The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum RTS and Campus Crusade

Joe,

What I'm trying to say is that using your criteria we should be encouraging everyone, including the likes of Jerry Bridges, to pull out of the NAVS and all our Reformed posters along with Al Mohler who belonging to a SBC church should do the same. Nothing that CCC does in its ministry teaching is much different than what you will find in these two organizations. And, they are two of the most respected organization and denomination within bible-believing Christianity.

John C where did I say <span style="background-color:#FFFF00">pull out</span>? MY very FIRST post on this topic said that the Reformed should be there "to enact "reformed" change." Then I gave examples of other organizations. Marie even works for the SBC! I repeat again, PLEASE read ALL the posts.

But, to enact Reformed change one must (1) know the truth (2) support the truth (3) espouse the truth, etc. What we are saying is keep your guard up and live out the truths of the Gospel and do not compromise!!! (this is the Bible's criteria is it not???). Basically you are either part of the problem or part of the solution? If you support such things as 4-SLs and Eldredge then you have become part of the problem!

John,

Perhaps I'm all wet here, but it seems that you have missed the point Joe was trying to make and that which I too agree with most strongly. The point isn't whether someone can or should "belong to" an organization, church, group, etc., which isn't "Reformed" if they are. But rather it is hypocritical for one to profess to hold faithfully to the doctrines of sovereign free grace, in its fullness as a world and life view, as well as soteriology and use the Sandemanian and semi-Pelagian literature of that organization. There are, for example, members here whose churches belong to heretical or even apostate denominations. But those churches do not partake of the doctrines of the denomination, philosophies or practices. I can speak from personal experience that I was once a member of a RCA congregation who refused to pay the required financial "quota" which all the individual churches were supposed to pay because of what that money was used for; e.g., schools, and other things which were antithetical to the doctrines which the church held to be true (Belgic Confession, Canons of Dordt and the Heidelberg Catechism). Instead, they directed that money to support such schools as WTS in Philadelphia. Over time the RCA gave us an ultimatum; pay the quota or be disciplined. We voted overwhelming to leave the denomination rather than allow women to be ordained to office, money to be used to support heretical schools, etc.

So, it is possible for a person to hold faithfully to biblical Calvinism and be part of a non-Calvinistic organization. But it is hypocritical for such a one to profess one thing to be true yet preach, teach, hand out literature, use methodologies, etc., which are antithetical to that profession. As long as such organizations are willing to allow people to preach, teach and distribute literature which is "Reformed" and work to reform that organization, I think it is appropriate and marvelous to do so. Pragmatism is no excuse for doing that which is hypocritical. I would simply point out how Paul dealt with a similar situation in Antioch and called Peter on the carpet for professing one thing but doing something which was antithetical to his profession. (cf. Gal 2:11-19)

I hope this serves to clarify that which some of find objectionable and that our concerns would challenge those who profess to be Calvinists to stand firm in that profession and not partake of the unbiblical literature and evangelistic practices of the CCC.

In His Grace,

Thanks, Joe. Good comments.

I will say that I have had many opportunities to speak of the Doctrines of Grace to many within the SBC. The church I now go to, although a member of the SBC, is Reformed and is not afraid to let that theology shape its preaching and practice. We do not use the official SBC materials (FAITH evangelism, Sunday School materials, etc). In fact, the curriculum used in the childrens' Sunday School is the Great Commission Publications of the PCA/OPC. Are most SBC churches Reformed? No, not hardly! But if those type of churches were not standing for the Biblical doctrines we hold so dear, where would the SBC be?

Like Joe said, you are either staying as part of the solution or part of the problem. If I was in the SBC advocating Billy Graham's methods, using the FAITH material, touting John Eldredge and Adrian Rogers, and pushing seeker sensitivity, I would be part of the problem.

Today in my membership interview for my new church, the pastor encouraged me to write a letter to my old church detailing these concerns. I should have done so earlier, but now I will do it because I am convicted of the need to. In an earlier post, I listed some of the problems I saw, and I will use them in developing my letter. Here is what I wrote earlier:

Joe,

You said: "What Marie, Pilgrim, myself, and others have shown is that CCC does not present “the Gospel.”

I disagree. I don't believe anyone has shown such as fact. What has been shown is that some of the materials and one author are not "Reformed" in theology.

Paul

One, we have shown that one of your authors is a heretic. This is a little different than saying he is not merely Reformed.

Two, the sharing of “false materials” (4-SLs, Alpha.) does not equate to “the Gospel,” but another gospel, a mere Sandemanian gospel.

Moreover, Paul I know you meant well attempting to defend CCC, but you took my quote out of its proper context. While I'm sure "some" within CCC do share the real Gospel (see my very first post on this issue) many do not. Many do not see the error(s) of 4-SLs, Eldredge, and the like (even you said Eldredge only needed to be read discerningly, which begs the question of how a non-Christian is to do that?). As I stated within the same paragraph you snipped my other statement from, “When an organization propagates such things as the 4-SLs, Eldredge, and the like they are to be called into account for it. If they continue to maintain that a false Gospel is a true Gospel, then they are not Reformed in practice (maybe in word, but not in deed). Clearly, it has been shown that the “deeds” and “doctrines” of CCC are semi-Pelgian at best and when pushing Eldredge—heresy at worse. In summary, the methodologies used by CCC are antithetical to that which the Scripture and the Reformed Faith (at least classical Calvinism), would condone or even allow.”

As one once said, “I'm sorry you don't like what I said. I called it like I see it and I stand behind what I said.”

I suppose we'll have to disagree as to what has been proven.

Paul

You're telling us Eldredge is preaching the Gospel??? Did you even read the thread about him? You're telling us that Sandemanianism is okay as well??? I never thought that this thread would get so controversial...