“Liberalism was present among the Baptists of the British Isles, but it was covered over by professions of loyalty to the evangelical faith and not publicly debated. Charles Spurgeon…was not easily fooled by outward appearances, however. Not only was he a great preacher, but he possessed a deep understanding of doctrine and a strong commitment to the old fashioned faith of the apostles.”
(JD Hall – Pulpit & Pen) At one time, the G3 Conference was – along with the Shepherds’ Conference – considered by many of us to be the benchmark of the solid Christian conference. With names that are almost venerable to conservative evangelical believers – Paul Washer, Voddie Baucham, et al – the conference was seen largely as a flashy display of brilliant orthodoxy. …
The climate in evangelicalism has changed – as well as the speaking roster at the popular Atlanta conference – and many are questioning whether it’s prudent to attend the get-together happening this week and others are asking if it’s proper for certain speakers to speak alongside others who they themselves admit are theologically problematic.
My contention, as with the Shepherd’s Conference, is that the compromise (there is no other word to describe it) of good and honorable men to take the stage with those guilty of teaching subversive theology (for surely this how men like Josh Buice, Phil Johnson, Justin Peters, and other signers of the Dallas Statement have already described the social justice taught by David Platt, John Piper, and Mark Dever, although perhaps afraid to speak their name) is inexcusable. My use of the term inexcusable does not mean damnable but merely means that their claiming that social justice is subversive and dangerous for our Gospel witness while simultaneously locking arms with the greatest proponents of said error cannot be defended intellectually or honestly. It can only be answered (as it has thus far been) with guffaws and eye-rolls rather than their characteristically thoughtful argumentation.
My invoking of the name Spurgeon in this article is not because I believe him the thirteenth Apostle and not because the Prince of Preachers is the infallible rule of faith and practice. I invoke the name Spurgeon because I believe it’s a name revered by many of the men speaking at G3 who ought to know better than to do what they’re doing. Surely if they respect our elder brother, Spurgeon, they ought to care about what that man would think about their stance (or lack thereof) on the topic of doctrinally ecumenized compromise. If they are going to quote the man (which they have and will continue to), they should at least give a farthing of thought about what he would think about them.