Friday, July 14, 2017

Go to Eternal Jail

Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200






I read over at The Gospel Coalition, that when R.C. Sproul was asked what doctrine he most struggles with, he replied "Hell." I would not be disappointed if, when we reach the Last Day, it turns out that the lost will be annihilated, as theologians of such stature as Philip Hughes and John R.W. Stott thought possible. When you think about the blessedness of life freed from sin and death in a universe freed from groaning and frustration, it would seem that eternal exclusion would be a significant penalty for sin not covered by the blood of Christ. Conscious, endless torment of body and soul for our fellow human creatures is an horrendous thing to contemplate. However, it seems to me more likely that J.I. Packer is right when he affirms the reality of hell.

The struggle of coming to terms with the reality of hell gives me a little surprise with how quickly some people pronounce others on their way there. To explain, allow me to mention four websites I have come across. 

One is Barbara Roberts' "A Cry for Justice" which is committed to supporting those who have experienced domestic abuse according to Barbara's definition of abuse and who may in Barbara's view justifiably divorce their spouses (almost always men). Her view of what constitutes abuse as grounds for divorce more resembles Rabbi Hillel's grounds for divorcing a wife (anything that displeases) than Rabbi Shammai's (serious transgression). "A Cry for Justice" is also dedicated to calling out the evangelical church for its failure to take the side of the abused and its covering up the sins of abusers.

Another website is "Spinderella Sproul" where someone who calls himself R.C. 2.O has dedicated himself since 2005 to hating, exposing, and mocking R.C. Sproul, Jr. It seems he was one of the persons hurt in the problems at St. Peter's church. But his malice toward R.C,. Jr. has taken on a life all its own. He is convinced that R.C., Jr. is not only a sinner but a wolf in sheep's clothing, a man devoid of grace and filled with wickedness. R.C., Jr.'s problems with the law, which arose in December of 2016 and were finally adjudicated in June of this year, have given 2.0 6 months to plow a fertile field. His disdain for R.C., Jr. boils over to Ligonier and the whole Sproul family, including R.C., Sr. and Vesta. 

Yet, another website is "The Wartburg Watch" which focuses on church abuse and gives a voice to those who believe themselves to have been spiritually abused. But "The Wartburg Watch's" special hatred is for Calvinists of the Baptist sort - the Reformed Baptists, of course, but especially those Calvinists who are surreptitiously worming their way into and taking over churches in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Then, very much unlike the first three, is the "Bayly Blog" which promotes patriarchy and hates wom...I mean feminists. Tim Bayly is on watch 24-7-365 for deviations from the Bayly orthodoxy and does not hesitate to denounce the doctrinal deviants with the strongest terms and ridicule then with the most sarcastic language, especially with regard to his favorite subject which is sex.

The first three Blogs experienced a harmonic convergence regarding the resolution of R.C. Sproul, Jr.'s legal case. "Spinderalla" followed the case closely and reported its disposition. "Wartburg" picked up and republished "Spinderalla's" last posting on the legal end of the case. And, wouldn't you know it, here comes "Cry for Justice's" Barbara Roberts at the "Wartburg" site to post this charitable comment about R.C. Jr, a comment no doubt "amened" by "Spinderella" and "Warturg":
Serous (sic) help? Haha. Sounds like needs a blood transfusion! …. which is not that far off base: he needs to be born again as this persistent pattern of behaviour shows he is NOT regenerate and is NOT in Christ at all. I wonder whether RC Sproul Senior has accepted that fact yet? I doubt it.
Tim Bayly is never to be outdone, and he has consigned several to hell lately. Tim is worked up about The Christian Standard Bible and what he regards as its translators' choices of gender-neutral language. He is particularly upset with Denny Burk's defense of the translation and writes:
What Burk ought to have done was to point his readers to the Atlantic's article and ask his readers to contact the Southern Baptists who deleted God's male inclusives from His Word hundreds and hundreds of times, just as the Atlantic reported. Denny Burk himself should have written an open letter to the woman and men who removed these hundreds and hundreds of words from God's Word calling every one of them to repent.
Denny Burk should have warned his fellow Southern Baptists against this neutered Bible, reminding them what God Himself said concerning those who change the words of His Word:
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:18, 19)
Denny Burk should warn the translators and publishers of his denomination's Christian Standard Bible that their removal of hundreds and hundreds of words with a male meaning component from Scripture places their souls in jeopardy of having their part in the tree of life and the holy city removed by God.
But you say, "Surely not! If anyone is saved today, it must be the Southern Baptists. Look at how despised they are! If anyone can be trusted to defend God's very words about sexuality, surely it is these very conservative men down South?"
Yet God says:
...if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:19)
Are there men today who will stand for God and His Word against Denny Burk and his fellow Southern Baptists?
And then there's the case of Eugene Peterson, who first seemed to endorse homosexual marriage (but now seems to have backtracked). Responding to one who commented that he hated to see Peterson's loss of courage, Tim wrote about Peterson:
This is no mere lack of courage, but utter apostasy. In other words, this man will never enter the Kingdom of God.
So there you have it. R.C. Sproul, Jr. is unregenerate and headed to hell. The translators of The Christian Standard Bible are in danger of going to hell if they don't repent of their gender inclusive translating. And, Eugene Peterson is without a doubt going to hell.

Let me tell you what dogs I don't have in this hunt. I have never heard Sproul, Jr. speak or read any of his books. I think I have read few of his Ligonier postings. I reject theonomy and patriarchy and other views attributed to him which range from weird to crazy. I don't plan to buy the Baptist (oops, Christian) Standard Version.  I have never heard Eugene Peterson speak or read one of his books, though I think that a couple of times I tried to make a start of A Long Obedience in the Same Direction. I oppose homosexual practice and marriage.

But really, isn't is possible, indeed more likely than not, that R.C., Jr. is a sinner who has stumbled many times on the way to the Celestial City but whom God won't let go of? Is God going to send the translators of the Christian Standard Bible to hell for the way they have translated masculine nouns and pronouns? And, isn't it more reasonable to think that Eugene Peterson is confused and waffling on a significant issue of morality and the ministerial office, but will be in the company of the rest of us messed up sinners in the kingdom that is to come - and probably a lot closer to the throne than I, and maybe you?

If these folks are to judge who is in and out, I doubt there will be as many as 144,000 saved.







  


1 comment:

  1. Thank you for letting me know about your post. Let me tell you what I believe.

    I do not pronounce judgment on who is in and who is out when it comes to eternal matters. I leave that in the hands of the One who is at a higher pay grade.

    Our special hatred is for child sex abuse. As for abuse in general, the Calvinist are the ones who get top billing in the news these days. That is why we post so much about the Calvinists. Do not forget that Wade Burleson does our E Church and he Reformed. If we were particularly against them, why would that be so?

    Here's the deal for us. We review all sorts of news/churchsources every day. We find articles of interest to us, especially if they deal with abuse. It is the Calvinists who get the press these days and that is why they get top billing. If we were writing in the 1700s I bet the Puritans would be in the news.

    Recently, we have discussed the explosive reports of child sex abuse coming out of the Church of England and the Anglican Church of Australia. We even covered a couple of stories on abuse in the US Episcopal Church since these have all been in the news.

    I guess the question to ask is "Why do the Calvinists show up so frequently in the news?" If you have any ideas, I would love to hear them.

    Blessings

    ReplyDelete

Comments are welcome, but anonymous comments are not. You must register (simple process) to comment, and, other than your name, no personal information is ever revealed. The owner of this Blog does not remove comments, including those critical of him and what he writes, unless they show signs of serious mental disorder, violate accepted standards of Christian morality, or attack individuals rather than their views.