Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 9
July 18, 1957
NUMBER 11, PAGE 10-11b

Woods Between Rome And Modernism

Robert C. Welch, Louisville, Kentucky

About two years ago a series of articles was written showing that modernism was being taught in Gospel Advocate literature. Normally the writers' names are not divulged; but sufficient pressure was felt on the evidence of modernism as to cause Brother Guy N. Woods to acknowledge publicly his being responsible for the quarterly containing the modernism. He denied the charge and attempted to justify both his modernistic statements and his plagiarism. Following that little episode the literature began to have the appearance of being "edited." They were careful to keep such open and flagrant evidences of modernism from its pages. It looked like brother Woods had seen the light and would not be swept away by the modernistic type of infidelity. But has he?

In the June 6, 1957, issue of the Gospel Advocate he makes an argument that will fall either in the realm of Catholic doctrine or in the realm of modernism. As is true of most teachers of modernism he states his teaching in ambiguous language. Its true significance is so covered that many may not discover it.

"Let us examine their reason (?): An essential and integral element of the apostolic church was the exercise of spiritual gifts and the power of inspiration. Neither gifts, nor inspired men, such as were characteristic of the church of the first century are possible in the church today. Moreover we find our instruction in an inspired book which in its present content and form was never available to the church of the apostolic age. R. H. F. solemnly affirms that the lack of any component parts which characterized the original institution, or the addition of others 'will destroy its identity as a divine institution.' There is then, according to the logic of this brother, no such thing as a restored church in the world today."

It is stated in subtle language, as of showing the fallacy of others instead of a clear unequivocal affirmation. His argument is that the church may be restored without some of its original features. That is precisely the argument which is made by the Roman Catholic Church in defense of the changes she has made all through the centuries. "G. N. W." cannot refute the Catholic claim that she is the one church and at the same time hold his present position about the restoration of the church. If the church of the New Testament can be restored without having some of its original New Testament features, then the Roman Catholic can on the same basis claim to be the one true New Testament Church with her missing features. The following quotation is from a Catholic Church pamphlet, "The Church Unconquerable":

". . . that it can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as an organism, other than what Christ made it originally....

"But an unchanging Church does not mean a stagnant Church, as suggested by her critics. Her essential sameness does not deprive her of vital evolution. She is a living organism. She grows. She grows, for instance, in the understanding of herself and those stupendous unchanging truths committed to her care. She grows theologically."

That is the position which brother Woods has espoused in the quotation from his pen. He has decided that the church "grows theologically." He thinks that it can be restored and not be the same as it was originally. Surely, his position would "not deprive her of vital evolution." He teaches that if fatherless children find a new daddy their home is restored. He teaches that those children with a board of directors over them constitute their home restored. The same reasoning would conclude that a widow could have her home restored by marrying a board of directors. The same reasoning would permit the church to have a pope over her in her effort at restoration. His footsteps are, pointed toward Rome. Maybe he got more from "The Eternal City" than we thought when he made his tour and wrote an article under that caption.

That same theory is held by modernists. They do not think that the New Testament contains a pattern for the church in all subsequent time. They think that it was good enough for that medieval period; but they think that there is an evolution of revelation, Christianity, and the church in her doctrines and practices. If the church can vary in one feature, why can we not go to the conception of it which is had by Unitarians and by Harry Emerson Fosdick?

This new position espoused by brother Woods will permit him to accept changes in the organization of churches from that of New Testament authorization. He will have little difficulty in justifying a universal church function when he recalls that the church at first did not have "an inspired book . . . in its present content and form?' Neither should he have any conscientious difficulty in removing the Lord's supper from the first day of the week observance when he recalls that no "inspired men, such as were characteristic of the church in the first century are possible in the church today." With his present position he will find little difficulty in following the course of Ralph Wilburn who is now planning to teach in the College Of The Bible, the liberal wing Christian Church school, in Lexington, Kentucky.

The serious fallacy of his argument is the failure to make a distinction between the essential features of the church and the essential features of revelation. The "gifts" and "inspired men" were essential to the production and confirmation of the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments. There were prophets in Israel who were essential to revelation but not to the governmental organization and national temple worship. God's revelation given through them regulated the nation in its government and worship. The inspired men from Pentecost were essential to revelation but not to church organization and worship. The word of Christ which was given through them, orally and later in written form, regulated and regulates the church in its organization and worship.

The "holiness" sects have also made this blunder. But instead of reasoning that the church as described in the New Testament cannot be r restored today, they reason that a restoration of the church requires the exercising of those "gifts." The New Testament, which is the product and confirmation of inspiration and "gifts," declares the completion and fulfillment of those functions. But the pattern of church organization, work and worship is intact. Men need to be restored to this pattern.

When brother Woods learns to preach on "church identity" and the "church restored" and at the same time to refute the "holiness" doctrine of miracle working, tongue speaking, healing and Holy Ghost baptism, he will be able to steer clear of Romanism on the one side and modernism on the other. His present erratic course and this new position of his is driving him inevitably into one or the other of these destructive forces.