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 
Gerry,
I will forgive you for that one. ” Now you need to ask forgiveness for this statement: “both involved in same post modern false gospel,
Tell me what there is about the gospel I preach that is a “post modern false gospel.”
and following the leaders thereof, both proud of their spiritual attainments,
“Of what spiritual attainments do you think I am proud.” You have accused me of sin. Let’s have the evidence.
“both blind to worldliness and refuse to confront those who call themselves brothers in Christ”
What is that about?
” but who bring dishonor on His Name by engaging in that worldliness?”
What particular “worldliness” are you talking about?
“Both involved in mixing truth with error in order to deceive the unwary?”
Be specific.
Very interesting coincidence, and a logical and honest mistake, if one has been made.”
What do you mean “If one has been made?”
I can’t live in Costa Rica and Nevada at the same time. It should be obvious even to you that indeed you have made a mistake. The reality is that I have almost nothing in common theologically with this other guy. BTW, he looks as if he weights at least 225 maybe more. I weighed in this morning at 183.
LikeLike
Uh, Randy, is it true what I heard? Your mentor is Brian McLaren? Is that true Randy?
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
The Apostle suffered from the same malady. He wrote, “You are not under law, but under grace.” He seemed to thing the two were mutually exclusive. They are two separate covenants. The gospel covenant has replaced the law covenant.
No I don’t think that to obey the law is also to be motivated by it. There is nothing in the Mosaic law to motivate anyone to inward obedience. No one in his right mind could ever believe anyone has ever been motivated by the law in that way.
I know what you say motivates you to obedience. What is it that motivates you to love God?
LikeLike
“They are two separate covenants. The gospel covenant has replaced the law covenant.”
Then why did Paul make “being strangers from the “covenants [note that’s in the plural] of promise” synonymous with “without Christ” [before the covenant sentence] and “having no hope, and without God in the world” after ward–all in Ephesians 2:12? What covenants in the plural is he talking about? Which ones are abolished and which ones aren’t? Or do past covenants of “promise” still have a role in the new despite the fact that it is superior?
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Who the heck is Brian McLaren?
LikeLike
Ok, well, that answers my question.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Paul,
Do you believe Jesus accomplished our sanctification by his sacrifice on the cross as well as our justification?
LikeLike
Yes, but unlike you, I don’t believe our role is the same in both.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Did you take a course in misinterpretation. You do it so well. I did not say it is all the Holy Spirit. All I said was you don’t accomplish sanctification by your own efforts. Jesus accomplished both justification and sanctification by his death on the cross. Are our efforts employed in the process of sanctification? Absolutely.
“Sonship hacks like you?” Do you have to continue identifying me with people I may have no affinity for?
LikeLike
It’s all the same, and “Jesus accomplished both justification and sanctification by his death on the cross” clearly implies that if justification is “finished” so is sanctification.Therefore, according to you, we have a role alright–the same role we had in justification: belief and repentance only which leads to “new obedience” that is NOT in our “own efforts.” You are now making many statements that reveal what you really teach.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Do you understand there is a difference between the Old Testament Scriptures and the Mosaic law?
LikeLike
No, Because Christ said it was all the same in Matthew 5:18 (not one jot or tittle will pass from “the law”). Unless you want to say He was talking about the Mosaic law not passing away. Which is it Randy?
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
YOU are making the statements, not I. If sanctification is progressive, it can’t be finished can it? However, it has been accomplished. I repeat the question. Did Jesus accomplish both justification and sanctification by his death on the cross?
LikeLike
No, he was saying that he had not come to destroy the Old Testament Scriptures but to fulfill them. He fulfilled the entire Mosaic law and replaced it with his New Covenant Law. God’s eternal righteous standard that formed the basis for both did not change. The key phrase in the verse is “until all is fulfilled.” Jesus did that in his Messianic mission. If you think when I say the law has passed away, I mean the Old Testament Scriptures have no abiding validity, you have grievously misunderstood me.
LikeLike
Ya, like Paul David Tripp, you believe the law is a “fruit catalog” that shows us what what Christ is doing in our place. That’s why he calls it “new and surprising fruit” because we are really surprised when it happens.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
So, in relation to my Ephesians 2:12 question, if the law covenant is history, why does Paul go on to quote “the first commandment with a promise” in 6:1-3? Oh wait, Paul mentioned the covenants of “promise” in 5:12. Paul insinuates that the promise still stands–obviously.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
What do you mean, “Unlike you, I don’t believe our role is the same in both”?
LikeLike
Both are “completed” in the atonement–that’s what you said.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
The New Covenant is a fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. It also fulfills the promise of judgment on the Serpent immediately after the fall (Gen. 3:15). Apart from union with Christ, the Gentiles were without hope and strangers from these covenants. Now, in Christ, both Jewish and Gentile believers are fellow heirs. The Mosaic Covenant pointed to the Christ by its deficiencies. It provoked the elect among the elect to look forward with expectancy to the one who could do what the law could not do. Once the fulfillment had taken place, there was no longer a need for the shadow.
LikeLike
So what was Paul’s point in quoting Eph. 6:1-3 as a promise?
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike