1989 Issue 1 - False Dichotomies - Counsel of Chalcedon

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


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


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


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

Documents

1989 Issue 1 - False Dichotomies - Counsel of Chalcedon