My RC Sproul Challenge: Legalist or Not? And Why, or Why Not?
Poke anything written by “The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” or any other number of Gospel Sanctification / Sonship proponents—how could anything but an indictment of legalism come forth when you consider the following quotes by Sproul?
“Sanctification is cooperative. There are two partners involved in the work. I must work and God will work. If ever the extra-biblical maxim, “God helps those who help themselves,” had any truth, it is at this point. We are not called to sit back and let God do all the work. We are called to work, and to work hard. To work something out with fear and trembling is to work with devout and conscientious rigor. It is to work with care, with a profound concern with the end result” (“Pleasing God” p. 227).
1. Without both working, no work gets done: “ Sanctification is cooperative. There are two partners involved in the work.”
2. The imperative precedes the indicative: “I must work and God will work.”
3. Sanctification is hard work: “We are called to work, and to work hard.”
4. And with rigor: “ To work something out with fear and trembling is to work with devout and conscientious rigor.”
And: “The gospel saves us not from duty, but unto duty, by which the law of God is established. This book is a profound exposition of the biblical revelation of law. The Decalogue is explored in the depths of its many facets and nuances. This book explains the Law, defends the Law, and shows the sweetness of the Law. It can help us delight in the Law as it was meant to be understood, and to delight in performing our duty to the One whose Law it is” (Forward: “Reasons for Duty” J. Gerstner).
1. So much for John Piper’s Christian Hedonism: “The gospel saves us not from duty, but unto duty,”
2. So much for New Covenant Theology: ”…. by which the law of God is established” [ouch!].
3. Just “more bad news”? “This book explains the Law, defends the Law, and shows the sweetness of the Law.”
It is way, way past the time for Carson, Horton, Keller, Mahaney, Piper, et al to continue getting a pass on contradicting respected orthodox teachers of our day. Is Sproul a legalist or not? We know what they can do with soft targets like Rob Bell and Joel Olsteen, but what about Sproul? And if he’s not a legalist, why not?
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
I think he clearly is a Legalist. He uses a lot of theological terminology in his teaching to shroud the false teaching. I was listening to him on the radio just today talking about Christian ethics, the whole teaching was about the ten commandments, he never once spoke about Christ. This type of teaching is complete bondage and contrary to so much of scripture. The idea of working for sanctification has caused so many to lose their way I was one of them. If we are to be motivated for any work it is for heavenly riches, or a “high calling”, not sanctification which is provided through Christ alone in the atonement, blessings.
LikeLike
Stumpy, Thank you for your honesty in stating for all practical purposes that you believe all active obedience in sanctification was completed in the atonement, and that Christ not only died for our sins to take the punishment in our place, but also obeyed in our place as well, negating any necessity on our part to obey the law.
New Calvinist like Keller, Horton, Tullian T., Piper, Tripp et al should now follow your example and confess this as well so many can know what they are really following.
Again, thank you for your honesty, paul
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike