Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 11: Walter Chantry’s Suffering
One day I hope to meet him. Soon, it would be like those meetings we used to see on Oprah where people who have suffered the same type of traumas meet to share their experiences. In fact, there are clubs all over the country where people meet to do just that. It’s like they have always known each other, and the very first meetings are filled with tears and hugging. Whether it’s the My Poodle Was Slain by a Pitbull in Front of My Eyes Club or some other club of trauma, the reunions seem to be a healing balm of some sort.
Chantry and I could start our own club for those who are traumatized by debating proponents of New Covenant Theology. Chantry tried to destroy the evil child soon after it was delivered and wasn’t yet named ( http://wp.me/pmd7S-Ld ). Apparently, survivors of Chantry’s onslaught split from Reformed Baptist into a meager fellowship called Continental Baptist. New Covenant Theology (NCT) is based on the Australian Forum’s centrality of the objective gospel (COG) which found new life in Sonship Theology and is now a gargantuan movement known as New Calvinism. Chantry’s bantering back and forth with one of two patriarchs of NCT, Jon Zens, is well documented and exhausting. One example can be seen here: http://solochristo.com/theology/nct/zens-chantry.htm .
Method 1: Annoying, and repetitious oversimplified denial.
Chantry, knowing that NCT hacks like to confuse and wear down their opponents with an endless flogging of residual issues, rightly focused on the fact that it all boils down to Antinomianism. The very annoying way in which Zens debates can be seen clearly in present-day COG proponents; for example, “Show me one reference where I have ever written that I am an Antinomian you slanderer!” Chantry’s reply usually followed along these lines: “For substantiation of what I have to say, I could quote almost the entirety of the articles that you [Zens] have printed in ‘Baptist Reformation Review.'” Further, he [Chantry] viewed my [Zens] pleas for documentation as “quibbling about words, a mere strife about terminology that has no point to it.”
Method 2: Rewrite traditional meaning.
COG proponents are very sensitive to the Antinomian charge, so they continually attempt to rewrite the English language and church history to avoid the accusation. Recent articles by Tullian Tchividjian and Elyse Fitzpatrick deny that there is any such thing as Antinomianism. They also try to replace the word “antinomianism” with what they call “neonomianism (“new legalism” as opposed to “anti-law”). Likewise, “obedience” (we obey) is replaced with “new obedience” (Jesus obeyed in our place as part of the atonement, and apparently still obeys for us via the imputed active obedience of Christ). Sanctification is now “progressive sanctification” which is nothing more than the unfolding of our justification via John Piper’s “beholding as a way of becoming.” Of course, he includes “….a way….” so if he’s confronted he can say that he’s talking about contemplative spirituality being just one of many avenues while assuring us that he believes in “obedience.” But of course, he’s really talking about “New Obedience.”
Method 3: Fake contentions against supposedly contrary beliefs.
COG proponents contend against many other belief systems as a way to appear like standguards for orthodox truth. Often, the “contrary” beliefs are very similar to their own. An assistant to DA Carson recently wrote a book on Keswick theology, which has many similarities to COG. Carson also disses Keswick theology on a routine bases, but according to one article:
“Beginning in the 1920s, the Keswick Convention’s view of sanctification began to shift from the view promoted by the leaders of the early convention. William Graham Scroggie (1877–1958) led that transformation to a view of sanctification closer to the Reformed view. Today its speakers include people like D. A. Carson and Sinclair Ferguson, whose views on the Christian life differ significantly from the Keswick Convention’s first generation.” http://ccclh.org/blog/?p=1234
….But apparently, not the second generation of Keswick theology. One of their (COG proponents) favorite targets is postmodernism or the Emergent Church who they share like philosophies with. I go into detail on this subject here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-Lk
Method 4: Quote other leaders who have written against COG-like doctrines.
JC Ryle wrote extensively on doctrines that distorted biblical sanctification, and many of them were very similar to New Calvinism and NCT. In fact, such doctrines that were running about in his day inspired his famous “Scriptural Holiness” which is considered to be one of the best works on Christian living ever written. The introduction outlines seven elements of Quietist type doctrines that fit Gospel Sanctification to a T. Therefore, COG proponents like Kevin Deyoung now quote Ryle extensively. A proponent of NCT has recently sent me emails that contain excerpts from Scriptural Holiness that seem to indicate Ryle supported a synthesis of justification and sanctification, and asked me to post them. Only problem is, I am very familiar with Ryles writings and find the suggestion preposterous. Knowing what I know about Ryle’s theological positions, I assume the quotes pertain to a contention against those who believe that sanctification is a much lesser concern than justification. This doesn’t mean Ryle believed they are exactly the same in essence as the proponent implied.
Mix those four methods with an attitude that is driven by a belief that God is using them to orchestrate a “second reformation” (I’m not joking), and the same kind of confidence the apostle Paul mentioned about the false teachers he contended with, and what you have is a serious Excedrin headache. With that said, one remembers what Jay Adams said about Quietist type doctrines: they will “ruin people’s lives.” He also said Gospel Sanctification is “dangerous and must be stopped.” No doubt—so the fight continues.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Stop being dishonest and post what I sent you from Holiness by JC Ryle. You and I both know you are misrepresenting his views. I am surprised anyone is stupid enough to take you seriously.
LikeLike
Just post them and let your readers decide for themselves. There is no suggestion that Justification and Sanctification are the same in essence. You are being dishonest. Just post the quotes. Better still, I will.
(3) For another thing, if we would be sanctified, our course is clear and plain— we must begin with Christ. We must go to Him as sinners, with no plea but that of utter need, and cast our souls on Him by faith, for peace and reconciliation with God. We must place ourselves in His hands, as in the hands of a good physician, and cry to Him for mercy and grace. We must wait for nothing to bring with us as a recommendation. The very first step towards sanctification, no less than justification, is to come with faith to Christ. We must first live and then work.
(4) For another thing, if we would grow in holiness and become more sanctified, we must continually go on as we began,, and be ever making fresh applications to Christ. He is the Head from which every member must be supplied. (Ephes. iv. 16.) To live the life of daily faith in the Son of God, and to be daily drawing out of His fulness the promised grace and strength which He has laid up for His people—this is the grand secret of progressive sanctification. Believers who seem at a standstill are generally neglecting close communion with Jesus, and so grieving the Spirit. He that prayed,”Sanctify them,” the last night before His crucifixion, is infinitely willing to help everyone who by faith applies to Him for help, and desires to be made more holy.
J.C. Ryle
Holiness
There are more quotes to come. BTW, I am fairly sure J.C. Ryle wasn’t a New Calvinist.
Just be truthful for a change and admit you were wrong.
LikeLike
I have read all of your quotations in context of what Ryle wrote as well as pages before and after. So, what you are saying is that Ryle taught that ALL of our obedience flows from first revisiting the gospel and “reapplying” Christ and the gospel, Right? Or as Horton puts it: Graditude > Doxology > Obedience. Right?
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Ryle explains first how justification and sanctification are alike–then, how they differ. You cherry pick from how they are the same to make your points. That’s not exactly equitable.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
He who supposes that Jesus Christ only lived and died and rose again in order to provide justification and forgiveness of sins for His people, has yet much to learn. Whether he knows it or not, he is dishonoring our blessed Lord, and making Him only a half Savior. The Lord Jesus has undertaken everything that His people’s souls require; not only to deliver them from the guilt of their sins by his atoning death, but from the dominion of their sins, by placing in their hearts the Holy Spirit; not only to justify them but also to sanctify them. He is, thus, not only their “righteousness” but their “sanctification.” (I Cor. 1:30).
Ryle Holiness pp 27-28
LikeLike
Ryle is saying that Christ is LORD AND SAVIOR, NOT JUST SAVIOR.”He is, thus, not only their ‘righteousness’ but their ‘sanctification.’ (I Cor. 1:30).” Even if Ryle did say/write that, and I doubt he did, he is not saying that we are sanctified in the same way we are justified as a strict grammatical rendering would imply.Ryle believed that Christians have a determinative role in sanctification–not for justification which is fixed and predetermined,but a crucial role in sanctification. Ryle believed in monergistic salvation and synergism in sanctification. NCT DOES NOT HOLD TO THAT SAME BELIEF. But just for giggles, what was your point in that particular Ryle quote? And while your at it, supply some quotes from NCT hacks that include repentance in their gospel presentation that isn’t talking about “deep repentance” for daily re-justification.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
I think he is talking about you Paul.
LikeLike
Where do you find any suggestion of synthesis between justification and sanctification in these quotes? Are you just stupid or are you being deliberately dishonest?
LikeLike
Then what exactly is the point you are making with these quotes?
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
See also the bottom of page 25
LikeLike
C’mon sweety, you want to have an intellectual discussion, so let’s have one.I don’t believe all obedience flows from a re-visitation of the gospel. I believe in gaining more knowledge of God’s law and dependently applying it to my life.This leads to more discernment and happiness (obedience > blessings > doxology). Did Ryle teach that? Or did he teach Horton’s Gratitude (from immersing ourselves in the gospel afresh) > Doxology > Obedience. Which did Ryle teach?
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
It’s just like Bill said: The more New Calvinist strive to articulate their systematic theology in order to appear orthodox, the more you have to hang them with. This question is a problem for you: “Does ALL obedience flow from a re-visitation of the gospel?” Yes or no? Is it Obedience-blessing-doxology? Or Michael Horton’s Gratitude-Doxology-Obedience? And what did Ryle teach in regard to this? Where are you buddy? You believe when Ryle spoke of “reapplying Christ” that he wasn’t speaking of Christ’s example / instruction / etc., right? You think Ryle was just speaking of the Lord’s cross work/gospel. Right?
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
In what, then, are justification and sanctification alike?
(a) Both proceed originally from the free grace of God. It is of His gift alone that believers are justified or sanctified alone that believers are justified or sanctified at all.
(b) Both are part of that great salvation which Christ, in the eternal covenant, has undertaken on behalf of His people. Christ is the fountain of life from which pardon and holiness both flow. The root of each is Christ.
Ryle, Holiness, pp. 38-39.
LikeLike
You are implying from these quotes, of which I doubt the veracity thereof,that Ryle believed in a sanctification by faith alone. OF COURSE, without Christ, sanctification wouldn’t be possible, but you are implying much more than that with these quotes. In Ryle’s introduction to his 20 letters on Holiness, he plainly states: “It is thoroughly Scriptural and right to say ‘faith alone justifies.’ But it is not equally Scriptural and right to say ‘faith alone sanctifies.'” Therefore, your quotes must have this Ryle prism in mind when drawing conclusions from a book that may or may not be edited. Bottom line: Ryle DID NOT believe in sanctification by faith alone.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Cite ISBN, title of book, editors, publisher, and edition.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Paul,
I think you would be better served to get a real theological education so you can rightly interpret what people. Right now, you suck at it.
LikeLike
You represent NCT–keep up the good work. Like you say, I suck at it, so I will take all the help I can get.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
You really do suck at it. Now you have even stooped to accusing me of lying about what Ryle wrote. I”m sure you own a copy of Holiness by JC. Look it up yourself. You are so pathetic.
Where did I say believe sanctification is by faith alone? Where did I suggest that Ryle believed in sanctification by faith alone? In reality, where did I say anything? I just posted the quotes. Anyone who wishes to check the veracity of these quotes may read them for themselves. They say what they say.
I don’t believe sanctification is by faith alone, but I do believe it is by faith. I am a NCT advocate and regularly include a call for repentance in presenting the gospel.
I am posting these quotes in response to your statement on this site. This is what you wrote, “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.” It sounds to me as if Ryle didn’t believe we could get beyond our need for Christ and the gospel.
LikeLike
What you say below contradicts your final statement: “It sounds to me as if Ryle didn’t believe we could get beyond our need for Christ and the gospel.” The gospel concerns justification.Therefore, you are saying Ryle believed that we never outgrow our need to revisit the fact that God has declared us righteous.In spite of your Jon Zens-like adamant proclamations to the contrary (the fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree), the logical conclusions lead right back to a sanctification by justification that you deny. And Ryle believed no such thing.Also: “It sounds to me as if Ryle didn’t believe we could get beyond our need for Christ and the gospel.” That’s word for word what Sonship’ers believe,and I think Jess’ periodic reports on that speak for themselves. Furthermore, apparently, a relative of yours emailed me more (supposedly) Ryle quotes that sound exactly like something Michael Horton would say–I emailed back and have requested, title, ISBN, editors, edition, publisher, page numbers ect to confirm these supposed Ryle quotes–put you big mouth where your money is.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
I don’t have a hard copy and, therefore, don’t have an ISBN etc. I moved to Costa Rica a few years ago and had to leave most of my library behind. But you can read it at:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/ryle/holiness.html
LikeLike