Counseling: Yes We Do
Susan and I are starting to get more inquiries about our informal/confidential Bible-centered counseling. This is something that we have never promoted, but it seems to be taking on a life of its own. We do this face to face, via webcam, or voice-only Skype/Oovoo. And it is totally free. You can also remain anonymous through many of these services (e.g., Skype).
Though I have two counseling certificates from NANC (level one and level two) we utterly reject the progressive justification construct of their counseling and that of CCEF. Susan and I believe Christians can really change, and that there is something we can actually do in regard to our problems. We believe that there are many biblical promises to be seized through knowledge and obedience, and the Christian life is much more than contemplationism.
Inquire by email: mail@ttanc.com or pmd@inbox.com, or sdd@inbox.com.
paul
John MacArthur: The Bad, Good, and Ugly
The Bad
Without a doubt, one of the greatest disappointments in my life is John MacArthur’s departure to the dark side of progressive justification leading to a doublespeak and ambiguity that never characterized his teaching in the past. In an article entitled, “Justification by Faith,” he first states that “if sanctification is included in justification….that makes justification progressive….” Then he goes on to state in the same article that the two can never be “separated.” MacArthur now functions in the Reformed world that creates its own reality; we can never separate things that shouldn’t be included. I find this nonsense coming from a man that has been granted awesome opportunity in sharing the gospel intolerable.
Furthermore, associations with hardcore Reformed mystics and the granting of credibility thereof further disturbs. He recently published a pricy theological book with hardcore Reformed mystic Joel Beeke entitled, Justification by Faith Alone: Affirming the Doctrine by Which the Church and the Individual Stands or Falls. This book boldly proclaims that the individual and even the church stands or falls on the gospel of progressive justification. It’s outrageous and despicable.
The Good
But yet, before a recent sermon, MacArthur made a statement in regard to the recent Newtown massacre. He noted that Christians should have answers in the midst of such events. This is a tremendous breath of fresh air as opposed to the usual whiffle dust that Christians offer in such situations. His statement offered powerful points in regard to a Christian worldview on this matter, and offered hope for the victims. He also noted the substantive outreach to the victims in that area by former GCC associates. It was truly a sweet visitation to the MacArthur that I used to know. Yes, a few perspectives made me a little queasy, but I think this 5 minute statement is one that every Christian should ponder, and it can be listened to here: http://www.gty.org/Blog/B1212172#.UNE5ab1IMlY.twitter
The Ugly
Yet, the fact remains that this ministry continues to deal with its share of the havoc being wreaked on the church daily by the false gospel of progressive justification. It is unclear whether MacArthur thinks the doctrine is a valuable supplement, or whether he has totally bought into the whole package. Furthermore, his counseling ministry headed by Dr. John Street offers blanket credibility to NANC and CCEF. Street is the president of NANC. Both of these ministries together constitute 90% of our present-day active biblical counseling. But yet, the counseling of both is grounded in the gospel of progressive justification. This is counseling that denies the idea that people can really change. It is a ghastly misrepresentation of criminal proportions in the name of Christ.
No doubt, remnants of what he formally taught are still present. He has written books that I would still recommend: “Saved Without a Doubt,” and “How to Meet the Enemy.”
BUT, I would only recommend these writings specifically, and would add extreme caution when reading or listening to anything Mac. Time is valuable. A pity that teachers who can be listened to without launching an investigation on every sentence they utter are becoming fewer and fewer. But it is what it is, and predicted by the apostles.
paul
PsychoHeresy Unawareness: Dr. John Street Shot the Sheriff, but he Didn’t Shoot the Deputy
No doubt, PAM reveals many problems with the biblical counseling movement that one may expect when it is based on a false gospel. But John Street’s real sin is his participation in a mass propagation of a false gospel.
Dr. John Street, founder of Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio has finally made it big in the biblical counseling movement. This is evident from the fact that he has become a target of PAM (PsychoHeresy Awarness Ministries). PAM is directed by Martin and Deidre Bobgan who without a doubt are the most formidable critics of the “biblical” counseling movement.
John Street is an elder at John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church in California, and the Chair of the graduate program for biblical counseling at the seminary associated with MacArthur’s church. Also, last time I checked, Street is the president of the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors (NANC).
In the most recent PAM newsletters (http://www.psychoheresy-aware.org/street_tmc&s.html and http://www.psychoheresy-aware.org/street_tmc&s_2.html) Street is barbecued for practicing counseling methods that the Bobgans deem unbiblical. PAM primarily decries the biblical counseling movement’s “problem-centered counseling” verses “Christ-centered Ministry” (http://www.psychoheresy-aware.org/e-books/CCMpcc-ebk.pdf ).
I am not sure what PAM means by “Christ-centered ministry,” but it seems to be a passive approach regarding the disciple’s role in sanctification:
This is why we say that those who minister to one another need to get in the way and out of the way. They need to be available, but they need to let God work rather than push their own agenda.
The idea of pushing our own agenda could mean “let go and let God” instead of pushing an agenda that just so happens to be God’s agenda. The wording is unsettling. Elsewhere the Bobgans write the following:
Christ-centered ministry encourages spiritual growth and depends on the Lord to do the work in each individual through His Word and Spirit. Therefore, one can confidently assure believers that this ministry is more effective, long-lasting, and spiritually rewarding than problem-centered counseling for those who are willing to go this way.
Depend on the Lord to do the work? At the very least, the Bobgans need to clarify their position more thoroughly because by and large, gospel contemplationism is the primary thrust of NANC counseling. One wonders if PAM is accusing NANC of what they are guilty of: an overly passive approach to sanctification.
And, NANC, when they were (past tense) helping many people, encouraged an aggressive role in sanctification by the counselee. Christians are called to “study to show thyself approved,” and then aggressively apply that truth to their lives in order to have a life built on a rock (Matthew 7:24).
This was NANC’s approach in the past, and it did result in massive professions of faith, and real lasting change. I know; I was there; I am a firsthand witness. This was before David Powlison via CCEF and company infiltrated NANC with the gangrene of progressive justification. Unbelievably, in broad daylight, Powlison admitted (during a lecture at John Piper’s church while Piper was on sabbatical searching for different “species of idols” in his heart) that NANC’s “first generation” counseling was in contention with “second generation counseling” over the very definition of the gospel!
And this is my point: PAM is focused on the supposed evil of “problem-centered” counseling (is the gospel itself not problem-centered? The gospel did not come to solve a problem?) while the real issue is that NANC and CCEF both propagate a blatant false gospel. The counseling is based on the fusion of justification and sanctification with gospel contemplationism as its practical application.
CCEF’s counseling is based on Sonship theology. Dr. Jay E. Adams nailed that doctrine specifically as the fusion of justification and sanctification in his book, “Biblical Sonship” published in 1999. Adams, in the book, decried Sonship’s position that regeneration is powered by the finished work of justification. CCEF then effectively infiltrated NANC and took it over with the same doctrine. I use over 200 pages to document all of this in “The Truth About New Calvinism” (thetruthaboutnewcalvinism.com).
Hence, we must assume that NANC counseling yields many ill results, and I will say this: PAM points them out though they are missing the much larger issue. Case in point:
The truth is that counselors and especially counselors with an agenda (their particular approach) too often take credit for successes and attribute failures to the counselees. The trumping truth is that success is primarily in the hands of the counselees….
And worse yet, The counselee’s “failure” ends up in church discipline!
Also:
Problem-centered counseling is typically a one-to-one relationship. Sometimes couples and families are involved, but the relationship is generally artificial and restrictive. The counseling relationship itself usually does not extend outside the counseling room. The relationship lasts as long as counseling is being provided and normally does not extend to other involvement, even in most biblical counseling centers. Problem-centered counselors commonly do not involve themselves with counselees outside the counseling room. That is why both psychological and biblical counselors sometimes use intake forms requesting a great deal of personal information. Because this relationship is generally isolated, the counselor and counselee can be selective as to what they want to reveal about themselves. In fact, as we mentioned earlier, research shows that counselees often lie to their counselors and protect themselves by concealing important information.
The great advantage of Christ-centered ministry is that it is not limited to an artificial one-to-one relationship where one has the problem and the other supposedly has the solution. In the Body of Christ all are growing together. there are many opportunities to know one another and to interact in genuine relationships. When a believer is experiencing problems, more than one person may be involved in ministering to that individual. One may be teaching. One may be reminding. Another may simply be extending support and fellowship. Another may be helping in practical ways. Another may be exhorting. Another may be admonishing. And, in a few cases, some may be exercising the responsibility of disciplining a fellow believer for the sake of restoration. But, all can be praying and encouraging the individual in the direction of the Lord. And, through all this, all are growing together and the relationships may deepen with one another as well as with the Lord.
No doubt, PAM reveals many problems with the biblical counseling movement that one may expect when it is based on a false gospel. But John Street’s real sin is his participation in a mass propagation of a false gospel. It reminds me of Eric Clapton’s ode to one who objects to being accused of shooting a deputy when he really shot the sheriff.
paul
John Calvin: Gnostic Extraordinaire
“If you believe that going to a Reformed ‘biblical’ counselor is about change, I have some oceanfront property in Xenia, Ohio that I would like to sell you.”
“In the first sentence of the Institutes, Calvin completely circumvents one of the primary purposes of God’s word for the believer.”
Note: You can click on charts to make them bigger.
It’s really not rocket science. The much touted idiom for Reformed thought is, the objective gospel outside of us. What does this mean? It means that all truth, wisdom, knowledge, and reality is contained in the knowledge of God which =’s “the gospel” which =’s the “personhood and works of Christ.” The dirty little Reformed secret is that the effects of the knowledge of God continues to remain outside of us even after salvation. Recently, New Calvinists have had to come clean on this to some extent by admitting that total depravity also applies to believers, and much to the consternation of Sanctified Calvinists who don’t know that they have been sanctified from Reformed soteriology. TANC is in the process of producing a 12 step program for recovering Sanctified Calvinists. The first step is to admit that Calvin was a Gnostic: “Hi, my name is Bob, I unwittingly promoted a Gnostic for ______years.” Hi Bob. The second step is vital for rebuilding self-esteem: “Hi my name is Bob, I have never been a Gnostic, and I am not totally depraved.” Hi Bob.
Obviously, if you are totally depraved, you can’t know anything that actually becomes a part of you and changes your behavior. Sanctified Calvinists must come to grips with the logical conclusions that follow the idea that GRACE remains completely outside of the believer. Reformed thought eventually referred to the antithesis of the “true gospel” as “infused grace.” In other words, the new birth does not change the individual by making grace a part of him, and thus making change possible via the new creaturehood. If words mean things, and they do, total depravity does not = change. Hence, grace does not enable individuals to perform works.
This line of thought educes statements from the likes of Tullian Tchividjian who boasts that he has never done one work that pleased God and looks to this as the assurance of his salvation. These fanatical concepts are running amuck and unfettered in today’s church because they came from Calvin, and nobody wants to take on Calvin. This is because too many have not paid attention for too long and now don’t want to look stupid. Basically, instead of thinking for themselves, and studying for themselves, they followed others.
John Piper teaches that the crux of the Reformation was the idea that grace remains outside of us after salvation. In other words, grace changes our position, but not us. And he is exactly correct in his assessment. He, like the Reformers, attributes infused grace to the very root of all evil as demonstrated by the following chart published by a Reformed think tank (I discuss Piper’s Reformed view of this in detail: chapter 4 of The Truth About New Calvinism):
I have a lot of work to do in order to nail all of this down specifically, but the basics are pretty simple: if you note the chart above carefully, and think about it, the only place to go from there is Gnosticism—Gnosticism makes it work—Gnosticism is the practical application—nothing else works. By the way, a primary contributor to the above chart was Graeme Goldsworthy. Think about that one for a while. Graeme Goldsworthy was also a contributor to an article entitled, “The False Gospel of the New Birth.” In the article, the new birth is explained away by the Gnostic concept of “emphasis.”
Plato, the father of Gnosticism, believed that matter was a form or shadow of the true, good, and beautiful. The forms were certainly TRUE in regard to being a reality, but man’s basic problem was that he/she EMPHASIZES the shadows over the true form. Likewise, the new birth is true, but is merely a form of the true gospel. Focusing on the new birth (ie., our responsibility to exercise our redeemed will to obey God), “eclipses” the true Sun (a play on words). The life-giving ray of the Sun that manipulates dead matter and gives it form is a constant theme throughout the Calvin institutes and literature like Pilgrims Progress. We are frozen blocks of ice until the Sun shines its light on us and changes the form of the block gradually, but obviously, the block of ice has no participation in the process.
Calvin presents this Gnostic epistemology in the very first sentence of his Institutes. He states:
Our wisdom insofar as it ought to be deemed true and solid wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts; the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But as these are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two proceeds and gives birth to the other. For in the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his thoughts toward the God in whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly obvious, that the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves; no, that are very being is nothing else than subsistence in God alone.
So, ALL wisdom concerns knowledge of ourselves and God, but the knowledge of ourselves must come first through God. And, since God is the good, and we are the evil, God is the knowledge of the good and we are the knowledge of the evil. All of the Calvin Institutes are framed within this prism—the knowledge of good and evil. I have made a chart below to illustrate this:
As we delve deeper and deeper into the knowledge of both, the glory of God is manifested. As illustrated by the following chart that is a viral illustration in Reformed circles. The knowledge of the good coupled with the knowledge of the evil makes the cross bigger; or in other words, the glory of God:
Of course, this is eerily similar to the lie in the garden. I wouldn’t drive a theological stake on this, but it seems that God called His creation good (including Adam and Eve), and the serpent came along and told Eve that there was also a knowledge of the evil that God was keeping from them. They rest is history. So, God redeems us, and once again His creation is good (as in the new birth made possible by Jesus Christ), and here comes the Reformed crowd with the knowledge of God’s goodness and the news that we are still evil, and the knowledge thereof. Creepy, if you think about it. And I suggest that you do. Go ahead, it’s safe for you to do so—Calvin and Luther are both dead.
Even though we do not really change according to Reformed thought, what does change? Before I address that, let me first answer the cat-cries that I presently hear. Notice in the very popular Reformed illustration above that we don’t change, the cross does. It gets bigger. We get worse in our own minds which also makes the cross bigger. We are the knowledge of the evil and are totally depraved accordingly. If you believe that going to a Reformed “biblical” counselor is about change, I have some oceanfront property in Xenia, Ohio that I would like to sell you. Come now, let us reason together, how do the totally depraved change?
According to Reformed thought, we don’t change; we manifest God’s glory; ie, “spiritual formation” or “transformation” or “reorientation of the heart.” Regardless of how change-like their terms sound; once again, ask yourself how the totally depraved change, and remember—we don’t change, only the manifestation of God’s glory does. This transformation takes place by “knowing.” We are transformed into the image of what we know. This is also a Gnostic concept. In fact, Calvin quotes Plato accordingly in book 1, chapter 3, section 3:
This did not escape the observation even of philosophers. For it is the very thing which Plato meant (in Phoed. et Theact.) when he taught, as he often does, that the chief good of the soul consists in resemblance to God, i.e., when by means of knowing him she is wholly transformed into him.
As an aside that I am not going to address deeply here, Reformed thought holds to the idea that anything more than obtaining the knowledge of the good while letting any result thereof happen naturally—is works salvation. As some in that camp state it: “You can’t just leap from the command to obedience.” Right. You have to know that the command is a command that we can’t keep, and see it as a work that Christ has already accomplished for us—anything more than that is works salvation. What we know about the command will create a manifestation of God’s glory. “Ya, like, we will then obey, right?” No, no, and no. Again, how do the totally depraved obey? Again, how do we obey if only the cross grows, but not us? By the way, the cross illustration above also illustrates Luther’s Gnostic concept of law/gospel. The law is meant to drive us to despair of self-righteousness (knowledge of the evil via the good) which drives us back to the foot of the cross. See illustration below:
This is only true of unbelievers, but for the born again believer, the Bible is God’s full philosophical statement for life and godliness (Matthew 4:4, 2Tim. 3:16). In the first sentence of the Institutes, Calvin completely circumvents one of the primary purposes of God’s word for the believer.
Much more research is needed, but one gets a hint of how this all supposedly works in real life as Calvin refers to the ideas of Socrates and Aristotle as well in book 1, chapter 5, section 3:
Hence, certain of the philosophers have not improperly called man a microcosm (miniature world) as being a rare specimen of divine power, wisdom, and goodness in containing within himself wonders sufficient to occupy our minds [emphasis mine] if we are willing to employ them.
This seems to indicate that God is satisfied with man contemplating Him in their minds only, while what happens in the outside world is totally in God’s control. The fact that Reformed thought holds to the idea that all occurrences in human history point to God’s glory in one way or the other—is no big secret. Therefore, since God is not the creator of evil, but preordains it for his glory, all human occurrences should be seen as either a manifestation of the good or a manifestation of the evil, or the knowledge of good and evil as well, but with both purposed for glorifying God accordingly. So, a bad event is knowledge of evil which glorifies the good by contrast, while good things that happen are obviously knowledge of the good as well. What is true of the “believer” in his mind, is also true in the metaphysical world. When we contemplate the goodness of God in our mind, the cross is bigger. When we see our own depravity—the cross is bigger; likewise, good and bad events in the world make the cross bigger as well. This explains the Reformed infatuation with tragedy. Do I think this philosophy is at the core of why there is so much indifference in the church to spiritual tyranny and abuse? YES.
Moreover, it explains why there is no concern over the fact that Reformed theology’s European legacy is aflame with the Witch Wars (in some villages, the female population was completely eradicated), the Inquisition, the Peasant Wars, the Thirty-Year War, the First English Civil War, the Second English Civil War, the Third English Civil War, and the Levellers’ rebellion against Puritan tyranny. These were all religious wars involving theocracies—mostly of the Reformed stripe.
Because the Church of England wasn’t lopping of enough heads to satisfy the Puritans, they tried to bring their show to America, but the founding fathers shut them down. There is a reason why America has never had a religious war. Nevertheless, their very first theocracy resulted in the very same European behavior: the Salem witch trials. As a memorial to the glorifying knowledge of the evil, New Calvinists signed the Danvers Statement on Puritan Manhood and Womanhood at the same location.
The restrained tyranny is now manifesting itself in New Calvinist “churches.” Abuse and tyranny will always follow the philosophy.
And of course, for the glory of God.
paul
Martha Peace’s Favorite Dish: Mutton
By their fruits we will know them. Christ did not say we would know them by their excellent teachings or their education; He said we would know them by what they do. Many of the highly touted leaders of our day are showing their true hearts, and it isn’t a heart for the sheep, it’s for their share of the mutton.
When it comes down to associations on the speaking/book/counseling/conference circuit, what pads one’s career and wallet/purse is the bottom line, not the welfare of the sheep. The idea that nationally visible teachers are in it for the welfare of the sheep is naïve, if not outright laughable.
Whether John MacArthur, Stuart Scott, Martha peace, Lou Priolo or anyone else you would like to name, they gleefully and eagerly network with serial sheep abusers and spiritual despots. Why? Because it’s not about the sheep, it’s about the mutton.
Lending credibility to spiritual tyrants and fellowshipping with them has become socially acceptable in the church. Somehow, these leaders are seen as several cuts above those who actually repented of their sins, like Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Baker. Sexual perversion is not yet completely acceptable for the spiritually enlightened (not yet), unless it’s an under the table perk as in the ABWE situation. But using church discipline as a weapon, holding people hostage at churches, and blatant character assassination is.
Martha Peace continues to network with Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio. The leadership of that church is unreconciled with a slew of God’s people, and at least in my case, their outrageous abuse of my family is well documented. And the abuse continues behind the scenes as Martha Peace is completely indifferent to the suffering inflicted on people by this leadership. Not only that, she endorses it with her participation in their “counseling” program. Sure, she has probably bought into the whole gospel contemplation thing as a way to supposedly help people—that’s bad enough, but aiding and abetting abuse of the ones she is supposedly ministering to?
What’s that all about? It’s about the real Martha Peace. Vying for her share of the mutton, her favorite dish.
paul
The Cat is Out of the Bag: Biblical Counseling Isn’t About Change
As The Coalition Against New Calvinism is forming, one of my goals as a member is to publish a pdf report to be distributed among churches en mass. The first is almost complete and will be an introduction, but the second will address what is now apparent. David Powlison and the Christian Counseling & Educational Foundation have perpetrated a huge fraud upon the church. In the early 70’s many evangelical leaders adopted the doctrine and motif of the Australian Forum, a project that systematized Progressive Adventism. The base doctrine was the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us, and its primary focus was a call to semper reformanda. This was the idea (and still is) that the Reformation didn’t end with Luther, and the Forum had rediscovered the lost gospel of the Reformation (documentation on this and what follows is now ample and convincing).
Church leaders bought into the frenzy wholesale, especially many at Westminster Seminary where the Forum’s theological journal was widely distributed. One of those leaders at Westminster was the mentor of David Powlison and Tim Keller (Dr. John Miller). The movement spawned a massive takeover mentality among its proponents which sought to “reform” the American church with this new rediscovered Reformation gospel. Powlison is on record saying that the fundamental difference between CCEF and NANC (National Association of Nouthetic Counselors) was a traditional view of sanctification verses John Miller’s theology (which he got from the Forum). Therefore, it is no surprise that CCEF sought to assimilate the semper reformanda into NANC, which they have been very successful in doing.
One of the major themes promoted by Jay Adams when he was involved with NANC was the idea that counseling was about biblical change. Though unclear at this time whether the following came directly from the Forum or was added later, a significant portion of the NANC/CCEF counseling culture believes no such thing. Rather, they believe that people do not change (but remain totally depraved whether believers or not), and that the primary goal of counseling is to teach Christians how to manifest one of two realms or spheres. We don’t change, but we can experience and manifest the realm of the Holy Spirit or the flesh/worldly/law realm. This prism enables them, as you can imagine, to use orthodox sounding verbiage to promote this doctrine. In fact, they do just that. Spiritual growth is now, “spiritual formation.” Repentance is now, “deep repentance,” etc.
CCEF has been a lost cause from the beginning, but it is unfortunate that the leadership of NANC shows no intestinal fortitude in dealing with this problem. In fact, they refer hundreds of people daily to these counselors with complete indifference. Daily, hundreds of troubled people seek to be helped by these counselors while totally unaware of what they believe.
It is the coalition’s duty to change that. The second newsletter will be aggressively circulated to churches worldwide. It is our goal to be servants of those who struggle with full disclosure.
paul
Biblical Counseling as Cover-up: Professional Courtesy Among Reformed Pastors is Epidemic
“Why do sharks refuse to eat attorneys? ‘I don’t know, tell me.’ Professional courtesy.”
Doctors, lawyers, and especially policeman (the blue wall of silence) are often known to stick together. Such professional courtesy should not be known among God’s chosen men, but the New Calvinist movement threatens to take such courtesy to new heights not even known among professional pagans. Such professional courtesy enabled Jack Hyles to remain in the pulpit until his death despite behavior that gangsters would even find intolerable. Never before in church history has cowardliness and cronyism seen a greater day among those who call themselves pastors.
The Biblical Counseling Dichotomy
Let there be no doubt about it: biblical counseling for the sheep is different than counseling for the shepherds. Reformed churches, especially New Calvinist churches, have completely integrated a Matthew 18 discipline model into counseling, and without full disclosure. After all, if the sheep knew, they wouldn’t come—this almost obligates them to accept whatever they hear in counseling as gospel (no pun intended). No matter how bad a situation is for a Christian, they are never to turn off their discernment lest they find themselves in worse shape than counseling found them.
Nevertheless, counselees routinely come to a counseling session and are surprised to see one additional elder or two sitting in the room. Tag, counselee is it:
“Hi Bill, I’m sure you know elder John and elder Joe from our church. They are here because the counseling isn’t going very well. Actually, they are here as witnesses because we are placing you under church discipline.”
Bill: “But shouldn’t you have confronted me first before it came to this?”
Counselor: “Bill, I have confronted you about many things in our appointments.”
Bill: “Yes, but I didn’t know that it was in the context of a first step of church discipline!”
Counselor: “Bill, according to Galatians 6:1 and other passages dealing with church discipline, they are both for the purpose of restoring you, so they are the same.”
Bill: “I see. Well, I agree, I have been stubborn in regard to some issues. No need for the discipline, I will follow your instruction on the major point we disagree on.”
Counselor: “Uh, Bill, that’s not exactly how it works. You will be under church discipline until you are released from counseling.”
Five months later:
Bill: “Look, this counseling is going nowhere. I have decided to leave this church and enter into counseling somewhere else.”
Counselor: “I’m afraid that’s unacceptable Bill. You can’t vacate membership here to avoid church discipline. The elders will not find that acceptable.”
Bill: “What are they going to do about it?”
Counselor: “You will be excommunicated and declared an unbeliever before the congregation Bill.”
Notice that “Bill” was not immediately dismissed from the discipline process upon verbal repentance according to Luke 17:4. Not only is this present-day biblical counseling protocol unbiblical, but in most states it is a first degree felony to control any person in any way under threat of financial loss or loss of reputation. Under most State law, it is called “Coercion” under the “Kidnapping” statutes. This type of counseling/discipline is a criminal act, and also unbiblical. Furthermore, in most of these cases, the counselor is looking for a conversion to Gospel Sanctification; that’s why this process is often referred to as “redemptive church discipline.” The counseling will entail a lot of “showing forth of the gospel” without any instruction which over time confuses the counselee. This leads to a stalemate, further steps of discipline, and in many cases, excommunication.
Once a parishioner is under church discipline or excommunicated in Reformed/Neo-Calvinistic circles, professional courtesy is on steroids. Other pastors will not intervene, no matter how grievous the situation. Here is a snippet of the types of pleas this ministry hears from time to time:
“I don’t know what you can do if anything, however, we are contacting anyone possible in an attempt for help. The governmental system of the Presbyterian church, designed to protect us, is now being used as a weapon.”
But the biblical prescription for sinning, abusive pastors is not even taken seriously:
1 Timothy 5:20
But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning.
When it comes to the sheep—by the letter, and then some. But regarding elders, professional courtesy kicks into high gear. What better example than the present “counseling” of CJ Mahaney by well-known New Calvinists? Mahaney was finally forced to step down from his position as president of Sovereign Grace Ministries because layman took action by erecting websites exposing his significant shortcomings as a leader. He was not confronted by his New Calvinist pals who often wax eloquent about transparency, humbleness, and confession, but with millions on the line in regard to conference revenues from T4G and Resolved, Mahaney is on a New Calvinist sponsored sabbatical to “reflect on his shortcomings.” It is obviously an image rebuilding project. Mahaney is still officially listed as the president of SGM and will still be a part of the “core four” at this year’s T4G conference.
But on the one hand, these pastors will not overstep their supposed bounds to help distressed parishioners in the local church, while on the other hand, a Presbyterian and two Southern Baptists have come to Mahaney’s (a Charismatic) rescue against people he has sinned against!
To put the icing on this sickening hypocrisy, CCEF, who counsels people for $85.00 per hour, does not invoke church discipline on their counselees because they are paying customers!
Damage Control Organizations
Organizations spawned by the Reformed counseling movement such as Peacekeepers International and G.R.A.C.E are clearly damage control organizations paid for by the laity to protect pastors and church organizations. A point in case is a situation that I have firsthand knowledge of involving Peacekeepers International. A parishioner was brought up on church discipline that was obviously bogus, and Peacekeepers was asked to intervene by a well-known pastor in biblical counseling circles. Peacekeepers declined because according to them, they only enter into mediation between Christians, and since said individual was under church discipline and declared an unbeliever, it was technically not a matter between Christians. Words cannot describe how lame this excuse is as a ploy to avoid mediating the cause of a wronged believer against elders.
Yet another case is the involvement of G.R.A.C.E in the Bangladesh Missionary Kids affair. Here is what I wrote concerning that situation in another post:
If the ABWE Former Missionary Children (Hereafter FMC, not “MKs”) put some stock in GRACE, the parachurch organization that “teaches” the Christian community how to deal with child abuse in a “Godly” way, then so will I, but not totally. I have some concerns…. That brings me to the latest “investigation update” by GRACE concerning the ABWE horror story. It begins as follows:
First phase? How many phases are there going to be? Why is more than one phase needed? The document, throughout, invokes all kinds of questions of this sort. And, “GRACE plans to schedule additional interviews….” Why do they have to “plan” to schedule? Is it really that complicated? Once again, the FMC are waiting for somebody “important” to do something. My grandmother had a word for it and often scolded us with it: “lollygagging.”
The report continued….
Huh? GRACE “hoped” to gather information? The document is full of tentative, overcautious language. The interviews succeeded in “beginning” to “help” “build” (how big is the building going to be and how long is it going to take to build it?) an understanding? For crying out loud, the FMC have already built the case with all kinds of documentation! The job is more than half done! And GRACE’s proclamation that God put his stamp of approval on it all regarding their interviews is just classic, and arrogant. But I will again mention that where GRACE will hopefully have some value is in their final ”thorough,” “balanced,” “independent” report; if it gets completed before the second coming. And we certainly don’t want any victims muddying up the waters with their own assessment of getting molested by the ABWE icon, Donn Ketcham—that just wouldn’t be “independent” and “balanced.”
Then, GRACE concluded the snail race report with the news that they are expanding the investigation to “non-MKs” in addition to the FMC they presently don’t have time to interview. Good grief! In addition, they are going to spend time singing Pat a Cake, Pat a Cake, with a “new” ABWE “liaison” regarding ABWE’s lack of cooperation with full disclosure—unlike Penn State which has committed to full disclosure—day one.
In my estimation, G.R.AC.E is simply going to counsel this situation to death until it goes away. This is nothing more than damage control. It reminds me of a big-name church leader who responded to a molestation victim regarding her insistence that her attacker be removed from the ministry in his denomination: “ What do you want me to do, shoot him?”
I would say, “No, we want you to practice 1Timothy 5:20. We want you to take some of your book royalties, buy a ticket, get on a jet Saturday night, go to his church the next morning, wait till he is into his sermon for about ten minutes, then get up, walk down the aisle, and rebuke him in front of the congregation. Somehow, that is more radical than molestation.
paul
New Calvinists Believe That Gospel Sanctification is the Only True Gospel: Want Proof?
The following is an email/comment sent to me by a New Calvinist that is of the New Covenant Theology species. His opinion about those who do not hold to sanctification by justification is evident. Also notice the either/or communication prism that they use to manipulate. It’s either all justification for purposes of sanctification, or all pride and disdain for Christ and His works.
Jesus Christ said the last days would be marked by antinomianism and that antinomianism would cause the hearts of many to be cold (Matthew 24:12; “because anomia will be increased”). And I can tell you, New Calvinists are among the most coldhearted people I have ever known, and I didn’t exactly grow up with the choir boys of society. Without further ado, here is the letter from one who is a part of the grace and mercy crowd:
Paul, you should just come out of the closet and write an article atriculating why you hate the Gospel and Jesus Christ so much. It is plain to all, based on your non-stop vitriol, that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is of no continuing value or worth to you in your “christian” life. In your mind, Christ and his Gospel only had one limited purpose – to bring legal justification. After that, no more purpose, no more daily power, no more continuing preciousness. The Gospel is behind you. The cross is behind you. The Son’s triumph is behind you. No need to return there to daily die with Him. You’ve ‘prayed the sinner’s prayer.’ Time to move on. You’re good now. You’re beyond the Gospel. And you show it.
Obedience is now all about you and your own determination to attain a sanctification that comes through your own legal efforts – sans the Gospel and Christ’s daily empowerment of grace. Repent Paul. You are in the gall of bitterness. To live for Christ is to live the crucified life, to daily die with Him – this is the Gospel centered life. And you are tragically missing it my friend. In fact, you are violently and proudly opposing it.
This note was sent in regard to the Dr. Devin Berry post. Being offended by that post is very telling—the idea that elder preaching is efficacious to spiritual growth and that our personal study only supplements it.
paul
Creepy Sermon by Dr. Devon Berry Indicative of New Calvinist Cultism
This is a repost on the New Calvinist concept of how to listen to a sermon. I used an example of a sermon preached by Dr. Devon Berry, an elder at Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio. Berry is also an assistance professor of Psychiatry at the University of Cincinnati. This is creepy stuff, but nonetheless indicative of the kind of cultism being spawned across this country by New Calvinism.
How to listen to a sermon?
Not only is the GS / Sonship doctrine completely off the tracks theologically, it is inevitable that such doctrine will lead to many other things that followers “are not yet ready for.” However, as this hideous doctrine grows, for the most part, unchecked—proponents are now presenting teachings that would have been rejected out of hand a couple of years ago. In other words, probably surprised themselves by the lack of contention against their ridiculous doctrine—they are becoming more bold. For example, more and more, the GS concept of learning how to listen to a sermonis becoming more prevalent. Yesterday, a reader sent me two links.
First of all, the thesis itself is just plain creepy and should raise red flags all over the place. I became aware of it three years ago when I obtained a manuscript from a parishioner at Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio, a bastion of GS / Sonship teachings and a NANC training center. As I carried the manuscript from place to place while I was slowly absorbing it, whether in the waiting room of my auto mechanic, or waiting for food at the local diner—the title caught the attention of many, and the following was usually the result: “Huh?” “That’s just really strange,” etc. In fact, one proponent wrote in one of the links sent to me, “I was first alerted to this issue by Christopher Ash’s leaflet entitled ‘Listen Up’. In it he claims that there’s been nothing written on the issue in the last 200 years.” Yep, I’m not really surprised by that. Nor was any reference given as to who supposedly wrote about it even then—go figure.
So what’s behind this creepy concept? I will use the manuscript from Clearcreek Chapel (hereafter: CCC) because it was one of the first independent sovereign grace churches in this country to adopt the Sonship doctrine. Not only that, CCC is a well respected and noted church in the movement. Paul David Tripp (speaks there often), David Powlison, and John Piper have close association with CCC, and the Pastor prides himself as a follower of John Piper—dressing like him and speaking like him as well. As far back as 1994 or 96, when the movement was barley fifteen years old, one or two respected Sonshippers (of course, nobody at CCC was aware of the doctrine) in the CCC congregation were instrumental in having the likes of Jerry Brides and DA Carson invited to speak there. I sat in the congregation myself and heard Jerry Bridges say: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” The comment gave me pause, but I brushed it aside and continued to struggle to stay awake as I thought the guy would die standing there behind the pulpit at any moment. When the founding pastor moved to California, Russ Kennedy became pastor under false pretence—knowing grade-A-well that the vast majority of CCC parishioners would reject such a doctrine. In fact, Kennedy allowed me to be instrumental in his appointment while knowing that such a doctrine would cause me to jump in the river.
I will be writing a post in this series about CCC because it is a projected model of what churches will look like in the future who implement this doctrine. And it is also why I am using their model for this whole learning how to listen to a sermon concept which is eerily similar to Jack Hyle’s famous quote: “Now I want you to close your Bibles and listen to me.” Most of what I have written on this blog concerns the doctrine itself, but the subtle creepiness / cult-like elements of this movement is another story altogether. But without further ado, let us examine the GS / Sonship take on how to listen to a sermon. Actually, I have written on the crux of this concept before. What really drives this issue? Answer: elder authority. GS / Sonship has a very overemphasized view of elder authority and that is really at the heart of this concept. Devon Berry, the “elder” at CCC who delivered this message, is also one of the primary instructors for the NANC training center at CCC. The following is my critique of his message. I apologize for how difficult it is to unravel this clever twisting of God’s word. However, if you try to follow my argument thoughtfully, I think by the end it will come together for you. The title of his message was, How to Listen to a Sermon:
In the sermon, the elder strays away from the main point to strongly emphasis the idea that spiritual growth comes primarily from preaching and teaching, and is an absolute, paramount necessity accordingly:
“You think, perhaps, that [you] can fill up the other half of the plate with personal study, devotions, or quiet times, or a radio program. Beloved, you cannot. Scripture is relatively quiet on such practices. But on preaching, the case is clear and strong. Neglect preaching and neglect your soul. I know that some are kept from services for legitimate reasons which are out of their control, but I doubt that is the case for most. I beseech you, change your ways for the good of this people and for the good of your own selves. Give the Word its rightful place. As I have often said, there is no better place you could be than here, under the preaching of the Word.”
Actually, I believe “devotions,” “quiet times,” and “radio programs” are added in to mask the disturbing part of this statement: “personal study.” Nowhere , but nowhere, does the Scriptures ever say that personal study is expendable when compared to preaching or teaching. In fact, IF I wanted to make the case that preaching and teaching could be done without, I would cite the following:
1 John 2:27
”As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.”
This verse clearly teaches that when it gets right down to it, the indwelling Holy Spirit is our teacher, and that human teachers are not an absolute necessity as this elder is clearly saying. At the very least, he is in grave error concerning the level of importance between the two.
But even more disturbing is the logical conclusion that must be drawn from this assertion. If personal study is expendable (please note; in his list of examples, he names devotions, quiet times, and radio programs in the same list. One can only assume that if they are in the same list to make his point, they share the same level of importance. Surely then, no one would deny that Christians could do without radio programs or devotionals), then how could it (personal study) be sufficiently empowered to discern the truthfulness of the sermon? The conclusion must necessarily be that personal interpretation is always at the mercy of preaching. Do you think my statement is a subjective conclusion in regard to what he is saying? Think again. He actually uses Acts 17:10,11 (a text that clearly states the importance of personal study to confirm truthfulness) to imply that preaching is a critical link in the learning process, with personal study being secondary:
“In addition to coming with anticipation, we must come to a sermon prepared. Coming to the hearing of the Word prepared is both a matter of our hearts and our behaviors. I think the example of the Bereans in Acts 17 is helpful. Verse 11 says, ‘Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.’ We can note from earlier in the chapter what exactly it was the Bereans were responding to – verses 2-3 tell us that Paul’s pattern was to reason with his hearers from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that Jesus was the Christ. What made the Jews in Berea more noble than the Jews in Thessalonica? Well for one, they did not run Paul out of town, and secondly, they took Paul’s preaching seriously enough to go to the Word to test it [he is not talking about a test in regard to the truth, but rather, a nebulous concept of testing the Christocentric interpretation in everyday life. He covers this idea in another part of the same sermon. Note that "it" in his statement refers to God's word, not Paul's preaching]. The text here implies that there was an interactive nature between three entities: The preacher, the hearers, and the Word. Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word. An important thing to note is that this happened daily – suggesting a regular interaction between preaching, personal study, and the Word. The Bereans eagerly prepared by paralleling their own Bible reading and study with Paul’s preaching. So a good preparation for the public preaching of the Word is the private consumption of the Word. It will be the seasoning that brings out the flavor – salt on your French fries, if you will.”
Where to begin in the unraveling of this hideous twisting of God’s word! First of all, I had to actually draw a diagram to unravel what he is saying in regard to this part of the quote:
“Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word.”
Read the quote carefully. Think about it. God’s word goes through the “preacher” first, before getting to the “people,” making the preacher’s words synonymous with God’s words. Also note that he cites 17:1,2:
“We can note from earlier in the chapter what exactly it was the Bereans were responding to – verses 2-3 tell us that Paul’s pattern was to reason with his hearers from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that Jesus was the Christ.”
Let me cut to the chase here: what he is saying is that all Christocentric and gospel-centered preaching is infallible. Hence, any preacher teaching from a Christocentric perspective is also infallible. He also emphasizes this in his conclusion (emphasis mine):
“On to our last point, then. It is simple. The lens set forth by Christ himself on the road to Emmaus, in Luke 24, is the lens through which we should hear every sermon. Here it is from the text: …everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled… You should always listen to a sermon looking for Christ and the redemptive plan that God has set out in history to accomplish through his Son. We must be Christ-centered listeners.”
In other words, when the Scriptures are being taught from the Christ / gospel perspective, error is impossible, and likewise, neither can the preacher teaching from that perspective be in error as well. If the mere intention is to present Christ from the text, the Holy Spirit then becomes involved, making error impossible. Another elder at the same church (Chad Bresson) projected this same idea in an article entitled “The Word of God is a Person.” He quotes Robert Brinsmead to make his point:
“That which makes the Bible the Bible is the gospel. That which makes the Bible the Word of God is its witness to Christ. When the Spirit bears witness to our hearts of the truth of the Bible, this is an internal witness concerning the truth of the gospel. We need to be apprehended by the Spirit, who lives in the gospel, and then judge all things by that Spirit even the letter of Scripture.”
Said another way, the Holy Spirit “lives in the gospel,” so when your doin’ gospel, your doin’ truth, end of discussion.
Going back now to the elder’s use of Acts 17 and the original sermon of interests here, he completely ignores any sort of basic grammatical rules at all to draw his conclusions. He gives the following reasons for the nobility of the Bereans:
“What made the Jews in Berea more noble than the Jews in Thessalonica? Well for one, they did not run Paul out of town, and secondly, they took Paul’s preaching seriously enough to go to the Word to test it.”
But the excerpt he speaks of is a compound sentence:
“Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”
In a compound sentence the ideas must be related, this is a hard-fast rule. Therefore, the specific reason for their nobility is obviously in the second independent clause, which does not include anything mentioned by the elder. Furthermore, in the second clause, the proving of what Paul taught is obviously the (purpose) object of both verb phrases, both directly and indirectly. Clearly, the reason for their nobility was the fact that they proved what Paul was teaching to be true through personal study. Not only that, the elder also said the following:
“An important thing to note is that this happened daily – suggesting a regular interaction between preaching, personal study, and the Word.”
But this is clearly an improper correlation. “Daily” in this sentence refers to “examining the Scriptures” and not Paul’s preaching (which is not even in the compound sentence which begins with “now“—introducing a separate idea). The elder is suggesting an inseparable correlation (“cycle”) between preaching and personal study that cannot be separated from the word for proper understanding. Instead of personal study proving the truthfulness of preaching or teaching, he is making preaching an absolute necessity to understanding truth, with personal study supplying a mere “seasoning” to the preaching, instead of testing its truthfulness. Besides this, he also assumes that the Bereans knew what Paul was going to teach before he came:
“The Bereans eagerly prepared by paralleling their own Bible reading and study with Paul’s preaching.”
Not only is this an assumption, given the technology of the time, it is also highly unlikely. What tense in the text even remotely suggests that the Bereans “examined” the Scriptures before Paul preached? Clearly, the intent of this elder is to discourage a proving of truthfulness in regard to Chrisocentric preaching after the fact, but rather a prior, personal study that merely “flavors” the preaching instead of proving its truthfulness. At any rate, it is a complete bastardization of the biblical text.
I might also mention that another elder in this same church, and previously mentioned, preached a sermon entitled “Adam’s Insurrection, Man Jettisons God from the Educational Process,” in which he argues that the essence of Adam’s fall was a rejection of Christocentric teaching that was outside of himself (Adam). The theme of that sermon seems to be similar to the sermon that is the subject of this post; namely, and at the very least, it strongly discouraged a mentality that elevates personal discernment to the same level of teaching outside of ourselves.
So, it now begs the question that is the subject of this post; in regard to elders teaching from the Christocentric perspective, does Christocentric theology teach that they are infallible? I suspect that this belief is more than likely to be prominent among churches that hold to Sonship / GS theology.
paul
The Only Real Difference Between First and Second Generation Biblical Counseling is Romans 8:30
“Are two different gospels operating under the same nomenclature of ‘help can be found here’ acceptable or not? Both are not the truth, and one or the other will help, or add further hurt.”
Heath Lambert recently published the book, The Biblical Counseling Movement After Adams. The contemporary motif of our day is the idea that Dr. Jay E. Adams started the biblical counseling movement (first generation), and then others such as David Powlison of Westminster’s CCEF built on the foundation laid by Adams. The ever-morphing result is called “second generation” biblical counseling. Lambert’s book is a lengthy treatise that supposedly informs us of the differences between the two generations.
I am going to bypass all of those issues and focus on the one difference that matters—how each generation interprets the gospel. As the president of the annexed NANC used to say, “Fasten your seatbelts and put on your crash helmets,” because my thesis is that one of these generations is founded on, and operates by a false gospel.
As many know, especially my wife, I have spent almost five years researching the present-day New Calvinism movement. The movement has its roots in the Progressive Adventist movement fathered by Robert Brinsmead. The magnum opus of that movement was their interpretation of Romans 8:30. I will pause now and quote an individual who witnessed that remarkable movement firsthand:
In 1971, Brinsmead scheduled a flurry of summer institutes to bring us his latest emphasis. There was more excitement than usual; the latest round of tapes had prepared us for something big. Bob had been studying the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith, comparing it to Roman Catholic doctrines. Reading Luther, he saw that justification is not just a means to the end of perfect sanctification. When we are justified by faith, not only does God impute Christ’s righteousness to us but we also possess Christ Himself—all His righteousness and all His perfection. Eternity flows from that fact.
And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified’ (Rom. 8:30).
The same ones he justified he also glorified. We began to realize we had inserted extra steps into Paul’s chain of salvation: sanctification and a final atonement brought about by blotting out sins. Those added steps, in fact, were the heart of the Awakening message—but we had ignored the heart of the real gospel: being justified by faith, we ‘rejoice in hope of the glory of God.’ Our righteousness is in heaven, said Brinsmead:
“The righteousness by which we become just in God’s sight, remain just in His sight and will one day be sealed as forever just in His sight, is an outside righteousness. It is not on earth, but only in heaven…only in Jesus Christ” (Martin L. Carey: Judged by the Gospel: The Progression of Brinsmead’s Awakening )
Brinsmead further articulated this magnum opus in the theological journal, Present Truth:
Then in the golden chain of salvation, Romans 8:30, justification spans our Christian life all the way from calling or conversion to glorification: “Whom He called, them He justified; whom He justified, them He also glorified.” Here justification, our standing before God, is coterminous with sanctification, our being conformed to the image of God’s Son, in Romans 8:29. In 1 Corinthians 1:30 the apostle mentions Christ as our righteousness or justification before he names Him as our sanctification. But in 1 Corinthians 6:11 the order is reversed: “You are washed, you are sanctified, you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”
Accordingly, Luther taught that to accept justification by faith in Christ is our whole work for the whole Christian life. We never learn this too well. For the forgiveness of sins is a continuous divine work until we die. Christ saves us perpetually (Luther’s Works, American ed. (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press; St. Louis: Concordia, 1955- ), Vol.34, pp.164, 167, 190) [Present Truth: volume 25, pages 11,12].
Now, the term, “golden chain of salvation” did not originate with Brinsmead, but when that term was used by theologians of old, it doesn’t seem to be in reference to Romans 8:30. The term seems to have a contemporary meaning when associated with Romans 8:30, and that is how it will be used in this post. Furthermore, Brinsmead attributes the magnum opus of Progressive Adventism to Martin Luther, and Carey attributes it to Brinsmead who again, states that he learned it from the writings of Luther.
But the need for further research aside, this post will focus on the what. And the what is the following:
[1] Brinsmead’s interpretation of Romans 8:30 combines justification and sanctification, and perpetuates the need for a just standing before God until glorification.
[2] And the need for a progressive justification until glorification, ie.,“Christ saves us perpetually.”
[3] And sanctification is missing from Romans 8:30 because it is “coterminous” with Justification. “Conterminous” means, 1. having the same border or covering the same Area 2. being the same in extent; coextensive in range or scope.
[4] This Romans 8:30 golden chain can be definitively traced throughout the New Calvinism community as a single mainframe that holds the doctrine together and determines its modus operandi.
[5] The Romans 8:30 golden chain manifests itself as, Gospel Sanctification, Sonship Theology, New Covenant Theology, and Christian Hedonism which all dwell in the community of New Calvinism.
Hence, New Calvinists can run, but they can’t hide—their interpretation of Romans 8:30 identifies them. And it also identifies what they will teach, and how they will counsel.
The Two Romans 8:30 and Their Gospels
Therefore, one version of Romans 8:30 suggests that sanctification is missing from the verse because justification and sanctification are the same, and justification is perpetual till glorification. The second interpretation of Romans 8:30 suggests that sanctification is missing from the verse because justification and sanctification are completely separate; and justification is a finished work that makes sanctification possible, but does not directly power it. This position would hold that sanctification is powered by regeneration, and not justification. Hence, Romans 8:30 is missing sanctification because justification is a finished work that guarantees glorification.
These are two completely different gospels. One is monergistic substitutionary sanctification, and the other is monergistic justification and synergistic sanctification. How the gospel is presented from each of these different viewpoints must necessarily be radically different. Moreover, counseling is necessarily, and radically different as well.
And these two views of Romans 8:30 define the difference between the two generations of biblical counseling. David Powlison says so. In a seminar presented by David Powlison at John Piper’s church while Piper was on sabbatical, Powlison stated the following:
This might be quite a controversy, but I think it’s worth putting in. Adams had a tendency to make the cross be for conversion. And the Holy Spirit was for sanctification. And actually even came out and attacked my mentor, Jack Miller, my pastor that I’ve been speaking of through the day, for saying that Christians should preach the gospel to themselves. I think Jay was wrong on that. I – it’s one of those places where I read Ephesians. I read Galatians. I read Romans. I read the gospels themselves. I read the Psalms. And the grace of God is just at every turn, and these are written for Christians (David Powlison: What is Biblical Counseling May 8, 2010. Online source for MP3s ; http://goo.gl/Dumep).
David Powlison’s mentor, Dr. John Miller, whom he mentions in the above citation, was the father of Sonship Theology. Jay Adams wrote a book in contention against the doctrine in 1999. By way of reiterating Powlison’s articulation, Adam’s made the following statement on page 34 of Biblical Sonship:
The problem with Sonship is that it misidentifies the source of sanctification (or the fruitful life of the children of God) as justification. Justification, though a wonderful fact, a ground of assurance, and something never to forget, cannot produce a holy life through a strong motive for it….On the other hand, regeneration, (quickening, or making alive; Ephesians 2:25) is the true source of sanctification.
The major difference between the first and second generations of biblical counseling is their gospel models. One model will attempt to help people with the reductionist gospel of sanctification by justification. The other will attempt to help people with the full armor of regeneration.
Though CCEF is a lost cause and was wicked from its conception, the realty of how counselors interpret Romans 8:30 is a gut-check for the president and board members of the critically ill NANC. Are two different gospels operating under the same nomenclature of “help can be found here” acceptable or not? Both are not the truth, and one or the other will help, or add further hurt.
Let’s be honest, how important is truth to those who claim to be in the truth business?
paul
Heroes Are Hard to Find in the Days of Noah
I’m past it now. Most of my spiritual heroes have fallen. I am now ready for the rest of them to fall if they do— the few that are left, which include the dead. It’s a good test for one’s faith—do we follow men or Christ?
They cross my path now and then—those who are going through what I have gone through. Some are in the denial stage—others in the disillusionment stage that will draw them closer to Christ and give them more resolve for the truth. They will be ok; after all, every Christian is born again with a little bit of Noah in them.
Have you ever thought about what it must have been like for Noah? He was one of the few Christians left on the face of the Earth, and beyond him, only family members. Noah was a follower of God and didn’t follow the crowd, and in this case, the “crowd” was the whole world. And remember, we may assume that religion and false teachings were very much a part of that landscape as well. Peter also states that Noah was a “herald of righteousness.”
In our day when evangelism is at an all-time low and compromise at an all-time high, more Noahs are needed, especially since Christ said, “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.” Of course, in our day, many cannot draw encouragement or solace from the life of Noah because after all—whether or not those events are true is neither here nor there—what those narratives say about the gospel is the point. It’s not about Noah, it’s about Jesus.
Neo-evangelicalism’s First Major Trophy: Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse
I have been writing lately about Neo-evangelicalism. Its connection with Neo-orthodoxy and New Calvinism will be discussed in volume two of The Truth About New Calvinism. Basically. NE rejected the idea of separation to maintain doctrinal purity. At some point, Dr. Barnhouse succumbed to how uncomfortable things become when you stand for the truth. His capitulation triggered a tsunami of disillusionment and denial. As recorded by Christian Author MJ Stanford:
CRUSHING COMPROMISE: In November of 1954 Dr. Barnhouse completely capitulated to his denomination, and especially to his Philadelphia Presbytery. Christians throughout the world were astounded by this seemingly sudden surrender. The Philadelphia Bulletin for November 12, 1954, reported:
“A 22-year-old breach between the Presbytery of Philadelphia and Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse has been healed by the latter’s recent appearance before the Presbytery expressing the desire for closer fellowship with the alienated group. Presbytery immediately responded in an open-armed gesture of welcome…. Dr. Barnhouse said, “I have come to realize that some of my personal relationships have suffered because of these past differences, and I now recognize that this has been a mistake. For my part I want to work in much closer fellowship with you in the Presbytery.”
Can you imagine those same words coming from the mouth of Noah?:
I have come to realize that some of my personal relationships have suffered because of these past differences, and I now recognize that this has been a mistake. For my part I want to work in much closer fellowship with you in the Presbytery.
Thereafter, Barnhouse’s compromise is credited with greasing the wheels of the Progressive Adventist movement and Neo-Pentecostalism/Oneness Theology:
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM ACCEPTED: It was in 1956 that Dr. Barnhouse’s ecumenical love-stance included cultic compromise. At that time he and Dr. Walter Martin entered into “sweet fellowship” with masters of deceit–the leaders of Seventh-Day Adventism! As a result there appeared an astounding series of articles in Eternity, beginning in September, 1956.
While not agreeing with some of their “screwy doctrines,” of as he put it, he insisted that “they are as orthodox on the great fundamentals of the Person and work of Christ as anybody in the world could be.” (I for one, then, am out of this world!) In these fateful and disquieting disquisitions Dr. Barnhouse went all out in an effort to convince Christians that Seventh-Day Adventists were safe and sound evangelicals and should be accepted into full fellowship.
This irresponsible sponsorship brought forth a storm of protest all over the world, with thousands writing in repudiation of the sheep-stealing and doctrinally deviant cult. Dr. Barnhouse was untouched. As a friend of his used to say of him, “He was dogmatic about any subject even when he was totally wrong.”
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM ACCEPTS : The wily Adventists were quick to take advantage of Dr. Barnhouse and his pandoric patronage. As early as October 2, 1956, the Adventist monthly, Signs of the Times, came forth with an editorial entitled, “Adventists Vindicated.” “Vindicated” before the vindication was even published!
Their statement contained this telling sentence: “As to the effect of Dr. Barnhouse’s courageous reappraisal of Seventh-Day Adventism, we are convinced that it will not only create a sensation in evangelical circles, but it will lead thousands to restudy the ‘message’ which Seventh-Day Adventists feel called to give to the world in these last days.”
QUESTIONABLE “QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE” : Just a few months later, early in 1957, the SDA denomination published an official 700-page volume entitled, Seventh-Day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine. The primary purpose of this tome was to convince evangelicals, hand-in-hand with Dr. Barnhouse and Dr. Walter Martin, that theirs was an evangelical body.
PREPOSTEROUS PENTECOSTAL PERCENTAGE: 1957 also witnessed Dr. Barnhouse and Dr. Martin entering into “close fellowship” with the Pentecostalists. Eternity for April, 1958, reported the visit with the leaders of the Assemblies of God at their headquarters in Springfield, Missouri, stating, “We found total disagreement of two percent of our doctrines, and absolute agreement of 95 to 98 percent.” Again, believers were strongly exhorted to enter into fellowship with this anti-security, tongues and healing group.
It was at this time that the Pentecostal plague was beginning to break loose and infect the larger denominations. The Barnhouse-Martin open door policy substantially contributed to the present-day charismatic errors that are rending the Body of Christ.
Here the promoters of oneness gave their blessing to the most divisive and dangerous element of all! An ex-Pentecostal leader stated, “The denominations that are accepting and tolerating the Neo-pentecostals also exhibit tendencies toward Neo-orthodoxy, Neo-evangelicalism, and Neo-morality.” To this day, Dr. Walter Martin frequents the Pentecostal platforms of the country.
Hero Gone Bad: John MacArthur Jr.
The present-day compromise of John MacArthur Jr. is reminiscent of Barnhouse. MacArthur has no shame in regard to who he gives credibility to. MacArthur was corrupted via his friendships and associations with the likes of John Piper and Michael Horton. Though elders are to be beyond reproach, for seven straight years including this one, he will appear on stage with serial sheep abuser and hypocrite extraordinaire, CJ Mahaney. MacArthur came completely out of the closet when he wrote the Forward to Uneclipsing the Son, written by New Calvinist Rick Holland. In the Forward, JM plainly rejects the significant role of the Father and the Holy Spirit in salvation and sanctification.
Biblical Counselors Gone Bad: The National Association of Nouthetic Counselors
Peaking in the early 90’s, this organization could not have found warehouses big enough to archive the stories of changed lives for God’s glory. Through training in this program, I myself was able to prevent a suicide with the Lord’s help. In 1992, a NANC training center in Ohio saw twelve solid conversions to Jesus Christ in one year. Unfortunately, NANC allowed the infiltration of other “biblical” counseling organizations via teaching and board members. Today, NANC is responsible for leading thousands down a path of destruction. Former stalwart members such as Lou Priolo and Martha Peace now drink the kool-aid of New Calvinism and serve it to thousands daily by books and speaking engagements.
Disillusioned Followers of the Always Bad John Piper
A reason for Piper heroship is extremely wanting. He was initially educated in humanistic Philosophy before attending the epicenter of Neo-evangelicalism: Fuller Seminary. Fuller Seminary frequently hosted the likes of Karl Barth during the time that Piper was a student there. The same year that he graduated from Fuller, he went to Germany to study under Neo-orthodox theologians. Though Piper’s pedigree is suspect to say the least, his popularity is unprecedented. Many of Piper’s followers are clearly in the denial stage; chief among them, the former Christian recording artist Steve Camp. Camp has written several articles on his blog that vent his perplexity regarding Piper’s behavior—peppered with statements like, has anybody seen the real John Piper lately? Steven, Steven, Steven, face it—John Piper was never real. Camp also wrote a lengthy article concerning a bizarre concoction by Piper and CJ Mahaney known as “The Scream of the Damned.” Apparently, it taught that Christ was condemned to hell as part of the atonement. One wonders if Piper and Mahaney themselves are amazed at what they get away with.
Christians need to remember that a love for the truth is a particular part of the salvation gift ( 2Thess. 2:10). When it gets right down to it, every Christian has the stuff Noah had—even if they are the last ones on earth to stand for the truth. It’s there, you will find it if you want to. Others have followed in the way of Noah. During the time of Constantine, a notable teacher stood against the onslaught of Arianism and was forced into exile. His name was Athanasius. Someone once said to Athanasius that the whole world was against his uncompromising stand; to which he replied, “Then I am against the world.” This is where the saying Athanasius contra mundum (“Athanasius against the world”) comes from.
He was like Noah. When it gets right down to it, we all are. Compromise only delivers a truce tormented by a nagging conscience. It’s not worth it.
paul
Lou Priolo, Neo-Evangelicalism, and the Sonship Tsunami
Lou Priolo is an elder at Eastwood Presbyterian Church in Montgomery Alabama. Eastwood’s website, at one time, had a posted statement against Sonship Theology. The statement was pulled down and the church no longer retains a copy of it. I was told by a staffer that the former statement closely paralleled Terry Johnson’s treatise against the doctrine.
The well-known motto of the movement was, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” The very slogan was coined by the father of Sonship Theology, Dr. John “Jack” Miller. This doctrine fundamentally drives 90% of all the biblical counseling in our day. In fact, David Powlison, the most notable and influential figure of the Christian Counseling & Education Foundation, has noted the primary fundamental difference between “first generation” biblical counseling and the second generation: Sonship’s assertion that the cross is for sanctification as much as it is for justification. According to Powlison, Dr. Miller was his “mentor.”
CCEF, through co-relationships and duplicity of board members, has effectively transformed the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors, formally what Powlison considered “first generation biblical counseling,” into a bastion for the same antinomian Sonship theology that drives CCEF. The stated goal of the upstart Biblical Counseling Coalition (which is controlled by CCEF and NANC cronies) is to network the entire Christian counseling community. “Infiltrate” is really the better word. Powlison, like all New Calvinists, thinks he is on the cutting edge of a new Reformation that is saving the church from the present dark age of synergistic sanctification.
Today, an article written by Priolo as a guest writer, entitled, “On Preaching the Gospel to Yourself” was posted on the website for The Institute for Nouthetic Studies, the only biblical counseling organization left that has not been consumed by Sonship Theology. “On Preaching the Gospel to Yourself”? That’s like writing on the dangers of the pen-sized igniters used in nuclear missiles. But I will pause here to lay some groundwork for the thesis of this article.
In the 50’s and 60’s, well-known spiritual leaders begged the Christian community to repent of what was known as Neo-evangelicalism. In a nutshell, it rejected separation to maintain doctrinal purity. Neo-evangelicalism was spawned by Neo-orthodoxy which sought to find middle ground between Modernism (liberal theology) and Fundamentalism. The combination of these two movements (Neo-E./Neo-O.) has culminated into the massive ecumenical mentality of our day. The warnings were not heeded, and the church has all but completely given up its will to discern truth and protect it. Priolo, and his article posted on the INS site is a prime example of what these historical realities have given birth to.
Priolo is deeply involved in all three of the aforementioned counseling organizations (CCEF, NANC, BCC), and his article posted by INS is the epitome of Neo-orthodox fencepost theology. The article is clearly written to appease both second generation counselors and what’s left of the so-called first generation. The post makes some brilliant points that would solidify a contention against the doctrine behind the article’s subject, but the Sonship nomenclature is conspicuously missing by design. Bottom line: to mess with the Sonship label is to mess with David Powlison and a host of others. It seems that Priolo wants to keep friends. Priolo’s article is like writing on the mantra, “I’m lovin’ it” without mentioning McDonalds.
Unfortunately, Priolo begins the article with a fundamental theological flaw and then contradicts himself in the latter parts of the article.
Flip
To my way of thinking, the place of the doctrine of justification in the believer’s life is much like the operating system on a computer…. Windows is always up and running, but most of the time, it runs in the background. I don’t see it…. Occasionally, I have to go to the control panel to troubleshoot a problem, make some minor adjustments, or defrag my hard drive, but I don’t give it another thought because I have faith that it is doing what it is supposed to do. So it is with my justification. It is always up and running. Though I am not always consciously thinking about it, everything I do flows from it. Indeed, I could do nothing without it [emphasis mine].
Stop right there. Everything flowing from justification is the crux of the issue. An ongoing work of justification (“running” in the background) is the other bookend of what makes Sonship Theology run on all cylinders. In the beginning of the article, he subscribes to the basic tenets of the doctrine he is supposedly refuting! In Present Truth Magazine, volume 16, article 3, The Australian Forum wrote the following in the article intitled, “Sanctiifcation—Its Mainspring”:
Unless sanctification is rooted in justification and constantly returns to justification, it cannot escape the poisonous miasma of subjectivism, moralism, or Pharisaism.”
All in all, as we shall see, Priolo agrees with the basic tenet of Sonship Theology—he only disagrees with how often we need to apply it. This only seems to circumvent the contemplation aspect of the theology except on a as needed basis. To further this point, note what Priolo states next:
Flop
But there are many other things I am called to do (there are many other responsibilities God calls me to fulfill) on which I must diligently focus my attention. Although I am very grateful for it, I cannot allow myself to be distracted by checking the stability of my operating system of justification every five minutes.
This solidifies my point that at issue with Priolo is not the primary tenet of Sonship doctrine, but the frequency in which we check the “operating system of justification.” But that’s not orthodoxy which asserts that justification is a FINISHED work, and a legal declaration that results in the full righteousness of God being accredited to our account. A FINISHED work doesn’t continue to RUN. In the first statement, Priolo wrote that “Indeed, I could do nothing without it [salvation/justification]” which is true in that we cannot have any sanctification without being saved first. But if words mean things, that’s not what he’s saying.
Flip
But what about the growing number of those who say that we must (or should or ought to) “preach the Gospel to ourselves every day?” If by Gospel they mean the entire ordo-salutis: effectual calling, regeneration, faith, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification—the whole enchilada—there is not a problem (other than the fact that the Bible doesn’t exactly command us to do this). But if, like so many seem to be espousing today, they take a reductionist view of the Gospel—reducing it to justification (or to adoption) alone—there is a problem.
This is a good point—though in our day one wonders if we should not look closer at the idea of everything being “the Gospel” instead of making a distinction between the “ministry of the word” and the “ministry of reconciliation.” Priolo properly asserts here that even if that were true (preaching both sanct./just. to ourselves everyday), the Scriptures never tell us to do so. Well, amen to that!
Flop
If a new or immature believer does not yet have the faith to believe once and for all that God has truly justified him, he would do well to “preach the Gospel of justification to himself every day” until his faith is mature.
Not so. This is toeing the Sonship line and contradicts Peter’s specific remedy (2Peter, chapter 1) for what Priolo describes.
Flip
But to require me to “preach that gospel to myself daily” is to relegate me to the “O ye of little faith” society (which membership I would be only too happy to acknowledge if I thought it were true in regard to my justification). But the truth is that I believe God. I took Him at his Word when He said that He justified me. By and large, I walk around 24/7 with a righteousness consciousness that flows from my faith in Christ’s finished work on the cross. Even in the midst of my sin, I fully believe that I stand righteous and clean before my Lord (that I am still a son who is loved and accepted by my Heavenly Father) because I have been once and for all justified by faith in His blood. Indeed, my absolutely favorite Bible verse is Romans 4:8, “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not take into account.”
Again, this reiterates my point that Priolo’s argument seems to only deal with the frequency issue when he is not contradicting himself with orthodoxy
Flop
Consequently, I have little desire to spend precious moments every day laying anew a foundation that has already been laid for me. Nor do I think that the foundation on which I am building my life somehow needs daily reinforcement. My foundation is firm! I would rather (and I believe the bulk of Scripture directs me to) spend my time building upon that foundation by growing in love, in holiness, and in good works. (I don’t believe we should have a reductionist view of the concept of grace either—grace is more than unmerited favor—it is the supernatural ability and desire that God gives His adopted sons and daughters to obey Him.).
Amen! I agree wholeheartedly! But we have gone from a foundation to a computer program running in the background, and back to a foundation. Which is it?
Flip
And yes, of course, I realize that I can do none of this apart from the Spirit’s enabling power, and that my motivation for working so diligently on my sanctification is out of a heart filled with gratitude for what Christ has done by justifying me (not to mention thanksgiving for a myriad of other mercies with which He has blessed me).
And no, of course this is dead wrong, and right out of the Sonship/Gospel Sanctification/ New Calvinism/ NCT playbook. The Bible clearly states that God uses many other motivations to help us in sanctification; namely, threats, rewards, and many others.
Flop
This is not to say that there aren’t moments in my life when, because I am overwhelmed with the guilt of a particular sin, I have to take a bath in Psalm 32, 103, and Romans 3–5 for a few days in order to personally appropriate that justification which I forensically know is mine but that seems to have eluded me experientially. Nevertheless, these moments of weakness (concerning my faith) thankfully for me have been the rare exception rather than the rule.
Of course, there are many other exceptions that could be cited of people who may rightly be encouraged to take a daily booster shot of the Good News of justification. Perfectionistic people, for example, or legalistic individuals, or those who struggle with certain eating disorders are typically those who don’t comprehend justification and its implications on their lives and therefore would do well to review (indoctrinate themselves with) that part of the Gospel until they are fully assured that what God has promised He is able to perform.
Again, this is in blatant contradiction to 2Peter, chapter 1 which states that building on the foundation of justification makes our calling and election “sure.” We are to “make every effort” to “add” to our faith. Priolo erroneously teaches in this article that meditation on justification doctrine leads to assurance. No, we forget that we have been forgiven when we are not making every effort to add to the foundation of our faith.
Flip
So, this is certainly not to imply that there is something wrong with meditating on Christ and what He has done in regard to one’s justification. Indeed, such meditation serves as our greatest motivation for cooperating with the Holy Spirit in the progressive sanctification process. Thus, it is certainly a good thing to do. But, it is the insistence by some that we are all obligated to do this daily that has prompted me to speak out about what I believe amounts to an unbiblical approach to sanctification.
Once again, Priolo’s only objection to the hideous doctrine that he deliberately avoids mentioning is frequency. Whenever needed, not every day, while excluding any mention of what Scripture specifically prescribes.
Flop
Meditating on what Christ has done by justifying us is not, from the human perspective, what brings about our progressive sanctification (it is not the scriptural modus operandi for or the practical key to it). Obeying Christ’s commandments (in the power of the Spirit and from a heart that is properly motivated) is what does. Understanding justification (and being appreciative for it) is our primary motivation for sanctification, not a principal means of it.
So again, for those whose faith is weak (momentarily or chronically), or who do not understand or properly value the precious doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, or for those who are so proud as to believe that they can obey the Bible in their own power, I believe they should by all means proclaim the doctrine of justification to themselves as often as necessary until their faith is strengthened or until they come to grips with their own depravity. And for the rest of us, meditating on our justification and being thankful to God for it is a fine and proper thing to do.
This paragraph contains thoughts that are eerily similar to Sonship/GS/NC/NCT tenets:
…. for those who are so proud as to believe that they can obey the Bible in their own power, I believe they should by all means proclaim the doctrine of justification to themselves as often as necessary until their faith is strengthened or until they come to grips with their own depravity.
How would a Christian know (in the midst of “making every effort”) if his/her obedience is in their “own power” or that of the Spirit’s? It seems to leave an either/or ultimatum: either all us, or all of the Spirit. Sonship teaches that it is all of the Spirit. Priolo also seems to indicate that Christians should, “….come to grips with their own depravity.” The total depravity of the saints is a Sonship staple.
Flip
But for one Christian who struggles with (or is weak in) his faith to tell those of us who don’t that we are obligated to daily do what his lack of faith or knowledge (or perhaps lack of humility) impels him to do is presumptuous, if not legalistic. And for teachers and preachers of the Word who want to encourage others to meditate on the blessedness of being justified more regularly than perhaps they do in order to be properly motivated to obey God, for such teachers to not clearly delineate the biblical distinctions between justification and sanctification and thereby synchronize them in the minds of their hearers, is to put a stumbling block before those saints whom they are wanting to help walk in a manner worthy of the Lord. The Gospel is more—much more—than justification by faith alone.
Priolo is indicative of the huge problem that we have today with leaders who are in high demand. Their ambiguous teachings are designed to appease all venues or cover for what they really believe. They all contribute to the present-day Sonship tsunami. Clearly, as the pastors who stood against Neo-evangelicalism exhorted, separation is the only answer. Until other leaders say, “enough is enough” and break fellowship with the likes of Priolo until he finds a true love for the truth, the tsunami will continue.
paul
NANC’s Salvation by Working at Doing Nothing
Thanks to the reader who sent me a recent article by “counselor” Rick Thomas—a Fellow with the annexed National Association of Nouthetic Counseling. The article utilizes a wide body of New Calvinist theology and thought which originated with a Seventh-day Adventist who is now an atheist (the doctrine is presently known as “New Calvinism”). NANC, which is now an embodiment of false doctrine, and unfortunately under the auspices of counseling, continues to thrive on the neo-evangelicalism that godly pastors warned the church about in the latter sixties. Neo-evangelicalism is an attitude/philosophy promoted by neo-orthodoxy for purposes of promoting itself.
It goes something like this: “You can’t change something unless you remain a part of it.” “The way to bring about change is through infiltration.” “Be careful what you judge: all truth is God’s truth.” Neo-evangelicalism rejects the biblical concept of protecting the church by separation and cutting off provisions. CCEF used the neo-evangelicalism mentality to take over NANC, and today NANC thrives as a sinister network where pastors unwittingly send flock members to be slaughtered by ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Henceforth, this article by Thomas is an excellent insight into the black heart of NANC counseling, and a firsthand look at how NANC counseling points thousands of sheep down a road of slow spiritual death on a daily basis. But not only that , this post will explain how we got here.
Thomas begins his article (I’m not kidding: “The Danger of Trying to Please God”) with a description of “Sandra’s” problem:
Sandra has struggled all her life with people pleasing.
She said she could not remember a time when she was free from thinking about what others thought about her.
The way she dresses, the car she drives, the technology she carries, and the house she owns are all controlled to some degree by what others think of her.
A peek into her life
- She is fanatical about working out because of her keen awareness of what a “nice looking body” should look like.
- On a few occasions she has caught herself stretching the truth. She says she spins her stories because the real story doesn’t seem as interesting.
- She is fearful of bringing a bag lunch to the office because everyone else goes out to a local restaurant to eat. She’d rather go into debt than feeling like the odd man out.
- She has a low-grade anger toward her boyfriend because he pressured her to have sex with him. She believed he would leave her if she didn’t have sex. She needs to be loved by someone. Having a boyfriend is one of her ways of feeling significant.
Her biblical counselor quickly discerned that her problem was fear of man (Proverbs 29:25). The counselor told her she needed to be more concerned with pleasing God rather than others.
From there, the counselor laid out a plan of prayer, Bible study, and service oriented activities in order for her to practice a lifestyle of pleasing God.
The mistake the counselor made was not carefully unpacking what pleasing God meant to an idolater like Sandra. Sandra is an idolater who has been living a performance-driven, people pleasing lifestyle.
When she was told that she needed to be more willing to please God than man, it was not a difficult thing for her to do. People pleasing was what she knew best. Unfortunately, she was not told what pleases God so she did what she has always done–she ratcheted up her obedience.
First, Thomas sets the table with the whole first generation/second generation of biblical counseling motif. Supposedly, first generation NANC counselors solve every counseling situation by whipping out a legal pad and giving the counselee a list of do’s and don’ts. Well, I was counseled by the President of NANC, Dr. (unfortunately, the “Dr.” part came from CCEF’s version of Sonship Theology which is banned in many Presbyterian churches) John Street in the late 80’s and at the time he was definitely “first generation.” And trust me, that was NOT his approach. Presently, I do not know if John is a neo-evangelical, or a New Calvinist. Obviously, I would prefer the prior. But as President of the NANC monstrosity, he is at least that on steroids.
Thomas, aside from setting up a false scenario for interpretation, plays a card often exploited by New Calvinist counselors: First generation counseling solved a problem that was extremely prevalent in the church before Jay Adams came along. I call it, “stupid obedience.” Christians were trying to function on biblical generalities which led to the sheep not getting help for real problems. This led to the church turning to the world to get answers. The Adams reformation brought what I call “intelligent obedience” to the table, and the results speak for themselves. It also gave the counselee hope as opposed to, “There is nothing we can do for this patient but pray for a miracle.” We don’t like to hear that from a doctor, do we? Second generation counselors were not smart enough to figure that out, but nevertheless think they are the saviors of the contemporary church.
But specifically, what they do is to assign the problem that first generation counseling solved, to first generation counseling, and that’s a lie. Here, Thomas refers to it as “ratcheting up obedience.” What it really is—is more stupid obedience on top of stupid obedience. He exploits this misconception throughout his article, and in the end, Sandra thinks the poor counseling she got (if it was genuinely presented to begin with, which I doubt) is first generation, rather than what first generation solved. And of course, stupid obedience is still prevalent in the church today because CCEF interfered with the first generation reformation while aided by the mentality of neo-evangelicalism.
Let us now take a trip back into history to find out how we got here, and then we will deal with Mr. Thomas. The vast majority of today’s “biblical counseling” is based on a doctrine known as the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us. Thomas’ article is a mini treatise on that doctrine. As Susan and I continue to research how this all came about, we are continually amazed. In volume one of The Truth About New Calvinism, we focused on the basics of the doctrine and conceded to a second volume in favor of more research. Granted, the really big picture is drawn on the fact that antinomianism will be an ever-increasing reality as the Lord’s return grows closer. That was heavily emphasized in the first volume, but there is also a contemporary dynamic that is part of the picture.
For hundreds of years, theologians have sought to solidify a doctrine that is a middle ground between philosophy and fundamentalism. Or, if you will, “a happy medium between dogma and appreciation of human experience.” Or, between literal interpretation and interpretation that lends itself to other possibilities. You get the picture.
First, neo-orthodoxy sought to do that. Hence, it has always been a hybrid of orthodoxy and liberalism. That is why most of its tenets contain orthodox terminology with unorthodox ideas. This has always been the major accusation and complaint against neo-orthodoxy: it’s very subtle and resides in the mainstream. It’s an inside job.
At some point, neo-orthodoxy created a masterpiece called “Biblical Theology.” This is a hermeneutic (method of biblical interpretation) that is “truth as myth.” It promotes a truth as revealed in history, ie., the whole Bible is a historical narrative that contains the truth of salvation and reveals the works of redemption via that narrative. While that truth is literal dogma (appeals to fundamentalism), it doesn’t necessitate a literal interpretation for the purposes of dogmatic instruction (appeals to liberals). Whether or not the details of the story are to be taken literally or not, and whether or not the Bible is perfectly inerrant or not, is not the point—the truth that the passage conveys about the truth is the point.
Somewhat like Jesus’ parables. Is the purpose of those parables to convey truth? Absolutely. Are all of those stories necessarily actual events that really happened? No. That’s not the point, the truth conveyed by the parable is the point. And the crux of that truth is the gospel. Can the whole Bible really be a meta-narrative about redemption? Well, as the reasoning goes, would the Bible have been written if sin had not entered the world? No. Then for what other reason would it have been written? One must admit, it’s clever, and you can see how it caters to those who are concerned about literal truth as well as those who want to maintain the intellectual freedom of the individual. But in essence, you have them both agreeing on the gospel! Supposedly. And as a result, discussion on how to interpret gospel truth through that narrative is a huge playground where everyone can play nicely together; after all, we are all after the same gospel truth, right? Look, just go to any website dedicated to Redemptive Historical hermeneutics and these ideas are stated throughout. One example is Vossed World, a blog authored by an elder at one of the most well-known NANC training centers in the country.
But neo-orthodoxy, despite its masterpiece of unity, has always been fragmented and has experienced up and down success. In the US, it experienced a surge in the 40’s and 50’s, and then was nearly snuffed out in the early 60’s by doctrinal apologists. Therefore, there has always been an effort to discover the specific weakness that has plagued neo-orthodoxy from the beginning.
And the prize goes to Robert Brinsmead. He was the product of debate that came from a longstanding theological journey within the realm of Seventh-day Adventism. The crux of the debate within Adventism was justification, and first surfaced at their 1888 convention, then again in 1952. Brinsmead blew the whole debate wide open with his first theological frame that gave birth to the “Awakening” movement which turned Adventism on its head.
This led to a second theological frame invented by Brinsmead that answered contentions presented by E. Heppenstall and Desmond Ford. That theological frame was the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us which had a huge appeal for Reformed theologians enamored by various philosophies. Brinsmead, an Anglican named Geoffrey Paxton, and a Biblical Theology buff named Graeme Goldsworthy went to work in 1970 to develop Brinsmead’s doctrine into a consistent theological system that would stand the test of time. The project was called the Australian Forum, and it launched neo-orthodoxy into outer space. Neo-orthodoxy and its bosom buddy, Redemptive Historical hermeneutics, now had a skeleton to hold the flesh on: the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us. Hold on and don’t think ahead too far. Let me explain this a step at a time.
This doctrine is hard to get your mind around, but for the most part, it took the justification concept of the gospel’s alien righteousness completely separate from us and applied it to sanctification. Therefore, the doctrine denied the significance of the new birth (as do many New Calvinsts). But it had a basic flaw in its premise that forms the basis of understanding for the rest of what I am about to explain. I will get to how this doctrine works itself out as we progress.
The basic flaw is the fusion of justification and sanctification. Adventist debate always tried to work this problem out from that standpoint. Sanctification was seen as something that completes justification until we arrive at glorification. In other words, sanctification is not seen as something totally separate from justification that happens in a space of time between justification and glorification, but rather a connecting road between the two. That’s a huge problem. If sanctification is the “growing part of salvation,” (I have said this myself) then what is our part? But salvation (justification) does not grow! It is a finished act by God that takes place before creation! This was the Adventist dilemma: what can we do to maintain our just standing before God in order to be ready for the judgment? I triple-emphasize “just standing before God” for a reason. Don’t lose sight of that phrase.
Please note: 99% of all false doctrine is based on this misconception. The Adventists primary model stated that we are declared righteous at the point of our salvation, and all of our past sins are forgiven, but with the help of the Holy Spirit, and the fact that we are born again as new creatures, we could obtain perfectionism and therefore be ready to stand righteous before God in the judgment. Of course, with all doctrines that are founded on the fusion of justification and sanctification, it is believed that you can lose your salvation. If you can lose your salvation, what do you have to do to keep it? The necessity of the question itself reveals a salvation by works. However, this is why many false religions dumb-down the law and mix it with the traditions of men, or reduce it to mere ritual—it makes its keeping for salvation plausible. The fact that Adventists stood on the authority of Scripture didn’t make that Catholic-like option possible.
When you begin with the fusion of justification and sanctification which is completed with glorification, you can only have two results: forgiveness for all past sins and a role for us in maintaining a righteousness that will stand in the judgment (Christ plus works/ritual), or the maintaining of our just standing before God without our participation (antinomianism/let go and let God). Brinsmead opted for the second approach. But though these two options have been stated, really, as we shall see, BOTH are really works salvation. In real Christianity, our justification is a settled matter. We can do NOTHING in sanctification to add to our justification or take away from it. Sanctification is concerned with kingdom living and our walk with God. The concern that what we do in sanctification could unwittingly affect the “grounds of our justification” is an oxymoron using a red herring to mislead a straw man. That’s my way of trying to say that it is ridiculous times three.
So, Brinsmead’s doctrine stated that all righteousness for justification and sanctification was completely outside of us. He had to concede that we can have no role in the maintaining of justification. One of the primarily tenets of the doctrine also held that any work done by God inside of us was the infusion of grace within us, “making sanctification the grounds for our justification.” The Australian Forum also taught that if God did any kind of work inside of us—that was imputing His righteousness within us and involving us in the maintaining of justification. They believed that this was a fundamental error that was at the root of all false doctrine and was the very crux of the Reformation. They believed that this was the fundamental error of Romanism—that righteousness was imputed to us via the new birth and that Christ worked in us. Again, this supposedly infused grace within us and made us a part of the justification process. For salvation to be by grace alone, all righteousness and grace had to remain outside of us.
This is key because it enables justification and sanctification to be fused without the possibility of losing your salvation because you don’t have anything to lose. No righteousness was ever imparted to you to begin with, it’s salvation by faith alone in the strictest sense of the meaning—faith and absolutely nothing else. Hence, it is the imputed righteousness of Christ that maintains our justification in sanctification, not our own, and a righteousness that is also outside of us. Christ’s righteousness is not imputed to us personally, it is imputed to our sanctification.
So by now you are certainly incredulous, and want to ask the following: so what in the world do we do? Answer: live by faith. According to New Calvinism, sanctification is to be lived by faith alone. How in the world do we do that? Answer: by offering the perfect works of Christ by faith. Let me repeat that: by offering the perfect works of Christ by faith. That is the New Calvinist definition of faith.
How do we do that? Answer: gospel contemplationism. This is where neo-orthodoxy and it’s intimate lover, Biblical Theology come together with the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us. Though there are aberrations and slight variations, we partake in ‘beholding as a way of becoming.” Therefore, the Bible is a historical narrative that enables us to meditate on the works of Christ in redemptive history—a tool for gospel contemplationism—not to be taken literally for instruction purposes. All of the obedience that occurs as a result is the ”active obedience of Christ” and not our own. And this work is not taking place inside of us, it is “spiritual formation” or a “manifestation of Christ.” These manifestations are validated by effortless obedience accompanied by joy. Though variations of how this works with the central doctrine is allowable, all that is required is to stay faithful to the “Reformation” doctrine of the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us—anything else that fits with the primary frame is fair game and acceptable, and a virtual neo-orthodoxy love-fest.
With all that in mind, let’s now revisit Rick Thomas’ counsel to Sandra where we left it and see if we detect any parallels.
Who can please God?
And a voice came from heaven, You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased. – Mark 1:11 (ESV)
Christ pleases God. Anything the Son does pleases the Father. Jesus came to do the will of the Father and He completed that task perfectly. The Father received the finished work of the Son and now a way has been made for us to please the Father by accepting the Son’s work.
Without faith it is impossible to please him. – Hebrews 11:6 (ESV)
A Christian, who is living by faith in the works of the Son, is pleasing God. Pleasing God is not about what we do, but about believing in the only One who could authentically please the Father. Even on our best day, with our best works, we would not be acceptable to God.
We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. – Isaiah 64:6 (ESV)
Sandra is a Christian. However, she is not seeking to please God by trusting (faith) in Him. She is still performing, but this time she is performing for the Father, hoping to get a good grade.
Rather than accepting what is pleasing to God–the works of the Son, she tries to please Him by her obedience.
Here, we see clearly the Australian Forum’s doctrine of offering the works of Christ in sanctification as a definition of living by faith alone. Also, “Who can please God?” is a rhetorical question. This is the Forum’s position that we have no righteousness within us that can affect actions that please God. It must be done with the works of Christ offered by faith.
What about obedience?
Obedience is obviously hugely important to any Christian. However, the key is to make sure that your obedience is not an effort to please God, but a response to your faith in God. This is the context when Paul told the Corinthians that:
We make it our aim to please him. – 2 Corinthians 5:9 (ESV)
Paul was trying to get the Corinthians to understand that pleasing God was a walk by faith rather than by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7). The context for the passage was Paul’s appeal to get them to trust Christ rather than the things that they could see. (See 2 Corinthians 4:16-18)
If the Corinthians were trusting Christ in the way that Paul was outlining, then they would be pleasing God too. Pleasing God is about faith. Obedience is another matter. Obedience is the biblical response from a person who is trusting Christ.
Don’t you think it pleases God when you trust (faith) Him? And because you trust Him, you obey Him. The logic would flow like this:
- I trust God.
- God is pleased that I trust Him.
- Because I trust Him, I obey Him.
Sandra needs to start over. She needs to understand what pleasing God means. It means to trust Him, which she is not doing. If she trusted Him she would not be trying to please Him. Contrariwise, she is trusting her works and if her works are satisfactory, according to her estimation, then God is pleased with her.
God has a good opinion of her if she is trusting His Son for salvation. This truth must be inculcated into her brain. Because she is a Christian she is in Christ and she cannot be any more in Christ.
Being more obedient does not make her more in Christ. When she was regenerated God was pleased with her and His pleasure in her does not ebb and flow.
She must guard her heart from the subtle deception that what she does through obedience can merit a better standing before God. For Sandra this is amazingly huge. She is an insecure, people pleasing, co-dependent, performance-driven person.
Warning: If you are not daily affected by Christ’s finished work on the cross you can subtly slip into an obedience lifestyle thinking that what you do pleases God as though there is some kind of merit you can achieve through your obedience.
Other than restating the previous point of what faith in sanctification is, this excerpt is pregnant with the Forum’s fusion of justification and sanctification, and the idea that any effort in sanctification by way of obedience is an attempt to participate in ones STANDING before God: “She must guard her heart from the subtle deception that what she does through obedience can merit a better standing before God.” And again: “Sandra was relieved and encouraged to know that she did not have to please God to gain His good opinion. She began to understand that her standing before God was as secure today as it was when He first acted upon her.
Also notice the emphasis that any effort in sanctification is an attempt to be MORE IN CHRSIT which is a justification/salvation concern:
God has a good opinion of her if she is trusting His Son for salvation. This truth must be inculcated into her brain. Because she is a Christian she is in Christ and she cannot be any more in Christ.
Being more obedient does not make her more in Christ. When she was regenerated God was pleased with her and His pleasure in her does not ebb and flow.
She must guard her heart from the subtle deception that what she does through obedience can merit a better standing before God.
Regarding what Thomas says about obedience—this is disingenuous; obviously, if we cannot please God as he plainly states prior to this, it is obviously not our obedience. Remember, he quotes Isaiah 64:6 to make that point, which by the way is a verse that concerns justification. But if not our obedience, whose obedience is it? He says right in the same post: “Rather than accepting what is pleasing to God–the works of the Son, she tries to please Him by her obedience.”
How Thomas thinks Sandra should read her Bible is also evident towards the end of the post and aligns with the whole idea of using the Bible as a tool for gospel contemplationism:
For the first time in Sandra’s life she was beginning to make Gospel-connections to her practical life. She was understanding that the Gospel was not just for salvation (Justification), but the Gospel was the power she needed to live for Christ (Sanctification).
Today, she reads her Bible with a new pair of glasses as she recently said. Sometimes she gets frustrated when she thinks of all the years of cross-less Bible reading and cross-less living, but she quickly recovers by reorienting her heart back to the finished work of Christ. Sandra is free in Christ!
My last comment is for Sandra. Sandra, don’t count your chickens before they are hatched. Thomas has led you to believe that justification and sanctification are the same thing. You must continually (as the Forum stated it) “offer the perfect works of Christ to the Father by faith” so that the works of Christ can maintain your just standing before God. But that’s still works salvation. It’s working at maintaining your justification by doing nothing. Did Thomas not state in this post:
Warning: If you are not daily affected by Christ’s finished work on the cross you can subtly slip into an obedience lifestyle thinking that what you do pleases God as though there is some kind of merit you can achieve through your obedience.
And because justification and sanctification are fused, that merit would have to be for justification purposes. Slipping back into an “obedience lifestyle” circumvents the “finished works of Christ” that powers your sanctification. Gee Sandra, how often can this happen before you lose your salvation? Once? Twice? Are you maintaining your justification by faith alone? How many times are you allowed to offer your own faithless works instead of the works of Christ by faith? Are you actually in a works salvation by faith alone? When you are in a situation that requires obedience as a duty, will that cost you your salvation?
Maybe you better give Rick a call and ask him. I would actually like to know the answer to that myself.
paul
My Plea: Support a Light in the Midst of Counseling Darkness
“INS is now a true light of God’s truth in this dark age of New Calvinism.”
I don’t like to talk about it, much less write about it. In, or about 1989, I sought counseling from a biblical counselor for serious depression. Though stunned that it could happen to a Christian, I knew better than to go to the psychiatric community that was never much help to me or others I knew that suffered from depression before I was a Christian.
Funny, back then, I would have scoffed at the idea that I believed in let go and let God theology, but the depression, when confronted with real truth, revealed that I functioned that way in life:
“Hi Paul, did you get your homework done?”
‘Sure did, and I also read Scripture and prayed all day on my day off!’
“Paul, I’m not going to tell you not to do those things, but the power is in the doing.”
‘Wha, what do you mean? You mean doing things will get me out of this mess?’
“Paul, your goal isn’t to ‘get out of this mess,’ your goal is to please God. That’s your new goal Paul. Also, according to the book of James, you are to work with God to let this trial do its perfect work.”
‘[Speechless, though a pastor at the time].’
“Look, I’m not saying that obedience isn’t curative, it is, that just can’t be your primary goal. Your primary goal is to please God and let the chips fall where they may.”
As I was driving home, this revelation filled me with hope. I knew medication wasn’t the answer, so when my mind was racing, I could put that energy to work to please God, and only take medication if I absolutely had to. I went to work to please God with a new perspective spoken by the apostle Paul: “We make it our goal to please Him.” I immediately started taking half of whatever my medical doctor told me to take.
With the help of that counselor who modeled his ministry after the counseling taught by Dr. Jay E. Adams, I learned more in that one year about the Christian life than I had in the five years I had been saved. And Frankly, I don’t think I have ever learned that much, that fast, since.
And today, my wife tells me that she has learned more about being a Christian in the year that we have been married than the fifty years that she’s been a Christian. By the way, it’s because we have been studying through the INS correspondence course authored by Adams. Not only that, Susan and I held hands and walked into what was perceived to be an impossible mixed family situation. Pastors and Christians looked at Susan like she was nuts when she told them what direction we were taking in our situation from what we had learned, but the results speak for themselves.
INS is now a true light of God’s truth in this dark age of New Calvinism. CCEF, NANC, and the upstart, “Biblical Counseling Coalition” are all based on Sonship Theology. Don’t deny it, unless you want to deny that David Powlison is the major figure behind CCEF, which infiltrated NANC, and then started BCC. Unless you want to deny what Powlison said himself concerning who his “mentor” was (Dr. John Miller, the undisputed father of Sonship theology). Unless you want to deny what Powlison said himself concerning the fundamental differences between him and Jay Adams. Gospel differences. See chapter 9 of TTANC.
Every day, while thousands are referred to gurus of Gospel Contempaltionism masquerading as biblical counselors for their real problems, few seem interested in maintaining Dr. Adams’ legacy, except Donn Arms. Many others who have seen the results of what Adams says the Bible teaches about life problems are strangely silent lest they lose a few friends and some speaking invitations. New Calvinists reward their cowardly Koolaid drinking yes-men well.
Think about it. Please, think about. We are talking about how real Christians get real help for real problems. We are talking about the blessed truth of God’s word. I will now share the opportunity INS has before them, and I plead with everyone who may read this: be a part of something that really helps our precious brothers and sisters in Christ. It will help more people in more ways than you will ever realize this side of home.
THE OPPORTUNITY LINK: Click on this link to help God’s people.
Because only truth sanctifies,
paul
How Paul’s Passing Thoughts Came About
There is no doubt that much of my Christian life will be defined by my stand against New Calvinism. Not long after I became a Christian, my life was providentially moving toward the establishment of this ministry.
Saved in late 1983 in Dallas, Texas, and baptized in the Southern Baptist church in 1984, I began to see serious contradictions between God’s word and what was going on in church. My perception did not come from a limited view; in my early years as a Christian, I went to a major seminary and taught in various types of ministries.
In 1989, I moved back to my hometown in Dayton, Ohio with my family, and living the Christian life according to biblical generalities had taken its toll. In 1990, and by God’s providence, I was led to Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio (a suburb of Dayton). Pastor John Street had implemented NANC (National Association of Nouthetic Counselors) counseling at the Chapel, and that counseling turned my life around. The Chapel also became a NANC counseling center for pastors. In 1994, I was asked to serve as an elder and accepted. I served as an elder for five years. At that time, elders were reconfirmed by a congregational vote every three years. I was confirmed by the congregation twice.
In 1997/98(?), “pastor” Russ Kennedy returned to the Chapel after leaving in controversy for a pastorate in Illinois. That was in the early 90’s, and he returned to the Chapel after (unknown to most at the Chapel) being dismissed from his post in Illinois. According to a family member and close friend of Kennedy, he was dismissed for plagiarizing a John Piper sermon. During the time of his return, DA Carson and Jerry Bridges were invited to speak at our church. I realize now that he was probably behind that. I was out of town when Carson spoke, but remember thinking that the following statement from Bridges was rather odd: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” Though I thought the statement was odd, I brushed it aside and thought no more of it. Little did I know how much that little phrase would one day change my life!
Russ Kennedy was considered for eldership in 1999. In preparation for a forum to consider his appointment, he produced a sixteen-page booklet that outlined his doctrinal beliefs and philosophy of ministry. It is now evident, twelve years later, that he had totally bought into Gospel Sanctification, Sonship Theology, and New Covenant Theology at that time. Reading the booklet presently, I can only shake my head in disbelief as I read what he stated on page six concerning sanctification: “I believe that every believer is sanctified (set apart) unto God by justification….” There it is: sanctification by justification—if it was a snake it would have bit me. He also stated that this sanctification is known as “progressive sanctification” which is the usual deceptive term used by New Calvinists to describe the unorthodox concept of progressive justification.
Kennedy was affirmed, and right away things started getting weird. In the first elder’s meeting he attended, I was immediately taken aback by his heavy-handed style of leadership. I had to insist that a softer approach be taken concerning a miscommunication between Chapel elders and some students we were supporting at Master’s Seminary; specifically, a phone call for clarification verses a formal letter of rebuke from the elders. Shortly thereafter, I stepped aside as an elder for personal reasons (1/10/1999), but continued to teach at the Chapel. During this same time, a group of men from Emmanuel Baptist church in Dayton, Ohio started showing up. Dale Evans, Chad Bresson, Greg Cook, and Tom Watkins. This also coincided with the announcement by John Street that he was leaving the Chapel for a ministry in California.
I am unaware of how Kennedy knew this group of men who came over from Emmanuel, but they were all of New Covenant Theology persuasion and followers of Chad Bresson. All of this group except for Watkins ended up being elders at the Chapel after John Street departed (2000). We should pause here and examine their mindset that set the table for events following. This is an excerpt from this ministry’s book, “The Truth About New Calvinism” page 131:
This whole Reformation motif was started by the Forum which taught that all doctrines either fall into the objective gospel or subjective experience. Subjective spirituality was supposedly spawned by Rome and resulted in a reversal of justification and sanctification. Therefore, the Reformers rediscovered the objective gospel which ignited the Reformation, and also taught that the job wasn’t done (semper reformanda), and you can imagine who contemporary New Calvinists think that duty has fallen to. This is all covered in chapter four along with documentation concerning the fact that John Piper, one of the “elder statesmen” of the New Calvinist movement agrees with that scenario. This us against them mentality was passed down from the Forum and blossoms in the movement to this very day. They are the children of the Reformers—we are Rome.
And this arrogance translates into a predominant characteristic of New Calvinism: heavy-handed leadership style. As far as New Calvinists are concerned, evangelicals have been leading people into hell for the past 100 years (their estimation of when semper reformanda was lost) and any interference with the “unadjusted gospel” will be dealt with—no holds barred.
And such was the case at Clearcreek Chapel. After John Street left, changes were swift and radical. Russ Kennedy was appointed to replace Street, but we were clueless as to what he really believed. The front doors of the Chapel had barely hit Street in the backside before a marked difference in the preaching was noticed. A friend of mine referred to it as “flyby preaching.” Many left the Chapel shortly thereafter because “things are getting weird,” but really didn’t know why. Eventually, even though the elder over adult education was part of the old guard and called on me to teach from time to time, I declined because of the open hostility towards my teachings from the Emmanuel crowd.
All in the same year: my mentor left; I stepped aside as an elder; stepped aside as a teacher; and found it difficult to wrap my mind around what was going on with the new leadership. I started investing more time at work and began traveling a lot, but still stayed connected to the Chapel body. In 2003, I began discussing a business partnership with two core members at the Chapel, Matt and Sheelah Beaver. About the same time, something strange happened. The aforementioned Greg Cook, who I never really related to well, and always felt uncomfortable around, offered to start meeting with me every Monday morning for breakfast to discuss business, and offer advice on being the sales manager for the company that was being formed by the Beavers and me. Not long after that, I started attending a Friday morning men’s fellowship, and upon my attendance, an elder by the name of Dan Turner also started attending. I began to notice a pattern—I was being monitored.
It is important to share this testimony about Clearcreek Chapel because it is typical of many New Calvinist churches and where they end up because of their mindset concerning semper reformanda. Frankly, they become cultish. In fact, as we shall see, Clearcreek Chapel possesses all eight points that constitute a cult by Cultwatch.com. The first point is Deception. Cultwatch says the following about the first point:
A cult needs to recruit and operate using deception. Why? Because if people knew their true practices and beliefs beforehand, then they would not join. A cult needs to hide the truth from you until they think you are ready to accept it.
New Calvinist leaders are not hasty to reveal to people that they believe the Reformation was about the “false gospel of the new birth” and that you are either with them or the Roman Catholics. Neither are they hasty to introduce their ministries as part of the original Reformation. It is clear that the Clearcreek elders spoon-fed the congregation over a number of years. When one member started raising questions about New Covenant Theology, a gag order was placed on him and he was told by elder Chad Bresson that NCT would be taught when the members “were ready.”
The second point is Exclusiveness. This speaks for itself. To say that New Calvinists believe they have an exclusive doctrine would be a gargantuan understatement. This mindset is fertile ground for cultism.
A third point described by Cultwatch is a Reporting Structure. The Chapel clearly had a reporting/monitoring structure—primarily through the elders, and I assume they still do. The Chapel has three times the number of elders that is prescribed by church consulting groups for a church their size. When I was a member there—it was clear that elders were used to monitor the congregation.
In 2004, I parted ways with the Beavers; they took the retail part of the company, and I took the service part and started my own company. That was the agreement. The separation was overseen by Greg Cook and all parties agreed to it. In 2006, I began redoubling my efforts to become closer to the Clearcreek Chapel “family.” I had a large tolerance for the ongoing weirdness; it’s the only church my children knew, my daughter and son-in-law were married by Russ Kennedy, and after twenty years of membership, all of the “friends” that I had were there.
That’s when the problems started. Questions I was asking in Sunday School couldn’t be answered. The first problem was that the Chapel elders were asking long time core members to teach their doctrine when the members had no idea what they were teaching. They were given the material and told to merely read through it. One or two elders would then be assigned to that class to monitor the outcome. This was obviously done to give the doctrine credibility with the Chapel members. At least one parishioner resented being used in that way and told me so (Terri Engle). The problems started for me in a class where Greg Simmons was “co-teaching” a class with elder Mark Schindler. It became obvious that Simmons had no idea what he was teaching, and frankly, I didn’t either.
Another individual in the class was also asking difficult questions. He was telephoned by elder Chad Bresson and put under a gag order. I was called into a meeting with two elders (Devon Berry and Mark Schindler) and told that members were concerned about the questions I was asking. I pointed out that Matthew 18 was being ignored and that if those individuals had a problem with me, they needed to come to me “alone.” The response was: “They don’t have a problem with you, they are just ‘concerned.’” To this day, I contend that there was no “they” because several members were thanking me for the questions I was asking because, “I don’t know enough about theology to even know how to ask the questions I want to ask.”
The elders were beginning to lose credibility, so core members were removed and replaced with elders; and that didn’t go any better—now several other people were asking difficult questions. Then all of the Sunday Schools were combined into the auditorium to be taught by the big gun—Russ Kennedy. That didn’t go well either. The whole situation was becoming a comedy of confusion. Then one night, while relaxing in my living room, there was a knock on the door. When I answered, I was surprised to see three elders standing at my door, Mark Schindler, Greg Cook, and Devon Berry. They had inappropriately prearranged the meeting with my wife for obvious shock and awe effect (element of surprise by coming unannounced—plus three of them which is very unusual). Surprisingly, the meeting was not about doctrinal issues, but a “concern” for the difficulties I was having with my company. However, Mark Schindler had the audacity to suggest that I not be concerned about doctrinal issues “for at least two years.” I remember thinking, “That should give you enough time to assimilate the doctrine (whatever it is) into the minds of our people.” What was going on was completely obvious. This brings me to another Cultwatch element, Intimidation. This meeting was designed to intimidate, and several members who thanked me for asking questions would do so stealthily—wanting to encourage me to do so while being too fearful of the Chapel elders to do so themselves. The climate of fear at the Chapel was evident.
There were several of these kinds of meetings in the months following. During that time, the Chapel elders offered to pay for my CE in fire inspection—I declined for obvious reasons. By December 2007, I still had very little idea what these guys were teaching. My best guess was that they were enamored by New Covenant Theology, Christian Hedonism, Heart Theology, and Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics, and were trying to devise their own system that unified these theologies into a consistent system. However, unknown to me at the time, that was already a done deal—they were propagating a prepackaged system that had already accomplished that. Whether you want to call it the centrality of the objective gospel, Sonship Theology, or New Covenant Theology, that was their package. I submitted my letter to the elders in December of 2007 and departed with my family. We began to attend Grace Covenant Church in Beavercreek, Ohio. The church is pastored by a former associate pastor of the Chapel, Rick Wilson.
After my departure, and apparently due to being called on it previously, Mark Schindler and Devon Berry called and asked for a prearranged meeting with me. However, Schindler lied about the purpose of the meeting. When they arrived, and much to my surprise, they announced that they were putting me under the “first step of church discipline.” Already upset about leaving my church family of twenty years, this turn of events stunned and confused me. I collected my thoughts enough to ask for specifics. Four reasons were given: 1. Sewing discord among the brethren. 2. Worldly sorrow 3. Slothfulness 4. Walking in darkness. I thought number three to be interesting because I knew I had a reputation at the Chapel for being too focused on work. When I asked for clarification on number three, Schindler corrected Berry and said that wasn’t one of the reasons, so these two elders were not even on the same page regarding the purpose of the discipline. I asked for time to consider whether or not I would submit to the discipline, and such was granted, but I also knew what would happen if I refused to submit regardless of the fact that I had already submitted a letter of departure.
The next day I contacted Rick Wilson. He didn’t know what to make of the situation. However, a former elder from the Chapel suggested that the situation was driven by Russ Kennedy reliving visions of Illinois. Rick Wilson’s counsel was probably apt for the moment; the best I can remember: “Look Paul, you have been there twenty years. Go back and take their concerns seriously, and then take your family and leave in peace.” That’s what I did, but if I didn’t do anything else correctly, I was smart about one thing: I insisted that they put the reasons for the church discipline in writing. This took about two weeks of my insistence because it was evident that they did not want to do this. When I finally got the letter, two reasons were stated. 1. Love your wife according to Ephesians chapter five. 2. Find a different job. They refused to put any of the initial four reasons in writing. When I finally got the letter, I met with Rick Wilson at a Cracker Barrel restaurant, his treat, and he was completely perplexed by the letter and didn’t know how to respond.
I returned to address the issues, but in every meeting with the elders, NEW ISSUES were introduced. The whole situation became very confusing. Two months later, I announced to the elders that I was leaving the discipline. I was sternly warned that I would be excommunicated and declared an unbeliever before the congregation. I later found out that controlling a person in any way via threat of personal loss, including reputation, was a felony listed as Coercion under Ohio kidnapping laws. Another month later, it became evident that I was going to have to embrace their doctrine before I was released from the church discipline. That’s why New Calvinists call it “redemptive church discipline.” The goal is not to correct behavior, but to bring the individual into a “redemptive understanding of sanctification.” Hence, all of my meetings with the elders were break sessions attempting to use what I call “law negative” in The Truth About New Calvinism to show me that it is impossible for a Christian to keep the law in our “own efforts.” In fact, to attempt to do so in sanctification is an attempt to duplicate the fruits of justification; so for all practical purposes, justification by works. That’s why the elders continued to bring up more and more issues in our meetings while I was under their church discipline. As I saw my failures and a second step of church discipline looming on the horizon, I was supposed to break down and cry out, “I cannot keep it—someone must keep the law for me!” I cite New Calvinist Bill Baldwin in the book to illustrate this twisted reality concerning New Calvinism. This also explains why Mark Schindler was baptized again shortly after John Street left. Apparently, he repented, leaving Rome and joining semper reformanda.
Meanwhile, my missionary son-in-law and daughter came back on furlough from Puerto Rico and become intimately involved in the situation. Upon his counsel and the counsel of other pastors, I walked away from the discipline and took my family to Rick Wilson’s church. Shortly thereafter, Berry and Schindler came to my house on a Saturday evening and warned me not to leave. I in turn warned them that God would judge all things in the end. The next morning I was excommunicated before the congregation and declared an unbeliever. No reasons were given; the congregation was left to their own imaginations. Many who I had ministered to in the past simply assumed that I had committed adultery against Shirley and was unrepentant. In fact, a member of the Chapel recently told an acquaintance of mine that they were told such accordingly. In a meeting with myself, Mark Schindler, and Rick Wilson, Schindler pathetically denied that deliberate form of slander by saying that the elders mentioned in their statement to the congregation that I disagreed with the discipline. No kidding? I bet they were surprised to hear that! Adulterers rarely agree with church discipline. No?
Upon arrival at Grace Covenant with my family, Shirley and I entered marriage counseling with pastor Wilson. In our first counseling session, Wilson asked Shirley what it would look like for me to repent of the reasons I was brought up on church discipline. She didn’t know. In fact, she said she wasn’t sure why I was brought up on discipline. During this time, and unknown to me or Wilson, the Clearcreek elders privately submitted a six-page resolution to my wife commanding her to return to the Chapel without me. The statement painstakingly documented all of my sins against Shirley, which excluded verbal accusations they were making to Chapel parishioners at home Bible studies. The document also gave her the green light to divorce me based on three biblical abandonment principles of not supplying need: love; sex; financial needs. A copious note written by Shirley on the document is telling: “Is it still abandonment if 3, or 2 of the 3 are provided?” Also, I submitted full financial disclosure to Wilson which he also forwarded to the Chapel elders. I found the document in Shirley’s Bible. It also included a promise of a job, financing of a divorce attorney, and housing. Had Wilson been copied on the document, it could have been used to address specific issues in our counseling, but the document was given to Shirley in secret. They also stated to Shirley in the document that I had no authority over her because I had been declared an unbeliever by the Clearcreek elders. According them, they were the ones who had the authority in her life, and they were instructing her to return to the Chapel. At that same time, they instructed parishioners to barrage Shirley with cards and letters. Cultwatch calls this technique, Love Bombing.
During that time, I began receiving emails from a Clearcreek parishioner. Here are some excerpts:
So what ended up happening, is all these clues started to add up. The major one was how they responded to your being “given the boot” so to speak… I was there when they first announced it in service, and later on, in flock when Dan brought it up “in order to allay [or prevent...] our questions and concerns”. You probably already know basically what we were told- not to visit your website, not to engage debate with you- to trust our elders who knew so much more than we did from having spent so much time “in” the situation. And shortly after that, was when they implemented the security measures, in a not-so-concealed and vague way, they certainly implied you or someone on your behalf may pose a serious threat. I of course went to search out the website immediately, I’m sorry but even the apostle Paul encouraged the church to search the Scriptures for themselves- to my knowledge he never demands our unconditional trust of himself, or anyone but the Lord.
The website that the parishioner is speaking of is a website constructed by my son-in-law to confront the Clearcreek congregation for breaking up our family. The website, eldersresolution.org contains substantial documentation for purposes of ascertaining the truth in the situation. But the parishioner’s testimony is also indicative of two more points by Cultwatch: Relationship Control and Information Control. Regarding the first, Cultwatch says, “Beware of a group that tells you who you can and cannot see.” Regarding information control, Cultwatch states, “If you are instructed by a group not to read information critical of the group, then that is a sign of a cult.”
Regarding the motives of the Chapel elders, this email was interesting:
Even after this, I continued to attend Clearcreek. But more questions arose, especially concerning church discipline. More and more it seemed they selected the ppl for discipline, while others were left alone. I am a prime example. I realize they don’t have the resources to follow everyone around, but I was even living with my [boyfriend/girlfriend (info withheld to protect identity of parishioner)] at one point and [name of elder withheld to protect identity of parishioner] just eventually quit talking to me- though my membership remains and I was never brought up on any “charges”. I’d been in counseling for much of the entire time I attended. There are more strange happenings, but I won’t get into all of it.
The above was going on while I was literally being held hostage at the Chapel under a bogus church discipline. The Chapel elders severely overestimated the congregations ability to think for themselves or to take a stand. They should have just let it all go. But they continued to try to cover bad decisions with more bad decisions. And as time goes on, they are telling more lies to try to cover for prior lies.
Though these events are tragic, I can now see where they have equipped me to contend against this false doctrine. My story is by no means isolated or unique. I think Clearcreek Chapel is typical of the kind of ministries that are being spawned by New Calvinism. In fact, I know it is. This has given me the drive necessary to research this doctrine in order to learn more and more about it and warn others. And to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. Because only truth sanctifies (John 17:17).
paul
The Difference Between “First Generation” Biblical Counseling and “Second Generation” Biblical Counseling is a False Gospel
Sigh. I’m going to have to pause here and get something off my chest. While researching for the history section of The Truth About New Calvinism, I stumbled onto an internet promotion regarding a forthcoming book written by a very suburban-looking Heath Lambert. The title of the book is, “The Biblical Counseling Movement after Jay Adams.”
Lambert is right about one thing, the biblical counseling movement has left Jay Adams behind (“….after Jay Adams”), and according to what we hear these days, that’s good because Jay was “first generation” and now we are in the “second generation” of this “biblical” movement. Lambert looks really young. I will give him thirty-five, maybe. So, that would make him approximately ten years old when God used a disciple of Jay Adams to save my life with first generation counseling. However, I must be careful here, the last time I said that to someone closely associated with CCEF, they mocked me. That’s funny you know, that anybody would think that first generation counseling saved anybody.
Furthermore, while listening to an mp3 one day, I heard a NANC Fellow say that the first generation counseling didn’t do much more than create a bunch of Pharisees. What did he mean by that? We get a clue from a seminar taught at John Piper’s church by David Powlison while Piper was on a sabbatical to eliminate several “species of heart idols.” I guess the idols were the eight-month type and the hunting went well because Piper was able to return to ministry in January of 2011. Anyway, according to Powlison, first generation counseling was “behavioral.”
So, like the Pharisees, first generation counseling only cleaned (past tense?) the outside of the cup—it was behavioristic. And I guess it still is since many churches still do first generation counseling, and Adams is still alive and….uh, wait a minute here—is Lambert saying first generation doesn’t count as being in the movement anymore? Hmmm, this brings up another question: do the first generation counselors who reject second generation counseling consider themselves in the movement? Or are there now two movements? Maybe Lambert clarifies that in his book.
Let me suggest another question: since first generation counseling (Hereafter FG) advocated biblical thinking, doesn’t that count for cleaning the inside of the cup? After all, Christ said the Pharisees were inside lawbreakers (Matt. 23:28). Nope. Paul David Tripp took care of that in How People Change on page 27. Apparently, aligning our thinking with the mind of Christ “omits the person and work of Christ as Savior.” Wow. So taking every thought captive and bringing it into obedience to Christ isn’t what the apostle Paul was really talking about. In fact, to do that is to deny the saving work of Christ! These second generation guys must be really, really advanced.
For any of you CCEF guys who may be reading this—that’s sarcasm. The real difference between FG and SG was plainly stated by Powlison during his shameful, despicable trouncing of Adams at Piper’s church:
Adams had a tendency to make the cross be for conversion. And the Holy Spirit was for sanctification. And actually even came out and attacked my mentor, Jack Miller, my pastor that I’ve been speaking of through the day, for saying that Christians should preach the gospel to themselves. I think Jay was wrong on that.
This doesn’t need much explaining. In that statement, Powlison clearly states the differences between the two generations. Sanctification by justification or not. Also, his “mentor,” who he spoke of “through the day” is the father of Sonship theology which had sanctification by justification as its premise. Not only that, probably about the time Lambert was also ten years old, the Sonship nomenclature was dropped for “gospel-this,” “gospel-that,” and “gospel you fill in the blank because conservative Presbyterian elders were banning Sonship theology from their churches—calling it “dangerous” and eerily similar to “antinomianism.” Oh, and by the way, the “attack” Powlison was talking about: Adams wrote a book in contention against Sonship theology in 1999. By “attack,” Powlison meant “book,” I think, anyway, maybe the book part slipped his mind. Oh well, I’m sure he gave Lambert a copy for his research since it is a part of the biblical counseling movement’s history.
That’s the difference between the two generations, a false gospel. But wait, I’m not speaking of the SG false gospel; I’m speaking to the fact that they say FG counselors teach a false gospel. Why do you think they resent FG so much? The SG camp makes it clear that if you start with the gospel and “move on to something else, you lose BOTH.” Both what? Justification and sanctification ( Michael Horton: Christless Chrsitianity p.62; also see John Piper’s Gospel in 6 Minutes). Last time I checked, no justification means no salvation. Come now, words mean things. Tripp stated that to even make an effort to change our thinking omits what? The works of Christ as what? “Savior.” What happens when you omit the works of Christ as savior?
I think Lambert’s book is about 200 pages. About what? Second generation biblical counselors think gospel contemplationism is the way to help people and first generation disagrees. Seems pretty simple to me.
paul
Elyse Fitzpatrick, The Antinomian, Out With New Book About Let Go and Let God Parenting
Elyse is at it again. She has published a new book on parenting that is the feminine version of Paul Tripp’s “Age Of Opportunity.” I can’t wait to buy it for Bob and Jane (names changed). They have a rebellious teen to deal with. How bad is the situation? Bob removed the firing pins in all of the guns in the house, and they lock their bedroom door at night. So, I can’t wait to tell them that Elyse can instruct them how to show forth the gospel to their son which will result in a miraculous transformation. That’s their only hope according to Elyse because parents are bad, and bad parents can do nothing to raise bad children. I mean, duh, hasn’t everybody seen the John Piper video, “John Piper Is Bad”?
I will be writing a review on EF’s new book after I get done with Mr. Holland’s opus. The title is: Give Them Grace: Dazzling Your Kids with the Love of Jesus. I have read one review, and other than what I mentioned above, there is even more good news for Bob and Jane: not only will they be able to dazzle their violent teen, but guess what? Their teen is really not any worse than well behaved teens! In fact, well behaved teens are worse because they are just little Pharisees! Wow! Hope is on the way for Bob and Jane.
For now, I conclude with a comment that “Anne” wrote regarding the book review on her.meneutics about EF’s new book:
“*Sigh* I get that burying your kids under a pile of rules can set up the expectation that holiness is completely predicated on one’s behavior rather than grace and one’s heart attitude. But what’s wrong with having compliant children? Can’t we teach them manners and good behavior, AND teach them that manners and good behavior don’t save them?
Because I can just hear it across churches and the blogosphere now: My kids are terrors, but I’m a “grace-based parent” and therefore better than you because you make your kids obey the rules like a good little Pharisee.
Please tell me the book addresses potential misinterpretations of its point, like I’m bringing out here.”
Don’t hold your breath Anne.
paul
By Request: A Summary Of The New Calvinist Genealogy Chart; Part 1 / Introduction
The contemporary history of New Calvinism begins with Robert Brinsmead and Jon Zens. They are the fathers of New Calvinism. Between my interview with Brinsmead and an informal document written by Zens I found on the internet—this is apparent. Brinsmead started a project called the Australian Forum (he wanted me to note that it was one of many projects that focused on certain subjects) that sought to articulate a gospel-centered sanctification into a unified, consistent systematic theology. One of the major considerations was a focus on covenant theology in relationship to this endeavor. Jon Zens is the father of New Covenant Theology, but it is clear that Brinsmead had a major influence in the formulation of that doctrine. All of this took place in the 70’s. So, New Calvinism has been around for about 35 years in various forms. It is primarily based on the Forum’s centrality of the objective gospel (COG). COG is the very heart of New Calvinism. Though NC has many different expressions, this doctrine is the heartbeat that drives it.
The Forum was having a significant impact on two spheres of Christianity in the 70’s and early 80’s; namely, Reformed Baptist and Westminster Seminary. Zens was a Reformed Baptist and also a student at Westminster. Zens taught a Sunday School class where his ideas on New Testament ethics were being presented, and Westminster students attended those studies. Michael Horton was infatuated with the Forum’s teachings, and COG can be seen in many of his teachings throughout his career. Keep in mind, the Forum’s magazine, Present Truth, and later, Verdict, according to Zens, had the largest readership among all Evangelical publications at that time. Apparently, Zens was initially introduced to the Forum by receiving Present Truth while he was a student at Westminster, and eventually formed a close relationship with Brinsmead. Also, G. Goldsworthy’s involvement in the Forum as one the AF three is one of the interesting the top is the same as the bottom in the genealogy chart. Till this day, the Goldsworthy Trilogy is a mainstay of New Calvinism’s Gospel Theology. Again, at the very heart of Goldsworthy’s Trilogy is COG. Goldsworthy was close to Brinsmead, and Brinsmead learned his Hebrew skills from Goldsworthy.
Zens, with the help of several men who are now the who’s who of New Covenant Theology while Zens is in the background (probably because of his connections with Brinsmead), attempted to propagate the doctrine, yet unnamed, via the Baptist Reformation Review . Zens received a very zealous contention from other Reformed Baptist such as Walter Chantry. At that time, Brinsmead wrote several articles defending Zens’ doctrine in the BRR. According to Zens:
“A sort of (unintended) [I doubt that] culmination occurred in the Spring, 1981, BRR. There were lengthy review articles of Walt Chantry’s God’s Righteous Kingdom [a book Chantry wrote to contend against COG, though he saw it as neo-antinomianism, which is also a correct assertion] and Robert Brinsmead’s Judged by the Gospel: A Review of Adventism. The dynamic N.T. approach to law and gospel [“NT approach to law and gospel” is a present-day NC mantra] was stated forcefully by RDB:
‘[Paul's] appeals on how to live are made on the basis of what God has done for us in Christ. It is in view of God’s gospel mercies that we are to present our lives as a living sacrifice to God (Rom.12:1-3) . . . . Paul virtually never appeals to the law – ‘Thou shalt not.’ When he demands certain behavior of the church, he appeals instead to the holy history of Christ . . . and from that stand point then makes his ethical appeal.’”
Note here, and this is very important: the Forum’s the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event can be seen in Brinsmead’s statement cited by Zens above, which is a pillar of Gospel Sanctification till this day, and originated in COG doctrine by the AF. Chantry and others effectively beat COG within an inch of its life, and the doctrine, coined by Zens one year later as “New Covenant Theology” (in 1981), continued on in a meager existence among Continental Baptist. Most likely, John Piper was introduced to COG among Reformed Baptist and was probably well aware of the controversy. The wherewithal of his injection of Christian Hedonism into the movement is sketchy at this time and needs extensive investigation which I will do Lord willing.
Meanwhile, COG was finding new life at Westminster Seminary. In fact, Brinsmead and the Forum met with the Westminster faculty in the I think early 80’s, I will add references to this summary later. Brinsmead remembers little about the meeting other than he noted that the faculty served pork to him and the other forum members which he suspected was deliberate due to the Forum’s connection with Adventism. I informed him that it was deliberate because they were incited to do so by Jay Adams (a faculty member at the time) who was not a happy camper that the meeting took place. Brinsmead stated that one individual present at the meeting seemed to be an “elder statesman” of Westminster. I’m guessing it was Edmund Clowney.
At this point, COG, as the face of the AF disappears, leaving behind its remnants with Continental Baptist because Robert Brinsmead departed from orthodox Christianity all together. But the heart of COG incited a new movement begun by Westminster professor John “Jack” Miller called “Sonship Theology.” Again, COG met stiff resistance in Presbyterian circles under the new name of Sonship. Leading the charge was Dr. Jay Adams who also knew Jack Miller personally. His contention against Sonship is well documented in his book, “Biblical Sonship: An Evaluation Of The Sonship Discipleship Course.” Unfortunately, the book is out of print. One may well note: Some big dogs of the present-day New Calvinists movement; specifically, Tim Keller and David Powlison, were disciples of Jack Miller and his Sonship program. Tim Keller’s propagation of Sonship is well known and documented. At a conference conducted at John Piper’s church while Piper was on sabbatical, Powlison specifically cited Miller as his “mentor” and ridiculed Adams for criticizing Miller while failing to mention that the “criticism” was in the form of a book—which I am sure slipped his mind. Miller is the one who coined the phrase often aped by Jerry Bridges: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” Funny, while an elder at a reformed church in the mid-nineties, I heard Jerry Bridges say that without realizing what a profound effect that little phrase would have on my life ten years later.
But with COG again under heavy fire and the Sonship coat of arms being shot full of holes, “Sonship” was replaced with “gospel,” ie., “gospel-driven” this, and “gospel-centered” that. The movement was now underground, but steadily growing while avoiding labels like the plague. Take note: for almost ten years between 2000 and 2009, the movement was nameless. The name “New Calvinism” is very recent and was attached because movements that become massive cannot avoid a label. Meanwhile, David Powlison had been busy for a number of years integrating Jack Miller’s form of COG into “biblical counseling” through his Dynamics of Biblical Change which became the basis for biblical counseling at Westminser Seminary. Hence, different players were at work making COG relevant to different areas of Christian theology and life that were important to them in making COG work. Brinsmead conceived the primary foundation (with other Reformed elements not unique with him—what he called “jewels” that contributed to what was important to him) and helped Zens formulate the covenant theology. Goldsworthy integrated COG into hermeneutics and eschatology with a little bit of Gabler and Vos mixed in for good measure. Piper contributed to the experience / emotional aspect, and Powlison was paramount in his contribution to the life application part; otherwise, COG would be more vulnerable to its unbiblical passivity in the sanctification process.
Unbeknown to many in the biblical counseling movement, the integration of COG into biblical counseling, primarily in David Powlison’s Theology of the Heart that came out of Westminster’s DBC, was at the core of tensions between NANC and CCEF, the counseling wing of Westminster Seminary (other than the integration of Psychology as well, but COG deserves infamous merit there as well). Eventually, CCEF’s influence totally infected NANC with the disease, and NANC advocates act as if the cupbearer, upon realizing he has tested a deadly cup, should use his last words to compliment the superb taste of the drink. Eventually, disciples of David Powlison; Paul David Trip and Timothy Lane, wrote a book that articulated COG’s supposed life application in the book, How People Change. The centrality of the objective gospel (COG) and all of its elements are glaringly obvious in the book—almost as if it was written by Robert Brinsmead himself.
Starting in, or about 2004, Christians began to realize something was wrong, but because the movement had no label, other than, “gospel” (and who is going to diss the “gospel”?), many simply just remained confused as to what this was all about. However, I was in a unique situation at the time. I was in a church that was on the cutting edge of the movement for many reasons. In NANC’s glory days, this church was a training center for biblical counselors. The church was eventually infected by COG via CCEF’s influence over NANC, and Reformed Baptists who joined the same afoermentioned church who were of the Jon Zens persuasion. Once I knew something didn’t smell right, I spent several months researching and interacting with the elders of that church. Their story, which of course I didn’t buy, was that COG has been historically true all along, and a Reformation was afoot. Eventually, after hundreds of hours of conversation / debate with these elders and my own research, I named the movement “Gospel Sanctification” and started a blog called the “Berean Call” which later became PPT. Initially, I thought the movement was confined to those group of elders (who are all men drunk with visions of grandeur), and they were trying to formulate a system that made Heart Theology, Christian Hedonism, NCT, and redemptive-historical hermeneutics work together as a unified theology. Four years later, I came to realize that they were a mere reflection of a total package.
About a year ago, I received a book from an individual whom I suspect knew that there was a connection between Gospel Sanctification and Sonship Theology, but wanted me to see it for myself. The connection was immediately seen in the first 100 words of Adams’ book. After much more research, it looked like Jack Miller was the father of Gospel Sanctification, but I was haunted by a few things. GS seemed to need NCT’s view of the law to function without contradiction. Also, all elements of Sonship and the historical connections were easy to match with GS, but NCT theology seemed to be dropped in out of nowhere. Of course, it didn’t surprise me that the elders of the church I was a member of or CCEF never uttered the name, “Sonship” because that would supply Christians with an interpretive prism that could expose them. Then, several months later, by accident, I stumbled upon an article that mentioned the Australian Forum and how it had a profound effect on the theological mindset of Michael Horton. That prompted me to say to myself, “Oh really?” “What is the Australian Forum?” Well, the rest is history.
Future parts will put veneer on the framework posted here, but any clarifying questions are welcome.
paul
Clearcreek Chapel’s “All in the Family”
“I gathered up jewels that others here and there had mined, and just put it together in a way that seemed clear and important to me. If I could, it would be easier to reply that I had copied the package from somewhere in particular, but I am not able to do that. What I was on about impacted others and sharpened others up – like Paxton and Goldsworthy – and Jons [as confirmed later: Jon Zens] and a guy called Edward Fudge and others along the way.” ~ Robert Brinsmead
Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio is a good representation of the kinship between all of the elements in our genealogy chart ( http://wp.me/pmd7S-K7 ). One of the joys of this ministry is reconnecting family members with long-lost relatives. It is intriguing to see how remnants of the genealogy chart are all gathered at the bottom—thirty-something years later, but with family members like Robert Brinsmead and Jon Zens (the original patriarchs) missing. Heartbreaking.
Not only that, credit is not being given where credit is due; for example, Jack Miller’s Sonship Theology, which pumped new life into the centrality of the objective gospel (aka Gospel Sanctification and New Covenant Theology) after it received a brutal beating from Walter Chantry and others on the left side of the chart, is never mentioned at T4G, TGC, and SGM gatherings, even though the primary disciples of Jack Miller (Tim Keller and David Powlison) are major players in those movements. Could it be because the Sonship label was shot full of holes by Jay Adams and Chad Van Dixhoorn on the right side of the chart? It would really do my heart good to see the Sonship label proudly displayed at the 2012 T4G. I mean, we’re talking family here.
Though I will be writing about many of these bottom-of-the chart family reunions, Clearcreek Chapel is an excellent specimen. The “elder” in charge of their “adult education” is Christian radio personality Chad Bresson, who authors a blog dedicated to Geerhardus Vos. Bresson is a member of the Earth Stove Society which promotes New Covenant Theology. Bresson has recently posted a lengthy article on eighty elements of New Covenant Theology followed by four articles on the writings of Graeme Goldsworthy. Also, a post by Bresson that articulates how New Calvinists interpret the Bible using a lengthy excerpt from the writings of Robert Brinsmead drew a lot of heat from some readers: http://goo.gl/qbeS4 .
Bresson was a recent speaker at the John Bunyan Convention which is a yearly conference that fictitiously uses the name of Bunyan to promote New Covenant Theology (NCT). This year’s conference included two primary figures of NCT, Fred Zaspel and John Reisinger. The conference was held at Reformed Baptist Church in Lewisburg, PA and I have not ascertained whether or not it is a Continental Baptist church which are a small fellowship of NCT churches that split from Reformed Baptist circles over the NCT issue. The debate that fueled the split was primarily between the father of NCT, Jon Zens, and Walter Chantry. Reformed Baptist protestants staunchly proclaimed NCT to be Antinomianism and were not the least bit apologetic about the accusation. Jon Zens is now in the background, probably because of his close association with the likable, but controversial Robert Brinsmead.
While Bresson shows Clearcreek’s kinship with Jon Zens, Brinsmead, and Goldsworthy, the Chapel leadership as a group focuses heavily on David Powlison’s Theology of the Heart ( http://goo.gl/8UnBe ) and John Piper’s Christian Hedonism. In fact, the pastor of Clearcreek is a well known rabid follower of John Piper. It is my understanding that Piper’s Christian Hedonism is presented yearly in the adult Sunday school class. Paul David Tripp is a frequent speaker there and the Chapel was one of the pilot churches that “tested” Tripp’s book How People Change, which is based on Powlison’s Dynamics of Biblical Change.
The common thread that ties all of the family members together is the Australian Forum’s centrality of the objective gospel (COG). This core thread (COG) was primarily developed by Brinsmead and Zens. Though it includes what Brinsmead describes (in our interview) as a collection of jewels, there is no doubt that Brinsmead and Zens formulated the basic systematic theology that makes its present-day life possible. In regard to any such system prior to the Forum, Brinsmead stated: “I gathered up jewels that others here and there had mined, and just put it together in a way that seemed clear and important to me. If I could, it would be easier to reply that I had copied the package from somewhere in particular, but I am not able to do that. What I was on about impacted others and sharpened others up – like Paxton and Goldsworthy – and Jons [as confirmed later: Jon Zens] and a guy called Edward Fudge and others along the way.”
COG states that all spiritual growth comes from contemplating the gospel outside of us. Any truth that is placed in the same priority at any given time is said to eclipse Christ. Inside considerations (the inner us [subjective]) would be included, which relegates the new birth to a position of insignificance—paving the way for the total depravity of the saints, “The same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you,” and “we must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday” (coined by Jack Miller and aped excessively by Jerry Bridges). As this foundational thread (system) has weaved through contemporary church history, it has been endowed with an explanation of how it is experienced (Christian Hedonism); how it applies to life (Heart Theology); its view of covenants (New Covenant Theology); and an interpretive model that enables outcomes that fit together logically (The Goldsworthy Trilogy [research on how the Dutch Reformed movement and Vos may have influenced Goldsworty is still pending]).
In an introduction to a Christian Hedonism class at Clearcreek Chapel, Chad Bresson said, “This is what makes us unique.” While one wonders why the goal is to be unique, we all can agree that it’s family that makes it all so special.
paul
New Calvinism’s Dirty Little Secret: How They Practice “Redemptive” Church Discipline
Don’t misunderstand, I’m not crazy about how most churches practice church discipline to begin with; for example, I don’t think Matthew 18:15-35 is a grid for church discipline—I think it’s a grid for resolving conflict among Christians. I also think the term is unbiblical as well; there is self discipline in the Bible, and there is God’s discipline, but there is no discipline practiced by the church. The church is to put certain procedures into motion that will pave the way for God to discipline, but the church does not perform the discipline. It’s an important distinction.
Nevertheless, churches need to be proactive in a biblical way in regard to resolving conflict and confronting sin. But the best kept secret of the New Calvinist movement (Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Theology, hereafter NCGSS) is its creepy, cultish way of practicing what they call “redemptive church discipline” (hereafter RCD). RCD is mostly practiced by Reformed elders in Baptist circles where local churches are not accountable to higher authorities. However, that will change as church hierarchies continue to show a lack of intestinal fortitude in regard to standing up against the big names of New Calvinism (hereafter NC).
It all begins with what is becoming clearer to me as I understand more, and more about this movement—everything is about an extreme form of justification, ie., being justified by Christ and His works alone. You would think that it would be impossible to take that belief to an extreme, but NC certainly does. Whether they will admit it or not, among other extremes, they teach that our present obedience was imputed to us by Christ in His atonement and presently performed by Him, and not us. They call this “the imputed active obedience of Christ.” They often speak of the necessity that Christ lived a perfect life while here in the flesh so that His perfect obedience could be imputed to us along with a legal declaration of righteousness. So, other than His death on the cross (what they call His “passive” obedience) and His resurrection being efficacious for the atonement—His perfect life (“active” obedience) is not assumed by virtue of the fact that He is Christ, and was also needed so that obedience could be imputed to us as well.
However, while pounding that point home, when you ask them if Christ’s obedience is still active, you get the deer in the headlight look. Why? Because if they say “yes” (and trust me, according to their doctrine, the answer is “yes”), that can only mean that He is presently obeying in our place. If you pay attention, you can see hints of this in their unguarded statements. In an informal document written by Jon Zens that recounts his conversations with Robert Brinsmead, the subject at hand was “the centrality of Christ in obedience.” A reader coined a phrase yesterday that may be apt: “imputed sanctification.”
This extreme view of justification also leads NC to deny the centrality of the Father and the new birth. Logical conclusions also point to unorthodox teachings such as daily justification, or the need to be resaved on a continual bases. This blog is replete with quotes that affirm these accusations.
It therfore stands to reason that church discipline must concern justification as well. The problem this poses for NC is the fact that orthodox church discipline calls for obedience on the part of the believer—which shifts the “emphasis to the believer and away from Christ” (what they call an erroneous subjective justification rather than an objective justification). Therefore, they had to come up with a church discipline that focuses away from demands upon the Christian and implements the works of Christ instead. Hence, “redemptive” church discipline.
How does it work? First, the sin really isn’t the issue per se. Elders may announce to any parishioner at any time that they have been placed into the process of RCD. In RCD, the “steps” are not the Matthew 18 steps that could lead to disfellowship, rather, the steps are part of the process of which you are either in or out of—via elder announcement. If the elders perceive that you have a cooperation or colaboring view of sanctification, you can be placed into the process to correct your view of redemption—that’s why they call it RDC. Therefore, a member could find him/herself in the process because of a theological discussion with an elder, and in fact, this has happened. Once in the process the parishioner is not free to vacate his membership until the elders determine “fruit meet for repentance.” The process can move from step to step (supposedly per Matthew 18) within the process if the individual in the process shows no acclimation to the “proper” view of redemption. Eventually, no movement in the desired direction (months, or even years later) can lead to the fourth and final step—disfellowship.
Those who try to leave that particular church in the midst of the process are also disfellowshipped—the congregation naturally assumes this happened because the member attempted to vacate membership before an offended party, or those confronting sin could confront him in a second or third step with witnesses in a traditional church discipline. In other words, parishioners in NC churches usually don’t know that their elders are practicing this kind of discipline, but rather assume the more traditional practice. Worse yet, the congregation also assumes sin of the baser sort as the reason for the excommunication.
Secondly, any kind of sin can be cause for RCD because sin really isn’t the issue; the sin is merely the result of the person’s view of redemption—fix his/her’s view of redemption, and Jesus will start obeying for them—problem solved. Furthermore, since redemption is the goal, elders who practice RCD can also (so they think) bring non-members into the process because the church has a mandate from Christ to make disciples of all nations. Therefore, a parishioner who pretends to be converted to NCGSS in order to escape a church without being disfellowshipped can still be excommunicated if they tattle on the elders to existing members after they leave. In fact, this has happened.
Lastly, this puts counselees in a very precarious situation. Many churches who are NANC certified practice RCD. Basically, counselees can find themselves held hostage at a church via threat of public humiliation. This ministry is aware of many testimonies accordingly: people being placed in RDC for tithing issues, priority issues—you name it, while discussion of this form of discipline is nowhere to found. A more vile consideration is marriage counseling where one spouse accepts Gospel Sanctification and the other spouse doesn’t—resulting in the conclusion that it is a mixed marriage (believer/unbeliever). This of course, puts the marriage in a very dangerous circumstance.
Would proponents of NC like to deny this? Well then, simply answer this question: “Why do you call it “redemptive” church discipline? Isn’t the word, “redemption” a little strong when we are talking about reconciliation? Please explain, and for once without hiding behind the word, “gospel.”
paul
Wed. Night Bible Study Makes Jay Adams Look Less Radical
“That’s his words, not ours. Therefore, our group concluded that even with our limited knowledge of biblical counseling, we could, in fact, help this Christian—and more than the ‘experts’ that he cited in the article.”
An extraordinary article was published in Christianity Today and published online yesterday ( http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/april/schizophrenic.html ). It is the testimony of a Christian struggling with Schizophrenia. The article, printed out, is six pages. I took the article with me to our church’s Wed. night Bible study and used it for open discussion.
After passing out copies to each parishioner, I informed them that we would be reading through the article together and stopping for discussion when warranted. As facilitator, I opened with the following question: “Is God’s word sufficient for just the ‘normal’ problems of life, or is it useful for deeper problems?” I then began reading as the others followed along.
The author writing his testimony opened with the following statement:
“I used my cane to hit the handicapped door opener. My hands shook and shadows danced on the wall. In the back of my mind, I saw train tracks. My head lay on the rail. A whistle blew, and I closed my eyes. It blew again and again. My eyes were shut tight. I was anxious and scared. Do suicides go to heaven?”
The parishioners seemed to be catching-up a little bit on this unorthodox Bible study I sprang on them, so I offered another interpretive / discussion question:
“If you were waiting for your car to be serviced at the auto repair center, and the person sitting next to you saw you reading your Bible, and asked that question, would you have an answer?” One member said “yes” and offered a pretty good theologically sound answer, which prompted my next question: “That’s good, but I’m wondering, should we see this as a divine appointment? Should we ask him, ‘what is going on in your life that would prompt such a question?’ I’m wondering, is this how a lot of people get saved? Is this how churches grow? Isn’t the gospel, if you think about it, problem centered?” The group agreed and suggested that such opportunities should be used to gain involvement in people’s lives. After all, this guy needs hope, right? And what does the Bible say about that? “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” (1Peter 3:15).
While waiting for his doctor, the author shared what he was thinking:
“I sat in a comfortable leather chair. I thought of the life I could have lived. The life I lost.”
Here was my next question to the group: “If this Christian expressed this thought to the apostle Paul, what do you think Paul would say to him?” A deacon in our church immediately suggested some thoughts on Philippians 3:8 where Paul said he considered his past life rubbish when compared to the gospel—so, “what’s so special about this guy’s past life?” Hmmm, interesting thought, no? The deacon’s wife then pointed to Philippians 3:13,14: “But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.” At this point the group was very engaged and insightful observations from the Scriptures started coming in rapid fire. The group agreed as a whole that this line of thinking was not a helpful focus for our not so hypothetical counselee. We continued to read:
“A small, balding man in penny loafers came to greet me. He wore a Harris Tweed jacket with no tie—a failed attempt to set his patients at ease.”
We did not park long here, but I suggested that our counselee doesn’t know what the intentions of this doctor was in how he dressed. But, let’s say that it was his intentions; how does the counselee know it didn’t work for others? And would that be necessarily wrong? Could this indicate more unbiblical thinking? Probably. I then brought back to mind the author’s opening statement and directed the group to Philippians 4:8,9:
“Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.”
In light of this passage, should the counselee be thinking (the word is actually more along the lines of “dwelling”) about his head being on a railroad track with a train approaching? In fact, was that “true”? Are those thoughts “lovely”? The group’s response: “Obviously not.” Then came my next question regarding what Paul said the results of right thinking and right doing would be (“And the God of peace will be with you.”):
“We would all agree that this Christian needs “peace,” but does this promise pertain to our counselee even though he’s schizophrenic?” Their answer: “Absolutely!” Hmmmm, interesting.
Then came a very light moment, and a lightbulb moment when we discussed the first question the therapist asked our counselee:
“Well, David, how do you feel?”
My facilitating question was: “In light of what we have discussed, shouldn’t the doctor’s question be ‘How are you thinking—rather than ‘How are you feeling?’ If one knows how this Christian is thinking—wouldn’t his feelings be a given?’”
The group wholeheartedly agreed via laughter. Their smiling faces also seemed to say, as they rechecked the manuscript: “Doctors get paid for this?”
We then continued to read:
“It took me a moment to collect my thoughts. “I still see shadows everywhere. They seem to watch me. Whenever I close my eyes I see myself without a head. Sometimes it feels like invisible knives are swirling around me. The medicine is making it hard for me to walk, and often I feel like I am falling when I am just standing still. The suicidal thoughts are getting better. Just ideas, no actual plans.”
This statement evoked some questions in our minds: Does wrong thinking lead to bad feelings, and do those bad feelings then start to produce further negative thinking, with further negative feelings? The counselee is now using “[it] seems” and “it feels” as if we can almost see the downward spiral right here in this manuscript. Also, can the drugs really do the counselee any good while he is thinking this way?
We continued to read:
“Dr. Stanley nodded and scribbled something on my chart.
‘I see. I think you are doing better than the last time we met. How are you spending your time?’
‘I sleep most of the time. When I’m awake I play my Xbox. Sometimes I read and listen to music.’
‘Do you get out of the house much?’
‘No.’
I directed the group back to Philippians 4:8,9. Is this “doing” (sleeping and Xbox “most” of the time) advisable for this counselee right now? Again, regardless of his condition, does the promise of these verses and James 1:25 still stand? We think it does.
I then directed them to page two and read the following from what the author wrote:
“A little knowledge can be a frightening thing. I soon realized, for instance, that psychiatrists often go to school for 24 years so they can prescribe drugs that, according to some research, are only marginally better than a placebo. Almost all antidepressants increase the recipient’s risk for suicide. Why did I trust these people? Why did I pay $160 an hour to see them?”
That’s his words, not ours. Therefore, our group concluded that even with our limited knowledge of biblical counseling, we could, in fact, help this Christian—and more than the “experts” that he cited in the article.
Others who were reading ahead brought up another important issue from the following excerpt:
“While some members of our conservative church were supportive, it was amazing how often our questions were met with skepticism and hostility: ‘Are you secretly gay?’ ‘Do you have some unconfessed sin?’ ‘Are you possessed by a demon?’ ‘How dare you question God!’ The range of suspicions was staggering.”
Regarding this excerpt—our group’s conclusion: 1. Counseling /discipleship must be done the right way. 2. This is indicative of Job’s three friends: “C’mon job, confess your sins—you will be healed and we can all go back home.” 3. Christians must resist laziness in regard to helping other Christians (i.e., quick fixes and pat answers). 4. Christians must be gentle, humble, willing to sacrifice self, and willing to invest in others.
In, or around 1972, Jay Adams published a book entitled “Competent to Counsel.” The book introduced a radical concept to contemporary Christianity; namely, that the average Christian has what he needs in the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures to help others with the deep problems of life. Today, Dr. Adams and Donn Arms offer training that equips Christians to do just that through the Institute of Nouthetic Studies ( www.nouthetic.org ). Our church’s men’s ministry is implementing this training into our curriculum. We trust that it will make us better husbands, better fathers, better ministers of the word, and better evangelist. In Adams’ introduction to the program, he suggests that Christians have more in their discipleship bag than what they think—after Wednesday night, we would have to agree. Also, Dr. Jay’s contention is not looking so radical after all.
What We Don’t Need
We don’t need counseling that taints the “pure milk of the word” ( 1Peter 2:2) with those who ask the wrong questions (“How do you feel” verses “What do you think”). Though feelings in the Christian life are very important, the primary purpose of medication is telling in regard to other counseling disciplines. Neither should God’s word be tainted with those who make feelings the primary discipline through which all other spiritual disciples flow (i.e., John Piper). Nor do we need to solicit ancient philosophers and look for God’s truth in everything that crawls upon the Earth (i.e., CCEF). Furthermore, we do not need to integrate mysticism with the pure milk (i.e., NANC). Moreover, those who cry “Christ-centered counseling, NOT problem centered counseling” miss the point: the gospel itself is problem-centered. The good news addresses two major problems: sin, and separation from God. We are ambassadors on an alien planet, and those in the kingdom of darkness look for relief from their pain, and the happiness Christ talked about in the Sermon on the Mount—but they often do not understand the source of that pain.
Lastly, this excerpt, “Doctor, it has been three years. Will I ever get better?….’you need to accept that you will always be this way’ (the statement by his doctor was never refuted by the Author),” gives us pause because Romans 8:37 says, “No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.” Certainly, Jay Adams is right; we have to believe that Christians have more hope in our bags than that!
paul
TGC Part 20: Directory May Give Clue Regarding What GS/S Churches “Look Like”
This will be the last part in this series concerning The Gospel Coalition. While looking into the possibility of posting a directory of Gospel Sanctification / Sonship churches—it quickly became evident that such a task would be too time consuming. Unfortunate, because many give testimony to the fact that the average lay person will spend two years figuring out that their leadership has adopted the GS/S doctrine. In all cases reported so far, the eldership of GS/S churches refused to come clean to the very end.
Therefore, the best course of action is to refer Christians to the TGC Network Church Directory: http://thegospelcoalition.org/network/church-directory/
On the list is a church in Springboro, Ohio named Clearcreek Chapel (hereafter: CCC). CCC, often referred to as “Clearcreek Cult,” and “Cloudy-Creek Chapel” by former members, is one of the most respected churches among the who’s who of GS/S. The church was founded by Dr. John Street, a prominent board member of the upstart Biblical Counseling Coalition which is intimately connected with TGC and T4G. DA Carson, Jerry Bridges, and Robert Jones have done conferences there (CCC), and Paul David Tripp speaks there often. CCC was one of the pilot churches that tested David Powlison’s “Dynamics of Biblical Change” before it was published as “How People Change” authored by Tripp and Timothy Lane. CCC is also a NANC training center.
Therefore, CCC, as one of the first independent Reformed churches to ascribe to the GS/S doctrine, could represent what churches who follow GS/S doctrine may look like in future years. For expediency, I will use an unpublished (until now) document that expresses concerns regarding CCC—and it also makes a good questionnaire for other churches that hold to this doctrine. The document was derived from actual events and testimonies from former members.
An Open Challenge To Clearcreek Chapel In Springboro, Ohio:
I. A primary hallmark of a cult is covert doctrine and church policy that is gradually assimilated into the thinking of its members incrementally. The organization “CultWatch” states the following: “…if people knew their true practices and beliefs beforehand then they would not join. A cult needs to hide the ‘truth’ from you until they think you are ready to accept it.” Therefore, we challenge the Chapel elders to fully reveal what they believe about the following doctrine and policies to all present members, new members, and visitors:
A. Sanctification: Please inform them that you believe that sanctification is purely monergistic in the same way as it is in justification, and that participation by believers in the sanctification process is a false gospel.
B. The Word of God: Please inform them that you believe that every verse in the Bible is about justification only, and that the Holy Spirit is only active in sanctification when the Scriptures are used to that end only. Affirm or deny that Christians need salvation every day.
C. Church Discipline: Please inform them that you believe that any member can be placed into your church discipline process at any time, and for any reason, and without prior notice. Please inform them that a verbal repentance from the subject does not end the process, but that true repentance must be determined by elders over time. Please inform them that they are not free to leave the Chapel until they are released from this discipline process by the elders, and that any attempt to do otherwise will result in excommunication. Please inform them that all subjects who enter into formal, or informal counseling, are considered to be in the discipline process, and are not free to leave Clearcreek Chapel until they are released from counseling. Please inform them that you believe that you have the authority to place any individual into your church discipline process regardless of membership status, including those who have never been a member of Clearcreek Chapel in the past.
D. Divorce: Please inform all present members, new members, and visitors that you believe that your members are free to divorce any spouse that is unbelieving, or declared to be unbelieving by you because of a wide range of perceived failures as a spouse. Also, many of these perceived failures can be considered abandonment even if the spouse has not physically left or filed for divorce. Furthermore, in regard to an unbelieving husband, you believe that he has no authority in the home, but that his authority resides with you instead.
E. Elder Authority: Affirm or deny that God will honor any decision you make as long as it is according to the single law of love governed by your own conscience (as supposedly formed by reading the “gospel narrative” only), and to the exclusion of objective, biblical imperatives, and the authority thereof.
F. Church Membership: Affirm or deny that members need permission to leave the Chapel for another congregation. Affirm or deny that members can be brought under church discipline if the elders affirm that they are leaving for “unbiblical” reasons.
II. Cults propagate a strong exclusivism mentality among their members. Clearcreek Chapel members are characterized by a predominant attitude that the Chapel is the only truly relevant ministry within hundreds of miles. This mentality is clearly propagated by the elders of Clearcreek Chapel and would be necessary by default because of your belief that synergistic sanctification is a false gospel, which is far from what most churches consider orthodox.
III. Cults inflict fear through character assassination and inimidation. Character assassination in regard to those who have left the Chapel is rampant, and the elders stand by and give approval by participating or refusing to stop this activity, regardless of the pleadings from those who have left. This is a well documented fact. CultWatch says the following in regard to this third element: “Character Assassination is a sure sign of a cult,” Also, “Cult leadership is feared. To disagree with leadership is the same as disagreeing with God.” Fear of leadership at the Chapel is very prevalent and easy to ascertain.
IV. Information control is a sure sign of a cult. The Chapel elders have specifically told parishioners that observing a particular website critical of the Chapel is “sin.” Because any sin is cause for church discipline at the Chapel; in essence, you are clearly threatening church discipline for anyone who observes the site. A member was instructed by the Chapel elders, in writing, not to study doctrine or attempt to ascertain an understanding concerning your hermeneutics. One elder told the same member not to be concerned with the Chapel’s doctrine for “at least two years.” The following is another quote from CultWatch: “If you are instructed by a group not to read information critical of the group, then that is a sign of a cult.” Also, “legitimate groups have nothing to fear from their members reading critical information about them.” We therefore challenge the Chapel elders to encourage the congregation to read material critical of Chapel doctrine and elder behavior, and also assure them that there will be no retribution for doing so.
V. Love Bombing and relationship control are also signs of a cult. Love bombing is a Clearcreek staple. When an elder was caught having an inappropriate, divisive conversation with a Chapel spouse, he offered “love” as a defense in plain contradiction to biblical instruction. The motivation of supposed love is license to do what is right in your own eyes at the Chapel, regardless of Scriptural guidelines. This also speaks to your antinomian doctrine. The Chapel elders seek to drive a wedge between spouses when one spouse challenges your doctrine. This is well documented, and is a staple mode of operation used by Jehovah Witnesses. A constant, and unbalanced emphasis on love also replaces concern for sound doctrine in dramatic fashion at the Chapel, and is a distinctive mark of a cult. Also, on numerous occasions, members who have left the Chapel have been instructed not to associate with present members, and have been threatened with church discipline accordingly. Chapel members have also been instructed not to ever speak to specific members, and others who have left the Chapel. Weekly flock meetings are used to disparage individuals who have left the Chapel and to set the table against possible conversations that may take place at a later date. CultWatch says the following: “Beware of a group that tells you who you can and cannot see.”
VI. Cults will usually have reporting structures. Elders are placed in strategic relationships with people who are perceived as individuals who may question doctrine. Elders will often invite parishioners or visitors to weekly breakfast meetings for the purpose of keeping tabs on what they perceive at the Chapel. A members wife was recruited to feed the elders private information concerning who her husband was associating with and other private information. The elders also recruited a member to be an “encourager” to him during a time when they were concerned that he would confide in others. CultWatch says the following: “Is information you expect to be kept confidential reported to the leadership? If so, then it’s a cult.”
VII. Cults practice high pressure coercion. To say that members who leave the Chapel to join other churches are made to feel uncomfortable, and threatened, would be an understatement. For members to leave the Chapel without some kind of tension is often a balancing act. In fact, at least one member was held there under threat of excommunication for unbiblical reasons, and against his own wishes, for almost four months.
VIII. Cults practice time control. The idea is to keep subjects preoccupied with constant events to prevent contemplation in regard to doctrine, personal involvement, or involvement with those outside of the organization.
IX. Cult leadership is not accountable to outside organizations or the congregation. We challenge the Chapel elders to repeal changes they have made to Chapel polity in order to implement plenary elder rule.
X. Cults seek to control their subjects through coercion and fear in regard to finances. We challenge the Chapel elders to repent of teaching the congregation that God curses all of those who do not tithe ten percent of all financial increase to the Chapel.
“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 13: Dr. John Street Joins the Noun Coalition
Just yesterday, when I was introduced to the new gospel upstart organization in our everything gospel church culture, I was verbless. Somebody sent me a link to the upstart’s Facebook page (the “Biblical Counseling Coalition”) which posted this statement: “Sanctification is the art of getting used to our full salvation: justification, regeneration, redemption, reconciliation.”
Rush Limbaugh often says “Words mean things,” but [do] they really? After all, I did some investigation and this new coalition is overseen by the spiritual brain-trust of our day. So, when the apostle Paul described sanctification as “abstain[ing]” (1Thess 4:3), “running” by obedience (Gal 5:7), also through obedience: “work[ing] out….with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12), beating our bodies into subjection, discipline, running a race, and for a prize (1Cor 9:24-27); surely, we peasants of this contemporary dark age must be misunderstanding him because that’s a lot of verb-iage. Since Michael Horton says the purpose of corporate worship is for reviving our valley of dead bones by contemplating the gospel, should we forget all that stuff in Hebrews about encouraging each other unto good works? Should we rather relax and say, “Hey bro, how are you coming along in the art of getting use to you salvation?”
Inquiring minds, what’s left of them, want to know. Because one of the board members of this coalition is David Powlison, we could have a clue. In an interview with Nine Marks, Powlison said that the church forgets stuff, but when it is rediscovered by CCEF’s Research and Development Dept., it has to be reevaluated in a contemporary historical context. Hmmmm. Powlison also believes that a thorough search must be made of all past and present philosophies, literature, history, etc., just in case God has shown other people stuff that he hasn’t shown the church, or has shown the church in the past, but was forgotten, because the church forgets stuff. At this years TGC (The Gospel Coalition) 2011 conference, Powlison will be conducting a seminar on “Recent Advancements in Biblical Counseling.” So, for all of you that draw propositional truth from interpreting the verb, noun, subject, preposition, etc. structure of sentences in the Bible, you may not want to miss that seminar if you really want to able to take the word and help people.
Yet another clue may come from another board member of the BCC, Paul David Tripp. He believes that biblical verbs must be seen in their “gospel context.” In other words, all verbs in the Bible pertain to Jesus. In “How People Change,” Tripp says that the art of getting use to our sanctification is “resting and feeding” on Christ. In the same book, Tripp also writes, like Michael Horton in “Christless Christianity” (or, “Verbal Christianity”), that Christians are dead, and as Tripp states it in HPC: “When you are dead, you can’t do anything.” Tripp also mentions in the same book that Christ is not a cognitive concept that we apply to life, but he is a “person.” Got that? No cognitive concepts, just the personal pronoun.
But another board member that caught my eye on the list was Dr. John D. Street who has actually counseled me in the past. I have been reluctant to write in regard to him previously because I am privy to the fact that he used to employ lots of verbs in counseling that applied to the counselee, and I didn’t want to get him into trouble. In fact, I was a perfect candidate for this new form of counseling when I came to him many years ago. I remember coming to one of our appointments and proudly proclaiming: “I have read my Bible and prayed for—four hours!” Now how do you like that for contemplative spirituality?! His answer? “I’m not going to tell you not to do that, but the power is in the doing.” Ouch! I can just imagine the look of horrific angst on Powlison’s face.
Back then, I think Street might have got this idea from the old way of interpreting the Bible. “But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.” “But” is a coordinating conjunction which indicates contrast in this sentance; so being interpreted, don’t do the previous verses—hearing only, and not doing. But that exact contrast that James warns us of is the mantra of the new biblical counseling movement. I was recently sent a webinar conducted by a NANC Fellow who was clearly propagating a hearing only model of change that left the results up to being “amazed by the gospel.” Apparently, James didn’t get the memo. He presents hearing and doing as two components that work together to bring about—at the very least, blessings. The blessings occur where? Well, if we answer that question by finding the preposition, the blessings are “in” the “doing.” Also note that James does not present the gospel as the primary motivator, but rather blessings.
There is no misunderstanding about how this false approach to counseling fleshes itself out in real life. I was a longtime member and former elder at Clearcreek Chapel, the church John Street founded in Springboro, Ohio. The church is presently endorsed by both CCEF and NANC, and is a NANC training center. Two members on the upstart BCC board, Robert Jones and Paul Tripp, speak there often. My information regarding this doctrine includes hundreds of hours of discussion with the Clearcreek elders, who again, are highly respected in GS / Sonship circles. The pastor of the church, Russ Kennedy, has said, “Any separation of justification and sanctification is an abomination.” Obviously, this can only leave sanctification by justification as the dynamic for change. This can also be seen in the statement regarding sanctification as something we “get used to” as opposed to what the apostle Paul taught. Though the movement is hideously covert, if one pays attention, their noun-iage exposes them from time to time.
The former Clearcreek elder who was in charge of counseling at Clearcreek once announced from the pulpit (at Clearcreek) that he learned to read his Bible in “a whole new way” from Chad Bresson, Clearcreek elder and author of “Vossed World,” a blog that promotes the belief that the Spirit only illuminates the word of God in a gospel context. Bresson also believes the postmodern concept that because truth is in a person, it cannot be propositional or cognitive / objective, which is why the Bible is strictly a narrative and not for instruction. Presumably, this is why Dan Turner, another elder / counselor at Clearcreek, sometimes (if not all the time) draws diagrams of people’s lives and shows them where they are at in the diagram / picture / gospel narrative as a way of avoiding an instructive paradigm. I once heard Turner explain how a marriage was miraculously transformed before his eyes after showing them the glory of the gospel from the Scriptures. Turner also told me that I was like the Pharisees because I believed that Scripture should often be used to determine objective truth. No surprise then that the elders at Clearcreek were never heard (while I was there) saying, “How do we do that?” But were rather heard saying—often, “What does that look like.” In fact, we were taught that the “how” word was indicative of a heart problem, and the use of that word in a question to an elder resulted in a repeating of the word (how) back to the inquisitor in question form to correct the parishioner.
Will the BBC be able to help people with a counseling model based solely on nouns? I doubt it. Will John Street get kicked-off the BCC board for taking James literally? Or has he repented of such Phariseeism? Perhaps he now says: “I’m not going to tell you not to obey, but the power is in the contemplation.” I hope he hasn’t, but if not, what does that look like? “[Run] John, [run]!”
paul
“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 12: The Creepiness Continues to Get Creepier
Not only is the GS / Sonship doctrine completely off the tracks theologically, it is inevitable that such doctrine will lead to many other things that followers “are not yet ready for.” However, as this hideous doctrine grows, for the most part, unchecked—proponents are now presenting teachings that would have been rejected out of hand a couple of years ago. In other words, probably surprised themselves by the lack of contention against their ridiculous doctrine—they are becoming more bold. For example, more and more, the GS concept of learning how to listen to a sermon is becoming more prevalent. Yesterday, a reader sent me two links.
First of all, the thesis itself is just plain creepy and should raise red flags all over the place. I became aware of it three years ago when I obtained a manuscript from a parishioner at Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio, a bastion of GS / Sonship teachings and a NANC training center. As I carried the manuscript from place to place while I was slowly absorbing it, whether in the waiting room of my auto mechanic, or waiting for food at the local diner—the title caught the attention of many, and the following was usually the result: “Huh?” “That’s just really strange,” etc. In fact, one proponent wrote in one of the links sent to me, “I was first alerted to this issue by Christopher Ash’s leaflet entitled ‘Listen Up’. In it he claims that there’s been nothing written on the issue in the last 200 years.” Yep, I’m not really surprised by that. Nor was any reference given as to who supposedly wrote about it even then—go figure.
So what’s behind this creepy concept? I will use the manuscript from Clearcreek Chapel (hereafter: CCC) because it was one of the first independent sovereign grace churches in this country to adopt the Sonship doctrine. Not only that, CCC is a well respected and noted church in the movement. Paul David Tripp (speaks there often), David Powlison, and John Piper have close association with CCC, and the Pastor prides himself as a follower of John Piper—dressing like him and speaking like him as well. As far back as 1994 or 96, when the movement was barley fifteen years old, one or two respected Sonshippers (of course, nobody at CCC was aware of the doctrine) in the CCC congregation were instrumental in having the likes of Jerry Brides and DA Carson invited to speak there. I sat in the congregation myself and heard Jerry Bridges say: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” The comment gave me pause, but I brushed it aside and continued to struggle to stay awake as I thought the guy would die standing there behind the pulpit at any moment. When the founding pastor moved to California, Russ Kennedy became pastor under false pretence—knowing grade-A-well that the vast majority of CCC parishioners would reject such a doctrine. In fact, Kennedy allowed me to be instrumental in his appointment while knowing that such a doctrine would cause me to jump in the river.
I will be writing a post in this series about CCC because it is a projected model of what churches will look like in the future who implement this doctrine. And it is also why I am using their model for this whole learning how to listen to a sermon concept which is eerily similar to Jack Hyle’s famous quote: “Now I want you to close your Bibles and listen to me.” Most of what I have written on this blog concerns the doctrine itself, but the subtle creepiness / cult-like elements of this movement is another story altogether. But without further ado, let us examine the GS / Sonship take on how to listen to a sermon. Actually, I have written on the crux of this concept before. What really drives this issue? Answer: elder authority. GS / Sonship has a very overemphasized view of elder authority and that is really at the heart of this concept. Devon Berry, the “elder” at CCC who delivered this message, is also one of the primary instructors for the NANC training center at CCC. The following is my critique of his message. I apologize for how difficult it is to unravel this clever twisting of God’s word. However, if you try to follow my argument thoughtfully, I think by the end it will come together for you. The title of his message was, How to Listen to a Sermon:
In the sermon, the elder strays away from the main point to strongly emphasis the idea that spiritual growth comes primarily from preaching and teaching, and is an absolute, paramount necessity accordingly:
“You think, perhaps, that [you] can fill up the other half of the plate with personal study, devotions, or quiet times, or a radio program. Beloved, you cannot. Scripture is relatively quiet on such practices. But on preaching, the case is clear and strong. Neglect preaching and neglect your soul. I know that some are kept from services for legitimate reasons which are out of their control, but I doubt that is the case for most. I beseech you, change your ways for the good of this people and for the good of your own selves. Give the Word its rightful place. As I have often said, there is no better place you could be than here, under the preaching of the Word.”
Actually, I believe “devotions,” “quiet times,” and “radio programs” are added in to mask the disturbing part of this statement: “personal study.” Nowhere , but nowhere, does the Scriptures ever say that personal study is expendable when compared to preaching or teaching. In fact, IF I wanted to make the case that preaching and teaching could be done without, I would cite the following:
1 John 2:27
”As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.”
This verse clearly teaches that when it gets right down to it, the indwelling Holy Spirit is our teacher, and that human teachers are not an absolute necessity as this elder is clearly saying. At the very least, he is in grave error concerning the level of importance between the two.
But even more disturbing is the logical conclusion that must be drawn from this assertion. If personal study is expendable (please note; in his list of examples, he names devotions, quiet times, and radio programs in the same list. One can only assume that if they are in the same list to make his point, they share the same level of importance. Surely then, no one would deny that Christians could do without radio programs or devotionals), then how could it (personal study) be sufficiently empowered to discern the truthfulness of the sermon? The conclusion must necessarily be that personal interpretation is always at the mercy of preaching. Do you think my statement is a subjective conclusion in regard to what he is saying? Think again. He actually uses Acts 17:10,11 (a text that clearly states the importance of personal study to confirm truthfulness) to imply that preaching is a critical link in the learning process, with personal study being secondary:
“In addition to coming with anticipation, we must come to a sermon prepared. Coming to the hearing of the Word prepared is both a matter of our hearts and our behaviors. I think the example of the Bereans in Acts 17 is helpful. Verse 11 says, ‘Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.’ We can note from earlier in the chapter what exactly it was the Bereans were responding to – verses 2-3 tell us that Paul’s pattern was to reason with his hearers from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that Jesus was the Christ. What made the Jews in Berea more noble than the Jews in Thessalonica? Well for one, they did not run Paul out of town, and secondly, they took Paul’s preaching seriously enough to go to the Word to test it [he is not talking about a test in regard to the truth, but rather, a nebulous concept of testing the Christocentric interpretation in everyday life. He covers this idea in another part of the same sermon. Note that "it" in his statement refers to God's word, not Paul's preaching]. The text here implies that there was an interactive nature between three entities: The preacher, the hearers, and the Word. Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word. An important thing to note is that this happened daily – suggesting a regular interaction between preaching, personal study, and the Word. The Bereans eagerly prepared by paralleling their own Bible reading and study with Paul’s preaching. So a good preparation for the public preaching of the Word is the private consumption of the Word. It will be the seasoning that brings out the flavor – salt on your French fries, if you will.”
Where to begin in the unraveling of this hideous twisting of God’s word! First of all, I had to actually draw a diagram to unravel what he is saying in regard to this part of the quote:
“Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word.”
Read the quote carefully. Think about it. God’s word goes through the “preacher” first, before getting to the “people,” making the preacher’s words synonymous with God’s words. Also note that he cites 17:1,2:
“We can note from earlier in the chapter what exactly it was the Bereans were responding to – verses 2-3 tell us that Paul’s pattern was to reason with his hearers from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that Jesus was the Christ.”
Let me cut to the chase here: what he is saying is that all Christocentric and gospel-centered preaching is infallible. Hence, any preacher teaching from a Christocentric perspective is also infallible. He also emphasizes this in his conclusion (emphasis mine):
“On to our last point, then. It is simple. The lens set forth by Christ himself on the road to Emmaus, in Luke 24, is the lens through which we should hear every sermon. Here it is from the text: …everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled… You should always listen to a sermon looking for Christ and the redemptive plan that God has set out in history to accomplish through his Son. We must be Christ-centered listeners.”
In other words, when the Scriptures are being taught from the Christ / gospel perspective, error is impossible, and likewise, neither can the preacher teaching from that perspective be in error as well. If the mere intention is to present Christ from the text, the Holy Spirit then becomes involved, making error impossible. Another elder at the same church (Chad Bresson) projected this same idea in an article entitled “The Word of God is a Person.” He quotes Robert Brinsmead to make his point:
“That which makes the Bible the Bible is the gospel. That which makes the Bible the Word of God is its witness to Christ. When the Spirit bears witness to our hearts of the truth of the Bible, this is an internal witness concerning the truth of the gospel. We need to be apprehended by the Spirit, who lives in the gospel, and then judge all things by that Spirit even the letter of Scripture.”
Said another way, the Holy Spirit “lives in the gospel,” so when your doin’ gospel, your doin’ truth, end of discussion.
Going back now to the elder’s use of Acts 17 and the original sermon of interests here, he completely ignores any sort of basic grammatical rules at all to draw his conclusions. He gives the following reasons for the nobility of the Bereans:
“What made the Jews in Berea more noble than the Jews in Thessalonica? Well for one, they did not run Paul out of town, and secondly, they took Paul’s preaching seriously enough to go to the Word to test it.”
But the excerpt he speaks of is a compound sentence:
“Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”
In a compound sentence the ideas must be related, this is a hard-fast rule. Therefore, the specific reason for their nobility is obviously in the second independent clause, which does not include anything mentioned by the elder. Furthermore, in the second clause, the proving of what Paul taught is obviously the (purpose) object of both verb phrases, both directly and indirectly. Clearly, the reason for their nobility was the fact that they proved what Paul was teaching to be true through personal study. Not only that, the elder also said the following:
“An important thing to note is that this happened daily – suggesting a regular interaction between preaching, personal study, and the Word.”
But this is clearly an improper correlation. “Daily” in this sentence refers to “examining the Scriptures” and not Paul’s preaching (which is not even in the compound sentence which begins with “now“—introducing a separate idea). The elder is suggesting an inseparable correlation (“cycle”) between preaching and personal study that cannot be separated from the word for proper understanding. Instead of personal study proving the truthfulness of preaching or teaching, he is making preaching an absolute necessity to understanding truth, with personal study supplying a mere “seasoning” to the preaching, instead of testing its truthfulness. Besides this, he also assumes that the Bereans knew what Paul was going to teach before he came:
“The Bereans eagerly prepared by paralleling their own Bible reading and study with Paul’s preaching.”
Not only is this an assumption, given the technology of the time, it is also highly unlikely. What tense in the text even remotely suggests that the Bereans “examined” the Scriptures before Paul preached? Clearly, the intent of this elder is to discourage a proving of truthfulness in regard to Chrisocentric preaching after the fact, but rather a prior, personal study that merely “flavors” the preaching instead of proving its truthfulness. At any rate, it is a complete bastardization of the biblical text.
I might also mention that another elder in this same church, and previously mentioned, preached a sermon entitled “Adam’s Insurrection, Man Jettisons God from the Educational Process,” in which he argues that the essence of Adam’s fall was a rejection of Christocentric teaching that was outside of himself (Adam). The theme of that sermon seems to be similar to the sermon that is the subject of this post; namely, and at the very least, it strongly discouraged a mentality that elevates personal discernment to the same level of teaching outside of ourselves.
So, it now begs the question that is the subject of this post; in regard to elders teaching from the Christocentric perspective, does Christocentric theology teach that they are infallible? I suspect that this belief is more than likely to be prominent among churches that hold to Sonship / GS theology.
paul
“The Power is in the Doing”: Statement by Former Counselor Could Ruin His Career
I heard it again yesterday at the end of a pretty-decent sermon; the first of a series on the life of Abraham. Of course, in our neo- everything about salvation church culture, the title of the series is “Abraham:Justified by Faith.” Thank goodness. Between every song on the radio being about justification, every praise song being about the cross, and the words “we must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday” faintly burned into the background of my monitor from too much web surfing, I had almost forgotten.
That was yesterday, and I had almost forgotten again on the way to take Phillip to school this morning when I heard these words from a song on the radio: “Mercy doesn’t care what you have done.” Though 2Cor 5:10 came to mind the second I heard it, I then saw a calm, smiling, assuring face in my mind’s eye; with a big bushy mustache and glasses on it saying, “Paul, Paul, my precious namesake, such verses must be seen in their “gospel context.” Again, thank goodness, I almost traded in “a treasure chest of joy” for working out my own salvation with trembling and fear.
So, before I forget, what was the “it” I heard at the end of the pretty-decent (because I learned some pretty-cool stuff) sermon yesterday? Well, the end of the sermon was prefaced with a warning that we don’t want to do anything (that I assume we had learned in the sermon), “in our own strength,” or “in our own efforts.” That statement, or qualifier, doesn’t usually incite a lost practice in today’s church: interpretive questions. Like, “How do we, or how would we, know when we are doing it in our “own efforts” or otherwise? However, such questions may not be asked very often, if at all, because it has become taboo in today’s church culture to even ask “how” which could imply verbs that may have to follow in the answer, and thereby plunging many into sin, and worse yet, a denial of the gospel.
Besides, such questions could also incite other troublesome questions in the what category: Is it possible to go to the bathroom in my own efforts? And if I do, is it sin? Or, is there a dichotomy between things we can do wrongfully in “our own efforts”(a spiritual category), and other things where we can’t? (non-spiritual category). And how many categories are there accordingly? And what are they?And once we separate the categories, how do we do the spiritual ones without interjecting our sinful, own efforts? And how does this jive with what the apostle Paul said about doing “all things” to the glory of God?
Oh for the days when sermons answered more questions than they raised. Oh for the days when Christians thought enough to ask questions. Why does it matter? Because we counsel like we preach. Because we tell people to live the way we preach. Because all music we hear on the radio is inspired by what those musicians hear at their own local churches. If you need counsel regarding a deep problem in your life, I can tell you how a pastor and his parishioners will counsel you – listen to his sermons. If all you hear from the pulpit is the gospel, that’s all your going to get in the counseling chambers as well. If the sermon raises more questions than it answers, so will the counseling. And if you don’t ask interpretive questions about life – your well on you way to being a goner for all practical purposes.
And why does all of that matter? Many years ago, I was on my way to see a pastor / counselor, and I was in big, big, trouble. And like all Christians who are in big trouble, or in deep waters, we are looking for a silver bullet; or, at least the secret Bible verse that will end all of our problems in fifteen minutes. Nobody likes pain, and there are no problem pills, just pain pills, which make the pain go away, but not the problem. And at that time, I would have loved to hear the silver bullet solution offered today : the gospel. I can imagine how it would have gone as I eagerly anticipated his entry into the room. Upon his entry, a birth of hope, and the hope escalating with each new event: the greeting; taking his seat at the table; opening his notebook, pen in hand; asking questions like a skillful, knowing doctor; listening to my description of the problem; and then, alas! it’s time! God’s solution! It may have gone like this:
Counselor: “Paul, I have listened to you describe your problems and I have also read the testimony about your life that I asked you to write and deliver to my office prior to this appointment. Paul, there is a topic conspicuously lacking from all that you have said today, and in your testimony as well. Do you know what that is?
Me: “Uh, no.”
Counselor: “Christ”
Me: “But I wrote about how I was saved in 1983!”
Counselor: “So, you only needed grace in 1983?”
Me: “Well, no, of course not, we need Christ every day”
Counselor: “But you have been living like you only needed Him in 1983.”
Me: “What do you mean?”
Counselor: “Paul, we don’t just accept the gospel once and then move on to other things, we need the gospel every day”
Me: “Every day?”
Counselor: “Yes. The key to a life of joy is going deeper and deeper into the gospel that saved us, not going deeper into other things. Paul, you know a lot of theology, but unfortunately, your theology is about what you do, NOT what Jesus does for us. Paul, take your Bible and go to Romans 7:24 and read it aloud.”
Me: “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!”
Counselor: “You didn’t just need to be rescued in 1983, you need to be rescued every day. All of your efforts right now, many of which you mention in your written testimony, are nothing more than Christless activism being done in your own efforts. Also, your criticism of others that I see in your written testimony is spawned by the very success that you obtain in applying your theological concepts to life; this creates a self-righteous attitude rather than cultivating a spirit that totally depends on Christ, and what He has already done for us, not anything we try to do.”
Me: “I knew it! I knew it! I knew something has always been missing! [the silver bullet! The secret Bible verse! (Rom 7:24)]. What now?! Where do we go from here?”
Counselor: “Paul, look at you- you are full of joy- joy is indicative of true saving faith. How long has it been since you have been happy Paul?”
Me: “Oh my! It has been forever!”
Counselor: “In the book of Galatians, the apostle Paul addressed a trap that the Galatians had fallen into. He explained it this way in Gal 3:3; ‘Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?’ By trying to learn imperatives in the Bible and applying them to your life, you are not living by the same Spirit that you supposedly trusted in when you professed your belief in Christ. This is using the Bible for law-keeping instead of looking in the Scriptures for more gospel, and more Christ. That is what the apostle is talking about, in this verse, when he speaks of a ‘receiving by faith’ verses a ‘receiving by works of the law (or Scripture).’”
Me: “Wow! I’ve been fed a bill of goods all of my Christian life! I may not even be saved!”
Counselor: “Well Paul, you come from Reformed theology, which is good, and many great Reformed leaders of our time like Micheal Horton say that if you accept the gospel and ‘move on to something else, you loose both’ both meaning sanctification AND justification. Another awesome Reformed leader of our time, the great, and magnificent John Piper, said that as Christians, a ‘battle to perform’ makes that battle the grounds of our justification. Instead, he says we must make ‘a battle to believe’ our primary focus in the Christian life, or we are making anything more than that (belief only) our grounds for justification. In other words, works salvation.”
Me: [Remember, we're pretending] “WOW! This is the light bulb moment of my life!
Counselor: “Turn to Galatians 2:20, and read it aloud.”
Me: “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”
Counselor: “Who no longer lives?”
Me: “Us.”
Counselor: “And we live by what only?”
Me: “Faith.”
Counselor: “So Paul, are you now ready to really die to yourself and the law?”
Me: “Absolutely!”
Now, here is what really happened based on true events. It is a paraphrased synopsis that encompasses the major, and most important points:
Counselor: “I have a new goal for you Paul, your new goal is to please Christ.”
Me: “How is that going to get me out of this problem?”
Counselor: “That’s not Biblical thinking. Your primary goal isn’t to merely get out of the problem, but to please God in the midst of the problem and let the problem work to transform you into the image of Christ.”
Me: “That’s hard.”
Counselor: “Who told you that the Christian life is always easy?”
Me: “But how could this happen to a Christian?”
Counselor: “Where would I even start? ‘He causes it to rain and shine on the just as well as the unjust.’ ‘He disciplines those whom He loves.’ We can start there.”
Me: “So he allows this stuff into our life to bring good out of it?”
Counselor: “No, that’s not biblical thinking. He not only allows it, He promises to never allow anything into our life that we cannot endure. This tells us two things: first, he is in total control of everything that comes into our lives. He not only allows it, God is up to something in your life! He is right in the middle of this situation. Secondly, He has promised to see you through till the end of the trial. The trial is for your good, and not your destruction. This is His promise to you, and I am challenging you to persevere accordingly. The trial will end in God’s time, but it will have an end, and you will be more like Christ.”
Me: “So, this is the very hand of God working in my life. Not the way I would have ordered it, but I guess it’s not God’s will that everything goes the way we think it should.”
Counselor: “Exactly.”
Me: “But I don’t understand. I am praying hard and reading my Bible every day. Where am I going wrong?”
Counselor: “You are doing the right thing the wrong way [Stop here for a moment. There is no such thing as “doing it in our own efforts.” The real problem is: “doing it the wrong way” ie., other than God's way]. I would never tell you not to read your Bible, or pray, but the power is in the doing.”
Me: “I’m not comfortable with that! It sounds legalistic! Could that approach really be curative?”
Counselor: “Read Matthew 7:24-27 aloud.”
Me: “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”
Counselor: “Sure, you read the Bible, but what I can tell from the data I have collected, you do not properly apply what you have read. When that happens, which of the houses in Matthew seven is yours?”
Me: “At this point, and under the circumstances, I think that’s obvious.”
Counselor: “Read James 1:22-25 aloud.”
Me: “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.”
Counselor: “Again, our primary goal is to please Christ, but to answer your question, pleasing Christ by practicing His word, the right way, IS curative, especially in regard to the lack of peace you have in your life right now. Regarding peace that comes from right praying, right thinking, and right doing, I have given you homework on Philippians four. Your appointment is for this time next week. Don’t come unless your homework is done.”
Me: “So, do you think I’m saved?”
Counselor: “Well, your profession is sound, and salvation is by faith alone, but if your for real, you will do what God wants you to do.”
I might add that the real counselor would have been quick to qualify his statement with the following: “Our doing — God’s power.” In fact, though I look back at how difficult it was to persevere through that trial, I recognize the fact that even though it took much effort on my part, I couldn’t have persevered without God’s help, empowerment, illumination, and granting of willpower. But it is also very important to remember that He has promised to supply these three in the midst of trials. Notwithstanding, it will still take everything we have in us to persevere; this is how we experience trials, and really, it’s how we should experience our walk with God as well, loving God with “all of our heart, soul, and mind.” If we will do this, God will gladly supply all the will that we need accordingly. The apostle Paul said to never grow weary in well-doing. The Hebrew writer said to lift up the limbs that are sagging because of exhaustion. Do that, because God will supply, as a manner of speaking, the second wind.
First, the Scriptures are clear; we are called on to exert much of our own effort in the sanctification process, and it is our own effort. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be the ones with the sagging limbs and weariness (Heb 12:12). We are strengthened by grace as we obey and “make every effort to add to [our] your faith” (2Pet 1:5). Without our effort, we will be “ineffective” and “unproductive” in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (2Pet 1:8). And unless we “make every effort,” we will lack assurance as fruits are not prevalent in our lives; because obviously, we aren’t making an effort to do so.
Secondly, it is impossible to obey God, or do God’s will wrongfully “in our own efforts,” Why? Because the Holy Spirit works through God’s word, and according to truth (John 17:17). As my counselor aptly noted, the real problem is attempting to do God’s will the wrong way, or no way (spiritual laziness), NOT correct practice thereof. The fear that believers can be like unbelievers by correctly obeying God’s word “in there own efforts” is untrue because unbelievers cannot have a proper understanding of God’s word,and the proper practice thereof, in the first place. The whole notion is patently absurd.
The Scriptures do more than tell us how to be saved. They also tell us how to make disciples, “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded.” To say that the Scriptures are solely for the purpose of showing Christians how to be more deeply justified / saved every day is an antinomian lie from the pit of hell. And frankly, I don’t care who propagates the lie, or how well they dress, or how many degrees they have after their name; their counsel is instructing Christians to build their houses upon sand, and not rock. We don’t tell those who “dig deep” (Lk 6:48) to worry about working “by their own efforts,” Their own efforts are certainly involved. Anyone who even makes such a statement from the pulpit is antinomian because the very statement, “obeying God in our own efforts,” begs the next question: how would we know? And….(see all of the aforementioned mess you get into to, like practical dichotomies, etc.).
My former counselor had it right, the power (or at least the blessings [Js 1:25]) is in the doing, and specifically, right doing; but far be it from me to mention his name here, it would ruin his career and he might have to go work at a car wash, or worse yet, an Arminian seminary. The bunch he works with right now would be aghast that he would say such a thing to a counselee, and often malign others publicly for the same offense. However, maybe he’s safe; he could have “repented.” He may now be doing his part in showing hurting people “more Jesus,” or “more gospel,” or how to find what Jesus did in the text, rather than anything Jesus might tell us to do.
If that’s true, let’s close with another counseling scenario:
My former counselor: “So, what have you learned?
Counselee: “I have to do it by doing it through God. But that seems like I’m doing it by making God do it. But I guess not, because I have to do that by not doing it, but by letting God do it. This is hard because I keep trying to do that in my own strength. I have to work harder at that. I mean, not work, but let God work, that’s what I have to work at. I mean…does that sound right?
paul
1 Kings 8:39: Heart Theology Is Not The Real Reformation
“Nobody ever said we change ourselves through obedience, ……..We are to learn, apply, pray, obey inwardly (thinking), obey outwardly, seek wise counsel, love, encourage, instruct, rebuke, disciple, confess, and leave the changing and knowing of the heart to God.”
It happened in the early 90′s. I was in the process of absorbing and applying truth from what I think was in fact a contemporary reformation. There is no doubt, Christianity had relinquished its faith and confidence in God’s word; specifically, in regard to solving the weightier issues of life and godliness, deferring to the so-called “experts” of our day. Jay Adams, a reformed Presbyterian, introduced a structured biblical counseling system that radically changed lives through the power and instruction of God’s word. His thesis, after it was all said and done, and in a manner of speaking, begged this question by children: “Daddy, what did Christians do about serious problems before Sigmund Freud came along?” Surprisingly, and before evangelicals barely had a chance to catch their breath, something else came along, Heart Theology. Picking up again where my opening sentence left off, the following is how I was first introduced to Heart Theology. I was an elder in a church that was a training center for what was dubbed “biblical counseling.” The elder that was primarily leading this program was also in the process of obtaining his doctorate degree from another counseling center attached to a reformed seminary. This is where he was introduced to this new counseling theology. It was added as a level 2 program, or addendum to what was already considered radical among evangelicals; namely, the concept that God’s word is sufficient for all matters of life and godliness. I was skeptical in regard to this new twist. Let me explain the basic differences in the two approaches that fueled my skepticism.
First, in regard to the original biblical counseling movement, there are two basic characteristics of biblical counseling as originally introduced by Adams. First, it changed preaching, which was predominately, and still is to a large degree, “about” the Bible. For instance, there may have been many sermons “about” the importance of communication from the Bible. For example, instances where men misunderstood God and gee whiz, bad things happened after that, so don’t do what they did. Biblical counseling went beyond that to a deeper and technical understanding that was applied to real life situations. An example would be biblical precepts of communication that could readily be brought to mind in everyday life and applied accordingly. It was and is, technical wisdom from the word of God and specific instruction on how to apply it to real life. Once pastors learned to do this in the privacy of their office, it transferred to the pulpit where it became preventative medicine for God’s people. Yet another example. Say a young couple in your church decides to marry. What usually happens? We rejoice and marry them! Right? The Jay Adams approach would ask three questions: are these two young people experts on marriage? Probably not. Does God’s word have any wisdom that will prepare them for successful marriage that honors God? Of course. So should we just let them figure it out on their own? Probably not. This introduced Premarital Counseling in the church, with many pastors making it a prerequisite to that church’s participation in the wedding.
The other characteristic was an equal emphasis on justification and sanctification. Let’s be honest, the primary focus of evangelicals is getting people saved. Once there saved, we teach them the importance of church attendance, tithing, and learning about the Bible. Christ never told us to primarily get people saved; his mandate for the church is to “make disciples.” This is done by counseling with God’s word. Premarital Counseling, like many other aspects of biblical application, is “making disciples.” Preaching from the pulpit should also keep parishioners out of the counseling office as well as divorce court. The contention by Adams that pastors are to primarily counsel and not preach was indeed a shocker to many. Preaching should always contain counsel in regard to the technical application of God’s word to real life.
But in addition to these characteristics, one of the primary elements of this biblical counseling was its emphasis on objectivity. Jay Adams was, and I assume still is, a stickler for objective instruction rather than what was referred to as “fuzzy land.” However, I must concede this one weakness in the contemporary (about 37 years old) biblical counseling movement; there was a lack of emphasis on the monergistic resources that give us the strength to apply God’s wisdom to everyday life. But this is understandable, for Evangelicals were preaching about the forest in habitual fashion. The gargantuan task of showing the importance of the individual trees and their proper application was bound to distract. So, in regard to the biblical counseling movement, I have explained two characteristics, one element, and one fault.
Strange, In the midst of this revolution that was pouring out hope, seemingly without measure, there was another movement afoot that had a compliant against the former and the new; namely, biblical counseling wasn’t vertical enough, Adams had simply refined the emphasis on the outward and made Baptist Pharisees into super Pharisees. Yes, the new reformation (Adams) was bringing about lots of change, but it wasn’t “lasting change.” Their answer?; they contended that Christians must abandon all emphasis on outward behavior and partake in emphasizing change at the “heart level.” That would be the two elements of the Heart Theology movement: change at the heart level, and real, lasting change (theoretically).
So, what does that look like (not “how,” which might imply some kind of verb to follow)? Well, the key is deciphering the “desires of the heart.” Desires reveal the idols in our heart, or anything that we love more than God (supposedly, according to advocates). So, what does that look like? Well, we analyze desires of the heart three ways. First, by how we respond to circumstances. Second, by asking God to reveal the Idols through prayer. Thirdly, by imagining future scenarios and taking note of how it makes us feel. The second means is direct, God simply reveals it to us directly through prayer. The first and third means require the use of interpretive questions. So for instance, you are watching a football game and your wife demands that you take the trash out “right now!” And this in fact makes you angry. The most common interpretive question is “what did you want?” The answer is the following: you wanted to be left alone to enjoy the game and you wanted to be shown more respect by your wife. There you have it; football and being respected are idols in your heart. If you now repent of these idols, they are emptied from your heart and God then fills that void in your heart with himself. To the extent that your heart has idols, God is not present. Depending on the presence and filling of God verses idols, obedience is a “mere natural flow” that doesn’t require effort (works) on our part.
This now brings me to the major characteristic of Heart Theology, it’s nebulous and subjective. It also brings me to the fault of Heart Theology which is fatal. Unlike the understandable (lack of emphasis on God’s promised resources) and easily adjusted error of biblical counseling, The fatal error of Heart theology is its conflict with 1 Kings 8:39;
“then hear in heaven your dwelling place and forgive and act and render to each whose heart you know, according to all his ways (for you, you only, know the hearts of all the children of mankind),
This verse emphatically states that only God can know the heart. The Holy Spirit makes it a point to use the subject (God ["you"] ) twice with no words in between (modifiers ect.). This is clearly for the purpose of strong emphasis. We cannot evaluate the heart in regard to idols. Besides, scripture often identifies sinful desires as being located in the “flesh” to begin with.
Though we depend on God’s strength, He would have us to focus on the objective and plain sense of Scripture. Following God’s wisdom and instruction is our role. Knowing and changing the heart is God’s business. Nobody ever said we change ourselves through obedience, Adams certainly never said that. We are to learn, apply, pray, obey inwardly (thinking), obey outwardly, seek wise counsel, love, encourage, instruct, rebuke, disciple, confess, and leave the changing and knowing of the heart to God. Adams said it best in a counseling conference: “The commands in the bible are not to the Holy Spirit, they are to us” and, “Quietism will ruin peoples lives.” There is no new reformation that narrows God’s precepts and wisdom for living to “deep repentance” that requires us to know our hearts. We cannot know our hearts, only God can. If there has been any reformation in the past 30 years, it has been the ability to apply the word of God to every issue of life and godliness.
paul
The Role Of Counseling In The Church
This is a sermon I preached at Clearcreek Chapel in Dayton, Ohio in or about 1996. I was sorting through old files and actually threw it away, but decided to read it again out of curiosity. Much to my surprise, I still agree with most of it and think it is a message that a lot of Churches need to hear. My apologies, the manuscript is in caps because I read all of my sermons straight from the script and caps are easier for me to read.
This message is about the fact that the word of God, among other things, is a counseling book. As a matter of fact, it is “thee” counseling book. As Chuck and I go out visiting tonight, I am encouraged that we go with God’s wisdom and the opportunity that proceeds because of this fact.
If you are thinking about implementing a structured counseling (really, I prefer ” in-depth discipleship”) program in your church, I highly recommend the Biblical Counseling Foundation’s “Self Confrontation” program. I like the sub title of the program better: “A Manual for In-Depth Biblical Discipleship.” I DO NOT recommend NANC or CCEF. NANC has an over emphasis on professionalism and CCEF integrates other disciplines that are clearly not biblical.
THE ROLE OF COUNSELING IN THE CHURCH
I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN TONIGHT BY SHARING WITH YOU ABOUT A GUY WHO WE WILL CALL JAKE. HIS NAME HAS BEEN CHANGED TO PROTECT THE GUILTY. BEFORE I START, I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT JAKE HAS GIVEN FULL PERMISSION TO USE HIS LIFE AS AN ILLUSTRATION FOR TONIGHT’S MESSAGE AS IT WILL BE PRESENTED.
JAKE IS IN HIS CAR ON THE WAY TO A COUNSELING APPOINTMENT. NOT WITH A PSYCHOLOGIST. NO, NO, PERISH THE THOUGHT. JAKE IS OF REFORMED THEOLOGY AND HAS READ ALMOST ALL OF DAVE HUNTS BOOKS. JAKE IS ON THE WAY TO SEE A BIBLICAL COUNSELOR.
WHILE JAKE IS ON THE WAY, LET ME TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HIM. JAKE IS WELL STUDIED IN THE SCRIPTURES. NOT ONLY DOES HE SPEND A LOT OF PERSONAL TIME IN THE WORD, HE HAS ROUGHLY 3 YEARS OF SEMINARY AND BIBLE COLLEGE COMBINED. ANOTHER THING I WILL TELL YOU IS JAKE’S LIFE IS IN A LOT OF TROUBLE. JAKE IS IN TROUBLE AT WORK. JAKE IS IN TROUBLE AT HOME. JAKE IS IN TROUBLE AT CHURCH. JAKE IS IN WHAT SOME CALL “CLINICAL DEPRESSION” AND CAN BARELY FUNCTION DAY TO DAY. ANY QUESTIONS? JAKE IS IN TROUBLE.
NOW BACK TO JAKE. ORDINARILY JAKE WOULD BE SCARED TO DEATH TO GET IN HIS CAR AND DRIVE ANYWHERE BECAUSE OF HIS EXCESSIVE PHOBIAS, BUT THE REASON JAKE IS ENTHUSIASTICALLY DRIVING TO THIS APPOINTMENT IS BECAUSE HE IS SURE THIS COUNSELOR CAN SHOW HIM THE SECRET BIBLE VERSE THAT WILL END ALL OF HIS TROUBLES IN 15 MINUTES. HOPE BUILDS STRONGER AND STRONGER AS HE DRAWS CLOSER TO HIS APPOINTMENT.
JAKE FINALLY ENTERS THE ROOM. HI!, THE COUNSELOR SAYS CHEERFULLY. THE COUNSELORS CHEERFUL DEMEANOR BUILDS EVEN MORE HOPE IN JAKE. AFTER SOME RELEVANT CONVERSATION, THE COUNSELOR TELLS JAKE WHERE THEY ARE GOING TO START. THIS IS THE MOMENT JAKE HAS BEEN WAITING FOR! “I HAVE A NEW GOAL FOR YOU JAKE,” SAID THE COUNSELOR. “YOUR NEW GOAL IS TO PLEASE GOD”. JAKE IS SO SHOCKED HE CANNOT SPEAK, BUT SCREAMS OUT THESE THOUGHTS IN HIS MIND: “PLEASE GOD! WHAT GOOD IS THAT GOING TO DO ME”!!!!!
AFTER THE COUNSELOR ASSIGNED SOME HOMEWORK, JAKE SCRAPES HIMSELF OFF THE FLOOR AND LEAVES. NOW JAKE IS DRIVING HOME AFTER THE APPOINTMENT, TALKING TO HIMSELF ON THE WAY. “HOW COULD HE GIVE ME SUCH A SIMPLISTIC SOLUTION TO MY PROBLEMS? THERE IS NO WAY THIS GUY UNDERSTANDS WHAT I AM GOING THROUGH. NOW WHAT AM I GOING TO DO?, GO TO A PSYCHOLOGIST? NO WAY. MY MOM WENT TO THEM FOR YEARS, THEY NEVER DID HER ANY GOOD. BESIDES, THE LAST ONE I WENT TO SEE BEFORE I WAS A CHRISTIAN CHARGED ME 85 DOLLARS AN HOUR AND ASK ME WHAT I THOUGHT THE ANSWERS TO MY PROBLEMS WHERE. IF I KNEW THAT, WHAT DID I NEED HER FOR? HOW ABOUT ANOTHER PASTOR OR COUNSELOR? THEY WILL JUST SEND ME TO A PSYCHOLOGIST. SUICIDE? HMMM, BETTER NOT. I’M NOT FOR SURE THAT I’M A CHRISTIAN. GEE GADS, I’M STUCK WITH THIS GUY!!!”
LITTLE DID JAKE KNOW, WHEN WORD GOT TO HEAVEN THAT THE COUNSELOR WAS STUCK WITH HIM THE FLAGS OF HEAVEN FLEW AT HALF STAFF AND ELIJAH WEPT. JAKE CONTINUES DOWN THE ROAD AND LOOKS DOWN AT THE HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT LAYING BESIDE HIM ON THE CAR SEAT “WHATS THIS HOMEWORK STUFF? I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF SUCH A THING IN CHURCH. HEY I KNOW, HE KNOWS MORE THAN HE’S LETTING ON. I BET THERE’S SOME ANSWERS IN THAT HOMEWORK.”
WELL, JAKE GOES HOME AND DOES HIS HOMEWORK AND HE’S RIGHT, THERE ARE ANSWERS IN THE HOMEWORK. JAKE LEARNS THAT THE BIBLE IS NOT A BOOK THAT TELLS US HOW TO GET RID OF OUR PROBLEMS BUT RATHER TELLS US HOW TO BE GOD’S KIND OF PERSON IN THE MIDST OF THE PROBLEMS. THIS ACTUALLY SOMEWHAT ENCOURAGES JAKE SINCE HE HASN’T HAD ANY SUCCESS GETTING RID OF HIS PROBLEMS ANYWAY.
JAKE ALSO LEARNS THAT GOD IS IN COMPLETE CONTROL OVER HIS PROBLEMS. HE WANTS TO USE THE PROBLEMS JAKE BROUGHT ON HIMSELF TO LEAD HIM TO REPENTANCE AND TEACH HIM HOW TO BE MORE LIKE CHRIST. THE OTHER PROBLEMS WHERE GOD’S SOVEREIGN WILL FOR HIS LIFE AND DECREED FOR THE SAME PURPOSE.
” OHHHHHHHHHH, JAKE SAYS TO HIMSELF, GOD IS NOT ONLY SOVEREIGN OVER SALVATION, HE’S ALSO SOVEREIGN OVER EVERY DETAIL OF OUR LIFE!”
THE HOMEWORK SMASHED JAKE’S FALSE HOPES LIKE A DIXIE CUP, BUT REAL HOPE FROM THE WORD OF GOD THAT THE COUNSELOR IS POINTING TO IS NOW BEGINNING TO SPROUT IN JAKE’S MIND.
AT HIS NEXT APPOINTMENT, JAKE UTTERS THESE PROFOUND WORDS: “WELL, I GUESS IT’S JUST NOT GOD’S WILL THAT EVERYTHING TURNS OUT THE WAY WE THINK IT SHOULD”. “OH, THAT’S GOOD JAKE”, REPLIES THE COUNSELOR. “I’M GLAD YOU SAID THAT, IN A MATTER OF FACT, I’M GOING TO WRITE IT DOWN IN YOUR FILE. LET’S SEE, JAKE SAID…….
TILL THIS DAY JAKE ISN’T SURE WHETHER THE COUNSELOR WAS INCREDIBLY PATIENT OR FINALLY SEIZED THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE SOME FUN. NEVERTHELESS, JAKE WAS FLATTERED BY THE COUNSELOR’S RESPONSE AND ASSUMED HE FINALLY HIT ON SOME OF THAT BIBLICAL THINKING THE COUNSELOR KEPT TALKING ABOUT.
WELL, JAKE KEPT LEARNING AND TODAY SEES HIS LIFE AS RADICALLY CHANGED. WHAT I JUST SHARED IS OF COURSE A CONDENSED VERSION OF ACTUAL EVENTS. YOU CAN ADD MUCH INFORMAL ENCOURAGEMENT AND PHONE CALLS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. THAT’S NOT SIMPLISTIC.
I SHARED JAKE’S STORY TO HELP US DEVELOP OUR FIRST POINT TONIGHT. WHAT IS THE CONTEMPORARY PICTURE OF COUNSELING IN TODAY’S CHURCH?
I KNOW YOU PROBABLY THINK JAKE WAS A SPIRITUAL AIR HEAD. BUT I WILL HASTEN TO ADD THAT EVEN IN HIS WORST STATE HE WAS FAR AHEAD OF A LOT OF CHRISTIANS. WHY? BECAUSE HE BELIEVED THE BIBLE ALONE HAD THE ANSWERS TO HIS PROBLEMS. MOST CHRISTIANS TODAY DO NOT EVEN BELIEVE THAT. YES, THE TRUTH JAKE DISCOVERED ABOUT HIS OWN SIN AND GOD’S WAY OF DEALING WITH IT WAS LIKE SWALLOWING A BIG HORSE PILL, BUT LIKE PETER HE SAID, “NEVERTHELESS LORD,AT YOUR WORD”.
UNDER OUR FIRST POINT IN YOUR NOTES, PLEASE DRAW A PIE AND SPLIT IT UP INTO TWO LARGE PIECES, TWO SMALL PIECES, AND A SLIVER. OF THE TWO SMALL PIECES, ONE SHOULD BE HALF THE SIZE OF THE OTHER. NOW LETS LABEL THE PIECES. YOUR LABELS CAN BE OUTSIDE BY WAY OF ARROWS. LABEL ONE OF THE BIG PIECES “WORD OF GOD NOT SUFFICIENT FOR COUNSELING, OTHER SOURCES NEEDED.” I DON’T THINK THIS NEEDS MUCH EXPLANATION.
LABEL THE SECOND BIG PIECE “WORD OF GOD NOT FULLY SUFFICIENT.” THIS REPRESENTS THOSE WHO THINK THE BIBLE IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE EVERYDAY MINOR PROBLEMS OF LIFE BUT SOMETHING MORE IS NEEDED FOR THE SERIOUS OR “DEEP” PROBLEMS OF LIFE.
I THINK THESE TWO PIECES OF THE PIE REPRESENTS THE THINKING OF MOST PEOPLE IN THE CHURCH TODAY.
NOW LETS LABEL ONE OF THE SMALL PIECES, THE LARGER OF THE TWO. JAKE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THIS PIECE. LABEL IT “ABSTRACT THEOLOGY”. SIMPLY PUT, ABSTRACT THEOLOGY IS A KNOWLEDGE OF THEOLOGICAL FACTS WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF HOW TO APPLY IT TO THE SPECIFICS OF LIFE. JAKE KNEW OF GOD’S SOVEREIGN GRACE, THAT’S GOOD THEOLOGY. BUT HE WAS OBLIVIOUS TO THE FACT THAT GOD WAS IN COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE PROBLEMS IN HIS LIFE AS WELL. THAT’S WHEN PANIC BEGAN TO START. JAKE THOUGHT HIS LIFE WAS SPINNING OUT OF CONTROL.
NOW LET’S LABEL THE OTHER SMALL PIECE. THESE ARE CHRISTIANS WHO UNDERSTAND THE CONNECTION OF THEOLOGY TO LIFE TO SOME POINT, BUT THEY LACK EXPERIENCE IN HELPING OTHERS TO DO IT. THIS ALSO HINDERS A FURTHER ABILITY TO DO IT IN THEIR OWN LIFE, WHICH THEY DO WELL TO A POINT. SOME WOULD SAY THEY ARE NOT “CASE WISE”. IF YOU HANDED THEM A BOOK OF ACTUAL CASE STUDIES WITHOUT THE BIBLICAL ANSWERS, THEY WOULD BE SURPRISED AT THEIR TRUE INABILITY TO HELP OTHERS WITH THE WORD OF GOD.
NOW LET’S LABEL THE SLIVER. THESE ARE CHRISTIANS WHO HAVE A GOOD WORKING KNOWLEDGE OF THEOLOGY AND HOW TO APPLY IT TO THEIR OWN LIFE AND THE LIVES OF OTHERS, AND ACTIVELY DO SO. THEY ARE TOO FEW IN THE BODY OF CHRIST. THE BIBLE CALLS THEM “MATURE” IN HEB 5;14 AND “SPIRITUAL” IN GAL 6:1.
THE TWO LARGE PIECES REPRESENT CONFUSION. THE TWO SMALL PIECES REPRESENT FAILURE OR LIMITED GLORY FOR GOD. THE SLIVER NEEDS TO BE A MUCH BIGGER PIECE OF THE PIE. SUCH IS THE PICTURE OF COUNSELING IN TODAY’S CHURCH. WHICH PIECE OF THE PIE DO YOU PRESENTLY RESIDE IN?
NOW IMAGINE FOR A MOMENT THAT ALL THE PIECES OF THE PIE EXCEPT FOR THE SLIVER ARE ONE PIECE. THOUGH THEY DIFFER, THEY COMMONLY BELIEVE THREE THINGS ABOUT BIBLICAL COUNSELING:
FIRST, COUNSELING IS ONLY FOR THOSE CHRISTIANS WHO HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS FROM A HUMAN PERSPECTIVE.
SECONDLY, THE TROUBLED CHRISTIAN ALWAYS INITIATES THE COUNSELING.
THIRDLY, IT MUST BE DONE BY THE SENIOR PASTOR OR A “TRAINED PROFESSIONAL”
THATS A PICTURE OF THE CONDITION AND SCOPE OF COUNSELING IN TODAY’S TYPICAL CHURCH. BUT IT’S NOT THE SAME PICTURE THE BIBLE PRESENTS.
FIRST OF ALL, OUR GOD IS NOT A GOD OF CONFUSION. THERE ARE NOT MULTIPLE SOURCES FOR GOD’S GUIDANCE AND COUNSEL. THE WORD OF GOD IS TOTALLY SUFFICIENT.
PSALM 1:1 AND 119:105 SAY THAT GOD’S WORD GIVES US DIRECTION. 2PETER 1:3 SAYS THAT THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD SUPPLIES US WITH EVERYTHING WE NEED FOR LIFE AND GODLINESS. THEN PETER SAYS IN VERSES 16-21 THAT THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD IN HIS WORD IS EVEN BETTER AND MORE CERTAIN THAN THE EVENTS AND MIRACLES THE APOSTLES WITNESSED WITH THEIR OWN EYES. HEBREWS 4:12,13 SAYS THE WORD OF GOD IS LIVING AND ACTIVE AND CAN LAY OPEN THE SOUL AND SPIRIT LIKE A DOUBLE EDGE SWORD CAN LAY OPEN A BODY ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE BONE MARROW. IT DISCERNS AND JUDGES THE ATTITUDES AND THOUGHTS OF THE MIND AND PREPARES MAN TO GIVE AN ACCOUNT TO GOD.
I ASK ANYONE WHO SAYS THE WORD IS NOT SUFFICIENT: CAN YOUR TRUTH DO THAT?
LASTLY ON THIS POINT, BUT NOT LEAST, PSALM 138:2 SAYS GOD HAS EXALTED HIS WORD EVEN ABOVE HIS OWN NAME!
THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED FOR CONFUSION AMONG GOD’S PEOPLE, AS JESUS SAID, “THY WORD IS TRUTH.” ALL COUNSEL CONCERNING THE ISSUES OF LIFE MUST BE FROM THE WORD OF GOD. THERE IS NO OTHER VIABLE SOURCE.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE NEED FOR COUNSELING ACTIVITY? SURELY COUNSELING TAKES A BACK SEAT IN A BIG WAY TO TEACHING AND PREACHING, RIGHT? LETS TAKE A WALK THROUGH THE SCRIPTURES AND FIND OUT.
FIRST OF ALL, WE FIND OUT A VERY IMPORTANT TRUTH ABOUT COUNSELING IN THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE BIBLE. IN GENESIS 1:27-2:25, WE FIND OUT MAN WAS CREATED TO BE COUNSELED. GOD BUILT IN THE NEED. IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CREATION, MOST OF CHAPTER 1 AND ALL OF CHAPTER 2 DESCRIBES GOD’S COUNSEL TO ADAM AND EVE.
IMMEDIATELYAFTER THE FALL, WE FIND ADAM, EVE AND SATAN IN A COUNSELING SESSION WITH GOD. LATER, WE FIND GOD COUNSELING CAIN AFTER HE MURDERED HIS BROTHER ABLE. WE ALSO FIND SEVERAL COUNSELING SESSIONS BETWEEN GOD, ABRAHAM AND LOT. HAGAR IS COUNSELED IN THE WILDERNESS AND JOSEPH COUNSELS HIS BROTHERS. IN EXODUS THROUGH DEUTERONOMY, GOD AND MOSES COUNSEL THE ISRAELITES. IN NUMBERS 18, JETHRO AND MOSES SET UP A COUNSELING SYSTEM WHERE MOSES TOOK THE MOST DIFFICULT CASES AND THE REST WHERE SPLIT UP AMONG OTHER COUNSELORS. IN THE HISTORICAL AND PROPHETIC BOOKS, GOD COUNSELS HIS PEOPLE THROUGH THE PROPHETS. NATHAN COUNSELS DAVID. THE BOOK OF JOB IS ONE WHOLE COUNSELING CASE ALTHOUGH JOB’S THREE FRIENDS ARE A STUDY ON HOW NOT TO COUNSEL. THE BOOK OF PROVERBS IS A COUNSELING MANUAL. THE BOOK OF JONAH IS YET ANOTHER COUNSELING CASE. IN A MATTER OF FACT, THE BOOK OF JONAH GIVES GREAT INSIGHT INTO THE PROBLEM OF DEPRESSION.
SO FAR, THERE IS BARELY MORE THAN TWO NOTABLE SERMONS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, BUT MANY MORE COUNSELING EXAMPLES COULD BE CITED IF TIME PERMITTED.
IN THE GOSPELS, ONE SERMON BY JESUS IS RECORDED, THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT, BUT HIS COUNSEL TO OTHERS CONSUMES THE BOOKS. NICODEMUS, THE WOMAN AT THE WELL, THE RICH YOUNG RULER, THE APOSTLES AND OF COURSE PETER. THE EPISTLES ARE ALMOST ALL CORRECTIVE. EPHESIANS SIMULATES PROVERBS AS A COUNSELING MANUAL. PRISCILLA AND AQUILA COUNSEL APOLLOS AND JESUS COUNSELS THE SEVEN CHURCHES IN REVELATION. BUT YET, ONLY A FEW NOTABLE SERMONS BY PETER AND PAUL ARE RECORDED.
ONE MORE POINT NEEDS TO BE MADE HERE. NOT ONLY DOES COUNSELING CONSUME A VERY LARGE PORTION OF SCRIPTURE, BUT MOST OF IT IS PROACTIVE ON THE PART OF THE COUNSELORS. IN A MATTER OF FACT, HEB 10:24-25 SAYS ONE OF THE PRIMARY REASONS WE MEET TOGETHER IS FOR PROACTIVE COUNSEL.
WE SEE THAT COUNSELING IS VERY PREVALENT IN THE SCRIPTURES, BUT WHO COUNSELS AND WHO IS SUPPOSED TO DO COUNSELING?
WELL, WE HAVE SEEN THAT GOD HAS DONE COUNSELING FACE TO FACE WITH MAN. CHRIST IS CALLED THE “MIGHTY COUNSELOR.” THE HOLY SPIRIT IS WITHOUT A DOUBT THE MOST ACTIVE COUNSELOR EVER AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ANGELS HAVE ALSO BEEN VERY ACTIVE COUNSELORS. AN ANGEL COUNSELED MARTHA AND MARY AT THE TOMB. AN ANGEL COUNSELED THE APOSTLES AT CHRIST’ ASCENSION. AN ANGEL COUNSELED JOSEPH AND THERE ARE MANY MORE EXAMPLES.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THOSE OF US IN THE CHURCH ON EARTH?
FIRST OF ALL, PASTORS ARE TO COUNSEL. IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT A PASTOR CAN TAKE THE WORD OF GOD AND GUIDE THE SAINTS IN EXEGETING HEARTS, MOTIVES AND ATTITUDES. UNDER THE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, PETER COMMANDS ALL ELDERS TO”SHEPHERD THE FLOCK OF GOD THAT IS AMONG YOU”. SHEPHERDS GUIDE, TEACH AND PROTECT AND MUST GIVE ACCOUNT OF YOUR LIFE FACE TO FACE WITH THE LORD JESUS CHRIST ACCORDING TO HEB 13:17. NOTICE THAT THIS VERSE ASSUMES THAT ELDERS “KEEP WATCH” OVER YOU.
ALSO, THE SCRIPTURES MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT THE PASTORS TOOLS ARE FOR DOING THIS, PRAYER AND THE WORD OF GOD.
IN ACTS 6:2-4. NOTICE THE TERM “MINISTRY OF THE WORD” IN THESE VERSES. THE MINISTRY OF THE WORD IS MORE THAN PREACHING. IT IS TEACHING, REBUKING, CORRECTING AND TRAINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS ACCORDING TO 2TIM 3:16. PREACHING AND TEACHING ALONE CANNOT NOT ACCOMPLISH THIS, THAT IS OBVIOUS. VERSE 17 ADDS THAT THE WORD OF GOD FULLY EQUIPS THE MAN OF GOD FOR THIS TASK.
BEFORE WE MOVE ON, LET ME SAY THIS; THERE IS BARELY ANYTHING MORE SHAMEFUL THAN MEN WHO CALL THEMSELVES PASTORS THAT SEND HURTING PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH TO THOSE WHO REJECT GOD’S WORD AS THE FINAL AUTHORITY FOR ALL COUNSELING.
OTHER THAN PASTORS, PARENTS ARE TO COUNSEL THEIR CHILDREN [ DUE 11;19, EPH 6:4]. GRANDPARENTS ARE TO COUNSEL THEIR GRANDCHILDREN [ DUE 6:9]. OLDER WOMEN ARE TO COUNSEL YOUNGER WOMEN [TITUS 2;1-5] HUSBANDS ARE TO COUNSEL THEIR WIVES [EPH 5;25,26]. THOSE WHO HAVE ENDURED TRIALS GOD’S WAY ARE TO COUNSEL
[2COR 1;3,4].
AND FINALLY,COUNSELING IS TO BE ONGOING BETWEEN CHRISTIANS. ALL CHRISTIANS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR COUNSELING EACH OTHER AND BEING SKILLED AT DOING SO THROUGH TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE [COL 3:16 ROM 15:14 AND ITHESS 514]. ALSO, APPARENTLY COUNSELING WILL CONTINUE AFTER THE COMING OF CHRIST. PAUL SAYS IN ICOR 6:3 THAT WE WILL COUNSEL ANGELS.
BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT POINT, LET’S DRAW ANOTHER PIE. MAKE ONE BIG PIECE THAT CIRCLES ALMOST ALL THE WAY AROUND. LABEL IT COUNSELING. NOW MAKE A SMALL PIECE. LABEL IT PREACHING,SACRAMENTS,WORSHIP SERVICES. I HOPE THAT DOESN’T OFFEND YOU. BUT I THINK IT IS A FAIR BIBLICAL PICTURE OF THE MAGNITUDE OF THE ROLE COUNSELING SHOULD PLAY IN THE CHURCH. OBVIOUSLY, COUNSELING DOES NOT PLAY THIS LARGE OF A ROLE IN TODAY’S CHURCH, BUT AT ONE TIME IT DID.
AT SOME POINT IN AMERICAN CHURCH HISTORY, THE CHURCH BEGAN TO FOCUS ON AND EMPHASIZE WHOLESALE, ONE TIME PROFESSIONS OF FAITH AT THE END OF FORMAL PREACHING AND FOCUSED AWAY FROM THE EVERYDAY SANCTIFICATION PROCESS.
TO MAKE THIS POINT QUICKLY, LET’S DRAW TWO PICTURES IN OUR MIND. ON THE ONE HAND YOU HAVE CHRISTIANS EXHORTING EACH OTHER, ADMONISHING EACH OTHER, COMFORTING EACH OTHER, TRAINING EACH OTHER,TEACHING EACH OTHER, ENCOURAGING EACH OTHER, PRAYING FOR EACH OTHER, ALL IN THE MILIEU OF LIFE. THEY SEE THEIR REMAINING MORTALITY AS A POWERFUL TYRANT THAT MUST BE BEATEN DOWN AND BROUGHT UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE WORD OF GOD WITH THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, STRINGENT DISCIPLINE AND THE AID OF OTHER BELIEVERS. THEN ON THE OTHER HAND, JUST THINK OF A BILLY GRAHAM CRUSADE. OR BETTER YET, A STADIUM FULL OF 350,000 TOUCHY FEELY MEN.
I’M NOT SAYING THAT NOTHING GOOD COMES OUT OF THOSE EVENTS. WHAT I’M SAYING IS THAT IT’S THE TRADE OFF IN FOCUS AND EMPHASIS THAT THE CHURCH HAS MADE AND PRECIOUS FEW PEOPLE WOULD DENY THAT.
THE CHURCHES FOCUS AWAY FROM THE RIGORS OF EVERYDAY SANCTIFICATION NATURALLY LED IT’S PASTORS AND LAITY AWAY FROM COUNSELING BECAUSE COUNSELING PLAYS A MAJOR ROLE IN THE SANCTIFICATION PROCESS. THIS LED TO A PROBLEM THAT MOSTLY EFFECTED THE PASTOR’S ABILITY TO MINISTER TO PEOPLE. KNOWING WHO PEOPLE ARE AND WHAT MAKES THEM TIC IS ESSENTIAL TO OUR ABILITY TO HELP THEM. PASTORS DO NOT LEARN ABOUT PEOPLE BY PREACHING THEOLOGY FROM THE PULPIT. THEY LEARN ABOUT PEOPLE BY INTERACTING WITH THEM AND THEIR PROBLEMS ON A CONTINUAL BASIS. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED FOR WHATEVER REASON: PASTORS TURNED THEIR BACKS ON COUNSELING PEOPLE AND BEGAN TO FOCUS SOLELY ON PREACHING AND THE EFFECT ON THE CHURCH HAS BEEN PROFOUND.
FIRST, IN REGARD TO PREACHING, AS WE DISCUSSED EARLIER, PREACHING BECAME SERMONS OF ABSTRACT THEOLOGY. WHEN PASTORS STOPPED LEARNING ABOUT PEOPLE BY COUNSELING EXPERIENCE AND THE WORD OF GOD, THEY LOST THEIR ABILITY TO ENJECT PRACTICAL APPLICATION INTO THEIR SERMONS AND PREACHING BECAME REDUCED TO THEOLOGICAL FACTS. JAKE SAT UNDER A LOT OF THIS KIND OF PREACHING / TEACHING AND WHEN THE TRIALS OF LIFE CAME, HIS HOUSE CAME CRASHING DOWN!
SECONDLY, THE CHURCHES TESTIMONY TO THE WORLD HAS BEEN PROFOUNDLY EFFECTED. THE INABILITY TO APPLY THEOLOGY TO LIFE HAS GREATLY HINDERED SANCTIFICATION IN THE CHURCH AND THEREFORE HAS CRIPPLED OUR IMPACT ON SOCIETY AND THE WORLD.
THIRDLY, ABSTRACT THEOLOGY HAS CAUSED A MAJORITY OF CHRISTIANS IN TODAY’S CHURCH TO DOUBT THAT GOD’S WORD IS TOTALLY SUFFICIENT BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN TAUGHT, NOR HAVE WITNESSED IT’S TRANSFORMING POWER THAT RESULTS FROM IT’S PRACTICAL APPLICATION.
FOURTHLY, THIS HAS ALSO LED TO A GREAT DECLINE IN EVANGELISM. IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO GET CHRISTIANS EXCITED ABOUT EVANGELISM WHEN THEY DO NOT SEE THE AWESOME POWER OF GOD BEING DEMONSTRATED IN THEIR OWN LIVES AND THE LIVES OF OTHERS. HAVE YOU NOTICED HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO GET CHRISTIANS EXCITED ABOUT EVANGELISM? ANYMORE, TO GET CHRISTIANS TO EVANGELIZE YOU HAVE TD PACKAGE IT WITH A TRIP OR A VACATION. BUT EVEN THEN EVANGELISM HAS LOST IT’S EFFECTIVENESS BECAUSE WHEN PASTORS STOPPED LEARNING ABOUT PEOPLE AND CHRISTIANS STOPPED LEARNING ABOUT EACH OTHER, GOSPEL PRESENTATIONS BECAME CANNED. THE ROMANS ROAD, THE FOUR SPIRITUAL LAWS, TRACKS, EVANGELISM EXPLOSION, PEOPLE RUNNING UP AND DOWN ISLES, ENDLESS RE-DEDICATION AND ENDLESS CLICHES.
THE APOSTLE PAUL KNEW PEOPLE AND THAT’S WHY HIS GOSPEL PRESENTATIONS WERE FITTED TO THE PERSON AND THE SITUATION WITHOUT COMPROMISE. DID NOT CHRIST PRESENT THE GOSPEL TO THE WOMAN AT THE WELL IN A DIFFERENT WAY THAN NICODEMUS AND THE RICH YOUNG RULER? NOT TO MENTION MANY OTHERS.
LET ME READ PHILEMON 4-7 BECAUSE I THINK IT TIES ALL OF MY POINTS TOGETHER [READ]. BY ACTIVELY REFRESHING THE HEARTS OF THE SAINTS, PAUL SAID PHILEMON WOULD GAIN A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF EVERY GOOD THING WE HAVE IN CHRIST, AND SO IT IS WITH US ALSO.
UNDER POINT FOUR, LET’S NOW DISCUSS THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE CHURCH NEEDS A COUNSELING SYSTEM. IN OTHER WORDS, DOES THE CHURCH NEED METHODOLOGY IN ORDER TO COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY?
MANY PASTORS WOULD SAY NO, AND HERE’S HOW THE ARGUMENT GOES: THIS IS ALMOST A WORD FOR WORD QUOTE FROM A PASTOR FRIEND OF MINE; “PAUL, IF THE PEOPLE WOULD JUST COME TO THE SERMONS AND STUDY THE WORD OF GOD ON THEIR OWN, THEY WOULDN’T NEED COUNSELING. I CAN’T TELL YOU HOW MANY TIMES SOMEBODY HAS CALLED ME FOR COUNSEL ON AN ISSUE THAT I PREACHED ON JUST THE WEEK BEFORE”
THERE ARE MANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS REASONING BUT I WILL ONLY COVER THE MAJOR ONES. THIS REASONING ASSUMES PEOPLE ALWAYS KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEIR PROBLEM IS AND CAN THEREFORE ALWAYS APPLY THE RIGHT SERMON. NOT SO. JERE 17:9 SAYS WE CANNOT KNOW OUR OWN HEARTS APART FROM THE WORD OF GOD
PROVERBS 20:5 SAYS THAT IT TAKES A WISE MAN TO DRAW OUT THE ISSUES OF THE HEART. GAL 6:1 DOES NOT SAY TO SEND A FALLEN BROTHER OR SISTER TO A PREACHING SERVICE, IT SAYS TO SEND “THOSE WHO ARE SPIRITUAL”. ALSO, THIS LINE OF REASONING ASSUMES GOD GAUGES THE TRIALS OF LIFE ACCORDING TO SERMON SCHEDULES. CERTAINLY WE SHOULD ALL KNOW BETTER THAN THAT.
ANOTHER ARGUMENT IS THAT THE PRESENT DAY BIBLICAL COUNSELING
MOVEMENT MAKES A STRONG DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT IS CALLED COUNSELORS AND COUNSELEES, CREATING A SORT OF HAVE AND HAVE NOT ENVIRONMENT THAT SMACKS OF PROFESSIONALISM. ACTUALLY, THE BIBLE MAKES THAT DISTINCTION BUT IT’S NOT PROFESSIONALISM. IT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE WHO DILIGENTLY STUDY THE SCRIPTURES AND APPLY THEM TO THERE OWN LIFE AND HAVE EXPERIENCE HELPING OTHERS TO DO THE SAME. THE BIBLE CALLS THEM “MATURE” [HEB 5:14], AND “SPIRITUAL” [GAL 6:1] AND PEOPLE OF “FAITH AND LOVE” [PHILEMON 4-6].
HERE IS ANOTHER THOUGHT: WHEN YOUR A NEW CHRISTIAN, YOUR PURELY A COUNSELEE FOR THE MOST PART. AS YOU GROW, YOU LEARN HOW TO COUNSEL YOURSELF AND OTHERS AND BECOME MORE OF A COUNSELOR AND LESS OF A COUNSELEE. ONCE YOU START TO GROW AND MATURE, THERE IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS LESS THAN YOU DO. THEY ARE CANDIDATES TO BE HELPED BY YOU.
BUT IT SHOULD BE OUR GOAL TO BEAR OUR OWN BURDENS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE SO WE ARE FREE TO HELP OTHERS THAT MUCH MORE. WELL THEN, YOU ASK, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN MOST OF YOUR PEOPLE ARE MATURE AND COUNSELEES GET SCARCE. YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS THEN? THE WALLS OF THE CHURCH CAN’T CONTAIN IT. THE PEOPLE GOTTA COUNSEL SOMEWHERE EVEN IF IT’S THE PRE-COUNSELING OF EVANGELISM. YOUR PEOPLE MOVE OUT AND BECOME AN AWESOME LIGHT IN THEIR COMMUNITY FOR THE GLORY OF GOD!
I THINK AS THE PEOPLE DILIGENTLY APPLY THE WORD OF GOD TO THEIR OWN LIVES AND HELP OTHERS TO DO THE SAME, THEY BEGIN TO SEE GOD’S TRANSFORMING POWER AND CANNOT RESTRAIN THEMSELVES FROM SHARING IT WITH OTHERS.
OUR FINAL POINT TONIGHT IS ARGUMENTS FOR A COUNSELING SYSTEM.
1. BECAUSE GOD HIMSELF IS A GOD OF SYSTEMS AND METHODS. THIS IS CLEAR FROM CREATION. THE SOLAR SYSTEM. THE NATURAL SYSTEM OF HYDROLOGY ECT. GOD USED METHODS AND SYSTEMS TO WRITE HIS WORD. WHEN GOD COUNSELED ADAM AND EVE AFTER THE FALL, HE BEGAN WITH ADAM FIRST. THEN EVE. THEN THE SERPENT. AFTER HEARING THEIR EXPLANATIONS, HE DEALT WITH THEM IN THE SAME ORDER CONCERNING THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT THEY HAD DONE. GOD ALWAYS USES SYSTEMS AND METHODS.
2. IF WE SEE A NEED FOR SYSTEMATIZED THEOLOGY, SYSTEMATIC BIBLE STUDY AND A CHRISTIAN SCHOOL SYSTEM, WHY WOULD WE NOT WANT A SYSTEM FOR TARGETED DISCIPLESHIP? THAT’S REALLY WHAT COUNSELING IS, TARGETED DISCIPLESHIP. THOSE WHO APPOSE A SYSTEM OF COUNSELING WOULD NOT DENY THE NEED FOR SYSTEMS IN THESE OTHER AREAS.
3. IF THE ISSUES AND PURPOSES OF MAN ARE DEEP AND COMPLICATED AS PROVERBS 20:5 SAYS, THEN WE NEED A SYSTEM TO HELP US IN OUR UNDERSTANDING JUST AS SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY HELPS US UNDERSTAND THEOLOGY.
4. HISTORY TEACHES US THAT THE CHURCH TENDS TO LOOSE WHAT IT DOES NOT PUT INTO A SYSTEM. FUTURE GENERATIONS SHOULD ALWAYS CONTINUE TO BUILD UPON WHAT HAS BEEN LEARNED IN THE PAST AND IMPROVE IT’S EFFECTIVENESS. SYSTEMS AND METHODS GIVE US A WAY TO CAN WHAT. WE HAVE LEARNED AND PASS IT ON TO THE NEXT GENERATION.
5. SYSTEMS AND METHODS ARE CRITICAL TO HOLDING COUNSELORS ACCOUNTABLE AND CONSISTENT.
6. IT OBVIOUSLY TAKES TRAINING TO BE PREPARED TO COUNSEL PEOPLE WITH SERIOUS PROBLEMS. SYSTEMS AND METHODS ARE ESSENTIAL TO GOOD TRAINING.
TODAY’S CHURCH NEEDS A NEW SELF-IMAGE. WE NEED TO SEE OURSELVES AS AN INTIMATE FAMILY HELPING EACH OTHER DOWN THE ROAD OF SANCTIFICATION TOWARD THE PERFECT DAY. WE NEED TO SEE THE TRIP TOGETHER DOWN THAT ROAD AS A STRUGGLE AGAINST THE FLESH THAT WILL REQUIRE US TO BE SOLDIERS AND OLYMPIANS. ANY LESSER VIEW OF THE SIN THAT IS IN US IS TO GREATLY UNDER-ESTIMATE THE ENEMY.
WE MUST ESTEEM OTHERS BETTER THAN OURSELVES, ADMONISH EACH OTHER, EXHORT EACH OTHER, TEACH EACH OTHER, CORRECT EACH OTHER, TRAIN EACH OTHER, ENCOURAGE EACH OTHER, WARN EACH OTHER, PROTECT EACH OTHER, GREET EACH OTHER, BE KIND TO EACHO1HER, SUBMIT TO EACH OTHER, PRAY FOR EACH OTHER AND KNOW EACH OTHER.
THERE IS NO TIME FOR GOSSIP SLANDER, COMPETITION AND A HOST OF OTHER THINGS THAT DO NOT EDIFY AND STRENGHTEN THE FAMILY.
THE CHURCH NEEDS TEACHING AND PREACHING THAT CAN IDENTIFY THE REAL ISSUES OF LIFE, THE TOOLS NEEDED TO DEAL WITH THEM AND HOW TO USE THOSE TOOLS. THEY MUST BE MEN WHO ARE IN THE PROCESS OF KNOWING GOD’S WORD, KNOWING GOD’S WORLD AND KNOWING GOD’S PEOPLE THROUGH DILIGENT INTERACTION. THESE MEN WILL BE KNOWN BY THE AMOUNT OF PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THEOLOGY TO LIFE THAT ACCOMPANIES THEIR MESSAGES.
IF WE ARE TO BE A HEALING COMMUNITY THAI GLORIFIES GOD, COUNSELING FROM THE SCRIPTURES MUST BE RETURNED TO IT’S LOFTY POSITION IN THE CHURCH FOR IT PLAYS A MAJOR ROLE IN SANCTIFICATION AND DISCIPLESHIP
4 comments