R.C.
Sproul was for years professor of systematic theology and apologetics at Reformed
Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida (where one can "receive professional
training that integrates Reformed theology and superior psychological research.")
He is now
Distinguished Visiting Professor of Theology and Apologetics at Knox Theological
Seminary in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, and holds positions at Reformed Theological
Seminary and Westminster Theological Seminary as well.
He
is also the founder and chairman of Ligonier Ministries (circa 1974) in Orlando
("designed to fill the gap between Sunday school and seminary"), serves as director
emeritus of ecumenical/Catholic-sympathizer Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship Ministries,
and is director of Serve International.
He
has also authored over 30 books, recorded hundreds of messages on video and audio
cassette, and has a nationwide daily radio broadcast, "Renewing Your Mind," heard
on over 100 stations nationwide. On Sproul's "Renewing Your Mind Online" website,
he touts ministry endorsements by such notable neo-evangelical psychologizes as
Chuck Swindoll, John MacArthur, D. James Kennedy, Elisabeth Elliot. Ravi Zacharias,
Jerry Bridges, and Joni Eareckson Tada.
Sproul
has fully endorsed the general teachings and counseling model of so-called Christian
psychologist, Dr. Larry
Crabb. [Crabb's model of counseling is primarily a psychological system of unconscious
needs motivating behavior, which is derived from Freudian (the unconscious being
a hidden reservoir of the mind with drives and impulses which govern a person's
thinking and behavior) and humanistic psychology (with its hierarchy of needs,
with great emphasis on so-called emotional needs).] Evidence of this endorsement
comes from Sproul's October 1989, Tabletalk interview with Dr. Crabb ("Dealing
With Sexual Sin: A Perspective on Guilt and Sexuality from Dr. Larry Crabb," pp.
6-10), and a pull-out advertisement for a Larry Crabb' book (Inside Out) in the
same Tabletalk issue.
Sproul
endorses the general teachings of psychologist James Dobson, particularly
Dobson's teachings on self-esteem/self-love/self-image. Sproul has not only published
articles by Dobson in his ministry's publication Tabletalk (e.g., see the December
1988, issue for Dobson's article, "Little Ones to Him Belong," in which Dobson's
main point is that an important fringe benefit of Christianity is that one obtains
an additional source of self-esteem), but also espouses Dobson's selfism philosophy
in his own writings as well (e.g., see the 10/89 issue of Tabletalk, "Who We Really
Are," and the 10/25/89 InterAct devotional).
Sproul
endorsed Bill Hybels' 1990
book Honest to God, saying, "Bill Hybels has an exciting and contagious faith."
Hybels is a psychologizer (e.g., he extols the virtues of Jungian personality
theory and "journaling" in Honest to God), and is one of the leaders in the unbiblical
"church growth" movement.) Sproul also recommends Christ in Christmas ("An Advent
devotional guide for the whole family. Features articles by R.C., Chuck Swindoll,
James Dobson ...") and Christ in Easter ("An Easter devotional guide for the whole
family. Features articles by Charles Colson, Max Lucado, Billy Graham ...").
R.C. Sproul publicly
endorsed Hugh Ross's book, Creation
and Time, which is a polemic for progressive creationism/theistic evolution, and
thereby, is a denial of orthodox Christianity's literal/factual/historical interpretation
of the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis. This NavPress published book
also openly attacks the creation movement and the major people involved (2/26/96,
Christian News).
From
this endorsement, we can only assume that R.C. Sproul agrees with Ross's evolutionary
philosophy. Among other things, Ross teaches that the Earth is billions of years
old and that physical death fully existed long before Adam. (But would not this
belief cause the doctrines of sin and salvation to fall? If death and bloodshed
preceded Adam's rebellion against God, then what are "the wages of sin" and how
did the entrance of sin change things? And if death preceded sin, then death is
not the penalty for sin, and Christ's death on the cross accomplished nothing!)
Since such evolutionary and old-earth thinking is totally incompatible with the
work of Christ, should it not be a requirement that the head of a major so-called
"apologetic" ministry be a literal creationist?
In
a 3/88 Eternity editorial, Sproul promoted a raunchy movie staring Barbara Streisand--the
movie included cursing, prostitution, incest, and a glib justification for abortion.
Sproul bemoans the fact that most Christians won't see the film simply "because
there is a growing taboo in the evangelical world against watching movies." Raunchiness
is not new for Sproul. In his Johnny Come Novel, many of its pages were "blue
with blasphemy" uttered by its principal characters, and he used "unnecessary
and offensive explicitness" in relating an illicit event (7/24/87, Sword of the
Lord).
In
the 3/87 Eternity, he said, "All art bears witness to God." He made the astounding
charge that "for a Christian to despise art approaches blasphemy. A Christianity
without art is a Christianity without beauty [which is] ... a Christianity without
Christ [which is] ... no Christianity at all." With this kind of mind-set, is
it any wonder that R.C. Sproul has spoken for apostate Robert Schuller on at least
two occasions? (Reported in the 3/15/88, Calvary Contender.)
Even
though some of what Sproul has authored is well-written and theologically sound,
he nevertheless interjects into many of his later books much of the "pop psychology"
gospel permeating evangelicalism today. For example, in his otherwise excellent
1988 book, Pleasing God, Sproul endorses the psychological and unbiblical concept(s)
of: self-esteem and self-confidence (pp. 59 &115); "All Truth is God's Truth"
(p. 69); homosexual "orientations" of some individuals (p. 80); the benefits of
psychiatric help for the Christian (pp. 118 & 186-187); self-forgiveness (pp.
131-133); and Freudian insights (p. 173). [Sproul also evidently believes the
blasphemy that we should "forgive God," as evidenced by his endorsement of the
James Dobson's book which teaches this psychological concept (When God Doesn't
Make Sense); see later in this report.]
Perhaps
the best overall indication of Sproul's complete sell-out to
the false gospel of self is his 1983 book, In Search of Dignity. The statement
from the book's inside jacket is an excellent indicator of the thoroughly humanistic
philosophy espoused by Sproul throughout this book:
"It
is because God has assigned worth to men and women that human dignity is established.
From his creation to his redemption, man's dignity is preserved. His origin is
significant. His destiny is significant. He is significant. The conviction that
permeates each chapter is the importance of daily respect for the dignity of other
people which requires a sensitivity to their self-esteem. We are also led to the
realization that the most fragile mechanization on this planet is the human ego."
(Emphasis added.)
Sproul
has written a revised edition (1991) of In Search of Dignity and
renamed it The Hunger For Significance. It has been endorsed by some of the most
prominent psychologizers in the professing church (Charles Allen [author of God's
Psychiatry, who says, "Reading this book has stimulated my sense of self-worth"],
Bill Bright, Chuck Colson, Joni Eareckson Tada, and David Hubbard [then president
of Fuller seminary]). Sproul says this about his book (still being offered for
sale by Ligonier as of 4/98):
"Every
person needs to feel significant. We want our lives to count. We yearn to believe
that in some way we are important and that hunger for significance--a drive as
intense as our need for oxygen--doesn't come from pride or ego. It comes from
God because he wants each of us to understand how important we are. ... We must
seek our roots, our origin, and our destiny so that we can know our present value.
...Written for anyone who shares the hunger for significance. This book explores
the human cry for dignity, the hallowed longing for love and respect. ... Wherever
people come together, we can help each other discover our self-worth. We can help
each other realize that we are persons of significance being made in the image
of God." (Emphasis added.)
Sproul
and his Ligonier Ministries sponsored a conference in Orlando, Florida
(February 20-22, 1992) titled, "The Hunger For Significance." Besides Sproul,
also on the program were ecumenical, Catholic-sympathizer Charles Colson; neo-evangelical
J.I. Packer; and pop psychologizer Chuck Swindoll. In addition, a special pre-conference
seminar was held on February 20th titled "Psychology and the Christian Faith--Psychohealing
or Psychoheresy?" featuring Sproul and Dr. Bill White (president of Pathways Educational
Network in Pittsburgh).
Besides the general psychobabble in each man's message and in the joint Q&A session,
of particular interest was Sproul's response to a question concerning how he would
reconcile his belief that "All truth is God's truth" (thereby allowing the use
of the principles of psychology along with the Bible) with what the Apostle Peter
said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (II Peter 1:3--According as his
divine power hath given unto us all things that [pertain] unto life and godliness,
through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue)? Sproul's
response:
"If
you mean for the saving of life ... We talk about the sufficiency of the Scriptures
to lead one to 'salvific' life, obviously, but for the whole structure of life,
we need more than the Bible."
It couldn't be more clear than that! R.C. Sproul has directly denied the sanctifying
sufficiency of the Word of God! Or if he is correct (in his contention that "we
need more than the Bible"), then the Holy Spirit, for nearly 2000 years of Church
history, somehow, either through ignorance or oversight, failed to include in
the Scriptures the vital psychological tools necessary for sanctified godly living!
One can come to only one of two conclusions. Either Sproul's so-called psychological
truths are false, and that's why God left them out of Holy Writ, or somehow, the
Bible is deficient.
Dr. John H. Coe is
Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Theology at Rosemead School of Psychology,
Biola University. He has written
a paper titled "Educating the Church for Wisdom's Sake or Why Biblical Counseling
is Unbiblical." The paper claims that believers have a mandate to look beyond
Scripture for the wisdom and truth necessary for righteous and successful living
(cf. 2 Pe. 1:3)! Coe claims that the Bible itself "mandates the church to develop
a science of [moral and spiritual] values and human nature" from extra-biblical
sources. He declares that whatever is "natural" is good and that one can deduce
a "science of [moral] values" simply from observing nature. This is obviously
not true. Coe also declares that without natural revelation "the Bible ... alone
is insufficient."
Of
course, he includes in natural revelation that part of "God's truth" which secular
psychologists have allegedly discovered and which is therefore needed to supplement
Scripture. We expect a psychological/ psychotherapeutic view of Scripture from
a professor at the psychoheretical Rosemead Graduate School of Psychology, but
R.C. Sproul evidently also agrees with Coe--Sproul carried a similar article by
Coe in a late-1993 Tabletalk issue.
[Yes, the Bible is insufficient when it comes to flying an airplane, repairing
an engine, transplanting a kidney, but not when it comes to those "things that
pertain to life and godliness," all of which Peter says have been given to us
in Christ (2 Pe. 1:3,4). Paul says that through Scripture alone, the man or woman
of God is "thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim. 3:17). Christ said
that the Holy Spirit is "the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive" (Jn.
14:17) and who guides believers "into all truth" (Jn. 16:13). He said that those
who continue in His word, which "is truth" (Jn. 17:17) know "the truth" (Jn. 8:32),
not part of the truth, and are thereby set free, not partially free. The Bible's
declaration that the "natural man" cannot know God's truth, which is only revealed
by the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:14), is proof that Freud, et al. had nothing of
God's truth to impart. That fact alone thoroughly demolishes the Coe/Sproul/Christian
psychology thesis that part of God's truth is to be found in secular psychology.
It isn't there. (Source: 2/97, The Berean Call.)]
Sproul
sponsored another "Hunger for Significance" Conference
(10/21/9310/23/93), this time in San Diego, California. Besides Sproul himself,
speaking again were Chuck Colson, J.I. Packer, and Chuck Swindoll. In the Conference
brochure Sproul says:
"We
are capable of greatness and wickedness. We hunger for significance, yet we turn
from our Creator ... But even sin can't erase the stamp of God's image upon us.
Even sin can't eliminate our worth. This fall, Ligonier Ministries will examine
the dignity of man during its 1993 conference "The Hunger for Significance." Hear
... explain[ed] our origin, destiny, and calling. See why all people, regardless
of age, size, or health, are valuable. (Emphasis added.)
More
self-love theology from
Sproul comes from his Ligonier Ministries' 2/91 issue of Tabletalk:
"The Bible
commands us to love ourselves. ... the Bible implies that we do not love ourselves
at all. ... Because you are the image of God, to love yourself means to love God.
... Humanity's ... hatred of itself is concealed in what is perversely called
'self-love'." (Emphasis added.)
The 2/14/92, Tabletalk "devotional" has even more of the same. It is attached
here as proof that Sproul's self-love teachings have only gotten worse over time.
Yet, contrary to this teaching, the Bible teaches that no man ever yet hated his
own self (Eph. 5:29), and warns that in the last days, men will not be haters
of themselves, but instead, lovers of self (2 Tim. 3:2). Sproul's brand of self-love
is evidence of unbelief in the last days.
Sproul's
7/91 Tabletalk had an article by William H. McDowell, a
staffer at Sproul's Ligonier Ministries, which praised Mortimer Adler and compared
him to the Caleb of the Bible. Yet Adler openly admitted that he could not understand
Christianity, made no profession in any religion, and refused to talk about his
own faith, leaving the room if anyone asked him about it. (Reported in the 1/15/92,
Calvary Contender.)
Sproul
endorsed James Dobson's 1994 book When God Doesn't Make Sense, in
which Dobson makes the blasphemous suggestion that we should forgive God! Dobson
says:
"There
is only one cure for the cancer of bitterness, that is to forgive the perceived
offender. Once and for all, with God's help, as strange as it seems, I am suggesting
that some of us need to forgive God for those heartaches that are charged to His
account. You've carried resentment against Him for years. Now it's time to let
go of it. [Dobson now tries to escape the blasphemy he's just uttered, but he
is unsuccessful.] Please don't misunderstand me at this point. God is in the business
of forgiving us, and it almost sounds blasphemous [it is!] to suggest that the
relationship could be reversed. He has done no wrong and does not need our approbation.
But the source of bitterness must be admitted before it can be cleared. There
is no better way to get rid of it than to absolve the Lord of whatever we have
harbored. ... It is the only way you will ever be entirely free. ... Corrie ten
Boom forgave an SS guard who shared responsibility for the deaths of her family
members. Surely we can forgive the King of the Universe who sent His only Son
to die as an atonement for our sin." (Emphasis added.)
The very fact that we would have anger towards God, the One who can do no wrong
and is perfect in every way, and that we would feel like we need to forgive Him,
is wickedness and a total affront to His holy, righteous character! How could
Sproul endorse this blasphemy?
On
11/7/93, the John Ankerberg Show began a six-week series titled, "Eight Biblical
Scholars Defend the Bible." At
the end of each program, Ankerberg ran a premium offer promo for Kay Arthur's
International Inductive Study Bible (IISB). (Kay Arthur heads up Precept Ministries
in Chattanooga, Tennessee, a women's Bible study ministry. Mrs. Arthur is ecumenical
and neo-evangelical, and even teaches charismatic spiritual warfare techniques
[Lord, Is It Warfare?, pp. 280-323].) One of those appearing on tape (on four
of the five programs) to endorse the IISB was R.C. Sproul. (Sproul also wrote
a jacket endorsement for the IISB, and Arthur spoke at a Sproul Bible conference
in Orlando 2/3/94-2/5/94.)
Announced
at a press conference on 3/29/94 was an ecumenical declaration titled "Evangelicals
and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium"
(ECT). The negotiations toward the declaration were initiated in 9/92 by Chuck
Colson and Richard Neuhaus (former liberal Lutheran clergyman [ELCA] turned Catholic
priest) under the auspices of the ecumenical and theologically liberal Institute
on Religion and Public Life (headed by Neuhaus). The declaration starts with "We
are Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics who have been led through prayer,
study, and discussion to common convictions about Christian faith and mission."
It goes downhill from there. The coalition specifically called for an end to aggressive
proselytizing of each other's flocks (in effect, a mutual non-aggression pact).
The signers of the Accord also confessed their past sins against Catholic/Protestant
unity.
The declaration said:
"All
who accept Christ as Lord and Savior are brothers and sisters in Christ." This
conveniently ignores the fact that Catholics espouse a works-salvation false gospel!
In a revealing admission of what brought these groups together, some signers said
it was the experiences of worshiping together in the charismatic movement and
working together in political causes such as anti-abortion [Moral Majority for
example]. In fact, one writer correctly assessed that the declaration "amounts
to a truce on theological issues so that the parties can continue to cooperate
on political issues."
Forty people signed or endorsed the document (20 Catholics and 20 so-called evangelicals),
including Protestants J.I. Packer, Pat Robertson, Bill Bright, Os Guinness, and
Mark Noll (a historian at Wheaton College who said, "Evangelicals can no longer
consider Catholics as ogres or anti-Christs"). Catholic endorsers included six
priests, three bishops, one Archbishop, and one Cardinal. By joint declaration,
then, J.I. Packer and friends have, in effect, declared the Protestant Reformation
a tragic mistake!
In
January of 1995, the neo-evangelical host of the John Ankerberg Show announced
a 2/8/95 seminar to be held at Catholic-sympathizer D. James Kennedy's church
(Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church,
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida). Other participants in the seminar (to supposedly expose
the errors in the ECT) were Ankerberg, Kennedy, John MacArthur, and R.C. Sproul.
[Ankerberg produced a 6-part video series of this seminar (titled "Protestants
and Catholics: Do They Now Agree?"), and aired it on six consecutive Sunday evenings
starting 3/5/95. Sproul was seated on the grandiose stage with MacArthur and Kennedy,
while Ankerberg stood at a table in the audience, serving as host-moderator.]
The ECT
Accord generated so much heat in Protestant ranks, that Colson found it necessary
to call a meeting in January of 1995 to try "to achieve a measure of understanding,
clarification, and harmony around the truth recognized by historic orthodoxy"
(1/25/95 Prison Fellowship News Release--"Evangelical Leaders Resolve Differences
On Evangelical-Catholic Paper"). Attending the 1/19/95 peace meeting (also held
at Kennedy's Coral Ridge facility) were ECT signers Colson, Packer, Bright, and
Kent Hill, along with a group of so-called evangelicals critical of the ECT (i.e.,
the "anti-ECT group")--John Ankerberg, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, D. James Kennedy,
Joseph Stowell, Michael Horton, and John Woodbridge.
After the meeting, Colson, Bright, Packer, and Hill issued a joint doctrinal statement
supposedly clarifying their position on the ECT. However, no changes to the ECT
were recommended, nor would any of the original signators remove their names from
it. Ankerberg, MacArthur, Kennedy, Sproul, et al., did not sign this clarification
agreement, but they did help write it, and the clear implication was that they
agreed that this new statement satisfactorily answered any concern one might have
over the content of the original ECT! [See Colson's 1/25/95 news release; the
3/6/95 Christianity Today, "Evangelicals Clarify Accord with Catholics," pp. 52-53;
and the 6-part John Ankerberg Show video series (titled "Protestants and Catholics:
Do They Now Agree?"). Concerning the latter, Ankerberg stated eight different
times over the course of the six programs that he and the others in the anti-ECT
group helped write the so-called clarification agreement.]
On
Ankerberg's second program, the program's participants agreed that it was possible
to have "parachurch cooperation with evangelically committed Roman Catholics
for the pursuit of agreed objectives"
without implying "acceptance of Roman Catholic doctrinal distinctives or endorsement
of the Roman Catholic church system"! (1/19/95 "Statement By Protestant Signers
To ECT," paragraph #1). It didn't seem to bother them that this statement,which,
by their own admission, they helped write, does not agree with what God's Word
says! (Amos 3:3 states: Can two walk together except they be agreed?) R.C. Sproul
and his neo-evangelical brethren have now, in effect, stipulated to words that
are in direct conflict with the Word of God! God says if you fellowship with unbelievers
in joint projects, you have identified with the doctrine of the co-participants
(see also 2 John 9-11).
In Ankerberg program #3, Sproul terms Catholic theology as it relates to the person
of Christ, "heroic" and "consistent." The problem with Roman Catholic theology,
according to Sproul, is its concept of the work of Christ, not the person of Christ--if
Catholics would only "repent of their rejection of sola fide," Sproul says he
could sign the ECT accord!! After all, Roman Catholics are correct ("heroic" and
"consistent") on all the other "essentials" of Christian doctrine; i.e., the person
of Christ. And in program #4, Sproul stated that the clarification agreement averted
"a theological war" within Protestantism. What incredible naivet�!
"[Sproul] ... and the others
thus lend credence to, serve as 'bridges' to, and refuse to separate from, those
who promote ecumenical endeavors with Roman Catholics. The 'clarified' ECT Doctrinal
Statement changed nothing" (5/1/95, Calvary Contender).
[Note: Sproul also signed an agreement drafted in 6/95 by J.I. Packer and Michael
Horton titled, "Resolutions for Roman Catholic and Evangelical Dialogue." This
document encouraged Catholics and Evangelicals to join together when "Christian
values and behavioral patterns are at stake," but the union is not to be regarded
as agreement in doctrine! It also accepted as fact that the Roman Catholic Church
contains many believers.]
Sproul
is on the board of CURE/ACE (Christians United for Reformation/Alliance of Confessing
Evangelicals), a Philadelphia-based
Reformation "think-tank" with the vision "to enable evangelicalism to rediscover
its roots in the writings of the Reformers and to heighten awareness of the ideas
and methods developed by those Reformers in addressing the issues of their day.
The organization is not sectarian or separatist but is concerned to enable denominations,
or groups within denominations, to recover a sense of identity or purpose." (Emphasis
added.) Moreover, "The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals exists to call the
church, amidst our dying culture, to repent of its worldliness, to recover and
confess the truth of God's Word as did the Reformers, and to see that truth embodied
in doctrine, worship, and life" (ACE/CURE Internet Web Site--6/97).
It is clear that Sproul
and the CURE/ACE organization see themselves as the protectors/defenders of Reformed
theology and true Christian worship in the evangelical church. However, as stated
above, Sproul has no intention of letting the Biblical doctrine of separation
get in the way of the perverted view that doctrinal strength comes through ecumenical
unity.
Michael
Horton is the president of CURE/ACE. In
his earlier works, Horton often hinted at his baptismal regeneration views, but
it was always somewhat unclear as to where he was coming from. However, in his
latest book, In The Face of God, Horton leaves no doubt as to his views on how
one receives Christ. R.C. Sproul has endorsed this book. Note the following quotes:
(Emphases added.)
It is one thing for an evangelical to believe that the Word is a means of grace.
It is quite another to add that the sacraments are a further means of grace. Even
the word "sacrament" sounds "Catholic" to many evangelical ears. In fact, it is
a biblical concept. ... (p. 139). The sacraments serve the same purpose as the
Word itself, not only offering or exhibiting God's promise, but actually conferring
His saving grace by linking us, through faith, to Christ and His benefits (p.
141).
The
Roman Church undermined the importance of God's ordained sacraments by adding
sacraments of their own. The Anabaptist enthusiasts undermined them by reducing
the efficacy of the two sacraments [Baptism and the Lord's Supper] Christ instituted
(p. 142).
Furthermore, a sacrament not only reveals; it confers. Through Word and sacrament,
God actually gives that which he promises in his gospel--forgiveness of sins,
freedom from the tyranny of sin and eternal life. The sacraments not only testify
to or signify divine activity in salvation, but are part of that divine redemptive
activity (p. 219).
Nothing other than the Word, baptism, and the Lord's Supper are given this place
by God as a means of grace (p. 219).
In saying that baptism is a means of grace, Horton (and Sproul by his endorsement)
confuses God's Grace and human works. Grace is defined Biblically as the demonstration
of love/favor that is unearned, undeserved, and unrepayable; God imputes merit
where none previously existed and declares no debt to be where one had been before.
Grace is not dispensed on the basis of good works, including the good work of
baptism.
Baptism, therefore, is not "a means of saving grace." Rather, grace is God's unmerited
favor in choosing us before time began (2 Tim. 1:9). Grace is Christ dying in
our place (Heb. 2:9). Grace is the work of God in our hearts bringing us to saving
faith (1 Tim. 1:14). We proclaim the "gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24),
and when this Gospel is believed, the person is saved (Rom. 1:16). The gospel
is the message of God's kind and gracious undeserved favor which He has provided
for our salvation (1 Cor. 15:1-4). The way Christ is received is by faith (John
1:12), not by baptism or any of the other sacraments. Faith is a matter of the
heart--"For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness" ... (Rom. 10:10).
How serious is
the error of baptismal regeneration? It is FATAL! Paul defines
true believers as those who "worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ
Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh" (Phil. 3:3). He goes on to say that
he had "suffered the loss of all things, and do count them [but] dung, that I
may win Christ, And be found in Him, not having mine own righteousness, which
is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness
which is of God by faith" (Phil. 3:8-9). "All things" means all things, including
all good religious rituals and exercises. In order to gain Christ, a person must
completely reject everything else as meritorious for salvation and TRUST in Christ
ALONE. EVERYTHING must be counted as a total loss. Paul counted it "dung." Why
such strong language? Because if you trust in anything other than Christ alone
it will DAMN your soul!
In June of 1997, a reader wrote to Sproul asking him how he could endorse Horton's
book. Sproul's assistant, V.A. Voorhis, wrote back that Sproul is not saying that
baptism is "the" means of grace, only "a" means! Substituting circumcision for
baptism, isn't this exactly what the Judaizers were saying in Galatia (Gal. 1)?
Voorhis claimed that Sproul rejects baptismal regeneration as "a classic principle
of Reformed theology ... Baptism is not the instrumental cause of justification
but a means of grace God uses to proclaim His Word." This is playing word games
that result in the denying of Scripture.
Biblical Discernment Ministries
______________________________________________
VIDEO:
R
C Sproul's love affair of Thomas Aquinas
Is
Sproul an agent provocateur of the Roman Whore? Hmmmmmm
R
C SPROUL IS A PARTIAL PRETERIST This
son of belial claims that the rapture of the Church is modeled after the return
of the Roman soldiers to Rome in triumph after a military campaign.
