“Christless Christianity”: Michael Horton’s Lawless Trilogy
“Does this mean Michael Horton believes that synergism in sanctification is a false gospel? Sure it does, what else can be surmised? Does this explain why he thinks he is on the cutting edge of a new reformation? I would imagine.”
See no law, hear no law, speak no law. Such is “Christless Christianity,” published by Dr. Michael Horton in 2008. He presents the book as a treatise exposing the supposed fact that the church is awash in a “Christless” evangelicalism. After suffering through page after page of a nuanced semblance of orthodoxy masking his antinomian bent, his real thesis, and what drives his “Modern Reformation” organization, is stated on page 62.
See No Law
On page 62, he states the following:
“Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both.”
Encompassed in this statement is Dr. Horton’s position on “faith,” “practice,” and how we “communicate” those things to the world. Let’s look at the “faith” part. First, he says that both the unregenerate and regenerate are dependent on the “free grace” of God disclosed in “the gospel” “at every moment.” He goes on to say that the gospel (ie., the free grace of justification) does two things: gives life to the spiritually dead (“unregenerate”) and “continually give[s] life to Christ’s flock” (ie., believers).
Secondly, believers only receive this life “every time WE encounter the gospel afresh.” Therefore, the relationship of the gospel to unbelievers and believers is no different. We are raised to life and progressively transformed in the exact same way. Horton says this happens at “every moment”; therefore, people are raised to life by the gospel (justification by faith alone) and transformed by the gospel (justification by faith alone), and only “each time” they encounter the gospel “afresh.”
Thirdly, what gospel gives life to the unregenerate? Well, Horton says plainly that if believers leave that same gospel, “you loose both.” Both what? Answer: sanctification and justification. Horton says you get “both” in the bargain because according to him they are both the same. In other words, what orthodox Christians normally consider to be sanctification, is really progressive justification. Ever heard of that? Didn’t think so. Does this mean Michael Horton believes that synergism in sanctification is a false gospel? Sure it does, what else can be surmised? Does this explain why he thinks he is on the cutting edge of a new reformation? I would imagine.
Fourthly, we also see another tenet of antinomian (see no law) doctrine (specifically, gospel sanctification) in this same excerpt: “….but the Spirit working through the gospel.” Note “but.” But what? The giving of life: “….nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life….” In other words, the Spirit only works through the gospel. Therefore, the Scriptures are only used by the Spirit to impart life when the Bible is used in regard to showing forth justification, or the gospel. This is the redemptive-historical use of the Bible. Again, a gospel sanctification tenet. Hence, using the Bible for spiritual instruction is supposedly taboo, and in fact, law-keeping (as though that’s wrong for believers to do in the first place). Like many other proponents of antinomian doctrines, Horton’s teachings will contain a lot of very good what (descriptive information [which the Bible has in glorious abundance]), but rarely any how (prescriptive), and I contend to the detriment of many. They will have a glorious picture of heaven in their minds as they die on the vine, being hearers of the word (they would say gospel) only and not doers, “deceiving themselves.”
Fifthly, we see Horton’s mystical personification of Christ and the gospel in this part of the excerpt: “Start with Christ (that is, the gospel)….” Making the nebulous concept of the person of Christ synonymous with “the gospel,” and also paramount in interpretation rather than what Christ objectively instructs, serves antinomians well. Their writings are often peppered with this kind of subjective rhetoric, but it always has a purpose. An example is making “the gospel” synonymous with “the word” so they can say that every verse in the Bible is about the gospel, and therefore serving that purpose only (progressive justification) for believers and unbelievers alike.
Lastly, If Horton, like the antinomian doctrine that he propagates, sees no difference in justification and sanctification, then the law will play the exact same role for believers as it does unbelievers. In fact, this is what Horton believes. However, the following excerpt from “Creeds and Deeds: How Doctrine Leads to Doxological Living” reveals how difficult it is to nail down Horton on this aspect:
“It might seem controversial to identify doctrine with ‘gospel’ and deeds with ‘law,’ especially since these days we often hear calls to ‘live the gospel.’ However, the gospel is not an imperative but an indicative; not a program to follow, but an announcement to welcome for our own salvation and to herald for the salvation of the world. Does that mean that we do not have imperatives or that we do not follow Christ? As Paul would say, ‘May it never be!’ It simply means that we have to distinguish indicatives and imperatives. The law gives us something to do, and the gospel gives us something to believe. Christians are no less obligated to obey God’s commandments in the New Testament than they were in the Old Testament, but they are commandments not promises. The imperatives drive us to despair of self-righteousness, the indicatives hold up Christ as our only Savior, and then the imperatives become the ‘reasonable service’ of believers ‘in view of God’s mercies.’ There is a lot of wisdom to the order of the Heidelberg Catechism: Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude. The commandments tell us what we are to do; the gospel tells us what God has done.”
This excerpt reminds me of the John Kerry controversy during the 2004 presidential election: “I was for it before I was against it.” First, because of Horton’s progressive justification view, it is not possible for him to believe that the law has a role in sanctification anymore than it would in justification, other than a schoolmaster that leads us to Christ for justification. Though he makes statements above that seem to indicate that he believes the law has a role in the spiritual growth process, that’s not the case, it’s not logically possible when his positions are considered. Consequently, we can clearly see the statements that match progressive justification: “The imperatives drive us to despair of self-righteousness, the indicatives hold up Christ as our only Savior….” The law shows unbelievers their need for Christ, but please note that the Scriptures never tell us that God’s commands / imperatives drive Christians to despair; the extreme opposite is true. In fact, Christians are promised blessings for applying God’s word to their life (James 1:25).
In addition, Horton makes it clear in the first excerpt that the Holy Spirit only imparts life “through the gospel”(“….nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel”) ; then, he says in the second excerpt that “…. the gospel is not an imperative but an indicative [indicative: indicative of God’s work, not ours]….” But throughout Scripture, we see clearly that in fact, the Holy Spirit does use imperatives to impart life. Examples such as Matthew 4:4 and John 17:17 (see endnote number 3) are abundant throughout the whole Bible. Another glaring contradiction to Scripture is Horton’s suggestion in the second excerpt that commands “are not promises.”
Michael Horton’s gospel is a no-Lordship, antinomian gospel because obeying biblical commands is synonymous with works justification. Furthermore, he believes that biblical commands are indicative of God’s work, not ours. I delve into the subject of imperatives / indicatives in two other essays in this same section.
Hear No law
How does all of this effect corporate worship? Supposedly, we are not to see any law in our progressive justification, but what about when we come together to worship? Should we then hear the law? Michael Horton says the following on pages 189 -191:
“ God gathers his people together in a covenantal event to judge and to justify, to kill and to make alive. The emphasis is on God’s work for us – the Father’s gracious plan, the Son’s saving life, death, and resurrection, and the Spirit’s work of bringing life to the valley of dry bones through the proclamation of Christ. The preaching focuses on God’s work in the history of redemption from Genesis through Revelation, and sinners are swept into this unfolding drama. Trained and ordained to mine the riches of Scripture for the benefit of God’s people, ministers try to push their own agendas, opinions, and personalities to the background so that God’s Word will be clearly proclaimed. In this preaching the people once again are simply receivers – recipients of grace. Similarly, in baptism, they do not baptize themselves; they are baptized. In the Lord’s Supper, they do not prepare and cook the meal; they do not contribute to the fare; but they are guests who simply enjoy the bread of heaven. As this gospel creates, deepens, and inflames faith, a profound sense of praise and thanksgiving fills hearts, leading to good works among the saints and in the world throughout the week. Having been served by God in the public assembly, the people are then servants of each other and their neighbors in the world.”
As in the process of spiritual growth, corporate worship focuses totally on the gospel. Notice that Horton refers to believers as a “valley of dry bones” who have come to be made alive by the Spirit’s work through the gospel. This is another tenet of the neo-antinomianism of our day, the total depravity of the saints. In a contrasting scenario (or how not to have corporate worship) on page 191, Horton adds the following: “The expectation that God was actually visiting his people to apply the benefits of Christ’s victory to sinners – both believers and unbelievers – was less obvious than the sense that we were primarily regrouping to get our marching orders.” Note that believers are called “sinners,” and also note the construction of the sentence which would indicate that believers and unbelievers are the same kind of sinners who both gather together for the same purpose, the gospel.
Speak no Law
Regarding evangelism, the following excerpt is taken from pages 117-119 of “Christless Christianity.” This is a long excerpt, but necessary:
“The question for us all is whether we believe the church is the place where the gospel is regularly proclaimed and ratified to Christians as well as non-Christians. Like many Emergent Church leaders, Kimball invokes a famous line from Francis of Assisi that I also heard growing up in conservative evangelicalism: “Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary, use words.” Kimball goes on to say, “Our lives will preach better than anything we can say. “12 (We encountered a nearly identical statement from Osteen in the previous chapter.) If so, then this is just more bad news, not only because of the statistics we have already seen, which evidence no real difference between Christians and non- Christians, but because despite my best intentions, I am not an exemplary creature. The best examples and instructions—even the best doctrines—will not relieve me of the battle with indwelling sin until I draw my last breath. Find me on my best day— especially if you have access to my hidden motives, thoughts, and attitudes—and I will always provide fodder for the hypocrisy charge and will let down those who would become Christians because they think I and my fellow Christians are the gospel. I am a Christian not because I think that I can walk in Jesus’s footsteps but because he is the only one who can carry me. I am not the gospel; Jesus Christ alone is the gospel. His story saves me, not only by bringing me justification but by baptizing me into his resurrection life.
Conformity to Christ’s image (sanctification) is the process of dying to self (mortification) and living to God (vivification) that results from being regularly immersed in the gospel’s story of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. Another way of putting it is dislocation (from Adam and the reign of sin and death) and relocation (in Christ). That my life is not the gospel is good news both for me and for my neighbors. Because Christ is the Good News, Christians as well as non-Christians can be saved after all. For those who know that they too fall short of the glory that God’s law requires—even as Christians who now have a new heart that loves God’s law—the Good News is not only enough to create faith but to get us back on our feet, assured of our standing in Christ, ready for another day of successes and failures in our discipleship.
We do not preach ourselves but Christ. The good news—not only for ourselves, but for a world (and church) in desperate need of good news—is that what we say preaches better than our lives, at least if what we are saying is Christ’s person and work rather than our own. The more we talk about Christ as the Bible’s unfolding mystery and less about our own transformation, the more likely we are actually to be transformed rather than either self-righteous or despairing. As much as it goes against our grain, the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for justification and sanctification. The fruit of faith is real; it’s just not the same as the fruit of works-righteousness.
Yes, there is hypocrisy, and because Christians will always be simultaneously saint and sinner, there will always be hypocrisy in every Christian and in every church. The good news is that Christ saves us from hypocrisy too. But hypocrisy is especially generated when the church points to itself and to our own “changed lives” in the promotional materials. Maybe non-Christians would have less relish in pointing out our failures if we testified in word and deed to our need and God’s gift for sinners like us. If we identified the visibility of the church with the scene of sinners gathered by grace to confess their sins and their faith in Christ, receiving him with open hands, instead of with our busy efforts to be the gospel, we would at least beat non-Christian critics to the punch. We know that we are sinners. We know that we fall short of God’s glory. That’s exactly why we need Christ. I know that many of these brothers and sisters would affirm that we are still sinners and that we still need Christ, but it sure seems to be drowned out by a human-centered focus on our character and actions.
Kimball writes that the “ultimate goal of discipleship .. . should be measured by what Jesus taught in Matthew 22:37-40: `Love the Lord with all your heart, mind, and soul.’ Are we loving him more? Love others as yourself. Are we loving people more?”13 I was raised in conservative evangelicalism on this same diet of sermons that ended with a question like this one. A truly radical change in our approach would be to proclaim Christ as the one who fulfilled this law in our place, bore its sentence, and now freely gives us his absolution. Only then, ironically, are we truly liberated to love again. For all of the Emergent Church movement’s incisive critiques of the megachurch model, the emphasis still falls on measuring the level of our zeal and activity rather than on immersing people in the greatest story ever told. It may be more earnest, more authentic, and less consumeristic, but how different is this basic message from that of Joel Osteen, for example? Across the board in contemporary American Christianity, that basic message seems to be some form of law (do this) without the gospel (this is what has been done).”
Really, I have to admit the argument is very attractive. It definitely takes the pressure off of us. There is no way we are going to be perfect anyway, so why not emphasize the works of Christ rather than our own? Get people focused on Christ rather than us; why would you want Christ and the gospel represented by our best efforts? However, before I continue, I will take exception to being compared to Joel Olsteen because I believe in an effort on our part to represent Christ by our good behavior. I think a little more than that separates me and others from the likes of Joel Olsteen. But let’s be honest here, in light of what Horton says above; “What does the Scriptures say?”:
“Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives”(1Peter 3:1,2).
Obviously, Peter is well aware that wives will never have a perfect testimony; but regardless, his counsel to wives is clearly stated. This plainly contradicts Horton’s premise in every way possible.
Also, didn’t Christ say something about letting “your” light shine before men, so that God would be glorified? Furthermore, in regard to our efforts at good behavior according to the Scriptures, is that really some kind of effort to “be the gospel” rather than “adorning” the doctrine of God as Paul instructed us to do? (Titus 2:10).
The apostles made it clear that the last days would be marked by shrewd attempts to undermine God’s law. Frankly, I am leery of any teaching that seems to devalue the upholding of God’s law by our Christian walk. I also recommend caution towards those who claim to uphold God’s law by saying He (Christ) does all the obeying for us.
Even if they don’t come right out and say it, they may talk against everything that would prevent such a conclusion, and therefore teaching it by default. But the bottom line is the following: if the same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us, and Christ said that we are sanctified by the word; and certainly He did say that as recorded in John 17:17, then every word in the Bible must be about justification, or what God has done and not anything we could possibly do, being a gospel affair. Furthermore, if we are sanctified by the gospel which is God’s work alone, we may have no more role in spiritual growth than we did in the gospel that saved us. The Scriptures are clear; no person is justified by works of the law. Is that not the gospel? Therefore, when the antinomians speak of obedience, it should be apparent that they are not speaking of our obedience, even though they allow us to assume otherwise.
paul
Freedom Road: Part 1; Genesis 1:1-5
“This is very uncharacteristic of how men write and contains concepts that men could never invent.”
A hermeneutic is a method of interpretation. For God’s child, His intended hermeneutic for us is demonstrated in the very first sentences of Scripture. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Statement of fact, no explanation, no apologetics to make the case. The very first sentence in the Bible is authoritative and assumes superintention for the rest of the book.
Secondly, its truth is plainly stated, and separated from God’s mystery. God’s servant is to carefully observe the details and draw truth accordingly without presuming anything. We also see another interpretive tool meant for God’s people that excludes the necessity of knowing what the Hebrew word for “day” means: “And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.” So, “day” here obviously means one solar day. Therefore, God’s word is to be interpreted literally and taken at face value. God also elaborates and confirms the literal meaning.
God is glorified when His children use the brains they are given. There are going to be truths that are difficult to understand. But God never intended His word to be overly difficult to understand, and certainly, God’s children are not to be dependent on scholars. This is clear from Acts 17:11 where we have the Bereans confirming the teachings of one of the greatest Bible scholars of all time, the apostle Paul. What about allegory, symbolism, and parables in the Bible? How do we know when to apply those principles to interpretation? Well, the Bible usually tells us when that’s the case. It is my contention that the Bible contains its own rules for interpretation. For instance, in Galatians 4:24 we read, “Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.” In Matthew chapter 13 we read the following:
Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” 37 He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. 40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age.
Regardless of the fact that our Lord explains this parable in no uncertain terms, various contrary interpretations abound from the supposed scholars of our day. And even in regard to the complexity of the book of Revelation, our Lord gives clear methods of interpretation and interpretive keys:
19 Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this. 20 As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches (Rev. 1:19,20).
And angels as well….
6 And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. When I saw her, I marveled greatly. 7 But the angel said to me, “Why do you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman, and of the beast with seven heads and ten horns that carries her (Rev. 17:6,7).
Regardless of clear interpretation from our Lord and holy angels, the Gnostics and self-aggrandizing academiacs of this day defile our sanctification with their arrogant musings. Some, like Francis Chan, describe us as “clay vessels struggling to describe this vast treasure.” Hardly. Our Lord wants us to understand—that’s important to Him. He wants us to be free with the truth found in the perfect law of liberty (John 8:32, James 1:25).
Everywhere throughout the Scriptures, they teach us how to interpret them. Matthew 4:4 teaches us that in some way, ALL Scripture contributes to our spiritual growth. 2Timothy 3:16,17 teaches this as well. To the contrary, many in our day have bought into the idea that the study of last things (eschatology) is “less relevant” than “the gospel” and is “secondary truth.” Yet, Paul said that those who have hope in regard to eschatological truth “purify themselves” and “comfort one another” (1John 3:2,3; 1Thess. 5:11).
Yet another example among many is the unique hermeneutic laid forth by the Holy Spirit for Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. It states that Christ “opened His mouth [perhaps an illusion to Matthew 4:4] and taught them, saying….” What does it mean when you are being taught? When you go into any kind of classroom for the purpose of being taught, and that is the goal, all things needed to accomplish that goal are assumed. His audience for that sermon was, for the most part, the uneducated peasants of that day. And they were “taught”—past tense. The Sermon on the Mount is to be taken literally, and at face value. Trust me, these people knew nothing of New Covenant Theology; or for that matter, the vileness of it all, or anything regarding deep theological matters of interpretation. The hermeneutic for that sermon was common sense, period.
Furthermore, because the Bible interprets itself, another big question is solved; especially in regard to new believers: “Where is the best place to start?” Answer: “In the beginning.” Because the Bible interprets itself, a study of the book of Genesis will also cover the rest of the Bible. When I was a new believer, other Christians chuckled at the fact that I didn’t follow the usual churchy cliché of “starting in the book of John because it is about the gospel.” ALWAYS counsel a new believer to start in the beginning, and then take the opportunity to disciple by showing how the old interprets the new and vice versa. And where do we get that? Again, from the Bible itself (Matthew 13:16,17, 51,52; 1Peter 1:10-12). In Matthew 13:51,52, Jesus, while stating that what He was saying at that time was the new—was also stating that the old was necessary also. What is more obvious than the fact that the book of Revelation cannot be fully interpreted without many Old Testament books; particularly, Daniel and Ezekiel. And for that matter, Genesis as well. This is why theologies such as New Covenant Theology cannot withstand biblical hermeneutics. It also reveals how teachings like Geerhardus Vos’ “Biblical Theology” were forged with the very fires of hell.
With this in mind, let us look at Genesis 1:1-5:
1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
If one listens to the theological Timothy Learys of our day, these first verses are supposedly about the gospel. Go figure. Anybody see “gospel” here? Supposedly, God created the earth as a chaotic void (representative of man and his devices) so He could then bring forth light in the midst of “chaos” as a way to “show forth the gospel.” Anybody see “chaos” here? Since when does dark + void + water = chaos?
If people would just shut up and listen to the Holy Spirit, something astounding is going on here. In the beginning, God created the Earth, and the following verses are what He created first. So what do we have? Thus far: darkness, and water, in a void and without a form, and then God adds light. So what we have now is darkness and light as one (what in the world would that look like?!), suspended in a void with a body of water that has one side (“the face of the deep” [probably all of the water that is now on the Earth]). This isn’t a picture of man, this is God’s majesty and mystery on display. How can light and darkness be one and the same? Add this gargantuan mass of water with a surface, and without form elsewhere, and what you have is a spectacle that cannot be recreated in any kind of illustration. In addition, God offers no explanation for this, but rather states it as fact. This is very uncharacteristic of how men write and contains concepts that men could never invent. Note verse four: “And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.” Obviously, if the light and darkness were not one, He wouldn’t have separated them. One can create all kinds of theories about what God was supposedly symbolizing in these verses, but I assume the light and the darkness being one causes most of the models (if not all of them) to break down on that point. One wonders if that was intentional on God’s part.
Such was the first day of creation. The first five verses create many questions that only God can answer. Did He create darkness in the first day? It would seem so, because He gives both light and darkness their names in verse 5. Was water already present before the creation of the earth? Perhaps, we have no indication here that water was created. But if light and darkness were created, does that mean there was no light and darkness before the creation of the Earth? And what in the world do the two look like as one?
Yes, the wonderment of our great Father. We stand in awe of Him, do we not?
How ironic that those who approach the Bible literally are often accused of being “overly simplistic.” Really? Seeing these verses as gospel seems more simplistic to me, if not downright silly. Not only that, please do not mess up my present condition of being awestruck by God’s majesty with another boring 7-11 praise song. That’s seven verses about the gospel repeated eleven times.
paul
Freedom Road: Introduction
If our Lord came back today, things wouldn’t be much different. I firmly believe this because of what I read in the Sermon on the Mount. Like today, the theological brainiacs of that era were saying that Christ came to abolish the law (Matthew 5:17).
Something else would be the same as well. He wouldn’t even meet with the academic theological brain trust of our day. I’m sure they would be incredulous in even considering it, but Christ would not seek them out, nor would he agree to make an appointment with them. Like the Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, and Lawyers of that day, they would have to catch up to him in the ghetto and wait their turn. If Christ stopped by in April, one can only imagine the perplexed looks on the faces of Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, and CJ Mahaney when Jesus fails to appear with them at this year’s T4G Conference.
We are in the same kind of crisis today that was present then: the opinions of theologians ruled the day. Saints were reading the Scriptures through the established prisms created by men (notice how many Sunday Schools and Bible studies are based on periodicals and popular Christian books of our day). The apostles and the common people were shocked at our Lord’s plenary dismissal of the theological giants of that day:
And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes (Matthew 7:28,29).
Then the disciples came and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?” (Matthew 15:12).
And when he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching, and said, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” (Matthew 21:23).
Truly, we are a church culture enslaved by the musings of men who lust for worship from the church peasantry. Their clamoring of compromise to be invited to the next big gig is shamefully obvious. And has anybody noticed how many Scripture references appear in 200+ pages of the most popular Christian books of our day? Forgotten is the fact that our Lord is speaking directly to us in His word. And we are not only born again into completely new creatures, he has also given us an indwelling Illuminator, Counselor, and Helper. This emphasis is conspicuously missing from the theological rock stars of our day. What could be more obvious than their own wonderment of what we would do without them?
I have learned 90% of what I know that matters during two major trials in my life. In the second, God has shown me how dependent I have been on the opinions of men in my understanding of truth. So now I embark on a journey with just me, the Holy Spirit, and God’s word. I intend to start at the very beginning, Genesis 1:1, and these will also be devotions for my family. Please comment, for you can also add fruit to this endeavor. But there is but one rule: share what God has taught you from these passages and DO NOT quote dead scholars or live ones!
Here I go. And I am free. Teach me Lord, because only truth sanctifies.
paul
The Impressive Compass Bible Church and Their Future Apostasy
“Ministries are in their greatest danger when things are going well.”
I am encouraged about one thing this week. I remember a pastor asking me about Compass Bible church’s pastor/teacher Mike Fabarez four weeks ago: “Hey Paul, what do you think about this guy? He really seems to get it.” I remember thinking after reading the email: “What? Are you kidding! This guy is great! How could you be such a pessimist? I thought I was the one who sees this doctrine behind every bush!” Reflected in the pastor’s use of “seems” is his realization of how subtle this doctrine is. That’s encouraging; some get it, but Fabarez is not one of them.
As any reader here knows, I have been vigorously promoting the “Aggressive Sanctification Conference” hosted by Compass Bible Church that took place this past weekend. I even contemplated flying out there for the conference. Susan and I watched the conference together on live video stream. We were greatly encouraged by what we heard for the most part, but throughout the conference, we both perceived some red flags. Before I elaborate, let me tell you what happened in the final message of the conference by Compass elder Bobby Blakey. It was practically a full-blown New Calvinist sermon. In fact, the primary target of Fabarez’s criticism, Tullian Tchividjian, would have fully agreed with it.
Blakey clearly presented the following thesis in his message: in essence, “Yes, we need to be aggressive and all of these imperatives we are learning are awesome! Ya man, aggressive sanctification rules! And I am going to show you how to kick butt from the fourth commandment! You see man, like, we need a day of rest so we can contemplate the gospel and how great God is, and how little we are, like, we are just grasshoppers. Then that empowers us and invigorates us so that Jesus can do His work….[and don’t miss this]….”through us.’” Missing was the balance that reminds us that Jesus will not be judging His own works at the Bema Seat. Missing were the biblical words, “colaborers,” and “Helper.”
Blakey’s thesis also strongly suggested an “invigoration” that is always present with our works as a result of taking a day to meditate on God’s greatness and what he has done for us through the gospel. This element of his message could have just as well been preached by John Piper himself. Missing was the Apostle Paul’s description of how he served God through a multifaceted array of emotions, weaknesses, and circumstances. Missing was Christ’s agony in His obedience to the cross as one who knows the Father as Himself. In addition, Blakey’s rendition of the exodus to make this point could have just as easily been penned by Graeme Goldsworthy. The whole message reeked of New Calvinism. And shockingly, he implemented a New Calvinist staple to further his point foisted on the book of Ephesians: the indicative/imperative hermeneutic which is a mainstay of Gospel Sanctification and Sonship Theology. I sat dumbfounded and shell-shocked.
New Calvinists have no problem with aggressive sanctification whatsoever, just so it all goes through the cross first and is ALL performed by Jesus “through us.” Apparently, Christ misspoke and really meant to say, “Good contemplating my little grasshopper…,” instead of, “Well done faithful servant.” The Conference started with a message by Fabarez who apologized for being an apologist by erecting his upstart Aggressive Sanctification blog. He said it wasn’t his “forte” and he didn’t enjoy it at all. He obviously wanted to make sure everybody knew that he is above the fray. Nevertheless, his contention against the fusion of justification and sanctification was outstanding, but over-simplified. Most New Calvinists will have it for lunch, especially since nobody knows who the New Calvinists are because as Fabarez mentioned, he doesn’t like to name names. This is like the aids epidemic that flourished between 1969 and 1979 because it didn’t have an identity. Somehow, New Calvinism doesn’t pose as much of a danger. Apparently, it’s like catching a cold—no need to get ugly about it and start naming names.
The second message was by associate pastor Pete Lasutschinkow. Compass’ website states that he studied biblical counseling under Jay Adams at Westminster Seminary. That’s good if it was the only reason he was there at the time. The message was outstanding and very Adamsesque. He cited a lack of leadership among men as the greatest danger to the Christian family today, but I have news for him; teaching that elders have more authority in the home than the husband—and one spouse believing in synergistic salvation constitutes a mixed marriage is not helpful either (as others such as New Calvinists teach).
Other than Blakey, another one of Fabarez’s boy-elders, Lucas Pace, started out strong by describing obstacles to discipleship. Susan and I took notes vigorously, but then he got into framing disobedience via David Powlison’s Heart Theology which is the counseling application of Sonship Theology. The Bible never frames misplaced priorities in regard to idols in the heart. Again, another example of New Calvinist leaven permeating Compass’ eldership.
Therefore, Compass is destined to go the way of ministries like NANC, Coral Ridge, Grace Community Church, and Clearcreek Chapel. Leadership always thinks it can toy with a little bit of leaven. Things are going good for Compass right now, but like Dr. John Street when he was at Clearcreek Chapel, Fabarez is asleep at the switch. Ministries are in their greatest danger when things are going well. When John Street allowed Powlison’s Heart Theology into Clearcreek Chapel’s NANC training program, that was the beginning of the end—as an elder, I saw it happen with my own eyes. Fabarez is well on his way to being a mega-sellout like John MacArthur Jr. unless he reins in his boy-elders, but let me tell you why that’s not going to happen.
I have recently learned how our present church culture is dominated with the neo-evangelicalism that evangelicals were decrying in the 60’s. Basically, neo-evangelicalism rejected biblical separatism. From it, truism’s like, “All truth is God’s truth”; You can’t throw out the baby with the bathwater [even though the baby is a Canaanite]; Don’t be apologetic, focus on the “truth” and the rest will fall in place [kindred to Fabarez’s approach at the conference]; take off the shelf what is good, and leave the rest there; etc.
Hogwash.
And this is the reason Compass will go the way of all the others—they don’t get it: “sanctification” means to “set apart.” And obviously, they are not aggressively setting apart. They allowed the spirits of the very doctrine they decry to speak throughout the conference!
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment