The "gospel" of R.C. Sproul: did Mathew C. Heckel 'get it right'?

In my previous thread, Misreading historical theology, I brought back to the fore an older thread (link) that touched on a JETS essay (link) which explored a number of historical problems with R.C Sproul's assessment of what one must believe in order to experience salvation. In the combox of the above mentioned "previous thread", Ken Temple posted:

David,
I don't have time to go over all this again with a fine-tooth comb, but it seems to me that Heckel mis-understood Sproul.

Also, Sproul's book, Getting the Gospel Right: The Tie that Binds Evangelicals Together (Baker, 1999) answers the questions that Heckel seems to be asking after he read Faith Alone.

Especially important are pages 169-172 - these pages show that Heckel is wrong about Sproul because Heckel projects implications that he gets into his own mind into Faith Alone, but Sproul never meant that everyone before Luther or Trent had to be able to articulate justification by faith alone before Luther, in order to be saved.

So, I think Heckel has interpreted R. C. Sproul's book, "Faith Alone" wrongly. (link)

Did Heckel interpret " R. C. Sproul's book, "Faith Alone" wrongly"? Does Sproul's subsequent book, Getting the Gospel Right, correct any misconceptions Heckel may have had? I do not believe that this is the case at all; in fact, I believe Sproul's, Getting the Gospel Right (GTGR), reinforces Heckel's original assessment. I will now turn to chapter 11 ("Trusting in Christ") of GTGR, wherein Sproul describes at length, one of the "necessary condition[s] of saving faith".  To lay the foundation for the rest of the chapter, Sproul cites Article 16 of the document, The Gospel of Jesus Christ, under his heading—"Saving Faith":

16. We affirm that saving faith includes mental assent to the content of the Gospel, acknowledgment of our own sin and need, and personal trust and reliance upon Christ and his work.

We deny that saving faith includes only mental acceptance of the Gospel, and that justification is secured by a mere outward profession of faith. We further deny that any element of saving faith is a meritorious work or earns salvation for us. (Page 167)

Sproul then writes:

The Reformers delimited three essential elements of saving faith: notitia (knowledge of the data or content of the gospel), assensus (the intellectual acceptance or assent to the truth of the gospel's content), fiducia (personal reliance on or trust in Christ and his gospel). (Page 168)

He then goes on to describe two Biblical accounts of "intellectual acceptance" (i.e. demons and Satan) and states:

But the demons lacked saving faith. They had one of the necessary elements of saving faith, but not all of them. Intellectual acceptance is a necessary condition for saving faith, but not a sufficient condition. That is, without intellectual acceptance we cannot be saved, but its mere presence does not bring salvation...

Article 16 affirms that saving faith includes intellectual acceptance of the gospel's content but is not exhausted by or comprised solely of mental assent.

Article 16 denies that one can have saving faith without intellectual acceptance or assent. This would exclude from salvation even those who call themselves Christians but who at the same time reject essential elements of the gospel...

This raises the question regarding Roman Catholics who, though they may affirm other essential elements of the gospel, reject sola fide. If they do not intellectually accept this element  and if this element is essential to the gospel, can they still be saved? The only honest answer I can give to this question is no. This answer raises the hackles of many who seek to affirm unity Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, and it requires further explanation.

Does this mean that we are saved by the doctrine of sola fide? By no means. We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ and his saving work. Mere belief in the doctrine of sola fide will save no one. Intellectual acceptance of sola fide does not constitute saving faith. The object of fiducia must be in Christ and his work, not the doctrine of justification. The problem arises when we ask about the consequences of rejecting sola fide, that person rejects an essential element of the gospel. That poses a problem not only at an intellectual or doctrinal level, but at the spiritual level as well. If a person is trusting not in the imputed righteousness of Christ but in his own inherent righteousness, he will not be saved. He lacks a necessary condition of saving faith. In the final analysis he is trusting in another gospel and remains in a state of self-righteousness. By rejecting an essential element of the gospel, he is under the biblical and thus divine anathema. This is precisely why Martin Luther insisted that sola fide is the article by which the church stands of falls. It is the article by which we stand or fall.  (Pages 168-170 - bold emphasis added.)

Now, a couple of points: first, Sproul incorrectly attributes to Martin Luther the dictum, "that sola fide is the article by which the church stands of falls." (See THIS THREAD for documentation of this error.) Second, Sproul makes it quite clear that, "[m]ere belief in the doctrine of sola fide will save no one", and that "[i]f a person is trusting not in the imputed righteousness of Christ but in his own inherent righteousness, he will not be saved."

Can Sproul get any clearer on this issue? I think not. Even though he later tries to make room for the possible salvation of Roman Catholics who either, "consciously, clearly understand and embrace the doctrine of sola fide and posses a true saving faith"; or, "who do not fully grasp the gospel but who intuitively understand that their only hope in Christ and his work in their behalf and trust him fully" (pp. 170, 171), this proposed concession does not somehow mutate his prior assessments. Bottom line: Heckel got Sproul's "gospel" right.

Grace and peace,

David


P.S. I typed up the quotes from Dr. Sproul's book quite quickly; as such, I suspect there may be some typos, and would greatly appreciate notification of any such spelling errors.

Misreading historical theology

While reflecting on the recent charges of semi-Pelagianism leveled by a number of Reformed folk against the newly published SBC document on salvation (see PREVIOUS POST for link and commentary), I recalled Matthew C. Heckel's critique of R.C. Sproul's skewed handling of historical theology (see THIS THREAD). Note the following excerpt from Heckel's essay:

He [Sproul] does introduce Augustine and Aquinas into the conversation to establish that they believed justification to be exclusively by grace, and he uses their theology to accuse the Council of Trent of semi-Pelagianism. Beyond this, Sproul does not substantially treat the views of Augustine or Aquinas on justification. If he had, his thesis would surely have led him, as it did the Reformers, to deal with the question of the Christian status of the pre-Reformation church, since Augustine and the rest of its theologians did not teach that we are justified sola fide in the Reformation sense. In fact, unless Sproul's thesis is qualified, it would lead to the unintended consequence of consigning to perdition the entire Church from the patristic period up to the down of the Reformation, something the Reformers did not do. This is because the Reformation understanding of justification sola fide was unheard of in the pre-Reformation church and thus not believed until Luther. Alister McGrath points out that “there are no ‘Forerunners of the Reformation doctrines of justification."

To put it another way, Luther’s doctrine of justification sola fide was not a recovery but an innovation within the Western theological tradition. What is provocative about Sproul’s thesis is that the equation of the construct of sola fide with the gospel itself would mean that the Roman Catholic Church not only rejected the gospel at Trent, but the Church never possessed it at all from the post-apostolic period up to the time of Luther. In this unqualified form, Sproul’s thesis would also mean that since no one knew the gospel in the pre-Reformation church, no one experienced justification, and thus there was no Church. ("Is R.C. Sproul Wrong About Martin Luther?", JETS 47.1, pp. 92-94.)

Heckel's entire essay is a must read (IMHO), for it sheds considerable light on difficulties and out-right errors that tend to follow a deficient/faulty (mis)reading of historical theology. It is a pattern that I see repeated in many differing forms, especially by amateur and professional apologists from virtually all the various faith traditions. One could say, without much exaggeration, that the misreading of historical theology has reached epidemic proportions, causing me to wonder if there will ever be a 'cure' for the malady. But then, contributions like Heckel's do offer a ray of hope...

Grace and peace,

David

The majority of Southern Baptists are semi-Pelagian...???

Today is the first day in over a week that I have actually had 'free' time to spend browsing the internet, attempting to 'catch-up' (s0 t0 speak) on events and topics that interest me. The following caught my eye:

An Introduction to “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation”

The post begins with the following:

The following is a suggested statement of what Southern Baptists believe about the doctrine of salvation. Compiled by a number of pastors, professors, and leaders in response to the growing debate over Calvinism in Southern Baptist life, it begins with a rationale for such a statement at this time, followed by ten articles of affirmation and denial. The goal was to create a statement that would accurately reflect the beliefs of the majority of Southern Baptists, who are not Calvinists.

Given what I know about the recent 'war' that has been taking place between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) denomination (the largest Protestant denomination in the USA), I KNEW that this newly published document would add gasoline to the flames that were already burning. Like weeds after a fresh rainfall in the spring, charges of "semi-Pelagianism" immediately began to appear on blogs/websites in great numbers. The following Google search is representative:

SBC - Semi-Pelagiansim

Having dealt with the issue of semi-Pelagianism at length here at AF (see posts under THIS LINK), I immediately recognized a serious, fundamental flaw that has skewed the attempts to portray the SBC document as semi-Pelagian—a failure to understand what semi-Pelagian actually meant in its original historical context.

The following is a re-posting of material from one of the threads linked to above:

SEMI-PELAGIANISM. The doctrines on human nature upheld in the 4th and 5th cents. by a group of theologians who, while not denying the necessity of *Grace for salvation, maintained that the first steps towards the Christian life were ordinarily taken by the human will and Grace supervened only later. (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed. 1974 - 1985 reprint, p. 1258.)


SEMI-PELAGIANISM. Doctrines, upheld during the period from 427 to 529, that rejected the extreme views of Pelagius and of Augustine in regards to the priority of divine grace and human will in the initial work of salvation...

Cassian [one of the early leaders of semi-Pelagianism] taught that though a sickness is inherited through Adam's sin, human free will has not been entirely obliterated. Divine grace is indispensable for salvation, but does not necessarily need to precede a free human choice, because, despite the weakness of human volition, the will takes the initiative toward God [apart from supernatural grace]. (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 1984, p. 1000.)

Notice that divine grace IS NOT necessary in order for one to accept the Gospel—this is THE distinguishing tenant of semi-Pelagianism—if one denies/rejects this cardinal doctrine of semi-Pelagianism, then one is not a semi-Pelagian.

Now, a careful reading of the SBC document will yield the fact that "THE distinguishing tenant of semi-Pelagianism" is denied. IMO, one must ignore, and/or twist elements of the document to lend any credence to the charge of semi-Pelagianism.

So, in ending, for those so inclined to review the numerous attacks (and defenses) of this newly published SBC document, I would like to urge you to keep in mind what semi-Pelgianism actually taught in its original context...

Grace and peace,

David

Fourth-Century Christianity: a valuable online resource

Last Saturday, I received in the mail Dr. Joseph T. Lienhard's, Contra Marcellum: Marcellus of Ancyra and Fourth-Century Theology. I wanted a copy of this book for sometime, but its $59.95 retail price kept me from purchasing it; that is, until recently, when I discovered that the price has been substantially reduced (now as low as $11.86).

I am about half-way through the book, and have been cross-referencing the numerous references as best I can. While engaged in this effort, I discovered a very valuable online resource:

FOURTH-CENTURY CHRISTIANITY

The site has a number of resources for the student of patristics, including an English translation of the majority of the extant fragments of Marcellus of Ancyra important work, Against Asterius:

Marcellus of Ancrya Fragments

This online resource has proved to be an invaluable supplement to my reading of Dr. Lienhard's tome, which I hope to finish this week. I suspect others will benefit greatly from what the site has to offer.

Grace and peace,

David

Basil 'the Great' - an early critic of neo-modalism

In my threads on the Monarchy of God the Father (LINK), I have pointed out a number of 'problems' with the traditional Latin/Western view of the Trinity (i.e. the Trinity/divine essence is the 'one God', not God the Father); problems which include what boils down to a sophisticated form of neo-modalism—notwithstanding the repeated denials of modalism in its original form by those who have embraced this traditional Latin/Western view of the Trinity.

I have also noted that it was Augustine who formulated the foundational theology of what became the traditional Latin/Western view of the Trinity; concerning Augustine's view, one patristic scholar wrote:

We can see that Augustine only gets beyond Modalism by the mere assertion that he does not wish to be a modalist, and the aid of ingenious distinctions between different ideas. (Adolf Harnack, History of Dogma, 1958 Eng. ed., 4. 131.)

But, one does not have to wait until the 19th century for a critical assessment of the traditional Latin/Western view of the Trinity, for a staunch, 4th century defender of both the monarchy of God the Father and Nicene Trinitarianism penned the following:

The distinction between οὐσία and ὑπόστασις is the same as that between the general and the particular ; as, for instance, between the animal and the particular man. Wherefore, in the case of the Godhead, we confess one essence or substance so as not to give a variant definition of existence, but we confess a particular hypostasis, in order that our conception of Father, Son and Holy Spirit may be without confusion and clear. If we have no distinct perception of the separate characteristics, namely, fatherhood, sonship, and sanctification, but form our conception of God from the general idea of existence, we cannot possibly give a sound account of our faith. We must, therefore, confess the faith by adding the particular to the common. The Godhead is common; the fatherhood particular. We must therefore combine the two and say, "I believe in God the Father." The like course must be pursued in the confession of the Son; we must combine the particular with the common and say "I believe in God the Son," so in the case of the Holy Ghost we must make our utterance conform to the appellation and say "in God the Holy Ghost." Hence it results that there is a satisfactory preservation of the unity by the confession of the one Godhead, while in the distinction of the individual properties regarded in each there is the confession of the peculiar properties of the Persons. On the other hand those who identify essence or substance and hypostasis are compelled to confess only three Persons, and, in their hesitation to speak of three hypostases, are convicted of failure to avoid the error of Sabellius, for even Sabellius himself, who in many places confuses the conception, yet, by asserting that the same hypostasis changed its form to meet the needs of the moment, does endeavour to distinguish the persons. (Basil, Letter 236, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers - Second Series, Volume VIII, Basil, p. 278.)

As in our own day, one can discern that the term "person" (πρόσωπον) was being used in different senses in the 4th century, such that Basil (and a number of other Greek/Eastern Church Fathers) felt the need to clear up the semantic confusion by using a much stronger term (ὑπόστασις) for the "particular" distinction/s concerning the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, using this term in conjunction with a "general" (i.e. generic) understanding of the term essence/substance (οὐσία).

Before ending this post, I would like to provide a quote from a current Eastern Orthodox scholar, whose assessment of Basil's theology of God sounds almost identical to my own:

For the Christian faith there is, unequivocally, but one God, and that is the Father: "There is one God the Father." For Basil, the one God is not the one divine substance, or a notion of "divinity" which is ascribed to each person of the Trinity, nor is it some kind of unity or communion in which they all exist; the one God is the Father. But this "monarchy" of the Father does not undermine the confession of the true divinity of the Son and the Spirit. Jesus Christ is certainly "true God from true God," as the Nicene Creed puts it, but he is such as the Son of God, the God who is thus the Father. If the term "God" (Θεός) is used of Jesus Christ, not only as a predicate, but also as a proper noun with an article (ὁ Θεός), this is only done on the prior confession of him as "Son of God, and so as other than "the one God" of whom he is the Son; it is necessary to bear in mind this order of Christian theology, lest it collapse in confusion." (John Behr, The Formation of Christian Theology - Volume 2: The Nicene Faith - Part 2, pp. 307, 308.)

Amen brother Behr, amen. Now, if only the heirs of Augustine would lend an objective ear...

Grace and peace,

David

Of creeds and councils - Online Resources

Over the last few days, some dialogue on Christian creeds has been taking place here at AF. I am fortunate enough to have some substantial resources on this subject in my personal library, and thanks to the internet, a number of the more important resources that are at my disposal are now available online for free. The following list will include certain works that I have found to be very useful (some indispensable), focusing primarily on the creeds formulated at the earlier ecumenical councils (up to 787), which can be read online and/or downloaded in the pdf format; at the end, I will also list a couple of works that can be read online via Google Books preview:

The famous 14th volume of the, "A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church - Second Series", Philip Schaff and Henry Wace general editors. This is the most comprehensive single volume on the subject -

The Seven Ecumenical Councils - Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second  Series, vol. 14 - edited by Henry R. Percival

The equally famous 5 volume work by Dr. Hefele, which begins with the pre-Nicene councils, and continues up to the 7th ecumenical council of 787 AD -

A History of the Councils of the Church -vol. 1 - by Charles Joseph Hefele

A History of the Councils of the Church -vol. 2 - by Charles Joseph Hefele

A History of the Councils of the Church -vol. 3 - by Charles Joseph Hefele

A History of the Councils of the Church -vol. 4 - by Charles Joseph Hefele

A History of the Councils of the Church -vol. 5 - by Charles Joseph Hefele

The next four works are not nearly as comprehensive as those listed above, but they are still quite valuable -

The Definitions of the Catholic Faith and Canons of Discipline of the First Four General Councils of the Universal Church: In Greek and English - William H. Bright

Notes on the Canons of the First Four General Councils - William H. Bright

The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith - T. Herbert Bindley

The History and use of Creeds and Anathemas in the Early Centuries of the Church - C.H. Turner

The following are the links to Philip Schaff's famous 3 volume work, Bibliotheca symbolica ecclesiæ universalis. The creeds of Christendom, with a history and critical notes. In addition to an excellent introduction, the work includes creeds and confessions of faith up into the 19th century -

The Creeds of Christendom - vol. 1 - Philip Schaff

The Creeds of Christendom - vol. 2 - Philip Schaff

The Creeds of Christendom - vol. 3 - Philip Schaff

And finally, two very important tomes (IMHO): Dr. Kelly's famous Early Christian Creeds, and a work that I have cited numerous times before, which contains indispensable information on the pivotal period between 318-381 AD -

Early Christian Creeds - J.N.D. Kelly

The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God - R.P.C. Hanson

Sincerely hope that these works will prove to be as valuable to you, as they have for me.

Grace and peace,

David

Reformed confessions and "the so-called ecumenical councils of the first several centuries"

This last Saturday, I received in the mail the latest issue (June, 2012) of R.C. Sproul's (Ligonier Ministries)  Tabletalk  magazine. Given the content of my March 2 and 27, 2012 threads, I found the following to be of interest:

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when the Protestant movement began, various ecclesiastical groups created confessions, creedal statements that set forth the doctrines these groups embraced. In the main, these documents reiterated that body of doctrine that had been passed down through the centuries, having been defined in the so-called ecumenical councils of the first several centuries. (R.C. Sproul, "The Church Is One", Tabletalk, June, 2012, pp. 4, 5.)

Though not explicit, I suspect, "that body of doctrine", mentioned above, pertains primarily to theology proper, and christology. With this in mind, have the Protestant confessions of "sixteenth and seventeenth centuries" truly and faithfully, "reiterated that body of doctrine that had been passed down through the centuries, having been defined in the so-called ecumenical of the first several centuries"?

Before any assessment can be made concerning the above question, one must first identify what the "the so-called ecumenical of the first several centuries" and Protestant confessions of "sixteenth and seventeenth centuries" actually taught/teach concerning God and Jesus Christ. The content of the creeds produced at Nicea in 325 and Constantinople in 381 have been examined at length in the following threads:

The Nicene Creed vs. the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed

When (and which), are councils and creeds infallible?

The original Nicene Creed and semantic confusion

In those threads, and subsequent ones that build upon them (e.g. THESE THREADS), I have placed an emphasis on what those creeds conveyed to the readers of the time in which they were composed, refusing to accommodate what those creeds actually said to subsequent developmental trajectories. I believe that the doctrine of God presented in those two creeds is accurately and faithfully summarized in the "5 propositions" that I presented in THIS THREAD.

With the above background in place, I would like to now examine whether or not the Protestant confessions of the "sixteenth and seventeenth centuries" have been faithful to the two above creeds on the first and foremost article of faith promulgated in them: who/what is the "One God"?

The Nicene and Niceno-Constantinopolitan creeds both open with:

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἔνα Θεὸν Πατέρα παντοκράτορα - We believe in one God the Father almighty

Compare this with a few of the more esteemed Reformed creeds of the "sixteenth and seventeenth centuries":

Belgic Confession

Article I. THERE IS ONE ONLY GOD

We all believe with the heart, and confess with the mouth, that there is one only simple and spiritual Being, which we call God; and that he is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, almighty, perfectly wise, just, wise, and the overflowing fountain of all good. (Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3.383, 384)

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter II - Of God and the Holy Trinity

There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin, the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments; hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty. (Ibid., 3.606, 607)

The Second Helvetic Confession

Chapter III - OF GOD; THE UNITY AND THE TRINITY

We believe and teach that God is one in essence or nature, subsisting by himself, all-sufficient in himself, invisible, without body, infinite, eternal, the Creator of all things both visible and invisible, the chief good, living, quickening and preserving all things, almighty and supremely wise, gentle or merciful, just and true. (Ibid., 3.835)

The Baptist Confession of 1689

Chapter 2: Of God and of the Holy Trinity

1. The Lord our God is but one only living and true God; whose subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself; a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; who is immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, every way infinite, most holy, most wise, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him, and withal most just and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty. (Samuel E. Waldron, A Modern Exposition of the 1690 Baptist Confession of Faith, 1989, p. 53)

The opening article of faith, "There is but one God the Father", found in Nicene and Niceno-Constantinopolitan creeds has been completely abandoned, and instead, replaced by an essence/nature (referred to via the singular, personal pronoun, He).

Now, yet once again, I ask my readers: has this significant change in the Reformed creeds, truthfully and faithfully, "reiterated that body of doctrine that had been passed down through the centuries, having been defined in the so-called ecumenical of the first several centuries"?

IMO the most obvious and objective answer is a resounding NO.


Grace and peace,

David