"another gospel" of cooperative Christian work? From their neglect to
put any further emphasis upon "the faith once for all delivered to the
saints," we can only infer that, for their structure of doctrine, no
other foundation than philosophy is needed, and that they, like the
Unitarians, no longer accept the fact of a divine revelation. "Other
foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus
Christ," and to lay greater emphasis upon the fruits of Christianity
than upon its roots, is to insult Christ, and ultimately to make
Christianity itself only one of many earth-born religions, powerless
like them either to save the individual soul or to redeem society.
Professor Lake is quite right: If there is no divine revelation, there
can be, not only no systematic theology, but no theology at all.

What is the effect of this method upon our theological seminaries? It is
to deprive the gospel message of all definiteness, and to make
professors and students disseminators of doubts. Many a professor has
found teaching preferable to preaching, because he lacked the initial
Christian experience which gives to preaching its certainty and power.
He chooses the line of least resistance, and becomes in the theological
seminary a blind leader of the blind. Having no system of truth to
teach, he becomes a mere lecturer on the history of doctrine. Having no
key in Christ to the unity of Scripture, he becomes a critic of what he
is pleased to call its fragments, that is, the dissector of a cadaver.
Ask him if he believes in the preexistence, deity, virgin birth,
miracles, atoning death, physical resurrection, omnipresence, and
omnipotence of Christ, and he denies your right to require of him any
statement of his own beliefs. He does not conceive it to be his duty to
furnish his students with any fixed conclusions as to doctrine but only
to aid them in coming to conclusions for themselves. The apostle Paul
was not so reticent. He was not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, but
rather gloried in it. He even pronounced his anathema upon any who
taught other doctrine. It is no wonder that our modern critics cry,
"Back to Christ," for this means, "Away from Paul." The result of such
teaching in our seminaries is that the student, unless he has had a
Pauline experience before he came, has all his early conceptions of
Scripture and of Christian doctrine weakened, has no longer any positive
message to deliver, loses the ardor of his l