Christians Aren’t “Under” the Law? Oh Really?
One of the realities that has hit home with me recently is the fact that Christians in this country have been dumbed-down like our children are being dumbed-down in public schools. In fact, the dumbing-down started in my generation (I am 54 years old). When I was in eighth grade, I went to Oakwood Junior High School in Dayton, Ohio; it has always been a top-rated school nationally. However, when I was there, for example, in literature class, we primarily studied the significance of Beatles (the rock band) songs and their lyrics. Now, my dumbed-down generation, who was rarely taught how to think objectively, has moved into the American church.
Couple that with the fact that by and large, seminaries have taken over the administration of doctrinal teaching. Try teaching a class on soteriology in the local church; no one will show up because Christians don’t even know what soteriology is, and anyone who does show up will mock you by saying, “Is this a church or a seminary?” Seminaries are now in total control of what is taught in the local churches and the average American parishioner perceives seminarians as authorities who cannot be questioned. I recently visited a local church here in Xenia, Ohio and the church was having an annual Sunday school presentation. The church has a strong affiliation with Cedarville [Christian] College and many of the students attend there. I listened in horror as a Sunday school teacher explained that the main focus of his class (the college age class) was to merely encourage the students because, “we could never teach them anything more than they are learning at Cedarville.” Adding to my dismay was the senior pastor / MC nodding in agreement like some bobbing head in the back window of a low-rider.
This blogsite concerns Gospel Sanctification, and it has become evident to me why this doctrine has been able to sweep across America unchecked: Christians don’t know the difference between justification, sanctification, and glorification. In fact, not only do they not know the difference, they don’t even know what the terms mean; and worse yet, they aren’t theological terms, they are specific biblical terms ( 1Cor 1:30, 6:11).
Hence, the mantra / cliché: “Christians aren’t under the law.” 99.9999 percent of all Christians, it seems like, would quickly agree with this statement. When someone replies, “Christians are not under the law for justification, but we are under the law for sanctification because that’s what the Holy Spirit uses to sanctify us (John 17:17 [the specific term Paul used for us being ‘under’ the law is, ‘we uphold’ the law]),” the reply will be, “That’s legalism,” another American Christian cliché that replaces working knowledge of the Scriptures. Let me tell you what they mean by “legalism” because they don’t even know what they mean by that themselves. They intend to say that you believe we are sanctified by keeping the law, BUT the belief that Christians are under (obligated to) the law does not hold to that. It rather believes that the Holy Spirit sanctifies, and that we are walking in the Spirit when we are walking (living) in the truth, which of course is revealed in the Scriptures (again, John 17:17). It’s a colaboring; we obey, the Spirit sanctifies. Sanctification means to “set apart,” and the only thing that distinguishes us from the world is God’s way of thinking and doing verses that of the world. That’s why the kingdom of darkness constantly strives to un-sanctify those whom they have lost to being damned eternally; encouraging them to be more like the world dampens their testimony to those they haven’t lost yet—du! That’s why the kingdom of darkness always propagates, “being against the law (which most Christians think always refers to the Decalogue [ten commandments], but most often the word refers to all of Scripture) of God,” and I am using those words because most Christians don’t know what an antinomian is which is really weird because that’s what the apostle Paul said Satan is, and Satan is our enemy so it seems like most Christians would know what he is, but I guess not, and please hold while I catch my breath for the next sentence.
Besides, and furthermore, most Christians really don’t know what “legalism” means either. It’s trying to keep “a” (not “the”) law to gain justification (in other words, salvation), but because it’s impossible to keep the law perfectly in order to be justified, they create “a” law / ritual / rite that is their own standard for salvation, or what they perceive to be obtainable by humanoids. This is contrary to being justified by faith alone and working dependably with the Holy Spirit to be set apart (sanctified). Legalism is NOT an attempt to uphold God’s law for purposes of sanctification, that’s a classic antinomian lie, and it’s why antinomians attempt to make sanctification and justification the same thing—it makes an attempt to uphold “the” law for purposes of sanctification the same thing as true legalism. Got that?
That’s what Gospel Sanctification does; it synthesizes justification and sanctification: “The same gospel (gospel concerns justification) that saved you also sanctifies you.” Hence, you are supposedly sanctified by justification, or sanctification by faith alone, which means the exclusion of “the” law in sanctification because it is impossible to keep the law in order to be justified. Got it? Bye, bye law. Unless somebody else is keeping the law for you, in you, or through you; namely, as many forms of GS teach—Christ obeys for us. This moves us to other things Christians usually are not privy to: imputation, atonement, etc. Bottom line: the level of un-indoctrination among American Christians is frightful, and I never cease to be amazed at our zeal to spread such Christianity abroad via missionaries.
Because Christians don’t understand what justification is, and sanctification, or the difference between the two, GS hacks can teach Christians that not being, as Paul said, “under the law,” equals not being “obligated to the law.” They can also teach that the two are the same thing and nobody even blinks. They can also teach that separating the two (justification and sanctification) is legalism because Christians don’t know what that means either. That’s why GS advocates can say, as I heard one say in a sermon, that “any separation of justification and sanctification is an abomination.” Also, a staple among GS advocates is teaching that Paul was speaking about sanctification in the first five chapters of Galatians. Supposedly, the Galatians were guilty of legalism because they were making efforts to obey God’s law, but the context of those chapters is clearly justification ( 2:16, 17, 21, 3:8,11, 24, 5;4). In fact, Paul says SPECIFICALLY in 5:4 that their error was an attempt to be “justified” by the law, NOT sanctified:
“You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.”
Hence the days we live in: teachers can teach that Paul’s line of thought is about sanctification, when Paul clearly states otherwise. That’s because they’re both the same, right?
paul
Vows, Car Doors, Coats and Chairs
You see it every now and then; a husband opening the car door for his wife, or the event at Perkins that prompted this post: an elderly man stood up first to hold up his wife’s open coat for her to fill. After all those years? Then I had a light bulb moment: “Why not? Isn’t one of the ’till death does us part’—also to—’cherish’?” It would seem that us men take the faithfulness and love part of the wedding vow much more serious than we take the “cherish” part.
What does “cherish” mean? Well, it’s actually a little more focused than love. You can love anybody, especially if your a Christian. We are commanded to love our enemies, right? Cherish means: ”To cling fondly or inveterately to: to cherish a memory” (Dictionary.com). Cherishing necessarily requires display; that’s why I like the cited definition. When we cherish a memory, we do what? Usually, we have taken pictures, framed them, and displayed them at home and work. We are never commanded in the Bible to cherish our enemies. To cherish is to set love on fire. Guess what the antonym for cherish is? Answer: “neglect.” That’s key.
As Christians, I believe we have been given all we need for life and godliness. In fact, Ephesians 4:24 indicates that we have been given the full righteousness and holiness of Christ. Therefore, the apostle Paul commands us to “put on the new.” Pity: so much of today’s discussion concerning the law of God is framed around “obligation.” Obligation?—biblical commands are an invitation to appropriate and put on the righteousness given to us by Christ. Biblical commands are an invitation to set love on fire! Pity: many are taught today that Christ not only bankrupted heaven to give us His righteousness, but he also puts on that righteousness for us, and while we wait for Christ to do our part, the love of God is hidden under a bushel basket. To cherish is to display the love already given, IF we believe Ephesians 4:24.
Besides men, we promise, we vow, and before witnesses. I guess the guy that was at Perkins gets that part. God is very serious about vows. He says it’s better not to make any than to make one and not keep it. In fact, Psalms 15:1,4 says that vow-keeping is the mark of a righteous person:
“LORD, who may dwell in your sacred tent? Who may live on your holy mountain?…. who despises a vile person but honors those who fear the LORD; who keeps an oath even when it hurts, and does not change their mind;” (NIV@2011).
Want another version?
“….in whose eyes a vile person is despised, but who honors those who fear the LORD; who swears to his own hurt and does not change;”(ESV).
As these verses indicate, vow-keeping isn’t always easy, but don’t look at this as an indictment, look at it as an invitation to display love already given. Look at it as an invitation to display the importance of what is important to God. Look at it as an invitation to publicly display that you love your wife like Christ loves the church. Look at it as an invitation to set love on fire, and do so at every opportunity—even using car doors, coats, and chairs.
paul
Ultimately, Intentional Active Obedience Cannot Be Denied As Curative in Counseling
Some weeks ago, I was sent a webinar clip of a presentation by a NANC fellow (as in membership status, National Association of Nouthetic Counselers). The individual presented a counseling model that focused on showing the counselee the magnificence of the gospel. Supposedly, wowing the counselee or “amazing” the counselee with the gospel is curative (whether the counselee is a Christian or otherwise). Furthermore, the other side of this model proffered the idea that intentional obedience or instruction to change behavior was not only ant-curative, but legalism and works righteousness. A focus, or as some (other than the webinar presenter) call it, “moving deeper into the gospel” or “contemplation of the gospel,” results in “reasonable service” or what is known as new obedience. New obedience displays itself as a joyful “mere natural flow” which supposedly identifies the quality of obedience as being pure in motive. Duty no longer stands on its own as a virtue, but must be purified by joy and lack of our effort in the midst.
The NANC minion also referred to a behavioral emphasis in counseling as works righteousness, even when counseling a believer. So, emphasis on behavior in counseling is actually the same as beckoning the counselee to abandon the true gospel for a false one. Of course, this is counseling based on Sonship theology—“the same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you” and “we must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” Though I am in the midst of researching this and I’m compiling a list of people I want to interview in regard to Sonship’s history, it looks like the doctrine was contrived by a former prof. of theology at Westminster Theological Seminary and further developed by one of his understudies, David Powlison, a prof. at Westminster’s counseling wing: CCEF (Christian Counseling and Education Foundation). Unfortunately, Powlison and other associates such as Paul David Tripp were allowed unfettered involvement in NANC as instructors and board members who also infected NANC with said doctrine. Roughly eleven years ago, I witnessed the takeover of a NANC training center by Sonship advocates firsthand (though I did not know what the doctrine was at the time), and a pastor friend of mine was in NANC training taught by a Sonship advocate in Lafayette, Indiana. Hence, the webinar per my introduction.
Therefore, there is an important Sonship mantra that all counselors and Christians alike should understand: “The imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.” Stop being lazy and start thinking—this is why two counseling organizations have become unwitting (I’m being tentative) partners with the kingdom of darkness, and it’s time Christians start paying attention to this stuff. The indicative event refers to the finished work of Christ on the cross. Therefore, all biblical commands that we would obey flow from Christ’s atoning work and not ours, or, “The imperative command….” Proponents of Sonship and gospel sanctification (what Sonship has morphed into of late) will often cite Bible verses where this is true—Christians obey because of what Christ has already done (you do this because Christ did that), but then they insist that this is the only biblical pattern in Scripture. Conclusion: All present, past, and future real-time active obedience was secured and imputed to us from the atonement just like righteousness. In the same way all of our righteousness comes from Christ, all of our obedience also comes from Christ. In other words, Christ obeys for us. Any effort on our part to obey is works righteousness in the same way we would try to earn our own righteousness with no distinction between justification and sanctification—they are treated as being the same thing. As Francis Chan says: if we work, “it feels like work,” but if Christ is the one working, “it feels like love.” Hence, when Christ is obeying for us (they say “through,” but that doesn’t fit what they really believe and makes it sound synergistic), it’s a joyful “mere natural flow.” This is why the teachings of John Piper are a staple in GS/Sonship circles. Piper’s Christian hedonism answers the, “How do we know when it’s us trying to obey or Christ obeying for us?
However, in Scripture, the imperative often precedes the indicative (if you do this, God will do that). Many Scriptures that emphasize rewards in this present life (Eph 6:1-3), and in the future would be good examples of this. Also, some imperatives are grounded in indicatives that God hasn’t even done yet! (Heb 10:19-25 2Pet 3:11,12 [do this because this is what God is going to do in the future]). By the way, so what if it’s us doing it, and regardless of the difficulty?—we recognize we are acting by faith because we believe that God will really do what he says He will do, and (that) faith is a gift from Him, but that doesn’t exclude our effort! This is no trite matter—this is two schools of thought that teach Christians what our role in sanctification is, and how it will be experienced in real life! The reality of this hits one in the face when we hear Michael Horton say that biblical imperatives are not “promises.” Sure, doing everything we do for the sole purpose of pleasing God is honorable, but that’s not how God Himself approaches us in every circumstance with His word. This whole subject is also paramount in regard to giving hope in counseling as well. Moreover, the folly of Sonship is exposed when advocates implement a literal hermeneutic when the IND >IMP is present, but switch to a Christocentric / gospel hermeneutic (prism) when the IMP>IND or IMP> future IND is present, aping one of Paul David Tripp’s profundities: “Well, that verse has to be considered in its gospel context.”
But, there is one more thing that exposes the folly of this Sonship/GS element; namely, a denial of intentional active obedience on the part of the counselee, and that is: real life. On this point, the advocates themselves confess. In the ebook entitled, “Treating Delight as Duty is Controversial” (chapter 3, can viewed on his website), John piper concedes the following:
“It is true that our hearts are often sluggish. We do not feel the depth or intensity of affections that are appropriate for God or His cause. It is true that at those times we must exert our wills and make decisions that we hope will rekindle our joy. Even though joyless love is not our aim (“God loves a cheerful giver!” 2 Corinthians 9:7; “[Show] mercy with cheerfulness,” Romans 12:8), nevertheless it is better to do a joyless duty than not to do it, provided that there is a spirit of repentance that we have not done all of our duty because of the sluggishness of our hearts.”
Is obeying whether we feel like it or not really sin?—or a deeper form of self-sacrifice? After all, self doesn’t want to do what God wants, right? But my main point here is that the reality of intentional active obedience cannot ultimately be rejected because real life comes knocking, as Piper himself concedes, though by writing that it is better to sin in obedience than not to obey. Uh, I think that’s what he’s saying, right? However, the most striking concession was from a CCEF counselor named Robyn Huck in an article she recently wrote about the passing of her father. Regarding the quality of her parent’s marriage, she wrote:
“My folks were married for almost 52 years. I’m the oldest of their five children and was born in their first year of marriage, so I got to witness a lot of their life together. It was not a picture of paradise all those years, but somewhere around year 20 or so, there was tremendous growth in their relationship, and since then, they have been a wonderful example of a really good Christian marriage. I know it wasn’t always easy and I know it took a lot of work. But over and over in little day-to-day moments, they intentionally gave up self and embraced the oneness God called them to. And they were very happy.”
I think it is a good reminder to many that Christians developed good marriages by applying biblical concepts like self-sacrifice long before CCEF was around, or for that matter, NANC as well. But Paul Tripp’s answer to that would be along the lines of the fellow in the webinar, and also echoed by Larry Crabb in “Inside Out”; even if your walk with Christ is strong, it can be even better when you realize that “you no longer live, but Christ lives in you! We [him and Timothy S, Lane, both prof.’s at CCEF] welcome you to a lifestyle of celebrating just what that means” (“How People Change” p.19). Well, I read the book; it means you are spiritually dead so Christ has to obey for you. You doubt that he wrote that? Here is what he also wrote on page 171: “ It is not enough for Paul to say that the death of Christ made him new. He says that when he died, the old Paul was not replaced with a new and improved version of Paul [being born again isn’t an improved version?!], but with Christ Himself!” [this isn’t true, it’s not one or the other—it’s both].
That’s why these other comments by Huck are surprising as well:
“This ‘path’ through the woods was cleared a long time ago, but it’s still the right path, and can still be found and followed in these wintery times. What I’m trying to say is that God’s provision for my mother began thousands of years ago when he provided these lessons in Scripture. With God’s help, my parents followed that path to the best of their ability, and now my mother is reaping the fine reward of wise, godly living.”
And,
“They also intentionally nurtured their faith, with habits of daily scripture reading and prayer. In each of these areas, my folks sought to live godly lives, and it was good for them. The process was good and now the product is good. God created the provision of Christian community, adequate finances, and strong living faith through their acts of obedience. My folks did not live perfectly, but for the most part, they stayed on the path.”
And,
“And though living in obedience to God’s word doesn’t guarantee an easy or comfortable life, it is the passageway for his promises to be fulfilled and for faith to be built. Now that trouble has come to my family, the blessings of following God’s path and living the obedient life just keep jumping out at me. My mom truly has what she needs, both to live and to get through this difficult time.”
And this last statement is totally astounding:
“This serves as a great reminder to me as I counsel. Though we are right to be focused on the hearts of the people to whom we minister, we must also remember that blessings can come from simply doing what the Word says to do. It’s true that the deepest blessings of obedience happen when it is done out of love, but any act of obedience can be instrumental in turning the heart, and can bring the positive outcomes that so many proverbs describe.”
Yikes! She is saying that “any act of obedience” can be “instrumental” in “turning the heart” and can bring “positive outcomes,” while giving CCEF’s staple doctrine (heart theology) a wimpy, honorable mention: “Though we are right to be focused on the hearts of the people to whom we minister…” This even implies that outward obedience with the right motive, but maybe not joyful, can “turn the heart.” To me, this is a glaring contradiction to the foundation of CCEF’s counseling philosophy.
Robyn Huck, like all counselors who really want to help people, and I definitely put her in that category, eventually come to the conclusion that IND>IMP and IMP>IND and IMP>future IND are all equally true.
paul
Jay E. Adams: Some Puritans Believed in Preparationism
Read article here: http://www.nouthetic.org/blog/?p=1010#more-1010
Enough With the Puritans Already!
Why do proponents of Gospel Sanctification / Sonship theology quote creeds and Puritans so much? It’s because they can’t make their case from Scripture; and, the redemptive-historical hermeneutic eliminates the use of Scripture to draw conclusions about truth from the text. That’s why. When the supposed primary purpose of Scripture is to “show forth the gospel narrative” for both believers and unbelievers, rather than a proof text for issues of life—the gap needs to be filled with something, so why not Puritans and creeds? Besides, they are supposedly the last ones in redemptive history to be enlightened enough to know that every verse in the Bible is about justification.
I will soon be launching into some research regarding this issue, but I have already been sent some information suggesting that GS/Sonship advocates routinely misrepresent Marshall, Murray, and Owen to make points. But for now, my preliminary thoughts are as follows:
1. Puritans and creeds are not inspired, and we have the same Holy Spirit they had / have.
2. Puritan writings are available in massive volumes, and even if Owen, Marshall, Murray, etc., did believe that “the same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us,” or “we must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday,” such a minute portion could not be said to represent Puritan thought in general. And even if it did, so what? They are men, and the “Puritan” label is not a “Proof of Truth” seal. If what they said doesn’t align with Scripture, they can all hang it on their beaks as far as I’m concerned.
3. I have yet to see a Puritan quote, even by the New Calvinists, that resembles anything such as : “The same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us” or, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday,”
4. Puritan writings are translated into modern English by heaven-only-knows who. They are uninspired translations from men, and translated by men.
5. New Calvinists rarely quote the specific Puritan source (for example, title, volume, page, etc.). So the accuracy of the quote cannot usually be verified.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
4 comments