Union school of Theology - a paragon of neo-'evangelical' corruption.
The Lowest Common Denominator
Mike Reeves is the President and Theology Professor of Union.
Its on line library is sprinkled with approved quotes of the neo-Orthodox Karl Barth, and other unbelieving writers.
See here for example.
In this article Tony Lane, who draws his inspiration from John Stott's the Cross of Christ (infamous for its tentative denial of eternal punishment), prepares the theological groundwork for following the same steps by seeing God's wrath as an expression of His love, rather than primarily deriving from His offended Holiness.
It contains a leavened contribution by WEST's resident liberal senior lecturer in New Testament studies and UST's academic dean .
'Jesus' divinity cannot be deduced from the titles 'Messiah' and 'Son of God' because in the Jewish understanding, the Messiah was to be a human agent chosen by God and anointed by God's Spirit to accomplish God's restorative purposes for his people; and the epithet 'Son of God' could refer to angels (e.g., Genesis 6:2; Job 38:7) or human beings (e.g., Psalm 2:7).'
The serious error of this statement lies in its considerable concession to anti-Messianic rabbinic distortions of Judaism and is evident from contemporary Jewish reactions in the NT:
'...the high priest asked him, and said unto him, art Thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?' Mr. 14.61
'Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.' Jn .5.18
'The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that Thou, being a man, makest Thyself God.' Jn.10.33
It rends apart the logic of the Apostle, 'Who is a liar but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denies the Father and the Son.' 1 Jn.2.23
Machen vs UST's Sr Lecturer in NT
The usually solid Robert Letham gives passing but dubious deference to the New Perspective on Paul, by limiting redemption to the ceremonial in an article on incarnation:
'The Son came to redeem his people from the law, not from the moral law expressed in the decalogue
but from the accumulation of ceremonies that Peter had said was greater than the people could bear (Acts 15:10).'
Yet it is the moral law that curses us and from which Christ redeems us (Deut.11.28, 29.20, Gal.3.10-13). The yoke we cannot bear is justification by 'works and grace', not grace alone. (Gal.5.1-3)
Roger Abbott's highly ecumenical thesis drove our critique and he remains a research coordinator.
Leonardo de Chirico's active participation in Vatican dialogue as member of World Evangelical Alliance has raised no concerns about his being appointed as a lecturer in missiology.
Is his policy also one Union endorses? 'In the new era of captivating catholicity there will be a niche for the Evangelicals who have made peace with the imperial structures of the church of Rome and its abnormal theology, and who are no longer concerned about a comprehensive reform in accordance with the gospel. These Evangelicals instead are content to be able to integrate their own spirituality into a system that is more fluid but still vertebrate, that is programmatically open to everything and yet opposed to everything. The criterion of the system is not the gospel of Christ, but a version of the gospel that guarantees the universalist and Rome-centred strategy of Catholicism.' He looks awfully just like one of 'these evangelicals'.
His own posts do not exclude Roman Catholic doctrine in the round as heretical, as he ought, on the contrary he strives for a dialogue with Satan, and gives the impression of a studious plasterer of the abyss between truth and error. Of extensive ecumenical discussions between professing but disobedient evangelicals and Vatican authorities he writes, 'The major weakness is that the conversation needs to be more historically conscious, theologically careful and ecumenically alert than previous contributions to both ECT or GOS have been.' This is not apostolic it's an approach that leads directly to apostasy, if not one already committed to it, as his liberal quotes of Stott and Packer suggest.
Mike Reeve's close participation in Rome Scholars Network along with De Chirico makes this look like a strategic posting.
The School is preparing for major theological compromises whether it knows it or not. What else is the purpose of engaging such a well known ecumenist?
Listen to Haggai's warning that the admixture of unclean doctrine rapidly corrupts and leavens the whole.
A little leaven leavens the whole lump.
A gangrenous limb needs swift amputation before the whole body is infected.
'And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus' 2 Tim.2.17
Last modified 27/8/19