What is “second degree separation”?

When it comes to the fundamentals of the faith, I’m grateful to be considered a fundamentalist. I’d suggest the defining distinction between fundamentalists and evangelicals is that evangelicals have an aching hole in their souls that longs for the world’s approval. To their credit, fundamentalists just don’t care. Good on them I say. That distinction, however, is not the only one there is. At least one distinction is a strike against fundamentalism.

Fundamentalists have long practiced what is called “second degree separation.” This is an ethic that suggests that a person is not only guilty for all that they have done, said or felt, but that they are guilty for all that those they are willing to work with have done, said or felt. TD Jakes is outside the circle of the acceptable because he embraces a form of heresy known as modalism. That should be clear to all. A fundamentalist, however, would put outside the circle anyone with an orthodox view of the trinity that doesn’t put TD Jakes outside the circle. If you’re not completely for us, they argue, you are completely against us.

Don’t misunderstand. Any evangelical that is unphased by the modalist heresy is foolish, wrong, in a dangerous place and likely soft. Any evangelical should be able to say the same thing. Second degree separation, however, finds the evangelical unphased by another’s modalism guilty of that which does not phase them. The unphased evangelical is drawn outside the circle by the fundamentalist.

Perhaps the strange case of Outside the Camp will help make this more clear. Outside the Camp is a tiny splinter group of professing believers who claim to believe in God’s sovereignty over all things, that see themselves as Calvinists. But we’ve just gotten started. The OTC crew also believes that those who do not believe in Calvinism cannot be saved. They believe that Arminians will go to hell when they die. But wait, there’s more. As if this weren’t bad enough, step three is where it gets truly bizarre. According to Outside the Camp, not only must one rest in the finished work of Christ alone in order to be saved, not only must one rest in Christ but also must be a Calvinist to be saved, but one must believe that one must rest in the finished work of Christ and be a Calvinist but one must believe one must believe in Calvinism in order to be saved, in order to be saved. Clear?

To put it another way, to these poor, misguided souls, people like Calvin, Zwingli, the Puritans, Edwards, Hodge, Warfield, Hodge, Machen, Sproul are all in hell because they, while believing in Calvinism, don’t believe believing Calvinism is strictly necessary. That’s not a good place to be, not a good position to take.

Please note- I’m not confusing fundamentalism with the Outside the Camp camp. Each, I’m sure, repudiates the other. They do, however, have this second degree separation concept in common with each other. Note this as well. If you’re a fundamentalist practicing second degree separation, I’ll disagree with you, but as a brother in Christ.

Posted in apologetics, Ask RC, Big Eva, church, communion, ethics, friends, grace, kingdom, RC Sproul JR | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on What is “second degree separation”?

Sacred Marriage, Weaker Vessels; Hurricane Ian and God

This week’s Jesus Changes Everything Podcast

Posted in apologetics, Biblical Doctrines, creation, Jesus Changes Everything, kingdom, Lisa Sproul, prayer, RC Sproul JR, Sacred Marriage | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sacred Marriage, Weaker Vessels; Hurricane Ian and God

Pluralism

There is no such thing as the “More Party.” They do not run campaigns seeking to unseat sitting officials of the “Less Party.” Both “more” and “less” need more context and less ambiguity. We need to know what we are getting more or less of. In like manner, the question of pluralism begs a previous question — plural what? What is it the pluralists want more of? On the surface it might seem that what they want more of is religions. One religion isn’t enough. We need to construct, according to these people, a world with plenty of room for Hindus and Hottentots, for Muslims and Mormons, for Buddhists and Baptists. When we look deeper, however, we run headlong into an inescapable spiritual reality, that every religion in the end is all about authority. What they want is multiple authorities. If there is, in the end, only one authority, and I am not that authority, then I am under authority. But, if there are lots of authorities, which is another way of saying there is no authority, then I am free to rule my own world. Then there is not only room for Shintoism, but for Sheila-ism. There is not only room for Roman Catholicism, but for R.C. Sproulicism.

When the apostle Paul writes in Romans 1 that the natural man suppresses the knowledge of God in unrighteousness, that he denies what he knows, we understand that he does this so that he might continue to sin without fear of reprisal. The natural man constructs a view of the world wherein he never need dread facing the judgment of God. This construct not only will actually require the facing of the judgment of God, but is in fact already a judgment of God. It is the very foolishness that God gives their minds over to.

But what about us? Pluralism isn’t the exclusive province of the unbeliever. We who profess the lordship of Christ, more often than not, in turn find pluralism appealing. We who have been given new hearts presumably are about the business of putting to death our desire for self-rule. We ought, it would seem, to be of the “Less Party.” I fear our motives are scarcely more honorable than our unbelieving friends’ motives. It is a different twist on the question of authority. They will not affirm the lordship of Christ over them because they fear that Christ will reign over them. We are fearful of affirming the lordship of Christ over all things, including our neighbors, because we are afraid of our neighbors ruling over us. Pluralism is a half-hearted attempt at a compromise of convenience — we won’t condemn you if you won’t condemn us. We won’t say you are wrong, if you won’t say that we are wrong. We won’t find your views backwards and repugnant, if you won’t find our views backwards and repugnant. What a deal. And all it costs us is the central and first affirmation of our own faith: Jesus is Lord. All we have to give up to win peace with our neighbors is the proclamation of the Gospel.

Jesus is all too aware of our fears. He knows how painful it is to be scorned by the broader culture. He knows what it’s like to have a single dominant religion find your religion to be foolish and superstitious. He has experience in suffering under a single monolithic power. He’s entered into this reality and conquered it. And He commands of us that we seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. He commands that we put our worries away, and trust in Him.

We evangelicals make the foolish mistake of thinking that when enough souls decide to make Jesus the Lord of their lives, that He will become the Lord of all things. The reality is that Jesus is already Lord over all things. His kingdom, strictly speaking, does not expand, for even now it knows no borders. He does not, therefore, engage in some sort of power sharing arrangement with other pretenders to His throne, whether they be false deities, or those who falsely worship them. His lordship is not something we accomplish. It is something we recognize and submit to. It is not something we negotiate; it is something we proclaim.

That Jesus is Lord, however, is not some grim reality that we proclaim with all the grace of a desert prophet. It is something we proclaim with all the grace of joy. It was our Lord Himself, after all, who commanded us to “Take heart; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). It’s over. The kingdom is here, and Jesus has won. What fools we are to rush off to negotiate with the enemy to save our skins.

His victory, of course, does not mean that we rush off to kill all our enemies. It means instead that we are to love them. Our love for them must be strong enough, however, to tell them with both passion and compassion, that their hopes are in vain, that their gods are mute and dumb, and that there is only one name under heaven by which a man must be saved. Our love for them does not present the Christian Gospel as an option. It does not lead us to argue that it’s a good option that has worked well for us. Our love instead commands all men everywhere to repent and believe the Gospel, lest they perish. Our love calls on all our enemies to kiss the Son, lest He be angry and they perish along the way (Ps. 2:12).

Posted in 10 Commandments, apologetics, Big Eva, church, kingdom, Kingdom Notes, persecution, politics, post-modernism, preaching, RC Sproul JR, sovereignty | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Blkfzmeqte?

There is an organic connection often between the sins we commit and their consequences. If you struggle with contentment, expect to see financial hardship in your future. If I struggle with gossip, I shouldn’t be surprised that people are talking about me. The same thing is true culturally as well. A culture that lives by the sword, like Russia, ought to foresee a sword at the time of its death. A culture that, so desperate to escape its own guilt that it is willing to kill truth, becomes a culture that blkfzmeqte.

What is blkfzmeqte? Great question. A culture, however, that doesn’t know what an unborn child is, what a marriage is, what a boy or a girl is, a culture that isn’t sure what is is isn’t a culture that can define anything. Thus we become a culture for which President Biden serves as its spokesperson. The gibberish that constantly comes out of his mouth isn’t merely a symptom of his age and declining capacities (truth be told I’m old enough to remember that for decades he has been an annual gold medal winner at the gaffe-alympics). It is a symptom of the politics of misinformation, the poison fruit of the sophistry tree. That the president’s public statements, when they are understandable, are regularly swiftly corrected by his handlers may be the fruit of his being a puppet. Such corrections may also come to ensure that there is no truth to answer for.

The promise of relativism, the notion that each of us can have our own truth, is supposed to be peace. It is instead chaos. The postmodern idea that all language is but a power grab is classic projection, a power grab by postmoderns to silence all others. When propositions can no longer be judged to be true or false, the words that construct those propositions, each one on its own, likewise become meaningless. It’s not just that we have to be open to others who think 2 and 2 make 5 but that 2 is now blkfzmeqte, 2 is now gimble and together they make blue.

One cannot refuse to submit to the Word and still have fruitful access to words. One cannot deny the One without sacrificing the many. One cannot say to the One who spoke all reality into existence that we will make our own reality and still be able to speak. One cannot silence others without gagging oneself.

When the President next time makes the rounds of social media for sputtering out non-logisms, do not settle for merely having a laugh at the leader of the other side of the aisle. Instead understand it is just a symptom of the great disease that is destroying the entire country, that infects both major political parties. Instead understand that his gaffe is no more nonsense than when he tells us spending solves inflation, gas prices have gone down, abortion is a woman’s right, marriage is any two people who love each other. When you’re done laughing, pray for God’s mercy on us.

Posted in 10 Commandments, abortion, apologetics, kingdom, Kingdom Notes, philosophy, politics, post-modernism, RC Sproul JR | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

See How Very Much Our Heavenly Father Loves Us

Yesterday’s Study- Our Father Loves Us

Posted in Bible Study, Biblical Doctrines, Facebook Live, grace, RC Sproul JR, wonder | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on See How Very Much Our Heavenly Father Loves Us

Grumpy Pants

I have a friend who was once a performer. He is a passionate man, but also, from time to time, profoundly honest. I went to see him perform and he made this confession. He said, “My wife told me that all I ever talk about are the things I’m against. ‘Why don’t you,’ she asked me, ‘ever tell your audience what you are for?’” Though he may have forgotten that line, I never will.

When we are just reaching adulthood, many of us find it rather easy to be mad. None perhaps more so than we who, ironically, embrace the doctrines of grace. “Young, restless and Reformed” as a descriptor was soft-pedaling the reality. “Young, angry and Reformed” is more like it. There are, of course, plenty of things for us to be angry about. The dogs of sin have paved paradise and put up a barking lot. Jesus is about the business of bringing all things under submission. Until He has finished there will always be death, disease, and destruction. What there should not be from us, the redeemed, is despair.

Which means, in turn, that we ought to be the most cheerful of people, the most upbeat. That’s hard for me, as my spirit animal is a marshwiggle. But the objective reality is that I have much to be thankful for, which means in turn I have a lot to be for.

My book, Growing Up (with) RC recounts various conversations I had along the way with my father. In one chapter I tell the story of when my father, noting my budding folly of skepticism, warned me, “Son, the cheapest way to develop a reputation as an intellectual is to adopt the pose of the cynic.” The temptation is still there. To be always on the attack, to spend our time and energy on the things we are against is to look too sophisticated to be taken in, to protect oneself from the vulnerability that comes from being moved. It keeps me behind the judge’s bench, clutching what I think is a gavel, but which is just a baby rattle.

It is true enough that we live in a world, and in a church, that is reluctant to call sin sin, that won’t give the context of the bad news by which the good news becomes sweet. That said, our message is good news. It is good news for us, the redeemed children of God. It is likewise good news for those yet outside the kingdom, the not yet redeemed of God. No, it’s not good news for the reprobate. We don’t however, know who they are.

Shouldn’t we, once not a people, but now a people, once strangers to the promises but now joint heirs, be giddy heralds of the message of Jesus Christ? Yes, let us warn those outside to consider the cost. But how shall they believe that if they taste they will see that He is good, if our own faces are perpetually sour?

If we believed the good news we would dance like no one’s watching. And because they are watching, they just might join us.

Posted in apologetics, beauty, Biblical Doctrines, Big Eva, Books, church, evangelism, Good News, grace, Growing Up (With) R.C., kingdom, Kingdom Notes, RC Sproul, RC Sproul JR | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Is substitutionary atonement the only biblical view?

Of course not. Is it a necessary, vital biblical view of the work of Christ? Of course it is. Anyone who can rightly see this will skirt safely away from most debates on the subject. That is, the either/or’s are wildly outnumbered by the both/and’s. Despite this the bulk of the arguments that I’ve seen against penal, substitutionary atonement consist of little more than arguments in favor of the Christus Victor view or the moral example view. The bulk of the arguments I’ve seen in defense of penal, substitutionary atonement consist of little more than arguing that if you give up penal, substitutionary atonement you give up the gospel. I say woot and huzzah to both arguments in what they affirm, and give two thumbs down to the arguments they deny.

Jesus suffered the wrath of the Father in our place. It pleased the Father to bruise Him (Isaiah 53:10) and it pleased the Son to do the will of the Father (Luke 22:42). The entire Old Testament sacrificial system is built on the concept of penal, substitutionary atonement. To deny this truth is to reveal a presuppositional bias against the plain teaching of the Bible. If Jesus didn’t suffer God’s just wrath for me then I will face God’s just wrath for me.

Jesus likewise triumphed over the forces of evil in His death for us. The devil, fool that he is, no doubt danced a jig when Jesus commended His spirit to the Father. Satan danced until he felt the heel of Jesus crush his head. In His resurrection Jesus, the first born of the new creation, began the process of making all things new, reversing the destruction of the fall. He planted the flag of the new heavens and the new earth as He stepped out of the tomb and into the Garden. We ought never to lose sight of this greatest of all victories.

Jesus also gave us an example of what it looks like to love our neighbor. His silence, like a lamb to the slaughter, His prayer that the Father forgive them for they knew not what they did, His refusal to speak on His own defense, these are all examples given for us. That said, as we follow Him, taking up our cross daily, walking the via Delarosa, we must be mindful that we are not able to drink the cup that He drank, that we cannot atone for others, needing atonement ourselves.

It may be that one of these tends to resonate more with you than others. If you tend to see yourself as a saint, the moral example will ring true. If you see yourself as a soldier, the Christus Victor view may sound like a clarion call to battle. If you see yourself as a sinner, then the penal, substitutionary atonement will be your balm. The truth is, however, that just as all three views of the atonement have merit, albeit non-exclusively, so to do all three views of ourselves have merit. We are saints, because He is our guide. We are soldiers, because He is our Captain. We are sinners, because He is our Redeemer.

Posted in Ask RC, Biblical Doctrines, grace, RC Sproul JR, theology | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Sacred Marriage; Political Pawns; What Would Adam Do?

This week’s Jesus Changes Everything Podcast

Posted in abortion, apologetics, Biblical Doctrines, Biblical theology, church, cyberspace, Jesus Changes Everything, Lisa Sproul, politics, RC Sproul JR, Sacred Marriage | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sacred Marriage; Political Pawns; What Would Adam Do?

At Least I’m Honest About It

Every culture and subculture has its own taboos. Not all of them are the same, however. Given that we are all human, how can we explain the divergence of cultural standards? Why is it that one culture will find adultery to be a mere peccadillo, while another will consider it the unforgivable sin? Why was it that in polite society in Victorian England one did not call the leg of a table the leg of the table, for fear of offending delicate sensibilities, while on the other hand, there were more brothels in London than there were churches? The answer may get at the grave sins of our own broader culture.

Certainly a culture committed to ethical relativism, the notion that there is no objective right and wrong, will hang its moral hat on its stunted view of the command of Jesus that we judge not, lest we be judged. (Cheerily skipping over the too embarrassing reality that they are judging the judgers, and thus judging themselves.) Accusing someone of wrongdoing is just about as bad as it can get in the world — not to mention the evangelical world. Not far behind that grand taboo, however, stands this one. We can commit this sin or that. We can manifest this grave character flaw or that. But to really earn your way into the rogue’s gallery, you must commit this heinous sin — hypocrisy.

Jesus, of course, had some harsh words for hypocrites, “Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence” (Matt. 23:25). Hypocrisy is a real sin, something to be ashamed of, something to repent for. It’s shameful to its core. But there is something to be said for it. In fact, Francois de La Rouchefoucauld said this about it, “Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue.” The hypocrite, while caught up in whatever sin he is caught up in, plus being caught up in hypocrisy, has this going for him: he is able to recognize virtue and desires to be perceived as virtuous, even while lacking virtue. We hypocrites cover our sins because, while we certainly commit them, we recognize them as sins. While it is far better to be good than to look good, in either case we confess, however feebly, the reality of the good.

This, I believe, is the driving force behind this cultural taboo. We postmoderns hate hypocrisy not because we have such an abiding commitment to honesty, but for the same reason we judge so harshly those who judge, because we are dishonest enough to pretend there is no such thing as virtue. Those who hide their vice by masquerading it as virtue commit the one cardinal sin — affirming the reality of sin. They break the social contract by confessing a higher standard.

Hypocrisy, then, to the broader culture isn’t just the one deadly sin, but avoiding hypocrisy is also the means of atonement for sin. This is why we hear people argue, “Well, I may be selfish and egotistical, but at least I’m honest about it.” Or, stranger still, we have philanderers who suggest, “Well, I may not have kept my marriage vows, but at least I’m honest about it.” This proud confession of sin is a diabolical perversion of true repentance. We “acknowledge” our sin in that we admit to doing what we did. But we dismiss the sin because in admitting it we make it no longer a sin. Imagine if the serpent were to confess, “Well, sure I rebelled against the Maker of heaven and earth, and sought to topple Him from His throne. But hey, at least I’m honest about it.”

If we were honest about our sins, we would not only admit to committing them, but we would recognize them for what they are, each and every one of them rebellion against the Maker of heaven and earth, each and every one of them an attempt to topple Him from His throne. If we were honest about our sins, we would not cover them up, but cover our eyes, because to look at them is simply too painful. If we were honest about our sins, we would admit that what we are usually doing when “admitting” our sins is copping a plea. Maybe, we rationalize in the quiet of our hearts, if I admit to this, they won’t see these other sins. If we were honest about our sins, we would admit that all our games fail us, that all our sins follow us.

To understand the broader culture we have to grasp this reality. The world is not happily pursuing their vices without a care in the world. They are instead pursuing their vices under the cloud of an ever present knowledge of who they are. The defining quality of every culture not built around the Gospel is the haunting of sin. Which is why the solution for every culture, just as it is for every member of that culture, is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He did not “honest” away our sins. He did not relativize our sins. Instead, He paid for them. He bore the wrath and fury of His Father that was due for our sins. He knows them more intimately than we ever will. And yet, glory be to the Father, they have been washed away in His blood.

Posted in 10 Commandments, apologetics, Biblical Doctrines, Devil's Arsenal, ethics, kingdom, Kingdom Notes, philosophy, post-modernism, RC Sproul JR, repentance, sexual confusion | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on At Least I’m Honest About It

Unfaithful Voting

Dr. Al Mohler found himself in the cross-hairs of the evangelical left recently when he publicly stated that Christians are being “unfaithful” when they vote wrongly. I honestly cannot begin to fathom how any faithful Christian could even question such a statement. One could, as a faithful Christian question all sorts of things as it relates to voting. One could question whether one should vote for this candidate or that candidate, or even the other candidate. One could question whether one should vote for this party or that party, or even the other party. One could question whether one should vote for this proposition or that one. What one cannot do is affirm that a Christian could vote wrongly without being unfaithful. Every wrong that we do is an act of infidelity. Christians are unfaithful when we feel wrongly, act wrongly, believe wrongly.

Some of the objections Dr. Mohler faced were that he was guilty of violating the 1st Amendment and that any institution making such a claim should lose its tax-exempt status. One person even suggested that Dr. Mohler, in making his statement was teaching a works righteousness, denying justification by faith alone. Others suffered a relapse of Trump Derangement Syndrome though the bad, orange man wasn’t even mentioned. No one, however, actually spoke against what was actually said. That is, no one said either, “Christians are being faithful when they vote wrongly” nor “Christians are being unfaithful when they vote rightly.” Because, when you put it like that, it sounds kind of crazy. But to object to what Dr. Mohler said is to affirm one of those two crazy statements. There is no escaping it. The only way for a Christian to be faithful when voting is to vote rightly.

We can, of course, have a vigorous debate about what voting rightly looks like. I have publicly affirmed that no man who will not affirm his commitment to use every power of his office to protect every unborn child will ever receive my vote. I’ve had countless Christians rebuke me for this position. It’s possible, though I have trouble seeing it, that they may be right. If they are, I am being unfaithful. If they are not, they are being unfaithful.

Suppose there were three men running for the same office. Suppose their personal lives were virtually identical. Their policy positions are virtually identical. Their experience levels are perfectly identical. The only difference between them is that one believes in a flat tax of 9.5%, another in a flat tax of 9.3% and the third a rate of 9.1%. Is there only one faithful vote? Of course there is. Might it be difficult to discern which is the faithful vote? Sure. But there is a right answer, grounded in the right application of the law of God.

Voting is an activity of profound moral import. All those chastening Dr. Mohler, should they as Christians ever find themselves in a tight race against a Nazi Satanist running on a platform of forced abortions and legalized sex trafficking, they too would insist that voting wrongly would be an unfaithful act for the Christian. Which means, ipso facto, that those objecting to Dr. Mohler agree with the principle he expressed and disagree with the application they perceived him to make. Which, finally, means they’re yelping because they want to vote for pro-abortion candidates, or to put it another way, they want to vote wrongly, and unfaithfully.

Posted in abortion, Biblical Doctrines, Big Eva, church, ethics, kingdom, Kingdom Notes, politics, RC Sproul JR | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments