Ok, Let’s Go Over This Again: Crazy Truth
Sigh. Everywhere I turn in Christian circles these days, there is a presentation of Francis Chan’s video that displays God’s greatness in creation (actually, he has made several different ones with this same theme). The movies are impressive and awe inspiring (one was shown at Susan’s church three or four weeks ago). Franchise Chan is also a dynamic speaker who is very interesting to listen to; I would be willing to bet anything that nobody is found dozing while observing one of his presentations.
But what are the beliefs behind these videos and his charismatic personality? And why does it matter?
What is behind these videos is Chan’s belief that people will usually respond to God when they realize how awesome He is. If people don’t respond to God’s greatness, it’s because we have failed to show how amazing He is. This was the thesis of the video by Chan that Susan and I observed at her church; it was a gospel presentation that attempted to illicit a response based on realizing how great God is in comparison to us.
Specifically, it’s the belief that people are transformed, initially and progressively, by gazing upon God’s greatness / glory. John Piper, another who is in this camp and often quoted by Chan, calls this “beholding as a way of becoming.” In correlation, Piper has based Sunday morning worship at his church on what he calls “exaltation” in which the goal is to work the congregation into an emotional frenzy (“exhilaration”) over God’s glory. I believe that the “praise and worship” format of many churches today, especially reformed churches, now have this goal in mind.
So what? The “so what” is the Corinthian problem all over again where the primary goal of true corporate worship (edification: note Paul’s primary point in 1Cor 14) is replaced with emotionalism. Therefore, it is no surprise that Chan and Piper are part of the neo-Calvinism movement which has embraced Charismatics such as Joshua Harris and CJ Mahaney. The primary thrust of Piper’s ministry is Christian Hedonism, which makes joy a prerequisite for salvation (even before saving faith), and claims that any activity that is joyless is “stripped of its moral value.” Throughout the highly acclaimed book written by Chan, “Crazy Love,” he points to feelings as the way to determine if we are walking in truth. In regard to the question of whether we have been set free from the law or not, he asks, “Do you feel free in your Christian life” (“Crazy Love.” p. 102). On page 110, he claims that we know when we are loving God’s way because it “feels like love.” Ok, so what does love feel like? Throughout the book, Chan likens his definition of love to what we feel like when we are in love with our spouse or boyfriend / girlfriend. And love is not an act, it is a feeling that leads to acts, and the feelings of love can only be acquired through prayer ( p. 104[which we apparently always feel like doing]).
What else is behind this belief? Secondly, other than creation, Scripture is the other bookend to our endeavor to see God’s glory. However, the key is to use Scripture to see and understand Christ as a person (whatever that means), not anything Christ would tell us to do. In other words, Chan doesn’t believe the Scriptures are profitable for instruction. With very few exceptions, you will not find any biblical how-to (instruction in righteousness) in his book. Like creation, the Bible only serves to wow us in regard to the personhood of Christ, leading to a willful, joyful obedience because serving those who we are in awe of—is never a struggle. Supposedly. Chan says the following on page 102: “When we love, we’re free! We don’t have to worry about a burdensome load of commands, because when we are loving, we can’t sin.” Plainly, Chan does not believe the Bible defines love, feelings do. That is why the likes of Chan and Piper have to redefine how we use Scripture—because a literal rendering of Scripture reveals their teachings for what they are: ridiculous. Point in case, Proverbs 13:24;
“ Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.”
According to this passage, applying the rod to our children is an act of love. However, this “burdensome command” is often the reminder we need to love our children God’s way because the act is very unpleasant. But according to Piper and Chan, love should never be done from “mere duty,” so the assumption is that we should be bursting with joy while applying the rod to our children. I quoted this text in a Bible study last week and the class protested, saying it stated “spoil the child,” not “hate the child.” When we stopped and investigated, and discovered that the word was “hate,” the looks on their faces seemed to say, “Wow, that’s crazy truth.”
So, let’s go over this again; the prophets and apostles told us that false teachers will look good, sound good, and if you ever get near enough to Piper or Chan, I’m sure they smell good also. And, they also teach loads of good stuff, but as one writer once noted, “Satan will use a whole lake of truth to hide a pint of poison.” Truth about God’s creation—good. Distorting the use of God’s law in sanctification—bad.
paul
Weird, but True: Obedience is Love
John 14:15 has always provoked me to rumination: “If you love me, keep my commands.” Too simple, and it doesn’t compute. Christ is the Lord of lords and King of kings; therefore, it goes without saying that He wants to be obeyed, but kings usually don’t want love—they want respect, and demand obedience according to the laws of the land. The sentence is only seven words, but provokes all kinds of deep theological discussion. Could loving the creator of the universe really be that simple? Is He saying that we know that we love Him by watching our own life ( “If you love me, [you will] keep my commandments”), or is loving Him this way a choice? What does it look like? And what does it feel like? Could accepting this verse at face value get me in trouble by “trying to love God by my own efforts?” Weighty considerations, especially in our day.
Before we answer those questions, let’s look at the biblical correlation between obedience and love. First, Christ’s obedience to the Father is a major component of their love for each other. This is astounding, but no less true: “I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me, 31 but he comes so that the world may learn that I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me” (John 14:30,31). This is a deeply profound portion of Scripture. We see that evil in the world only serves God’s purposes, and in this case, to show the world that Christ loves the Father through His obedience to the Father’s will; namely, the cross. Likewise, evil comes into our life so that our love for the Father is shown through our obedience as well. Also, if obedience is a standard of love between the Father and the Son, what are the implications for us? That is definitely a rhetorical question.
Secondly, obedience is paramount in our relationship with the Son and the Father: “Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them” (John 14:23). “If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love” (John 15:10). Clearly, obedience is critical to being “shown” the Son and “remaining” in His love. There can be no legitimate relationship with God and His Son apart from Obedience. I do not believe that we have to obey to keep our salvation, but I do believe that a life pattern of obedience is indicative of a heart that loves God; it is also critical in regard to having assurance of salvation. That can be drawn from this passage and others such as 2Peter 1:10 and 1John 3:16-24.
I had a light bulb moment while counseling someone the other day. Our conversation incited me to think, “What’s the big deal? Everybody has to obey, I obey Susan all the time.” Then I said to myself, “Did I just say that?” Sure, do that, go to church and tell everyone that you obey your wife. However, the fact of the matter is that I rarely tell her,”no” when she asks me to do something for her. I do not always feel like it, and often there are other things I would rather be doing; so, why do I do it? Answer: love. It would seem that the very definition of love is self-sacrifice: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” God “gave His one and only Son.” While on the cross, Christ cried out, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). With love comes a plethora of emotions. Certainly, many times we are full of joy when we love, but agony often walks hand in hand with love, albeit temporarily.
So what’s my point? There is a very fine line between a love that submits to the needs of others and obedience, that’s my point. I would contend that the words are used interchangeably in the Bible and the Holy Spirit uses the word that best fits overall truth In context. Obedience, love, submission; practically the same thing. We are commanded to submit to the needs of others: “….submit to such people and to everyone who joins in the work and labors at it.” (1Cor 16:16). “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ”(Ephesians 5:21). Observe the very close correlation between love and obedience in Ephesians 5:24,25: “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.”
Yet, Philippians 2:8 states that Christ was “obedient to death—even death on the cross.” Wives submit the same way the church obeys Christ, and husbands should be obedient to self-sacrifice as Christ was accordingly. It’s mutual submission, and I contend that it is a fine line. Again, remember that God and the Son themselves set the example in their love for each other: “….but he comes so that the world may learn that I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me” (John 14:31). “If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love” (John 15:10).
Yes, I know, authority is in the mix here; but authority, for the most part, takes a backseat to love. After all, didn’t Christ say the greatest among us will be our servants? Didn’t God Himself wash the feet of the disciples? Christ came as a king, and indeed He is the King, but He primarily came to serve: “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).
My next point is this: the law is the standard for our love. “If you love me, keep my commands.” Theologians have done Christians little good by creating excessively wide dichotomies between “law,” “commands,” “teachings,” “law and the prophets,” “Sacred writings,” “Moses,” “Scripture,” “Ten Commandments”(not a biblical term), “Decalogue”(also not a biblical term), “word,” etc., etc., etc. These are all interchangeable terms used for the whole or specific parts of God’s closed cannon of Scripture, ie., the whole Bible. Good examples of this are Matthew 5 and Luke 24 where Christ uses many of these terms to refer to His word in the same discourse. Really, it only takes a child to argue this. Did the Ten Commandments come from God’s mouth? Well then, “Jesus answered, It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” Are the Ten Commandments in the closed cannon of Scripture? Well then, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” And this we can be sure of: the goal of all “teaching,” “rebuking,” “correcting,” and “training in righteousness” is LOVE!
To close on this point we can note Romans 8:7, “The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.” Notice the word “submit,” and the fact that an inability to submit to God’s law refers to the unregenerate. The Bible is the standard for love’s obedience.
Lastly, if we now consider some of my opening questions that have not yet been answered above, this love is not so simple after all. It requires a mutual submission in every direction and in every relationship. Regarding those who have no authority over us, we are still require to submit to their needs (1John 3:16-24). If Christ came to be a servant to the world, then how much more should we be also? Paul told the Corinthians they should seek to please all people: “Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33 even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved”(1Corinthians 10:32,33). The Bible is saturated with this whole idea of submitting to each other in love. Note Matthew 18:15-17;
“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”
The word used twice in verse 17 for “listen” is parakoo’o, which according to Strong’s Greek dictionary means the following: “To mishear, that is (by implication), to disobey.” This whole idea of humble submission to all is difficult for us to swallow, especially in American culture. It goes against the fallen mortality that we are still clothed in. To constantly submit/love, will at times be a joy, but will also be difficult. And yes, it will take effort, our effort, but it will be a loving act to please God and others in legitimate love relationships.
paul
Teenage Rebellion and Paul Tripp’s Broken-Down House
As some know, this blog has turned into, primarily, an apology against Gospel Sanctification which is the spawn of Sonship Theology. To hear many tell it, we are in days that hearken back to the reign of Josiah when the lost book of the Covenant was found in the temple. Though we haven’t lost the Bible per se, they claim the true gospel has been lost in the temple of our minds via Pharisaic teaching that we are supposed to exert our own effort in the spiritual growth process. Yes, the great sin of our day is “serving God in our own efforts,” not serving God in our own way. In fact, our own way is ok, “as long as our motive is love.” As Francis Chan says: “When you are loving, you can’t sin.” Don’t you know, Christ came to fulfill the law for us and active obedience is imputed to us like justification. As John Piper says, biblical commands should be seen as works that Christ has done for us, and thereby instilling thankfulness in our hearts with joy and praise following (“How to Use the Law of God Lawfully to Bear Fruit For God”).
I have never read “Age of Opportunity” by Paul David Tripp. He is a proponent of Gospel Sanctification (GS) and I have always assumed it was a GS application on teenage parenting. But lately, events in my life have driven home how scary that is. I presently have the opportunity to counsel a rebellious teenager. We will call him “Freddy,” and we will call his dad “Ken.” Look, I am just a lowly pilgrim trying to make my way in God’s kingdom like everyone else, and will tell you that I am no expert on teenage rebellion. So here I am, prayerfully trying to work my way through all of this. Why would I get involved? Simple: “If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him” ( James 1:5). Other reasons will be stated later in this post.
I don’t like the hefty problems of life like severe “mental illness” and such. Why? Because it casts doubt on hope, and our God is the God of great hope. There is always hope when my great God is on the throne. In the Old Testament we have a picture of life’s problems in the person of Goliath. There he was; huge, ugly, very frightening, and mocking God. That made David angry. In the same way, the huge problems in our life seem to be mocking God by softly whispering in our ears, “hopeless, hopeless, hopeless.” Situations with rebellious teens can seem hopeless because they (teens) are formidable warriors. They will even fight to the death. As a means of revenge against parents, they will often commit suicide, knowing that the fallout will more than likely destroy their parent’s marriage, and leave the household devastated / guilt ridden. How do I know this? That’s what teenagers who have been interviewed say:
“Most teens who attempt suicide report a rich fantasy around the event, a fantasy that includes being noticed after death by those who have ignored them, causing regret among those they feel have wronged them and teaching a lesson to those who have harmed them. When teens think of suicide they often feel that they will be able to watch what happens after their death. This fantasy is an example of how weak a grasp suicidal teens have on the reality of the situation. Far too many suicidal teens do not ever stop to consider the finality of the act of suicide. Because suicidal thoughts are often part of a recognition/revenge fantasy it is all too easy for the immature teen psyche to play down the severity of suicide” (http://teenadvice.about.com/library/weekly/aa120502c.htm).
Besides this, many parents fear their rebellious teenagers to the point of removing all weapons from the house and installing deadbolts on their bedroom doors to prevent ambushes in the middle of the night. Teenage rebellion subjects a household to constant darkness and turmoil. Often, there is only peace in the home when the rebellious teen is appeased.
Let me share what I have learned so far. I am strongly drawn to Ephesians 6:1-4 in all of this because it seems to be a rare and definitive statement in the Bible on child rearing:
“1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 ‘Honor your father and mother’ (this is the first commandment with a promise), 3 ‘that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.’ 4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”
An incident between Freddy and Ken brings verse 4A to life. Ken became frustrated with Freddy, and the reasons were far from trite (among many, serious disrespect towards the mother / wife by Freddy), but Ken’s intentions were to deliberately provoke Freddy to anger and even threatened him physically.
Ken was angry about the situation but Freddy’s attitude was flippant and he displayed no shame for the things he had done, so Ken provoked him. A father is the pastor of the home. Could you imagine going to church and seeing your pastor provoking a parishioner in the hallway? You would be horrified, as Ken was afterward in regard to his own behavior, and many tears were shed over this lapse. What should Ken have done instead? “Bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”
I am totally amazed by this verse of Scripture. You can hear all of the “yes, but what about___?” But it seems like this verse keeps answering back: “two things; discipline and instruction.” Let me further explain. In working on this counseling situation, I did some research on military schools. But then I began to think: “Most of these schools are Christian schools, and the parents are dropping their teenager off because, ‘we can’t handle him / her anymore.’ Then, you read all of the wonderful testimonies about how parents get there children back fixed and remodeled. But the Christian boarding schools have the same Bible that the parents have!” Something just didn’t smell right, so I dug deeper. Apparently, the “secret” to the success of these boarding schools is the belief that teens thrive and find happiness in a structured, balanced environment. But that’s “discipline!” There just doing what Ephesians 6:4 says to do!
Of course, there are a lot of biblical principles that fall under discipline and instruction, but the child’s role and the parent’s role are plainly stated. A biblical counselor once told me that all of his counseling with teens is based on verses 1-3. He also told me that according to his experience, 90% of teen problems are related to their relationship with parents. It’s simple, honoring parents is the gateway to blessings, as these verses plainly state. According to him, all teen counseling must focus on honoring the parents, and the rest will usually fall into place. However, it seems to me that any counseling in regard to this subject must include the parents and the teenager so both understand how this works together. This point brings me to the second reason I am taking on this task; most teen counseling involves meetings with the teenager alone. This is ill-advised because even if the rebellious teen tells the whole truth, they are not usually mature enough to assess the issues of life; it is impossible to effectively counsel someone without a truthful and accurate assessment of their life.
Back to Ken and Freddy. I clearly see what Ken did in 4A, and I also see what Ken isn’t doing in 4B. This is so huge in this situation that you can’t miss it. Freddy has no structure in his life other than school. He is not required to do any chores. He gets home from school and just does whatever he feels like doing. Other than school and some sports, his whole life is texting, gaming, watching TV, surfing the web, listening to heavy metal music, etc. He leaves messes everywhere he goes in the house and refuses to pickup after himself. His room is always a mess, and he contributes nothing to the household. Can one call this the “discipline of the Lord?” I’m thinking, “no.” If this is absent via Ken’s failure, could it be connected to the rebellion? I’m thinking, “yes.” Are rebellious teens, well, undisciplined ? Now, Ken does the “instruction” part well (4C). Freddy gets a steady flow of solid theology, but in the home, there is no application thereof. Hence, Christ’s dynamic of practical application that concludes the sermon on the mount in Matthew 7 is not in place; there is instruction, but no discipline:
24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”
Ken must lead his family differently; Freddy’s house is broken-down.
Since Freddy does whatever he wants at home, it would stand to reason that he would also begin to do whatever he wants in regard to school, and that’s what happened the other day. He announced to Ken that he wasn’t going to school because he didn’t feel like it. This has happened before, but this time, a course of action had already been established. Ken calmly asked Freddy to get ready for school several times. Upon continual refusal, Ken advised Freddy that the police would be called, but to no avail, so they were summoned. At this point, Freddy feigned a nervous breakdown which was an impressive display complete with convulsions. This was also anticipated, and Ken informed Freddy that he wasn’t buying the act. When the police arrived, Freddy was told that if he didn’t go to school he would be taken to a juvenile detention center. Freddy went to school.
The next morning, a peculiar thing happened. When Freddy was awakened for school, he immediately got up and dressed. For the first time in ten days, he ate breakfast. Actually, he devoured it like he was starved. Not only that, his demeanor was cheerful. Ken called a family meeting that night and presented a family contract based on Ephesians 6:1-4. Ken confessed his sin to Freddy concerning his failure to lead the home in the discipline of the Lord. He explained that “discipline” doesn’t just mean rules and punishment, it also includes entertainment ( as Tony Evans says: “We are free to play football because of its rules) and structure; in essence, balance. He explained the awesome concept of self-discipline not making the negative aspect of the Lord’s discipline necessary ( 1Corinthians 11: 30-32) as well as many other dynamics and elements of skillfully applying God’s word to life and the blessings that result (James 1:25). Ken also presented some instruction on how our conscience works with faith. In fact, Ken pointed out how happy Freddy was that morning, even after being forced to do the right thing! Freddy sheepishly agreed.
Oh yes, I can now hear the cat-cries from the peanut gallery. Ken is just making Freddy into a Pharisee. Ken is just teaching Freddy to clean the outside of the cup, etc., etc., add nausea. Only one problem. Ken attends a church where “the gospel” is heavily emphasized as an instrument of change. One of the favorite teachers propagated by the church is Francis Chan, who teaches that people will have a pure, deep desire to follow Christ if you simply show how great He is. Hence, all obedience will flow from being wowed by Christ, and thankfulness for His incomprehensible sacrifice. And if we sin when we don’t have that desire, oh well, we’re not saved by works anyway. In fact, it’s good when we sin because it “makes us more dependent on Christ.” Making an effort to obey supposedly produces “self-righteousness” or as Paul Tripp states it: “Christless activism.” At any rate, my apologies to the peanut gallery, a gospel-centered approach isn’t working here.
And this is probably the reason why: the disciples were with Christ face to face for three years. Did Christ continually wow them? I think you know the answer to that. When Christ confronted Peter in His resurrected body, do you really think he told Peter to display his love for Him through obedience so he would fail and be more dependent on Him? I think you know the answer to that as well. Christ spent forty days teaching the disciples before he ascended. What did He teach them and what did they come away with? Answer: “He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.” And, “Then they gathered around him and asked him, ‘Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?’” Throughout the Scriptures, as here, the opportunity to correct the disciples on the supposed crux of discipleship is passed over. There are just too many times, in fact, hundreds, where some other word should be replaced with “gospel.” Such as:
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and [continually showing forth the gospel] teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age”(Matthew 28).
I have a question. Teaching the wisdom of God and demonstrating how it brings peace to ones life whether they are saved or not isn’t the gospel? If God’s wisdom can’t produce a peaceful household, how can it save a soul? God’s wisdom clearly demonstrates the way of life and the way of death, and Moses pleaded with the children of Israel to “Choose life.” Clearly, the apostle Peter emphasized this fact in his first letter (3:1, 15,16).
This now brings me to Tripp’s book which doesn’t mention Ephesians 6:1-4 at all. This is most striking; a book on rearing children, whether teenagers or otherwise, that doesn’t mention this passage. Why would that be? First, the passage turns Tripp’s theology completely upside down by offering reward / incentive for doing what is right. This blows away the whole concept of all change being at “the heart level.” It is an outward enticement to encourage the heart to do what is right. Also, the apostle Paul emphasizes the point by quoting Moses. Ouch! This indicates that this principle has been in place since the beginning.
Secondly, GS depends heavily on the idea that the New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant completely by ushering in a modified Law or new Law. But Ephesians 2:12 makes being unregenerate synonymous with being alienated from the “covenants” (plural) of promise.” Then Paul connects this thought by making OT law applicable to sanctification. Therefore, the NC didn’t replace the old, but rather the NC, though better and different, has important OC elements built into it that are essential to spiritual growth. This is devastating to GS theology.
On page 76, Tripp writes that the Bible doesn’t convey wisdom in regard to raising teenagers, which is blatantly false as it is obvious that the word “children” in Ephesians 6:1 would include any unemancipated children or youth within the home. Therefore, Ephesians 6:1-3 applies directly to teens with priceless wisdom needed to rear them. In fact, efficacious, but nowhere to be found in “Age of Opportunity,” at least not by me after reading through the book twice.
Also, throughout the book, Tripp redefines “heart” to be something else other than what the Bible says it is. For the most part, in the Scriptures, “heart” is the mind, and the Bible defines it as the primary turf of our warfare with sin. I go into this in some detail here: https://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/doctrine/
Tripp doesn’t like that because if the mind is the primary turf of our warfare, objective application that could be construed as work, or efforts by us are made possible. Tripp believes that any effort by us to replace unbiblical thinking with biblical thinking is a denial of the gospel (How People Change, p.27).
Instead, Tripp presents the heart as a nebulous territory with various idols running about trying to hide from x-ray questions. Nebulous theology makes his theory of change possible.
Unless I missed this also, another biblical concept missing in AOO is corporal punishment. “Spare the rod, hate the child.” I am close friends with a couple who was counseled by a disciple of Paul Tripp. They informed me that whenever the subject was brought up in regard to their young children (not teenagers), the counselor became evasive. They also complained that there was a heavy emphasis on parental responsibility while insinuating that the actions of the children were only relevant from the perspective of the gospel (this is also heavily indicative of AOO). They eventually discontinued the counseling. Again, the idea that an outward application could facilitate inside change is an affront to Tripp’s theology. Neither is Tripp phased by the brazen contradictions to Scripture that follow. Because of what the Scriptures say about the importance of corporal punishment, its relationship to rearing teens is vitally important, especially in regard to thirteen-year-old’s who haven’t been reared in a Christian home.
Furthermore, AOO doesn’t address the fact that raising teens can be a life and death warfare. The book seems more suited for suburban Christianity than real life. I have to believe that parents dwelling in the turmoil and darkness of this warfare would find the book trite.
Paul Tripp proffers a child rearing that is gospel instruction only, and excludes “the discipline of the Lord.” Throughout the book, he chides discipline and promotes a “speaking to the heart.” Therefore, it is a hearing of the gospel, but a treatise against putting what is heard “into practice.” Therefore, his followers will not find the blessings of James 1:25, and their houses will be like the ones built upon the sand; broken – down.
paul
An Open Letter to Dr. Albert Mohler Jr.
Dr. Mohler,
Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Paul Dohse and I am a member of a Southern Baptist church in the Dayton, Ohio area. I also have the privilege of serving there as director of men’s ministry.
The purpose of this letter is the following: to request that you withdraw your association with Together for the Gospel (T4G) because the organization promotes a particular false doctrine. This letter will be posted on my blog as an open letter because several such letters to individuals and organizations have been ignored. In addition, it will make the continuance of my grievance to others within the Convention expedient as I am a layman with many other responsibilities.
I have no problem with Calvinism, but I cannot express in words how disappointed I am with you and others for turning a blind eye to grievous error from any individual who claims to be a Calvinist. Apparently, Calvinist nomenclature is a license to teach anything that one sees fit. As I continue to research this doctrine (not Calvinism) that is sweeping through Southern Baptist circles, at times it seems surreal that this ridiculous doctrine is being propagated in broad daylight, while you and others lend it your credibility. Because you are President over the “Flagship Seminary” of the SBC, I also fear that you have embraced this doctrine personally.
When I was a student at the WA Criswell Institute of Biblical Studies in the early eighties, we were taught to be leery of any doctrine that had a short history. Such is the case with the “gospel-driven life,” or Gospel Sanctification as some call it. In fact, my research indicates that this whole movement, as we know it today, was conceived by a professor of practical theology (Dr. Jack Miller) at Westminster Seminary, probably around 1980, and dubbed “Sonship Theology.” Yet, CJ Mahaney, John Piper, DA Carson, Tim Keller, and many others promote the idea that this doctrine has been the true gospel from the beginning, and God is using the “New Calvinism” movement to reveal the “unadjusted gospel” in our day.
Many teaching this doctrine today were mentored by Jack Miller; such as, Tim Keller and David Powlison. Jack Miller is the one who coined the phrase, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” In any case, Gospel Sanctification and Sonship are identical. Dr. Jay E. Adams wrote a book to protest the doctrine in 1999. I would like to use quotes from that book as a way to describe the basics of the doctrine:
“This teaching that appeals to Christians who are failing to live as they ought maintains that most of the church has been sadly in error by viewing the gospel merely as the way in which one is saved from the penalty of sin; instead, it ought to be viewed also as the fundamental dynamic for living the Christian life.”
“It claims that a person can change this sad state of affairs by continuing to preach the gospel to himself and by repenting and believing over and over again. It teaches that not only justification, but also sanctification, is by faith [alone] in the good news.”
“The problem with Sonship is that it misidentifies the source of sanctification (or the fruitful life of the children of God) as justification. Justification, though a wonderful fact, a ground of assurance, and something never to forget, cannot produce a holy life through strong motive for it.”
“Certainly, all of us may frequently look back to the time when we became sons and rejoice in the fact, but there is no directive to do so for growth, or even an example of this practice, in the New Testament….The true reminder of the good news about Jesus’ death for our sins is the one that he left for us to observe-the Lord’s supper (‘Do this in remembrance of Me’).”
Adams also said the following in another publication: “Aberrations of the faith found in such movements as Sonship should be pointed out and rejected. These movements – both large and small – constantly plague the church” (Jay E. Adams, “Hope for the New Millenium,” Timeless Texts, Woodruff, SC, 2000, p.44).
A cursory observation of statements made at the 2010 T4G conference would easily identify Gospel Sanctification (the supposed “unadjusted gospel”) with Sonship Theology. Furthermore, many should be wary of the “unadjusted” gospel’s unorthodox phraseology: repentance is now “deep repentance”; obedience is now “new obedience”; church discipline is now “redemptive church discipline”; and progressive sanctification is really “progressive justification.”
There is a controversy concerning the influx of Calvinism into the SBC, and rightfully so because the soundness of a doctrine is often determined by where it ends up, and in this case, “New Calvinism.” New Calvinist seem to be in a contest to see who can devise the newest / profound angle on this doctrine. Recently, Tim Keller suggested that a sound profession of faith must include “repentance from good works.” Constantly insinuated by others aforementioned, but specifically stated by Paul David Tripp, is the idea of the total depravity of the saints. He plainly states in How People Change that Christians remain spiritually dead. And, ”When you are dead, you can’t do anything.” John Piper has stated that he went on his recent sabbatical to eliminate several different “species of idols” that he discovered in his heart, and mentioned Tim Keller and Paul Tripp as being knowledgeable about these things. In How People Change, Tripp states that these idols of the heart can be discovered by asking ourselves “x-ray questions.”
Dr. Mohler, is this what Southern Baptist believe? That we grow spiritually by reciting the gospel to ourselves everyday? That every verse in the Bible is about justification? That Christians are totally depraved? That we should go idol hunting in our hearts using x-ray questions? That sanctification is by faith alone? And not previously mentioned: that colaboring with God in sanctification is a false gospel because “any separation of justification and sanctification is an abomination”? Like Tullian Tchividjian, should we endeavor to be accused of teaching antinomianism for the purpose of accreditation regarding the “true gospel”? Should we practice redemptive church discipline which often results in the excommunication of Christians for non-attendance and not tithing?
I tell you the truth Dr. Mohler, at times I wake up in the morning and wonder if this is all a dream. After all, you are, according to some, the “reigning intellectual of the evangelical movement in the U.S.” So, obviously, it’s difficult for me to believe all of this is going on. I know some say that the SBC is on life support, but Dr. Kevorkian in the form of New Calvinism is not the answer. I am asking you to stand for the truth, or publicly state that you believe this doctrine without hiding behind the word, “gospel.”
Because only truth sanctifies (John 17:17),
Paul M. Dohse
leave a comment