The Two Points of Confusion in the RPC Controversy – (1) Introduction

My hope with this blog series is to help those who might trip over the same doctrinal stumbling blocks as I did during the course of the RPC (Reformed Protestant Church) controversy.

Scripture has many apparent contradictions, or paradoxes – they are what Peter calls “things hard to be understood.” For instance:

• I am already saved / sanctification and glorification are part of salvation
• I am his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works / I am a sinner who produces only filthy rags.
• Salvation is entirely God’s work – it is unconditional / I must work out my own salvation – obedience is necessary

This is not a problem with scripture but a problem with our understanding of it.

These apparent contradictions have come at us repeatedly in the form of questions or accusations:

• “How can you say that salvation does not depend on man if man must be active?”
• “How can you say our works are important when they are nothing but filthy rags?”
• “How can you say man must do something while also saying God does everything?”

Many excellent responses to these questions have been published by men more knowledgeable than I. My intent is not to oppose these men, but to distill the arguments down to what I think are the two basic points of confusion – sanctification and the new man.

It is okay to be confused, and no one is free from doctrinal error. Just because we struggle to answer some questions that the church has struggled with for centuries does not mean we are apostatizing. This suggests another apparent contradiction:

• Scripture is perspicuous. / Scripture is “hard to be understood.”

To understand that one, we must understand that scripture is sufficiently perspicuous, not exhaustively perspicuous, at least not for any one person in this life; and our salvation does not depend on our level of doctrinal accuracy.

The doctrine of the trinity was, and still is, a paradox. Imagine, in the early church before the words “trinity” and “triune” were coined, Christians were arguing about the question “Is God one or is God three?” Turns out the answer is yes, and yes, but it would take many decades of study and debate to settle this question. We would hope that, during these debates, the Christians who were arguing did not condemn each other for defending either side. The man who was proved right was the man who defended both the scriptural teaching that God is one, and also the scriptural teaching that God is three, even though he did not understand how both could be true.

Today we have a similar situation. Back then, the question was – does the person who says God is three thereby deny that God is one? Now the question is – does the person who says man must be active in salvation thereby deny that salvation is unconditional? And, vice versa, does the man who says that every aspect of salvation is God’s work thereby deny that obedience is necessary?

Before discussing the doctrine, I would like to disclose my personal view of the controversy, why I think these doctrinal debates are happening, and why I am writing about it.

• The reason for the original (Hope Church) controversy was some erroneous statements that raised very confusing doctrinal questions.
• The reason the controversy resulted in a split was partly sinful pride, but also a failure to distinguish between incorrect doctrine and false doctrine (see the paper “Doctrinal Exclusionism” on this website.)
• The reason the controversy continues is that the RPC must justify its existence by proving that false doctrine runs rampant in the PRC – specifically the denial of God’s sovereignty in salvation.

The RPC needs disagreements. There is no winning or settling of a debate when the goal of one side is to make the other side look bad. In this blog, my goal is not to score points for “our side” or to prove that we are the only faithful church. I do not consider members of the RPC to be my enemy. I am writing because all these difficult doctrinal questions that have been dredged up from the past are worthy of discussion on their own merit.