The deeds of Machen

The late Dr. John Robbins wrote:

We have just posted the September and October Trinity Reviews at our website.

Written by Paul M. Elliott, a former Ruling Elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, “The Marks of Neo-Liberalism” is taken from chapter 2 of his forthcoming book, Christianity and Neo-Liberalism: The Spiritual Crisis in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Beyond.

In this chapter Mr. Elliot lists the marks of Neo-Liberalism — they are the principles of the Liberalism that Machen opposed — and shows how the OPC displays those marks, even while claiming that “there’s no one here but us Reformed folks.”

Elliott’s book is a massive documentation of Liberalism at Westminster Seminary (Philadelphia) and in the OPC on the doctrines of Scripture, God, salvation, and hermeneutics. Officers of the OPC should not even begin to think, “We are the children of Machen,” for if they were, they would do the deeds of Machen.

In all fairness to the OPC, they actually ARE doing at least one deed of their founding father, J. Gresham Machen:

“Another difference of opinion is that between the Calvinistic or Reformed Theology and the Arminianism which appears in the Methodist church. … A Calvinist is constrained to regard the Arminian theology as a serious impoverishment of the Scripture doctrine of divine grace; and equally serious is the view which the Arminian must hold as to the doctrine of the Reformed Churches. Yet here again, true evangelical fellowship is possible between those who hold, with regard to some exceedingly important matters, sharply opposing views” (Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, pp. 51-52).

The OPC, just like their father Machen, are calling the children of the devil their brothers with whom “true evangelical fellowship is possible.” But the OPC, just like their father Machen, are not very consistent. How so? Well, both Machen and his OPC offspring are guilty of a satanic schism since they will be separate from those who in their own satanic estimates are brethren with whom “true evangelical fellowship is possible.” A little inconsistent don’t you think? So, anyways, make that two deeds of Machen that the OPC not only would do, but still continually does.

In the aforecited quote from Christianity and Liberalism Machen exposes himself as one who endorses the committing of spiritual whoredom with those who despise the propitiating blood of Christ. God says to separate and come out from among these sons and daughters of Belial. Machen showed at that time that God was not his Father since he not only refused to come out from among them, but committed spiritual fornication with them by having “true evangelical fellowship.” For instance, J. Gresham Machen said of Billy Sunday that:

“His methods are as different as could possibly be imagined from ours, but we support him to a man simply because, in an age of general defection, he is preaching the gospel.” (from Calhoun’s Princeton Seminary: The Majestic Testimony, p. 299)

Sunday preached the gospel? Okay, whatever you say J.

“Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership does righteousness have with lawlessness? And what fellowship does light have with darkness? And what agreement does Christ have with Belial? Or what part does a believer have with an unbeliever? And what agreement does a temple of God have with idols? For you are a temple of the living God, even as God said, “I will” dwell in them and “walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.” Because of this, “come out from among them” “and be separated,” says the Lord, “and do not touch the unclean thing,” and I will receive you. “And I will be a Father to you, and you will be sons” and daughters to Me, says the Lord Almighty” (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).

For the sons and daughters of God who are also the temple of the living God, there is NO AGREEMENT between the temple of God and idols. But Machen says that despite sharply opposing views there should be the agreement between the temple of God and the idols to have “true evangelical fellowship.” Why “true evangelical fellowship”? Because like Machen says, both he and Sunday despite their differences are both preaching the gospel. What hogwash. NEITHER Sunday or Machen are believers preaching the true gospel. BOTH of them are enemies of God in joint opposition to the power of God to salvation to everyone believing.

To reiterate, whoremonger Machen counts as spiritual brethren those who vilify the blood of Christ, treating it as something of no value. And finally, here is evidence taken from the official OPC website that proves that the OPC does at least two deeds of their father Machen. Again, the two deeds were:

(1) the committing of spiritual fornication with the sons and daughters of Belial located within the Methodist/Wesleyan/Arminian Synagogues of Satan.

(2) the committing of a Satanic schism by separating from those with whom “evangelical fellowship” was deemed “possible.”

From the official OPC website:

Is Arminianism a heresy? Yes. Are Arminian preachers heretics? In a sense, yes, though most have not been condemned as such by a church council having the authority to make such a determination.

Can an Arminian preacher be a “damnable heretic” who preaches a false gospel of man’s free will instead of the true gospel of God’s sovereign grace? Yes, surely.

Is it possible for an Arminian preacher to preach the false doctrines of conditional election, universal atonement, partial depravity, resistible grace, and the possibility of a lapse from grace, while still (inconsistently) calling upon his hearers to trust in Jesus Christ alone, to the saving of their souls? I believe so.

And:

These Five Points are the background for the doctrines of sovereign grace. Evangelical Christians are divided over these doctrines. I don’t claim that those who reject these are not Christians. But I would say that we must not take God’s glory from Him. Since we are saved by grace, we must give Him all the glory.

And one more time, compare the demonic deeds of the OPC offspring (cited above) with that of their father (recited below):

“Another difference of opinion is that between the Calvinistic or Reformed Theology and the Arminianism which appears in the Methodist church. … A Calvinist is constrained to regard the Arminian theology as a serious impoverishment of the Scripture doctrine of divine grace; and equally serious is the view which the Arminian must hold as to the doctrine of the Reformed Churches. Yet here again, true evangelical fellowship is possible between those who hold, with regard to some exceedingly important matters, sharply opposing views” (Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, pp. 51-52).

Advertisements