Hi, My Name is Amy—I’m a Sinner
The opening line of an author under the tab, “about” propagating “gospel-centered” theology (ie., antinomianism, Sonship Theology, New Calvinism, Gospel contemplation) reminds me of the infamous introductions at AA meetings: “Hi, my name is Bob—I’m an alcoholic ‘Hi Bob.’” Amy Engle, the author of A Voice Crying Out blog (apparently because we are desperate rather than those who are much more than conquers through Jesus Christ) states it this way: “I’m Amy. I was born in sin. In sin, my mother conceived me. I have broken every law of GOD and I deserve the full extend of His just wrath against me.” Hi Amy.
I take this approach because after continual hounding by readers and my wife, I have finally seen it. What? Our sinfulness has become reason for boasting in order to make much of God and his grace—not us. Think about it: what is really the difference between that and making much of sin “so that grace may abound”? And if all we talk about is our sin in order to lift God up, It is hard for me to believe that actual sin acts would be seen as any big deal. In fact, seems like they would serve to deepen such convictions. The one that causes Susan to harp (because she is an angel) is what she experienced in her own life. She was saved at an early age and took following the Lord in obedience seriously. Growing up, she suffered through testimony after testimony of converts harping about how sinful they were before Christ saved them. When she was a young girl at youth camp, where such testimonies sing more than the birds, she sought counseling because she wondered if she was ever sinful enough to be saved. After all, take Amy’s testimony for example, she has “broken every law of God.” Woe, I’m not even goin’ there.
This does seem bizarre when you think about it. When I was a young boy, I lived for awhile with my grandparents. My grandfather was my hero and I loved him with all of my heart. I sought to always please him. Before he left for work, he would always assign tasks for me to complete around the small farm they had. I would always do them and more. Around the time for him to come home, I would always meet him in the driveway because I couldn’t wait to show him all that I had done. “Look Grandpa, see what I have done? And look, I did this too!” His beaming approval was my reward. Does it not remind you of the parable of the talents? “look Lord, you gave me five talents and I made five more!” On the other hand, I loathed it when I misbehaved and my grandfather had to punish me. It was by no means anything I wanted to talk about—they were considered bad memories for both of us. But it would seem that the New Calvinist version of the same parable would be a boasting about how evil we were; and apparently expecting Christ to say, “Well done faithful servant.”
My wife and visitors here are right; this is a glorifying of evil. Along with this is the New Calvinist glorifying of helplessness, even though we “can do all things through Him who strengthens us.” God strengthens us, absolutely, but we still “do,” and we should do it well. Like many New Calvinists, A praying skeleton is Engle’s internet graviator (the last time I remember seeing her comments on another blog). Apparently, nothing but a voice crying out because as Paul David Tripp says of Christians: “When you are dead you can’t do anything.” If you are a Christian, you have been given talents. What’s your strategy for when the Master of the house returns for an accounting? Your call.
paul
CJ the New Calvinist Wants Chrsitians to Know That They Hate God and That Because of the Scream, We Can Sing
Who is “WE?” Hmmmm, “Christian” speaker to a Christian audience. Hmmmm.
With Permission: Peter Lumpkins Comment on New Calvinist Interpretation
To begin with, the phrase “preach the gospel to ourselves” is prima facie nonsensical. It apparently is a clever phrase which means something other than what it literally communicates. What is that “something other than”?
More importantly, what I see happening with the parable is laying a needless filter upon it which effectively, at least in some important ways, hides the real meaning of the text. That is, a rhythmic literary pattern is employed to glean the proper interpretation. In your case, it’s “gospel>>>righteous living.” For others in this “preach the gospel to myself everyday” community, it’s “indicative>>>imperative.”
Yet, from my perspective, this is nothing less than a direct assault on what some call the “perspicuity” of Scripture or what Wayne Grudem calls the “clarity” of Scripture. Who would have imagined the Holy Spirit wanted to communicate, from the passage you cited–or any passage for that matter–the “imperative” is “preceded by” or “grounded in” the “indicative” or some other interpretative pattern, a pattern which is not derived from standard canons of literary interpretation, but rather from theological presuppositions imposed upon the text?
My fear is, we’re substituting theology for basic Bible study. And by basic I mean neither shoddy nor surface. Rather, I mean raw, fundamental textual interpretation based upon sound exegesis.
Contrarily, to lay a “preach the gospel to myself” (i.e. indicative precedes imperative) filter upon the page of Scripture seems to me predetermines the text’s meaning before one even reads the text, before one exegetes the text.
If I am anywhere near correct, the common man or woman just got left out of actually understanding the Word of God. Why? Well, they don’t have the secret interpretative principle to guide them–the indicative precedes the imperative. And, without that filter, they’re doomed to gospel ignorance.
Yet, no where in all God’s Word do we get the impression that the Bible in general needs special filters to discern its meaning, especially filters designed by Christians hundreds and even thousands of years after the Bible was written and after so many other believers–stalwart believers, learned believers, brilliant believers–read the Bible with understanding but without the contemporary filters about which some now so desperately insist.
Indeed the Reformation began when filters were discarded not when new filters were employed. The Baptist movement was built upon a simple reading of the New Testament, not upon innovative nonsense like indicative precedes imperative created by incipient immersionists. They took the plain meaning of Scripture rather than an alleged literary pattern they discovered to read the Scripture aright.
Why, to believe some today, the whole of Christianity crumbles if we don’t perpetuate the indicative precedes the imperative gospel principle. Millions of evangelicals are lost because they don’t understand that the indicative precedes the imperative.
Where this ultimately leads only our Sovereign Lord knows for sure. I do know one thing: I want no part or parcel in this hermeneutical madness.
Maranatha. Come Lord.
With that, I am…
Peter
5 comments