A letter From “Bob”: How GS/Sonship Theology Affects Church in Real Life
I received the following email from a reader this week. My response follows. His name and some other details have been changed to protect his identity. Of course, not all GS/Sonship leaders are heavy-handed, but in many such churches the following post would result in church discipline. The email is modified and posted with permission from the sender.
Dear Paul: In your 31. January 2011 blog, you open by stating:
“In all of my writings on gospel-driven sanctification / gospel sanctification, and its apparent mother, Sonship Theology, I have primarily addressed the error, and not its ill effects on discipleship and people’s lives. Basically, refutation of false doctrine has prevention in mind, not theological debate for entertainment purposes.” (emphasis added)
I got mixed up in the [name of church excluded], a PCA church. I had previously been involved in a Kellerite church, so I had been swimming in a sea of sonship (and taking on water from it!) for a couple of years in both places, but without ever having heard of sonship theology, (esp. not by name!), or known that that’s what was really being promoted there – it’s taught more by stealth, than openly admitted! Only when I was finally given the label – alerted to its existence by a pastor in another state. was I then able to put the dots together, and see that there was in fact a most definite method to the malaise which I had clearly perceived, but been totally ignorant of both the source, and the systematic nature of the problem!
However, until today, I’ve searched largely in vain for any solid critical material, or in-depth analyses directly addressing those errors of sonship theology that I’ve clearly experienced.
As your opening reference makes it sound like you yourself have written fairly extensively on this subject on various previous occasions, (“…all my writings…” ), I was wondering if you could therefore please be so kind as to e-mail me, or direct me to, any further details / critical analyses – both by yourself and others – of this movement, and its directly related errors?
Thanking you sincerely,
“Bob”
P.S. Can you also possibly shed any light on any particular (or non-standard) doctrine of “repentance” associated with sonship theology? (–the existence of which I’ve so far been similarly unaware of, but which I’ve just lately also begun to suspect…)
To wit: I quote some anonymized portions of an e-mail from someone else at [name of church excluded] (who claims he hasn’t been particularly exposed to their “sonship” teachings, but) who’s suddenly tried to begin invasively ‘counseling’ me in certain areas: [warning: a sudden interest in your life by elders of said churches could mean you’re asking too many questions—paul ] He wrote:
[ The content of this correspondence could reveal Bob’s identity so it has been excluded. The leader responded to Bob’s questions by asking Bob if he had applied any of their teachings to his life, and how that had been accomplished, posing the questions in such a way that called into question Bob’s humbleness and attitude toward “repentance.”]
(– His questions were in fact to a large extent totally off-base, and demonstrated a failure to have even read what I had written to him; but) some of his queries about repentance are kind of non-sequiturs, so I’m wondering if this individual may be operating from some particular understanding of “repentance” which I’m not familiar with? If he has some particular doctrine of, or expectations concerning “repenting” (how one repents, and then can testify to or document having done so?, or can measure one’s progress in having done so?) As I’m a bit mystified by his language and apparent, specific expectations, and wondering if there is also something more to this than meets the eye, at least, that of the uninitiated?
Thanks for any light you can shed!
My Response:
Bob,
My blog is dedicated to believers such as yourself for the purpose of contending for the faith and thereby pleasing the Lord. Last week, I added the Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Theology network, https://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/ . Links to other material that contend against elements of this movement are in the right-hand column. Most of the writers are addressing elements but don’t understand how the elements / tenets fit together as a movement. This is because of the covert MO you mentioned that is prevalent within the movement. However, Jay Adams would be an exception to that (in regard to being opposed to the movement) and has even added a “Gospel Sanctification” archive to his blog: http://www.nouthetic.org/blog/
I have written a book that covers elements / tenets in detail that will be printed in a limited addition because I have been persuaded to write another book on GS from a different approach. The present book is in essay form and doesn’t cover the history of the movement as much as it should. The next book will be in chapter form and will include a detailed history of the movement, Lord willing, of course. The present book, which will be in print approximately four weeks from today, will stand in the gap until the next book is published.
Sadly, you are right, information regarding GS / Sonship is very scarce. First, in my opinion, I think many want to protect the integrity of Westminster Seminary, especially those who obtained their doctorate degrees there. Most of the doctrine’s elements were conceived by professors at WMTS. Secondly, there is a reluctance to stand against the “big names” in reformed circles. Thirdly, those who proffer the doctrine are deeply deceptive and ambiguous. Therefore, unraveling their deception is very labor-intensive. Fourthly, as you eluded to, they avoid labels for purposes of stealth, but invoke “THE GOSPEL” nomenclature as often as they can in their verbiage. Who wants to be perceived as being against the gospel? It’s a very effective cover. Fifthly, most reformed churches practice church discipline. Therefore, those who stand against this doctrine are in danger of being muzzled accordingly. Church discipline and excommunication have a huge stigma in reformed circles while the attitude among reformed leaders is “any Church discipline is good discipline.” They see church discipline being used as a weapon to muzzle as unfortunate collateral damage that is necessary for the betterment of the church as a whole. So, here is the point: a parishioner in church A can be placed under discipline for blogging about a reformed leader in church B. I have firsthand knowledge of a guy who pulled his blog down because the leaders of his church liked the other leader; he smelled church discipline coming.
This ministry has, and continues to counsel people on how to leave reformed churches who practice this doctrine with as little stress as possible. Furthermore, the conversation you shared with me in your correspondence is very indicative of the intimidating, heavy-handed methods of those in the movement. The Coral Ridge hostile takeover is a good example of this. Sixthly, the movement is new. It’s conception probably doesn’t date before 1980. Not only that, It started out as Sonship theology and changed to GS (gospel verbiage) when the Sonship label started taking on heavy fire. Therefore, God’s people really haven’t had time to get a full picture of the movement yet. These are six reasons among many others why I think information on this movement is scarce.
Well, that should take care of the “can I get more information?” question. Now for the “repentance” question. Yes, the movement practices an unorthodox form of repentance known as “deep repentance” or “intelligent repentance” or “repentance as a lifestyle.” Since the movement involves, as Jason Hood recently stated it, “sanctification by justification.” and justification is by faith and repentance only; hence, the only two supposed elements of sanctification must necessarily be embellished. Sonship theology has been confronted with three primary inquisitions over the years. First, “What about an ongoing practical application of the narrow concept of justification in the sanctification process?,” or, “So, what are WE supposed to do?” David Powlison answers that question with “heart theology.” The form of repentance you are talking about is part of that GS tenet. Secondly, “How do I know when I am obeying in my own efforts or yielding to Christ’s power?” John Piper answers that question with “Christian Hedonism.” And Thirdly, “How is the Bible used for justification only?” That’s answered with the Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic.
Lastly for now, I think your letter and my response can help many people. I would like to post on this while protecting your identity. This will also involve changing you name and some details you closed with. Let me know,
May we love the Lord’s truth more than men,
Paul M. Dohse
Should There Be a Distinction Between Law and Gospel?
Sigh, ugh, (add your own if you would like). The newest thing on the radar screen is the supposed Scriptural dichotomy between law and gospel. If you go to the WHI blog and poke it anywhere, people are thanking Horton up and down, koolaid packets in-hand, for pointing out this “wonderful truth.” I am presently beginning to read a couple of books recommended by readers that smell pretty good to me so far: God’s Righteous Kingdom by Walter Chantry, and Reasons for Duty by J. Gerstner. So, for now, I’m not going to be dogmatic, but….
As I have said before, and will say again: the primary weapon of the kingdom of darkness against the kingdom of light has always been, and will always be, antinomianism, or “anti-law.” AND law, I repeat, law, is not a term that refers to Decalogue-like passages only in the Bible or “law” in law verses gospel (which I am inclined to think is the mother of all misnomers), but to ALL revelation that proceeds from the mouth of God (Mathew 4:4, 5:18). This is a simple thing; did the “law” come from God’s mouth? Then we still live by it. If not one iota or dot will be lost before the end of the age, would that not include the whole law? And wouldn’t all of it be relevant? And if there is a distinction between law and gospel, why did Jesus only mention the law in Matthew 5:18? Is it more important than gospel?
The goal, I repeat, the goal, of the kingdom of darkness is to DECEAVE, or, ie., distort God’s life-giving wisdom / revelation to believers and unbelievers alike. Satan, the king of darkness, came to Eve as an anti-what-God-really-said (antinomian) at the very beginning of redemptive history, and his rein will end the very same way when he is released to “D-E-C-E-A-V-E the nations.” At the beginning of the New Covenant, the apostle Paul called him the “lawless one,” NOT the “legalist one.” Satan did not approach Eve to try to get her to “obey God in her own efforts,” nor did he try the same with Christ in the wilderness.
Furthermore, “legalism” is distorting God’s true standard / truth with man-made standards, and is therefore a form of ant-law. That’s what the Pharisees did, and Jesus’ contention against the Pharisees was their making the law “void,” NOT an attempt to “obey God in their own efforts” (Matthew 15:6). Christ said that in the end times, the hearts of many will be cold because of “lawlessness” (often improperly translated “iniquity”), NOT legalism.
Also, it can be concluded from what Jude said that to disregard the law is to distort the true gospel: “3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. 4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.” There is a very fine line between those who turn the grace of God into a license for sin, and those who teach that Christians are not obligated to uphold the law because gospel and law are separate; and moreover, couldn’t uphold it even if they wanted to because they are still totally depraved.
A word study on Matthew 28:20 reveals the following idea from the Greek words regarding “….observe all that I have commanded you”: to protect or guard, hold fast, serve, watch over carefully, everything laid upon, as an order or command; injunction to; to direct with authority; to order; to charge. Christ’s mandate to the church clearly focuses on the law, not gospel. Why? Because everything we could possibly know about the gospel is found in the law? Can the two really be separated? Again, like Matthew 5:18, why does Christ only mention the law in his mandate to the church?(“all that I have commanded”). Again, it seems that either they are, in fact, inseparable, or the law is more important. Besides, the gospel is often presented in the Scriptures as imperative (to name a few: Acts 3:19, 8:22, 2021, 26:20, 1Peter4:17, 1Peter 1:2). Those verses regard presentations of the gospel, so if law and gospel are separate, would those who make such a distinction remove repentance from the gospel? After all, the likes of Michael Horton say the gospel is strictly an “announcement” and not anything that should be followed.
Does accepting a distinct dichotomy between law and gospel “protect” God’s revelation? Or is it more like divide,conquer and distort ? One would do well to weigh this question carefully in an age of “lawlessness.”
paul
Jason Hood Decries “Sanctification by Justification” and…. Oh Brother!
Some weeks ago, Jason Hood wrote an article published in Christianity today protesting the benchmark set by New Calvinist (proponents of Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Theology) to be accused of antinomianism. It incited an outcry against Hood’s accusation that New Calvinist are, in fact, antinomian, and not merely trying to be accused of such. However, the fact of the matter is that Hood’s article launched no such accusation. It’s like the bank robber walking down the street being asked by policemen if he’d seen any bank robbers running by and immediately replying, “I didn’t do it!” Hood responded to Dane Ortlund, one of the “young, [but educated] restless [with no life experience] and reformed [supposedly]” New Calvinist that asked him to recant his supposed accusation. Hood’s response was a thorough dressing-down of Ortlund and New Calvinism in general. Ortland’s response to Hood’s response was a typical New Calvinist response: a pretension of humbleness; points of supposed agreement; and why the points of agreement are really not what they seem to the unintelligent because of their point of disagreement based on the deep realities of their own gospel. See link here, http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2011/01/28/we-who-have-the-spirit-have-the-power-to-change/ and it really is must reading.
Most of what I have to say concerning this superb piece of literature can be summed up in Hood’s calling out of New Calvinism’s “sanctification by justification.” It really says it all. But Hood also takes note of New Calvinism’s total depravity of the saints in this statement: ”Ortlund recently pointed out [as in, ‘hey guys, we’re looking too unorthodox on this one’] that we have been neglecting the doctrine of regeneration. As a result, we treat believers like unbelievers [emphasis mine].” It’s all very simple, only the unregenerate need justification, but you can’t have it both ways when thinking- Christians start asking questions.
Moreover, a new one that I hadn’t heard before was mentioned by Hood regarding Ortlunds original challenge—the whole idea that today’s New Calvinists are being “falsely” accused of antinomianism like the apostle Paul was during his ministry (Rom 3:8). Therefore, if they are being accused of antinomianism, they must be preaching just like Paul was. Oh brother!
paul
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
Four Reasons Why I like Rob Bell
I have heard of Rob Bell, and have a lot of info about him backlogged to read. So, I know very little about Rob; but I can tell you I already like him. How can this be? And what do I specifically like about him?
1. He’s honest: I know this because Justin Taylor and John Piper were able to make judgments about his book before it was even published. Is he a universalist? I don’t know, I haven’t read the book yet, but he apparently has no bones about being clear as to what he believes, unlike those who pass judgment on him. Indicative of New Calvinism is the nuanced / ambiguous / subjective verbiage that they call “teaching.” Whether Piper or his fawning servant, Justin Taylor, or Keller, Powlison, Tripp, Mahaney, Chan, etc., etc, add nausea, you read their books, page after page after page saying, “I know what he’s saying and what he really believes, but he’s not coming out with it completely.” In each of their books, you can find one or two definitive statements that clearly define what they believe. Apparently, my new-found friend is not like that.
2. He’s humble: I know this because unlike most New Calvinists, he’s forthcoming about what he believes; again, unlike his accusers. New Calvinists believe they are on the cutting edge of a mega Reformation. They are experts concerning the “deep things of the gospel.” But here is the key to understanding their arrogance: they don’t come right out with what they believe because most of God’s people “aren’t ready for it yet.” Do you see the arrogance in that mentality? Apparently, Rob doesn’t think he’s on a higher spiritual plane than his followers. Apparently, he’s completely forthright about what he believes and is willing to let the chips fall where they may. Apparently, to Rob, disagreement with him doesn’t equal stupidity or lack of spiritual fortitude. How else could everybody already know he is a universalist before the book is in print?
3. He’s kind and compassionate: Unlike his accusers, he obviously doesn’t think there is anything wrong with having a deep desire for everyone to be saved. Unlike his accusers, he doesn’t think hope is childish. Unlike his accusers, he doesn’t equate fatalism with spiritual maturity. In “When I Don’t Desire God,” you finally put a finger on Piper’s stoic fatalism (after dieing the death of a thousand cuts) in the last chapter. Piper believes that joy cannot be obtained by laying claim to God’s promises. No, no, we can’t have that—that would be contrary to New Clavinism’s “the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.” To think God would do anything at all because of something we did is anathema! Like salvation, Piper believes that joy is a gift given by God (because he actually teaches that the two are synonymous) and we can’t do anything to obtain it. He pretty much says in the book that if you don’t have joy, all you can do is pray and hope God gives it to you. It doesn’t sound like my new friend Rob is up with that angle on things.
Of course, I don’t agree with universalism, but there is something worse—the merciless, haughty, mean-spirited character of New Calvinism. Point in case: The hero among New Calvinists because he excommunicated 256 parishioners for an unbiblical reason; nonattendance. Even a child can see the problem with this being a standard for church discipline. How many absences would it take to qualify someone for discipline? Twice? Four times? And how many in what time period? And where would you find such a standard in the Bible? Frankly, I find the audacity of New Calvinists to criticize Bell, over-the-top and totally disgusting. My cat usually sits on my desk and watches me blog; not today, she is on the floor puking-up hair balls—no wonder.
4. He’s courageous: He probably knew the Pope of New Calvinism was going to excommunicate him. Yes, did you hear about the tweet by Pope John the First? “Bye, bye, Rob Bell.” Am I the only one who sees the extreme arrogance in this statement? Think about it; bye, bye from what? The New Calvinist cartel? And who in the %#@& is John Piper to make that judgment? Is there anyone walking the face of the Earth that is more arrogant than John Piper?
Well Rob, get ready to join the Joel Olsteen club. That is a group of well-knowns that are considered expendable by the New Calvinist cowards. These are the group of men that they berate to demonstrate that they stand for the “truth” (gag). And don’t take it too hard my friend, Pope John Piper the First really doesn’t know how to measure the excellency of God’s soul, he only thinks he does; you can trust me on that one. And don’t be as hard on them as they are on you, after all, even whores have standards, and Justin Taylor thinks you crossed the line because that’s what John Piper thinks.
Rob, let me encourage you; I am going to buy your book, and if you are a universalist, well, I strongly disagree with that, but I wonder: what’s worse? A kind-hearted, humble, honest, couragous, universalist that knows he’s a universalist, or an arrogant antinomian that doesn’t know he’s an antinomian? Hmmmm.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment