Some Futher Thoughts on the Jones/Tchividjian/Rosebrough Kerfuffle

As I’ve continued to watch the kerfuffle over Tullian Tchividjian’s antinomian streak play out on Chris Rosebrough’s Facebook wall, I’ve noticed something peculiar.

There are two questions that for whatever reason Chris won’t answer directly:

  1. “How is Dr. Mark Jones defining ‘salvation’ when he writes ‘good works are necessary for salvation’?”
  2. “Could you demonstrate that you comprehend all of the terms and distinctions that Jones uses in his book?”

Chris has been asked these two questions is dozens of varied forms, and in every case, he hasn’t given a direct answer. And answering these two question correctly (especially the first one) is crucial in this debate. Why won’t Chris answer the question?

But even more troubling is what I can only call a clear case of prejudice against Dr. Jones prior to the interview being aired.

Here’s an example of what I mean:

Rosebrough FB

Leading up to the interview that Tchividijian interview, this is the sort of thing that was already being posted on Chris’s personal Facebook site. When this started showing up in my timeline, my stomach dropped; how could I expect to hear an unbiased interview with Tchividijian with this sort of commentary already appearing?

Not only is this sort of thing prejudicial and highly inflammatory, it’s also one of the clearest examples of constructing a straw-man that I’ve ever seen! I dare Chris to demonstrate that these quotes are at all accurately reflective of the position held and articulated by Dr. Mark Jones, Rev. Rick Phillips, or Rev. Dr. Carl Trueman.

What Chris has demonstrated repeatedly during this kerfuffle is that he continues to judge Mark Jones, et. al., not by the standard of Scripture, nor by the standards of the Reformed Confessions to which Mark Jones, et. al., subscribe, but by the Lutheran Formula of Concord.

Chris, as a discernment blogger and radio host, has long said that no one is beyond having their work checked.

So then why is it that now that he is receiving significant criticism for folks who, unlike Chris, are actually Reformed, he refuses to listen to that criticism?

Could it be that the shoe pinches now that it’s on the other foot?

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Some Futher Thoughts on the Jones/Tchividjian/Rosebrough Kerfuffle

  1. The phrase “necessary for salvation” implies that the good works are prior to salvation. If I told you that you had to have two tickets FOR admission to a museum, I would be making your possession a necessary condition prior to being let in. Our good works are not a necessary condition prior to salvation.

    • Mr. Shedlock, perhaps you can enlighten me in ways that Chris won’t: how is Dr. Jones defining the word salvation in Antinomianism: Reformed Theology’s Unwelcome Guest? I’m thinking specifically of his use of the term salvation on pages 61-70.

      And just as an aside, Dr. Jones explicitly denies that good words are antecedently necessary on the pages I’ve referenced in the above paragraph.

      BMPalmer

      • If that is what he means (that Good works necessarily follow salvation, as a necessary result of salvation) then I would think Lutherans, at least those that aren’s caught in the ‘radical lutheranism’ or ‘radical grace’ error, shouldn’t have a problem with it but would say that the phrase “necessary for salvation” is confusing at best, if that is indeed the phrasing Jones uses.

  2. Just want to emphasize that not all Lutherans agree with Tullian/Rosebrough et al. It has caused quite a squabble.

    With the developments in June Rosebrough said something like “this was not a failure of the gospel this was a failure of grace.” Or some such. It was bizarre. Tullian has come back and being a public voice, saying it is all for us that he’s doing it because otherwise (taking time to deal with his blatant sin in privacy like his wife asked) he would be denying the message he has preached.

    Feeling more and more sorry for his family as time goes on.

  3. And yes, this kind of behavior from Chris is the same stuff he did to others who criticized him when he hooked up with ecumenical/emergent/emerging Dan Kimball and pronounced him orthodox (but maybe not orthoprax).

"I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve." (Romans 16:17-18) Please read "The Comments Policy."

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s