Harry Emerson Fosdick and the Emerging Theology of Early Liberalism
Romans 11:22, Job 28:28
Code: A173
By John MacArthur
In the early part of the 20th century liberalism took mainline Protestant churches by storm.
In fact, it might be argued that the first half of the century ushered in the most serious spiritual decline since the Protestant Reformation. Historic evangelicalism,1 which had dominated Protestant America since the days of the founding fathers, was virtually driven out of denominational schools and churches.
In a few decades, liberalism virtually destroyed the largest Protestant denominations in America and Europe.
Evangelicalism managed to survive and even seemed to thrive for awhile outside the denominations. But it never regained its influence in the mainline groups. Instead it flourished chiefly in relatively small denominations and non-denominational churches.
Sadly, the broad movement that encompassed evangelicalism in the 20th century now seems poised to follow the very same path that led the mainline churches to disaster a century ago.
One of the most popular spokesmen for liberal Christianity in its heyday was Harry Emerson Fosdick, pastor of the Riverside Church in New York City. Fosdick, while remaining strongly committed to liberal theology, nevertheless acknowledged that the new theology was undermining the concept of a holy God. Contrasting his age with that of Jonathan Edwards, Fosdick wrote,
Jonathan Edwards’ Enfield sermon ["Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"] pictured sinners held over the blazing abyss of hell in the hands of a wrathful deity who at any moment was likely to let go, and so terrific was that discourse in its delivery that women fainted and strong men clung in agony to the pillars of the church. Obviously, we do not believe in that kind of God any more, and as always in reaction we swing to the opposite extreme, so in the theology of these recent years we have taught a very mild, benignant sort of deity . . .. Indeed, the god of the new theology has not seemed to care acutely, about sin; certainly he has not been warranted to punish heavily; he has been an indulgent parent and when we have sinned, a polite “Excuse me” has seemed more than adequate to make amends.2
Fosdick was never so right. He correctly saw that liberalism had led to a warped and imbalanced concept of God. He could even see far enough ahead to realize that liberalism was taking society into a dangerous wasteland of amorality, where “man’s sin, his greed, his selfishness, his rapacity roll up across the years an accumulating mass of consequence until at last in a mad collapse the whole earth crashes into ruin.”3
Writing in the wake of World War I, Fosdick suggested that “the moral order of the world has been dipping us in hell.”4
Despite all that, Fosdick ultimately would not acknowledge the literal reality of God’s wrath toward impenitent sinners. To him, “the wrath of God” was nothing more than a metaphor for the natural consequences of wrongdoing. His theology would not tolerate a personal God whose righteous anger burns against sin. To Fosdick, the threat of hell fire was only a relic of a barbaric age. “Obviously, we do not believe in that kind of God any more.”
Fosdick wrote those words almost ninety years ago. Sadly, what was true of liberalism then is all too true in the so-called “evangelical movement” today. “Evangelicals” have to a very large degree rejected the reality of God’s wrath. They have disregarded His hatred for sin. The god most evangelicals now describe is completely benevolent and not the least bit angry.
Post-modern “evangelicals” have forgotten (or simply refused to believe) that “It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:31). These days, they are the ones saying, “We do not believe in that kind of God any more.”5
“Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God” (Rom. 11:22).
Ironically, an overemphasis on divine beneficence actually works against a sound understanding of God’s love. It has given multitudes the disastrous impression that God is kindly but feeble, or aloof, or simply unconcerned about human wickedness. Is it any wonder that people with a such a concept of God defy His holiness, take His love for granted, and presume on His grace and mercy? Certainly no one would fear a deity like that.
Yet Scripture tells us repeatedly that fear of God is the very foundation of true wisdom (Job 28:28; Ps. 111:10; Prov. 1:7; 9:10; 15:33; Mic. 6:9). People often try to explain away the sense of those verses by saying that the “fear” called for is nothing more than a devout sense of awe and reverence. Certainly the fear of God includes awe and reverence, but it does not exclude literal holy terror. “It is the Lord of hosts whom you should regard as holy. And He shall be your fear, and He shall be your dread” (Isa. 8:13).
We must recapture some of the holy terror that comes with a right understanding of God’s righteous anger. We need to remember that God’s wrath does burn against impenitent sinners (Ps. 38:1-3). That reality is the very thing that makes His love so wonderful. We must therefore proclaim these truths with the same sense of conviction and fervency we employ when we declare the love of God. It is only against the backdrop of divine wrath that the full significance of God’s love can be truly understood. That is precisely the message of the cross of Jesus Christ. After all, it was on the cross that God’s love and His wrath converged in all their majestic fullness.
Only those who see themselves as sinners in the hands of an angry God can fully appreciate the magnitude and wonder of His love. In this regard our generation is surely at a greater disadvantage than any previous age. We have been force-fed the doctrines of self-esteem for so long that most people don’t really view themselves as sinners worthy of divine wrath. On top of that, religious liberalism, humanism, evangelical compromise, and ignorance of the Scriptures have all worked against a right understanding of who God is. Ironically, in an age that conceives of God as wholly loving, altogether devoid of wrath, most people are tragically ill-equipped to understand what God’s love is all about!
The simple fact is that we cannot appreciate God’s love until we have learned to fear Him. We cannot know His love apart from some knowledge of His wrath. We cannot study the kindness of God without also encountering His severity. And if the church of our generation does not regain a healthy balance soon, the rich biblical truth of divine love is likely to be obscured behind what is essentially a liberal, humanistic concept.
1. From the time of the Protestant Reformation until fairly recently, the expression evangelical has referred to those who believe that the Bible is inspired and absolutely authoritative, and who therefore understand that salvation from sin is available through faith in Christ alone, not by any works or sacraments. When I speak of “historic evangelicalism,” I’m using the term in that specific and technical sense, minus all the contemporary baggage the word evangelical seems to have acquired.
2. Harry Emerson Fosdick, Christianity and Progress (New York: Revell, 1922), 173-74 (emphasis added).
3. Ibid., 174.
4. Ibid (emphasis added).
5. See Robert Brow, “Evangelical Megashift,” Christianity Today (February 19, 1990), pp. 12-14.
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/A238_Repentance-in-the-Gospel-of-John
Shroud of Turin: Image provokes prayer, curiosity, scholarly disputes
By John Thavis
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) — The Shroud of Turin, which many Christians believe to be the burial cloth of Jesus, goes on public display this spring, at a time when experts are debating new claims about the 14-foot-long piece of linen.
Pope Benedict XVI has already made plans to view the shroud during a one-day trip to the northern Italian city of Turin in early May. Many observers are wondering how the pope will refer to the cloth: as a sign, an icon or — as Pope John Paul II once characterized it — a relic.
The shroud’s last showing was 10 years ago, when more than a million people lined up to see it in the cathedral of Turin in northern Italy. Officials are predicting similar crowds for the exposition April 10-May 23, and visitors are being urged to book their visits online at http://www.sindone.org.
The pilgrims come to witness with their own eyes what they may have read about or glimpsed on TV. Most go away impressed with what they see: a faint image of a bearded man who appears to have been whipped, crowned with thorns and crucified.
Carbon-14 tests in 1988 dated the cloth to the Middle Ages, and seemed to confirm the theory that the shroud was a pious fraud. But since then, some experts have faulted the methodology of the testing, and said the tiny samples used may have been taken from areas of the cloth that were mended in medieval times.
The shroud has also been chemically analyzed, electronically enhanced and computer-imaged. So far, no one has been able to fully explain how the image was transferred to the linen cloth, although experts have put forward theories ranging from enzyme reaction to solar imaging.
The shroud has been studied from virtually every scientific angle in recent years. Its weave has been examined, pollen grains embedded in the cloth have been inspected, and red stains have been analyzed for hemoglobin properties. One particular sub-category of debate focuses on enhanced images that, in the opinion of some scientists, reveal the impression of 1st-century Palestinian coins placed on the eyes of the shroud’s figure.
The “jury” on the shroud includes hundreds of experts, some of them self-appointed. They do not split neatly into believers and skeptics, however. The latest controversy, in fact, involves a Vatican archivist who claims to have found evidence of writing on the shroud — a hypothesis that has drawn sharp criticism from other Catholic scholars.
Read More: CNS STORY: Shroud of Turin: Image provokes prayer, curiosity, scholarly disputes
Considering Election (Not Politics)
Code: A132
Considering Election (Not Politics)
John MacArthur
Election is the act of God whereby in eternity past He chose those who will be saved. Election is unconditional, because it does not depend on anything outside of God, such as good works or foreseen faith (Romans 9:16). This doctrine is repeatedly taught in the Bible, and is also demanded by our knowledge of God. To begin with, let’s look at the biblical evidence.
The Bible says prior to salvation, all people are dead in sin — spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1-3). In this state of death, the sinner is utterly unable to respond to any spiritual stimulus and therefore unable to love God, obey Him, or please Him in any way. Scripture says the mind of every unbeliever “is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:7-8, emphasis added). That describes a state of total hopelessness: spiritual death.
The effect of all this is that no sinner can ever make the first move in the salvation process. This is what Jesus meant in John 6:44, when He said, “No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him.”
This is also why the Bible repeatedly stresses that salvation is wholly God’s work. In Acts 13:48 we read, “And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.”
Acts 16 tells us that Lydia was saved when, “the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.”
Romans 8:29-30 states, “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”
Ephesians 1:4-5,11 reads, “Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will . . . also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.”
Ephesians 2:8 suggests that even our faith is a gift from God.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:13, the apostle Paul tells his readers, “God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation.”
Second Timothy 1:9 informs us that God “has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity.”
Occasionally someone will suggest that God’s election is based on His foreknowledge of certain events. This argument suggests that God simply looks into the future to see who will believe, and He chooses those whom He sees choosing Him. Notice that 1 Peter 1:2 says the elect are chosen “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,” and Romans 8:29 says, “whom He foreknew, He also predestined.” And if divine foreknowledge simply means God’s knowledge of what will happen in advance, then these arguments may appear to have some weight behind them.
But that is not the biblical meaning of “foreknowledge.” When the Bible speaks of God’s foreknowledge, it refers to God’s establishment of a love relationship with that person. The word “know,” in both the Old and New Testament, refers to much more than mere cognitive knowledge of a person. Such passages as Hosea 13:4-5; Amos 3:2 (KJV); and Romans 11:2 clearly indicate this. For example, 1 Peter 1:20 says Christ was “foreknown before the foundation of the world.” Surely this means more than that God the Father looked into the future to behold Christ! It means He had an eternal, loving relationship with Him. The same is true of the elect, whom we are told God “foreknew” (Romans 8:29). That means He knew them — He loved them — before the foundation of the world.
If God’s choice of the elect is unconditional, does this rule out human responsibility? Paul asks and answers that very question in Romans 9:19-20. He says God’s choice of the elect is an act of mercy. Left to themselves, even the elect would persist in sin and be lost, because they are taken from the same fallen lump of clay as the rest of humanity. God alone is responsible for their salvation, but that does not eradicate the responsibility of those who persist in sin and are lost — because they do it willfully, and not under compulsion. They are responsible for their sin, not God.
The Bible affirms human responsibility right alongside the doctrine of divine sovereignty. Moreover, the offer of mercy in the gospel is extended to all alike. Isaiah 55:1 and Revelation 22:17 call “whosoever will” to be saved. Isaiah 45:22 and Acts 17:30 command all men to turn to God, repent and be saved. First Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 tell us that God is not willing that any should perish, but desires that all should be saved. Finally, the Lord Jesus said that, “the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (John 6:37).
In summary, we can say that God has had a special love relationship with the elect from all eternity, and on the basis of that love relationship chosen them for salvation. The ultimate question of why God chose some for salvation and left others in their sinful state is one that we, with our finite knowledge, cannot answer. We do know that God’s attributes always are in perfect harmony with each other, so that God’s sovereignty will always operate in perfect harmony with His goodness, love, wisdom, and justice.
| 2010-01-10-DG | Is Your Salvation Real? | 1 John 2:3-11 | Listen Order CD |
| 2010-01-17-DG | Toward Assurance and Holiness | 1 John 2:12-17 | Listen Order CD |
1 John 2
1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
3And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.
7Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.
8Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.
9He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.
10He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.
11But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.
12I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake.
13I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.
14I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.
15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
Church has right to bring Gospel values to public debate, pope says
By Carol Glatz
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) — Catholic teaching and the truths of the Gospel have a right to be heard in public debate, especially in a country where so many people claim to be Christian, Pope Benedict XVI told the bishops of England and Wales.
However, the church must recognize dissent within its own ranks and not accept it as being part of a balanced discussion, he said Feb. 1 in an address to bishops who were making their “ad limina” visits.
The meeting with the bishops, who were at the Vatican to report on the status of their dioceses, took place as Pope Benedict prepares to visit Great Britain in September.
Referring to the Equality Bill under debate in Britain’s Parliament, the pope said some legislation designed to guarantee equal opportunity for all people actually would impose “unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.”
Catholic bishops have said the bill means churches could be sued by anyone who was turned away as a candidate for the priesthood on grounds of gender or sexual lifestyle.
A recent vote in Britain’s House of Lords, however, supported an amendment that protected the existing rights of churches to insist that clergy and high-profile lay employees live in a manner consistent with Christian moral teaching.
Pope Benedict urged the bishops to continue defending church teaching in the public realm, adding that they have a right “to participate in national debate through respectful dialogue with other elements in society.”
By being vocal participants in public discussion, the bishops are maintaining Britain’s long-standing tradition of freedom of expression and are giving voice to the similar beliefs held by many people who are unable to express them, he said.
“When so many of the population claim to be Christian, how could anyone dispute the Gospel’s right to be heard?” the pope asked.
“Fidelity to the Gospel in no way restricts the freedom of others — on the contrary, it serves their freedom by offering them the truth,” he said.
To bring a coherent, convincing message to the people, the church must ensure the Catholic community speaks with one voice, he added.
In a culture that encourages the expression of a wide variety of opinions, the pope said, “it is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate.”
The bishops must prepare the laity to convey church teaching accurately and comprehensively, he said.
Pope Benedict also asked the bishops “to be generous in implementing the provisions” of his recent apostolic constitution, which established a special structure for Anglicans who want to be in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church while preserving aspects of their Anglican spiritual and liturgical heritage.
He asked the bishops to assist such groups in their desire for full communion, saying that if they were warmly and openly welcomed, they “would be a blessing for the entire church.”
The pope also said his upcoming visit to Great Britain would be an opportunity to witness firsthand the “many signs of living faith and devotion” among Catholics and to help them strengthen and confirm their faith.
Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster, president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, told the pope that his visit would offer encouragement not only to Catholics, “but to all our fellow citizens.”
“We are confident that your presence and teaching, with its consistent and reasoned appeal to all people, will be warmly received,” he said.
The archbishop also said the beatification of Cardinal John Henry Newman “is, we trust, the eagerly anticipated climax of your proposed visit.”
The Vatican has not officially announced the dates or cities the pope will visit in Great Britain in September, but the pope is expected to preside over the beatification of the influential 19th-century theologian and former Anglican.
In his address to the British bishops, the pope said Cardinal Newman was an outstanding example of someone who was faithful to truth even at high personal cost.
“Great writers and communicators of his stature and integrity are needed in the church today, and it is my hope that devotion to him will inspire many to follow in his footsteps,” the pope said.
In an interview with the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 31, Archbishop Nichols said the pope’s “brief, but effective” trip to Britain would concentrate on the role of faith in a secular, democratic society.
He said the British government and Queen Elizabeth II, the supreme governor of the Anglican Church of England, were “extremely in favor of this visit” and that church leaders were working closely with government ministers and officials to flesh out the details of the papal itinerary.
During a press conference with journalists after the papal audience, Archbishop Nichols said the pope confirmed he was going to Scotland as part of the trip.
The archbishop said the pope will also be meeting with Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury, England, and that the meeting would play “a prominent part of the (papal) visit.”
However, he said, it was not yet decided if the meeting would take place in Canterbury or elsewhere.
Concerning the apostolic constitution, the archbishop told the Vatican newspaper that it was still not clear how many Anglican communities around the world were going to take advantage of the new provision.
But, he said some members of the Church of England planned to make their response to the Vatican provision public on Feb. 22, the feast of the Chair of St. Peter, which symbolizes the authority and unique ministry of the pope.
CNS STORY: Church has right to bring Gospel values to public debate, pope says
More Links:
James White
Play Audio! (Streaming) 16kbps | 90 min.
SermonAudio.com – Total Depravity
Romans 3
10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17And the way of peace have they not known:
18There is no fear of God before their eyes.
1 Corinthians 2
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Deceived on Purpose, New Age Implications of the Purpose Driven Life.
F. William Darrow
Play Audio! (Streaming) 16kbps | 29 min. [
Oneness Pentecostals
These are exerts from the book ‘Who is Jesus ‘? Answering Oneness Pentecostals attacks on the Trinity. (spiral notebook from Let Us Reason ministries Wahiawa HI 96786)
Before reading: I don’t want to be perceived as someone angry nor vengeful; I reserve the right to be just as passionate and clever in my arguments as Oneness adherents are, but I do not want this to be misinterpreted as just an attack. I have painfully gone through numerous writings on their teachings , discussed it at great length with acquaintance’s and friends. I have also participated in 3 debates with them on salvation and the trinity. So I’m not a foreigner to their statements and understandings of the subjects. This book is mostly a rebuttal to D. Bernards book “the Oneness of God.” Please read with an open heart and mind…
Introduction
The Christian church has become very familiar with anti-Trinitarian cults over the last 10-15 years. Jehovah’s Witnesses who have over 8 million worldwide, Mormons who now have 10 million worldwide, Iglesia Ni christo, the Way International and numerous others are mostly enjoying growth. What has gone very much unnoticed by the church and is also enjoying growth is the Oneness Pentecostal / Apostolic church movement. Which now is the third largest anti-Trinitarian church in the world, having anywhere from 5-6 million or more adherents. Oneness Pentecostals are unique as far as being considered a cult. Much of what they say we could agree upon and they with us. Yet the very nature of God is at the center of this modern day controversy. Unlike other cults that deny the deity of Christ they affirm it, however they pour a new and unique way of defining it. Its not that this is something altogether new but actually something very ancient
What has been revived is the ancient Sabellian heresy that God is singular in person. This emerged in the 2nd century as another heretical competitor with Gnosticism which the church was currently contending against. Sabellianism did away with the eternal Son, and had the eternal Spirit take on modes under which he was called the Father, then the Son , then the Spirit. Sabellias taught that God was a divine monad who revealed himself to mankind by projecting himself into the father and the Spirit. God being only one at a time, became another for different dispensations of time. In the different dispensations the Father was the creator and the lawgiver, the Son was the redeemer, and the Spirit was the giver of grace. In the third century this evolved into Monarchianism which was a more sophisticated form of modalism (Sabellianism) and the church which 75 years before had thought they put an end to this, had to once again confront the errors on Gods nature. To the defenders who engaged in the doctrinal challenges this was not just another battle, but the battle. These were not passing clouds that the wind would one day blow away. It was in their hands to stand firm and with everything they could counter both logically and Biblically in defining Gods nature.
