Orthodoxy and Heresy

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D.C. · Apr 28, 1904

Orthodoxy and Heresy

Three quarters of a century ago the so-called orthodox churches stood for something definite. They defended the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. They appealed to the Bible as the final authority in matters of faith and practise. There were men who upheld with much clearness and force, as against the attacks of the professed infidel or the scientific atheist, the doctrine of the atonement and the necessity of personal faith in the death, resurrection, ascension, and priestly ministry of Christ as the basis of salvation from sin. Teachers were not permitted to occupy the pulpits in these churches who compromised these fundamental principles of truth and surrendered the strongholds of Christianity at the demand of the enemy. There was still left in these churches sufficient spiritual vitality to resist the encroachments of infidelity, and to cast out from their midst those who were seeking to undermine the very foundations of Christian belief while professing to be its defenders.

To the churches in this condition came the advent message—a message of preparation for the soon-coming Saviour. This was the opportunity for these orthodox churches. If the message had been received, additional power would have attended the ministry of the word, hypocrites would have trembled, and the teachings of the enemies of the gospel would have been recognized at once, regardless of their pretended loyalty to truth. The light of the advent message shining in the churches would have revealed all the sophistries of the enemy of all righteousness, and a pure doctrine would have been fully restored. Orthodoxy, a genuine orthodoxy, would have conquered heresy.

But the churches rejected the advent message. They refused to accept the very truth which would have been to them a defense against the insidious attacks of Satan in the last generation of the conflict, and thus the light which was in them became darkness.

To the churches whose spiritual discernment had been in a large degree dulled by this experience came the demands of a false science, claiming that the teachings of nature overthrew the Biblical account of creation. Not recognizing that this was the decisive battle-ground of a genuine orthodoxy, and that the fundamental principles of Christianity were really at stake, those who were originally set for the defense of the gospel surrendered the very citadel of faith, and received as orthodox teaching the essential principle of all heresy and heathenism—a false view of God in his relation to his created works. It only remained for this false teaching to bear its inevitable fruit, and in due course of time this has appeared, until now the professed leaders of orthodoxy are openly inculcating such teachings concerning God and his relation to the chief of his created works—man—as set aside the doctrine of the atonement as “a survival from barbarous times.” All this was involved in the first claims of evolution; but in that twilight where truth and error commingle, the far-reaching consequences of this kind of nature teaching were not perceived. Under the cloak of modern science there was thus introduced into the churches the leaven of ancient heathenism, and when it became sufficiently developed so that some uncorrupted minds began to appreciate its true nature, behold, it has gained sufficient influence so that it now refuses to be called heresy, and claims to be orthodoxy. Thus the heresy of a century ago has become the orthodoxy of to-day.

These principles are well illustrated in the recent trial of Prof. Borden P. Bowne, of Boston University, for heresy, before a committee of the New York East Conference of the Methodist Church.

The complainant is reported in the daily press as saying:—

After much careful study into the writings of Professor Bowne, I am compelled by my interest in the cause of Christ, to express the opinion that he teaches rationalism in its most subtle and dangerous form, and that he has organized a propaganda within the Methodist Church for the promotion of his views. The Methodist Church is strictly and rigidly orthodox and intensely evangelical in its theology. Why should Professor Bowne remain in the fellowship of a church whose creed he does not teach? That is a hard question to answer. When we are told of the great influence that Professor Bowne already has secured within the church, the question naturally comes to mind. Is it his game to remain in our church until he has so thoroughly demoralized officers and crew that he can make away with the entire denomination? I have studied his writings with considerable care, and I am prepared to say that to my knowledge he has never defended nor advocated a single doctrine of the Methodist Church. He is against us, and all his influence is against us.

There is little doubt in the mind of any well-informed man that the teachings of Professor Bowne are directly contrary to the principles of Methodism as interpreted by its leading advocates of half a century or more ago. This is recognized in the following editorial comment which appeared in the New York Sun:—

The unanimous acquittal by the Brooklyn Methodist Conference of Dr. Bowne, a professor of philosophy in the Boston University of that religious denomination, after a trial on charges of heresy, was a result of the proceedings which might have been expected as almost a foregone conclusion. The charges against Dr. Bowne presented as specifications extracts from books written by him, in which he was accused of having denied or questioned the dogmas of the Trinity, the atonement, miracles, future punishment, and other doctrines of the Methodist Church. He spent two years in the study of theology in Germany, and evidently his mind, or at least his manner of treatment of the subjects he has discussed in the half dozen or more books on philosophy and theology published by him, was affected by the methods of the newer German theological school. But to anathematize him as a heretic would be to condemn the present teaching of our Protestant theological seminaries very generally. If he is a heretic, the prevailing tone of the teaching in those schools of divinity and in pulpits is heretical also, and heresy trials will have to go on, long and continuously, in order that all the offenders may be brought to book.

The simple fact in the case is that the teachings of the new theology have so fully permeated the minds of the representatives of Methodism to-day that there does not remain in the body sufficient power to defeat and cast out these perversions of the truth. This church, in common with all the others, declined to receive that message of the everlasting gospel which is to be proclaimed to this generation in such a setting as to save the believers from the special snare for these last days—a flood of skepticism and false philosophy concerning the being of God and his relation to the things which he has made. The simple advent message, the message from heaven for this time, is the sure defense, and the only sure defense, against these errors. To reject this message is to reject the only way of escape from the snare of the enemy. For this reason the Methodist Church is unable to purge itself from the leaven of heathen philosophy, and to the surprise of no one Professor Bowne was acquitted unanimously of all the charges against him. So it has been, and so it will be, in the other churches. Orthodoxy has surrendered. Heresy rules in the churches.

But what about the advent message

itself? Will any effort be made to corrupt this teaching with the same evil principles of a false philosophy? We need not look far afield for the answer to this question. We have been brought face to face with this experience. The present situation is briefly and authoritatively summarized in the following paragraph from 'Testimonies for the Church,' Vol. VIII:—

The enemy is seeking to divert the minds of our brethren and sisters from the work of preparing a people to stand in these last days. His sophistries are designed to lead minds away from the perils and duties of the hour. They estimate as nothing the light which Christ came from heaven to give to John for his people. They teach that the scenes just before us are not of sufficient importance to receive special attention. They make of no effect the truth of heavenly origin, and rob the people of God of their past experience, giving them instead a false science.

Has this church, to which was committed this advent message, retained the truth as it is in Jesus in such a measure that it will be able to recognize and reject the same heresy which has become orthodoxy in the other churches? The future of this advent movement depends upon the answer which the future gives to this question. In this time of crisis it is the plain duty of every loyal believer in this final message to refuse any compromise with the sophistries of the day, no matter who teaches them, or in what pleasing dress they may appear. “False theories, clothed with garments of light, will be presented to God’s people. Thus Satan will try to deceive, if possible, the very elect. Most seducing influences will be exerted; minds will be hypnotized.” This is no ordinary time. This is no ordinary crisis. The call of the Commander is, “Come into line.” Happy are those who hear and obey the call.