“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
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Well, Paul, since you have addressed this post directly to the so-called “misled sheep,” in which category I suppose I must include myself despite not attending TGC this year (and never have), I must respond.
Firstly, with specific regard to this post, I am at a loss as to how you figure that those of TGC ilk repudiate “lists” that actually serve to advance one’s sanctification (I don’t, as I see them throughout the letters of Paul), reject living by do’s and don’ts (every “gospel sanctification” writer I’ve ever read values and adheres to the Ten Commandments), and that we don’t obey with our own effort (have you read Jerry Bridges, who is a major figure in these circles?).
Secondly, I see no diverting from a topic of significance to one of insignificance in your second parenthical statement. Ergo, no red herring. If anything, it is a straw man you are implying.
Finally, I fail to see the import of the Craig Booth blog entry to the content of your post, except that you may have read it around the same time as you were composing your own. The Booth post sounds much like Jerry Bridges’ Pursuit of Holiness material and any “gospel-sanctification” figure I know would agree with it from start to finish – especially the Scriptures. 🙂
You may not believe it when I say to you (as it seems to be your wont to assume that those who hold to gospel-driven sanctification are false and antinomian) that if there is any heresy, error, or even issues of trajectory with gospel-driven sanctification, I sincerely want to find out. Pray take me at face value, brother Paul.
I anticipate your book, where I hope to find a sound case made against those you so obviously, frequently, and flagrantly disdain. Else you may find yourself lacking an audience except for those of like mind and like tone. I’m not bothered that you hold this intellectual position, but the tone I find entirely lacking in grace.
LikeLike
Mark,
Thanks for your comments. I will answer line by line.
Well, Paul, since you have addressed this post directly to the so-called “misled sheep,” in which category I suppose I must include myself despite not attending TGC this year (and
never have), I must respond.
Firstly, with specific regard to this post, I am at a loss as to how you figure that those of TGC ilk repudiate “lists” that actually serve to advance one’s sanctification (I don’t,
as I see them throughout the letters of Paul),
I will explain, but you’re exactly right on the sanctification point.
…. reject living by do’s and don’ts (every “gospel sanctification” writer I’ve ever read values and adheres to the Ten Commandments),
No they don’t, they only project that appearance through nuance and doublespeak. For instance, in “Creeds and Deeds: How Doctrine Leads to Doxological Living,” Modern Reformation, Michael Horton writes the following: “Christians are no less obligated to obey God’s commands in the New Testament than they were in the Old Testament….” Sounds good eh? But then he further explains what he means by that: “The imperatives drive us to despair of self-righteousness, the indicatives hold up Christ as our only Savior.” Mark, is that what the law of God does to a believer? Look, I’m not going to write a book here tonight, but Horton, who will be doing a special live presentation from the WHI at this year’s TGC, believes like all the rest of the GS crowd that meditating on the “indicatives,” ie., the works of Christ in all of Scripture (the gospel), instills a gratitude in us that then causes us to “yield” to the works of Christ in us. It’s not us obeying; it’s Christ obeying in our place. They call this the “imputed active obedience of Christ.” They use Galatians 2:20 to supposedly validate the point (saying that Paul was talking about sanctification in the first 5 chapters of Galations. Tim Keller, one of the founders of TGC, is also a prominent forerunner of Sonship Theology which spawned Gospel Sanctification. If you go to the Eastwood Presbyterian link in the GS Infonet column and read their statement, they concur that this is the position of the Sonship doctrine regarding Galatians—we are still spiritually dead, Christ must obey for us. That’s just one avenue that links them to their anti-law doctrine. Also, regarding Horton, please read this: http://wp.me/pmd7S-AR
and that we don’t obey with our own effort (have you read Jerry Bridges, who is a major
figure in these circles?).
Bridges is a major Sonshipper. He continually echoes the phrase coined by one of the fathers of Sonship Theology, Jack Miller: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” Of all that crowd, Bridges and David Powlison are the most difficult to expose because they are masters of nuance. I discuss what Bridges says in Transformed by Grace here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-of ,but really Mark, look at the title of the book; in essence, “Transformed by Justification,” or as Justin Hood recently decried: “Sanctification by Justification” http://wp.me/pmd7S-yU
Secondly, I see no diverting from a topic of significance to one of insignificance in your second parenthical statement. Ergo, no red herring. If anything, it is a straw man you are
implying.
I wasn’t saying they were presenting an argument—I was saying that obedience was being presented in words that make obedience look petty. Hence, a misrepresentation to lead one down a different way of thinking.
Finally, I fail to see the import of the Craig Booth blog entry to the content of your post, except that you may have read it around the same time as you were composing your own. The Booth post sounds much like Jerry Bridges’ Pursuit of Holiness material and any “gospel sanctification” figure I know would agree with it from start to finish-especially the Scriptures. 🙂
Booth’s post was presented as an excellent dividing of the word and accurate biblical picture of sanctification—set against the false synthesis of justification and sanctification by Jerry Bridges and others (“The same gospel that saves you also sanctifies you”). There is only one difference between Bridges and the others; I don’t think he believes that those who believe in a separation between justification and sanctification hold to a false gospel and therefore are lost.
You may not believe it when I say to you (as it seems to be your wont to assume that those who hold to gospel-driven sanctification are false and antinomian) that if there is any heresy, error, or even issues of trajectory with gospel-driven sanctification, I sincerely want to find out. Pray take me at face value, brother Paul.
Absolutely, would love to dialogue with you over these things. Also, I think if I give one more person the unpublished manuscript of my book, Susan may hurt me (she’s just short of getting her brown belt). But let me check.
I anticipate your book, where I hope to find a sound case made against those you so obviously, frequently, and flagrantly disdain.
Granted, I ain’t happy with them. The ill-effects of this doctrine on the lives of Christians will eventually come to full bloom. A lot of my exposure to this doctrine comes from firsthand experience as an elder in a neo-Reformed church.
Else you may find yourself lacking an audience except for those of like mind and like tone. I’m not bothered that you hold this intellectual position, but the tone I find entirely lacking in grace.
Even when somebody does stand against this doctrine, it’s “….but let me hasten to add all of these good things that these guys teach etc., etc., add nausea. Christ said a little yeast leavens the whole lump. Joel Olsteen says a lot of good stuff, but guess what? Grace? Victims of this doctrine, like many former members of Coral Ridge, are still waiting to see some from their abusers. And other leaders refuse to stand up to these mere men. As far as readers are concerned, I have turned a number of Christians away from this doctrine, given others comfort who couldn’t figure out what they were being taught, and turned a church elder body away from this doctrine. Satisfied with that. Not sure why the Lord would even use me to do that. The results are up to the Lord. He enabled me to remain faithful to this work when it was only getting 20 hits a month. The truth is the truth, and it’s worth fighting for—bottom line.
Blessings to you Mark,
paul
LikeLike
Absolutely right Paul,
this is worth fighting for. People are being decieved in things that have eternal consequences. I’d much rather have my bank account robbed than to be robbed of the truth of God’s will! That’s the issue – THE WILL OF GOD. These GS/Sonship people are very intellegent, cunning, they change the meaning of words, they are skilled in ambiguous language, and we know they are distorting Scripture. For honest Bible students there should be no question, these guys are wolves in sheep clothing! These errors will have shipwrecks because the teaching is worthless for promoting holiness. We need to contend for the faith once delivered to minimize the damage. I am a former active PCA elder, below is a wonderful statement from THE BOOK OF CHURCH ORDER (PCA) 1998 PREFACE; principles for guarding the flock:
“Godliness is founded on truth. A test of truth is its power to promote holiness according to our Saviour’s rule, “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:20). No opinion can be more pernicious or more absurd than that which brings truth and falsehood upon the same level.
On the contrary, there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty. Otherwise it would be of no consequence either to discover truth or to embrace it.”
All this passive language about faith and holiness obviously doesn’t match with Gal 2:20 mentioned above. Paul saying, “I live by faith” is about a man aglow, burning with the Spirit, serving the Lord, and eventually dieing for Him. The Hebrews 11 Faith Chapter says “living by faith” means “weakness was turned into strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies.” This does not sound very passive to me.
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
“The greatest deceptions are closest to the truth.” Layman Brian Johnson
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Recently, after being invited to write a piece in a publication, my article was rejected because one or two board members considered me “divisive.” In our day–I consider their charge a badge of honor.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike