Too compicated for me to unwrap, isn't it just easier to jetison doctrine and be happy like some on the scene today? (extreme satire)

Yeah, Henry, I'm beginning to wonder if it's not too much to ask to just be able to go to church and worship on Sunday without some heresy being preached, or if we're all going to be servants of Rome in the end.

"Servants of Rome"

Wow, I'm almost inclined to steal that title and start my own denomination. The only thing is, I don't believe Jim Rome is the anti-christ!

This issue extends throughout American Protestantism.

American Lutherans who are generally considered pretty orthodox and similarly minded in many respects to Reformed conservatives and the more conservative minded Baptists, have been battling this issue since the mid 1800s. By now I believe approximately two-thirds of American Lutheran denominations have adopted some form of the Faith and Works mentality in the form of Heterodox doctrinal positions.

This is seen in the recent conglomeration and pulpit fellowships of a number of Methodists, Baptists (no offense to Pr. Frueh), Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Episcopal, and Lutheran denominations in North America.

Effectively, many of these denominations are abandoning their orthodox confessional doctrine roots in favor of more politically correct heterodox doctrines. In my circles we often refer to this new form of American Christianity as Methobapticostalism. (No personal offenses intended).

It's gettin' a bit ugly as the orthodox (faith alone) groups square off against the heterodox (faith, but effort is required) groups.

I am familiar with some of the criticisms of this article. Some of them are warranted, others are not.

As noted below, John Piper does believe in justification by faith alone.

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/QuestionsAndAnswers/ByTitle/1438_What_do_you_believe_about_justification_by_faith_alone/

What do you believe about justification by faith alone?
> Listen

--------------------------------------------------------

By DG Staff January 23, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------

John Piper holds to the historic, Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, which can be summarized in the following four points:

1) The sole ground of our justification is the righteousness of God, expressed in the alien, imputed, active obedience of Christ, climaxing in his sin-bearing, substitutionary death.

2) Faith alone is the sole means of justification. In other words, it is faith only, and not our deeds in any way (whether the external manifestation or the internal God-glorifying motive behind them), that connect us savingly to Jesus Christ.

3) Faith is distinct from its fruit, the obedience of faith, yet faith is of such a nature that it must and will produce love for people and a life of genuine, though imperfect, holiness in this world. Therefore, as the Westminster Confession of Faith (11.2) says, the faith that alone justifies (as the instrument which unites us to Christ, not as the ground or content of our justifying righteousness) is never alone;

4) Therefore, this reality of forensic righteousness, which is imputed to us on the first act of saving faith (as the seed of subsequent persevering faith), is different from transformative sanctification, which is imparted by the work of the Holy Spirit through faith in future grace.

You can listen to John Piper talk more about the meaning of justification by faith alone in the audio link above.

DieHard,
What about this: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/horror_show.php?id=35

The reformed group loves a good doctrinal controversy, it gets the juices flowing!

Justification is the one thing you better have right. At least have justification by faith alone. We wouldn't have these controversies if we'd just stick to the WCF. It's all spelled out right there, you don't even have to think.

I first read that same article a couple of years ago.

The Trinity Foundation, and especially Gordon Clark, are one of my favorites. I have almost all of their books in my library. My thesis is dependent on themes that Clark emphasized throughout his teaching ministry.

I owe a huge intellectual debt to Gordon Clark.

But caution and Christian charity is needed here. This is especially so when it comes to the issue of accusing fellow believers of denying cardinal orthodox tenets of the Christian faith.

The same author of that article also has "problems" with Van Til (and others, namely Bahnsen) because of a doctrinal dispute that occurred many years ago with Clark. Personally, I side with Gordon Clark on the issue of that debate.

But I am not convinced that Van Til is a heretic. I disagree with Van Til's perspectives on some issues, and I believe that Clark was right in his warnings about Van Til. But that does not make Van Til a heretic.

I think caution and Christian charity was not extended to John Piper by the author of that same article. And that is very sad and unfortunate.

"I'm not quite sure what to make of the current controversy on justification in many Reformed denominations, but it looks like it's much more extensive than I had previously thought. I found a good summary of the issue, and I'll try to post more when I find out. It looks to me, at least on the surface, that this could be the beginning of the end for many reformed denominations like the PCA and OPC."

My response to the above is that it is indeed true that there is a "growing justification controversy" in some Reformed groups. I think N.T. Wright and others are examples of scholars who are wanting to re-define justification, along the lines of a sociological, inclusive, and more ecumenical scope. This causes tension with the traditional views of justification.

My comments earlier are only intended to recommend the biblical practice of showing Christian charity to others when we are listening to them.

But I am not convinced that Van Til is a heretic. I disagree with Van Til's perspectives on some issues, and I believe that Clark was right in his warnings about Van Til. But that does not make Van Til a heretic.

April 6, 2007 | DieHardColtsFan

Good point.

I cannot speak to Van Til's position directly. But in general, it is not heretical to be sinfully wrong on any given point. Because we are all, in one way or another, have been sinfully wrong on any given point at some given time.

However, there are a significant number of American Protestants who know their doctrinal positions deviate from the historical doctrines of their denominations. Their purposes generally motivated for purposes other than teaching and preaching true Gospel. And these people we can call heretics, by very definition.

In the end we can become so enveloped in doctrinal micro-magement that we can lose the essence and the glorious mystery of it all. "Like a little child" still applies and anyone whose eyes are illuminated by the Spirit as to Who Christ is and who he is, and if that person places his faith upon Christ personally, then justification happens.

How and when ang all the explaination is in the Godhead.

"...and if that person places his faith upon Christ personally, then justification happens."

Here is where we deviate just a bit from each other, Pr. Frueh.

I would say that justification happened with Christ's death and ressurection.

For me, my faith is not something I place upon Christ. My faith is something the Holy Spirit gives to me and places upon Christ for me.

My justification has had nothing to do with any of my personal efforts. I am often tempted to turn from Christ, and when I act of my own accord I always do. And it is the Holy Spirit that kicks me back on the path every day.

"In the end we can become so enveloped in doctrinal micro-magement that we can lose the essence and the glorious mystery of it all."

You are correct that there is petty doctrinal micro-management indeed in the Church on some issues.

But I believe that the word, "mystery" can be used (and actually has been used---see Emergent Church) as a code word for a context where heresy and false ideas are introduced as substitutes for Truth and attention to sound doctrine.

In his warning to the church in Ephesus, Jesus never rebuked the church for practicing too much doctrinal discernment: he rebuked them for neglecting to love one another. I think Clark may have lost his first love.

"I think Clark may have lost his first love."

For this specific context, I think it may be accurate to say a "particular disciple of Clark" may have lost his first love.

Gordon Haddon Clark, while awaiting the examination from his denomination due to Van Til, never really harbored long-lasting bitterness or hatred towards Van Til. On a particular intellectual issue, yes, he disagreed with Van Til. But he spent the rest of his life making excellent commentaries and philosophy textbooks.

Gordon H. Clark never made a point of slandering or harboring personal animosity towards Van Til to be a part of his legacy, unlike one of his disciples.

And behold, proof of what I had said before. One cannot even make a general and well intentioned statement without the reformed community micro managing it. It become tedious and no one who becomes born again is immediately awakened to all the mini streams of election perspectives, all they know is that "once I was blind, now I can see".

"And behold, proof of what I had said before. One cannot even make a general and well intentioned statement without the reformed community micro managing it."

I do not completely understand the above. But I think we both would agree that the Arminian community has the same problem.

"all they know is that "once I was blind, now I can see".

Yes, I agree with the above. But the above statement does not negate the need for further doctrinal elucidation. After all, other so-called Christian sects claim the same "once was blind, now I see" (see Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, etc).

Further doctrinal training for purposes of clarity is a good thing.

"and anyone whose eyes are illuminated by the Spirit as to Who Christ is and who he is, and if that person places his faith upon Christ personally, then justification happens."

That is what I said and one cannot at least agree with that without immediately going to the systematic theology. Theology is important, but can't there ever just be an "amen" without having to present your doctinal parameters?

I guess not...

"Theology is important, but can't there ever just be an "amen" without having to present your doctinal parameters?

I guess not..."

You are correct with that last statement. There can never be an "amen" without the eventual need, sooner or later, to present the "amen" in Biblical doctrinal parameters. One's "amen" is another's "liberation theology." There have been many false prophets throughout the centuries whose "amen", due to their lack of doctrinal parameters, is really heresy in disguise.

I do understand that you acknowledge that theology is important. My comments above do agree with you, but they differ from your position in that they go one step further.

I do not just believe theology is important. I go one step further, and say theology is indispensable.