Jason Hood Decries “Sanctification by Justification” and…. Oh Brother!
Some weeks ago, Jason Hood wrote an article published in Christianity today protesting the benchmark set by New Calvinist (proponents of Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Theology) to be accused of antinomianism. It incited an outcry against Hood’s accusation that New Calvinist are, in fact, antinomian, and not merely trying to be accused of such. However, the fact of the matter is that Hood’s article launched no such accusation. It’s like the bank robber walking down the street being asked by policemen if he’d seen any bank robbers running by and immediately replying, “I didn’t do it!” Hood responded to Dane Ortlund, one of the “young, [but educated] restless [with no life experience] and reformed [supposedly]” New Calvinist that asked him to recant his supposed accusation. Hood’s response was a thorough dressing-down of Ortlund and New Calvinism in general. Ortland’s response to Hood’s response was a typical New Calvinist response: a pretension of humbleness; points of supposed agreement; and why the points of agreement are really not what they seem to the unintelligent because of their point of disagreement based on the deep realities of their own gospel. See link here, http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2011/01/28/we-who-have-the-spirit-have-the-power-to-change/ and it really is must reading.
Most of what I have to say concerning this superb piece of literature can be summed up in Hood’s calling out of New Calvinism’s “sanctification by justification.” It really says it all. But Hood also takes note of New Calvinism’s total depravity of the saints in this statement: ”Ortlund recently pointed out [as in, ‘hey guys, we’re looking too unorthodox on this one’] that we have been neglecting the doctrine of regeneration. As a result, we treat believers like unbelievers [emphasis mine].” It’s all very simple, only the unregenerate need justification, but you can’t have it both ways when thinking- Christians start asking questions.
Moreover, a new one that I hadn’t heard before was mentioned by Hood regarding Ortlunds original challenge—the whole idea that today’s New Calvinists are being “falsely” accused of antinomianism like the apostle Paul was during his ministry (Rom 3:8). Therefore, if they are being accused of antinomianism, they must be preaching just like Paul was. Oh brother!
paul
My RC Sproul Challenge: Legalist or Not? And Why, or Why Not?
Poke anything written by “The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” or any other number of Gospel Sanctification / Sonship proponents—how could anything but an indictment of legalism come forth when you consider the following quotes by Sproul?
“Sanctification is cooperative. There are two partners involved in the work. I must work and God will work. If ever the extra-biblical maxim, “God helps those who help themselves,” had any truth, it is at this point. We are not called to sit back and let God do all the work. We are called to work, and to work hard. To work something out with fear and trembling is to work with devout and conscientious rigor. It is to work with care, with a profound concern with the end result” (“Pleasing God” p. 227).
1. Without both working, no work gets done: “ Sanctification is cooperative. There are two partners involved in the work.”
2. The imperative precedes the indicative: “I must work and God will work.”
3. Sanctification is hard work: “We are called to work, and to work hard.”
4. And with rigor: “ To work something out with fear and trembling is to work with devout and conscientious rigor.”
And: “The gospel saves us not from duty, but unto duty, by which the law of God is established. This book is a profound exposition of the biblical revelation of law. The Decalogue is explored in the depths of its many facets and nuances. This book explains the Law, defends the Law, and shows the sweetness of the Law. It can help us delight in the Law as it was meant to be understood, and to delight in performing our duty to the One whose Law it is” (Forward: “Reasons for Duty” J. Gerstner).
1. So much for John Piper’s Christian Hedonism: “The gospel saves us not from duty, but unto duty,”
2. So much for New Covenant Theology: ”…. by which the law of God is established” [ouch!].
3. Just “more bad news”? “This book explains the Law, defends the Law, and shows the sweetness of the Law.”
It is way, way past the time for Carson, Horton, Keller, Mahaney, Piper, et al to continue getting a pass on contradicting respected orthodox teachers of our day. Is Sproul a legalist or not? We know what they can do with soft targets like Rob Bell and Joel Olsteen, but what about Sproul? And if he’s not a legalist, why not?
paul
Four Reasons Why I like Rob Bell
I have heard of Rob Bell, and have a lot of info about him backlogged to read. So, I know very little about Rob; but I can tell you I already like him. How can this be? And what do I specifically like about him?
1. He’s honest: I know this because Justin Taylor and John Piper were able to make judgments about his book before it was even published. Is he a universalist? I don’t know, I haven’t read the book yet, but he apparently has no bones about being clear as to what he believes, unlike those who pass judgment on him. Indicative of New Calvinism is the nuanced / ambiguous / subjective verbiage that they call “teaching.” Whether Piper or his fawning servant, Justin Taylor, or Keller, Powlison, Tripp, Mahaney, Chan, etc., etc, add nausea, you read their books, page after page after page saying, “I know what he’s saying and what he really believes, but he’s not coming out with it completely.” In each of their books, you can find one or two definitive statements that clearly define what they believe. Apparently, my new-found friend is not like that.
2. He’s humble: I know this because unlike most New Calvinists, he’s forthcoming about what he believes; again, unlike his accusers. New Calvinists believe they are on the cutting edge of a mega Reformation. They are experts concerning the “deep things of the gospel.” But here is the key to understanding their arrogance: they don’t come right out with what they believe because most of God’s people “aren’t ready for it yet.” Do you see the arrogance in that mentality? Apparently, Rob doesn’t think he’s on a higher spiritual plane than his followers. Apparently, he’s completely forthright about what he believes and is willing to let the chips fall where they may. Apparently, to Rob, disagreement with him doesn’t equal stupidity or lack of spiritual fortitude. How else could everybody already know he is a universalist before the book is in print?
3. He’s kind and compassionate: Unlike his accusers, he obviously doesn’t think there is anything wrong with having a deep desire for everyone to be saved. Unlike his accusers, he doesn’t think hope is childish. Unlike his accusers, he doesn’t equate fatalism with spiritual maturity. In “When I Don’t Desire God,” you finally put a finger on Piper’s stoic fatalism (after dieing the death of a thousand cuts) in the last chapter. Piper believes that joy cannot be obtained by laying claim to God’s promises. No, no, we can’t have that—that would be contrary to New Clavinism’s “the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.” To think God would do anything at all because of something we did is anathema! Like salvation, Piper believes that joy is a gift given by God (because he actually teaches that the two are synonymous) and we can’t do anything to obtain it. He pretty much says in the book that if you don’t have joy, all you can do is pray and hope God gives it to you. It doesn’t sound like my new friend Rob is up with that angle on things.
Of course, I don’t agree with universalism, but there is something worse—the merciless, haughty, mean-spirited character of New Calvinism. Point in case: The hero among New Calvinists because he excommunicated 256 parishioners for an unbiblical reason; nonattendance. Even a child can see the problem with this being a standard for church discipline. How many absences would it take to qualify someone for discipline? Twice? Four times? And how many in what time period? And where would you find such a standard in the Bible? Frankly, I find the audacity of New Calvinists to criticize Bell, over-the-top and totally disgusting. My cat usually sits on my desk and watches me blog; not today, she is on the floor puking-up hair balls—no wonder.
4. He’s courageous: He probably knew the Pope of New Calvinism was going to excommunicate him. Yes, did you hear about the tweet by Pope John the First? “Bye, bye, Rob Bell.” Am I the only one who sees the extreme arrogance in this statement? Think about it; bye, bye from what? The New Calvinist cartel? And who in the %#@& is John Piper to make that judgment? Is there anyone walking the face of the Earth that is more arrogant than John Piper?
Well Rob, get ready to join the Joel Olsteen club. That is a group of well-knowns that are considered expendable by the New Calvinist cowards. These are the group of men that they berate to demonstrate that they stand for the “truth” (gag). And don’t take it too hard my friend, Pope John Piper the First really doesn’t know how to measure the excellency of God’s soul, he only thinks he does; you can trust me on that one. And don’t be as hard on them as they are on you, after all, even whores have standards, and Justin Taylor thinks you crossed the line because that’s what John Piper thinks.
Rob, let me encourage you; I am going to buy your book, and if you are a universalist, well, I strongly disagree with that, but I wonder: what’s worse? A kind-hearted, humble, honest, couragous, universalist that knows he’s a universalist, or an arrogant antinomian that doesn’t know he’s an antinomian? Hmmmm.
paul
Encouraging: Some Think Tchividjian’s Latest post is “Shocking”
“Mainline evangelicals have never, never, never, never, never, never, believed in sanctification by faith alone, period. GS props claim that Walter Marshall (the Puritan) held to this and called it ‘definitive sanctification,’ but trust me, I will be checking into that.”
I have received two links on Tullian Tchividjian’s latest post “Reminders Are More Effective Than Rebukes.” After clicking on the first link and reading the post, I decided that unraveling TT’s usual nuanced double-speak in the article for purposes of a review would be too time consuming. Let me give you an example: when GS propogators protest being “falsely accused” by saying, “What! That’s ridiculous! Of course we believe that the law has a place in the Christian life,” they know you will assume they are using “law” as a collective noun in the plural form rather than how they really mean it; the singular “law of love” or “higher law of Christ” that replaced Bible imperatives. Hence, “the law” as in—the one law. This is also known as being “in-lawed” to / with Christ. In other words, Christ came to fulfill the law (plural) and replace it with the single law of love.
But the second link came with a comment that the article was “shocking.” It is encouraging to be reminded that there are still Christians out there that are shocked by anything being taught these days. The usual is more like, “Hey dude, you won’t believe what I learned today.” What? “Like, God gives us delight before we get saving faith.” Really? So Galatians 3:2 really reads, ‘Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or hearing with delight?’ “Oh ya, for sure bro, because like, in the Bible, faith and delight are synonymous.” Your right, I don’t believe it. “Chill bro-daddy, Mac wrote the forward to the book—it’s all good.” Good grief!
So, roll up my sleeves and blog I must. TT’s thesis is that accountability groups are bad for the following reasons:
“Are you tired of being told that if you’re really serious about God, you must be in an “accountability group?” You know the ones I’m talking about. The ones where you and a small group of “friends” arrange for a time each week to get together and pick each other apart–uncovering layer after layer after layer of sin? The ones where all parties involved believe that the guiltier we feel the more holy we are? The ones where you confess your sin to your friends but it’s never enough? No matter what you unveil, they’re always looking for you to uncover something deeper, darker, and more embarrassing than what you’ve fessed up to. It’s usually done with such persistent invasion that you get the feeling they’re desperately looking for something in you that will make them feel better about themselves.”
Actually, TT may be (unwittingly) referring to a tenet of New Calvinism that he is a part of called “deep repentance.” It is the belief that the more sin you find and repent of, the larger the void will be in your “heart” that will be filled by Christ, and thereby empowering the believer accordingly. It is a “filling of Christ” rather than a filling of the Holy Spirit, but that’s another post. I am unaware of where TT stands on the “practical applications” of Gospel Sanctification, but his complaint sounds like an element of heart theology, one of the four major tenets of the movement. Therefore, it makes sense that he would hear such things among New Calvinist for that reason. Also, many followers of GS, even leaders, have not thought through all of the logical implications of the doctrine.
TT continues,
“The real reason, however, that I hate the kind of ‘accountability groups’ described above is because the primary (almost exclusive, in my experience) focus is always on our sin, not on our Savior. Because of this, these groups breed self-righteousness, guilt, and the almost irresistible temptation to pretend–to be less than honest. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been in ‘accountability groups’ where there has been little to no attention given to the gospel whatsoever. There’s no reminder of what Christ has done for our sin–’cleansing us from its guilt and power’–and the resources that are already ours by virtue of our union with him. These groups produce a ‘do more, try harder’ moralism that robs us of the joy and freedom Jesus paid dearly to secure for us. They start with the narcissistic presupposition that Christianity is all about cleaning up and getting better–it’s all about personal improvement.”
That depends on what kind of accountability group he is talking about. Deep repentance accountability groups don’t propose that you make any effort at all to do anything about the sin that has been confessed. The idea is all about what TT, himself teaches! Let me explain. TT believes that we grow spiritually by “moving deeper and deeper into the gospel,” not being saved by the gospel and then “moving on to something else.” Well then, what are the only two things that you can do to be saved? Answer: faith and repentance, right? Well then, likewise, sanctification is by faith and repentance alone. In fact, GS accountability groups believe the exact opposite of whatever type of accountability group TT is complaining about. They believe that acting on repentance breeds a self-righteous attitude, whereas deep repentance breeds a broken, total dependence on Christ. So, the more sin you find, the better, because that keeps you humble and totally dependent on Christ; plus, it’s what empowers you as a believer. When GS advocates talk about “accountability,” this is what they really mean, which of course is just another example of their deception in regard to borrowing orthodox terms.
So, what’s going on here? GS proponents often build straw Godzillas to plead their case. Example: John Piper constantly paints a picture of mainline evangelicals supposedly teaching that happiness in the Christian life is not important. I have been an evangelical for thirty years and have never heard any evangelical teach such a thing. Furthermore, in thirty years, I have had friends who always stood ready to hold me accountable, but I have never heard of any “accountability groups.” That sounds like a GS thing, and TT may be assuming that the groups he is talking about expect people to follow-up on confession with action or effort. Such is not the case. Really, if GS propagators were honest, they would call the tenet “deep confession,” because any effort to “turn from,” is not in the mix.
TT continues:
“Ironically, when we (or our “friends”) focus mostly on our need to get better we actually get worse. We become neurotic and self-absorbed. Preoccupation with my guilt over God’s grace makes me increasingly self-centered and morbidly introspective. Real Christian growth, according to Jeremiah Bourroughs (1600-1646), “comes not so much from our struggling and endeavors and resolutions, as it comes flowing to us from our union with him.”
TT must know a little bit of GS history because he quotes a Puritan. This is standard GS procedure that sends the following message: “No, no, we have been around waaaay longer than 1980—see, the Puritans believed this stuff too.” Regardless of all the quotes presented by various Puritans, nobody has yet produced a Puritan quote anything near this statement: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” Furthermore, Puritan authors and writings are practically innumerable, but yet, GS props primarily quote Walter Marshall and a few others like Bourroughs. Even if these few believed anything like GS, they would constitute a ridiculously low percentage of Puritan representation. Additionally, I have original copies of books from that era and assume they are translated into modern English for readability, which makes original intent questionable to begin with. Anyway, this whole GS endeavor to find credibility in Puritan literature because such credibility cannot be found in the Bible is just too rich, and is an area that I am researching via the encouragement and help from a reader. I might also mention that Dr. Peter Masters has called-out Piper on this issue as well.
In regard to TT’s concern over guilt and morbid introspection, GS advocates do not believe we are obligated to keep the law to begin with, so why the guilt? This is probably just another straw Godzilla. Anywhere you poke this article results in goo coming out and I really don’t want to write a book here, but let me at least mention that the article is saturated with blatant contradictions to the plain sense of Scripture, so let’s move on to the smoking gun items.
Ok, if you have made it this far, this is really what we need to focus on:
“Christianity is not first about our getting better, our obedience, our behavior, and our daily victory over remaining sin–as important as all these are. It’s first about Jesus! It’s about his person and subsitutionary work–his incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension, session, and promised return. We are justified–and sanctified–by grace alone through faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone. So that even now, the banner under which Christians live reads, ‘It is finished.’”
This rich statement is fraught with the heart of GS dogma. First, we see the postmodern side of GS doctrine: “It’s first about Jesus! It’s about his person….” Let me make this point from “The truth War” where MacArthur disses all of his friends unawares. This is what he says about postmodern thought on page 14: “If truth is personal [‘….It’s about his person….’] it cannot be propositional. If truth is embodied in the person of Christ [emphasis mine], 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 [the premise of redemptive-historical hermeneutics]-as a story—not as a set of propositions.”
This idea was also the thesis behind John Piper’s keynote address at the T4GS 2010 conference, and if I’m not mistaken, Mac was sitting in the audience. Really, these guys are just killin’ me. But from a practical standpoint, if the focus is on Christ’s personhood (whatever that means), instead of what Christ says, then all bets are off; you have moved from the objective to the subjective and you can teach anything you want to. This also explains the relationships and fellowship that “mainline evangelicals” have with postmoderns like Mark Driscoll that raises controversy from time to time. And to add to the deception, some GS churches have seminars that oppose the emergent church movement. It’s truly a chaotic spectacle.
Secondly, we see the totally unorthodox element of sanctification by faith alone in “ We are justified–and sanctified–by grace alone through faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone.” Mainline evangelicals have never, never, never, never, never, never, believed in sanctification by faith alone, period. GS props claim that Walter Marshall (the Puritan) held to this and called it “definitive sanctification,” but trust me, I will be checking into that.
Thirdly, we see the GS element of monergistic substitutionary sanctification in “….sanctified….in the finished work of Christ alone.” This is the idea that past, present, and future active obedience was part of the atonement. TT adorns this idea throughout the same article (“And what is the gospel? Not my work for Jesus, but Jesus’ work for me.” Notice the present tense of his statement). Christ died for our sins and imputed his righteousness to us, but the Scriptures do not teach that He also died for our active obedience so that He could obey for us and in our place.
Fourthly, it is easy to conclude from point two and three that TT’s gospel presentation would not include repentance. This is an obvious GS reality propagated by the likes of Michael Horton and others. At least once in this article, TT refers to the gospel as an “announcement” as opposed to what Jesus Himself called the gospel: a “call[ed].” Again, this is a Michael Horton staple, the whole gospel as indicative announcement only and not a calling. Like most GS error, it is very subtle, but nevertheless, just as deadly as the most grievous of error. This is a half gospel of Christ as savior only, and not Lord.
Lastly, this post is four pages and I have not even scratched the surface. The article by TT is a theological train wreck. And my parting comment is this—this hideous doctrine was at the core of the hostile takeover of Coral Ridge where he is now the “pastor.”
paul
Matthew 25:14-29: More is at Stake Than Semantics Concerning Sanctification
Jay Adams wrote the following helpful words in a recent post:
“There are two ways to serve the Lord, only one of which actually renders service that He approves. One way is to have an intellectually correct view of what God requires and then to make an attempt to fulfill the requirements. The other way is to gain an equally correct view of what God requires and then tell Him that you cannot fulfill the requirements. The latter view is the proper one.
But, of course, it is not enough to tell the Lord that you can’t do what He requires. That, admission must be followed immediately by your acknowledgment that He can, and is willing to, enable you to do so by His Spirit, which in turn must be followed by your request for such help.
God blesses the humble, who acknowledge their own insufficiency. But He never takes that as an excuse for failing to meet His requirements. He has provided all we need for life and godliness, so no excuse is valid. On the other hand, we will not be given that for which we do not humbly ask.
So, a proper balancing of biblical truth is necessary: we cannot/we can—on our own/with His help. So, believer, in serving God, we serve well when we serve Him in our insufficiency fully aided by His sufficiency. Even Jesus, the all-sufficient One ministered under the power of the Holy Spirit. True godly service is that which involves both the human and the divine.”
True, and very helpful words for understanding. I would only add that our “human” involvement does include effort, or as JC Ryle states it: “exertion.” And why not? Unlike worldly endeavors, our efforts are guaranteed to yield positive results when we depend on Him and follow His ways of doing things. It is storing up treasures in heaven rather than where thieves steal and moths corrupt. “’I’ can do all things through Him who strengthens me” (Phil 4:13). What a wonderful verse! It is a staple verse in my relationship with Susan. We don’t even waste time saying, “Well, I’ll try,” when one of us confronts the other about changes we need to make in our lives, knowing that the Phil 4:13 reminder will be immediately implemented. Also, when we don’t “feel” like we have the will to do God’s bidding, that’s false as well according to Phil 2:13. God will always grant the will. As Dr. Adams states above, no excuses.
In Matthew 25:14-29, Christ speaks of a servant who offered an excuse rather than service. Christ calls the servant “lazy,” which is the antithesis of work. The servant did not work in his spiritual life. God enables according to the gifts given; this is another truth that can be born-out here, but obviously, work on our part is still required. And we would do well to strongly consider the end result: “And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Though Jay’s post deals with sanctification and this passage of Scripture deals with justification as can be ascertained by the last statement cited by Christ, the post offers helpful insights to hang our thoughts on. Jay speaks of trying to do things right without depending on Christ, and knowing what is right, and not doing it. Both will lead to God’s “[dis]approval” or loss of reward. But what of the belief that we can’t work in the sanctification process, with or without God’s enablement? Now, I’m not going to speculate on an articulation of the servants thinking, but nonetheless, we can conclude that it was derived from an inaccurate assessment of God’s law, ie., what the Lord expects, and the false assessment resulted in him not working for the lord, ie., spiritual laziness. Working off of Jay’s helpful prism, this is wrong information (or, in essence, a misinterpretation of the law) leading to wrong behavior and self-deception, not the use of right information implemented in the wrong way, ie., a self-dependent / non-humble attitude.
So, when presenting the gospel, is it a true presentation if the Lord’s expectations are not accurately presented? What if we are told that we are not saved by the law (true), that we can’t keep the law (true), and that the law has no role in our relationship to God because it has been abrogated by whatever “feels like love” (not true: Francis Chan,“Crazy Love”p. 110). What if the presentation says that the gospel is strictly a “proclamation” and not something to be “followed” (not true: Michael Horton, “Modern Reformation” Nov. / Dec. Vol.15 No.6 2006 pages 6-9) even though Christ said “follow me,” and what He was referring to was “teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded”?
Again, I am not going to make any judgments regarding what the exact thinking of the servant was, but there is another safe conclusion that can be drawn: the servant was playing it safe. In his mind, he was erring on the side of safety (“I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you”), but to his horrible detriment. In our day, has the law of God been so misrepresented that we think to avoid it is to error on the side of safety? I think so. The belief that Jesus obeys for us—is that playing it safe because we can supposedly give Him all of the glory? Is the belief that all of the imperatives in the Bible are “indicative” of what Christ has done and not anything required of us indicative of that belief? Absolutely.
Lack of dependance on God can lead to non-humbleness in two different ways: lack of dependance in works, but also lack of dependance on God in understanding—leading to spiritual laziness. The slothful servant made the fatal error of leaning on his own understanding:
“His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.”
The servant misunderstood the Lord’s expectations, and didn’t even understand the best course of action based on the wrong information, that is another safe assumption. Is a gospel presentation void of repentance, and the standard of repentance, a valid gospel presentation? I doubt it. Telling people that any effort on our part to represent the gospel with our behavior is trying to “be the gospel” rather than presenting the gospel (Michael Horton, “Christless Christianity” pages 117-119) regardless of what 1Peter 2:12 and 3:1,2 clearly states—is that instruction that does not lean on biblical understanding and leads to spiritual laziness? Definitely.
Gospel sanctification must be contended against because it is clearly a false gospel; more is at stake than semantics concerning sanctification.
paul
4 comments