Gospel-Driven Confusion
I appreciate Greg Gibson’s blog which will often list a series of relevant articles for “busy disciples” (http://networkedblogs.com/8BQuZ). Many times, the articles concern “New Calvinism” which also includes those who hold to the doctrine of Gospel Sanctification (or “gospel-driven” sanctification). This is an antinomian doctrine that synthesizes justification and sanctification, covertly nullifying the use of the Law in the sanctification process.
The most recent list (of which are not necessarily the shared view of Greg Gibson) are excellent examples of the confusion GS is unleashing on the contemporary church. The first article is about a church that executed a popular trend among GS based churches: excommunicating non-active members. Gibson posted the link written by Jonathan Leeman of “9 Marks” blog, which is connected to Capital Hill Baptist Church. CHBC became heroes in the Neo-reformed movement when they excommunicated 256 members for non-attendance, so their interest in interviewing the pastor from the latest church to out-perform them is understandable.
But unbelievably, it quickly became apparent from the twenty or so comments attached to the article, and the authors feedback that it is unclear as to whether or not the parishioners were actually excommunicated or not. It all began with the following apt observation in the comment section:
“….membership on a church role is NOT, absolutely NOT, the same as membership in the Body of Christ. The church membership role is a fallible, human attempt to count members and be more efficient in ministry. That’s great. I’m for church membership and church roles. I support regenerate church membership. I also support culling through roles and taking names off the role because they are inactive and unresponsive. But that is distinctly different from the real theological issues behind the labels “excommunication” and “unrepentant sin.” Those two terms need to be used with care and precision. And we are adding to Scripture to justify applauding their use here….It’s STILL assuming leaps and bounds over what Scripture says. Surely this Catholic view of the Scriptures is NOT what 9 Marks believes [hmmm, I wouldn’t be sure of that]. This is labeling something unrepentant sin that Scripture does not label sin. It’s inferring and implying from Scripture with the result of pronouncing EXCOMMUNICATION (a VERY serious word) over people who may just have never gotten the letter. Or people who never in their years of attending that church under leadership with a lesser view of membership were ever taught to embrace. It’s a sloppy use of church discipline [amen brother!!], which is a very needed practice in the church. This undermines the good use of church discipline for every congregation that desires to use it as God intended for the health of the Body. I implore you again, for the health of the churches who read this and are affected by the leadership here, please correct this article or take it down”[you go boy!!!].
I agree, but then things really start getting crazy when another reader notes the following about the same article:
“If those of you commenting would bother to read the article, you would find that the term ‘excommunication’ wasn’t part of the response, but part of a question posed by Mr. Leeman to Mr. King.
Mr. Leeman asks:
“David, I heard that you recently excommunicated 500 members from your church. Can this be right?”
Mr. King responded:
“What you heard is only partly true. We actually removed 575 members”.
Here, this reader corrects the other readers by pointing out that Leeman called it excommunication, but the pastor of the church that removed the members supposedly corrected him by using a different word. But then the other readers rightly correct him by pointing out that the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the interview is that the members were, in fact, excommunicated:
“Well apparently according to the last statement by Mr Leeman of his desire that some of the 575 would ‘repent and attend healthy churches’ so based on this it leads one to assume that all these people are indeed excommunicated to the fullest extent and definition of term, and not just ‘removed from the membership role’….Mr. King did not correct him when Mr. Leeman asked about excommunication. He only corrected the numbers. Mr. King is saying, ‘Well actually we excommunicated 75 more people than you said.’ The point remains that excommunication is an unfortunate term to be used here and this article should be taken down or corrected.”
After this comment, the author of the post then suggested that all of the confusion was merely a matter of semantics regarding the definition of different terms. He was then corrected as follows:
“I agree with your definition of excommunication and am using the term in the same way. I take issue with the assumption of ‘unrepentant sin.’ The process he outlines makes not attending their church an ‘unrepentant sin.’ And if they could not document by people’s responses that they were indeed attending their church or another church (I hope at least that), they were LABELED unrepentant. I don’t mind them removing them from the roles. But it is not sin to stop attending a particular church. I have moved churches several times since college, all but once because I moved cities. I likely wouldn’t have gotten a letter even if they had tried to contact me. If they had labeled me unrepentant, it would have been slander. I’d be much more comfortable with this if either 1) you removed the terms excommunication and/or unrepentant sin OR 2) Mr. King clarifies that people weren’t labeled unrepentant simply because they didn’t respond to his letters to them. Because that is a BIG jump over a number of restraining principles in Scripture.”
The author then responded with the usual, long, tortured GS-type response. This sad, confusing commentary can be read in its entirety here: http://networkedblogs.com/8BQuZ
Actually, I like Camile’s response the best:
“This is simply appalling. I understand the need to ‘tidy’ a membership list. That happens.
But to ‘excommunicate’ people simply because they moved away or even joined another church? Talk about assigning negative intent.
I hope it’s sobering for you. I do. This has nothing to do with Jesus or the Gospel.”
P.s., Camile, it’s what happens when you think every verse in the Bible is about redemption.
But in another article listed along with the one above, the confusion continues, and this time at the hands of one of the fathers of Gospel Sanctification, the lovable Jerry Bridges. The second article is entitled “ 12 Steps to Identifying Your Functional Saviors” and the author begins the post this way:
“Whatever we direct our affections, energies, and hopes towards is our object of worship. Our heart needs Jesus; our flesh craves idols. This is why growing in love for Christ requires daily execution of idols. But how do we know what our idols are?”
This is the GS belief that we change by emptying our hearts of idols which leaves a void in our heart that Jesus then fills with himself resulting in Christ obeying for us. This was all hatched by David Powlison in the early 80’s and articulated by Paul David Tripp in his book “How People Change.” Powlison came up with a method to determine what those idols are by asking ourselves “X-ray questions.”
The author then shares a sample of 12 primary X-ray questions that can supposedly be used to determine heart idols from the Jerry Bridges book, “The Bookends of the Christian Life”:
1. I am preoccupied with ________.
2. If only ________, then I would be happy.
3. I get my sense of significance from ________.
4. I would protect and preserve ________ at any cost.
5. I fear losing ________.
6. The thing that gives me greatest pleasure is ________.
7. When I lose ________, I get angry, resentful, frustrated, anxious, or depressed.
8. For me, life depends on ________.
9. The thing I value more than anything in the world is ________.
10. When I daydream, my mind goes to________.
11. The best thing I can think of is ________.
12. The thing that makes me want to get out of bed in the morning is ________.
In an unusual display of discernment by readers, some raised questions about such a notion. For example: if I am preoccupied with my daughters wedding the week prior to the big day does that mean I have heart idols? If I am preoccupied with my wife being in labor, does that mean I love her more than I love Christ? The whole goofy notion of determining heart idols through asking ourselves “X-ray questions” brings up more questions by thinking Christians than could ever be answered; like, should “Christ” be written in every blank? Apparently, the propagators of the method don’t even know; Jered, the author of the post, responded this way:
“There’s nothing wrong with cherishing family, wanting to protect family, being sad if someone in our family is hurt of suffering, etc. I don’t think that’s what the list is getting at.
Nor is it saying we should put ‘Jesus’ into the blanks [well then, what should go in there?]
It’s just a general list, taken altogether, that can be diagnostic of where our ultimate treasure is. No need to absolutize each question or over-think it. Let’s just be conscious to have Christ as our ultimate treasure, which means being aware of our natural drift to idolatry.
The cool thing is that this doesn’t mean we stop enjoying or loving good things. This means actually loving our families better and enjoying good things (like work, sex, sports, etc.) more than if they were our actual treasure.”
Huh? So, they’re diagnostic questions, but the answers are not definitive? Welcome to the confused, nebulous world of Gospel Sanctification, and Gospel-Driven confusion.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Now that they got rid of 500+ members, I’m sure they can go ahead with whatever congregational vote they needed to ensure they only had the people they wanted.
On the other hand, I think “diagnostic questions” are what they say on the tin. A doctor will ask questions, and no one single question will reveal the diagnosis. The pattern that emerges from all the questions leads to the diagnosis. One x-ray might show a spot, but another x-ray will show it was benign. Maybe that complexity needs to be explained better.
LikeLike
hey, they’re waking up at ref21
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2010/10/monday-monday.php
LikeLike
pduggie,
??Please explain, or you can email me at pmd@inbox.com paul
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
pduggie, Ok, I get it. I read the article. Thanks for sharing that with me. paul
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Paul, you undermine the credibility of your otherwise accurate analysis of what you call GS when you harp on their treasure analysis. While I have never seen anyone do a good job of explaining how to effectively discern our treasure, that we may overcome what is not of God, you cannot dismiss that process a priori using the sorts of arguments you have made to date on this blog – stuff like citing an OT verse hear or there that says only God knows our hearts. Obviously, only God knows anything, but He reveals what He chooses to reveal, and He does so more often when we ask Him to. It’s one thing to rub it in that your opponent is unclear or incoherent. It is another to act like something is impossible with God.
While I too am disheartened at the antinomian bent of much of the sanctircation rhetoric flying around out there, I am very much interested in maximizing proactive spiritual growth. I say, why throw out the baby with the bath water? Besides, your GS point is plenty strong without pounding your chest about their inept attempts to deal with the heart and what it might contain.
Had to say it again, because you ignored my comments to this effect last time, and now you repeat your error. For shame.
Not at all serious about the error or the shame part, TW
LikeLike
Tad,
The reason you have not found anybody that does a good job of articulating how to “analyze our treasure” is because the Scriptures do not call us to do so. Instead, Christ calls us to “lay-up” treasure in heaven as opposed to “laying-up treasure on Earth. We are called to invest in heaven-not Earth where “moth corrupts and thieves steal.” Therefore, “where your treasure is your heart will be also.” Don’t analyze your heart, but rather put it in heaven through proper investment. This concept (obedience on the part of the believer) is straight forward and objective. Heart Theology is very subjective and its advocates have never been able to answer the hard questions.
Write your book on the role of obedience in Sanctification-where James said the blessings are (James 1:25).
paul
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Paul, you know it all (just kidding) … No wonder there are so many diverse, and inherently false teachings floating about out there (as there can only be one correct teaching, right?). Everyone thinks they are an expert interpreter of Scripture. Everyone thinks it’s heresy to view it differently than they do. Everyone thinks that if they thought it then it must be true. Many want to take a hermeneutic method and turn it into a theology — that’s what GS is at bottom. But who is hearing from the Spirit, seeking to become like Jesus in this lifetime?
In your case, though you rightly place emphasis on human effort in obedience to Christ, you presume to have exhausted the meaning of Jesus’ discussion of the Heart. … I hope you are saying the HS made you do it. Otherwise, i’m sure it was your Old Self. For the Old Self would love it if we could never recognize and overcome what is residually ensconced there after we are born again.
Just remember. The Titanic wasn’t found until someone got serious about looking. And the QEII did not float until someone launched her. So is the case with the Old and New Selfs.
Cordially, TW
LikeLike
TW, Since only truth Sanctifies (John 17:17), and we live by every word that comes from the mouth of God (Mathew 4:4), your right, there is no wiggle room. The Holy Spirit doesn’t operate within the realm of good intentions, He only operates within the realm of truth. When Christ preached the Sermon on the Mount, it says He “opened His mouth and taught them.” Therefore, since they were the peasants of that day it must be assumed that Christ wanted them to take what he taught at face value. In His conclusion, He said that whoever “hears these words of mine and *puts them into practice*” is like the man who builds his house on a rock.There is a reason why references to obedience are dominate throughout the Scriptures. But anyway, I think this post by Jay Adams speaks of this issue well: http://www.nouthetic.org/blog/?p=3845#more-3845 > —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Paul, do me and yourself the respect and favor of reading this lengthy contextual exegesis of Jay Adams’ views:
I have to respond to Jay Adams’ comments, investing my time there, because you and he persist in arrogant error. You both need me to teach you with Scripture, for me to minister conviction of your error to you, and you need to accept correction and train in righteousness over this.
First, I believe in synergistic sanctification, in which we must follow a process that in some manner resembles Adams’ 4 steps in How to Help People Change (1986), which I read for the first time on 10-5-6, 2010:
1. Teaching
2. Conviction
3. Correction
4. Disciplined Training in Righteousness (13)
Like Adams, I do not believe God changes us without our full repentance, and that the change God brings is by the Power of the Spirit as we pointedly immerse ourselves in pertinent Scripture, receive identification of our iniquities and needs to take on His character, become convicted of our sin, take on a plan of corrective action from His Word by His leading, and then seek to form new habits which are “automatic, unconscious, comfortable and skillfully performed” (196).
As much as I deeply applaud Adams’ approach and substantive principles of change he identifies, he is somewhat internally contradictory about the role of the Spirit and the role of the Counselor. He strongly condemns relying on any promptings or nudges from the Spirit, but then expresses how dependent we are on Him to understand Scripture and evoke changes in our lives. He wants the counselor to stand in and be a minister of the Word to bring conviction to the counselee, and he wants the counselor to coach them in what new patterns to form, yet he says the Spirit leads and empowers all of that. How does He do that if there is no direct communication with the counselor? Oh, He uses the Bible like a Ouiji board to reveal it! Read and as you exegetically contextualize it will all become clear to the brilliant counselor (“expert in Bible knowledge, interpretation, and exposition” 77), doing what the counselee could never do himself, apparently because the Spirit only counsels counselors. He’s so inconsistent. See him at p. 45. At 48 he says the how-to is not spelled out in the Bible, so the counselor has to come up with it. What keeps the counselor honest in that? The Spirit? How does the Spirit show an interp is right if it is not by some form of communication with the counselor? How is “enlightenment” not real time communication of the Spirit, and why is this preferred method of supernatural communication ok, but nothing else is? RANDOM!!!
You are left with the sense that he’s willing to let the Spirit be Himself when it comes to empowering the counselor to do his work, but not when it comes to letting the Spirit do as He sovereignly wills to lead and guide the counselee moment to moment in a close relationship. His chapters on the Bible and his conclusion belittle trying to receive from the Spirit except in the ways Adams presumptuously allows. Yet, he says, “[The H.S.’s] ministry is according to His sovereign will and cannot be manipulated by man” (109). He also says, “The Spirit does not directly [his emphasis] convict men” (118). Yet, he says the counselee fails to endure trials because “he has not availed himself of Christ’s strength for dealing with difficulty” (79), yet nowhere does he explain how to avail oneself of that power and what it looks like. In fact, he’s constantly denying anything works but the intervention of the counselor. He says that always all three must be operative: The Word, the Spirit and the minister of the Word (118). What an extreme and unwarranted conclusion! What a failure to perform a proper contextual exegesis, as he demands we always do! He pulled that out of a hat by citing one or two anecdotal passages. So much for his being the great protector of our hermeneutic!
Obviously, Adams is trying to cut off those who want to look beyond Scripture for solutions, so he can avoid losing the Bible as the standard for conduct and the processes by which we seek sanctification. Then, to defend his own hermeneutic, he belittles any approach to Scripture which does not see it the way he does, one moment claiming we are pinned to the exegetical context of the passage and the next moment able to abstract spiritual principles, reason over them, and apply them as Adams sees fit. Thus, he is internally inconsistent, due to his desire to maintain control. (His view is so good, however, that with a bit of tweaking he could avoid this inconsistency – but then he’d have to admit that there is such a thing as communicating directly with the Spirit of God, which He is quite loathe to do. He thinks the only way to communicate with Him is to launch a prayer up and then see if it sticks, by confirming a way to view Scripture and be convicted of sin. What would happen if the Spirit directly spoke to folks, would that eliminate the need for counselors???? Can’t have that.)
Adams also undershoots his target of “changing people so they pursue righteous living, … to use Scripture to replace sinful habits and life styles with righteous ones” (194). This is not “… the change that occurs on the outside alone, with no foundation in the heart. … [God] wants hearts that are aligned to Him and His purposes. He wants the change on the outside to flow from and be a part of an inner change aimed at pleasing Him (194). He says he must be convicted subjectively in his own “heart” (114-15). Adams says the counselor “would always be wise to impress upon the counselee the need for aligning both [his emphasis] the heart and action with the will of God” (194-195). He says, “What changes us is the Word ministered in the power of the Spirit — He is at work in His Word throughout the entire 4 step process. … [The counselor] and the counselee must call upon the Spirit to make clear what the new patterns [habitual bodily actions] must be; and to strengthen and assist them in learning to follow the new ways” (195).
He reduces the old and new selfs to ways of living, habits. That is extremely limiting. While he acknowledges that we must also change on the inside (65), in the heart, and the inside change controls the outside bodily changes, he does nothing to analyze the heart and mind to understand what that’s all about. [No doubt, you’ll say Scripture doesn’t say to analyze these.] Yet, at the same time he’s got a whole chapter called, “Conviction and Data Gathering”. He’s saying that “unless the counselor knows the facts – enough facts to fully understand the counseling situation—he cannot call for repentance with the assurance he needs. … Since you do not have divine revelation about another’s heart or absolute knowledge about what has transpired in his life, you will not always possess the same assurance Nathan had [Why do you deny we can get such revelation if Nathan go it!!!!!!! Where’s your contextual exegesis to support that leap, bro?????]. But the more accurate your data and the more you put these data into proper perspective, the more assurance you will have and the more effective your counseling will be. (“match his statements with Biblical categories[!!!]) That’s why data gathering is such an important part of the second step in the process of change” (119). [Hey, where does the Bible say to do data gathering in order to match them against Biblical categories for a mere mortal to undertake to convict a sinner of his ways? Nathan did it, but he was a prophet, and got his marching orders from the Lord by the Spirit! Isn’t data gathering a human trying to impose his worthless intellect to the problem to solve it?]
I could go on and on about how internally inconsistent and limited Adams’ view is. But, I will at the same time say that it is one of the very best methods for facilitating sanctification I have ever read. That’s why I have room to write, however. He undershoots his target, dramatically.
Anyway, you have shod his blog post at me, and I must respond. He says:
“Of course, the Ezekiel passage has no such counseling construct within it (nor does any other passage). And it teaches absolutely nothing about human beings manufacturing heart idols. Indeed, the Bible teaches quite another concept that is contrary to this view: it denies the ability of others to know another person’s heart.
Even Paul was cautious not only about judging others’ hearts, but even about judging his own (See 1 Corinthians 4:3-5). These are only a few of the consistent teachings of Scripture about the same thing. Man has the right to ask others what their desires are but, as in Paul’s case, even one’s own assessment is questionable. We can watch, and listen, but we cannot discover another’s heart problems. Moreover, as we have seen, to discover individual idols, within a complex person who isn’t sure of himself (as Paul said), again, seems quite presumptuous.
sanctification [is] Spirit-enabled effort”
Look at this hypocrite! He complains the Ezekial passage has no counseling construct and does not talk about manufacturing idols in the heart. (a) The lack of counseling constructs in Scripture never stops Adams from extracting spiritual principles for use in counseling throughout his book, How to Help People Change (1986). So much for that as an intelligent hermeneutical principal!
(b) He himself speaks of changing the heart and idolatrous thought and body habits in his his book, where he writes: “Sometimes counselees have their priorities scrambled. For instance, Tom says, Pastor, I’ll do anything to get my wife back!’ … though it is right for him to want to get [his wife] back, even a good priority can become a bad one when it is made the highest one. Tom’s statement is out of line with Biblical standards which forbid idolatry. … he has put [her] before God and his standards, thus making her an idol. That misplaced priority must be corrected or all else will go wrong. … Tom needs to adopt pleasing God as his highest priority, whether [she] returns or not” (66-67).
Now, I am not saying that critically analyzing the use of terminology by other writers is wrong. I am saying, don’t throw out the baby with the bath water as you guys always seem to do!!!
CLEARLY, idolatry is what Adams would call a “Biblical category” he is supposed to apply his data gathering to, in order to diagnose the guy’s problem, so he can intervene with his 4 step process. Why does he so stupidly apply his inconsistent hermeneutic and criticize principles he himself recognizes in his own work? Why be so sloppy??????
These GS people are a serious threat to the Body, but you can’t attack them recklessly. You must allow for spiritual principles to survive the attack on their inappropriate use. Stop being know it alls, and stop throwing out key words you don’t like, such as HEART, IDOLS, TREASURE, DEEP REPENTANCE, and so on. Do you think Adams is not advocating deep repentance of some form? See chapters 11-20 of his stinking book!
When you label certain words and phrases as bad, then no one can hear them anymore. Why not just get highly specific about what is wrong, instead of acting like we can’t discover what’s in the heart now that we are regenerate and have the Spirit to reveal it to us. Argue intelligently about the Spirit instead of being dismissive. You make your other arguments weaker when you are weak in these ways.
But so far as the Spirit, how do you think Adams figures out how to counsel his people? How do they themselves figure out what to be convicted of and repent of? Come on. Enough with the sloppy criticism.
It’s time consuming to unravel your error and it’s annoying. Stick to what is clearly true, and stop being so glib, … please. If your thoughts are important, let them “pass” muster.
Also, please acknowledge you’ve read this, because it took a long time to put it together. I had to read your boy, and then I had to quote him, etc. Have some respect, because i respect 95% of what you say, otherwise I wouldn’t bother. I have other things to do, friend.
TW
LikeLike
Paul, do me and yourself the respect and favor of reading this lengthy contextual exegesis of Jay Adams’ views: [ok]
I have to respond to Jay Adams’ comments, investing my time there, because you and he persist in arrogant error. [sorry, but I consider that accusation a compliment] You both need me to teach you with Scripture, for me to minister conviction of your error to you, and you need to accept correction and train in righteousness over this. [No comment here]
First, I believe in synergistic sanctification, in which we must follow a process that in some manner resembles Adams’ 4 steps in How to Help People Change (1986), which I read for the first time on 10-5-6, 2010: [I’ll wait to see the differences before I comment]
1. Teaching
2. Conviction
3. Correction
4. Disciplined Training in Righteousness (13)
Like Adams, I do not believe God changes us without our full repentance, [uh, just let me add that Adams does not , I repeat, does not, believe in “deep repentance”: why do you have to add “full,” why doesn’t “repentance” alone suffice? Scripture never embellishes the word with additional adjectives] and that the change God brings is by the Power of the Spirit as we pointedly immerse ourselves in pertinent Scripture, receive identification of our iniquities and needs to take on His character, become convicted of our sin, take on a plan of corrective action from His Word by His leading, and then seek to form new habits which are “automatic, unconscious, comfortable and skillfully performed” (196). [Yes, but Adams does not, I repeat, does not, believe that sanctification is limited to Scripture reading (gazing upon the gospel narrative) and deep repentance. Your point here seems nuanced when compared to the straight-forward language of Christ: “he who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice.” Christ never went out of His way to add additional verbiage to the concept of obedience for fear that we would supposedly do it “in our own strength.” Why is it necessary for you to add “by His leading” to “take on a plan of corrective action from His word” which assumes the prior?]
As much as I deeply applaud Adams’ approach and substantive principles of change he identifies, he is somewhat internally contradictory about the role of the Spirit and the role of the Counselor. He strongly condemns relying on any promptings or nudges from the Spirit, but then expresses how dependent we are on Him to understand Scripture and evoke changes in our lives. He wants the counselor to stand in and be a minister of the Word to bring conviction to the counselee, and he wants the counselor to coach them in what new patterns to form, yet he says the Spirit leads and empowers all of that. How does He do that if there is no direct communication with the counselor? Oh, He uses the Bible like a Ouiji board to reveal it! Read and as you exegetically contextualize it will all become clear to the brilliant counselor (“expert in Bible knowledge, interpretation, and exposition” 77), doing what the counselee could never do himself, apparently because the Spirit only counsels counselors. He’s so inconsistent. See him at p. 45. At 48 he says the how-to is not spelled out in the Bible, so the counselor has to come up with it. What keeps the counselor honest in that? The Spirit? How does the Spirit show an interp is right if it is not by some form of communication with the counselor? How is “enlightenment” not real time communication of the Spirit, and why is this preferred method of supernatural communication ok, but nothing else is? RANDOM!!! [ Adams believes that we interpret the Bible by taking it at face value. But even in this, we need the Spirits illumination. The Spirit only works within the boundaries of truth revealed in God’s word: “Father sanctify them with truth, Your word is truth.” Furthermore, counselors are usually people who have more discernment than counselees because their discernment of God’s word is sharpened through practice: “But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.” “Those who obey will know the doctrine.” By the way, in both cases, the imperative precedes the indicative. Adams is not inconsistent unless you approach his views through a prism.]
You are left with the sense that he’s willing to let the Spirit be Himself when it comes to empowering the counselor to do his work, but not when it comes to letting the Spirit do as He sovereignly wills to lead and guide the counselee moment to moment in a close relationship. [Not at all, again, Adams assumes the Spirit sanctifies with truth and will always lead the counselee according to biblical principles] His chapters on the Bible and his conclusion belittle trying to receive from the Spirit except in the ways Adams presumptuously allows. Yet, he says, “[The H.S.’s] ministry is according to His sovereign will and cannot be manipulated by man” (109). He also says, “The Spirit does not directly [his emphasis] convict men” (118). Yet, he says the counselee fails to endure trials because “he has not availed himself of Christ’s strength for dealing with difficulty” (79), [he means strength to follow what God reveals in the Scriptures which is usually easy to understand but at times difficult to do] yet nowhere does he explain how to avail oneself of that power and what it looks like. [See prior. The “blessings” / power is in the doing: James 1:25. We trust and obey, believing that God will empower us to do so. This is what Adams believes.] In fact, he’s constantly denying anything works but the intervention of the counselor. He says that always all three must be operative: The Word, the Spirit and the minister of the Word (118). What an extreme and unwarranted conclusion! [ But I agree, and this substantiates what I said above: “The word (truth) the Spirit(enablement and understanding) and the minister of the word (um, the Spirit leading someone out of trouble who got themselves there because of lack of knowledge, and without “someone spiritual” (Galations 6:1) would be extremely rare – this is what Jay is saying] What a failure to perform a proper contextual exegesis, as he demands we always do! He pulled that out of a hat by citing one or two anecdotal passages. So much for his being the great protector of our hermeneutic! [All he is saying is that the Spirit enables us to work within the confines of truth rightly applied to life in every circumstance which ministers to people in an objective way.]
Obviously, Adams is trying to cut off those who want to look beyond Scripture for solutions, so he can avoid losing the Bible as the standard for conduct and the processes by which we seek sanctification. Then, to defend his own hermeneutic, he belittles any approach to Scripture which does not see it the way he does, one moment claiming we are pinned to the exegetical context of the passage and the next moment able to abstract spiritual principles, reason over them, and apply them as Adams sees fit. Thus, he is internally inconsistent, due to his desire to maintain control. (His view is so good, however, that with a bit of tweaking he could avoid this inconsistency – but then he’d have to admit that there is such a thing as communicating directly with the Spirit of God, which He is quite loathe to do. He thinks the only way to communicate with Him is to launch a prayer up and then see if it sticks, by confirming a way to view Scripture and be convicted of sin. What would happen if the Spirit directly spoke to folks, would that eliminate the need for counselors???? Can’t have that.) [The Spirit only speaks to us through Scripture: “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” Again, only truth sanctifies (John 17:17)]
Adams also undershoots his target of “changing people so they pursue righteous living, … to use Scripture to replace sinful habits and life styles with righteous ones” (194). This is not “… the change that occurs on the outside alone, with no foundation in the heart. … [God] wants hearts that are aligned to Him and His purposes. He wants the change on the outside to flow from and be a part of an inner change aimed at pleasing Him (194). He says he must be convicted subjectively in his own “heart” (114-15). Adams says the counselor “would always be wise to impress upon the counselee the need for aligning both [his emphasis] the heart and action with the will of God” (194-195). [[Absolutely. Inside and outside obedience for the sole purpose of pleasing God: “whether in this tent or outside of it, we make it our goal to please Him”]] He says, “What changes us is the Word ministered in the power of the Spirit — He is at work in His Word throughout the entire 4 step process. … [The counselor] and the counselee must call upon the Spirit to make clear what the new patterns [habitual bodily actions] must be; and to strengthen and assist them in learning to follow the new ways” (195).
He reduces the old and new selfs to ways of living, habits. That is extremely limiting. [why?] While he acknowledges that we must also change on the inside (65), in the heart, and the inside change controls the outside bodily changes, he does nothing to analyze the heart and mind to understand what that’s all about. [[ why would you? It’s a matter of inside obedience in regard to thinking (“we take every thought captive and bring it into submission to Christ” and obeying the word and not feelings, “be angry but sin not”]] [No doubt, you’ll say Scripture doesn’t say to analyze these.] [[ right, and to do so will always lead to error]] Yet, at the same time he’s got a whole chapter called, “Conviction and Data Gathering”. He’s saying that “unless the counselor knows the facts – enough facts to fully understand the counseling situation—he cannot call for repentance with the assurance he needs. … Since you do not have divine revelation about another’s heart or absolute knowledge about what has transpired in his life, you will not always possess the same assurance Nathan had [Why do you deny we can get such revelation if Nathan go it!!!!!!! [[uh, because Nathan was a prophet]]Where’s your contextual exegesis to support that leap, bro?????]. [[see prior]]But the more accurate your data and the more you put these data into proper perspective, the more assurance you will have and the more effective your counseling will be. (“match his statements with Biblical categories[!!!]) That’s why data gathering is such an important part of the second step in the process of change” (119). [Hey, where does the Bible say to do data gathering in order to match them against Biblical categories for a mere mortal to undertake to convict a sinner of his ways? Nathan did it, but he was a prophet, and got his marching orders from the Lord by the Spirit! Isn’t data gathering a human trying to impose his worthless intellect to the problem to solve it?] [[ No, data gathering reveals unbiblical thinking and unbiblical behavior]]
I could go on and on about how internally inconsistent and limited Adams’ view is. But, I will at the same time say that it is one of the very best methods for facilitating sanctification I have ever read. That’s why I have room to write, however. He undershoots his target, dramatically.
Anyway, you have shod his blog post at me, and I must respond. He says:
“Of course, the Ezekiel passage has no such counseling construct within it (nor does any other passage). And it teaches absolutely nothing about human beings manufacturing heart idols. Indeed, the Bible teaches quite another concept that is contrary to this view: it denies the ability of others to know another person’s heart.
Even Paul was cautious not only about judging others’ hearts, but even about judging his own (See 1 Corinthians 4:3-5). These are only a few of the consistent teachings of Scripture about the same thing. Man has the right to ask others what their desires are but, as in Paul’s case, even one’s own assessment is questionable. We can watch, and listen, but we cannot discover another’s heart problems. Moreover, as we have seen, to discover individual idols, within a complex person who isn’t sure of himself (as Paul said), again, seems quite presumptuous.
sanctification [is] Spirit-enabled effort”
Look at this hypocrite! He complains the Ezekial passage has no counseling construct and does not talk about manufacturing idols in the heart. (a) The lack of counseling constructs in Scripture never stops Adams from extracting spiritual principles for use in counseling throughout his book, How to Help People Change (1986). So much for that as an intelligent hermeneutical principal!
(b) He himself speaks of changing the heart and idolatrous thought and body habits in his his book, where he writes: “Sometimes counselees have their priorities scrambled. For instance, Tom says, Pastor, I’ll do anything to get my wife back!’ … though it is right for him to want to get [his wife] back, even a good priority can become a bad one when it is made the highest one. Tom’s statement is out of line with Biblical standards which forbid idolatry. … he has put [her] before God and his standards, thus making her an idol. That misplaced priority must be corrected or all else will go wrong. … Tom needs to adopt pleasing God as his highest priority, whether [she] returns or not” (66-67).
Now, I am not saying that critically analyzing the use of terminology by other writers is wrong. I am saying, don’t throw out the baby with the bath water as you guys always seem to do!!! [[ Tad, what he says as cited above is a far cry from complex techniques for identifying heart idols that we don’t even know we have, and then the elimination of those idols leading to the “imputed active obedience of Christ.” Also, he is using the word “idol” in regards to misplaced priorities, and is using the word in this context as a manner of speaking. This is a far cry from David Powlison’s attempt to evaluate “misplaced desires” in order to identify idols of the heart.]]
CLEARLY, idolatry is what Adams would call a “Biblical category” he is supposed to apply his data gathering to, in order to diagnose the guy’s problem, so he can intervene with his 4 step process. Why does he so stupidly apply his inconsistent hermeneutic and criticize principles he himself recognizes in his own work? Why be so sloppy??????[[ Because in one context, he uses it as a manner of speaking in regard to misplaced priorities that can be ascertained by what people do and say, and not a subjective, complex system driven by the belief that people are controlled by desires, (the basis of Freudian Depth Psychology) and therefore: fix the desires and you fix the person (Powlison, Piper, and others)]]
These GS people are a serious threat to the Body, but you can’t attack them recklessly. You must allow for spiritual principles to survive the attack on their inappropriate use. Stop being know it alls, and stop throwing out key words you don’t like, such as HEART, IDOLS, TREASURE, DEEP REPENTANCE, and so on. Do you think Adams is not advocating deep repentance of some form? See chapters 11-20 of his stinking book! [[Tad, those aren’t my words, those are the words they use. Also, I think the key word that you use in regard to Adams is “some form.” Also, I will stop being a know- it- all when some folks start acting like they know at least something, like noted teachers who hangout with these guys and act like they’re orthodox. Apparently, I at least know more than they do.]]
When you label certain words and phrases as bad, then no one can hear them anymore. Why not just get highly specific about what is wrong, instead of acting like we can’t discover what’s in the heart [we can ascertain wrong motives, wrong thinking, wrong behavior, and follow our biblically trained consciences, and make corrections to please God and live a blessed life. Our goal is not to discover whats “in the heart.” Hello, Christ’s mandate to the church was: “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded,” not “teaching them to observe what’s in the heart.”] now that we are regenerate and have the Spirit to reveal it to us. Argue intelligently about the Spirit instead of being dismissive. You make your other arguments weaker when you are weak in these ways.
But so far as the Spirit, how do you think Adams figures out how to counsel his people? How do they themselves figure out what to be convicted of and repent of? Come on. Enough with the sloppy criticism. [Scripture]
It’s time consuming to unravel your error and it’s annoying.[Ah, I’m sorry sweetheart] Stick to what is clearly true, and stop being so glib, … please. If your thoughts are important, let them “pass” muster.
Also, please acknowledge you’ve read this, because it took a long time to put it together. I had to read your boy, [no, I’m his boy, his understanding of the Scriptures saved my life] and then I had to quote him, etc. Have some respect, because i respect 95% of what you say, [and that’s why I called you “sweety”] otherwise I wouldn’t bother. I have other things to do, friend.
TW
[Likewise, your in Illinois, we ought to lunch some time, paul]
LikeLike
Hey, You in Ohio:
So far as deeeeeeeep repentance: If that is what the GS crowd really wanted, I’d be all for it, but their biggest problem is that they are shallow. Wanting to let God fill the void of what I repent of is far too vague to do anyone any good. However, nomenclature, diction, jargon, and semantics aside, Adams’ analysis of conviction and repentance is pretty good, pretty deep, pretty full. I would argue that those who advocate “deep repentance” qua deep repentance are actually advocating shallow repentance. Why? (a) They don’t go deep enough into the Heart, (b) they don’t use the Heart-level repentance to change the Mind, and (c) they completely drop the ball on using the Heart and Mind levels of repentance to change the Body and its words/actions. Adams, to his great credit, seeks a deep repentance of the Mind and the Body. He speaks of the Heart in a vague way, pretty much equating it with the Mind, as do most people who also limit the Spirit to working in the Mind via the Word.
What you call “Heart Theology” is bothersome because the name-calling is a power play, attempting through rhetoric to marginalize all but your view of things. But just because these GS boys don’t understand the Heart, and obviously neither do you or Adams, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot to learn about the Heart and what the Spirit will reveal to us about our own, if we bother to seek Him in that. You cannot validly argue a priori, as Adams and you attempt, to sweep away your opponent by abusing Scripture by saying things like, “the Spirit only speaks to us through Scripture: “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” Again, only truth sanctifies (John 17:17 17Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.),” as you do in your response here. Why? Let me count the reasons:
(1) You fail to prove your absolute statement that only the truth sanctifies (via the Word), and the only way the Spirit speaks to us is via the Word. You can’t prove anything absolutely using anecdotal verses taken out of their exegetical context;
(2) If I show you a single verse that denies your propositions, your absolute statement falls. Let’s begin to disprove your claim to the exclusive method the Spirit speaks to us and sanctifies us, only via the Word, by citing these verses below:
1 Thessalonians 5:23
May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 1:2
who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.
1. Romans 6:19
New American Standard Bible
I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification. Romans 15:15-17 (New International Version)
15I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me 16to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
o
2. Romans 6:22
o New American Standard Bible
But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life.
3. 1 Corinthians 1:2
o New International Version
To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:
o
2 Thessalonians 2:13
[ Stand Firm ] But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit
1. Acts 26:18
o New International Version
to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’
1. Exodus 31:13
o New American Standard Bible
“But as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘ You shall surely observe My sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you.
2. Leviticus 21:8
o New American Standard Bible
‘You shall consecrate him, therefore, for he offers the food of your God; he shall be holy to you; for I the LORD, who sanctifies you, am holy.
3. Leviticus 21:15
o New American Standard Bible
so that he will not profane his offspring among his people; for I am the LORD who sanctifies him.'”
Leviticus 21:14-16 (in Context) Leviticus 21 (Whole Chapter)
4. Leviticus 21:23
o New American Standard Bible
only he shall not go in to the veil or come near the altar because he has a defect, so that he will not profane My sanctuaries. For I am the LORD who sanctifies them.'”
Leviticus 22:15-17 (New American Standard Bible)
15’They shall not profane the holy gifts of the sons of Israel which they offer to the LORD,
16and so cause them to bear punishment for guilt by eating their holy gifts; for I am the LORD who sanctifies them.'”
1. Ezekiel 20:12
o New American Standard Bible
“Also I gave them My sabbaths to be a sign between Me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD who sanctifies them.
Ezekiel 37:27-28 (New American Standard Bible)
27″My dwelling place also will be with them; and I will be their God, and they will be My people.
28″And the nations will know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forever.”‘”
No doubt, the word search goes on and on from here. So, why are your verses able to LIMIT the way the Spirit works and mine are not allowed to expand that? Always via the Word? Really?
(3) You want us all to accept your postulate that the HS doesn’t talk to people anymore, the gifts have ceased, and the only way He breaks into our reality is via enlightenment as we read, hear, meditate, get convicted and out of nowhere get “POWER’ to obey using our own willpower. First, how do you know He even does those things? If you say by the Word, then show me where it says he does not interact with us in the other ways I cite: Of course, I will say that the Spirit sanctifies in several ways, through the Word giving instruction, hope in promises and conviction, through the spiritual power of the Spirit like a spiritual fire, through our offering of our bodies as living sacrifices, our members to righteousness, through answered prayers, through perseverance in the face of trials, through renewal of the Heart, Mind and Body by the SPIRIT. But He communicates with us in a moment by moment fellowship under the Yoke, as well. We follow the HS’ moment to moment leading. If we couldn’t do that, then Dr. Adams couldn’t justify leading his patients anywhere. — Look, if the Spirit enlightens us as to Scripture, why doesn’t He go the rest of the way? Show me the Contextual Exegesis supporting this prejudice and I will show you many, many passages contradicting yours.
(4) You are actually arguing for a hermeneutic a lot more than you are arguing for a particular absolute spiritual principle. Your hermeneutic is if “I” think it’s a plain and fair read, “I” am permitted to extract the spiritual principle, reason over it, and fashion how-to’s for the counselee to grasp onto and get sanctified. But if “you” try to do the exact same thing, you will be labeled and marginalized, because even though I am right 95% of the time, I don’t have the slightest idea how to prove it using Scripture. Instead, I name call and rant about it, instead of giving the good, solid reasons anyone can easily find in Scripture for my position.
In the end, when I send you a copy of my book, you will likely call it heart theology, and you will likely call it GS and any other pejorative term you have invented to marginalize rather than teach.
You do yourself and your reader a great disservice.
If you’re hungry, I’m always hungry. Lets’ do all three meals, if we do one.
And let’s allow the Spirit to be the Spirit, and let Him feed me and sanctify me with His Word, by His direct leading, by showing me what’s in my Heart, Mind and Body, convicting me of my failure to put it off and put on the New Self, showing me what acts in keeping with righteousness I oughta do, leading me and empowering me to persevere in action with my body, making new habits, etc., etc. as Adams teaches. But let’s not tell the HS He can’t talk to us but via His Word and can’t sanctify me but via His Word. Gimme a break, boys. TW
PS thanks for taking the time to respond.
.
LikeLike
You say:
[[ Tad, what he says as cited above is a far cry from complex techniques for identifying heart idols that we don’t even know we have, and then the elimination of those idols leading to the “imputed active obedience of Christ.” Also, he is using the word “idol” in regards to misplaced priorities, and is using the word in this context as a manner of speaking. This is a far cry from David Powlison’s attempt to evaluate “misplaced desires” in order to identify idols of the heart.]]
I disagree. I am saying Adams is doing a version of this xray questioning in his data gathering and applying “biblical categories” process, and he is seeking to figure out what spiritually significant underlying thing the person is doing, like making an idol out of his wife. Putting the wife above God is Idolatry, and though I am not here to defend the guys you keep criticizing, what Adams is doing is not at all far from that . Where they differ is not so much in their attempts to find the underlying sin in the heart of the person — whether Adams calls it that or not, though I quoted where he really does — but what is done with the spiritual insight about the Heart once it’s gained. Lane and Tripp want a “deep repentance”. Adams wants a conviction through the Word by the HS. Now the difference: L&T have us go on in life without making any effort to overtly obey. Adams has us try to habituate better ways of thinking, actoing and speaking. So, you criticize stuff you actually advocate. You act like the heart is totally unrevealable by God, and you can’t tell the difference between the superficial repentance of L&T, though they call it deep, and the deep repentance of your hero, Adams.
Uh, nathan was a prophet. Uh, if the Spirit indwells us and enlighens us and leads and empowers us, why does he not do all the other things Scripture says He does? Derive the cessation of the gifts and the speaking to people directly by the Spirit for me. Where’s that in Scripture?
You say, “Christ never went out of His way to add additional verbiage to the concept of obedience for fear that we would supposedly do it “in our own strength.” Why is it necessary for you to add “by His leading” to “take on a plan of corrective action from His word” which assumes the prior?” Adams tells us to folllow the plan of corrective action the counselor comes up with, Paul. Adams does. I happen to agree with him. See his chapter on “acts in keeping with repentance.” Do you see how irritable you are? Do you see how you act like nothing is written in Scripture but what you think you plainly see? Get the 2×4 out before you criticize other people, dude, and I’ll do the same.
I could go on and on about your comments, and they remind me why I don’t argue with people anymore. Those who give in don’t agree and those who fight don’t agree. So, instead of hoping to win people over, now I’ve taken to spouting off my derision of their lame and faulty reasoning and methodology, hoping to shock them into waking up and seeing themselves and their methods fore what they are. That’s a waste fo time too. I could spend my time much more fruitfully just praying over you and your comments.
It’s a shame, because if you weren’t such a blockhead about these concepts, I think we’d have a lot in common.
All I can say is, when you are done convincing the world that GS is wrong, Lord willing, you’ll still have a world full of immature Christians around you. … Meanwhile, you won’t hear what I’m saying, because you keep clanging that heart theology gong, saying offensive things to the Spirit like, we shouldn’t try to understand the contents of our heart, and Jesus didn’t say it this way because of this, and He did say it this way because of that, and you can’t finish Jesus’ sentences for him, etc. Yet, you and Adams and virtually every practical theologist does it, because you cannot help but do it if you are going to do practical theology. To fault people as if they are adding to the scriptyures, where they are only applying the principles they think they have legitimately abstracted is to call the kettle black. INstead, tell them their principles are wrong, and here’s why. Don’t simply say jesus didn’t say it that way. Why should anyone agree with you when you argue like that?
Over and out.tw
LikeLike