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 
RSeiver said, on July 4, 2011 at 10:42 am
The law does not motivate me to love God; the gospel does.
==================================================
The Scriptures say that the Law is “Holy Just and Good”
Jesus Loved the Law and submitted Himself to it, and “magnified the Law”
I love the Law, for it reveals the “beauty of Holiness” to me, and it shows me what Christ did for me in keeping it, and in paying it’s penalty.
I love the Law, for when ever I am in doubt about what is the right thing to do in loving God and my neighbor, I can simply look to the Law and know the path God would have me take.
I love the Law, because I have asked God, many times, to “show me wondrous things out of the Law”, and He has, most graciously and wonderly, done just that.
Oh, How I love thy Law, it is my meditation all the day.
Praise your Holy Name Lord, for giving us the Law, and for keeping it perfectly for us, and for using it to teach me of my need for you, and how to please you, “to walk in a manner worthy of you”.
Thank you for showing me the difference between positional sanctification, which I have in union with Christ, and practical sanctification, which I must provide by my own efforts and work and struggles, with your help, to persue in the “mortification of my flesh” and the “cutting off of my right hand”, “running the race with endurance”, and “denying myself”, and picking up my cross and following you and otherwise “not loving the world and the things of the world” such as in buying huge, wasteful, loud, inefficient, self indulgent, ostentatious, blue Harley Hawgs, and otherwise indulging the flesh, and “engaging the culture”, and all the while pretending to be serving you, while being, in fact, “a hireling”.
Thank you for showing me that “if anyone will do His will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it be of man, or if it be of God”.
In Him,
gerry
LikeLike
Gerry,
Certainly, you understand that the majority of times the word “law” is used in these verses if not in all of them, it is referring to the Old Testament Scriptures and not the Mosaic covenant. I bet you could find those same things and more in the NT Scriptures if you paid attention. Be careful though. It sounds as if you are dangerously close to being grateful for the saving work of Christ. Can’t have that motivating you now can we?
LikeLike
That’s NCT nonsense. All Scripture is profitable to fully equip the man of God for every good work. Man does not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word that comes forth from the mouth of God. Funny, in those verses, Christ and Paul forgot to mention the gospel. Peter also forgot to mention it in the first chapter of 2Peter where he beseeches them to remember the most important thing on his mind as his passing was near: how to grow spiritually and make your calling and election sure. How could he not emphasize what you teach if it is the most important discipline of the Christian walk?
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Thank you Lord for teaching me to avoid those “wolves in sheeps clothing” who, as demonstrated in the following interview, “flatter for the sake of advantage”.
http://www.offthemap.com/idealab/articles/idl0604-2-evangelist.html
Thank you Lord, for demonstrating that your Word is true when you say; “your sin will find you out”.
Thank you Lord for showing us that only those “who take forth the precious” truth from vile errors are “as your mouth”. And those that do the opposite, that is, mix your precious truths with vile errors, are those who “disguise themselves as angels of light”.
Thank you Lord for teach us that “your sheep know your voice and follow you” and that “other shepherds they will not follow”.
Praise Your Holy Name for this,
In Him,
gerry
LikeLike
Gerry,
I think it is significant that the Apostle Paul gloried in the cross instead. “But God forbid 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). I would never deny that we must be active in the process of sanctification. That involves mortification, self-denial, cutting off the right hand etc. But I have news for you. You don’t accomplish that by your own efforts. Note Paul’s (the Apostle) words carefully. It is by the cross that the world has been crucified to him and he to the world. It was not his accomplishment but Christ’s accomplishment. He now must obey etc. in the light of that objective accomplishment.
Just curious, what is it in the 10 Commandments, in and of themselves, that makes you want to love God?
LikeLike
“But I have news for you. You don’t accomplish that by your own efforts.” This is classic Sonship/GS number three using the GS either/or hermeneutic. It’s either all the Holy Spirit or all us. I often ask Sonship hacks like you how we would even know if we are obeying “in our own effort” or that of the Holy Spirit. Of course, that’s where John Piper Christian Hedonism comes in. We know it’s not by “our own effort” because as Francis Chan said: “If it FEELS like love–it’s love, but if it FEELS like work–it’s work.”
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Gerry,
OOOPS! There you go with that gratitude thing again. Why don’t you just answer the questions as if you were a real man, and stop hiding behind that wolf in sheep’s clothing crap.
LikeLike
BTW,
That link you posted will take you to the wrong Randy Seiver. I am the one who lives in Costa Rica doing missionary work. I haven’t ridden a motorcycle in over 50 years. I drive a 16 year old Toyota. What a great example of how you guys jump to unwarranted conclusions.
That said, if a Christian brother wants to buy an expensive motorcycle, he certainly has the liberty to do so. It is not your business or mine. It is between him and the one Lord of the Church.
LikeLike
Additionally, this all makes you guilty of judging your brother. Do you understand that is not pleasing to the Lord? You might even call it sin, but I bet you aren’t going to ask forgiveness for it are you?
LikeLike
RSeiver said, on July 4, 2011 at 5:32 pm Additionally, this all makes you guilty of judging your brother. Do you understand that is not pleasing to the Lord? You might even call it sin, but I bet you aren’t going to ask forgiveness for it are you?
================================================
Well, lets review. Both same name, same age, same white hair and beard, same height, both involved in “evangelism” training, both involved in same post modern false gospel, and following the leaders thereof, both proud of their spiritual attainments, both blind to worldliness and refuse to confront those who call themselves brothers in Christ, but who bring dishonor on His Name by engaging in that worldliness? Both involved in mixing truth with error in order to deceive the unwary?
Very interesting coincidence, and a logical and honest mistake, if one has been made. But if, in fact, I have thus confused one Randy Seiver with another, then I do most sincerely beg both of them for their sincere forgiveness, for confusing one’s outward identity with the others.
As to their inward identity, and their spiritual condition, it certainly appears obvious that both of them a great deal in common which will, I fear, result in their ultimate undoing, unless they repent and believe the true gospel of Christ as revealed in the scriptures.
“As in water, face answereth to face, so the heart of man to man.”
In Him,
gerry
Very inter
LikeLike
Paul,
If you are serious about an intellectual discussion, I think we would be well served by a definition of every term we use. Perhaps, it would also be helpful to explain what we mean by such phrases as “being accepted by God” and “pleasing God.” To me, these are two separate issues. One concerns my standing before God; the other concerns my state. We should also define what we mean by “motive.” You seem to use the term to refer to what I would call duty. For example, having a clear conscience isn’t a motive, it is a duty.
LikeLike
Paul,
You just don’t get it do you? You are still telling me what I believe, not asking me what I believe. Why don’t you produce actual statements I have made and let’s discuss them. Please don’t tell me again what I believe without such statements. I may well believe some of the things you have suggested but I will own it in the way I have stated it; not in the way you have stated it. Bring me the quotes and we can talk
LikeLike
Just look at your use of the law red herring. You employ the classic Sonship/GS either/or hermeneutic–it’s either all gospel or all law. Therefore, to first learn the law and obey it isn’t gospel–it’s law. Unless you want to retract your implication that to obey the law is also to be motivated by it.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike