“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 11: DA Carson Exposed in the Desert
I get my share of grief for identifying DA Carson as a primary proponent of the GS / Sonship doctrine. One reader recently challenged me by sending a Carson quote that was, of course, seemingly orthodox. So, I decided to do a GS / Sonship acid test, which seeks to determine if someone holds to the GS / Sonship view of Galatians 2 and 3. To test, you merely do a google search like this one: “DA Carson Galatians.” What came up was an annual convention sponsored by The Gospel Coalition at Desert Springs Church in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The name of the event is “Clarus [year].” The annual event usually features two prominent teachers from the Sonship tribe. This particular seminar was “Clarus 2008,” and featured Carson teaming up with none other than Michael Horton.
The duo’s theme at this seminar was “Galatians and the Problem of Self Justification.” I listened to Carson’s message on Galatians 2:11-21 entitled “An Apostolic Disputation—and Justification.” Throughout all the tape that I listened to, the fawning enamoration from the members at Desert Springs, an obvious bastion of Sonship / GS doctrine, was obnoxiously evident as the listeners chuckled, laughed, and sighed at every clever phrase and profound utterance that came from Carson’s mouth. If your listening to that tape (mp3), you have to know these people are going to believe everything coming out of Carson’s mouth which is indicative of the Gospel Coalition’s cult of personality.
Aside from that, the message was a pure, unadulterated Sonship take on Galatians. Throughout the message, Carson speaks as if the daily details of Christian living have nothing to do with something called sanctification, but often used the word justification in that context, as the text does, but speaking with a flavor of ideas that we would normally associate with sanctification. Carson, and other Sonship proponents get away with this because most Christians don’t know the theological difference between justification and sanctification, which are in-fact biblical words / terms. Carson, in the same message, belittled the biblical idea of striving to please God as “having a good day,” and gives examples of how Christians supposedly pray about that, and thereby exposing their motives in trying to please God in their own efforts (not his words, but the same idea), which he likens to “spitting on the cross.” A usual mode of operation for GS teachers is to illustrate misguided attempts by Christians to please God (trying to do the right thing the wrong way) as proof that any striving on our part circumvents grace. It’s rarely about wrong application verses right application, but always a works / grace issue. This message was certainly no exception.
However, I have been a Christian for twenty-eight years and have never witnessed any of their extreme examples. Truly, GS propagators are the sultans of red herrings and straw men. But all in all, it can’t be denied that Carson’s message was primarily focused on Christian living in relationship to the law, and that using what text? Galatians 2:11-21. But, primarily, this text is about the law’s relationship to salvation, NOT Christian living. A much better text would have been Ephesians 4:17-32. If you examine all their (the GS brain trust) teachings carefully, the idea of Christian living and salvation (declared / imputed righteousness as a onetime act of God) are almost always synthesized. It is very subtle, but for instance, in Paul Tripp’s chapel message at Southeastern Baptist Seminary entitled “Playing With the Box” (Spring 2007), his introduction clearly concerns the gospel, but the body of the message clearly concerns sanctification in context of the gospel theme. Therefore, again, if one pays attention, their teachings on Christian living are almost always set in a gospel context that distorts the law’s role in sanctification / regeneration. It cannot be denied that they make no distinction between salvation and life application of God’s word.
Carson also taught in the same message that whenever Paul said “law” in Galatians, that Paul was referring to the “law covenant.” Um, this is a smoking gun. Most GS advocates are New Covenant theologians. NCT holds to the idea that the New Covenant abrogated the Old Covenant, which was the law covenant. Traditionally, orthodox evangelicals believe that even though the New Covenant is “better,” elements of the old are still intact, especially the law. In other words, the covenants build on each other. In Ephesians 2:12, the apostle Paul makes being alienated from Christ synonymous with being “strangers to the covenants.” Notice “covenants” is in the plural, not singular, then Paul later makes an Old Covenant application to life in Ephesians 6:1-3. Please note the following reference concerning proponents of NCT and the familiar suspects of GS:
“The last twenty-five years have seen a great resurgence of Reformed theology in Baptist circles. As a result, many within this camp have sought to develop a more clarified system of the covenants that relate back to older thought. Leaders of this movement include such theologians as John Reisinger, Jon Zens, Peter Ditzel, Fred Zaspel, Tom Wells, Gary Long, Geoff Volker and Steve Lehrer. The writings of Douglas Moo, Tom Schreiner, and D.A. Carson on the relation of the Christian to the law reveal their sympathies with NCT. However they have not wanted themselves to be so labeled. John Piper also has many points of contact with this movement, but an article at Desiring God carefully distinguishes his position from the Covenant, New Covenant and Dispensational theological systems” (Theopedia,com).
That’s another GS mode of operation, avoiding labels to prevent detection, but these men are clearly in the NCT camp which is a tenet of GS doctrine. This is why I seriously doubt Michael Horton is a Covenant theologian regardless of what he or anyone else claims. His joined at the hip verbiage with Carson at the Q and A sessions of Clarus 08 also makes that difficult to believe as well. Furthermore, in the same message, Carson insinuated that Christians are not obligated to the law (a proper view of that text in Galatians should add “not for justification” after each consideration), but should obey the law as a way of being a Gentile for the sake of the Gentiles in the same way that Paul “became a Jew for the sake of the Jews.” But moreover, he added the warning that we should not do it in a way that gives people the idea that we can actually keep the law as Christians because, as he said earlier in the message: “….we just aren’t [we (Christians) aren’t (present tense)] good enough….consistent enough….whole enough.” Of course, the apostle Paul saw a difference between Christian liberty and upholding the law; Carson makes no such distinction in the same message.
In the Q and A sessions, Horton and Carson agree on the GS dichotomy of law and gospel, without including any clarification in regard to how that would relate to sanctification verses justification. This kind of ambiguity saturated the Q an A’s and the aforementioned message I listened to. Horton and Carson also paid homage to Tim Keller and Edmund Clowney—further demonstrating their kinship with Sonship / GS doctrine.
The classic GS / Sonship take on Galatians 1-5 as being about sanctification is also noted by Eastwood Presbyterian Church in their formal contention ( http://goo.gl/rODyO ) against Sonship theology: “Further, we think Sonship makes a serious exegetical error in its dealings with the book of Galatians: Sonship wrongly identifies the Galatian problem as one dealing with sanctification instead of justification.” In his message, Carson relates Galatians to how we live as Christians, but cleverly calls it justification (to match Paul’s terminology) as if works can only be classified in the justification category. However, his subject matter is clearly that of which would be placed in the regeneration / sanctification category.
Carson’s close association with Horton should be noted as well because Horton is more forthright in how he propagates their Quietist doctrine: http://goo.gl/y03xn
Paul
“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 10: How Can Something Be “New” if it’s Not Different?
Advocates of GS/Sonship that protest my writings must ask themselves the following: what is it, exactly, that the propagators of GS/Sonship say is so different? On the one hand, people write me and deny my representations. On the other hand, what then are the differences that the proponents themselves describe as “A radical departure” (Russ Kennedy, director of a NANC training center in Dayton OH), a “Modern ‘Reformation’” (the name of Horton’s magazine publication), different from the “vast majority” of “professing” Christians (Tullian T.), different from “hordes” of other Christians (Paul David Tripp), a “New” Calvinism? What’s “new” about it? If my proposed differences are incorrect–then what are they exactly? The former director of the aforementioned NANC counseling center in Dayton OH said that the GS (of course, he didn’t use that label) hermeneutic was “a whole new way of reading the Bible.”
Let me ask: how can someone choose a church to attend when they don’t even know how the pastor of that church “reads his Bible”? Sure, who is going to object to constantly hearing about who Christ is and what he did throughout the Old and New Testaments? Nobody, unless they stop and think about it. Christ was constantly annoyed by people who wanted to focus on other things besides his commands and instruction (Luke 11:27,28). There are two distinct ways of interpreting our Bibles in this day that will yield different results—the GS proponents themselves say they have a different way of interpreting the Bible. Is this not a major issue? How many Christians know the difference between the Redemptive-Historical hermeneutic and the Grammatical-Historical hermeneutic?—No Christian that I have ever asked; and moreover, how many attending this year’s TGC conference even know? However, have no fear; apparently, both sides are going to be presented. Ya, right.
I have a better idea. One of the seventy teachers that are going to be there should make a chart with old Calvinism on the left, and New Calvinism on the right to help explain why it is “new.” List theological elements on the far left and the differences between the two can be noted in the short descriptions under each new/old heading. My proposed chart follows. Please feel free to print it and take it to the conference with you. It is not meant to be comprehensive or indicative of what ALL GS proponents believe, but merely an instrument to provoke discussion. However, the chart does indicate my conviction that the two are only similar on the election issue.
paul
“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 9: The Five Points of New Calvinist Contradictions
Point One: The totally depraved preaching the gospel to themselves everyday. We gotta believe that they aren’t very good sermons (Jess—thanks for this one).
Point Two: Do what you know God wants you to do even if joy is not present, but it is sin. So, there are some situations where God would prefer that we sin (ebook: “Delight as Duty is Controversial,” John Piper, Desiring God website).
Point Three: New Calvinism encourages us to contemplate Christ in the Scriptures to make Him bigger and us smaller. The bigger the Jesus, the more humbled we are, and the more we realize how worthless and totally depraved we are as well. Yet, no Christian movement in all of redemptive history has invested more in IMAGE than the TGC and T4G. No “Christian” movement in redemptive history has been more image conscience than the leaders of TGC and T4G, sporting their super-yuppie sports wear and Sarah Palin like eyewear. No group of leaders has ever sought to draw attention to themselves via niche identity / personality / credentials like this group.
Point Four: Two different interpretive hermeneutics. When a text seems to confirm their doctrine literally (especially Gal 2:20), they want you to interpret it literally. But when not, they want you to view the text “in its gospel context,” ie., Christocentric hermeneutics.
Point Five: In my opinion, more deliberate deception than contradiction, is the TGC and T4G’s contentions against postmodernism and the Keswick movement, when they share many of the same elements. Note what Terry Johnson writes concerning Sonship theology (pdf available in right column):
“Many of us will have to be forgiven if we hear the quacks of the “higher life” movements from which we ostensibly escaped by coming to the PCA. We fled Keswick, the “Victorious Life,” the “Abundant Life,” and other perfectionists aberrations into the safe and sane arms of Westminster/ Puritan spirituality. Forgive us if we are nervous about losing the realism and balance of Reformed piety, where grace and law, love and duty, affection and fear, God’s power and our responsibility all stand in beautiful, biblically proportioned relation to one another. We liked the products of that spirituality: the Huguenot, the Puritan, the Covenanter; the modern missionary movement, the Protestant work ethic, precise morals, zeal for holiness, faithfulness amidst suffering, and what Packer calls “an ardor for order,” that orderliness that facilitates the fulfillment of all one’s duties. We will not quickly abandon this heritage for a reformulation that quacks suspiciously like the failed stepchildren of Wesleyanism.”
paul
“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 8: A Note to the Misled Sheep
When you go to the 2011 TGC in Chicago, you will here a lot of GS / Sonship mantras that criticize “living by lists,” “living by do’s and don’ts,” “being God’s man, not a lawman,” “serving God out of duty,” “obeying in your own efforts [what they mean is any effort on your part at all is an attempt to obey God without depending on him],” etc., etc., etc. All the red herrings aside (no Christian advocates a grueling, joyless sanctification, but neither do we say it is always joyful), here is an article by Craig W. Booth that rightly divides the word: http://thefaithfulword.org/2006marchblogarchives.html#1a
A very edifying read—thanks to the reader who shared it.
paul
“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 7: The 5 Points of Your New Calvinist Arrogance
Point One. Your Name: It insinuates that you’re the new and improved version of “old” Calvinism. Which is not only arrogant, but a lie as well.
Point Two. Your apologetics: You believe that you preach the only true gospel. One example would be what Michael Horton wrote on page 62 of “Christless Christianity” where he states that any separation of justification and sanctification results in the lose of BOTH. The synthesis of the two is the crux of the New Calvinist gospel.
Point Three. Your hermeneutic: One of your mantras plainly states how ALL people approach the Bible. The judgment is that NOBODY approaches the Bible with an open mind. One of your haughty teachers states it this way, “How we answer the question must be shaped and limited by the word of God. But we approach the word of God with assumptions, presuppositions, biases, historical understandings, and personal filters. None of us come to the word as empty slates; we have ‘tilts’ that may or may not be known to us.” And I will give you three wild guesses as to who can lead us in the right direction! Basically, New Calvinist leaders teach their followers that they have an inability to properly ascertain truth; or at the very least, should ALWAYS be in doubt of what they have read or studied. As I have said before and will say again, this shows New Calvinism’s kinship to postmodern thought which devalues the ability to know absolute truth absolutely. But more to the point, it dogmatically proclaims a restriction on the ability of others to understand the word of God on their own.
Point Four. Your Theology: Your view of law and gospel states that you are “free” from the law while EVERY other Christian who believes the law has a role in sanctification is still IN BONDAGE, ie., you are free and we are still in bondage. Gag, it’s not only arrogant, it’s also a lie.
Point Five: Your eschatology: You have informed Christ that He has low self-esteem, and you have fixed that for Him by making every verse in the Bible about Him and deemphasizing “an issue about a sliver of geography that eclipses Christ.” How dismayed you will be when he doesn’t thank you at the judgment.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment