The Apostle Paul encountered various worldly philosophers during his ministry, such as Epicureans and Stoics,[1] that challenged the gospel message.  There were also heresies within the Christian church that resulted from the admixture of Christian truths with philosophies that existed in the area where the gospel was being spread.  For example, in the book of Colossians, Paul went to great lengths to establish the foundation of Christ’s identity against some philosophical heresy that denied the sufficiency of Christ[2].  In fact, Paul spends a significant amount of his epistles seeking to help Christians separate themselves from their former thought and lifestyle patterns that are alien to Christ and contradict the truth of the gospel.

Since Paul’s time, regional and global philosophies have continued to infiltrate and affect the message of the gospel.  Gnosticism arose to full power after the completion of the New Testament canon and was fought by men such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius.  These men claimed that Gnosticism led many Christians astray by the manipulation of words into a Gnostic / Christian religion that among other heresies, denied the bodily resurrection of Christ (Borchert 485-488).  Indeed, Tertullian came out strong against the infiltration of Gnosticism into Christianity when he stated, “What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem?  What concord is there between the Academy and the Church?  What between heretics and Christians? … Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition.” (Tertullian)

Other more recent examples of philosophy affecting Christianity include the invasion of modernism and liberalism into evangelicalism during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and the current invasion of postmodernism.  Christians adapted their apologetic approach to first reach those entrenched in modernism and are again adapting them to reach those affected by postmodernism.  As Scriptures teach, we must be all things to all men and it is important to be able to explain the gospel to people within different philosophical mindsets. 

Beyond forcing us to adapt our message, these philosophies have affected Christianity in a more significant way.  The purpose of this paper is to discuss the effects of the modern philosophical movement and the existing and potential effects of the postmodern philosophy upon the gospel.  The greatest danger that these philosophies pose is to somehow compromise the message we present to the lost in such a way as to lead them astray.  If that is accomplished, Satan has won an important battle.

The Apostle Paul’s words to the Colossians still ring true today, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”[3].  It is incumbent upon Christians to recognize the tactics of the enemy and be aware of his attempts to use them against the cause of Christ. 

Explanation of Modernism

Modernism represents a philosophical movement that came into existence on the heels of the Reformation and its initiation coincided with the period of the Enlightenment (Groothuis 35).  Two of the greatest thinkers within the modern spectrum are French philosopher, scientist, and mathematician, Rene Descartes (1596-1650) and philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). 

Descartes started the ball rolling within his book, Meditations on First Philosophy, by insisting that all knowledge and traditions be questioned and evaluated by human reason (Howard-Snyder  337-338).  Descartes developed a system of beliefs that were later questioned and largely discarded, but his emphasis on reason and questioning the powers that be had a profound effect upon future thinkers. 

During Kant’s time, the age of Enlightenment was at its pinnacle and Kant was thought to be its foremost thinker.  In Kant’s 1784 article, What is Enlightenment, he stated that enlightenment was man’s emergence from immaturity and beginning to stand on his own two feet without relying on the Church, the Bible, or the government to teach him what to believe (Brown 649-650).  Kant used rationalism and empiricism[4] as his foundations for discerning truth and he rejected the use of the traditional cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence of God.  He ultimately viewed Jesus as just a good moral teacher and Christianity as a means for imparting ethics to those who were not philosophically sophisticated. 

Along with the exaltation of reason and the denial of God, Modernism also brought us the evolutionary system through Charles Darwin.  According to Richard Dawkins, the publication of Darwin’s, Origin of the Species in 1859 gave atheists the opportunity to be intellectually fulfilled (Dawkins).  Although some say that Darwin himself recanted his evolutionist views on his deathbed[5], his legacy has lived on and has carried Modernism to its natural conclusions.  This is witnessed by the 1966 Time magazine cover stating, “Is God Dead?”

Modernism as a whole can be roughly described by the following three elements.  First, there is the belief that humans are autonomous and are able to independently define themselves.  Secondly, there is the belief that reason is supreme and that man is capable of being rational enough to use reason.  Finally, it is believed that reason can be unbiased and objective (Benson 939-945). 

These three inherent beliefs lead to what could be coined as the modernist mantra, that “self is the ultimate adjudicator of truth”.  Although predating the modern era, Martin Luther described this philosophy as the magisterial view of reason, where reason is elevated above all, including the gospel, as a magistrate, determining what is right and wrong (Craig 36-37).  This is contrasted with the ministerial view of reason, where reason is subservient to the gospel and is used to understand God’s revelation.  I believe we will see that the elevation of reason has contributed to a change in the way the gospel is presented and viewed by many within Evangelical Christianity today.

Fluctuations in the Presentation of the Gospel throughout Time

The ingredients of the gospel have always been contested by Satan and a myriad of different forms or methods of “salvation” have sprung forth since the time Christ walked the earth.  There remain contentions between denominations over whether salvation is of works or of grace, whether baptism and speaking in tongues is required to be saved, whether our salvation is eternally secure or dependent upon our obedience, ad infinitum.  Today, most evangelicals agree that knowledge of the gospel, the conviction of the Holy Spirit, repentance of sin, and faith towards Christ are the necessary ingredients for salvation and have remained consistent since the time of Christ.

Despite the message remaining the same, the presentation of this message and the instructions given to seekers seems to have evolved significantly among many evangelicals within the past few hundred years, specifically since the inception of the modern era.  Perhaps the best way to illustrate the change that has occurred is to compare comments from religious sources concerning the presentation of the gospel that span the time from the inception of the modern era to recent history.  Because the Christian denominational spectrum is so wide, I will limit my resources to predominantly Baptist sources.

Minutes taken from the 1654 Baptist Association of the West Country (Southwest England) records the following, “Query 4: Whether any are to be received into the church of Christ only upon a bare confession of Christ being come in the flesh and assenting to the doctrine and order laid down by him?  Answer: they may not be admitted on such terms without a declaration of an experimental work of the Spirit upon the heart, through the word of the Gospel and suitable to it, being attended with evident tokens of conversion, to the satisfaction of the administrator and brethren or church concerned in it…” (Association 56)  We see that at this time, a mere mental ascent to the basics of the gospel was not sufficient for admission into membership within the churches in the West Country Association. 

In 1837, J.M Pendleton, a respected American Baptist preacher made the following comments on how the issue of conversion and the reception of members within churches had changed over the course of his generation, "While, however, historical candor requires me to find fault with the churches of a half‑century ago, for the reasons indicated, there are other things for which they deserved commendation. In some important respects they were in advance of the churches today. Their superiority, if I mistake not, appears in such things as these: They were more careful in the reception of members. They required what they called ‘an experience of grace'.  This always embraced two things: First, conviction of sin leading to repentance, the latter including hatred of sin, and sorrow for sin, with the purpose to forsake it. Second, trust in Christ for salvation, followed by a consciousness of acceptance with God, and peace with Him for Jesus' sake.  It would have been difficult for anybody to get into one of our churches without giving satisfaction on these points. This experience of grace was indispensable in candidates for baptism.  In this carefulness in receiving members, the churches of today might well copy the example of those fifty years ago." (Pendleton 20-21)

Charles Spurgeon, the renowned English Baptist preacher also addressed the topic of how an individual knows that they have been saved.  Within a sermon entitled, “The Necessity of Regeneration”, preached in 1908, he stated, “You may also know whether you are born again by asking yourself another question ‑ Do you feel a new life within you which you never had before?". (Spurgeon 65)

This statement bears the same sentiment that the West Country Baptist Association query and response professed.  An individual can know via a personal experience with God that they have been saved, not just because they personally judge that they have met God’s requirements.  However, during Spurgeon’s era, the methods of the gospel presentation continued to change drastically within Baptist circles.  Evangelists such as Dwight L. Moody, a contemporary and friend of Spurgeon, practiced a different method of gospel presentation that emphasized making a personal decision to accept Christ rather than seeking God until one felt that change wrought in their heart. 

In Moody’s sermon entitled, “Instant Salvation”, he states, “I have preached to you a number of times in the past twelve weeks upon sudden conversion. I believe that this truth of sudden conversion has met with more opposition than any other truth that we have preached. I don't think we have been in any city where there has been so much down right opposition to this doctrine as there has been in Boston… The Son of God standeth and knocketh, knocketh, knocketh at the door of your heart for you to open it and let Him come in to you. The Son of God wants to save you. He is anxious that you should let him save you, and you are not willing to be saved.  Some of you say that you have tried to understand this, but that you cannot. It is not that. You can understand it. It is your perverse, black, corrupt hearts that will not let you understand this. The striving is with your pride, with your own heart, not with God. The idea that we should have to stand weeping, struggling, knocking for God, the blessed, ever living, merciful God!  He is ready to give you salvation when you are ready to receive it.”

Moody’s main thrust in this sermon was that an individual is saved at one moment, in comparison to a long process, which others were asserting.  I heartily agree that conversion is a momentary experience.  However, what is important to notice is the way that Moody relates how one comes into that relationship with Christ.  Among the things we note within this sermon is that Moody took great exegetical liberties with Revelations 3:20, referring to Christ standing at the door of an unbeliever’s heart and knocking.  In context, this passage applies to believers because it was written to the church at Laodicea.  He also emphasizes that God is merely waiting for us to receive His salvation.  Moody paints a picture that God is seeking man and man must merely open up to God through a mental assent.  Later within this sermon, Moody furthers this viewpoint by focusing on the decision aspect of salvation and belittling the concept of an inner witness or feeling that one gets when they are saved.

In comparing this to the previous statements made by the West Country Baptist Association and Spurgeon, we see a marked difference.  The following is an additional quote from Spurgeon’s sermon on, “The Necessity of Regeneration” where he, like Pendleton, compares the traditional evangelistic methods with the new methods being promulgated during his time, “I know that a great many profess to come to Christ, and I hope that they really do come to him, although they have never felt what some of us experienced when we were under conviction of sin.  Well, if they have come to Christ,  it is all right, and I am glad; but I am still a believer in the old‑fashioned type of conversion, and I do not think that there are many new births without pangs, or that many souls come to Christ without alarms of conscience, and much sorrow of heart because of sin.  When I was converted, sinners used to come to Christ this way.  They looked by faith at him whom they had pierced by their sins, and mourned for him as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.  I think I have seldom seen a conversion turn out well that had not the foundations of it laid in some measure of abhorrence of sin, and loathing of self, and utter despair of any salvation except by the sovereign grace of God.”

The issues addressed by Pendleton and Spurgeon still remain today.  Should the lost be encouraged to seek the Lord until they experienced a new birth and inner witness of the Spirit or should they muster all of the faith and repentance they could and repeat a prayer and be told to never doubt their salvation?  Clearly the latter method is most prevalent in evangelicalism today. 

In a 1972 pamphlet called, “How to be sure you are a Christian”, Dr. Bill Bright states, “Many pastors and other Christian leaders, I have discovered, have this same gnawing doubt about their salvation.  One pastor who had preached the gospel for 40 years told me that he was still unsure of his salvation… A student who had prayed to receive Christ after hearing my message on ‘The Uniqueness of Jesus,’ stood to his feet after we had prayed together and, with a puzzled and troubled look on his face, said, ‘I don’t feel any different.  I guess God didn’t hear my prayer.  How can I be sure that Christ has come into my life?’… I am persuaded personally that this lack of assurance is due either to misinformation or to a lack of information regarding who God is, the true meaning of the crucifixion and the resurrection and what is involved in receiving Jesus Christ as Savior.” (Bright 5-6)

Dr. Bright’s, “Four Spiritual Laws” and the sinner’s prayer included at the end, have been used by thousands in the effort to lead others to Christ.  A thorough study of Scriptures demonstrates a different landscape of evangelism methodology than that which exists today.  We never see someone encouraged to repeat a sinner’s prayer.  We never see an altar call given.  We also never see anyone besides Christ declaring that an individual had been saved.  When the Pharisees questioned Jesus’ ability to forgive sins, he said, “Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk?”[6]  Christ was asserting His divinity in this statement because it is clear in Scriptures that only God can forgive sins[7].  As we consider this shift in evangelistic presentations over the past 300 years, we must ask what conditions motivated and facilitated the transition. 

The Intersection of Modernism and the Presentation of the Gospel

Most people are not philosophers, nor could most tell you who Immanuel Kant was.  However, that doesn’t prevent the prevalent philosophies and philosophers of the times from affecting every man, woman, and child within a culture.  As their theories gain acceptance among those in positions of power and influence, there is a trickle down effect upon all that are within its reach.  The invention of the printing press furthered this principle and radio and television has made it easy for few to influence many. 

The mantra of modernism, “self is the ultimate adjudicator of truth” is widely accepted by most Americans, even if they cannot cite the origin of this thought.  Because this belief is so prevalent, it is easy to see how it can infiltrate everything from best business practices to religion.  This mantra fits very well with the “new” evangelistic presentation methods that are discussed within this paper.

Salvation has been relegated to an explanation of the gospel and then a decision for an individual to make about whether they will accept this truth.  The modernist mantra is at work in two elements here.  First, the individual determines whether they believe the gospel, and consequently whether or not the Word of God, is true.  Second, the individual determines whether they believe they have sufficient faith and repentance to meet God’s requirements for salvation.  If the individual repeats the prayer, it is assumed that they have accepted Christ and are pronounced “saved” and told never to question their salvation because to do so would be to question the Word of God, which they have already accepted as true.  This method makes sense to one indoctrinated in modernism, but does it hold up against Scripture?

The simplest way to demonstrate the error in this is to establish that God is the judge of the human heart.  At the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus establishes that eternal life is based upon having a relationship with Christ and that there are many who claim to be Christians that do not have this relationship.[8]  It will be Christ who separates the lost from the saved, based upon His divine criteria.[9]  Christ’s purpose in coming to earth was to not only make salvation possible, but to also make His divine criteria for salvation clear.  Repentance and faith are required, not just in form, but with all of the heart. 

In Jeremiah 17:9, we are told that, “The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?”  This statement has significant implications for salvation.  Do we know our own heart?  Are we capable of determining that we have met God’s requirement for salvation?  We place ourselves in a precarious position when we assume the role of Christ in declaring ourselves righteous based upon our perception of our heart.  In Psalm 139:23-24[10], we see that David relied upon the Lord to help him know his own heart.  We are likewise needy for divine intervention to allow us to know whether our heart is sincere and whether we have been granted the faith and repentance by God to come into a relationship with Him.

I believe Scriptures teach that there is an internal witness of salvation that is wrought by the Holy Spirit at the moment we are saved.  In the book of Romans, Paul states, “For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, ‘Abba! Father!’ The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God.[11]”  Also in the book of 1 John we read, “If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.”[12]

The most Scriptural instruction we can give to the lost is to seek Jesus until they receive an internal witness of the Spirit within them that they are saved.  We place ourselves and especially the seeker in a very dangerous position when we attempt to adjudicate the condition of their heart or when we encourage them to adjudicate it for themselves.  The Lord will ultimately be the judge of their eternal state and it is the Lord who must declare them righteous.

Modernism itself has not created the situation that we see today in evangelism, but it is the opinion of the author that its philosophies have certainly facilitated the spread of these evangelistic practices and explains why many were willing to accept and practice these methods.  To modernists, this method of gospel presentation makes sense.  Just as modernism affected the presentation of the gospel, postmodernism is beginning to affect the truth as well, perhaps in an even greater way by not only touching the presentation of the gospel, but the message of the gospel as well.

Explanation of Postmodernism

Postmodernism is best understood in relation to modernism.  As modernism exalts truth and unbiased rationality, postmodernism decries absolute truth and does not believe in unbiased rationality.  Upon analysis, one realizes that postmodernism is really the logical conclusion of modernism.  When man exalts his rationality and reason and seeks to repair society by his devices, the plan will ultimately fail because included with man’s sinful nature is a fallen mind that is not capable of proper reasoning without divine intervention.  The result of the failure of modernism to reform society was a disillusionment with rationalism that led to postmodernism.

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was most likely the first in a long line of influential postmodern philosophers (Brown 424-426).  Within Nietzsche’s book, Beyond Good and Evil, he puts the very idea of absolute truth into question.  He viewed man’s perception of truth as merely a perception and not as a grasping of something solid or foundational that exists externally of man (Benson 939-945).  His views were based upon his cry that “God is Dead” and he deplored the modern philosophers that were also atheists but still held to an absolute moral standard. 

Another popular postmodern, French philosopher Jacques Derrida, furthered the postmodern thought in the area of language.  Derrida’s primary philosophical difference from most modern thinkers is his rejection of Western metaphysics.  He does not believe that the written word accurately reflects spoken words, which in turn do not accurately reflect thoughts, which do not reflect truth (Carrigan). 

Richard Rorty, an American postmodern philosopher continues Nietsche’s tradition by bringing postmodernism into ethics.  Rorty believes that the concept of truth, which has pervaded the world for thousands of years, is simply a power play by those who want to oppress another group of people.  For example, stating that adultery is wrong is a way of giving those who do not commit adultery the grounds to oppress and vilify those that do commit adultery.  According to Rorty, “anything can be made to look good or bad by being redescribed (Groothuis  188).”

One of the greatest virtues within postmodernism is a peculiar form of tolerance which exalts unsubstantiated opinion into equality with verifiable truth.  Traditionally, tolerance means to be respectful and patient towards someone with an incorrect or uniformed viewpoint.  Postmodern tolerance is peculiar because it requires that we esteem all other views, including those that are incorrect or uninformed, as equal with all other beliefs.  Because there is no absolute truth, no one is right and no one is wrong.  We all simply espouse different preferences.  In order to be tolerant in the postmodern sense of the word, we must buy into the postmodern philosophy.  It is also easy to see how the minority opinion or an unsubstantiated opinion is now lifted to a position of equity with all other positions.  We see a clear example of this in the reemergence of pagan symbols and religions within postmodern cultures.  Idols that were long known to be dead and powerless are regaining popularity with many because they view the power they offer as equivalent to that of the Creator God. 

The Foreseen Effects of Postmodernism upon the Gospel

The purity of the gospel message itself is in the most danger from postmodernism.  Like the modernist mantra affected the world, the postmodernist mantra of tolerance and equity of views has also affected the world.  A clear example of this is the popular phrase, “religious preference”.  That is exactly how postmodernism views religion, as a personal preference, much the same way that one prefers strawberry ice cream over chocolate ice cream.  Postmodernism has affected all religious beliefs, even outside of Christianity.  How often do we hear that the basic tenets of Christianity are the same as those of other world religions?

Children in our public schools are bombarded with lectures on the virtues of tolerance for diversity, where diversity is not just defined as people of different cultures, but all belief structures (DeLashmutt ).  This message is also prevalent in the workplace.  Beyond these influences, perhaps the most powerful influence is television where all of these views are being promulgated and illustrated on some station during every minute of every day.

How would this affect the gospel?  We can clearly see a large ecumenical movement continuing to grow where evangelical Christians are encouraged to put away their divisive doctrines and come together.  Within the book, The Coming Evangelical Crisis, Gary L.W. Johnson states, “They fear controversy more than error.  We agree that there are limits to be set for the controversial spirit, but these limits are not to be sought in motives of convenience or prudence.  An anemic Christianity that is not virile enough to strive for the truth can never possess the nerve to die for it.  A truth not worth defending very soon comes to be seen as a truth not worth professing.” (Johnson 65-66)

How can we deny that postmodernism is affecting the world and that Satan is using it as a tool to divert the minds of millions away from the gospel as the only true source of salvation?  The affect of postmodernism upon the gospel will be to dilute its message among many to a point where it is simply one path among a myriad of paths that one might take to a relationship with God.

Conclusion

Undoubtedly, thousands and thousands of people have been saved despite the errors in presentation of the gospel that have crept in over the past 300 years through modernism.  The gospel message itself is still largely intact and Scriptures teach that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation[13].  However, many more may have been led astray, with very severe eternal consequences.  Only the Lord can ultimately judge this.

With postmodernism, the danger is greater still because not only the presentation of the gospel is being attacked, but the message of the gospel itself is in danger.  Without hearing the truth, no one can be saved[14].  It is incumbent upon Christians to examine their hearts and minds through the aid of the Word and Spirit to see where they have been ill affected by the evils of modernism and postmodernism and repent and return to the paths of truth which have never changed. 

As mentioned earlier, Paul’s warning to the Colossians is still poignant today.  “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”[15]  Scripture’s reply to Modernism is to, “Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.”[16]  Scriptures admonish the postmodernist to return to the truth for only the truth will set them free[17].  God’s Word is not silent on these issues and it demands our full attention and effort to establish our labors upon His truth, especially those that affect the eternal destiny of man’s soul.