“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:6-9)
I have been suggesting for some years that historical evangelicalism is now dead or dying. Many are not sorry, but welcome the changes and talk of a need to move on. Others, of whom I am but one, see it as an abandonment of biblical teaching and a drift to another Gospel that is not another. I have also said publicly that unless there is a change of direction - of which at present there is no sign - I believe that within a generation all vestiges of Gospel truth will be gone from many churches once founded upon it. Let me just mention three areas, there are others such as the widespread compromise with the discredited evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin, but this I have dealt with elsewhere.
Many have long ago abandoned any thoughts of verbal inspiration. Some have done so openly; others we have known have been more deceitful. Others live in a contradiction; professing verbal inspiration on the one hand, they deny having an inspired Bible on the other. They would claim there has been no change, but the facts say something else. Compare these statements:
STATEMENT ONE
“The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the native language of the people of God of old,) and the New Testament in Greek, (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations,) being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical so as in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them."
STATEMENT TWO
“The divine inspiration and infallibility of the Holy Scripture as originally given, and its supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.”
STATEMENT THREE
“We believe that the entire Bible, comprising the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, was written by men inspired by God. As such it comprises the Word of God. As originally given it is true in its entirety, and it is the supreme authority by which all human conduct, creeds, opinions and beliefs should be tested.”
Statement One is part of the Westminster Confession, Chapter 1, Sections IV & VIII. In 1855, C. H. Spurgeon republished the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. It is in effect the Westminster Confession given a Baptist slant. It repeats these words almost word for word.) This would have been the ready confession of most evangelicals up until the early part of the twentieth century.
Statement Two was extracted from the current statement of belief of a church affiliated to the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC) here in the UK, and can be said to be typical of most evangelicals since around the 1920s or later. We notice two changes: a limitation has been placed on inspiration - the expression 'as originally given', once used to exclude spurious texts, was now construed to mean that only the original autographs are inspired; and there is an omission of any mention of the preservation by God of the inspired text – no inspired Bible is available to us today, not even in the original tongues. (These changes were popularised by Benjamin Warfield and I have written about this elsewhere.) If only the originals were inspired we can have no inspired Bible today as we do not have the original autographs but only copies. We are told that the manuscripts we do have are not in any great measure different. This is a matter of dispute, but in any case, how can this be claimed when we are unable to make comparisons with originals we do not have? Were we to have them such comparisons would in any case be unnecessary. How too can we reconstruct the original manuscripts, as by not having them we shall never know that our task is complete? What nonsense! The whole issue is now a matter of guesswork and probability, the certainty of an inspired text has been taken from us. We are left in the hands of a priestly class of self-appointed scholars. We have no sure Word, no final authority among us. Think about it. How are we to know at any point whether the word we are reading was the one originally given by God? Actually, we can never really be completely sure.
Statement Three was also taken from an FIEC church statement of faith. Here there is no more any suggestion of an inspired text. It was the writers who were inspired. The Bible ‘comprises’ the Word of God not ‘is’ the Word of God. As originally given it is ‘true’ and not inspired. This is a senseless, meaningless and illogical statement that is intended to feign an orthodox belief in Scripture. It is anything but that. Such a bible cannot be the ‘supreme authority’ over anything as it provides no final, authentic or inspired text. It feeds dispute and leads men to question the plain meaning of Scripture. It enables evangelical sceptics to neutralise Scripture passages they do not like. Let us be very clear the abandonment of an inspired Bible is the first step along the road leading to many other evils.
"If it be folly to keep to what we find in Scripture, and if it be madness to believe in verbal inspiration, we purpose to remain fools to the end of the chapter, and hope to be among the foolish things of the world which God hath chosen to confound the wise, that no flesh should glory in His presence." (An All-round Ministry C. H. Spurgeon)
Once the rock of Scripture has been abandoned, however slightly, yet more error will be embraced. Nineteenth century critics admitted that the Bible teaches the eternal torment of the lost, but because they totally rejected Scripture anyway they felt free to reject this doctrine out of hand. More dangerous because more subtle is the substitution of the biblical teaching on endless punishment by that of belief in the annihilation of the lost by leading evangelicals. More dangerous because its exponents claim to be Bible believers. This is just the beginning of a persistent and organised campaign to move away from historic and biblical teaching. Other doctrines affected are the substitutionary atonement, sin, justification and much more. However much they may protest, their rejection of a biblical hell places these people firmly in the same camp as Herbert Armstrong, the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Science and other similar cults and we are bound to treat them as we would these other false teachers.
Among the most prominent evangelicals taking this position are the John Stott, mover and shaker in the Evangelical Alliance and onetime rector of All Souls Church in London; theologians Clark Pinnock, John Wenham and Philip E. Hughes. There are others, and, doubtless, many more heads will appear over the parapet given time. Writing in Christianity Today already in 1987, Pinnock observed that the annihilationist view “does seem to be gaining ground among evangelicals”. He goes on to lament: “Everlasting torment is intolerable from a moral point of view because it makes God into a bloodthirsty monster who maintains an everlasting Auschwitz for victims whom he does not even allow to die.” This is an appalling, if not blasphemous, distortion of Scripture teaching. Such people do not understand hell because they do not understand the true nature of sin. Indeed, they can have no proper understanding of salvation either, for all these teachings stand or fall together. Only by twisting and distorting Scripture can such views be supported. What next? Where will it all end?
UK Baptist minister, Steve Chalke, founder of the influential Oasis Trust with connections to Spring Harvest and the Evangelical Alliance described in his recently published book the sufferings of our Saviour as “a form of cosmic child abuse (ed. an expression that it is said came to him whilst in the bar of a pub! One might say it was the beer talking.) – a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed, morally dubious in total contradiction to the statement ‘God is love’”. This statement alone demonstrates that this man has no understanding whatever of the Gospel of Christ and can in no way even be countenanced a brother in Christ, still less a minister of the Gospel. Rather than throw the man out on his ear, the Evangelical Alliance in October 2004 gave him a platform to further dispense his poison and debate his views. Joel Edwards, director of the Evangelical Alliance, commented on the debate; “It has been a good thing that Christians can ask tough questions and end in a place where we still love each other and respect each other.” Perhaps we would do well to ask ourselves the questions: who then is a true Christian; what is the true Church of Christ? I cannot identify with any of this and would not consider myself in the same sense Christian at all. I have nothing in common with these people, certainly no common salvation. There is no need for me to separate from them for I was never one with them.
The words of C. H. Spurgeon demonstrate this battle is not a new one, but has ever faced the people of God.
“A chasm is opening between men who believe their Bibles and the men who are prepared for an advance upon Scripture. The house is being robbed, its very walls are being digged down, but the good people who are in bed are too fond of the warmth, and too much afraid of getting broken heads, to go downstairs and meet the burglars … Inspiration and speculation cannot long abide in peace. Compromise there can be none. We cannot hold the inspiration of the Word, and yet reject it; we cannot believe in the atonement and deny it; we cannot hold the doctrine of the fall and yet talk of the evolution of spiritual life from human nature; we cannot recognise the punishment of the impenitent and yet indulge the ‘larger hope’. One way or the other we must go. Decision is the virtue of the hour.” Sword and Trowel, September 1887
The great tragedy is that so many who ought to know better are seeking alliances with those who deny the Gospel. Once more smoke and mirrors prevail, misleading statements and untruths are harnessed to win the day. Nothing good can come out of all this. These moves are not furthering the Gospel cause but making it more difficult to persuade men of their need of a Saviour. Let those make common cause with the spiritual wreckers if they will, we will have no part of it. Let them depart. Birds of a feather are said to flock together. Prophetic words again from the prince of preachers:
“Believers in Christ’s atonement are now in declared union with those who make light of it; believers in Holy Scripture are in confederacy with those who deny plenary inspiration; those who hold evangelical doctrine are in open alliance with those who call the fall a fable, who deny the personality of the Holy Ghost, who call justification by faith immoral, and hold that there is another probation after death … Yes, we have before us the wretched spectacle of professedly orthodox Christians publicly avowing their union with those who deny the faith, and scarcely concealing their contempt for those who cannot be guilty of such gross disloyalty to Christ. To be very plain, we are unable to call these things Christian unions, they begin to look like confederacies in evil …It our solemn conviction that where there can be no real spiritual communion there should be no pretence of fellowship. Fellowship with known and vital error is participation in sin.” Sword and Trowel, November 1887
Evangelicalism is moving rapidly into a position of spiritual powerlessness and irrelevance, certainly no match for the powers of evil encompassing us about. The vapid alternative it offers, the useless weapons it has taken up, provide no answer to the power of evil at work everywhere. May God keep us all faithful.
See also The Squandered Legacy (click on title)