Gordon H. Clark
When future historians of the Church evaluate this present age, the
publication of the Auburn Affirmation will stand out in importance like
Luther's nailing up his ninety-five theses. But it will be important for
a different reason.
The reason the Auburn Affirmation is so important is that it
constitutes a major offensive against the Word of God. It, or at least
its theology, is the root of Presbyterian apostasy.
Officials in the Presbyterian Church in the USA have commonly spread
the rumor that there is nothing doctrinal involved in the Auburn
Affirmation. This rumor, regardless of its source, is untrue. It is true
that the Auburn Affirmation is a cleverly written document with some
pious phraseology slightly obscuring its real intent. But once a person
has seen exactly what it says, there is no disguising the fact that it
is a vicious attack on the Word of God.
The five doctrines involved are the truth of Holy Scripture, the
factuality of the virgin birth of Christ, his miracles, his sacrifice on
Calvary to satisfy divine justice and reconcile us to God, and his
resurrection.
The real purpose of the document is partially obscured because it
states that some of the signers believe some of these doctrines. That is
true. Some of the signers believe some; but they all deny the inerrancy
of the Holy Scriptures. They all hold that the basis of the Westminster
Confession is harmful and that the Bible contains error. This attack on
the Bible is of fundamental importance because obviously if the Bible
be rejected, why should the religion of the Bible be retained? You
cannot well impugn the veracity of the Scriptures and then accept the
content of the Scriptures.
Because this point is so serious, evidence is not to be omitted. On
page five of the Auburn Affirmation you may read these words: "There is
no assertion in the Scriptures that their writers were kept 'from
error.' The Confession of Faith does not make this assertion.... The
doctrine of inerrancy, intended to enhance the authority of the
Scriptures, in fact impairs their supreme authority for faith and life,
and weakens the testimony of the Church to the power of God unto
salvation through Jesus Christ."
Now kindly note this strange fact. The Auburn Affirmation states that
to believe the Bible is true impairs its authority and weakens the
testimony of the church. Or, in other words, in order for the Bible to
be authoritative, it must contain error; and, no doubt, the more
erroneous it is, the more authoritative it can be.
But what does the Confession say? In Chapter I, Section 4, you may
read: "The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be
believed and obeyed, dependeth ... wholly upon God (who is truth itself)
the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is
the Word of God."
Study also Chapter XIV, Section 2. "By this [saving] faith, a
Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for
the authority of God himself speaking therein...."
The Auburn Affirmation says it is wrong and harmful to believe to be
true whatsoever is revealed. Thus the signers of the Auburn Affirmation
are seen to be antagonistic to the very basis of Christian faith. In
denying the truth of the Bible, they repudiate their own Confession, and
so have no rightful place in the Presbyterian ministry. Do they
perchance reply that they agree with the Confession that the Scriptures
are the Word of God, and that they deny only that the Scriptures are
inerrant? God forbid that they make that reply. For if they say that
they believe the Bible is the Word of God, and at the same time claim
that the Bible contains error, it follows, does it not, that they call
God a liar, since he has spoken falsely. Either they have openly
repudiated the Confession, or else they have called God a liar. In
either case they have no rightful place in the Presbyterian ministry.
The Auburn Affirmation is more generous toward the other four points.
The virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection, which orthodox
Presbyterians regard as historical facts, the Affirmationists regard as
permitted theories.
On page six of the Auburn Affirmation, after referring to the five points emphasized by the General Assembly of 1923, it states:
...this opinion of the General Assembly attempts to commit
our Church to certain theories concerning the inspiration of the Bible,
and the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Resurrection.... Some of us
regard the particular theories contained in the deliverances of the
General Assembly of 1923 as satisfactory explanations of these facts and
doctrines. But we are united in believing that these are not the only
theories allowed by the Scriptures and our standards as explanations of
these facts and doctrines of our religion, and that all who hold to
these facts and doctrines, whatever theories they may employ to explain
them, are worthy of all confidence and fellowship.
Now to be concrete, what "theory" other than the historical fact of
the virgin birth, can you think of to explain the incarnation? There is
one which the anti-christian Celsus used in his effort to defame Christ.
If Christ be not virgin-born, and if, as both Joseph and Mary claim,
Joseph was not Jesus' father, whose son is he? Does the Auburn
Affirmation really mean that one who accepts this view of our Lord's
birth is worthy of all confidence and fellowship? That is exactly what
the Auburn Affirmation means. It says definitely that ministers are
worthy of confidence "whatever theories they may employ to explain" the
incarnation.
Consider next Christ's sacrificial death by which he satisfies divine
justice and reconciles us to God. This, too, is declared unessential,
and Christians are asked to put confidence in men who deny this
doctrine, who so long as they use the word 'atonement' may employ any
random theory to explain it. Christ's death, then, may be nothing but an
example, and our salvation may depend on our efforts to imitate his
good deeds. No longer will salvation be entirely by grace. And we are
told that these men are worthy of confidence "whatever theories they may
employ to explain" the Atonement.
Is there time also to refer briefly to the resurrection? This too is
reduced to a permitted but unessential theory. The signers of the Auburn
Affirmation may have in mind some theory of a spiritual resurrection as
opposed to the fact that Christ rose from the grave with the same body
with which he suffered. The Auburn Affirmationists, on the one hand, may
hold to some sort of spiritual resurrection; but on the other hand,
Jesus Christ said: "Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and
bones as ye behold me having." Apparently Jesus would not have been
eligible to sign the Auburn Affirmation. The signers of the Auburn
Affirmation say the bodily resurrection—and that is the only kind of
resurrection worth talking about—is unessential. But Paul says: "If
Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith is
also vain." You will note that Paul's name does not occur among the
signers of the Auburn Affirmation. No, you will not find Paul asking us
to put confidence in men "whatever theories they may employ to explain,"
or better, to explain away the resurrection.
If, now, the Auburn Affirmation had been signed by only two or three
persons, it would still be incumbent upon Presbyterians to ask them to
repent and recant, or to remove them from the ministry. But if only two
or three had signed, there might be little cause for alarm. As a matter
of fact, 1300 ministers in the USA church signed this heretical
document. And yet this number, large as it is, does not of itself reveal
the full significance of the situation. One must see also to what
extent this type of theology controls the boards and agencies of the
Presbyterian Church in the USA. From time to time there have been
prepared lists of Auburn Affirmationists who hold responsible positions
in the ecclesiastical machinery. These positions include the moderators
of Presbyteries, of Synods, and of the General Assembly; directors of
seminaries; at one time 22 members of the Board of National Missions
were Affirmationists; and so on through the various important positions
in the Presbyterian Church in the USA.
But not even this list of positions indicates the total depravity of
that church. Realize also that there are numerous other office-holders
who, although they have not signed the Auburn Affirmation, approve its
principles, and, far from protesting against it, cheerfully cooperate
with its signers in the work of the various boards and agencies. Try to
mention any secretary of any board, try to mention any official who has
attempted to defend the Word of God against this Auburn attack. None can
be named; there are none; they cooperate with the Affirmationists, they
approve the same policies, and have thus taken their stand against the
Holy Scriptures and against the Confession they vowed to defend.
In addition to these office holders who cooperate with the signers of
the heretical Auburn Affirmation, there are the ministers who take
their orders from headquarters, who in their Presbyteries regularly vote
with this Bible-dishonoring band. They may not have signed the
document, but they have voted its principles into effect and have
banished the orthodox from their denomination. Try to mention any
minister who has made any serious, public attempt to discipline the
signers of the heretical Auburn Affirmation. When has anyone in the
Presbyterian Church in the USA heard a sermon defending the atonement
and the resurrection against this attack? What minister has brought the
matter before his presbytery?
Some years ago the modernists used to talk in favor of an inclusive
church. The church, they said, was big enough to include all brands of
theology. Today, however, they have changed their tune. They now have
excommunicated the orthodox. The Affirmationist officials and their
supporters decreed that those who remained true to the Word of God,
those who objected to the General Assembly's placing its own authority
above that of the Bible, those who would not obey an order to support
modernism, those who took their ordination vows seriously, had to be
expelled from the church.
The most important of these expulsions was that of the late J.
Gresham Machen. He had been accused of disobeying a legal order and of
telling lies about the Board of Foreign Missions. He was brought to
trial. He wanted to defend himself by arguing that the order to support
modernism was illegal, and that what he had said about the Board of
Foreign Missions was true. It was supposed to be a judicial trial, but
his judges absolutely refused him the right to present his defense. On
the Permanent Judicial Commission, which made final disposal of his
case, half of the ministers had signed the Auburn Affirmation. No wonder
the Bible-believing Christians were expelled from the Presbyterian
Church in the USA.
This, then, in brief is the situation conservative Christians must
meet. Shall the truth of the Bible be upheld, or shall orders to support
modernism be made the supreme authority over men's conscience? This is
no trivial matter; it is rather a life and death struggle between two
mutually exclusive religions. One religion can without harm to its
integrity reject the infallible Word of God, deny the virgin birth,
repudiate Christ's propitiatory sacrifice, and deny the resurrection.
That religion will remain complete even if all these things are
eliminated; but that religion is not Christianity.
The other religion is Christianity because it accepts the Bible as
the very Word of God, who cannot lie, because it makes Christ's
sacrifice to satisfy divine justice the only basis of salvation, and
because it glories in the historical fact of the resurrection.
Dr. Clark was an elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church,
formerly an elder in the Presbyterian Church in the USA. This was a
revision of an address delivered February 28, 1935 at a mass meeting of
Presbyterian Laymen of Philadelphia and vicinity, and later published in
tract form by the Committee on Christian Education.
Copyright © 2013, The Orthodox Presbyterian Church. All Rights Reserved.
