False Dichotomies

by T. Mark Duncan
Introduction
"All Scripture is inspired by God and
Jpr for reproof, for
correctiOn, tor trammg m nghJeousness; (hat
the manofGodmay be adequate, equipped for
every good work." (ll Tim. 3: 16-17).
Few passages in the Bible are better
known than the one quoted above. It
has served as a rallying cry against reli-
gious liberalism and is quoted by nearly
every Presbytery candidate as a proof
text for the Bible's claim to be the in-
spired word of God. It is the biblical
and intellectual basis for Luther's Re-
formation platform of Sola Scriptura.
In the Reformed Church of the
1980's, however, is this very basic pas-
sage really believed? Are the significant
implications of these crucial verses
taught and carried out in the Church?
We live in a day of political, moral, and
religious compromise. This spirit of
compromise has even had a great in-
fluence upon the conservative and Re-
fonned denominations in America.
Many Christians would be horrified if
someone referred to them as religious
liberals. The refusal of twentieth century
evangelical Cluistians, however, to be-
lieve the whole counsel of God reduces
them to functional liberals. Many Chris-
tians today cannot even agree on the pro-
per response of the Church to an ob-
vious evil such as abortion. Not all
Christians even believe abortion Y. evil.
I believe today's tendency to maintain a
middle-of-the-road position on the is-
sues is a natural consequence of the
many false dichotomies we fmd popular
Mark Duncan Is
a PCA minister
presently living
in Vi_rginia
Beach, Virginia.
in the Church of the 1980's.
When I was in seminary I was taught
three things, regarding the ministry,
that have made a continuing impact
upon my thinking and ministry. First, I
was taught to preach biblical truth in
biblical proportions with the biblical
emphasis. Second, I was taught all the
word "Reformed" means is to be radical-
ly biblical. Third, I was taught the
importance of developing in my congre-
gation a thoroughly Christian world-and-
life view.
False dichotomies are inconsistent
with these three very simple but saga-
cious statements. Those holding false
dichotomies teach, often in a subtle
way, that some portions of Holy
Scripture are important while others are
not. Many of these brothers believe that
Reformed denominations should put
less emphasis on doctrinal purity and be
more "broadly evangelical." Thus the
Presbyterian Church in America (of
which I am a member) is very much
split into two camps: the 'IR's
(Thoroughly Reformed), and what I call
the GE's (General Evangelicals). The
'IR's are often criticized by the GE's for
being too concerned about theological
precision.
Are the TR's too concerned with
logical precision? Does Scripture per-
mit less precision for the sake of other
important matters such as evangelism
and church unity? The Bible nowhere
teaches that part of God's truth is es-
sential while the rest is somehow unim-
portant The GE's must be reminded
that the Reformers transformed Europe
and the Puritans transformed the New
World into Christian cultures, not by
seeking the lowest common religious
denominator in their respective environ-
ments, but by boldly proclaiming the
applicability of all of God's Word t() all
of life. Can the reader imagine Luther,
Calvin or Knox negotiating doctrinal
compromise with their opponents for
the sake of "Church growth?" Remem-
ber Paul's exhortation to Timothy: "All
Scripture is inspired by God. . . . " I
submit that it is unbiblical (as well as
unconfessional) to teach that the Word
of God is divided into "important" and
"unimportant" portions. I further sug-
gest that holding on to such false dicho-
tomies leads to a low view of Scripture
inconsistent with biblical Christianity,
especially the Reformed faith. The logi-
cal implications of these false dichoto-
mies will eventually lead to a de facto
denial of the inerrancy of Holy Scrip-
ture.
If readers fmd themselves being
described adversely in my discussion of
false dichotomies, please understand
that it is my heart's desire to call Chris-
tians back to a thoroughly biblical
Christianity. With the myriad of moral
problems we face, America and the
world does not need another middle-of-
the-road denomination, for there are
plenty of them already. Our nation
desperately needs a Church which will
take the whole counsel of God into the
marketplace of ideas. Only when the
Church of Jesus Christ is ready to be
radically biblical will God grant us the
revival that all Christians desire.
The Christian Church in America of
the 1980's is being challenged by four
common false dichotomies:
I. Theology vs. Evangelism
II. Law vs. Grace
III. Sovereignty vs. Responsibility
IV. Christianity vs. Politics
I. Theology vs. Evangelism
"For if the bugle produces an indistinct
sound, who will prepare himself for battle?"
(I Cor. 14:8)
Often, disputes about God's truth are
settled by the statement: "All that is
really important is to know Jesus."
Lost in that statement is the fact that
cultists and liberals claim to know
Jesus, but the Jesus they know is not
the Jesus of the Bible. There are some
leaders in the PCA who erect a false
dichotomy between doctrine and
gelism as if we have to make a choice
between the two. They give lip service
The Counsel of Chalccdon, January, 1989 --------------------------Page 9
to the importance of doctrinal purity
but make statements to the effect that
evangelism is the really important task.
I am certainly nQt belittling the im-
portance of evangelism. It should be a
priority of every Bible-believing church
and of every true Christian. I hope to
demonstrate, however, that it is wrong
to emphasize evangelism at the expense
of truth. I believe Scripture to teach
that God will bring greater blessings to
evangelisti.y efforts if we proclaim
the whole. truth to the unconverted. I
am also convinced that God will bless a
denomination that self-consciously
seeks to obey the Biblical injunction to
be guardiaJ}s of His truth.
The greaJest evangelist of the whole
history of the Church never made such
a dichotomy between evangelism and
truth: Paul J;epeatedly emphasized the
imPortance of sound doctrine. The book
of I Timothy, Paul's instruction book
for pastors, is a vivid example of this
point. Since I Timothy is Paul's blue-
print for the office of elder, we would
expect him to emphasize the truly im-
portant matters. If the Lord wants His
Church to emphasize evangelism over
sound doctrine, we should expect to find
such a teaching in Paul's letter to a
young pastor. There is, however, not
even a ttint of such a dichotomy. Paul
barely {inishes his introductory greeting
before he commandS Timothy to in-
struct men not to teach strange doc-
trines (vs. 3).
Even a cursory reading of I Timothy
reveals that God has called elders to be
guardians of His truth (see I Timothy
1:18; 3:2; 4:1-7; 4:11-13; 4:16; 5:17;
5:21; 6:2; 6:3; 6:14; 6:17-19; and
6:20). One of these passages is particu-
larly instructive. In. I Timothy 4:16
Paul writes: "Pay close attention to
yourself and to your teaching;.persevere
in these things; for as you do this you
will insure salvation for both your8elf
and those who hear you)' In this pas-
sage Paul not only rejects any dichOto-
my between sound doctrine and evangel-
ism, . he establishes the importance of
sound doctrine for effective evangelism.
It is the accurate preaching of the whole
counsel of God that our Lord blesses to
the eternal benefit of sinners.
In an age of Arminian appeals to
man's dead will, sugar coated "gospel"
messages intended to make rebellious
sinners feel good, man-made revival-
ism, it is necessary that this statement
of Paul's to a young pastor be believed
and taught in the Church. If the Church
really started believing this verse. she
would have a lot fewer "decisions" and a
great many more conversions. The min-
istry of Dr. D. James Kennedy of Coral
Ridge Presbyterian Church proves that
there is no need for such a dichotomy
between evangelism and doctrine. While
best known for founding Evangelism .
Explosion, De . . Kennedy also empha-
sizes the necessity of applying all of
the Bible to all of life. It is wrong to
suggest that truth . should be compro-
mised for the sake of evangelism. Jesus
certainly did not compromise the truth.
The rich young ruler went away sad
after:our Lord preached law and commit-
ment (Mk. 10:17-22). In John 6, it is
written that many of Christ's disciples
withdrew from following Him. Why did
they withdraw? Jesus preached the doc-
trine of election (Jn. 6:65, 66).
Another important passage concern-
ing the danger of driving a wedge
between and doctrine is
found in the last four verses of Hebrew$
5: "Concerning Him [Christ] we have
much to say, and it is hard to explain.
since you have become dull of hearing.
For though by this time you ought to
be teachers, you have need again for
someone to teach you the elementary
principles of the oracles of God, and
you have come to need milk and not
solid food. For everyone who partakes
only of milk is not accustomed to the
word of righteousness, foJ: he is a babe.
But solid food is for the mature, who be-
cause of practice have their senses
trained to discern good and evil." (vv.
11-14).
When sound doctrine is de-empha-
sized, a great disservice is done to those
who, despite bad theology, are convert-
ed. They are compared to immature
babes, unable to distinguish good from
evil. They are like good-natured gullible
children who are led astray by evil men.
They ate "carried about by every wind
of doctrine, by the trickery of men ... "
Pagelo-----------------------------------------------------
(Eph. 4:14). Ignorant and childish
Christians are easily taken captive by
the forces of humanism because they
cannot distinguish good from evil.
Without sound doctrine, infantile Chris-
tians cannot discern good from evil.
When God's law is not preached, how
can converts be expected to understand
the proper worship of a thrice holy
God? (See False Dichotomy II: Law vs.
Grace.)
Another place we might expect to
fmd a dichotomy between doctrine and
evangelism is the evangelistic sermons
in Acts. But, a careful examination of
such sermons reveals no such dichoto-
my. Instead, we find the apostles
preaching the doctrines that have come
to be associated with Reformed theo-
logy. Both Peter (Acts 2:23) and Paul
(Acts 17:26) included the doctrine of
predestination in their sermons.
I had the experience of witnessing to
a man I met in Philadelphia several
years ago during the PCA General
Assembly. I developed a friendship with
him as I challenged him with the
claims of Jesus Christ. It was not until
I taught him the doctrine of election,
however, that he made a profession of
faith in Christ!
How did such a false dichotomy
between doctrine and evangelism creep
into the Reformed Church? Undoubted-
ly there are many factors, Probably one
of the worst culprits is a narrow under-
standing of the Great Conunission.
Christ did not commission His follow-
ers simply to witness by using some
imagined Four Spiritual Laws. He com-
manded His followers to make disciples
and to teach them everything He com-
manded. What did Jesus teach? Nothing
short of the whole Old Testament
(Matthew 5:17-19)!
Deuteronomy 28, that great chapter
of covenantal blessings and curses,
teaches us that if God's covenant com-
munity is obedient to the terms of the
covenant, He will richly bless us. The
Church will be the head and not the tail
{vs. 13). If, however, God
1
il covenant
people are not obedient, curses are pro-
mised instead of blessings. One thfug is
certain, a person cannot obey a God
whose commands are not known. The
The Counsel of Cbalcedon, January, 1989
Church of the 20th century has become
the tail and not the head. It has been
said that the Church has been sitting in
the back of h11manism's bus. Instead of
transforming culture, the Church has
been transformed by culture. I recently
heard an advertisement on a Christian
radio station for a certain church. The
church was pitching its new Saturday
evening worship service that was begun
so that Sunday sporting events would
not have to be missed! Truly the
Church of Jesus Christ has become the
tail and not the head when God's laws
are compromised for the sake ()f
entertainment.
The Church of Jesus Christ is reap-
ing all this bitter fruit because of a false
dichotomy. There is not one hint in the
whole of the Bible that it is pennissible
to compromise truth for the sake of
evangelism. Sinners must be told the
truth. It is impossible to evangelize ef-
fectively when sound doctrine is neglect-
ed. Only when the Church returns to
truthful evangelism will the Lord bring
the much needed revival. To paraphrase
Gordon Clark: "When the garage
mechanic and the farmer know the Bible
as well as the theologian (and better
than most modem theologians) then the
desired awakening will have already
taken place."
II. Law vs. Grace
"But one who looks intently at the perfect
law, the law of liberry, and abides by il, not
having become a forgetfo.l hearer but an
effectual doer, this man shall be blessed in
what he does." (James 1:25).
Another false dichotomy plaguing
the Church of the 1980's is the ima-
gined barrier between law and grace. In
many churches law and grace are taught
as though the two are mutually
exclusive. The obligatory Romans 6:14
proof text is often quoted as evidence.
One only needs to drive through a busy
intersection at rush hour, however, to
see how gracious traffic laws can be!
One can only imagine the horror if
there were no laws (with corresponding
sanctions) against theft, murder and
rape. Do away with law and you do
away with civilization.
The problem is that too many
Christians fail to make the same
connection between law and Christian-
ity. If God's holy, righteous law is
abrogated, there is no salvation. In fact,
there could be no existence in a
universe of anarchy. God's laws are the
foundation upon which the universe
rests. God rules and He rules by His
law.
Sin is defmed in terms of law (I Jn.
3:4. Christians must be perfect to enter
the Kingdom of heaven: no sinners will
enter. You may respond that I am
teaching salvation by works. I must say
that I am. We are saved by the perfect
work of Christ. In Christ we receive
perfect righteousness through the work
of God's free grace. This is the doctrine
of justification by faith. When a sinner
repents and puts his faith and trust in
Jesus Christ, that sinner is declared
perfect (sinless) in the eyes of God.
Jesus Christ, in order to be the redeemer
of God's elect perfectly kept the Law of
God and was therefore sinless. Without
law there could be no salvation, no
damnation, and no Christianity.
To pit law against grace is to erect a
false dichotomy. We are saved by God's
free grace alone. But as I have demon-
strated, Christ is qualified to be our
Savior because He kept the law perfect-
ly. Even though most dispensational-
ists now deny it, the logical implica-
tion of their system leads to the con-
clusion that in the "dispensation of
law" salvation was by works. This error
is easy to refute by pointing to the
examples of justification in the early
chapters of Genesis. One such example
is found in Genesis 3:21 where God
covers the nakedness of our flrst parents
with animal skins. Obviously the
animals had to be slaughtered for their
skins. This signified the need for a
substitutionary atonement. The act of
being clothed by the skins signified
justification by an imputed righteous-
ness. Another example is found in
Genesis 15:6 where it is recorded that
Abraham was declared righteous on the
basis of faith. The bloody sacrifices of
the Mosaic economy continually
showed the Israelite of his vile sin-
fulness in the sight of a holy God and
drilled into his mind that acceptance
with God was only through the sacrifice
of the unblemished Lamb. Salvation
never has, nor will ever be on the basis
of personal lawkeeping. Salvation al-
ways has been and always will be on
the basis of the perfect lawkeeping of
Christ, imputed by grace through faith
to repentant sinners.
Having demonstrated that salvation
never has been by personallawkeeping
and that sin is defined in Scripture in
terms of law, then, logically, it is
ridiculous to believe that in the New
Covenant believers are not under law.
This sort of antinomianism can only
The Counsel of Cbalcedon, January, 1989 -------------------------Page 11
lead licentiousness (as has been is not defined in tenns of the law of the . . from destructiveness of
vividly .demonstrated in the past year holy God of the it, becorttes. " idolatry. Keeping the fourth command- .
tm-ough the antics . of . certain TV . complttely arbitrary and . subjective. ment grants us the grace and
evangelists). It is illogical to claim that This reduces morality to art opinion. .rnent of rest and worship one day .in
although believers should never sin While we might expect such illogic _ Observing .the sixth
they ate not under law! Any violatipn from a non-Christian, I am maid the merit our life and the life of
of God's law is sin and to say that .same sort of thinking has invaded the others. Obeying the seventh
God's ten commandments with their evangelicalchurch. Dispensational tlieo: ment wiJ.l prevent the contraction of a:
explanatory case laws are not binding. 1ogian Norman Geisler, mtervl.ewed on of which there is nci cure. The
today is exactly the same as claiming :ain.Moyer's doCumentary on Christian tenth coril:niandment is the .key to con-
that .certain type's of sin alright. Reconstruction, that he seek- tentmeilt irl this life. Above all, obey-
Dear reader, sin is never tolerable. ing a inoral America but not a Chris- ing these oommimdments Jhe
In light of thiS 'J>(evailing antinomian- tian America. stated he was in favor . . God who made us. As one on
ism it is no wonder that most sessions of morality. but' not with Bible as the benefits of obeQience, it is easy to
(even in RefoCJlled churches) exercise the basis of civil law, Again I ask: multiply blessjngs that flow from
little or.no church discipline, especially mortiliry according to what standard? obedience to God's law. Praise God that :
in the area of non-attendance. I believe : Who determines what'i$ moral? Today He has graciously given us His law! .
this is due to the law vs. grace dichoto- some femini&ts have the arrogance to de Modem. Christians . tend to think of
my. While most l!essions (of conseiva- clare tha.t anyone who opposes abortion law as restrictive. The. Pllabnists certahi-
tive churches) woul<;l probably deal with. is irnm!Jral! If moralicy is not based ly did not believe that. Psalm 1 tells us
a practicing aduiterer, few of these same . the eternal law of QOd,' fenunists tbat the one who delights and meditates
sessions would discipline members have every right to make such. a state- upon. the law of the Lord is blessed.
who sufferfromchtonicnon-attendance. rnenti and they cart tell Norm Geisiei- The whoie of Psalm U9 is dedicated to
It is very common among older, that their opinion is as gOod as his. The the graciousness of God's law.
established PCA churches to have twice feminists would be right! One opiriion tian reader, my prayer is that you can
the number on the roll as attend ser- is as good as another. can be honestly sing with the psaJnlist;. ''.0 ..
vices! It must .be pointed out that thankful, that the Christian how I love: Thy law! It is my
professing Christians who habitually ethic is not based man's 'opinion but tion a:n the day. The
refuse to worship God in the as8embly rather on the objective Word of the ma:ke me wiser than my for .
violate at least the fllSt twp (I would Most High .God! Christians must \Jilder they are ever mine" (Ps. 119:97-98). :
say frrst five) conunandments. Here is stand that the only alternative: to God's Church history has repeatedly
the point: The dichotomy law as the . for civil law is demonstrated .that as the Church goes, ..
leads Christians to pick and choose humanism: History. continua:lly reveals so goes the culture. If the .. Christian ,
which of God's they wish to obey. . .that humanistic law leaves a bloody and Church's trumpet is. emitting such ail
This kink of selective obedience in varia- . oppressive trail. The noetic effects of . uncertain sound, why should . we be '
bly leads to licentiousnes!l as well as . sin . have . rendered man incapable of surprised society finds itself in ..
wholesale abandonment . of me regula- . : dispensing justice outSide of Special Such an ethical mess in the 20th Cen ;
tive p.rinciple of worship in many of . . Revelation, There. can' be: no morality ttity? It is because the Church has aban"
our ostensibly Reformed churches. outside.ofthe of God. doned :biblica:l ethics that we fmd our-
There is a tendency among secularistS : Marty Christians seem to :have for.- selves 'in a nation of rampant homo-
and dispensationalists to force a dichoto- <gotten that God designed us aM; has sexuality; :1.5 million abortions an-
my between law arid morality. Many. . graciously given us His peifect so nually, .and a mountirln of debt that
believe a person (or a nation) can be that, if we are careful to follow. it; we sooner dr later will erush us: Beca.use
moral without being Christian. I reeent- get .the inost health and happmess the Chmch of Jesus Christ bas not been
ly saw a television interview featuring O\lt of life. Imagine someone b11)'ihg.an : . faithfulto the provisions of Godis cove
Willem Dafoe, the actor who played tlie new c.ar and throwing the nant during the 20th Century we have
lead role in the blasphemous and con" owner's manual out the window claim- ' been cursed with being 'the tail instead
troversial film The lAst Temptation of fug: "I at1J. ;110t under law, I am under' of the head. We will not become the .
Christ. When asked by Bryant Gumbel grace." We a:n know that if be is reallY .. head again until the di&mantles
if he were religious, ( defmed in temis .of gracious to . that new car (and his :' the dichOtomy between ' law and grace.
prayer, worship, Biblestudy); he replied wcketbook) he will diligently follow The tWo cannot be separated. Any
that he was a "moral" person as op.. . . that owner's manu31. attempt to do so destroys them both . .
posed to a "religious" petson. Theques- : God's law is like.an OWner's manual.. . . ' [.To be continued with Soveteignty
tion tJ}at cries out when an unbeliever If a person it, he will vs. Respansibility and ,Christianity vs.
makes such a statement is this: moral saved from much grief. Politics] .
according to what standard? If lllOJ;'ality Keeping the _first two conunimdments
Page 12 __ ....._ _____ __.;.,;;;,_.;,;,;,;......., ....... --.--......... _--...__--...._---
The of Chalced<m, January, <