Evangelicals Now
Christian news worldwide
magnifying glass Search archives
home Home check the archives Archives Subscribe Subscriptions Advertising Information & booking of classifieds Adverts Find a local evangelical Church Find a church for the search engines and extremely curious! About us Contact us Site Map
Printable
Version

Princeton v. the New Divinity

Articles from the Princeton Review

Heresy is cruel

PRINCETON v. THE NEW DIVINITY
Articles from the Princeton Review
The Banner of Truth. 342 pages. £11.50
ISBN 0 85151 801 X

It has been well said that heresy is cruel, for the truths of the gospel always enlighten and liberate.

Also, that there are no new heresies, but just reruns of the errors of the past. It must have been these convictions that prompted the Banner of Truth to republish articles written in the Princeton Review in the 1830s.

The articles, written by such stalwarts as Charles Hodge and Archibald Alexander, have a very combative and polemical tone, which is understandable in that they are taking on what they perceive as the grievous errors of the so-called 'New Divinity'. The 'New Divinity' of the day was not what we might have expected - liberalism - but its forerunner - Arminianism. Although the articles cover several aspects of Arminian error, the main emphasis is on the doctrine of sin. Handley Moule, in his classic Outlines of Christian Doctrine, rightly, I judge, claims that every heresy shows some subtle connection with inadequate views of the 'exceeding sinfulness of sin'. In their own words these articles defend the classic position that sin is universal (all have sinned), original (we are born sinners), total (every area of our lives - mind, conscience and emotions are all tainted) and fatal (there's nothing we can do about it, and we stand condemned).

Charles Finney is the chief target for their attacks and, although comparatively few these days have read his Lectures on Revivals, there's no doubt that quite a bit of modern evangelism follows his lead in playing down the seriousness of sin, and is marked by incipient Arminianism.

Typically, the book is beautifully produced, but it is hard going and is, inevitably, marked by negativity. Probably not the best buy for the average reader.

Jonathan Fletcher, Wimbledon