I’m not sure when this thought first occurred to me, but I do remember the time when I was first floored by it.
At the small group leaders conference in 2002, CJ prefaced his lecture on the doctrines of grace with this statement:
“The doctrines of grace should only be taught by pastors.”
This was at a SGM small group leaders conference.
If I was as humble as CJ, I guess that statement would have put me in my place.
It didn’t, but the attempt was noted.
In light of this statement, and the whole “standing in the very stead of God” thing, it would not be unreasonable to question SGM’s doctrine of perspicuity.
Wayne Grudem examines the doctrine here. It is worth your time.
Please note the manner in which Dr Grudem speaks. He clearly desires to impress no one. Also very notable is how the doctrine affects his view of polity.
Speaking of SGM, Dr Grudem, and all things notable, apparently Mr. Purswell did not consider Dr. Grudem’s Systematic Theology to be particularly perspicuous, as he felt that it needed to be re-edited, creating “Bible Doctrine”, which some SGM’rs referred to as “Grudem Lite”.
When I pushed Purswell’s “Bible Doctrine” on my teenagers, they preferred Grudem’s original work, having no trouble understanding the original. It would make an interesting study to compare the two, and see what was changed (if anything), but more importantly, what was deleted.
Oh! By the way…this is completely off topic, but am I the only one who finds it interesting that Mr. Purswell is pursuing his Ph.D here?
VERY interesting, Jim.
I wonder what Dr. Grudem would think of all of this…the whole “very stead of God” thing, “only pastors can teach the doctrines of grace”, etc.
I’m thinking he sorta says what he thinks about it…..
Great teaching. Okay, perpecuity means clarity, is that right, Jim?
Now, as to CJ saying that only pastors can teach the doctrines of grace, I have two questions: first, where does he see this in scripture? Second, WHY AREN’T THEY TEACHING IT?
I’ve followed this blog a little bit with some interest since I know someone who is becoming a SGM pastor, visited the church here in Minneapolis, and have read with Mahaney’s books with both encouragment and skepticism in mind.
I’m not at all sold on SGM as a good denomination, but I have to say this post is pretty poor. Grudem is a huge supporter of SGM because he supports their beliefs in charismatic gifting, complementarian gender roles, and the so-called “doctrines of grace.” Grudem fully endorses Purswell’s edits as do many Christian colleges who use “Bible Doctrine” as a textbook for undergrad sys theo classes.
Also, it is not at all unnatural for someone to get a PhD from a university that does not share the grad student’s personal views. Grudem got his from Cambridge which is no bastion of
Thanks for your post Adam,
All of my references to peacemaking obviously are in relation to one man.
SGM is a denomination, and therefore open to public scrutiny.
My main problem with SGM is their polity, of which Grudem is not a fan.
This blog is open to public scrutiny as well, and I appreciate your thoughts.
Interesting teaching.
“
Hi Adam!
I like to keep things simple.
On my post #3, I spelled “perspicuity” wrong.
I started that ball rolling by spelling it wrong in the first place.
Jim,
You’re a humble man, and that was my second chuckle for the day (the first, laughing at my own blunder).
One of the things I’ve noticed in SGM’s polity is the belief in the continuance of “apostle” as an office. While I can see the theological case to be made for this idea, I think it is highly suspect and subject to abuse. In fact, the denomination I am a part of affirmed the title “apostle” in its beginning and naturally reserved it for its founders… who were repeatedly accused of being authoritarian and spiritually abusive. You can read all about it on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.....ssociation
It is interesting to see how SGM parallels GCM in certain respects of its founding and polity. Has Grudem ever commented on the continuance of this office?
I’m not sure Adam. Every copy of sys theo and bible doctrine left my home when my kids left.
I’ve just reordered them both.
Grudem’s functional polity is the polar opposite of SGM’s.
Grudem on Apostles: “It seems no apostles were appointed after Paul, and certainly, since no one today can meet the qualification of having seen the risen Christ with his own eyes, there are no apostles today.”
and again: “Though some may use the word apostle in English today to refer to very effective church planters or evangelists, it seems inappropriate and unhelpful to do so, for it simply confuses people who read
Thanks, Mike.
Thanks Mike! I wonder if this is in Purswell’s revision?
I’m looking forward to a fresh comparison.