Donald Grey Barnhouse

[The Author of my Faith]

Are there any issues with Barnhouse and his theology that I should be aware of? I read something regarding neo-evangelacalism

Donald Grey Barnhouse & Neo-evangelicalism

There seems to be something about his association with Keswick? Not sure what the Keswick movement was or is? I know Tozer was part of that too and though Tozer was not Reformed he did have a high regard for the preaching of the Cross and was not a big fan of altar call salvation.

Any Insights to this??


I am reading his commentary on Romans. Is it safe?


Thanks


Steve

 

[christiana]

Donald Grey Barnhouse & Neo-evangelicalism

He started great but ultimately capitulated to the liberals. Sad.

 

[The Author of my Faith]

His Theology on the Cross?

What is the issue with his Theology regarding the Cross?? In the article Miles J. Stanford writes of Barnhouse:

"Finally, he made the mistake of saying, "In the spiritual life, the life of Christ dominates the old Adamic life with which we were born." Right here we have the key to the Barnhouse problem. Reliance upon the new life to overcome the old life eliminates dependence upon the work of the Cross for the old nature. No Cross, no crucifixion; leaving the old man free to ruin all. It is this side-stepping of the Cross, whether by intention or ignorance, that renders barren most growth ministries today. Resurrection and ascension life emerge from death by crucifixion."

Donald Grey Barnhouse & Neo-evangelicalism


I am not so sure I understand the error of Barnhouses position here? It seems that he basically is saying "walk in the Spirit and you will not fulfill the desires of the flesh"? If Stanford is suggesting that The Cross mean that the sinful nature is dead to the point of never having evil desires then I do not agree with that postion and have no problem with Barnhouses position. It seems he is basically saying the same thing that Thomas Chalmers wrote in The Expulsive Power of a New Affection. Can someone shed light on this please. Not sure where Barnhouse is off on this??

Thanks

 

[christiana]

Sorry I'm not that knowledgeable about the doctrinal fine points. I listened to him years ago on the radio and know he took years going through Romans. I didnt become aware of any problem until I came to the doctrines of grace and read of J. Gresham Machen's difficulties at P:rinceton. This led to further reading on Barnhouse. I'm sure there will be some here to lend more credible info on him and I'll be as interested as you to hear their comments!

 

[Classical Presbyterian]

It's not really fair to say that he 'capitulated to liberals'. It IS fair to say that he found that ministering in a humble fashion bore more fruit than throwing stones. He never backed down from his faith and he never compromised his beliefs. He merely grew more charitable in his personal dealings with others.

I wouldn't condemn this. And for those of us who still reside in the mainline, fallen denominations, Barnhouse is a model of how to do that faithfully.

Now, he was a mild dispensationalist, I think. That could be the problem. He was later un-invited to the Keswick stuff when he preached Reformed doctrines.

 

[bookslover]

Barnhouse's multi-volume Romans series isn't really a commentary on Romans. He works his way through Romans using the text as a "jumping-off point" to discuss all sorts of other subjects. It's interesting (in spots), but it is not a commentary on Romans.

Barnhouse (1895-1960) was a predecessor of Philip Graham Ryken and James Montgomery Boice as pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia. Unfortunately, he was also a major honcho on the Christian conference circuit in his day, and he would be gone from his own pulpit for as long as six months at a stretch. (I'm surprised the Session didn't hold his feet to the fire about his extensive absences.)

Frankly, I don't think you can call yourself the pastor of a church if you're gone for half a year at a time preaching and lecturing on the Christian rubber chicken circuit...

 

[The Author of my Faith]

Thanks. I don't know if I agree with you on "it is not really a commentary on Romans" yet because I just started. I do see that he does discuss all sorts of topics but he still deals with the text somewhat. So it might not be a exhaustive commentary but nevertheless I think it is still somewhat a commentary. It is blessing me. Some of his analogies are very helpful to understanding the gospel.

As far as him being a circuit preacher and not being at this church I guess I see your point how can you be a shepherd if you are not around the sheep. But that is a whole other topic in itself.

Thanks

-----Added 6/20/2009 at 04:54:53 EST-----

It's not really fair to say that he 'capitulated to liberals'. It IS fair to say that he found that ministering in a humble fashion bore more fruit than throwing stones. He never backed down from his faith and he never compromised his beliefs. He merely grew more charitable in his personal dealings with others.

I wouldn't condemn this. And for those of us who still reside in the mainline, fallen denominations, Barnhouse is a model of how to do that faithfully.

Now, he was a mild dispensationalist, I think. That could be the problem. He was later un-invited to the Keswick stuff when he preached Reformed doctrines.

Thanks! I think I agree with your position on this. I am not ready to jump on a bandwagon that calls every christian who does not see doctrine as I do as a liberal heretic and disassociate myself with them, though some are worthy of being disassociated with like the Emergent Movement and Prosperity preachers etc..

The fact that he stayed and kept his position is admirable as well. I am enjoy his "commentary" some say it's not but whatever it is I like it. I also am reading John Murray's commentary on Romans along with it.

Thanks for your comments.

Steve

 

[Wayne]

Gary North has a brief passage concerning Barnhouse in his book Crossed Fingers (1996), on page 645:

"That same year [1930] saw the trial of dispensational fundamentalist pastor Donald Grey Barnhouse. He was a minister in Philadelphia's Tenth Presbyterian Church. Barnhouse had announced from the pulpit that he would rather die than have a liberal preach in his pulpit. Pressured by the presbytery, he apologized, and his presbytery accepted his apology. The liberals in the presbytery did not; they appealed to the Synod of Pennsylvania, who ordered the presbytery to try him for breach of the ninth commandment and violation of his ordination vows. He was convicted. The liberals had begun to employ negative sanctions with a vengeance. Barnhouse was only admonished mildly, but the conviction set an example, as convictions are supposed to. It seemed to persuade Barnhouse of the futility of protest. (In 1935, he went on a tour of Presbyterian foreign missions. When he returned, he published a generally favorable report in The Presbyterian. "I have every reason to believe that most of our missionaries hold to the historic truths of the Christian faith as expressed in the creedal statement of our denomination.") The trial convinced Machen that conservative dissenters would be convicted if they spoke the truth about liberalism." [North footnotes here Hart & Muether's Fighting the Good Fight, p. 33]

 

[Classical Presbyterian]

Gary North has a brief passage concerning Barnhouse in his book Crossed Fingers (1996), on page 645:

"That same year [1930] saw the trial of dispensational fundamentalist pastor Donald Grey Barnhouse. He was a minister in Philadelphia's Tenth Presbyterian Church. Barnhouse had announced from the pulpit that he would rather die than have a liberal preach in his pulpit. Pressured by the presbytery, he apologized, and his presbytery accepted his apology. The liberals in the presbytery did not; they appealed to the Synod of Pennsylvania, who ordered the presbytery to try him for breach of the ninth commandment and violation of his ordination vows. He was convicted. The liberals had begun to employ negative sanctions with a vengeance. Barnhouse was only admonished mildly, but the conviction set an example, as convictions are supposed to. It seemed to persuade Barnhouse of the futility of protest. (In 1935, he went on a tour of Presbyterian foreign missions. When he returned, he published a generally favorable report in The Presbyterian. "I have every reason to believe that most of our missionaries hold to the historic truths of the Christian faith as expressed in the creedal statement of our denomination.") The trial convinced Machen that conservative dissenters would be convicted if they spoke the truth about liberalism." [North footnotes here Hart & Muether's Fighting the Good Fight, p. 33]

Thanks for this!

Sounds like my denomination just keeps repeating what we learned how to do so long ago:

Presbytery makes unattributed allegations to oust minister

 

[Mushroom]

I love Dr. Barnhouse's sermons. Listen to them just about everyday.

Yes, he had a different eschatology from most of the other folks I listen to, but he saw Christ even in those things. We'll all get to find out what we had wrong when we get home. Meanwhile, God has been using Barnhouse to build up His bride for many years.

 

[The Author of my Faith]

I love Dr. Barnhouse's sermons. Listen to them just about everyday.

Yes, he had a different eschatology from most of the other folks I listen to, but he saw Christ even in those things. We'll all get to find out what we had wrong when we get home. Meanwhile, God has been using Barnhouse to build up His bride for many years.

Well he has surely been a blessing to me so far. His commentary or whatever you want to call it has really encouraged me in the faith. I like the style of his writing.......simple yet doctrinally sound.