I'm so glad A.W. Pink sees things the way I see them! =)
This reprehensible laxity, is misnamed "love"
(Arthur Pink, "Love Reproving" 1943)
Few words have been used more inaccurately and loosely in recent years, than has "love." With a great many people--it is but a synonym for moral laxity, weakness of character, a taking the line of least resistance, a quiet tolerating of what is felt to be wrong.
Multitudes of parents have supposed they were treating their children "lovingly" when they overlooked their folly, made excuses for their wildness, and refused to discipline them for disobedience. They have prided themselves on being "kinder" toward their children than the "stern measures" which were meted out to themselves in their own youth. But it is laxity--and not love--which allows a child to have its own way. "He who spares his rod--hates his son; but he who loves him--chastens him early" (Proverbs 13:14). Let those of our readers who have young children ponder Proverbs 19:18; 22:15; 23:13, 14; 29:15, 17, and remember, that those are the words of Him who is Love!
This same evil has held sway in the churches. Leniency and weakness have overridden righteousness and faithfulness. Instead of maintaining and enforcing the discipline which God's Word enjoins--the great majority of the churches have winked at even glaring sins, refusing to deal with those who walk disorderly. This reprehensible laxity, is misnamed "love". A mushy sentimentality which shrank from "hurting the feelings" of others--has ousted all concern for the glory of Christ and the honor of His house.
This is one of the inevitable effects of the lopsided preaching of the pulpit, where the 'love' and 'grace' of God were constantly proclaimed--while His 'justice' and 'wrath' were studiously ignored. God is 'light' (1 John 1:5) as well as 'love' (1 John 4:8); 'holy' as well as 'merciful'; 'severe' as well as 'good' (Romans 11:22). Unless the balance is preserved between those two sides of the Divine character, not only will He be grievously misrepresented--but the most serious results will follow!
4 comments:
Denise,
This comment has nothing to do with you post. But I was reading in your Bio. that you wanted to expose false teachings and one of these false teachings was Reformed Theology. I am kinda new to the Reformed stuff myself(I think I have always been this way, just learned it had a name) Anyway, it seems most of your post are Reformed?
Help me out here, what do hate about reformed theo? I am not being smart, I just want to know if I am missing something.
Thanks for your help,
pastorharold
Hi Harold,
There's a few things that are embedded in Reformed Theology that makes me reject the label and practice.
For instance:
Covenantal Theology (basically the presumption that God shall save the children of the elect).
Infant sprinkling. This denies the biblical mandate of a Believer's Baptism. It also denies the mode of baptism which is clearly by immersion.
Sacraments: half a step from Rome in that they believe that the elements are efficacious on some level; that they are more than a symbol. Scripture says they are only a symbol.
Ecclesiology: this is mainly the Presbyterians---hierchy of men rule over bodies of believers that they themselves are not involved with. This is governmental in nature and contrary to Scripture who has said that elders are to rule over their OWN local body of believers, not anyone else's.
Man-centered: they hold to RCC's verion of history ("church fathers")and creeds. They use creeds and confessions of faith as authoritative instead of or at least on par with Scripture. They do not hold to Scripture alone, but rather Scripture plus the confessions. Just try telling a Reformer you don't hold to any Creed or confession, and they will either attact you by ad homs or reject you as an idiot.
I DO believe that each church should have a statement of faith for those who are new to the church so they can get an idea of what the church holds to. However, it is NEVER a standard by which to measure spirituality.
The general Reformed views are most consistantly reflected in Presbyterianism. However, there are "Reformed Baptists" too. The problem with them is they try to bridge Baptist doctrine to Reformed theology which ends up in compromise. Baptists, historically (and by other names but by distinctives) were never part of the Reformation, for they never were part of Rome. Btw, the Reformation never occurred: RCC never was reformed.
One other thing--and I've yet to get an answer from a Reformer: if all men are dead in their sin (Total Depravity), which Scripture says they are, then why do they believe they could reform a dead church?
I believe Scripture teaches the TULIP which stems from God's absolute and total sovereignty (pun intended). But the other stuff I leave in the dust.
I hope this helps some.
Thanks for all your help! Very well said! I feel the same way about most of your objections. I am a Baptist, but I have not come to terms with the issue of Baptist history. I don't see the great need of not be a protestant. If we agree on Gen-Rev, Why argue on history?
By process of elimination can I assume you are a (loosly speaking here)a Landmark, TULIP, Baptist? This maybe where I am headed. I just don't know what box I belong in.
I know what I believe, I just don't know which group believes like me. The term Baptist seems broader today than ever.
Pastor Harold
Hey Harold,
I'd be more in line with Historic Baptists, I believe.
Here's a few links you might find interesting:
http://www.fbbc.com/messages/one_step/one_step_18.htm
http://www.reformedreader.org/histb.htm
http://www.pbministries.org/Theology/Laurence%20Justice/are_baptists_reformed.htm
Hope this might help a little.
Post a Comment