November 04, 2006

Separating is Obvious

I sat at the table with the dean of a well-known Christian college in Presbyterian circles. The conversation was Federal Vision, the CREC, and some high-profile figures who have moved back toward Romish views of justification. This is when I asked the tough question.

“I come from a heritage of separatism. While, it is granted that separatism has been abused, I simply cannot understand why Ligon Duncan and R.C. Sproul can speak at said venues with said individuals when both present the Doctrine of Justification as if it is something they would be willing to go to the stake for. To me, as a separatist, that they should share the stage with such a well-known cooperative of such a significantly compromised organization is baffling. I ask in all sincerity because I respect these men: How do they justify this?”

Long pause. Audible sigh. Straight, honest look directly in the eyes.

“I don’t know.”

Then he explained to me that it was so obvious that he personally would refuse to be on the same platform as the individual (unnamed in this article) in question.

Separation and/or public denunciation is, I think, the obligation of any believer when the truths in question cut to the very heart of the pure Gospel of God. For too many Reformed brethren, the Council of Trent seems to explain their view of justification better than the classical Reformed view. This is sad because the Council of Trent was the Roman Catholic response to Luther. Sadly, many popular Reformed leaders are sending unclear signals about how important the doctrine of justification is because they will not be loud and clear (and public) about distancing themselves from this heresy.

And, yes, it is heresy. Justification is heart and center of the Christian faith.

I wish that today’s champions for justification would actually be willing to die for it. Instead of saying, “I would die for this,” why don’t they actually die to the friendship or the particular platform? I would love to see the writers of books become martyrs. Otherwise, it appears to be nothing more than an intercollegiate debate.

Sometimes the obvious becomes lucidly clear even for the confused evangelical today as this quote so aptly illustrates. In fact, says the Canon of a conservative branch of the Anglican church on the corrupt Episcopalian church (USA), when you exit, run!

“I think they need to run, not walk, to the exit and find an orthodox Episcopal church,” suggests Anderson. [from this article on new head of ECUSA’s denomination.]

It’s obvious. I just think it should be obvious a whole lot sooner.

Posted by Bob Bixby at November 4, 2006 11:38 AM | eMail this entry! | 435 Words
This entry was posted in the following categories: Fundamentalism , Theological Controversies
Comments

Bob,

Perhaps in a strange sort of way you share the same dilemma and feckless conviction as Duncan and Sproul: Just as they fail to rebuke their erring brethren, so you fail to name them.

Rebuking and naming are Biblical practices, and I can’t see how their problem is any different than yours. It seems to me we have the blind criticizing the blind.

Posted by: tjp at November 4, 2006 12:55 PM

Believe me, I’ll call names when I’m good and ready. And I’ll expound more on this particular matter as well although it is somewhat removed from me, being the unaffiliated Baptist that I am.

But I deliberately did not name specifics right now because my goal is to make a very simple point: sometimes separation should be obvious.

Posted by: Bob at November 4, 2006 02:08 PM

amen, pastor! gospel-centered separation - not too common, but very accurate. and you’re right, we don’t need names at this point. if it’s obvious, it’s obvious.

Posted by: mccarnan no. 3 at November 4, 2006 04:05 PM

Sometimes separation should be obvious. However, I don’t think that Sproul or Duncan or quite a few other reformed pastors would agree with you that the federal vision and CREC issues have been so obviously refuted as to demand separation. It is not clear to fair minded observers that the movement/denomination has embraced “Romish” views on justification. Furthermore, some “high profile” figures within those groups flatly deny any such move.

Posted by: Keith at November 6, 2006 08:30 AM

I don’t understand how you refer to the Council of Trent’s definition of justification as heresy. It has been upheld by the Catholic Church as orthodox before and after Trent. I have not heard it called a heresy except, I suppose, by Luther and Calvin and their followers. But I don’t accept the authority of Luther or Calvin before the authority of the apostles, whose witness in Holy Scripture harmonizes with the Tridentine definition.

Posted by: John E at November 8, 2006 01:37 PM

Bob,

I was looking for a synopsis of the issues you’re addressing, and found it here:

RIGHT HERE.

The resource is an online publication of the PCA which, though obviously brief, is helpful. I post the link in case anyone else might need to be brought up to speed.

I’m looking forward to hearing more from you on this issue. Thanks!

Posted by: Chris Anderson at November 11, 2006 02:52 PM

The key phrase in the bit is:

“Clearly, there is substantive disagreement”

And a big part of the disagreement is over what each side means — what is the substance that is being disagreed about?

Posted by: Keith at November 13, 2006 11:20 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?


Receive an email if someone
else comments on this post?

(by leaving this box checked you will also receive your own comment via email to confirm your subscription)