In the Historical Introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will the writers say this: “These things need to be pondered by Protestants to-day. With what right may we call ourselves children of the Reformation? Much modern Protestantism would be neither owned nor even recognized by the pioneer Reformers. The Bondage of the Will fairly sets before us what they believed about the salvation of lost mankind. In the light of it, we are forced to ask whether Protestant Christendom has not tragically sold its birthright between Luther’s day and our own. Has not Protestantism to-day become more Erasmian than Lutheran? Do we not too often try to minimize and gloss over doctrinal differences for the sake of inter-party peace? Are we innocent of the doctrinal indifferentism with which Luther charged Erasmus? Do we still believe that doctrine matters? Or do we now, with Erasmus, prefer a deceptive appearance of unity as of more importance than truth?”
Is a deceptive appearance of unity more important than the truth of the Gospel in the SBC? Does doctrine matter anymore? Does Reformed theology and Arminian theology teach the same thing about grace and justification by faith alone? If they don’t, any unity based on something other than vital doctrines will be a deceptive appearance. Could it be a deception that is about the Gospel? Could it be that as the SBC strives for unity that the Gospel will be obscured by that very unity? A true unity can only happen around a true Gospel. The differing parties within the SBC must not be unified apart from the Gospel or it will be a deceptive appearance of unity and perhaps a denial of the Gospel itself. We are not talking about matters that can be minimized and glossed over.
For many years Roman Catholicism has talked about wanting unity. For years previous to the Reformation it wanted to keep its unity. But the unity it kept was a unity in denying the Gospel. This is not to say that there were no people within Roman Catholicism that did not believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But it is to say that for Rome, unity was the goal and the unity they kept was at the expense of the Gospel. Rome had a semi-Pelagian theology and it was unified around it. Luther came on the heels of Wycliffe and a few others and thundered forth a Gospel that was all of grace and which destroyed the pride of man and established the glory of God in the Gospel. Luther and Rome had a lot of conflict and along came Erasmus as the champion of unity and peace. He tried to minimize and gloss over the differences in order to have unity. Luther would have none of it and his volume in reply to Erasmus was a display of the glory of God in a whole grace toward fallen and sinful humans.
There are many parallels within the SBC and other denominations to what went on during the time of the Reformation. The cry to increase baptisms is not the same as the cry to proclaim the Gospel of grace so that that God’s glory in the Gospel would be declared. The cry to get the people down the aisle and get people to make decisions is not the same as calling people to deny themselves and cry out for the mercy of a holy and sovereign God. Tetzel sold indulgences which gave people a card which paid for their sin before they committed it. Forms of theology in the SBC and other denominations right now have people come up an aisle, pray a prayer, apply the water, and then tell them that they will be lost no matter what they do. Which is worse? Can anyone who holds to the Gospel of Jesus Christ be united to a perversion like that? This is not to say that a person who is truly saved will ever be truly lost, but it is to say that when people are saved from hell they are saved from the power of sin. Jesus Christ is Lord over all that He saves and He will not allow His people to live a life of unrepentant sin.
The SBC and other denominations have had and still have trouble with people misusing money. Perhaps that is minimizing and glossing over the issue, but there has been trouble with that. Can we stand around and point at Rome without dealing with our own house? What the SBC needs is a true Reformation. Bringing conservative men into leadership is better than having liberals there, but that does not mean that a true Reformation and revival have taken place. A unity that takes place without a thorough Reformation will be nothing but a deceptive appearance. There is no way that any form of unity should take place within the differing groups of the SBC apart from a thorough Reformation. The “good ole boy” system must be thrown out and men must begin to seek God for godly leadership that is solid in doctrine. Many conservatives must cast out their legalism and others need to cast out their libertine doctrines. The only way for that to be done is for some Reformed men to stand up and declare the Gospel of the glory of God in the face of Christ. “Unity” is but a word without Reformation and solid doctrine.
God Loves... Himself 
Leave a comment