|
BY THE AUTHOR
Dr. W. Robert Cook, Th.D
Whosoever,
feeling compunction for his sins, hungers and thirsts
after righteousness, let him believe in Thee, who "justified
the ungodly"; and thus, being justified by faith alone,
shall have peace with God.
Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153)
Survey of
the History of Christian Doctrine
The
Ancient Period: 100-600 A.D.
This was primarily the period of apologetic (c. 100-300), that is
defense against heresies from without; and of polemic (c. 300- 600),
that is controversy over heresy within. This last was the time of the
great ecumenical councils out of which grew the major emphases of
theological system, namely the determination of a true trinitarianism,
of a true Christology, and of a true relationship between sin and
grace (a true anthropology).
The
Middle Ages: 600-1500 A.D.
This period was characterized by the examination of doctrine already
developed with an effort to prove, rationalize, and in some measure to
systematize it. There was no significant development of doctrine.
The
Reformation Period: 1500-l64B A.D.
This era was characterized by reform and reconstruction of doctrine in
light of and under the authority of the Scriptures. The three
outstanding doctrines that were restored to significance were 1) the
Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the only authority for
faith end practice, 2) justification by faith alone, and 3) the
individual priesthood of the believer. The major schools of
theological thought that emerged from the Reformation were
Lutheranism, Calvinism, Arminianism, Socinianism (Unitarianism), and
Romanism (Tridentine).
The
Modern Period: 1648-Present
In the modern era there has been a twofold threat to orthodoxy. The
first came from outside the church in the form of secular
philosophies. Note for example the following movements--the
Renaissance, 18th century rationalism, the evolutionary theory,
dialectical materialism modern and secular psychology. The second
threat came from within the church and it, too, took several forms:
for example the development of an unbiblical pietism and an unbiblical
mysticism, deism, study of comparative religions, higher criticism,
the development Old Liberalism through the Unitarian theology of
Socinianism, the experimental theology of Ritschl, the pragmatism of
the “American Gospel" movement, the abortive promise of a return to
orthodoxy by Neo-orthodoxy, and the increasingly unbiblical and
secular forms of new liberalism represented by process, liberation,
and radical theology.
The
Contemporary Protestant Theological Scene
The contemporary theological situation is so complicated it is almost
impossible to analyze. There are significant movements in both Roman and
Protestant thought but the following very brief survey will be limited to
the latter.
The
apparent demise of old liberalism and the rise of neo-orthodoxy
With the rising in the early twentieth century of Barth's theological
star, and of those who followed in his train, the cardinal doctrines
of Old Liberalism began to be questioned and abandoned. The
doctrine of the immanence of God was forsaken for the doctrine of
transcendence; man's basic goodness was replaced with a doctrine of
man's sinfulness; the attitude of the Scriptures being irrelevant was
replaced by a new respect for the Scriptures to the point that the new
theologians became styled as biblical theologians. Instead of an
elusive Man of Galilee the emphasis is placed upon the theological
Christ, the Word of God. Since all this was so remarkably different
from the typical liberal view it came to be labeled as a new
orthodoxy. Surely a return to and a new emphasis upon God, sin, the
Bible and Christ must be a good thing.
The problem with all of this was that while an apparently more
orthodox stance was being taken on these doctrines the foundation upon
which the stand was taken was the same as that of Old Liberalism.
Underlying the whole system of Neo-orthodox theology is a faulty view
of Scripture. While the Bible was taken more seriously it was still
viewed as a basically human book—important but not fully reliable. The
premises of higher and form criticism were imbibed to the full. To
this was added a Kantian dualism which brought a dichotomy of “truths
of fact” and truths of faith" and a disjunction between Historie
and Heilsgeschichte ; an Hegelian dialecticism allowing “truth"
to be reached and then abandoned for other "truth" by means of
contradiction; and a Kierkegaardian existentialism making all real
truth ultimately subjective and experience-oriented.
Because existentialism has had such a significant influence in both
neo-orthodoxy and other forms of contemporary theology an added word
about it is needed. The existentialist distinguishes between the
essence of a thing, that is, its “what” or nature as known and the
existence of a thing, that is, its "that" or the fact of its having a
place in the world of changing things. Priority is given to the
latter. Existence is identified with and individual’s own immediate
experience of himself and his situation as a free being in the world.
Existentialism is not in itself necessarily Christian (cf. the
atheistic existentialism of Sartre). When it does take a theistic
form, as developed by Søren Kierkegaard, faith comes to mean the
giving and risking of self. It is no mere provisional acceptance of a
theological formula or a passive knowledge that some ancient biblical
events may have really taken place. For an item of faith to be
existentially true it must be personally (existentially) experienced
in the emotional passion of decision.
The
rise of a new liberalism
When there is added to the above the demythologizing (a restatement of
New Testament concepts in contemporary terms by omitting the
supernatural) and remythologizing of Bultmann the inevitable result is
theological confusion. If truth is what you make it rather than where
you find it, man is the judge and it is not long before he is god.
When humanism reigns supreme God becomes an encumbrance; sin becomes
at its worst a social disease; salvation becomes passé; the
Gospel becomes merely the announcement that men are reconciled and
need to act more like it; theology becomes secularized so that it
amounts to nothing more than church-oriented sociology; the church
becomes a community action group; and morality becomes man's right to
"do his thing," which, if done in the name of love, may be anything
and we then have situational ethics.
One contemporary expression of liberal theology is
Liberation Theology. It "...interprets salvation and the mission of
the church primarily as the changing of oppressive socio-economic and
political structures, rather than as redemption from individual guilt
and sin." [1] Such an approach
has radicalized theology by incorporating many of the tenets of
Marxism so that what it advocates is a justification of socialistic
ends under the guise of theology.
Another form of liberal theology which is rapidly
growing in popularity is process theology. It finds its philosophical
roots in Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne. Central to
Whitehead's system is the view that the visible universe consists not
of an ordered structure of real and enduring objects and living
organisms reflecting createdness, but a series of 'events'.
[2] As Royce Gordon Gruenler, a former
process theologian turned evangelical, notes:
In process thought there is no social Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit apart from our world, as Christian orthodoxy has taught from earliest times; rather, God has no real existence or social experience apart from us and the extensive continuum of finite entities in the universe that are independent of him. [3]
Instead of a God who is both transcendent and immanent as sovereign and provident ruler of the universe which he created, process theology speaks of a god who is pantheistic—that is, one in all things. Thus God is neither sovereign nor immutable since he is identified with the created order. Furthermore, Jesus Christ is not incarnate deity nor was his death efficacious for the redemption of fallen mankind. Basic to the Christian view of reality is a belief in a distinction between the natural and the supernatural, between general and special revelation. By its very nature, process theology has no place for such distinctions. [4]
The problem with orthodox Christianity says the process theist, is its insistence on a God who has sovereignly brought the universe of time and space into being and who upholds it by his word of power. No, that god is too static, too uninvolved in our worldly evolution and history, too sovereign, too despotic, too threatening to our human freedom and independence to be allowed a voice in the modern world. Better to have a world that is open-ended and uncertain, and a deity that is limited, than to have a world controlled by a sovereign God who works all things according to the measure of his inscrutable will. Better to have a theology of redemption that allows us some power to contribute to God then to acknowledge our radial fallenness and to be thrown entirely upon the mercy of the crucified and risen Christ. Better to settle for a Bible that is fallible and subject to the control of human criticism then to assume e posture of obedience to the God who reveals himself in trustworthy Scripture. [5]
C. Eviscerated evangelicalism
All the while that the liberal theologians are growing more liberal and forfeiting any right to the name Christian, even in the broadest construction of the term, the evangelicals are becoming more polarized. On the one hand there are those who are being selective regarding the truth they hold in love. While fervently confessing the evangelical doctrines relating to Our Lord's deity, Substitutionary death, and bodily resurrection they do express uncertainty regarding the full authority of Scripture, there is a growing tendency to hang on the doctrine of inspiration, especially as it relates to inerrancy; regarding the relationship between science and Scripture, there is a tendency to hold to some form of evolutionary theory; and regarding the church, there is question as to how separated it must be from liberalism.
As with the fundamentalism with which they are unhappy, this segment of evangelicalism, sometimes called neo-evangelical, is basically a reactionary group. They are dissatisfied with "fundamentalism” because of its tendency to be too exclusive, that is, its extreme separatism; because it is suspicious of scholarship, that is, its tendency toward anti-intellectualism; and because it reacted so strongly against the social gospel, that is, because it tends to be anti-social and indifferent to contemporary societal problems.
On the other hand, there are those who fervently adhere to “the fundamentals” but refuse to do it in love. Historically, "the fundamentals" were formulated in the early twentieth century as an enunciation of the basic tenets of orthodoxy in response to the denials of these biblical truths by the liberal theologians.
They were 1) the verbal inspiration of Scripture, 2) the deity of Christ, 3) the virgin birth of Christ, 4) the Substitutionary atonement of Christ, and 5) the physical resurrection and future bodily return of Christ. Today the term fundamentalist describes both one who is committed to these doctrines and to a particular mindset that will not tolerate any deviation from its own particular interpretation of the Doctrines.
Many in the one group seem to have fallen into doctrinal error with regard to their view of Scripture (while continuing as believers for they yet adhere to the biblical truth regarding Jesus Christ). The other group has fallen into practical error by unnecessarily, on occasion, dividing the body of Christ and by failing to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).
The majority of evangelicals continue to adhere to a belief in a verbally inspired Bible and to hold the truth in love.D. Evangelicalism
There are many of the ultra-fundamentalistic groups who reject the term evangelical because of certain ideological baggage which seems to have been accumulated along the way. It is viewed as being too latitudinarian. On the other hand, there is a group of "young" or "new" evangelicals who feel that the term evangelical smacks of establishment mentality which is intellectually wanting and socially insensitive.
All of this serves to point up the need for a careful statement regarding evangelicalism and its distinctives. The following presentation of evangelical distinctives will, at least, provide a perspective in relation to other positions alluded to earlier in this chapter.
'There is no question that the word "evangelical" is currently used in a wide variety of ways. I am concerned with but two of these meanings—its biblical and theological meanings. It is derived from the word, "evangel" which is a transliteration into English of the Greek word euangelion. A synonym coming from another etymological background is the word gospel. As is well known to all, these words all mean "good news," and when used in the New Testament, they have a somewhat specialized meaning of good tidings, coming from God, of salvation through his free favor through Jesus Christ. Then, that which is evangelical pertains to the biblical message of good news and its attendant implications.
Now it must be acknowledged that the term is frequently used in a somewhat broader sense then this, which could be designated as a theological sense. For example, a dictionary may state that evangelical means "maintaining the fundamental doctrines of the Protestant faith." This, no doubt, more nearly approaches the sense it is employed in the following discussion, although hopefully there is a happy marriage between the biblical and the theological throughout.
Further, it is not my intent to distinguish sharply between such words or classifications as conservative, fundamental, evangelical, etc. while such distinctions may be at times necessary and helpful when assigned and accepted by various groups within Protestantism, they are not the concern of this discussion. Nor do I accept the false classification which some have tried to foist upon us of "liberal" evangelicals and "conservative" evangelicals. Such titles are misnomers, simply because one who is evangelical is theologically conservative, and to speak of a liberal evangelical is to speak of a black white or a light darkness.
Distinctive, the second word under consideration, means that which marks a difference or distinction; a characteristic. The verb form, "to distinguish," means to separate from others by some mark of honor or preference; to designate by special characteristics. Thus, when I speak of "evangelical distinctives," reference is made to those special characteristics pertaining to biblical teachings about the gospel of Jesus Christ that mark off from others those who hold said teachings.
One final introductory note needs to be sounded. Please observe carefully that this is not intended to be a list of things which must be believed in order to be saved. If such were the case, I would be very unevangelical. Rather, I am suggesting that the following items are some of the things which distinguish evangelicals from others within Christendom.
If an evangelical is one who believes in God, good news of salvation by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, at the least, we are immediately faced with quite a statement of faith. We must have a certain doctrine of Scripture, for it is there alone that this good news is recorded; a certain doctrine of man and sin who thus needs to be saved; a certain doctrine of salvation thus described; and a certain doctrine of Christ who thus saves.
Furthermore, the biblical presentation of this salvation involves a third divine person, the Holy Spirit, who enables us to realize, in an ongoing sense, the benefits of salvation in a holy life in communion with those of like precious faith. Since this salvation involves the gift of eternal life, we recognize that it not only relates to this life but also to that which follows our exit from this life. Likewise, since salvation clearly implies a separation within the ranks of mankind, the concept of eternal judgment is introduced.
Using this brief analysis as a guideline, what can be said regarding “evangelical distinctives”?
First of all, we may say without qualification that the evangelical is biblical in his orientation. The word orientation comes from the root word, orient, which means the east, and thus the verb form means to face or to cause to face toward the east. The idea is to gain one's bearings by having a point of reference. We find in the Scriptures our chart and compass.
This biblical orientation relates to at least two areas. The Bible is both the sphere of our study and the source of our authority. Regarding the first point, I do not mean to imply that the man of God should not be a student of human nature; or that he should not be concerned about civil affairs; or that he should not be exercised about social injustice. The point is that our message is not basically a social, civil, or man-centered one. It is basically divine as revealed alone in the Word of God. Hence, this should be the primary sphere of our study. With all due respect to the experts in the fields of the behavioral sciences, we are called and equipped to minister primarily to men's spiritual needs and if we do not have a word from God, we have no message.
Likewise, the Bible is the source of our authority. This means that the Scriptures stand above the traditions, reasonings, and musings of men. It further means that our authority is external to ourselves. It is derivative from the Scriptures which derive their authority from God himself (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15). As Paul commended the Thessalonians, they received his message "not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13). "We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus our Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake" (2 Cor. 4: 5). This recognition of biblical authority is the natural concomitant of the self-claims of Scripture regarding its own inspiration (2 Tim. 3:16: 2 Pet. 1:21) and inerrancy (John 10:35).
Secondly, the evangelical is Trinitarian in his theology. This means that he is not a modalist or Unitarian as are many contemporary theologians. He does not identify himself as Trinitarian merely as an accommodation to a historic anachronism but by biblical conviction. That is, he believes that the Scriptures set forth for our faith today "three persons called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit who possess not a similar but the same numerical essence and the distinction between them is not merely nominal but real" (John Dick).
Furthermore, the evangelical does not believe that God is merely, nor primarily, immanent, and, therefore, like us, having the same blind spots but not our foibles; nor does he believe that God is merely, nor primarily, transcendent, and, therefore, ‘wholly other’ and apart from our place in time and space except by critical intervention; but he does believe that God is both transcending and immanent in the universe. He is distinctly apart from the creation, yet at the same time vitally involved in its control by means of providence, redemption, and ultimately, judgment, to his own glory.
Thirdly, the evangelical is christocentric in faith. Jesus Christ is looked upon mot merely as a representation of God, a sort of divine phantom; nor merely as a great man, extremely sensitive to the will of God and the needs of men, but ahead of his times and thus misunderstood. Neither is he viewed as a demigod--that is, a deified man or a humanized god.
Rather he is uniquely theanthropic. He is unqualified, undiminished deity and genuine, sinless humanity everlastingly joined together in one person.
This one was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died, vicarious death, arose bodily from the dead, ascended bodily into heaven, and will return bodily to the earth. Regarding man's eternal salvation, he is the only worthy and saving object of faith.
In the fourth place, the evangelical is evangelistic in his concern. Regarding his relationships to men, his system of priorities burdens him for man as a sinner first and as a social being second. That is, man is viewed not only as a creature dependent upon God for his life and well-being, but also as a sinful creature standing condemned under the wrath of a holy God and in need of salvation.
Because man is dead in sins, he is in need of a birth from above; because he stands before God as a law-breaker, he needs to be justified by faith alone apart from works. But the evangelical's concern arises not only, nor primarily, from man's need. It is supremely prompted by the revelation of the grace of God in Jesus Christ. Apart from the operation of the grace of God no Christian man will be properly motivated and no lost man will be saved.
(Surely a consideration of God’s character will give the evangelical a concern for social justice; a consideration of his providential dealings with men will move him to goodness; and, observation of the life of Christ will provoke him to love and compassion; but, these things although certainly biblical not distinctively evangelical, since they are also manifested by groups for social action and by other elements of the organized church.)
The fifth evangelical distinctive is that we are ecclesiological in ministry. As human beings we have responsibility to our country; as parents we have responsibility to our families; and as Christian churchmen and women we have responsibility to the church of Jesus Christ. This responsibility falls in two spheres—that of the local church and that of the universal church, the body of Christ.
Furthermore, it extends to our comprehension of the relationship between the two. The evangelical recognizes that there is one body and that he is to maintain and manifest the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. He realizes that this unity is organismic rather than organizational; that it is essential rather than external or numerical (cf. John 17:22, 23). The church is seen to be a communion of saints wherein God is corporately worshiped and the believers are individually equipped for the work of ministry both within and without.
A sixth distinctive of the evangelical is that he is supernaturalistic in his world-view. This is evident from observation of the statements, but a few specific elements need to be identified as of overriding importance. Because he is a supernaturalist, the evangelical is a creationist in his view of the origin of the material universe and specifically in his view of the origin of man. Among other things, this means that he rejects all evolutionary and deterministic philosophies of history. Instead he sees man, the image of God, as a creature of dignity and responsibility in the purposes of God.
As a supernaturalist he believes in miracles, especially as they are recorded in the Scriptures. He acknowledges that this is not God's usual way of working in the affairs of men, but that since the miraculous is certainly within the province of the divine character, it may well be, at times, within his overt purpose.
Another outgrowth of our supernaturalism is the fact that we are mystics in a qualified and biblical sense of the term. We do not mean to imply that Christian experience is irrational or extra-rational, nor that it will lead to new revelation beyond that recorded in Scripture. Rather, we refer to the biblical teaching regarding the indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit whereby the believer is enabled to live a holy life. By this we understand not an indefinable influence but the personal presence of the deity within. God's Word requires of us holy living and God's Holy Spirit within us makes it possible.
Finally, the evangelical is eschatological in outlook. He believes that there is an eternal plan that is being worked out in the affairs of men and nations and that it will be brought to its consummation, both in history and beyond history, by God not men. History is not a squirrel cage in which men are hopelessly trapped; it is a way, broad or narrow, depending on how one is related to the sovereign God through Jesus Christ, leading to a definite and purposeful goal. Just as the creation, the beginning of history was related to a person, so the climax, the goal of history, is related to a person—namely, Jesus Christ at his second coming.
As he has kept his word in the past, as he is doing in the present, so he will in the future. He is a covenant-keeping God and what he has promised to nations and to individual men he will perform. Those who have trusted him throughout the ages will be raised to a new phase of the eternal life that they now possess, while those who have rejected him will be raised to a new phase of the damnation they are now experiencing.
Consequently, the evangelical rejects every form of universalism, including its modern manifestation which views all men as finally reconciled and in Christ whether they realize it or not. Because of our eschatological outlook we do not believe that men only need to be told that they are already in Christ, but rather that they need to experience the new birth to be delivered from the wrath to come.
References:
1
John Jefferson Davis, Theology Primer, p. 28
2 Harold B. Kuhn, "The
Process Theology Word Game,” Christianity Today, Oct. 8, 1982, p. 106
3 Royce Gordon
Gruenler, The Inexhaustible God , p. 7
4 See Kuhn, ibid.,
for further development
5 Gruenler, Op. cit.,
p. 8
|
Copyright © 2007 by
AncientPath Network
and the authors. All rights reserved. |
051707P
