1989 issue 1 - false dichotomies - counsel of chalcedon
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/12/2019 1989 Issue 1 - False Dichotomies - Counsel of Chalcedon
1/4
False ichotomies
by
T.
Mark Duncan
Introduction
All Scripture is inspired by God
and
p r o f i t ~ l e
Jpr
t e ~ h i n g
for
reproof, for
correctiOn, tor trammg m nghJeousness;
(hat
themanof odmaybe adequate, equipped or
every good work.
(ll Tim. :16-17).
Few passages in the Bible are better
known than the one quoted above. It
has served as a rallying cry against reli
gious liberalism and is quoted by nearly
every Presbytery candidate
as
a proof
text for
the
Bible's claim to be the in
spired word of God. It is the biblical
and intellectual basis for Luther's Re
formation platform of Sola
Scriptura.
In the Reformed Church of the
1980's, however, is this very basic pas
sage really believed? Are the significant
implications of these crucial verses
taught and carried out in the Church?
We live in a day of political, moral, and
religious compromise. This spirit of
compromise has even had a great in
fluence upon the conservative and Re
fonned denominations in America.
Many Christians would be horrified
if
someone referred to them as religious
liberals. The refusal of twentieth century
evangelical Cluistians, however, to be
lieve the whole counsel of God reduces
them to functional liberals. Many Chris
tians today cannot even agree
on
the pro
per response of the Church to an ob
vious evil such as abortion. Not all
Christians even believe abortion Y evil.
I believe today's tendency to maintain a
middle-of-the-road position
on
the is
sues is a natural consequence of the
many false dichotomies we fmd popular
Mark Duncan Is
a
PCA
minister
presently living
in Vi_rginia
Beach, Virginia.
in the Church
of
the 1980's.
When I was in seminary I was taught
three things, regarding the ministry,
that have made a continuing impact
upon my thinking and ministry. First, I
was taught
to
preach biblical truth in
biblical proportions with the biblical
emphasis. Second,
I
was taught all the
word Reformed means is to be radical
ly biblical. Third, I was taught the
importanceof developing in my congre
gation a thoroughly Christian world-and
life view.
False dichotomies are inconsistent
with these three very simple but saga
cious statements. Those holding false
dichotomies teach, often in a subtle
way, that some portions of Holy
Scripture are important while others
are
not. Many of these brothers believe that
Reformed denominations should put
less emphasis on doctrinal purity and be
more broadly evangelical. Thus the
Presbyterian Church
in
America of
which
I am
a member) is very much
split into two camps: the 'IR's
(Thoroughly Reformed), and what I call
the GE's (General Evangelicals). The
'IR's
are
often criticized by the GE's for
being
too
concerned about theological
precision.
Are the TR's too concerned with h e o ~
logical precision? Does Scripture per
mit less precision for the sake of other
important matters such as evangelism
and church unity? The Bible nowhere
teaches that part of God's truth is es
sential while the rest is somehow unim
portant The GE's must be reminded
that the Reformers transformed Europe
and the Puritans transformed the New
World into Christian cultures, not by
seeking the lowest common religious
denominator in their respective environ
ments, but by boldly proclaiming the
applicability of all of God's Word t ) all
of
life. Can the reader imagine Luther,
Calvin or Knox negotiating doctrinal
compromise with their opponents for
the sake of Church growth? Remem
ber Paul's exhortation to Timothy: All
Scripture is inspired by God. . . . I
submit that it is unbiblical (as well as
unconfessional) to teach that the Word
of God
is
divided into important and
unimportant portions.
I
further sug
gest that holding
on
to such false dicho
tomies leads to a low view of Scripture
inconsistent with biblical Christianity,
especially the Reformed faith. The logi
cal implications of these false dichoto
mies will eventually lead to a e facto
denial of the inerrancy of Holy Scrip
ture.
If readers fmd themselves being
described adversely in
my
discussion of
false dichotomies, please understand
that it is my heart's desire to call Chris
tians back
to
a thoroughly biblical
Christianity. With the myriad of moral
problems we face, America and the
world does not need another middle-of
the-road denomination, for there are
plenty of them already. Our nation
desperately needs a Church which will
take the whole counsel of God into the
marketplace of ideas. Only when the
Church of Jesus Christ is ready to be
radically biblical will God grant us the
revival that all Christians desire.
The Christian Church
in
America of
the 1980's is being challenged by four
common
false dichotomies:
I. Theology
vs
. Evangelism
II.
aw
vs. Grace
III. Sovereignty vs. Responsibility
IV. Christianity vs. Politics
I. Theology vs. Evangelism
For i
the
bugle produces
an
indistinct
sound,
w o
will prepare himself or battle?
I Cor. 14:8)
Often, disputes about God's truth are
settled by the statement: All that is
really important is
to
know Jesus.
Lost in that statement is the fact that
cultists
and
liberals claim to know
Jesus, but the Jesus they know is not
the
Jesus of the Bible. There are some
leaders in the PCA who erect a false
dichotomy between doctrine and
e v n ~
gelism as if we have to make a choice
between the two. They give lip service
The Counsel of Chalccdon, January, 989
Page
-
8/12/2019 1989 Issue 1 - False Dichotomies - Counsel of Chalcedon
2/4
to the importance of doctrinal purity
but
make statements to the effect that
evangelism is
the
really important
task.
I
am
certainly nQt belittling the im
portance of evangelism. It should be a
priority of every Bible-believing church
and of every true Christian. I hope to
demonstrate, however, that
it
is wrong
to emphasize evangelism at
the
expense
of
truth.
I
believe Scripture to teach
that
God will
bring greater blessings to
~
evangelisti.y efforts
i we
proclaim
the whole.
truth
to the unconverted. I
am also convinced that God will bless a
denomination
that
self-consciously
seeks to obey the Biblical injunction to
be guardiaJ}s of
His
truth.
The greaJest evangelist of the whole
history of the Church never made such
a dichotomy between evangelism and
truth:
Paul
J;epeatedly emphasized the
imPortance of sound doctrine.
The
book
of
I Timothy, Paul's instruction book
for pastors, is a vivid example of this
point. Since I Timothy is Paul's blue
print for the office
of
elder, we would
expect him to emphasize the truly im-
portant matters. f the Lord wants His
Church to emphasize evangelism over
sound doctrine,
we
should expect to find
such a teaching
in
Paul's letter to a
young pastor. There is, however,
not
even a ttint of such a dichotomy. Paul
barely {inishes his
introductory greeting
before he commandS Timothy to in
struct men
not
to teach strange doc
trines (vs. 3).
Even a cursory reading of I Timothy
reveals that
God
has called elders to be
guardians of His truth (see I Timothy
1:18; 3:2; 4:1-7; 4:11-13; 4:16; 5:17;
5:21 ; 6:2; 6:3; 6:14; 6:17-19; and
6:20). One of these passages is particu
larly instructive. In. I Timothy 4:16
Paul writes: "Pay close attention to
yourself and to your teaching;.persevere
in these things;
for
as you do this you
will insure salvation for both your8elf
and those who hear you)' In this pas
sage
Paul
not only rejects any dichOto
my between sound doctrine and evangel-
ism, .
he establishes the importance of
sound doctrine or effective evangelism.
t is the accurate preaching of the whole
counsel
of
God that our Lord blesses to
the eternal benefit of sinners.
In an age of Arminian appeals to
man's dead
will,
sugar coated "gospel"
messages intended to make rebellious
sinners feel good, man-made revival
ism, it is necessary that this statement
of Paul's to a young pastor e believed
and taught in the Church. f he Church
really started believing
this
verse. she
would have a
lot
fewer "decisions" and a
great many more conversions. The min-
istry
of
Dr.
D.
James Kennedy
of
Coral
Ridge Presbyterian Church proves that
there is
no
need for such a dichotomy
between evangelism and doctrine. While
best known for founding
Evangelism .
Explosion De .
Kennedy also empha
sizes the necessity of applying
all
of
the Bible to all of life. t is wrong to
suggest that truth .should be compro
mised for the sake of evangelism. Jesus
certainly did not compromise the truth.
The
rich young ruler went away sad
after:our Lord preached law and commit
ment (Mk. 10:17-22). In John 6, it is
written that many of Christ's disciples
withdrew from following Him.
Why
did
they withdraw? Jesus preached the doc
trine of election (Jn. 6:65, 66) .
Another important passage concern
ing the danger
of
driving a wedge
between
e v n g e l i ~ m
and doctrine
is
found in the last four verses of Hebrew$
5: "Concerning
Him
[Christ]
we
have
much to say, and
it
is hard to explain.
since
you
have become dull
of
hearing.
or though by this time you ought to
be teachers, you have need again for
someone to teach you the elementary
principles
of
the oracles
of
God, and
you have come to need
milk
and not
solid food.
or
everyone who partakes
only of milk is not accustomed to the
word of righteousness, foJ: he is a babe.
But solid
food
is for the mature, who be
cause
of
practice have their senses
trained
to
discern good and evil." (vv.
11-14).
When sound doctrine is de-empha
sized, a great disservice is done to those
who, despite bad theology, are convert
ed. They are compared to immature
babes, unable to distinguish good from
evil. They are like good-natured gullible
children who are led astray by evil men.
They ate "carried about by every wind
of
doctrine, by the trickery
of
men
gelo-----------------------------------------------------
(Eph. 4:14). Ignorant and childish
Christians are easily taken captive by
the forces
of
humanism because they
cannot distinguish good from evil.
Without sound doctrine, infantile Chris
tians cannot discern good from evil.
When God's law is not preached, how
can converts be expected to understand
the proper
worship
of
a thrice holy
God? (See False Dichotomy II Law vs.
Grace.)
Another place
we
might expect to
fmd a dichotomy between doctrine and
evangelism is the evangelistic sermons
in Acts. But, a careful examination of
such sermons reveals no such dichoto
my. Instead, we find the apostles
preaching the doctrines that have come
to be associated with Reformed theo
logy. Both Peter (Acts 2:23) and Paul
(Acts 17:26) included the doctrine
of
predestination in their sermons.
I had the experience of witnessing to
a man I met in Philadelphia several
years ago during the PCA General
Assembly. I developed a friendship with
him as I challenged him with the
claims of Jesus Christ. It was not until
I taught him the doctrine
of
election,
however, that he made a profession
of
faith in Chris
t
How did such a false dichotomy
between doctrine and evangelism creep
into the Reformed Church? Undoubted
ly there are many factors, Probably one
of
the worst culprits is a narrow under
standing of the Great Conunission.
Christ did not commission His follow
ers simply
to
witness by using some
imagined Four Spiritual Laws. He com
manded
His
followers to make disciples
and to teach them everything He com
manded. What did Jesus teach? Nothing
short of the whole Old Testament
(Matthew 5:17-19)
Deuteronomy 28, that great chapter
of covenantal blessings and curses,
teaches us that
i
God's covenant com
munity is obedient to the terms of the
covenant,
He
will richly bless us. The
Church
will
be the head
and
not the tail
{vs. 13). If, however, God
1
il covenant
people are
not
obedient, curses are pro
mised instead of blessings. One thfug is
certain, a person cannot obey a God
whose commands are
not
known. The
Th
e Counsel of Cbalcedon, January, 1989
-
8/12/2019 1989 Issue 1 - False Dichotomies - Counsel of Chalcedon
3/4
Church
of
the 20th century has become
the tail and not the head. It has been
said that the Church has been sitting in
the back
of
h11manism's bus. Instead of
transforming culture, the Church has
been transformed
by
culture. recently
heard an advertisement on a Christian
radio station for a certain church. The
church was pitching its
new
Saturday
evening worship service that was begun
so that Sunday sporting events would
not have to be missed Truly the
Church of Jesus Christ has become the
tail and not the head when God's laws
are compromised for the sake ()f
entertainment.
The
Church of Jesus Christ
is
reap-
ing al l this bitter fruit because of a false
dichotomy. There is not one hint in the
whole of the Bible
that it
is pennissible
to compromise truth for the sake
of
evangelism. Sinners must
be
told the
truth. It is impossible to evangelize ef-
fectively when sound doctrine is neglect-
ed. Only when the Church returns to
truthful evangelism will the Lord bring
the much needed revival. To paraphrase
Gordon Clark: "When the garage
mechanic and the farmer know the Bible
as well as the theologian
and
better
than most modem theologians) then the
desired awakening will have already
t ken place."
II.
Law vs Grace
But one who looks intently t the perfect
law
the
law
of iberry
, nd
abides by
il
not
having become a forgetfo.l hearer but n
effectual doer, this m n shall be blessed in
what he
does.
(James 1:25).
Another false dichotomy plaguing
the Church
of
the 1980's is the ima-
gined barrier between law and grace. In
many churches law
and
grace are taught
as though the
two
are mutually
exclusive. The obligatory Romans 6:14
proof text is often quoted as evidence.
One only needs to drive through a busy
intersection
at
ru
sh hour, however,
to
see how gracious traffic laws can be
One can only imagine the horror
if
there were no laws (with corresponding
sanctions) against theft, murder and
rape
. Do away with
law and
you
do
away with civilization.
The problem is that too many
Christians fail to
make
the same
connection between law and Christian-
ity. f God's holy, righteous
law
is
abrogated, there is
no
salvation. In fact,
there could be no existence in a
universe of anarchy. God's laws are the
foundation upon which the universe
rests. God rules and He rules
by
His
law.
Sin is defmed in terms
of
law
I
Jn.
3:4. Christians must be perfect to enter
the Kingdom of heaven:
no
sinners will
enter. You may respond that am
teaching salvation
by
works. I must say
that I am. We are saved
by
the perfect
work of
Christ.
In Christ we receive
perfect righteousness through the work
of God's free grace. This is the doctrine
of justification
by
faith.
When
a sinner
repents and puts his faith and trust in
Jesus Christ, that sinner is declared
perfect (sinless) in the eyes
of God
.
Jesus Christ, in o rder
to
be the redeemer
of
God's elect perfectly kept the Law of
God and
was therefore sinless.
Without
law there could be no salvation,
no
damnation, and no Christianity.
To pit law against grace is to erect a
false dichotomy. We are saved by God's
free grace alone.
But
as I have demon-
strated, Christ is qualified to
be
ou r
Savior because
He
kept the law perfect-
ly. Even though most dispensational-
ists now deny it, the logical implica-
tion
of
their system leads
to
the con-
clusion that in the "dispensation
of
law" salvation was by works. This error
is easy
to
refute by pointing
to
the
examples of justification in the early
chapters of Genesis. One such example
is found in Genesis 3:21 where God
covers the nakedness of our flrst parents
with animal skins. Obviously the
animals
had
to
be
slaughtered for their
skins. This signified
the
need for a
substitutionary atonement. The act of
being clothed by the skins signified
justification
by
an imputed righteous-
ness. Another
example
is found in
Genesis
15:6
where
it
is recorded that
Abraham
was
declared righteous on the
basis
of
faith.
The
bloody sacrifices
of
the Mosaic economy continually
showed the Israelite of his vile sin-
fulness in the sight
of
a holy God
and
drilled into his mind that acceptance
with God
was only
through the sacrifice
of the unblemished Lamb. Salvation
never has, nor will ever be on the basis
of
pers
on l
lawkeeping. Salvation al-
ways has been and always will
be
on
the basis of the perfect lawkeeping of
Christ,
imputed
by grace through faith
to
repentant sinners.
Having demonstrated that salvation
never has been by personallawkeeping
and that sin is defined in Scripture in
terms
of
law, then, logically,
it
is
ridiculous
to
believe
that
in the
New
Covenant believers are not under law.
This sort
of
antinomianism can only
The
Counsel
of Cbalcedon, January,
1989
Pag e
1
-
8/12/2019 1989 Issue 1 - False Dichotomies - Counsel of Chalcedon
4/4
lead
~
licentiousness (as has been is not defined in tenns
of
the law
of
the . . a v e s from t h ~ destructiveness of
vividly .demonstrated in the past year holy God
of
the i J . n i v e r ~ e it, becorttes. " idolatry. Keeping the fourth command- .
tm-ough the antics .of . certain TV . compltte ly arbitrary and . subjective. ment grants
us
the grace and
r e f r e s h ~
evangelists).
It
is illogical to claim that This reduces morality to art opinion. .rnent
of
rest and worship one day .in
although believers should never sin While
we
might expect such illogic _ v e n Observing .the sixth c o m m a n d
they ate not under law Any violatipn from a non-Christian, I am
maid
the merit p r e s ~ I ' V e s our life and the
life
of
of God's
law
is sin and to
say
that .same sort of thinking has invaded the others. Obeying
the
seventh
c o r r t m a n d ~
God's
ten
commandments with
their
evangelicalchurch.Dispensational
tlieo:
ment
wiJ l
prevent the contraction
of
a
explanatory case laws are not binding. 1ogian Norman Geisler, mtervl.ewed on ~ e a S e
of
which there is nci cure. The
today is exactly the same as claiming :ain .Moyer's doCumentary on Christian tenth coril:niandment is the .key to con-
that .certain type's
of
sin alright. Reconstruction, s ~ d that
he
~ a s seek- tentmeilt
irl
this life. Above all, obey-
Dear reader, sin
is
never tolerable. ing a inoral America but not a Chris- ing these oommimdments p l e a ~
Jhe
n
light
of thiS 'J>(evailing antinomian- tian America. H ~ ; stated
he
was in favor . . God who made us. As one d i t a t e s
on
ism it is no wonder that most sessions of morality . but not with ~ e Bible
as
the benefits of obeQience, i t is easy to
(even
in
RefoCJlled churches) exercise the basis
of
civil law, Again I ask: multiply ~ e blessjngs that flow from
little
or
.no church discipline, especially mortiliry according
to what
standard?
obedience
to
God's law.
Praise
God that :
in
the
area of non-attendance. I believe : Who determines what'i$ moral? Today He has graciously given us His law .
this is due to the law vs. grace dichoto- some femini&ts have the arrogance to de
Modem
. Christians .tend to think of
my.While
most
l essions
(of
conseiva- clare tha.t anyone who opposes abortion law as restrictive. The.Pllabnists certahi-
tive churches) woul