Is the Active and Passive Obedience of Christ a Shibboleth? Edith Humphrey Does Not Think So

[Nota Bene:  Looks like the links to the audio have been removed and no longer work.  Sorry about that.  Charlie, 11/28/2012.]


I was listening to this talk by Edith Humphrey at the Wheaton College Conference: A Dialogue with N. T. Wright. Her talk is entitled, "Glimpsing the Glory—Paul's Gospel, Righteousness and the Beautiful Feet of N.T. Wright." About five minutes or so into the talk she mentions a fund raising campaign at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary where Humphrey teaches. Pittsburgh is supposed to be a "conservative" and "evangelical" seminary, or as much as that is possible in the PCUSA at least. During the phone campaign one prospective donor said, "When you can tell me the difference between Christ's active and passive obedience, then I will make a donation." Humphrey goes on to portray herself as more "open and tolerant" than the caller who presented a "shibboleth" or test of fellowship. I suppose Humphrey has no shibboleths of her own? Perhaps "tolerance" and "openness" is a shibboleth of Neo-Evangelicalism?

But knowing something of Humphrey's background I can say that she is from the Salvation Army and her theology is completely Arminian at best. She thinks, as most Arminians do, that those who have not heard the Gospel will be judged by the light they have and maybe they even have an unconscious faith in Jesus? Sounds like universalism or liberalism to me. That Pittsburgh Theological Seminary is supposed to be Reformed yet hires openly Arminian and even liberal scholars cuts against its alleged Presbyterian heritage. The fact is Pittsburgh is for all practical purposes a liberal seminary. That Wheaton College would invite "dialogue" with liberals who are enemies of the Gospel is beyond me, particularly in the case of N. T. Wright.

Clearly the purpose of this conference is to undermine Evangelicalism in general and the classical Reformed position in particular. It is time for Reformed and Evangelical Christians to stop tolerating tolerance and instead preach the Gospel boldly. No compromise is something I learned when I was a classical pentecostal. Let us apply it here as well. Why dialogue with devils and hirelings who have no interest in the biblical Gospel?



Edith Humphrey who is now an Anglican seems to think the test of Christian fellowship is tolerance, not sound doctrine. This is what is wrong with Anglicanism and with broad Evangelicalism. What we need is a return to polemical and dogmatic theology centered on sola Scriptura, not reason exalted above both Scripture and tradition. Scripture is the final shibboleth by which we test doctrine. Therefore, the active and passive obedience of Christ is a doctrinal shibboleth because it is taught in Scripture and is therefore is binding doctrine.

Humphrey's attack on the doctrine of justification by faith alone in this talk is likewise appalling. She creates a strawman caricature of justification by faith alone and calls it fideism and individualism, which ignores the full orbed systematic exposition of the doctrine in the larger Reformed context. Her credibility decreases with every word she utters against Scripture and the Reformed faith.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost;
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.

http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/

www.reasonablechristian.blogspot.com