Reflecting on Sproul

https://kuyperian.com/episode-101-r-c-sproul-and-his-legacy/

I recently stumbled across this podcast. Brito is known to me through his CREC connections and I noticed Federal Vision sat like an ignored elephant in the room during his interview with Pickowicz.

The interview was in reference to Pickowicz's recent book on RC Sproul which piqued my interest because Sproul was vociferously opposed to Federal Vision and remained so until his death in 2017. The issue was not touched upon but Sproul was on the record that he considered these folks (which would include Brito) as having abandoned the Reformation gospel of Sola Fide – and as such are heretics.

I don't agree with Sproul or the men associated with Federal Vision or even many of the narratives and doctrines associated with the Magisterial Reformation, but on the question of soteriology the Federal Vision faction is (by my estimation) closer to Scripture than was Sproul. The fundamental questions concern the nature of theology itself and on that point I part ways with both camps.

Of course labeling Sproul as a defender of the Reformed faith is also problematic as are many claims to the label 'Reformed' these days. We have New Calvinists, many of whom are charismatic and dispensational claiming the label which is clearly erroneous. It can be argued whether Calvinistic Baptists can be rightly called Reformed or not.

For many, Reformed is synonymous with Calvinistic soteriology and yet the label 'Reformed' embraces a wider set of concepts and doctrines connected with the covenant theological structure of Scripture and an approach to worship and ecclesiology markedly different from not only Rome but Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and certainly contemporary Evangelicalism – of which New Calvinism is a part.

It's on this point that Sproul's bona fides must at least be raised. In terms of his ecclesiology he was officially part of the PCA, but as a celebrity pastor running a big para-church organisation and 'pastoring' an independent Reformed congregation, he played by a very different set of rules and generated no small degree of grumbling and raised eyebrows. But given his celebrity, it was not easy to challenge him and he tended to 'sail above' such controversies. I found it noteworthy that his St. Andrew's Chapel has now (as of 2023) formally joined the PCA – soon after his death but not glaringly so. It was clear enough to many that Sproul wanted to run his organisations outside the direct purview of PCA bureaucrats and so while he preached Presbyterianism he played by a different set of self-interested rules. He's hardly the first or last to do so.

In terms of worship, he cannot be remotely described as Reformed – he was more Lutheran or Anglican and everything about St. Andrew's testifies to this. While I was no fan of his Thomism, the charges by some that this made him 'less than' Reformed are unsustainable as he more or less was in keeping with the tradition – even if (thankfully) some in the Reformed sphere came to realize just how problematic and unbiblical that epistemological-theological and apologetic method is.

As I've written previously, I benefitted in part from contact with Sproul. I first encountered him back in the mid-1990's as I was new to the Reformed faith. He was a gifted teacher and his presentations were such that I could get Fundamentalist Baptists to watch his videos and remain interested – and not too offended.

Over time, my appreciation dwindled. As my knowledge increased I parted ways with him over the aforementioned issues. That said in addition to his tendencies toward rationalism, Scholastic theology, and his romanticized whitewash of the Magisterial Reformation, I began to take great exception to his cultural transformationalism. His postmillennialism was not in the Theonomic style but it was problematic enough. And over time it became clear to me he was given to mammon, celebrity, and a desire to hobnob with power or so it seemed.

Sproul is among a handful of men that easily antedate the rise of what is commonly called New Calvinism and yet he (along with some others) paved the way for it you might say. Many forgave his excesses because he was viewed as a key player in the Calvinist revival and yet the fruits it produced have not always been to everyone's satisfaction – especially in the Confessionalist sphere.

One revelation within the interview genuinely stunned me and I must say it did not help my overall opinion of the man which (as indicated) has dropped significantly over the years. This was the point about Charles Colson and how apparently Sproul was friends with him, respected him, and had considered some kind of joint-ministry project with him. That surprised me as Colson was (to me) a patent fraud and false teacher on a massive scale. It is indicative of a real lack of discernment on Sproul's part – at least from where I'm standing.

Well do I remember the fallout surrounding Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) of which Colson was one of the lead players. I remember Sproul opposing it and the many debates which took place. I remember many being surprised over JI Packer's endorsement of ECT. Over the course of the next several years the more I learned of both Packer and Colson their support for ECT became less and less surprising.

But Sproul was blindsided? What kind of theological discussions had he engaged in with Colson? They couldn't have been very serious. One wonders if Sproul's Dominionism blinded him at this point. I have often reflected on his apologetics debate with Bahnsen. Bahnsen was the Theonomist wholly committed to cultural transformation but Sproul was concerned the Van Tillian apologetic would create too much antithesis and be too inaccessible in order to be effective in the recapturing of Christendom or something to that effect. For Sproul this cultural concern was a big motivator – as it was for Colson. Colson was just willing to make more compromises.

Over time the sharpness of the dispute was lessened in my eyes – I still reject not only ECT but its very premise and goals. What I mean is, Sproul and so many others embraced Francis Schaeffer's notion of co-belligerence, the idea that Protestants and Catholics should work together on social issues. Their dispute with Colson was not the principle of the thing or the assumptions at work (as it would be for me) but simply the fact that he dared to formalize co-belligerence and create institutional-style structures in order to bring it about. Now, thirty years later it's clear enough that Colson won the day. It doesn't mean he was right (not for a moment) but the willingness on the part of even Confessional Protestants to labour for Roman Catholic politicians and endorse them, to seek degrees from their universities, and to share space in publications is telling.

The end result doesn't vindicate Sproul – if anything it just shows that his position was unsustainable. He wanted to transform culture but appears (in hindsight) to have tied his own hands – all the more when we see the burgeoning and ever widening spectrum of the Christian Right.

It's all rubbish of course and the debate is from my standpoint academic rather than a question of principle. ECT was and is wrong as were Schaeffer's and Sproul's assumptions which more or less were bound to result in something like ECT.

The podcast conversation then degenerated into lame questions of 'wokeism' and other such nonsense. And also for champions of the Magisterial Reformation to be concerned with 'statism' is patently ridiculous or should be. They need to revisit their own history for it's painfully clear that the modern Libertarian types have not understood it.

In the end, the episode was interesting if a bit superficial. As far as Sproul, the word that comes to mind is overrated. He played his small part in my formation but I quit recommending his materials well over twenty years ago. The revelations and reflections found in this podcast did nothing to change that.

I did however enjoy thinking about Brito's reference to a snowy night in Altoona – and I must say Ligonier, Pennsylvania is a fantastic little town that I would take any day over anything Florida has to offer. Also, I do work for some older men that are from the Pittsburgh area that are right around Sproul's age. And it's funny because their speech patterns match his - my wife also picked up on it. And so every time I speak with them, oddly enough I think of RC Sproul.