Paul's Passing Thoughts

On the Southwood protestant website (I use that term because we are those who “protest” falsehood) we find a statement by Briarwood Presbyterian Church concerning Sonship Theology.

Stop the presses. That’s huge. It’s huge because Southwood is contemporary church history in the making. This is the first time in contemporary church history that New Calvinists have attempted a takeover while being specifically identified as a specific movement with a specific doctrine.  Coral Ridge had no such convenience. Think about it, they had no idea where Tullian T. was coming from, and frankly, I wonder if they still don’t. No, no, Southwood is not just a sad story that might end badly—far from it. Southwood is progress. Truth brings life in every circumstance; specifically, new life, new ways, new learning, to mention a few.

Now to the Briarwood statement. It is indicative of why Sonship is spreading unabated. As Timothy F. Kauffman might well say: “This isn’t rocket science.” Consider one of the conclusions of the document:

While we have noted in the body of our report that some of the criticisms of the Sonship course have merit we do not find it on the whole to be inconsistent with the Biblical and Reformed teaching on sanctification. The course has two flaws that are particularly significant. These are over-endowment of the doctrine of adoption and lack of teaching on the ongoing use of the means of grace. Because of this latter concern Sonship should not be used as a comprehensive discipleship program. Additionally, there are several less significant flaws, but the course does not involve heresy. We commend Sonship for its proper desire to recapture the doctrines of grace in the teaching of sanctification.

This statement is the antithesis of the apostolic prescription for preserving and protecting truth. My dear friends, what kind of milk did Peter say that we grow by?

1 Peter 2:2

Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation—

Don’t miss this. We grow BY the PURE spiritual milk. The Briarwood session openly admits that Sonship is not pure! It openly admits that important ingredients are missing and negative ingredients are added!  That’s not pure milk. Am I here right now? There is really nothing I can add to this very simple point. It’s not rocket science. If it’s not pure milk get it out of there! And if a man has to be thrown out with it, amen!

Secondly, the Briarwood session openly admits that Sonship has a little bit of leaven. What saith the Scriptures?

1 Corinthians 5:6

Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?

1 Corinthians 5:7

Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

1 Corinthians 5:8

Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Our way of worship is with the unleavened bread of sincerity and TRUTH. Does  Sonship have some untruth?  The Briarwood session states that it does! Can a little bit of untruth leaven the whole lump? My friends, you are not children, I will not even answer that question. This is not rocket science.

Yet a third in your face blatant contradiction to apostolic doctrine in the Briarwood statement is the following:

Finally, we would like to encourage a spirit of love throughout the PCA in future discussions of Sonship. In the spirit of “reformed but always reforming” frank discussion of all doctrinal issues is encouraged. All new teaching programs must be held up to the Biblical and Reformed standards, and if deficiencies are noted these must be clearly communicated. We believe that those bringing criticism must make certain that what they are criticizing is actually in the Sonship program, and then, must communicate clearly what their concerns are. We do not believe that anything in Sonship teaching should cause believers to break fellowship. We also encourage those at World Harvest Mission engaged in the process of revision to address the concerns detailed above while standing firm for the doctrines of grace.

So, don’t break fellowship with Sonshippers; how’s that workin’ for everybody? You see, the following apostolic concept is weaved throughout the New Testament: Truth unifies—error divides. That’s exactly why we break fellowship with those who promote error, for the “sincerity and truth” that unifies. In fact, biblical “heresy” is defined in terms of divisions; the two words are biblically synonymous:

I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. (Romans 16:17-18)

1 Corinthians 1:10  Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Notice that we are to be unified by the same judgment, ie, TRUTH, and the further we are from that, the less likely that there will be unity. So why would the Briarwood session say that some of the truth is ok? If Sonship cannot unify, why put up with it at all?

If you google, “heresies that cause divisions,” the information that can be gleaned on this point is massive, but I would like to enter some excerpts into evidence:

The point is that here in 2 Peter 2:1, the word airesis is consistent with the rest of Scripture. A heresy is not a false teaching itself, but the division that false teachings cause.  The distinction is small, but there is a distinction. A heresy, therefore, is not a false teaching, but is a division, a sect, a faction, or a group within the Body of Christ, which separates from the rest. If this is true of heresy, then what about heretics?

This word comes from the Greek airetikos, which is used only one time in the entire New Testament, in Titus 3:10. And similarly to what we have seen about heresy, the problem is not the bad theology the person is teaching (though that is a problem), but rather the divisive and factious attitude of the person that Paul is most concerned about.

Some say that in Titus 3:10 ‘a factious [sectarian] man’ should be translated ‘a man who teaches heresy’ and that this expression does not refer to a divisive person. But in Greek this expression denotes a person who holds an opinion or a different doctrine that tends toward division. Thus, the English versions translate this as (1) a factious man—American Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, Marshall’s Interlinear Greek-English New Testament; (2) a man who is factious—Revised Standard Version, Amplified Bible; (3) a heretical sectarian and cause of divisions—Amplified Bible; (4) a heretical person causing divisions—Wuest; (5) a sectarian—W. J. Conybeare; (6) a man who causes divisions—R. F. Weymouth; (7) a factious person—James Moffatt; (8) a sectarian man—Concordant Literal New Testament, Berry’s Interlinear Greek-English New Testament; (9) a factious person—Berkeley Version; (10) a heretical man, i.e., one given to ‘lift up’ opinions, sound or unsound, and an unstable, unsettled individual who wishes to form sects—Young’s Translation; (11) causing division by a party spirit, factious—Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words; (12) a divisive person—New International Version. Most of the above translations are authorities.” (W. Lee, The Ministry of the New Testament and the Teaching and Fellowship of the Apostles, Chapter 2, Section 6, LSM)

Jude 3,4,16,19

3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our COMMON salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

16 These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their {own} lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of {gaining an} advantage.

19 These are the ones who cause divisions [emphasis mine], worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit.

Any of this ring a bell? Or maybe you’re hearing a NASA countdown. I am in the process of learning more about what could have been done differently. If half of the Southwood session had a problem with Larroux, they might have been able to invoke the biblical authority to warn Larroux twice and then reject him without the other elders. Don’t know, more education needed—then I want to know what should have been done. An actual protocol could be developed for future Southwoods.  I also find the information concerning the attempt to bring in a mediator very interesting. Especially if it was Peacekeepers International.

paul