Such undeserved charity at taking every false teacher at their word is not only foolish, it’s biblically ill-advised. In the great theological crisis of every age, believers have to re-learn the Biblical teaching that wolves come in sheep’s clothing, which is nothing but a spirit-inspired way of saying “false professions.” Sadly, those with short historical memories only seem to learn the hard way. As when Phil Johnson and Todd Friel (two wonderful men) recently assumed that Beth Moore was a sister in Christ (while commendably encouraging people to avoid her, to their credit) based upon nothing but her profession, many in Spurgeon’s day fell for the shallow, false confessions of the most subversive teachers. Liberalism, of course, is always “covered over by professions of loyalty to the evangelical faith.” In polemics today, we call that being website orthodox. Not only was he a great preacher, but he possessed a deep understsanding of doctrine and a strong commitment to the old fashioned faith of the apostles. Charles Spurgeon…was not easily fooled by outward appearances, however. Liberalism was present among the Baptists of the British Isles, but it was covered over by professions of loyalty to the evangleical faith and not publicly debated. Such unwillingness to suffer the passion of Charles Spurgeon should shame them to utter his name from off their lips.Īs Pickering says in his book, Biblical Separation, Charles Spurgeon was “one of the great separatists of all time.” Speaking of the creep of liberalism into the British Isles, Pickering writes: Will they really profess the faith of Spurgeon but not undergo his agony? Are the Dallas Statement signers really willing to draft and sign a document about the dangers of social justice but unwilling to suffer the agony from disinviting Dever, Piper, Platt and (in the case of Shepherd’s Conference) Mohler from their conferences? Are they unwilling to suffer the agony of losing mortal friendship for the sake of their immortal Savior? I hang this quotation about Spurgeon around the necks of my friends speaking at G3 like an albatross, and pray they repent. Therefore, they rationalize their ungodly allegiances and remain with the crowd. It is my contention than that in spite of the adulation of the 19th century preacher among the more solid brethren at G3, none of them seem to grasp the very thing about Spurgeon that made him who he was.įar too many want to profess the faith of Spurgeon without undergoing the agony of Spurgeon. There is not a better word to describe him. If they are going to quote the man (which they have and will continue to), they should at least give a farthing of thought about what he would think about them. Surely if they respect our elder brother, Spurgeon, they ought to care about what that man would think about their stance (or lack thereof) on the topic of doctrinally ecumenized compromise. I invoke the name Spurgeon because I believe it’s a name revered by many of the men speaking at G3 who ought to know better than to do what they’re doing. My invoking of the name Spurgeon in this article is not because I believe him the thirteenth Apostle and not because the Prince of Preachers is the infallible rule of faith and practice. It can only be answered (as it has thus far been) with guffaws and eye-rolls rather than their characteristically thoughtful argumentation. My use of the term inexcusable does not mean damnable but merely means that their claiming that social justice is subversive and dangerous for our Gospel witness while simultaneously locking arms with the greatest proponents of said error cannot be defended intellectually or honestly. My contention, as with the Shepherd’s Conference, is that the compromise (there is no other word to describe it) of good and honorable men to take the stage with those guilty of teaching subversive theology (for surely this is how men like Josh Buice, Phil Johnson, Justin Peters, and other signers of the Dallas Statement have already described the social justice taught by David Platt, John Piper, and Mark Dever, although perhaps afraid to speak their name) is inexcusable. The climate in evangelicalism has changed – as well as the speaking roster at the popular Atlanta conference – and many are questioning whether it’s prudent to attend the get-together happening this week and others are asking if it’s proper for certain speakers to speak alongside others who they themselves admit are theologically problematic. With names that are almost venerable to conservative evangelical believers – Paul Washer, Voddie Baucham, et al – the conference was seen largely as a flashy display of brilliant orthodoxy. At one time, the G3 Conference was – along with the Shepherds’ Conference – considered by many of us to be the benchmark of the solid Christian conference.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |