Sure, I Can Do That, But….
….I wasn’t born yesterday. The top part of your essay is the imperative. The bottom part is the indicative: “What we sinners fail to understand is that there is no true freedom apart from wearing the yoke of God’s anointed one. Jesus said, ‘Come unto Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light’ (Matthew 11:28-30).”
Ie., the imperative commands are grounded in the indicative event. The “true freedom” you are talking about is freedom from the law when we take upon ourselves the yoke of Jesus and enter into “His rest” from the law. The imperatives you describe in the first part are an effortless “mere natural flow (NCT guru Chad Bresson)”—flowing from the indicative event (Christ’s atonement).
Nice try, and here is what you sent me:
“I was just wondering if you thought the following might have been written by one of those pernicious NCT Antinomians. Perhaps you would like to publish it as an example of how they try to turn people away from true righteousness.
Randy Seiver
LET US BREAK THEIR BONDS ASUNDER
Let us break their bonds asunder, and let us cast away their yokes from us (Psalm 2:3).
The scene portrayed in these verses is one of high treason against the LORD of heaven and earth. Those engaged against Him are recalcitrant rebels who refuse to be controlled any longer. They have set themselves in battle array against Jehovah and against His Anointed one. They refuse to wear the restraint of His law any longer. They desire to throw off the yoke of obedience to Him. The metaphor is taken from balky animals that break the cords that restrain them and throw off the yoke.
Israel is often guilty of refusing Jehovah’s yoke in this manner. In Hosea’s prophecy, Jehovah charges that His people are like a heifer that backs away from the yoke (Hosea 4:16). Such is the nature of sinful rebels. We imagine we will be happy if only we can free ourselves from God’s oppressive demands. Yet, we find when we are most free from His yoke that we are most shackled in the bonds of iniquity.
What we sinners fail to understand is that there is no true freedom apart from wearing the yoke of God’s anointed one. Jesus said, “Come unto Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30).
Nevertheless, the struggle to be free continues from generation to generation. We continue to balk and bawl at the sight of the Christ’s yoke until God in sovereign grace makes us willing to be subdued”
Thank you for this example of classic New Calvinist deception,
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Note that he also refers to believers as “sinners,” “WE sinners.” “Sinners” can’t keep the law–but born again believers who sometimes sin can. Also think carefully about the transition of subjects here. What does the rebellion of unbelievers have to do with what we do, or don’t understand as believers? And why is it important for us to understand how easy Jesus’ yoke is in relation to rebellious unbelievers? If “we” is left out, it makes sense in regard to unbelievers not knowing that true freedom is found in the “perfect law of liberty.”
LikeLike
Paul,
I am glad you published the e-mail. I had expected you to correspond with me by e-mail, but I guess you didn’t want to do that. I have a few questions for you? 1. Do you no longer consider yourself a sinner? I don’t believe we are hopeless, unregenerate sinners as we once were, but we still sin and need forgiveness. Maybe you have gotten beyond that. In reality, the phrase was used in reference to what “We sinners” in a state of sinful nature believe, not to what we think as believers. 2. Perhaps you can explain to me exactly what you mean about the indicative and the imperative in this e-mail. I am not sure what you are talking about here, but if I did that I was only following the pattern of the New Testament Apostles. 3. Do you not understand that the “yoke” of Christ and the “perfect law of liberty” are one and the same thing? 4. I don’t believe I identified the cause of the sinner’s weariness as the Law. If you came up with that all by yourself, I guess it must be pretty obvious. 5. Please show me one thing this article says about “effortless flow.” 6. The point in sending you this, which incidently was written by an old Calvinist [it was written years before the term “New Calvinist” was ever conceived] who happened to agree with NCT, was to show that far from encouraging people to do whatever they like contrary to God’s will, it actually seems to encourage them to come to Christ an take his yoke on them. Does it appear that the following statement encourages people to throw off God’s yoke and live anyway they like? “Yet, we find when we are most free from His yoke that we are most shackled in the bonds of iniquity.” I believe every time you argue to the contrary, you are bearing false witness against your neighbor. Every time you do this you discredit yourself further. There are real enemies of the faith out there, if you can’t distinguish between them and those who are your patriots in arms, you are a dangerous man indeed.
Randy
P.S. If you would like to respond to me, please do it by email. I don’t mind if you choose to publish our interchange, but I don’t find it edifying to visit your page to have to search for a response. Thanks
LikeLike
Randy,
“The imperative command is grounded in the indicative event” is closely linked to “double imputation” and “New Obedience.” This is the belief that Christ’s “active obedience (His perfect life)” and His “passive obedience (death on the cross) were both part of the atonement and imputed to us for righteousness–His active obedience for sanctification and His passive obedience for justification. Therefore, it really doesn’t matter if we (Christians) obey because Christ already obeyed for us via His perfect life AND HIS OBEDIENCE WAS IMPUTED TO US FOR SANCTIFICATION IN THE SAME WAY RIGHTEOUSNESS WAS IMPUTED TO US FOR JUSTIFICATION.
Therefore, you CONSTANTLY hear New Calvinist harping about “obeying in our own efforts.” Why put forth effort? Christ’s active obedience was imputed to us (supposedly).You can see how this theology creates an either/or hermeneutic that implies that it is either ALL of us, OR ALL of the Spirit.
So, the next question is: “How do we know when it’s our own effort or the Holy Spirit working through us?” Enter John Piper and Christian Hedonism. We know when we obey with no hesitation and full of joy.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Paul,
I understand the active and passive obedience of Christ. If [and I strongly emphasize IF since you have not produced any evidence they actually believe this], as you suggest, there are some who believe Christ’s active obedience obviates our obedience, they are simply wrong. That doesn’t mean you can assume everyone who believes in New Covenant Theology believes this. I have stated my position to you many times, but you continue to misrepresent me and others like me. We believe we must be obedient and need to exert ourselves in sanctification BECAUSE the Spirit is doing his work in us. We always know it is the Holy Spirit working in us if we desire to do God’s will and are able to do what we desire for his glory.
We work because he works in us.
OK now, Please speak to the issues I raised in our last communication. I am really tired of you ignoring my communication. Please ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
Randy
LikeLike
Paul,
Look, if you want to say “SOME who believe in NCT believe . . . ” I have no problem with that, if you produce citations in context in which they actually say what you claim they are saying. I have read many of the citations in which you have claimed someone was saying something they clearly did not say. All I am appealing for is intellectual honesty.
Randy
LikeLike
Ok Randy, let’s start small–little baby steps. How does my thesis above pan-out in real life? Well, Bill Baldwin has written a lot, and candidly I might add, on how this doctrine fleshes out in “biblical” counseling. In the following quote, he clearly says that Christians who contemplate the gospel for spiritual growth don’t even have to know what the Bible says–going deeper and deeper into the gospel activates the principles of the law within them, resulting in obedience without them even knowing the law. Randy, Randy, Randy: if that’s not what he’s saying in the following quote, what exactly is he saying?????
“Give me a man who preaches the law with its terror and Christ with his sweetness and forgets to preach the law as a pattern of the fruit of sanctification and what will result? In two months his parishioners will be breaking down his door begging to be told what behavior their renewed, bursting with joy, hearts may best produce. And when he tells them, they will be surprised (and he
will not) to discover that by and large they have produced exactly that. And where they haven’t, take them back to Christ again that they may contemplate him in all his glorious perfection so that they may better understand what sort of God and man he was and is.”
LikeLike
Paul,
I am not sure what all the implications of the above statement may be, but if we don’t direct believers to the Mosaic Law as the “pattern of the fruit of sanctification” does not mean we are encouraging to them to do whatever they like contrary to the revealed will of God. Does it mean nothing to you that believers have been yoked with Christ? And, if yoked with him, how far are we going to be led astray and into sin? It appears to me the above statement is simply stating that the impetus for biblical sanctification is not the Law but the gospel. That indicates nothing about the believer’s duty to exert himself, mortify sin, crucify the flesh with its affections and desires etc. Of course, we must do these things. Is there someone who denies this?
Randy
LikeLike
Randy,
So, we focus / contemplate on the gospel,and the law flows from that focus naturally because of our union with Christ,right? To the point that we don’t even need to know the law in Scripture–just gospel–right?
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Paul,
It appears you have ignored my post again. Please respond to what I say, not to what you think I believe. What you are suggesting is that Christ has not given us any objective standard by which to live whatsoever. If the law flowed from contemplating the gospel, we would not need the New Testament Scriptures. I don’t think any evangelical Christian would believe that do you?
LikeLike
But Randy, you said you believe in Gospel Sanctification which holds to the belief that the Bible is not a “standard,” but a gospel narrative. The law in the Bible is simply to illustrate what we are unable to do and what Christ fulfilled / obeyed for us, and apparently still does. For us to look in the Bible for a standard and then obey it would be imperative > obedience rather than indicative > doxology > obedience. It’s obedience verses “new obedience.” No, you answer my question.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Gentlemen:
May I put my two cents in here to share what I’ve learned from the Sonship course of their position regarding law? I’m offering this as evidence that some people do believe Christ’s active obedience obviates our obedience. From what I understand, this course is very popular and I happen to know a church full of people holding fast to this Sonship doctrine. Just on the face of it, the Sonship course has no chapter on obedience at all. There is a chapter, however on “Passive Righteousness” and here’s what they have to say about the law:
What they teach in Sonship is that any good works/righteousness we (as believers, mind you — not unregenerate — they say this is a course for believers!) display is as filthy rags, BUT, they remind us, Christ died for sinners and accepts us just the way we are. This is how they start the course to show us we’re adopted sons (hence, “Sonship”). With that premise in mind, I still haven’t figured out what they mean by God’s grace/the Spirit “moves you out”. What – into more sin so that we can claim Christ’s atonement?
At the beginning of chapter 4 in this course, this is what they say about the law: “We abuse law by turning it into our gospel, by making law our good news instead of what Christ has done for us. In doing so, we lose both the law and the gospel. At the heart of this abuse is a legalistic heart that says, ‘Give me a law so that I can keep it, and feel righteous about it.’” Remember, they say we do this as believers. This chapter was to teach us how we are “prone . . . to live under law (in subtle as well as obvious ways), and how that overflows in an unloving approach toward others.” Later in chapter 4, we’re given a checklist to see where we “stand.” The first item in the checklist is “I live as though my actions will make God . . . approve me.” If you selected that as one of your characteristics, they claim you are “living by unbelief and under the law.” Another one from the “living by unbelief and under the law” list is: “I base my worth on the ‘success’ of my efforts.” Can you see they are negating the law in the believer’s life? There can be no effort to please God in the life of a believer? There can be no faith that bears fruit?
The next question is: whose law do they claim we are prone to live under – our own or God’s? The homework questions are focused around man-made laws – rules we set up for ourselves and expect others to follow. However, through the course of this chapter, they make no distinction between man-made laws and God’s law. No definitions. Near the end of the chapter, they throw the baby (God’s law) out with the bathwater (man’s law) by stating: “In Christ, I am free from the law’s condemnation. In Christ, my sins are paid for, and I have Jesus’ perfect obedience. Law does not determine my acceptance with God. Now I know law cannot sanctify me.” And also: “He has not only attained our perfection but atoned for our imperfection. There is nothing more to struggle about, for He has done all for us and God asks nothing now but our repentance and faith. ALL THE FITNESS HE REQUIRETH IS TO FEEL YOUR NEED OF HIM.” (Emphasis mine.) (The last was quoted in the Sonship course from Stanley Voke, Personal Revival, 1964.) (Note that in the first quote, the context of their discussion of the law is as it pertains to sanctification.) There. Full circle. Christ died for sinners. So, in holding to this truth as their requirement (that is, as believers, they need to be sinners (total depravity of the saints) so that He will feel their need of Him), they will crucify Him over and over again by preaching the gospel to themselves. Thus, exposing Him repeatedly to public disgrace (Heb. 6:4-6) and insulting the Spirit of grace (Heb. 10:26-29).
I think Billy Joel’s song, “Just the Way You Are” explains the Sonship position well. Here are the lyrics:
Don’t go changing, to try and please me
You never let me down before
Don’t imagine you’re too familiar
And I don’t see you anymore
I wouldn’t leave you in times of trouble
We never could have come this far
I took the good times, I’ll take the bad times
I’ll take you just the way you are
Don’t go trying some new fashion
Don’t change the color of your hair
You always have my unspoken passion
Although I might not seem to care
I don’t want clever conversation
I never want to work that hard
I just want someone that I can talk to
I want you just the way you are.
I need to know that you will always be
The same old someone that I knew
What will it take till you believe in me
The way that I believe in you.
I said I love you and that’s forever
And this I promise from the heart
I could not love you any better
I love you just the way you are.
LikeLike
Paul,
I don’t think I have seen a question I haven’t answered. Indicate where it is and I will answer it. For now, it would be nice if you would answer the mountain of issues I have raised that I have ignored. I don’t know or care that some movement called “G.S.” might hold to. When I say I believe in gospel sanctification, I mean that the clear New Testament teaching is that we are sanctified by the gospel. The gospel not only promises blessings; it also demands obedience. You can’t follow Christ and be lawless.
Jess,
Thanks for the info. My view would be that if they are talking about our judicial standing before God, they are exactly right. If they are talking about our communion with God as a Father, they are wrong. Nothing I can do by way of obedience to God can make me any more acceptable to him. If I look to law, whether human, Mosaic, or of Christ to in any way merit God’s smile, we have reverted to works religion and have “fallen from grace” in the sense that Paul uses this term in Galatians. Do we maintain our communion with God through obedience? Of course, we do.
My problem is not with someone claiming some of these people are teaching false doctrine if they are and it can be documented. My problem is with people like Paul taking one statement someone makes and assuming they must be associated some group that may believe the same thing or something similar; then assuming they must also believe what people in other groups, with whom the first group may have had some casual contact, believe.
For example, “But Randy, you said you believe in Gospel Sanctification which holds to the belief that the Bible is not a “standard,” but a gospel narrative.” I don’t know and don’t really care what these people believe. It is not what I believe. Yet, Paul insists on knowing better what I believe than I do. I know tons of people who espouse New Covenant Theology who don’t believe what he claims either. I know he thinks he is the great error detective, but he needs to stop with the false accusations.
Randy
LikeLike
Randy,
Then answer this: I don’t believe I need the gospel anymore because I am already reconciled to God and the “good news” is that we can be reconciled to God, and frankly, I’m already reconciled so that’s not “news” to me. Secondly, I read my Bible for encouragement and instruction, and to learn more about presenting God and Christ to others–not for the purpose of revisiting my initial salvation. Do you have a problem with that? Yes, or no.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Clearly, God’s redeemed and believing people need to be taught more than the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. If all you mean is that we need to be taught our practical response to the multifaceted redemptive work of the Trinity, I have no problem with your statement. If, on the other hand, you mean you have outgrown your need for the good news that Christ has redeemed us poor sinners from the eternal wrath of God with all its concomitant doctrines, then I have a huge problem with it.
The Apostle Paul, who knew infinitely more of the gospel than I suspect you and I will ever know, stated “But may it never be that I should glory or boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ by whom the world has been crucified unto me and I unto the world (Gal 6:14).
Further, he tells us in 1 Cor 1:18 that the “word of the cross [gospel] is to those who are perishing foolishness but to those who are being saved [present participle] it is the power of God. It should be obvious he is not talking about justification since he and those to whom he is writing had already been justified. Instead, he writes to those who are “being saved,” i.e., sanctified. For us, it is God’s power.
The Apostle addressed the Epistle to the Romans to those who are called to be saints. He is clearly addressing believers. Still, he expresses his desire to “preach the gospel to you who are in Rome also. The reality is that most of the Epistle is given over to an exposition of the gospel.
In truth, if you took the gospel out of the New Testament Scriptures, you wouldn’t have much left. Even the practical exhortations to godly living are bathed in redemptive truth.
In reality, I have difficulty understanding how any true believer could get beyond being enthralled with Christ and the gospel. If you have discovered something better, I would really be interested in knowing what it is.
Randy
LikeLike