R.C.Sprouls Teaching On Reformed Theology

Back in the day,1994-2004 before I came to EvC Forum, I experienced a lot of indoctrination and teaching from various Pastors and teachers. I never knew the difference between denominational beliefs and philosophies among Christians (or anyone else, for that matter) and was happy sticking with what I felt comfortable with after my salvation experience in late January 1993. I believed then close to the same as what my understanding is of how Faith believes now.(Our member Faith)

In this topic, I want to study one of the teachers whom I really looked up to back then and whom I am comfortable enough to question now. In addition, and specifically, I wish to use his own teaching materials and bring them up for questioning and critical analysis in this topic.

The reason that I have chosen R.C. Sproul, and specifically his website, Ligonier Ministries is because although he sells plenty of books and teaching articles on Christianity, it has always been a well-organized compilation of the basic thought and belief that I was exposed to many years ago. Jar made the claim that Sproul was a Calvinist, and I was curious if this was in fact true.

Needless to say, the website confirmed the assertion and also brought up memories of how I myself was taught. I am not out to defend R.C. Sproul or Calvinism, or Reformed Theology nor am I out to attack it---I simply want to articulate what the teachings are and contrast them to some of our ongoing Theological discussions here at EvC.

Faith & Belief, please.

This topic all started because I called jar on him saying that RC Sproul had some stupid ideas. jar then informed me that Sproul was a Calvinist. Odd that I had never made the connection. I realized that jar believed that Biblical Christianity was a culture of ignorance, and I saw it in Faith but not in myself.

Just today, I perused Sprouls website and saw a lot of assertions worthy of discussion. Some quick quotes from his website:
(Keep in mind that although he sells a lot of books and stuff, I have traditionally looked to him as a source for explaining what Faith would call traditional Christian belief.)

quote:

---

...As C.H. Spurgeon once said, Reformed theology is nothing other than biblical Christianity.

---

Wiki writes: Robert Charles Sproul (/sproʊl/ SPROHL;[3] born February 13, 1939) is an American Calvinist theologian, author, and pastor. He is the founder and chairman of Ligonier Ministries (named after the Ligonier Valley just outside Pittsburgh, where the ministry started as a study center for college and seminary students) and can be heard daily on the Renewing Your Mind radio broadcast in the United States and internationally[4]. Renewing Your Mind with Dr. R. C. Sproul is also broadcast on Sirius and XM satellite radio.[5] In late July 2012, a new Christian internet radio station called RefNet (Reformation Network)[6] was also announced by Ligonier Ministries in an effort to reach "as many people as possible" where Internet access is available.[7] Ligonier Ministries hosts several theological conferences each year, including the main conference held each year in Orlando, FL, at which Sproul is one of the primary speakers.[8]

It also notes:

Sproul holds degrees from Westminster College, Pennsylvania (BA, 1961), Pittsburgh-Xenia Theological Seminary (M.Div, 1964), the Free University of Amsterdam (Drs., 1969), and Whitefield Theological Seminary (PhD, 2001). He has taught at numerous colleges and seminaries, including Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando and Jackson, Mississippi, and Knox Theological Seminary in Ft. Lauderdale.[1]

Thus, RC Sproul is the heart and soul of Biblical Christianity. Lets examine some of his teachings, shall we?

jar writes: Look these up; the Reformed Movement, John Knox, George Whitefield (sometimes spelled Whitfield) as basic reading before getting into Sprouls position itself.

Give me a few days to compile my replies as I digest the information. I want to go slow with this one.

For the purposes of understanding RC Sproul in context, how far back should I go?

All the way to Luther or should I focus on England?

I have looked up the three things that you mentioned, but I went off and read a bunch of other stuff. The Council of Constance: Sacrosancta, 1415 for example. It has been 17 years since I took the Western Civ college course, and to be honest, I crammed the exams and did well grade-wise, but retained little of this information which i am rereading from my Western Civ book.

Edited by Phat, : added

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I want you to do me a favor, LamarkNewAge. Do NOT clutter this topic up with your usual copy pasta. I am taking great pains to edit my posts, add in the relevant links, and keep them concise. I read some of the stuff which you post in your other topics, but I want this particular topic to focus on where Sprouls influence and belief sprang from, how it came to America, and why the current group around RC Sproul, including John Piper focus on the things that they do.

For the record, RC Sprouls full quote is attributed to his mentor, John Gerstner. In context:

quote:

---

Roman Catholics view the canon as an infallible collection of infallible books. Protestants view it as a fallible collection of infallible books. Rome believes the church was infallible when it determined which books belong in the New Testament. Protestants believe the church acted rightly and accurately in this process, but not infallibly.[Source: R.C. Sproul, Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology, 58].

---

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

You also asked me to look up George Whitfield(or Whitefield) and I found this:

George Whitefield, also spelled Whitfield, was an English Anglican cleric who was one of the founders of Methodism and the evangelical movement. Born in Gloucester, he matriculated at Pembroke College at the University of Oxford in 1732.(...) An actor by training, he would shout the word of God, weep with sorrow, and tremble with passion as he delivered his sermons. Colonists flocked by the thousands to hear him speak. He converted slaves and even a few Native Americans. Even religious skeptic Benjamin Franklin emptied his coin purse after hearing him speak in Philadelphia. Soon much of America became divided. Awakening, or NEW LIGHT, preachers set up their own schools and churches throughout the colonies. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY was one such school. The OLD LIGHT ministers refused to accept this new style of worship.

Christianity Today writes: America’s Great Awakening was sparked largely by Whitefield’s preaching tour of 1739–40. (...)John Wesley is known as founder of the Methodist movement, but Whitefield formed a methodist society first. In fact, Whitefield pioneered most methods used in the 1700s’ evangelical awakenings: preaching in fields rather than churches, publishing a magazine, and holding conferences.(...)Whitefield preached at both Harvard and New Haven College (Yale). At Harvard it was reported that “The College is entirely changed. The students are full of God.” Yet Harvard’s leading professors later wrote a pamphlet denouncing Whitefield.

The Great Awakening

It was noted that the Awakening was spurred by a rebellion towards the Age Of Reason. Man! As i get into this stuff I just keep digging.

The Impact of Enlightenment in Europe

quote:

---

In the wake of political turmoil in England, Locke asserted the right of a people to change a government that did not protect natural rights of life, liberty and property. People were beginning to doubt the existence of a God who could predestine human beings to eternal damnation and empower a tyrant for a king. Europe would be forever changed by these ideas.

---

I am sorry that I am starting to make my own copy pasta after I asked LNA to watch his. I am beginning to see how the pattern of science vs religion developed throughout Europe and am intrigued by how it led to the beliefs we have today.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

jar writes: The biggest threat right now (to this discussion)is simply getting overwhelmed by the many avenues opened for exploration.

I know! I ran up the rabbit trail which is John Locke. I see how the EvC debate between Faith and Reason started even back then.

jar writes: So much of all the different Chapters or Club Christian revolves around the issue of who is the authority and what is authoritative.

Locke commented on this.

Internet Encyclopedia Of Philosophy writes: Although it initially sounds as though Locke has carved out quite separate roles for faith and reason, it must be noted that these definitions make faith subordinate to reason in a subtle way. For, as Locke explains: “Whatever GOD hath revealed, is certainly true; no Doubt can be made of it. This is the proper Object of Faith: But whether it be a divine Revelation, or no, Reason must judge; which can never permit the Mind to reject a greater Evidence to embrace what is less evident, nor allow it to entertain Probability in opposition to Knowledge and Certainty.” (4.18.10, 695). First, Locke thinks that if any proposition, even one which purports to be divinely revealed, clashes with the clear evidence of reason then it should not be believed. So, even if it seems like God is telling us that 1+1=3, Locke claims we should go on believing that 1+1=2 and we should deny that the 1+1=3 revelation was genuine. Second, Locke thinks that to determine whether or not something is divinely revealed we have to exercise our reason. How can we tell whether the Bible contains God’s direct revelation conveyed through the inspired Biblical authors or whether it is instead the work of mere humans? Only reason can help us settle that question. Locke thinks that those who ignore the importance of reason in determining what is and is not a matter of faith are guilty of “enthusiasm.”

And Whitfield was the epitome of enthusiasm!

The Great Awakening seems to have been a backlash against the reasoning of Locke and others.

Edited by Phat, : added

RC Sprouls website has an audio interview which discusses George Whitfield.

The Evangelistic Zeal of George Whitefield: An Interview with Steven J. Lawson

Note that I am keeping in mind the context of these sources and whether the source itself has an agenda to promote or denounce the issues covered.

I'm going to back away from Faith v Reason for this topic, since RC Sproul by nature would disagree with Locke.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Interesting stuff!

quote:

---

The "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" was produced at an international Summit Conference of evangelical leaders, held at the Hyatt Regency O'Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978. This congress was sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Chicago Statement was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham.
The ICBI disbanded in 1988 after producing three major statements: one on biblical inerrancy in 1978, one on biblical hermeneutics in 1982, and one on biblical application in 1986.

---

These evangelical leaders are not simply TV hucksters such as Falwell, Baker, Hagan, Copeland, and Hinn. They collectively represent a core group that teaches what you likely label Biblical Christianity. They are not all in it for the money, but what they share in common is this statement of belief which they signed off on in Chicago. Would you say that they are all willfully ignorant and in fact liars? I mean, to be honest, as I myself read the statement, it contained a lot of what I would want to be true, even if I couldn't prove it to be true. It also contained some material that would raise a lot of questions in my mind. ( I am always unafraid to ask questions.)

What is it in these leaders thought process, belief statement, and overall approach to teaching that we should note?

How would an Anglican or Episcopalian differ in their belief paradigm?

I am still reading Knox and Calvin so we can tie the modern in with the early Reform Movement as we go along. Of that group in Chicago, Sproul is among the most articulate in terms of explaining the positions of what they collectively claim to be Christian Orthodoxy.
I plan on bringing a lot of Sprouls teaching up in this topic for comments and observations. In addition, perhaps we should start another topic on the Chicago Statement itself.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

Take this to another thread. I'll not have this cluttering up my topic.

RC Sproul has extensively dealt with questions regarding his belief paradigm and shows that if nothing else he can at least make a thorough argument.

We talk of the Bible as being the inspired Word of God. Would the men who chose the books to be included in the Bible also have been inspired by God?
He notes:

quote:

---

Modern critical scholarship, which rejects the infallibility of the individual volumes of Scripture and likewise the whole of Scripture, would say that the canon of Scripture is a fallible collection of fallible books.

---

That is the position that you and others here at EvC have pointed out time and time again and supported. Sproul is not dodging the argument and being dishonest.

He elaborates:

quote:

---

The historic Protestant position shared by Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and so on, has been that the canon of Scripture is a fallible collection of infallible books. This is the reasoning: At the time of the Reformation, one of the most important issues in the sixteenth century was the issue of authority. We’ve seen the central issue of justification by faith alone, which was captured by the slogan the Reformers used: sola fide, “by faith alone [we are justified].” Also there was the issue of authority, and the principle that emerged among Protestants was that of sola scriptura, which means that Scripture alone has the authority to bind our conscience. Scripture alone is infallible because God is infallible. The church receives the Scripture as God’s Word, and the church is not infallible. That is the view of all Protestant churches.

The church has a rich tradition, and we respect the church fathers and even our creed. However, we grant the possibility that they may err at various points; we don’t believe in the infallibility of the church. I will say that there are some Protestants who believe that there was a special work of divine providence and a special work of the Holy Spirit that protected the Canon and the sorting process from mistakes. I don’t hold that position myself. I think it’s possible that wrong books could have been selected, but I don’t believe for a minute that that’s the case. I think that the task the church faced and did was remarkably well done and that we have every book that should be in the New Testament.

---

One may argue that every religion believes that the right books were selected for the belief statement of that religion. Even you yourself read what the Bible says clearly and use your own wisdom and reasoning to arrive at a learned opinion of what it says.

Sproul has a supportable argument in my mind in how he explains his reasoning. Here is another question he answers: There are so many different interpretations of what the Bible is saying. How do I know which one is right?

quote:

---

We find these same differences of opinion in medicine. One doctor says you need an operation, and the other doctor says you don’t. How will I find out which doctor is telling me the truth? I’m betting my life on which doctor I trust at this point. (...)What do you do when you have a case like that with variant opinions rendered by physicians? You go to a third physician. You try to investigate, try to look at their credentials to see who has the best training, who’s the most reliable doctor; then you listen to the case that the doctor presents for his position and judge which you are persuaded is more cogent. I’d say the same thing goes with differences of biblical interpretations.

The first thing I want to know is, Who’s giving the interpretation? Is he educated? I turn on the television and see all kinds of teaching going on from television preachers who, quite frankly, simply are not trained in technical theology or biblical studies. They don’t have the academic qualifications. I know that people without academic qualifications can have a sound interpretation of the Bible, but they’re not as likely to be as accurate as those who have spent years and years of careful research and disciplined training in order to deal with the difficult matters of biblical interpretation.

---

We all frame issues through the lens of how we are taught to think, how we prefer to think, what the facts say, and what our bias prefers.
Take our ongoing debate regarding the god character lying and the snake telling the truth.....Have we gone deeper into the reasoning as to why a god character would lie, would need to lie, and/or would want to lie? Can we glean any information from the other characters? What would Sprouls likely position be and should we care? What about Augustine? What about the local Episcopalian Pastor? What about our Mother?

You yourself criticize the Chicago Statement for making God out to be a liar and a trickster but have asserted elsewhere that the god character lied. Critics would ask why one character is any nobler than the other?

Of course, Sproul emphasizes Source and asserts and seeks to define Content. He maintains that the god character exists and is the source.

You report on Content, make your own conclusion, and tell us to throw Source away. Comments?

kbertsche writes: At a minimum, I’d say you need to go back to the English reformers (Knox et al) and the Westminster Confession. But you probably should go back to John Calvin as well. And you arguably should go all the way back to Saint Augustine, who was foundational for Luther’s and Calvin’s views. ABE: a good basic starting point might be R.C. Sproul’s booklet, “What is Reformed Theology?”

The problem is if I only use Sprouls booklets to defend Sprouls position, I am limiting myself. We can trace Sprouls beliefs back to Calvin. Critics assert that Calvinism is a vile and disgusting creation of humanity.

The framework of this line of thought is what the grounds of one's belief should be or are. Tradition asserts that the grounds are Scripture alone and Faith alone.

The contrarians maintain that the grounds are logic, reason, and reality and that we are as free and responsible to reach our own conclusions as anyone else.

Everyone makes stuff up, be they poet, prophet, or president. The issue on this topic is how well they support it.

jar writes: As the tales evolve over time the God character first become Mira, the fates, then the offstage voice, and in the New Testament almost non-present.

So logically, instead of Calvinism what would be the logical presentation or depiction of said evolving God character today?

NN writes: I challenge you to come up with an interpretation of Calvinism that is not vile. So far the only defenses I have seen but forward are one version or another of "God is not to be judged" or "If God did it, it is by definition not vile even if I cannot explain why".

So far I can't really find anything. The talks seem to reaffirm Gods sovereignty and don't provide a loophole apart from Christ. Apparently, God gets acquitted due to the fact that he offered Christ and is under no obligation to provide another way.

jar writes: and if Election is true then the God is an vile, evil nasty picayune creature that should be opposed and condemned by every honest and loving individual in the world.

What would be the logical implication of such a stand, however? If humans collectively opposed and condemned God, what should Gods next step be? Try and look at it from the evolving characters point of view...

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Sproul essentially says as much during this brief video.

4 point Calvinists
and McArthur seems to agree.

Sproul elaborates that Reformed Theology is more than simply TULIP, but defends the 5 points.

Norm Geisler, on the other hand, apparently rejects much of Calvinism.

Why I am not a 5 point Calvinist Perhaps that is why the concept was not brought up in Chicago.

Calvinism is one of the Chapters in the Reformed Theology section of Club Christian but there is not even some "Calvinism™" but rather many flavors of Calvinism.

Can you elaborate? What did Sproul fail to address?