Doubtless the leaders of the so-called "Oxford Movement" or "The First Century Christian Fellowship" would be shocked to be told that their teaching is no nearer a comprehending of Christianity than is Christian Science. Small indeed, are the outward "talking points" in either system, whether it be physical healing, in the one case, or bold assumptions of the first century experimental religion in the other, compared to the fact that each system, behind its outward claims, offers the most violent contradictions to pure first century Christianity. But two of these contradictions need be mentioned here:

1. The first error is, that any person can go directly to God whether for salvation, prayer, or fellowship, without the mediation of the Son of God. In harmony with Modernism generally, the Oxford Movement does not deny Christ as to His character, teachings, or example even to a "martyr's death." Of course the Bible is not denied though woefully neglected as to its full-orbed teaching. But the fact that no individual from this fallen human race can approach God's holy presence or find favor in His sight apart from the redemption that is in Christ, is simply not included in the "testimony," whether it be Christian Science or the Oxford Movement. Over against the age-long orthodox preaching of the Cross as the necessity both for the protection and vindication of outraged holiness, on the one hand, and the imperative demand that there can be no remission of sin apart from the shed blood of God's Lamb, on the other hand, the socially fit are, in each of these systems alike, directed to God without so much as a hint that such access to God, whether it be saint or sinner, can only be on the alone merit of the crucified risen Saviour. Where is the offense of the Cross when the mediation of Christ is thus excluded? The truth uttered by Christ, "No man cometh to the Father but by Me" (John 14:6), is one of the most fundamental doctrines of the New Testament, and one which, of necessity, Satan must omit from each and every one of his counterfeits of Christianity.

2. The other error to be named here is that of supposing that the present divine objective in dealing with humanity is to secure an improved manner of daily life, or the age-long fallacy of reformation in place of regeneration. What is desired more today than a "life-changing" religion? Could God really ask for more than this? Yes, indeed; for with Him, "Neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation," and God's "workmanship" in salvation is no less than a new creation in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:10). Doubtless in the purity and devotion of his life, Nicodemus surpassed the majority of Christian professors to-day; yet to him, with all his religious completeness and sufficient standing, Christ said, "Ye must be born again."

If these criticisms are felt by the leaders of the Oxford Movement to be too severe, let them make one uncompromised statement that sustains the whole doctrine of divine mediation, and that places salvation by faith alone above its mere by-product of human rectitude. When these leaders come clear on these two great essentials they will merit the confidence of the instructed Christian.

The spiritual tragedy of the hundreds of preachers confessing that they are now finding out what Christianity is through such a Christ-neglecting system as the so-called "First Century Fellowship" indicates the sad state into which the Christian ministry has drifted in its understanding and defense of sound doctrine.
-LEWIS SPERRY chafer in "Serving and Waiting."