The Bridgers of Confusion County and Another Short Narrative
What’s going on? Christians are becoming confused, if not frustrated. Starting with me. I finally gave in and read a John Piper book some years ago because he was, and still is, all the rave in Reformed circles. The perplexity started on page 16 of “The Pleasures of God” where he writes the following: “The worth and excellency of God’s soul is to be measured by the object of his love.” Huh? But, he loves us! Man is the measure of God’s soul?! “Certainly, I am missing something,” I thought, so I read additional books written by him. I found them nebulous, ambiguous, subjective, non-applicable to real life, grandeurus, nonsensical, to name but a few descriptors. Adding to my perplexity was the fact that John MacArthur Jr. wrote a glowing forward in one of his books.
Then Steve Camp wrote an adorable piece projecting all kinds of frustration and confusion over Piper inviting Paul David Tripp to one of his conferences. Paul Tripp behaved badly at the conference by bragging about having a “S” word contest with his children. Many also found Piper’s relationship with “Mark the cussing pastor” confusing as well. Remember the sixties song, “Buttercup”? It was about a girl that just builds you up to let you down. Could we make that work? “Johnny-cup, (Johnny-cup baby), you build me up (build me up) just to let me down (let me down), and worst of all (worst of all), we even (we even) wrote a book of essays about you (about you) Johnny-cup (Johnny-cup) baby….”
Anyway, Johnny-cup, or the first Pope of New Calvinism, further dismayed many by inviting Rick Warren to his 2010 Desiring God conference. But it gets even worse. I was recently invited to “chime in” on the recent controversy surrounding Michael Horton posing with Rick Warren in a photo op. I clicked on the link and did some snooping around. Apparently, a discernment blogger by the name of Ingrid Schlueter posted on the controversy and drew heavy fire as a result, probably along the lines of what I get for criticizing guys who know how to measure the excellency of God’s soul. How dare me. In the process, I learned a new term: “Bridger.” Apparently, it refers to someone who builds bridges between Reformed purity and others like Warren. MacArthur has a huge problem with Warren, but he loves Piper, who loves Warren, and…., uh, anyway, it would appear that Schlueter threw up her arms in disgust and canceled her discernment blog—not a good thing in our day because intestinal fortitude in regard to defending the truth is in short supply; we can make necessary adjustments later. Also, it would appear that her critics disingenuously presented her protest as her having a problem with Horton merely being photographed with Warren, but it was really much more than that. Furthermore, I perused one blog that seems to be one of her critics that also promotes Paul Washer—a GS hack. Is Ingrid another victim of the silent killer? So, here is part one of my contribution (“chime”): she needs to dust herself off and remember that those who defend the truth will always be in the minority. We don’t need fewer defenders right now.
Now about the photograph. Horton is posing with Warren who MacArthur says preaches a false gospel, but Horton and MacArthur like each other and have done at least one conference together, and Horton has also been critical of him in the past although he also admires him for many reasons (Warren, not MacArthur), and…. anyway, here is why the photo is such a big deal: Horton is not only in a frame with Warren, the photo projects—bosom buddy; long lost friend; top dawg; thinkin’ of makin’ him leader of my posse (Horton, not Warren); etc. And get this, because it’s just too rich: even though Horton has accused Warren of being an Arminian in the past, there in the picture between them, is a bust of John Calvin! Ingrid, Ingrid, Ingrid; c’mon girl, you gotta learn to laugh about it sometimes. God allows satire.
This brings me to the second tone of my chime. What’s really going on here? Answer: first gospel wave, postmodernism, second gospel wave, or Gospel Sanctification / Sonship theology. In all of the aforementioned events that I cite, folks are just spearing the symptoms. As far back as 1992, I remember a young pastor saying, “My generation is comfortable with contradictions”(if something’s good, it’s “bad” etc.). Right, that’s postmodernism. John MacArthur, who associates with those who hold to postmodern-like thinking, wrote an excellent expose on postmodernism in “The Truth War.” I recommend the book, not his friends. Confused?
Starting in the fifties, a member of the largest denomination in the world, Billy Graham, started the first gospel wave. Basically, all that mattered/matters is getting people saved. Even as a young Southern Baptist, just beginning to learn God’s word in 1983, I perceived the constant preaching of the gospel at church as antithetical to the Scriptures. A plenary gospel concern clearly replaced discipleship. This led to an all but total inability on the part of Christians to take the word of God and help people with real-life problems—which led to pastors (at least in SB circles) to farm-out counseling to schools of thought conceived by those who admitted that they hated God. When Dave Hunt shook Christianity with “The Seduction of Christianity,” decrying the integration of Psychology and Christian truth, it addressed a symptom and offered no solution, except “stop it.”
The solution came via Dr. Jay E. Adams’ biblical counseling model. I think the fact that Jay Adams is known as “the father of biblical counseling,” and his ministry started with the book “Competent to Counsel” (1972?) should make my point here: 1972 is a long way from Pentecost which demands some sort of explanation as to why anybody would be called such a thing. An experience I had recently might help to answer that question. I was at a pastor’s conference about eight months ago and witnessed the following firsthand: pastors bragging that they “didn’t allow counseling to distract them from ‘the gahhhhsssfull’” The gospel? I was an elder in a church where twelve people were saved in one year through its counseling program that was based on the biblical model propagated by Adams. When you show people that God knows what He’s talking about, they will also tend to look to Him for salvation as well. Personally, the model had radically changed my own life prior to that.
Nevertheless, this first gospel wave primed the church to fill the void (caused by a limited repertoire of spiritual weapons) with not only psychology, but postmodernism, which rejects propositional truth. The “Christian” form of postmodernism holds to something like this:
“Even some professing Christians nowadays argue along these lines: ‘If truth is personal, it cannot be propositional. If truth is embodied in the person of Christ [my emphasis], then the form of a proposition can’t possibly express authentic truth. That is why most of Scripture is told to us in narrative form-as a story-not as a set of propositions” (Page 14, “The Truth War” J. MacArthur, emphasis added).
The combination of the first wave and postmodern thought also primed the church for the second gospel wave, Gospel Sanctifcation / Sonship theology. The fist wave emphasized the gospel, or salvation, to the exclusion of sanctification. The second wave said: “Hey, not only is sanctification not important, it’s the same thing as justification” (gospel salvation). Hence, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday” (Jack Miller / Jerry Bridges), and “The same gospel that saved you, also sanctifies you.” The second wave also borrowed the Christian Postmodern[ism] hermeneutic to make this approach plausable: “The Bible is about the person of Jesus Christ, it is His story, not a cognitive concept that we apply to life.” “The word of God is a person.” The GS/Sonship hermeneutic serves the same purpose as Christian Postmodernism; it’s used to put ourselves into the “gospel narrative,” ie., the Bible. In fact, Michael Horton’s teachings are often flavored with this idea of “entering the gospel drama.” Once the prism from which we interpret the Bible is narrowed to the single theme of the gospel, from there, anything goes. Open your Bible and randomly put your finger anywhere; unless it happens to be a passage that is gospel specific, and if a gospel message must be forced upon that passage, twenty different people will yield twenty different interpretations of that text. But that’s ok, because all twenty interpretations are about the gospel! Follow? You can’t go wrong if your take is “gospel centered.” Final equation: objective ideas that can be drawn from the text are OUT—the “objective” gospel that yields subjective truth about the “personhood of Christ” as opposed to what he objectively commands are IN.
Therefore, regardless of the radical results yielded by the Adams model, his objective approach drew much intense fire from a church already deeply entrenched in schools of thought hostile to propositional truth and imperative-driven behavior. I firmly believe that this simple, contemporary historical perspective forms much of the confused landscape we see today. For sure, doctrine is secondary to Gospel Sanctification. That’s why Charismatics like CJ Mahaney, a GS proponent, are welcomed into the New Calvinist camp with open arms, with many scratching their heads regarding the new label: “Reformed Charsimatic.” As far as the rest mugging together in photo ops and conferences—particular truth held by others is just simply not that important—other things are, while the confused laity are still primarily looking for leaders to stand on particular truth and shun those who don’t.
But if the laity is waiting, they better not hold their breath while doing so. And really, is a whole bunch of this really about selling books? New ideas sell books. I am reading “The Story of the Church” by Charles M. Jacobs—an oldie, but goodie. He talks about how the first century church rejected academia all together, as Jesus did to a great degree. It’s obvious that the elite, religious academians controlled the information when Jesus came onto the scene—this is a constant theme throughout the New Testament. According to Jacobs, until the second century, the educated elite were barred from eldership. Sometimes, I wonder if the laity in this country will ever tire of being led around by the nose via the who’s who of the evangelical world. But at the very least, leaders should be held to biblical standards and boycotted when they don’t measure up. As Jesus said, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees.”
And p.s.—Ingrid, pray about putting you blog back up.
paul
A Response to a Follower of John Piper
The following comment is a good opportunity to clarify John Piper’s doctrine:
Dane,
I will respond line by the line and post it. My responses are in brackets.
“Have you ever even read Piper; his book on missions for instance?”
[Yes, I have read plenty of Piper, but even if I haven’t, what does that have to do with the message he delivered at the 2010 “Together for Gospel Sanctification” (T4GS) conference? Also, I realize that he writes and teaches some really cool stuff, but so does Joel Olsteen.]
“You act as if he is instructing Christians to sit on their thumbs and meditate all day.”
[No, but since I agree with your assessment on what Piper believes on that point:]
‘The point in meditation upon Christ and his gospels is to humble us so we don’t pridefully depend on our works instead of His grace.”
[Right, except for the fact that Piper believes the whole Bible is about the gospel, not just the Gospels. In other words, he believes the whole Bible is about justification. In a very scary interview between DA Carson and Tim Keller, close associates of Piper, and also GS advocates, which I believe was a review concerning the upcoming 2012 T4GS conference, they talked about how they were going to teach pastors to “drive toward Christ and the gospel,” and to show what “Biblical Theology,” ie., the Christocentric redemptive-historical hermeneutic, dubbed BT by Geerhardus Vos, “looks like,” in order to “read the Bible in such a way that you {always} get to Jesus.” Whether Piper, Keller, or Carson, I find their nuanced verbiage sickening. If you are going to teach redemptive-historical hermeneutics, for the love of mercy just say so. Also, I assume all of the fawning pastors at that conference will fail to pick-up on the fact that they are being taught to interpret the Bible with a theology (as in “Biblical Theology”), which is Interpretive No-No’s 101. Of course, they are, in fact, going to teach a hermeneutic; only the terminology should raise a red flag, which it won’t.
Notice in your statement that you correctly identify what Piper believes: ANY works on our part in sanctification will result in prideful works INSTEAD of grace. Of course, evangelicals don’t believe that we “depend” on our own works alone in sanctification, but that doesn’t mean we don’t work. But in the video, “The Gospel in 6 Minutes,” which is an excerpt from one of his (Piper’s) sermons, he says to “never {he repeats “never” like, 20 times} separate the gospel from sanctification.” The gospel is received by faith alone. So this clearly means that Piper, as all GS proponents, believes in sanctification by justification, or sanctification by faith alone. This is what’s behind meditating on the gospel to the exclusion of “….works instead of His grace.” In fact, Piper believes that any effort on our part in the sanctification process is works salvation. Though Piper, like most GS advocates, speaks in nuance, the logical conclusion of what he says in the aforementioned sermon is irrefutable. I comment in another post accordingly:
“Piper begins this section with the following: ‘I know that there are people reading this who are not trusting Jesus Christ, and therefore can only expect condemnation.’ In context, what does he mean that they are not ‘trusting Jesus Christ’? Well, he continues: ‘Forgiveness of sins and a right standing with God comes freely through him alone, by faith alone.’ So, who is he talking to? I’m glad you asked, he continues in the very next sentence: ‘I plead with you, don’t try to be strong in your own strength; it will not be there when you need it. Only one strength will be there—the strength that God gives according to the gospel.’ He is talking about being strong, or strengthened, in regard to ‘us’ (remember the title of the sermon that the video was excerpted from? ‘God Strengthens Us by the Gospel’). In other words, exerting our own effort in the sanctification process, and especially apart from the gospel, will result in ‘condemnation.’ This is a plea for any person who believes in synergistic sanctification to be saved. Also note how he uses expressions of justification and sanctification interchangeably. The topics of his paragraphs in the same general context often look like this: Justification, sanctification, justification, sanctification. Likewise, Piper and many others such as Paul Tripp often use justification verses to make points about sanctification. I have cited many, many, examples of this in previous articles, and a prime example would be pages 64 and 65 of ‘How People Change.’” ]
“His grace motivates us to works.”
[Not exactly. Piper believes in the total depravity of the saints. Therefore, it stands to reason that the totally depraved can’t be rightly motivated to do anything. In fact, he teaches that joy gives all works moral value and that joy is always a gift from God. In essence, Piper calls on us to sin (work in our own efforts while asking God to forgive us—as you said, this keeps us humble) while waiting for God to grant us joy as a gift. This is what he clearly says on page 43 of “When I Don’t Desire God: How to Fight for Joy.” Hence, like Paul Tripp and many others, Piper teaches that sin is part of God’s prescription for sanctification. The “fight for joy” is—us necessarily sinning; Piper clearly says so. Also, in the short, three-chapter ebook, “Treating Duty as Delight is Controversial” which can be found on his website, Piper clearly says we are, as Christians, “enslaved to sinful passions” and specifically cites Romans 6:17, which speaks concerning our previous unregenerate state before salvation. Per the usual, the first pope of New Calvinism can say a verse says one thing when it clearly says something else because, well, he’s the Pope.]
“Please stop wasting your time criticizing Christians that you are jealous of and causing divisions in the church.”
[ Why would I be jealous of a false teacher? And why are you following this guy? He is in grave, stark contrast to the likes of JC Ryle, BB Warfield, and many, many, others. And truth doesn’t cause division, error does—truth unifies. And, I have seen the divisions / controversies / confusion that Piper’s teachings cause—first hand. Like the company that split because two of the partners stopped doing their job because: to do certain elements of their job that didn’t give them joy would be sin. Supposedly. Like the guy who prayed for hours begging God to save him, and God supposedly wouldn’t, because he couldn’t experience “the treasure chest of joy” that supposedly always accompanies salvation.
No, I’m not wasting my time. I will fight this hideous doctrine till God gives me my last breath or by God’s decree GS is put out of business: whichever happens first.]
paul
Dr. Jay E. Adams: Gospel Sanctification is; “Dangerous,” “Quietism,” and Must Be “Exposed and Halted”
“Obey” 3/14/2011 by Jay Adams. Read Article here: http://www.nouthetic.org/blog/?cat=102
Christians Aren’t “Under” the Law? Oh Really?
One of the realities that has hit home with me recently is the fact that Christians in this country have been dumbed-down like our children are being dumbed-down in public schools. In fact, the dumbing-down started in my generation (I am 54 years old). When I was in eighth grade, I went to Oakwood Junior High School in Dayton, Ohio; it has always been a top-rated school nationally. However, when I was there, for example, in literature class, we primarily studied the significance of Beatles (the rock band) songs and their lyrics. Now, my dumbed-down generation, who was rarely taught how to think objectively, has moved into the American church.
Couple that with the fact that by and large, seminaries have taken over the administration of doctrinal teaching. Try teaching a class on soteriology in the local church; no one will show up because Christians don’t even know what soteriology is, and anyone who does show up will mock you by saying, “Is this a church or a seminary?” Seminaries are now in total control of what is taught in the local churches and the average American parishioner perceives seminarians as authorities who cannot be questioned. I recently visited a local church here in Xenia, Ohio and the church was having an annual Sunday school presentation. The church has a strong affiliation with Cedarville [Christian] College and many of the students attend there. I listened in horror as a Sunday school teacher explained that the main focus of his class (the college age class) was to merely encourage the students because, “we could never teach them anything more than they are learning at Cedarville.” Adding to my dismay was the senior pastor / MC nodding in agreement like some bobbing head in the back window of a low-rider.
This blogsite concerns Gospel Sanctification, and it has become evident to me why this doctrine has been able to sweep across America unchecked: Christians don’t know the difference between justification, sanctification, and glorification. In fact, not only do they not know the difference, they don’t even know what the terms mean; and worse yet, they aren’t theological terms, they are specific biblical terms ( 1Cor 1:30, 6:11).
Hence, the mantra / cliché: “Christians aren’t under the law.” 99.9999 percent of all Christians, it seems like, would quickly agree with this statement. When someone replies, “Christians are not under the law for justification, but we are under the law for sanctification because that’s what the Holy Spirit uses to sanctify us (John 17:17 [the specific term Paul used for us being ‘under’ the law is, ‘we uphold’ the law]),” the reply will be, “That’s legalism,” another American Christian cliché that replaces working knowledge of the Scriptures. Let me tell you what they mean by “legalism” because they don’t even know what they mean by that themselves. They intend to say that you believe we are sanctified by keeping the law, BUT the belief that Christians are under (obligated to) the law does not hold to that. It rather believes that the Holy Spirit sanctifies, and that we are walking in the Spirit when we are walking (living) in the truth, which of course is revealed in the Scriptures (again, John 17:17). It’s a colaboring; we obey, the Spirit sanctifies. Sanctification means to “set apart,” and the only thing that distinguishes us from the world is God’s way of thinking and doing verses that of the world. That’s why the kingdom of darkness constantly strives to un-sanctify those whom they have lost to being damned eternally; encouraging them to be more like the world dampens their testimony to those they haven’t lost yet—du! That’s why the kingdom of darkness always propagates, “being against the law (which most Christians think always refers to the Decalogue [ten commandments], but most often the word refers to all of Scripture) of God,” and I am using those words because most Christians don’t know what an antinomian is which is really weird because that’s what the apostle Paul said Satan is, and Satan is our enemy so it seems like most Christians would know what he is, but I guess not, and please hold while I catch my breath for the next sentence.
Besides, and furthermore, most Christians really don’t know what “legalism” means either. It’s trying to keep “a” (not “the”) law to gain justification (in other words, salvation), but because it’s impossible to keep the law perfectly in order to be justified, they create “a” law / ritual / rite that is their own standard for salvation, or what they perceive to be obtainable by humanoids. This is contrary to being justified by faith alone and working dependably with the Holy Spirit to be set apart (sanctified). Legalism is NOT an attempt to uphold God’s law for purposes of sanctification, that’s a classic antinomian lie, and it’s why antinomians attempt to make sanctification and justification the same thing—it makes an attempt to uphold “the” law for purposes of sanctification the same thing as true legalism. Got that?
That’s what Gospel Sanctification does; it synthesizes justification and sanctification: “The same gospel (gospel concerns justification) that saved you also sanctifies you.” Hence, you are supposedly sanctified by justification, or sanctification by faith alone, which means the exclusion of “the” law in sanctification because it is impossible to keep the law in order to be justified. Got it? Bye, bye law. Unless somebody else is keeping the law for you, in you, or through you; namely, as many forms of GS teach—Christ obeys for us. This moves us to other things Christians usually are not privy to: imputation, atonement, etc. Bottom line: the level of un-indoctrination among American Christians is frightful, and I never cease to be amazed at our zeal to spread such Christianity abroad via missionaries.
Because Christians don’t understand what justification is, and sanctification, or the difference between the two, GS hacks can teach Christians that not being, as Paul said, “under the law,” equals not being “obligated to the law.” They can also teach that the two are the same thing and nobody even blinks. They can also teach that separating the two (justification and sanctification) is legalism because Christians don’t know what that means either. That’s why GS advocates can say, as I heard one say in a sermon, that “any separation of justification and sanctification is an abomination.” Also, a staple among GS advocates is teaching that Paul was speaking about sanctification in the first five chapters of Galatians. Supposedly, the Galatians were guilty of legalism because they were making efforts to obey God’s law, but the context of those chapters is clearly justification ( 2:16, 17, 21, 3:8,11, 24, 5;4). In fact, Paul says SPECIFICALLY in 5:4 that their error was an attempt to be “justified” by the law, NOT sanctified:
“You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.”
Hence the days we live in: teachers can teach that Paul’s line of thought is about sanctification, when Paul clearly states otherwise. That’s because they’re both the same, right?
paul
Vows, Car Doors, Coats and Chairs
You see it every now and then; a husband opening the car door for his wife, or the event at Perkins that prompted this post: an elderly man stood up first to hold up his wife’s open coat for her to fill. After all those years? Then I had a light bulb moment: “Why not? Isn’t one of the ’till death does us part’—also to—’cherish’?” It would seem that us men take the faithfulness and love part of the wedding vow much more serious than we take the “cherish” part.
What does “cherish” mean? Well, it’s actually a little more focused than love. You can love anybody, especially if your a Christian. We are commanded to love our enemies, right? Cherish means: ”To cling fondly or inveterately to: to cherish a memory” (Dictionary.com). Cherishing necessarily requires display; that’s why I like the cited definition. When we cherish a memory, we do what? Usually, we have taken pictures, framed them, and displayed them at home and work. We are never commanded in the Bible to cherish our enemies. To cherish is to set love on fire. Guess what the antonym for cherish is? Answer: “neglect.” That’s key.
As Christians, I believe we have been given all we need for life and godliness. In fact, Ephesians 4:24 indicates that we have been given the full righteousness and holiness of Christ. Therefore, the apostle Paul commands us to “put on the new.” Pity: so much of today’s discussion concerning the law of God is framed around “obligation.” Obligation?—biblical commands are an invitation to appropriate and put on the righteousness given to us by Christ. Biblical commands are an invitation to set love on fire! Pity: many are taught today that Christ not only bankrupted heaven to give us His righteousness, but he also puts on that righteousness for us, and while we wait for Christ to do our part, the love of God is hidden under a bushel basket. To cherish is to display the love already given, IF we believe Ephesians 4:24.
Besides men, we promise, we vow, and before witnesses. I guess the guy that was at Perkins gets that part. God is very serious about vows. He says it’s better not to make any than to make one and not keep it. In fact, Psalms 15:1,4 says that vow-keeping is the mark of a righteous person:
“LORD, who may dwell in your sacred tent? Who may live on your holy mountain?…. who despises a vile person but honors those who fear the LORD; who keeps an oath even when it hurts, and does not change their mind;” (NIV@2011).
Want another version?
“….in whose eyes a vile person is despised, but who honors those who fear the LORD; who swears to his own hurt and does not change;”(ESV).
As these verses indicate, vow-keeping isn’t always easy, but don’t look at this as an indictment, look at it as an invitation to display love already given. Look at it as an invitation to display the importance of what is important to God. Look at it as an invitation to publicly display that you love your wife like Christ loves the church. Look at it as an invitation to set love on fire, and do so at every opportunity—even using car doors, coats, and chairs.
paul
2 comments