Erroneous and Dangerous Doctrine in The Bulwark
The Bulwark is the monthly Journal on behalf of Reformation principles issued by The Scottish Reformation Society from Edinburgh. There is a column each month on Bible Study by Rev. G. Fraser, M.A., and in the December, 1961, issue there is a
Bible Study on Chapters xix and xx of Revelation. This article is full of strange statements, but we cannot deal with them all here; a selection must suffice. Mr Fraser writes: “No one can presume to say how we shall be judged.” One would think from this that Mr Fraser had never read the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ or of Paul the inspired apostle (e.g. see Matt. Chapter 25: v. 25-46, and 2 Thess. Chapter 1). He further states: “In our life here we are passing judgment on ourselves.” We may or may not understand exactly what is meant here as the rest of Mr Fraser’s teaching is so extraordinary. After some statements regarding those who trust Christ, he proceeds: “The difficulty of the subject arises when we ask what about those who reject Christ here? . . . No one can really say what the future of the wicked shall be. Some people think that this chapter affirms that some will be cast into fire and be tormented for ever and ever. That is absolutely irreconcilable with what Jesus has told us about God. He said that God was a Father far better than any earthly father, and what earthly father would torment his child by fire even for a day much less for ever and ever.” These are terrible statements and, of course, modernistic views. But let us remind Mr Fraser that Christ has told us what the future of the wicked shall be, viz., “And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 25: v. 30). “Then shall He say unto them on the left hand, Depart from, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25: v. 41). “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment” (Matt. 25: v. 46). “But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear Him, which after He hath killed hath power to cast into hell” (Luke 12: v. 5). This is the teaching of Christ in flat contradiction to what Mr Fraser avers. He is all mixed up wittingly or unwittingly as to God the Father in relation to believers in Christ as His children. Does he not realise from the Bible, which he affects to study, the radical fact that the wicked are not among the children of God who are “born again” of the Spirit of God? But although Mr Fraser has declared that no one can say what the future of the wicked shall be; yet in his article he goes on to tell his readers what that future shall be, according to his own carnal, unscriptural reasoning. On this, he writes as follows:—”The wicked cease to be. Separated from Christ here, all life in them dies out as in a withering branch. God has no spirit of revenge, of tit for tat, measuring out so much penalty for so much sin.” The pernicious doctrine of Jehovah Witnesses appears in the above statement. Mr Fraser in his own terms denies the Word of God which says:
“Vengeance is mine: I will repay, saith the Lord,” and that Christ will be revealed from heaven “. . . to take vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. . .” Whoever edited The Bulwark for December, 1961, is, like the Rev. G. Fraser himself, completely out of line with the doctrines of the Reformers and in daring opposition to the teaching of the Son of God and the inspired Word of God. Is this the poison that is now to be poured into the minds of those who, as Protestants, receive and read The Bulwark? It may be said that there are other articles in The Bulwark which are profitable. Our reply is: “Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour” (Eccles. Chapter 10: v. 1). It is a shame and a grief that the Scottish Reformation Society should have any responsibility for the propagation of such evil and dangerous opinions.
Road Menace of the Future
The Christian Economic and Social Research Foundation recently took note of the increased insobriety of youth reported by the Foundation between 1953-1957. These young men were now at motor driving age, and therefore the Foundation anticipates that a class of motorist more prone to excessive drinking is moving gradually into the motoring population. This indeed is a serious outlook with drink licensing laws more lax than ever. Truly, one evil in society leads to another and sin brings its own bitter fruits to men even in time.
Probation in a Convent for a Girl
In the Oxford Mail of November 22nd, 1961, there appears the report of a young girl found guilty of theft at Oxford; Lady Townsend, presiding at Court. The girl was put on probation for three years on condition that she lived for a year in a named convent. Asked if she would accept probation on these terms, she said: “Not entirely. It is not my own religion.” But after discussion with a probation officer she agreed. Surely this was strange procedure when there are Remand Homes and such like institutions provided by the Government. When have convents been given the place of looking after wayward girls dealt with by our Courts and when such are not Roman Catholics? If this practice will be permitted and extended we are sure that the Roman religion will be brought to bear upon any who are put in charge of R.C. nuns for such a period as a year. This procedure should be banned.
Modernism from St. George’s West Church, Edinburgh
Lunch-time services have been held at St. George’s West Church, Church of Scotland, Edinburgh. At one of these last
December, a Rev. Dr. Eric Routley spoke on “The Doctrine of Creation.” He said that it would clear up a lot of difficulty if people would accept the assurance that Christians “drew from the first chapter of Genesis hardly anything more, in the way of firm belief, than any modern humanist would draw from it.” The Doctor was certainly not speaking for regenerated and Spirit-taught Christians, for such find more in the first chapter of Genesis than agnostics. They find the Trinity there and Creation. But Dr. Routley gave on this occasion the background to his view of the beginning of the Bible, viz., “What exactly do we draw from Genesis I? Why, this: that in a certain ancient tradition, chiefly associated with Babylon, and first committed to writing perhaps five or six centuries before Christ, the making of the known universe was thought of as taking place in six days or six stages, and as attributable to a personal Creator.” In other words the first chapter of the Word of God is merely tradition in his view. They are a miserable people who depend upon such as this Rev. Dr. for their Bible and their religious beliefs. No doubt the second and third chapters of Genesis, etc., are but tradition also in the view of Dr. Routley, for we cannot conceive of Chapter I being but tradition from Babylon and not the rest of Genesis in his view. Intellectual unbelievers in the garb of Christian ministers are the servants of Satan to undermine in the minds of their fellow-men any belief in the inspiration and divine authority of the Word of God from Genesis to Revelation. To begin with, if Genesis is but tradition then man’s creation immediately by God, his sin and fall and ruin spiritually and morally are but matters of tradition. But the fruits and evidences of the fall have been in the world among all nations and in all generations to the present time. And the Holy Spirit throughout the Bible substantiates the records of Genesis as the Inspired Word of God. What a solemn account such men will have to render at the Day of Judgment that they included among Babylonish tradition the first promise God gave of the Saviour, along with all their other sins, if they repent not.
Approaching Crisis in the Church of England
The Romanising effect in the Church of England by the Anglo-Catholic party during the past century is well known to all. Evangelicals within that Church have taken up the position that they should remain within the Church in an endeavour to fight for the Reformed principles embodied in the thirty-nine articles, and so prevent the National Church from becoming Roman Catholic.
Certain recent events have, however, indicated that such a
position will become increasingly difficult to maintain, and that very soon the Evangelicals will have to consider whether they can any longer remain in a Church which is in immediate danger of taking steps which would put a complete end to its Reformed character.
One such event is the sending out of the Revised Catechism to be tested over an experimental period of seven years. This Catechism occasioned much comment in the Press by reason of the omission of the “Devil” from its first draft. This omission has now been partly corrected, but there are features of the Catechism, of which no mention has been made, of a most serious nature. As the core of the dispute between the two parties is centred round the sacraments, it is highly significant that the Catechism describes confirmation, matrimony, ordination, absolution and healing as “other sacramental ministries of grace” alongside baptism and the Lord’s Supper. This raises the number of sacraments to seven, exactly the number in the Church of Rome, the only difference being that the Papists have Extreme Unction rather than healing.
The present Archbishop of Canterbury is regarded by some as the most Anglo-Catholic Archbishop since the Reformation, and it is very evident that he is all out for re-union with Rome. Recently, reports of his “Canterbury Diocesan Notes” indicate his purposes with respect to a reform of worship in the Church of England. In the light of what we have written above, our particular interest is in his remarks on the Lord’s Supper. He suggests an alternative Communion Service. There is little doubt but that this alternative Communion would be the Mass in some form or another, and the old form would be retained in an endeavour to keep the Evangelical party quiet. The question arises immediately, however, as to whether evangelicals could remain in a Church which officially recognises two forms of the Lord’s Supper, one of these being both unscriptural and blasphemous. There are ominous days ahead for the Church of England.—D. M.
A Sabbath-loving Fireman
A refreshing case of a stand being made for the Lord’s Day comes from Northern Ireland. Thomas McCabe, an auxiliary fireman in the Northern Ireland Fire Service, has been refusing to attend life-saving courses on Sabbath. He has refused to resign from the Fire Service despite the possibility of action being taken against him. He has two of a family and is a carpenter to trade, and has made it abundantly plain that he considers it his duty to obey God rather than man and that he prefers to
be in the worship of God on His Day rather than engaged in a work which by no stretch of the imagination can be called a work of necessity and mercy. We understand his case may go to Parliament.—D. M.