Paul's Passing Thoughts

Two Roads to Hell Named “Gospel”

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on January 31, 2012

It happened again on Facebook. A twenty- something professing Christian posting casual information about cohabitation with a boyfriend/girlfriend. What struck me about it was the following: as in other cases that I have seen and heard about, the shameless normality in which the information is shared.

Why is this the norm of our day? Answer: the gospel. The gospel means “good news,” and since the Fifties there has been two primary gospels preached in America and both are great news to most people. The first gospel (from the 50’s to the 90’s) emphasized the importance of believing that Christ died for our sins, and if you believed that, you were going to heaven. Obeying the ten commandments was a nice thing to do for Jesus, but optional. Even if you later denied Christ and the gospel, you were still saved, and keeping the law was optional. After all, we aren’t saved by the law, so how important could it be? Just in case you think that’s a generalization, consider these quotes from the book, “Eternal Security” written by evangelical superstar Charles Stanley:

PAGE 6 “As long as I have an ongoing role in the salvation process, my natural tendency will be to focus on my behavior rather than on Christ.”

PAGE 7 “People who are constantly examining their spiritual condition tend to fall into the trap of legalism.”

PAGE 200 “But isn’t it true that people who believe they must maintain some kind of good works in order to stay saved are trusting in themselves for their eternal security?”

PAGE 195 “Placing the responsibility for maintaining salvation on the believer is adding works to grace. Salvation would no longer be a gift. It would be a trade – our faithfulness for His faithfulness.”

PAGE 7 “Show me a believer who is caught up in trying to maintain God’s acceptance through good works, and I will show you a fragile saint. My experience has been that these are the people who on the surface appear to be completely sold out to personal holiness and purity but who suddenly disappear. It is not unusual for these well-meaning types to end up in a lifestyle completely opposite of what they once stood for.”

PAGE 93 “Even if a believer for all practical purposes becomes an unbeliever, his salvation is not in jeopardy.”

PAGE 72 “The Bible clearly teaches that God’s love for His people is of such magnitude that even those who walk away from the faith have not the slightest chance of slipping from His hand.”

PAGE 93 “Christ will not deny an unbelieving Christian his or her salvation because to do so would be to deny Himself. Why? Faithful or not, every person who has at any time had saving faith is a permanent part of the body of Christ.”

PAGE 104 “In Christ, the requirements of God’s holiness have been completely fulfilled!”

PAGE 63 “According to Jesus, what must a person do to keep from being judged for sin? Must he stop doing something? Must he promise to stop doing something? Must he have never done something? The answer is so simple that many stumble all over it without ever seeing it. All Jesus requires is that the individual “believe in” Him.”

Then more good news came in the latter Nineties. The first gospel didn’t emphasize the law enough, but the second gospel places very strong emphasis on the law. But the news is still good; Jesus obeys the law for us! In fact, it was part of the atonement; His perfect obedience was imputed to our sanctification! Moreover, even the relaxed approach to the law in the first gospel was legalism! So relax, be happy, live in peace with thy girlfriend. As one of the propagators of this second gospel has said,

The irony, of course, is that it’s only when we stop obsessing over our own need to be holy and focus instead on the beauty of Christ’s holiness that we actually become more holy! Not to mention, we start to become a lot easier to live with! Will someone please keep reminding me of this? (Tullian Tchividjian, Accountability Groups: The Tyranny of Do More, Try Harder).

And trust me, everyone is getting the message.

Besides, why bother with keeping the law? After all, as second gospel guru Paul David Tripp has stated in regard to Christians, “When you are dead you can’t do anything” (p. 64, How People Change 2006). Likewise, CJ Mahaney: “We [who is “we”?] are [present tense] enemies of God. We are God ignoring. We are God defying. We hate God” (2009 Resolved Conference).

Hence, compare the following quotes from these second gospel gurus to those of Stanley:

Francis Chan: “To change our hearts, what we value, what we risk, how we act, we don’t need more guilt or more rules, we just need to be in love with God. Because when you’re wildly in love with someone, it changes everything.”

DA Carson: “In this broken world, it is not easy to promote holiness without succumbing to mere moralism; it is not easy to fight worldliness without giving in to a life that is constrained by mere rules.”

John Piper: “So the key to living the Christian life – the key to bearing fruit for God – the key to a Christ-exalting life of love and sacrifice – is to die to the law and be joined not to a list of rules, but to a Person, to the risen Christ. The pathway to love is the path of a personal, Spirit-dependent,  all-satisfying relationship with the risen Christ, not the resolve to keep the commandments.”

Tullian Tchividjian: “A taste of wild grace is the best catalyst for real work in our lives: not guilt, not fear, not another list of rules.”

These two gospels are two roads to hell. Why? Because both gospels restrict saving faith / belief to limited knowledge of the true gospel. Both limit saving faith to what Jesus did to make our entry into the kingdom possible, and not its purpose. “Jesus died for our sins, just believe that.” No, there is more. Jesus died for the purpose of setting us apart. The biblical word is “sanctification”:

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (1Corinthians 6:9-11).

But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth (2Thess. 2:13).

In other words, the Spirit’s purpose is to set us apart, and Christ died for our sins to make that possible, resulting in us being declared righteous by the Father. Any gospel that excludes that purpose thereof is a half gospel:

It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality (1Thess.4:3).

The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work (1John 3:8).

Therefore, the “new convert” supposes that Jesus only died to save us, and “enters the kingdom” indifferent to one of the primary reasons Christ died for us—to set us apart from the rest of the world unto the Father as a peculiar people. Hence, Facebook. Yea, flaunt thy supposed “festival of freedom.” After all, he only died to save us. Supposedly. For the true Christian beholding the heart of Christ and his purpose of setting us apart unto the Father, and His willingness to leave Heaven and obey the cruel cross—I beg you to tell me—how can being like the world be like business as usual? Furthermore, how can any man claiming to be a bishop of God tell us not to “obsess” over our holiness? It is the very essence of being a saint. It is what we signed up for. According to Mark G. Cambron, D.D. in Bible Doctrines:

Again we emphasis that the words “holiness,” “sanctification,” and “saint” all come from the same word meaning “set apart,” “separation.” The word “sanctify” in Exodus 13:2, and the word ‘holiness” in Psalm 29:2, and the word “saints” of Psalm 34:9 are the same word. The word “sanctify” of John 17:17, and the word “saint” of Philippians 1:1, and the word ‘holiness” of  Hebrews 12:10 are all from the same word.

The call of the true gospel is a call to believe in the works of Christ and a commitment to be set apart according to His will. It is a call to embrace Him as Savior and Lord. It is most certainly an obsession with truth and holiness. It recognizes that being born again is to be set apart by the Spirit. Christ went to the cross to see this happen in His children, resulting in the destruction of the devil’s work. How it must grieve the Holy Spirit and Christ when we not only do the world’s bidding, but report it to others in casual fashion.

And because of this, should not the wording of the gospel be of major concern when we present it?  How is it that the gurus of the second gospel proudly herald a five word gospel: “Christ died for our sins”? And then even go as far as to say that we live by that as well! How is it that John Piper presents the gospel in “one sentence,” excludes sanctification, and then says, “that’s the gospel”?

It is not the gospel. It is a half gospel. Both of these gospels breed an indifference for one of the primary reasons Christ went to the cross—sanctification. And by the way, the word of God is the standard for what that separation is and the knowledge to obtain it. It is not just law, it is every word that comes from the mouth of God that we live by (Matthew 4:4).

paul

44 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on February 3, 2012 at 5:07 PM

    I read what Adams says, but you keep using the term “fusing” and don’t define what you mean by it any better than Adams does. I just want you to simply state what you mean and give examples. It really shouldn’t be that hard.

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on February 3, 2012 at 7:12 PM

      Randy,
      Ok, I will make it real easy. lets start with what started the whole enchilada. Robert Brinsmead’s interpretation of Romans 8:30. He understood Luther as saying that sanctification was missing from that verse because it’s all about justification from beginning to end. Therefore, sanctification and justification are the same thing. Since Romans 8:30 covers salvation from the beginning to the end, everything in between must be interpreted through justification. Hence, we are sanctified by justification. Brinsmead claims to have gotten it from Luther, and using a phrase borrowed from others that referred to other theological issues, he called it “the golden chain of salvation.” Brinsmead claimed that verse to be the crux of the Reformation, and said he got the idea from Luther. In turn, Paxton claims in “The Shaking of Adventism” that Brinsmead rediscovered the lost gospel of the Reformation. John H.Armstrong credits Brinsmead with that as well.

      In contrast, orthodoxy says that sanctification is missing from Romans 8:30 because the two are totally separate. Justification guarantees glorification. Sanctification cannot affect justification in any way. When the two are fused, ie., the first interpretation of Romans 8:30, sanctification can impact justification. I believe this will soon be the way we can separate New Calvinists from orthodoxy:”State your Romans 8:30,” or “What’s your Romans 8:30?”

      Like

  2. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on February 3, 2012 at 10:13 PM

    Sorry Paul, but that makes no sense whatsoever.

    “. . . sanctification was missing from that verse because it’s all about justification from beginning to end.”

    How do you get to, “Therefore, justification and sanctification are the same thing”? If the verse has nothing to do with sanctification, and if it doesn’t, there can be no fusion of justification and sanctification.

    “. . .orthodoxy says that sanctification is missing from Romans 8:30 because the two are totally separate. Justification guarantees glorification. Sanctification cannot affect justification in any way. ” That is the same as saying “sanctification was missing from that verse because it is ALL ABOUT JUSTIFICATION FROM BEGINNING TO END/” That would mean it is not about sanctification at all. If it is not about sanctification at all, how could it represent the fusing of the two. Answer–It couldn’t and doesn’t. There is no way you can logically conclude “Hence, we are sanctified by justification.” Maybe you would like to try to explain this “fusion” thing again. This explanation doesn’t cut it.

    Brinsmead may have rediscovered it, but I was preaching it for at least five years before this was supposed to have happened. Since sanctification involves human activity which will at least at some points be tainted with sin, it cannot form any part of this golden chain. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. This is why sanctification is left out of it since our weaknesses are involved in that process.

    It is, indeed, justification that guarantees our glorification. That in no way means sanctification will not be found in the same people who have been justified. We are not sanctified by justification, but both justification and sanctification are ours because of our union with Christ.

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on February 3, 2012 at 10:28 PM

      Randy,

      It is obvious from your statement that you believe sanctification/regeneration maintains and finishes justification. You make my point for me. As far as you teaching Romans 8:30 in that way in, or around 1965, I doubt it.

      Like

  3. VLS's avatar VLS said, on February 6, 2012 at 10:46 AM

    verses is different from versus. and orthodoxy isn’t spelled orthadoxy. Just thought you would like to know.

    Bad spellers of the world untie!

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on February 6, 2012 at 2:00 PM

      VLS,

      When you don’t hold to the truth, all you can do is demean your opponents by pointing out 2 spelling errors in a 1700 word document. And by the way, a word search didn’t locate what you pointed out in the post. While I encourage my readers to point out grammatical errors in my writings, and they often do, I know your intentions aren’t to help me, but discredit me.

      Your other comment that attempts to carry forward the agenda of Randy and Jack to beat me down with circular reasoning and repetitious questions will not be posted, and like Jack and Randy—you have been spammed.

      Like


Leave a reply to gracewriterrandy Cancel reply