Frank

Cheryl, you’re correct when you say that if you are convinced that some doctrine is the very truth of God’s Word, and you actively stand firm for it, it can be costly, in many ways. I know this from experience, not only in terms of the equality of men and women in Christ, but also in terms of the Law and Gospel controversy. And so let me tell you a little more of my own story. Some years ago, I was ordained and served as both a deacon and adult Bible teacher in a little Calvinistic Baptist; I also served two terms as Moderator of a group of Presbyterians, Christian Reformed, and Calvinistic Baptists gave presentations and discussed how the Gospel was to be applied to the intellectual, moral and socio-political issues of today. In the latter group, my historical premillennialism was tolerated, but when certain members started promoting Theonomy (i.e., the modern Christian was bound to observe the moral and civil law of the OT), I stood firm for the New Testament teaching that we are only bound by the Law of Christ, which involved our living by the teaching and example of Christ and his apostles, as illuminated and applied by the Holy Spirit (cf. Matt. 28:18-20; 1 Cor. 9:19-23). For this, many denounced me as an antinomian, a despiser of God’s Word, a liberal, etc. And then six months later, in a controversy about “women in the church,” I was the first to stand up and argue for the Egalitarian position. The negative response to this was even worse, with some wanting me to be removed as Moderator and to go through a “heresy trial,” such as they conducted in Presbyterian churches. And believe me, this wasn’t fun to experience or deal with. But not only was I committed to Christ and his Gospel, but faithfully living by the Reformation principles that I had thought we all agreed on and sought to live by: That Scripture is the final rule by which all Christian doctrine and practice is to be measured and judged; and that the Church is to constantly reform its beliefs and practices according to God’s Word, as so led by the Holy Spirit. However, I soon discovered that when you tried to apply this to the “set and preferred interpretation” of the majority, people didn’t like it and strongly resisted any call to renewal and reform. And Mike Seaver, in his case, may be facing a similar situation if he both changes his position and actively promotes the truth. So we shouldn’t be to harsh on him.