may be
more concerned w ith how we handle certain disagreement than
w ith w ho was right and who was w rong on certain issues.
Like iron sharpening iron {Pr. 27:17), so we ought to strive to
encourage, exhort, and admonish each other to arrive at a better,
deeper, more comprehensive understanding o f the W ord {Col. 3:16).
Hence, we ought not to judge, but to serve one another, trusting
that each man stands accountable before G od for his labor {Rom.
14:4). W e do not have to give up on the truth and accuracy o f
doctrine to realize that G od is truly present in another church, or
believer, that H e is working in him and through him according to
H is divine plan.
T he challenge, o f course, is for those who do have a better
understanding o f the Faith to bring their brothers along w ithout
the arrogant and contem ptuous attitu d e so com m on am ong
Reformed churches. I f we have the truth (as we sincerely believe
we do), let us dem onstrate that truth by loving and serving our
brothers. T he Chalcedon Foundation has come under criticism
occasionally from o th e r R eform ed m inistries because o f its
willingness to teach charismatics in particular. W e speak at their
churches, teach at their conferences, and even, occasionally, train

some o f their pastors. As a result, there are increasing numbers o f
charismatic churches that have adopted a more consistently Biblical
worldview. No, they probably will not be applying to the O rthodox
Presbyterian C hurch any time soon for membership. But they have
discovered the doctrines or grace; they have come to love the law
o f G od as the expression o f H is unchangeable nature; they have
adopted an optim istic eschatology; and they are willing to apply
their faith in their work, community, nation etc.
Jesus said that the m ark o f greatness in the kingdom is being
the servant o f all (e.g., M k. 10:45). To serve requires hum ility and
grace. A love for truth does not require contem pt for those who do
not yet know as they ought to know. B ut Reformed Christians in
particular would do well to remember that love and truth are never
to be pitted against one another (cf. 1 Cor. 8:1). I f we truly possess
the truth, then it ought to be dem onstrated by grace and peace
and a dedication to w inning our errant brothers, not condemning
th em or ju d g in g th em . T h erefo re, let us exhort, adm onish,
encourage, and teach our brothers, dem onstrating by the grace o f
our speech, the purity o f our love, and the sacrifice o f our labors,
th a t the tru th o f G od is w ith us. In so doing, the ancient church
conquered the w orld in the name o f King Jesus. A nd in so doing,
we will achieve victory over the nations.
123
Evangelical Reductionism
by Colonel Doner
Renowned Christian political strategist, Colonel Doner, turned

G ood Samaritan w ith the publishing o f his well-received The
Samaritan Strategy: A New Agenda For Christian Activism , soon
completes the cycle to church strategist in his im portant critique
o f evangelicalism. H aving not only “done tim e” but served in
prom inent leadership capacities in m ost o f evangelical’s sub
cultures, he is em inently qualified to dissect them , w hether New
Age, pietist, fun d am en talist, charismatic, or evangelical. T his
chapter is an excerpt from his soon to be completed Late Great
Evangelical Church, perhaps the m ost comprehensive critique o f
evangelicalism ever conducted by an “insider.” D oner is one o f 900
w orld leaders selected for the “In tern atio n al C om m ittee o f
Reference for New Life 2000” chaired by Billy Graham.
124
Evangelical Reductionism
by Colonel Doner
They have taken fa ith into their own hands and molded it
according to the aspirations o f everyday life.
N ath an H atch , The Democratization o f American
Christianity
The problem is not that Christians have disappeared\ but that

Christian fa ith has become so deformed.
O s G uiness, Dining With the D evil
P uritan and Calvinist cultural dominance (and its dom inion-

oriented worldview) was overthrown, not by the A C L U , but by
new dem ocratic sects, prim arily Wesleyan and Baptist. I t seems
th a t “ [C a lv in ism ] v io la te d th e s p ir it o f re v o lu tio n a ry
liberty.”1Calvinists were heavily under siege on their right flank
by the newly unleashed forces o f democratic pietism, anabaptism,
and assorted enthusiasts, and their hold on N ew England crumbled
even as progressives (primarily U nitarian) attacked their left flank.
It appears th at the Puritans’ heirs were ill-equipped to fight a war
on tw o fro n ts a g a in st th e Zeitgeist's p in c e r o f d em o cratic
individualism and religious egalitarianism. T h eir problem began
w ith the “Spirit o f 76.”
The Great Revolution

T h e A m erican Revolutionary W ar n o t only deprived King
George III and his loyalists o f their possessions and position, but
also disestablished church authority (mostly Puritan-Reform ed and
Anglican). T hroughout the various colonies, state churches had
been established and pastors had been paid by their C hristian
c o m m o n w ealth or by th e C h u rc h o f E n g la n d . W h ile th is
arrangem ent may seem undesirable in today’s world, the practical
result o f the “disestablishm ent” o f these churches was to suddenly
make clergymen economically beholden to their congregations.
T his revolutionary shift seemed to have a marked effect on pastors’
willingness to chastise, challenge, or discipline their imm ediate
EVANGELICAL REDUCTIONISM 125
benefactors. A nn Douglass notes this as the turning point at which

many pastors began following, rather than leading, “diluting their
doctrines to suit the taste o f their listeners.”2 As de Tocqueville
observed, the shepherds o f these newly democratic churches were
often more “politicians than priests.”
A "Democratic" Church
A new civic religion o f A m erican individualism began to
permeate the evangelical church during the much-vaunted Age o f
Jacksonian Democracy. Evangelical historian N athan H atch has
masterfully documented how this democratization o f the church
revolutionized Protestant attitudes:
American churches’ profound commitment to audience in the

early decades of the nineteenth century shaped the way religious
thinking was organized and carried out. When the commoner
rose in power, people o f ideas found their authority
circumscribed. As a result, democratic America has never
produced another theologian like Jonathan Edwards, just as it
has never elected statesmen of the caliber of Adams, Jefferson,
and Madison. Insurgent religious leaders were not so much anti
intellectual as intent on destroying the monopoly of classically
educated and university-trained clergymen. The insurgents
considered people’s common sense more reliable, even in
theology, than the judgment of an educated few.
This shift involved new faith in public opinion as an arbiter
of truth. Common folk were no longer thought to be irresponsible
and willful, rather, they were deemed ready to embrace truth if
only it was retrieved from academic speculation and the heavy
hand of the past. These new ground rules measured theology by
its acceptance in the marketplace. It flattened out uncomfortable
complexity and often resolved issues by a simple choice of
alternatives.3
Im bued w ith a liberating sense o f individual rights and

egalitarianism, “democratic C hristians” no longer needed to defer
to ch u rch dogm a, au th o rity , hierarchy, or th e ed u catio n al
advantages o f the clergy. C elebrating their newfound freedom,
each m an was now free to be the arbiter o f his own beliefs, the
a u th o r o f his ow n creeds. H a tc h catalogues th e d efin in g
characteristics o f this “popular sovereignty” wherein “C hristianity

was effectively reshaped by com m on people w ho m olded it in
their own image . . . ” as follows: 1) refusing “to defer to learned
theologians and traditional orthodoxy,” 2) “taking their deepest
spiritual impulses at face value rather than subjecting them to
the scrutiny o f orthodox doctrine,” and 3) a new “openness” to
“co n sid er dream s an d visions as in sp ired by G o d , n o rm al
m anifestations o f divine guidance and instruction.”4
W h a t we see in the early decades o f the Republic is the
inauguration o f the new A m erican Zeitgeist, the unrestricted
individualistic pursuit o f life, liberty, and happiness culminating
in the ultim ate freedom to develop one’s own exegetical style to
personally interpret the Biblical message from A to Z. Liberated
from the burden o f cum bersome church doctrines, democratic
influences “stripped away the power o f creed and confession, the
authority o f staid institutional forms and the inherent power o f
the clergy,”5 replacing them w ith “a form o f populist religion o f
the people, for the people and by the people.”6 W ith the boundaries
o f heresy and orthodox doctrine dissolved by systematic abolition
o f anything w hich smacked o f “tradition” or church authority, and
w ith the wisdom and authority o f trained clergy superseded by the
“com m on m an’s inner leading,” historic Protestant orthodoxy was
doomed. W ith its insistence on obedience and C hristian “fruit”
ra th e r th a n m erely subjective experience, w ith its carefully
constructed creeds and confessions enforced by a rigorously
educated class o f “orthodox gatekeepers,” classical orthodoxy was
in no position to defend itself against the com ing tidal wave o f
westward expansion.
Westward Ho
In tim a tely linked to the ebullience o f a new dem ocratic
theology was the sudden acceleration o f A m erica’s w estw ard
expansion. A whole new nation was about to appear, and a new,
distinctly American religion would colonize it through an onslaught
o f thousands o f circuit riders sweeping through the new territories,
liberating the exposition o f doctrine from the hands o f churchm en
and turning it over to the A m erican frontiersman. G o d ’s law and
purpose for m ankind were about to g et a m akeover by Davy
C rockett. T h e opening o f the W estern frontier m eant th a t

thousands o f pastors were needed on short notice. T h a t the
established founts o f orthodoxy, encumbered by the necessity of
years o f training for their pastors and their policy of holding both
clergy and laymen to strict Biblical standards o f performance, were
ill-equipped to take advantage o f the opportunity at hand is
demonstrated by the astounding rapidity with which they were
overtaken by the new “democratic” denominations.
D espite th e ir b est efforts, by m id -cen tu ry the o ld-line
R eform ed and o rth o d o x d en o m in atio n s found them selves
outnumbered tw o-to-one by independent Baptists (who exploded
from less than 500 churches at the end o f the eighteenth century
to over 50,000 by the close o f the nineteenth century) and by three-
to-one also outnumbered by W esleys wide-eyed M ethodists (who
made a quantum leap from fourteen thousand members in 1785
to a m illion-plus members ju st two generations later). These
insurgent (and heavily pietistic) sects were able to outmaneuver
their longer-established competitors for several reasons.
W hile it took years o f careful preparation to train Calvinist
clergy, new circuit riders needed no training at all! W h a t was
required was a dram atic “conversion experience,” a W esleyan
commitment to piety, and rhetorical skills capable o f bringing forth
an em otional response from m obs o f illiterate, rough-hew n
individualists.
In the rough-and-tum ble environment o f the early W est, with
its idolization o f the self-made man and the immediately useful,
the refined and educated Calvinist doctor o f theology (laboriously
reciting a complex message on the doctrine o f G od from a carefully
crafted paper) was no m atch for the rhetorical fast draw o f the
new gospel gunslingers. Once they enjoyed numerical superiority,
the insurgent sects waged a “cold war” against Puritan and Calvinist
cultural hegem ony th a t spanned h a lf a century (1780-1830).
N athan H atch adds that this slice o f American history “left as
indelible an im print upon the structure o f American Christianity
as it did upon those o f American political life.”7 It is at this juncture
that we witness the term ination o f Puritan and Calvinist cultural
dominance, not by nasty secular humanists or Masonic conspiracies,
but by devout pietists:
In the face of the efforts of Calvinist coalitions to buttress

Christian civilization, populist religious leaders worked with
equal determ ination to w ithstand the control ... Many
Methodists, Baptists, Christians, Universalists, and Disciples
perceived tyrannical intent in the coordinated Calvinist schemes
and launched a ferocious crusade against every fact of Calvinist
orthodoxy. Theyfought its ...penchantfor cultural domination and
its attempt to legislate morality.s
T h is v iru len t cam paign, “the m ost savage and sustained

anticlericalism in the early republic,”9 effectively uprooted and
discarded the fo u n d atio n upon w hich the evangelical house
rested— Reformed orthodoxy— and replaced it w ith a new, “M ade
in A m erica,” individualistic religion. For all practical purposes,
P uritanism was replaced w ith an “A m erican Religion.” H atch
concisely describes its construction:
As preachers from the periphery of American culture came to

reconstruct Christianity, three distinct tendencies became evident.
First, they mingled diverse, even contradictory sources, erasing
distinctions that the polite culture of the eighteenth century had
struggled to keep separate. The crucible of popular theology
combined odd mixtures of high and popular culture, of renewed
supernaturalism and Enlightenment rationalism, of mystical
experiences and biblical literalism, of evangelical and Jeffersonian
rhetoric. At the same time, this environment accelerated this
splintering of Christianity, what George Rawlyk calls “a
fragmenting evangelical ethos.” As increased numbers of these
theological neophytes attempted to explicate religious matters
for themselves, the overall range of religious options multiplied.
Populist preachers could differ from each other as easily as they
could from the establishment. This was particularly true given
the clarion message that rang out above all their diversity; the
primacy of the individual conscience. This emphasis relates to a
third distinguishable pattern: an inversion of the traditional
modes of religious authority. Instead of revering tradition,
learning, solemnity, and decorum, as did Timothy Dwight and
Lyman Beecher, a diverse array of populist preachers exalted
youth, free expression, and religious ecstasy. They explicitly
taught that divine insight was reserved for the poor and humble
rather than the proud and learned.10
Wesleyan Pietistic Revivalism

As A nn Douglass notes, American pragmatism was favorably
impressed by the results (num ber o f conversions) procured by the
unvarnished energy o f an army o f enthusiastic laymen-evangelists.
Foremost among these pragmatists were N ew York lawyer, Charles
Finney, the father o f w hat is now known as “revivalism”— a
p ractice o f u sin g m a n -c e n te re d te ch n iq u e s to m im ic the
appearance o f a sovereign move o f G od— and his better known
successor, D. L. Moody. Both men, historian H atch notes, were
the “first examples” o f the new “dem ocratic” anti-C alvinist ethos.
Finney, in fact, presented him self as the remedy for the “chronic
a ilm e n t” o f th e church: C alvinistic orthodoxy.11 Revivalist
impresario Finney, who saw him self carrying on a tradition that
he adm itted was inherited from “ignorant M ethodist and Baptist
exhorters,”12 refined the technique o f dum bing down the gospel,
creating an “art form ” th a t is still faithfully im itated today.
Revivalist army regiments were armed w ith an array o f newly
acquired techniques guaranteed to produce “mass conversions”
based on a strategy o f assiduously avoiding divisive “doctrinal
issues” w hich m ight “p u t o ff” potential converts. Consequently,
revivalists crafted a drastically truncated gospel message: " . . . he
[D. L. M oody] avoided distressing subjects largely because he
sensed th at because o f the mood o f the m odern age they did not
meet his pragmatic test.”13 Both D . L. M oody and Billy Sunday—
the two tow ering figures who bridged the gap from Finney to
B illy G ra h am — m ade it a p o in t to publicly proclaim th eir
ignorance o f and disdain for theology or doctrine. Indeed, M oody
felt th at m ost “formal ideas” were divisive.14 T h e message o f the
Bible was simple: to get saved and go to heaven. D on’t, and go
directly to hell. W h a tev e r else it was th a t theologians were
concerned about was o f no use in converting the com m on man
and, hence, had little or no value to the revivalists. O utside o f a
handful o f Calvinist theologians holed up in a few seminaries,
revivalism was fast becom ing the order o f the day. W h a t Finney
had initiated, M o o d y consolidated. T rue to th eir nam e, the
revivalists (having abandoned the Reformers’ understanding o f
conversion as being solely a result o f G o d ’s sovereign grace)
consequently felt personally responsible for, as well as capable, o f
b rin g in g “every m an to C h ris t.” T h u s, th ey com m itted one

hundred percent o f their resources and conform ed w hat little
theology they possessed to the singular goal o f evangelism via the
m echanism o f carefully choreographed revival meetings in a vain
attem pt to reproduce G o d ’s sovereign movement in the First G reat
Awakening.
In an effort to gain the maximum advantage w ith the greatest
num ber o f p o te n tia l converts, th e ir strip p ed -d o w n message
attem pted to make G od and H is gospel attractive to men, rather
than proclaim ing that m en m ust come to terms w ith their sin in
the face o f a righteous and w rathful G od. As a precursor to
evangelicalism’s current “nice Christians representing a friendly
G o d ” them e, they concentrated on the soteriological (personal
salvation) aspect o f the gospel. T h e full context o f the Biblical
m andate, sanctification, discipleship and obedience (i.e., a fruit
bearing faith), service and stewardship, G o d ’s law, and virtually
every other aspect o f Protestant orthodoxy, was shoved aside and
ev en tu ally fo rg o tte n entirely. W h a t th e p ie tistic-re v iv alist
ju g g ern au t still lacked was a herm eneutical m odel, a way o f
institutionalizing and legitimizing its destructive treatm ent (or non
treatm ent) o f the Biblical texts. A n untrained layman would soon
provide the answer.
Dispensing With The Bible

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am
not come to destroy, but tofulfill. For verily I say unto you. Till heaven
and earth pass, onejot or one tittle shall in no wise passfrom the law,
till all befulfilled.
M atthew 5:17-18 KJV
When Scofieldpublished the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909, he

embarked on more than a lucrative venture: he effectively set an agenda
that millions o f Bible-believing Protestants have sincefollowed. By
shaping the way people read and comprehended Scripture, Scofield
exerted immeasurable influence on the course o f twentieth-century
popular Protestantism.
Edith L. Blumhofer, Christianity Today (January 10,1994)
N o single volume has influenced the course o f evangelicalism

as has the Scofield Study Bible (with H al Lindsey’s hate Great Planet
Earth running a close second), which was aggressively promoted
in 1909 and 1910 by the notoriously liberal Oxford University
Press. T he ingenuity o f Scofield’s m ethod was in placing his
“dispensational” footnotes on almost every page. Millions o f ardent
fundamentalists (including myself as a twenty-one year old editor
o f one o f their most largely circulated publications) would gladly
have submitted to the stake rather than bend their knee in deference
to the historic creeds o f the church. T hey eagerly lapped up every
heretical morsel from “D r.” Scofield, since it was printed “right in
the Bible”! Indeed, in many fundamentalist churches, questioning
Scofield was equivalent to q u estio n in g the Bible itself. To
comprehend why our churches have devolved into little more than
pious gush, try reading Scofield’s footnotes (or his successor
Ryrie’s). I f you, like me, were raised in a fundam entalist family,
you should have a well-worn copy handy. Turn to his notes on
M atthew 25. You will be relieved to learn that w hat appears to be
C h ris t’s to u g h est “in your face” ad m o n itio n to service and
stewardship is actually an allegory about how we need to treat the
nation o f Israel! N o more need be said. Tertullian, one o f the early
(second century) church fath ers attem p tin g to p ro tec t the
Scriptures from gnostic distortion, observed th at there are two
prim ary routes to destroying the efficacy o f the Biblical message:
one is to cut out (or dispense with) offending sections; another is
to affirm the entire Biblical cannon, and then merrily reinterpret
it o u tsid e o f th e c h u rc h ’s clo sely g u a rd e d tr a d itio n .
Dispensationalists have sought to do both.
C. I. Scofield, a disgraced lawyer, was the perfect neo-pietist
candidate to rewrite the Bible. H e had no formal theological
training; he was unschooled in G reek and H ebrew ; he was
unfam iliar w ith church histo ry and the history o f C hristian
doctrine; he was ignorant o f the creeds and confessions o f both
the early church and the Reformers; and, before his conversion, he
was a convicted con man and forger to boot (serving six months in
prison) (see The Incredible Scofieldby]ostfc\ Canfield, Ross House
Books). Logically, one m ight think Scofield a strange candidate to
redefine the historic, w orld-redeem ing message o f the Bible. O ne
could reasonably expect that an untrained, disbarred lawyer who

deserted his wife and two small daughters and w ho offered a
blatantly heretical message that overturned a millennia-and-a- half
o f church teaching, in addition to diametrically contradicting the
founders o f the P rotestant faith, would be received w ith some
degree o f skepticism, if not a good old-fashioned tar-and-feather
party. But tim ing is everything and Scofield reveled in the fact
th at he was born in “the laymans age.” H e was a perfect fit for the
age o f Jacksonian C hristianity th at celebrated the self-made (or
reinvented) man whose uninform ed opinions were every bit as valid
as the m ost noted church doctor s.
In contrast to the age o f the P uritan Divines, as we have seen,
pietism and revivalism won the day for a pernicious and pervasive
anti-intellectualism . E ducation was now seen as a liability, not an
asset, as a sign th at one was relying on head knowledge rather
than heart experience. N o t only were the masses o f revivalist circuit-
riding preachers and evangelists (the foot soldiers and platoon
leaders o f the movement) uneducated, but their field marshals were
as well: “Evangelicals in the nineteenth and early tw entieth century
to a remarkable extent depended on lay Evangelists w ithout formal
train in g , m en like C h arles F inney, D . L. M o o d y and Billy
S unday.”15 A s n o te d earlier, M o o d y p ro u d ly eschew ed any
systematic approach to understanding or applying Scripture: “M y
theology! I didn’t know I had any.”16 Interestingly enough, the
architect o f the A m erican dispensational edifice, Lewis Sperry
Chafer, “. . . felt th at his lack o f formal theological training was an
asset to his w ork as a theologian, because by not examining w hat
others had done, he was preserved from their errors. In Chafer’s
words, ‘T h e very fact th at I did n o t study a prescribed course in
theology made it possible for me to approach the subject w ith an
unprejudiced m ind and to be concerned only w ith w hat the Bible
actually teaches.’”17
T h e fact that, like Scofield, C hafer’s incredible naivete led him
to believe th at he him self was free o f any historical or cultural
conditioning, prejudices, or presuppositions seems to be a case o f
one’s arrogance being exceeded only by one’s ignorance. Ignorance
does have its consequences, as historian Lovelace notes, and this
lack o f training on the part o f the evangelical leadership, who were
charged w ith guarding the gates o f orthodoxy, inexorably led to a

“progressive shallow ness.” Ignorance and shallowness are an
unbeatable com bination to increase one’s vulnerability to any
number o f heresies. T he only question was who would seduce the
revivalist leadership first, M ary Baker Eddy, or John Nelson Darby
and C. I. Scofield?
Revivalists’ egalitarian bias against scholarship, their whimsical
dismissal o f church tradition and the lives and works o f tens o f
thousands o f saints and scholars who had gone before them, in
favor o f good old American ingenuity (W e’re Americans! L et’s
just invent our own doctrines. W h o cares w hat a bunch o f guys
from the N ear E ast, N o rth A frica, and E urope th o u g h t up
hundreds o f years ago?), left them bereft o f historical perspective
and blind to dispensationalism’s obvious correlation with various
gnostic heresies (whose prime aim, just like Scofield’s “Bible,” was
to shun the G od o f the O ld Testament). T he most pernicious legacy
o f Scofieldism, and a preem inent example o f reductionism, is the
uncanny way in which we as evangelicals have, gnostic-like, severed
th e N ew from th e O ld T estam e n t. T h is , d esp ite C h r is t’s
proclamation, “T h in k not that I am come to destroy the law, or
the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill” (M t. 5:17),
and in spite o f an indisputable historical record that the early church
fathers treated O ld and New Covenants as equally normative for
the “rule o f faith.”18 As we saw earlier, the church o f the second
century was in a war for the very life o f the gospel itself. O ne o f
the primary antagonists in this epic battle was Marcion, a renegade
Biblical scholar who rejected the O ld Testam ent as having no
authority for Christians, claiming that it had been superseded by
the “gospel,” and who insisted on a gnostic-like distinction between
th e G o d o f th e O ld T e sta m e n t and th e New. L ike m any
dispensationalists, he also regarded Paul as the only apostle w orth
studying. Trail blazing for today’s dispensationalists, Marcion, along
w ith his contemporary Valentinus, created his own collection of
books that he believed should compose the “New Testam ent” and,
thus, the canon o f Scripture. According to the premier evangelical
scholar on the form ation o f the Bible, it was this gnostic attem pt
to preemptively define the Scriptures that impelled the early church
to grapple w ith the question o f ju st w hat writings be deemed
authoritative.19 T his process was not concluded until the church

councils at H ippo (A. D . 393) and Carthage (A. D. 397), both
under A ugustine’s guidance, confirmed the canon o f Scripture,
including all the O ld Testam ent and N ew Testament, as G o d ’s
H oly W ord to H is church. Tragically, as Tarnas notes, the early
churches’ battles for a whole Bible undiluted by gnostic censors
were not entirely successful:
A lthough the earliest authoritative orthodox C hristian

theologians, such as Irenaeus, argued forcefully for the continuity
of the Old and New Testaments, for the divine plan’s unity from
Genesis to Christ, much of the tenor of Gnostic dualism left its
traces in later Christian theology and piety.20
R ather than acknowledging a continuous Biblical tapestry as

practiced by b o th the ancient church and the church o f the
Reformation, dispensationalism has rendered a worldview violently
torn asunder, reduced to so many bits and pieces that it demands
th e fu ll-tim e efforts o f h u n d red s o f scholars to atte m p t to '
reassemble the entire mosaic in order to see the Big Picture.
D is p e n s a tio n a lis m can be c re d ite d w ith m any o f th e
contradictions we still struggle w ith today. H ow did we make the
quantum leap from serving a sovereign G od w ho com m anded us
to disciple the nations, to believing (with Scofield) that “the purpose
o f G od in this dispensation is not the conversion o f the world but
to gather out o f the G entiles a people for H is nam e”?
H ow did we lose the historic vision o f C hrist’s church to redeem
culture, replacing it w ith an apostasy th at predicts a progressively
debilitated (and even evil) church? H ow did we make the transition
from the Biblical standard o f obedience to C h rist’s commands (M t.
28) to the blasphem y o f dispensationalism , w hich claims that
C h ris t’s m inistry on earth preceded our current “church age”
(dispensation) and th at H is teaching is rooted in an O ld Testam ent
righteousness “based on legal grounds” rather than our present “age
o f grace”? A re not C h rist’s teachings universally applicable to H is
people today?
H ow did we lose the O ld Testam ent as a viable model for
understanding the proper role o f civil governm ent, and execute a
cataclysmic about-face from the “Calvinistic tradition w hich saw
politics as a significant means to advance the Kingdom, to a

‘pietistic’view of political action, as no more than a means to restrain
evil”?21 W hy did the paradigm shift to diametrically oppose the
teachings o f our own American church fathers? M arsden points
out, “From the time o f the Puritans until about the middle o f the
N ineteenth Century, American Evangelicalism was dominated by
a Calvinistic vision o f Christian cu ltu re.. . . Hence the Christian
ideal was to introduce G o d s Kingdom . . . .”22 H ow has the
dispensational cancer so effectively invaded every organ o f our
evangelical body? Almost all evangelicals (myself included), even
when we do not subscribe to compartmentalizing Scripture into
dispensations, have a subconscious tendency, a presuppositional
assumption, that colors the way we approach Scripture. As with
gravity or the air we breathe, we take for granted that somehow or
to some degree C hrist’s coming invalidated G od’s law in the Old
Testam ent and that C hrist’s grace and love somehow nullify the
entire body o f G o d ’s law, from the T en C om m andm ents to
M atthew 25, from Genesis to Revelation.
Unfortunately, w hen we insist that the “newness” o f the New
T estam ent somehow dim inishes the O ld Testam ent, we find
ourselves in leag u e w ith th e g n o stic M a rc io n , w ho was
excommunicated by the early church for espousing exactly this
heresy. O f course, the soteriological aspects o f Jewish ceremonial
law, the sacrificial atonem ent for sin, etc., were fulfilled in C hrist’s
ultimate sacrifice. But G o d ’s law still has force in witnessing to
the unconverted the extent o f their rebellion against a holy God; it
also has force as a stan d ard , to ju d g e our own progress in
sanctification, driving us to daily confession and repentance— and
as a foundation for restraining evil and prom oting godly justice
(through civil law). However, informed by the dispensational ethos,
we approach the N ew Testam ent in a “for us today” mode, while
treating the O ld T estam en t like th e family heirloom Bible,
prominently displayed but seldom consulted.
So, antithetical to the historic P ro testan t and Reform ed
tra d itio n , how d id th is clearly d isp e n sa tio n a l m o d el for
understanding and applying G o d ’s W ord become so popular with
overtly non-dispensationalevangelicals? Basically, through osmosis.
T h a t is to say, it seeped from one camp to another, from revivalism
to fundam entalism to the holiness groups, as each camp cross-

fertilized. Consequently, evangelical denom inations that are not
necessarily dispensational, but that have grown out o f a tradition
o f pietism , revivalism, or fundam entalism (as the m ajority o f
evangelicals have), have been subtly but thoroughly contaminated.
W ell before Scofield popularized D arb y ’s heretical nonsense,
Charles Finney, a seminal figure in the Second G reat Awakening,
boldly announced that Pentecost marked “the com m encem ent o f
a new dispensation in w hich the new covenant replaced the old.”23
M arsden notes that as the pietistic holiness movement, w ith its
new emphasis on guidance by the H oly Spirit (which would later
spawn Pentecostalism), became increasingly dom inant in revivalist
circles, it required “a clear line betw een the O ld T estam en t
dispensation o f law and the N ew Testam ent dispensation o f the
Holy Spirit.”24 As a rapidly proliferating horde o f holiness preachers
freely adopted this “dispensation o f the Spirit,” the stage was neatly
set to welcome M r. Scofield’s new “Bible,” w hich legitimized their
goal o f relegating G o d ’s great commands to a previous “dispensation
o f law,” as opposed to a current period o f “grace.” M arsden sums
up the im m ediate consequences o f this m om entous shift and
provides us w ith an im p o rtan t clue regarding evangelicalism’s
baffling reversal from 1800 to 1875, the source o f our current
dysfunction, in one very pregnant sentence: “. . . the place o f the
law was drastically reduced in the writings o f Reformed advocates
o f holiness . . . the Kingdom was no longer viewed as a Kingdom
o f laws.”25 Today, such influential dispensationalists as Charles
Ryrie still faithfully proclaim: “T he Law was never given to Gentiles
and is expressly done away w ith for the C hristian.”26
Ironically, by repudiating the Biblical and historical church
m odel for revival and spiritual awakening, w hich has always come
in the wake o f the rediscovery or reproclam ation o f G o d ’s great
com m ands and causes m en to see the terrible disparity— the great
gap— betw een th e ir lives and G o d ’s standard, the revivalists
eschewed their m ost effective evangelistic strategy. In its place,
they prom oted a user-friendly G od and an easy believism w ith no
expectations or requirements, packaged in a numbers-driven, tightly
orchestrated , high-pressure atm osphere w hich culm inates in
Finney’s novel invention: the “altar call.’’T his tragic error doom ed
nineteenth- and twentieth-century crusade evangelism to produce

unprecedented numbers o f decisions for C hrist among untold
legions of people who never really converted to Biblical Christianity.
T h at is to say, that a decision hastily made as a result o f a highly
orchestrated, intensely emotional altar call does not necessarily
translate into true conversion— a changed life bearing the marks
o f Christian fruit.
Nevertheless, this polyglot package o f gnostic heresy was
eagerly received by D. L. M oody and relentlessly promulgated
through the new movement he was constructing (via numerous
Bible and “prophecy” conferences, as well w ith Charles Trum bull’s
vastly popular Sunday School Times) that would become known as
“fundamentalism.”
Fundamentalism
To fend off the theological liberals who, at the turn o f the
century, were successfully dividing their resources between denying
the basics o f historic orthodox Christianity and taking over political
control o f the major Protestant denom inations, the revivalist-
dispensationalists widely dissem inated a dozen brief volumes
covering the fundamentals o f the Faith, on which they correctly
asserted there could be no com prise. A few o f the leaders
understood that these fundamentals were a simple boil-down of
some pillars o f orthodoxy which would efficiently contrast the
liberals’ faith-denying positions. T he large mass o f poorly educated
converts and the equally untrained pastors that revivalism produced
quickly adopted these “fundamentals” as their alpha and omega,
the beginning and the end o f their belief system which came to be
characterized asfundamentalism. I f a particular topic wasn’t part o f
the fundamentals, it m ust be liberalism! I f it questions Scofield,
it’s heresy! This, incidentally, is one o f the reasons that conservative
evangelicals w ithdrew from social action: it wasn’t covered in the
fundamentals and liberals did it! As Andrew Sandlin has noted,
“T he fundamentalist strategy o f defending a handful o f arbitrarily
selected fundamentals instead o f the entirety o f Christian doctrine
was in itself a form o f reductionism and a serious concession to
liberalism ’s cam paign to invalidate the Biblical m andate for
discipling the nations.” T his early jettisoning o f historic doctrine
ushered in our current predicament. M uch o f fundamentalism’s

energy (and hence evangelicalism’s) is expended in defending the
infallibility o f the Bible, rather than w hat the Bible actually teaches
(which, o f course, was the purpose o f the church creeds so intensely
resisted by fundamentalism). T hus, we are left defenseless against
every m anner o f cult w hich affirms Biblical inerrancy and truth,
in te r p r e te d th e ir way. A s S a n d lin a s tu te ly o b se rv e s,
fundam entalism ’s im plicit assum ption th a t belief in the Bible
axiomatically leads to correct belief about what the Bible teaches is
the anvil upon w hich m odern evangelical orthodoxy and unity has
been shattered.
For example, evangelicals understood from their heritage o f
R eform ed orthodoxy th a t salvation is by faith alone (and not
conferred by the church, good works, or indulgences, as the Roman
C atholic C hu rch insisted). T h is is soteriology reduced to its
simplest equation. Unfortunately, w ithout being understood in a
b ro ad er co n tex t o f system atic theology, ch u rch creeds and
confessions, or the spiritual richness o f hundreds o f years o f godly
teaching, we all too often translate saving faith to mean a faith
th at is alone. I t is a “faith” th at issues from no real repentance and
consists o f nothing more than a m om entary m ental assent, a faith
th at has no zeal for righteousness or for obedience to G od. In
other words, it is a “faith” that, as G o d ’s H oly W ord in James warns
us, is dead; yet, convinced th at they stand on the Bible, many
evangelicals insist th at faith alone is the ticket. T hey assuringly
cite Ephesians 2:8, that “salvation is by faith alone” . . . and “just
take a look at verse 9, it explicitly states not by works!” A nd “. . .
heaven, w h a t’s th is verse 10 ab o u t our salvation b eing unto
perform ing good works? W here did that come from? I t ’s not in
the fundamentals! W e didn’t hear that in thirty-six hours o f non
stop revival meetings. It m ust be a mistake!” T h e moral o f the
story: reductionism redefines faith until it is meaningless— a “faith
alone” th at is nothing more than em pty words. Conversely, historic
orthodox C hristianity insists th at through faith alone we enter the
kingdom , but it is a faith th at m ust evidence a changed life and the
fruits o f love, mercy, compassion, and justice w hich our L ord has
com m anded o f all those w ho call H im F ath er (1 Jn. 2:3-5).
N evertheless, taking the fundam entalist position to its logical
conclusion, leading dispensational theologians (who else?) Zane

Hodges, Charles Ryrie, and Lewis Sperry Chafer doggedly assert
that mental assent is indeed all that is necessary unto salvation.
Even repentance is unnecessary, because it is a “work” as opposed
to grace!
T he fundamentalist stool balances on the legs o f neo-pietism,
revivalism, and dispensationalism . W e know th a t a prim ary
characteristic o f pietism is its reduction o f Christianity to a private,
“inner experience” as opposed to a corporate expression which
focuses outward. T his privatism accelerated fundam entalism ’s
w ithdraw al from an “unclean” culture by reinforcing a purely
in d iv id u a listic B ib lical exegesis th a t d e n ie d th e h isto ric
understanding o f the Bible as G od’s covenant with an entire people
(not just an individual) whom H e commanded to redeem His
w orld, w ith a tte n d a n t blessings for th e ir obedience to H is
commands and cursings for their disobedience (as painfully spelled
out in H oly Scripture).
Eventually pietism , com bined w ith Scofield’s doom -laden
dispensationalism, cemented fundamentalism’s separatist tendency:
w ithdraw from both a decaying church and a dying culture and
await the “now im m inent” rapture.
Following in the steps o f the ancient gnostics, fundamentalists
segregated themselves from the impure and waited for the end.
There was simply no valid reason to engage the culture, let alone
develop a worldview. As former fundamentalist Francis Schaeffer
observed, “[Fundamentalism] came to connote a form o f pietism
w hich shut C hristian interest up to only a very limited view o f
spirituality.”27 John Jefferson Davis adds that fundamentalists “felt
little obligation to exhibit Christianity as a comprehensive world
and life view.”28
T h is dispensationally-driven separatist dynam ic afflicted
fundam entalists w ith a severe case o f cognitive dissonance
(simultaneously holding two opposing goals or principles in mind).
Fundamentalist revivalists were caught in the dilemma o f trying to
evangelize a culture they had, in essence, withdrawn from, a culture
w hich they increasingly did n o t understand. A n even more
perplexing conundrum confronts those evangelical leaders today
who are torn between mobilizing millions o f dollars and bodies to
win the culture wars and building long-term educational institutions,

at the same time they are beholden to dispensationalism’s premise
o f inevitable defeat and an early “rapture.”
The Dawning of Modern Evangelicalism

T h e tensions and lim itations, the implicit reductionism and
contradictions o f fundam entalism propelled a num ber o f second
generation leaders like C arl Henry, H arold Ockenga, and Billy
G raham to break out o f the fundamentalist ghetto. Harold Ockenga
and some o f his colleagues were deeply concerned that their fellow
fundam entalists had abdicated leadership and responsibility in the
social realm. O ckenga w ent on to co-found the new N ational
Association o f Evangelicals; C arl H enry to provide the inspiration
for w hat is still evangelicalism’s one and only flagship publication,
Christianity Today; and Billy G raham to becom e the nation’s
p reem inen t spiritual spokesm an, “the A m erican P ope.” T h ey
referred to themselves as evangelicals, a term w hich first came into
com m on usage in the Reform ation o f the sixteenth century, and
was later adopted by eighteenth-century pietists. T he term connotes
distinctively different beliefs in each period, and as D onald Dayton
observes, “for this reason, the category ‘Evangelical’ remains an
essentially contested concept.”29
T h e vision o f the new leadership was to re-engage culture,
address vexing social problem s w ith Biblical answers, and to
evangelize the world. C oncentrating on crusade evangelism, they
would produce a mass o f converts w ith new hearts who would
build a new society; and civil governm ent would once again be
responsive to a C h ris tia n consensus am o n g th e governed.
U nfortunately, the evangelical game plan never stood a chance. By
failing to aggressively renounce and root out the dispensational
heresy, let alone reclaim th e R efo rm ers’ cu ltu ral m an d ate,
evangelical dreams for reform ing church and culture floundered
on the rocks o f dispensational cognitive dissonance, pietistic apathy,
revivalistic anti-intellectualism , fundam entalist reductionism, and
anabaptist anarchism.
T h e leaders o f the movement, even G raham himself, were soon
o v ersh a d o w e d by th e c h ild re n o f th e re v iv a list-h o lin e s s-
dispensatio n al-p ietist axis: m en like Jim m y Swaggert, Jim m y
Bakker, Paul Crouch, Benny H inn, and other lesser known regional
knock-offs. M odern evangelicals did, however, manage to catch
up on their predecessors’ legacy o f reductionism by executing a
“makeover” o f the stern aspects o f God. T he new evangelicals have
effectively “re-form ed” the holy Ruler o f the Nations into some
sort o f universal flower child, a G od exclusively committed to love.
W hile G od is, o f course, the fountainhead o f all true love, H e
is also holy righteousness, which is beyond our finite understanding,
and burns w hite-hot w ith w rath (as in the eternal fire waiting for
those souls destined to hell). This G od is not a no-questions-asked,
no-expectations, laid-back, anything goes God, as some o f today’s
evangelical gurus seem to assert. H is is the tough love o f history’s
most powerful King, the Creator o f time, reality, space, and the
physical universe. His is a covenantal love, a covenant o f blessings—
but also o f cursings. Yet many would make H im into a “love-bug
G od.” Have they read the O ld Testam ent (starting with the curses
in Deuteronomy)? O f course not. T he mantra o f many evangelicals
is, “W e’re talking about Jesus, and gentle Jesus isn’t like the G od o f
the O ld Testament!” T his seeming contradiction between G od’s
w rath and love was one o f the prim ary rationales for Gnosticism’s
making a distinction between the C hrist o f the New Testament
and the G od o f the Old: how else do we reconcile H is love with
H is w ra th ? T oday, th a n k s to J o h n N e lso n D a rb y ’s
dispensationalism, we can be a little more subtle in “resolving” this
seeming conflict: H e ’s the same G od all right. H e ’s just changed
H is modus operandi. Back then H e was tough and stern and a G od
o f law. T hen along came sweet baby Jesus and now we enjoy a G od
o f “grace.” There has been a flip-flop from truth to error.
The Charismatic Renewal

W hile many critics accuse charismatics o f expanding (versus
reducing) the gospel by means o f additional revelation, it may be
far more accurate to view the extreme o f this movement as reducing
the historic orthodox message to a zero baseline and starting all
over again from the beginning. W ith palpable disdain for “the
traditions o f men” w hen “fresh counsel” is currently available from
the H oly Spirit, each person is encouraged to read the Scriptures
anew w ithout a historical bias (ironically, unaware o f his own built-
in contextual biases) and to depend strictly on the H oly Spirit for

direction. I f help is required, w ith the advent o f high-profile “latter
day prophets” and “words o f knowledge” im parted by the H oly
Spirit to the average housewife or school boy, who needs to dust
off the works o f a bunch o f “dead Europeans” who didn’t even
speak in tongues? T h u s, d ep en d in g on th e background and
presuppositions o f various teachers, a myriad o f redefinitions o f
the gospel message are possible.
Today the charismatic scene is increasingly fluid. A growing
num ber o f charismatics, influenced by Reform ed thinkers, are
aggressively re o rie n tin g them selves to h isto rical P ro te sta n t
orthodoxy. A few fuse the D o m in io n M an d ate w ith a weird
“kingdom now” scenario, others develop a gospel centered on “signs
and w o n d e rs,” w hile frin g e elem en ts d rift in to fu ll-b lo w n
G nosticism (the so-called “faith” movement). T h e point is, w ith
no parameters on interpretation other than “hearing from the Holy
Spirit,” the Bible message can become largely whatever one thinks
it should be. T h e historic guidelines for orthodoxy are not only
reduced, they are obliterated.
Dethroning Christ and Deifying Satan

To the only God our Savior heglory, majesty,povoer and authority
through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now, andforevermore.
Jude 1:25
A ll authority in heaven and on earth has been given to m e... and

surely la m w ith you always, to the very end o f the age.
M atthew 28:18 and 20
W h e n we shrink the gospel and, hence, deny C h rist’s present

sovereignty, we also magnify Satan, ceding legitim ate power to his
defeated forces. Since th e dispensationalized w orldview has
controverted one o f historic C h ristian ity ’s cardinal doctrines,
m odern evangelicals need to be challenged anew to take up the
orthodox agenda o f recapturing territory from the usurper. By
denying the kingship o f C hrist over all creation and bestowing
H is crown on the usurper, pietistic evangelicalism, as R. C. Sproul
explains, has once again fallen victim to the dualistic trap o f denying
C hrist’s words that “all authority in heaven and earth have been
given to me” (M t. 28:18):
Most evangelical churches would emphatically deny dualism.

They understand that it fundamentally denies the very essence
of Christianity. Yet when we examine views of Satan in popular
religion, we see indicators of an implicit dualism. Every day I
hear Christians talk about Satan as if he had divine attributes.
He is described in terms of omniscience, omnipresence, and the
power to do actual, not merely counterfeit, miracles. He is given
attributes orthodox Christianity labels as the incommunicable
attributes of God. And he is assignedpower over nature that rivals
the Creators.30
O ne o f the greater tragedies afflicting those who have earnestly

sought to live a zealous life for C hrist is their inadvertent seduction
by the spirit o f antichrist, dispossessing Christ o f w hat is rightfully
H is, consigning H is power, glory, and title to Satan. Yet this is
exactly w hat has happened. Infected by pietism’s dualistic virus,
vast segments o f evangelicalism have ceded C hrist’s authority (and
therefore consign responsibility) for the world to Satan.
R. J. Rushdoony offers a trenchant analysis o f the horrific
ramifications o f this predom inant evangelical misstep:
Some have boldly stated that the world belongs to Satan, and
they are vehement in their hostility to any challenge against this
idea. They fa ll into a form of Satanism, ascribing to Satan this
world and all things therein. This is not Christianity: it is
Manichaenism. It is more than heresy: it is apostasy?x
By contrast, the hundreds o f evangelical leaders, scholars, and

pastors who participated in creating the Coalition on Revival’s
Manifesto fo r the Christian Church serve us well in calling us back
to the teachings o f the early church fathers:
Christ’s Lordship Extends to the Entire Universe. We affirm

that a full understanding of the Lordship of Christ is to realize
that, when Jesus stated, ‘All authority in heaven and earth has
been given to Me,’ He was declaring that whatever power Satan
held over the world was broken by His death on the cross and
His victorious resurrection. As Son of God and representative

man, Jesus regained authority over the earth which Adam, as
representative man, lost. This is the meaning of His being seated
at the right hand of God. W hen Jesus returns, He will gain no
greater authority over this earth and the forces of Satan than He
had from the moment He ascended to and sat upon His throne,
though He will exercise His authority in full power, then, in a
way He is not fully exercising it now.32
Summary
Ironically, by the Puritan standard, American evangelicalism
itselfcontributed to the destruction o f positive Christian influences in
America, a fa ct that evangelical spokespersons themselves so much
lament.
George Marsden, Mark N oll, and Nathan Hatch, eds.,
The Searchfo r Christian America
Each o f these movements has had a major im pact in reshaping

(reducing) orthodox C hristianity into a uniquely Am erican recipe
for R eductionist Pie: G et a large blender, start o ff w ith basic
Reform ed orthodoxy, add equal parts o f A m erican individualism,
Yankee ingenuity, dem ocratic egalitarianism , anti-creedalism ,
circuit-riding anti-intellectualism , revivalism, dispensationalism,
fundam entalism , and charismania. Blend thoroughly, pour into a
pan, turn the oven on high, w ithdraw w hen half-baked, and serve
a t ro o m te m p e r a tu r e (lu k e w a rm ). N o w o n d e r m o d e rn
evangelicalism appears schizophrenic! Even more unsettling is the
realization th at the base elem ent th at binds these various camps
(w ith the exception o f the P uritans) is the ultim ate heretical
revisionism: dispensationalism.
T h e g o o d new s is th a t, as a th e o lo g ic a l sy stem ,
dispensationalism is in a state o f total collapse. Its few remaining
scholarly p ro p o n en ts now atte m p t to reinvent them selves as
“progressive” dispensationalists w hich is to say, non-dispensational.
A n especially om inous p o rten t for dispensationalism ’s prim ary
bastio n , D allas T h eo lo g ical Sem inary, occurred w hen new ly
appointed president and best selling author, C h u ck Swindoll,
offhandedly dispensed w ith dispensationalism . In an O ctober,
1993, in te rv ie w in C hristianity Today, P re sid e n t S w in d o ll
unexpectedly declared, “dispensationalism is a scare word now, we’re

not going to make dispensationalism a big part of our marquee___”33
W hen asked, “Do you think the term (dispensational) will disappear?”
Swindoll’s startling response undoubtedly toppled whatever remained
o f dispensational confidence: “It may, and perhaps it should.”
T he bad news: due to dispensationalism’s achieving the status
o f a given presupposition for so many evangelicals, and having
become an integral part o f numerous denominations which are
not even officially dispensational, its influence will continue. It
will be even more difficult to root out since its impact will be
increasingly subtle. As President Swindoll surmised, “Mostpeople
are dispensationalists and don't even know it." Precisely.
W h a t about the vacuum left by dispensationalism s implosion?
Fortunately, a few have been rediscovering Classical Christianity—
Christianity as it existed before it was sacrificed on the altar of
expedient reductionism. Nevertheless, cloaked with the ostensibly
positive banner o f church grow th, the spirit o f neo-pietistic
revivalism continues to dominate our evangelical world. Recent
studies o f church members and pastors alike show that a pastor’s
theological foundation now ranks dead last in importance to them,
losing out to real priorities like “people skills.” W hile literally
hundreds o f similar proofs m ight be cited, I found a 1993 news
item from Christianity Today to be particularly representative of
the m odern evangelical Zeitgeist. “W h a t makes church in the
tw enty-first century unique is its emphasis on entrepreneurial
leadership and managem ent skills successful in large businesses.”
T he article goes on to report on the popularity o f conferences for
pastors that avoid “doctrine or theology” and concentrate on the
really important questions such as: “W h at does the customer value?”
Sound familiar?
Everything new and fresh! A whole new approach to the
gospel, isn’t that super? C ertainly the influence o f neo-Platonic
pietism (with its emphasis on subjectivism, its total disregard for
church history, creeds, and carefully form ulated doctrine, its
tendency tow ard dualism , and its m ysticism ) is fueling this
particular runaway train.
Sequentially reduced by distinctly A m erican m ovem ents
(o pposed to o rth o d o x y ) evangelicalism has fallen p rey to
syncretistically altering G o d ’s redemptive purposes for our world. It

has traded Scriptural objectivity for individual subjectivity, godly
action for narcissistic contemplation, engagement in the culture wars
for separation from the world, and a full-orbed redem ption for
retreatist “fire insurance,” soul-only salvation. Ironically, while ancient
Gnosticism failed in usurping orthodoxy and the very essence o f the
gospel message w ith its neo-Platonic dualism, neo-pietism and its
modern expression as evangelicalism seems to have succeeded.
Recom m ended Reading:

John Jefferson Davis, Foundations o f Evangelical Theology (G rand
Rapids, 1984).
Edw inn Scott G austadd, Dissent in the American Religion (Chicago,
1973).
O s G uinness, D ining With the D evil (G rand Rapids, 1993).
O s G uinness, F it Bodies, Fat M inds (G rand Rapids, M I, 1994).
O s G uinness and John Steel, eds., No God B u t God (M oody Press,
1992).
N athan H atch, The Democratization o f American Christianity (New
H aven, CT, 1989).
M ichael H orto n , M ade in America (G rand Rapids, M I, 1991).
M ichael H orto n , In the Face o f God (Dallas, T X , 1996).
R obert K. Jo h n sto n and D o n ald W . D ayton, eds., Variety o f
American Evangelicalism (Downers Grove, IL , 1991).
Richard Knox, Enthusiasm (W estm inster, M D , 1983).
Richard Lovelace, Dynamics o f Spiritual Life (Downers Grove, IL,
1979).
G eorge M arsden, M ark Noll, and N athan H atch, eds., The Search
fo r Christian America (W estchester, IL, 1983).
Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom o f God in America (New York, 1959).
M ark Noll, ed., Religion and American Politics (New York, 1990).
M ark Noll, The Scandal ofthe Evangelical M in d (Colorado Springs,
C O , 1989).
J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnson, M artin Luther: Bondage o f the Will
(L ondon, 1957).
G arth Rosell, The Evangelical Landscape (G rand Rapids, M I, 1996).
Francis Schaeffer, The Church at the E nd o f the 20th Century (London,

1970).
Francis Schaeffer, A Christian View o f Spirituality (Westchester,
IL, 1970).
H erbert Schneider, The Puritan M in d (Ann Arbor, M I, 1958).
John Seel, The Evangelical Forfeit (G rand Rapids, M I, 1993).
David Wells, No Placefor Truth, or Whatever Happened to Evangelical
Theology? (G rand Rapids, 1993).
1 Mark Noll, George Marsden, and Nathan Hatch, The Search For
Christian America (Westchester, IL, 1983), 118.
2 Ann Douglass, The Feminization of the American Culture (New York,
1978), 165.
3 Nathan Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity, (New
Haven, CT, 1989), 162.
4 ibid, 9-10.
5 Nathan Hatch and George Marsden, eds., Evangelicalism and Modern
America (Grand Rapids, MI, 1984 ), 74.
6 Os Guiness, Fit Bodies, Fat Minds (Grand Rapids, MI, 1994 ), 44.
7 Hatch, Democratization, 6.
8 ibid., 170.
9 ibid., 171.
10ibid, 35.
11ibid, 197.
u ibid., 199.
13George Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism (Grand Rapids, MI,
1991), 35.
14ibid,
15Richard Lovelace, Dynamics of Spiritual Life (Downers Grove, IL,
1979), 50.
16Richard Hofstadter, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (New York,
1963), 108.
17Mark Noll, The Scandal ofthe Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids, 1994),
128.
18Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II (New York, nd.),
520.
19F. F. Bruce, Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL, 1988), 144.
20Richard Tarnas, The Passion of the Western Mind (New York, 1991),
141.
21George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture (New York,

1980), 86.
22ibid.
23ibid., 87.
24ibid.
2Sibid., 87-88.
26Charles Ryrie, Balancing the Christian Life (Chicago, 1969), 88.
27Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster (Westchester, IL,
1984), 96.
28John Jefferson Davis, Foundations for Evangelical Theology (Grand
Rapids, M I, 1984), 33.
29Donald Dayton and Robert K. Johnston, eds., Variety of American
Evangelicalism (Knoxville, TN, 1991), 245.
30R. C. Sproul, Table Talk,]\Ay 1993, 7.
31R. J. Rushdoony, God's Plan For Victory (Vallecito, CA, 1997), 11.
32Jay Grimstead et. al., Manifestofor the Christian Church, 12.
33This admission is possibly tantamount to Paul declaring, “Jesus is getting
a bit controversial, we’re going to change our emphasis for marketing
purposes.”
149
The Fires of Man and the Fires

o f Hell:
How Should the Church Deal
w ith Heresy?
by Brian M. Abshire
Heresy is an ugly word. But if the word is ugly, the deed is
uglier. Heresy is not simply ignorance, confusion, or even bad
doctrine. Heresy is a systematic attack against the character, nature,
attributes, and works o f G od as revealed in Scripture. Heresy is
doctrinal error so serious that by accepting, believing, and teaching
it, a man is kept from salvation.1 L et there be no mistake about
this: heresy kills souls. T h e early ecumenical councils were united
in affirming that certain beliefs, no m atter how “sincere” those
w ho held them m ight be, were so dangerous that a man who
believed them could not be saved.
Such a position is difficult for many to accept in the modern
w orld o f deconstruction, w here m eaning lies only w ithin the
individual. O ur culture as whole (and significant sections o f the
church) no longer believes that there is such a thing as absolute
truth. T he very concept that some ideas are right and other ideas
are wrong is unthinkable. As a consequence, all sorts o f nonsense
is embraced and promulgated in our churches. Few Christians seem
to understand that “ideas have consequences”; i.e., that w hat we
believe really does affect who we are and w hat we do.
Furtherm ore, in this age o f fractured C hristianity, w hen
believers disagree over the interpretation o f many passages o f
Scripture, calling some doctrines “heresy” can seem needlessly
narrow-m inded and provincial. But our G od is the True G od and
H is W ord is truth (Jn. 17:17). T here is objective content to the
Christian Faith. G ranted, many (most?) o f us may fall short o f
understanding all the implications and permutations o f that Faith;
but there is still objective truth, and there is that which is contrary
to that truth. Some o f those truths are so fundamental, so basic, so
necessary, that if a man gets them wrong he will have to “live”
w ith the implications o f his error for eternity.
G ranted, there is a difference between heresy and simply having

p o o r d o c trin e . M a n y C h ris tia n s have less th a n a p e rfe c t
understanding for the Faith due to bad training, poor preaching,
lack o f being catechized, or other reasons. Some Christians are
not as sm art as others, not as articulate, nor as well-read. Some
Christians are intellectually lazy and not willing to do the hard
w ork necessary o f improving their baptisms. As a result, some
Christians have bad doctrine because, quite simply, they do not
know any better. For example, many believers have erroneous
concepts o f the Trinity. T hey will “explain” the Trinity as being
like an egg; i.e., consisting o f yolk, white, and shell (or use water as
an example, w hich exists as a solid, a gas, and a liquid). H ow do
you gently tell such people that they have fallen into an ancient
heresy (m odalism ) condem ned by the entire historic church?
(W orse yet, how do you tell a pastor that he’s teaching heresy when
he uses these examples?) Yet, though it requires tact, sensitivity,
and a little tim e and patience, the elect will reject sub-Biblical
views w hen they are properly instructed.
“Baby” Christians are also famous (or infamous?) for coming
up w ith “heresies” w hen they first try to study the Bible on their
own. T h ey lack the tools, wisdom, insight, and background to
interpret many texts o f Scripture properly. Furtherm ore, they bring
into the C hristian life intellectual and philosophical baggage from
their secular education, background, and even (Lord help us!) the
latest science fiction movie. B ut they are babies, and they are to be
treated as such. Since they do not know any better, we instruct
them , encourage them , correct them , and disciple them. Eventually,
th e y w ill com e a ro u n d as th e y arriv e a t a rich e r, d ee p er
understanding o f the Faith {Rom. 12:1-1).
The Intransigence of Heretics

Hence, though many Christians may for a time hold to heretical
views, we would not necessarily call them all heretics. For a heretic
does more than hold w rong views. H e is not someone confused by
his theological education (or lack thereof). H e is not just someone
trying to w ork through the implications o f the Faith (and not always
gettin g all his jo ts and tittles in order). A heretic can n o t be
persuaded to abandon his errors. H e insists on teaching these errors
THE FIRES OF MAN AND THE FIRES OF HELL 151
to others. Reason, logic, and proper methods of interpretation mean

nothing to him, for his m ind is made up and he will not be taught
otherwise (cf. Tit. 3:9-11).
Thus it might be said that the fundamental difference between
a heretic and simply someone w ith bad doctrine is the issue of
teachabilty. Heretics cling to their error with stubborn obstinacy
(cf. Jude 4f£.). Because their views are contrary to the Faith and
they will not recant them, they are in rebellion to G od and His
revelation o f H im self in Scripture. W hile we cannot judge the
heart, we can judge a man’s profession; and if he professes, and
continues to profess heresy, despite rebuke, reproof, and correction,
we must treat him as if he were unregenerate. Since heretics profess
like a pagan, we m ust assume they are pagan (unless they repent).
W e cannot assume they understand spiritual realities, because
unregenerate men lack the spiritual capacity to do so (1 Cor. 2:14ff.).
Therefore, we do not try to reason them out o f their error. W e
instead treat them just like any other pagan, as those who need to
be converted.
A heretic is someone who refuses to submit to sound teaching
and is, therefore, outside the Faith and should be considered lost.
Heretics may be intelligent, articulate, and charismatic individuals
who have some understanding o f the Faith (even Satan has some
understanding o f Christianity). T hey may be “faithful” churchmen
w ith a long history o f service to the church. T hey may even be
pastors and members o f the denomination’s ecclesiastical hierarchy
w ith im pressive academ ic credentials from fully accredited
seminaries and theological colleges. But at rock bottom , because
they will not recant their error, they are in rebellion against God.
Thus, they should be treated as w hat they are— rebels— and dealt
w ith accordingly.
Excommunication: It's the Loving Thing to Do

Heretics by their own profession place themselves outside the
church; the only proper response is to put them outside the church
(cf. Tit. 3:9-11, 1 Tim. 1:20, etc.). T h e technical term for this is
excommunication and refers to the fact that, since by their stubborn
adherence to w rong doctrine they dem onstrate they have no
communion w ith Christ, we ought not allow them to have any
com m union w ith H is visible church. Jesus said that unrepentant

people should be treated as G entiles and tax-gatherers (M t.
18:15ff.), and the Apostle Paul clearly understood this to refer to
doctrinal as well as physical sins. H e excommunicated Hymenaeus
and Alexander ( 1 Tim. 1:20) for teaching that the resurrection had
already taken place (2 Tim. 2:17-18). H e warned T itus to reject a
factious man after a first and second w arning ( Tit. 3:10). John
rebuked D iotrephes (3 Jn. 10). Heretics m ust not be debated, but
refuted, ju st as we w ould refute a hum anist, a M orm on, or a
theological liberal. O ur goal is not to engage in some sort o f neutral
discussion, assuming that the truth will dialectically arise from the
synthesis o f differing positions. W e are not brothers having a family
squabble where good sense, submission to the law, and seeking the
other s best interest will solve the problem. Instead, since the heretic
is outside the Faith, our task is to evangelize him by speaking the
tru th in love {Eph. 4:15), while encouraging the faithful by firmly
standing for the truth.
The Discipline of the Heretics

H eretics must be rem oved from the church for two very
im portant reasons. First, their profession denies key doctrines
essential to their salvation. T hus, we have a duty to warn them
th at their souls are in danger. Excomm unication dem onstrates the
eternal im plications o f their heresies. W e p u t them outside the
church so that they will realize the seriousness o f their error. By
believing w hat they do, they cannot be saved. W e m ust not allow
them a false sense o f security by allowing them to stay w ithin the
church. T h eir heresy is dam ning, and they m ust repent.
In line w ith this, while some m ight disagree, a case can be
made that, though the church has no earthly physical power (i.e.,
the power o f the sword belongs to the state, not the church), she
does possess true spiritual power in both in tim e and eternity (cf.
M t. 16:19) th a t includes physical im plications. Paul said th at
excom m unication led to the destruction o f the flesh (cf. 1 Cor.
5:5). People were sick and died in C orinth for blaspheming the
L o rd ’s Supper (cf. 1 Cor. 11:29-30). T h e im precatory Psalms are
replete w ith prayers and expectations th at G od would judge the
wicked in time.
Therefore, it is not unreasonable to conclude that when the

church pronounces ju d g m e n t against heresy (provided th a t
judgm ent is accurate and according to G od’s law), we ought to
expect physical consequences. T h ese physical consequences
(sickness, death, loss o f prosperity, etc.) are all down payments on
the eternal judgm ent the heretics will face if they do not repent.
Such sanctions are good). A child who blisters his finger against a
hot stove will soon learn to avoid such actions in the future, possibly
saving him from severe burns, or even death. In the same way, the
loss o f fellowship, the indignity o f being put out of the congregation
o f G od’s assembly, and the curse o f G od on the heretic’s time,
labor, family etc., all can serve as a vital warning to a heretic against
H ell and damnation.
The Purity of the Church

T he second reason why excommunication is necessary is for
the health o f the church itself. Heretics disturb the peace and purity
o f the church (2 Tim. 4:1-4). T hey confuse the weak, twist and
distort the truth, and create factions and divisions (when we already
have enough o f that nonsense anyway). T hey deceive others and,
in consequence, would be better off never having been born (M t.
18:6)\ Therefore we exclude them from the congregation o f the
Lord so that they m ight not spread their poisons among the body
(i.e., 2 Tim. 2:17). In earlier times, before the advent o f antibiotics,
often the only solution for a gangrenous limb was amputation.
Better to go through life crippled than to be killed by an infection
{Mt. 5:29). In the same way, even if it means personal distress to a
local church by excommunicating heretics (ecclesiastical trials are
painful), the L ord’s congregation is always better off cutting off
diseased members. Sadly, that is exactly w hat a heretic is, a diseased
member.
Since excommunication is such a radical step, it should not be
the fir st response to error, but rather the last resort. Galatians 6:1
is clear—w hen someone w ithin the church errs, we first go to him
and try to restore him. W e warn him o f the dangers o f his error.
W e plead w ith him to abandon his false and aberrant views. W e
do so gently and humbly knowing that we, too, fall short o f the
glory o f G od and live only by H is grace (cf. 2 Tim. 2:19f£.). But if
that person will not repent o f his error, if he insists on believing it,
advocating it, and disturbing others w ith it, then there is no other
choice.
Following M atthew 18:15, we take two or more witnesses so
th at every fact will be confirmed. O ne hopes those two witnesses
will bring social pressure to bear that will cause the person to recant
his error. B ut if he will not repent, he m ust be removed from the
church. W e treat him as a “gentile and a taxcollector” (i.e., as
someone outside the church, cf. M t. 18:17). W e do not fellowship
w ith him , we do not call him “brother,” we do not eat w ith him
(especially the L o rd ’s Supper). H e is outside the Faith and must
not be allowed to infect others w ith his errors.
What Constitutes a Damnable Heresy?

W h a t errors are so pernicious th at they can be classified as
“heresy”? T h is is m ore problem atic. Evangelical churches have
largely abandoned confessional orthodoxy and, therefore, have
no objective standard by w hich to judge error. T here is fertile
room for heresy to breed because m ost m odern C hristians often
cannot recognize error w hen it appears, let alone resist or refute
it. T hose o f us w ho affirm one o f the systematic confessions o f
th e R eform atio n have a m uch m ore com prehensive Biblical
worldview, b u t do we really w ant to say th at one is a heretic just
because he disagrees w ith the W estm inster Standards at some
point? Surely we can make a distinction betw een major doctrines
and lesser ones!
T h e sine qua non doctrine o f the N ew T estam ent is found in
Romans 10:9-10. “That i f thou shalt confess w ith thy mouth the Lord
Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised H im from
the dead, thou shalt be saved.”2 H ence, in order to be saved, a person
m ust confess Jesus as Lord and believe in his heart that G od raised
H im from the dead. I f one does not m eet these two criteria, then,
according the A postle Paul, he cannot be saved. As m entioned
earlier, we cannot read the heart, so we do n o t and cannot know
w hat is at the core o f another man’s being. B ut we can judge the
content o f his confession.
To be saved, a m an m ust confess “Jesus as L ord.”3 I t was this
profession th a t p u t the C hristian church in opposition to the
Roman Empire. There can be only one Lord. W hen Christians

confessed Jesus to be that Lord, they were making a statement
about the nature o f ultimate reality, o f the true Sovereign over
heaven and earth. T he Romans understood this confession to be a
denial o f Roman sovereignty and, therefore, arrested, imprisoned,
and sent Christians to horrible deaths in the arena for making that
confession. It is primarily recognizing C hrist’s divinity, for there is
only one Lord, and that is God. Christians could not say, as Roman
law required, Caesar et kyrious (i.e., “Caesar is lord”), because to do
so would be treason to God. T he Roman Senate made Caesar a
god, but Jesus was eternally God. There can be no higher “Lord”
than the Lord Jesus. Early Christians recognized this, as did the
R om ans. E arly C h ristian s w ere w illing to die ra th e r th an
compromise C hrist’s divinity. Therefore, any attack against the
divinity o f the Lord Jesus is heresy.
Furthermore, believing that Jesus is merely an exalted man or
th a t H e is some sort o f “dem igod” as in G reek and Rom an
mythology, undercuts H is unique status as the “only begotten” Son
o f God. True, understanding the hypostatic union o f C hrist or the
full-blown doctrine o f the Trinity is difficult for many. But Romans
10 does not require a full and complete understanding o f the truth,
simply confessing the truth.
Notice also that we confess Jesus as Lord. Jesus was the G od-
M an, fully hum an and fully divine, w ithout any mixture o f the
two. Thus, anyone who denies or teaches against crucial aspects o f
the Incarnation also falls into heresy. D enying the virgin birth, or
misunderstanding it, results in confusing C hrist’s hum anity and
H is divinity. Additionally, if Jesus were not fully G od and fully
man in the same Person, H e could not have made atonement for
sins by H is death on the cross.
Moreover, any doctrine that is contrary to salvation by faith is
a heresy. Romans 10:10 requires believing that G od raised Jesus
from the dead. (Again, while we do not know w hat is in man’s
heart, if he says that he does not believe in the physical resurrection,
we m ust accept his statem ent at face value). W h en G od raised
Jesus from the dead, H e dem onstrated that Jesus’ sacrifice on our
b e h a lf was accepted and sufficient. T h erefo re, to deny the
resurrection o f Christ, is to deny that G od was satisfied w ith His
sacrifice. T hus if the resurrection is denied, there is no basis for

salvation.
O n the other hand, belief in the resurrection is an inherent
trust and dependence that C hrist’s atoning w ork perfectly satisfied
divine w rath. H ence, our salvation is completely dependent on
C h rist’s vicarious atonem ent. M en cannot save themselves. Only
C hrist through H is active obedience perfectly fulfilled all the
demands o f the law on our behalf. Only Christ, through H is passive
obedience, perfectly fulfilled all the demands o f the w rath o f the
law on our behalf. Salvation requires trusting in Christ— and Christ
alone— for our salvation, because H e perfectly fulfilled all o f G o d ’s
requirem ents as dem onstrated by the resurrection. H e did all the
work, we receive all the benefits.
Consequently, any doctrine th at exalts the role o f m an in
salvation and u n d ercu ts th e w o rk o f C h ris t, th a t looks to
something— anything— other than the completed and perfect work
o f C hrist, is dam nable because it leads men to a false basis for
their salvation. It can even be argued th at epistemologically self-
conscious arminians are heretics, for they believe and teach that
man chooses G od. G od does not really save anyone; H e only makes
salvation available. It is the will o f m an th at determines salvation,
not the sovereign act o f G od.
O ften, w hen you ask evangelicals, “W h y should G od allow
you into heaven?” their answer is, “Because I accepted Jesus into
my heart.” Notice w hat they base their salvation on? I t is not the
com pleted w ork o f C hrist, b u t rather som ething they themselves
did. C hrist only made salvation possible, but they made it effectual!
(However, not all who hold to some form o f arminianism do so
self-consciously. M any are just confused and ill-educated in the
Faith and can be w on to the tru th w ith patience and gentleness.
“For such were some o f u s .. . . ”)
Finally, any doctrine th at attacks, underm ines, or destroys the
authority o f G o d ’s W ord could be considered a heresy. T h e W ord
its e lf is th e m eans by w h ich w e receive know ledge o f th e
requirem ents o f salvation {Rom. 10:14). M en w ho attack the
Scriptures implicitly attack the character and nature o f G od. T hey
blaspheme G od by calling H is true W ord false, hence making H im
a liar. A nd granted, there are m en w ho hold low views o f Scripture
(often due to their theological training) but who, in fact, may be

am ong the elect. G ra n ted , such m en are often theological
schizophrenics by affirming both the D eity o f C hrist and salvation
by faith while denying Biblical infallibility. But if so, they are saved
despite their error (and again, we can judge only their confession).
Yet even so, such men should n o tb t allowed into the visible church,
or given platform s to spread their errors in our colleges and
seminaries. I f Christian churches would simply excommunicate
all those w ith a low view o f Scripture, the elect would recant, the
wolves would be excluded, and the church would be returned to
some semblance o f power in the world today.
The Subtlety of Heretics

Heretics are crafty. Even Satan can appear as an angel o f light
and a good case can be made that the primary work o f demons in
this age is to deceive rather than to possess. Hence, heretics always
plead Biblical authority to justify their error. T hey simply redefine
key terms and concepts to fit their own perversions. T he Jehovah’s
W itnesses exalt Christ, but say that H e is simply the first being
created by God. T h e M orm ons re-define G od into simply the god
o f this w orld (and good little M orm ons get to become gods
themselves and populate their own worlds). Liberal “Christians”
assault the deity o f Christ, H is vicarious atonement, the authority
o f the Scriptures, etc., all under the guise o f academic “tolerance”
and making the Faith “acceptable” to modern men. T h e H yper-
preterists claim to believe in the Second Com ing and resurrection,
but then re-interpret the Scriptures to say that the Second Com ing
occured in A . D . 70 and th a t C h ristian s have already been
resurrected.
O f the errors m entioned above, H yper-preterism is perhaps
the m ost dangerous since it has influenced certain form ally
orthodox Reformed churches. However, it constitutes a serious
and damnable heresy just because it makes the doctrines o f the
resurrection and Second Com ing meaningless. T hough H yper-
preterists (some call them “H ym aneans” or “Pantellians”) use
Biblical language and plead for the divine authority o f Scripture
over the “m an-m ade” authority o f the creeds, in reality they
completely change the historic Christian Faith. They deny that
C h rist’s resurrection is identical to our future resurrection (1 Cor.

15:35ff.), thus implicitly advocating some form o f neo-Platonic
dualism, where spirit is superior to matter. T hey undercut and
destroy the significance o f the Incarnation.
N ow again, it is very likely that a num ber o f men currently
em bracing the H y p er-p reterist heresy are in fact C hristians;
confused Christians, misguided Christians, deceived Christians,
but Christians nonetheless. But the content o f their doctrine is not
C hristian and, therefore, if they insist on holding, advocating, and
encouraging others to adopt this non-C hristian belief, they must
be treated as if they are outside the Faith for they certainly are.
Conclusions
T h e best and m ost charitable thing one can do for a heretic is
remove him from the visible church. W e are not being self-righteous
or narrow-m inded in saying this. Rather, for the glory o f G od and
the purity o f H is gospel, for the sake o f the weak and immature,
and for th e b en efit o f th e souls o f th e heretics them selves,
excommunication is necessary. G od demands it, and we m ust do it.
Excomm unication just m ight be the means G od will use to bring
the heretic to repentance. I f it must be done, “tis best done quickly.”
It is no good trying to “get along” w ith heretics. T hey are not
open to reason, correction, or studied debate. T hey often w ant
Christians to debate them just so they can have a wider platform
from which to disseminate their error. Remember: heretics do not
have a theological or intellectual problem w ith Christianity; they
have a heart problem; they are spiritually deaf, dumb, blind, and
foolish. You do not debate a dead man for he cannot hear you. H e
m ust first be given spiritual life, before he can respond to your
arguments. Therefore, we do not waste time or effort in debating
heretics: we excommunicate them from the assembly of G od’s people.
W e strengthen the saints by teaching the truth, and we press on
towards the upward goal o f G od in C hrist by evangelizing them
and discipling them into a comprehensive Christian worldview.
H eretics are by nature arrogant, falling into A dam ’s sin o f
w anting to be as G od, determ ining good and evil for themselves.
W h e n confronted, they will not submit to the church, or the creeds,
or the entreaties o f the faithful. Instead, they will insist th at they—
and only they— have the truth and that they— and only they—
can properly understand and interpret Scripture. Forget the early
church fathers, forget the creeds and councils, forget the great
Reformers. No, only they really understand the Scriptures; and like
the ancient gnostics, they will initiate you into their secret mysteries
if you let them. I f you do, you put your soul at risk.
Even though, at first, the heretic s position may appear to be
just “one litde issue,” ideas have implications. Over time, as those
men become consistent in their rebellion to God, that one little
error will grow and spread. Leaven works both ways. We must remove
it before it infects the entire church. Every modern cult began as a
“little” error, denying one o f the cardinal doctrines of the historic
Faith. W icked men pleaded “tolerance” for their aberrant views. They
appealed to the Scriptures. They wanted just “equal” time for the
“new” ideas. But eventually, because they were in rebellion to God,
the churches, theologies, and institutions that allowed these mens
errors to flourish became theologically bankrupt and apostate.
T he best way to tell if a stick is crooked is by laying a straight
one beside it. T h e best way to defend against heresy is to know the
truth. T he great creeds and confessions represent the work o f some
o f the m ost brilliant and articulate minds o f Christian history. It is
sheer arrogance to believe that only in this generation have we
finally discovered something new and radical in Scripture. W e
ought not to have to figure out that arianism is a heresy. O ur fathers
already did that at Nice. W e ought not to have to be confused as to
the nature o f Christ; our fathers already resolved that issue at
Chalcedon. W e ought not to have to re-examine the nature o f the
Second Com ing or the Resurrection. Every Christian church in
history already has dealt w ith that.
L et us hold fast to the confession o f Faith handed down to us.
L et us resist error by loving the truth. L et us not give heretics
opportunity in our churches or seminaries to spread their poisons.
L et us love them enough to excommunicate them , then evangelize
them , for the glory o f G od and the sake o f their souls.
1 The usage of the term “heresy” from the Greek haireisis originally meant
simply “a school of philosophy.” In Judaism it came to mean a “choice”
and had the neutral sense of a party or sect with a distinctive emphasis
or concern. Even in the first century, the word still meant “school” or
“party,” but usually with negative connotations {e.g., Ac. 5:17, 15:5,
24:5, etc.). However, within the church, “heresy” developed a pejorative
nuance (cf. Gal. 5:20). Christian usage appears to refer to factions or
dissensions within the universal church (1 Cor. 11:19) that by definition
ought not to exist. By the time of 2 Peter 2:1,“heresies” are more than
simple deviations; they are divergent teachings introduced by false
teachers. Titus 3:9-11 gives also the idea that the “heretic” will not
accept correction, is factious and, therefore, is to be shunned by the
Christian community. By the time of the patristic fathers, while the
older meaning of “party” or “sect” is still used, it also attains the more
technical meaning we use today. Heresy now represents a three-fold
dynamic: (1) it is a personal choice, (2) it diverges from the orthodox
teaching of the church, and (3) it breaks fellowship with the body of
Christ. Hence our definition here of heresy as significant error that
places a man outside the orthodox Christian church, and therefore
prevents his salvation is well within the historic use of the term.
2 The phrase “confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus” is better translated
into contemporary English as either “Jesus is Lord” or even “Jesus as
Lord.”
3 Cf. 1 Jn. 2:22-23, 4:1-6,15, 5:1, 5.
■>
161
Appendix
Sola Scriptura and Christian
O rthodoxy
by Andrew Sandlin
It is a mistake often made by the sincere but naive to assume
that affirmation o f formal Biblical authority (presupposing the
Bible’s inspiration and infallibility) guarantees right belief. To this
way o f thinking, right belief about the Bible equals right Biblical
belief. Few theological assumptions could be more mistaken.
N onetheless, this was the very cry o f the so-called Radical
R e fo rm e rs, an d e v e n tu a lly th e U n ita ria n s an d o th e r
antitrinitarians,1 who wanted to pass their heresy off as valid on
the grounds o f the Reformers’ clarion call o f Sola Scriptura. It was
far from the Protestant Reformers’ minds, however, to overturn
ancient catholic orthodoxy enshrined in the ecumenical creeds.2
They were convinced that medieval accretions to catholic orthodoxy
polluted a vibrant Biblical Faith. To them, “Scripture alone” meant
“N o hum an authority— including the church— competes w ith
Sacred Scripture.” It did not mean, “L et’s summarily overthrow
historic Christianity w ith a sixteenth-century recovery o f primal
Christianity in terms o f an unconditioned reading o f the Bible.”
They were convinced— and they were right— that the Bible requires,
by explication or implication, historicy orthodox Christianity.
Orthodoxy and Historic Christianity

W h ile th e e rro r o f m u ch o f p o s t-T rid e n tin e R om an
Catholicism3is to subordinate the Scripture to the Roman sector
o f the church, the error o f many modern Protestants is nonchalandy
to cast aside historic Christianity in favor o f heretical innovations.
O f course, Roman Catholics often anathematize Protestants on
the grounds that the latter deny the true Faith by denying the
church, just as Protestants often anathematize Roman Catholics
on the grounds that the latter deny the true Faith by denying the
Bible. T he fact is, while there are clear differences between the
two sectors o f the church w hich it would be a mistake to paper
over, historic Protestants and historic Roman Catholics have one

thing in common that modernistic Roman Catholics or modernistic
Protestants do not— catholic orthodoxy. Historic Protestants share
w ith historic R om an C atholics w hat they cannot share w ith
modernistic Protestants; and historic Roman Catholics share with
historic Protestants what they cannot share with modernistic Roman
Catholics— catholic orthodoxy. Beyond catholic orthodoxy— for
instance, on the precise nature o f sin, salvation, and the church—
they often vigorously disagree. But such vigorous disagreement
between historic Protestants and historic Roman Catholics is far
preferable to the vigorous disagreement o f each w ith modernists
and cultists who deny such orthodox tenets as original sin; the Trinity;
the dual natures o f Christ; H is virgin birth, vicarious atonement,
bodily resurrection, and bodily Second A dvent; the physical
resurrection at the end o f hum an history; and so forth.4
Liberalism and Heterodoxy

C ontem porary mainline Protestantism is almost wholly given
over to just this m odernism or liberalism.5 As Gresham M achen
d e m o n stra te d in 1 9 2 3 ,6 liberalism is n o t an extension o f or
im provem ent on— or even a deform ation o f—historic Biblical
Christianity; rather, it is another religion altogether. I t assaults the
F aith at its very h e a rt— its su p ern atu ral claim s— and treats
C hristianity as a wax nose it can reshape at w him to conform to
the m odern temper. I f influenced by process philosophy, liberals
disavow the “static, G reek” conception o f G od assertedly expressed
in the early C hristian creeds, opting rather for a “dynamic” view o f
G od, th at is, O ne W h o exists w ithin and changes along w ith the
w orld and hum an history. I f influenced by historicists, liberals deny
any transcultural doctrinal orthodoxy, holding that all dogmatic
and theological form ulation (conspicuously excepting its own) is
historically and culturally relative: to these liberals, doctrinal truth
cannot exist in history. I f liberals are radical feminists, the creeds
represent a false patriarchal (maybe misogynic) G od W h o m the
m odern “enlightened” w orld simply cannot abide. I f advocates o f
U nitarianism , liberals je ttiso n the m iraculous elem ent o f the
F aith— w hich is to say, they deny the Faith. Liberalism (like
cultism) is the antithesis o f C hristian orthodoxy.
SOM SCRIPTURA AND CHRISTIAN ORTHODOXY 163
The Inescapability of Orthodoxy

Orthodoxy is a “given,” an inescapable axiom, a “that w ithout
w hich it is n o t possible.” As G erhard E beling (not him self
orthodox), notes:
[T]he conviction of the preacher which causes him to take the

biblical text in hand, that is, that God s word is present and
perceptible there, is also transmitted to him historically,
specifically through the Christian church in whose tradition he
stands. To this tradition he owes not only the transmission of
the text as such but also the transmission of the claim of the
Bible to unique authority. No matter how much the preacher
may have made the acknowledgment of this claim his own, the
very fact that this is so and that he steps forth as a preacher
betrays his attachment to the tradition of church history. He is
baptized in the context of Christian baptism, instructed in the
context of Christian instruction, and called to his office in the
context of the tradition of church vocation.7
Christians o f any vocation, not just ministers, do not appear

in a historical vacuum, but are enveloped in a Christian context.
Even liberal and other heterodox churches retain Christian symbols
and language (albeit disingenuously and hypocritically) because
they cannot escape the effects o f orthodoxy, no m atter how hard
they may try. For this reason, heretics must presume orthodoxy in
order to deny it, just as atheists must presume G od in order to
deny H im .
Resistance to the Pressure of Passing Fads

T he m odern temper, however, deeply resents the constraints
w hich orthodoxy poses to hum an imagination. Trinitarian and
Christological orthodoxy ham mered out in the patristic era was
necessary in part because men who professed to believe the Bible
could not make certain Biblical statements about G od and C hrist
conform to hum an reason. In the main, orthodoxy tries to preserve
in summary form the Biblical evidence about the nature o f God
w ithout reconciling it to hum an reason. T hus in the Chalcedonian
Creed we learn that Jesus is G od o f very G od and M an o f very
man, even though this is repugnant to hum an reason— but the
Bible, n o t hum an reason, is the final authority. Orthodoxy is

Christianity's built-in prevention to autonomous mans attempts to
reshape the meaning o f the Bible under the pressures o f modern life.
T h a t is, orthodoxy is a mechanism o f theological, ecclesiastical,
and practical continuity. Dismissal or aversion to the creeds o f the
church erodes this continuity and thus the Faith itself.
The Historic Christian Creeds and Orthodoxy

O ddly, th is is an erro r b o th liberals an d all to o m any
conservatives com mit. M odern liberalisms mad rush to preserve
the “relevance” o f Scripture and conform it to modernity finds the
C h ristian creeds constricting. B u t no less do m any m odern
c o n se rv a tiv e s. A n in h e r ite d o rth o d o x y re q u irin g som e
sophistication to grasp and preventing a theologically democratic
free-for-all frankly bores many conservatives, who erroneously think
Sola Scriptura means the right o f every man to decide w hat he
w ants the Bible to mean (the infamous hom e Bible study refrain:
“D earie, in th at verse w hat is G od saying to you}"). H atch states o f
the heritage o f this way o f thinking in our own country:
The first Americans to underscore the right of private judgment

in handling the Scriptures were, oddly enough, ministers who
opposed the evangelical tenets of the First Great Awakening....
[T] theological liberals became increasingly restive with strict
creedal definitions of Christianity.... Well into the nineteenth
century, rational Christians, many of whom swelled the ranks of
denominations such as the Unitarians and the Universalists,
argued against evangelical orthodoxy by appealing to the Bible....
Charles Beecher defended his rejection of his father Lymans
orthodoxy by renouncing “creed-power” and raising the banner
of “the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible.”8
T h is certainly m ust sound strange to the ears o f m odern

evangelicals and fundamentalists. T hey are accustomed to hearing
that the creeds are “Catholic” (and therefore bad), and that believing
the Bible alone assures right belief apart from recourse to the
C hristian Faith. O f course, it is never the Bible alone they believe,
despite their assumptions and protests, because they bring to the
Bible certain presuppositions about the Faith and life th at shape
SOM SCRIPTURA AND CHRISTIAN ORTHODOXY 165
their understanding o f the Bible. A “Bible-only” slogan which

avoids historic Christianity is a convenient way to insulate them
from the evidence o f their own misguided presuppositions. T he
validity o f Christian orthodoxy is a much safer presupposition to
bring to Bible study than the dismissal o f that orthodoxy— and
therefore the substitution o f a new, private, and usually therefore
perverse, orthodoxy.
I t was precisely the creed-dam ning, Bible-only clergy in
A m erica’s n in etieth century th a t abetted the erosion o f the
Christian Faith and therefore Christian culture.9T heir ostensible
preference for “the Bible alone” in dogmatic formulation actually
m eant, “the Bible in terp reted according to my autonom ous,
rebellious presuppositions.” It is in this sense that modernists are
no less misguided than the most ecclesiocentric Roman Catholics
and Eastern O rthodox— while the latter two often prefer the
autonomy o f the institutional church, the first almost always prefers
the autonomy o f the individual m ind (or emotions). Just as “heart
felt” conservative revivalism abets a “heart-felt” liberal conquest
(because the locus o f truth is transferred from objective Scripture
and confessional orthodoxy to the subjective hum an imagination
or em otion),10 so a creedless conservatism lays the foundation for
a heretical liberalism or cultism (because the structured historical
dogma designed to delimit Christian belief is abandoned in favor
o f “individual freedom ,” m eaning theological antinomianism).
A lternatively, w hen th e P ro testan ts asserted the individual
priesthood o f believers, they m eant that Biblical understanding is
not mediated by the Roman magisterium; they did not mean that
individual Christians could overthrow the Faith once delivered to
the saints (Jude 3).
Twin Truths: Sola Scriptura and Christian

Orthodoxy
Today new heresies (actually old heresies in modern clothing)
crop up even w ithin the bosom o f the orthodox Faith. T here are
the “evangelical” opponents o f C h rist’s eternal Sonship; the
“consistent” (read: heretical) preterists who deny the physical
resu rrectio n and C h r is t’s physical Second A dvent; certain
fundamentalists for w hom the hum anity o f C hrist is repugnant
and embarrassing; noted “conservative” theologians who question

G o d ’s om niscience (since it supposedly conflicts w ith hum an
“freedom”); Pentecostals who duplicate the modalist heresy (G od
exists not in three persons, b u t three “modes”); and assorted other
varieties. Virtually every one issues from a theological hothouse
isolated— and intentionally so— from historic Christian orthodoxy.
Every one posits an antinom ian dogm a under the innocent-
sounding guise o f being faithful to the Bible.
In bold contrast, we m ust at all times simultaneously affirm
tw in truths: the Bible is the inspired and infallible W ord o f the
living G od, the only ultimately objective rule o f faith and practice;
the Bible, n o t the individual, church, or dogm a is infallibly
authoritative. B u t, the G od W h o inspired the Bible is the all
conditioning covenantal G od W h o oversees the preservation o f
the correct understanding o f the cardinal elements o f H is W ord in
history by means o f catholic orthodoxy.11
W e m ust at all costs honor the Bible, G o d ’s infallible W ord.
B ut it is n o t honoring to the Bible as G o d ’s infallible W ord to
dishonor C hristian orthodoxy.
1 Jaroslav Pelikan, Reformation o f Church and Dogma (1300-1700)

2 idem., Obedient Rebels (New York and Evanston, 1964).
3 Sectors of the medieval church maintained the dictum of Sola Scriptura,
and Reformation bibliology was in some ways simply the continuation
of this emphasis. It is a mistake often made by today’s conservative
Protestants to impute to the entire medieval church the Council of
Trent’s opposition to Sola Scriptura. The theology of the medieval church
was more diverse than is often thought. See Alister McGrath, The
Intellectual Origins o f the European Reformation (Grand Rapids, 1987),
148-151.
4 W ithin the historic Protestant world, the agreement is even closer:
“Conservative Presbyterians have more in common with conservative
Lutherans today than either has with more liberal believers carrying
the same denominational label,” Richard Ostling, cited in Cynthia G.
Wagner, “The Changing Face of Protestantism in the United States,”
The Futurist, August-September, 1999, 12.
5 William R. Hutchison, The Modernist Impulse in American Protestantism
(Cambridge, 1976).
SOLA SCRIPTURA AND CHRISTIAN ORTHODOXY 167
6 J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Grand Rapids, 1923).

7 Gerhard Ebeling, The Problem of Historicity (Philadelphia, 1967), 9,
10.
8 Nathan Hatch, “Sola Scriptura and Novus Ordo Seclorum,” in Nathan
Hatch and Mark Noll, eds., The Bible In America: Essays in Cultural
History (New York, 1982), 62, 63.
9 On how creedal orthodoxy shapes culture, see Rousas John Rushdoony,
The Foundations of Social Order (Fairfax, VA [1968], 1978).
10Peter J. Leithart, “Revivalism and American Protestantism,” Christianity
and Civilization: The Reconstruction of the Church, No. 4,1985, 5 If.
11This is the position of Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand
Rapids, 1981), 1:114, 115.
The Ministry of Chalcedon
CHALCEDON (kal*see*don) is a Christian educational organization
devoted exclusively to research, publishing, and to cogent communication of
a distinctively Christian scholarship to the world at large. It makes available
a variety of services and programs, all geared to the needs of interested
ministers, scholars and laymen who understand the propositions that Jesus
Christ speaks to the mind as well as the heart, and that his claims extend
beyond the narrow confines of the various institutional churches. We exist in
order to support the efforts of all orthodox denominations and churches.
Chalcedon derives its name from the great ecclesiastical Council of
Chalcedon (A.D. 451), which produced the crucial Christological definition:
“Therefore, following the holy Fathers, we all with one accord teach men to
acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete
in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man....” This
formula directly challenges every false claim of divinity by any human
institution: state, church, cult, school, or human assembly. Christ alone is
both God and man, the unique link between heaven and earth. All human
power is therefore derivative: Christ alone can announce that “All power is
given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18). Historically, the
Chalcedonian creed is therefore the foundation of Western liberty, for it sets
limits on all authoritarian human institutions by acknowledging the validity
of the claims of the One who is the source of true human freedom (Galatians
5:1).
The Chalcedon Report is published monthly and is sent to all who request
it. All gifts to Chalcedon are tax deductible.
Chalcedon
Box 158
Vallecito, CA 95251 U.S.A.
Books by
R. J. Rushdoony
Romans & Galatians

Institutes o f Biblical Law
Law & Society
Systematic Theology
The Politics o f Guilt and Pity
Christianity and the State
Salvation and Godly Rule
The Messianic Character o f American Education
Roots o f Reconstruction
The One and the Many
Revolt Against Maturity
By What Standard?
Law & Liberty
For a complete listing of books by other

Christian Reconstructionists, contact:
ROSS HOUSE BOOKS

P. O. Box 67
Vallecito, CA 95251

Keeping Our Sacred Trust

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Keeping Our Sacred Trust

Uploaded by

Copyright:

KEEPING OUR SACRED TRUST

BIBLICAL AUTHORITY, CREEDAL

Printed on acid-free paper.

N o part o f this book may be

P rinted in the U nited States o f America

Published by Chalcedon Foundation

T he W ord o f the Sovereign is the True Battle for the B ible 9

T he Catholic Faith and Classical C hristianity............................ 27

T he M odern Assault U pon Classical C h ristian ity ......................41

Protestantism vs. Prim itivism .......................................................... 55

M ake Room for D addies.................................................................. 83

Tolerance and Liberty o f C onscience...........................................113

Evangelical R eductionism ..............................................................123

T he Fires o f M an and the Fires o f Hell: H ow Should the

T he notion o f heresy has fallen on hard times. U ntil a few

Heresy in the Beginning

doctrine. T he Sacred Scriptures themselves had taught this (Dt.

Tolerance and Heresy

Orthodoxy and Creeds

considered to constitute w hat the Sacred Scriptures taught, the

Heresy Imagined and Real

liberals, it has become meaningless. These two phenom ena have

The Defense of the Faith

o f Prayer. I was less than enthusiastic about this invitation, since

enrage the heretics themselves, for we have no compunctions in

The Contents of This Symposium

the course o f the apostasy in todays evangelical church, strongly

1 “Perspectives,” Newsweek, May 31, 1999, 25.

The W ord o f the Sovereign is

Rev. Andrew Sandlin is executive director o f Chalcedon and editor-

The W ord o f the Sovereign is

In th e late 1970s, tw o books ap p eared from d iffe re n t

As a result o f Lindsell’s revelations and the furor they created,

Natural science, conception of the world, and also to a great

Yet many attacks on Biblical infallibility have been far more

however, he was unabashedly trum peting, “It is hard to imagine

Material Biblical Authority

Philosophy and Abstraction

it is m ans own autonomous reasoning from which he springs a

are, only as we conceive o f them . M an’s m ind interacts directly

Abstractionism in the Battle for the Bible

mouthpieces for God. A n “enlightened,” “scientific” age simply

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any

T he O ld Testament writers were the objects o f the H oly Sprit’s

W h en David spoke under inspiration, it was the H oly Spirit

very infallible W ord o f G od.24 O nly a god who is not sovereign

Inerrancy Affirmed, Authority Denied

the Bible, generally speaking, is G o d ’s revelation, certain matters

The Regulative Character of Sacred Scripture

It is not the content of the [Biblical] message that constitutes

I f citing a particular text sufficed, we would need to inquire,

an understanding th at the God Whom the Bible reveals could not

Scriptural truth is never allowed to rest upon empirical proof: truth

In other words, God's Word is an inherently regulative word.

I suggest that Calvinism conceives of the Bible in terms of its

To the Reformed, the W ord can never be merely, nor primarily,

Surrender Under the Guise of Engagement

sinner,” Van T il declares, “seeks a criterion o f truth and knowledge

Ethics, Not Epistemology

The Word of the Sovereign

1 Cornelius Van Til, “Introduction,” Benjamin Warfield, The Inspiration

D. Hannah, ed., Inerrancy and the Church (Chicago, 1984); Gordon

knowledge of God and His revelation. See Cornelius Van Til, A

Christianity insists that scriptural revelation is intelligible and

The Catholic Faith and

by Monte E. Wilson III

Rev. M o n te E. W ilso n , ordained m inister in the Reform ed