Ultimately, Intentional Active Obedience Cannot Be Denied As Curative in Counseling
Some weeks ago, I was sent a webinar clip of a presentation by a NANC fellow (as in membership status, National Association of Nouthetic Counselers). The individual presented a counseling model that focused on showing the counselee the magnificence of the gospel. Supposedly, wowing the counselee or “amazing” the counselee with the gospel is curative (whether the counselee is a Christian or otherwise). Furthermore, the other side of this model proffered the idea that intentional obedience or instruction to change behavior was not only ant-curative, but legalism and works righteousness. A focus, or as some (other than the webinar presenter) call it, “moving deeper into the gospel” or “contemplation of the gospel,” results in “reasonable service” or what is known as new obedience. New obedience displays itself as a joyful “mere natural flow” which supposedly identifies the quality of obedience as being pure in motive. Duty no longer stands on its own as a virtue, but must be purified by joy and lack of our effort in the midst.
The NANC minion also referred to a behavioral emphasis in counseling as works righteousness, even when counseling a believer. So, emphasis on behavior in counseling is actually the same as beckoning the counselee to abandon the true gospel for a false one. Of course, this is counseling based on Sonship theology—“the same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you” and “we must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” Though I am in the midst of researching this and I’m compiling a list of people I want to interview in regard to Sonship’s history, it looks like the doctrine was contrived by a former prof. of theology at Westminster Theological Seminary and further developed by one of his understudies, David Powlison, a prof. at Westminster’s counseling wing: CCEF (Christian Counseling and Education Foundation). Unfortunately, Powlison and other associates such as Paul David Tripp were allowed unfettered involvement in NANC as instructors and board members who also infected NANC with said doctrine. Roughly eleven years ago, I witnessed the takeover of a NANC training center by Sonship advocates firsthand (though I did not know what the doctrine was at the time), and a pastor friend of mine was in NANC training taught by a Sonship advocate in Lafayette, Indiana. Hence, the webinar per my introduction.
Therefore, there is an important Sonship mantra that all counselors and Christians alike should understand: “The imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.” Stop being lazy and start thinking—this is why two counseling organizations have become unwitting (I’m being tentative) partners with the kingdom of darkness, and it’s time Christians start paying attention to this stuff. The indicative event refers to the finished work of Christ on the cross. Therefore, all biblical commands that we would obey flow from Christ’s atoning work and not ours, or, “The imperative command….” Proponents of Sonship and gospel sanctification (what Sonship has morphed into of late) will often cite Bible verses where this is true—Christians obey because of what Christ has already done (you do this because Christ did that), but then they insist that this is the only biblical pattern in Scripture. Conclusion: All present, past, and future real-time active obedience was secured and imputed to us from the atonement just like righteousness. In the same way all of our righteousness comes from Christ, all of our obedience also comes from Christ. In other words, Christ obeys for us. Any effort on our part to obey is works righteousness in the same way we would try to earn our own righteousness with no distinction between justification and sanctification—they are treated as being the same thing. As Francis Chan says: if we work, “it feels like work,” but if Christ is the one working, “it feels like love.” Hence, when Christ is obeying for us (they say “through,” but that doesn’t fit what they really believe and makes it sound synergistic), it’s a joyful “mere natural flow.” This is why the teachings of John Piper are a staple in GS/Sonship circles. Piper’s Christian hedonism answers the, “How do we know when it’s us trying to obey or Christ obeying for us?
However, in Scripture, the imperative often precedes the indicative (if you do this, God will do that). Many Scriptures that emphasize rewards in this present life (Eph 6:1-3), and in the future would be good examples of this. Also, some imperatives are grounded in indicatives that God hasn’t even done yet! (Heb 10:19-25 2Pet 3:11,12 [do this because this is what God is going to do in the future]). By the way, so what if it’s us doing it, and regardless of the difficulty?—we recognize we are acting by faith because we believe that God will really do what he says He will do, and (that) faith is a gift from Him, but that doesn’t exclude our effort! This is no trite matter—this is two schools of thought that teach Christians what our role in sanctification is, and how it will be experienced in real life! The reality of this hits one in the face when we hear Michael Horton say that biblical imperatives are not “promises.” Sure, doing everything we do for the sole purpose of pleasing God is honorable, but that’s not how God Himself approaches us in every circumstance with His word. This whole subject is also paramount in regard to giving hope in counseling as well. Moreover, the folly of Sonship is exposed when advocates implement a literal hermeneutic when the IND >IMP is present, but switch to a Christocentric / gospel hermeneutic (prism) when the IMP>IND or IMP> future IND is present, aping one of Paul David Tripp’s profundities: “Well, that verse has to be considered in its gospel context.”
But, there is one more thing that exposes the folly of this Sonship/GS element; namely, a denial of intentional active obedience on the part of the counselee, and that is: real life. On this point, the advocates themselves confess. In the ebook entitled, “Treating Delight as Duty is Controversial” (chapter 3, can viewed on his website), John piper concedes the following:
“It is true that our hearts are often sluggish. We do not feel the depth or intensity of affections that are appropriate for God or His cause. It is true that at those times we must exert our wills and make decisions that we hope will rekindle our joy. Even though joyless love is not our aim (“God loves a cheerful giver!” 2 Corinthians 9:7; “[Show] mercy with cheerfulness,” Romans 12:8), nevertheless it is better to do a joyless duty than not to do it, provided that there is a spirit of repentance that we have not done all of our duty because of the sluggishness of our hearts.”
Is obeying whether we feel like it or not really sin?—or a deeper form of self-sacrifice? After all, self doesn’t want to do what God wants, right? But my main point here is that the reality of intentional active obedience cannot ultimately be rejected because real life comes knocking, as Piper himself concedes, though by writing that it is better to sin in obedience than not to obey. Uh, I think that’s what he’s saying, right? However, the most striking concession was from a CCEF counselor named Robyn Huck in an article she recently wrote about the passing of her father. Regarding the quality of her parent’s marriage, she wrote:
“My folks were married for almost 52 years. I’m the oldest of their five children and was born in their first year of marriage, so I got to witness a lot of their life together. It was not a picture of paradise all those years, but somewhere around year 20 or so, there was tremendous growth in their relationship, and since then, they have been a wonderful example of a really good Christian marriage. I know it wasn’t always easy and I know it took a lot of work. But over and over in little day-to-day moments, they intentionally gave up self and embraced the oneness God called them to. And they were very happy.”
I think it is a good reminder to many that Christians developed good marriages by applying biblical concepts like self-sacrifice long before CCEF was around, or for that matter, NANC as well. But Paul Tripp’s answer to that would be along the lines of the fellow in the webinar, and also echoed by Larry Crabb in “Inside Out”; even if your walk with Christ is strong, it can be even better when you realize that “you no longer live, but Christ lives in you! We [him and Timothy S, Lane, both prof.’s at CCEF] welcome you to a lifestyle of celebrating just what that means” (“How People Change” p.19). Well, I read the book; it means you are spiritually dead so Christ has to obey for you. You doubt that he wrote that? Here is what he also wrote on page 171: “ It is not enough for Paul to say that the death of Christ made him new. He says that when he died, the old Paul was not replaced with a new and improved version of Paul [being born again isn’t an improved version?!], but with Christ Himself!” [this isn’t true, it’s not one or the other—it’s both].
That’s why these other comments by Huck are surprising as well:
“This ‘path’ through the woods was cleared a long time ago, but it’s still the right path, and can still be found and followed in these wintery times. What I’m trying to say is that God’s provision for my mother began thousands of years ago when he provided these lessons in Scripture. With God’s help, my parents followed that path to the best of their ability, and now my mother is reaping the fine reward of wise, godly living.”
And,
“They also intentionally nurtured their faith, with habits of daily scripture reading and prayer. In each of these areas, my folks sought to live godly lives, and it was good for them. The process was good and now the product is good. God created the provision of Christian community, adequate finances, and strong living faith through their acts of obedience. My folks did not live perfectly, but for the most part, they stayed on the path.”
And,
“And though living in obedience to God’s word doesn’t guarantee an easy or comfortable life, it is the passageway for his promises to be fulfilled and for faith to be built. Now that trouble has come to my family, the blessings of following God’s path and living the obedient life just keep jumping out at me. My mom truly has what she needs, both to live and to get through this difficult time.”
And this last statement is totally astounding:
“This serves as a great reminder to me as I counsel. Though we are right to be focused on the hearts of the people to whom we minister, we must also remember that blessings can come from simply doing what the Word says to do. It’s true that the deepest blessings of obedience happen when it is done out of love, but any act of obedience can be instrumental in turning the heart, and can bring the positive outcomes that so many proverbs describe.”
Yikes! She is saying that “any act of obedience” can be “instrumental” in “turning the heart” and can bring “positive outcomes,” while giving CCEF’s staple doctrine (heart theology) a wimpy, honorable mention: “Though we are right to be focused on the hearts of the people to whom we minister…” This even implies that outward obedience with the right motive, but maybe not joyful, can “turn the heart.” To me, this is a glaring contradiction to the foundation of CCEF’s counseling philosophy.
Robyn Huck, like all counselors who really want to help people, and I definitely put her in that category, eventually come to the conclusion that IND>IMP and IMP>IND and IMP>future IND are all equally true.
paul
Jay E. Adams: Some Puritans Believed in Preparationism
Read article here: http://www.nouthetic.org/blog/?p=1010#more-1010
Enough With the Puritans Already!
Why do proponents of Gospel Sanctification / Sonship theology quote creeds and Puritans so much? It’s because they can’t make their case from Scripture; and, the redemptive-historical hermeneutic eliminates the use of Scripture to draw conclusions about truth from the text. That’s why. When the supposed primary purpose of Scripture is to “show forth the gospel narrative” for both believers and unbelievers, rather than a proof text for issues of life—the gap needs to be filled with something, so why not Puritans and creeds? Besides, they are supposedly the last ones in redemptive history to be enlightened enough to know that every verse in the Bible is about justification.
I will soon be launching into some research regarding this issue, but I have already been sent some information suggesting that GS/Sonship advocates routinely misrepresent Marshall, Murray, and Owen to make points. But for now, my preliminary thoughts are as follows:
1. Puritans and creeds are not inspired, and we have the same Holy Spirit they had / have.
2. Puritan writings are available in massive volumes, and even if Owen, Marshall, Murray, etc., did believe that “the same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us,” or “we must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday,” such a minute portion could not be said to represent Puritan thought in general. And even if it did, so what? They are men, and the “Puritan” label is not a “Proof of Truth” seal. If what they said doesn’t align with Scripture, they can all hang it on their beaks as far as I’m concerned.
3. I have yet to see a Puritan quote, even by the New Calvinists, that resembles anything such as : “The same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us” or, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday,”
4. Puritan writings are translated into modern English by heaven-only-knows who. They are uninspired translations from men, and translated by men.
5. New Calvinists rarely quote the specific Puritan source (for example, title, volume, page, etc.). So the accuracy of the quote cannot usually be verified.
paul
A letter From “Bob”: How GS/Sonship Theology Affects Church in Real Life
I received the following email from a reader this week. My response follows. His name and some other details have been changed to protect his identity. Of course, not all GS/Sonship leaders are heavy-handed, but in many such churches the following post would result in church discipline. The email is modified and posted with permission from the sender.
Dear Paul: In your 31. January 2011 blog, you open by stating:
“In all of my writings on gospel-driven sanctification / gospel sanctification, and its apparent mother, Sonship Theology, I have primarily addressed the error, and not its ill effects on discipleship and people’s lives. Basically, refutation of false doctrine has prevention in mind, not theological debate for entertainment purposes.” (emphasis added)
I got mixed up in the [name of church excluded], a PCA church. I had previously been involved in a Kellerite church, so I had been swimming in a sea of sonship (and taking on water from it!) for a couple of years in both places, but without ever having heard of sonship theology, (esp. not by name!), or known that that’s what was really being promoted there – it’s taught more by stealth, than openly admitted! Only when I was finally given the label – alerted to its existence by a pastor in another state. was I then able to put the dots together, and see that there was in fact a most definite method to the malaise which I had clearly perceived, but been totally ignorant of both the source, and the systematic nature of the problem!
However, until today, I’ve searched largely in vain for any solid critical material, or in-depth analyses directly addressing those errors of sonship theology that I’ve clearly experienced.
As your opening reference makes it sound like you yourself have written fairly extensively on this subject on various previous occasions, (“…all my writings…” ), I was wondering if you could therefore please be so kind as to e-mail me, or direct me to, any further details / critical analyses – both by yourself and others – of this movement, and its directly related errors?
Thanking you sincerely,
“Bob”
P.S. Can you also possibly shed any light on any particular (or non-standard) doctrine of “repentance” associated with sonship theology? (–the existence of which I’ve so far been similarly unaware of, but which I’ve just lately also begun to suspect…)
To wit: I quote some anonymized portions of an e-mail from someone else at [name of church excluded] (who claims he hasn’t been particularly exposed to their “sonship” teachings, but) who’s suddenly tried to begin invasively ‘counseling’ me in certain areas: [warning: a sudden interest in your life by elders of said churches could mean you’re asking too many questions—paul ] He wrote:
[ The content of this correspondence could reveal Bob’s identity so it has been excluded. The leader responded to Bob’s questions by asking Bob if he had applied any of their teachings to his life, and how that had been accomplished, posing the questions in such a way that called into question Bob’s humbleness and attitude toward “repentance.”]
(– His questions were in fact to a large extent totally off-base, and demonstrated a failure to have even read what I had written to him; but) some of his queries about repentance are kind of non-sequiturs, so I’m wondering if this individual may be operating from some particular understanding of “repentance” which I’m not familiar with? If he has some particular doctrine of, or expectations concerning “repenting” (how one repents, and then can testify to or document having done so?, or can measure one’s progress in having done so?) As I’m a bit mystified by his language and apparent, specific expectations, and wondering if there is also something more to this than meets the eye, at least, that of the uninitiated?
Thanks for any light you can shed!
My Response:
Bob,
My blog is dedicated to believers such as yourself for the purpose of contending for the faith and thereby pleasing the Lord. Last week, I added the Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Theology network, https://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/ . Links to other material that contend against elements of this movement are in the right-hand column. Most of the writers are addressing elements but don’t understand how the elements / tenets fit together as a movement. This is because of the covert MO you mentioned that is prevalent within the movement. However, Jay Adams would be an exception to that (in regard to being opposed to the movement) and has even added a “Gospel Sanctification” archive to his blog: http://www.nouthetic.org/blog/
I have written a book that covers elements / tenets in detail that will be printed in a limited addition because I have been persuaded to write another book on GS from a different approach. The present book is in essay form and doesn’t cover the history of the movement as much as it should. The next book will be in chapter form and will include a detailed history of the movement, Lord willing, of course. The present book, which will be in print approximately four weeks from today, will stand in the gap until the next book is published.
Sadly, you are right, information regarding GS / Sonship is very scarce. First, in my opinion, I think many want to protect the integrity of Westminster Seminary, especially those who obtained their doctorate degrees there. Most of the doctrine’s elements were conceived by professors at WMTS. Secondly, there is a reluctance to stand against the “big names” in reformed circles. Thirdly, those who proffer the doctrine are deeply deceptive and ambiguous. Therefore, unraveling their deception is very labor-intensive. Fourthly, as you eluded to, they avoid labels for purposes of stealth, but invoke “THE GOSPEL” nomenclature as often as they can in their verbiage. Who wants to be perceived as being against the gospel? It’s a very effective cover. Fifthly, most reformed churches practice church discipline. Therefore, those who stand against this doctrine are in danger of being muzzled accordingly. Church discipline and excommunication have a huge stigma in reformed circles while the attitude among reformed leaders is “any Church discipline is good discipline.” They see church discipline being used as a weapon to muzzle as unfortunate collateral damage that is necessary for the betterment of the church as a whole. So, here is the point: a parishioner in church A can be placed under discipline for blogging about a reformed leader in church B. I have firsthand knowledge of a guy who pulled his blog down because the leaders of his church liked the other leader; he smelled church discipline coming.
This ministry has, and continues to counsel people on how to leave reformed churches who practice this doctrine with as little stress as possible. Furthermore, the conversation you shared with me in your correspondence is very indicative of the intimidating, heavy-handed methods of those in the movement. The Coral Ridge hostile takeover is a good example of this. Sixthly, the movement is new. It’s conception probably doesn’t date before 1980. Not only that, It started out as Sonship theology and changed to GS (gospel verbiage) when the Sonship label started taking on heavy fire. Therefore, God’s people really haven’t had time to get a full picture of the movement yet. These are six reasons among many others why I think information on this movement is scarce.
Well, that should take care of the “can I get more information?” question. Now for the “repentance” question. Yes, the movement practices an unorthodox form of repentance known as “deep repentance” or “intelligent repentance” or “repentance as a lifestyle.” Since the movement involves, as Jason Hood recently stated it, “sanctification by justification.” and justification is by faith and repentance only; hence, the only two supposed elements of sanctification must necessarily be embellished. Sonship theology has been confronted with three primary inquisitions over the years. First, “What about an ongoing practical application of the narrow concept of justification in the sanctification process?,” or, “So, what are WE supposed to do?” David Powlison answers that question with “heart theology.” The form of repentance you are talking about is part of that GS tenet. Secondly, “How do I know when I am obeying in my own efforts or yielding to Christ’s power?” John Piper answers that question with “Christian Hedonism.” And Thirdly, “How is the Bible used for justification only?” That’s answered with the Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic.
Lastly for now, I think your letter and my response can help many people. I would like to post on this while protecting your identity. This will also involve changing you name and some details you closed with. Let me know,
May we love the Lord’s truth more than men,
Paul M. Dohse
Should There Be a Distinction Between Law and Gospel?
Sigh, ugh, (add your own if you would like). The newest thing on the radar screen is the supposed Scriptural dichotomy between law and gospel. If you go to the WHI blog and poke it anywhere, people are thanking Horton up and down, koolaid packets in-hand, for pointing out this “wonderful truth.” I am presently beginning to read a couple of books recommended by readers that smell pretty good to me so far: God’s Righteous Kingdom by Walter Chantry, and Reasons for Duty by J. Gerstner. So, for now, I’m not going to be dogmatic, but….
As I have said before, and will say again: the primary weapon of the kingdom of darkness against the kingdom of light has always been, and will always be, antinomianism, or “anti-law.” AND law, I repeat, law, is not a term that refers to Decalogue-like passages only in the Bible or “law” in law verses gospel (which I am inclined to think is the mother of all misnomers), but to ALL revelation that proceeds from the mouth of God (Mathew 4:4, 5:18). This is a simple thing; did the “law” come from God’s mouth? Then we still live by it. If not one iota or dot will be lost before the end of the age, would that not include the whole law? And wouldn’t all of it be relevant? And if there is a distinction between law and gospel, why did Jesus only mention the law in Matthew 5:18? Is it more important than gospel?
The goal, I repeat, the goal, of the kingdom of darkness is to DECEAVE, or, ie., distort God’s life-giving wisdom / revelation to believers and unbelievers alike. Satan, the king of darkness, came to Eve as an anti-what-God-really-said (antinomian) at the very beginning of redemptive history, and his rein will end the very same way when he is released to “D-E-C-E-A-V-E the nations.” At the beginning of the New Covenant, the apostle Paul called him the “lawless one,” NOT the “legalist one.” Satan did not approach Eve to try to get her to “obey God in her own efforts,” nor did he try the same with Christ in the wilderness.
Furthermore, “legalism” is distorting God’s true standard / truth with man-made standards, and is therefore a form of ant-law. That’s what the Pharisees did, and Jesus’ contention against the Pharisees was their making the law “void,” NOT an attempt to “obey God in their own efforts” (Matthew 15:6). Christ said that in the end times, the hearts of many will be cold because of “lawlessness” (often improperly translated “iniquity”), NOT legalism.
Also, it can be concluded from what Jude said that to disregard the law is to distort the true gospel: “3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. 4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.” There is a very fine line between those who turn the grace of God into a license for sin, and those who teach that Christians are not obligated to uphold the law because gospel and law are separate; and moreover, couldn’t uphold it even if they wanted to because they are still totally depraved.
A word study on Matthew 28:20 reveals the following idea from the Greek words regarding “….observe all that I have commanded you”: to protect or guard, hold fast, serve, watch over carefully, everything laid upon, as an order or command; injunction to; to direct with authority; to order; to charge. Christ’s mandate to the church clearly focuses on the law, not gospel. Why? Because everything we could possibly know about the gospel is found in the law? Can the two really be separated? Again, like Matthew 5:18, why does Christ only mention the law in his mandate to the church?(“all that I have commanded”). Again, it seems that either they are, in fact, inseparable, or the law is more important. Besides, the gospel is often presented in the Scriptures as imperative (to name a few: Acts 3:19, 8:22, 2021, 26:20, 1Peter4:17, 1Peter 1:2). Those verses regard presentations of the gospel, so if law and gospel are separate, would those who make such a distinction remove repentance from the gospel? After all, the likes of Michael Horton say the gospel is strictly an “announcement” and not anything that should be followed.
Does accepting a distinct dichotomy between law and gospel “protect” God’s revelation? Or is it more like divide,conquer and distort ? One would do well to weigh this question carefully in an age of “lawlessness.”
paul
4 comments