"Minds emancipated from the fetters of traditional beliefs"

Charles Spurgeon was a man who contended for the faith. As a result he was reviled and misunderstood. Refusing to yield ground to those who attacked the inerrancy of the Scriptures, the substitutionary atonement, the necessity of the new birth, etc. led eventually to his being censured by his denomination. Some say the Downgrade Controversy took such a toll on Spurgeon that it hastened his death.

But what choice is there for the man of God? He must contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. The following are excerpts from an editorial Spurgeon wrote in The Sword and the Trowel in response to those who savaged him for his commitment to the truth.

Let half a word of protest be uttered by a man who believes firmly in something, and holds by a defined doctrine, and the thunders of liberality bellow forth against the bigot. Steeped up to their very throats in that bigotry for liberality, which, of all others, is the most ferocious form of intolerance, they sneer with the contempt of affected learning at the idiots who contend for "a narrow Puritanism," and express a patronizing hope that the benighted adherents of "a half-enlightened creed" may learn more of "that charity which thinketh no evil."

To contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints is to them an offense against the enlightenment of the nineteenth century; but, to vamp old, worn-out heresies, and pass them off for deep thinking, is to secure a high position among minds "emancipated from the fetters of traditional beliefs."

Great is their indignation at the creeds which render their position morally dubious. Churches have no right to believe anything; comprehensiveness is the only virtue of a denomination; precise definitions are a sin, and fundamental doctrines are a myth: this is the notion of "our foremost men." For earnest people to band themselves together to propagate what they hold to be the very truth of God, is in their eyes the miserable endeavor of bigots to stem the torrent of modern thought...

The proper course, according to their "broad views," would be to leave doctrines for the dunces who care for them. Truths there are none, but only opinions; and, therefore, cultivated ministers should be left free to trample on the most cherished beliefs, to insult convictions, no matter how long experience may have matured them, and to teach anything, everything, or nothing, as their own culture, or the current of enlightened thought may direct them...

It appears to be, now-a-days, a doubtful question whether Christian men have a right to be quite sure of anything. . . . He who teaches an extravagant error is a fine, generous spirit: and, therefore, to condemn his teaching is perilous, and will certainly produce an outcry against your bigotry. Where the atonement is virtually denied, it is said that a preacher is a very clever man, and exceedingly good; and, therefore, even to whisper that he is unsound is libelous: we are assured that it would be far better to honor him for his courage in scorning to be hampered by conventional expressions. Besides, it is only his way of putting it, and the radical idea is discoverable by cultured minds. As to other doctrines, they are regarded as too trivial to be worthy of controversy. . . .

I have been preaching through Jude. You may listen to the message on verses 3 and 4 HERE.

Paul was a meanie

I have the privilege once again to attend the Basics Conference. Basics is the annual pastor's conference at Parkside Church outside Cleveland. I have been attending this conference for nine years and it is always a restful and challenging time. One of the helpful elements of the week is that I come early enough to attend worship at Parkside under the preaching of Alistair Begg.

This morning Alistair continued his series through Titus. His text was Titus 1:10-16:

For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth. To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.

This text falls between two calls for elders to be able to teach sound doctrine and be willing to rebuke those who who contradict it.

What an odd set of priorities this seems to many contemporary evangelicals who seem willing to jettison doctrinal boundaries for a veneer of peace. Alistair pointed out the harshness of Paul's tone and how offensive it seems to many today. "They must be silenced." Those who are diluting the church with errant doctrine are "liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." We are to "rebuke them sharply." Notice that Paul will not allow the word "rebuke" to be dumbed down. There is a sharpness which is to accompany a rebuke given to those who teach or embrace errant doctrine within the church.

Bottom line? Paul was a meanie. He was a narrow-minded bully. He believed in the necessity of sharply rebuking error and those who teach it. He simply did not allow for peaceful coexistence (within the church) with errant doctrine or those who teach it. I shudder to think of Paul's long-term prospects in any church today. His intolerance for what is false would simply not be tolerated in a church milieu where the only heresy is believing that there is heresy.

Recommended Reading:
The Real Scandal Of The Evangelical Mind by Carl Trueman
The Courage To Be Protestant by David Wells
The Intolerance of Tolerance by D.A. Carson

A Mighty Battle

From Fred Zaspel's wonderful new work, The Theology of B.B. Warfield:

For nearly a century before Warfield arrived on its faculty, Princeton Seminary had stood out as the scholarly bastion of the historic Reformed faith. And due in large measure to the towering influence of Old Princeton, much of the new liberalizing tendencies in the church had been held back in significant degree. By means of his 2,700 students and his endless literary output, Warfield played an enormous role in this. But the undercurrent was always present, and within a decade after his death, liberal currents of thought would gain prominence in the Presbyterian church and at his beloved Princeton also. Warfield once met the wife of the seminary president J. Ross Stevenson while walking down a Princeton street, and she implored him: “Dr. Warfiled, I hear there is going to be trouble at the General Assembly. Do let us pray for peace.” To this he replied, “I am praying that if they do not do what is right, there may be a mighty battle.”

HT: Kevin DeYoung

Where the battle rages...

"If I profess, with the loudest voice and clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battle field besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point."

- Martin Luther

Clark Pinnock - A Modern Parable?

Clark Pinnock died on Sunday at the age of seventy-three. Dr. Pinnock was a theologian who stirred up no small amount of controversy during his life. Early in his career Pinnock was a conservative of the fundamentalist sort. A strong advocate for the Bible's inerrancy, Dr. Pinnock (a Canadian) was influential in warning Southern Baptists about their slide into theological liberalism. During his tenure at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary he taught young pastors to have confidence in the full trustworthiness of God's Word even writing an influential book A Defense of Biblical Infallibility (1967). He thus became instrumental in the conservative resurgence in the SBC.

However, Clark Pinnock ultimately retreated from almost every theological tenet he once contended for so valiantly. He retreated from his Calvinistic convictions and embraced Arminianism. He came to believe that if man were to be truly free then God must not be truly sovereign. In time, Pinnock became the unacknowledged leader of the "Openness of God" movement which teaches that God possesses no foreknowledge of future events. What is more, Openness theology, not surprisingly, holds that God has no sovereignty over those events that are yet to come. The future is...open.

Pinnock would come to deny the necessity of faith in Christ if one was to be saved. He denied the imputed righteousness of Christ, the doctrine of Christ's substitutionary atonement, and the historic doctrine of hell and God's judgement. But it all began with denying the doctrine for which he once fought: the Bible's inerrancy. After abandoning inerrancy, Pinnock called upon evangelicals to not seek coalescence around inerrancy but instead to look to the doctrine of Jesus' atoning sacrifice as that which provides evangelical unity. Certainly, the doctrine of Christ's atoning work on the cross is central not only to our faith but our unity as well. But of course, if you follow the theological evolution of Clark Pinnock it was not long before he began to deny Christ's blood atonement. Once the inerrancy of God's Word is denied then it is usually not long before other doctrines are tossed into the dustbin. If inerrancy is abandoned for not being "intellectually satisfying" then can Christ's deity, virgin birth, atonement, and resurrection last long? For Clark Pinnock the answer was an unfortunate "no."

Certainly our condolences go to Dr. Pinnocks friends and family. He died of Alzheimer's which is a sad end for such an intelligent man or any man for that matter.

According to Dr. Pinnock's theology, God did not know that he would contract this terrible disease. What is more, God had no control over the circumstances. He could only watch and hope for the best along with Clark's friends and family. What a sad and pathetic god. But for Pinnock, Greg Boyd and the other advocates of Openness Theology, we can only be assured of God's goodness if He is completely unresponsible for the unpleasant things that come our way. It is as if they have said, "You can believe that God is good so long as you believe he is incompetent."

What a sad distortion of the God who reveals Himself in Scripture. He declares the end from the beginning (Isa. 46:10). He is the God who works all things according to the counsel of His will (Eph 1:11). God is sovereign over the weather. He is sovereign over his enemies. He is sovereign over cancer cells and earthquakes. He is sovereign over the salvation of his people. And God is sovereign over the number of our days. What a comfort these truths could have been for Clark Pinnock in his later days.

You can read a wonderful article on Clark Pinnock by Russell Moore HERE.

Also, you can read a more sobering assessment of Pinnock by Scott Clark HERE.

Are we fighting too much over doctrine?

Carl Trueman weighs in on some of the recent episodes of seeming self loathing among a few well known leaders in the Reformed community.

I have taken the liberty to highlight some portions that I believe are particularly important.

Over the last decade, it has become something of a commonplace in Reformed evangelical circles to decry the level of polemic that has historically characterised the Reformed world. From John Frame's famous critique of Machen's warrior children to more recent comments by high-profile members of the Gospel Coalition, the idea has gone abroad that there are these Reformed and evangelical doctrinalists who just live to fight. Discussing this over lunch with a pastor friend the other day, he commented to me, `You know, I'm not quite prepared to jump into this sea of self-loathing just yet.' And I think he is right. Here are some reasons why.

1. Polemic is no monopoly of the Reformed. Talk to Catholic, Orthodox, Anabaptist, and Episcopalian friends. They too have their struggles. This does not in itself make any particular polemic, or any particular polemical technique, correct; but it does rather highlight the fact that the church was born in controversy and, if her beliefs are important, there will always be such struggles. The day the polemics die out you will know that (a) Christ has returned or (b) people no longer care about doctrine and the church has ceased to exist.

2. The criticism of polemics often comes from those who enjoy the space that polemics have carved out for them and the safety that polemics provides them. Such critics are like those who use their right to freedom of speech to decry the use of armed force by police and army, not realising that the very right they enjoy in this regard is positively connected to what they are attacking. Don't tell the world that the Trinity or justification by faith are important doctrines and then lament the existence of polemics; you can only have a coalition based on the gospel because every element of that gospel has been first hammered out in the furnace of controversy and then defended in the same way. Sure, not all polemics are good polemics, in form and/or substance -- so be discriminating in your criticisms and drop the stereotypes. Failure to be so is simple ingratitude to those who have put reputations and, in the history of the church, often lives on the line for the preservation of the truth. Penning an anti-polemic polemic may help the author sleep well at night, confident that his hands are clean and his conscience clear; but he can only do so because somebody has first made the mean streets outside his house safe for women and children.

3. Closely related to point 2 is the fact that, 99 times out of a 100, a nasty controversy only ever erupts because, at an earlier point in time somebody, somewhere took the easy way out and chose to turn a blind eye to a peccadillo, moral or theological. Think of David and Adonijah, the son who rebelled. We are told in 1 Ki. 1:6 that his father had never checked his behaviour as he had grown up, surely one of the most eloquent verses in the Bible. What had presumably started with Adonijah throwing toys out of the pram or not observing a teenage curfew ended with full-scale rebellion. In my limited experience in both local churches and institutions, all of the major conflicts in which I have been involved could have been avoided if somebody at some point in the past had had the backbone -- and the love for an erring brother or sister -- to check them gently when they first showed signs of wandering. Dare I say it? It is pretty rich to criticise those involved in major polemics if those polemics actually involve cleaning up significant messes created by the fact that others failed to do what was right when the problem was much easier to address and the stakes were much lower. Anti-polemic polemicists should reflect as much about how the events of the present -- not least their development of the next generation of leaders -- will impact the church for good or for ill -- as they do on the allegedly over-polemical attitude of some. Polemics in one generation are often as much, if not more, the fault of the lack of discernment or moral leadership in the previous generation as they are of any innately combative personalities in the present.

4. Finally, I simply don't recognise the pictures drawn by the Reformed evangelical critics of Reformed evangelical polemicists. The problem is they build grand cases about general types on very limited access to evidence. When particular figures are dismissed as being polemically minded, relentlessly aggressive etc, it is possible that, on occasion, the criticism is true. More often, however, it is built upon reading a few pages of a blog or a book or a magazine; or listening to one lecture or public statement; worse still, it is based on hostile witness of some kind. For most of us who write and speak in the public forum, that speaking and writing is just a small part of our lives. More important for us is being in church both ends on a Sunday, encouraging our pastor, helping with the Sunday School or the nursery or the church cleaning rota, connecting with other members in church when their basement is flooded or they need help, having an open office policy so students can wander in at any time to talk about a problem, striving to be better husbands and dads. Sure, we can fight when we think it is necessary; and yes, certainly, as sinners, we sometimes fight when it isn't necessary or in an inappropriate way, and, as with all sin, we need to be challenged on that and repent -- believe me, my wife, my own `Katie' is quite capable of tearing me off a strip on that score; but that is just a small part of our Christian lives -- a necessary one, for all the reasons given above -- but a small one.

So, please, let's bin this sad, misguided self-loathing on the polemic front. We must repent where necessary, where we have crossed the line; but, just as necessary, we must fight where we see the truth is at stake. We should be grateful for the truth that polemics have preserved so that we have a gospel to proclaim; and we should not allow a misguided commitment to being nice to allow us, in effect, to dump huge problems on the next generation by running up a massive theological and moral deficit in the church of the present.

Polemics against polemics have a role to play in provoking self-reflection; and, let's face it, they sound pretty cool and attractive in the current cultural climate; but they are, ironically, parasitic on polemic and polemicists; and, moreover, when they witness to, and help promote, self-loathing, they should be abandoned as serving no good purpose.

SPOT. ON.

Unity without truth is an illusion

Good post from Rick Phillips concerning an article in Christianity Today which offered an analysis and critique of Together for the Gospel:

Once while worshiping at a church in Africa, I heard a woman preaching the health-and-wealth gospel. If that wasn't bad enough, she was preaching from the book of Job. I feel similarly about the appeal for unity-without-truth in Christianity Today's negative critique of Together for the Gospel (T4G) . It's bad enough that the author, Bret McCracken, endorsed N. T. Wright's dictum that "nothing justifies schism" (on this, see Phil Johnson's excellent blog post) and relegated the doctrine of justification to the category of "theological minutia," commenting, "Paul, after all, speaks of justification only in a few places (Romans, Galatians, etc.)." This is bad enough, but did he have to make this argument from the book of Galatians?! When Wright and, by extension, McCracken base their appeal to unity without truth on Galatians 3:28, they, like the woman preaching the prosperity gospel from Job, fail to recognize the context. After all, Paul speaks of unity in Christ only after the apostle rejects those who differ on justification as anametha (1:9) and divides even with the apostle Peter over this matter of doctrinal "minutia" (2:11-14). This, then, is my prayer for today: Please, Lord, no more prosperity gospel sermons from Job and no more unity-without-truth appeals from Galatians!

I had a similar response when I read the CT piece. McCracken seems to miss the point ENTIRELY.

A better analysis of the T4G conference in comparison to the Wheaton conference can be found HERE.

Why is N.T. Wright speaking at Redeemer?

I like Tim Keller. His passion for urban church planting has served as both model and inspiration for a new generation of church planters. His commitment to biblical exposition and clarity in the Gospel are an encouraging alternative to the doctrinal carelessness which prevails in far too many churches. Redeemer Presbyterian Church, which Dr. Keller serves as senior minister, is a theologically conservative member of the PCA and fully affirms the Westminster Confession of Faith. For these reasons I am confused, indeed concerned why N.T. Wright has been invited to speak at Redeemer Presbyterian.

N.T. Wright, the Anglican Bishop of Durham is the most effective spokesperson for what is termed "The New Perspective on Paul" (NPP). To be extremely brief Dr. Wright denies the doctrine justification by faith alone. He also denies the doctrine of imputation whereby our sins were imputed to Christ as His righteousness is imputed to us through His work on the cross (Rom 5). Wright argues that the church has been wrong on these central doctrines. Now, however, he and few others equally enlightened scholars are here to help us understand what the Bible really says.

These are not small matters. It would be one thing if Redeemer had invited a premillenialist to speak or someone who believes in an old earth (or young earth). But they have invited a man who has fundamentally redefined the Gospel and the doctrine of justification. They have invited a man to speak who denies that the righteousness of Christ has been imputed to the believer. These are not peripheral doctrines.

Now, some may say, "It is good to hear various views. N.T. Wright is an important biblical scholar. It's a good oportunity to engage in meaningful discussion." But we must remember that the church is not a lecture hall or university. We do not gather to entertain various "opinions" on the Gospel and justification. We are called to proclaim and defend the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

Dr. Scott Clark of Westminster Seminary California puts it well:

If there is anything about which a church must be unapologetically clear and unequivocal it is the good news of Jesus Christ and the good news is not that we’re in by grace and we stay in through faith and works. The good news is not that in the resurrection of Christ God has vindicated himself and merely broken down the old ceremonial barriers between Jew and gentile. The truth is that the Rev Dr Wright has fundamentally re-defined what justification is. He has re-defined the good news such that it isn’t “the” good news any more, i.e., it’s not that Jesus has died as the substitute for elect sinners and that his suffering active obedience and his death have been imputed to all who believe in him and that he was raised on the third day for their righteousness with God.

I fear that Redeemer's invitation to N.T. Wright will be seen as an endorsement, at least at some level, of his views. But if not an endorsement Wright's appearance will likely suggest that redefining the Gospel and justification is not that big a problem. It will give his views a veneer of acceptability from one of the most influential Reformed churches in the country. It is not, in my opinion a good idea.

Truth and Controversy

Much of the Bible is polemical in nature because in the Scriptures God is routinely refuting errors. We see this as early as Genesis which operates in part as a polemic against pagan creation myths. The prophets often functioned as polemicists, in some cases even mocking pagans and their gods. This approach to defending the truth is also common in the New Testament exemplified in Jesus and the apostles. This is so because God's truth is not a trifle. What God has said is a reflection of who He is. Indeed, God has revealed His nature, His ways and works, and His redemptive purpose through what He has said in His Word. Therefore, defending the truth is not about winning an argument. Defending the truth is an act of magnifying God's glory.

I am convinced that what is behind the contemporary church's distaste for polemic is the erosion of the doctrine of the Scripture's inerrancy within the evangelical church. This, combined with a postmodern hermeneutic which holds that truth cannot be known clearly, has left us unable but mostly unwilling to wade into the waves controversy. After all, once we have decided that the Bible cannot be fully relied upon to speak truthfully then why ought we quibble over different opinions? And opinions are all we are left with once we adopt a diminished view of the Scriptures.

Justin Taylor cites some helpful passages from John Stott's book Christ the Controversialist (1970):

The proper activity of professing Christians who disagree with one another is neither to ignore, nor to conceal, nor even to minimize their differences, but to debate them. (p. 22)

We seem in our generation to have moved a long way from this vehement zeal for the truth which Christ and his apostles displayed. But if we loved the glory of God more, and if we cared more for the eternal good of the souls of men, we would not refuse to engage in necessary controversy, when the truth of the gospel is at stake. The apostolic command is clear. We are “to maintain the truth in love,” being neither truthless in our love, nor loveless in our truth, but holding the two in balance. (p. 19)

We need to distinguish between the tolerant mind and the tolerant spirit. Tolerant in spirit a Christian should always be, loving, understanding, forgiving and forbearing others, making allowances for them, and giving them the benefit of the doubt, for true love “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” [1 Cor. 13:7]. But how can we be tolerant in mind of what God has plainly revealed to be either evil or erroneous? (p. 8)

Evangelicalism, how far you have fallen!

"If I must have some failing..."

"I was born to fight devils and factions. It is my business to remove obstructions, to cut down thorns, to fill up quagmires, and to open and make straight paths. But if I must have some failing I would rather preach the truth with too great a severity than to ever once act the hypocrite and conceal the truth!"

-Martin Luther (cf, 2 Timothy 1:6-18)

When Evangelicalism is no longer evangelical...

Good article (part one of a series) by Martin Downes on the (almost) 20th anniversary of Robert Brow's "manifesto" on "the new evangelicalism."

It is almost twenty years since Christianity Today published the article "Evangelical Megashift: Why you may not have heard about wrath, sin, and hell recently" by the Canadian theologian Robert Brow (19th February 1990, to be exact).

Twenty years is a long time. After all in Febraury 1990, here in the UK Margaret Thatcher was still the Prime Minister, and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was still several months away.

Over the next two months I will make some occassional posts on the original article, and will offer some reflections on the trajectories of what Brow called "new model" thinking. Brow claimed that this was "dividing evangelicals on a deep level." Al Mohler referred to this article, back in 1996, as a "manifesto for evangelical revision."

Indeed it is worth recalling his comments on the subtle progressiveness of this paradigm shift from old to new model thinking:

But now, almost without our recognizing it, another model has appeared...A whole generation of young people have breathed this air, making their thinking very different from that of "old-model" evangelicalism, even where there is shared commitment to Jesus as Savior and the Bible as the authoritative Word of God. This theological sea change, as has so often happened in church history, involved giving new meanings to the ever stable language of the Christian faith.

In particular Brow noted that the words hell, faith, judge, wrath, sin, church, and the title "Son of God" were all being assigned new meanings in line with "new model" thinking:

We have looked at seven key words that have radically changed focus among new model evangelicals. When these words are encountered in the Bible, their meaning is articulated with a different accent.

Many readers of Christianity Today will recognize that they have moved in some of these directions without being conscious of a model shift. And the old model can be modified and given qualifications for a time. But once three or four of the changes have occurred, our thinking is already organized around the new model.

We may still use old-model language and assume we believe as before, but our hearts are changing our minds.

Others have noted that this article was a precursor for the open theist project (although an essay by Clark Pinnock in 1986 heralded this neo-Socinian theology to the evangelical world), and a portent much of the emergent and post-evangelical theology that has influenced evangelicalism in the first decade of the 21st century.

Almost ten years ago Gary L. W. Johnson was right to say that these "new model" thinkers have not lacked "a platform to propagate their anti-Reformational views" (and that not least through the medium of Christianity Today).

Yet, back in 1990, who would have thought that we would see a suprising resurgence of the very "old model" Calvinistic thinking that the "new model" thinkers were to determined to steer evangelicals away from?

Furthermore, however you assess it, this resurgence of the New Calvinists has brought in its wake a bold proclamation and clear articulation of the very words that the evangelical megashift was busily reinterpreting.

More to come...

Contending for the Truth

Charles Spurgeon was a man who contended for the truth. As a result he was reviled and misunderstood. Refusing to yeild ground to those who attacked the inerrancy of the Scriptures, the substitutionary atonement, the necessity of the new birth, etc. led eventually to his departure from his denomination. Some say the Downgrade Controversy took such a toll on Spurgeon that it hastened his death. But this is what men do. They contend for the truth. The following are exerpts from an editorial Spurgeon wrote in The Sword and the Trowel in response to those who savaged him for his commitment to the truth.

Let half a word of protest be uttered by a man who believes firmly in something, and holds by a defined doctrine, and the thunders of liberality bellow forth against the bigot. Steeped up to their very throats in that bigotry for liberality, which, of all others, is the most ferocious form of intolerance, they sneer with the contempt of affected learning at the idiots who contend for "a narrow Puritanism," and express a patronizing hope that the benighted adherents of "a half-enlightened creed" may learn more of "that charity which thinketh no evil."

To contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints is to them an offense against the enlightenment of the nineteenth century; but, to vamp old, worn-out heresies, and pass them off for deep thinking, is to secure a high position among minds "emancipated from the fetters of traditional beliefs."

Great is their indignation at the creeds which render their position morally dubious. Churches have no right to believe anything; comprehensiveness is the only virtue of a denomination; precise definitions are a sin, and fundamental doctrines are a myth: this is the notion of "our foremost men." For earnest people to band themselves together to propagate what they hold to be the very truth of God, is in their eyes the miserable endeavor of bigots to stem the torrent of modern thought...

The proper course, according to their "broad views," would be to leave doctrines for the dunces who care for them. Truths there are none, but only opinions; and, therefore, cultivated ministers should be left free to trample on the most cherished beliefs, to insult convictions, no matter how long experience may have matured them, and to teach anything, everything, or nothing, as their own culture, or the current of enlightened thought may direct them...

It appears to be, now-a-days, a doubtful question whether Christian men have a right to be quite sure of anything. . . . He who teaches an extravagant error is a fine, generous spirit: and, therefore, to condemn his teaching is perilous, and will certainly produce an outcry against your bigotry. Where the atonement is virtually denied, it is said that a preacher is a very clever man, and exceedingly good; and, therefore, even to whisper that he is unsound is libelous: we are assured that it would be far better to honor him for his courage in scorning to be hampered by conventional expressions. Besides, it is only his way of putting it, and the radical idea is discoverable by cultured minds. As to other doctrines, they are regarded as too trivial to be worthy of controversy. . . .

The Necessity of Controversy

From Martin Downes:

What happens when controversy rears its head and cracks in our unity appear?

Theological controversies invariably reveal that there are significant differences that people hold to on matters of doctrine, whilst the quarrelling parties both claim to stand for the orthodox position as understood both biblically and historically.

The long term wrangling over what constitutes essential evangelical doctrines is a case in point. Can you be evangelical and deny inerrancy, or justification by faith alone, or penal substitutionary atonement, or God's exhaustive foreknowledge, or the necessity of faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, or eternal conscious torment in hell?

When an individual, or a party, wants to use the term evangelical but includes in that term views that are fundamentally opposed to beliefs directly essential to, or necessarily undergirding, an evangelical position then controversy is inevitable.

For controversy not to result would be the effect of an unstated but controlling theological principle that renders all doctrines essential to an evangelical position negotiable and effectively non-essential. That unstated position would itself show that a compromise on essential truths had already been made.

Even though controversy is inevitable is it desirable? The answer must be yes. For without controversy whatever unity that exists is as solid as the mist on an Autumn morning. It is merely a numbers and influence game, a fantasy and not a reality.

How can you stand for a unity that doesn't solidly exist upon matters of belief? Not only does the emporer have no clothes, but the empire is invisible too.

What is the point in having an agreed statement of essential beliefs that no one really adheres to because no one is willing to enforce it? If we have any concern for the truth we would surely want it to be made clear rather than being obscured by fog of meaningless ambiguous phrases.

Controversy, however, as most of us fear, can quickly become an ugly business. We can rapidly move the emphasis from what is right, to ourselves being right, or being seen to be right. Patient listening, charitable interpretation, and a desire for unity can be soon lost.

We are on a knife edge as we deal with these matters. Truth must not be traded, sounds words must not be emptied of their meaning, and compromise must not be the master of integrity. Desperate prayers for wisdom are to be top of the agenda, and we must think our way through these matters seeking understanding, light and clarity.

Perhaps this fear is what lies at the root of an unwillingness to engage in controversy even when there is an irreconcilable disagreement on matters of truth and error. We see the fraying tempers, the soured relationships, the carrying of tales and exaggerations, and we rightly feel that we want no part of that.

At this point we must distinguish between matters of orthopraxy in relation to the truth (the Pauline imperative to "hold fast" and "follow the pattern of sound words") and in matters of godly integrity (just read everything that Paul says to Timothy and Titus about how to be godly in the thick of a theological fight). We must distinguish between these two areas, and we must practice the truth in both of them without compromise.

Obedience in holding to the truth, and obedience in the practice of the truth, go hand in hand. But when error reaches a crescendo in the form of a false gospel then I must not think that bad attitudes among those who hold to the truth can be equated with the danger posed by heresy (Gal. 1:8-10).

That should not make me go easy on sins of bearing false witness, or pride (2 Tim. 2:24-26). The King is not honoured when I behave like this. But I would rather eat wholesome food served by a grumpy waitress than a meal laced with poison served by a seemingly sweet natured chef.

One of the benefits of controversy is the progress made from confusion to clarity. Luther made the following observations on the matter:

If heresies and offenses come, Christendom will only profit thereby, for they make Christians to read diligently the Holy Writ and ponder the same with industry...Thus through heretics and offenses we are kept alert and stouthearted and amid wrangles and battles understand God's word better than before.

William Cunningham's words are a fitting summary:

The uses of theological controversy are, to expose error, and to produce and diffuse clear and correct opinions upon all points of doctrine.

It is the church's imperative duty to aim at these objects, and controversy seems to be as indispensable with a view to the second as to the first of them. But it is an evil and an abuse, when the exposure of error is made to serve as a substitute for the realization and application of what is admitted to be true.

"The Reformers and the doctrine of assurance" in The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, p. 148

Considering Spurgeon

“If we do not make the Lord Jesus glorious; if we do not lift Him high in the esteem of men…we shall not have the Holy Spirit with us. Vain will be rhetoric, music, architecture, energy and social status: if our design be not to magnify the Lord Jesus, we shall work alone and in vain.”
- C.H. Spurgeon

There are few men that I look to with the same interest and respect as I do Charles Haddon Spurgeon. He was a pastor, preacher, writer, evangelist, teacher, mentor, philanthropist, innovator, thinker, husband, and father. He was and is, in my mind, without peer. I am hopeless to sum up Charles Spurgeon’s life in this limited space. However, I will attempt and feebly so, to highlight a few things that make him a hero to me and a worthy subject for the contemporary church’s consideration.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon was born into a Christian family in Essex on June 19, 1834. In spite of godly surroundings and the fervent prayers of his mother Charles was not converted to Christ until the age of 16. The knowledge of his own sinfulness weighed heavy upon his young soul. Later, he would write, “I reckoned that the most defiled creature…was a better thing than myself, for I had sinned against Almighty God.” This proper understanding of sin would make Spurgeon an effective preacher of the free grace of God. From his late teens until he was 19 years old (1851-1854) Charles pastored a Baptist church in a small village called Waterbeach. The church grew from 40 to 100 during that time and Spurgeon became convinced that he would spend the rest of his life serving Christ and His church as a preacher of the Gospel.

While still only 19, Spurgeon accepted a call to pastor the historic but dying Park Street Chapel, Baptist congregation in London. The worship center was built to seat 1,200 but saw fewer than 300 in attendance. Within weeks the once almost empty church was overflowing with people eager to hear this young man who preached so fervently. The building was retro-fitted to hold 1,500 but in less than a year that was too small. The decision was made to build a new chapel that would seat 5,000 and have standing room for an additional 1,000. It would be called The Metropolitan Tabernacle. In the days before mega-churches the Metropolitan Tabernacle was a strange sight. “The lad from Cambridge” found himself pastor of the largest church in the world. During Spurgeon’s ministry there, 14,691 people were added to the role, almost 11,000 of which were by conversion and baptism. Thousands of copies of his sermons were mailed out all over the world each week. What an enormous burden for a young pastor to bear. What a temptation toward self-aggrandizement. But Spurgeon maintained a healthy distrust of numeric success. He saw it very much as the exception rather than the rule. In 1887 he wrote, “Long ago I ceased to count heads, truth is usually in the minority in this evil world.”

Spurgeon seemed always to be the target of vicious criticism. This certainly was owing, at least in part, to his prominent voice. After all, Spurgeon was pastor of the largest church in the world and was not shy to offer his opinion. This is not because he enjoyed controversy or was belligerent in any way. Indeed, he loved tranquility and desired to live in unity with his brothers and sisters in Christ. However, Spurgeon’s love for truth and passion for doctrinal precision outweighed all other passions. In the 1860’s he wrote, “Friends chide us and foes abhor us when we are very jealous for the Lord God of Israel, but what do these things matter if the Master approves?...[Be] not dismayed for flesh and blood while you are for the Lord, and for His truth and cause. And howbeit we see truth put to the worse for the time, yet Christ will be a friend to truth, and will act for those who dare hazard all that they have for Him and for His glory.”

Spurgeon’s commitment to the truth was bred within him early on. His father and grand-father were both Congregationalist preachers. When he was only a child, Spurgeon discovered a substantial collection of Puritan writings in the home of his grandfather. The wedding of spiritual fervor and doctrinal clarity championed by the Puritans would mark Spurgeon for the rest of his life. It would fire his preaching and serve as a bulwark through times of sickness, defeat, and controversy. During his life, Spurgeon was often criticized by Arminians and newspaper editorialists because of his high doctrine of God’s sovereignty. On the other hand, he was criticized by “hyper-Calvinists” for his passion for evangelism. Finally, he was criticized and officially censured by the Baptist Union for his stand in what became known as “The Down-Grade Controversy.”

The controversy was sparked by two articles that ran in The Metropolitan Tabernacle’s newsletter, The Sword and the Trowel, called “The Down-Grade”. Spurgeon whole-heartedly endorsed the articles which warned of the downward slide of England’s churches and placed the blame at the feet of preachers and churches that no longer held firmly to the truth. Pastors, who though orthodox themselves, were no longer contending for the truth and in many cases even shared their pulpits with men who outright denied fundamental tenets of biblical Christianity. As evidence of these errors mounted Spurgeon became more outspoken. To those who thought him too stringent Spurgeon wrote, “A little plain speaking would do a world of good right now. These gentlemen desire to be let alone. They want no noise raised…It is time that somebody should spring his rattle, and call attention to the way in which God is being robbed of His glory, and man of his hope.” He went on to call Christians to consider breaking fellowship with those who profess faith in Christ but deny Gospel essentials. “Numbers of easy-minded people wink at error so long as it is committed by a clever man and a good-natured brother, who has so many fine points about him…Under colour of begging friendship of the servant, there are those about who aim at robbing the Master.”

Spurgeon refused to tone down his rhetoric even though many of his brethren pleaded for him to do so. Certainly, he took no pleasure in his difficult duty. “It is no joy to us to bring accusations; it is no pleasure to our heart to seem to be in antagonism with so many.” During this time, Spurgeon’s health problems escalated. Kidney problems and gout caused him severe, debilitating pain. Through it all Spurgeon did not back down in sounding the alarm that the evangelical faith was under serious assault from within. He saw no reason why the Baptist Union should seek to accommodate those pastors who denied essential Christian doctrines such as the authority of Scripture, the virgin birth of Christ, the substitutionary atonement, and the doctrine of hell. “To be very plain, we are unable to call these things Christian Unions, they begin to look like Confederacies in Evil.” On January 13, 1888 Spurgeon met with leadership of the Baptist Union and urged them to adopt an evangelical statement of faith. They refused. In response, he submitted a letter withdrawing from the Union. In the end, the leadership of the Baptist Union, unwilling to stand clearly for truth, accepted his withdrawal and then censured Charles Haddon Spurgeon.

Spurgeon hated division. But his conscience was captive to the Word of God and would not permit him to align with anyone who denied gospel essentials. “Nothing has ever more largely promoted the union of the true than the break with the false.” The Down-Grade Controversy broke Spurgeon’s heart and is thought by many to have hastened his death which came on January 31, 1892.

Spurgeon’s funeral was attended by thousands who came to mourn the passing of this contender for truth and winner of souls. The Reverend Archibald Brown spoke these words at the graveside:

“Champion of God thy battle, long and nobly fought, is over; they sword which clave to thy hand, has dropped at last; a palm branch take its place. No longer does the helmet press thy brow, oft weary with its surging thoughts of battle; a victor’s wreath from the great Commander’s hand has already proved thy full reward.

“Here for a little while shall rest thy precious dust. Then shall thy Well-Beloved come; and at His voice thou shalt spring from thy couch of earth, fashioned like unto His body, into glory. Then, spirit, soul, and body shall magnify thy Lord’s redemption. Until then beloved, sleep. We praise God for thee, and by the blood of everlasting covenant, hope and expect to praise God with thee. Amen.”

Books by and about C.H. Spurgeon:
Spurgeon by Arnold Dallimore – a great place to begin
The Forgotten Spurgeon by Iain Murray – deals primarily with doctrinal distinctives
Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism by Iain Murray - ditto
Lectures To My Students by C.H. Spurgeon – a must for ministers
Morning & Evening by C.H. Spurgeon – wonderful daily devotions