21 September 2005

How far did Spurgeon's liberality go?

Spurgeon"There is no bigotry in the world equal to the bigotry of modern liberalism. Sectarianism may be bitter, but latitudinarianism is wormwood and gall."—C. H. Spurgeon, from "Ourselves and the Annexationists", in The Sword and the Trowel




A time to embrace

In the comments section of yesterday's post, someone posted a portion of one of my favorite quotes from Spurgeon. The full paragraph it was extracted from is a tad long, but the additional context is well worth reading:

It has been the desire of the true Calvinist,—not of the hyper-Calvinists, I cannot defend them—to feel that if he has received has received more light than another man, it is due to God's grace, and not to his merits. Therefore charity is inculcated, while boasting is excluded. We give our hand to every man that loves the Lord Jesus Christ, be he what he may or who he may. The doctrine of election, like the great act of election itself, is intended to divide not between Israel and Israel, but between Israel and the Egyptians,—not between saint and saint, but between saints and the children of this world. A man may be evidently of God's chosen family, and yet though elected, may not believe in the doctrine of election. I hold that there are many savingly called, who do not believe in effectual calling, and that there are a great many who persevere to the end, who do not believe the doctrine of final perseverance. We do hope that the hearts of many are a great deal better than their heads. We set not their fallacies down to any wilful opposition to the truth as it is in Jesus, but simply to an error in their judgments, which we pray God to correct. We hope that if they think as mistaken too, they will reciprocate the same Christian courtesy; and when we meet around the cross, we hope that we shall ever feel that we are one in Christ Jesus, even though as yet the ministering spirit has not led all of us into all the lengths and breadths of the truth—C. H. Spurgeon, "Effects of Sound Doctrine," a sermon delivered on Sunday evening April 22nd, 1860.

Alongside that excerpt, this quote from "A Defense of Calvinism" was also posted in a comment yesterday. It's a commonly-cited section, but this one is also worth hearing again. Here it is, with a little additional context:

There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer—I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one "of whom the world was not worthy." I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven.

By the way, that second quotation is taken from the same article in which Spurgeon made another famous statement—one of his most controversial statements about Calvinism ever:
I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.

Some very narrow Calvinists love to cite that third quote apart from its context as if it proved Spurgeon rejected all Arminians as infidels. Clearly, that is not what he meant.

In fact, the context of the full article makes clear precisely what Spurgeon did mean in that third quotation: He was simply saying that the central principle of Calvinism is the very gist of the gospel: Salvation is God's work; it is not something the sinner can do for himself. Plainly, he was not insisting that the only authentic Christians are Calvinists. The first and second quotations above make his position on that issue quite clear.

I agree with all three of those statements, of course. I also agree with the use Spurgeon made of the principle he was defending. Although he had no sympathy whatsoever for Arminian theology, he was charitable toward Christians who struggled to understand the doctrines of grace. Even though he regarded Arminianism as a serious error and a system fraught with all kinds of theological mischief, he did not automatically write off all Arminians as non-Christians.

Spurgeon held this position precisely because he did not believe Arminian opinions about free-will, unconditional election, or the extent of the atonement were tantamount to a denial of any fundamental, inviolable point of gospel truth. Which is to say that while Spurgeon clearly regarded the central idea of Calvinism as a truth that embodied the very essence of the gospel, he obviously did not regard every aspect of the doctrines of grace as essential gospel truth.

In other words, Spurgeon taught that the principle of grace per se is a primary and essential truth. But when it came to some of the more technical aspects of Calvinistic doctrine, including the doctrines of perseverance and effectual calling, he regarded them as secondary, and he allowed that a genuine believer in Christ might—through confusion or ignorance—reject those truths. He embraced people who made such a profession of faith as authentic brothers and sisters in Christ.

A time to refrain from embracing

On other issues, however, Spurgeon was unwilling to grant such latitude. He made it perfectly clear that he regarded the principles of substitutionary atonement and justification by faith as absolute essentials—and he steadfastly refused to embrace or give encouragement to the purveyors of alternative opinions on those points:

The largest charity towards those who are loyal to the Lord Jesus, and yet do not see with us on secondary matters, is the duty of all true Christians. But how are we to act towards those who deny his vicarious sacrifice, and ridicule the great truth of justification by his righteousness? These are not mistaken friends, but enemies of the cross of Christ. There is no use in employing circumlocutions and polite terms of expression:—where Christ is not received as to the cleansing power of his blood and the justifying merit of his righteousness, he is not received at all.—Spurgeon, "A Fragment Upon the Down-Grade Controversy."

Spurgeon steadfastly refused to admit anyone who denied any essential doctrines of Christianity into the circle of his fellowship, and he regarded all attempts to seek Christian fellowship with such false teachers as sinful:

It used to be generally accepted in the Christian Church that the line of Christian communion was drawn hard and fast, at the Deity of our Lord; but even this would appear to be altered now. In various ways the chasm has been bridged, and during the past few years several ministers have crossed into Unitarianism, and have declared that they perceived little or no difference in the two sides of the gulf. In all probability there was no difference to perceive in the regions where they abode. It is our solemn conviction that where there can be no real spiritual communion there should be no pretense of fellowship. Fellowship with known and vital error is participation in sin. Those who know and love the truth of God cannot have fellowship with that which is diametrically opposed thereto, and there can be no reason why they should pretend that they have such fellowship.—Ibid.

The whole of the article is well worth reading.

So Spurgeon was no latitudinarian, and he had no patience whatsoever for the convoluted "liberality" the modernists of his day were peddling (and postmodernists today are likewise attempting to foist on well-meaning Christians):

I should like to ask modern broad churchmen whether there is any doctrine of any sort for which it would be worth a man's while to burn or to lie in prison. I do not believe they could give me an answer, for if their latitudinarianism be correct, the martyrs were fools of the first magnitude. From what I see of their writings and their teachings, it appears to me that the modern thinkers treat the whole compass of revealed truth with entire indifference; and, though perhaps they may feel sorry that wilder spirits should go too far in free thinking, and though they had rather they would be more moderate, yet, upon the whole, so large is their liberality that they are not sure enough of anything to be able to condemn the reverse of it as a deadly error. To them black and white are terms which may be applied to the same colour, as you view it from different standpoints. Yea and nay are equally true in their esteem. Their theology shifts like the Goodwin Sands, and they regard all firmness as so much bigotry. Errors and truths are equally comprehensible within the circle of their charity. It was not in this way that the apostles regarded error. They did not prescribe large-hearted charity towards falsehood, or hold up the errorist as a man of deep thought, whose views were "refreshingly original"; far less did they utter some wicked nonsense about the probability of there living more faith in honest doubt than in half the creeds. They did not believe in justification by doubting, as our neologians do; they set about the conversion of the erring brother; they treated him as a person who needed conversion; and viewed him as a man who, if he were not converted, would suffer the death of his soul, and be covered with a multitude of sins. They were not such easygoing people as our cultured friends of the school of "modern thought", who have learned at last that the Deity of Christ may be denied, the work of the Holy Spirit ignored, the inspiration of Scripture rejected, the atonement disbelieved, and regeneration dispensed with, and yet the man who does all this may be as good a Christian as the most devout believer! O God, deliver us from this deceitful infidelity, which, while it does damage to the erring man, and often prevents his being reclaimed, does yet more mischief to our own hearts by teaching us that truth is unimportant, and falsehood a trifle, and so destroys our allegiance to the God of truth, and makes us traitors instead of loyal subjects to the King of kings!

I could quote dozens of similar comments from Spurgeon. The last years of his life were spent fighting against the kind of "liberality" that insists every type of religion that goes by the name "Christian" deserves to be embraced as such.

Unfortunately, Spurgeon's life was shortened by that battle, and he died before he wrote anything carefully outlining his views on how to distinguish essential doctrines from secondary ones. But it is absolutely clear that he made such a distinction, and that it defined his views on when to separate and when to seek fellowship with others who profess to be Christians.



A postscript about Packer's remarks

Yesterday's comments also included this quotation from J. I. Packer's explanation of why he supports the ecumenical Juggernaut of "Evangelicals and Catholics Together":

Fundamentalists . . . are unlikely to join us in this, for it is the way of fundamentalists to follow the path of contentious orthodoxism, as if the mercy of God in Christ automatically rests on the persons who are notionally correct and is just as automatically withheld from those who fall short of notional correctness on any point of substance.

I agree that it's possible in a more or less passive sense for an ignorant, untaught, or immature (albeit authentic) believer to hold a deficient ("notionally incorrect") understanding of justification by faith, the doctrine of the Trinity, or any number of essential Christian doctrines. But would any genuine Christian deliberately, actively, and with full knowledge reject such essential doctrines and teach the contrary errors? That is what I deny, on the authority of dozens of texts of Scripture, such as John 10:4, 27; 1 John 2:27; 2 John 2, 7-11; and many others.

Christians are those who "believe and know the truth" (1 Timothy 4:3). There must be some minimal degree of "notional correctness" in what we affirm and teach, or else we would fall under the condemnation of Galatians 1:8-9. Packer as a Calvinist certainly ought to understand that God sovereignly opens the heart and understanding of believers (1 John 5:20).

Packer is simply wrong to show such contempt for fundamentalists' concern for "notional correctness"—which is, after all, nothing but a nickname for sound doctrine.

So we've come full circle to the issue that began this series of posts last week: Which truths must be affirmed with some degree of "notional correctness," and how (i.e., by what biblical principles) do we assign relative importance to this or that doctrine? There is no way for any Christian to dodge this question ultimately, and how we answer it has massive practical ramifications. Cynically dismissing fundamentalists because of their concern for "notional correctness" frankly doesn't make the difficulty go away, but it does open the door for all kinds of evil doctrine.

Phil's signature

19 comments:

Colin Maxwell said...

I really enjoy your posts every morning. These ones about Spurgeon are mighty. Some years ago, I went through my Spurgeon CD Rom and indexed all his references to "Calvin/Calvinism/Calvinist" Hard work but very blessed and useful. At the risk of being thought as advertising, this index is available on:

www.geocities.com/cfpchurch/chscalvinsm

Keep up the good work.
Colin (Cork)

Carla Rolfe said...

Phil - thank you for the time you've spent on this. I believe it's quite possibly the most important, foundational issue of Christianity, requiring our attention today.

SDG,
Carla

puritanicoal said...

"I should like to ask modern broad churchmen whether there is any doctrine of any sort for which it would be worth a man's while to burn or to lie in prison."

Isn't this really the ultimate question? Doesn't this really separate the "men from the boys" (or the the homeschool moms from the moms) when it comes to defining primary v. secondary issues? We are blogging about it in a clinical, detached way. Yet, the "problem" is that we live in a society in which people no longer die for causes unless they are by choice overseas somewhere, and it is those we relegate to a "different level."

What if our very lives depended on this issue? What would we then list? I bet our primary list would be much shorter.

Rom. 8:17

puritanicoal said...

Phil,

Thanks for putting so much time and thought into this. I appreciate your steadfastness.

Habitans in Sicco said...

Dan, it needs to be noted that Phil was explicitly talking about "ignorant, untaught, or immature" people who "in a more or less passive sense" are confused or incomplete in their understanding of the gospel, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, or whatever.

In that light, your comments about "academic dialogue" with "dissenting scholarship" subtly but completely evade the point. Again.

Phil was pretty clearly implying that (unlike merely untaught or immature Christians) the so-called "scholars" who deny cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith should NOT be embraced as fellow Christians or engaged in "dialogue" as if our differences with them were merely brotherly and academic differences of opinion.

Your arguments make me wonder if you would EVER think it appropriate to bust out the h-word, plainly call the heretic what he is, and warn impressionable sheep about his influence. In other words, (and I hope this doesn't sound too harsh, but) your philosophy sounds suspiciously like the "hireling" philosophy of shepherding Jesus condemned in John 10:12-13.

Your comments are a perfect example of postmodern squishiness. Your facile dismissal of epistemological foundationalism (not to mention all those other nasty and complex issues of prolegomena) are a perfect parroting of so much shopworn postmodern rhetoric. It may be a sign that you have read too much of McLaren and not enough of Spurgeon.

Buried in all your pomo jargon is the very point of view Phil rightly opposes. I hope no one misses that fact.

Doug said...

GREAT POST! I love Spurgeon's take on how to handle opposition with Arminianism. I deal with that constantly, being a newly reformed Arminian trying to persuade current Arminians in my church. I have to have "charity" while also holding to the truth.

BTW, Colin (Cork) your link came up "not found." It's a shame, because it would save me a lot of work.

Doug

LeeC said...

I don't know Dan, perhaps I am way over my head in commenting amongst so many more leared than I, but what Packer considers "notional correctness" I see as a love forthe lost, and greater love for the Gospel and Gods glory.

The fact of the matter in that topic is that the Vatican teaches a completely different gospel than the one found in Scripture. And just as surely as there are those who call themselves Catholics, but do have a saving faith through our Lord and Saviour in spite of the teachings of thier church there are many more who believe that they are saved and are not due to that churches teaching.

People are dying both physicaly and spirtually over that teaching and to condone it through something like ECT still boggles my mind. I love the people of the Catholic faith to much to give the a false assurance of salvation by condoning the teachings of the Vatican.

I don't presume to speak for Phil, but I don't think that with the exception of the nebulous coment he would disagree with your statement:
"The Scriptures you mentioned are nebulous -- they speak of those who are opposed or antagonistic to Jesus, not those who desire to submit to Him, are seeking to understand His teaching, and who submit the ethical and doxological dimensions of their lives to Him. The idea that one can't be mistaken if he's "heard the other view" and is likely an unbeliever if he continues to teach a contrary (and what he believes to be biblical) view leaves off the ardous nature in which one arrives to his views in a conscientious way."

I cite John MacArthurs friendship with R.C. Sproul for instance, but when it comes to the Gospel there is no middle ground. Salvation and Christs sacrifce are far too precious to trifle with.

The desire to submit to Him is the very issue is it not? If we earnestly do this and the Holy Spirit is indweling us then He will enlighten us in His time, and untill we see the Lord in glory we will never fully attain unity in this regard because we are all at different stages in our walks and sanctification.

One thing is certain though, if we teach a truly different gospel then all this is mute because we are not saved, the Holy Spirit does not dwell in us, and thus we cannot be enlightened by Him.

I was raised in a Conservative Baptist church where the Bible was taught, but application was weak. In fact my most common memory of this 3000+ church was being picked on by the youth leadership, getting beat up, robbed and taught how to smoke and pick up on girls.
All this bothered me, but it was where my parents attended and Idd not know what else was out there. To me this was the church and that is just how we live our lives.

My parents stopped attending church when I was 14, right when I had repented and made the commtiment to follow Christ. Not a kid, nor an adult, I lived out my faith as I saw it acted out around me...once saved always saved. But I didn't feel right about it. I worried and prayed often asking for assurace. I fell into some very sinfull times as I grew older. And every time I met someone who said they were a Christian I ran to them, and shared my concern, but most often I was told not to worry about it, after all I can't fall from grace.

A few times during that period of my life people came alongside me and rebuked me for some sin or another and I felt chastened and repented of whatever the issue was whn they did, but that was the exception not the rule.

Eventually my lifestyle led me to being unemployed and sleeping on friends couches...and I was about to lose my last couch. When I met a girl. She and I hit it off, mainly because I was not a "Bible thumper" but every time she voiced a misconception about Christianity I would correct her (I did have a lot of head knowledge).

Eventually, she became less hostile to the Bible and Christianity, but she also started having panic attacks. I finaly told her that psychology or drugs couldn't help her, only Christ. She admitted she realized that and asked for forgiveness from Christ, and repented of her sins.
The panic attacks stopped.

We married, and I knew I could not equip her the way she needed so we started looking for churches (theres a great story of Gods providence in that but this is too long already)We wound up at a church pastored by Brian Shealy (whose now Dean of Education at the Cornerstone Seminary of Vallejo). Right off the bat he asked me if I was saved and I told him I was due to Christ free gift of frogiveness and salvation. But I struggled still. I saw many peope get baptised who said " made y first profession of faith at the age of xx, but I recently realized that I was not saved at that time." Was this the case for me?

I looked back on my life, read Scripture prayed a lot, and asked godly men for counsel for some time. My conclusion was that I was saved at that time at my parents church.

Why? Because when I was in sin and was confronted with it I not only felt conviction, but I acted upon it. I desiredto please the Lord and submit to Him. The floundering of my early I am ashamed of and fully culpable for, but at the sae time I like to think He used it to bring my wife to Him.

My point being, just because I was blind to some areas of Gods truth does not mae me an unbeliever. The fact that I looked back on my life and saw that I loved Him, and desired to obey Him, and my heart was pricked by His Word I had fruit, albiet tiny weak and often withered fruit it was fruit, and wholly His work, not mine and by it I know that I was saved.

I a certain that I have many errors in my uderstanding of the Lord and His ways still, some of which I may have til I die.
But He is my Lord,and He will grow me as He wills.
I know I am His because to the best of my ability I obey Him.

So this probably makes little to no sense in light of the discussion, but it is the burden of my heart that comes to mind when I read all of this. Feel free to delete it if it is not germain to the discussion Phil, no offense will be taken.

May the Lord bless and keep you all Brethren,

LeeC said...

Gah...I should never be allowed to write using this laptop without a proofreader.
Heh.

farmboy said...

Is the study of theology and the training of theologians best left to the church or is there any harm if the academy assumes these tasks?

There are consequences to how one answers this question. Dan acknowledges this in his first comment to the current post as follows:

"And at some level people in the academic world recognize this - so while in the church the standards for "who's in" becomes a doctrinal statement, the academy uses questions of method which may lead people to adopt a particular view as a criteria for barring people from the kingdom."

Steve Camp weighs in on this issue with his article "It's the Church...Stupid!" found at his Audience One website as follows:

"The evangelical church today is being hijacked by the religious scholars, intellectuals, and academics. These are the ones who live to make a name for themselves by coming up with new twists and takes on orthodox biblical Christianity for the sake of “getting published” and working the personal appearance circuit. Though highly learned, these scholastics are educated way beyond their intelligence. They have left the careful study of Scripture which they now “wrest to their own destruction.” Peter goes on to warn, “You therefore beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability” (2 Peter 3:16b-17). These are the erudite elite who pride themselves on their diminutive dexterity to debate, dispute and deduce. They contemplate their navel and call it wisdom; they wax eloquent philosophically and condescend to those who confine their thoughts biblically; they rewrite and reinterpret Scripture and call it editorial license or illuminating historical insight. The diagnosis is apparent: what they are suffering from is a severe case of A.D.D. (Aberrant Doctrinal Disorder)."

Both Dan and Mr. Camp acknowledge that the church is (or should be) less tolerant of doctrinal diversity, while the academy is more tolerant. Mr. Camp goes on to note the problems that arise when the church relies on the academy to study theology and train theologians.

I'm with Mr. Camp on this one. My two decades as a member of the academy leave me with sufficient evidence to conclude that the academy seldom, if ever, can bring itself to say anything definitive about anything. (This definitive statement, then, brands me as an academic oddity.) The church does not have this luxury, as from an eternal perspective the church is playing for keeps.

Basing policy on a wrong economic theory may result in reduced economic growth. While suboptimal economic growth is not a desired outcome, it is an outcome of no eternal significance. In contrast, basing one's relationship with God on wrong doctrine can have tragic eternal consequences.

In this regard Ephraim notes as follows:

"You got that right. If I had to suddenly trust in my doctrines for eternal life, it would be at that moment that I would have no life at all."

It would be a tragic mistake to trust in doctrines for eternal life. Instead, right doctrine instructs us that we are to trust in the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ. This is the basis of our justification. We only know this because Scripture clearly teaches this essential, foundational, nonnegotiable truth. Fortunately, none of this depends on one's methodological approach or underlying presuppositions. Equally fortunately, none of this depends on passing academic fads such as open theism or the new prespective on Paul.

Maybe this church-academy dichotomy can add a useful perspective on J. I. Packer's signing of ECT. Long before ECT David Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Dr. Packer parted ways over Dr. Packer's continuing membership in the Church of England as the Church of England continued in doctrinal drift. Dr. Lloyd-Jones was a pastor while Dr. Packer was an academic. (For more on this see the second volume of Iain Murray's biography of Dr. Lloyd-Jones.)

LeeC said...

Just to be clear, my point is that I was NOT living as someone who loves Christ and is submitting to Him should. The fact that the Lord used that for His glory in spite of my sinful habits does not mitigate my culpability.

In my heart of hearts even though I could not articulate it what I both desired, and needed was a brother to love me enough to come alongside me and say "I cannot say whether you are saved or not, but you are not ACTING like a saved person, and so you should be fearful of your salvation."

And of course if I was truly obeying my Lord I would have been a member of a local body so that if I did not obey then he could have come with two or more to challenge me again, and then with the elders, and then yes even to excomunicate me if I did not obey. Not to punish, but in the sincere hope of restoration. Since if I did not act like a fruit tree after repeated opportunities then they should treat me as an evangelism opportunity rather than a brother...because they love me, and salvation is too dear to sweep unrepentant disobedience under the rug.

Whether I was saved then or not is kind of irrelevant as I know that I am saved now, but I am assured that I was then also because I am certain that at that time idea of someone confronting me like that would have changed my life. I kow my flesh is decietful ad that God has put other godly men here to help me to "calibrate" when I go off the mark.

Iron sharpening iron is a painful experience, as is working out our salvation with fear and trembling and removing the evil person from among you is extraodinarily painfull. but it is neccesarry. Both for that person to know his need of true salvation, and the purity of the Church.

But as to when to act in such a way I have trouble being succinct, but I do think often we are more in agreement than we think on such issues but for terminology. Again as I posted in the other thread I think this article sums it up nicely:

http://www.dividetheword.org/aticles/pastoral/hills.html

Peace be with you all!

Joe Fleener said...

As for Packer's endorsement of ECT, his 1997 Biography by Alister McGrath is worth reading.

It is actually a great read for many reasons.

After reading it, I more understand why from Packer's perspective he signed, even though I still completely disagree with him.

Habitans in Sicco said...

Well, "Wow" to you, too, Dan. The clues that that you were a 1689 guy were just a bit too thin for me to notice. I took a second look at all your comments, and it still seems to me that you are overflowing with the latest Emergent catch-phrases and canned postmodern rhetoric. You argue in favor of meeting false teachers with dialogue instead of dogmatism. You wave aside a string of several clear statements from Scripture as "nebulous." You have to admit; that's an unconventional tack for someone who subscribes to the London Baptist Confession.

When you say you've "never read McLaren," did you mean Brian or Alexander McLaren? Because elsewhere you seem to be giving a big thumbs-up to the "Generous Orthodoxy Thinktank" and Scot McKnight's blog. And here you're employing a lot of hairsplitting word games to express your dissent without really seeming to affirm much of substance.

I'm not trying to "label" you, but I am trying to understand where you are coming from. Forgive me, but I'm having a hard time connecting what you claim to stand for with what you have actually argued for.

Christopher Trottier said...

I think the route to take with Catholics is to unite with them in all manners we agree with them upon, depard with them upon all manners we disagree with them upon. An evangelical and a Catholic can definitely stand with each other in condemning the heresy of atheism. However, upon matters of salvation, the evangelical must say to the Catholic, "You are wrong".

Phil Johnson said...

Doug Wilson makes a poignant observation about the way the postmodernist "conversation" always seems to get back to the issue of epistemology and the supposed impossibility of knowing anything for sure.

Phil Johnson said...

Dan: I this why Armstrong is in the "worrisome" category? Why isn't Wilson in there with him? Not being cheeky there, just wondering.

If you'll read the blog awhile, the answers to those questions should be pretty clear. A Google site search for "Doug Wilson" will get you started. You'll even find that I've already seen and interacted with the posts you linked to at his site.

I haven't said anything specific on the blog about John Armstrong, but if you read much of what he has written lately, you have surely noticed his oft-expressed discomfort with the idea of moral, doctrinal, and epistemological certainty. Compare that with what I have been saying, and the reason I find his drift so "worrisome" should be obvious.

I've thought of interacting with one of John's recent blogposts, and/or one of his pivotal newsletter articles, and I may do that one of these days. Stay tuned.

Meanwhile, here's the bottom line: despite the obvious (Presbyterian vs. Baptist) covenantal and sacramental issues on which I would strongly differ with Doug Wilson (not to mention my concerns about certain aspects of the Auburn Avenue theology), at least Doug is warning people against the dangers of paddling in the postmodern riptide. John Armstrong, on the other hand, appears to be caught in the undertow.

There, now—isn't clarity better than adumbration?

By the way, who are you? I'm not trying to be cheeky or anything. Just wondering. Since you're being so provocative, and you evidently have some of the same friends I do, it would be nice to know whom I'm dealing with.

farmboy said...

It's been awhile since I taught a research methods class, but 1) if assumptions are the starting point for a theory, and 2) a theory starts with assumptions to arrive at a prediction, then 3) the prediction of the theory can be compared with objective reality to evaluate the validity of the theory. At the end of the day, then, the validity of a theory depends on the extent to which the predictions of the theory correspond with the objective empirical evidence.

In this regard, Dan notes that "the perspective represented here doesn't seem to get the point that when the problems are fundamentally hermeneutical and epistemological 'just going to Scripture' is high-handed question begging." Yet, different hermeneutical and epistemological approaches yield different outcomes. How can these different approaches be evaluated? By comparing their outcomes to the objective standard of Scripture. How is referring to Scripture in this manner a form of "high-handed question begging"?

Continuing with this topic Dan also notes "I agree with you. Scripture is our only objective resource for understanding. But if [it] were that easy to get at it, and these differing presuppositions with which we approach the text don't really matter, why are there different views, even among those who agree hermeneutically?"

Earlier posts and comments on this theme noted that while Scripture speaks with great clarity on some issues, it speaks with lesser clarity on other issues. As an example, Scripture reveals with great clarity that Jesus Christ will return a second time. As for the exact details of that second coming, Scripture speaks with lesser clarity. So the same hermeneutical approach (theory) applied to different presuppositions (assumptions)
could result in different predictions concerning the details of the second coming while also resulting in uniformity of predictions concerning the fact that Jesus will return a second time.

As for those issues to which Scripture speaks with crystal clear clarity, there are still those who refuse to acknowledge the reality of what Scripture clearly reveals. For example, Scripture clearly reveals that an essential part of a person's justification is the imputation of Christ's perfect righteousness to that person. Yet many who subscribe to the new perspective on Paul deny this objective fact. In a case like this what more can a person do than simply state his position again and again and.... Yet, Dan questions this approach as follows: "The truth of a particular issue is in question. How to resolve the problem? You seem to be saying: ‘State your position again and again and again and again and again and again until the person runs away screaming.'" If the person runs away screaming, it is possibly because he/she doesn't want to accept the truth?

As with theories, the validity of any statement depends on the extent to which the evidence is consistent with the content of the statement. In this regard, Dan makes the following statement "You're unable to step outside your own perspective or suspend criticism long enough to understand any other point of view…I haven't 'assumed' that this is true. I've stated it. I'm claiming that it is often true. I've given examples of how this is often the case." Yet, I've carefully reread all of Dan's posts twice (not something that one does in a few minutes), and I fail to find evidence in support of his statement. Here, broad generalizations don't qualify as evidence. Where are the specific examples of conservative evangelicals unfairly presenting the positions of members of the evangelical left (to use Millard Erickson's term)? I'm sure such examples exist, but none are cited in the relevant posts.

In all of the above, neither Dan nor I really matter. Instead, it is the ideas that we advance in a public forum that matter. Our times on earth are relatively brief, but truth lasts forever. This is a point that James White has made on his blog several times. Regarding blog activity, Ephraim notes that it is "Much easier to depersonalize in these settings." Given the relative unimportance of personalities, that is a good thing. As Allen Guelzo observed, Jonathan Edwards was "an utter partisan of Calvinist orthodoxy with the brains and inclination to confront the most abstruse intellectual challenges to that orthodoxy, a man of the most solemn integrity who would rather be broken by the storm than bend to the self-serving wishes of his own times and his own congregation, a man of ideas for whom personalities come in a distant second." May God raise up more men to follow the example of Edwards and Spurgeon.

Tim said...

I think after reading many of the comments, the really, really distressing thing that I find is that we are ultimately speaking about those who are teachers. Teachers are held to a higher standard. As one myself, I understand that. I am, as some of you know, open for my faith to be criticized and investigated. I do not run from those who question or those who don't understand. I do believe Christ leads His people. Remember those disciples? They didn't seem to get it too much even after 3 1/2 years with the Master. Yet He did lead them in the truth.

The point is, when those who are teachers in the church give the impression that they are waffling and embracing an entire system as Christian, when in fact it is not (ECT), then there is a point in which they must be called out publicly. The Scripture commands us to do so.

Yet we must all recognize that men come to Christ with different "head knowlege". Some know creeds and confessions inside and out and some only know they are incapable of saving themselves and know their only hope is in Christ who died in their place. There are all those in between. I know most of you believe this, but let's not take an extreme. Let's hold to doctrinal soundness, and let's also express charity to true brothers and sisters.

As for the comments Dan made: I do find something in them, that I too have seen. We often don't understand how people came to the conclusions they came to. Therefore, in my opinion, we need to be able to come alongside some of them, understand where they are coming from and how they got there, so that we might be able to guide them to a proper understanding. This is love for them brothers. Remember that love is supreme. Proper understanding of truth is nothing if it is not grounded in love, and I don't mean a touchy feely love, but a love for God and man. May God grant us a gracious and humble spirit to those who need to be corrected and may He keep us submisssive to His Word.

Tim said...

I think after reading many of the comments, the really, really distressing thing that I find is that we are ultimately speaking about those who are teachers. Teachers are held to a higher standard. As one myself, I understand that. I am, as some of you know, open for my faith to be criticized and investigated. I do not run from those who question or those who don't understand. I do believe Christ leads His people. Remember those disciples? They didn't seem to get it too much even after 3 1/2 years with the Master. Yet He did lead them in the truth.

The point is, when those who are teachers in the church give the impression that they are waffling and embracing an entire system as Christian, when in fact it is not (ECT), then there is a point in which they must be called out publicly. The Scripture commands us to do so.

Yet we must all recognize that men come to Christ with different "head knowlege". Some know creeds and confessions inside and out and some only know they are incapable of saving themselves and know their only hope is in Christ who died in their place. There are all those in between. I know most of you believe this, but let's not take an extreme. Let's hold to doctrinal soundness, and let's also express charity to true brothers and sisters.

As for the comments Dan made: I do find something in them, that I too have seen. We often don't understand how people came to the conclusions they came to. Therefore, in my opinion, we need to be able to come alongside some of them, understand where they are coming from and how they got there, so that we might be able to guide them to a proper understanding. This is love for them brothers. Remember that love is supreme. Proper understanding of truth is nothing if it is not grounded in love, and I don't mean a touchy feely love, but a love for God and man. May God grant us a gracious and humble spirit to those who need to be corrected and may He keep us submisssive to His Word.

Sharad Yadav said...

Right on, Tim.