Over the course of the past 14 weeks, we have examined some of the most important periods in Church History.
From the ancient creeds of the early church to the formal confessions of the protestant reformation, we have seen that throughout her existence the Church has always had people within who were willing to stand for - and sometimes even die for - the truth.
We truly do stand on the shoulders of giants; men like Augustine, Chrysostom, Boniface, Wycliffe, Huss, Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Bunyan, Edwards & Spurgeon.
Some of these men we have not engaged, because of our limitation in time.
NOTE: I want to add that on our website, we have created a section for “Christian Education” and there will be short biographies on that page for you to go and read, which will introduce you to some of the folks we have not been able to study.
Tonight, we conclude this series with an examination of some of the recent developments which have arisen within the church.
Now, when we say “recent, we know this is a relative term.
We are defining that term by limiting ourselves primarily to those movements which have gained their momentum within the last century or shortly before.
In an attempt to simplify tonight’s lesson, we are going to break the movements down into two categories.
Negative Movements are those which we would say have been harmful to the cause of Christ and the promotion of the Gospel.
Positive Movements are those which we would say have been helpful to the cause of Christ and the promotion of the Gospel.
NOTE: It is important that I make the concession that these will be expressed from our perspective, and certainly would not be universally accepted by any means. When we - as conservative, bible-believing, reformed folks, look at recent history, this is how we would categorize these movements.
Negative Movements in Recent History
The Social Gospel Movement
This is a movement which arose in the latter part of the 19th Century and gained popularity in the 20th Century.
It is focused on seeking to correct social ills such as poverty, lack of education, crime and war.
The concern in this movement - according to its adherents - is promotion of justice and equality.
The social gospel movement is at the very heart of what we would call modern “liberalism”.
A few weeks ago, we discussed the mainline denominations and how they had all basically deviated into liberalism.
Some of them even go as far as to declare that “Jesus was a liberal”.
The adherents would argue that social justice was a concern for Jesus and should also be a concern for us.
They would point to Jesus ministering to the poor, the sick, the outcasts, and say that in working toward correcting social ills they are working most like Christ.
None of the things that those who promote the social gospel promote are necessarily bad, per se.
Giving aid to the hurting and the sick should be part of Christian charity.
We have a mandate to help widows and orphans and others who cannot help themselves.
But the problem is that this movement downplays the biblical teachings of sin, salvation in Christ, heaven and hell, judgment and the future kingdom.
Essentially, the social gospel movement makes the gospel about “social justice" rather than “cosmic justice”.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is about sinful man being divided from His Holy God; we have committed “cosmic treason” against our Creator and God’s justice demands that man be punished for his sin.
But God provided a substitutionary sacrifice so that man could be forgiven.
Ultimately, those who promote the social gospel at the expense of explaining the Biblical Gospel really are not promoting the Gospel at all.
Apart from the message of Sin and Salvation, no message can rightfully call itself the “Gospel”.
The Charismatic Movement
Most of us are familiar in some way with churches which identify themselves as Charismatic.
In fact, some might even challenge me for putting them on the list of “negative” movements in recent history.
They are - as has been pointed out - the fastest growing religious group in the world.
Yet, overwhelming numbers do not make a movement positive.
The Charismatic Movement was birthed out of a series of methodist-sponsored revivals which occurred at the Azusa Street Mission in California in 1906.
People claimed to be “baptized in the Holy Spirit” as in Acts 2 and receiving miraculous gifts such as healing and speaking in tongues.
This led to a tremendous enthusiasm which spread all over the United States.
The name Charismatic comes from the Greek word Charis, which means “gift”.
Sometimes they are called “Pentecostal” because of their claim to having the same gifts as those given at Pentecost.
The problem which the charismatic movement has given rise to in the church is the idea of the “theology of experience”.
If a person claims to have “experienced” something, then it must be true, whether or not that experience lines up with Scripture.
This has led to many dangerous teachings which have been promoted throughout the ranks of those who would claim to be charismatic.
Probably the most dangerous is the idea of receiving “new revelation” from God.
“God told me” is a very common phrase in the charismatic movement.
When challenged, the oft used reply is “A man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument.”
So, in a sense, they are unwilling to be challenged because they stand on the authority of their own experiences.
We would not claim that all charismatics are heretical in their teachings, but by accepting the “Theology of Experience” we would say that their teachings are often not grounded in the firm bedrock of Scripture.
The Anti-Lordship Movement
Lordship Salvation is the belief that when a person receives Christ as Savior, he also receives Him as Lord.
His process of sanctification begins at that moment.
While not ever reaching perfection, he does have a changed heart which results in a changed life.
Those who promote the “anti-lordship” perspective believe that a person can accept Jesus and have - effectively - no change in his life.
This is sometimes called, “Easy- Believism”.
Essentially it says that so long as a person makes a one-time decision to believe in Jesus that this person has their heavenly ticket punched, and that he is then absolutely and eternally secure in his own salvation.
2 Peter 1:10 “Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.”
How do we “confirm” our calling and election?
By examining ourselves to see if our faith is making a difference in our lives.
The Anti-Lordship crowd has given into the failure which was noted by James.
He said that “faith without works is dead”.
And yet, the anti-lordship crowd would argue that faith, devoid of works, is alive enough to mean a person is genuinely saved.
NOTE: Some who teach this claim to be adherents of Sola Fide.
But Sola Fide does not teach that a saved person “will-not” do good works; in fact, the opposite is true.
The reformers said, “We are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith which is alone (i.e. devoid of good works).
A person who claims salvation, but is not also seeking submission to Christ, is not truly saved.
The Emergent Church Movement
The title “emergent” (or sometimes “emerging”) relates to a group of churches which are very concerned with adapting to cultural style and influence as a way to engage people.
They say that as new cultures arise, a new church should arise.
The movement is very concerned with cultural sensitivity.
The movement is marked by a desire to “re-exam” doctrinal beliefs and the teachings of the Bible.
This leads to the problem of having no specifically defined church doctrine, which means that it is hard to pinpoint where the inaccuracies lie.
The one thing that is generally agreed upon is that they are taking a stand against the “traditional” aspects of the church.
One author describes it like this, “the Emerging Church is a place where people have felt the freedom to explore questions and experiment with new forms of lifestyle and corporate practice.” (Cited on carm.org, from Pagitt, Doug and Tony Jones, eds., An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, p. 23.)
"They [the emerging generations] are disillusioned with institutionalism and see the church itself as an obstacle to faith." (Cited on carm.org, from Gibbs, Eddie and Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005, p. 21.)
It should be noted that there are some things within the emergent church which can be seen as positives (as with all the groups in this list).
Reaching out into a culture and meeting people where they are to present them with the Gospel is very positive.
Seeking to answer the questions which the culture is asking is a part of how we reach them.
The problem is that so many churches which identify as emergent lack discernment in the area of theology.
False doctrine seems to abound within the ranks of those who identify themselves as emergent.
When challenged on the false teachings, those who adhere often claim that the challenger is lacking “epistemological humility”.
This is the old, “You can’t really know the truth, and to say you do is prideful” argument, which is so detrimental to the culture.
By seeking to reach the culture, the Emergent Church has actually adopted one of its worst problems, the problem of relativistic thinking.
Positive Movements in Recent History
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
In 1978, a conference was sponsored by the International Committee on Biblical Inerrancy.
This conference was meant to counter the problem of liberalism which had arisen within the church, and those who would claim that the Bible contains error.
This conference - which was attended by over 300 notable figures from various denominations including R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer, Norman Geisler, James Boice, and many others - produced a document which explained what is meant by the term “biblical inerrancy”.
This became known as the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy”.
Dr. Jay Grimstead, one of the organizers of the ICBI, describes the statement as "a landmark church document" created "by the then largest, broadest, group of evangelical protestant scholars that ever came together to create a common, theological document in the 20th century. It is probably the first systematically comprehensive, broadly based, scholarly, creed–like statement on the inspiration and authority of Scripture in the history of the church.” (http://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI.shtml)
Today, many evangelical churches identify in their statements of faith a commitment to biblical inerrancy, and their definition of what that means is often influenced by this important work.
The document addresses a host of issues regarding inerrancy, in the style of “Affirmations & Denials”
Article I.
WE AFFIRM that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.
WE DENY that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.
Article II.
WE AFFIRM that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture.
WE DENY that Church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.
An important point is made in article 10, wherein the issue of no longer having the original manuscripts is dealt with.
Article X.
WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.
This document is one which has had a massive impact on the church, and helped solidify a proper understanding of what it means when we say the Bible we hold is “inerrant”.
The StrangeFire Conference
This may seem like an odd thing to include in this series, especially with so much that we have not discussed, but I believe that this movement will become larger in the years to come.
Dr. John MacArthur held a conference in October of 2013 which was intended to draw a line in the sand regarding issues surrounding the charismatic movement.
He has also discussed planning a Summit in the near future to readdress and further solidify the positions which he and his fellow bible teachers proposed.
The purpose of StrangeFire was to demonstrate that much of what is promoted among Charismatics is bad theology.
In particular, there was an attempt to demonstrate that the prophecies and miracles which are claimed in charismatic circles are falsified.
There was also an attempt to make a positive case for “cessationism” which is the teaching that the miraculous gifts ceased with the passing of the Apostles.
This movement has, of course, raised quite a negative response among those who are charismatic.
I believe that this conference has far reaching implications.
As we noted earlier, the charismatic movement is the fastest-growing wing of Christianity; but that does not make it positive.
It needs to be corrected in many areas, and this conference was an attempt to bring correction from God’s Word.
Note: I would encourage you to go and watch the videos from the conference which are available online.
The Rise in Reformed Theology
Obviously, I would say this is a good thing, being a reformed teacher.
But it is obvious that the recent rise in those willing to identify as Reformed has been very influential.
So much so, that those who oppose RT have become very forceful in their attempts to oppose it.
There are books being written and conferences being held to squelch the new “calvinist revival.”
But with men spearheading the cause of truth like John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, Albert Mohler and James White, it is making major inroads in churches all across the world.
Reformed Theology is biblically-centered, Christ-exalting, God-honoring theology, and to see it flourish is a blessing indeed.
CONCLUSION: I have said from the beginning that this course could not be all-encompassing.
We have certainly left out much more than we have kept in.
We simply did not get into some of the great movements and teachers of the past because of our time restriction.
Maybe in the future, we will devote time to studying the Puritans, or Jonathan Edwards or Charles Spurgeon, all of which would material worthy of an entire series.
In the meantime, though, I pray this lesson has been fruitful.
Everything we studied was chosen specifically for you all as a way of introducing you both to historical movements and important doctrinal truths.
I pray God has used this series to help us all grow deeper in our understanding of His Sovereign hand which governs all of human history.
