In the June 2007 issue of The Banner of Truth magazine an article moved me enough to take a week break from the Beatitudes. We all admit that pride is a problem with those who hold to Reformed theology. But the reason is not the theology but that we are all born with a heart full of pride. The author was Solano Portela and the article entitled “A Sin That Threatens Calvinists-Spiritual Pride.” A main problem with the article is not that the author is wrong about pride being a problem, but with his identification of what that problem is and what it looks like. To put it bluntly, in our day too many Reformed people are watering down the importance of Reformed theology and stressing tolerance and graciousness. While we must be gracious, we must also stand for the truth. Scripture must guide us and not aspects of the ecumenical movement. It is no true sign of humility to be tolerant of teaching that opposes the Gospel.
The heart of the issue is over what the Gospel is and what it means to be converted. It is not one system of theology over another; it is over what the Gospel is and the character of God. Spurgeon has been quoted by many as saying that Calvinism is simply stating the Gospel. If Calvinism is stating the Gospel, then it also defines that which is not the Gospel. That statement was and is either true or false. If false, then let us stop quoting him in defense of a particular theology. But if it is true, then let us defend the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We cannot have it both ways. If what he said is true, then it is not pride to defend Calvinism, it is defending the Gospel. Am I trying to say that Calvinism in all of its manifestations is the Gospel? No, but I am trying to say that whatever the Gospel is we must defend it at all costs.
In the article it is simply assumed that there is a Gospel and that all stripes of Arminians and Reformed people believe it and simply differ on the particulars. That is a naïve approach that is ecumenical at heart and a retreat from what the Reformers defended as the Gospel. In the article spiritual pride is defined: “Spiritual pride ever appears in a despising attitude toward other brothers and sisters in Christ. It harbours the thought that we possess a superior vision. It is the rejection of any need for further learning from others. It does not show the humility of life that God requires of others.” He goes on to say that “spiritual pride has generated many movements within the churches and those often add another category of people, although this is not always openly stated.”
First, in the article a believer in Christ is never distinguished from a non-believer and the Gospel is never distinguished from all other gospels. There are proud people who are Reformed and there are proud people who are Arminian. There are also unbelievers in both of those theological camps. It is not pride to believe that a theological system that sets out the Gospel is better than one that does not. It is not pride to believe that Reformed theology is better than Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, or Greek Orthodoxy. To get closer to home, it is not pride to believe that Reformed theology is better than Pelagian theology. If so, are we so sure that professing Arminians today are not really Pelagians? Are we so sure that many professing Calvinists today are not historical Arminians?
Without clear distinctions and parameters, the waters are muddied before we begin. For example, in a fairly recent so-called debate Paige Patterson and Al Mohler discussed a few issues. They started out with some glowing remarks about each other personally and professionally. They then discussed some differences, but they never really got to the real issues. They were more concerned with being gracious and tolerant than they were with setting out what the Gospel is and the different approaches to it. They were more concerned with saying that both practiced evangelism and that indeed it was important to practice evangelism. But they never talked about the differences that they might have about the Gospel and how to proclaim that Gospel. It was assumed that since both evangelized and that both talked about the Gospel that they both had the same Gospel and both truly evangelized. The assumption was that the differences were not about the Gospel and true evangelism. They should not have assumed those things.
As quoted above, the author of that article believes that spiritual pride does not show the humility of life that God requires. Indeed, that is a correct statement. But true humility before God stands for the truth. Was Martin Luther proud or humble when he stood before the Diet of Worms and stood against the whole world in order to hold to the Gospel? Was he proud when he wrote The Bondage of the Will? To those he opposed it appeared so. Erasmus thought Luther was proud when he said that Arminian or Pelagian thought was not Christian. But if Luther was correct in what he said, then those who opposed him at the Diet of Worms and then Erasmus were the proud ones. He was simply in all humility holding to the Gospel and was ready to die for it. The issue that defined Luther was the Gospel and his being willing to defend it at all costs. He was concerned with the Gospel and not with being tolerant.
In the modern world we are concerned with being gracious, tolerant, and winsome. On the one hand we must be those things, but those things themselves can be a sign of pride. We can be proud of how gracious, tolerant, and winsome we are without knowing that those can be the fear of man in disguise. We can be proud of those that we are tolerant of and proud of how we appear in doing so. But at that point our pride might be blinding us to our pride in actually not holding to the Gospel. If pride is seen in holding to a view too tightly, pride is also seen in not holding to the Gospel tightly enough. If it is pride that judges others, then what of the pride that is quick to judge that others are believers? Both are actually judgments passed. What is it that distinguishes pride from humility at this point? It is the state of the heart before God in terms of why the person is standing for the truth and if what the person is standing for is the truth.
In Galatians 1:6-10 Paul wrote this: “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! 10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.” Was Paul proud in standing up and saying that there was only one Gospel and that he taught it? Was Paul proud in refuting Peter over the Gospel? Was Paul proud in seeking the favor of God over that of men? In biblical reality what would have been pride for Paul would have been for him to be tolerant and gracious in the modern sense of heresy.
Those who are more tolerant, gracious, and winsome than Paul and Luther should examine themselves. Notice the difference between Paul and Peter. We see Peter drawing back over a legalistic stance and not eating with certain believers. Paul drew the line at the Gospel. Peter was in error and should be charged with pride, but surely Paul should not be. He was setting out the Gospel of Christ and not deviating from that in doctrine or life. He was not willing to please men by being more tolerant or gracious. When pleasing men becomes that important, then we are no longer pleasing God. Could it be that when we are so concerned with how others view us that our tolerance and graciousness actually flow from pride? Could it be that our delight in being winsome is not pleasing to God and is from pride? In reality pride is defined in relation to who God is first and foremost. Humility is the proper stance of the creature before its Creator. Humility before human beings is then defined by how we stand before God. Humility before God always stands for the truth of the Gospel despite how it appears to other humans, though it should strive to be gracious in that if possible. The appearance of humility before men may actually be pride in the face of God.
I would like to give three quotes with remarks from the historical introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will. It shows the essence of Luther’s thinking on the issue. “The denial of free-will was to Luther the foundation of the Biblical doctrine of grace, and a hearty endorsement of that denial was the first step for anyone who would understand the gospel and come to faith in God” (pp 44-45). If Luther is correct about what the Bible teaches on this issue, then we must be very careful about those we think are believers and those we accept as brothers in Christ. Arminian teaching denies what Luther believed was a foundation of the Gospel. Can Reformed people believe this with a “hearty endorsement” of that denial if they are more concerned to be tolerant and gracious than to stand for the Gospel? Again, I am not denying that some who claim to be Arminian are converted. I am simply saying that we must be very careful about the Gospel and of what the Gospel is. Are we really Reformed in the historical sense if we are allowing such a wholesale departure from the Gospel and still think it is Christian?
“The man who has not practically and experimentally learned the bondage of his will in sin has not yet comprehended any part of the gospel; for this is the hinge on which all turns, the ground on which the gospel rests” (p. 45). Again we see Luther’s onslaught against “free-will” in terms of the Gospel. The revival that burst throughout the world with the Gospel taught by Luther and the Reformers is precisely the Gospel that denies “free-will” and says that the Gospel itself rests on the denial of “free-will.” We are not children of the Reformers when we accept as Christians those that emphatically deny what the Reformers said was against the Gospel. We must go back to Scripture and see if this is correct. “Whoever puts this book down without having realized that evangelical theology stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will has read it in vain” (p. 58). If Luther is correct, then we must be careful not to assume that Arminians teach the Gospel. We must also be careful not to assume that people who are Reformed teach the Gospel as well. After all, we stand before God and not a system of theology. I will continue writing on this subject on the Spurgeon Blog which can be found at: http://www.sbaoc.org/blog/.
God Loves... Himself 
Leave a comment