“Christless Christianity”: Michael Horton’s Lawless Trilogy
See no law, hear no law, speak no law. Such is “Christless Christianity,” published by Dr. Michael Horton in 2008. He presents the book as a treatise exposing the supposed fact that the church is awash in a “Christless” evangelicalism. After suffering through page after page of a nuanced semblance of orthodoxy masking his antinomian bent, his real thesis, and what drives his “Modern Reformation” organization, is stated on page 62.
See No Law
On page 62, he states the following:
“Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both.”
Encompassed in this statement is Dr. Horton’s position on “faith,” “practice,” and how we “communicate” those things to the world. Let’s look at the “faith” part. First, he says that both the unregenerate and regenerate are dependent on the “free grace” of God disclosed in “the gospel” “at every moment.” He goes on to say that the gospel (ie., the free grace of justification) does two things: gives life to the spiritually dead (“unregenerate”) and “continually give[s] life to Christ’s flock (ie., believers).
Secondly, believers only receive this life “every time WE encounter the gospel afresh.” Therefore, the relationship of the gospel to unbelievers and believers is no different. We are raised to life and progressively transformed in the exact same way. Horton says this happens at “every moment”; therefore, people are raised to life by the gospel (justification by faith alone) and transformed by the gospel (justification by faith alone), and only “each time” they encounter the gospel “afresh.”
Thirdly, what gospel gives life to the unregenerate? Well, Horton says plainly that if believers leave that same gospel, “you loose both.” Both what? Answer: sanctification and justification. Horton says you get “both” in the bargain because according to him they are both the same. In other word’s, what orthodox Christians normally consider to be sanctification, is really progressive justification. Ever heard of that? Didn’t think so. Does this mean Michael Horton believes that synergism in sanctification is a false gospel? Sure it does, what else can be surmised? Does this explain why he thinks he is on the cutting edge of a new reformation? I would imagine.
Fourthly, we also see another tenet of antinomian (see no law) doctrine (specifically, gospel sanctification) in this same excerpt: “….but the Spirit working through the gospel.” Note “but.” But what? The giving of life: “….nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life….” In other words, the Spirit only works through the gospel. Therefore, the Scriptures are only used by the Spirit to impart life when the Bible is used in regard to showing forth justification, or the gospel. This is the redemptive-historical use of the Bible. Again, a gospel sanctification tenet. Hence, using the Bible for spiritual instruction is supposedly taboo, and in fact, law-keeping (as though that’s wrong for believers to do in the first place). Like many other proponents of antinomian doctrines, Horton’s teachings will contain a lot of very good what (descriptive information [which the Bible has in glorious abundance]), but rarely any how (prescriptive), and I contend to the detriment of many. They will have a glorious picture of heaven in their minds as they die on the vine, being hearers of the word (they would say gospel) only and not doers, “deceiving themselves.”
Fifthly, we see Horton’s mystical personification of Christ and the gospel in this part of the excerpt: “Start with Christ (that is, the gospel)….” Making the nebulous concept of the person of Christ synonymous with “the gospel,” and also paramount in interpretation rather than what Christ objectively instructs, serves antinomians well. Their writings are often peppered with this kind of subjective rhetoric, but it always has a purpose. An example is making “the gospel” synonymous with “the word” so they can say that every verse in the Bible is about the gospel, and therefore serving that purpose only (progressive justification) for believers and unbelievers alike.
Lastly, If Horton, like the antinomian doctrine that he propagates, sees no difference in justification and sanctification, then the law will play the exact same role for believers as it does unbelievers. In fact, this is what Horton believes. However, the following excerpt from “Creeds and Deeds: How Doctrine Leads to Doxological Living” reveals how difficult it is to nail down Horton on this aspect:
“It might seem controversial to identify doctrine with ‘gospel’ and deeds with ‘law,’ especially since these days we often hear calls to ‘live the gospel.’ However, the gospel is not an imperative but an indicative; not a program to follow, but an announcement to welcome for our own salvation and to herald for the salvation of the world. Does that mean that we do not have imperatives or that we do not follow Christ? As Paul would say, ‘May it never be!’ It simply means that we have to distinguish indicatives and imperatives. The law gives us something to do, and the gospel gives us something to believe. Christians are no less obligated to obey God’s commandments in the New Testament than they were in the Old Testament, but they are commandments not promises. The imperatives drive us to despair of self-righteousness, the indicatives hold up Christ as our only Savior, and then the imperatives become the ‘reasonable service’ of believers ‘in view of God’s mercies.’ There is a lot of wisdom to the order of the Heidelberg Catechism: Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude. The commandments tell us what we are to do; the gospel tells us what God has done.”
This excerpt reminds me of the John Kerry controversy during the 2004 presidential election: “I was for it before I was against it.” First, because of Horton’s progressive justification view, it is not possible for him to believe that the law has a role in sanctification anymore than it would in justification, other than a schoolmaster that leads us to Christ for justification. Though he makes statements above that seem to indicate that he believes the law has a role in the spiritual growth process, that’s not the case, it’s just not logically possible when his positions are considered. Consequently, we can clearly see the statements that match progressive justification: “The imperatives drive us to despair of self-righteousness, the indicatives hold up Christ as our only Savior….” The law shows unbelievers their need for Christ, but please note that the Scriptures never tell us that God’s commands / imperatives drive Christians to despair; the extreme opposite is true. In fact, Christians are promised blessings for applying God’s word to their life (James 1:25).
Secondly, Horton makes it clear in the first excerpt that the Holy Spirit only imparts life “through the gospel”(“….nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel”) ; then, he says in the second excerpt that “…. the gospel is not an imperative but an indicative [indicative: indicative of God’s work, not ours]….” But throughout Scripture, we see clearly that in fact, the Holy Spirit does use imperatives to impart life. Examples such as Matthew 4:4 and John 17:17 (see endnote number 3) are abundant throughout the whole Bible. Another glaring contradiction to Scripture is Horton’s suggestion in the second excerpt that commands “are not promises.”
Michael Horton’s gospel is a no-Lordship, antinomian gospel because obeying biblical commands is synonymous with works justification. Furthermore, he believes that biblical commands are indicative of God’s work, not ours. I delve into the subject of imperatives / indicatives in two other essays in this same section.
Hear No law
How does all of this effect corporate worship? Supposedly, we are not to see any law in our progressive justification, but what about when we come together to worship? Should we then hear the law? Michael Horton says the following on pages 189 -191:
“ God gathers his people together in a covenantal event to judge and to justify, to kill and to make alive. The emphasis is on God’s work for us – the Father’s gracious plan, the Son’s saving life, death, and resurrection, and the Spirit’s work of bringing life to the valley of dry bones through the proclamation of Christ. The preaching focuses on God’s work in the history of redemption from Genesis through Revelation, and sinners are swept into this unfolding drama. Trained and ordained to mine the riches of Scripture for the benefit of God’s people, ministers try to push their own agendas, opinions, and personalities to the background so that God’s Word will be clearly proclaimed. In this preaching the people once again are simply receivers – recipients of grace. Similarly, in baptism, they do not baptize themselves; they are baptized. In the Lord’s Supper, they do not prepare and cook the meal; they do not contribute to the fare; but they are guests who simply enjoy the bread of heaven. As this gospel creates, deepens, and inflames faith, a profound sense of praise and thanksgiving fills hearts, leading to good works among the saints and in the world throughout the week. Having been served by God in the public assembly, the people are then servants of each other and their neighbors in the world.”
As in the process of spiritual growth, corporate worship focuses totally on the gospel. Notice that Horton refers to believers as a “valley of dry bones” who have come to be made alive by the Spirit’s work through the gospel. This is another tenet of the neo-antinomianism of our day, the total depravity of the saints. In a contrasting scenario (or how not to have corporate worship) on page 191, Horton adds the following: “The expectation that God was actually visiting his people to apply the benefits of Christ’s victory to sinners – both believers and unbelievers – was less obvious than the sense that we were primarily regrouping to get our marching orders.” Note that believers are called “sinners,” and also note the construction of the sentence which would indicate that believers and unbelievers are the same kind of sinners who both gather together for the same purpose.
Again, we also see the redemptive-historical application of Scripture as well for the implementation of grace to passive recipients, and the exclusion of any use of Scripture for spiritual instruction. In fact, Horton chides the latter in the second scenario. Hear no law. Though Horton seems to add balance to this perspective by acknowledging that the Bible mentions “exhortations” in worship, I am skeptical in regard to the genuineness of these statements; the fact remains that his major premise is grievous error.
Speak no Law
Regarding evangelism, the following excerpt is taken from pages 117-119 of “Christless Christianity.” Unfortunately, the excerpt is lengthy, but necessary:
“The question for us all is whether we believe the church is the place where the gospel is regularly proclaimed and ratified to Christians as well as non-Christians. Like many Emergent Church leaders, Kimball invokes a famous line from Francis of Assisi that I also heard growing up in conservative evangelicalism: “Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary, use words.” Kimball goes on to say, “Our lives will preach better than anything we can say. “12 (We encountered a nearly identical statement from Osteen in the previous chapter.) If so, then this is just more bad news, not only because of the statistics we have already seen, which evidence no real difference between Christians and non- Christians, but because despite my best intentions, I am not an exemplary creature. The best examples and instructions—even the best doctrines—will not relieve me of the battle with indwelling sin until I draw my last breath. Find me on my best day— especially if you have access to my hidden motives, thoughts, and attitudes—and I will always provide fodder for the hypocrisy charge and will let down those who would become Christians because they think I and my fellow Christians are the gospel. I am a Christian not because I think that I can walk in Jesus’s footsteps but because he is the only one who can carry me. I am not the gospel; Jesus Christ alone is the gospel. His story saves me, not only by bringing me justification but by baptizing me into his resurrection life.
Conformity to Christ’s image (sanctification) is the process of dying to self (mortification) and living to God (vivification) that results from being regularly immersed in the gospel’s story of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. Another way of putting it is dislocation (from Adam and the reign of sin and death) and relocation (in Christ). That my life is not the gospel is good news both for me and for my neighbors. Because Christ is the Good News, Christians as well as non-Christians can be saved after all. For those who know that they too fall short of the glory that God’s law requires—even as Christians who now have a new heart that loves God’s law—the Good News is not only enough to create faith but to get us back on our feet, assured of our standing in Christ, ready for another day of successes and failures in our discipleship.
We do not preach ourselves but Christ. The good news—not only for ourselves, but for a world (and church) in desperate need of good news—is that what we say preaches better than our lives, at least if what we are saying is Christ’s person and work rather than our own. The more we talk about Christ as the Bible’s unfolding mystery and less about our own transformation, the more likely we are actually to be transformed rather than either self-righteous or despairing. As much as it goes against our grain, the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for justification and sanctification. The fruit of faith is real; it’s just not the same as the fruit of works-righteousness.
Yes, there is hypocrisy, and because Christians will always be simultaneously saint and sinner, there will always be hypocrisy in every Christian and in every church. The good news is that Christ saves us from hypocrisy too. But hypocrisy is especially generated when the church points to itself and to our own “changed lives” in the promotional materials. Maybe non-Christians would have less relish in pointing out our failures if we testified in word and deed to our need and God’s gift for sinners like us. If we identified the visibility of the church with the scene of sinners gathered by grace to confess their sins and their faith in Christ, receiving him with open hands, instead of with our busy efforts to be the gospel, we would at least beat non-Christian critics to the punch. We know that we are sinners. We know that we fall short of God’s glory. That’s exactly why we need Christ. I know that many of these brothers and sisters would affirm that we are still sinners and that we still need Christ, but it sure seems to be drowned out by a human-centered focus on our character and actions.
Kimball writes that the “ultimate goal of discipleship .. . should be measured by what Jesus taught in Matthew 22:37-40: `Love the Lord with all your heart, mind, and soul.’ Are we loving him more? Love others as yourself. Are we loving people more?”13 I was raised in conservative evangelicalism on this same diet of sermons that ended with a question like this one. A truly radical change in our approach would be to proclaim Christ as the one who fulfilled this law in our place, bore its sentence, and now freely gives us his absolution. Only then, ironically, are we truly liberated to love again. For all of the Emergent Church movement’s incisive critiques of the megachurch model, the emphasis still falls on measuring the level of our zeal and activity rather than on immersing people in the greatest story ever told. It may be more earnest, more authentic, and less consumeristic, but how different is this basic message from that of Joel Osteen, for example? Across the board in contemporary American Christianity, that basic message seems to be some form of law (do this) without the gospel (this is what has been done).”
Really, I have to admit the argument is very attractive. It definitely takes the pressure off of us. There is no way we are going to be perfect anyway, so why not emphasize the works of Christ rather than our own? Get people focused on Christ rather than us; why would you want Christ and the gospel represented by our best efforts? However, before I continue, I will take exception to being compared to Joel Olsteen because I believe in an effort on our part to represent Christ by our good behavior. I think a little more than that separates me and others from the likes of Joel Olsteen. But let’s be honest here, in light of what Horton says above; “What does the Scriptures say?”:
“Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives”(1Peter 3:1,2).
Obviously, Peter is well aware that wives will never have a perfect testimony; but regardless, his counsel to wives is clearly stated. This plainly contradicts Horton’s premise in every way possible.
Also, didn’t Christ say something about letting “your” light shine before men, so that God would be glorified? Furthermore, in regard to our efforts at good behavior according to the Scriptures, is that really some kind of effort to “be the gospel” rather than “adorning” the doctrine of God as Paul also talked about? (Titus 2:10).
The apostles made it clear that the last days would be marked by shrewd attempts to undermine God’s law. Frankly, I am leery of any teaching that seems to devalue the upholding of God’s law by our Christian walk. I also recommend caution towards those who claim to uphold God’s law by saying He (Christ) does all the obeying for us. Even if they don’t come right out and say it, they may talk against everything that would prevent such a conclusion, and therefore teaching it by default.
Endnotes
3. Of course, Michael Horton would say that the “word” is the “gospel” which wouldn’t include imperatives, but only indicatives, being the gospel. Therefore, as Paul David Tripp also says, the imperatives must be seen in their “gospel context” which means they are indicative of what Christ did for us by obeying the law perfectly in our stead. Therefore, biblical commands are “grounded in the indicative event”; namely, atonement, which not only included the imputation of righteousness, but past, present, and future active obedience as well.
“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
The Problem With a Narrow Approach to Sanctification
The following quote concerns John Piper’s Christian Hedonism which is the articulation of how gospel sanctification is experienced. But, the same concerns expressed by Dr. Masters below can also be applied to gospel sanctification as a whole. Gospel sanctification applies, and confines sanctification to the same elements of justification which are much fewer; namely, by faith alone.
“But Dr Piper’s formula for its use undoubtedly alters the understanding of sanctification long held by believers in the Reformation tradition, because it elevates one Christian duty above all others.
Delighting in God, we repeat, is made the organising principle for every other spiritual experience and duty. It becomes the key formula for all spiritual vigour and development. Every other Christian duty is thought to depend on how well we obey this central duty of delighting in the Lord. The entire Christian life is simplified to rest upon a single quest, which is bound to distort one’s perception of the Christian life and how it must be lived.
Whatever the strengths of Dr Piper’s ministry, and there are many, his attempt to oversimplify biblical sanctification is doomed to failure because the biblical method for sanctification and spiritual advance consists of a number of strands or pathways of action, and all must receive individual attention. As soon as you substitute a single ‘big idea’ or organising principle, and bundle all the strands into one, you alter God’s design and method. Vital aspects of Truth and conduct will go by the board to receive little or no attention.”
~ Dr. Peter Masters
Key to understanding Lame Evangelism is Matthew 28:18-20
Last week, my evangelist son-in-law stated it again in his going back to PR presentation: Christians could seem to care less about evangelism. Others would say there is no “seem[ingly]” about it; in fact, we don’t. I believe the key to understanding this reality (and the fix) is in one of the most noted evangelism verses in the Bible, Matthew 28:18-20;
“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’”
Let’s look at this text in order. First, Christians these days are focused on “our identity in Christ.” This comes from postmodern concepts which stress the supposed importance of “knowing our identity.” Only problem is, in attempting to do that, we must first define who we think Christ is. Well, in the Holy Spirit’s evangelism verse, He speaks of Christ’s identity, not ours: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” And this must be a very important element because He immediately follows this statement with: “Therefore.” Christ has been given ALL authority in HEAVEN and EARTH. He is the absolute potentate of the universe and most certainly the absolute dictator-elect of planet Earth. He is the King of kings and the Lord of lords. That means He has authority, He is an authoritative God.
However, in our church culture, He is anything but that. He is our intimate, lovable boyfriend. As the number one contemporary Christian song of our time states it- it can’t be about authority, it has to be “more like falling in love.” And have you heard? John Piper says Christ is “the happy God” and primarily sees the world through “the lens of His happiness.”Also, it really doesn’t matter what our King says, no, but rather, “it’s who He is as a PERSON.” The thesis of one of the most popular Christian books of our time (“Crazy Love” by Francis Chan) propagates the idea that a real relationship with Christ is intrinsically tied to discovering who He is as a real person while being free from concern about anything Christ would command. You know, the kind of things Lord’s do; commandments and stuff like that. So obviously, when we are presenting Christ to the world, personal and cultural preferences may take precedent over anything in Scripture that may be perceived as our King’s mandate(s). Christ as Savior and happy boyfriend – Lord is optional.
This is the premise of all of my points here: The Holy Spirit empowers evangelism. My first point is; He won’t empower people who don’t even know who Christ is and how to act like it. Christ said that evangelism must be according to His AUTHORITY. No authority, no evangelism.
Secondly, our church culture cannot get it into their heads that Christ doesn’t want to save people, He wants to “make disciples.” To say that the “gospel“ has suffocated discipleship is an extreme understatement. Christ is looking for able followers / worshipers, not mere converts. The fact that Christians do not know how to take “the mind of Christ”(1Cor 2:16) and apply it to their lives is evident by the fact that they go to “experts” for their problems. Fact of the matter is, most Christians will tune into Oprah Winfrey for answers to life’s tough questions before they will go to their pastor, and for good reason, the pastor doesn’t have the answers and everybody knows it. If you want to know how many stones David picked up out of the brook (and the name of the brook) to slay Goliath, you go to your pastor. If you need answers to life’s difficult questions, you go to a spawn of Sigmund Freud. The word is out, Dr. Phil can save a marriage before most pastors will even get over the initial shock (or disdain) that their parishioner would even ask them how to do such a thing.
Furthermore, the world knows something that the church doesn’t know. Most people change via problems; and what they discover about those problems that come into their lives. “Oprah” is the most popular TV show of all human history, and its theme is life, and the problems thereof. It’s a how to show. Get over it; God is a problem centered counselor. (Adam, Cain, Job, etc., etc., etc., etc.,). Hence, a church I used to go to had twelve converts in one year through their biblical counseling program (back when they knew how). Keep in mind: evangelism is problem centered counseling that the whole world needs. Their lost – that’s a problem, and your the counselor (or should be) that has God’s solution to the problem.
In the Old Testament, two lepers who were thrown out of Jerusalem went back to the besieged city to inform them that they had discovered life-saving provisions. That’s what you do when you have information that can save people’s lives; you go and tell. Christians today have no motivation to tell because they really don’t see where the deeper knowledge of God makes a difference in their own lives. Get ’em saved and then send them to Oprah? Christians will find better things to do while pretending that being a Christian is really different.
That was the problem with the first gospel wave from about 1950 to 1980. “Bag ’em and tag ’em, then send ’em to Oprah. The second gospel wave (1980 to present) says: “The same gospel that saved you, also disciples (sanctifies) you.” Hence, we are all leaving church with the gospel coming out of our ears! The mantra of the second gospel wave says: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” Other spiritual brainiacs claim: “We never leave the gospel and supposedly move on to deeper / other things.” But this is in direct contradiction to Hebrews 6:1 which states: “Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation….” In fact, throughout the Scriptures, the gospel is spoken of being a “foundation” that we build on (1Cor 3:10-15 for example). The “gospel” is killing evangelism because immature Christians make lousy evangelist. In fact, the Holy Spirit will not use them.
Thirdly, Christ is not looking for lousy worshipers. He is looking for disciples who learn “all that I have commanded” (ie., about ALL areas of life). Consider the popular “worship” song, “It’s All About You” [Christ]. The following was suggested to me: “That’s an awesome worship song because worship is all about Christ.” My response: “NO it isn’t! Worship is not all about Christ. Again, Christ must, for lack of a better term, be “allowed” to TELL US who He is and what He wants! Christ said we must worship “in spirit and in truth.” Worship is far more than raising our hands in church and using a song to focus on the “person” of Christ. Worship is how we talk to our wife. Worship is what kind of job we do at work. The better the disciple, the better the worship, because the definition of a disciple is “teaching them to obey all that I have commanded.” God is looking for true worshipers, and true worship is according to truth (John 4:23).
If God is not looking for lousy worshipers, neither is the Holy Spirit. A church that has a heavy focus on discipleship will find much cooperation and empowerment from the Spirit.
paul
Phillip Cary’s Gospel Sanctification: If it’s Both/and, He Doesn’t Say
I just finished Phillip Cary’s “Good News for Anxious Christians.” The book concerns what he calls, throughout the book, “the new evangelical theology.” According to Cary, this new theology creates unnecessary anxiety in and among Christians. He then cites ten “practical” things that the new evangelical theology says we should do that causes the anxiety, and why we really don’t need to do them, and thus eliminating the unnecessary angst. He also noted that this new theology damages Christians psychologically, emotionally, morally, and spiritually.
The book came to my attention when it was suggested to me that it was an apology against Gospel Sanctification. But when I did some research in regard to the author, it became apparent that he is an advocate of GS. This incited the following thought on my part: “Are there two GS camps?” So, when I encountered the following statement in the beginning of the book, I wasn’t surprised:
“Some folks may find it odd when I say Christians need the gospel, but this is something I firmly believe. I don’t think you just accept Christ once in life, and then move on to figure how to make real changes in your life that transform you. It’s hearing the gospel of Christ and receiving him in faith, over and over, that makes the real transformation in our lives. We become new people in Christ by faith alone, not by our good works or efforts or even our attempts to let God work in our lives.”
I posted a short article that focused on the one statement only: https://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/%E2%80%9Cthats-not-true%E2%80%9D-phillip-carys-gospel-sanctification-statement/
Nevertheless, other statements in the book seemed to be a direct protest against GS elements, though Cary does not specifically name what the “new evangelical theology” (hereafter “TNET”) is. The book was based on feedback he gets from his college students, so he is seeing the ground level effect of TNET firsthand. My strong suspicion is – he is seeing a variety unbiblical soundbites that Christians live by, but no doubt, some of them are spawns of the GS doctrine. So, what’s going on here?
I will summarize chapters in the book that clearly refute the GS doctrine, and chapters that hold the GS line, and then I will state my conclusions. As an aside, let me say that I believe chapter one addresses post-Christian thought (God speaks to us in small, still voices instead of Scripture, and we have to sort it out. Also see chapter 10), and not Gospel Sanctification. First, chapter three is a devastating argument against the GS tenets of Christ obeying for us, “yielding,” and the supposed evil of “trying to obey God by our own efforts.” It was also very confirming to hear from a well noted Christian thinker concerning the impact that this doctrine is having on people in real life. I was in a church that taught the GS doctrine, and Cary’s argumentative question on page 39 echoes the EXACT same question I often asked the leaders of that church: “…how do you know if you’re really letting God do it – or are you still just trying to do it in your own strength?” Cary then noted that the necessity of such a question is a “sign that something’s wrong.” However, before I continue, though they did not want to answer the question to me at the time, the answer is: when Christ is obeying for us, our response will be a “mere natural flow accompanied by overflowing joy” (ie., John Piper’s Christian Hedonism). They knew a truthful answer in accordance with the doctrine would have presented another caveat for debate / consideration.
Cary makes many powerful arguments against this notion in chapter three, including the following:
“At its sickest, the new evangelical theology is an attempt to deny the reality of God’s creation… [when God created the garden and put Adam there to maintain it – it was really Adam doing the work, not God] That’s what really happens when you get really serious about saying, ‘it wasn’t me; it was all God.’ This is a misunderstanding at best, a denial of the doctrine of creation at worst” (page 54).
Also, chapter three concludes with an orthodox statement that clearly propagates synergistic sanctification.
Throughout the book, Cary accuses TNET of implementing “either/or” when “both/and” should be applied. As one needs to note from our preceding consideration, to “obey in our own strength” implies that either your doing it, or God is, so if your at work, God isn’t. Cary states it this way:
“…in fact you’re always the one who’s doing it. The inner acts of your heart are always your own, even when they’re a result of God working in you.”
Cary then applies this to another one of his contentions in chapter five; specifically, the “either/or” application to love and duty (classic John Piper), or the same application to love and motives (classic Francis Chan). It is more than fair to say that Cary’s contention on page 86 could apply directly to John Piper’s Christian Hedonism:
“An especially twisted way of misdirecting our attention is to preach that we should do good things out of love, not duty. It’s perverse, in the first place, because people who genuinely love their neighbors are eager to do their duty – to keep their promises and obligations, for example – since this binds them to their neighbor’s and is therefore one of the most important ways of seeking their neighbor’s good. So people who love are people who do their duty. It’s clearly a both/and, not an either/or. And they’re strongly motivated to do their duty, rather than being motivated by the desire to be such loving people. That desire would twist their motivation back toward themselves – making it a concern for their own self-image, rather than for their neighbor’s good.”
Exactly. Love seeks the “good” or what’s best for our neighbor, regardless of how we feel about whatever we have to do to accomplish that. Also, as Cary notes, a concern about how we feel when we love makes it about us and introspection concerning our motives, not love. If Piper hears about this line of thought, he will have to take another sabbatical.
Chapters six and seven are a spot-on, biblical view of the relationship between feelings, love, and obedience. However, I will say that although the thoughts are very biblical, it’s peculiar that very few Scripture verses are cited in comparison to the volume of information, and the few verses that are cited do not reference or compliment any of the strong points. It is more than fair to say that this chapter is abundant fodder for a treatise against Christian Hedonism, but I have no idea whether that tenet of GS is what Cary would consider part of TNET. And before I get too far ahead, I might mention that chapter four strongly emphasizes the application of biblical imperatives to life, and the importance of “finding wisdom, and what is good, in the commandments of God” [paraphrase].
With that said, chapters nine and ten are right out of the Gospel Sanctification play-book, complete with a purely redemptive-historical viewpoint of the Scriptures and the dissing of practical application (but chapter seven is the epitome of practical application!). Page 167 seems to bolster the GS tenet of the total depravity of the saints, and also adding the following on page 168:
“On the other hand, if you want to be merciful and give people good news [ie., the gospel], you have to start by teaching them how to be sinners.”
Yikes! Do we really want our preaching to focus on getting Christians to see themselves as “sinners”!? Just about everywhere you poke chapters nine and ten, you get sanctification as justification:
“There’s no escaping the trap [of practical application] unless you believe that Christ came to save sinners and that includes you.”
Let me pause here and clarify something; when evangelicals talk about practical application, they are referring to “hear[ing] these words of mine and putting them into practice” (Matthew 7:24).
Chapter nine is also heavy on the whole GS Bible as gospel narrative motif in which our goal is to “put ourselves in the narrative” rather than to “take something out” for practical application (see this post:
Lastly, though Cary emphasizes synergistic sanctification throughout the book, he also advocates the idea that the Scriptures are “the gospel” and “the gospel is not about what we do, but about what Christ does.” So in regard to the Scriptures and the use thereof, this seems to be the “either/or” approach that he disses elsewhere. There is also a very strong flavor of Michael Horton’s concept of, “trying to represent Christ with good behavior is an attempt to be the gospel rather than presenting the gospel.”
There is simply no doubt: Cary is presenting two distinct, opposing views in the same book with no logical conclusions connecting the two. Is it “both/and,” or “either/or”? He doesn’t say. However, his GS model, unlike the other camp, would NOT include New Covenant Theology, Christian Hedonism, monergistic sanctification as the only true gospel (he just thinks it’s serious error), and Heart Theology (Cary believes change is effected by outside influences as well as inside influences). But, like the other camp, it would include the total depravity of the saints, and a redemptive-historical hermeneutic (all Scripture is about the gospel only). Other elements are inconclusive because of the contradictory concepts presented in the book (for instance, is the end-game of his model antinomianism? And, are saints totally depraved and spiritually dead, or just totally depraved?). Again, several elements are inconclusive because of the discontinuity between ideas in the book.
I will conclude by taking a stab at this. I think Cary is orthodox in most of his views concerning sanctification and offers brilliant insight into the subject as well. In fact, I will be using a lot of his material from this book at a men’s fellowship this month. But, is this a case in which Cary is enamored by the Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic and is just cramming it in to his perspective come heck or high water? It reminds me of watching football with Susan. She just can’t understand those runs where the running back goes crashing into the line for zero gain: “Why do they do that?! Run around them! That’s stupid! Well, Phillip Cary is far from being stupid, of course, but there is simply no connection of thought between his contradictory positions, which is strange. It seems like it would be easy enough to articulate a model that would be “both/and” like love and duty are both/and.
It would be an erroneous model, but he could have at least done that.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
2 comments